ML19329E652
| ML19329E652 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Midland |
| Issue date: | 11/05/1976 |
| From: | Heins G CONSUMERS ENERGY CO. (FORMERLY CONSUMERS POWER CO.) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19329E643 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8006160432 | |
| Download: ML19329E652 (23) | |
Text
..
s N
1 TESTIMONY OF GORDON L. HEINS My name is Gordon L. Heins. I live at h19 Steward, Jackson, Michigan. I am a graduate of Vanderbilt University (Nashville, Tennessee) with a Bachelor of Engineering Degree in Electrical Engineering (June 1952). I have done graduate work at the University of Michigan, Michigan State University, Massachusetts Institute of Technology and Columbia University in electrical engineering, economics, statistical analysis and business administration.
Upon graduation from Vanderbilt University, I was e= ployed by Allis Chal=ers Manufacturing Co:npany for 2i years, including a period in the Nuclear Power Department. I served in the U. S. Army as an instructor in the Ordnance School at the Aberdeen Proving Grounds for two years. Upon discharge from the Anny I was employed by Consumers Power. The first nine months of my emplojment were in substation design. Since that ti=e, from approxi=ately June 1957, I have been involved in pla**4ng.
I was appointed to =y present position on January lk, 1976. Prio-to that time, I had held the following manage =ent posi-tions: Executive Manager, Electric PlanMng; Principal Engineer, Transmissica System Planning Department; Head, System Planning Division, Electric and General Engineering Department; and Head, Distribution and Transsi.ision System Plann4nE Section, Planning Division, Electric and General Engineerirg Depa-tment and several other supervisory positions. I am a Registered Professional Engineer in the Qtate of Michigan and a member of the Institute of Electrical and Elec-tronic Engineers cnd of its Pcwer Syste= Engineering C
- ttee. I serve on the Board of Trustees of the Michigan Energy and Resource Research Association.
I am responsible in =y present position for planning gas and electric bulk energy facilities; addition and retirrent of electric generating facilities; I
I t
8006160 3
2 interconnections with other electric power systems; negotiating power inter-change, purchase and sale agreements, except wholesale for resale, with other electric power, entities; planning the bulk energy system; engineering the systems and maintaining the facilities required for protection of the electric bulk power transmission system; and providing laboratory services. I also have charge of gas and electric research and development, and land and right of way matters.
I Load Forecasting The starting point in the analysis and planning necessary to the perfor: nance of my responsibilities is the forecasting of energy sales to customers. The long-tem forecast of electric energy sales is the one which is relevant to this proceeding, since we are loMng at the question of the need for the Midland Plant's capacity in 1981-82 and thereafter. This forecast for a given year has been derived as follows: Starting with estimated 1976 energy sales, a short-tem projectica method is used to obtain a 1977 sales esti= ate. We are estimating a 3 5% sales increase for 1977 over 1976. Beycnd 1977, a 5 2%
increase is anticipated each year in electric energy sales through the mid-1980s. The 5.2% growth factor is applied,for each year beginning with the 1977 base year.
I The long-tem electric energy sales forecast is based on the following key assumptions:
A.
Residential. The population in the Consumers Power service area is projected to grew at an ennual rate of 1.6%. Residential demestic average use is expected to grow at approximately 2% per year through 1990, ccmpared V th
3 about a 4% annual growth during the 1960's. This reduced growth rate reflects conservation and price elasticity as well as the development and promotion of m re efficient appliances. The foregoing assumptions result in a projection of growth for total residential sales at an annual rate of apprmrhtely 5 2% through 1986, as compared to an annual growth rate of about 6.5% for the 196+-74 period. These projections vould be fer an even lower rate of growth were it not expected that shortage of alternate fuels will cause an increasing saturation of residential electric space heating.
B.
Cc=nercial. The historic annual growth rate of the Censumers power ecuercial electric sales is 9%. However, the projection of future comercial sales grcwth is 5.5% per year. This reduced growth ferecast is due to conservation, price elasticity and the belief that coemercial lighting and air conditioning have already reached a high saturation level.
The potential for greater use of electricity for space heating and water heating, as other fuels beccme less readily available, is an off-setting factor to the decline in growth rate.
C.
Industrial. The forecasted long-ter:2 an:ral growth rate for industrial sales in the future is approxi=ately 55, ccmpared to one of about 7% experienced in the 1960's and early 1970's. In part, this decrease in growth rate reflects J
the production of m ller cars, noderate increases in annual
l 4
car sales and the anticipated Michigan car production levels.
This forecast reflects the experience of Consumers Pcwer's major industrial customers and of its industrial customers as a whole in conservation of energy and further reflects anticipated future effects of energy conservation.
Over the next 10-year period, it is expected that residential, commercial and industrial energy sales will comprise approximately 32%, 23% and 141%, respec-tively, of total energy sales to the ultimate consumer. The foregoing class-by-class projections result in a total energy sales forecast of 5.2% annual growth.
Since the sales forecasts measure energy requirements at the point of sale and energy losses take place between the generation.scilities and the point of sale, the sales forecasts must be divided by an efficiency factor in order to detemine the amount of generation necessary to meet the sales fore-casts. This efficiency factor is the ratio of sales to generation calculated on the basis of historical trends as modified to reflect known or expected factors influencing efficiency. Application of the efficiency factor results in an esti-mate of the total generation requirement in kWh necessary to meet the annual sales forecast.
Consumers Power's annual expected peak load is then calculated by dividing the average demand (total generation requirement divided by number of hours in the year) by the estimated annual load factor for the year. The annual load factor is the ratio of average demand to peak demand and is developed from historical relationships and adjusted to reflect current and expected future
.w
i 5
conditions affecting load factor, such as energy conservation, pricing of energy, availability of gas and its resultant effect on use of electricity for hes u ag, load mana6ement and general economic conditions. Consu:ners Power's load factor for years subsequent to 1978 is estimated at 67%. The Consumers Fever system historically experiences both a summer and winter peak dmand, and both are computed using this load factor.
Cnce projected peak load de.unds are known, the requirements for installed generating capacity are determined as described in Section II of I:y testimony below.
One important factor in the determination of needed generating capacity is the effect of what is generally te: sed energy conservation. Two distinct aspects of this factor must be addressed:
1.
F.nergy conservation is usually a self-motivated or induced action en the part of the customer to use less energy. Such action tends to reduce utility energy sales and may or may not affect peak generation require =ents.
2.
The second point has to do with the possibility of increasing syste= load factor using various methods in order to move some custe=er usage to eff-peak time periods. For example, time-of-day rates and lead nanagement centrol tend to acccmplish this. The intended effect is to increase the use of existing generation and delay the need for installing additional generatirg capacity.
Deeper analysis will reveal that the shifting of load can occur en the pare of the user or en the part of the supplyir4 utility. For exa=ple: Censumers Power Company, sc=e years ago, built and placed in operation the Ludington
6 Pumped Storage Plant which utilizes generating capacity during off-peak load periods to provide capacity and energy for use during peak load periods.
The expected etistomer load factor of 67% on Consumers Power's system is alreadyquitehkgh. The system load factor is further increased to approxi-mately 80% by the operation of the Ludington Pumped Storage Plant. This leaves little room for shifting on-peak usage to off-peak usage. Difficulty sometimes occurs now when attempting to schedule maintenance, due to the small differential between peak and off-peak periods.
As I have pointed out, the experience with regard to energy consertation measures already in effect in the Consumers Power sertice area and expectations as to the continued effect of such measures, and of the effect of measures which Consumers expects may be taken and prove efficacious in the future, 1
have been factored into the electric energy sales projections and, consequently, into the generation and damaM forecasts.
Conservation effect measurement commenced immediately after the late fall 1973 appeal for energy consertation by President Nixon. Such measurements were confined to residential and commercial customers. There were significant consertation effects obserted in the first winter season (1973-1974). Consumption in the measured groups was down 4.5% over the corresponding year earlier pericd.
In the second heating season, usage was up 1.5% over the comparable 1973-1974 period and in the third heating season, usage rose 0.7% more.
7 Residential electric space heating customers showed a reduction of 7.8% the first heating season; a further reducticn of 5 9% in the second heating season; and a 2.2% reduction in the third. It is believed that the larger relative bill size for greater kWh has motivated these customers to conserve.
Air-conditioning custcmers reduced their usage in June but showed little chnage in July and August. This pattern indicated that the custcmers delayed startup of their units, followed previous usage patterns once the units were in operation. Thus, their air-conditioning use would impact fully en the sum =er peak load, which usually occurs during a hot spell in July or August.
Industrial customers have utilized our Energy Consulting Services Department and have reduced lighting levels and ventilation energy use; kept facilities cooler in winter and warmer in summer; reduced air ccmpressor pressures and usage; reduced hot water temperature, and perhaps taken other steps. The exact level of industrial customer conservation is difficult to assess since it is =ixed in with production chmages.
Moreover, Consumers power has studied, or is currently engaged in studying, either on its own or as part of an industry effort, a variety of suggested energy conservation measures, such as, studies relating to the efficacy of heat pu=ps, the effect of flat rate and inverted rate structures; carginal cost pricing; and other concepts. Additional studies are in progress to assess the probable effect of measures designed to reduce de= ands at peak lead periods, including remote control of loads such as water heaters, air conditioners, electric space heating and refrigeration, and time-cf-day rates. At this point in time, we do
8 not believe that these concepts will be i=plemented within our service area to such an extent and within a time period such that they will significantly affect energy sales forecasts for the early 1980s. Some of these concepts are of questionable validity. Others are of questionable practicality because of the very high cost 'of metering equipment (for example, $200 to $400 per customer for meters required to effect time-of-day pricing) or other required equipment. Still others are questionable because of their potential side effects, such as the pos-sibility that inverted rate structures will seriously affect the econo ~-/ within Consumers Power's service area. We would expect Consu=ers Power and the Michigan Public Sartice Comission to study these proposals carefully over a substantial period of time before attempting to put any of them into effect. Even if some of the energy conservation measures should prove to result in sound energy conservation programs, we would espect their effect to be felt later than the period in question in this proceeding.
II. Generation Planning Methodolorf and Reseries Sufficient generating capability must be planned to reliably serte pro-jected electrical de= ands. The capability needed includes an amount sufficient to meet loads and an additional reserte amount to centinue supply when generating units are down for caintenance or because of equip-ment failure. Generation plans are for=ulated to meet those requiremenes.
The anount of reserte generating capacity needed to maintain reliability is dependent upon several parameters, including generating unit si::e and performance, load characteristics, design reliability level and intercon-nection supports. Using probability theory, the projected reliability of the generating system can be assessed and the relationship between system reliability and reserte level determined.
9 For planning purposes, Consumers Power Cc=pany's present reliability goal is that the loss of load probability is equivalent to one day in ten years.
The term " loss of load" refers to an event where, due to a high load or coincidenv' equipment failure the total amount of generation available to operate,16cluding power available frem other utilities, is not sufficient to totally serve customer d - v1 and the load must be disconnected or other action taken to prevent system collapse.
Under presently forecasted conditions, Consumers Power Ccmpany requires total reserves equivalent to 50% to 60% of its peak load in order to satisfy the reliability criterien. Considering the' backup power which is normally available from other utilities, we estimate that installed genration reserves should be equivalent to apprcxinately 20%
of the projected lead.
III. Imeact of Midland Delay or Cancellation en Reserves A.
Capacity Reser 7es The projected capability cf the Midland Plant is 1271 Ef.
Two cooperative and two municipal systems in Michigan are negotiating a shared ownership interest in the plant to secure an aggregate c= cunt of 272 G of capacity, although current plans call for the Cc=pany to buy back a portion of this capacity in the early years of plant operation.
The effect on Censumers Power Cenpany's capacity reserves of the pcwer available frca the Midland Plant has been projected, based on the lead projections discussed earlier. For purpcses of these calcrJ.stiens. we have included the capacity needed by the systens purchasing portiens
10 of Midland 's output. This a=ounts to the above-mentioned 272 W, less the amount which will be available for buyback by Consumers Power.
Our present plannina enccmpasses consideratics of the risk of continued deterioration of the steam generators at the Ccmpany's Palisades Plant and concomitant reduction of its generating capability. For planning capacity purposes, this transintes into a 5% (approximately 35 W) per year capability reduction. In addition, we plan a two-year outage, tied to the in-sertice cate of Midland 2, in order to effect repairs to the plant. It is assumed that these repairs will allow recoverf of the full capability of the unit.
Consumers Powers proposed Exhibit 11, which is attached, details Censu=ers Power's projected reserve situation and the i= pact of possible delays in the Mid
- d units' in-service dates. The cases shown are:
1.
Midland As Scheduled (3-1-81 & 82) 2.
Midland Delayed to 12-1-81 & 82 3
Midland Delayed to 6-1-82 & 63 Also shown for reference are reserte levels if Midland were not added at all in this period. Since summer is the critical pericd considered in these reserte calculations, a delay of Midland to either December 1c81 and 1982 or June 1982 and 1983, results in the same sun =er reserve levels.
11 From the data shewn in Fahibit, we conclude that delay of the Midland inits would result in =arginal reserves of 18% in 1981 and clearly inadequate reserves of 15.7% by 1982. This is based en our required reserve level of 20%.
Included in Consumers Power Ccmpany's projected capacity for the 1981-1984 period as shown in Exhibit 11 is 2194 W of oil and gas fired capability (su::aner rating). Of this,1568 W at our Karn-Weadock ccmplex are directly fired with oil imported frem Canada. While we have contracted for adequate fuel supplies for these units through 1981, delivery is contingent upon continuing approval by the Ca"aM a" National Energy Board and U. S. authorities. Curtailment of contract deliveries or the refusal or inability of suppliers to extend the con-tracts beyond 1981 could result in inadequate oil supplies for Karn and Wendeck. The availability of alternate fuel Oil supplies after 1981 is extremely difficult to assess at this time. Thus, this supply is exposed to r+nnging economic and political factors and long-tens supplies cannot be assured.
Consumers Power Ccmpany's exposure to this risk can be gauged by re-viewing the i= pact of loss of oil-fired capacity at Karn-Weadock en Censu=ers Power proposed reseires. Exhibit 12, which is attached, repeats the scenaries of Exhibit 11, but with the loss of 1586 W of generating capability. Even with the Midland units in sertice as scheduled, reserves are totally inadequate.
Con-sidering the extremely li=ited availability of assista.ce fren cther utilities, interruptions to service could be expected. The i= pact of a delay of ::idland in addition to this contingency woulf be severe. Frequent sertice interruptiens would be expected and severe hardships woul:1 be suffered by cur custc=er:.
12 3.
Energy Supplies An additional indication of the impact of a delay of Midland on reli-ability of supply can be gained through review of the overall ability of Consumers Power Ccmpany's generating units to meet the energy needs of its customers. Const:ners Pcwer proposed Exhibit 13, which is attached hereto, ccmpares Consumers Power Company's annual energy supply capability with annual generation recuire=ents. The scenario: shown are ce= parable with those of Exhibit 11.
For purposes of Erhmit 13, energy supply capability was calculated as the summation of the aaHm= amounts of generation which could be expected frcm each generating unit taking due regard of unit avail-ability, Waum continuous loadings and, where applicable, fuel supply limitation. It is assumed that customer loads do not vary frem normal patterns to such an extent that an abnomally high peak load occurs.
If Midland goes on line as scheduled, energy supplies are =arginal in 1961, but improve thereafter. Delaying Midland, however, results in significant shortfalls. As the length of the delay is extended, the insufficiency beccces increasingly acute.
These shortages would i= pact on our custc=ers to the extent that energy cculd not be purchased from other utilities. Severe nessures such as selective load curt;ai1=ent would becc=e necessary.
13 C.
Availability of Purchased Power Presently, Consumers Power's sources of purchased power include The Detroit Edison Company, Ontario Hydro and the ECAR co=panies, particularly American Electric Power. At this ti=e, however, the availability of excess power during the period 1981 through 1984 frcm these utilities is highly questiernble. The Detroit Edison Company, with whom Consumers Pcwer has an electric coordination agree =ent prc-
~
viding for mutual support, presently projects ins
- d ed generation reserves such that surplus power and energy are not indicated for 1981-1983 Ontario Hydro, with whom Consumers Power and The Detroit Edison Company are joint parties to an interconnection agree =ent pro-viding for pcwer purchases to alleviate deficiencies, has by letter indicated its concern over its own supply and inquired as to the avail-ability of firm power from Michigan frem the early 1980s c::<ard. This would irdicate that little or no support frem Ontario Eydro will be available. Further, the ECAR cc=panies have projected reserve levels belcw 20fo in the early 1980s. This is as reported to the FPC pursuant to order 383-3, April 1976.
l i
The uncertain availability of power frcm ether utilities affects not eni/
the ability of Censumers Power to withstand a reduction in reserve frem the planned 20 percent level, but also introduces an additional degree of risk into thst planned reserve level as well. With the supply cf backup power relatively less assured in the 1981 thrcugh 193h period, planned reserver in excess of 20 percent would not be i= prudent.
lI+
IV.
Imoact of Midland Delav or Abandonment on System Oceratir4 Cost and Fuel Usage Operating Cost Increases Due to Delay Should Midland be delayed, the electrical energy which would have been generated,by the units must be obtained from other sources in order to continue to supply energy to our customers. These sources are the remain-ing generating units on the Company's system and other utilities with which Consumers Power Company is interconnected. Since Midland is a low cost of energy unit, the cost of energy to replace it will exceed Midland's own energy cost. Thus, the delay of Midland will result in the Company's customers having to pay higher fuel and. purchased power costs in the price of the electricity they use in the period 1961 through 19814 Implicit in the analysis to follow is an assumption that purchased power will be awtilable as needed. As mentioned earlier, there is no assurance that such power will, in fact, be available.
The additional costs associated were estimated using a ecmputer program which simulates the action of the generating system to meet customer demands. By performing s h dations with the in-service date of Midland as scheduled and then delayed, the additional costs of such delay can be estimated. While the effects of the assumed delays extend beyond 19PA because of the interaction of the Palisades outage and the Midland in-service dates, the 1981 to 1981+ period encompasses the most significant-effects.
l s
1 15 Consumers Power proposed Exhibit 14, which is attached, smmarizes the net additional fuel and purchased power costs conservatively esti:nated to result from delaying the Midland units from their current schedule. In arriving at these estimates, sufficient purchased power frem parties other than Detroit Edison was assumed available to meet the Company's 20% reserve criterion over su==er peak load when the delay extended over the su=mer months. Further pcwer was assumed available and purchased when generating unit outages exceeded available reserves and, finally, the Company's nomal exchanges with 'Ihe Detroit Edisen Company were also simulated.
Operating Cost Increases Due to Abandonment Exhibit 14 also lists esti: nates of the net additional fuel and purchased power expenses to be incurred between the scheduled in-service dates of the Midland units and when alternative generatien might be added. Note that the figure shewn for 1984 assumes no addition of replace =ent generatirg capacity in that year. Should replacement capacity be added durir4 1964, a reasonable estimating methodology is to scale the figure shown for that year to the proportion of the year during which the alternative capacity is not available.
The figures listed for this case were calculated in a similar fashion to those for the delay case. Ecvever, the assu=ptien was =ade that the entire amount of megawatt-years of lost generating capacity due to this abandenment of Midland would be made up through additional higher cost fossil fuel' gen-eration and purchased power during the years 1981-1964, whereas Censu=ers Power would act:: ally plan to continue to operate Palisades thrcughout this
16 period to partially offset the loss of Midland and would take Palisades out of service only after the alternative to the Mid1and unit was placed in service.
This Palisades outage would extend to the years 1985-86 and higher cost fossil fuel generation and purchased power would then be reqttired to offset the Palisades outage in these years. Consequently, the effect of the abandonment of Midland veuld actually extend throughout the period 1982j. l986.
In order to avoid modelling the 1985-86 years, the entire effect was reflected in the period 1981-1984.
In addition to the above-mentioned economic costs incurred, the delay or abandonment of Midland will also result in increased fossil fuel usage, both by Consumers Power and the utilities from which it would purchase power. Based on the simulations done for these cases, the additional fossil fuels burned by Consumers Power are. set forth in Consumers Power proposed Exhibit 15, which is attacked.
A reducticn will be notel for 1984 in one case. This relates to assu=ed purchases of power from other utilities and re; resents a transfer of the additional consumption of fuel from the Consumers Power system to other systems.
CONCLUSION The foregoing analyses with regard to availability of reserve capreity in 1981 to 1984, adequacy of energy supply for the same period, differential fuel and purchase power cost for the same period, and additional consu=ption of l
fossil fuel for the sa=e period, demonstrate the need for the Midland facility to be available for co=cercial operation en the currently scheduled dates.
Exhibit 11 17 CONSUrrRS POWER COMPAITI Effect of Midland Delay on Reserves (Sumer)
Delay Midland Midland As to 12-81 & 82 Not Year Scheduled or 6-82 & 83 Added 1981 Cap 7292 6991 6991 Purch (h72)
(432)
(432)
Net Cap 6620 6559 6559 Load 5560 5560 5560 Res 1260 999 999
%Res 22 7 18.0 18.0 1982 Cap 7752 7292 6956 Purch (536)
(536)
(473)
Net Cap 7216 6756 643 Load 5840 5840 5840 Res 1376 916 643
% Res 23.6 15 7 11.0 1983 Cap 8438 7752 6921 Purch (552)
(552) k73 Net Cap 7ec6 7200 Load 6150 6150 6150 Res 1736 1050 298
% Res 28.2 17.1 h.8 1984 Cap 8438 8h38 Purch Whoo (hog)
Net Cap 8029 6029 Lead 6450 6450 Res 1579 1579
% Res 24.4 24.4
Exhibit 12 18 CONSUMERS POWER C016ANY Effect of Midland Delay on Reserves (Sumer)
(Assuming Karn-Weadock Out of Service)
Delay As to 12-81 & 82 Cancel Year Scheduled or 6-82 & 83 Midland 1981 Cap 5706 5405 5h05 Purch (h72) h12 (h12 Net Cap 5234 973 973 Load 5560 5560 5560 Res (326)
(587)
(587)
% Res (5 9)
(10.6)
(10.6) 1982 Cap 6166 5706 5370 Purch M16 g
(hnl Net Cap 5630 5170
% 97 Load 5840 58ho 58ho Res (210)
(670)
(943)
% Res (3.6)
(11 5)
(16.1, 1983 Cap 6852 6166 5335
?
ap Load 6150 6150 6150 Res 150 (536)
(1288)
% Res-ai (8.7)
(20 9) 1984 Cap 6852 6852 Purch hoo Whoo Net Cap e'3 6h43 Load 6450 6450 Res (7)
(7)
% Res (0.1)
(0.1)
Exhibit 13 19 CONSUMERS PO'4ER COMPANY Effect of Midland Delay on Energy Supply (Annual Basis)
Gigawatthours Midland As Delay to Delay to Not Year Scheduled 12-81 & 82 6-82 & 83 Added 1981 Generation 32,907 32,347 31,h00 32,276 Requirements 32,607 32,607 32,607 32,607 Reserve 300 (260)
(1,207)
(331) 1982 Generation 36,865 34,7ho 34,204 32,597 Requirements 3h,302 34,302 34,302 34,302 Reserve 2,563 438 (98)
(1,705) 1983 Generation 39,377 36,013 34,652 31,154 Require =ents 36,085 36,c85 36,085 36,085 Reserve 3,292 (72)
(1,433)
(h,931) 198k Generation h0,665 kl,593 39,461 32,576*
Requiraments 37,962 37,962 37,962 37,962 Reserve 2,703 3,631 1,h99 (5,386)
- Assumes alternative generation not added in 1984.
Exhibit 11+
20 CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY Additional Fuel and Purchased Power Cost Due to Delay of Midland frcn 3-81 & 82 Millions of Dollars Midland Midland Midland Delayed Delayed Not Year to 12-81 & 82 to 6-82 & 83 Added
, 1981 32 71 147 1982 72 88 226 1983 143 210 256 198h o*
E9*
23h**
- Nomalized to Palisades generation differential over the period 1984-1986.
- Additional cost if alternative generatien not added in 198k.
I I
Exhibit 15 21 CONSUERS POWER COMPANY Additional Fossil Fuel Consumed Due to Delay of Midland From 3-81 & 82 Midland Midland Midland
~
Delayed Delayed Not Year to 12-81 & 82 to 6-82 & 83 Added 1981 Coal 75 120 370 011 510 1140 2490 Gas 370 1050 1700 1982 Coal 150 160 Sho oil h60 530 1890 Gas 36o 500 1570 1983 Coal 230 290 370 011 1040 1490 720 Gas 1250 1820 610 90f2) 193(3) 1984 Coal o
2)
(320)(3) 600 011(1) o Gas o
o 0
Notes:
Presently gas fired combustion turbines were assumed c nyerted to oil firing as of 198h.
(2) Fuel usage for 198h normalized to differential over ee peri d 198 -19 6.
(3) Additional usage if alternative generation not added in 1984.
- Coal in thousand tons. oil in thousand barrels.
Gas in MMCF.
l
UNIED STAES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Before the Atomic Safety and Licensine Board In the Matter of
)
C WS M RS P M R C WP M
)
(Midland Plant, Units 1 & 2) 9,cy,, ye,, 39_3g9
)
50-330
)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
\\
I certify that copies of the attached Testimony of Gilb Roy A. Wells, Jr., Joseph G. Te=ple, Stephen H ert S. Keeley, dated November 5,1976, were served upon the f ll.
o owing by deposit in the
\\
United States Mail, postage prepaid and properl day of November,1976.
y addressed, on this 5th Mr. C. R. Stephens (21 Copies)
Chief, Docketing and Service Section U. S. Nuclear Regulatory CommissionOffice of th Washington, D. C.
20555 Peter L. Strauss, Esquire General Counsel
.~,
U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
\\
Washington, D. C.
20555 Lawrence R. Brenner Counsel for NRC Staff U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Coc::tission Washington, D. C.
20555 Myron M. Cherry, Esquire Suite 4501 One IBM Plaza Chicago, Illinois 6C611 Lee F. Nute, Esquire The Dow Chemical Company
~
2030 Dow C ater Midland, Michigan 48640
1 Howard J. Vogel, Esquire 2750 Deen Parkway Minneapolis, Minnesota 55116 5
Attorney GeneralThe Honorable Curt T. Schneider Topeka, Kansas 1st Floor, State Capitol Building 66612 Daniel M. Head, Esquire, Chairman Atomic Safety and Licensing Board P U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commissi anel Washington, D. C.
on 20555 Dr. Emmeth A. Luebke, Member Atomic Safety and Licensing Board P U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commissi anel Washington, D. C.
\\
on 20555 10807 AtwellDr. J. Venn Leeds, Jr., Member Houston, Texas g
77096 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory CcumiAtomic Sa r
anel Washington, D. C.
20555 ssion Atomic Safety and Licensing Ap U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commis ipeal Board Panel Washington, D. C.
s on 20555 re
~
fa r
R. Rex Renfrow,III
, i c:. /
Isham, Lincoln & Beale 1 First National Plaza Chica6o, Illinois 60603