ML20147C886
| ML20147C886 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 05000580, 05000581 |
| Issue date: | 08/28/1978 |
| From: | Firestone L AFFILIATION NOT ASSIGNED |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20147C881 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7810130161 | |
| Download: ML20147C886 (12) | |
Text
\\
C BEFORE THE POWER SITING COMMISSION OF l
THE STATE OF OHIO In Re:
)
)
OHIO EDISON COMPANY
)
Case No. 01-00003 Erie Nuclear Power Plant
)
Units 1 and 2
)
i SUPPLEMENTAL TESTIMONY OF LYNN FIRESTONE August 28, 1978 16 /6/.?c,/6/
/
e SUPPLEMENTAL TESTlMONY OF LYNN FIRESTONE Q.
Has the CAPCO forecast of energy and peak demand been revised since it was submitted in the 1978 Ten Year Forecast Reports to the Ohio Department of Energy?
A.
Yes. As I indicated in my earlier testimony, each of the CAPCO companies reviews its own forecast on at least an annual basic, and the composite of the forecasts of the individual companies becomes the CAPCO forecast. All of the CAPCO companies have had their forecasts under review since the compilation of the 1978 Ten Year Forecast Reports. In view of tne additional experience gained throughout this year.with respect to loads--particularly the prolonged coal strike and the lower than anticipated energy sales so far this year--cach company has reviewed its forecast to determine if revisions are warranted. Because the review has re-sulted in a generally downward revision in projected loads, we thought it appropriate to present the indicated forecast revisions now, before the hearing record closes, rather than wait until it would be presented on a more formal basis in next Ten Year Forecast Reports.
Q.
What factors were taken into consideration in reviewing the forecast?
A.
All of the factors which are normally considered were, or course, reviewed. The downward revisions resulted generally from increased recognition of the effects of the following factors:
-Expectation of somewhat increased natural gas availability over that.previously anticipated.
-Expected improvement in appliance efficiency.
-Price-related and non-price related conservation.
7
~,
^
-Judgements about the ecoriomic outlook for Ohio and the U. S.
-Commercial air conditioning saturation.
Q.
How does the new CAPCO forecast differ from the earlier forecast?
A.
A comparison is shown on the table presented in Attachment 1.. As noted from this table, the reduction in the load demand ranges from 631 N' starting in 1979 and gradually increasing to 1483 m in 1988. In terms of the compound annual percent growth rate change over the period,' this represents a five-tenths percentage point lower annual growth rate than the previous CAPCO load demand forecast.
The forecast of net energy for load over the same period is given in Attachment 2.
Q.
Has the impact that these load changes will have on the CAPCO systems' reliability been computed?
A.
Yes. The CAPCO systems' reliability with the revised load forecast has been computed using generating capacity average unavailability rates of both 27% and 23%. As you may recall from my earlier testi-mony, the 27% unavailability rate is the average unavailability currently experienced in ECAR.
The 23% unavailability rate is the value agreed upon by the CAPCO planners.
Q.
What are the results of these evaluations?
A. shows a table of the results of the previous CAPCO capacity evaluations (Attachment 8, P.1 of my previous testimony),
together with the results of the new CAPCO evaluation, each assuming the Erie units installed on schedule in 1986 and 1988.
These evalua-tions each use a generating capacity average unavailability rate of 23%. Under this assumption, the reliability index is o.64 Page 2
-.. -.. -. -. - _. _ _. _ _ _.. ~. _..,.. _. _ _.. _ _. ~. _.. _. _ _.. _... _.. _, _,. ~ _
t negative days and 0.33 negatwe days for 1986 and 1988, respective 1y'.
This shows capacity requirements of 210 W and 565 W in excess of 1
the one negative day standard in 1986 and 1988, respectively. shows the relationship of the timing of the Erie units to the one negative day standard. As can be seen from the table, Erie Unit #1 can be delayed by three months to nearly meet the
~
CAPCO reserve standard of 'ce negative day, and Erie Unit #2 can be delayed seven months to meet the one negative day standard. In other words, delays of Greater than three months and seven months will mean that the reliability standard would not be met.
The results of the updated evaluations using a 27% average un-availability rate for the CAPCO generating capacity is presented in Attachment 5 In 1966 the reliability index with the one unit in service is 7 3 4 negative days and the capacity requirement is 1
1260 W.
This indicates that in addition to the Erie unit coming into service, additional capacity is needed in 1986 to achieve CAPCO's reliability criterion. In 1988 with both units on schedule, the index is at 4.21 negative days and there is a capacity require-ment of 965 m. Again, this rer_lects that additional capacity beyond Erie Units #1 and #2 will be required to meet the one negative day standard.
Q.
What are your conclusions fram these stated results?
A.
Under either assumption for generating capacity unavailability, the revised forecast does not change the conclusion that Erie Units #1 and #2 will be required in 1986 and 1988.
Page 3
4 Q.
You testified previously about the economic impact of a delay in the Erie project. Would your economic analysis of the delay change as a result of the revision in the forecast?
A.
Yes it would. The revised figures, which can be compared to 0 of my previous testimony, are given in Attachment 6 of this testimony for both 23% and 27%. The new analysis shows that a two-year delay would reruit in neither e significant cost increase nor decrease.
The four-year delay would still result in a significant increase in CAPCO revenue requirements.
+=
Page 14
Testimony of Lynn Firectone CAPCo AWUAL PEAK LOAD FORECASTS (A)
(B)
(A-B)
Year Previous Forecast Current Forecast Difference 1978 11,683 11,323 (360) 1979 12,376 11,745 (631) 1980 13,021 12,365 (656)
L 1981 23,698 12,979 (719) 1982 14,349 13,576
( 773) 1983 15,003 14,123 (880) 1984 15,682 14,735 (947) 1985 16,473 15,360 (1,113) 1986 17,164 15,976 (1,188) 1987 17,936 16,622 (1,314) 1988 18,752 17,269 (1,483)
Average Compound p Growth Rate Over Period 4.8 4.3
(.5)
(
) indicated Reduction
,,n e,
v v v-v vv w-
-~,w-s
,---,,--se-
--v,, - -
wevr
,rw--,m-sw-s--
s t e-,
,3 e
/
Testimony of Lynn Firestone CAPCo ANNUAL ENERGY FORECAST Megawatt Hours / Year (1) Previous (1) Current Year 1978 Forecast 1978 Forecast 1978 67,380,059 66,046,359 1979 71,258,o93 68,335,893 1980 75,222,677 72,636,877 1981 78,649,610 75,898,210 1982 82,008,581 79,o67,081 1983 85,399,144 82,323,944 1984 88,861,037 85,551,537 1985 92,765,770 89,148,870 1986 96,M3,596 92,655,996 1987 100,654,305 96,3 2,105 1988 104,832,936 100,128,736 1
(1) Net Energy for Load i
1
~
wo Testimony of Lynn Firestone RELIABILITY EVALUATION OF CAPCO CAPACITY PROGRM4 3
Previous CAPCo Evaluation (1978)
Current CAPCo Evaluation (1978)
Percent Negative Additional Percent Negative Additional l
Year Reserves Days Requirements (1)
Reserves Days Requirements Mw the 1982 25.8 2 31 375 32 9 0 58 (230)
(2) 1983 28.2 1.86 750 36.2 1.1h 55 (1) 1984 22.8 10 37 1185 30 7 2.42 410 (1) 1985 22.4 h.70 800 31 3 o.85 (80)
(2) 1 1986 24.8 4.39 795 34.1 0.64 (210)
(2) 1987 24.4 9 31 1270 34.3 1.42 180 (1) 1988 25 7 3 16 665 36.5 0 33 (565)
(P) 1989 20.4 11.45 1510 30 9 1 37 175 (1) i i
1 (1) Additional requiremento annuming capacity having (2) Requirements, assuming capacity having 100% availability. Generating unit addit' ions to 100% availability, in excess of the one caticRy these requirementa must be greater to negative day / calendar year standard.
compensate for generating unit unavailability.
t w
,r - -
9 Testimony of Lynn Firestone RELIABILITY EVALUATION OF CAPCO CAPACITY PROGRAM i
CAPCO UPDATED EVALUATION (1978)
Timing of Erie Units #1 and #2 to one negative day / calendar year I.
In Service Dates II.
Reliability Presently Proposed Adjusted In Service Date Percent Negative Additional (1)
Unit In Service Dates For 1 Negative Day Year Reserves Days Requirements (Mw)
Erie #1 4/1/86 7/1/86 1986 34.1 1.08 35 Erie #2 4/1/88 11/1/88 1988 29.3 1.00 0
(1)
Additional requirements assuming capacity having 100% availability.
Generating unit additions to satisfy these requirements must be greater to compensate for generating unit unavaildbility. '
d.
_ =. _
Testimony of Lyon Firostone RELIABILITY EVALUATI0t3 OF CAPCO CAPACITY PROGRAM Ohio Edison Evaluation (1978)
(277. Capacity Unavailability Rate)
Percent Negative Additionni Year Reserves Days Requirements (1)
MW 1982 32.9 9.54 1,245 1983 36.2 9.60 1,300 1984 30.7 15.16 1,645 1985 31.3 10.12 1,440 1986 34.1 7.34 1,260 1987 34.3 11.31 1,575 1988 36.5 4.21 965 1989 30.9 11.79 1,740 (1)
Additicnal requirements assuming capacity having 1007. availability.
Generating unit additions to satisfy these requirements must be greater to compensate for generating unit unavailability.
Testimony of Lynn Firestone ESTIMATED REVENUE REQUIREMDIT DIFFERENCES ASSOCIATED WI'Di 'No-YEAR AND FoUR-YEAR DELAYS OF IRIE NUCLEAR PIJdiT gLLIONS OF DOLLARS ohio Edison Evaluation of Capacity Unavailability Two-Year Delay Four-Year Delay Year F.C.
O.C.
Total F.C.
o.C.
Total 1986 (186.2) 72.1 (H4.1)
(186.2) 72.1 (114.1)
I')87 (248.3) 97.7 (150.6)
(248.3) 97 7 (150.6) i 1988 (240 3) 96.0 (144.3)
(455 5) 191.4 (264.1) 1989 (237 5) 107.1 (130.4)
(524.5) 275.5 (2490) 1990 19 35.0 36.9 (275.8) 145.1 (130.7) 1991-2020 2451.0 (74.0) 2377.0 4818.9 (8.2) 4810.7 Total 1540.6 333 9 1874.5 3128.6 773.6 3902.2 Present Worth to 1985 (2 5) 29 9 t
CAPCo Evaluation of Canacity Unavailability 1986 (186.2) 72.4 (113.8)
(186.2) 72.4 (113.8) 1987 (248.3) 94.7 (153.6)
(248.3) 94.7 (153.6) 1988 (240 3) 98.3 (142.0)
(455.5) 194.3 (261.2) 1989 (237 5) 109 7 (127.8)
(524.5) 253 7 (270.8) 1990 19 38.2 40.1 (275.8) 183 9 (91.9) 1991-2020 2452.0 (80.8) 2370.2 4818.9 75.8 4894.7 Total 1540.6 332 5 :d73 1 3128.6 874.8 4003.4 Present Worth to 1985 (o.9) 75 7 f
F.C. - Fixed Costs O.C. - Operating Costs i
(
) - Decrease in cost
BEFORE THE POJER SITING COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF OHIO In Re:
)
)
OHIO EDISON COMPANY
)
Case No. 01-00003 Erie Nuclear Power Plant
)
Units 1 and 2
)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE This is to certify the.t copies of the foregoing " Supplemental Testimony of Lynn Fir'estone" vere served, either by first class mail or hand delivered, to those on the attached Service List this 28th day of August, 1978.
Thomas A. Kayuha August 28, 1978
~.
'0 BEM)RE TIE POWER SITITU COMMISSION.
. 0TP p THE STATE OF 0100 w
In Re:
)
)
OHIO EDISON COMPANY
)
Case No.
01-00003 Eric Nuc3 car Power Plant
.)
Units 1 and-2
)
e
+*=
g 1
. ~. ', "
SERVICE LIST Mr. William B. McGorum, hr.
Howard Petricoff, Esquire Secretary is.., ".1601_ State Office Tower Ohio Power Sitin6 Commission 30 E. Broad Street Seneca Towers
' Dolumbus, Ohio 43216 361 E. Broad. Street Columbus, Ohio 43216 James B. Farmer, Esquire Assistant Attorney General Ralph E. Nucken, Esquire Office of the Attorney General
{
Administrative Law Judge 1500 State Office Tower Ohio Power Siting Commission 30 E. Broad Street.
Seneca Towers Columbus, Ohio 43216 361 E. Broad Street l
Columbus, Ohio 43216
. Michael D. Cotleur, Esquire l
- Associate Consumers' Counsel l
David Northrop,' Esquire 83 South Fourth Street -
Assistant Attorney General Columbus, Ohio 43215 17th Floor State Office Tower Columbut, Ohio h3216
' Fr. Thomas D. Dalton 30 E. Broad Street City Manager i
City Hall Mr. Dear R. Tousicy Oberlin, Ohio 44074 Toledo Coalition for Safe Energy 625 Virginia Street Stuart F. Fauver, Esq.
Toledo, Ohio 43620 City. Solicitor City of Oberlin Fks. Evelyn Stebbins 5 West College Street Coalition for Safe Electric Power Oberlin, Ohio hh074 705 Elmwood Road Rocky River, Ohio hh116 Langdon D. Bell, Esquire Bell & Clevenger Mr. Stanicy Bary1 ski 21 East State Street R.D. El Columbus, Ohio 43216 East Cleveland ' Road Huron, Ohio 44839
+
.