ML20245E107
| ML20245E107 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Comanche Peak  |
| Issue date: | 06/12/1989 |
| From: | Gillespie F Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Murley T Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| References | |
| CON-#190-9874 A, NUDOCS 8906270327 | |
| Download: ML20245E107 (107) | |
Text
-
k is i
June 12, 1989 I
Docket No. 50-445A l
MEMORANDUM FOR: Thomas E. Murley, Director l
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation FROM:
Frank P. Gillespie, Director
)
Program Management, Policy Development and Analysis Staff Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation 1
SUBJECT:
OPERATING LICENSE ANTITRUST ANALYSIS OF THE' COMANCHE PEAK STEAM ELECTRIC STATION, UNIT 1 l
-)
Enclosed for your signature h a finding of no significant changes pursuant so, the operating license antitrust review of _ Unit 1 of the Comanche Peak Plant.
This finding is based upon an analysis by the antitrust staffs of PMAS and OGC (after consultation with the Department of Justice), which concludes that i
a "no significant change" finding is warranted. The staff analysis is enclosed l
as background information.
This is an initial finding which will be noticed in the Federal Register, thereby providing the public the opportunity to request a reevaluation of j
your finding.
If there are no requests for reevaluation, the finding will become final, and the operating license antitrust review of Unit 1 of the Comanche Peak Plant will have been completed.
l l
[0riginal signed by J.T. Larkins for:]
Frank P. Gillespie, Director i
Program Management, Policy Development and Analysis Staff Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation i
Enclosures:
l As stated i
Distribution
_DocketeEilesn(No. 50-445A) l PTSB RDG CThomas *=
WLambesym.
DNash MMalloy I
gyegerJ Gibeg LPDR.
Of0l NRC PDR f
(CPUNIT1)
L bW PDFES:PTSB:PMAS P FES:PTSB:PMAS OGC 0
B DPJyre l
WLambe/1t DNash BYUper gWlloy FG/Llespie fp /7 /.89
(/[/89 6 /1f/89 3 &/9 /89
/89 4/7/89 8906270327 890612 PDR ADOCK 05000445 d'
M PDC
L u
4 T
COMANCHE PEAK STEAM ELECTRIC STATION, UNIT 1 OPERATING LICENSE ANTITRUST REVIEW FINDING 0F NO SIGNIFICANT CHANGE Section 105c(2) of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, provides for an-antitrust review of an application for.an operating license if the Commission detemines that significant changes i_n the licensee's activities or proposed activities have occurred subsequent to the previous construction permit review.
The Commission has delegated the authority to make the "significant change"
- determination to the Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation. Based upon an examination of the events since the issuance of the Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station construction permits to TU Electric Co., et al. and the consumption of the settlement agreement before the ComissToiG the staffs of the Policy Development and Technical Support Branch Office of Nuclear. Reactor Regulation and the Office of the General Counsel, hereafter referred to as
" staff", have jointly concluded, after consultation with the Department of Justice, that the changes that have occurred since the construction permit review are not of the nature to require a second antitrust review at the operating license stage of the application.
In reaching this conclusion, the staff considered the structure of the electric utility industry in northeastern and north central Texas, the events relevant to the Comanche Peak construction permit review and the antitrust settlement subsequent to the construction permit review.
The conclusion of the staff analysis is as follows:
Prior to the antitrust settlement agreement before the Nuclear Regu-latory Comission (NRC), competition for the purchase or sale of power and energy and related ancillary services in the Texas bulk power market was primarily limited to intrastate power transactions.
This intrastate power network has remained intact for many years--
notwithstanding the fact that some power entities doing business on the perimeter.of the state of Texas as well as some systems within the state have expressed interest in interstate-bulk power transactions for a number of years. Although the Texas bulk power market has remained primarily intrastate in nature, there.have been several changes since the NRC settlement in-1980 that have provided competitive stimuli to this market.
The change that has had the greatest impact in the Texas bulk power market has been the implementation of the joint settlement agreement, i.e., before the NRC and the Federal Energy Regulatory Comission.
ThissettlementagreementrequiredTUElectric,systemsinTexasand et al., to make their transmission facilities more available to power thereby promote competition between intrastate and interstate power systems with the construction of two DC transmission lines. Although both of.the direct current (DC) transmission ties with the Southwest Power Pool (SWPP) have not been completed, the North tie has been com-pleted and the Central and South West operating systems are exchanging power and energy over this tie. Plans have been developed to expand the North tie (as contemplated in the settlement agreement) to accomo-date a significant power transfer by a Texas co-generating entity.
V u
ug '
I Capacity (15 percent) in both DC interties has been reserved for non-owners who wish to engage in firm power transactions in the interstate market.
Noreover, wheeling to, from or over the DC interties is now an available option to many power systems in Texas.
To remedy a growing need to redistribute power from co-generators con-centrated-in industrialized pockets in the state, the Texas Public Utility Commission promulgated rules requiring mandatory transmission or wheeling of co-generated power in Texas. These rules have enabled cor-
' porate entitles, which heretofore have not participated in the.. Texas bulk power market, to _ market their;by-product power and energy, i.e., barriers to entry into the production and sale of bulk power in Texas have been 9
lowered as a result of the newly adopted wheeling rules.
Increased coordination and cooperation among bulk power suppliers has resulted in a more open market in the state of Texas. TU Electric has implemented numerous transmission and scheduling agreements which have enabled a variety of power systems to shop for alternative power throughout the northern portion of the state.* Moreover, a. computer controlled bulletin board, advising all members of the Electric Relia-bility Council of Texas (ERCOT) of available power and energy in the state is now in place, making " shopping" for power.and energy easier for more power systems in the state--thereby enabling power systems to better meet the individual'needs of their customers.
J All types of power entities in Texas, i.e., municipal, cooperative and investor owned, are beginning to explore joint generation projects both within and outside the state. The concept of interstate planning and participation in interstate power projects is a new one for most Texas l
power entities. Although the movement to interstate cooperation and 1
competition is still in its embryonic stages in Texas, this movement l
was contemplated by and provided for in the antitrust-settlement agree-sent before both the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the Federal Energy Regulatory Consiission.
(The settlement agreement provides for requests for _ capacity increases and ownership purchases in' the DC in-terties at intervals of every 3 years beginning in June of 1986 and I
lastinguntilJuneof2004.) It is anticipated that-this movement i
toward increased cooperation and competition will continue among intra-
)
state power systems within Texas and also between intrastate power sys-tems wishing to engage in joint power supply planning and power supply-transactions across state borders.
l i
- Although there have been allegations made recently by an electric cooperative power system in TV Electric's service area that TV Electric has not provided trariss.ission and coordination services upon request, staff believes, in light of the Comission's Summer decision, that the issues raised by the cooperative are not germane to tre C5iimission's "significant change" review, but may be more appropriately addressed in the context of a conipliance proceeding.
I
\\
w
- l 1
j i
i q Although there are still physical impediments to complete synchronous operations between most Texas power entities and systems outside of Texas, i.e., there are no major alternating current interconnections between ERCOT and the SWPP, the settlement agreement provided power systems inside 1
of Texas, as well as in surrounding states, the opportunity to exchange
{
power and energy and engage'in bulk power transactions. The staff views j
the settlement agreement as a major first step in opening up power supply 1
options to a broad spectrum of power entities in ERCOT and the SWPP. The staff's analysis of the changes in the licensees' activities since the antitrust settlement has not identified any changed activity envisioned by the Commission as set forth in its Summer decision. Consequently, the.
j staff recommends that no affirmative significant change determination be j
made pursuant to the application for an operating license for Unit.1 of j
the Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station.
1 i
Based upon the staff analysis, it is my finding that there have been no "sig-l nificant changes" in the licensees' activities or proposed activities since the completion of the previous antitrust review.
OrIgTnal signea by ThomasI.Eurley Thomas E. Murley, Director Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation-Distribution Docket File PTSB RDG PMAS RDG W. Lambe w[/c *d ed D. Nash '
M. Malloy, PM l
J. Rutberg, 0GC I
NRCPDR l
LPDR l
PTSB:PMAS PTSil:PMAS OG 05 B PMAS D:PMAS, RR JRut rg MF d
FGil.lespie 6 / g/89 ki 41)oy WLambe/eb DNash p/f(o/89 up)ey 6/9/89
/f/89 4/S/89 (f /3/89 p/y/89 y
i l
k'g
\\
u l
COMANCHE PEAK STEAM ELECTRIC STATION, UNIT 1 TEXAS UTILITIES ELECTRIC COMPANY, ET AL DOCKET NO. 50-445A FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT ANTITRUST CHANGES 1
s.
CONTENTS
.I.
Introduction.......
....................................Page 1
II.
Background...................................................
2 III. The Texas Electric Power Industry............................
4 A.
Applicant Power Systems IV. Previous Antitrust Reviews...................................
7 A.
Comanche Peak CP Review B.
Comanche Peak-South Texas OL Review V.
Antitrust Settlements.......................................
12 A.
NRC Settlement B.
FERC Settlement C.
SEC Proceeding VI. Changes Since The Antitrust Settlement......................
19 A.
Transmission B.
Interconnections C.
Wholesale Power Developments D.
Coordination Agreements E.
Litigation -- Ownership Share Changes F.
DCTransmissionRateProceeding(FERC)
G.
Cap Rock Electric Cooperative, Inc.
VII. Summary and Conclusions.....................................
33 Appendices:
A.
Comanche Peak Antitrust License Conditions B.
Order Requiring Interconnection and Wheeling, October 28, 1981 (FERC)
C.
FERC Settlement Agreement D.
Memorandum Opinion and Order Terminating Proceeding Before the SEC E.
TU Electric Transmission and Scheduling Agreements F.
TU Electrir,- b.terconnection Agreements G.
Notice of l'iing of Petition for Modification of CommissionOrders(FERC)-
H.
Wholesale Power Developments I.
Order Approving Settlement (FERC); DC Transmission Rate Proceeding
- f 4
I e
i l
I.
Introduction A prospective operating licensee is not required to undergo a formal anti-l l
trust review unless the Nuclear Regulatory Comission-(NRC or Comission)*
determines that there have been "significant changes" in the licensee's activities or proposed activities subsequent to the review by the Attorney i
General end the Comission at the construction permit (CP) stage. Concen-tration on changes in the applicant'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, i
In its Summer decision,** the Comission has provided the staff **+ with a i
set of criteria to be used in making the significant change determination for operating license (OL) applicants:
l j
i "The statute contemplates that the change or changes (1) have occurredsincethepreviousantitrustreviewofthelicensee(s);
(2)arereasonablyattributabletothelicensee(s);and(3)have antitrust implications that would most likely warrant some Comission remedy."****
l The Commission has delegated the responsibility for making a-significant change determination to the Director of the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station Unit 1, Docket No. 50-395A, June 26, 1981at13NRC862(1981).
" 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.
- Comission Memorandum and Order, p. 7, dated June 30, 1980 (CLI-80-28).
\\
i 2
To warrant a significant change finding, i.e., to trigger a formal OL antitrustreview,theparticularchange(s)mustmeet'allthreeofthese criteria.
Due to the substantial lapse of time since the antitrust settlement in the, i
i Comanche Peak proceeding was first proposed in September of 1980 and the scheduled fuel load date for Comanche Peak (summer / fall of 1989), staff has.
undertaken a review of the Comanche Peak licensees' activities since the i
1 settlement agreement. As a result of its review, staff has determined that none of the changes that were identified satisfied all three of the criteria set forth in Summer and for this reason, staff is not recommending that a formal antitrust review be conducted at the operating stage.
1 I
II. Background l
l On December 12, 1974, the Commission issued a construction permit for Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station, Units 1 and 2.
On January 14, 1976, the Commission issued a construction permit for South Texas _ Project, i
Units 1and2(hereinafter"SouthTexas").
In both cases the Attorney General advised the Commission that there was no need for an antitrust hearing. Thereafter, on June 4,1976, Central Power and Light Company, j
one of the applicants in South Texas, filed a request for hearing on antitrust issues in that matter. On June 15, 1977, the Comission
}
i
\\
3 found " changed circumstances" in South Texas and requested further antitrust advice from the Attorney General. On February 21, 1978, the Attorney General advised the Comission that an antitrust hearing should be held in South Texas. On June 26, 1978, the Comission agai7 found
" changed circumstances" in Comanche Peak and requested further antitrust advice from the Attorney General. On August 1, 1978, the Attorney General advised the Comission that an antitrust hearing should be held in Comanche Peak 1 and 2.
In both cases, the Comission ordered antitrust proceedings to be comenced. Numerous cities, utilities, and electric
- r. cooperatives intervened in these two proceedings. The Departmer of Justice (hereinafter " ustice") and the Nuclear Regulatory Comission staff participated in both proceedings. The two proceedings were consol-idated for discovery in 1978 and for hearing in 1980. Discovery took place in 1979 and 1980. On September 14, 1980, all of the applicants in both proceedings, Justice and the staff, submitted two sets of proposed license conditions representing a settlement of these matters acceptable to the applicants, Justice and staff. The only intervenor which opposed the settlement and proposed license conditions was the Public Utilities Board of the City of Brownsville, Texas (hereinafter "Brownsville"). Thereafter, on December 24, 1980, Conformed Settlement License Conditions were filed.
A Conference of counsel was held on April 13, 1982. Again, all parties to both of these matters, except Brownsville, reiterated their support for the settlement or, in any event, their lack of opposition to it.
Brownsville vas directed to respond to four specific questions concerning I
I
t.
l' i
I 4
its opposition to the settlement. On April 22, 1982, Brownsville
)
l responded that-it no longer opposed the proposed settlement and did not want the settlement.to be rejected. Thus, there is no opposition to the
~
-i proposed settlement and Conformed License Conditions.*
1 The settlement agreements for both South Texas and Comanche Peak with accompanying antitrust license conditions were approved by the administrative law judge on May 6, 1982. The license conditions were made immediately effective and ordered attached to the respective operating licenses when issued by the Commission.- Staff's significant change review is concentrated on changes in the licensees' activities since the combined Comanche Peak-South Texas settlement agreement was proposed.in September of 1980.
1 III. The Texas Electric Power Industry The Electric Reliability Council of Texas (ERCOT) was formally organized in 1970. ERCOT membership is voluntary and is composed of generation,
-)
1
(
)
- This procedural history was excerpted from a " Memorandum and Order Approving Settleinent Agreements and Proposed License Conditions and Dismissing Proceeding", issued by Administrative Law Judge James A.
Laurenson on May 6, 1982.
s 5
4 transmission and distribution utilities throughout the state of Texas.
Of the nine regional reliability councils
- ERCOT is unique in that its members are not interconnected (by synchronous alternating current ties) with power systems outside of the state of Texas.
By virtue of their intrastate mode of operation, ERCOT members remain outside of the jurisdiction of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) which regulates the interstate wholesale power transactions of utility systems in ti.e remaining eight reliability councils.
The relevant marketing area for power and energy generated by Comanche Peak ** fo.-ases primarily on the northeastern and northeentral portions of the state of Texas--from the Texas-Louisiana border in the east to the t
City of Midland, Texas in the western portion of the state. This is the i
area in which the licensees primarily serve and the area where the use of the power and energy generated by Comanche Peak will be most concentrated.
I The National Electric Reliability Council (NERC) was formed by the electric utility industry in 1968. The organization was formed primarily to augment the reliability and adequacy of bulk power supply of electric utility systems in North America.
- Unless otherwise noted,'all references to the Comanche Peak Project hereinaf ter refer solely to Unit 1 of the Plant.
i 6
A.
Applicant Power Systems Comanche Peak is an 1,150 MW unit located near Glen Rose, Texas, approximately 45 miles southwest of Ft. Worth, Texas. The plant is jointly owned by one investor owned utility, one municipal joint action agency and two cooperative power systems.*
The largest applicant is TU Electric (approximately 88% ownership) with 1987 generating capability of approximately 18,500MW. TU Electric is a holding company comprised of three operating electric divisions, Dallas Power & Light Co., Texas Electric Service Co. and Texas Power & Light Co.**
Through its.
operating divisions TU f.lectric provides electric power and energy to a broad spectrum of power systems in the northeastern and'northcentral portions of Texas serving a populaton area of over 5 million persons (approximately one-thirdofthepopulttionofthestateofTexas). TU Electric supplies total and partial requirements power to various systems in its marketing area from large urban. loads in the Dallas-Ft. Worth area to smaller municipal and cooperative systems in rural and west Texas.
The three minority co-owtiers, totaling slightly over 12 percent ownership in the plant, are significant'ly smaller power systems that serve more rural, less populated areas of eastern and northeastern Texas. The Texas Municipal Power TMPA, Brazos and TU Electric have reacted tentative agreements whereby TU Electric has agreed to repurchase TMPA's and Brazos' share of Comanche
' Peak. See " Changes", infra.
and Basic Rescurces, Inc.
i 7
Agency or TMPA (6.2%) is a joint action agency comprised of four Texas municipal electric systems -- the Cities of Byran, Greenville, Denton and Garland.
TMPA members have approximately 1,100MW of generating capability and serve j
customers primarily within the confines of the four member systems' service areas. Brazos Electric Power Cooperative, Inc. or Brazos (3.8%) is a l
generation and transmission cooperative headquartered in Waco, Texas.
Brazos has generating capability of approximately 900MW and serves twenty-eight member systems at wholesale. Tex-La Electric Cooperative of Texas j
l (2.167%) serves seven wholesale distribution cooperatives primarily in the eastern part of Texas, near the Louisiana border. Tex-La presently has no generating capability and acts as a marketer of power and energy for its member systems.
IV. Previous Antitrust Reviews A.
Comanche Peak CP Review Texas Utilities Generating Co. (r.ow TU Electric Co.), acting as agent for Dallas Power and Light Co., Texas Electric Service Co. and Texas Power and Light Co., submitted its application to construct both units of the Comanche Peak nuclear plant in the spring of 1973. During the ensuing review by staff of both the Department of Justice and the Atomic Energy l
Connission, various allegations were uncovered pursuant to TU Electric's l
misuse of market power in its service area. Generally, TU Electric was accused of using i+.s dominant market position in generation and transmission facilities to restrain the competitive alternatives of smaller power systems in Texas.
8 As a result of these allegations, additional information was requested from TV Electric and an in-depth analysis of TV Electric's competitive j
activities was conducted. After extensive review and negotiations among staff, TV Electric and affected parties in Texas, a set of policy comitments was agreed upon that obligated TU Electric to address many j
of the competitive concerns raised during the review process. The comitments required TU Electric to offer,1) access to its Comanche Peak j
nuclear plant, 2) transmission services required to take the power from Comanche Peak, 3) to facilitate transmission of bulk power over its
)
facilities for other power systems in its service area, 4) reserve sharing, l
emergency and maintenance power, 5) interconnections, 6) membership in regional pooling bodies, and 7) to accommodate snaller power systems in I
1 the area when planning and construction of new generation and transmission facilities are needed for area wide system reliability. Based upon these policy comitments, the Department of Justice concluded in its advice letter to the Atomic Energy Comission, dated January 17, 1974, that these comitments will,
... provide competitors of Applicant with competitive, alternative bulk power supply sources and substantially eliminate the grounds on which complaints were made to the Department by the smaller systems were based. On the strength of these policy comitments, and with the expectation that the Comission will include them as conditions to the license, we conclude that an antitrust hearing will not be necessary with respect to the instant application."*
I
- Department of Justice advice letter dated January 17, 1974, pp, 3-4.
1 l
9 These comitments were attached to the Comanche Peak construction permits as license conditions and as a result, no CP antitrust hearing was held.
B.
Comanche Peak - South Texas OL Review 1
l At the operating license stage of review, the Comission is primarily l
l concerned with changes in the licensee's activities that have occurred since the CP antitrust review.
In May of 1976, after completion of the Comanche Peak CP review, a series of events occurred that involved TV Electric and other investor owned power systems in Texas.
i i
I In an attempt to electrically unify its holding company system, one of the i
operating subsidiaries of the Central and Southwest Corporation, Central j
PowerandLightCo.(CPL),activatedaninterconnectionbetweenoneofits i
intrastate and interstate operating subsidiaries. As a result, TU Electric and Houston Lighting & Power Co. (HL&P) broke off interconnections with CPL and effectively dichotomized.the Texas electric bulk power market into intra and interstate modes of operation.
In so doing, u.any of the competitive power supply options available to smaller power systems in Texas were severely curtailed or eliminated altogether.
These changes in the Texas bulk power market were noted by the Comission in its operating license review of the South Texas Project during the late 1970's. Sensing that the competitive process in the Texas bulk power market had been compromised by the chain of events following CPL's attempt to unify
l 10 l
its power system, the Commission ma6e a "significant change" determination (as required under Sec.105c) and formally requested the advice of the Department of Justice pursuant to the need for an antitrust hear',ng involving Houston I
Lighting & Power's South Texas operating license application.
\\
In its review of the situation describe 6 by the Comission, the Department J
highlighted anticompetitive conduct by both Houston Lighting & Power and TU Electric that threatened the competitive status quo in Texas and jeopardized the possibility of the enhanced competition originally envisioned by the license conditions attached to the Comanche Peak construction permit in 1974.
l 1
I "At the time of the Department's letter of January 25, 1977, HL&P and TU, the two dominant utilities in l
Texas, were refusing to interconnect with other i
utilities (utilities with which they had
{
historically maintained interconnections); that i
refusal was having a direct and substantial adverse I
effect on those utilities' power supply costs, reliability and their ability to remain competitive."*
In April of 1978, TU Elettric filed its application with the Nuclear Regulatory Comission for an operating license for its two unit Comanche Peak nuclear plant.
In light of the similarities between the South Texas
)
1 l
- Department of Justice South Texas advice letter dated February 21, 1978, at p. 11.
I
s 11 l
and Comanche Peak applications, the Comission decided to make the "significant change" finding and seek the advice of the Department of l
Justice as to whether or not an antitrust hearing should be held in Comanche Peak, i.e., the same procedure followed in South Texas. By its 1
1 order dated June 21, 1978, the Commission formally sought the advice of l
l d
the Department.*
The Departinent rendered its advice to the Comission on August 1,1978, l
indicating that the same changed circumstances cited in its February 21, 1978, advice letter pursuant to the South Texas nuclear plant also applied to the instant Comanche Peak application. The Department concluded that, 1
...because of applicant's and HL&P's adherence to a policy of intrastate only operations.in light of the present market situation, and considering the unprecedented disruptive action of disconnection undertaken by applicant and HL&P to enforce this policy and agreement, an antitrust hearing is necessary to determine whether additional conditions should be l
attached to the operating license of the Comanche Peak units in order to eliminate a situation inconsistent with the antitrust laws."**
1 The Department's advice was formally sought via letter dated June 26, 1978 from James Murray, acting for the Executive Legal Director, to Griffin B. Bell, Attorney General.
- Department of Justice advice letter dated August 1,1978, pp. 3-4.
i
i 4
4 12 Subsequent to publication of the Department's advice letter'in the Federal Register in August of 1978, the' Commission received several petitions to 1
1 intervene from electric power cooperatives, municipalities and utility companies.
Interrogatories were exchanged among the parties and the discovery 1
process was initiated. Due to the similarities 'n issues and the parties j
involved, the operating license review of the Comanche Peak plant was I
consolidated with the on-going parallel review in South Texas.
On September 14, 1980, all of the parties, with the exception of the City of-Brownsville, in the consolidated South Texas / Comanche Peak proceeding reached agreement on two sets of proposed license conditions. Subsequently, i
the city of Brownsville dropped its request to purchase a portion of the South Texas Project and on April 22, 1982 the City of Brownsville dropped its opposition to the proposed settlement and accompanying license conditions. On l
May 6, 1982, the Administrative Law judge assigned to rule on the settlement accepted the settlement, ordered license conditions attached to the Comanche Peak and South Tuas operating licenses and made the license conditions immediately effective.
I V.
Antitrust Settlements l
A.
NRC Settlement i
In an effort to resolve the licensing proceedings before the NRC as well as a companion proceeding on-going before the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), see "FERC Settlement", the applicants in the consolidated South Texas /
Comanche Peak proceeding arrived at a settlement agreement and a' set of license
t 13 conditions
- designed to open up competitive options to power entities in Texas and improve the competitive process in bulk power supply throughout the state of Texas. At the forefront of the settlement was the construction of two direct current (DC) transmission interties that would link ERCOT with the Southwest Power Pool and allow the parent holding company of CPL, the Central and South West Corporation (CSW),** to fully integrate its system and operate in a more efficient manner. The two DC ties would be constructed by CPL's parent, CSW, one in the northern portion of the state of Texas linking Texas and Oklahoma and one in the southern part of the state linking Texas and Louisiana.
l The license conditions attached to the Comanci'e Peak operating license (as well as the Comanche Peak 2 construction permit) were intended to provide a competitive stimulus in the Texas bulk power market by requiring the licensee, TU Electric, to provide participation access in Comanche Peak as well as access to the coordination services and transmission facilities necessary for any new owner to effectively use Comanche Peak power and energy. Membership in the planning organization, TIS, was opened up to qualified entities and both TU Electric and HL&P were required to wheel power over their transmission A copy of the Comanche Peak license conditions is attached as Appendix A.
1 14 facilities to other interconnected entities. The license conditions did not preclude either TU Electric or HL&P from disconnecting from interstate power systems; however, the conditions did prohibit TU Electric or HL&P from making such a decision in concert with any other entity. The NRC settlement and accompanying license conditions were linked to the settlement of parallel issues, involving many.of the same parties, before the FERC -- specifically, the approval of the construction of the DC interties linking ERCOT and the Southwest Power Pool (SWPP).
B.
'ERC Settlement
~
The settlement agreement linking all four CSW operating systems via DC interties was designed to resolve outstanding proceedings before the NRC, the FERC and the Securities and Exchange Commission. An " Order Requiring Inter-connection and Wheeling, and Approving Settlement,"* was issued by the FEtL on October 28, 1981. The order approved the construction of two DC ties as i
well as various provisions under which the interties would be used. Other utilities in ERCOT and SWPP were given the opportunity to share in the ownership of the DC ties depending upon the extent to which they shared in the capital construction costs and the operating and maintenance costs of the DC ties. Moreover, at intervals of every three years (beginning in June of 1986) 1
- Attached as Appendix B.
t
1 I
15 other utilities which are members of ERCOT or SWPP will be given the i
opportunity to participate in the planning and ownership of any capacity
]
increases in the interities.* CSW, HL&P and TU Electric agreed to file rates with the FERC for transmission to, from and over the DC interties and CSW and l
HL&P were required to reserve 15 percent of their respective capacities in the j
i DC lines for firm power wheeling for smaller entities in ERCOT and the SWPP j
1 (i.e., entities with loads of less than 500MW). CSW was directed to consult l
l with (upon request) any entity which owns or operates generation or transmission I
facilities interested in the technical feasibility of any specific AC l
interconnection between ERCOT and SWPP. The FERC ruled that the proposed settlement was " fair, reasonable and in the public interest" and approved the I
agreement on October 28, 1981.
On May 1,1986, the CSW operating companies, et b., filed a petition before the FERC requesting relief and modification of the original settlement
)
approved by the FERC in 1981. The original order required the CSW operating companies and HL&P to construct two DC ties, the North interconnection near Lawton, Oklahoma and the South interconnection in Walker County, Texas, linking ERCOT with the SWFP. The North interconnection was placed in service on December 14, 1984. Construction of the South interconnection has been i
- This opportunity to participate, at three year intervals, will expire on June 30, 2004 pursuant to t1e settlerent agreement.
I.
16 continuously delayed by litigation involving certification of rights of way.
1 Because of these delays, the CSW operating companies, HL&P, TU Electric, and j
the Southwestern Electric Power Co. (SWEPCO), petitioned the FERC requesting that FERC modify its earlier order approving the settlement in question so as to,
...(a) require construction of direct current terminals and j
such associated alternating current transmission facilities as are necessary to effect an asynonchronous' direct current inter-l connection between SWEPCO's Welsh generating station and TU Electric's Monticello generating station (herein below defined as the " East Interconnection"); (b) require the CSW Operating Companies, HL&P and TU Electric to interconnect with each other at the East Interconnection; (c) require such ownership of the East Interconnection by the CSW Operating Companies, HL&P and others, and such wheeling, coordination, comingling, sale and I
exchange of electric power to, from and over the East Interconnection or within the State of Texas as may facilitate i
its use; and (d) relieve the CSW Operating Companies and HL&P from their obligation to construct and operate the South 1
Interconnection upon construction of the East Interconnection."*
Petitioners' request and the Order approving same, substituted the East Interconnection for the previously approved South Interconnection. The l
modified settlement agreement provided for an additional 100MW of capacity in the East Interconnection (from 500MW to 600MW) to be owned by TU Electric.
j The FERC approved the modified settlement agreement by order' dated July 23, 1987. The provisions of the FERC's original orders, except as they pertain to the South Interconnection and East Interconnection, remain unchanged.
- FERC " Order Approving Settlement," pp. 2-3, issued July 23, 1987 is attached as Appendix C.
s 17 I
C.
Securities and Exchange Commission Proceeding i
On February 16, 1945, theSecuritiesandExchangeCommission(SEC)issueda decision establishing the Central and South West Corporation as an integrated electric public utility system as defined by the Public Utility Holding Comparty Act of 1935. On March 26, 1974, six wholesale power customers
- of the Public Service Company of Oklahoma (PS0), an operating subsioiary of the CSW system, complained to the SEC that CSW had ceased to operate as an integrated electric utility system and requested that the 1945 order be modified or revoked.
In an attempt to address the complaints raised by its wholesale power customers, CSW presented an integration plan before the SEC designed to re-i establish interconnections between its ERCOT and SWPP subsidiary companies.
)
As a means of testing this plan, CSW wired a portion of its West Texas Utilities subsidiary, then in interstate consnerce, with its intrastate (ERCOT) subsidiary, Central Power and Light Company in May of 1976, thereby placing the entire CSW holding company in interstate commerce. The intrastate power-l j
systems interconnected to Central Power and Light, notably HL&P and Texas Utilities Co., reacted to CSW's actions by disconnecting their systems from CPL in an effort to remain intrastate only power systems.
- The complaining parties were comprised of the Oklahoma Cities of Altus, Frederick, Cordell and Mannford as well as the Verdigris Valley Electric Cooperative and the Indian Electric Cooperative, Inc. The wholesale customers argued that CSW's non-integrated mode of operation was not as efficient as a fully integrated electric system, thereby resulting in higher costs and rates to CSW's wholesale power customers.
o 18 As indicated earlier, these series of actions and reactions by power systems in the southwest resulted not only in a proceeding before the SEC* pursuant to CSW's standing as a public utility holding company, but also precipitated proceedings bofore the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. Because of the settlement reached before the FERC and the NRC and the comonality of parties and issues in all three proceedings, Central and South West Corp. on February 8,1982 moved (with the consent of HL&P and TU Electric) to dismiss the proceeding before the SEC. The SEC agreed that the settlement agreement remedied the outstanding issues before the SEC.
l "The record before the FERC, as supplemented in this proceeding, indicates that substantial savings are expected to be achieved in revenue requirements to ratepayers of the CSW subsidiaries from operation of the CSW system in an interconnected mode as a result of the planned interconnection between ERCOT and SWPP. The order issued by FERC finds, among other things, that the construction of the planned interconnection facilities 'is in the public 3
interest, will encourage overall conservation of energy and 4
capital, will optimize the use of facilities and resources and f
will improve the reliability of enh electric utility system l
to which the order applies.'"**
The SEC ruled that the proposed DC interconnections would enable CSW to operate as a fully integrated electric system and terminated the instant proceeding.
In doing so, the SEC let stand its 1945 decision that the Central and South West Corporation was an integrated electric public utility system, as defined by the Public Utility Holding Company Act of 1935.
i Administrative Proceeding: File No. 3-4951 l
- " Memorandum Opinion and Order Terminating Proceeding," issued by the Securities and Exchange Comission on April 1,1982, p.4.
(Copy attached as Appendix D.)
)
r
/
19 YI. Changes Since The Antitrust Settlement Section 105c(2) of the Atomic Energy Act, as amended, requires a'second antitrust review at the operating license stage if "significant changes" in the licensee's activities have taken place since the completion of the construction permit review.. The chain of events surrounding.the actions of CP&L and West Texas Utilities' (WTU), placing Texas in interstate commerce,
]
triggered an operating license review by the Commission.*
l l
The Commission made the determination that the circumstances surrounding WTU's actions and the reactions by HL&P and TU Electric represented a "significant
)
change"underSection105c(2)andonJune 26, 1978 requested the Department of.
Justice's advice as to whether or not a hearing should be held. By letter
- It is significant to note that the Commission in its South Texas Memorandum and Order dated June 15, 1977 (5 NRC 1303), determined that future "signifi-cant change" determinations shoald be made by staff.
"The making of a significant change determination triggering a referral to the Attorney General for his advice on its antitrust implications is a function which could and perhaps should be delegated to the regulatory staff."
(5NRC1318)
The' Comission implemented this procedural change in a memorandum dated l
September 12, 1979 to Harold Denton, Director of tre Office of Nuclear Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards. Reactor Regulation and William J. Dircks,(T Director cf the Office of delegated the authority to make the "significant change" determination for power reactors and the Director of HMSS was dele authority for production or non-reactor facilities.) gated the same
I 20 dated August 1 1978, the Department recommended that a hearing be held in the Comanche Peak proceeding. On September 11, 1980 the parties reached a settle-ment of the NRC proceeding (the settlement was not formalized until N y 6, 1982). The NRC settlement represented the basis for settlement of outstanding proceedings involving parallel issues before both the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission and the Securities and Exchange Commission.
Eight years have passed since the settlement was initially reached and construction of the Comanche Peak facility has not yet been completed. This 1
period of time represents a significant void in the Comission's antitrust review and for this reason staff requested the Comanche Peak licensees to supply data pursuant to Regulatory Guide 9.3, i.e., information pursuant to changed activity since the previous antitrust review -- in this case, since the settlement agreement in 1980, not the completion of the construction permit review in 1974.
From the licensees' responses to Regulatory Guide 9.3 and information gathered frcm public print sources as well as contacts with other governmental agencies, staff has identified several changes associated with TU Electric's conduct and activity since the settlement was reached in late 1980.
A.
Transmission The Texas electric bulk power market has undergone substantial change since the antitrust settlement was reached in 1980 -- not the least of which has been the increased willingness to transmit or wheel intrastate power by the 4
l i
l
I 21 major power systems in Texas. The impetus provided by the Texas Public Utility Commiss%n (TPUC) and the construction of the DC transmission line(s) required by the settlement have both sparked this ir. crease in competitive consciousness in Texas.
The TPUC adopted rules pertaining to mandatory transmission (wheeling) of co-generated power in the state. Since the Ptblic Utility Regulatory Policies Act (PURPA) was enacted in 1978, the amount of co-generators and by-product electric power and energy has increased significantly in the state of Texas --
particularly in the southern portion of the state near the heavily industrialized City of Houston.
Industry sources estimate that the newly adopted wheeling rules could lead to the development of as much as 1,000MW of co-generation in the state in the near future.*
l
- Electric !!tility Week, October 14, 1985, p. 9.
t 3
22 Representative of this new energy source is an agreement signed in 1985 between TV Electric and a subsidiary of the Northern Natural Resources Co.
TU Electric contracted to purchase 393MW of firm capacity from a chemical project to be built by a Northern Natural subsidiary, InterNorth, Inc.**
The power will be wheeled through the'HL&P service area. The TPUC rule pursuant to wheeling of co-generated power was termed a'" major factor" in InterNorth's decision to build the facility. Moreover,1U Electric has entered several wheeling and transmission scheduling agreements that have facilitated power flows for a number of power systems in Texas. These agreements are listed in Appendix E.
B.
Interconnections TU Electric has been actively engaged in the consumption of new interconnection agreements since the 1980 settlement agreement -- much of this activity has been precipitated by newly agra,; upon transmission agreements, i.e., power flowt ever transmission facilities are usually monitored and controlled by attendant interconnection agreements. These agreements are varied in scope and are listed in Appendix F.
l
- Wall Street Journal, February 26, 1986, p. 16; Electric Utility Week, July 8, 1985, pp. 1-10.
I 23 In conformance with the settlement agreement reached by the parties in all threeproceedings(NRC,FERCandSEC),constructionoftwodirectcurrent transmission lines linking Texas with the SWPP was initiated. The North DC intertie was constructed by the Central and South West Corp. (100% owned by CSW) and energized in December of 1984. The tie is presently being used to link West Texas Utilities Co. with the Public Service Company of Oklahoma.
The initial settlement agreement reached in 1980 included the construction of a south DC transmission line connecting the service areas of HL&P and SWEPCO.
Due to environmental siting problems, a new route for the second DC line was agreed upon by the concerned parties. The new " East" tie, located in TU Electric's service area, links SWEPC0 to ERCOT farther north than the proposed South DC tie.
It is anticipated that ownership of the newly proposed East tie will include the following power systems: Houston Lighting and Power Co.,
1 200MW; Central Power and Light Co.,150MW; Southwestern Electric Power Co.,
150MW and TU Electric Co.,100MW.*
)
- The new route, termed the " East" intertie, would link the Texas Utilities Co.
l (atitsMonticelloplant)withSouthwesternElectricPowerCo.(atitsWelsh plant). The East intertie would be apx w imately 15 miles long, considerably shorter than the originally planned Sobd DC intertie, and according to licensees, would face far less opposition before the Texas Public Utility Commission.
It is contemplated that the capacity of the East intertie would increase from 500MW to 600MW, with 15% of capacity. reserved for non-owner transactions, i.e., all requirements originally spelled out in the settlement agreement. The new intertie, as proposed, would be alternating current (AC) with back-to-back DC terminals -- the same deployment used in the North DC intertie -- and is expected to be less costly than the originally planned South DC intertie.
(See " Notice of Filing of Petition for Modification of Commission Orders," dated May 6 1986, attached as Anpendix G.)
t 1
24 C.
Wholesale Power Developments l
TU Electric is actively engaged in wholesale power negotiations and transactions involving industrial and commercial power entities in and adjacent to its service area. The development of alternative power sources, i
primarily co-generators, the initiation of mandatory wheeling of co-generated power by the TPUC and the imposition of antitrust license conditions upon Comanche Peak have all affected TU Electric's dealings with wholesale power l
suppliers in northern and western portions of Texas.
In the early and mid-1980's, significant amounts of excess capacity began to i
appear in the Texas electric bulk power industry. The development of I
hy-product power and energy and the dramatic downturn in the Texas economy 1
(perpetuatedbyadecreaseinthedemandandsubsequentdropinpriceforoil)
I contributed significantly to this glut of power and energy. As a result of this situation, many power systems in the state began to " shop around" for.
i less costly sources of energy. TU Electric, being one of the largest power i
systems in the state, is involved in negotiations and transactions with its wholesale customers and potential wholesale customers pursuant to these power transfers. This extensive activity is highlighted in Appendix H.
j t
l
-__-__-_--___a
t 3
'I 25 i
l D.
Coordination Agreements l
In August of 1981, ERCOT established a power brokerage system for the purchase i
and sale of _ economy energy. The brokerage was operated through the South Texas Interconnected Systems' security center, which was comprised of power system serving primarily in the southern and western portions of the state.
This program was phased out in 1984 and was replaced by a computer controlled bulletin board which advises ERCOT members of power availalile for purchase l
throughout the intrastate Texas bulk power market.
The Texas Interconnected System (TIS) was merged with the Electric Reliability s
Council of Texas on September 4, 1981. TIS membership was dissolved when the merger was consumated.
l In 1982 El Paso Electric Co. (El Paso) planning personnel met with TU Electric representatives to discuss long range possibilities for mutual cooperation and possible coordination between their two systems.
No firm commitments or agreements were reached, however, EL Paso has, recently requested additional meetings to explore the possibility of a sale of surplus capacity to TU Electric.
^
E.
Litigation -- Ownership Share Changes L
Comanche Peak is approximately nine years behind its originally projected 4
completion date. Various factors have contributed to the construction delay; 1
however, the three minority co-owners, Brazos, TMPA and Tex-LA, attributed a.
large part of TU Electric's failure to complete the plant on schedule to I
r 26 imprudence. After discussions among the owners in late 1985 and early 1986 pursuant to the minority owners' concerns about the construction delay and j
l their ability and responsibility to continue payments toward the plant's j
completion, Tex-La advised TU Electric in April of 1986 that Tex-La* would discontinue making further payments under the Joint Ownership Agreement (JOA).
l Tex-La charged that TU Electric had breached the. J0A by mismanaging the con-j struction of the rplant and by its actions, relieved Tex-La of any further
]
obligation to continue payments toward completion of the plant.
I On May 29, 1986, TU Electric filed an action ** against the minority co-owners charging them, inter alia, with breaching the JOA by not paying their proportionate share of the remaining costs attendant to the construction of l
Comanche Peak. TV Electric's suit asked the court to enforce the ownership agreement signed by the partners. On June 18, 1986, Tex-La and TMPA countersued in Texas State District Court in Travis County (No. 399,336). The fo11cwing day, Brazos filed a separate suit against TU Electric, also in Travis County, i
Texas (No. 399,482). The minority owners' countersuits alleged that TU Electric, I
the utility responsible for construction of Comanche Peak, had failed to design l
i and construct the plant in accordance with " prudent utility practice," as outlined in the JOA. The suits further alleged that as a result of imprudent construction practices employed by TU Electric, completion of the plant was Brazos has not made any of the required construction payments since May of 1985 and Tex-La has not made any payments since May of 1986.
- The suit was brought in District Court, Dallas County, Texas, 14th Judicial District (No. 86-6809-A).
I
e s
27 drastically delayed and costs substantially increased for the minority co-owners. Thecountersuit(s)askedthecourt(s)to.terminatetheownership agreement, relieve the minority owners of their ownership obligations and refund the money already invested in the construction of Comanche Peak. All of the litigation initiated as a result of the disputes beteeen TU Electric and the minority co-owners was terminated by three separate settlement agreements.
By agreement dated February 12, 1988, TU Electric agreed to purchase and TMPA agreed to sell its 6.2% ownership interest in the Comanche Peak plant for approximately $456 million. TMPA and TU Electric have agreed to cease pending litigation
- upon the execution of the settlement agreement. On June 30, 1988, TU Electric and Brazos signed an agreement providing for the purchase by TU Electric of Brazos' 3.8% share in Comanche Peak and termination of outstanding litigation between TU Electric and Brazos arising out of the dispute over interpretation of the Comanche Peak Joint Operating Agreement. Under the terms of the settlement agreement, TU Electric agreed to pay Brazos approximately
$229 million, including $19 million for nuclear fuel, $15.3 million for liti-gation expenses, $2.5 million for transmission facilities and $322 thousand for other expenses. Moreover, an agreement was signed on March 23, 1989 between Tex-La and TU Electric that provided for the sale of Tex-La's 2-1/6% ownership interest in Comanche Peak to TU Electric for approximately $157 million. This agreement, like the Brazos and TMPA agreements, specifically provided for the 1
1 I
- Tex-La Electric Cooperative of Texas, Inc. and Texas Municipal Power Agency v. Texas Utilities and Texas Utilities Electric Company --
District Court of Travis County, Texas, 98th Judicial District:
I Cause No. 399,336; and Texas Utilities Electric Company v. Tex-La
)
Electric Cooperative of Texas, Inc. et al. -- District Court of Dallas County, Texas,14th Judicial District: Cause No. 86-6809-A.
c 28 termination of all pending litigation between the two parties pursuant to the Comanche Peak plant described supra. By letter dated May 4, 1989, TU Electric requested the Commission to amend its Comanche Peak construction permits to re-flect this proposed change in ownership. As a result of these settlement agreements, TU Electric will own 100% of the Comanche Peak plant.
F.
DC Transmission Rate Proceeding (FERC) 4 As part of the settlement agreement reached before the FERC, Central and South West, HL&P and Texas Utilities (now TU Electric) were required to file tariffs with the FERC for wheeling power to, from, or over the proposed direct current lines. Said tariffs were filed in 1982,* followed soon thereafter by inter-vention from various interested parties in and adjacent to the state of Texas.
Intervening parties were represented primarily by many of the same municipal t
and cooperative power systems that intervened in the original DC transmission case before FERC (Dkt. No. EL79-8).
(Those entities interested in transmission over the DC lines were also concerned with the proposed wheeling rates over theDClines.) After hearings and extensive negotiations in the DC tariff proceeding,** a settlement was approved by the FERC on January 27, 1988 (38FERC161,050- attached as Appendix I.)
l 1
l 1
l
- The parties include the following powe'r systems:Public Service Company of Oklaho et al.
(1)allfourCSWo systems; TU Electric Co.; Houston Lighting & Power Co.; (2) and the following i
interveners: Brazos Electric Power Cooperative; Mid-Texas Electric Coopera-tive, Inc.; Municipal Electric Systems of Oklahoma; South Texas Electric Cooperative, Inc.; Medina Electric Cooperative, Inc.; Northeast Texas Electric Cooperative, Inc.; Tex-La Electric Cooperative, Inc.; Rayburn Country Electric Cooperative, Inc.; City of Lafayette, La.; Valley View Energy Corp.;
Oklahoma Corporation Commission; Public Utility Commission of. Texas; and the FERC staff.
l
i 29
)
l The settlement provides for the movement cf power and energy to, from.or over H
the DC lines with the wheeling rates determined by a formula now employed throughout ERCOT termed the " positive difference megawatt-mile methodology" approved by the Texas Public Utility Commission. The settlement provides:
...that the initial rate for transmission service...shall be based upon each filing company's recently approved cost of-service study on file at the TPUC [ Texas Public Utility Commission]
or the annual expenses found in FERC expense accounts...plus depreciation, federal income tax, and other associated taxes, and the TPUC allowed rate of return based on FERC plant a ccounts.., le s s a ccumu la te d depreci a tion ;.... "*
The sett1 ment provides for the CSW operating companies to employ a system-wide wheeling rate for power and energy moving over the North DC intertie. When-the East DC intertie is completed (or no later than January 1,1989, whichever l
is earlier), power and energy dispatched among t.he CSW operating companies to, 4
l from and over the DC ties (North or East), would be charged a. wheeling rate
]
based upon where said power and energy actually originates and terminates.
Under the terms of the proposed settlement, HL&P and TU Electric agreed to render transmission service to, from and over the DC interconnections. Due to the dissimilarities of the HL&P and TU Electric systems compared with those of the CSW system, the terms and conditions associated with the transmission of power and energy ov.er the DC interconnections differed somewhat for HL&P and Texas Utilities.
l t
- FERC DC Wheeling Rate Offer of Settlement Agreement; " Memorandum of Agreement," p. 8.
I i
m
_m.______
i 30 G.
Cap Rock Electric Cooperative, Inc.
1 On August 19, 1988, Cap Rock Electric Cooperative, Inc. (Cap Rock) submitted coments to the NR(,, "... Concerning Significant Changes In Licerrsee's Activity That Warrant An Antitrust Review At The Operating License Stage" j
(herein fter, " Comments").
In its Coments, Cap Rock alleges that TU Elec-tric's "... cuirent activities create and mainlein a situation inconsistent with the antitrust laws and warrant the institution of an antitrust review and hearing by this Comission." (Coments, p.1)
Although the period for providing coments pursuant to the Regulatory Guide 9.3 information submitted in conjunction with the Comanche Peak, Unit 1, antitrust operating license review ended on December 26, 1986, the Comission does con-J sider additional information after this period if.the activities in question J
have accurred after the connent period and could not have been reported during the period specifically designated for public comments.
In instances where con-struction and subsequent fuel loading of a reactor is delayed, there are often i
substantial time intervals between completion of the construction permit anti-trust review and completion of construction of an individual reactor--sometimes i
extending over several years. For this reason, staff engages in " monitoring reviews" and continual data collection for those plants that for whatever rea-l son (s) experience construction or licensieg delays.
l Cir Rock alleges that TU Electric is inhibiting competition in its service area by: 1) abusing its monopoly power over transmission; 2) refusing to furnish a partial requirements wholesale power rate; and 3) maintaining a i
_______.-__._m_
1 31 i
price squeeze that adversely affects competition for wholesale power in TU's service area. Cap Rock maintains that TV Electric, by engaging in these prac-tices, has violated the antitrust license conditions attached to the Comanche Peak construction permit.
Without ruling on the merits of Cap Rock's contentions, which are still under i
review, staff'does not believe that the issues raised by Cap Rock represent i
I changes that are within the scope of the Comission's Summer decision. The 4
staff believes that TV Electric's activities, as alleged by Cap Rock, may 1
)
represent recurrences of problems that were addressed and remedied during the
)
antitrust construction permit review and subsubsequent operating license review by the Commission (via the institution of antitrust license conditions attached to the Comanche Peak construction permits).
l Staff's antitrust review of the Comanche Peak licensees during the construction I
permit review in 1974 identified several areas of alleged abuse of market power l
by the principal licensee, TU Electric *, specifically, r oblem areas related to TU Electric's refusal to transmit power and energy u r smaller power sys-tems in the North Texas area. During the operating license antitrust review i
triggered by Central Power & Light Co. in the late 1970's (cf.Section IV, "Frevious Antitrust Rsviews"), a settlement agreement was reached among the l
l
- The initial review was of TU Electric's predecessor holding company and operating subsidiaries.
1
'32 Comanche Peak parties-that included inter alia, a new set of license'condi-tions that' required TU Electric's predecessors and now TU Electric to "...
sell full and partial requirements bulk power to requesting Entities in the North Texas Area...-."
(License Condition 3.D(2)(k), per approved settle-ment agreement dated May 6, 1982.)
Staff has considered Cap Rock's allegations of market abuse by TU~ Electric,in-conjunction with its significant change operating license review of Comanche L
As noted, it' appears.as thouga the issues raised in Cap Rock's Coments Peak.
are not new issues or problem areas that can be attributed to TU Electric since the antitrust construction permit review in 1974 or the antitrust review by the Commission in the late 1970's. Staff believes that the issues raised by Cap Rock could possibly represent issues that may be more germane in the context of a compliance proceeding, i.e., pursuant' to non-compliance with the antitrust license. conditions that are attached to the Comanche Peak construction pennit.
Indeed, Cap Rock alludes to this possibility in its Comments at page five when it states that, "Each of these refusals is in di-rectviolationofthecurrentantitrustlicenseconditions[ referencing License Conditions, 3.D.(2)(c), (d), (k) and (1)] and clearly contrary to the antitrust laws and the policies that underlie them."' (Emphasisadded.)
Finally, staff believes the allegations raised by Cap Rock pursuant-to price squeeze are best remedied by the governing body with jurisdiction over retail and most of the wholesale power rates in Texas, i.e., the Texas Public-Utility Comission and.according to Cap Rock (Comments, p.7), the price squeeze issue is under review by this reguletory body.
33 VII. Summary and Conclusions Prior to the antitrust settlement agreement before the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (hRC)7 competition for the purchase or sale of power and energy and related ancillary services in the Texas bulk power market was primarily limited to intrastate power transactions. This intrastate power network has l
remained intact for many years -- notwithstanding the fact that some power entities doing business on the perimeter of the state of Texas as well as some systems within the state have expressed interest in interstate bulk power transactions for a nucer of years. Although the Texas bulk power market has l
remained primarily intristate in nature, there have been several changes since I
the NRC settlement in 1980 that have provided competitive stimuli to this market.
l The change that has.had the greatest impact in the Texas bulk power market has been the implementation of the joint settlement agreement, i.e., before the NRC cnd the Federal Energy Regulatory Comission. This settlesent agreement required TU Electric, ej al., to make their transmission facilities more available to power systems in Texas and thereby promote competition between intrastate and interstate power systems with the construction of two DC transmission lines. Althoughbothofthedirectcurrent(DC) transmission ties with the Southwest Power Pool (SWPP) have not been completed, the North tie has been completed and the Central and South West operating systems are exchanging power and energy over this tie.
Plans have been developed to expand the North tie (as contemplated in the settlement agreement) to accommodate a significant power transfer by a Texas co-generating entity. Capacity (15 percent)
c i
34 in both DC interties has been reserved for non-owners who wish to engage in firm power transactions in the interstate market. Moreover, wheeling to, 1
i from or over the DC interties is now an available option to many power j
i systems in Texas.
l To remedy a growing need to redistribute power from co-generators concentrated in industrialized pocken, in the state, the Texas Public Utility Comission promulgated rules requiring mandatory transmission or wheeling of co-generated power in Texas. These rules have enabled corporate entities, which heretofore i
have not participated in the Texas bulk power market, to market their by-product power, i.e., barriers to entry into the production and sale of bulk power in Texas have been lowered as a result of the newly adopted wheeling rules.
Increased coordination and cooperation among bulk power suppliers has resulted in a more open market in the state of Texas. TU Electric has implemented numerous transmission and scheduling agreements which have enabled a variety of power systems to shop for alternative power throughout the northern portion of the state.* Moreover, a computer controlled bulletin board, advising all
- Although there have been allegations made recently by an electric cooperative power system in TU Electric's service area that TU Electric has not provided transmission and coordination services upon request, staff believes, in light of the Commission's Summer decision, that the issues raised by the coopera-tive are not germane to the Comir.ston's "significant change" review, but may be more appropriately addressed in the context of a compliance proceeding.
t r
35 members of the Electric Reliability Council o'f Texas (ERCOT) of available power and energy in the state is now in place, making." shopping" for power and energy easier for more power systems in the state -- thereby enabling power systems to better meet the individual needs of their customers.
All types of power entities in Texas, i.e., municipal, cooperative and in-vestor owned, are h'31nning to explore joint generation projects both within and outside the state. The concept of interstate planning and participation in interstate power projects is a new one for most Texas power entities..
Al-though the movement to interstate cooperation and competition'is still in its embryonic stages in Texas, this movement was contemplated by and provided for in the antitrust settlement agreement before both the Nuclear Regulatory Com-mission and the Federal Energy Regulatory Connission.
(Thesettlementagree-ment provides for requests for capacity increases and ownership purchases in the DC interties at intervals of every 3 years beginning in June of 1986 and lastinguntilJuneof2004.)
It is anticipated that this' movement toward increased cooperation and competition will continue among intrastate power systems within Texas and also between intrastate power systems wishing to en-gate in joint power supply planning and power supply transactions across state borders.
l Although there are still physical impediments to complete synchronous opera-tions between most Texas power entities and systems outside of Texas, i.e.,
there are no major alternating current interconnections between ERCOT and the SWPP, the settlement agreement provided power systems inside of Texas, as well as in surrounding states, the opportunity to exchange power and
__..--___,--.--N-_A A
t 36
)
energy and engage in bulk power transactions..The staff views the settlement.
l agreement as a major first step in opening up power supply options to a broad
~
spectrum of power entities in ERCOT and the SWPP. The staff's analysis of the changes in the licensees' activities since the antitrust settlement has not identified any changed activity envisioned by the Commission as set forth in its Summer decision. Consequently, the staff recommends that no affirmative sig-nificant change determination be made pursuant to the application for an op-erating license for Unit 1 of the Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station.
1 I
i i
i
)
4 c
a
k a
d a
e 4
I I
I 1
I 4
c) 1 I
}
l APPENDIX A e
SP 1
1
]
1 1
l 1
i 9
6 1
J l
I O
e
- e..
-4.
0
- s
- e. -..
..-.-amm
- p......,
.e-
~----------A
4 4
UNITED STATES OF' AMERICA I
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION l
.1 James A. Laurenson Administrative Law Judge In the Matter of
'l HOUSTON LIGHTING & ' POWER COMPANY, Docket Nos. 50-498A-50-499A
)>1 et al.
(56IitFTexas Project, Units 1 and 2)
TEXAS UTLITIES GENERATING COMPANY,,
h Docket Nos. 50-445A et al.
50-446A (C6maTche Peak Steam Electric Station.
)
Units 1 and 2)
May 6, 1982-MEMORANDUM AND ORDER APPROVTRT5ETTLEMENT AGREEMENTS AND PROPD5ED LICENSE CONDlllDN5 AND D15MI551NG PRDCEEDING s
Jurisdiction and Procedural History Q
On Decenber 12, 1974, the Commission, issued a construction permit for Comanche' Peak Steam Electric Station, Units 1 and 2 (hereinafter " Comanche
~
Peak"). On January 14, 1976, the Comission issued a construction pemit for South Texas Project, Units 1 and 2 (hereinafter " South Texas").
In both
- t cases the Attorney General advised the Comission that there was no need for an antitrust hearing. Thereafter, on June 4,1976, Central Power and Light Company, one of the applicants in South Texas, filed a request for hearing on l
antitrust issues in that matter. On June 15, 1977, the Comission found l
1
- changed circumstances" in South Texas and requested further antitrust advice from the Attorney General. On February 21, 1978, the Attorney General advised the Commission that an antitrust hearing should be. Ntid in South Texas. On June 26; 1978, the Comission again found " changed circumstances'"
(
in Comanche Peak and requested further antitrust advice from the Attorney General. On August 1,1978, the Attorney General advised the Comission that e
~
2 I
an antitrust hearing should be held in Comanche Peak.
In both cases, the Comission ordered antitrust proceedings to be commenced.
Nuineroes cities, utilities, and electric cooperatives intervened in these two proceedings. '
The Department of Justice (hereinafter " Justice") and the. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Staff (hereinafter " Staff") participated in'both proceedings. The two proceedings were consolidated for discovery in 1978 and for hearing in 1980. Discovery took place in 1979 and 1980.
On September 14,1980, all of the applicants in both proceedings, Justice and the Staff, submitted two sets l
of proposed license conditions representing a settlement of these matters i
acceptable to the applicants, Justice, and Staff. The only intervenor which opposed the settlement and proposed license conditions was the Public Utili O
'$ ' d
' '"' '' ' *'i"- **'("'"'''""")-
l Thereafter, on December 24, 1980, Conformed Settlement License Conditions i
i were filed.
A Conference of Counsel was held on April.13,'1982. Ag,ain, all parties to both of these, matters, except Brownsville, reiterated their support for i
~ the settlement or, in any ev'ent, their lack of opposition to it'.
Brownsville was directed to respond to four specific questions concerning its opposition to the settlement. On April 22, 1982, Brownsville responded that it no longer opposed the proposed settlement and did not wa'nt the settlement to be rejected. Thus, there is no opposition to the proposed settlement and,
Conformed License Ccnditions.
Test for Settlemerit koproval The Comission's Rules of Practice enc 6urage. settlement of contested
(
proceedings as follows:
- M W '
m m o e.
s.q e,
e
~
3 I
"The Comission recognizes that the public interest say b served through settlement of particular issues in a pro e
ceeding.
Therefore, to the extent that it is not incon.
(42 U.S.C. 2239), the fair and reasonable settlem 4
contested initial licensing proceedings is encouraged.
is expected that the p It parties to those proceeresiding officer and all of the carry out this purpose." dings will take appropriate steps to 10 C.F.R. $ 2.759.
As noted in the preceding section, this consolidated proceeding long and arduous history punctuated by adversary relationship Justice, which initially recomended that a hearing be held n
coural.
~
antitrust issues in both matters, is now in accord with the settlement Interes'ted parties have been affored the opportunity to interve All interveners were given the opportunity to object to the settlement a
)
proposed license conditions. None did so.
Since no party to this O
consolidated proceeding opposes the settiement or proposed iscense conditions, it would not be fruitful or in the public interest to diss settlement agreements in search of an antitrust issue for* hearing Hence. I find that. based pon the foregoing, the proposed setticment and license conditions are fair and reasonable and are in the public interest.
Accordingly, the settlement is app.oved and the conditions shall b ached to the operating licenses.
Since no further relief is requested by any party to this consolidated proceeding, this action is DISMISSED WHEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED this 6th day of May,1982, that
~
agreements are hereby APPROVED.
~
e
(
e 4
e
,m e e, e -
e
~
4 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Conformed License Condition's for Comanche e
Peak attached hereto and incorporated herein, marked as " Appendix A-Comanche Peak" shall be imediately effective and shall be atte-hed to the operating ~
license of Comanche Peak.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Conformed License Condi'. ions for South Texas, attached hereto and incorporated herein,' marked as " Appendix B-South Texas" shall be imediately effective and shall be attached to the operating license of South Texas.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this consolidated proceeding is DISMISSED.
- 4 0
' James A. Laurenson ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE e,,
e e
- g e
O e
e 0
e 9
O e
9 y
e e
p.
en
,uemesse==
g
..s*
C0tiFORMED December 1930 LICEr SE C0!iDIT] dis FOR COMAt:CHE PEAK STEAM ELECTRIC STATI0li UNITS 1 AtiD 2 D.
(1) The following definitions apply to paragraph 3.D.(2):
(a) ;" Applicants" means severally and jointly Texas Utilities Generating Company, Dallas Power & Light Company. Texas Electric Service Company. Texas Power & Light Company, Texas Utilities Company and each other subsidiary, affiliate or successor company now or hereafter engaged in the generation, transmission and/or the distribution of electric power in the State of Texas.
(b)
- North Texas Area
- means the following Texas counties:
Anderson, Andrews, Angelina, Archer Bestrop, Baylor, Bell, Bordon, Bosque, Brown, Burnet, Cherokee, Clay, Coke, Collin, Comanche, Cooke, Coryell, Crane, Culberson, Dallas, Dawson, Delta, Denton, Ecstland, Ector, Ellis, Erath, Falls, Fannin, Fisher, Freestone, Gaines, Glasscock, Grayson. Henderson, Hill, Hood, Hopkins Houston, Howard, Hunt, Jack, Johnson, Kaufman, Kent, Lamar Lampasas Leon, Limestone. Loving, Lynn, Martin, McLennan,- Midland, Milam, Mitchell, Pbntague, Nacogdoches, Navarro Nolan, Palo Pinto.' Parker, Pecos.
O Rains, Reagan, Red River Reeves, Rockwall, Rusk Scurry, Schackelford, Smith, Somervell, Stephens, Sterling Tarrant.
Terry, Tom Green. Travis Upton, Yan Zandt, Ward, Wichita, W11barger, Williamson, Winkler, Wise, Wood, and Young...
~
(c)
" Entity
- means an electric utility which is a person a private or public corporation, a government'al agency,or authority, a municipality, a cooperative, or an association owhing, operating or contractually controlling, or proposin) in good faith to own, operate or contractually control, facilities for generation of electric power and energy; provided, however, that as used in hs 3.D. (2)(b), 3.D. (2)(g), 3.D. (2)(i), paragraf(j)3.D. (2)(a )l, 3.D.(2 (a) and (b 3.D.(2)(k), 3.D.(2)(1) and 3.D. (2)(m), " Entity
- means an electric utility which is a person, a private or public corporation, a governmental agency or authority, a me:nici-pality, a cooperative, or an association owning or operating, or proposing in good faith to own or operate, facilities for generation, transmission and/or distribution of electric
. power and energy.
(d)
" Entity in the North Texas Area" means an Entity which owns or operates facilities for the generation, transmission a
and/or distribution of electric power in av area within the
{
North Texas Area.
Aeoendix A - Comanche Peak s
e, e
- f.'.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION 1
I Befste Commissioners:
C. H. Butler III, Chtirmans Georgiana Sheldon and A. G. Sousa.
Central Power and Light Company,
)
Public Service Company of Okalahoma,
)
Southwestern Electric Power Company,.
)
Docket Nos. EL79-8 West Texas Utilities Company
)
E-9558 CRDER REQUIRING INTERCONNECTION AND WBEELING, AND APPROVING SETTLEMENT (Issued October. 28, 1981) on February 9,1979, four public utilities, Central Power.
and Light Company, Public Service Company of Oklahoma, Southwestern and West Texas Utilities Company, jointly Electric Power Company /
for (1) exemption from state regulation pre-filed an application 1 venting voluntary coordination of the utilities pursuant to section 205(a) of The Public Utilities Regulatory. Policies Act of 1978 and (2) interconnection of facilities and the provision of transmission services pursuant to sections 202, 210, 211, and 212 'of the Federal Power Act (Act), as amended.
The four utilities are wholly owned subsidiaries of Central and. South West Corporation (CSW) and here-af ter will be referred to collectively as CSW.
CSW requested
)
~
approval of four synchronous alternating current interconnections between two electric reliability councils, the Electric Reliability Council of Texas (ERCOT) and the Southwest Power Pool (SWPP).
The I
i application was opposed by Bouston Lighting and Power company (ELP) and the operating subsidiaries 2/ of the Texas Utilities Company *(TUC).
On Juse 27, 1980, in an attempt to settle, among other things, I
this proceeding and a related proceeding before the Nuclear Regula-tory Ccamission, Central Power and Light Company filed an amended application seeking approval of two asynchronous direct current interconnections between electric utilities in ERCOT and SWPP.
On July 28,1980, C5W, BLP and TUC submitted an offer of settlement which would effectuate the proposal set forth in= the amended application.
i
}/ This proceeding had $ts antecedents in a complaint filed on May 4, 1976, in Central Power and Light'Co., Docket No. E-9558, alleging a nunper et utilities in Texas were public utilities subject to the jurisdiction and interconnectionpauthority' of the Commission.
J/ These companies are Dallas Power & Light Company, Texas Electric Service Company, and Texas Power & Light Company.
- p. (l'11'00 p
....,g i.
~~
- pockst Nos. EL79-8 and j
E-9558 Tho effor of sottlomant hos baan supplom2nts? on two occasions.
The offer first was supplemented by agreement dated September 11, l
1980, executed by the Commission staff, CSW, NLP, and TUC, and a supplemental of fer of settlement was filed on October 8,1980.
Then on June 22, 1981, a second supplemental offer of settlement was filed, advising the Commission that an agreement had been executed by CSW and the U.S. Department of Justice (D0J), under which DCJ agreed not to contest the offer of settlement as supple-mented by the supplemental offer of settlement and as amended by,the second supplemental offer of settlement.
The offer of settlament, as supplemented, will hereaf ter be referred to as the " settlement agreement".
All parties in this proceeding, while reserving their respec-tive positions in the event the settlement agreement is not accepted by the Commission, have either af firmatively joined in the settlement agreem'ent or announced their intention to accept the proposed order without appeal.
The administrative law $udge certified the settlement agreement to the Commission as an uncon-tested offer of settlement on July 10, 1981.
The settlement agreement provides among other things that asynchronous interconnections will be installed between ERCOT and SWPP.
These would consist of a North Interconnection, to be constructed by CSW, which would consist of two back-to-back direct current terminals with an initial capacity of 200. sw on-either side of the ERCOT - SWPP border at Oklaunion, Texas.
CSW will also construct an alternating current terminal at 'the Public l-Service Company of Oklahoma's power station in Lawton, Oklahoma, and a. 345 kw AC transmission line from Lawton to the northern j
bus of the interconnection st Oklaunion, a distance of some 81 l
~
~
t siles.
The South Interconnection, to be constructed jointly by e
I CSW and ELP, would consist of a direct current transmission line approximately 153 miles long with terminals having an initial i
l
. capacity of 500 sw in Walker County, Texas, and at the south Texas Project (STP), a generating plant under construction near i
Say City,jTexas.
Initially, CSW will pay for and be the owner of 100 percent of the North Interconnection.
As to the South i
Interconnection, CSW will pay for and own 50 percent, while ELP will pay for and own the remaining 40 percent.
1 Other utilities La ERCOT and SWPP have an opportunity to participate in the construction and ownership of the inter-connections on the condition that each such party pays its pro rata share of the capital costs of constructing the intercon-nection in which it wishes to participate and undertakes to pay its pro rata share of the costs of operating and maintaining the*
interconnection.
Furthermore, at maximum intervals of three years from June 30, 1983, to June 30, 2004, other utilities which are members of ERCOT or SWPP will be given an oportunity to l
participate.in planning and ownership of any capacity increaves in the interconnections.,
e i
e
.o y
~ ~
.n
- Docket Nos. EL79-8 cnd E-9558.
As part of their respective filed wheeling rates, CSW and HLP will each reserve 15 percent of the capacity of their respective direct current interconnection f acilitiies for firm power wheeling.
This reservation will be made for utilities in ERCOT and SW?P having loads less than 500 aw.
Rates and service will be determined from time to tine in accordance with the procedures of sections 205 and 206 of the Act.
CSW, ELF, and TUC agree to file rates with the Commission for wheeling power to, from, or over the proposed direct current interconnecting facilities which will roll in each of their alternating and direct current transmission costs with the result that any utility using any of their AC or DC lines for wheeling power in interstate commence will pay a rate designed to recover all costs and a reasonable return on both the AC and DC investment
~
and related operating costs.
In addition, CKW aust, upon request, consult with any entity which owns or operates electric generation or transmission facilities gencerning the technical feasibility of any specific alternating current synchronous interconnection between ERCOT and FRPP which is proposed in good f aith.
This shall include assisting in the formulation and performance of load flow and s
stability studies and supplying technical and financial information necessary to facilitate the entity's planning of the proposed AC interconnection.
/'
The Commission staff prepared an Environmental Analysis Report concerning the settlement proposal which concluded that
],
- the construction and operation of the proposed interconnections, conditioned upon certain construction and reporting requirements designed to mitigate environmental impacts, would not constit'ute a major federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment.
The Commission finds:
(A)
The order issued herewith pursuent to section 210 of the Act is in the public interest, will encourage overall conservation of energy and capital, will optimize the use of f acilities and resources, and will improve the reliability of each electric utility system to which this order applies.
(3)
The order issued herewith pursuant ho section 211(a) of the Act is in the public interest, would conserve a significant amount of energy, would,'significantly promote the efficient use -
of facilities and resources, would improve the reliability of each electric utility system to which the order applies and would reasonably preserve existing c'ompetitive relationships.
l t
(C)
The order issued herewith is not likely to res'lt in a u
reasonably ascertainable uncompensated economic less for any electric utility affected by the order, nor will it place an e
o e
h9558 f,
r i
undue burden on, unreasonably impair.the reliability of, or inpair the ability to render adequate service to customers of, any electric utility af fected by the order.
(D)
No party subject to this order has incurred or is likely to incur any costs as a result of this order which CS4 would be obligated to reimburse under section 212(b) of the Act, except as otherwise crdered herein.
The record demonstrates that CSW is ready, willing and able to reimburse each party subject to this order for costs incurred under this order.
(E)
The settlement agreement is-fair, reasonable and in the public interest and should be approved.
(F)
All outstanding material issues in Cential Poser and Licht Co., Docket No. E-9558 are either resolved or rendered soot by this order.
(G)
The order issued herewith does not constitute a
~
major federal action that significantly affects the quality of the human environment.
(E)
The mitigation and reporting requirements ordered herein mitigate any potential adverse environmental effect to the human environment that could arise from this order.
- ~
l The Commission orders:
(1)
The settlement agreement is approved and adopted by the Commission.
CSW, ILP, and TUC shall construct the intercon-nections and take all actions necessary to 1.cplament the settlement agreement.
(2)
Central Power and Licht Co.,' Docket 18o. E-9558, is dismissed wich prejudice.
(3)(a) ' Compliance with this order or any provisions j
hereof shall not make TDC, any of TDC's operating subsidiaries, l
ILP, or any :other electric utility or other entity a 'public utility', as that term is defined by section 201 of the Act, and subject to the jurisdiction of the commission for any purpose other than for the purpose of carrying out the pro-visions of sections 210, 211,, and. 212 of the Act.
(b)
Complianc.e with this order or any, provisions hereof shall not make TDC, any of TDC's operating subsidiaries, or ELP subject to the jurisdiction of the Commission for any purpose other than the' purposes specified in this order and in the settlament agreement.
l e
e q
e 9
M *
- =-e e.- e ++
- e--
~
- Dockst Nos. EL79-8 cnd * **
E-9558 (4)
Since the parties have already agreed o*n the terms and conditions upon which this order is to be carried out, including the apportionment of costs between them and the compensation or reimbursement reasonably due to any of them, no proposed order pursuant to section 212(c) of the Act is The Commission approves the settlement agreement, necessary.
and pursuant to section 212(c)(2)(A) of the Act, the terms and conditions o~ that agreement relating to apportionment of costs, compensation and reimbursement are hereby incorpo-rated in'this order.
(5)
The Commission is advised that this s'ettlement is part of an overall settlement which involves cases and con-I troversies at other agencies and in various courts and that 1
settlement of this case is contingent upon parallel resolution in the other forums, including, but not limited to, securities I
1 and Exchange Commission Admin. Proc. File No. 3-4951.
Therefore, in order to accommodate an overall settlement, the commission will entertain applications for rehearing filed by ELP, TUC, CSR or any other party that challenges his order, and will grant rehearing for further consideration until such time as ELP, TUC, and N either file a withdrawal of their respective applications for rehearing or file a notice that the settlement
' rovided, that until such time as applications,
is withdrawn p
for rehearing or the settlement are withdrawn by ELP, TDC, and CSW, the commission, on its own motion (or motion of any party), af ter reasonable notice and an opportunity te comment, may withdraw this order and ramand the case to the administrative 1aw judge to proceed with the case on the original or amended l
~
application filed by CSW.
l (5)
The agreement between CSW and DCJ attached to the second supplemental
- offer to settlement is hereby incorporated l
by reference and approved by the Commission; provided however
.that no acts undertaken pursuant to the agreement, or this Commissients. approval thereof or the incorporation of such agreement herein shall affect in any way the non-jurisdic-l tional status of ELP or TUC provided in this crder.
l i
(7)
C5W and ELP, and any other owners of the North or south Interconnections shall comply with the aitigation measures contained in the commission staff's Environmental Analysis Report, dated October 29, 1980, to minimize the impact resulting from construction of the direct current transmission linas.
.e j
I (B)
C5W and ELF, and any other owners of the North or south Interconnections'shall consult with the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, the' Texas Parks and Wildlife Department and the Texas State Bistorical Preservation Office in order to determine environmental guidelines appropriate to reasonably aitigate any potential adverse effect to the quality of the human environment that could arise from this order.
O e
g m ea
=...
e w e= ease,..p<
ge,mw w
-+-
g
'6 -
'l D:cket Nos., EL70-8 cnd
~
, E-9558 (9)
No less than 90 days prior to the commencement of construction of each of the North and South Interconnections, the environmental guidelines determined for such intercon-nection pursuant to paragraph 8, supra, shall be submitted by the owner (s) to this Commission's Division of Environmental Analysis and to the Commission's rt. Worth regional engineer.
l This report shall include the final right of way identified for the North and/or South Interconnections and shall identify l
the environmental guidelines adopted to reasonably mittgate any adverse ef fects to the quality of the human environment.
Thereafter, until each interconnection is operational, annual i
reports shall be submitted by the owner (s) showing that the environmental guidelines have been observed.
By the Commission.
{
(5EAL)
I.$ Y Kenneth F. Plumb, Sacrathry.
l eO
=
\\
l
\\
l i
l 4
e S
W f
e 4
l f
.. L 1
(
l t
i
.I t
2 3::..I
~ 5.. li r;:
S p,j f. i: v! : : d 1 8 : :12
-l 3
3 g3
- 4
.. 1: a s3 t
3i 3 l
- ,3,
.:gg>
gssis
- v;c a e
3 p: :
11 I
.n 2..
1 ::..: :.r z
.g:3 5
.t.
3 r
3: :
t
- - u e 3,,.
n 73 3:
a r:
1e2
.3 ut 32sst.3.2
- m. ::p=3,=v;:1g.
8 2 :g2.;. 2.s: 3. :,. s=
- ,a,: s 3 - 3, : :.
2 e:S :
8 u
- i.
- p:.
- r. !,:z:r -
8
-2 2.g,2
-r
-nr::::-2 n co" n
- r-n-: ag 8!:
3 j a h. 23 3 1 e,.. : n :
- !v: i.-:
- Il F i b:1..
2 "2;r I
8!Il 22- -
, a a g !.:.
4 s ::
8
~:.
3 n>=-
it ri
.=. 11::
5 5-1 2Tg u-re 1..s.srs: u.
- s2 4:
.5.3 5 ;g
- 8,.
- g.y s j:y :
1
.: 3 !5 8
8" n
r
- e
- 2. e p:,1
- ..;I.,..g
- ::.;.!:ji 1.
p:::..3 5
1:
g.i u
- . -3 x
g.
- u. :.f 2
8;g.
8 2-t
.n 1
3-n.
- 13 p
8-g g ~.. l! 3 3 g :g g.,n.g3.:
3
. &:.a--u:: 1..*r
,: g f!:,.3 3 3
-3 re:
r-
.,u:
e,
.3:i 333 !
3 2
r-p-
- e;pg :,; n u.3 m
- 8 o
n 3 i ::t i, 2:n:n.e 8: nsh.. :
i.t::u. :::s-. p-i n:
- 1 g :g 31 e
- =
- . tr n is allis.:. t 2 4 1 s :t e 5 1 f: 1 1,! f no s.
l r
r 6-2
- nl:;
.1-2
~
I:.: :.
l 2.: : 2:-
x n
1 I.it ra 2 3.. :r:l. :a 31..
. ix
- st-no 1
4 5
1.18:::. :..s. t
-:11:1.:n:ses,:i.R r.n, n
i i
1
-8 3
a r,
t:-eilt:.-:
t-a
=g
. 241 :. j -
3 p-1 j-
,.e :
3 3
a r
-i.i.it!:21_5 :i**-
([
-. e
- vi<
2'1*i r. J
- 1 g
3 in., 3:
! -u.u..i- - e g
.r
- e. 3 g.
ggy..v. :
e 1.se e 1 3 ::,F.,t
- ' 2:
- 2 l
3
'r:
Is 3
- 33. p-2 4
2: 14."
l
- g g*g
- 3
.;e
.e
.:g e I* 4:
a 3
r.,
l L :1::: t.
e 5
Ep :
[
3:
W
-2.2 u
=!
=
8.
n !
s.:::3 :
s.
a r
i s.:
- 2.:::t.,s:: n-.g I
8 21:
s2 0
f=:::3 y
i st 4-
.p:u e 4
s ".i!
3 n-s3..a.2:.01 -*: i e
Of.
"j gig
- a2 g :.s.:
et e
- s:. 53:
n: :-
~.: : =
.t :
3:t::>:
- ._ :1 u n i. ::. ::.:. :
21.:.
- 1.,,
- .g
- : :-: s.o 3
o p' a. 5!n ici:li s:
2-2.11
.: t
,; ti s
11903 W 1
1 ADOCK 0 55 '
es one
((d;g)
- ) 'gl 'uo3ff t
- 1t;tratM is.ej.neti r.* 3.'.i.esorges'.f.';;.s u..l:n.;t
.i e p.t. r.;
- se g sie i...g... g.e. ;... 33 g o tJ
...s 3 s.Ing
- sessie'.f;-*; titty n
I"1 g-g
.m.
. - =... -.
see oo4.oarves.aowse wusase 8
i:
h.
I g.:
- s. s 8:
3:,5.;:1 e.am,le *_I ma 2
gi.:::5.l Ii1 :4 :dv!
- 1.,.
-i
- u.:2 23==ii..,
51 42=
y s
32]:[28 :in:esi_gr :r!r2 5 !.F8Iln.:-l.
- s s:
1
-n 1:
..T..
s i:; :_, 3.I u s. u !. 4-
-s 1r'c.12..r,.
- v...:. m
. sul 1
F j.2:.l.,=._
s 51p..
r = u ! ! ! *1. e v! i. s ! ! !
i
=
t 1 :. :ts1.g:: 3 ri n t
. en.
s.:!.
i g
g:Ip t
- -:r 1g1=4..:
n
--l,24-2
..ds v. q:
x s.:-4-:.s 2.y-I s.5
_: 3 :
i,-
alm.3:1a:s:.-=i:::
2;-
,,u;23;e::
{ :-1.g ; :;:g1,Eg:l ;:::
3
- 1
.is n
1:.,a_il,:l:r.-2::::l 4
- 2:n:-
21 t
s t.:
1.is.l-.s. -:
t 4
e
t 4
0 e
8 f
e e
O N
APPENDIX C I
f O
4 I
e l
S 9
s t
9 9
O a
e *.,,
4
+l TXX-6715 I
i September 8,~1987
{-
4:
EXHIBIT D 310817 bNITED STATES OF AMERICA l
i TEDERAL ENERGY REGUIATORY COMMISSION EI.ECTRIC RATES: S e tt1*e= s:.:
I l
Before Cor.=issioners:
Martha 0. Nesse, Chair =an:.
Anthony C. Sousa, Charles C. Stalon Charles A. Trabandt and C. M. Naeve s
. Central Power and Light Company,
)
Public Service company of oklahoma,
)
Docket No. EL79-8-002 Southwestern Electric Power Compar..,
)
.j West Texas Utilities company
)
1 I
i i,
CRDER APPROVING SETTLEMINT
~
(Issued July 23, 1987)
On June 10, 1987, Central Power and Light Company (" CPL"),
Public Service Company of oklahoma ("PSo"), Southwestern Electric Ccapariy ("SWEPCC"), West Texas Utilities company ("WTU") (collec-tively, the "Csw operating Co=panies"), Houston Lighting & Power Company ("EL&P") and Texas Utilities Electric Company ("TU Electric"), pursuant to section 385.602 of.the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, filed an Offer of settlement with the Commission for its consideration and approval.
By this order, we adopt and approve the offer of settlement and order the relief requested therein and in the Petition filed en May 1,1986, by t.be CSW Cperating Companies and NL&P, modifying the' prior orders of the Commission in Docket No. EL79-s to the extent set forth herein.
Backereund I
By its order issued in Docket Nos. EL79-8 and E-9558 on October 28, 1981,* as corrected by the Errata Notice issued
- t.
Never.ber 5, 1981, 17 FERC 1 61,078, and its order on Rehearing issued January 29, 1982, 18 TERC 1 61,100, incorporating by reference the form of " Order Approving settlement" submitted with the second supplemental Offgr of Settlement in such proceeding (the " original orders"), the Commission, among other things, approved'a' settlement requiring the construction of two asynchronous direct current interconnections between electric utilities in the Electric Reliability Council of-Texas ("ERCCT")
and electric utilities in the Southwest Power Pool ("$WPP").
The original orders aise required the provision of transmission
/7
TXX-6715 September 8, 1987.
EXHIBIT D Docket No. EL79-s-co2 2-by the CSW operating companies, HL&P and the elservice fo operating companies of Tex Electric is the successor.as Utilities company,ectric utility to which TU cc=panies and NL&P toThe original orders specifically required the csW ope a
censtruct or cause to be constructed the necessary facilities to effect the interconnections as described in or consistent with the settlement agreement."
agreement and the original orders described two interconnections:
The settle:ent-(1) an asynchronous direct current interconnection between PSo near oklaunion, Texas, having an initial nominal capacity o MW (the. *Forth Interconnection ), to be constructed by the C5W a
operating companiest and (2) an asynchronous direct current interconnection between the C5W operating companies in Walk county, Texas and the south Texas Project er Interconnection"),
(the asouth to be constructed by the csw operating companies and HL&P (t North Interconnection and the South Interconnection being referred to hersin jointly as the " Interconnections").
The North Interconnection was placed in service on Dece=ber 14, 1984.
Paragraph (10)(c)(ii) of the ' order Approving settlemen,t" incorporated by reference in the TERC's order issued January 29, 1982, to increase the capacity of the Interconnections, but atprovides that intervals of no more than every three years after June 30 until June 30
- 2004, given the oppo,rtunity to participate in the planning of increas
- 1983, in the capacity of the Interconnections and of participation the ownership of any incremental capacity.added, provided ce t g in
~
conditions are set.
by offering participation to ERCOT and SWPP electric utilitiesHa r ain the csW operating cospanies entered into'an agreement to permit
{
the arpansion.cf the North Interconnection from a nominal capacity of 200 MW to a nominal capacity of 300 MW.
of expanded capacity would be owned by the city of Austin, Texas The 100 MW Public Utility Ccamission of Texas ("TPUC"on yebruary is,1983, cpl, S 1
the construction and operation of the South Interconnec en application for i
Because of continuing litigation regarding the application for certification and attendant delays in the certification,
- s' construction and operation of the south Interconnection, on May 1,
19ss, the esW operating companies and HL&P filed a petition with the commission proposing that the South Interconnection be relocated.
Specifically, Petitioners requested that original orders be modified so as to (a) current terminals and such associated alternating currentrequire constructio I
9 O
,,.e..+-
we ** **
h S es4=
ed -eem
.me--4.m-duew
--w ee e mw+g
.+g-~.
e
---we-=
1
-TXX-6712 September 8, 1987
' EXHIBIT D "ocket No. EL79-8-002
- transmission facilities as are necessary to effect an '
asynchronous direct current interconnection'between SWEPco's Welsh generating station and TU Electric's Monticello generating station.(hereinbelov defined as the " East Interconnection"): (b) require the CSW Operating Ccmpanies, HL&P and TU Electric to interconnect with each other at the East Interconnection; (c) require such ownership of the East Interconnection by the CSW j
Operating Companies, HL&P and others, and such wheeling, coordination, co= mingling, sale and exchange of electric pcVer to, from and over the East Interconnection or within the state of Texas as may facilitate its use and (d) relieve the CSW Operating companies and HL&P from their obligation-to construct and operate the south Interconnection upon construction of the East Interconnection.
The state of Texas and the TPUc intervened, and while reserving their jurisdiction and authority regarding the need for and issuance of a certificate of public convenience and necessity for construction of the East Interconnection, do not oppose the offer of settlecent or modification of the original Orders as requested by Petitioners and recognize Ohrt the original Orders and the proposed modification thereof preclude any consideration by the TPUC of the adeguacy of existang service and the need for additional service.
Al lother parties, while reserving their respective positions in the event the con =ission rejects or modifies the Offer of settlement have either affirmatively joined in the proposal or announce,d their intention to accept the proposed order without appeal.
The Offer of EattlePent The off'er' of settlement would resolve all matters at issue in this proceeding.
The offer of settlement provides, as an alternative to construction of the south Interconnection, for the construction of an interconnection at a site in east Texas betvesn SWEPCO's Welsh generating station and TU Electric's Monticello generating station, both located in Titus county, Texas, with an initial nominal capacity of 600 MW (the " East Interconnection"), and for the construction, operation, ownership i
and use thereof by the CSW operating companies, HL&P and TU Electric.
The offer of settlement further provides that the f L-North Interconnection any be expanded to a nominal capacity of l
300 MW.
\\
The East Interconnection is to consist of the following facilities:
(1) a 245 kv Ac rvitchyard facility at the TU Electric Monticello generating station-necessary for the inter-cennection of the TV Electric Ac electric system with the Welsh-Menticello Line (the "Monticc31o switchyard racility");
j (2) the J
O
____~~-t-
-"--+-*"c"-"*""
' ~ * ' " ~ ~ ~ ~ ' ~
4AA-e/Ad September 8,
1987 EXHIBIT D Docket No. EL79-8-002 318S20
-4
" Welsh-Monticello Line," which is a 345 kv AC transmission line between the Monticello Switchyard Tacility and the NVDC Ter=1nal:
l (3) the "HVDC Terminal," consisting of high voltage direct current back-to-back converters and related facilities and the land on which it is located; and (4) a 345 kv AC switchyard facility at the SWIPCO Welsh generating station necessary for the inte rconnection of the SWIPCO AC electric system with the HVDC l
Terminal (the " Welsh Switchyard Facility").
t i
The offer of Settlement provides that the foregoing
)
facilities are to be owned as follows:
(1) the Monticello switchyard racility by TU Electric; (2) the Welsh-Monticello Line by SWIPCO: (3) the HVDC Terminal by CPL, SWEPCO, HL&P and TU Electric (the " Participants") in accordance with the ratio of their respective evnership interests set forth below to the total HVDC Ter=inal naminal capacity of 600 megawatts:
CPL 150 nominal megawatts SWEPCO i
150 nominal megawatts ML&P 200 nominal megawatts
. TU Electric 100 nominal megawatts f
and (4j the Welsh Switchyard Tacilities by SWEPCO.
Notwithstanding the separate ownership of certain of the facilities co=prising the East Interconnection, all of such facilities are to be exclusively dedicated to the transmission of electric energy to, frem and over the EastJInterconnection
~
pursuant to the provisions of this order.
J The Participants shall compensate SWEPCO, as the owner of the Welsh-Monticelle Line and the Welsh Switchyard Facilities, and TU Elect'ric, as the owner of the Monticello Switchyard sufficient to, compensate SWEPCo and TU Electric for their c including a reasonable return on investment.
Discussien As proposed by the offer of Settlement, the construction of the East Interconnection will enable the parties to give effect 1
~,..
to the commission's original orders, consistent with the 1
objectives of the cor. mission's original orders.
In this regard, I
the opportunity afforded for electric utilities in ERCOT and SWFF-to participate at this time in the ownership of the East interconnection approved herein satisfies the undertaking in the original orders to first offer such opportunity with respect to the South Interconnection within three years af ter June I
Notwithstanding this opportunity, notning herein is to be30, 1983.
i O
T1----- ------
~
^
TXX-6715 September 8, 1987-EXHIBIT D 818521 Docket No. EL79-8-002,
construed to terminate capacity reserved for-qualified utilities in the East Interconnection, except as limited by the provisions of Paragraph (10)(c) (1) of the original orders.
tien, The of fer of Settlement, which provides for the interconnee-of the CSW operating Co=panies in ERCOT with those in the SWPP and for the interconnection of HL&P and TU Electric in ERCOT with the SWPP pursuant to sections 210 and 212 of the Federal Power Act, as amended (the "Act"), is consistent with the objec-tives ofsthe Ccamission's original orders and preserves the rights set out therein.
The Co= mission has jurisdiction to issue the order requested under sections 201(b)(2), 210, 211 and 212 of the Act.
This order, which modifies in part the original orders issued in Docket No. EL79-8, is consistent with and supported by the findings of the original orders and the supporting evidence adduced herein.
The Commission has reviewed the engineering reports submitted by the Participants, and investigated the inter-connections proposed in the offer of Settlement, in order to decerninr whether they are in the public interest.1/
Pursuant to sections 210 and 211(a) of the Act, this order is in the public;in~terest, will improve the reliability of each electric utility system to which this order applies, and will reasonably preserve existing competitive relationships.
The order will not result in any reasonably ascertainable uncompensated economic loss for any electric utility affected by.the order, nor will it
~
place an undue burden on, unreasonably impair the reliability of, or impair the ability to render adequate service to customers of any electric utility affected by the order.
> t The Comm'ission staff prepared an Environmental Assessment concerning the, settlement proposal and concluded that the con-struction and operation of the proposed interconnections would not constitute a major federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment.
The implementation of the mitigation of the potential adverse environmental effects of thee actions required by this order.
The cerw[gslen Orders: -
T 1
f 1/
The Commission notes that the participants have indi-cated that transient stability studies related to the operation of the expanded North Interconnection will be conducted prior to construction of the expansion of that intergrynection.
l
- _ - - - - - - - ~ - - - - - - - - - '
/
l TXX-6715 September 8,
19'87 EXHIBIT D Docket No. EL79-8-002 318S22 (A). The CSW operating Co=panies, ML&P and TU Ele'ctric shall described in order 'ng Paragraph (E) (1) construct or cause to be constru of this order, to ef fect direct current ar capacity of 600 Mw ahronous East Interconnection with a nominal a
TV Electric's Mont::<ello generating station. atween SWEPCo's Welsh generating sta (B)
Consisten*, vith the expansion provisions of the Original orders, tha north NVDC Interconnection may be expanded to a nominal capacity of 300 megawatts.
(C)
The CSW Operating Co=panies, HL&P and TV Electric shall interconnect with each other and with any other adjacent utility at (1) the East Interconnection, (ii) at locations which are presently in place and (iii) at such locations which nay be autually agreed upon by the CSW Cperating companies, HL&P or TV Electric and any utilit transmission, purchase,y in order to permit or to facilitate the sale, exchange, wheeling, coordination or i
cc= mingling of electric power in interstate commerce, *.o, from or over such interconnections (including the North Interconnection and the East Interconnection, being referred to herein jointly as the *KVDC Interconnections") or within ERCCT by or for the CSW operating Companies, ML&P or TU Electric, or,any other electric utility.
The CSW operating Companies, ML&P and TU Electric will maintain *snd use any such interconnection for any purpose, except in and,'dcring emergencies as determined by the Csw operating Companies by a gover,nmental entity with' putative authority, regardless ofNL&
the source of the electric power in interstate commerce, and whether cr. net authorized or ordered by the Commission or by any other governmental authority.
However, the CSW operating Companies, HL&P and TU Electric shall not be required to maintain any such interconnection and may each disconnect in order to assert rights under the Act if any utility or federal power marketing agency proposes or proceeds to construct or opetate a facility for the transmission of electric power in interkcate commerce, other than.the facilities provided 'for in this order, without first, obtaining an order under the provisions of sections 210, 211 and 212 of the Act.
a non-jurisdictional interconnection ordered by the CommissienUnless under the provisions of sections HL&P may disconnect in the event it determines that to *210, 211 and 212 (i) maintain any such interconnection would affect its non-jurisdictional status under the Act, and (ii) TU Electric may
.L discennect in the event it determines that to maintain any such interconnection would affect its non-jurisdictional status under J
the Act.
any interconnection without prejudice to its non-jurisdictionalIn status set forth in ordering Paragraph (I).
(D) permit other utilities to participate in the construction andThe C i
e 9
....,,m.
~ ~ ~
- gm===ee w =6 %
-.=,4 se 9
IAA-6715 September 8,
1987
.e EXHIBIT D Docket No. EL79-8-002 ownership of the East. Interconnection on the condition.that each such other party that wishes to participate pays its pro rata share of the costs of constructing the East Interconnection and undertakes to pay its pro rata share of the costs of operating and maintaining that Interconnection and agrees further to be bound by the ter=s and conditions of the Agreement among the Participants in the East Interconnection.
(E)
(1)
The East Interconnection shall consist of the following facilities:
(a)
'which shpil be evned by TU Electric:the Monticello switchyard racility, (b) the Welsh-Monticello Line, which shall be evned by SWEPC0; (c) the EVDC Ter=inal, which shall be owned by the Participants in accordance with the ratio of their respective ownership interests set forth below to the total HVDC Terminal nominal capacity of 600 megvatts:
CPL 150 nominal megawatts SWIPCO 150 nominal zegawatts ML&P 200 nominal megawatts s
TU Electric 100 nominal megawatts and (d) the Welsh Switchyard Facilities, which shall be owned by SWIPCO.
(2)
Notwithstanding the separate evnership of certain of the facilities comprising the East Interconnection, all of such facilities shall be exclusively dedicated to the trans-l mission of electric energy to, from and over the East Interconnection and for use by the Participants in proportion to their relative evnership interest in qualified utility having a.right to the use of the Eastthe NVDC Terminal, by any Interconnection pursuant to an arrangement entered into in accordance,vith the provisions of Paragraph (C)(5), or by any electric utility having such right pursuant to the provisions of Paragraph (H).
(3)
The Participants shall compensate SWIPCO, as the owner of the Welsh-Monticello Line and the Welsh Switchyard racilities, and TU Electric, as the owner of the Monticello I
switchyard racility, for use of such facilities by an annual facility charge sufficient to compensate SWEPCO and TV Electric r
for their cost, including a reasonable return on investr.ent.
Said facility charges, determined in compliance with this Order shall be incorporated in an agreement between the owner-Parti-cipant and the user-Participants.
Such agreements shall with the commission, and the comnission shall review suchunil agreements Forsuant to the procedures of section 205 of the Federal Power Act.
The first such agreements shall be filed so 1
\\
e
)
i TXX-6715
- September 8,
1987,.
EXHIBIT D
^
/
Docket No. EL79-8-002 318504 :
- i as to becc e effective prior to 'the commercial operatien of the facilities.
(T)
Subject to the provisions of section 203 of the Tede al Power. Act, ownership or use of the East Interconnection or the North Interconnection, including the rights and obligations established herein, may be transferred at any time withcut further order of the con =ission.
I (G)
(1)
Except as other otherwise provided in ordering Paragraphs (G)(4) and (5), and-unless limited by contract, each Participant or owner shall use and have the exclusive right to j
it has an ownership interest,the use? for any purpose, of that' HVDC Interconn to the extent of its evnership interest that NVDC Interconnection, or in the case of the East Interconnection, to the extent of its ownership interest in the HVDC Terminal.
(2)
HL&P and TU Electric shall use the HVDC Interconnections for any purpose, including the purchase, sale,
- exchange, electric power and energy in interstate commerce. wheeling, coord nation, c
. (3)
The esW operating companies shall use the HVDC Interconnections for any purpcse, of energy between and among the CSW operating conpanies toincluding the ce enhance the econe=ic operation of the CSW operating.co:panies as a single integrated and coordinated system.
may be unus(4)
Any capacity in the HVDC Interconnections which ed at any point in time may be used by any other any Participant or ovner desiring to utilize its entire capa and subject to payment of such rates as shall be ade recover the cost of such use of the Interconnection,quate to terzs and co'nditions as may be unilaterally filed b and other Participant or owner from time to time with the con =y the ission in I
accordance with the procedures of Sections 205 and 206 of the of agreement of the parties pursuant to section 211(d)(3) o Act.
(5) will each reserve 15% of their respective capacity in the HVDCTh 2 interconnections for firm power wheeling and purchase by
-r original orders) under the terns, conditions and limitationsqua provided by the commission's original orders.
utilities m(us)t be accc=panied by a signed' binding agreement a
a e
- ' * ' * " " " * " " " " ^
W***R ~ L W*--
.v..
-:---------w
~~
4AA-b/15 September 8, 1987 EXHIBIT D Docket No. IL79-8-002 18625 the reservation of the capacity sought or for the purchase of such capacity.
(b)
If, in response to the annual solicitation to qualified utilities for reserved capacity, the aggregate of of unce==itted reserved capacity, then capacity will be madereques I
available pursuant to such requests on the following basis:-
(i)
Each qualified utility requesting reservation capacity shall be entitled to con-i tract for the use of, or to purchase, a RIE 1
IA1A share of the available reservation capacity l
based on the proportion its request bears to the l
total of all requests.
(ii)
The agreement signed by the requester shall provide for its cancellation or for reduction in the amount to be con-tracted for or purchased in the event that j
the requester is unable to receive as large 1
a share of capacity as requested due to the RI2 IA1A reduction set forth in subparagraph (bf(i) above.
If a requester finds it necessary to cancel its r ef the RI2 IA11 reduction.equest as a result the capacity so l
~
relinquished will be divided among the i
' remaining requesters on a RIA 23uut basis pursuant to subparagraph (b) (1) above.
j (c)
Purchase of reservation capa' city by qualified basis from the CSW Cperating Companies, HL&P and TU Ele unless the CSW C otherwise agree.perating companies, ML&? and TU Electric
'Whenever planning is undertaken to increase the (6) capacity of the HVDC Interconnections, but at intervals of no more than every three years after June 30, the North Interconnection, and after June 30,1986, with respect to 1989, with respect to the East Interconnection, until June 3 0, ~ 2 004, electric utilities in ERCOT and SWPP shall be given the opportunity to participate in the planning of increases in the capacity of
."e the HVDC Interconnections and of participating. in the ownership of any incremental capacity added, provided again that each party 4
that wishes to participate pays its EIS ZA1A share of all costs and undertakes to pay its EI2 IA1A share of the costs of operating and maintaining that NVDC Interconnection and agrees further to be bound by the terr.s and conditions of the applicable Agreement among the owners or Participants of that HVDC Inter-connection.
NVDC Interconnection shall. zany such plann' i increase in the capacity of either e submitted to the Con =ission for
~ - - _ = _ -.
_-,w_
rn--
444 otAo
-l September 8, 1987 EXHIBIT D 1
Docket No. EL79-8-002 10 -
action pursuant to sections 210, 211 and 212.cf the Federal 7:ver Act.
s J
(H) wheel power for each other.and for other electric systa=s inThe i
{
ERCOT and SWPP to, from and over the East Interconnection at the i
. rates and under the terns and conditions set forth in the settle-ment tariffs sub=itted in Docket Nos. ER82-545-000,. 31 al.,
except that such. tariffs shall be modified as-necessary to ccrply with this order.
Such modified tariffs shall be filed with the commission as ce=pliance filings within ninety (90) days after i
entry,cf this order.
1 t
(I) cc=pliance with this order and the offer of Settlecent shall not make HL&P or TU Electric or any other electric utility.
or other entity a "public utility" as that tern is defined by I
section 201 of the Act and subject to the jurisdiction of the Commission for any purpose other than for the purpose of carrying out the provisions of sections 210, 211 and 212 of the Act.
(J) or will be operating in interstate commerce by virtue of theAs a resi interconnections required by this Order and the wheeling, trans-i mission, purchase, sale, exchange, coordination or ec= mingling of electric power to, from or within ERCOT, including the evnership or use tof facilities therefor, or by virtue of the synchronous or asynchronous operation of electromagnetic unity.cf response of interconnected electric facilities; HL&P and TV Electric, however, shall not be subject to jurisdiction under secticn 201 of the Act by virtue of section 201(b)(2) of the Act.
(X)
In the event any other electric utility is deter =ined to be subject to jurisdiction as a public utility under the Act through the North Interconnection or the East Interconnection ownership of the North Interconnection or the East Intercennee-
, or tion, such jurisdiction shall not affect the non-jurisdictional status of ML&P or TU Electric.
(L) conditions upon which this order is to be carried outsince the partie reimbursement reasonably due to any of them, no propose The Co==lssion approves (the settlement and, pursuant to S
(.
'f 212 (c) (2) (A) of the Act, the terns and conditions of the settle-ment relating to apportionment of costs, cor.pensatien and reim-bursement as set forth therein are hereby incorporated in this order.
(M)
The owners of the 100 mv expansion of the North Inter-connection shall submit to the Cor. mission transient stability
+
o O
.,.,.e====*.
TXX-6715 t
September 8,
1987 EXHIBIT D I
Docket No. EL79-8-002 a1em i j studies relating to the erpanded North Interconnection prior to i
the construction of that interconnection.
(N)
The Participants in the East Interconnection shall cerply with the mitigation measures containef in Attachment A
{
hereto in order to minimize the environmental impact 'resulting
)
frem construction of the AC transmission lines.
i i
(0)
Not less than 90 days prior to the commencement of construc. tion (right-of-way clearing) of the East Interconnect-j tion, the Participants shall sub=it to the Division of Environ-1 t
mental Analysis, office of Hydropower Licensing, a report detailing co=pliance with Environ = ental Reco=nendations Nos. 1 through 4 of Attach =ent A.
Such report shall include the final right-of-way identified for the East Interconnection.
Not less than.120 days after the transmission line is energized, the Participants shall submit a report detailing ce=pliance with Environ = ental Recom=endations Nos. 5 and 6 of Attachment A.
(p)
Subject to reasonable contingencies, such as possible delays in complying with the environmental requirements of this order, and force naieure, the CSW Cperating Companies, HL&P and
~
TV Elect ic will com=it to cause the East Interconnection to be installed and operational within four (4) years of the date this order is no longer subject to review.
(D)
Upon construction of the East Interconnection, the Csw operating Companies and HLEP shall be relievec of any obligation to construct, install, expand or operate er available in the South Interconnection as r to make capacity equired by the original orders and from any obligation to transmit power for 1
other electric utilities to, from and over the south Inter-connection.
- 1 (R)
The provisions of the commission's original orders.
except as herein modified, are unchanged by this order, and the rights and obligations established thereunder shall remain in full force and effect.
(S)
The Commission's approval of this settlement does not constitute approval of or Assue in this proceeding. precedent regarding any principle or l
I.
~
l By the Commission.
l l
l fy $.-
Kenneth T. Plu=b, Secretary.
a e
A m
_____.m.-
m.._
'* i TXX-6715 f
September 8, IS87 EXHIBIT D, 316.50s Docket Nc. IL79-B-002 Attachment A Invirennental Recommendations 1.
SWEPCO, before startin disturbing activities, g any land-clearing' or land-should consult with the lan-downers, the Soil Conservation Service and the U.S.
Tish and Wildlife Service about developing a plan that includes the best management practices to control erpsion and sedimentation as a result of project construction and maintenance.
sWIPeo should include in the plan an implementation schedule, monitoring and maintenance programs for project construction, and provisions for periodic review of the plan and for making any necessary revisions to the plan.
2.
sWIPeo, after consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife service and the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, should locate the final right-of-way (ROW)
~
ali(n=ent of the East Interconnection so that bottom-1and hardwoods and other vetlands are avoided.
Where bottomland hardwoods and other wetlands cannot be avoided, SWEPCO should, as such as possible, avoid the placement of transmission towers within wetlands, span streams, and allow shrubs to revegetate the ROW following construction.
3.
SWEPCO, after consultation with the'O.S. Fish and.
Wildlife Service and the Texas Parks and Wildlife
' ' Department, should develop a wildlife aitigative plan that' will provide for the clearing, revegetation,.and maintenance of the project transmission line right-of-way for,the benefit of wildlife resources.
4.
SWEPCO, after consulting with the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO), should conduct a survey of the area of the project's potential environmental impact (APII).
The survey should be of sufficient scope and intensity to identify the properties that are listed on or eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places that are located within the
,.7 APEI and should culminate in a lsurvey report that adequately documents every National Register and eligible property in the APII.
This survey report, f
1 along with the comments and recommendations of the SHPD, should be filed with the Commission before $WEPCD begins constructing the proposed transmission line.
9 1
== -
I
September' 8,
IXHIBIT D l
.Decket No. IL79-8-002 In the survey re' port, SWIPeo should identify each National Register and eligible property in the APII, according to the National Register criteria of eligibi-i lity in 36 Code of Tedaral Regulations (CTR) 60.
i sWIPCo should specify the criteria that each National Register and aligible preperty satisfies, and should j
i describe each National Register and eligible property according to the applicable criteria.
In the survey report,'sWEPCo should evaluate the effect thdt constructing and operating the transmission line would be likely to cause at each National Register and eligible property according to the criteria of effect in 36 CTR 800.
sWIPCo should then deter =ine, in the case of each effect, whether or not the effect would i
likely be adverse.
sWIPco should apply the criteria of effect and adverse effect to the specific characteris-ties of the National Register ar.d eligible properties that have substantially contributed to satisfying the National Register criteria of eligibility.
In the survey report, SWIpc0 should describe measures to mitigate adverse effects to the specific character-istics of National Register and eligible properties that have contributed substantially to satisfying the
'3 National Register criteria of eligibility.
'sWIPco. should apply the criteria of eligibility of the criteria of effect and adverse effect and should present its determinations of eligibility, effect, and adverse effect to the sHP0 in formal written form prior to filing these data with the commission and should request, pursuant to section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, that the sHPO cencur with sWIPco's det rzinations of eligibility, effect, and adverse affect.
i l
SWEPCD should not begin construction of the transmis-l sien line in a manner or location that might affect a 1
National Register or eligible property until all requirements of the National Historic Preservation Act that pertain to the construction and operation of the line have been satisfied and the commission has so
.R informed SWIPCO.
5.
sWIPCC should coordinate with the operators of the two radio towers (FAA and southwestern Bell) located in the project area to insure that the interconnect. ion would not degrade the performance of these facilities.
The results of coordination with the operators should be filed with the connission.
. k.. _ _ _ _ _ _ _.
- ~ - - -
TXX-6715 Septemb r 8, 1987 IXHIBIT D Docket No. EL79-s-002 3
6.
SWEPCO should c.onduct a radio noise survey along the transmission line ROW at appropriate locations that are relatively free of electrical noise from other sources.
SWEPCO should use an AM radio receiver in the survey, and should evaluate the reception of the priccipal broadcasting stations serving the area at each location both with the line energized and deenergized.
The results of this survey should be filed with the cor. mission.
L w
O e
O 1
l
~.
t i
'e t
ge 1
I O
e
"' * ~~ ' L*:: "J
_ _~..
4 9
l 4
3 9
4 e
l I
l 1
l l
1 I
l i
e APPENDIX D O
J e
4
gw h
v l, '
SECURITits & ntw;r.r ry.pt INITED FATES T AMERICA before the MALLED Ft* +./
SICURITIES AND IXORNGE CDMMISSICN hYR D :> ibd2 PUBLIC ITTILITY ICLDDG CDMPANY ACT T 1935 i
' h' U p.t.
~j'
'.r.:
Release No.
22439 / Aeril 1. 1982 EO a
A In the Matter of
-im:j # I f
W l
CDTTRAL' AND 50 DIE HEST CDRPORATICN CDfDEL PCHER AND IJGHT CDMFANY AIP.INISTRATIVE PROCEEDING 7 :
PUBLIC SDWICE CDMPANY T QCLAHO%
File No. 3-4951 SOUTHWESTERN ELECIRIC RMER CDMPANY TRANSOK PIPE LINE CDMPANY WEST '!EXAS UI'ILITIES CIMPANY t
(59-5)
MEMORANI1E @ INION AND CRDER 'IERMDATING PROCEEDDG 16, 1945, we issued a decision in s ich we determined that 01 February the electric btility system of Central and South West Ce. tion
("CsW") was an integrated electric public utility system, as defined in Section 2(a)(29)(A) of the Public Utility Ibiding Carqpany Act of 1935
("Act"), and that, subject to certain adjustments d ich have long been effected, C5W cartplied with the requirements of Section 11(b)(1) of the Act. '!he Middle West Cormration, et kl.,18 SEC 296 (1945). C3W has been and is a registered x1 ding crnpany.
'CSW cnens all of the outstanding shares of cannon stock of the following
~
operating electric utility companies (* operating===nies").
Central J
Power and Light Cbrqpany ("CP&L*) cperates in a gortion af muth hxas; Pslic Service 0:rqpany of Cklahoma ("PS0"), in gortions af cestern and southwestern Oklahona; ibuthwestern Electric Power Cknpany ("SWEPOD"),
in portions of east hxas, western Arkansas and northwestern Iouisiana; l
and West hxas Utilities Chiqpany (*WIU"), in a part of west central-j hxas.
i Physicr.11y, the CsW system conprises roughly three-quarters cf a circle l
with c center in forth central hxas. 'Ibe aperating corppanies are j
interuerected and to and around this arc, extending frcrc CP&L in south hxas, between the Rio Grande and the Gulf of Mexico, through a relatively narrow corridor in west h xas (WIU) to interconnect with i
PSO. PSO interconnects in eastern Oklahoma with 9fEP00. 'Ibe cperating i
r-.
companies together serve a territiory of approximately 152,000 square l
V miles with an estimated gepulation of 3,000,000. 'the largest cities l
served are Cbrpus Christi, Abilene, Imredo, San Angelo and Iongview in Texas, hisa and Imwton 6 oklahana, Rireveport and Bossier City in Icuisiana, and hxarkana us hxas and Arkansas. pertinent economic data concerning the cperating conpanies ibr the year ended Decenber 31, F
1980, is as follows:
l d
ens 4
eee spe 99' Sp easub ge -enap
___-~e.--
. - ~ -
+,
_1_
0 b
Het.
Net Generating System Utility Operating Station Maxim m WH Plant Revenues capacity Dumand -
Sales (millions')
(millions)
(MR)
(*)
(billiens) h CP&L
$ 1,386
$ 670 3,882 2,505 13.4 PSO 1,190 522 3,969 2,839 16.4 SWEPCD 995 385 3,029 2,652 13.2 WIU 226 181 1,054 954 5.2 on March 26, 1974, the Oklahoma cities of Altus, Frederick, Cbrdell and Mannford and Verdigris Valley Electric Cooperative and Indian Electric Cooperative, Inc., solesale oastczners of PSO, conplained to the Ocrmission that CSW had ceased to operate as an integrated electric utility system and requested, among other things, that the ceder of February 16, 1945, be nodified or revoked. Section 11(b) provides that the Ckmmission may revoke or modify a yrior ceder issued thereunder if
- it finds that the conditions upon sich the ceder was pEndicated &
not exist." -
On January 30, 1976, the Comission cadered that a hearing be held to reconsider in light of current conditions the conclusion reached in 1945 regarding CSW's cxr:pliance with the integration standards of Section 11(b)(1), and to determine eether plans develcped by GW and its subsidiaries affecting future operations of 'the systm could achieve ceripliance with Section 11(b)(1).1/ thoer that section, the I
Cerimission is directed to limit the operatzons of a registered system to 'a single integrated public-utility system." Section 2(a)(29)(A) defines that term with respect to an electric utility systen as one j
whose utility assets 'are physically inte % cected or capable of i
physical interconnection and sich wder tormal conditions may be assically operated as a single interconnected and coordinated system..."
l PSO and SWEP00 are seribers cf the Southwst Power Pool ('SWPP"), and l
art interconnected with a naticne.ide s tem af interconnected generation and transmission facilities. CPL and WIU operate in the State of Dxas and are interconnected with other utilities that l
ccmprise the Electric Reliability Cbuncil of hxas (*EKDT"). All the members of ERCOT are electrically isolated from PSO, SWEPCD, and other utilities operating in sole or in part in states other than Texas.
'the ER00T interchange agreements in effect preclude direct or indirect
,j exchange of electric energy with utilities receiving ce transmitting electric energy in interstate comerce. y men OsL and W2U joined ERCDT, they ceased to exchange electric energy with PSD and SWEPCD, except for a special arrangement moer sich the northern division af t
If NCAR m. 19361 (January 30, 1976), as unended by ICAR 2. 20031 (May 18, 1977).
y Cf. Pederal Power Dammission v. Florida power & Light Op., 404 KS. 453 (1972) (certain intrastate interconnections jurisdictional under Federal Power Act due to related interstate erergy flows).
.. ~ _ _ _.. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _.. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
.O,
. Wro, a$jacent to the Oklahczna torder, cxx11d cperate alternately either '
with PSO or with ERCCTI as long as simultaneous interconnection was avoided.
/
2he rMing'ctmenced before an attinistrative law juc5 e in 1976.
9 Certain state agencies and authorities were minitted cs parties pursuant to Rule 9(a) of the Omrnission's Riles of Practice, and O#
limited participant status pursuant to Rules 9(c) an$ (d) was granted to certain others, principally Ibuston Lighting and Pcuer Ozngny
(' IMP"), an operating electric utility cmpany serving Houston and a portion of the gulf coast area of hxas, and Texas Utilities Cbrpany
(*2U"), an exempt electric utility holding crrnpany sose subsidiaries serve a large portion of rorth centrr.1 Uwxas, including the Dallas-Fert Worth area, the principal other members of ERCITT.
Ube integration plans initially sutrnitted try CSW in this r uceeSing proposed to reestablish interconnections mong its subsidiaries, but turned on eether interconnections with ERCITT could be saintained or directed. Cbntrtnersies developed concerning these satters and spawned s: elated rvce+31ngs before the 7bderal Energy legulatory th=Mion
(*FERC"),3/, the Nuclear Regulatory 02ntission ("NRC*) g, and the 5/, and litigation in Public Utility Omrnission of Dxas (*2PUC")hings. y In m3dition, federal and state courts involving those r there was separate litigation in essence challenging the validity of the ERCOT arrangements mder federal antitrust laws. y In 1978 Congress enacted the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act of 1978. B/ under that statute FIRC was given authority to ccder, mder prescribed standards, certain intercontaction and teeling relief
~
affecting electrL utilities rot cperating in interstate cxxzerce, with the pctwiso that the ceder would rot rake such an electric utility subject to FERC's jurisdiction for arf Cther purpose. On July 28, F suC Docket Nos. L-9558 arx1 EL ?&-8.
y HRC Ibcket Hos. 50-445A, 50-446A, 50-498A and 50-499A.
_5/ TPLC Incket Ib.14.
y Sec. e.g., Central Power and Light Orpany v.
fwderal Eneruy Ekatory Conrnission, 575 F.2d 937 (D.C. Cir.1978), cert. denied TU.S. 981 (1976); Public Utility Cantnission of hxas v.
Federal Energy Reculatory Omrnission (5th Cir. N). 79-3054) hx-La Electric Cooperative v.
Federal Enertfy Negulatory Carrnission (D.C.
g.
g Cir. Ib. 80-1173); Centraf Power and Light Conpany v. Public Utility canrnission of Texas (53rd Ja31cial District of 2txas,16.
~
261,605).
y West itxas Utilities conpany v. hxas Electric Service Cturpany, 470 f. Supp. 798 (N.D. Tex 1979), on appeal 5th Cir. Ib.t 79-2677.
y Pub. L. Ib.95-617 (Ibvenber 9,1978).
..-...~.w...
l l
4 1980, CsW, '!U and MLLP submitted an offer of settlenent to FEPC in the '.
- y. M ings before that agency. 'that settlement agreement, as supplemented (" Settlement Agreement"), provides for a.uv.Jersive, resolution of the disputes in all forums. It'was approved by FERC by order dated October 28, 1981.,9/ n at ceder, and the Settlement Agreement (including underlying evidentiary noterial w on W ich it was Q
predicated), are in evidence in this p e ing.
'the settlement Agreement, anong other things, provides for the installation of two asynchronous interconnections between EROOT and l
SWPP. 'these would consist of a North Interconnection, tn.be constructed by N, eich would consist of two back-to-back direct current terminals with an initial capacity of 200 sma cm either side of the ER0025-SWPP border at Oklaunion, 'Dtxas. CSR will also construct an alternating current terminal at P90's power station in Lawton, Otlahoma, and a 345 kw AC transmission line from lawton to the recthern bus of the intes-section at Oklaunion, a distance of appecuinately 61 miles. 'the South Intesw.ection, to be constructed jointly by N j
and HLEP, would consist of a direct current transmission line approximately 153 milen long with terminals having an initial capacity of 500 uw in Walker county, 2exas, and at the South 'Enxas Project, a j
generating plant meer construction naar Bay City, 'Atsas. Dese r
planned facilities will in effect interconnect WIU and P90 (Ibrth Inte -iection) and SWEPOD and CPL (South Inteswi ction).
%e record before PERC, and as supplemented in this proceeding, indicates that substantial ravings are expected to be achieved in revenue requirements to ratepayerr of the Csw subsidiaries from operation of the CsR system in an interconnected made as a result of the planned internannections between EROOT and SWPP. She order issued by FERC finds, mang other things, that the construction of the planned interconnection facilities *is in the public interest, will encourage overall conservation of energy and capital, will eptimise the use of facilities and resources, and will inprove the reliability of each electric utility system to tich the ceder applies.' She PERC ceder is a final order.
On,Fiebruary 8,1982, CBR, pursuant to stipulation with EIAP and TU, moved for an order specifying further gdures in this AMing, including waiver of an initial decision by the administrative law gudge and consent to the interested division of the Qansnission assisting in the preparation of the Qzunission's decision. On February 9,1982, the administrative law judge issued a retioe to all parties e
and participants concerning the notion. 'Ihere being no objection, the L'
sotion was granted on February 26, 1982.
I
,9f " central Pcwer and Light G.wy, et al., PERC Docket Mos. %L 79-8 anG?s558 (October 28, 1981). 'Ihat order has been maanded, in respects rot here unterial, by ceders dated November 5,1981, and.3anuary 29, 1982.
8 L.- _. - - _. - _ -
0..
. In view of the foregoing, the issues W ich led to the institutice of
/
this p. Wing have been disposed of at resolved.
IT IS CEDEFID, accordingly, that this gMirg be, and it hereby is, terr.inated, and that the Orrr.ission's decision a.M order of February 16, 1945, continues to remain in effect.
O By the Ctruission.
l/c Yh George A.
-itzsi.. ns Secretary O
W 89 0
e 9
e M
\\
t l
.._._o._
1 I
l 1
1 1
1 i
i l
l
{
l
\\
l i
e 4
APPENDIX E I
i l
i 1
i l
O e
l ~
/
o TU ELECTRIC TRANSMISSION AND SCHEDULING AGREEMENTS TU Electric has entered into sever 61 transmission and scheduling agreements i
thatt have facilitate:: power flows benefiting a number of power systems in i
l Texas. These agreements are briefly described below-l 1.
In August of 1986, the City of Brownsville, Texas and TU Electric reached an agreement whereby TV Electric will provide wheeling service for the 4
output from Brownsv111e's ownership share in a coal fired plant (Oklaunion) near the Texas-Oklahoma border.
2.
In October of 1984, TU Electric entered into a scheduling agent agreement with Tex-La and Rayburn Country Electric Cooperative whereby TU Electric 3
1 will deliver energy and capacity purchased by(Tex-La and Rayburn Country from the Southwestern Power Administration.
TV Electric provides the transmission system to link the generation from the hydroelectric units at Denison Dam to the cooperative's load centers.)
]
3.
TU has agreed to act as the scheduling agent for delivery of economy energy from Houston Lighting and Power Co. to Tex-La.
4.
In 1986 TU Electric agreed in principle to provide needed interconnection and wheeling services to Texts-New Mexico Power Co.'s proposed Robertson County fluidized-bed power plant.
5.
During the period 1986 through 1988, TV Electric acted as the transmission agent for 12-15MW of power sold to the City of Weatherford, Texas.
l 6.
In 1980, TU Electric transmitted 20MW of power from the Texas Municipal I
Power Pool to the South Texas Electric Cooperative.
1 I
7.
TU Electric has entered into equivalent power transmission agreements I
with the Texas Municipal Power Authority and Brazos Electric Power Cooperative from 1979 to 2014.
8.
TU Electric has agreed to transmit 52MW of power from the Oklaunion power plant to the Central Power & Light Co. during the period from 1986 to 2021.
9.
A transmission agreement entered into in 1986 between TV Electric and the City of Austin provides for the delivery of 68MW of power from the Oklaunion power plant.
10.
In 1986 TU Electric wheeled 60MW of power to the Texas-New Mexico Power Co. from the City of Bryan, Texas.
- 11. During the period 1983-87, TV Electric wheeled amounts of power ranging from 300MW to 800MW to Houston Lighting & Power Co. from the City of Austin.
~____._______._______m____________________...________
l l
2
- 12. During the period 1983-87, TV Electric wheeled amounts of power ranging from 200MW to 500MW to Houston Lighting & Power Co. from the City of San Antonio.
13.
In 1985, TU Electric wheeled 7MW of power from the C(. _41 Power & Light Co. and 150MW (200MW in 1986) from the Texas Municipal Power Pool to the West Texas Utilities Co..
14
' TU Electric signed an agreement with Dow Chemical Co. in 1985 (four month contract),for the purchase of 300MW from Dow's Freeport, Texas' chemical plant. The power was wheeled over HLP's transmission lines and according to a Dow spokesperson, new opportunities to sell cogenerated power have resulted from the TPUC's mandatory wheeling rules.
- 15. TU Electric has agreed to transmit power over its system supplying the City of Austin with 100MW from a waste-to-energy plant located near the Texas-Oklahoma border.
- 16. TU Electric has scheduled economy energy over its transmission system for the following power systems:
a.
Tex-La (300MW); from HL&P in 1986; b.
Tex-La (100MW); from West Texas Utilities in 1987; c.
Rayburn Country Coop. (300MW); from HL&P in 1987; and d.
Texas-New Mexico Power Co. (300MW); from HL&P in 1988
- 17. Moreover, throughout 1985 and 1986 TU engaged in several " wheeling" transactions with other Texas power systems whereby power and energy was transmitted over their transmission facilities to TU Electric's service area.
- 18. TU Electric is currently involved in several wheeling transactions with cogenerating systems in the state of Texas. TU Electric has agreed to purchase varying amounts of cogenerated power from these entities ranging in amounts from 70MW to 400MW with some extending through 1999.
(Muchof this activity has been perpetuated by Texas PUC Rule 23.66 requiring wheelingofcogeneratedpowerinTexas.)
l 4
.m
N O
4 6
e 9
6 4
9 e
APPENDIX F l
1 e
o e
O e
O b2.1
- h____ mew.__-e_.z_r.,-._.
_1m
_ -m
,,, e._m m,,
l i
l l
TU ELECTRIC INTERCONNECTION AGREEMENTS I
i Since the settlement agreement was consummated in 1980, TU Electric has amended or entered into several new interconnection agreements with various Texas power systems. These agreements are briefly described below:
l 1.
"On May 6,1987, TU Electric and the Texas-New Mexico Power Company signed an " Agreement to General Terms Regarding the TNP One Generating Facility". This agreement is the basis upon which definitive agreements for wheeling and other transactions necessary to integrate TNP's (Texas-New Mexico Power Company) proposed plant in Robertson County into TU Electric's transmission network will be negotiated."
j 2.
Interconnection agreements between TU and Brazos Electric Power Cooperative and TU and West Texas Utilities Company have been amended by
)
TV to conform to the provision in the antitrust license conditions that i
addrest restrictions pursuant to interstate power sales.
3.
"Brazos
?ectric Power Cooperative and the Lower Colorado River l
Authority, with whom TU Electric has maintained contractual i
relatior. ships, have refused to sign agreements amending interstate l
clauses in a manner consistent with the License Conditinns. TU Electric has therefore waived any and all prior contractual rovisions which might be in conflict with License Conditions 3.D.(2)p(1)(a) and (b).
4.
Discussions have occurred between Rayburn Country Electric Cooperative (Rayburn Country) and TU pursuant to a " master agreement" that would allow Rayburn Country to explore and evaluate power supply options beyond those offered by TU. These options would include power purchases from suppliers other than TV as well as the possibility of Rayburn Country acquiring generating capability of its own.
(This master agreement was to be patterned after the TU-TNP master agreement cited above.
From the information made available to staff to date, this agreement has not been finalized.)
l l
(%
._--._a
R O
e l
i
\\
i l
l l
1 1
9 APPENDIX G
\\
4 i
I l
l 4
l 4
l l
1 I
1 1
i l
e e
c.?_l _ _ ? ". *
~;L 'T'.'"***
- ~ ~ * *
'W'.?*%0%"**'
- - * ' k
'M
^' ^ ' ^ ~ ' ^'^
e e
ko e v
de s
gat l
r lh dn nm b
ee ot no i gf e hs s
hei nono1 te h
t t
1
.iti m hse r
ttli eo f
t siowcm6 resev 7
oya ewt i 9 evil e eth9trwp lh t
i nst otpccc1 ee oe rsanau,dsnCr os peCars o a iet trn t
dP nts cpe oohr l 9ior
.d umv trt ofl 1 neen ree prcoA n pna b
t r oc yol e
m atl yvn u
orWae.msinro sse l
o e
neh ot t d
$nl) ewAel P
re2i u4 el t e y
cn r=t ns
.r end an8
,R 1 n pi e ee
- 2. foa u. ii ya s
om v hv,6e m
t obg s
ponl rn2* 5eC noa he wCoo eeo4 n8b
,it o tr is btl0 o3 end C oc ngte ne2t rheen ne 2
onir ois e,otk eoe S
iit t
i e1 acih e
tl et on
.t1 n yt o t t R
u ro m C s 2. o b t
cipo gt o.s epmh e
ef n n n r i nCDo5ddb t
ro ee eai ii y,C 9 neie 3l roh w
ohel cTh st rne iette e.
r th ecooh5fd l
c dattt5 inoil e.wi ag esetfi n t
nneh nel nf.bnt fo o R. d c e e o n t otet i I orw o u!
id s e gh st moc e e 4 F. l hths rt ue te e
tcte= eire 1 ueis pr W2Cober ep onwi y
h toyrs Sn r
yd g,d 8 sl a pt a n ooa nl r. n1 li r i ect A u e t. a 1 oireag on t w pt pn c hr n
tete HEM 1 es on ii 1 resraall tht s
2 uttpt ib engt t
tIii get dospsef u a rs nresereoem p
rt o
i eeecpt toe esep ldrl o oeoc! r pehp iet urrrhreho otto f F S R P e P t pb t f d
t n
e d
y a
e n dW s
f n
a n5y e i eo e
g eaCn f
m d tl t
l d
rm
- ar o se o tl e s da n
9 F
eo) pe WuT m eehl etns a
7 O
wh* emisr5o, ttctb - tsa,t gt L
oaOholi oCn onssi io e
tgnn,tetPgsync E
I plCtCrhf oy tee td I
h 6 neaiu C
kP atf ert I
lOE,re ohhn nf' noarcteLitmtr s
o T
e W ye n tcu oo iM ot hMl at A
rfSl woie no t
et
,fUtt geers o
t t
eot h d yC h s t h a l ezTe
.nhsen i
C to*vPSdtes e
1 tentr* sr fsit po S
t I
S e
F oy i e
rarut e( eCaedroen eOc u
1 k
C n y t & yl ge eon m nRehne t mrs u
At c
0 anc findnkSahaeUTt ahpnoea#o e
C o
0
. p a e gi f i r e l" escgT tiecve5t
,d P o h p,oTC Ia D
6 m p1 nd vo e Ciil t h "( ye&
s u es n
9Coctmnr,twe 9om1i oto RC S
s e hebcs trLhrondf eo E
RR MY OE8 1
Ceh epewnthael snlMceconoht ne ue an t a tt AR FD6 e
t gompl reItt s n W 'y o g, e w g t e
e O
iIIIii)
R9
,cr)i teal te FT nO9 1i e*L l
eswtteo nCes onemt eg vwU nte nt ee csa reh inoavi OA O
1 ps tthtirtel y r o f n o t r r o e o s e r 'O m u e n i c a d f s t b t
t Is aePwol eeecbj re Su T0 e Ec t1 MS
- tesdt oeltCotnewurr t o 6
Tt t5 c( ss rnonrrenPCiop seo,ee AR t5 nei utf oitoPegiE Time poohrr y
T y
P1 o1 ryoe o i ne Wc toeeOctt i s
SY r n l a 1 tnns r,PtrortSincct t l e eM tbca orenLcai n ria tlW,rndh C
e a Fp DR w
p OOI a e e pd C e i o M e e tl ent g1 eSgeiit EE o m C
hFimn flt nli erechfn1 gCnwh TM t
P o
C
,toaef rednctf reetoi1 e iotdm 1E h
y C
s t
C hoaenoee ow1 o t crel pi n o t
t g
n c i
el n lt et ecMPoct2bgae he war H L i a i e L
e* re*
e s
r t
e nrfltec
,f t
u tbs,ie e hid tLeesdhsmses.ec A
L p r e I
tPtt eettoet n e n k prt ywrneP R
m t
t F
E d
o c t
oCstt n iCt net relteaOts,b t a o &.
er* ttt hc wt D
n Cee i F
n* einog n i e 'n d i n 1 t r W i n n c e n T
M e
wl einnee E
a nl l
O
(
F eeE i e h i p tiIh p t ordo 1eeStooul os r eh t
E kytt mit tmnht o i1tdC iiseitd e yl e n yU C
anuUotp oett etten ttt ti n wnvl rn I
Tao Cee.,CruerwcU uecccdfc a oareeas T
pSs pcgt roeeoe g heeenoee PpeOt pn O
m,ag c n n g o s ni n n e n e t n n n a nt s eorroataeooo,enae nl onsit nnn ms sme o
mn) aienc U
l o f eoe I
C) ei*
dmi gott aCcowCT
- ttPseetthcahceaircccencin r i h tO aErel act recrTrdl rrrrerl e t
l t
t hStrLectre e ne e e e e e e e h ei p =
n b o s gPseNdot erdt e ytd n m gt t t h c t cn e u o e f*
e p*
r r e pi n n t s n n e s e n n n t s n a o C p S W L(t Ot opsOdaISeIag1 riII oeIfC o
I l
)
l I
.9
/
0" APPENDIX H 1
I l
i 1
1 4
l
.i I
l t
(
l I
O
I j
WHOLESALE POWER DEVELOPMENTS i
i TU Electric supplies many wholesale power customers throughout its vast service I
area and attributes a significant portion of its annual revenues to wholesale power sales. TU Electric has reported substantial activity involving existing i
or new wholesale customers since the antitrust settlement in 1980. A number of I
power entities have contacted TU Electric regarding either sale or purchase of j
wholesale power:
1.
In March of 1986, representatives of the City of Bowie, Texas, a total re-j quirements customer of TU Electric, contacted 1ti Electric pursuant to power supply alternatives including joint generation and wholesale purchases from other suppliers. TU Electric provided cost estimates to the City, but no j
further substantive discussions have taken place.
2.
In 1983 the City of Electra, Texas, inquired as to TV Electric's willingness j
to supply wholesale power beginning in 1988. TU Electric informed the City that it was not seeking new loads but it would provide the City with cost estimates for the required service. From the information available no additional requests have been received from the City of Electra.
j 3.
The City of Weatherford, Texas (served by Brazos Electric Power Cooperative) inquired to TV Electric concerning TU Electric's willingness to supply wholesale power and possibly join in construction of future generating facilities. TU Electric supplied cost information to the City and in Au-gust of 1983, the City indicated it had no further interest in participating in a future generating facility with TU Electric.
4.
"In 1980, the Company was contacted by representatives of Cap Rock [ Cap Rock Electric Cooperative, Inc.], a wholesale customer of TUEC, for the purpose of exploring options of purchased power compared to jointly owned generating facilities. Cost information was furnished Cap Rock represen-tatives to aid in their comparative evaluations.
Cap Rock elected not to explore joint ownership of generation."
(September 2, 1986 TU Electric 9.3) 5.
In July of 1986, Rayburn Country Electric Cooperative notified TU Electric of its intent to transfer approximately one megawatt of demand from TU Electric to the Southwestern Electric Power Company. TU Electric indicated it would make the necessary billing corrections and will provide other support necessary to effect the transfer.
6.
"In 1984, Rio Grande Cooperative, served by EL Paso Electric, inquired as to the interest and capability of TUEC to serve approximately 20MW of de-mand. TUEC determined that because of limitations in both bulk supply and transmission facilities such service would impair service quality to exist-ing customers and for this reason declined participation."
(September 2,1986TUElectric9.3) l-
2 7.
"In April,1985, TMPA [ Texas Municipal Power Agency). inquired #s to TUEC interest in supplying it power under long-term purchase agreements or through participation in joint generating facility construction. TMPA's expressed interest was for capacity needed by it in the early to mid-1990's.
The Company responded that its current resource plan did not include units to supply the needs expressed by TMPA, noting that TUEC's plans were to supplement its own capacity with firm power purchases to coincide as closely as possible to estimated load growth. No further inquiries have been reserved from TMPA."
8.
In April of 1985, Tex-La Electric Cooperative of Texas (Tex-La) initiated discussions with TV Electric pursuant.to the possibility of a joint pur-chase of cogenerated energy. TU Electric indicated that there were no rojected benefits to its customers from such an agreement, but that it p(TV Electric) would support the necessary delivery to Tex-La of any cogen-erated energy--subject to recovery of costs and maintenance of the quality of service to TU Electric customers.
9.-
"In August, 1986, Central Power & Light and West Texas Utilities made in-quiries of TUEC's interest in near term capacity and energy purchases from surplus ERCOT sources. Specific data are being developed by these compa-nies to serve as the basis for further discussion." (September 2, 1986 TUElectric9.3)
- 10. "In 1982. El Paso Electric Company planning personnel met with TUEC repre-sentatives to discuss long-range possibilities for mutual cooperation."
(September 2, 1986 TV Electric 9.3)
- 11. In 1985 Southwestern Public Service Company proposed the sale of capacity and energy'to TU Electric. TU Electric is-continuing to evaluate this proposal as its resource plan is currently being_ evaluated and updated.
- 12. "InJune,1986,CSW[ Central &SouthwestCo.]inquiredastotheinterest of TUEC in ownership of capacity that would be provided by a proposed ex-I pansion of the capability of the North DC Tie. TUEC will not at this time i
participate in the expansion of the North Tie."
(September 2,1986 i
TUElectric9.3)
The following requests or expressions of interest were excerpted from TU Elec-tric's September 2,1987 updated response to Regulatory Guide 9.3:-
I
- 13. "In 1983, Cajun Electric Power Cooperative, Inc. of Baton Rouge, Louisiana l-notified TU Electric that it was seeking partners for ownership of up to 1
300 megawatts of expected excess capacity from a 540 megawatt lignite plant it then had under construction. Cajun cited reduced load growth as
.the reason for this expected excess. Cajun also asked if TU Electric would be interested in Cajun's participation, either as joint owner or power purchaser, in future generating units which TU Electric had planned for the early 1990's.
L_ - _ mm_ __z _ _=+- ~
- m m m~ - -
~
-m m-
- - - - ~
Pi:-
m7 l
3 TU Electric responded that it too was experiencing load growth, reduction, which, along with a fuel conversion program to reduce dependency on nat-ural gas in favor of lignite and nuclear fueled generation, had resulted in adequate reserve margins for its system. Based on its resource plans l
TV Electric noted that it did not expect the arrangements proposed could be beneficial."
- 14. "In 1985,.KG&E made informal contact with TU Electric to determine its l
possible interest in purchasing surplus capacity over the next several years. TU Electric responded that its 1985 needs were met but that it would consider any KG&E proposal for later years based on the TV Electric Resource Plan, available alternatives and the feasibility of having such power wheeled to TU Electric loads.
No proposal was received nor has further contact been made by KG&E on this subject."
15.
"TU Electric was verbally contacted in 1985 by a representative of the municipal utility of the City of Lubbock, Texas relative to interest in joint participation in a future power plant. The City was apparently con-sidering building a plant at a planned municipal water supply reservoir.
The representative indicated he would contact TU Electric again in early 1986. Such contact was not made nor has any other contact since been made by Lubbock relative to this matter. We assume Lubbock's interests or plans have changed."
16.
"In May of 1985, CPSB offered to sell TU Electric surplus capacity for the summer months of 1985. TU Electric responded that it had sufficient capac-ity available to meet its expected summer loads and reserve requirements.
In the fall of 1985, CPSB inquired of TU Electric's interest in purchasing reserve capacity for the summer of 1986. CPSB, after developing a more aggressive load forecast for CPSB 1986 load, decided not to pursue sales further. At the same time, TU Electric's 1986 needs had been otherwise met."
- 17. "In 1985 and 1986, PNM initiated contacts with TV Electric, as well as with many other utilities, to seek support for its proposed Dineh Project.
Support would be in the form of a binding commitment to purchase power and energy from the project. This project, as conceived by PNM, would consist of a four unit coal-fired generating plant with aggregate capacity of some 2000 megawatts. The plant would be sited in New Mexico on Navajo Indian reservation land. Under the PNM concept, the plant would be linked to a number of Southwestern states by new high voltage transmission lines to be constructed for this purpose.
PNM, through a wholly-owned subsidiary, and in partnership with others, would own the plant and market power from the units. PNM's stated intent was to operate the units in a manner that would not subject sale of power and energy to state rate regulation.
PNM made it clear that its decision to proceed with the project was subject to prior purchase commitments for the capacity and to its meeting of other PNM objectives.
____..__m.
.l n
s' 4
l
)
TU Electric's consideration of this proposal took into account.the uncer-tainty attendant to PNM's (partnership's) unilateral decision of whether to carry the project forward. Also considered were the uncertainty of completion if begun and the cost,'which PNM would not guarantee,.if com-pleted..The project, if begun, is subject to substantial uncertainty in~.
numerotts areas including environmental and other regulatory issues.
Under-these circumstances, TU Electric concluded that commitment to this project was an unacceptable option for its resource plan and responded to PNM' accordingly."
- 18. "In June,1986, a power marketing team from Southern Services Company, a-subsidiary of the Southern Company, called on TU Electric representatives with the information that the Southern Company operating subsidiaries ex-pected to have power and energy available for sale.in'the 1990's and to-explore TU Electric's interest in purchase of such power and energy..The Southern Services Company representatives were aware that consideration of such sale'was dependent on resolution of the East HVDC Tie. TU EVctric j
' responded that any future interest it might have would be dependent on a 1
1 number of, factors, including not only the East HVDC Tie but on its own needs at the time and on the relative costs of options available'to meet those needs. Representatives of. Southern Services Company have made no further contacts with TU Electric to discuss the possibility of their-having excess capacity-in the 1990's."
- 19. "The only other specific. items which might be relevant were purchase by 1
I TU Electric of 400 megawatts of short-term reserve capacity, excluding cogeneration purchases, which fully covered requirements for the 1985 peak I
Manicipal Power Agency (gawatts consisted of 200 megawatts each from Texas.
load period. The 400 me TMPA) and the Lower Colorado River Authority (LCRA). TMPA later offered to sell reserve capacit period and Houston Lighting & Power Company (HL&P) y for the 1986 peak-offered to sell reserve capacity for the 1986 and 1987 peak periods.
However, such peaking. reserve requirements for these years were otherwise met and the offers were declined."
j I
i l
i l
l
.x.
e e
e p
9 e
I e
4 e
F APPENDIX I e
5 e
G 0
b
^ ' * ' * ~ * ^
~
n_
- p?[ - ~.V.'
~ M, y
' _.. L ".==' " :.~ *
f..:.3 ff.+ faxpog % g [
W g
.-7
- w g (E t'C W (,1,050
%.M l'117).
i s 1: em -1 : >
(,M r. r r.-
m* r i In Reply Refer tot i
Docket Nos. ER82-545-000, J
l r
<.~.*P ER82-546-000, ER83-610-000,
.a ER83-611-000, ER83-635-000, and ER83-657-000 Reid.& Priest
- 'd
'N l
Attention:
Mr. Floyd L. Norton, IV
~ ' * - '-
Attorney for Texas Utilitics Electric Company +
1111 19th Street N.w.
JAN 271987 Washington, D.C.
20036 Dear Mr. Norton On December 23, 1985, as supplemented on December 31, 1985, January 24, 1906, and April 7, 1986, TUEC filed an offer of set-tiement in an attempt to resolve all issues in the above-referenced dockets,i11owevor, various comments and briefs regarding the settlement were subsequently submitted and, on June 6, 1986, the presiding administrative law judge certified the matter to the Coeucission as a contested offer of settlement.
Subsequently, on i
November.7, 1986, the settlement was further supplemented to i
/
resolve the. remaining issues.
On November 26, 1986, staff sub-I mitted comments in support of the settlement, an ultimately suppleenented.:
No' other comments ~ to the'.of for of settlement, as i
ultimately supplemented, were received.
The settlement, as ultimately supplemented,~ i:
R
is deemed to be an uncontested settlement. L i
The' aubject settlement is in the public interest and is-hereby approved.
The revised proposed order submitted with the supplement on November 7,1986, is hereby made a part of this l
ordet and is included as Enclosure A hereto.
i
.m
- . a...o.
Section 2 of Enclosure A: specifies rates for the ERCOT tariffs and' requires ~filinos to change the rates.
Within t.hirty (30) days of the date of thist order,- sub: it revised settlement tariffs for,ERCOT service reflectin0 such specified rates.
Set--
tienent rate schedule designations for the non-ERCOT tariffs are shows on-Enclosure B.
'**3i/_
Within fif teen (15) deys af ter making the refunds required unde
- the~ settles'ent, as specified-on' Enclosure' A hiretoF the' %
companies'shall file'with this Commission compliance: reports h m' 5
showing'. monthly, billing. determinants' revenue rece'ipt!' dates',Fand' M
- revenues"under th'e^prio'r', present, and settlement rates, the monthly ravenue refund, and the monthly interest com;utc hpAtit, gether with a summary of such information fogE su$8Ye!" Nfun 8g e'$
period.
The comr.anies shall furnish copies
.h the affected wholesale customers and to each St s r.i o n /
e'e rg...-.
within whose jurisdiction the wholesale cust g
d
e:.C..
..t r-I J.,&. s,
g
p-i s
2 sell electric energy;-at.rotail.n, f,. :-,.,.
I N
The contpanies are b.ereby, di,rected, to.f.ile complete service agreements for each customer taking service under the settlement tariffs.
This 3etter terminates the abovo-ref.eren'ced d'ocksto.
New
~
subdockets will be assigned in ER82-545 upon receipt.of the compilance refund reports and revised rate schedules.
By direction of the connaission.
3 z
Secretary Enclosures A and B cc To All Parties
~
- i...
Texas Public Utilities Commission
" "~
'-- 7800 Shoa1' Creek. Boulevard.
rt,-
Suite 450 H.
F-14uintana Public Service Commission'..
Suite 1630 2
< ' ' One Amtrican Plaza Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70025
~ru.'
Okishoma Commerce Commission
' 500 Jim-Thorpe of flee Building,
Oklahoma City,, Oklahoma 73105 5
,.,.,. f.
Arkansas Public Service Cc:smission
'"' 1000 Center Evilding'i box C-400 1000 Center Strcot Y-
' Little Rock, Arkansa's 72203':
dEPR
~
'*Sammon, J.smet 12/30/86- ~
~ ~
(
. Registry / RIM'S, Docketsi, Interof fice Files, DPI, SEC, ALJ, bect
- ' ~ ~
OGC (1)(2), Vault, DEPI Director, Murdock, Shulman, Milbourn, Orecchio, Sammon, Tindall, Dor, Forman, Bublitz, Elliot, Harlan-ERF(2), WERI(1)(2) s
~
~ ' ~ ~-
~
o_ oom.__
Enclosure A
~
k.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA BEFORE THE FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION Public Service Company of Oklahoma,
)
Docket Nos. ER82-545-000, et al.
)
.ERE2-546-000,
~~
)
ER83-610-000,
)
ER83-611-000,
)
ERS3-625-000,
)
and ER83-657-000 ORDER APPROVING SETTLEMENT On February 9, 1979, the operating subsidiaries of Central and South West Corporation (*CSW Operating Companies" or "CSW") jointly filed with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commir-sion (" Commission" or "FERC") an application seeking the inter-connection of facilities and the provision of transmission ser-vices pursuant to Sections 202, 210, 211 and 212 of the Federal Power Act ("Act"), as amended by the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act of 1978 ("PURPA"), 16 U.S.C. $5824a, 8241, 824j ar.d 824k.
The application was docketed as Docket No. EL79-8.
By their application, the CSW Operating Co' panies scught from the m
Co: mission ordtes which would require interconnection of the Elect:ic Reliability Council..of Texas ("ERCOT") and the - Southwest Power Pool ('i'~JP").
The CSW Operating Companies in ERCOT are Central Power aai Light Company (" CPL") and West Texas Utilities Company ("PTU").
The CSW Operating Companies in SWFP are Publ.ic
}
b___-______
_ _mP'P+N - ~
. - - = ~
Enclosure A UNITED STATES OF AMERICA BEFORE THE FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION Public Service Company of Oklahoma,
)
Docket Nos. ER82-545-000, et al.
)
ER22-546-000,
~
)
ER83-610-000,
)
ER83-611-000,
)
ERE3-625-000,
)
and ERE3-657-000 OF. DER APPROVING SETTLEMENT On February 9, 1979, the operating subsidiaries of Central and South West Corporation ('CSW Operating Companies" or
'CSW") jointly filed with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commis-sion (" Commission" or 'FERC") an application seeking the inter-connection of facilities and the provicion of transmie= fan ser-vices pursuant to Sections 202, 210, 211 and 212 of the Federal Power Act ("Act"), as amended by the Public Utility Regulatory
~
Policies Ae of 1978 (*PURPA"), 16 U.S.C. SSE24a, 8241, 824j and 824k.
The application was docketed as Docket No. EL79-8.
By their application, the CSW Operating Companies sought from the Co::. mission orde.es which would require interconnection of the Elwet:ic Reliability Council.of Texts ("ERCOT") and the Southwest Power Pool ("SWPP").
The CSW Operating Companies in ERCOT are Central Power a-1 Light Company (" CPL *) and West Texas Utilities Company ("PTU").
The CSW Operating Companies in SWPP are Publ.ic D
7
~
i
. 1 1
1 Service Company of Oklahoma ("PSO") and Southwestern Electric Power Company ("SWEPCO").
On June 27, 1980, in an attempt to settle, among other i
things, Docket No. EL79-8 and a related proceeding before the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the CSW Operating Companies filed an amended application seeking approval of two asynchronous di-rect current' interconnections between electric utilities in ERCOT and SWPP.
Or July 28, 1980, the CSW Operating Companies, Houston l
i l
Lighting & Power Company ("HL&P") and the operating subsidiaries l
of Texas Utilities Company ("TUC")' submitted an offer of Settle-ment in Docket No. EL79-8 which would effectuate the proposal set l
l forth in the amended application.
The offer of Settlement was supplemented on two occasions.
The Offer first was supplemented by acreement dated September 11, 1980, executed by the Ccmmission Staff, the CSV Operating Companies, EL&P, and the operating sub-sidiaries of TUC, and a Supplement.a1 offer of Settlement was filed on October 8, 1980.
Then on June 22, 1981, a Second Sup-plemental Offer of Settlement was filed, advising the Commission that an agreement had been executed by CSW and the U.S. Depart-ser.c of Justice ("DOJ"), under which DOJ agreed r.ot to contest the offer of Settlement as supplemented by the Lapplemental offer of Settlement and as amended by the Second Supplemental Offer of Settlement.
The offer of Settlement, as supplemented, was certi-S 4
0
E e
e 1
fledtotheCommissionasanuncontestedOfferofSettkementon i
July 10, l981.
Pursuant to the authority conferred by Sections 210, 211 and 212 of the Act, the Commission issued an " Order Requiring Interconnection and Wheeling, and Approving Settlement" in Docket Nos. EL79-8 and E-9558, on,0ctober 28, 1981, as corrected by the
' Errata Notice issued on November 5, 1981, 17 FERC $61,078, at i
modified by the " Order on Rehearing" issued Januiry 29, 1982, 18 FERC 161,000, incorporating by reference the form of Order Ap-proving Settlement (the " form of Order Approving Settlement")
submitted with the Second Supplemental Offer of Settlement in j
that proceeding (collectively referred to herein as "the Or-ders"), requiring the construction of two high voltage direct-current interconnections (the "HVDC Interconnections") between
]
ERCOT and SWPP.
To provide transmission service to, from and over the RVDC Interconnections, the CSW Operating Companies, EL&f and the operating utilities which constituted what is now Texas, Utilities Electric Company ("TUEC") were ordered to file tariffs that would comply with the provisions of the form of Order Approving Settle-j ment which the Commission incorporated by reference in its Order on Rehearing.
In addition, CPL and WTU were required to file tariff s that would comply with certain provisions of the form of j
Order Approving Settlement for transmission service within ERCOT l
l M
)
w e
+
available to utilities with loads less tha:.1500 MW.
PSO and SWEPCO were also required to file tariffs that would comply with certain other provisinns of the form of Order Approving Settle-ment for transmission service within SWPP available to utilities with loads less than 1500 MW.
These consolidated proceedings were initiated to con-sider the tariffs filed by the CSW Operating Companies, EL&P and TUEC in compliance with the o:ders in Docket No. EL79-8.1 Inter-ventions were granted in these proceedings to the following par-ties:
Erazos Electric Power Cooperative, Mid-Texas Electric Cooperative, Inc., and The Texas Cooperatives (collectively, "WCG"); Municipal Electric Systems of Oklahoma; South Texas Elec-tric Cooperative, Inc.; Medina Electric Cooperative, Inc.; North-1 Docket Nos. ER82-545-000 and ER82-546-000 concern the tariffs filed by PSD and SWEPCO for transmission within SWPP and by CPL and WTU for transmission service. within ERCOT.
" Order Accepting For Filing and Suspending Tariffs, Granting in Part and Denying in Part Motion for Summary Disposition, Granting Interventions, Consolidating Dockets and Establishing Procedures," 20 FERC T61,082 (July 23, 1982).
Docket Nos. ER83-610-000 and ERE3-611-000 concern the tariffs for transmission service to be provided by the CSW Operating Companies to, from and over the EVDC Interconnections.
" Order Accepting For Filing and Suspending Tariffs, Noting Interventions, Summarily Disposing of Certain Issues, Consolidating Dockets and Establishing Procedures," 24 FERC 161,266 (August 30, 1983).
Docket Nos.
ER83-635-000 and ER83-657-000 concern the tariffs for transmission se.. ice to, from and over the BVDC Interconnections filed by TUEC and EL&P, respectively.
" Order Accepting For l
Filing and Suspending Tariffs, Granting Interventions, Summarily Disposing of Issue, Consolidating Dockets, and Establishing Procedures," 24 FERC 161,291 (September 16, 1983).
5 8
~--
)
east Texas Electric Cooperative, Inc. ("NTEC"); Tex-La Electric Cooperative of Texas, Inc.; Rayburn Country Electric Cooperative, I
Inc. ("Rayburn Country"); City of Lafayette, Louisiana; Public Utilities Board of Brownsville, Texas ("Brownsville"); Valley-1 View Energy Corporation; Oklahoma Corporation Commission; and the i
i Public Utility Commission of Texas ("PUCT").
Prehearing and
' status conferences were conducted before the Presiding Adminis-trative Law Judge on August 18, 1982; October 20, 1983; March 5 and 26, June 4 and November 13, 1984; and July 9,1985.
Hearings were conducted before the Presiding Judge in May 1985, but were i
adjourned to permit completion of settlement discussions.
Exten-sive settlement negotiations among the parties culminated in the joint execution of an offer of Settlement by all remaining par-ties to the proceeding (except Brownsville and PUCT) and the Commission Staff.
On December 23, 1985, certain parties to these proceed-ings and the Staff of the Commission jointly filed an Offer of Settlement, which would resolve the matters at issue.2 The fel-lowing parties withdrew from the proceeding:
Municipal Electric Systems of Oklahoma, City of Lafayette, Louisiana and Rayburn,
j l
2 Two of the parties, South Texas Electric Cooperative and Medina Electric Cooperative ("STEC/MEC"), reserved the right to argue against the rolling-in of AC and DC costs in any future proceeding involving the CPL and WTU intra-ERCOT transmission J
service tariffs (Appendices 3 and 4).
J I
4 r-__._
.-~_n.--.-
~..
i
. )
Country.
On January 17, 1986, the Staff filed comments in sup-port of the Offer of Settlement and Brownsville filed comments in opposition to the Offer of Settlement.
On February 20, 1986, certain parties filed a Motion for Certification of Partial Set-tiement.
A conference was held on March 25, 1986, to discuss the status of the proceeding.
At that conference, Brownsville's l
comments in opposition to the Offer of Settlement were declared withdrawn, as were the replies to those comments.
Pursuant to the Presiding Judge's directive, a revised proposed Order Approv-ing settlement was filed on April 7,1986, and a further revised order was filed on May 12, 1986.
On May 1, 1966, Brownsville filed a brief on three contested legal issues.
Reply briefs were filed by other parties on May 30, 1986.
On June 6, 1986, the Presiding Judge certified the Offer of Settlement to the Commis-sion as a contested Offer of Settlement not involving any genuine issue of material fact, pursuant to Rule 602(h)(2) (ii).
The Of fer of Settlement, as certified, contains a Memorandum of Agreement among the settling parties, certain se.tlement tariffs, and a proposed Order Approving settlement, which embodies the agreement of these parties.3 On November 6,1986, Brownsville 3
In the course of negotiating the Offer of Settlement CPL and WTU entered into separate bilateral agreements with STEC/PEC and WCG, respectively, and SWEPCO and PSO entered into a bilateral agreement with NTEC.
Copies of such agreements were filed with the Office of the Secretary on April 7, 1986.
f w~_ _ _ _...
l i
executed a Supplement to offer of Settlement as well as the Mem-orandum of Agreement, thereby joining the pending Offer of Set-J tiement.
The Supplement to offer of Settlement, together with a i
revised draft Order Approving Settlement, wr.s filed with the Commission on November 7, 1986.4 Therefore, the Offer of Settl'e-I ment is now uncontested.
The parties to the settlement indicate that the settlement must be approved by the Commission as submit-ted in order to become effective.
The Commission has reviewed the Offer of Settlement submitted by the parties and concludes that the settlement is fair, rersonable and in the public interest.
l
)
The Commission finds:
i (1)
The Commission has jurisdiction to issue this Order under Sections 210, 211 and 212 of the Federal Power Act, by virtue of prior Orders issued in Docket No. EL79-8.
By agree-ment in Docket No. EL79-8, the rates approved herein are deter-mined in accordance with the procedures of Sections 205 and 206 of the Act.
(2)
The Offer of Settlement filed in this proceeding, the Memorandum of Agreement and the Tariff 0 attached to the Offer 4.The Offer of Settlement filed December 23, 1985, as supplemented by the Supplement to offer of Settlement filed November 7, 1986, is hereinafter referred to as the Offer of Settlement.
e es.
_____m____-___m__
m
__m
l
, -s of Settlement as Appendices 1-8 are fair, reasonable and in the i
public interest.
1 i
The Commission orders:
(1) The Offer of Settlement and the settlement tariffs as modified in accordance with this order are approved, and ac-cepted for filing to become effective as of the date on which 1
this order becomes final and is no longer subject to judicial review.
(2) In approving the settlement tariffs, the Commission ~
approves rates derived from cost of cervice and system megawatt-mile data provided to the Staff'and evaluited in the Staff com-ments on the Offer of Settlement.
Such rates are $54.23 per MW-l l
mile for CPL, S76.98 per MW-mile for WTU, S95.65 per MW-mile for HL&P and $45.50 per MW-mile for TUEC.
Within 30 days of the issu-ance of this Order, CPL, WTU, HL&P and TUEC shall revise their respective settlement. tariffs to set forth the foregoing rates.
i Before CPL, WTU, BL&P or TUEC may use a different rate under its settlement tarif f, it must file such rate as a change in rate.
(3) No refunds to the parties to the settlement for charges billed or collected under the provisions of the tariffs originally filed in these proceedings are recuired for the period covering service fendered prior to the date of this order, and for such period amounts billed or collected co.nsistent with the
}
l Ah--_-____
j, originally filed tariff s shall no longer be subject to refund.
J Within 90 days of the effective date of the Offer of Settlement and the' settlement tariffs revised pursuant to the preceding i
paragraph, TUEC, HL&P, CPL, WTU, PSO and SWEPCO shall make re-l funds of those amounts collected under the originally filed tar-iffs in excess of the amounts, if any, which would have been collected under the settlement tariffs, for service rendered l
1 between the date of this order and said effective date, together l
1 with interest thereon calculated in accordance with Section j
35.19a of the Commission's Regulations.
(4) The tariffs filed with the Offer of Settlement, as I
modified pursuant to this Order, conform in every material re-spect to the Commission's Orders in Docket No. EL79-8, including l
the form of Order Approving Settlement incorporated by reference in those Orders, and the Orders entered in Docket No. EL79-8 remain unchanged and in full force and effect..
(5)(a) Approval of this settlement constitutes a reso-lution of all issues in this proceeding, except that STEC/MEC shall not be foreclosed from arguing, or the Commission from deciding, against the rolling-in of AC and DC costs in any future proceeding involving the CPL and WTU intra-ERCOT transmission service tariffs.
Except as provided in the preceding rentence, the parties to the Offer of Settlement may not (i) contest any provision of the Commission's Orders in Docket No. EL79-8, except i
O
",&*~
d
?
as expressly provided for in this paragraphs (ii) contest any provision of TUEC's, HL&P's or CSW's tariffs filed in settlement of Docket Nos. ER82-545-000, et al.; or (iii) contest the offer of Settlement and proposed order Approving Settlement filed therein.
(b) In the event that TUEC, ELEP or CSW proposes an increase in the rate provided for in such tariffs, the party or parties affected shall be free to contest such rate increase but no party to the offer of Settlement shall be entitled to contest I
any provision of such tariff unless the filing party seeks a material change to such provision.
(c) TUEC, HL&P and CSW shral not seek to change any provision of the tariffs provided for in this settlement. if to do so would in any manner be inconsistent 3
1
_)
with the provisions of the Commission's Orders in Docket No.
EL79-8 including, but not limited to, paragraph 8(d) of the form of Order Approving Settlement, except that CSW shall be free to seek modifications of paragraph 8(d).of the form of Order Approv-ing Settlement in Docket No. EL79-8 with regard to the rate methodology prescribed for the FTU and CPL intra-ERCOT tariffs, l
'and to file tariffs embodying rate methodologies other than-those currently prescribed in said paragraph 8(d) for the WTD and CPL intra-ERCOT tariffs and except further that CSW shall be free to 1
seek modifications of paragraph 8(e) of the form of Order Approv-1 ing Settlement in Docket No. EL79-8 and to file tariffs not con-1 sistent with the provisions of said paragraph 8(e) for the PSD j
a
)
l 4
l
~ _ _ _ _
i
o<
. I and SWEPCO intra-SWPP tariffs.
(d) TUEC, HL&P, and CSW, without mutual consent, thall not seek to change the methodology for determining transmission service charges for the services ren-dered under the TUEC, HL&P and CPL-WTU settlement tariffs for transmission service to, from and over the RVDC interconnections from the positive difference megawatt-mile methodology as pre-sent? l practiced in ERCOT to any other methodology permitted by the Commission's Orders in Docket No. EL79-8 for a period of ten (10) years.
(e) Notwithstanding the provisions of this para-graph, TUEC, BL&P or CSW may at any time, with mutual consent, seek a modification to the Commission Orders in Docket No. EL79-8 or the tariffs in Docket Nos. ERB 2-545-000, et al., and no party g
1 to the Offer of Settlement, other than Staff, may oppose such modification, so long as such modification does not adversely affect any of the rights tha*. such party may have under the Or-ders issued on October 28, 1901, November 5, 1981, and January 29, 1982, incorporating by reference the form of Order Approving settlement, in Docket No. EL79-8 or the Offer of Settlement and proposed Order Approving Settlement in this proceeding, and such party shall limit its opposition, if any, to such proposed modi-fdention and shall not seek to change, modify or relitigate any other provision of the Orders in Docket No. EL79-8 or the Offer of Settlement and proposed Order Approving Settlement in this proceeding.
h-
+
(6) Any party to this proceeding as well as any entity receiving service under the CPL or WTU tariffs submitted with the offer of Settlement for transmission service within ERCOT or pursuant to any rate schedule, tariff or agreement entered into as a result of commitments relating to.or growing out of settle-ments made in Docket No. EL79-8 or in this proceeding, and filed by CPL or WTU with the FERC providing for transmission service originating and terminating within ERCOT, shall be obligated to pay such additional charges as may be lawfully due any other party'to this proceeding whose facilities are impacted as a ror sult of such servicer and any such transmission service charges s
shall not be unlawful by virtue of the fact that such charges are 3
imposed by entities which are not subject to plenary jurisdiction of the FERC and which have not filed tariffs or rate schedules with the FERC applicable to charges for service originating and terminating within ERCCT.
(7) This order does not constitute appro"al of, or precedent regarding,.w.ny principle or issue in this proceeding, except that (a) the tariffs required to be filed pursuant to the Orders entered in Docket No. EL'/9-8 are and will continue to be governed by such orders, including paragraph 8 of the form of order Approving settlement, incorporated by reference in those i
orders (b) the tariffs filed with the offer of Gettlement are l
)
consistent with the Commission's Orders in Docket No. EL79-8, j
i i
0
- 9tP m
- 6==
=m
-=..-_h..
v 1
.f 1
~ '
_13_
including the. form of' Order Approving settlements and (c) this Order shall, in any future proceeding instituted by reason of the Orders in Docket No. EL79-8 or this Order, constitute approval and precedent with regard to the piinciples set ' fort.a and issues determined in such orders (except as otherwise stated herein).
e I
J
)
1 1
l l
I I
l l
1
\\
l l
e
+
A-i Enclo3uro B
+
l
^
i Settlement De s igna tions 1
i Date Filed:
December 23, 1985 Designations Descriptions l
Docket No. ERB 3-610-000 l
Public Service Company of Oklahoma (1)
FERC Electric Tariff SPP Interpool trans-First Revised Volume No. 2, mission tariff, dated Original Sheet Nos. I through 21 October 31, 1985 (Supersedes FERC Electric Tariff original Volume No. 2) j l
l Southwestern Electric Power Company 1
(2)
FERC Electric Tariff, SPP Interpool trans-First Revised Volume No. 2, mission Service Tariff, Original Sheet Nos. 1 through 21 dated October 31, 1985 (Supersedes FERC Electric Tariff, 1
Original Volume No. 2)
Docket No. ER82-545-000 Public Service Company of Oklahoma (3)
FERC Electric Tariff, Intra-SPP transmission First Revised-Volume No. 1, Service Tariff, dated
^
Original Sheet Nos. I through 15 October 31, 1985 (Supersedes FERC Electric Tariff, Original Volume No. 1)
Southwestern Electric Power Compt y (4)
FERC Electric. Tariff, Intra-SPP transmission First Revised Volume No. 1, Service Tariff, dated Original Sheet Nos. I through 15 October 31, 1985 i
(Supersedes FERC Electric Tariff, Original volume No. 1)
~
9
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _