|
M
<br /> • RESOLUTION NO. ��-Z-
<br /> A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BATESVILLE, ARKANSAS,
<br /> CONDEMNING THE ACTIONS OF A FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION (FERC)
<br /> ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE AND FERC'S STAFF REGARDING THEIR DECISION AND
<br /> POSITION ON THE QUESTION OF THE ALLOCATION OF COSTS OF NUCLEAR FIRED
<br /> ELECTRIC GENERATING STATIONS IPJ THE STATES OF LOUISIANA AND MISSISSIPPI,
<br /> MAKING STATEMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS RELATIVE THERETO AND AUTHORIZING �
<br /> AND DIRECTING OPPOSITION TO SUCH DECISIONS.
<br /> WHEREAS, a FERC Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) , on the 3rd day of February
<br /> 1984, in FERC Docket No. 82-616 , issued an Order requiring the Arkansas Power
<br /> and Light Company to purchase 36% of the capacity and energy of the Grand Gulf
<br /> Nuclear Generating Station in the State of Mississippi ; and
<br /> WHEREAS, in FERC Docket No. 82-483, the staff of the FERC, Louisiana Pub-
<br /> lic Service Commission, and others are advocating that the Arkansas Power and
<br /> i' Light Company and its rate-payers assume the payment of portions of the costs
<br /> of not only the Grand Gulf Nuclear Station, but also the Waterford III Nuclear
<br /> Generating Station in Louisiana; and
<br /> WHEREAS, the decision of the Administrative Law Judge in FERC Docket No.
<br /> 82-616, the Grand Gulf case, could ultimately cost the rate-payers of the State
<br /> jof Arkansas , an additional two hundred eighty million dollars ($280,000,000)
<br /> per annum; and
<br /> WHEREAS, the decision of the FERC, not
<br /> yet made in Docket No. 82-483, the
<br /> Middle South System Agreement case, could cost the rate-payers of the State of
<br /> Arkansas , an additional seventy million dollars ($70,000,000) per annum;
<br /> NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BATESVILLE,
<br /> ARKANSAS:
<br /> SECTION 1: The City Council condemns the actions of the FERC Administra-
<br /> tive Law Judge, in Docket No. 82-616. The 82-616 decision is without any pre-
<br /> cedent or other legal authority and would impose the costs of an expensive, un-
<br /> needed Nuclear Generating Station, in the State of Mississippi , on the rate-
<br /> payers of the State of Arkansas , whose citizens had no input or other decision
<br /> making authority with respect to the location of or need for such Nuclear Gen-
<br /> erating Station and whose electrical power and energy demand requirements make
<br /> such plant unnecessary.
<br /> SECTION 2: The City Council makes the following statements and recommend-
<br /> ations:
<br /> I
<br /> A. It is grossly unfair to the rate-payers of Arkansas to pay for nuclear
<br /> fired electric generating stations in Mississippi and Louisiana which were
<br /> never authorized or approved by officials of the State of Arkansas.
<br /> B. The two nuclear plants in question have a combined cost of approxi-
<br /> mately 5.2 billion dollars, with the Arkansas share for Grand Gulf alone apnrox
<br /> • limately 1 billion dollars .
<br /> C. Arkansas Power and Light Company, in apparent good faith, planned,
<br /> I[ sought approval from the Arkansas Public Service Commission for, constructed
<br /> land financed, with the assistance of Arkansas rate-payers , Arkansas Nuclear One
<br /> ' Units 1 and 2 in the late 1960 's and 1970 's. The Arkansas nuclear generators ,
<br /> ; had a total cost of approximately one billion dollars ($1,000,000,000) and have1
<br /> !' a combined electrical output of 1694 megawatts. The Arkansas share of the
<br /> Grand Gulf unit alone, (under the decision of the FERC ALJ) , also, has a cost
<br /> iof approximately one billion dollars ($1,000,000,000) yet the capacity assigned ;
<br /> to Arkansas is only 405 MW, less than 25% of the electrical output of Arkansas
<br /> j Nuclear One, 1 and 2.
<br /> D. ThP raniral and n�ki+ P4-a4--- _r �__
<br />
|