ML18018B085

Letter Enclosing a Decision of the Ny Public Service Commission Approving Central Hudson'S Participation in the Ownership of the Proposed Facility

ML18018B085
Person / Time
Site:	Nine Mile Point
Issue date:	12/19/1977
From:	Eric Thomas LeBoeuf, Lamb, Leiby & MacRae, Niagara Mohawk Power Corp
To:	Rutberg J Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
References
Download: ML18018B085 (104)

Text

FOAM 195 UA. NUCLEAR REGULATORY C~ISSION OOCKET NUMBER Npc Fll E NUMBER NRa DISTFIIBUTION FQR PART 60 DOCKET MATERIAL FROM: OATE OF OOCVMENT TO: Joseph Rutberg LeBoeuf, Lamb, Leiby & MacRae Washingtony D. C. 20036 OATE RECEIVEO Eugene B. Thomps QNQTORIZEO PAQP INPUT FORM NUMBER QF CQPIES RECEIVEO Q LETTE A 0 OA I G INAL 0 UN C LASS I P I 8 0 QCQPY QESCAIPTION Decision of the New York Public Service Commission approving Central Hudson's participation iIlI the'ownership of the proposed Nini Nine Mile Point Unit g 2...w/att supporting information. ~ ~

1p 1p + 32p PLANT ~'INE MI+ POINT UNIT 01/04/78 0 2 JcmI I PCU P FOR ACTiON/INFORMATION EKKHEiiTAL ASSIGNED AD! Vs MOORE LTR BRANCH CHIEF.

AGER: PROJECT MANAGER:

IiaiG ASSISTANT. LICENSING ASSISTANT:

B~ HARASS INTERNAL 0 ISTR I BUTION PLAMi SYSTEMS SITE SAFETY &

TEDESCO ENVIRON ANALYSIS

>> DENTON & ~iL:-R ENGIiiEERIViG IPPOLITO ENVIRO TECH PERA G REACTOR OD GAMMILL 2 SITE ANALYSIS VOLLMR J>> COLLQfS ERG EXTERNAL OISTRIBUTION CONTROL NUMBER

~ 05 C NSIC RZ IV J HAN CATT 7SOOSOO71 CYS ACRS SEiT CARGO NRC FOAM ISO IS~TO)

h

.(,0 ~ '~ y t

II 4

Stk~" 'JJELAE lyiJrBrrWrArkXrrArrrrr rr I'3rCB (MlllNO.<'I'OIl.gHl,f I 3l' ~

tltIPl')

gi ~. i.=r~p I (Ql:i LEBOEUF, LAMB, LEIBY IL MACRAE Q l757 N STREET, N.W.

WAsHINGToN, D. C. 20036 TELEPHONE tot AST ~ TSOO CABLE ADDRESS LCON A. ALLEN. JR. CAMERON F. MAcRAK 4 RANDALL J LESDEVFI JR l939 l 975 JOS CPM C, BACH CLDCR. 1K CAMCRON F MACRAC, III J LEDWIH,WASHIHCIDHID C CRNCST S. OALLARO. JR. GERARD A.MAHER AORIAN C, LCISY I95t IOTS G. S. PETER BCRGCN A SHEILA H. MARSHALL TCLKXl 4COETA GKOI'FRY O. C. BEST JAMCS G. MCCLROY DAVID P. DICKS JAMCS P. McGRANCRY JR.i 5 TAYLOR R. BRIGGS PHILIP PALMER MCGUIGAN OF COVHSEL CHARLCS N.QVRGCR JAMES O'MALLCY JR.+

THOMAS E.BVRKC J. MICHACL PARISH ARVIN C. UPTON ROGER O.FCLOMANr EVGCNC R, FIOCLL A JACOD FRICDLANDCR JOHN A, RVDY PAUL G. RUSSELL December 19, 1977 DONALD J. GREENE HAROLD M. SCIDCL JAM CS A. GRCKR,II A CHARLES P. SIFTON I%0 BROADWAY JOHN L.GROSK r HALCYON G. SKINNER DOUGLAS W.HAWCS JOSEPH S.STRAVSS NKW YORK, N,Y. IOGGS CARL O. HOBCLMAN SAMVKL M. SUGDCN MICHAEL IOVKNKO JAMES F. JOHNSON, Ar~

KUGCNC h. THOMAS. JR LEONARD M. TROSTCN A TCLCPHONC tlt t59 IIDD RONALD D. JONES HARRY H.VOIGT'rA CABLE ADDRESS LCX K. LARSONr s H. RICHARD WACHTCL GRANT S. LEWIS GERARD P. WATSON LK S WIN, N LW YORK TELCXl At3hIS

+RCSIOCNT PARTNERS WASHINGTON OFFICE 5 AOMITTCO TO THC DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA BAR Iggj/Pp 9

Joseph Rutberg, Esq.

Director Antitrust Division, OELD U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C. 20555 Re: Niagara Mohawk Powei Corporation Nine Mile Point Unit 2 Docket No. 50-4'10

Dear Mr. Butberg:

In accordance with prior understandings, I enclose a copy of a recent decision of the New York Public Service Commission. As you will note, this, decision approves Central Hudson's participation in the owneiship of the proposed facility in the above-captioned docket.

Whi:le the Intexvenors petition 'for rehe'aring still and ultimately to appeal to the have the right to Tnird Department of the Appellate Division of the New- York Supreme Court, it appears that there is sufficient finality in the enclosed decision that we will file the antitrust information for this facility in mid-January 1978.

Sincerely yours, I Enclosure e ~.

Eugene B. Thomas, Jr.

I 78005007<

~ e ) ling l

e V

r k

~ t

STATE Or HEN YORK PUBLIC SERVICE CO&L~lXSSIQN Q

OPINION NO. 77-23 CASE 27013 Joint petition of Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation, Long Island, Light'ng Company, New York State Electric G Gas Corporation, Rocnester Gas and Electric Corporation and Central Hudson G s a Elect ic Corporation (1) for approval of an'perating agreement in connection with the Nine Mile Point No. 2 nuclear Generating Plant; (2) for approval of the transzer of interests in the plant and. related interests in property; and {3) for approval of the construction oz the nuclear electric power plant by petitioners other than Niagara Mohawk.

CASE 27120 Joint petition of Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corporat'on and. Consolidated Edison Company of Hew York, Inc. for the approval oz the transzer of interests in the electric generating station at Roseton, New York.

o OPI IIQN A%3 ORDER APPROVING PETITIONS REGARDIHG ROSETON AHD NINE MILE POINT NO. 2 GENERATING STATIONS Issued: December 5, 1977

1 L, I

STATE OF NEN YORK PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION OPINION NO. 77-23 CASE 27013 Joint petition of Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation, Long Island Lighting Company, New York State Electric & Gas Corporation, Rochester Gas and Electric Corporation and Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corporation (1) :or approval of an operating agreement in connection with the Nine M'le Point No. 2 nuclear Generating Plant; (2) for approval of the trans er of interests in the plant and related interests in property; and (3) for approval of the construction of the nuclear electric power plant by

'petitioners other thorn Niagara Mohawk.

"CASE 27120 Joint petition of Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corporation and Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc. for the approval of the transfe of interests in the electric generating station at Roseton, New York.

OPINION A%3 ORDER ¹PROVING PETITIONS REGARDING ROSETON Ai%) NINE i~lILE POINT NO. 2 GENERATING STATIONS Issued: December 5, 1977

I I I

~ ~ I~

'ASES 27013 and 27120 TABLE OF CONTENTS

~Pa e APPEARANCES INTRODUCTION CASE 27120 THE ROSETON AGREEMENTS'ETITION FOR NINE MILE 2 Forecasts of Future Need 10 Conclusion 15 PETITION TO REOPEN PROCEEDING 16 "ORDER 17 APPENDICES

I 5/Y lI I "A -r

~ e~

CASES 27013 and 120 Q STATE OF NEW YORK PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION APPEARANCES Gould and Wilkie (Walter A. Bossert, Jr., Davison W. Grant and Peter V. K. Funk, Jr., of counsel), One Wall Street, New York, New York 10005, attorneys for Central Hudson Gas &

Electric Corporation.

Garrett E. Austin and Thomas J. Farrelly, 4 Irving Place, New York, New York 10003, attorneys zor Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc. 1 John H. Terry (Herman B. Noll and John W. Keib,. of counsel),

300 Erie Boulevard West, Syracuse, New Yoxk 13202, at orney for Niagara Mohawk Pnwer Corporation.

Nixon, Hargrave, Devans and Doyle (Sco"t M. Turner, of counsel),

Lincoln First Tower, Rochester, New York 14603, attorneys for Rochester Gas and Electric Corporation.

Huber, Magill, Lawrence and Farrell (Fredric H. Lawrence and Zra L. Zebrak, of counsel), 99 Park Avenue, New York, New York 10016, attorneys for New York State Electric &

Gas'orporation.

Edward M. Barrett (Jeffrey L. Futter, of counsel), 250 Old Country Road, Mineola, L. I., New York 11501, attorney for Long Island Lighting Company.

Bruce V. Miller and. Michael Flynn, Stafz Counsel, Agency Building No. 3, Empire State Plaza, Albany, New York 12223, attorneys for the Public Service Ccmmission.

James W. Better, 50 Wolf Road,, Albany, New York 12233, attorney for the Department of Environmental Conservation.

David A. Schlissel, 99 Washington Avenuet Albany, New York 12210@

attorney for the New York State Consumer Protection Board.

John J. Mavretich, Box 36, West Park, New York 12493, fo-Mid-Hudson Nuclear Opponents.

Shirley A. Brand P. O. Box 57, New Paltz, New York 12561, for Safe Energy Coalition of New York State.

Fred Dusenburg, 75 Lafayette Street, Schenectady, New York 12307I for Schenectady Commun'y Action Program, Inc.

H. Lee Davis and Pauline Davis, 25 Koeppel Avenue, Catskill, New York, for Citizens to Preserve the Hudson Valley.

Jack and Dooley Kiefe , 629 H ghland Road, Ithaca, New York 14850 '

A CASCS 27013 and 27120 Appendix G Page 2 of 3 1/ All capacity requirements per company's 1977 149-b statement.

of Vol. 'f Adjustments to capability, the 1977 as shown in Appendix D 1996 statement are as follows:

~

J2 1983: -decrease total installed capacity by 98 HW (share of Nine Mile P". 2 C. 27013) 1984-6: decrease total installed capacity -by 294 HN (share of Nine Mile Pt. 2 98 MW)

(share of Sterling-SNUPPS, C'. 80005,196 MW) 3/ .1983: decrease total installed capacity -by 194 MW (share of Nine Hile Pt. 2 C. 27013) increase net transactions by 66 MN (remove planned but not firm contracts for

'I electric sales App. E, 1977 149-b statement, and account or credits) 1984: decrease total installed capacity by 194 MW (share of Nine Nile Pt.. 2) decrease net transactions by 230 HW (100 MN contract for excess Nine Mile capacity from NYSE&G (130 MW - antic'pated ourchases f om Prattsville Pumped Storage Station, PPC application pending) 1985-6: decrease total -instal'ed capacity bv 769 MW (194 HW Nine Mile Pt. 2)

(575 HN Jamesport No. 1, C. 80003) decrease net transactions by 230 HW as in 1984.

4/ 1983: decrease total installed caoacity by 1044 MW (194 HN share at Nine Hile Pt. 2)

(850 HW Cayuga'stat'on C. 80002) 1984-5: decrease total installed capacity by 1619 HW (194 HN share at Nine-Mile Pt. 2)

(850 i!N Cayuga Station)

(575 HW Jamesport No. 1, C. 80003) 1986: decrease total installed capacity by 2194 HN (194 MN share at Nine Mile Pt. 2)

(850 Cayuga Station)

{575 HN Jamesport No. 1)

(575 NH uamesport No. 2)

(

C V

h

. CASES 27013 and 27120 Appendix G Page 3 of 3 5/ 1983: decrease total installed capacity by 151 MW (share'at Nine Mile Pt. 2) 1984-6: decrease total installed capacity by 503 MW (151 MW share at Nine Mile Pt. 2)

(352 HN share at Sterling-SNUPPS)

)

4

" STATE OF NEN YORK PUBLXC SERVICE COHHISSZON COMMISSIONERS:

Charles A. Zielinski, Acting Chairman Edward P. Larkin Harold A. Jerry, Jr.

Anne F. Mead CASE 27013 - Joint petition of 'Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation, Long Island Lighting Company, New York State Electric & Gas Corporation, Rochester Gas and Electric Corporation and Central Hudson Gas & Electr'c Corporation (1) for approval of an operating agreement in connection with the Nine Nile Point No. 2 nuclear Generating Plant; (2) for approval of the transfer of interests in the p3.ant and elated 'nterests in property; and (3) for approval

.of the construction of the nuclear ele"tric power plant by petitioners othe'han Niagara Mohawk.

CASE 27120 - Joint petition of Central Hudson Gas & Electric.

Corporation and Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Znc. for the approval of the transfer of interests in the electric generating station at Roseton, New York.

OPINION NO ~ 77-23 OPXNION AND 'ORDER APPROVING PETITIONS REGARDING ROSETON A%3 NINE a~tZLE POINT NO 2 GENERATING STATIONS (Issued December 5, 1977)

BY THE COKIZSSXON:

INTRODUCTION By joint petition dated December 13, 1976 in Case 27120'entral Hudson Gas & Electric Corporation (Central Hudson) and Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc.

(Con Edison) requested Commission approval, pursuant to Section 70 of the Public Service Law, of two agreements dated, November 23, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as the revised Roseton agreements) modifying prior agreements

C

.4

P CASES 27013 and 27120 concerning the companies'ights and interests in the Roseton electric generating plant. (Roseton).

By Order issued January 25; 1977, the Commission directed that hearings be held on the joint petition and that the companies present evidence, including "a comparison of the impact of the present and the proposed contracts fixed and variable costs of each utility, the projected on'he annual load and. capacity requirement of'ach utility through 1990 and the availability and cost of alternative sources of energy for each vithin the same period." In the same Order, the Commission reopened hearings in Case 27013 and directed that the hearing" in these two proceedings be held jointly.

'he proceeding-in Case 27013 is based upon a joint petition, filed April 30, 1976, by Niagara Mohavk'Power Corporation (Niagara Mohawk), Long Island Lighting Company (LILCO), New York State Electric 6 Gas Corporation (NYSEGG),

Rochester Gas and Electric Corporation (RG&E) and Central Hudson seeking approval of agreements on the ownership, construction, operation and maintenance of the Nine Mile Point No. 2 nuclear electric generating plant (Nine Mile) in the P

Town of Scriba, Oswego County. Hearings in Case 27013 vere held during July and August 1976 and a recommended decision vas issued October 26, 1976. Briefs on exceptions to that decision were filed by Citizens to Preserve the Hudson Valley and the Safe Ene gy Coalition of Nev York.

In response to motions made after the revised Roseton agreements were executed, the Commission ordered the reopening of the hearings "for the limited purpose of determining whether the long-run load growth projections for Central Hudson that were relied upon previously remain valid and, if not, how the changes will affect the desirability of its participation in the Nine Mile Point No. 2 plant."

C f

"~, r

I I ~l e I CASES 27013 and 27120 Q Foll.owing four days of joint hearings, Administrative Law Judge Joseph J. Gottlieb, on July 28, 1977, issued a recommended decision recommending approval of the revised Roseton agreements and Central Hudson's participation in the Nine Mile nuclear power project. The M'd-Hudson Opponents filed a brief on exceptions. Replies were submitted by Central Hudson and Niagara Mohawk.

CASE 27120 - THE ROSETON AGREEMENTS The Roseton electric generating plant consists of two 600 megawatt (MH) oil-fired units which are owned by Con Edison, Central Hudscn and the Niagara Mohawk Power Coporation as tenants-in-common with undivided percentage interests as follows: Central Hudson - 20% (240 MN); Con Edison 40%

(480 MW); Niagara Mohawk 40% (480 NH). The plant is located in the Central Hudson service area and Central Q Hudson is the managing partner.

The original contract reauired that Central Hudson purchase 120 MH from Con Edison's share four years after commencement of commercial operation of the second unit of the plant i.e.,

December 31, 1978 and an additional 60 MH four years later on December 31, 1982. Zn addition, Central Hudson had the option to purchase another 60 NN from Con Edison on Dece&er 31, 1982, provided that Central Hudson notified Con Edison of its intent to so do by December 31, a/

1977-- Xf Central Hudson made the purchases specified in the original contract and exercised its option, Con Edison's ownership share of the Roseton plant would be reduced to 240 MH after December 31, 1982.

1 Central Hudson also has the option to purchase on December 31<

2004 Con Edison's remaining share of the Roseton plant.

Notification must be prov'ded no less than five vears in advance o" its exercise of the option.

~

I J I

II CASES 27013 K

and 120 As part of the agreement to build Roseton, Con Edison agreed to sell varying amounts of capacity and associated energy from the Rose'ton plant to Central Hudson during every winter capability period from the winter of 1975-1976 through December 31, 1982. The maximum amount of capacity to be sold was 400 XA in November and December of 1978. The minimum was 145 kK in the winter of 1975-1976.

On November 23, 1976, Central Hudson entered into agreements which would cancel Central Hudson's obligation to purchase zrom Con Edison 120 NW of Roseton capacity in 1978 and 60 MN in 1982 as well as Central Hudson's option to purchase an additional 60 lIW in 1982. 1/ Further, under the revised agreements, C'on Edison's obligation to sell varying amounts of Roseton winter capability through 1982 would be cancelled as of October 31, 1976. The revised agreements require that Con Edison sell at its average system capacity cost such winter capability as may be needed by Central Hudson througn the 1980-1981 winter to meet its installed reserve obligations. Associated energy sales would be priced at Con Edison's incremental production cost.

Judge Gottlieb found that the revised Roseton agreements would benefit ratepayers of both Central Hudson and Con Edison. No party opposes them.

The most signizicant effect of the agreements on Central Hudson is an estimated net.reduction of $ 30.5 million in'evenue requirements through 1982. We have already reflected, part of this revenue requirement reduction in the rates we set for this company recently in Case 27032. In addition, Central Hudson would be released -from contingent 1 The revised Roseton ag eements bezore the Commission affect only tne agreements between Con Edison and Cent al Hudson.

Agreements between Niagara Mohawk and Central Hudson regarding ownership ix terests in the Roseton plant ar not an issue.

1

1

~ Pz

~ u h

CASES 27013 and 27120 liabilities arising from differing interpretations of provisions in the original agreement regarding its obligation to pay capacity costs when the plant is not operating. As of January 31, 1977, the company's contingent liability amounted, to something over $ 4 million. Further, releasing Central Hudson from its obligation to purchase additional Roseton capacity in 1978 and 1982 means that the amount of capital it would need to raise for this purpose about $ 43.2 million over the next five years can be used for other construction or saved. Central Hudson is in an excess capacity situation currently, and clearly does not need to purchase more Roseton capacity to meet the immediate needs of. its customers.

Con Edison gains three fundamental benefits under the revised Roseton agreements. First, since the cost of the relatively efficient Roseton capacity plus the cost of the higher sulfur fuel oil (2%) which can be burned is lower than the cost of burning 0.3$ sulfur fuel at Con Edison's less efficient oil-fired plants, the acquisition of 240 MH of Roseton capacity will result in a net cost savings for Con Edison's customers. Second, Con Edison will be able to defer financing and construction of 240 MH of new 'generating capacity from 1991 to at least 2005, 1/ relieving its customers of the anticipated future burden to pay for depreciation and return on a much higher investment for the equivalent capacity of a new plant. Third, the 240 MW of Roseton capacity offers Con Edison's customers a measure of reliability protection in the event of slippage on future plant construction or the unavailability of power from Hydro-Quebec.

1 Part oz the original Roseton agreement, not covered in the revised agreement at issue here, calls for Central to purchase all of Con Edison's interest in Roseton Hudson at the end of 2004.

J

~ ~

CASES 27013 and 120 a

C is clear to 't us that the revised Roseton agree-ments are in the best interests of the customers of Con Edison and Central Hudson. 'Accordingly, we will adopt the recommendation of Judge Gottlieb and approve the agreements.

PETITION FOR NINE MILE 2 Niagara Mohawk, on June 15, 1972, applied to the Atomic Energy Commission (now the Nuclear Regulatory Commission) for a construction permit to build a second. nuclear power plant at Nine Mile Point. The permit was issued on. June 24, 1974. Subsequently, Niagara Mohawk agreed to share ownership of the plant with LZLCO, NYSEaG, RG&E and Central Hudson as tenants-in-common with the following undivided interests:

Niagara Mohawk 41%

LZLCO le NYSEGG 18

'Q RG&E Central Hudson 14 9

The cost of construction and operation, as well as entitlements to- output from the plant would be apportioned according to the respective ownership shares of the co-tenants. Niagara Mohawk would build, operate and maintain the plant.

The companies filed a joint petition seeking Commission approval of the co-tenancy agreements pursuant to Sections 68 and 70 of the Public Service Law. The Citizens to Preserve the. Hudson Valley (Citizens); Mid-Hudson Nuclear Opponents (MHNO), Safe Energy Coalition of New York State and the New York State Consumer Protection Board (CPB) oppose the petition. Citizens, MHNO and the Safe Energy, Coalition argue that the petition is, essentially, an application for a construction permit which should be subjected to the more rigorous requirements of Article VIIZ of the Public Service Law, implying that it should not be approved without

I

'l t I

a full development of issues pertinent to the siting of a.

new plant under Article VXIX, including alternatives to the planned facility. They suggest that such additional matters as the antitrust implications of the agreement, the consequences of bankruptcy or withdrawal of one of the participants and the effect of a nuclear moratorium must be considered. The intezvenors also question the validity of the construction permit issued by the Atomic Energy Commission (now the Nuclear Regulatory Commission) in June 1974, claiming that the AEC approved the project in relation to Niagara Mohawk s ownership and did not evaluate pertinent issues in light of the tenancy-in-common.. arrangement that now exists.

Judge Gottlieb dismissed the intezvenors'rgument that the requirements of Article VIXI must be applied to this petition. We agree with his 'decision. Section 141(4)(a) of Article VIII specifically exempts a plant from the provisions of Article VIII if it has been the subject of an application for a necessary federal license filed before July 1, 1972.

And the Nine Nile application was filed with the AEC before that date. We believe the Legislature clearly intended to "grandfather" plants under Section 141(4)(a). There is no provision in the law for removing a plant's "grandfathered" status merely because of a change in ownership.

The Administrative Law Judge also dismissed the questions raised by the intervenors about the construction permit issued by the Atomic Energy Commission,- finding that such argument should be raised with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission rather than this Commission. The Judge's ruling is clearly correct. Whether the NRC should modify or rescind a construction- permit it has granted is a question solely within the jurisdiction of that agency. And, given the existence of a valid federal approval, the issue we must decide is whether, under the provisions of Sections 68 and 70 of the Public Service L w, the agreement of five petitioners to share the ownership of Nine Nile is in the public interest.

l, I

K t

0 A

CASES 27013 and 27120 Petitioners contend that the agreements should be approved not only be'cause they all need the amounts of additional generating capacity that ~~1ine Mile would provide, but also because the tenancy-in-common arrangement is the most effective and efficient means to satisfy their needs.

In support of the latter point, they present several 'arguments.

First, they claim that a tenancy-in-common permits individual companies to share in the economies of scale of a large facility, instead of each building its own smaller plant to r

satisfy their needs. Each company still takes on capacity that is closely related to load requirements, while having to raise a lesser amount of capital than would be required

'if they were all to build. their own pl'ants. Moreover, they share in the efficiencies achieved in designing, licensing, operating and maintaining one plant inst'ead of five. Second, petitioners argue that pursuit of the tenancy-in-common concept will improve system reliability for all of the companies. They point out that loss of a large unit owned by one company and providing much of its customers'eeds would cause significant problems for that company, while the impact on several companies of losing only a smaller fraction of capacity can be absorbed without great problems on any of the affected companies'ystems. Third, petitioners claim a prompt opportunity to improve fuel mix through the Nine Mile sharing, a particularly for'ceful argument in the case of Central Hudson which is heavily dependent on oil-fired generation. Fourth, petitioners claim environmental benefits, arguing that the impact of one large plant at one site is much more tolerable than the effect of several small=plants built at separate sites scattered throughout the State.

Finally, petitioners note that Nine Mile has al eady been approved by the federal gove nment, and, therefore, will not suffer the costs of delay due to the licensing process that

new plants experience. Intervenors did not mount an effective attack on these asserted, advantages of the tenancy-in-common arrangement. And, while we. need not decide the merits of each of the arguments advanced by the companies in favor of the arrangement, it is clear to us that the advantages of common ownership in this case outweigh any disadvantages.

But the key issue is whether each of the participants has demonstrated a need for its share of the Nine Mile capacity, and it is on this issue, particularly with respect to Central Hudson's participation, that intervenors have focused their objections.

Petitioner" presented three case studies showing their respective reserve capacities from the winter 1982 through winter 1984, assuming that no plant additions are made in the first study, that the plant additions are made on schedule in the second stu'dy and that the additions are delayed one or two years in the third study. These studies are based on data presented in the 1976 report of the New York Power Pool under Section .149-b of Article VIII of the Public Service Law. 1/ They show that even if other .planned generation additions are made on schedule (Case 2), NYSEGG, Niagara Mohawk and RG&Z still would have significant generation deficiencies in winter 1982. In light of past experience, however, Case 3, assuming slippage of other plants, seems more probable. In that event, the 1976 study shows that all of the companies would, have severe generation deficiencies b Y 1984.

The intervenors question the need for Nine Nile, relying on data contained in the 1976 149-b report, which are attached as Appendix F. They argue that the data show ample reserves and, therefore, that no additional generation is 1/Our approval oz the revised Roseton agreements actually strengthens the petitioners'ase since Central Hudson will not have the 120 <~IN oz capacity that was assumed in the 1976 data

0 I

~ ~ ~

';ASKS 27013 and 7120 required. The petitioners point out, however, that the figures in Appendix F should be adjusted to show only those planned additions and power purchases that reasonably may be expected and to reflect the Power Pool's 18% per company reserve margin requirement. Those adjustments clearly are proper, but as we discuss in our conclusion, still overstate the company's generating capacity by assuming certification of proposed but uncertified facilities. Applying them to the figures in Appendix F results in the same data as the petitioners presented in Appendix E.

Considering these factors, the 1976 stud's show that Nine Mile would be needed by the petitioners to meet th'eir projected load growth in 1982 and beyond. Ne note further that, although the Power Pool's 1977 149-b report shows projections for LZLCO, liYSE&G, Niagara Mohawk and RG&E somewhat different from those in the 1976 report upon which Appendix E is based, the case for these companies needing Q the generation available from Nine Mile, especially if-

.there are delays in other certified or proposed facilities, remains convincing.+ Ne turn now to the more difficult question of whetner, in light of the revised Roseton agreements, Central Hudson's participation in Nine Mile is proper.

Forecasts of Future Need Central Hudson's 1976 long-range forecast projects an average annual peak load growth rate during the period.

1976-1996 of 6.4%, compared to a 5.5% of the period, 1977-1997 in the 1977 forecast. This is a reduction in the 1 See Appendix G. Although no party questioned LELCO's need to participate in Nine Mile, we have examined 'ts projected capability and demand. Ne observe that it appears to nave marginally su icient capacity through 1984. Ne find its participation in this venture prudent, however, since any further delay in its planned capacity additions through 1983 or any O slippage in the operational

'to be deficient in 1983 and date 1984.

of Nine Mile could cause LZLCO E

'I ~

GASES 27013 and 27120 a

expected rate of growth of about 14'h. For the shorter range, 1976-1984 period, the company originally projected an average annual peak load. growth rate of 7.4%, while its current forecast suggests a rate of 5.6$ for that period, a reduction of about 24%. Considering these substantial changes, Judge Gottlieb concluded that the long-run projections by 'Central Hudson which formed the basis of its initial case for participation in Nine Mile were no longer valid.

Central Hudson maintains that its latest long-term projections ~.5% for the period 1977-1997 still show a need for the 98 NW of Nine Mile capacity it proposes to purchase.

Staff's forecast'or this period is an average annual growth rate of 5.0%; but it concedes that'he growth rate would be greater if the Economic Development Board's demographic forecasts are realized. Therefore, staff supports Central Hudson's need argument, concluding that the generation deficiencies shown in the company's p ojections (see Appendix A) are credible.

CPB and Mid-Hudson Nuclear Opponents are critical of these forecasts. They clam that these projections overstate the need for additional capacity. CPB predicts an annual lo'ad growth of between 4.3S and 5.3% for the period 1976-1987. 1t claims that because o" large increases in the cost of electricity and diligent conservation efforts, consumers will continue to use less electricity. Further, CPB argues that the cement industry in Central Hudson's service territory will continue to lack vitality because of economic troubles in New York City. CPB concludes that, in view of Central Hudson's failure to take these factors into account properly, the company's'orecast of peak loads is unrealistically high.

MHNO adds that the impact of alternative technologies and systematic attempts at load management have not been considered. Nhile it views staff's forecast as super'or to

~ ~

'I CASES 27013 and 27120 the company's, because of its more accurate evaluation of growth in the number of customers and in commercial and i'ndustrial sales, i~O considers staf 's projections as the "upper range" of expected. growth in the 1977-1985 period.

And it believes that growth will fall below staff projections.

These intervenors conclude that Central Hudson will need only a small amount of additional capability for the 1984-1986 period, and none beyond its share of the Sterling proposal until the 1990's. 1/ They argue that if Sterling becomes operational in 1985 (only a one-year slippage instead of the two assumed in Appendix -Z, Case 3) Central Hudson 'would be marginally deficient only in 1983-1984 and would not need additional capacity until 1989 under any forecast except that of the company. MHNO also argues that by postponing the retirement of Danskammer Unit No. 1 (62

' MN) now scheduled for 1983, Central Hudson would have the capability to meet the deficiencies forecast by staff through 1985.

CPB proposes several specific alternatives to Central Hudson s participation in Nine Nile including:

(1) purchasing power from Con Edison and Niagara ~iohawk; (2) installing intermediate load generation capacity of either combined cycle gas turbines or a regeneration of a Danskmmer unit ror combined cycle operation; or (3)'dopting one of seve al options involving differing combinations of

~ 'he Roseton generation and nuclear generation (see Appendix 0).

Administrative Law Judge did not'comment on suggestions (1) and (2) and dismissed them from further con-sideration because they "have been made in general terms, and the necessary investigations and calculations have not been.

performed for their development." Ne agree that the record here is devoid of any economic calculations to support these Q 1 Central Hudson's share of the p oposed, but as yet uncertified, nuclea generation facil'ty at Sterling, New York, Case 80005, is 196 K<. Sterling is proposed to be operational in 1984.

\

I II E

lf-

~ ~

CASES 27013 and 27120 contentions which, without such support, 'do not appear, on their face, to be economical alternatives to participation in Nine Mile Unit 2 because (1) large blocks of firm, economical power are not generally available for firm purchases, and (2) combined cycle oil-fired generation does not usually compare favorably to nuclear generating capacity.

CPB has, however, provided some data and calculations

. to support its seven options approach, reflected in Appendix D. But CPB no longer supports Option 1, because it now finds the r~vision of the original Roseton agreements to be in the best interests of Central Hudson's customers. And it presents Options 4 and 7 as only for purposes of contrast with other options,.

CPB suggests now that the Commission compare three primary options:

Q ~Otions~

Total Annual Levelized Revenue Reauirements Total Cost (4/kHh)

Column 2 Zncluding** Needed Purchased Caaacitv Total Cost (4/kHh)

Option 2 $ 85 g 900 000 g 3.89 $ 94'00 I 000 4.29 Option 5 91,500,000 4.14 91,900,000 4.16 Option 6 98,200,000 4.45 98i200,000 4.45

• Option 2 involves the pu chase of 240 NH of Roseton capacity from Niagara Mohawk. Option 5 involves the purchase of 180 MH of Roseton capacity ard 197 MH of.

Sterling nuclear capacity on-line in ihe summer of 1986. Option 6 involves the purchase of 98 MH of Nine Mile capacity on-line in 1983, and 197 MH of Sterling capacity. This in essence is the company's proposal.

• • This column adjusts the total annual levelized revenue requirements of Column 2 to reflect (1) for Opt'on 2, purchases by Central Hudson of 150 MH of gas turbines in 1983 and 75 MH of replacement energy in 1989, and (2) for Option 5, purchases of replacement energy of 31 MH in Summer 1983, 54 NN in Summer 1984, 43 MH in Hinter 1984, 114 MH in Summer 1985, and 103 MH in Hinter 1985. These additional capacities for Options 2 and 5 are required to meet peak ard reserve reaui ements. No additional capacity is required for Opt'on 6.

CASES 27013 and 27120 CPB argues that Option 5 is the cheapest alternative, even with the necessity of purchasing additional amounts of capacity. It argues that additional capacity could be purchased from Con Edison and Long Island Lighting Company which project large amounts of excess capacity during the 1983-1985 period according .to the 1977 149-b filing. 'on-sequently, CPB considers Option 5 superior to Option 6, the company's choice.

CPB claims further that. Option 2 is superior to Option 6 not only because it is cheaper, but because the gas turbines provide the company with greater flexibility since the lead time "or installing gas turbine units is comparatively short. Option 6, the company's proposal, is considered the least desirable, since a failure to achieve the anticipated growth would leave the company with excess capacity, the same situation from which it is currently attempting to extricate itself.

Central Hudson and staff raised numerous questions about th'e validity of studies underlying CPB's analysis. These criticisms are discussed in detail at pages 39-44 of the recommended decision. They object basically to CPB's failure to utilize computer prograrming methods which, in tneir opinion, are necessary for proper analysis of numerous and complex factors involved in the study. They also critize-with clear justification the assumptions about fuel and replacement energy costs used in the study.

The company argues that the purpose of its participation in Nine Mile is not merely to meet projected generation defic'encies in the mid-1980's; it'contends even if all of the nuclear capacity from Nine Mile 'hat were not required in its initial year of operation to matcn load and reserve requirements, the availability of low cost nuclear generation would reduce substantially the rates to its customers, notwithstanding the fact that they would be e 1 CASES 27013 and 27120 required to pay a return on the capital costs of the unit.

Further, as noted by staff, the use of nuclear generation would reduce Central Hudson's dependence on oil and improve its generation mix, thereby increasing its system reliability.

MHNO argues that the projected savings due to nuclear generation accrue only when large savings on fuel

.costs overcome the original higher initial investment,- and therefore current ratepayers would be burdened unjustly since projected savings will not accrue to customers

'HO also characterizes these projected savings as until'990.

speculative because of the erratic performance of a significant number of nuclear plants.

Conclusion Of the various load forecasts presented in these proceedings, staff's 5% projected growth rate seems the most plausible. Staff's forecast, in our opinion, includes more accurate projections'f growth in the number of residential customers and of trends in commercial and industrial sales than Central Sudson's study. The CPS forecasts, on the other hand, are based on modifications of assumptions used in other forecasts and not on independent studies. While staff's 5$

growth rate would be higher if the Economic Development Board's demograpnic projections materialized, we believe that a more conservative estimate is warranted since relatively slow growth experienced in recent years has led to downward revisions of earlier forecasts.

In analyzing capability projections, we find that it would be improper and unwise to assume that planned but uncertified additional generating facilities will be available as proposed to meet:.,the need for capacity shown to exist in this proceeding. Our decision must be based upon an analysis of need and capability as can best be projected at the time-

a .r of our decision. As shown in Appendix C, Central Hudson will have capability deficiencies as early as 1983 using staff's 5% load growth rate without the addition of new generating capacity. Only the lower end of the range of CPB's forecast 4.3% growth fails to show such a need; but even that forec st indicates that 97 iW of capacity, Central Hudson's share of. Nine Mile Point Unit No. 2, would be

~

required soon afte that. The data shown in Appendix B reflect approval of the revised Roseton agreements and, Central Hudson's participation in Nine Mile.

Central Hudson's participation in a nuclear facility

~

to satisfy its need for additional capacity would clearly be beneficial to its ratepayers. Studies presented by staff and the company show that participation in the proposed nuclear unit will lead to sizable savings compared to reliance on additional Roseton or other oil-fired capacity as was suggested

'Q by CPB. Further, Central Hudson's studies show that meeting i.ts anticipated capacity needs with gas turbines instead of base load generation would involve very large-additional costs.

In light of the foregoing considerations, we conclude that the participation of Central Hudson, with LZLCO> NYSE&G, N'agara Mohawk and RG&Z in the Nine Mile Point Unit No. 2 plant,= is in the public interest and should be approved.

I PETITION TO REOPEN PROCEEDING Mid-Hudson Nuclear Opponents has petitioned for further hearings in Case 2?013 for the limited purpose of reexamining the necessity of Central Hudson's participation I

, in the Nine Nile nuclear facility. ~QWO asserts that such action is warranted because Central Hudson has substantially altered its position on the impact of peak load pricing on I i 1

~ ~

~,

load growth. NHHO points to Central Hudson's petition for rehearing in Case 27032 (Central Hudson's most recent electric rate case) in which Central Hudson seeks additional revenues to cover short-term erosion due to shifts, in customer load to off-peak periods. MHNO cites this argument as supporting its position that Central Hudson now anticipates a significant decrease in load growth due to the implementation of peak

~

load pricing, which is contrary to the view expressed by in defending its load growth projections in this the'ompany case. The Consumer Protection Board supports KQlO's petition for rehearing.

Responses to MHNO's motion have been received from Central Hudson and Niagara Mohawk on behalf of the co-tenants of the Nine Mile project. PSC staff and other parties did not respond.

As discussed ~su ra, it is clear that Central Hudscn will require the capabil-'ty that would be provided by its participation in the Nine Mile project. The kind of short-term revenue loss against which Central Hudson sought protection in Case 27032 would not necessarily result in a consequent reduction in peak demand or in a sustained dampening of peak load growth. -MHNO's petition therefore will be denied.

The Corr~ission orders:

1. The Revised Roseton Agreement (Case 27120) as presented by joint petition of Central Hudson Gas a Electric Corporation and Consolidated Edison Company of New York,.

Inc. for trans"ez of interests in the electric generating station at Roseton, New York, is approved.

2. The joint petition of Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation, Long Island Lighting Company, New York State Electric & Gas Corporation, Rochester Gas and Electric Corporation and Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corporation

( ~

CASES 27013 and. 27120 (l) for approval'f an operating agreement in connection with the Nine Mile 2 nuclear generating plant; (2) for approval of the transfer of interests in the plant and related interests in property; and (3) for approval of the construction of the nuclear electric power plant by petitioners other than Niagara Mohawk is granted.

3. This proceeding is continued.

By. the Commission, (SEAL) (SIGNED) SAMUEL R. MADISON

'Secretary

'F c

CASES -'nd 27220 Page 1 of 2

(

APPIM) A

~ ~

0 CENTRAL NVDSON LDAD AND CAPACITY SCflEDVXZ (Assumes Approval of the Subject Roseton Agreements and Participatioq in ft'one Mile Pelf/ 2(t and Sterling Nuclear nnP2ants)

Maximum Installed ( ~

'r Net Ca!aMli ty Sununer Megawatts 2977 1978 1979 1980 2982 2982 $ 983 1984 2985 2986 2987 2988 2989 1990 hc!rn(al (Oil-Pi red) 692 729 839 039 839 839 899 033 P33 P3$ 76'7 767 767 767 h(: rma1 (Coal -Fire!d) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

~(r:rn(al (Ot hei ) ~

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 '

0 0 0 p 0 (er (((al (Das Turf>ines) 38 38 30 30 38 38 38 38 38 138

$8 238 238 238

'(erma 2 .'(f)i(~eel ) 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5

'(c r(naf (Nuclear) 0 0 0 0 0 0 97 97 293 293 293 O 393 493 f0ro (Corivc!>>tional ) 45 45 45 45 45 4$ 45 45 45 45 45 $5 45 45 rcfro (f'un(f>ed Storage) 0 0 0 0 ' I ~

0 0 0 D 0 0 0 0 0 r c,t

>tal Controlled Sources '780 807 92/ 927 927 927 987 lr 018 IrolB 2r224 2r248 1r348 lr440 ~r548

t Crcf>acity Transactions 170 250 93 297 146'45 102 1OO gOO 200 2PO 1PO gOO

sc:rve Credit 2 2 1 1 1 2 1' 0 0 . 0 0 0 0

!tal Capacity 952 2r059 1,022 1,225 2r074 1,073 994 lrl20 Ir118 2 r324 i,348 1,440 2,540 2,P48

((mner Pc!ak 640 6/0 720 760 820 860 910 960 1,020 2 080 1r240 lr2PD lr270 2r340 (oui red Caf>ability 755 791 830 897 956 1,015 lr074 1,133 1,204 1,274 2 r 345 1, 41 6 1 r 499 2 r 581 r'cess/Deficiency 19/ 268 283 228 128 58 -82 -13 -86 40 3 32 49 t>7 reuse/Def'icic!ncy 0 26.1 33.9 2l . 8 25. 4 12. 3 5, 7 -7. 6 -1 .2 -7.2 3.2 ~ 2 2.Q 3.3 4,2 I

( ~ ~

'> ' ~

g

'l

~

(

Ni>>e Mlle f>oint No. 2 Plant slipped to 2984. ~ ~

'Stc:ri f>>g Nuclear Plant slipped to 1986. ~ I

( ~

)Sf,"S 2701,-,~. 271 20 of Page 2 2 HAPPEN Haxf mum 1'nstal1 ed fdnter He avatts Net Ca acf tc 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1985 $ 986 1987 1988 '1989 1990 er)na 1 (01 1-Fl red) 719 799 839 839 839 (f79 899 833 83' 833 767 767 767 767 erucal (Coa 1 -1'5 reef) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0-

c. rma 1 (Ot lie:r) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 eraial (Gas 2'urbf nes) 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 -48 148 248 248 24S

,areal (f)5 esel ) 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 iud)a1 (Nucl ea r) 0 0 0 0 0 '0 98 98 98 294 , 29) 294 394 494 cfro (Corivc:nt:fona1) 46 46 46 46 46 46 46 46 46 46 46 46 46 afro (Pun>g)ed Storage) 0 0 0 0 0 ~

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ital Controlled Sources 818 898 938 938 938 978 g 096 1,030 4,030 1 226 l(260 1,360 1(460 1 (560

,t: Caliacl t.g 2'ransactfons -55 -84 -41 11 8 105 102 lop g po loo 100 1DP 100

.serve Creifit 4 3 2 2 1 1 D 0 0 0 0 0 0

~tal Cayabllltg 767 817 857 897 951 987 1 202 lr'32 1,130 g 326 1,360 1 460 1 560 1 660 ntc.r f'eak 650 670 710 750 BDO 850 900 950 lrOOO gr050 1,10D lr150 1r21P fr 270

,~jul red Ca pab f 1 it g 767 791 .838 897 956 gr015 lr074 lr133 lr2D4 1 r274 lr345 lr 416 l(499 cc:ss/Def1 cf c.ncg 0 26 19 0 -5 -2S 128 -1 -74 52 15 45 61 79 cess/t)eflclencg 4 0.0 3.3 2.3 0. 0 -0. 5 -2. 8 11. 9 0. 0 -6,1 4.1 1.1 3,1 5,0 P

I j l

CASES 2 and 27120 APPENDIX B CENTRAL llVDSON LOAD AND CAPACITY SCllEDVLE Assumes Approval o Roseton Agreement, Partxcxpatxon in Nine htile Plant 2 (97 HW) Operational 1982 Without Including Sterling Capacity 9 .

97 1979 980 1981 19&2 19&3 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 19S9

al Capability lg125 lg074 lgl70 1 089 1~120 l~ll& lgll& 1~152'g252 lg252 (HWg Peak Load 640 670 699 729 760 793 827 862 900 938 979 1,021 1,055 3% Req. Capability 755 791 825 860 S97 936 976 1,017 1,062 1,107 1,155 1,205 1,257

~d (18'L Hargin) with 3

I~

Excess (l)ef. )

(HW) 197 26.1 268 33.9 196 23.8 265 30.8 177 19 '

. 234 25.0 113 11.6 103 10.1 56 5.3 ll 1.0 (3)

(0. 3) 47 3.9 (5)

(4.0)

Peak Load 640 670 706 741 778 817 S58 901 946 993 1,043 1,095 1,150 3'L Re@. Capability 755. 791 833 874 918 964 1,012 1,063 1,116 1, 171 ,1,231 1,292 1,357 id (l&% Hargin) a)th off Excess (Def.)

(HW) 197 26.1 268 33.9 188 22.6 251 28.7 156 3.7.'0 206 21.4 77 7.6 57 5.4 2

0.2 (53)

(4-5)

(79)

(6-4)

'4o)

(3-1)

(105)

(7. 7)

Peak Load 640 670 706 743 782 824 867 913 962 1,013 1,066 1,123 1,182 3% R'q. Capability 755 791 833 877 923 972 1,023 1,077 1,135 1,195 1,258 1,325 1,395 sd (10% Hargin)

~wth 3 Excess (Def.)

(HW) 197 26.1 '3.9 268 188 22.6 248 28.2 151 16.4 198 20.4 69 6.7 43, 4.0 (17)

(1.5)

(77)

(6. 4)

(106)

(8. 4)

(73)

(5. 5)

(143)

(10.3)

Peak Load 640 670 710 . 760 810 860 910 960 1,020 1 t 080 1 g 140 1 g 200 Re@. Capability 755 791- 838 .897 956 1,015 1,074 1,3.33 1,204 1 f274 1 g 345 1 g 416 1,499 id (18% Hargin) awth ttral Excess (HW) 197 268 183 22& 118 155 15 7 (86) (156) (193) (164) (247) ison (Def.) 26.1 33.9 21.8 25.4 12.3 15.3 1.4 0.6. (7.1) (12.2) (14.3) .(11.6) (16.5)

a a i E i~~ S 27023 and 27220 APPENDXX C CENTRAL IIVDSON ZDAD AND CAPACITY SCIIEDVLE (Assumes Approval oZ the SubJect Roseton Agreement Non participation in the Nine Mila p2ant 2 ~

1977 2978 1979 1900 1981 2902 2983 1984 1985 Tota2 Capability 952 -

2, D59 1, D22 1,125 1,074 2 < 073

• 992 2, D23 (IInf) 2,02'eak Load 640 . 670 699 729 760 '93 827 862 900 4.3t Reg. Capability 755 791 825 860 897 936 976 1<017 1,062 CPS (254 Margin)

Min.

Excess (Hhf) 197 268 296 265 177 237. 16 6 (40)

(Def.) 26.1 33.9 23.8 30.8'9.7 24.6 1.6 .6 (3. 8)

Peak Ibad 640- 670 706 742 778 817 850 901 946

5. 04 Reg. Capability 755 791 833 874 928 964 1,012 1,DG3 1,126 PSC Excess (Nh1) 297 268 280 251 256 209 (20) (40)I (95)

Staà 26.2 33.9 22.6 28.7 27.0 22.3 (2. 0) (3. 8) (8. 5)

Peak Load 640 670 706 743 782 024 867 913 962 53m Reg. Capability 755 791 833 077 923 972 2,023 2,017 1,135 CPD Excess (MIl) 297 268 208 248 251 201 (32) (54) (224)

Hex. 26.2 33.9 22.6 28.2 16.4 10.4 (3. 0) (5. 0) (20. 0) 760 810 860 920 960 1<020 Peak Load Reg. Capability' 640 155 670 791 268 72 0 838 283 dg 228 7: 956 228 2<025 58 2, 074 (82) 1,133 (220) 1,2D4-(283)

Excess (Hl<) 197 26.2 33. 9 21. 8 25. 4 12. 3 5.7 (7. 6) (9. 7) (15.2)

5. 54 Central Iludson

~ g ~ I I

h 1

y

CZS:S 2Fg~3 and 272.20 APPZNDZ'X D

~ s ~

Consumer Protection Bo =d Seven Option Reccrcmendation tion 1- Purchase by Central Hudson o 360 MR of Roseton capacity under the o-iginal Roseton agreement in add'ion to its current sha"e of 240 K<.

tion 2- Purchase of 240 E< of Roseton capacity from Niagara Mohawk.

tion 3 Purchase of 180 MH o= additional Roseton capacity by 1983 and 98 MR of Nine Mile capacity in 1983.

tion 4 Pu=chase o= 120 MR o additional Roseton capacity from Niagara Mohawk and 98 MR of Nine Mile capacity.

ption 5 Purchase' 180 MH of Rose on capac'y and 197 MR of Sterling nucle capac'y coming on line in the summer of 1986.

tion 6- Purchase o 180 MR of additional Roseton capacity, 98 MR of Nine Mile capacity cong on line in .1983, and 197 MR of Ster~kg capacity corn~ ag on line in mid-1986.

tion 7 ~

Purchase of 98 MR of Nine M'le capacity, and 197 MR of Sterling capacity for total nuclear capacity o" 295 MVi.

n opt'ons, as necessa~, a su fucient amount of replacement ene qy is

=urnished so that the total gene ation amounts to 2,207,520,000 KHh.

4f

~ ~ ~

Ch '.i-'/Ol3 aiid 2/l20 APPL', kl Xnstallud Cug~cltg SnpLilps (DaflclancJi)

Mr'f'll ai MIf'800'f'rNE HrlA POINl'2 co-'fzNANCY Wk'us>>red Huuonrcu's Shura (Nd)

Cll r.rr~o N YSEO NHPC

97. 0 194 0 l94 0 443 0 l DBD . 15l 0 l 982 hl l38 4l 340 l 46 (7l f) (9PP) 341(.) P2) 978 g'/ (/gal l9v3 S l 36 39 l (1 5) (309) (233) (427) 30l (l 4$ ) 938 (Q7) (l 78) l983 H 82 (l 5) l25 (69) (901) flP95) (402) 678 (48) (l g9) l981 S (lD) (l0/) (347) (54l) (351) (545) 4l (402) 678 ($ 24) (2/5) fJ84 8 (78) (1 /5) (l Of) (29/) (l 086). (1 280) . (230) ($ 73) )07 (4 g4) . (-'95)

H'38 I

rI. Assnruil Ausonrcus and plaiiriud Gunuratlon Addltlo>>- (Targug gl)-Spry)pp pates p~ $ 9$ $ $ 49"5) l 982 340 g 46 l 36 (58) 40'42) l 038 47 (gag]

lvv3 S l 36 j JC 460 266 ll92 Plg8 (82). 998 (27) (l 78) l 98f hl 82 fl5) 700 506 524 330 l ol (342) 738 ($ 8) ()99) 1984 l86 8 Jc 228 3g lolg 880 354 (89) 993 lM Cl l984 hf ll8 21 4/2 2/8 339 83 (360) 7~0 470 17 foal'. Assiiiud Rusoiircus und Dalai ud plariiiud Ou>>uratlon Addltlons . (DplyJiprf fit-Sari/]pe P~t0'0 gvr 197$ 44)-A) 2982 hf 4.1 340 1/6 f7l4) . ()DP) 40) (42) l038 47 j0<)

l983 S l36 " 39 (ll 5) (309) .(233) 364 (82) 990 (27) (370) l983 hl 82 (l5) 1 25 (69) (51) l0$ (3/2) 730 (NB) (.f 99) 1984 S (10) $1 07) . '(34/) '(54 l ) 499 lDl (3 )2) 738 (l 24) (275)

(1 0 / ) (l<<)

'1 1 JVIl hl (78) /5) (297) (236) f67 P4)) ($ 95) tuvlsadi ll/3/76

~ ~ ~

, 4I

~ ~ ~

r 8

CBEARS 27OLX aas: 27L2Q NAPPE'K!ZZ MBNÃZV'MOBS~,. PZZE", MRGZVS CezrtraI. Ztxdson 1982W: 1983S 1983K'984S'9848'otaI Capacity 126'02Q 1483. 1500 1616 1630 Peak Load 1040 LLOQ LIIO LIBQ Excess Capaci ty 24Z 443 400 506: 450 C Hazgin 23~7m 42 6 36.4>> 45 80 38.1>>

Eon lsIand U<ght'acr 19828'513 L983S 1983S 19849'167 19848 Tota1 Capa ity 61 80 6080 6r371 Peak Saacf 3320; 4500 3460 4690 3600 Excess Capaci g 2193 1680 2620'5.7 1477'., '47I.

ZcLrgLZL 68'.I 37. 3 + 31. 5>> 68 84 Near Pork St te ZLec 'c 9 Gas I982P'834.

L 9838'985 19834 1984K 1984K'192:

TotaI Capacity 4200 3982 P q<;,- Road 28.70 2270 3020 2360 3M~Q Capac ty 764 1715 IIBQ L62Z I02L

~ 41L+LCZ 26 ~ 75 6>> 39.1- 68 7 32 02>>

V<a ara Mohawk

.1982/ 1983S 1983W 1984S 19848 TotaI Capacity 8246 7986 BIo2. 8230 8332 Peak Mad 6540 8I60 6760 8380 6990 Excess Capac'ty 1706 L826 L342 1870 1342

~ farg in 26.1>> 29.6" 19.9>> 29.4>> 19.2>>

Roc2 esta Gas s Elect=ic TotaL Capacity L699 1742 1698 2043 2019 Peak Lead 1400 1470 1480 2550 L560 Excess Ca pac'y 299 254 218, 493 459

'21.4>>

'Barged "17.3 14.7>> 31.8 ~ 29 4>>

gi

~ ~

Page Z oZ

~ $ 4 ~

~ 4

~ 4 y ~~

2LPPZNDIZ Z 27013 and 27120 4 3r ~ 2'RCUZ~

?DSZ3 47- MRCZVS 3982w 1983S'2 39849 L984N" 838'8.4 CentraL. Zndson 23 7 6 45 6 38 2.

~

Long ISLand Light 6cr.L~ 3?.3 75.7 . 63L 5 68.6<<

aZSZ <C 26 6W 75'.6<< 39.1 68.7~. 32 2C Niagara 8ohavtc 26& 29.64 L9.9 29.4~. L9.2 RCZcZ 24 4 17.3 L4 7 3L,B 29.44 Av'erage (Peti ti oner') 32 5 40 4<< 37& 4L.4 3T.5 Statevi de 49 9<< 36 60 48 3~ 35.3 50.9 l976Smzaer L9768&ter CentraL Zcdson 53.1 . 58 8<<

ZXLCO L9.3<< 59.8 iVZ'SE <C 4L 7 L9.9 Niagara 8ohavlc 54.L 47.0 RG~ 28 3 38. 3 BVEB3tGE 39 2 BBEB'1GE'44.7 34.3 6L 0

0 ~ ~

8

'i gP fo lO CgQ

I ~

I f9g, $1 CASES and 27120 IX G Page 1 Systems Capabilities, Required Capacity and Margins - 1977 149-b, Appendix D - Target Dates Revised to Eliminate Planned but not et Certified Additional Generation Facilities 1 Central lmudson LILCQ NYSEf G RG6E Ca bl.~2/ Re . Mar in Ca bl.~3/ Re .

e Mar in Ca bl.~4/ Re . Mar in Ca bl.~5/ Re Mar in 1983 1104 1074 .30 4992 '755 237 ~ 2570 3611 (1041) 1539 1723 (1&4) 1984 1024 1133 (109) 4984 4956 28 2580 3800 (1220) 1520 1&17 (29%

19&5 1022 1204 (182) 4967 5157 (190) 2555 ,4000 (1445) 1519 .1923 (404) 1986 1021 . 1275 (253).. 4964 5381 (427) 2575 4213 (1638) 1519 2041 (522)

0 ~ c g~ e ~ (v

t NRC G RIBUTION FOR PART 50. DOCKE ~r'ATERIAL (TEMPORARY FORM)

- CONTROL NO:

'I I ~ ~

FILE:

FROM Niagara Mohawk Power Corp DATE OF DOC DATE REC'D LTR TWX RPT OTHER, Syracuse, NY hode 10- &12-

-- .TO' ORIG 1

CC OTHER SENTNRC PDR XX wP *

~ II one signed SENT LOCAL PDR XX I CLASS UNC LASS PROP INFO "

INPUT NO CYS REC'D DOCKET NO:

XKGGtXX 1 50-410 DESCRIPTION: ENCLOSURES:

Ltr re our 10-24-75 ltr.'...advising that,.

will notify. us of

-'fthey the scheduled date submittal of Anti-'thrust materiil re e~l<1 Append<~ T PLANT NAME: Nine Mile, Point'2 ~

~

FOR ACTION/INFGRI'RATION BUTLER (L) SCHWENCER (L) ZIEMANN (L) REGAN (E) REID(L)

=

W/ Copies W/ Copies W/ Copies W/ Copies W/ COPIES Cl ARK (L) STOLZ (L) DICKER (E) LEAR (L)

W/ Copies ~ W/copies W/ Copies W/ Copies 1 ~

. PARR (L) VANSALLO (L) KNIGHTON (E) SPIES

'~>'i "~W/<<Copies W/ Copies"piF- W/ Copies ~  ;<W/ Copies .

.i i~vs'I 'vupies KNI EL (L) PURPLE (L) YOUNGBLOOD (E) LPM W/ Copies W/ Copies W/ Copies W/ oples INTERNAL DISTFI'I BUTION G FIL ~ TECH REVIEW .DENTON LIC ASST A/T IND c. iu ~v.

t>3 i~> SCHROEBE'Rnl'GRIMES R.~DIGGS (L) 8 RAITMAtgq~CG.'3'

~ALTZMAM

~ OGC, ROOM P-506A GOSSI CK/STAF F MACCARY KNIGHT GAMMILL KASTNER H. GEAR IN (L)

E. GOULBOURNE (L) MELTZ

.K,NLKCA$$ 1 ~ s a PAWLICKI 3~<<. BALLARD P,.KREUTZER (E) I r.i@.ltd.v ck-r3

'GIAMBOSSO SHAO"' 'PANGLER J. LEE (L)

IL I ~

PLANS ~

3 4 BOYD STELLO M. RQ3HBROOK{L) . MCDONALD MOORE (L) HOUSTON ENVIRO S. RFFD (E)

- ." DEYOUNG (L) NOVAK MULLER CHAPMAN'UBE (Ltr),

'=3:I i'SKOVHOLT (L) ROSS ': -

- ~

'DICKER, M. -SERVICE (L)

S:.'SHEPPAR D (L) E. COUPE:.;:y; -;;:;;

GOLLER (L) (Ltr) IPPO'LITO KNIGHTON M. SLATER (E) PETE RSOM-P. COLLINS TEDESCO ~ YOUNGBLOOD ~H. SMITH (L) HARTFIELD (2) i a-~ sDENISE J,CQLLINS:,;~,. =

REGAN S. TEETS (L) KLECKER, Wl LLREG'OP-R LAIN'AS 4'~~ 3 'PROJECT LDR G.'ILLIAMS(E) EISENH07g33 LL 3 p,~v3'g

~ FILE 5 REGION (2)

~ MIPC" BENAROYA VOLLMER'"

V. WILSON (L) W I G G I NTON HA%-ESS R. INGR'l (L) , I.'3Qr' 0r'i 33

~ 4u~'~ . M..DUNCAN.

EXTERNAL DISTRIBUTION

'1 LOCAL PDR 1 TIC (ABERNATH (1)(2)(10) NATIONALLABS 1 PD R-SAN/LA/NY

'I NSIC (BUCHANAN): 1 W. PENNINGTON, Rrn E-201 GT 1 BROOKHAVEN NAT LAB 1 ASLB 1 CONSULTANTS 1 G. ULRIKSON ORNL 1 Newton Anderson ~ ~

NEWMARK/8 LUME/AGBABI AN.

'I ACRS HOLDING/SENT i PA

~- t

,",f,

~,

~ ~ ~ ~

4 4 ~

A NIAGARA MOHAWK POWER CORPORATION NIAGARA

~ MOHAWK 300 ERIE BOULEVARD WEST I

SYRACUSE, N. Y. I 3202 CERALD K. RHODE q~I 'jg~Q8 VICE PRESIOCIIT October 31, 1975 Director of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Attn: Mr. Argil Toalston, Chief ggf/p~'

Power Supply Analysis Branch Office of Antitrust 5, Indemnity Nuclear Reactor Regulation Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C. 20555 Gentlemen:

¹ne Mile Point No. 2 Nuclear Station Docket No. 0 In response to your October 24, 1975 letter concerning anti-trust information from all of the entities participating in Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station Unit No. 2, the Basic Agreement finalizing the participation of these entities was filed only recently on September 22, 1975. The information required under Appendix L has been collected in preliminary form and is now being reviewed by Counsel. After the opinion of Counsel has been obtained,, the Commission will be notified of our schedule for submission of the required information.

Very truly yours, Gerald K. R o ~

GKR:hjc haste 8

r~

I' P

l I

~ "' t I

"P J r

~ p 0

l K $ ~

y

NRC DI IBUTION FOR PART 50 DOCKET ERIAL, (TEMPORARY FORM)

CONTROL NO 9't5'zS FROM: Niagara Mohawk Pwx Corp DATE OF DOC DATE REC'D= LTR TWX RPT OTHER Syracuse, NY 7-11-75 8-21-75 TO: ORIG CC OTHER Mr Toalston one signed SENT LOCAL PDR CLASS UNCLASS PROP INFO INPUT NO CYS REC'D DOCKET NO:.

XZQIXXX 1 50-410 DESCR IPTION: ENCLOSURES Ltr re our 6-23-75 ltr....advising that info concerning, anti-trust matters. will be submmitted upon completion of the basic agreement between participiants.....

PLANTNAME: Nine Mile Pokunt $P2 FOR ACTION/INFORMATION 8-21-75 ehf BUTLER (L) SCHWENCER (L) ZIEMANN {L) REGAN (E)

W/ Copies W/ Copies W/ Copies W/ Copies CI ARK (L) STOLZ (L) DICKER (E) LEAR {L)

W/ Copies WQ.Copies W/ Copies W/ Copies PARR (L) VASSALLO (L} KNIGHTON (E) SPIES W/ Copies W/ Copies W/ Copies W/ Copies KNIEL (L) PURPLE (L) YOUNGBLOOD (E) LPM W/ Copies W/ Copies W/ Copies W/ opuses INTERNAL DISTRIBUTION TECH REVIEW DENTON LIC ASST A/r IND.

~NRC PDR SCHROEDER GRIMES R. DIGGS {L) ~BRAITMAN Cw)

~OGC, ROOM P-506A MACCARY (~AMMILL H. GEARIN {L) SALTZMAN

~OSSI CK/STA F F KNIGHT KASTNER E. GOULBOURNE (L) ME LTZ BALLARD CASE PAWLICKI P. K R EUTZE R (E)

GIAMBUSSO SHAO SPANGLER J. LEE (L) PLANS BOYD STELLO M. RUSHBROOK{L) MCDONALD MOORE (L) HOUSTON EN VI RO S. REED (E) CHAPMAN.

DEYOUNG (L) NOVAK MULLER M. SERVICE (L) DUBE (Ltr) '.

SKOVHOLT {L) ROSS DICKER S. SHEPPARD (L) COUPE GOLLER (L) (Ltr) IPPOLITO KNIGHTON M. SLATER {E) PETERSON P. COLLINS TEDESCO YOUNG BLOOD ~H. SMITH {L) HARTFIELD (2)

DENISE J,COLLINS BEGAN S. TEETS (L) KLECKER REG OPR LAINAS PROJECT LDR G. WILLIAMS(E) EISENHUT

&FILE 5 REGION (2) BENAROYA V. WILSON (L) WI GG I /TON MIPC VOLLMER HAR LESS R. INGRAM (L) gg~b~~g (~)

M. DUNCAN EXTERNAL DISTRIBUTION

~l LOCAL D R~4~.5 0 +

P >

1 TIC (ABERNATHY) 71)(2)(10) NATIONALLABS 1 PD R-SAN/LA/NY 1 NSIC (BUCHANAN) 1 W. PENNINGTON, Rrn E-201 GT 1 BROOKHAVEN NAT LAB 1 ASLB 1 CONSULTANTS 1 G. ULRIKSON ORNL

'l Newton Anderson NEWMAR K/BLUME/AGBA BI AN ACRS HOLDING/SENT

~ .

~ ~ ~

~ ~ ~ ~ I

O 0'egulatory Docket File r~

((~

NIAGARA MOHAWK POWER CORPORATIO NIAGARA

~ MOHAWK GOO ERIE BOULEVARD WEST I

GERALD K. RHODE VICE PRESIDCNT SYRACUSE, N. Y. IS202 j

~~gq~I 'A~e July 11, 1975 @

p,.

gt.cEl'ltEO Mr. Argil I . Toalston, Chief AUG 2 1 I9'Irg Power Supply Analysis Branch CD II II [I00IEAR RERIRQRY.

Office of Antitrust 8r, Indemnity gNIN05 Nuclear Reactor Regulation Q United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C. 20555

Dear Mr. Toalston:

¹ne Mile Point Unit No. 2 Nuclear Station Docket No. 50-410 In reply to your letter of June 23, 1975 concerning antitrust information in connection with the above plant, Niagara Mohawk and four other New York State Utilities have entered into a Memorandum of Under-standing providing for ownership of the plant as tenants in common. How-ever, the Basic Agreement finalizing this arrangement is still in preparation and it would be appropriate, I believe, to defer submitting the requested antitrust information until such time as this Basic Agreement is executed.

The interested parties are proceeding to assemble the requested antitrust information and I would expect to be able to inform you within a few weeks of the schedule by which ¹agara Mohawk, as lead applicant, will sub-mit the assembled material on behalf of itself and the other co-owners.

I Very truly yours, Gerald K. Rhode Vice President-Engineering GKR:hjc

11 hI p

p

~ ~

AEC DIRIBIRDTION FOB FART 0 DOCXET YiA<r'<<R<L TEMPORARY FORA~A COANTBOL No; 6992 FROM: DATE OF Docl DATE REC'D LTR MEM<0 RPZ

~ 'epartment of Justice Washington, D. C. 20530 12-19-72 12-22-72 Thomas E. Kau er TO: ORIG CC WNT AEC PDR X Marcus A. Rowden 1 signed SEii'2 LOCAL PDR X CLASS r OP XliFO XiNPUT NO CXS REC'D DOCiKT No:

50<<.410A DESCRZFZXOA<: ENCLOSURE S:

Ltr furnishing information regarding ANTI-TRUST Matters for the Nine Mile Point Station, Unit '8 2.

RI(~EIIj/ItE PLANT NAbZS: Nine Mile Point, Unit 7P 2 DO <O~ REMOVE FOR ACTION INFORMATION 12-22<<72 fod Barn+(z,) SCHteWER(L) scHK(Z,) KNIGHTON(E)

W/ Copies W/ Copies W/ Copies W/ Copies

~LARK(Z,) STOLz(L) ZIEIeem(L) YOUNGBXOOD(E) fl/I Copies W/ Copies W/ Copies Copies

'/

GOLLER(Z,) VAssALXO(z,) CarmrOOD(FM) 'EOAN(E)

W/ Copies W/ Copies W/ Copies W/ . Copies

'NIEL(L) Ho DEIGN . DICKER(E)

W/ Copies W/ Copies W/ Copies INTERIIAL DISTRIBUTION FIIZ VOLZMER 59QK3HS WADE E r R STIRRED DEI<"lON SKG<ER F 8c M OGcp ROOM P-506A SCHROEDER GRIMES Fifo M BROWN E MUNTZING/STAFF MACCARY GAMMILL ~MX RX G. WILZZAMS E CASE LANGE(2) KASTNER NUSSBAUMER Eo GOULBOURNE L GIAMBUSSO PAWLICKI BALIABD ATIND

~YD-L(BWR) SHAO SPANGLER IZC ASST. 1 ~UTBERG, OGC, DEYOUNG-L(PWR) KNtKEI SAINEMAN rrBONDEN, OGC SKOVHOLT-L <RRtIRO MASON L P, COLLINS MOORE WILSON L PLANS  !

HOUSTON DICKER'NIGHTON MAXGRET L MCDONAL'D REG OFR TEDESCO SMXTH L DUBE FILE A REGION (2) LONG YOUNGBZOOD v6EARIN L MORRIS LAXNAS PROS "Tile<rRR DXGGS L INFO STELLE BENAROYA TEETS L C. MILES

'XZE L EXTIRNAL DISTRTBUTION

~1LOCAL PDR OSWEGO, N. Y.

1-DTIE(ABERNATHY) (1)(5)(9)-NATIONAL LABES 1-PDR-SAN/LA/NY 1-NSIC(BUCHANAN) 1-R. CARROLL-OC~ GT-B227 1>>GERAL'D LELNUCHE 1-ASLB-YORE/SAYRE 1-R. CATLINp E "256."GT BROOKHAVEN NAT. Lt>,

<<PEP l

ei c

)h>>

n ')F I jt<<

t L') '

'r ~

~ O,.

I t

'* l

>> j.

fi>> a h

t<<

1 h>> 'lat I ER )1"H if ij /th) jk k'<<

Fe r rr'pI ~

E II H

C t 1 IH t F'

~ << '<<h I

~ P)PR Ij I

c<<

~

• gt) )

1 L'.

t ')4 jj 'I

~ >> ~ I I ~ l

.I

~ r ~

~ ~

e a <<Rl->> 4 R

V)e

~l ji ~ I ~ I

'e h

r)t)t ~ ~

kf+ PP,E)$ )' a ) -.'A~) R ~ ~ <<

A t<<trr

~ tir 1 $ ~ k t, t <<1 ~A hP ~ ~

'I r) r,

~ ~ 1

~t) ~; I I' A'<<>>

e

<<) ff')'.".r,f) ) ~. 'y E<<

~ t I 1 r ~ I ~

Ir PH << e I

Pt ~e ~ H',"

) E t g1 >>y h

Iry ER jj P N =

fy,

<g- yrR ,, z lif R h jr, ~ w:g P ~I Jf a ~

1

$ te I jf rrhehj<<, h IP) ela) p il

~ 1<<)" (a)t )

h II j)( 9 P P)<<r th ff +a" .'>>>>jf I I tjl << I j Hth F

~ ~ 'h

~R Ijh "I a I at F t ~

..), R )

I I ~ a h

~ h P t t f, )+ettrh g ~

a

-P -Pf ht q R t *'

h

<<=

t) t<< ~ =P<<

r,'~

R

~

~ 'L' p'a I "I E

l,i t t I I'

a ~. ~ Fj ~

~ ~ ~ R a ll R

t ~ J Ft th(\

Re )m.t* 1

% eb ~ I ~ ~ ) HQ a RPH tfth I jf' gt $ t) HjRE)t<< t)air[ Pjk t I >>I

]I at>>i I,I 1, P t ~1 'al h>>j e H h ~,

I t fjjr et H Q f " Rt<< t<<

t ~ ffjf<<,

I IP << I Q -t e pjj e g t

R

membership of the New York Power Pool. 2/ These eight pool members generated approximately 99.5% of the total electri'c energy generated in the state in 1967. The investor-owned members of the pool supply the majority of the bulk power requirements of the five small investor-owned systems, one federal, and eleven municipal systems in the state. PASNY sells its power at wholesale to Niagara Mohawk and two other upstate members of the Pool, to 41 municipal and cooperatively-owned electric systems in New York, to one in Pennsylvania, to three industrial plants in Massena, to the Plattsburgh Air Force Base and the State of Vermont.

The Power Authority presently generates power at two sources, the St. Lawrence hydroelectric project and the Niagara Falls hydroelectric project. Substantial amounts of the powe'x produced at these facilities are sold to Niagara Mohawk the generating and transmission facilities of PASNY are 3/='nd integrated, on a day-to-day basis, with those of 'losely three upstate utilities, including Niagara Mohawk.

In addition to these existing facilities, PASNY is presently constructing a nuclear plant with an expected output of approximately 820,000 kilowatts on. property acquired from the Company adjacent to its Nine Mile Point site. For purposes of off-site transmission, the plant is to be tied in with the Company's nearby switchyard, and the Applicant will reconstruct, at PASNY expense, a section. of one of its existing 115 kilowatt lines so as to provi'de a back'up source of station service power between the plants of PASNY and the Applicant. Mhen the plant goes into operation in 1973 Niagara Mohawk has contracted to provide operating and 2/ In addition to Niagara Mohawk and PASNY, the members of the New York Power Pool are Central Hudson Gas and Electric Corporation, Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc.,

Long Island Lighting Company, New York State Electric and Gas Corporation, Orange and Rockland Utilities Incorporated, and Rochester Gas and Electric Corporation.

3/ The St. Lawrence hydroelectric project has 912,000 kilo-watts of installed capacity on the U.S. side of which PASNY is selling 115,000 kilowatts of firm capacity to theFalls Company under a contract terminating in 1985. The Niagara hydroelectric project has 2,190,000 kilowatts of installed capacity of which Niagara Mohawk purchases; up to 1,294,400 kilowatts of firm and peaking power and associated energy 137,000 kilo-(of which 387,000 kilowatts is firm power withterminating watts of that withdrawable) under a contract in 1990.

<<I)PIPC' Irm ir &C)gg Ii <<) ~ f, ~ I, P

7 ~

I 4

~

PI p

,' <<II

'4

4) ~ 7 P ~

~ )

I C, 4 ~ )p.<<M 4

jt 0.

~

0 ~ 'I PI )4 I I C Il

~ ~ 7 ~ I ~ ~

I Pi J I I' ~ 7 ~

')

~ e 7

I 7 pp'f 4( Q ~ (gp I l)7'j 7 ff 7 ilpi 4 ~

<<4)

~

(

J'Pf<<7 'f' f " ~

'llir iir<<pifr I

C' 7 9 i 4 I

~ ~ 4, "I,

-C O e ~ '"-,-;:7, )~ "aq<< ~ ", ',,

I~

~ i ip .l ~

A 4

7 ~

r - '4 ~, ff<<

7 Qq

~

<<)'<<;

~

~

i ~

N ~

~

"~

~ ill -i 5,( J )*()I l 4 ~

7

'I'i

I 1 p

7 4 ~ ' ) It[ ~ <<'<<if .'+4 'mir <<

PC '"<< =

4 )'7'qg(

I i Jim I I!'

7,

~

PMPi r M IP

~

~ ~P a ~ 4 ~

C'

~

m ~ ~

i, C II 7 II I If M

4

~

'A 7 ) ,I

) 4 i i lf CMP

~

I )~ I fll li ~

,I II ~ ~

I 4 ~ II I PP PC

~ 7 I ~ 4 I A<<4 Ij P I

7

maintenance personnel for Che facility at cost. PASNY is also constructing the 1,000,000 kilowatt Blenheim-Gilboa pump storage hydroelectric generating station in Schoharie County.'his facility is also scheduled for completion in 1973. Niagara Mohawk expects to contract on a long term basis for some of the capacity of both of these plants.

Although PASNY presently supplies powex to only three members of the Pool, benefits of its peaking capacity are passed on to all of the state's utilities thxough the coordi-nated operations of the Pool. The purpose of the New York Power Pool is to coordinate the development and operation of the generation and transmission facilities of its members to obtain pptimum reliability and efficiency of operation of their interconnected systems. To caxry out these objectives the Pool's Planning Committee coordinates the planning of addi-tional generating capacity, the interconnecting of transmis>>

sion facilities, and the forecasting of future load require-ments. The Operating Committee establishes the rules and .

procedures to coordinate the operation of the pool, detex'-

mines cost standards, establishes coordinated maintenance schedules, and determines the reserve xequirements and load relief of the Pool membexs. 4/

Niagara Mohawk, as well as other members of NYPP, is also a member of the Northeast Power Coordinating Council.

This agency, which includes in its membership the major utilities of New York and New England, as well as twoof pro-Canadian utilities, was established for the purpose moting maximum xeliability and efficiency of electric service by furthering inter-pool operations through coordi-nation of system planning and operating procedures in the northeast. The Applicant is also a party to various agreemenCs with other electric utilities which provide for thr receipt or delivery of emergency power, deficiency power or unit power or oCher coordinating arrangements.

A licant's Co etitoxs

1. Privatel -Owned Utilities Niagara Mohawk is interconnected with the various large privately-owned utilities that have service area@ adjoining 4/ For a more detailed survey of the New York Power Pool, see the FPC's 1970 National Power Survey, Part XX, pages XX-1-75>>77.

1'hr I ~0 I I 0 Wf ~

0 ah,,

0 y 1 ~ 0 H Fl gr k~

li h

Pk y)0 I ~ fl I 0

h 0 0

~ 1 I 0 f N hh M Fh

~

D 0 ~ Irh~ " 0 I lt l) '

1'Ittk I 1

=0 1

WF,FW IF 4 ~ 1 hr I

', 4 pr ry g

D, gD g

1 g

I

~

0 kl H,fjf('

W'>>Hg fl I

'D

\

)

1 Wy,rh" W

)1 [>>

1 hit 0 4

h,hl H

HWH'rtj yh, r,

1 rhody "H

14&1 yjt'f ',

I \

ff 14 Wr rp rh

'yder

~

I ~

D fly

~ I rr fj r 0 I II 0 If

• D +fjh wr I rl ~ '

~1 "

0 0 kyrrw ., 1 )

-' p jj}r'I I kr' 4 0 0

,D 'W h

II .r 0.~

I r ..Dd 0

t ~ 4 . I rk ~ rh 0 I 0 hl,l IIH Ig k "D. I FWIIW

. 0~ 0 I 1

I'

~ ~ I I I~

~ I ~ IW 1 I 1) JW h ~ 0 ~ 0 0 I ~ FW ~ ~ f ~

)

0

~ ~ ~

h 1

~

D ~ f'I lr t)F ( I hr ~ 4 I I

g 0 I \ k f,

)

Dl -.1

$) I) hr 1W 1 j I rh* " H"I 0 y I " 'I f ~

rpD frl 'HH H3F lrhr f>> 0, Wlf Il

- 0 DQHFHD

~

" . 0 0 .

~

I;~f$ Q,,~

D

<<7 )

D" D

~

gWFD ~

~

0 D

", W=

-. HF r(~rg 1'r I hery hl r ff,.y"g 0 'I 0l 4

I

~ 4ff 4 ~, . 'hky ~ F

~ ~

O'D 'D'W "" " 1) ' ~

I. ~

~

8 1 W. I Fh

~ ~ p ~

SW '0 If D

~ V F

Zy)"

its territory, and to some limited extent may compete with-them for load growth. Except to the extent that the Appli-cant exchanges limited amounts of energy with these utili-ties, it does not presently supply power on a firm basis to any investor-owned utility. Xt has wheeled power to several large utilities to meet their peak load requirements and may be expected to do so in the future.

As noted above, the Applicant is a party to a joint venture with Consolidated Edison Company and Central Hudson Gas and Electric to construct and operate the two Roseton 600 megawatt oil-fired generating units. Furthermore, the Applicant, Rochester Gas and Electric Corporation and New York State Electric and Gas Corporation are undertaking a study to determine the feasibility of jointly creating and operating a separate corporation to build and operate major generating plant installations.'he study will determine whether a separate company for power production will best accommodate their total new generating facility requirements by improving efficiency and economy and allowing lower cost financing. It is proposed that if this joint venture genera-ting company is created, it will take over construction and operation of the Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station's Unit 2 as well as the new fossil-fuel units under construction.

W9.th this single exception, no privately-owned electric utility has expressed an interest in participating in the Nine Mile Point unit.

2. Munici al Electric S stems There are 27 municipal electric systems that distribute electric power within or adjacent to Niagara Mohawk's'service area who compete with it for retail loads and load growth.

Of these 27, the Applicant sells, at wholesale, all the bulk power requirements of the Villages of Brocton, Green Island, Holley and Richmondville. Niagara Mohawk does not sell bulk power to any of the other systems. The City of Jamestown receives part of its bulk power supply from PASNY and generates the remainder. The City of Salamanca and 21 villages purchase all their bulk power requirements from PASNY. The Applicant pursuant to con-tracts with PASNY, provides most of the transmission neces-sary to receive, transmit and deliver the bulk power from PASNY to the two cities and the villages.

None of the municipal systems own or operate any high voltage transmission capable o8 moving electric power in

~ 0 ~

f ~-

0 0 0 I )~A I ~ ~

) p 0 ~

f j'0 ~

~ 0 jj'

~

3'

¹

-A V¹ 0

'Ig 0

~ 0 0'

A 'I hl 0 0(, ¹A '0 A

),

0

~

¹ h.p, Ar v r I

~ 0, 0 "

A,

'fA err'rh" hr

~

A

~

j 0I 0

I h fh I ) ' 't 0 " ' jt

~ 0 A fl 0 0 fl

<<rhr, 0

)0) rr¹IV 0, 'r) 0*,

0 I 0 $

I r (0I, 0 0

fi,

~"

J

I 0

0 0, C

'j gA 0 ~

')gA rhj

~ ~

Spar V

=, 0 ~

f,tj 0

I 0 *

• ' ... ~ tj0 ¹ VlI¹¹ \I t I 0 n 0 A ~, 0 jl Sh V 0 ~ tf I=

0 tj0 I'.

S

~ 0 ~

0 0 1t

',='I 0 ~

\ 0 P

0 rh rrAI g 0] lt 0 I 0 'V¹- P 0

~ ) rh 0 A I

f 0 I

~ . I II tt 0 ~ '0 I 0 AA ¹0. 0- A¹ 0 ~ 0

'0 0

~ fl I 0 r.

'ljif A 0 Sh

)

'IV 0 0 I V V 0 I

0 0 Sq I ~ IV 0

l V

'I * -

V

~

0 1

bulk. Consequently, for the most part, these systems have no reasonable economic alternative but to rely on Niagara Mohawk, which controls the high voltage transmission needed to wheel their power, for the delivery of bulk power.

Our investigation reveals that none of the municipal systems have advised the Applicant of a desire to obtain ownership participation in the Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station.

Our investigation further reveals at least one situation which warrants further comment. As noted above, the City of Jamestown, New York, is the only municipal system in Niagara Mohawk's service area with appreciable generation facilities of its own. At present Jamestown is generating 45 megawatts at its Samuel A. Carlson Electric Generating Station, a coal burning facility. To supplement this generation, James-town purchases an additional 15 megawatts of power from PASNY, and the City has requested that this total be increased to 21 megawatts in 1973. The PASNY power is delivered to Jamestown over two 115 kv transmission lines owned by Niagara Mohawk that extend from Dunkirk, New York, to an interconnec-tion point at Falconer, New York, where Jamestown's trans-formers step'down the voltage to 13.8 kv, the system voltage for Jamestown.

The City's generating facility currently does not comply with the New York State particulate emission standards which must be me't in 1974 if the plant is to remain in operation.

,One of the alternatives being considered by the City is the phasing out of its own generating equipment and procuring all of its power requirements by purchases at wholesale. The two most logical sellers would be PASNY and Niagara Mohawk.

Of the two, PASNX would probably be the lower cost, supplier, and the City has informally approached PASNY about the possi-bility of supplying the additional power. It has also made a preliminary approach to the Applicant. Niagara Mohawk has indicated that It it does not have any power available until 1976.

also indicated that, if Jamestown could purchase all its bulk power needs from PASNY, the capacity of its existing transmission facilities may not allow wheeling of more than the 20 megawatts that Niagara Mohawk is currently obligated to deliver from PASNY to Jamestown. g5 The Company apparently is not interested in entering into a joint venture with Jamestown 5/ The wheeling contract between Niagara Mohawk and PASNY provides that the Authority shall inform the Company at least annually of the estimated future load requirements (footnote continued)

l lg ~

f

pa ~

~, ~

for construction of a new high voltage transmission line between Dunkirk and Jamestown and is similarly disinclined to construct such a line on its own at this time.

As the situation currently stands, discussions between representatives of the City and of the Applicant are con-tinuing and the Applicant has not foreclosed prospects of providing Jamestown with the necessary wheeling of PASNY power when and if power requirements.

the City determines to buy all its bulk Accordingly, it is not possible to con-clude that a situation inconsistent with the antitrust laws may presently exist. If the Applicant files any new appli-cation for a license under Section 103 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, careful further consideration would have to be given to Niagara Mohawk's future conduct. vis-a-vis the City of Jamestown in order to determine if a situation inconsistent with the antitrust laws will then be likely to exist.

Recommendation As heretofore noted, no other electric utility systems formally have requested participation in the proposed Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station Unit No. 2. Furthermore, we have found no concrete evidence that Applicant has exercised or is exercising its control of high voltage transmission to 5/ footnote continued of the Authority and its customers for the ensuing five-year period, and within ninety days thereafter the Company will inform PASNY whether or not i.t will be able to deliver the power and energy to meet each load included in the estimate.

This provision seems to be the basis for Applicant's asser-tion that.

Jamestown.

it is obligated to deliver only 20 megawatts to It seems doubtful, however, that this contract can foreclose or prevent the delivery of PASNY power to

'amestown. The Niagara Power Project Act, 16 U.S.C. 836, which authorized the construction and operation of the Niagara Falls hydroelectric project by PASNY, provides that public bodies and cooperatives will be given preference and priority to 50$ of the power produced at the project (5836(b)(1)). The Act also imposes an absolute obligation on the Power Autho'rity to deliver that power either by wheel-ing agreement or by the purchase or construction of the neces-sary transmission facilities. (5836(b)(4))-

~ I

~

the detriment. of other utility systems in the area. Never-theless, in the instances outlined above questionable acti-vities seem to exist and may warrant further attention in the event of future license applications. At this time/

however, there is no substantial reason to believe that the Commission'.s licensing of the requested nuclear unit would create or maintain a situation inconsistent with the anti-trust laws. Accordingly, we conclude that the Commission need not conduct an antitrust hearing with respect to the application.

Sincerely yours, THOMAS E. KA ER Assistant Attorney General Antitrust Division

pogulatoi'y Filo t:y.

1

-I, 1

Og

'DECAMP

, DOCKEfg) 1

' 1 I I 8

g ~

' vs 1 I

)g~P>c REGcUITccr ecs srcncc f 8 Docln, cuc 5?'

~ c P>> C. E 1 V EAtomic ED U. S. Energy Commission Counsel Oflice of the General 0~i, SU 1972 P.'Ms ArMs

)lSlglIOliil191119l8l4l~l

0 AEC DISZRXBUTION FOH PART 0 DOCKET MATERIAL TEMPORARY FORM CONTROL NO: 3272-A FROM: LeBoeuf,Lamb,Leiby & MacRa DATE OF DOC: DATE REC'D LTR MEMO RPT OTHER Washington, D.C. 20036 Eugene B. Thomas, Jr. 6-15-72 6-15-72 TO ORIG CC SENT AEC PDR SENT LOCAL PDR Mr. L. Man'ing Muntzing CLASS: PROP INFO INPUT NO CYS REC'D DOCKET NO:

50-410 DESCRIPTION: Ltr trans the following ANTI- ENCLOSURES: Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station TRUST INFO by Attorney General of U.S...,. Unit2 Info Requested by the Attorney Gen-Ltr submitted on behalf of Nine Mile Pt. eral for Anti>>Trust Review..... $6KH'g Station(Niagara Mohawk).......

SEE CONTROL NO'1 3272 for DISTRIBUTION OF APPLICATION & PSAR SEE CONTROL NO: 3272-B for DISTRIBUTXON OF

~

EKVIRO~T PLAN'i'AMi"b: Nine Mile Pt. Nuclear Station Unit 2 FOR ACTION XNFORMATION DL 6-15-72 BUT1ZR L KNXEL L VASSALLO L ZIEMANN L KNIGHTON ENVIRO, W/ Copies W/ Copies W/ Copies W/ Copies CLARK(L) SCHWENCER(L ) H. DENTON CHITWOOD(FM)

W/ Copies W/ Copies W/ Copies W/ Copies W/ 2Copies GOLrzR(L) STOL@(L) SCHEMEL(L) DICKER(ENVXRO)

W/ Copies W/ Copies W/ Copies W/ Copies W/ Copies INTERNAL DIEBUTION STELLO-L SH-L KARAS-L L A PWR C PDR ~ MOORE-L DENTON-L I&SON-L L/A BWR ~CLARK

. 1rAG OPER LANGE-L GRItSS-L BROWN-L L/A PWR.

IfUTBERGOGC-RM P-5 MUNTZXNG 5 STAFF PAWLICKI-L THOMPSON-L GAMMILL-L KNIGHTON-ENVIRO WXLSON-L L/A PWR KARX-L L/A BWR GIAMBUSSO-L l4 NOD-L- HNH(f TAI i TEDESCO-L LONG-L DICKER-ENVIHO PROJ LDR ENVIRO:

841TH>>L L/A BWR GEARIN-L L/A BWR DEYOUNG-L-PWR MULLER-L-ENVIRO CASER'OLLt LAINAS-L SHAO-L SALTZMAN-XND.

DIGGS-L L/A TEETS-L L/A SKOVHOLT-L-OPER BENAROYA-L McDONALD-PLANS WADE-L L/A ENVIRO KNUTH<<L hgRHXS-RO NUSSBAUMER-FM BRAXTMAN<<A/T MACCARY-L UHH-L gg TR) SMILEY-Fii1 HA SS<<ENVIRO SCHHOEDER-L E. P. COLLINS-L OWDEN"OGC"RM-P"506-A 6 EXTERNAL DISTRIBUTION 1-LOCAL PDH O ~ 1-SAN LA NY--PDR 1

-HTLH-(LNGGHLZNgh.l IR 9-NATIONAL LAB'S 1-CHIEF WATER REACTORS

-NSIC-(BUCHANAN fg, ANL/ORNL/BNWL Q-RD. ~ ~ .E. HALL F"309 GT

~H.

~

-ASLB-YORE 1-R. CARROLL-OC) GT IC. ROBINSON H ST, (2)

S). 1-R. CATLXN) A-170) GT 1-C. MILES-C-459) GT 1<<CONSULTANT '

16 CYS ACRS-HOLDING NEWMARK/BLUME/AGBABIAN A 1-DH. GERALD S. LELLOUCHE BROOKHAVEN NATXONAL LAB

1

~ ~

~ 4>>

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

'=

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

~

~ >

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

~ ~

n k'

V N'

50%10 LAW OFFICCS OF LEBOEUF, LAMB,LEIBY 8 M'ACRAE LReguIat5I'j I'File CVi" l82I JCFFFRSON PLACE,N.W.

WAsHINGTQN, D. C. 20036 ARVIN C. UPTON ONC CHASC MANHATTAN PLA?A C U G C N C I3 ~ T H 0 M A S I J R. ta CW YORK ~ N Y IOOOS LCONARO M. TROSTFN HARRY H. VOIGT ~

WASHINGTON PARTNCR5 .June 15, 1972 WASHINGTOta TCLCPHOtIL 202 FEOCRAL 8 Gill CAGLC AOGRCSS LALALVoWASHINGTON O. C aaalttta Mr. L. Manning Muntzing DUN g5 )o7~~

Director of Regulation U.S. Atomic Energy Commission '~'~>GIIIta" Ol Washington, D.C. 20545 ~ Cg

~)>~

Re: Niagara Mohawk Power I tion rgr~r raT e~ a Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station, Unit 2

Dear Sir:

As counsel for the Applicant, Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation, we enclose herewith the following:

1. Three (3) originals and twenty-five (25) copies of pleading entitled "Application for Licenses." Within the bound volume of this pleading are four (4) exhibits relating to the following: Applicant's 1971 Annual Report (Exhibit A); the names and addresses of Applicant s directors and principal officers (Ex-hibit B); estimate of total cost of .

the proposed facility (Exhibit C);

and resolution of the Board og Directors authorizing the filing of this appli-cation (Exhibit G);

2.. Seventy (70) copies of Applicant's

~

Preliminary Safety Analysis Report, which has been designated as Exhibit D;

3. Two hundred (200) copies of Applicant's

, Environmental Report Construction Permit Stage; and

E.

0

~4

'r. L. Manni Muntzing Page

, Two.

4. Twenty (20) copies of in formation requested on antitrust matters by the Attorney General of the United States.

Applicant has prepared and has ready for submission an additional one hundred (100) copies of its Environmental Report fox'his unit. At the request of the Division of Reactor Licensing, Applicant is holding these copies for submission when

-requested.

d Applicant has also pxepared an additional twenty-five (25) copies of the information requested by the Attorney Gen-eral in the event that antitrust matters should become the sub-ject of a hearing in this proceeding.

Xn the material submitted in response to certain questions raised by the Attorney General of the United States, there was no mention of Niagara Mohawk's recently announced plans for a sixth oil-fired generating unit at its Oswego steam-station. The announcement about this plant came aftex'he material had -been prepared.

Xn accordance with the Commission's Regulations, Applicant encloses a check in the amount of Seventy Thousand Dollars ($ 70,000) as the filing fee for its application for a construction permit.

The service of the foregoing application and exhibits is being made personally by a representative of the Applicant. The service is being made upon:

Mr. Robert P. Zones Supervisor, Town of Scriba'.

D. 44 Oswego, New York 13126 Mr. Donald X. Gleason Chairman County Legislature County Office Building 46 East Bx'idge Street .

Oswego, New Yox'k 13126

0 Nr. L. Manning Nuntzing Page Three.

Upon completion of this servic~ an Affidavit of Service will he filed with the Commission.

Very truly yours, LeBOEUF, LAMB, LEXBY S NacRAE Attorneys for Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation Eu ne B. Thomas, Jr.

Partnex Enclosures I ~ ~

~ ~

4 'i 7 l~ ~.