Environmental statement due early June. If no hearings on environ- Environmental statement due mid-March. If no hearings on en- Radiological hearings for 1 percent testing license complete. Environmental statement due late April. Radiological hearings Environmental statement due early July. Hearings on radiological 2 Has 60-percent license. FEDERAL POWER COMMISSION, Mr. L. MANNING MUNTZING, Atomic Energy Commission Washington, D.C. DEAR MR. MUNTZING: Our comments on the near-term electric power supply situation, as modified by the AEC status report dated February 10, 1972 and the additional information in your letter of March 15, 1972, are contained in the attached staff summary. For simplicity, the summary is largely in the form of modifications to the analysis provided with my letter to you of January 18, 1972. Also, as you know, a more complete discussion of the total power supply situation. including both fossil and nuclear plants, is contained in my letter of February 7, 1972, to Mr. Robert W. Fri, Deputy Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, a copy of which you have. The staff summary indicates that the most significant changes since the previous AEC status report are the set-backs in commercial availability to mid or late summer of the Surry 1, Oconee 1 and Turkey Point 3 units, all in the Southeast Reliability Council Region. There have been indications recently that the specific load areas and new generating units discussed in some earlier correspondence on this same subject have been considered by some to constitute the total list of new facilities and loads of concern in terms of the near term power supply situations. This is not the case and there are other areas which may also experience problems due to delays of new capacity, both nuclear and fossil. In order to bring proper attention to some such situations, three new areas are included in the attached report. These are the Tennessee Valley, Iowa Power Pool, and Upper Mississippi Valley Power Pool. Even with these additions, the fact should not be overlooked that reserve capacity margins are sufficiently low throughout virtually the entire United States that every large new generating unit represents an important part of the overall capacity which is needed to reinforce the interconnected bulk power supply and should be placed in service on schedule as much as is possible. Very truly yours, T. A. PHILLIPS. Chief, Bureau of Power. Enclosure: "Adequacy of Electric Power Supply as Affected by Projected Commercial Service Dates of New Nuclear Units." FEDERAL POWER COMMISSION, BUREAU OF POWER ADEQUACY OF ELECTRIC POWER SUPPLY AS AFFECTED BY PROJECTED COMMERCIAL This summary updates the analysis of the near term electric generating capacity situation provided as an attachment to the January 18, 1972 letter from T. A. Phillips, Chief, Bureau of Power, Federal Power Commission, to L. Manning Muntzing, Director of Regulation, Atomic Energy Commission. It reflects the estimates of nuclear unit construction completion and operating license issuance dates contained in the February 10, 1972 AEC status report on Priority Nuclear Plants and the March 15, 1972 letter from L. Manning Muntzing on this same subject. In general, the summary assumes that full commercial power cannot be available sooner than two months following completion of construction and issuance of a full AEC operating license. It has been further assumed that Corps of Engineers discharge permits will not be a delay factor, since Final Environmental Statements will have been issued as a prerequisite to the operating licenses. 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 except in the case of the Palisades Plant which has just been granted a 60 percent power license. Comments are keyed generally to the detailed area analyses provided in the attachment to the Phillips-to-Muntzing letter of January 18, 1972, and three other areas of interest have been added. New England Power Pool The potential delays of commercial availability of Vermont Yankee and Pilgrim to dates perhaps no earlier than December 1972 do not affect the summer 1972 situation, for which neither unit was considered available. However, the slippages jeopardize the winter 1972-1973 power supply adequacy, where without these unts the reserve margin will be a critically low 7.8 percent. New York Power Pool With the earliest commercial availability of Indian Point 2 slipping to August 1972, its ability to help meet peak summer loads is increasingly doubtful. As indicated in the previous report, wthout Indian Point 2 the reserve margin will be 17.4 percent, a level at which difficulties are probable unless supplemental power can be obtained from outside the area. Virginia-Carolinas (VA-CARS) With Surry 1 commercial availability now no earlier than July 1972 and Oconee 1 no earlier than August 1972, the reserve margin during peak hot weather without these units could be a critically low 3.9 percent. Supplemental power from other areas would be required to avoid probable power shortage problems, and there is little likelihood of significant amounts of surplus power being available elsewhere for transfer to the Virginia-Carolinas area. Florida The slippage of Turkey Point 3 commercial availability to at least August 1972 leaves Florida in a critical power situation. Since it does not have the ability to import significant power from other areas, the summer reserve margin of 11.2 percent is highly inadequate. Furthermore, the reserve on the Florida Power & Light Company system without Turkey Point 3 is only about 5.5 percent, and the concentrated load area in and around Miami may be particularly vulnerable to power supply problems during peak load periods. At this time, there are no known substitutes for the Turkey Point 3 capacity during the 1972 summer. Tennessee Valley Drastic slippages in schedule have been experienced already by TVA in construction of its Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant with presently expected dates of authorization for full power operation of October 1972 (Unit 1), July 1973 (Unit 2), and February 1974 (Unit 3). During the summer of 1972, the reserve margin is expected to be 15 percent if other types of new generating capacity are available as planned. Reserves will be only 13.2 percent in the winter of 1972-73, however, if Browns Ferry 1 is unavailable. With it in service, the margin is expected to be improved to 19.1 percent. Michigan Pool The Palisades full commercial power date has been set back one month to July 1972. As noted in the January staff summary, the Palisades power is needed to offset prospective power shortages in the Northern Illinois area. The 60 percent interim power level authorized in early March will be helpful in meeting area power demands. Northern Illinois, Wisconsin and Upper Michigan The Quad Cities units now have an earliest commercial availability date of September 1972 and can not be counted as part of the summer reserve margin. Since Point Beach will not be commercial before July 1972 and perhaps even later, the reserve margin during much of the summer will only be 8.7 percent, which is extremely low. As stated in the January staff summary, the adequacy of power in the summer of 1972 will depend critically upon the extent of unscheduled outages and the availability of power from neighboring areas. Iowa Power Pool The Iowa Power Pool, of which Iowa-Illinois Gas and Electric Company is a member, faces the summer of 1972 with a total generating capacity that is 45 megawatts less than predicted load if the latter's share of the capacity of Quad Cities Unit 1 is unavailable. With only its existing capacity and the delays of new units on adjacent systems making uncertain the availability of supplemental power, the Iowa systems position is marginal. Even with Iowa's full share of Quad Cities 1 (404 megawatts) available, the Pool reserve would be only 11.5 percent. Upper Mississippi Valley Power Pool Expected reserve capacity for the Upper Mississippi Valley Power Pool for the 1972 summer is only 11.2 percent. None of the new nuclear units nearing completion are in the Power Pool area except Northern States Power Company's Prairie Island 1. If it becomes available in November as now expected the power Pool reserve should be 42.3 percent for the winter of 1972-73. Without it, the reserve would be 14.8 percent. Rocky Mountain Area According to the AEC letter of March 15, 1972, it appears that the one month improvement in the full power license date of the Fort St. Vrain unit to June 1972 as indicated in the February 10 review will not allow commercial operation during the summer of 1972 because of the expected extended commissioning period. The utility is installing 100 MW of temporary gas turbine capacity for service during the summer of 1972. The Fort St. Vrain unit is needed to provide for power supply adequacy in the winter 1972-73. FEDERAL POWER COMMISSION, Washington, D.C., February 7, 1972. Mr. ROBERT W. FRI, Deputy Administrator, Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C. DEAR MR. FRI: As I discussed with you briefly last week, we are seriously concerned by the many delays in availability of new generating facilities which often confront the electric utilities in recent times and the impacts of these delays on the adequacy and reliability of electric power supply in the U. S. Added to the more technical and physicial problems of manufacturing and construction are the greatly increased requirements for Federal review and approval of several aspects of new electric power generating facilities. The sharply expanded scope of review of environmental matters involving various Federal agencies under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, together with the application of section 13 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 to water discharge permits for all power plants, threatens potentially serious effects on schedules for needed power availability. While the related needs for environmental protection in plant design and operation are fully recognized, one must also consider the detriments to the national environment that can result from costly delays and substitute measures if systems are compelled to operate inefficiently and without the needed generating capacity for adequate and reliable electric service. FPC has establishd coordination with the Atomic Energy Commission to identify the effects of permit schedules on power supply adequacy and allow appropriate attention to the timely resolution of the regulatory issues involved. We would like to establish similar procedures with the Corps of Engineers on cooling water discharge permits, and with your Agency, which by Executive Order we believe has the principal responsibility for recommending issuance of cooling water discharge permits. Such permits are required for all power plants, nuclear or fossil, which discharge cooling water to waterways. In the period from January 1972 through January 1973, 18 nuclear and 41 fossil steam generating units, 300 megawatts and larger. are scheduled for initial commercial operation. From January 1973 through December 1975, 136 additional large nuclear and fossil units, now in design and construction, are planned for operation. It is recognized that effecting timely and complete reviews of the cooling plane for these units represents a major task, but one that must be accomplished to avoid potential power shortages. Whatever may be done in the long term to reduce the energy use growth rate, it is clear that, in the near term, failure to meet established electric generating capacity plans will impose significant economic and social problems. To aid in a better understanding of various aspects of the electric power outlook, I am attaching a staff report which reviews the power supply situation by regions for the next two peak load periods, the summer of 1972 and the winter of 1972-73. Included as an appendix to the report are lists of the steam generating, units, 300 MW and above, scheduled for service through January 1973. These units, because of their immediate major significance in terms of power supply adequacy, need the earliest possible clarification of their discharge permit status and resolution of any outstanding questions. Units scheduled for service from 1973 through 1975 are also listed. Many of these are well along in construction and delays in issuing required discharge structure approvals can result in corresponding delays in the service dates. Consequently, for a number of these units, the discharge design approvals may also be critical to unit in-service dates. I hope the information provided in the staff report and the lists of plants will be assistance in planning timely processing of discharge permit applications for new steam generating units. We recognize that pending legislation would assign the 1899 Act Section 13 responsibility to EPA and that different criteria and procedures for permit issuance may then be required. However, it is essential for electric power supply adequacy and reliability that applications under the existing law be reviewed expeditiously. We would like to receive your comments on the discharge permit situation in general, as well as specific information concerning plans for processing of power plant cooling discharge permit applications. I am sending copies of this letter to Mr. James R. Schlesinger, Chairman of the Atomic Energy Commission, and Lieutenant General F. J. Clarke, Chief of Engineers, Department of the Army. Very truly yours, T. A. PHILLIPS. Chief, Bureau of Power. FEDERAL POWER COMMISSION BUREAU OF POWER STAFF REPORT ON POWER SUPPLY OUTLOOK AS AFFECTED BY POTENTIAL DELAYS IN NEW GENERATING CAPACITY This report presents an overview of projected power supply conditions in the U.S. and their sensitivities to delays in availability of new generating capacity. Most of the material relates to the next two power system peak load periods, the summer of 1972 and the winter of 1972-73, but information is included on a large number of new generating units scheduled for initial service between now and the end of 1975. The bulk of the additions to electric generating capacity are in large steam units of 300 megawatts and above, using coal, oil, gas or nuclear fuel. The lead time from commitment to full commercial operation for a fossil plant is of the order of four or five years; for a nuclear plant the lead time is at least six to eight years. Gas turbine installations can often be placed in service in less than two years, but their application is usually limited to meeting peak loads because of high fuel consumption and generation costs and insufficient durability for continuous operation. Because of the long lead times for new generating units, they are ordinarily the primary concern with regard to power shortages, although important transmission lines sometimes are involved. Critical situations also can develop in relatively short periods of time if the supply of fuels of the required quality to meet prevailing standards is interrupted. Stoppages in either fuel production or transportation rapidly affect the utilities' ability to continue normal power generation. A direct consquence of the long lead times and large investments required for new generating units is the steady increase in dependence on their planned availability as the scheduled service date approaches. As time progresses, it becomes increasingly difficult, and then impossible, to construct alternate facilities by the time they would be needed. Since regional power planning is used extensively, the planned availability of a major new generating unit often influences the capacity planning of adjoining utilities. Consequently, virtually all new generating facilities are essential in the time period for which they were planned. There is, of course, a margin for contingencies provided in the original unit schedules, but under present conditions the margin is frequently exhaused before completion of construction. Some of the delays in new facilities involve a variety of problems such as technical difficulties, shortages of skilled labor, and manufacturing and erection problems, but others are related largely to the various licensing procedures and associated permits and approvals required before operation can begin. |