ML20215F283
| ML20215F283 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Braidwood  |
| Issue date: | 06/15/1987 |
| From: | Hunsader S COMMONWEALTH EDISON CO. |
| To: | Murley T Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| References | |
| 3107K, 3206K, A, NUDOCS 8706220316 | |
| Download: ML20215F283 (2) | |
Text
{{#Wiki_filter:q' v - iM, u%._. o g.3 [. y y:Z * ' ^ Commonwealth Edison ! - ; y Orn First National Pla:2. Chicago, Illinois
- //...
d AMess Reply to: Post Offc) Box 767 (' a )( N.f Chicago, Illinois 60600 0767 y -(- -{ i ll. A' June 15, 1987 ]j, hl [' .m Mr. Thomas E. Murley, Director Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation /' U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Cmunisrcion
- f.., -
Washington, DC 20555 hg S' abject : Brcidwood Station Unit 1 s Antitrust Review NRC Docket No. 50-456 .( Reference (d): 1%y 20,1987 S.C. Hunsader letter to T.E. Murley g.
DearJp.Murley:
[ D Reference (a) provided the application for amendment to facility (operating license NPF-70 for Braidwood Station Unit I dealing with the estWllstunent cf a wholly-owned subsidiary corporation. Included in / 'i. ref tAenio (e) was the antitrust review and as a part a brief summary of the '.J o 'r' elated: review pert'ormed by the Director of the office of Nuclear Reactor i '\\'; Regulation (NRR). Attached is a revised Attachment 2, Antitrust Review, a that clarifies the dates when NRR's review and determination of no significant changes had occurred since the time the original construction .3~ R permit reviews had been performed. F This is being subicitted for your review, in conjunction with your review of reference (a). please address any questions concerning this matter to this office. k Very truly yours, j ( S. C. Hunsader Nuclear Licensing Administrator
- l. e cc:
J. Stevens s Resident Inspector - BRWD l 4 a s s([ 3206K 'l 8706220316 870615." gif R ADDCK 050 64
- ,j y
I q. b ~ ' [ 5 u J
t' ATTACHMENT 2 Antitrust Review commonwealth Edison Company submitted the requisite information under 10 CPR Section 50.33a and Appendix L to Part 50 in connection with the operating license antitrust review for Braidwood Unit 1. The information was reviewed by the Attorney General and comments were solicited from the public. On August 8, 1986 and reaffirmed on October 29, 1986 the NRC's Director of the Office of. Nuclear Reactor Regulation made findings, in accordance with Section 105(c)(2) of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, that no significant changes had occurred since the construction permit reviews by the Attorney General and the NRC for Braidwood Unit I which would require a second antitrust. review in connection with the OL application. (See 51 Fed. Reg. 29350 (August 15, 1986)). The following discussion will demonstrate that neither the Agreement which occasions this Amendment application nor its implementation constitute changed circumstances which raise any significant issues under the antitrust laws or which require a further antitrust review. For a period of five to eight years after the effective date of the Agreement, Edison (and through it, Edison's customers) will be entitled to all of the power generated by the Units. That is no different from the situation without the Agreement. At all times, both with and without the Agreement, the price of power generated by the Units, and thus as an economic matter, what is paid for entitlement to the power, is subject to regulatory control. The Illinois commerce Commission controls the price of power sold to Edison's retail customers and the FERC controls the price of power sold to other utilities (including municipal systems). What may be different under the Agreement is that after the initial period (the duration of which, 5 to 8 years, is to be determined by the Illinois Commerce commission) is the identity of the utility entitled to the i power and, more importantly, what is to be paid for that entitlement. Under Edison's ownership, the situation without the Agreement, the amount paid for entitlement to the power is determined by traditional rate base / rate of return regulation. Such regulation serves to place both a cap and a floor on the amounts (rates) paid for the electricity generated. However, with the Subsidiary's ownership of the Units under the Agreement, the amounts paid for i entitlement to the power may be lower than with Edison's ownership. The Subsidiary, unlike Edison, has no service territory and thus, has no assured market for the power. This means that the Subsidiary may be unable to sell ] the power at prices equivalent to those permitted by regulation.~ In that circumstance, the power will be sold at rates determined by competitive market forces. This circamstance is dependent on the options which are exercised by Edison at the end of the initial 5 year term of the Power Supply Agreement, as directed by the Illinois Commerce Commission. This arrangement between Edison, the Subsidiary and the Illinois Commerce commission is, if anything, pro-competitive. i 3107K I}}