442 NY Patio Service Law, section 64 (McKinney 1955).

443. VY. Local Ethance Law, section 11a(5) (McKinney 1968).

444. NY Local Finance Law, section 11a(1) (McKinney 1968). 445. Vt Stat Ann, tit. 24, section 1752 (1975).

446. Vt Stat. Ann. tit. 24, section 1755(a) (1975).

447. Vt Stat Ann, tit. 24, section 1751(3) (1975).

448. Vt Stat. Ann., tit. 30, sections 2901-2902 (1975).

449. V ́t Stat. Ann., tit. 24, section 3701 (1975).

450. City of San Diego v. Potter. 153 Cal. 288, 95 P. 146 (1908); Certain Lands Upon Which Town of Lake Placid Taxes Are Delinquent v. Town of Lake Placid, 159 Fla. 180, 31 So.2d 249 (1947).

451. Ariz. Rev Stat, section 9-522 (1956).

452. Ariz Rev. Stat., section 9-521 (1956).

453. Cal Gov't Code, section 54301 (West 1966).

454. Cal. Gov't. Code, section 54309(a), as amended. (West Supp. 1976).

455. Cal Gov't Code, section 54310, as amended, (West Supp. 1976).

456. Colo. Rev Stat, section 30-20-305 (1973).

457. Colo Rev Stat., section 30-20-303 (1973).

458. Colo Rev Stat., section 30-20-309 (1973).

459. Colo Rev Stat, section 30-20-302 (1973).

460. Colo Rev Stat, section 30-20-301(2) (1973).

461. Ill Ann Stat, ch. 24, section 11-118-1, as amended, (Supp. 1975).

462. La Stat Ann, tit. 33, section 4221 (1966).

463. N. Y. General Municipal Law, sections 400-416 (McKinney 1974).

464. N. Y. General Municipal Law, sections 403, 407 (McKinney 1974). 465. N. Y. General Municipal Law, section 401 (McKinney 1974).

466. Ill. Ann. Stat., ch. 24, section 9-2-119 (1962).

467. Ill. Ann. Stat., ch. 24, section 9-2-1 (1962).

468. Vt. Stat. Ann., tit. 24, section 3252 (1975).

469. Cal. Sts. & Hwys. Code, section 5101(o) (West 1969). 470. Cal. Sts. & Hwys. Code, section 10100(e) (West 1969). 471. Cal. Sts. & Hwys. Code, section 10100 (West 1969).

472. La. Stat. Ann., tit. 33, sections 3301, 3451 (1975).

473. Note, however, that the City of Colorado Springs is now studying the feasibility of locating solar collector facilities in an elevated position over street easements.

474. Roberts v. City of Los Angeles, 7 Cal.2d 477, 61 P.2d 323 (1936) (furnishing of electric current); Ewart v. Village of Western Springs, 180 III. 318, 54 N.E. 478 (1899); State v. Zangerle, 145 Ohio St. 433, 62 N.E.2d 160 (1945) (street lighting); Bragdon v. City of Muskogee, 133 Okla. 224, 271 P. 1006 (1928) (“white-way system"); Supervisors of Manheim Township v. Workman, 350 Pa. 168, 38 A.2d 273 (1944) (street lighting).

475. Pacific Gas & Elec. Co. v. Sacramento Municipal Util. Dist., 17 F. Supp. 685 (N.D. Cal. 1936); Ewart v. Village of Western Springs, 180 III. 318, 54 N.E. 478 (1899).

476. Roberts v. City of Los Angeles, 7 Cal.2d 477, 490, 61 P.2d 323, 328 (1936).

477. Id. See, also, Akeny v. City of Spokane, 92 Wash. 549, 159 P. 806 (1916), cited therein. 478. See, e.g., Mayor of Atchison v. Price, 45 Kan. 296, 25 P. 605 (1891).

479. For cases upholding assessment formulas based upon value, see Turner v. Adams, 178 Ark. 67, 10 S.W.2d 41 (1928); Robertson v. City of Danville, 291 S.W.2d 816 (Ky. 1956).

480. Thus, for example, special or limited obligation bonds have been upheld to finance a convention center with repayment from gross revenues of the center, receipts of a convention and tourism tax and a merchant and manufacturer's tax (Wunderlich v. City of St. Louis, 511 S.W.2d 753 (Mo. 1974)); to finance new streets and creek improvements with repayment from sales and use taxes (City of Walnut Creek v. Silveira, 47 Cal.2d 804, 306 P.2d 453 (1957); and to finance a small boat harbor with repayment from harbor revenues, net revenues from hydrocarbon substances from the city's tidelands and specified sales, use and license tax revenues (City of Redondo Beach v. Taxpayers, Etc. of Redondo Beach, 54 Cal.2d 126, 5 Cal. Rptr. 10, 352 P.2d 170 (1960).

481. Holding in the affirmative, Wunderlich v. City of St. Louis, supra, note 480. Holding in the negative, City of Walnut Creek v. Silveira, supra, note 480.

482. Cal. Health & Safety Code, section 4638 (West 1970).

483. Cal Health & Safety Code, sections 33641, 33670 (West 1973).

484. Mathews v. City of Chicago, 342 III. 120, 174 N.E. 35, 42 (1930).

485. See, e.g., Paduano v. City of New York, 257 N.Y.S.2d 531, 45 Misc.2d 718 (1965), where it was asserted (though the court disagreed) that pay-as-you-go financing for fluoridation equipment was improper as not handled through the capital (as opposed to expense) budget and budget appropriations.

486. Kathan v. Jones, 201 App.Div. 580, 194 N.Y.S. 734 (1922).

487. State ex rel. Austin v. City of Mobile, 248 Ala. 467, 28 So.2d 177 (1946); City of Oakland v. Williams, 15 Cal.2d 542, 103 P.2d 168 (1940); Hill v. Roberts, 142 Tenn. 215, 217 S.W. 826 (1920); Ranson v. Rutherford County, 123 Tenn. 1, 130 S.W. 1057 (1910); Wiley N. Jackson Co. v. City of Norfolk, 197 Va. 62, 87 S.E.2d 781 (1955).

488. Russel v. Tate, 52 Ark. 591, 13 S.W. 130 (1890); Hundley & Rees v. Lincoln Park, 67 III. 559 (1873); Borough of Henderson v. Board of County Comm'rs., 28 Minn. 585, 11 N.W. 91 (1881).

489. State ex rel. Austin v. City of Mobile, supra, note 487; School District v. Kansas City, 382 S.W.2d 688 (Mo. 1964); State ex rel. City of Columbus v. Babcock, 23 Neb. 179, 36 N.W. 474 (1888).

490. See Greggio v. City of Orange, 69 N.J. Super. 453, 174 A.2d 390 (1961); Village of Dennison v. Martin, 4 Ohio Misc. 1, 210 N.E.2d 912 (C.P. 1964); City of Oakland v. Williams, 15 C.2d 542, 103 P.2d 168 (1940); State ex rel. Austin v. City of Mobile, 248 Ala. 467, 28 So.2d 177 (1946); Kaufman v. Swift County, 225 Minn. 169, 30 N.W.2d 34 (1947).

491. See Hill v. City of Providence, 307 Ky. 537, 211 S.W.2d 846 (1948).

492. See Wayland v. Snapp, 232 Ark. 37, 334 S.W.2d 633 (1960); State ex rel. Hammermill Paper Co. v. LaPlante, 58 Wis.2d 32, 205 N.W.2d 784 (1973); Nemelka v. Salt Lake County, 28 Utah 2d 183, 499 P.2d 862 (1972).

493. Smith v. Robertson, 210 S.C. 99, 41 S.E.2d 631 (1947).

494. See State v. Jacksonville Port Authority, 266 So.2d 1 (Fla. 1972); Knight v. West Alabama Environmental Improvement Authority, 287 Ala. 15, 246 So.2d 903 (Ala. 1971); Greensboro-High Point Airport Authority v. Johnson, 266 N.C. 1, 36 S.E.2d 803 (1946); City of Ecorse v. Peoples Community Hospital Authority, 336 Mich. 490, 58 N.W.2d 159 (1953).

APPENDIX F.

ARKANSAS PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION

Docket No. U-2903

In the Matter of the Application of Arkansas Power & Light Company, Arkansas Electric Cooperative Corporation, and City Water and Light Plant of Jonesboro, Arkansas, for a Certificate of Environmental Compatibility and Public Need for Construction of an Electric Generating Plant and Associated Fuel Supply and Other Facilities Near Newark, Independence County, Arkansas

Appearances: Ed Dillon, Phillip Lyon, Jerry D. Jackson, and Kent Foster, for Arkansas Power and Light Company; Leland F. Leatherman, for Arkansas Electric Cooperative Corporation; Bill Clinton, Walter W. Nixon, III, David Rowe, and Jeffrey J. Scott, for the Office of the Attorney General; James E. McNaney, for Department of Pollution Control and Ecology; Zachary D. Wilson, for the Conway Corporation, Hope Water and Light Commission, North Little Rock Electric Commission, Osceola Water and Light Plant, West Memphis Utilities Commission, and Farmers Electric Cooperative Corporation; Walter Davidson, for Associated Industries of Arkansas; Maurice Cathey, for Light Plant Commission of the City of Paragould; Lorraine Mintzmyer, for the National Park Service; Tom Foti, for the Arkansas Ecology Center.

Limited appearances: Robert H. Schee, for the Arkansas Lung Association; Ross L. Fordyce, for Arkansas Department of Industrial Development.

ORDER

On December 14, 1977, Arkansas Power and Light Company (AP&L), Arkansas Electric Cooperative Corporation (AECC), and City Water and Light Plant of Jonesboro, Arkansas (CWL), hereinafter referred to collectively as "Applicants", filed an Application, pursuant to provisions of the Utility Facility Environmental and Economic Protection Act (Act 866 of 1977) seeking a Certificate of Environmental Compatibility and Public Need to construct, maintain and operate a major utility facility consisting of two electric generating units and related cooling towers, intake and discharge facilities, and transportation and other necessary facilities near Newark, Independence County, Arkansas, hereinafter referred to as the "Independence Steam Electric Station". Attached to and made a part of the Application was an Environmental Impact Statement as required by Section 5(a)(5) of Act 866. Pursuant to the provisions of Act 866, Petitions to Intervene were granted to the Attorney General of Arkansas, the Department of Pollution Control and Ecology, Arkansas Ecology Center, Conway Corporation, Osceola Power and Light Plant, West Memphis Utilities Commission, Farmers Electric Cooperative Corporation, Hope Water and Light Commission, North Little Rock Electric Commission, Associated Industries of Arkansas, Inc., Reynolds Metals Company, White River Planning and Development District, Inc., and the Light Plant Commission of the City of Paragould. The Arkansas Department of Industrial Development and the Arkansas Lung Association were permitted to make a limited appearance.

On March 17, 1978, the Commission commenced hearings on the Application which continued until recessed on March 24, 1978. On May 22, 1978, the hearings were resumed and continued until adjourned on June 1, 1978. Briefs were filed on June 30, 1978, by Applicants, the Attorney General, and various municipal electric systems.

DESCRIPTION OF APPLICANTS

Applicant AP&L is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Arkansas and is engaged in the business of generating, transmitting, and distributing electric power and energy as a public utility as defined in Act 324 of 1935, as amended. AP&L's service area in Arkansas encompasses 59 of the 75 counties. As of September 30, 1977, AP&L provided electric service to approximately 448,000 customers in Arkansas. It also sells wholesale power and energy to eight municipalities, AECC (under a transmission coordination interchange agreement), three rural electric cooperatives, and one private utility in Arkansas. AP&L will own 60 percent of each of the two units at the proposed Independence Steam Electric Station.

Applicant AECC is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Arkansas owned by its 17 member cooperatives and has as its sole purpose the supplying of wholesale electric power on a non-profit basis to its member

cooperatives. The 17 member cooperatives have the responsibility of providing retail electric service within the areas allocated to them by the Commission. As of December 31, 1976, the 17 member cooperatives provided electric service to over 232,000 customers in Arkansas. AECC will own 35 percent of each of the two units at the proposed Independence Steam Electric Station.

Applicant CWL is an improvement district and a political subdivision of the State of Arkansas duly created and existing under the laws of the State of Arkansas. CWL serves approximately 12,700 customers in the City of Jonesboro and approximately 1,130 customers in the areas immediately adjacent to the city. CWL will own 5 percent of each of the two units at the Independence Steam Electric Station.

DESCRIPTION OF TYPE AND LOCATION OF FACILITIES

The Applicants seek a Certificate of Environmental Compatibility and Public Need (hereinafter referred to as "Certificate") to construct, maintain, and operate the Independence Steam Electric Station. The station consists of two coal-fired electric generating units and related cooling towers, rail transportation, unloading and storage facilities, and other necessary facilities at a site situated on the north bank of the White River near Newark, Independence County, Arkansas. The two generating units are nominally rated at a net capability of 700 megawatts each and are identical in design to those under construction at the White Bluff Steam Electric Station. See Docket No. U-2488. The units will have coal-fired boilers furnishing steam at 2,400 psig and 1,000 degrees Fahrenheit to two tandem compound four flow turbine generators. The generating unit boilers will use low-sulphur, sub-bituminous coal from mines located in the State of Wyoming. The coal will have an average heating value of 8,483 BTU per pound and an average sulphur content of 0.28 percent by weight. The proposed plant will use electrostatic precipitators to eliminate particulate matter in the exhausted flue gases. The clean gases from each stack will then be directed to a 1,000 foot tall concrete stack containing a separate tubular liner for each unit. Water for the steam cycle makeup, potable supply, and chemical cleaning will be taken from deep wells and purified. Cooling tower makeup and plant service water will be taken from the White River and also from collecting ponds situated on the site. Each unit will use a 393 foot tall hyperbolic natural draft cooling tower to cool the circulating water from the condenser. There will be no discharges to the river other than blow down from the low temperature side of the cooling towers. Auxiliary facilities will include necessary rail transportation, unloading and storage facilities for the coal supply, water intake and treatment facilities, water recycling ponds, a supplemental fuel oil storage system, and other associated facilities.

The proposed site will consist of approximately 2,000 acres of land located on the north bank of the White River approximately 21⁄2 miles southeast of Newark, Independence County, Arkansas, and approximately 6 miles northwest of Newport. The first generating unit is scheduled for completion in 1983. The second unit will be placed in operation in 1985.

JURISDICTION

The proposed facility is a “major utility facility" as defined by Act 866 of 1977, and the Commission has jurisdiction of this matter pursuant to such Act. Section 9 of the Act requires the Commission to make the following specific findings with respect to the proposed facility:

(1) The basis of the need for the facility;

(2) That the facility will serve the public interest, convenience and necessity; (3) The nature of the probable environmental impact of the facility;

(4) That the facility represents an acceptable adverse environmental impact, considering the state of available technology, the requirements of the customers of the applicant for utility service, the nature and economics of the proposal and the various alternatives, if any, and other pertinent considerations;

(5) The nature of the probable economic impact of the facility;

(6) That the facility financing method either as proposed or as modified by the Commission represents an acceptable economic impact, considering economic conditions and the need for the cost of additional public utility services;

(7) That the energy efficiency of the power production facility has been given significant weight in the decision-making process; and

(8) That the location of the facility as proposed conforms as closely as practicable to applicable State, regional and local laws and regulations issued thereunder.