ML19276H105
| ML19276H105 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | New Haven |
| Issue date: | 08/29/1979 |
| From: | Madison S NEW YORK, STATE OF |
| To: | NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7910050732 | |
| Download: ML19276H105 (4) | |
Text
{{#Wiki_filter:.f ' Ce%... 'i.i END.'.UDL FAC. 9 -{ {g $3} s STATE OF NEW YORK [s ,q -7 g DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SERVICE f7 [f/ ?6 '~ g. i_ Q G (N M/ BOARD ON DA c7 ,) ELECTRIC GENERATION SITING AND THE ENVIRONMENT,. g f h ' NC pyEUC og l U3IENTRon3y Ar2ANr CASE 80008 - Application of the NEW YORK STATE ELECTRIC & 'S GAS CORPORATION and the LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY for a certificate of environmental compatibility and public need - New Haven / Stuyvesant NOTICE TO THE PARTIES (Issued August 29, 1979) The attached cc=munication to Chairman Zielinski and members of the Public Service Ccmmission, which comments upon the Ccmmission's recent Order Certifying Appeal and ~ Recccmended Dismissal of Application in Case 80008, is hereby distributed to all parties in Case 80008. -- ~ " ' _k fb' ^ SAMUEL R. MADISON Secretary to the Board 7910050 7 3 q g .n._-.- - ~g~, a.., ~ a_u. _ _, s- - = - - ~, - a
- ~ >
m R.. . A cwg1V c0 f, C) w f5 0 p u G V *~ N j' 9cenism ass wp nicmc con :
- b.:. V ave.nu.'acc W P Y o
( Y / 7 wf a @p ... m. :... o.. C ..._n. W
- .
- c; ;:::: 9:. A:"
g " = mm j p r 6 pe August 23,1979 e h b h ' Y. State of New York N, . _" T 2-Department of Public Service yt/ 4 cp Empire State Plaza 2 77 0 --- 7 Albany, New Ycrk 12223
Dear Chairman Zielinski and Commissioners:
I ~ ' ~~ ' ~ ~ Central Hudson Gas and Electric Corporation, Consolidated Edison _ 7 Company of New Ycrk, Inc., Niagara Mohawk Power Corpcration, Crange and 1 - - Rockland Utilities, Inc. and Rochester Gas and Electric Corporation wish to 2'- express their cencern over an aspect of the Commission's recent Crder Cert'~. T - ~ ~ i fying Appeal and Recommending Dismissal of Application in Case 80008. 1-That Order appears to lay down some broad rules which could increase the complicaticas in our presently burdensome State siting orocedure and further - inhibit our ability to obtain timely approval of generating projects. We believe - that such a' result is not required by the State siting law and is certainly not in ~~' the public interest. The difficult, fast-changing energy circumstances in which~ ~~ our companies and your agency are currently operating make it imperative that we retain a goodly measure of flexibility in responding to new, perhaps unantici-pated conditions. The one thing which is not desired in those circumstances would be the introduction of institutional rigidities in an already intractable generation siting process. We wish to make clear that it l's the principle with which your recom-mendation deals that gives rise to this letter, not the judgment which you or, - Jf= the Siting Board may reach in a particular case. For that reason, we address--- r- - our concerns to the Commission and do so in a generic context. The merits or the New Haven /Stuyvesant application and the recommendation of five of your- -"3=- number concerning it we will leave for the parties and Siting Board in that proceeding. ' ~ '" 7 As we read the Order, you would require that an Article VIII application ~' ~ ~t contain a rather definitive statement of the extent of each utility's participatiEn:- Nt in the proposed project. If uncertainty regarding the ultimate sharing of owndrC = ~ ~ ship is expressed by the sponsors in the siting proceeding or in some oths?'T ~ '-~~~ ferum, the application should be dismissed. This is apparently so even where-the application makes a credible presentation on statewide need fer the facility.' "' This result is defended.on the ground, principally, that the parties and Board can-determine whether project benefits exceed cost only when ownership is ce. tin. u :, W ,e.,
- 's
'~ accussrER CAS AND El.ECrRIC CORP. SHEET Ac.,2 cars August 23, 1979 70 Chairman Zielinski and Commissioners We question the soundness of this rule and the rationale advanced to support it. Consider first the construction leadtimes for modern generating units together with the time which realistically must be aHotted for licensing - action on a proposed project. These two timespans virtually assure the lapse of nearly a decade between the point at which unit sharing arrangements would - ~ have to be determined under the Commission's Order and the time at which the ~ unit would go on line. Ten years -- or most of it -- is simply too long a ---- 1 i-time for responsible utilities to surrender any ability to agree among themseTves on a superior sharing arrangement for a generator not yet in service. The con- ~ ' ' ' trast between such long-term constancy in the licensing and constructing of 7 ' 7 generating units on the one hand andTon the other, the considerable flexibility ~ - ~ ~, with which the energy from them is distributed among Pool members in daily L Power Pool operations appears difficult to rationalize. Even before the protracted licensing proceedings which our State has I experienced in recent years, anocations of shares in generating units were not-infrequently made at latter stages of project plann.ng er during construction ' itself. Bowline Point, Fit: Patrick, Nine Mile Point Unit 2 and Oswego Unit 6 are au pre-Article VIII plants the utility particiFitions in which were not made and realistically could not have been made -- some three years or more prict to construction. In other instances such as Ginna and Shoreham, ownership has - - - - - remained constant, but the project sponsor's ability to rely upon significant - . system or unit capacity _and-ene gy sales to _other utilities in the new unit's -~ = early years was instrumental tc the project going forward. There, too, though, early commitments by specific companies to specific quantities of firm capa-bility and energy would not have beer. feasible. Looking to the facilities which have been subjected to Article VIII review, it is simply not possible to say with assurance _that their present sponscrship will remain static indefinitely. The electric loads c7 the Pool companies are growing at different rates the amount and relationship of which ~..7 could not have been confidently predicted as recently as two years ago, much" --- ----- less in the mid-1970's when most pending applications were prepared. We- '.believe that it would.be. shortsighted and. contrary to our customers' best ~ ~ ' interests for the Codimission to require early and precise specification of that n= which should~instedd-remain responsi e to the dynamics of.a changing energi'- - C '- v situation. - = - - "- .. _ _ _ We would call your attention, too, to the ESPRI proposa1 which the _ ____ Pool companies advanced for your censideration. Some of the plants.now. - "c' - ~ , before Siting Boards could have been built and owEed by that generating -:7 A ma corporation..ESPRI plants would have been supported in varying prapcrtionse.~.- :.~. by several or an of the sponscring utilities. The flexibility inherent in the generating company concept would have afforded the sponscring utilit!'es a {- _ convenient vehicle for the initiation of projects needed from an integrated F F M
.* RCCHESTER CA3 ANO ELE rRI: CORP. MET W 3 c4 r August 23, 1979 ro Chairman Zielinski and Cominissioners system standpoint, but whose ultimate sponsorship could not be established ....early -on.. You.have. seen fit not to authcrize implementation of that concept, but for reasons, as we understand them, unrelated to the spcasorship arrange-ments for, or costs and benefits associated.with,. individual projects. Having' ' _ ' _ ~ ~ ~ failed to gain the advantages in structuring generating protects which ESPRr' __ * ~'~__ ] offered, the utilities would now, under the Commission's new Order, he drivenf,,;,_ in the opposite direction toward all-but-complete inflexibility in setting their~ ~ respective interests in generating projects. ' ~ - ~ ~ ~ Defore a plant is certified ~ uni:fer Article VIII, the Siting Board is entitled to a demonstration that the facility is needed and would conform to a reasonable ~ plan for serving the State's electrical needs. It seems totally unrealistic to us, however, to require that the sponsors and their respective participations be ~' firmly and unalterably identified in the application. A less stringent requirement ~~ ~ for identifying the interests of participating companies at some reasonable point - ~~ in the siting proceeding, subject to later modification and certification amend 2-ment where necessary, would seem Lo enable the_Soard to meet its. obligations without binding the member systems of the Pool-to-a single,. unvarying set of' ~ ' C-interests in each generating unit. We note that the Commission has authorined transfer of an entire interest in a transmission line certification and that compa-rable transfer and amendment authority.does apply to genera' ting f5E111 ties. ~ ~ __1_______._.
'.--:-~-----"2~2~~
Th'e Commission's ruling in Case 80008, as' we read it, has implications beyond those in that one proceeding. We believe that it would be most help-fulif somehow there might be opportunity for soliciting such views in advance of the enunciation of important' rulings or policies which vitally affect major interests of the companies and their. customers, g Vec yours, . - - r. - - - - = = --Qg.,.~ c, ; .Q.. ; - - = ' ' /\\,- - "*'W . ---... ---. =.:. _.. A-w - Francis E. Drake, Ir..
- __
.-Copies:- Commissioner Richard S Scwer ~~ '-~ ~ ' Commissioner Karen S. Burstein ~ ' ~] Commissioner Harold A. Terry, Jr. ~ . Commissioner Edward _P_. I. arkin- - - Commissioner-Carme1 Carrington Marr ._.... d.Cf LZ_' ommissioner Anne F. Mead.. ..m..-- C ~,..... _ . = =. - = = - -e+ M'" mrr=0=:;~===p.2=m.=:%}}