ML20155C002
| ML20155C002 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Seabrook  |
| Issue date: | 06/02/1988 |
| From: | Dean G MASSACHUSETTS, COMMONWEALTH OF |
| To: | NRC ATOMIC SAFETY & LICENSING APPEAL PANEL (ASLAP) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20155B964 | List: |
| References | |
| OL-1, NUDOCS 8806140049 | |
| Download: ML20155C002 (41) | |
Text
m i
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING APPEAL BOARD
)
June 2, 1988 In the Matter of
)
)
PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF
)
Docket Nos. 50-443-OL-1 NEW HAMPSHIRE,
_E _T _A _L.
)
50-444-OL-1
)
(Seabrook Station, Unit 1
) (Onsite Emergency Planning and 2)
)
and Safety Issues)
)
MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE SECOND SUPPLEMENT TO MASSACHUSETTS ATTORNEY GENERAL JAMES M. SHANNON'S PETITION UNDER 10 C.F.R. 2.758 FOR A WAIVER OF OR AN EXCEPTION FROM THE PUBLIC UTILITY EXEMPTION FROM THE REQUIREMENT OF A DEMONSTRATION OF FINANCIAL QUALIFICATION Massachusetts Attorney General James M. Shannon hereby moves for leave to file the accompanying SECOND SUPPLEMENT TO MASSACHUSETTS ATTORNEY GENERAL JAMES M.
SHANNON'S PETITION UNDER 10 C.F.R. 2.758 FOR A WAIVER OF OR AN EXCEPTION FROM THE PUBLIC UTILITY EXEMPTION FROM THE REQUIREMENT OF A DEMONSTRATION OF FINANCIAL QUALIFICATION.
The Attorney General submits that the information described in the aforementioned document is relevant to the matter 1
8806140049 080602 1
PDR ADOCK 05000443 G
i under consideration and is necessary to an informed decision on the Attorney General's petition.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED JAMES M.
SHANNON ATTORNEY GENERAL COMMON EA
~~ W USETTS f
ff Ge5rge B N ean Assistant Attorney General Department of The Attorney General One Ashburton Place Boston, Massachusetts 02138 DATED:
June 2, 1988
0 4
SECOND SUPPLEMENTAL ATTACHMENT I 4
,---.,.--,-_m.-
.-a
,-c,-
,_--,-.-wmw, v-n,,,,m-.7
,._g,,,,r,,,,.,-w-,--_,,y~
+,
,n-www,,,wn---.,
v,weg---,--
-y,
,,,-ng
1 25:~
+:- ;i; Jil-
- )il
- - ;0 s
A P
tl 8
L I
C C
O R
P Q
R A
T I
C l
g.'"7, Q "d >WWWy'11M'lWE g.' '?'.Tt j-y,p-
.,,. - l,,
' 59.T5.-}.
u-w u
.w MASSACHUSETTSMUNICIPAL WHOLESALE ELECTRIC COMPANY 1
GENERAL MANAGER'S REPORT TO THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS MAY 26, 1988 1
SIABROCX STRATEGIC PLAN OF ACTION EXECUTIVE StuuARY 3 1s report sue. arizes and reviews the financial and strategic factors icportant to assossing the continued involvement cf MJEC and its participating syste=s in Seebrook Station. Resolution of this Seabrook issue is i= perative so that MJEC can meet its ce=bers' future ener5y needs in a reliable, timely cost effective canner, and improve the financial integrity of the municipal systems and.*x,,T.:.
Based upon this review, the General. Manager concludes that it is reasonable, prudent, and in the best interest of MJEC to get cut of Seabrook in a manner which achieves the following strategic objectivos:
Preserve MJEC's econo. tic interests by recouping the savings which would have been realized through Seabrook's operation.
Seek to moderato and reduce the rate impacts of Seabrook.
1 M O O D Y..S.T R E.E.T..*.,P O S T O r F I C E B O X 4 2,6
- L U D L O W, M A $ $ A C..H U S E T T $ 010 5 6 + 411- $ 8 9 0141 m
e 6:- :6: 0696 4.
..:ssi
- 6:::
2 b
Restructure KMWEC debt to further moderate rates with the as,sistance of the commonwealth of Massachuseets.
Recover excess construction expendituros by bringing legal action against the constructors of the Seabrook Project.
Adequately fund out of project funds the ability to use litigation to achteve these strategic objectives.
To achieve these strategic objectives, the General Manager recommands that the MMWEC Board of Directors adopt the Plan of Action cuttined in this report and authorize the General Manager to imple=ent it.
BACVCROUND KMVEC has issued approximately $875 million of long term debt in order to finance its 11.594 interest in the project for 28 Massachusetts, six Vermont, one Maine and one Rhode Island consumer-owned utilities.
By 1989, MMWIC will be billing its entire Seabrook debt service costs to participating systems. For the 28 Massachusstes participants, this represents an additional $11 million over the $80 million being billed in 1988 without any additional financing, step up or construction billings. MMVEC's participating systems and their l
2
e 6:- ;6: as95 5.
- ?!s ;5
- ::
4 i
t consumers are paying more and more for Seabrook, with continued un.
cortainty whether commercial operation will be achieved.
The alienation that Seabrook has caused between MMVEC and the Commonwealth has had adverse consequences for Massachusetts public power electric consumers.
This includes higher Seabrook costs resulting from the refusal of the Governor to authorize tax exempt I
finsacing.
Given the current Seabrook situation, it appears unlikely that the DPU will approve additional long term debt authority to meet KM'JE0's esticated $63 million in construction costa during 1989 and 1990. A failure by the DPU to act before constru: tion funds authorized are expended will force MMWEC to bill these coste to participating systems which would be asked to pay out of their current revenues rather than over the 20 30 years customary with the use of long term bonds in order to continue investments in the project. The consequence of this action will be a rate spike in the typical customer bill of MMUEC's participating systems averaging 64 (but with a high of 334.) Such an adverse economic consequence is not in the public interest.
If MMWEC and its members are to maximize their ability to effectively manage this situation, preserve their financial integrity, and implement the strategic objectives outlined, decisions on a plan of action will be needed before the first week of June.
3
s 18:-
- 6: 0576 4.
..:315
- 4i::
8 SEA 3R00x ECONOMIC _AND TINANCIAL REALITIES In January 1987, the DFU issued an order authorizing the use of icng term debt to fund construction completion of Seabrook.
The estimated commercial operation date ("COD") at that time was Novombor 1988, and, as a result, the total KMWEC debt relating to Seabrook roso s
to $875 million.
Despite the current slippage in schedule and cost, operation of Seabrook still has positive economic.enefits of approximately $161 million not counting se11back at this time.
However, it is impossible to predict with needed certainty the Seabrook COD.
In fact, given possible NRC rulings and likely appeals.
it is possible that the currently stated MMUEC financial planning date of November 1990 Seabrook COD could slip further. This results in declining net present value savings to MMUEC.
Meanwhile, MMWEC and its participating systems are faced with the reality that currently authorized and available construction funds villbeusedupbyhovecher1988. Moreover, if litigation options are to be preserved and if they are to be funded from project funds, the remainin6 funds available for construction payments will be exhausted as early as June 1988.
1 It seens unlikely that the DPU will approve, vichin this time frame, a financing request for additional construction funds, even on an emergency basis.
Nor is te likely that Covernor Dukakte til 4
- -. 4:- :s: e# n 4.
- .:sts
- ia::
o e
change his opposition to the use of lower cost tax exeept bonds for Proj ect No. o for this purpose.
As a consequence of this and the possible non. payment by some participants due to the step up requirement, MMVEC is unlikely to be able to access the capital markets, even for short term loans, at interest rates that are reasonable.
The only remaining alternative to s
continue construction payments is to bill construction costs to the project participants.
This will cause serious rate increases for some participanta on top of the participants' already hi h rate levels S
caused by Seabrook.
MMVEC and its Seabroek participants are, thus, f aced with a decision on whether or not to continue to nake substantial and painful additional capital investments in a project with uncertain economic benefits.
Further delays in the November 1990 C00 vill seriously erode the projected economic benefits, unless there are very substantial offsetting economic events such as a surge in oil
- prices, c,
Massachusetts Seabrook participants who have contracts with MMVEC are currently paying $80 millton per year in Seabrook related debt service and will be paying $91 million per year for debe service beginning in 1989. On average, by 1989, 22% of Massachusetts MMVEC Seabrook participants' customers' bills will go to pay for Seabrook j
debt service. Additionally, = number of Massachusetts municipal light departments already have rates higher than the highest rates paid by customers of investor owned utilities. Because of the Seabrook related 0
9
$;- :6: e+>4
+,
,;>i!
6 ::
3, 1
debt service burden, some cities and covns, whose if,-hr departments are enjoying substantial economic development. vill either be prec1vded from issuing needed debt or will have to pay a premium for bonds bonds which would be issued to finance non Seabrook.related additions to their distribution or transmission systems, including local 5eneration options, lead management and conservation efforts and the like.
l
\\
l In order to maintain its ownership interest in Seabrook, MXVEC l
1s f aced with a choice of incurring additional debe or billing participants. The difficulty in maintaining ownership interest is compounded by the fact that current Seabrook debt service payments have placed a burden on Massachusetts MMWEC participant rates which is q
detrimental to their economic interests. Replacement and additional l
'l capacity are needed in order to sustain the demand for energy and the econo =le growth being experienced by the cities and towns servec by municipal light departments. Unfortunately, the cost of that needed l
additional capacity and energy will likely be increased as a result of I
problems associated with Seabrook.
CONCLt'SION l
l Based upon this review and analysis, the General Manager concludes that it is reasonable, prudent and in the best interests of MMVEC to get out of Seabrook in a manner which achieves the strategic objectives outlined previously. The Generni Manager recommends that the Board of Directors adopt these strategic objectives and the plan 6
i n :-
5;- :5: a656 5.
.:esi :6 ::
8 e
I of accion to achieve them and authorize the General Mana5er with advice of General Counsel to implement that plan.
RECOMMENSATION In my judgment, the strate 5 c objectives outlined in this report 1
can most liksly be achisved through the following plan of action. I reco==end that you adopt this plan of action along with the strategic objectives upon which it is based.
PROPOSED SEABROCK PLAN OF ACTION 1.
SEER To_ sE l sr.ARRo0K sMARE TO JOINT OWNERS OR OTNER IWES10M KMWEC should formally ask the other joint owners to step.up for MMWIC's shars of Seabrook construction costs as provided in Section 33.1 of the JOA, and agree to buy out MXVEC's"share of the Seabrook Project at a reasonable price to be negotiated. In the alternative, MMWEC should solicit or entertain reasonable proposals from other investors, if any, to tak6 MMVEC out of Seabrook.
If any individual participating system vants to retain its proportionate share of the project, it should be permitted to do so as part of any sale of MMVEC's share; but MMWEC itself would not be part of Seabrook.
7
n a: un 4.
..:,n ai:.
I t
f 2,
DRAUBOW PRE.PJNDED CONSTRUCTION PAYMENTS WEC should inform the joint owners that it intends to begin drawing down its pre funded construction payments by not making additional payments beginning vich the current pay =ent due June 2, 1988.
Sufficient funds are available s
in these pre funded payments to coot current construction obligations for two to three months at current levelr. of expenditures.
3.
RESTRUCTURE OUTSTANDING DEBT 1
J W EC should petition the DPU for authority to refund and refinance the outstan61ng taxable bonds and high interest bonds with lower cost tax exempt bonds.
l N EC should seek approval from Covernor Dukakis or the state legislature to use tax exempt bonds to refinance and restructure existing outstanding debt to moderate races.
In addition, N EC should seek direct assistance from the Commonwealth of Kassachusetts in moderating participating system rates including Commenvealth backing of M EC debt refunding and restructurin5 in order to improve NEC's credit rating and lower borrowing costs, and thus, races, 8
1
- :5: a6>.
4.
isi
- 5::4 t
4, MoDt rY PENDING DPU PINANCING FILIN_G MMWEC should authorire the ceneral Manager to revise its petition to the DPU, withdrawing its request for aschority to finance additional censtruction costs, if such action is judged to be in the best interest of MMWEC, The revised s
petition should seek expeditious approval of authority to finance, with long term debt, the costs of the step up for non paying out of state participants and related litigation costs. The financing could provide funds to cover other litigation costs associated with pursuing and achieving the stated strategic objectives beyond those amounts set aside of out currently available project funds. The use of long.
term financing, rather than billing from current revenues.
will prevent further race spikes.
PREPARE TO SUE PSNH MMVEC should file a proof of claim in the PSh*H bankruptcy proceeding, designed to place MMWEC in a position to recover its investment in Seabrook, and seek the support of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts in such litigation, 9
3:
- 4: 0 35 4.
- ii
. 5::t
=
l 6.
LECAL ACTION ACAINST f0MsTRUCTORS OF SEABROOK KMWEC should take legal action against the constructors of I
Seabrook in an effort to recover its investment and da=a5os I
associated with its involvement in the project. MMWEC should encourage other joint owners to join in this action.
I 7.
RECONCILIATION BETVEEN MMVEC AND THE COMMONVEALTH MMWEC should reach out and seek a reconciliation with the i
Governor and other of,ficials of the Commonwealth and establish a now partnership and spirit of cooperation on power supply, conservation and demand management and a vida range of other energy services and policies.
8.
MEET ALL CURRFN'T DEAT SERVICE PAYMERTS TO RONDWOLDERS MMWEC anh its participating systems should continue to honor and pay the principal and interest on all outstanding bonda, and take steps to assure bondholders, bond trustee and the financial community that this Seabrook plan of action is in their best interests and improves their security by eliminating the uncertainty, acrimony and financial stress associated with Seabrook.
10
- 1'
'4; O i 's 6.
.. si
- 5
- ,
i A
P u
8 I
I C
C 0
R P
O A
A t
I O
s s
l l
MASSACHUSETTS MUNICIPAL W H O L E S All ELECTRICCOMPANY l
i
!0:
.tWEC Board of Directors and Officers FROM:
Cary L. Hunt, General Manager DATE:
May 26, 1988
SUBJECT:
Recommendation - Seabrook Plan of Action Enclosed please find ny report and recommendation concerning adoption of strategic objectives and a strategic plan of action for consideration at your =eeting June 1,1988.
I as also providing a second report on Seabrook Options Analysis which su::arites the options which were considered in arriving i
at this recome.endation.
Copies of these reports are being provided simultaneously to the SeabrAok participants.
/
Ng' /
Gary L. Hunt General Manager GLHijrj Enclosures cci Participants 1
M o o_ D Y S T R_ t t i + P O S T O F F I C E 8 0 X 4 2 6
- L U D L O)v. M A 5 5 A C H U 5 t T T S 010 5_6
- 413 - s s 9.C,141
s;' :s: 4476 6.
- psa
- 4
- :5 A
9 U
S I
5 C
C O
R P
Q R
A T
I O
MASSACHUSETTS MUNICIPAL WHOLESALC E L E C T RIC CO M P A N Y GENUAL, MANAGER'S REPORT TO THE 30ARD OF DIRECTORS MAY 26, 1988 SEA 3 ROOK OPT!CNS ANALYSIS beeutive Su--arv This report supple =ents the SEA 3R00K STMTEGIC PIAN OF ACTION report by providing the darsils of the options analyses performed to reach the conclusien that it is reasonable, prudent and in the best intererns of M'EC to get out of Seabrook.
The Preblas 1.
Rata T saeta and Saabro_M_e Rurp n en Tev=a As approved by the DFU, HWEC has nearly $1.5 billion of debt outstanding, of which $875 million is Seabrook related.
MWtC's Seabrook participants (including those out of state) are currently paying $92 million per year in Seabrook related debt service and vill be paying $105 aitlion per year for debt service beginning in 1989. MMVIC's Massachusetts Seabrook participants are currently paying $80 million per year in Seabrook.related debt senwice and will bs paying $91 million per year for dabt service beginning in 1989 (Table 1).
On MOODY STRf f f e P O S T O F F I C E 8 0 X 4 2 6
- L U D L OW. M A 5 $ A C H U $ t f T S 010 5 6 e 413 - 3 8 9 0141
1
- - : st- :5: ei n 5.
..:3,3
- si:-
Y average, by 1989, 22% of every MMVIC Massachusetts participants' customer's bill will go to pay for Seabrook debt serv 1ce.
Projected debt service burdens range from 5.604 to l
52.984 of revenue as shown on Table 1.
Additionally, a number of Massachusetts municipal light departments already have rates higher than the highest rates paid by customers of investor owned utilities (Tables 2 and 3).
Because of this Seabrook related debt service burden, some cities and towns whose light departments are enjoying substantial development',
say either find it difficult to issue additional debt or will have to pay a higher premium for bonds to be issued to finance non Seabrook related facilities.
Several systems require additions to their distribution or transmission systems, such as transportation equipsent, warehousing facilities, substations and other capital expenditures, excluding 5eneration facilities. Ve can not determine, at this time, whether these risks will adversely affect the ability of participant towns to finance general obligation capital needs.
2.
Stan ue Raouantad for Out of Stara cannarativas In addition to the rate impacts cited above, NMVIC aust also step up and pay the costs of Seabrook debt service for defaulting out of state cooperatives.
These tests total $7.4 million in 1988, $9.1 million in 1989 and $255.1 million for the remaining 28 year projected life of the Project (Table 4).
2
\\
l rs:-
- 5:- :4: 0+ps 6.
- .:,,a
- 5 :-
a :.
3.
MMVIC in Runnint Out of feabreak Cenatruction Funds
'a Funds currently authorized and available for Seabrook construction will be exhausted by November 1988, at current rates of expenditures.
If monies are preserved f rom available construction funds for litigation, then construction funds will be exhausted earlier, perhaps as early as June 1984.
6 Addirienal Construction Financint Unlikelv. Direct Billine May be Rasuirad Civen the current Seabrook situation, it appears unlikely the DFU will approve additional long tern debt authority to meet the estimated remaining construction costs, which MMWEC is contractually obligated to pay. A failure by the DFU to act within the timeframe needed will force action to bill these costs to participating systems payment which will come out of their current utility ravenues rather than over the customary 30 year long term bond repayment period.
The consequence of this action vill be an average 6% (and a high of 33%) rate spike in the typical residential customer bill of MMWEC's participating sy2tems. These rate spikes would be in addition to the already hi h rate levels referenced above resulting 5
l from present debt service payments to bondholders.
Such an adverse econoste consequence is not in the public interest.
3
.. - -. - -. - -.. -. - -. - -. - - - - - - - i
re:-
4-
- .: 04,4 6,
53 t'neartainev in Seabrook femmarcial Oeeration Data l
It is very difficult to predict a Seabrook C0D with needed certainty Further, slippage in the C0D will substantially increase the cost of the project and seriously erode the remaining economic benefits MMVIC could expect to receive from Seabrook.
6.
Financial Market Access _ Uneartain l
MMVEC is unlikely to be able to access the capital markets for either a one year bond or EAN because of the uncertainty that participants will be villing to pay the high costs of borrowing those funds given the adverse rate impacts of doing so.
7.
orkar MWVic/Manhar stratante immuns Without a clear, timely resolution of these Seabrook issues, MMWIC's ability to finance or provide additional espacity or energy either through supply side or demand side options is severely limited.
4
8 O
he a
eh!
l l
{
Onetens considered Given these problems, the following options were analyzed and considered:
1.
DFU approval of long tora bond financing in the amount of
$98.5 million designed to fund co op induced scep up, ongoing j
construction obligations and interest on this new debt to l
l 1991.
2.
Direct billing to Project 4, 5 and 6 participants of Seabrook construction obligations, i
3.
Joint owner cancellation of Seabrook project with bond financing for MMVIC cancellation costs.
4 Commonwealth of Massachusetts supported restructuring of MXVEC's Seabrook related debt.
5.
MMVtc abandonment of its seabrook investment, without joint ownsts' cancellation of Seabrook.
6.
A JCA Paragraph 33.1 agressent with joint owners to support MMVIC's continuing Seabrook construction payment obligations with a pro rata reduction of MMWIC's Seabrook ownership.
5
i:' :: Oiti
.:y;
- ,, 3 l
Sum =ary of Analvais of Oetion2 Cohaidared Each of.,these options has advantages and disadvantages to HMVEC and its Seabrook participants.
Oetion 1. DPU meeroved Lana tarn Bond Financine Advantages 1.
Avoids default under the JOA, GBR and PSA's 2.
Provides funding for co.op debt service billing in 1989 and 1990 eliminating the need to bill other participants for the defaulting co ops' shares 3.
Retains KKVIC's Seabrook ownership interest Disadvaneassa 1
1.
Does not address current Municipal Light Department (MLD) rate situation; increases future debe service billings 2.
No guarantee this money will be adequate to bring Seabrook into operation since Seabrook COD is not predictable 3.
NNVIC's access to financial markets is difficult, requiring payment of high interest costs 4.
Additional financing not supported by some participants 5.
Does not address new capacity probles 6
i;- :s:
'sh
- si
- 5i;s I
Ottien 2. Diraet Billine to Parefeteants of Saabrook Construc tion Ces en Advantates 1.
Avoids default under CBR, PSA, and JOA 2.
No nead to access financial markets 3.
Supports participants which do not want additional debt 4
Does not hinder MMVEC's ability to obtain additional capacity Bisadvantares 1.
Exacerbates the already higher rate situation being experienced by some MLDs 2.
Adds to rate burden of KLDs given 100% debt service billings and co op step.up 3.
High rates are incurred without any certainty that Seabrook will be allowed to operate 4.
Not supported by all participants.
Ostion 3. Joint Owner canea11ation of Saabroek Proimet Advantanas 1.
Avoids a default on JOA and CBR since Seabrook is terminated 7
rs:-
4:- :i: es u 2.
- >is
- ,i
- e 3.::
f 2.
Seabrook COD prediction is not needed 3.
MMVEC's ability to finance additional capacity may not be impaired Disadvantates 1.
Not under MMVEC control; sufficient owners' votes to cause cancellation not currently obtainable 2.
Cancellation costs would result in additional Seabrook costs to participants 3.
Some participants say fight the obligation to pay PSA costs for a cancelled plant.
Cetion 4 Massachusetts Assistanea for Debt Rastructurinn Advantanas 1.
Will tend to lower rates due to lower debt service 2.
Step.up and 100% debt service impact may be sitigated 3.
Access to financial markets is improved Disadvantaans 1.
Massachusetts support is preaused to require MNVIC to get out of Seabrook 4
..- :4: es si 4.
.=ti si:
i..
l 2.
Lengthy process to obtain state credit support including legislative approval.
3.
Does not address problem of continued obligations under JOA, C8R, and PSA.
Cetion $. Men Paysant of Construccian done Under JOA Advantates 1.
Retention of litigation funda 2.
No need to access financial markets 3.
No additional Seabrook debt Disadvantaman 1.
Exposes MMVIC to legal action from evners and, possibly, from some participants 2.
Fails to address current high M1D rates 3.
Fails to address 100% debt service billing and step.ups 4.
Disintahes economic value of Saabrook interest l
5.
Ispairs MMVIC ability to finance additional capacity i
9
y._
rs;
,;- ;, ; a g 3, g,
,gg;
,,37 T
Detion 6. MMVIC JOA Pararrach 33.1 Anransant Advantamaa 1.
No rate increases required to acat new Seabrook construction expenditures 2.
Long.cerm financing for step up for co. ops may be obtainable; no other new debt required 3.
Participante will retain more than 90% of current Seabrook entitlement Disadvaneanas 1.
Concessions may be required to get other joint owners to agree to Paragraph 33.1 procedure.
2.
No guarantee that Seabrook will be allowed to operate 3.
No rate mitigation, no help with co.op step.up 1
)
10 J
es:-
- 4: 05 5 4.
.3n
.,i:-
J l
1 i
Stratante obteetivaa l
These options were tested against an esorging set of Strategic Objectives which are most likely to produce an economic and prudent result for MMIC and its participating systems in addressing tha
- roblems identified
1.
Preserve MMVIC's economic interests by recouping the savings which would have been realized through Seabrook's operation.
2.
Moderate and reduce the rate impacts of Seabrook.
3.
Restructure MMVtc debt to further moderate rates with the assistance of the Connonwealth.
4 Recover excess construction expenditures by bringing legal action against the constructors of the seabrook Project.
5.
Maintain the necessary funds for litigation, if necessary, to achieve these strategic objectives.
1 11
1 22:-
5;- :i:
0, u 5.
.;>in
- si::
8...
l e
Each of the objectives is further developed below.
l l
1.
Preserva MMurc's 2eenomie Intgun KXVEC's economic analysis shows that Seabrook will yield not present value ("FV") savin 6s of approximately $160 million in power supply costs for MHVIC seaber participants over the first 20 years of Seabrook commercial operation, assuming a November 1990 CCD and no se11back agreement. The PV savings decline by about $30 million with each year's delay in commercial operation. There would be no savings if C00 occurs after 1996. If Seabrook operates and the Se11back Agreement is honored by PSNH an additional $190 million of FV savings could be realized. Because neither Seabrook operation nor the Se11back are certainties, discounting of the savings, to account for the risk, is appropriate.
The objective of preserving MMWIC's economic interest can be restated as placing MMWEC in a position to realize the risk-adjusted, projected not PV savings. Thus, if MMVic could liquidate its Seabrook interest and realize the same projected FV savings which would result from operation it should choose the alternative with less uncertainty.
12
+
4
- i: au 4.
in
- 4,
- :
..a I
l 2,
Moderate and Reduee Rata Imenets Any., action which vill (1) prevent sharp increases in Participant revenue requirements, and, hence. Participant rates or (2) reduce revenue requirements needed co service current debt will result in stronger Participant finances and competitiveness and will help MMVIC and the Participants deal with the uncertainty of Seabrook related matters.
Selective use of financing for the costs of the step up for non paying out of. state participants and the costs of other litigation, rather than billing from current revenues, will prevent further rate spikes.
3.
Rastructura MMVEC Debt Authority from the DPU to refund existing hi h coupon debt and 5
approval from the Covernor to refund existing Project 6 taxable debt with tax exempt securities vill lower the annual participant debt service burden and result in lover, more competitive rates.
Some form of credit support or guaranty by the Commonwealth would yield greater market access and lover interest. costs resulting in a further reductions in annual debt service and rates.
13
4;- ;+: 0 2 ),
3.
.;>i!
- 32
- -
t 4.
Racavar Excess construetten Exeanditures Published studies prepared for state regulatory commissions have identified cost overruns and a schedule delays due to imprudent sanagement practices by PSNH and its contractors.
To the extent that PSNH and its contrtetors did not meet their obligations to MXVIC under the J0A and other contracts INVIC can seek recovery, locause PSNH is currently under the.
jurisdiction of the federal Bankruptcy Court MMVEC aust file a proof of claim with the court before the bar date to bc established by the court.
Successful prosecution of the case by MMVEC would give MMVIC a court judgement which vould establish MHVEC as a major unsecured creditor of PSNH with approval authority related to any plan of reorganization which is proposed. Recovery of money damages from contractors would be applied to reduce outstanding debt and would reduce debt service.
Maintain the Naeasaary Funda to une Litiaation_to Achieve chama Strataste Obiactivaa In order to achieve sufficient negotiating strength to effect maximum value from liquidation of its Seebrook interest and in order to successfully defend its proof of clais in the PSNH Bankruptcy MWWtc must maintain the necessary funds to pay the I
14
,;- :5: nH 4.
- >ii
.4 1
t significant costs of attorneys and expert witnesses needed to complete each case.
Such funds should be reserved from
)
l available bond proceeds and, thus, not spent for construction
- costs, i
1 An11 vain Taam l
In addition to the MMVIC 5eabrook strike Task Force and staff, i
th2 analysis tesa for MMVEC consisted of the following who were assembled by the General Counsel's office under direction from the Board of Directors.
NAme of Firm tala in Analvata Spiegel & McDiarmid (Alan Roth)
Construction Claims Miller, Canfield, Paddock & Stone Analysis (Tom Heiden, Russ Pitts)
Looney & Crossman Bankruptcy Counsel (Stewart crossman, Don Farrell)
Keohane & DeTore (Hank Keohane)
Special Counsel Vood & Dawson (Steve Turner)
Bond Counsel Palmer & Dodge (Jeff Jones)
Participant Litigation &
Arbitration Dillon Reed & Company (Jamie Traudt) Financial Advisor Goldaan Associates (Michael Goldman) Communications 15
___ ~ _..
e i
i;
- 4: a s4
- ni
- 5,
- 4 l
i l
Cenetustens Based orr this analysis, a Strategic Plan of Action was developed which addresses of the problems listed and positions MM'.*IC and its participating systems to bring the saximum focus and leverage to bear on achieving their strategic objectives.
Gary L. Hunt General Manager cc: Seabrook Participants l
1 16
- -...-- - --. - - --_ ~. - - - -..-
r 28;"
s;'
s! Oils i.
...))!
.si 4
8..-
t Table 1
- M*
sf asexx :(6f stavi;( gutts as escrositsts as,te.tl 19e# 1939
- (l!
(4f fit v f;3 a f vtit.E l 1 Otit Way W aylCI aggsa t t cgst stav
' 46
__'*68 to tiv itet itet
_fo tiv A I'uGLa v w W
!.211 20.D IM 2,792 2.3. M act t g e s
- 2. 04 F 38.10 6 73 2,11F
- 31. H Ma i s t et t gr,q :
4.111 27.262 14.51 4,614 28,419 16.26
- qdag,p 4.02S 26, m 29.98 9.417.
If,600 M.12 M2 2,6M Pl.27 Fv3 2,77 4 Is.19 arofs e i su f39 3, PO F M.33 1,108 3,990
- 78. W as
- 3. 3 M 13,601 24.95 3.3M 14.314 U. 44 A t es2 2.84 ?
4, TM 32.71 3,MI 9,010 3 7. M iLa ge 1,614 2 6. MJ T. 31 1, 95 0 23,991 f 76 gg 12.'76 Fl,192 44.33 Ig, eel 27, r39 53,og i
trengge 1.1 62 4,795 24.65 1, M0 4, F3 5 27.4 gitttt?m W
I,459 11.12 MO 1,412 1 1. 13 HI 10,lM 6.13 6M 11,70 7 f.60 nutrifJ magg g g
- 1. 6 M 14,4 M M.31 6,603 14,944 M,87 m
r,119 10.u m3 F. 6m is..i simi m si m gres 3.UI 14,0U U.0F 3,516 14, tM Z3.74 "IS O
N 11 2,876 4.769 42.49 I' M4 12,'III 20'63 2,462 13,143 21.10 scats Affgg80 2.
429 suis stadca t II' 2,014 28.50 k?
t,051 32.12 stae s ag 8,lM
- 31. t k
- 24. 4 10,3?!
37,0?S 27.98 n ac rossi,a f 3e N 43.932 8.**
3,796 43.000 8.0 80./* 8 Mollf 4,M 1F,785 22.M
- 4. 64 P 14.471 t'l. l ?
stgattas 2,0M 10, M 9 it.M 2, W 12,249
- 16. M T DMita I.II'
- 3. N 33*"
- 1. "'
3,M1 II.it wa r j ggs 1,374 6,166 22.32 1,607 4, ud 24.M dit 0c7t:13 2,644 13,911 SOM 3,073 16,164 21.69 diffiti.p 1.1I' 4.105 M*U 1,7H 4, M2 2F.3F 2,154 26,714 4.06 2,191 27,Me F.l?
^
fR WM llM l mpg pgC=fCfl 4.3 & 6 Pld IM 0F INCLtu mir 1 Aas in't a g a INERei Cast m 334 snies 37 6.all :ll. evtsett itse camenttafia l
.N FI MACIAL AAALflig
~l
- 046, s.
..us
. si:t Tak'e 2 RESIDENTIAL RATE COMPARISON MW1 REC AND INVESTOR =WONED UTILITIES TYPICAL NONTMLY BILL RESIDENTIAL (500 h"4H)
TOWN March, 1988 GROTON 36.75 ASHBURNHAM 38.84 IPSWICH 39.18 TEMPLETON 39.86 WESTFIELD 41.43 EASTERN EDISON 41.69 MASSACHUSETTS ELECTRIC 41.74 READING 42.20 PEABCDY 42.93 HOLYOKE 43.80 MIDDLEBOROUGH 45.25 NORTH ATTLIBOROUGH 45.25 CAMBRIDGE ELECTRIC 45.47 WAKITIELD 46.07 MIDDLETON 46.09 COMMONWEAL'TM ELECTRIC 46.64 WESTERN MASSACHUSETTS ELECTRIC Co.
46.73 KARBLEMEAD 46.74 WEST BOYLSTON 46.75 HINGHAM 48.25
- 4:
e,,,
s,
. iin
- , i n 5.-
9 s
CANVERS 44.64 S HRE*n'S SUR Y 48.64 BOSTON EDISON 48.70 GEORGETCWN 49 19 LITTLETON 49.55 SOUTH HADLEY 51.13 PASCOAG 52 25 FITCHBURG GAS & ELECTRIC 53.14 MANSFIELD 53.44 HOLDEN 54.65 KULL 57.12 KUDSON 57.16 STERLING 54.03 BCTLSTON 60.95 PAXTON 64.40 Denotes Investor-owned Utility NOTE:
Summer bills may be even higher in some cases due to impact of seasonal rate structures.
i x
4.-
0, u 2.
..iii
- 5 Table 3 9
INDUSTRIAL RATE COMPARISON
)OOFIC AND INVESTOR-WONED UTILITIES TYPICAL MONTMLY BILL TOWN INDUSTRIAL (200,000 KWM/500 KWH; January, 1988 MASSACKUSETTS ELECTRIC 11,269 COKMOKWEALTH ELICTRIC 13,517 IPSWICH 13,675 BOSTON EDISON 14,246 EASTERN EDISON 14,246 CAMBRIDGE ELECTRIC 14,500 READING 14,729 TEMPLETON 14,892 NORTH ATTLEBOROUGH 15,225 KARBLEHEAD 15,440 FITCHBURG GAS & ELECTRIC 16,013 GEORGETOWN 16,378 HOLYOKI 16,518 WESTERN MASSACKUSETTS ELECTRIC CO.
16,933 KANSTIELD 16,P43 WESTFIELD 16,992 MIDDLETON 17,095 HOLDEN 17,120 GROTON l
17,466 l
\\
l
I l
- iI Et It i
HINGHAN 17,726 ASHBURNHA.M 17,567 PEABODY 18,420 L TTLETON 18,720 SHREWSBURY 19,386 MIDDLEBOROUGH 19,490 WAKETIELD 19,653 STERLING 19,817 DANVERS 20,390 RUDSON 20,873 SOUTH HADLZY 21,084 PASCOAG 21,237 KULL 21,290 BOYLSTON 21,420 WEST BOYLSTCH 24,480 PAXTON 24,820 Denotes Investor-owned Utility.
NOTE:
Summer bills may be even higher in some cases due to impact of seasonal rate structures.
4
-,m, - - - -.
.,,,e---
..,n,. -., -,
.-,.,.s
,e
- -, - - +,~
1.:-
2.n
- >is
.i:-
RETTSED TABLE 4 MMSACTUSETTS McW!cIFAle WE0LEGALE BLBOTRIO 00MPANY IMPACT 07 8739-07 ON 052T SSAVICE SILLED FROJECT 4
($tters)
TOTAL PARTICIPANTI 1881 1H2 1_99_0-2018 ASHRURNMAM 0.6125 8
45.6 6
56.0 8
1,563.7 50YIATON 0.6923 S1.4 43.3 1,746.2 i
3RAINTME 0.0000 0.0 0.0 0.0 DANVIRS 11 4945 471.0 1,049.4 29,434.4 G30RGETOWN 0.9267 49.0 84.8 2,364.3 GRCTON 1.4331 105.9 130.1 3,624,3 MINOMAN 4.7035 350.3 430.3 11,997.4 HOLDEN 4.1555 309.5 300.1 10,602.0
)
NOLY052 0.0000 0.0 0.0 0.0 NUD80N 21.4088 1,609.3 1,976.4
$5,130.1 MULL 1.4556 133.3 151.S 4,224.0
'.P8WICM 0.0000 0.0 0.0 0.0 LIMLETON 0.0000 0.0 0.0 0.0 MANSFIELD 7.9358 591.0 735.9 20,246.0 MARSLINEAD 0.0000 0.0 0.0 0.0 MIDDLB50R0 2.1118 187.3 193.2 5,387.9 MIDDLRTON 3.8481 286.6 353 0 9,817.7 N. ATTLR50R0 3.5399 189.3 233.4 4,440.1 PAXTON 0.7788 88.0 71 3 1,947.0 PIA 30DY 15.3435 1,136.2 1,394.4 as, ass.4 READING 0.0000 0.0 0.0 0.0 SNRBW55URY S.1197 341.3 468.4 13,062.0
- 8. HADLEY 0.0000 0.0 0.0 0.0 STERLING 0.9142 68 1 83.6 2,333.4 TSMPLBTON 1.9340 144.0 174.9 4,934.2 WM3 FIELD 3.1483 336.0 289.8 8,083.1 l
N. 30YLSTON 0.7056 53.4 44.5 1,400.2 I
WESTFIELO 0.0000 0.0 0.0 0.0 I
l LUDiew 1.1446 85.8 105.1 2,930.4 MOMISVILLN 3.7F83 279.9 343.8 9,548.6 LYNDONVILLE 1 2467 93.8 114.0 3,100.7 WORTMF2 ELD 0.4154 31.0 38.0 1,060.3 WA8MINGTON ELEC.
0.0000 O.0 0.0 0.0 VERNCNT ELECTRIC 0.0000 0.0 0.0 0.0 PA500A4 F3M 1.6633 133.8 152.1 4,241.1 RASTERN MAINE M
0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0000
.$ 7,44't.6 9 9,1.44.0
$ 255,131.7 This worksheet allocates the 12.s2424 share of' debt service obligations of the three Cooperatives to the remaining Project Participants.
f l
- ,:.n u
- >i
- 2r
- -
8.:t REQbMNENDED VOTE (88 -
) VOTED:
WHEREAS, the Board of Directors has reviewed the current status and uncertaintien related to the licensing of Seabrook Station and the funding required to support licensing and station maintenance and operational readiness:
WHEREAS, the Board of Directors has received and re-viewed the Seabrook Options Analysis and Seabrook Strategic Plan of Actioni has consulted with Partici-pants, the General Manager and Staff, General Counsel and MMWEC's other legal counsel and advisors.
NOW THEREFORE, based upon the economic and technical f acts and ur. certainties which currently exist, the Board of Directors endorses the Strategic Objectives contained in the Options Analysis and Strategic Plan of Action, adopts the Strategic Plan of Action as it may be i
amended and authorizes the General Manager, with the advice of Counsel, to negotiate a settlement and re-solution of the issues and requirements necessary to achieve these strategic objectives and implement this plan of action, bringing to the Board of Directors for final consideration and action, a proposed settle-ment package, which in the judgment of the General Manager, is the best settlement achievable.
_- - _. - - _... ~. -.,. -. _
~.
-3 I
UtlITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
)
In the Matter of
)
)
PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF
)
Docket No.(s)-
)
50-443/444-OL (Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2)
)
)
)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I,
George B.
Dean, hereby certify that on June 2, 1988, I made service of the within Motion for Leave to file Second Supplement to Massachusetts Attorney General James M.
Shannon's Petition Under 10 C.F.R.
S 2.758 For a Waiver of our an Exception to the Public Utility Examption From the Requirement of a Demonstration of' Financial Qualification, and Second Supolement to Massachusetts Attorney General
. lames M.
Shannon's Petition Under 10 C.F.R. S 2.758 For a Waiver of our an Exception to the Public Utility Examption From the Requitament of a Demonstration of Financial Qualification, by mailing copies thereof, postage prepaid, by first class mail to, ot as indicated by an asterisk, by Federal Express, to:
Ivan Smith, Chairman Gustave A.
Linenberger, Jr.
Atomic Safety & Licensing Board Atomic Safety & Licensing Board U.S.
thteiear Regulatory U.S.
11uclear Regulatory Commission Commission East West Towers Building East West Towers Building 4350 East West Highway 4350 East West Highway Bethesda, MD 20814 Bethesda, MD 20814 Dr. Jerry Harbour Sherwin E. Turk, Esq.
Atomic Safety & Licensing Board U.S.
Iluclear Regulatory Commission U.S.
11uclear Regulatory Office of_ General Counsel Commission 15th Floor East West Towers Building 11555 Rockville Pike 4350 East West Highway Rockville, MD 20852 Bethesda, MD 20814
If H.
Joseph Flynn, Esq.
Stephen E.
Merrill Assistant General Counsel Attorney General Office of General Counsel George Dana Bisbee Federal Emergency Management Assistant Attorney General Agency Office of the Attorney General 500 C Street.
S.W.
25 Capitol Street Washington, DC 20472 Concord, NH 03301 Docketing and Service Paul A.
Fritzsche, Esq.
U.T Nuclear Regulatory Office of the Public Advocate Commission State House Station 112 Washington, DC.
20555 Augusta, ME 04333 Roberta C.
Pevear Diana P.
Randall State Representative 70 Collins Street Town of Hampton Falls Seabrook, NH 03874 Drinkwater Road Hamptou Falls, NH 03844 Atomic Safety & Licensing Robert A.
Backus, Esq.
Appeal Board Panel Backus, Meyer & Solomon U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory 116 Lowell Street Commission P.O.
Box 516 Washington, DC 20555 Manchester, NH 03106 Atomic Safety & Licensing Jane Doughty Board Panel Seacoast Anti-Pollution League U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory 5 Market Street Commission Portsmouth, NH 03801 Washington, DC 20555 Paul McEachern, Esq.
J.
P.
Nadeau Matthew r. Brock, Esq.
Board of Selectmen Shaines t McEachern 10 Central Road 25 Maplew)od Avenue Rye, NH 03870 P.O.
Box ;60 Portsmouth, NH 03801 Sandra Geeutis, Chairperson Calvin A.
Canney Boatd of Selectmen City Manager RFD 1, Box 1154 City Hall Rte. 107 126 Daniel Street E.
Kingston, NH 03827 Portsmouth, NH 03801 Senator Gordon J.
Humphrey Angelo Machiros, Chairman U.S.
Senate Board of Selectmen Washington, DC 20510 25 High Road (Attn: Tom Burack)
Newbury, MA 10950 Senator Gordon J.
Humphrey Edward G. Molin 1 Eagle Square, Suite 507 Mayor Concord, NH 03301 City Hall (Attn: Herb Boynton)
Newburyport, MA 01950
Donald E.
Chick William Lord Town Manager Board of Selectmen Town of Exeter Town Hall 10 Front Street Friend Street Exeter, NH 03833 Amesbury,1m 01913 Drentwood Board of Selectmen
-Gary W.
Holmes, Esq.
RFD Dalton. Road Holmes & Ellis Brentwood, NH 03833 47 Winnacunnet Road Hampton, NH 03841 Philip Ahrens, Esq.
Diane Curran, Esq.
Assistant Attorney General Harmon & Weiss Department of the Attorney Suite 430 General 2001 S Street, N.W.
State House Station #6 Washington, DC 20009 Augusta, ME 04333 Thomas G.
Dignan, Esq.
Richard A.
Hampe, Esq.
R.K.
Gad III, Esq.
Hampe & McNicholas Ropes & Gray 35 Pleasant Street 225 Franklin Street Concord, NH 03301 Boston, MA 02110 Beverly llollingworth Edward A. Thomas 209 Winnacunnet Road Federal Emergency Management Hampton, NH 03842 Agency 442 J.W. McCormack (POCH)
Boston, MA 02109 William Armstrong Michael Santosuosso, Chairman Civil Defense Director Board of Selectmen Town of Exeter Jewell Street, RFD 2 10 Front Street South Hampton, NH 03827 Exeter, NH 03833 Robert Carrigg, Chairman Anne E. Goodman, Chairperson Board of Selectmen Board of Selectmen Town Office 13-15 Newmarket Road Atlantic Avenue Durham, NH 03824 North Hampton, NH 03862 Allen Lampert Sheldon J.
Wolfe, Chairperson Civil Defense Director Atomic Safety and Licensing l
Town of Brentwood Board Panel 20 Franklin Street U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Exeter, NJ 03833 Commission Washington, DC 20555 Dr. Emmeth A.
Luebke Charles P.
Graham, Esq.
Atomic Safety & Licensing McKay, Murphy & Graham Board Old Post Office Square 5500 Friendship Boulevard 100 Main Street Apartment 1923N Amesbury, MA 01913 Chevy Chase, MD 20815 J
=
m...
.. 4 m.
m.
l l
1 Alan S.
Rosenthal, Chairman Thomas S. Moore Atomic Safety & Licensing Atomic Safety & Licensing Appeal Board Appeal Board U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission Commission East West Towers Building East West Towers Building Third Floor Mailroom Third Floor Mailroom 4350 East West Highway 4350 East West Highway Bethesda, MD 20814 Bethesda, MD 20814 Howard A.
Wilber Atomic Safety & Licensing Appeal Board U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission East West TJWers Building Third Floor Mailroom 4350 East West Highway Bethesda, MD 20814
/
< p,3 ;-
George 13. Dean Assistant Attorney General Department of the Attorney General Nuclear safety Unit One Ashburton Place Boston, MA 02108 (617) 727-10 Dated:
June 2, 1988
.