ML19276F283
| ML19276F283 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Grand Gulf  |
| Issue date: | 03/12/1979 |
| From: | Toalston A Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Stampley N MISSISSIPPI POWER & LIGHT CO. |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7903280210 | |
| Download: ML19276F283 (3) | |
Text
-.
^
m j
UNITED STATES yg
/4 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMisslON EM WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 tf % 4,8 MAR 121379
+....
7--~~~_____
. Docket Nos. 50-416 50-417 g - v
~ bississippi Power & Light Conpany ATTH: fir. isorris S. Staapley Vice President - Production Electric Building Jackson, Mississippi 39205 Genticcen:
GPRID CULF i;UCLEAR STATIO1, UNITS 1 A:lD 2 -
Thank you for your subnittal of February 7,1979, providing infor; ation for the Operating License antitrust review of Grand Gulf.
Review of this initial information has disclosed certain areas where we need some clarification or additional detail.
Therefore, we vould appreciate it if you could furnish infon'ation in response to the following questions.
1.
Is the town of Itta Bena served under the 11'-15 rate schedule? How and by whoo was Itta Eena supplied prior to its supply by MP&L?
What were the circunstances leading to the change in supply or supplicr? Uas there any organized opposition to the change in supply or supplier? If so, please describe.
What is the approxicate peak load of Itta Bena?
2.
Uhat were the circunstances leading to the purchase of Capital Electric Power Association? Was there any organized opposition to the purchase? If so, please describe.
3.
Mas there any organized opposition to the tiP L lease arrangement with the Town of Shau? If so, please describe. Does the lease arrangenent provide liPCL with the option of acquisition?
If so, please describe.
4.
Please describe.SMEPA's transnission in tems of voltage, inter-connections and extent of the transmission with respect to nenbers connected and not connected.
After SMEFA's interconnection with 79032802io 1
+
~
7.____._..
~2-
!!P&L, will SMEPA also be interconnected with Mississippi Power Conpany in a closed loop fashion?
5.
Does M! EPA own any transmission? If so, please describe in terms of voltage and extent of the transatssion (e.g., with respect to octbers connected and not connected). Has LiiEPA expressed any interest in an interconnection and transmission service schedule nou or in the future sir.ilar (or disia11ar) to that which MP&L is negotiating with SMEPA7 If so, please describe.
6.
Does the Municipal Energy Agency of Hi sissippi (MEAM) own any transmission? If so, please describe in tercs of voltage and extent of the transmission (e.g., with respect to reembers connected
^
and not connected). I!as MEMI expressed any interest in an interconnection and transnission service schedule similar to that which MP&L is negotiating with SMEPA7 If so, please describe.
7.
Is HPLL willing to include Short-Term Firn (transnission) service, sinilar to that of paragraph 16.0G of Service Schedule TS-2 with SHEPA, in Service Schedule E of its interconnection agreenents with Clarksdale and others? If not, why not?
8.
Has HPAL approached LP&L or other HSU affiliates to atteapt to work out compiccentary transnission service arrangements? Uc note in your filed Service Schedule E, for providing transnission service to Clarksdale, the folloutng Clause:
"If the requested transaission service involves trans-mission directly or indirectly _ over the facilities of a third utility system, City will cake arrangements for the use of those facilities..."
(enphasisadded)
Since HPal and LPat are both interconnected to GSU and to each other, what is your vicu as to whether, under this clause, any transnission of pouer by MPSL or LPEL to or from Gulf States Utilities (GSU) would indirectly involve transmission over the other affiliate?
Is it your view that an entity in LP&L's service area desiring to transmit power to GSU should pay both LPSL and MP5L for such service, and another entity in HP&L's service area desiring to transmit an equal amount of power to GSU, should also pay both LPtd.
and HP&L for that service? Have you developed a nethod to determine the direct and indirect portions of each power transnission, and would you charge accordingly? What difficulties and expenses would
' e,j
~3-be involved if interconnected utilitics accepted indirect flows through their systens on a nutual exchange basis, in particular, when they are sister affiliates with single systen generation -- -
dispatch?
9.
L'e are still not clear as to the penalty that would occur to fiSE if it were required to rede::a scoe of the first mortgage Londs issued in connection with Grand Gulf. Since the bonds would be redeemd
- =
at par by funds fron new owners, would there be any direct financial
~
penalty to MSE even though the Lond rates any now be higher for the new owners? Does the financial p.:nalty to MSE of which you are concerned cone about because i!SE ray have to issue neu bonds for additional generation capacity to replace the sancration capacity lost through granting access to addition:1 ct.rcrs? If so, what knculedge do you have or what is your estfrate of the present tarket value of the bonds and the expected rarket value of bonds about one year from now as compared to the par value of the Grand Gulf bonds?
/s/ A L.Tochton,
Argil Toalston, Chief Power Supply Analysis Section Antitrust & Indeonity Group Office of I'oclear Reactor P.cculation cc: P,obert B. IkGehee, Esq.
Troy D. Connor Jr., Esq.
Distribution:
JRutberg, OELD JSaltzman DVogler AToalston R/F AIG Files AIG Reading PDR LPDR Docket Files
~ ~ ~ ~
,,.,,maempe=*-
a
,e*^*
4 y