ML19343B660
| ML19343B660 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Oconee, Mcguire, South Texas, Comanche Peak, McGuire  |
| Issue date: | 12/03/1980 |
| From: | Blume M, Chanania F, Hodgdon A, Lewis S NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE LEGAL DIRECTOR (OELD) |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19343B661 | List: |
| References | |
| ISSUANCES-A, NUDOCS 8012300013 | |
| Download: ML19343B660 (65) | |
Text
_-. _
y-4d M
E O
L m
in, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 09,
. Z"f;i
[h g
rg[j NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION E
"5 e
BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD 2
g In the Matter of HOUSTON LIGHTING & POWER COMPANY
)
NRC Docket Nos. 50-498A PUBLIC SERVICE BOARD OF SAN ANTONIO.
)
50-499A CITY OF AUSTIN
)~
CENTRAL POWER AND LIGHT COMPANY
)
(South Texas Project, Unit Nos.
.)
1 and 2)
)
)
TEXAS UTILITIES GENERATING
)
NRC Docket Nos. 50-445A COMPANY, et al.
)
50-446A (Comanche Peak Steam Electric
)
Station, Units 1 and 2)
')
NRC STAFF COMtENTS ON AND fiOTION FOR APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT LICENSE ~ CONDITIONS Fredric D. 'Chanania Counsel' for NRC Staff Stephen H. Lewis i
Counsel for. NRC Staff Michael B. Blume l
Counsel-for NRC' Staff i
Ann Hodgdon l
December 3,1980 Counsel for NRC Staff i
8012soo p
TABLE OF CONTENTS I.
INTRODUCTION.
1 II. BACKGROUND 3
III. ANALYSIS OF SETTLEMENT CONDITIONS 8
A.
Scope of the Conditions...
11 B.
Disconnections and Interconnections:
the Intrastate / Interstate Question...
13 1.
Provisions of the Settlement Conditions..........
13 2.
B rown sville 's Criti ci sms.................
18 C.
Access to Nuclear Power.
26 D.
Transmission Services 28 E.
Joint Planning.
31 F.
Coordination Services 33 G.
Full and Partial Requirement Sales of Bulk Power................
35 I
IV. POSSIBLE FURTHER PROCEEDINGS...................
38 f
V.
CONCLUSION.
40 l
l l
i l
r o
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of
)
HOUSTON LIGHTING & POWER COMPANY NRC Docket Nos. 50-498A PUBLIC SERVICE BOARD OF SAN ANTONIO
)
50-499A CITY OF AUSTIN
)
CENTRAL POWER AND LIGHT COMPANY
)
(South Texas Project, Unit Nos.
)
1 and 2) 1 TEXAS UTILITIES GENERATING
)
NRC Docket Nos. 50-445A I
COMPANY, et al.
)
50-446A (Comanche Peak Steam Electric
)
Station, Units 1 and 2)
)
NRC STAFF COMMENTS ON AND MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT LICENSE CONDITIONS I.
INTRODUCTION l
The NRC Staff hereby submits its comments on the proposed settlement license conditions (hereinaf ter referred to as " settlement conditions" or " settlement license conditions"), as directed by the Board in its prehearing conference l
order of October 24,1980.M In submitting these comments, the Staff also moves the Board to approve these settlement license conditions, and to make them effective immediately.
i If See Transcript of Prehearing Conference, at 1258, 1263-64 (Oct. 24, 1980) in the above-captioned proceedings. An extension of time until December 3,1980 to file this pleading was granted by Chainnan Miller on November 20, 1980.
1
l 1
o
, The proposed settlement conditions were submitted to the Board on Septem-ber 15,1980,2/ following a lengthy and complex settlement effort among the parties which began in April,1980.3_/ At this point, the only party in the consolidated proceedings not totally committed to support the settle-ment conditions is the Public Utilities Board of the City of Brownsville (hereinaf ter "Brownsville").
Even Brownsville, however, has admitted that certain portions of the settlement are acceptable to it. /
The Staff has reviewed Brownsville's objections to the proposed settlement conditions as set forth in its Motion for Disapproval of September 25, 1980 (hereinaf ter " Motion"), its Initial Trial Brief of October 8,1980 (" Initial Brief"), and its recent Comments of November 12,1980 ("Comnents"). The Staff 2_/
The Comanche Peak and South Texas settlement conditions and associated stipulations were attached to the NRC Staff's Fourth Status Report on Settlement, dated September 14, 1980.
The settlement conditions and updated stipulations are also annexed hereto, as Attachment No.1.
The Staff expects to file an Errata Sheet soon to correct typographical errors.
3/
Shortly before the scheduled commencement of the hearing, three private parties reached a settlement agreement in principle among themselves.
See the final Settlement Agreement of CSW, TU, and HLP, dated June 9, 1980.
In light of that development, the Licensing Board pennitted all parties an extension of time in which to explore settlement of the entire matter.
See Order of April 10, 1980.
Following a series of monthly status reports and further extensions, the present settlement license conditions were negotiated and, finally, submitted to the Board for its approval on September 15, 1980.
See NRC Staff's Fourth Status Report on Settlement (Sept. 14,1980).
During this time, the Tex-La Electric Cooperatives of Texas, Inc., intervenors in Comanche Peak, also reached their own settlement agreement with TV, and advised the Board they did not intend to participate actively in the proceedings.
See Tex-La Status Report of May 9,1980.
4f Transcript of Prehearing Conference, at 1177 (Oct. 24,1980); see also, Brownsville's Motion for Disapproval, at 14,18 (Sept. 25,1980).
. believes that Brownsville has not asserted any contention which would justify a delay in approval of the settlement conditions by this Board. As the following analysis of the settlenent conditions demonstrates, approval of the settlenent conditions and their immediate effectiveness is fair and El nd will not prejudice Brownsville reasonable within the public interest a
in any manner.
II. BACKGROUND The Staff hcs reviewed prior NRC antitrust proceedings in which Licensing Boards had before them the issue of approval of settlement license conditions.
5/
As discussed in Section II, infra, the standard for this Board to approve the settlement conditions is whether they are fair and reason-able within the public interest and whether prejudice to non-settling parties would occur. There is no statutory or regulatory basis that would require this Board to make a finding with respect to whether issuance of the license with the settlement conditions would create or maintain a situation inconsistent with the antitrust laws or their poli-cies. That type of finding is necessary only after a full-evidentiary hearing, held pursuant to 9105c(5) of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 6 2135c(5). Such a statutory hearing may eventually be held here at Brownsville's behest, and this Board might make modifi-cations to the settlement conditions as a result of the full hearing.
However, this full statutory hearing need not occur before approval of the conditions is granted.
In addition, the NRC Staff considers the l
creation or. maintenance of a situation inconsistent with the antitrust laws when assessing proposed settlement license conditions and when advising the Board that approval of the settlement conditions is in the public interest.
l l
l l
-w.
y w-,
e r-*-g-w
=
---e3---
+.
.y
.~,---r r +- -
4 In some of these cases the settlement was contested,U while in others all parties agreed to the settlement.U Before granting approval in the contested cases, the Boards have examined:
(1) whether the license conditions were in the public interest, and (2) whether imediate approval and implementation of the conditions would prejudice any party. Where the Boards found these criteria were satisfied, approval was granted without impairing the right of non-settling parties to seek a full evidentiary hearing on the merits.U In cases where all parties settled, this inquiry was not made.
One exanple of a contested settlement situation is the Oconee-McGuire anti-trust proceeding. There, the Applicants, Justice Department, and NRC Staff reached a settlement which was not initially acceptable to intervenors. The Licensing Board, upon motions by the applicants and the Staff,U ordered 6)
See unreported Order of May 24, 1974 in Duke Power Co. (0conee Units 1, 2 & 3, McGuire Units 1 & 2), Docket Nos. 50-269A, 50-270A, 50-287A, 50-369A, 50-370A, annexed hereto as Attachment No. 2.; Order of June 24, 1974 in Duke Power Co. (Catawba Nuclear Station, Units 1 & 2), LBP-74-47, 7 AEC 1158 (1974); Louisiana Power & Light Co. (Waterford Steam Generating Station, Unit No. 3), Docket No. 50-382A, Hearing Transcript, at 774-777
( Aug. 19, 19 74), annexed hereto as Attachment No. 3.
y See Order of June 28, 1974 in Georgia Power Co. (Vogtle Nuclear Plant, Units 1, 2, 3 and 4), Docket Nos. 50-424A, 50425A, 50-426A, 50-427A, CLI-74-25, 7 AEC 955 (1974); unreported Order of July 11,1974 in Georgia Power Co. (Edwin I. Hatch Nuclear Plant, Unit No. 2), Docket No. 50-366A; Initial Decision of July 27, 1976 in Kansas Gas and Electric Co. (Wolf Creek Generating Station, Unit No.1), Docket No.
50-482A, LBP-76-29, 4 NRC 62 (1976).
8]
Order of June 24, 1974 in Duke Power Co., supra note 6, 7 AEC at 1160.
I y
Annexed hereto as Attachment No. 4.
l l
l l
L
, approval of the license conditions.1SI The Board focussed on whether the conditions were in tha public interest:
Af ter careful review of the Joint Motion and the attachments thereto, all the related pleadings and record to date in this proceeding, the Board finds that the proposed conditions contained in the attached Applicant's " Statement of Commitments" were made to resolve the differences as between the Department of Justice, the AEC Regulatory Staff, and the Applicant and are a reasonable settlement of said differences within the public interest.
Accord-ingly, the Board grants said Joint Motion and hereby directs that the commitments attached to this Order be made conditions to all permits and licenses issued or to be issued by the Atomic Energy Commission with respect to the Oconee and McGuire nuclear reactors.11/
That Licensing Board, one month later, had occasion to address the same issue in Catawba, a contemporaneous proceeding in which Duke Power Company was again the applicant. The Board, in its Order of June 24, 1974, again reiterated the public interest standard and then examined the element of possible prejudice to intervenors stemming from immediate implementation of the settlement conditions:
The Cooperative Intervenors further state their objection to the
" purported withdrawal of the advice letters by the Attorney General and to the sattlement among the Applicant, Department of Justice and Staff absent settlement with the Municipal Intervenors and the Cooperative Intervenors." They state that they will be prejudiced if said motion is granted though they do not explain how.
The Board does not agree. The Atomic Energy Canmission's Rules of Practice (as distinguished from the Federal Rules of Civil Proce-dure) specifically encourage settlements. A reasonable settlement within the public interest among three of the five parties to a complex proceeding, such as this one, is consistent with the overall objective of concluding proceedings in an expeditious and orderly manner. Applicant's motion goes only to the three-party settlement previous noted and Cooperative Intervenors have not l
1}/ Attachment No. 2 (unreported Order of May 24, 1974).
1/
Id. at 3-4 (emphasis added).
r I
9 shown that it affects the other two parties.
The Board fails to see where Intervenors have been improperly prejudiced or disad-vantaaed. The Board also has not been shown why Applicant's motion should be held in abeyance pending consummation of the settlement among Intenenors and Applicant.
Accordingly, the Board directs that the commitments attached to this order be made conditions to all pennits and licenses issued or to be issued by the Atomic Energy Comisgn with respect to the Catawba Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2.
This approach is consistent with that taken in Waterford, another contested settlement situation.E The Licensing Board, prior to the commencement of the show cause hearing in Waterford to receive evidence in opposition to the settlement, accepted the settlement conditions as presented by the Department of Justice and the NRC Staff.b As a prerequisite to the commencement of that show cause hearing, the Applicant agreed to an " assumption arguendo" to define
.;ation inconsistent against which the settlement conditions were to be measured. E This assumed situation then was used by the Licensing Board as a basis for judging the adequacy of the settlement conditions during the show cause hearing in which intervenor's evidentiary challenges 1_2]
7 AEC 1158,1159 (emphasis added). The Catawba proceeding was in a different procedural time frame than the Oconee-McGuire antitrust l
proceeding. As is clear fran the June 24th Order, the Board adopted the same standards as in the Oconee-McGuire decision, without affecting the intenenors' rights to a full hearing.
See 7 AEC at 1160.
1)3/ Louisiana Power and Light Co. (Waterford Steam Generating Station, Unit No. 3), LBP-74-78, 8 AEC 718 (1974).
14/ Attachment No. 3; see also, 8 AEC at 72-21.
15/ 8 AEC at 719, 721-22.
L
. were heard.$ This procedure also enabled the governmental parties to withdraw as full participants from the proceeding.
In sum, prior proceedings at the NRC demonstrate that Licensing Boards have approved fair and reasonable settlements within the public interest prior to the connencement of evidentiary antitrust proceedings, after considering possible prejudice to non-settling parties. This is consistent with the explicit mandate of the Commission in 10 C.F.R. 6 2.759, which states:
The Comnission recognizes that the public interest may be served through settlement of particular issues in a proceeding or the entire proceeding. Therefore, to the extent that it is not incon-sistent with hearing requirements in section 189 of the Act (42 U.S.C. 2239), the fair and reasonable settlement of contested initial licensing proceedings is encouraged.
It is expected that the presiding officer and all of the parties to those proceedings will take appropriate steps to carry out this purpose.
As will be discussed in Sectics IV, infra, the Staff believes that following approval of the settlement conditions, Brownsville, upon an appropriate showing of genuine issues 10 be heard, has the right to present its evidence on the issue of whether issuance of licenses with the settlement conditions will create or maintain a situation inconsistent with the antitrust laws or t
policies thereunder, pursuant to Sections 105c and 189 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, 42 U.S.C. li 2135c, 2239.
1_6/ The Applicant's " assumption arguendo" served as a substitute for the
" finding" of a situation inconsistent required by 5105c(5) and thereby allowed the settlement conditions to be evaluated by the Board under the standards of 6105c(6). This is obviously a different evaluation, l
unique to Waterford, than the public interest evaluation which is nonnally made in deciding whether to adopt proposed settlement con-l ditions, consistent with 10 C.F.R. 5 2.759.
. III. ANALYSIS OF SETTLEMENT CONDITIONS In this section, the Staff analyzes the settlement license conditions and their expected pro-conpetitive impact on the respective Applicants in South Texas and Comanche Peak and on other electric utilities in and around the TIS-ERCOTarea.b This analysis is focussed on the major areas addressed by the settlement conditions: A) Scope of the Conditions; B) Disconnections and Interconnections; C) Access to Nuclear Power; D) Transmission Services; E) Joint Planning; F) Coordination Services; and G) Bulk Power Sales.
The settlement conditions, as will be seen, promote competition in and around the TIS-ERCOT area and encourage coordination and transactions among utilities in that area. The following discussion indicates how the settlement conditions satisfactorily address the Staff's concerns which arise from allegations of monopolization or market domination by certain Applicants and from other allegations of agreements, group boycotts, and concerted refusals to deal which unreasorably restrain trade. The analysis demonstrates that approval and inclusion of the settlement conditions in the Comanche Peak and South Texas project licenses is a fair and reasonable settlement within the public interest and would obviate the necessity for a full antitrust hearing.
M/
In the analysis which follows, the settlement conditions are, in places, identical or substantially similar for both the South Texas and Comanche Peak licenses. Those conditions are addressed together. Where, however, certain license conditions affect the Applicants in the South Texas Project differently than those in Comanche Peak, those differences are pointed out.
Such differences arise mainly because certain allegations or competitive concerns were unique to those particular Applicants.
- A review of Brownsville's pleadings reveals that its principal objections to the settlement conditions are
1) that the conditions would improperly legitimate unilateral refusals to deal, and that the proposed " disconnection clauses" do not adeqJately remedy the alleged group boycott-refusal to deal situation; 2) that the procedures set forth in the proposed conditions would result in impermissible burdens and unwarranted delays in obtain-ing interstate interconnections;b 3) that disconnections permissible under the settlement conditions could cause adverse electrical effects;b 4) that ambiguities or obscurities in the conditions,b articulat.*1y p
in the transmission area,2_2/ render them either unacceptable or incapable of being properly assessed;
-18/ Brownsville's Motion, at 6, 9, 16-17; Initial Brief, at 10, 13, 30-35; Comments, at 8, 10, 12, 15, 32-42, 55-61.
19/ Motion, at 9-10; Initial Brief, at 30-35; Comments, at 12-15.
N Motion, at 5; Conments, at 8,15.
21/ Motion, at 4, 14, 18-19; Comments, at 4, 11-13, 14, 25.
1 22/ Motion, at 14-16; Comments, at 4-5, 14, 19-20.
=
. 5) that certain transmission conditions a e nullified by other condi-tions and by the FERC agreement letter;23/ and 6) that potential jurisdictional conflicts between the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission ("FERC") and the Texas Public Utility Commis-sion ("TPUC")23/ ave not been resolved by the conditions and add h
to uncertainties in the transmission area.
These points are addressed in the appropriate sections of the analysis which follows.
Generally, however, several major flaws are inherent in Brownsville's assertions.
First, Brownsville dwells on how possible ambiguities will lead to future uncertainty, but nowhere provides any ascertainable facts which show how Brownsville itself would be adversely affected at any time.
Sinila rly, Brownsville's complaints about ambiguities and uncertainties in the settlenent i
conditions do not address, in specific terms, any resulting anticompetitive harn to other utilities or how the public interest will be harmed.
Second, Brownsville continues to insist that this Board's authority and duty extends to such tenuous areas as: a) resolving possible, future jurisdic-tional disputes between the FERC and the TPUC; b) determining the exact rates, terms, and conditions of Brownsville's participation agreement in the South 23/ Motion, at 5,17-18; Conments, at 19-21. The "FERC agreement letter" is a letter dated September 11, 1980, from counsel for TU, HLP, and CSW to counsel for the FERC Staff, which is incorporated by reference in the settlement conditions.
23/ Motion, at 22; Comments, at 20, 23-24.
i
~
. Texas Project and its transmission contracts with CPL, and c) requiring the Applicants to maintain membership in and participate in TIS so as not to disadvantage Brownsville.E Finally, Brownsville insists that the disconnection sections of the settle-ment conditions vitiate provisions of the Federal Power Act, the Sherman Act, and the Federal Trade Commission Act.
In so claiming, Brownsville ignores the plain language of the final license condition which mandates i
that the conditions must be implemented "in a manner consistent with applicable Federal, state, and local statutes and regulations."E A.
Scope of the Conditionsb In the South Texas settlement conditions, the " Applicants" affected include HLP, CPL, San Antonio and Austin. However, most sections are directed only at HLP and/or CPL, against whom the major allegations of anticompetitive conduct have been made. San Antonio and Austin have consented to imposition of certain conditions which the Staff considers will enhance the overall pro-competitive nature of the settlement, thereby also further assuring the Staff that its monopolization and group boycott-refusal to deal concerns are met.
" Entities" covered by the South Texas conditions are electric utilities l
(or associations thereof) located in or surrounded by the areas in which the 25/ Motion, at 15; Comments, at 26.
26/ Comanche Peak (hereinaf ter "CP") condition 3.D.(2)(p); South Texas l
Project (hereinafter "STP") condition I.B(11).
E/ See generally, CP conditions 3.D.(1)(a)-(g); STP conditions I.A(1)-(6).
l l
I 12 Applicants serve electric customers at wholesale and retail. The main requirement is that such an electric utility must propose to or actually own, operate, or contractually control facilities for the generation, trans-i mission, or distribution of electric power.
The " Applicants" covered by the Comanche Peak conditions, both jointly and severally, are Texas Utilities Generating Company, the Texas Utilities Company, and the three operating company subsidiaries - TESCO, TPL, and DPL.
The " Entities" included in these conditions are those electric utilities (or associations thereof) which propose to or actually own, operate or contract-ually control facilities for the generation of electric power, although certain conditions are appropriately broadened to include those Entities which have or propose to have generation, transmission, or distribution facilities.
Furthermore, some conditions extend to all Entities while some are limited to cover only those Entities located in the " North Texas Area",
which is defined by a listing of Texas counties in which the Applicants have facilities for wholesale or retail electric service.
l For purposes of the following analysis, the Applicants covered by the Comanche Peak license conditions will be referred to as "TU."
The Applicants covered by the South Texas license conditions will usually be identified individually (i.e., HLP, CPL, San Antonio, or Austin), unless the particular condition is applicable to all four in which event " Applicants" is used.
\\
. B.
Disconnections and Interconnections:
the Intrastate / Interstate Question 1.
Provisions of the Settlement Conditions The settlement conditions address the two main areas of concern on the intrastate / interstate question:
(1) prohibitions against agreements or conspiracies establishing group boycotts or refusals to deal, and (2) the manner in which utilities inside and outside of ERCOT may effectuate inter-state interconnections. As to the first point, TV and HLP are prohibited fron entering into or maintaining any agreement or understandit;g with any other Entity to refuse to deal with another Entity for the purpose of avoiding jurisdiction under the Federal Power Act.2_8/ If TU or HLP refuses to inter-connect with, or chooses to disconnect from, any Entity, such action must be unilateral.E As to the second point, TU and HLP are prohibited from unilaterally disconnecting from or refusing to. interconnect with any Entity because of the interstate character of the facilities of that or another Entity, provided that the Entity has filed and pursued an application for an order by the FERC directing an interconnection under Sections 210, 211 and 212 of the Federal Power Act.E TU and HLP are also prohibited from unrea-sonably opposing any such interconnection application, and are required to i
28/ CP condition 3.D(2)(1)(b); STP condition I.B(6)(b).
29/
_I.d..
l 30/ CP condition 3.D(2)(1)(a); STP condition I.B(6)(a).
Sections 210, 211, and 212 were added to the Federal Power Act by the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act of 1978 (hereinafter cited as "PURPA"),16 U.S.C.A. $$ 8241, j, k.
The principal feature of importance here is l
that the FERC can now order interstate interconnections under PURPA without affecting the overall non-jurisdictional status of TU, HLP, or other utilities in Texas. Obviously, any such interconnection order under PURPA does subject utilities to limited FERC jurisdiction, i.e.,
at least as to the terms and conditions contained in that PURPA order.
. pay the reasonable expenses of any Entity resulting from the filing of such an application with FERC solely because of TV's and HLP's desire to remain outside FERC plenary jurisdiction.b The conditions further provide the NRC with tools for enforcement of the prohibitions against disconnection and refusals to interconnect.
In the event an interconnection application is denied by the FERC, any continuing refusal by TV or HLP to make that interconnection (or to maintain that interconnection) shall be subject to an enforcement proceeding at the NRC to determine whether there is a violation of the license conditions, in light of whether such refusal creates or maintains a situation inconsistent with the antitrust laws or the policies thereunder.
Prior factual deteminations by FERC as to costs or system reliability will not be redetemined by the NRC.
In such NRC proceeding, the burden of proof will be on TU or HLP.
Notwithstanding the application and proceedings at the FERC and possible subsequent proceedings at the NRC, neither the Department of Justice nor any other Entities are precluded from filing antitrust actions in federal courts in the event TV or HLP refuses to interconnect with, or disconnects from,
-31/ CP condition 3.D(2)(1)(c); STP condition I.B(6)(c).
TV and HLP are not, however, required to pay such expenses if:
(1) the application before FERC is denied for reasons advocated by TV or HLP, or (2) the expenses would have been incurred irrespective of. whether the Entity filed such application. The CP condition would not apply to the expenses of CSW (or any of its subsidiaries) and HLP in FERC Docket No. EL79-8.
CP condition 3.D(2)(1)(c), footnote 1.
Similarly, the STP condition would not apply to the expenses of CSW and TV (or any of their subsidi-aries) in that proceeding.
STP condition I.B(6)(c), footnote 1.
.=
. any Entity.3y Neither TU nor HLP is precluded from raising any legal or equitable defense it may have.
In addition, TU and HLP are bound to use their best efforts to amend their agreements with Entities to remove any inconsistencies with the prohibition:: against disconnections, or refusals to interconnect, contained in the settlement license conditions.E These conditions provide a viable means by which interconnections can now develop between ERCOT and the Southwest Power Pool ("SWPP"), while remedying unlawful conspiracies, agreements, group boycotts, and refusals to deal.
Recognizing the present status of the Applicants as non-jurisdictional with respect to FERC, the settlement conditions use the PURPA framework as a means to establish interstate interconnections and associated wheeling without extending plenary FERC jurisdiction. To reduce the burden on an Entity seeking such an interconnection, the settlement conditions prevent unreasonable opposition by TU or HLP and generally require TU and HLP to pay the reasonable expenses of such Entity. As a result, the scope of TV's and HLP's unilateral rights has been better defined, and the NRC's acceptance of FERC's resolution of certain factual issues dealing with cost and reliability will highlight competitive issues in the NRC enforcement review and avoid needless relitigation.
33 CP condition 3.D(2)(1)(d); STP condition I.B(6)(d).
33/ CP condition 3.D(2)(m); STP condition I.B(7).
. These aspects of the settlement conditions, when combined with the obliga-tion of TU, HLP, and CPL to usa their best efforts to secure approval of the presently proposed DC interconnections,3_4/ provide a workable means for all utilities to participate in the presently-planned and future interstate interconnections.
The proposed DC interconnections, with the support of TV, HLP, and CSW, are expected to be operational some 4-5 years after FERC approva l. This will lead to the earliest possible interstate transactions and to the expansion of utility planning horizons to encompass interstate opportunities heretofore precluded.
The planning process for utilities in ERCOT (and perhaps in surrounding areas) looking to interstate power opportunities is also enhanced by the actual establishment of procedures to obtain such interstate opportunities and a definite proscription of disconnections or refusals to interconnect by TU or HLP when those procedures are followed. This new certainty in utility relationships in the ERCOT area provides protection against repetition of I
the disruption in electric utility relationships which occurred in 1976, while preserving Entities' rights to seek interstate power.
Entities such l
as South Texas Electric Cooperative and Medina Electric Cooperative
("STEC/MEC"), whose delivery of power generated at remotely-sited plants 34f Central and South West Corporation has made the application at the FERC in Docket No. EL79-8 for itself and its subsidiaries, one of which is CPL.
By virtue of CP condition 3.D(2)(o) and STP condition I.B(10),
'YU, HLP, and CPL would be obligated to use veir best efforts to obtain approval of this application. The additional terms and conditions to l
which HLP, TU, and CPL have agreed are set forth in the September 11, 1980 letter to FERC counsel.
l l
,v,-
~-
c.
n-,--
,a,..
. 4 could be imperiled in the event of a disconnection,3}/ have now gained greater assurance that their generation resources can continue to supply power to their customers.
In connection with the DC interconnection application in FERC Docket EL79-8, TU, HLP, and CPL have agreed to seek approval by FERC of certain terms and conditions which, among other things, relate to:
(1) offers and terms of participation in the proposed DC interconnections (and future additions thereto); (2) transmission services for interstate energy; and (3) reserva-tion of firm wheeling capacity for smaller utilitie:. These connibnents regarding the FERC DC application are not before this Board for approval or any action. The FERC will decide any dispute which arises over these com-mi tments. Thus, Brownsville's assertions as to the specific rate levels and rate designs suggested in the September 11, 1980 letter can be raised at the FERC, the appropriate forum.
It is nonetheless worthwhile mentioning the general objectives of the Septen-
[
her 11, 1980 letter, which seek to enable all utilities in the ERCOT-TIS area (and beyond) to have fair and equitable access to the DC facilities and l
to permit a unified planning effort for potential interstate power exchanges.
The treatment of transmission costs and resulting rates has the effect of 35/ STEC/MEC is the'~co-owner of the 400 MW San Miguel lignite generating unit with Brazos Electric Power Cooperative.
If there is a renewal of the split in TIS such as occurred in 1976, STEC/MEC risks loss of its share of the unit. Deposition of W. S. Robson, General Manager of STEC, September 5,1979, Tr. at 14.
1 1
. spreading the costs for wheeling over a larger base, with the ultimate effect that rates for interstate wheeling would normally be less expensive than if separate wheeling rates were established for the DC and AC facilities respectively. TU and HLP are each to propose single interstate wheeling rates. This is anticipated to minimize the costs of wheeling of interstate power by reducing the number of wheeling charges to be paid for interstate transactions and to simplify the ascertainment of wheeling costs.
Requesting Entities will also be able to receive prompt information on transmission line flows to pennit them to investigate opportunities for power transactions in the interstate market.
Reservation of a portion of the capacity in the DC lines by HLP and CPL for firm wheeling by smaller entities will allow further flexibility in using the DC interconnections. All Entities in ERCOT and SWPP are also to be afforded the opportunity to participate in the planning of increases in interconnection capacity.
If the FERC accepts these cancitments, the resul t-ing access to interstate markets would provide a means to increase competi-tive opportunities, e.g., some Entities might choose to lessen their depend-ence on their present power suppliers while other generating Entities night choose to seek new purchasers for any excess power they generate.
2.
Brownsville's Criticisms taving outlined and discussed the provisions of the settlement conditions elated to interstate interconnections, we now turn to an evaluation of i
Brownsville's criticisms of those conditions. Brownsville's arguments deal
4 primarily with those conditions governing disconnections and refusals to deal vis-a-vis the desires of TV and HLP to maintain their non-jurisdictional status under the Federal Power Act.E Brownsville argues that the license conditions will be ineffective in curing, and in fact will continue, the situction inconsistent with the antitrust laws resulting from the alleged
" intrastate only" policy.
In support of this argument, Brownsville raises three principal points:
(1) that the Applicants will be able to perpetuate the anticompetitive effects of their " intrastate only" policy by virtue of the unilateral actions which are pemitted under the settlement conditions,E (2) that the settlement conditions postpone a remedy to which Brownsville is now entitled in these Section 105c proceedings,E and (3) that PURPA imposes such heavy burdens as to discourage any Entity from seeking an interconnection and wheeling order under its provisions. 9/
36f Brownsville's Initial Brief, at 10, 13, 29-38; Comments, at 5-6, 8, 10-17, 32-42, 55-61.
---37/
Comments, at 61-66.
It is unclear whether Brownsville continues to argue, as it did in its Initial Brief, at 31, 34, and 36, that the history cf the ERCOT-TIS systems precludes unilateral " intrastate-only" policies.
38/ Comments, at 12.
39/ Comments, at 12-13.
Brownsville's other points generally reflect a failure to have fully considered all of the settlement license con-ditions, the stipulations among the parties, and the role of the FERC.
Thus, Brownsville's fear that HLP may argue that it has eliminated the
" situation inconsistent" solely by the prohibition against agreements with other Entities to refuse to deal ignores HLP's agreement to support the entire set of proposed license conditions.
Brownsville's Initial Brief, at 31.
Similarly, Brownsville's argument that STP condition I.B(6)(b) does not reach HLP's ongoing agreements fails (Continued)
. As to the first principal point, Brownsville maintains that the requirements for solely unilateral action will unlawfully allow TV and HLP to continue an agreement to disconnect in the event tnird parties affect their nonjurts-dictional status because the history of the Texas systems has given rise to implicit understandings between HLP, TV and other systems.
Even if the policies pursued are unilateral, Brownsville adds, an anticompetitive situa-tion will remain. $
To the contrary, the settlement conditions render such arguments inapposite.
First, continuation of the alleged intrastate-only agreement is specifically prohibited under STP condition I.B.(6)(b) and CP condition 3.D.(2)(1)(b),
virtually identical to the STP condition.
The STP condition reads:
HLP shall not enter into or maintain any agreement or understanding with another Entity or Applicant to refuse to deal with any other Entity (ies) or Applicant (s) with the purpose of maintaining an exemption fron jurisdiction under the Federal Power Act, and in 39/ (Continued) or understanding," and also ignores STP condition I.B(7)g] any agreement to take account of the proscription against " maintain [in which obligates HLP "to use its best efforts to amend any agreements with all Entities to ensure that such agreements are not inconsistent with paragraphs 6(a) and 6(b) hereof".
Id_. 6 ? 36-3 7.
Finally, Brownsville's comparison of AC and DC lines raises matters which are for detemination by FERC, rather than the NRC.
g Brownsville's Initial Brief, at 36-37.
. the event that HLP refuses to make an interconnection with or chooses to disconnect from any Entity (ies), such decision and/or action by HLP will be undertaken unilaterally, not jointly, and without consultation with any other Entity (ies), provided, however, that af ter HLP decides to undertake such action, it may notify ~any affected Entity of its decisit 1 Second, HLP and TV must use their best efforts to amend all contracts to conformtotheconditions.b Brownsville apparently overlooks this in making its most recent arguments.S In addition, not all refusals to deal are unreasonable restraints of trade,E notwithstanding Brownsville's arguments to the contrary.
Under the governing settlement conditions, neither TV nor HLP can obligate the other by agreement or understanding to disconnect in the event a third party engages in activi-ties causing interstate flows on either of their systems.
Similarly, they cannot require other electric utilities with which they are interconnected to disconnect from third parties in the event interstate power flows are caused on their systems.
Instead, HLP and TU will be allowed only to announce unilaterally and in advance their intentions regarding actions which may j
l affect their nonjurisdictional status, in accordance with prevailing antitrust
{
41/ STP condition I.B.(7); CP condition 3.D.(2)(m).
42/ Coments, at 10.
l 43/ See, e.., Continental T.V., Inc. v. GTE Sylvania, Inc., 433 U.S. 36
)
T1Y7 unilateral refusal to deal); Joseph E. Seagram & Sons, Inc. v.
Hawaiian Oke & Liquors, Ltd., A16 F.2d 71 (9th Cir.1969) (concerted refusal to deal), cert. den. 396 U.S.1062 (1970).
i l
l
. jurisprudence. See Albrecht v. Herald Co., 390 U.S.145,149 (1968); United States v. Parke, Davis & Co., 362 U.S 29 (1960).$
Brownsville may not like the result--that HLP and TU may retain their non-jurisdictional status--but the means of achieving that end is now governed by the settlement conditions.
Neither TV nor HLP will have the right under the settlement license conditions to agree, act in concert, or otherwise bind the other to refuse to deal with others in the event there are such interstate power flows. Continuation of the alleged agreement to refuse to deal (or group boycott) will not be allowed under the settlement conditions.
On the other hand, unilateral announcements consistent with Colgate and Parke, Davis, without more, do not constitute a situation inconsistent with the antitrust laws.b l
l Brownsville's second major argument is that the settlement license conditions l
l would have the effect of postponing a remedy to which it is entitled in this proceeding, viz, a finding under Section 105(c)(5) as to whether the activities l
44/ In Parke, Davis, the Government successfully brought a case under Sec-tion 1 of the Sherman Act,15 U.S.C. 91 (1970), for an agreement between a manufacturer and its wholesalers to refuse to deal with any person violating the manufacturer's policies regarding resale prices.
The Court stated that under United States v. Colgate, 250 U.S. 300 (1919), the manufacturer may unilaterally announce its policies, so long as its customers do not agree, either explicitly or implicity, to refuse to deal with any one who would violate those policies.
Pa rke,
Davis, 362 U.S. at 37-44. Once there is an agreement to refuse to l
deal, Section 1 is violated.
_Id,. at 44.
g See, Je.., Parke, Davis, su ra; Berkey Photo, Inc. v. Eastman Kodak Co., T(F3 F.2d 263, 272, 2
. under the licenses, as conditioned, would create or maintain a situation inconsistent with the antitrust laws as specified in Section 105(a).d5I Nothing, however, precludes Brownsville from seeking a finding under Section 105(c)(5) in a hearing on any issues remaining after the Board's approval of the settlement conditions.
If Brownsville were to prevail I
before this Board in demonstrating that certain activities under the licenses would create or maintain a situation inconsistent with the anti-trust laws or their underlying policies, appropriate changes could be made in the settlement license conditions or additional conditions could be added.
An antitrust hearing held now would have little, if any, bearing on future enforcement proceedings at the NRC.SE/ The license conditions do nothing to impair the right of a conplaining party to review by the NRC in an enforce-ment proceeding, with due regard for the substantive antitrust jurisprudence incorporated in Section 105(c), of any continuing refusal to interconnect in the event that FERC does not approve a proposed interconnection.
From the
[
point of view of the Staff, this does not constitute any " postponement" of l
remedy. The regime established in the settlement conditions incorporates the applicable antitrust concepts, and further makes an acknowledgement of the primary areas 6r responsibility of the NRC and FERC, ;s suggested by 4_6/ Comnents, at 12-13.
12/ CP condition 3.D(2)(1)(a); STP condition I.B(6)(a).
. Section 271 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 9 2018.
The conditions provide a means by which a complaining party (which could include the Staff) can enforce the limitations on refusals to interconnect by seeking to demonstrate before the NRC that, despite negative findings by the FERC on the acceptability of an interconnection (and/or wheeling) appli-cation, the interconnection is required to remedy a situation inconsistent with antitrust law and policy.
Brownsville's third major argument is that the burden of proceeding under PURPA is considerable enough to discourage any Entity from applying to FERC for an interconnection order.$ Brownsville supports this argu~ent by nothing more than a recitation of the standards for interconnection and wheeling orders under PURPA.E These standards reflect a detemination by Congress as to objective and reasonable criteria for obtaining an intercon-nection or wheeling order under PURPA with another, unwilling utility.
Further, Staff believes that the burden alleged by Brownsville is neither atypical nor unduly great for electric utilities, which must routinely demonstrate the virtuee of their proposed projects to obtain capital funds and, in most cases, to convince utility commissions to include project costs in their rate bases. Nothing asserted by Brownsville demonstrates that these statutory criteria impose an unreasonable burden on Entities seeking an order under PURPA.
4_8/ Brownsville's Initial Brief, at 30, 32-33.
49/
_Id,. a t 33, n.1.
. Despite the settlement conditions' specificity, Brownsville also asserts that HLP's obligation to pay an Entity's costs in connection with its appli-cations under PURPA is " ephemeral". Of This assertion rests upon Brownsville's views, analyzed above, as to the burdens under PURPA and its perception that HLP may oppose an application under PURPA "on any grounds so long as they are not patently frivolous."
We have already responded to the argument as to PURPA burdens. As to the grounds on which HLP may oppose a PURPA application, Brownsville has misunderstood STP license condition I.B(6)(a),
which states that 'HLP agrees that it will not unreasonably oppose any such application." The Staff therefore finds no merit to Brownsville's arguments, but would only point out that NRC enforcenent procedures are available to resolve any disputes arising under this condition.
To summarize, there is no demonstrable anticompetitive effect from the con-tinuation of TV's and HLP's non-jurisdictional status under the proposed settlement conditions.
Brownsville has admitted that there is no intent per se_ to exclude competition.E The opportunities for non-jurisdictional interconnections under PURPA will allow utilities to obtain alternatives in interstate markets both in and around Texas. Although these options are "non-jurisdictional" ones, this does not diminish the pro-competitive aspects of the settlement or the potential power supply opportunities fostered therein.
50f H. at 33.
51/ H.
52f Id. at 21-22.
. C.
_ Access to Nuclear Power Participation in baseload nuclear generation, which has certain econonies of scale, is provided for in both the South Texas and Comanche Peak conditions.
Ownership access to the Comanche Peak units remains essentially the same as in the 1974 construction pemit conditions, except as concerns TV's offer of ownership to Tex-La Electric Cooperative of Texas, Inc., an intervenor in these proceedings. Tex-La has entered into a letter of intent with TPL for purchase of an ownership interest in the Comanche Peak units.E The tems and conditions set forth in the letter of intent were reached with the intention of settling the controvery between TPL and Tex-La raised in the Conanche Peak antitrust proceeding.b Having gained an offer of ownership in Comanche Peak (and in consideration of a related power supply agreement which it has negotiated with TPL), Tex-La has stipulated that, to the extent it participates any further in this proceeding, it will defend the conditions should they be challenged.E/ It should also be noted that Brazos Electric Cooperative and the Texas Municipal Power Agency (TMPA) have become co-owners in Comanche Peak since the original construction permit was issued to TV.
Accordingiy, the Staff's concerns about alleged monopolization by TV and about participation in the Comanche Peak units have been satisfied, and the new ownership arrangements are 2xpected to promote competition in the North Texas and adjacent areas.
53f Letter of Intent of May 6,1980, attached to Tex-La's May 9,1980 Status Report on Settlement.
54f
_Id. at clause XIII.
M/ Stipulation, dated September 12, 1980, among D0J, NRC Staff, Tex-La, and TU.
. To the Staff's knowledge, Brownsville has been the only Entity (other than the present Applicants) which sought an ownership share in the South Texas Project. Brownsville is to be offered access to the South Texas Project by CPL on reasonable terms and conditions and in a reasonable amount computed according to a peak load ratio formula.E5/ CPL's obligation to afford that ownership share to Brownsville is to be reduced, on the basis of a formula provided, to take account of possible sales to Brownsville of an ownership share by HLP, San Antonio, or Austin from their portions of the South Texas Project. Brownsville has until January 1,1983 to make finn commitments to become an owner.
To facilitate Brownsville's access to the South Texas Project, CPL is also obligated to provide transmission from the plant to Brownsville and to provide Brownsville related coordination services.
HLP, San Antonio, and Austin must facilitate, where necessary, Brownsville's access to a South Texas ownership interest and other coordination services froa CPL noted above. This should insure that Brownsville's opportunity to have nuclear generation will be both meaningful and effective.52/
If, as Brownsville apparently fears,ES/ CPL does not make a reasonable offer of participation in the South Texas Project and of transmission services, Brownsville can seek a remedy through an NRC enforcement proceeding.
It is, therefore, not 1
necessary for this Board to reach the actual terms and conditions between 56/ STP condition I.B.(1).
52/ Consumers Power Co. (Midland Units 1 and 2), ALAB-452, 6 NRC 892, 949-57, 998-99, 1085, 1100 (1977).
58/ Comments, at 25.
_ _. _ _ _ _ ~ -
. the parties, nor to withhold approval of the settlement conditions until the final contracts are signed. Accordingly, the Staff concludes that such nuclear access with necessary auxiliary services will satisfy the requests of Brownsville itself and will generally promote competition in the South Texas Area.
As to future nuclear units, Applicants in both Comanche Peak and South Texas are required to offer participation in those future units which they may own, construct, and operate to Entities on tenns similar to those contained in the settlement license conditions.b This means that competitive oppor-tunities to participate in future baseload nuclear generation in the ERCOT-TIS area will be afforded to all Entities, and that smaller as well as larger utilities will be able to benefit from the economies of scale of such generation.
D.
Transmission Services l
Access to transmission services is a major key to competition and competi-tive opportunities in the electric utility industry.E Such services are vital to Entities within ERCOT and SWPP seeking to improve their competitive posture by being able to have power wheeled from suppliers in addition to those by whon they are presently served, and to have power wheeled to other Entities with whom they are not directly interconnected. Applicants are 59/ CP condition 3.D(2)(n); STP condition I.B(8).
9 Otter Tail Power Co. v. United States, 410 U.S. 366 (1973); Consumers l
Power Co., su ra; Toledo Edison Company, et al. (Davis-Besse and Perry Units), ALA -
,10 NRC 265, 328 (1979).
I
. 1 required to " participate in and facilitate" the exchange of power in the South Texas and North Texas Areas, respectively, between any two Entities with which Applicants are connected and to provide the same service between any Entity within the South Texas or North Texas Area and an Entity outside of that area. This obligation to provide transmission services does not distinguish between interstate and intrastate transmission, and is subject only to appropriate limitations, among which are reasonable notice and technical feasibility.
The Staff believes that all Entities in ERCOT and SWPP will benefit from this provision of transmission services by the resulting enhancement of opportunities to seek relationships both with new purchasers and new sup-plie rs. The availability of wheeling is particularly important to Entities which, because they are embedded in the service territory of their suppliers, i
are " captives" of those suppliers' transmission networks. Many Entities in ERCOT fall into this category, and the availability of wheeling eliminates some of the Staff's concerns raised by monopolization allegations.
- Further, other obstacles have been removed to facilitate the ability of utilities to seek both short-and long-tenn alternative power supply options.
For example, Entities seeking wheeling do not need to enter into formal arrangements with each utility over whose lines power would have to flow as a prerequisite to l
l requesting transmission by Applkants.
It will be sufficient that "pennission to utilize such other transmission lines has been requested by the proponent of the arrangemer.t".b In addition, Applicants agree to wheel (and thereby s
61/ CP condition 3.D(2)(1); STP condition I.B(3).
Emphasis added.
I l
. ~, -
~ _-
9 not frustrate transactions) even if the rates are subject to dispute with the requesting Entity.E Brownsville addresses a number of complaints to the tenas of the Septem-ber 11,1980 letter to FERC counsel in Docket No. EL79-8. As noted in Section IIIB above, the commitments in that letter, although referenced in the settlement license conditions, are not before this Board for review.
They are referenced because they embody certain principles which the Staff believes would resolve alleged anticompetitive aspects of the proposed DC interconnections. Brownsville is free to have its conplaints heard at the FERC, the agency with jurisdiction over the tenns and conditions of the interstate interconnection and associated wheeling.b And, of ccurse, the FERC may act on the tenns and conditions proposed in the September 11, 1980 letter as it deems reasonable under its statutory mandate.
The NRC Staff has cooperated with the FERC Staff in the draf ting of the September 11, 1980 letter in order that their mutually-held concerns would be addressed in the two simultaneous settlements at the FERC and the NRC.
62/ STP condition I.B(3); CP condition 3.D(2)(i).
2 63/ Even though some of the power passing over such interconnection may be generated at nuclear plants, the NRC does not thereby automatically acquire jurisdiction over the rates and conditions of that transmission.
See Section 271 of the Atomic Energy Act (42 U.S.C. 6 2018), which provides in relevant part:
Nothing in' this Act shall be construed to affect the authority or regulations of any Federal, State, or local agency with respect to the generation, sale, or transmission of electric power produced through the use of nuclear facilities licensed by the Coninission....
l l
l 1
i
. 1 Satisfaction of our group boycott-refusals to deal concerns does not, how-ever, depend upon the FERC's approval of the tems and conditions set forth in the September lith letter, but rather depends upon the commitments under-taken by the Applicants in the settlement license conditions. Since Browns-ville's comments on transmission focus on the September 11, 1980 letter, they are not appropriately before this Board.
E.
Joint Planning i,
Applicants are obligated to afford all Entities in the South Texas and North Texas Areas, respectively, opportunities to participate in any studies and planning of future generation, transmission, and related facilities." In addition, Applicants are obligated to share information with other Entities with respect to joint studies and planning of future generation, transmission, and related facilities. E Applicants are also obligated to support reason-able requests by qualifying Entities for membership in the Texas Interconnected System (" TIS") and any other electric utility planning or operating organiza-tion of which Applicants are members.b It has been alleged that certain Entities, notably Brownsville, were improperly and disadvantageous 1y excluded l
from membership in TIS and, thereby, were denied the benefit of joint planning with the larger Texas syP. ems. Brownsville is now a member of TIS, and the proposed license conditions will ensure that all Entities in ERCOT have rights to membership in any electric planning or operating organization in the ERCOT-TIS area.
B CP condition 3.D(2)(D); STP condition I.B(2).
E%
l
o As the conpetitive opportunities expand by virtue of the requirements of the South Texas and Comanche Peak licenses, the opportunity to engage in joint studies and planning with the Applicants will become an important means by which smaller Entities within Tex?s (and the Southwest Power Pool) can improve their system planning and more effectively conpete with larger i
Entities.
Brownsville's argument that the Applicants must be required to remain members of TIS and to take only actions advantageous to Brownsville55/
goes far beyond any reasonable requirement concerning these voluntary plan-ning organizations.
Insofar as transmission planning is concerned, Applicants are required to 4
afford Entities in their respective areas the opportunity to participate in planning of additions to transmission capacity. Applicants must also include such capacity additions in their transmission construction programs as are timely requested by said Entities, subject to reasonable conditions.52/
It is also expected that Applicants will include all Entities in their
]
respective geographic areas in the planning of future nuclear units in which Applicants may participate.
See discussion under " Nuclear Access" above.
This will aid all utilities in making the best economic decisions for their own competitive well-being.
Joint planning in ERCOT-TIS should insure, in part, that there are no artificial' information barriers which would adversely affect competitive opportunities in the area.
66/ Comments, at 26.
6 67/ STP condition I.B(4); CP condition 3.D(2)(j)(a).
I
, _. -..,. _. ~. ~. _,
i 1 :
}
F.
Coordination Services One of the markets in which TU, HLP and CPL are alleged to be dominant is j
the market for coordination services. As Entities in their respective l
service territories seek to avail themselves of new competitive opportuni-ties under the settlement license conditions, they will need to coordinate i
with Applicants. TV is required to coordinate reserves and sell, purchase, or exchange emergency and/or scheduled maintenance bulk power with any l
Entity in the florth Texas Area, subject to reasonable tenns and conditions.$
j As noted above, under "fluclear Access", a similar obligation is imposed on CPL (and, as necessary, HLP, San Antonio, and Austin) for the benefit of
)
Brownsville.E The TU companies are further obligated to engage in joint establishment of minimum reserves with any Entity to which they have reserve coordination obligations. E In addition, the reliability of power delivered into TIS-ERCOT over DC interconnections may not be treated differently by l
Applicants than power generated within TIS-ERCOT for detemining required spinning and installed reserves.b i
i In large measure, the original Comanche Peak construction pennit conditions in l
l 1974 addressed the provision of coordination services by TU. This demonstrates the importance which has been placed upon coordination services.12/ The i
_6_8/ CP conditions 3.D(2)(c.d & h).
8 69/ STP conditions I.B(1)(c & d).
70/ CPcondition3.D(2)(e).
A/ STP condition I.B.9; CP condition 3.D(2)(e).
22] See also, Consumers Povar Co., supra note 57.
- l coordination services obligations in the South Texas settlement conditions are principally directed at CPL, since it is the only applicant against whom allegations of denial of coordination services have been made.
Since smaller utilities are often excluded from establishing joint reserve requirements, it is valuable to Entities to be able to participate in the setting of minimum reserve requirements.E The requirement that the Appli-cants for both Comanche Peak and the South Texas Project treat power imported over the DC interconnections in like manner with power generated within i
Texas protects Entities against unjustifiably high reserve requirements which discount the availability of the imported power. Also, to the extent that Applicants have excess generating capacity, Entities within Texas and i
the Southwest Pcwer Pool might be able to use their access to wheeling to enter into coordination arrangements for purposes of meeting their reserve obligations within TIS or SWPP.b This availability of coordination services satisfies the Staff's concerns about possible monopolization in two ways:
(1) it addresses the allegations made by smaller utilities, and (2) it insures meaningful and effective nuclear access by providing general assurances of necessary coordination for smaller utilities, j
7_3/ CPcondition3.D(2)(e);seealsoSTPconditionI.B(2).
7_4/ Indeed, HLP already seeks to assure sufficient reserve levels by purchases from Austin.
Deposition Transcript of D. E. Simmons, at 176-77 (Oct.17,1979).
. G.
Full and Partial Requirements Sales of Bulk Power Many Entities within the service territories of the TV companies and CPL are either full or partial requirements customers of these Applicants.
Examples of such relationships are the Tex-La cooperatives with TPL, and Brownsville with CPL. To reasonably assure the availability of wholesale power to such Entities, the settlement license conditions would obligate TU and CPL to sell full and partial requirements bulk power to smaller Entities in their respective areas.
TV and CPL are excused from the obligation only if they do not have available sufficient bulk power or adequate transmission to provide the requested service, or if the sale would impair their ability to render adequate and reliable service to their customers.EI Limitation of the reach of the license conditions respectively to the North Texas and South Texas Areas is not, as alleged by Brownsville.E/ a sanction of a division of markets.
Rather, it is simply a reflection of the geographic patterns of large generating utilities and connections for the delivery of pcwer.
Furthermore, the wheeling provisions of the settlement conditions would open up options for obtaining new supplies of wholesale power. Browns-ville argues that HLP should also be subject to the bulk power condition of l
the South Texas license.7]/ HLP, however, has only one wholesale customer, Community Public Service, and the Staff is not aware of any allegation in
I 76/ Comments, at 27.
11l 1d.
. this proceeding of misuse of monopoly power by HLP against its present or potential wholesale customers.
With this assurance of obtaining the wholesale power needed, Entities are freer to explore a variety of options for meeting their energy requirements and their demand growth. TPL, for example, may provide the Tex-La Cooperatives with such power as they require in excess of their Comanche Peak and other generating capacity.E By virtue of the conditions, Brownsville can receive necessary supplemental wholesale power from CPL in addition to the power produced from its own generation entitlements, such as that in the South Texas Project. The settlement conditions also provide assurances of full requirements bulk power (subject to availability) to Entities which decide to remain non-generating utilities or those which decide to reduce their reliance on self-generation.
If CSW is engaging in central economic dispatch of generation among its subsidiaries to comply with the requirements of the Public Utility Holding Company Act of 1935,5 CPL may first use its own particular generation'and transmission facilities to accomplish such centralized economic dispatch before those facilities are made available to satisfy its bulk power obliga-tions under the settlement conditions. Other CSW capacity, however, will become available by virtue of the centralized economic dispatch system and CPL's participation. Hence, the settlement conditions provide that CPL 7_8/ Letter of Intent, supra note 53, at 6.
8 79/ 15 U.S.C. 9 79, et seq.
. must, in that circumstance, meet its bulk power obligations from either its own capacity or the available capacity in the other CSW companies. The provision in the South Texas settlement conditions acknowledges that the SEC may require the operating subsidiaries of the CSW system to have priority with respect to their system-wide economic dispatch of generating units.
This recognizes the principle of comity among federal agencies and allows CPL flexibility in selecting which power can be used to supply the quali-fying Entity without reducing its obligations under the conditions. Browns-b nd its argument that CPL ville's assertion of discriminatory treatment a
aust engage in central economic dispatch with Brownsvilleb are not meri-torious. No discriminatory treatment is suggested by the conditions and, as to the second point, no factual allegations have been made to support inclu-sion of Brownsville in CPL's generation dispatch pogram.
As noted above, CPL's and TV's obligations to provide full and partial requirements power are subject to the availability of bulk power, the availa-bility of transmission capacity, and the ability of CPL and TU to render adequate and reliable service to their customers. These exceptions are in accord with good utility practice and prevailing law. We nevertheless expect that sufficient bulk power and adequate transmission to render ar,y service requested would be available by virtue of the joint planning that would have already been taking place in the ERCOT-TIS area. Thus, there should not be any impairment to the reliability and adequacy of service to 80/ Comments, at 27-28.
81f Id. at 28.
4 CPL's and TV's customers as a result of the provision of bulk power to qualifying Entities.
In the unlikely event that a curtailment of actual bulk power sales becomes necessary under operative conditions, it must be on a reasonable and nondiscriminatory (where possible) basis.
These provisions are yet another means to alleviate the Staff's concerns 4
about prese ving and promoting competition in ERCOT-TIS. The availability of full and partial requirements power insures that smaller utilities can make meaningful strides towards self-generation, should their economic decisions favor that power supply option.
IV. POSSIBLE FURTHER PROCEEDINGS The Board directed Browr.sville, as the only party asserting the need for a hearing, to address in its Comments the " jurisdictional" aspects and the
" procedural and other requirements"E related to such a hearing. The Board also stated that other parties should respond to Brownsville's comments.E l
Brownsville has not addressed the nature of a further hearing at great j
length.E Brownsville does note, however, that many of its objections may be susceptible of disposition on the pleadings at such a future, evidentiary j
- 8_2f Prehearing Conference Tr., at 1254 (October 24,1980).
l l
8_3] Id.
8_4f Comments, at 6-7.
l l
. stage. The Staff concurs.b Many of the issues raised in Brownsville's Comments (as well as its Motion and Initial Brief) seem to be of a nature that can be disposed of on the pleadings, ed., that unilateral disconnection or refusal to interconnect as pemitted under the settlement conditions is inconsistent with the antitrust laws.b On the other hand, there may be some issues raf:ed by Brownsville which require detemination of factual matters and which the Board will not be able to dispose of on the basis of Brownsville's pleadings and the other parties' responses. We agree with Brownsville that, because there are issues which may be oisposed of
- the pleadings, the Board should defer ruling on any further proceedings un'cil it has issued its order with respect to approval and implementation of the settlement license conditions. b l
l 8_5/ Summary disposition procedures are available under 10 C.F.R. 5 2.749 l
to aid the Board in refining those issues on which a future, evidentiary hearing under Section 105c(5) might be held.
8_6/
Id_. at 11-12, 8_7f See Brownsville's Comments, at 6.
The Board would have available to it the full range of powers conferred by the Commission's Rules and l
Regulations for detemining the nature of any hearing which may be held, n, summary disposition under 10 C.F.R. 5 2.749 and the specification of issues and amendment of contention pleadings under 10 C.F.R. 5 2.752.
l l
. V.
CONCLUSION For the reasons set forth above, the NRC Staff moves the Board to approve the proposed settlement conditions in the South Texas and Conanche Peak oceedings and to make them effective immediately.
Respectfully submitted, A* k' '.
Fredric D. Chanania NRC Staff Counsel
<{
N Steph(n H. Lewis NRC Staff Counsel
.,i/'
llV w.o.
Michael B. Blume NRC Staff Counsel m
o rA N
Ann Hodgdon
]
NRC Staff Counsel Dated at Bethesda, Maryland this 3rd day of December,1980.
t I
l i
l s
i (ATTACHMENT NO. 1) e September 12, 19E0 9
LICENSE CONDITIONS FOR SOUTH TEXA5 PROJECT UNITS NOS. 1 AND 2 I.
A.
7ne fellowing definitions apply to paragraph I.E:
I-
AF F licants" rear.s severall; and 3:in 1y H:ust:r L:ghting and Power CC=pany (HLP ), Central Power and Light Conpany (CFL), City Public Service Board of San Antonio (CPSE), and the City cf Austin Electric Utility Department (COA) 5nd any of their res,rective successors, assignees, or subsidiaries engaged in the generation, transmission or the distribution of electric power.
Where a license condition is directed to a specific Applicant, that Applicant is identified.
(2)
- South Texas Arca" neans (a) thOse counties ir.
which Agplicants serve electric custeners at wholesale er retail, and (b) these other areas, if any, surrounded by the areas in (a) above.
(3)
" Entity" means an electric utility whic' is a person, a private or public corporation, a govern-nental agency or authority, a municipality, a cooperative, -
an association of any of the foreg ing owning, operating, or contractually contr:11ing or proposing in good faith to owr.,
operate, or contractually control facilities fcr generation, transmission or distribution cf electric p:ver and energ; for the purpose of providing electric utility service.
(4)
- Bulk Power" means the electric power and/or eiertric energy supplied or made available at transrission or subtransmission voltages.
(5)
" Costs" means all appropriate operatingfand maintenance expenses and all ownership costs where applicable.
'I (E)
The terns connectien" and " inter:Onnectier" are used interchangeably.
E.
The Applicants defined in paragraph I. A'. (1) are subject to the following antitrust' conditions:
\\
S>
g e 9\\
I.
E.
(1)
(a)
CPL shall afford to the Public Utilities Board of the City of Brownsville ar opportunity to participate in the Scut?
Texas Project, Units 1 and 2, on reas:n-able terms and conditions and 4r acecrd-ante with the S0uth Texas t ic t:
Fartir-ipatien Agreenent and c-A t asa that will fully compensate CPL o-its actual costs, provided that Brovat rille nust enter into a firm committe:a to acquire the ownership interest muce available tc it h) the terns of this paragraph n later than January 1, 1953.
The owner-ship interest which CPL shall nake avail-able to Brownsville shall be computed by rultiplying CPL's Generation Entitle-nent Share in STP Units 1 and 2 by the ratio cf Erownsville's peak demand ic:
1950 to CFL's peak denand for 1950.
In the event Brownsville chtains an owner-ship interest fror any Applicant other than CPL, the ownership interest which CFL nust make available to Erownsville hereunder shall be reduced by one rega-watt for each megawatt in excess of 12 re:awatts that Erownsville acquires frer other Applicants.
Applicants shall net exercise any rights of first refusal over Brownsville's efforts to participate in the South Texas Project to the ex-tent cf the first 50 K.: cf such owner-ship share.
(b)
CFL shall afford Brownsville reasonable transmission services to enable it to obtain delivery of power fre.- the STF, provided that CFL is fully co..pensated for its costs of such transnission'ser-vices plus a reasonable' return on invest-ment, and provided further that in the event transnission capacity is n:t avail-able tc provide such transmissicn ser-Vices, the provisions of Paragraph I.E.
(4) here:f define the extent cf the chli-gatien which CFL has with respect to the construction of additional transmissior facilities necessary to provide such transnission service.
4 g k 4
Rh3 (c)
CPL will also afford all reasonable Rh3 coordination services (includin: but D
not limited te reserve sharin,'back-up power, raintenance power af.d ener-gency power) necessary for Erownsville to have effective access te power frc.-
STF chtained fror CFL, provided that CFE is fully compensated for its costs of providing such coordination services plus a reasonable return on investrent.
(d)
Each Applicant shall facilitate where necessary Brownsville's obtaining the participation interests and services specified in paragraphs 1(a), 1(b) and 1(c) above.
(2)
The Applicants, as long as they are nenbers of the Texas Interconnected Systems (TIS) or any cther organization which considers the planning fer or operations of ERCOT-TIS electric utili-ties, shall support reasonable recuests by Entities in the South Texas Area having gener-ation capacity for membership in TIS or such other organizations.
The Applicants shall alsc propose and actively support, as 1cng as they are renbers thereof, the creation of one or n:re additional classifications of TIS member-ship, based on non-discriminatory criteria to afford access to data, studies and recommendations to all Entities in the South Texas Area wh:
desire membership.
The Applicants shall share information with other Entities with respect to, and shall conduct with other such Entities thrcugh 'ny electrie utility planning organi:a-a tions cf which the Applicants are members, joint studies and planning of future ge transmission and related facilities; pr.neration,
- ovided, however, that this condition shall not obligate the Applicants to conduct such joint studies or j int planning unless (1) the studies or planr.ing are requested and carried out in good faith and based en reasonably realistic and reasonably ec=plete data er prcjections, (2) the studies or planning are reasonably justi-fied on the basis of sound engineering prin-ciples, (3) appropriate protection is accorded
. ~ - - - -... - - -..
_4_
a 95k g
proprietary or other confidential business and financial infornation, and (4 ) the costs for such studies or planning are allocated en R3 a fair and equitable basis.
( :-
E a :~r Applicant shall participate in and facil-
- tate the exchange cf bulk power b3 trans-rission over its own transnission facilities between or among two or nore entities in the South Texas Area with which the Applicant is connected; and between any such Entity (las) and any Entity (ies) outside the 50uth Texas Area between whose facilities the Aprlicant's transnission lines and other transnission lines, including direct current (a synchronou s ) trans-nission lines, form a continuous electrical path; prcvided, that (i) pernission t utilize su:P cther transnission lines has been re-quested by the proponent of the arrange ent, (it) the arrangenents reasonably can be ar-connodated fron a functional and technical standpcint, and (iii) any Entity (ies) request-ing such transnission arrangements shall have given reasonable advance notice of its (their) schedule and requirenents.
Such transnission shall be on terns that fully conpensate an Applicant for its costs including a reasonable return on investment; provided, however, that such transnission services and the rates to be charged therefer shall be subject te the Jurisdiction of the appropriate regulatory agency (ies).
Where the rates to be charged are subject to the jurisdiction of an appro-priate regulatory authority, the Ar licants shall net refuse to provide such transnissier services nerely because the rate (s) te be charged therefor are the subject of dispute with such Entity (ies).
An Applicant shall not be required to enter into any arrangement which would unreasonably inpair s32ter reli-abilits cr ener=.ency transnission catacitv, it beine recognized that while sore transnis-sicn nay be cperated fully loaded cther trans-rission nay be for enerc.enev use and operated either unloaded or partially loaded.
(4 )
EE P Applicant shall include in its planning and constructic. prograns sufficient trans-nission capacity as required for the trans-actions referred to in paragraph I.E. (3) (and I.E.(5) for CPL), provided any Entity (ies)
5-N f
in the South Texas Area gives an Applicant Ns3 sufficient advance notice as may be necessary Q
to acconnodate its (their) requirements from Rg3 a functional and technical standpoint and that such Entity (ies) fully compensates an Appli-9 cant for its costs includin: a reasonable re-turn en investrent.1/ n Appiicant shall not A
be re:uired te construct transmissien facili-9 ties if c:nstruction of suer facilities is infeasible, or if such would unreasonably ir-pair syster reliability or e.mergency trans-rission capacity.
In connection with the performance of the obligations above, an Applicant shall not be foreclosed fror re:uir-ing a reasonable contribution in aid of cen-structicr er frcr making arrangenents for coordinated construciton of future transmission lines such that each of the parties to the transaction would own an interest in er a segrent cf the transmission addition in pro-p rt:Or to its share of the cost of the addi-tien Any such contribution made in aid of constructier cr ownership interest shall also be properly credited in deternining any wheel-in; charges.
If an Applicant engages in j: int cwnership of transmission lines with any other Entity (ies), it shall not refuse to engage in similar transactions in comparable cireurstances with other Entities, subject to the previsions limiting an Applicant's chli-gations ab:ve.
I.
E.
(5)
CFL shall, upon reasonable advance notice, entcr into arrange ents for the sale of full and partial requirements bulk power pursuant to a filed tariff to any requesting Entity having a non-aggregated generating capacity cf 200 regawatts or less under reasonable l
terns and conditions which shall include a j
provision for CFL to recover its costs of l
providing such service plus a reasonable re-1 turn on investment.
Such tariff shall not require CFL to enter into any arrangement for su:P sale (s) if (a ) it does not have available
(
s;ificient bu'k p wer or adequate transmission l
tc previde the requested service; cr (b) the sale w uld inpair CFL's ability to render aderuste and reliable service to its own custoners or its ability to discharge prior connitrents.
It is expressly recognized, l
i l
l 1/
Nothing in this paragraph shall require CPSB or COA to undertake any action (s) which may be contrary tc any state constitutional provision.
t l
t
e.
g R(3 and such tariff may reflect, that the deter-g mination whether sufficient bulk power or adequate transmission is available to accor-(
redate a request for full or partial re uire-Qg rents bulk power will consider and reregnize that (1) CFL will be engaging in centrali:ed econcric dispatch with its affiliates ir acecrdance with, and pursuant to the require-ments of, the Public Utility Holding Company Act of 1935, (2) pursuant to such require-cents CFL may first utilize its generating and trans-ission capacity to accomplish sue.'
centralized economic dispatch before its generating and transmission capacity is made available for full or partial requirements bulk power sales under the tariff, and (3) if other C5W syster capacity becomes availahle by reason of CFL's participation in such cen-tralized econc=ic dispatch, then such cther CSX syste. capacity will, at the option of C5W, be nade available in lieu of CFL's ohli-gation to provide such capacity.
Any curtail-of CFL's full or partial requirements nent sales shall be on a reasonable and non-dis-crininatory (where possible) basis.
(C) (a)In connection with the performance of its ob-ligations herein and subject to the provi-sicns cf this paragraph, HLP shall not dis-ccn~.e:1 frcr cr refuse to connect its then-existing or proposed facilities with the facil-ities of any Entity used or proposed to be used for the transmission of electric energy in interstate commerce by reason of the inter-state character of such facilities, and HLF will not prevent any Entity with which it maintains connections from establishing,frain-taining, modifying or utilizing a connection with facilities used or proposed to be used for the transmission of electric energy in interstate ec=cerce by reasons of the inter-state character cf such facilities, provided that, anything in these license conditions to the centrary notwithstanding but subject to subparagraphs 6 (b) and 6 (d) below) any Entity seekine to establish, raintain, modify or utilize any connection which could affect the ncnjurisdictional status of HLF under the Federal power Act shall have filed an appli-
s 7-5 9) cation with and used its best ef forts to ob-q) tain an order fror the FER., applicable to ELF under Sections 210, 211 and 212 of such Art, recuiring the estarlishrent, raintenance, s
9 r:dificati:n or utilizatier cf such cennection-Ir the event that an Entity files ar applica-t::: pursuant te this subparagraph, ELF agrees that it will not unreasonably oppose any suer applicatien.
In the event such application is deniied by a valid order of the FERO, any continuing refusal by HLF to establish, main-tain, rodify cr utilize such cor.nectier with su:h Entity shall be subject to review by the NE: in accordance with the Atcric Energ)
Act of 1954, as amended, and the rules and regulations thereunder, to determine whether any such refusal would create or raintain a situatier incensistent with the antitrust laws cr t.ne p:. cles thereunder in acecreance witn the standards set forth in Section 105 of suer Art; provided that all factual deterrinations b3 the FEEC cn any ccst or syster reliability reasen(s) for any such refusal shall not be subject t: redeterrination by the NRC.
The burden of proef will be on the HLF-in such NR: proceedir.
(E ) (b) HLF shall not enter into or raintain any agree-rent or understanding with another Entity cr Applicant to refuse to deal with any other Entity (ie s ' or Applicant (s) with the purpose
'cf raintaining an exemption fror jurisdictier under the Federal Power Act, and in the event that HLF refuses to make an interconnection with er cho ses to disconnect fror any Entity (de s ), such decision and/or action by HLF will be undertaken unilaterally, not jcintly, and without consultation with any otherxEn-tity (ies ), provided, however, that after ELF decides to undertake such action, it may notify any affected Entity of its decision.
(6) (c) 2r the event that an Entity-files an applica-tion pursuant tc subparagraph (a) of this para ra;P sclely by reason cf HLF's desire te maintain its exemption fror jurisdiction under the Federal Power A t, HLF ogrees to pay such Entity's reasonable expenses in conner:10r
4 sb E-g Rg with such application and the ensuing pro-D ceeding,1/ provided, however, that HLF shall Sk3 not be required to pay for any expenses of Sky su:P Entity if that Entity's app 11:atien is dcnied h, FERC for reasons advocated tv HLF at TEE;, and provided further, that MLF shall n:: te re:: ired te ps;. fer any costs er ex-penses of such Entity which that Entity would have incurred had it not filed an application solely b3 reasons of HLP's desire to maintain its exe:: tion from jurisdiction under the Federal P0wer Act.
(E } (d }!;: thing in these License Cenditions shall ir-pair the right of the Departnent of Justice er any other Entity, public or private, to file antitrust action in any Federal Court in ar the event any Applicant refuses te estah2ish, na:ntain, modify er utilize any connection with any Entity (ies), provided that nothing herein shall preclude an3 Applicant frcr raising any legal or equitable defense that may be available to it.
(7)
ELF agrees te use its best effCits tO anend any agreements with all Entities to ensure i
that such agreerents are not inconsistent with paragraphs (6) (a) and (6) (b) here:f.
(E)
If Applicants participate in any future nu-clear units other than these whi:P are new under construction or for which an applicatien for a construction permit has been filed, they will afford similar participation to Entities in the South Texas Area on a reasonable basis.
(9)
A.:.:licants ac.ree that the reliabilit.y cf power delivered into TIS-ERCOT over DC asyn-chronous connections shall not be treated dif-ferently by the Applicants, for purposes of 1/
This chligatier shall not apply to the expenses cf Central and South Uest Ccrp: ration er Texas L'tilities Conpany er any of their respective subsidiaries, including but not limited to the expenses of CSW and any cf its subsidiaries incurred in TEEC Locket N. EL79-E.
y,
--y-
,v..
7
9-
\\
9 spinning and installed reserve calculations and requirements, than would be the case if 9
such power originated within TIS-ERCOT.
Outages p
or DC asynchronous connections shall be
\\3)N )
t re a t e d b;. the Applicants in the same way as losses of generation within TIS-ER c.
Appli-cants agree te supp:rt the adeptien cf prin-ciples involving DC asynchroncus connections contained in this paragraph within any TIS cr ERCOT organization.
(10) ELF and CPL shall use their best efferts te rodify the Offer of Settlement filed in TIR Docket 5:. EL79-E te include ea:h of the undertakings set forth in the letter agree-ment among HLP, Central and South West Corpor-atien, Texas Utilities Company and the TER staff, dated Septe-ber ((, 1950.
HLF and CFL shall thereafter use their best efforts te secure approval thereof by the TERO, and shall abide b3 any valid order (s) of the TER: issued pursuant to the Offer of Settle-ment.
Nothing herein shall preclude the Department of Justice from instituting er intervening in any proceeding at TERO, includ-ing Docket No. EL79-6, and from presenting such arguments and evidence that it deems appropriate.
(11) The foregoing conditions shall be implemented (1) in a ranner consistent with applicable Federal, state and local statutes and regu-l 1ations, and (2) subject to any regulatory agency having jurisdiction.
Nothing herein
(
shall preclude the Applicants from seeking an l
exenptien or other relief to which they may be entitled under applicable law or shall be construed as a waiver of their right to. con-l test the applicability of the license condi-tiens with respect to any factual situation.
I t
I l
l
(FINAL)
LICENSE CONDITIONS FOR COMANCHE PEAK STEAM ELECTRIC STATION NUCLEAR UNITS NOS. I AND 2 D.
(1)
The following definitions cooly to peregrcph 3.D.(2):
(c)
"Applicents" mec-is severe!!y end jointly Texcs Utilities Gener ting Compcny, Dalles Power & Light Compcny, Texcs Electric Se-vice Company, Tex =s Power & Light Compcny, Texcs Utilities Compcny and each other subsidicry, offilicte or successor compcny now or herecfter engoged in the generation, trcnsmission end/or the distribution of electric power in the Stcte of Texcs.
(b)
"No-in Texcs Arec" mecns the following Texcs counties:
Anderson, And ews, Angeline, Archer, Scstrop, Scylor, Bell, Borden, Boscue, Brown, Surnet, Cherokee, Cicy, Coke, Collin, Comanche, Cooke, Coryell, Crane, Culberson, Delics, Dewson, Deltc. Denton, Ecstlend, Ector, Ellis, Ercth, Fclls, Fcnnin, Fisher.
Freestone, Gcines, Glcsscock, Greyson, Henderson, Hill, Hood, Hopkins, Houston, Howc-d, Hunt, Jack, Johnson, Kcufmen, Kent, Lcme, Lampcscs, Leon, Limestone, Loving, Lynn, M c-tin, Mc' ennen, Midicnd. Milcm, Mitchell, Montague, Nacogdoches.
Nev:: rc. Nolcn, Pclo Pinto, Pcrker, Pecos, Rcins, Recgen, Red River, Reeves, Rockwell, Rusk, Scurry, Schocke! ford, Smith, Some-vell, Stephens, Sterling, Tc-rent, Terry, Tom Green, Trevis, Upton, Von Zcnct, Wcrd, Wichite, Wilberger, Willicmson, Winkler, Wise, Wood, cnd Young.
(c)
" Entity" mecns on electric utility which is a person, c privete or puolic corporction, c governmentc! ogency or authority, c municipclity, a cooperative, or on associction owning or opercting or contractually. controlling, or proposing in good f aith to own or operate or contractually control, facilities for generction of electric power cnd energy; provided, however, thct es used in peregrcobs 3.D.(2)(c), 3.D.(2)(b), 3.D.(2)(g), 3.D.(2)(i), 3.D.(2)(j)(c) and (b), 3.D.(2)(k), 3.D.(2)(1) and 3.D.(2)(m), " Entity" mecns en electric utility which is c person, a private or public corporation, l
i c
governmentcl agency or outhority, o municipclity, c
cooperative, or on essociction owning or operating, or proposing in good faith to own or operate, fccilities for gener tion.
trcnsmission and/or distribution of electric power and energy.
i 1
(d)
" Entity in the North Texcs Arec" means en Entity which owns or l
operctes facilities for the generation, trcnsmission and/cr distribution of electric power in any cree within the Nortn Texcs Arec.
(e)
" Bulk Power" mecns the electric power and/or electric energy supolied or moce availcble et transmission or subtransmission voltages.
2-(f)
" Costs" means all copropricte operating and maintencnce expenses enc cll ownersnip costs where appliccole.
(g)
The te ms
" connection" and
" interconnection" cre used interchangecoly.
(2)
The Acolicants defined in Perag coh 3.D.(l)(c) are subject te the following entitrust conditions:
(c)
The Applicents shci! cfford on opoortunity to pcrticipcte in the Comenche Peck Steem Electric Station, Units I cnd 2, for the term of the instcnt license, or any extension or renewal thereof, to any Entity (ies) in the North Texcs Arec mcking a timely recuest theref or, tnrough c recsoncole ownersnip interest in such unit (s) on recsonccie terms and conditions enc on c bcsis thct will fully compenscte Applicants for their costs it is understood thct cny request received prior to December I, !?73, shc!! be deemed to be timely. In connection with such pcrticipction, the Applicents also will interconnect with and offer transmission service cs mcy be recuired for ceiive y of such power to such Entity (ies) ct c
point or points on the Applicents' system on c bcsis thct will fully compenscte the Apolicents for their costs including c recsoncble return on investment. Notwithstending the December I,1973 ccte copearing hereincbove, the Applicents' offer of pcrticipction in Comanche Peck, Units I cnd 2, to Tex-Le Electric Cooperctive of Texcs, Inc. shc!! not obligete the Applicants, by virtue of such offer, to offer on oppertuni'.y to pc-ticipcte in Comanche Peck, Units I cnd 2, to cny other Entity.
(b)
The Applicants, cs long cs they are members of the Tex =s
. interconnected Systems (TIS), shcIl support recsoncble requests by Entities in the North Texcs Area having generating ecoccity for membership in TIS. The Applicants shcIl also propose and actively support, es long cs they are members thereof, the crection of one or more additional classifications of TIS membership bcsed on non-discriminctory criteric to cfford cecess to dctc, studies cad recommendctions to all Entities in the North Tex =s Aree who desire membership. The Applicents shc!! clso support requests by qualified Entities in the North Texcs Aree for membership in any I
other electric utility plcnning or operating orgcnizction of which the Applicants are members (other thcn one involving only the Applicents). The Applicants sho!! shcre informction with other Entities with resoect to, and shall, with other such Entities through cny electric utility planning organizctions (other then one involving only the Applicants) of which the Applicents cre members, conduct and/or porticipcte in joint studies cnd picnning of future generation, transmission and reicted facilities; provided, however, this condition shcIl not obligcte the Applicents to conduct or pcrticipcte in such joint studies or joint picnning unless (1) the studies or planning are requested end conducted in l
l
~,.,
. good fcith and cre based on reasencbly reclistic cnd recsoncoly complete date and projections, (2) the studies or picnning are recsonably justified on the basis of sound engineering principles, (3) cppropricte protection is occorded proprietcry or other conficentic! business cnd financial informction, and (4) the costs for such studies or plcnning cre alloccted on a fcir end equitcDie bcsis.
(c)
The Apolicents wi!! connect with, coordincie rese-ves, cnd seC, purchese or exchcnge emergency enc /or scheduled mainiencnce bulk power with any Entity (ies) in the North Texcs Arec on terms thct will provide for the Applicants' costs, including c recsoncble return on investment, in connection therewith end c!!ow such Entity (ies) full cecess to the benefits of such reserve coorcinction.
1 (d)
Emergency service and/or scheduled maintencnce service to be provided by ecch pcrty shcIl be furnished to the fullest extent ovcilcble from the supplying pcrty cnd desired by the pcrty in need.
If recuested, Applicents shcIl exchange mainiencnce senecules witn any Entity -in the North Texcs Arec.
The Applicents cnd ecch such Entity (ies) shc!! provice to the other emergency se vice and/or scheduled meintencnce service if cnd when cvcilcble to the extent they con do so without unrecsoncoly impciring se vice to their customers including othe electric systems to whom they hcve firm commitments. Any curtcilment or refusc!
to provide such emergency and/or scheduled meintencnce service shell be on a non-discriminctory bcsis.
(e)
The Apolicents and the other party (ies) to c reserve shcring crrcngement shc!! from time to time jointly estchlish the minimum reserves to be installed and/or provided under contrcctual crrcngements es necessc y to meintcin in totc! a reserve margin sufficient to provide adecucte relicaility of power supply to the interconnected systems of the pcrties in cecordance
(
with good industry practice as developed in the crec.
Unless otherwise agreed upon, minimum reserve requirements shell be celeulcted cs a percentage of each pcrty's estimcted net peck load demcnd (taking into occount firm sales and firm purcheses). No
~
pcrty to the crrangement shcIl be required to meintcin grecter rese ves then the percentage which results from the aforescid ecleviction. The reliability of power delivered into TIS-ERCOT over de asynchronous connections shcIl not be treated differently by the Applicents, for purposes of spinning cnc instclied rese-ve calculations cnd recuirements, then would be the ecse if such power origincted within TIS-ERCOT. Outages on de csynchronous connections shc!! be trected by the Applicents the scme es losses of gener tion within TlS-ERCOT. The Applicants agree to suppor' the adoption of principles involving de asynchronous connections contained in this porogrcoh within any T15 or ERCOT organizction.
4-(f)
The pcrties to such a reserve shcring crrcngement shcIl provide such amounts of soinning reserves cs ency be equitcble and odeqvcte to avoid the imposition of unreesencole cemancs on the o'ner pcrty(ies) in meeting the normo! contingencies of coeroting its (their) system (s).
However, in no circumstcnces shcIl suen rese ve recuirement exceed the instclled reserve recuirement.
(g)
Interconnections with cny Entity will not be limited to low volicges when higher voltages cre recuested cnd c e cvcilecie from tne Apolicants' instc!!ed f acilities in the crec wnere c connection is desired, when the proposed crrongement is found to be technicclly and economically fecsible.
Control and telemetering facilities shcIl be provided cs recuired for scfe and prudent operation of the interconnected systems.
(h)
Interconnection and coordinction agreements shcIl not embody any restrictive provisions pertaining to intersys.em coordinction.
Good industry prcctice es developed in the crec from time to time (if not unrecsoncoly restrictive) will satisfy this provision.
(i)
The Applicants shcIl pcrticipcte in and fccilitcte the exchcnge of bulk power by trcnsmission over the Appliccnts' transmissier fccilities between or cmong two or more Entities in the Nerth Texcs Arec with which the Appliccnts cre connected, cnd between any such Entity (ies) cnd cny Entity (ies) outside the Norin Texcs Arec between whose fccilities the Appliccnts' trcnsmission lines and other transmission lines, including cny direct current (csvnchronous) transmission lines, form c continuous electricci octh; provided, thct (i) permission to utilize such other trcnsmission lines hcs been requested by the proponent of the crrangement, (ii) the crrcngements recsoncaly ccn be accommodated from a functional and technical standpoint end (iii) any Entity (ies) requesting such transmission arrangements shc!!
have given Applicants recsonable advance notice of its (their) schedule and requirements. Such transmission shc!! be on terms thct fully compenscte the Appliccnts for their ccsts including o recsoncble return on investment; provided, however, thct such transmission services and the rctes to be chcrged therefor shcIl be subject to any regulatory agency (ies) having jurisdiction thereof.
The Applicants shc!! not refuse to provide such trcnsmission.
service mere!y because the rates to be charged therefor are the subiect of dispute with such Entity. The Applicents shcIl not be recuired to enter into cny crrcngement which woulc unrecsoncbly impcir system relichility or emergency tronsmission ecpecity, it being recognized thct while some transmission mcy be opercted fully looced, other trcnsmission mcy be for emergency use and opercted either unloaded or pcrtially loaded.
(The foregoing coolies to any Entity (ies) to which the Applicants mcv be connected in the future cs well cs those to which they are now connected.)
(j)(c) The Apolicants sho!! include in their planning and construction progams sufficient transmission ccpocity as required for the transactions referred to in porographs (i) and (k), provided any Entity (ies) in the North Texcs Arec gives the Applicants sufficient advance notice es mcv be necesscry to occommodcte its (their) recuirements from c functionc! cnd technicc! stencpoint and thc*
such Entity (ies) fully compensctes the Applic=nts for their costs includin; e recsoncele retu-n on investment. The Appliccnts shc" not be recuired to construct transmission facilities if constmetion of such facilities is infecsible, or if such would unrecsoncbly impeir system relicoility or emergency transmission ecoccity. In connection with the pe-formcnce of their obligctions cbove, the Applicents she!! not be foreciosed from requiring c recsoncole contribution in cid of construction or from mcking crrangements for coorcincted construction of future transmission lines such the-ecch of the pc-ties to the transaction would own on interest in or c segment of the transmission addition in proportion to its shcre of the cost of the addition. Any such contribution made in cid of construction or ownership interest shcll be prope-ly e edMed in determinin; cny wheeling chcrges. If the Applicents engage in joint ownership cf tre s nissien lines witn cny otne-Entity, they shcIl not refuse to engcge in similar transcetions in comp = cole circumstences with othe.- Entities, subject to the provisions limiting the Applicents' obligetions chove.
(jX ) Applicants shcl! provide other Entities with recsonsie access to cny future interstate interconnection fccilities whien Applicants mcv own, on te ms cnd conditions compcrable to the provisions of pcrogcch D.2(i) hereof, onc subpcrogrcob (c) of this pcrogrcph.
(k)
The Applicents she!!, upon recsonsle advance notice, tell ful! cnd l
pc-tic! recuirements bulk power to requesting Entities in the l
North Texcs crec having, on the dcte of this License, non-ogg egeted generating ecoccity of less then 200 MW (including no gener ting casocity) under recsonste terms and conditions, which shc!i provide for recove y of Applicants' costs, including c recsonsie return on investment.
The Applicents shcl! not be recuired to mcke any such sale if they do not hcve ovcilcole I
sufficient bulk power or adequcte trcnsmission to provide the recuested se-vice or if the scle would impeir their cbility to l
rende. odecucie end relisle se-vice to their own customers or l
their cbility to dischcrge prior commitments.
l l
(IXc) in connection with the pe-formance of their obligctions herein cnd subjec* to the provisions of this porog cch, the Applicants will not disconnec' from er refuse to connect their then-existing or propesec facilities with the facilities of any Entity, used or proposed to be used for the transmission of electric energy in interstcte commerce by recson of the interstate chcrocter of such
D (Q
fee!!ities, and the Applicants will not prevent any Entity with whien they meintcin connection from estcolishing, maintcining, modifying, or utilizing a connection with facilities used or preocsed to be used for the transmission of electric energy in
,g) interstcte commerce by reason of the interstcte chcrocter of such fo:Ilities, provided thct, anything in these License Conditions to
%g the contr:ry no*withs1:nding (but subject to perogrcoh 1(b) and 1(d)
Q' below'. cns Entity seeking to estchlish, maintain, modify or utilize Cnv connection which Cov'd Cffect tne nonj#isdictienc! st:tus cf me Appiicants uncer me Fecer ! Power Act sn=!' hcve filed c.
coolic tion with and used its best efforts to obtcIn cn order from tne Federcl Energy Regulato y Commission, applicable to the Apolic=nts under Sections 210, 211 cnd 212 of sveh Act, recuirin; the est=oiishment, meinten=nce, mod'fic= tion or uti ization of suen connection. in the event thc* cn Entity files cn cpplic tion pursa:n; to this subpc opcoh, the Applicants opee thct they will not unre=soncbly oppose any such application. In the event such coolicction is denied by a vclid order of the Federal Energy Reguictorv Commission, cny continuing refusc! by the Applic=nts to est: !!st, m:intcin, modify or utilize such connection with su:-
Entity sneii de suoject to review by :ne NRC in accorccnce witn the Ato nic Energy Act of I SA, as omended, and the rules and regulctions therevncer, to cetermine whether any such refus l would c e te or maint in c situction inconsistent with the entit ust icws or the policies thereunder in occord nce with the stcncercs set forth in Se: tion 105 of such Act; provided thct all foetuci determinctions by the FERC on any cost or system relic ili y reeson(s' fer cav such refus:1 she!! not be subje: te redeterminction by tne NRC. The burden of proof will be on the Applic=nts in such NRC proceeding.
(!)(c) Apolicants she!! not enter into or mcintain any ogreement or uncerstcnding with cny other Entity (ies) to refuse te ce:1 with l
cnother Entity (ies) with the purpose of maintoining an exemption from jurisdiction under the Federal Power Act, and in the event th=t Apoliconts refuse to mcke on interconnection with or choose to disconnect from cny Entity (ies), such decision ond/or cetion by the Apolicents will be undericken unilcterclly, not jointly, cnd without consultation with any other Entity (ies), proviced, however, thct efter Applicants decide to undertake such cetion, they mcy notify c y cffected Entity.
(iX ) In the event th:* c-Entity files an coolic: tie, pursvent te suboctorco5 (c) of this paropcoh solely by recson of Applicents' desire to mcintcin their exemption from jurisdiction unter tne Feoer:! Power A ct, App lic=nts opee to pey such Entity's recsoncale expenses in connection with such coolication and the ensuin; proceeding 1/, provided, however, that Applicants sh:!! not be recuired to pcy for cny expenses of such Entity if thct Entity's l
JJ This obligation she!! not cpoly to the expenses of the Central & South West Corporction or Houston Industries or any of their respective subsidicries, including, but not limited to, the expenses of Centrol & Soutn West Coasrction and env of ita avbsidiseim hwn7ed b FERC Docket No. EL79-2.
. D * @dJ'
,0
- ]D %)
l om JuA o
o cppliection is denied by FERC for re= sons odvo cted by Applicants et FERC, and provided further, thct Applicants shcIl not be re:; sired te pcy for any expenses of such Entity whien thet Entity would hcve incurred had it not filed on captie tio. sole!v by recs:
cf App!iconts' desire to meintcin their exem; tic. fro-juris:::tio uncer tne Fecerc! Power Act.
(J : * : N ; in tnese ' icense Conditions s5:!: impeir tne rig : cf tne Des:-tment of Justice or any other Entity, public or privcte, tc file on entitrust cetion in any Federa! Court in tne event any A;plicent refuses to estcblish, mcintcin, modify or utilize ony connection with any Entity (ies), provided, that nothin; herein sh::'
pre:loce env Applicent from rcising ony leg ! or ecslteble cefense th:* m.v be ovcilcole to it.
(m) Appliconts agree to use their best efforts to omend ony c;teements with c!! Entities to ensure thet ss:h c;teements cre not inconsistent with peregraph 3.D.(2)(1)(c) cnd (b) cbeve.
(n)
Ine Applicents will, in occordance with applicable icw, c!!cw owners 5;; perficio: tie-in future nucle:r ge eret;n; fc::l; ties which they mcy construct, own, and opercte in the Stcte of Tex:s on conditions similcr to these License Conditions, (e)
Apolicents she!! vse their best efforts to modify the Offer of Settlement filed in FERC Docket No. EL79-8 to include each of ine undertekings set forth in the letter ogreement omon; Applicents, Centrol & Sosth West Corporation, Houston Lighting
& Po*er Company c,d the FERC Stcff dated September JJ_,1950; App licents shell thereafter use their best ef forts to secure coprove' thereof bv the FERC, and sheti eb'de by cny v: :d or:eris) of tne FERC isssed pu suont to the Offer of Settleme.t.
Nothing herein shcIl preclude the Depcrtment of Justice from instituting or intervening in any proceeding et FERC, including FERC Docket Nc. EL79-B, and from presenting such crgsments and evicence thct it deems oppropriate.
(p)
Tne foregoing conditions sho!! be implemented (i) in a menner consistent with cpplicable Federci, state and loccl sfctutes cnd regsictions and (ii) subject to any regulefory agency having jurisdiction. Nothing herein shc!! preclude the Applicants fro.
seek:n: c e> em:t:0- or other relief to which iney mev be e-titee'd uncer cpp'icepfe Icw or 55 !! be construed cs w Iver of their rigv te contest the copliccbility of the license conditions wit. respect to cny ic tve! sitv tio..
Septer.ber 11, 195:
John A.
Cameron, Jr., EF:.
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 825 North Capitol Street, N.E.
Fo:
E712 Wash;ngten, D.C.
20426 Dear Mr. Cameron.
In order to avoid any possible misunderstand:ngs, we wish tc c nf;rr our understand;ng of the FER: Staff's settle-rent der. ands in Docket N. EL79-E.
The FER: Staff will, on the date set for filing contents, affarcatively support the Offer of Settlement tendered by Central and South West Corporation (CSW), et al., in Docket NO. EL79-E, dated July 2E, 1950, (herein " Offer of Settlement")
and withdraw the proposed Transmission Service Settlement Agreement sent out under your cover letter of July 3, 1950, if the following nodifications are made to the Offer of Settlement by CSW, Texas Utilities. Company (TU), and Houston Lighting & Power Company (HL&I).
However, it is understood that no provision of the offer of Settlement, as mod: fled, shall be construed to affect the rights or obligat2ons of the FERC Staff or any party hereto in any future proceedings r
at the FERC, to investigate or contest any rate f21ing made pursuant to the following paragraphs.
The FERC Staff makes it clear that this letter is without prejudice to any FER:
Staff request that additional relief be ordered in Docket Nr. EL79-6 against electric utilities other than CSW, TU and HL&F.
"Syster." as used herein means, respectively, (a) HL&F, (b) all TU operating corpanies, (c) CSW operating companies in the Electric Eelaat:11ty Council of Texas (EECCT), (d) CSW operating corpanies in the Southwest Power Fool (SWFF).
(1)
Rates and service shall be deterrined from time to time in accordance with the procedures of Sections 205 and 206 of the Federal Power Act, whether or not otherwise applic-alle, by virtue of agreerent of the parties pursuant to Section
\\
I D Lu 211(d)(3) cf the Federal Power Act, as amended.
Each System agrees to file rates with the FERC, deemed to be rate increase filings pursuant to Section 205(e) of the Federal Power Act, for wheeling power to, from, and over the proposed direct current (DC) Interconnection facilities which will:
(a)
Ic11 in each Syster's alternating current (AC) and DC tra: 3rission costs, if any, with the result the any utility usin: an'. Svster's AC Cr EC lines, or b th, f'cr wheeling p'0wer
~
in interstate commerce will pay a rate designed to recover all costs and a reasonable return on both the AC and DC investment and related operating costs; (t) be the sare for that Syster regardless cf whether the interstate movement comes over the North or the South interconnection; (c) be the same for that Syster regardless of the distance :nvolved of the actual transmiss;cr over that System's lines; (d) or may, distinguash between types of service (e.g. e:onomy, interruptible, firm) and length of service (e.g. short term to multiyear):
(e) be filed at the FERC at least one year before the DC linee 9: into operation, under the terms and conditions in paragraph 13 of the prep: sed order contained in the Offer of Settlement, which means that the initial rate will 90 into effect subject to refund, if the Cor.rission orders a hearing on the rates:
(f) not include rates for wheeling of power solely within ERCOT-TIS which does not involve the proposed DC interconnection.
- However, the CSW ERCOC operating companies, being subject tc FERC jurisdiction, will file, within three months of a final FERC order in Docket No. EL79-8 no longer subject to judicial review, a proposed wheeling tariff, to be collected subject to refund, applicable to wheel:n: with;r. ERCCT-TIS for utilities in ERCCC with less than 1500 Mw load, consistent with th:s paragraph (1) and with paragraph l
(2 ) belew; I
I
!\\
C Q l 6
~
b D
g
/Q g//xxT4 y+/
%g%x
% =/f T.ST TARG,T (MT-3) 1.0 lfHHILu y ly WE I.l l5 lil!la
)
l.8
'~
I.25 IA 1.6 6"
}
lll 4
4 g
@e%
$s#.>
A 9
4 im ee evitu 1,0s TEST TARGET (MT-3) 1.0
'; m egg E!E E Il
['n OllM l
1.8 1.25 'l.4 1.6 4
6" 4!!ff'ff#
- S$(;f*
)
O dh sp 4
om o
g
>g 1
dc c
.J
.3 associated with that facility available on the other interconnection facility; (d)
HL&F and CSW will solicit requests for reser-vation capacity from qualified utilities one year before the respective DC interconnection far:12 ties g: into cor.nercial operation, and at one year intervals thereafter fer reservation capacity which has nct been previously cor.r;tted.
His? and CSW, respectively, mai util::e an) unused portion of the reservation capacity until a tirely request for wheeling is made by a qualified utility; reservation capacity may be used on a firm basis from year te year or less if, after notice, capacity is not con-tra:ted for by qualified utilities; and (e)
The reservation in this paragraph (3) is reduced by the amount of capacity purchased pursuant to paragraph (4 )(a), below.
(4 )( a )
Superseding paragraph 1(f) of the Settlement Agreerent (Attachrent 1 in the offer of Settlement filed in Docket No. EL79-S by CSW et al, dated July 25, 1980) in its entirety, the capacity reserved for qualified utilities pursuant to paragraph (3) of this letter agreement will be available for purchase by qualified utilities at the depreciated original cost thereef, until either (1) the reservation of capacity has been terrinated or (2) the opportunity to participate in ownership of additional DC capacity to be installed has been tendered as set forth below, whichever cores first.
Furchase of reservation capacity by qualified utilities in the South intercon-nection shall be on a pro rata basis fror both CSW and EL&y unless EL&? and CSW otherwise agree; (b)
Whenever planning is undertaken to increase the capacity of the Interconnections, but at intervals of no more than every three years after June ~30, 1983, until June 30, 2004, e:ectric uti3ities in ERCOT and SWFF will be given the opportunity to participate in the planning of increases in the capacity of the Interconnections and of participating in the ownership of any incremental capacity added, S
1
D @
- l0 *l0'T Q
" a M.JM L
provided' again that each party that wishes to partic pate pays its pro rata share of the cap:tal costs of constructine the Interconnee-tion which it wishes to participate in and undertakes to pay its pro rata share of the costs of operating and maintaining that Interconnection and agrees further to be bound by the terms and conditions of the A=ree ent be:veen Owners of the Inter::..ne:-
tions; and (c)
This understanding is without prejudice to the right of either CSW or HL&F to sell DC capa :ty which is not subject to paragraph (3).
(5)
The FER: order will be a final order, not an order contingent upon the assuance of any order by a court or other regn:atory agency.
However, some mechanis to reopen the FEE proceedings in the event that orders in other f:rurs, in:;ud:ng. tut n:t lirited to, SE: Ade:n. Frec. T:le N:. 3-4951, cannot be obtained, is acceptable.
(6)
Recogn:ticn of any environmental guidelines and period:: rep rts on the progress of construction and co=-
p2:ance with e.virenrental requirements, not affecting the substance of the Order, will be included.
(7)
Subject to reasonable contingencies, such as possible delays under paragra-h (6) supra and force naieure.
Y CSW and ML&7 vill conn:t to cause the DC capa::ty to ne
-r*
installed and operational within 5 years of the date of a f2nal FER: order, no longer subject to judicial review.
It as underst od that EL&J's cor.n:trent and CSW's con.-ittent are several, n:t jc nt.
(8)
The CSW SWFF operating companies shall file the single rate f:
wheeling within SWFF, as provided in paragraph i
1(h) for utilities in SW7F vith less than 1500 Mw load, w: thin i
three c:nths of a final FERC order in Docket N:. EL79-E.,
n; i
longer sub]ect to judicial review.
It shall go into effect subject to refund, if the Commission so orders.
The CSW SWFF single rate filing shall be consistent with subparagraphs 1(a),
(c), (d), (g) and (h), and with paragraph (2).
The prepose:,
rate te te f:2ed pursuant tc this paragraph (E) shall n:t a;;1y t: ex;stin: agreerents for wheeling or purchase and j
resale service which either FSO or SWIFCO nay have v tn, other utilities.
t dcq
~
-D
- }D *O
~
d \\
w o JU c If you will confirr. this Staff settlement derand by executing a copy of this letter below, the under.=igned counsel, each being duly authorized to do so by his respe -
tive client, accept your settlement demand.
By our respective sicnatures, we all represent that this letter, tegether with the Offer of Settlerent prev:cusly f: led in this d::ket, constitutes the final se: lerent between the FIF.: Staff, C5W, TU, and HL.U.
w.,s Cout.se. !cr~ -
Houston Light:ng & Fower Corpan)
Mftf l. h 4%
V
_Coure--I fer Texas Util:t:es Cen;any and the Operating Co panies there:f
/
/l VT~
J/'J i
Counsel for /
Central & South West Coperati0n and the Operating Ccrpan:es thereci Conf;rred:
/
0
/
)A.
Cu b"]=
_ j
}\\
p
/ < rTsel fct the 7
....e. r.r
.c.
i A :ord:
1 i
b f
r fA.up w
.u.4 o S&.-
h..: Stafi l
Q w>
s I.. _.
~.
_ ~
_.