ML19326D470

Addl Responses to Certain Items of Request for Admissions. Certificate of Svc & Wa Kirkby Affidavit Encl

ML19326D470
Person / Time
Site:	Midland
Issue date:	04/23/1973
From:	Watson K CONSUMERS ENERGY CO. (FORMERLY CONSUMERS POWER CO.), WALD, HARKRADER & ROSS
To:	US ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION (AEC)
References
NUDOCS 8006110500
Download: ML19326D470 (11)

Text

o % ..

• n. .m

,a UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION In the Matter of )

) DocketandNos. Mm 50-330A CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY )

(Midland Units 1 and 2) )

APPLICANT'S ADDITIONAL RESPONSES TO CERTAIN ITEMS OF THE REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS Pursuant to Sect 4on 2.742 (1-) (1) of the Commission's Rules of Practice, Consumers Power Company (" Applicant") here-by attaches responses to those items in the Department of Jus-1/

tice's Request for Admissions- to which the Board ordered Applicant to respond in its Order and Rulings dated April 5, 1973.

These responses complete Applicant's compliance with the Request for Admissions.

Respectfully submitted, Ke th S. Watson ATTORNEY FOR CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY April 23, 1973 1/ Sy order of the Board dated April 5, 1973, consideration of the interrogatories which accompanied t.he Request has been deferred fp.7) .

8006110 @!O O

Applicant's Responses

21. Applicant admits that " dependable capacity" for a -

particular unit refers to the number of kilowatts that a generator (i.e. a generation unit) can be relied upon to generate continuously except for forcrd outage and scheduled outage for maintenance or other reasons.

22. Denied.

23. Based upon the Halperin and Adler method of analysis, Applicant denies that 10 megawatts of capacity would be available as firm.

83. Applicant admits this statement, if " coordinated development" means a situaticn where two or more electric utilities, insofar as is reasonably prac-ticable, jointly plan the expansion of generating and major transmission facilities of each partici-pating utility in such a manner as to provide the lowest practical over-all cost of electric capacity and energy to the participating utilities, consis-tent with a high degree of reliability.

84. Admit.

85. Applicant denies (a) because it considers only trans-mission of 138 KV and above to be high voltage.

Applicant denies (b).

l

, 86. Denied.

87. Admit.

117. Denied. In this and subsequent responses, Applicant assumes that the Department's definition of "Gaines-ville formula" refers to a method whereby reserve percentage for each party to a reserve arrangement is the same regardless of the characteristics of each party's system.

118. Denied.

119. Denied. Except for first sentence.

120. Denied.

121. Denied. See response to 122.

122. Applicant admits only that the stated formula is used with systems to the South for the first 48 hours5.555556e-4 days <br />0.0133 hours <br />7.936508e-5 weeks <br />1.8264e-5 months <br /> of emergency power. Applicant is aware of some reserve sharing arrangements involving other systems which provide otherwise, but lacks suffi-cient information to state whether the charge pro-vided for in the MIIO Area Coordination Agreement is usual.

126. Denied.

127. Denied.

128. Applicant denies that the statement is true under all circumstances. (See response 117 for Applicant's understanding of the phrase "Gainesville formula.")

131. Applicant admits that under the Department's def-inition of "Gainesville formula" (see response 117), Holland's reserve requirement would be in-dependent of the size of its largest generating unit, but lacks knowledge about the characteris-tics of Holland's system to comment as to Holland's ability to economically justify larger generating units thereunder. Such knowledge is not readily available to Applicant.

132. Upon information and belief, Applicant denies that the M-C Pool " consists of" Lowell, Zeeland, Hart and Portland if the quoted language connotes that they are signatories to the Pool agreement.

134. Applicant denies that such has occurred "over a period of years", if this language refers to occurrences prior to 1970.

135. Denied.

136. Applicant denies that it presently " sells" the M-C Pool firm power; Applicant and the Pool have no agree-

, ment concerning the exchange of power.

137. Denied. See response to 136.

138. Applicant admits that it did offer the " Holland formula" at one stage of negotiations, but notes the inaccuracy of the Department's reference to "a new interconnection arrangement." See response to 136.

l i

. . , . ,,.__~mr. - . .-

-4_

141. Applicant lacks knowledge to determine whether the "Gainesville formula" (as defined in response 117) would enable the M-C Pool to economically achieve either of the mentioned objectives. Such knowledge is not readily available to Applicant.

142. Denied upon information and belief.

143. Applicant lacks knowledge to determine whether the "Gainesville formula" (as defined in response 117) would enable Lansing to install larger units than under its present agreement with Applicant, since this determination depends on namerous factors other than required reserves. Lansing has refused to answer Applicant's discovery to it and the requisite information is not otherwise readily available.

144. Denied except that Applicant lacks knowledge to com-ment upon the alleged Lansing reserve levels. See response to 143.

145. Applicant admits that it and Lansing discussed the "Gainesville formula" (as defined in response to 117) at one time during negotiations preceding the 1970 interconnection agreement. However, Lansing voluntarily abandoned the percentage of installed i

reserve approach, and proposed reserves be speci-  :

l fied in terms of fixed amounts of spinning reserves.

I

. ,~

146. Ap'plicant lacks knowledge to determine to what extent, if any, Lansing could sell surplus power if interconnected with Applicant "on Gainesville formula terms." (See responses to 117 and 143.)

149. Applicant admits that, since Coldwater's municipal system has not since 1960 possessed generating cap-acity in excess of its demand, the Coldwa_ter system has had no " coordinating power and energy" to ex-change and Applicant has therefore not offered to exchange same with Coldwater.

150. and 151. Applicant admits use of the Halperin and Adler method under appropriate circumstances , assuming that this response does not connote exclusive use.

Denied.

~

153.

154. Denied, since this statement is not true under all circumstances.

156. Denied.

157. Applicant denies that its sale of a portion of the capacity of the Ludington Plant constitutes "co-ordinated development", as defined in response 83.

Applicant admits that it has only engaged in "co-ordinated development" with Detroit Edison.

158. Applicant admits the statement if " coordinated devel-opment" is defined as in response to 83.

l l

1 159. Denied under all circumstances.

160. Applicant admits that its wholesale bulk power rates are based upon average system cost.

161. Denied.

162. Denied, since this statement would be false under certain circumstances.

163. Danied, if the question implies that only two types are available.

164 and 165. Applicant admits that the arrangements described in these questions could theoretically be compelled, but submits that such compulsion would be unwise and unlawful.

167. Upon information and belief, since 1960 Applicant denies that any contract provision with smaller systems has had the effect of restricting their interconnections with third parties.

169. Applicant admits subparagraphs (b), (c) and (e),

denies (d) , and is unable to admit (a) for lack of knowledge. See response to 143.

170. Admit, if " transmission system" does not connote all of ecch syatem's transmission lines.

171. Applicant denies that it has " coordinating" arrange-ments with the systems mentioned, assuming the word

" coordinating" is defined here as it is in the Joint Document Request (p. 3) .

w. ~ ,-

y n , , - ,, , - - - - - -

177. Upon information and belief, Applicant admits the statement. ,

198. Applicant admits the statement, provided that it does not imply that these factors are exclusive.

199. Applicant admits only that it does not compete for loads in areas where it is not legally franchised to serve, including areas served by Alpena Power Company where Applicant is not so franchised.

201. Denied, upon information and belief.

213. Denied.

214. Denied.

215. Denied.

216. Denied, upon information and belief.

217. Admit.

218. Admv., assuming that the phrase "such integration" refers only to Applicant's system.

219. Admit.

220. Denied.

221. Denied.

223. Denied, upon information and belief, assuming that all systems with generation capacity may be consid-ered " integrated systems".

224. Applicant admits the statement upon information and belief. See response to 132.

l l

l l

l 225. Upon information and belief, Applicant admits the statement except that it denies that Lansing has a "300 megawatt system," if this figure refers to generation capacity.

226. Admit, assuming that "near" may be defined as more than a few miles in some instances.

228. Denied upon information and belief.

STATE OF MICHIGAN )

SS.

COUNTY OF JACKSON W. A. Kirkby, being duly sworn, says that he is an Attorney employed by Applicant Constaners Power Company, and that he has read the foregoing responses to itens 21-23, 83-87, 117-122, 126-128, 131-132, 134-138, 141-146, 149-151, 153-154, 156-165, 167, 169-171, 177, 198-199, 201, 213-221, 223-226 and 228 of the Justice Department's Request for Admissions and Interrogatories as to Proposed Contentions, dated February 12, 1973, and that said responses are correct to the best of his knowledge and belief.

I  ;

/

Subscribed and sworn to before me this 19th day of April , 19,73 l '/./

Muriel J. PaquettAh, Notay Public Jackson County, Michigan My Commission Expires: March 22, 1974 l

l

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION In the Matter of )

) Docket Nos. 50-329A CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY ) and 50-330A (Midland Units 1 and 2) )

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE -

I hereby certify that copies of APPLICANT'S ADDI-TIONAL RESPONSES TO CERTAIN ITEMS OF THE REQUEST FOR ADMIS-SIONS, dated April 23, 1973, in the above-captioned matter have been served on the following by deposit in the United States mail, first class or air mail, this 23rd day of April, 1973:

Jerome Garfinkel, Esq., Chairman Dr. J. V. Leeds , Jr.

Atomic Safety and Licensing Board P. O. Box 941 Atomic Energy Commission Houston, Texas 77001 Washington, D. C. 20545 William T. Clabault, Esq.

. Hugh K. Clark, Esq. Joseph J. Saunders, Esq.

P. O. Box 127A David A. Leckie, Esq.

Kennedyville, Maryland 21645 Public Counsel Section Antitrust Division James Carl Pollock, Esquire Department of Justice 2600 Virginia Avenue, N. W. Washington, D. C. 20530 Washington, D. C. 20037 Joseph Rutberg, Jr. , Esq.

Antitrust Counsel for AEC Regulatory Staff Atomic Energy Commission Washington, D. C. 20545 Wallace E. Brand, Esq.

Antitrust Public Counsel Section P. O. Box 7513 Washington, D. C. 20044 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Atomic Energy Commission Washington, D. C. 20545 Keith S. Watson t - J