ML20062J038

Submits Responses to NRC 820513 Request for Addl Info Re OL Antitrust Review,Per Util .Related Correspondence Encl

ML20062J038
Person / Time
Site:	Callaway
Issue date:	08/11/1982
From:	Schnell D UNION ELECTRIC CO.
To:	Toalston A Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
References
ULNRC-573, NUDOCS 8208160245
Download: ML20062J038 (174)

Text

{{#Wiki_filter:4 UNION ELECTRIC COMPANY 1901 GRATIOT STREET ST. Louis. MasSOURI MAsuMG ADDRESSI DONALD F. SCHNELL p, c, gog gag vics passiosur er. Louis, usesowRe estee Mr. Argil Toalston, Acting Chief Antitrust and Economic Analysis Branch Division of Engineering Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 ULNRC 573

Dear Mr. Toalston:

DOCIGT NUMBER-50-483 CALLAWAY PLANT, UNIT NO. 1 ANTITRUST REVIEW

References:

1) Your letter to J. K. Bryan Dated 5/13/82 2) ULNRC-563 dated June 23, 1982 This letter is in response to your request in Reference 1 for additional information concerning the operating license anti-trust review in connection with Callaway

Plant, Unit 1.

Reference 2 set forth our mutual understanding of the information to be provided. We have provided below the statement of our un-derstanding from Reference 2 followed by our response: "l) Any documentation relative to a series of informal requests made from the mid 1970's to the present for various services to the City of Kirkwood. We will review our files and provide any relevant information."

Response

The following correspondence is provided as the result of the search of our files. Some of this information was submitted at the time of our construction permit

review, and may be duplicative:

la - July 30, 1974 letter from Mayor Philip Hallof, Jr. to Mr. Charles J. Dougherty lb - August 22, 1974 letter from Mr. Charles J. Dougherty to The Honorable Philip Hallof, Jr. j[90 8208160245 820811 PDR ADOCK 05000483 M PDR g

_ Ic - August 30, 1974 letter from Mayor Philip Hallof, Jr. to Mr. Charles J. Dougherty. l Id - January 4, 1977 letter from B. F. Barnes to Mr. E. Noel Pfieffer. le - January 7, 1977 memo from H. Wuentenbracher to Messrs. H. C. Allen, L. A. Esswein, and G. J. Haven. If - January 13, 1977 memo from C. W. Mueller to Mr. E. N. Pfieffer. 19 - January 14, 1977 memo from John F. Watson to Mr. J. H. Ochsner. Ih - January 17, 1977 memo from J. P. Woodward to E. N. Pfieffer. li - January 17, 1977 letter from E. Noel Pfieffer to Mr. Robert D. Ro thermal. Ik - January 19, 1977 memo from E. Noel Pfief fer to Mr. Bruce Barnes. 11 - January 19, 1977 memo from E. Noel Pfieffer to H. C. Allen. Im - January 21, 1977 memo from C. W. Mueller to Mr. E. N. Pfeiffer. In - February 1, 1977 letter from E. Noel Pfeiffer to Mr. Bruce Barnes. i lo - February 3, 1977 letter from E. Noel Pfeiffer to Mr. Randal B. Thomas. "2) The Union Electric response to a formal request by the Missouri Association of Municipal Utilities for wheeling rates and an interchange agreement. As of the date of this letter, we have not received this request."

Response

This request has not been received. "3) Union Electric's response to a request by the City of i Kirkwood reportedly adopted as a resolution by the City on May 13. As of the date of this letter, no such request has been received."

Response

This request has not been received. i

, "4 ) Any correspondence relative to meetings in August or September, 1978 between the City of Jackson a r.d Missouri Utilities on the use of Missouri Utilities 'ines for transmission of excess power from the City of Kennett. In order to expedite the NRC review, we will request the subject correspondence from Missouri Utilities Company." Responses: Missouri Utilities has provided the following response: " Missouri Utilities Company has furnished power to the City of Jackson under contract since approximately May 1956. During the period

May, 1956 to and including March, 1970, the Company delivered power to the City of Jackson on a firm /nonfirm

basis, Jackson having contractual ability to schedule its own generation.

By mutual agreement, on March 2,

1970, a

different contract was entered into under the terms of which Missouri 1 Utilities Company provided firm /nonfirm power to the city of Jackson at the cities sole discretion. The Company obligated it-self to provide Jackson any power and energy requirements it had up to its full capacity." " Service began to the City of Kennett in 1974, pursuant to the mutual application of Missouri Utilities Company and the City of Kennett for an interconnection, which application was approved by the Federal Energy Regulation Commission. The Contract between Kennett and Missouri Utilities Company generally provides that Missouri Utilities Company will provide the City of Kennett all requirements to the extent that the City chooses to take same." "On August 23, 1978, the City of Jackson was apparently unable to operate one of its 6800 KVA units, and either on that day or subsequently, also one of its 1000 KVA units. As a result, the City Manager called Clyde Wilson, Vice President of Missouri Utilities Company, and requested that Missouri Utilities Company instantly supply Jackson's deficiency, not with its own

power, but by transmitting power from the City of Kennett.

The Jackson deficiency on August 25 was about 5500 kW. On the date of the request, Missouri Utilities Company responded that it was unable to comply with the request because it did not have in place either (a) a contract; nor (b) a rate; nor (c) physical facilities; nor (d) technical and load control capability of providing this wheeling service, nor had arrangements been made for the same between the City of

Kennett, Southwest Power Administration, Union Electric Company and Missouri Utilities Company.

Power from Kennett to Jackson would require Kennett generation to flow through SWPA to an SWPA-UE interchange at Sikeston, Missouri; thence over Missouri Utilities' lines to Missouri Utilities' Jackson interchange at Jackson, Missouri. Simply stated, the Company had no arrangement made for this com-plex power

flow, and the Company simply did not have the facilities in place to facilitate such a transaction."

"As a result of that series of transactions, oral conver-sations took place between counsel for the City of Jackson and Missouri Utilities Company. The Company's position was explained by our letter of September 11, 1978, in which the company reem-phasized the contradictory nature of the positions being taken by the City of Jackson. Although Jackson was testifying under oath that it was a purely interruptible customer, in fact it is par-tially firm, partially non-firm, with the decision resting in the hands of the City at any given t.. ament." "As a result of the differences in opinion, a demand charge resulting from the City's generation problems was paid un-der protest, as indicated by the letter of September 18, 1978." "On September 29, Carl Talley responded by requesting a clause in his contract that the city of Jackson 'may purchase peaking power from other sources.' Copy of that letter of September 29, 1978, is attached. A second letter of November 22,

1978, was written by Mr.

Talley and we responded by Mr. Lengefeld's letter of December 1, 1978." " Th e re was a breakfast meeting on October 11, 1978, discussing potential contents of new contractual relationships between the Cities of Malden and Jackson and Missouri Utilities Company." "We should note that Missouri Utilities Company, in FERC l Docket No. ER77-354, indicated its intention not to renew the old i 1970 contract in the same form, and that we were in the process at that time of negotiating the contents of new contracts with the Cities of Jackson and Malden, which contracts were ultimately [ filed in FERC Dockets No. ER81-166 and ER81-175, which have been i settled." " Request No. 4 is, we reiterate, quite limited in view of the fact that, at the time, we had two sets of FERC proceedings pending." l l The following correspondence is provided as part of this response: l 4a - September 11, 1978 letter from John L. Oliver, Jr. to Mr. Kenneth W. Waldron. l l 4b - September 18, 1978 letter from Carl L. Talley to Mr. Clyde Wilson. l 4c - September 29, 1978 letter from Carl L. Ta lley to Mr. Clyde Wilson. I I

i 4 4d - November 22, 1978 letter from Carl L. Talley to Mr. Clyde Wilson. 4e - December 1, 1978 letter from Francis R. Lengefeld to Mr. Carl Talley. "5) Any documentation relative to a series of negotiations with the cities of Kennett, Jackson and Malden relative to a letter from Charles

Wheatley, attorney for the cities, dated July 2, 1979.

Again in order to expedite the NRC review, we will request the subject correspondence from Missouri Utilities."

Response

r i Missouri Utilities has provided the following response: " Request No. 5 relates to the series of negotiations in-volving a letter of July 2, 1979, from Charles Wheatley." "On July 2, 1979, Charles Wheatley wrote us with respect to the expiration of the Company's contracts with Jackson and Malden on 10-1-79 and 3-2-80 respectively, and requesting negotiations." "The request related to four (4) items. One, a request for interruptible service; Two, a request for wheeling rate;

Three, a

request for modification of the existing practices (in two parts) between the Companies. The request for wheeling was a follow-up request the Company had received from William A. Green on February 26, 1979, inquiring as to whether or not we could wheel five megawatts of SWPA power from the Truman Dam to Malden. We had responded to that request by noting that as a practical

matter, we could not develop a wheeling rate by the summer of 1979."

f " Formal response was made to Mr. Wheatley by letter of August 10, 1979, a copy of which is attached. Thereafter, the Board of Public Works met with Company personnel, and a memoranda j o f September 7, 1979, was prepared. We. heard from Mr. Wheatley l again on August 13, 1979, and responded on September 14, 1979. l This particular time, the only question involved was the five l megawatts SWPA power. The Company had determined that the best bet for Malden was the hook-up to the SWPA 69 kV

line, which appeared to be a

considerably less expensive alternative than system re-enforcement and other equipment necessary for any al-ternative Missouri Utilities Company could develop." i "In response to these meetings and correspondence, a meeting was held on October 3, 1979, a memoranda of which meeting is attached." r "At this point in time, contract negotiations shifted to i Washington, D.C. We have not included all of our filings, but in

_6_ the existing FERC Dockets No. ER81-175 and No. ER81-166, various negotiations were held with respect to the types of service

involved, and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission at this point in time became involved.

At the request of Cyril S. Wofsy, Staff Council for the Federal Energy. Regulatory Commission, various meetings were held during 1980 in an e f fort to resolve the

multiple, complicated, technical cost problems involved in wheeling.

These meetings culiminated with a. conference on January 14, 1981, in Cape Girardeau. A memoranda of that meeting is attached." "As the result of that meeting, Missouri Utlities Company again did extensive work and made additional investigations. As the result, we transmitted to Mr. Wheately contract proposals by letter dated February 9, 1981, a copy of which is attached. We followed that

with, as we were able to develop it, response to their other requests.

Our letter of March 20th is attached. Ultimately, these matters led to culmination of Dockets No. ER81-166 and No. ER81-175, with voluntary execution by the Cities of Malden and Jackson of new service contracts in a form negotiated l by the parties." The following correspondence, was found in a search of our files and Missouri Utilities search of their files and is provided as part of this response. Sa - February 26, 1979 letter from William A. Green to Mr. i Clyde Wilson. Sb - March 21, 1979 letter from. Virgil Chirnside to Mr. Bill Green. 7 Sc - July 2, 1979 letter from Charles F. Wheatley, Jr. to Mr. Francis R. Le nge feld. 5d - July 2, 1979 letter from Charles F. Wheatley, Jr. to Charles J. Dougherty. 5e - August 10, 1979 letter from John L. Oliver, Jr. to Mr. Charles F. Wheatley, Jr. 5f - August 13, 1979 letter from Charles F. Wheatley, Jr. to Mr. Francis R. Lengefeld. Sg - September 7, 1979 file memorandum from Louie R. Ervin. Sh - September 14, 1979 letter from Oliver, Oliver and

Jones, P.C.

to Charles F. Wheatley, Jr. t 51 - October 3, 1979 Meeting Minutes. i Sj - November 5, 1979 letter from Walter M. Bowers to Mr. Francis Lengefeld. 5k - December 10, 1979 letter from William A. Green to Mr. Stewart W. Smith, Jr. 51 - December 10, 1979 letter from William E. Jaudes to Mr. Charles F. Wheatley, Jr. 5m - December 17, 1979 memo from L. A. Esswein to Messrs. J. F. Watson and T. Kennedy. Sn - Note from Denis E. Fessler to L. A. Esswein received December 2 6, 1979. So - January 23, 1980 letter from William A. Green to Mr. Stewart W. Smith, Jr. 5p - February 11, 1940 Federal Register Notice. Sq - February 14, 1980 letter from William A. Green to Mr. Francis Lengefeld. Sr - February 28, 1980 letter from L. A. Esswein to Mr. William A. Green. 5s - March 5, 1980 letter from John L. Oliver, Jr. to William A. Green. St - March 12, 1980 letter from Herb Preyer, chairman to Mr. Francis R. Lengefeld, President. Su - April 7, 1980 letter from Francis R. Lengefeld to Mr. Herb Preyer, Chairman. Sv - April 3 0, 1980 letter from William A. Green to Mr. L. A. Esswein. Sw - April 3 0, 1980 letter from Herb Preyer to Mr. Francis R. Lengefeld. 5x - April 30, 1980 letter from William A. Green to Mr. Walter M. Bowers. Sy - May 9, 1980 letter from John L. Oliver, Jr. to Mr. Herb Preyer, Chairman. Sz - May 9, 1980 letters from Walter M. Bowers to Mr. William A. Green. Saa - June 6, 1980 letter from William R. Herr to Mr. William A. Green. Sbb - June 11, 1980 leter from William A. Green to Mr. William R. Herr. Sec - July 16, 1980 letter from Woodrow D. Wollesen to Mr. William R. Herr and Mr. L. A. Esswein. 5dd - July 16, 1980 letter from Woodrow D. Wollesen to Mr. Walter M. Bowers. See - July 29, 1980 letter from Walter M. Bowers to Mr. Woodrow D. Wollesen. 5ff - July 29, 1980 letter from Cyril S. Wofsy to Missouri Utilities Company. Sgg - August 15, 1980 memo to file from W. R. Herr. Shh - August 29, 1980 f rom Williaan R. Herr to Mr. Cyril Wofsy. Sii - September 16, 1980 letter from William R. Herr to Mr. Walter M. Bowers. Sjj - November 3, 1980 letter from Cyril S. Wofsy to par-ties involved. 5kk - November 7, 1980 letter from William R. Herr to Mr. Cyril S. Wofsy. 511 - November 10, 1980 letter from Louie R.

Ervin, Manager to Mr. Donald J.

Zero. { Smm - November 21, 1980 letter from William R. Herr to Mr. Cyril S. Wofsy. Snn - December 15, 1980 memo to file from L. A. Esswein. l Soo - December 29, 1980 memo to file from W. R. Herr. 5pp - Memo to Missouri Utilities Wheeling File l Conference with the Cities, January 14, 1981. l Sqq - February 9, 1981 letter from John L. Oliver, Jr. to Mr. Charles F. Wheatley, Jr. Srr - March 20, 1981 letter from John L. Oliver, Jr. to l Mr. Woodrow D. Wollessen. "6) Any meeting minutes from meetings held January 13, and 14, in St. Louis and Cape Girardeau, respectively regarding direct power sales to the cities of Kennett, Jackson, and Malden. We will review our files and also request any relevant information from Missouri Utilities." i l l

Response

Refer to Item 5, attachment

5pp, Memo to Missouri Utilities Wheeling File - Conference with the Cities, January 14, 1981.

The following correspondence is also provided: 6a - January 15, 1981 letter from William R. Herr to Mr. C. F. Wheatley, Jr. 6b - Illinois Service

area, Service Classification No.

7 (I ) *, Interruptible Power Rate. 1 6c - February 20, 1981 Federal Register Notices. "7) Copies of letters from J. Oliver, Attorney for Missouri Utilities Company, to the cities of Jackson, Kennett, and Malden dated February 9,

1981, March 6,

1981, and March 20, 1981 discussing emergency power, interruptible power and transmission services.

Again, we will request the relevant correspondence from Missouri Utilities."

Response

The letters dated February 9, 1981 and March 20, 1981 are included as attachments Sqq and Srr of Item 5. The March 6, 1981 letter is included as attachment 7a. "8) Union Electric's response to a letter from Charles Wheatley to William Herr dated March 3, 1981 regarding a transmission agreement. We will review our files for the response." i

Response

The following correspondence is provided in response to this request: 8a - March 3, 1981 letter from Charles F. Wheatley to Mr. William R. Herr. 8b - April 10, 1981 letter from Charles A. Bremer to Charles F. Wheatley, Jr. Esq. 8c - February 16, 1982 letter from Charles A. Bremer to Mr. Charlos F. Wheatley, Jr. "9) Any documentation relative to a January 15, 1981 letter from } William Herr to Charles Wheatley stating that Union Electric would require payment for a wheeling service study prior to making the study. We will review our files for related d ocumenta tion. " i i t '* I - -. - - - - -,. -, -,. - - - -.., -. ~, _

Response

Refer to Item 5, attachment 51 and Item 6, attachment 6a. "10) Any documentation regarding requirements for telemetering for transmission services. We will review our files for any related documentation."

Response

Refer to Attachment II of the November 7, 1980 letter from William R. Herr to Mr. Cyril S. Wofsy which is supplied as Item 5, attachment 5kk of this letter. Also refer the March 6, 1981 letter which is supplied as Item 7, attachment 7a. If you have additional questions, please' contact us by telephone and we will make every effort to provide a prompt response. Please be assured that we will do everything we can to facilitate your expenditious review of this aspect of the licens-ing process. Very truly yours, W-d <,/ Don d F. Schnell Attachments (5 copies) DS/1w l l i l l l l l

cc: Glenn L. Koester Vice President Operations Kansas Gas & Electric P.O. Box 208 Wichita, Kansas 67201 John E. Arthur Chief Engineer Rochester Gas & Electric Company 89 East Avenue Rochester, New Y rk 14649 o A. V. Dienhart Vice President Plant Engineering and Construction Northern States Power 414 Nicollet Mall. Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401 Donald T. Mc Phee Vice President Kansas City Power and Light Company 1330 Balt.., ore Avenue Kansas City Missouri 64141 Gerald Charnoff, Esq. Shaw, Pittman, Potts & Trowbridge 1800 M. Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20036 i. Nicholas A. Petrick l Executive Director SNUPPS l 5 Choke Cherry Road l Rockville, Maryland 20850 John II. Neisler Ceilaway Resident Of fice l U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission l RR#1 Steedman, Missouri 65077 G. Edison f l

STATE OF MISSOURI ) ) SS CITY OF ST. LOUIS ) Robert J. Schukai, of lawful age, being first duly sworn upon caen says that he is General Manager-Engineering (Nuclear) for Union Electric Company; that he has read the foregoing document and knows the content thereof; that he has executed the same for and on behalf of said company with full power and authority to do so; and that the facts therein stated are true and correct to the best of his knowledge, information and belief. i i By 'R J. Schukai G ra Manager-Engineering Nuc ear SUBSCRIBED and sworn to before me this lith day of August, 1982 e ri BARBARA J. PfAFF NOTARY PUBLIC. STATE OF MISSOURI NY COMMISSION EXPIRES APRIL 22,1985 ST. LOUIS COUNTY. d

( /G WW 3 3% City of Kirkwood 139 South Kirkwood Road Kirkwcad. Mo. 63122 ek 822-8200 'k July 30, 1974 Mr. Charles J. Dougherty President Union Electric Co.

1. 1 Memorial Drive St. Louis, Mo. 63102

Dear Mr. Dougherty:

The City of Kirkwocd is interested in obtaining a proposal from h Union Electric Cocpany for unit power purchases from your proposed Calla-way County nuclear power plant. In connection therewith, we also will need your cou:11ttment and anticipated service fees for the use of your trans.nicsion system to enable us to deliver the bulk power to our dis-tribution system. If other options are available in respect to our obtaining power fre= your proposed nuclear plant, we would be inter-ested in evaluating them. We would also be interested in determining your fees as set forth for use of the Union Electric transmission sy-stem in respect to our purchasing power from other utilities wherein such power would be noved across your system for delivery to us. For the purpose of finalizing our long range planc, I would like to present your responses to our City Council for their ccnsideration at the first meeting in September. However, it is recogni::ed that you might not be able to have a response to us at that time. If so, would you please let me know if you will be delayed. O Yours truly, CITY OF KIRKWOOD

• /E, sky /

Mayor Philip dallof, J. PZUr/ddr .) .a : ? MAYOR PHillP HALLOF COUNCILMEN - JOSEPH GODi. HERS JONES - FRANCIS SCHEt0 EGGER - r'd 90LD WHITAELO P

[h V UNION ELECTRIC COMPANY 2 /. ON3 McMK AL Dreiv3 - cT. Lout-) August 22, 1974 =..,. neu. em an.m. *= o--. .ex., .r. w ui The Honorable Philip Hallof, Jr. Mayor, City of Kirkwood 139 South Kirkwood Road .Kirkwood, Missouri 63122

Dear Mayor Hallof:

In response to your letter of July 30, 1974, I inform you that we are agreeable to Kirkwood's purchase of unit power from our Callaway Plant. Our charge for such purchase would necessarily cover all operating, maintenance, and general and administrative costs, ( on our investment. In short, the charge'to the. City would be on a together with all facility investment costs and a reascnable return fully distributed pro rata cost basis. At the present time the 2300 megawett plant is projected to cost $1.644 billion, excluding transmission. Assuming this to be the actual ccst, the City would pay carrying charges based on a cost per kilowatt of purchased power of $715. The annual costs would depend on the annual carrying charge developed. Obviously, until we can predict with certainty what our actual experience will be in financing ' the plant, we cannot develop an annual carrying charge factor.

However, assuming that a carrying charge of,18% to 20% would exist at that time, the City's annual cost per kilowatt would be approximately $129 to $143.

On a monthly basis this would be about $10.70 to $11.90 per kilowatt-month. We cannot, of course, estimate tne total monthly or annual charge because the number of kilowatts the City is interested in ({}g purchasing was not specified. An estimated production cost (fuel, operations and maintenance, and other incidental costs) for energy in 1981 dollars of 6.6 mills per kilowatthour was used in our economic studies. As you know, Kirkwood pr'esently purchases wholesale firm power from Union Electric en cur filed FPC V-2 tarif f. Such purcnases inciude backup or reserve, and Union Electric provides the operating (spinning) The purchase of unit power would nol incluce oackuo or cperating reserve. reserve which woulu nave to be sostalled or purchased separately by the City. This means that when the plant is down for refueling or because of forced or scheduled maintenance, the City would continue to pay the , monthly demand cnarge for the unit power purchased irrespective of whether energy was in fact delivered. This point should ba kept clearly in mind when evaluating a possible unit purchase. 9 b S O e w.... - , - - ~ ~ - ~ s - M

The Honfr:blo Philip H llef, Jr. Page 2 August 22, 1974 i ~~ The cost for transmission to bring power from the Callaway Plant to the City's system and associated line losses is not included In the above estimates. The exact routing of the transmission lines for the plant is not yet set so we are unable to provide estimates at this time. However, in determining such estimates we will take into account the actual cost of the new transmission associated with the plant and the embedded cost of existing system transmission which makes possible the installation of a large plant of this nature. Additionally, as you are no doubt aware, our present wholesale , contract with the City provides a cost component to cover transformation to subtransmission vol tages. Similarly, some component will have to be included in our charge for delivery of unit power to compensate for transmission facili ties. ( As I am sure you realize, actual costing and pricing must necessarily await the fact; they cannot be based on conjecture.

Thus, at this time only the principles can be expressed with accuracy.

We do hope, however, that this reply will provide the desired material for your discussion with the City Council. De assured that our people are available to work with you and the City Council on this matter. In the interests of complete honesty and disclosure, we want you to understand that, unfortunately, costs today assure that new construction is more expensive than our existing capacity. For that reason, a unit purchase of new plant capacity will necessarily be more costly than a purchase from a general rate, because the latter integrates all costs, both old and new. With respect to your inquiry as to the possible use of our transmission system for your power transactions with others, Union O Electric always has been willing to work with neighboring utility systems so as to minimize the installation of duplicate transmission. However, such arrangements have been developed only after a detailed study of a specific proposal. Therefore, absent more facts, we are unable to respond specifically. Of course, we are available to meet with you to consider any concrete proposal you desire to make, if you desire additional inferration or wish to discuss this matter further after your meeting with the City Council, I suggest that you contact Mr. L. A. Esswein (621-3222, Extension 2517) who regularly handles power contracts for us. Very truly yours. Wrael &;M ov CHARLES L 000GHENT4 bc: Mr. J. E. Birk j Mr. L. A. Essweind e = ...,. ~ - - - - - -

/ \\ W m l City of Kirkwood 139 S:uth Kirkwood F. cad / ( nm. j Kirkwood. Mo. 63122 822-8200 August 30, 1974 s. Mr. Charles J. Dougherty President -=-- Union Electric Company P. O. Box 87 St. Louis, Mo. 63166

Dear Mr. Dougherty:

We appreciate your prompt response to our letter of July 30th in respect to your planned nuclear power plant. After we have had an opportunity to digest your letter fully we vill be back in touch with you. 3 Yours truly, CITY OF KIRIGOOD f.,,',k ',. f ( b.. /'if"

ss.:

^ ', A -..:. ~ i Mayor Phi ip Hallo,jJr. PHJr/ddr - - :.~. l

c. ::

\\ .. :ss; > :- i e a_. .,i..s-i ...::-i-MAYOR - PHILIP HALLOF COUNCILMEN - JOSEPH GODI HERD JONES - FRANCIS SCHEIDEGGER - HAROLD WHITFIELD

SAaN E1. NE NRY. M El$ f NM elm f] cw_ ANO CENDE. lNCOarO A Af tD i January 4, 1977 Mr. E. Noel Pfeiffer c/o Union Electric Company West Division Suite 319 11901 Olive Street Road St. Louis, Missouri 63141 -( ) Ref: Municipal Electric Utility City of Kirkwood, Missouri

Dear Mr. Pfeif fer:

This is to advise that this company has been retained by the City of Kirkwood, Missouri, to prepare and present to them a comprehensive investigation and analysis of their Municipal Electric System operations, and expected future performance. Your name has been given to us by Mr. Frank Michaels, Superintendent of the Kirkwood Municipal Electric Department, as a reference in order to obtain the information required for this study, from the Union Electric Company. At the present time, in order for us to proceed with this (][ report, we do respectfully request the following information and/or data: 1. A map or plat of the Union Electric System, that is within the city limits of Kirkwood, but not served by the Kirkwood. Municipal System. 2. System maps and one line primary drawings of the 34.5 KV electric system that furnished power to the Kirkwood Municipal System. 3. A copy of the Federal Power Commission Form 1 report, latest issue available, that Union Electric has submitted to the Federal Power Commission. 'N i s N s i l B RUct F. B AM N Es. JR. DALE J. H EN RY HAnoto D. MEISENHEIMER RonERT L.GENoE con SULTING ENGIN EERS 4 6 S 9 A s# A.ois A'/r s or Si i otsi's. Massouns c3:16 3t4 3 5 2 - H e.3 0

,/ = Mr. E. Neol Pfeiffer January 4, 1977 Union Electric Company Page 2 of 3 i 4. We would like to be advised of the electrical characteristics of the 34.5 KV system that serves the Kirkwood Municipal. system. I 5. We would alco like to have the fault capability of the 34.a KV system, at each transformer g ^ substation, as it serves the Kirkwood nunicipal [ System. l' d 6. We would also like to have, for coordination within the Kirkwood system, the reclosure time settings and trip points of the 34.5 KV feeder f3 (f system to Kirkwood. 7. We would like to be able to assess Union Electric Company's attitude and rate projection, should Kirkwood proceed with the installation of peak shaving generation. 8. We also are curious of Union Electric Company's attitude on whccling electricity to Kirkwood from a third party source. 9. We would like t6 have a typical primary metering connection drawing, as used by Union Electric, for the metering of power to the Kirkwood Municipal System. 10. We would like to have any alternate supply source or ({) scheme, that Union Electric might recommend as compared to the present service tn Kirkwood, consisting of three metering points at 34.5 KV to the Kirkwood Municipal Sys tem. 11. We would like to receive the updated rate sheets afor not only the W-2 wholesale rate, but also for the retail rates presently being charged by Union Electric Company in the Kirkwood area. In 'all probability, we will be requesting additional information, as our work on this study progresses. It is also very likely that we might want to get with other people in your technical engineering staf f, and would like to make these arrangements through you. l i

~ ~ l fir. E. Noel Pfeiffer January 4, 1977 Union Electric Company Page 3 of 3 I Should any further explanation of the foregoing requests !be needed, please feel free to let us know. Yours very truly, BARNES, IIENRY, fiEISENHEI!IER & GENDE, INC. I M* B. F. Barnes D BFB/sc cc: Pir. Frank Michaels Superintendent of Electric Dept. i e P l l i l 4 l l

,l .w-f 8- ~ f . 4 .er 'S g$- January 7, 1977 Messrs. H. C. Allen / L. A. Esswein C. J. Haven We have just received the attsched letter from the firm that has been hired by the City of Kirkwood to look at their municipal electric system. It is obvious that some of the items can be furnished quickly and with very little effort on our part. Some of the other items could take some time and possibly some thought should be given to charging ~for them. The most important items, however, are ones in which they are asking for our company's long-term philosophy. I believe it would be well if we would all get together as soon as possible h to discuss their requests so we can answer all the questions at one time. I will give you a call Monday, January 10, to set up a time for us to meet. (A. H. Wuertenbaecher cc: Mr. C. T. Heaton I 6 r l i i I t i i i l 6 g I s ( f. [

~ [ f 5, ~ f,ay;j, ~ f January 13,'1977 Mr. E. N. Pfeiffer: 5 Enclosed is a copy of our draf t response to questions 7 and 8 of Mr. B. F. Barnes' letter of January 4,1977 regarding the City of Kirkwood. This response has been reviewed by H. C. O. Allen, L. A. Esswein and W. E. Jaudes. Since this draf t has to be integrated into your complete response to Mr. Barnes, please send a draf t of your response to me for comment prior to sending the letter to Mr. Barnes. I will see that the others mentioned above also have a chance to review that draft. M!d) HM C. W. Mueller h-CWM/pm Enclosure w/cncl. Messrs. H. C. Allen / ec: L. A. Esswein i W. E. Jaudes I ( \\ .g I h a e I e I 4 L.

DRAFT 1-12-76 e t f In response to your question, installation of peak-shaving generation by Kirkwood would necessitate the development of a new type contract between Union Electric and the City. As you know, Kirkwood presently purchases wholesale firm power from Union Electric on our filed FPC W-2 tariff. This filed tariff is structured for total re-quirements customers only, and for this reason, a new type contract would be needed. We are willing to work with you on the development of such a contract, after you have given us details of your specific proposal. () -There are several points we feel you should consider in the analysis of the proposed installation of peak-shaving generating equip-ment, including the following. I Kirkwood's present W-2 purchases include a backup or reserve, and Union Electric also provides the operating (spinning) reserve. With the installation of generation by Kirkwood, either additional generation would have to be installed by the City for standby purposes, or standby generating () capacity would have to be purchased, or the risk would be incurred by the City of setting a new annual peak demand should the peak-shaving ger.eration be out of service during any high load' periods. As I am sure you are aware, construction costs have risen rapidly and continue to do so. This assures that new generation will, of necessity, be more costly than existing generation. Kirkwood presently benefits in purchasing power on a general rate which includes the imbedded cost of generation, both old and new. For this reason, new generation installations are of ten not as desirable as they appear at first. ~ l O

• s 2

Actual projected rates for any new contractual arrangement would~ depend on the specific proposal you might have. We hope that the t thoughts we have expressed are of benefit to you in your analysis, cnd we are available to meet with you to discuss this matter further. With respect to your inquiry as to the possible use of our trans-mission system for your power transactions with others, Union Electric always has been willing to work with neighboring utility systems so as to minimize the installation of duplicate transmission. However, such O arrangements have been developed only after a detailed study of a specific proposal. We are unable to respond specifically without additional infor-mation. Of course, we are available to meet with you to consider any concrete proposal you desire to make. Again, it should be recognized that the use of our transmission for the purchase of capacity from others also includes the previously mentioned considerations of backup or reserve and spinning reserve for O that c r cit 7. ia eaattio= to the tr====1 ta= a tr a ter==ttoa e considerations. 4 h S i l l ~ i i a l-

January'14, 1977 ~ ~ Mr. J. E. Och:ner: KIRKWOOD STUDY ~ You asked for our comments regarding reply to question 10 of the Jan. 4, 1977, letter written to Noel Pfeiffer by the consul-tants hired by the City of Kirkwood. Our thoughts follow. There is no alternate supply source or scheme that we would reccrnend for serving Kirkwood. There are.several reasons why we believe the present sche =e is the best. Kirkwood is supplied frcm Marshall Substation located in Tree Court Industrial Park in the extreme southwest corner of Kirkwood. This station is supplied over two 138 kV transmission lines frvm each 1 of three independent pcwer sources: Meramec Plant, Tyson and Mason ~ ~ , bulk substations. There are three 138 kV - 34 kV, 100 MVA transformers at Marshall with space for a fourth when needed. Thus, the Marshall 34 kV bus is an extremely reliable source of supply. The 34 kV circuits from Marshall that serve the City of Kirkwood substations also serve UE substations. These circuits are an integral part of Union Electric's radial subtransmissica system, and through manual switching they. can be connected to other circuits or power sources during emergencies. This increases reliability of the subtransmission supply. Should Kirkwood need additional substations the present pattern of supply could be augmented to provide 34 kV supply as required by the City. This would probably require additional. metering points but this should net be a problem. If totalized data is desired, there are means to provide this feature. d.T m _j. elternate means of supply would be very costly because it would duplicate existing, serviceable facilities, and it would be less reliable unless approached on an unlimited cost basis. While we suggest a reply to the consultants as outlined above, we would not be opposed to 138 kV supply, provided Kirkwood paid the I, full cost of th'e station and necessary modifications to the 138 kV transmission system, and we retained use of our 34 kV circuits thrcugh I the City. Savings to us would be release of 56 MVA of bulk substation [ capacity ct Marshall, which would defer the fourth transfor=er now l. budgeted for 1981. Because of the cost to Kirkwood to provide the necessary station and reserve we cannot in good conscience recccmend this approach. However if they elect it, we see no reason to apprc~ it. ot*[o54 t-John F.. Watson JW/dps cc: J. P. Woodward File - Kirkwood SP Chrono / -m-=--- =-

N lp; M< = ~ g, January 17, 1977 c. Mr. E. N. Pfeif fer: City of Kirkwood There is no alternate supply source or schIeme 'that we would recommend for serving Kirkwood. There are several reasons why we ~ believe the present scheme is the best. Kirkwood is supplied from Marshall Substation" located in Tree Court Industrial Park in the extre=e southwest corner of Kirkwood. This station is supplied over two 138 kV transmission lines from each of three independent power sources: Mera=ec Plant, Tyson and Mason bulk. substations. There are three 138 kV - 34 kV,100 M7A transfor-({} - Marshall 34 kV bus is an extremely reliable source of supply. .mers at Marshall with space for a fourth when needed. Thus, the The 34 kV circuits frem Marshall that aerve the City of Kirkwood substations also serve UE substations. These circuits are an integral part of Union Electric's radial subtransmission system, and through ~ manual switching they can be connected to other circuits or power ~ sources during e=crgencies. This increases reliability of the sub- ' transmission supply. Should Kirkwood need additional substations the present pattern of supply could be augmented to provide 34 kV supply as required by the City. This would probably require additional metering points but this should not be a problem. If totalized data is desired, there .are means to provide this feature. O' In addition to the above, which covers Item 10 in the Consultant's request to you dated January 4,1977, the following information and/or data has been supplied previously. i l i

1) System area maps of the Union Electric 12 kV systems that are within the City Limits of Kirkwood.

i

2) System map of the 34 kV system that serves the three metering points of the Kirkwood Municipal System.

j.

3) Electrical characteristics of the 34 kV system serving the Kirkwood Municipal System which includes fault capability at l

each substation, relay settings for both 34 kV circuits and l equivalent impedances at each location. g l s a w

j.' .I ~ ~ ~ Mr. E. N. P feif fer January 17, 1977 Page.

4) A typical primary metering connection diagram and construction drawings showing the metering equip =ent mounting facilities used for metering power at each of the three locations.

If there is any additional information needed, please contact Mr. John H. Ochsner on Station 2731. ~ O '.f.h . F. Woodward JPW:JHO:vy cc: Messrs: G. J. Haven J. L. Nolte J. H. Ochsner J. F. Watson 9 e lO O l l ~ ~. ( l e 1 1 I"

l8 i I = ! {, UNION ELtcTraic CoMPAN's ~ West OsvisioN ~ January 17~,i' / 1977 ii.e. c uve ar. no. .uar si. t ev. a.ouis. No. e st4. 3 4-56 43730 Mr. Robert D. Rothermel Barnes, Henry, Meisenheimer & Gende. Tne. 18658 Gravois Avenue St. Louis, ' Mist.ouri 63116 1 Re: Municipal P.lectric Service - City of Kirkwood 'i

Dear Bob:

p This is to confinn receipt of J1ruce Barnes' letter of January ti, 1977. At this time. I am unable to fulfill all requests. How-h ever, inforsation is' ~ submitted herewith covering most of the items. To simplify matters. T')) refer to them as request number so that you can correlate.

1) A large one-line map of the Union Electric 12 KV distribu-tion system. is provided for your review.

Our preliminary studies Indicate that approximately 9,000 customers are served by Kirkwood and 11,500 customers are served by Union I:lectric within the city limits of that city.

2) Enclosed is U.P.. system map JK89 indicating 3t1 KV supplies to the three Kirkwood substa tions, associated tie circuits, and substation diagrams.

3) To follow, pursuant to telephone discussion with you on January 12. =

ti) The electrical characteristics of 3tl KV supplies are: a Y System No neutral carried thru J Uni-grounded Most circuits witfi static wire or protector tubes (for 1ighting protection) P ~ Station Transformers primary 3 w - Delta Seconda ry it w - h'YP. Typical configurations for 3tl KV single and doub1'e circuits are attached for reference: Dist. Std. 03-3ti-01 and 03-3rg.so, 3ti KV source - Marshall Substation, Tree Court Ind. Park ) 138 KV source - from Grid System. I f 1

e._____-- n M r. Ito t he nne l.la nna ry 12, 1977 i 5 & 6) Mr. John Walsh has reviewed calculations prepared for the City of KirKwood on february 12, 1975. They have been updated and a re enclosed. 7 & 8) A letter written to Mayor Philip Itallof, Jr. on August 22, 197 tl. Is' provided for your review. In general, it covers Union Electric's attitude toward peak shaving and wheeling of electricity and securing power from alternate At this date, our management position remains un-

• . sources.

cltanged.

9) Primary metering drawings are enclosed for your refer-If you have any questions covering this particular ence.

information, please contact Mr. John II. Ochsner at 621-3222, extension 2731.

10) The, request provided is not too clear; please provide Q

more detailed requirements. latest residential and commercial Union Clectrie Rate Syl,faM\\the }

11) Enclosed are copics of the F.P.C. electric tarif f,

.and the new ra tes, which became ef fec tive on Janua ry 1. 1(17 7 Also enclosed are cop ies of our Pgs. 99(M), 1011(M). and 10.1(M) covering calculation of the fuel adjustment factor applied to our residential and commercial customers. Our records indicate that the fuel adjustment amount for Union Electric residential and commercial customers was.08tl& ' per KWil fo the month of December 1976, and the W-2 fuel adjust-ment was.81tI@per KWil for this same period. el 9/ = Also included are enpies of Exhibit A and Cxhibit B of the Wholesale Service Cont rac t, which became ef fcet ive on June 1, 1960. As mentioner to you and Bruce, Union Electric does have a

new Ten Year Street i.ighting Contract covering that portion of the City of Kirkwood outside of the Kirkwood setvice area.

This, also, is enclosed for your reference. As other information is compiled, it will be forwarded to you. Since re l y. i n,;.- ., j /_ C. Noel Pfeiffer Engineer ENP/ad t ,.s Enclosures l cc: frank Michaels-City of Kithwood John 11. Gehsner - U.F..

(fir <d. - E-?.: J/ x '. F / ). IIRArr ?. J&Q:'. v" l b. ( r ' ; :h' c.s. N _, - r-~ January 18, 1977 j'-k S.,,, Mr. Bruce Barnes ,e Barnes, Henry,Meisenheimer & Gende, Inc. 14658 Gravois Avenue St. Louis, Missouri. 63116 RE: Municipal Electric Service - City of Kirkwood

Dear Druce:

In reply to your recent requests. the following information is submitted to you covering general company policies of Union Q Electric, in the areas of peak Shaving, Wheeling of Power and Alternate Supply Arrangements. Peak Shaving The installation of peak-shaving generation by Kirkwood would necessitate the development of a new type contract between Union Electric and the t'ity. As you know, Kirkwood presently purchases wholesale firm power from Union Electric on our filed FPC W-2 tariff. This filed tariff is structured for total re-guirement customers only, and for this reason, a new type contract would be needed. We are willing to work with you on the development of such a contract, after you have given us details of a specific proposal. There a.re several points we feel you should consider in the analysis of the proposed installation of peak-shaving generating O equipment, including the following. Kirkwood's present W-2 purchases include a backup or reserve. and Union Electric also provides the operating (spinning) reserve. With the installation of generation by Kirkwood, either additional generation would have to be installed by the City for standby purposes, or standby generating capacity would have to be purchased, or the risk would be incurred by the City of setting a new annual peak demand should the peak-shaving generation be out of service during any high load periods. \\ Na tu ra ll y, you are aware that construction costs have risen rapidly and continue to do so. This assures that new generation will, of necessity, be more costly than ex isting generation. Kirkwood presently benefits in purchasing power on a general rate which includes the imbedded cost of generation. both old and new. For this reason, new genec.irion install a tions are often not as desirable as they first appear. Actual projected rates for any new contractual arrangement would depend on the specific proposal,

~ 2_ 't j( Wheeling of power With repsect to your inquiry as to the possible use of our transmission system for your power transactions with others, Union Electric always has been willing to work with neighboring utility' systems so as to minimize the installation of duplicate transmission. However, such arrangements ha ve been developed only after a detailed study of a specific proposal. Therefore, we are unable to respond specifically without additional information. Again, it should be recognized that the use of our transmission for the purchase of capacity from others also includes the pre-viously mentioned considerations of backup or reserve and spinning reserve for that capacity, in addition to transmission and transformation use considerations. Alternate Supply Arrancements () There is no alt' rnate supply source or scheme that we would e recommend for serving Kirkwood. There are several reasons why we believe die present scheme is the best. Kirkwood is supplied from Marshall Substation located in Tree Court Industrial Park in the extreme southwest corner of Kirkwood. This station is supplied over tao 138 kV transmission lines from each of three independent power sources: Me ramec Plant, Tyson and Mason bulk substations. There are three 138 kV - 34 kV, 100 MVA transformers at Marshall with space for a -fourth when needed. Thus, the Marshall 34 kV bus is an extremely reliable source of supply. The 34 kV circuits from Marshall that serve the City of Kirkwood substations also serve UE substations. These circuits are an integtal part of Union Electric's radial subtransmission O system, and through manual switching they can be connected to other circuits or power sources during emergencies. This increases reliability of the subtransmission supply. Should Kirkwood need additional substations the present pattern of supply could be augmented to provide 34 kV supply as required by the City. This would probably require additional metering points but this should not be a problem. If totalized data is desired, there are means to provide this feature. As your study progresses keep in mind that I will be happy to accompany any meetings that you may desire for the purpose of presenting a specific proposal. It is hoped that the foregoing will provide you with the information reques ted. If you have any questions, please call me Sincerely, E. F nel Pfe i f fer, Engineer

i / A UNION ELECTRIC COM PANY j WEST Division 1 C Janua ry 18f, 1977 ei.oi ouve ar. ao. suite Sie .v. i. oui.. uo. e si.. .. 4,3o Mr. Bruce Barnes Barnes, llenry, Meisenheimer & Gende, Inc. 4658 Gravois Avenue St. Iouis, Missouri 63116 RE: Municipal Elcetric Service - Cit'y o f Kirkwood

Dear Bruce:

In rep,1y to your verbal requests at our meeting of January 17, the following information is provided: Our records indicate that' on June 10, 1893, Union Electric entered into a perpetual franchise with the City of Kirkwood. This should be duly recorded in Ordinance Number 168 of that city. In February 1952, contracts for the mutual sale and purchase of electrical equipment and a street light contract were authorized by Kirkwood under their ordinance numbers 3732, 3733 and 3734. The City's demand for energy requirements were approximately 7.S MVA at that time. The symbols of feeder one-line maps are enclosed for your reference. (Union Electric Dist ribution standards: 0100 02 04 and U100 02 05.) Within the next several days additional information wil] follow covering Union Electric's general policy in response to questions i!7, 8 and 10 of your letter dated January fi, 1977. 1 By copy of this letter, I am advising Mr. John Ochsner to assist you in any manner in which he can regarding data provided to you on January 17. 4 Thank you again. Sincerely // ll7, I E.' poel Pfe~iffer, Engineer i ENP:db f cc: J. II. Ochsner C. W. Mueller i i

.h)? f Y-r ^ y.s-/x 'hM A January 19, 1977 Messrs.:\\. C. Allen lf L. A. Esswein W. E. Jandes C. W. Mueller J. H. Ochsner G. J. l{aven J. P. Woodwa rd H. E. Wuertenbaecher On January 17, 1977 a meeting was held with Mr. Bruce Barnes, Mr. Robert Rothermel and Mr. Randall Thomas of the consulting firm of Barnes, Henry, Meisenheimer & Gende, Inc. at their offices at 41658 Gravois. This meeting covered review of the requests outlined in Mr. Barnes letter of January ti, 1977 and the presentation of the data covering these items. The group was very receptive of the infonnation provided and extended appreciation of our efforts. . It appears that Mr. Barnes will be seriously considering the. recommenda t ion of the installation of capacitor units for power factor improvement and probably will be recommending the preparation of one-line feeder maps and substation monitoring of Kirkwood facilit ies. Within the nex t several weeks, it is expected that he will contact Mr. John Ochsner for discussion of the Kirkwood system, and reques t. review o f subs tation improvemen ts. Also within the next severa l days, Mr. Barnes stated that he will advise me of h the page numbers of PPC Porm 1, which he desires. I Upon conclusion of the meeting, I advised Mr. Barnes that a formal reply from Union Electric's position covering Items 7, 8 I and 10 (peak shaving, wheeling and alternate supply) will be sent to him. A draf t of this letter vill be cleared through Mr. C. W. l Mueller, prior to reply. 1 Also enclosed are copies of prior written communications for i your reference. ./ ,n ./,,f' // P/ E. Noel Pfeiffer S i I

-2 ) ~ }7yj4 ,IM, n/e January 21, 1977 Mr. E. N. Pfeiffer: REFLY TO CITY OI KIRKWCOD ( O ""*' *** ** "' ""88**'*d '*d'a ' '"* d"" 8"'"** which you sent us on January 18, 1977. This redraft incorporates the coments of Messrs. Allen, Esswein, Jaudes and Watson. Please send us a copy of your final letter to Mr. Barnes for our files. r-A C. W. Mueller CWM/cbv h Enclosure l Messrs.H.C. Allen! cc L. A. Esswein W. E. Jaudes J. F. Watson P e 5 . ~..., -..... -..

I} (. t e i '/ REVISED DRAFT / i /s i < (LETIIRHEAD) gj 7 l

y January 20, 1977 2

I 5 ]} . ~! Hr. Bruce Barnes Barnes, Henry, Meisenheimer & Gende, Inc. [4 4658 Gravois Avenue-t St. Louis, MO 63116 g ; ~ I. i j

Dear Bruce:

j. RE: MUNkCIPAL ELECTRIC SERVICE - CITY OF KIRKWOOD 'In reply to your recent requests, the following information is submitted to you covering general company policies of Union Electric in the areas of peak shaving, providing transmission service, and alternate supply i arrangements. For ease of reference, I'll refer to the requests by number O. so that you can correlate our response with your letter. Question #7 i The installation of peak-shaving generation by Kirkwood would necessitate the development of a new type contract between Union Liectric and the City. As you know, Kirkwood presently purchases wholesale firm power from Union Electric on our filed FPC W-2 tariff. This filed tariff is structured for total requirement customers only, and for this reason, a new type contract would be needed. We are willing to work with you on the development of such a contract, after you have given us details of a specific proposal. There are several points we feel you should consider in the analysis of the proposed installation of, peak-shaving generating equipment, including the following, i j I j Q Kirkwood's present W-2 purchases include a backup or reserve, and Union { Electric also provides the operating (spinning) reserve. With the instal-lation of generation by Kirkwood, either additional generation would have to be installed by the City for standby purposes, or standby generating ] capacity would have to be purchased. g q', Naturally, you are aware that construction costs have risen rapidly'and continue to de so. This assures that new generation will, of necessity, be more costly than existing generation. Kirkwood presently benefits in purchasing power on a general rate which includes the embedded cost of generation, both old and new. For this reason, new generation installations are often not as desirable as they first appear. i i*? Actual projected rates for any new contractual arrangement would depend on your specific proposal. j ( di l 1 k l l: 1

e, Mr. Bruco Barnas J;nur.ry 20, 1977 (DRAFT) ",[' Page 2 l l Question #8 With respect to your inquiry as to the possible use of our transmission system for your power transactions with others, Union Electric always has been willing to work with neighboring utility systems so as to minimize the installation of duplicate transmission. However, such arrangements have been developed only af ter a detailed study' of a specific proposal. Herefore, we are unable to respond specifically without additional infor-mation. I Again, it should be recognized that the use of our transmission for the purchase of capacity from others also includes the previously mentioned considerations of backup or reserve and spinning reserve for that capacity, in addition to transmission and tradsformation use considerations. Question #10 There is no alternate supply source or scheme that we would recommend for serving Kirkwood. There are several reasons why we believe the present scheme is the best. Kirkwood is supplied from Marshall Substation located in Tree Court Indus-trial Park in the extrc=e southwest corner of Kirkwood. This station is supplied over two 138 kV transmission lines from each of three independent power sources: Meramec Plant and Tyson and Mason bulk substations. There are three 138/34 kv,100 MVA transformers at Marshall with space for a fourth when needed. Thus, the Marshall 34 kV bus is an extremely reliabic source of supply. ne 34 kV circuits from Marshall that serve the City of Kirkwood substations also serve UE substations. These circuits are an integral part of Union Electric's radial subtransmission system, and through manual switching they O can be connected to other circuits or power sources during emergencies. This increases reliability of the subtransmission supply. Should Kirkwood need additional substations, the present pattern of supply l could be augmented to provide 34 kV supply as required by the City. This would probably require additional metering points but this should not be a problem. As your study progresses, keep in mind that I will be happy to arrange any ( meetings that you may desire. It is hoped that the foregoing will provide l you with the information requested. If you have any questions, please call me.- l Sincerely, l I l l E. Noel Pfeiffer Engineer t l L-

1 { n%. g/ UNION ELECTRIC COMPANY wasr civision February 1, 1977 ii.e. ouve.r. no. er. ou... ~ o. e s,a, ......e s o Mr. Bruce Barnes Ba'rnes, llenry, Meisenheimer & Gende, Inc. 4658 Gravois Avenue St. Louis, Missour.i 63116 MUNICTPAL ELECTRTC SERVICE - CITY OF KTRKh'00D

Dear Bruce:

In reply to your recent requests, the following information is submitted to you covering general company policies of Union Electric in the areas of peak shaving, providing transmission service, and alternate supply a rrangements. For ease of reference, I'll refer to Os the requests by number so that you can correlate our response with your letter. Question 47 The installation of peak-shaving generation by Kirkwood would necessitate the development of a new type contract between Union Electric and the City. As you know, Kirkwood. presently purchases wholesale firm power from Union Electric on our filed FPC W-2 tariff. This filed tariff is structured for total requirement customers only; and for this reason, a new type contract would be needed. We are willing to work with you on the development of such a contract, after you have given us details of a specific proposal. There are several points we feel you should consider in the analysis of the proposed installation of peak-shaving generating equip-ment, including the following. Kirkwood's present W-2 purchases include a backup or reserve, and Union Electric also provides the operating (opinning) reserve. With the installation of generation by Kirkwood, either additiona'l genera-tion would have to be installed by the City for standby purposes, or standby generating capacity would have to be purchased. Naturally, you are aware that construction costs have risen ~ rapidly and continue to do so. This assures that new generation will, of necessity, be more costly than existing generation. Kirkwood pres-ently benefits in purchasing power on a general rate which includes the embedded cost,of generation, both old and new. For this reason. new generation installations are often not as desirable as they first appear. Actual projected rates for any nee contractual arrangement would depend on your specific pro {osal. l \\ i I I l-f 1 i ~

7 / Mr. Bruce Barnes . February lo 1977 g/ / Question n8 / With respect to your inquiry as to the possible use of our trans-mission system for your power transactions with others, Union Electric always has~ been willing to work with neighboring utility systems so as to minimize the installation of duplicate transmission. Ifoweve r, such arrangements have been developed only after a detailed study of a specific proposal. Therefore, we are unable to respond specifically 3 without additional information. Aga in, it should be recognized that the use of our transmission for the purchase of capacity from others also includes the previously mentioned considerations of backup or reserve and spinning reserve . for that capacity, in addition to transmission and transformation use ! considerations. U,' Question E10 There is no alternate supply source or scheme that we would rec-ommend for serving Kirkwood. There are several reasons why we believe (]h the present scheme is the best. l Kirkwood is supplied from Marshall Substation located in Tree Court Industrial Park in the extreme southwest corner of Kirkwood. This station is supplied over two 138 kV transmission lines from each of three independent power sources: Meramec Plant and Tyson and Mason bulk substations. There are three 138/34 kV, 100 MVA trans-formers at Marshall with space for a fourth when needed. Thus, the Marshall 34 kV bus is an extremely reliable source of supply. The 34 kV circuits from Marshall that serve the City of Kirkwood substations also serve U.E. substations. These circuits are an in-and tegral part of Union Electric's radial subtransmission system; through manual switching, they can be connected to other circuits or power sources during emergencies. This increases reliability of the subtransmission supply. O Should Kirkwood need additional substations, the present pattern of supply could be augmented to provide 34 kV supply as required by the City. This would probably require additional metering points, but this should not be a problem. As your study progresses, keep in mind that I will be happy to arrange any meetings that you may desire. It is hoped that the fore-going will provide you with the information requested. If you have any questions, please call me. Sincerely, ('T

?!M-E. No'el Pfeiffer, Engineer ENP/adl cc:

Frank Michaels, City of Kirkwood 3

/ /o UNION ELECTRIC CO M PANY i WEsr DivistoN February 3, 1977 19 901 CUVC ST. RO. SUITE 318 ST. LOUIS. MO, 8 384 8 .S.<nso n Mr. Randal B. Thomas Barnes, f(enry, Meisenheimer & Gende, Inc. 84658 Gravois Avenue St. Louis, Missouri 63116 Re:, MUNICIPAL ELECTRIC SERVICE - CITY OF KTPSWOOD O

Dear Randy:

In compliance with your letter, of January 2tl, 1977, I am enclosing a complete copy of the Federal Power Commission Form No. 1, " Annual Report" for the year 1975. It is my impression that, with the presentation of this-Annual Report, we have complied with all requests of Bruce Ba rnes ' letter dated January 11, 1977. If I can be of further assistance or if you have any addi-tional questions, please call me. Sincerely, / ( E.* Noel Pfeiffer Engineer ENP/adl Enclosure cc: Frank Michaels - City o f Kirkwood t i e

...B82 3 g,3, juil 3 0 "4 " ' ' c ' OLI VEle. 01.1.v u t< & JON ES, H C eco smonuwa, e o cano a. v. LAl4 LIRARDI AV, MtWItRI r. Vol ou < - v etcew o u c 3..f33s.n n o -. o u-s o....i m e. ouva n, see fi n n o.. ,4 necesome o Jo=t 5 aLLese t.ouws se gn ee.es pol seem t.otevam.Ja ' ' " * * * ~ ' ' " September 11, 1978 ,,e,....o.e w~. s.. Mr. Kenneth W. Waldron Waldron & Lichtenegger i Post Office Box 147 ~ Jackson, MO 63755 Re: Missouri Utilities Company Before the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Docket Numbers ER77-354 and ER78-14'

Dear Kenneth:

As per your oral request of August 2 5', 1978, I,am attaching certain portions of the testimony of Associated Regulatory Chiil_t a n t s.,...Inc.., and.in partictil~ar. the"s't:5EdinehEs of%dgar ~ /Bernstein and Jatinder Kumar, and some. oral _comm'entfof Woodrow ,/ H511esen, Esquire, of the firm'of Wheatley & Mi'll'eY,'wtth respect / to their posi't' ion taken under oath before the Federal Energy / Regulatory Commission in Missouri Utilities Company's existing rate case proceeding, Docket No. ER77-354. Since this subject came up at the luncheon, probably because of the prior dealings.between us with respect to Worthington, I would like to be careful that neither you nor the City mis-construes the circumstances. Before the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, on behalf f of the City of Jackson, your duly authorized and employed agents and attorney have consistently taken the position that the City of Jackson, Missouri, is a pure interruptible customer of Missouri Utilities Company, so that Missouri Utilities Company can, for a good reason, a bad reason, or no reason at all, interrupt the service to the City at any parHcular time. It always has been and still is the position of Missouri Utilities Company that the City of Jackson is a partially firm and partially interruptible customer, with the decision as to hat type customer the City is, resting in the hands of the City t any given moment, so that the City can choose to generate, not to, at its discretion. Missouri Utilities Company, y & & M ll-/4 '12-ML-w & f m y y e p A Aw'..

• g

/ / ~ Mr. Kenneth Waldron September 11, 1978 Prg3 Two through this contract, provides a back up'for the City of Jackson, even when the City is generating. We believe that this is the correct interpretation of all the contracts we have had with the City of Jackson since the original firm power contract of 1956 was changed. Indeed, I have personally reviewed the operational history between the two entities since 1960, and find that after the firm power arrangement was terminated, as Jackson increased its own capacity, at least the operating personnel, both the City of Jackson and Missouri Utilities Company, have operated their respective systemu consistent with the Company's position. Accordingly, there have been times when the City either, for economic reasons, or generation. failure, has not carried its own load when advised of a situation which otherwise would leave the City to generate, and.on those occasions, Missouri Utilities Company has supplied the load and a. demand charge, as provided in the contract, of $1.75 per KW has been charged by Missouri Utilities Company and paid by the City of Jackson. Obviously, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission will make the ultimate decision as to the nature of this contract. The position taken by the City of Jackson, through its Washington attorneys, was of particular interest to the Company, in view of what transpired on the 24th and 25th. As you may or may not know,.the City of Jackson wa's unable to start or operate one of its 6800 units and one 1000 unit. As the result, on the 25th, the City of Jackson was taking about 5500 KW from us at the time of the integrated system peak. This-5 megawatts caused Missouri Utilities Company to peak on the U.E. system and set a new annual peak. Since Jac'kson, through its Washington lawyers, at least, has taken the position that it is entitled to a rate reduction, the Company, at least in our view, and conclusively from a cashflow point of view, will not recover the cost that the City of Jackson, through its generation failure, imposed on Missouri Utilities Company on August 25, 1978. If the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission decides that the forceful presentation of your Washington counsel is correct, and that you are a pure interruptible customer, the Company of course will not, in spite of its ultimate aim and intent to work hand in hand with the City of Jackson, be able in any future like situation to do anything other than interrupt, at least under the current operating conditions. ~- % L.a u mm wwp m w.er,,, w-m. ~-- - -- -- e . ~ - - - - ~ - - - -- p.,

Mr. Kenneth Waldron September 11, 1978 Page Three I certainly do not want either you or the City to misconstrue anything' that we said as any kind of threat or any indication on our part that we believe our contract interpretation is not the correct 'ne. Ilowever, quite frankly, when paying four plus dolla. per KW for a demand imposed by the City, and receiving only S1.75 from the City' for that demand, the pure interruptible status does, I am sure, you will concede, seem somewhat appealing. I have attached just a few of the multiple references contained in the seven volumes of the transcript. If you want anymore of this, I will be glad to have you review the entire transcript at your convenience. ^ Very respectfully, OLIVER, OLIVER & JONES, P.C. By John L. Oliver, Jr. l l l l l P

• )

C+.574 ~rxO ;,,y a, s am ~v~s.-~ m - ~~~ ~ ~ -

gQ"' ..q ],,.---f ~ E r dame ge:ay a a h t, MUN'CIPi t OMJr.o UflLitlES 22ii %uth fligh Street ~ ' ' [ ' : 4 ' '2 ' 1 1; M, Q; JACKSON, MIS 80tlit! 63755 $ 't ' =P_ '. _ _ _.__ ..).$.s.. '., i 3 m_ P]l._ONE: (314) 243._35G8 _ _. .. y_m. COUNTY St Af of CAPI GlE ARDE AU COUNTY September 18, 1978 t Mr. Clyde Wilson Missouri Utilities Co. P.O. Box 40 Cape Girardeau, Mo. 63701

Dear Clyde:

6 Please find enclosed the City's payeent for this past billing dated August,1978. demand charge The City of Jackson is paying the $8,732 50 This protest is because the City had as billed under protest. a sburce of peaking power and was told that it was not possible to use such a source. I find it hard to believe that needed power supply is turned down on the spot, but this seems to be the case. I hope to discuss this problem further with you if we could get together. Sincerely, ? f.'. g'O.- . u. u. >. m.u. 6.,*,, Car 1~L. Talley n/ City Administrator ~ CLT:1s cc: Charles Wheatly e '\\ .4.., dh.@.n liOWS. Clit.lRClif 5 AND 3CllO0t5 nTY Or PrANDFUL

Q ye. 7 G,} fi$cy Oh fG/bdB% g ~ MUNICIPAL OWNED UTILITIES i:[ gg$~ L ':pg,; 225 South fligh Street g k ,f yy JACKSON, MISSOURI 63755 kbl $-. 2dd~.:.25h\\ N - PHONE: (314) 243-3568 . _ _ _. = + - -,n. COUNTY SEAT oF CAPE GIRAIDEAU CoVNTT September 29, 1978 Mr. Clyde Wilson Missouri Utilities Co. P.O. Box 40 Cape Girardeau, Mo. 63701

Dear Clyde:

The City of Jackson would like to include in their contract vit.h Missouri Utilities a clause in which the City of Jackson may purchase peaking power from other sources when the power plant becomes non-operable due to mechanical break down. This power g could be provided by your company or other sources whichever is the most available. We have felt for some time that this clause should have been put into our contract but was always informed that it was not possible. We now find that this is not the law and ask that this be corrected. If no action by your company is taken to make such a con-tractual change, the City of Jackson vill tnke the appropriate steps to correct the problem through means available to the City. Sincerely, 7 l2s(. in. ~.p.rhzf ! ) ; :< ' / i.* ( ' Carl L. Talley [ City Administrator ~ CLT:1s i l e l T. l ,;g;; g.,,j g;s,g.4 HOlMS, CHURCilES AND SCHOOLS CITY OF BEAUflFUL

MUNICIPAL OWNED UTILITIES 225 South fligh Street f s i g ,f 2 IfQ ~ JACKSON, MISSOURI 63755 , =.-.=bE. ?d _. _W-': L'i

---

- $b PHONE: (314) 243-35E3

~ COUNTY StAI of CAPE GIRAIDEAU COUNTY November 22, 1978 Mr. Clyde Wilson Missouri Utilities Co. P.O. Box 40 Cape Girardeau, Mo. 63701

Dear Clyde:

I have just reviewed my file on requested changes the City of Jackson asked considered in my letter to you September 29, 1978. The only answer given was at the meeting in Cape at the Ramada Inn which was not satisfactory with myself or the Mayor. We understood you were not allowed to give the City the oppor-tunity to obtain peaking power from other sources. I feel this must be changed. The City of Jackson not only paid the first month demand charge of $6,732 50 under protest as stated in my letter of September 18th but every month thereafter or until this charge is satisfactorily concluded. Sincerely, gz['l' xlbc Carl L. Talley City Administrator . CLT:ls em l\\ j0 CITY OF BEAUTIFUL .gygy ,g,fg HOME3, CHURCHES AND SCHOOLS

He MTRb0 Ult! (IT!!.tTIIN ( IoM I*.g N v 400 CROADWAY P.O. DOX 40 CAPE' GIR ARDEAU. MISSOUni 63701 ARCA COOC 3 s 4/133 9 4gt , FIANCis R. LENGEFELo. PetteotNT CuRTes LavAN. J. C. LANSMON. CONTROLLtm a Ass 7. TotASumte vecs passiotat e Tasasunta WELOON D. HILPERT, VIMIL CHf RN$iDC. " " ' ' " * " " ^ " ' December 1,1978 ma ni.io =r. uc.u... Mr. Carl Talley City Adninistrator l City of Jackson 225 South High y Jackson; Missouri 63755 Dear Mr. Talley [ In re Missouri Utilities Conpany E1cetric Service Agreecent On behalf of the company, I would like to acknowledge your letters of September 29, 1978, and November 22, 1978. On September 18, 1978, you trans:itted a letter to the w company stating that you vero paying the prior bill under protest, alleging "the City had a source of peaking power and was told it was not possible to use such sourco." On Septecher 29, you wrote the company a letter which requests a change in the City's contract with Missouri Utilitics Company to allow the Cit / of Jackson to pur-chase peaking power "from other sources." That request seer.s to have been reiterated in your letter of November 22. In looking at your lotter of Novenber 22, 1973, it to apparent l there hes been sone misunderstanding arisin.a. out of our October break-fast meeting. It was our understanding that you were going to provide us with a detailed outline of precisely what you believe the electric service agreenont between Missouri Utilitics Company and the City of Jackson should consint of with respect -to furnishing power. It was our understanding that you were going to provide us with a specific proposal. In this regard. I would like to remind you that since 1974 the City has consistently urged the proposition that the City and company O g un

• Mr. Carl Talley Deccmbar 1, 1978

( City of Jacke n Pcgs 2 have a specific contract, not subject to unilateral change. From your letters of September and November, it appears that you are no longer taking this position, but believe that you have some right to unilaterally change a specific contract. Quite frankly, we are at a loss to understand this stiitude. In considering the contents of the specific proposal for contractual siteration or change you desire to make, I believe you should keep in cdnd that Missouri Utilities Company is not a signatory to any interconnection I, agreement and is not involved in, nor a party to the rules and regulations governing interconnected companics, particularly as t_he same relate to load control and lond control areas. tdssouri Utilities Coepany has no need nor desire to become affiliated with the interconnected system. We have a specific contract with you which cermits the City of Jackson to purchase all of its requircrents f rom Missouri Utilities Company, and our system has been designed and planned with that spedific capacity in mind. Accordingly, we must, in response to your letters, request that you advise us in writing of the following: l. The " law" referred to in your letter of September 29, 1978 that you believe requires Missouri Utilities Company to furnish you power from other, non-MUCo sources. 2. A detailed outline of precisely what the City thinks the contract should consist of with respcet to the furnishing of power. 3. A precise outline of the rechanism through which that power is to be provided. 4. A proposed rate structure or cost recovery structure for that supply. Upon receipt of this vritten propoeirion, the company vill be glad to review the matter and provide you thereafter uith an appropriate response. Very truly yours, MISSOURI UTILITIES COMPANY Francis R. Lengefeld President FRL:dzs bec: Messrs.bJohn L. Oliver, Jr. i Virgil Chirnside Louie R. Ervin fkmm-n m-w-:~~m m mnn,,, :.

Q /l&7A:. llFrdjr. $pNJ/ t7A&*? Bt d M M H/fl % 11-g g ispisw o we cirn i2iexer wm.e-8sA6t/dcr/rsv pro A <)/ W WCW1 o 54 f~4'A srlssr D/Mumr cA mx ma fini m,,,s, SK l-/7y N )CtA A p/2n Osf*c/ 0 4 0 j, rv .,..ll. 4.. $A'susf Wh'M Si!Ud S kJdt o v'dx. /?? ll-

w....... _,w ff.

~ 'Y~ I"* YOUI-*4 26s 19T9 h:iy Pierv.scr 14v f 4/AriazM,, y,, c,,,,,

1. /N#-MM DA o

U lit es Ccepany . koo P.roadvay DM /);xgg,,7 ,ygg.,, g,,,p g,_y, ' C pe Girardeau, Missouri 63701 4

Dear Clyde:

C,As per our phone conversation of a few days ago, the City of Malden is planning tointerc Gr E. j ge Wa-cna mile south of Malden. SPA has agreed to sell Malden 5 mv of penHng power. g (Sn letter attached.) From an operational standpoint, it vould be much better for the City to directly interconnect the SPA line with Missouri Utilities 3L 5 kv line serving !biden from the north. We therefore recpectfully request that Missouri Utilities participate with SPA in preparing a Power Flow Study over this proposed interconnection to determine the feasibility of, and the sizing of equip =ent required fer, this i interconnection. Thic interconnection vill be of great benefit to the City of Malden, and hopefully, it vill also benefit the couth end of Mishouri Utilities transmission north of Malden. Also, the City of Malden is trying to obtain a source for peaking power which can be whteled over the SPA line prior to availability of SPA power. In all probability C'possible to co. plete the interconnection with SPA in time for this year's sur: such peaking power vill be available for the cu==er of ICJT9 As 1,t vill not be 2er prak, we also request consideration of the following: Would Missouri Utilitics agree to wheel up to 5 =v of peaking power to Malden frca your Sikeston (or other) inter-connection with SPA 7 If so, what would be the rate for such wheeling? M l.. Clyde, as we are now trying to prepare for our surr.er season, ve would appreciate a response on both the Power Flov Study and the possibility of wheeling at your earliest convenience. If you need any additional information from the City, pleese let us l,,. know as soon as possible. N }tt.c jf }L)/Mr fW A b/ 7')! /t* Sincerely, 7 fp2.y/A/gG P 0MW lf /T y pp gg.f' ff/}J/ A/A fcv2. /??. /,{. 0 Villiam A. Green vrGsng y}y,Ca. Lvit.

. ~ tc#acc g)czh 4-/2-Pb (Received from Bill Green, City of Malden, via his letter of 6/11/80)

~ ,1 bltMMBUlti (ITif.tTil?N i Itul l'A N Y 400 f3540ADWAY e,, y Po BOX 40 CAPE GIRARDEAU MIS 50UR8 63701 AREA COOC 3 9 4 /13 5-9 4 6 8 FCANCIS R LENGEFELO. PS$9 ect N T CURTIS LaVAN. J.R.LANSMON. COminOLLtm a ass T. ?pgasusta vect passentur a vacasuage wCLOON O. HlLPERT, VII:SIL CNf RN510C. ,,g.7.escastany March 21, 1979 vec.,s.s....,a sica.,a.. J ~ n 1 Mr. Bill Green y Boani of Public Works City of Msiden Malrbn, FD 63863 g

Dear Bill:

Mr. Bill Likens, Manager of Electrien1 Ergineerhg, has caHed our attentkn to your telephane call to him and your discussion with him about the ponnihility of a Syst03 interconGCCtiott at or near McLlden, Missouri, with SPA, the City of Milden, and Missouri Utilities Orparrf. In rMition, w have received your letter dated February 26, 1979, with respect to this proposai interconnect. i As I era sure ycu are aware fran our past discussions and other transacticus between the City of tulebn and Missouri Utilldes Comany, Missouri Utilitica Cccpany is not a party to any intercharge agreccent arti is not irr.olved in the intercharge salo9 purchases of electrical power. Rather, Missouri Utilitics Ca:pany is a purchasing utility with a amn11 a:: cunt of generating capacity, which lacks area loal control cW41 i ty. As you aro further eware, Missouri Utilities Ocnpany has a opntractual obligation with UniaT Eloctric to txr/ fIun Unicn Electric all of its pomr requiremnts, axcort those internally generated by Missouri Utilities Occpany, or purchased frau Ark-!b, urdar the limits and corviiticns contained in the contract with Ut11rn Electric. I am sure you are also aware that Missouri Utilities 0:cpany does not have develcped, filed, or wm,n.,d a whentirn rate, in ~1dition to our lack of physical capacity and capabi.lity to provida. load control l ne ssary for wt = 14rs. e o e eh e. .**g wee m-e-g*e ,o wee g e e e

Mr.11111 Green Doard of Pt611c &brks City of H11ehm 1 Martti 21, 1979 Page Two Therefore, witMut ocnsiderity the ultirote iscuo of whether or not wheeling aid be beneficial, or even festsible, (givm line capacity artl thn like), it does not appear to us that it is technically possible to effectuate any wheeling, nor is it ' practically possible to develop the power study and cbtain afproval of any v.teeliry rate within the time frame you have inlicated. He would alma note that thoro may be multiple contractual prcbleras betwee the various utilition whicn will necessarily be involved. He do believe, however, that this subject, as with other potential . alternatives, is a proper subject for the cmprehensive cantract negotistions betwm ?tissouri Utilitics expany and the City of Maldm, as w.puh.txie.1 by our neeting in Septaber of 1978. He do not believe that it is in our best interest, nor is it in the .best interest of the City of Malden to consider alternate possibilities i pieocrneal at various points in time under what might be differing situations. t With this in mind, we recall the City's agrecraent during Septaber 1978 to provide Miswi utilities ccnpany with a written outlLT of what you desire or would consider as potential siternatives in a remgotiated contract between the City and Pisspuri Utilities caparry. Accordingly, we will give your regmst, as outlined in the telephone calls and your letter of February 26, 1979, further consideration upon receiviry frcxn you the specific written prcoasals describing what kind of contract the City of Ittiden desires with Missouri Utilities ccr;any, incitriiny an cutline of alternative nethods singested by tim City of Maldan to reach what you consider to be the desirable aim. m are looking forward to receiving sucn a dcFa41-1 proposal frcm you in the near future. l l Very truly yours, I Virgil Otirnside VC:jbg boc: Bill Likens . Ioule Ervin--

M n errugv A-Wou.ese.s V 5e, CutTC tit 2 WAT' M C AT E O P 8"tC C Cult. DING d COOO VIRGINI A Avt NU2, N w, WASHING TON, D. C. 2 003 7 C a.4 m Lp 3 P. w.s e a,L e v, Jn. 20213 3 7 +S $ 4 3 tI,geDegw o. wotte sew a q g. CON Re.AmbeS W W ue q. q m;cc av. a o n e.s. Q k I Ju1y 2, 1979 --.k. k,, .o.3 ~..~a- ,e... c...,,.. JUL9 1979 ..-o--...e-pa3onowano MISSOURI UTILITIES CCT. EXECUTIVE DEEICEE i Mr.1 Francis R. Lengefeld President Missouri Utilities Company 400 Broadway P.O. Box 40 Cape Girardeau, Missouri 63703

Dear Mr. Lengefeld:

I am writing you on behalf of the Cities of Jackson, Kennett and Malden, Missouri. As you know, the City of Malden's contract with Missouri Utilities expires October 1, 1979 and the City of Jackson's contract expires on March 2, 1980. Each of these Cities is interested in considering new arrangements for the supply of electric power from either Missouri Utilities Company or other sources of supply. Similarly, the City of Kennett, which has a contract extending into the future, would 'like to negotiate with Missouri Utilities for an alternate source of supply. First, the Cities request that Missouri Utilities provide power to the Cities under an interruptible rate. As you are aware, the enactment by Congress of the Public Utility Regula-tory Policies Act (PURPA) in 1978 required the development of interruptible rates for custohiers. While the Cities view the Company's present filed rate schedules and contracts to be in effect an interruptible rate, we are aware that the Company takes the position that the present rates are in reality a firm rate. Accordingly, what we seek from the Company is a new "interruptible rate" in accordance with the requirements of PURPA. If 1/ Section 111 (d) (16 UTS.C. 2621(d)) provides that: "Each electric utility shall offer each industrial and commercial electric customer an interrupt.ible ra te which reflects the cost of providing interruptible service to the class of which such consumer is a member." This federal standard established by PURPA clearly applies to MU for providing service to the Cities. .p 0

l t l The Cities need such interruptible service and rates provided to them as soon as possible so that they can consider this i as a supplement to the present existing arrangements for service from Missouri Utilities to the Cities, which are involved in the ongoing proceedings before the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission in FERC Docket No. ER77-354 and ER78-14. Secondly, the Cities renew their request that Missouri Utilities provide a rate for wheeling services. From time to time, each of the Cities may have an emergency or a need for supplemental power, which can be provided by outside sources

• or the. generating facilities of the other Cities.

In most cases, the generation can be transmitted from City to City simply by disp ~lacement, i.e., the City requesting the service would take I additional power from Missouri Utilities, that would otherwise i be delivered by MU to another City which will generate that quantity. In other cases the Cities may h' ave additional SPA power available if it can be delivered over MU's system. In any event, the Cities desire that Missouri Utilities provide transmission service between the Cities. Numerous similar arrangements of this sort have been provided by utility companies to municipalities having generating facilities. We will be pleased to provide you with copies of such arrangements. Third, the Cities seek to obtain an improvement in the present procedures relating to purchases of power under their existing contracts from MU. It appears advised by the MU dispatchers of a need to curtail deliveries ofthat the Cities are being power from MU on a frequent basis. This requires the Cities to operate their generating facilities more than would otherwise be required. The Cities would like to discuss procedures, whereby the notice of a possible peak by MU on its system is kept to a very minimum, so that the Cities' facilities (often using scarce No. use of their own generating 2 oil) can be reduced in the public interest. Fourth, and related to point 3, the Cities believe that Missouri Utilities should be operating on the ba' sis of the present filed tariff by Union Electric Companv which has a 1001 ratchet provision which is presently effective. Under that presently effective tariff rate between Union Electric and Missouri Utilities, it would be only necessary for Missouri Utilities to advise the Cities that based on a consideration of the annual peak.it was approaching its peak, It is our under-ctanding, that despite this clear language of the existing tariff'now in effect, that Missouri Utilities is curtailing the Cities on the hypothetical basis that there is only an 801 L. __ - -. _ -, - ~ ~ - -

pi.v 2, Q G ou 1979 Pego 3 ratchet in the tariff provision. This has resulted in Missouri Utilities advising the Cities of the need to curtail takes from the Company on a much more extensive basis and has resulted' in the Cities generating substantial additional quantities of energy using scarce No. 2 cil. We believe that Missouri Utilities' operations are in violation of the filed tariff now in effect between Union Electric and Missouri Utilities Co. We believe that the Company should cease and desist from this practice, contrary to the existinc filed tariff, to avoid the imposition of substantial additional expenses by the Cities in generating on No. 2 oil. The Cities look forward to receiving a reply to this \\, letter as soon as possible. We would welcome any other sugges-s tions that the Company might have to make, as well as any opportunity for a meeting to discuss matters, if you deem that would be helpful. Sincerely yours, [ / Charles F. Wheatley, Jr. 5 Attorney for the Cities of Jackson, Kennett and Malden, Missouri 1 CFW:lt G ee*

• g LAW OFFICEO

~ WHEATLEY k WOLLESEN SutTE lil2 ~ WATERGATE OFFICE ButLCING 2 600 VIRGINIA AVENU E. N.W. WASHINGTON. O. C. 2CO37 y f" c.a6:0 r. wa.rtev. s woorcow o. wcursen rf y oo ~... t.. u,. eo c o= 2-v. o ~=7 July 2a 1979 8 4 p# soa w..~a lj,1, p. ,,uu o. .uv. - a..us wa rexx. . 1u.a.s.......... J OO How..O ~ ...,.e-.m..... Charles J. Dougherty President and Chief Executive Officer Union Electric Company O 1901 Gratiot Street St. Louis, Missouri 63103

Dear Mr. Dougherty:

On behalf of the Cities of Jackson, Kennett and Malden, Missouri we wish to request electric service direct from Union Electric Company. 1/ Each of the Cities presently owns and operates an electric distribution system and generating plant. The Cities' generating facilities utilize No. 2 fuel oil (e:: cept when natural gas is availab.le) and it is in the interest of the Cities, as well as the national interest to minimize their use, except when necessary. In recent years it has become increasingly ~. apparent that Missouri Utilities Co., the present supplier of supplemental energy, is not able to provide the quantities of /? energy the Cities desire for the lowest cost, most effective () utilization of their electric systems. In order to evaluate. l l the best arrangement for direct service from Union Electric, l the Cities request a service proposal f:gom UE on three alternate bases. l First, the Cities request a contract similar to that which Union Electric has entered with Missouri Utilities Co. and Missouri Power and Light Co. Under this arrangement, UE would provide all of the power requirements of the Cities, but would-provide credit to the Cities for their generating capacity whien would be available when called upon by UE. The rates would be l l 1/ All three of the Cities are presently taking service from ~ Missouri Utilities Company. Malden's contract expires October 1, 1979, Jackson's' contract on March 2, 1980. Kennett seeks new service which would replace and supercede its current service with Missouri Utilities Company. t

July 2, 1979 P:g3 2 determined under the same methodology used by UE to determine / j the rates for Missouri Utilities Co. and Missouri Power and / Light Co., subject to any changes required by the Federal v f-Energy Regulatory Commission. u<" ~' / l' Second, the Cities request to purchase a block of firm power from UE on a firm basis under the Company's present W-3 ( rate schedule. The firm power purchase by the Cities would be ',- utilized by them in conjunction with their existing generating A plant to provide the total requirements of their distribution pgq ' system. Third, the Cities request to purchase interruptible power'- 1

• 7 from UE based on the Company's filed energy rates and fuel t

adjustment clause of its W-3 tariff. / I) Under any of the above three alternatives, the Cities believe that no new transmission facilities would be required in that the power could be transmitted'to the Cities as it is presently over existing facilities of Missouri Utilities Co. 1/ Since that Company is a wholly owned subsidiary of UE, we wouTd anticipate that these transmission arrangements could be effectu-ated by UE. We would appreciate hearing from you on the availability of purchasing power directly from Union Electric under the three above proposed alternatives. If the Company has other proposals to make for such service, the Cities would also consider them. The purchase of power by the Cities direct from Union Electric obviously could moot many of the matters now in controversy in the proceedings in Missouri Utilities Co., FERC Docket No. ER77-354 and ER78-14. The Cities are willing to have a meeting () wi.th the Company to discuss any of these matters. l Sincerely yours, f 3.A 1 '/;(.s. < c246' < ). 1 l Charles F. Wheatley, Jr. l r Attorney for the Cities of ,ht CFW:lt Jackson, Kennett and Malden, Missouri / P 1/ Other transmission arrangements might be possible. of Kennett receives its power now over a transmiss,/ The City ion line owned by the Southwestern Power Administration (SPA) which is br, directly connected to Union Electric at other pointsk Accordingly,- ' it would appear possible that the City of Kennett could purchase directly from Union Electric without requiring the use of any ,/ Missouri Utilities facilities. The City of Malden has a possible CPtion of constructing an interconnection directly to SPA facilities, which are in turn already inter-tied to UE. The City of Jackson could possibly construct a direct line to UE facilities. ~

5L e A e August 10, Inyn ."r. CharJes F. Uhenticy, Jr. Uheaticy & Unolesen Suite 1112 Uatergate Office Building 26001*ttrint s Avenue, I;.U. '. Washington D.C. 20037 re: Missouri Utilities Company' SrR - City Contracts ~

Dear "r. Wheatley:

~ Ue would like to acknowledr.c your letter of' July 2, In79, vrittcn by yo J en behalf of your clients, the ' unicipalities of Jacknon, Kennett and !!alden itissouri. b As pointed out by you, the Conpany's contract with the City of !!alden expires and will terminated on October 1,197a thereafter in accordance with the terms of the contract, the City of Jachson's contract will expire 11 arch 2,1n89. Uith specific reference to your letter, ':insour1' Utilities Corpany in willing to provide this service on either of tro (?) baner. We vill provide the citics with rouer under the exinting forn af electric service n.?.reemen t, as' executed by the City of Kennett. !!issouri, and as a part of our Srn-1 filine. and will continue to provide firn-nonfirm power to the cities at the citics' ootion in accordance with that agreement. In the alternativo, the Company is uilling to' supply the citics tdth firm electrical power. Since "issouri Utilities Company is not primarily a generating custoner, an "interrurtible. rate" is not f canihle or cost elffcient, as there is no practien1 rethodolor,y of incrcrental pricing in accordance with a typical interruptihic contract. of cource, none of the citics l are " industrial and cormercial custoners" under TUTP/. and ec helieve your ref erence to Pl'RPA in that regard is nicplaced.

. 't'issouri Utilitien Company has previeucly corresponded with the Cities that you represent eith respect to their request for uhecling r

services. "UC0 is not set up to provide a cheeling or transminnion f acility service f rom the Point of view of technical reouirements of load control and load manar.ement, as net forth in groa,ter detail in our prior corresponaence. 1 =0 l w g ~yn'

Mr. Giarles T. Khn.', /cy, Jr. AS/ August 10, 1079 ~ Fnge Two y. Since the Conpany is villing to provide service and has been providing service to the Citics unde.r contragt on either a f!rn or a partially nonfirn basis, and giventhe many practical and technical difficulties involved, we felieve that uheeling service is not feasibic at this time. If, however, appropriate cost arranr.cnents en the technical probices involved could be solved by your clients, the Conpany would be villing to discuss this possibility on a schedulalcapacity basis with approntiate provisions for cost recovery and emerp.ency rower charr,es. liith respect to the other matters raised in your letter, I suggest that you as' your clientn' operating personnel to contact "r. Loule Ervin 'di,rectly, and if there are any problens from the operational point of view, I am sure that the operating perconnel can reach a mutually satisfactory resolution of any problems which may in fact exist. We are attaching for your cliento, !!alden and Jackson, copies of the existi"C SER-1 electric service agreenent f or their connideration..If, of course, firm power is desired, appropriate contract changes can be made to accono late that desire. The Conpany stands willing to meet with thn Cities of Italden and Jackson, and to the extent th:t t they nay be interested, the City of Kennett, at any nutually convenient time to discuss the necdn of the Citics and of Ittssouri Utilitics Conp,ny, and any other matters chich night be appropriately discussed with respect to electrical service. Very renpcetfully OLIVER OLIVER & J0t!ES, P.C. L ) John L. Oliver,.ir. JLOlr:end I'ncionurcs cc: Francis it. Longefeld i I 'T

m e g WHEATLEY & WOLLESEN e CUlf3 1998 WATORG AT3 OP P.CE CUILDING sCOO VIRGINI A AVENUE. N.W. WASHINGTON. O. C. 20037 s , C h* A a k s e' r. w** r a T L e v. J a. e p woognow o. woLLe erpe COM CMamLaeofHus ge3 cot A owest August 13, 1979 .,. 3 w.... a - .L. .L,e AAmeet teamT.MMa N.3 nus.Ho i.e., JAM 20 HowamD .,....,T...... ~ m Mr. Francis R. Lengefel.d President Missouri Utilities Company 400 Broadway P.O. Box-40 Cape Girardeau, Missouri 63703

Dear Mr. Lengefeld:

Previously on July 2, 1979 I wrote you concerning the interest of the Cities of Malden, Jackson and Kennett in negotiating new contractual arrangements for the supply of power. Recently, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission has issued a notice of the expiration of the existing contract terms between Missouri Utilities and the City of Malden this fall. This underscores the importance of having a reply from . you to our prior letter at an early date. There are certain additional matters which I would like to bring to your attention. The City of Malden has been advised by the Southwestern Power Administration that the -Administration will execute,a contract with the City of peaking power next February, when the Truman dam project goes on the line. In order to obtain delivery of this power, the City would need wheeling services by Missouri Utilities to it from SWPA. Would you kindly provide a rate for this wheeling service? I look forward to hearing from you in the near future. Sincerelyyyurs, p .ct-Charles F. Wheatley, Jr. cc: Messrs. Green, Talley, Jones W

y Missouru Urn rrres COMTMY 1 ? MEMORRIDUM e TO: File DATE: September 7, 1979 FROM: Louie R. Ervin SUBJ: Meeting with the Board of Public Works of the City of Malden A meeting with the Board of Public Works of the City of Malden, MD, was held at the Hickory Log Restaurant in Dexter, MO, at 7:00 p.m., September 4, 1979, at Malden's request. Attending for the Company: Francis Lengefeld, Clyde Wilson, Bob Robins and Louie Ervin. Attending for Malden: ~ Amos Santie-Chairman, Herb Preyer, Sparrel Davis-Mayor, John Downing, Ernest Miles. The Company responded to Malden's request to meet and discuss things in general. The following was discussed: 1. The City asked what rate and by what datermination would service be provided af ter the expiration and termination of their contract on October 1st. The Company advised that the Presiding Law Judge's Initial Decision in FERC Docket numbers ER77-354 and ER78-14 would prohibit 161 den from being under the SFR-1 rate until their contract expiration. Also the Company reminded the City of Company's recent FERC filing expressing willingness to serve Malden on the SFR-1 rate af ter October 1,1979. 2. The Company reviewed at the City's request how the. SPR-1 ratchet or Annual and Temporary Demands worked in relation to U.E.'s demand ratchet to MU. Also the Company responded to how the SFR-1 fuel adjustment clause works. 3. The City requested the Company' to make soue past actual bill I comparisions to what the bills would have been under the SFR-1 l rate under the conditions of take no demands, a 3 mW demand or their j total demand requirements. The Company agreed to make these calcula-l tions, but pointed out that the currently effective SFR-1 rate is subj ect to refund upon final determination in Company's FERC Docket numbers ER77-354 and ER76-14, as well as in Union Electric Company's Docket No. ER77-614. 4. The Company pointed out that the Townley Malden line capacity is only good for about 14 mW without some additional expense for i upgrading which Malden would be responsible foi. These costs would L. be covered under the SFR-1 local facilities charge. MiI:7p m c~v.M ; w N w *'~4.M.a.to - w :,w A7 W r% m .A = &N

Memo to File 6', RE: Mtg. w/Bd. of Public Works' -Malden 9/7/79 Page two L.: 5. The City asked if the Compsny would 1 service from Southwestern Power Administration (SPA).be able to provide p informed the City that we are not a party to interchange power The Company .because we,are in U.E. 's control area. agreements and all load cont The Company indicated they could foresee some real billing and telemetering probl even if the expensive equipment ems installation problems could be M worked out. he would ask Bill Green to check with SPA and U.E. to de N if load control, metering and billing problems could b solved. e feasibly I 6. Malden said they had rotating outages for 6-days this year avoid setting demands on MU since their generation could not cover , to their demand. 1 .7. Malden wanted to know what October's bill will cost them d slm' i( 1 k a O e O Os eme. Se e e WW"*W 'W ---v w '~

1.,

i I l September 14, 1979 Mr. Charlos P. Pheatley, Jr. Tow Office of T'bcelley L Follesen

Suite 1332 "atercate Office Fldg.

2000 Viroinia Mrent : ".U. Washincton, D.C. '10037 l

Dear ?tr. Fhentley:

I would like to acknowledce your letter of 7.ngust 13, 1979.

• rparent'v, r"r covennnoncinnce cro cr c' in 'ho mail.

As set forth in our rer1v to your letter of.uly 3tu, the i Compmiv is vi]line : o 'ic L vi th the 'i i nn c r "c1 'on.'n<' Jackson, ar.' tith :.1e r'ity oF fe ri:m t t, iF " : p n e t- : co riesircr, at anv Iru tu n ? ) y r-- rvn"i nt t & _4 - c t r 'i cue.c: :.ho co 's of the citics anr1 o F f'ingnpri, hiiliting cer t r t u, nc : ;7s any other na ttere t'hich ' tirrht. 1.c r,propriateltr 71 r < r "":c<?. our exprennien of ri.1.lirrtucnn to : r,<r l n.'c ' '.r-city of Kennett shen]r' not be in.,ny way c o n c i.r r e -, < < -ev i..':linn rir intination M 01: L' co,ie.ny ir tei l.l iv i<. r, n< r c.:.i.,t e i t s contract with tbc Ci t v of Pennett. Your letter nf ?.ncent 13th accl~ nri 'e ril.y 'ith a recuent for c. " hec]in, nervien,.,nparcnLly "ror, t*n Snuth-western Power.N' ministration. This e'.atter har been the nnSinct ^F < o r r a r rr''o c a c ". dircusrions 1 etveen the operating porrenrol o the corrany, and William L. creen of the "onrd of rnt.]ic "orhn of the City of t'alden which culminated in a Intter n' ",rch 15, 1979. t'e would rcrpectfully direct your ettention to t-h.n t prior correspondence with the City of "alden. o As I am sure that you are aware throuch vour #irm's participation in ".iscoui-i U tilition cor,pany, an1 recent Union Flectric Corpany lochet, "i ssouri f.'tilitics Company is not a party to any interchango agree:,ent and in not involver' in the interchange nales-purchases of electrical power. The

>f.

~ ' ~ \\ i, Mr. Charles F. Wheatley, Jr. c page Two September 14, 1979 Company does not maintain area load control responsibility, 8 and lacks physical facilities and capability to provide a Wheeling service. Without considerina the ultimate issue of whether Wheeling is feasible, given line capacity and rever flow studien which have not been made, we do not believe at this

juncture that it is cither technically possible or practically

. feasible to attempt to develop the power flou stuc1y and the cont of service study necessary to develop a wheelina rate, much lenn the engineering studies which uould be required as a condition precedent to consider the engineering technicali-ties of Pheeling and lciad control. ffe do, however, under-stand that Mr. Bill Green in to contact SPA to investigate these technical problems and their potential nolutions. Of course, the Ccnonny does utand t.rillino to include this subject in its dinctisnione, anc1 in opnn Cor any suggen-I tions along these linos. Mith respect to the specific nrobjen o# ocai.ing power from SPA, a look at service area marc "ott19 iiHicate that the city' n imediato problen could apparent.ly '?e 1 es t nerved by the City building its e.m substatta, n,' interconnectinc with the SPA line imediatelv a<1jace,t to the city of Malden without the.nced or any involvenent 'm the c.crnany. Fe '.rorP succont if the Cit r of *tal'on, in ' articular, and the City of Jachnen are ready to necotiate a noti elec-trical nervice artrecrent that an ear.1.y r<'"*mnber necting might be desirable. Very Respectftiliy, OLIVER, OLIVE" n JC'!E.9, T!.C. For the Pirn-JLb'jr:skh s ~

• ee

w 5/ %,, t. m

3.,,,.7,,.3 (.,,,y,.m

. 7 October 3, 1979 A meeting was held at the Missouri Utilities Company office, 400 Broadway, Cape Girardeau, MO. Attending, were representatives of the Cities of Malden, Jackson and Missouri Utilities Company as follows: g [e......=

• Y

' Charles T. Wheatley, Jr. and Edgar G. Berstein, Attorneys - Washington, DC; Jay Kumar, ARC, Washington, DC; William A. Green, Herb Preyer, Amos Santie and Sparrel W. Davis, City of Ibiden; Frank A. Risler and David J. Bollinger, BRPC - Malden, M0; Carl L. Telley and Carlton G. Meyer, City of Jackson; Francis R. Lengefeld, John L. Oliver, Virgil Chirnside, Louie R. Ervin and Larry D. Quinn, Missouri Utilities Company. Larry Jones of Kennett called j ust prior to the meeting to say he had to cancel. s MINUTES The meeting commenced with notation by Mr. Oliver that he only anticipated meeting with Mr. Wheatley in regard to Malden. Apparently, there was other miscommunication since Mr. Wheatley stated he had expected Union Electric to have representatives at'the meeting. Mr. Wheatley set forth the desires of the parties he represents as: (1) MU furnish off peak power under the SFR-1 rate; and (2) MU in conjunction with (1), provide wheeling service at least from SPA to Malden and preferably between any combination of the cities of Malden, Jackson and Kennett. Mr. Oliver responded to Mr. Wheatley for MU as follows: (1) The Company will make the SFR-1 contract available to all three cities; OR l (2) In the alternative, MU would enter into a new contract.with any of the cities, but available to all cities, in which the cities purchase a block of firm power from MU in an a=ount equivalent to that necessary to recover FW's actual allocated cests. In connec-tion with the alternative, MU would sell the cities non-firt power up to their remaining requirements. Mr. Oliver advised further that if a firm power contract co.uld be negotiated, and if, the cities would solve technical problems relating to load control and billing and present to MU an agreement between the parties involved, including SPA and UE, resolving these problems; then MU would consider provid-ing a transmission facilities service rate for prescheduled power flows on an annual reserved line capacity basis. .(3) MU also would of fer te supply the cities total.; requirements under a firm power contract. 1 1 1 l l

When quirzed by the cities on some approximate cost of a transmission service, MU responded that it may be in the neighborhood of $14.00 per kW per year. Mr. Oliver also pointed out that MU was not rejecting the possibility of providing a transmission service rate, but did prefer alternate arrangements such as Malden's direct connection to SPA. Mr. Oliver continued that as a distribution Company without facilities, experience or need for this type power venture involving interchange power and load control, MU would consider such an undertaking to be very risky, given the existing regulatory climate. Mr. Wheatley indicated the cities may seek an appropriate order requiring MU to wheel power for the cities if MU did not voluntarily agree to do so. Bill Green said that Ed Riggin, who works for Delbert Lyles at SPA, indicated there could be some load flow problems with an interconnection of MU's and SPA's systems at Malden in order to wheel 5=w from SPA to Malden. Mr. Green said after requesting SPA to get with MU and make a load study of this interconnection proposal, he had never received any study results. Bill Likens indicated that SPA had made such a load study and appeared not to be receptive to such an interconnection at Malden. No study has been made as to the ramifications on MU's system of such an interconnection at Malden. Nor has MU made a load study of wheeling Smv f rom SPA at Sikeston to Malden. Louie Ervin informed Bill Green it would be his responsibility to coordinate any 'C such studies as to any specific requests Malden may have and not simply ask SPA to get in touch with MU and solve whatever Malden's problems might be. Bill Green expressed some dissatisfaction as to sometime in the past, MU's dispatchers uere vague as to how much power, and when it was necessary for Malden to srnarate. Bill was informed that such a determination is not exact but. is subject to each dispatchers interpretation ar.d is provided to tbiden o tly as a serv 1::e since MU is not obligated to make this specific determination. Variuus scenario calculations for Malden were presented as requested and based on the JiA-1 rate at diffelent load levels. Jackson requested similar Sce.a s rios. Louie R. Ervin Rates & Customer Service LRE:sim cc: F. R. Lengefeld V. Chirnside J. W. Likens e

F e Y 0 o -W m 1?a p st; "9 44dac ~ 'f A"7' e= #macy _f;!. i 4, A '~ 4% cm -7 d v;, & J e e r o a gan g y xgf ~(;fBt-o c. c. OR R p d. Af& -Muza <+ s in. V n ;- , E g ; -

hMhui, m

- ~2a -. c.am -9lw_L J gj 1 9' L.. X s rz g n 't t g 0 N&Q4,,3., / .l. .~,

1..

~. ~~

g. , j;Tt, d

v..

Department of Energy f Southwestern Power Administration 1- ~ 4,- Post Office Drawer 1619 L. W. Tulsa, Oklahoma 74101 November 5, 1979 f a ll~ ~ 'l Mr. Francis Lengefeld i i Executiva Vica President Missouri Utilities Company "- ~;400 0 roadway Cape Girardeau, Missouri 63701 j

Dear Mr. Lengefeld:

'.k .O Mr. William Green, the City En'gineer for the City of Malden. Missouri, has requested that we confina with you that we foresee no load control or other technical problems relating to supplying 5 iT.1 of peaking power to the City of Maiden. 'Je are currently scheduling powar to Union Electric for the City of Kennett, Missouri, and we do not anticipate any problems scheduling power to Union Electric for Malden. k. If you have any questions or need any additional information, please let me know. Sincerely, S = Walter M. Bowers Q Chief. Division of Power Marketing li. cc: Mr. William A. Green '/ _ y City Engineer l 7 City of Malden 115 East Main L Malden, Missouri 63863, i '? l (Received from Bill Green, City of Malden, via his letter of 6/11/80) e ) w a ,oy . y y

l w' $"k <, v s t 'l r

.t. Ste :~: r, U. G J.'h, 1:.

i I Unica Liectric Co lav F.. yq;e 2 i i' {i Ecec e.r 13, 19/9 r / S.+ m.. ~ I k a-P: .,Nr. SW.h, I a a s.nra th:.t tM s is c:ac cf e.: o;;cruiv.a1 quw.icn thaa n My 1 t December 10,"1979'e ' M ' W M# ; ' 4 h "e0 i^ I-h M#e* D 3#* I 7 ww. :, u.. a L. ::. % ;;,; tin ' u tt '.:Wt t t aoxAll'- i'a r.ar.::r:d -by tac ) e ir. ~ ~ ,,, 4 dec.arte.c:.f., m *u ;.su ph..a fomi th t:

• 7 '.iur: pr TS. d: Greta '.t t.h '. nth that n: now r. vr:cm ' @.o :L.M *. s* p*.ui'de e.* a.

Mr. Stewart W. Smith, Jr. ~ Vice President and General Counsel Union Electric Company F. O. Box 149 8t. Louis, Missouri 63166 ~ O ' mear Mr. Smith, The City of Malden has received a com=itment from Southwestern Power Administration to furnish 5 m of peaking power for the City-owned electrical system. Southwestern Power Administration has agreed to furnish this power when (1) Truman Dam becomes I commercially operable, or (2) No later than January 1, 1984. The status of the Truman Dam project is u.telear at this time, but power may be available as early as the su=mer of 1980. The City of Bhlden is at this time trying to arrange for the most feasible method cf transmission of this power. The first method considered was to connect the City . disbribution directly to a Southwestern Power Administration transmission line just south of Malden. Thismethodwouldbeexpensive,butifiseconomically fraaible. It would, however, require a new direct interconnection between South-western Power Ad=inistration and liiscouri Utilities' existins 34,500 volt transmission line serving the City of Malden. This method has been te=perarily ruled out due to O c> r tic==1 tred1e== createa $7 thi= tatercoa= ceioa-The second method which is now under consideration would be for Southwestern Power Administration to deliver this power to the Union Electric (liissouri Utilities) ' i transmission system, and then Missouri Utilities wheel this power to the City of Malden. The City has, therefore, requested that Missouri Utilities agree to this type of wheeling arrange =ent and establish a tarrif for sa=e. Missouri Utilities' response to the City was that they would not consider the possibility nor the feasibility of wheeling power to the City of lisiden unless SWPA and UE would both agree that no load contral: or other technical proble=s would be created by such a wheeling agree =ent. Accordingly, SWPA by letter of November 5, lW9, (copy attached) has stated that they do not anticipate any problems with this wheeling. We now respectfully request Union Electric's cennurrence on this catter. Mr. John Oliver, attorney for liissouri Utilities, stated e=phatically that 12J must have written concurrence from SWPA and UB prior to proceeding. i i (Received from Bill' Green, City of Malden, via his letter of 6/11/80) l U O4.U** 7 +,. w ,yg-w-- 9-g-g gWW-r"WW--'&MgSM MM ' Ad ~*. N&

y. f,. I Mr. Stewart W. Smith, Jr. Union Electric Co=pany December 10, 1979 k Page 2 t t-A 'Mr. Smith, I as aware that this is more of an operational question than a legal { questien. However, I didn't know who to contact in UE regarding this catter. )t-Therefore, if this is a question that would not nomally be answered by the legal F department, would you please forward this.to the proper UE department and ask p that we have a response at the earliest passible date. 4. Sincerely, ) Q William A. Green City Engineer WAO:ng Attachment e } l l I O I (Received from Bill Green, City of Malden, via his letter of 6/11/80) a 8 e t

y ' ' ~ ' -+ w p/p.4rr _ y

1. r-=

W p Uw ON EttcTasc COMPANY esos c:arior svaccr-cr.touso g December 11, 1979 "^"'o S 8.O.Som e49 nr. tovi s. -o. 2... Mr. Charles F. Wheatley, Jr. Wheatley & Wollesen Suite 1112 Watergate Office Building RECEl ED 2600 Virginia Avenue N.W. OEC l31979 Washington, D.C. 20037

Dear Mr. Wheatley:

CW # This is in reply to your letter sent earlier this year to Mr. Dougherty on behalf of the Cities of Jackson, Kennett and Malden, Missouri requesting various proposals for direct electric service from Union Electric (UE). O Initially, I must express some surprise and confusion regarding the nature of your request as, while your letter in-dicates that the Malden and Jackson contracts with Missouri Utilities Company (MU) have or will soon expire, it is my under-standing that the MU contract with Kennett does not expire until the mid-1990's. You also stated that MU is not able to provide for the quantities and most effective needs of these cities' electrical systems. We are not aware of MU's inability to serve such customer's needs and, in fact, believed that the contrary was true on the basis of MU's testimony and exhibits in our cur-rent FERC rate case, Docket No. ER-77-614. While we are willing to discuss the supply of power to any utility, ue do not offer to supply such power without in-vestigating the availability and feasibility in each case. The reasons for this are the many concerns we face today in having O power available for the customers we are already obligated to i serve. Some of these concerns are: the various environmental l regulations; difficulty in obtaining permits for the installation .of additional generating and transmission facilities; the ever increasing difficulty in obtaining reasonable financing; govern-mental restrictions on our use of existing facilities; and the current regulatory complications under which any arrangement of this sort requires a great expenditure of company manhours and attract intervention in opposition to and contentions of precedent setting obligations on us. Regarding your inquiry as to the Cities' three alter-native methods of their purchasing power from UE, there are a number of matters to be studied and determined before a decision could be made on the availability and feasibility of such service. First, as I am sure you are aware, our wholesale service is normall'y provided within or at the border of UE's authorized service areas or at suitable points on our interconnected trans-e -.m. "a new y-m Ms = ~ n - n_; fa x a-@ W. www,

4 o ~ Mr. Charles F. Wheaticy, Jr. ~ December 11, 1979 Page 2 mission system. These three cities are not situated at such locations. Second, your assumption that transmission ar-rangements could be effectuated with MU may be erroneous. Although MU is a subsidiary, it has the responsibility for planning, constructing, operating and maintaining its own trans-mission system. At this time we do not know the specific capacity, availability, need, etc., or even what MU transmission facilities may be involved. UE cannot commit the use of MU's transmission facilities to provide any service. For UE to provide service of any type, the Cities must construct the neces-sary facilities to reach mutually agreed upon points on the UE transmission system or make their own arrangements with other parties (including MU) to effect delivery of power from UE's transmission system. Specific problems associated with your proposing that UE () serve the. Cities on a MPL/MU type contract include, but are not necessarily limited to, the following requirements and commit-ments by the Cities and UE: a) Complete coordination of the daily operations of the, generating and transmission facilities of the parties; b) As the parallel operation of the generation facilities of the parties can be contemplated, provisions for the propor-tionate generation of reactive supply will be required; c) Complete coordination of maintenance scheduling of generation equipment; d) Operation and control of the parties' generating plants as scheduled by tae UE load dispatcher; O e) Parallel operation of the Cities' & UE's transmission and distribution supply linec hnd equipment including the balanc-ing of three phase luads and the control over such loads so as not to exceed specified capacity limits at each point of delivery; ~ l f) Provision of sufficient reactive supply to insure a l power factor of 95% lagging or higher at each delivery point at the time of peak billing demand and the switching of such supply during light load conditions; g) Reductions of voltage and/or load in proportion to j reductions being made by UE, when necessary. Many of these requirements are also applicable to your I second and third proposals. However, there are additional pro-l blems associated with the development of your second and third proposals,. firm partial requirements or interruptible service to 6 k - -..-. - -.

o f, q Mr. Charlea F. Whenticy, Jr. e e Dec mb r 11, 1979 Paga 3 the cities under the W-3 rate, since the W-3 rate is for firm (not interruptible) service and for "all or substantially all of Purchaser's electric service requirements for its own use and for distribution and resale to its customers, citizens, or members, within all or a segregated portion of its service area." While the service you are requesting can be studied, this cannot be done without additional information from the Cities in reference to such items as the specification of delivery point locations, voltage levels, load requirements, metering, loss correction factors, transmission availabilities and capabilities, monthly load data on a 60 minute integrated basis at each delivery point on both a coincident and non-coincident basis, generation capabilities, unit performance test results, fuel supplies, availabilities and costs, pollution restricted capacity, reserve levels, other power sources, etc. ( We receive such inquiries as yours from time to time, and the complexities of our operation would require varying amounts of time of several UE departments to develop a specific response to each request of this nature. Additionally, the per-sonnel responsible for such matters are finding it more difficult to adequately respond to such requests because of an ever in-creasing work load. Therefore, if the Cities are sincerely in-terested in pursuing this inquiry and are willing to provide the information indicated herein, we would be willing to meet with representatives of the Cities for the purpose of discuscing your proposals for the supply of power. If the Cities decide to request that detailed studies be made by UE for the purpose of quoting specific rate proposals, we will require reimbursement for the cost associated with such work. We currently estimate such costs to be on the order of $20,000. () Very truly yours, / William C. Jaudes General Attorney wej/p bec: Messrs. W. E. Cornelius E. K. Dille \\ L. A. Esswein&#' 4 R. J. Kovach H. N. McCoy R. F. Schlafly e 6 " * * * * = = = = - -, ...m,. ~ .~ 7e

Sm '/ Decembe.r 17, 1979 Messrs. J. F. Watson / T. Kennedy Attached is a 1.etter from the City of Malden. For background informa-tion you should know that Malden is in the UE load control area. Malden apparently is pursuing the receipt of power and energy from SPA and has requested concurrence from UE that the proposed arrangement presents no problems. Reference is made in the correspondence to the arrangement with the City of Kennett. In that case the flow to Kennett was from the Sikeston Substation out to SPA transmission and was for new loads of Missouri Utilities at Kennett. In the case of Malden, the flow would be from (]g SPA's system into our system at Sikeston. If there are any intercon-nection flow condiderations and incremental loading aspects on facilities and the ability to make interchange transactions, this should be factored in with the answer requested by the City. I do not know the reason for the statement in the second paragraph of the letter that a 34 kV tie with SPA "has been temporarily ruled out due to operational problems created,? by this interconnection". (c, e 4.dr. f" t., 7<+

sfr ht m w;* -:l-~~

~ 4m ;; p -.. w 5 4 U :< ver s Also, while the letter contends that the arrangement would be similar to no /- ' */, the City of Kennett, we should know what additional administrative work ' (/j/ would be incurred by our people with this arrangement. While we had not e thought to include any administrative charge for load dispatch involve-ment with the City of Kennett, it occurs to me that some costs are incurred. It might be that there should be so=e administrative billing charge akin to that paid to UE by IP and CIPS for the service we provide them relative to the TVA arrangement. Additionally, it would appear that it enis is the case, we should discuss with the City of Kennett the fact O' that such an administrative charge was overlooked initially. j l Please let me have your comments on this as soon as practicable. [ f /bt' L. A. Esswefn LAE/cbv Attachment { I

g /.,._ f. ?. h M ' ' / RECEIVED . l'-{f'# oEc 2 01979 '- ' ~ c,,.,an ,(,,f,e fdv :4.w.~.s cw ,M//7/77.drrry7 's. + ~ g L csu,,4n C-cW;t : a.Cicm y 44 g V L k au, m t' x p 7p A p ~u n z/4 A,' suamu n m; 4a-aW :y aco seC- @ L.h w' n 'ps A'~ g ry,/y L hd n, L / teu m.s',,w A,wdu% ~ y fe.y A-d m. w!aly ~n d' , ~ se y x w ~ 777 f cp n. M/A~n~p !p-~dA/ g esu md n/r Aa, s xarp/. @ "/;?n,Y h.'Y cu,f.';$ SP/M K'c- .9 g &Ws./ dad ~ a:~ ic 4 ,,NL.J J O "M m - ~+=w mm, we-v_ an.-= w e m e + w,**-

• m-

~om* -+ ~~weoa p,p a ,.e,

' z ..g._._._ V 9 w / ( vV whows a n in, h ~~' J, cAJzwsk~2, n A? D dAffs / wad' ~ ~~ ^' M O ,3 y g _f~ e .e m g l e e 3

G, gg f. ,j -j .6j!N., U January 23, 1980 Mr. Stewart W. S:.ith, Jr. Vice President and General Counsel Union Electric Co.~:pany P. O. Box 149 St. Lcn11s, Missouri 63166 I O " ar nr s=ith ~ On Decc=ber 10, 1979, I wrote to you regarding the possibility of whccling Southwestern Power Administratica power to the City of Malden via Union Electric and Missouri Utilities. (Seecopyof 1etter enclosed.) To date I have not received a response to this requent. D Could you plea::e check into this and respond :st the earliest Possibic date. Sincerely, O w m im 4. areen City Engineer WAO:ng Enclosure ces chneles ITneatley (Received from Bill Green, City of Malden, via his letter of 6/11/80) e T-" %w.s,,_se,p ~% a#44 --- ^" h*

- ^ '

.h.-- a ~ {

6P n .s c p 1 + b - L.-gadh..- d w.* -~ t Feder;l Recist:r / Vol. 45/ No. 23 / h!nndav. Febmary 11. '1980 / Noticea 0387 o t d' :-- D.C. 204 6. In accordance with Section SFR-t rate.The rate. as rnodified after v11 cf the Stipulation and Agreement at 1.8 and 1.10 of the Commiss.on's Rules hearimt. was found to be just. g, 'l Dccket No. RP78-77 and of Practice and Procedure (13 CFR 1.8. reasonaLie and othenvise lawful. The I (7) A revision to Afini3sippis last initial decis;on aso held that h!alden 1.10). All su:h petitions or protests l previous " reduced PGA" rate. ii.Cecting. should be f; led on or before February 20.and lackson would be served under the revised projected incremental pncing 1980. Protests will be considered by the SFR-t rat-after the:r respective fixed-surcharges ("MSAC") for the pened rate contracts c spire.3 Present!v. the Starch 1.1930 through Au2ust 31.1930. Ccmmission in determmm2 Ine hfississippi' states that the base tanff appropriate action to be taken b.;t wdl consolidated dcckets are pending final l rates set forth on Seventy.Fifth Revised not serve to make protestants parties to Commission action. c j Sheet No. 3A are based upon the the proceedmg. Any person wishing to On September 9.1379. A!U tendered j provisions of the St.pu.ition and become a party must fde a petit.on to for filing an unexecuted service l Agreement at Docket No. RP7&-77 intervene. Copies of this fihng are on file agreement under its filed SFR-1 tariff. which was approved by Commission with the Commission and are available to apply to Nialden, after the expiration letter order dated December 11,1979. for public inspection. of Malden's fixed rate contract on October 1.1979. The filing was duly i hfississippi has informed the Kenne S F.Ptamb. " noticed and h!alden filed comments but ) Commission that the pipehne st.pplier Secn tery. chose not to intervene. On November 5. rate refunds credited to its unrecovered im o w rit s u..g 1979. we accepted the service agreement purchased gas cost. referred to m !2) above, represent the entire jansdictional for filing. suspended it for one day, and em.o coce mo.cws made the filing subject to the outcome of portion of refunds receised by Mississippi since the date of IDockets Nos. ER80-124 and ER80-125] litigation on the SFR-1 tarriff in Docket Nos. ER77-354 and ER78-14. into which hiississippi's last previous erai. annual s uri Utilities CN Order Accepting the proceeding was consolidated. We. PGA fding. Miss ssippi s for Filing and Suspencing Proposed gg e- .:{ recognizes that some portion of such .ervice Agreement. Sevenng and service agreements be modified b>' credited amounts may be subject to the Consolidating Cockets and Oval f a re al restr ction found to 'I pro' visions of Section 282.500 of theCommission's Regulatio is dealint wjth Estattishing Prccedures du the makmg oflump sum payments with issued. February 5.1930. anticompetitive, Present Filir;r On December 7.1979, respect to certam refund amounts On April 29.1977, in Docket No. ER77-htU tendered for filing a notice of attributable to non.csempt mdustrial 354, htissouri Utilities Company (htU) termination and cancellation of its fixed boiler fuel facilities served by tendered for fdin2 a proposed increase rate contract with Jackson which will hfississippi s sale.for. resale costumers. in its SFR-1 rate for the cities of htississippi states that it has requested Kennett. J ackson and hialden. htissouri. expire by its own terms on $tarch 2. g 1930.' Also tendered is an unexecuted By order f June 1.1977, the n n ex r pt us r Ib erf cl Commission ' accapted and suspended service agreemcat.,The tenderco 8I lacilities to provide the mfermanon the proposed rate applicable to Kennett: service agreement,a,s e=sentia"y ' idenucas to that.fued for N!U's service to necessary to determine the amount of however, it interpreted NIU's contracts Stalden. Docket No. ER%c42. It such lump sum payments which may ba with Jackson and Malden as requiring provides for service so jackson under 1 due,but that it has not receised such the existence of a negotiation unpasse MU s SFR-1 rate schedule. includes { 'nformation as of the date of the instant before MU.could, unilaterally request an pruis:ons for compensation to MU for I filing. Mississippi prorcscs to mak'e insestigatton of tne esistin; rw unda decreased or curtaded deiiseries and I such lump sum payrr.cnts wkn its safe-Section 200 of the Federd Pover Act. for.resafe customers prov;de the After finding that such an impasse smuys the purchaser's load factor.' Section 33.15 of the Cor-min.on's necessary data and to debit its existed. the rate as it re'.ates ta Jackson i unrecovered purchased g.is cost account was set far invest;;ation. with any rate. Regulations requires the filing of a i 'or the amount of such payments when increase to that customer to becomo g*[73,g'M'j'lj"lg,('Ed*dljlbE ~ they are made. Mississ.ppi states that effective a: me conclusion of Doc +e. No. i [ these procedures will permH sale.for-ER u,-334. 3 3,- resale customers to obtai ilump sum On October 5.1977, hjU resebmitted

• oodet m rneo-m payments as they provide the necessary the proposed rate mercase to Malden.

ioxut n tr.m.ia information. while aso, ding the designated Docket No. ER78-14. After 'sectmn 7.s D< cm scJ oe carmi!<d oc/n er;e4. in ite cum ir p-mems ta Pt.rchaser i necessity for delaying the flow through fmding that an impasse in new.iations c]l$,l'ljg2ll,8]'"' *f"Id of refund monies not attnbutable to non, existed between StU and Malden, we )',"]3;,,%a.,wi cr den,,.es of powe exempt boi!er fuel facilities pending the cCnditionally accepted the rate for filmg receipt of such informJtion. MisssWppi and deferred its use pendm2 the by e e conen, n car.wr..v.am een Purchscr.gre.:n to corrpens.s'e.he Cc:rpny in has requested waiver of the deterr-ination of the rate's lawfulness Commission's Rc;;ulations as weil as under Section 205 of the Federal Power Q','""'ydyl[#j,"jjf8 ']""* any provisions ofits tanii to the estent Act. Docket No. ER73-14 was connectio, wirh iransmission racot.ci ar.d necessary to permit the implementation consolidated with Docket No. ER77-seneration analor parcus.d power cones. necesa.i.ted by ibe preuously estabasted leve of of such precedures. 354.8 d'la'"- Mississippi states that copies of its lackson. Malden and Kennett oaJ a filing have been sened on all intervened and actisely participated in ['f'" # 2 ,e lurisdictional customers and interested the Commission s msestigation of the pu,cs,,,g,..,g g, g,ng.,,.,,,,,, g, state commissions. but ret iris tNn Wsu cr s snte, ma riciar. Any person desirine to be heard or to cm%s,w rrrm u. tb r,9ral in +.. n em m(n.scr ue, rn n or ent,.A Nwer C.: ... rmro:na m i.ons tan prm. to ro er.i

• erer.v it is..~ec. enar Cm ics n;;l

'ne run protest said f.!ina shou ld f:le a peution to intervene or p'rotest nitn tne lydcol Octot,er i. iu'7. nd otherwae to the haer.d dciner and hr r.aser a al ecep' det.ms reater than but not tein th.us Wrcuser s.3 stern to.a Energy Regulatory Commisuon. es2,s gn,,,, p m,,,,orv co w..=n. North Capitol Street NE., Washington. = 0rder n. ed sneraber 4.19 7. roctor. ~ i I o

/ i Federal R; gist:r / Vol. 45. No. 29 / Monday February 11. 1980 / Notices - si kb y r.3 IDockit N ;. TA80-1-20 (PG A80-2. lPR80-2 r. i I become effective as of March 3.1980. AP80-1 T80-1)) Wice of cancellation where no new subject to refund. .:a schedule is to be filed in its place. .Ps fiint of its superseding service (B) Docket No. ER79-642 is hereby Ahodn Gas Dansmissbn 4 Me rcen ent makes the tentier of a notice severed from Docket Nos. ER77-334 and Change Pursuant to Purchased Gas C nancellatbn unnecessary. ER78-14 Cost Adjustment Provision In response to notice issued December (C) Docket No. ER79-642 is hereby h p t t oned consolidated with Docket No. ERS0-124. February 5.1980. l }!8Ck$$"n eq (D)The rate levels contained in the Take notice that Algenquin Gas I ,d

• ihe city a!!eges that the senice filings in Docket Nos. ER79.-612 and Transmission Company (" Algonquin nreement is both discriminatory and ER80-124 shallbe subject to the Cas") on january 17.1960 tendered for

ll.co: petitive. Specifica!!y the city outcome of Docket Nos. ER77-354 and filing 51st Revised Sheet No.10 and 1st Revised Sheet No.10-B to its FERC Gas mieges that Section 1 of the agreement ER78-14.

W. cully restricts the end use of power (E) Pursuant to the authority Tariff. First Revised Volume No.1. and results in an exclusive dealing contained in and subject to the Algonquin Gas states that this sheet is restriction.' Section 7.l is challenged as jurisdiction conferred upon the Federal being filed pursuant to Algonquin Gas' s gearantee of use restriction Energy Regulatory Commission by Purchased Gas Cost Adjustment . inconsistent with the interruptible Section 402(a) of the Department of Provision set forth in Section 17 of the

ower provided. Section 7.2 is alleged to Energy Organization Act and by the General Terms and Conditions of its ce an effective guarantee ofload factor.

Federal Power Act. and pursuant to the FERC Cas Tariff. First Revised Volume lackson contends that the twenty year Commission s Rules of Practice and No.1. Such rates reflect the fo!!owing:(i) term provision contained in Section 8. is Procedure and the Regulations under the an adjustment to amortize the December u recessary and burdensome. Federal Power Act (18 CFR. Chapter !), a 31.1979 balance in Algonquin Gas' MU's proposed service agreement public hearing shall be held concerning Unrecovered Purchased Gas Cost wi.h the city of Jackson has not been the justness and reasonableness of the Account (Account 191). (ii) a change in mwn to be just and reasonable and - ny be unjust, unreascnable unduly service agreements proposed by MU in the cost of purchased gas from its,on escriminatory, preferential or othenvise Docket Nos. ER60-124 a0d ER79-642. supplier. Texas Eastern Transmissi "nf awfal. The tendered filing should be (F)'Ite Cities of Jackson and Malden Corporation, proposed to be effective shall be permitted to intervene in this February 1.19CO. and (iii) the projected accepted for filing and suspended for proceedir.g pursuant to Section 1.8(a) of Incremental Pricing Surcharges for the o.c day. to become effective as cf March 3.1980. subpet to the outcome of the Commission's Rules, subject to the period March through August 1960. a hearing in this docket and final Rules and Regulations of the Algonquin Gas requests that the Commission action in consohdated Commission: Provided. however, that proposed effective date of the revised Docket Nos.ER77-354 and Eh78-14. We participation of the intervenors shall be =nall not interfere with the course of limited to their allegations as set forth tariff sheets as prescribed by Section 17 liQaticn on the SFR-I rate level which above: and Providedfarrhe.. that the be as of March 1.1980. has been decided by an administrative admission of the intervenors shall not be . Algonquin Gas notes that a copy of aw judge and is now before us on construed as recognition by the this filing is being served upon each esceptions. Therefore, we shall order Commission that they might be . affected party and interested State that a hearing be held only regarding the aggrieved because of any order or commission. ellegedly restrictive terms and orders entered by the Commission in Any pers a des..inng to be heard or to conditions in the unexecuted service thi8 proceed'm<. protest said filing should file a petition r : cement governing service to jackson (C) A presiding adm.. trutivelaw to intervene or protest with the Federal mis b.nl Malden for the reasons described judge,t be designated by the Chief Energy Regulatory Commission.625 blow). We sha!! direct that a Admtmstrative 1.aw Judge pursuant t North Capitol Street. NE., Washington, wehearing conference be convened 3 D'C 20426. in accordance with H 1.8 and wit!.in 00 days eo that allissues 1 neat sues within 30 IMO of the Commission,s Rules of regarding the unexecuted service days after issuance of this order in a Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 1.8 acreement may be clearly delineated. hearing room of the Federal Energy 1.10). All such petitions or protests. Malden has petitioned to intervene F should be filed on or before February 19. . a-d suggests that Docket No. ER79-640 t 1St' sn ng r. D.C. 1930. Protests will be considered by the 2012S.The presiding administrative law Commission in determmmg tne J o s se ice ce ent e shall judge is hereby authorized to establish appropriate action to be taken but will permit Malden to pursue its allegations all procedural dates and to rule upon all not serve to make protestants parties to reg.stding the terms and conditions of its motions (except petitions to intervene. the proceeding. Any person wishmg to wrvice acreement.We shall sever motions to conschdate and sever and become a party must file a petition to Docket ER79-642 from the consolidated motions to dismiss), as provided for in mtervene. Copies of this filing are on file Docket Nos.ER79-354 and ER78-14 and the Rules of Practice and Procedure, with the Commission and are available consolidate it with the instant filing. (H) The Secretary shall cause the for public inspection. The Commission Orderst prompt publication of this order to be (A) MU's proposed service agreement made in the Federal Register. Kenneth F. Plumb. with Jackson is hereby accepted for Secretary-hiing and suspended for one day to ~ Kenneth F. Plumb. Qcoot N W By the Commission. In om e>esa4 raed -e-act a ss aml , Jackson notes that a similar provision was 8eCretcry. ~ mersMy reiecte.1 by our c,rder of.% ernber s.19r9 ' NcW M ER79-M1lacksen fails to note that IFR occ eS4 En FJed 24-aut a 45 aml W J.J twt include tb offed.rg provision in WW coot 64N48

.Cavis sersite as tement which w.is tendered for t

sdens afterissuance of the Noseinber s.19~9.crder. t ?~?

Y 6 Y ..a

+...:.

_t. February 14, 1980 F* Mr. Francis Lengefeld Missouri Utilities Co.pany 5 400 Broadway Cape Girardeau, Missouri 63701 t Dear Mr. Lengefeldt At our r.ecting in Cape Girardeau, in October,1979, we discussed the possibilities of Missouri Utilities wheeling pouer to the City of At that time Missouri Utilities requested that we obftain Msiden. statements from Southwestern Fever Administration and Union Electric that dispatching or other load control prcbic:a vould not prohibit ) such wheeling. We requested and obtained a state =ent to this effect fros Southwestern Pouer Administration. (Copy enclosed.) On December 10, 1779, and again on January 23, 1980, we wrote to Mr. Stewart W. Srith, Jr., at To de,e we have Union Electric requesting their opinien on name. i received no response from Union Electric. l At our teeting in October you said that if we vero unsble to obtain i f the inforcation we desired to let you know and you would then advise t us on how to proceed. Q Sincerely, l Willias A. Green l. WAO ng Enclosure ces Charles Micatley (Received from Bill Green, City of Malden, via his letter of 6/11/80)

M. (r*O / g, UNION E't.ccTalc CO M PANY ems CseAfs37 cTMt? *CT. Ltuen February 28, 1980 *2 ' ".*, ' % ', * * ...too.. ...m.. t Mr. William A. Green City Engineer City of Malden 115 East Main Malden, Missouri 63863

Dear Mr. Green:

Your letter of December 10, 1979 to Mr. Stewart Smith concerning power delive. ries from SEA's hydro sources to Malden has been referred to me for response. () Union Electric is willing to work with other utilities, and specifi-cally Malden in this case, to resolve load control or other technical problems relating to the scheduling of power with other utilitics like , S EA. However, it must be recognized that there are a number of issues which must be addressed and resolved in establishing an interconnection. I am sure that if you talk to Mr. Larry Jones of the City of Kennett, he can fill you in on the details of some of the considerations which had to be resolved in working out an arrangement for Kennett. (Union Elcetric, and I personally, met twice with the City of Kennett and their consultant and had numerous telephone conversations and exchanges of correspondence among representativos of SPA, Kennett and its consultant, and Missouri Utilities so that Kennett could schedule power from SPA hydro projects while at the same time receiving deliveries from Missouri Utilities to augment Kennett's internal generation.) Based on our experience with SEA and the City of Kennett, I find it (} difficult to say "that we foresce no load control or other technical prob 1 cms relating.to supplying 5!si of peaking power to the City of Malden" as Mr. Walter Bowers stated in his letter of November 5,1979 to Mr. Francis Lengefeld (attached to your letter of December 10, 1979 to Mr. Smith). I, as well as Walt, know that there are probicos which have to be worked out, however, I believe they are manageable. Further, l.. it is necessary to analyze the costs associated with such a project, including installation costs, continuing operating costs, consulting I costs, etc., so that no utility, including Union Electric, is required to incur costs without receiving appropriate compensation. l (Received from Bill Green, City of Malden, via his letter of 6/11/80) a..... m., e ,/ l 1 1 i. s,e ( L u\\! i r' SOLVI.NG PROBLEMS THROUGH INVENTioN & INNOVATION

P Mr. William A. Green Page Two February 28, 1980 r Should the City of Malden wish~ to pursue this further, I feel it would be appropriate for all affected parties to meet and fully analyze the impact any such action would have on their systems as well as on the interconnected system. i. Since I note from Mr. Bower's November 5,1979 letter that you requested that SPA respond directly to Mr. Francis Lengefeld, I am sending him a copy of this letter. If I can be of further help, please let me know. Very truly yours, O ~ / .22 yr --v ,. Esswein irector .i Corporate Planning LAE/pm Mr. F. R. Lengefeld (MU) ec O ) sa (Received from Bill Green, City of Malden, via his letter of 6/11/80) e G I* e % W'*[?Lm*w1**T M ad m. _a v

m. e-

LAW OFFICES L Otivsa, Ouven & JONES, P. C. 400 8 ROADWAY P. O. 80X 559 l CAPE CIRARDEAU, MISSOURI 63701 g;g,,, gge4;ga=g.;; rutmewOsa si4/sss.e27s .m om m......... March 5, 1980 _ w,,, oncow.sai. 1 Mr. William A. Green 4~ City Engineer City of Malden 115 East Main i Malden, MO 63863

Dear Bill:

O 1 a 1ixe to ecxnow1edse your 1eeter of rebruerv 14, m, I'm afraid that your letter of February 14th misstates our understanding of the meeting of October 3, 1979. ) We indicated to you at that time that we saw no point in proceeding further with the study of the potential of i wheeling, a study which would be very expensive for us to i make and would include not only a complet2 review of our own technical problems, but also a cost of service study, unless we were first assured that the other utilities necessarily involved, to-wit, Southwestern Power Administration and Union l Electric, could effectively deal with the problem. i We did roccive the original of the letter of November 5th Q from Walter M. Bowers in which he states that the Southwestern Power Administration did not " foresee" a load control problem. The letter is far short of what we had anticipated in terms i of assurance that the technical problems were regolved as between Union Electric and Southwestern Power Adn_inistration. We are extremely disappointed to see for the first time the contents of your letter of December 10, 1979, directed to Stewart W. Smith, Jr. In the second paragraph of the letter, you indicate that the direct interconnection "has been temporarily ruled out due to operational problems created by this interconnection." We would appreciate an explanation of that as no such operational problems were revealed or discussed i with us. We also take exception to your characterization of our response as set forth in the fourth paragraph of the letter of December 10th. This is an inaccurate, incomplete and, in fact, misleading statement. (Received from Bill Green, City of Malden, via his letter Of 6/11/80). -.-..-_,-.-.--w3,. --.-.-,-.--..,,,,---.-w-,7 -y-

~ j Mr. William A. Green 1 Page Two March 5, 1980 e. i As I am sure you know, we are a separate and distinct operating company with our own management and do not operate under the control of Union Electric Company. We note that Union Electric has responded by its letter of February 28, 1980, and you should be in a position to proceed. Very truly yours, O ouven,Tt1ven&JOsts,e.C. ~ (c I \\ \\ \\ I( (DMh a John L. Oliver, Jr. fl General Counsel for Missouri' Utilities Company o JLO,Jr./jg o O 1 I O i.. O P l 1 )* l (Received from Bill Green, City of Malden, via his letter p..

_5* t ~ \\ 4; rren-rm m .3 k.% ~ r March 12, 1980 Mr. Francis R. Lengefeld, President Missouri Utilities Co.peny hoo Broadway Cape Girardeau, Missouri 63701

Dear Mr. Lengefeld:

Since our meeting in dape Girardeau last October, se have contacted both Southwestern Potcr Administration and Union Electric regarding Missouri Utilities wheeling power to the City of Malden from SWPA. You have been furnished with copies of all correspondence. Mr. Walt Bowers, Southwestern Power Administrotion stated in part, ... that we foresee no load control or other technical probic=s relatind to supplying 5151 of peaking power to the City of !!alden." Mr. L. A. Essaein, Director, Corporate Planning, Union Electric, ctated in part, ".. there are probices which have to be arked out, however, I believe they are manageable. Further, it is nepessary to rmnlyze the costs associated aith such a project.. ". Mr. Lengefeld, f6 no appears to me that we must have the annuer to two specific questions from Missouri Utilities in order to proceed. 1. Will Missouri Utilities acrk with the City of Malden in determining the specific require =ents, including ecst of services, for LU to wheel 5 la of po rer to the City of Malden? l 2. If it is determined to be both operationally and economically feasible for LU to wheel pover to the City of Malden, vill l MIJ ente;r into a sheeling agreccent with the City? ' 1 1 Mr. Lengefeld, in order that we may begin making plans for handling our future electric loads, we would appreciate hearing from you at your earliest convenience. As suggested by Mr. Escwein in his letter of February 28, se agree that it vould be appropriate for all affected parties to meet and discuss this proposal. The City of Malden vill meet at a time and place mutually acceptable to Missouri Utilities and Union Electric, l Sincerely, l Herb Preyer, Chairman cc: Charles Wheatley (Received from BL11 Green, City of Malden, via his letter of 6/11/80)

.q G ',, U /j* ?, ss ,,h y,'.,. MDesoUU.I UTIr,1Tres Gouenr v

• ., =.

. (. {'i Y 'T. J, ,400 BROADWAY e P.o. DoX do e ./4 ;, CAPE olRARDEAU ~ MIS 5ouRI S3701 o ,, c.. .f. ' " 4. w * ~ 314/335 9488 , n ;.. ; e y. ..;..; b .,j ;'.,[c,(AngA COct w -- Je, (, ' . %:.f.(.[..g',p *4f,' a '737 ' 3PPANCss M. LENCEFELD. ,. f. ...,' S 7, E,. I,.. '. .

• ) * 'g'

~.,: N"r, I. ft[, .,e. .e-s,,*,. c . tApril 7F 1980 .,i., 'J(I,'*J.'M %. z.g,g 4.q. LANSMON. , f, g,' '7 ' ' [ , 7 CUstTIS LaVAN. L in, ;. gvece possioser a vesseusse

• ;'.. :.q.,,.. 3

.Ji, ,,, I'*,,.ff ,,,r ggertagggga e agg y, yogaggage ,j..., .,, J..;:, e* N. ~- = .h,r,.' wnom CMsmNstot. ...,, 7.',.?.:; '>'< i..; .t'., - a3 . *). wtLDON o. HtLP nr.

t..,, -.

o.

f ;y.cs emaseoter m eacostane

3..

c. ;.,..,.,

i.:... p; :::.;.,%j '.O...... > '^ '

• c, ; >.,, ;.,

..y, ec.,74., .~....c,.- .c. ~: <. ' u,.,,,..,,:,, - ...::.i,;.. W.,;r: M [y .. ~ _Wi.'j. ~- ~ f ' ;.. --y . a'! * .:. x ^ c.;. 4.,i 4 '.. .*l m. . 3....c. * * *

• 20:Y.. Mr. Herb Proyer, Chairman

~ Board of Public Works N .- ' 111 East Laclede Street Malden, MO 63863 C.. O. Dcar Herb:

x

^ I would like to acknowle I 1980, which, for some reason,dge your letter of March 12, office until March 18, 1980. was not received in this to negotiato a new contract with the City of Malden on aH comprehensive basis, to carry your anticipated future loads.in order to be abic to reinforce our s ystem We were, however, of 1978, a meeting was arranged, at which time the Bo Public Works promised to transmit to us the prospective needs of the City of Malden, and the City's desires as to alternate forms of the contract. from the City, and on March 21, Again,.we did not hear the Board and again requested a specific delincation of1979, Mr. Chirnside contractual arrangement O to have with Missouri Utilitics Company.that the City of Malden would like would have a specific proposal in two to three weeks. T On April 17, 1979, we cuch proposal was forthcoming. ' Wheatley, your lawyer, requesting rato informationWe did get a letter from Mr. ' fact of the matter is that for almost four years" w,e have but the q - been tr basis, ying to deal with the contract on a comprehensive and have been frustrated at every such attempt, Gither by litigation or a request for rate information ~ Indeed, the history of this entire matter demonstrates ing, in good faith, to avoid approaching the future cont ralationship botucen Missouri Utilitics and the City on a c ual Piece meal basis. This is not a matter which can, in fact 10 1 r. Oteceived from Bill Green, City of Malden, via his letter of 6/11/80) O. l

... -,I,.. Mr. Herb Preyer, Chairman .;. i ~ M,' Board of Public Works, Maldsn V * ~' I April 7, 1980 ..; ^

1. ~ aI f '

T.;.." -; : ?:-;,.'/- '~ ~ 1.* $ 4 1 5.' *. b' O W,.. %.!' ' Pa ~ ,.1 l.,g.;.'. % :*ge Two.....e.x.hi5&%;-k(t'::lW(: + ~. ';U.Y ~....Q* Y i * '.\\'* ~

p ~;>-y '; ;[.; a.f,y;;Q f(dg,f

}yj; l ; t. 'Q.g,;.f.[f. & y-: f

.:.z. 3... f %,-h.g.A, : be dealt with on a' piece mesa.l basis. The differin'g rates and $'.h.y,7.1.*F. ' differing types of service, which are theoretically possibl 8,.U M,h/ before the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission,TF.as. indicate G a-i - svM7 M.... - f.h y $ K'.<" For; instance, under the existing. tariffs, which include %..W/.'. J the unexecuted contract, the Company will not, and is not in

T;,

.'I.a position to wheel electrical power to the City of Malden.

26 :' However, we have not foreclosed that possibility. O. But you ', must also recognis:e that we cannot develop a rate, or perform ~ ..,,; a cost of service study, without knowing what type of contract-g ual arrangement, future anticipated load r.equirements, and C covering what term, etc., the City and the Company can agree. t ~ It has been our experience, and the experience of the-electrical industry that you cannot effectively plan and operate the system on a piece meal basis, but that the plan must be comprehensive and envision all of the facets of the I inter-relationship between the Company and the receiving utility, the City of Malden, and must also deal with the Company's internal operations and area supply capabilities, as it is, or may in future be affected by a resale situation. We find ourselves in the position where, with the accumulation of litigation in Dockets No. ER77-354 and ER80- ~ 124 and ER80-125, we do not know what the relationship is between Missouri Utilities Company and the City of Malden, 'although from the last decision of the Federal Energy Regulatory Q ~ , Commission, it appears that you are taking service under the tariffs which contain the existing contractual conditions. We have indicated to you that under the existing unexecuted - contract, which constitutes and forms the basis of the . rules, regulations and conditions under which the City is taking power and energy at this tima, we are not in.a position b., to wheel, and that no wheeling can be accommodated under }," that particular contractual arrangement. Quite frankly, under the situation that now exists, with the litigation and multiple treats of litigation, which we have directly and indirectly received, it is difficult, if not impossible, for us to precisely answer your two questions. Therefore, we would reiterate the requests we have been making constantly since 197G, and specifically since September b of 1978, that we deal with thiu contractual relationship ,only on a comprehensive, as opposed to a piece meal basis. o a. f. 1 9 .q-(Received from Bill Green, City of Malden, via his letter of 6/11/80) ,_w .m

l k

_ *[

.' 'Mr. H'2rb Prsyn, Chairman / py, ,i, A, .,' ' Bonrd of Public Works, Malden. cg. ., J ;.. ',' N April 7, 1980

%,.,,. ;... g.

7'!p.,.,:e,.m.'.,-[<. .i< .Page Three . L.7,

i. e.

^ };..c s;?.&.. * *. 4' *S,.,.; ;'.;:..,I *W.. %.. u 06l.:. lY.:;::;.?+:.',, 3 :. 3.js W.:* i. p:. ;. 4;; '. m, '.. ; l1 '... 4 .:l .M . h. .,? "; m.

• .," - * %: ~

m 3., f.i.y:, ;

..--pg. _

~ 'In our October ~ meeting, we advised the~ City of Malden ,4...that when, and only when, the Cityfof Malden had worked out e$f? the operational problems with Southwestern Power Administration X U Y:sjf and Union Electric, would we devote our limited personnel .'ll/.j, and financial resources to the problems presented by wheeling, p.,a.R:,'and that if wheeling then appeared feasible, given the gjdy : severe internal problems it could create, that wheeling W r.tfir.would be considered only as a part of a separate and distinct ?(.,.;.y " contractual arrangement, other than SFR-1 rate and tariff . ;..L provisions. .4. ~ ') It is obvious from your letter of March 12, 1980, that the external problems of the Union Electric - SPA Load Control Areas have not been worked out. You know, and have been repeatedly advised that we do not have load control capability, O and do not operate a load control area. Until the load control has been worked out in 'the load control area of the .. companies involved with the interchange, and until we are ~ . advised of how those problems have been resolved, we are not even in a position to evaluate the potential affect of 4 wheeling upon our internal operations. You must keep in mind that the operations of Missouri Utilities company and Union Electric are sepa' rate, distinct and independent, as are the problems presented to the various entities involved. ppropriate personnel from Missouri Utilities Company will, of course, meet with the City of Malden, SPA and Union Electric Company at any mutually agreeable time.

However, auch a meeting will be of little benefit to us, as a company,

~ gn_tj.1 Union Electric and SPA have worked out their oroblems, end indicated the cost of such service to you. O we have spent a tremendous amount of effort and sub-L- stantial funds trying to accommodate the City of Malden, without any good faith reciprocal response or proposed commitment. If the City of Malden desires some contractual criangements other than the SFR-1, we will consider it upon receipt.of a comprehensive outline of the proposed terms and commitments of such an arrangement. j i;., Very respectfully, I l MISSOURI LITIES COMPANY l M- -W t Francis R. Lengefeld FRL/jmg 3 ~ ' l (Received from Bill Green, City of Malden, via his letter of 6/11/80)

$q ~ City Light cnd Wct:r BwAd aj puMic Such. l i t E. LACLED E ST. MA1. DEN. MO. esses ~ ) 3f 4 374 223e 394 37s.3418 orrct Mem.. JAcKit ANotRSON ERNEST MILES. SacmETAny Auco SANTIE. T"WJttcMUE Htma Pacica. yyngt CH AIR M AN JOHN DOWNING April 30, 1980 Mr. L. A. Ecswein Director, Corporate Plannin;; Union Electric Cc pany 1901 Gratiot Stree P. O. Boy. Ih') St. Louis, Mitscuri 63166

Dear Mr. Eccwcin:

Today I talked to F.r. Richsr'! Sau3ea,'istel.^or.c2rnInc infor.T.ation we neeri re:;ardin7, ne.;otiation:; with liitsourt Utiliti': vncelin power t o the City of I'.al'.cn from O'.vTA. 'A have your lot te'r cf February 28,190 in uh.'..h you atat.c 1 in part ". there ar.: probb. which have to b: n %i ent, hat: ver I bel.iow they are ::anatv.:4b le ". Could you p1 mat c urito us another letter statin ~,;: 1. The probic : or type of proble:-n that ycu foresee. 2. The inf:rmr.cion or data U.E. neull reqttire in order to work out proble area.:, aM f rera t:hvi thi: infor.eation would be request.cd. 3 The meetine'(s) you uoul1 an'.icipate necc.csary to prcperly coordinate planning for *.hc prepcel uhnoling. h. Any other teps ycu feel applicahD in ht =rr.ining th:

• )

• technical cu i e ceno.ti< facsibility of uheeling power from SEPA lines to M.U. lines to the City of Malden.

Mr. Essucin, thanks in advance for y ur cooperatien in this matter. We are requesting a si.ilar letter froa St.TA. If you neef. any adiltional information or have any questions, plea:e.:ive.Te a call. The City of Fciden would be villing to offer any assictance pos ible in obtaining necessary inf0rr.ation frca ShTA and Miccouri Ur.ilit!es. Sin,cerely, i[../f(dM h WW Willia::: A. Green City Encineer Gened and Opetated % C0e Sene{u c{ DEe Cilhens of e>11alden (Received from Bill Green, City of Malden, via his letter of 6/11/80)

[ LA) City I.idit ansi Wat:r Board ej (Ju/dic 20ada 111 E. LAC 12DE ST. mat. DEN. MO. esses s ta.a7e-sase as4. ate asts Assos SANYtt. CHAIRMAN McRa l'Rzys.R. VaCs CNAIRMAN OFFICE MOR.. JACNIE ANDERSON ERNEST Mil.ES. SECRETARY JOHM DCWNING April 30, 1900 Mr. Francis R. Lengefeld Missouri Utilities 400 Broadway P. O. Box 40 Cape Girardeau, Missouri 63701 Q

Dear Mr. Lengefeld:

I am writin6 in response to your Ictter of April 7, 19o0. Mr. Lengefeld, I assurc you that the City of Malden is equally concerned recarding our contract necotiations. Our nact contract discuscicns have alunys included proposed rates fron Misscuri Utilitic: to the City of Malden. As nur rate issue bas been placed bercre the F7.RC for a deter. sin- - ation, we ccul.1 see no uny or arrjving at a.:utu::.11y a:;recable contract until the rate icc*:e uns cettled. It now appears that our rate issue is nearing a fir.al decision. Upois expiratien of our existin; contrae t on October 1,1979, litssouri Utilities filed an unexecuted cervice agree.nent with the FERC. It was our understanding that this filing was to establish the rates that would apply to l'.alden until the rate issue wa: settled. We later learned tha'. the City would be beund oy the term of this agreement as filed ,O unless we filed with the FERO requesting specific changes. F'z. Langefeld, we have stated on numerous occasions that pcrtions of that contract are not acceptable to the City of Shlden. We, therefore, did file before the FERC, and it is ety understanding that hearinc.: vill be held in July to I settle the contract terttnology. q. It is our opinion that diteussions regarding SII uheeling STPA pcwer to l' the City of Ihlk n is a distinct and sepacate issue from the contract issues presently rending berece the FERC. I therefore repeat the tuo questions in q letter of March 12, 1980; that ic: 1. Will Missouri Utilitic unrk with th City of Malden in deterainiu; thc: spceifir requircer ente, in.71uding cos t of servicet, for Idl to wheel 3 !N cf nwer t.o the City of Malden? e Osened and Opetated Do, CGe.Sansfit of Ds, Otizans of cAfafjan (Received from Bill Green, City of Malden, via his Ictter of 6/11/80)

t ~ i Mr. Francis R. Lengefeld April 30, 1980 Page 2 2. If it is determined to be both operat'icnally and econo =ically feasible for MU to wheel power to the City of !biden, will ' 'f. * *. i...' MU enter into a wheeling agreement with the City? N!: 3,, 1 Mr. Lengefeld, our discussions regarding the wheeling of SWPA power, /. as well as the need for a wheeling rate whereby the City of Jackson, Malden, and Kennett can provide mutual protection during emergencies, have been going on for more than two years. To date no meaningful decisions have been rade. We must, therefore, request an annuer 3 concerning this wheeling issue at the earliest possible date. Based on the letter freu SWPA dated November 5,1979, and the letter from UE dated Februar:( 28, 1980, we see no reason uhy !G should be unuilling to pursue this matter to a timely conclusion. As ue have stated on () numerous occasions, the City of Malden is approaching a load condition for the su=mer of 1980 whereby an emarcancy in our city power plant could have a disasteroits effect on our city electric rates. We have standby pouer available to protect such an e.r.orcency but must have a wheeling agree.nent uith bl! in order to r,et this pouer. Under these conditions, we can see no justification for further delay. - Sincerely, Herb Prcycr unaircan '() l i (Received from Bill Green, City of Malden, via his letter of 6/11/80)

/= tR N ! %'N M $ @\\ l .? '"M e a SPARR EL W. D AVIS .O)jC/h City of Malden y'?*.jp.Q A?4 *.J ROSCOE E.THORNTON 43 V ne s. eames CITY CLEnst M ALD EN. MIS S OU RI 63863 EB W. M. JOH N SON puontes 276 45o2 3 ?"# OtpuTV CsTV CLtan 276 3837 1878 - 1978 April 30, 1930 Mr. Italter M. Bowers Chief, Division of Power Marketing Southwestern Pcwcr Alministration P. O. Drauer 1619 Tulsa, Oklaho.~.a 74101

Dear Fr. Bowers :

O In a phone conversation to:tay with it. Van Horten of your o[fice we discussed so.r.e problems the City of !!alden is havin-in cbtaining a wheeling acreeneat with Missouri Utilities. 'le have yceur letter of November 5,1!79, in uhich you tate that you "forcsee no load control or other technical prchicm:.", and ue have a similar letter frca Union Electrie (copy enclo:cd) wherein they state that "then are probierrs which have to be work.ed out, however I belle.c they are cana". cable." 'Je have acted Mic:curi UtilitJ e: to vork with u! to 4ctormine if it is technically an: e cacal.clly fencible for the.a to aheel power to the City of Mal.Ien, and if s'o, to publich a wheelinn; rate for our use. With the above latters in hani, we have :till been unabic to get meaningful diccc:: ions unieruay uit1.117.e arling nhceling. We now need anothar icttcr t'ron EWPA vith norevhat nore. pe.71fier infor. cation. Could you please provide us uith a letter statin as :pecifically as possible: 1. The spe:dfD data or type of data i. hat wouE be rcquire! by SUPA and uho uculd pr: ri?.c thin int'orua! Ion ("U, ITE, the City cf Maiden, er other;) in oric" for :'ilPA to take a firy. s tatenent rn.o.".n'; tc. hn taal feasib111ty for uhc.lin ; { and also to eatinaM the equipwnt that uaull be required. P* 2. The acetincs tFat um:1d b2 4equirc: to properly analy c 1 cad cont"cl, Li t ra' ch in.., e tc., inclui'.nr uhich por:cenal f* , (by dcparttent).1:;u U bc

• n att alaaM Trvi cach inta e:ted party.

3 there you voul.: rropos: cuch retir.g: be hC.i. 'e (Recieved from' Bill Green, City of Malden, via his letter of 6/11/80) 4 e

l

• /

J / i !*r. t? alter M. Scwc.: A.,ril 30, 1583 Pace 2 !4 Any other stera you feel 'applicabic in. deter. mining the technical and econonic fencibility of wheeling power from.CIPA lines to Mu lines to the City of Malden. Missouri Utilitle: has ached that both St.TA and LT state uncquivocally that there will be no loari control or dispatchin; prob 1 cess in :: hec 11n; power fror. the 0..TA tr in::alcsion cys ten to the City of ?..alden prior to Missouri Utilitica.?.aking a 'c-icion at to 4hether they are agreeabic to actu slly enterin; into a whcclins a rec.t;nt. Tould you please state in your letter your prarur :nen as to whether 3:TPA conducts the ncesscary investi ation: to :nt:c positive statcments ':;arlin; load control and C dispatching proble.1. before or after ;"J makes thic decisien. O Mr. Botters, I apoloci e fcr the necessity of requesting this letter, and would like to cay thank: in advance for your cooperation. We are reque: ting a sinilar letter fro.r. Union ilectric. If you hace any questiens or need any additional infory.ation, plcace give r.? a call. Sincerely, m ' h;s f,./$5W j William A. Gre.n City Engineer WAG :ng Enclosure 'q. a. e ) (Received from Bill Green, City of Malden, via his letter of 6/11/80) a f 6 U****

.N r (,, ',/l j. ,7 i.Awcrricts Ouvsit, Ouvnn & JONES, P. C, t) . ' doo 0 ROADWAY P. O. 00X 5 3 ,',.f,.' .. CAPE CTRARDEAU, MIS 5oURI 63701 / m e.ouvra neso-isses ,. ouve m. Ja. }. gy,s a;gl,',=,*l;'l,g we suisss.eava ' spi,ILeu, coa. t ,b-Jacn ouve a =* ie7*> ,,t ,'.. ( '- , ~ ^ Jl., ... :.?,'f. May:8,11980 e / y, -.m

• /,,,

~~ . / ,,e,.ano, sones ., / Y *- 8 q e / optouNsEL / jg a i p.u,,,, w t. 2 1 ~' 6 Mr. Herb Preyer, Chairman Doard of Public Works 111 E. Laclede St. , ~, Malden, MO 63863

Dear Mr. Proyer:

This will acknowledge your lotter of April 30, 1980. I see no reason for you to continue to write thesc letters, particularly the ones you have been uriting which are obviously being suggested by the law firm of Wheat 1cy & Wollesen in an effort to catablich ccme type of advantage in what we can only assume to be a threatened icgal proceeding based on Mr. Whcatley'o totally unwarranted statements in our Octobcr mcoting. a Quite frankly, Herb, I am also tired of' receiving letters which indicate that we have been less than timely, or in any way dilatory, in our responses or dealings uith you. I would note the follouing statements in your letter of April 30. You state, "Wo have otandby power available to O eroeece such an cmcreency....- In anowo= to data reaucats in Cacc No. ER80-124, the City of Malden has denied the existence of any such agreements. If you have such agree-ments, we would appreciate honest answers to our data requests. If you have no such agreement, then I suggest that such state-ments not be made in the lottors. Your letter of April 30 further makes reference to the contract and portions of the contract not acceptable to the City of Malden. IIorb, you could have told us about that as early as 1974 uhen you first got a copy of this " Form of Contract," and you could have given us thosc objections at any time prior to the filing, and we could have, under those circumstancos, uorked for a negotiated language. In fact, after uo made the filing, we provided alternativo language suggestions. The fact of the matter is that you have never provided one single alternativo, nor havo you over told us anything (Received from Bill Green, City of' Malden, via his letter of 6/11/80)

-A r' ,y 9 IINay 8, 1980 -2 Mr. Herb Prcyer

i. -

p. 4 other than you don't liko what we have offered. If we' offer something different, your lawyers then get employed by the m-w..h City of Kennett and claim th'at Kennett,is somehow being $2..; discriminated against, or, as I am sure the case will be in - the future, you and Jackson vill get your lawyers and claim that your are being discriminated against vis-a-vis Kennett. You were present at'the' meeting in October. You know .o' what our position is. We have advised you of our position. We cannot make determination of what our internal engineering problems are, what our internal technical problems are, what our internal management problems are, nor can we make a cost of service study without knowing in fact how Southwest Power Administration and UE propose to handle the load control problems. As we have continually told you, when we are told ((}. those specifica, then we vill take a look at the matter. We cannot deal with our potential problems based on generalities. We need to know precisely how it is proposed to be done. If you would like another form of contract we would be glad to sit doun and negotiate a firm power or partial firm power contract with you. Under those circumstances, or other e mutually agreeable circumstances, ue would be glad to discuss wheeling, but there is no point in discussing wheeling or in us expending our limited resources on a futile investigation into wheeling without the precise knowledge we have heretofore indicated is required. t We are not refusing to wheel, but we refuse to be bound to wheel until ue have enough technological and engineering data from Southuest Power Administration and Union Electric l to: (a) determine our problems, (b) determine the feasibility i of dealing with those probicas, and (c) determine the economic l realities posed by those problems. Get the information 'that we requested in October, and we will work with the City. 1 3+ Very respectfully, LTVD7, OLIVER & JOMES, C. -A e For the Firm s. JLOjr:skh cc: Francis R. Lengefeld t s (Received from Bill Green, City of Malden, via his letter of 6/11/80)

gy 3R .[h Department of Energy Southwestem Power Administration Post Office Box 1619 Tulsa. Oklahoma 74101 May 9, 1980 Mr. William A. Green City Engineer i City of Malden 115 East Main Malden, Missouri 63863

Dear Mr. Green:

O This refers to your letter to me of April 30, 1980, concerning wheeling of SWPA power and energy over the system of Missouri Utilities or Union Electric to Malden. I have reviewed correspondence and internal memorandums relating to this matter from its inception. In perspective, the statement in my November 5, 1979, letter to Mr. Francis Lengefeld is true; i.e., "we foresee no load control or other technical problems relating to supplying 5 MW of peaking power to the City of Malden." However, the statement must be read in light of others we have made; e.g., as indicated by our letter to you of October 5, 1979, that the area appears to be marginal in the capacity to meet loads, both in transmission and transformation. And during earlier discussions, problems were highlighted relating to the city interconn5cting directly with the SWPA transmission system, the SWPA system to MU's system at Malden, etc. In other words, all systems involved must be physically capable of allowing the SWPA power to be transmitted, without unduly burdening a Q given system, and at a fair price. We believe that further statements will be meaningless until all concerned parties can, as you suggest, meet and discuss the matter in full. We will be glad to participate and/or host a meeting for this purpose, and will appreciate your suggestion on a place and time. Sincerely, - ! Jf Mr i j Walter M. Bowers Chief, Division of Power Marketing 4 (Received from Bill Green, City of Malden, via his letter of 6/11/80) i

/, // kk o UNION EtccTaic COMPANY 19 00 G R AflOT STR C CT - ST. L"OUIS 84 AILI N G A D O R E S S' June 6, 1980 ..O..O.... ST. Loui s. MO. 6 316 6 Mr. William A. Green City Engineer City of Malden 115 East Main Street \\ 'Halden, MO 63863

Dear Mr.' Green:

Your recent letter to Mr. L. A. Esswein regarding potential SPA power deliveries to the City of Malden has been refered to me for response, as Mr. Esswein is currently quite involved with the Missouri Public Service Commission. ..- g In attempting to respond to your inquiry, I find some confusion ' as to the time frame involved. Earlier correspondence from you to Mr. Stewart Smith, Jr. indicates that 5 MW of SPA peaking power may be available to the City of Malden by the su=mer of 1980. In . reviewing my SPA file, I discovered that SPA's final power allocation for 1980 through 1988, as published in the Federal Register of March 24,1980 (Volume 45, No. 58), does not provide for any power deliveries to Malden during the period 1980 through 1983. The question of timitig is, of course, very important inasmuch as system conditions change over time. In order to properly respond to your inquiry, I believe the matter of timing should first be resolved. Accordingly, I would appreciate your sending me the latest infomation you have regarding SPA power deliveries to the City of Malden. This information will then allow me to respond to your inquiry in the proper context. {. Very truly yours, ~ ' /f M m William R. Herr Supervising Engineer-Capacity Planning Coordination and Special Studies WRH/cbv cc Mr. L. A. Esswein BCC Messrs. S. W. Smith i E. K. Dille W. E. Jaudes C. A. Bremer R. J. Kovach T. Kennedy H. N. McCoy

f 66 1 S N.', 4i City of Malden p) $3Mh, \\ sPARR EL W. D AVIS a-k 77,"'gezy } ROSCOE E.THORNTON no s.u = M ALD EN. MIS SOU RI 63863 E

w. M. JoH N son Pt4CN es: 276 4502 276 3837 1878 - 1978 Mr. William R. Herr, Supervising Engineer Capacity Planning Coordination and Special Studies Union Electric Co=r,any 1901 Gratiot Street P. O. Box 149 St. Louis, Missouri 63166 0

Dear Mr. Herr:

I am writing in response to yourletter of June 6, 1980, regarding potential Southwest Power Ad=inistration deliveries to the City of Malden, Missouri. Sh'PA's agreement with the City of Malden states that Malden vill receive power upon ec==ercial operation of the Truman Dan project or January 1,19%. Due to the unknown ec=nletion date of Tru=an Dam, the culy firm date ShTA could publish was January 1,19%. Also, it is possible that ShTA could wheel surplus or "du=p" power or could provide the City of Malden with emergency back-up power prior to 19%. Also, subject to co=pletion of wheeling agreement with Missouri Utilities as p proposed, the City of Malden may be able to obtain e=ergency back-up power _j[.f ej l )I' h.c,O.4 / y from a source other than S transnissien. l Finally, at the rate our negotiations have been proceedirg with Missouri d'/ Utilities, it could well be 19% prior to obtaining any type of wheeling ( [jl ' fl-> agrec=ent. So far we have been unable to obtain ceaningful infor=atien to d f" determine if it is even feasible for MU to wheel pcwer to the City of Malden. 'f l f-Missouri Utilities has recuested that both SWPA and Union Electric provide

1. f Missouri Utilities with e$plicit infor=ation concerning any known or fore-f,' [,

seeable load control or dispatching proble=s that vould be involved in wheeling power. This is the infor=ation we requested in our last letter to Mr. Esswein. t i It is our opinion that the logical way to resolve this catter vould be a meeting between officials of the City of Malden, Sh?A, UE, and EU. So far everyone has agreed to this meetin6 (see Mr. Essvein's letter to us dated 2-28-80 and SWPA letter, copy attached) except MU. RECEIVED JUN 131980 l l CDPP.Pl8"4!$

.g Mr. William R. Herr June 11, 1980 Page 2 We therefore respectfully request that you furnish the infor=ation requested in our last letter to Mr. Essvein, and we further request that UE and S'n?A set up the proposed meeting at a c:utually agreeable time and place and that the City of Malden and Missouri Utilities be invited to attend this meeting. If you would please contact Mr. Walter Bcwcra at S*nTA, I am sure such a meeting can be arranged. Mr. Herr, we have been trying to resolve this question of wheeling power for some time now to no avail. Attached are copies of our correspondence with Missouri Utilities regarding this. We vill appreciate very much any assistance , ou can provide us in resolving this =atter at the earliest possible date. y Q Sincerely, / l // $ William A. Green City Engineer Enclosures cc Walter Bowers Charles Wheatley O t

5 CC LAW OfrPrlCEO WHEATLEY & WOLLESEN SulTE f il2 WATERCATE OFFICE SUILDING 2GOOVlRGINIA AVENUE. N.W. c H Ri.ES F. - u rtty.;A. WOOOROW D. WOLLESEN DON CHARLES UTMUS 201/337 5543 PHIL87 9. M ALTER July 16, 1980 m.cu Eu aca****v JAMEJ HOW ARD Mr. William R. Herr Supervising Engineer Capacity Planning Coordination And Special Studies Union Electric Company 1901 Gratoit Street St. Louis, Missouri 63166 Mr. L. A. Eoswein Director, Corporate Planning Union Electric Company 1901 Gratiot Street P. O. Box 149 St. Louis, Missouri 63166 Re: Delivery of SWPA Power to Malden, Missouri Gentlemen: As you are aware from previous correspondence from Mr. William A. Green, City Engineer, Malden, Missouri, the City has attempted for sometime to arrange a meeting between all affected parties to evaluate, discuss, and implement plans for the Q -delivery of SWPA power to Malden. As a result of discussions with Missouri Utilities Company and the FERC Staff in Washington l on July 15, 1980, all parties have agreed to proceed as soon as possible to arrange such a meeting among the parties and to resolve as soon as possible all load control or dispatching problems which might exist. I l I write this letter on behalf of Malden to solicit your cooperation in this matter and active participation in that meeting which the FERC Staff will be arranging in the next 7 to 10 days. As a second matter, Missouri Utilities Company has also agreed to enter discussions with respect to technical problems which might exist and their resolution for each of the Cities of Jackson, Malden, and Kennett, Missouri to provide emergency RECEIVED JUL 21 SO tm. pn

~ ,e - back-up peaking power to each other in order to reduce costs to all parties including UE. Your participation on this subject, particularly in view of UE's load control function in the area, is solicited and welcome. Very truly yours, [ WDW:fdd Woodrow D. Wo11esen cc: Mr. William A. Green-Cyril S. Wofsy, Esq. Mr. Walter M. Bowers ~ John L. Oliver, Esq. O' Virgil'Chirnside Louis R. Ervin l e a

= (f d. L.aw omers WHEATLEY & WOLLESEN SufTE I I 12 / taATE8DGATE OFFICC BufLDING M VIRGANIA AVENUE, N.W. WHASHLMGTON. D. C. 20037 speamL33 F. WHEATLEY. Ja. WSOOmow O WOLLESEN I*NI Sess CHARLES UTHUS pessLsp s. esALTER July 16,1980 .-cuA u. =OaaiS cv M 3090WAAD ~ Mr. Walter M. Bowers Chief, Division of Power Marketing Southwestern Power Administration l P. O. Drawer 1619 i Tulsa, Oklahoma 74101 ~ Re: Delivery of SWPA Power to Malden, Missouri

Dear Mr. Bowers:

This firm represents the City of Malden, Missouri in a number of matters including current proceedings before the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. As a result of discussions held with Missouri Utilities Company and the FERC Staff in Washington on July 16, 1980, Malden anticipates that a. meeting between all interested parties, including Union Electric' Company, can be effectuated in the very near term to begin and hopefully conclude the resolution of any and all potential technical problems in order to gain delivery of available SWPA power to Malden. I would hope that you would be able to attend the meeting which the FERC Staff will arrange within the next 10 days. b Consistent with Malden's last letter to you of April 30, 1980, I would request an identity of the type of data required by SWPA in order to evaluate technical feasibility of the wheeling being provided beforehand, if possible, in order to allow the other participants (Union Electric and Missouri i Utilities) an opportunity to accumulate the information for distribution and discussion at the scheduled meeting. l Very truly yours, / WDW:fdd Woodrow D. Wollesen I l cc: Mr. William A. Green Cyril S. Wofsy, Esq. Willam R. Herr L. A. Esswein John L. Oliver, Esq. Virgil Chirnside Louis R. Ervin J

5 e e. . A, Department of Energy Southwestem Power Administration Post Office Box 1619 Tulsa. Oklahoma 74101 July 28,1980 l Mr. Woodrow D. Wo11esen Wheatley & Wollesen Watergate Office Building Suite 1112 2600 Virginia Avenue, N.W. Washington, D. C. 20037 {

Dear Mr. Wollesen:

I have referred the question in your letter of July 16, 1980, regarding the type of data needed by Southwestern Power Administration (SWPA), to our engineering staff. They advise that it would only be a matter of scheduling for SWPA to deliver power to the City of Malden through the system of the Missouri Utilities Company, since we already have an existing 161 kV interconnection at Sikeston, Missouri. We are pleased to participate in the meeting on August 6 in St. Louis. Ed Riggin, Van Horton and myself will be in attendance.

• ~

/ Sincerely, WALTER M. BOWERS Walter M. Bowers O' Chief, Division of Power Marketi.ng cc: Mr. William A. Green City Engineer City of Malden 111 East Laclede Malden, Missouri 63863 l V Nr. Larry A. Esswein l Manager, Corporate Planning Union Electric Company P. O. Box 149 l St. Louis, Missouri 63166 l l RECEIVED JUL 311980 c0RP.PU"mS

l g((.. 6 ,p/f E r 1 1 FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSlore WASHINGTCh 20426 r y *. J I July 29, 1980 F ]s ). [ Re: Missouri Utilities Compar 7, D Docket Nos. ER80-124, et. al. \\ h Gentlemen: As a means of attempting to resolve the is sues involved in the above-entitled proceedings, the City of Malden and Missouri Utilities Company agreed to discuss the feasibility 7 (? of negotiating different types.of arrangements to meet ' I' Malden's needs for rendering efficient and low-cost service to its customers. P art of such new consideration is the l f electrical and economic feasibility of wheeling Southwestern Power Authority power over MU's lines to Malden. In order l l' to determine the feasibility of such an arrangement, it was deemed desireable to consult with SPA and Union Electric l Company personnel (at least in the first instance) to deter-f.. mine the initial feasibility stage of such an arrangement. "'7 Letters to all interested parties were sent by. co.unsel for 5 Malden advising _.them of my attempt to arrange a conference k'.. to discass the matter. Accordingly,'One undersigned has contacted the parties involved and has arranged a meeting l to be convened at Union Electric's of fices, 1901 Gratiot f j Street, St Louis, Missouri, on Wednesday, August 6, 1980 at 10:30 a.m. CT. . 3 U7 At this meeting, the agenda vill be as follows: l 1 Review of available line diagrams with identifi-I. l cation of existi'ng load, switching and/or control { jf facilities. f ' ',, II. Identification of potential problems which could l l affect technical or economic feasibility of ,c delivering peaking power SPA to Malden, Missouri. i III. Identification of potential problems which could affect technical or economic feasibility of l delivering peaking power from each of the cities l (Jackson, Malden and Kennett) to each other as p f; l required. RECEIVED l ~ JUL 311980 L CDEP W 'T S uJ

w 6 I . IV. Delineation of load control responsibilities and operational procedures as may currently exist and contemplated between SPA, UE, MU, and the Cities, and among each other. Your participation at this meeting is greatly appreci-ated. Very truly yours, C 11 S. Wof f C ission S ff ounsel cca William R. Herr John L. Oliver, Jr. Virgil Chirnside William A. Green s L. A. Esswein Walter M. Bowers Louis R. Ervin ~ '}' Woodrow D. Wollesen ',} Carl L. Talley ? Larry Jones .t:D / :4 f'. I n !} 3

.II ei i

d 4r .k l i >4 1 en 4' O.s Dm% . De ye.ee==g.. m

• * =

,,,en me ese e

I I33 August 15, 1980 HEMD TO FILE: ~ DISCUSSION WITH SPA REGARDING CITY OF MALDEN

• At the' August 6,1980 FERC-sponsored meeting regarding electric service for Malden-Jackson-Kennett, Union Electric was requested by the FERC to contact SPA regarding the possibility of Malden being placed in SPA's load. control area.

Today I telephoned Walter Bowers of SPA to discuss this possibility with him and to solicit any other ideas that Walt may Q have regarding service to Malden in light of the area load control considerations. t Walt said that he would not rule.out SPA's directly serving Malden and that it would be perhaps worthwhile to consider this as an alternative. He'.noted, however, that a direct connection with SPA would create power thru-flows that could adversely affect the SPA system. Walt emphasi cd that SPA transmission capability in the area is limited. He noted, however, that if MU were to disconnect from the City of Malden this 2 problem may be alleviated, but Malden would have to be responsible for taking any load swings in excess of the peaking power delivered by SPA. Walt indicated he would be willing to meet to discuss this possibility l in greater detail. I told Walt I would review this matter further in i preparation for a UE-SPA meeting in the near future. O ,gg W. R. Herr WRH/cbv 1 l l 0 l 1 l e 't

gu . - #4 - #A i ~ /s U N IO N C t.C CTR I C COMPANY 8908 CRAYlOT STRCCT - ST. Louis August 29, 1980 . 6. . o o.es s: so.o. ao s i.e .T. 6e u i s. -o.

2...

Mr. Cyril Wofsey Federal Energy Regulatory Cocmission Washington, D.C. 20426

Dear Mr. Wofsey:

Last Friday, August 22, you telephoned regarding the status of the work that was agreed to at our August 6,1980 meeting in St. Louis. At that meeting you requested that Union Electric meet with South-western Power Administration (SPA) to discuss the area load control ' considerations relating to the service of Malden, Jackson and Kennett. O You also requested that UE meet with Missouri Utilitf.es (MU) to pro-vide preliminary technical assistance to scope MU's telemetering and related equipment needs with respect to the cities. Regarding SPA, I have been in contact with Mr. Walter Bowers. A memo of our telephone conversation is attached for your reference. Mr. Bowers was most helpful and cooperative in discussing the SPA-UE interface as it relates to the service of Kennett, and potentially Malden and Jackson. After some discussion Mr. Bowers and I agreed that we should meet to further discuss the problems involved in greater detail. Because of scheduling conflicts, we agreed to meet in mid-September. Upon my return from vacation in early September, I will be contacting Mr. Bowers to select a meeting date and time. ,Regarding MU, a technical review meeting was held on August 28 in St. Louis. MU discussed its data requirements for system security and for billing purposes. UE discussed its data requirements for area O load control purposes. After a lengthy discussion, it was agreed that a rough " ball park" estimate of the required equipment and costs in-volved could be put together by mid-September. The appropriate tech-nical personnel are presently working on this assignment. The status of the other items outlined in Mr. Zero's letter of August 8, 1980 are as follows: i item 2) Presently being investigated by SPA j item 3) To date I have not heard from Mr. Bernstein item 4) Presently being investigated by MU l i 1 Y

~ l i Mr. Cyril Wofesy August 29, 1980 Page 2 Cyril, I believe this essentially brings you up to date on my under-standing of what has happened since our August 6,1980 meeting. In as much' as UE's involvement in this matter is at the request of the FERC, I would certainly appreciate your letting me know if there is anything I may have overlooked.. If I can be of any further assistance, please do not hesitate to call. Very truly yours, lg William R. Herr O Supervising Engineer-Capacity Planning Coordination and Special Studies WRH/cbv cc Messrs. Walter Bowers (SPA) Louie Ervin (MU) BCC Messrs. L. A. Esswein C. A. Bremer T. Kennedy H. N. McCoy J. F. Watson O

1. u. tandwehr M. R. Meagher R. A. Kelley h

L_

y ,gpW 5 11 n e UNION EL.CCTmc COMPANY teol CaATIOT STRCET = ST. LOUIS Septecher 16, 1980 " ^' t' " *,,^ (" ' Mr. Walter M. Bowers Chief, Power Marketing Southwestern Ibwer Mainistration P.O. Box 1619 Tulsa, Oklaho=a 74101

Dear Walt:

'thf n is to confirm our September 30 meeting in Tulsa. l I plan to give you a call in the next couple of days to let you know what flight Alan Kelley and I will be arriving on. Look forward to seeing you then. ~ Very truly yours, e / William R. Herr Capacity Planning Coordination Q and Special Sturlica . s l-WRH/Ian cc Messrs. C. Wofsey (FEIC) L. Ervin (MU) R. A. Kelley (UE) i b e

}f-s6/k ~' E4f 'v/bl*'

• 4,,

4 JJ_ w ~ 7# FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISS ON i WASHINGTON 20426 November 3, 1980 RE: Power Deliveries Among Cities of Malden, Kennett, and Jackson, Missouri TO THE PARTY ADDRESSED: Please be advised that a conference of the parties involved in the above matte.r will convene in St. Louis, Missouri at Union Electric Company's headquarters on Monday, November 17, 1980,. at 10: a.m. Union Electric and Missouri Utilities Company are finalizing a study on the cost estimates of equipment required for power delivery among the municipalities. A copy of that study will be mailed to each party by November 7, 1980. Your attendance at this conference will be greatly appreciated. Sincerely, O 4'd y Cy S. Wofs Co ssion St f Cdunsel cc: To the parties listed on the attached sheet RECEIVED NOV - 61980 CORP. PJr.cs + 4 O O O

lr i ATTACHMENT Mr. William R. Herr Mr. Walter M. Bowe rs Supervising Engineer Chi'e f, Div. of Power Marketing Capacity Planning Coordination Southwestern Power Adm. and Special Studies P. O. Drawer 1619 s Union Electric Company Tulsa, Oklahoma 74101 St. Louis, Mo. 63166 . Louis R. Ervin Mr. John L. Oliver, Esq. Manager, Rates & Customer Oliver, Oliver & Jones Service 400 Broadway Missouri Utilities Company P. O. Box 559 400 Broadway Cape Gi'rardean, Mo. 63701 P. O. Box 40 Cape Girardeau, Mo. 63701 Mr. Virgil Chirnside f) Vice President-Secretary Mr. Carl L. Talley Missouri Utilities Company City Administrator 400 Broadway City of Jackson P. O. Box 40 225 South High Street Cape Girardeau, Mo. 63701 Jackson, Mo. 63755 Mr. William A. Green Mr. Edgar H. Bert/ stein City Engineer Associated Regulatory City of Malden Consultants, Inc. 115 East Main 6153 Executive Boulevard Malden, Mo. 63863 Rockville,. Maryland 20852 i Mr. Larry Jones Superintendent of Utilities City of Kennett Kennett, Mo. 63857 Woodrow W. Wollesen, Esq. r Wheat 1cy & Wollesen Suite'1112 Watergate Office Building 2600 virginia Avenue, N. W. Washington, D. C. 20037 Mr. L. A. Esswein 8 Director, Corporate Planning Union Electric Company i 1901 Gratiot Street P. O. Box 149 St. Louis, Missouri 63166 4 0 1

e n. p*.n UNaON CLCCmic COMPANY

1. 908 G8tATIOT STRE ET

• S F. lou tS November 7, 1980
  • 'uac aoo= css:

9. O. s o m 84 9 ev.co uis.

o.. as.

t .Mr Cyril S. Wofsy C-is:sion Staff Counsel 9 Federal Energy Regulatory Commission liashington, D.C. 20426

Dear Mr. Wofsy:

RE: POUER DELIVERIES AMO:!G CITIES OF F LDEli, JACKS 0I AND KEm!ETI, MISSOURI On August 6,1980 representatives from Union Electric Company (UE), C' Missouri Utilities Company (MU), Federal Energy Regulatory Com-mission (FERC), Southwestern Power Administration (SPA), Associated Regulatory Consultants, Incorporated (ARC), and the cities of Malden, Jackson and Kennett met in St. Louis, Missouri at your request to discuss the technical aspects of (1) delivering 5 MW of SPA peaking power to the City of Palden, and (2) power deliveries among the cities of Malden, Jackson and Kennett, Missouri. During this meeting you requested, and it was agreed, that various participants would investi-gate certain technical matters related to power deliveries among Jackson, Malden and Kennett. By letter dated August 8,1980 (See Attaclunent I), Mr. Zero stenarized the responsibilities agreed upon at the August 6 meeting. Union Electric was charged with the responsi-bility of (1) reviewing area load control considerations with SPA, and (2) working with MU to scope its telemetering and related equipment needs with respect to the Cities. n () Regarding the revicu of area load control considerations, a meeting was . held between UE and SPA on September 30, 1980 in Tulsa, Oklahoma. A number of issues were discussed during this meeting and it was finally concluded that the responsibility of providing the Cities with power system regulation would place a considerable burden on SPA's generating facilities. Moreover, significant transmission and transformation j upgrading on the SPA system appears to be needed if the Cities were I placed in SPA's load control area. SPA therefore requested that UE l continue to assume ' the area load control responsibilities for the l Cities. Accordingly, no cost estimate was developed for placing the l Cities in. SPA's load control area. A rough cost enti=ste was developed, howcver, for the Cities to remain in UE's load control area with p provisions for power deliveries among the Cities. This cost estimate, including a brief story of the concepts involved, is attached (See Attachment II). You will note from the attached cost cotimate that some costs will have to b2 furnished by the Cities based on their i specific equipment arrangement and anticipated system configuration. Perhaps this can be discussed further at our llovember 17 meeting. I t l { 1

5 Mr. Cyril S. Wofsy Page 2 November 7, 1980 Regarding MU's telemetering and related equipment needs, Union Electric has, provided MU with some technical assistance (as requested by the FEPI:) to help MU scope its equipment needs. It is my understanding that MU has essentially completed its preliminary study of this situation and is now preparing to send a copy of this study' to all participants of our August 6, 1980 meeting. At this point, I believe Union Electric's responsibilities as set forth in Mr. Zero's August 8, 1980 letter (Attachment I) are fulfilled. I hope the attached information will help put the area load control situ-ation into better perspective and, provide a basis for further discussion. We look forward to meeting with you again on November 17, 1980 in St. Louis. Per your request, copies of this letter and attachments will be sent to all addressees listed in Mr. Zero's August 8, 1980 letter. Sincerely, \\ William R. Herr Supervising Engineer Capacity Planning Coordination ,and Special Studies WRH/pm Attachments Q cc List of Addressees (Attachment I) BCC Mr. C. A. Bremer Mrs. C. P. Handleman . Mr. T. Kennedy Mr. H. N. McCoy / e e e i s-e e a -m

e Att cheent I 4 FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON 20426 August 8,1980 l 4 Mr. William R. Herr Supervising Engineer Capacity Planning Coordination and Special Studies Union Electric Company St. Louis, MO. 63166 Gentlemen: At the conference held in St. Louis, l'i,ssouri at Union Electric Com-pany'sheadquartersonAveust6,1980,(variousparticipantsagreedto investigat'e certain techtdcal matters related to the provision of power deliveries to Jackson, Malden and Kennett.) The following is the list of matters being investigated and those invol'ved in the work ef fort. It is anticipated, for maximum results, that the croduct of these investigations will be a:ade known to all parties at the earliest possible time. 1) Representatives from SPA and UE will discuss among themselves the technical feasibility of either SPA or UE handling load dispatching for the municipalities; 2) SPA must examine its transmission system in the vicinity of Malden to determine if it could provide "alden's near term c?%' capacity (SPA 5'M cocmitment and its largest unit outage). SPA rust also examine its future ability to handle Falden's entire future (5 years) load by 1082 or 1083; v 3) Edgar Bernstein, representing municipalities, will confer with then to determine whether firm IT power wheeled by it.U. with an adequate ( plant credit would be a useful service to them; I i 4) M.U. will examine its local transmission facilities at Falden and Jackson to determine its ability to wheel 21,500 kW and 17,500 W, { respectively, to Falden and Jackson; t 5) M.U. will determine the kinds of telemetering eauipment needed'to i monitor power deliveries enong the Municipalities intended to be I wheeled on M.U.'s system. W Donald J. Zero Cyril Vofsy RECEIVED FERC Staff A*UG 181980 cc: See Attached List of Addressees r.flPP, PI A".lP.6 -~ ~

Att chmrnt I p* Idst ef Addrecsess John L. Oliver, Esq. Mr. Walter M. Bowers Oliver, Oliver & Jones Chief, Div. of Power 400 Broadway Marketing P. O. Box 559 Southwestern Power Adm. Cape Girardeau, M0. 63701 P.O. Drawer 1619 Tulsa, Oklahoma 74101 Mr. Virgil Chirnside Vice President-Secretary Mr. Louis R. Ervin Missouri Utilities Company Manager, Rates & Customer 400 Broadway Service P.O. Box 40 Missouri Utilities Company Cape Girardeau, MO. 63701 400 Broadway P.O. Box 40 Mr. William A. Green Cape Girardeau, MO. City Engineer City of Malden Mr. Edward Riggin (~ ' 115 East Main Southwestern Power Adm. Malden, MO. 63863 P.O. Drawer 1619 Tulsa, Oklahoma 74101 ,Mr. Leroy Jones Superintendent of Utilities Mr. Van Horton City of Kennett Southwestern Power Adm. Kennett, MO. 63857 P.O. Drawer 1619 Tulsa, Oklahoma 74101 Woodrow W. Wollesen, Esq. Wheatley & Wollesen Mr. Carl L. Talley Suite 1112 City Administrator Watergate Office Building City of Jackson 2600 Virginia Avenue, N.W. 225 South High Street Washington, D. C. 20037 Jackson, MO. 63755 Mr. L. A. Esswein Mr. Edgar H. Bernstein g Director, Corporate Planning Associated Regulatory Consultants, Union Electric Company Inc. 1901 Gratiot Street 6153 Executor Boulevard P.O. Box 149 Rockville, Maryland 20852 St. Louis, Missouri 63166 t 9 ~m.- m

( Attachment II ROUG5 COST ESTIMA'IE AND

SUMMARY

OF AREA LOAD CONTROL CONSIDERATIONS FOR POWER DELIVERIES AMONG THE CITIES OF MALDEN, JACKSON AND KENNETT At present, the cities of Malden, Jackson and Kennett are withic, the Union Electric Company (UE) load control area. This sumary and rough cost estimate is intended to provide a preliminary assessment of the costs and technical considerations associated with power deliveries among the Cities, assuming the Cities remain within UE's load control area. 'Ihe information presented herein pertains only to area load control considerations and does not address the transmission system operating considerations or administrative / contractual considerations that may affect Missouri Utilities Company. (These latter considerations are presently being evaluated by Missouri Utilities Company.) From an operating standpoint it is necessary for UE to be able to monitor all significant amounts of generation within its load control area. This includes generation owned by others, as well as UE's genera-tion, since all generation internal to UE's load control area has an O imgact on ice system overatten. The essresate seneratins.carecit7 of Malden, Jackson and Kennett is approximately 65 MW which is considered to be significant on the Union Electric. system. Moreover, the operating significance of this generating capacity is substantially increased if each city has the ability to enter into hourly import and export power transactions with another city or cities. In order for Union Electric to properly exercise its area load control responsibility, each city would transmit its totalized generation data to UE's Load Dispatch Office (LDO). Transmission of data should be in suitabic format so as to be compatible with UE's load dispatch system. 4

N. 2 Se cost to each city for the installation and/or use of equip-ment to telemeter its totalized generation to UE's LDO can be broken down into four separate cost components. 1. Cost of Transmitting Equipment. Each city would have to install a remote terminal unit (RTU) capable of receiving inputs from the city's generation metering devices. This RTU would transmit the totalized generation data via a data link (i.e., microwave / telephone system) to UE's LDO. A rough estimate of the installed cost for such an RTU is $10,000. 2. Cost of Receiving Equipment. Each city would be responsible for the cost of its share of equipment at UE's LDO dedicated to receiving and displaying each city's totalized generation data. .. A rough estimate of the cost to each city is $10,000. 3. Cost of Equipment Interface for RTU. Each city would have to install interface equipment between the city's generation metering

O and its RTU in order to provide proper inputs to ae RTU. The interface equipment required would be highly dependent upon eac'h city's specific equipment arrangement. This cost therefore cannot be estimated without specific input from each city.

It is anticipated, however, that such costs would probably be less than $10,000 per city. 4. Cost of Data Link. Each city would have to provide a data link to carry the output of its RTU to UE's LDO. This data link could be d

3 provided for by a number of microwave / telephone system designs. The particular design selecte.d by the city would detemine the cost. Generally, a data link is " rented" on a monthly basis, unless it is owned by the user. Although the cost would depend upon the system selected, it is anticipated that the " rental" cost would be less than $12,000 per year. ROUGH COST SU> MARY PER CITY Cost of Transmitting Equipment (RTU) $10,000 Cost of Receiving Equipment (LDO) 10,000 Cost of Equipment Interface 10,000 * $30,000 Cost of Data Link $12,000/yr. *

• Very rough estimates.

Information from Cities needed to O refine estiraates. The cost of equipment interface may be substantially higher (or lower) depending on the specific needs of each city. 11/7/80 M6W We%e o e we

• ey se. m e.,g-,

m. %

..m.._

.m Ms.sou;r Urrue r.s Gowav 400 CROADWAY P'O. BOX 40 i CAPE GIRARDEAU. MISSOURI 63701 AustA coot 384/3.'s seat ? November 10, 1980 Mr. Donald J. Zero g ~ Federal Energy Regulatory Commission g 825 N. Capitol Street, N.E. .F l ^ Wa'shington, DC 20426 ~

Dear.Mr. Zero:

As outlined by your letter of August 8, 1980, Missouri Utilities f* 'cgreed to investigate certain technical matters related to the possibility cf Jackson, Malden and Kennett receiving conventional types of service,. {. ' f including wheeling, as an alternative to the SFR-1 rate and associated pro-posed contract. Specifically we were to. (a) examine local transmission facilities at Malden and Jackson to determine our ability to wheel 21,500 kW and 17,500 IG, re-spectively, to Malden and Jackson; (b) determine the kinds of telemetering equipment needed to monitor power deliveries among the Municipalities intended to be wheeled on M.U.'s system. Enclosed are our preliminary cost estimates for system iinprovements (Attachment "A") and telemetering equipment (Attachment "B") needed to pro-vide service as set out in your letter. Also enclosed is a discussion of the parameters, considerations, and. assumptions upon which the resultant estimates were based. { Copics are being sent to Mr. Cyril Wofsy and the parties listed on the attached sheet taken fr'om your letter. S ince rely, - Qf ^* Louie R. Ervin, Manager Rates & Customer Service LRI/imt ,NECEIVED ~ Enclosures NOVigg copies: See attached list of addres. sees % E9tg esp

Lidt of Addresscos J;hn L'. Oliver, Esq. i Oliver, Oliver & Jones Mr. Edward Riggin ~~ Southwestern Power Adm. 400 Broadway P.O. rawer 1619 P.O. Box 559 Tulsa, Oklahoma 74101 Cape Girardeau, MO. 63701 Mr. Van Horton - Mr. Virgil Chirnside Southwestern Power Adm. Vice President-Secretary .P.O. Drawer 1619 Missouri Utilities Company Tulsa, Oklahoma 74101 . 400 Broadway P.O. Box 40 Cape Girardeau, MO. 63701 Mr. Carl L. Talley City Administrator City of Jackson Mr. William A. Green 225 South High Street City Engineer Jackson, MO. 63755 City of Malden 115 East Main Mr. Edgar H. Bernstein Malden, MO. 63863 Associated Regulatory Consultants, l.aTYf Inc. () Mr. L_.vf Jones 6153 Executor Boulevard Superintendent of Utilites Rockville, Maryland 20852 City of Kennett Kennett, MO. 63857 v' Itc. William R. Herr Supervising Engineer Woodrow W. Wo11esen, Esq. Capacity Planning Coordination Wheatley & Wollesen f and Special Studies Suite 1112 Union Electric Company Watergate Office Building St. Louis, MO. 63166 2600 Virginia Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20037 Mr. Walter M. Bowers Chief, Div. of Power Marketing Southwestern Power Adm. () P.O. Drawer 1619 i Tulsa, Oklahoma 74101 S e l e

m . ~ ~ ii-7-80 1. Consideration: Provide system capability and required equipment for the following r loads with consideration of wheeling. a. Jackson 17.5 MW for the period 1985 to 1990. b. Malden 31.5 MW for the period 1985 to 1990. The following items are to be considered. a. Required substation and transmission facilities to ' provide service without co,nsideration of contingency operation. ' b. Intelligence is required to protect Missouri Utilities' billing demand. c. Intelligence is required to determine if. generation schedules are being met. C-d. Un' ion Electric has requested on status monitoring of the municipal generating units i'f they are in Union Electric's control area. e. Intel ~1igence is required for proper billing. f. Intelligence is required for system operation and load management. g. It will be necessary to determine billing procedures and equipment. 2.. Existing system: a. The Cities of Jackson and Malden are an integral portion ($) of Missouri Utilities' system load. Any. demand demonstrated by these two cities becomes a portion of Missouri Utilities' peak. l The Cities of Jackson and Malden presently operate on a j system by which they are notified when Missouri Utilities is approaching a peaking condition. b. The City of Kennett operates in a slightly different p mode. They are in Union Electric's control area and l also schedule power from SPA. Except for self ceneratior. their load in excess of the SPA schedule becomes an integral l l portion of Missouri Utilities' load. Kennett also operates on a notification system. . c. Missouri Utilities' hourly load at a point in time becomes the coincidental summa tion o f their varicus del.ivery points on the Southeast system Northern j division plus Kennett's actual metered take less Kennett's scheduled quantities from SPA. G G r

-c-11-1-80 d. Missouri Utilitics' hourly kWh'r loads are obtained through the use of printing demand meters and the hourly schedule to Kennett of SPA quantities. Data for determining approaching system peaks is e. obtained as noted. 1) Missouri utilities' system purchased quantities are obtained by telemetering from Wedekind, Stoddard, Richland and Miner. (Oran is being put in service.) Visual readings are taken on two delivery points at Viaduct Substation. Deliveries to the Cities of Jackson and Malden are an integral portio'n of these readings. ~ 2) Kennett - Through hourly integrated demands for .Kennett's entire load obtained by telemetering. Operator is required to delete hourly SPA s ch.e d ul e s. (]) ' 3) All readings with the exception of the Viaduct ~ are for the previous hour and estimates are required to determine system loads for future 'I hours. 4) The system operator does not have a' metered indication as to whether the municipals are generating. During peaking conditions phone contact is made with each municipal and printing demands are reviewed at the end of each billing period for the. previous month to determies billing data. 5) During times of equipment malfunction estimates are made based on previously demonstrated loads for like conditions. Parameters for case considered: Purchase of system requirements by municipals with the additional ability to wheel power to any deficient municipal from another municipal or outside source over Missouri Utilities' transmission system. There could conceivably be several variations in the methods considered. The actual mode of operation'and subsequent . costs will be dependent upon the contractual arrangements agreed L I to. This would also apply to the consideration of additional i intelligenca gathering equipment. To establish a point of beginning, the following parameters were utilized. Municipals will remain in Union Electri.c's control a. area. l b. Addi'tional intelligence will be required.' Rheeling between municipals may be instituted. c. 1

tru - / - pJ ] d. Wheeling from an outside entit'y where contractual paths oxist may be a cons-ideration. ^e.. Compensation s' hall be obtained for all services rendered which shall i nclude s tandby, regulation, operating costs, and system investments. Attachment A' provides cost estimates of transmission facilities that would be required to support the indicated loads.. Approximately $2,575,000.00 will be required in system investments to provide 21.5 Megawatts of capacity for the City of Malden. This does not ' include the additional. intelligance gathering equipment tha c will be ~ required as indicated in Attachment B, estimated at 478,500 nor the communication cos ts estimated at $ undetermined er month. p Summa ry : System investments required will amount to an estimated $ 3.053.500 Actual costs will depend upon final system O for this consideration. configurations and the mode of operation that will be utilized. Detailed engineering and type of equipment selected will also vary the final figures. Some of the data and equipment considered may also. overlap considerations for area load control. Additional personnel will also be requl ired for~the maintenance and operation of this. system. 9 I-4 g g O e e j O ~ O 9 g g 9 e O O q p. 1 1 e e 9 4 a

ATTACHMENT A IflF-7/-lg@ TRANSHISSI0ft AND SUBTRANSMISSION [ REQ UI REME tit S FOR JACKSON AND MALDEN The attached system improvements are required on the Missouri Utilities' system in order to provide transmission capacity for the following loads: (A) Jackson 17.5 MW for the period of 1985 to 1990. B) Malden 21.5 MW for the period of 1985 to 1990. A summary of' load flows are also attached which indicate the loading on system components for the existing transmission system with and without the above noted loads. As indicated addition of the Malden load will overload existing facilities in the Dexter-Malden area and increase losses resulting in expendi tures of $2,575,000.00 or more being necessitated for this ea. Jackson area will not necessitate additional line expenditures for the indicated loads, if contingency operation is not provided for. I l t-j W O^ t 2 1 O m g Qs i l J

LFLF7fRiB 1 Discussion: The effects of supplying 21.5 MW to Malden and 17.5 MW to Jackson during M. U.'s summer peak are summarized by the attached 1980 Load Flow. Since Jackson and Malden are in different parts of the system they are analyzed separately. Contingencies were not specifically studied, but from the data available it is obvious that in the case of Malden that an interruption in the primary source would. caus,e outages to Malden as well as M.U. loads in this area. There is adequate thermal capacity. to serve Jackson during an interruption to its primary source providing the proposed Wedekind-Mt. Auburn 34 kV line is in service, manual { switching would be required to ieconnect all of the' load under present I system configurations. b-Jackson: f [. ~ The primary feed for Jackson is at present the 18 MVA 34 kV line from Wedekind Substation. During the period from 1985 through 1990, . M.U. system capacity is adequate without contengencies to carry 17.5 MW. Malden: rg The primary feeder to Malden is a 30 MVA feeder from Berntie Substatica This feeder will not have the thermal capacity available to provide 21.5 MW for the City of Malden during the 1985 to 1990 period and also provide capacity for the M.U. system in this area. Two major components would overload; namely, the.S toddard 161/115 kV transformer and the Berntie 115 kV/34.5 kV transformer. One of the following plans would be imple-mented to provide the requested capacity. 1) Build 161 kV transmission line from Richland to Townley and build a 161/34 kV stepdown substation at Townley! a. 15 miles 161 kV line $'115,000/ mile $1,125,000

mm-m 'b. Te'rminal at Richland 250,000 ~ c. Stepdown station at Townley 161 + bus. bkr. (34 kV is there) 750,000 Total project $2,500,000 2) Up-grade the Stoddard-Berntie 115 kV line to 161 kV, up-grade Berntie to 161 kV, and reconductor the Berntie-Townley line i from 336 MCM ACSR to 954 MCM AC. 'a. Revis'e Stoddard 115 kV terminal' to 161 kV - replace 115 kV OCB with 161 kV OCB 165,000 b. Up-grade 115 kV line to 161 kV 60,000 . c., Up~-gr'ade Berntie to 161 kV (2 transformers) 950,000 O-d. Reconductor Berntie-Towniey 34 kv. line, 8.5 mi. 400,000 $1,575,0~00 The additional losses of this consider [ation (2) are excessive. They are estimated to be $600,000 based on the time period considered. These a should be considered as part of the recoverable costs. The minimum capital expenditures require'd to up-grade M.U. system to supply Malden with 21.5 MW on peak would be approximately $1,575,000. . is would not provide an alternate feed (which would allow service to Malden in the event of an interruption in the primary feed circuit.) Other options shown may b.e desirable by M.U. due to the losses involved unless the additional losses were recaptured through the rate design. The Kelso-Stoddard 161 kV wo'uld also require up-grading (reconduc-l l toring to 954) since the added load would exceed our committments for this line. Reconductor Kelso-Stoddard 954 $900,000.00 ~ ' The existing 34 kV line section between M.U.-To'wnley Substation and the Malden Airbase is presently No. 2F Cu. and will als'o require replacement. This section should be placed on a breaker position in Estimated expenditures for this work are $100,000. ~ the Townicy substation.

h*

• /a. %

o f 2, x f J HL. 6 D 3 g 7 ,2 S L 7 / V 1X L 4 G, 4 '3, / o ,9 7, 4 2, T, 9 g 4 4 H.C 0 9 C C 3 $; 3 e f?c g 1, d 29 T 3, 1 / 3 (a 0 / c s y2C 8 2 2 f 4

• /. % %

f. % %

• /a fe %

4174 ) Q u 6 L 6 0 8 7 a00 0 G 3 1 y 7 f. 3, 2 S 3 S) C 7 eS 9 y. 0,005 + 4 3j7 4 4 g, 4 d T 4-a t W1O 0 / f o /3 g'7 4 2 2 fa 4 / f // / g87 1 / J .~ /3 i ' n* 6 V G 2

• / % s
• Ss 7

4 7 % $ '/.

• /a % *' a d/9 0

4 Y 4 g, 7 3b L / 8'. f. / 0 ,4%7 y7 3 4 u4G J3S 92 5 J 9 / 91 y7 954 7 4 0 1 3 / / 1J7 y 2 7. / 6 S. 4 ./ / // t f l /36 7 5 1 K s / 7 le y31f 5 J' %y a% o /o */a /*,_ // 2 fo 2 A-4 t f*e (*. % t g /o F L f t 7, 5, 3 4, W 7, fe 74 7

f. 4y o

2 ,y3,4 l J 4 A34 9 0 O 355 9f3 t S l l 4 / / /, 'l . (4 193 6 7 4 / J 4,' K- ~ ,' ?r 6 */ / v. f ~ ? ? ,l A D;, RR S / f ~ 5 l fJ / r 1 I / f. RA W M aX-wWoAl n )r a a C f A A of f t A / / d ro )/ ~ t C cf f, /

f. 2 r

e /m D M A n1 F N A r 4 r "6 e R 1 1 d pu D (A ] *r / A d S e 3/ 4 @@f / 0 J o 'N / fA s 1 2 d c/C/2A f / 6 D< A t e / 4 l i An TAAnc /c P n ^ d '3'- C oS0 r d 4 ) @,@ N r^ G 0 R t o D h. r. S N s. i l M A d Ja C1 s D d rM mG a a ) C MMC 3ef r-o e d s O u ) A C /si s A r 'e 4NlnN s/rf e C J / k f7 A 7. r J ~7 R. r ! l F Df1 AlbMG C / 0 nf d't r. r, l :~ / s. S Sn A ~/ 'S. n0 ?. 1 / /) A G & cpm p)'. o A r6 N E a 7 7. f / trA i J J, ~i A ~N R.T1 K "5/ s. )A oSf l 5* /~ o i4 7 7 e4 7 c /r x L 7 E a / / a 7 A f 4o7 / ~ R 3 w / M )/ / C r 7 /. /. F 9 2 / o

7. D 3. i C d / r / e. / r) A

. f / r4r nJ/c N 7 s a7 o /s d p e r. s / e mfr4 s D. f y i J t/ o d nSn t fo r: a PA At /c r e' /Ea c D L L l rr oKK Xp oMD On a/ fEf X t6WiEf/Ssc4A./ t yde A /n CE so E t t 9 T r/ ooyA4 d f A )/ D i oMt T ( n F nt St f, C nc e nfC rs i e CR/ r x nrAJJ C e J-NA 4 - h R f,!2ejoC y. e // c t o D /. / - lS M )A c

• f e

N d J, s R C 4 uL C R~ l- /A ERes s f ) Go o F/c/mMATCWfAo rfA D. G) rGr/rf s.tsm; C l L/ L a >A E u C7 _ rf[rAPn6 An e A 4 f o 'o f. a b= n o O 'c s rDPM u n A t x y 0 / D n X r C ;, R p r m 5 P eP 0 es e OpD 2 AA* C C n f. 1 P /^ w4mS L L t t R f 2 f A )/ dan o E Ea d A }i a i. . s. D Kt L t R f,)s e gsG D n A N r/ n m / c l n )) 0 C / iA1 D1 nif / / )f /s. CM o _~ / r i o f 0 F 7. d 0 /c Eo t f

t. K /

d A, dD H R^ 'A 1 e / fM/027 s l n/ z/ t, i

• R

/ d 9 D1 E E 4 / / pf M 4 e % 'tNr m c x n $. 9 t s/ t i c o . B. B s F o/ v_ /A t hs r r L MmP r E L e a RgA oE NdNf/D p e p P g r o 4 A a D, d NU C C C /c S

~ g. g. x g gas gg R 3g{ R . " N Y' 5 N h g "f k" Y $g$ (q' 4 ", 4 M R 8~.8 g gg gas gd

• Ra 48 M9g*P "i

2 e gea'gsg $ gg 883 f O gg;

t~

au n a 4 + s _z II h-It ' (g E's-se s. s b e ve% = ot I.k hi Ig%EgQ gdw I $ ! }"l N 0 l %3x%% 4 2 N {11 s C,T49kh EE 31 RE sh Q Q }e g?d45' whb h'f$ Sy{99 4 f Vg % d 353 % ba%"3%q 1316 A @, 4 ] ".s t a my s s 4 "xn U 4 1*4 .s ce vi x 41 agaw g ay tu s a e!\\ll g a n; ogas I'}x p m, n~ 5kk?!$ S $u!' Nill ' < c0 0 $@1 l kit

l u-~3 m

o %d%gk3AE h '

gDI i

i .x 4 u% 4 x c v,, h, y s .( .R 4 v q t e

11-1-80 S Attachment "B" 'The attached system improvements are required to provide billing m2toring and system operation capability for the following loads with j consideration of wheeling. A. Jackson 17.5 MW for the period 198'5 to 1990. B. Malden 21.5 MW for the pertad 1985 to 1990. Present System: Jackson '- The following data is available at Jackson: 1) Total generation recorded by P. D. 2) Totalization of outlying substation 'and incoming kW at the power plant recorded by P.D. 3)' Outgoing kW at the power plant in excess of plant O sub. load recorded by P.D. ~ ~ 4) KWh meters at each substation. .~ 5) KWh meters in and out at the power plant. Total load is obtained by addition of the total generation added to the total incoming kW 1ess outgoin.g kW. Malden - The following data is available at Malden: .1) Total load obtained by totalizing all outlying substations plus generation less outgoing kW recorded by P.D. 2) Total generation recorded by P.D. ) 3) KWh meters at each substation. l 4) KWh meters in and out at the power plant. M. U. data available: 1) Demand quantities are telemetered into the M. U. dispatch center located at the Viaduct Substation for each of the M. U. purchase points including Kennett. 2) P. D. meters at each purchase point record demand quanti ti es. l l 3) KW h meters at each purchase point. 1 Kennett - data available: 'l ) Demand quantities of to'tal incoming kW are recorded 'on P. D. tapes and telemetered to M. U., U. E. and SPA.

2) Schedule of SPA' pcwor obtained by mail or t T*- tdidphone. 2. Discussion: .The advent of wheeling will actuate the necessity for additional intelligence. gathering or changes in the existing system. The growth of municipals loads, the increased number of generators, and consideration of wheeling have created the following conditions. 1) Losses on the M.U. system are becoming excessive and are not being fully recovered. 2) Inadvertent has increased resulting in misunderstandings on load and generation schedules. 3) Consideration of wheeling may creat'e misunderstanding unless quantities are monitored. 4) Individual mun.icip'al generating units are still relati vely small, however, the total of the units f. may result in system fluctuations which necessitates their quantities being telemetered to control and operating centers. i 5) The burden of maintaining schedules and load data will require additional e,quipment-and personnel. 6) Loading on various system' transmission lines has become critical with increased municipal loads. 7) Uncertainties of municipal load has creat' d problems e in system hourly scheduling.

3. ' Proposal :

c 1) Provide MW and MVAR indicated readings of generation ([) and load. l 2) Provide integrated MN demand quantities on municipal load and generation. 3) Provide MW and MVAR quantities on critical lines. 4) P'rovide voltage at load points. 5) Provide breaker status on critical lines. 6) Provide metering to eliminate transformer loss multipliers. 7) Provide MW/MVAR readings of M.U. purchase points. 8) Provide MW demand quanti ties of M..U. purchase points. .9) Provide translation equipment. I e

11-/-00 L*

• The ab'ove quantities are to be provided for Missouri Utilities

~,- ' dispatch cen'ter with municipal generation also taken to the 6 l Union Electric dispatch cen ter. Location Kennett Transmi tting RTU - $ 10,000 Metering 5,000 Communication link 5 15,000 Jackson Tr.ansmitting RTU 10,000 Metering 53,000 Communication link 5 63,000 Malden Transmitting RTU $ 10,000 Me te ri n g 28,000 Communication link 5 38,000 O.. M.U. l Master control with translator .$200,000 Transmitting RTU 55,000 .4,000 Metering 6,000 Recorders Communication link $265,000 U.E.Receiving RTU's '$ 30,000 Recorders 7,500 Communication link 5 37,500 Total equipment -$418,500 Engineering labor and miscellaneous materials 60,000 - n V Total i nstalled cost $478,500 The above figures' are rough estimates and do not include cost figures for communication links to the various control points. 9 e 4 o e e e 4 g e e y o 9 g I

m O 4)( UNION ELECTRIC CO M PANY 89 08 CR ATIOf STR C C T - ST. Louss November 21, 1980 -*e o *= e cs s: ..s.as.,*. sv. 6e si s. e s..m. Ifr. Cyril S. Wofsy ' ~ Commission Staff Counsel Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20426

Dear Mr. Wofsy:

RE: FERC MEETING - NOVEMBER 17, 1980 DISCUSSIONS WITH CITIES OF MALDEN, JACKSON AND KENNETT, MISS0t'RI At our meeting of November 17, 1980 the general consensus was that a separate caucus involving Ed Bernstein, Gene Hail, and representatives from Union Electric and the cities of Malden, Jackson and Kennett would be helpful with respect to the Cities' evaluation of alternatives for supplying their electrical needs. I thought it might be helpful for me to briefly summarize the discussion that took place during this caucus. 'Ihe discussion began with Mr. Bernstein requesting if direct service to the cities of Malden, Jackson and Kennett could be obtained from Union Electric. I explained to Mr. Bernstein that this question had been posed to Union Electric in Mr. C. F. Wheatley's letter of July 2,1979 and was subsequently answered in Mr. W. E. Jaudes' letter of December 11, 1979. I indicated that Union Electric is agreeable to discussing any proposal that the Cities may have, but that before any significant time is spent by Union Electric, I would like to have some assurance that the 7p Cities are making a serious proposal upon which they would act af ter Union Electric's study is completed. The cost of such a study would be v the responsibility of the Cities, but would be credited to the Cities if the studies resulted in the Cities taking service from Union Electric. l Initially' Mr. Bernstein indicated the Cities are interested in evalu-ating two types of direct electric service from Union Electric: (1) electric service similar to that provided to Missouri Utilities wherein capacity credits are provided by Union Electric, and (2) a finn block of power under a U-3 type contract. Af ter some discussion about study re-quirements and applicability of these types of service, Mr. Bernstein indicated that the Cities would not pursue the request for a review of the first type of service mentioned above at this point, but that the Cities were still interested in a firm block of power under a W-3 type contract, assuming each city would have its own generation and the ability to import peaking power as well as exchange peaking power among themselves. o

l ~ s i Mr. Cyril S. Wofsy Page 2 November 21, 1980 I explained that the Cities were not within Union Electric's service area nor adjacent to cajor transmission facilities of Union Electric and therefore would not fall within the general rules and regulations of the W-3 tariff. Also, in the event that Union Electric determines that the W-3 tariff could be appropriately modified to accomodate the cities of Malden, Jackson and Kennett, it would be necessary for Union Electric's Rates Department to determine if the W-3 rate is appropriate furthe type of service being requested by the Cities. I indicated to Mr. Bernstein that although Union Electric is willing to undertake a review of this =atter, I feel it is necessary for the Cities to first make a determination of their needs and make a decision as to whether or not they would purchase a block of firm power under the W-3 type approach fram Union Electric. To facilitate such a review I distrib-uted copies of the cost recent W-3 rate information (attached) to .()' Mr. Bernstein, Mr. Hail and the representatives from the Cities. Mr. Bernstein agreed to evaluate this information and contact me if it was decided that the Cities want this type of service. I also pointed out that any type of direct service from Union Electric to the Cities would. ~require that the Cities arrange for appropriate transmission service with others since Union Electric's transmission system does not connect to the Cities. For example, in the case of Jackson and Malden, this would probably require negotiations between the Citics and Missouri Utilities since 1blden and Jackson are physically connected to Missouri Utilities' transmission system. Such negotiations wculd, of course, be beyond the control of Union Electric. The caucus was adjourned with the understanding that Mr. Bernstein would be in contact with me in the near future regarding this matter. If you would like to discuss this further, please let me know. '({) Sincerely, /f0L'2tf i William R. Herr Supervising Engineer Capacity Planning Coordination and Special Studies WRH/pm Attachments cc w/o att. Mr. Edgar H. Bernstein BCC w/o att. Mrs. C. P. Handleman Messrs. L. A. Esswein H. C. Allen T. Kennedy H. N. McCoy b

$At sj. l s

• • g i L.% U *-

W December 15, 1980 f MEMO TO FILE: DISCUSSION WITH CLYDE WILSON ~ At the General Executive Staff dinner last Friday evening, I happened to be sitting with Clyde Wilson of Missouri Utilities. In response to my general question as to how things were going in Southeast Missouri he indicated that last week, apparently Monday, December 8, Missouri / Utilities filed with FERC a petition to withdraw their Malden and Jackson contracts, since those dities had never signed them. Addi-tionally, he mentioned something to the effect that their petition included a provision for those contracts to stay in effect for either '30 or 90 days, at which ti=e some new tariff will take effect. Appar-ently the new tariff is a revision of their existing wholesale tariff and has some type of provision for a demand charge. I presume that in future meetings with the Cities, Missouri Utilities and Union Electric, as dictated by Mr. Woofsy of the FERC Staff, more information on these filings will become available. s '/ A. Esswein LAE/cbv ~ cc W. R. Herr C. P. Handlenan O O e e

-M-Amt DIN { C December 29, 1980 NEMO TO FILE: CITIES OF MALDEN, JACKSON & KENNETT On December 16, 1980 Mr. W. D. Wollesen called to set up a meeting concerning potential power deliveries directly from Union Elcetric to the cities of Malden, Jackson and Kennett. A meeting was scheduled for January 13, 1981 at 1:00 PM in Union Electric's General Office Building in St. Louis. Attending the meeting will be representatives from UE's Corporate Planning function and the cities of Malden, Jackson ({} and Kennett, and Messrs. W. D. Wo11esen, C. F. Wheatley and E. Bernstein. Wollesen indicated to me that the principal areas of interest to the Cities for discussion purposes would be (1) the applicability of a W-3 type firm wholesale service to the Cities, (2) a capacity credit to the Cities like the type of service we have with MU and MP&L, and (3) any other type of electric service which could possibly result in a zero or reduced demand charge to the Cities in connection with UE power deliveries. I explained to Wo11esen that in the past I felt there was a certain lack of direction on the part of the Cities as to what they actually wanted and if the January 13 meeting is to be productive, it will be necessary for the Cities to have a list of alternatives developed and analyzed to the cxtent possible so that the meeting would have some direction. Wo11esen agreed with this, stating that Ed Bernstein was in the process of developing such a list of alternatives and that he O anticipated that this would serve as a focal point for the discussion. I indicated to Wo11esen that I had given Bernstein our general wholesale tariff rates at our last meeting and I inquired as to whether or not j Bernstein had finished his analysis using this data. Wo11esen indicated that this had not yet been done, but that Bernstein was pm sently working on this and would have his analysis completed by the time we met on the l 13th. From today's discussion with Wo11esen it appears that rhe January 13 discussion will center around the Cities' desire to obtain some type of direct electric service from Union Electric that will have a zero or reduced demand charge in recognition of the Cities' generation. i M W. R. Herr l WRH/cbv cc Mr. L. A. Esswein l l

c'qFP MEMO TO MISSOURI UTILITIES WHEELING FILE r, RE: Conference with the Cities January 14, 1981 The meeting commenced at about 9:30 in the Boardroom of Missouri Utilities Company. The following individuals were present: Charles F. Wheatley, Woodrow D. Wollesen, Edgar H. Dernstein and Eugene Hail, attorneys and consultants; Carlton Meyer and Carl L. Talley from Jackson; Heroy Preyor, Ray Lyons and W. A. Green from Malden; and Larry Jones from Kennett. Present for the Company were Francis Lenge feld, Virgil Chirnside, John Oliver, Jr., Louie R.

Ervin, Paul Rice, and John W.

Likens. At the conclusion of the meeting the Company indicated it would, in due course, giving consideration to time considerations, provide the following figures: (a) The Company would price to the City of Malden the proper ~ty from Townley south. (b) With respect to types of service, the Company would. provide the following: (1) Transmission facilities rate on the assumption that the Cities wheeled all their capacity; (2) A firm power rate and assuming blocks of firm power of 4 megawatts to Malden and 5 megawatts to Jackson; (3) Rates for 4 megawatts firm, transmission or wheeling of 10 to Malden, and a 5 firm for Jackson, and a 15 megawatts wheeled for Jackson. Wollesen indicated the Cities desired to talk about wheeling 5 negawatts Malden, S.W.P.A.; secondly was service to the City of the options, alternate services, wheeling and the like; and lastly, the rate case and the conditions of service. The last item was never discussed. Basically, the matter was an attempt by the City to pin Missouri Utilities into a corner in terms of our willingness to provide certain types of services. Wollesen started with a proposition that there were no technical barriers to wheel S.W.P.A. power and asked if we would do that for Halden only. The Company stated its position generally as follows: 1) The Company would not voluntarily wheel or consider voluntarily wheeling in conjunction with the SFR-1 rate. 2) On certain conditions, primarily the advanced contribution for equipment and for any additional' capacity the Company would consider wheeling or transmission facilities. 3) That the Company had firm power availab'le for sale, and we j would resell firm power. The Company also took the position that it would consider doing both wheeling and sales of firm power. l m.. - ~

Wheatley and Wollesen kept coming back around in circles to try to ceparate Malden from the other cities. The Company countered that we would not engage in wheeling or transmission facilities on a piece-meal basis, if we wheeled to Malden we would Tequire contractual commitments from Jackson and Kennett that they would: (a) tiot seek the wheeling service; (b) That they would not use it in any way in any anti-trust case or claim of discrimination. It should be noted that we also, in terms of capacity indicated that we would not provide service above the existing physical capacity of our facility unless an appropriate arrangement was made to deal with that subject. We stated that th,at could be dealt wi'th either by a contractual agreement that they would not seek additional capacity or, if they desired to seek additional capacity, that we provide the mechanist by which they paid for the same. It wasaWollesen's position that the money would go into rate base and we would earn that way; it was our position that a different arrangement would have to be made and that the Cities would have to make a contribution in aid of construction, primarily for the full amount of additional capacity desired. Discussi'on was also had about the term of the contract. The Company indicated that it would work with the City on the term and that we thought that they would have to make the decisions since they were making the contribution in aid of construction for increased capacity and the tull cost of the tele-metering equipment for wheeling and that they would propose the term and we would then deal with it. The issue was raised with respect to facilities for which a contri-bution was made as to who would own the same. The Company's position was that with respect to the tele-metering equipment the Cities would own that which was in the Cities, the Company would own the rest of it. With respect to increased capacity, the position was the Company would own the entire amount. Some discussion was had about billing and the period of billing cnd the Cities' objections to the proposed contract terms with respect to that matter. It was agreed that that was something that could be worked out in separate contacts. Wollesen also stated with respect to the existing contract dockets, b6mit, ER7%f42, that he intended to file a document indicating that the Cities agreed we should be allowed to withdraw the filed contracts. Wheatley also asked if we would look into supplying emergency power, which we agreed to do so. Wheatley also asked if we would consider a block of firm power cnd then giving the Cities the right to buy "off peak power above that block during the eight non peak months, at average energy prices." The Company objected strenuously because of a lack of operating costs recovery and lack of return in that pricing system. !! owe ve r, the Company stated that if Wollesen and Wheatley would send the copies of documents they would examine the same and that the Company was not foreclosing any alternate pricing mechanisms, only that we had previously asked for the same data and had not received it from Cities. m

Wollesen also wanted to know what other terms and conditions would be contained in the wheeling agreement. We continually reiterated the wheeling contract would have to handle the prepayment of equipment the provision for the prepayment or disposition of increased

costs, capacity, suggested that perhaps it would have to be something like the Columbia contract or the Ark-tio whee' ling contracts.

We indicated that we would provide copies sometime in the future. The Company also emphasized that whatever did result would have in its opinion, to, fit one of the predetermined FERC service categories in order to avoid difficulties. At specific question Wollesen stated that the meeting was private and everything in it was strictly confidential and that nothing said in the meeting would be used or held against the Company. Ile stated this in response to a statement by the Company that it, through its counsel, that the Company felt that it was being set up. General

Conclusion:

We really are not progressing. The end result will be that they will sign the SFR contracts with some modi-fication after they realize from a dollar and cents point of view that those are the, cheapest rates available. O pdh \\ O e e G 4 e 0 s S eee 6 e S s

5 ~ ~ um 0,,,ces OLIVER, Ouven & JONES, P. C. s ecoanoAoWAY g.. i P. O. son 359 CA PE CIR A R DEAU. EllSSoURI 63701

• ?

sawa s e. =4Lrr m4 B E CC A MCDO* E LL C004 ygtepHoNE 3:4/333.e27e

• • OL'v r a. Ja * *<

ALLE N L Ouwe n tie n g February 9, 1981 p meCesea0 0 JONE S OFCOWN,5EL 5 Mr. Charles 'F. Wheatley, Jr. ~ -) Mr. Woodrow D. Wollesen Wheatley & Wollesen 2600 Virginia Avenue, N.W. Washington, D. C. 20037 M Re: MISSOURI UTILITI$S COMPANY - CITIES - CONTRACTS / Gentlemen: 3 At your request, on the 14th of January, our Rate Department is,as per our agreem j. rates on the following bases:as it can, attempting to develop fair as expeditiously j h 1. costs, equipment costs,A Transmission Facilities Rate, assumin are paid for in advance,g any extra arrangements made therefor,. and further assuming uses as in th or appropriate test year, up'to and including the existing capacities. e 1 2. Development of a firm rate for a block of firm powe at four (4) megawatts for Malden and five r Jackson. (5) megawatts for 3. and a transmissionRates providing for Malden four(4) megawatts firm, the same for Jackson, with fivefacility rate for ten (10) megawa t ts,; and (5) firm and. fifteen (15) transmission facility. We are also attempting to develop an emergency pricin power situation. g at an approved FERC contract in ER79-435.As,a part of ou oe which we.have looked at is A portion of that and,that Transmission Service Schedule, which is" Schedule E - Transm attached, as per our agreement. " Schedule E,' is e 3 O 9 ef ~..

Wi!EATLEY & WOLLESEN ~ MUC - CITIES - CONTRACTS February 9, 1981 - PAGE 2 The other matter that we indicated that we had looked at is the ARK-MO rate. We looked at the ARK-MO rate and their tarif f and contract, which is Tarif f Sheet W-1 in Docket No. ER78489. For some reason, I cannot lay my hands on neither the tariff. nor the contract relating thereto. I apologize, therefore, for not being able to provide that data. We also indicated to you that we would give you a basic outline of what we thought the terms of the contract and tariff would have to contain. That outline is attached., We are looking forward to receiving from you alternate forms of contracts that you have suggested. Very respectfully, OLIVER, OLIVER & JONES, P.C s By_ -t I'C l. 4 John L/ Oliver, Jr. General Counsel j Missouri Utilities Company JLO,Jr./jg Enclosures e e e e 9 s g p-..- -_ m w -.. .- -, - ~ - - - -, - 2 -r------- -----

3 ) GENERAL OUTLINE OF POTENTIAL TERMS AND, CONDITIONS We believe, as a general matter, the contract must generally provide as follows: 1. Description of contract purpose.and availability of services there under. ~ 2. For an effective date and term of the contract. 3. For points of connection, points of delivery and points of metering. 4. For maintenance, ownership and operation of the respect-ive equipment and facilities. 5. For establishing a Coordinating Committee and defining its responsibilities relative to effectuating the control schedule and operating procedures between Union Electric, the Cities, and Missouri Utilities Company. s 6. ff For defining Area Load Control Responsibilities, includ-ing control of power and reactive kilovolt amperes and voltage and frequency regulation. O 7. Standard provisions for force majeure. 8. Equipment and metering for billing and load management purposes. 9. Billing and payment (late payment provisions) provisions, including compensation for losses. 10. Limitations of liability. 11. Provisions for a change of rates. 12. Definition of firm service and/or any other services provided for. 13. Provisions for when service will not require construc-tion or installation of new facilities. 14. ' Specification of contract capacity and agreement that, fcr increased capacity and/or any equipment necessary to provide for the development of this type of service, the participating City compensate Missouri Utilities Ccmpany for the cost of such facilities.

SERVICE SCI!EDULE E TRANSMISSIOI SERVICE This Service schedule E is agreed to be effective under, and a part of, the Interconnection Contract effective September 1,1979, between Union Electric Company (Company) and the City of Columbia,' Missouri (City) hereinaf ter referred to as the " Contract". Section E Purpose ) 1.1 The purpose of this Service Schedule E is to provide

== for Transmission Service and compensation therefor if the parties agree to the use of the transmission facilities of Company by (} City to deliver power and associated energy to City from the system of a third party which is interconnected with Company. This Service Schedule and specific transactions hereunder shall not constitute a dedication of any facilities to common carrier status by ' Company. () .Section E Te rm 2.1 The term of this Service Schedu'le E shall be concur-rent with and identical to the term stipulated in Section 1.1 of the Contract, except for modification and cancellation pro-visions as defined in the Contract. Section E Obligations 3.1 This Service Schedule provides for the use of the I E-1

/ p transmission system of Company for transmitting power and associated energy to or from the system of City for specific transactions consistent with the terms and conditions of this Service Schedule an,d the rates, te rms, and conditions negotiated for each transaction. City shall keep Company fully informed, as far in advance as practically possible, of its anticipated requirements for such Transmission Service hereunder and shall in all events give Company written notice of such requirements not later than November =[$) 1 of any year for each annual reservation which shall begin on. June 1 of the following year. Such notice shall include details of the location of Company's interconnection with (h the third party which will be the proposed origin or destina-tion of such Transmission Service, and the proposed quantities of power and associated energy, including proposed delivery schedules, for the specific transaction for which Transmission Service is'being requested. City shall also provide such qk-other information requested by Company to enable Company to determine its ability to provide the requested Transmission Service in accordance with the terms, conditions and standards of this Service Schedule. 3.2 In the event load flow s tudies or analyses, or other engineering studies or analyses, are reasonably required by Company for it to determine the availability of facilities within the standards provided herein, Company shall within E' 2 (

thirty (301 days af ter receipt of notice from City give written notice to City of such need for studies or analyses and the estimated cost thereof. If City thereaf ter elects to proceed, it shall within fif teen (15) days after the date of Company's notice so advise Company in writing and at that time pay to Company such costs, in which case a copy of the study or analyses when completed will be made available to City for its further planning. If City does not elect to so prcceed or does not give timely notice of its intent to .T ~' proceed, then Company shall treat such election or failure to timely notify Company as a withdrawal of the request for such service. 3.3 Upon de te rmining, in accordance with the standards provided herein, the availability or non-availability, in whole or in part, of the reg'uested Transmission Service, Company shall so notify. City in writing of its determination. To the extent Company determines it can provide such Transmission Service in whole or in part, such notice shall include the rates (or the basis thereof), terms, and conditions 'under which Company is willing to provide such service. From the date Company l notifies City that Company is able to provide all or any part of the requested Transmission Service, City shall have 15 days, udless some lesser period is specified by Company, to notify s Company in writing of its intention to enter into a written . (g contract for such service; provided, the iiving of such notice by City shall not restrict City 's right to seek modification E-3 ^

cf tho retoa, terms, and conditions offered by Company prior to the execution of a written contract as

• set forth in Section 3.4.

In the event Company does not receive timely written notification from City, Company shall treat such lack of notice as a withdrawal of the request for service. 3.4 Should City notify Company of its intent to enter into a written contract for such Transmission Service, the parties shall meet to agree on the rates (or the basis thereof), terms, and conditions under which such service shall be rendered. C

• " "D Nothing herein shall be interpreted as placing an affirmative duty on' Company to supply Transmission Service absent the negotiation of rates, terms, and conditions satisfactory to Company.

Should such a written contract covering such Trans-mission Service not be consummated by City and Company within 45 days of the date City notifies Company of its intention to enter into a written contract for such service as provided in Section 3.'3, Company may con tract for any other interchange (J transaction with a third party even if such. contracting would, l from a system standpoint as determined by Company, preclude l i the possibility of Company providing the requested Transmis sion t Service to City, and in such instance Company shall notify City of any change in its ability to provide Transmission l Service as earlier of fered. Further, if at any time prior to i g the execution of a written contract, conditions change such that they are not in accord with Section E-4 such that the E-4

carvica ccnnot be providad, thcn notification between City.and Company under Section 3. 3 will be null and void. 3.5 Nothing contained herein 'shal1 be interpreted as placing an affirmative duty on Company to supply Transmission Service absent the negotiation of rates, terms, and conditions satisf actory to Company, including the determination by Company that adequate transmission capacity is available without the construction of new facili, ties or modification or replacement of existing facilities or operation of the facilities of m_() Company in a manner unacceptable to or burdensome to Company. Section E Supply and Scheduling of Transmission Service 4.1 Company will furnish Transmission Service to the k) system of City in accordance with this Service Schedule provided such service can be furnished under sound engineering and opera-ting practices and subject to the following standards: a. Such service will neither impair the ability of Company to render adequate service to its custom- =:m v ers nor impair or reduce the reliability of electric service by Company to its customers or the reliability of the interconnected system below standards consistent with those established by, or considered reasonable by, other utilities in the Regional Reliability Councils in the area. b. Such service will not' endanger, impair or create unsaf e conditions on the inter. connected system or J E-5 Gee.

/* cn any of the facilities of Company, or its custo-mers, or parties with which it is either directly or indirectly connected.' c. Such service shall not require Company to construct or install any new f acilities; nor modify or replace any existing f acilities; or operate the facilities of Company in a manner unacceptable to or burden-some to Company. ,[) d. The purchase of power and associated energy by City f rom a third par ty, for which Transmission Service is being provided by Company, shall not violate or be inconsistent with and shall not cause Company to violate, directly or indirectly, or becomo a party to violation of any applicable statute, order, ordinance, governmental or agency rule, regulation,

or other applicable federal, state or local law;

• ~d) and without limiting the scope of the foregoing, the purchase and receipt of the power and associated energy by Ci'ty from the third party over facilities of Company must in all events be lawful, duly l

au thorize d, and approved or accepted for filing by all regulatory agencies, if any, which then have l jurisdiction over such transaction, and the Trans-mission Service shall not cause Company to be dis-( E-6 , = _ - -

~ criminatory or preferential in any service, rato cr chcrge to any customers of company within the - b meaning of any applicable law.- e. In the event, under an agreed to transaction, the source of generation for the supply of power and associated energy to the City is unable for any reason to supply power and associated energy for . transmission by Company, Company shall have no responsibility under this Service Schedule to ( s =i > deliver power and associated energy from any other source. ~f. The determination of the availability of existing / transmission capacity of Company during the pro-posed scheduled period shall be made on the basis of existing load, future contracted or projected new load beyond normal load growth, pending requests -e,~() from others for Transmission Service, previously scheduled transactions (both hereunder and otheiwise), projected or anticipated transactions of. power and energy on the interconnected system, and normal load growth of Company and other connected utilities, all as available to Company from credible sources or as estimated by Company on the basis of its 7 customary engineering planning practice. E-7 l .' ~ ~ ~ m- ..---.en

cT^^) g. City and tho third party shall be responsible for G maintaining adequate vol,tage and' reactive support for the power and energy scheduled over Company's transmission so as not to impose any reactive requirements on Company. 4.2 In order for Company to perform maintenance on it's facilities, maintain reliability, and meet the requirements of its system and customers, the transmission of all power r k and associated energy under this Service Schedule shall be scheduled by City with Company on~ or before Friday of each week.- Such schedule shall set forth the estimated hourly use of Transmission Service during the following week. The schedule may be changed by City at any time on reasonable advance notice to Company. Company has the right to determine when mainte-nance shall be conducted on its system and has no obligation to delay " maintenance, which in Company's judgment is necessary, to maintain continuity of delivery of power and associated energy to City; provided, however, that Company shall, in good faith, seek to coordinate any such maintenance with City so as to maximize continuity of service. l Section E Payment for Transmission Service 5.1 The rate, term, and other conditions for Transmission Service transactions shall be negotiated by the parties for each 12-month transaction in accord with Section 3.4, and attached hereto as part of Service Schedule E. E-8 i l ~ c-

~ ~ 5.2 Anything to the contrary in the C6ntract or thic [y Sarvice Schedulo notwit'hstanding, it is agreed that Company is not obligated to interrupt its fi'rm customers or adversely affect customer service in order to maintain a scheduled Transmission Service. Company may curtail or interrupt, in whole or in part, any Transmission Service provided hereunder upon ten (10) minutes notice (given by telephone or any othe manner to the City System Operator or other appropriate individual) if conditions, as determined by Company, are {} such that the Transmission Service adversely affects, beyond acceptad standards, the loading on facilities or if Company determines that any of the standards in Section 4.1 are not or will not be met, and may in all events interrupt any Trans-r mission Service instantaneously and without notice if Company deems it necessary to protect system reliability. All contracts by City for purchase of power and associated energy involving Transmission Service by Company hereunder shall be subject to >{}) all of the conditions of this Service Schedule and City hereby explicitly recognizes such rights to curtail and -interrupt Transmission Service. 5.3 In the event it should at any time be determined by Company, either by audit, metering or otherwise, that actual l power and associated energy transmitted exceeds the power or 1 associated energy contracted and scheduled, then in addition to the charge for the contracted Transmission Service, Company, (O l E-9 l l w-_. x _ . - - - -, - - - - ~. - = - -

for each such event, shall be entitled to bill and roccive h from City an amount equal to the annual rate for Transmission Service applied to the amount of power and associated energy actually transmitted in excess of the amount for which City cqntracted. In no event shall this Section 5.3 imply an obligation on the part of Company to provide Transmission Service beyond that actually contracted for and scheduled, nor shall the payment for such excess delivery be interpreted to give City the right to continue to schedule excess deliveries. __h Should such violations continue, Company shall have the right to discontinue providing Transmission Service in its entirety. Section E Changes in Rates: Nothing contained herein {f shall be construed as affecting in any way the right of the party furnishing service under this rate schedule to unilat-erally make application to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission for a change in rates under Section 205 of the Federal Power Act and pursuant to the Commission's Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder. l --= E-10 l m ~

5 rr Y t>i.tvi.R. ( )!.ii hi-[. \\\\ AI.TZ & Gook. P.C. 44 f 9. *J8 'le.e * ,......3 mit : x Axto.st'. stessot:x wo ....s* -.. ...,ee...'t.-...cou. s ets o, t 3.<:m.naos.

==s~~s~>~v*~.. e.. .us-...............- ...c..so.. wa'n ' s.c. o u............. March 20, 1981 Mr. Woodrow D. Wollesen Wheatley & Wollesen 1112 Watergate Office Bldg. 2600 Virginia Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20037 Re: MISSOURI UTILITIES COMPANY

Dear Woody:

By our letter dated March 6, 1981,.we transmitted to you our comments with respect to emergency, power and transmission service, or wheeling rate. The. company' Staff has now completed its review with respect to the other' two-alternatives requested by you in the meeting of January 14, 1981. In our January meeting, you asked us to look at the ( potential for interruptible power. We have done so. As for the case of emergency power, the Company does not have interruptible power available for sale, because we do not purchase interruptible power and do not really have the facilities to generate interruptible power; as a very realistic matter, we do no.t have that type of service available. This leaves firm power, as we have discussed with you. We have available firm power in two forms. The first of these would be the total requirements all requirements type service. type service, or an Based on year ending June 30; 1980, data (financial information available to you in ER81-175-000), the price for total requirements power would be S7.36 per kW per month applied to the monthly peak, plus cn energy charge, which currently would be 1.392d per kWh, plus a customer charge of S2538.00 per year, billed at S211.51 a month, and the fuel adjustment charge. The fuel adjustment base is 1.431# per kWh with loss modification factor exactly as set out in ER81-175. b

1 i.Gl. a.( I l* 6 Alternatively, we could provide you with a block of firm power, based on a 1001 load factor. The cost would be S63.91 per kW of " contract capacity" per year, billed at SS.326.per kW of " contract capacity" per month, plus energy charge of 1.3924 per kWh, plus customer charge of S2,538 per year, billed at $211.51 per month, plus fuel adjustment, as set forth in ER81-175-000. With this transmittal, I believe we have complied with all of your requests, except one. We have not yet priced the line from Townley south for Malden. We are in the process of attempt'- ing to price this, and hopefully we will have that information to you shortly. A review of this matter indicates, as we have expressed before, we really have only two types of service that we can legitimately and accurately offer to the Cities. First, a transmission service rate, or a transmission facilities charge on the terms and conditions and at the rate set forth in our letter of March 6, or firm power either in the total requirements mode, or block of firm power mode, priced as set forth herein. We believe realistically, although we have the SFRI-l rate, s that we do not have a conventional service to offer, other than , transmission facilities, total requirements firm or block of firm power. As indicated, on a notice basis, and again in accordanc'e with the conditions set forth in our previous correspondence with respect to transmicsion facility service, we would consider a combination of a block of firm power, in a minimum amount, for purpose of discussion, four megawatts, plus a transmission facility charge. Under these bases, r some reasonable variation thereof, we would be pleased to work out the precise details of,a service ar angement and agree upon the precise rate. Very respectfully, OLIVER, OLIVE R, WALTZ & COOK, P.C. f[ I Bym

\\

k i John L. ! Oliver, Jr. General Counsel Missour Utilities Company J LO, J r. /j g bec: 'irgil Chirnside

Y ~ ~ 'l6 - // h rf MPYN UNION Ct CCTRIC CO M PANY / isos anarior sincer-sr.tovis p 1//3.' January 15, 1981 " ^ 2 'o".*. e'.." 7,"' g s r. 6evis. -o..m. ~ Mr. C. F. Wheatley, Jr. Wheatley & Wo11esen Suite 1112 Watergate Office Building y 2600 Virginia Avenue, IM / Washington, DC 20037

Dear Mr. Wheatley:

This letter is in response to our January 13, 1981 meeting in St. Louis concerning the possibility of direct electric service from Union Electric Company to the Cities of Malden, Jackson and O xennett', nissouri. outing this meeting.you requestea, on behatf of the Cities, that Union Electric make a proposal to the Cities for three types of direct electric service from Union Electric as follows: 1. Interruptible service. '2. A firm partial-requirements type of service. ~ 3. Electric service wherein Union Electric would assume the full load responsibility of the Cities, but would credit the Cities for their generating capacity. As you know, Union Electric has no existing tariffs which could be offered to the Cities for the types of service mentioned above. lQ Furthermore, the cities are not within Union Electric's service area. For these and other reasons which I explained during our January 13 meeting, any costs incurred by Union Electric in studying these proposals must be paid for by the Cities. These costs would be l credited against the Cities' future electric bills from Union Electric if electric service is taken from Union Electric. If it is desired that Union E1cetric proceed with an evaluation of the i above types of service, the Cities should make a written request to Union Electric for such an evaluation. The request should specify (1) the exact nature of each type of service as perceived by the Cities, and (2) what specific information is being requested by the l Cities for each type of service. The request must also make it clear I that the Cities are in agreement to reimburse Union Electric for all costs incurred in making such an evaluation. l l l l* RECEIVED I JAN 221981 GtP. PI AS!ilNB

I o Mr. C. F. Wheaticy, Jr. Page'2 January 15, 1981 As you know, Union Electric is not directly interconnected with the Cities of Malden, Jackson and Kennett and, as we have aircady dis-cussed, any service from Union Electric to the Cities would be received via transmission facilities other than Union Electric's. At our January 13 meeting you requested that Union Electric make the necessary arrangements with Missouri Utilities for any required transmission service. As I pointed out during the centing, Union Electric is willing to work out any technical matters regarding transmission service as may be required. It should be clearly under-stood, however, that Missouri Utilities is a separate operating entity distinct from Union Electric and any arrangements for transmission service from Missouri Utilities or others must be arrived at through negotiations between the Cities and the particular utility providing (]) the transmission service. Accordingly, if the Cities desire trans-mission service from another utility, including Missouri Utilities, the Cities should establish direct contact with the particular utility involved. If, on a technical basis, Union Electric's assistance is necessary, we would be glad to answer any specific questions. Please advise how we are to proceed on this matter. Very truly yours, S

e-William R. Herr Supervising Engineer Capacity Planning Coordination C,

and Special Studies WRH/pm cc Mr. W. A. Green Mr. L. Jones Mr. C. L. Talley Mr. W. W. Wollesen l Mr. E. H. Bernstein l l l l bec Mr. H. C. Allen f-Mr. L. A. Esswein I Mr. W. E. Jaudes l Mr. C. A. Brc=cr lb. C. P. Handicnan Mr. H. N. McCoy Mr. T. Kennedy 1 l l

V" Q usa TRAN9JITTAL SLIP / -/ y-p / MNe n T:s /*f - i i s' s.:.:. 77-P ROM: l f,. .' //. --- i!. I ACTlON i f Cast aas '8't O r**'aat a t 'ca 8 '*atu's ? a ors no arru To = Otaararancentarsactio Qattum= WITM tscot ottaats O'ra voua asout.87 g. Omt me see w amour twas Osimarues getrass =seen O rca v3.= ear==arim 6 Orm vaun *Paavs O i== s s ur = = airont CateENTse l' '

• 3
• ? J

/suf a 7 l CY/ c[ fe -e u,,,,4f 7 77yu:e d

n4,~,,fz/e,s r

u/ N97. ? 'O B' > 7/ bot > L. c.,,n + oe-c +; e / 6)d L i. (hA..y - /Jx('... //,.. c ~~ = = n i. / -e f

• e.

1,..,, tw. g A.. M -w.a*6,# Ah. s ts. t *~ w

• sd.

e l k 2. 2. l O i l l \\ l \\ I t e w evy T--r -Pw -?

c v m ~ - - * - p.c.c. mse.. its C.C IA.cr.C.C. Senetuta so. 5 FIFTH. KEVISED ,,,,,,,,,, 48 (I) FotDtrH ' REVISED ,,..,,,,, /*8 5 canctu.ino scactuus na y ILLINOIS SERVICT 2D'A % y,,,,, SERVICE CIASSITICATION NO. 7(I)* INTERRU7EI3LE ?CWER RATE 1 General. Interruptible Power is available, subject to the conditions of this Ser sica Classification, for the exclusive supply of loads whose individual power require =ents exceed 25,000 kilowatts and have oper-ating characteristics which permit, without delay, interruption of the supply of service for indefinite periods of ti=e. Caspany shall have the right to limit the aggregate acount of Interruptible Power available to an amount appropriate to its operating require =ents. Initially this limitation is 100,000 kW. Where customer's operation requires a'n amount of power during periods of curtailment of Interrupti' ole Power, customer may contract for an amount of power in kilowatts to be.known as Assurance Power. Service will be furnished in the form of three phase, 60 Hz current, to be delivered and metered at a suitable point near the boundary of cus-tomer's property. 2. Transmission Line, Ecuirment, Etc. Customer shall pay the total cost installed of any transmission or distribution circuits utill:ed for the delivery of electric service to said customer. In the case of ~ distribution circuits such cost shall include the entire circuit frca the point of delivery back to its substation source (either 34 kV or 14 kV) on Company's system. In the case of transmission circuits such ' cost shall include the entire circuit frem the point of delivery back to its point of connection to Company's interconnected transmission i grid. In any event the total tost installed of such circuits shall include labor, ciaterials ease =ents, rights-of-way and other expend-itures incident to the installation of facilities for the delivery of O etectric ervice te c==t==er ere=t e t==t=a1====7 vette 8te ever-heads. Custcmer shall also pay each =ench an a= cunt equal to 0.l-7. of ' the total installed cost of such lines to cover property taxes and operating and c:aintenance expenses. Ownership of such line, including easements and rights-of-way, will be vested per=anently in the Company. If circuits utilized have capacity in excess of that necessary to supply customer's initial centract requirements, Company may utilize the excess capacity for other purposes and in such event the cost and charges specified above shall be prorated.

• Indicates change.

sp.s.e. u.. a. r.,,,,u. o t: e a criv May 22, 1980 =,,3 g., g : 7.o r _ June 21,1980 t u c.c. mars e,i,,,. sa.sr.c.c. earc.nassue ones t

ve-r-Charles J. Dcugher:y Chair =in St. Louis, Missouri M an*E.* o *

• sC g e Tettg 3 m gg,
• 1TE!s*Intv:3t***"*st"*1t"'*"J'WE*i _a j.*"M"."E"t*?'CPT*""LE;z**TY9Wy_Opdym.* P.%YdWa_F*W'hy**yys

{ c 8ETTM N ~._. J '?T""

~ p.s.a. wo.. iu c.c s4. sr.c.c. scaucut.s w, 5 NirEZNrH REVISED,,,,,.,,,, 49 (I) 5 sIXr2Evrit 257I52D.., 3,49(I) camest.a. ins scaacui.s na TLI.IUOIS SER7 ICE GIA ,,.u,,,, y a SERVICE CLASSIFICATI0 t tro. 7(I)* INTERRU7CI3LE PCf.GR RATE - (CO!TEINL~dD) 2. Transmission Line, Ecule=ent, Et c. -(Cont inued) Customer will, at its own expense, install and nainta ta, on its own premises, all line, substation and utilization equip =ent for the proper use and control of the. electric service supplied by the Co=pany and will also, if requested by Company, at its own expense, provide suitable relays and signal systam on its premises to operate the cir-cuit breakars on the circuits supplying the incarruptible Power, such relays and sign.21s to be arranged for automatic or remote control by Company's Load Dispatcher. Ccepany will supply the control circuits to custcmer's premises to effect energizing of the relay system. Equ ip=ent installed for this purpose by custc=er shall be approved by Company's engineers and Cc=pany shall at all reasonable ti=es be permitted free access to custocer's premises for inspection of equip-ment and checking its operition. 3. Rate Based on Monthly Meter Readings. Customer Charge $225.00 per coach Energy Charge 1.40c per kWh (1). Demand Charge - As:urance Pcwer $6.45 per kW (2) - Interruptible Power $2.75 per kW (3) Fuel Rider (Rider A) - Applicable to all kWh. (1) When the custc=er's average monthly power factor falls 'below 0.95, the base race energy charge specified above will be O

==tetetted 67 che r==== decer=1==a 57 aivtat=s o 95 67 the monthly power factor. Alternatively, custccer =ay, subject to approval by Cc=pany, rei= burse Cc=pany for the installed cost of any equip =ent necessary to =eet the above power factor require =ents, which charge is not subject to refund. (2) The kilowatts to be billed as Assurance Fover will be the higher of a) the Assurance Power previously established by contract, or b) the maximum demand in kilowatts during any period in which Company has notified custe=er to curtail load. l l i 1

• Indicates change.

p.3.C. to o, g ayg o, issue oaf t f r** crew s Y $4n C.C. c ar,g ca tssut 3*?E E'*E"*E- ^ ^ l SA. 87.C.C. Daf t er I s s W E - OAftEP8EC?ivt. l Charles J. Dougherry Chatruan St. Louis, Misscuri n ews or Caese s* Taf ts Accessa l .Y " " ~ Y,T ?,U 2 ' ' l ' C "* ?$? '

• Y?T

'? T? T"?W ~ -~

~ mo ,,c.c. ma. su c.c.. iA. sr. c.c. semcauts no. NEIU " '8 "8 8S '* - 5 cancz'.sino sca: routs== T7dIJTH REVISED,,,,,,,,, 5 0 (1) ILLI:iOIS SERVICE ARIA m,,,, u i SERVICE CLASSIFICATIO?T NO. 7(I1* INTERRUFII3LI ?C%2R RATI - (CONTINUED) 3. Race Based on Monthly Meter Readings. - (Continued) (3) The kilowatts to be billed as Interruptible Power will be the highest demand established at any ti=e less the currently applicable kilowatts of Assurance Power. 4. Minimum Monthly Charre. The mini =um monthly charge hereunder will be the sum of the Custo=er Charge, the applicable Energy and Rider A Charge for all kilowatthours consumed, the Assurance Power Charge and the charge for 25,000 kilewatts of Interruptible Power. 5. Curtailment of Service. Interruptible Power may be curtailed or in-terrupted when it is anticipated that.a new Company system peak will be estabtished or whenever, in Ccmpany's sole judg=ent, such power is required to supply firm power to cuscocers of Company and its affiliates or to meet firm obligations to deliver power to other utilities under agree =ents to which Ccmpany or any of its affiliacas are parties, or to maintain lake levels at system hydro plants con-sistent with system require =ents and to prevent jeopardiring system capacity. Company may curtail or interrupt service in either of two ways: a) Where the med for curtailment of Interruptible Power may be anticipated in advance, Cc=pany will notify customers by telephone of the time such. curtailment shall be effected. b) Where an emergency occurs in the operation of Ccmpany's system , O which requires i==ediate disecnnection of Internpcible Pcwer to meet its obligations to others, Co=pany may effect such disconnection by telephone notice, or by initiating operation of automatic signals and relays referrad to in paragraph 2 hereof. Where in Co=pany's judgment the period of curtailment of Interruptible Power may exceed cne week, Cc=pany will, upon request of custc=er, endeavor to obtain frem other scurces te=porary power equivalent in capacicy to the a=ount of Interruptible Powe:' curtailed. If such temporary power is obtainable, Cc=pany will advise custcmer of the cost thereof and the ter=s and conditions under which it will be supplied. If such offer is acceptable to custc=er, Company will permit

• Indicates change, p.s.c. me. o.r e, i,,u,

cars : serive vmy 99 loan cara s,,se i.e. June 21. 1980 366. c.c. o.ru e,i,,u sa. sr. c.c. o re on i s s u s - sars aw : rive-Charles J. Dou:;her:y Chairman St. Louis, Missouri m : or on. es. r.rse ..o....

p.c.c. me *,.. i:A c. c.. s A. cr. c. c. sc u ro u ts =o. 5 FIFIII RE7ISED 51(I) ) 5 Tot lRTH REVISED ,,...,,,,, 5 1 cancsi.umo scweoutz na ILLINOIS SERVICE XREA 4,esvinc re I SERVICE CIASS!yICAT*0:: !!O. 7 (I)* INTERRUPTI3LE ?CNER pME - (C0!.'r!NUZD) 5. Curtaileene of Service. - (Centinued) customer to resume use of pcwer under such ter=s and conditions in lieu of the race for Interruptible Power provided in paragraph 3 hereof. Company will determine in its sole judsnent when use of Interruptible Power at the rata provided in Paragraph 3 hereof may be resu=ed. Assurance Power shall be exempt frcm customer's obligation to curtail or completely interrupt operations. 6. Resale of ' ervice. Customer may not sell or otherwise dispose of all S O or anr part of tue ele===ic service sugetted. s 7. Relief of Liabiliev. Customer will 'assu=e responsibility for, and will save Ccmpany harmless frem all actions, causes of action, suits, claims and demands whatsoever in law or equity, for injuries to persons (including employees of customer), damages to property, or losses, directly or indirectly caused or claimed to be caused by the acts of negligence of custc=er, its licensees, invitees, agents, servants, or others, or by the use, interruption or imperfection of electric service supplied by Company, or by the curtailment or disconnection of electric service or by any mistake in judgment or act or emission by Co=pany, or from any other cause, occurring or sustained on property owned or con-trolled by custemer. 8. Term of contract. Initial tem of 5 years with subsequent extensions of one year each, subject to cancellation by aither party by advance O =ocice 8tven stx =:c==as ><io= to the e=d oe the tatti t te== or nr extension thereof. 9. Cencral Rules and Regulations. Except as provided by the above specific rules and regulations, all of. Company's General Rules and Regulaticas shall apply to service supplied under this rate. f i l

• Indicates change.

E.S.c. M O. caf Of tssue o.re C C?t W C l May 22. 1980 a.r e.. er,ws_ June 21. 1980 is6. c.c. o.r.,... I iA. sr. c.c. o are or i s sus o.r u r,.s er.. _ l Charles J. Dougherty Chair an St. Louis, Missourt

• .-E o f o ic =

rerus 4e.... L

(o C 4.h - j%{d'O4,. W l 's . trm Federal Register / Vol. ti. No. :n / Friday. Februnrv 20. 1931 / Notices and any states concerning the allocation authority to resolve the dispute before at the hearing in this proceeding. The Presiding Judge shall consene a of Niagara l'ro;cct power. - us. NYSEC also co nmented that any preheann2 conference in this proceeding . Comments proicct power that may be.diocated by withm J0 d tys of tne issuance date of Comc ents on the complaint were fded this Comnssion to nec;hboring states in this order. May 9.19t0 by MEUA. w hose main addition to the powcr currently (C) The Secretary shall cause ptompt concern was that in.stata preference allocated shou'.d not Le d:verted from publication of this order in the Federal customers had not received their proper any power currenny under contract to Register. entidement. Mi:UA si.bmats that out.of-NYSEG. Rather. such additionai power Dy the Commissimi. state preference powcr can be ailocated should be dr.orted from ta MW of t(enneth F. Plumb. l ordy if the cu. rent and ruscs...biv power silegeda zet avde hy PASNY for

1. '"N 8

foreseeab e needs of in. state pret'eronce this purpose arid from ca MW of firet F'f^^ " * * * * *" "8 customers are first satis!acd.This issue power madu possible by diversi'y m the "Q CC*' "5" is inextricably tied to the is4ue of loads cf Nev York and m micipal and whether 10 megawatts is a reasonable cooperative customers. This question amount up to ten percent to bn a"ccated addresses i hypmheticalissue thit may ioocket t;os. Ensi-175-oco. En7M42 to out-r>f. state prefs rence ent t:es. /ss never be reached. The Nia;; ara Act gives ERSO-124. and Ef t31-166-000) such. the hearing to be convened by the authority to the Commission,in the presiding administrative la juore sh.dl es ent of disagreement, to determme and F.tr,couri Util;tles Co.; Order Accepting also address inis issue. ~ fix the portion of power to be made fcr finnq and Susocoding Proposed available to the out.of.ste preference F!ctes, Granting Summary Oispos46on Allegheny also hied comments on er:tities and leaves, at least in the best in Pcrt, Gr?nting intervention. May 9.1960. In its filing 4!!esenv 'C asserts that the temdatase history of the instance, to PASNY ihe respcasibili'y Consolidit:ng Ocekets, and far accommodating the Commission's Estab!ishing Procecures Niagara Act establishes tnat crny the determination. Issued February 13.1031. ,f states of pertnsyhania ano Ohio were The State of' Vermont Public Service On December 15. loc.0. Missouri 'f intended by Cen;ress to recewe Niagara 11 ard also alled comments on May :to. Utdities Company (MU) tendered for Projcet out-of-state oreference power. N ^"0"4 otha mm Wrmont filing re.ted rates for tenice to the Allegheny *a cen'ention is without cierit. n e. ara ,t. at a Cities of *;cnnctt. Jackson and Malden, as %e Comndssian has already r '.fissouri(Citics) which p ovide for discrmined that :,tatea other than 3 wvence W p.ct N.:'c?0 for purposes d b b Pennsylven;a and Onio can be C #0C'UE power from both is approximately $201.GC.0 based on the

• ncighboring states ' withm the terms of l'EMP"r. It a.s n t clear to avhat extent
• twclve mon *h period endin; june 30.

the Niagara Redeveierment Act. Docket .f t La No. FrB753. 5c.m of Vern.cnt Pablic .t;e[yy]a{aan 1980.'He company ha< also proposed p d tr. visions to its tariff trrms and Ser>1cc Econi. s: pre. Ihus we today in determming the amount of oower cor.ditions** hold,in conta mance w1th cut decismn subject to the preference : rovismns of g g gf h i d in Vermont A,bhc Service Soord. that oc qu Act ad b magnk; the Decemoer M.19m. with respotwes due Massachusetts md Connececut aie " neighboring states" withia tha scope of [,5}" [' ;,3 on or before bntury 9.19A. On lan tary 58 sa g 9,1981, the Citws r.:ed i motion in

• E#d A

also be addressed at the evidentiary Tha New iork State Electric and Gas reject, request for summary hsporttien. "# E' protest, and petition to inten ene. In Corpotution (NYSEG) atso Hed 'y comments en the complaints cn May 9. Conclusion their plear!mg. the Cities further request 1980. Among ether n:atters. NYSEG We willleave the specific procedures that price squee:e procedu:es be established and that the maximum five csserted that the Ccmmi>> ion is without most effectivdy and fairiv expeciting jurisdiction to 'ahe any act:en based the resolulian of the ecmhl:ints end the menth susper.sien pericd ce inra<ed. rpon the con.;-laints wl.;ch w ould affect other issues raised in the pleadir.gs to Oa Januny :5.193t. MU fded a mohon to strike.'t he mot;on states that Citics' or abrogate prs vi> ions c NYSEG's the discretion cf the presidmq allegations are inaccurate and may be coattact with PASNY for Niagara administrative hw judve. vto is intended to mi.!e3d tte Commist.:on. Project power. directed to convene a p eaening We have treated this motica as an NYSEG*s ar;u. ment cenct rning the cor.ference with n '.0 ebts of ibis ordar. answer to the Caes' p:c:dmg.3 Coramissica's ju:!> diction is mthout T!w con minien orde. a: merit. Under the dear tctms of the (A) Pursuar.t to the autnerity Discussion Niagara Act. $c Cm.misen is eranted contained m the Department of Energy tlu.Initta:ly, we find that participata. an in jurisdiction to reuve cispfes between Orgaa:zatmn Act the Federal Power s proceedmg by each of the cpplicants in ne!;hborir 2 ta.c3 and Act.the Niatara Redevelcpment Act PASNY over allocation of ?,iacara and the license for Project No. 2.!16. this

• • "'*'^*'"*'*3'*"'""*-

d'n',$$l3fD,','Cl."'.N",t Project prcierence can e. h nether or matter shall be set for hearing in not NYSEG's contract r.:ust be reformed conformance weh the Cem--issien's is a question not now bcfore the Rules of Practke and Pncedure to occ.etx m u m. e,eesence m ec wre sb n.te t e utan c m.!c it. w un Commissiaa. The fact that the consider all nu.t.cs s of fi.ct and law, n '" ' P PI"'!'' '* '"'*'"'"' U"' ' N"' '* 2 ' Commission has Nr:sdmion to require consistent with the ptatwinn cf th s PASNY to a!!ocata N;anta P cmct order. canectn:ng those i> sues h Decket $. ph "[c.$c'Qyn mg preference powe in accarcance with Nos. ELGS-M and LL8NI not decided u.an. tv cr J 4 m em t cury e. int. m D&t the Niagara A(.t carnot be cenwd. No in th:s order. .h I Rat.1M n l'a Cmm m.v;r ice, "'

• d '
• F P'"d " ** "'*'"*
• N[o '[,N,"lN$.,'$N'#*

contracts aheady m existence amon<; (C) A Pre >:d.. g AJn.ia:strativo L.w d the parties in this proceedin ; can in any ju.!;c. to be deNnated oy the Ch:cf way oust the Ccmuission ot its Admitne.tratise !.aw ludge shall preside w wcia s.22 I +c com.usec. risAtor,s.

~ Tederni Register / Vol. 40. No. 3 / Friday. February ::0,1981 '/ Notices 13333 0 petitioners is in the public interest that MU be directed to (1) flow throush addressed at the hearing designated all refunds as they are received by h1U. below. llowever, the billing provisions Consequently, we shall grant the / pet;t ons to imerver.e. and (2) reduce its rates to the Cines further provide as follows:"If the bill The Cities have requested rejection of w hen the lower rates charged by UE shall remain delinquent for (15) fifteen MU's fuin;na the grounds that the brcome effective. We note that the rates days, the Compary shall have the ri;;ht carnpany hes r ot submttled aporcpriate fded by UE cnd referred to by Cities to forthwith terminate service without support or adequate explan.ition of its have not yet been accepted for f. ling. notice." MU proposed an identical filing as required by the Coramission's Therefore, we shall deny the Cities provision in its service agreements filed regulations. \\.*e find that MU's fi'in ; request for an order directing use of the in Docket No. ERul-1cM00. We a::bstaatiilly compiies with t 35.13 of rata submitted by UE in corrpliance summanly rejected that provision by or regulations and. thereiare, we shall with Opinion No. 94, but shall require order issued February 6.1901. For the deny the mo:!cn to rcicct the fdin;.* a!U to flow throu;h all refunds (wah reasons given in that order, we shall Our anslysis indicated that the rates. interest) as they are received by MU direct htU to strike the last sentence of terms, and conditions filed by h!U have and to reduce it:. rates t a Cities when Section 5 of its currently proposed tariff not been shmvn to be just and the UE rates become effecth e. sheets and to refrain from applying any $ reasonab!e and may be unjust. The Cities also state that MU has such unilateral cancellation provision. unreasorable, unduly discriminaten, failed to flow through a credit which h!U Th'e Cities also request summary preferential, or otherwise uniawful. receives fcr its ceneration pursuant to disposition of a number of other issues. indeed, our preliminary review indicates UE's tariff rate for service to MU.'TheY including. inter c/ia. (1) MlJs use of a that the underlying rate may not bo just seek a Commission directive requiring non-coincident peak method of and reasocable. Accordmgly, we snall h!U to revise its charges to the Cities to allocating demand.related costs, and (2) accept the rates, te res. and conditinas " match an exact flow througn from the h!U's proposed tariff provisions which for filintt, as modt ied by this order. and UE Tartfi." Our analysis indicates that provide that the company r, hall not be r MU receives a generation credit from required to increase the capacity of its ~ O suspend them as directed b:!ow. in a number of suspension orders.* we Uliand that such credit may already be facilities to provida service to the Cities have addressed the considerations reuected in MU's stated cost of without contractual provisions moderlying the Commission's policy purchased power.This generation, acceptable to the company for recovery regarding rate su pensions. For the credit. in turn, would be reflected in of associated costs. Furthermore, the reasons given there, we have concluded MU's charges to the Cities. Occause the Citics object to a variety of cost of that rate fain;;s should generally be Cities' conccrn appears to be misplaced. service matters without requesting sosper.ded for the manmam penod we shall deny their raquest for summary soecific Commission action.These permitted by statute where p:eam! nary disposition of this inue, subject to remaining issues may be pursued most studyleads the Commissica to beceve renewal of the mouon wnen ite appropriately at the heanng ordered that the f. ling may b. unjust and pertinent facts are develeped at hearing. 3,go, unreasonable or that it may run afoul of In addition, the Cities :nove that 'ho In accordance with the Commission's other statutory standards. We have Commission summarily reiect htU,' pRI policy established in ArAcnsos Power acknowledged, however, that snorter attempt to recover contributions to E and Light Con pany. Docket No. ER79-suspensions may be warranted m in its rates. Our review of the compeny s 339. order issued August 6.1979, we circumstances whcre suspension far the study reveals that the EpRI shall phase the price squeeze issue maximum period may lead to harsa and contnbutions were Mirninated from raised by the Cities. As we have r:oted r inequitable resuits. Such circumstances MU s expenses cefore such exnenses in previous orders, this procedure will have net becu presented here. We shall were allocated to the Cittes. Therefore, allow a decision first to be reached on therefore accept the proposed rate we shall deny the Citics request for the cost of service capitalization. and schedules and tanff sheets for fmns. as summary disposillon on this issue. rate of return issues. lf. In the view of ' dco 'e'o =d '"'a'"" :'e = ' ' ' ' ' '==- " " "' = ": c'::. 0 'fhe nienths to become efzective the interveners er stafr. a price ssut.eze motion for summary disposition wi h thercuite.r en July 13.19dl. subject to respect to one of th'c isms raised in persists.a second phase of the b(, pr ceeding may tol'ow. ,[ }{g *\\h The Cities object to MITs use of a challen<:ed the " Billing end Payment Nos. ERCO-124. ER79-162. FR31-15000.

refund, their pleading. The Cities have The Commissan finds that Docket a

charge for purchased power whict does provisio'ns (Section 5) uf MU': proposed and ER81-175-000 may present common not re!!:ct Union Electric Companf s tariff sheets. In part, th;r sec: ion questions oflaw and ract. Accordin:!y. (UE)*fdW;in compliance with L*nfon providea that any bi!i wel be due and we snall consolidate these deckets. Elect.-le Cor crt. &imon No. N. payabte w: thin ten d.u i:cm its date: subject to severance si a later da,te m Doci et No. Er77-611 (Scott mber 2. delinquent bths wouic ' car mtere;t at the event that action on Missouri s o 1930).Citics request that MU he directed the then-current interest rs'e. The Citic, h,cndin t motion to terminate Docket p taine.rporate in its rate the revised object to these requirements. statin:: that os. ERao-1::4 and ER79-462 so rates filed by 1)E in compliance with the deshnated payment period is warrants. Opinion No. 94 or,in the altcrnative, unreasonably short. We believe t' sat these questions should properiy be 7he Commission orders: (A)The Citics' motion to reject MITs -sce.wicpn/vd:smies varadet ac4 WeAc6 eld Alassar.'as.ss vJrC 450 Ud 1341 8 ktU purchases virtu. illy all of its power en<a filing is hereby denied. pc. car mil anergy from t E under a rate schedaie it"J H C No. (B) MU's proposed rate schedules Ond 'Es. Baton Tee.c Ccwv n.. Decket No. ERSo-601 whwh r. osi lts it I tw mantbiv bi.i.n:: demand tariff sheets tendered for filimt on SAI t August ?>.1.r,Jl tfWe month si.srensionk she!! be Ants maurwn rutah!y sysvens rwawred December 15.1"30. are accepteg [or AAabcess Arever C.vrpenv. Dos.' et Na GM-54 et hourly lo.ed plas 13". fut reou less the Lt ell Au;ust M W*n)!rt e de swensont: Ge.cratrbt Cep.shhty of kP1 bst not las tha's UM filing. as modilled by tms order. 8nd are Ckvr'and E.'act,c l.summat.ng t' t cery. Docket of tre mn.num tn!!mt drm md oscutore di.nnu th* suspended for i;ve months frem saty M LHto-44'llAugat *2.1WJ ten wday months of lane. ],1y. Apt ein i SeptenUcr in tr.e ' days after filina to bNome rt.~rctive on suspensioni. 11mrcith p. rd end,nt w th an< lins t..ne te July 13,1931. subject io rc7ung p mging Sk!U se e s st,sid..ry of tJE and purthases vutual'y csrent rroc A 1he f.et Lencrat.r.2 C.ys bc.t> uf .a.f in pow., verwnensnan in posot. uu un m hw. hearing and decision thereon.

e a = i q33 y Federal Re21st:r / Vol.10. No. 34 / Fridny. February 20. 1931 / Notices 124. ER79-GC. and ER81-1GG-000. for preliminary permit (pursuant to the $s(C) The Cities

• rections for summary -

[ position are hereby den +cd except as purposes of hearing and decision. Federal Power Act.16 U.S.C. Il 7T.fa)- provided in this paragraph and pending appropnate subsequent action 825(r)! for preposed Proicct No. 373G to j paragraph [D) beluw. Missouri is hereby on Stissouri s December u. I'x0 motion be known as the llorsehoe Dam Preiect trected to stnke frer t its proposed to terminate Docket Nos. ER80-124 and located on the Verde River in h!aricopa sersice a;;rccments the last fu!! sentence ER79-G12. County. Arizona.The proposed project t of Section 5. and to re. rain from []) We hereby order the initiation of woidd utdize Federal lands and a applying any such umlateral price squeeze procedures in Docket No. Federa! dam under the junsdiction of concellation provision. Within thirty (30) ERB 1-175-000 and further order that the the United States Water and Power days from the date of this order. price squeeze phase of the proceedmg Resources Service.The application is on Stissourt shall refde its proposed tanif begm after issuance of a Commission fi!c with the Commission and is sheets with the designated sentence opinion estabbshing the rate which. but available for public inspectier.. deleted. for a consideration cf pnre squeeze. Correspondence with the Applicd (D) Citief request for an order would be just and reasonable. The should be directed to: Atr. hiitchell L ' directing immediate use of the rates presiding judge may order a change in Dong. President. Ahtchell Ener;;y submitted by UE in compliance with this schedule for good cause. The price . Company. Inc 173 Commonwealth Opinion No. N is denied. tiowever. AfD squeeze portion of this case shall bc Avenue, Boston, h!assachusetts 02110. is hereby directed to P.ow through all governed by the procedures set forth in Project Description-The proposed related refunds (wi:h interest) to the section 2.17 of the Commission's project would utilize the Umted States I Cities, as they are received by MU and reculations as they may be modified Water and Power Resources Service's to reduce its rates to the Cities wnen the prior to the evaluation of the pnce existing Horseshoe Dam and Reservoir ~ and would consist of:(1) a proposed n lower UE rates become effective. squeeze phase of this proceedmg. ( J (re) The Citics' petition to intervene is (K) The Secretary shall promptly powerhouse located just below the dam E on the east bank of the Verde River, he by granted subject to the rules and publish this order in the Federal having units with a total installed regulations of the Commission. Register. capacity of approximately 3.500 kW: pmvided. however. That participation Dy the Com:nission. Acting Chairman and (2) Gppurtenant works. by the intervenors shall be limited to Shdd*" d'55'"'*1' The Applicant estimates that the m:tters set forth in their petition to Kenneth F. Plumb. average annual energy output would be Intuvene, a'nd provided. further. That 17.000.000 kWh. the admission of the interrenors shall Scentary. not be construed as recogmt.on by the Attachment A.-hfissouri Utilitics Purpose ofProject-Project energy would be sold to local public utilities. Commission that they m::ht b" Company Docket No. ER31-175-0C0 PmposedScope and Cost of Studies tggrieved because of any order or item: Ruised Tariff Sheets / Rate Under Permit-Applicant seeks orders by the Commission entered in Increase issuance of a prehminary permit for a this proceeding. Dated: Undated period of two years, durma which time it (F) Pursuant to the authority contained in and subject to the Filed: December 15.1980 would prepare studies of the hydraulic, jurisdiction conferred upon the Federal Effective: July 13.1981, subject to refund constructione economic. environmental. Enirgy Regulatory Commission by and the outcome of hearings. -historic, and recreational aspects of the project. Depending upon the outcorne of section 402(a) of the DOE Act and by the Designation and Description the studies, the Applicant would prepare F;deral Power Act, particularly sections 203 and 200 thercoi. and pursuant to the (1) First Revised Sheets Nos. t. 6. 8.11 an application for an FERC license. Commission's Rules of Practice and and 12 (Supersedes Original Sheet App! cant estimates the cost of studies pd Procedure and the regulations under theNos. t. 0. 8.11 and 12)-Table of under the permit would be $30.000 Federal Power Act {13 CFR. Chap!ct I Contents and Rules Purpose of Preliminary Permit-A (1980)]. a public hearing shall be held (2) Original Sheet No. 8A-Rules preliminary permit does not authorize c:ncerning the justness and continued (Bdling and Payment) construction. A permit.ifissued.gives re:sonableness of AIU's rates. (3) Fifth Revised Sheet Nos. 3. 4 and 5 the Permittee, danng the term of the (C) The Commission staff shall serve (Supersedes Fourth Revised Sheet permit, the right of priority of t:p sheets in this procecdmg on or Nos. 3. 4 and 5HSFR-1 Rates application for license whde the before Alay 1.1931. (4) Third Revised Sheet No. 5A Permittee undertakes the necessary

• (11) A presiding administratise law (S;parsedes Seco.id reg.<cd Sheet studies nnd exammations to determine Judge, to be designated by the Chief No. SAFSFR-1 General Terms the engineering. economic. and Administrative Law jadge. shall (5) First Revised Sheet No.13 environmental feasibi!ity of the

. c:nvene a conference in this proceeding (Supersedes Original Sheet Nos.13. prnposed project. the market for power, to be held within approximately fifteen 14.15,16 and 171--Dc!ctes Form of and all other information necessary for (15) days of the service of top sheets in a Standard Service Agreement inclusion in an application for a license. haring room of the Federal Energy in ox. si e m.4 -%. s n =t Apency Comments-Federal. State. and local agencies that receive this Regulatory Commission. 625 North owna coce mo-as-w Capitol Street. N.E., Washin zton D.C. notice through direct maihng from the 20420. The designated law jud;:e is Commission are invited to submit (Project No. 3736-0001 comments on the described application cuthorized to establish procedural dates for preliminary permit. (A copy of the cnd to rule on all motions (escept Mitchell Energy Company. Inc appHeadon may W oWained directly motions to consohdate or sever and. Application for Prehmmary ermit from the Applicant.) Cornmeats should p motions to dismisst as provided for m the Commission's Rules of Practice and February 17. tml. be confined to substantne issues Procedure. Take notice inat.%tcheil Energy relevant to the issuance of a permit and (1) Docket No. ER81-175-000 is hereby Company. Inc. (Apphcant! filed on consistent with the purpose of a permit consolidated with Docket Nos. ER80-November 12. mm, an application for as described in this notice. No other a m

N ^ !! arch 6,1981 Mr. Woodrow D. Wollenen Wheatley & Uollesen 1112 Watergate office nldg. 2600 Virginia Avenue, II.W. Washington, D. C. 20037 Re: MISSCUitI UTILITIES COMPANY

Dear Woody:

At the January rectina, you ached for, and we have been attempting to prepare certain rates for you. One of the requests that you nade was that we prepare a rate for "Tmcrgency Power." Ue have been atter.pting to price emergency power. As a practical matter, we do not believe that we can do so. Obviously, if ue are providing yo's tiith full or all ren ire-rents fire pctter, cr trith a block of firra pot.cr, we could sell you conc r.dditional power on a spot Fasis; 1ut that would have to be priced en a ratchet basis fran Unien J.lectric, and I do not believe that that i s t .'t you had in nin:'. If, of courne, you nre an all requireronts custoners, there would be no need for firn power. Otherwise, if tre are providing vou with the transmission service, we, of course, could wheel no to our contract canacity any energency power that you would acquire fron other sources. We would be glad to discuss this particillar clement with you further, but richt new do not see hou un can accot,nodate. The other rate which we have devnloced is a transmission service rate. The rate that we have <levisttlliased on voar ending 1980 data, would he the following: (a) A capacity charco of $15.468 per year For KU of contract capacity, which would be billed at $1.2R9 rer ronth ner KW of contract capacity; nlus W-

~ m 3 MR. WOODROW D. WOLLESEN MARCH 6, 1981 Page Two (b) An energy charge of $.001 per KW received into the Company's system for redelivery; plus (c) A local facilities charge of.0173 times the original installed cost of local facilities per month. The minimum bill would be the sum of (a), (b) and (c). In addition, of course, this rate would be subject to the general conditions, most of which were listed in my letter to you of February 9, 1981. In reviewing the matter, we believe there would be one other special condition, which would require that the customer be responsible for delivery into the Company system of an amount of power and energy greater than the amount to be re-delivered, sufficient to compensate for losses. We assume, for current calculation purposes, un could estimate the use to be equivalent to that of Kennett, which is Five Percent (5%), which Kennett supplies to SWPA. We would be glad to confer with you abcut how this rate is derived, if you dosire. Very respectfully, OLIVER, OLIVEn, 1.7.LTZ & COOK, P.C. I DY .Tohn L. Oliver,'Jr. Gencral Counsel to l'issouri Utilities Company JLO,Jr./jg I bc: Virgil Chirnside i Louie Ervin 1 l l t 1i

F/.f wr j R. C C '. = flG LAW OFFIC E"O g WHEATLEY & WOLLESEN g., 4 yg SUITE til2 WATEROATE OFFICE BUILDING 2000 VIROINTA AVENUE. N.W. C MARLES F, WMCATLEY, sp. WOCOROW D. WOLLESEN 202/337 5543 DON CHARLES UTMus PmuP S. M.A,LTER c M Eu. " ""' * * March 3, 1981 JAMED MO*A.RD PETE*2 A. GOLOSMITM Mr. William R. Herr Supervising Engineer Capacity Planning Coordination and Special Studies Union Electric Company 1091 Gratiot Street P. O. Box 149 () St. Louis, Missouri 63166

Dear Mr. Herr:

This is in reply to your letter of January 15, 1981 which apparently represents the response of Union Electric Company to the inquiries to the Company that were made by representatives of the Cities of Malden, Jackson, and Kennett, Missouri at a meeting held on January 23, 1981 at the Company offices in St. Louis, Missouri. At the meeting on January 13, the Cities indicated their interest in purchasing power directly from Union Electric Company. As you know, the Cities are now supplied with power by Union Electric but indirectly through the facilities of Missouri Utilities, a subsidiary company of UE. (]) As stated at the meeting, the Cities confirm their interest, and ask if the Company would agree to sell them power, and if so, on what terms and conditions, so that the economics of such an acquisition could be evaluated by them. The Cities stated that they would be interested in considering a direct purchase of power from Union Electric under three possible different types of sales. First, the Cities indicated that they would be interested in considering a purchase of energy from Union Electric on an interruptible basis, i.e., the Company could curtail deliveries when capacity was needed for its other firm loads. At the meeting, Company personnel indicated that they did have interruptible service to cus-tomers presently. Second, the Cities indicated their willingness to con-sider a purchase of a block of firm power from Union Electric. For analysis purposes here, it was suggested that the City of RECEIVED MAR G 1981 -entp, F1 A'"il$

~ Cr. WilliE3 R. Harr March 3, 1981 Page 2 Malden would consider the purchase of a block of three megawatts, while the City of Jackson would consider the purchase of five megawatts of firm power. The Cities in-dicated they would be willing to purchase such power under the Company's existing W-3 rate schedules for firm power service. The Company indicated at the meeting that the firm power W-3 proved wholesale rate was not available, but that the Company had another rate, under which it sold power to the City of Columbia which might be available. The Cities also suggested consideration by UE of an arrangement which is presently being offered by Illinois Power Company to its municipalities wherein in the off-peak months of the year, the Cities can utilize up to twice the peak period capacity without incurring O additional demand charges. The third possible arrangement for purchase of power that could be of interest to the Cities would be an arrange-ment similar to that which Union Electric currently offers to its wholly owned subsidiary, Missouri Utilities. Under this arrangement, UE provides all of the power requirements of the purchaser under a fixed rate schedule with a credit for the purchaser's existing generation. The FERC has recently affirmed a set schedule of rates for this type of service between UE and MU. Fourth, with respect to the issue of wheeling, for the Cities to acquire any type of power service from UE, would require the transmission of that power to the Cities. The Cities are presently being served by Union Electric power, () purchased from UE 's subsidiary, Missouri Utilities. For the Cities to purchese power directly from UE, should involve no new facilities than those presently existing, and it is the Cities' position that UE would be in the best position to arrange for the transmission to the Cities of such a direct acquisition. With respect to the question of wheeling, the City of Malden has acquired five megawatts of SPA power which is anticipated to be availabl( no later than January, 1984 by the Southwestern Power Administration and requires to have this power wheeled to it. It is my understanding that at the conference it was agreed that there were no technical problems involved with getting the five megawatts of SPA power to Malden from SPA. The Company has asserted that telemetering equipment should be installed at the Cities' cost, but the Cities have questioned whether such telemetering is necessary.

Mr. William R. Harr March 3, 1981 Page 3 In your letter of January 15, 1981, you state: " Union Electric has no existing tariffs which could be offered to the Cities for the types of service mentioned above." For the reasons that we have set forth above, as well as the reasons set forth in my letter to President Dougherty of July 2,

1979, we see no reason why the Cities' interest in acquiring power from UE cannot be satisfied by reference to established rate tariffs filed by UE and approved by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.

It is our view that th established tariffs, both at the FERC and for interruptible service by the Company to other retail customers, provide a basis for service to the Cities with few, if any, modifications required. Your letter of January 15 states that: () "Furthermore, the Cities are not within Union Electric's service area." 'This appears to imply an assumption that UE will not supply wholesale bulk power to any entity to which it is not presently serving such power. In fact, Union Electric is supplying power to the Cities of Malden, Kennett and Jackson through its wholly owned subsidiary, Missouri Utilities. Even apart from this fact, there appears to be no valid legal basis for Union Electric to refuse to deal in bulk power sales to proposed wholesale customers such as the Cities of Jackson, Malden and Kennett, Missouri. UE has contracts for the sale of power with a number of utility systems that are farther away than the Cities, i.e., with Central Illinois Public Service Company and Illinois Power Company under which it makes regular sales of firm power. Accordingly, for UE to ([) refuse to offer power to the Cities on this basis is, in our view, totally unwarranted. As you know, the Cities have been requesting to pur-chase power direct from Union Electric for a long time. The requests made at the meeting on January 13, 1981 by the Cities are not substantially different from that which we had speci-fically requested in writing in my letter of July 2, 1979 to President Dougherty. At the meeting on January 13, 1981 as we provided any additional data requested by the Company, we thought we were making some progress to the point where the l Company would provide us with a response. However, your l letter of Jnauary 15 states as follows: l ...any costs incurred by Union Electric in studying these proposals must be paid for by the Cities." ~

Mr. William R. Herr March 3, 1981 Page 4 At that meeting, UE has indicated that the Cities would have to pay a substantial sum to Union Electric, in order for the Company to even make a proposal to sell power to the Cities. The Cities believe that this proposal is discrimi-natory and anticompetitive, and results in a refusal to deal. The Cities know of no instance where, as entities interested in the direct purchase of power from a public utility company, they should be required in advance to pay that company for undefined " costs" which the Company deems it will have to incur in offering to sell power. To our knowledge, UE imposes no such restriction on its negotiation with other investor-owned utililties with whom it has entered into agreements for the sale of power. Certainly, the Cities cannot agree in ([) advance to put up money for such studies, before they even know whether UE will agree to sell them power on reasonable terms and conditions that would make such purchase economi-cally feasible for them. UE's position has an adverse impact on competition for bulk power transactions. The proposal in your letter that the Cities agree in advance "to reimburse Union Electric for all costs incurred in making such an evaluation" as a condition precedent to Union Electric's even undertaking to offer any power to the Cities, is clearly a restrictive device to force the cities to con-tinue to deal with UE 's subsidiary company, Missouri Utili-ties, rather than directly with Union itself. Any UE cost of seeking.new business is fully compensable in rate cases. UE should not attempt to dictate a specific assignment of those costs to specific entities in advance. The Cities cannot justify the payment of 'public funds to Union Electric as a condition precedent to obtaining in-formation as to whether Union Electric is willing to sell them power under various alternatives. Its refusal to deal with the municipals in the absence of such an agreement to reimburse Union Electric as set forth in your letter is, in my view, arbitrary and unlawful. l In your letter of January 15, you also discussed the I wheeling issue which was discussed at the January 13 meeting. l At that meeting, the Cities made clear their desire to pur-chase power direct from Union Electric, and to have Union Electric arrange all the wheeling arrangements over its system, together with tnat of its subsidary company, Missouri l Utilities, so that they could be assured delivery of the power purchased, on reasonable terms, i i

t Nr. William R. Herr March 3, 1981 Page 5 Your letter declines.on behalf of UE to make any transmission arrangements, despite the f act that Missouri Utilities' transmission system is under the operating control of Union Electric's dispatch control system, and the f act that the Cities want to purchase directly from Union Electric as the supplier: "It should be clearly understood, however, that Missouri Utilities is a separate operating entity distinct from Union Electric and any arrangements for. transmission service through Missouri Utilities or others must be arrived at through negotiations between the Cities and the O particular utility providing the transmission service." We interpret this as a refusal to provide wheeling services to the Cities. There is absolutely no reason under the circumstances why the Cities should be subjected to the shell game of having to deal with differing conflicting positions of UE and MU on the wheeling issue. We are con-Vinced that if Union Electric realy desired to make a sale of power to the Cities direct, that it could easily work out convenient transmission arrangements at the lowest possible cost with its wholly-owned subisidary company, whereby Union Electric could make the sale to the cities. The Cities had hoped through the extensive,Seriod of time that has elapsed since they have made their or.;ginal request, as well as by the extensive colloquies

t. bat took

([) place at the meeting on January 13, that the Compa.,y sould be in a position to of fer power to the Cities. Your letter of January 15 is discouraging and indicates to us that the efforts of the cities to engage in negotiation to obtain a power supply direct from Union Electric are fruitless. We had thought that progress would have resulted, and we welcomed the I good of fices of the FERC Staff in this ef fort over the extended negotiations conducted by them. However, the Company's position as set forth in your letter of January 15 I is indistinguishable from that which the Company had set forth l in its initial response to my letter of July 2, 1979 to Mr. Dougherty. Despite all of the intervening negotiations under the auspices of the FERC Staf f, and our own direct attempts to negotiate with Union, the Cities have no alternative but to l consider that the Company's bottom line, as set forth in your

gs Mr. William R. Herr March 3, 1981 Page 6 letter of January 13, is a refusal to deal which discriminates against them vis-a-vis the other private investor-owned utility companies with whom the Company has dealt. We woul'd urge the Company to reconsider, but if not, the Cities are lef t with the only alternative of pursuing their rights in other ways. Very truly yours, W Y e O crW=fdd Char 1es r. wheaeter, ar. O 4 4 l l G e

1 g UNION C t.C C T R I C COMPANY 1908 ORATIOT STR E CT

• ST. LOUIS April 10, 1981 8'8 AIL 188 0 A D D R E S S:

P. O. so m a49 ST. LOUIS. MO. 6316 6 Charles F. Wheatley, Jr. Esq. Wheatley & Wo11esen Suite 1112 Watergate. Office' Building 2600 Virginia Avanue, N.W. Washington, DC 20037

Dear Mr. Wheatley:

Your letter of March 1, 1981 to Mr. William R. Herr of Union Electric Company concerning certain dealings with the Cities of Malden, Kennett and Jackson, Missouri (the Cities) has O been referred to me for response. An initial review of your letter and the assertions and charges set forth therein, many of which are erroneous has convinced me that a detailed response is warranted. Such a response will be forthcoming in the near future. However, I want you to clearly understand that Union Electric Coinpany categorically denies that its discussions with the cities have'in any way been conducted in bad faith, at least on Union Electric's part, or that Union Electric has refused to deal with the Cities. A more comp?ete response to your letter of March 3, 1981 vill be forwarded as soon as I have completed my investigation. 'Very truly yours, Q o isi.ui signed by CHARLES A. tM nl.R Charles A. Bremer General Attorney CAB /p cc: William R. Herr l bec: W. E. Cornclius S. W. Smith, Jr. H. C. Allen L. A. Esswein # W. E. Jaudes REcGVED APR 131981 CQRP. PLM,M,q

Q ' l/~ f*" " OC = ? - 7

• /[,

N .48 e . UNION E'LccTnic COMPANY 190s 02ATIOT STK CET - ST. LOUIS February 16, 1982 wa.t.uo.oe.c.m P.O. eO m e4 9 ST. LOUIS.MO.eJeee Mr. Charles F. Wheatley, Jr. Wheatley & Wollesen Suite 1112 Watergate Office Building 2600 Virginia Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20037

Dear Mr. Wheatley:

s ~The purpose of this letter is to more completely respond to your March 3, 1981 letter to Mr. Herr concerning the O possibility of Union Electric Company supplying power and energy to the Cities of Malden, Jackson and Kennett. While I firmly believe your letter fails to accurately represent the facts, I will attempt to ignore that aspect of the letter and address what I interpret to be the substance of the Cities' requests. You first indicate that the Cities might be interested in interruptible service. Union Electric does not currently supply interruptible service at wholesale. However, as we did inoicate in an earlier meeting with you we do have interruptible service ~ available to retail customers in Illinois and Iowa. While we have serious questions as to the practicality of interruptible service to a customer such as one of the Cities, where retail residential, public health, and emergency service is involved, we would be happy to discuss such an option with the Cities in more detail. As you undoubtedly understand, any supply of interruptible service jO carries with it the right of the supplier, in this case Union Elt;tric, to interrupt that service on short notice should certain conditions be met. Because of this it would be essantial for the Cities to have adequate backup supplies available on equally short l notice so as to avoid the necessity of interrupting service to the types of customers mentioned above. l You next indicate that the Cities might be interested in the purchase of a block of firm power from Union Electric. In your letter you tie that type of purchase to Company's existing W-3 rate schedules for Firm Power Service. As you are well aware, Union Electric's Firm Power W-3 Rate is a total requirements rate, l and, therefore, the rate level and terms and conditions of service are developed in accordance with that obligation of service. l Thus, we do not feel it would be appropriate to sell a block of firm power under that rate schedule. Ccmpany would be willing, however, to discuss the sale of a firm block of power and energy l to any of the Cities of Jackson, Kennett and Malden under a l partial requirements type of transaction at a rate commensurate RECEIVED FEB 191982 cm2. 02:M

~ ~ ~ 'Ch2rica F. Whnaticy, Jr. ~ Febru ry 16, 1982 Pcg2 2 with Union Electric's current costs. 'We would anticipate such sales to any of the Cities being for a fixed amount of power for a defined period of time. You state in your letter that the Company indicated that it's Firm Power W-3 Wholesale Rate was not available to the Cities of Jackson, Kennett and Malden. I believe this is a misstatement or at least a misunderstanding of,the position taken by Union Electric. While we do not regard the Cities as within Union Electric's normal service area,.because of the ongoing discussions which have occurred between the parties the Company would be willing to serve the Cities of Jackson, Kennett and Malden under t'he terms and conditions of its filed U-3 tariff. It should be recognized, however, that this particular tariff is a total requirements tariff, and it has been our understanding that the (]) Cities were not desirous of this type of arrangement. In your letter you next suggest a possible arrangement similar to that existing between Union Electric and Missouri Utilities wherein power requirements are provided under a fixed rate schedule with credits being given for the perchaser's existing generation. Under the provisions of the arrangement

• between Union Electric and Missouri Utilities, Union Electric has the right to dispatch Missouri Utilities' generation and we have had no indication that the Cities desire such an arrangement.

Union Electric has serious doubts as to the advisability of continuing this type of arrangement and thus would not be interested in expanding its application at th.is time. As you recognize in your letter, for the Cities to acquire any type of power service from Union Electric, the Cities 3 l((} would need to arrange for transmission of that power from the Union Electric system to the Cities. We believe that it is the Cities' obligation to arrange for the availability of such facilities as may be necessary to transmit the power from the l Union Electric delivery point to the Cities. We do not think it l is appropriate for us to interpose ourselves between the Cities I and Missouri Utilities, SPA, or any other utility which may be involved in providing the necessary transmission service to the Cities. You apparently believe we have a duty to dictate policy l and operating procedures to Missouri Utilities. We are unaware of any such legal obligation. At page 3 of your letter you seek to analogize the Cities l of Jackson, Kennett and Malden with Central Illinois Public l Service Company and Illinois Power Company apparently to suggest l that Union Electric has an affirmative obligation to supply power to the Cities on the terms you denand. Regardless of the merits of your position, and we believe it lacks merit, the statements l included within the referenced paragraph are factually incorrect. O

~ Ch:rico F. Whsstley, Jr. Fcbruary 16, 1982 Paga 3 First, Union Electric does not regularly sell firm power to either Central Illinois Public Service Company or Illinois Power Company. For that matter, except for its sales under th~e W-3 tariff, and its sales to Missouri Power & Light and Missouri Utilities under special contract, Union Electric does not regularly sell firm power to any of the other privately owned public utilities with which it is interconnected. Rather, sales of non firm power and energy are made in connection with interconnection agreements existing between the various parties. Secondly, both Central Illinois Public Service Company and Illinois Power Company are directly connected to Union Electric at a number of places. Further, they are in fact geographically adjacent to Union Electric's primary service area i.e., the Metropolitan St. Louis Area. Finally, and perhaps most importantly here, Union Electric is not refusing to offer power to the Cities on the basis of their Q-being within or without Union Electric's service area or for that matter on any other basis. As is indicated above," Union Electric is willin'g to discuss the viability of a number of options for the supply of power and energy to the cities. I should state, however, that Union Electric is not actively seeki,ng out new firm loads and does believe it appropriate to evaluate the feasibility and desirability of any new sale of power or energy, especially when such a sale would be outside of its normal service area. At pages 3 and 4 of your letter you object to Union Electric seeking compensation for costs incurred in studying various proposals made by the Cities. Union Electric has always stood ready to incur reasonable. expenses in connection with its evaluation of potential purchases and sales of bulk power and we agree with you that such costs are fully compensable in rate O However, Union Electric does not believe that it is cases. appropriate to charge its existing customers with costs associated with an ongoing and seemingly e.idless investigation of alternatives by a potential customer. Union Electric is not " seeking new business" from the Cities of Jackson, Kennett and Malden. Rather, the Company has in good faith attempted to respond to requests for potential service as structured by the Cities. At some point in time, we believe it is inappropriate for Union Electric to continue, in essence, to provide gratis consulting engineering services for a potential " customer" where there' appears to be little likelihood that a contract will result. "We continue to stand ready to work with the Cities in an attempt to determine whether or not it is to our mutual' interest to enter into some form of contractual agreement. At this point in time we are willing to do so without requesting specific compensation from the Cities. However, we wish to advise you that the point in time for requiring compensation for such se.rvices performed for the benefit.of Cities is fast approaching.

c ~ Charlos F. Whcatley, Jr.

• - Fcbruary 16, 1982 Page 4 At pages 4 and 5 of yodr letter you " interpret" Union Electric's position with respect to its arranging wheeling services for the Cities as a " refusal to provide wheeling services to the Cities".

Such an interpretation defies all logic and we totally reject y.our analysis. As we have stated earlier, Missouri Utilities is a separate operating entity distinct from Union Electric. If the Cities desire,to have Union Electric wheel power over its transmission system, it is appropriate for the Cities to discuss that with Union Electric. If, however, the Cities desire to have Missouri Utilities or any other entity wheel power through' that entity's system, it is appropriate for the Cities to deal with that entity and not Union Electric. We do not feel it is our obligation or our position to act as agent for the Cities in the acquisition of wheeling services from any third party.

Thus, should the Cities need such services it should contact the O

affected utility directly. In the closing paragraphs of your letter, you state that "the Cities have no alternative but to consider that the Company's bottom line, as set forth in your letter of January 13, is a refusal to deal which discriminates against them vis-a-vis the other private investor-owned utility company's with whom the Company has dealt." Such an interpretation of the Company's position is totally distorted and does service neither to yourself, your clients, or Union Electric. Union Electric is in no way refusing to deal with the Cities, but rather seeks to have such dealings be on an economically feasible basis and in accordance with the general terms and conditions under which the Company deals with other private and publicly-ouned utility companies. The Cities through you have requested that a number of alternatives be addressed. Some of these alternative supply () options are not currently available to any other utilities dealing with Union Electric on the interconnected system. Union Electric is willing to deal with the Cities and has set forth in earlier meetings and letters, as well as in this letter, various options which it would be willing to consider. Through your representation of other entities purchasing power from Union Electric, you are well aware of the types of contractual arrangements currently existing between Union Electric and other utilities. Each of those arrangements is designed to meet the specific relationship involved. Union Electric continues to be willing to meet with the Cities to explore whether a meaningful and equitable arrangement can be developed with the Cities. We do so voluntarily and we do not believe this is any change in position for us. Union Electric is very disturbed with the tenor of your ' letter of March 3, 1981 and the accusations of unlawful activity and discrimination contained therein. We view that letter as self-serving and one which makes it difficult for us to believe e e

p l Chnrica F. Whraticy, Jr. j F3bruary 16, 1982 [ Page 5 that the Cities are truly iriterested in dealing in a good faith 8 manner with Union Electric. We believe nothing can be l cccomplished by either side accusing and threatening. If the l Cities want to engage in good faith exploration of receiving I cervice from Union Electric, we would be happy to participate in l that discussion. If in fact that is the desire of the Cities, j please let us know. i Very truly yours, d. Charles A.

Bremer, f

General Attorney g O cas/3e ~ W bec: 'R. O. Piening L. A. Esswei.3 W. R. Herr 7 W. E. Jaudes I P. A. Agathen C. P. Handleman ROUTE: W. E. Cornelius S.'W. Smith, Jr. m 3 j -}}