ML20038B199
| ML20038B199 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Comanche Peak  |
| Issue date: | 11/18/1981 |
| From: | Ellis J Citizens Association for Sound Energy |
| To: | NRC OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY (SECY) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20038B200 | List: |
| References | |
| FRN-46FR41786, RULE-PR-50 46FR41786-162, NUDOCS 8111240852 | |
| Download: ML20038B199 (3) | |
Text
m u. c. u :3<mL,m.m.,.,
., s.
y C A S E==
214/9M-9h4 (CITIZENS ASSM. FOR SOUND ENERGY) 214/941-1211, work, usually Tuesdays and Fridays only November 18, 1981
'O cv Secretary of the Co=ission 00CW BU'Gg U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Co= mission monggutzi b M Washington, D. C.
20555 C0i.KETED y p ice Branch h M f/f%
Attn: Docke
Dear Secr t3rf:
fi
'81 NOV 19 P4:09
@rT,'l/ r
Subject:
lfy I
Cc=ents on Proposed Rule Change Y
10 CIR Part -
'g NOV2 J 1h Pi m eial g ggations; 3c=estic
(,
v,s. m 7 ":" "
LicensfagRf! Production and Utilization Facilities I"e FEDERAL REGISTER 8/18/81, Vol. J, No. 159 g
In addition to CASE's' co=ments of October 16, 1981, we hope that you will consider the following co=ents and the attached pleadings in the Comanche Peak nuclear plant operating license proceedings, Docket Nos. 50-445 and 50-446, in your considerations regarding the subject proposed rule change.
CASE has been an Intervenor in Dallas Prwer & Light rata hearings in 1975-76, 1978, 1979, and 1980. Since Dallas Power & Light Co=pany, Texas Power & Light Co=pany, and Texas Electric Service Co=pany are the three pri=ary Applicants in the operating license hearings for Cc anche Peak, we are e"pecially concerned about infor=ation from rate hearings of DP&L, TP&L and TESCO regarding the companies' financial qualifications. Applicants and the NRC Staff have stated in the Co=anche Peak proceedings that five out of six of the applicants p' a to finance the Comanche Peak facility's operation throu6h revenues derived from rates charged to customers for utility service and to recover deco =missionire costs in the rate process through depreciation rates, and that the rates for DSO3 8
electricity charged by tLs Applicants are established by the Public Utility Cc= mission (PUC) of Texas. It is therefore obvious that what has happened
/
and what will happen in the future in rate hearings before the FUC are vitallyAUD,' ",6 farnoindicationthateitherApplicantsorStaffhavepresentedthisinforg'g i=portant regarding Appl 3 cants' financial qualifications. Yet there is so
=ation or reviewed it in connection with these proceedings.
g w /n i In the past CASE was skeptical a 9P&L's need for additional rate increases, g @ % I '
i f and through the years we have ts ese more and more convinced that what they p
need is not more rate ?ncreases but to cut back their construction program.
Initially, the utility argued that they absolutely had to have the electricit) g p, i from Cc=anche Peak in order to meet demand in 1980. The fact is that in 1980, without Comanche Peak, in the hottest su=mer in thirty years, DP&L had 42.6%
reserve capacity (the Texas Utilities system had 38 3%). In 1979, DP&L had 64% reserve (TU system 60%).
8111240852 811119 PDR ADOCK 05000445 I
f a
s 2.-
The other ::laimed reason for cont 4=ing with their construction program as they proposed was to switch from oil and gas to lignite and nu: lear fuels.
To begin with, they don't use oil in Texas as a boiler fuel except as a back-
_1 up.
Since they were already building some lignite plants, they wanted to add j
nuclear to the fuel mix. This has meant that during the past several years, the ratepayers of NE, TPE and TESCO have been paying not only for high construction costs for plants which have been needed less and less as demand has dropped, but for the high costs of continuing to burn natural gas as well during the switch-over. Because of the construction problems and delays of Comanche Peak, the length of time required for the switch-over has been extended considerably, an1 the ratepayers have been hit time and again wLth more and more rate increases. The recent news release of NE announcing further delays and cost increases for Comanche Peak now admit (even by the Company'sownundocumentedfigures)thatitwillcostapproximately53 cents per Edhr for lignite ecs.1 as opposed to 6.1 cents per Kwhr for nuclear to deliver one kilowatt-hour to the transmission system in 1986.
All along the way for the past few years, the Texas Utilities companies have chosen to delay or change their percentage of ownership in lignite plants but to continue with the nuclear plant. This has resulted in the contteing use of higher-priced natural gas, whereas had the utilities opted to instead delay Comanche Peak, they would have now had cheaper lignite plants available (ifeventheywereneeded). Because of this, the utilities now find themselves in a situation where they will indeed probably need more and core rate increases, because their construction program is completely out of control, and there is no guarantee that even with rate increases the utilities can avoid future financial disaster if they continue with their construction program as they have in the past.
In other words, rate increases are not the answer because they do not address the root cause of the problem.
Considering the miscalculations and representations made in the past by the utilities to the regulatory bodies remrding costs and availability of Comanche Peak, there is no reason for the Texas PUC or the cities in Texas which have retained original jurisdiction over electric rates to place credibility now in the utilities' present representations of cost or in-service dates. The rate-payers have already paid dearl,. for the utilities' construction program. There is absolutely no guarantee that they will continue to do so in the future, be-cause of the wording of the Texas and PUC laws and regulations. The PUC is not set up for the convenience of the utilities alone - the ratepayers must also be considered and protected. There are difficult decisions which must be made regarding future rate increases for NE, TP&L and TESCO by the cities with ori @ l jurisdiction and the PUC, not by the NRC, which operates under different rules and with different priorities.
If the money needed for the operation and decomissioning of Comanche Peak is not readily available when needed, it will possibly mean more borrowing in the future, possibly from SAMA (the Saudia Arabian Monetary Agency), to whom N E sold bonds in the past to prevent having to make a public offering and risking having their bond rating lowered. The comianies have had and continue to have a cash flow problem because they are overbuilt and overextended and the PUC and local regulatory authorities have allowed them to continue to overbuild and the NRC has refused to make them consider the need for Comanche Peak in the operating license hearings.
i 3
What the utilities are doing in effect now is betting the house, the car, and the kids that they will be able to bludgeon the local regulatory authorities and the PUC into submission. The regulatory authorities have been very patient in the past and forced the ratepayers to pay for the companies' ambitious con-struction program. There is absolutely no reason to think that they will continue to do so or that they will roll over and play dead when the companies request future rate increases. The utilities are gambling with the ratepayers money
- money they don't have yet, based on a rate increase they haven't even asked for yet.
The attached documents give further credibility to our statements. We ask that you give them your close consideration.
Sincerely, CASE (CITIZHIS ASSOCIATION IDH SOUND HIERGY)
.cu,~A h Mrs.) Juanita Ellis President ec: Service List in I)ocket Nos. 50-445 and 50-446 l
t s-l l
l i
~. _
_, _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _