ML20082S782

Forwards Author Rebutal Testimony Re Base Rate Used by Util, Uncertainty in Prospective Growth Path of Low Level Waste Disposal Costs & Overall Cost Escalation Rates

ML20082S782
Person / Time
Site:	Seabrook
Issue date:	08/27/1991
From:	Rohrbach J NEW HAMPSHIRE, STATE OF
To:	Smukler L NEW HAMPSHIRE, STATE OF
References
NDFC-91-1, NUDOCS 9109170286
Download: ML20082S782 (3)

Text

1. l '

j) ~Ifcl$ f~G ,

'< j pv

' Tile STATE OF NEW li Ah11'SillitE ut*

-&f ,

,:-r Q y

,p

(4)\WMI It ADYOCAlI i; i AglN1AN] OONgyM[ll A]y4 41[

VICit Al I, W llOI Mi S -

) Jost 11( w gg ) fig k

'Qgy'i 0FFICE OF Tile CONSU31Elt ADVOCATE 8 ott> sexcooK noAD CONCol:D. NicW ll AMI'silli'E ntal 7,18.',

ma,m itu 27 August 1991 Larry Smukler, Chairman Nuc. lear Decommissioning Financing Committec Nil Public Utilities Commission Concord, NH 03301 ILE r NDFC 91-1

Dear Mr. Smukler:

I attach rebuttal testimony in the above referenced docket.

Sincerely, dMsx John S. Rohrbach Economist Enclosures CC: Service List State Treasurer Stato Library 0286 91o977 p[k9I[mceosooom .W.y 1 (,4,,;. ,

ppa b ,D y< F.. .

..i=J.

4 e

Rebuttal Testimony John S. Rohrbach a Docket NDFC 91,-1 i

3

' Q. Do you have any comments regarding Mr. Wright's supplemental j' testimony dated 20 August 1991 on behalf of New Hampshire j Yankee ("NHY")?

l A. Yes. My comments are as follows:

.) 1. Mr. Wright's assertion, based on page 32 @ 19 of my pre-filed direct testimony, that "Mr. Rohrbach would have us start escalating burial costs at. . . .the 1989 base rate of

-$ 30.11 per cubic foot", is erroneous.

In my . prepared direct testimony I never explicitly specified a base rate analogous to the $ 139 used by NHY.

However, insofar as I have testified to NHY witness LaGuardia's 1991 estimate of 323.62 million, I have subsumed the $ 139 into my testimony. Therefore, my 7 August 1991 response (# 13) to data requests frem New Hampshire Yankee should be corrected to rtad:

Question:

1 on page-32 you state that you endorse the use of a 14.51% as escalation for LLW disposal. Do you believe that qompounding 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 14.51 percent escalation rate for -LLW disposal, which differs from Mr. Wright's suggested overall i t

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. The-compounding of escalation at 14.51% should begin _at i 139 per cubic foot.

2. Thus,_though I support t..e $ 139 number for initial planning purposes, there is substantial uncertainty in the prospective growth path of ' low-level waste (LLW) .

disposal costs, a fact represented by the existence of this proceeding.- It is my opinion that this uncertainty I I

is best reflected in the growth rate prof fered on page 31 of my direct testimony where I endorse the use of a 14.51 percent escalation rate for LLW disposal.

I

Rebuttal Testimony John S. Rohrbach Docket NDFC 91-1 Q. Do the planning assumptions listed on pages 4 and 45 of your pre-filed direct testimony remain intact?

A. Yes.

Q. Will you be filing rebuttal testimony regarding the supplerr.cntal testimony of Attorney Dunn and Mr. Caine when NHY responds to data requests propounded by the Office of the Consumer Advocate on 21 August 1991?

A. Yes. The Nuclear Decommissioning Financing Committee Amended Procedural Order Number One, dated 25 February 1991, indicates that responses to supplemental [ Data) Requests will be filed on or before this date. Assuming this schedule is adhered to, I anticipate filing rebuttal testimony shortly thereafter.