ML20054H758

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Advises That Feasibility of Continuing Plant Const Remains Under Util Consideration,W/Ultimate Determination Depending on Disposition of Request for Rate Relief Pending Before Tx Public Utils Commission
ML20054H758
Person / Time
Site: 05000467, Allens Creek  File:Houston Lighting and Power Company icon.png
Issue date: 06/18/1982
From: Copeland J
BAKER & BOTTS, HOUSTON LIGHTING & POWER CO.
To: Cheatum E, Linenberger G, Wolfe S
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
References
NUDOCS 8206240400
Download: ML20054H758 (2)


Text

DOOKIT NUMBER FR03.& UT16IRO:N[yt.db BAKER & BOTTS i

ON E SHELL PLAZA HOUSTON, TEXAS 77oo2 9 12M " 7,7 "7

D? '

LEP N

WASHf HGTON OFriCE 9gLg,7,,,77,

170 0 P E N N S Y LV A NI A AV C., N W.

T E LECO M M U NICATIO N wASHtNGTON. O C 20006 (7 3)229 1523 HOUSTON (202) 457 5 531 WASH 10eGTON,0. C.

TELEPHONE (202) d57 SSOO I

June 18, 1982 f

l Sheldon J. Wolfe, Esq., Chairman Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel U.S.

Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.

20555 Dr.

E.

Leonard Cheatum Route 3, Box 350A Watkinsville, GA 30677 Mr. Gustave A.

Linenberger Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel U.S.

Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.

20555

Dear Members of the Board:

This is with reference to our letters of February 12 and March 15, 1982, in which the Board was advised that HL&P was re-evaluating the feasibility of continuing the Allens Creek project (ACNGS).

The latter communicatica stated that the Board would be kept advised of any change in the status of the ACNGS.

Testimony filed by HL&P on June 16 in a rate proceeding before the Texas Public Utilities Ccmmission (PUC) indicates that although the need for power in the HL&P's service area remains acute throughout the 1980's and in the period after 1990, these requirements may best be met by a generation expansion plan which relies on accelerating the schedule of certain coal-fired capacity in lieu of con-structing Allens Creek.

HL&P has advised the FUC that this plan is largely the result of financial constraints.

The PUC has been further advised that the plan is feasible from a financial standpoint only if HL&P is permitted to recover its investment in the ACNGS through rates ~.

If favorable action on its request for rate relief is not fcrthcoming, HL&P will have, among its options, construction of the project.

!!Nwagg W

PDR

4.."

w l

  1. B AKER & CoTTS t

9 Sheldon J. Wolfe, Esq. June 18, 1982 Dr.

E. Leonard Cheatum Mr. Gustave A. Linenberger The Company has informed the PUC that, pending action on its recently-filed rate case (not expected until late this year) it will take r.; sction which would irrevocably foreclose or jeopardize a decision on its application for a construction permit and that it will continue its efforts to secure a construction permit for the project.

Accordingly, the feasibility of continuing the ACNGS remains under consideration by HL&P, the ultimate determination depending on the disposition, later this year, of its request to the PUC for rate relief.

In these circumstances, continuation of the project remains an option and a timely decision by this Board remains an element in the Company's planning.

Accord-ingly, HL&P asks that the Board continue on its present course toward that decision.

Very truly yours,

.Yl&

. Gregory Copeland Attorney for Houston Lighting & Power Company JGC:50 cc:

All Parties l