ML20135A105

Petition of Great Bay Power Corp for Partial Reconsideration of Exemption Order.* Seeks Reconsideration of Staff'S Preliminary Finding That Great Bay Is Not Electric Utility as Defined by NRC in 10CFR50.2

ML20135A105
Person / Time
Site:	Seabrook
Issue date:	02/21/1997
From:	Charnoff G SHAW, PITTMAN, POTTS & TROWBRIDGE
To:	NRC
Shared Package
ML20134P974	List: ML20134P972 ML20135A105
References
NUDOCS 9702270008
Download: ML20135A105 (18)

Text

- . . _.

,e , S .

o UNITED STATES OF AMERICA j NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION l In the Matter of )

) ,

North Atlantic Energy Service Corporation and ) i Great Bay Power Corporation ) Docket No. 50-443  :

) (1,icense No. NPF-86) '

(Seabrook Station, Unit No.1) )  :

) I 1

PETITION OF GREAT BAY POWER CORPORATION FOR PARTIAL RECONSIDERATION OF EXEMPTION ORDER Great Bay Power Corporation (" Great Bay") hereby petitions the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's ("NRC") Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation (hereinafter referred to as " Staff")

for partial reconsideration of its Exemption Order issued on January 22,1997 in the above-captioned proceeding (" Exemption Order"). Specifically, Great Bay seeks reconsideration of the Staffs preliminary finding that Great Bay is not an " electric utility" as defined by the NRC in 10 C.F.R. 50.2, and therefore Great Bay must meet the NRC's decommissioning funding requirements contained in 10 C.F. R. 50.75(e)(2).

The Exemption Order's conclusion is based on a supposed distinction between long-tenn and short-term rates. In fact, all of Great Bay's rates -- including those for long-term sales and spot market sales at market-based prices -- are " established by . . . a separate regulatory authority" -- the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission ("FERC" or " Commission"). As set forth fully below, no distinction can be drawn between FERC's establishment of long-term and short-term rates for Great Bay. Both are equally subject to FERC jurisdiction and regulation.

9702270008 970221 PDR ADOCK 05000443 C PDR i - - - . -

1

- - - - _- _ _ . . - =

n '-

S

Great Bay, therefore, is an " electric utility" under 10 C.F.R. 50.2, and is not subject to the ,

l decommissioning funding requirements of 10 C.F.R. Q 50.75(e)(2). i 1

I. ARGUMENT A. Prior To The Exemption Order, The NRC Had Recognited Great Bay To Be l An Electric Utility Under Its Current Regulations. ,

1 1

Great Bay is currently an investor-owned public utility organized under the laws of New j Hampshire.2 It owns an undivided 12.13240 percent ownership interest in the Seabrook Station

(equivalent to approximately 140 megawatts of capacity). It sells its share of the electrical output of Seabrook at wholesale as a public utility subject to the jurisdiction and regulation of the FERC, as described below. Prior to its reorganization under bankruptcy, Great Bay held the license for its 12.13240 percent ownership interest in Seabrook as EUA Power Corporation

("EUA Power") and was similarly organized as a New Hampshire public utility, i l

Prior to the January 22,1997 Exemption Order, the NRC had always recognized Great Bay and its predecessor, EUA Power, as an electric utility. The Seabrook Operating License ]

l issued March 15,1990 identified EUA Power as one of the Seabrook licensees and referred to  !

l the licensees for the plant as " utilities." Similarly, the NRC's " Safety Evaluation . . . Supporting E

The New flampshire statutes define an electric "public utility" as follows:

1 362:2 Public Utility. The term "public utility" shall include every corporation, company, association, joint stock association, partnership and person, their lessees, trustees or receivers appointed by any court, except municipal corporations and county corporations operating within their corporate limits, owning, operating or managing any plant or equipment or any part of the same for . . . the generation, transmission or sale of electricity ultimately sold to the public . .

N.ll.R.S.A. 362:2. Great Bay falls within this definition.

.o 4

Amendment No.10 To [The Seabrook] Operating License" of May 29,1992 describes Seabrook as "being operated on behalf of the licensees, a croup of investor-owned and municinal utilities."2 After EUA Power was reorganized and renamed as Great Bay, the Seabrook license was amended to delete EUA Power and to add Great Bay as one of the Seabrook licensees. The license as amended continued to refer to Great Bay ar d the other Seabrook licensees (except for North Atlantic Service Company) as " utilities."2 B. The Staffs Ruling That Great Bay Is No Longer An " Electric Utility" Is ,

Incorrect As A Matter Of Fact And Of Law And Persisting In It Would Be Arbitrary And Capricious.

According to the Exemption Order, at the time the NRC approved Great Bay's plan for emergence from bankruptcy in 1993 the NRC believed that:

Great Bay would continue to be an electric utility based upon its status as such prior to bankruptcy and upon the expectation that the 4 reorganized entity would be successful with obtaining long-term contracts for the sale of most ofits share of power from Seabrook. t Exemption Order at 2. The Exemption Order goes on to find, however, that Great Bay "no longer" meets the definition of " electric utility" set forth in 10 C.F.R. { 50.2 of the NRC's regulations. Id. at 3.* According to the Exemption Order:

• " Safety Evaluation By The Office Of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Supporting Amendment No.10 To Facility Operating License No. NPF-86, Public Service Company Of New flampshire, Seabrook Station, Unit No.1, Docket  !

No. 50-443," May 29,1992 (emphasis added). I E

Amendment No. 23 to Facility Operating License No. NPF-86, for the Seabrook Station Unit No.1, August 16, 1993.

• In pertinent part, the relevant statute provides:

e Electric utility means any entity that generates or distributes electricity and which recovers the cost of this electricity, either directly or indirectly through rates.. established by a separate regulatory authority. (emphasis in original).

Investor-owned utilities . . . are included within the meaning of" electric utility."

I i

l i

.,A  ; .- .

-Great Bay has.successfully entered into one long-term contract, which is for 10MWe, . Great Bay sells its remaining 130MWe share of Seabrook power on the spot wholesale market, which by definition is subject to market-set rates. The staff believes that although FERC may exercise general regulatory oversight over

' spot market. rates, such rates cannot be considered to be " rates established by . . . a separate regulatory authority."

~

Id . (emphasis in original).

The Staffs attempt to distinguish between long-term and short-term sales and its characterization of FERC's establishment of such rates simply is incorrect. As set forth in detail below, Great' Bay's market-based rates for spot market sales were established by a separate -;

I

regulatory authority -- the FERC -- in its May 17,1996 letter order in FERC Docket Nos.

ER96-726-000, ER96-728-000 and ER96-1204-000 ("May 17 Order")? FERC's jurisdictional authority and the rate-setting standard it must apply are precisely the same for long-term and short-term transactions. All of Great Bay's sales are pursuant to rates established by FERC.

Given that the Staff has not " articulate [d] a satisfactory explanation" for its finding, nor has it set forth "a rational connection between the facts found and the choice made," ~its conclusion that Great Bay-is not an " electric utility" under 10 C.F.R. Q 50.2 is arbitrary and capricious and must be reconsidered. S.cc Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass'n v. State Farm Mut. Auto i l

InL,463 U.S. 29,43 (1983); Burlington Truck I ines. Inc. v. United States, 371 U.S.156,168 l L . (1962).

L l

The Staffs observation that Great Bay "no longer" meets the definition of " electric utility" set forth in 10 C.F.R-. 50.2 is also at odds with the final sentence of f 50.2, which

explicitly provides that "[i]nvestor-owned utilities . . . are included within the meaning of  ;

~E Appendix I of this Petition contains a copy of the FERC's May 17 Order.

c 4

4 i

L

.) }. .

. 1

' electric utility,'" Without consideration of this inclusive statement in the regulatory definition, the Staffs position is patently arbitrary and capricious, for there surely is no dispute that Great Bay is an investor-owned utility.

C. The FERC Has Jurisdiction Over Great Bay's Rates For Both Long-Term And Shmt-Term Market-Based Sales To Assure Just And Reasonable Rates.

Pursuant to Section 201 of the Federal Power Act ("FPA"), the FERC has jurisdiction )

l over (1) the transmission of electric energy in interstate commerce; (2) sales of electric energy at wholesale in interstate commerce; and (3) all facilities used for such transmission or sales. 16 U.S.C. Q 824(b)(1). The FPA defines "public utility" as any person" who owns or operates ,

i facilities subject to the FERC's jurisdiction.16 U.S.C. 824(e). Because Great Bay sells its share of the electric output from Seabrook at wholesale in interstate commerce and owns and operates facilities used for such sales, Great Bay is a public utility subject to the FERC's FPA ,

I jurisdiction. j Section 205 of the FPA grants FERC jurisdiction over "{alll rates and charges made, demanded, or received by any public utility for or in connection with the transmission or sale of electric energy subject to the jurisdiction of the Commission . . . ." 16 U.S.C. Q 824d(a)

(emphasis added). Nothing in this jurisdictional statement of FERC's authority and responsibility over interstate wholesale rates creates a distinction betvecen spot market and long-term wholesale sales. Rather, as the FPA states, "all" sales of electricity at wholesale in interstate commerce are subject to FERC's rate jurisdiction.

l 4

" Section 3(4) of the FPA defines " person" as an individual or corporation.16 U.S.C. f 796(4).

.2 ',. ,

O Under Section 205 of the FPA, the FERC is required to ensure that a public utility's rates for the sale of electricity at wholesale are "just and reasonable." Through this Section, " Congress

' delegated ratemaking authority to FERC in broad terms." Farmers Union Cent. Exch.. Inc. v.

FERC,734 F.2d 1486,1501 (D.C. Cir.), cert. denied,469 U.S.1034 (1984). Thus, in arriving at a "just and reasonable" rate "no single method need be followed." Wisconsin v. FPC,373 U.S. j l

294,309 (1963). Indeed, the United States Supreme Court "has repeatedly held that the just and reasonable standard eues not compel the Commission to use any single pricing formula . . . ."

Mobil Oil Exploration v. United Distribution Co. 498 U.S. 211,224 (1991).

Traditionally, the FERC has set just and reasonable rates through cost-of-service j i

regulation. Nevertheless, the Supreme Court consistently has recognized that the FERC is not i required "to adhere ' rigidly to a cost-based determination of rates . . . .'" FERC v. Pennzoil .

Producing Co.,439 U.S. 508,517 (1979), ouoting, Mobil Oil Coro. v. FPC,417 U.S. 283,308 i

(1974). In fact, courts have specifically found that when there is a competitive market, FERC  ;

may rely upon market-based prices to assure just and reasonable rates. Elizabethtown Gas Co. v. I l

FERC,10 F.3d 866,870 (D.C. Cir.1993); see also Teias Power Corn. v. FERC,908 F.2d 998, 1004 (D.C. Cir.1990); Farmers Union,734 F.2d at 1510. The rationale behind these findings is that market-based rates will assure that consumers are not being charged monopolistic prices.

In Elizabethtown Gas Co. v. FERC, for example, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C.

Circuit upheld FERC's authorization of market-based rates for natural gas sales under the "just and reasonable standard" contained in Section 4 of the Natural Gas Act ("NGA"), which is

)

. . - - - . - . . - - ~ . - . .- . - - . - . . - -

, o-

'c . - ,

( 'O 1

i analogous to Section 205 of the FPA.L' In that case, the D.C. Circuit held that the FERC's authorization of market-based rates satisfied its statutory obligation to ensure just and reasonable j i

rates. Importantly, the Elizabethtown court also rejected petitioners' contentions -- similar to i

those implied by the NRC in the Exemption Order -- that FERC's approval of market-based pricing constituted " virtual deregulation" of natural gas sales rates. Elizabethtown.10 F.3d at 870.

I

j. Similarly, the FERC itself has specifically rejected challenges to its authority to authorize 1 ,

l j market-b:aed rates for sales of electricity. Thus, the FERC has found that "the FPA does not 4

require the Commission to use any particular methodology in determining whether a proposed i-

^

rate satisfies the statutory standards of section 205". Enron Power Enterorise Coro.',52 FERC 1 j l

61,193, 61,709 (1990); see also Public Serv. Co. of Indiana, 51 FERC 161,367 (1990),- j l

j Commonwealth Atlantic Ltd. Partnership, 51 FERC 161,368 (1990). The FERC also has

]

i concluded that authorizing the use of non-cost factors in setting rates is consistent with its obligations to ensure that electric utilities charge "just and reasonable" rates. Enron,52 FERC at f

61,709-10; Public Serv. Co., 51 FERC at 62,221-23; Commonwealth Atlantic, 51 FERC at y

i

62,246-47. ,

i-  !

• i' In fact, the FERC, like the courts, has rejected contentions that accepting an electric utility's market-based rates "is tantamount to deregulation of wholesale sales of electricity. . . ." l 4

i 1

Public Serv. Co.,51 FERC 162,220.. As these court and FERC precedents demonstrate, FERC  !

2 It is well-established that "[p]recedents interpreting Section 205 of FPA are applicable to Section 4 of the NGA l

and vice versa." Tennessee Gas Pineline Co. 77 FERC 161,215,61,876, n.22 (1996); Northern Natural Gas Co..

77 FERC 161,035,61,137, n.25 (1996); scc also Municinal Light Boards v. FPC. 450 F.2d 1341,1347 (D.C. Cir.

1971), cert. denied. 405 U.S. 989 (1972).' '!

j l

-. .. - . , ~ . -

'c ,

s-o .

can fulfill its FPA Section 205 statutory obligation to establish "just and reasonable" rates for wholesale sales of electricity -- both long-term and short-term -- by authorizing electric utilities to charge market-based rates, without compromising its obligation under FPC v. Ilope Natural Gas Co., 320 U.S. 591, 605 (1944), to establish rate which " enable the company to operate successfully, to maintain its financial integrity, to attract capital, and to compensate its investors for the risks assumed".5' D. FERC Has " Established" Great Bay's Rates For Both Long-Term And Spot Market Sales.  !

1 As set forth above, under the plain language of the FPA, Great Bay, as a "public utility,"

was required to seek FERC's prior rate authorization to sell at wholesale its share of the electricity generated at Seabrook, regardless of whether those sales would be made pursuant to long-term or spot market contracts. Consistent with this requirement, by letters dated December 29,1995, February 28,1996 and March 15,1996, Great Bay submitted for filing with FERC a power sales tariff and related service agreements that provide for wholesale sales at market-based rates or electricity generated at Seabrook. The request for market-based rates was applicable to  !

holh Great Bay's long-term and short-term sale of electricity. Upon its review of Great Bay's filings, the FERC on May 17,1996 issued a letter order accepting and making effective Great Bay's tariff, including the market-based rates to be charged thereunder for both long-term and i

short-term sales.

E in setting rates, FERC has followed the Supreme Court's decision in Blueneld Waterworks & Imorovement Co.

v. Public Service Comm'n. 262 U.S. 679,692 (1923) by accepting rates which permit a utility to earn a return equal to that on " investments in other business undertakings which are attended by corresponding risks and uncertainties."

e As the court has recognized in Farmers Union and Elizabethtown, and as the FERC has found in Enron and Public Service Co. ofIndiana, by accepting and making effective Great Bay's i

market-based rates, the FERC fulfilled its statutory obligation to ensure that those rates would I

satisfy the ratemaking standard set out in the FPA for all rates established by FERC.5 Thus, in the May 17 Order the FERC " established" Great Bay's rates under the same legal standard it previously applied to " establish" rates based on long-term sales contracts. Indeed, by Order of April 30,1993 in FERC Docket No. ER93-495-000, the FERC similarly accepted a long-term power purchase agreement between Great Bay and UNITIL Power Corp.,* which the NRC has correctly accepted as being established by FERC.E

)

1 The conclusion that the FERC " established" Great Bay's wholesale rates is further j supported by the fact that the rates accepted on May 17-- including the rates Great Bay may charge for spot market sales -- remain subject to FERC's jurisdiction. For example, the rates, terms and conditions for all of Great Bay's wholesale sales in interstate commerce must be E

One procedural aspect of the FERC's review of Great Bay's rate filings at FERC should be noted. Great Bay ,

filed its rates pursuant to Section 205 of the FPA, as does every electric utility subject to FERC jurisdiction. Ilere, I there being no opposition to Great Bay's rate filing, the Commission permitted the filed rates to go into effect without suspension or hearing. It need not have done so. Nor is its practice with regard to suspending a rate prior to  !

its becoming effective in any way related to whether the rate is short-term or long-term or to whether the rate is market-based or cost-of-service. It is, rather, an exercise of the Commission's discretion as to whether the rate as filed appears to be just and reasonable and whether any party has raised questions concerning it. The crucial point, with regard to the Exemption Order's analysis is that, under Section 205, these rates, upon acceptance for filing, are established as Great Bay's lawful rates, .and remain such until changed by Commission action. Any Commission-initiated action to change them would have prospective effect only.

• Appendix 2 of this Petition contains a copy of the April 30,1993 Order.

W Both the April 30,1993 and May 17,1996 Orders contain language which states "[t]his acceptance for filing l

does not constitute approval of any service, rate, charge classification, or any rule, regulation, contract, or practice '

affecting such rate or service provided for in the filed documents; . .. " April 30 Order at 2; May 17 Order at 2.  ;

Given that the FERC maintains the right to initiate its own investigation of the rates, or to investigate the rates based i upon the complaint of a third party, FERC traditionally " accepts" but does not " approve" rate filings. The fact that i FERC accepted these filings and made them effective after review demonstrates that FERC established these rates, even if they are subject to subsequent review or reconsideration by FERC.

9

.w Y, .

1

$ consistent with the tariff accepted by the FERC's May 17 Order. 16 U.S.C. 824d(c). In i J

addition, the FERC, on its own initiative or upon complaint by a third party, may conduct a new proceeding at any time to determine whether any of Great Bay's rates are just and reasonable or ,

i i unduly discriminatory. 16 U.S.C. & 824e(a). Furthermore, if Great Bay desires to change its )

rates, Great Bay cannot do so without seeking prior authorization from the FERC, upon proper i

i notice and hearing.16 U.S.C. G 824d(d)f(e).2 The FERC's prior review, acceptance and placing into effect, of Great Bay's spot market i

rates in the May 17 Order, coupled with the FERC's ongoing obligation to comprehensively  !

1

, regulate those rates, clearly amounts to more than the " general regulatory oversight over spot I

market rates" which the Exemption Order apparently assumes. Exemption Order at 3. Rather,  !

i 4

FERC has " established" Great Bay's rates, including rates for both long-term and spot market sales, as required by 10 C.F.R. 50.2.2  !

E. Denial Of This Petition Would Constitute An Improper Departure From Past NRC Practice Without Sufficient Explanation.

It is well-established that an administrative agency bears the burden of explaining the reasonableness of any departure from a long-standing practice, and any facts underlying its )

l 2

Section 1.5 of Great Bay's FERC Electric Tariff Original Volume No.1, First Revised Sheet No. 3, explicitly states that Great Bay has the right "to unilaterally make application to the Commission for a change in rates or m  !

any term or condition under Section 205 of the Federal Power Act . . . "  !

2 The only distinction the FERC has made between Great Bay's long-term and short-term sales relates to reporting j requirements. According to the May 17 Order, if Great Bay enters into long-term service agreements at  !

market-based rates, such agreements must be filed with the FERC within 30 days of service commencement. For short-term transactions, Great Bay may file " umbrella service agreements" within 30 days of service commencement and quarterly transaction reports. May 17 Order at 1. This distinction was developed by the FERC for administrative convenience, seg Southern Co. Sern. Inc.,75 FERC 161,130 (1996), and has no impact on the rates to be charged for such transactions Therefore, this distinction has no bearing on the question of whether the FERC has " established" Great Bay's spot market rates.

, .< 'y. .

1 t,

• r i j

p .  !

l explanation must be supported by substantial evidence. Public Service Comm'n v. FERC. 813 F.2d 448,'451 (D.C. Cir.1987); Columbia Gas Transmission Corn. v. FERC, 628 F.2d 578,  !

585-86 (D.C. Cir.1979). The Staffs denial of Great Bay's Petition for partial reconsideration  ;

i

. would violate these principles.  ;

The January 22 Exemption Order is the only NRC or Staff decision of which Great Bay is j aware in which the NRC has found thr.t rates accepted and made effective by the FERC are not .l i

" established . . . by a separate regulatory authority" for purposes of 10 C.F.R. Q 50.2. FERC's

! jurisdictional authority under the FPA over sales of electricity at wholesale in interstate commerce, its statutory obligation to set rates based on a statutory standard, and its procedure for accepting and making effective rates through a tariff filing and subsequent orders, are exactly the same for every other entity which the NRC considers to be an " electric utility." Nevertheless, the

.. I L Staff has singled out Great Bay for disparate treatment. This abrupt departure from past NRC

]

I practice is not only the result of an incorrect interpretation of the FERC's jurisdictional authority, but the fact that it is unsupported by substantial evidence also contravenes basic principles of administrative law.

Furthermore, given the lack of substantial evidence supporting the Exemption Order's

.. finding, it is arbitrary and capricious for the Staff to use this proceeding as a vehicle for modifying its decommissioning funding requirements. The-Staff cannot arbitrarily impose ,

different decommissioning funding requirements on Great Bay alone, when Great Bay's rates are ,

l

" established" pursuant to the same regulatory scheme as other electric utilitie~s. Such an action l

would be particularly egregious in view of the fact that Great Bay is fully meeting its obligations 6

.~ . . -. - ..-. ... .. . -- - _ - .. - ....- .~-.-...-. - -. - - . - . . . . . .

j," *J - -

l. j i- -

?

i- and is committed to put aside sufficient funds on an annual basis to cover the decommissioning costs for its ownership share of the Seabrook Station.

) ..

The NRC has been following electric utility dere6ulation and restructuring for several l

i years.' Last spring, the NRC issued an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to obtain  !

comments on whether decommissioning funding requirements for electric utilities should be  !

. i modified in view of the ongoing restructuring and deregulation of the utility industry. If the j

j. NRC wishes to modify the decommissioning funding requirements for electric utilities in light of j l

industry restructuring, this modification should be considered in the context of the Proposed )

Rulemaking, not in this proceeding. To do otherwise, iA, to persist in this ad ho.c ruling based  !

on a patently. incorrec't characterization of FERC's jurisdictional authority and ratemaking l

}- procedures, will cause confusion and uncertainty among nuclear-generating utilities as they i

shape their strategies for responding to the current thrust toward restructuring the electric j industry. Great Bay, of course, would be obliged to comply with any modified rule to the extent I

$ 1 it would be applicable.

1 i

s

-l 5 l 1

l 4

i a

l

?,; . .

B III. CONCLUSION Wherefore, for the foregoing reasons, Great Bay respectfully requests that the Staff

. reconsider the challenged portion of its January 22, 1997 Exemption Order issued in the above-captioned proceeding, and issue a finding that Great Bay is an " electric utility" pursuant to i 10 C.F.R. Q 50.2 which is not subject to the decommissioning funding requirements of 10 C.F.R.

I { 50.75(e)(2).

~

In the alternative, Great Bay respectfully requests an opportunity to orally argue this matter before the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Respectfully submitted, GREAT 3AY POWER CORPORATION 1

f , /1 By: /

Gerald CEarnoff f Shaw, Pittman, Potts & Trowbridge Q 2300 N Street, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20037 (202) 663-8032 February 21,1997 e l 410537-01 i -

i

. i 1

T l

' pgg ' (FRU 05.1T 96 17: 49/si. I7 48/M 3560543p3 ? 2 FEDER AL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION

' ; l! T O., , . . s g {

' " ' " W ASHINGToN. O. C. 20426 c "F C" F P '-

%MM ll N Docket Nos. ER96-726-000 ER96-728-000

-=. +

,, p;,3GT ER96-1204-000 g -

g p,ygRY COM SS10H Boeuf, Lamb, Greene & MacRae L.L.P. 7g  ;

ATTN: Sam Behrends, IV, Esq.

MI Actorney for Great Bay Power Corporation i 1875 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.

Washington, DC 20009-5728

Dear Mr. Behrends:

1995, and February 28 and ,

on March By 15,letters 1996,dated December 29,you submitted for filing with the Commiss behalf of Great Bay Power Corporation, a power salesagreements and service tariff whidh provides for sales at market based rates, thereunder with Fitchburg Ga You also request Power Corporation, and PECO Energy company.

waiver of Part 46 to allow abbreviated filings with respect to of issuance of securities or assumptions of liabilities pur Authority to act on this , matter is delegated 375.308 t$ of to Section 204.

the Director, Division of Applications, under Section375. 3 08 (a) (1) ) [,.~'

the Commission's Regulations; pursuant to Section .,

13 the submittal is accepted for filing and is designated and made!

C~ effective as shown on the Enclosure.

g "U Notice of the filing was published in the Federal Register U rD

{5'O with comments, protests, or interventions due on or before Aprii O _g No comments, protests or interventions were filed.

2 m m 4, 1996.

m-Y ur requests for waiver of the commission's filing D g3 requirements are hereby granted, along with the h requ mM 3l".gm Z O Please 52 FERC 1 61,193 (1990). (Southern) , 75 j be y qPower Entererise Cord.,

3* advised that, in Southern Company services. Inc henceforth, j

.g"MFERC 1 61,.130 (1996) , the Commission stated that, O

o public utid.itten with market-based races need only file separatp service agreements for long-term transactions within 30 days of"they may fl' For short-term transactions, service commencement.

umbrella service agreements within 30 days of service Your commencement and quarterly transaction reports. transacti s_outhern: ~~~~)

This action does not constitute approval of any service, contract, 7 rate, charge, classification, or any rule, regulation, or practice affecting such rate or service provided j of any claimed contractual right or obligation affect prejudicia to any findings or orders which have been or may P h D f _~, . . , . . . . .

PUBLIC REFER 5.4CE P.GOx DO NOT AP?O/E

l

> FR0k

.. . (FRI) 05. IT 96 17:50/ST.17: 48/NO.3550543173 ? 3

.. t, 2

LeBoeuf, Lamb, Greens & MacRae, L.L.P.

hereafter be.made by the Commission in any proceeding now pending ~l or hereafter instituted by or against Great Bay Power [~

Corporation. .

l This order constitutes final agency action. Requests for -

rehearing by the Commission may be filed within 30 days of i:he date of issuance of this order, pursuant .to 18 CFR 385.713.

)

This letter terminates Docket Nos. ER96-726-000, ER96-728-l

! 000, and ER96-1204-000.

Sincerely, ce_ -

E4 Donald J. Gelinas, Jirector '

Division of Applications  !

"NM g Enclosure '

l I

f me 1

l l

. O

)

V ' "$.E (FR!)05. IT 96 17i 50/ST.17: 48/N0.3560543173P 4 r

Enclosure l

Great Bay Power Corporation

' Rata Schedule Desianations I

- -, e 4

Description) i Desian411GD Effective Date Docket No. ER96-726-000 (1) FERC Electric Tariff, ' Market Based Power Sale!s i

1 Original Volume No. 2 Tariff / l (Original Sheet Nos. 1 December 30, 1995 t l

through 6)

(Supersedes FERC Electric l

Tariff Original Volume No. 1) l

' Docket No. ER96-728-000 i

Power Sales to Fitchburg i (2) service Agreement No. 1 Gas and Electric Light '

under FERC Electric Tariff, oripi'el n Volume No. 2 Company / '

January 1, 1996~~~

(3) Service Agreement No. 2 Power Sales to UNITIL under FERC Electric Tariff, Power Corp./

' Original Volume No, 2 January 1, 1996 Docket ho. ER96-1204-000 (4) Service Agreement No. 3 Power Sales to PECO under FERC Electric Tariff, Energy Company /

February 1, 1996 #

Original Volume No. 2 l Obe

• l

- L t

l

. I I

S e

r j "

/ 02404/97 UTE 12:01 FAI 204 508 4325 REID & PRIEST LLP @002

e. P.02/03

• FEB 94 '97 10 53 FR MILBA* TWEED HADLEY 292 935 7586 TO 95064321 I

l

= l 1

• PEOGRAL ENsRGY REGULATORY COMMISSION waEurerseTCN.D.C.anam

i l .

j .

4  :

1 Docket No. Ess3-495-ooo

!. APR 301993

)!

Milbank, Tweed, Esdier & Medley

!- Attention Mr. Michael D. Mornstein '

]

1825 Bye Street, N.W. ,

lith Floor l Washington, D.c. 20006 i near Mr. sornstco:  :

i t

l By letter dated March 26, 1993, you sutaitted for filing

) .

wits % commission, on behalf of Great Bay Power Corporation I (Grant Bay), a purchased power agreement between Great Bay and UNITTL Power Corp. (UNITIL) Authority to,act on this matter is delenated to the Director, Division of ations; lications, under ,

pursuant to i j Seetno 375.308 of the commi'asion's sectiot 375.3os(a)(1), your Isubmittal is accepted for, filing and *

i. designa ed as follows: {

l arame na Dennar e- aaration i

Rate.scledule F2RC No. 16 Purchase Power 1- r e t l

+

.l '

i erhlhit A, Scenario 2,

Supplesunt No. 1 to Rate Schedult FERC No. 16 justifying rate of l

112 mills /10th, exclusive l

i of fuel, and this

-1 l' acceptance letter l i j Notice of your filing w;as published in the Federal Register j

vith comments, protests, or interventions due on or before April 16, 1993, on April is,1993i, UNITIL fiisd a motion to intervene in syp of the filing. pprsuant to Rule 214(c)(1) of the commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.214), if no answer in opposition to the motion to intervene is filed within fifteen days after this motion is filed, the motion serves tomaketheUNITILapartyythisproceeding. ~

Good cause is shown for ting waiver of the not1ce requirements pursuant to S on 205(d) of the Federal Power Act '

and Section 35.11 of the Cosimission's Regulations thereunderr therefore, the rate schedule! shall become effective May 1,1993, j l as requested. 1 Article 3_ establishes initial rate of 50 mills /kWh j subject 'to escalation to t.-ask cartain inflation indicee.

- Article 7 aetablishes raten yplicable to any extension of term implemented under the agr9ement. Please'be advised that 4

I ,' 'h404/97 TUE 12:02 FAX 202 508 4325 _ REID & PRIEST LLP @ 003

• - P. N peg u .37 te:55 FR f11LBM TWEED N 282 835 m m m 321 i ,

~

\ ,

}

i, =3- :

1 l

Milbank, Tweed, Eadley & Mccioy I any rates established under krticles 3 or 7 which exceed the sua of the fuel coat of the Sealipock Unit and 113 mills /kNb will i constitute a change in rata rer[uiring a timely filing under Part i

35 of the commission's Regu1lat;,ons together vsth appropriate coat j support. Please note that tais letter has been designated as a supplement to the rate edadata codifying the filing requirement.

This acceptance for fill.q does not constitute approval of any service, rate, charge, classification, or any rule, regulation, contract, or prairtice affecting such rate or service provided for in the filed d-tst nor shall such acceptance be deemed as recognition of any' claimed contractual right or obligation affecting or retaking to such service or rater and such acceptance is without p%ejudice to any findings or orders which have been or may hereafter be made by the canaission in any proceeding now pending or hekoataar instituted by or'against 5 Great Bay Power Corporation.i.

This order constitutes final agency action. Requests for -

rahaariner by the commission may be filed within 30 days of the date of ;msuance of this order, pursus.nt to 18 CFR 385.713.

- This acceptance for filing term. nates Docket No. ER93-495-000.

8 i

(incerely, i AA . i donald 7.Gelinaa, Director Division of Applications ,

cc: UNITI2 Power corp. i Attention: Mr. David Fdote 216 Epping Road i '

Exeter, New Naapshire 03033 l e

i I

1 i

i

.