ML20101R337
| ML20101R337 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Comanche Peak  |
| Issue date: | 07/13/1992 |
| From: | Green D, Sampels M TEXAS UTILITIES ELECTRIC CO. (TU ELECTRIC), WORSHAM, FORSYTHE, SAMPELS & WOOLRIDGE (FORMERLY |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20101R323 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9207150323 | |
| Download: ML20101R337 (121) | |
Text
-
I UNITED STATES OF AMERICA BEFORE THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION I
Texas Utilitiss Electric
)
company, 3.t &
)
I
)
Docket No. 50-445A Comanche Peak Storm Electric
)
50-446A Station, Units 1 and 2
)
I-RESPONSE OF TU ELECTRIC TO I'
COKMENTS OF CAIUN ELY& TRIG _EQFR_CQQEXPJEUtK4_lh I
M. D. Sampels, -- 1:sq.
WORSHAM, FOR8YTHE, S M P ET.B
& WOOLDRIDGE 3200' z2001 Bryan Tower Dallas, Texas 75201 (214) 979-3000 Douglas G.
Green, Esq.
NEWMAN & BOLTSINOKA, P.C.
1615 L Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C.
20036 (202) 955-6600 ATTORNEYS FOR TRIAD UTILITIES ELECTRIC COMPANY DATED:
July 13, 1992 LI
- I I
9207.150323 920713 PDR ADOCK 05000445 PDR 4
g w
a
3 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA BEFORE THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION I
Texas Utilities Electric
)
Company, it RL.
)
I
)
Docket No. 50-445A Comanche Peak Steam Electric
)
50-446A Station, Units 1 and 2
)
I RESPONSE OF TU ELECTRIC TO COMMENTS OF CAJUN ELECTRIC POWER COOPERATIyJ d EQ.,,
I g
M.
D.
Sampels, Esq.
')
WORSRAM, FORSYTHE, SAMPELS
& WOOLDRIDGE 3200 - 2001 Bryan Tower Dallas, Texas 75201 (214) 979-3000 Douglas G.
Green, Esq.
NEWMAN & HOLT 2INGER, P.C.
' I.
1615 L Street, N.W.
washington, D.C.
20036 (202) 955-6600 5..
ATTORNEYS FOR TEXAS UTILITIES ELECTRIC COMPANY I
- I y
m-UNITED STATES OF AMERICA BEFORE THE L.
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION l
Texas Utilities Electric
)
company, sLt &
)
I
)
Docket No. 50-445A Comanche Peak Steam Electric
)
50-446A Station, Unito 1 and 2
)
I I
RESPONGE OF-TU ELECTRIC TO COMMENTB OF CAJUN ELECTRIC POWRiLQQQPJJATIVR, INC.
Texas Utilities Electric Company
("TU Electric")
hereby respends to the Comments submitted by Cajun Electric Power Cooperative, Inc. (Caj un") on March 25, 1992.
Cajun requests the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (the
" Commission" or "NRC").to consider Cajun's Comments regarding access by it to interconnections between the Electric Reliability Council of Texas ("ERCOT") and the Southwest Power Pool ("SWPP")
"in (the Commission's] consideration of whether significant changes have occurred since the previous antitrust review and, further, clarify-the procedures under which interestod utilities may participate in ownership of the East DC Tie, consistent with the i
CPSES License Conditions."
[ Comments at 10-11).
While it is
[
difficult to determine what relief, if any, Cajun seeks, TU Electric has r6contly been advised by Cajun that it has no commercial or identifiable legal complaint against TU Electric nor does it seek to delay, in any-manner, the issuance of the operating
7 license for Comanche Peak Unit No.
2.
Further, Cajun has advised TU Electric that it had not taken and did not intend to take any actic,n which could delay operation of that unit ( f._qq pp. 11-12 infn).
Thus, at best, Cajun's Comments apper.r to represent an attempt to obtain relief which Cajun has admittedly thus far been unwilling C
to seek from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commisnion
("FERC") -- the agency regulating access to and ownership in the North and East HVDC Interconnections -- even though the FERC invited Cajun to do so on December 6, 1991.1 l
In any event, Cajun's comments are completely irrelevant to the Commission's determination of whether a "significant change" has -occurred in the activities of TU Electric since the Commission's previous antitrust review and should, therefore, be o
-rejected.
I.
BACKGPOUND The 1980 Settlemwat I.
Pursuant to orders issued in FERC Docket Nos. EL79-8 and E-9558 (the - Original FERC Orders"),2 the FERC approved a
settlement '(involving TU Electric, Houston Lighting & Power Company I
a IaOrder Crantiro Petition," Cetrol Power arst Llaht 'cemog, gi 31., 57 FERC 161,317 (1991), a covy of
@lch le attached hereto es Attac*unent 1.
2tentral Pow t )_tfaht toppeny, 17 FEAC 1 (1,078 (1981); 18 FEac 1 61.100 (1982).
- - I g
("HL&P"), the CSW Operating Companies,3 the NRC, the FERC, the Department of Justice
("DOJ")
and various other electric utilities), which required, among other things, the construction of two asynchronous direct current interconnections b2 tween electric
-I utilities in ERCOT and electric utilities in the SWPP:'
(1) a North asynchronous direct current interconnection (" North Tie")
between PSO, near Lawton, Oklahoma, and WTU near Okle. union, Texas, having an initial nominal capscity of 200 MW, to be constructed by the CSW Operating Companies; and (2) a South asynchronous direct current interconnection
(" South Tie") between the CSW Operating Companies in Walker County, Texas, and the South Texas Project, having an initial nominal capacity of 500 MW, to be constructed by the CSW Operating Companies and HL&P.
The settlement had its genesis in a September 11, 1980 agreement among TU Electric, HLP, the CSW Operating Companies, the FERC Staff and the NRC Staff (the
" September 1980 Letter l
Agreement"), which, among other things, provided:
(3)
As part of their respective wheeling rates filed I
pursuant to paragraphs (1) and (8), EL&P and C8W will each reserve 15% of the capacity in their respective DC interconnection. facilities for firm power wheeling (herein "the reservation") pursuant
~
to the following:
(a) the reservation shall be made for utilities in ERCOT and'BWPP having loads Central Power and Light Corpuny ("CPt"), West Texas Utilities Cortpany ("WTU"), Public Service Ccapany of (R(ahcare ("PS0") and Scuthwestern Electric Power Ccapany ("5WEPC0"), the electric utility os:eratirs sWsidiaries of Central and South West Corporation ("C$V") (CPL, WTU, PSO and SwFPCO are referred to herein collectively es the *CSV Operat(ng Ccepanies").
CSW sought sm:h interconnec:lona in order to integante the operaticew of CPL arti WTU operatino within E2 COT, witn tnose of PSO and SWEPC0 cperating in SYPP.
~ 3~
LI El
r i
less than 500 MW (herein
" qualified utilities");
.I (b) the reservation shall continue for five years after each facility goes into I
commercial operation at its rated capacity.
(d)
HL&P and CSW will solicit requests for l
i reservation capacity from qualified 3
utilities one year before the respective B
DC interconnection facilities go into commercial operation, and at one year intervals thereafter for reservation
.I capacity which has not been previously committed. ***
I (4)
(a)
- *
- the capacity reserved for qualified utilities pursuant to paragraph (3) of this letter agreement will be available for purchase by qualified utilities at I
the depreciated original cost thereof, until either (1) the reservation of capacity has been terminated or (2) the opportunity to participate in ownership I
sf additional DC capacity to be installed has been tendered as set forth belev, whichever comes first. * **
(b)
Whenever planning is undertaken to increase the capacity of the g
Interconnections, but at intervals of no g
more than every three years after June 30, 1983, until June 30, 2004, electric utilities in ERCOT and SWPP will be given I
the opportunity to participate in the planning of increases in the capacity of the Interconnections and of participating in the ownership of any incremental I
capacity added, provided again that each party that wishes to participate pys its pro rata share of the capital costs of constructing the Interconnection which it wishes to participate in and undertakes to pay its pro rata share of the costs of operating and maintaining that Interconnection and agrees further to be p
bound by the terms und conditions of the
-4 l
I-I Agreement between Owners of the Irtorconnections; *
- 45 i
[ Emphasis supplied.]
The settlement was implemented at the NRC through the incorporation of Section 3.D. (2) (o) in the proposed Antitrust operating License Conditions for Comanche Peak Unit No. 1 (the
" License Conditions"),
requiring TU Electric to use its best efforts to modify an offer of Settlement then pending before the FERC in Docket No.
EL79-8 to include each of the foregoing undertakings and to "thereafter use its best efforts to secure approval thereof by the FERC
- Thus, the September 1980 Letter Agreement and Section 3.D. (2) (o) of the License Conditions formed the basis for settlement of the Comanche Peak antitrust proceeding then pending before the NRC and related proceedings pending before the FERC and the Securities and Exchange Commission, among others. As a re. tult, g-pursuant to Stipulations filed in September 1980, by the.NRC Staff, ig the Department of Justice, TU Electric and all other parties, the License Conditions became effective and the Commission found that issuance of an operating license to TU Electric would not create or maintain a situation inconsistent with the antitrust laws or the policies thereunder.6 Thereafter, the FERC issued its Original l
I l
'This provislun was designed to insure that any electric utility in ERCOT ard the $WPP, regardless of slie, had the opportmity to participate iti the planning and ownership of increases in the capecity of the PYDC Interconnections.
lg i
SAs a part of the 1980 settlemer:t, fu Electric also agreed to the incluelon in the License Corditions for Comerche Peak of a provisf eri to the ef fect that it would not disconnect f rom, or refuse to connect with, sry entity tas defined in the License conditions) proposing to tranceit electric energy in interstate commerce, provided su:h entity shall have used its twst efforts to obtain an order troer sections 210, 2t1 ard 212 of the federal Power Act re@ iring the establishment, maintmence or modification of any such twrection, 5--
I I
I a
Orders incorporating the provisions of the september 1980 Letter Agreement. Cajun actively participated in the proceedings in Docket No.
EL79-8 and fully supported the agreement embodied in the september 1980 Letter Agreement.I The North Tie was subsequently I
constructed by CSW and became operational cn December 14, 195'4.
I Kodification of the Orig 1D31 FERC__ Oggvrs When the Public Utility Commission of Texas declined to issue a certificate of convenience and necessity for construction of the South Tio (based
<n environmental concerns), pursuant to the request and consent of all parties, the FERC, by order issued on July 23, 1987 (the " July 1987 Order"),0 modified the Original FERC Orders to require construction of the East Tie in lieu of the South Tie.
The capacity of the East Tie was set at 600 MW compared to a 500 MW South Tic.
Further, b;< order issued on January 27, 1987,'
as well as by its July 1987 Order, the FERC approved revised tariffs 10 providing for the use of the North and East Ties, reSpectively, by any interested electric utility, including Cajun.
og-
- I5fts, t.g., " Reply Connents ' of Cajm Electric Power Co-op, 1131., to !nittet Cunents of the U.S.
Department of Justice on the Rulings of the Presiding Aoainistrative Law Jtdge," flied (ebruary 26, 1981, in f!RC Occket No. Et?9-8 (Atteereient 2 hereto).
O
, = -
Centrol F *neer & Licht Crseeny, 40 FERC 161,077 (1987). The July 1967 Order reef firmec thoae provisions of the OrlSinal flat creers that were maf fected by the change in location of the DC tie capacity, including l-the 15% t:4pacity reservation for aquellfled utilities" ard the obligation to periodically of fer electric utilit.ies the opportunity to participate in the planning and ownership of increases in the Morth and East fies.
'PiAlic Servlee tucany of C*tahome. et q, 38 FEAC 161,0%
I The Original FEAC Orders also required 1U Electric, ML&P ard the CSV operating Cturponies to file coscliance tarif fs witn the fERC for transeission service to, frem ard over the North and South fieo following I,
tne filing of such tarif fs, a dispute arose which was ultimately resolved by a settlement appewed by the FERC's January 1987 Order. Lg Lg
.s f.d lll Cajun did not intervene or elect to participato in either of the proceedings leading to the January 1907 and July 1987 Orders.
The Original PERC Orders and the January and July 1987 Orders s
set forth in c,etail the procedures necessary for ac cesa to and une I
of the North and East Ties and participation in the wnership of such Ties by third parties.
The FERC's January 1587 Order established the rate for, and the terms and conditions of, the L
~
wheeling of power for third parties by TU Electric, HLWP and the CSW Operating Companies to, from and over the North and South Ties,
-5 While the Original FERC Orders and the July 1987 Order provided for a 15% reservation of capacity in the North and East Ties for
.I
" qualified utilities" for firm transmission wheeling and/or purchase, ac veil as participation by third parties in the planning and ownership of increases in capacity of the North and East Ties.
The July 1987 Order also required TU Electric to modify its tariff to take into consideration transmission service to, from and over the East Tie in lieu of the South Tie.
On June 30, 1986 and again on June 30, 1989, the C5W Operating
' I Companies, as required by Ordering Paragraph (G) (6) of the July-1987 Order, solicited interest in the planning and ownership of an increase in the capacity of the North Tie.
Cajun responded to the June 30, 1989 solicitation but took no other action whatsoever."
" Cajun misled the Ccaanissien regarding this sc11 citation ty stating:
(e}ince fu flectric became a participent in the East DC Tie in 1986, no other entitles have twen ellowed to beccee participants, despite the f act that Cajm has indicated, since et teest July 25,1989, that Caje is interested in meetity to discuss omership. 1.t1 Cajm's July 25, I-.
occurred on Deceeer 11, 1991, to explore this metter.
1989, neply to solicitation of fered by Petitioners, attached as Attachment A.
Cajun notes that e meeting among representatives of Cajun, the Csw operating Ceepenies, NL&P and TU Electric (Continued...)
I y
Earlier, a Texas cogenerator, Valley View Energy Company
(" Valley View"), expressed an interest in the ownership of a portion of the I.
North Tie and, pursuant to agreements executed by Valley View with the CSW Operating Companies, the FERC authorized an increase in the capacity of the North Tie to permit ownership in such tie by Valley View.12 Extension of Time to Construct tjie East Tie On August 29, 1991, the CSW Operating Companics, HL&P and TU Electric filed a petition with the PERC in Docket No. EL79-8-000 seeking an extension of time within which to place the East Tie in service and permitssion to install the East Tie in two 300 MW segments.
Cajun did intervene in tnat proceeding; did not oppose the extension; and did not oppose construction of the East Tie in two 300 MW increments; but did ask the FERC to change the definition of " qualified utilities" in the Original FERC Orders to permit Cajun's renber cooperatives to qualify for access to the 15%
reservation of capacity in the East Tle.
[ Pursuant to the 1980 settlement and the requirements of the Department of Justice,
" qualified utilities
- were defined as utilities in ERCOT and SWPP N(... Continued)
(Connents at 910.1 What Cajun f ails to mention, however, is that Cajm's July 25, 1989 iteply to solicitation relates to participating in the owwrship of an increase in the capacity of the North fle (whlCh is owned solely by CSW) not the East fle. TU tlectric has no ownership interest in the North ite.
I2The Valley View transaction, which was never consumated because of Valley View's economic f ailure, was described in the Coinission's previous "No Signif { cont Change finding
- issued on June 20, 1989:
I-Plans have been developerf to expend the North Tie * *
- to acconmodate a significant power transfer by a Texas co-generating entity.
ly. at 3.
I I
l
~
having a-peak load of less than 500 MW.]
At least two " qualified utilities," Tex-La Electric Cooperative of Texas, Inc.u and
.I:
Northeast Texas Electric Cooperative, Inc.,
intervened and aggressively opposed Cajun's request.
TU Electric did not oppose Cajun's request but did suggest that the relief sought by Cajun was not within the scope of that particular FERC proceeding.
On December 6, 1991, the FERC granted the motion for extension of time and required the first 300 MW of capacity of the East Tie to be installed by August 31, 1995, with the full 600 MW to be installed by August 31, 1998.
In granting the motion, the FERC denied the relief sought by Cajun, stating as follows:
This proceeding addresses a request by Petitioners for an extension of time in which to construct the I
East Interconnection.
Cajun does not object to this request.
Cajun's objections instead go to other matters not presently before the Commission:
(1) a 500 MW limitation on who may be a qualified 2
utility; and (2) the procedure for participation as an owner.
These concerns are not properly addressed 'in the context of a
petition for I
extension of time to which Cajun does not object.
If Cajun wishes to pursue the 500 MW limitation issue, Cajun should file an appropriate request for relief.
Similarly, with respect to the owr.arship
' l issue, if Cajun believes that our prior orders are
' s not being properly implemented, Cajun should file a complaint.
(Central Power and Licht ComoanL g,L A1., 57 FERC 1 61,317 (1991),
emphasis supplied.]
Cajun has done neither.
Subsequently, on May 15, 1992, the CSW Operating Companies, HL&P and TU Electric notified the FERC of their intent to construct
. I.
Ultt, g.g., " Tem La Eiectric Cooperative of Texas, Inc. Motion to intervene and Answer ard Protest to
' Response' of Cahn Electric. Power Cooperative, Inc.," filed December 11, 1991, in FERC Occket ko. EL79 8 003 (Attachment 3 hereto).
' I i I
1 I
the East Tie in a single phase, indicating that, subject to reasonable contingencies, the full 600 megawatts of capacity would bo installed on or before August 30, 1995, in full compliance with the FERC's December 1991 Order."
The FERC has indicated that
~
installation of the f'all 600 megawatts of capacity on or before August 30, 1995, will be in full compliance with the Commission's December 1991 Order.
I ag_qsut Eveltta on December 11, 1991, shortly af ter the issuance of the FERC's December 1991 Order, the East DC Tie Management Committee met with I
Cajun in an attempt to address Cajun's concerns regarding ownership in the East Tie.
As reflected in the minutes of that meeting, it was determ.ined that Larger utilities such as cajun - could., if they so desired, cosign the existing DC Tie Participation Agreement and buy either a share of an existing owner's participation or an expansion to the Tie's capacity.
TU Electric understands that HL&P subsequently offorod to sell all or a part of its capacity entitlement in the East Tie to Cajun and that HL&P and Cajun are currently engaging in discussions.
On May 18, 1992,15 in response to Cajun's filing of its
~
commants in this proceeding, TU Electric advised Cajun, among other things, of the parties' intent to construct the East Tie in a I
tetter dated May 15,1992, f ron comsel for the CSW Cperattre ccmipentes, HLD etsi YU Electric to the f ERC i
(Attachment 4 hersto),
l' 15).21 letter dated Msy 18, 1992, frc.m Osrrell Bevelhymer, TU Electric's Otrector of Bulk Power Transactiorw, to Phillip C. Narris, Vite President + Operations of Cajun (Attacheent 5 heretc). lI
.g
l
[4 single 600 MW phase. TU Electric also advised Cajun that it is not opposed to Cajun purchasing a portion of the East Tie or 5
participating in expansion of the East Tie.
As it did in a
-February 25, 1992 meeting with Cajun, TU Electric again indicated I
its willingness to consider cajun as a potential alternative when and if the time comes for TU Electric to consider additional generation resources.
On June 30, 1992, as required by the FERC's July 1987 Order, invitations to participate in expansion of the East Tie were transmitted to certain electric utilities in ERCOT and the SWPP, including Cajun.
An opportunity to participate in the ownership of the East Tie by any utility desiring to expand the Tic's capacity, including Cajun, was solicited by that invitation.
No response has yet been received from Cajun, although-one is expected.
On July 8, 1992, representatives of TU Electric and Cajun met for the purpose of determining if r.jun had any complaints regarding TU Electric's conduct, whether commercial or legal in nature.
TU Electric was advised that no such complaints existed, although Cajun's attorney did indicate that he was not saying that no complaints of a legal nature existed, only that he was not aware-of any.
Cajun did articulate three itens to TU Electric at that meeting:
1.
Cajun inquired regarding the procedures for participation in the ownership of the~ East Tie.
TU Electric advised Cajun's OA copy of the invltation to participate melted to Cajtri is attached hereto es Attachment 6.
. t I
I representatives that the procedures for participation were set forth in the Original FERC Orders and the July 1987 Order, as utilized by Valley View, and reminded them that the 9wners of the-
~
East Tie had invited Cajun to participate in a meeting of the East DC Tie Management Committee and that Cajun was engaged in discussions with HL&P regarding the possible acquisition of all or a part of HL&P's ownership.
Cajun was unable to express any further concerns regarding that issue.
2.
Cajun's representatives inquired whether TU Electric proposed to discuss with them planning or expansion of the East Tie or the construction of new DC interconnections between ERCOT and SWPP in the future.
In that connection, Cajun's representatives admitted that Cajun had r.ever asked TU Electric to discuss such matters in the past and TU Electric had never declined to discuss any such matters with Cajun.
Cajun also indicated that it had no plans to discuss with TU Electric at this time.
3.
Cajun expressed concern with respect to construction of the East Tie in two 300 MW segments rather than a single 600 MW phase.
Cajun admitted at the meeting that this was no longer a valid concern in light of the recent decision of the East Tie owners to construct the tie in a single 600 MW phase.
At the July 8 meeting, Cajun's representatives reiterated that Cajun had absolutely no interest in interfering in any way with the i
licensing or operation of Comanche Peak Unit No. 2 and agsin confirmed that Cajun had no cotiplaints against TU Electric of a I I
commercial nature nor any legal complaints that it could identify at that timo.
=
II.
ARGUMENT Cajun requests the Commission to consider Cajun's Comments "in its consideration of whether significant changes have occurred since its previous antitrust review.
As the Director of Nuclear Reactor Regulation observed in his Reevaluation and Affirmation qf, No Sionificant Chance Findino Pursuant to Comanch.e Peak Steam Electric Station, Unit 1 Operatino License Antitrust Revigg, issued on August 28, 1989, The. Commission delegated its authority to make significant change findings to the staff and in its I.
Summer decision,I established a definite set of criteria the staff must follow in making the determination whether or not a significant change has occurred.
The change or changes, 1)
I must have occurred since the previous antitrust review of the licensee (s);
2) are ret.sonably attributable to the licensee (s);
and (3) have
- g.
antitrust implications that would likely warrant 3
some form of Commission Remedy."
(Commission Memorandum and Order, p.
7, dated June 30, 1980 (CLI-80-28)) [ Emphasis supplied.)
Irl, at 3.
The concerns and interests expressed by Cajun in its Comments fall far short of meeting any of the criteria set forth in S}yggr for determining whether or not a significant change haa occurrod.
They certainly'do not represent or reflect any change since the previous antitrust review. If anything, Cajun'a Comments serve to underscore the maintenance - of the status 222 As E
IIM Carotinn Electric & Ces Co. at$syjh,_(yoline public Serelce Authority (Virgil C. Swiner Wuclese Station, bait No.1), Cll*BO 28,11 OC 817 (1980), CLt-81-13,13 WRC 862 (1W1).,
k I.
I-
recognized by the Director in his t[gtice _of No SigalligAnt;
-Antitrust.Chanaqn, issued on June 20, 1989:
The change that has had the greatest impact in the Texas bulk potter market has been the implementation I
of the joint settlement agreement, i.e., before the NRC and the Federal Energy Regulatory Conaission.
This settlement agreement required
"'U Electric, et al.,
to make their transmission i wii!* ' es
- n. ore I
available to power systems in Taxas d. id thereby promote competition i;stween intrastate and interstate power systems wu.h the construction of two DC transmission linea. *
- A Capucity (15 percent) in both DC intertiss has baen reserved for non-owners who wish to engage in firm
.E power transactions in the interstate market.
W
- Xoreover, wheeling to, from or over the DC interties is now an available option to many power systems in Tcxt.s.
I The concept of interstate planning ud participation in interstate power projects is a new one for most Texas power entities.
- * * [t]his movement was contemplated by and provided for in
---I the antitrust settlement agreement before both the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.
(The settlement E
agreement provides for requests for capacity ll1 increases and ownership purchases in the DC interties at intervals of every 3 years beginning in June of 1986 and lasting until June of 2004.
Although there are still physical impediments to 3
complete synchronous operutions between most Texas 3
power entities and systems outside of Texas, the settlement agreement provided power systems inside of Texas, as well as in surrounding states, I
the opportunity to exchange power and energy and engage in bulk power transactions.
The staf t' views the settlement agreement as a major first step in opening up power supply options to a broad spectrum L
of power entities in ERCOT and the BWPP.
Furthermore, none of the " concerns" expressed by Cajun in its 1-
_ Comments is attributable to TU Electric.
In fact, Cajun does not I I
l l-even allege that TU Electric has violated any provision of the License conditions or the antitrust laws.
As demonstrated above, It was the Department of Justico, the NRC and the FERC -- not TU Llectric -- who insisted that the 15% capacity reservation in the North and East Ties be limited to utilities having a generating capacity of 500 MW or less.
Finally, Cajun's concerns have no ant.itrust implications that could form the basis for Commission remedy under Section 105(c) of the Atomic Energy Act (the "Act").
As noted earlier, Cajun's suggestion that the proceduros and eligibility requirements for participating in the East Tie be changed ancunts to a complaint about unchange$ circumstances.
For a party to invoke Section 105(c) of the Act to create changed circuratances turns the statute on its head.
There clearly are no Section 105(c) issues involved here.
Even Cajun recognizes that the FEhc is the proper forum in which to address its concerns regarding the 500 MW limitation on
" qualified utilities" ontitled to capacity reservation in the East Tie (Commentu at 8].
The FERC -- not the NRC -- is likewise the proper agency to address Cajun's request for " clarification" of the procedures for participation in the East Tie.
III.
CONCLUSION None of the concerns raised by Cajun in its Comments to this Commission or in its meeting with TU Electric on July 8, 1992, have any relevance whatever_to this proceeding and, if to be addressed at all, should be addressed in the context of a proceeding before I I
the FERC, the administrative agency charged with the responsibility of administering the ownership and operation of the North and East Ties and access to such ties, either by way of use or ownership, for the foregoing
- reasons, Cajunis Comments should be i
I rejected.
Respectfully submitted, I
\\
,l
/.\\ 1k,_/ _
l l
f i-4
~
M.
D.
Sampels
/
J OF COUNSEL:
M. D.-Sampels, Esq.
- g WORSHAM, FORSYTHE, SAMPELS
- g -
3200 - 2001 Bryan-Tower
& WOOLDRIDGE
-Dallas, Texas 75201 (214) 979-3000 Douglas G.
Green, Esq.
. 3 NEWMAN & HOLTZINGER, P.C.
g 1615 L Street, N.W.
Washington,'D.C.
20036 (202) 955-6600 ATTORNEYS FOR TEXAS UTILITIES ELECTRIC COMPANY DATED:
July 13, 1992 I
g I,
l
ATTACEMERTS TO RESPONSE OF TO ELECTRIC TO
-g_
COMMENTS OF g
.QAJUN ELECTRIC POWER COQPERATIVEt lEQt u
IhLs._cI1 PAL 93 B.t.tanhuntJLex
- E-
" Order Granting Petition," Rgntral Power
'3 and Licht ConDany, & al., 57 TERC 1 6.1,317 (1991) 1
" Reply Contents of Cajun Electric Power Co.,
3.1 al. to initial Comments of the U.S.
Dept.rtment I-Administrative Law Judge," filed Fobruary 26, 1981, of Justice-on the Rulings of the Presiding in FERC Docket No. EL79-8 2
" Tex-Lc Electric Cooperative of Texas, Inc. Motion to Intervene and Answer and Protest to ' Response' of Cajun Electric Poher Cooperative, Inc.," filed I.
December 11, 1991, in FERC Docket No. EL79-8-003 3
I' Letter dated May 15, 1992, from counsel for the CSW Operating Companies, HL&P and TU Electric to the FERC 4
I Letter, dated May 18, 1992, from Darrell Bevelhymer of TU-Electric to Phillip G.
Harris of Cajun 5
I Invitation to participate in the expansion of 4
the East Tie mailed to Cajun en or about June 30, 1992 6
i-Eg LI l
I I
A-9
~.
S M
M M
M M
M M
M M
M M
TU.t. ]
E UhITED WIATFS CF ATERICA TEDERAL ENE9GY REGULATORY COMMISSIOrf intertie capacity no later than August 1998, subject to ressencbla contleq+ncih. Petitlacrs state that the rig'ts and ohlinations of tne parties to 13e settleMnt ag reement i th Dccket' Berore Ccmmissioneret Martin L. Allday, Chairman; no, st19.g. coo, vill be unaffected by their p<epr, sal, which charles A. Trabandt, Ell:abeth Ar.no Moler, includes an undertu irg to m A available the full 9o mer watts Jerry J. Langdon and Branko Tef fic, of capacity, required to be reserved f or uw cy " qualified utilitie,m under prior Commisslor caders, upon the in~.tallation a
of the initial 300 negawatts of t vacitj of t*e East
~
Central Pow r and Light Company
)
Public Servics Ccapany of Oklahoma' )
Docket No EL79-8-000 Notice of the Petition war published in the Federal Southwestern Ellectric Power Company )
kegister, 2/ with coments due on or before September % 1991.
West Texas Utilities Company
}
?miun Electric Powsr Cocperative, Inc. (Cajun) filed a timely wtion to intervene, but tcok no positien cr-the relief requatted.
ORI.IR GRANTI!4 FETITION Subsequently. on Nove:nbe r 2 *, 1991 t a jun filed a respons -
to Petitioners
- NoveJbar ', 1991 supplcrant al filing. Cajun does (Insued December h 1991) not oppose granting an extensiem of t!% beyond August 199{ for c e letion of tne East Interee 3ection.
However, ca.1un raissa twf oU er concerns.
First, Ca e oojects to the 1 %1taticen of On August 22, 1991, as supplemented on November 6,
- 1991, qualifito utilities. EVE'3 to
.itics with a lea cf less than Central Power ar.d Light CCapany (Central}, Public Service Company 500 m gawatta.
Cajun notaia 1. ** it has a pesk load of greater of Oklahoma (Publ1C Service), South.testern Electric Power Comnany than 500 megawatts,. >u t that ea -h o f Ca j t.r 's mecber cooperat_ves (SWEPCO), West Te<as Utilities Company (West Texas)(collectively h s a pen load cf less than 90 megawatt s.
Cajen argues that the **C5*i Operating Cowlanies"), Eouston Lighting & Fower Ooafany the limitation should be rer,0ved, ". atternatively, that Cajun (HLLP) and Texas Utilities Electric Cofrpany (Texas Utilities or be deemed a qualified utility.
Secc%d, not ing " Nat ot het TU Electric)(collectively Petitioners) riled a retition t'o" an utilities are given an oppcri e tty to participate in the extension of time to implament a July 23, 1587 order isseed in consttact3;n a1d ownership of & c East Interconnection, Cajun Docket No. EL79-9-002. 1/
expresses en interest in particapstion as an ow-ner in tte rest Int erecnnectior. Cajun urges the Cc eissien to review ard Specifically, Petitioners seek to extend the timetable for clarify the procedures for allovi.:, uti!ities such as Cajca to installation of the asynchronous direct current interconnection participate as ownsrs in the East I nt e r conn ~ct ion.
With nominal capacity of 600 megwatts to be constructed between SWI.PCO's Welsh generatirig station and Texas Utilities' MonticClo On Nevernber 26 1991, Petitioners filed an answer to Cajur s ge.wrating station, both of which are located in Titus Coutsty, November 21, 1942 semittal Fetitionera note that Cajun does Texas.
This interconnection is kncWn as the " East net object to the epecific relief reqasted by Fet it ione rs -- on Interconnection." The July 23, 1987 otder provided that the East extension cf tirne f or insta11atia.: cf tre Past Intere w ection.
t eyc n-3 the Interconnection was to be installed and operational,
- asonabla contingencies, by August 1991. 2/ '
subject to 1+titl7ners argue that Ca jun c et Mr cerwrr ora scope of this vi n edir"s.
Petitior,ers state ther due to unforeseen delays they were Mgd unable to meet the scheduled date for installation of tr-e East Interconnection. Petitioners propose to complete the Erst The comriv;om Ly rirders im1., NN t M,
wM and j
- nterconnectica by installing 300 megawatts of intertie cap'esty E-359, 3/ among other thingw. uprm 4 - Mi m nt agrem nt m later tnan August 1995 and an additional 300 magawatts of recu !r i ng + 5e ccmst ruct ion of two e
cM emm d, r eet carrent i
1 Central Power and Light Company, gy,,_ &, 40 TEPC y 61,0 77 yj used. Peg. 41,007 (IW i sc (19C'.
(/
central Nr and
'ht COG F.. dt di 17 F U'C i
- 1 07' 4
M. at 61 223, Ordering Paragraph P.
f ir.81 }, gunh " i DS. l is s t ;< g.4, 1c; g lw23 3
k -:.n e
~,...
.~ -
S U '
W.
We
~
Docket No. EL79-6-000 Docket No. E L79-8-000 interconnections between the Electric Deliability Counc:1 of the ownership issue, if Cajun believes that cur prior orders are Texas and the Southwest Power Pool.
That settlement agreement not being properly implemented, Cajun should file a and the Commission ** crders described two interconnections: (1) coeplaint. n/
an asynchronous direct current interconnection between Public Service near Lawton, Oklahoms and West Texas near Oklaunion, For good cause shown, we will grant Petitioneis an extension Texas, having an initial nominal capacity of 200 megawatts (the of time as discussed below. The timetable for installation of North Interconnection), to be con 4tructed by the CSW Operating the East Interconnection was set in an order apptoving a Coepaniest and (2) an asynchecnout direct current interconnection settlement agreement. All parties to thit settlement agreemet-t between the CSW Cperating companies in Walker County, Texas and now request the extension of time for 1r,stellation of the East the South Texas Project (the South Interconnection), having an Interconnection and mise for phased const ruction, and there is no initial nominal capacity of 500 megawstts, to be constructed by cpposition to the request.
Moreover, the maximus amount of th0 CSW Operating Companies and ht&P.
reserved capacity to made available in the East Interconnection to qualified utilities will be offere1 upon the initial On May 1, 1986, the CSW Opersting Companies and HL&P filed a installation of 300 megawatte of DC transfer capacity wnich petition with the Comm!cslon proposing: (1) to const"uct the minimizes the harm to the interests cf third parties by the East Interconnection in lieu of the Scuth Interconnection; (2) request to extend the timetable for installation of the East to require th( CSW Operating Cuspaales, HL&P and TeFaz Utilities Interconnection. While be thuS belieVe it appropriate to grant to snterconnect with each other et the East Interconnection and an extension of time, we will not grant an cpen-ended eatension
'*P'---
(31 to require ownership of the'2 ant Inte1 connection by the C5W of tice. If Rather, at this time we will grant an extension of Operating Ccepanies, HL&P and thers, and such wheeling, time as to the first 300 MW until August 31, 1995, and as to the coordination, commingling, sale and exchange of electric power full 600 MW until August 31, 1998.
If a further extensior is to, from, and over the East Interconnection or within the State appropriate, Fatition*rs say timely file a request for such an of Texas as cay facilitate its use.
The Commission, in its Jdly extension.
23, 1987 order, approved a settlement agreement providing for the construc*icn of th-East Interconnection. Pursuant to the Our action granting an extension, however, is condit ioned on sett1* ment agreement the CSW Operating Companies, EL&P and Texas Petitioners making available tne full reserved quancity of 90 Utilities were each requirsd to " reserve 15% of their respe~tive megawatts upon the initial installation and operation of DC capacity in the MVCO Interconaecticns for firm power wneeling and transfer cepacity at the East Interconnection, purchase by qualified utilities...
und+r the terms, conditions and limitation; provided by the ComLission's Original Cxcept as herein ordered, all other provisions of the-g Orders." 1/
Commission's July 23, 1987 order regarding the East Interconnection renain in tull force and e:fect and are unchanq<d Discussion by cur action here.
Under Rule 214 of the Commission Rules of Practice and Ike Commission ordtis:
Frececure, 18 C,F.R.
1 395,214 (1991), the timely, unopposed motion to intervent serves to make Cajun a party to this fA) An extension of time for installation of the East proceedinc.
Interconnection until August 31, 1995 for the first 300 MW and This proceeding addresses a request b3 Petitioners for an
~
extension of time in which to construct the East Interecnnection.
Cajun dota not object to this request. Cajun's cbjections instead gt to other matters not presently before the, Commission
- gf Egg, eg, Entergy Services, Inc., 52 FERC 1 61,317 at (1) s 500 MW llaltation on who may be a qualified utility; and 62,270 (1990); Duke Power Company, 51 FERC t 61,266 at (2) LLe p*ccedure for participation as an owner. These concerns 61,788 (1990).
are not properly addressed in the context or a petition for extension of tima to wuich Cajun does not object.
If Cajun
~1/
Petitioners
- request was for an extension of time for wishes to PLrcue the 500 MW limitation iesue. Cajun should file installation of the East Interconnection, but " subject an apprcpriate request :ar relief.
S s.larly, with respect to to reasonable cont ingencies, such as possible delays in
^~~~~~
^~
conplying with
.. environnental requirements a nd 12 tCR_rdlEJ t e. " Fetitioners' November 6 1991 ir 40 itkC at ti,222 Ordering Paragraph.CitS)-
supplenental filing at 5.
., g u,
~
~
A-Docdet No. EL79-6-000 5
'(B)
Authorizction to install the East Interconnection in two phases is conditioned upon Petitio ers providing the 90 megawatta of reser'<ed capacity, required to be made available to commission's July 23, 1987 cr;.*.er, upon laitial. ir.atali stion at.d
_ fd qualified utilitiva pursuant to Ordering Paragraph (C)(5) of the I
operation of DC capacity at the East iriterconnectinn.
By the cornaission.
( SDAL) fh Loi D. cashell, secreter).
k
,3
LHITTL STATES Cr AMERICA TEDERAL ENERGY RIGULATORY CCMHISSICN Central Power I. Light Company
)
Public Service Company of Oklahoma
)
I Southwestern Electric Power Company
)
Doexet No. ELM-B West Texas Utilities Company
)
i REPLY COM6 TENTS OF CAJUN ELECTRIC POWER T
j CO CP, WIFTERN FARMEid ELECfhIC COOPERATIVE,
~ ~RINO ELECONId COOPERATIVE, INC., AND.
l
.g GRAN5~~kIVER DAM AUTR'5KiTY TO INITIAL COMMENTS E'-
er'filt 07~ DEP^"Tkr#t'~5F~8" ICE ON THE RUL1TTds
,C,,[ THE PRESIfiffTd'"A'5MTIllSTFATIVE LAW JUDCh W Cajun Electric Power Co-op, Western Farmors i
Electric Cooperative, KAMO Electric Cooperative, Inc.
=
and the Grand " River Data Authority hereby f11e a reply to the Initial Comments of the Department of Justice filed herein on February 20, 1981.
1.
The undersigned atterney, for and on behalf of, Cajun Electric Power co-op, Western farmarr Electric Cooperativ KAMO Electric Cooperative, Inc., and the Grand Rivet Dam Authority has' reviewed the comments of th% presiding judge's order of January 28, 1981, filed in this proceeding on g
rebruary 20,-O 81, by the Department of Justice, the Central A.id Southwest Companies, the Texan Utilities companies,
=
Houston Lighting and Power Ccapany and the Federal Energy Regulatory Cometission ataff.
2.
The Cajun Electric' Power Co-op, Western Farmers Electric Cooperative, KAMO Electric Cooperative, Inc., and the. Grand River Dam ' Authority concur in the positions taken I
_1
I by the Central and Scuthwes t C:mpanies, the Texa s 'Jt:11t t e s Companies, Houston Lighting and Power Company and the redecal Energy Regulatory Coemission s taf f in favoring e.pprovat of the offer of settlement without a hearing on the issues raised by the Department of Justice.
3.
It is believed that the public interest woulst I
l best be served if the litigation which is pending before l
this ard other f orums is settled, as expeditiously as possible.
I pursuant to the terms of what appears to be a fair and reasonable offer of settlement.
4.
The Ca]un Electric Power Co-op, Western Tarmers Electric Cooperative, KAMO Electric Cooperative, Inc.,
l and the Grand River Dam Authority believe that the competi-tive advantages which the Department of Justice allege would result frcm the AC interconnection are not sufficient to delay this commission's approval of the offer of Settle-ment.
S.
The Cajun Electric Power Co-op, Western Farmers Electric Cooperative, KAHo Elactric Cooperative, Inc.,
and the Grand River Dam Authority therefore submits that i
i this Cocaission should find that the offer of Settlement is uncontested and should be approved as being in the i
public interests.
Respectfully subritted, I
BY Jay H. GALt LOONEY, NICHOI.S, JOHNCf)N
& HAYES
'E 219 Couch Drive 5
oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73102 Attorneys for Petitioners 1
k John Schwab P.
O.
Box 3036 I
Baton Rouge, LA 70821 Attorney for Cajun Electric Power Co-op I
Robert W.
Sullivan General Counsel Grand River D.tm Authority Drawer G Vinita, Oklahoma 74301 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that I have this day served by mail the foregoing document upon each person designated u the of f u:ial service list compiled by the Secretatf this proceeding in accorc',ance with the requirements 4
of $1.17 of the Rules of Practica and Procedure.
[
Dated at Oklahoma City, Oklahoma this 26th day of rebruary, 1981.
Jay M.
dalt - _ _ - - - _ _ _ - _ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
l' UNITED STATES OF AMERICA FEDERAL ENERGY REGUIATORY COMMISSION Central Power and Light Company
)
Public Service Company of Oklahoma
)
Docket No. EL(9-8-003 Southwestern Electric Power Company
)
' West Texas Utilities company
)
TEE-LA ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE OF TEXAS, INC.
HOTION TO INTERVENE AND ANSWER AND FROTEST To e
"RESPONSEH OF CAJUN ELECTRIC PON2R COOPERATIVE, INC.
I.
Pursuant to Rules 211, 213 and 214 of the Commission's Rules 3-of Practice and Procedure, tex-La Electric Cooperative of Texas, g.
Inc.
(" Tex-La"), on behalf of itself and its seven member distributita cooperatives, move to intervene in the above-captioned proceeding and answers and protests the November 26, 1991 filing of Cajun Electric Power Cooperative, Inc. ("Cnjun").
Though styled as a " Response," Cajun's pleading is either a late-filed protest to Petitioners'I August 21 filing s w ;esting an extension of the schedstle for installing the East Hign Voltage Direct Current Intertin (" East HVDC tie") or a complaint affirmatively requesting a char.ge to the settlements in EL79-8 (Original Intertie Settlement) and EL79-8-002 (East HVDC Tie Settlement).
Whatever the nature of Cajun's " Response," the commission should reject it as both substantively and procedurally-unsound.-
I Petitioners include $ao four operating company subsidiaries of Central and Southwest Corporation ("CSW" and "CSW Operating Companies"), Houston Power & Light Company ("HL&P") and I'
Texas Utilities Electric Company ("TU Electric").
3
P All corresponder.ca related to this proceeding should be addressed tot A. Hewitt Rose Jorden Shulte & Burchette I
1025 Thomas Jefferson St.,
NW Suite 400 East Washington, D.C.
20007-0805 (202) 965-8111 Tex-La is a generation and transmission rural electric cooperative corporation organized and existing under the laws of the state of Texas.
Tex-La's seven memoer cooperativos own and operate electeic distribution systems split between the Electric Reliability Counsel of Texas ("ERCOT") and the Southwest Power Pool ("SWPP") all within the state of Texas.
The member cooperatives purchase all or part of their power requirements from Tax-La and resell that power at retail to their respective I..
customers.
Tex-La's member cooperatives are as follows:
Cherokee County Electric Cooperative Association Deep East Texas Electric Cooperative, Inc.
Houston County Electric Cooperative, Inc.
I Jasper-Newton Electric Cooperative, Inc.
Rusk County Electric Cooperative, Inc.
Sam Houston Electric Cooperative, Inc.
Wood County Electric Cooperative, Inc.
Tex-La's ERCOT load is located oa the eastern edge of TO Electric's load control area, while its SWPP load is with the
' load control areas of Southwestern Electric Power Corporation and Gulf States Utilities.
Tex-La has been an active participant in-the intertie dockets and is a " qualified-utility" under the original Intertie settlement.
Tex-La is studying the purchase of I
- g
/
4 l a portion of the East HVDC,ntertie so that it can import power purchased from SWPP utilities, such as cajun, over the tie to serve Tex-La ERCOT load.
J I.
BACKGROUND Cajun requests the Commission to either (1) delete the original Intertie settlement nrovision setting aside a 15%
reserved portion of the in ~o5 %
e*+tain small ERCOT and SWPP utilities
(" qualified
,.L. 1 a u) r (2) add Cajun to the list of qualified utilities.
Cajun misreads the purpose and terms of the original Intertie Se:tlement and forgets its earlier support for that settlement.
The Original Intertie Settlement grew out of tha attempt of the CSW to interconnect its two SWPP operating companies with its tuo ERCOT operating companies.
See artngrally Thorpe, Electric Runce War in Texgyj_,, A (giq_Sf,qdy_,llLJederal-State Rate Reculatloa, 48 Geo. Wash. L. Rev. 392 (1980).
On June 9,
- 1980, 2 and ELIP reached a CSW, the Texas Utilities operating companies settlement substituting two, asynchronous hVDC interties for four synchronous, alternating currunt ("AC") interties originally proposed by CSW.
The Conniasion Staff opposed the settlement on grounds, among others, thst., compared to the full interconnection of four AC interties, two HVDC interties constrained regional competition 1
2 In 1980 'IU Slectric consisted of three operating company subsidiaries Wh.ich later merged into TU Electric as separata divisions.
I-
-4 to the detriment of smaller utilities.
To overcome Staff's objections, on September 11, 1980 csW, TU Electric and HL6P agreed to file a supplemental offer of settlement which included the provision to reserve 15% of the capacity of the ties for use by small utilities.
This agreement, termed the " Cameron Letter,"
is attached in Appendix A and wes part of the October 8, 1981 supplemental Offer of Settlement filed by Petitioners in EL79-8.
I Section (3) of the Cameron Letter, which seeks to assure intertie access to small utilities, became Ordering paragraphs 10(b) and (c) of the Order Approving Settlement in EL79-8.
Cajun supported this order.
Attachment B attached.
Tex-La, as a result of a settlement with TU ElectrLc, agreed not to oppose the settlement.
The Commission approved the original Interties Settlement in Central Power & Licht Co._,
17 FERC 1 61,078 (1981),
corrected, E' rata Notice (November 5, 1981) (unpublished),
g.larified on rehearing, 18 FERC 1 61,100 (1902).
When the Petitioners' sought to substitute a 600 MW East l
INDC intertie for the originally ordered 500 MW South INDC intertie, several qualified utilities took to the opportunity to fix an oversight in the original Interties Settlement.
They established a procedure to allocate reserved capacity among qualified utilitics should the requests to use and/or purchase reserved capacity exceed the amount available.
ordering para-graph (G) (5) of C.gntral Power & Licht Co.,
40 FERC 1 61,077 (1987)'(order approving East HVDC tie settlement).
Key to this I
I I
I procedure was a definite period for solicitations so that a pro rate sharing, if necessary, could be determined.
Cajun did not intervene in the proceeding.
Tex-La did int e rve ne, but withdrew pursuant to another settlement with TU Electric.
II.
CAJUN 88 RESPONSE IS SUBSTANTIVELY UNSOUND.
A.
Eliminsting the Category of Qualified Utilities.
Cajun's first alternative request -delete the qualified utility right to purchase a portion of the East HVDC int e rt ie--
gains cajun nothing more than it already has.
Cajun, just as any utility, can purchase a portion of the East HVDC intertie from any current owner willing to sell.
Ordering Paragraph (5), Order Approving Settlement in EL79-8 (ownership of intertie capacity is transferacle).
If Cajun wishes to sell coordination power to TU Electric, then it can approach TU Electric about selling a portion of TU Electric's 100 MW share of the tie.
If Cajun wishes to sell power to a small utility in ERCOT, such as Tex-La, then either Cajun or the buyer can purchsise a portion of the tie to make the sale possible.
Elimino",ino the access right of small utilities to intertie capacity does nothing to enhance Cajun's option to buy intertie capacity.
l Indeed, Cajun's proposal limits access to the tie.
At least some utilities, many of whom are potential buyers of Cajun power, have a right to use the East HVDC intertie.
Eliminate that right and the sales market of all SWPP sell is confined to the intertie I
J access it or its buyer can negotiate with the intertie owners.
For example, Cajun's proposal would make it agte difficult and probably more expensive for Cajun to sell power to Tex-La over the intertie.
Cajun, which supported the original Intertie settlement, now asserts that the Qualified Utility right
- .o purchase reserve capacity "no longer serves any legitimate purpose."
This is exactly wrong.
Intertie access rights are agIn important now than ever before.
Since late 1984, ERCOT and SWPP have been interconnected only by a 200 MW North HVDC intertie.
Small utilities have not been interested in using the 30 MW of reservard North tie capacity because of its expense and its location.
The 600 MW East MVDC intertie, to be built in phases beginning by August 1995, is a different story.
Due to its increase size and improvements in technology, the current estimate of the cost per MW of the 90 MW of East tie capacity is considerably lower than for the North tie.
Moreover the East tie's location, terminating in the general area of Tex-La's loads, is ideal for Tex-La.
To deny small utility access now, just when it is worth something, would be contrary to all the Cor. mission Staff sought to accomplish with paragraph (3) of the cameron Letter.
B.
Adding Cajun to the List of Qualified Utilities.
Cajun's second alternative request -make Cajun a Qualified Utility-would change the Settlement without justification to the disadvantage of all qualified utilities.
The EL79-8 qualified utilities are a limited class for a reason.
If any utility,
I 1
-7 regardless of size, had a right to purchase the reserved portion of intertie capacity, then that right would have little value.
The set of potential bidders for reserved capacity would be unlimited ani unknowable.
Given ordering paragrapu (G)(5) of the East HVDC intertie final order, all requests for capacity would reduce, pro-rata, the amount of reserved capacity available to an equally unlimited and unknovable extent.
Cajun is_now proposing to change a settlement it early supported so that it can receive a benefit of the Settlement it did not bargain for.
Cajun offors no explained policy basis for unilaterally adding itself to the list of qualified utilities.
Cajun alleges no changed circumstances.
Unless cajun can show (1) changed circumstances adversely affecting Cajun, and (2) a change in the original Intertie Settlement would be in the public interest, it should not be heard to protest that settlement now.
Allowing a unilateral change to a Commission-approved settlement is contrary to Commission policy favoring settlements.
El Pass HAj;1tr.gl Gas Co., 26 FERC 1 61,016 (1984).
I III. CAJUN'S RESPONSE IS PROCEDURALLY UN80UND A.
Late-Filed Protest The Commission's August 23, 1991 " Notice of Filing" stated that all " protests should be filed on or before September 6, 1991."
Cajun intervened on September 5, but did not protest the filina.
Cajun's November 26 filing can be considered nothing than a protest filed more than two and a half months out of time.
' I I
I
~8~
I i
Cajun offers not a word of explanation for its untimely filing, The Commission has rejected unjustiflod, late" filed protests in the past and should do no here, southern flatMrALant.Sh, 53 PERC 1 61,469 (1990)("Since the protest was out-of-time, and since no basis was provided for that protest, Blue Circle's protest is alno denied."); Egstern Gas interstate Co.,
20 FERC 1 61,112 (1982).
Cajun's argument in footnote 2 of its pleading that it is entitled to respond to the Petitioners' filing of a proposed
" Order Granting-Petitior" pursuant to rule 202 is a transparent evasion.
The proposed " Order Granting Petition" adds nothing new to the original filing.
All of Cajun's arguments could have been made by the September 6 du.s date.
B.
Improper Complaint.
Cajun's " Response" raises new issues that are unrelated to the petitioners' filing.
Cajun explicitly does not protest the specific action requested by the Petitioners.
Instead, Cajun uses the docket heading to file what can be considered a complaint, making a new and independent argument for the commission to reform the settlements.
The Commission has properly condemned such procedural maneuvers before:
(A) complaint cannot be submitted as an integral part I
of a protest and motion to intervene in an ongoing proceeding; it does not allow interested parties sufficient-notice of the complaint because it in not formally docketed and noticed.
I LI L
I
. Louisiang_ Power & Licht Co., 50 FERC 1 61,040 (1990).
S.gq_,alig Indiana Michig.nn_fower Co, 51 FERC 1 61,191 (1990); Q1Rtgy
$3ty_igggu. Inn, 52 FERC 1 61,317 (1990).
The Commission should reject Cajun's filing on th2se grounds.
174 TEX-LA'S INTERVENTION Tex-La did not intervene in the August 22, 1991 f111ng by g
Petitioners, no.r file any coraents in response to Petitioners' Novembur 6 proposed " Order Granting Petition."
Tex-La intervenes now anly to protest the new issues raised by Cajun's November 26 filing.
No disruption or delay should occur in these proceed-ings, since no hear!.ng has been scheduled.
No party would be prejudiced or unduly burdened by Tex-La's intervention.
Te x-La ' s
.I interests cannot be adequately represented by any othcr party.
I WHEREFORE, Tex-La requests the Coranission to reject Cajun's request to alter the original Interties Settlement und the East HVDC Tiu Settlernent.
.g R
Respectfully submitted A h5fkC$ ----~.
d I
A. Hewitt Rose Jorden Shulto in Burchette I
1025 Thomas Jefferse.n St., NW Suite 400 East Washington, D.C.
20007-0805 (202) 965-8111 December 11, 1991
- ***tw" pe en I
al
.I
_ ~,
Appenctx A I
I September 11, 1960 I
John A. Cameron Jr., Esq.
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 1
02$ North Capitol Street, N.E.
Room 9712 washington, D.C.
2b426
Dear Mr. Cameron:
In order to avoid any possible misunderstandinis, we I
wish to confir:n our understanding of the FERC Staff s settle-ment demands in Docket No. EL79-8.
The FERC Staff will, on the data set for filing comments.
I affirmatively support the offer of Settlement tendered by Central and South West Corporation (C5W), et al., in Docket No. EL79-8, dated July 28, 1980, (herein "OIIer of Settlement")
I-and withdraw the proposed Transmission Service Settlement Agrauent sent out under your cover letter of July 3,1980, if the following modifications are made to the Offer of settlement by C5W, Texas Utilities Company (TU1, and Houston I
Lighting & Power company (EL&.P).
However, it :,s understood that no provision of the offer of Settlement, as modified, shall be construed to affect the rights or obligations of uI the TERC staff or any party hereto in any future proceedings at the TERC, to investigate or contest any rate filing made pursuant to the following paragraphs.
The-FIRC Staff makes
'I it clear that this letter is without prejudice to any FIRC staff request that additional relief be ordered in Docksc No.. EL7.9-8 against electric utilities other than C5W, TU and EL&P.
.l-
" System" as used herein means, respectivelyr (a) EL&P, 3
(b) all TU operating companies, (c) Csw operating companies 3~
- ,n the Electric Reliability Coun:il of Texas (ERCOT), (d) CSV operating companies in the Southwest Power Pool ($VPP).
I-(1)
Rates and service shall be determined from tirae to time in accordance. with the procedures of Sections 205 and 206 of the Federal' Power Act, whether or not otherwise applic-g able, by virtue of agrooment of the parties pursuant to section g
l ib
,o
I 211(d)(3) of the redoral Power Act, as amanded.
Each System agrees to file rates with the ITRC, deemed to be rate tcrease l
filings pursuant to section 205(e) of the Federal Powo Act, for whee.ing power to, from, and over the proposed direct current (OC) interconnection facili*1es which util:
(a) roll in each System's alternatir.7 current
( AC) and DC transmission costs, if any, with the result that any utility using any Syt. tem's I
AC or CC lines, or both,.for wheel'.ng pcVer in interstate com=erce vill pay a rate destgr.ed to recover all costs and a reasonable return I
on both the AC and DC invest ent and related operating costs; (b) be the same for that System regardless of I
whether the interstate movecent comes over j
the North or the South interconnection; 1
g be the same for that sE.e a.m regardless of the (c) sta distance involved of t.
ctual transmission over that System's lines:
l (d) or may, distinguish between t) es of service (e.g. economy, interraptible, firm) and length of service (e.g. short term to =ultiyear):
(e) be filed at the TERC at least one year before the DC lines go into operation, under the tar:ss and conditions in paragraph 13 of the I
proposed order contained in the offer of Settlement, which means that the initial rata will go into effee:t subject to refund, if the l
Commission orders a hearing on the rates; (f) not include rates for wheeling of power I
solely within ERCOT-TIS which does not involve the proposed DC interconnection.
- However, the C5W ERCOT operating companief, being subject to ITRC jurisdiction, will file, within three months of a final TERC order in Docket No. EL79-8 no lenger subject to judicial review, a. proposed wheellag tariff, to be
, se ll collected subject to refund, applicable to l
wheeling within ERCOT-TIS for utilities in ERCOT with less than 1500 Mw load, consistent l g.
with this paragraph (1) and with paragraph l
(2),below; I
I 1.
l Lg
~
l (g) bo designod by each System to recover all of its ecsts and a reasonable return for tne use I
of its AC and OC facil,,taes; (h) be a single rate for each type of service I
over the W System's ccmbined transmission facilities, the CSW ERCCT System's combined transmission f ac 11 les, and the CSW SVPP System's combined transmission facilities.
I Thus, 4 wheeling custo=ar would pay a single rate to each such System for a transact :n utilizing all or any part of the ccebined I
transmission facilitias of the TU System, the CSW ERCCT System, and the CSW SVPP System, respectively.
Tha single rates Vill be based g
upon the transmission costa per kw of system 3
load for each cec.pany within the TU System, the CSW ERCCT System and the CSW SVPP System, respectively, which costs shall be multiplied.
I by the ratic of power flow over each such cerr.pany's transmission system to the power flow over all or any part of tha combined E
transmission facilities of the respective E
System, such flows being detsrmined by a composite of typical wheeling transactions over the respective Systams.
The single rate l
for each System shall then be determined by adding together the resulting weighted trar.s-mission costs for each company within that I
System (as calculated per the preceding sentence), te which appropriate transmission losses shall be added; l
(i) be in lieu of any " contract path" or similar theory for determining which utility or utilities within ERCOT-TIS are entitled to be I
paid for wheeling.
The mathed for determining the amount of kilowatts or kilowatthours for billing purpcaes shall be the calculated load E
flow through each System with and without the l 5 proposed wheeling using the TIS computer programs and data base, as revised from time 3
.o time to reflect current and projected 3
systems.
Whenever any System is requested to wheel power, such system will provide a lead
,ll flow analysis at cost within two working days of the request or upon payment of costs, i
whichever is later, (it is all systems' belief' that a sinsle load flow study would g
suffice for all potentially affected companies I
fr I
m...
~
l in ERCCT-TIS, since tho data baso is common and coordinatsd regularly with all relevant systams.); and (j) provide for interstate economy interchange and emergency power transmission service, i
-E which may be requested on an hon:-to-hour f.D basis, in accordance with good utility prac-LLce in the area.
(2)
Whenever any system has been requested to wheel, it will respond with an ansvar to the request (including an explanat.1.cn of any denial of service) as follows (dating I
from the completion of the load flow study for wheeling within ERCCT-TIS, or from the date of a request for wheeling by CSW SWPP)*
(a) fo:t tunsmission service lasting for one or more years, within thirty days, or the first working day af ter thirty calendar days; and (b) for transmission service lasting for less than one year, within two working days.
(3)
As part of their respective wheeling rates filed pursuant to paragraphs (1) and (8), BL&P and CSW will each reserve 15% of the capacity in their respective DC intercon-nection facilities for firm power wheeling (herein "the reservation") pursuant to the following:
(a) the reservation shall be made for utilities I
in.ERCOT and SWPP having loads less than 500 MW (herein " qualified utilities");
'l (b) the reservation shall continue for five years after each facility goes into commercial operation at its rated capacity.
At the end
^
of the five yaar period, E&P or CSW, or I
both, may file pursuant to the procedures set L
forth in the first sentence of paragraph (1),
E supra, as a change in service, to delete the I
reservation for qualified utilities (c)
C5w companies shall make reservation capacity
- a l'3 available for firm power wheeling in each of l
their DC interconnection facilities, so long as there is ca9acity available in either of ol-thest when eit.ser of the DC intercennection L.
facilities is out of-service, C3W shall not
' be obligated to make reservr. tion capacity 3
l l
LI l
I associated with that facility available en the other interconnection facil:,ty; (d)
EL&2 and CSW will solicit requests for reser-vation capacity from qualified utilt. ties :ne year before the respective Oc interconnect :n I
facilities go into commerc:,al operation, and at one year intervals thereafter for reservation capacity which has not been previously comm::ted.
I EL&2 and CSW, respectively, may util :e any unused portion of the reservation capacity until a timely request for wheeling is made by a qualified utillty; reservation c.apacity may I
be used on a firm basis from year to year or less if, after notice, capacity is not con-tracted for by qualified utilities; and (e)
The reservation in this paragraph (3) is reduced by the amount of capacity purchased purcuant to paragraph (4)(a), below.
(4)(a)
Superseding paragraph 1(f) of the Settlement Agreement ( Attachment 1 in the Offer of I
settlement filed in Docket No. Et,79-8 by CSW et al, dated July 28, 1980) in its entirety, the capacity reservet for qualified utilities pursuant to 'saragraph (3) of this letter I
agreement will be available for purchase by qualified utilities at the depreciated original cost thereof, until either (1) the reservation l
of capactty has been terminated or (2) the opportunity to participate in ownership of additional DC capacity to be installed has I
been tendered as set forth belov, whichever comes first.
Purchase of reservation capacity by qualified utilities in the South intercon-nection shall be on a pro rata basis from I
both C5W and EI,4P unless EL&P and C5W othervise agree;
'l (b)
Whenever planning is undertakan to increase the capacity of the Interconnections, but at intervals of no more than every three years I
after June 30, 1983, until June 30, 2004, electric utilities in ERCOT and SWPP will be given the opportunity to participate in the planning of increases in the capacity of the I
Interconnections and of participating in the ownership of any incramental capacity added, I
~
I u=
g
_s_
I l
I provided again that each party that wishes to participate pays its pro rata share of e.e capital costs of constructing the Interccnnec-I tron which it wishes to participate in and undertakes to pay its pro rata share of 2.o costs of operating and maintaining that Interconnection and agrees further to be I
bound by the terns and conditions of e.e Agreement betveen Cvners of e.e Interconnec-tions; and (c)
This understanding is without prejudice to
- he right of either CSW or EL&P to sell CC capacity which is not sub]ect to paragraph (3).
(5) contingent upon the issuance of any order by a court orThe I
other regulatory agency.
the FERC proceedings in the event that orders in otherHowever, some forums, including, but not li:si tad to No. 3-4951, cannot be obtained, is acc,eptabl..SEC Admin. Proc. File (6) periodic reports on the progress of construction and com-Re I
pliance vita environmental requirements, not affecting the substance of the Order, will be included.
l (7)
Subject to reasonable condagencies, such as possible delays under paragraph (6) su ra, and force majeure.
C5W and HL&P vill commi.t to cause the I-installed and operational within 5 years of the date of a capacity to be
~
final FIRC order, no longer subject to judicial review.
is understood that EL&P's commitment And C5W's commitnent It are several, not joint.
(8 single r) ate for wheeling within SWPP, as provided i The C5W SWPP operating companies shall file the I
1(h) for utilities in SWPP with less than 1500 Mw load, within three months of a final TERC order in Docket No. EL79-8, no longer subject to judicial review.
-E-subject to refund, if the Commission so orders.It shall go.inco effect W
single rate filing shall be consistent with subparagraphs 1(a),
The C5W SVPP (c), (d), (g) and (h), and with paragraph (2).
I_
rate to be filed pursuant to this paragraph (8) shall notThe proposed apply to existing agreements for wheeling or purchase and resale service which either P50 or SVEPCO may have with other utilities.
I I
I y 6-I I
I If you will confir:n this Staff sottlement demand by executing a copy of this letter belew, the undersigned l
counsel, each being duly authorized to do so by his respec-tr.ve client, accept your settlement demand.
I By our respective signatures, we all represent that this letter, together with the offer of Sett.ement prevacusly filed in this docket, constttutes the final settlement be tween the TERC 3taff, CSW, TU, and EL&P.
E E
CoutIsel for*
Ecusten Lighting & Power Ccmpany 9'f I
Counrtl for Texas Utilities Company and the operating Companies thereof I
AUt Counsel for /
Central & South West Corporation and the operating Companies thereof Confir=ed:
I l
-e I
u:fsel fot *Je RC Stalf Accord:
'h Pb l
NRC Staff
- I IJp g
- I i.
1 m
' Appenha o I
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
,(
FEDERAI, ENERGY REGUI.ATORY COMMISSION I
Central Power & Lig'nt Company
)
Public Service Company of Oklahoma
)
I Southwestern Electric Power Company
)
Docket No. EL73-6 West Texas Utilities Company
)
REPLY COMMENTS OF CAJUN ELECTRIC POWER CO MP7 WESTERN FARMERS ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE,
=
RAMO ELECTRIC COOP $RATIVE, INC., A'ND I
G.VND RTVER DAM AUTHORTtV~Yo INITI AL Corea.ENTs OF THE U.S.
DEPARTIIENT OF JUSTICE ON THE RULINGS OF THE PRESTDiNG ADMINISTMATIVd' LAW JUDGE The Cajun Electric Power Co-op, Western Farmers Electric Cooperative, KAMO Electric Cooperative, Inc.
and the Grand River Dam Authority hereby file a reply to the Initial Comments of the Department of Justice filed herein on February 20, 1981.
1.
The undersigned attorney, for and on behalf of, Cajun Electriu Power Co-op, Western Farmers Electric Cooperativ KAMO Electric Cooperativs, Inc., and the Grand River Dam I
Authority has reviewed the conconts of the presiding judge's order of January 28, 1981, filed in this proceeding on February 20, 1981, by the Department of Justice, the Central and Southwest Companies, the Texas Utilities Companies, Houston Lighting and Power Company and the Federal Energy Regulatory Oosaission staf f.
2.
The Cajun Electric Power Co-op, Western Farmers Electric Cooperative, KAMO Electric Cooperative, Inc., and the Grand River Dam Authority concur in the positions taken I 1 -l lI 7
~
by the Central and Southwest companies, the Texas Utilities Companies, Houston Lighting and Power Cernpany and the rederal Energy Regulator ' Cor mission staf f in f avoring approval of the offer of sett.tment without a hearing on the issues raised by the Department of Juatice.
3.
It is believed that the public interest would best be served if the litigation which is pending before this and other forums is settled, as expeditiously as possible, purr,uant to the terms of what appears to be a fair and reasonable offer of settlement.
4.
The Cajun Electric Power Co-op, Western Fa mers Electric Cooperative, FM o Electric Cooperative, Inc.,
and the Grand River Dam Authority belisve that the competi-
)
tive advantages which the Department of Justice allege i
would result from the,AC interconnection are not sufficient to delay this Com. mission's approval of the offer of Settle-ment.
5.
The Cajun Electric Power Co-op, Western Far.ters Electric Cooperative, IW!O Electric Cooperative, Inc.,
and the Grand River Dam Authority therefore schmics that
':his Commission should find that the of f er of Settlement is uncontested and should be approved as being in the public interests.
Respectfull) submitted, I
BY _
Jay M. Galt LOONEY, NICHOLS, JOHNSON t HAYES 219 Couch Drive Oklahoma City, Oklahoms 7 H02 Attorneys for Petitioners W
W
. ~. -. - --.
John Schwab P. O. Box 3036 Baton Rouge, LA 70821 I
Attctney for Cajun Electric Pcwcr Co-op
.3 Robert W. Sullivan l
General Counsel Grand River Dam At.t ori ty Drawer G i.
Vinita, Oklahoma 74J01 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
.I hereby certify that I have this day served by mail thy foregoing document upon each person designated on the official service list compiled by the Secretary in this procee' ding in accords.ca with the requirements
=.I of $1.17 of the Rules of Practice and Procedure.
Dated at Oklahoma City, Oklahoma this 26th day of
.I February, 1981.
I Jay M. Galt I
I I
I b:l Eg 1
I
I I
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I
I hereby certify that I have thiu day served the foregoing document upon each person designated on the of ficial service list compiled by the Secret.ary in this proceeding.
> I C
19 7I.
Dated this /IN day of I
I s' JMAn A. Hewitt Rose I
Jo:rden Shulte & Burchette 1025 Thomas Jefferson St., NW Suite 400 East Washington, D.C.
20007-0505 I
(202) 965-9111 I
. I I
I I
I I
I
' I n
- 9
' 9 P;; g, i.
May 15.1992 j
Ms. Lois D. Cashell S.cretary federal Energy Regulatoty Commisdoc I
c5 N. Capitol Sucet. NE.
."' N s.
Washit.gton. D.C. 2006 Re:
Ccral Power,md fight Cod Docket No. EL794 000 Dear Secretary Catell; I
By this letter, Central Power and Lisht Company, Public Se.vice Cornpany of Oklahoma. SoutDwes'.efo Electnc Pner Company, West Texas Utilldes Company, Houston LJghc"5 & Power Company and Texas Unlides Electric Company. Petitioners to ine above.referene ed docket, notify the Commission of their intent to cocettuct the East HVDC laterconnection in a single phase Peddoners andetpate that. subject to reasonsble cond neies, the (v.11600 watts of capacity will be installed on or before August MI,
- 1995, full compliance with e Comanuion't ' Order Granting Peuunn." tssued herem no December 0,1991.
A copy of this letter will be served on all
'es to tan docket to pve nonce of the anticipated schedule for imtallation of tbc East ection.
Respectfully yours.
/Wh) h.e d J $
w
~
Randolph 4. McManus Devsd J. Romeo I-Attor
/or Houston 11***
Attorney for Southwestern Electnc Central Pour and
& Ps,.. Compeuy Pcwcr Company,Public Serwee Company Usht Coenpany, of Otisho:sa and West 'tesas Ud11 ties I
/f/ 0 S M.D. 5ampes
' f? M I
Attorney for Tomas Utilities Mectrb: Company f
cc:
Cynthia A. Mariette Daniel L Laronme Jerry R. Mf1 bourn All parties in Docket No. EL794 0M 1
I 1lllll
~
=
=
ltlELECTRC t=mu s,.*thriner May 10, 1992 ownw qu h,..i imes troon, I
Mr. Phillip G. Harris Vice President - Operations I
Cajun Electric Cooperative, Inc.
P. 0.
Dox 15540 Baton Rouge, Loulpinna 70895 Re Texas Utilities Electric Ccmpany, Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station, Unit 21 Dcoket No. 50-446h I
Deaf'%. w.arris t li I have red dw A the Comments filed by your attorney with the I
!!uclear Regulatory Cotil:risc[on ("NRC") on March 2o, 1992, in the abovo matter.
For your ready'*1cQrence, a copy of those Comments is attached.
'N..s,
I am perplexed by the positions exp s5le k those Comments for a number of reasons, including the following
.E 1.
When the interconnection dispute was sett?ed in 1980,"at-E was the Department of Justice, the NRC and the FERC, not TU
. Electric, who insisted that the 15% capacity reservation in the East Tie be limited to utilities having a generating capacity of I
500 MW or less.
Your attorney failed to mention to the NRC that when he, on Cajun's behalf, recentiv asked the FERC to increase the 500 MW threshold, at least one small utility vchemently objected.
A copy of that-response, together with the FERC's order regarding Cajun's request, is attached.
2.
As stated in the Minutes of the Meeting between the East Texas DC Tie Management Committee and Cajun on December 11, 1991:
" Larger utilities such as cajun could, if they no 3
desired, cosign the existing DC Tio Participation
<-g Agreement and buy eithe* a shere of. an existing owner's participatiot nr an expansion to the Tie's
~
capacity."
Subsequently, Houston-Lighting & Po';t' offered to sell all or a part of.its capacity:2ntitlement to the East Tie to Cajun.
It As I
L I
.I
I my understanding that this of fer was not accepted and nay very well have been rejected by Cajun.
3.
Inv!tations to participate in e..pansion of the East Tie will be mailed to certain ulectric utilities, including Cajun, on j
,)
or befDre June 30, 1992, as required by the FERC's Order of July i
23, 1937.
While I'm sure you are f amiliar wit.h that order, a <:opy is attached.
An opportunity to participate in the ownership of the y;
East !!e by any utility desiring to expand the Tie's capacity, r [
in.:luding Cajun, will be solicited by that invitation.
4.
The owners of the East Tie, including TU Electric, have f; Aed tarif fs with the FERC applicable to transmission service to,
)
from and over the East Tie.
These tariffs are available for any l
clees.ric utility, including Cajun, desiring transmission service i
over the East Tia.
L copy of TU Electric's tariff lu attached.
5.
TU Electric indicated to you in our meeting of February 25, 1992, that it had no need for generating capacity from Cajun I
but indicated that it would take note of ycm interest in discussing the possible vale of capacity to TU Electric in the future.
6.
The owners of the East Tie have recently advised the FERC that the entire 600 MW of East Tie capacity will be constructed, within the time required by the FERC's orders, in a single phase I
rather than in two phases as earlier planned.
A copy of the letter containing such advice is attached.
7.
TU Electric is not opposed to Cnjun purchasing a portion I
of the East Tie or participating in expansion of the East Tio.
Further, wu continue to be willing to connider Cajun as a potential alternative, among a'l alternatives, when and if the time comes f or TU Electric to consider additional generation resources. This f act o
U was confirmed in my letter of April 1, 1992, to Mr. Jack M. Miller, j
A copy
>f that letter is attached.
8.
TU Electric has never received a request from any electric utility, including Cajun, f or any transniusion service to, from or over the East Tie, but stands ready, willing and able to provide such service at any ti::m in accordance with its TFO Tariff.
l I
would like to think
- that, upon examination of the information provided by this letter, you will agree that Cajun's I
Comments to the NRC were incorrect in certain important respects, incomplete as to content, and unfortunately misleading.
I am l
concerned that the filing by your attorneys at the NRC may have been calculated to cause TU Electric added expense and delay in the l
licensing of Comanche peak Unit No.
2.
I am sure you did not intend such a result.
I l
l I
l l I
-.- _...-. - -.- - - ~.
.. -..~.. - - -
i I would like to visit with you in thr. next 10 days to clear up I
any misunderstandings regarding Cajun's use of or participa. tion in the East Tie, future TU Electric generation resources, and the llRC filing.
please let ne know when, ut your earliest convenience, you will have an opportunity to discuss these matters.
I Very truly yours, I
Darrell Develhymar l
I I
Enclosures cc:
Mr. Jack M. Miller I
I
(
I LI l
l u
l lI I
lI I
I 4.GL
.9ancan; XI$nby Id/4r P Sm/nde. } 6' s
- s
...,u.:.,:.,
1:lllLll.':'.'.l...
sunt eoo
- ;,e n ;,;._ ;
g
- >7f.$glyllr,<
,eis - sraecr. 4 w.
.ut.
.cs.t.
u s i,m:0,.o.c200.3e w a.
..* :t,...r.
.. :..,..u, t.
m
.s I
g'.' ;n ;;;;,
.n...:..
,e,......o
,., " n ;",
,.u u.,.,........
2 o...
..:...e.,t.,.
5,.. w w, I
)
. e...L.... > -
- o n. -
March 25, t}92 i
", : ' [. '.
... m
..: an s s
,so.~.-
s a
...u.
t
. Anthony T. Gody, Chief Policy Development and +echnical Support Branch Of fice of fluclear Reactor Regulation I'
!!uclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 l
Pot Ifg33s Utiliti,ts Eles;t ric Ccapany Comanche B
Peak Steam Electric Station. Un it.11 Decket tio. 50 446A Dear Mr. Gody Enclosed please find an original and one copy of pI Comments of Cajun Electric Power Cooperative, Inc., on antitrust information filed by Texas Utilities Electric Company pursuant to Requiatory Guide 9.3.
These Comments are submitted in accordance with the tiotice issued by the Commission and published at 57 Federal Recister 6340 (February 24, 1992).
. g.
%3%
Jameu D.
Pembroke i
Thomas L.,
Rudebusch Charles A. Braun Attarneys for Cajun Electric Power Cooperative, Inc.
Enclosure cc:
Phillip G.
Harris
/ Wil li am J. Cahill, Jr.
~
r+
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
.5 BEFORE THE NUCLEAR REGULATOR.Y COMMIS3:ON In tne Matter uf
)
[L
)
TEXAa CT!LITIES ELECTRIC COf1P1'lY
)
Docket Mc.
50-44fA 4
)
( C m a n c.*. e Peak Steam
)
Electr; Station, Unit 2)
)
)
COMMENTS OF CAJUN ELECTRIC POWER COOPERATIVE, INC.,
ON ANTITRUGT INFORMATION FILED BY TEXAS UTILIT!ES ELECTRIC COMPANY PURSUANT TO REGULATORY GUIOE 9.3 f.
Cajun Electric Power Cooperative, Inc. ('Ca;un~),
~
pursuant to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's ("Com ission" or "NAC") notice issued February 14, 1992, 57 l' efl. Egg, 6340 (Teoruary 24a 1992), of receipt of antitrust informatzon ted b Texas Ut: lit.es Electric Company (aTU Electric"i :n the a ave-referenced docket, faies these Comments and states as folicws' I.
-BACKGROUND TU Electric is currer.tly the ma]ority owner and operator -of the Comanche Peak Steam Elet:tric Station ("CPSES"),
1 Units.I and 2, over which the Conmiosion exercises antitrust a
revim responsibilities according :o Section 105' of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 ("AEA").
The Commission issued a construction.
permit for CPSES, Units 1 and 2, in December 1974, with certain antit. rust license conditions.
The antitrust co'aditions were imposed _because of.allegatione, which were examined by the l
1
w I
Department of Justice, that TU Electric'si dominant market position in generation and i.ransmission restrained the
.I-ccmpetitive alternatives of cther ser syster exas.
Ig3 t
Department Of Justice adutce letter to Atcmic t.
gy Ccmmiss;on.
da:ec January . 1974 On Jane 2 '., 1973, at the operating license stage of g.
rsview, the Commission ;ssued a 'significant cnange' finding, according to Section 105ct2) of the AEA, seek:ng :ne advice af r
tne Department of Just:ce on the antitrust aspruts of TU 21ectric's activities relsted to the operating license fcr CPSES.
Enf, 7 N.R.C.
350 (1973)
The significant changes in circumstances related to TU Flectric's efforts, an com:ert wtth Houston Laghting & Powee Company, to isolate the Texas electric bulk power market from interstate commerce by opening the;r interconnections with another Texas utility, Central Power &
Light' Company
(" Central"), when Central sought to interconnect its operations with affaltated compantes located outside tne Electric Reliability Council of Texas ("ERCOT")
On August 1,
1978, the Department of Justice recommended an antitrust hearing, stating:
(Blecause of s'TU Elect: Lc's) and HL&P's
.I adherence to a poltcy of intrastate only n
operations in light of the present market J
circumstances, and considering the
+E-unprecedented disruptive action of
.g.
disconnection undertaken by applicant and HL&P to enforce this policy and agreement, an antitrust hearing.ts necessary to determine whether additional conditions should be 1/
.t the time TU Electric was known as Texas Utilities Generating Company.
I I
. 3.
attached to the operating 1; cense of Coman:he Peak.
Department of Justice letter dated August 1,
1)73, at 3.i Following this reccmmendation of the Department of
,st;ce, tne
' c me :. s s i c n ; c nvened an ant:. trus t. earing and c:nsci; fated :: w;t a croceed;,nq examining HL&P'a routh Texas Pro 3ect, U.;ts and e
00cket No. 50-42 '
i:1 al.
Following extensive ilt:. gat cn before the Com ;ss;;r
.I the Federal Energy Regula tory Cc:u:.s s ic n ("FERC") and ne Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC"), TU Electr;c, MLLP, Centtal and other part es reached several settlement agreements As reflected in the Memorandum and Order issued ou Ma; s, 198;,
by the Commiss;on's presiding administrative law Judge, a portto-
=
of the settlements involved additional antitrust cenditions on CPSES.
See
'5 N.R.C..
1143 (!982).
The May 6, 1982 Order made the license conditions effective immed:.ately Ld.
The license cond;t'.ons were designed to preclude TU Electric (or HL&P) from acting in concert with any other entity to disconnect from
- nterstate power systems.
At the forefront of the s4ttlement was the provision for the construction of two direct current asynchronous transmission lines ("DC ties") interconnecting ut.tlit:.es tn ERCOT with utilities located in the Southwest Power Pool ("SWPP*)
Sea 2,
Central PoweL And Licht Co.,
17 FERC 1 61,078 (1981),
Q.rder an ah., 18 FERC 1 61,100 (1982) ("FERC Original Order")
These two DC ties have been known as the " North DC Tle" and the
" South DC Tie."
The North DC Tie was placed in service late :. n 1984.
Subsequently, HL&p and ethers filed a petition with FERC I
I
r I.
. 4.
seeking to delay ad redefine the remaining interconnecticn as the East DC Tie, and to allow TU Electric to participate as an owner of the East DC Tle, 5.s3 Central Power J Licht C2_,
40 EERC 5 61,0
(1937)
!n FEAC's Ceder granting the petition, " E ?.C
.I-stressed the requirement tnat TU Elec ::c, among others, " permit other utal t;es to participate in the constructica and :w-crsn;p
~
of the East (DC Tie]
40 FERC at 61,221 Tne East DC T;e was to be in_ place no later than August 31, 1991.
On August 22, 1991, TU Electric and other East DC T;e iEN cwne r s' s" Petit:cners") f: led a petition at rEaC for an 4
extension of time to construct the East DC Tle.
The Petitlen I
requested that installation of the full 600 MW of capac ty on tae East DC T1e be delayed unt: 1 August 1998 with 300 MW being installed by August 1995.
The proposed draft order stated that the East DC T:e may be delayed even further due to ' reasonable cont;ngencies, such as delays in complying with the environmenta'.
requirements of this Order, Egg Central Pcwer and Ligh; Cc 57 FERC 1 63,317 (1991)
Ca]un filed a motion to intervene in 7 - "
the proceeding.
Ca]un is a generation and transmission cooperative comprised of thirteen distribution cooperatives (" Members") in Loulstana.
Cajun stated that it has surplus capacity and energy I
2/.
The East DC Tie owners include the following entitles in-addition to TU Electric and HL&P:
Central Power and Light I_'
Company
(" Central") and Southwestern Electric Power Company
("SWEPCO").
The North DC Tie owners include Public Service Company ot' Oklahoma ("PSO")'and West Texas Utilities Company
(" West Texas").
Central, SWEPCO, PSO and West Texas are all I=.
~
operating companies of the Central & South West-Corporatten-("CSW")
ll
s E
which it could market to interest (d purchasers located witn:.n :ne ERCOT region.
On November 6, 1991, Petitioners filed at FERC a preposed draft " Order Granting Petition" providing Petit;:ners the rel;ef scught in their Pet;tton.
Cajun responded to tne Petitioners' prcposed order ny presenting to FERC Ca;un'3 concerns regard:.ng the requested relief.
- ats resp;nse. Ca;.n s tatet, inter 3111, that Cajun's ability to market nrplus capacity to interested purchasers wn:,cn are MCOT members is directly affected by the construction and commercial o p e r a t. t e n date of the East DC Tie.
On December 6, 1992, the FERC issued an crder granting, with modifications, Petitioners' request for an extens an of time to complete-the DC Tle, and stated that Ca]un's concerns were.: t properly addressed in the context of the pet:. tion for an extension of time.
M
(" December 6th Order").
II.
TU ELECTRIC RESf_CESE TO REGULATORY CUIDE 9.3 On December 5, 1991, the Commiss. ton Staff requested I._
certain antitrust information from TU Electric in-accordance w;th Commis =. to:. Regulatory Guide 9. 3.
St.g Staff letter dated December 5,
1991.
The Staff letter indicates that an antitrust review is appropriate at this time in light of the scheduled ' December-1992 fuel load for CPSES Unit 2 and-the length of time since ths g.g
-antitrust review of CPSES Unit 1, which was completed in September 1909.
By letter dated February 5, 1992, TU Electric r e s p c., n d e d to the Staff's request for intormation in accordance with I;
i I
.l' M
6
~
TU Electric stated that ;n Aprix 1991 ::
submitted to regional electr c utilities requests for responses i
directed to potential alte. natives to generation vn:ch TU Electric was seek;ng to have cert;f'.ed.
Ega TU Electric filing I
at 23-;4 =
A:: Ording to TU tiectric's f;1:ng, Ca:un res.cnded c ';
- ndicating that it was interested in discuss.ng the sa.e c:
capacity and energy to TU E' ectr;c.
11 Representat.ves of Cajun and TU Electric met en February 25,
'. 9 9 2, to diacuss capacity sales in Texas.
Further, under a sect;cn entitled ' Communications Related t o CC Asynchronous Connec :.ons", TU Electric discusses, l
m n 11.u, the attempts by it and the other East DC T '. e owners to defer the completion date of the East DC Tle, and Ca]un's pleadings at FERC related to that request.
Ld. at 35-2B.
TU Electr;c states that Ca]un's plead ngs, while not oppestng :.e East OC T:e owner.3' joint request for an extension of time to complete the East DC Ite, did indicate two coticerns about the extenston, namely: (1) the 500 MW maximum sy:1 tem load criter;on
. I to be a qualifylt.g utility eligible to reserve transmission service utill:1ng the East DC Tle, since Cajun has a peak load
.n excess of 500 MW; and (2) the procedures by which other entitles, 1.nc lud i ng Co,lun, may become participants in the East DC Tle.
Tu-Blectric indicates that the FERC, in ita Deceraber s
~
6th Order, granted in part the petitioners' caqu e s t for an extension of time.
See 57 FERC at 62,020-31.
TU indicates that the FERC also rtated in Ltc order that Cajun concerns about b
I 4
I
FERC proceeding, and reccmmended that Ca;un file a ecmplatnt.:
it felt the FERC's prior orders were not cetng preperly Is implemented.
.l On February 14,
'792, tn.s Connission :ss ed a not;;e cf rece:pt of the TU E.'.e:::;
ant; trust informat; n,
a r. d establ:.shed 30 days from tne F.ctice as the time for tne fi..n; Ccmments.
- . C O M S'I N T S
).
g_-
While Ca;un did r.ot cppose the Petitioners request :. a FERC for an extension of t;me to complete the East OC
";e, Ca:un has cencerns about the delays that. ave occurred in ne completion of the seccnd OC Tie between the ERCCT and SWPP regtons, L_L, the East DC T:.e.
Ca;un notes that the first OC Tie ( LL, the North DC Tie) was completed in 1984.
Tne operation of the North DC T:.e, wh :. c h is limited currently te..;
MW, apparently allowed CSW to demonstrate to the SEC that it
.z a s
-I -
an integrated electric system within tne meaning of the Public Utility Holding Company Act.
See " Memorandum and order I
Terminating Proceeding," issued on April 1,
1982, SEC File No.
3-S 4951.
Ca]un is concerned,that the original impetus to greater interconnecticns between ERCOT and SWiP has been stymied.
The record shows that the second DC Tie has exper:.enced continuing delaya.
Since September 1989, when the most recent antitrust review by Commission Staff was conducted, the date of the full 600 MW completion of the East DC Tie has been extended to 1998 (with 300 MW to be completed in 1995).
In this regard, Ca]un notes that the FERC rejected the Petitioners' request that I
I
the East DC Tie could be delayed even beycnd August 1993 due t:
' reasonable contingencies.'
ing rERC's December 6th Order, 57 FERC a 62,030, and page 4,
12:11 Ca;un is interested in the
[
- re.; : rplet; n of the East DC Tie.
4:reever, Ca;un is concerned accut the requ;re.ent nat entit es qualif;ed to reserve transmtsston serv :e ever tne DC T;ea ne limited to ent: ties with a peak lead of less tnan 500 NW i
3
- g inn T'J Electric P: ling a-17 Cajun ta a generattan and E
transmission cocperative with thirteen Members, and is the y
g exclusive power suppiter for eacn of 1 *, s Members.
Each of
=
g Cs;un c Menters has a peak load under 500 Md.
In ts December l
- I 6th Order, the (ERC denied Ca3un's request to clarify Ca3un's
~
I status in that proceeding, and stated tnat Cagun should file a request for relief if Ca3un wanted a FERC order on :nat ssoe.
Ca;un has not fet filed a request for relief en its status as a qual;fying utility with the FERC.
Ca un is not at this time request:ng any relief from this Commission on this issue.
Further, Caiun is interested in the option o.e 5. I.
m
. participation in the East DC Tte as an owner, in addition to, or
-E in place of, utilittng.he reserved transmission capacity.
Ca]un g
notes that CPSES operating license conditions include the gg following requirements:
=
[-
The Applicants shall participate in and
[-
transmission between or among two or more facilitate the exchange of bulk power by catitles in the North Texas Area and any
. E Entity (ies) outside the North Texas Area E-B between whose facilities the Applicants' transmission lines, including any direct
=
current (asynchronous) transmission lines,
.I form a continuous electrical path.
B I-g If Applicants engage in ;otnt ownership of I
transmisstan lines with any other Entity they shall not refuse to engage an samtlar transactions in comparacle circumstances witn other Entities.
.I I'
Applicants shall provide other Ent ::es witn reasonable access to any future interstate Interconnection facilities wh ch Applicants may own.,
.I Antitrust License Condition for Ccmanche Peak Steam Electric Station Units 1 and 2,
55 3.D.;(1),
3.D.;(3)(a) and 3.3.2(3)(b; g
=
respect;vely.'u However, since TU Electric became a participant in the East DC Tie in 1986, no other entities have been allowed
-to become' participants, despite the fact that Ca]un has indicated, since at least July 25, 1989, that Ca]un is interested in meeting to discuss ownership.
lig Ca]un's July 25, 19s3, Repay to Solicitation offered by Petitioners, attached as I
1/
In this regard, Ca3un notes that the ;981 FERC Original Order states that:
I Other utilities in ERCOT and SWPP have an opportunity to participate in the I
construction.and ownership of the
.tnterconnections on the condition that each such party pays its pro rata share of the capital costs of constructing the
,-I interconnection in which it wishes to participate and undertakes to pay its pro rata share of-the costs of operating and maintaining the interconnection.
Furthermore, at maximum intervals of three years from June 30, 1983, to June 30, 2004,
-ll other utilities which are members of ERCOT or 3-SWPP will be given an opportuntty to participate in planning and ownership of any capacity increases in the interconnections.
.I 17 TERC at 61,169.
I I
- o.
Attachment A.
Cajun notes that a meeting among representatives of Cajun, the CSW Operating Compan es, H L ?. P and TU Electric Occurred on December 11, 1991, to explore this matter.
I Ca:un is exploring the optica of ownersn p :n :ne Eas:
OC T ;. e, and :. s nterested in develop:ng a work:na relat :nsn p w :. :.- :he East DC T:e swners.
As TU Ele: r:r states :n
'3 f;1:ng, Cajun has not f: led a c or.p l a :. n : w;;h tne FERC.
ju TU Electric filing at 33.
Cajun respectfully suggests that the Commiss:on review in this proceeding, tne opportun: les and precedures whereby interested util;.ttes may part.;cipate :n the i
East DC T:.e, pursuant to CPSES !.acense Cond:,tions Paragraphs 3.D.2(1) and (3).
These procedures shculd be clar.fted in at least two respects.
F;rst, the psrtic pation contemplated by the CPSES An t :. t ru s t Conditions should be in:ttated by any :. n t e r e s t e d ut:..';ty in the ERCOT or SWPP regions, and not merely by the Petitioners.
Second, such 'articipation should provide a forum i
for regional planning of transmtssion, with the focus on the capacity in the DC Ties.
Ca]un's comments. reflect the intent of the Commission's Orders to permit other utilities to ;sarticipate in the ownership of the East DC Tie and to increase opportunities for transfers I
between ERCOT and SWPP.
IV.
CONCLOSION WHEREFORE, for the foregoing reasons, Cajun Electric Power Cooperative, Inc., respectfully requests that the Commission consider the foregoing information in its
... consideration of whether significant changes have cecurred since the previous antitrust rev.ew and, further, clar !y the procedures under which interested ut:11ttes may participate
- 2. n ownersn:.p of :ne East OC Tie, cons; stent w;th the CPSES '.. c e n s e COnd;tL:ns.
Oated: March 25, 1992 Respectfu!.'.y submitted, e
.i f
j b_a.0. yL J a :r.e s D. Pembroke Thomas L.
Rudebusch I
Charles A.
Braun DUNCAN, WEIMBERG, MILLER
& PEMBROKE, P.C.
1615 M Street, N.W.
I Suite 800
=
Washington, D.C.
20036 (202) 467-6370 Attorneys for Ca;un Electric Power Cooperative, Inc.
..l p
<I W
n
.+
.I l
l l
I I
I I
I g
l A T T A. C H M E N T A
I I-
!I li g
g LI~
qq g
i I
- I 1
r 1
iiEPLY To LOLICITAT:CN DATE: Jyly 25 1989
- g Mr.-J<imes A. 3ruggeman J
Vice-President, System Engineering Central and Sout.h West Services, Inc.
~..
P.
O. Box 660164 Dallas, Texas 75266-0164 ll; Ca jun ' Electric Power Coop., Inc.
is interested in participating,
. pursuant-to the orders-in FERC Docket EL79-8, E-9558 and EL79-B-002, in the planning and ownership of an increase, in.t.he capacity of the-200 megawatt nominal capacity direct current asynchronous intercennection between Public Service company of Oklahema and West Texas Utilities Cc=pany at Oklaunion, Texas,
,. 3 -
g '
described in the~1etter of June 30, 1989 from Merle L.
- Sorchelt, Chairman and Chief Executive officer of Central and South West
-Se.rvices, Inc.
Cajuo will-attend a meeting of interested parties to be scheduled-by Central and South West p
Services, Inc.~and'will be represented at that meeting by B-
.; 3 ?:
Resal Craven g L- '
Please forward all further communicaticas regarding the-
. Ei me*: ins of inta *5ced P^rtie5 ^nd th* Pl^nninS f ^nY **P*nSi n to:
SB Cajun Electric Power _ Cooperative, Inc.
z P.O. Box 15540 Baton Roore. Louis iana 70895 k k... [-) E l (/ p f)
Attention of:
- t. A. Craven y.m,.
igg L l$IbOS
(
l.
r
- .. g... e..o....
f.. g4a By:
Ph1111p C. tiarris Vice Pre s id en t -Ope r a t t on s__
Title s
I UNITED STATES OF AMERICA g;
FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION 1
Central Power and Light Company
)
Public Service Company of Oklahoma
)
Docket No. elf 9-8-003 Southwestern Electric Power Company West Texas Utilities Company
)
I.
I TEX =LA ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE OF TEIAS, INC.
MOTION TO INTERVENE AND ANSWER AND PROTEST TO
" RESPONSE" OF I
CAJUN ELECTRIC POWER COOPERATIVE, INC.
[?
Pursuant to Rules 211, 213 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, Tex-La Electric Cooperative of Texas, Inc.
(" Tex-La"), on behalf of itself and its seven member distribution cooperatives, nove to intervene in the above-captioned proceeding and answers and protests the November 26, 1991 filing of Cajun Electric Power Cooperative, Inc.
(" Cajun").
Thoegh styled as-a " Response," Cajun's pleading is eithcr a late-filed protest to Petitioners'l August 21 filing requesting an extension of the schedule for installing the East High Voltage Direct current Intertie (" East HVDC tie") or a complaint affirmatively requesting a change to the settlements in EL75r-8 (Original Intertie Settlement) and EL79-8-002 (East HVDC Tin Settlement).
Whatever the nature of Cajun's " Response," the Cormission should reject it as both substantively and I
procedurally unsound.
I Petitioners include the four operating company subsiciarias oC Central and Southwest' Corporation ("CsW" and. "CSW Operating Companiss ), Houston Power & Light Company ("HL&P") and a
Texas utilities Electric Company ("TU Electric").
3 I
[
~2 All correspondence related to this proceeding should be addressed to:
A. Hewitt Rose l:
Jorden Shulte & Burchette 5/
1025 Thomas Jefferson St.,
NW Suite 400 East Washington, D.C.
20G07-0805 I.
(202) 965-8111
. Tex-La is a generation and transmission rural electric cooperative corporation organized and existing under the laws of the state of Texas.
Tex-La's seven member cooperatives own and
. operate electric diotribution systems split between the Electric Reliability Counsel of Texas ("ERCOT") and the Southwest Power Pool. ("SWPPa) all within the state of Texas.
The member cooperatives purchase all or part of their power requirements from Tex-La'and resell that power at retail to their respective
.custonera.
Tex-La's member coopers.tives are as follows:
. Cherokee County Electric Cooperative Association Deep East-Texas Electric Cooperative, Inc.
Lg
. Houston. County Electric: Cooperative, Inc.
g.
Jasper-Newton Electric Cooperative,-Inc.
. Rusk County Electric Cooperative, Inc.
Sam Houston Electric Cooperative, Inc.
Wood County Electric Cooperative, Inc.
Tex-La's ERCOT load is located on the eastern edge of TU Electric's load' control area, whilt its SWPP load is with the load control areas of Southwestern Electric Power Corporation and Gulf States Utilities.
Tex-La has bean an active participant in the intertie dockets and is a " qualified utility" under the original Intertie Settlement.
T<.x-La is studying the purchase of wg y
p,
- a portion of the East INDC intertie so that it can import power purchased from SWPP utilities, such as Cajun, over the tie to serve Tex-La ERCOT load.
I.
BACKGROUND
-g E
Cajun requests the Commission to either (1) delete the Original'Intertie Settlement provision setting aside a 15%
I; reserved portion of the interties for certain small ERCOT and SWPP utilities
(" qualified utilities") or (2) add Cajun to the list of qualified utilities.
Cajun misreads the purposo and terms of the Original Intertie Settlement and forgets its earlier support for that settlement.
The Original Intertie Settlement grew out of the attempt of the CSW to interconnect its two SWPP operating companies with its two ERCOT operating companies.
See cenerally Thorpe,
, Electric Rance War in Texas:
A Case Study in f_ederal-State Rate Reculation, 48 Geo. Wash. L. Rev. 392 (1980).
On June 9,
- 1980, 2 and'HL&P reached a CSW, the Texas Utilities operating-companies settlement substituting two, asynchronous :HVDC interties for. four synchronous, alternating current ("AC") interties originally proposed by CSW.
The Commission Staff opposed the settlement on grounds, among ethars, that, compared to the full interconnection of four AC interties, two-HVDC interties constrained regional competition 2
In 1980 TU Electric consisted'of three operating company subsidiaries which later merged into TU Electric as separate divisions.
- 3 I
~
I i
4-to the detriment of smaller utilities.
To overcome Staff's objections, on September 11, 1980 CSW, TU Electric and HL&P agreed to file a supplemental offer of settlement whien included the provision to reserve 15% of the capacity cf the ties for use by small utilities.
This agreement, termed the " Cameron Letter,"
I is attached in Appendix A and was part of the October 8, 1981 Supplemental Offer of Settlement filed by Petitioners in EL79-8.
Section (3) of the Cameron Letter, which seeks to assure intertie access to small utilities, became Ordering paragraphs 10(b) and (c) of the Order Approving Settlement in EL79-8.
Cajun supported this order.
Attachment B attached.
Tex-La, as a result of a settlement with 17J Electric, agreed not to oppose the settlement.
The Commission approved the Original Intorties Settlement in Central Power & Licht Co.,
17 FERC 1 61,076 (1981),
I corrected, Errata Notice (November 5, 1981) (unpublished),
clarified on rehearing, 18 FERC 1 61,100 (1982).
When the Petitioners' sought to substitute a 600 MW East HVDC intertie for the origine.lly ordered 500 Mil Scuth HVDC intertie,_several qualified utilities took to the opportunity to fix an oversight in the Original Interties Settlement.
They established a procedure to allocate reserved capacity among qualified utilities-should the requests to use and/or purchase reserved capacity excesd the amount available, ordsring para-graph (G) (5) of Central Power & Licht Co.,
40 FERC 1 61,077 (1987) (Order approving East HVDC tie settlement).
Key to this
.g I
I
L I '
procedure was a definito period for solicitations oc that a pro rate sharing, if necessary, could be determined.
Cajun did not intervene in the proceeding.
Tex-La did intervene, but withdrew pursuant to another settlement with TU Electric.
I II.
CAJUN'S RESPONSE IS SUBSTANTIVELY U?!8OUND.
A.
Eliminating the Category of Qualified Utilities.
^
Cajun's first alternative request -delete the qualified utility right to purchase a portion of the East HVDC intertie--
gains Cajun nothing more than it already has, cajun, just as any utill'ty, can purchase a portion of the East HVDC intertie from any current owner willing to sell.
ordering Paragraph (5), order Approving Settlement in EL79-8 (Ovnership of intertie capacity is transferable).
If Cajun wishes to sell-coordination power to TU Electric, then it can approach TU Electric about selling a portion of TU Electric's 100 MW share of the tie.
If Cajun wishes to sell power to a small utility in ERCOT, such as Tex-La, then either~ Cajun or_the buyer can purchase a portion of the tie to make the sale possible.
Eliminating the accacs right of small utilities to intertie capacity does nothing to enhance Cajun's
.I option to buy intertie capacity.
Indeed, Cajun's proposal limits access to the tie.
At least some' utilities, many_of whom are potential buyers of Cajun power, have a right to use the East HVDC intertie.
Eliminate that right and the sales. market of all SWPP sell is confined to the intertie I
I
I
. access it or its buyer can negotiate with the intertie owne'.s.
For example, Cajun's proposal would make it m2r_q difficult and probably more expensive for Cajun to sell power to Tex-La over the intertie.
Cajun, which supported the Original Intertie Settlement, new asserts that the Qualified Utility right to purchase reserve capacity "no longer serves any legitimate purpose."
This is exactly wrong.
Intertie access rights are C2Le important now than ever before.
Since late 1984, ERCOT and SWPP have been interconnected only by a 200 MW North HVDC intertie.
Small utilities have not been interested in using the 30 MW of reserved North tie capacity because of its expense and its location.
The 600 MW East HVDC intertie, to be built in phases beginning by August 1995, is a different story.
Due to its increase size and improvements in technology, the current estimate of the cost per MW of the 90 MW of East tie capacity is considerably lower than I
for the North tie.
Moreover the East tie's location, terminating in the general area of Tex-La's loads, is ideal for Tex-La.
To deny small utility access now, just when it is worth something, would be contrary to all the Commission Staff sought to accomplish with paragraph (3) of the cameron 14tter.
'I-B.
Adding Cajun to the List of Qualified Utilities.
Cajun's second alternative request --make Cajun a Qualified Utility-would change the Settlement without justification to the disadvantage of all ciualified utilities.
The EL79-8 qualified utilities are a limited class for a reason.
If any utility, I
I
regardless of size, had a right to purchase the resetsed portion of intertie capacity, then that right would have little value.
The set of potential bidders for reserved capacity would be unlimited and unknowable.
Given ordering paragraph (G)(5) of the East HVDC interti final order, all requests for capacity would reduce, pro-rata, the amount of reserved capacity available to an equally unlimited and unknovable extent.
I Cajun is now proposing to change a settlement it early supported so that it can receive a benefit of the Settlement it did not bargain for.
Cajun offers no explained policy basis for unilateral.1y adding itself to the list of qualified utilities.
Cajun alleges no changed circumstances.
Unless cajun can show (1) changed circumstances adversely affecting Cajun, and (2) a change in the original Intertie Settlement vould be in the public
.I interest, it should not be heard to protest that settlement now.
Allowing a unilateral change to a Commission-approved settlement is contrary to Commicsion policy favoring settlements.
El Paso Eeural Gas Co.,
26 FERC 1 61,016 (1984),
III. CAJUM'8 RESP 0MBE IE PROCEDURALLY UN8OUND f
A.
Late-Filed Protest The Commission's August 23, 1991 " Notice of Filing" ntated that all " protests should be filed on or before September 6, 1991."
Cajun intervened on September 5, but did not orotest the filins.
Cajun's Novamber 26 filing can be considered nothing than a protest filed more than two and a half months out of time.
I.
.O I
I Cajun offers not a word of explanation for its untinely filing.
The Commission has rejected unjustified, late-filed protests in the past and should do so here.
Equthern Natural Gas Co.,
53 FERC 1 61,469 (1990) ("Since the protest was out-of-time, and since no basis was provided for that protest, Blue Circle's protest is also denied."): Wagtern Gas Interstate Co.,
20 FERC 1 61,112 (1902).
Cajun's argument in footnote 2 of its pleading that it is entitled to respond to the Petitioners' filing of a proposed g
" Order Granting Petition" pursuant to rule 202 is a transparent evasion.
The proposed " order Granting Petition" adds nothing new to the original filing.
All of Cajun's arguments could have been made by the September 6 due date.
B.
Improper Complaint.
Cajun's " Response" raises new issues that are unrelatea to the Petitioners' filing.
Cajun explicitly does not protest the specific action requested by the Petitioners.
Instead, Cajun uses the docket heading to file what can be considered a complaint, making a new and independent argument for the Commission to reform the settlements.
Tne commission has properly condemned ouch procedural maneuvers before:
a-g (A) complaint cannot be submitted as an integral part I
of a protest and motion to intervene in an ongoing proceeding; it does not allow interested parties sufficient notice of the complaint because it is not formally docketed and noticed.
I I
I
I I Louisiana Power & Licht Co.,
50 FERC 1 61,040 (1990).
See also f
Indiana Michioan Power Co.,
51 FERC 1 61,191 (1990); Enterov Services, Inc., 52 FERC 1 61,317 (3%.
rne Co.nmission should reject Cajun's filing on these grounds.
IV.
TEZ-I.A'8 INTERVENTION Tex-La did not intervene in the August 22, 1991 filing by Petitioners, nor file any comments in response to Petitioners' Movember 6 proposed " Order Granting Petition."
Tex-La intervenes
~
now only to protest the new issues raised by Cajun's November 26 filing.
No disruption or delay should occur in these proceed-ings, since na hearing has been scheduled.
No party would be prejudiced or unduly burdened by Tex-La's intervention.
Tex-La's interests ca'not he adequately represented by any other party.
WHEREFORE, Tex-La requests the Commission to reject Cajun's request to alter the original Interties Settlement and the East HVDC Tie Settlement.
Respectfully submitted a /WAv I
A. Hewitt Rose Jorden Shulte & Burchette I
1025 Thomas Jefferson St.,
NW Suite 400 East Washington, D.C.
20007-0805 0
(202) 965-8111 December'11, 1991 r emumac I
I I
15
A;;enu x A Septecher 11, 1980 John A. Cameren. Jr., Erg.
Federal Energy Regulatory commission 82S North Capitol Street, N.E.
~I Room 8712 Washington, D.C.
2t426
Dear Mr. Cameron:
In order to avoid any possible misunderstandings, we I
wish to confim our understanding of the FERC Staff's settle-ment demands in Docket No. EL79-8.
The TERC Staff will, on the date set for filing comments, l.
affirmatively support the offer of Set *le:ent tendered by Central and South West Corporation (CSW). et al., in Cocket No. EL79-8, dated July 28,_1980,-(herein " Offer of Settlement")
I and withdraw the proposed Transmission Service Settlement Agreement sent out under your cover letter of July 3, 1980, if the following modifications are made to the offer of settlement by CSW, Texas Utilities Company (TU), and Ecuston I
Lighting & Power Company (HL&2).
EcVever, it is understood that no provision of the offer of Settlement, as modified, shall be construed to affect the. rights or obligations of I-
- the TERC Staff or any party hereto in any future proceed:.ngs at theLTERC, to investigate or contest any rate filing made pursuant to the following paragraphs.
The TERC Staff makes it clear that this letter is without prejudice to any TERC Staff request that additional relief be ordered in Docket No.-EL79-8-against electric utilities other than CSW, TU and HL&P.
.I;
" System" as-used herein means, respectively, (a) HL&P, (b) all TU' operating companies, (c) CSW operating companies
.l
operating companies in the Southwest Power Pool (SWTP).
in the Electric Reliability Council of Texas (ERCOT), (d) CSW E-
<1)
Rates and service shall he determined frem tine to
'm
' time in accordance.with the procedures of Sections 205 and 206 of the Federal Pcwer Act, whether or not othezvise applic-able, by virtue of agreement of the parties pursuant to Section I;
y I
C i
-Is
211(d)(3 ) of tho Fedoral Pcwer Act, as amondod.
Each System agrees to file rates with the FIRC, deemed to be rate increase I
filings pursuant to section 205(e) of the Federal Pcwer Act, for whee.ing power to, from, and over the p cpesed direct current (DC) Interconnecti n facilit:.es wh:.:h will:
(a) roll in each System's alternating current
( AC) and DC transmission costs, if any, with the result that any utility using any System's AC'or CC lines, or both, for wheeling power in interstate ecc=erce will pay a rate des:,gned to recove: all costs and a re.sonable return on both the AC and DC investment and related I
operating costs; (b) be the same for *2at System regardless of I
whether the interstate move =ent ec=es over the North or the South interconnection; (c) be the same for that System regardless cf the distance involved of the actual transmission over that System's lines;
(:1) or may, distinguish between types of service (e.g. economy, interruptible, firm) and letgth of service (e.g. short term to multiyear);
(e) be filed at the FERC at least one year before the DC lines go into operation, undar the terms and conditions in paragraph 13 of the I-proposed order contained in the offer of Settlement, which means that the initial rate will. en into effect subject to refund, if the l
-Commiimion orders a hearing on the rates:
1 (f) not include rates for wheelin; of power solely within ERCCT-TIS which does not involve
. I the proposed DC interconnection.
within three months of a final FERC order in Docket No. EL79-8 no longer subject to judicial review, a proposed wheeling tariff, to be I
collected subject to refund, applicable to wheeling within ERCOT-TIS for utilities in ERCOT with less than 1500 Mw load, consistent with this paragraph (1) and with paragraph I.
(2),.below; g ;
I (g) bo designed by each System to recover all of its costs and a reasonable return for t..e use of its AC and CC f acilities; (h) be a single rate for each type of service over the n! Systom's cochined transmission facilities, the CSW EACOT System's combined transmission facilities, and the CSW %7P System's combined transmission facilities.
Thus, a wheeling customer wculd pay a single rate to each such System for a
- ansaction utilizing all or any part of the combined transmissien facilities of the TU system, the I.
CSW ERCCT System, and the C5W SVPP System, respectively.
faa single rates will be bssed g
upon the transa..sion costs per kw of system
'g load for each company within the TU System, the CSW ERCOT System and the CSW SW7P system, respectively, which costs shall be multiplied.
I by the ratio of pcwer flow over each such ccmpany's transmission system to the power flow over all or any part of the combined transmission facilities of the respective a
g.
System, such flows being determined by a composite of typical wheeling transactions over the respective systems.
The single rate
-E for each System shall then be determined by E
adding together the resulting weighted trans-mission costs for each company within that W
System (as calculated per the preceding g
sentence), to which appropriate transmission l
losses shall be added; l
(i) be in lieu of any " contract path" or similar i
theory for determining which utility or utilities within ERCOT-TIS are entitled to be (E
paid for wheeling.
The method for determining
. E the amount of kilowatts or kilowatthours for l
L billing purposes shall be the calculated load
- a flow through each Systan with and without the
'E Proposed wheelins usis9 the TIS ce=puter l
programs and data basc., as revised frca time to time to reflect current and projected t
systems.
Whenever any System is repested to i
wheel power, such System will provide.a load flow analysis at cost within two working days l E of the request or upon payment of costs,
- E whichever is later. '(It is all systema' belief that a single load flow study would suffice for all potentially affected companies lN, g
}, V
in ERCCT-TIS, sinco the data baso is co=non L
and coordianted regularly with a.11 relevan systems.); and (j) provide for interstate economy interchange and emergency power transnissi:n service, which may be requested on an hour-t.o-hour basis, in acccrdance with good utility prac-tice in the area.
I (2)
Whenever any System has been requssted to wheel, it will respond with an answer to the request (including an explanation of any den:.a1 of service) as follows (dating
.I fro = the completion of the load flow study for wheeling within ERCCT-TIS, or from the date of a r6 quest for wheeling by C5W SWPP):
(a) for transmission service lasting for one or more years, within thirty days, or tha first working day after thirty calenda: days; and (b) for transmission service lasting for less than one year, within two worka.ng days.
l'
.(3)
As part of their respective wheeling rates filed pursuant to paragraphs (1) and ( B ), HIAP and CSW will each reserve 15% of the capacity in their respective DC intercon-J nection facilities for firm power wheeling (herein "the reservation") pursuant to the following:
(a) the reservation shall be made for utilities I
in ERCCT and SWPP having loads less than 500 MW (herein " qualified utilities");
l (b) the reservation shall continue for five years after each facility goes into commercial operation at its rated capacity.
At the end I
of the five year period, HIAP or CSW, or both, may file pursuant to the procedures set supra, as a chantp i.n service, paragraph (1),
forth in the first sentance of to delete the I
reservation for qualified utilities; (c)
C5W-e anies shall make reservation capacity availab a for firn power wheeling in each of their DC interconnection facilities, so long as there is capacity availtble-in either of thest when either of the DC interconnection
-I' facilities is out of service, C3W shall not be obligated to make reservation capacity I
f %.
'c 4
G I
asecciated with that facility available :n the other interconnection faci.'ity; (d)
"w and CSW vill solicit requests for reser-vation capacity from qualified utilities one year before the respective CC inter:ennecti:n I
facilities go into commercial operation, and at one year intervals thereafter for reservation capacity which has no*. been previously
=mitted.
I EL&P and CSW, respectively, may utill::e any unused portion cf the reservat:en capacity until a timely request for wheeling is made by a qualified utility; reservation capac: ty ray I
be used on a firm basis from year to year or less if, after notica, capacity is not con-tracted for by qualified utilities; and (e)
The reservation in this paragraph (3) is reduced by the amount of capacity purchased pursuant to paragraph (4)(a), below.
(4)(a)
Superseding paiagraph 1(f) of the Settlement Agreement (Attachment 1 in the offer of Settlement filed in Docket No. EL79-0 by CSW et al, dated July 28, 1980) in its entirety, the capacity reserved for qualified utilities pursuant to paragraph.(3) of this letter I
agreement will be available for purchase by qualified utilities at-the depreciated oriqinal cost thereof, until either (1) the reservation l
of capacity has been terminated or (2) the opportunity to participate in ownersnip of additional DC capacity to be installed has I
been tendered as set forth below, whichever comes first.
Purchase of reservation capacity by qualified utilities in the South intercon-nection shall be on a pro rata basis from I
both CSV and RI1,P un. lass EL&P and CSW otherwise agree; l
(b)
Whenever planning is undertA' gen to increase the capacity of the Interconnections, but at intervals of no more than every three years I-after June 30, 1983, until June 30, 2004, electric utilities in ERCOT and SWPP will be given the opportunity to participate in the pisnning of increases in the capacity of the I
Interconnections and of participating in the ownership of any incremental capacity added, I
I w
g
-s-l I
I providad again that each party that wishes to participata pays its pro rata share of the capital costs of cons.ructing the Interconnec.
I tion which it wishes to part:,cipate in and underts es to pay its pro rata share of.he costs (J. operating and maintaining that Interconnection and agrees further to be i
bound by the terns and condit:.cns of the f
Agreement between Cvners of the Interconnec-i, tions; and (c)
This understanding is without prejudice to the right of either CSW er RL&P to sell CC capacity wh.ich is not sub]ect to paragraph (3).
(5) contingent upon the issuanca of any crder by a court orThe i:.xc I
other regulatory agency.
the FF.RC proceedings in the eventHowever, some mechanism to reopen
- forums, that orders in other No. 3-4951, cannot be obtained, including, but not limited to, SEC Admin. P is acceptable.
(6) periodic reports on the progress of construction and com-Recog I
pliance with environmental requirements, not affecting the 3
substance of the order, will be includad.
l (7)
Subject to reasonable contingencies, possible delays under paragraph (6) supra and force majeure.
such as CSW Imd HL&? vill commit to cause the DC capacity to bein I
final TERC order, no longer subject to judicial review.
is understood that. EL&P's ccmmitnent and CSV's commitnent It are several, not joint.
(B)
The CSW SWPP operating companies shall file the single rate for wheeling within SWPP, as provided in paragraph I
1(b) for utilities in SWPP with less than 1500 Mw load, with:.n three months of a final FERC order in Docket No. EL79-8, no longer subject to judicial review.
I nubject to refund, if the Commission so orders.It shall go into effect single rata filing shall be consistent with subparagraphs 1(a),
The CSW s'GP (c), (d), ( ) and (h, and with paragraph (2).
The croposed
- , led purs)uant to this paragraph (8) shall not I
rate to be apply to existing agreements for wheeling or puchase and res:.le service which either PSC or SWEPCO may have with other utilities.
I g
y
~6-1
... ~.
If you will confirm this Staff setticmont scand by exscuting a co y of this letter belew, the undersigned j-I counsel, each eing duly authorized to do so by has respec-j-
- we client, accept your settlament demand.
i By our respcetive sigr.atures we all re resent that ths lettar, together with the offer of Sett.exent previously 1
filed in this doce,t, constitutes the final settlement between the TERC Staff, C5V, 'tTJ, and EL&P.
i L
17
'o se? for*
~
i" Ecusteti Lighting & Power Ccapany
- 5fd Y yh l
I' Co'.uwW1 f o r Texas Utelities ccmpany and the i
Operating Companies thereos
'00'k t
!E M Osel for /
~~~
E Central & south west Corporation and the operating Companies
'I
- t. hereof Conft..ned:
x\\
G k;
i o unsel rir,we r
r RC St4ff I
i L
umd.
f A A y
g
.c s t.u I
N VI h g l
L i
=-
_g UNITED STATES OF AMERICA i. I
. \\.
FEDEKAL ENERGY 0200LATORY COMMISSION Central Pcwer & Light Company
)
Public Service Ccmpany of Oklahoma
)
Southwestern Electric Power Company
)
Docket No. EL79-9 I
West Texas Utilitius Company
)
REPLY COMMENTS OF CAJUN E?.ECTRIC POWER T
CO OP, WESTERN PXRMERS'fD H h1C COOPEPEf!VE, KAtiO ETE.CTRIC COOPERATIVE, INC., AND GRAND ~TNER DAM AUTHORITY TO INITI AL COMMENTS j'
Of TN5TS. DEPARTMJNT of JURICE OtITHE RcLTIT5s N
0F THE M4ESIDING ADMIOlSTRATIVE LAW JLi'DE The Cajun Electric Power Co-op, Western Farmers Elect;ric Cooperative, F#10 Electric Cooperative, Inc.
and the Grand, River Dam Authority hereby file a reply to the Initial comments of the Department of Justice filed herein an February 20, 1981, 1.
The undersigned attorney, for and on behalf of, Cajun Electric Power Co-op, Western Farmers Electric Cooperativ KAMO Electric Cooperative, Inc., and the Grand River Dam Authority has reviewed the comments of the presiding judge's order of January 28, 1981, filed in this proceeding on February 20, 1981, by the Department of Justice, the Central
[I and Southwest companies, the Texas Utilities Companies, Houston Lighting and Pever Compt.ny and the federal Energy Regulatory Commission staff.
2..
the Cajun Electric Power Co-op, Western Farmers Electric Cooperat.ive, KAMO Electric Cooperative, Inc., and the Grand River Dam Authority concur in the positions taken
~1e l
lI
by the Ccntral end Southwest Companies, the Texas Utilities Companies, Houston Lighting and Power Company and the Federal Energy Replatory Commission staf f in favoring approval of thr, offor of settlement without a hearing on the issues
~
raised by the Department of Justice.
-3.
It is believed that the public interest would best be served if the litigation which is pending before this and other forums is settled, se expediticusly as possible, I
pursuant to the terms of what appears to be a fair and reasonable offer of settlement.
4.
The Cajun Electric Power Co-op, Western Farmers Electric Cooperk tve, KAMO Electric Cooperative, Inc.,
and the Grand River Dam Authority believe that the compati-tive advantages which the Department of Justice allege would result from the AC interconnection are not sufficient to delay this Commission's approval of the vifer of SettJe-ment.
5.
The Cajun Electric Power Co-op, Western Farmers Electric Cooperative, KAMO Electric Cooperative, Inc.,
and the Grand River Dam Authority therefore submits that this Commission should find that the Offer of Settlement is unt;ontested and should be approved as being in the I.
public interests.
Respectfully submitted, I
BY
.g Jay M. Galt g
LOONEY, NICHOLS, JoliNSON
& HAYES 219 Couch Drive I
Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73102 Attorneys for Petitioners,
John Schwab P. O. Bott 3036 I
Baton Rouge, LA 70821 Attorney for Cajun Electric Power Co-op I
Robert W. Sullivan General Counsel Grand River Dam Authority Drawer G Vinita, Oklahoma 74301 CERTIFICATE OF SERV %CE I hereby certify that I have this day served by mail the foregoing document upon each person designated on the offled.a1,:ervice list compiled by the Secretary in this proceeding in accordance uith the requirements of $1.17 of the Rules of Practice and Procedure.
(
I Dated at Oklahoma City, Oklahoma this 25th day of Febrilary, 1981.
Jay M. Galt
\\ I
. I I
I
~
I I
I I
I
~
L CEllTIFICATE OF SE' VICE d
o I r areby cart ify that I have this day served the f oregoing docuoant upon each person designated on the official service list compiled by the Secretary in this proceeding.
I Dated this /IN day of bcG*d>do 19 II.
I l
/ AMA-A. Hewitt Rose Jorden Shulte & Burchette 10 T
as Jefferson St., NW Washington, D.C.
20007-0805 (202) 965-8111
i'I 318817
~
I UNITED STATES OF AMERICA TEDERAL ENT.RGY REGULATORY COMMISSION
~
ELECTRIC RATES: Cett1ement I
Before Com=1ssioners:
Martha 0.
Hesse, Chairman:
Anthony G.
Sousa, Charles G.
Stalon Charles A. Trabandt and C.
M.
Haeve Central Power and Light company,
)
Public Service Company of Oklahama,
)
Docket No. EL79-E-002 Southwestern Electric Power company,
)
West Texas Utilities Company
)
ORDER APPROVING SETrlIMENT (Issued July 23, 1987)
I or June 10, 1987, Central Vover and Light Company (" CPL"),
Public Service Company of Oklahoma ("pS0"), Southwestern Electric Comparty ("SWEPC0"), West Texas Utilities Company ("WTU") (collec-I tively, the "CSW Operating Companies"). Houston Lighting & Power Company ("HL&P") and Texas Utilities Electric Company ("TU Electric"), pursuant to section 385.602 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, filed an Offer of Sett.tement with the I
Commission for its consideration and approval.
By this Order, we adopt and approve the offer of Settlement I-and order the relief requested therein and in the Petition filed on May 1, 1986, by the CSW Operating companies and ML&P, EL79-8 modifying the prior Orders of the Commist, ion in Docket No.
to the sxtent sJt forth herein.
Baekcround By its Order issued in Docket Nos. EL79-8 and E-9558 on October 28, 1981, as corrected by the Errata Hotice issued November 5, If81, 17 TERC 1 61,076, and its Order on Rehearing issued January 29, 1982, 18 FERC 1 61,100, incorporating by reference the form of " order Approving Settlement" submitted with the Second Supplemental offer of settlement in such proceeding (the " Original orders"), the Commission, among other tnings, I
approved a settlement requiring the construction of two asynchronous direct current interconnections between electric utilities in the Electric Feliability Council of Texas ("ERCOT")
and electric utilities in the Southwest Power Pool ("SWPP").
The I
original orders also required the provision of transmission fl I
Docket No. EL79-8-002 2-E se rvice for wheeling power to, from and over the f.nt e r c enne c t : en s E
by the CSW operating Companies, HL&P and the electric utility operating companies of Texas Utilition Company, to which TU 7,lectric is the successor.
The original orders specifically regaired the CSW Operat;ng Companies and HL&P to " construct or cause to be constructed the I
necessary f acilities to ef fect the interconnectienc as descrited in or consistent with the settlement agreement."
The settlement agra.1 ment and the original Orders described two interconnectionn-(1) an asynchronous direct CUrtent interconnection between P50 I
system f acilities near Lavton, Oklahoma and WTU system f acilities near Oklaunion, Texas, having an initial nominal capacity of :00 nw ( the " North Interconnection"), to be constructed by the Csw I
operating Companies; and (2) an asynchronous direct current interconnection between the CSW Operating Companies in Walker County, Texas and the South Texts Project (the " South Interconnection"), having on initial nominal capacity of 500 Mi.,
I to te constructed by the CSW operating Companies and !'L&P (the North Interconnection and the South Interconnection being referred to herein jointly as the " Interconnections ).
r The Sorth Interconnection was placed in service on Cecenter 14, 1984.
Paragraph (10) (c) (ii) of the " Order Approving Settlement" incorporated by reference in the TERC's order issued I
Jan.uary 29, 1982, provides that whenever planning is undertaken to increase the capscity of the Interconnections, but at intervals of no more than every three years af ter June 30, 1983, I
until June 30, 2004, electric utilities in ERCOT and SWPP Vill be given the opportunity to participate in the planning of increases in the capacity of the Interconnections and of participating in the ownership of any incremental capacity added, provided certain I
conditions are met.
Having cceplied with this prevision in 1986 by of fering participation to ERCOT and SWPP electric utilities, the CSW operating Companies entered into an agreement to permit g
the expansion of the North Interconnection from a nominal g
capacity of 200 MW to a nominal capacity of 300 MW.
The 100 MW of expanded capacity would be owned by the City of Austin, Texas.
Cn Tobruary 18, 1983, CPL, SWEPCO and HI&P filed with the Public Utility Commission of Texas ("TPUC") an application for the issuance of a certificate of convenience and necessity for the construction and operation of the South Interconnection.
Because of continuing litigation regarding the application for certification and attendant delays in the' certification, construction and operation of the South Interconnection, on May I
1, 1986, the CSW Operating Companies and HL&P filed a Petition with the Commission proposing that the South Interconnection be relocated.
Specifically, petitioners requested that original
'I orders be modified so as to (a) require construction of direct current terminals and such associated alternating current
.:I-I I
e I
Docket No. EL79-8-002
-3 transmission facilities es are necessary to effect an asynchronous direct current interconnection between SWEPco's I
Welsh generating station and TU Electric's Monticello generating station (hereinbelow deffned as the " East Interconnection"): (b) require the CSW Operating companies, HL&P and TU Electric to I
interconnect with each other at the East Interconnections (c) require such ovnership of the East Interconnection by the CCW operating companies, HL&P and others, and such wheeling, coordination, commingling, sale and exchange of electric power I
from and over the East Interconnection or within the State of to, Texas as may facilitate its user and (d) relieve the CSW Operating Companies and HL&P from their obligation to construct I
and operate the South Interconnection upon construction of the East Interconnection.
The State of Texas and the TPUC ir'ervened, and while I
reserving their jurisdiction and authonty regarding the need for and issuanco of a certificate of public convenience and necessity for construction of the East Interconnection, do not oppose the offer of Settlement or podification of the original Orders as requested by Petitioners and recognize that the original orders and the proposed modification thereof preclude any consideration E
by the TPUC of the adequacy of existing service and the need for E
additional service.
Ail. other parties, while rest.rving their respective
'I positions in the event the commission rejects or modifies thee offer of settlement, have either affirmatively joined in the proposal or announced their intention to accept the proposed order without appeal.
Ibe offer of sottienent
'I The offer of Settlement would resolve all matters at issue in this proceeding.
The offer of Settlement provides, as an alternative to cormtruction of the South Interconnection, for the construction of an interconnection at a sita in east Texas between SWIPeo's Welsh generating station and TU Electric's Monticello generating station, both located in Titus county, Texas, with an initial nominal capacity of 600 MW (the " East I
Interconnection"), and for the construction, operation, ovnership and use therect by the CSW Operating companies, EL&P and TU Electric.
The offer of Settlement further provides that the North Interconnection may be expanded to a noninal capacity of I-.
300-MW.
The East Interconnection is to consist of the following I.
facilities (1) a 345 kV AC switchyard facility at the TU Electric Monticello generating station necessary for the inter-connection of the TU Electric AC electric system with the Welsh-Monticello Line (the "Monticello Switchyard Facility") ; (2) the I
I
Docket No. E L7 9-8 -0 02
-4
" Welsh-Monticello Line," which is a 345 kV AC trans=1ssion line between the Monticello Switchyard Facility and the HVDC Terminal; I
(3) the "HVDC Terminal," consisting of high voltage direct current back-to-back converters and related facilities and the land on which it is located; and (4) a 345 kv AC switchyard I
facility at the SWEPCO Welsh generating station necessary for tne interconnection of the SWEPCO AC electric system with the HVDC Terminal (the " Welsh Switchyard Facility").
The offer of Settlement provides that the foregoing facilities are to be owned as follows:
(1) the Monticello switchyard racility by TU Electric: (2) the Welsh-Honticello Line by SWEPCO: (3) the HVDC Terminal by CPL, SWEPCO, HL&P and TU Electric (the " Participants") in accordance with the ratio of their respective ownership interests set forth below to the total HVDC Terminal nominal capacity of 600 megawatts:
150 nominal megawatts CPL 150 nominal megawatts SWEPCO 200 nominal megswatts HL&P 100 nominal magavatts TU Electric
(
and (4) 'the Welsh Switchyard racilities by SWEPCO.
I
. Notwithstanding the separate ownership of certain of the facilities comprising the East Interconnection, all of such f acilities are to be exclusively dedicated to the trans=ission of electric energy to, from and over the East Interconnection pursuant to the provisions of this order.
I The Participants shall compensate SWEPCO, as the owner of the Welsh-Monticello Line and the Welsh Switchyard racilities, and TU Electric, as the owner of the Monticello Switchyard Facility, for use cf such f acilities by an annual f acility charge sufficient to compensate SWEPCO and TU Electric for their costs, including a reasonable return on investment.
I giscussion As proposed by the offer of Settlement, the construction of the East Interconnection vill enable the parties.to give effect to the Commission's original Orders, consistent with the i
objectives of the Commission's original orders.
In this regard, the opportunity afforded for electric utilities in ERCOT and SWPF t
l-g to participate at this time in the ownership of the East
'E Interconnection approved herein satisfies the undertaking in the
~~
original orders to first offer such opportunity with respect to the South Interconnection within three years after June 30, 1983.
I Notwithstanding this opportunity, nothing herein is to be I
lI
318b21 g
3 Docket No. EL79-8-002 construed to terminate capacity reserved for qualified utilities I
in the East Interconnection, except ss limited by the provisions of Paragraph (10) (c) (1) of the original orders.
The offer of Settlement, which provides for the interconnec-I tion of the CSW Operating Companies in ERCOT with those in the SWPP and for the interconnection of HL&p and TU Electric in ERCOT with the SWPp pursuant to sections 210 and 212 of the Federal Power Act, as amended.(the "Act"), is consistent with the objec-I tives of the commission's original orders and preserves the rights set out therein.
The commission has jurisdiction to issue the order requested under sections 201(b) (2), 210, 211 and 212 of the Act.
This order, which modifie.s in part the original orders issued in Docket No. EL79-8, is consistent with and supported by the I
findings of the original orders and the supporting evidence adduced herein The Commission has reviewed the engineering reports submitted by the Participants, and investigated the inter-connections proposed in the offer of Settlement, in order to determiner whether they are in the public interest. 1/
Pu rsuant I
to sections 210 and 211(a) of the Act, this Order is in the public; interest, vill improve the reliability of sach electric utility system to which this order applies, and vill reasonably I
preserve existing competitive relationships.
The order vill not result in any reasonably ascertainable uncompensated economic loss for any electric utility affected by the Order, nor vill it place an undue burden on, unreasonably impair the reliability of, I
or impair the ability to render adequate service to customers of any_ electric utility affected by the order.
The commission Staff prepared an Environmental Assessment concerning the settlement proposal and concluded that the con-struction and operation of the proposed interconnections vould l E not constitute a major federal action significantly affecting the E
quality of the human environment.
The implementation of the environ = ental recommendations ordered belov vill provide adequate mitigation of the potential adverse environmental effects of the I
actions required by this order.
The Cotam is ti,gILSrders !
!I (l
1/
The Coc.=ission notes that the participants have indi-cated that transient stability studies related to the l
operation of the expanded North Interconnection vill be conducted prior to construction of the expansion of that l
interecnnection.
lI
!I
~
Dockot No. EL79-8-002 (A)
The CSW operating Cocpanies, HL&P and it Electric shall construct or cause to be constructed the necessary f acilities, as described in ordering Paragraph (E)(1) of this order, to effect a direct current asynchronous East Interconnection with a nominal I
capacity of 600 MW between SWIPCo's Welsh generating station and TU Electric's Monticello generating station.
I (B)
Consistent with the expansion provisions of the original orders, the North HVDC Interconnection may be expanded to a nominal capacity of 300 megawatts.
(C)
The CSW operating Ccupanies. HL&P and TU Electric shall interconnect With each other and with any other adjacent utility at (1) the East Interconnection, (ii) at locations which are I
presently in place end (iii) at such locations which may be mutually agreed upon by the CSW operating Companies, HL&P or TV Electric and any utility in order to permit or to facilitate the transmission, purchaae, sale, exchange, wheeling, coordination or I
commingling of electric power in interstate commerce, to, from or over such interconnections (including the North -Interconnection and the East Interconnection, being referred to herein jointly as I
the "KVDC Interconnections") or within ERCOT, by or for the CSW operating Companies, HL&P or TU Electric, or any other electric utility.
The CSW operating Companies, HL&P and TU Electric vill maintain:and use any such interconnection for any purpose, except
'I in andjduring emergencies as determined by the CSW operating Companies, HL&P or TU Electric or except when otherwise crdered by a governmental entity with putativ4 a.uthority, regardless of the source of the electric power in interstate commerce, and I
whether or not authorized or ordered by the Commission or by any other governmental authority.
However, the CSW operating companies, HL&P and TU Electric shall not be required to maintain I
any such interconnection and may each disconnect in order to assert rights under the Act if any utility or federal power marketing agency proposes or. proceeds to construct or operate a I
facility.for the transmission of electric power in interstate commerce, other.than the f acilities provided for in this order, l
vithout first obtaining an order under the provisions of sections l-210, 211 and 212 of the Act.
Unless any such interconnection is lJ a non-jurisdictional interconnection ordered by due Commissien R
under the provisions of sections 210, 211 and 212. of the Act, (i) HL&P may disconnect in the event it determines that to l
maintain any such interconnection vould affect its non-L jurisdictional status under the Act, and (11) TU Electric may disconnect in the event it determines that to maintain any suen l
interconnection would affect its non-jurisdictional status under l -
the Act.
In any event, HL&P or TU Elsetric may elect to maintain
[
any-interconnection without prejudice to its non-jurisdictional status set forth in ordering Paragraph (I).
l (D)
The CSW operating Companies, ML&P and YJ Electric shall permit-other utilities to participate in the construction and-l:
LI I
1 5.
Docket No. EL79-8-002 ownership cf the East Interconnection on the condition that each r.uch other party that wishes to participate pays 8,ts pro rata share of the costs of constructing the East Interconnection and I
undertakes to pay its pro rata share of the costs of operating and maintaining that Interconnection and agrees further to be bound by the terms and conditions of the Agreement among the neg Participants in the East Interconnection.
(E)
(1)
The East Interconnection shall consist of the 3
following facilit'es:
(a) the Monticello Svitchyard racility, R
vhien shall be owned by TU Electrict (b) the Welsh-Monticello Line, which shall be owned by SWEPCos (c) the HVOC Terminal, which shall.be owned by the Participants in accordanco with the I
ratio of their respective ovnership interests set forth below to the total HVDC Terminal nominal capacity of 600 megvatts:
150 nominal megawatte; CPL 150 nominal megawatts SWEPCo 200 neninal megawatts HL&P 100 nominal megavatts W Electric and (d).the Welsh Switchyard Facilities, which shall be owned by j
SWEPCo,. -
(2)
Notwithstanding the separate ownership of certain of the facilities comprising the East Interconnection, all of i
such facilities shall be exclusively dedicated to the trans-mission of electric energy to, from and over the East
!g Interconnect. ion and foi use by the Participants in proportion to g
their relative ownership Anterest in the HVDC Terminsi, by any qualified utility having a right to the use of the East Interconnection pursuant.to an arrangement entered into in I-accordance with the provisions of Paragraph (G)(5), or by any L
electric utility having such right pursuant to the-provisions of l;
Paragraph (H).
(3)
The Participants shall compensate SWEPCO, as the owner of the Welsh-Monticello Line and the Welsh Jvitchyard lI Facilities, and TU Electric, an the evner of the Monticello Switchyard Facility, for use of such f acilities by an annual facility charge sufficient to compensate SWEPeo and TU Electric g,
for their cost, including a reasonable return on investment.
1
'E.
Said facility charges, determined in compliance with this order, shall be-incorporated in an agreement between the owner-Parti-cipant and the user-Participants.
Such agreements t. hall
'I-unilaterally be filed by each owner-Participant from time to time with the commission, and the Commission shall review such agreements pursuant to the procedures of section 205 of the Tederal Power Act.
The first such agreements shall be-filed so I
1
.c 3185C4 Docket No. EL79-8-002
-8 as to become effective prior to the commercial operatien of the facilities.
I; (T)
Subject to the provisions of section 203 of the Federal Power Act, ownership or use of the East Interconnection or the North Interconnection, including the rights and obligations 1
established herein, may be transferred at any time without further order of the Commission.
(G)
(1)
Except as other otherVice provided in Ordering
- I Paragraphs (c)(4) and (5), and unless liraited by contract, each Participant or owner shall use and have the exclusive right to the use, for any purpose, of that HVDC Interconnection in which it has an ownership interest, to the extent of its evnership r~ I interest that HVDC Interconnection, or in the case of the East Interconnection, to the extent of its ownership interest in the HVDC Terminal.
(2)
HL&P and TU Electric shall use the HVDC Interconnections for any purpose, including the purchase, sale, exchange, wheeling, coordination, commingling or transfer of I
electric power and energy in interstate commerce, (3)
The CSW Cperating Companjes shall use the HVDC E'
Interconnections for any puzpose, including the central dispatch 5
of energy between end among the CSW Operating. Companies to
(
sinhance the economic operation of the CSW Oparating companies as
~
a single integrated and coordinated system.
(4)
Any capacity in the HVDC Interconnections which may be unused at any point in time may be used by any other E.
system in ERCOT or.SWPP upon request, subject to interruption by
.E any participant or ownsr desiring to utilize its entire capacity and -subject to payment of such rates as shall be _ adequate to recover the cost of such use of the Interconnection, and other I
terms and conditions as may be unilaterally filed by the Participant or owner from time *.o time with the commission in accordance with the procedures of Sections 205 and 206 of the
. I rederal Power Act, whether or not otherwise applicable, by virtue,
of agreement of the parties pursuant to section 211(d)(3) of the Act.
(5)
The CSW Operating Companies, HL&p and TU Electric vill each resrirve 15% of their respectiva capacity in the HVDC H
Intercennections for firn power wheeling and purchase by qualified utilities-(as that term is defined in the Commission's original orders) under - the terms, conditions and lioitations provided by the commission's original orders.
(a)
All requests for reserved capacity from qualified utilities must be accompanied by a signed binding agreement for
- I I
bD Docket tio. EL79-8-002
-9 the reservation of the capacity sought or for the purchase of such capacity.
(b)
If, in response to the annual solicitation to qualified utilities for reserved capacity, the aqqregate of I
requests to use and/or purchase such capacity exceeds the amount of unco:sitted reserved capacity, then capacity will be made available pursuant to such requests on the following basis:
(i)
Each qualified utility requesting reservation vapacity shall be entitled to con-tract for the use of, or to purchase, a E2 raAA share of the available reservation capacity based on the proportion its request bears to the total of all requests.
(ii)
The agreement signed by the requester shall provide for its cancellation or for reduction in the amount to be con-I tracted for or purchased in the event that the.equester is unable to receive as large a share of capacity as requested due to the Eg~ rata reduction set forth in subparagraph I
(b)(i) above.
If a requester finds it necessary to cancel its request as a *esult of the K2 1212 reduction, the capacity so relinquished will be divided among the I
~
' remaining requesters on a DI2 cara basis pursuant to subparagraph (b) (i) above.
(c)
Purchase of reservation capacity by qualified utilities in the East Interconnection shall be on a RI2 Enla basir, frem the CSW operating Companies, ML&P and TU Electric I
unless the CSW Cperating Companies, HL&P and TU Electric oth$rvise agree.
(6)
Whenever planning is undertaken to increase the I
capacity of the HVDC Interconnections, but at intervals of no more than every three years af ter June 30, 1986, with respect to the North Interconnection, and after June 30, 1989, with respect E
to the East Interconnection, until June 30, 2004, electric p
utilities in ERCOT and SWpP shall be given the opportunity to p.srticipate in the planning of increases in the capacity of the HVDC Interconnections and of participating in the ownership I
of any incremental capacity added, provided again that each party that wishas to participate pays its RIQ IAtA share of all costs and undertakes' to pay its gg Enla share of the costs of operating and maintaining thof "VDC Interconnection and agrees I
further to be bound by the tt
, and conditions of the applicable Agreement among the owners or Participants of that HVDC Inter-connection.
Any such planned increase in the capacity of either I
HVDC Interconnection shall be submitted to the Commission for I
i
10 Donet No. EL79-0-OQ2 action pursuant to sections 210, 211 and 212 of tne federal tower Act.
I (H)
The CSW Cperating Companies, HL&P and TU Electric shall wheel power for each other and for other electric systems in 1
ERCOT and SWPP to, from and over the East Intercennection at the rates and under the ter=s and conditions set forth in the settle-I ment tariffs submitted in Docket Nos. ER82-545-000, 31 31.,
except that such tarif fs shall be modified as necessary to co: ply with this order.
Such modified tariffs shall be fil6d with the
{
Commission as compliance filings within ninety (90) days after 5
entry of this order.
(I)
Co=pliance with this order and the offer of Settlenent I
shall not make HL&P or TU Electric or any other electric utility or other entity a "public utility" as that term is defined by Section 201 of the Act and sucject to the jurisdiction of the Cormission for any purpose other than for the purpose of carrying I
out the provisions of sections 210, 211 and 212 of the Act.
l (J)
As a result of this order, HL&P and TU Electric may be or will be operating in interstate corserce by virtue ut the interconnections required by this order and the wheeling, trans-mission, purchase, sale, exchange, coordination or cocsingling of electric power te, from or within ERCOT, including the ownership I
or use ;of f acilities therefor, or by virtue of the synchronous or asynchronous operation of electrcmagnetic unity of response of interconnected electric facilities; HL&P and TU Electric, however, shall not be subject to jurisdiction under section 201 of the Act by virtue of section 201(b)(2) cf the Act.
(K)
In the event any other electric utility is determined I
to be subject to jurisdiction as a public utility under the Act i
l es a direct or indirect result of the flow of power and energy through the North Interconnection or the East Interconnection, or ownership of the North Intercennection or the East Interconnec-tion, such Jurisdiction shall not affect the non-jurisdictional status of HL&P or TU Electric.
(L)
Since the parties have already agreed on the terms and conditions upon which this order is to be carried cut, including the apportionment of costs between them and the compensation or reimbursement reasonably due to any of them, no proposed order l
pursuant to section 212(c) of the Federal Power Act is necessary.
The Commission appreves the settlement and, pursuant to Section l.
212 (c) (2) ( A) of t.he Act, the terms and conditions of the settle-ment relating to apportionment of costs, compensatien and reim-l bursement as set forth therein are hereby incorporated in this order.
(M)
The owners of the 100 mw expansion of the North Inter-connection shall submit to the Cormission transient stability lI I
I.
I Docket No. EL79-8-002 studies relating to the expanded North Interconnection prior to I
the construction of that interconnection.
(N)
The Participants in the East Interconnection shall cooply with the mitigation measures contained in Attachment A I
hereto in order to minimize the environmental impact resulting trou construction of the AC transmission lines.
(0)
Not less than 90 days prior to the commencement of construction (ri ht-of-way clearing) of the East Interconnec-tion, the Partic pants shall submit to the Division of Environ-mental Analysia, office of Hydropover Licensing, a report I
detailing compliance with Environmental Recommendations Nos. I through 4 of Attachment A.
Such report shall include the final rit]ht-of-way identified for the East Interconnection.
Not less I
th.n 120 days after the transmission line is energized, the Participants shall submit a report detailing compliance with Environmental Recommendations Nos. 5 and 6 of Attachment A.
(P)
Subject to reasonable contingencies, such as possible delays in complying with the environmental requirements of this order, and IArap. madeure, the CSW Operating Companies, HL&P and I
TU Electric v111 commit to cause the East Interconnection ts M installed and operational within four (4) years of the ::ete this order is no longer subject ta review.
(D)
Upon construction of the East Interconnection, the CSW Operating Companies and HL&P shall be relieved of any obligation to construct, install, expand or operate or to make capacity ave.11able in the South Interconnection as required by the original Orders and from any obligation to transmit power for other electric utilities to, from and over the-South Inter-connection.
(R)
The provisions of the commission's Original orders, except as herein modified, are unchanged by this order, and the rights and obligations established thereunder shall remain in full force and effect.
'(S)
The commission's approval of this settlement does not I
constitute approval of or precedent regarding any principle or issue in this proceeding.
By the Commission.
E h;s u u Kenneth F. Plumb, I_,'
Secretary.
I 1
i
am I
Docket No. EL79-B-002 Attachment A Environ = ental Recommend stions 1.
SWEPCO, before starting any land-clearing or land-I disturbing activitaes, should consult with the lan-devners, the Soil Conservation Service and *.hw U.S.
Tish and Wildlife Service about developing a plan that includes the best management practices to control
~I erosion and sedimentation as a result of project construction and maintenance.
I SWEPCO should include in the plaa an imple. mentation schedule, monitoring and maintenance programs for project construction, arid provisions f or periodic review of the plan and fcir making any necessary
. I revisions to the plan.
2.
SWEPeo, after consultation with the U.S. Fish and I
Wildlife Gervice and the Texas Parks and Wildlife De pa rtment, should locate the final right-of-way (ROW) alignment of the East *nterconneution so that bottom-g-
land hardwoods and other vetlands are aseided.
Where 3
bottomland hardwoods and other vetlands cannot bc avoidsd, SWEPCO should, as much as possible, avcid the placement of transnission towers within vetlands, span streams, and allow shrubs to revegetate the ROW following construction.
3.
SWEPCo, after consultation with the U.S. Fish and I
Wildlife Service and the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, __should develop a.wildlif e ' mitigative plan that vill provide for the cicaring, revegetation, and I
maintenance of the project transmission line right-of-vay for the benefit of vildlife-resources.
(3-4.
SWEPCO, alter consulting with the State His, toric 5
Preservation office (SHPo), thould conduct a survey of the area of the project's potential environmentr.1 impact (APEI).
The survey should be of suf ficient I
scope and intensity to identify the properties that are listed on or eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places that are located within the g
APEI and should culminate in-a survey report that E
adequately documents every National Register and eligible property in the APEI.
This survey report, along with the comments and recommendations of the ll SHPO, should be filed with the Commission before SWEPC3 m
begins constructing the proposed transmission line.
I I
I
l l
.k ek e t No. EI.79-8-002
-2 In the survey report, SWEPco should identify each I
National Register and eligible property in the APEI, according to the National Register criteria of eligibi-lity in 36 Code of Federal Regulations (CTR) 60.
SWEPCo should specify the critetia that each National I
Register and eligible property s,atisfies, and should describe each National Register and eligible property according to the applicabis criteria.
In the survey report, SWEPC0 should evaluate the offect that constructing and cperating the transmission line would.be likely to cause at each National Register and I
eligible property according to the criteria of ef f ect in 36 CTR 800.
SWfPCO should then determine, in the case of each effect, whether or not the effect would I.
likely be adverse.
SWEPCo should apply the criteria of effect and adverse effect to the specific characteris-tics of the Natienti Register and eligible properties that have substantially contributed to satisfying the I_
National Register criteria of eligibility.
In the survey report, SWEPCO should describe measures I
to citigate adverse effects to the specific character-istics of National Register and eligible properties that have contributed substantially to satisfying the National Register criteria of eligibility.
SWEPCC should apply the critsria of eligibility of the criteria of effect and adverse effect and should present its determinations of eligibility, effect, and I
adverse etf act to the SHPo in formal written. form prior to filing these data witn the commission and should request, pursuant to Section 106 of the National
.I Historic Preservation Act, that the SHPo concur with SWIPCo's determinations of aligibility, effect, and adverse effect.
SWIPCO should not begin construction of the transmis-sion line in a manner or location that might affect a National Registar or eligible property until all It requirements of the National Historic Preservation Act that pertain to the construction and operation of the line have been satisfied and the commission has so jnformed SWEPCo.
5.
SWIPCC should coordinate witn the operators of the two radio towers (TAA and Southwestern Bell) located in the project area to insure that the interconnection would not degrade the performance of these f acilities.
The results of coordination with the operators should be filed with the Coraission.
I
- I
l, 316830 1
Docket 11 0. CL79-G-002 '
6.
SWEPCO should conduct a radio noise survey along the transmission line Row at appropriate locations that are relatively free of electrical noise fron other sources.
I SWEPCO should use an AM radio receiver in the survey, and should evaluate the reception of the principal broadcasting stations serving the area at each location both with the line energized and deenergized.
The I
results of this survey should be filed with the Conaissipn.
I I
I I
1 I
I I
I
~
I It I
I
lI REIN & PRIEST 110 19" STRE ET, N. W.
WAs tt1NOToN. D. c. 20036
.oa ese osoo s aw was oryws wassmensartice 4a w
- et s r*= sim a s?
Tstar ameeso me wasu I
w sw vc a M. w.y..oois *os,
racesie(La: aos see aset aus ens.ooo aos e s e
- t o e s
,;.,o u an p ass e
- ma s s Ast-os nact staA n o as a e a tas.sz floebene,ss asPT wts I
anosse asPT t o rac e us s u sis so* **
May 10, 1988 I
rederal Energy Regulatory Commission 325 North Capitol Street, N.E.
Washington, D.C.
20426 I-Attention:
Lois D.
Cashell, Acting Secretary I
Re:
Central Power & Light Ccmpany, et, al.,
Docket No. EL79-8-002
Dear Ms. Cashell:
Enclosed for filing on behalf of Texas Utilities Electric Company (TU Electrict are six copies of TU
.I Electric's complianco Tariff For Transmission Service To Trem And Over Certain HVDC Interconnections, submitted
. pursuant to the Commission's Order Approving Settlement I
issued July 23, 1987, in the above-referenced proceeding.
In its July 23, 1987 order, the Commission authorized the construction of an East HVDC Interconnection in lieu of the South HVDC Interconnection that was originally ordered to be constructed by orders issued in Docket Nos. EL79-8 and E-9558.
Central power a Licht company, et al., 17 TERC g 61,078 (1981 ) and 18 FERC 1 61,100 (1982 ).
IU I
Electric has revised its tariff to delete references to the South HVDC Interconnection and replace them as appropriate with references to the East HVDC Interconnection.
In addition, the compliance tarif f
'I contains--a provision concerning reservation of capacity by qualified utilities which results from TU Electric's part-ownership of the East HVDC Interconnection.
The rates contained in the compliance tarifP are unchanged from those presently on file with the C..maission, which j
were filed by TU Electric on February 26, 1937 in Docket No. ER82-545-002.-
a.
Also enclosed is a form of notice suitable tor publication in the Federal Register.
If you have any I
questions please contact me or Merlyn D. Sampels, Esq.,
Worsham, Forsythe, Sampels a Wooldridge, 2001 Eryan Tower, Dallas, Texas 75201 I
I R s s a 4% Poinct I'
2 I
Ver' truly yours, th L. :1orton, IV I.
Attorney for Texas Utilities Electri: 00mpany ec:
All Parties ir. Docket No. EL79-8-002 I
I
?
I I
I I
I I
g I
I.
I
I
. $ oct i en see.
I.$neet me.
s
'i.n i
'n I
- AA lF F
- EIAS UTILif ttl I (ftective cete (LECTRIC C3ePAset i
(LICRIC !!RVICE i hovisten Page I
i et it I
,, e lectica fitte
! ?or t H %eme
. Aeoisceole aart tro j
yp
'Ak9615510N 1EAvlCE '". rass awo lvt4 CteTAim av0C iw1Ef Ctre4CT10N5 actiCLE.
- i s Yr 6asal s s s on s er vi ce
- er e n i s oo t ag t i l es l a ector osac e vi ta "o Oe oer s of n o Fe#arel I*erov soovi e torv C.:ssei ss ion s t E*C or *.ameission s i n FtRC Occmet No. 1679+4*002, isswee on dwiv
- . '197. ene " o creers et *a e stec la F PC Docaat *os. (L7bt one L 4118. s s we e oa 0=c t otier 28 i
ett, wventwe ?. '4H. aae.anwerv ;9 "l8 2.
- o9e m er e s ta "o f ore et Oreer aseroving lettiemeat i.ceittes ee n as tecoao 1.cet o oel O H er of lettlement la F DC Coc. net 1 U 9+4 on Jaa ery 22 v
141 saa iacercore'ee tv *e'ereace * * "e se t e Creer ut "o 7ttrC estes.sauerv 29. 1982
- ,eceives, ever ee a aese a et #esersa).
- me s erv l e ers, o e n r en eer e e. n e v eren on e 1
- s *.sas at s ca service eae "o as*es as to perges one cos tectee i.aciwetag a caerge one
- sinection 'or s tae sesses enere seeilcessel are ostines. Itettee saa goveraes De sede Creers eae
.. i to reatores. caerges, one coisectes sa eccor eenc e e i n s o i e Or oer s ea t en are i ncor por a t es i n
" a s *er $ H v roterence.
- a o ev en t aet saw crovision et +ais *er e n contilets =t tn ne set e a
- riers, ae ;*tvisicas et Scn Oree<s smelt control.
- o9.a..
s.
- neaave fenes wta il *ies (l oceric Coaeony I
I or<wv (a ergy
- teoaaov taerev is oaergy troeween one sweellee vri'se e acre ecoaos6 cal source
- . cae tiecte.c '.94119, one swasti%tne f or not being eroevees c# casesta of t4 tag coacurrentiv
- sewces la e a Hereat controe s *ee team a less economical source 9, emotner Electr y yttlity,
- n. elect
- a atorevotion at saw 'i==e to taout erlor notice one tecmos we Dv "e receivia9 tiectric
- i l i ev s ca. i l as s o i nn e mq r es erv s genee s t i on or r ee l ecaneset enee gy c osinee teent s l a en aumen t eewo e
- s tae transaction involves eius ne soinning reserves otutroits reevires av tao (MCOT guiselines.
- 'orsqolag soinning tweeve saa t t only t,e eselissete et Monomy (norgy Transeission forvice tee
- easect ions 'ones aeting es tat a ( ACCf. *over or energ) economientit elsestenee among ettillette g
.a.,91
,s -, tc t tn
..t,..
ta.
in, ot en,
,e,,tt.
e.,,as e,s,, ~ ea.
- seges es sucn osswat *: "is *eriet ( tacivetag ne ooterne netton of lossess.
I
- . (comony taergy Trease6 ssion Service + Econcet (n-orgy frenweission Service is 'ne traaeatsstor
' (cases, Enertry ov Comesaw in occareence en tn.tne crowle?oes of this fertit one swepet 'o ate.*rwetloa et any atene eitnow? :rtor aotice. et tne sole elscretion of tae Comeeav.
- . flectric welil+v - Electric utillev emone esectric sv1.two. rural electric coewerative actselag e ceaeretion ene +reaseission cocoerettve; or einer eaf tt, vowin (2C07 or SwiH' **ges sg t taor i s e e.o -e,e, a -e e, str _t,. ene,e, e, e,oetrie.t t. f-,
re, m., c.
!*rceaev Sower Neeen<v o e is tan se,or one energy roesires ev en tiestric ut t i av te c
4 I
ser Se et.o
- o t e 4 t o n nowr, i n ta e et na t m e own of its ioes one setaning reserve col 194 tic escoees tae awe et e tt generatian one seneessee lennects et f ees energy into to teeeerert essergeae
- neations sevono its contros, swen es; e forces outege, usesannee ressation in caseelllev, or g
.si,,e e. t,e.
.ss o. eoc,..t,
.I
I 3 *Ct l en aus.
Sheet nee.
I is.o
- 1V $ JTllifft$
(f tective eate (L[CTRIC 0l> PANT ELICTiltC 5tRvlCE e,,ogion e g, s
I
- e
? te it
- ec' ion ti tle
'ere,, see, aessicette
- Att *t 3 I
- rwgn
~.AN5Astl11CN $[eVICC ?!. 10 @ a,Q
- vin *(ata iw -,cc i=f tPCCopetCTIC=$
- etta6eseas. entiavoos
..r..aev e..e ~ea
.ssion.....co...or,en.v e......asoissio,,or. ice.s...
s I
" t a sai s s ion it f wegency %..e ;, :. ween, in accoreence vita "o travisenes et "is
- eci,
eae i eject *o.a+erewerien et on,.. e ieaowt :r6er motice, et ++e soi e di sc re't en o' "o Coseeav.
iSC*T - tiectric a tteesis,. m aci, e, *esas. or i+s successors.
e I
..,..e
~... s _...
..e e...ev of e,
...a, _......
.a..
r..a.,,..r.
- .s <ag twt :'
=*i'ee
- t. :n.ee saa eaerg, oi stetenee among aH e i s e'ee eat u t es, one scoci e l.
I t
- ciweras cover ano eaersv occacrui t o e s. si s se ecne s amono 8u e t i c t er. i c e Ocmo sa, s' :alenoma.
- ." e s' era b ectrie 4 or m en.,.es'
- eses wttiltles Comesaw eae ;ea"ei %=or i < 49'
,vacaiv or "e'r su:ces 6ers.
l
- -= 4,er
- ensmission f orvice. s e,or fransmission service is "o "eatas seton of tie
- M Meer M C.:sneenv ** accoreence si te "o trovisione et + mis te* t H.
I
- 0C :9'erecaaect:6a s. *
- e '=s e ** sie n t current asyncaronous l a'ercoa**ction. : oasisag of
- sca.'9 eece tiaect :screev *eran ae 's iocates af *kl awn eon. eitm6m.iaterger Oawn*,. *esas sae/or "o fast s t r ee t curreat asv caroaovs saterconnection coast otlag at e 143 tv aC sei'cmvero a
+ae fu tioctric matice lo generating station, seeresimateiv 4 miles at 349 uv *C scititw at I
" easmission siae, seen.te.ooem ei rect eweren,,orminals. aae a 345 6 9 selecavers *aci t i+v et "o seism ;eaeret t ag s tatloa. all locates et tm en Ti tus County, fenes. %ese av0C a'ercoaaoc'ioas eere. :P es6l A. constructos swesvent *o 'ne neove ref ereaces s teC Droers.
Joserven 8ertoo. two sortes et 's ee t er a i ca te er. eel s e l on s**v i c e i s erov t ees or Coas sav.
M*eovies '*enstee a
'a s mo e i mue enovn t of sover to co genesulte 'o. "Da eae over " o avCC a'erconnections for eellverv 'o e receiving Electric utilltt, 38e = foutatest mover e, er
..g successces.
I.
.s
..e.,,e,_ s. _ c.,
..e -
.a.. - et.o,
.se,,,_.,..... - ee.
I.'
tsMclette oltn eil novee or enorp eeeng ctione, inctueing tire sover, ano econcov ene muergeaev
%e service ot tores ans *ae retas energes unser tels ferit t aselv 'o 'featmissloa serv 8 c8 3
- er;v 4 tw.n rates for econonrv enerov 'eensections to be caerges ce 'me easle et *aero swca enerc se.ai s, oriciastes one 'oru.netes s.
'o, teoss one over vne av0C "es*coaeocticas.
....no to.ae..ve., ces i...s e.es.ae,s. _ en..,, ero. ice f.an ission s.r.....or
- er electric svstene in (8tCCf ane $ nee +o. teos one over tae ntCC Intercoaa*cticas. rmi ses "at "a service reeventee coneer*s Nil, eitm
- e erovisions et $Mfloas 211 ene 21: c' "o
'eserst *vwee Act one the crease as seeerleee in Section 1.1
$wcft servlas snell os et e este noseware to recover *ao costs o' swen 'reneeststeri service oursuent to tne rates coe'Jia*8
- er o 6 '
es tmo seine giyp De gneaQOG fr62 tlee t0 tiele.
I
lI
'ie=0 1
9 7%,,
- tXAS UTILITit$
i Effective 04es ILLCtolC CWi*Aste k
(LICTRIC 3CMVict i sevesion e go s
j I
%e
- se s1 5
.ection fine
- er++' vene asenicesi, aart *ro
- qg
~*Aa.$as t 1110se 1(1st CE 75. 8 80s ANO I
l vt e C te t a s is av0 ' WTi eCCIW'CCi t 045 g
...a.i.s-...,i......e......-
.....,eto
.ses.i es
,s.l.i.e.t.
m oa.,a.ee, is va serstece "et "o co n s en ti on o, ca.noaa,,o o p9mit taer waser ao provesions oe +ais
- o Coneenv s esi t t +v,o oensoi t one estiver "i a anettles et so.ar 'or j
'tr***
saeit to swoject a
.u c9 service i s r eeves tes cons e stent.e +a "o oeeration o. no treasei ss ion 5,t te. et 0:nnent M eer amme s eae **ergeacv coaes tions 'or Ot eenv
- s cea ovrooses. %e aves t ant t ih of service
- w eer saati de ceterminee ev " o conc ea,.
n
- .s,ect 't "o trovisions et *- i s
- a r i o, sucn service saeta tactwee Flee eover f.easeission erv
- ce. Icoace, Laerov !* ensain s sion ervi ce one (*eagenev 8ever f r oassa ssion servi ce. twsn I
- ta sai s s ion toevi ce.* s i w fatvisee 6a "on e la s t en c es en ero "o t ectr i e ;.* i t i ev cesariao
-*sasse ssion serv ece tes given "a Cceneen, retsoneens esvowe notice or '*e
'vse of ineee at aaoe s, +3 se +r sasmi'*es one " o owe ll ev on e owr e t t en of "o trenseission s erv i c e ea t en i t sts u es secretoace eeta a o orovisions et tection 1.1 1 :rovi ces not no Conc ea, sasil aeve er i or i', of se eae nov saterruet "e s erv i c e pr ov i s e s *o non-own er a e t an, 96*e orovinse s rtase "et ' Ira u
W'
"$ assist e 2n suv e ce me, a interrvetes uni, eer construction er *sintoaoace, or enea tae Coseen, 5 creeree *e so so e, e goverrmen e t entity ettn owtettve avtnority, or la eay w=ornears or.* e,a B
"o Comoeav is waeole 'o provise suca se+vice mee to torces c3voad its contesa, or aen tae 6vr=
sa &g et **sassa s s ion servi ce sowi e, n a "e aveqinent at 'ae Comoeav. t =ae le "o r ei t s e t t i ty of
- s s s'en or as seliity to reaeor eseowete aervice to its non-erensmissloa sr.rvice customers, or 4 ctet es =ev et, *wfusilt agrees woon ov n e parties te sace 9esasection. or it a er.es s er t l a "o I
o Comoen, nos alsconnectos la occcreence entn $ection 5.2 % erect.
- veat "at n 4
esn iag aere s a sasi! be esastrues as reesiring Comesa, +e asserge or moeie v os vec i n e ' so 'o I
" s a smi t t wc n oower, i*. ta " o ;wepeeat of 'ne Coasseav evosaolon of i ts "easmi ss ion ' sci l i t t et
.ov i s :e r eo u t r eti l a cr oce to erov i se tae s ervi ce r eevestee. me t i ectr ic ut l i t t, reevesting sera
. cs sac e t agree er lor to tae in a t t et ton of servics, to ro teturse tme Comoea, Nr s ucn E l ecte o c
'il*v's saere of "e anticientes cost of sucn oscillete?. lac turlag e enesoasele rete o' retwra I
- a swr:n costs: Cameen, sne t t retain cenersnte one control of sucn tecillfles one spen t act tas ooverse to retwne ea, of s eca ents veon 'eroinet ton et trentani ssion service.
wfning nerein snett be antersretoe to reeware the tit tag of an ineeseneent or smeerste stell
- sfion vaeor lecticets 2tl one 212 of tne Feeerei oceer a y so toeg as ne seevics reenstes etaer c
..se conterve to one is es tmia ne scose et service reeverse tn 'as Cosweistion's Oroers la acnets (L79-4. E-9558 ene (L7b4-002.
aATICLE 11 in ertelae 'o Coaseay t 4 eeseest 'er Seevice, eenwests *oe wensseission servise triet t te a
- e inoctric writte, ensc9 watinetet, is to receive ne so or one eaerity to se treasant"se ev
!aras sav. Isen reevest *oc *rensaission service snell be ecces an l ed e l fte s v t i c l eat t a 'erma t t aa e
9 easete Comesaw 'o teentitv ne source et tne ocuer one enerary to be trensaa tteel "e wee i.e..
'tre Dooer. ecomesv energy or emergency eewers one emeest of seees' ene eaem to #8 "snsest'ee one the marstion et ao reevestee servical 9ms lessitity et tne 6ert t ee 'O "*
'r****
"easectlant see seen otteest laternetten reeeemente roegilree ey teso Ceseet,y to resosee to such I
I Seetion see, j inoe, ame, I
e eti.0 1
1
- t1Al 1/flLITits gg,,,,,,,g,,,
(LtCTRIC 03f AwY (LLCTRIC 5 tat lCE so,lsion i Pege I
- m e I e oq lection flH e feritt = see I assiscesse eAit ?!O
- r.,g a assassisi ggio t itRV ICE f 0. t*0s ano 6
i
- vte CERTAIN av0C iWithCDNhtCTICNS
.,e
..r.l..
ice.t,au.es
- m est.
- eject *s no erovisions et *als feriet one e setermicet toa et no e.v.oeasetion we no
- .raesav ew sveat +o a,ettete est *ereot. tae Comeen, w i l l crev l ee tr ea smi t s e va s er v i t e woo 8' "e
e i
esecutloa et e er itten agreement in **e fore et Trenomiseloa lorwice Agreement attacase.
in 970=
i s l ag e s ta ee (c oaas, te ergt or t aior9ency Power tr en tai n s t oa torv i c e, Cue en, se v.eive ea, or ett
- oe w e r e=e nt s et n o s sectica coatem.oreaece.Siv si ta no sorteressace et seca service. grevt ees not sii *ecesserv tater *etica saa sa eseevtes form of treassessocia Service agr eemeat is sweetles av
" a fisetaic.till*v
- svestiaq service et soon es erecticente taersettee tiw t sa ao evea' ioter
" sa "*ee i!) nes s as cow s + 3 s i e. ag n e or e s agr e.e.at gr o, s e i ng swc a s er, i c e.
g4 t ' *ns A*eivssst " w ea, eageenge, s.
- soiect *s "o prov s tices of lect ica 2.1. eaenev er *.on69av is coewestes *s provi es
'*saso ssica service. *.Jeesa, v.it grovies e lose H oe ease, Sis et test e e n ta 've wore t ag sevs et "o reevest or vooa seveeat of costs. eatcaever 16 later. he costs saett sacIves, eithout tiel-
- s t i ca, ev -ecocne t erosases. isbor one e.ornees. ?ner etter, the Comosaw will **epoas e Ma **
e satser
's ne resusst flacluelag en essionsfloa of s ay contes of servicol es 'ofloss teetiag noa I
" o cunesetion et ao lose t i on stvov *sr emeettag ettata (ICOTli til for " sassession service estiag 'er one or
- ore tears es tain talrty cars, or ne first worslag sov euer norty clos m eauer sevs: eas t i l l t oe te sass e s s l oa serv i c e l a st i ng f or s ee s n ea on e vo or, e i n t a '*o etretag cavs.
. :omeensation 'or service morevaser snell be mese la occareente eita Ar'icle s ii
- er ed 8e'er*
a aes ev rotereace to toes H oe enelvses mooelec es ta ens,itaout vae receipt eas cet tverv et "o
.I, caeautes treaster 'o se transaa ttee la say given transactica parevneer wa sag (#CCf ccumewter
- eorees one este estee. es reve sse tron etene to else to rett ect current sas projectes "sasme stloa systems or, enere soareertete, current one projectos represeatative " easters tetween g
e.c - SCC,c.o.af.
e.e er.o..ssloa s _,ce,es,,a, 9or one e,
- r..e
- g. tne (,.c.,,c t,,,ev.ee..st,a, ser..
I
. co aust give notice to tae Cemeeny M lts latentlea to tems tronent es ton service en tain +airey 331 ms es Caseent's ressoase to t*e reevest. For trenesission service t eat tag 'or less "a cae voer. tae tiestric villity reewestlag service must give notice to Comeen, of its lateatloa 'o
- see transielsslea service ot tata 10 sevs of compeav s ressoase to tae reevest.
i
- .)
severves peesee.
ivefect 's t*e provistoas of lectica 1.3 aersnot, la ao event snell tae esservee Perlos for fir
- 8teer **easan ssion lorwice 6e less 'aea one month. Cemeen, nov *eevere et its cotloa "et "o 3eserves Portos snell to ao less tasa 'ao serios for enica tae serty twealving to**r nas agrave te
'.raita **e toeor 'o De receives eng teenomittee tpr Comene,.
I I
I 1*ctsea ao.
, smeet i.e.
I
'it-o i
1
'EAAl VTilllitt Eteocti,e c te ILLCTRIC C3e' Ant (JC'111C ltittiCE I e*visten e ge n
1 i
i *.,, ie a,
section fttee
- ers'. *eae assinceose 14TE 't?
I Ste saces45$1CN tiettCt '3. reos ano oim
.te *tef AIN avCC vit*CCNNEC? t0NS g
......s._ea.s........m....
. ee,.st.e..s.t.ies.
a,.evice
...oi..,
.ce.s..ssion ea... i.c,e,.i.s o. e.ti,,..
g I
.. s.
e...e
..en n ot s,..e s.e e n. i ae w e,,, t v o, -e _ e..a.
t i c tr i c t,, s.,.a i ca.i...
e'ee, is 's receive ne oc.or n o en er o,. o s e,r e n om i,, ee y, ta Ccs.oea, se e i s t,e r et oons i o n.
- e -estro saw one oil aecuser, e** eacements
- or us e o. *es e s ec t i t e les.
.tu *eseect +o
" e a s el s s i on service coneeree es e t ioctes e ye t i te, oseret tag,s ola ne soes coateot eroe o' "o
- .aseav. " e ccraesaw sassi.:
..e event ecesserv cooreiaste as i a' s s t ere co er e f l oa s e s ta **
- i.oei,iao.tisi+, n o ea,. o e,,en. a e n e e, ger.in in er e c,o insure n.
.ateorie, s, oe ia,er.
- ~ ectee s,s'em one :*:cer ea e,. sccewe i.g.
i s
- ar e ' e sii :e ess.. stie tai.
- 1 s erv i ce provi ces ><. ene caerses 'er as wie of. "o
'+e ss st il s +In (t ectric 4 nesa, testem.
io otaes-wellI+v me, coitect caeroes vor
- e use et u, desav's "easmission s es,. or essi +ae C:smeeay se sen s es conc es e t t oa 'or ea, service pro-
. sees tv. :P wse o'..'s s,s'em *;.a i ca n i s s oev i ce v er t H is aesticeale.
'ao Ccomesav saat i ao*
- s *e ssoasioie 'o* "o cot ieco ce et caerges on ceaset et. or n e se n t ag et seveeats to, en, ooer a'erventag 49: 149,.a tsaaectica ee n no settvery of power +as eaergy on tenet t et en tioctric I
. sil'v.
Saw cietas or teawaes m ee tv etase we t t itles in reseect of "e vse et "o "easat ss ica s e s 'e*s e t twca otaer siii.nes erising out of gervice reae,ree aerewnoer saast im "o sole
- essoasioitiev oe n o (iec o.c,,*itfew.aica vittmatas, is to receive no oo or one eaergv 'o te
.,as.it.ee.v oeav.
- ei eace.
3, e.ecy,,*o e ** esme ss loa lerv i c e Agromment aerova sse. or :v coweac iat 'o 'e n
" s a se i s s i ca s erv i ce 'o. " *su e s o ver n o av 0C m e er coaaect i on s on e ov e r " e Como ea v 's s v s t ee a s I
- r weause, estacesses ev,oieaav. eav tiectric utility ea sca va tteetes, is vo receive tae power o Co.een, egrees to tese one say 'er 'reasat ss ion service la accor-e s easeov *eatme t'oe av a
- sace esta *ae tems one consinoas et tais feritt es taev mov taea De la eHect. entaout i i n t 's -
I
> :a es 'o n e r e ga ts eno e s asei e s otaerv i se eve t t e el e 'o Conuraav eav t i oc9 ri c v' t i t 'v
'*et a H aavoit receives electric cover or energy transmittee to, tres eae over tae avCC "erconcoctions ea te. avoi,es "nasse ss 6ea on **e Coseene's sys tem..itacnet er w i cas s i v r ec e s s o sweaerisetto9 ov Comesay *: *ese sucn servare pursuant to tae provistoas of "I s f or t ". Pet t te I
soligstoe-te oev twice tae ccweenseflee eue the Cameeov la esser **aes esta Articl* III
- 'e' seen trenestsaloa service..nien saa s t se seenee to oe Fire Poeer fremsatssion Service. waiess tsci (loctric utstity cea teraonstro'o to comoeaves sett st ectica "et "o 'r easmi s s 6 ca i *'o t " e
- g
.. ree..t _ t les. iesce or _ s.at ea, e,tt_ t no,,c. taereof.
soflCLE III.
haecasev ica 3 8 *= 8.,ee ' sasal u t oa Servi ce.
- ao
- ect iltles caerne noe tire 8ower
~ sas.es. oa ler..co sas,t.e,ete..inee es
,o,
.re, s.
- e saaves cast et sroviet ao 'reasse ssloa service oa tae s, sten et +=s Comenerv nasti to este
.ea e,ro. -e Co. coa.., co,e of ser..co s evet es st,e. eat,f eser -se - -. ~.t.c t,..tv
- .ymeission of feces.
.t a cost et service Stue, is not evellette. tae cost spell os bases ca **
I saao*& eueentes tause Ia F(DC eseease accouets $40173 otee two seereeletIon. 'eeeret ia N's te
.*t :"te essect eee*
- tees. es ao r ate o, etwra aioet r,contiv e s icees ev "o 4018 C W e i
.am**ssion et
- eses sesee on staC siaat occavet, 330.))g. s ees ecossen atog seereciation.
I
I I
l Seettaa me.
5hmee neo.
ise-o
_o I
e-tus utsutits cetec,t.e c,,e I.t;*1t IC *;**'aisV i
Ett:TvitC gge lCE v
I s,, e s s oa j e ge e
I w e.~.
s
..q on 'lete
- eri n was i seeiicosse 8Af( **$
I
-g
- mnant l510*e StevlCI ';. ra te. a.io iI
- ste agatAih =v0C lattac:wn.g;?ieng ri.-
a.
......,eena ter,ies,,;ea,iavee
...e,ien.
I e.ae s.e..
..st saa... v... e -... e.....s. o....... e. s.. s s, _
_.es.* s.es.,e,r.sa is, e..ats e.re.resa
,a ee.....a.n, " e.aa...
..st of ero..e,a, I
seesseen soevece. ** e auseesetas tes one tae testou sne e 6 t o ** e s wa of ne sensucts et
- e Faermai *e'6*1 et esca s a ae a tt see. O conoscter. *! seq.
- ear.
'.4 aea eine oas
+
s.. ' et. D * * =e s ao seagta la me s es et "o slee. *er ++saseission >laes e oes aamines a
s'iag.o
- ste s s' asse 30."00. eses eaea -esures easse 4 saese.
- e c*eaees ooe e" e tese * ' :=s aesvi e t ag * *ese "o wie et tarweav's s,svaa to ero,eee
... s s.
.... H........ -.... Sae. m e.etere...e e.
..st.a_e.i.
.,. e. i e so..ee
- s s '.s i e s " s *==e i ev " e am!it *ecent e, * ** e s s o sa v e ses e aa e see i s c 6 J t e erogr ene me i a=
I es tv e s,s ecevni"es an ce i.e o' e eer es eatat ive s of toccf St6 titles caerges seta coorseastiag as "oge r s. as "e s i aaa.ae a : "o ga00T yeaerettoa one ++saseiss toa testos estilities.
- e egaie ee et "oe I
acrease se so.or Howe as eeters.t aea la sweseregreen (c) of "is w
sena sne s s :e sue t t es t J
- taes ne longen of "a respective t iae.
N o me9eser+ aeio caeage see i l aos sas i s to si.wes 's cetsr se ae t*e 'otel aegesettat le caeage cet "a systse.
I
- e saave s ites 'sc e s i'ies caerge f or erove elag treasea ss toa soevt es i s taen towas tre elvleiaq
- t'et *egessetai n e casage as tov s en suteeregreen t o) ce tais teregreen 0, tae svetass a
e s t *==s t es as 'oi.a e *
- svos eroereen t e l of 'als seregrasa. ame n n awlt t e s,t ag
+=e reswit tag o
e ri, tv "o "easeission costs 'evas la suceeregraph tai of "Is seregreem: 3 rowl ete. aceever.
I "o t ac t i i + 4 es ca erts snai t act escue t'is Comosa,'s ama a t "easee ss #en service cost sivioes v
- e eseea s t' te seen eawas stus ne swe et oil eneenlag 'rensacticas times no caente la ese* e s os across no easei tag uf f iltv g geo eery, easevie,ee ** 1/2 '*e sue o' " e set elv's e
e at s e s *ie s aae e tos casates eue to tme trae641ag. Asettlenetiv. t*e sus et "o tecialties aeeting "easections saet t act tec6es no Casinaav's tamwee treaseission sorwice tes o' att e tiv e ses av **e megesett et seee seeene else the swa of ett vaeosing treasecticas times 'as
- es *
- ne nece,ett H oe acros6 tas Cesioeav's bowneerv.
5 literges f or s aaviteneo.e treaseitione shall be ossee on tae e.ge,ett Hoe ceentes reewittag
- e $tseerste ecoltion or oeca 'reaseetten to the seem toes poeer H oe mese case.
g
- s...a.o...re e e e.e..ss,-
- oc,,,,,
. e.,e e.t _,a.e,a ac _...ta ".
4esag treet s toas snet t se sevesse in %elve (12) eave s acatal, lastell uo's 'er e esservee se of en pavert year, f oe ' I ru s erv e ce t oes naa one veer.
t* e montn a, r ete se ear t v e t s e l l y
,s..cee,e.or e.. _.* e...e e.se-o. per..e.
_.as....a. e.a -........ae..es. v.-.....ec
,t...s.a.r,e..e econo
.a.r,T
_.se. _,er..co sa...
se e.t.c..- e.s to..
e.
'*, saaves t ecis t eles caer9, f or ereef elag (cenesv taergt irtassassion $sevice on tae systen
, comesav ve si se eetervenes la accareence ea rn peregreen 3.1 ene vill De sivi ese D' "*
l
.ett seneewies treaster +e oetala en saaeol cost por iet.
..w I
1
,, e.t, _
e..
I r
t
'is-o to
- EIA$ Ittillfill (LIC N C C3 eANT
{tetectivece,e i
(LEC7 tlc SERVICE je,ision se,e e
I
%e te og
,.c t, _ mt,.
...r..._.
.....c.c.e satt 'to I
..q e
~Sta$stillCN tt4VICf 'O. recu Ano
- vtN CERTain -ett Witoc0*as(CTIONS 3
-.a.. e. -... o a -...
........... ~.e...e.
=.tt.....
- e samvet cos' :or **e see s ves in termoreen 3.U e s e t s i te st v e ces tre e't0 aowes 's tesculate
...r,e e.or soe,a on.,ar,..e - e.e a
,et. _,a..a. n _..a....as c,or,e....e.,'e.e.c..efee.
..r. ore. ~.m..
..i.,e v e ' t e n d es ev "o awesee rt aca. set scaceu t ee f or +*engt er scrut s '*e a vCC ' a'ercoaaec.t ' eat 'or e i l v e rv *s "e receiv i ne t i eetr ie,+ t t i ev,
,.e.... e. -. t.. -. a -,. c..,*.......
.c.....
,..n
. -,e......o -.c..c.
I
.ei
- s eroveees ia "o event se e tea e e i e s ore ne, t er e c or e o s vt so 's *em aowes.. ?*oet erse, ever,=6cm +ome on, swen service sasis :e oessee to de Fire Ao,or 'esesmiss een Service "o caerces 6a actoreence.i n lectica 3.1 *ereot.
I 4
!steaae eae e. ent.
sists.er + enseission service sneel de reaseree aentalv tv Coaeemv.
est swcn...., scesi :e sue eaen rene ees.
- e oest oue este snell to tieteen t'6) covr. t w vae
- ste et *estlag 09 +.e otti. anv onownt sao one wnesse af ter the owe este small de terees I
teliaoweat tae "are snell de acoes interest et me cur rent r e t e prevl ee s f or * *'w* es ** ** v ser a
i "o 8esere s 8ever a t Dv FieC se saw swegessor egeaev.
c 48'lian ;itogreenea', a es t ilag et tegreement occurs onee e till as rea oree 64 'i s o w t o e trv I
"e ( t ectric.t t i t ty welligleg *reagat osion service one Comeone is antit les.a v i' lag o' tvcn
- itegreemeat.
eme** resolveten et si s egreement is not echieveg 6tain tests.sa it61 Sevt *
- om " o
- ste et as e t tag ne ot t i. He alli *ust be pelo es supeittee or eseos lmNest 3welvent 's lectica
!.e well accrwo.
'.6 wn Jeveene.
ia two e,ent et aan.,,,eme,e, e glig, commeen, snett neve vae esqmt *s voce6*ete "salme ttien service s a vvv 8 60) save sweseevent to ene sete of melilag of "e till. *:pmoeav satll I
- Povice actit teetton in sciting og i+g intent to tereg nets trenselstion service 'or aca*eavneas of till et teelt 'nirty t)01 cevs orter 'o t*e actwas este of ter,n t ne t t on o f 'reaseissloa service.
I.
- .7 3 m twere ene n n. e.g.e to on,.see., oicuie,ee oor. et to on, et n. tore,iaq s m i-t iene of thit Serflon en enevnt in saliers switicient to relateerse the Commen, f or eat lacree's 8'
- e amenett sold or seveele og it et teles, escale o,' sien ter teses lotner "en 'ones ostet wDo* -
.I tr meseroe IPt act inctsmel imposee ef ter tee ottoctive sete 39 telt terlH.
tetict! ev.
~
4.1 3sseg.
- %g logpes incurree tv Coseper polg eq 9etermined free tne $cneasted treastee waag
. c_
act.on.. _..e o..
te,ce, ees,.ee,e e,t.a.,ee of tr.se...l_,e - ce rease.ee
+.e..
'Ir* Or econenvl groescoe av e sv cemoettee estes we et reoresentatives et (MCOT attittlet I-
- ergte esta scorelasting stweles togersing ttie steenir3 et IRCOT generation ene treaset ssion Svtfee teffiltles. I8tese lose setticoe Shell l#eltett ing egejallYised 884 Gittrimsflon et to19es 31s0Cletet ult 9 'he trengter, 49 the c6918A Of t4e Cassedev lessee ce ll be retel8 la time C#
'a e
It M9 C4Eloe87 eiooT9 4 Cas) ogytedet, It she1i Se meech Gerieg th. t,i1esi49 Ceienser eenit I,
etae ta, 9899 t" t9 Mteer t*$>M energemeegf* c.yfr esp' Wao* T9lIW9%It9810esegr sacre Iacteed, ee re.co,i, enesi...eki, mer.,0. e,,re e, rot. e n S e to eweer* -*e tvei
,ric fe....,e e - le = t. - i.ee.e.
-h 5*stisa *e.
j w eet me, i
r
.g,p, I
'o l
*O
- t%AS UT1(lil($
gtggerg,e p.,,
CLICTRIC C04' Wf ELECIAIC sutlet Revi sion jpa9e ve i e e, u lection title Torste wane Aesticeoie 8tATt tro
- m l
'Itosgel35tC84 SERtlCE TO F804 4d0 3'
OvtR CDT418e wvtt' insitit 0>ettCit tstS 1
i
~ ~..
3 AATICtt v.
- ease 6 se len 5ervl ee not C.overes rv teetto. the retee, ' erne, conett tons one c t essi f ications i
- encernsag two transmission service turnasnee nernunse, nne any f uture (menges in or soet tice-
ont t* ererM. snell not soolv to any trenantes ton sorwices erova see av t*e Comeen, nlen services sre act reoutree ter mesivery of oceer aos energy to, trtse one cuer tne avtX: latercoanecticas or I
- e saw mestv a egreements et te oteee utt i t tles f or *rensmisslea snevice to, tron w over **e
.=v0C "erconnecticas it amt neve noe or in tne f uture, etner tvian agreements se es oursuant 'o tu s
- a r i a..
t
]*esaw te enenin eson= fur is cl ef le*# 6,
%e Ccampany snett ioT tye re8tt.3 ee ?S Orowlie servits v
. o_.r.o.s. n to.... e., s t, r,. f.t.e, nt.r_,...n,. : n.c
- s., v. tec
....t.
- e 1PensafitioS. sets, esenentge, eneettage cotarelnet t ha or cConse ng f
- ng ut 910 ctrl J DSeer in J
"ers teve ccomerce tt,.
tren one over ene av0C laterconnections or e6tnin Me State et T.'ses, in "o event it s.esemines test te ao se east e etteet its nea.jvelselettecet status enene twe pneerst Swer Act unless exv secn intrecenaction is e non.juristidional latycwinection oreerne ov tne
'ecovel taergy eeyvisterw Commits 69a un4,e *ne provielons of testloes 213, 211 tne 212 of twet.
, I_
act.
?.3
.ettes 'o Cm_e trenomi sidea 3. vl e... it sne s s no tne resseas t el l i ty et tne CloctrIc
- I-
.tisity rnet nos esecutee a fesamm6 ssion Service Agrement to glvs Cossoery sevence act t ee et 'as "ansmission serv 6ce coveres meres, et sonst twenty-f our 4 24 neurs se tor to sce=nsacement of seen
^
s ervice, escoot vor (cenee, Ener9y or Egecy powec, nc,esen notice snauld be erovtsee es soe-5s crecticaste.
?.4
- eassession service intereveteen.
canoew, Laess airt guteentse twat ene trentweission service Jos ivorce heresseer allt w tres tree intertierflee e tseestmeats, one Cemet.nv snet t act be
- lette for oemoge ressering yneretetse, t,
?.3.
- efles. Caseent, owcett la case of meergefesy ws estersince Dv Caseeny, sell. 'o the erf ent i
grectlesete, give (1peemenegel, eqvs##se auflee of est scheestes temperory interrvstions or lane s e rmen-
- , W 3*
- tr881888I88I88~ $4dFTI4Re Centeer 644stIN AefffIee In tSte 2iestrie Uttttty ut1i1:Irg tne L
- r880lde80en servien of eaw laterfirweleone to the vse et ??ue tresteeinslen service es soon as erec=
iceees. w aetiae et w ages. es s,.e ntirone in erstin, en ts. este son noesco is o.ea.
?.6 terstaatlet. ' theless esctier tyrmelaatse pesreaset te vno atavlulpe of Secties 3.6, a witten seroenemy ee, et te#8sile4 IW the ElecYrie Utility utiliging tronomittlem service ueen notico l'F## t4'e 84sHil89 ests *rief te tRe este et grieagente gamegilgtlee lh t%e esse et e# e9f eteent Orc
- I e litjt t et* C AeServee perjeg g,f Isw3 tMM esJ yeer y vose nJriare 311vnes 30 eavs orier to eme sefe orocesee concellation I,t ene case of en agracese* pescising for e Recervee Pertoe of oaa veer
-:t
?
- r sere.
I r
1
~
-~
(
?
if sh M
V ame 7
y j S ea;t t en ime.
t sheet see.
t c
i i
i ist.o I
io tAAIP P
'tXAS LTILITit!
l titective oete (LIC1RIC CCtEMNT I
i ELECTRIC 5tRvlCC y[
movisten Page s.
.9 5ection fitse
' erst' n==e i senticeene eAft tro i
m Em
- e Amstat 5510pe SERVick 70, moe A4
+
vte CtatAtas =vir nettac"MNECTite:S I
- RTICit 91 4 nonee,.
,e,ete, e, s,ee. ore.n eno o ce.eeny.e, coe, o,,orv.co..no on, te~. ene co-.
1 sitions not spostfies in no Creers, are sucpct to being sweerseees, emenges t<-
- centlee, eitner
-m in emote or la c o r.t.. t r oe t 8== 'o 'iano er a legallt o t t oct i ve t i l i ng av Cone ene e t ta or ev or eer if "e MRC or en, avecessor *eque eforv autacrity naving jurt seletion, er.e swaject to 'ne crowt*
f-stons et 1 ction 1.1 n er ees
- g Couni s s i on s cr eer Ac erov e ng S ett i eneset in ;ocast LA62-Sa'h000, e
et 41 on e 'ne Paneosee Cr ete twome f tse taernw 6 vn, no Comissnv sne t t nev e tne riq+it at any time nli ef ere s )v 'e seest sweerseeine *ove s tons teon un reque story outnerity.
o
'B settCLE vt1 8y,v e r ' te:Ve, S e (lect" c.titity wt!Ilting treneettalen serence small te reseenstsee 'or
~'
"o swesse of ruacttwo power eaowerepients on its own systaso one small ce reseces t ele fei' 'ne woiv m,eut....eer ree, ret,o ~,n,s.n ne so.e t ec,or.t no e or esii.em to it se 1
ser un n, o.recticesie, oce, u one.e se uv ee erren,ec n.ht n.omorine coerosea+etives '
- 29. tas Ccestnv ens *ne O ectetc ut t il' williging transweission service owc to the mee entsfing
- cr< si t t rants :rovi deo, ac=ever. act in no is,ont snell sucn Electric uti t lty ee reewires to amen.
LM.W,
' sin a alqmer owwr +attor "en is reeviree of otner stelle*et situef oe custoseers on *** Ceasenv' systse.
',1 rete-teg one #ecernine. *aseeny snell Install one relatsin 'ne necesserv metering (*eters,
- elemetry, ane eco*sig eewtoment s f or vrenenessime service reneeres owesuant 'o tais fortet.
r incoot enere cinerwise egene, tne f,lectrif, utility rece$ wing service sesil cuerMPete Cossent
't'
' l
- ne toes ci - t astaillag nocesserv suetering in tne eenner set f ortn in the Trenomisslosi Service 1
agroegent enteres late merewneer. !.n osemeneetten snest be in seeltten te et t etner cnerges 3roviset ter nernin, teef ort spet t M ef such numeur, type one arrangstuent as will amesure-essent LI sna/er energy seliveres, creenv snell test and cellbrote sucn meters av coseertson olts wcure-stenowres et intervees esoroves f or meter, et the, type wsee. Causatet snell etto conesst speclel
- ests et tmo reeeeet e.t the Et octric utility restelving service, the cost of suca seccial tests smet I es earne tv Ceasene, eveest enon tne Peswt to of suca -tests alsclete tne seters ore ec s
- egieterie1 eitole 2 seresee ei 100 eeresor esotererar. In aicm e.,eet the (lsatrIc Itria itv reementlog tne seestal test snet t teor tae cost et testing, i
i A8tTICLE vi a 6 j
sleellig. The tiectric trtiller utillalag tronomissleb serv 6cs necouneer eueressly egr***e 1.1 e.eiosit ty ene save neceseos one estone Caesesse agelast st a ciales, sesenes, costs, or emeenues
'l artsing out et crevleing "o trensenselon servlee, inelvetag, witneut tieltotice, cieles ce scenenes casartes e, any certy in connterlen e6 tn tne treneelselen or eellverv et 8*s*r en8 en**
eacest onen the cteles, eeocnes. cests or eersesses reseit tree tne seie not6igemee er eliI'W8 alscensust ot tne Ceaueny esta reseest to tse eseretten et Its sistes. The Electric utility u, s
Int ilatuq;tresemisedan servise eseesee all rencomslittlity ter eteetticity bovene the 9etats of maestle# 'estseem fee Cergeov ene suca Eleeffic VtilltY, tne sweeleing norty er Marvenleg U swet sysebeams see Celeessw eesti est 90 Ile649 ter sammagerh te tes ser9emer er Droserty e swen vi
' av or les esef eveeer er oop etner eerses, coeeattney treme two ese or :w esseee et ***rtetcitv U
- ssene seeier seisms et lat erenamention, le at event ses61 tme Comeet seeme te snee9e N 88'e*
l
. scelaa we, persetert to Acelete a n av regeen et twa forsoodeg eeregrees 4.l.
'~
e
y,
,v,_.
se l
i i t q.()
.q 9AIFF
- t.u S UTILITit5 A t teet4ve cete 80R ILECTRIC 03e'eNT (LECTRIC 5fRvlCE
=I_
lmovessoa page ice 1 o, ++
iectica fi t t e
!a r i + tlenee accincocte
~
eATE 'FO
'I,
- tstri
- 2Asi5 ail 15t0N 5tAveCE T*.
FROM eno
- vtR ;tRTa os -voc ia(TtoCONktC?l;k5 i.;
' t e e ey J e v e.
a ces-es taer "e Conany or a o 7,1 ec t r i e.,t i i t t y receiving " easatsstoa ser-ice aerewnoer saous e ce oeieveo a er gre,.evee eroe oer,or=Inq or cerev e ng out ea, of "o 19,+eamats, covenants aae coingetiens sees av ene imoosee voo s sent sorties :v nis Tarle' ov
.h "i >
- seson of or " rouqa strise, steeeege in eeoor,.easure of contrestors or swooliers et *ereciais, at.
- lesi ricos. ice. invesien, ci,si
..e, go ention, laswerections, elettery or anweses power.
m.e et saw cowet ;t a,ee ia ea, wa s, i ce e.,erse s o,e, oroe.ee i nes er act i on. :r o, ea, civ u v *setterv evnority e 6 ner ce vecto or we f ure eve sos ti,c act of Go e or a o ovo t i c eammi es. or m :suse ressoaeolv m one.n c:a ee eas act attri owteo n e 'o i ts aeo t *ce t "ea. ene a sven
- ssa or cases, sucn certv sassi act to e l ente +o 'ne etaer car'?v *or or on occowat of ea, i cs s.
j vece.
afvev er ersease resw.v. :. -,. or e r i s nq ou t et suca oese, or s r ev en t ica t :roviese.
j-ve,er. "et " a cer+v s,,, e er. =n s c a ca s e, or pr ev,at ion sa a t i woe sus sao, a > s gegawar.
recticeoie e n igwact.o e n v.
.a. Caves or eew.ee ner.o,; ene are,inee or n.r.
not
- a.. n.r ur+, saast to e so v e rse av t*e eereooing crovisions to settie e stet se enceot.aon, accoretag *c
- s :va oest,, o game nt, sw.cn seeneae n t so.ms seveseoie, f.
so teoienttoa et toesti+tes.
nav w a oe, e s i a, o, += e Cons e a, wacer ea, crevisions of "Is ri'*
saali act i:oesti+ute no cenicotton of "o Caeceav's transat te lon system or ea, oortion I.
" erect 'o "o ovolle or to eav om er certy, ne et is wnowstooe eae agr*ee "e'
e'v s#n wae*r*
- same tv Coeoene sasil css,se soon,reinstica et me %ssevee e. sos crevices eer
,a an, sitten screement esteres into wooer n t s *eri t, # coacoiletten of sucn er s **ea egreisaent. ira 6 ca ever saeit scewr *irst, cettCLE ix.
=<teeissa aws.
s.
.ati e senwry 1 1981 of varit vae test svtx: interconnectice goes lato service. ua scae* *r is
- er>+er. :oser one energy econosei ce t t e elspetenee among tne C5W Coeretiaq Co'eeas se vasca as
- eas'orree tras est asocen,,cc ia,ercana.etters to irTU or CPL will ce esswaase to 'e"*iaste vi e ta ;
"o *Tu service territorv toe owrooses cit ceterme nlag transmission serv 6ce catecas.
- . #er suca eeetos in 5ssetlaa 9.te. soevo, ao tvener transmission ser*6ce emersee ot t i to
~*eeses for transfers of swen power. ene energy covons tu arTU service teret terv to CPt. ercest "at losses eill to energes to tae notat et actuel tort *Inselon taerect tit eeing agrees not
- I
" easters of eav posee ene erergy, l ac t we t ag oceec one ener gy econos t ca l l y alsosten*e Dt "o Cie coreting Comeeves, to, f rem one over 'ne asortn **VCC tatercoaasetton to e aca-C5W (terat tag
' Jiac e nv snell act A esswies ve, f ores nete es tnin no gTU service terettorv 'or "* ouroces o' I
- sformaning transmiselon caerges nere.meer out renee siecw transf er will os ener9ee to t'io ceint
- '. actve s terwe astion nwroot.
l "I for tae'oerlee proviese in Se: tion 9.te. serve, esser one energy econose eil, elssefeese one a
3 "o Cs= oserem., co
.ni enien is,ren.,er,ee,ro, cri.,o Rso or seCo ove no morn - cc
, aterconnection elli De essweee to originete oltn en tne isTU service territerv
'0" 8*'8****
- stersoning tronomissica service caerges.
,I
[
l 1
r cI.
Sectise see.
$suowp-sesg I-ill=0 10
'tu S WTILITit$
Aft e FF
+-
Ettactive otte F04 IL(CTRIC COW'ANY (LECTRIC SERvtCE
'I I
it of is lection fitte i Ieritt %ene l Aeplacette 1
3At[ tfQ I
- ugq
- m98155 tOd 5tRv tCE 70. A04 AW 1
- vtR CERTAlte uvCC INT [RCONpetCTION5 i
g
.i_..i.a _.. _tI,.e, t
..e
.....,tos.cowte.e -..t e,..,... _ e.,o 9 w,ta., t,e _ ss
....ic. cre,,es
.1,,
I-
- e 6aoosee for trensters of sucn cover one energy over tne orta Mt0C latercoanaction 'o 850 or leEPCO. encoot + net losses will :e energed tres ene eetne of octuel cetgination +aeceo, tit being agrees emot 'rensters et env power one snergy, ine tweing power one energy econoottettv elsestenee
- v **e C$e Coeret t ag Ccacent es. 'o.
":se one over ene s ortn Mvtr; interconnection to a nona;$w I
serating Coacony tr<nts act de assumme to neve originat ee es tnin tne nTU s ervice 'errt'ory for '$e r
- s sone et cetero ning f annsmiss ion enarges nerownoer out revner sucn transvers,isi :. energee
' em '*e coint of actua s cri ci net t on "ereot s.
g sr.....e o.es... _...
.a
,.ct _.
1... _.. s _ oort on et e _ or.no.ne.,,._
- co s, co nostcase among "o C5m Ccerating Conceases os.a trensterres between eTU ane CPL v6 t e bo
- actee wo ev "o rece sving wt t liev's on-e sne soinnino reserve in tne enount et "o trans w. In noitton *o sucn we t a l tvis core.a i soie.ntag reserve es rooverse w tne (Acct gui a.s e t aee.
a f t er as oorlos prov e ces in Section 9.te. ecovo, en, paper one energy, inctwolmq poeer ano
- ergy econoutcapit alssett.neo eacaq tae C5W Operet tag Comoentes, trensterree 'e.
- om one over "o av0C t a'erconaections.,i l l to energed on tne taas t s of enere seen cover ena energy actwenty originates ano terminates, AATICLE I.
3ateevetion mt Casocitv. Ociacan, reserves 15 corcent inominee casocisv et M uvt of '9
- =nersnio et 'ne test afG: latercorAection (nomenet capacity of 100 wwl f or H r= pooer enee* >ng
- wesuant 's ene totlowing:
a s.
"'e reservation of 13 ww i s por e i ectr i e st i s e t t ee i n ERCOT ana 5W nev e ag t oe 8e l es s "en
?:0 um t he 6 4 9 t es ut t i l t lee s :
- ne reservette of CC casocity si t e contta e for a t eve toer oorlos etter "e tant avg:
v j
aterconnection goes into ccessercial coeretion, tit two one of tse tive veer certos tne Commeny
,B
-ev file, as e eneage in service, a reagwest to estate ene esservatic4 for Mi t tlee uti t teles:
4
- . Cdeseet will seticit reeweets for reservetton ce9ecity for use curing at t or oort at sale five voor serios tras Quellflee utilities et toest one yeer teters f** Test MtCC Interconeoction is
- rojectee to se ovelleese for commerciel coerstler, one et one weer Interveis eneraetter f or eservetten casocity enten mee not been ore,sevset ceauet ttee, i Seallflee utility swet respone
- " a reevest to use all or eart et tne re,erves oc coeeesty in erleing, accenseales av a signes
- inolag agreement..s ta ta 50 cavs of tne este at tne 6061citettee setter. :oseeav reserves no aignt 'o vtl e ite eat unweee sortlen of tfie reservatica casocity wett i a timent reewest ter
.aoe t ing i s en ee w a Cuel l i tee v+1 t i ty res,se,etion caeacity sev os vsee w tne Comespy oa a 'fr
)
- asis tros fear to t+er or teen, it ef ter sotteltation ene no' ice, ceecity is not contract *e for-n :co.i ose nerein w 8.t ow.u t see uto ity:
[l nn. ricerv.,ies.a a isso. re.ece
,,o m. eene., ee -.w eees, serene t ear =,c=a r.ieseos I
cr. '
I r;
kd m
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - " - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ^ ~ - - - - ^ ^ ^ - - - - - - - ~ - - - - - ~ - ^ ' - ~ ~ ' - -
1, a
3earttee eso.
Sheet see.
H l.0 m
TMtirr 5 UTILITit5 titeettve cete I -
ELECTRIC 3DVICE Revillen l Pwge se I u of is itte feritt lAceticante eAtt tro
.HER I.
t 7Ae981551CN $DVICE TC. Food ANO i
- vta CERTAIN MVCC int [MCODe4CTIONS g
i I
me
.e e..
....c,t -..or.o. e,s _ t.o t.
s
.r. c,.
...I,
- s. s.e,ect.o.no,_ er,.e l
aovistors et ** l s ta r t f
- e s enen in at t act:
,e..c,tv.e._ee.or sa m t,ee ut,,,tles e, m se -e. l as,e to, e,cmass oe.,t.ee s et
+=e coorect etse origt asi cost ta reot, un'Il-altner til tmo reservation et casocity e
verataatse ce (21 ?*e oecortumetv 'o certiciente in omaersato of eeelttonel DC casocitv sta;ileo nes'boen 'eaeoree es set forrn tesos et ceregroon G. enichever comes first.
- or surenese et asservea caserlev must to occcmesates pp e signee olneing agreessent.
reservettom carecitv ev Quesit tee utilities in fSe East uvtX: Interconnection smel t be
~ I.
of
. re te ese t s **em ae Conceav. *** Central one Souta wet Coereting Cemesentes (*CDs'). ene
.lghtlag & Power Coseeny (*wtAPal unless tme Company, nLO. and C3W otnerve s. ogreel one M res9aase 'o tae annual sot iciteflon to Ovalit tee utilities ter reserves especitv, tme o of coquests as use ene/or purcnese saca essocity esce+es the arnavat o* uncometttee especity. *aea cacacity slll te mese evelleole assuant to suen reevests on the following e
8HE '
scn Qualities utility roovesting reservetton casocity saati to entitt ee to contreet for e ots or *o ourcnese. s, ero rate snere et tee evaliente reservation capacity teses on tmo
- i
.. I
~lon its raouest beers to the totet of sti reevests.
- e ogreement signee Dv ene roovester shall provlee for its cancellation or for reesction enount 'o se contractee for ce surenesee in the event taet tse esevester le uneele to i
g-e as f orge e snare of escocity as reeveeted eue to tne ocas rate reeaction set torta la
~
t;reen (git 11 eeces. et a reewester fines it necessary to comeal its reewest as a result
' orn rete reeuction, tne casocity se rolleevisaee elli tio elvleet seemq the remetning
- ers on e oro rete cessa o.suant to suestregreen (gl(11' etere.
, one, n t,o -.at.4._In
, s un.orte_ to,ncre
.. c._, tt.t _e.est -
noction out. St intervels of no eses enen overy faree toerg etter bAe 30. !949. etti Juae
.., electric vtfiltles in UtCUT-ene SW el'l te-given-tweeeertenity to particloeto-in two of increesee in ene cepecify of tne test Mt0C Intereenportlen and et participating in tne
'o of eat incronomf at caeacity stees, orevloed eqpela tnat esce party inet elShee to
,ete sets its are rete snare et all costs el eensts weting ttee test My0C Interconnection
..!=
ele, nee to sorticipate in and uncertesse to say its are rate saare et the costs of g--sac meintelning tas East wttc laterconneette:n one agreen furttier to se umane spe two e comeltlons of the Agresomet termeen Duners of tne feet wvCC latervennectier..
ARTICtt II.
y g
t..
ml.
rltt snell.e_n ottect,.e es et tae.ste e ent. se _.t roving the of fer of Settnesset sa4 eeustlag the Pressees Creer ettuseos therete, seesittee t noe. (ABM4NEO et al.. Decemos tieel eue ne lenger easjest to juditlel revloe. eae 6
atlaes la etteesr soiena cessagees eestfies,.se suostsaamerle esauresesoreett vtlele el +F gg,
' " " ' of 9914 W.
'. eet nf temmes4 swee. the emne, Ice head $mean tvueenaenman Ie 9elie faspI t9 are tesP evnowensiestsPa enIv
I
)
Seartian s**.
Sheet me.
I+
114 0 90 U ILA4 1/TILITi t3
^
titective Deto (LE.TRIC C3eamt ELEC*ItlO $tXVICK Revision 4e9 m
4, et,,
i Section Title terett *: me lAeoliceste i
cAft TF0
- T M l
~~'5Mt $$lcee SUttlCE 70, raos w) j I
i vtp ERIAIN avCC IniTERCDedCTICw5 l
NIS iGttDathi t age ent ?.
$eos e u enteres inte tels 1sv of 19 W
a E
sne between f tXAS Litu tits t' gC*mic *'3eANY (Commenv p ene,
I Cw s teamer i.
a Thtt$tTN
.maf,, _ sle.r.t, - t...
. e. co.en.nts _ e e,, _.nts me,.,a _ t.,noe..n. **,v,-
9ereto covenent one agree vien eacn otmee se tollowes Convenv snuti aeovi ce +-ensaission service, one Customer smel t cow 'or 'Pensmission servien, in accor eence ut ta **e orovisions or knoenvis feri t t ene Trensen ssion Servlee io. Feese one Over
- er'e ta avtX: I n ter connect i on s a s *
- e s ame oe v De emenees t r es t ime to f l'ae. ano enten is anecv.
g
=r..e. -
et.r.n...ne oe e..,.
.t
.n.s.,,. _ t.s t.nI.,t s e...e n.,etc.
.n..ita e o soecificettons set f oren ee s ow, I
%eme et suopivtag party.n ien sne t t generate electr ic power ano energt f or Cwstper's accovat ist
- ieme of supplylmq portt vnica smell cellver electric power dMc energy toe Cwstcner's accownt is A coot of two contractis) evteencing sucn egre.eaanttsitif env6 is attacnee moreto es taalblt 6.
- . - at of senes.,es,e snote, of oo.., one _ g,.
,or
.n, _ ent.....,.. so v. e_. s s, _
s erv4 ce one f or un t en Cane emt smell De eele a transelssion energe in e".cocoonce elsn tne etterned I
tun tuit C and egeoensation for losses es entertaines ener Article t v of Ct.aussev's Tself t attacnee necete. It wit. Soln? of cetgin of Scweestee Transtee of powist one enect;y tone it
'Penster celqinatog o attlee of teCCT, two paint of octry of power one enerty into (RCOT) are ene Ninttsi of eestinetten at 4
Seneeslee Transtge of power one enerw t one it trenetoe terminates outslee of Det, volettsi et seoerture et sce.c one energy tras (NCOT) are __
one E
=
a 3.
Swtjoet to comellence elen eli provisions of Custeev's etter.tive feritt W TransattMoa Ierv6ce To, From, one Over Cactuin =+C latercuanections, tnis Agreweent snell continue in et tect f or e tore tReswvee Nrloel exteneing f rom 19
, to 19.,,,,,.
e.
Seedb poser one saergy snell ne receives one eeliverse sveject to tne f ollowing "*terin9, recoratag rwisestering, seneaullag one es,setrol prowlstens.
.I.
3 I.
?.
%*ee end energy enten is tot iverse ey Cemeeny one is not telemeterse snell to sstjoct to "la
'olloeing f *0encillation previsicvi 6
Aeditional or cas,Illes tecillglos to accieuseesto t%le transection snelJ Do crowleti sne cela ter. as follow $t I
I
I
.t..
'lJAS VTILITits
~
get i
o r, j
(LECTRIC CC>t* ANT i
(LICTR10 SUrtICE iR ei j r.
I u et t I !actlert fitte
- feetti %eme Angetegge,
}
eATE TF0
- THER
'A4thil5510N SERvlCE TD., 08 AW i
',vtR CtRf AIN Hv0C IWitRCO**4CT10N$
~.
I ali t e t t s renoeree Custoase shall de celles to Customer's eseress ntem ts
~
or sucn otant esoress es Custenner met g i v e C.pe en, in.rtting one s.tstt
- s peneste in acrunence es ta
- s-previs awis et two feritt for transmission Service to, '* tun are ver Carteln avCC Interconnections et Concees ot tlcs in Colles, Teses, 9
- % It agre+ ment sne s t 04 ei net s.g woun ene inves to ens, taeastit of moth certies one t'es c
- eseective successors, isge' *eoreseatethes one essegns, eut snell act te essignee tw eitner I
- e m ettwout two.=ritten conseat et *ae ormee.
% m e t%E 55 *ERICF, **e earties Nve causes taese cressats to me esecutou ene saetes.
- txAs uTit i tit. ELEC*RIC "> PANT j
5.u_
- '"EST:
1dY Ci h,'
8t
~
g
,,t e
s..ttee -
[
ste f
e
,I-C
,Hanne of Cwsteners I
afTE17:
T...
g
- st.
I I
1 3JI l
. ~
l
~ _
SeeMee %
senessmann,-
T* * ' t o IIt=0 e.
ypp EffMtivo Gots aTita
- pg ELEC'RIC SDtTICE Revis t en Page 19 et 19
~
-1 raritt e
io.iies ie j
Raft T10 l
- RAN1Mt $310s $UtvlCE TO, mDe A80 i
- VER CERT 41N MVOC IvitRCDe(CTICNS EXHttlT C g
. # Acl' 1 Tit $ CMM,tn FOR FifW PortR TRt.M5 Bel 5510N SERVIC*
,E
'see ArtlCle ),) 09 Me feriff)
. n.
~
inte 'or Annual w tmly f ai>w i c e Ig ect Feelllties m eeting 1_
..e, e er.
,er,e 3
- S.!0 g
2.
5 4Cititit5 CdMG15 Fan EconcuY (WUhtY TRAM 98155tCM $1RVICE tace Article 3.2 of the TerettJ
~I.!
[AnMWel 1Cheasted AA##ei F40Ur lV '
.Facilltfee-Te ms t er*
.Coet Per '
Coat Per
' $_herto
'88 _
W El LI:
3 n
eneit o. suitteiles w ene neariv
,seert somesim frenacer l
l"
'o ttes hovely e**elleg s erys.
L
^
l t
w..
k.y'b9
I a
ep.
' ' ! $ p;;
\\.-
1g May l$. l'N2 I
Ms. Lois D. Cashc11 Secretary I'
Federal Enety Recduary Comunssion 825 N. Capital Street. N.E.
WarAington, D.C. 20426 Ret Cenermi Power mM 14M Co_ et mL Docket No. EL79 8-000
Dear Secetary Casbell:
By this letter. Central Pcmer and Ught r~'~ay, Public Semce Company of Oklabama. Southwestern Sectric Power Company, West Texas Udlites Company.
ihton Ughnns & Power and Teams Utilities sectric Company, Petitionen in
.I the above. referenced docket, y the C-M= af their intent to construct the East HVDC hie
=-T= in a single ptme. Petiticacts sancipets that, sub)cct to rem =Ne wuJ.,M the full 600 m w of W's "y wiu be insaniled on or before Aug.at 30, i
1995, tn fall W*= wnh tE er=======
Order GrW Petition.'issuad harem ao I
December 6.1991.
A copy of thh letter will be served cra all to thm dockst to trve nonce L
crf the anacapsest schedule for innallanon af the East connecten.
Rispatully yours, Q /Ykf f
ned l
~
Randolph A3. McManus Davse J. Roano
.mGS.
Attorney for Macason I 'M Anarney for Scudrwestern Eectne
& Po m e Comepawy Power Casupesy, Camer 1 Power stui ush: C7 y, Pubbe Sernes Ca--"y of r"Mahan= and West Texas UtRites gg
. Cesapang we 3
.m Attorney for Tomas UtDities e
Bactric m i
'E5-ec CyntfLa A. Marlstre Daniel 1 Latonny Jerry R. M8bours y
Au parths in Dodm No. EL7%MXr2 9.,'
e as TOTAL DAGE.322 **
,.I.
- I fl
- y u
' 5 P;; 9 May 15.1992 Ms. Lois D. Cashell Secretary -
- g Federal Energy Regulatory Commmiot g
825 N. Capitol Street, NL washingtoc. D.C. 20426
- Centra Power and Iicht Co_ et al Docket No. EL79-MX10 l
- Re:
Dear Secretary Cashtll:
By this letter, Central Power and U ht Company, Public Setwe Compuy B
of Oklahoma, Southwesterr, Electric Power Company, West Texas Udlides Company, Houston Lighun5 & Powr Company and Texas Utilitics Ecstrie Compeny, Petition:n in the above ref aranced docket, notify the Cocamisswn of their intent to construct the East I
HYDC Interconnecdon in a single phase, Peddotters andeitnte that, subject to reasonable con %cLees, the full 600 megawatts of capacity wal be installed on or before August 30, 1995, in full compliana with the Comnussion't " Order Grannng Feudon.* issued hereia an December 6,1991.
A copy of this 127ter will be served on all parties to this docket to grve nonce
~
of the amicipat:d schedvic for instsilatit,n af tbc Eastlutnconnection.
Respectf illy yottrs. -
()
/h_
/Y rnw)
~
As.ndolph C. McMama Lhd J. Rosso A%
. Attorney for Houston I ishring
. Aunrney fer Southwestert' Eleccie _
& Power Compsuy Power Campany, Central Fom mi i
Ught Cornpany, Pddie Service Company i.
of Calahoma tr4 west Texas Udtttes Ccatwny -
g g gg NLD. M4
' :F A Attomey for Teams Utilities Sectric Company 1
cc:
C)tthia A. Marnette 5
Damel L. Lareamp Jerry R. MiRarn All par *.fes in Docket No. EL79 6-002 hg I
f es 7 0 T ct. coGE. 332
- a L
4
\\
j
=
I I
a_rm.a 11lELEC PiC I
hn.nen,
- rav gastt rew-m,
'I April 1, 19D2 r
Mr. Jack M. Miller tirector, Bulk power Markets i
, 3 cajur. Electric Pnver cooperative, Inc.
g 10719 Airline Highway Saton Rouge, Louistona 70895
Dear Mr. Miller,
Thank you for your letter, dated March 9, 1992.
ve likewise receivod benefit from our ucating with you on February 25, 1992.
In light of our nov lo-y6ar Resource Plan announced,on March 17, it would now be pIemature to discuss generating unit purchase or firm power purchese.
He are delaying the construction of two 3-750 MW lignite units (alFoady CCN approved) for two years to 1997 g
and 1990, the proposed addition of tvo G20 MW combined cycle units for two years until 1999 and 2001, and the 290 MW simple cycle unit until 2001. A 650 MW pulverised coal unit has been deferred beyond I:
2001. the last year in the planning horizon.
The cnatigas in the construction schedule are mainly in response to a decrease in long-term estimates of growth in customer damand for electricity in our service area.
We appreciate your interest in our capacity re4uiremente.
Shoul.1 the requirements of our servios area change a;uch that there is a nead to consider new firm capacity requirements eerlier than Ii anticipated in the new resource plan, we vill review the alternatives available at tnat time.
As requested. I hava enclosed an crqanization en;trt for Bulk Power Transections and a copy of our 1990 FIRC Form 1.
Yours truly, k
( sig o *e/ L D. EbI4 ymee h
)
o a
k.
E
- 2 N.nu care sama Ls. n mTs,m ;mt TOTGL POGE.002 s-I
r We teamed 8hea68'8 h**=4r d
PC, km eWN
- Sauna *amma Ptsets,68 cau.cos Juns 30, 1992 cajun-21errtric Powar Cooperative, Inc.
t l~
% 0. BCX 15540
'_g:-
Daten Rouge IA 70595 Ladies and Gantlemes:
' As you may be aware, in final orders of the Federal'Inergy L.
Revalatory Comnissien ("TERC") in Decket Nos. E-93$t, EL79-3,
~
EL79=S-002 and EL79=8=000 (which ordars are hermitattar rafstred to t
as the " orders"), the eporating subsiditries er the central ans south Wes: ccrperation ' ("0SW"), Couston Lighting t. Power ce=pany
-(EMP*) ana Texas Util.'. ties zie:Tr 0 ccnrpany (arc Electrica) were ordared to censtruct a 600 XV nominal capacity asynocronous diveet currant interconnectica,betweea ths Welan generating station at Southwestern Electrio Pever company, a CEW operating subsidiary,
("SWEPCC") - and TU Ilsetric!s Menticallo generating station (the
" rant Interconnection").
-SWEPc0- and anothar CSW operating subsidiary, Central Pcvar and Light Ccapany ("C?L"), together with HL&P and TO Electric (ths. " East Intarcennection Participants"), are cunantly angaged in the planning and -design c.
the Zast Interconnection and anticipate complStien of 12.s entire 600 Nw
-project no latar that August 1995.
The orders also provide, in relevant part, as follows:
Whenever planning is undertaken to increasa
- ne capacity of
-the-HVDC
-E
- nter= nne=tiona, but at interve.is of no acre 5
than svary three years... after June 30, 1909, with respect to thti East Intercennection, until rv.no 30, 2004, electrie utilities in IRCCT and I.
SWPP ana11 hs given the opportunity to participate in the planning-cf increassa in the
- ape. city of *he (East] n'.Dc Interconnection and of participating in the evnership of sB; any incr.=..nts: capacier aaed, provia.a ovatn
.B:
that ea=h party that vinhas to participata pays I
A Mar mor e tre Caere sig SNe Wes: tysen11 Oe-re % c1 L;" 04mm utzr Sows W e On.nov Scavsourt f e:re %=st Orca y a
baness ina = Wes* Tears Whee Cerapery
[
f-[ i; i[~ JtIe U M ME 1
s
l 4
- a. m m.. hare.2 au cost. an,..me.ma..
to pay it.s gu n g share of the coats of 5
op.ntin, anc==intaini, that czasti irroe
-E-Interecanection and agrees further to he bound by taa terr.s and comaitions of the nrn3.icabis
- Agreement among the owners or Particicants of that (Xast) Interconnection.
Any suct planned i
inctassa in the capacity of
[ths) EVDC Inturconnection sac,11 be submitted to taa Commissien for action pursuant to sections 210,
.g.
211 and. 212 of the Feder*1 Povar Art.
'g Pursuant to these provisions of the Ort in, this letter is
.. g being writtaa to each electric utility in the Electric Reliability council of Caxas and tbt Southver.t Power Pool PElectric Utilitya)
. g '.
to inqctrs. var.thn: any such ninetrio Utility Las any ints sst in peticipating 1" the pimening and ownar ahip et an incransa in the p1P.nned cap 4 city of the Inst 7.ntsrconnection.
Suculd ycu or any c:ter riectric Uti'ity cacice to part?,c: pass in the ot.nennip cf incramontal tast r.ntarcennection capacity, taf> planned capacity of tad Iant *;ncercennec*1cn vill ba
- I.
. inoraased as contamplated by, and utdar ard subject to the conditiens and limitations set !crth in, t 4 Orders.
As a participant in *te East Interconnection, an Elastrio Utility would E
own an undividad interts in the Inst Inta*cennection is a whola, ecgetha with the othSr partic pating-owners.
Your ces:s and investaant in the expanded East Intarconnection would be allocated to ycu 3%2 "gg. cn the basis of your participation share in the
.E totd capacity of the East ntarconnaction.
Costs of the Iant
'3-Intuconnecticn will include facilities charges for Ac faciuties dedlunted t: the East Intercenne: tion d by one
~
a cf ne r.ast Tia Participants ;but saparataly ovna i
If you are intarastaa in participatir.g, pursuant to the Orders, in the pinnat ng of an expansion and as an owner of the planned increast in capacity cf the East Interconnection, pleast
[
- necute ese Reply to Solicitation form attached hereto knd raturn
-44 to tha addressee fer receipt no later tnan-July 31, 1!i92.
E
- f v4 receive an execused Reply t Sclicitatien fre you g
J by tse prescrited cate, va vill notify you of the case and'other Y
ha to alternating current transmission f aci:.ity li.tiutions
- g which may exiwt on einer sida.c na Ins
- ntercennection, t.n i
increr.ee in.he - planned capacity of ce East Interconnection may b.
'also rseguire inventu nt in additienni alternating c.:rrent
$D transmiwsica facilitiae on the systadas of the CSH operating Q
subsidiaries or TO Ilectric.
Osw and TU Elactric vill expect to
-L ^
reevyer such costs frca entitica aseking An increase in the picnnad etpacity ef tas Inst Interconnection.
2 I.
.3
'M 14: U
=pyg,gg3
' j.
-, w w.--.--
I,!
e p
cetails of a menting of intsreated pan ies to discuss your i
L-intarse.ts. If va do not receive an skecuted Asply to solicitation trar you by the prescribed data, we vill ascume that, at this time, you have ac interest in the planning or ownership of an sc ansion og ths ' East. Interconnection, In accordance with the orders, a
turther opportur.ity to participata is the planning and ovnarship of I=
gn expansion of the East Intarconnection will be made available in J.99 5.
For additlenal inferr.ation concerning this opportunity to partic1PRts in the planning and ownership of an expansica of the planned capacity of %e East Ir.terennnection, you r,ay contact Terry at Central and south West D. Dennis, Vice-Presi$ ant
- Inginstring, llas, Es:vicou,- Inc.,
P,0, 2ax 460144, Da Tax.a4 75266-0164, talaphens n'aber (214) 754-1350.
1 vary truly yo rs, Le i E. R. Ersaks chairr.aa, Presitant and Chief Executive Officer Attaennant jY LI.
I I
I 2
l q
.e > m -
I.
3:
7 4
REPLY TO SOLICITATION
~
Date Mr. Terry D. Osanis vice President - Engineering Castral and South West services Inc.
P.O. ScX 660164 Dallas, Texas 15244-0164 I
is intoraated in participating, pursuant to the orders in YZP.c Docket EL79-8, 3-9554, IL79-9-002 and EL79-4= 000, in the planning and cenership of an expansion of tas planned 600 :sgawatt nominal capacity direct current asynchronous interconnection between Southwestern Electric Power empany and Texas Utilities Electric company, accated in Titus County, Texas described in ths 1sttar of June 30, 1992 from I.
R.
- Ercoks,
~
cnaire.an, Presicant and chief Executive officar c: central and South I-.
West services, Inc.
Will 6ttend a usating of interested par:1es to be acnaculse my cantral and South West services, Inc. and wi21 he represented at that meeting by Please forward all further coinnunications regarcing ha
. nesting of intarastad partian and the planning of any arpension to:
I Attention of:
.l-sy
= 1a I-I g
- ... ~,. -
.~
g.
i
____.L________L_._____
_