ML19326C505
| ML19326C505 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Arkansas Nuclear  |
| Issue date: | 06/14/1971 |
| From: | Rowden M US ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION (AEC) |
| To: | Seaborg G US ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION (AEC) |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8004230624 | |
| Download: ML19326C505 (7) | |
Text
{{#Wiki_filter:... ...,....+ p d i3 i T~ H 00 0 ?
- t..
i / ',., i i ljl / [
== ~~ JUN 1 4 13U .NTI-TRusy 2 0 - 3t n4.. m.,.%.. ... ~. 00g gT CONTM g c. q u }<. =. :.- .u%e D0 i -{ ,, ~,. g
- s......,..4 g
POOR QW
- r..
- s.:n.: m.
ic=
- e..
i=i ..3,.........,..g,
- u. g..7
..p... .s..., ,y. ..n +. ,s.. .....t. e J3 ?. a.L [ .~I $.I 1f y
- p
.'.I ,1 .) v -1 e .',1 .e v .W p 4.<.ed*e [ + 9 d W e g s r.s M . W u e. n, e g i t ~ .y a. a i . *:1 2 a.) ~ '..'r e . J. - 2 :. ' ' s... t ,~ f s .. +. 4 + b . e g a p e'glma GP 4 - e 8 e e C.. J. o i LJa e ,// 1.'.. Y ^ i 3 ~ ~ ' ' ' ' ' ~ ~' j i r ~ ~ TJ ^ - e aa .u } o -t 3 e D. 8 d q g e } b .e b / JOl%$st.ja N ' LL " e.~ ~,.?, t.%., ,x %.. Q 8 s,,. s QW e 's s t .s g D4 s %,N p M e 9. R .1. 8004230 [ h v.~ +..
i m& =M
- z. :-.:-
U"ITED STATES OF AMERICA FEDERAL POWER COD 115S10N = E ms E pp Before Commissioners: John N. Nassikas, Chairman; Lawrence J. O'Connor, Jr., John A. Carver, Jr., ... " = Albert B. Brooke, Jr., and Pinkney Walker ~ g_ Pacific Gas and Electric ). Docket No. E-7597 Company ) ORDER ACCEPTING PROPOSED RATE SCHEDULES, GRANTING WAIVER OF NOTICE REQUIREMENTS, AND DISMISSING COMPLAINT (Issued June 8, 1971) ... = ~ Pursuant to Sections 35.12 and 35.13 of the Commission's Regulations under the Federal Power Act (18 CFR 35.1), Pacific Gas and Electric Company (" Pacific"), a public utility subject to the jurisdiction of this Ccemission, filed on December 18, 1970, an amendment (" Supplement No. 1 to FPC Electric Rate Schedule No. 34"), dated June 4, 1970, to the 1966 Sale and Interchange. Contract between Pacific and Sacramento Municipal ~ Utility District (" Sacramento"), and a neu agreement ("FPC Electric Rate Schedule No. 45"), dated June 4,1970, between Pacific and Sacramento. The filing of Supplement No. I to FPC Electric' Rate Schedule No..34 is proposed to be effective January 21, 1971. -The FPC Electric Rate Schedule No. 45 is to become effective upon cocmercial operation of Rancho Seco Unit No. 1 and continue until 1993, unless terminated by either party upon six years written notice. The Supplement No. 1 to FPC Electric Rate Schedule No. 34 and the FPC Electric Rate Schedule No. 45 are identified in Appendix A attached hereto. FPC Electric' Rate Schedule No. 45 provides for the continued integration of facilities between Pacific and Sacramento. The neu schedule prevides for the construction and operation of Sacramento's Rancho-Seco Unit No. 1, and a second thermal plant. l DC-25 l
l- -0 E {.. '& m:::. s Docket No. E )597 --2 U -FPC' Electric Rate Schedule No. 45 will not become effective, until the date Ranche Seco Unit No. 1 becomes commercially ]$ operable; at which such time, that schedule will supersede =s the 1966 agreement.(FPC Electric Rate Schedule No. 34).
== =s; & e= _The pr' 'ed FPC Electric. Rate Schedule No. 45 provides Ef.;; [ ~for the sale of' surplus energy from Rancho Seco Unit No. 1, by Sacramento to Pacific, at a price of Sacramento's production ~ cost plus ten percent, but not more than 1.9. mills per kilowatt y - hour'.- Pacific is to purchase surplus capacity > from the. first nuclear unit ct the cost of capacity from the unit, but not-to exceed twenty-six dollars per kilowatt per year. Beginning l in 1977 and until the second nuclear unit is installed, Sacra-mento will require capacity from Pacific, such capacity to be. returned to Pacific from Sacramento's first capacity surplus. Sacramento will also contribute monthly capacity to Pacific in exchange for standby service and will, in addition, receive ~~ backup in-exchange for its contribution to Pacific's generation + reserves. Pacific and Sacramento also provide for an energy exchange account. Finally, Pacific and Sacramento will con-struct transmission fa,cilities for the first unit's energy. The-Supplement No. 1 to FPC Electric Rate Schedule No. 34 provides for the transition from the present rate schedule to the proposed FPC Electric Rate Schedule Sc. 45. Prior to Rancho Seco Unit No. 1 becoming commercicily operable. Sacra-mento will.be credited with energy in meeting its load requirements, thereby reducing its purchases from Pacific. Therq-are to be no changes in the filed rate under this amend- ~ ment.g The proposed rate schedule (FPC Electric Rate Schedule No. 45), filed on December 18, 1970, will take effect beyond the 90 (ninety) day caximum notice period, as provided by ~Section 35.3 of the Commission's regulations under the Federal Power Act. Pacific, concurrently with this filing, has re-quested a waiver of this notice requirement. We find, it is impo~rtant to Pacific, Sacramento, and their custcmers, that the notice requirement be waived. In order to facilitate joint planning between Pacific'and Sacramento, and in order to give assurance to those financing Sacramento's' construction program, 6 i ..a ..4-. e r he e.- p ,a.- -u,a-.up - et-g c-rs
p. m 3
== ~ E
- iR==
Docket No. E-75E7-55h se we find-there is gned cause to waive the noticc requirements =;T. of Section 35.3_.of the Commission's regulations under the '.~.Z Federal Power Act. As_ provided in Section 35.3 of the Commission's regu-5[j[ 1ations under the Federal Power Act, we will provide that ,ss Supplement No. 1 to FPC Electric Rate Schedule No. 3,4, filed 4 December 18, 1970, shall become effective January 21, 1971, .= = ^ thirty days after the filing date. On January 12, 1971, Northern California Power Agency-(" Northern") filed a complaint with this Commission, alleging certain antitrust violations and anticompetitive acts and practices, arising out of EPC Electric Rate Schedule No. 45 and Supplement No. 1 to FPC Electric Rate Schedule No. 34. In particular, complainant alleges that Northern was in-tentionally encluded from the planning and agreement stages of the_ proposed second nuclear unit, Pacific is attempting =L to monopolize the generation of electrical energy in northern-
== and central California by limiting the size of the second nuclear unit, and Northern has been int.entionally excluded from being able to purchase bulh nuclear power. These acts and practices, among others, are alleged to grant an undue preference to Pacific, in violaticn of Section 205(b) of the '3 Federal Power Act, and are therefore, alleged to be unlawful, under Section 205(a) of that Act. Northern, in its complaint, ~ has asked for a hearing, cnd has requested this Commission to i void FPC Electric Rate Schedule No. 45, or to amend said
== j agreement, to increase the size of the proposed second nuclear unit to 1,150 mw; the excess over 830 mw to be made available i to Northern for_ purchase. Pacific has filed, on February 25, i 1971, an Ansuer to Northern's Cenpinint. On March 12, 1971, 1 Northern filed its Reply to Pacific's Answer. i l We find,.for the reasons stated herein, that this Commission is without jurisdiction to hear Northern's com-i plaint. We therefore decline to comment on the merits of Morthern's allegations inasmuch as they are deemed moot. L -~ x a u
...:. + = ,..u
:
' Docket No. EG597 - L EM ~: e e- ~ Sacramento is a' public agency of the State of California i= 9 and not subject'to the jurisdiction of this Commission. on October 10,-1968,. Sacramento was greeted a provisional con-
- .J;[
struction permit by the Atcmic Ene? Commission (AEC) 1/- for Rancho-Seco Nuclear Unic No. 1. .e were no intervenors at 9:Et the hearings provided by the AEC.on issuance of that permit. ~ j Once a project is determined to be "useful for industrial or ~ commercial purposes", a commercial license will issue under the Atomic Energy Act. 2/ Section 105 of that Act 3/ gives j_ the AEC power to revoke or suspend licenses where the licensee l' may be in violation of an antitrust statute, empowers the.AEC to report to the Attorney General any antitrust violations, 7 and the AEC must send all Section 103 licenses to the Attorney }~ General for an antitrust review. 4/ If there is determined to .= be adverse antitrust consequences, the Attorney General will
- s,21 report the same to the AEC, after which the AEC must hold a
=g. hearing. Where a construction permit issued prior to December ~~ ~ 2.; 19, 1970, any party who intersiened or sought to intervene, may, within 25 days after netice of filing for a Section 103 operating
- =
license, request an antitrust review by the Attorney Geners). 5/ Under Section 105 of the Atomic Energy Act, th2 AEC has the power to condition any licennes which it has issued, in order to correct any potentici antitrust abuses. 6/ We find that the Atcmic Energy Act, and the 1970 Amend- ^ ments thereto, indicate a close liaison between the AEC and the Attorney General, to investigate and remedy any potential = antitrust violations in the licensing procedures of nuclear
== generating facilities. g 1/ 'AEC Docket No. 50-312. -2/ 1970 Amendments to Section 102 of Atomic Energy Act, 42 U.S.C. E2132 and Section 103, 42 U.S.C. 62133. t . 3/ '. 42 U. S. C. S 213 5. !t 4/ Ibid. [ +u 5/ Ibid. a 6/ Ibid. ,w. m ,,e e w4 eeAe-ee,e 4 9 --~,,g.-
(
r-
t ~ Docket Nc. E-7597 i ) ,=. We find it unmistakenly clear, that Section 201(b) [I of the Federal _ Power ' Act, carefully limits our authority
- g. gel and that our jurisdiction does not extend to the " facilities"
=
used for the generation of electrical energy. Although we ~=enp+ are mindful of Section 271~ of the Atomic Energy Act, which =" - states that normal federal, state, and local regulatory .g 3 authority over the generation, sale, and transmission of r= - electric energy shall continue, we do not find that the Federal Power Act should be amended by " implication", so as to give this Commission certificate jurisdiction over - the facilities of Sacramento. .f.k!!. We are dealing with a complaint, which does not allege rate discrimination, nor does it. allege that the the proposed cg rates are unjust or unreasonable. Northern has requested -...o this Commission to exercise jurisdiction over the size of a 55 nuclear generating unit and to allocate the bulk power generated therefrom, such unit being subject to the licensing provisions of the Atomic Energy Act, and such unit being owned and financed by a government agency of the State of California. We find this Commission has no such jurisdiction. The Commission further finds: (1).FPC Electric Rate Schedule No. 45 and Supplement No. 1 to FPC Electric Rate Schedule No. 34, dated June 4, 1970,betueen Pacific and Sacramento, are just and reasonable and otherwise lauful under the Federal Power Act. (2)- Good cause has been shown to waive the notice requirements to Section 35.3 of the Commission's Regulations under the -Federal Power Act (18 CFR 35.3) to permit Pacific to file.FPC Electric Rate Schedule no. 45 at this time. The Commission orders: -(A) Waiver of the notice requirements of Section 35.3 of the Cc= mission's Regulatim.. under _the Federal Power Act (18 CFR 35.3) ~ is hereby granted so as to allow Pacific to file FPC. Electric Rate Schedule at this time to become effective upon commercial operation of Rancho Seco Unit No. 1. m
e s* * ' ' "l.':.'ld .l.L.'- ' '. ' ~ Docket No.1E-7597. (B) Supplement-No. 1 to FPC Electric Rate Schedule .is --No. 34 'is to be effective January 21, 1971.- i hw ,:wm==. - (C) : Northern's complaint is hereby-dismissed and these i. 1.EE - - proceedings' terminated. ~ - By the-Commission. _ _ _ _[
=...
~ ( S E'A L )~ - L
- =.
C':4'. -
- l.~::: '
?N '." 6 t.- re Kenneth F. Plumb, [- Acting Secretary. P i l 5b$b:~ v:. l l .4 6 e O e ) .I G Em= m- _J}}