ML19309H180

Info for Antitrust Review of OL Application.

ML19309H180
Person / Time
Site:	Wolf Creek
Issue date:	05/31/1980
From:	KANSAS GAS & ELECTRIC CO.
To:
Shared Package
ML19309H179	List: ML19309H178 ML19309H180
References
NUDOCS 8005090308
Download: ML19309H180 (30)

Text

. - _ _ _ _ _

{.-.

ti O O$ 0 90 Ib e

It1F0FF.ATIOff FOR At1TITRUST REVIEW OF WOI F CRI:EK OPEPATIllG LICI:t!SE APPLICATIO!1 LX)CKET !10 STri 50-482 WOLF C11EEK GEllERATIl1G STATIO!1, Ut11T tJO 1 MAY 1980 EA!!SAS GAS Af1D ELECTRIC COf1PANY YJ\f1SAS CITY POWER & LIGi!T COMPANY l KANSAS ELECTRIC POWEli COOPEPATIVE, I!1C

INFORMATION FOR ANTITRUST REVIEW OF WOLF CREEK OPERATING LICENSE APPLICATION A. INTRODUCTION Information relevant to the antitrust review of the Wolf Creek Generating Station, Unit No. 1 (WCGS) license application was provided to the NRC (AEC) on January 10, 1974, (Reference 1) in accordance with 10 CFR 50 Appendix L.

Reference I contained responses to twenty Attorney General questions for both the WCGS co-owners--Kansas Gas and Electric Company (KG&E) and Kansas City Power & Light Company (KCPL) . The Department of Justice subsequently issued an advice letter which concluded that an antitrust hearing for the WCGS application was not required. The a'dvice letter was published in the December 23, 1974, Federal Register.

However, the City of Osawatomie, Kansas, and Kansas Electric Cooperatives, Inc. (KEC) filed petitions for leave to intervene and requested a hearing on the antitrust aspects of the WCGS application. An Atomic Safety and Licensing Board was estab-lished and KEC was allowed to intervene in the antitrust pro-r ceeding. Through negotiations outside the hearing process, KEC and the Applicants entered into a settlement agreement with respect to electric transmission and WCGS ownership. On July 27, 1976, the Licensing Board approved tha settlement, issued revised license conditions in accordance with the settlement, and dis-missed the antitrust proceedings.

The settlement made available to KEC or KEC's eventual successor--Kansas Electric Power Cooperative, Inc. (KEPCo)--an undivided 17 percent ownership participation in WCGS.

The information provided below is the information requested of the Applicants by Regulatory Guide 9.3. The response number-ing of items corresponds to the Regulatory Guide.

B. INFORMATION FOR THE NRC REGULATORY STAFF IN CONNECTION WITH ITS ANTITRUST REVIEW OF WCGS Question 1.a. Anticipated excess or shortage in generating capacity resources not expected at the construc-tion permit stage. Reasons for the excess or shortage along with data on how the excess will be allocated, distributed, or otherwise utilized or how the shortage will be obtained.

i

Answer 1. Generating Capacity The WCGS Environmental Report - Construction Permit Stage (ER(CPS)) Revision 3 (February, 1975) reflected an 1982 on line date for the plant. Due to the protracted hearing process for WCCS and due to the licensing moratorium announced on August 13, 1976, by the NRC Commissioners concerning the Natural Resources Defense Council vs. NRC case on environmental '9 sues, a year delay in plant oper-ation was incurred. Therefore, one change in the information being updated is the 1983 commercial operation date for WCGS.

The 1975 projections of peak and energy re-lated data for KG&E and KCPL in the then projected first year of WCGS operation for KG&E and KCPL are given below:

Available Required Available Reserves as a Projected 1982 1982 System Reserves Reserves Percent of Peak Energy Require-W Ioad Net (15%) W Responsibility ments GWh KG&E 2,225 319 569 26 10,331 KCPL 2,760 414 627 3 2_3 11,904 Contincri 4,985 733 1,1% 24 22,235 The current projections f 11 1 the Applicants (KG&E, KCPL and KEPOo) in the first year 9 HCGS operation are:

Available R q uired Available Reserves as a Projected 1983 1983 Systen Reserves Reserves Percent of Peak Energy Require-N Load Net W W Responsibility ments GWh KG&E 1,790 273 (3) 732 40 8,068 KCPL 2,398 480 (1) 873 36 10,832 KEPCo 584 39 (2) 0 _ 0, 2,626 Contined 4,772 792 1,605 34 21,526 (1) KCPL 20% internal minimtn reserve (2) Pursuant to contractural arrangements made with KG&E.

(3) 15% MOKAN-SPP reserve requirement of system peak responsibility.

KG&E and KCPL anticipate slower growth rates in peak load for the decade 1978-88 than were ex-perienced in the period 1968-78 and upon which the need for new generating capacity. in the early 1980's was based. The reasons for the slower rate of growth are primarily conservation and a reduc-tion in demand due to higher prices. A part of the decline in growth for KG&E is due to the transfer in 1980 of about 100 MW of load to KEPCo.

2

)

o KEPCo expects a higher growth rate than it's neighboring utilities into the 1980's due in part to the transfer of the KG&E l'oad and the expec-tation to add more customers as people continue *to move from urban to suburban and rural areas.

The tabulation below reflects the peak load growth rates for the Applicants for the period 1968-88. The 1975 projection of this growth as reflected in the ER(CPS) was 6.6% for KG&E and 4.9% for KCPL.

Average Annual Growth Rates for Peak Load (Percent)

Period KG&E KCPL KEPCo 1 % 8-73 5.4 6.6 1973-78 5.0 3.6 7.8 1968-78 5.2 5.1 1978-83 3.1 2.7 9.1 1983-88 3.5 3.6 6.3 1976-88 3.3 3.2 7.7

• Information nt available since KEPCo wasn't in existence.

2. Capacity Distribution KG&E and KCPL have generally been net pur-chasers of power at the time of the peak load. As members of the SPP and MOKAN, both KG&E and KCPL will continue to make short-term purchases and sales to improve the economy of operation and to augment the reliability of the combined systems.

KEPCo presently relies on purchased power to meet all of its needs and will still be meeting a significant portion of its requirements through purchases even after WCGS is on line.

KG&E and KCPL expect to sell more energy than they purchase when WCGS is in operation. As an example of how the capacity will be distributed, anticipated interchange budgets are provided in Tables 1, 2, and 3 for the first two years of WCGS operation.

Question 1.b. New power pools or coordinating groups or changes in structure, activities, policies, practices or membership of power pools or coordinating groups l in which the licensees were, are, or will be participants.

! 3

Ansuer 1. Pool and Association Membership The pools and associations of which KG&R and KCPL are members or participants have not changed since submission of the construction permit anti-trust information.

KEPCo presently has no generating capacity and does not participate in such organizations.

KEPCo intends to apply for membership in the SPP and MOKAN once it is receiving power from WCGS and has completed its agreement for obtaining hydroelectric power from the Southwestern Power Administration (SPA).

The present membership in such organizations is as tabulated below:

Pool and Asmciation Participation KG&E KCPL SPP (Southwest Power Pool) X X MOKAN (Missouri-Kansas) X X Canpanies Associated - SPA X X South Central Electric Companies X Kansas City - Twin Cities X Missouri-Kansas-Oklahoma X New members or participants in these pools are given in Table 4.

2. Changes in Structure, Activities, Policies or Practices The various agreements, contracts, schedules and memoranda of understanding and ammendments thereto upon which the above pools and associ-ations are based have not changed significantly from the time of the Wolf Creek construction permit application other than to accommodate the new members described in Table 4 excep t for the SPP. Tne new SPP contract signed in December, 1979 has simplified the language in the contract and placed more power in the hands of the Board of Dire'ctors and Executive Committee. Also, a Com-puter Data Acquisition System is planned to be in operation by mid-1980 to provide an immediate pool-wide plant status of the SPP members.

Question 1.c. Changes in transmission with respect to (1) the nuclear plant, (2) interconnections, or (3) con-i nections to wholesale customers.

1 l

t 4 l l

I

Answer 1. The Muclear Plant A member of KEPCo, the Coffey County Rural Electric Cooperative, has constructed an approxi-mately three mile long 69 KV line between the WCCS Substation and the Phillips Petroleum Company pumping station at Sharpe, Kansas. The remainder of the transmission lines to be constructed to connect WCGS with the KG&E and KCPL systems are along the routes described in the construction permit application.

2. Interconnections

i. KG&E Reference 1 indicated that the City of Mulvane, Kansas and KG&E had an interconnection contract that was subject to approval, Approvals for the 69 KV interconnection were subsequently reccived.

Reference 1 also indicated that the City of Erie, Kansas and KG&E were negotiating a 69 KV interconnection agreement. An agreement was reached in 1974 and subsequently approved whereby the City purchases all it's requirements at whole-sale from KG&E.

An agreement was reached with the City of Augusta, Kansas, in 1974 whereby the City pur-chases all it's requirements at wholesale from KG&E via a 69 KV connection.

An agreement was reached with the City of Oxford, Kansas in 1977 whereby the City purchases all it's requirements at wholesale from KG&E via a 12.5 KV connection.

ii. KEPCo At this time KEPCo owns no electric utility plant, consequently it has no transmission inter-connections with any wholesale customers. KEPCo has negotiated and is in the process of negoti-ating contracts with investor-owned utilities for the transmission and delivery of electric power and energy to its member systems (See Ouestion 2 below).

iii. KCPL In 1975, the city of Osawatomie, Kansas estab-lished a 34.5 KV connection with KCPL.

5 L

In 1978, the City of Marshall, Missouri established a 161 KV connection with KCPL. The City was previously interconnected at 34.5 KV.

In 1979, the City of Baldwin City, Kansas established a 34.5 connection with KCPL.

In 1979, United Electric Cooperative began taking delivery of Wholesale Firm Power at an additional 34.5 KV point of delivery.

In 1977, an additional 161 KV interconnection was established between the City of Kansas City, Kansae and KCPL as a result of the City's purchase of a substation previously owned by KCPL.

In 1978, the location of 69 KV intercon-nections between the City of Independence, Missouri and KCPL was changed as a result of the City's purchase from KCPL of a section of 69 KV line.

.I n 1980, the City of liigginsville, Missouri is expected to establish a 69 KV connection with KCPL replacing an existing 12 KV connection.

In 1981, the City of Ottawa, Kansas is ex-pected to establish a 161 KV connection with KCPL, replacing an existing 34.5 KV connection.

3. Connections to wholesale customers New wholesale customer connections for the Applicants are discussed in the Interconnections.

section above.

Question 1.d. Changes in the ownership or contractual allo-cation of the output of the nuclear facility.

Reasons and basis for such changes should be in-cluded.

Answer As descrioed in the Introduction section, the agreement reached during the Construction Permit proceeding allowed the KEC or its successor to purchase an undivided 17 percent ownership in WCGS. KEPCo obtained the ownership rights from KEC and is in the process of satisfying the requirements to become an owner of WCGS.

A license amendment to the WCGS Construction Permit (number CPPR-147) was filed with the NRC on July 30, 1979 to allow KEPCo ownership of the station. An Atomic Safety 'and Licensing Board'was convened in the matter and on January 14, 1980, dismissed evidentiary hearings for lack of any 6

i issues. Although the amendment is not yet granted, for the purposes of this application, KEPCo is considered an owner of WCGS.

The Ownership Agreement between KG&E, KCPL and KEPCo for WCGS has not been executed by the parties because KEPCo has not yet received its long-term loan approval and approval from the Kansas Corporation Commission (KCC) and the NRC to participate in WCGS. KEPCo expects to obtain a long-term loan guarantee from the Rural Electrifi-cation Administration; however, additional sources for long-term loans are also available to KEPCo.

Certification for KEPCo to become a power supplier and participate in WCGS was filed with the KCC in October 1979. A Sale Memorandum has been executed and it includes the unexecuted Ownership Agreement as an attachment. The Sale Memorandum and its attachments were provided to the NRC by Reference 2.

Question 1.e. Changes in design, provisions, or conditions of rate schedules and reasons for such changes. Rate increases or decreases are not necessary. '

Answer 1. KG&E KG&E has undergone changes in design, provi-siuns and conditions of rate schedules at both the wholesale and retail level.

Addressing the retail changes first; in Docket No. 117,222-U before the Kansas State Corp-oration Commission, KG&E filed rate schedules which basically represented a major restructuring of its existing tariffs. The primary purpose was to consolidate a large number of rates and, further, to incorporate some of the standards addressed in the Public Utility Regulatory Policy Act of 1978. These were basically design changes and included the adoption of the winter / summer concept, a customer charge, and elimination, in part, of declining block rates. KG&E filed for an l

interim increase on February 29, 1980, which if approved, will be collected subject to refund. No l

changes in rate design or conditions of service are being proposed in this request.

KG&E recently received an order from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) in Docket No. ER77-578, in addition to an increase l in rates, the order upholds a staff proposal to change from declining block demand and energy rates to a customer charge, demand and energy concept. The order disallows the use . of a 75%

7

demand ratchet on non-generating municipals.

Additionally, FERC rejects the application of contractually established billing demand clauses contained in the Electric Interconnection Agree-ments with the generating municipals.

The Company filed for an increase in rates to it's municipal customers on February 29, 1980, (Docket No.80-259). This request included the request which was pending in Docket No. ER77-578.

KG&E's rural electric cooperative (REC) cus-tomers were also a part of the FERC docket, how-ever, in a separate settlement agreement executed by both parties in September, 1979, a new rate schedule was approved. This new schedule con-stituted a change in design from basically an energy step rate to the customer charge, demand and energy concept. The format was one proposed by the FERC Staff and found acceptable by both KG&E and the REC's. An additional change was the climination of the ratchet provision of the old rate.

2. KEPCo At this time, KEPCo is not an operating util-ity and has no rate schedules. When the KEPCo application to the KCC is approved, MEPCo is ex-pected to file and implement wholesale rates for its member systems.

3. KCPL At the retail level:

In 1974, fuel adjustment was made applicable to all kwh usage in Missouri and Kansas. On October 1, 1979, as a result of a decision of the Supreme Court of Missouri, the fuel adjustment clause was eliminated in Missouri.

In 1976, in Missouri Case No. 18,433 et al and Kansas Docket No. 105,000-U, summer-winter differentials were established in residential, commercial and industrial rates.

In 1977, in Kansas Docket No. 109,814-U, a residential customer charge including no kwh was established and primary service demand charges over 10,000 kw were inverted.

In 1978, an Emergency Energy Conservation Plan was filed in Missouri and the avnilability of i master-metered service was limited to premises 8

.l 1

presently being supplied such service in both Missouri and Kansas.

On October 1, 1979, monthly billing was established for all customers.

At the wholesale level:

In 1975, 1976 and 1979 FERC Rate Schedules were filed to eliminate certain provisions per an agreement between KCPL and the Antitrust Division of the Department of Justice.

In 1978, the FERC Rate Schedule for the City of Armstrong, Missouri was canceled pursuant to an Agreement providing for the purchase by KCPL of the City's electric distribution system and related facilities.

FERC Rate Schedules were filed to revise the fuel adjustment clause in compliance with Section 35.14 of the Commission's Regulations under the Federal Power Act as amended by Order No. 517.

Question 1.f. List of all (1) new wholesale customers, (2) transfers from one rate schedule to another, in-ciuding copies of schedules not previously fur-nished, (3) changes in licensee's service area, and (4) licensee's acquisitions or mergers.

Answer 1. New Wholesale customers KG&E New wholesale customers for KG&E since the construction permit antitrust information was sub-mitted are:

City of Augusta, Kansas - Agreement dated 7-2-74 City of Erie, Kansas - Agreement dated 11-7-74 City of Oxford, Kansas - Agreement dated 9-15-77 See the response to Question 1.c. above for addi-tional discussion.

KEPCo At this time KEPCo is not an operating utility; however, in the near future when KEPCo becomes operational, its wholesale customers will 9

be its 26 member systems and Sunflower Electric Cooperative located in Hays, Kansas.

KCPL New wholesale customers for KCPL since the construction permit antitrust information was submitted are:

City of Osawatomie, Kansas - Agreement dated 4-1-76 City of Baldwin City, Kansas - Agreement dated 3-18-78 Deleted wholesale customers for KCPL are:

Associated Electric Cooperative, Inc. (for West Central Electric Cooperative, Inc. )

City of Armstrong, Missouri See the response to Question 1.c. above for additional discussion.

2. Transfers from Rate Schedules KG&E There have been no transfers of KG&E's whole-sale customers from one rate schedule to another.

See the response to Question 1.e. above for ' a description of KG&E's FERC approved wholesale rate schedule changes.

KEPCo Since KEPCo has no rate schedules in ef fect at this time, there are no transfers from one rate schedule to another.

KCPL There have been no transfers of KCPL's whole- l sale customers from one rate schedule to another. l See the response to Question 1.e. above for a i description of KCPL's FERC approved wholesale rate ,

schedule changes. j

\

3. Service Area Changes  !

! KG&E l

In a practical sense KG&E's service area has not changed since the 1974 construction permit application. However, the KCC in'1978 went-to the

! 10

practice of single certification of service terri-197 7-Supp. 66-1, 170 et seq.) versus tory (K.S.A.

the overlapping _ certification used previously which has resulted in a more definitive designa-tion of KG&E's service area. No customers have

' been lost to date, howevtr, as municipalities annex territory the single certification statute has the potential to cause KG&E a loss of service area and customers.

KEPCo The " service area" concept is not applicable

• - to KEPCo as a wholesale power supplier. Kansas statutes provide for service areas only at the retail supply level.

1(CPL In July, 1975, KCPL's service area lost approximately seven square miles with 3,633 cus-tomers to the City of Kansas City, Kansas, KCPL's service area was also redefined in 1978 by the KCC single certification practice.

! Although no loss of customers was involved, KCPL's service area lost approximately 1,026 square miles to other utilities.

4. Acquisitions or Mergers None of the applicants have had any acquisi-tions or mergers since 1974.

Question 1.g. List of those generating capacity additions com-mitted for operation after the nuclear facility, including ownership rights or power output allo-cations.

Answer 1. KG&E Major capacity additions planned by KG&E for operation after WCGS are the Jeffrey Units No. 3 and 4 which are planned to be on line in the springs of 1983 and 1985, respectively. These coal fired units are operated by Kansas Power and Light Company and KG&E's 20% ownership of the units amounts to 136 MW each.

2. KCPL KCPL has identified a need for additional baseload capacity in 1989. Plant location and size of the unit are presently undefined.

11

3. KEPCo KEPCo's first block of generating capacity will be WCGS. At present, KEPCo is studying fur-ther capacity additions, however, no firm plans for capacity additions af ter WCGS have been made.

Question 1.h. Summary of requests or indications of interest by other electric power wholesale or retail distrib-utors, and licensee's response, for any type of electric service or cooperative venture or study.

Answer 1. General KG&E and KCPL have interconnections with the following utilities and there are frequent and routine contacts between various representatives of the parties to discuss such matters as power and energy availability, capacity, transmission, communications plans, billing, metering, and system operating conditions:

KG&E Associated Electric Cooperative, Inc.

City of Augusta, Kansas City of Burlington, Kansas City of Chanute, Kansas City of Coffeyville, Kansas City of Fredonia, Kansas City of Girard, Kansas City of Iola, Kansas City of Mulvane, Kansas City of Neodesha, Kansas City of Wellington, Kansas City of Winfield, Kansas Empire District Electric Co.

Kansas City Power'& Light Co.

Kansas Power and Light Co.

Oklahoma Gas and Electric Co.

Omaha Public Power District

] Public Service Company of~ Oklahoma Union Electric Co.

j Western Power Division of Central Telephone &

Utilities Corp.

KCPL Associated Electric Cooperative, Inc.

Board of Public Utilities of Kansas - City, K,ynsas City of Baldwin City, Kansas City of Carrollton, Kansas

' City of Garnett, Kansas City of Independence, Kansas City of Marshall, Kansas 12

City of Osawatomie, Kansas City of Ottawa, Kansas Iowa Public Service Co.

Interstate Power Co.

Kansas Gas and Electric Co.

Kansas Power and Light Co.

Missouri Power and Light Co.

Missouri Public Service Co.

Northern States Power Co.

Omaha Public Power District s St. Joseph Light & Power Co.

Southwestern Power Administration Union Electric Co.

2. KG&E

i. In 1979, both the Northwest Kansas

. Municipal Energy Agency and the Eastern Kansas Municipal Energy Agency inquired of KG&E as to the availability of ownership participation, firm power, supplemental power services and transmis-sion services. The purpose of the information ras to provide data for a consultant's planning study for the agencies. KG&E responded that the re-quested power and services were available to both agencies. In addition, in December, 1979, KG&E offered to sell up to a 5.5 percent participation (63 megawatts) of WCGS to the Northwest Kansas Municipal Energy Agency. Elements of both agencies were combined in late 1979 or early 1980 to form the Kansas Municipal Energy Agency (KMEA).

KMEA has commissioned a feasibility study to determine whether a share of WCGS would be a good investment.

Since July, 1977, the City of Kansas City, Kansas has taken transmission service provided by KG&E for delivery of Southwestern Power Adminis-tration power and energy.

Empire District. Electric Company (EDEC) is a 12% owner of Iatan No. 1. KCPL is the major' owner (70%) and operator of Iatan. Iatan began pro-ducing power in March, 1980. EDEC has no trans-mission interconnections with KCPL but KG&E had an existing 161 KV line. that connected KCPL with EDEC. In return for leasing of this line, EDEC built another 161 KV line which better serves

, KG&E's transmission requirements and which is now leased from EDEC by KG&E.

In early 1980, EDEC inquired of KG&E as to the availability and pricing of capacity purchases in 1985, 1986 and 1987. KG&E is in the process at 13 l l

1

present of evaluating the availability of that capacity.

ii. The following municipal and cooperative systems have requested wholesale and/or retail electric service from KG&E:

In November, 1975, a request was received from the City of Kiowa, Kansas to purchase their i electric distribution system. KG&E does not have  !

a Certificate of Convenience and Authority to serve the area. The City is taking service from Alfalfa Electric Cooperative.

In September, 1978, a request was received from the City of Oswego, Kansas to purchase their electric distribution system. Due to a pending rate case, KG&E was unable to make any commitment to the City. A second inquiry has been received in April, 1980; no response has been made to date.

In September, 1977, KG&E entered into an Agreement for Wholesale Electric Service with the City of Oxford, Kansas. Service was rendered to i this City in June, 1978.

In Match, 1980, a request was received from Missouri Public Service Company for an additional point of service. This request is under review.

The City of Girard, Kansas is presently undertaking a study to see if it would be better for the City to change from their present Electric Interconnection Contract to an Agreement for Wholesale Electric Service with KG&E.

In 1974, KG&E entered into an Agreement for j Wholesale Electric Service with the City of Erie, l Kansas. Service was rendered to the City in  ;

November, 1974. )

i In September, 1978, the City of Winfield, l Kansas, contacted KG&E about supplying the entire i electrical capacity needs for the City on a whole- l sale basis and also serving the City on a retail I basis. Due to pending litigation, KG&E was unable to make any commitment to the City. l In December, 1978, KG&E granted an increase in transmission capacity from 7600 to 7800 kw to the cities of Chanute and coffeyville, Kansas.

In June, 1974, KG&E entered into an Electric Interconnection Agreement with the City of Augusta, Kansas. Service was rendered to the City in 1975, 14 l

1 l

In 1978, notice was given to the Cities of Burlington, Girard, Wellington and Winfield, Kansas of KG&E's intent to terminate existing con-tracts in accordance with contract terms. Termin-ation dates were December 1, 1980, July 1, 1981, June 1, 1981, and June 1, 1981, respectively.

Since that time all cities have been provided copies of KG&E's new proposed interconnection agreement.

In 1977, a request was received from the City of New Strawn, Kansas for negotiation of a fran-chise to service the City. Franchise proceedings resulted in a referendum vote by the City. The referendum vote passed (73 to 51) favoring service by KG&E; however, the Kansas Corporation Commis-sion has refused to grant a certificate of Conven-ience and Authority for KG&E to serve the City.

The City of New Strawn has appealed that decision and the appeal is pending.

In 1974, the City of Rose Hill, Kansas annexed territory served by the Butler Rural Electric Cooperative, Inc. KG&E purchased facil-ities owned by the cooperative and now serves such customers in that area.

In 1974, KG&E was requested to appear before the City Council of Arcadia, Kansas to explain procedures necessary for them to change from being served wholesale to retail. No word has' been heard from the City since our presentation.

In 1976, a request was received from the City of Udall, Kansas for retail service to their City.

Necessary information was furnished the City. The City later decided to retain their existing system.

iii. The following rural electric coopera-tives have requested additional of and/or removal-of certain delivery points since 1974:

The Butler Rural Electric Cooperative Association, Inc.

Delivery Point 10 - 2100 kw maximun amount, August, 1976, new location Delivery Point 11 - 4500 kw maxinum arount, October,1978, new location Coffey County Rural Electric Cooperative Asmciation, Inc.

Delivery Point 2 - 900 kw maximun amount, October,1976, new -

location t

15

Delivery Point 3 - 1500 kw maxinum amount, June 1979, new location The Radiant Electric Cocperative, Inc.

Delivery Point 7 - 900 kw maximua contract, Decenber,1976, renoved Delivery Point 7 - 1500 kw maximum contract, December,1976, new location Delivery Point 9 - 200 kw maximtzn contract, July,1975, new location Delivery Point 4 - 130 kw maxinun contract, March, 1978, removal Delivery Point 10 - 900 kw maxinum contract, June, 1980, estimated, new location The Sedgwick County Electric Cooperative Association, Inc.

Delivery Point 9- 1800 kw maximui contract, September, 1976, renoved Delivery I'oint 9 - 2400 kw maximum contract, September, 1976, new location Delivery Point 4 - 2000 kw maxinun contract, December, 1979, removed Delivery Point 4 - 3000 kw maxinum contract, April,1979, new location Delivery Point 10 - 2100 kw maxinum contract, December, 1976, new location Delivery Point 11 - 1500 kw maxinun contract, August,1977, new location The Sekan Elect ric Cooperative Association, Inc.

Delivery Point 7 - 150 kw maxinun contract, February,1975, new location Delivery Point 7 - 300 kw maxinun contract, April, 1978, removed Sunner-Cowley Electric Co-Operative, Inc. '

Delivery Point 1 - 900 kw contract maximun, June, 1974, romoved Delivery Point 10 - 1800 kw contract maxinun, June, 1974,

'new location Delivery Point 1 - 1800 kw contract maxinun, August, 1979, new location Delivery Point 6 - 600 kw contract maxinun, September,1979, removed United Electric Cooperative, Inc.

Deliwry Point 7 - 1000 kw contract maximun, Mardi,1977, removed Delivery Point 2 - 750 kw contract maximum, June, 1977, removed 16 l

i  !

i

Delivery Point 7 - 1000 kw contract maximmn, March,1977, new location Delivery Point 8 - 700 kw contract maximun, May, 1978, new location In September, 1978, and February, 1980, a request for information was received from The Ark Valley Electric Cooperative, Inc. rega rding a point of delivery. Information was furnished.

This matter is pending.

In 1977, KG&E received a request from The Kansas Power and Light Company to establish a de-livery point to serve The Twin Valley Electric Cooperative, Inc. A later request was received from the cooperative to serve them direct from our system. KG&E responded to both as to the most feasible method of serving such load. We have had no additional correspondence or requests on this matter since early 1978.

Various other cooperatives served on a whole-sale basis by KG&E held discussions with KG&E as to additional delivery - points and/or additional load that may be required on existing delivery points. No firm commitments have been made for load or delivery by KG&E to these cooperatives other than those described above.

3. KEPCo

i. KEPCo is negotiating a contract with Sunflower Electric Cooperative located in Hays, Kansas, for the sale and delivery of hydro peaking j power which KEPCo will purchase from the South-western Power Administration and participation power from the Wolf Creek Generating Station, Unit No. 1.

ii. KEPCo has had meetings and discussions with three rural electric cooperatives located in Northeastern Kansas concerning their membership in KEPCo. These cooperatives are: Doniphan Electric Cooperative Association, Inc.; Kaw Valley _ Electric.

Cooperative Company, Inc.; and Nemaha-Marshall Electric Cooperative Association, Inc. . As of this date, these three distribution cooperatives have not applied to KEPCo for membership.

iii. KEPCo and the Kansas Power & Light Com-pany have retained Black and Veatch, consulting Enginee rs in Kansas City, . Missouri, to perform a site selection study for a new coal fired electric power generating plant to be located in Central or Western Kansas. This study will be used by 17

both companies in planning for futurefuturegeneration facilities to meet each system's load growth. It is anticipated that as plans for this new coal fired plant solidify, KEPCo and KP&L will extend invitations to other power supply entities for ownership participation.

4. KCPL Requests or indications of interest in inter-connection and/or coordination and purchases or sales of bulk and other coordinating power and energy to KCPL since 1974, including reference, when applicable to mutually agreed inter-connection, interchange, coordination, or other agreements are as follows:

1. Since 1974, KCPL and a number of Munic-ipal systems have executed Municipal Participation Agreements in order that the cities may (i) share reserve generating capacity available in the sys-tem of KCPL to reduc? the reserve generating re-quirement of the Cities, and (ii) receive from the KCPL various classes of electric service. Cur-rently, specific services commonly provided under these Agreements include Reserve Capacity, Standby Service (emergency), Firm Power, Economy Energy, System Participation Power, and Transmission and Subtransmission Service.

A listing of the cities and rate schedule reference is as follows:

City of Osawatomie, Kansas (Rate Schedule FPC No.

77)

City of Garnett, Kansas (Rate Schedule FPC No. 78)

City of Baldwin City, Kansas (Rate Schedule FPC No. 85)

City of Carrollton, Missouri (Rate Schedule FPC No. 86)

City of Marshall, Missouri (Rate Schedule FPC No.

83)

KCPL and the City of Ottawa, Kansas have negotiated and will execute, prior to June, 1980, a Municipal Participation Agreement providing for

. expanded services as described above. The Agree-ment will replace the existing Municipal Inter-connection Contract (Rate Schedule FPC No. 70).

The City of Ottawa, presently interconnected with KCPL at 34.5 KV, has rcquested a 161 KV intercon-nection. KCPL has agreed to such interconnection.

ii. The following systems have requested ,

transmission service from KCPL:

18

The Cities of Garnett and Osawatomie, Kansas have since 1975 taken transmission service pro-vided by KCPL for delivery of energy from the City of Kansas City, Kansas.

Since July, 1977, the City of Kansas City, Kansas has taken transmission service provided by KCPL for delivery of Southwestern Power Adminis-tration power and energy.

As part of Amendatory Agreement No. 1 to the Municipal Participation Agreement between the City of Independence, Missouri, and KOPL, KCPL agreed to provide transmission service to the City for energy purchased from the City of r.ansas City, Kansas. (Supplement No. 11 to Rate Schedule FPC No. 56 dated January 1, 1978)

As part of an Electric Interchange Agreement (Rate Schedule FERC No. 88) dated December 17, 1979, between Empire District Electric Company and KCPL, KCPL agrees to provide transmission service for Empire in order that Empire can accept delivery of its pro rata share of power and energy from the joint ownership generating unit Iatan Unit # 1 beginning May, 1980.

KCPL has agreed to provide transmission ser-vice to the City of Higginsville, Missouri for delivery of Couthwestern Power Administration power and energy beginning sometime in 1980.

Additionally, KCPL has agreed to interconnect with the City at 69 KV. The City currently intercon-nects at 12 KV. Contractual arrangements are being negotiated at this time.

Prior to June, 1979, KCPL agreed to furnish transmission service to - Associated Electric Coop-erative for delivery of pow r and energy to. an Associated member distribution coope rative . The distribution cooperative was previously served as KCPL's wholesale customer. Contractual arrange-ments have been finalized and await Associated's execution.

KEPCo, Eastern Kansas Municipal Energy Agency and Northwest Kansas Municipal Energy Agency have made preliminary inquiries as to KCPL 's willing-ness to provide transmission service. KCPL has responded that such service is available, iii. The following systems expressed owner-ship interest in WCGS but later declined offers of participation:

l 19

[

From 1974, through 1977, the City of July,issouri, Independence, M expressed an interest in either ownership participation or unit partici-pation purchase from KCPL's Iatan Unit # 1 and/or WCGS. Because of the City's legal and financial constraints, the City chose to add its own gen-erating capacity. In February, 1978, the City acknowledged that KCPL should not assume a possi-ble sale to the City.

F rom 1974 through January, 1976, the City of Osawatomie, Kansas expressed interest in ownership participation in WCGS, and KCPL supplied data for the City's analysis. In January, 1976, the City declined KCPL 's of fer of ownership participation.

The City of Garnett, Kansas expressed inter-est in WCGS ownership throughout 1974, but later declined KCPL's of fer of ownership participation.

In early 1977, Nebraska Public Power District indicated interest in joint ownership partici-pation or unit participation in Iatan #1 and/or WCGS. Prior to that time, KCPL and NPPD began discussing a possible interconnection between systems and participation in seasonal diversity interchange. On September 21,_1978, NPPD decided not to pursue joint ownership. By July, 1979, NPPD decided that a capacity purchase from KCPL was not necessary in the early 1980's. Discus-sions continue on a possible interconnection.

iv. Other Agency sales inquiries are as follows:

In February, 1980, the City of Columbia, Missouri inquired as to the availability of joint ownership to meet capacity needs in the late 1980's and early 1990's. KCPL responded that a commitment had not been made for the addition of a generating unit in that time frame.

In February, 1980, KCPL responded to a re-

, quest from Empire District Electric Company by of fering Iatan # 1 unit participation in 1985 and

. 1986 in amounts of up to 30 MW and 80 MW respec-tively. The proposal is under consideration.

In November, 1979, KCPL responded to a re-quest from Interstate Power Company by offering unit participation in the years 1981 through 1984.

The amounts varied between 70 MW and 80 MW. The proposal is under consideration.

20

In 1979, both the Northwest Kansas Municipal Energy Agency and the Eastern Kansas Municipal Energy Agency inquired as to the availability of 1 ownership participation, firm power, supplemental l power services and transmission service. The pur- l pose of the information was to provide data for a  ;

consultant's planning study for the agencies. i As discussed above these agencies combined into l the Kansas Municipal Energy Agency. KCPL has re- ,

sponded to the Kansas Municipal Energy Agency that firm power, supplemental services, and transmis-sion service are available to municipals, and that KCPL is willing to discuss unit participation and ownership participation. Estimated costs for study purposes have been forwai:ded to the Agency.

By agreement dated May 25, 1977, KCPL re-sponded to a request of Associated Electric Cooperative for the purchase of unit participation capacity and energy. Beginning June 1, 1980, KCPL will furnish to Associated 150 MW for twelve months and 300 MW for the following twelve' months.

As a result of a request from Nebraska Public Power District, KCPL sold to Omaha Public Power District for resale to NPPD, long-term interrupt-ible capacity in the amount of 100 MW in 1976 and 200 MW in 1977.

v. Miscellaneous In May, 1978, at the request of the City of Armstrong, Missouri, KCPL purchased the City's d! stribution system and began serving the City at retail rather than wholesale.

Question 2. Licansees whose construction permits include cond tions pertaining to antitrust aspects should list and discuss those actions or policies which have been implemented in accordance with such conditions.

Answer WCGS construction permit CPPR-147 contains in Appendix A antitrust conditions for KG&E and - in Appendix B antitrust conditions for KCPL. The compliance with these conditions is discussed below:

a. Appendix A Conditions for KG&E Item 1 This item is a definitions section and no implementation is required.

21 I

Item 2(a)

KEPCo is in the process of satisfying the requirements for an undivided 17% ownership of WCGS as described in the Sale Memorandum pro'-ided to the NRC by Reference 2.

KG&E has, at this time, no plans for any future nuclear units.

Item 2(b)

As described in the Sale Memorandum, KEPCO's 17% interest in WCGS results from the purchase of an 8h% interest from both KG&E and KCPL.

As of this date there has been no need to implement the power and transmission provisions of this item. However, the unexecuted Transmis-sion Agreement, which is Exhibit C of the Sale Memorandum, contains provisions which satisfy the requirements of this item. These provisions will be implemented when the Memorandum conditions are satisfied and the Agreement executed.

Items 3 through 9 Provisions which satisfy the requirements of these items are contained in the unexecuted Trans-mission Agreement. These provisions will be implemented when the Agreement is executed.

Listed below are the parts of these items and the sections of the Agreement written to satisfy these items: .

Itan Section 3(a) Paragr @hs 4.31, 4.32, 4.34, 4.35, and 4.36 3(b) Paragraphs 4.33 and 4.35 3(c) Paragr@hs 4.33 and 4.35 3(d) Paragr@hs 4.1, / 10, 4.11 and 4.12 3(e) Paragr@h 4.1, 4.8, 4.10, 4.11 and 4.12 4 (a) Paragraphs 4.31, 4.32 and 4.36 4(b) Paragr@h 4.33 5(a) Paragraph 4.1 5(b) Paragr @hs 4.4 and 4.34 5(c) Paragraph 4.4 and 4.6 6(a) Article 5 6(b) Paragr@ hs 4.25 and 4.26 7(a) Paragrgh 4.2 7(b) Paragraph 4.3 7(c) Paragraph 4.4 7(d) Paragr@h 4.5 22

7(e) h 4.6 8 Paragr@hs 4.8, 4.9 and 5.1 Paragrap 9 Paragr@h 4.7 Item,10 These antitrust conditions will be imple-mented in a manner consistent with the provisions of, and as provided under, the Federal Power Act and all other applicable Federal and Kansas laws and all rates, charges and practices in con-nection therewith will be subject to the approval of the KCC and the Federal Energy Regulatory Com-mission, as applicable.

b. Appendix B Conditions for KCPL Item 1 This item is a definitions section and no imple' mentation is required.

Items 2, 3, and 6 Responses to Questions 1.c., l.e. and 1.h demonstrate the steps that KCPL has taken to encourage closer coordination with other suppliers including provisions for reserve sharing, bulk power sales and sales of supplemental power and energy such as emergency and~ scheduled outage power.

The response to Question 1.e. indicates that KCPL has taken steps to eliminate certain provi-sions in its wholesale contracts as required by these antitrust conditions for all but one cus-tomer, Coffey County Electric Cooperative, Inc.

Modified contracts were submitted to Coffey County Electric Cooperative, Inc. in early 1976 and again in 1979 but the Cooperative has failed to return these contracts.

Item 4 In May, 1974, KCPL presented a program before representatives of municipal and . cooperative systems within KCPL's service territory. This program included an offer of participation in WCGS

, on either an ownershi t or capacity' purchase basis.

l The Cities of Osawater.ie and Garnett, Kansas, and l

Independence, Misssouri, expressed interest in WCGS ownership as discussed in the response to Question 1.h. above.

23 l

As discussed in KG&E's Item 2(b) above, KEPCo ic in the process of obtaining 8h% of KCPL's 50%

interest in WCGS.

KCPL has, at this time, no plans for any future nuclear units.

Item 5 Response to Question 1.h. above illustrates steps taken by KCPL to satisfy requests for trans-mission service within and through KCPL's service territory.

Item 7 These antitrust conditions will be imple-mented in a manner consistent with the prov ii

. s ons of, and as provided under, the Federal Power Act and all other applicable Federal, Kansas and Missouri laws and all rates, charges and practices in connection therewith will be subject to the approval of the KCC, the Missouri Public Service Commission and the Federal Energy Regulatory Com-mission, . as applicable.

REFERENCES

1. Letter of January 10, 1974 from E. S. Hall, KG&E to John F.

O' Leary, AEC.

2. Letter of October 5, 1979 from G. L. Koester, KG&E to Olan D. Parr, NRC.

l k

I 24 l

l wW

TABIE 1 KG&E and KCPL I?ffEROIANGE BUDGET FOR 1983-84 KG&E 1483 1984 Energy Capacity - Energy Capacity In MWII In 41 In MGI In Mi Purchases Firm 0 0 0 0 Non-firm 400,000 0 400,000 0 Total 400,000 0 400,000 0 Sales Firm 240,000 55 240,000 70 Non-firm 760,000 50 760,000 30 Total 1,000,000 105 1,000,000 100 KCPL Purchases Firm. 59,250 25 59,250 25 Non-firm 310,000 - 346,739 -

Total 369,989 25 405,989 25 Sales Firm 58,065 25 58,065 25 Non-firm 574,600 - 572,400 -

Total 632,665 25 630,465 25 25

l 1

'IABIE 2 KG&E PON11ILY IIRDS AND INTEIDIANGE, FIRST '1HO YEARS WITH EXE IN SERVICE Year Month Peak (Mf) Energy (1000 MAI) Purchases (1000 MWH) Sales (1000 PMI) 1983 Jan 1250 740 60 90 Feb 1253 620 60 90 March 1150 618 30 80 April 1040 570 20 80 May 1240 600 20 70 June 1580 705 30 80 July 1790 830 40 70 August 1790 784 40 70 Sept 1690 670 20 80 Oct 1130 590 20 90 Nw 1170 645 20 10 0 Dec 1300 696 40 100 1984 Jan 1310 772 60 90 FEb 1290 647 60 90 March 1200 645 30 80 April 1090 595 20 80 May 1300 625 20 70 June 1650 73 5 30 80 i July 1875 865 40 70 August 1875 820 40 70 Sept 1770 695 20 80 Oct 1180 615 20 90 Nw 1225 675 20 100 Dec 1365 728 40 100 26

TABIE 3 KCPL IONIHLY IIPOS AND INTEIDIANGE, FIRST 'INO YEARS WITH WCGS IN SERVICE Year tenth Peak (lW) Energy (1000 MI) Purdases (1000 MI) Sales (1000 MI) 1983 March 1445 778 27 48 April 1416 743 1 48 May 1784 789 9 50 June 2282 %0 16 46 July 2398 1111 29 46 August 2398 1136 30 48 Sgt 2388 899 10 46 Oct 1510 796 11 50 Nw 1510 731 13 46 Dec 1442 788 5 50 1984 Jan 1485 801 28 48 Feb 1496 778 28 46 March 1469 789 34 48 April 1438 753 29 48 May 1827 804 17 48 June 2368 1002 36 48 July 2485 1135 38 46 August 2485 1174 45 48 Sept 2474 918 30 46 Oct 1539 815 21 50 Nw 1456 735 16 46 Dec 1466 777 30 48 1

. 27

Sheet 1 of 2 TABLE 4 NEW PA,RTICIPATION IN POOLS AND ASSOCIATIONS Southwest Power Pool Alexandria Light & Power Department, Louisiana Cajun Electric Power Cooperative, Inc.

Clarksdale Water & Light, Mississippi Greenwood Utilities, Mississippi Lafayette Utility System, Louisiana

Middle South Utilities, Inc.

West Texas Utilities Company Sunflower Electric Cooperative, Inc.

City of Houma, Louisiana City of Monroe, Louisiana City of Natchitoches, Louisiana City of Rushton, Louisiana Jonesboro City Water & Light, Arkansas Morgan City Municipal Utilities, Louisiana New Mexico Electric Service Company Ottawa Water & Light, Kansas l Ponca City Water & Light, Oklahoma ,

l 28 l l

I

~ .

Sheet 2 of 2 TABLE 4 Missouri-Kansas Pool Saint Joseph Light and Power Company (MO)

Sunflower Electric Cooperative, Inc.-

Companies Associated-Southwestern Power Administration None South Central Electric Companies None 1

Kansas City-Tuin Cities None Missouri-Kansas-Oklahoma (MKO)

None O

29

, - -