ML19329F200
| ML19329F200 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Midland |
| Issue date: | 10/04/1973 |
| From: | Joseph E Pollock MICHIGAN MUNICIPAL COOPERATIVE POWER POOL, SPIEGEL & MCDIARMID |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8006230723 | |
| Download: ML19329F200 (28) | |
Text
--
Q t
P UNITED STATES OF AMERICA BEFORE THE ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION In the Matter of
)
)
Docket Nos.L50-32 D Consumers Power Company
)
50-330A (Midland Units 1 and 2)
)
)
THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS MOTION TO COMPE" POOR QUAllTY PAGES s.
we have not yet received permission from Wald, Harkrader & Ross to see. the doc'uments ordered to be sampled by us pursuant to the Board's September 25, 1973 Order.
We ask the Board's help in aiding us to' resolve this problem.
As the Board knows, it is with deep concern that we find ourselves precluded from even a cursory examination of the 15,000 pages of documents withheld as allegedly irresponsive or irrelevant.
We enclose herewith copies of documents from the files of Traverse City, Michigan.
There is no question that these should have been supplied in response to the Joint Document Requests.
If the enclosed documents arc an example of what is possibly being withheld we would consi&r ourselved foreclosed from fully developing our case before this Board.
We cannot understand the reluctance of Mr. Ross
[.',D 7 r-.~..,,,
y f:n.y ~ ~.,.:.; 3;; 3,.,,.,,_.
<800 esso 9 7 3 4
_--=;
to permit us to at 'least determine from the face of any document whether or not we might be able to convince the Board in a motion that the document should be furnished.
Clearly, this burden
'is ours However, if we can only examine 1/5 of the documents we shall' never know Whether or not' an important document has been i
. withheld without any basis.
In my dicusssion with Mr. Watson concerning the mechanics of the examination, I offered to use 4
any index or other organization by which the contents of the documents could be identified which he could provide.
Mr. Watson 1
was not inclined to permit this because he maintains such materials to be work-product.
My other suggestion was to select 300 of the documents by looking only at the face of each of the 1500 documents to see if the documents'were letters, reports, etc., and their authors f
and recipients.
In this way the documents could be identified
.sufficiently-to make a selection.
After selection, I would read
- /
those 300 documents selected.
It would then by my responsibility to file a motion to obtain those specific documents Which I' determined to be responsive to the Joint Document Requests describing.them in sufficient detail to convince the Board that
- / - Of course, should the documents selected demonstrate a sufficient basis, we should be able to move to obtain appropriate relief.concerning-the remaining documents. L 4
..e-
-w
.v-
they should be furnished and supplying copies to the Board in camera.
Mr. Ross of course could file his opposition and the Board would decide.
It appears to us that if Mr. Ross and Mr. Watson are correct, the examination, or at least a cursory look of all the documents, will not injure this position since we should not find anything to prove otherwise.
The enclosed documents which represent only what was obtained in a search of one p' arty, give ample reason to let us test the claims that all of the withheld documents are either not responsive or not relevant.
Respectfully submitted, c. h-James Carl Pollock Attorney for Intervenors October 4, 1973 l
Law Offices Of:
Spiegel & McDiarmid
)
2600 virginia Avenue, N. W.
Washington, D. C. 20037
..~,
~~--
y r
y-4 v-
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA BEFORE TIIE ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION In the matter of
)
)
Consumers Power Company
)
Docket Nos. 50-329A Midland Plants Units 1 and 2
)
50-330A
)
AFFIDAVIT DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, SS:
James Carl Pollock, being first duly sworn, deposes and says that he is the attorney for Interveners, Traverse City, et al.,
and that as such he has signed the foregoing Motion to Compel for and on behalf of said parties; that he is authorized so to do; that he has read said Motion and is familiar with the contents thereof; and that the matters and things therein set forth are true and correct to the best of his knowledge, 'information or belief.
3%
C. Ph t
Jame's Carl Pollock Subscribed and sworn to before me this '4th day of October, 1973 MJ's]
rk U
lfgNotryPublic My Commission-Expire's' September 30, 1974.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA BEFORE THE ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION In the matter of
)
)
Docket Nos. 50-329A Consumers Power Company
)
50-330A (Midland Plant, Units 1 and 2)
)
)
Certificate of Service I hereby certify that the foregoing document in the above-captioned matter was served upon the following by deposit in the United States mail, first class or air' mail, this 4th day of October,1973.
Alan S. ' Rosenthal, Esq., Chairman Joseph Rutberg, Esquire Atomic Safety and Licensing Atomic Energy Commission Board Panel 7920 Norfolk Avenue U.
S. Atomic Energy Commission
- Bethesda, Maryland Washington, D. C. 20545 Abraham Braitmiin, Chief Jerome Garfin 1, Esq., Chairman Office of Antitrust and Atomic Safety & Licensing Board Indemnity U. S. Atomic Energy Commission U.S. Atomic Energy Commission Washington, D. C. 20545 Washington, D. C. 20545 Joseph J.
Saunders, Esquire Mr. Frank W. Karas, Chief Department of Justice Public Proceedings Branch Antitrust Division Office of the Secretary Washington, D. C. 20530 Atomic Energy Commission Washington, D.
C. 20545 Harold P. Graves, Esquire General Counsel Wallace Edward Brand, Esquire Consumers Power Company Antitrust Public Counsel 212 West Michigan Avenue Department of Justice Jackson, Michigan'49201 P. O. Box 7513 Washington, D. C. 20044 William Warfield Ross, Esquire Wald,'Harkrader & Ross.
Dr. J. Venn Leeds, Jr.
1320 19th Street, N. W.
P. O. Box 941 Washington, D. C.
20036 Houton, Texas 77001 Law Offices:
Spiegel & McDiarmid O
I""*"'
'2600 Virginia Avenue, N.W.
James Carl Pollock Washington,.D. C. 20037
~
- p3 Q3
,(
a C0PY
\\.,
'(?,/
\\
%/
CONSUM ERS POWER COMPANY SEltVING OVElt FOUll MILLION MICllIC.tN rEOPLE NOflTit%T.ST DIVis!ON En$'vl$IE*cN$tiEUiUIN mal May 28, 1965 To The Mayor, and the City Coc=issioners, of the City of Traverse City City Hall Traverse City, Michigan Gentlemen:
In accordance with a request which was made at our last study session with you folks, one of our attorneys has contacted Mr. Roger Watson and discussed with him the right of the City to accu =ulate a fund for public improvements. Attention was directed to Act 177 of the Public Acts of 1943 (5 2770(1)-5 2770(5) M.S.A.).
Attach-ed to this letter is a copy of the Act.
In short, the Act authorizes cities to establish a fund for public improvements and provides that money accumulated in the fund shall not be transferred or disposed of except for public i= prove =ents.
During the study session some of the members of the Commission felt that it would be possible to more seriously consider acceptance of the lease proposal if it were possible to accu =ulate, at least in part, funds for public improvements. We certainly hope that Act 177 opens the door for such consideration. We vill be most happy to meet with you for any further consideratien of our lease proposal.
Sincerely, g
1 e
BDH/nt B. D. Hilty Attach.
CC: City Manager
- ,'.[
/
City Clerk City Attorney
/;#s3-Traverse City Record EaBle
[ E' i, $
s
- ?
PUEIC r?R07ESI;T OR PUEIC EU71 DING FUNDS AN ACT to provide,for the creation of a fund or funds in political subdivisions for acquiring, constructinc, extending, altering, repairing or equipping public i=provc=ents or public buildincs; to provide for appropriations, credits and transfers to said fund or funds; and to provide for the disbursc=cnt thereof.
The People cc the State of Michican enact:
552770(1) Authority for creation of fund.] Section l.
The lecislative or coverning bcdy of any political subdivision is hereby authorised cnd c=povered to create and establish a fund or funds for the purposo cf approprinting, providing for, actting aside and accu =u-latinc coneys to be used for acquiring, constructing, extending, altering,
. repairing or equip;t*3 public i=provements or public buildincs, which said political subdivision nny by the provisions of its charter or the general lav be authorized to acquire, construct, extend, alter, enlargc, equip or repair.
$52770(2) Use of fund; transfers and credits.] Soc. 2. Not-withstanding the provisions of any law or the charter of any city or villace, =eneys accu =ulated in said fund shall not be transferred, encu=bered or otherwise disposed of, execpt for the purpose of acquiring, constructing, extending, altering, repairing or equipping public i= prove-monts or public buildings, which a political subdivision =ay by the pro-visions of its charter or the ceneral law be authorized to acquire, construct,. extend, alter, repair or equip. Funds established and
.. coneys on hand which had been allocated to or approprinted for the M ing of capital improve = cuts on January 1, 1956, =ay be transferred to'or credited to such reserve fund created under authority of this act and uhen so transferred or credited shall be governed by the pro-
. Visions of this act.
- $52770(3) Revenue diocable to fund.] Sec. 3 The icgis-lative or coverning bcdy of any political subdivision =ay allocate to said fund ciccc11cncous' revenues roccived and credited to the ceneral fund, including revenues roccived by said political sub-division unC.cr the provisions of Act No.155 of the Public Acts of 1937, as crended, being scetions 211 351 to 211 364, inclunive,of the Co= piled Laws of 1948, and also revenues received fro = the salo of lands owned by the political subdivision and which are no longer needed for public purpose,.if said revenues are not otherwise pledcod or encu=bered for other purposes.
$ 5 2770(4) Tax li=itation not affected.] Sec. 4.
Nothing in this'act shall be construed so as to autbori c any city or villcco to
-l cxeced any ta:c limitation i= posed by law or charter of said city'or village.
.r
/
e,6 g
O i
j/.<
e
/. '
~
/
$ 5 2TIO(5) Act cs additions 1 cuthority; "politiccl subdivision"-
./
defined.] Sec. 5r.
Tais act shall be in cddition to all povers herc-tofore cr nted to political subdivisions by state inv, or by cny charter thereof.
The ters " political subdivision" es used in this cet shall be ces-strued to caen cny county, city, village, township, school district or other locc1 unit of this state.
e o
9 4
e 0
9 e
e e
y OO e
9 9
e e
4 0
o d'
e e
4 e
e O #86.
e 4
e e
S
- ese O
J
,,e g
i February 9, 1965 21r. Gerrit Elonbaas Consumers Power Co.
821 IIacting, Strcot Traverco City, Michigan
Dear fir. Elenbass:
Because there is apparently some misunderstanding relative to the dispection of the matter of the City pur-chasing powar from Consumers Power Co., I fool that I should inform you of my understanding of the situation.
Prior to my coming here the City and Consumers Power spent a considerablo amount of tima evaluating the costs and the requiremonto for power and joint meetings were hold.
It is my undarstanding, and the understanding of the commission, that the proposal of Consumora Pcwer was thoroughly and adoquately considered and that they did not feel this method vac the best answer to the situ-
. ation.
Fcr this reason no further action was taken Unon the propocal.
Becauco of your recent phone call I have the cpinion that you folt this matter was still pending.
Actually your proposal was quito thoroughly concidered along with other facets to this problem and at the pre-sent timo no thought is being given to the purchase of power.
'I hope this clarifics the status of thic matter.
I would bo pleased to answer any questions that you might have relativo to it.
Thank you.
sincorcly, Lawrence C. Savage City Manager i
les/ps l
I m
~
~ *+
s
.e
- ta p
CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY SERVING OVEH FOtJR SIILLloN MICillCAN PEOPLE
,. sst.T IE 1 er rnAmuin ciTv. uictitiers 696si Febrtinay U,1$
To The Mayor, and the City Co=sissioners, of the City of Traverse City City Hall Traverce City, MichiCan Gentlemon:
We road the article published in yesterday's Traverse City Record-Escle with creat interest and vere di=:nayed and disturbed.
There was no knowledge on our part of any official request for en offer from Consumers Power Company to purchase the City electrical systr=1. If the City Co==1ccion wiches to evaluate an offer from us, vc will be hnppy to submit a valid and meaningful proposition.
The manner in which our whole: ale proposal has been applied is not correct and does not reflect either the proper costs or benefits which would be available to the City.
It secas logical to us that the City chould carefully and accurately consider all citernatives before a decision of maWtude is made. I c:s cure that both the City Cumicsion and Consumers Power Company have a co=on and co=pelling interest in accuring the citiscns of Traverso City the bcct poccible electrical service at the lowest possibic cost nov and in the years chend. To this end we are always willing to work with the City and will do so now. We have attempted to do this in the past cnd hope that an objectivo and accurate conclucion to the electric problem can be determined to the entisfaction of the citizens of the City of Travor:e City.
Please consider this letter an official com=unication.
Sincerely, i
g.0 EDH/nt B. D. Hilty CC: City M:inccer City Clcrk Traverce City Record-Eaglo l
[
r
[. #(.] 4, c
9 a
'*1 q,Q /
/
=
CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY 7
5El(VING nvEtt FOL'M \\tll.1 ION Mlcllic W l'EOPl.E ur c q e.
noninwrst nivistos 2o&
M J. M Ien t. W JT E x m i Marc $12,1965 oau o
{.$'. S
$3 m.
c-
((h To The Mayor, and the City Commissioners, yo of the City of Traverse City g 9 City Hall Ng Traverse City, Michigan oyo k,,
Gentlemen:
- 5 " a e-This letter is an officiel confirmation of the major points of a lease proposal by Consumers Power Company which was g @[.S We discussed with you Menday, March 8,1965 at a study session.
believe the following proposal provides greater benefits for the g n. $
g{-
people of Traverse City than those offered through expansion of the m 9 electric generating plant.
o The Company proposes to lease the City's electric y,
g g3 system for a period of 30 years at a rental of $528,000 per year.
In addition, the Cor:pany veuld pay real and personal property taxes g
on the system covered by this lease.
Based on present conditions, we Q,,
o estimate that this would amount to $60,000 annually.
n You will readily see, we believe, that under the lease
{g arrangement the City would not only retain ownership of its electric n
s-system but would also realice many other advantages, some of which "k R are as follows:
na The City would receive in acsured income of $528,000 per
$i 1.
year, an amcunt exceeding all financial benefits said to g
be realized through City operation of the electric system.
gg kb This money could be used for civic improvements or for P$
2.
the reduction of taxes.
$7 N :
There would be no need to bond the City for $2,500,000 3 ;,
i 3
and to use the $1,000,000 now in hand for expansion of fRl the City pl' ant. The need of additional bond issues for R.
future expansion would be clininated. The $1,000,000' JE' O'
i could return to the City r.pproximately $M,000 annual.ly O Sl i
in interest.
C. c O
r.
~
.i I
n d
o <
j To The Mayor, and the City Commissioners 2
City of Traverse City March 12, 1965 4.
Traverse City would be assured of ample power for all present and future needs, supplied through the state-wide system of Consumers Power Company and the Michigan power pool.
5 The City would be assured that its electric service would always reflect the technological progress of the electric industry and enjoy the benefits resulting from continuous research and development programs. Nuclear poser and im-proved electric distribution techniques are two of many fields of study.
6.
The City's tax base would immediately increase and would continue to increase, through additions made to the elec-tric system by Consumers Power Company during the lease period, benefiting not only the City but also the county and the schcol district.
7.' Electric rates would be under regulation by the Michigan Public Service Commission, as in Grand Rapids, Muskegon, Flint, Saginaw and the many other cities served by Con-sumers Power Company.
8.
Individuai employees not retained by the City would be offered employ =ent with the Company, censistent with present work performed and individual capability, at rates that would be more advantageous to the employees than those now paid by the City.
Length of service will be recognised in applying Company retirement and other benefit programs.
9 The City Commission and City officials would be relieved of the time-consuming burden of operating and planning for the electric system, and thus would be able to give
'their full attention to the normal problems of City
' government.
10.
The City's appearance would be improved through the re-moval of duplicating electric linea.
- 11. Smoke and fly ash from the City plant would virtually be eliminated, since ample power for the City's needs would~normally flow in from the Consumers Power Co=pany system.
r**
.-nus,
3 f'
a T3 Th2 May r,'and tha City Commissiin;rs s.
City cf Traversa City March 12, 1965 The City could recover a part of its investment in the f
12.
existing electric plant through the sale of unneeded equipment not required by Consu=ers Power Company and i
not a part of the Icase.
13 Traverse City would have the full cooperation, if so desired, of Consumers Power Co=pany's strong Industrici
)
)
Development Department, which has c6ntacts with indus-1 trialists in all parts of the United States, in brin 6 ng to Traverse City the types of industry appropriate to the City's planning.
11+. Consumers Power Co=pany specialists in power engineering, lighting, home economics and cooperative promoticnal pro-Erams-would be at the service of the people and businesses of Traverse City.
At the end of the lease period the system covered by the lease, nemely the electric 6cnerating plants and the distribution System in those areas presently served solely or jointly by the City, would revert to the City under the following conditions:
A.
Any facilities presently owned by the City and still in service at the end of the lease period would revert to the City at no cost.
Any additions, improvements or replacements of present B.
City facilities made by the Company during the period of the le'e:.c would revert to the City upon payment to the Company of their then appraised value, recognizing depreciation.
C.
Any Company distribution facilities presently in the des-cribed area covered by the lease or any additions to or replacements thereof made b'y the Company during the period of the lease vould be sold to the City at their then appraised value, recognizing depreciation.
It is not possible, in a letter of reasonable length, to discuss all the details of a lease and the benefits the people of We Traverse City would realize through acceptance of our proposal.
We appreciated the opportunity of meeting with you this past Monday.
know that questions will occur to you and look forward to the oppor-tunity for a full discussion at an early date.
Yours very tn21y, e
CONSUIE;4 PNER CCMP,ANY
_ BDH/nt CC:
City Manager B. D. Hilty City Clerk Division Manager Traverse City Record Eagle Northwest Division G 964
a.J40p./VU eMa illucil IW3 IICI p, @:::v.::s fr., C7 " tE/A G L.A irch b l'u M A SA
- I %. I S G S*
- pary's strong Industrini develop.
.;n d
g
. mint dipartruent. which ha h
j l at s h
nit
. t tes, a
in bringing to Traverno City the a
typ e of industry nppretpriate to l
p ny eci in o er en gineering.. lighting. home ceu-es and cooperah promo-A3 offir by Consumers Power meeting Is 31onday nicht at ' aured of amplo powcr for all 3
t nal pr grams would be at ompaiy to lease the facilitics which time it would be possible present and future needs sup-
- the Triverse City light and to rencind its previous decision phed through the state-wide sys-pc [p o aml Ce o yg,
g
. wcr department for 30 yearn in order to give more titus to ts m of Cimnumern Pinwar Cassian a g g g g g, g
3r ca cnnual payment of $5:8 study the tenne offer, pany and the Stichigan power the system covered by the lease
- er. pi'.c taxes. estimated at The lease figure suggested by
- pool,
- h
.0,000 a year, has been made Censumers means that the city
- 5. The city would be assured rat ng m d th 3 the city commission, it was wwtd collect $15.840,M0 over that its electric service would Y
anounced today by llob Illity, lim ncit 30 years. plus taxes.
always reflect the technological ivi: loa manager fur the com-In addition, the city cou!d re.
progress of the electric indus-CONSUMENO...
TI y.
f.iin flic $1 million surplus la try and enjoy the benefits re-(Continued from Page One) 13 (ddition. the company has the light anil power de iarttucnt sulting from continuous rc.
tem in those areas prmently ffered to hire all light and and invest it, or divert it for bearch and development p ro-twer depirtment employes who other purpokes.
grams. Nuclear power and im-scryed. solely or jointly by the could not he retamed Dy the liasentials of the Consumers proved cicctric distribution tech.
l city. would revert to the city under the fo!!owing conditions:
sty if the Icase arrangement is Pawcr Company offer follow:
niques are two of many ficids A.
Any facilities presently ecepted.
The company proposes to of study.
leane the city's electr.: system
- 6. The city's tax hase would l owned by the city and still in Th3 esmpany would also pay service at the end of the leann f r a period of 30 years at a immediately incrense and would rxes gn tny additional facilities
, period would revert to the city rental of $5 8,000 per year. In continue to increase, through
.dded t3 the system during the I at no cost.
addition, the company would pay addhions made to the electric scie period.
real and personal property taxes system by Consumers Power D.
Any conditions. Im prove.
i The city commission received on the system covered by this during the lease period. hene.
. ments or replacemenb of pre-ne offir verbally Alonday night lease. Ilased on present.cendl.
riting not only the city but also nent city facilitien made by tha
- nd hn been studying it since.
tionx. wo estimato that this tha county and the school dia.
company during the period of the lease would revert to tho Cliy officials have indlented w auld amount to $G0.000 a n.
trict.
f4t thn proposition is of such nually.
- 7. Electric rates would be un-city upon payment to the com.
pany of their then appraised magnitude and' comp!ctity'* as You will readily see, we be.
der regulation by the h!!chigan vahie, recognizing depreciation.
9 rectuits lengthy investigation lieve, that under tne lease ar. Public Service Commission as C. Any company distribution
- nd statistical analysis, rangement the city would not in Grand Rapids. Sluskegon.
facilities presently in the de-City engineers and consultants only retain ownership of its elec.
Flint. Saginaw and the many scribed area covered.by the re presently developing city tric system but would also real. other cities served by Consum-lease or any additions to or re-osts f r use of electricity for ize many other advantages, ers Power Company.
placements thereof made by tho
- treet lights and other facilitics, some of which are as follows:
- 8. Individual employes not re-c mpany during the period of ance this usage, instead of he.
- 1. The city would receive an tained by the city would be of.
the lease would be sold to the sc furnished by the municipally assured income of $5:3.000 per fered employment with the com.
city at thcir then appraised
$perated plant. would be paid year, an amount exceeding all pany, consistent with present Yah:e. recognizing depreciation.
or tf C:nsumers should take financial benefits said to be work performed. and individual
- ver.
realized through city operation capability, at rates that would Th3 efficts of Inflation over of the electric system.
be more advantageous to the te sIggIsted period of time is
- 2. This money could be used employes than those now pall
- iso b
- ing co'nsidered city of.
for civic improvements or for by the city. Length of service
.icials cald. as wct! as a com.
the reduction of taxes.
will be recognized in applying crison cf projected growth if
- 3. There would be no need to company retirement and other te city remain in the power bond the city for'32.500.000 and benefit programs.
insinist.
to use the $1.000.000 now in hand D. The city commission and At present, the commission for expansicn of the city plant.
city officials would be relieved itand) csmmitted to embark on The need of additional bond is.
of the timc-consuming burden 12.5 million expansion program sucs for future expansion would of operating and plannine for r11ess petitions asking for a be eliminated. The $1.000.000 the electric system. and thus iferendrm on the issue are could return to the city approxi.
would be able to give their full sled within 30 days of the Feb-mately $40.000 annually in inter.
attention to the normal prob-isry 15 commisston decision, est.
tems of city government.
The c mmission's next regular
- 4. Traverse City would be as.
- 10. The city's sppearance would be imnroved through the e
removal of duplicating electric
.j lines.
II. Smoke and fly ash from the city plant would virtually i
be climinated. since amplo pow.
er for the city's needs would normally flow in from the Con.
sum er's Powcr Company sys-tcm.
- 12. The city could recover a part of its investment in the existing electric plant through thefsale of unneeded equipment not required by Consumcra Power Company and not a part of the lease.
3 }
/
4 ~^%
>e CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY SEltVING OYEIL FOUlt AtII. LION %IICIt!CAN PEOPLE Nonmwosr navisim b Iv"r N S N.'"d!III!EAN January 22, 1964 Mr. C. A. Miller Acting City Manager City Hall Traverse City, Michigan
Dear A1:
'I appreciate your letter requesting what we mean when ve state "...we seriously question fuel costs on the nev machine and the Btu content of coal..."
Attached you' vill find a calculation we have made based on a 20,000 kw steam-turbinegeneratoroperatingwith850psig,900oF,and1-1/2
-inches Hg.
We have used Westinghouse's infor=ation concerning steam-turbine generator units for performance, Data No. 1238 C, pages 1 and 2.
I believe you vill find no problem in running through the calculations.
I believe ve should make thesecccments however:
Thistypeofmachineisnormallydesignedtoopereteat1-1/2 inches Hg.
Exhaust pressures may vary either above or below that pressure, however the design characteristics of a machine, in my opinion, should be used for the overall estimated costs of operation. We have been told by the City Staff that an exhaust pressure of less than 1 inch Hg. is possible. We do.not doubt this,a bit but would like also to point out that problems could be created in this area inasmuch as a refrigeration effect is entirely likely. It is also possible ths.t a machine might operate at 3 inches Hg. under certain conditions.
-The other area ve vould like to comment upon is
- thet. coal, in our opinion, delivered at your plant-here and as it vould be used hure.would be something less than 13,500 Etu per pound. We believe that this is due to a number of factors, e
- W,
-e & = --
r
+w w-Ny
Mr. C. A. Miller 2
Traverse City, Michigan January 22, 1964.
one of which is the necessity of recognizing moisture content as ve31 as the fact that Hazard No. 4 coal is most difficult to buy on any consistent basis at a price which the City is pay-in6 per_ ton. In the calculations ve have used 13,500 Etu per pound assuming a-5% moisture content vould result in a 12,825 Btu per pound as fired.
In all of our calculations and comparisons ve have attempted to be realistic and not lean either to the optimistic or the pessimistic side of an estimation.
Please let me know if you desire any other information.
Sincerely, EDH/nt Attach.
B. D. Hilty t
.. ~,.
b I
--e
- w ETDiATED FUEL COST 20,000 Kv Steam-turbine Generator 850psig,9000F,1-1/2InchesHg.
Basic efficiency 768 Superheat correction factor 1.028 Corrected basic efficiency 768 x 1.028=
8 7 95 Theoretical steam rate 6.122 lbs per kvh Basic steam rate 6.122 7 754 lbs per kwh
=
7095 Actual steam rates Load Correction ASR
% Load Basic Steam Rate Factor (1bs per kwh) 40 7 754 1.0500 8.142 /
60 7 754 1.0035 7 820 80 7 754 9943 7 71o
, loo 7 754 1.000 7 754 Heat removed by turbine Heat at Heat in Gross Station Net
% Load Throttle Condensate Heat Rate Auxiliaries Heat Rate (Etu/lb)
(Btu /lb)
(Btu /Kwh )
(Btu /Kvh) 40 1,453 60 n,342 5%
n,909 60 1,453 60 lo,893 5%
n,438 80 1,453 60 10,740 5%
n,277 loo 1,453 60' lo,801 5%
n,3h1
. ~.
9 a
e 9
7" :.
Heat Required in Coal (Boiler Eff. at 83%)
-Net Plant
% Load Heat Rate (Btu /Kwh) 40 14,348 60.
13,781 80 13,587 loo 13,664 Fuel Cost at 35 4p per Mil Btu
% Load g/Kvh 40 508 60-
.488 4
80
.481 loo-
.484 9
0 e
O
^
12-23-631 9
O
March 18, 1963
" Personal & Confidential" Dear Bobt This will acknowledge your letter of March 5th which -
reficcted your interest and concern for the City's welfare for which I am deeply grateful.
You have,-indeed, graciously responded to our every re-quest in the~ study of our power utility expansion problem which has been going on intermittently for five years and in concen-tration for the past two years.
Submission of your two proposals were very helpful.
It was my hope that one of them would open the door to the best solution.
This was not to be but we are no less grateful to you and your' great organication.
I was glad to note that your letter was " Personal" be-cause this gives us both a chance to let our hair down.
Frankly, I did detect that some of your statements were somewhat charged and, while I understand and appreciate your feelings, I am compelled to say that there is really no need for the alarm you sound for us.
In our own defense, I would have to say that, while we cannot match the experience and talent of your organization in the electric pcuer ciol.d, I think we are, nonetheless, cuite well supported in expericnce and talent in public service and, moro importantly, in the principles, art and in the mechanics offprotectina the public interest and welfare.
In all candor, I cannot accept inferences or impressions to the contrary.
i 1
Mr. Robt. Hilty March 18, 1963 At the risk of sounding boastful, I sincerely believe we are nothing_short of dedicated public servants. We are fully (and woefully) aware that we are not infallable; that we certainly do not have all of the answers and that.even in the fields where ue do enjoy a modicum of competence, we certainly.do not own a monopoly.
Being public servants of mature and fairly sound judg-ment, we do not find it at all difficult to recognize our de-ficiencies and shortcomings, hence our readiness to seek expert counsel and advice and hence our engagement of Albert Kahn as our consultants in the catter of the power utility program.
I think it is a little unfair to state that we conoared the dump power arrangement with your proposal.
We were not comparing services at all.
We were attempting only to determine what the ultic. ate surplus.between income and expense would be to the City under every kind of arrangement available to us.
I think we quite readily acknowledged that our contract with REA was not for firm power as we all understood this to be.
We did indicate that it was presently, and had been, working out th~at way.
To further refresh your memory, you will also recall that I recoatodiv posed the question and even thought, then and there, that 1 cignt call FSA during our teeting to see if they would give us a written statement that our contract was for firm pc'..or, kncuina full call that, on paper, it was not.
I, thereforo, fall to uncerstcnd any reason for anyone being chocked, as you put it.
I repeat, our most positive statement on this question was that thus far, in actual practice, it was O
e
- h
\\
Mr. Robt. Hilty
-3 March 18, 1963 t
virtually a firm power set up.
That is all we claimed.
I even went so far'as to comment that if it were a firm con-tract with REA, there would not have been the spread between your proposal and theirs three years ago when we first con-sidered an interchange arrangement.
At this point, I feel compelled to also repeat, be-cause of the tone of your letter, that our sworn duty and our rcoponsibility to our superiors and constituents; to their intcrest and welfare; to their need for improving their standards of activity and to their urgent need to enhance their competitive position, is our prime and only duty, con-cern and purpose, At least to a degree, I believe our record attests to our dedication to this principle and to its im-plementation. We are keenly aware of the accepted definition of fira power and its vital need not only by our business and industrial communities, as you point out, but by our domestic community as well.
I believe I have commented on some of your thoughts in paragraph 2, page-2, and would add that I can see no need for anyone to be deeply disturbed because if it is humanly possible, our City Commission and I are here, doing our damndest to protect Traverse City and its people and not to put taem in jeopardy.
When I reflect on how hard we work and our modast achievements, this inference takes a rather unkind and an unjustifiable cut.
I must disagree with you that Method IV fails to give adequate consideration to the full meaning of firm power.
If the largest unit is out of service, we will have a firm capa-city of 14,000 KN which is 1,000 less than our present rated capacity.
A second unit of equal or greater size is contem-plated'for 1973 in the preliminary Kahn report, depending on 1
4 4
e Mr. Rcht. Hilty
- };
March 18, 1963 the rnte of increase of our demand.
Even the projections in your proposal indicated this, as I remember them.
What is more, the innta11ation of a 90-100 thousand pound boiler instead of a 75 or 165 thousand pound unit, with a 7500 Kd generator, would give us the same firm capacity at about one-half the cost of the ultimate program recommended by Xcha.
In answer to your next to the last paragraph, I would say that we have, and are, considering purchased power inscfar as, up to this time, you would permit.
You recalled in your letter that wa reauested proposals from you, in the first instance, and it was our hope that the ne> Kwh rate would be more comparably productive to the plans for expansion now under study.
When these proved somewhat discouraging, to me at least, I tried to feel you out as to the possibility of a more favorabla rate proposal.
I didn't feel that I could bluntly ask for it.
The impression I got was that this was it
__ [.
Because of this firm impression, I did not thine it vise t
to explore the possibility of purchasing our entire power needs.
'I am sure that you were aware that an important guide post to us was the comparison of surpluses of income over ex-pense in all plans.
I would expect, therefore, that if there were any advantage that would accrue to the City if we were to purchase all of the power wo needed, that you would have somehow indicated this to us.
Frankly, I was hoping you would co.na through with a rate comparable to Bay City's whose customar rates are less than ours and yet they earn propor-tionately as coch as, or more than we do.
e
y Mr. Robt. !!ilty.
-5 March 18, 1963 Please let me assure you that you do not want the best for Traverse City and its peopic any more than we do.
This happens to be our direct responsibility.
But even so, we can-not hope to atEn enis, or any goal, in any phase of comunity life cnd public service ur:1 css we hive the help and cooperation of every element and ' area of interest in the community. Such universal, local cooperation cannot be achieved if we misunder-stand cach oti.or or if we deliberately depreciate what each of us is, at least, trying conscientiously to do.
It is, of course, healthy, necess,ary and natural to have honest differences of opinion and ue heartily welcome this always.
But we must not allow these to deteriorate to a point where any of us succumbs to the inherent temoetations and motivations -induced by selfish interest, if and when these should raise their unaelcome heads.
I am grateful for your assurance that you and your great organization stand ready to be of service to this fine and beautiful City. L'e urgantly need all of the help we can get.
Very truly yours, H. G. Damoose City I!anager P.S.
The statements herein are solely my cwn.
They do not necessarily reflect the attitude, opinion, position or thoughts of my superiors or any of my associates.
Mr. Robert Hilty Manager Consumors Power Co.
Traverse City, I' chigan d
ngd/ps
- h
- -
d'I-[Y?.,W],"ilg,,,.
y p* 4,
~.
.w'
,./
-s 5
.~
q CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY 8 E lt % I %s: e n t.it p a st it st ll,3.ls p % gl ia'.li t e. n I F.tst t F.
t NORTHWEST DIVIslON
- t. S.setLTv.Ik.s M. amer November 1, 1962 Tmr. ass crrY. helCHIGAN Mr. N. G. Demoose City Manager City of Traverse City Traverse City, Michigan
Dear Mr. Descose:
On October 24, 1962 ve met with you and your associates to outline a proposal for power supply fro = Consumers Pover Company.
We hereby ecnfirm our proposal and respectfully sub=it our suggestions for an economical use of purchased power.
It is our understanding that you have various plans of power supply under consideration at this time. Further, if an inter-connection were made with Consumers, its use veuld primarily be back-up to your present generating equipment.
From your load estimates ve understand that the back-up requirements for 1963 vould be approxi=ately 4600 kilowatts and would increase each year by an ascunt equal to your load grovth. % e 1972 back-up is estimated at near 13,000 kilovatts.
It was your thought that any required transformer or substation equip-ment be supplied by the City, and that you would receive power fros Consumers at a high voltage. Based on this information our proposal for supply of electric power is outlined below for your consideration.
(A) Delivery of energy by Consu=crs to be at 34,500 volts and at a =utually agreeable location adjacent to the Traverse City Power Plant.
(B) he City vould provide all equipment necessary for re-ceiving power at 34,500 volts including transfor=ation, regulation and distribution.
(C) 2 e monthly rate to be as follows:
[/
f!
$195 per kva for the first 2200 kva of billing 2. 4 3,,, t.. I C
- demand, t
I d)
$175 per kva for all over 2200 kva of billing
- demand, 0 7p per kvh for all kwh.
8
2 2
Hr 'N, G. Damoosa
" City
- neg;r Michigan.
/-
Traverse City,62 yovember 1, 19
/
here would be a Fuel Cost Adjustment Charge based on Consumers' average cost of fuel in storo6e and which is presently a credit of 0.024p per kvh.
All energy delivered would be metered at 34,500 volts.
(D)
(E) ' A contract demand'of 3000 kva vill be established, and '
whenever this contract demand so established is exceeded by the creation-of a greater actual demand then this greater demand shall become and remain the contract demand until it is exceeded, and so on.
he billing demand for each month shall be the maxi =um (F) demand as created.
he annual nininum charge shall be $24 per kva of S e amount of this annual *4nir (G) m contract demand.
charge shall be determined by applying one-tvelfth of the $24 annual minimum charge per kva to the con-tract demand in effect for each month of the twelve-W en in any contract year the month period covered.
net conthly bills total less than the annual uinimum 8
charge, the difference vill be paid at the end of such contract year.
Our proposal, as cc. lined above, we are confident vould give you a very economical and 11exible operation at a m d
cost, and allows you to purchase kilowatt-hours at your discretion an capital outlay.
at a cost comparable with your steam Seneration operating expenses.
We have, as was discussed with you at our October 24 for meeting, taken the liberty of estimatita your power supply expensesBey are outlin two methods of operation that appear to be practical.
below as Plan I and Plan II, and both provide the insurance or back-up Both plans are projected over a against breakdown that you require.
ten-year period.
Plan I assumes that existing generating equipment vill be operated s
4 000 to supply all energy requirements up to a generation capability of 1,Al annual load factor.
kilowatts at a 50/2 It is further assumed that there vill be one Consumers vould assist in output vill be purchased.
breakdevn each year and at the peak load time.
h e annual amounts of this breakdown.
supplying the system load durin6 d
power generated and purchased under this plan are shown on attache
/, Sheet No. 1.
Plan II assumes that only the City's nost efficient stea generator vill be run.
r
\\
l I
- I'-
bL
/
E 3
Mr. N. G. Damoosa City Manag';r Michigan Traverse City,62
/
November 1, 19 machine; and under this plan it is assumed to carry a maxi =um load of Ubis is because the maxi =um continuous steam output of 7000 kilowatts.
One boiler one of your two good boilers approxicates this much power.
vould always be held in reserve, and you could, at all time, produce It was also assumed that the max 1=u::: annual peak 7000 kilowatts of power.
load on the purchased power vould be equal to the breakdown require =ents.
With this in mind, the output of the Elliott cachine was held to a 50%
annual factor in 1963 and increased proportionelly to 60% by 1972.
Sheet No. 2 shows generated and purchased power under this plan.
Sheet No. 3 shows the ec=parison of the two plans for the years 1963 through 1972 using the assu=ptions mentioned above.
There are no fixed costs (such as interest and depreciation) included because the investment under either plan vould be the same. However, when co=parir4 vith the various other methods of power supply that you have under consideration, you should consider fixed costs under all plans of power supply. In any event, the fixed costs under these two plans vill be small shen co= pared to the fixed costs on additiond generating capacity.
As an example, if you added 10,000 kilowatts to this very likely would run you so=e $2,500,000 your generating plant, She fixed costs on this amount of capital outlay would to $3, COO,000.
approximate 4 as interest and 3% as depreciation, and would make fcr a fixed cost of $175,000 to $210,000 the first year.
Of the two plans of operation with purchased power that we have considered, we recocmend Plan II.
It gives you the back-up power that you need for a good system operation and also utill:es that It allows amount of power to the best advantage on the rate offered.
you to run only your most efficient generator,.and gives you flexibility of operation for scheduling =aintenance.
Shank you very =uch for the opportunity to make this pro-posal to you. We vill be happy, at your convenience, to discuss our proposal further with you. We feel confident that it offers to the City of Traverse City an economical and reliable means for improvement of its electrical supply.
Yours very truly, BLH/nt -
B. D. Hilty Attach.
s e
m
-*e._
a
Sh n t Iro. 1
}G
~
' d' f PLAN I Estimated Demands and Kilowatt-Hours Self Generated Purchased Total Requirements (Net)
Kw (maximum)
Kw (annual peak)
Kuh x 1Y b
Kv K Al x lo" (A)
(B)
,Kvh x lo 2 a.w 1963 11,660 53 0 l, o6 6 11,66o 53 0 4,660 1964 12,35o 56.2 & 4 35 12,35o 56.2 5,350 1%5 13,000 59.6 t, t t~13,ooo 59.6 6,000 1966 13,780 6317CT4'3,780 61 3 6,780 1.8 1967 14,600 66 9 76 5's 14, coo 61 3 7,600 600 56 1968 15,500 70 9 t lo'e 14,000 61 3 0,500 500 96 1969 16,400 75 2 2608 14,000 61 3 9,400 1,400 2,
13 9 1970 17,400 79 7 '? L3 14,000 61 3 10,400 3,400 18.4 1971 18,500 84 5 WG 14,000
' 61 3 11,500 4,500 23 2 1972 19,600 89 5 /0 2'/C14,000 61 3 12,600 5,600 28.2 7
?995 7 abtal 698.6 5577 9 100 7 (A) - Breakdown requirements with loss of one 70,000 f/hr boiler.
(B) - Requirements over output of existing plant operation at 50% annual load factor.
w lo/29/62
~
Sheet Ib. 2 PLMi II Estimated D mands and rdlovatt-Hours Purchased Generated Total Requiremento Kv Kvh x 10 _
Kw (caxi= c)
R.t x 103 0
Kv (annual peck)
Kvh x 100_
1963 n,660 53 0 7,0@
30.6 4,660 22.4 i1964 12,350 56.a 7,000 32.6 5,35o 23 6 1965 13, coo 59 6 7,000 34 7 6,000 24 9 19G 13,78o 63 1 7,@o 36 7 6,78o 26.4 1967 14, Coo 66.9 7,e 33.8 7,600 23.1 1963 15,500 70 9 7,o@
40.8 8,500 30.1 75 2 7,000 42.8 9,400 32.4 1969 16,4@
1Wo 17,400 79 7 7,000 44 9 10 > h*
34*O igi 1a,500 8'+. 5 7,000 46 9 n,500 37.6 1W2 19,600 89 5 7,000 49.o 12,600 40 5 I
698.6 3W.8 300.8 Totat i
10/29/62
~
)
o
! I-k i
(
i d l.
1 4
~
& rat Id. 3 e
1 O'-
ESTIMATED Po'4ER COSTS Plan I vs. Plan II
.", f Finn I Plan II Purchased Self Generated Purchased Sc1f Generated IbJer
- Power
'Ibtal Power Pover Total
-,,3,.'
1963 4
72,000
$ 439,900
$ 511,900'
$ 240,400
$ 222,400
$ 462,800 1964 111,800 466,500 578,300 260,400 233,000 453,400
.},
1955 128,400 494,700 623,100 280,400 253,300 533,700 1966 144,000 508,800 652,800 304,oco 267,900
.571,900 i-1967 162,700 508,800 671,500 329,7c0 283,200 612,900 1968 182,400 5c8,800 691,200 358,800 297,000 656,600
'~
1969 2c4,000 5c8,800 712,800 390,000 312,400 7c2,400 1970 225,600 5o3,800 734,400 423,600
~327,800 751,koo
.J '
1971 265,800 Sco,8co 774,600 461,700 342,400 804,100
..:e 1972 321,800 508,800 830,600 5c0,500 357,700 858,200
.??
lo-Year
'Ibtal $1,818,500
$4,962,700
$6,781,200
$3,549,500
$2,902,900
$6,452,h
~
cents
. 1.180 0 73 0 924 Fer lodi 1.806 0.83 0 7T1 1
I!ote :
'Ihe inventoent for transformer substation vould be the same under either of these plans.
~
e 10/29/62 G
- -