ML19329D138
| ML19329D138 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Davis Besse, Perry  |
| Issue date: | 07/24/1978 |
| From: | Goldberg R CLEVELAND, OH, GOLDBERG, FIELDMAN & HJELMFELT |
| To: | Case E Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8002250847 | |
| Download: ML19329D138 (31) | |
Text
"
g o 7 a28'/78 REGULATORY INFORMATION DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM (RIDS D DISTRIBUTION FOR INCOMING MATERIAL aO-34' 40/441/500' REC: CASE E G $0/
ORG: GOLDBERG R DOCDATE: 07/24/78 NRC NONE DATE RCVD: 07/28/
DOCTYPE: LETTER NOTARIZED: NO SUGJECT: COPIES RECEIVED LTR 1 ENCL 1 FURNISHING INFO RE APPLICANT"3 07/14/78 RESPONSE TO THE NOTICE OF VIOLATIO RE TRANSMISSION SCHEDULE RATES.. W/ATT ORDER WAIVING FILING REQUIREMENTS, ACCEPTING FOR FILING & SUSPENDING PROPOSED TRANS SVC TArr!Pr PROVIDING FOR HEARING b GRANTING INTERVENTned TWM v
PLANT NAME: DAVIS BESSE - UNIT 1 REVIEWER INITIAL:
PERRY - UNIT 16 XJM PERRY - UNIT 2 DISTRIBUTER INITIAL: q DAVIS-BESSE - UNIT 2 4J w
- DISTRIGUTION OF THIS MATERIAL IS AS FOLLOWS ***************45**
NOTES:
I.
SEND ALL AMENDMENTS TO J. ROE DIST PER A. TOALSTON/AIG 07/27/73 (DISTRIBUTION CODE NONE)
INTERNAL: REG FI *41W/ ENCL NRC PDR**W/ ENCL Ie_4*W/2 ENCL CASE **W/ ENCL h SALTZMAN**W/ ENCL RUTEERG**W/ ENCL MURRAY,OELD**W/ ENCL LESSY.OELD**W/ ENCL LYEGERMAN,OELD**W/ ENCL EXTERNAL: LPDR: CLIN TON, OH**W/ ENCL LPDR: PERRY,OH**W/ ENCL DISTRIBUTION: LTR O ENCL 0 SIZE: 2P+28P CONTROL NBR: 7 C ~ .1i o********************************** THE END *************-***********[*****4 i
80 Q()g250fff
, , s
/
Y 6 en.cs.
i GO LD B ERG, FIELD MAN & LETH AM, P. C.
4700 PEteNSYLVANI A AVENUE, N. W.
acustmooLostmo WASHINGTON,0 C. 20CO6 ARNOLD riELou.m 0300 393-2 4d OLENN W. LETM AM
- ca.=~.=o o ., o,-a .sa* ,,,,, ,' *;',,'f, ,,,
July 24,1978 re ,ceLw...coLca.oo y
1 Mr. Edson G. Case Acting Director Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation United Status Nuclear Regulatory Commis elon i Washington, D. C. 20555 Re: Response of The Cleveland Electric Illuminating Company to Notice of Violation, Docket Nos.
50-346A, 50-440A, 50-441A, 50-500A, 50-501A; License No. NPF-3, Davis Besse Unit I and
, CPPR-148 and CPPR-149, Perry Units 1 and 2
Dear Mr. Case:
I
- 1 The response of July 14, 1978, of The Cleveland Electric Illuminating
[ Company (CEI), by its counsel, to the Notice of Violation is no response at all.
j Counsel has, in effect, simply entered a general denial. The reaffirmation of the statements in Mr. William N. Bingham's letter of March 17,1978 to Mr.
Jerome Saltzman contribute nothing to the response. The statements in that letter were before the Nuclear Regulatory Commission when the Notice of 1: Violation was issued.
The reference in CEI's response to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (FERC) orders of June 14, 1978 implies that FERC was satis-
, fied to accept the transmission schedule subject to a hearing on the rates.
In order that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) may be aware of the reasons that impelled the Commission to accept the transmission sched-ule for filing, conditionally, a copy of that order and the City of Cleveland's motion _ referred to in that order, are enclosed.
Instead of responding to the revisions of the transmission schedule i
recommended by the NRC, CEI's counsel merely expresses CEI's willing-j ness to meet to discuss-the recommended changes "in an effort to resolve the apparent differences regarding appropriate language. " Of course, there l- is more than language differences involved. In any case, the City of Cleveland
~3 - ' ;.
- o.nce.
GOLDBERG, F lELDMAN & LETH AM, P. C.
Mr. Edson G. Case July 24, 1978 Page 2 has views to express and expects that the City of Cleveland will be a partici-pant in any meeting that may be convened.
Very truly yours, A
O, 0.
-4aO- w,.gey ,.
Reuben Goldberg/j Attorney for -
City of Cleveland, Ohio Enclosures (2) cc: Wm. Bradford Reynolds Donald H. Hauser J. P. Williamson, The Toledo Edison Co.
J. R. White, Ohio Edison Co.
R. E. Semmle r, Pennsylvania Powe r Co.
S. G. Schaffer, Duquesne Light Co.
J. Ciacci, City of Cleveland D. Flexner, Department of Justice Robert D. Hart, City of Cleveland (w/o encl. )
David C. Hjelmfelt (w/o encl. )
RG /ea
Mr.UEIVED JUH 161973 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA IQ Orrl cgs FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION COLDIEnc,lig;;.,,gg ELECTRIC RATES: SUSPENSION Before Commissioners: Charles B. Curtis, Chairman; Ceorgiana Sheldon, Matthew Holden, Jr.,
and George R. Hall.
Cleveland Electric Illuminating )
Company ) Docket No. ER78-194 0
I ORDER WAIVING FILING REQUIREMENTS, ACCEPTING FOR FILING AND SUSPENDING PROPOSED TRANSMISSION i SERVICE TARIFF, PROVIDING FOR HEARING h
AND GRANTING INTERVENTION l '
i (Issued June 14, -1978)
On January 27, 1978, pursuant to Section 205 of the Federal Power Act, the Cleveland Electric Illuminating Company (CEI) ten-dered for filing a Transmission Service Tariff 1/ providing for wheeling services for any rural electric Cooperative or Municipal g located within the Central Area Power Coordination Group (CAPCO) p' territories. 2/ Dy letter signed by the Secretary of the Commis-sion and dated February 27, 1978, CEI was advised of certain de-ficiencies in its filing pursuant to 18 C.F.R. S 35.13. To date, CEI has not responded to the February 27 letter.
In its January 27 filing CEI states that the proposed Trans-mission Service Tariff was filed pursuant to certain conditions !
included in licenses and permits issued by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission for the Davis-Besse and Perry nuclear power plants as ,
a result of an Initial Decision issued on January 6, 1977 by an Atomic Safety & Licensing Board of the NRC. 3/ CEI states that an appeal of that Initial Decision is pending before an Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board and that the Transmission Service Tariff g.
1/ Desiguted as: Cleveland Electric Illuminating 't Company FERC Electric Tariff, Original Volume No. 1.
~2/ Besides CEI, CAPCO Group consists of: Duquesne Light Company, .
Toledo Edison Company, Ohio Edison Company and Pennsylvania Power Company. !;
~
3/ The Toledo Edison Company, et al. (Davis-Besse Nuclear Power e Station, Units 1, 2 and 3, Docket Nos. 50-346A, 50-500A, 50-501A, and The Cleveland Electric Illuminating Company, et al.,
(Perry Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2) Docket Nos. 50-440A, 50-441A, (5 NRC 133).
DC-A-21 !;!
I l'
=
Docket No. ER78-19 4 shall terminate at such time as that decision becomes final, at which time CEI intends to comply with such license condition as may be required by such final decision.
CEI states that any municipality or rural electric coopera-tive desiring service under the proposed Transmission Service Tariff must provide a written request for the reservation of transmission capacity for a period of not less than 12 consecu-tive calendar months. The proposed rate under the proposed tariff is $0.72/KW/ month for the maximum amount of transmission capacity reserved. 4/ CEI states that details concerning arrange-ments for specific transactions including identification of the source of power and point of delivery, and theamount of trans-mission capacity reserved, will be set forth in supplemental schedules and filed with the Commission. 5/
CEI states that it does not presently provide transmission service for municipalities and rural electric cooperatives. Ac-cordingly, CEI requests an effective date of February 27, 1978 to permit the service to be offered promptly to utilities re-questing it.
Public notice of CEI's January 27, 1978 filing was issued for publicationin the Federal Register on February 6, 1978, with comments, protests or petitions to intervene due on or before February 13, 1978. On February 13, 1978, the City of Cleveland (City) filed a Protest, Petition to Intervene and Motion requesting a one day supsension and I. caring and alleging the the terms and conditions of CEI's proposed wheeling schedule are "anticonpetitive"6f
-4/ CEI states trat the proposed rate was derived from a cost of service study for the 12 months ending December 31, 1975 which was filed in Docket No. ER76-7.73.
-5/ The " Commission" when used in the context of an action taken prior to October 1, 1977 ciers to the FPC; when used otherwise, the reference is to the FERC.
~6/ City alludes to the January 6, 1977, Initial Decision of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board of the NRC in The Toledo Edison Company, et al. , Docket Nos. 50-346A, et al., in which the Licensing Board, according to City, found that CEI alone and in combination with other members of CAPCO violated federal antitrust laws by refusing to engage in third party wheeling, emergency interconnection or reserve sharing transactions (5 NRC 144). City states that the Licensing Board ordered CEI to pro-vide wheeling service for third party power, as an antitrust remedy, but that the proposed uheeling schedule tendered by CEI on January 27, 1978, fails to remedy the anticompetitive situation the Licensing Board addressed.
f
. . N, Docket No. ER7 8-19 4 and not just and reasonable" in that the 12 month minimum reser-vation requirement precludes City from engaging in seasonal and short-term power exchanges. City states that it presently purchases most of its bulk power at wholesale from CEI and is desirous of utilizing CEI's proposed wheeling schedule to obtain access to alternate bulk power supplies such as hydro power available from Power Authority of the State of New York (PASNY) and seasonal power from Buckeye Power, Inc. City further states that CEI has been furnishing partial power to it pursuant to interconnection i 3 agreements on file at the Commission, and that CEI's January 27 '
filing is "an additional schedule to those interconnection agree-ments". Accordingly, City submits that the proposed wheeling schedule is not an initial schedule but a rate schedule change subject to suspension under Section 205 of the Federal Power Act.7/
City requests that CEI's filing be suspended for one day, or, al-ternatively, should the Commission deem the filing to be an initial filing, that the Commission order a hearing pursuant to Section206 of the Act. ,
1 On February 13, 1978, CEI filed a response to City's Febru- '
ary 13, 1978 filing. CEI does not object to City's request for 1 intervention, but denied City's allegation that its proposed !
Transmission Service Tariff was anticompetitive and unjust and :
unreasonable. CEI states its belief that "the proposed Transmis-sion Service Tariff is in full conformance with" the license conditions imposed by the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board's January 6, 1977 decision. CEI further states its belief that its proposed wheeling tariff is an initial rate schedule, not subject to the suspension provisions of Section 205 of the Act, 8/ in that the proposed tariff "does not modify or supersede any existing rate schedule for transmission service".
On May 12,.1978, City filed a Motion requesting waiver of filing deficiencies and acceptance for filing of CEI's Transmis-
, sion Service Tariff after a one day suspension. In support of its motion, City states that it has long desired to obtain low cost
, hydro power from PASNY and states that since CEI's January 27 filing it has engaged in numerous meetings with PASNY, Pennsyl-vania Electric Company (Penelec), American Municipal Power -
t i
1 7/ In support thereof, City cites Commission orders issued April 12, i 1977 in Docket No. ER77-175, Florida Power & Light Company, and issued November 30, 1977, in Docket No. ER77-465, Oklahoma Gas
& Electric Company.
~8/ In support of its assertion CEI cites Alexandria, Minn. v. PPC, 555 F.2d 1020, 1024 (D.C. Cir. 1977).
i t
Docket No. ER78-194 Ohio (AMP-0) 9/ and Allegheny Electric Cooperative to obtain an allocation of such power.
City states that completion of transactions whereby City because wheeling arrangements cannot be finalized. A to City's May 12 filing indicate that CEI will not finalize wheeling service terms under the proposed Transmission Service Tariff until PASNY actually approves a power transfer to AMP-0 .
wheeling arrangements are completed.However, PASNY apparen obtaining low cost PASNY power,to be taking positions which i taining to its proposed Transmission Service Tariff.in C deficiency letter of FebruaryCity asserts that CEI's failure to respond to 27, 1978, reflects a reluctance on fers tail would improve customers. the City's ability to compete with CE in curing the filing deficiencies.Accordingly, City asserts that CEI has no interest 1978 andIn light May of 12,the circumstances set forth in its February 13, 1978 filings, City asserts that the "public interest" would best be served by a grant of its May 12 motion .
On May 24, 1978, CEI filed a response to City's May 12 motion Service Tariff" but objectingsupporting "the immediate acceptance for f CEI's intentions". CEI restates "to the City's characterization of its position that suspension of an initial rate schedule,the proposed tariff is inappropriate since its filing c are governed by 18 CFR S35.12,the cost support requirements of which not a rate schedule change, the cost support requirements of which are governed by 18 CFR S35.13.
party, Ordinarily until the deficiency after has beena deficiency letter is sent out to corrected. However, a filin in exceptional 9/
AMP-O State ofisOhio.
recognized by PASNY as the power agency for the Pursuant to a 1974 agreement by Allegheny and AMP-0, Allegheny has agreed to transfer 22.784 megawatts of its 130 megawatt allocation of PASNY power to AMP-O, which power is then committed for sale to City by AMP-0. In its May 12 motion City states that Allegheny's wheeling agent, Penelec, has agreed to file a transmission schedule with thedelivered be Commission "within two weeks" to enable PASNY power to to AMP-0.
L
4 5
Docket No. ER7 8-19 4 circumstances, the Commission may waive its filing regulations if waiver is consistent with the public 16terest. ~10/ We find that such exceptional circumstances exist with CEI's January 27, 1978 filing.
Our review of the filings in this docket indicates that low cost hydro power from PASNY would be immediately available to City, but for City's inability to arrange for wheeling services under CEI's proposed Transmission Service Tariff, because such Tariff has not yet been officially accepted for finng at the Commission.
We believe the public interest would be well served if electric consumerr served by Citr eould benefit from having low cost power from PAStiY available to them. Accordingly, we shall grant City's request that the filing requirements not yet complied with by CEI be waived and accept CEI's proposed Transmission Service Tariff for filing as of February 27, 1978.
CEI has requested that we treat the proposed wheeling tariff as an initial rate filing subject only to Section 206 of the Act.
City has requested that we treat the proposed tariff as a supple- ,
mental filing subject to the suspension and refund provisions of Section 205 of the Act. We find that City's request is correct in this instance.
- CEI presently provides City with firm partial requirements electric service which necessarily includes transmissio'n services necessary to carry electric Sower and energy generated by CEI to
- City. In accordance with 10 CFR S35.l(c) 11/ CEI's proposed 3
- general wheeling tariff is "an additional rate. . .or service. . . j
~~10/ Pursuant to 18 CFR Sl.7(b) a party may request waiver of any Commission Regulation by specifying the regulation and l the grounds therefore. City's May 12 motion does not expli-
! citly refer to 18 CFR Sl.7(b), although it is clear that City seeks waiver of 18 CFR S35.13 filing requirements ap- '
plicable to CEI's January 27 filing pursuant to 18 CFR Sl.7 (b) .
l 11,/ 18 CFR S35.l(c) provides:
A rate schedule applicable to a transmission or sale of electric energy thich proposes to supersede, supplement, J
cancel, or otherwise change any of the provisions of a rate schedule required to be on file with this Commission (such as providing for other or additional rates, charges, j classifications or services, or rules, regulations, prac-
- tices or contracts for a particular customer or customers) shall be filed as a change in rate in accordance with S35.13 except Notices of Cancellation or Termination which shall be
?
l filed as a change in accordance with S35.13(Emphasis sup-plied).
I
i T
Docket No. ER78-19 4
' forthe of a particular Act. customer", and as such is subject to Section 205 Accordingly, we find it appropriate to suspend the proposed rate for one day af ter which the rate will go into effect subject to refund pending the outcome of a public hearing. 12/
i supra CEI is correct to point that in Alexandria, Minn . v. F.P.C.,
the court alluded to the fact missio,n characterized a proposed that thewheeling Federal Power Com-tariff filed b Tail Power Company, applicable to the village of Elbow L k a e, as an initial filing instead of a supplemental filing. However, the involves an analysis of the circumstances filing.
a surro particular in the instant docket,Inas light of the circumstances described above, surrounding CEI's
' Commission decisions involving similar circumstancesand in light of recent supplemental filing.believe that CEI's proposed wheeling
, 13/ we tariff con
~
tariff will term'inate at such time as itsWe note that although g 1
favor by the courts, such determinationo would n its the b
requirements of the Federal Power Act and 18 CFR S35.15 er. therei have not been unreasonable, shown to be just and reasonable,Our re Accordingly, we will accept the proposed rates for filiun them for one day, to become effective Februar to refund, ng, suspend and establish hearing procedures. y 20, 1978, subject
~~/
^12 See 1971Order issued in Docket No.by the Federal Power Commission on Ju ne 2, April 12, Company. 1977 in Docket No. ER77-175, Florida Light Powe'r &
1977 in Docket No. ER77-465, Oklahoma Gas &See Orde and on February 22, 1978, Electric Company Pennsylvania Power & Light company.in Docket Nos. ER78-70 and ER78-13/ 'See footnote 12 herein.
l e
, 1 i
Docket No. ER78-194 The Commission finds:
(1) Good cause exists to waive 18 CFR S35.13 filing require-monts, to accept for filing CEI's proposed Transmission Service Tariff, and to suspend the proposed rates therein for one day until February 28, 1978, after which they shall become effective subject to refund.
(2) Good cause exists to require CEI to comply with the requirements of 18 CPR S35.13 as set forth in the Commission's deficiency letter of February 27, 1978.
(3) It is necessary and in the public interest that an evidentiary hearing be held in this docket in order for the Com-mission to discharge its responsibilities under Section 205 of the Federal Power Act.
(4) Participation by the City of Cleveland in this proceeding may be in the public interest.
~
The Commission orders:
(A) Waiver of 18 CFR S35.13 filing requirements pertaining to CEI's January 27, 1978 filing, as requested by the City of Cleveland in its motion filed May 12, 1978, is hereby granted.
(B) CEI's proposed Transmission Service Tariff filed on January 27, 1978, is hereby accepted for filing, offective as of February 27, 1978, as requested by CEI, and the use of the rates contained therein suspended for one day until February 28, 1978, after which they shall become effective subject to refund.
(C) The City of Cleveland is hereby permitted to intervene in this proceeding subject to the Rules and Regulations of the Commission: Provided, however, that participation of the City shall be limited to the matters affecting nsserted rights and interests specifically set forth in the petition to intervene; and Provided, further, that the admission of the City shall not be construed as recognition by the Commission that it might be aggrieved by any orders entered in this proceeding.
(D) CEI is hereby ordered to comply with 18 CPR S35.13 requirements by responding to the filing deficiencies set foresin the Commission's deficiency letter of February 27, 1978.
9 y _- ., - ----.~y -
.* 3 I Docket No. ER73-194 (E) Pursuant to the authority contained in and subject to the jurisdiction conferred upon the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission by Section 402 of the DOE Act and under the Federal Power Act, particularly Sections 205, 206, 301, 307, 308 and 309 thereof and pursuant to the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure and the regulations under the Federal Power Act, a public hearing to determine the justness and reasonableness of the proposed rates, charges, terms and conditions of service of CEI, commencing with a pre-hearing conference before an Administrative Law Judge on July 10, 1978 at 10:00 a.m., in a hearingCapitol North room ofStreet, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 825 N.E., Washington, D. C. 20426.
The Law Judge is authorized upon all motions to establish all procedural dates and to rule (except petitions to intervene, motions to con-solidate and sever and motions to dismiss), as provided for in the Rules of Practice and Procedure.
(F) That nothis.g contained herein shall be construed as limiting the rights of parties to this proceeding regarding the l convening of conferences or offers of settlement pursuant to Section 1.18 of the Commission's ' Rules of Practice and Procedure.
(G) That the Secretary shall cause prompt publication of this order to be made in the Federal Register.
By the Commission.
(SEAL)
Kenneth F. Plumb, Secretary.
i S
l- .' ,
v UNITED STATES OF AMERICA BEFORE THE FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION In the Matter of )
)
The Cleveland Electric Illuminating) Docket No. ER78-194 Company )
i MOTION OF CITY OF CLEVELAND REQUESTING WAIVER OF FILING DEFICIENCIES AND ACCEPTANCE FOR FILING OF THE CLEVELAND ELECTRIC ILLUMINATING COMPANY TRANSMISSION SERVICE TARIFF On January 27, 1978, The Cleveland Electric Illumi-nating Company (CEI) tendered for filing a transmission ser-vice tariff providing for wheeling services for any rural electric cooperative or municipality located within the com-bined Central Area Power Coordination Group (CAPCO) territories (CCCT). On February 13, 1978, City of Cleveland, Ohio, filed its protest, petition to intervene and request for one day
, suspension and a hearing. City did not request that filing l% rejected. On February 27, 1978, the Commission issued a deficiency letter to CEI 1/ advising that no filing date would be assigned until the filing deficiencies were corrected. City requests the Commission to waive the filing deficiencies and accept the filing and permit it to become effective after a one day suspension.
City has long desired to obtain low cost hydropower from the Power Authority of the State of New York. City's ef-forts to obtain PASNY power in 1973 were thwarted by CEI's re-fusal to wheel the power from the Pennsylvania border to the City. Finally, on January 27, 1978, CEI was compelled to file a transmission schedule which would accommodate wheeling PASNY power to the city. 2/
Since CEI filed its transmission schedule, City has engaged in numerous meetings with PASNY, Pennelec, American Municipal Power-Ohio (AMP-0) and Allegheny Electric Cooperative to obtain an allocation of low cost hydropower from PASNY.
AMP-O is recognized by PASNY as the power agency for the State 1/ A copy of the letter was not served on City and City did ,
4 not becom( aware of the letter until April 14, 1978. j 1
2/
~
The schedule was filed to comply with conditions attached l to licenses and permits issued by the Nuclear Regulatory l Commission for the Davis-Besse and Perry nuclear power i plants. i I
1
of Ohio. Under an agreement entered into in October, 1974 by Allegheny and AMP-O, Allegheny has agreed to transfer some 22.784 megawatts of its 130 megawatt allocation of PASNY power to AMP-0. All of the PASNY power and energy purchased by AMP-O will be sold by AMP-O to the City, AMP-O's largest member.
In order to achieve an interim transfer of PASNY power to AMP-O and City in the most efficient and expeditious fashion, the following procedure has been agreed upon.
PASNY will continue to deliver 130 megawatts directly to Allegheny and will continue to invoice Allegheny for such power sales. Allegheny, in turn, will direct it's Pennsylvania wheeling agent (Penelec) to deliver 22.784 megawatts to CEI for the account of AMP-O. Allegheny will invoice AMP-O for deliv-eries made under these arrangements. Penelec has assured City that it will file a transmission schedule to accomplish this transaction with the Commission within two weeks.
AMP-O has requested wheeling service from CEI to move the PASNY power from the point of Penelec's interconnec-tion with CEI to City. On April 13, 1978, CEI provided a rough draft of a supplemental schedule A which would provide wheeling services under the transmission schedule subject to this pro-
- coeding. CEI has advised AMP-O that the supplemental schedule A cannot be finalized until PASNY actually approves the transfer of the power to AMP-0. PASNY will not finally approve the trans-for until all wheeling arrangements are completed. Meanwhile,
, City is being whipsawed by CEI.
Although the Commission issued its deficiency letter February 27, 1978, CEI has not attempted to cure the deficien-cies in its filing. This is not surprising. CEI has long been opposed to providing wheeling service to transmit PASNY power to City because low cost PASNY power would improve City's abil-ity to compete with CEI for retail customers. The filing made by CEI was not voluntary but was made to meet the requirements of license conditions imposed by the Nuclear Regulatory Commis-sion which had found CEI guilty of anticompetitive practices.
Even then CEI did not file a transmission schedule until after City requested the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to commence proceedings to enforce the license conditions.
It would be unfortunate indeed if CEI were able to avoid compliance with NRC license conditions and again deprive the citizens of Cleveland of low cost hydropover through the use of making an inadequate filing with this Commission. CEI has no interest in curing the deficiency and thereby hastening .
the day when City will receive PASNY power.
This is a situation in which the public interest would be best served by a waiver of the filing deficiencies, l acceptance of the proposed schedule for filing, suspension of I
l 1
)
the schedule for one day and a hearing to determine whether the schedule is-just and reasonable.
City requests that this motion be given expedited consideration. Copies of correspondence between the parties describing the arrangements described herein are attached.
Respectfully submitted, LJc4dn #
Reuben Goldb(rg David C. Hjelmfelt Goldberg, Fieldman & Hjelmfelt, P.C.
1700 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20006 (202) 393-2444 Jack M. Schulman Law Director Robert D. Hart First Assistant Director of Law 213 City Hall Cleveland, Ohio 44114 (216) 664-2737 Attorneys for City of Cleveland
-May 12, 1978 d
l l
s-
_4.ff; -
illCG Jt' 50ft')M lC
- Jid {o' SulTC 1200 177S PENN SYLVANI A AVENUE, N. W.
WALL Act L. DUNCAN WAS HINGTON, D. C. 2 0 00 6 J4NT 8ttCWN CmCAGO OFFICE EDWARD WEthBERG (202) 467-6370 JOSEPH V. MARAGANIS FREORICn D. PALM ER FKCDERICM L. MIL L E R. J R. TELEcoPY (2c2) 467-6379
- CHICACQ,ILLghOss 60606 JAMES D. PEMBRont STEPHEN C.ROADY , DI2) Fe2-spos PmuP t.CwAsor.sR.
J. CATHf LICHTENBERG May 2 8 1978 OF CouwstL:
b7EwART L. UDALL Scott B. Lilly, Esquire Power Authority of the State of New York 10 Columbus Circle ,
New York, New York 10019 Re: Application of American Municipal Power-Ohio, Inc.
Dear Scott:
In connection with the application of American Municipal Power-Ohio, Inc., I am enclosing a ccpy of the.
draft of Supplemental Schedule A to the transmission schedule filed by Cleveland Electric Illuminating Company with FERC.
You will note the second paragraph of the cover letter from Donald H. Hauser in which he advises that the schedule cannot be finalized until PASNY actually allocates the power to AMP-Ohio.
We are hoping to avoid any such delt.y, on a temporary basis, under the interin arrangements which we discussed with the Staff of the Authority on April 19, 1978.
i Sincerel , .
waf ~ - =
Uallace L. Duncan.
KLD:ne g[g Enclosur Y5._19781..
cc: . Amp-Ohio list ~
~*-
.2 -. -
David Hj elmfelt, Esquire . tw ONG ..
gogggg nn.'.at 'sH1Eh'!FEbi _
.e
, lit
" ~
.L T H E C L E V E L A a D ELECTRICILLU fil i d AT.iy, Gl,C 0 f,1 P e t ....!
ILLUMIN ATING SLDG. o PUBLIC 500AAt . CLtVELANO. OHIO 4t101. TELEPHONE (216) 6231350 l g , MAIL ADORiss P.O. box 5000
' j, .
e0lLNcNiokid tb .. . :ja$io' n Serving The i April 13, 1978 Mr. George B. Crosby Executive Manager American Municipal Pcrer-Ohio, Inc.
1500 West Lane Avenue Columbus, Ohio 43221
Dear Mr. Crosby:
In keeping with our discussions at our neeting on April 12, 1978, enclosed is a rough draft of a Supple: ental Schedule A for your review. As requested and as indicated below, a copy of the rough draft is being sent directly to the others attending the April 12, li>78 meting.
As every one agreed at the meting, such a schedule cannot be finalized until AW-0 actually secures an allocation of PASW 1xw.er, the quantities are knc7xn and the basic Tariff bectr:es effective.
We muld appreciate your keeping us informd of developrents relating to the al1mation of PASNY pcWier outside the State of New York.
Very truly yours,
- (V/ w Ibnald H. Hauser General Attorney DHH:jc Enclosure cc: . Richard Barton ) cap \ %9-0 %c,qwD. .
Pobert Hart ) City ;. h.C,y*
.).
. . George Pofok ,. f-A<b,] 3
., . - :. / '. . . '.
W. NT Dingham -) CEI ' N '- '
?
' .'n-H. J. Lester ) '..
- J. . :.
w' 5 ,
~, . . . . ;* ,
s.. -
"****Ls*
,'.. . . .-..:... --.-:- . . =;
l_ ~ ?.j*:T _,
J ROUGH DRAFT - 4/13/78 TRANSMISS10tl SERVICE AGREEMENT BETWEEli .
CLEVELAfiD ELECTRIC ILLUMItiATING COMPANY AND AMERICAfi MUNICIPAL POWER-OHIO, INC. .
AS SUPPLEMENTAL SCHEDULE A TO
~
FERC ELECTRIC TARIFF ORIGItiAL VOLUME NO. 1 .
0F THE CLEVELAND ELECTRIC ILLUMIfiATItiG COMPAllY
. FILED WITH THE FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION (FERC)
(onJanuary 27, 1978 and accepted for filing on )
The American Municipal Power-Ohio, Inc. (AMP-0), an Ohio corporation not-for-profit, and The Cleveland Electric Illuminating Company (CEI), a corpora-tion for profit organized under the laws of Ohio, have caused this Supplemental Schedula A to be executed and delivered this day of ,1978.
Any and all service provided under this Supplemental Schedule A shall be sub-ject to any and all of the rates, terms, provisions, and conditions, as if fully rewritten herein, of FERC Electric Tariff Original Volume No.1 of The Cleveland
.l . Electric Illuminating Company filed with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission l' ~~ .on Januafy 27,~1978 (Tariff) and accepted for filing on day of ,
'1978, or as it may'be modified from time to time pursuant to said Tariff.-
6 g**
9 n.~ _" ..
- ~a ,
. .2 -
AMP-0 h'as represented, and CEI relies upon such representatio -
that AMP-0 has been designated as the lawful agent in the State of Ohio for .
the acquisition and disbursement of energy from the Power Authority of the State of New York to preference customers in the State of Ohio. , -
AMP-0 has, in writing, requested the reservation of 80 MW of high voltage bulk transmission capacity for the wheeling of power and energy by CEI, said power and energy originating from the Power Authority of the State ofNewYork(PASNY). -
AMP-0 has the sole' responsibility for securing said PASNY. power and energy and the wheeling thereof to the point to be received by CEI. ,
AMP-0 has requested that said power and energy be received by CEI at 345 kV at the interconnection point with Pennsylvania Electric Company o the Ashtabula-Erie West Line at the Ohio-Pennsylvania border.
AMP-0 has requested that CEI deliver such power and energy at 138 kV l
to the existing interconnection point between CEI and the Division .
n of Light a I Power of the City of Cleveland; Ohio (MELP) at CEI's Lake Shore station ,l AMP-0 has requested the reservation of such transmission capacity for twelve (12) consecutive calendar months beginning on the day'of '
, 1978 and.ending on the
- ~ - day of ., '
~
i
,--1979.'* Celi ... . r! . .
~.concursJin such . : .w reservation'
- - - - request-fo'r said tiwelve (12) consecutive calendar
. . . . g;. .
months unless termiriat'dd".ea.rl.ie.r Ay: any.etthe;ph91;sions.-of said Tanff
'Af ter tid -
. ;i . - y:- -
.... ..... .e. .
4..- - -
0 .. ., . ~; ,
~
,Jdayg- o.f .. .-
- ~
,.,,.197.9 .-such ; reservation :sh'all' co'dt'inue
. T ,;
- unless 'teminated.in
. -. - writing by either party thirty (30) days in
.. ;g:. ;:' l ; ':L . _.. . ..
advance of the
... .y.,. .:,.:: : :4. . r. - -
'~~ 7-
.p;.::=s
-firs.t;
.' ', . :' *day ' - %.of 7: theicsl{pdi'rpin'thTi.Mhich_theltiermiji~a't.io'
.-
- h is..'eifective. 1 - N
... 2 ... : .-... ..m c?T.y v::'* L-";= .- ...5:' ':V : ;* ^~f ~' ' 'm~-Q * * :~t
' .]..N3
~
~, .:'.,,.
mqi m . =>- .:. , . '. . '~.- :. -
- .. m .* .
- - . . :. - - .., ..:..:,= : - . 3;; . . -
.~ t *; i . . .. ,-l b ~ *_* * * - 1".*
,y j., . ..;,. _ y. .; , _-=: _.,.;.,;...- :
., ,p.e :. .;:..
. - ~ -
- .; , :.m:a . : : ... ' . . .:.,:; ,*"'*
L. : ?. .. -
- ~-. -
- .:.y..
. .. e."* l . se'*~~ '. .*_ ;;~
- *z;' - -'
' ' ~ ~ * , . ,. . ..
AMP-0 has entered into a contract with the MELP which has been duly and lawfully authorized by the Council of the City of Cleveland, and pledges such contract and the monies provided therein to secure its obligations to CEI under the terms and provisions of this Supplemental Schedule A and f the Tariff and the Director o'f Law of the C'ity of Cleveland has so issued a certificate
~
to this effect which is attached. -
It is expressly stated and understood that AMP-0 will indemnify and save harmless CEI from any and al s claims, suits, causes of action brought against CEI by any person, corporation, cooperative, municipal or other entity whether a member of AMP-0 or not by reason of t'he terms and conditions of this Supplemental Schedule A and the Tariff and providing the services pursuant thereto.
IN WITNESS WHERE0F, the parties hereto have caused this Supplemental Sc'hedule to be executed by their duly authorized officers or representatives on the day and year first above written.
AMERICAN MUNICIPAL POWER-OHIO, INC.
By Title THE CLEVELAND ELECTRIC ILLUMINATING COMPANY
. ..., _ . - . By . -
,, Title e
- h 6
E=
- =..
- . # e
- +
'4
.1 tt' ret)
$ancam 9Aoa.m 7bl6 SUITC 1200
/ V$/maf 8 1775 PENN SYLVANI A AVENUE. N. W.
waLLACE L. DUNCAN WASHINGTON, D. C. 2000 6 JON T. BROWN CMcCAGO OFFICE COWARD WElNBCRG (202) 467-6370 JOSEPH V. MARAG ANIS FIEDRsCn o. PALMER ISO N.wACKER drive E PY ) 457-6M9 FR EDERICM L. MILLER. JR. CHICAGO.8LLINots 60604 JAMES D. PEMBROME Ost) 782-is05 STEPHEN E.ROADY PHILIP L.CHABOT, JR.
J. CATHY LICHTEN BERG c' coa 55':
STEWART L. uDALL April 27, 1978 James B. Liberman, Esquire Berlack, Israels 4 Liberman 26 Broadway New York, New York 10004 Re: American Municipal Power-Ohio, Inc.
Dear Jim:
On April 19, 1978, representatives of AMP-Ohio and the City of Cleveland met with the Staff of the Power Authority to discuss AMP-Ohio's app.lication for an allocation of Niagara Project power and to explore some interim arrangement under which AMP-Ohio might immediately begin to receive a portion of the power now allocated and sold to Allegheny Electric Cooperative.
As you may know, the whole subject of PASNY's out-of-State power marketing program is now under review by the Trustees of the Authority as a result of a directive issued by Governor Carey on February 3, 1978. In that directive, the Governor disapproved a proposed new contract between the Power Authority and Allegheny and remanded the matter for further hearings and consideration.
On April 26, 1978, the Trustees held a pro-tracted hearing on the questions of (1) the amount of Niagara Project power the Authority is required to market outside the State of New York and, (2) how such power should be allocated as between competing applicants from the States of Pennsylvania, Ohio, Vermont, Massachusetts and Connecticut.
~ RECEIVED
, MAY 3 1978 LAW OfflCES GOLD 0ECG, FIELO.'.!Aff & HJEL'JFELT
James B. Liberi.. a, Esquire April 27, 1978 Page 2 We anticipate that it may be some time be-fore the matter is finally resolved by PASNY and the Governor follow.
and it appears that protracted litigation may In the interim period, PASNY has agreed to continue to sell 130 megawatts of firm Niagara Project power and energy to Allegheny. Allegheny, at the'same time, has agreed to the immediate transfer of 22.784 megawatts to AMP-Ohio during this interim period and until final out-of-State allocations are ;aade by the Authority, approved by the Governor ar.5/or FERC and the Courts.
Under these circumstances, the PASNY staff rep-resentatives were rather optimistic that this transaction could be made without formal hearings and delay if all parties agree. The Staff also suggested that, if these .
arrangements were made on an interim basis, it would probably be more expedient for the Authority to continue to deliver the 22.784 megawatts to A11egheny's account via the PENELEC transmission system. PENELEC, in turn, will deliver 22.784 megawatts to AMP-Ohio pursuant to this AMP-Ohio - PENELEC wheeling agreement. PENELEC, and PASNY, under these interim arrangements, would continue to bill Allegheny for power and transmission costs.
Allegheny, in turn, would invoice AMP-Ohio for power costs PENELEC.
and the cost of transmission services provided by If PENELEC is agreeable to the.se arrangements, '
perhaps they can be best implemented with a separate, tripartite agreement between AMP-Ohio, Allegheny and PENELEC, Whatever the form of the agreement, we are anxious to implement this interim arrangement immediately.
We would be pleased to receive your thoughts and a draft of an agreement at your earliest convenience.
Sincerely, b
~
fallace L. .'_ h--
unca WLD:yob cc: Robert D. Hart,'Esq. George S. Pofok George B. Crosby Richard D. Barton William C. Wise, Esq. William Matson John C. Engle W
.,. ,* {g I . .. -
ec* #J lillCff?ll emf l/li i l'
- Il &
- SulTE 8200 1775 PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE N. W.
wALLACE L. DUNCAN WASHINGTON, D. C. 2OO C,6 JONT. BROWN EOwaRD WEINBERG cMicaGo omcE FREDRICn D. PALMER L202) 467-6370 JOSEPH V. MARAGANIS FREDERICK L. MILLER,JR.
JAMES D. PEMBRonE CMiCAGO. tLLIMois 608o6 ETEPHEN E. ROADY ' Ds4 ?a2-iso S PHILIP L.CHASOT JR.
J. CATMT LICHTENBERG or cow'estt:
STEWART L. uDALL April 27, 1978 Honorable Frederick R. Clark i Chairman Power Authority of the State of New York 10 Columbus Circle .
Re: Application of American Municipal Power-Ohio, Inc.
Dear Mr. Clark:
As we have previously advised the staff of the Authority, representatives of AMP-Ohio, the City of Cleveland and PENELEC met on March 6, 1978 to discuss wheeling arrangements for the delivery of power over the PENELEC system for AMP-Ohio.
PENELEC agreed in principal to wheel power for AMP-Ohio and provided us with some tentative terms and conditions under which such service would be pro-vided. The staff of the Authority suggested that we supplement the record with the written assurances of PENELEC that these services would be provided. Accor-dingly, I am enclosing copies of an exchange of correspondence between the undersigned and James Liberman, Esquire, counsel to PENELEC which establishes the PENELEC committment. I have already provided copies of this corres Robert Deaseyofpondence the Authority's to Messrs. Scott Lilly and Staff.
i
[
PENELEC is now drafting the wheeling contract which we hope to have finalized and filed with the Federal future.
Energy Regulatory Commission in the very near l ~ .
t .
- , = ,
e e .
5s
- 46 g me-
1 .
.I .
Honorable Frec' ick R. Clark April 27, 1978 Page 2 We would appreciate it if the enclosed correspondence is included in the AMP-Ohio application file.
Sincerely, re< W
' llace L~Uuncan "Mu WLD:yob Enclosures (3) cc: Robert D. Hart, Esquire George S. Pofok .
John C. Engle George B. Crosby Richard D. Barton James B. Liberman, Esquire Scott B. Lilly, Esquire Robert J. Deasey
- e e
. . . ~~ -
. .r ,
. . . . . g. . - - -
. 9 O
u* J (JECRJtl f(>(W)G l C
- J/C(* * .
SUITE 1200 1775 PENN SYLVAN! A AVENUE. N. W.
WALLACE L. OUNCAN WASHINGTON. D. C. 20 006 JONT. DROWN CHICAG 3 OFFICE EDWARD WEINBERG 9 02) 467 6.370 FACORtCn D. PALMER JOSEPH V. KARAG ANIS FREDERICM L. MILLER. JR. TEMPr M @MM ISO N.WACKER ORavE JAMES D. PENBRonE CMICAGO. ILLINOIS 60606
. p 2) 782*l905 ETEPMEN E.ROADY PHILIP L.CHABOT. JR.
.,. CAf ar tiCHTEn o ERG April 25, 1978 Cs CouseSEL:
ETEWART L. UDALL James B. Liberman, Esquire Berlack, Israels 6 Liberman 26 Broadway
Dear Jim:
I appreciate your letter of April 21, 1978, confirming the agreement, in principle, between PENELEC and American Municipal Power-Ohio, Inc. for the transmission of power from the Power Authority of the State of New York from the New York-Pennsylvania border to a point of interconnection between PENELEC and Cleveland Electric Illuminating Company.
To bring you up to date, on April 19, 1978, representa-tives of AMP-Ohio and Allegheny Electric Cooperative met with the staff of the Power Authority regarding an interim proposal under which some 22.784 megawatts may be transferred from Allegheny to AMP Ohio immediately on an interim basis.
As you know, the Trustees of the Power Authority are reviewing. the entire out-of-state. power marketing program under the February 3, 1978 directive of Governor Carey. A hearing is scheduled on this natter before the Trustees on April 26, 1978.
AMP-Ohio's permanent allocation will presumably be made in the context of these pending proceedings. We anticipate that it may take considerabic time to resolve the overall out-of-state marketing policy of the Authority. In the interim, we have requested that staff recommend the transfer of 22.784 megawatts of firm power from Allegheny to AMP-Ohio. We believe that the staff will support this recommendation to the Trustees as soon as AMP-Ohio and PENELEC have entered into a wheeling agreement.
1978 and I will yourbe filing reply of aApril copy of my letter to you dated March 9, 21, 1978 with PASNY on April 26th.
' This done, we are anxious to establish a schedule and format for finalizing the AMP-Ohio - PENELEC whccling agreement.
.~ !
James B.. Liberman, i quire I believe that you indicated that your firm and the PENELEC staff would prepare an initial draft of the contract.
If this is not your understanding, please advise and we will prepare a draft. If it is in preparation, please advise when we might receive the draft and commence formal negotiations.
We recognize that, once agreement is reached, the wheeling agreement must be filed with and approved by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. We would hope that we can devise' a method for expediting approval by FERC of the transmission schedule once the filing is made.
Kind personal regards, Sinderely,
- "<<w%
- L Wallace L. Durica5 WLD:gae .
cc: John C. Engle .
George B. Crosby Robert D. Hart .
Richard Earton - '
George S. Pofok William Matson William C. Wise
_..--i._
.r .
J '. -
. -s - . . ...
'} :
~ ' . _ .
- ~ '
. B t..L ACK, lS R AELs & Li sc R M..N
. 26 DROADWAY h", g*, '
- ,*,",",'g", NEW YORK toco4 M^* ass orataca Jtuet n.Mtcn CAnLOS k.ISnAELS zANC KLt4N 248 6900 CABLC: SCestle
- e-****
OR A M.JOLLES ~
L C *SN A510 C P ST E IN WAsaseMGrose otraCC RENNCTM m.ASMtm SusTC 700 JHMN E.SENNETT CC U B L A S E. DAv10 SON SMONEMau SulLDeMo EICH ARD J. LueASCM w& SMsesot o ne. O. C. 2 OOO s MAIC C. LASnv g202) 393-20eo l -
April 21, 1978 Wallace Li Duncan, Esq. -
Duncan, Brown, Weinberg & Palmer, P.C. .
Suite 1200 1775 Pennsylvania Avenue, N. W.
Washington, D. C. 20006 -
l
Dear Wallace:
This will confirm our telephone conversation in which I advised you that your letter to me accurately reflected the re.eults of the discussion during the meet-ing held in my effice on March 6,1978, with the exception that the figure of $1.50 per month per KW referred to by Mr. Gordon was not a maximum charge for wheeling service but, instead, was his estimate of an order of magnitude to assist you and your clients in your evaluation, but with the understanding that a refined cost analysis might result in a higher or lower number.
I also understand that you are investigating with your' clients the appropriate means to provide reason-
- able assurance of payment by AMP-Ohio of charges for trans-mission service, in the light of what I understand to be the somewhat limited financial resources available to AMP-Ohio. .
Since.ely, -
Ja/mes B. Liberman
/
/
f . ,
JBL/ac .
. . .. . ,ADHCXti, BRoitti; :
.r. ' ..
...~ 7 :- = . . _ - -
-.. . , t;EIN3 ERG & PAtugg, p,t
. .y :~: .. . ; .
. . . , ,- . . .. . g . ~
-u , .." - ~' APR 2 ,_;_ 51978 -
','.s : ..:: :.4 :2 . . .-.... .. ; ; , .
w., -
- s. . - -- . .
. A,,. 09,, . -
.@anan:dLun;WG&y Y@/lna:rA8 SulTE 1200 1775 PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE, N. W. -
WALL ACE L. OUNCAN WAS HINGTO N, D. C. 2 0 00 6 J7.N 7. BROWN CHICAGO Orr CC EDWARD WEtNDERG $202) 467 6370 JOSEPH V. KAnAGANIS F.7CDRf C4 D. PALM ER TELECOpf (202) 467-6379 850 H.WACutR OnsvE FCEDERICK L. HILLER.JR. .
CHtCAGO. sttlHOis 60606
- JAMES 0. PEMBROME 012) 7e2+s905 STEPMEN E.ROADY eniu= L.Cw AsOr.JR.
J.CATMF LICHTEN BERG huh 9 # BM '
D9 COdhstC STEWART L.UDALL
- James B. Liberman, Esquire -
Berlack, Israels & Liberman 26 Broadway '
New York, Nek York 10004 .
Dear Mr. Liberman:
On behalf of American Municipal Power-Ohio, Inc. and the City of Cleveland, Ohio, I will attempt to summarize the discussion and results of the conference, on March 6, 1978, between representatives of PENELEC, AMP-Ohio and the City of Cleveland. First, let me thank you for arranging the meeting and for the hospitality extended during our visit. .
Briefly, and largely by way of background, the intent and purpose of the March 6, 1978 meeting between our clients and yours was to review and re-establish the . negotiations between these parties for a wheeling or transmission agreement under which PENELEC would deliver quantities of power and energy from the Power Authority of the State of New York to a point of interconnection between PENELEC and Cleveland Electric Illuminating Compnny for the account of AMP-Ohio.
. Subject to receiving an allocation of PASNY power, AMP-Ohio .
has agreed to sell its entire allocation to the City of
~
Cleveland, AMP-Ohio's largest member. '
You will recall that negotiations between PENEL'EC and AMP-Ohio commenced in 1973 and, as a result of these negotia-tions, PENELEC had agreed to wheel PASNY power for AMP-Ohio and had deter; ...ed that it had the capacity to accommodate such deliveriec. Neither the rates nor the terms and condi-tions of service were finally agreed to during these early '
necotiations since AMP-Ohio was unable to obtain an agreement with CEI .to render the necessary transmission services from
. the Ohio State line to the City of Cle'veland.
l .
i =
bamesB.Liberman, quire ,
There followed several years of litiga tion and nego-tiation as a result of which CEI has now agreed to wheel power for municipals and cooperatives in Ohio, including AMP-Ohio and the City of Cleveland. In this regard, CEI, on January 27, 1978, filed a proposed transmission schedule (FERC . Electric Tariff) with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. While some of the terms and conditions contained in the proposed transmission schedule are not entirely satis ,
factory to Cleveland and AMP-ohio, it is fair to say that, as a matter of policy, CEI has agreed to wheel power for AMP-Ohio and Cleveland if AMP-Ohio receives a power allocation from PASNY. . .
During the Summer and Fall of 1977, AMP-Ohio attempted to secure an allocation of PASNY power upon receiving notice that PASNY's power contracts with Alleghehy Electric Coopera- , -
tive. (130 megawatts) and Vernont Public Service Board (50 megawatts) were about to expire. PASNY had called for appli-cations from out-of-state " bargaining agents" and AMP-Ohio filed an application on behalf of the State of Ohio.. At the time of the public hearings before the PASNY Trustees on October 25, 1977, AMP-Ohio was still unable to advise PASNY -
that arrangements had been made with CEI and PENELEC for trans-mission services. -
As a result of these deficiencies in the AMP-Ohio pro-posal, the Trustees failed to allocate power to AMP-Ohio and, '
instead, approved modified contracts with Allegheny Electric Cooperative (110 megawatts of firm power and energy and 20 megawatts of peaking power and energy) and Vermont Public Service Board (40 megawatts of firm power and energy and 10 megawatts of peaking power and energy). T,hese contracts were .
then sent to Governor Carey for approval. .
On February 3,1978, Governor Carey " disapproved" the Allegheny and Vermont contracts and remanded the matter to !
PASNY for further consideration of these contracts and of the Authority's entire out-of-state power marketing program. We ' -
i are advised that, on April 26, 1978, the Trustees of the Power !
Authority will hold further public hearings pursuant to the .
Governor's directives. . .
j The action of Governor Carey in disapproving the -
l Allegheny and Vermont contracts happened to coincide with CEI's long delayed agreement to wheel power for municipals and cooper- .
atives in the State of Ohio. These developments now appear to l make possible the utilization of PASMY power in the State of {
Ohio. .
To this end, AMP-Ohio is in the process of preparing a new and much more comprehensive application to the Power "
\
h e e
~. u .
bramesB.Liberman, squire '
Authority for an allocation of at least 20 megawatts of PASNY power and possibly as much as 80 megawatts. As part of its application, AMP-Ohio must advise PASNY that it has cammit-ments from PENELEC and CEI to wheel power and energy ior AMP-Ohio if the allocation is made. AMP-Ohio must also pravide projections by PENELEC and CEI.
of the cost of transmission services to be provided The filing of the proposed transniission schedule by CEI provides both the commitment and proposed rates for this portion of the transmission service necessary for delivery of power for end use in and by the City of Cleveland. In arranging the conf erence with representatives of PENELEC, we sought to eliminate the " missing link" in the transmission services necessary to accommodate power sales and deliveries by AMP-Ohio to the City of Cleveland. Subject to you written' con-firmation and working out technical details, I believe that we were able to. accomplish these objectives in. our conference on Mnrch 6, 1978. ,.'
For the purposes of the current negotiations between AMP-Ohi.o tions:
and PENELEC, the parties made the following assump-
- a. The application to PASNY for an allocation to the State of Ohio would be made by AMP-Ohio as the State's "bar- .
gaining agent" for PASNY power and energy;
- b. Once obtained, AMP-Ohio would sell its entire allocation of PASHY power and energy to the City of Cleveland, Ohio.
The contract for wheeling and transmission services c.
to be provided by PENELEC would be entered into between AMP-Ohio and PENELEC and AMP-Ohio would be solely responsible for the payment for such services;
- d. PENELEC would b'e obligated to provide 'trarismission services only over its own systen from a point of intercor.nec-tion with Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation (PASNY's New York wheeling agent) at the New York-Pennsylvania border to a point of interconnection between PENELEC and CEI at the Pennsylvania .
Ohio border; , . -
- c. All transmission services provided by PENELEC will be at primary transmission voltage (4 6 KV and above) . - '
s f. PENELEC would have no Obligation and assume no responsibility fo.r arranging transmission services to accom-modate deliveries.of PASNY power and. energy to any member of
.AdP-Ohio' other than the City of Cleveland, . either li resently
..!.. . : . .i . . .
- i. r .
-- . V- n.
?!' -;%.f.:-M.. *-
- N.!: %: f .J & fj;.f R :T tO ' ~
. . , :..m;~
+. .. :. ...; .
- [. .. , . . .~. .
- . ( -- ; :
..~ .- .
, . \. (
, James B. Liberman, _ squire -4 , -
f t
or in the future. Arrangements for such services shall
' remain the exc]usive responsibility of AMP-Ohio and are con-sidered to be beyond the scope of the current negotiations between AMP-Ohio and PENELEC.
Based upon these assumptions and subject to the fore- -
going conditions, the AMP-Ohio, Cleveland and PENELEC conferees -
reached agreement on the following principles, terms and con-ditions. -
l'. PENELEC, as a matter of policy, would agree to wheel power and energy and provide transmission services for AMP-Ohio under arrangements which would accommodate the delivery of power and energy by AMP-Ohio to the City of Cleveland;
- 2. Subjec't to more detailed engineering analysis, PENELEC representatives indicated that PENELEC had the exist-ing capacity to wheel from 20 to 80 megawatts of PASNY power at transmission voltage between the delivery points above-described. -
- 3. PENELEC is now in the process of performing a
' transmission cost-of-service study on relevant portions of - -
its transmission system which will provide an adequate basis ~
for establishing a wheeling rate for services provided by '
PENELEC to AMP-Ohio; ,-
- 4. For purposes of these negotiations and for the .
purpose of processing AMP-Ohio's application to PASNY for an allocation, PENELEC representatives advised that we may assume. -
that the PENELEC rate for wheelir.g PASNY power for AMP-Ohio will not exceed $1.50 per KW per. month for the delivery of . ,
any part of AMP-Ohio's total PASNY r.llocation. Said rate shall include all transmission losses. Said rate may be lower than $1.50 per KW per month depending upon the results of PENELEC's current cost study which will be completed before June, 1978. '
5.
Once final rates and terms and conditions of ser-vice are established as 'a result of negotiations between AMP-Ohio and PENELEC, such rates and terms and conditions of service shall be filed by PENELEC as an electric tariff with ' .-
the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. In any such filed -
tariff, PENELEC shall reserve the right to file, unilaterally
.wi th the'FERC pursuant to Section 205 of the Federal Power Act, proposed changes and adjustments in said'tarif f as may be justified by changes in costs or other conditions.
~
. . . % . \.
' James B. Liberman, E Juire '
I believe the foregoing summarizes the essential points agreed te by the AMP-Ohio, Cleveland and PENELEC conferees at our March 6, 1978 meeting in your office.
For our purposes in dealing with PASNY, Allegheny Electric Cooperative, CEI and other interested parties, it would be most helpful if you could confirm PENELEC's com:aitnents and the foregoing understanding by letter at your earliest con-venience. '
Sincerely, n,~n
'al ace L. Duncan WLD:gae
- cc: John Engle George Crosby j Robert Hart, Esquire George Pofok Richard Barton .
- "' .. 1
~' . .. .. ... , , ..
. . I
- .,-.?'f.;-~..*~.'.'....
~......--
'....=~'- ~
.. ..4* .
gub .. .
..e
. *~ ~w-
.e
?
..~.. .. . - . . .
. _ _ .