ML19318A844
| ML19318A844 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | South Texas, Comanche Peak  |
| Issue date: | 05/09/1980 |
| From: | Stahl D CENTRAL & SOUTH WEST SERVICES, INC., ISHAM, LINCOLN & BEALE |
| To: | |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8006240250 | |
| Download: ML19318A844 (12) | |
Text
"
6 d
3 c'
g Docxg750 UsNac UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 2
g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION pj 121980 >,
Office of the Se:ma,y-C' E Said e 0
BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOA ew b'/
N In the Matter of HOUSTON LIGHTING & POWER COMPANY, Docket Nos. 50-498A et al.
50-499A (South T2xas Project, Unit Nos. 1 and 2)
TEXAS UTILITIES GENERATING Docket Nos. 50-445A COMPANY, et al.
50-446A (Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station, Units 1 and 2)
CENTRAL AND SOUTH WEST COMPANIES' REPORT RE STATUS OF SETTLEMENT DISCUF ~ 'ONS AND MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME By order dated April 10, 1980, the Atomic Safety and I.gcensin.g Board extended the dates for filing trial briefs and indefinitely postponed the dates for the final prehearing conference and the evidentiary hearing in these proceedings.
These actions were taken in response to a joint motion filed by the majority of the parties to these proceedings wherein it was represented that additional time was required in order to pursue cettlement of these proceedings and related litigation.
In that order the Board also directed the parties to provide a written status report on the negotiations on or before May 9, 1980.
This Memorandum
.e
=
800624
., o a,
is intended as the Central and South West Companies' ("CSW")
status ~ report to the Board.
It also constitutes a Motion for Extension of T,ime to continue settlement discussions since substantial progress has been made in resolving this complex matter.
CSW believes that, since the issuance of the Board's order on April 10, substantial progress has been made'in the settlement discussions.
On E riday, April 18, attorneys and officers from CSW, Houston Lighting and Power Company (HL&P) and Texas Utilities Company (TU) met with representatives from the Department of Justice, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commis-sion, the Securities and Exchange Commission, and the Depart-i ment of Energy for the purpose of explaining the understand-ing among CSW, TU and HL&P which those parties believe cculd provide the basis for a settlement among all parties of these proceedings.and related proceedings before the Federal
' Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and various other state agencies and federal and state courts.
At that conference, it was
. explained that the basis for a possible settlement involved the construction of two dir'ect current (DC) interconnections between the Electric Reliability Council of Texas (ERCOT) and the Southwest Power Pool (SWPP).
It was further ex-plained that the north interconnection between CSW subsidiaries I
i -
,r
s Public Service Company of Oklahoma and West Texas Util'ities would have a capacity of 200 Mw and would be owned by CSW, and that the south interconnection between CSW's subsidiary Southwestern Electric Power Company and the South Texas Project would have a capacity of 600 Mw and would be owned by CSW (300 Mw), HL&P, (200 Mw) and" Gulf States Utilities (GSU) (100 Mw).
It was also explained that the private parties had canvassed the electric utilities in Texas and the surrounding states to determine whether any other utili-ties desired to participate in the construction and ownership of these interconnection facilities, and that the intercon-nections had been sized to accomodate the needs of CSW and HL&P and the expression of interest which had been received to date from GSU.
The government agencies were further in-formed that a formal invitation to participate in ownership of the DC interconnections would be made to all of the parties participating in the FERC proceeding and that the final determination as to the size of the interconnection would be based upon the responses received as a result of that formal invitation.
Any such interconnections would be submitted to FERC pursuant to the provisions of the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act of 1978 (PURPA) and it is contemplated that TU and HL&P would maintain their non-jurisdictional status under the Federal Power Act.
Engineer-ing personnel from the three companies answered questions I.
concerning various technical aspects of the interconne,ction as_best they could considering that only preliminary engineering work had been done as of that date.
Subsequent to the April 18 meeting, representatives of each of the three companies met individually with attorneys and consultants for the Department of Justice, NRC and FERC. */
At these meetings the representatives of the government agencies explained the concerns they had with respect to the settlement and requested that the three companies respond with suggestions as to how to resolve those concerns.
The three companies subsequently responded to these concerns in writing and negotiations are still continuing with respect to hhose matters.
On Friday, May 2, 1980, counsel for CSW met with counsel for the Public Utilities Board of Brownsville (PUB).
PUB presented CSW with a list of items it wished to resolve, some of which are directly related to the issues pending be' fore this Boar and others of which are tangential.
On Thursday, May 8, 1980, PUB presented CSW with a draft of a transmission services agreement.
CSW has not yet had an opportunity to study the proposed agreement and respond to PUB.
Resolution of CSW's differences with PUB depends, in substantial part, on the outcome of the overall settlement with
- /
Attorneys for and employees of CSW met with these attorneys and consultants on April 22 and 24.
E i
)
TU and HL&P.
CSW believes that once the issues identified below have been resolved with TU and HL&P, substantial pro-gress in settling CSW's differences with PUB can be accomplished.
CSW believes that the current status of the nego-tiations and the issues remaining to be resolved are as follows.
Although some engineering studies remain to be made (some have been completed since the April 18 conference),
the parties appear to be satisfied with regard to the engineer-The ing feasibility of the proposed DC interconnections.
questions which have been raised to date are concerned with (1) the posture of HL&P and TU with regard to potential future interconnections between ERCOT and the SWPP and (2) the availability of the proposed DC interconnections to utilities other than HL&P, CSW and GSU under economically reasonable conditions that would permit them to take ad-vantage of the availability of cheapsr power from entities on the other side of the interconnections.
Specifically, the unresolved issues appear to be:
1.
The license conditions establishing the circumstances under which HL&P and TU will agree not to disconnect from utilities which interconnect so that HL&P and TU would be operating in interstate commerce in the future.
HL&P and TU are concerned that such potential future interconnections not cause,
them to lose their PURPA exemption from Federal Power Act jurisdiction.
The government agencies (Department of Justice, NRC Staff and FERC Staff) are concerned that barriers not be set up that, as a practical matter, prevent entities'<x1 either side of the line from entering into voluntary interconnections.
Various proposals have been discussed in the past few days which have as their objective the development of a simplified procedure whereby a FERC exemption order under PURPA could be obtained for each such proposed future interconnection and such inter-connection could then be made.
Such an arrange-ment has the potential of accomodating the con-cerns of the various parties.
However, no resolu-tion of this problem has yet been reached.
2.
The conditions under which power would be wheeled to, from and across the proposed DC in-terconnection for other utilities.
CSW, HL&P and TU have all undertaken to perform wheeling services.
Various proposals as to wheeling rates or how they should be determined have.
e
been discussed with the government agencies, but as of yet there has been no agreement.
Some parties believe these issues can be left for future determination in rate proceedings before FERC or the state commission having jurisdiction,'while others believe it necessary to resolve the questions now in order to be able to make a determination as to whether DC interconnec'tions are in the public interest.
3.
The' conditions under which a certain amount of the capacity of the DC interconnections would be made available to entities other than CSW, HL&P and GSU.
Here again, various proposals have been discussed, but no firm agreement has been reached.
The parties do not appear to be far apart on this issue.
CSW believes that the progress made in the last
-month demonstrates the wisdom of this Board's April 10 order and indicates that settlement is a reasonable possibility.
Indeed, although some of the issues are extremely complex and may require some procedural innovations at the FERC, and perhaps even at NRC, CSW continues to be optimistic about settlement of this extremely complex series of related litigation.
The question before this Board now is whether to
~
further delay these proceedings in order to facilitate settlement.
CSW believes that it would be much easier'to continue to negotiate settlement if the parties are not in active litigation before this Board.
Such litigation will inevitably lead to a hardening of positions by the parties which will be detrimental to the spirit of settlement.
In addition, preparation for litigation will necessarily cause those persons who are currently engaged in settlement dis-cussions to focus their attention and time on litigation, instead of on settlement.
Consequently, CSW believes that the better course of action would be to delay all procedural dates in these proceedings for an additional 30 days in order to allow the settlement process to continue, and CSW therefore moves for such an extension.
Respectfully submitted, I uAM, LINCOLN & BEALE rY f
Attorneys for THE CENTRAL AND SOUTH WEST COMPANIES Suite 325 1120 Connecticut Avenue, N.
W.
Washington, D.C.
20036 202/833-9730 One First National Plaza Chicago, Illinois 60603 312/558-7500 Dated:
May 9, 1980
-S-I
~
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of:
S S
HOUSTON LIGHTING & POWER S
NRC DOCKET NOS. 50-498A COMPANY, THE CITY OF SAN S
50-499A ANTONIO, THE CITY OF AUSTIN,5 and CENTRAL POWER AND LIGHT S COMPANY S
(South Texas Project, S
Unit Nos. 1 and 2)
S S
TEXAS UTILITIES GENERATING S
NRC DOCKET NOS. 50-445A
-et al.
S 50-446A
]
- COMPANY, (Comanche PeaE Steam 5
Electric Station, S
Unit Nos. 1 and 2)
S CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I,
David M.
Stahl, hereby certify that copies of the foregoing Report Re Status of Settlement Discussions and Motion for Extension of Time were served upon the fol-lowing listed persons either by hand delivery or by deposit in the United States mail, first class postage prepaid on this 9th day of May, 1980.
b-R)
G DOCKETED p
USNRO
_g g
MAY 121980 >
David M.
S hl g
Offeeof theSecetary 7/
Dccheting & SWee N
4
t.
MAILING LIST Marchdll'E. MillGr, Ecq.
Roy P. Lossy, Jr., Esq.
U.S. Nuclear. Regulatory Commission Michael B.
Blume, Esq.
Washington, D.C.
20555 U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Comm.
Washington, D.C.
20555 Michael L'.
Glaser, Esq.
'1150 17th Street,.N.'W.
William C.
Price Washington, D. C.
20036 Chairman anu Chief Executive Officer Sheldon J. Wolfe, Esq.
Central Power & Light Co.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Ccmmission P.
O. Box 2121 Washington, D.C.
20555 Corpus Christi, Texas 78403 Atomic' Safety'and Licensing G. K.
Spruce, Gen. Manager Appeal Board Panel City Public Service Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission P. O.
Box 1771 Washington,.D. C.
20555 San Antonio, Texas 78203
-Chase R.
Stephens (20)
Mr. Perry G.
Brittain Docketing and Service Section President U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Ccmmission Texas Utilities Generating Co.
Washington, D. C.
20555 2001 Bryan Tower Dallas, Texas 75201 Jerome-D. Saltzman Chief, Antitrust and Indemnity Group R.
L.
Hancock, Director U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission City of Austin Electiic Utility Washingt'on, D.C.
20555 P.
O. Box 1088 Austin, Texas 78767 J.
Irion Worsham, Esq.
Merlyn D.
Sampels, Esq.
G. W.
Oprea, Jr.
Spencer C. Relyea, Esq..
Executive Vice President Worsham, Forsythe & Sampels Houston Lighting & Pcwer Co.
2001 Bryan Tower, Suite 2500 P.
O. Box 1700 Dallas, Texas 75201 Houston, Texas 77001 Jcn C. Wood, Esq.
Michael I. Miller, Esq.
W. Roger Wilson, Esq.
James A.
Carney, Esq.
Matthews),Nowlin, Macfarlane & Barrett Icham, Lincoln & Beale 1500 Alamo National Building One First National Plaza San Antonio, Texas 78205 Chicago, Illinois 60603 Morgan Hunter, Esq.
J. A. Bouknight, Esq.
Bill D.
St. Clair, Esq.
Bill Franklin, Esq.
McGinnin, Lockridge & Kilgore Lowenstein, Newman, Reis, Axelrad Fifth Floor, Texas State
& Toll Bank Building 1025 Connecticut Avenue, N. W.
900 Congress Avenue Washington,.D. C.
Gordon Gooch, Esq.
Don R.-Butler, Esq.
f Baker'&'Botts 1225 Southwest Tower
]
1701 Pennsylvania Avenue, N. W.
Austin, Texas 78701 Washington, D. C.
20006' 1
4 t
t
c
+
Jtrry L. Earrio, Ecq.
Richard C. Balough, Esq.
'W.S.
Robson South Texas Electric City of Austin P. O. Box 1088 Cooperative, Inc.
Austin, Texas 78767 Sam Rayburn Power Plant Complex Post Office 151 Joseph B. Knotts, Jr., Esq.
Nursery, Texas 77976 Nicholas S. Reynolds,-Esq.
Debevoise & Liberman Robert C.
McDiarmid, Esq.
1200 17th Street, N. W.
Robert A.
Jablon, Esq.
Washington, D. C.
20036 Marc R.
Poirier Speigel & McDiarmid D'on H. Davidson 2600 Virginia Avenue, N.W.
City Manager Washington, D.
C.
20036 City of Austin P.
O.
Box 1088 Kevin B.
Pratt Austin, Texas 78767 Texas Attorney General's Office P.
O. Box 12548 Jay Galt, Esq.
' Looney, Nichols, Johnson & Hays 219 Couch Drive William H.
Burchette, Esq.
Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73102 Frederic H. Ritts, Esq.
Law Offices ^ of Northcutt Ely Knoland J. Plucknett Watergate Building Executive Director Washington, D. C.
20037 Committee on Power for the Southwest, Inc.
Wheatley & Wolleson 5541 East Skelly Drive 1112 Watergate Office Bldg.
-Tulsa, Oklahoma 74135 2600 Virginia Avenue, N.W.
Washingt.on, D.
C.
20037 John W.'Davidson, Esq.
Sawtelle, Goods, Davidson &'Tiolo Joseph Rutherg, Esq.
?.100 San Antonio Savings Building Antitrust Counsel San Antonio, Texas 78205 Counsel for NRC Staff U.S.
NRC Washington, D.
C.
20555 Douglas F. John, Esq.
Linda L.
Aaker, Esq.
Akin, Gump, Hauer & Feld Asst. Attorney General 1333 New Hampshire Avenue, N.
W.
P.
O.
Box 12548 Suite 400 Capitol Station Washington, D. C.
20036 Austin, Texas 78711 W. U Woolsey, Esq.
Robert M. Rader Dyer and Padford~
Conner, Moore & Corber 1030 Petroleum Tower 1747 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W.
Corpus Christi, Texas 78474 Washington, D.C.
20006 Donald Clements Melvin G.
Berger, Esq.
Gulf _ States Utilities Company Ronald Clark, Esq.
P._O. Box 2951 Antitrust Division, Energy Beaumont,_ Texas 77704 Section Room 8308 414 lith Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C.
20530 l -.
E I
Charles'G. Thrash, Jr., Esq.
Joseph J.
Saunders Esq.
E. W.
Barnett, Esq.
Chief, Public Counsel &
Theodore F. Weiss,'Esq.
Legislative Section J. - Gregory Copeland, Esq.
Antitrust Section Baker i Botts U.S.
Department of Justice 3000-One Shell Plaza P.O.-Box 14141 Houston, TX.77002 Washington, D.C.
20044 Donald A.
Kaplan,-Chief Robert E.
Bathen i
Robert Fabrikant, Asst. Chief R. W.
Beck & Associates Energy Section P.O.
Box 6817 Antitrust Division Orlando, Florida 82853 U.
S. Department of Justice Washington, D.C.
20530 Mr.
G.
Holman King West Texas Utilities Company Nancy Luque P.O.
Box 41 Susan B. Cyphert Abilene, TX 79604 Ronald.H. Clark-i Frederick H.
Parmenter Jonathan Feld, Esq.
Antitrust Division Weil, Gotshal & Manges Energy Section 767 Fifth Avenue U.S. Department of Justice New York, NY 10022 Room 8413 414 lith Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C.
20530 l
1 e
l l
l T
. - _ _ _,-