|
Beginnings: 1882-1900 The modern electric utility industry began in the 1880s. It evolved from gas and electric carbon-arc commercial and street lighting systems. Thomas Edison's Pearl Street electricity generating station, which opened September 4, 1882, in New York City, introduced the industry by featuring the four key elements of a modern electric utility system. It featured reliable central generation, efficient distribution, a successful end use (in 1882, the light bulb), and a competitive price. A model of efficiency for its time, Pearl Street used one-third the fuel of its predecessors, burning about 10 pounds of coal per kilowatthour, a "heat rate" equivalent of about 138,000 Btu per kilowatthour.(2) Initially the Pearl Street utility served 59 customers for about 24 cents per kilowatthour.(3) In the late 1880s, power demand for electric motors brought the industry from mainly nighttime lighting to 24-hour service and dramatically raised electricity demand for transportation and industry needs. By the end of the 1880s, small central stations dotted many U.S. cities; each was limited to a few blocks area because of transmission inefficiencies of direct current (dc). The hydroelectric development of Niagara Falls by George Westinghouse in 1896 inaugurated the practice of placing generating stations far from consumption centers. The Niagara plant transmitted massive amounts of power to Buffalo, New York, over 20 miles away. With Niagara, Westinghouse convincingly demonstrated both the general superiority of transmitting power with electricity rather than by mechanical means (the use of ropes, hydraulic pipes, or compressed air had also been proposed) and the transmission superiority at that time of alternating current (ac) over direct current (dc). Niagara set a contemporary standard for generator size, and was the first large system supplying electricity from one circuit for multiple end-uses (railway, lighting, power). Electric utilities spread rapidly in the 1890s. Municipally owned utilities predominantly supplied street lighting and trolley services and reached their peak share of total generation, about 8 percent, at the turn of the century.(4) Privately owned multiservice utilities controlled the rest of the industry, aggressively competing for central city markets. Competition and technological improvements served to lower electricity prices steadily, with nominal residential prices falling to less than 17 cents per kilowatthour by the beginning of the 20th century. Era of Private Utilities: 1901-1932 From 1901 through 1932, growing economies of scale hastened growth and consolidation in the electric utility industry, as well as the beginnings of State and Federal regulation. Larger, more efficient steam turbine-powered generators quickly replaced reciprocating steam engines; average heat rates dropped from 92,500 Btu per kilowatthour in 1902 to 20,700 Btu per kilowatthour by 1932.(5) As a direct consequence of those growing efficiencies, small private and municipal lighting and railway or power companies either merged with, purchased electricity from, or were absorbed quickly by ever-larger, more efficient private multiservice systems. Systems and cities interconnected with high voltage transmission lines. Private electric utility ownership also consolidated into large utility holding companies, each "holding" controlling interest in a number of electric utilities. At their peak in the late 1920s, the 16 largest electric power holding companies controlled more than 75 percent of all U.S. generation.(6) The growth of utility service areas, first beyond city boundaries and then across State lines, brought State regulation of electric utilities in the early 1900s to ensure that the monopolistic utilities did not take advantage of their customers. Georgia, New York, and Wisconsin established State public service commissions in 1907, followed quickly by more than 20 other States. Basic State powers included the authority to franchise the utilities, to regulate their rates, financing, and service, and to establish utility accounting systems. The foundations for strong Federal involvement in the electricity industry were established between 1901 and 1932, based on three factors: first, the electric power industry became recognized as a natural monopoly in interstate commerce (producing a product most efficiently provided by one supplier) subject to Federal regulation; second, the Federal Government owned most of the Nation's hydroelectric resources; and third, Federal economic development programs accelerated, including electricity generation. In 1906, Congress authorized the sale of surplus Federal power from western irrigation projects, giving sale preference to municipalities. The Federal Water Power Act of 1920 (P.L. 66-280) codified Federal powers and established the Federal Power Commission (FPC) to issue hydroelectric development licenses revokable after 50 years. In 1928, Congress authorized the Boulder Canyon Project for irrigation, flood control, and electricity production. From 1901 to 1932, electric utility capacity and generation grew at annual average rates of about 12 percent a year, despite a 14-percent absolute drop in generation from 1929 to the Depression-era low in 1932. Both the number of municipal utilities and their share of total generation dropped steadily, as municipals were overwhelmed by larger, more efficient private systems. By 1932 municipals contributed only 5 percent of total generation. At the same time, State-owned utilities and Federal systems, however, grew noticeably, together contributing more than 1 percent of total generation. Private utilities provided the remaining 94 percent.(7) Electricity prices dropped, with nominal residential electricity prices falling to 5.6 cents per kilowatthour in 1932, a level about one-third their price at the beginning of the century. In 1907, only 8 percent of all dwellings were using electricity; by 1932, this figure had risen to 67 percent. By 1932 considerably more than 80 percent of urban dwellings were electrified, while only 11 percent of farm dwellings had electrical service. This disparity between urban and rural service led to demands by farm interests for government help in obtaining electric power.(8) Emergence of Federal Power: 1933-1950 The Federal Government became a regulator of private utilities in the 1930s; it also became a major producer of electricity beginning in this period. The 1933-1950 period was also characterized by continued growth of the industry, increased consolidation and interconnection, and increasing economies of scale.
1933-1941 First, the Federal Government moved to regulate private utilities. To counter utility abuses beyond State control, the Public Utility Holding Company Act of 1935 (PUHCA, P.L. 74-333) provided for the regulation of utility holding companies by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). The Federal Power Act of 1935 (Title II of PUHCA) established FPC regulation of utilities involved in interstate wholesale transmission and sale of electric power. Second, the Federal Government encouraged the growth of rural electricity service by subsidizing the formation of rural electric cooperatives. The Rural Electrification Act of 1936 (P.L. 74-605) established the Rural Electrification Administration (REA) to provide loans and assistance to organizations providing electricity to rural areas and towns with populations under 2,500. REA-backed cooperatives enjoyed Federal power preferences plus lower property assessments, exemptions from Federal and State income taxes, and exemption from State and FPC regulation. As a result, by 1941 the proportion of farm homes electrified rose to 35 percent, more than three times that of 1932.(9) Third, in the 1930s Federal electricity generation expanded, providing less expensive electricity to municipals and cooperatives. Large Bureau of Reclamation dams began serving the western States; Hoover Dam began generation in 1936, followed by other large projects. Grand Coulee, the Nation's largest hydroelectric dam, began operation in 1941. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers flood control dams provided additional low-priced power for preference customers. Under the Tennessee Valley Authority Act of 1933 (P.L. 73-17), the Federal Government supplied electric power to States, counties, municipalities, and nonprofit cooperatives, soon including those of the REA. The Bonneville Project Act of 1937 (P.L. 75-329) pioneered the Federal power marketing administrations. By 1940, Federal power pricing policy was set; all Federal power was marketed at the lowest possible price while still covering costs. From 1933 to 1941, half of all new capacity was provided by Federal and other public power installations. By the end of 1941, public power contributed 12 percent of total utility generation, with Federal power alone contributing almost 7 percent.(10) During the pre-World War II years, electricity generating systems continued to grow in size and efficiency. Maximum turbine sizes and pressures doubled, and steam temperatures increased; generator cooling by pressurized hydrogen was introduced, resulting in higher generator outputs. Average heat rates dropped to 18,600 Btu per kilowatthour by 1941.(11) Improvements in transformers, circuit breakers, protection and reclosing devices, and transmission and distribution systems also continued, increasing both the efficiency and the reliability of electric utility systems. Electricity prices continued to decline. Nominal residential electricity prices fell to 3.73 cents per kilowatthour in 1941, a drop of about one-third from 1932. Demand for electric power grew steadily from 1932 to 1941, with generation growth averaging over 8 percent a year, although capacity increased less than 2.5 percent per year.
1942-1950 Both residential and commercial end use of electricity grew rapidly from 1941 to 1945, despite the war. Almost one-half of all farm dwellings were electrified by 1945. Growth in demand was helped by continuing technological improvements, yielding overall heat rates below 16,000 Btu per kilowatthour(13) and residential electricity price drops averaging over 2 percent a year. Public and Federal power continued to grow, and terms of public sale improved. Generating capacity built for defense was directed to public sale. The 1944 Pace Act (Department of Agriculture Organic Act, P.L. 78-425) extended REA indefinitely, dropped REA long-term interest rates below market rates, and authorized additional dam construction. The Flood Control Act of 1944 (P.L. 78-534) gave the Secretary of Interior jurisdiction over U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' electric power sales and extended public preference to all Corps power. The Southwestern Power Administration (SWPA) and the Southeastern Power Administration (SEPA) were established in 1943 and 1950, respectively, to market Federal power to preference customers. The First Deficiency Appropriation Act of 1949 (P.L. 81-71) in effect authorized TVA construction of thermal-electric power plants for commercial electricity sale. By 1950, Federal generation contributed over 12 percent of total U.S. generation, while cooperatives and other public power provided almost 7 percent.(14) In settling the Hope Natural Gas case (Federal Power Commission vs. Hope Natural Gas Company, 1944), the Supreme Court closed a longstanding dispute by allowing either original or replacement cost accounting in utility rate-making, so long as just and reasonable rates result. Following a brief decline at war's end in 1945, overall demand for electricity continued to grow. From 1945 through 1950, generation growth averaged more than 8 percent a year and capacity over 6.5 percent. Residential electricity consumption grew most rapidly, almost 14 percent a year, and the share of farms electrified rose to almost 80 percent.(15) Growth was encouraged by continued efficiency improvements; by 1950 heat rates had fallen below 15,000 Btu per kilowatthour.(16) Drops in nominal residential electricity prices averaged 3 percent a year. Utility Prosperity: 1951-1970 The era following the end of World War II through 1970 marked a time of essentially uninterrupted prosperity for the electric utility industry. Demand for electricity grew rapidly, consistently, and predictably, while electricity prices continued to fall. The arrival of commercial nuclear power held the promise of an even more prosperous future. At the same time, problems that were later to affect the industry dramatically either did not exist or were not yet serious.
The 1950s From 1950 to 1960, generation grew by an average of over 8.5 percent a year, led by strong increases in residential electricity demand and near completion of rural electrification. Capacity grew slightly more rapidly than generation, averaging almost 9.5 percent annually. With generating efficiencies still improving, electricity prices continued to decline, as evidenced by drops in nominal residential electricity prices averaging about 1 percent a year.(17) Commercial nuclear power was introduced in the 1950s. The Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (P.L. 83-703) allowed private development of commercial nuclear power, and the Price-Anderson Act (P.L. 85-256) reduced private liability by guaranteeing public compensation in the event of a commercial nuclear catastrophe. The Nation's first central station commercial nuclear reactor, located in Shippingport, Pennsylvania, began operation in 1957. Finally, during the 1950s new Federal power plant construction slowed, but the slowdown was offset by more rapid growth of other public power capacity. Both the "no new starts" policy of the Eisenhower Administration and a lack of additional major hydroelectric sites checked major new Federal development. Nevertheless, projects begun earlier continued to come on line, and Federal generation reached its highest share of total generation, more than 17 percent, in 1957. TVA added thermal capacity, by 1960 becoming predominantly a thermal rather than hydroelectric system. Non-Federal public power grew rapidly in the 1950s, led by cooperatives, power districts, and State projects. Generation from non-Federal public power plants and cooperatives increased from more than 6.5 percent of total generation in 1950 to almost 8.5 percent in 1960.(18)
The 1960s Vigorous growth continued throughout the 1960s, prompted by overall economic growth, declining real energy prices, and growing consumer preference for electricity because of its convenience, versatility, and price. Generation and capacity growth averaged almost 7.5 percent a year, predominantly from increases in petroleum- and gas-fired generation. Cooperatives accelerated capacity additions, and by 1970 non-Federal public power contributed well over 10 percent of total utility generation.(19) Demand grew nearly 7.5 percent a year, helped by annual declines of over 1.5 percent in residential and commercial electricity prices.(20) New technology introduced during this period included automated controls and computers. Technological advances during the 1960s were led by the growth of commercial nuclear power. Facing continued high demand growth and encouraged by performance of small nuclear facilities, utilities began ordering many more nuclear units of far greater size and still undemonstrated efficiency. In contrast to the 837 megawatts of new capacity ordered in the 1950s, with units averaging fewer than 150 megawatts, in the 1960s, 86,596 megawatts were ordered, averaging about 850 megawatts per unit.(21) Generation by nuclear power rose to over 1 percent of the U.S total by 1970.(22) During the 1960s some signs of difficulties in the electric utility industry began to appear. First, environmental requirements became a noticeable component of electric utility costs. Coal-fired power plants began to experiment with emission control equipment to decrease the amount of sulfur dioxide (SO2) emitted into the atmosphere. Tall emission stacks were introduced to disperse SO2. Further, the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA, P.L. 91-190) required utilities seeking Federal permits for new power plants to prepare and defend environmental impact statements (EISs) as a part of the permit process. Second, the increasing efficiencies historically characterizing the industry flattened in the mid-1960s. From 1960 to 1970, the average size of thermal plants more than doubled. Heat rates, on the other hand, declined only a little, from about 10,800 Btu per kilowatthour to 10,500 Btu per kilowatthour.(23) Finally a major Northeastern power blackout in 1965 raised concerns about the reliability of the huge interconnected, interdependent power networks. Response to the blackout included formation of the North American Electric Reliability Council (NERC) and its regional reliability councils to promote the reliability and adequacy of bulk power supply. Years of Challenge: 1971-1984
The 1970s First, electric utilities with ambitious capital expansion programs heavily financed by borrowing were particu-larly affected by inflation. As technical and regulatory requirements increased construction lead times, the impact of inflation was compounded. Second, in the 1970s all fossil-fuel prices rose sharply. Petroleum costs more than doubled in 1974 alone and increased an average of over 26 percent a year for the 1970-1980 period. Natural gas prices, accelerated by decontrol under the Natural Gas Policy Act (NGPA, P.L. 95-621), rose by over 23 percent a year, with the largest increases occurring after 1978. Coal price increases aver-aged almost 16 percent a year.(24) Third, during the 1970s environmental legislation in-creased the costs of building and operating electric utility (particularly coal-fired) power plants. The Clean Air Act of 1970 (CAA, P.L. 91-604) and its amendments in 1977 (P.L. 95-95) required utilities to reduce pollutant emissions, particularly SO2, causing increases in capital, fuel, and operating costs. The Act also limited use of tall stacks to disperse emissions. The Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 ("Clean Water Act," P.L. 92-500) limited utility waste discharges into water. In addition, the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 (RCRA, P.L. 94-580) directed standards for disposal of both hazardous and nonhazardous utility wastes. Finally, conservation legislation effectively barred utili-ties from wider use of natural gas and petroleum. The Energy Supply and Environmental Coordination Act of 1974 (ESECA, P.L. 93-319) allowed the Federal Government to prohibit electric utilities from burning natural gas or petroleum. The 1978 Powerplant and Industrial Fuel Use Act (FUA, P.L. 95-620) succeeded ESECA and extended Federal prohibition powers. The National Energy Conservation Policy Act of 1978 (NECPA, P.L. 95-619) required utilities to provide residential consumers free conservation services to encourage slower growth of electricity demand. Expected high electricity demand growth did not materialize in the 1970s. Instead, capacity growth began to outrun increases in demand. For the first time in the history of U.S. electric power, electricity prices rose consistently, with nominal price increases averaging 11 percent a year. Consequently, demand and generation growth moderated to just over 4 percent a year. However, capacity growth continued at a rate of 6 percent a year. Slackened demand growth, coupled with completion of expensive new capacity, left utilities with excess capacity and without new revenues to pay for it. As a result, some electric utilities suffered financial setbacks and incurred declining investor confidence. The commercial nuclear power industry expanded rapidly but also met serious reverses. From 1971 through 1974, 131 new nuclear units were ordered, at an average capacity of about 1,100 megawatts.(25) As a result, inflation, labor, and materials cost increases quickly affected construction costs of nuclear power plants, while high interest rates raised financing costs. Capital costs rose from about $150 per kilowatt in 1971 to more than $600 after 1976.(26) Utilities building commercial nuclear facilities faced financial difficulties in justifying and meeting these increased costs. Safety concerns increased. First, in February 1979 the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) shut down five operating reactors following concerns about durability during earthquakes. Then, on March 28, 1979, the Nation's most significant commercial nuclear accident occurred at the Three Mile Island Number 2 reactor near Harrisburg, Pennsylvania. These events heightened public concerns and spurred opposition to commercial nuclear power. As a result of higher costs, slackening electricity demand growth, and public concern, demand for nuclear power plants dropped quickly in the mid- and late-1970s. After 1974, new orders plummeted and cancellations accelerated. No new reactor orders were placed after 1978. Moreover, 63 units were canceled between 1975 and 1980.(27)
The Early 1980s Cost and price increases continued to slow the growth of electric power in the early 1980s. Costs of new nuclear power plants increased to more than $1,200 per kilowatt of capacity in the early 1980s.(28) High inflation ensured increases in other financial and operating costs. As a result, electricity prices rose sharply. Average end-use electricity prices (nominal) increased by almost 19 percent in 1980, 15 percent in 1981, and 12 percent in 1982. End-use electricity consumption responded to rising prices and a sluggish economy by increasing only 1 percent in 1980 and 2.5 percent in 1981. Demand then dropped almost 3 percent in 1982, because of a decline in industrial electricity use of nearly 10 percent, as part of that year's severe economic downturn.(29) Electricity generation increased in 1983 to a record high of 2,310 billion kilowatthours. Capacity, however, grew by little more than 1 percent over 1982, the smallest increase since 1956. Industrial electricity use grew most rapidly among end-use sectors, rebounding from its 1982 decline. The average price of electricity increased by 2.6 percent, less than the rate of inflation. In 1984, electricity posted its largest single-year increase in generation since 1976, 4.5 percent. Though not large by historic standards, the growth rate reflected a healthy economy, generally increasing preference for electricity, and a decline in electricity's price relative to other forms of energy. Capacity grew by 2.1 percent in 1984, led by coal-fired and nuclear-powered additions. Electricity prices increased at the rate of inflation, leaving real prices unchanged. From 1980 through 1984, net electricity generation grew an average of a mere 1.4 percent annually. End-use sales grew by only 2.1 percent a year, the slowest rate of growth since the early years of the Great Depression. Capacity, however, increased 2.3 percent a year, further raising reserves available to meet unexpected demand. Nuclear capacity additions entering commercial service, despite the absence of new orders, led the rate of new capacity growth, increasing by 6.1 percent a year. Prices rose by approximately 8 percent a year. Commercial electricity use increased more than any other end use, averaging almost 4.5 percent a year; industrial end use grew less than 1 percent a year.(30) Nonutility Growth: The Late 1980s(31) In 1970, electric utilities supplied 93 percent of the electricity generated in the United States. The balance was produced by "nonutilities" -- generators of electric power that are not utilities -- consisting primarily of industrial manufacturers that produced electricity for their own use. The electric utility share of electric power generation increased steadily between then and 1979, when it reached 97 percent. The trend reversed itself in the 1980s, and by 1991 the electric utility share declined to 91 percent. Increasingly, nonutilities were generating electricity not only for their own use but also for sale to electric utilities for distribution to final consumers. In 1991, nonutilities owned about 6 percent of the electric power generating capacity and produced about 9 percent of the total electricity generated in the United States.(32) About one-half of 1991 nonutility capacity was located in the West South Central Census Division, particularly in Texas, and the Pacific Contiguous Census Division, particularly in California. Most nonutilities in Texas, which produced 49 billion kilowatthours of electricity in 1991, were engaged in chemical manufacturing, which provides many opportunities for generating electricity along with another form of energy (such as heat or steam). In California, which produced 53 billion kilowatthours in 1991, most nonutilities were engaged primarily in electricity generation. In 1991, nonutilities produced 49 percent of their electricity from natural-gas-fired boilers, much more than from any other single primary energy source. In contrast, utilities produced the majority of their electricity by burning coal, and their second major source of energy was nuclear power. Renewable energy sources, except for hydroelectric power, were virtually untapped by electric utilities, while renewable fuels (including wood and waste) collectively produced the second largest share (34 percent) of nonutility electricity. One reason for the difference was that the majority of nonutility capacity was in the manufacturing sector of the economy, particularly in the chemical and paper industries. Both industries produce wastes as byproducts of the manufacturing process that can be used as a source of energy to drive electricity generators. Also, paper manufacturing uses a renewable fuel (wood) as a raw material in producing paper, making wood and wood waste easily accessible to paper manufacturers as an energy source for electricity generation. As of December 1991, the process of change in the structure of the electric power industry had not yet run its course. Major issues arose, including the effect of the changing industry structure on the reliability of electric power supply and on bulk (wholesale) power trade. Also at issue was whether the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 (CAAA90) would alter the course of nonutility growth. The concern with the CAAA90 centered on whether nonutilities would be able to obtain a sufficient number of emission allowances to operate in compliance with the Amendments. Beginning in 2000 (with an incremental phase for utilities beginning in 1995), the Amendments require virtually all suppliers of wholesale electric power to obtain emission allowances for any sulfur dioxide released into the atmosphere. Utilities have been allocated most of these allowances. Nonutilities must obtain the allowances they need from utilities or from a sale or auction administered by the Federal Government. Conclusion This appendix has summarized the past 100 years with respect to the history of the electric power industry. The following appendix provides an interesting look at milestones in the history of the industry. Endnotes 1. The following is a historical sketch of the electric power industry from 1882 through 1991. The information for utilities from 1882 to 1984 is excerpted from Energy Information Administration (EIA), Annual Outlook for U.S. Electric Power 1985, DOE/EIA-0474(85) (Washington, DC, August 1985). Utility and nonutility information from 1985 to 1991 is excerpted from EIA, The Changing Structure of the U.S. Electric Power Industry 1970-1991, DOE/EIA-0562 (Washington, DC, March 1993). 2. C. E. Neil, "Entering the Seventh Decade of Electric Power, Some Highlights in the History of Electrical Development," reprinted from Edison Electric Institute Bulletin (September 1942), p. 6. 3. A.J. Foster, The Coming of the Electrical Age to the United States (New York, NY: Arno Press, 1979), pp. 120, 123, 181. 4. Edison Electric Institute, Historical Statistics of the Electric Utility Industry Through 1970 (New York, NY: 1973), p. 24. 5. C.E. Neil, "Entering the Seventh Decade of Electric Power," from Edison Electric Institute Bulletin (September 1942), p. 6. 6. Encyclopedia Americana, International Edition, Vol. 22 (New York, NY: Americana Corporation, 1977), p. 769. 7. Edison Electric Institute, Historical Statistics of the Electric Utility Industry Through 1970 (New York, NY: 1973), p. 24. 8. U.S. Bureau of the Census, Historical Statistics of the United States, Colonial Times to 1970, Bicentennial Edition, Part 2 (Washington, DC, 1975), p. 827. 9. Ibid. 10. Edison Electric Institute, Historical Statistics of the Electric Utility Industry Through 1970 (New York, NY: 1973), pp. 2, 24. 11. C.E. Neil, "Entering the Seventh Decade of Electric Power," from Edison Electric Institute Bulletin (September 1942), p. 6. 12. Edison Electric Institute, Historical Statistics of the Electric Utility Industry Through 1970 (New York, NY: 1973), p. 24. 13. Edison Electric Institute, EEI Pocketbook of Electric Utility Industry Statistics (New York, NY: 1983), p. 21. 14. Edison Electric Institute, Historical Statistics of the Electric Utility Industry Through 1970 (New York, NY: 1973), p. 24. 15. U.S. Bureau of the Census, Historical Statistics of the United States (Washington, DC, 1972), pp. 827-828. 16. Derived from Edison Electric Institute, EEI Pocketbook of Electric Utility Industry Statistics (New York, NY: 1983), p. 21. 17. Edison Electric Institute, Historical Statistics of the Electric Utility Industry Through 1970 (New York, NY: 1973), p. 23. 18. Edison Electric Institute, Historical Statistics of the Electric Utility Industry Through 1970 (New York, NY: 1973), p. 24. 19. Edison Electric Institute, Historical Statistics of the Electric Utility Industry Through 1970 (New York, NY: 1973), p. 24. 20. Energy Information Administration, Annual Energy Review 1984, DOE/EIA-0384(84) (Washington, DC, April 1985), p. 187. 21. Energy Information Administration, U.S Commercial Nuclear Power Historical Perspective, Current Status, and Outlook, DOE/EIA-0315 (Washington, DC, March 1982), p. 10. 22. Energy Information Administration, Annual Energy Review 1984, DOE/EIA-0384(84) (Washington, DC, July 1985), p. 171. 23. Energy Information Administration, Thermal-Electric Plant Construction Cost and Annual Production Expenses--1979, DOE/EIA-0323(79) (Washington, DC, May 1982), p. 10. 24. Energy Information Administration, Fuel Choice in Steam Electric Generation: A Retrospective Analysis, EIA-MO12 (Washington, DC, October 1985), Table 2. 25. Energy Information Administration, U.S. Commercial Nuclear Power Historical Perspective, Current Status, and Outlook, DOE/EIA-0315 (Washington, DC, March 1982), p. 10. 26. Energy Information Administration, Survey of Nuclear Power Plant Construction Costs 1983, DOE/EIA-0439(83) (Washington, DC, December 1983), p. 8. 27. Energy Information Administration, U.S Commercial Nuclear Power Historical Perspective, Current Status, and Outlook, DOE/EIA-0315 (Washington, DC, March 1982), p. 10. 28. Energy Information Administration, Survey of Nuclear Power Plant Construction Costs 1984, DOE/EIA-0439(84) (Washington, DC, November 1984), p. 15. 29. Energy Information Administration, Annual Energy Review 1984, DOE/EIA-0384(84) (Washington, DC, July 1985), pp. 179, 187. 30. Energy Information Administration, Annual Energy Review 1984, DOE/EIA-0384(84) (Washington, DC, July 1985), pp. 171, 179, 181, 187. 31. Reprinted from The Changing Structure of the U.S. Electric Power Industry, 1970-1991, DOE/EIA-0562 (Washington, DC, March 1993), pp. vii-ix.
32. Edison Electric Institute, 1991 Capacity
and Generation of Non-Utility Sources of Energy (Washington, DC,
November 1992), p. 21. |