Senator GRAVEL. How long has this program been going on?

Dr. SCHLESINGER. This particular program follows from the change in the legislation governing the Atomic Energy Commission. This is a new program for the AEC.

Senator GRAVEL. But have not these facts about load-factor curves been known for some time?

Certainly this is no revelation about our idle generating equipment standing by for peaks in the use of electric power. We have worked on the breeder reactor for 20 years, and ignored storage technology that could have been developed.

Dr. SCHLESINGER. We are hopeful that we can develop some additional storage capacity.

Mr. RAMEY. The pumped storage plants are essentially a system of storing energy from periods when it is not needed for peak demand for later use.

Senator GRAVEL. I was thinking of the hydrogen fuel cell.

Maybe you could put some of the energy there and use it later for peak demands.

Mr. RAMEY. There has been research on that, particularly in the space program, and the question essentially is costs of translating it from small compact purposes for space use, to a large use, and as so many of these things, it takes a lot of development effort to get it done.

Senator GRAVEL. The point I am making is that it is obvious we really have not addressed ourselves to all of the energy alternatives, but attention has now come about through the discipline of this act.

Dr. SCHLESINGER. I think that the act makes a contribution. The concerns expressed in the act make a contribution and much work has been done in the past under the auspices of other agencies.

There is also the fact that we are beginning to look at a shortage of fossil fuels and a growth of demands, so that we look at the energy problem in its totality, and that is an enormous recent development.

Senator GRAVEL. Doctor, if the definition of power shortage is suspect, which is the point I was trying to make, but if you accept what we are told; namely, that we have an energy crisis, then must we rush headlong into building more powerplants and pay no mind to environmental problems. That is what I interpreted you to be advocating. Dr. SCHLESINGER. No; quite the converse. I think we have got to pay very careful attention to the environment consequences. That we are attempting to do; we are concerned with the efficiencies with which power facilities are utilized, we are concerned with the trade off between mobile and nonmobile forms of energy, and we are finally concerned with the utilization of energy.

One of the aspects that I think you yourself have stressed, is that if we had better insulation of homes, the demand for electricity and other forms of energy could be substantially reduced.

Those offer possibilities for economization of both the use of electric power and of electric power production facilities.

Senator GRAVEL. Why would the courts have said to stop in the construction of all of these nuclear reactors, if they felt there was no environmental consequence?

Dr. SCHLESINGER. They have not stopped construction. I think with the exception of Quad Cities

Senator GRAVEL. You just told us earlier that the Quad Cities decision has a total debilitating effect on the whole nuclear program.

Dr. SCHLESINGER. This is a unique situation in the Midwest, Senator. Because of the low levels of reserves in the Midwest and the very high proportion of additional generating capacity that is represented by nuclear, that we do face a problem in the Midwest. I will tell you when we see what temperatures we have.

Senator GRAVEL. Were you not making a point concerning the Quad Cities decision that you cannot go ahead with the operation of the reactors until the 102 statements are complete, so what has happened is a delay ?

Dr. SCHLESINGER. That is right.

Senator GRAVEL. And you are testifying that we should find some way around that? You are suggesting the possibility of legislation?

Dr. SCHLESINGER. Yes. The problem that has cropped up, Senator, is that the regulations we adopted on September 9, were held inconsistent with NEPA, and we are appealing that case in the courts; but we are concerned about the failure to test adequately the facilities that are now standing idle, and more significant perhaps, we are concerned that depending on temperatures this summer, we could well have a shortage of power, and the lack of the availability of power is something that has cropped up since November.

Senator GRAVEL. I am trying to separate two points, Doctor. One is the alleged power shortage, air conditioners; that problem is on the one hand. But what we are talking about now is the environmental problem from the reactors on the other hand. By this Quad Cities case, the licensing program has been impeded, in that all of the reactors have to conform to the 102 statement.

Do you have any quarrel with giving a very good 102 statement? Dr. SCHLESINGER. No, sir. We have been working vigorously on that problem since the Calvert Cliffs decision. We have a schedule for the production of 102 statements.

Senator GRAVEL. Other than the very simple fact of taking time to provide the 102 statements, this is a very good thing that has happened?

Dr. SCHLESINGER. We have indicated that the interim licensing problem is a transitional problem, and it is a problem we would have wished to avoid, but the situation in the Midwest has created some difficulties.

Senator GRAVEL. But if you wished to avoid it, it means we would not have the 102 information, which we desire as a part of the national policy?

Dr. SCHLESINGER. No, sir; we have a full production schedule for 102 statements.

Those statements will be forthcoming. We have submitted for the record the Quad Cities "interim" statement, which is going to be similar to a number of other statements, with regard to the various facilities which are a subject of concern.2

2 The statement referred to appears on p. 133.

The establishment of the rules indicated that we could allow partial power, limited power, in order to do adequate testing and mitigate the effects of being caught in this transitional period, while continuing the full environmental statement and review.

There is no desire on the part of the Commission to do anything other than fully to comply with the requirements for a final environmental statement. But in this transition period, while we are working on the full statement, we are concerned that power facilities may stand idle and inadequate testing be done when there will be no long-term environmental consequences.

That is why I mentioned earlier that we would have a mini-NEPA review. It would not be a final review, but it would deal with that level of power we authorize, whether it be 20 percent, 6 percent, or 9 percent, but it would not be the final statement.

Senator BAKER. I would like two things, and we have another vote signal, and I expect we will have to recess these hearings.

On the general line of questions put by Senator Gravel, which are very thorough and very well demonstrated, now, is it not true, however, that pump storage, and any other sort of peak-saving techniques, when measured against the growth rate of power demand in this country, that all of these storage techniques will just postpone the day when we need the new capacity?

Dr. SCHLESINGER. Yes; this will mitigate the rate of growth, of demand.

Senator BAKER. I believe the figures now, the best estimates are that the power demand in the United States is now doubling in something like 8 years?

Dr. SCHLESINGER. About 10 years.

Senator BAKER. Is it still 10 years?

I had the impression it was 8.

Dr. SCHLESINGER. Maybe a little less.

Senator BAKER. The second thing, on the question of the distinction between an R. & D. project and full operation of the project, as far as either administrative techniques, policy under NEPA, or amendments to any act are concerned, does the AEC have, or would you be willing to supply any draft language we might consider in this respect?

Dr. SCHLESINGER. We do not have any draft language in this area, Senator.

I think this is a subject on which clarification of congressional intent could be made by the Congress without any changes in NEPA. Senator BAKER. Very well.

If the AEC wishes to supply a memorandum, or any further ideas in that respect, I am sure they would be welcome.

Senator GRAVEL. If I could make one specific request, is there any study you could submit for the record, independent of your collection of what the utility companies say the power demands will be, about the electrical energy needs of the country?

Dr. SCHLESINGER. Yes, sir; we will send some to you, and if you wish, you can put them in the record. They will be somewhat lengthy.

Senator BAKER. They will be made a part of the record. (The material referred to follows:)

Mr. L. MANNING MUNTZING,

FEDERAL POWER COMMISSION, Washington, D.C., January 18, 1972.

Director of Regulation, Atomic Energy Commission,
Washington, D.C.

DEAR MR. MUNTZING: As agreed in our discussion of December 10, 1971, we are supplying herewith an updated summary statement covering the power supply situation in areas where operating licenses are pending for new nuclear plants. This report includes the latest reliable information available to the Federal Power Commission on anticipated loads and operating capacity, including the estimates of full operating license dates for new nuclear plants provided in the AEC status report on priority nuclear facilities dated December 20, 1971. We are not certain, however, that current reports fully reflect the potential impact on plant operating dates of the latest court decisions bearing on AEC's issuance of licenses for partial operation and the Corps of Engineers' procedures including EPA's release of water discharge permits.

It is not possible to forecast power inadequacies with absolute precision, because they depend on the coincidence of random events, such as the weather, equipment outages, operator errors, and other similar contingencies. Therefore, the difference between total nominal capacity and the statistically forecast peak loads, which is designated reserve margin, is only an approximate indicator of the probability of being able to meet all load demands. It is important to recognize that a substantial portion of the reserve margin is needed for unscheduled equipment outages.

The summary statement confirms that the power situation related to key nuclear plants is at least as urgent as we have detailed in our individual environmental statement commentaries on these plants.

Very truly yours,

STEWART P. CRUM

(For T. A. Phillips, Chief, Bureau of Power). (Enclosure: "Adequacy of Electric Generating Capacity in Areas with Pending Nuclear Plant Operating Licenses.")

FEDERAL POWER COMMISSION-BUREAU OF POWER

ADEQUACY OF ELECTRIC GENERATING CAPACITY IN AREAS WITH
PENDING NUCLEAR PLANT OPERATING LICENSES

This report supplements the analysis of the electric generating capacity situation provided as an attachment to the October 15, 1971, letter from Chairman Nassikas of the Federal Power Commission to Chairman Schlesinger of the Atomic Energy Commission. It covers the period from now through the winter of 1972-73.

Because of the uncertainty about ability to issue interim partial power permits occasioned by the recent Quad Cities court decision, no consideration has been given to the availability of power prior to a full license or to the effect of partial power licenses as a means of advancing the date of full commercial power. It has been assumed that full commercial power could not be available sooner than two months after issuance of a full power license. While this is believed to be a realistic interval, it is recognized that longer periods may be involved in some cases and the best information available to the FPC has been used.

The information in this summary report is consistent with that provided in the individual comments on plant environmental statements supplied by the FPC to the AEC. An expanded discussion of individual plant effects upon power supply adequacy is contained in the specific commentaries.

As noted, in some instances the listed capacity for peak load periods includes new fossil capacity scheduled for service beyond the May 31 and October 31 cut-off dates, normally used by the FPC to identify dependable summer and winter capacity levels. Experience has shown that such capacity cannot be considered fully dependable during the first few months of operation.

76-248-72-8

New England Power Pool

As stated in the October 15, 1971 appraisal, the winter-peaking New England Power Pool has an adequate reserve margin of 21.4 percent for itself during the summer of 1972, with Pilgrim, Vermont Yankee and Maine Yankee not available for full commercial power. (Commercial dates of 9/72, 11/72, and 3/73 respectively). However, the ability of the New England Power Pool to assist the summer-peaking New York Pool will be quite limited.

For the winter of 1972-73, with Pilgrim and Vermont Yankee commercially available, the reserve margin would be an adequate 22.5 percent.

With Indian Point 2 commercial full power availability taken as July 1972, the adequacy of power in the summer of 1972 will be dependent upon the occurrence of heavy demands resulting from very hot weather, upon whether 1,334 MW of new fossil and gas turbine capability scheduled for June and July 1972 will be in service, and upon the rate of unscheduled capacity outages. With both Indian Point 2 and the new fossil units counted as part of the Pool capacity, the reserve margin would be 21.8 percent, a level which has not always been adequate in the past. Without Indian Point 2 the reserve margin would be 17.4 percent and, considering the character of the reserve, difficulties are probable unless supplemental power can be obtained from outside the area. Because of delays in new capacity, which has kept older units in service and required deferment of maintenance, much of the reserve has a below-average reliability. The reserve margin in the winter of 1972-73 would be 39.2 percent with Indian Point 2 and 34.5 percent without it, both considered to be generally adequate.

With a date of June 1972 as the earliest for full power, commercial availability of Oconee 1 and Surry 1, the adequacy of power in the summer of 1972 for this area may be dependent upon the occurrence of peak power demands resulting from hot weather and the availability of supplemental power from neighboring areas. Counting both nuclear plants as part of the available capacity, and also 1,010 MW of fossil capacity scheduled for June and July 1972, the reserve margain is still a minimal 12.2 percent.

Since these fossil units are questionable, the reserve even with the nuclear plants could be as low as 7.3 percent. Without the Surry 1 nuclear plant, but with Oconee 1 and the questionable fossil units, the margin would be 8.2 percent. These margins are substantially below prudent levels and emphasize the importance of the nuclear plant availability.

For the winter of 1972-73, the reserve margin with Oconee 1 and Surry 1, but without Oconee 2 or Surry 2 is 23.4 percent.