a p P. O. BOX 2I666 'HOENIX> ARIZONA 85036 December 5, 1979 ANPP-14339 - JMA/DBK Director of Nuclear Reactor Regulation U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Re: Reference: Dear Sir: Joint Application for Operating Licenses for Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station Units 1, 2 and 3 NRC Docket Nos. STN 50-528/529/530 (A) Letter, ANPP-13904 dated October 1, 1979 to Director of Nuclear Reactor Regulation from E. E. Van Brunt, Jr., Vice President, APS Pursuant to 10 CFR Par t 50, Arizona Public Service Company (APS) submitted by Reference (A) the joint application for issuance of operating licenses for the Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station Units 1, 2 and 3 (PVNGS). As part of this joint application, and pursuant to 10 CFR 51.21, APS submits the PVNGS Environmental Report - Operating License Stage (ER-OL) . This submittal of the PVNGS ER-OL completes the joint application for issuance of operating licenses for PVNGS. Respectfully submitted, ARIZONA PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY EEVBJr /DBK/av Attachment: 20 copies of the PVNGS ER-OL, as required by 10 CFR 50.30 (C) (3) (iii) )' wean E. Van Brunt, Jr. Vice President On its own behalf and as agent for all other joint participants.
Transcript
a p
P. O. BOX 2I666 'HOENIX> ARIZONA 85036December 5, 1979ANPP-14339 - JMA/DBK
Director of Nuclear Reactor RegulationU.S. Nuclear Regulatory CommissionWashington, D.C. 20555
Re:
Reference:
Dear Sir:
Joint Application for Operating Licensesfor Palo Verde Nuclear GeneratingStation Units 1, 2 and 3
NRC Docket Nos. STN 50-528/529/530
(A) Letter, ANPP-13904 dated October 1, 1979 toDirector of Nuclear Reactor Regulation fromE. E. Van Brunt, Jr., Vice President, APS
Pursuant to 10 CFR Par t 50, Arizona Public Service Company (APS)submitted by Reference (A) the joint application for issuance ofoperating licenses for the Palo Verde Nuclear Generating StationUnits 1, 2 and 3 (PVNGS).
As part of this joint application, and pursuant to 10 CFR 51.21,APS submits the PVNGS Environmental Report - Operating License Stage(ER-OL) .
This submittal of the PVNGS ER-OL completes the joint applicationfor issuance of operating licenses for PVNGS.
Respectfully submitted,
ARIZONA PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY
EEVBJr /DBK/avAttachment: 20 copies of
the PVNGS ER-OL,as required by10 CFR 50.30 (C)(3) (iii)
)'
wean E. Van Brunt, Jr.Vice President
On its own behalf and as agentfor all other joint participants.
Director of Nuclear Reactor RegulationDecember 5, 1979ANPP-14339 - JMA/DBKPage 2
STATE OF ARIZONA )) ss.
County of Maricopa )
Subscribed and sworn to before me this@2 day of oct ~, 1979.
Notary Pub c
My Commission expires:
~E / g+
Y
FIRST LETTER (NOTE 1) SUCCEEDING LETTER (NOTE llIt»«MDEYKC
DistE IK
NEA«IREDDRIKTIATWOYkkuswc INDTE 4 ~S NOR Y
CLOK»T
C (CI 5
ANALYMPIOTC t<
wwwe ILVKco»ONTMIY
DC » a tv OUI55% oe «EICIIt
CC
ECVOLTADC (n«5fwoeaovcn
cuaanlt
LCLtvn.NDNTVAC
~Nulecw rwux p»vc IfVitae C»DKC (NOT t 1$
~en5uac Mttpt»TIAL
DVJ»fn T Murt»T
~ko«NCTIYIITP»ITC IT
5W CD De ISEDVCNCY
l(NpcsATvac
Kkvlvkwkew(I»ICD«IT
TC
«EIC«T
IWCLA5«I'Nosnit( 4HeekfID»
Io«Ines
!
ZC
GENERAL INSTRUMENTS ~ ((4 <$444)
INITPLAK«I
foe�
«I»NC NCk5ato0 VASIA«,t ANO ANT KWWRDffuKTID»L~4TKMNT4 (OCALLT Inw»TED.
~NTWNNNT104 A5«E TttlOILY
0 MfPun»t rosa«K vnrI%IN«OINW INC
CX3~rlTSIWCINfokT«OIKA5«PCDVAN AIL C5 Dk «Dec T «AN IWEtv»c1x«L«Nfsv«cnf Is locALLYIADV»lto PCITt Ih
~Nlau«cw 4 «awtco soe«o6 A PAIKLItvff(AU
~41 elen»1 4 WWNTE0 (W noIRONIDf A PANEL clvPICkLI
COMPUTER OR DATALOGGER
COCCeeulte De DATALDOOER ee«TDe DVTPVI. AN loufnffCATICW Nk1K«4(14(k
SIGNALS AND LINESCDIOECWEW To PWNEIIDeIKDWPCALL«rLEWWLTSWKNT5(«PLY
~ '«ewfaee»TLWC»0»IAICSO NIIT«4AW«llnlafwe»ceafiatkaokA«acifwwatn ~ f44a\Ikwe e
IWKITE~ A 4 U«4 We illk wine IW kkl%TWISLNIP 4TCMIUIPE ILK(40VTI4EM»efPYW IDpcllor k Leep To IE»tltNc IpEce c Iipwaknco ~ caela i»»set o ~ eelkvteoapu»COW ~ CO»W Tnt 0 On«»OPTIC»
Mwwwpwonnc1 I «I~ 4ANPUI TEPOK» $0 «»I~ K«wa «»I ~ M«ISt»e II~ ee ~0 aaww 0»pew«Twnaooon fpl Tv««IT
ITK(lfftnc«»cat�«NI4IOM
tk«»topwk~wn roe Noa AwUw ann(«vcwv, at Ise wvwTKLETIED ~ I»EOIHLTPW IATHNIWI4 «4 WmwaTkwkt IWLITT(P4«WWOKTM PAMKWITNM
AIVK4via en E
0 TKLETneclvce«a»Tc4wawsle«fe\LKINE~ 0» Ta»CPA IOII TI4I~ TC»I IT»i'IWIEV»»AVIVI»AWPNAIJf IT LE ~ Tt~ AA4AAIWWEPVWAW4lltkWCCnwelwlll<e EKCHKNNIHE«T»D»TIKI»E%II»ILL «4 KWWPekw KEAPHEOOVIMETW MT«k»WCNCLL
LITTEA c MO Ieu4WI A Wka»te Ik«kktKMIEmlakwpenwwswwcc M0Lt LPEL«lcklWa»AN(«PLPKTAPUPKMIPVM,KfwlfatlCI. ANN»cnwlulTofI ~ »tee(K»nawkmwlhef eawwuwpweenwvo AIWMAVK4eclM MwspwlND«weekva»E PIP«UIKDECINO Ivt4W«4«AIO»
~kw»KMawluffte k»MMIWM ~ 4 KIWWCEC(W4 WEHEE
E JWC«L<U(ht ATNWWNPPIMPkwawwtfn~ «IfEKVK MNPPI Vr (aEP TUN~ N IAA NWMWklltael»k«W0. «nt kna Toke( ea neewntaiweascirw
12.3 WATER. UALITY CERTIFICATION UNDER SECTION 401OF THE FEDERAL WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ACT,
AS AMENDED
12.4 STATUS OF CONTACTS WITH STATE, LOCAL AND
REGIONAL PLANNING AUTHORITIES
APPENDIX 12A RESPONSES TO NRC UESTIONS
13. REFERENCES
APPENDIX 13A RESPONSES TO NRC UESTIONS
Pacae
12-112-112-112-1
12-1
13-1
PVNGS ER-OL
CHAPTER 1
PURPOSE OF THE PROPOSED FACILITYAND ASSOCIATED TRANSMISSION
CONTENTS
1.1 SYSTEM DEMAND AND RELIABILITY1.1.1 LOAD CHARACTERISTICS
1.1.1.11.1.1.21.1.1.31.1'. 2
1.1.3
Load Anal sisDemand Pro'ectionsPower Exchan es
SYSTEM CAPACITY
RESERVE MARGINS
1.1.4 EXTERNAL SUPPORTING STUDIES
1.2 OTHER OBJECTIVES
1.3 CONSE UENCES OF DELAY
APPENDIX lA RESPONSES TO NRC UESTIONS
APPENDIX 1B ARIZONA PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY LOAD
FORECAST METHODOLOGY
APPENDIX 1C LOS ANGELES DEPARTMENT OF WATER AND
POWER LOAD FORECASTING METHODOLOGY
APPENDIX 1D EL PASO ELECTRIC COMPANY LOAD
FORECASTING METHODOLOGY
APPENDIX lE PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF NEW MEXICO
FORECASTING METHODOLOGY
APPENDIX 1F SALT RIVER PROJECT LOAD FORECASTING
METHODOLOGY
APPENDIX 1G SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY
FORECASTING METHODOLOGY
APPENDIX 1H ARIZONA PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY
RESPONSE TO FPC ORDER NO. 496
Pacae
1.1-11 ~ 1 2
1. 1-21.1-41.1-9A1.1-91.1-101.1-121 ~ 2 1
1.3-1
March 1981 Supplement 2
PVNGS ER-OL
CONTENTS (cont)
APPENDIX 1I LOS ANGELES DEPARTMENT OF WATER
AND POWER RESPONSE TO FPC
ORDER NO. 496APPENDIX 1J EL PASO ELECTRIC COMPANY RESPONSE
TO FPC ORDER NO. 496 AND ENERGY
CONSERVATION PROGRAMS
APPENDIX 1K PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF NEW MEXICO
RESPONSE TO FPC ORDER NO. 496APPENDIX 1L SALT RIVER PROJECT RESPONSE TO
FPC ORDER NO. 496APPENDIX 1M SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY
RESPONSE TO FPC ORDER NO. 496
Supplement 3 1-ii July 1981
PVNGS ER-OL
TABLES
1.1-11 Q 1 2
1.1-3
1.1-4
1.1-5
1.1-6
1.1-7
Loads and Resources Summary 1964 Through 1992Load and Energy Requirements by Month 1981
Through 1988PVNGS ParticipantsArizona Public ServiceLos Angeles Department of Water and PowerEl Paso Electric CompanyPublic Service Company of New MexicoSalt River ProjectSouthern California Edison
Load and Resources Summary Combined Arizona-New Mexico (AZ-NM) and SouthernCalifornia-Nevada (SoCA-NV) Systems asReported to the WSCC (1972 Through 1987)
Loads Summary by Month Combined Arizona-New Mexico (AZ-NM) and Southern California-Nevada (SoCA-NV) systems as Reported to theWSCC (1982 Through 1987) .
Comparison of Actual Peak Demands and EnergyRequirements in 1973 Through 1978 WithForecasts Made in Prior Years for CombinedWSCC Southern California-Nevada andArizona-New Mexico System
Actual 1978 Demands and Energy RequirementsCompared With WSCC Forecasts Made in1972-1977 for Combined WSCC SouthernCalifornia-Nevada and Arizona-New MexicoSystem
Comparison of Monthly Peak Demands and EnergyRequirements 1972 Through 1978
PVNGS 1,2&3 ParticipantsArizona Public ServiceLos Angeles Department of Water and Power
El Paso Electric Company
Public Service Company of New MexicoSalt River ProjectSouthern California Edison
Western Systems Coordinating Council ExistingGenerating Capability as of January 1, 1979
Arizona-New Mexico Power AreaSouthern California-Nevada Power Area
Western Systems Coordinating Council Summary
of Generation AdditionsArizona-New Mexico Power AreaSouthern California-Nevada Power Area
Comparison of Participants GeneratingCapacity, Load, and Energy Generation
Arizona Public ServiceLos Angeles Department of Water and Power
El Paso ElectricPublic Service of New MexicoSalt River ProjectSouthern California Edison
SCPPA Member Agencies Loads and ResourcesCity of Anaheim Electric Utility SystemCity of Azusa Electric Utility SystemCity of Banning Electric Utility System
City of Burbank Electric Utility SystemCity of Colton Electric Utility SystemCity of Glendale Electric Utiltiy SystemCity of Pasadena Electric Utility SystemCity of Riverside Electric Utility Syst: em
City of Vernon Electric Utility SystemImperial Irrigation District Electric
Utility System
1.1-2321 ~ 1 2331.1-2341.1-235 „,
1.1-2361.1-2371.1-238
1.1-13 M-S-R Member Loads and ResourcesModesto Irrigation District Electric
Utility Company
City of Santa Clara Electric UtilityCompany
City of Redding Electric UtilityCompany
1.1-240
1.1-241
1.1-242
1.3-1 Margin Comparison Between ParticipantsReserve Margin With and WithoutPVNGS-1,2S3 Delayed
1. 3-4
1.3-2 1981 Reverse Margin Due to Delay of PVNGS 1.3-14
1.3-3 Effect of Delay on Participant's SystemReliability, Arizona Public ServiceReliability Index (One Day In-Years)
1.2-24
1.3-4 Effect of Delay on Participant s OilConsumption, Arizona Public Service
1.3-29
1.3-5 Effect of Delay on Participant's Gas
Consumption, Arizona Public Service1.3-36
December 1981 1-ivA Supplement 4
PVNGS ER-OL1
Tables (cont)
Pacae
1.3-6 Effect of Delay on Participant's CoalConsumption, Arizona Public Service
1.3-43
1.3-7 Effect of Delay on Participant's UraniumFuel Consumption, Arizona Public Service
1.3-50
1.3-8 1981 Production Costs Due to Delay of PVNGS 1.3-57
1.3-9 Average System Data
1.3-10 SCPPA Members Energy Mix
1.3-68
1. 3-74
1.3-11 M-S-R Members Energy Mix 1.
3»74'upplement
4 1-ivB December 1981
PVNGS ER-OL
S ~
t'a~'
, FIGURES
PVNGS Units 1,2 Participants 1987-88 CoincidentJC
Load Duration urveArizona Public Service 1987-88 Coincident Load
Los Angeles Department of Water and Power 1987-88Coincident Load Duration Curve
Public Service Company of New Mexico 1987-88 'Coincident'Load Duration Curve
Salt River Project 1987-88 Coincident Load DurationCurve
Southern California Edison 1987-88 Coincident Load
Duration CurveGeographical Boundaries of WSCC Subareas
S
S
PVNGS ER-OL
1. PURPOSE OF THE PROPOSED FACILITYAND ASSOCIATED TRANSMISSION
Information presented in ER-CP Chapter 1 and the FES has been
updated by the use of more current participant load forecasts.The information presented in sections 1.1 and 1.3 reflects par-ticipant forecasts made in late 1978 and early 1979. Subse-
quent to these forecasts, the PVNGS Unit 1 commercial operationdate was delayed one year from May 1982 to May 1983 and licens-ing activities on PVNGS Units 4 and 5 were suspended. Both ofthese changes reduce the available resources and reserve marginsfor the participants'ystem beyond those presented in sec-tion 1.1, making the need for PVNGS even more acute. Informa-tion presented in section 1.3 reflects the new commercialoperation date of PVNGS Unit 1.
1.1 SYSTEM DEMAND AND RELIABILITY
The areas served by the participants have experienced and con-
tinue to experience growth in both peak demand and energyrequirements. The average annual growth rate for the compositearea for the years 1968 to 1978 was approximately 5.6% for peak
demand and 4.5% for energy requirements (refer to table l.l-l).The forecasted annual growth rate for the years 1978 to 1988 isapproximately 3.8% for peak demand and 4.3% for energyrequirements.
The total 'forecasted growth .in combined system annual peak
demand from 1980 to 1986 is 6567 megawatts. The forecastedgrowth in annual energy requirements for the same time periodis 34,868 GWh. Thus, it is clear that the total nominal net
'capacity of 3810 megawatts from PVNGS-1,263 constitutes onlya part of the new resources needed to meet the load require-ments forecast in this time frame, and to provide the reserves
requisite for reliable service. Likewise, PVNGS will supply
PVNGS ER-OL
SYSTEM DEMAND AND RELIABILITY
approximately 25,600 GWh annually, which is only a portion ofthe total additional energy requirements in this time frame(refer to table S.l-l).Data presented to support the participants'orecasted growthis given for each participant, for the participants'ombinedsystem, and, where applicable, for the Western Systems Coor-dinating Council (WSCC). The WSCC is a regional reliabilitycouncil to which all of the participants subscribe.
In addition to subscribing to the WSCC, the PVNGS participantsare committed to the following agreements: Arizona Public Ser-vice Company (APS), the Los Angeles Department of Water and
Power (LADWP), El Paso Electric Company (EPE), Public ServiceCompany of New Mexico (PNM), Southern California Edison Company
(SCE) and Salt River Project Agricultural Improvement and Power
District (SRP) are committed to the Principles of InterconnectedOperation for Four Corners Interconnection Agreement. APS,
LADWP and SRP are parties to the Navajo Participation Agreementand the. Navajo Operation Agreement. SCE is a party to the San
Onofre No. 1 Ownership Agreement and Operation Agreement.IADWP, SCE and SRP are parties to the Mohave Project OperationAgreement, the Mohave Plant Site Convenience and Co-Tenancy
Agreement, the Eldorado System Operating Agreement, and theEldorado System Convenience and Co-Tenancy Agreement. SCE isa member of the California Power Pool. EPE and PNM are members
of the New Mexico Power Pool. These agreements serve tostrengthen the coordination among the PVNGS participants.
1.1.1 LOAD CHARACTERISTICS~1Information on annual peak demand, energy requirements, power
purchases, and sales for all PVNGS participants, and for indi-vidual participant's systems, is presented in table 1.1-1.
PVNGS ER-OL
SYSTEM DEMAND AND RELIABILITY
This table and all other tables and figures in this section forPVNGS present the cumulative data as well as individual datafor all participants. Where appropriate (that is, sales andpurchases between participants), the cumulative data have beenadjusted to prevent duplication.Information in table 1.1-1 shows that the participants had acombined demand compound growth rate of about 5.6% per annumfrom 1968 to 1978, and that they anticipate a combined growth .
rate of 3.8% per annum between 1978 and 1988. Between 1988 and1992, it is expected that the combined system demand will begrowing at an average rate of more than 1170 megawatts per year.All participants are summer peaking utilities. The electricdemand and energy growth rate in the areas served by the parti-cipants can be attributed to a rate of population expansiongreater than the national average, increased use of air condi-tioning, and a general trend toward higher per capita use ofelectricity.Most of the participants do not have and do not anticipate hav-.ing any interruptible- load. SCE includes interruptible loadsin its load management reductions, which reduce the peak fore-cast used in SCE planning studies.
'Monthly demand and energy requirements for 1981 through 1988for the combined systems of all participants as well as for anindividual participant s systems, are presented in table 1.1-2.Figures 1.1-1 through 1.1-7 are projected 1987 to 1988 loadduration curves for the participants'ombined system as wellas for each participant. The anticipated 1987 to 1988 loadfactor for the combined system is 60.3%, with individual loadfactors ranging from 57.4 to 70.2%. Analysis of the load dura-tion curves indicates that nuclear energy production can dis-place higher priced coal resources, and that the full potentialproduction "of the nuclear units can be used in the combinedsystems of all participants. The displacement of coal resources
PVNGS ER-OL
SYSTEM DEMAND AND RELIABILITY
will in turn displace the need for the addition of oil-burningunits, such as combined cycle and combustion turbine units.Thus, the use of domestic coal and nuclear resources will, eachin turn, result in the area being less dependent on oil, an
expensive and uncertain future energy resource.
All of the participants are members of the WSCC. Part of theirmembership obligation is to periodically report certain of theabove load-resource data to the WSCC for use in various reportsand studies. These data are compiled and published annually inthe WSCC Summary of Estimated Loads and Resources. The loadsand resources for the PVNGS Arizona and New Mexico participantsare included in the total for Region III, Arizona-New MexicoPower Area; the PVNGS Southern California participants are
- included in the totals for Region IV, Southern California-NevadaPower Pool. Figure 1.1-8 shows the geographic boundaries ofthese areas.
The total'nnual peak demand and energy requirements for thesetwo areas, as extracted from WSCC reports, are listed intable 1.1-3. These data, compiled from the 1972-1987 reportperiod, pertain to all utilities in the geographical area andtherefore are larger in magnitude than the data compiled solelyfor the PVNGS participants. Table 1.1-4 is a list of themonthly demand and energy requirements for the areas asextracted from the WSCC report for 1982 through 1987.
The loads and resources of SCPPA members except Los AngelesDepartment of Water and Power are presented in table 1.1-12.Comparabl'e data for LADWP is presented in table 1.1-1,sheet 3 of 7.,The loads and resources of M-S-R members are presented intable 1.1-13.
Supplement 4 1.1-4 December 1981
PVNGS ER-OL
SYSTEM DEMAND AND RELIABILITY
1.1.1.2 Demand Pro'ections
The need for PVNGS and;other'additional generating capacityrests on the validity of the forecasts made by the participantsfor their respective loads through 1990. To establish thisvalidity the following topics are addressed:
~ Methodology of forecasting~ Histori'cal accuracy of forecasting~ Impact of energy conservation measures
.
December 1981 1.1-4A Suaplement 4
PVNGS ER-OL
'C
SYSTEM DEMAND AND RELIABILITY
This page intentionally blank
Supplement 3 1.1-4B July 1981
PVNGS ER-OL
SYSTEM DEMAND AND RELIABILITY
1.1.1.2.1 Methodology of Forecasting
Accurate load forecasting is vital to the proper planning ofgeneration and transmission facilities required to ensure eco-nomical and reliable service. Accurate forecasting is needed
not only to'stablish the timing of additional capacity, but todetermine the most economic mix of base, intermediate, and peak-ing types of generating capacity. Moreover, the forecastingperiod must reach far enough into the future to permit the con-sideration of all types of capacity, including those with thelongest lead time from commitment to commercial service.
All of the participants have developed methods of forecastingwhich are designed to permit orderly planning and produce reli-
I
able and economical electric service. Each participant preparesits annual forecasts independently for its own system, usingtechniques and exercising judgment suitable 'to its operationsand circumstances. Details of each participant's forecastingmethodology are included in appendices 1B through 1G.
1.1.1.2.2 Historical Accuracy of Forecasts
Tables 1.1-5 and 1.1-6 support the validity of the forecasts ofannual peak demands and energy requirements from 1983 to 1986,
when PVNGS will be placed in service. The data sources foreach table are the reports made by the WSCC for Region III(principally Arizona and New Mexico) and Region IV (principallySouthern California and Nevada) commencing in 1973. Informationin table 1.1-5 illustrates the accuracy of the short-term(1-year) forecasts by comparing the actual peak demands and
annual energy requirements experienced by all participants from
1973 through 1978 with the reported forecasts for each of those
years made during the preceding year. The table shows that, inall years but one, the forecasts overestimated actual experi-ence. The mean deviation of the forecasts from actual experi-ence is about 4.3% for peak demands and about 5.9% for energy
requirements.
1.1-5
PVNGS ER-OL
SYSTEM DEMAND AND RELIABILITY
The effects of consumer conservation with reductions in peakloads and energy requirements first became noticeable in 1974
and 1975, following the Organization of Petroleum ExportingCountries, (OPEC) oil embargo. As these effects are not pre-dicted in the forecasts prior to 1974 and 1975, the forecastspredicted peak demands and eriergy requirements substantiallyhigher than were experienced. Forecasts made after the 1974-1975 period include the effects of conservation and are there-fore substantially more accurate. ,If only the years 1976
through 1978 are considered, the mean deviations for peakdemand and energy requirements in table 1.1-5 are 2.0% and 2.4%
respectively.Table 1.1-'6 is a comparison of the actual 1978 peak demand and
energy requirement experienced in WSCC Region III and Region IVwith the 1978 forecasts made in each of the preceding 6 years.As can be seen in table 1.1-5, the short-term forecast made in1972 for 1973, was quite accurate. However, because of theabsence of any allowance for conservation, the long-term fore-casts such as 1972 for 1978, and 1973 for 1978, as seen intable 1.1-6 were quite high. The later, short-term forecastssuch as 1976 for 1978 and 1977 for 1978, again became more
accurate. Based on the data presented in tables 1.1-5 and
1.1-6, it is apparent that forecasts made in 1976 and laterincorporate the effects of conservation and exhibit a higherdegree of accuracy.
1.1.1.2.3 Impact of Conservation Measures on Forecasts
1.1.1.2.3.1 Effects of Conservation on Forecasts. Oil short-ages appeared after the imposition of the OPEC oil embargo inthe latter part of 1973. At that time, most of the partici-pants observed that, peak demands and energy consumption were
reduced below anticipated levels. System growth rate laggedfor a short period and then exhibited a partial recovery. This
1.1-6
PVNGS ER-OL
SYSTEM DEMAND AND REI IABILITY
can be seen from comparisons of monthly values to the precedingyear for 1972 through 1978 (refer to table 1.1-7).
By observing annual growth rates of combined system annual peakdemand it can be seen that the compound annual peak demand
growth was 8.3% from 1968 through 1972 (refer to table 1.1-1).A reduced annual growth rate of 2.1% followed during the next3 years (1973 through 1975). The growth rate recovered during1976 through 1978 when the compound annual combined system peakdemand growth rate was 5.4%. The load forecast in table 1.1-1relies on the assumption that consumers will continue to takeenergy conservation measures. The forecast also assumes thatmore efficient, electrical appliances will be available, some-
what, counterbalancing the trend of steadily rising per capitausage. The compound forecasted combined system peak demand
growth rate over the next 10 years (1978 to 1988) is 3.8%.
The reduced growth rate from 1973 through 1975 was caused bythe combination of the OPEC oil embargo, economic recession,consumer conservation education, and price elasticity. The
continued lower growth rates observed in 1975 and 1976, and
forecast for the future, are attributed to continuing consumer
conservation. The continued consumer conservation results fromthe utilities'onsumer education and conservation programs,and continuing price escalation.
I1.1.1.2.3.2 Partici ants'ner Conservation Pro rams. Each
of the participants offers a public communications and educationprogram designed to encourage prudent use of electric energy byits customers. These programs include newspaper and radioadvertisements, mailers in monthly billings, speakers, and
company programs to inspect customer premises and make recom-
mendations on energy-saving modifications and equipment. The
scope and nature of the programs of the participants. were
reported to the Federal Power Commission (FPC) in FPC Dkt.
PVNGS ER-OL
SYSTEM DEMAND AND RELIABILITY
No. RM-74-7, pursuant to FPC Order Nos. 496, 497, 497A, and,.497B issued November 29, 1973, December 7, 1973, April 5, 1974,and August 13, 1975, respectively.The scope and nature of the reported programs are set forth in .
appendices 1H through 1M. The programs urge customers to adoptpractices that would reduce peak demands and conserve energy.Such practices include the regulation of thermostatic controls,the use of insulation to reduce heat loss, the use of drapes,blinds, and other means typically found or available for use inhomes to reduce space heating energy requirements. Alsoincluded are methods for securing the most efficient use ofappliances such as electric dishwashers and washing machines.
Also, in new construction that uses electric space heating,incentives are used to assure the satisfaction of minimum stan-dards for installation of equipment, insulation, and othermeans of restricting heat losses. Active campaigns are cur-rently maintained to promote use of more efficient space heat-ing and cooling devices, such as the heat pump. Advertisingand incentive programs, such as wiring allowances and supportof dealer promotions, formerly used by many utilities to pro-mote the use of electric energy, have been discontinued com-
pletely or have been curtailed to selective applications.
Promotional rates for certain kinds of electric uses that were
designed to improve system load factors, such as electric hot,
water heating, have been discontinued. Those that have notbeen discontinued are undergoing regulatory proceedings toauthorize discontinuance.
Regulatory commissions in both Arizona and California are con-sidering changes in rate structure, such as demand rates and
time-of-day rates. While it is hoped these rates will reduce
peak demand, it is not expected that they will affect totalenergy requirements or reduce the need for base-load generation
1.1-8
PVNGS ER-OL
SYSTEM DEMAND AND RELIABILITY
units such as PVNGS. The par'ticipants will continue seekingmeans to promote effectively prudent electric energy managementpractices.
1.1.1.3 Power Exchan es
Past and expecte'd future net power sales and purchases outsidethe participants'ombined system, which are applicable at thetime of annual peak demand, are presented in table 1.1-1. Bothfirm sales and purchases and nonfirm sales and purchases aretabulated; they contribute respectively to load and generationtotals. Firm purchases are not included in the resourcesrequiring reserves as the reserves are provided by the seller.Reserve for firm sales is provided on the participants'om-bined system.
On a load'and resource tabulation, firm sales appear as loadadditions. Firm purchases appear as reductions in load.
A nonfirm sale is a sale of power if that power is available.The delivery of power is contingent on the operation of thestipulated source. The buyer must provide the reserves toback up a nonfirm purchase.
On a load and resource tabulation nonfirm sales and purchasesare treated as resources. A nonfirm sale of power reduces thecapacity of the machine the sale is made from and the resourcestotal is reduced by the amount of the sale. A nonfirm purchaseis added to the resources total.Table 1.1-1, Loads and Resources Summary, tabulates firm sales,firm purchases, nonfirm sales and nonfirm purchases. Table1.1-2, Load and Energy Requirements by Month, tabulates loadsbut not resources. It includes firm sales and firm purchases.Table 1.1-3 is a loads and resources summary. It includesfirm sales, firm purchases, nonfirm sales and nonfirm purchases.Table 1.1-4 is a monthly loads summary and includes firm sales
March 1981 1.1-9 Supplement 2
PVNGS ER-OL
SYSTEM DEMAND AND RELIABILITY
and firm purchases. Table 1.'1-8, Capability of Resources,tabulates resources but not loads. It includes nonfirm salesand nonfirm purchases.
1.1.2 SYSTEM CAPACITY
System capabilities for each of the participants at the time ofthe'nnual peak demand for 1968 through 1988 are presented intable 1.1-8 along with a combined resources summary for allparticipants. Representative capacity factors are providedin table 1.1-8A. These resource schedules are the result ofgeneration planning that makes use of the load forecastingdiscussed in section 1.1.1.2.Each participant is responsible for determining its own criteriafor bulk generation planning, including the methodology forlpad forecasting. The Reliability Council of the WSCC recentlyissued guidelines for the measurement of the adequacy of powersupply, including as an alternative a reliability test thatuses a loss-of-load probability (LOLP) criterion of one day ofoutage in 10 years.
Table 1.1-9 contains information showing the existing genera-tion capability as of January 1, 1978, for the Arizona-NewMexico Power Area and the Southern California-Nevada Power Area,respectively, as defined in WSCC. Table 1.1-10 is a summary ofgeneration additions for these two power areas. Table 1.1-11provides a comparison of participants generating capacity, load,and energy generation for the period 1981-1990.
.Supplement 3 1.1-9A July 1981
PVNGS ER-OL
SYSTEM DEMAND AND RELIABILITY )2
This page intentionally blank.
March 1981 1.1-9B Supplement 2 l2
PVNGS ER-OL
SYSTEM DEMAND AND RELIABILITY
1.1.3 RESERVE MARGINS
The participants do not participate jointly in any singleregional power pool. Each participant is responsible forestablishing and maintaining its own reserve. Reserve criteriavary with the participant. Each participant's reserve require-ments are listed below in outline form.
A. Arizona Public Service Company: The APS generationreserve reguirements are based on an LOLP criterionapplied to the proposed Cactus Pool. The proposedpool includes Arizona Electric Power Cooperative, APS,
EPE, Plains Electric Generation and Transmission Coop-
erative, Public Service Company of New Mexico, and SaltRiver Project. Although formal operating agreementshave not been established for this pool, the pool con-cept has been used in planning studies to establish APS
installed reserve requirements. The LOLP criterion isexpressed in terms of the expected number of times in a
specified period that the pool generating capacity fails'o meet load.
The criterion used by APS (in conjunction with the APS
load forecast on May 31, 1978) is that the pool reservesshall be 16% of pool load from 1979 through 1981 and
sufficient to yield an expected failure to meet poolload of no more than one occurrence in 3 years beyond1981. This is sometimes referred to as a 1/3 LOLP
index. A computer simulation that represents bothforced and maintenance outages is used to compute theprobability of failure to meet load on a daily basis,with the daily probabilities added to yield an annualindex. Allocation of the pool reserves among indivi-dual utilities is in proportion to the sum of theirpeak load, plus twice their largest hazard.
1.1-10
PVNGS ER-OL
SYSTEM DEMAND AND RELIABILITY
El Paso Electric Company: El Paso Electric Company'sminimum installed reserve criterion is the WSCC guideof "single largest hazard" plus 5% of the load. El PasoElectric as a separate entity does not use probabilisticmethods. However, a new pooling arrangement. currentlyunder negotiation among the Arizona-New Mexico utilitiesand El Paso Electric (Cactus Power Pool) will use thismethodology.
Los Angeles Department of Water and Power:, The LADWP
uses an LOLP computer program developed inhouse todetermine minimum system reserve requirements for plan-ning purposes.'he LOLP is defined as a measure of theexpected risk that the available generating resourceswill not be able to meet the system load. It isexpressed in terms of number of days during which lossof load may be expected to occur in a given number ofyears. The criterion used by LADWP is that the proba-bility of losing load because of a lack of availablegenerating capacity should not, exceed 1 day in 10 years.
Public Service Company of New Mexico:'ublic ServiceCompany of New Mexico's minimum installed reserve cri-terion is 20% of peak load or the "single largesthazard", whichever is greater.
Southern California Edison Company: SCE's installedcapacity reserve criteria requires that sufficientinstalled capacity be provided to meet or exceed each
of the following minimum planned criteria:1. Installed capacity margin of 18%, plus or minus 2%
of the annual estimated peak demand before sched-
uled maintenance.
1.1-11
PVNGS ER-OL
SYSTEM DEMAND AND RELIABILITY
2.
3.
Installed capacity margin (after deducting sched-uled maintenance) sufficient to allow the loss ofthe larger of either of the two largest risks(generating unit or interconnection); or 7% ofsystem demand and the largest risk.A reliability criterion based on probabi:lity calcu-lations; the criterion .requires that the resourceprogram result in a raliability index of 0.95 when
considering all hourly loads in a year, plannedgeneration maintenance and random forced outages,and assumed availability of emergency capacitythrough SCE's interconnections. A reliabilityindex of 0.95 indicates that interconnection assis-tance in excess of that assumed normally availablewill be required for approximately 1 hour every20 years.
F. Salt River-Project: Salt River Project's requiredreserve margin criterion is 16% of peak load through1982 and 20 percent of peak load beginning in 1983.
I
1.1.4 EXTERNAL SUPPORTING STUDIES
The Principles of Interconnected Operation for the Four CornersInterconnection Agreement have been incorporated in participa-tion agreements involving APS, SRP, PNM, EPE, LADWP, and SCE.
The Principles of Interconnected Operation provide, in part, as
follows:
The Participants recognize that it is prudent practicethat each provide a Forecast, Capacity Resources Marginat least equal to 15% of the Estimated Peak Demand foreach month of each calendar year, but the InterconnectionAgreement shall not obligate any Participant to do so.
1.1-12
PVNGS ER-OL
SYSTEM DEMAND AND RELIABILITY
The foregoing provision is a statement of the minimum acceptableplanning objective. It is not obligatory in the sense that noparticipant can be forced to add additional capacity; however,failure to comply can affect rights to, and costs of, emergencyservice.
