ML19331B062
| ML19331B062 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Midland |
| Issue date: | 02/07/1974 |
| From: | Shapar H US ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION (AEC) |
| To: | Muntzing L US ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION (AEC) |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8007250760 | |
| Download: ML19331B062 (2) | |
Text
._
N@8.@SN@C40M9&up$!NNhki ldN hibEh EbFWiM NNWN ypWCeWf W g %yg.p" 9 %#6 6 b-h) f[hh d
h # M7*
m* o. _
am m,w,,+ s m. m pwm 3> }O q
m
/m
?
9 1 *@t i- %*
FEB - 7 197l O
m I
, L. Hanning Huntzing Director of Regulation s
THE COPHISSION'S ENERGY CONSERVATION DECISION IN MIDLAND On January 24, 1974, the Coeurission issued an important Memorandum and -
4 Order in the Midland proceeding (copy attached) which establishes j
certain ground rules for the handling of energy conservation issues.,
.j The salient aspects of the new energy conservation regime are these-
/
.x.
~
2
. at 1.
Energy conservation as an alternative to the proposed facility is a legitimate issue subject to consideration
'M in AEC environmental reviews and hearings. In this- ~
, g qid respect, the Midland decision simply confirms the basic
- g^ng thrust of the commission's earlier decision in Nine Mile x@eA Point 2.
4 x_
s
+
av
, ;,g 2.
Full-dress consideration of energy conservation alter-
%"u natives is~ required, in appropriate cases, for inclusion in Staff DES and FES, Alternatives that merit such
^-t I consideration are potential energy conservation issues
'i which (a) " relate to some action, methods and developments 7
s that uould, in their aggregate effect, curtati demand for i
electrict?y to a level at which the proposed facility would not u needed," (b)
- pertain to an alternative that
.?"
is ' reasonably available, and (c) admit of a " reasonable degree of proof".
[_ g
+
M3 3.'
,In our view,~
- appropriate ' cases" includes all CP cases. ~
We should also review Ot. cases on an ad hoc basis to M
determine if under the circumstances it is necessary to
~ k3 i
where a negative determination is made, the DES or FES,
' '~~O consider conservation of energy issues. In instances
.i as the case may be, should contain a summary statement-describing the extent.er the Staff's consideration of y
such alternettves and the basis fbr their rejection.
0
-This will server the practical-purpose of keeping the-Staff out of an unnecessarily defensive posture at any.
.4 I
subsequent hearing.
~
y 9
- d
+
q h
.h
- j h5 9.
+
,,./'
'8
- ~
.,,s y
~
N
~
3
~ )~
.[
[
E 3
- m m_
.m_..
._m THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS P00R QUAUTY PAGES 80072507[O
ys e
o
.+
y 2-FEB - 7 1973 -
L. Manning Muntzing 4.
The new approach to energy conservation will not be applied retroactively to cases which had progressed to the Initial Decision stage prior to November 6,1973 (the date of the Nine Mile Point 2 decision).
It follows that we will have to consider "backfitting"--
through hearing testimony or otherwise--any FES issued in a case where no Initial Decision had been rendered as of November 6.
s 2
I would be pleased to discuss any of these matters at your convenience.
-Or18 nal signed'
']
\\~s 1
by H. K. Shapar
~
l
.e
~
Howard K. Shapar
~
~
- Assistant General Counsel
~
Licensing and Regulation q
Enclosure Memorandia and Order in Midland dated 1/24/74
~
-a.
cc:
J. O' Leary A. 61ambusso
[-_
DISTRIBUTION: OGC Files
' 1 Germantown Files 2 Reg. Central: Files -
HShapar.
u'
- - - TEngelhardte JGallo
~
~,,c DKartalia~ '
f; -
ACarr
.a
. nWMassar
..z-
%;.... e. -ai,,. : ;
.:?.- >
- . ;. - m;;, _
.m.
_~
s v-
- , y y-a-?..,
.lN fi.. ;;y;y;..y;; q.:.y$ ' ^ : = v f
- l
. ( :.: :
Og?' a 0 A OGci NfMtv6 f } or,,c.*
OGC~
~
..DXatta.
JGObd.JiSha
[
2LT.LZe"
.2L.f1]V
.,. n.2ll /74 Form AEC stb (Rev. 9 53) A1(M 0240 ~'
,..g.
.. one.. cas _ so esaas.: sass o4
,ewmo - --
_-s u m tfjf-:
.dm
- :. a,
L _,
_ ;_',_ C = __ _
q3- }
g
,