ML20082J266

Forwards Data Responses to New Hampshire Yankee

ML20082J266
Person / Time
Site:	Seabrook
Issue date:	08/07/1991
From:	Rohrbach J NEW HAMPSHIRE, STATE OF
To:	Haffer E SHEEHAN, PHINNEY, BASS & GREEN, P.A.
References
NUDOCS 9108280016
Download: ML20082J266 (30)

Text

_ . _ _ _ _ _ - _ - _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __

t C- /

& q' j )? b-Tile STATE OF NEW ll AMI'81111tE IC)4/ M N

ck.

h@,&w!w+;%

5 h g

ointwa e Ativicor e g 9 wnm1 cout wi i: Al>Vf n C l Ml( HU 1 W IIIel MI 6 { j j *l hl % );t m.1 I;%

4

\ %Q'td i ?'[.y '

r i

OFFICE OF Tile CONSUME!! ADYOCATE a Ot.t> s t'Ncooli I:oAti CONrol:! , NI:W ll AMitilll:l' Ol mi W,

. m.

7 August 1991 Edward A. Haffer, Esq.

Sheehan Phinney ,

Bass + Green, PA 1000 Elm Street P.O. Box 3701 Manchester, NH 03105-3701 RE: NDFC 91-1 Dear Mr. Haffert I attach data responses to New Hampshire Yankee.

Sincerely, s*k, //$$ t + f John S. Rohrbach Econontist CC with enclosuret Parties of Record State Library State Treasurer 7

k P

Ob d [ , {

\

, /

/ I

e O a i i

i Data Responros of John S. Rohrbach, 1 l Office of th' Consumer Advocato  !

to New Hampshiro Yanhoe  ;

l l

1. On what basis do you considor Reference JSR-4 to bo the ,

" definitive v.srk on nuclear power economics"?

i Response: i It is my judgement from Dr. Heinno-Fry's charactorization of l the work of those that preceded him in that field. ,

l l

i e

h

?

I i

i J

f l

l l-  !

L i I I

e 9, r i

l Data Rosponses of John S. Rohrbach, 2 Of fice of the Constuner Advocate to llow }{ampshiro Yankeo  ;

}

I

2. Who developed the computer model that you chose to forecast ,

the life of Seabrook? l Responso The tnodel consists of throo parts, a data base, "KGWii.DAT" a }

SAS program, "liDFC.SAS", and a LOTUS spreadshoot, [

"SEADROOK.PROJ". The bulk of "KGWH.DAT" and "NDFC.SAS" was  !

constructed by Dr. Gono R. licinzo-Fry in partial fulfillment l of his PhD. dissertation at cornell. The data base,  !

"KGWil . DAT" , was eni.inced by my addition of reac ors entering  !

service betwoon 1985 and 1989 and updating generation thru [

1989 for all reactors- . I modified the SAS program, i "NDFC.SAS", to ruficct the functional form that is ombodied in  !

the independent variablea listed on page 37 and 38 of my f direct testimony. I constructed the spreadshoot forecasting i the life of Seabrook, SEABROOK.PROJ, using the coefficients  !

generated by KGWii.DAT and NDFC.SAS, as well as other inputs  !

discusced below in dhta responso #6. The UNil professionals  ;

cited in the acknowledgemont section arranged computer access,  !

somo SAS advico, and text editor and VAX assistanco. l

?

l h

t h

s t

I

, v ,

Data Responses of John S. Rohrbach, 3 .

Office of the Consumer Advocato I to New Hampshiro Yankoo ,

3. Has this computer model bcon used in a similiar application by any utility, industry, PUC or other official agency?

Response  ;

i Hot to my knowledge. .

I h

t h

i f

b l

l I

I b

k t

i

?

., . . - . - . _ - , . _ . -n , _. -,., vr-- .- . e r --

~

, o. i i

I Data Responses of John S. Rohrbach, 4 Office of the Consumer Advocato ,

to New Hampshiro Yankoo i

4. please describe in narrative form, how cach of the independent variables listed on page 37 and 38 of the direct testimony can affect the forecasted life of a nuclear power plant as  !

determined by the computer model described therein.

Responses >

Each of the indopondent variablos on pago 37 and 38 of tho direct testimony affect the predicted yearly capacity factor

("CF") of a given nuclear power plant, derived after each indopondent variablo is calculated for a given year. When the i sum of these variables is negative, it implies that a plant is no longer operating. The independent variables listed here (some discussed with their coefficients and their " signs") are i ombodied in NDFC.SAS and generated by the interaction of that program and the data base KGWH.DAT and NDFC.SAS. The independent variables can affect predicted capacity factors

("CF"), and by extension the forecasted life of a nuclear power plant, as follows:

GW' 5* AGE - 1,000 MW clectric power, Design Electric Rating (squaro-root of)

• Ago affects product of squarc-root of the plant's GW and ago. Assuming no chango in the Design Electric Rating of the plant, each extra -

year of plant ago predicts a lower CF of 1.58 percent.

GW".5 1,000 MW clectric power, Design Electric Rating, square-root of.

affects increase-in square root of GW increases the yearly CF-by the product of the GW'.5

• 1.3256. Since a plant's Design Electric Rating of the plant is usually constant, this variable usually has a level impact on CF's over time.

1-

. . . _ ._~ . - . . _ . _ _ , _ . . - _ , . . . . - . _ . _ _ . . _ . _ . . ~ . . _ _ . . . . , , . . . . , . . . _ . . - .

s O, I

,, Data Responses of John S. Rohrbach, 5 i office of the Consumer Advocato  ;

to Now Hampshire Yankoo AGE'.5 squarc-root of ago affect: As age of the plant increases, the contribution by the square-root of ago to the yearly capacity f actor (CF) increases by the product of .6115

• squaro-root of ago.

DIR TMI Direct Threo-Mile Island-("TMI") Effects 1.1'1979-Year, if Year > 1978,- O otliorwise; affects- the farther from- 1979- a reactors performanco is forecasted, the greator damponing of an influence on CF's the Thrco Mile Island incident is presumed to be. For examplo, Soo: Referer.co JSR-4 0 page 25-26. "A direct of f act was modelled by 1 1("1979-Yoar) (after 1978), _for an offact in 1986-half of 1979's."

errata: note that the power is 1.1 for- the Direct TMI offect and 1.3 for the Indirect TMI Effect. This corrects the transposition in direct testimony which had the 1.3 for the Direct TMI offect and 1.1 for the Indirect TMI Effect. The SAS - program -

NDFC.SAS contains the correct powers for those two independent variables.

TMI NDIR Indirect TMI Effects 1.3'1979-Yoar if reactor. = TMI 1/2 and Year > 1978, otherwiso_0:

affects the farther from 1978 a reactors performanco is-forecasted, the greater damponing ' of an influence on CF's the Three Mile Island incident is presumed to

-be. See Reference JSR-4 @ pago 26: "An-E indirect effect, on the U.S. nuc1 car l power industry, was 1.3' 1979-Year, for a L 1986 offect 16% of the 1979 offect."

l

, c1 ,

a Data Rosponses of John S. Rohrbach, 6 Cffice of the Consumer Advocato

':o New Hampshire yankee 1

l l

OIL (COMPETITION)

Located in an area whero 011 competos  !

with Nuclear Power and vice versa (i.e.,  !

NEPOOL, PJM and NY Power Pools); CA, FL-affects if in area served by NEPOOL, PJM and Ny l Power Pools [or CA, FL), CF's decrease by j

.8866 percent por year. l GW 1,000 MW clectric power, Design Electric ,

Rating affect: Increase in design electric rating GW decreases yearly CF by a factor of tho ,

plant's 1,000 MW (DER) * .10298. i MULT (UNITS) M f_ a multiplo unit affects if and only if more than. one unit on l location, an increaso in square root of GW increases'the yearly CF by the product of the GW'. 5

• 1.3256.

1 1

NONLWR iff not a Boiling Water Reactor-("BWR")

nor a Pressurized Water Reactor ("PWR")

affect the per-year negative influence on a f reactor's capacity factor is- 18.03 percent i f and oniv if the reactor is a not a Boiling Water Reactor ("BWR") nor a Pressurized Water' Reactor ("PWR").

r MFRIAGE*.5 _

Aff the manuf acturer's- first commercial-

reactor in. data-base affects the per-year negativo -influence on a t reactor's capacity factor is 12.296.  ;

percent if and only if the reactor is the  !

manufacturer's first - commercial reactor in-KGWH.DAT.

• e - +- .w.,--ee.egege..a s.-et - ww.- .w,e...'w-e,.- a , e -. -....w.w.+,,,,

. re v,,,ev.--,,wwww.,y,,,,,.ww . s y,,,,-...er,e.,...-r- . ..---,~,.w,y,,- ..,.,ry-s r,,,---e, g.

Data Responsos of John S. Rohrbach, 7 Offico of the Consumor Advocato to Now Hampshiro Yankoo C.O.DATE* AGE'.5 Commercial Operation Dato

• squaro-root of ago affects greator squaro-root ago, or later Commercial Operation Dato, or combination of both, decreases. CF by that product * -

.09937.-

"MOSTEXP" orratas not SELF-BILD affects if and only if the reactor is operated by one of the following utilitics:

Connonwealth . Edison, Duke Powor, _the Tonnesco Valley Authority, Florida Power and Light, Virginia Electric Powor or Northern States Power, the por-year

-negativo influence on a reactor's capacity factor is .041636 percent.

BILD'.5 Squaro-root of 1985 $/ watt to build, including AFUDC affects the per-year positive influence on a reactor's capacity factor is .2271

• the reactor's square-root of 1985 $/ watt to build, including AFUDC.

PROBLEMS adjusted years to builds.

Years (C.P. - C.O.)/

(GWi".358 * [l+ SUM GWj)^.185)_

where:

C.P. = construction permit application date-(xx.xx)

C.O. = commercial operation dato (xx.xx)

GW1 = GW(DER) of Scabrook' SUM GWj = GW of all US oporating power-reactors, after roactor's first electricity _

affect each additional year to _ build _ implies decreased _por-year capacity factor of 7.342 porcont.

, e ,

Data Responses of John S. Rohrbach, 8 Office of the Consumer Advocate to New Hampshiro Yankee AGE Years (xx.xx) from first electricity (in some instances from first commercial operation for selected reactors commencing service past Diablo Canyon Unit 2 in KGWH.DAT) affects as ago increases, a greater negative <

impact of age on capacity factors is predicted by this variable.

VINTAGE Commercial Operation date - S7 affect: 1.tc later a reactor enters service, the greater negative effect in indicated by this variable.

SALT

• AGE iff condensor is Salt water cooled I (includes tidal portions of rivers)

• affects the negative influence on a reactor's i

capacity f actor is .007139*the age of the reactor, if and only if the reactor is a salt water cooled reactor. Thorofore, as age increases, this coefficient forecasts a greater joint impact of salt and age on capacity factors.

CA* AGE iff located in CA aficct: if and only if in CA, then the ageing of CA reactors detracts f rom CF by .013492

• the age of the reactor. Therefore, as ago increases, this variable forecasts a greator negative interactive impact of location in CA and age on capacity factors. It must be stressed that this variabic would be indicated only if the reactor was located in CA. ,

F h

i

. I

, O ,

w l

Data Responses of John S. Rohrbach, 9 r Offico of the Consumer Advocato to New Hampr. hire Yankco i

t OPEXP = US OPERATOR EXPERIENCE F Sum of US nuclear power industry reactor I years of generating experience, minus i retired reactors.  !

I affects adds to each years capacity factor by l

! .000555

• Reactor Years of Industry i Experienco

• - l Prospective US operating experienco is a i proxy for " learning" and is a based on  !

Heinzo-Fry forecast of Cumulativo Reactor b Years of Industry Experience, i.o., the l far right. column of Appendix C-1 of i Reference JSR-4: Heinze-Fry, G.R. (1989)

J "The Economics of Nuclear Power Plants as i They Age: Production (Capacity Factorn),  !

Variable Costs, and Retiremont" PhD.- }

Dissertation, Cornell University. I t

B&W* AGE iff Babcock and WilcoX NSSS affects if and only if a B&W reactor, then the j ageing- of B&W reactors affect CF's by  ?

.007862 *- the age of the reactor. l f

AGE ' . 5]}$ iff a BWR  !

affects if and only if a BWR ' reactor, then the }

ageing-of BWR reactors, measured by the r square root of ago, decreases the yearly  :

CF by the product of the AGE'.5 * -

l

.039549. l 1

?

POP'.5 square root of 1980 Metro -(County)- i population sign:

l I affects as county population increases, CF-aro  ;

affected by the square root of population -i I * .001582 }

i i

{

i

,s ,

Data Responson of John S. Rohrbach, 10 Office of the consumer Advocato to New Hampshiro Yankoo YANKEE _ DETAIL:

AGE *.5 affect: An increase in the square-ro;t of age of the Yankoo Roactor in question affects the yearly CF by the product of .059430

• squaro-root of ago.

GW'.5* AGE affect: For the YANKEE reactor in question, product of squaro-root of it's GW and- the ago decreases CF * .019358 SALT-affects for thoso YANKEE reactor (s) that are SALT water coolod, the yearly CF is increased by this. coefficient.

BWR* AGE".5 affects for thoso YANKEE reactor (s) that are BWR's, squaro-root of ago incrouses the yearly CF.

-~

f:

Data Responses of John S. Rohrbach, 11 Offico of the Consumer Advocato I to New flampshiro Yankco i

5. Please comment on the significance and reliability of tho  ;

capacity factor model results for Seabrook with an R-squared  !

coefficient of 0.4'i (Sco Exhibit JSR-3)?  !

Response

I 47 percent appears good for pooled cross occtional and time series data In A Guido to Econometrics (Reference JSR-20, Kennedy, P. -

(1979) A Guide to Econometrics Cambridge, MA:

~

MIT ,

Press.), Kennedy states on pago 25 @ 2.4 l "What is a high R [^2]? There is no generally ,

accepted answer to this question. In dealing with times series data, very high R(^2)s are not l unusual, due to common trends. Amos and Reitor l (1961) found, for example, that on averago tho  ;

R(~2] of a relationship betwoon a randomly chosen i variablo and its own value lagged one period is about 0.7, and that an R( *2] in excess of 0.5 could <

be obtained by selecting an economic timo series i and regressing it against two to six other randomly  !

selected economic timo scrics. For cross sectional l data, typical R(~2] are not nearly so  !

hAl}"( Emphasis supplied, JSR) ,

t t

b i

i f

I r

I i

i I

l I

, G ,

Data Responses of John S. Rohrbach, 12 Cffice of the Consumer Advocate to New Hampshire Yankee x

6. Please provido all documentation on the capacity f actor model used to project a 24-year life for Seabrook?

Response

1980 metro population of Seabrook: 190 (See Heinze-Fry Appendix for Seabrook)

Cost to Build: = $ 7,000,000,000 (estimate) construction permit = December 1974, i.e. 1974.92 (Jim Rodier, NH PUC Staff) commercial operation = June 1990 Months elapsed: = 201 years: cp-co = 16,75 cp = construction permit co = commercial operation

$/ watt (1990) = 7,000,000,000/1,175,000

= 5957.4468 Vintage = 1990.5 (YEAP. MONTH [ NEAREST .5)

ENTER COMMERCIAL OPERATION)

Note: All other inputs are subsumed into the independent variables.

t

,_ , _ -_. . . __. . . _ ._m __ _ _. . __ _ . _ _ _ __ _

- >. 4 ,

Data Responses of-John ~S. Rohrbach, 13 office of-the Consumer Advocate

-to New Hampshire-Yankee

7. Over the 24-year life you have projected for Seabrook, based on your model results, what is the lifetime capacity factor?

Response

It is 47.7 percent for the years 1992 to 2014.

• mWf s> fe--s+r- v W,9- .+- pe,-ww- g-y ew,~e--m-,qyy- g u-4r stamgm wm 4 sem + 4-gy

. 6 .

Data Responses of John S. Rohrbach, 14 Office of the Consumer Advocate to New Hampshire Yankee

8. Using the appropriate inputs that would have been applicable to the Yankee Rowe plant at the beginning of its operating life, what would be the forecasted life and the predicted capacity factor estimate by year using your model.

Response

Such an analysis is possible and results in a capacity f actor profile and foreacasted life as attached. However, such an analysis is meaningless and econometrically inappropriate given that the functional form embodied in NDFC.SAS and SEABROOK.PROJ assumes " learning" (via "OPEXP") reactor to reactor as a function of time. Therefore to forecast the performance of Rowe from the beginning of its operating life with the data base used for the 1586 reactor years of experience incorporated into the Seabrook life forecast (i.e.

"KGWH.DAT") would do so with the positive time-dependent experiences or all reactors commencing operations past the beginning of operations at Rowe. To properly forecast Rowe would entail excluding all reactors past the commencement of operations, i.e. , the only reactors in the data base would be Shippingport and Dresden I. There are not enough data points in that set to accurately estimate-the performance of Rowe, and even if there were, the sample f rom which the coefficients were generated would be different from KGWH.DAT.

I would note that Dr. Heinze-Fry, in Reference JSR-4, predicts the last year of operations at Rowe to be 2000 (see: page F-7), and the levelized capacity factor to be 81.71 percent (see: page 72).

. 6 .

Data Responses of John S. Rohrbach, 15 office of the Consumer Advocate to New Hampshiro Yankee

9. Some of the power reactors used in the capacity factor modeling data base (KGWH.DAT, see Exhibit JSR-1) were demonstration / prototype reactors. Specific examples are Haddam (sic), Pathfinder and Peach Bottom I. These and some of the older vintage plants in the KGWH.DAT data base have little in common with Seabrook. What is the justification of using this data which is not representative of Seabrook to project Seabrook's capacity factor?

Response

Hallam and Pathfinder collectively operated for four years and therefore do not contribute much t. the coefficient generating process. Peach Bottom I, wh 7.h operated for 7 years, is not in the data base, KGWH.DAT, Exhibit JSR-1.

Any other " older vintage" reactors in KGWH.DAT nevertheless is US experience. A question might be on what basis should, if any, reactors be excluded from the forecast of seabrook's life. Acknowledgeing the speculative nature of forecasts, the choice f aced by the NDFC is between a reactor life forecast not based on US experience and one that is.

l l

L l

l l

, o .

Data Responses of John S. Rohrbach, 16 Office of the Consumer Advocate to New Hampshire Yankee

10. Please provide the basis for the statement on page 5 that "in the latter years of operation, US nuclear capacity factors

( " Ch'" ) generally decline."

Response

See Dr. Heinze-Fry, Reference JSR-4, attached, @ page 39:

" Aging is the contral fact in understanding nuclear reactor performance. Simple graphs of nucicar capacity factors against age indicate that, on average, CF's increase initially. After 5-13 years of age, CF's decrease. CF's average above zero at least through ago 24, and perhaps longer. However, a significant fraction of reactors have closed permanently by age 24. Peak performance is generally during ages 4-12."

. = .

Data Responses of John S. Rohrbach, 17 office of the Consumer Advocate to New Hampshire Yankee

11. What do you mean by the " quadrennial adjustment process" noted on page 13.

Response

The process whereby the Seabrook decommissioning fund is adjusted approximately every four years.

It may produce inequity in that:

"As costs change, the annual payments embodied in any funding mechanism will have to be changed commensurately.

If we assume that cost changes will inevitably be in the direction of higher costs than estimated, later customers would be required to pick up a proportionately greater share of the costs, other things being equal." (Robert C.

Wood, NRC Staff, quouted in Payment Due A Reactor-by-Reactor Assessment of the Nuclear Industry's $ 25+

Billion Decommission Bill) l

. n .

Data Responses of John S. Rohrbach, 18 office of the Consumer Advocate i

to New Hampshire Yankee

12. On page 24, in footnote 52, you state that " ...the $ 139 number appears inadequate for planning purposes." Do you mean by this that $ 139 is inadequate only if New Hampshire "goes it alone" and all decommissioning LLW must be disposed of at a New Hampshire Disposal Facility? If you mean something else, would you please explain.

Response

The statement "

...the $ 139 number appears inadequate for planning purposes.", reflects a likely aysymmetry in disposal prices that is likely to occur, a f actor that is not reflected in the simple averaging of the four scenarios envisioned by Mr. Vance. At this point in time the probability of NH " going it alone" appears greater than the other options (Rocky Mountain, Southwest, Northeast, Average Size Compact, New Hampshire) listed on page 2-10 of the Vance study.

Data Responses of John S. Rohrbach, 19 Office of tne Consumer Advocate i to New Hampshire Yankee

13. On page 32 you state that you endorse the use of a 14.51% as escalation for LLW disposal. Do you believe that compounding of the escalation at 14.51% should begin at the 1989 Beatty base rate of $ 30.11 per cubic foot or at $ 139 per cubic foot?

Response

The question is unclear, though I believe the answer is neither. The 14.51 percent escalation rate for LLW disposal, which differs from Mr. Wright's suggested overall cost escalation rate by 2.51 percent, is based at the recent experience (i.e. the average of 5 and 10 compound annual growth rates) at Beatty and should be used for Fund planning purposes.

I

. o .

Data Responses of John S. Rohrbach, 20 Office of the Consumer Advocate i to New Hampshire Yankee Does your suggestion on page 44 that RSA 162-F be amended to 14.

require the NDFC to certify that NHY, when it files its " Plan" with the NRC, has chosen the "least cost decommissioning method" mean that you believe that the NDFC should not be allowed to take any other factors into account?

Response

No. My suggestion on page 44 should be viewed as one that gives the NDFC maximum latitude as to what costs (e.g.,

environmental externalities) should be considered in evaluating the different decommissioning methods.

please note that Reference JSR-10 in footnote 101 of Mr.

Rohrbach's testimony should be Reference JSR-15, i.e.:

for instance, the NDFC may wish to include the occupational exposure arising f rom the dif ferent method.s.

A more complete [ list) is available in Reference JSR-15, available upon request from the OCA. See: Cost Study @

page 60 for the ManRem for each alternative: DECON =

4410.7; SAFSTOR = 265.5

)

. i. .

1 Data Responses of John S. Rohrbach, 21 office of the Consumer Advocate to New Hampshire Yankee i

15. Please provide copies of the following testimony references JSR-4, JSR-5, JSR-6, JSR-15, JSR-18, JSR-20, JSR-21, JSR-22.

Response

Reference JSR-4 Heinze-Fry, G.R. (1989) "The Economics of Nuclear Power Plants as They Age:

Production (Capacity Factors), Variable Costs, and Retirement" PhD.

Dissertation, Cornell University.

Due to it's bulk, a copy of this reference is being supplied only to Counsel for NHY and the Chairman of the Nuclear Decommission Finance Committee, c/o NH Public Utilities commission. The Of fice of the Consumer Advocate houses a copy of this reference.

Other parties wishing to view a copy of Reference JSR-4 may de so at the NH Public Utilities Commission or at the Office of the Consumer Advocate.

The following references are atuached:

Reference JSR-5 Cantor, R.A. (1991) " Applying Construction Lessons To Decommissioning Estimates" The Fnergy Journal Vol. 12, Ch. 8 Reference JSR-6 Heinze-Fry, G.R. (1991) " Decommissioning Cost Experience and Cost Estimates For U.S. Reactors" The Energy Journal Vol.

12, Ch. 7 Reference JSR-15 Ottinger, R.L. et. al. (1990)

Environmental Costs of E1cetricity New York: Oceana, pages 383-393.

Reference JSR-18 Standard and Poor's Corporation: Credit Week, " Nuclear Power: Future Boon or Boondoggle" 27 May 1991, pages 8-9.

_. . . __ . _ . . _ . - -_ _~ - _. - _ . _ -__

,,r.

-Data Responses of John S. Rohrbach, 22 office of-the Consumer Advocate to New. Hampshire Yankee Reference JSR-22 Wood, R. (1991) " Federal Regulation of Decommissioning Economics" The Energy Journal Vol.-12, Ch. 4

-Reference JSR-22[b] " Initial and Final Estimates of Construction Cost for U.S. Nuclear Units in Commercial Operation as of December 31, 1988" FAX Transmission from J.

Hewlett to J. Rohrbach.

The following references are textbooks which due to their bulk, are being - made' available at the office of . secretary (Ms. Claire Dicicco) of. the Chairman of the Nuclear Decommission Finance Committee, c/o NH Public Utilities Commission. They are also typically available at a university bookstore _ or university library.

Reference JSR-20 Kenr.sdy, P. (1979) A_ Guide to Econometrics Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Reference JSR-21 Pindyck R. - and D. Rubinfeld (1981)

Econometric Models and Economic Forecasts, 2nd Edition, McGraw Hill.

l L

L i

I

$r-^ er - . wW W w$=

c 4

t  :

NDCF 91-1 .... meaningless /nri Betas changed, not enough df CF (DER) FORECAST S&W):

Reactor _ - YANKEE ROWE (Westinghouse PWRi A/E ,

I

$ /wa t t '( 1990 ) . . . . . . . . . . . O.0007372973 sq. rt. $/ watt.......... 0.0271532189 O.48 sector GWe G ist elect.. 1957,17 construction permi t . . . . -

int. commercial elec.., .

1961.46 51.48 months ofapsed.......... 12 months / year ........., .

4.29 years cp - co.......... 1961.46 54 1957 1960 est.-ROWE metro pop. 4 46 7.340 sq.-rt. name...........,

GW DER......... O.19

-O.43 1.224744G714 sq.=rt.-same..... 3 4 Vintage...-............=> 1961 Year.................,=> 1960 i

0.5 1. 5 Age...................=> 19 18 Yes. from TMI-2.......u>

" BETAS" -0,176 intercept --0,1758 -0.176

-0,003 -0,010 gw5 age. -0.015816 0.570-gwc 5 der 1.325634 0.570

-0,042 -0,073 yankages -0.05943 0.749 ageOS 0.61155 O.306 0.000 0,000 l

Dir-TMI -0,634052

-0.081 0.000 0.000 Indir-TMI -0.009 l

oil competes

-0.008966 -0.009

-1.02 -0,189 -0.189 g w._d er -

l 0.0374 mult~-unita non1we -0,1803 0.000 0,000 bildOS- c.O'02271

-.mf r iage5 -0,054 codtage5 -0.009Y -0.031 ll

! selfbild -0,054 -0,054 problems --0,007342

-0.09794 -0.049 -0.147 age- -0.029 vintage- -0.009743 -0.029 0.000 0.000 salt

• age CA* age 0,002 0.004 US OPEXP 0.000555 L

B&W*ago Age 05bwr- -0,012- -0,012-metropop5 -Q.001582- -0.012 0.019000 0.004 yankgw5 age bwr5 yank 55,9636%

0.4847264449 CF._ DER => 28.8827% .

HO r-f!

I 2.121 2.345 1.e71 1*581 6.00 7.00 8.00 r !,, 1963 1964 196s 3.50 4.s0 s.s0

, ,_;; 15.00 14.00

~'

t 7, {30 16.00

-0.17s -0.176 -0.176 1_'6 _g,g3g _g,g37

-0.024

~9

-o * ?!,l,'

0' U

0.s70 0.sv0

-0,126 0.s70

-0.139

~

_O[111 1 144 1.297 1.434

_0,009 -0.009 -0. *9

- ,189

-?. *9

-U.189

-0,169 -0*199 0.000 0.000 O.000 0 000

-0,083 -0.094 -0.104

-0.070 l

-0.013 0.013 -0.013 i s';'054 -0,441 -0.539

-0.343

~ k,'~43 -0.029 3

f9 -0,029 -0.029

,,3 0. *0

0. *0 0. 0*

_0,0&3

0. *9 0.013 0.016 0,00s

-0.012 -0.012

-0.012

-0.012 1 76.2590% 77.4907,?

73.6207%

64.94143

.to l

./

.i I .

l

/

I i

3.240 3.002 13.00 I 2.915 12.00 2.550 2.739 11.00 N['

10.00 N?

l

' 9.00 1968 O 1967 6'00 1966 10'00 I

6.50 7.50 11*'"?

12.00 -Cl 1 {61 13.00 0,176

-0.176 l -0. 176

-0.06S, -';>'

<.O' . y, j,O 0.176 -0,059

-0.051 O . -c,70 0.570 -0.3e3 i

-0.044 0.r,0 a

-0 leg. I * < 3 '"

0. ,a t o -0,173

-0.163 1*68D

.,. 0 . 1 5 2 1.793 t,337 1.675 '

! - 0 C"9

-0.009 -0.109 i

\

-O.009 -0.189

-0,009 -0.009 -0. lee?

0,199 -0.139 l

g ,,

-0.143

-0.136 g ,

-0,129

-0.121 -0.013

-0,i13

-0,013 -0.013 -1.028

[

' -0,013

-0.632 -0.930

-0,013 'O.029

-0 637 -0.735 -0.029 0,000 ~<.w9>

• 9 )O

-0,029 -J.029 0.000 I

l 0,000 0.000 O.043 l

0.035 O.029 i

0.020 C.025

~ '

~0' l l

-0*012 I -0,012 -0.012 i 7b. ** *  ;

77.3414N 77,79923 l

l i

l i

l

d

.~

e.

~~

u, 3

,g,d.

(N w' . -:=

7.w .s

)

.)

) 3.391 3,536 3.674 3.800 3.937 14.00 15.00 16.00 17.00 18.00 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 11.50 12.50 13.50 14.50 15.50 8.00 7.00 6.00 5.00 4.00

-0,176 -0,176 -0.176 -0,176 -0.176

-0,078 -0.OG5 -0,092 -0,099 -0.105 0.570 0,570 0.570 0.570 0.570

-0,202 -0,210 -0.218 -0,226 -0.234 2.074 2.162 2.247 2.329 2.408

-0.009 -0,009 -0,009 -0.009 -0.009

-0.189 -0.189 -0.189 -0,189 -0,189 0.000 0,000 0.000 0.000 0.000

-0,150 -0.156 -0.162 -C.16G -0,174

-0,013 -0,013 -0.013 -0,013 -0,013

-1.126 -1.224 -1.322 -1.420 -1.518

-0. 02(? -0,029 -0,029 -0.029 -0,029 0.000 0,000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.053 0.065 O.002 0.105 0,133

-0.012 -0.012 -0.012 -0.012 -0.012 71.4028'; 69.4947" 67.7631% 66.4144% 65.3072%

HO

,. _. ..._.._._~._... ._ _ ..-.-.___.-._. m..._____ _ ___ ._ _ m._._.___.. _.___.

-g b

i.

to ,

i 4

Y "TMI" 4.301 4.416 4.528 4.062 4.183~

23.00  ;

19.00 20.00 21.00 22.00 1977 1978 1979 1980 1976 16.50 17.50 18.50 19.50 20.50 1.00 0,00 -1.00 l 3.00 2.00 I

-0.176 -0,176 -0,176 -0.176

-0.176 -0,133 -0,139

-0,112 -0,119 -0,126 0.570 0.570 0.570 --0.570 0.570- '

-0.249 -0,256 -0.262- -0.269

-0.241 2.769 2.484 2.558 2.630 2.701

-0,697 -0.634 -0.576

-0.105 -0,081 -0.062

-0,009 -0.009 -0.009 -0,009 -0.009

-0,189 -0,189 -0.189 -0.189

-0.1G9 0.000 .0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000

-0,179 -0.!85 -0,190 -0,195 -0.200

-0,013 -0.01'3 -0.013 -0,013 -0.013

-1.714 -1 '12 -1.9'.0 -2.008

-1.616 -0,029 -0,029

-0,029 -0,029 -0.029 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.236 0.274 0. 3 *.1

0.164 0.199

-0.012. -0.012 -0.012 -0. M 2 - --0.012

- 64.2574%- 63.4198% -17,6508% -9.7533% -3.2077'4 e

f '

I I

~ . _ _ _ . . _ , . . .

f~ .' 4

+

, ._~

i 4.848 4.950 5.050 4.637 4.743 28,00 ,

26.00 27.00 24.00 25.00 1984 1985 1983 1981 1982 I 21,50- 22,50 23.50 24,50 25.50 *

-4.00 ~5,00 -6,00

-2.00 ~3.00

-0.176 -0.176 -0,176

-0.176 -0.176

-0,146 -0,153 -0.160 -0.167 -0.173 C.570 0,570 c.570 C.570

-0.570 -0,294 -0,300 f -0,276 -0,282 -0.288

-2.836 2.901 2.965 3.027 3.088

-0,433 -0.394 -0,350 i- -0,524 -0.476-i -'

-0.037 -0.028 -0.022 -0.017

-0.048- -

-0,009 -0.009 -0.009

~0.009 -0.009

-0,189. -0,189 -0.189 j

- -0.189 -0,189 0,000 0.000 C.000 -0,000 C.000

-0.205 -0.209 -0.214= -0.219 -0.223 1:

-0,013 -0,013 -0,013 -0,013

- -0,013

-2,106 - -2.204 -2,302 -2.400 -2.497

-0,029 -0.029 -0,029 -0,029

-0.029 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0,390 C.428 0.473 0,521 C.349_

-0.012 -0.012 -0.012- -0.012-

-0.012 2.3960%- . 7.2494% 11.1129% -14.8719%- 18.4219%

-,-.c -,,wrr.r--4.,-,m.w..,v,r,,y.-,,,,,-4.-ym,n.c....~,,--r-,m,v.y.,-,..m.-e.,,%.r,,,,,,r--c--,4+w,e~.e<ew-w-+-m-,-*-v

-w w -- e--ve - ,e

• ee -

rn-

. .e' -

5.148 5.244_ 5.339 5.431 29.00 30.00 31.00- 32.00  ;

1986; 1987 -1988- 1989 26,50- 27.50 28.50 29,50

-7.00 -8.00' '-9.00_ -1O.00 ,

->0.176 -0.176 -0.176 -0.176

-0,180 -0.187 -0.194 -0.201 0.570 0.570 0.570 0.570

--0,306 -0,312 -0.317 -0.323 r

3.148 3.207 3.265 3.322

-0.325 -0.296 -0.269 -0.244

-0.008 -0.006 }

-0.013 -0.010  !

-0.009 -0,009 -0.009 -0.009

-0,189 -0.189 -0.189- -0.189 O.000 0.000 0.000 C.000

-0,227 -0.232 -0.236 -0,240

--0.013 -0.013 -0.013 -0.013 *

-2.595 -2.693 -2.791 -2.839

-0,02V -0,029 -0,029 -C.029 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000

=0.530 0.586- 0,651 0.713

-0,012 -0.012- -0.012 -0.012 17.3812% 20.7157% 24.48537 27.4539%

t 4'

4 0

t i

r * * - - 4 -- ..m, - - < e,<<++--+ < , -----J--,.----*- .+w---- 4--~--* -- - - - - - - - ~ , - - - < - ~ ~ ~ - - - - - < - - - - - -