File No. 70-8953
UNITED STATES
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
Washington, D.C. 20549
PRE-EFFECTIVE AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO
FORM U-1
APPLICATION AND DECLARATION
UNDER THE
PUBLIC UTILITY HOLDING COMPANY ACT OF 1935
TUC HOLDING COMPANY
Energy Plaza
1601 Bryan Street
Dallas, Texas 75201
(Name of companies filing this statement and
address of principal executive offices)
None
(Name of top registered holding company
parent of each applicant or declarant)
Robert A. Wooldridge, Esq. Erle Nye
Worsham, Forsythe & Wooldridge, L.L.P. President and Chief
Executive
Energy Plaza, 30th Floor Texas Utilities
Company
1601 Bryan Street Energy Plaza
Dallas, Texas 75201 1601 Bryan Street
Dallas, Texas 75201
(Name and address of agents for service)
The Commission is requested to mail copies of
all orders, notices and communications to:
Douglas W. Hawes, Esq.
LeBoeuf, Lamb, Greene & MacRae, L.L.P.
125 West 55th Street
New York, New York 10019-4513
TUC Company hereby amends its Application/Declaration on
Form U-1 (File No. 70-8953) for the purpose of amending Item 6 as
set forth below. In all other respects, the
Application/Declaration as previously filed will remain the same.
Item 6 EXHIBITS AND FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
1. Exhibits
A-1 Restated Articles of Incorporation of the Company
(filed as Annex VIII to the Registration Statement
on Form S-4 on September 20, 1996 (Registration
No. 333-12391), and incorporated herein by
reference).
A-2 Bylaws of the Company (filed as Annex IX to the
Registration Statement on Form S-4 on
September 20, 1996 (Registration No. 333-12391),
and incorporated herein by reference).
B-1 Amended and Restated Agreement and Plan of Merger
(filed as Annex I to the Registration Statement on
Form S-4 on September 20, 1996 (Registration No.
333-12391), and incorporated herein by reference).
C-1 Registration Statement of the Company on Form S-4
(filed on September 20, 1996 (Registration No.
333-12391) and incorporated herein by reference).
C-2 Joint Proxy Statement and Prospectus of TUC and
ENSERCH (included in Exhibit C-1).
D-1 Letter of the Railroad Commission of Texas
(previously filed).
D-2 Affidavit of Robert M. Spann.
E-1 Map of service areas of TU Electric, SESCO and
ENSERCH. (to be filed by amendment).
F-1 Opinion of counsel (to be filed by amendment).
F-2 Past-tense opinion of counsel (to be filed by
amendment).
G-1 Opinion of Barr Devlin & Co. Incorporated (filed
as Annex III to the Registration Statement on Form
S-4 on September 20, 1996 (Registration No. 333-
12391), and incorporated herein by reference).
G-2 Opinion of Morgan Stanley & Co. Incorporated
(filed as Annex III to the Registration Statement
on Form S-4 on September 20, 1996 (Registration
No. 333-12391), and incorporated herein by
reference).
H-1 Annual Report of TUC on Form 10-K for the year
ended December 31, 1995 (filed on March 5, 1996)
(File No. 1-3591) and incorporated herein by
reference).
H-2 Annual Report of ENSERCH on Form 10-K for the year
ended December 31, 1995 (filed on March 27, 1996)
(File No. 1-3183) and incorporated herein by
reference).
H-3 TUC Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter
ended March 31, 1995 (filed on May 15, 1996) (File
No. 1-3591) and incorporated herein by reference).
H-4 ENSERCH Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the
quarter ended March 31, 1996 (filed on May 14,
1996) (File No. 1-3183) and incorporated herein by
reference).
H-5 TUC Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter
ended June 30, 1996 (Filed on August 8, 1996)
(File No. 1-3591) and incorporated herein by
reference.
H-6 ENSERCH Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the
quarter ended June 30, 1996 (Filed on August 12,
1996) (Filed No. 1-3183) and incorporated herein
by reference.
B. Financial Statements
FS-1 TUC Holding Company Unaudited Pro Forma Condensed
Consolidated Balance Sheets as of December 31,
1995 and June 30, 1996 (see Registration Statement
on Form S-4 of TUC (Exhibit C-1 hereto) at p. 82-
83).
FS-2 TUC Holding Company Unaudited Pro Forma Condensed
Consolidated Statements of Income for the year
ended December 31, 1996 and the six months ended
June 30, 1996. (See Registration Statement on
Form S-4 of TUC (Exhibit C-1 hereto) at pp. 84-
85).
FS-3 TUC Consolidated Balance Sheet as of December 31,
1995 (see Annual Report of TUC on Form 10-K for
the year ended December 31, 1995 (Exhibit H-1
hereto).
FS-4 TUC Consolidated Statements of Income for its last
three fiscal years (see Annual Report of TUC on
Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 1995
(Exhibit H-1 hereto).
FS-7 ENSERCH Consolidated Balance Sheet as of
December 31, 1995 (see Annual Report of ENSERCH on
Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 1995
(Exhibit H-2 hereto).
FS-8 ENSERCH Consolidated Statement of Income for its
last three fiscal years (see Annual Report of
ENSERCH on Form 10-K for the year ended
December 31, 1995 (Exhibit H-2 hereto).
SIGNATURE
Pursuant to the requirements of the Public Utility
Holding Company Act of 1935, the undersigned company has duly
caused this application and declaration to be signed on its
behalf by the undersigned thereunto duly authorized.
TUC HOLDING COMPANY
By: /s/ H. Jarrell Gibbs
Name: H. Jarrell Gibbs
Title: President
Date: December 2, 1996
File No. 70-8953
UNITED STATES
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
Washington, D.C. 20549
TUC Holding Company
ROBERT M. SPANN, BEING DULY SWORN, DEPOSES AND SAYS:
1. I am an economist and a Vice President of Charles River
Associates, Incorporated, a national economic consulting
firm with offices in Washington, Boston and Palo Alto.
My business address is Charles River Associates, 1001
Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. Charles River
Associates was retained on behalf of Texas Utilities Company
("Texas Utilities" or "TUC") to perform an economic analysis
of the competitive issues involved in TUC's acquisition of
ENSERCH Corporation.
QUALIFICATIONS
2. I received both my Bachelor's and Master's degrees in
Economics from North Carolina State University in 1970. I
received my Ph.D. in Economics, with a co-major in
Statistics, from the same university in 1973. While doing
graduate work at North Carolina State, I taught courses in
the principles of economics. I was also the recipient of a
National Science Foundation Fellowship and a Resources for
the Future Dissertation Fellowship. I have served on the
faculties of Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State
University, Montana State University, the University of
Chicago, and George Washington University. I have taught
courses in econometrics, economic theory, applied
microeconomics, and regulatory economics.
3. During the period 1975-1989, I was a Principal of ICF
Incorporated, a consulting firm in Washington, D.C. I have
been actively involved as a consultant in the areas of
energy, utility, and antitrust economics since 1972. I
joined Charles River Associates in 1989.
4. During the last 24 years I have performed consulting
assignments for state regulatory bodies, federal government
agencies, regulated utilities, energy companies, and utility
consumers. I have testified before state and federal
regulatory bodies and courts on numerous occasions. I have
also assisted in the competitive analysis of mergers in a
wide range of industries including banking, glass
containers, natural gas, utilities, and frozen foods, for
presentation to the Department of Justice and the Federal
Trade Commission. I have presented testimony at the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission on the competitive effects of
electric utility mergers as well as the competitive effects
of market-based rates and open access transmission tariffs.
5. I am a member of both the American Economic Association and
the American Statistical Association, and an associate
member of the American Bar Association Section of Antitrust
Law. I have published numerous articles on regulatory
economics and antitrust economics in professional journals.
My most recent curriculum vitae is attached as Exhibit A.
SUMMARY OF TESTIMONY
6. This affidavit sets forth the reasons why the acquisition of
ENSERCH by Texas Utilities will neither create a tendency
towards concentration of control detrimental to the public
interest, nor substantially lessen competition or tend to
create a monopoly. TUC owns a vertically integrated electric
utility, TU Electric, which sells and distributes
electricity. ENSERCH and its Lone Star subsidiaries, on the
other hand, sell and distribute natural gas. There are only
a limited number of end uses in which electricity and
natural gas would be considered competing fuels. Both
marketplace and economic evidence suggest that in the TU
Electric service area, there would not be any significant
switching from electricity to natural gas (or vice versa) if
a nontransitory 5 or 10 percent increase in the price of one
fuel were imposed. Under the standards of the 1992
Horizontal Merger Guidelines employed by the Department of
Justice and the Federal Trade Commission (the "Merger
Guidelines"), I conclude that electricity and gas are not in
the same antitrust product market. Merger Guidelines,
Section 1.11.
7. In areas where TU Electric faces competition, its principal
competitors are other sellers of electricity, not sellers of
natural gas. In areas where Lone Star faces competition, its
principal competitors are other sellers of natural gas and
natural gas transportation, not sellers of electricity.
8. Small changes in the price of either fuel are not likely to
result in substantial shifts in usage from one fuel to the
other. There are only a limited number of end uses in which
electricity and natural gas are economic substitutes. In
most, if not all, of the situations in which electricity and
gas might be substituted, a shift from electricity to gas
involves capital investments. Industrial and commercial
customers that can substitute natural gas for electricity in
certain applications generally do not do so on an
instantaneous or day-to-day basis. Instead, at the time
investment decisions are made (capital expansions, new plant
openings, or equipment replacement), industrial customers
choose among alternative technologies. In a limited number
of cases, this might involve a choice between one technology
using electricity and another technology using natural gas.
Similarly, for some end uses, residential customers can use
either gas or electricity. Such substitution similarly
involves capital investments, and choices between
electricity and natural gas would be made at the time the
home is constructed.
9. In the industrial sector, natural gas is used primarily as a
source of process heat and as a boiler fuel. Electricity is
used primarily for motor drive and electro-chemical
processes. Although electricity can be used to provide
process heat, the number of applications in which it is used
for such a purpose, in comparison to natural gas, is small.
Similarly, while it is technologically possible to use
natural gas as a source of motor drive for gas engines,
compressors, or steam driven machinery, the number of
applications in which natural gas is actually used as a
source of machine drive is also small.<F1> See
Paragraphs 19-24.
____________________
<F1> Natural gas can be used by industrial and commercial
customers to generate electricity via self-generation or co-
generation. The resulting on-site production of electricity
can be a substitute for electricity purchased from TUC
companies. Self-generation is discussed in paragraphs 34 to
38 of this affidavit.
10. In the commercial sector, natural gas is used primarily for
space heating, cooking, and water heating in the TU Electric
service area, while electricity is used primarily for
lighting, refrigeration, ventilation, space cooling, and the
operation of office equipment. Natural gas is not a
substitute for electricity in lighting, ventilation or
office equipment use. Natural gas can, technologically, be
used for space cooling; however, natural gas space cooling
has not achieved any significant market penetration in the
TU Electric service area. Technologically and economically,
electricity can be substituted for natural gas as a source
of space heating, water heating, and cooking, and again some
substitution does occur. However, the magnitude of this
substitution is small, relative to TU Electric's sales to
commercial customers. Natural gas is not a significant
competitive constraint on TU Electric s pricing and output
decisions in the commercial sector. See paragraphs 25-30.
11. In the residential sector, there are a number of uses in
which natural gas is neither an economical nor a technical
substitute for electricity. Natural gas is not used by
residential customers for space cooling, lighting,
refrigeration, or most household appliances. Natural gas and
electricity are economical and technical substitutes in
space heating, water heating, and cooking. The choice of
which fuel to use for heating and cooking is generally made
at the time a new home is constructed, and typically is made
on the basis of factors such as size of the home, equipment
prices, personal taste, convenience and aesthetics, in
addition to relative fuel prices. See paragraphs 31-33.
TU ELECTRIC'S COMPETITIVE ENVIRONMENT
12. Unlike electric utilities in other states, TU Electric does
not hold exclusive franchises in all parts of its service
area. In significant portions of TU Electric's service area,
at least one other electric supplier (usually a deregulated
cooperative or a municipal utility) is also certificated to
provide electric service. In these multi-certificated areas,
TU Electric competes directly with other electric suppliers.
13. About 30 percent of all new residential development in the
TU Electric service area occurs in multi-certificated areas.
These areas include TU Electric's fastest growing markets.
If TU Electric attempted to increase rates in multi-
certificated areas, it could lose business to other electric
suppliers. This competition has a greater financial impact
on TU Electric than does competition from natural gas, and
is demonstrated by the levels of energy consumption in TU
Electric's service area. TU Electric data shows that the
average home with electric heat will spend approximately
$1,500 per year on electricity for all of its uses of
electricity. Of this amount, approximately $400, or less
than one third, is for electric heating. As such, if TU
Electric loses one home to a competing electric supplier, it
loses revenues equivalent to losing at least three heating
installations to the gas company.
14. TU Electric, similarly, faces competition from other
electric suppliers for new industrial and commercial
customers in areas which are multi-certificated.
15. Competitive activity reports prepared by TU Electric's
marketing department confirm the fact that electricity and
natural gas are economic substitutes only in limited
industrial and commercial applications, and that the
principal competitors to TU Electric are other electric
companies whose service areas overlap its service area. TU
Electric's marketing department monitors competitive
activity and attempts to identify customers that are
considering alternative suppliers or sources of energy.
During the period January 1996 through July 1996, these
competitive activity reports identified a total of $29
million in non-residential business as at risk to
competition.<F2> Only $5.8 million in business was
considered subject to gas competition, whereas business
accounting for $23.6 million in revenues was subject to
competition from other electric suppliers. Similar results
are shown in data for the period January 1995 through
December 1995. To put this amount of business in
perspective, TU Electric's 1995 annual sales to non-
residential customers totaled about $3.1 billion<F3>,
and TU Electric is forecasting annual revenue growth of
slightly more than $60 million in this category. The
business subject to gas competition in the 1996 reports
would constitute only 0.18 percent of these 1995 sales, or
less than 10% of one year s forecast growth in commercial
and industrial sales. TU Electric's Competitive Action
Reports report almost no business lost due to an end user
substituting a gas technology for an electric technology.
____________________
<F2> This figure excludes competition from self generation. Self
generation is discussed in paragraphs 34-38 below.
<F3> See TU 1995 FERC Form 1, page 300.
LONE STAR'S COMPETITIVE ENVIRONMENT
16. There is also significant competition in the retail market
for sales of natural gas, and in some cases, sales of
natural gas transportation to industrial and commercial
customers of natural gas in Texas. Unlike in some other
states, natural gas distribution utilities in Texas do not
have exclusive service territories. ENSERCH has informed me
that there are at least 56 other gas delivery systems or
marketers that compete with Enserch for gas sales and/or gas
transportation services in all or parts of Lone Star's
service area. Suppliers of natural gas in Texas also compete
with other fossil fuels, including oil, propane, coal, and
petroleum coke, which can be employed in some of the
industrial and commercial thermal applications for which
natural gas is used.
17. Enserch has informed me that any pipeline company with
transmission lines moving through a Lone Star service area
can construct delivery lines to connect with industrial
customers near their systems in a short span of time.
Enserch has indicated that there are no significant
regulatory hurdles to constructing intrastate pipelines in
Texas. The only significant prerequisite to constructing new
facilities is the purchase of a right-of-way. The relatively
flat geographic terrain of TU Electric's service territory
also poses few obstacles to pipeline construction. Several
of Lone Star's largest customers can connect to nearby
competing pipelines at relatively little cost.
18. Lone Star transports gas for some of its industrial and
commercial customers. As such, there is competition for gas
sales to these customers by pipelines, gas marketers,
brokers and producers, as well as the local distribution
companies, without the construction of any new facilities.
Enserch has indicated that these customers can purchase gas
from as many as 600 independent marketing companies that
currently participate in the gas spot market. Enserch data
also indicates that, in Lone Star's service area, over one-
half of its industrial transportation customers obtain their
gas from other suppliers.
ENERGY CONSUMPTION BY INDUSTRIAL CUSTOMERS
19. Table 1 shows industrial consumption of electricity and
natural gas for heat, power and electricity generation by
end use for the South Census region compiled from Department
of Energy data. The natural gas consumption data excludes
natural gas used as a feedstock. As this table indicates,
natural gas is used primarily for process heat and as a
boiler fuel. These two uses account for 80 percent of total
industrial consumption of natural gas, exclusive of natural
gas used as a feedstock. In contrast, less than 10 percent
of the electricity consumed by industry is used to supply
process heat. Natural gas consumption for process heating is
fifteen times electricity consumption for process heating
applications.
20. Industrial consumers use electricity primarily for motor
drive and electro-chemical processes. Electricity consump-
tion in electro-chemical processes, as defined in DOE's
Manufacturing Consumption of Energy, consists primarily of
electricity used for the reduction process in the
manufacturing of aluminum and various processes in the
Chemicals and Allied Products industries.
21. Although it is technologically possible to use natural gas
as a source of motor drive for gas engines, compressors, or
steam-driven machinery, the number of applications in which
natural gas is actually used as a source of machine drive is
small. Electricity consumption for machine drive is about
six times as large as natural gas consumption for machine
drive. Only 3 percent of total natural gas consumed by
industry is used for machine drive, whereas 53 percent of
all electricity consumed by industry is used for this
application.
22. Table 2 shows estimates of energy usage for heat, power and
electricity generation in the TU Electric service area,
similar to those contained in Table 1. The pattern of
results is the same as that shown for the South Census
region in Table 1.
23. The consumption of natural gas and electricity by end use is
consistent with the hypothesis that there is only limited
substitution between natural gas and electricity in response
to small price changes in the industrial sector. The
existing pattern of consumption reflects equipment and
investment decisions made over a number of years. During the
period when these investment decisions were made, there were
significant changes in the relative prices of electricity
and natural gas. The usage observed today is the result of
all of these past investment decisions, some of which were
made in years when natural gas prices were high relative to
electricity prices, and some of which were made in years in
which natural gas prices were low relative to electricity
prices. These usage patterns indicate that there is little
substitution between gas and electricity for most end uses.
If, for example, industrial customers could readily
substitute electricity for natural gas in process heating
applications in response to small price changes, one would
not expect to observe that more than 90 percent of the
energy used in process heating would be supplied by natural
gas and less than 10 percent of the energy used in process
heating would be supplied by electricity. Instead, one would
expect more than 10 percent of the energy supplied for
process heating to be electricity.
24. A similar argument applies to other end uses of electricity
in the industrial sector. As Tables 1 and 2 indicate, within
each end use, one fuel is usually predominant. This is not
the pattern one would expect if industrial customers
substituted electricity for natural gas in response to small
price changes. I have reviewed the results of computer
forecasting models used by TU Electric for planning in the
ordinary course of its business. These models are used by TU
Electric for a number of planning purposes, including
forecasting its future sales of electricity. Those models
indicate that small increases (5 to 10 percent) in
electricity prices do not lead to any significant loss of
business to natural gas. These forecasting models are
generally consistent with the other data I have reviewed
which indicate that there is only limited substitution
between natural gas and electricity in response to small (5
to 10 percent) price increases.
ENERGY CONSUMPTION BY COMMERCIAL CUSTOMERS
25. In the commercial sector of the TU Electric service area,
natural gas is used primarily for space heating, cooking,
and water heating, while electricity is used primarily for
lighting, refrigeration, ventilation, space cooling and the
operation of office equipment.
26. The distribution of commercial electricity usage by end use
is shown in Table 3. In the TU Electric service area, gas is
not an economic substitute for electricity in end uses for
85 percent to 90 percent of electric sales to commercial
customers.
27. Lighting and office equipment account for almost 30 percent
of TU Electric's electricity sales to commercial customers.
Natural gas is not a substitute for electricity in
commercial lighting or office equipment applications.
28. Cooling accounts for 41 percent of TU Electric's sales to
commercial customers. There is no significant penetration of
natural gas in commercial cooling applications in TU
Electric's service area. Only 1.9 percent of TU Electric's
non-residential customers use natural gas for space cooling.
I am informed by TU Electric personnel that, to their
knowledge, not a single major office building in Dallas is
cooled by equipment using natural gas.
29. Motors and refrigeration comprise another 16 percent of
electrical usage by TU Electric's commercial customers.
According to TU Electric personnel, these applications use
electricity almost exclusively.
30. The uses of electricity for which commercial customers might
substitute natural gas for electricity are space heating,
water heating and cooking. These end uses constitute only 10
percent of TU Electric's commercial electricity sales.
Energy choices among commercial customers for these end uses
typically are dictated by factors such as size of the
premises, equipment prices, other fuel uses on the premises
and quality control, in addition to relative fuel prices.
ENERGY CONSUMPTION BY RESIDENTIAL CUSTOMERS
31. Among residential end users, natural gas can be substituted
for electricity in space heating, water heating, and
cooking. Natural gas is not a technological substitute for
electricity in uses such as residential cooling, lighting,
refrigeration and most household appliances. Residential
customers choose fuel sources for heating based on many
factors, including equipment prices, reliability, service,
the size of the home, perceptions of energy efficiency and
matters of comfort, convenience and aesthetics, in addition
to relative fuel prices. Space heating requirements in new
apartments are fairly small, and space limitations usually
require the installation of electric space and water
heaters. Natural gas space heating is used only in about 6
percent, and natural gas water heating in about 15 percent
of new multi-family dwellings constructed in the Dallas
area.
32. In single family homes, the choice of fuel for space heating
is usually made at the time a home is constructed. TU
Electric charges the same rates in singly and multi-
certificated areas. TU Electric has identical residential
rate schedules in effect throughout its service area and
applies the same tariffs to all residential customers for
all residential uses of electricity, whether or not some
customers are located near competing electric companies.
33. The competition between TU Electric and other electric
suppliers in multi-certificated areas, and the fact that TU
Electric applies the same residential tariffs throughout its
service area, prevents TU Electric from profitably
increasing prices to residential customers in those areas in
which it and Enserch are the only gas and electric
distributors. Moreover, TU Electric cannot increase its
rates without approval of the Public Utility Commission of
Texas.
COMPETITION FROM ON-SITE GENERATION
34. In my analysis, I have considered the possibility that
industrial and commercial customers can substitute on-site
generation of electricity for purchases of electricity from
TU Electric. For the reasons detailed below, TUC s
acquisition of Enserch will not raise any significant com-
petitive concerns.
35. Self-generation by industrial and commercial customers often
involves the simultaneous production of useful thermal and
electric energy, or co-generation. In this affidavit, I will
use the term self-generation to refer to any generation of
electricity by a TU Electric customer for its own use,
regardless of whether or not such generation also involves
production of useful thermal energy.
36. Industrial and commercial customers of TU Electric operate
self-generation capacity totaling only about 119 megawatts.
To place this amount in perspective, 119 megawatts is less
than 2 percent of the total peak load of TU Electric's
industrial and commercial customers. TU Electric does not
have major concentrations of chemical complexes, refineries
or pulp and paper mills, which are often candidates for
self-generation. The majority of the self-generation in TU
Electric's service area is not dependent on gas or
transportation service supplied by Lone Star Gas. For
example, sixty-seven megawatts, of 56% of the total self-
generation on the TU Electric system, is owned by one
customer, which is not located in an area served by Lone
Star Gas Company.
37. Approximately 19% of the self-generation on the TU Electric
system is owned by companies in the gas business. These
companies operate gas processing plants in the West Texas
portion of TU Electric's service area. Gas used for self-
generation in these processing plants is usually residue or
field gas purchased in the proximity of the plant. In
addition, there are four other self-generation facilities on
TU Electric's system (accounting for 7% of the total of 119
megawatts) using either diesel fuel or land fill recovered
methane gas. Obviously, this fuel as well does not originate
with Lone Star Gas Company.
38. TUC's ownership of a local gas distribution company does not
raise any significant competitive concerns regarding self-
generation in TU Electric's service area. There is not much
self-generation in TU Electric's service area, and Lone Star
is not the only source of natural gas supply and/or natural
gas transportation for the majority of the existing self-
generation on TU Electric's system.
CONCLUSION
39. This is not a horizontal merger of two firms that operate in
the same antitrust product market, as markets are defined in
the Merger Guidelines, 1.11. For the reasons identified in
this affidavit, Lone Star does not place a significant
constraint on TU Electric's pricing and output decisions,
and TU Electric does not place a significant constraint on
Lone Star's pricing and output decisions. As a result, the
acquisition will neither create a tendency towards concentra
tion of control detrimental to the public interest, nor
substantially lessen competition or tend to create a
monopoly.
/s/ Robert M. Spann
ROBERT M. SPANN
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Subscribed and sworn to before me
this 27th day of November, 1996
/s/ ROSEMARY MCGILL
Notary Public
TABLE 1
Net Electricity and Natural Gas Inputs of Energy for Heat, Power,
and Electricity Generation by End Use
South Census Region, 1991
(Trillion BTU)
Net Natural Gas
Electricity
Process Heating 80 1,212
Process Cooling and 57 8
Refrigeration
Machine Drive 531 85
Electro-Chemical Processes 124 N/A
Other Process Use 6 42
Subtotal, Process Use 798 1,346
Facility HVAC (see Note)** 84 71
Facility Lighting 57 N/A
Facility Support 13 W
On-site Transportation 1 *
Conventional Electricity NA 284
Generation
Other Nonprocess Use 2 W
Subtotal, Nonprocess Use 156 407
Boiler Fuel 9 1,172
End Use Not Reported 32 58
Total, All Inputs 996 2,983
Notes:
Net Electricity excludes on-site co-generation of power (except
for nonfossil generation). Natural gas used in cogeneration is
included in natural gas inputs listed.
Columns may not equal Total due to rounding.
NA: End use not applicable to fuel.
HVAC: Heating, Ventilation, and Air Conditioning combine gas
heat and electric cooling.
W: Withheld to avoid disclosing data for individual
establishment.
*: Less than 0.5.
**: The DOE data displayed in Table 1 appear to indicate an
overlap between gas and electricity usage for HVAC.
These data, however, combine space cooling and space
heating. TU Electric's own data, set forth in Table 2,
distinguish space heating from space cooling, and show
that, in the TU Electric service area, electricity is
almost universally used for space cooling, while
natural gas is used for space heating by industrial
customers.
SOURCE: DOE/EIA, Manufacturing Consumption of Energy, 1991;
Manufacturing Energy Consumption Survey, December, 1994
Table A37, South Census Region, page 255.
Table 2
Net Electricity and Natural Gas Inputs of Energy for Heat, Power,
and Electricity
Generation by End Use
TU Electric, 1996 Estimated
(Trillion BTU)
Electricity Natural Gas
Motors 51.6 0.0
Lighting 4.1 0.0
Thermal
Dry Curing 1.2 20.7
Melting 2.5 7.5
Heat 3.9 97.4
Total Thermal 7.6 125.7
Cogeneration 0.0 10.0
Electrotechno 6.2 0.0
logy
Space Cooling 6.2 0.0
Steam 0.0 46.4
Space Heating 0.0 12.1
Miscellaneous 3.5 5.2
___ ___
Total 79.3 199.5
Columns may not equal Total due to rounding.
SOURCE: TU Electric
Although these estimates indicate no consumption of natural gas
for space cooling, according to a 1992 TU Electric survey of non-
residential customers, 1.9% of TU Electric customers used natural
gas for space cooling.
Table 3
Commercial Electric Use
In The TU Electric Service Area
Cooling 41%
Lighting 26%
Motors 10%
Refrigeration 6%
Office equipment 3%
Space heating 5%
Cooking 3%
Water heating 2%
SOURCE: TU Electric
