ML19305D414

Opposition to Joint Motion for Extension of Time & Request for Prehearing Conference.Brownsville Has Been Excluded from Negotiations on Which Request for Extension Is Based. Certificate of Svc Encl

ML19305D414
Person / Time
Site:	South Texas, Comanche Peak
Issue date:	04/03/1980
From:	Poirier M, Spiegel G BROWNSVILLE, TX, SPIEGEL & MCDIARMID
To:	Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
Shared Package
ML19305D398	List: ML19305D397 ML19305D414
References
NUDOCS 8004150050
Download: ML19305D414 (24)

Text

-

O UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of )

)

HOUSTON LIGHTING & POWER COMPANY, et al. ) NRC Docket Nos. 50-498A

) 50-499A (South Texas Project, Units 1 and 2) )

In the Matter of TEXAS UTILITIES GENERATING COMPANY, NRC Docket Nos. 50-445A et al., ) 50-446A (Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station, )

Units 1 and 2) )

OPPOSITION BY BROWNSVILLE TO JOINT MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME AND REQUEST FOR PREHEARING CONFERENCE ,

Comes now the Public Utilities Board of the City of Brownsville, Texas ("Brownsville"), in opposition to the Motion

' *] to extend for 30 days ,

all procedural dates in the above-captioned matter, and in support of its opposition avers:

1. The Motion s e ek.s a 30-day extension of time of all pro-cedural dates " based on the progress of very meaningful settlement negotiations among certain private parties which could lead to a resolution of part or all of these proceedings" (Mot. p.1). These .,

involve an " attempt to settle the underlying controversies between them-selves which constitute a substantial part of taese cases," and "there

• / Joint Motion of the Staff of the Commission, Central and South West Corporation, Houston Lighting & Power Company, Texas Utilities Generating Company, the City of Austin, the City Public Service Board of San Antonio, the STEC-MEC Electric Cooperatives, and Tex-La Electric Cooperative of Texas, Inc., for a 30-day Extension of Time, filed April c.1980.

j** Presumably, Houston Lighting & Power Co. ("HL&P"); Texas Utilities ("TU"),

(including its subsidiaries, Texas Power & Light Company, Dallas Power & Light Company, and Texas Electric Service Company); and Central and South West Corporation ("C&SW"), (including its subsidiaries Central Power & Light Company, Public Service Company of Oklahoma, Southwestern Electric Power Company and West Texas Utilities Co.)

8 00415 0C5::7

i is a reasonable probability that the substantive matters in issue in this dispute can be resolved and settled, among at least some, and perhaps all of the parties" (Mot. p. 2). The extension of time would further "significantly" the Board's "important interests . . . in moving this matter to an expeditious resolution." (ld.)

d There appears little doubt that C&SW, HL&P and TU have reached private agreement among themselves to which no other party in Texas was privy.

2. Brownsville opposes the extension of time because of its

• ]

exclusion from the negotiations (see Attachment A); and also because, P

based upon what information it has received concerning the negotiations

• • /

(see, for example, Attachment B), (a) it does not believe the negotiations will solve the situation inconsistent with the antitrust laws which exist vis-a-vis CP&L (and others) and Brownsville (which lies at the southernmost Texas-Mexico border, whose sole interconnection to the outside electrical world is with CP&L, and whose sole access to power supplies competitive to CP&L is through some 200 miles of CP&L's transmission system); and (b) it does not believe that the arrangements as proposed for the DC inter-connections will be in the larger public interest (and therefore they will extend the s i t u a t i on inconsistent with the antitrust laws) for failure to assure the optimization of the power interconnection, interchange and pooling of electric utility resources throughout the Southwest region of the country for the benefit of all consumers and all smaller utility systems and thus to meet the purposes of Section 202(a) of the Federal Power Act

_/* Letter dated March 26, 1980 from George Spiegel to David M. Stahl.

• • / Harch 27, 1980 Affidavit of Robert E. Roundtree, Brownsville's General Manager concerning March 25th meeting with M. H. Borchelt, CP&L Executive Vice President and Chief Engineering Officer. '

~

as well as other pertinent standards of that Act, the Atomic Energy Act and the Public Utility Holding Company Act.

/

3. Brownsville would not oppose the time extension were Brownsville ,

to have adequate assurances from CP&L committing CP&L to serious negotiations seeking to alleviate the anticompetitive noose it has placed upon Brownsville. l Brownsville would then have some basis for anticipating a possible successful culmination of the settlement negotiations, and therefore some basis not to oppose the extension. The contrary is the fact, and CP&L's anticompetitive activities have intensified so that Brownsville's need for early relief has increased. I

4. Brownsville would not oppose the time extension if it were granted forthwith participation in the settlement negotiations with access to all current agreements or draft of agreements so that it could like "certain private parties" participate in " meaningful settlement negotiations" (Mot. p. 1). Brownsville requested, on March 26th, upon receipt of defini- l

• • • /

tive news concerning the settlement, that it be innediately granted such participation, but has received no affirmative response. It is apparent that there is a strategy abroad to line up in advance enough systems,  !

with enough cross-commitments and bargained exchanges, so as to attempt to steamroller Brownsville and any other systems with the temerity to insist upon their rights.

• ] It is our understanding that the instant NRC proceedings cannot and will not be settled separate from a settlement of all related proceedings, i.e_.:

Central and South West Corp. , et al., SEC Adnin. File No. 3-4951; Central Power & Light Co., et al., FERC Docket No. EL79-8; West Texas Utilities Co. v. Texas Electric Service Co., 470 F. Supp. 798 (N.D. Tex. 1979), appeal pending, No. 79-2677 (5th Cir.-).

• */ Attachment A hereto.

• • • / Attachment B hereto. There may be a question as to the weight to be given CP&L's Mr. Borchelt's statements. His statement on March 25th that the

• Federal regulatory agency staffs had been contacted and their reactions had been favorable appears inaccurate. Telephone calls by the undersigned on March 26th to trial counsel elicited lack of any knowledge of the matter; and on March 27th, at the oral argument before the NRC Appeals Board, counsel for Justice and NRC stated a similar lack of kn owledge regarding the status of settlement.

5. In furtner support of points 2(a) and 4 above, it appears that CP&L has, in the course of these private negotiations "among certain private parties" (Mot. p.1), intensified its anticompetitive actions towards its captive customer Brownsville. It refused to sign an Inter-connection Contract which had been fully negotiated, line-by-line, and '

agreed to by Brownsville's General Manager and CP&L's Vice President for sales, and insisted upon execution of a much more onerous Interconnection Contract with a 10-year take-or-pay provision as a condition of obtaining any power sale commitment and comencement of a badly needed 138 kV inter-connection. Further, it proposed an obviously excessive transmission wheeling rate (almost double the rate for the sale of firm capacity both generated and transmitted by CP&L) while it continued to drag its feet on the long '

promised transmission agreement. This, plus other events, left Brownsville with no alternative but to accept CP&L's take-it-or-leave-it proposal by the April 1,1980 CP&L deadline.

6. In further support of point 2(b) above, it appears that the '

proposed settlement will not provide for related arrangements among the -

members of the Texas Interconnected Systems (" TIS") and South Texas Interconnected Systems ("STIS") necessary to provide for coordination and inte%ange to achieve the potential enonnous savings estimated by HL&P's consultants, STagg Systems, Inc. to be available from recommended pooled operations of the systems. Instead, it will only benefit the corporate interests of "certain private parties" (Mot. p.1).

• / See also Deposition of S. B. Phillips, Jr., then Borad Chairman of C&SW, on February 27 and 28,1980 at Dallas, Texas; and letter dated February 15, 1980, Borchelt to Roundtree. (Attachment C hereto).

• • j Two studies prepared by Stagg Systems, Inc. and submitted as evidence before the SEC estimate the savings from joint planning and joint ownership of large generating resources and coordinated dispatch by the member utilities of the Electric Reliability Council of Texas. Generation and Transmission Planning Study of the Electric Reliability Council of Texas, December 1,1977; Economic EvaluaHon of Alternative Generation ExpanHon Plans for Electric Reliability Council H Texas and Southwest Power Pool, Dec. 17, 1979. See also Deposition of Glenn Stagg in the instant proceeding, March 31, 1980, Washington, D. C. (Baker & Botts' office).

7. In further support of Point 2(b) above, it appears that the same rate-making methods for CP&L's proposed (grossly excessive) transmission  ;

wheeling rate would be used for determining the cost of wheeling power through intervening systems and across the state border. Thus, in practical effect, CP&L, at least, is refusing to wheel power across state lines for the smaller electric utilities of Texas and adjoining states. No settlement can be successful unless the transmitting utilities tender reasonable joint trans-mission wheeling rates so that across-the-borderpower transactions are feasible for the smaller utilities; otherwise, bottleneck control by "certain private parties" of the interstate interconnections amplifies the situation inconsistent with the antitrust laws.

8. In further support of Point 2(b) above, it appears that an essential item of settlement is the exclusion of HL&P and TU from FERC  ;

regulatory jurisdiction: in view of the needs to optimize utility resources throughout the Southwest region, it is most dubious that it can be found to be in the public interest that regulation of the total interconnected system should be split between Federal and State regulatory Egencies. In addition, it also appears dubious that the limited DC interconnections will ,,rovide a basis for the Securities and Exchange Commission to find C&SW to be sufficiently integrated so as to avoid divestiture under the Public Utility Holding Company Act.

9. Justice delayed is justice denied -- and made more expensive to the point that only the rich and powerful can afford to litigate. The small utilities can obtain relief only if trial courts move matters along to an early conclusion. One time extension leads to another and trial dates are continually put off for one arguably valid reason after another. Settlement is most likely to be achieved if the alternative is an early trial.

10. If the Licensing Board is otherwise inclined towards' granting '

the extension, the Board should condition the extension upon requiring the three companies forthwith to provide a full disclosure of the status of the negotiations and admit into the negotiating sessions Brownsville and other interested parties.

11. Brownsville requests an early prehearing conference on this matter because of its critical importance.

WHEREFORE, Brownsville submits, for the foregoing reasons, the t

Board shouTd deny the Joint Motion for extension of time, and, if it '

determines otherwise, the Board should condition its order upon requiring full participation by all interested parties in all settlement negotiations.

Respectfully submitted, s Ad v George Sp Mgel y CM G 0 .

Marc R. Poi rier Attorneys for the Public Utilities Board of the City of Brownsville, Texas '

Law Offices: ,

Spiegel & McDiarmid  ;

2600 Virginia Avenue, N. W.

Washington, D. C. 20037 <

April 3, 1980 l

9

b

• ATTACHMENT A * *

1. u w oppicas sacwas SeteGa6 a c. SPIEGEI. Jc McDIARMID soNNIE S. SLAIR ho"A$ISTas 2000 VIRGINIA AVENUE. N.W. As C. T U4E

,8,"Y ^;J^8j,",

,, WASHINGTON. O.C. 20037 Jo GNA A NJ CTM g ic[AsL

,gg Ao g TELapwone taca: 333-4sco YJN LL DANIEL l. DAVICSON TELECOPfER (202) 333=2974 MAgTA A, MAN (gg THOM AS N. MCMUGH. J A.

GANlsk J. GUTTM AN JOSEPM L VAN EATCN a Tsa ( MATT SAvlO R. STRAUS March 26, 1980  ;

i David M. Stahl, Esq. i Isham, Lincoln & Beale Suite 701 F 1050 - 17th Street, N. W.

Washington, D. C. 20036 lt Re: Texas litigation: Houston Lightino & Power, NRC Docket Nos. 50-498A, 50-499A; Central

& South West Coro., et al, SEC No. 3-4951; i Central Power & Light, et al, FERC No. EL 79-8; '

and other related croceedinos *

Dear Dave:

l Yesterday, Mr. M. L. Borchelt Executive Vice President and Chief Engineering Officer of Central Power and Light Company, a i subsidiary of Central and South West Corporation, called on Mr. Robert .

Roundtree, Manager of the Public Utilities Board of Brownsville, Texas, i at the express request of Mr. Durwood Chalker, Board Chairman of C&SW, '

to inform Brownsville generally of the plans of C&SW, Houston Lighting and Power Company, and Texas Utilities, to settle the above-referenced  !

litigation. He stated, among other things, that the settlement had been  :

informally discussed and approved by the Governors and regulatory  !

comissions of Arkansas, Oklahoma and Texas. He also stated that it'had  ;

also been discussed with Federal agencies, and they are in general accord, .. i though no commitment has been made. i Needless to say, Brownsville views the settlement of this  !

litigation as extremely desirable and is prepared to cooperate fully to  !

achieve this end. Brownsville has a substantial interest in these pro-  !

ceedings, as set forth in our pleadings and depositions, and, of course,  !

desires that any proposed settlement resolves the pertinent issues raised .

i by Brownsville and demonstrably meets the standards of public interest as they relate to the power interconnection, interchange and pooling of  :

electric utility resources throughout the Southwest region of the country.  !

Brownsville, all smaller utility systems, and all consumers are benefitted t by interregional exchange and pooling arrangements which serve the purposes l of Section 202(a) of the Federal Power Act as well as meet all pertinent l standards of that Act, the Atomic Energy Act and the Public Utility Holding  ;

Company Act. '

i

/

i i

David M. Stahl, Esq. March 26, 1980 l l

I am sure you appreciate that C&SW's interest in achieving settlement can best be served by bringing into the settlement negotiations ,

all substantially interested parties, including Brownsville, and at the ,

earliest possible stage, because otherwise major parties bargain for and l develop vested negotiated interests which may create difficulties in i accomodating the ;'eeds of later-admitted parties, e

According).<, it is requested that you furnish us with copies  !

of such agreements or croposed agreements or understandings that have been '

reached to date and tha' you provide for our prompt entry into the dis-cussions. I and John Davidson have been assigned the chief responsibility for representing Brownsvil'e's interests in such discussions.

i I will be happy to discuss this with you at your earliest  ;

convenience. "

Sincerely yours, George Spiegel  !

GS/nzb cc: Mr. Robert E. Roundtree, PUB, Brownsville  ;

John W. Davidson, Esq.

l Michael J. Manning, Esq.

Philip McConnell, Esq. l I

i l

?

i e

b i

P' , b s*

• ATTACHMENT B *

• d \. l 6

STATE OF TEXAS I -

COUNTY OF CAMERON I AFFIDAVIT BEFORE ME, the undersigned official, on this day personally ,

appeared Robert E. Roundtree, who is personally known to me, and . ;

first being duly sworn according to law upon his oath deposed and said:

My name is Robert E. Rotinderee; I am over 18 years of age, ,

and I reside at 2d5 Calle Amistosa #138, Brownsville, Texas. I have never been convicted of a crime, and I am fully competent to -

make this affidavit. I have personal knowledge of the fr. cts stated l

• herein, and they are all true and correct.

On March 24, 1980, Mr. Merle Borchelt of CP&L called to set up an appointment with me on March 25, 1980 at 9:00 am.

I was forced to cancel the 9:00 am appointment on March 24, 1980.

Mr. Borchelt called again on March 25, 1980 and I agreed to pick him up at the Brownsville Airport that day at 11:00 am for a conference.

Mr. Larry Gawlik, my Associate Manager for Engineer 1ng, and I met Mr. Borchelt at the Brownsv111e Airport at 11:00 am, March 25, 1980 and picked up hr. Borchelt and Mr. Buddy Ieague of CP&L. The four of us then met Mr. Tyler Russell of CP&L at the Beacon Harbor Restaurant for a luncheon conference.

Mr. Borchelt stated that he had been asked by Mr. Durwood Chalker of CSW to meet with me and bring me up to date on ongoing discussions between the Texas IOU's relative to a settlement of the interstate versus intrastate problems between CSW and Texas Utilities and Houston ,

Light and Power.

l '

M AFFIDAVIT Page 2 .

i Mr. Borchelt stated chat agreement had been reached among the IOU's l for the construction of two direct current interstate ties of 500 MW and l 250 capacities and that by virtue of the direct current transmission  !

across state lines that Texas Utilities and Houston I,ight and Power would not be subject to federal regulation.

Mr. Borchelt also stated that. complete settlement was anticipated l during the first two weeks of April 1980.  ;

I then asked if any party- had been involved in the settlement nego- i ciations other than the IOU's and Mr. Borchelt stated that none had but that all were now being informed as I was.

I then. asked Mr. Borchelt if the federal and state regulatory bodies had been a party to the settlement- talks and he said that meetings had I been held. with the Commissions of Texas, Oklahoma and Arkansas and with j the Governors.' offices of those states and that all comments were favor- l able to the direct current transfer mode as a basis of settlement.

I then asked if the federal regulatory staffs had been contacted and Mr. Borchelt stated that they had. and that without commitment the j i

rea'etions expressed were favorable. "

I asked Mr. Borchalt if his conversation with me was to be con-l sidered confidential in nature and he said no but that he hoped it would i

not be given to the news media prematurely.  ;

I told Mr. Borchelt that I appreciated the information and that  ;

Brownsville was prepared to enter settlement' negotiations in line with our consistent position that benefits accruing t' o the electric industry should flow to the benefit of all segments of the industry.

\ ,. -i e

AFFIDAVII Pcg3 3 I also took occasion to. caution Mr. Borchelt that my legal counsel was very likely to be upset when I informed them of the status of settle-ment talks of which they had no knowledge and urged him to have his at-torneys contact my attorneys and inform them of the status of settlement and why they had been excluded from settlement discussions.

Robert E.'Roundtree  ;.

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO BEFORE ME on the 27th day of March,1980, to certify which witness my hand.and official seal. ,

(

.1

\

- Barbara Nicol l 1

Notary Public in and for .

' Cameron County, Texas My commission expires the 20th day of December,1980.

l

- i i

I i

. i

..p.  %=. . . e em-.m. --.w... ems.-

C -

• l g v, ,* *l - -

3is.asi.no

. . ' . . r. . te. 2::t, ce,,,,. cw,,, te.e. :ues

e. , .

• ATTACHMENT C *

• i

"~ l l -

' M 25

$GJLM--- a===mur t

Februa.y 15, 1980 M. g sardete .

• gne<werve vke PresJdent end~~~ ~ ~ ~

tNel L ;: a=5 O!Heen ,

i I D 'O b '

Mr. 3cb Roundtree a Public Utilities Board of 3rownsv111e ** * ' J '" I P.O. 3cx 3270 3rownsville, Texas 78520 -

/

Re: CPL / PUB Interconnectica Contrac ,

I and Transmission Services Agreement l

Dear Mr. Roundtree:

f r

Ar our meeting in Dallas on February 1,1980, you asked for an estimate of the races which =ight apply during the term of the interconnection conrract and a summary of CFL's' position on this contract. Inclosed are the esc 1=ated rates  ;

based on 1979 ac:ual costs, and budgeted additions to plant and your forecasted

( load and energy. Additionally, :his letter su==ari=es; che cha=ges in the inter- j connection contract which C7L desires and the options which CPL would like to discuss vi:h you at our =ceting on February 1,9, 1980.

First, since PUB is cow a me=ber of TIS and STIS, it is no longer appropriate  ;

tha: :he interconnection contrac: include emergency power provisions. Iherefore,

, we propose to delete all references to emergency power from the interconnection .

Contract.

• i Secon'd, CFL projec:s thah it will have surplus capacity, including the reserves for that capaci:y, in the amounts and at the times shown on the en-closed table. We are willing to reserve all or a part of this surplus, in- .

ciuding reserves, for PUB, but only on a take or pay basis for the amount spec-  !

fied by you. As you know, we are negotiating with others for the sale of all .

or part of this surplus. Therefore, it is important that we receive your commit-  !

=ent promptly in order that we will know how much of this projec:ed surplus will l be available for others. We will not commit the surpluses shown in the enclosed l table to anyone else, provided CPL. and PUB are able to reach agreement on this contrae: by April 1, 1980.

Finally, in order to plan for fuel acquisitions and to design an appropriate race structure, it will be necessary to define the amount of energy with PU3 will take.along with the associated power. The races enclosed are based on the a=cus:

of energy which you have indicated to us vill be taken. Monthly Race "A" for

( .

i wember er u cenwel oed soum wesu spem Centro! P o ower and Ught Public Service Cbmpony of Cktohomo S c, .v r% o. w s,outhwestern Electric Power West mr Temos Utilities ,

g s

' ,Pcgo 2

'. Mr. Bsb Rcundtrac, February 15, 1980 1

1980 and 1984 is based on your willingness to connait to taking that amount of l' energy. If you wish more flexibility in the amount of energy to be taken, Monthly Race "B" could be employed. The degree of flexibility allowed in your capacity factor will necessarily be reflected in the rate design.

l 1

We are also enclosisg'calculati'ons for hypothetical rate de' sign for trans-  !

mission seryices based.on the TIS, Positive Impact MVA-Mile approach. This differs from the LCRA contract which contains an* Absolute Value Impact E-Mile approach.  !

It is otherwise similar to LCRA approach.  ;

i Tours very truly, i A_)

.' I M. L. Borchalt -

t j

ML3:gh -

Inclosure . I cc: Durwood Chalker A*

"\

g D D A. E. Autry \

( R. L. Range  ; **J * ']~  ;

W. C. Price .

C. A. Mast

• T. J. Curles - '

C. E. Orsak R. 3. Weston - -  ;

W. N. Woosley -

M. Manning . "

Mike Miller t

3. J. Harris -

J. C. Wells Phil McConnell '

j l

[

( C, . J' f*

6..C'ec 4  :

[h. b-q ,

c po.6 s...e L s, . .

• [

~~

kd . h A i

. i

. . .. . . . . . . ._ - .-. -... . . . - - - - - . - l

( , l' *} .

r- .

n .~ .

l. .

CETRAL POWER AND LICitT COMPANY FORECAST OF EXCESS CAPACITY Willi RESERVES

'; ,(BASED ON 15% TIS ' RESERVE CRITERIA) 1980 81 82 83 Mi 8} .88 I 36_ 81 8.2 l .-

(1) Fir $ Load & Standby - 2504 2638' 2865-- 2996 3140 3273 3437 3596 3765 3955

, (2) Reg'd Cen.- to uneet

. 15% Reserve

. -(L 1 i 1.15) 2880 3034 3295 3445- 3611. 3764 3953 4135 4330 4548 (3) Ceneration Available 3504 3534 3534 3534 3849~ 3849 4164 4153 4345 4595 (4) Excess Cen. Above 15%- . - *

• l

, (L 3. . -

- L.2). " 624 500 239 89 238 85 211 ' . 18 15 47 (5) Excess Cen. With

• Reserves-(L4/1.15) 543 435 208 77 207 74 183 16 13 41 t

O e

~

1 . I 2-15-80 i - l' j . .

.. . p i .

l

• t .

- ,- . RATE ESTIMATE ,

l y

CITY OF BROWNSVIII.I 1980 . .

Billed KW = 40,0'0 0 x 12 = 480,000 l

KNE Sold'= 310,240,000 , .

KWE Related Costs $ 6,833,264

. i Revenue from Fuel Cost Mjustment* 7,623,037  !

t i

Difference = 789,773 Revenue from Energy Charge 6 $0.003/KWE 930,720 l Sub-total - Revenue from Energy Charge and Excess l from Puel Cost Mjustment = ~ , 1,720,493 -

i

. l Capacity Related Costs =

3,080,697 r

Balance to be recovered by Demand Charge . 1,360,204  ;

. u

( Demand Charge ($1,360,204 + 480,000) = 2.83/KW l

.  : l

~

Cuscomer Related Costs =. . 7,883 f

' t Customer Charge per Month 656.92  !

Monthly Rate A Monthly Rate E i

Customer Charge $657.00 $657.00 t t

Demand Charge $ 2.83;per KW $ 4.69 per KW (including !

620 KWE/KW) -

Energy Charge $

• 0.003 per JtWE for .

$ 0.003 for each addi- i 310,240,000 KWHs tional KWE used l

. Plus Fuel Cost .',, Plus Fuel Cost l

. Mjustment Mjustment ,

. t

. 5

• Based of present FERC approved method . [

. i

. i

's *

}

2-15-80

-I

.:l

_ - . - . . . - w

~ , .

. / RATE ESTIMATE

• i

_ /"' /

j.

CITY OF BROWNSVILLI

. =

/ 1984 l- Billed D = 70',000 x ,52 - 840,000

' /

UH-sold - 575,710g000 ,

I WH Relatied Cp'sts = , $16,557,198 Revenue from Fuel Cost Adjustment = Ilr 17,501,584 Differenen = -

944,386 Revenue from Energy Charge 0 $0.003/ U H = 1,722,"bO, Sub-total - Revenue from Energy Charge and Excess

• from Fuel Cost Adjustment = .

2,671,516 Capacity Related Costs = 7,472,995 Balance to be recovered by Demand Charge = .

4,801,479 Demand Charge ($4,801,479 + 840,000) = 5.72/KW Customer Related Costs.= -

. . 9,631 Customer Charga Per Month 802.58

- Monthly Rate'A -

Monthly Rate 3  :

Customer Charge $802.50 $802.50  !

Demand Charge' $ 5.72 per N ,

$ 7.58 per KW (, including 620 KWH/ N) .

Energy Charge $ 0.003 per EH for $ 0.003 for each additional 575,710,000 WHs KWH used .

Plus Fuel Costi Plus Fuel Cost i:

Adjustment Adjustment 4l f;

-

• Based on present FERC approvad method

• Ii

. I I

I t

- i

.x. .

. 2-15-80 i

l

• .1

ESTIMATED TRANSHISS 10N SERVl'CE I, ..

• RATE FOR 1980

- l A.

'OEVELOPM5NT OF CAPACITY RELATED TRANSMISSION USE COST (MVA-Mi HETH .

Positive MVA-Mi * '

Impact FOR EACH * *

==

VOLTAGE'Cl. ASS ; (.2063) Deprec. Pl.+(.178)Non-Deprec. Pl. ,

Base MVA-Mi + - a -

l Positive MVA-Mi impact >

PMI = Pos i t'ive MVA-M i impact , .

PMI

• 69KV : x ($10,396,786)

=.- 69KV Annual Capacity Use Cost 21,83O+PMI .

PMI 138KV: x ($16,515,372) = 138KV Annual Capacity use Cost 102,647+PMI .

< PMI I

\. 345KV: ' x ($4.510,936) = 345KV Annual Capacity use Cost 9,286+PMI. , , .

s ,

e - l Total Annual Transmission Capaci*ty Use Cost' =

~ ~

B. DEVELOPMENT OF ANNUAL TRANSMISSION O&M COST SHARE PRORATION: (

l Total PMI .

x ($3,588,732) =

Total Annual Prorated OEM Cost 133,763+PMI -

l 1

C. TOTAL ANNUAL TRANSMIS$10N SERVICE RATE:

A+B =

• l l

i i

. 2/15/80 l

(.

~

/1 a

O

.e. .. . ee .-.*-e **ee e y

I- _

i

o

, /

l ,

~

EXAMPLE l

CPL TO. WHEEL 50 MW FROM TU MVA-Mi impact Based on 1980 Summer Peak Base Case - -

Positive MVA-MI, Increases on CPL's Transmission System  ;

'69KV -

5350  ;

. 138KV -

9456 .-

345KV -

1208 ,. i Total 13014 MVA-MI

/* .

A. CAPACITY' C05,7 OEVELOPMENT: -

2350 .

69KV .

x ($10,396,786).

=

$1,010,440 ,

21,830+2350,

. 9456 '

138KV x ($16,515.372) = $1,393,086

.. 102',647+9456 1208 - -

345KV x ($4.510,936) = 5 519,269 9,28641208 .

Total Annual Transmission Capacity O

.Use Cost. *

= $2,922,795- l

' S,50

. W a, n, l

. 1,

8. ANNUAL TRANSHISSION 0&M , COST PRORATION:  !

13014 .

-($3,588,732) '

x. = $ 318,195

. l

., TOTAL ANNUAL TRANSMISSION SERVICE RATE:

u. -C.

l

'[ ,

$2,922,795 + $318,195 = $3,240,990 -

2/15/80 ,

..i l

l

'se

s

. CENTRAL . POWER AND LIGHT CO.

i -

TRANSMI55 ION PLANT ACCOUNTS '

. December 31, 1979 i

t TOTAL NON-DEPREC DEPREC PLANT PLANT PLANT i -

' VOLTAGE ,

I CLASS ($)

($) .

($)  ;

1 69KV 50,451,369 400,400 50,050,969 138KV 80,072,5.14 126,739 79,945,775 i 345KV . 21.883.984 131.798 21.752.186 TOTALS 152,407,867 658,937 151,748,930

, f i-FIXED CHARGE RATE (%) 17.8, 20.63 ANNUAL TRANSMISSION 0&M EXPENSES AS OF DECEMBER 31,1979 .

3,588,732 ,

d e

. 1 I

. l

. i

_ l l

w . . l W

l

~

a/,r/co -

1 l

\ \

( i .... , im

. . . . r- :q t.

.. ,,,,,,, g.; ,

'D f 6 %0 :: j }

I D :.A _.,

l~~* ** I :

i: ..... ,

~ ,. .

-: f 97 . . a. -

" " .; ; ., .~.Q, ' . .rC1%'i. u.+;.W; g;. :..::u_-

i

', , l .:.::.:.:..gy,W.,,  :-

-r w w / ~ ~ .

.i.' i. . i.?O.'

..A. .-.p/:/ a:

a,

.. ~~w;. ,, x;. . .v..- . j. f,,n,2. . e/,;c . . ,-. .w i

.....n-.~,,,:-

ev.5,,.@.:_- .g .

.. ..gf g . n. --;. ,

-<..e .

! .: .-c ."N/s.w. 'd3$ TI? y s p.[d 5 P M F M 3 M M D.'~.S$ @ 5. M .i M %. Q l

. .s.:.w ; ,

. . ..,  ::r.,;s.2. -mw_m.%.e.w;m.,e ,; mw I

c, c m 2 3 4 -- - a i i  ::.A ;--k.e A:%w:e,+.M-M >. v>%.&.2 I a.sms:-s) -em,wl smw.p M/ :+'2hnwM5=%\ M%v l *%irFirm

• Win'-M M k:1 a j Orn ~.::i- @-W64W60::;- Mew!;.:Mi s3;gsps M @ g- g ac.pg6l  ;

9 a eluum.h ,$ : W A4%I W4 & 4i GUMif*@P,!A M i e

% % .c 6 u . = M sixe ' 11 dhhWit %4:.-l 3 r :DW5ht&dil 2; *

' fgeB !nis. sw%;w " d==M ul:Lkd.A :..iblky 4 :\ n-l t+ %\gh a 2 .

2

.mg4 %2 M nen m:%E.! Wlb m c.hlW i'. .el ~5 %&L;\ a. :)J,\%., ,.

s es) % L M % %;s.% M T - -ki&d L4 4- 14.2Nibs %&Wdir a!

e sAsi I n, b , ~ 4 M i.,Ls:db W ilW J> Rib #\h -\ -

%LLt.WM)MJkk sl

? sigil e . :::.d+ . ' .; c., :sike%CE&%i &&MiWi 5\ EALIhY.ai 7 1 1 g.a f .. . : 2::::m: 4 g;cl & q-  : 9:w:p:y w ,4, , ,,) *. ; ,y.,y,, ,l

.us ILy;;r. /sp .

.v -I tl: ,

l .  ; ti.-d i ciq::c- 1 .

1 J. '

l sagalin~ a U ' .. : k& inn l sagksh.19 ELM 4k}u Al.MI .;;43,- rghe l Wl:\. L ,-l u.)&Lt.ks! mil lst-:,.wiapa,4 n1 u .G l . . ;7 -- - ig w 1 .. .

t

' Min >-\ ~t *.l- 1. R Tl. - .\ ..2120il M lnl @ h y;,V A i2 l n di I .- *a.,.. -

n eds k w ao L % a.

\ &da

. L -

i - V' ,

'MM & id n'

,, y,;g t '

.. .u .- .. .-

a %QA o a  :-

..t M -

-viy,, AL;g

,, gg,f:.!  ::f.; .a j. . .

y~..y .: l gy,glp .. :- ::.l ., .-l. e .:: q gjj,gg 3, .

s ed.s n '

.: .e. V-. : v:rM.m .nkW44M d, .- . I .c:.kl.k % HMDh4 ,s b wl l L i m i a k - m & & D ':- T 2. M .~ & 4Mdsi ik'l% Chi @Mdsld'htkl4Gei 15 n aml l AJL,- a 4:n.,JV5x iaWMIy+}M%M. '~il%;% ;di%t)a b ik i.,  ;& Il& u a & ,L ka.i t A 6 h thMMMMMd 201Mui?ndMDhi a i ml llrsLnt s., n -m =-M \  :& db 2 % b u&#1 AW4Addkr -

2c n .gr.lin '

k+ -- :dA;isi&\  : . lv A +?I :-

. . . \;  :-l h- 1.\ . 2,

-l : na&%

~

n .- 4 l ., 3 ,, i.us ':? 1 -

.  : L .

1

.:l 3kggg h n\kt! ! . .,, ; a . .

,i .

. usa n-c. . .

-l . L\ .w -

".I ;; .l .

l 22 l V ut \%MLit,LLaAM >

kW id -

1

.: %L a u a ggm i H. -> .gs;da '

,},hD;rl .: .  :) ~:  : g, JL ,., 2s s.us. \ *: .

.isav-l L.I 2h kA

. . ns;& i d 7 geg,l/\ t - -

jggar l b l ~.  ::l ) -7 .:.

. ( Id l" -l l 27 p !/1 4 ez -c A g/, dl " ' +

s

^-

.l u, M&isi -

t i:-.hinssl 2s

. g b iz d s :\ ildM;M

~ '

Q,1 I a . ~ .

T: ': ." (  %.a 1 -

. ". WM., 2, n s..,. I ~- ~ ., pwt% .-Y :sL'Mt- S\ -Y - -

h,kl -

'l lL - W dy b 2a l (gd !_ - ~ < . <, c, .w PI :M ni d.Bll I! I W ll 11 - Llilli si

• -I @iffgn%!o%ui?.d!\;M.6%'Wu491.!Mv

~-

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA BEFORE THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

_BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of )

)

HOUSTON LIGHTING & POWER COMPANY, ) Docket Nos. 50-498A et al. ) and 50-499A

)

(South Texas Project, Unit Nos . )

1 and 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) )

) ,

t CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that I have caused copies of the foregoing OPPOSITION BY BROWNSVILLE TO JOINT MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME AND REQUEST FOR PREHEARING CONFERENCE to be served on l the following by deposit in the United States mail, first class, postage paid, this 3th day of April, 1980.

Marshall E. Miller, Chairman Sheldon J. Wolfe, Esquire Atomic Safety & Licensing Board Atomic Safety & Licensing Board Panel Panel Nuclear Regulatory Commission Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washing ton , D. C. 20555 Washington, D. C. 20555 Michael L. Glaser, Esquire Joseph Rutberg , Esquire i 1150 17th Street, N. W. Antitrust Counsel l Washington, D. C. 20036 Nuclear Regulatory Commission l Washing ton , D. C. 20555  ;

Ann Hodgdon, Esquire l Fredric D. Chanania, Esquire R. Gordon Gooch, Esquire l Michael B. Blume, Esquire John P. Mathis, Esquire '

Nuclear Regulatory Commission Baker & Botts Washing ton , D. C. 20555 1701 Pennsylvania Avenue , N. W.

Washing ton , D. C. 20006

6 Jerome Saltzman, Chief Frederick H. Ritts, Esq. [

Antitrust & Indemnity Group Law Offices of Northcutt Ely Nuclear Regulatory Commission Watergate 600 Building -

Washington, D. C. 20555 Washington, D. C. 20037 Chase R. Stephens, Chief Robert O'Neil i Docketing & Service Section Wheatley & Wollesen -

Office of the Secretary 1112 Watergate Office Building Nuclear Regulatory Coninission 2600 Virginia Avenue, N. W.

Washington, D. C. 20555 Washington,. D. C. 20037 Joseph R. Saunders, Esq. Roff Hardy, Chairman and -

Chief, Public Counsel & Chief Executive Officer Legislative Section Central Power & Light Company Antitrust Division P. O. Box 2121 Department of Justice Corpus Christi, Texas 78403 -

P. O. Box 14141 Washington, D. C. 20444 G. K. Spruce, General Manager  ;

City Public Service Board David M. Stahl, Esq. P. O. Box 1771 Sarah F. Holzsweig, Esq. San Antonio, Texas 78201 -

Isham, Lincoln & Beale ,

1120 Connecticut Avenue, N. W. Jon C. Wood, Esq. '

Washington, D. C. 20036 W. Roger Wilson, Esq.

Matthews, Nowlin, Macfarlane l Bob Fabrikant, Esq. & Barrett ,'

Susan B. Cyphert, Esq. 1500 Alamo National Building j Antitrust Division San Antonio, Texas 78205 Department of Justice P. O. Box 14141 Perry G. Brittain, President i Washington, D. C. 20444 Texas Utilities Generating Co. t 2001 Bryan Tower C. Dennis Ahearn, Esq.

Dallas, Texas 75201  :

Joseph Knotts, Esq.  !

Nicholas S. Reynolds, Esq. Joseph I. Worsham, Esq. '

Debevoise & Libennan Merlyn D. Sampels, Esq.  ;

1200 - 17th Street, N. W. Spencer C. Re.lyea, Esq. '

Washington, D. C. 20036 Worsham, Forsythe & Sampels  :

2001 Bryan Tower  !

Douglas F. John, Esq. Suite 2500 f McDermott, Will & Emery Dallas, Texas 75201  ;

1101 Connecticut Avenue, N. W.

Washington, d. C. 20036 R. L. Hancock, Director City of Austin Electric Utility i Douglas G. Green, Esq. Department Robert Lowenstein, Esq. P. O. Box 1088 '

J. A. Bouknight, Jr. , Esq. Austin, Texas 78767  :

William J. Franklin, Esq. l Lowenstein, Newman, Reis, Jerry L. Harris, Esq. '

l Axelrad & Toll Richard C. Balough, Esq.

1025 Connecticut Avenue, N. W. City of Austin  ;

Washington, D. C. 20036 P. O. Box 1088 l Austin, Texas 78767 i i l l

Dan H. Davidson Donald Clements, Esq.

City Manager Gulf States Utilities Co.

City of Austin P. O. Box 2951 P. O. Box 1088 Beaumont, Texas 77074 Austin, Texas 78767 Knoland J. Plucknett Don R. Butler, Esq. Executive Director Sneed, Vine, Wilkerson, Committee on Power for the Selman & Perry Southwest, Inc.

P. O. Box 1409 5541 Skelly Drive Austin, Texas 78767 Tulsa, Oklahorn 74135 Morgan Hunter, Esq. Jay M. Galt, Esq.

McGinnis, Lochridge & Kilgore Looney, Nichols, Johnson & Hayes 900 congress Avenue 219 Couch Drive Austin, Texas 78701 Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73101 Kevin B. Pratt, Esq. John E. Mathews , Jr. , Esq.

Linda Aker, Esq. Mathews, Osborne, Ehrlich, McNatt, P. O. Box 12548 Gobelman & Cobb Capital Station 1500 American Heritage Life Building Austin, Texas 78767 Jacksonville, Florida 32202 E. W. Barnett, Esq. Robert E. Bathen Charles G. Thrash, Jr., Esq. R. W. Beck & Associates J. Gregory Copeland, Esq. P. O. Box 6817 Theodore F. Weiss , Jr. , Esq. Orlando, Florida 82803 Baker & Botts 3000 One Shell Plaza Somervell County Public Library Houston, Texas 77002 P. O. Box 417 Glen Rose, Texas 76403 .

G. W. Oprea, Jr.

Executive Vice President Maynard Human, General Manager Houston Lighting & Power Co. Western Farmers Electric Coop.

P. O. Box 1700 P. O. Box 429 Houston, Texas 77001 Anadarko, Oklahoma 73005 W. S. Robson, General Manager James E. Monahan South Texas Electric Coop., Inc. Executive Vice President and Route 6, Building 102 General Manager Victoria Regional Airport Brazos Electric Power Coop., Inc.

Victoria, Texas 77901 P. O. Box 6296 Waco, Texas 76706 Michael I. Miller, Esq. i Isham, Lincoln & Beale Robert M. Rader, Esq. J One First National Plaza Conner, Moore & Corber Chicago, Illinois 60603 1747 Pennsylvania Avenue, N. W.  ;

Washington, D. C. 20006 l

l l

l l l l i I

W. N. Woolsey, Esq.

Dyer and Redford  !

1030 Petroleum Tower Corpus Christi, Texas 78474 Mr. G. Holman King

• West Texas Utilities Co.

P. O. Box 841 Abilene. Texas 79604 David Dopsovic, Esq.

Fred Parmenter, Esq. '

Nancy Lugal, Esq.

Antitrust Division Department of Justice P. O. Box 14141 Washington, D. C. 20444 Frederic D. Chanania, Esq.

Joseph Rutberg, Esq.

Michael 8. Blume, Esq. ,

Ann Hodgdon, Esq.

Nuclear Regulatory Commission .

Washington, D. C. 20555  :

s-. yna,d .

L 5

I

>