UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

National Pollutant Discharge 

Elimination System – Cooling Water 

Intake Structures at Existing Facilities 

and Phase I Facilities 

76 Fed. Reg. 22,174 (April 20, 2011) 

Docket ID No. 

EPA–HQ–OW–2008–0667 

The Impact of EPA’s Proposed 316(b) 

Existing Facility Rule 

On 

Electric System Reliability 

David Schlissel 

Schlissel Technical Consulting, Inc. 

and 

Anna Sommer 

Sommer Energy, LLC 

August 18, 2011 
1 

Schlissel Technical Consulting, Inc., and Sommer Energy, LLC were retained to evaluate the 

impact of the EPA’s proposed 316(b) Existing Facility Rule on electric system reliability. This 

report presents the results of our assessment. 

As part of this assessment we have reviewed the IPM modeling prepared for the EPA by ICF 

International, as well as the modeling performed for the EPA’s proposed Utility Hazardous Air 

Pollutants MACT rule. We also have reviewed the numerous analyses that have been released 

during the past year that have investigated the generating unit retirements that could be expected 

from the environmental regulations under consideration by the EPA and the related impact of 

these retirements on electric system reliability. 

Our findings are as follows: 

1. There will be no adverse reliability impact to the electric sector from adoption of any of 

the four proposed 316(b) Existing Facility Regulatory Options. 

2. The four proposed Regulatory Options may not have any incremental plant retirement 

impacts over other EPA proposed rules such as the Transport Rule and Utility MACT 

Rule. 

3. By failing to consider additional energy efficiency, renewable energy or repowering as 

alternatives, EPA’s analysis likely overstates the system costs of complying with any 

option of the 316(b) rule. 

4. The NERC 2010 Special Reliability Scenario Assessment; Resource Adequacy Impacts of 

Potential Environmental Regulations severely overstates the impact of the EPA’s 

adoption of a 316(b) Existing Facility Rule. 

5. The May 2011 Review of the Potential Impacts of Proposed Environmental Regulations 

on the ERCOT System similarly significantly overstates the impact that adoption of the 

316(b) Existing Facility Rule being considered by the EPA would have on generating 

unit retirements and electric system reliability. 

1. Finding: There will be no adverse reliability impact to the electric sector from 

adoption of Options 1, 2, 3 or 4. 

The EPA’s modeling analyses demonstrate that any consequential unit retirements under any of 

the Regulatory Options will not adversely affect system reliability. The additional retirements 

(whether full or partial) caused by a revised 316(b) rule would range from 1 GW under Option 1 

to 17 GW under Options 2 or Option 3.1

 Respectively, this represents less than 0.01 percent and 

 

1

 See Table 6-3 of the Economic and Benefits Analysis. 
1.5 perce

fourth Op

stringent

retiremen

The pote

the fact th

(“AEO”)

forecasts

Figure 1:

Consequ

in 2030. 

fewer of 

actually w

cost of th

ent of total ca

ption consid

) than Optio

nts and elect

ntial reliabil

hat the mode

) 2008 deman

 have decrea

 AEO D

ently, the AE

Using the cu

the 17 GW o

would need 

hese options 

apacity in 20

dered by EPA

n 1 and, con

tric system re

lity impact o

eling analyse

nd forecast. 

ased signific

Demand For

EO 2011 dem

urrent foreca

of plant retir

to be replace

as well as an

028 and 0.2 

A, but not mo

nsequently, w

eliability. 

of retiring 17

es used the D

As shown in

cantly since t

recasts 2008, 

mands are m

asts from AE

rements iden

ed by new ca

ny potential 

2 

percent to 3

odeled, wou

would have e

7 GW of cap

Department 

n Figure 1, b

the AEO 200

2010 and 20

more than 12

EO 2011 wou

ntified in the

apacity. Thi

reliability im

.8 percent of

uld be even le

even less of 

acity by 202

of Energy’s 

below, the A

08 forecast w

011. 

 percent belo

uld mean tha

e EPA’s mod

is would red

mpact. 

f in-scope fa

ess protectiv

any impact 

28 is further 

 Annual Ene

AEO’s annua

was released

ow the AEO

at, other thin

deling of Op

duce the over

acilities. The

ve (and less 

on plant 

diminished 

ergy Outlook

al demand 

d. 

O 2008 dema

ngs being eq

tions 2 and 3

rall system-w

e

by 

k

ands 

qual, 

3

wide 
3 

Additionally, EPA is proposing compliance deadlines of 2022 for fossil units and 2027 for 

nuclear units. This means that system operators and utilities will have long lead times to 

construct any needed replacement capacity as a result of the 316(b) Existing Facility Rule. 

System operators and utilities would not have to rush replacement capacity into service as NERC 

currently projects that the nationwide planning reserve margin will exceed 20 percent through at 

least 2019.2

EPA’s analyses also demonstrate that the downtime to install compliance technologies will not 

impact electric system reliability. The potential impact to electric system reliability was 

estimated by determining the extent to which the 316(b) rule would reduce installed reserve 

margins during each of the compliance periods – 2013 through 2017 for non-cooling tower 

technologies, 2018 through 2022 for cooling towers at fossil fuel units and 2023 through 2027 

for cooling towers at nuclear units. Because of the lack of NERC data on spring and fall peaks, 

this calculation was made using winter 2017 capacity numbers. However, as EPA notes “To the 

extent that technology installation occurs during the shoulder months of spring and fall, when 

electricity demand is on average below that during the winter, the reliability impact estimated 

using winter demand is likely to be over-stated.”3

 The results of this analysis, shown in Table 5-

8 of the Economic and Benefits Analysis, reveal that all NERC regions will comfortably exceed 

their required reserves in off-peak periods even with outages related to these technology 

installations. The Florida Reliability Coordinating Council (FRCC) could see the biggest impact 

from generator outages, yet even so, will have seven percent more capacity than is needed to 

cover its 13 percent reserve margin. 

2. Finding: Regulatory Options 1, 2, 3 and 4 may not have any incremental plant 

retirement impacts over other EPA proposed rules such as the Cross-State Air 

Pollution Rule and Utility MACT Rule. 

EPA’s modeling for the proposed 316(b) Existing Facility Rule does not reflect the proposed 

Transport and “Utility MACT” rules. This is very significant as these rules will impact many of 

the same units affected by 316(b) and as such, it is important to know what incremental impact 

the proposed 316(b) Existing Facility Rule would have on top of them. 

 

2

 See: http://www.nerc.com/page.php?cid=4%7C331%7C373 

3

 Page 5-20 of the Economic and Benefits Analysis. 
4 

The modeling performed in support of the proposed Utility MACT rule does include the 

proposed Transport rule. EPA found that the Utility MACT rule could lead to an incremental 8.5 

GW of plant retirements by 2030 over the base case scenario that included the Transport rule.4 

EPA did not provide a comparable number in its 316(b) analysis, but a review of EIA Form 767 

indicates that thermal generating units with flue gas desulfurization (FGD) units (a key 

compliance technology for the Transport rule) are more likely to have recirculating cooling 

systems. To the extent that relationship remains true going forward, it is reasonable to anticipate 

that plant retirements due to the Transport and Utility MACT rules are more likely to happen at 

units without cooling towers. 

As explained in a recent report by the Analysis Group and M.J. Bradley & Associates, the results 

of PJM’s recent forward capacity auction show that even if existing generating units are retired, 

new energy efficiency, demand side measures and renewable resources can meet future 

electricity demands while maintaining electric system reliability: 

To secure adequate capacity to meet future projected power demand, PJM 

recently conducted its latest round of market-based bidding through its 

Reliability Pricing Model (“RPM”) forward capacity auction. On May 13, 

2011, PJM announced the results of that auction, which covers the period 

May 31, 2014 through June 1, 2015 – a time when the Utility Toxics Rule 

and the Transport Rule will both be in effect. PJM’s forward capacity 

auction requires owners of power plants and other participating companies 

to offer (i.e., commit) resources including both power plants and demandside resources, three years in advance so as to maintain electric system 

reliability. Resources that “clear” the auction receive capacity payments; 

those that do not clear receive no compensation for their capacity. 

The results of the May 13th 2011 auction show that while some coal plants 

were unable to clear the auction and may choose to retire, the region was 

still able to secure an ample supply of energy resources to maintain 

reliability. In fact, the market secured resources sufficient to maintain a 20 

percent reserve margin for the region. 

Out of a total of nearly 150,000 MW of capacity selected in the recent 

PJM auction, nearly 4,200 MW of new capacity plans to enter the market 

by 2014/2015, including the addition of new generation capacity 

resources, capacity upgrades to existing generation capacity resources, 

 

4

 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2011. IPM Analysis of Proposed Toxics Rule. March 22, 

2011. Available at: http://www.epa.gov/airmarkt/progsregs/epa-ipm/toxics.html. 
5 

new demand resources, upgrades to existing demand resources, and new 

energy efficiency resources. 

 * * * * 

The generating units that failed to clear the auction – including fossil 

generating units that may eventually be slated for retirement – were 

largely offset by these new generating, energy efficiency, and demand 

response resources. In its auction results, PJM reported a reduction in 

committed coal capacity in 2014/2015 equal to 6,900 MW, and suggested 

that the decrease is likely related to some coal capacity reflecting the costs 

of environmental retrofits in their offer prices. These costs would make 

some coal units uneconomic relative to lower cost resources. In contrast to 

the reduction in committed coal capacity, however, demand resource 

resources increased by 4,836 MW. Commitments to conserve energy 

through energy efficiency increased by 142.7 MW. The auction also 

procured 695 MW of wind power and 45.6 MW of solar power. 

As indicated by the results of PJM’s most recent forward capacity auction, 

the region will have more than enough capacity to meet federal reliability 

standards set by NERC when the Utility Toxics Rule and the Transport 

Rule will both be in effect. Notably, more than 5 GW of new capacity 

came into the market with this auction, including new generation and new 

demand side resources such as energy efficiency and demand response. 

This outcome illustrates the diversity of ways that market participants can 

provide reliable power supplies while meeting future environmental 

requirements.5

3. Finding: By failing to consider repowering of existing facilities or the potential for 

additional energy efficiency or renewable energy as alternatives, EPA’s analysis 

likely overstates the system costs of complying with any option of the 316(b) rule. 

The methods of complying with the proposed Existing Facility Rule were an input to the EPA’s 

IPM modeling rather than an output of the model and were determined based on “an evaluation 

of baseline engineering factors for facilities...in relation to the requirements of a given 

regulatory option.” As such, compliance was limited to technologies that directly met the 

regulatory requirements. Other, indirect options such as repowering the facility to more efficient 

combined cycle technology at the same time that they would convert to closed-cycle cooling 

were not considered. Such repowering could rejuvenate older less efficient units that might 

otherwise retire because they would result in substantially lower production costs due to the 

newer, more efficient generating technology. This was a critical failure as repowering, when 

 

5

 Ensuring a Clean, Modern Electric Generating Fleet while Maintaining Electric System Reliability – 

Summer 2011 Update, Analysis Group and M.J. Bradley & Associates, at pages 14-16. 
6 

combined with retrofitting the unit to closed-cycle cooling, might provide a lower cost 

compliance alternative than replacing it with new generation. 

Reducing electric demand through energy efficiency and/or demand response, or replacing 

generation with renewable energy that does not use cooling water are two options not considered 

by EPA in its rulemaking. Assuming additional energy efficiency6 or renewable resources could 

be available could further reduce compliance costs. For example, EPA’s analysis of the Utility 

MACT rule showed that energy efficiency, by itself, reduced system-wide costs under the 

proposed rule by over $20 billion in 2030. Consequently, adding energy efficiency as an indirect 

option reduced overall system-wide costs from the base case, more than making up for any costs 

of complying with the proposed MACT rule. Unfortunately, no similar energy efficiency 

sensitivity was included in the EPA’s modeling of the proposed 316(b) Existing Facility Rule. 

4. Finding: The NERC 2010 Special Reliability Scenario Assessment: Resource 

Adequacy Impacts of Potential Environmental Regulations severely overstates the 

impact of the EPA’s adoption of a 316(b) Existing Facility Rule. 

NERC’s 2010 Special Reliability Scenario Assessment: Resource Adequacy Impacts of Potential 

Environmental Regulations (“NERC Special Assessment”) concludes that the Section 316(b) 

Cooling Water Intake Structures Rule “has the greatest potential impact on planning reserve 

margins,” making 37-41 GW of existing generating capacity economically vulnerable to 

retirement.7

 As a result, NERC finds that the planning reserve margins in almost half of its 

regions/subregions fall below its Reference Margin level by 2015. 

However, the Special Assessment severely overstates, in a number of ways, the impact of the 

options that the EPA actually is considering for its 316(b) Existing Facility Rule. 

First, the proposed rule actually issued by EPA sets compliance deadlines beyond the 2018 date 

assumed by NERC -- 2022 for fossil units and 2027 for nuclear units. Consequently, there should 

be none of the significant adverse impacts that the NERC Special Assessment finds in 2015 and 

2018 as it accelerated a large portion of the plant retirements into the years before 2018. 

 

6

 Energy efficiency refers to measures that reduce end-use electrical consumption, 

7

 2010 Special Reliability Scenario Assessment; Resource Adequacy Impacts of Potential Environmental 

Regulations, at page iv. 
7 

Second, NERC failed to allow for a variance of any kind in any 316(b) Existing Facility Rule 

adopted by EPA. In fact such a variance (also referred to as “alternative requirements”) from a 

closed-cycle cooling performance standard is included in EPA’s Phase I rule for new facilities.8

In addition, EPA explained in a document generated during the OMB review process that its 

proposed “one-size-fits-all” regulatory options for entrainment (i.e., Options 2 and 3) would 

include “variances [as] would be necessary to address the site-specific limitations on installation 

of closed-cycle.”9

Indeed, ERCOT’s recent Review of the Potential Impacts of Proposed Environmental 

Regulations on the ERCOT System noted that the “proposed [EPA 316(b)] regulations provide 

for flexibility and development of site-specific solutions:” 

There is sufficient discussion in the regulations about site-specific 

solutions to indicate that power plants that are operated infrequently to 

maintain system reliability under peak load conditions may not be required 

to install expensive closed-loop cooling equipment.10

Significantly, EPA did not attempt to model the effect of a variance (because the agency did not 

know which plants might seek and qualify for a variance), but EPA’s IPM modeling nevertheless 

found that a closed-cycle cooling mandate, even without a variance, would cause no more than 

17 GW of retirements. If a variance were factored into the modeling, the number of retirements 

would be less than the 17 GW EPA projected and far less than the 37-41 GW that NERC 

considered economically vulnerable. 

Third, the NERC Special Assessment is based on an economic approach that identifies which 

units may retire if the generic required cost of compliance with the proposed environmental 

regulation exceeds the cost of replacement power, which is considered to be gas-fired capacity.11

However, the Special Assessment does not assume that any replacement capacity actually is 

added to the system. In other words, even though it assumes that a substantial amount of existing 

capacity would be retired and, consequently, that planning reserve margins would be inadequate, 

 

8

 See proposed 40 CFR 125.94(d)(4). 

9 See E.O. 12866 Review Draft (EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0667-1295.1) at page 125 of 383. 

10 Id, at page 15. 

11 Id, at page 8. 
8 

no additional capacity is being built. This is an unrealistic and unreasonable assumption which 

heavily biases the Special Assessment. 

Indeed, the Special Assessment itself presents a long list of potential actions that system 

operators and companies can take to minimize the adverse impact of plant retirements on electric 

system reliability. For example, the NERC report notes that companies can seek waivers or 

extensions from the pending EPA regulations.12 Other actions that the Special Assessment lists 

for mitigating system reliability concerns include: 

• Advancing in-service dates of future or conceptual resources 

• Addition of new resources not yet proposed 

• Increased demand-side management and conservation 

• Early action to mitigate severe losses including 

- planning and constructing retrofits immediately 

- managing retrofit timing to keep capacity supply by region stable 

• Increase in capacity import transfer capabilities 

• Developing or exploring newer technologies 

• Use of more gas-fired generation 

• Repowering of coal-fired generation as combined cycle units13

However, despite listing these measures as options for offsetting generating unit retirements, the 

Special Assessment then assumes that none of these measures are actually adopted or 

implemented as no new supply-side capacity or demand-side measures are added in place of any 

of the retired capacity. 

In fact, a significant portion of the generating unit retirements made public to date have been 

accompanied by an announcement that the plant owners plan to replace the capacity being retired 

with new generating facilities. For example, Xcel Energy has replaced three of its coal-fired 

power plants with efficient new combined cycle capacity since 2002 and is now seeking 

permission from the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission to repower another two coal units 

 

12 Id, at page 40. 

13 Id. 
9 

with combined cycle technology.14 Xcel has told the Minnesota PUC that replacing the two 

existing coal units with new combined cycle technology actually will increase its system 

capacity by 410 MW -- that is, 680 MW of new combined cycle capacity less the 270 MW of 

existing coal capacity being retired.15 

Other utilities, such as Progress Energy and Duke Energy are taking similar actions. As Progress 

Energy explained in its 2010 Integrated Resource Plan filing in North Carolina Utilities 

Commission Docket No. E-100, Sub 128, the Company is planning to replace 1500 MW of 

older, inefficient coal capacity with 1500 MW of state-of-the-art gas-fired combined cycle 

capacity. 

As stated in last year’s plan, the current environment presents many 

significant challenges to deal with from a resource planning perspective, 

e.g., historic levels of fuel price volatility, tremendous economic 

uncertainty, potential federal environmental legislation dealing with 

regulation of carbon emissions, proposals for Federal renewable portfolio 

standards, the proposed new Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) 

Transport Rule, the expected EPA Maximum Achievable Control 

Technology (“MACT”) mercury rule, the potential consideration of coal 

ash as hazardous waste by EPA, and customer behavior and usage 

changes. What continues to be one of the most notable examples of such 

uncertainty is the potential for environmental and climate change 

legislation. Even though at the time of this filing there appears to be a 

temporary loss in legislative momentum with respect to climate change it 

is widely assumed there will ultimately be legislation of some form 

resulting in a mandate to reduce the carbon output from the Company’s 

generation fleet. This potential legislation paired with proposed and 

expected EPA regulations regarding greenhouse gas emissions led to the 

Company’s decision to retire three coal units at each of its Lee and Sutton 

facilities and construct new state of the art efficient natural gas combined 

cycle units at those sites. 

These same considerations have caused the Company to conclude that it 

should plan to retire its remaining uncontrolled coal units in North 

Carolina at the beginning of 2015. It should be noted that this projected 

date is still subject to movement pending the outcome of many of the 

legislative initiatives listed in the Company’s Coal Retirement Plan 

approved by the North Carolina Utilities Commission as well as continued 

movement in underlying fuel prices. As a cumulative result of the new 

 

14 Xcel Energy Minnesota 2010 Resource Plan, at pages 6-2 and 6-3. 

15 Id, at page 6-12. 
10 

gas fired combined cycles being constructed at the Lee and Sutton sites 

and the associated retirement of eleven coal units at the Lee, Sutton, 

Weatherspoon and Cape Fear sites, the Company will have replaced 

approximately 1500 MWs of unscrubbed coal generation with 1500 MWs 

of state of the art gas fired generation. Benefits of this portfolio 

modernization include both environmental benefits, in the form of 

significant reductions in the output of SO2, NOx, mercury and CO2, as well 

as fuel diversification benefits resulting from the addition of the new gas 

fired generation. [Progress Energy Carolinas] continues to evaluate the 

best course of action with regard to its South Carolina Robinson coal 

plant.16

Fourth, the Special Assessment overstates the amount of existing capacity that would be 

economically vulnerable under any new 316(b) Existing Facility Rule by using 

unreasonably low replacement costs (in $/MWH) that are based on an assumed 90 

percent capacity factor for new combined cycle units.17 No analysis or assessment, of 

which we are aware, has assumed that a new gas-fired combined cycle unit will achieve a 

90 percent annual capacity factor on a sustained basis. Instead, it is generally accepted 

that new combined cycle units can be expected to achieve between 65 percent and 75 

percent annual capacity factors. The average replacement costs in $/MWH will be higher 

with such a range of more reasonable capacity factors because the same capital and fixed 

operating costs will be spread over fewer MWHs than if it is assumed that the new unit 

will achieve a 90 percent annual capacity factor. Consequently, it is reasonable to expect 

that fewer existing generating units would be economically vulnerable, and hence retired, 

if a lower annual capacity factor were used for the replacement gas capacity in the 

analysis. 

5. Finding: The May 2011 Review of the Potential Impacts of Proposed Environmental 

Regulations on the ERCOT System similarly significantly overstates the impact that 

adoption of the 316(b) Existing Facility Rule being considered by the EPA would 

have on generating unit retirements and electric system reliability. 

ERCOT’s recent Review of the Potential Impacts of Proposed Environmental Regulations on the 

ERCOT System (“ERCOT Review”) concluded that approximately 1,200 MW of coal-fired 

 

16 Progress Energy Carolinas 2010 Integrated Resource Plan – NCUC Docket No. E-100, Sub 128, September 

13, 2010, at page 3. 

17 2010 Special Reliability Scenario Assessment; Resource Adequacy Impacts of Potential Environmental 

Regulations, at pages 44-45. 
11 

capacity and 8,100 MW of gas-fired generation would be retired as a result of a closed-loop 

cooling tower requirement.18 However, like the NERC Special Assessment, the ERCOT Review 

severely overstates the impact of the EPA’s adoption of any of the regulatory options it is 

currently evaluating for a 316(b) Existing Facility Rule. 

First, the ERCOT Review notes that the “proposed [EPA 316(b)] regulations provide for 

flexibility and development of site-specific solutions:” 

There is sufficient discussion in the regulations about site-specific 

solutions to indicate that power plants that are operated infrequently to 

maintain system reliability under peak load conditions may not be required 

to install expensive closed-loop cooling equipment.19

However, the ERCOT Review nevertheless assumes that there would be no such “flexibility” 

and that, instead, the EPA will require that closed-loop cooling tower systems be installed by 

2017 at all existing facilities that currently utilize once-through cooling.20

Second, the ERCOT Review does not assume that any replacement generation would be built 

despite its acknowledgement that: 

A robust wholesale energy market should provide sufficient new sources 

of generation to replace retired units if there is adequate time for changing 

market conditions to incent new investment.21

And: 

In the scenarios resulting in significant retirements of existing generation, 

it is expected that much of the retired generation would be replaced with 

new generation capacity. Analysis of potential generation expansion was 

not included in the scope of this analysis.22

As discussed above with regard to the NERC Special Assessment, this is not a reasonable 

assumption. It leads to unnecessarily and unrealistically dire predictions about system reliability. 

Moreover, the Review also acknowledged that in many cases, the 8,100 MW of older gas steam 

capacity that may be subject to retrofit requirements are less efficient and less flexible than new 

 

18 Table 3, at page 12. 

19 Id, at page 15. 

20 Id, at pages 2 and 7. 

21 Id, at page 9. 

22 Id, at page 12. 
12 

quick-start gas-fired generation and are nearing the end of their useful lives. Consequently, those 

units may be retired in the near future whether or not the EPA adopts any of the regulatory 

options for a 316(b) Existing Facility Rule currently under consideration. This is especially true 

if the integration of additional variable generation sources (“wind”) in ERCOT continues to 

place increased value on quick-start generation, as noted in the ERCOT Review: 

Older gas-steam generation typically has significant range between 

maximum and minimum output, but it cannot start and stop quickly in 

response to changing market needs. The integration of variable generation 

in ERCOT has led to increased value in quick-start generation. This trend 

is expected to become more pronounced when the transmission 

improvements designed for the Competitive Renewable Energy Zones 

(CREZ) [are] complete, currently scheduled for late 2013. The analysis in 

this study does not assume any increase in wind generation, so impact of 

the CREZ build-out would further erode [the] market value of older gassteam generation.23

For these reasons, the ERCOT Review does not provide a realistic view of the impact that the 

EPA’s adoption of any of the regulatory options for a 316(b) Existing Facility Rule that it is 

currently considering. 

 

23 Id, at page 16. 
David Schlissel Page 1 Schlissel Technical Consulting, Inc.

David A. Schlissel 

President 

Schlissel Technical Consulting, Inc. 

45 Horace Road, Belmont, MA 02478 

(617) 489-4840 

david@schlissel-technical.com 

SUMMARY 

I have worked for thirty six years as a consultant and attorney on complex management, 

engineering, and economic issues, primarily in the field of energy. This work has involved 

conducting technical investigations, preparing economic analyses, presenting expert testimony, 

providing support during all phases of regulatory proceedings and litigation, and advising clients 

during settlement negotiations. I received undergraduate and advanced engineering degrees from 

the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and Stanford University, respectively, and a law 

degree from Stanford Law School. 

PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE 

Electric Resource Planning - Analyzed the economic costs and benefits of energy supply 

options. Examined whether there are lower cost, lower risk alternatives than proposed fossil and 

nuclear power plants. Evaluated the economic and system reliability consequences of retiring 

existing electric generating facilities. Investigated whether new electric generating facilities are 

used and useful. Investigated whether new generating facilities that were built for a deregulated 

subsidiary should be included in the rate base of a regulated utility. Assessed the reasonableness 

of proposed utility power purchase agreements with deregulated affiliates. Investigated the 

prudence of utility power purchases in deregulated markets. 

Coal-fired Generation – Evaluated the economic and financial risks of investing in, 

constructing and operating new coal-fired power plants. Analyzed the economic and financial 

risks of making expensive environmental and other upgrades to existing plants. Investigated 

whether plant owners had adequately considered the risks associated with building new fossilfired power plants, the most significant of which are the likelihood of federal regulation of 

greenhouse gas emissions and construction cost increases. 

Power Plant Air Emissions – Investigated whether proposed generating facilities would 

provide environmental benefits in terms of reduced emissions of NOx, SO2 and CO2. Examined 

whether new state and federal emission standards would lead to the retirement of existing power 

plants or otherwise have an adverse impact on electric system reliability. 

Power Plant Water Use – Examined power plant repowering as a strategy for reducing water 

consumption at existing electric generating facilities. Analyzed the impact of converting power 

plants from once-through to closed-loop systems with cooling towers on plant revenues and 

electric system reliability. Evaluated the potential impact of the EPA’s Proposed Clean Water 

Act Section 316(b) Rule for Cooling Water Intake Structures at existing power plants. 
David Schlissel Page 2 Schlissel Technical Consulting, Inc. 

Electric System Reliability - Evaluated whether existing or new generation facilities and 

transmission lines are needed to ensure adequate levels of system reliability. Investigated the 

causes of distribution system outages and inadequate service reliability. Examined the 

reasonableness of utility system reliability expenditures. 

Power Plant Repowering - Evaluated the environmental, economic and reliability impacts of 

rebuilding older, inefficient generating facilities with new combined cycle technology. 

Power Plant Operations and Economics - Investigated the causes of more than one hundred 

power plant and system outages, equipment failures, and component degradation, determined 

whether these problems could have been anticipated and avoided, and assessed liability for repair 

and replacement costs. Examined power plant operating, maintenance, and capital costs. 

Evaluated utility plans for and management of the replacement of major power plant 

components. Assessed the adequacy of power plant quality assurance and maintenance 

programs. Examined the selection and supervision of contractors and subcontractors. 

Nuclear Power – Reviewed recent cost estimates for proposed nuclear power plants. Examined 

the impact of the nuclear power plant life extensions and power uprates on decommissioning 

costs and collections policies. Examined the reasonableness of utility decisions to sell nuclear 

power assets and evaluated the value received as a result of the auctioning of those plants. 

Investigated the significance of the increasing ownership of nuclear power plants by multiple 

tiered holding companies with limited liability company subsidiaries. Investigated the potential 

safety consequences of nuclear power plant structure, system, and component failures. 

Transmission Line Siting – Examined the need for proposed transmission lines. Analyzed 

whether proposed transmission lines could be installed underground. Worked with clients to 

develop alternate routings for proposed lines that would have reduced impacts on the 

environment and communities. 

Electric Industry Regulation and Markets - Examined whether generating facilities 

experienced more outages following the transition to a deregulated wholesale market in New 

England. Evaluated the reasonableness of nuclear and fossil plant sales, auctions, and power 

purchase agreements. Analyzed the impact of proposed utility mergers on market power. 

Assessed the reasonableness of contract provisions and terms in proposed power supply 

agreements. 

Expert Testimony - Presented the results of management, technical and economic analyses as 

testimony in more than 100 proceedings before regulatory boards and commissions in 35 states, 

before two federal regulatory agencies, and in state and federal court proceedings. 

Litigation and Regulatory Support - Participated in all aspects of the development and 

preparation of case presentations on complex management, technical, and economic issues. 

Assisted in the preparation and conduct of pre-trial discovery and depositions. Helped identify 

and prepare expert witnesses. Aided the preparation of pre-hearing petitions and motions and 

post-hearing briefs and appeals. Assisted counsel in preparing for hearings and oral arguments. 

Advised counsel during settlement negotiations. 
David Schlissel Page 3 Schlissel Technical Consulting, Inc. 

TESTIMONY, AFFIDAVITS, DEPOSITIONS AND COMMENTS 

Kansas State Corporation Commission (Docket No. 11-KCPE-581-PRE) – June 2011 

The reasonableness of the proposed environmental upgrades at the La Cygne Generating Station 

Units 1 and 2. 

Arizona Corporation Commission (Docket No. E-01345A-10-0474) – May 2011 

The reasonableness of Arizona Public Service Company’s proposed acquisition of Southern 

California Edison’s share of Four Corners Units 4 and 5. 

Public Utility Commission of Colorado (Docket No. 10M-245E) – September, October and 

November 2010 

The reasonableness of Public Service of Colorado’s proposed Emissions Reduction Plan. 

Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission (Cause No. 43114 IGCC 4S1) – July and November 

2010 

The reasonableness of Duke Energy Indiana’s new analyses of the economics of completing the 

Edwardsport Project as an IGCC plant. 

Oregon Public Utility Commission (Docket LC 48) – May and August 2010 

Comments and Reply Comments on Portland General Electric Company’s 2009 Integrated 

Resource Plan. 

South Dakota Public Service Commission (Docket No. EL-09-018) – April 2010 

The reasonableness of Black Hills Power Company’s 2007 Integrated Resource Plan and the 

Company’s decision to build the Wygen III coal-fired power plant. 

Michigan Public Service Commission (Docket No. U-16077) – April 2010 

Comments on the City of Holland Board of Public Works’ 2010 Power Supply Study. 

Illinois Commerce Commission (Tenaska Clean Coal Facility Analysis) – April 2010 

Comments on the Facility Cost Report for the proposed Taylorville IGCC power plant. 

North Carolina Utilities Commission (Docket No. E-100, Sub 124) – February 2010

The reasonableness of the 2009 Integrated Resource Plans of Duke Energy Carolinas and 

Progress Energy Carolinas. 

Mississippi Public Service Commission (Docket No. 2009-UA-014) – December 2009 

The costs and risks associated with the proposed Kemper County IGCC power plant. 

Public Service Commission of Wisconsin (Docket No. 05-CE-137) –December 2009 and 

January 2010 

The costs and risks associated with the proposed installation of emissions control equipment at 

the Edgewater Unit 5 coal-fired power plant. 
David Schlissel Page 4 Schlissel Technical Consulting, Inc. 

Public Service Commission of Wisconsin (Docket No. 05-CE-138) –September and October 

2009 

The costs and risks associated with the proposed installation of emissions control equipment at 

the Columbia 1 and 2 coal-fired power plants. 

Public Service Commission of Michigan (Docket No. U-15996) – July 2009 

Comments on Consumer Energy’s Electric Generation Alernatives Analysis for the Balanced 

Energy Initiative including the Proposed Karn-Weadock Coal Plant. 

Public Service Commission of Michigan (Docket No. U-16000) – Juy 2009 

Comments on Wolverine Power Cooperative’s Electric Generation Alternatives Analysis for the 

Proposed Rogers City Coal Plant. 

Georgia Public Service Commission (Docket No. 27800-U) – December 2008 

The possible costs and risks of proceeding with the proposed Plant Vogtle Units 3 and 4 nuclear 

power plants. 

Public Service Commission of Wisconsin (Docket No. 6680-CE-170) – August and 

Sepember 2008 

The risks associated with the proposed Nelson Dewey 3 baseload coal-fired power plant. 

Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission (Cause No. 43114 IGCC 1) – July 2008 

The estimated cost of Duke Energy Indiana’s Edwardsport Project. 

Public Service Commission of Maryland (Case 9127) – July 2008 

The estimated cost of the proposed Calvert Cliffs Unit 3 nuclear power plant. 

Ohio Power Siting Board (Case No. 06-1358-EL-BGN) – December 2007 

AMP-Ohio’s application for a Certificate of Environmental Compatibility and Public Need for a 

960 MW pulverized coal generating facility. 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (Docket Nos. 50-247-LR, 50-286-LR) – November 

2007 and February 2009 

The available options for replacing the power generated at Indian Point Unit 2 and/or Unit 3. 

West Virginia Public Service Commission (Case No. 06-0033-E-CN) – November 2007 

Appalachian Power Company’s application for a Certificate of Public Convenience and 

Necessity for a 600 MW integrated gasification combined cycle generating facility. 

Iowa Utility Board (Docket No. GCU-07-01) – October 2007 

Whether Interstate Power & Light Company’s adequately considered the risks associated with 

building a new coal-fired power plant and whether that Company’s participation in the proposed 

Marshalltown plant is prudent. 

Virginia State Corporation Commission (Case No. PUE-2007-00066) – November 2007 
David Schlissel Page 5 Schlissel Technical Consulting, Inc. 

Whether Dominion Virginia Power’s adequately considered the risks associated with building 

the proposed Wise County coal-fired power plant and whether that Commission should grant a 

certificate of public convenience and necessity for the plant. 

Louisiana Public Service Commission (Docket No. U-30192) – September 2007 

The reasonableness of Entergy Louisiana’s proposal to repower the Little Gypsy Unit 3 

generating facility as a coal-fired power plant. 

Arkansas Public Service Commission (Docket No. 06-154-U) – July 2007 

The probable economic impact of the Southwestern Electric Power Company’s proposed 

Hempstead coal-fired power plant project. 

North Dakota Public Service Commission (Case Nos. PU-06-481 and 482) – May 2007 and 

April 2008 

Whether the participation of Otter Tail Power Company and Montana-Dakota Utilities in the Big 

Stone II Generating Project is prudent. 

Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission (Cause No. 43114) – May 2007 

The appropriate carbon dioxide (“CO2”) emissions prices that should be used to analyze the 

relative economic costs and benefits of Duke Energy Indiana and Vectren Energy Delivery of 

Indiana’s proposed Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle Facility and whether Duke and 

Vectren have appropriately reflected the capital cost of the proposed facility in their modeling 

analyses. 

Public Service Commission of Wisconsin (Docket No. 6630-EI-113) – May and June 2007 

Whether the proposed sale of the Point Beach Nuclear Plant to FPL Energy Point Beach, LLC, is 

in the interest of the ratepayers of Wisconsin Electric Power Company. 

Florida Public Service Commission (Docket No. 070098-EI) – March 2007 

Florida Light & Power Company’s need for and the economics of the proposed Glades Power 

Park. 

Michigan Public Service Commission (Case No. 14992-U) – December 2006 

The reasonableness of the proposed sale of the Palisades Nuclear Power Plant. 

Minnesota Public Utilities Commission (Docket No. CN-05-619) – November 2006, 

December 2007, January 2008 and November 2008 

Whether the co-owners of the proposed Big Stone II coal-fired generating plant have 

appropriately reflected the potential for the regulation of greenhouse gases in their analyses of 

the facility; and whether the proposed project is a lower cost alternative than renewable options, 

conservation and load management. 
David Schlissel Page 6 Schlissel Technical Consulting, Inc. 

North Carolina Utilities Commission (Docket No. E-7, Sub 790) – September 2006 and 

January 2007 

Duke’s need for two new 800 MW coal-fired generating units and the relative economics of 

adding these facilities as compared to other available options including energy efficiency and 

renewable technologies. 

New Mexico Public Regulatory Commission (Case No. 05-00275-UT) – September 2006

Report to the New Mexico Commission on whether the settlement value of the adjustment for 

moving the 141 MW Afton combustion turbine merchant plant into rate base is reasonable. 

Arizona Corporation Commission (Docket No. E-01345A-0816) – August and September 

2006 

Whether APS’s acquisition of the Sundance Generating Station was prudent and the 

reasonableness of the amounts that APS requested for fossil plant O&M. 

U.S. District Court for the District of Montana (Billings Generation, Inc. vs. Electrical 

Controls, Inc, et al., CV-04-123-BLG-RFC) – August 2006 

Quantification of plaintiff’s business losses during an extended power plant outage and 

plaintiff’s business earnings due to the shortening and delay of future plant outages. 

[Confidential Expert Report] 

Deposition in South Dakota Public Utility Commission Case No. EL05-022 – June 14, 2006 

South Dakota Public Utility Commission (Case No. EL05-022) – May and June 2006 

Whether the co-owners of the proposed Big Stone II coal-fired generating plant have 

appropriately reflected the potential for the regulation of greenhouse gases in their analyses of 

the alternatives to the proposed facility; the need and timing for new supply options in the coowners’ service territories; and whether there are alternatives to the proposed facility that are 

technically feasible and economically cost-effective. 

Georgia Public Service Commission (Docket No. 22449-U) – May 2006 

Georgia Power Company’s request for an accounting order to record early site permitting and 

construction operating license costs for new nuclear power plants. 

California Public Utilities Commission (Dockets Nos. A.05-11-008 and A.05-11-009) – April 

2006 

The estimated costs for decommissioning the Diablo Canyon, SONGS 2&3 and Palo Verde 

nuclear power plants and the annual contributions that are needed from ratepayers to assure that 

adequate funds will be available to decommission these plants at the projected ends of their 

service lives. 

New Jersey Board of Public Utilities (Docket No. EM05020106) – November and December 

2005 and March 2006 

Joint Testimony with Bob Fagan and Bruce Biewald on the market power implications of the 

proposed merger between Exelon Corp. and Public Service Enterprise Group. 
David Schlissel Page 7 Schlissel Technical Consulting, Inc. 

Virginia State Corporation Commission (Case No. PUE-2005-00018)– November 2005 

The siting of a proposed 230 kV transmission line. 

Iowa Utility Board (Docket No. SPU-05-15) – September and October 2005 

The reasonableness of IPL’s proposed sale of the Duane Arnold Energy Center nuclear plant. 

New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC #3-3346-00011/00002) – 

October 2005 

The likely profits that Dynegy will earn from the sale of the energy and capacity of the 

Danskammer Generating Facility if the plant is converted from once-through to closed-cycle 

cooling with wet towers or to dry cooling. 

Arkansas Public Service Commission (Docket 05-042-U) – July and August 2005 

Arkansas Electric Cooperative Corporation’s proposed purchase of the Wrightsville Power 

Facility. 

Maine Public Utilities Commission (Docket No. 2005-17) – July 2005

Joint testimony with Peter Lanzalotta and Bob Fagan evaluating Eastern Maine Electric 

Cooperative’s request for a CPCN to purchase 15 MW of transmission capacity from New 

Brunswick Power. 

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Docket No. EC05-43-0000) – April and May 2005

Joint Affidavit and Supplemental Affidavit with Bruce Biewald on the market power aspects of 

the proposed merger of Exelon Corporation and Public Service Enterprise Group, Inc. 

Maine Public Utilities Commission (Docket No. 2004-538 Phase II) – April 2005

Joint testimony with Peter Lanzalotta and Bob Fagan evaluating Maine Public Service 

Company’s request for a CPCN to purchase 35 MW of transmission capacity from New 

Brunswick Power. 

Maine Public Utilities Commission (Docket No. 2004-771) – March 2005

Analysis of Bangor Hydro-Electric’s Petition for a Certificate of Public Convenience and 

Necessity to construct a 345 kV transmission line 

United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, Eastern Division 

(Consolidated Civil Actions Nos. C2-99-1182 and C2-99-1250)

Whether the public release of company documents more than three years old would cause 

competitive harm to the American Electric Power Company. [Confidential Expert Report] 

New Jersey Board of Public Utilities (Docket No. EO03121014) – February 2005 

Whether the Board of Public Utilities can halt further collections from Jersey Central Power & 

Light Company’s ratepayers because there already are adequate funds in the company’s 

decommissioning trusts for the Three Mile Island Unit No. 2 Nuclear Plant to allow for the 

decommissioning of that unit without endangered the public health and safety. 
David Schlissel Page 8 Schlissel Technical Consulting, Inc. 

Maine Public Utilities Commission (Docket No. 2004-538) – January and March 2005 

Analysis of Maine Public Service Company’s request to construct a 138 kV transmission line 

from Limestone, Maine to the Canadian Border. 

California Public Utilities Commission (Application No. AO4-02-026) – December 2004 

and January 2005 

Southern California Edison’s proposed replacement of the steam generators at the San Onofre 

Unit 2 and Unit 3 nuclear power plants and whether the utility was imprudent for failing to 

initiate litigation against Combustion Engineering due to defects in the design of and materials 

used in those steam generators. 

United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, Indianapolis Division 

(Civil Action No. IP99-1693) – December 2004 

Whether the public release of company documents more than three years old would cause 

competitive harm to the Cinergy Corporation. [Confidential Expert Report] 

California Public Utilities Commission (Application No. AO4-01-009) – August 2004 

Pacific Gas & Electric’s proposed replacement of the steam generators at the Diablo Canyon 

nuclear power plant and whether the utility was imprudent for failing to initiate litigation against 

Westinghouse due to defects in the design of and materials used in those steam generators. 

Public Service Commission of Wisconsin (Docket No. 6690-CE-187) – June, July and 

August 2004 

Whether Wisconsin Public Service Corporation’s request for approval to build a proposed 515 

MW coal-burning generating facility should be granted. 

Public Service Commission of Wisconsin (Docket No. 05-EI-136) – May and June 2004 

Whether the proposed sale of the Kewaunee Nuclear Power Plant to a subsidiary of an out-ofstate holding company is in the public interest. 

Connecticut Siting Council (Docket No. 272) – May 2004 

Whether there are technically viable alternatives to the proposed 345-kV transmission line 

between Middletown and Norwalk Connecticut and the length of the line that can be installed 

underground. 

Arizona Corporation Commission (Docket No. E-01345A-03-0437 – February 2004 

Whether Arizona Public Service Company should be allowed to acquire and include in rate base 

five generating units that were built by a deregulated affiliate. 

State of Rhode Island Energy Facilities Siting Board (Docket No. SB-2003-1) – February 

2004 

Whether the cost of undergrounding a relocated 115kV transmission line would be eligible for 

regional cost socialization. 
David Schlissel Page 9 Schlissel Technical Consulting, Inc. 

State of Maine Department of Environmental Protection (Docket No. A-82-75-0-X) – 

December 2003 

The storage of irradiated nuclear fuel in an Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation (ISFSI) 

and whether such an installation represents an air pollution control facility. 

Rhode Island Public Utility Commission (Docket No. 3564) – December 2003 and January 

2004 

Whether Narragansett Electric Company should be required to install a relocated 115kV 

transmission line underground. 

New York State Board on Electric Generation Siting and the Environment (Case No. 01-F1276) – September, October and November 2003 

The environmental, economic and system reliability benefits that can reasonably be expected 

from the proposed 1,100 MW TransGas Energy generating facility in Brooklyn, New York. 

Wisconsin Public Service Commission (Case 6690-UR-115) - September and October 2003 

The reasonableness of Wisconsin Public Service Corporation’s decommissioning cost 

collections for the Kewaunee Nuclear Plant. 

Oklahoma Corporation Commission (Cause No. 2003-121) – July 2003

Whether Empire District Electric Company properly reduced its capital costs to reflect the writeoff of a portion of the cost of building a new electric generating facility. 

Arkansas Public Service Commission (Docket 02-248-U) – May 2003 

Entergy's proposed replacement of the steam generators and the reactor vessel head at the ANO 

Unit 1 Steam Generating Station. 

Appellate Tax Board, State of Massachusetts (Docket No C258405-406) – May 2003

The physical nature of electricity and whether electricity is a tangible product or a service. 

Maine Public Utilities Commission (Docket 2002-665-U) – April 2003

Analysis of Central Maine Power Company’s proposed transmission line for Southern York 

County and recommendation of alternatives. 

Massachusetts Legislature, Joint Committees on Government Regulations and Energy – 

March 2003 

Whether PG&E can decide to permanently retire one or more of the generating units at its Salem 

Harbor Station if it is not granted an extension beyond October 2004 to reduce the emissions 

from the Station’s three coal-fired units and one oil-fired unit. 

New Jersey Board of Public Utilities (Docket No. ER02080614) – January 2003 

The prudence of Rockland Electric Company’s power purchases during the period August 1, 

1999 through July 31, 2002. 
David Schlissel Page 10 Schlissel Technical Consulting, Inc. 

New York State Board on Electric Generation Siting and the Environment (Case No. 00-F1356) – September and October 2002 and January 2003 

The need for and the environmental benefits from the proposed 300 MW Kings Park Energy 

generating facility. 

Arizona Corporation Commission (Docket No. E-01345A-01-0822) – May 2002 

The reasonableness of Arizona Public Service Company’s proposed long-term power purchase 

agreement with an affiliated company. 

New York State Board on Electric Generation Siting and the Environment (Case No. 99-F1627) – March 2002 

Repowering NYPA’s existing Poletti Station in Queens, New York. 

Connecticut Siting Council (Docket No. 217) – March 2002, November 2002, and January 

2003 

Whether the proposed 345-kV transmission line between Plumtree and Norwalk substations in 

Southwestern Connecticut is needed and will produce public benefits. 

Vermont Public Service Board (Case No. 6545) – January 2002 

Whether the proposed sale of the Vermont Yankee Nuclear Plant to Entergy is in the public 

interest of the State of Vermont and Vermont ratepayers. 

Connecticut Department of Public Utility Control (Docket 99-09-12RE02) – December 

2001 

The reasonableness of adjustments that Connecticut Light and Power Company seeks to make to 

the proceeds that it received from the sale of Millstone Nuclear Power Station. 

Connecticut Siting Council (Docket No. 208) – October 2001 

Whether the proposed cross-sound cable between Connecticut and Long Island is needed and 

will produce public benefits for Connecticut consumers. 

New Jersey Board of Public Utilities (Docket No. EM01050308) - September 2001 

The market power implications of the proposed merger between Conectiv and Pepco. 

Illinois Commerce Commission Docket No. 01-0423 – August, September, and October 

2001

Commonwealth Edison Company’s management of its distribution and transmission systems. 

New York State Board on Electric Generation Siting and the Environment (Case No. 99-F1627) - August and September 2001 

The environmental benefits from the proposed 500 MW NYPA Astoria generating facility. 

New York State Board on Electric Generation Siting and the Environment (Case No. 99-F1191) - June 2001 
David Schlissel Page 11 Schlissel Technical Consulting, Inc. 

The environmental benefits from the proposed 1,000 MW Astoria Energy generating facility. 

New Jersey Board of Public Utilities (Docket No. EM00110870) - May 2001 

The market power implications of the proposed merger between FirstEnergy and GPU Energy. 

Connecticut Department of Public Utility Control (Docket 99-09-12RE01) - November 2000 

The proposed sale of Millstone Nuclear Station to Dominion Nuclear, Inc. 

Illinois Commerce Commission (Docket 00-0361) - August 2000 

The impact of nuclear power plant life extensions on Commonwealth Edison Company's 

decommissioning costs and collections from ratepayers. 

Vermont Public Service Board (Docket 6300) - April 2000 

Whether the proposed sale of the Vermont Yankee nuclear plant to AmerGen Vermont is in the 

public interest. 

Massachusetts Department of Telecommunications and Energy (Docket 99-107, Phase II) - 

April and June 2000 

The causes of the May 18, 1999, main transformer fire at the Pilgrim generating station. 

Connecticut Department of Public Utility Control (Docket 00-01-11) - March and April 

2000

The impact of the proposed merger between Northeast Utilities and Con Edison, Inc. on the 

reliability of the electric service being provided to Connecticut ratepayers. 

Connecticut Department of Public Utility Control (Docket 99-09-12) - January 2000 

The reasonableness of Northeast Utilities plan for auctioning the Millstone Nuclear Station. 

Connecticut Department of Public Utility Control (Docket 99-08-01) - November 1999

Generation, Transmission, and Distribution system reliability. 

Illinois Commerce Commission (Docket 99-0115) - September 1999

Commonwealth Edison Company's decommissioning cost estimate for the Zion Nuclear Station. 

Connecticut Department of Public Utility Control (Docket 99-03-36) - July 1999

Standard offer rates for Connecticut Light & Power Company. 

Connecticut Department of Public Utility Control (Docket 99-03-35) - July 1999

Standard offer rates for United Illuminating Company. 

Connecticut Department of Public Utility Control (Docket 99-02-05) - April 1999

Connecticut Light & Power Company stranded costs. 

Connecticut Department of Public Utility Control (Docket 99-03-04) - April 1999

United Illuminating Company stranded costs. 
David Schlissel Page 12 Schlissel Technical Consulting, Inc. 

Maryland Public Service Commission (Docket 8795) - December 1998

Future operating performance of Delmarva Power Company's nuclear units. 

Maryland Public Service Commission (Dockets 8794/8804) - December 1998

Baltimore Gas and Electric Company's proposed replacement of the steam generators at the 

Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant. Future performance of nuclear units. 

Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission (Docket 38702-FAC-40-S1) - November 1998

Whether the ongoing outages of the two units at the D.C. Cook Nuclear Plant were caused or 

extended by mismanagement. 

Arkansas Public Service Commission (Docket 98-065-U) - October 1998

Entergy's proposed replacement of the steam generators at the ANO Unit 2 Steam Generating 

Station. 

Massachusetts Department of Telecommunications and Energy (Docket 97-120) - October 

1998

Western Massachusetts Electric Company's Transition Charge. Whether the extended 1996-

1998 outages of the three units at the Millstone Nuclear Station were caused or extended by 

mismanagement. 

Connecticut Department of Public Utility Control (Docket 98-01-02) - September 1998

Nuclear plant operations, operating and capital costs, and system reliability improvement costs. 

Illinois Commerce Commission (Docket 97-0015) - May 1998

Whether any of the outages of Commonwealth Edison Company's twelve nuclear units during 

1996 were caused or extended by mismanagement. Whether equipment problems, personnel 

performance weaknesses, and program deficiencies could have been avoided or addressed prior 

to plant outages. Outage-related fuel and replacement power costs. 

Public Service Commission of West Virginia (Case 97-1329-E-CN) - March 1998

The need for a proposed 765 kV transmission line from Wyoming, West Virginia, to Cloverdate, 

Virginia. 

Illinois Commerce Commission (Docket 97-0018) - March 1998

Whether any of the outages of the Clinton Power Station during 1996 were caused or extended 

by mismanagement. 

Connecticut Department of Public Utility Control (Docket 97-05-12) - October 1997

The increased costs resulting from the ongoing outages of the three units at the Millstone 

Nuclear Station. 

New Jersey Board of Public Utilities (Docket ER96030257) - August 1996

Replacement power costs during plant outages. 
David Schlissel Page 13 Schlissel Technical Consulting, Inc. 

Illinois Commerce Commission (Docket 95-0119) - February 1996

Whether any of the outages of Commonwealth Edison Company's twelve nuclear units during 

1994 were caused or extended by mismanagement. Whether equipment problems, personnel 

performance weaknesses, and program deficiencies could have been avoided or addressed prior 

to plant outages. Outage-related fuel and replacement power costs. 

Public Utility Commission of Texas (Docket 13170) - December 1994

Whether any of the outages of the River Bend Nuclear Station during the period October 1, 

1991, through December 31, 1993, were caused or extended by mismanagement. 

Public Utility Commission of Texas (Docket 12820) - October 1994

Operations and maintenance expenses during outages of the South Texas Nuclear Generating 

Station. 

Wisconsin Public Service Commission (Cases 6630-CE-197 and 6630-CE-209) - September 

and October 1994

The reasonableness of the projected cost and schedule for the replacement of the steam 

generators at the Point Beach Nuclear Power Plant. The potential impact of plant aging on future 

operating costs and performance. 

Public Utility Commission of Texas (Docket 12700) - June 1994

Whether El Paso Electric Company's share of Palo Verde Unit 3 was needed to ensure adequate 

levels of system reliability. Whether the Company's investment in Unit 3 could be expected to 

generate cost savings for ratepayers within a reasonable number of years. 

Arizona Corporation Commission (Docket U-1551-93-272) - May and June 1994

Southwest Gas Corporation's plastic and steel pipe repair and replacement programs. 

Connecticut Department of Public Utility Control (Docket 92-04-15) - March 1994

Northeast Utilities management of the 1992/1993 replacement of the steam generators at 

Millstone Unit 2. 

Connecticut Department of Public Utility Control (Docket 92-10-03) - August 1993

Whether the 1991 outage of Millstone Unit 3 as a result of the corrosion of safety-related plant 

piping systems was due to mismanagement. 

Public Utility Commission of Texas (Docket 11735) - April and July 1993

Whether any of the outages of the Comanche Peak Unit 1 Nuclear Station during the period 

August 13, 1990, through June 30, 1992, were caused or extended by mismanagement. 

Connecticut Department of Public Utility Control (Docket 91-12-07) - January 1993 and 

August 1995

Whether the November 6, 1991, pipe rupture at Millstone Unit 2 and the related outages of the 

Connecticut Yankee and Millstone units were caused or extended by mismanagement. The 

impact of environmental requirements on power plant design and operation. 
David Schlissel Page 14 Schlissel Technical Consulting, Inc. 

Connecticut Department of Public Utility Control (Docket 92-06-05) - September 1992

United Illuminating Company off-system capacity sales. [Confidential Testimony] 

Public Utility Commission of Texas (Docket 10894) - August 1992

Whether any of the outages of the River Bend Nuclear Station during the period October 1, 

1988, through September 30, 1991, were caused or extended by mismanagement. 

Connecticut Department of Public Utility Control (Docket 92-01-05) - August 1992

Whether the July 1991 outage of Millstone Unit 3 due to the fouling of important plant systems 

by blue mussels was the result of mismanagement. 

California Public Utilities Commission (Docket 90-12-018) - November 1991, April 1992, 

June and July 1993

Whether any of the outages of the three units at the Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station 

during 1989 and 1990 were caused or extended by mismanagement. Whether equipment 

problems, personnel performance weaknesses and program deficiencies could have been avoided 

or addressed prior to outages. Whether specific plant operating cost and capital expenditures 

were necessary and prudent. 

Public Utility Commission of Texas (Docket 9945) - June 1991

Whether El Paso Electric Company's share of Palo Verde Unit 3 was needed to ensure adequate 

levels of system reliability. Whether the Company's investment in the unit could be expected to 

generate cost savings for ratepayers within a reasonable number of years. El Paso Electric 

Company's management of the planning and licensing of the Arizona Interconnection Project 

transmission line. 

Arizona Corporation Commission (Docket U-1345-90-007) - December 1990 and April 

1991

Arizona Public Service Company's management of the planning, construction and operation of 

the Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station. The costs resulting from identified instances of 

mismanagement. 

New Jersey Board of Public Utilities (Docket ER89110912J) - July and October 1990

The economic costs and benefits of the early retirement of the Oyster Creek Nuclear Plant. The 

potential impact of the unit's early retirement on system reliability. The cost and schedule for 

siting and constructing a replacement natural gas-fired generating plant. 

Public Utility Commission of Texas (Docket 9300) - June and July 1990

Texas Utilities management of the design and construction of the Comanche Peak Nuclear Plant. 

Whether the Company was prudent in repurchasing minority owners' shares of Comanche Peak 

without examining the costs and benefits of the repurchase for its ratepayers. 

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Docket EL-88-5-000) - November 1989

Boston Edison's corporate management of the Pilgrim Nuclear Station. 
David Schlissel Page 15 Schlissel Technical Consulting, Inc. 

Connecticut Department of Public Utility Control (Docket 89-08-11) - November 1989

United Illuminating Company's off-system capacity sales. 

Kansas State Corporation Commission (Case 164,211-U) - April 1989 

Whether any of the 127 days of outages of the Wolf Creek generating plant during 1987 and 

1988 were the result of mismanagement. 

Public Utility Commission of Texas (Docket 8425) - March 1989

Whether Houston Lighting & Power Company's new Limestone Unit 2 generating facility was 

needed to provide adequate levels of system reliability. Whether the Company's investment in 

Limestone Unit 2 would provide a net economic benefit for ratepayers. 

Illinois Commerce Commission (Dockets 83-0537 and 84-0555) - July 1985 and January 

1989

Commonwealth Edison Company's management of quality assurance and quality control 

activities and the actions of project contractors during construction of the Byron Nuclear Station. 

New Mexico Public Service Commission (Case 2146, Part II) - October 1988

The rate consequences of Public Service Company of New Mexico's ownership of Palo Verde 

Units 1 and 2. 

United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York (Case 87-646-JBW) - 

October 1988

Whether the Long Island Lighting Company withheld important information from the New York 

State Public Service Commission, the New York State Board on Electric Generating Siting and 

the Environment, and the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 

Public Utility Commission of Texas (Docket 6668) - August 1988 and June 1989

Houston Light & Power Company's management of the design and construction of the South 

Texas Nuclear Project. The impact of safety-related and environmental requirements on plant 

construction costs and schedule. 

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Docket ER88-202-000) - June 1988

Whether the turbine generator vibration problems that extended the 1987 outage of the Maine 

Yankee nuclear plant were caused by mismanagement. 

Illinois Commerce Commission (Docket 87-0695) - April 1988

Illinois Power Company's planning for the Clinton Nuclear Station. 

North Carolina Utilities Commission (Docket E-2, Sub 537) - February 1988

Carolina Power & Light Company's management of the design and construction of the Harris 

Nuclear Project. The Company's management of quality assurance and quality control activities. 

The impact of safety-related and environmental requirements on construction costs and schedule. 

The cost and schedule consequences of identified instances of mismanagement. 
David Schlissel Page 16 Schlissel Technical Consulting, Inc. 

Ohio Public Utilities Commission (Case 87-689-EL-AIR) - October 1987

Whether any of Ohio Edison's share of the Perry Unit 2 generating facility was needed to ensure 

adequate levels of system reliability. Whether the Company's investment in Perry Unit 1 would 

produce a net economic benefit for ratepayers. 

North Carolina Utilities Commission (Docket E-2, Sub 526) - May 1987

Fuel factor calculations. 

New York State Public Service Commission (Case 29484) - May 1987

The planned startup and power ascension testing program for the Nine Mile Point Unit 2 

generating facility. 

Illinois Commerce Commission (Dockets 86-0043 and 86-0096) - April 1987

The reasonableness of certain terms in a proposed Power Supply Agreement. 

Illinois Commerce Commission (Docket 86-0405) - March 1987

The in-service criteria to be used to determine when a new generating facility was capable of 

providing safe, adequate, reliable and efficient service. 

Indiana Public Service Commission (Case 38045) - November 1986

Northern Indiana Public Service Company's planning for the Schaefer Unit 18 generating 

facility. Whether the capacity from Unit 18 was needed to ensure adequate system reliability. 

The rate consequences of excess capacity on the Company's system. 

Superior Court in Rockingham County, New Hampshire (Case 86E328) - July 1986

The radiation effects of low power testing on the structures, equipment and components in a new 

nuclear power plant. 

New York State Public Service Commission (Case 28124) - April 1986 and June 1987

The terms and provisions in a utility's contract with an equipment supplier. The prudence of the 

utility's planning for a new generating facility. Expenditures on a canceled generating facility. 

Arizona Corporation Commission (Docket U-1345-85) - February 1986

The construction schedule for Palo Verde Unit No. 1. Regulatory and technical factors that 

would likely affect future plant operating costs. 

New York State Public Service Commission (Case 29124) – December 1985 and 

January 1986

Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation's management of construction of the Nine Mile Point Unit 

No. 2 nuclear power plant. 

New York State Public Service Commission (Case 28252) - October 1985

A performance standard for the Shoreham nuclear power plant. 

New York State Public Service Commission (Case 29069) - August 1985

A performance standard for the Nine Mile Point Unit No. 2 nuclear power plant. 
David Schlissel Page 17 Schlissel Technical Consulting, Inc. 

Missouri Public Service Commission (Cases ER-85-128 and EO-85-185) - July 1985

The impact of safety-related regulatory requirements and plant aging on power plant operating 

costs and performance. Regulatory factors and plant-specific design features that will likely 

affect the future operating costs and performance of the Wolf Creek Nuclear Plant. 

Massachusetts Department of Public Utilities (Case 84-152) - January 1985

The impact of safety-related regulatory requirements and plant aging on power plant operating 

costs and performance. Regulatory factors and plant-specific design features that will likely 

affect the future operating costs and performance of the Seabrook Nuclear Plant. 

Maine Public Utilities Commission (Docket 84-113) - September 1984

The impact of safety-related regulatory requirements and plant aging on power plant operating 

costs and performance. Regulatory factors and plant-specific design features that will likely 

affect the future operating costs and performance of the Seabrook Nuclear Plant. 

South Carolina Public Service Commission (Case 84-122-E) - August 1984

The repair and replacement strategy adopted by Carolina Power & Light Company in response to 

pipe cracking at the Brunswick Nuclear Station. Quantification of replacement power costs 

attributable to identified instances of mismanagement. 

Vermont Public Service Board (Case 4865) - May 1984 

The repair and replacement strategy adopted by management in response to pipe cracking at the 

Vermont Yankee nuclear plant. 

New York State Public Service Commission (Case 28347) -January 1984

The information that was available to Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation prior to 1982 

concerning the potential for cracking in safety-related piping systems at the Nine Mile Point Unit 

No. 1 nuclear plant. 

New York State Public Service Commission (Case 28166) - January 1983 and February 

1984

Whether the January 25, 1982, steam generator tube rupture at the Ginna Nuclear Plant was 

caused by mismanagement. 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (Case 50-247SP) - May 1983

The economic costs and benefits of the early retirement of the Indian Point nuclear plants. 
David Schlissel Page 18 Schlissel Technical Consulting, Inc. 

REPORTS, ARTICLES, AND PRESENTATIONS 

The Economics of Existing Coal-Fired Power Plants, Presentation at EUCI Conference in St. 

Louis, MO, November 2010. 

Presentation to the Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission on the Need for the Proposed Duke 

Energy Indiana Edwardsport IGCC Project, November 2010. 

Reply Comments on Portland General Electric Company’s 2009 Integrated Resource Plan, 

September 2010. 

Presentation to the Oregon Public Utility Commission on Portland General Electric Company’s 

2009 Integrated Resource Plan, May 2010. 

Comments on Portland General Electric Company’s 2009 Integrated Resource Plan, May 2010. 

Comments on the Facility Cost Report for Tenaska’s Proposed Taylorville IGCC Plant, April 

2010. 

Comments on City of Holland Board of Public Work’s 2010 Power Supply Plan, April 2010. 

Phasing Out Federal Subsidies for Coal, April 2010. 

Comments on Draft Portland General Electric Company 2009 Integrated Resource Plan, 

October 2009. 

The Economic Impact of Restricting Mountaintop/Valley Fill Coal Mining in Central 

Appalachia, August 2009. 

Energy Future: A Green Energy Alternative for Michigan, report, July 2009. 

Energy Future: A Green Energy Alternative for Michigan, presentation, July 2009. 

Preliminary Assessment of East Kentucky Power Cooperative’s 2009 Resource Plan, June 2009. 

The Financial Risks to Old Dominion Electric Cooperative’s Consumer-Members of Building 

and Operating the Proposed Cypress Creek Power Station, April 2009. 

An Assessment of Santee Cooper’s 2008 Resource Planning, April 2009. 

Nuclear Loan Guarantees: Another Taxpayer Bailout Ahead, Report for the Union of Concerned 

Scientists, March 2009. 

New Hampshire Senate Bill 152: Merrimack Station Scrubber, March 2009. 

The Risks of Building and Operating Plant Washington, Presentation to the Sustainable Atlanta 

Roundtable, December 2008. 

The Risks of Building and Operating Plant Washington, Report and Presentation to EMC Board 

Members, December 2008. 

Don’t Get Burned, the Risks of Investing in New Coal-Fired Power Plants, Presentation at the 

University of California at Berkeley Energy and Resources Group Colloquium, October 2008. 
David Schlissel Page 19 Schlissel Technical Consulting, Inc. 

Don’t Get Burned, the Risks of Investing in New Coal-Fired Power Plants, Presentation at 

Georgia Tech University, October 2008. 

Nuclear Power Plant Construction Costs, Synapse Energy Economics, July 2008. 

Coal-Fired Power Plant Construction Costs, Synapse Energy Economics, July 2008. 

Synapse 2008 CO2 Price Forecasts, Synapse Energy Economics, July 2008. 

Don’t Get Burned, the Risks of Investing in New Coal-Fired Power Plants, Presentation at the 

NARUC ERE Committee, NARUC Summer Meetings, July 2008. 

Are There Nukes In Our Future, Presentation at the NASUCA Summer Meetings, June 2008. 

Risky Appropriations: Gambling US Energy Policy on the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership, 

Report for Friends of the Earth, the Institute for Policy Studies, the Government Accountability 

Project, and the Southern Alliance for Clean Energy, March 2008. 

Don’t Get Burned, the Risks of Investing in New Coal-Fired Power Plants, Presentation to the 

New York Society of Securities Analysts, February 26, 2008. 

Don’t Get Burned,Report for the Interfaith Center for Corporate Responsibility, February 2008. 

The Risks of Participating in the AMPGS Coal Plant, Report for NRDC, February 2008. 

Kansas is Not Alone, the New Climate for Coal, Presentation to members of the Kansas State 

Legislature, January 22, 2008. 

The Risks of Building New Nuclear Power Plants, Presentation to the Utah State Legislature 

Public Utilities and Technology Committee, September 19, 2007. 

The Risks of Building New Nuclear Power Plants, Presentation to Moody’s and Standard & 

Poor’s rating agencies, May 17, 2007. 

The Risks of Building New Nuclear Power Plants, U.S. Senate and House of Representative 

Briefings, April 20, 2007. 

Carbon Dioxide Emissions Costs and Electricity Resource Planning, New Mexico Public 

Regulation Commission, Case 06-00448-UT, March 28, 2007, with Anna Sommer. 

The Risks of Building New Nuclear Power Plants, Presentation to the New York Society of 

Securities Analysts, June 8, 2006. 

Conservation and Renewable Energy Should be the Cornerstone for Meeting Future Natural 

Gas Needs. Presentation to the Global LNG Summit, June 1, 2004. Presentation given by Cliff 

Chen. 

Comments on natural gas utilities’ Phase I Proposals for pre-approved full cost recovery of 

contracts with liquid natural gas (LNG) suppliers and the costs of interconnecting their systems 

with LNG facilities. Comments in California Public Utilities Commission Rulemaking 04-01-

025. March 23, 2004. 

The 2003 Blackout: Solutions that Won’t Cost a Fortune, The Electricity Journal, November 

2003, with David White, Amy Roschelle, Paul Peterson, Bruce Biewald, and William Steinhurst. 
David Schlissel Page 20 Schlissel Technical Consulting, Inc. 

The Impact of Converting the Cooling Systems at Indian Point Units 2 and 3 on Electric System 

Reliability. An Analysis for Riverkeeper, Inc. November 3, 2003. 

The Impact of Converting Indian Point Units 2 and 3 to Closed-Cycle Cooling Systems with 

Cooling Towers on Energy’s Likely Future Earnings. An Analysis for Riverkeeper, Inc. 

November 3, 2003. 

Entergy’s Lost Revenues During Outages of Indian Point Units 2 and 3 to Convert to ClosedCycle Cooling Systems. An Analysis for Riverkeeper, Inc. November 3, 2003. 

Power Plant Repowering as a Strategy for Reducing Water Consumption at Existing Electric 

Generating Facilities. A presentation at the May 2003 Symposium on Cooling Water Intake 

Technologies to Protect Aquatic Organisms. May 6, 2003. 

Financial Insecurity: The Increasing Use of Limited Liability Companies and Multi-tiered 

Holding Companies to Own Electric Generating Plants. A presentation at the 2002 NASUCA 

Annual Meeting. November 12, 2002. 

Determining the Need for Proposed Overhead Transmission Facilities. A Presentation by David 

Schlissel and Paul Peterson to the Task Force and Working Group for Connecticut Public Act 

02-95. October 17, 2002. 

Future PG&E Net Revenues From The Sale of Electricity Generated at its Brayton Point Station. 

An Analysis for the Attorney General of the State of Rhode Island. October 2, 2002. 

PG&E’s Net Revenues From The Sale of Electricity Generated at its Brayton Point Station 

During the Years 1999-2002. An Analysis for the Attorney General of the State of Rhode Island. 

October 2, 2002. 

Financial Insecurity: The Increasing Use of Limited Liability Companies and Multi-Tiered 

Holding Companies to Own Nuclear Power Plants. A Synapse report for the STAR Foundation 

and Riverkeeper, Inc., by David Schlissel, Paul Peterson, and Bruce Biewald, August 7, 2002. 

Comments on EPA’s Proposed Clean Water Act Section 316(b) for Cooling Water Intake 

Structures at Phase II Existing Facilities, on behalf of Riverkeeper, Inc., by David Schlissel and 

Geoffrey Keith, August 2002.

The Impact of Retiring the Indian Point Nuclear Power Station on Electric System Reliability. A 

Synapse Report for Riverkeeper, Inc. and Pace Law School Energy Project. May 7, 2002. 

Preliminary Assessment of the Need for the Proposed Plumtree-Norwalk 345-kV Transmission 

Line. A Synapse Report for the Towns of Bethel, Redding, Weston, and Wilton Connecticut. 

October 15, 2001. 

ISO New England's Generating Unit Availability Study: Where's the Beef? A Presentation at the 

June 29, 2001 Restructuring Roundtable. 

Clean Air and Reliable Power: Connecticut Legislative House Bill HB6365 will not Jeopardize 

Electric System Reliability. A Synapse Report for the Clean Air Task Force. May 2001. 
David Schlissel Page 21 Schlissel Technical Consulting, Inc. 

Room to Breathe: Why the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection's Proposed 

Air Regulations are Compatible with Reliability. A Synapse Report for MASSPIRG and the 

Clean Water Fund. March 2001. 

Generator Outage Increases: A Preliminary Analysis of Outage Trends in the New England 

Electricity Market, a Synapse Report for the Union of Concerned Scientists, January 7, 2001. 

Cost, Grid Reliability Concerns on the Rise Amid Restructuring, with Charlie Harak, Boston 

Business Journal, August 18-24, 2000. 

Report on Indian Point 2 Steam Generator Issues, Schlissel Technical Consulting, Inc., March 

10, 2000. 

Preliminary Expert Report in Case 96-016613, Cities of Wharton, Pasadena, et al v. Houston 

Lighting & Power Company, October 28, 1999. 

Comments of Schlissel Technical Consulting, Inc. on the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's 

Draft Policy Statement on Electric Industry Economic Deregulation, February 1997. 

Report to the Municipal Electric Utility Association of New York State on the Cost of 

Decommissioning the Fitzpatrick Nuclear Plant, August 1996. 

Report to the Staff of the Arizona Corporation Commission on U.S. West Corporation's 

telephone cable repair and replacement programs, May, 1996. 

Nuclear Power in the Competitive Environment, NRRI Quarterly Bulletin, Vol. 16, No. 3, Fall 

1995. 

Nuclear Power in the Competitive Environment, presentation at the 18th National Conference of 

Regulatory Attorneys, Scottsdale, Arizona, May 17, 1995. 

The Potential Safety Consequences of Steam Generator Tube Cracking at the Byron and 

Braidwood Nuclear Stations, a report for the Environmental Law and Policy Center of the 

Midwest, 1995. 

Report to the Public Policy Group Concerning Future Trojan Nuclear Plant Operating 

Performance and Costs, July 15, 1992. 

Report to the New York State Consumer Protection Board on the Costs of the 1991 Refueling 

Outage of Indian Point 2, December 1991. 

Preliminary Report on Excess Capacity Issues to the Public Utility Regulation Board of the City 

of El Paso, Texas, April 1991. 

Nuclear Power Plant Construction Costs, presentation at the November, 1987, Conference of the 

National Association of State Utility Consumer Advocates. 

Comments on the Final Report of the National Electric Reliability Study, a report for the New 

York State Consumer Protection Board, February 27, 1981. 
David Schlissel Page 22 Schlissel Technical Consulting, Inc. 

OTHER SIGNIFICANT INVESTIGATIONS AND LITIGATION SUPPORT WORK 

Reviewed the salt deposition mitigation strategy proposed for Reliant Energy’s repowering of its 

Astoria Generating Station. October 2002 through February 2003. 

Assisted the Connecticut Office of Consumer Counsel in reviewing the auction of Connecticut 

Light & Power Company's power purchase agreements. August and September, 2000. 

Assisted the New Jersey Division of the Ratepayer Advocate in evaluating the reasonableness of 

Atlantic City Electric Company's proposed sale of its fossil generating facilities. June and July, 

2000. 

Investigated whether the 1996-1998 outages of the three Millstone Nuclear Units were caused or 

extended by mismanagement. 1997 and 1998. Clients were the Connecticut Office of Consumer 

Counsel and the Office of the Attorney General of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. 

Investigated whether the 1995-1997 outages of the two units at the Salem Nuclear Station were 

caused or extended by mismanagement. 1996-1997. Client was the New Jersey Division of the 

Ratepayer Advocate. 

Assisted the Associated Industries of Massachusetts in quantifying the stranded costs associated 

with utility generating plants in the New England states. May through July, 1996 

Investigated whether the December 25, 1993, turbine generator failure and fire at the Fermi 2 

generating plant was caused by Detroit Edison Company's mismanagement of fabrication, 

operation or maintenance. 1995. Client was the Attorney General of the State of Michigan. 

Investigated whether the outages of the two units at the South Texas Nuclear Generating Station 

during the years 1990 through 1994 were caused or extended by mismanagement. Client was the 

Texas Office of Public Utility Counsel. 

Assisted the City Public Service Board of San Antonio, Texas in litigation over Houston 

Lighting & Power Company's management of operations of the South Texas Nuclear Generating 

Station. 

Investigated whether outages of the Millstone nuclear units during the years 1991 through 1994 

were caused or extended by mismanagement. Client was the Office of the Attorney General of 

the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. 

Evaluated the 1994 Decommissioning Cost Estimate for the Maine Yankee Nuclear Plant. Client 

was the Public Advocate of the State of Maine. 

Evaluated the 1994 Decommissioning Cost Estimate for the Seabrook Nuclear Plant. Clients 

were investment firms that were evaluating whether to purchase the Great Bay Power Company, 

one of Seabrook's minority owners. 

Investigated whether a proposed natural-gas fired generating facility was need to ensure 

adequate levels of system reliability. Examined the potential impacts of environmental 

regulations on the unit's expected construction cost and schedule. 1992. Client was the New 

Jersey Rate Counsel. 
David Schlissel Page 23 Schlissel Technical Consulting, Inc. 

Investigated whether Public Service Company of New Mexico management had adequately 

disclosed to potential investors the risk that it would be unable to market its excess generating 

capacity. Clients were individual shareholders of Public Service Company of New Mexico. 

Investigated whether the Seabrook Nuclear Plant was prudently designed and constructed. 1989. 

Clients were the Connecticut Office of Consumer Counsel and the Attorney General of the State 

of Connecticut. 

Investigated whether Carolina Power & Light Company had prudently managed the design and 

construction of the Harris nuclear plant. 1988-1989. Clients were the North Carolina Electric 

Municipal Power Agency and the City of Fayetteville, North Carolina. 

Investigated whether the Grand Gulf nuclear plant had been prudently designed and constructed. 

1988. Client was the Arkansas Public Service Commission. 

Reviewed the financial incentive program proposed by the New York State Public Service 

Commission to improve nuclear power plant safety. 1987. Client was the New York State 

Consumer Protection Board. 

Reviewed the construction cost and schedule of the Hope Creek Nuclear Generating Station. 

1986-1987. Client was the New Jersey Rate Counsel. 

Reviewed the operating performance of the Fort St. Vrain Nuclear Plant. 1985. Client was the 

Colorado Office of Consumer Counsel. 

WORK HISTORY 

 2010 - President, Schlissel Technical Consulting, Inc. 

2000 - 2009: Senior Consultant, Synapse Energy Economics, Inc. 

 1994 - 2000: President, Schlissel Technical Consulting, Inc. 

 1983 - 1994: Director, Schlissel Engineering Associates 

 1979 - 1983: Private Legal and Consulting Practice 

 1975 - 1979: Attorney, New York State Consumer Protection Board 

 1973 - 1975: Staff Attorney, Georgia Power Project 

EDUCATION 

1983-1985: Massachusetts Institute of Technology 

Special Graduate Student in Nuclear Engineering and Project Management, 

1973: Stanford Law School, 

Juris Doctor 

1969: Stanford University 

Master of Science in Astronautical Engineering, 

1968: Massachusetts Institute of Technology 

Bachelor of Science in Astronautical Engineering, 
David Schlissel Page 24 Schlissel Technical Consulting, Inc. 

PROFESSIONAL MEMBERSHIPS 

• New York State Bar since 1981 

• American Nuclear Society 
Anna Sommer Page 1 of 6

Anna Sommer

Sommer Energy, LLC

19 1⁄2 White Place

Burlington, VT 05401

(802) 497-1978

sommerenergy@gmail.com

EDUCATION

McGill University, MSc in Civil Engineering and Applied Mechanics, Montreal, Canada, 

expected 2012.

University of California, Berkeley, MS in Energy and Resources, Berkeley, CA, 2010.

Master’s Project: The Water and Energy Nexus: Estimating Consumptive Water Use from Carbon 

Capture at Pulverized Coal Plants with a Case Study of the Upper Colorado River Basin

Tufts University, BS in Economics and Environmental Studies, Medford, MA, 2003.

PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE

Sommer Energy, Burlington, VT. President. May 2010 – present

Provides consulting services on electricity planning, energy efficiency, carbon capture and 

sequestration and energy-water issues in a regulatory context. 

UC Berkeley, Berkeley, CA. Graduate Research Assistant. January 2009 – May 2009

Researched and wrote a policy proposal that addresses the potential contribution to climate 

change from the development of new coal power in the U.S.

Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Berkeley, CA. Graduate Research Assistant. 

September 2009 – December 2009 

Drafted journal article on the economics of repowering California wind turbines.

Energy Solutions, Oakland, CA. Project Manager. July 2007 – August 2008

Provided technical and policy assistance to local government agencies in implementing energy 

efficiency projects, conducted lighting audits of commercial facilities, and evaluated the 

potential for emerging lighting technologies such as LED streetlights.

Synapse Energy Economics, Inc., Cambridge, MA. Research Associate. June 2003 – June 2007

Evaluated energy technologies on both the supply and demand sides, conducted analyses of 

environmental regulations including greenhouse gas regulations, prepared economic analyses, 

proposed public policies to encourage renewable energy and energy efficiency development and 

provided support including expert testimony to clients through all phases of regulatory 

proceedings.

Internships:

Vermont Energy Investment Corporation, Burlington, VT. June 2009 – August 2009

EFI/Xenergy (now KEMA Consulting, Inc.), Burlington, MA. September 2000 – May 2003 

Zilkha Renewable Energy (now Horizon Wind Energy), Houston, TX. May - August 2002
Anna Sommer Page 2 of 6

PANEL TESTIMONY AND COMMENTS

Minnestoa Public Utilities Commission (Docket No. E017/RP-10-623) – May 2011

Comments regarding Otter Tail Power’s integrated resource plan to comply with EPA 

regulations and meet future capacity and energy needs.

Minnesota Public Utilities Commission (Docket No. E001/RP-08-673) – June 2011

Comments regarding IPL’s integrated resource plan to comply with pending EPA regulations 

and meet future capacity and energy needs. 

North Carolina Utilities Commission (Docket No. E-100, Sub 110) – February 2007

Comments regarding the implementation of energy efficiency and DSM programs in North 

Carolina. 

Minnesota Public Utilities Commission (Docket No. E017/CN-05-619) – December 2006

Evaluation of a proposal by seven utilities to build a new supercritical pulverized coal plant 

including alternatives to the plant and potential for greenhouse gas regulation.

North Carolina Utilities Commission (Docket No. E-7, Sub 790) – January 2007

Evaluation of a proposal by Duke Energy Carolinas to build two new supercritical pulverized 

coal plants including consideration of greenhouse gas regulation and alternatives to the plant 

such as energy efficiency.

South Dakota Public Utilities Commission (Docket No. EL05-022) – July 2006

Evaluation of a proposal by seven utilities to build a new supercritical pulverized coal plant 

including alternatives to the plant and potential for greenhouse gas regulation.

Wisconsin Public Service Commission (Docket #6685-CE-108) – February 2006

Evaluating Wisconsin Public Power Inc.’s request for approval of a Certificate of Authority to 

exercise its option to own a portion of Prairie State Energy Campus, a supercritical pulverized 

coal plant. 

REPORTS

A Study of the Economics and Risks of Operation of Boiler 4 by the New Ulm Public Utilities 

Commission, prepared by Anna Sommer for Sierra Club – Northstar Chapter and Minnesota 

Center for Environmental Advocacy. July 15, 2011.

Comments on the Technical Memorandum for the Georgia Statewide Energy Sector Water 

Demand Forecast, prepared by Anna Sommer and David Schlissel for the Southern Alliance for 

Clean Energy. June 22, 2011.

Don’t Get Burned: The Risks of Investing in New Coal-Fired Generating Facilities, prepared 

by David Schlissel, Lucy Johnston, Jennifer Kallay, Christopher James, Anna Sommer, Bruce 

Biewald, Ezra Hausman and Allison Smith for Interfaith Center of Corporate Responsibility. 

February 26, 2008.

Quantifying and Controlling Fine Particulate Matter in New York City, prepared by Alice 

Napoleon, Geoff Keith, Charles Komanoff, Daniel Gutman, Patricio Silva, David Schlissel, 

Anna Sommer, Cliff Chen and Amy Roschelle for Coalition Helping Organize a Kleaner 

Environment, Natural Resources Defense Council and Reliant Energy. August 28, 2007.

Independent Administration of Energy Efficiency Programs: A Model for North Carolina, 

prepared by David Nichols, Anna Sommer and William Steinhurst for Clean Water for North 

Carolina. April 13, 2007.
Anna Sommer Page 3 of 6

Integrated Portfolio Management in a Restructured Supply Market, prepared by Paul 

Chernick, Jonathan Wallach, William Steinhurst, Tim Woolf, Anna Sommer and Kenji 

Takahashi. June 30, 2006.

Ensuring Delaware’s Energy Future: A Response to Executive Order No. 82, prepared by the 

Delaware Cabinet Committee on Energy with technical assistance at Synapse Energy Economics 

from William Steinhurst, Bruce Biewald, David White, Kenji Takahashi, Alice Napoleon, Amy

Roschelle, Anna Sommer and Ezra Hausman. March 8, 2006.

Mohave Alternatives and Complements Study: Assessment of Carbon Sequestration 

Feasibility and Markets, a Sargent & Lundy and Synapse Energy Economics, Inc. report 

prepared for Southern California Edison by Anna Sommer and William Steinhurst. February 

2006.

Potential Cost Impacts of a Renewable Portfolio Standard in New Brunswick, prepared by Tim 

Woolf, David White, Cliff Chen and Anna Sommer for the New Brunswick Department of 

Energy. October 2005.

Considering Climate Change in Electric Resource Planning: Zero is the Wrong Carbon 

Value, a Synapse Energy Economics, Inc. report prepared by Lucy Johnston, Amy Roschelle, 

Ezra Hausman, Anna Sommer and Bruce Biewald. September 20, 2005. 

Potential Cost Impacts of a Vermont Renewable Portfolio Standard, a Synapse Energy 

Economics, Inc. report prepared for the Vermont Public Service Board, by Tim Woolf, David E. 

White, Cliff Chen, and Anna Sommer. October 16, 2003.

Estimating the Environmental Benefits of Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency in North 

America: Experience and Methods, a report for the Commission for Environmental 

Cooperation, by Geoffrey Keith, Bruce Biewald, Anna Sommer, Patrick Henn, and Miguel 

Breceda, September 22, 2003.

Comments on the RPS Cost Analyses of the Joint Utilities and the DPS Staff, a Synapse 

Energy Economics, Inc. report prepared for the Renewable Energy Technology and 

Environment Coalition, by Bruce Biewald, Cliff Chen, Anna Sommer, William Steinhurst, and 

David E. White. September 19, 2003.

Cleaner Air, Fuel Diversity and High-Quality Jobs: Reviewing Selected Potential Benefits of 

an RPS in New York State, a Synapse Energy Economics, Inc. report prepared for the 

Renewable Energy Technology and Environment Coalition, by Geoff Keith, Bruce Biewald, 

David White, Anna Sommer and Cliff Chen. July 28, 2003.

PRESENTATIONS AND ARTICLES 

“The Energy and Water Nexus: Carbon Capture and Water.” A presentation at the Water and 

Energy Sustainability Symposium. September 28, 2010.

“Carbon Sequestration.” A presentation to Vermont Energy Investment Corporation. August 17, 

2009.

“Carbon Dioxide Emissions Costs and Electricity Resource Planning.” A presentation before the 

New Mexico Public Regulation Commission with David Schlissel. March 28, 2007.
Anna Sommer Page 4 of 6

“Electricity Supply Prices in Deregulated Markets – The Problem and Potential Responses.” A 

presentation at the NASUCA Mid-Year Meeting with Rick Hornby and Ezra Hausman. June 13, 

2006.

“IGCC: A Public Interest Perspective.” A presentation at the Electric Utilities Environmental 

Conference 2006. January 24, 2006.

Woolf, Tim, Anna Sommer, John Nielsen, David Barry and Ronald Lehr. “Managing Electric 

Industry Risk with Clean and Efficient Resources,” The Electricity Journal, Volume 18, Issue 2, 

March 2005.

Woolf, Tim and Anna Sommer. “Local Policy Measures to Improve Air Quality: A Case Study 

of Queens County, New York,” Local Environment, Volume 9, Number 1, February 2004.

INVESTIGATIONS

Minnesota Public Utilities Commission (Docket No. E017/M-10-1082) – ongoing

Evaluation of Otter Tail Power’s plan to install pollution controls on the Big Stone power plant.

Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission (Cause No. 43114 IGCC 4S) – ongoing

Evaluation of prudence, gross mismanagement, concealment and fraud related to the 

construction of a new integrated gasification combined cycle coal plant in Duke Energy Indiana 

service territory.

Public Utilities Commission of Ohio (Case No. 10-503-EL-FOR) – March 2011

Evaluation of Duke Energy Ohio’s IRP filing including an assessment of plant retirements and 

compliance with alternative energy and energy efficiency portfolio standards.

Colorado Public Utilities Commission (Docket No. 10M-245E) – July 2010

Evaluation of a proposal by Public Service Company of Colorado to meet the requirements of 

the Clean Air Clean Jobs Act through coal plant retirements and retrofits.

Florida Public Service Commission (Docket No. 070098-EI) – March 2007

Evaluation of a proposal by FPL to build a new ultra-supercritical pulverized coal plant including 

alternatives to the plant and potential for greenhouse gas regulation.

Arkansas Public Service Commission (Docket No. 06-154-U) – July 2007

Evaluation of a proposal by SWEPCO to build a new supercritical pulverized coal plant 

including alternatives to the plant and potential for greenhouse gas regulation.

Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission (Cause No. 43114) – June 2007

Evaluation of a proposal by Duke Energy to build a new integrated gasification combined cycle

coal plant including alternatives to the plant and potential for greenhouse gas regulation.

United States Federal Court of Claims (Nos. 99-447C and 03-2626C) – May 2007

Evaluation of Boston Edison’s claim of negative impacts to the purchase price of Pilgrim nuclear 

station resulting from the DOE’s failure to begin accepting spent nuclear fuel on or about 

January 31, 1998.

Public Utilities Commission of Nevada (Docket No. 06-030) – September 2006

Evaluation of Nevada Power Company’s demand side-management (DSM) portion of its 

integrated resource plan.
Anna Sommer Page 5 of 6

Nova Scotia Utility and Review Board (P-128.05) – May 2006

Evaluation of Nova Scotia Power Inc.’s proposal to install Low NOx Combustion Firing Systems 

and a common Flue Gas Desulfurization Unit on its coal-fired power plants.

Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission (Cause No. 42873) – March 2006

Issues regarding the proposed merger of Duke Energy and Cinergy, Inc. including compliance 

with DSM goals in previous mergers.

Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission (Cause No. 42861) – March 2006

Issues regarding Vectren Energy’s proposal to install emission controls for SO2, NOx, PM and 

Hg including compliance with present and future emissions regulations and planning analysis.

Utah Public Service Commission (Docket No. 05-035-54) – November 2005

Issues regarding the acquisition of PacifiCorp by MidAmerican Energy Holdings Company 

including underinvestment in grid infrastructure, environmental compliance with air regulations 

and investment in IGCC. 

Iowa Utilities Board (Docket No. SPU-05-15) – November 2005

Evaluation of proposed sale of the Duane Arnold nuclear power plant from Interstate Power & 

Light to FPL.

Arkansas Public Utilities Commission (Docket No. 05-042-U) – August 2005

Issues regarding the purchase of Wrightsville, a gas-fired power plant, by Arkansas Electric 

Cooperative including appropriateness and reasonableness of the purchase.

Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission (Cause No. 42718) – May 2005

Issues regarding PSI Energy’s proposal to install $1.4 billion in control technologies for SO2, 

NOx and Hg including rate of return on investment, analysis of emissions regulation risk, 

scenario planning, estimates of control technology cost and equity of plan to ratepayers.

Nuclear Regulatory Commission (Docket No. 52-007) – April 2005

Issues regarding Exelon Generation’s petition for early site permit approval for a baseload 

nuclear generating facility in Illinois including the Company’s analysis of alternatives.

Georgia Public Service Commission (Docket No. 18300-U) – February 2005

Georgia Power Company rate case involving issues of cost allocation and consideration of public 

benefits in rate-making for the Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority.

Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission (Cause No. 42612) – November 2004

Evaluation of PSI Energy’s plan to offer demand side management (DSM) programs to its 

customers including issues of program scope, funding, lost revenue recovery, shared savings 

incentive recovery, and third-party administration issues.

California Public Utilities Commission (Rulemaking 04-04-003) – August 2004

Issues in the San Diego Gas & Electric, Pacific Gas & Electric and Southern California Edison 

long-term resource plans including modeling the cost of carbon regulation, modeling of 

renewables, scenario planning and debt equivalency.

Texas Public Utility Commission (Docket No. 29526) – June 2004

Issues in CenterPoint Energy Houston Electric LLC’s true up filing, including environmental 

cleanup costs, excess mitigation credits, and construction work in progress. 
Anna Sommer Page 6 of 6

PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATIONS AND DEVELOPMENT

Alum, Research Experience in Carbon Sequestration

Member, Air & Waste Management Association

Member, American Geophysical Union

LANGUAGES

English (native), Spanish (fluent).

Resume dated August 2011.