October 16, 2017
Via Hand Delivery
Ms. Lora W. Johnson, CMC
Clerk of Council
Room 1E09, City Hall
1300 Perdido Street
New Orleans, LA 70112
Re:

Entergy New Orleans, Inc.’s Application and Supplemental and
Amending for Approval to Construct New Orleans Power Station and
Request for Cost Recovery and Timely Relief
Docket No. UD-16-02
Direct and Supplemental Direct Testimony of the Alliance for Affordable
Energy, Deep South Center for Environmental Justice, 350 Louisiana –
New Orleans and Sierra Club

Dear Ms. Johnson:
Undersigned counsel make this filing on behalf of the Alliance for Affordable Energy,
Deep South Center for Environmental Justice, 350 Louisiana – New Orleans, and Sierra Club
(collectively, “Public Interest Intervenors”). Enclosed, please find the original and three copies
of the Direct Testimonies and Supplemental Direct Testimonies of Public Interest Intervenors’
expert witnesses. This filing includes the Direct Testimony and Exhibits of Robert Fagan, Peter
J. Lanzalotta, Dr. Elizabeth A. Stanton, and Philip Henderson. This filing also includes the
Supplemental Direct Testimonies and Exhibits of Dr. Alexander S. Kolker, Dr. George D.
Thurston, and Dr. Beverly Wright.
Public Interest Intervenors’ expert witnesses collectively present the City Council with 10
reasons for finding that Entergy New Orleans, Inc. (“ENO”) has failed to establish that
construction of either of ENO’s proposed natural-gas power plants, a combustion turbine or a
series of reciprocating engines, is in the public interest. Specifically, the City Council should find
that:
1

 1) ENO’s reliability problems largely stem from its dysfunctional distribution
system, which cannot be fixed by a new power plant. Indeed, ENO customers
suffered 2,242 power outages in 2016 alone–an average of 9 outages per day—
and none of which were caused by unplanned power plant outages or other
shortages of capacity. Capacity surpluses can never serve customers if the poles
and wires are in such disrepair that they frequently fail to deliver electricity.
2) ENO concedes that making transmission upgrades to five existing transmission
lines will mitigate all reliability-based system constraints over the next ten years
without building any new generation. These transmission upgrades are estimated
to cost approximately $57.3 million, which is significantly less than the $232
million cost of the proposed CT plant and the $210 million cost of the alternative
peaker plant.
3) Neither proposal by ENO will protect the citizens of New Orleans from outages
due to major weather events such as hurricanes.
4) ENO has inflated its peak capacity forecast, making unrealistic assumptions about
energy efficiency and renewables in New Orleans, so that it can argue that there is
a capacity need to spend more $232 million on the plant, when the City may
actually have a long-term capacity surplus.
5) ENO is recommending that the City Council base its decision on the unwarranted
assumption that the capacity price will skyrocket and remain high for much of the
20-year analysis period. This is a risky bet that exposes ratepayers to higher costs
in the likelier event that capacity prices will remain low.
6) The ground in New Orleans is naturally prone to subsidence, any human driven
activity that causes subsidence will intensify a problem already known to exist.
Subsidence in this instance is particularly alarming because the subsidence will
occur very close to the newly-strengthened post-Katrina levees system that
protects the Lower 9th Ward and nearby communities.
7) Either proposed plant would significantly increase air pollution, causing increased
numbers of asthma, heart attacks, more frequent emergency room visits, lost
school and work days, and increased numbers of deaths.
8)

False statements by ENO have denied an environmental assessment of its
industrial impact on the health, safety, environment, and quality of life
predominantly African American and Vietnamese Americans families whose
homes and schools are nearby the Michoud site, the location of ENO’s proposed
gas power plant.

9) ENO failed to rigorously analyze alternative resource options such as energy
efficiency, and solar PV. ENO failed to conduct a competitive solicitation
2

 process in choosing to pursue its proprietary build gas plant proposals as its
preferred option to meet the City’s capacity and reliability needs.
10) The public record shows troubling indications of ENO’s long-term plan for
building a gas plant, and the City Council’s consultants willing support, dating
several years prior to complete, public review of ENO’s application and the need,
costs, and benefits of building such a proposal. This raises concerns about the
fairness of this proceeding and the assurance of due process.
For the foregoing reasons, as well as others, the City Council should reject both proposed
generation facilities and find that consideration of a complete set of alternatives is essential to the
protection of consumer interests. A competitive solicitation should be issued for New Orleans
capacity needs and its bids received and thoroughly reviewed.
BACKGROUND
On June 20, 2016, Entergy New Orleans (“ENO”) filed an Application for Approval to
Construct New Orleans Power Station and Request for Cost Recovery and Timely Relief
(“Application”). The Application sought approval to construct New Orleans Power Station
(“NOPS”), a 226 MW summer capacity combustion turbine gas power plant to be located at
ENO’s Michoud facility in New Orleans East. As part of the application, ENO submitted the
Direct Testimonies of Charles L. Rice, Orlando Todd, Seth E. Cureington, Jonathan E. Long,
Charles W, Long, Shauna Lovorn-Marriage, and Robert Breedlove.
On November 3, 2016, pursuant to Resolution No. R-16-506, the New Orleans City
Council directed ENO to file supplemental testimony addressing 1) the four proposed Aurora
modeling production runs requested by the Council Advisors; 2) groundwater withdrawal and
subsidence at the Michoud site and surrounding area; 3) air quality effects of the proposed
NOPS; and 4) and other matters that ENO deems necessary to support its application or address
Intervenors’ concerns. On November 18, 2016, ENO filed the Supplemental Testimonies of Seth
E. Cureington and Jonathan E. Long.
On February 14, 2017, ENO filed a Motion to suspend the procedural schedule in order
to analyze the implications of an updated load forecast ENO received in January. This Motion
was granted on March 6, 2017.
On July 6, 2017, ENO filed a supplemental and amending application requesting that the
City Council approve either 1) a combustion turbine resource with a summer capacity of 226
MW or 2) seven reciprocating internal combustion engine generator sets. As part of this
supplemental application, ENO submitted the testimonies of Charles L. Rice, Orlando Todd,
Seth E. Cureington, Jonathan E. Long, Charles W, Long, Bliss M. Higgins, George Losonsky,
and Robert A. Breedlove.
Pursuant to the City Council’s resolution, the Public Interest Intervenors file the enclosed
testimony. As detailed in the Public Interest Intervenors Testimony, ENO has failed to establish
that construction of NOPS is in the public interest. Therefore, the City Council should reject
3

 ENO’s Application and Supplemental and Amending Application. In support of this contention,
the Public Interest Intervenors represent the following:
Robert Fagan, Synapse Energy Economics: Robert Fagan is a mechanical engineer and
energy economics analyst with over 25 years of experience. Mr. Fagan has testified
before FERC and state commissions throughout the nation on electrical utility and grid
planning. Mr. Fagan has extensively studied the Midwest Independent System Operator
(MISO) regional transmission organization, of which Entergy New Orleans is a part, and
testified in recent FERC dockets on the state of MISO’s capacity auctions—one of the
key factors in ENO’s claim that it needs to build a more than $200 million gas plant.
Mr. Fagan concludes that Entergy New Orleans’ economic and reliability cases for
building new gas-fired power plants in East New Orleans are not well-supported and
misleading. To make it appear as if a gas-fired power plant is necessary, Entergy New
Orleans makes unrealistic assumptions about energy efficiency potential in New Orleans
and about MISO capacity market prices that are readily contradicted by even ENO’s own
energy-efficiency consultant and the most recent MISO data. In reality, New Orleans
likely faces, at most, a modest capacity shortfall that could far more cheaply be met with
purchases on the MISO capacity market—where clearing prices are very low and
enormous sums of new capacity, especially clean renewables, are coming online.
Entergy also failed to give adequate consideration to pursuing a portfolio of less
expensive alternatives, such a combination of transmission system improvements,
renewable energy generation, energy efficiency, and energy storage options. These
solutions would ensure system reliability. Even by ENO’s estimates, it would cost just
$57 million to implement transmission improvements to meet NERC standards to
maintain reliability and avoid cascading outages—and even less if New Orleans simply
continues to implement distributed and utility-owned solar, storage options, and
substantial energy efficiency measures that lower peak energy demand. That is a fraction
of the $210-232 million ENO estimates for building its gas plants. Simply put, New
Orleans already has all of the solutions it needs to power the City reliably and costeffectively and should not gamble well over $200 million in ratepayer money on a new
gas plant.
Dr Alexander S. Kolker is a coastal geologist at the Louisiana Universities Marine
Consortium, studying the geology and oceanography of coastal systems, and how people
and climate impact these systems. Much of Dr. Kolker’s research focuses on subsidence,
sediment transport pathways, and groundwater discharge impact the Mississippi River
Delta and the Louisiana coastal zone.
Dr. Kolker previously filed Direct Testimony in this proceeding noting the high levels of
subsidence near Michoud and the proposed NOPS facility and noting that studies show a
strong relationship between water withdrawal and subsidence. Dr. Kolker also notes that
the area containing and surrounding the proposed NOPS is vulnerable to flooding. This
area faces at least two imminent flood risks: storm surge from hurricanes and rainfall
from intense thunderstorms. In his Supplemental Direct Testimony, Dr. Kolker notes the
4

 flaws in Dr Losonsky’s analysis, including that a change in elevation must be determined
by measuring two points in time, not the one point in time examined by Dr. Losonsky and
the fact that the modeling was conducted only for a 10-year period rather than over the
proposed usual life of the generating station. Dr. Kolker continues to recommend that the
City Council hire an independent, outside engineering or scientific firm to investigate
whether NOPS will cause subsidence to the plant, the surrounding community, or nearby
flood protection structures.
Dr. Elizabeth A. Stanton, Ph.D. Director and Senior Economist of the Applied
Economics Clinic. Dr. Stanton is the founder and Director of the Applied Economics
Clinic, a non-profit consulting group housed at Tufts University’s Global Development
and Environment Institute. She has more than 17 years of professional experience as a
political and environmental economist, and provides expert testimony, analysis,
modeling, policy briefs, and reports for public interest groups on the topics of energy,
environment, consumer protection, and equity.
In her Direct Testimony, Dr. Stanton establishes that ENO needs less capacity than it has
reported, demonstrating that properly accounting for ENO’s own planned solar
investments, including the Council’s 2 percent annual efficiency target and adding
reasonable expectations regarding future rooftop solar installations brings ENO’s
capacity surplus up to 46 MW. Dr. Stanton also demonstrates that ENO has not
considered a full set of alternatives to meet New Orleans’ needs, including failing to
consider all of the ways in which renewable energy could meet New Orleans’ needs.
Dr. Beverly Wright is the Founder and Executive Director of the Deep South Center for
Environmental Justice in New Orleans, Louisiana. Dr. Wright’s research shows the
geographic correlation between race and pollution, revealing, to statistical significance,
the location of toxic and hazardous industrial facilities to operate near predominantly
African American communities along the Mississippi River Industrial Corridor in
Louisiana.
In her Direct Testimony, Dr. Wright established that Entergy’s application for the
proposed NOPS, which is to be built in close geographic proximity to predominantly
African American and Vietnamese American residents in New Orleans East, would result
in racially disproportionate pollution burdens in complete disregard of environmental
justice and with profound adverse consequences for nearby residents as well as the entire
city. Entergy failed to assess the impacts this power plant would have on the health and
general welfare of nearby residents who are predominantly African American and
Vietnamese American, critical infrastructure, the environment, and citywide efforts to
ensure equity and resilience. In her Supplemental Testimony, Dr. Wright establishes that
there remains significant problems regarding the fairness of the process used to determine
whether the proposed Entergy gas power plant is in the public interest. Dr. Wright also
presents extensive evidence of ENO’s false statement in its 2004 air permit, which
continues in effect today through a series of renewal permits, that resulted in there being
no environmental assessment of its industrial impact on nearby residential neighborhoods
5

 and schools. Finally, Dr, Wright demonstrates that ENO has repeatedly overestimated
customer need for electricity to justify the proposed gas power plant.
Dr. George D. Thurston is an Associate Professor at the New York University School of
Medicine in the Department of Environmental Medicine.
In his testimony, Dr. Thurston addresses the public health impacts of emissions of fine
particulate matter (PM2.5) generally and, specifically, the expected public health impacts
of PM2.5 emissions from the proposed NOPS. Dr. Thurston notes that recent studies of
fine PM associations with adverse health effects support the occurrence of significant
adverse health effects at levels below the current U.S. EPA long- term standard. With
respect to PM2.5 from power plants, recent studies have also found that long-term
exposure to combustion-related fine particulate air pollution is an important
environmental risk factor for cardiopulmonary and lung cancer mortality. According to
Dr. Thurston, there is no threshold below which incremental effects of PM2.5 will not
cause an associated increase in the risk of severe adverse health effects, such as increased
emergency room visits by children. Because of their high ultrafine fraction, their
composition, and the likely co-presence of acidic vapors, the PM2.5 emissions from
NOPS potentially could be more toxic than other forms of particulate matter. Dr.
Thurston also reviewed ENO’s of the health impacts from NOPS and found this analysis
to be inadequate because it makes no attempt to perform a health-risk analysis of PM2.5
emissions from the proposed facility. Dr. Thurston concludes that PM2.5 emissions from
this facility can be expected to increase adverse health risks in the surrounding
community.
Peter J. Lanzalotta, Principal with Lanzalotta & Associates LLC. Mr. Lanzalotta
currently is a Principal of Lanzalotta & Associates LLC, which was formed in January
2001. Prior to that, Mr. Lanzalotta was a partner of Whitfield Russell Associates, with
which he had been associated since March 1982. Mr. Lanzalotta is a registered
professional engineer, and his areas of expertise include electric system planning and
operation. Mr. Lanzalotta has presented expert testimony before the FERC and before
regulatory commissions and other judicial and legislative bodies in 25 states, the District
of Columbia, and the Provinces of Alberta and Ontario.
In his testimony, Mr. Lanzalotta establishes that a transmission alternative to the
proposed projects will address the transmission system deficiencies ENO uses to try to
justify the projects and that these transmission upgrades can be achieved at a
considerably lower capital cost. Mr. Lanzalotta also demonstrates that the proposed
location for project is not suitable for a generation station because the location has
flooded under major storm conditions, damaging the generating units that were located
there at the time. Mr. Lanzalotta also recommends that if ENO desires more reliability
from the transmission alternative, beyond what rebuilding and reinforcing critical
transmission lines would provide, ENO should conduct a more thorough evaluation of the
underground transmission line alternative to provide more reliability for the supply into
the Company’s service area.
6

 Philip Henderson, Senior Financial Policy Specialist for the Natural Resources Defense
Council. Since 2010, Mr. Henderson has served as a technical expert at NRDC on energy
ef?ciency program design, energy ef?ciency measures and interventions in buildings,
and ?nancing or energy ef?ciency project, including utility operated ?nancing programs.
He researches policies and practices of utilities and utility regulators related to energy
ef?ciency and work with commercial market participants on new and innovative methods
to accomplish and implement energy ef?ciency measures.

In his testimony, Mr. Henderson describes how a utility could use a competitive all?
source solicitation as part of the procurement process to obtain information ?om the
market about the various alternatives and resource options available to solve the utility?s
resource needs. Mr. Henderson establishes that when facing a substantial procurement
decision, such as whether to build a power plant, the Council, the utility, and all
stakeholders would bene?t ?om the information an all-source solicitation would provide
about the costs and bene?ts of Options and that using this process helps to assure the
resource selected for utility procurement is in customers? best interests.

For the reasons set forth here and in detail in the Direct Testimonies and Supplemental

Direct Testimonies submitted today, as well as the Direct Testimonies previously submitted, the
Public Interest Intervenors respectfully request that the City Council ?nd that 
construction of either proposed project does not serve the public convenience and necessity, is
not in the public interest, and would have a racially discriminatory effect. Based upon this
?nding, the City Council should deny application and its supplemental and amending
application.

Public Interest Intervenors will serve copies of this Direct Testimony and Supplemental

Direct Testimony on all recipients in the electronic case distribution list for this docket. Public
Interest Intervenors also will provide versions of any testimony that references material ENO has
designated as con?dential to authorized recipients under separate cover.

Respectfully submitted,

0'

 

?Rob?e 17411
Mich e1 Br n, La. Bar No. 35444
Waltzer Wiygul Garside LLC
1000 Behrman Highway
Gretna, LA 70056

Counsel for Sierra Club

Joshua Smith

Staff Attorney

Sierra Club Environmental Law Program
7

2101 Webster Street, Suite 1300
Oakland, CA 94612
Counsel for Sierra Club

/s/ Susan Stevens Miller
Susan Stevens Miller
16-PHV-650
Earthjustice
1625 Massachusetts Avenue, NW, Suite 702
Washington, DC 20036-2212
Counsel for the Alliance for Affordable Energy and
350 Louisiana – New Orleans

/s/ Monique Harden
Monique Harden, La. Bar No. 24118
Deep South Center for Environmental Justice
3157 Gentilly Blvd., #145
New Orleans, LA 70122
Counsel for the Deep South Center for
Environmental Justice

8