ML19331A956
| ML19331A956 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Midland |
| Issue date: | 01/21/1974 |
| From: | Cherry M CHERRY, M.M./CHERRY, FLYNN & KANTER |
| To: | NRC OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY (SECY) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19331A957 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8007240542 | |
| Download: ML19331A956 (3) | |
Text
_.
oA o
JENNER & BLOCK 1
q oNCISM MAZA THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS
,( f, J 1.!.1 Q fj) c "' c^"
' * " ' 5 ""
POOR QUAUTY PAGES
"';*ll,,
p, '
L Q
C-j January 21, 1974 JAlny.5N:..F q
D
.,7 6
Secretary l
U. S. Atomic Energy Commission 4
N P
l iv \\
Washington, D.C.
20545 4
Re:
Motion To Reopen Proceedings On Energy j
Conservation Matters - Dockets Nos. 50-329-330
Dear Sir:
There is pending before the Commission a motion to reopen the Midland proceeding because issues of energy conser-vation were excluded and also because the Regulatory Staff failed to consider energy conservation in its environmental analysis.
This matter will shortly be up for decision by the Commission.
We thought it important to present one more fac-tual reference to the Commission in connection with this matter.
The Regulatory Staff has, in part, attempted to jus-tify its failure to consider energy conservation because it is
" remote and speculative."
While there is no basis for that assertion in the impact statement itself (energy ccnservation was not at all discussed), it is equally clear that the ques-tion of 2,nergy conservation is not remote or speculative.
To underscore the serious deficiency in the Midland proceeding, we call attention to the enclosed article in The New York Times of January 19, 1974 which discloses, unbelievably, that several utilities (including one which is interconnected in part with Consumers Power Company, i.e., Wisconsin Electric Power Company) have moved for an increase of rates upon the grounds that voluntary energy conservation programs have de-creased power and utilities' sales of electricity.
I am providing five additional copies of this letter and enclosure for distribution to the commissioners.
Respectfully,
)
WS; AD 1
MyN1M. Cherry MMC:I Enclosure 1
8007240 7 y '
h
o.
m Secretary U. S. Atomic Energy Commission January.21, 1974 Page Two g21 I just learned today that Dow Chemical Company is seriously considering abandoning support for the Midland project because of escalating costs and because energy conservation measures may mean it does not need the steam sup-posed to be purchased from the Midland Plant.
r Since the only reason for siting the Midland Plant in Midland was the commitment of Dow Chemical, it would appear that the entire cost benefit analysis has now been rendered absolutely meaningless.
Thus, the March, 1972 Final Environmental Impact Statament indicates that the purchase of stear by Dow Chemi-cal was,a major factor (Final Impact Statement at I-2) and the Regulatory Staff concluded:
"If the applicant were not to supply process steam to the Dow Chemical Co., one unit of the Midland Nuclear Plant would be cancelled and consideration would be given to transfer-ring the other unit to a different site, pro-bably the existing Palisades site."
(Final Impact Statement at XII-3.
See also Consumers Power Company's Answers To Interrogatories where they admitted that the purchase of stean by Dow was the only reason for selecting Mid-land.
Consumers' Answers To Interrogatories, 172-73)
We urge this additional fact as a further reason for reopening the proceedings and requiring an airing on the need for the Midland Plant in the light of energy conserva tion.
Myron M. Cherr
)
,/
i i.
~.
Mr 1
r- -~
hJhhh
$INNh be$
q 6
Ch I f 9
\\ V -~.G g/'V O
I
)
W SA TURDA Y, JANUARY 19, Ign g;.
4 m..
.n a
y JE M '.?:7D -
~
r, y
g.-
Rise in Utility Rates V Q, Sought as Use Sags M" ITh98 SEEKMment clause in its new s~d~. laas u~
5 Electricity Producers Ash increases Qs Conservation Cuts Revenues RTE UCREASESA'wara're'@
1 per cent below the normal level. Then, a monthly adjust-
,. Continued From Page 41 ment factor would be apphed to customers' bills to permit cov-l By GENE SMITH The energy crisis has created lbut he forecast that lower sales bound to be mad, but what can erage of company costs.
I The company explained thats a paradoxical new apptcach to!could reduce efectric revenues we do?'
electric rates. (ltu.tses are noeby "j."s mucn as $190-mtllion [a The Boston Edison, which if sales and demand fel! 10 per a
had earlier filed for a 543 cent below normal, it wculd seeiung intreases to make up yearMr. Luce acknowledged at million rate increase. returned apply a cost adlustment in.
for reduced demand brought by voluntary conserva. the time that the " conservation mmtly to,the state pubhc crease of "about 7 to 8 per adjustment [is] a special fea.
utility commission for an addt. cent in the cost per kilowatt.
about To date. fire large electriciture for our company and, as tional $13-million due to a, hour." If the decime in sales tion pro; rams.
>utthties-L*e Conschdated Edi*'far as I know, the first ever m reductio s of forecast revenues.
and demand was smal:er, the son Compe.y. the Boucn Edi.i.e country" ne big utiiity is seekmg an rate adjustment would also be tt He was quick to add that Immdian hearmg and decision smaller.
en Company. the New Enplandlother utilities would make sim-Poe C mny the Sorthern because o! the magmtude of Guy W. Nichols. president.
said that sales are "off s%ut the decline in its revenues.
States P. m Cc ;any and the lar requests-It experienced a 12 per cent.10 per cent at the same timec i
W:scon<m CWtac Co.rany a Lower Sales Rise cutback in output in December.'l,thatis continuing 1fe defende base apfic for rate nses nn Philadelphia Electnc has a decline that The PhCade!p..ma Electric made known its intention of this month. A spokesman said:jadjustment clause as "a fait thu basis.
l ti n to out cult concept to get across toqand practical so a " substantia!' rate "We realize this is a diffi Co tlaany will fde for suen an seeking proUetn."
increase "around the end of the: increase this year m order to Omers are studymg mamtam its earninr,s level. The consumers that they're going to mon th."
company has predicted its sales more for less. but if we the situation.
will nse by only about I per pay't get adequate rate relief Paying for Cooperation agamst 7.5 per cent in don The ironic result is that elec, cent 1973.
It can jeopardize our constnte.
tricity ustrs - tndividuals as Northern, States Power filed programs and create unemploy.
well'ss busmess and industry yesterday m Mmnesota and ment in this region."
be.
New England Power, which,
--may be charged more crosses state lines in its service cause of cooperation with the, South Dakota for a rate m-Government's request that they: crease. as it announced last Oc.
it would do. A area, filed on Jart. 3 with the use less. Such a situat:en has:tober that
?
in the pastispru, man said at that time.
Federal Power Commission to it,1clude an interim cost adjust-i.
consumption,ths pnmary cause for the fthng ncver happened has gone up at a rate of about,was m; combmation of infla.}tionary pressures and the cost because power Conschdated Edison set the!of pollution controls.The company filed in St. Paul 7 per cent a year.
i the new approach last Octnber inr a rate increase sta;te for
- when it annour'ced on Dec.12i
- that it was seekmg a 22.6 periof 20 per cent and raised thisin Dettmber thejby S per cent
.Icent rate increase over al"because of the slowtlown in dnext two } ears, plus a
attjust.jsales." A spokesman said yes.
', new
" conservation ment'* amounting to 6.67 perjterday the over all, system rate cent over the two years in increase averaged 15 and order tn make up for expected,iwould take mto account the reductions in e;cetnetty reve cffects of ennservation efforts."
c it also filed for a 26 per cent nues ho.n energy conservation rate nse in North Dakota.
l
- efforts, Charles F. Luce, chatrman of The spokesman acknowledged the company. said at the time that " the guy on the street is
,that he " deeply regretted" hav4 Ang to scck the rate increases,ContinuedonPage 45. Column 3 t