ML20136C756
| ML20136C756 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Allens Creek File:Houston Lighting and Power Company icon.png |
| Issue date: | 09/18/1979 |
| From: | Baker B AFFILIATION NOT ASSIGNED |
| To: | |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7910160065 | |
| Download: ML20136C756 (4) | |
Text
.
U:TITED STATES OF A:IEUCA
- 'UCLIM REGULCO.Tl CC:C"ISSIC:!
EESPEg SEP1e19g TC: Secretary of the Commission LOCKEm :70. 50-466 U.S. Ituelear Regualtery Cc==ission In the Matt:r of Uashington, D.C.
20555 Eouston Lighting and Fower C CE"E7 (A *^
=2 1**#
Al"N Oceketing and NRC PUBLIC DCCU,ENIC pyggting Station, Unit 1)
Services 3 ranch 9
Contentions #1 & y2 of 3ryan L. 3aker Cc=es now 3ryan L. 3aker, granted stcnding by the Licensing Scard as an intervenor in the =atter of AC!GS 1 (August 1,1979), to present centsntiens as required by said 3 card.
CC:TTE!TICH #1:
Petitioner contends that the ap;11 cant does not =eet the require ents of 10 C?2 2.104 (b)(1)(dj(iii) and of 10 CFR 50.33(f) that it show that it has sufficient funds available for constru. tion of AC:!GS or that it has " reasonable V
assurance" of obtaining such funds, or co=bination of the two.
Although cy argu=ent could have been =ade in 1978 using info nation available then, I have 3
opted to use the most recent available infer:stion as more relevant to the current proceedings.
- 17 argu=ent relies largely on information contained in HIa?'s rate-hike application now pending before ths Texas ?ublic Utilities Co==icsion (?UC),
which gives the cost co:plete and current picture of the applicant's financial health.
Therein, applicant stat s that it requires a rate-base increase of 179 cillion dollars in order to finance its a bitious crash progra: of power plant construction.
The estimated total cost of new 2.cilities, including ACN33, is said to be 3 9 billion dollars, with 1 7 billion to be spent by 1981 (testi beny of D.D. Jerian, Ela? rate-hike applicatien, p. 6).
Thors is reason to believe that this figure is actually t:o low, as I will explain later.
Applicant does not anywhere clai: to have these funds on hand, so the question of financial qualifications, as cutlined under 10 C73 50.33(f), becc=es a questien of whether or not applicant has "rea: enable assuran e" of obtaining this large amount of =eney.
A;plicant 's FCC rate-hike application zakes clear that their enly hope of obtaining such funds is te include 100% of Constructicn Works In Progress (C'G) and Nu dear ?uel in Frecess ( TFI?)in the rate lase, i.e.,
to get the c u rent ratepayers to finance plants which a.re not yet producing electri al.ty.
This is a continuing theme in the rate-hiks application, but the cc pany's position is stated =est succinctly in the testimony of its cc=ptroller Steve Letbetter:
"As a =inimum, the level of CUI? and N7!? in rate lase should be the a: cunt required to maintain the Co:pany's financial intepity.
As Schedule P indicates, 100% inclusien is required to produce results which :culd enable the Co pany to achieve its financial integrity require =ents."
(Testi=cy of Letbetter, p.7, e=phasis added)
Later, Mr. Letbetter states:
" Construction expenditures in 1950 will be 2.r greater than the current level, but hopefully, i
with 100% of cur C'O in rate base, u4t will be in 2 positien to weather ne serious financial burdens pladed en the Cc=pany."
(Letbetter, p. 30, emphasis added) 06' j47
]64 7910160 G-4
3ryan L. Baker COMTIUTICH i!1 (cont.)
)
f ' ;4 l Docket # 5c 46o j
l 9r
}
c,#
Ai [
^
~
Petitioner centends that such "he;efulness" en the part of the applicant scarcely constitutes the " reasonable assurance" of financial integrity outlined in 10 CER 50.33(f), since by applicant's own admissien such assurance is depen:ient on the reco=mendations of the state PUC.
This body (the ?UC:) dealt a severe blow to a;;11 cant's " hopes" in Ucvember cf 1978 by granting only a fra etien (339 million) of the rate increase which applicant said it required; it is for this reason (according to cover letter of D.D. Jor:ian) that appli-cant seeks another rate increase this year even though the PUC's own rules of precedure allow such a request only every two years.
PUC counsel has reco-m= ended against appliaant's request already.
Additionally, the City of Houston's consulting fir = on this matter, Touche Ross of Dallas, has very recently reco-
~
- nended that applicant get only 43 =illion of its requested 179 =illion dollar increase in rate base.
(Houston Fost, Sept. 14, :979)
Finally, it should be noted that even if applicant gets all of its hoped-for C7I? and ITFI?, a substantial portion of it will have to cover cost overruns at its South Texas Project already under construction and will therefore be unavailable f;or use at ACNGS.
I base this assertion en applicant's figure of l.6 billion dollars as the construction cost of STP 1 & 2 (from rate-hike appli-(
cation), which is the figure upon which applicant bases its CiE? require =ents,
(
and the recent disclosure by 3rown & Rect that the latest cost estimate for both these units is now of the order:of 2 4 billion dollars.
Applicant's share of this 800 million dollar discrepancy (30.6% or approximately 250 million dollars)
I will cut substantially into the one billion dellars it says it requires for construction of ACNGS, even if the FUC grants applicant 100% of CWI?.
Petitioner asks that the Licensing 3 card not leck upon applicant's " hope-fulnesc" of obtaining 100% of C;C? as "reasenable assurance" of having suffi-cient Funding, but instead require that applicant obtain securs fugding from a private source to be repaid when electricity is available frem ACUGS.
Alter-natively, applicant should be required to make some showing that the PUC and the various local gover.1=ents which represent the interests of the ratepayers are willing to make a clear cecnitment to pr6 vide applicant with all the con-struction funds (including such cost increases as may be required in the future) that it =ay need threugh assured inclusion of l'.C% of C;TI? and :TFI? in the rate base.
Failing either of thase g als, construction permit shoul:1 be denied for failure to satisfy requirements of 10 CFR 50 33(f).
(Petitionerrecognisesthatconclusiensceffrningfutureactionsofthe e
PU are semewhat speculative, but contends that applicant's assu=ptionsof a favorable disposition by the PUC is also speculative.
The FUC begins its hearings en Sept. 27, so the situation vill be clearer by the time of the Special Frchearing Ocnference.
I file this cententien now in order to
=ect the Sept. 14 dea:iline set by the 3caini, and intend to keep the Board posted en relevant developments ad they become kncwn to :e.)
CCECICU d 2 Petitioner contends that applicant has skewed its cost-benefit an:. lysis (S.10.4.1.1 of the Final Envirenssntal Statement (FES)) and its consideratien of an alternative energy source (A;;endix S.D. of FIS) in favor of nuclear generatien of electricity.
Specifically, petitioner contends that a;;11 cant's assertien that ACNGS can be errected to curate at an avarage :f 30% of design capacity represents a gross distorti:n ef'thi actual record of nuclear power j
?, -
1 g
I
Bryan L. Eaker CO :T::: TION /2 (cont.)
Docket 350-466
,, ~ *,
. plants, e$pecially of th dismal reliability of GI's 3 oiling ' Tater Reactors
( 3'.T2s).
Since applicant gives no basis for its optimistic assumption of an 8C% capacity factor, peti:icner sn enly assume that it is an article of faith which is nocessary in ord-r to meet the require:c.e.ts et 10 CE. 2.104 (b)(3) and : ??A 102(2)(A,',, a E).
Petitioner contends that an exasinati:n of the record cf nucler.: power plants, as reported to the ;IC and :*20, vou~d giva a more reasonable idea of the perfe= ance f ACNGS, and that such data should therefore be ussd in lieu of ap;11 cant's hypotheticql 8C$ capacity facor.
Charles K:canoff and liancy A. 3czer,in their " Nuclear plant Performace/ Updates
!ata Through ';ece=ber 31, 1975'.' havs perfo=ed just such an analycia using the ::most conservative statistical type, namufacturer, age, vintage, and prototype /y factor with rsactor size, reacto techniqu:s.
Their analysis correlates capa it duplicate status.
Using their fo=ulae, en page 29, one ean obtain a reas;nable projection of the mpacity faa>
..., k ' ' '
' ~ ' ' '
~~ ~
h b
p w,,h c Nnt V:*~\\\\y
N'^
y p,f s-^
j..
n c e <. e t
.c w,4 L i,..;) l, c( < u g4 4
,O.
- i l., e i5 s
(n e* \\ Vp capacity),seeken,=anufacturer, age, vintage,andprototype/duplicatestatus.
/\\
hr 4W wMa,
.d.
2 kene can obtain a reasonable projection 3 of the Using the fc = ula on page 29
^
capacity factor for a 3'n*2 of 1150 My design ocpacity:
Capacity factor =
86.9 - 4.27 X 11.5 = 37.6% capacity.
It may be argued that the presence of 3rown's Ferry Units 1 & 2 in the data base skews te results, since an "ancialeus" event (fire in the mble tray) shut %/~\\ plant;dewn for 13 cenths ending.in September 1976.
Using a fo= ula that elisinates data from t -se plants gives a capacity factor of 69 7p 1.6b z 115 = 50.1 j.zz g
)-
3,.,... y
?stition:r contands ths.t, based on the most generous figure of 5Ck and assuming v'.thout question applicant's questionable assu=ptien f 30-yecr plant 1..fe; (S.10.4.1.1 of F:S), AO:iGS will not produce "over 200 teravatt-A 4W )
'v%-
s hours" of electricity out less than 150 teravatt-hours, and that similarly,
?00R B M WI 1
+
t.
9
. _ - y _% $
s r j k v.
4.kA-0" Cd l3" b ^
EI e
g
'a 0 - %' (,
the Tresedt faIue Tf this~ electricity in 1985 -lo~11ars will be ne(the t
asserted 5 2 billien dollars tut rather en thw order of 3.25 billice i
l' dellars. Use 1 a 50% capacity f actory based :n historical data, rsthst than a;;1ica.nt's hy;othetical 30% ca;acity facter, will greatly affect I,
I,
},
the comparisen of nuclear ocats to cos*a cf all alternative energy sour as (including ocnservation) and ;etititioner centends that a fair a;;11 cation of the princi;les of T511C2(2) necessitates use of the acre realistic f.gure.
Finally, petitioner contends that t large and unreli ts A
y
~'
is ina;;ropriate in nachir.g a;;11 cant's stated goal of maintaining a system-g) 5 r
wide rese: re es;acity of 15%. If M the 1150 M*J (nocinal) of A0r,;S turn out 4
to be off-line $C% of the time, th.ts has a far greater in;act on reserve ca;a-8
.l y
city than would be the impact o#
veral smaller units (having a combined f
i capacity of a;;rezimately 1150 r') ' N-t----
n heit.g off-linet it may
,, e
- o m
be assumed that the of a}11, the smaller units being off-line at once is far less than $C%.
p gp USMRC wm no 3oard shoudd nquire appli ant to re-suhnis anygapa which may be s:
..SEP 181873 > di em d *. s ou based on the hypothetical ca;acity facter of 3C#., including its cost-benefit i
o a tema
,i ACM N
3 aa J
et j
analysis 6nd cos;artsongts alternative energy sources. It is suggested
)
[
that the figure of $Cf capacity factor veuld be a;;re;;iate, but petitiener
- p has no objection to a;;1Acant developing a fisce based on a valid statistical
'j 8
analysis of acre recent data than that available to ;etitioner, ;revided that R "M, h uj i
W
\\
such data and analysis be made availabi to ;etitioner fer petitioner's l
1 j
analysis and comment.
3 n
9 11
. 'i