ML19309D534
| ML19309D534 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 05000516, 05000517 |
| Issue date: | 07/10/1979 |
| From: | Klein J SUFFOLK COUNTY, NY |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19309D526 | List: |
| References | |
| FRN-44FR75167, RULE-PR-50, TASK-OS, TASK-SD-906-1 NUDOCS 8004100450 | |
| Download: ML19309D534 (8) | |
Text
'
6
%) -
am nuvsa pg.3 9 E80t%ED EULE (NFR4567 IST NEW YORK STATE BOARD ON ELECTRIC GENERATION SITING AllD THE E!!VIRONMENT In the Matter of
)
)
LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY.
)
)
and
)
Case 80003
)
IIEW YORK STATE ELECTRIC & GAS
)
CORPORATION
)
)
(Jamesport Nuclear Power
)
Station, Units 1 & 2)
)
TESTIMONY OF COUNTY EXECUTIVE JOHN V.N. KLEIN ON BEHALF OF THE COUNTY OF SUFFOLK W
D 8/
DOCKETED 4
USNRO JE tAAR 171980> T5 ottice of Be W D
e IRVING LIKE Special Counsel fdr the County of Suffolk et 200 West Main Street Babylon, New York 11702 (516) 669-3000 l
',3 e,
1.
I i
PART 1 l
m_
1 Q.
Please state your name, business address and occupation.
2 A.
My name is John V.N. Klein, my business addr,ess is 3
County Center, Hauppauge, New York 11787, I am County 4
Executive for the County of Suffolk.
5 6
Q.
For how long have you been County Executive?
7 A.
I have been County Executive for seven.and a half years.
8 9
Q.
What is the purpose of your testimony?
10 A.
As Chief Executive of the County of Suffolk, it is my 11 responsibility under S.418 of the Suffolk County Charter, to 12 present to the County Legislature the County's proposed 13 Capital Budget for the current fiscal year 1979 and a capital 14 program for the next years.
The purpose of my testimony is
~
15 to inform the Siting Board that the entire County Government 16 (Executive and Legislature) now opposes the proposed J,amesport 17 facilities and that in my judgment, certification of this 18 project should be denied to avoid damaging the County's 19 financial position.
20 21 First, as the Siting Board is aware, all parties except the 22 Long Island Lighting Company agree that the Jamesport Units 23 are.not needed in the time frame projected by the Company.
24 The County will submit additional testimony by' Energy Systems 25 Research Group, Inc., updating the County's position on the 26 need issue.
27 cost $k.the. Company now estimates the Jamesport plants will' Second 28 5 b.illion.
In view of the Company's historic repeated 29 30 gross ungprstatements of the cost of its capital construction 31 programs, I do not view this as an upper limit.
- However, if one accepts the estimate of $4.5 billion it.would represent' 32 a serious drain on the financial resources of the County's 33 citizens and severely prejudice, if not destroy,.the County's 34 ability to pay for vital capital projects and programs.
The 35 ratepayers of LILCO are the taxpayers.of,Suffolk County.,If 36 the.Jamesport Units are licensed to be built, the Company will 37 aggravate the cash flow problems it is already experiencing in 38 Shoreham ' construction project, whose completion has been de 39 layed to December 1981, and whose final cost is yet inde-40 terminate.
To pay for Jamesport as well as Shoreham, the 41 42 1/ Contrary to LILCO's predictions, the cost of.Shoreham has 43 escalated from $270 million to $1 5 billion not counting the 44 cost of design changes which will be mandated due to the 45 Three Mlle Island accident.
46 47 LJ e*
e e
e
. =*emm ena *==.e
- +. - -..
__. /.
____.s-2.
l h$$ $$ $..$n I
.I Company will seek rate relief, in the form of including the 1
costs of Shoreham and Jamesport construction work in progress 2
into its rate base, and an increased rate of return on equity 3
4 payable to its stockholders.
Any relief of this sort will increase the electricity bills of the Company's customers, 5
leaving them with less dollars available to pay for their 6
other obligations and needs, including their ability to pay 7
taxes to support vital local governmental' services and pro-8 9
grams.
10 The County depends on its tax base to pay existing bonded in-11 debtedness and to finance new capital budgets and programs.
12 Any diversion of the income and savings of the County's resi-13 dents to pay for Jamesport, weakens the County's tax base and 14 prejudices its ability to pay for capital investments vital,
15 to the well-being of its. citizens.
16 17 18 Q.
Is bonded debt a significant source of financing of the.
I 19 County's 1979-81 capital programs?
20 21 A.
Yes, it ticcounts for 57.8% of the financing'or the County's capital program for that period.
22 23 24 Q.
Is a significant proportion of the County's capital D",dget for fiscal 1979 funded from debt financing?
25 26 Several bonds account for 61.2% of'such funds, and A.
Yes.
1 27 capital notes 2.11%,. or a total debt financing of 66.67 - as 28 compared to 31% from current funds, 3.6% from state and.25.8%
29 from Federal-aid.
30 e
31 How would a weakening of the County's tax base prejudice Q.
32 its future capital program?
33 34 and long term obligations exerci,ch purchase the County's sh A.
The lending institutions whi 35 se extraordinary scrutiny of 36 the County's fiscal affairs.
The County'.s ability to finance 37 depends on the ability of its taxpayers to provide the general 38 funds the County needs to meet its present and future debt
(
39 service obligations.
Any refusal by the taxpayer.s.to supply 40 such funds or weakening in their ability to provide such funds 41 adversely affects the County's capital program.
l 42 First, it has a negative impact on the County's credit rating 44 with the financial and investment community and impairs the 45 County's ability to raise capital to the County, which in turn 46 increases the burC n of its taxpayers.
47 Second, in response to the diminution of the financial re-sources of the County's taxpayers caused by increases in their so 4
l
~
ifW.8lj I'NUYiOI @ l ON.Y dU i ,g --.. 1 electric bills, and the consequent weakening of the County's 2 tax base, the County Government will be compelled to abandon, 3 curtail or distort. capital spending plans for facilities and 4 programs vitally needed by the County. 5 6 Q. Can you give several examples of such facilities or 7 programs? 8 9 A. Yes. The proposed 1979-81 capital program focuses on 10 several areas. 11 12 HEALTH RELATED 13 14 This portion of the capital program focuses on public health 15 and the environment, health facilities and emergency medical 16 care; the capital program includes funds to be spent for the 17 construction or modification of health facilities, loans to 18 hospitals and health care institutions for new construction, '19 and equipment and expenditures for environmental health 20 studies. '21 22 PUBLIC SAFETY ~ 23 24 This program reflects $17 million of authorized projects in-25 cluding law enforcement,' corrections, fire safety and 26 traffic safety. 27 28 TRANSPORTATION 29 30 A substantihI dmount of funds has been' allocated'for transpor-31 tation projects in the 1979-81 proposed capital program. A 32 total of $72,645,675 is recommended by the County Executive 33 to be authorized for highwgys, dredging activities, bridges, 34 3rosion and flood control, pedestrial structures, aviation 35 and public transportation. The construction of roads, bridges, 36 2nd grade separation stru.itures, in particular, requires high ~ 37 Ind long~ term capital cxpenditures. 38 39 a. Have capital programs alreadyb'een r. educed because or the " '40 County's fiscal condition? 41 A. Yes. 'The adopted capital program for 1977, reflected a 42 reduction in three' year spending of about $28 million a,s 43 compared to the previous program. The County Executive's 44 proposed capital program submitted.on April 27, 1978 for 45 the County's fiscal years 1979, 1980, and 1981 reflects a 46 further reduction of approximately $33 million as compared 47 to the previous Program. 48 49 Q. Can you give any. examples of major capital spending re-50 ductions necessitated by.the County's financial position?
- s. -
,,,.2 3
h hf iD D D lib fi \\ d _ A Id.m 1 A. Yes. The Suffolk County Community College requested $37 2 million for investment in the construction of its Western 3 Campus and an additional $7 million for the expansion of its 4 Eastern Campus. These proposed expenditures had to be re. 5 jected because the County's financial position could no.t 6 afford them. 7 8 Certain road construction funding had to be deferred from 9 1979 into 1980 and 1981 to permit completion of the bulk of 10 capital financing for sewer construction in 1978-80. To do 11 otherwise, might have jeopardized the County's financial posi-12 tion in the bond market and Icad to unnecessary cost, increases 13 in capital construction. A capital program showing a heavy 14 expenditure in one year could significantly impact upon fur-15 ther debt service costs to the operating budget and boost 16 the interest rates on current County bonds and notes. 17 18 Q. What evidence, if any, is there of taxpayer resistance to 19 capital spending? 20 21 A. As County Executive, I have observed that the so-called 22 " Proposition 13" tax fever is very evident in Suffolk County. 23 Spurred by inflation and recession, taxpayer opposition to 24 County and local governmental spending has been widespread 25 and increasing. Suffolk County has adopted a local initiative 26 law giving its taxpayers the right to amend the County Charter 27 and thereby to curtail County spending. 28 29 Q. What evidence, if any, is there of ratepayer resistance 30 to LIICO's construction programs and the rate increases it 31 has requested to help finance construction costs? 32 33 A. The County government received thousands of protests by 34 LILCO's customers to the Company's requested $170 million 35 revenue increase in its 1978 electric and gas rate Case Nos. 36 27374 and 27375; a large part of the additional revenue 37 regulated by LILCO was to pay for the cost of completing its 38 Shoreham plant. 39 40 Q. Is there any evidence of taxpayer or ratepayer opposition 41 to the construction of the Jamesport plant? 42 43 A. Yes. A recent Newsday poll showed the overwhelming majority 44 cf the residents of Long Island oppose the construction 45 of the Jamesport plant. 46 47 Q. Is there any relationship between the Proposition 13 mood i 48 of Suffolk County's taxpayers, their opposition to LILCO rate 49 increases for its nuclear plant construction program and the 50
g. a a L ih d 5 i t i i 1 County's capital investment requirements? 2 3 A. Yes. It is my judgment, based on many years experience 4 as an c1ceted official in local government and as Chief 5 Executive of Suffolk County, that if the Jamesport plants 6 are certified to be built, there is a reasonable likelihood 7 it will cause such serious additio'nal economic hardship to 8 the County's taxpayers, as to raise their opposition to,to the 9 County's capital program to a level which will cause the 10 County government to discontinue, defer or reduce investments 11 needed to serve the health, safety and well-being of the 12 County's citizens. 13 ~ 14 Q. Is it your judgment.that the Siting Board should accord 15 priori.ty to the County's capital program over the proposed 16 Jamesport construction program? 17 18 A. Yes, not only for the reasons expressed in my testimony, 9 but because as the County's other testimony and briefs have 1 20 demonstrated, the'Janesport plants ar.: not needed, have not 21 been proven to be justified from a safety, health, environ-22 mental, economic and alternatives standpoint. 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 ~ 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 e
- i
/ b g !T I P__ BHT. 2_n l Q. Please state your name, business address and occupation. 2 A. My name is John V.N. Klein, my business address is 3 County Center, Hauppauge, New York 11787 I am County 4 Executive for the County of Suffolk. 5 6 Q. For how long have you been County E'xecutive? 7 A. I have been County Executive for seven and a half. years. 8 9 Q. What is the purpose of your testimony? ' 10 A. The purpose of my testimony is to indicate that in iny 11 judgment evacuation of a significant number of, people in 12 a short time frame following a nuclear accident at Jamesport 13 is impossible. 14 15 Q. What circumstances or experiences have led you to that " 16 conclusion? 17 A. In May, I visited the Three Mile Island facility in 18 Harrisburg, Pennsylvania. At that time, I spoke with the 19 Lieutenant Governor of the State of Pennsylvania, with a 20 variety of state governmental officials and with the 21 Chairman of the Board of Commissioners of. Dauphine County, 22 Pennsylvania, in which the Three Mile Island power plant is 23 located. We discussed in detail the issue of evacuation of 24 the Three Mile Island area during the crisis conditions at 25 the plant. It became clear to me that notwithstanding a three hundred sixty degree evacuation capability from Harris-26 27 burg, evacuation of approximately 650,000 people within a 28 twenty mile radius of that facility would have been a multi-29 day undertaking. Evacuation of significant numbers of 30 people from-an area surrounding the Jamesport nuclear power 31 plant is clearly not possible within a brief time frame 32 following a nuclear accident. The evacuation of such a 33 significant number of people would require their moveraent from areas in the vicinity of Jamesport westward through 34 Nassau, Queens and Brooklyn and off the island over a net-35 work of bridges with capacity already overtaxed by normal 36 37 commuter traffic. Based upon my knowledge of the geography and demographics of Suffolk County.and Long Island, I am 38 convinced, therefore, that the evacuation of any significant 39 number of people from a ten to twenty mile radius of the 40 Jamesport nuclear power plant in less than several days is 41 42 literally impossible. 43 44 l 45 46 47 48 49 50 i
ji ,/ U 4-.. ~. _ - _..... ~. STATE OF NEW YORK 3g 'lW] g COUNTY OF SUFFOLK 1 U $db = JOHN V. N. KLEIN, being duly sworn, deposes and says: The attached is a true statement of my findings and conclusions on the subject discussed therein. ~ /d John V. N.!Klein l0 A V DAY OF JULY, 1979 SWORN TO BEFORE ME THIS L47C[6E b A //1f k L/7 Notary Public ( UNDA C. TAYt.0A NOTARY PU30C,5t3*J of N'" T"I No. 52-4615125 sut'olk County Commiss.on DpiteS usicti 30,19 ? .N,'.'* e e 9 5 l __A}}