OCR Text |
Show UP&L's reply to coal story Dear Editor: The story that appeared July 29 in the Vernal Express concerning Utah Power & Light's coal hearings occurred occur-red because the committee of Consumer Con-sumer Services issued a press release to the media. This release was an attempt at-tempt by the Committee to get additional addi-tional publicity in a case that has dragged on for 18 months and one that has been very expensive for the customers of UP&L and the taxpayers of the state of Utah. The CCS study that precipitated this review of UP&L coal operations has been refused in the direct testimony and cross examination of competent witnesses. It's UP&L's contention that while the drawn-out case has accomplished very little, it has been time consuming consum-ing and expensive. UP&L estimates that its costs associated with the coal case are some $500,000. These are costs that are passed on to ratepayers. All parties involved in the case have agreed that UP&L requires a long-term long-term coal supply to ensure reliable electric service. The parties also agreed that current coal costs are reasonable rea-sonable and fair to the ratepayers. This last ditch, grandstand attempt by the CCS to gain publicity for the study it sponsored is just that a gimmick gim-mick to rehash the case prior to the time the Utah Public Service Commission Commis-sion issues the official order in the case, thereby putting to rest the erroneous er-roneous information that has been circulated cir-culated as a result of the CCS study. Mathematical errors, unsupported data and improper assumptions and analyses have been at the heart of the Committee's basic document which is a study conducted by Sylvia Siegel. The Committee of Consumer Services, Ser-vices, through its witness Ms. Siegel, advocated that UP&L import Wyoming Wyom-ing coal for its Salt Lake City plant and rely solely on the spot market for its total supply of coal. The result of this irrational approach would be economic disaster for the company and its ratepayers. When spot market coal was not available, which would occur quite frequently with the company's com-pany's need of five million tons per year for its Utah plants, massive amounts of oil fired generation would have to be purchased from neighlxiring' utilities at four times the cost of coal-supplied coal-supplied electricity. This would put the company and ils customers at the mercy of the spot market suppliers, who, when UI'&L's demand for coal exceeded the supply, would undoubtedly raise their prices for coal. During the hearings, even a representative of the Committee of Consumer Services took the position that it would be illogical for a company the si.c of UP&L to depend solely on spot market purchases for its supply of coal. DAVE MEAD Utah Power & Light |