ML20198J340
| ML20198J340 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 05/14/1997 |
| From: | Lewis S NRC |
| To: | Cyr K NRC |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20008B465 | List:
|
| References | |
| FRN-62FR47588, RULE-PR-50 AF41-1-036, AF41-1-36, NUDOCS 9710160116 | |
| Download: ML20198J340 (2) | |
Text
.- _ - . _ . - _
~From Stephen Lewis To: KDC 4 Date 5/14/97 11:33am subjects Decomm. Fin. Assurance Proposed Rule-5/14/97 Karen:
~
I jusc met at their request with Jackie Silber and Claire Defino of the Chairman's Office so that they could get OGC's perspective on the proposed rule package which went to the EDO for preliminary review on May 7th.
They were aware that several areas of the Federal Register Notice had to be supplemented before OGC gave NLO to the package. They asked me to review for them the basic; concerns we had and to explain how they had been resolved, which I did.
L As far as artas of inquiry, they seemed particularly interested in three items:
- 1. How-the-proposed modified definition of electric utility would affect
-licensees. I stated that the staff believed that the proposed changes would allow licensees who are no longer fully rate regulated to still qualify as electric utilities provided that one or more non-bypassable charge mechanisms are instituted that continue to provide funding that is still fully adequate for.them to operate, maintain, and decommission their plants safely.
- 2. How would licensees who no longer qualified as electric utilities meet decommissioning funding'requ.rements? I indicated that the definition and the
~
regulations would provide that if a licensta no longer qualified as an i
electric utility,-it would have to provide financial asse,ance through a mechanism other than an external sinking fund, such as a eurety bond, a letter of credit, or an insurance policy. They-inquired whether I felt this would be s' a problem in the sense of licensees "all of a sudden" having to come up with large financial' assurance instruments. I responded that we had worked with i -the staff so that the FRN addressed this-issue. The package explains that the staff believes that the changes in rate regulation will provide for sufficient lead time for licensees to make commercial arrangements for financial assurance should that become necessary. The definition also recognizes that situations could develop where licensees are covered by some indirect rate mechanism, but that mechanism does not fully cover decommissioning costs. In Lthat' event, under the revised definition, the licensee would be considered an electric utility only for that portion of its costs that are collected through ia non-bypassable charge mechanism. A licensee in this posture would have to make:up the difference through a commercial financial assurnace mechanism.
' pointed.out that the Commission Paper states that TVA might no longer qualify
'for the use.of a ctatement of intent to satisfy our decommissioning financial assurance 1 regulations. In that event, TVA would have to make provisions as part of its self-regulation of rates for an external sinking fund.
RES has advised me that it has already received comments from Jocelyn Mitchell 9710160116 971003 ,
c'!Mt PR '$ V 50-62FR47586 PDR w
.;ovryw a -
.' g and Bill Dean in the EDO's office and that Brian Richter is meeting with Bill Dean today to respond to those comments. Pursuant to a request f rota the
-Chairman's Office to the EDO, it is my understanding that the proposed rule package will be provided to the Commission by this Monday (5/19) .
CC: WJO, SGB1, LJC, SAT, TWD2.TWP9.BJR, DCD, WND2.WNP5...
l l
I i
t l
l l