ML19267A314

Petitioner'S Answer to NRC & Applicant'S Objections to Potthoff'S Amend.Asserts That Objections to His Late Filing Should Be Denied by ASLB

ML19267A314
Person / Time
Site:	Allens Creek File:Houston Lighting and Power Company icon.png
Issue date:	12/22/1978
From:	Potthoff F External Citizen/Individual/Media (Affiliation Not Assigned)
To:
References
NUDOCS 7901040065
Download: ML19267A314 (3)

Text

.

• N M N

~

' 01Y21 2 . . _ , _ , _ f f- 1 In the Matter of-M' .\

O Houston T Aghti"g as Power Company gg i (Allena Cneek W1 en Ganarating Station, Unit.1)

D m kat.No 50 4o6 qr n,1 c/* ql7: ;

................................................. 9,, fs g g .

Q W 2:

^?,W*

'ei V,

aNSnER TO STJd'S naD nFiLIC23T'S OhJCTIuh3 Both Staff ani Applicant have. filedsaveral objectionsto my ad-meMmnt to the_ petition to intervene. The applicant wishes it denied because o'f untimelinesa and a fdported 1Ack of basis.

The. Statf wanta it denied oecause. anpposedly the Wsue has been covered by the EIS and is unchanged by passage of the constitutional admendmant. . I shil. try to answer each object-ion.

'2imm1inana Tha applicant atatea my ad aM mant is untimely since I had ten days befora the_heaning to file Unfortunately I did not recognize the significance of the passage of acmendment 4 until. the hearirg commamed. I tried to present it orally, but the Board seemd to want it in writing, so I filed it on Moniay. Perhaps I could have written it out and presented it to the Board at the hearing, but I as new at thia, ani haven' t gotten the hang of a thinking on my feet." However I do thi.d this developement la of such importance to the outcome of the ACNGS I halinse.the: Board should averlock any lateness, aa na CFR 2 714 (a) (1)W Speakbw of which,. tha Applicant states I did not address those_ requirements as necessary. I covered that issue under section II. I inadvertanti v misl abeled these as being under-CPR 2 714 (d), dua to my nawness at reading federal regulations.

G 7901o49ggg-

a hqT4 Both the.. Staff ami, the Applicant put forth the argument that the: passage. of tha: conatitutional mim=nAw=nt manna nothing aince-Lt only al1nwa tha 1 agialatuna to exempt solar and wirri equipment, not. mand atasit.Saveral f actora point towarca the. lagi al nture passing auch exemptiona. For instanca, many farmers in Texaa use windmilla to. pump wellwater. Tha makeup of the Texas legi nia.

ture is such that rural lawmakers have strong power there. In 1977, the largest amount of money in tha. state budget was allnecated to the St ate.Eighway Department . This action benefitted mainly farmers, who want a strong highway program to help get their produca to the M ketplace. Our rural-dominnted legi al ature would be. in-clined to help their. constituencies by tax-exempting wind mill a, thus cutting; Farmers.* operating costa. Another factor is tha statune- of Texas an an energy-producing stata.- Many taxans feel we. should levelope: many energy sources to keep our econ-omy healthy. also tha. Governor-elect,. Bill Claments,. stated he wished to return ta@ney to tha. cit 12ena of this. state. One way he could do that. would be. to tax-exempt solar and wind equipment.

The Staff armi Applicant alsos question my assertion that admendment4 will give solar and wind. power the. po.tential of economic feaathiltiy by 1985. I*va tried to be specific about this with solan fuel. celi n, but I appear to have gotten my facts wrong, for which I apologiaa. I tend to mnka mistakes when I'm hurried.

But the. point I was trying to make with. aclar fuel cells was that, technical. inovations. were maxing than chanper, and with a tax-hneak, they could competa. auccessfully with the ACMGS. In the soll im Stona artir19 I cited, Joe klein writas

that. in 1973 solar fuel cella cost $300 per watt. Then he states in 1977 they cost $15 20 per watt, and then speculates they will C~Recently cost $1-2 per watt). Stanford H. Ovinsky announced in the publication Science News ("New alloy Brightens Solar Cell Prospects ," p. 406, Volume 114, No. 24) that with the invent. ion of an amorphoua alloy, solar cells could be marketed in 3 years that. would produce: electricity at 50# per peak watt or the equi _

v lent of 5# per kilowatt / hour. The.acJQS is estimated to pay out. 394600 in taxes. each year arter it comes on line.

Under Admerwimant 4, Solar cells would pay no taxes, thus giving this technology a strong competitive edge.

This taxbreak would also. give wing systems a competitive edge. Ard in answer to the. Staff's questions of technical feasakility, a 1972 jointhtional Science Foundation (NSF)-

NASA report estimated windsystems could be installed within two years. Fsoeing,. Kaman, General Flectric, and 1,0ckheed are just a few companies reporten willing and able to do this (in the pamphlet, Jobs a Energy. 1977, Environmentalists For Full Employment.,3com 305,1101 Vermont ave +, NW, Washington DC. 20c05.')Another study by the NSF abd. the Mitre Corp. found wind produced electrici.ty would be competitive with diesel powered generating plants using oil priced at #10-11 a barrel.

I hope the above answ'4 all objections.

An American ci izen, I

l P.H. PotthoffIII 1814 Fine Village Dr.

Houston Tx.77080

.