ML20094D271

Forwards FERC 911210 Order,Scheduling Oral Argument on 920108 on Two Cases Before FERC That Deal W/Native Load Transmission Priorities.One Case Covers Northeast Utils/ Public Svc of New Hampshire Merger Case

ML20094D271
Person / Time
Site:	Seabrook
Issue date:	12/13/1991
From:	Feigenbaum T PUBLIC SERVICE CO. OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
To:	NRC OFFICE OF INFORMATION RESOURCES MANAGEMENT (IRM)
References
NYN-91193, NUDOCS 9112200130
Download: ML20094D271 (12)

Text

.

- ~.-

...~m..

- - +.

........ - - - -,~

pp

?x' H'

'G. -

Mi NW l ( ' *

^, New Hampsh.ire Ted C. Feigenbaum h

h.

Presido t and Chief Executive Officer 4

NYN 91193 December 13, 1991 n;

United States Nuc! car-Regulatory Commission EWashington, D.C.

20555=

' Attention:

l Document Control Desk Refere aces: ' Facility ' Operating License No. Nr."-86, Docket No. 50-443

Subject:

~ F ESCO/NAEC Operating License Amendment Applications /FERC Hearing.

.t

' Gentlemen:

Enclosed for your-information is' an order from -the Federal Energy Pegulatory z Cornmission (FERC)'that schedules Oral Argument.on January 8,1992 on two cases before

'it tilat deal with native. load transmission priorities, one of these cues being the Northeast Utilities /PSNH merger case. The Order also contains a. proposed FERC Staff Transmission Pricing Proposal.

LIf you have any yti'estions, pleal.e contact Mr. Terry L. Harpster, Director of Licensing Services, at (603)l474-9521 extension 2765.

Very traly yours, 6

Ted C.- Feigenbaum -

1 Enclosure

- TCF:J BH/ss -

cec:

'Mrc Thomas T. Martin M r.

ul Oudley Regional Administrater i?RO Seniv Resident Inspector

~ U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission P.O = Box 1149 -

Regio n.1 -

Seabrook, NH 03874~

- 475 'Alleuda!e. Road.

' Kirig' of Prussia, PA-194')5 C

Mri Gordon:E. Edison.

Mr. George L. Iverson, Director

- SrhProject Manager

. Office of T.eergency. Management

' Project -Dl rectorate 1-3.

State Office Park South Divisi_on of Reactor Projects 107 Pleasant Street

~

g

- LU.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Concord, NH 03301

- Washington, DCL-2055 i

'9115200139-9s1213

~

i 8

DR -- L ADOCK O5000443 g.-

ppq

[

New Hampshire Yankee Division of Public Service Ccmpony of New Hampshire i

- P.O. Box 300 = Seabrook, NH 03874

• Telephone (603) 474-9521 m

DEFil lii WED 11G5

_ H.U. Leo l.Depi-

' fax NO. 2036655504

. P.02

~

s P 2/1 L...

,,,9.E D Ih.I.0341,,,NN 8,y0L L,,,.,,....._._......__..... _..........

1.i '

e c.

cy N

y.

=:

nf.

.- UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ff:

FIDERAL ENERM REGULATORY CW. MISSION l

\\ i

- Chain:an t E

Before coas},s,sioners: Martin 1,. A11 day,dt, Elisabeth Anne Molers l'

Charles A. Traban b

Jerry J. IAngdon and BranXe Tarzio.

Wortheast Utilities servica company

)

Docket Nos. Ic90-10-004, (Re.' Public service Company et b

ER90-143-004, ER99-144-New Hampshire) 3 004,1ER90-145-004 and

)

EL90-9-004 Hortheast Utilities service company

): Docket Nos. ER90-373-002,

-)

1R$$-390-003 : and ER90-

)

-374-002 m

CRDER CcMEDULING ORAL ARGW2NT (Issued December to, 1991)_

Bach of-these cases presents putions concerning the appropriataness of permitting the recevery of so-called-a pportunity costs"-and/ur incremental costs;in rates for the o

transmission of electric energy -in -interstate commerce and in the -

NU merger, procedures-for so-called inautable conskraints.-

L Sefore deciding.the matters pending before the Ccamission in thesa dockets, the Consission hclieves that oral argument,

limited to the, question of,the apopportunf ty/incremar.tal costs.in;proprittene rates ak tissus here,. sh. auld be held.-

~

Accordingly, as ordered below, the Commission is scheduling

- oral / arguaant.on these matters to be held on January 8,. D92, in-Noaring Room-1,1410 First 5troot,bove c,asas sequentially.Wachington,-D.C. 2 W.E.

The commission vill address the:a In additionFas shown.on Attachaent. A to this-order, the commission is grouping various parties by interest group and afferding each interest group-a-blo'ck of tins at'the oral argument.

Speakers

.for each group should be determined by the group. - In 4ddition,

the commission intends:that each speakar(s: t wit.hin 'a-group-will.

initially stata its " group 8s-pcsition and v.Lil' then ha subject to -

questions from the co1:sission.

speakers may reserve a_ portion of their: time for_ closing remarks.

The Conaission requests that-speakers specifically address _

the attached pricing proposal and questient developed by-commission staff to resolve-this issue in these casts as-

._ described in Attachment a to this order.

PROPERTY OF REFERENCF r

L AND INFORMATiDM GM' M ND.T ERKNE

l DEC-ll-91 WiD 11:55 N. U. LetaTVept, VMnapl~3ugaggester w

I,,,DEC 11 91. 10:42 NEW 8 HOLT.

e-

.r. e/ a s._ -

-..n

.e.a 4-Ddskat Nos. EC90-10-004, R.I Al*

• 2-

!-[

The couletion Dfderst (A)',or.a A argur.ent, limited to the subject of opportunity / incremental cost prf:.f.ng and iczutable constraints.

,proceduras, is hereby ordered to begin at 10:00 a.m. in Hearing J1oom 1, 810 First street, N.I., Washington D.C.

20426 on January 8, 1991.

(R) speakers of the various groups listed on Attachaant A should notify the Commission of their designation by the Group no later than (specifyint the parties they are appearing for)d to twenty pages, December 30, 1691.

Prepared statements, limita may be filed by the spankors no later than Ocec:bar 30, 1991 and must be served on all parties in the respectiva casas.

By the Commission.

(8EAL) fhhh 741s D. Cashall, Secretary.

a e

4

,,,,,,,,,;, 3'g,8 "

DEC11'31,10:42,, N 9 %,H,uLr,

,, =,

~

ATTACHN WT A I

m eo A.M.

,3100 P.M t Northeant Utilities service ccmpany Re Pchlic Service company of DocXet Nos. EC90-10 004, (Nov Hampshire) gi g,1, gg,g Grenpinct 10:00 A.M. = 10:30 A.M.

Northeast Utilities Service company 10:30 A.M. - 11:00 A.M.

Connecticut Dcpart=ent et Public Utility control and Hav Hanpshire Public Utilities consission 11: 00 AM. ~ 11:4 5 A.M.

Other Nav England Stata Public Utilities cc: missions 11:45 A.M. = 12:15 P.M.

Other St.ata Agencies 12t15 P.M. - 1t15 P.M.

Lunch

1. 1:15 P.M. - 1 40 P.M.

Nov England Invester-Ovnad Utilities (Connteticut, Massachusetts, Rhode Island) 1140 P.M. - 2:00 P.M.

New England Invester=

cvned Utilitien (Maine, New Harpshire, Ver:ent) 2t00 P.M. - 2:30 P.M.

Munteipal and' cceperative Utilities 2:30 P.K. - 2:45 P.M.

QFs 2 :4 5 PJI. - 3100 P.M.

IPPs e

o

' DECall-91 W 11:57 H,U.' Legal Dept.-

~~

TADO. 203665604= ^

~ ~

TP;0!i

~~

- NN & HOLT.

1, vis DEC 11 '.9110M3' '-

j u

4.

, I S130 P M. to S100 b L Wottraa'st Utilities service Dock,et Nos. IM0-37 3-C03, ER90-370-003 and Ceapany-3R90-374-003 2154 GIGEB/JW-

• 3:30 P.M. - 4100 P.M.

Nofchenst Utilities Sr.rvice company 4:00 P.M. - 4til P.M.

Massachusetts Municipal Wholesals Electric Cooperative Towns of Concord, Norvood 4:15 P.L

.4 30 P.L and Wallesley, Massachusetts 4 t'.50 P.O a ' 4:45 P.L ILCON' 4:45 P.M. - 5:00 P.M.

Vanent Department of Public Iszvica

- Q'.

t E

.q 4

6 v

p" m bEC-H-9i E HiSK ~ N.U. t s ! D e

'.c 4 i F ' MiB M - -

p,og - - - l iDECll NH fIl0d,1

?

1, 6/13

% g. %)911i O 3L * ]'

' G'f... ' y......,

4 f

. y x.

a g"g.':

q k

(c.,

a m euxarr a-stama raorosse 'emausstssrom tarcruo yaotosar,

~

1

- - ghers' are -two Northeast Utilities cases currently pending -

-betort.the consission which_prestat important-and interrelated

-transmission pricing issues -- rahearing of opinion No,. 364 y t

merger. proceeding) and gs Public. service company of NeW Etaps (the Northeast Utilitge a paper.heari:q in which the commission The 1

. set the issue of: opportunity cest pricing for briefing. y transmission prioir.g issues in these proceedings effor an t

L'

-opportunity for the Conaission to consider certain aspects of its a

'b surrent appmach to pricing electrLe transmission:ssrvice..

Accordir. gly,3he-Coraission staf f. Se - recensending-a transmission E

?prising proposal which saaks to address the -interreinted

- transmission pricing issues in these case,s -ir. a comprehensive manner.

f When a; utility commits-s. portion of its existing-

transmission system-to provide wheeling service to-third parties, R

and due to a lack of < capacity; availability its transmissict L -

sye+es becessa constrained, the cost or providing service to its Hr-4 lead customers y may be increased.

If legitimate-and

.ied,i theseiadditionaineests -(er 1est honefits) A'.primaW are costs-a N.

JVmun should be paid for by the wheeline custvaer.

F example' involves = situations where a utility that has undertaken

to provide third-party trar.snL*sion servics must forego ths.

p copportunitysto.ansage in-a non-fits econosy-sala-ar purchase on h -

behalf-of%ts'nativa load custonar becauti its : transmission systealis constrained. : Opportunity cost prising-would snakis the

- utility to recover a-rate for third p.'rty Thealing service which m

eveuld?compensata5 the utilit is native load customers'for any.

potentia 1>* lost opportunities to engaga in such economy! energy sales =and-purehtees..

y

L Ifo y

Northea'st Ut41 ties Service Company, opinion _Ne'. 364, 56-in

- 17!.RC 1 61,263 -- (1991).

T U

LNorthsant Utilities-Esrvice company, 52 PERC 1 61,143 (199 0), : reh4-deni i, _ $3' FERC - 1 ' 51,135 (199 0).

14crtheast-.

t W

~ Utili%ies:.sarvice companyc 52-FERC 161,077 (1990), IAh'g AgnipA,:-52 71RC 1 sli159 (1990).

Northeast Utilitles-o

~

Service Company,-82'FIRc 1 51,214 - (1990),e I,thig deLnied,- 53 FERC 1 81/116--(1990).

h 2/

TAs;the Commission note 6 in Cpinion No. 364, native load D

!custoters! art ?thestucustentra en whose behalf (Northeast 4

17 statute, franchise or contract has unds'rtaken

Utilities}, ion to plan, centtruct, and operste its system to 6

tha.obligat P

. provide reliable servica.'

ss rtac at 62,c14,.n. 259.

L

,,'t..

i~?

h 020flF0i PED 11:B87

R0361DB,

' y g g,J M E E N ~

M p 7/13 **

,E,11,' 91 10:44,

ta' &,lioLT,,

" ~,'

,,.c s

' rom additionalcostscause$ricinqprotectsnativeleadcustomaraby the provi b

opportunity cost that. do not Mrectly benefit the trancoitting utility's nativa load.

Nativa load custcmars are held harmlast because opportunity coat ravahues recoveteS from whenling custoAers are credited back to reduce the rates of nativa lead customers, h gitimate opportunity costm do P.ot include lost trada In particular, they

.b;;,nsfits when ca7acity is not constrained.do not includa tw loss of reve wholesale sals becausa of constition.

They ales ex=14de the night substitute for unbundled transmission stry$s:,ents t,hnt trade benefits lost in <purchsse-and-resale arran ce, tegitinato opportunity costs occur ndg when the requested transristian service would produce real power flows that cannot he reliably In other words, accommodated on existing transmissien capacity.

when there is insuf fleient transmission etpacaty to accor.:nodate both'tradas.

Because ne Federal Power Act ralias (in large measura) upon the voluntary provisien of transmission service, at prosant a utility can protoot its native load customers hy simply refusing

- to offer transmission service, thereby retaining the unf attered similarly a utility may right to use its transmission systemassign a lower priority to thira p' art reserving the right to interrupt tis wheeling custcaer in order to taka advanta44 et any economy sale or purchase opportunity that si ht hanelit its native load customers when transmisaion bacones constrained.

A non firm rate is ganerany lover capacit than a ira rate to ref.'.ect tha natura of the intstruptible wheeling service 1/

The Northaast U;ilities cases present the commission with a chanca te examina whether the traditional approach 16 pricing transmission service is still apptopriate in light of chaaging market conditiins and to explora hev a utility might protect the legitimate teonctio intarsats of its native load customers through approprieta pricing.

In the order en rehearing in the merger case, the coruission could accept opportunity cost pt;1cing i

for Era transmission service as an e!!1cient pricing mechanism so long'ad certain safeguards are in place to fully mitigste markat power over transmission.

In the context of the marger, these safaguards may includst 49 A/

if.3, 3.g., May England Pcwor company, Opinion No, 335, 50 FERC i 61,129 (1939): P,his drirdad, Cpinion No.13$4 FERC 161,151 {1990); Mild 3.@ n21. Tovts of Concord,,,

4 Norvoe4 and Wellesic{ulithod.. Mataenuutta v. FI;RC, Mo. 90-1HP (D.C. cir.1991) unpu J

~DEU9 PUK uBrgF F m p T W.-

' MrM W M M C ~ ~ 7l3 A.M011i?91 !1025 m MOLT,..........,.. < -

"~* ~ P. 8/lb Li y ~,. a

' 9$

}

3 4

I,

of-exis ing chpac!revide tira transmission service out an obli ation te resell /.nassign such c(including the right to ty apacity)#

4 an-obligation to construct ntw tevilities, ling when N

necessary, ts.tcociunodate third party whee resguests; a validation process to ensure that epportunity costo

L

.are real end properly assignable to third party whecling' service; Land-y S.

~

-a cost cap-which veuld prohibit a utility from collecting opportunity coots that exceed the

-inormuental cast cf expandiny t!.. tranissias,ies.n system i

- to alleviate the constraint.

in the ortsr;&n the caaes sat'fer a: paper: hearing the

.corsalesien could permit validated opportunity cut piric,ing for non-fIra transmission withcut a ecct cap.

This'is 1.ased, in-upon the-fact that Hertheast: Utilities hasesommitted to 4

part,de.firw transmission nervice zin thc merger proceeding and provi 3.htt aJ firm transmission dbackstop" will offoctively cap-the rate W

.that1 Northeast Utilities can cha.rga fer non-firs service..

L Rovavar, the qtsstion remains whether the coraission could, :in the abstrast,: eecept opportunity: coat prising for nr.pfirs e.i transmission services without.a fi-n transmission bankatop in place.

' Finally,1with: respect to the-Marger. case, the tera

1. 1mautable constraint * -suggaets/thtt a-transmisaica request cuuld.

fnet be satisfied;in cny manner or at any cost.. If that 'is true,:

1 there is aci.hing that anyone (including this Commis'sion) canfde' lto satisfy theivheeling request that would:not affect system-m firs contracts. = ConseWently, _the reliabD,ity or? existing;ddresscfurthe:' the fundamental issue of e

Commission nay want.to a

. determining:the31.ncrazental cast of;nrpanding the -transmission-systaa.

There any ha any number of ways to expand the system to-elleviate a constraint.

8IV.autabilityP auggests thatr after the cost:of arpanding the Lexamining a*1 feasibia. alternatives,ibitively) high, or that x

systen' may be very (and perhaps pnh L

thers inay; be-no'7aasible:=1ternatives, In the merger proceeding, NU hao agreed to provide an estimate:of the cost at'any necessary transmission upgrades which will serve: asia cap on the wheeling'l euster. arf aloog : responsibility.

NU's eatinate of the incrementa costtof expansion may,?in seme-instances he the subjact of a L

commission hearing in which all affected, states say participate, i

o

-In: that case, it vill be this commission's respone'ibility to determine Wether NU's antimate of the incremental coat of,.

expansion ~is reasonable.

1

+

[

~12

-w I.Ea

-b5e w.-.U.-

---e.-w

.- + - - - ~

--m

-m

-an

.w.,-.,6a.-,s.*--w.e

'---a

. DEc-11-si vdFrau ene

^- ~ 7 mn n M Am u er~~~

~1atr-D,EO ll ' 9,1,10:46,,, NE! 8, HO%enW

r. w ta

+

4 4

Under this proposal, the cercission would not retain opinion No, 364's procadures for the allocation of aristing transmission capacity in.Qs evert og a comp 1 tint under immutable constraint conditions, w

transmiss,on servin are, posed pricing 20 del for firm The goals of the pro t

consistant with reliable s5rvice61

.(a) Held Native Load customer Haralese (b) Provide Yao Icyant Reasonable cost 44 sad Third Party Fira Tr a smission Rate (c) Prevent Cc11ecticn 9t Monopoly Rente By Transmiusion Ovnet and Prosota Rfficient Transsiesten rancialans Based upon these goals. three potantial transmission system conditions and pricing, rules should be followedt 1,

.svstem is not g.g,ngtral.nad l

All transmission servica requesta can be viet and

. utility can ecntinue to engage in econesio purahnses and sales on behalf of native load.

Transaircion rate is the utility's embodded cost.

3.

systen Ys constr.g.ined _ nut EnaDilen WoLUnde&kta

).itility cannot simultaneously accessedata third party wheeling regaast ADA sconomy purchases and sales on be.k 1f of its nat.,ve load customers.

Transmission rate cannot exceed the higher o?:

a. Rabedded costs ex

h. opportu.nity costs capped at incremental cost of t'o expanding the system to alleviate the constraint.

3.

Eymtasi Is constrained And Erun91cn Undertaken Utilit{

not-accommodate third party wheeling raquest withob pardining reliability of service to Ats native lead custoutra -- utility must expand its t.ransmission system.

Transmission rato cannot exceed the higher of t v

DE0-!!-91 WED 12:00 H.U.'Lnd Dul.

FAX NO. 2036855504 P.10 P.10/13 yIC 1,1 ' 9!

10:46

' NEVI & HDLT.,

... ~

,., ~.

s.

ht

.4 5

[

b

e. Embedded. costs 23 b.,,tnoremental cost of arpanding the systam.

^

E RFFECT ON MMITE 14AD Under each of these three potential syntes conditions, native

, load customers are held har1stess.

1.

Where the systan-is not contitrained much that the utility is able to* provide wheeling service out of existing transmission there are na legitit*te lost opportunities

• Secause capacity,tyispe,rsittedtochargatheembeddedcoststothenew tha uti,:.i transmission customer, the native load customer is better off because the fixed costs of transmission are being spread over a

.targer. customer base (1.s., the e.nhedded cost rate is reduced).

2.

Where the system is constrained and expansion is set undertaken because the utility is able to provida wheeling service out of existing transmission capacity without Ggrading system reliability, there are these possibit rate outconest the

a. When opportunity costs are less than aabedded costs,ive utility is peraltted to cha.cga anhadded esats.

ft.e nat load cuatoner is better off because the subedded cost rate recovers the opportunity esats and-leaves the P.ative load customar with a nat benefit (the difference betvenn embedded costs and opportunity costa).

b..When opportunity costs exceed embedded costs but are less than the.ineramental cost of expt.nding the transmission sy, stem, the utility is permitted to charge, legitimate AR29.rtunity eAA11 The native load customer is held i

heraless because all opportunity costs are borne by the transmission customer.

. When opportunity costs exceed' embeddsd costs and exceed tha inerszental cost of expanding the transmission systen, the utilitv is permitted to charge the inernuntal. costs of 5xpanding he systaa to 411 aviate the constraint.

This is i

the.one situation where the nativa 1 cad customar may pay higher ratas if the utility does not act in an economically rational manner.

Whara opportunity costs ers greater than expansion costs, the rate is capped at the cost of expansion.

Becauss the transmission rata does not recover r

all opportunity costs,*there is en economic incantiva for the utility to expand its transnission systen to recover additional revenue.

S.

whara the svates is constrained and expansion is undertaken,

~

iTtWpv mnW7Mamen g-

~

. + +.;

6-A existir4 capacity wittwut degrading systaa :eliability, there are two peanible rata butenness

4. When* 4xpansion costs are less than cabedded costs, the utility bullis and is permitted to charge-askedded costs.

the native load customer is better off cocause the a cedded

cost-rate reflects the shared economies of scale.

The not i

benefit to the-native load customer is the difference.

between -enhedded costs and expansion oosts.

). When expansion costa exceed embedded costs, the utility J

H suilda and1 is paraitted to charge the incremental esalg of expansion.

The native load customar le held harmless

'because the: native:1 cad custeuer data not incur any of the-L higher expansion costs.

The arpansion costs.ars borna by the-transmission customar..

d BPPECT ON-TM3 iM5HCTIVI WE33LIUS CDsTOMER 2n& cases, the wheeling-oustor.er is revided with tha Elevest Joasonable ecst-based whemling rate (

.a., there is no-.

4

. natlye load,y from the third party transmiss on customet to the oross-subsid customar).

Imposing an:oblitation to build and/or-espp ny-opportunity costa associated with fita'transmissiin =

serv ca 4t the incremental cost of expanding tha-systas ensures

- that opportunity. cost prising vill not be a vehicle for a utility

- to artifiaintly.rustrict thu supply of transmission in ordar to ec114ct monopoly Tents.

The proposed policy for. opportunity c'est pricing. for firm

?servies' vill-allow-Nort.heast Utilities-to racwor validated lost t

opportunityLcosts cappe.d at-the incre34htal cost of axpanding its system t Ifitha?oemmission-deterninas that the cent of arpanding NV's systes is vary, very high (13., -imastabic r then the -

increactal cost oap' vill be correspondingly hi h: and-Northeast Utilitiestwill ha Aale to recover a greater tacunt of opportunity costs associated v12 the onnstrained transmission interface, These ere!ocarcity, renta an.t monopoly rents.1/

F nrac'r 43 Uricituct-The. preposed pricing m:61 vill promets short-term s

efficiency hecause the transwissien rice vill reflect the value-T for tha transmittien systes' to thecut lity-that evne thu systes.-

.(

A/ Monopo y rent a earned when output is withheld by-a monopo het in order to ine:aans a prict or tats.

In-centrast, neareity rantR are earned by those producers in a cespetitivt tarkeW khat are more efficient the other supplicts

.,a cosaca occurrence during periods of tarporary itEltacts between supply and demaad l,,, e e

I I

p, ;g ----

- D5011 ' 91-10:48 NEW&HOLi, 4

I-7 Accordingly, the transaction of the party that sout benefits from using the tra.nsnission system vill be accommodated.

l The twpesad pricing model vill also proacts long-tarsA afficianty,tility to reduce its evn transaiazion use when doing so This will parait the would be cheaper than building a nov line.

alleys a u laces with the transmission customer to, in effect, tradeutility, usa existing better, and avoid inetticient er premature expansion of the

?vrthermore, c.4yping th recovery of opportunity conta at thed incremental cost of expanadd espacity when it is economically officiant to J

t

\\

9 l

~.

7

NEW & H0hal Ddr.' ' ' "i f NOTPU3bbbdug "N~~

H. U. L(

~

fR

~

"DECalF90m.D12:03 ~.

y,)3/13 DEC 11 '91 10:49

+

4 F

GU3st20We to 35 EDDP.E8 ERD tiU11MG ORAL h19tTK1MT What types of' boats may appropriately be considered i

" opportunity, couts" and therefore sligible for recovery fromShould the pricing policy 1.

third party tiifansmisolon customars?attanyt to achieve other goals than t teos the proposed pricing policy adegaately protect the 2.interesta of nativa load customera?

Does the proposed prictng policy adequately protect the 3.intarasts of third party tre,naniasion customera?

Is $t realistic to believe that opportunity costs can beIs this impo 4.

regard to justi2ying opportunity sosts remains clearly en the validated?

utility?

Vnat safeguards are necessary as a preremisitt for alleving opportunity cost pricing fort a) firm transulssion service; and 8.

b) non-firm transmission sexvice to ensure thu z.arket power over tr.insnission is fully sitigated?

Snould opM etunity costs be calculated on a forecasted basis er ecliected through soma tora cf tricker' clause as they are 4.

incurred?

Should the couission allev cpportunity coste as an addition to tinbodded costs, et cfly as aJi alternative to embooded nest.s?

7.

I (UE.

e -

~

.m