ML19256B828
| ML19256B828 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | South Texas, Comanche Peak  |
| Issue date: | 08/03/1979 |
| From: | Poirier M SPIEGEL & MCDIARMID, TEXAS, STATE OF |
| To: | Glaser M, Mark Miller, Wolfe S Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7909200085 | |
| Download: ML19256B828 (21) | |
Text
~
LAW OFFICES SPIEGEL & McDIARMID 26uu VIRGINIA AVENUE. N.W.
WASHINGTON. D.C. 20037 TELEPHON E 1202)333-4S00 RCSE RT C. McDIARMID TELEcoptER (202) 333 2974 ROBERT HARLEY SEAR SANDRA J. STRESEL
' CYNTHIA S SCGORAD JAM ES N. HORWOOD ALAN J. ROTH PRANCES E. FRANCIS h , [C h m~,,h
%.) 7 (wasucMusms sam oNul G ARY J. NEWELL DANIEL l. D AVIDSON h M ARC R. PolRIER THouAS N. McHUGH. JR.
C ANIEL J. GUTTM AN PETER st M ATT Q k cAvio R. STRAUS , o[ ,
August 3, 1979 $ 1
~
Marshall E. Miller, Esq.
% hc* ph a g
'5)
Michael G. Glaser, Esq.
Sheldon J. Wolfe, Esq. b a C'
Atomic Safety & Licensing Board Panel United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington , D. C. 20555 RE: Houston Lighting & Power Comoany, et al. (South Texas Project, Units 1 & 2), Docket Nos. 50-498A &
50-499A; Texas Utilities Generating Company, et al. (Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station, Units 1
& 2), Docket Nos. 50-445A & 50-446A Gentlemen:
This is the repcet of discovery a:tivities by the Public Utilities Board of the City of Brownsville, Texas (" PUB") for the month of July, 1979.
PUB supplied additional information responsive to Houston Lighting & Power's ("HL&P") interrogatories and docu-ment requests. PUB also arranged with HL&P counsel for the rescheduling of a number of depositions for the week of September 24, as follows:
Monday, September 24 - Al Cisneros Tuesday, September 25 - H. E. Hastings, R. L. Gawlick Wednesday, September 26 - R. E. Roundtree , G. Lindsey Thursday, September 27 - J. W. Wilson, I. Liska In addition, PUB has agreed with HL&P to postpone the deposi-tion of Mr. William Mayben, originally scheduled for August 21, 1979, and no new date has been, set.
122', 262
,,7 ,
l tas :
"09200cccg
2-After considerable negotiations, PUB reached a stipula-tion with Gulf States Utiliti s ("GSU"), the Nuclear Regulatory Commission Staf f, and the Department of Justice, concerning the terms of a p .,tective order covering confiden-tial information produced 3.n response to the subpoena for production of documents irsued at PUB's request. This stipu-lation was the basis of the Board's Order of July 24, 1979.
Under an arrangement between these parties, PUB is to review in Washington, D. C. copies of all documents provided to the NRC Staf f and Justice af ter their inspection of GSU documents in Texas; PUB may then travel to GSU for further discovery.
However, to the best of PUB's knowledge the NRC Staf f and Justice have not yet received copies of any documents, con-fidential or otherwise, that they requested from GSU.
PUB has not received copies of the documents from Central & South West Corporation and Central & South West Services ("CSW") that it requested in June. Af ter this dccu-ment inspection, PUB requested CSW to account for certain documents and categories of documents that were not produced; no "esponse has been received. The matter of a general pro-tective order covering document production from Southwestern Electric Power Co. ("SWEPCO"), Public Servic( Company of Oklanoma ("PSO"), and West Texas Utilities Company ("WTU")
has not been resolved. Also, to the best of PUB's infor-mation, because of personnel changes WTU and PSO are not yet prepared to proceed to production of documents.
PUB and the Texas Utilities Companies ("TU") have agreed in principle on a protective order so that PUB's discovery of TU can go forward.
PUB served the El Paso Electric Company with the sub-poena for production of documents issued by the Board. El Paso will provide the documents to PUB at a time to be mutually arrived at.
PUB encloses, for the Board's information, a copy of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Order Instituting Investigation, issued July 26, 1979, in Central Power &
Light Co. , et al. , FERC Docket No. EL79-8.
Very truly yours, Db * '
h1 MC\ %
Marc R. Poirier Attorney for the Public Utilities Board of the City of Brownsville ,
Enclosure:
1224 263 As Stated
~1 7 1}-
iis , .
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA l [ lgg [ ,'
FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY CCMMISSION 3efore Commissioners: Georgiana Sheldon, Acting Chairman; Matthew Holden, Jr., and George R. Hall.
Central Power and Light Company, )
Public Service Company of )
Oklahoma, South-estern Electric) Docket No. EL79-3 Power Company, West Texas )
Utilities Company )
ORDER INSTITUTING INVESTIGATION, GRANTING INTERVENTION, GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS IN PART, DENYING MOTION TO DISMISS IN PART, AND ESTABLISHING HEARING PROCEDURES (Issued July 26, 1979)
Befcee the Commission is an application for exemptinns from orders of t"' Texas Public Utility Commission and a request for orde s requiring interconnection, wheeling and related relief filed by Central Power and Lignt (" CPL"),
Public Service Company of Oklahoma ("PSO"), Southwestern Electric Power Company ("SWEPCO") and West Texas Utilities Company ("WTU") (collectively referred to as "tne CSN Comoanies").1/ This order directs the Commission Staff to investigate the issues underlying tne application and establishes hearing procedures.
I. Igtroduction A significant portion of the electric energy produced, transmitted, and sold in the State of Texas is provided by electric utilities which are not interconnected witn the 1/ " Application Of Central Power And Lignt Company And Others For Exemption From State Commission Orders Pre-venting voluntary Coordination Pursuant To section 205 Of The Public Utility Regulatory Polic. 3 Ac t O f 19 73, And Interconnection Of Facilities, Provision Of Trans-mission Services And Related Relief Pursuant To 3ections 202, 210, 211, and 212 Of 2ne Federal Power Act, *fiisd Feoruary 9, 1973.
CP1, WTU, PSO and SWE?CO are all operating suosidiaries of a puolic utility holding company, Central and Soutnwest.
122 264
,I ,l s .
2-public states. utilities under Part II, or with systems of other Power & LightThese exclusively Company (DPL) , intrastate utilities include Dallas (TESCO) and fexas Power & Lignt Texas Electric Service Company referred to as TU Companies) 2/Company (TPL) (collectively and Houston Lighting and Power Company (ELP).
The TU Companies and BLP are directly or indirectly interconnected with each other and are members of the Electric Reliability Council of Texas ("ERCOT"). Those utilities with generating capacity are also members of the Texas Interconnected System (TIS) . Agreements among the TIS companies contain provisions which either prohibit or require notice before a member can transmit or sell power in interstate commerce.
Historically, applicant WTU was comprised of two indecender.t divisions: the Northern Division which operated in interstate commerce and the Southern Division which was interconnected with other utilities operating solely in intrastate commerce in the State of Texas. Applicant CPL is directly interconnected with WTU's Southern Division, and both CPL and the Southern Division of WTU are members of both TIS and ERCOT. Applicants PSO and SWEPCO are members of the Southwest an interstate coordinated and interconnected group ofPower Pool (SWPP),
utilities Louisiana.a/ joining ERCOf's territory in Oklahoma and On May 4, 1976, WTU energized certain radial ties and began transmitting power from its Soutnern Division to PSO for resale to customers in Oklahoma.
the interstate connection effectuated by WTU,Uponthe discovering TU companies and HLP disconnected interconnected with CPL and WTU and from each other.. heir electr On July 21, 1976, the Commission issued its " Order Rejecting In Part And Accepting In Part Application For Action Pursuant to Section 202" in Docket No. E-9558. By this order thedefined as Commission determined by Section 201(e)that WTU and CPL were "public utilities
- of th?
subject to Commission jurisdiction. Federal Power Act, and thus enat BLP and the TU Companies were notThe Commission also held "public utilities" as 2/
DPL, TESCO and TPL are all operating subs diaries of a public utility holding company, Texas Utilities.
122; 265
,_, c J n
defined oy the Federal Power Act and were not subject to Commission jurisdiction. The Commission authorized the vol-untary temporary reconnection of HLP and the TU companies with CPL and WTU pursuant to Se: tion 202(d) of the Federal Power Act, related to emergency interconnections, emphasizing that such interconnection would not cause these utilities later to be found as "public utilities" under the Federal Power Act, subject to Commission jurisdiction. Tne Commission denied CPL and NTU's petitions for permanent and emergency interconnections pursuant to Section 202(b) and (c) and ordered that the Commission Staf f prepare a Section 202(a) study updating and amending a 1972 report concerning the proposed interconnection of ERCOT and SWPP.3/
On May 2, 1977, June 2, 1977, and July 11, 1977, the Puolic Utility Commission of Texas (Texas PUC) entered interim, final, and amended final orderr in Docket No. 14.
These orders prohibited RTU from re-establishing the interstate connection between its Southern Division and Northern Division unless:
A. The contractual prohibitions against inter-state sales shall finally be adjudicated to be void or voidable.
B. This Commission /IUC7 shall authorize or the Federal Power Commission shall order a con-nection, or 3/
~
The Staf f report, prepared by the Ft. North Regional Office, is entitled "Staf f Report on Electric Reliability Council of Texas Interconnection and Reliability Evaluation."
(March, 1978).
By order issued September 17, 1975, the Commission denied rehearing of its July 21, 1976 order. Petitions for re-view of the Commission's orders were filed and the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit remanded the Commission's order for clarification and, if .Tecessary, further development of the record.
Central Pcwer and Light Company, et al., v. F ed e r a.'. Energy Regulatory Commission 57 5 F.2d 93 7 ( 0.C. Cir. 1973,,
cert. denied sub. nom. (Cocket No.73-313 Novemoer 27, 1973).
122; 266 is e
C. A court of competent jurisdictior, shall order WTU to take action inconsistent with the fore-going prohibition. 4/
On February 9, 1979, the CSW companies file 3 an appli-cation for relief under Section 205 of the F:1blic Utility Regulatory Policies Act of 1978 ("PURPA"), 5/ and Sections 202, 210, 211, and 212 of the Federal Power Act ("the Act"),
as added by Sections 202, 203, and 204 of PURPA (16 U.S.C.
Sections 824-a-1, 824h, 8241, 824j, and 824k). 6/ Under ~
Section 205(a) of PURPA, the Commission has the authority to exempt electric utilities from any state law, rule or regu-lation that prohibits or prevents the voluntary coordinatinq of electric utilites. The CSW Companies seek an exemption under this section from three orders issued by the Public Utilities Commission of Texas (Texas PUC) which the Companies claim prevents CPL and WTU from interconnecting with any interstate source of electricity. These orders have allegedly prevented the CSW Companies from proceeding to develop voluntary coordination among themselves.
In addition, the CSW Companies have requested the Com-mission to order a general intercorr. action, including wheeling and related relief, among members of ERCOT and SWPP. The Commission's authority to order sucP interconnection under Section 202(b) of the Federal Power ..ct has been expanded under PURPA, Sections 202, 203 and 204 which created Sections 210, 211 and 212 of the Federal Power !.1t.
Between February 9, and April 13, 1979, twenty-nine petitions to intervene were tiled in this docket from a variety of investor-owned utilities, electric cooperatives, municipal systems, state regulatory bodies, private citizens and consumer groups. 2/ These petitions raise a number of iscues concerning the merits of the application, the need for an evidentiary hearing and the scope of that proceeding and will 4/ Final Order, Cocket 14 at 8.
5/ Public Law No.95-617 (1978)
~ 6/ Notice of the application was issued on February 22, 1979, with protests or petitions to intervene to be filed no later than March 30 L979. Cn April 2, 1979, the Com-mission extended the time in which to file peritions and protests to April 13, 1979.
2/ See Appendix A. Among the twenty-nine petitioners, six-teen support the CSW application in whole or in parr, six oppose the application, and seven have not taken a position at this stage.
1226 267 3, J
'(7 i 1
be discussed below. We find tnat participation by these petitiocers would be in the public interest and will, therefore.
grant intervention.
'; I . Discussion A. Recuest For Relief Under Section 205 of PURPA Pursuant to Section 205 of the PURPA, 8/ applicants re-quest an order exempting CPL and WTU from those provisions of the Texas PUC orders which they claim prevent NTU and CPL from voluntarily operating electric interconnections outside ERCOT and which, therefore, have the effect of preventing applicants from voluntary coordination among and between themselves. Applicants request that such exemption be granted in a summary or expedited manner by this Commission "since such orders stand as preliminary obstacles to the pursui:
of any voluntary coordination by applicants whatever." ,9/
8/
- Section 205(a) of the PURPA provides, in pertinent part, that the Commission may exempt electric utilities from any provision of State laws, rules or regulations wr.ich prohibit or prevent the voluntary coordination of electric utilities "if the Commission determines that such voluntary coordination is designed to obtain economical utilization of facilities and re-sources in any area." No such exemption may be granted if the Commission finds that such provision of State law rule or regulation--
(1) is required by any authority of Federal law, or (2) is designed to protect public health, safety, or welf are or the environment or conscrve energy or is designed to mitigate the effects of emer-gencies resulting from fuel shortages.
9/ Application at 11.
1i7- s,
_.y .
District Court for the Western District invoked the abstention doctrine to withhold consideration of the appeal's merits until the matter is resolved by the Texas state court. The decision of the Western District was upheld on appeal.
According to TU, this Commission should follow the lead of the federal courts and defer any action undrer Section 205 until the state court has acted. We disagree. The doctrine of abstention applies to the relationship._betwer.n th_e state and _
federal courts and is' properly invoked where an unconstrued state statute is susceptible of a construction by the state judiciary which might avoid, in whole or in part, the necessity for federal constitutional adjudication, or ac least materially change the nature of the problem.
- v. Pullman, 312 U.S. 496 (1941). Railroad Commission of Texas
'The commission's consideracion of the section 205 application in this case involves an agency's interpretation of its own statute; it does not involve consider-ation of the state law or constitutional law questions present in the judicial proceedings in the state or federal courcs. We reject, therefore, the argurint advanced by TU and will not defer consid-eration of CSW's Sectiun 205 application.
Several other arguments have been made in favor of dismissal the Section 205 application which go to the merits of the application and cannot be decided without an evidentiary accord.
These include HLP's argument as to whether or not the statutory requirements of Section 205 have been met. In addition, the Texas PUC has argued that the Section 205 application should be dismissed because the Docket 14 orders do not prevent voluntary interconnection but, instead, merely require CPL and WTU with agreement to interconnect in accordance with their cc .ttractual members of ERCOT. These issues cannot be resolved on the basis of the pleadings an evidentiary hearing. We will, therefore, and must be litigated in institute pro-ceedings to investigate and decide the merits of CSW's request for Section 205 relief.
B. Applicant's Request for Relief under Secticas 202, 210, 211, and 212 of the Act.
- 1. Jurisdiction The Commission's jurisdiction over ZRCOT members DPL, TESCO and TPL has been challenged by petitioner Texas PUC 15/ and 15/
~-
~'q
-~ " Notice Of The Public Utility Commission Of Texas '"' '~
Of Its Amendment To Protest of The Public Utility Commission of Texas, And, In The Alternative, Notice Of Intervention Ard Request For Relief Adding Request ,227 t pQ
?or Declaratorv Order Disclaiming Jurisdicition And Dismissing Application Or, In The Alternative, Request For Severance Of Issue Of Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Jurisdiction," filed April 20, 1979.
the TU Compthies. 16/ Both petitioners argue that the Commission is without authoriIy to order interconnection, wheeling and related relief which would affect these utilities because DPL, TESCO and TPL are not operating in interstate commerce and are, therefore, not subject to the Commission's jurisdiction under Section 201 of the Federal Power Act. 17/ Since the Commission's authority to 7rder interconnection under Section 202(b) is conditioned upon a jurisdictional finding under Section 201, the argument raised by petitioners warrants dismissal of applicant's request for relief under Section 202 of the Act. While the jurisidictional status of TPL is being challenged in another proceeding before this Commission, 18/ DPL, TESCO and TPL are not currently public utilities withIn the meaning of Section 202(b) of the Act. We will, therefore, dismiss the applicants' request for relief under Section 202(b) of the Act without prejudice to renew if the jurisdicitonal status of any of the utilities subject to the Section 202 request is changed. The arguments raised by petitaners, however, address the Commission's jurisdicition only with respect to Section 202 of the Act and fail to consider the expansion of the Commission's authority to order interconnection and wheeling under Sections 210 and 211 of the Act as added by PURPA. Is CSW points out, "whether or not the ' intrastate' ERCOT companies are subject to the jurisdiction of this Commission for purposes other 16/ See n.9. 17/
~~ Section 201(b) of the Act, provides for federal reculation of electric utility companies over "the transmission of electric energy in interstate commerce and. . . .the sale of electric energy at wholesale in interstate commerce."
Section 201(c) of the Act, 16 U.S.C. 5824(c), defines energy transmitted in interstate commerce as energy ", transmitted from a state and consumed at any point outside thereof." 18/ Texas Power & Light Co. , Docket No. E-9578 (relating to the location and operation of the Denison Dam).
,,: 7, 1 is e <
1221 271
than the ordering of interconnection or wheeling [under Sections 210 and 211] is irrelevant." 19/ Sections 210 and 211 of the Ac clearly. state that interconnection and wheeling orders issued pursuant to those sections may apply to any electric utilities if the stated defines criteria electric are met. 20/ Section 201(22) of PURPA utility ~ as "any person or state agency which sells electric energy." Clearly, electric utilities as used in Section21/ utilities. 210 and 211 no We find include merit,both intrastate and interstate 19/ " Response of Central Pcwer and Light Company, et al. To Notice filed AprilOf 30,The Public 1979, at Utility
- 2. Commission Of Texas,"
20/
~~
With regard Section to the provides 210(a)(1) Commission's that: interconnection authority,
."Upon applicaton of any electric utility, Federal Power marketing small poweragency, qualifying cogenerator, or qualifying requiring- producer, the Commission may issue an order
"(A) the physical cor.nection of any cogeneration facility, any small power production facility, or the transmission facilities of any electric utility, with the facilities of such applicant. . .
With regard Section 211(a)to the Commission's provides that: authority to order wheeling, Any electric utility or Federal power marketing agency may apply to the Commission for an order under this cubsectior. requiring any other electric utilitv to provide transmission services to rne applicant (including any enlargement of transmission capacity necessary to provide such services). (emphasis added) 21
~~/ Sections 212(b)(2) indicates that the application of Sections 210 and 211 to utilities that are non-jurisdictional for purposes of contemplated: " pre-PURPA" Sections of the Act was clearly The provisions of Sections to the entities described in such provisions,210, 211and andsuch 212 shall apply entities shall be subject to the jurisdiction of the Commission for purposes of carring out for purposes of applying the enforcemensuch provisions and Act with respect to such provisions. Compliance authorities of this with any order of the Commission under the provisions of Section 210 c' 211, subject shall not make an electric utility or other entity to the jurisdiction of the Commission for any purpose sentence. other than the purpose specified in the preceding 12,c ..
,72 c 11,_M. ^D .-
then, in the arguments for dismissal on jurisdictional grounds with respegt to relief available under Sections 210 and 211 and such motions will be denied. For the same reason, the Texas PUC's request for severance of the jurisdictional issue is also denied.
- 2. Sufficiency of Acolication TU argues in favor of dismissal of the application on the ground that the allegations contained therein are contrary to certain findings of fact and conclusions of law contained in West Texas Utilities, suora- With respect to Judge Porter's findings as to rne sufficiency and marit of the CSW study, no such study is required to support CSW's application at this stage of the pro-ceeding. CSW will be required to support its allegations with a study at a later stage but any decision on the res judicata or collateral estoppel effect of Judge Pctter's findings will have to await submission of thct study.
' With regard to those findings made by Judge Porter under PURPA, it is clear that since no relief was sought under PURPA in that suit, those findings were neither within the scope of the pleadings nor actually litigated by the parties and thus provide no support for dismissal on either collateral estoppel or res judicata grounds. 22/ See, Diolomat Electric Inc. v. Westinenouse ElectrIE Surelv Co.,
430 F.2d 38, 45 (5:n Cir. 1970). Further, it is a well-established principle that a court cannot make findings on matters which Congress has set aside exclusively for an administrative agency. See, FTC v. Soerry Hutchinson Co., 405 U.S. 233, 249 (1972); Burlinaron Truck 11nes
- v. United States, 371 U.S. 156, 169 (1962). We find, rhen, that Judge Porter's findings with regard to PURPA were cutside the scope of the case before him and were beyond the jurisdiction of thar court and are, therefore, noc binding in this proceeding.
22/
~~ It should be noted that PURPA did not take ef fect until November 9, 1978--six weeks after the antitrust trial in the Western District began and only three court days before the conclusion of the evidentiary presentation.
1221 273 4 7,
} .. . .,
that it Both HLP and TU object to the CSW application on the grounds is statutorally As CFW points deficient and lacks sufficient specificity. out, the application specifically identified the interconnections and other relief CSW is requesting the Commission to Practice of order and thus and satisfies Section 32.1 and 32.3 of the Rules Procedure. Futher, CSW's application states that these interconnections and other relief would satisfy the specific criteria contained in Sections 210, 211, and 212 of PURPA. Since the Commission has not yet adopted regulations which define the degree of specificity required for applications under Sections 210 and 211 of the Act, we cannot require CSW to make a showing beyond that which is required by our current regu-lations by under Section 202 of the Act and that which is required the language in Sections 210 and 211. In addition, it is clear that no decision on the merits of CSW's application will be made on the basis of the application alone. We find, therefore, that CSW's ap 210 and 211 merits investigation. plication for relief We will direct theunder Staff Sections to conduct such an investigation and will institute proceedings to develop a record on all issues presented by the request for relief under these sections.
- 3. Scoce of Investication With regard to the scope of the investigation, the proceeding criterialimited will be to Sections listed in an examination 210, 211,of the icsues presented by the and 212 as they relate to the relief requested in CSW's application. In addition, the petitions to intervene raise several additional issues. 23 To the extent that these issues address the general issue ~/of whether CSW's requested relief meets the criteria of Sections 210, 211, 23/ On March 27, 1979, the City of El Paso petitioned to intervene in support of the general request for relief in the CSW application and indicated that an order specifically recognizing its particular needs."the City "may require (Petition at 6).
The Electric Consumers of Texas, (ECT) petitioned to intervene on March 29, 1979, supporting the CSW application and, in addition, requesting the Commission to investigate, inter alia, the feasibility of less reliance on nuclear power in Texas, whether the generacing capacity of ERCOT and TIS is excessive, and the it relateslevel of electric to certain reliability of ERCCT and TIS power as member utilities in 1977 and 1979. failures experienced by the (footnote continued on next page) ,2nc, i 7}k 99- .
,7, i ,e .
and 212, these issues will be addressed in the course of the hearing. Finally, the issues to be decided in this proceeding are of great ,importance to both parties and non-parties. We find, therefore that the assistance of Staff in developing a complete re:6:d on all issues is of particular importance. C. M!scellaneous Issues
- 1. Need for Environmental Imcact Statement The relief requested by applicants may, if granted, constitute a major federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment. We will, therefore, direct the applicant to prepare a detailed report of the environmental factors specified in Section 4.41 of the Rules of Practice and Procedure. 24/ The Staff shall make an initial review of the ap?licant's environmental report and, if necessary, require the applicant to correct deficiencies in the report.
The application will be made available to all relevant federal and state agencies and the public with the opportunity for comment on the environmental ef fects of the proposed relief. The applicant will be given an opportunity to respond to these comments. The Staff will then analyze such material to determine whether the proposed interconnections, if granted, would constitute a major federal action significantly affecting the quality of the environment. If it is so deter-23/ (footnote continued from previous page) on March 30, 1979, the City of Brownsville, Texas petitioned to intervene in this proceeding. Brownsville supported the CSW application and, in addition, requested that the Commission to " fashion its relief to guarentee generally that the advantages of interconnection transmission, full coordination and central dispatch are shared equitably with small systems by addressing the obligation of larger systems, when requested so to do, to include smaller systems in joint planning and coordination, and to make available transmission facilities and service, transmission of purchased power, and standard interchange services, in an equitable way." (Petition at 4). 24/
~~ While this Section deals with environmental " Exhibit W's" to be included in application for licenses for hydroelectric projects, the factors listed would also be appropriare to examine in connection with an application for interconnection and wheeling. 12n,c,
}}}
! s i <
mined, the Staff will then prepare a draft environmental impact statement. After an appropriate comment period, Staff will prepare a final Envi>onmental Impact Statement (EIS) which shall be based on a detailed independent analysis of the action as well as any - comments submitted. All Staff members involved in the prepar-ation of the EIS shall be available for cross-examination at hearing.
- 2. Recuests Under Section 319 of the Act Petitioner ECT requests compensation for reasonable attorney's fees, expert witness fees, and other costs of intervening and participating before the Commission under Section 319 of the Act, as added by Section 212 of PURPA.
Under the terms of that Section, any such compensation must be made post-hearing and after a determination as to the nature of the intervenor's contribution to the proceeding. We will, therefore, decline the request for compensation at this time without prejudice to renew after completion of the hearing.
- 3. Hearino Site Several petitioners request that all or part of the hearing in this docket be held in some location in the Southwestern United States for the convenience of the majority of parties and interested citizens. 24/ While we will defer to the Presiding Judge as to scheduling and specific loca-tion, we suggest that a significant portionlof the hearing be held in the Southwestern United States to accomodate the interests asserted.
The Commission orders: (A) Tue Motion to Dismias of Dallas Power & Light Co., Texas Electric Service Co. , and Texas Power t- Light Co., and the Public Utility Commission of Texas is hereby granted with cerpect to Applicants' request for relief under Sections 202 and denied in all other respects. (B) The Request for Declaratory Order Disclaiming Jurisdiction and Request for Severence of Jurisdictional Issue of the Public Utility Commission of Texas is hereby denied. 21/ City of El Paso; Consumers Union; Texas Association Of Community Organizations Fore Reform Now; James Scott; Electric Consumers of Texas, i 22; 276 4 . .
$.a s 7-
(C) Pursuant to the authority contained in and subject to the jgrisdiction conferred upon the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission by Section 402(a) of the COE Act and by the Federal Power Act, and pursuant to the Commission's Rules of Practice and Prccedure and the Regulations under the Federal Power Act (18 CFR, Chapter I) , a public hearing shall be held concerning the application of the Central and Southwest Companies for exemption from orders of the Texas Public Utility Commission under Section 205 of the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act and orders requiring interconnection, wheeling and related relief under Sections 210, 211 and 212 of the Federal Power Act. (D) A Presiding Administrative Law Judge designated by the Chief Administrative Law Judge for that purpose shall convene a prehearing conference in this proceeding to be held thirty days from the issuance of the order (or as soon as possible thereaf ter at the Judge's discretion) for the purpose of delineating the issues including the submittal of all aternative proposals for interconnection and other matters to aid in expediting the orderly conduct and disposition of the proceeding. (E) The applicant, Central South West Company, shall prepare an Environmental Report as described herein and submit such report within one hundred and twenty (120) days of this order. (F) Af tar notice and comments on the environmental effects of the proposed relief, the Staff shall determine whether the proposed a: tion would constitute a major federal action signif' ,antly af fecting the human environment. If such a deter-mination is made, the Staff shall prepare a draf t and final Environmental Impact Statement as described in Sections 2.80 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure. (G) The request by petitioner Electric Consumers of Texas for attorneys' fees, expert witness' fees and re~ lated relief under Section 319 of the Federal Power Act is hereby denied without prejudice to its renewal at a later time. (H) The petitoners, as listed in Appendix, are hereby permitted to intervene in this proceeding subject to the Rules and Regulations of the Commission; Provided, however, that participation by such intervenors shall be limited to the matters set forth in their petitions to intervene; and provided, further, that the admission of such intervenors shall not be construed as recognition by the Commission that they might be aggrieved because of any order or orders of the Commission enetered in this proceeding. i221 277
. n . , , . . _ . , - - ~ ~ -
15 - (I) The Secretary shall cause prompt publication of this ordet to be made in the Federal Register. By the Commission. (S E A L) Kenneth F. Plumb, Secretary. 1 4 7' ^7p I . r - 122., 278
00 0hIki u iI APPENDIX
. PETITIONS TO INTERVENE PETITIONER , DATE FILED Arkansas Public Service Co. 3/23 Southwestern Power Administration 3/26 El Paso Electric Co. 3/27 City of El Paso James Morgan Scott, Jr. 3/27 3/29 Cor% ration Commission of Oklahoma 3/29 Electric Consumers of Texas City of San Antonio 3/29 Texas AFL-CIO 3/29 3/29 Texas Associations of Community Organ-izations for Reform Now (ACORN) 3/29 Arkansas Electric Coop. Corp. 3/30 South Texas Electric Coop. & Medina Electric Coop. (STEC M U*) 3/30 Arkansas-Misscuri Power Co., (Ark-Mo)
Arkansas Power & Light, Louisiana Power & Light (LPL), Mississippi Power & Light Co. (MP&L), New Orleans Public Service, Inc. (NOPSI) 3/30 Public Utilities Board of the City of Brownsville, Texas Dallas Power & Light, Texas Electric 3/30 Service Co., Texas Power & Light 3/30 Texas Cooperatives Comm. on Power for the Southwest Inc.; 3/30 Assoc. of Louisiana Electric Coops.; Oklahoma Assoc. of Electric Coops.; Municipal Electric Systems of Oklahoma: Arkansas Electric Coops. , Inc. 3/30 Cajun Electric Power Coop.; West Farmers Coop.; KAMO Electric Coop.; Grand River Dam Authority 3/30 Texas Environmental Coalition 4/2 Lower Colorado River Authority 4/2 Public Utility Comm. of Terr.3 4/2 Consumers Union of U.S. 4/2 City of Austin 4/2
. Gulf States Utilities Co. 4/3 Souston Lighting & Power Co. 4/3 Madeline Bass Framson 4/5 National Rural Electric Cocp. , Assoc. 4/13 American Public Power Assoc. 4/13 12,c, g7n a
1 Northeastern Texas Electric Coop. 4/15*
- Untimely 4 3- -
"o i .. <
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA BEFORE THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COP. MISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter bf )
)
HOUSTON LIGHTING & POWER COMPANY, ) Docket Nos. 50-498A et al. ) and 50-499A
)
(South Texas Project, Unit Nos. ) 1 ed 2) )
)
)
)
In the Matter of )
)
TEXAS UTILITIES GENERATING COMPANY,) Docket Nos. 50-445A et al. ) and 50-446A
)
(Comanche Peak Steam Electric ) Station, Unit Nos. 1 and 2) ) CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that I have caused a copy of the foregoing letter in the above-captioned proceeding to be served on the following be deposit in the United States mail, first class, postage prepaid, this 3rd day of August, 1979: Wseshall E. Miller, Chairman Roy P. Lessy, Esquire Atomic Safety & Licensing Board Michael Blume, Esquire Panel Nuclear Regulatory Commission Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. c. 20555 Washington, D. C. 20555 Jerome Saltzman, Chief Sheldon J. Wolfe, Esquire Antitrust & Indemnity Group Atomic Safety & Licensing Board Nuclear Regulatory LCommission Panel Washington, D. C. 20555 Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C. 20555 Chase R. Stephens, Chief Docketing & Service Section Michael L. Glaser, Esquire Office of the Secretary 1150 17 th Street, N. W. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C. 20036 Washington, D. C. 20555 Joseph Rutberg, Esquire Joseph J. Saunders, Esquire Antitrust Counsel Chief, PUblic Counsel & Nuclear Regulatory Commission Legislative Section Washington, D. C. 20555 Antitrust Division Department of Justice P. O. Fox 14141 mo ' Washi,;9 ton, D. C. 20444 5Li }}Q
} l. .. ". 'll e
4
..-.- - - ~ -- --+ . .w.. - we . -.%-
Joseph Gallo, Esquire Roff Hardy, Chairman and Richard D. Cudahy, Esquire Chief Executive Officer Robert H. Loeffler, Esquire Central Power & Light Company Isham, Lincoln & Beale P. O. Box 2121 1050 17 th Street, N. W. Corpus Christi, Texas 78403 Suite 701 , Washington, D. C. 20036 G. K. Spruce , General Manager City Public Service Board John D. Whitler, Esquire P. O. Box 1771 Ronald Clark, Esquire San Antonio, Texas 78203 Antitrust Division Department of Justice Jon C. Wood, Esquire P. O. Box 14141 W. Roger Wilson, Esquire Washington, D. C. 20444 Matthews, Nowlin, Macfarlane
& Barrett Joseph Knotts, Esquire 1500 Alamo National Building Nicholas S. Reynolds, Esquire San Antonio, Texas 78205 Debevoise & Liberman 1200 17 th Street, H. W. Perry G. Brittain, President Washington, D. C. 20036 Texas Utilities Generating Co.
2001 Bryan Tower Douglas F. John, Esquire Dallas, Texas 75201 Akin, Gump, Hauer & Feld 1333 New Hampshire Ave. , N. W. Joseph I. Worsham, Esquire Suite 400 Merlyn D. Sampels, Esquire Washington, D. C. 20036 Spencer C. Relyea r Esquire Worsham, Forsythe & Sampels R. Gordon Gooch, Esquire 2001 Bryan Tower John P. Mathis, Esquire Suite 2500 Baker & Botts Dallas, Texas 75201 1701 Pennsylvania Avenue, N. W. Washington, D. C. 20006 R. L. Hancock, Director City of Austin Electric Utility Robert Lowenstein, Esquire Department J. A. Bouknight, Jr. , Esquire P. O. Box 1088 William J. Franklin, Esquire- Austin, Texas 78767 Lowenstein, Newman, Reis & Axelrad Jerry L. Harris, Esquire 1025 Connecticut Avenue, N. W. Richard C. Balough, Esquire Washington, D. C. 20036 City of Austin P. O. Box 1088 Frederick H. Ritts, Esquire Austin, Texas 78767 Law Offices of Northcutt Ely Watergate 600 Building Dan H. Davidson Washington, D. C. 20037 City Manager City of Austin Wheatley & Miller P. O. Box 1088 1112 Watergate Office Building Austin, Texas 78767 2600 Virginia Avenue, N. W. Washington , D. C. 20037 122 281
., , ; , -c kis a
- G
Don R. Butler, Esquire Knoland J. Plucknett Sneed, Vine, Wilkerson, Selman Executive Director
& Perry Committee on Power for the P. O. Box 1409 Southwest, Inc.
Austin, Texas
- 78767 5541 Skelly Drive Tulsa, Oklahoma 74135 Morgan Hunter, Esquire McGinnis, Lochridge & Kilgore Jay M. Galt, Esquire 900 Congress Avenue Looney, Nichols, Johnson & Hayes Austin, Texas 78701 219 Couch Drive Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73101 Kevin B. Pratt, Esquire Linda Aker, Esquire John E. Mathews, Jr., Esquire P. O. Box 12548 Mathews, Osborne, Ehrlich, McNatt, Capital Station Gobelman & Cobb Austin, Texas 78767 1500 American Heritage Life Bldg.
Jacksonville, Florida 32202 E. W. Barnett, Esquire Charles G. Ghrash, Jr., Esquire Robert E. Bathen J. Gregory Copeland, Esquire R. W. Beck & Associates Theodore F. Weiss, Jr., Esquire P. O. Box 6817 Baker & Botts Orlando, Florida 82803 3000 One Shell Plaza Houston, Texas 77002 Somervell County Public Library P. O. Box 417 G. W. Oprea, Jr. Glen Rose, Texas 76403 Executive Vice President Houston Lighting & Power Co. Maynard Human, General Manager P. O. Box 1700 Western Farmers Electric Coop. Houston, Texas 77001 P. O. Box 429 Anadarko, Oklahoma 73005 W. S. Robson, General Manager South Texas Electric Coop. , Inc. James E. Monahan Route 6, Building 102 Executive Vice President Victoria Regional Airport and General Manager Victoria, Texas 77901 Brazos Electric Power Coop, Inc. P. O. Box 6296 Michael I. Miller, Esquire Waco, Texas 76706 Richard E. Powell, Esquire David M. Jtahl, Esquire Robert M. Rader Isham, Lincoln & Beake Conner, Moore & Corber One First National Plaza 1747 Pennsylvania Avenue , N. W. Chicago, Illinois 60603 Washington, D. C. 20006 Donald Clements, Esquire W. N. Woolsey, Esquire Gulf States Utilities Co. Dyer and Redford P. O. Box 2951 1030 Petroleum Tower Beaumont, Texas 77074 Corpus Christi, Texas 78474 M Marc R. Poirier Attorney for the Public Utilities Board of the City of Brownsville, Texas i lI224 2if22 _ __ _ __ . __ ._}}