ML20080F081
| ML20080F081 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Callaway  |
| Issue date: | 01/30/1984 |
| From: | Barnett B MISSOURI, STATE OF |
| To: | Lambe W NRC |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8402100269 | |
| Download: ML20080F081 (9) | |
Text
-
\\z MISSOURI JOINT MUNICIPAL ELECTRIC UTILITY COMMISSION M
C 310 Tiger Lane Columbia, Missouri 65201 314-445-3279 January 30, 1984 Mr. William Lambe Anti Trust Economist United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555
Dear Mr. Lambe:
I appreciate your call of this date sad apologize for not keeping you informed of the efforts of the Missouri Joint Municipal Electric Utility Commission to obtain a transmission agreement with the Union Electric Co.
After our discussion of this date I have reviewed correspondence from U.E.
regarding transmission service, and discussed the question with Mr. Richard Malon, Chair-man of the MJMEUC, and believe the following to be correct.
The correspondence received from U.E.
are dated June 3, 1983, and September 7, 1983.
The June 3 letter deals with the Lock and Dam 26R hydroelectric project, and does not specifically state that transmission service would be offered, or available, but since this time representatives of U.E. have indicated that transmission service would be available once specific requirements are known.
The September 7 letter is in response to the Commission request for a transmission agreeraent, and indicates the U.E. desire to handle each case on an as needed basis rather than a blanket, or umbrella type agreement.
I have not contacted U.E.
since my October 24, 1983 letter which was in response to the September 7 U.E.
letter due to the fact that we have no immediate need for the service.
Most of our members in the U.E.
terr-itory are total service customers of U.E.
The cities have contracted for their total service requirement, and therefore at the present time have no need for the transmission service.
Kirkwood, MO as I u.,derstand is the exception as they currently have no formal written agreement, k0 0
M
Mr. William Lambe January 30, 1984 e
For your information I am enclosing a copy of my October 24, 1983 letter to U.E. asking that they reconsider their position on the Commission agreement.
As of this date I have had no response from U.E.
Please let me know if I can be of further service.
Sincerely, MJMEUC B. J.
Barnett Manager, Engineering &' Operations BJB:sev Enclosures CC:
Richard Malon, Chairmhn U.E. Committee
)
e.
a--.N--
\\
MISSOURI JOINT MUNICIPAL ELECTRIC UTILITY COMMISSION M
C 310 Tiger Lane Columbia, Missouri 65201 314-445-3279 October 24, 1983 Mr. R. H. Ficker Manager Interconnection Arrangements Union Electric Company P.
O. Box 149 St. Louis, MO 63166
Dear Mr. Ficker:
This will acknowledge receipt cf your September 7, 1983 letter with regard to the Commission request for transmission service.
I have discussed your response with the Commission Executive Committee and Board of Directors, both groups were disappointed to hear that your company was not interested in cooperating with the Commission in this matter.
I have reviewed the proposed contract and your letter and find that the objections noted in your letter are covered in the agreement, and are more specifically as follows.
The concern of overloading the system is of mutual concern, and can be handled by running load flow studies on a systematic basis, and by providing a table, listing the maximum capability of inter-connection points at a given time.
This table could be used as a basis for planning of both parties, and could be revised as required to minimize system problems.
An example of such a table is enclosed for your information.
The proposed contract also provides your company the right of refusal when service to your customers would be effected by transmission to the Commission member.
After reviewing the contract I have found several points that need clarification, or should be revised to provide both parties equal protection.
I will not submit these proposed changes until I have an indication of your companies interest in further discussions.
The proposed umbrella agreement would provide transmission service to the Commission and would allow transmission to other contract paths, thereby allowing Commission power sources to be made l
.l J
Mr. R.
H. Ficker October 24, 1983 available to member cities who are not directly connected to the U.E. System.
At the present time other Commission contract paths include Associated Electric Cooperative, Inc., Southwestern Power Administration, and,the systems of all member cities.
The Commission is still interested in entering into a trans-
. mission agreement with your company.
We believe the umbrella type agreement is in the best interest of the Commission and its members, and ask that you reconsider your position.
If your primary concern is as you say the concern that at the present time the Commission has no firm contracts for production capacity, or a transmission system you may wish to consider signing a letter of intent to enter into a transmission agreement once a firm arrangement has.been made by the Commission.
A lotter of intent may be an acceptable method of handling the immediate question.
Please let me know if I can be of further assistance in this
' matter.
Sincerely, MJMEUC l
B. J.
arnett Manager, Engineering & Operations BJB:sev Enclosure
I SCHEDULEI A.
NON RESERVED CAPACITY TRANSMISSION SERVICE BY ASSOCIATED Associated shall, at the request of the Commission, transmit for the account of the Commission firm, short term and/nr participation power, economy,
-emergency and/or standby energy either directly or indirectly to and from the power systems of the following Missouri municipal electric systems at the indicated maximum capacity interchange rates:
Maximum Inter-Intercon-Municipal Voltage change necting System Point of Delivery KV MW (1) System (2)
Cameron NW-161/69 kV Stations 69 15 NW 4
Carthage SWPA-Spgfid. Sub.
161 30 SWPA Chillicothe Chillicothe Sub.
161 35 NW Columbia #1 AEC-Bolstad Sub.)
Columbia #2
.AEC-Boone Sub.)
161 170 Tutton Cen-161/69 kV Stations 69 20 CEN Hannibal UE-Thomas Hill 161 60 UE Hermann Cen-161/69 kV Stations 69 10 CEN (3)
Independence KCPSL-MO City Sub_.
161 170 KCPEL Kirkwood UE-Thomas Hill 161 60 UE La Plati NE-161/69 kV Stations 69 10 NE Macon NE-161/69 kV Stations 69 10 NE Marshall AEC-Norton Sub.
161 45 KCPcl Memphis Thomas Hill Sub.
69 10 NE New Madrid SWPA-New Madrid Sub.
69 10 SWPA
\\ Nixa SWPA-Spgfid. Sub.
161 10 GWPA Poplar Bluff SWPA-New Madrid Sub.
161 65 SWPA Rock Port NW-161/60 kV Stations 69 5
NW Rolla UE-Maries 161 50 UE Sikeston AEC-New Madrid Sub.
161 75 (4)
Springfield SWPA-Spgfid. Sub.
161 200 SWPA Trenton NW-161/69 kV Stations 69 25 NW Unionville NW-161/69'kV Stations 69 10 NW Vandalia Cen-161/69 kV Stations 69 10 CEN l
Waynesville Sho-Me-161/69 kV Stations.
69 10 Sho Me West Plains Sho-Me-161/69 kV Stations 69 25 Sho-Me t
/
e l
6 1
F.ECE!VED SEP 12 tis 3 U N IO N E Lc CT R I C COMPANY tson om ATICT STR ECT - ST. Louts F
MacLtNG ADDmESS:
September 7,1983
,,, [g ;l,, g;;,,,
o o"
Mr. Bob Barnett Manager, Engineering and Operation Missouri Joint Municipal Electric Utility Commission c/o City Water & Light Department P.O.
Box N Columbia, MO
Dear Mr. Barnett:
Proposed Transmission Service Agreement Missouri Joint Municipal Electric Utility Commission On March 29, 1983, I received from James H. White (R.
W. Beck & Associates) on behalf of the Missouri Joint Municipal Electric Utility Commission (Joint Municipal Commission) a proposed Transmission Service Agreement between the Joint Municipal Commission and Union Electric.
t We have reviewed the proposed agreement with regard to what we see would be the most meaningful approach in working with the Joint Municipal Commission and its memberc in the event transmission service is required from Union Electric.
Generally speaking, Union Electric has found that providing transmission service on a case-by-case basis is the most By working directly with the individual practical approach.
such as the recent case with the City of Columbia, Missouri, time and effort can be reduced in arriving at a clear and With the ever-precise transmission service agreement.
increasing use of the transmission system and the underlying care must be taken to prcLect the total low voltage system, system operating integrity.
Consequently, it becomes necessary to review both high and low voltage system flows regularly.
The approach of case-by-case handling of transmission service requests fits well into this thinking.
Specifically, UE has concerns about the ability cf
~
certain areas of the lower voltaga system (i.e., 34 kV) to It's provide additional capacity for transmission service.
possible a requested path may not be available without replacement of certain limiting physical facilities.
Also, since only 4 of the 17 municipals are connected we are unclear as to what rights UE would have in to UE, agreeing to provide transmission service to the other 13 municipals who are connected to another utility's transmission system.
Mr. Bob Barnett September 7, 1983 Page 2 After considering the above, we are not convinced that an umbrella type of transmission service agreement is the proper approach.
Separate agreements with each member on a "as a need arises" basis appears to us to be a cleaner approach and would provide maximum effectiveness in administering a transmission. service arrangement.
We are willing, at any time, to discuss a specific transmission service arrangement.with any member of the Joint j
Municipal Commission on a case-by-case basis who is connected directly with us or with another utility who is involved in setting up a transmission service arrangement on behalf of any
~
of the remaining 13 members. This request can be instituted by contacting me directly, s
If you desire, I would be more than happy to discuss this with you further.
sincerely, R. H. Ficker
- Manager, Interconnection Arrangements l
i RHJ/mcg cc:
Mr.
R.
E. Malon (City of Columbia)
Mr.
J. H. White (R.
W. Beck & Associates Denver, Colorado) 1 4
0 1
_, [
L) N IO N C L c CT R I C COMPANY esos omatiot star CT st. Louis June 3, 1983
~ - u =, e.,o n ' ' $a-a i.c.,
se novis.wo.come Mr. Richard I. Malon, Chairman Missouri Joint Municipal Ilectric Utility Comission c/o Water 61.ight Department City of Columbia P.O. Box N Columbia, Missouri 65205
Dear Dick:
LOCK & DAM 26R HYDROELECTRIC POWER PROJECT MO JOINT MUNICIPAL ELECTRIC UTILITY COMMISSION This is in reply to your letter of April 13, 1983 regarding the Missouri Joint Municipal Electric Utility Comission (Joint Municipal Commission) request for information relative to the Lock & Dam 26R hydro project.
I noted in your letter that the Joint Municipal Commission was hoping to have an application completed and filed with the Federal Energy Regula-tory Commission by May 1, 1983 for the hydro project. Yoo requested that I forward a bit of information to Mr. Bill Smith of the Benham-Holway Power Group, who are the engineers for the Joint Municipal Commission on the Lock 6 Dam 26R hydro project.
I apologize for not getting that in-formation to Mr. Smith. By the time I received your letter I was preparing to leave town for several days. Consequently, with all that was going on, I did not have ample time to respond. However, at our meeting on May 7 in Columbia you showed me a copy of the license application made on behalf rd the Joint Municipal Comission which included the information Mr. Smith was looking for.
The arrangement for a possible interconnection shown on your Drawing No.
11-81-006-01 is certainly a feasible connection from an engineering stand-point; whether it is a preferre.d method will probably not be known for some time.
A recent inquiry to the Corps of Engineers leads us to believe at this point that any firm commitment for the electric generation facili-ties installed in Lock 6 Dam 26R is some time away.
It is our understanding that the Corps' study was recently forwarded to the Board of Engineers for Rivers & Harbors in Washington, DC for final approval. 'Ihis approval must be received before any recomendation 1:: sent on to Congress and the Office of Management & Budget. It is uncertain how long the process will take since the study could be held up by either the Board or Congress. The Corps did indicate, however, that an optimistic viev may be that by 1987 the necessary approvals for the power facilities of Lock 6 Dam 26R may be received.
'Ihen, it may be until 1991-92 before electric energy is avail-able from the project.
I believe it is apparent that there is a good deal of time before power is actually available from the lock and dam, giving ample opportunity to develop the necessary physical interconnections and REL n';J JUN G1993 Wate, A Ucht De-
- k. l.}. 4[.[
[..-
l.
. pk.
-f..}.
h,
(#.. W
l
[
l Mr. Richard I. Nalon
.Page 2 June 3,1983 contractual arrangements. For anyone to comit at this point would not be prudent. Bowever, we do realize that there may be technical consider-ations that arise from. 'ra to time that you or others may have. In this vein, we most certainly will cooperate to provide necessary te'chnical information about our system whenever such information is warranted.
If I can be of further assistance, please let me know.
Very truly yours,
./
Richard H. Ficker Supervising Engineer Interconnection Arrangements RHF/pm cc Mr. Bob 3arnett Engineering / Operations Manager Missouri Joint Nunicipal Electric Utility Comission P.O. Box 401 Jefferson City, MO 65102 Mr. Bill Smith Benham-Holway Power Group 5300 South Yale Avenue Tulsa, OK 74135 b
4