ML20027B037
| ML20027B037 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Davis Besse, Perry, 05000000 |
| Issue date: | 09/08/1982 |
| From: | Pandy J CLEVELAND, OH |
| To: | Toalston A Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8209160288 | |
| Download: ML20027B037 (5) | |
Text
.
' *R Eih,t of Glebchtttb t
GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, M AYOR DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC UflLiflES 1201 LAM ESIDE AV ENUE EDWARD H RICHAftD CLEV E L A N D. O H BO 4 4114 September 8, 1982 9, v\\
3' p ekh The United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Attn:
fir. Argil Toalston, Chief Antitrust and Economic Analysis Branch Division of Engineering Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation RE: Operating License -- Antitrust Review of Perry and Davis-Besse Nuclear Plants
Dear fir. Toalston:
This is in response to your letter of August 9,1982, to the Cleveland Division of Light and Power.
The City continues to be very concerned about the activities of CEI and the other CAPC0 Companies relative to public power systems generally and to Cleve-land in particular.
In direct response to the snecific questions which you raised:
1)
The 2nd 138KV transmission line and substation has been completed, by the City.
All of the expense (over $3,671,000) of this facility was borne by the City, including equipment furnished and controlled by CEI.
CEI refused to incur any expense whatsoever, even though they had aareed to absorb a portion of the expenses associated with interconnection to the City of Painesville, Ohio.
Cleveland simply asked for equal treatment, which CEI denied.
The 2nd interconnection is presently being operated in parallel with our original interconnection; they, jointly supply our system. Now that the second interconnec-tion is in place and in operation we are able to and we plan to extend the Division of Light and Power's service to our municipally owned and operated Hookins Airport, southwest of the 2nd interconnection. We do not know whether CEI will attempt to block our efforts to serve this load, which is the City's natural customer but which is now on their system.
2n7 8209160289 820908 PDR ADOCK 05000346 M
~
Argil Toalston September 8, 1982 Page Two 2)
We are not in possession of a copy of the Septembe,- 1,1980, amendment of the Basic CAPC0 Operating Agreement.
If you would forward a copy, we will be pleased to comment.
3)
To the extent that the output of the four abandoned joint CAPC0 generating units could have been a more economical source of power for the City, the viability of the City's operations could have been improved.
As matters stand, however, instead of economies, the City, as a wholesale customer of CEI, is saddled with increased costs of power, resulting from CEI's passing on, in excess of $55 million, its planning costs from which the City derives no benefit at all.
4)
The matter of the City's participation in the nuclear plants has not yet been resolved.
CEI's position that participants must
" pay as they go" has precluded our participation in the nuclear plants due to the City's present financial condition.
5)
The City's power supply contracts for PASNY and Buckeye power expire by their terms in 1985. New allocations of PASNY power begin in 1985 and will be decided pursuant to proceedings now in progress at PASNY.
Participation in nuclear caoacity, or the right to contract for same, may be the only viable economic oower supply available at that time. Therefore, the City's future right to participation should be protected.
6)
The viability of the City's electric system depends mainly on access to more economic bulk power supply alternatives and the City's ability to gain access thereto despite CEI's activities.
CEI's rates for wholesale power to the City approach or exceed their retail rates to large industrial users. As a result the City is confronted with a price squeeze situation which affects the City's competitive position vis-a-vis CEI for markets.
Presently, we have before the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC Docket No. ER-81-612) the issue of the 70% ratchet provision in their wholesale rate. This provision effectively forces us to schedule some CEI power, when more economical alternatives are available to us.
In further response to this last question, I would like to outline other problems which remain unresolved with CEI, as follows:
(a)
Inadvertent flows of Buckeye power scheduled for the City have been taken on the CEI system.
CEI refuses to " cool",
return-in-kind, or in any way credit the City for this
O Argil Toalston September 8, 1982 Page Three energy, for which the City has paid Buckeye. To date, these inadvertent flows total nearly two million KWH at a value of over $50,000.
(b) Buckeye and other economical power supply alternatives have been available to the City in excess of our present loads.
Accordingly, we offered to coordinate the availability of this power with CEI on a power pooling basis.
In May, 1981, we proposed to CEI a " Coordination of Generating Facilities" schedule; CEI refused this.
(c) The City is not permitted by CEI to make spot purchases of economy power on an hourly basis.
CEI requires that all of our scheduling be done at least one month in advance. This blocks the City from money saving opportunities which occur on the interconnected grid.
(d) CEI has not made Limited Term Power available to the City.
Instead, Class I, II, or III emergency power rates are as-sessed on our limited term needs.
(e) The City is investigating other power supply options and ex-tensions of its system; in this regard, it is crucial that the City have the right to:
1.
supply points remote from our existing system; 2.
wheeling to City's customers from City's supply sources, including new generating capacity or self-generation; and 3.
lower voltaae (33/69KV) interconnection points.
(f) Cooperation from CEI in regard to joint use of facilities has l
been non-existent. They have refused to allow us to place street lighting equipment on their poles, although we have been willing to pay a rental fee.
Their position in this regard l
causes unnecessary duplication; as the City presently con-templates a municipal cable television operation, future problems relative to make-ready costs and attacnments may be expected.
(g) The investor owned companies generally have not agreed to supply power to the City.
For examole, in 1979, the City approached Ohio Power - AEP, and was refused. We wish to secure limited term pcwer contracts with the CAPC0 members and others.
I
Argil Toalston September 8, 1982 Page Four In summary, CEI has not abandoned its objective of el:minating the City as a competitor for the electric utility business in Cleveland.
We strongly urge that a complete review of CEI's application for an operating license for Unit No.1 at the Perry Nuclear Plant be made, including a review of the antitrust implications of their actions outlined above, in order to protect the future viability of the City's public power system.
We would be pleased to supply additional information or answer any questions you may have in this regard.
Sincerely, Joseph Pandy, Jr.,
Commissioner Division of Light and Power Enclosures cc: George V. Voinovich, Mayor Edward H. Richard, Director of Public Utilities James E. Young, Director of Law June W. Wiener, Chief Assistant Director of Law George S. Pofok, Deputy Commissioner of Light and Power Jerry Salko, Manager of Electric System Operations Reuben Goldberg, Esq.
I See enclosed statement of policy by the President.
1
[}, ' i e
F
r j
.l j d g } %
%lyll((l WgAlMik%
he
- %#At,?,"f
$ 33%( },
y
. k.f$
j fl Q
5 I
c.
~.
n v
. '7
(.
y.-
n 5._
..y.'-
_t
~*'
k.
,I
'.y
- .C ',.
fjW;C#
yjWS?h,Md$f l$2hjIkb
UNITED STATES
$n ascq jf Io NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMIsstON y
g WASHINGTON.,D. C. 20555 L
%,...../
AUG 9 1982 Mr. B. L. Mikessell Cleveland Division of Light & Power 1201 Lakeside Avenue Cleveland, Ohio 44114
Dear Mr. Mikessell:
OPERATING LICENSE ANTITRUST REVIEW 0F THE PERRY / DAVIS-BESSE NUCLEAR PLA?'TS The NRC staff is presently reviewing the application of the Clevelan_d Electric Illuminating Company, hereinafter, CEI, (as one of the co-applicant CAPC0 pool members) for an operating license for Unit 1 of the Perry Nuclear Plant. The purpose of this review is to establish s
whether any significant changes, which have antitrust implications, have occurred as a consequence of CEI's (or other CAPC0 trembers') activities since the construction pemit antitrust review was completed in 1977.
As a means of assisting iri our analysis of significant changes, we would appreciate your response to the following questions:
1.
Has CEI completed the second 138 kV transmission,line to the Cleveland (City) electric system?
If not, what effect is the absence of this line having on the City's planning or operation?
If so, how is the new transmission line being used by the City?
2.
What effect (or anticipated effect), have the changes'resulting from the September 1,1980 amendment' of the Basic CAPC0 Operating Agreement had on the City's planning and system o;ecration?
3.
What effect (or anticipated effect) has the discontinuation of joint CAPC0 generating units, effective January 1,1980, had on the City's planning and system operation?
4.
Has the City decided not to participate in the Perry or Davis-Besse nuclear plants, if so, why?
5.
If the City has decided against nucle r r:ticipation in Perry and/or Davis-Besse, how has this O',tm affected the City's power supply plans? and,
()
S
f 4
?
.2 3
6.
What is your judgment of the viability of the City's electric system?
3,.
To assure a timely review of the captioned operating license application, f
we would appreciate your response to this inquiry within thirty days.
1 Thank you for your cooperation in this matter.
I.
~
Sincerely, a t Jas r
Argil Toalston, Chief INE Antitrust and Economic Analysis Branch Division of Engineering Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation 1
e O
s w-r
,y.
-e
,r-
,