ML20235R813
| ML20235R813 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Vogtle  |
| Issue date: | 02/28/1989 |
| From: | NRC |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20235R800 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8903030434 | |
| Download: ML20235R813 (12) | |
Text
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ -
i, ,,
PLAN'T V0GTLE, UNIT 2 GEORGIA POWER COMPANY, ET AL
, DOCKET NO. 50-425A FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT ANTITRUST CHANGES t s3903030432; 890228 PDR ADOCK 05000423 f1 PDC
i, o l
l 1
CONTENTS I. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 1 II. Georgia Electric Power Industry . . . . . . . . .. . 3 III. Previous Antitrust Reviews . . . . . . . . . . . .. 4 IV. Changes Since the Vogtle 1 OL Antitrust Review . . . . . . 5 A. Wholesale Power Developinents V. Sumary and Conclusions . .'.
.. . . . . . . . . . . 7 Appendix A. Vogtle 1 " Finding of No Significant Antitrust Changes" 1
l
,i l?
1.
. . l
.. .. l l
)
( I. Introduction A prospective operating licensee is not required to undergo a formal antitrust review unless the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC or Commission)1 determines that there have been "significant changes" in the licensee's activities or proposed activities subsequent to the review by the Attorney General and the Commission at the construction permit (CP) stage. Concentration on changes in the licensee's activities since the previous antitrust review expedites and focuses the review on areas of possible competitive conflict heretofore not analyzed by the Attorney General or the Commission.
l l
In its Summer decision,2 the Commission has provided the staff 3 with a set of criteria to be used in making the significant change determination for operating license (OL) applicants.
"The statute contemplates the change or changes (1) have occurred since the previous antitrust review of the licensee (s); (2) are reasonably attributable to the licensee (s); and (3) have antitrust implications that would most likely warrant some Commission remedy."'
1The Commission has delegated the responsibility for making a significant change determination to the Director of the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
2 Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station Unit 1, Docket No. 50-395A, June 26, 1981 at 13 NRC 862 (1981).
3" Staff", hereinafter refers to the Policy Development and Technical Support Branch of the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation and the Office of the General Counsel.
4 Commission Memorandum and Order, p. 7, dated June 30,1980 (CLI-80-28).
I t
b__________________._----
- c. ..
l 1
. 2 To warrant a significant change finding, the particular change (s) must meet all three of these criteria. l l
The staff conducts separate antitrust operating license reviews of multiunit nuclear production facilities when the second or successive unit is scheduled
, to be licensed eighteen months after the previous unit has been licensed.5 The i
antitrust operating license review of Unit 1 of P.lant Vogtle was completed on November 21, 1986 and the operating license was issued on March 16, 1987. The issuance of an operating license for Unit 2 of Plant Vogtle is scheduled for March 31, 1989 -- more than two years after licensing of Unit 1. As a result ,
i of this lapse of time, the staff ' conducted a separate antitrust operating i license or "significant change" review for Unit 2 of Plant Vogtle.
l 1
- j The staf f requested updated Regulatory Guide 9.3 information from all of the licensees and reviewed the data submitted in conjunction with previous antitrust reviews of nuclear plants owned by Georgia Power Company, i.e.,
Hatch 2 and Vogtle 1 construction permit and operating license reviews.
After reviewing these and other pertinent data, the staff has determined that none of the changes that were identified were significant in an antitrust context. Consequently, the staff is not recommending that an affirmative "significant change" finding be made pursuant to the antitrust operating license review of Unit 2 of Plant Vogtle.
SCf. , " Procedures for Meeting NRC Antitrust Responsibilities", NUREG-0970,
- p. 9.
l I
1%
a a e, ..
, 3 II. Georgia Electric Power Industry l The elect'ric ' bulk power industry in the state of Georgia has not changed significantly since the staff conducted its operating license. review of Unit 1 of Plant Vogtle in 1986. Electric bulk power supply is still largely the responsibility of the principal licensee, Georgia Power Company (GPCo). The acquisition of the Savannah Electric & Power Company (SEPCO) on March 3, 1988 l by The Southern Company, Georgia Power Company's parent holding company, has reduced the number of players in the Georgia electric bulk power market, but has not significantly affected competition in the state as SEPCO's marketing area is concentrated primarily in'the City of Savannah, Georgia.8 Three of the principal power supply systems in the state are co-owners of l Plant Vogtle -- GPCo with 45.7%, Oglethorpe Power Corporation (0glethorpe) 30%, and the Municipal Electric Authority of Georgia (MEAG) 22.7%.7 With the exception of normal growth, the size and scope of operation of each of the licensees has' changed little since the Vogtle 1 OL review.s GPCo is still the largest licensee in tems of customers served, generating capability and most other statistical operating indicators. Oglethorpe, though still purchasing anywhere from 30-40 percent of its system load requirements from GPCo, is showing 6 Savannah Electric & Power Company had generating capability of slightly over 650MW in 1987 with a peak load of 565MW. SEPC0 serves primarily the City of Savannah, Georgia -- representing 94 percent of its customer base -- and smaller surrounding cities in the southeastern part of the state.
7The City of Dalton, Georgia owns the remaining 1.6 percent.
sCf., Vogtle 1 " Finding of No Significant Antitrust Changes", attached as Appendix A.
4
l o
l 4 signs of attaining its goal of generating self-sufficiency by the early 1990's.
HEAG still serves its 47 wholesale power customers (46 of which are municipal distribut~ ion 'ystems) s in much the same manner as Oglethorpe, i.e., purchasing power and energy and reselling it to its wholesale member customers, and with the commercial operation of Vogtle 1, the City of Dalton has decreased its reliance on power purchases from GPCo and the Southeastern Power Administration. I 1
III. Previous Antitrust Reviews l
l Georgia Power Company underwent antitrust reviews in conjunction with its CP and OL applications for Unit 2".of Plant Hatch, its CP for Plant Vogtle (all units) and most recently an operating license review of Unit 1 of Plant Vogtle which was completed in November 1936. 1
- l During the CP reviaws of Plant Hatch and Plant Vogtle, the staffs of both the Department of Justice and the Atomic Energy Commission identified several l
i instances of anticompetitive activity by GPCo.
l "The Department's advice letters in Hatch and Vogtle expressed concern over Georgia Power's )j dominance in generation and transmission !
capabilities in the state of Georgia and the !
apparent abuse of this market power at the !
expense of and to the detriment of smaller 1 power systems and the competitive process in the Georgia electric bulk power supply industry."e 4 SVogtle 1 " Finding of No Significant Antitrust Changes", Appendix A, p. 8. ;
i j
, 4 h -
=.
1 5 l l
Extensive negotiations involving GPCo, interveners and the staffs of the i Department of Justice and the AEC resulted in a settlement agreement and a broad set of li' cense conditions designed to mitigate GPCo's anticompetitive conduct.
1 The Plant Vogtle Unit 1 operating license antitrust review identified several groups of changes that were attributed to GPCo since the previous antitrust review; however, as stated by the staff in its Vogtle 1 OL review, l
1
. . . these changes have largely been procompetitive and do not warrant remedial action by the Commission. The vast majority of these changes have materialized through the implementation of the antitrust license conditions ;
attached to the Plant V'ogtle and Plant Hatch Unit 2 !
construction permits."10 l The staff identified several groups of changed activity by GPCo that provided l procompetitive stimuli to the Georgia bulk power market. Moreover, staff did not identify any significant negative competitive activities by the licensees since the last antitrust review of GPCo and for these reasons recommended that no significant antitrust changes had occurred since the previous antitrust review of GPCo.
IV. Changes Since the Vogtle 1 OL Antitrust Review 1
There have been few changes (with competitive significance) in the Georgia electric bulk power industry since the staff last reviewed the licensees' activities during the Vogtle 1 operating license review in 1986. The changes l
l 10 Ibid., p. 23.
L _
i 6
that have been identified by the staff have once again been largely procompetitive and represent the culmination of proposals or agreements discussed by the licensees in respon'se to the Regulatory Guide 9.3 request dated February 24, 1986 in conjunction with the Vogtle 1 OL antitrust review. These changes have involved !
allocation and transport of wholesale power and energy throughout the state of j Georgia and adjacent states.11 l
A. Wholesale Power Developments I
- 1) An energy exchange ogreement (EEA) between Oglethorpe and the Seminole l l
Electric Cooperative (Seminole) ehabling Oglethorpe to deliver power and energy 1
from the Tennessee Valley Authority control area to the state of Florida was '
activated. GPCo filed the necessary service tariffs at the Federal Energy l 1
Regulatory Commission (FERC) and now acts as the scheduling agent for trans-actions under this agreement, providing the necessary transmission facilities to accommodate the power flows from Oglethorpe to Seminole.
- 2) A similar EEA between Alabama Electric Cooperative and the South Mississippi Electric Power Association, though in place, has not been activated, i.e.,
11The acquisition of SEPCO by GPCo's holding company parent, The Southern Company, eliminated SEPCO as an independent force in the Georgia electric bulk power market. As indicated supra, SEPC0's marketing area is concentrated in and around the City of Savannah, Ga. with over 650MW of generating capability and approximately 285 circuit miles of transmission line. The staff does not believe this acquisition significantly affects bulk power supply in the state of. Georgia; moreover, the acquisition is not an activity that can be directly attributed to any of the licensees. The acquisition is noted herein only to provide insight into the changes in the Georgia bulk power industry.
4 i
L- _- .
l . ,
7 GPCo has not been asked to schedule power flows over its facilities by either of the parties to the agreement.
- 3) GPCo also intends to participate in an additional 98MW of unit power sales to Florida utilities. The sales to these utilities were initially referenced in the 1986 submittal to Regulatory Guide 9.3 and the 98MW represent increases to existing customers under GPCo's unit power sales agreements.
I
- 4) Oglethorpe purchased a majority interest in the Rocky Mountain Pumped Storage Project owned by GPCo. This hydroelectric facility is rated at 636MW and l will help Oglethorpe meet its goal 'of generating self-sufficiency for the early 1990's. (As a means to furthering this goal, Oglethorpe is also proceeding
, with plans to add up to 240MW of combustion turbine capacity as early as 1992.)
V. Sumary and Conclusions Section 105c of 'the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, provides for pre- l licensing antitrust reviews of commercial power reactors at the construction permit and operating license stages of the licensing process. The antitrust operating license review is not intended as a g novo review but is focused only on those activities of the licensee (s) that have occurred since the l
completion of the construction permit review. !
This concept of reviewing only significant changes in the licensee's activities at the operating license stage has been applied by the staff to reviews of ,
multiunit plant applications. For those plants with multiple reactor licenses, t
h a
fL _ _ _ _ _ _ _ -_ _ _ --- --- _ - ------ - -
i
. 8 the staff conducts separate antitrust reviews for each reactor when the reactors are licensed on a delayed or staggered schedule, i.e., when the reactors are scheduled'to be licensed eighteen months or more apart. i
{
l As indicated supra, the entitrust operating license review of Unit 1 of Plant Vogtle was completed in November of 1986 and the reactor was licensed in March of 1987. Unit 2 of Plant Vogtle is scheduled to be licensed in March of 1989 and in light of the two year lapse since the previous review of the licensees, l
l the staff initiated a separate antitrust review of Unit 2 -- with the focus of the review on any significant changes in the licensees' activities since the i
completion of the previous reviewlin 1986.
)
The changes in the licensees' activities since the previous antitrust review have been largely the result of policies and agreements that were initiated as a result of license conditions placed upon the principal licensee, Georgia Power Company, during the antitrust construction permit review. The staff noted in its o'perating license review of Unit 1 of Plant Vogtle, that the competitive process in the Georgia electric bulk power industry had improved markedly. Moreover, the staff attributed this positive change to the successful implementation of the antitrust license conditions imposed by the Commission.
1 It was also noted that power systems throughout Georgia and adjacent states were ;
better able to control their own power supply destinies by taking advantage of j new power supply options and alternatives made available by a more competitive bulk power supply system. l
)
l
'l I i '
A
e The staff's review of changes in the licensees' activities since 1986 indicates that the procompetitive effects identified during the Vogtle 1 OL review are continuing. Various energy exchange agreements among industry players have
~
been entered into and activated, thereby stimulating more efficient operations among a wide variety of industry players throughout the southeastern portion of the country. Georgia Power Company is providing power and energy transactions to various power systems in Georgia as well as Florida. The integrated trans-mission system that emerged from the Commission's antitrust construction permit l
l review of Plant Vogtle in the mid-1970's allows for ownership of portions of the Georgia transmission grid by all power systems in the state and this transmission arrangement has been cited by industry observers as a model for joint transmission agreements in other areas of the country.
The staff believes the competitive stimuli introduced during the antitrust construction permit review are continuing to promote competition and enhance the competitive process throughout the Georgia electric bulk power market. The staff does not believe that there have been any "significant changes" in the licensees' activities since the previous antitrust review and recommends that no affirmative significant change determination be made pursuant to the operating license for Unit 2 of Plant Vogtle.
l C-___---_---------_-_-------_---_-------_--
I e
- e y
8 l
l l
APPENDIX A l
l l
l l
I 9
1 1
1 .
~
l l
l 5
_ _ _ __-.__--