ML20051R158
| ML20051R158 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Midland |
| Issue date: | 05/10/1982 |
| From: | Gorman R MICHIGAN PUBLIC POWER AGENCY |
| To: | Skjei S Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| References | |
| ISSUANCES-A, NUDOCS 8205170438 | |
| Download: ML20051R158 (4) | |
Text
.
_n i i?)a u J Michigan Public @p PowerAgency N
R)
S OJ
%Cs;D May 10, 1982 CHAIRMAN s
wituAu sTRou C*hg rc,..EE'2 4
8 4,,198S y cy,, gig Q
km vicE ca^2a"^a Stephen S. Skjei, Chief
$f
""*""* ElH. fo",
Antitrust and Economic Analysis Branch
%p M
- S s
'*"d "*","gy,',',".g Division of Engineering I,J Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Assistant sicRETARY Nuclear Regulatory Commission
"^"" "p,E Washington, D.C.
20555 z nua.uisuu RE: Consumers Power Company (Midland Units 1 & 2),
SECRETARY-TREASURER NRC Docket Nos. 50--329A end 50-330A.
& QENERAL MAN AGER
"' **" s "."l"
Dear Mr. Skjei:
- 'o*"ER.N"uYosU n
This letter is written on behalf of the Michigan Public Power
- 2458884 Agency (MPPA) and its member systems, in response to your infomation request of January 28, 1982.
The MPPA is a joint sERmQ municipal power supply agency which was formed subsequent to cn'.'l.$3 the Midland case. The agency owns certain generation and trans-Ccfo',','"
mission resources for the benefit of its members and engages in H.
Spn b
" S'%
Your information request asked the following questions:
t P. " ;"
P.
o "Is the Michigan South Central Power Agency taking advantage n
of the Midland license conditions governing (a) access to suou.
r, %'88, the Midland unit, (b) sale of firm and non-fim bulk power and (c) provision of coordination, planning and transmission 2"'*"d services?"
"How have the services offered under the Midland license conditions affected the Michigan South Central Power Agency's reliability, its planning for future load growth, and the acquisition of firm and non-firm power supply?"
(Although the questions relate to the Michigan South Central Power Agency, we have interpreted them to mean MPPA.)
8205170 W f
P[)
h 0 Suite 202,1922 South Divison Avenue, Grand Rapids, Michigan 49507 616-245-8884
Stzphen S3 Skjsi Nuc1 car Regulatory Commission May 10, 1982 Page 2 The members of the MPPA are the Cities of Bay City, Charlevoix, Croswell, Grand Haven, Harbor Springs, Hart, Holland, Lansing, Lowell, Niles, Petoskey, Portland, St. Louis, Traverse City, Zeeland and the Villages of Chelsea, Paw Paw and Sebewaing.
In light of cost analyses made subsequent to the Midland settle-ment and other factors, the municipal and cooperative electric systems in Michigan did not buy an ownership interest in the Midland units.
However, certain cooperatively owned systems did purchase a 20% ownership share in a I)etroit Edison Company nuclear unit.
In addition, in accordance with the Midland settlements, the MPPA on behalf of ten of its member systems and certain other systems acquired interests in Consumers Power Company's Campbell Unit No. 3, a coal fired unit, and in transmission facilities for use in connection with Campbell Unit No. 3 capacity and -
energy and their own generation.
A number of systems in Michigan purchase firm wholesale power at average system cost from Consumers Power Company in accordance with the Midland license conditions.
These systems are Bay City, Charlevoix, Chelsea, Coldwater, Eaton Rapids, Harbor Springs,-
Hart, Hillsdale, Lowell, ' Marshall, Petoskey, Portland, St. Louis, i
l Union City, Northern Michigan Electric Cooperative, Southeastern Michigan Rural Electric Cooperative, Wolverine Electric Cooperative and the independently owned systems of Alpena Power Company and the Edison Sault Electric Company. These purchasers, and their ratepayers, are dependent upon Consumers Power Company wholesale power purchases to economically serve their loads. The availability of such wholesale power is guaranteed under the license conditions and is taken into account in system pinnning.
Northern Michigan Rural Electric Cooperative and Wolverine Electric Cooperative purchase wholesale power from Detroit Edison.- These purchases began during the construction permit phase of the Midland antitrust proceedings. They would be impossible without transmission availability over Consumers Power's lines.
The MPPA on behalf of a number of its members and others are considering the purchase of interests in I)etroit Edison's generation plant. Some systems are also considering purchasing additional capacity from Consumers Power._ Such joint participation would be impossible without adequate transmission.
Bay City, a wholesale power customer of_ Consumers Power Company, which also owns internal' generation, is seeking to complete a transmission agreement'under which it will invest in sub-transmission facilities of Consumers Power Company. Negotiations are now under.-
way, which Bay City hopes will be successful. Consumers Power
~
St: phen S3 Skjsi Nuclser Regulatory Commission May 10, 1982 Page 3 s
owns sub-transmission lines connecting Bay City's who]esale power delivery points.- Such ownership should make the purchase of wholesale power by Bay City more economical.
Coordination between various municipal and cooperative systems and Consumers Power Company has been expanded as a result of the Midland _ agreements and is on an equalized reserve basis.
These systems believe that such arrangements are mutually beneficial.
The MPPA and other public power systems in Michigan hope to increase power supply coordination and planning.
The above illustrates the important affects the services offered under the Midland license ccnditions have had to improve power supply coordination for smaller systems in Michigan. Indeed, before the Midland settlements ths MPPA and the Michigan South Central Power Agency, which are joint municipal power supply agencies, did not exist. These agencies supplement the individual planning efforts of their members. The opening up of joint investment opportunities to cities and cooperatives, as well as their increased access to transmission and coordination, broaden the options available to smaller systems.
In setting forth the above, we should call your attention that certain matters remain to be resolved. We have been negotiating with Consumers Power toward that end.
First, MPPA and cther systems need to reach agreements with Consumers Power as to future transmission availability. Such transmission is necessary, among other things, to facilitate smaller syster.s' purchasing interests in I)etroit Edison gener" ating units and perhaps those of other systems and to facilitate 4
operational power supply coordination.
Second, the municipal and cooperative systems seek increased coordination, including rights of access by some smaller systems to the I)etroit Edison and Consumers Power pool and increased use of the Consumers Power transmission system. We hope that negoti-ations on these matters will result in significant benefits to all parties.
+
Third, generating entities in Michigan are considering establish-ing an energy broker system. Such a system should be generally beneficial to all parties. It is essential that a broker system or similar coordination be established in a way that does not discriminate against smaller systems.
Stephen S.. Skjai Nucle:r Regulatory Commission May 10, 1982 Page 4 Fourth, the municipals and cooperatives desire the ability to have the same kind of coordination with each other that takes place under the present Michigan Municipal-Cooperative Power Pool (MCP) arrangements for systems which are not directly interconnected.
We have had several discussions with Consumers Poser concerning these matters. While there are no guarantees, based upon those discussions and our present judgement, we believe and hope that the matters raised above and others can be resolved in accordance with the principles of the Midland agreements and in accordance with antitrust principles.
Therefore, at this time we do not request an operating license proceeding. We appreciate your ccncern and trust we have responded fully to your inquiry.
Very truly yours, MICHIGAN PUBLIC POWER AGENCY 4
E
/
/WS' chard I. Gorman General Manager RIG /mf