ML20245G674
| ML20245G674 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Comanche Peak  |
| Issue date: | 06/20/1989 |
| From: | Lambe W Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | William Cahill TEXAS UTILITIES ELECTRIC CO. (TU ELECTRIC) |
| References | |
| A, NUDOCS 8906290216 | |
| Download: ML20245G674 (114) | |
Text
,-_
5 i
p, f
"f,4 i
- June 20, 1989 Docket No. 50-445A William J. Cahill,- Jr.
7 Executive Vice President, Nuclear Texas Utilities Electric Company 400 North Olive Street LB81 Dallas, Texas 75201 Re: Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station, Unit 1: Antitrust Operating License Review--No Significant Change Finding
Dear Mr. Cahill:
Pursuant to the antitrust review of the captioned nuclear unit, the Director of the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation has made a finding in accordance with Section 105c(2) of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, that no significant antitrust changes have occurred subsequent to the antitrust con-struction permit review of Unit 1 of the Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station.
This finding is subject to reevaluation if a member of the public requests same in response to publication of the finding in the Federal Register. A copy of the notice that is being transmitted to the Federal P,egister and a copy of the Staff Review pursuant to Unit 1 of the Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station are enclosed for your information.
Sincerely, eristas! Siamed mys William M. Lambe Sr. Antitrust Policy Analyst 8906290216 890620 Policy Development and Technical PDR ADOCK 0500 5;
Support Branch M
Program lianagement, Policy Development and Analysis Staff Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
Enclosures:
As stated Distribution
-Docket-File 50-445A" PTSB Reading File p(
NRCPDR t
LPDR g
WLambe w/o enclosure DNash w/o enclosure MMalloy, PM JRutberg, 0GC, w/o enclosure (WJHLE[TER)
[bh PTSB:PMAS PTSB: MAS Wlambe/bj DNash h/)0/89 g89
f, w
t e
y,:
[7590-01]
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION DOCKET N0. 50-445A TEXAS UTILITIES ELECTRIC COMPANY, ET AL.
NOTICE OF NO SIGNIFICANT ANTITRUST CHANGES ANDTIMEFORFILINGRE00ESTSFORREEVALUQ10N The Director of the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation has made a finding in accordance with Section 105c(2) of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, that no significant (antitrust) changes in the licensees' activities or proposed activities have occurred subsequent to the antitrust construction permit review of Unit 1 of the Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station by the Attorney General end the Commission. The finding is as follows:
i Section 105c(2) of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amerded, provides for an antitrust review of an application for an operating license if the Commission determines that significant changes in the licensee's activities or proposed activities have occurred subsequent
]
to the previous construction permit review. The Comission has delegated the authority to make the "significant change" determination to the Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor degulation. Based upon an examination of the events since the issuance of the Comanche Peak Steam Electric i
j Station construction permits to TU Electric Co., et a. and the consummation of the settlement agreement before the Commission, the staffs of the Policy Development and Technical Support Branch, Office
/
Q){ -
N b
];n 1
-.s
-2 of Nuclear Reactor Regulation and the Office of the General Counsel, hereaf ter 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 neture 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 remainec primarily intrastate in nature, there have been several changes since the NRC settlement in 1980 that have provided competitive stimuli to this market.
i s
- , r, 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 and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, l
1 This settlement agreement required TU Electric, g a_1., to make their transmission f acilities 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. 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 theNorthtie(ascontemplatedinthesettlementagreement)toaccommo-date a significant power transfer by a Texas co-generating entity.
Capacity (15 percent) in both DC interties has been reserved for non-owners who wish to e.ngage in firm power transactions in the interstate market.
Moreover, 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 Comission promulgated rules requiring mandatory transmission or wheeling of co-generated power in Texas. These rules have enabled cor-porate entities, which heretofore have not participated in the Texas bulk power market, to market their by-product power and energy,
. r._
s
_ ( :.
8 1
. = a.u -
i 4-i.e., barriers to entry into the production and sale of bulk power in I
l 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.* Noreover, 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 sysnats to j
better meet the indivicual needs of their customers.
- 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 recuest, staff believes, in light of the Consnission's Summer decision, that the issues raised by the cooperative are not germene to theT5iinnission's "significant change" review, but may be more appropriately addressed in the context of a compliance proceeding.
r.
t a
1 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 cost Texas power entities. Although 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 settlenent agree-ment before both the Nuclear Reguletory Commission and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.
(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 lasting until June of 2004.)
It is anticipated that this movement toward increased cooperation and competition will continue among intre-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.
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 of Texas, as well as in surrounding states, the oppor-tunity to exchange power and er.ergy and engage in bulk power transactions.
. e.'
+. ;
j' S
The staff views tl.e settlement agreement as a major first step in i
cpening 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' I
activities since the antitrust settlement has not identified any changed activity envisioned by the Comission as set forth in its Sumer deci-sion. Consequently, the staff recommends that no affirmative significant change determination be made pursuant to the application for an oper-ating license for Unit 1 of the Comanche Peat Steam Electric Station.
Eased upon the staff analysis, it is sqy finding that there have been no "sig-nificant changes" in the licensees' activities or proposed activities since the completion of the previous antitrust review.
l l
l Signed on June 16, 1989 by Thomas E. Murley, Director of the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
Any person whose interest may be affected by this finding, may file, with full particulars, a request for reevaluation with the Director of the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C.
20555 within 30 days of the initial publication of this notice in the Federal Register. Requests for reevaluation of the no significant change determination shall be accepted after the date when the Director's finding becones final, but before the issuance of the OL, only if they contain new information, such as infonnation about facts or events of antitrust
.i
.. significance that have occurred since that date, or information that could not reasonably have been submitted prior to that date.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 19th day of June 1989.
FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ff Darrel A. Nash, Acting C tef Policy Development and Technical Support Branch Program Management, Policy Development and Analysis Staff Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation i
l I
i l
f*
(
I COMANCHE PEAK STEAM ELECTRIC STATION, UNIT 1 TEXAS UTILITIES ELECTRIC COMPANY, ET AL DOCKET NO. 50-445A FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT ANTITRUST CHANGES 1
l
(r.
}
- s.
CONTENTS i
I.
Introduction.............................................Page 1
4 II.
Background...................................................
2 4
III. The Tex a s E lectri c Power I ndu stry........................... 4 A.
Applicant Power Systems IV. Previous Antitrust Reviews...................................
7
-l A.
Comanche Peak CP Ruiew B.
Comanche Peak-South Texas OL Review i
l V.
Antitrust Settlements....................................... 12 q
A.
NRC Settlement B.
FERC Settlement q
C.
SEC Proceeding VI. Changes Since The Antitrust Settlement......................
19 A.
Transmission B.
Interconnections C.
Wholesale Power Developments D.
Coordination Agreements i
J E.
Litigation -- Ownership Share Changes F.
DCTransmissionRateProceeding(FERC)
G.
Cap Rock Electric Cooperative, Inc.
l VII. Suma ry a nd Con clu s i ons..................................... 33 Appendices:
i 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 l
F.
TU Electric Interconnection Agreements G.
Notice of Filing of Petition for Modification of CommissionOrders(FERC)
H.
Wholesale Power Developments j
I.
OrderApprovingSettlement(FERC);DCTransmission Rate Proceeding
)
__ j
ow o
I.
Introduction A prospective operating licensee is not required to undergo a formal anti-trust review unless the Nuclear Regulatory Comission (NRC or Co vnission)*
detemines that there have been "significant changes" in the licensee's activities or proposed activities subsequent to the review by the Attorney General and 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.
In its Sumer decision,** the Comission has provided the staff *** with a set of criteria to be used in making the significant change determination foroperatinglicense(OL) applicants:
"The statute contemplates that the change or changes (1) have occurred since the previous antitrust review of the licensee (s);
(2) are reasonably attributable to the licensee (s); and (3) have antitrust implications that would most likely warrant some Comission remedy.*****
The Comission has delegated the responsibility for making a l
significant change determination to the Director of the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
Virgil C. Sumer 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).
4 2
To warrant a significant change finding, i.e., to trigger a forval OL antitrust review, the particular change (s) must meet all three of these criteria.
l l
Due to the substantial lapse of tine since the antitrust settlement in the Comanche Peak proceeding was first proposed in September of 1980 and the scheduled fuel load date for Conanche Peak (summer / fall of 1989), staff has undertaken a review of the Comanche Peak licensees' activities since the 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.
II. Background 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, 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, one of the applicants in South Texas, filed a request for hearing on antitrust issues in that matter. On June 15, 1977, the Commission
c.
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 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 an antitrust hearing should be held in Comanche Peak 1 and 2.
In both cases, the Comission ordered antitrust proceedings to be commenced. Numerous cities, utilities, and electric cooperatives intervened in these two proceedings. The Department of Justice (hereinafter " Justice") 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 ifcense 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 oftheCityofBrownsville, 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 i
to both of these matters, except Brownsville, reiterated their support for the settlement or, in any event, their lack of opposition to it.
Brownsville was directed to respond to four specific questions concerning j
ll s
l f
a 1
4 its opposition to the settlement. On April 22, 1982, Brownsville 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 proposed settlement and Conformed License Conditions.*
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 Comission. Staff's significant change review is concentrated on changes in the licensees' activities since the combined Comanche Peak-South Texas settlement agreement was i
proposed in September of 1980.
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.
- This procedural history was excerpted from a " Memorandum and Order Approving Settlement Agreements and Proposed License Conditions and Dismissing Proceeding", issued by Administrative Law Judge James A.
Laurenson on May 6, 1982.
5 transmission and distribution utilities throughout the state of Texas.
l Of the nine regional reliability councils.* ERCOT is unique in that its members are not interconnected (by synchronous alternating current tles) 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 Commissier. (FERC) which regulates the interstate wholesale power transactions of utility systems in the remaining eight reliability councils.
I i
i l
The relevant marketing area for power and energy generated by Comanche Peak ** focuses primarily on the northeastern and northeentral portions of the state of Texas--from the Texas-Louisiana border in the east to the City of Midland, Texas in the western portion of the state. This is the area in which the licensees primarily serve and the aren where the use of the power and energy generated by Comanche Peak will be most concentrated.
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 1
I supply of electric utility systems in North America.
- Unless otherwise noted, all references to the Comanche Peak Project bareinafter refer solely to Unit 1 of the Plant.
l 1
1
/,
v 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.*
ThelargestapplicantisTUElectric(approximately 88% ownership)with1987 l
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 Electric 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-thirdofthepopulationofthestateofYexas). TV 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-owners, totaling slightly over 12 percent ownership in the plant, are significantly 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 reached tentative agreements whereby TU Electric has agreed to repurchase TMPA's and Brazos' share of Comanche Peak. See " Changes", infra.
and Basic Resources Inc.
l I
---___m.--.__._.-__m m_
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 capcbility and serve 1
customers primarily within the confines of the four member systems' service areas. Brazos Electric Power Cooperative, Inc. or Brazos (3.8%) is a q
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 (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 meAber systems.
IV. Previous Antitrust Reviews A.
Comanche Peak CP Review TexasUtilitiesGeneratingCo.(nowTUElectricCo.),actingasagentfor 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 Comission, various allegations were uncovered pursuant to TU Electric's misuse of market power in its service area. Generally, TU Electric was accused of using its dominant market position in generation and transmission facilities to restrain the competitive alternatives of smaller power systems in Texas.
8 l
As a result of these allegations, additional information was requested from TU Electric and an in-depth analysis of TV Electric's competitive l
activities was conducted. After extensive review and negotiations among staff, TU Electric and affected parties in Texas, a set of policy comitments was agreed upon that obligated TV Electric to address many of the competitive concerns raised during the review process. The 1
comitments required TU Electric to offer,1) access to its Comanche Peak nuclear plant, 2) transmission services required to take the power from 1
Comanche Peak, 3) to facilitate transmission of bulk power over its I
facilities for other power systems in its service area, 4) reserve sharing, emergencyandmaintenancepower,5) interconnections,6)membershipin regional pooling bodies, and 7) to accommodate smaller power systems in the area when planning and construction of new generation and transmission facilities are needed for area wide system reliability. Based upon q
s 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.**
- Department of Justice advice letter dated January 17, 1974, pp. 3-4.
'O 6 9
These commitments were attached to the Comanche Peak construction permits as l
license conditions and as a result, no CP antitrust hearing was held.
B.
Comanche Peak - South Texas OL Review 1
l I
At the operating license stage of review, the Commission is primarily 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 In an attempt to electrically unify its holding company system, one of the operating subsidiaries of the Central and Southwest Corporation, Central Power and Light Co. (CPL), activated an interconnection between one of its intrastate and interstate operating subsidiaries. As a result, TU Electric ano 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, many of the competitive power supply options available to smaller power systems in Texas were severely curtailed or eliminated altogether.
i These changes in the Texas bulk power market were noted by the Commission in I
its operating license review of the South Texas Project during the late l
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
10
' ts power system, the Comission made a "significant change" determination (as i
required under Sec.105c) and formally requested the advice of the Department of Justice pursuant to the need for an antitrust hearing involving Houston Lighting & Power's South Texas operating license application.
In its review of the situation described by the Comission, the Department 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.
"At the time of the Department's letter of January 25, 1977, HL&P and TU, the two dominant utilities in Texas, were refusing to interconnect with other utilities (utilities with which they had historically maintained interconnections); that refusal was having a direct and substantial adverse effect on those utilities' power supply costs, reliability and their ability to remain competitive."*
In April of 1978, TU Electric filed its application with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission for an eperating license for its two unit Comanche Peak nuclear plant.
In light of the similarities between the South Texas
- Department of Justice South Texas advice letter dated February 21, 1978, at p. 11.
L j
1; and Comanche Peak applications, the Commission decided to make the
'significant change" finding and seek the advice of the Department of 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 I
l order dated June 21, 1978, the Comission formally sought the advice of
)
i the Department.*
1 The Department rendered its advice to the Comission on August 1,1978, 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,
...because of applicant's and HL&P's adherence i
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 attached to the operating license of the Comanche Peak units in order to eliminate a situation inconsistent with the antitrust laws."**
The Department's advice was formally sought via letter dated June 26,1978 from James Murr:y, acting for the Executive Legal Director, to Griffin B. Bell, Attorney General.
- Department of Justice advice letter dated August 1, 1978, pp. 3-4.
l l
I
12 i
Subsequent to publication of the Department's advice letter in the Federal Recister in August of 1978, the Commission received several petitions to intervene from electric power cooperatives, municipalities and utility companies.
Interrogatories were exchanged among the parties and the discovery process was initiated. Due to the similarities in issues and the parties involved, the operating license review of the Comanche Peak plant was 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, 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 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 Texas operating licenses and made the license conditions immediately effective.
V.
Antitrust Settlements A.
NRC Settlement i
1 In an effort to resolve the licensing proceedings before the NRC as well as a companion proceeding on-going before the Federal Energy Regulatory Coenission (FERC), see "FERC Settlement", the applicants in the consolidated South Texas /
Cosv oche Peak proceeding arrived at a settlement agreement and a set of license
~
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 Jirectcurrent(DC)transmissionintertiesthatwouldlinkERCOTwiththe Southwst 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.
The license conditions attached to the Comanche Peak operating license (as wc11 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 ocwer and energy. Menbership in the planning organization, TIS, was openr.d up to qualified entities and both TU Electric and HL&P we-? required to wheel power over their transmission A copy of the Comanche Peak license conditions is attached as Appendix A.
14 I
i i
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, l
the approval of the construction of the DC interties linking ERCOT and the l
Southwest Power Pool (SWPP).
l B.
FERC Settlement l
The settlement agreement linking all four CSW operating systems via DC 1
l interties was designed to resolve outstanding proceedings before the NRC, the FERC and the Securities and Exchange Comission. An *0rder Requiring Inter-connection and Wheeling, and Approving Settlement,*' was issued by the FERC on October 28, 1981. The order approved the construction of two DC ties as 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 espital construction costs and the operating and maintenance costs of the DC ties. Moreover, at intervals of every three years (beginning in June of 1986)
- Attached as Appendix B.
l
)
15 other utilities which are members of ERCOT or SWPP will be given the opportunity to participate in the planning and ownership of any capacity increases in the interities.* CSW, HL&P and TV Electric agreed to file rates with the FERC for transmission to, from and over the DC interties and CSW and HL&P were required to reserve 15 percent of their respective capacities in the DC lines for firm power wheeling for smaller entities in ERCOT and the SWPP (i.e., entities with loads of less than 500MW). CSW was directed to consult with (upon request) any entity which owns or operates generation or transmission facilities interested in the technical feasibility of any specific AC interconnection between ERCOT and SWPP. The FERC ruled that the proposed settlement was " fair, reasonable and in the public interest" and approved the
- greement on October 28, 1981.
On May 1,1986, the CSW operating companies, g al., 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 SWPP. The North interconnection was placed in service on December 14, 1984 Construction of the South interconnection has been
- This opportunity to participate, at three year intervals, will expire on June 30, 2004 pursuant to t1e settlement agreement.
___ ______.____. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ j
1 16 continuously delayed by litigation involving certification of rights of way.
Because of these delays, the CSW operating companies, HL&P, TU Electric, and the Southwestern Electric Power Co. (SWEPCO), petitioned the FERC requesting that TERC modify its earlier order approving the settlement in question so as to,
...(a)requireconstructionofdirectcurrentterminalsand such associated alternating current transmission facilities as are necessary to effect an asynonchronous direct current inter-connection between SWEPCO's Welsh generating station and TVElectric'sMonticellogeneratingstation(hereinbelowdefined as the " East Interconnection"); (b) require the CSW Operating Companies, HL&P and TU Electric to interconnect with each other attheEastInterconnection;(c)requiresuchownershipofthe East Interconnection by the CSW Operating Companies, HL&P and others, and such wheeling, coordination, commingling, sale and exchange of electric power to, from and over the East Interconnection or within the State of Texas as may facilitate itsuse;and(d)relievetheCSWOperatingCompaniesandHL&P from their obligation to construct and operate the South 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 modified settlement agreement provided for an additional 100MW of capacity in the East Interconnection (from 500MW to 600MW) to be owned by TU Electric.
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.
I l
\\
0
\\
1 es 17
)
C.
Securities and Exchange Commission Proceeding 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 Company Act of 1935. On March 26, 1974, six wholesale power customers
- of the Public Service Company of Oklahoma (PS0), an operating subsidiary 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-establish interconnections between its ERCOT and SWPP subsidiary companics.
As a means of testing this plan, CSW wired a portion of its West Texas Utilities subsidiary, then in interstate commerce, 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 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.
18 l
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 before the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the Federal Energy Regulatory Comission. Because of the settlement reached before the FERC and 1
the NRC and the consnonality 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 'I agreed that the settlement agreement remedied the outstanding issues before the SEC.
"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 interest, will encourage overall conservation of energy and capital, will optimize the use of facilities and resources and will improve the reliability of each electric utility system 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.
- Administrative Proceeding: File No. 3-4951
- " Memorandum Opinion and Order Terminatitig Proceeding," issued by the Securities and Exchange Comission on April 1,1982, p.4.
(CopyattachedasAppendixD.)
I
l 19 VI. 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 comerce, triggered an operating license review by the Comission.*
The Comission made the determination that the circumstances surrounding WTV's actions and the reactions by HL&P and TU Electric represented a "significant change" under Section 105c(2) and on June 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 Comission in its South Texas Memorandum and Order dated June 15,1977(5NRC1303),determinedthatfuture*signiff-cant change" determinations should 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 September 12 1979 to Harold Denton, Director of the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation and William J. Dircks,(Director of the Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards.
The Director of NRR was 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
j 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 May 6, 1982). The NRC settlement represented the basis for settlement of outstanding proceedings involving parallel issues before both the Federal Energy Regulatory Comission 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 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 from 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 IL-____--__-_______-_-____-__
~
21 major power systems in Texas. The impetus provided by the Texas Public Utility Commission (TPUC) and the construction of the DC transmission line(s) required by the settlement have both sparked this increase in competitive consciousness in Texas.
The TPUC adopted rules pertaining to mandatory transmission (wheeling) of co-generated power in the state. Since the Public 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.*
I 1
i
- Electric Utility Week, October 14, 1985, p. 9.
i
22 Representative of this new energy source is an agreement signed in 1985 between TU 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, TU Electric has entered several wheeling and transmission scheduling agreements that have facilitated puwer 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 consummation of new interconnection agreements since the 1980 settlement agreement -- roch of this activity has been precipitated by newly agreed upon transmission agreements, i.e., power flows over transmission facilities are usually monitored and controlled by attendant interconnection agreements. These agreements are varied in scope and are listed in Appendix F.
- Wall Street Journal, February 26, 1986, p. 16; Electric Utility Week, July 8, 1985, pp. 9-10.
I l
i
i 23 In conformance with the settlement agreement reached by the parties in all three proceedings (NRC, FERC and SEC), construction of two direct current 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 SWEPCO 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.,
200MW; Central Power and Light Co.,150MW; Southwestern Electric Power Co.,
150MW and TU Electric Co.,100MW.*
- The new route, temed the " East' intertie, would link the Texas Utilities Co.
(at its Monticello plant) with Southwestern Electric Power Co. (at its Welsh plant). The East intertie would be approximately 15 miles long, considerably shorter than the originally planned South DC intertie, and according to licensees, would face far less opposition before the Texas Public Utility Comission.
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 s selled 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 orbinally planned South DC intertie.
(See"NoticeofFilingofPetitionforModificationof Comission Orders," dated May 6,1986, attached as Appendix G.)
24 C.
k'holesale Power Developments i
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, l
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 suppliers in northern and western portions of Texas.
In the early and mid-1980's, significant amounts of excess capacity began to appear in the Texas electric bulk power industry. The development of by-product power and energy and the dramatic downturn in the Texas economy (perpetuated by a decrease in the demand and subsequent drop in price for oil) 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 less costly sources c,f energy. TU Electric, being one of the largest power 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.
l i
25 D.
Coordination Agreements In August of 1981, ERCOT established a power brokerage system for the purchase
)
1
. and sale of economy energy. ' The brokerage was operated through the
- South Texas Interconnected Systems security center, which was comprised of power systems serving primarily in the southern and western portions of the state.
l This program was phased out in 1984 and was replaced by a computer controlled bulletin board which advises ERCOT members of power available for purchase throughout the intrastate Texas bulk power market.
The Texas Interconnected System (TIS) was merged with the Electric Reliability Council of Texas on September 4, 1981. TIS membership was dissolved when the merger was consummated.
In1982ElPasoElectricCo.(ElPaso)planningpersonnelmetwithTUElectric representatives to discuss long range possibilities for mutual cooperation and possible coordination between their two systems. No firm comitments 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 Comanche Peak is approximately nine years behind its originally projected completion date. Various factors have contributed to the construction delay; 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
e.
26 imprudence. After discussions among the owners in late 1985 and early 1986 pursuant to the minority owners' concerns about the construction delay and their ability and responsibility to continue payments toward the plant's completion, Tex-La advised TU Electric in April of 1986 that Tex-La' would j
discontinue making further payments under the Joint Ownership Agreement (JOA).
Tex-La charged that TU Electric had breached the JOA oy mismanaging the con-struction of the plant and by its actions, relieved Tex-La of any further i
obligation to continue payments toward completion of the plant.
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 Comanche Peak. TU Electric's suit asked the court to enforce the ownership 1
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 following day, Brazos filed a separate suit against TV Electric, also in Travis County, Texas (No. 399,482). The minority owners' countersuits alleged that TV Electric, the utility responsible for construction of Comanche Peak, had failed to design 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 TV 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).
(
27 4
drastically delayed and costs substantially increased for the minority co-owners. The countersuit(s) asked the court (s) to terminate the ownership agratement, relieve the minority owners of their ownership obligations and refund the money already invested in the construction of Comanche Peek. 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, TV 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 TV 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 millior.. This agreement, like the Brazos and TMPA agreements, specifically provided for the
- Tex-La Electric Cooperative of Texas, Inc. and Texas Municipal Power Agency v. Texas Utilities and Texas Utilities Electric Company, --
D' strict Court of Travis County, Texas, 98th Judicial Dittrict:
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.
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.
l F.
DC Transmission Rate Proceeding (FERC)
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 M the state of Texas.
Intervening parties were represented primarily by many of the same municipal and cooperative pover systems that intervened in the original DC transmission case before FERC (Dkt. No. EL7.)-8).
(Those entities interested in transmission over the DC lines were also concerned with the proposed wheeling rates over the DC lines.) 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.)
Public Service Company of Oklahoma, et al.; FERC Okt. No. ER82-545, et al.
- The parties include the following poEr systems:
(1) all four CSW ope' rating systems; TU Electric Co.; Houston Lighting & Power Co.; (2) and the following interveners: Brazos Electric Power Cooperative; Mid-Texas Electric Coopera-tive, Inc.; Municipal Electric Systems of Oklahora; 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.
\\
29
)
The settlement provides for the movement of power and energy to, from or over 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 accounts...less accumulated depreciation;...."*
The settiment 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 is earlier), power and energy dispatched among the CSW operating companies to, 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 TV Electric systems compared with those of the CSW system, the terms and conditions associated with the transmission of power and energy over the DC interconnections differed somewhat for HL&P and Texas Utilities.
- FERC DC Wheeling Rate Offer of Settlement Agreement; " Memorandum of Agreement," p. 8.
30 G.
Cap Rock Electric Cooperative, Inc.
On August 19, 1988, Cap Rock Electric Cooperative, Inc. (Cap Rock) submitted comments to the NRC, *... Concerning Significant Changes In Licensee's Activity That Warrant An Antitrust Review At The Operating License Stage" 1
(hereinaf ter, "Connents").
In its Comments, Cap Rock alleges that TU Elec-tric's "... current activities create and maintain a situation inconsistent with the antitrust laws and warrant the institution of an antitrust review and hearing by this Commission." (Comments,p.1)
Although the period for providing comments pursuant to the Regulatory Guide 9.3 ir. formation submitted in conjunction with the Comanche Peak, Unit 1, antitrust operating license review ended on December 26, 1986, the Commission does con-sider additional information after this period if the activities in question have occurred after the comment period and could not have been reported during the period specifically designated for publi. comments.
In instances where con-struction and subsequent fuel loading of a reactor is delayed, there are often substantial time intervals between completion of the construction permit anti-trust review and completion of construction of an individual reactor--sometiu.cs extending over several years. For this reason, staff engages in " monitoring reviews" and continual data collection for those plants that for whatever rea-son (s)experienceconstructionorlicensingdelays.
Cap 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
31 price squeeze that adversely affects competition for wholesale power in TV's service area. Csp Rock maintains that TU 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 review, staff does not believe that the issues raised by Cap Rock represent changes that are within the scope of. the Comission's Sumer decision. The staff believes that TV Electric's activities, as alleged by Cap Rock, may represent recurrences of problems that were addressed and remedied during the antitrust construction permit review and subsubsequent operating license review l
by the Commission (via the institution of antitrust license conditions attached to the Comanche Peak construction permits).
Staff's antitrust review of the Comanche Peak licensees during the construction pennit review in 1974 identified several areas of alleged abuse of market power by the principal licensee, TU Elect.ric*, specifically, problem areas related to TU Electric's refusal to transmit pwcr and energy for smaller power sys-tems in the North Texas area. During the operating license antitrust review triggered by Central Power & Light Co. in the late 1970's (cf.Section IV,
" Previous Antitrust Rdviews"), a settlement agreement was reached among the
- The initial review wet af TU Electric's predecessor holding company and operating subsidiaries.
a;..
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 Peak. As noted, it appears as though the issues raised in Cap Rock's Coments 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 Comission 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 permit. Indeed, Cap Rock alludes to this possibility in its Comments at page five when it states that, "Each of these refusals is in di-rect violation of the current antitrust license conditions [ 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 Consission and according to Cap Rock (Coments, p.7), the price squeeze issue is under review by this regulatory body.
i 1
33 VII. Summary and Conclusions 4
Prior to the antitrust settlement egreement before the Nuclear Regulatory Comission (hRC), competition for the purchase or sale of power and energy and related ancillary services in the Texas bulk power market was primarily limited to intrastete power transactions. This intrastete 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 agreeseent, i.e., before the NRC and the Federal Energy Regulatory Comission. This settlement 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 acccesodate a significant power transfer by a Texas co-generating entity. Capacity '1S percent)
c j
1 34 in both DC interties has been reserved for non-owners who wish to engage in j
4 firm power transactions in the interstate market. Moreover, wheeling to, from or over the DC interties is now an available option to many power systems in Texas.
i To remedy a growing need to redistribute power from co-generators concentrated in industrialized pockets in the state, the Texas Public Utility Comission promulga;ed rules requiring mandatory transmission or wheeling of co-generated power in Texas. These ieles have enabled corporate entities, which heretofore 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 Comission's Summer decision, that the issues raised by the coopera-tive are not germane to the Comission's "significant change" review, but may be more appropriately addressed in the context of a compliance proceeding.
i i
\\
35 membersoftheElectricReliabilityCouncilofTexas(ERCOT)ofavailable 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 1
systems to better meet the individual needs of their customers, i
All types of power entities in Texas, i.e., municipal, cooperative and in-vestor 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 rne 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 Commission.
(Thesettlementagree-i sent 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 lasting until June of 2004.) It is anticipated that this movement toward increased cooperation and competition will continue among intrastete 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.
I 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, l
as well as in surrounding states, the opportunity to exchange power and
36 energy and engage in bulk power transactions. The staff views the settlement 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 settle:aent has not identified any changed activity envisioned by the Commission as set forth in its Sumer decision. Consequently, the staff recosmends that no affirmative sig-nificant charige determination be s.ade pursuant to the application for an op-erating license for Unit 1 of the Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station.
i l
l l
1
m---_-_._
0 Se e
e M
APPENDIX A O
O O
O O
O e
D
- i 1
e e
a e
e j
~
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY C0KMISSION James A. Laurenson Administrative Law Judge In the Matter of
~
HOUSTON LIGHTING & ' POWER COMPANY, Docket Nos. 50-49BA et al.
50-499A (f6iIth"" Texas Project, Units 1 and 2) 4 TEXA5 UTLITIES GENERATING COMPAt!Y, Occket Nos. 50-445A
)
et al.
50-446A (ComaTihe Peak Steam Electric Station.
May 6, 1982 Units 1 and 2)
\\
~
I MEMORANDUM AND ORDER APPROVING SETILEMENT AGREEMENTS
)
AND PROPOSED L] CENSE CONDlllDN5 AND DI5 MIS 5ING PROCEEDING
{
Jurisdiction and Procedural History Q
4 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 Comissien issued a construction permit 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 i
l 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 antitrust issues in that matter. On June 15, 1977, the Comission found
- changed circumstances" in South Texas and requested further antitrust advice
~
from the Attorney General. On February 21,1978, the Attorney General advised the Comiss' ion that an antitrust hearing should be hel, in South d
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 i,1978, the Attorney General adviset the Comission that t
a e
2 an antitrust hearing should be held in Comanche Peak.
In both cases, the Comission ordered antitrust proceedings to be comenced. NumeroQs 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'b,oth 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 cf proposed license conditions representing a settlement of these matters acceptable to i.he applicants, Justice, and Staff. The only intervenor which opposed the set *1ement and proposed license conditions was the Public Utili
~
(" "" """)-
O ' ' ' '"' ' ' ""'' * *d Settlement Licens e Coj Thereafter, on December 24, 1980, Conforme were filed.
A Conference of Counsel was held on April 13,i982. Again, all parties to both of these matters, except Brownsville, reiterated their support for
~ the settlement or, in any ev'ent, their lack of opposition to it'.
Brownsville j
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 wint the settlement to be rejected. Thus, there is no opposition to the proposed settlement and,
Conformed License Conditions.
Test for Settlemerit heproval The Comission's Rules of Practice enedurage settlement of contested
(
proceedings as follows:
l
l
~
3 "The Comission recognizes that the public interest say served through settlement of particular issues in a pro be t
j ceeding.
Therefore, to the extent that it is not incon.
)
sistent with hearing requirements in section 189 of the Act (42 U.S.C. 2239), the fair and reasonable settlement of contested initial licensing proceedings is encouraged.
is expected that the presiding officer and all of the It t
parties to those procee carry out this purpose." dings will take appropriate steps to 10 C.F.R. $ 2.759.
As noted in the preceding section, this cons'olidated proceeding j
long and trduous history punctuated by adversary relationships counsel.
Justice, which initially recomended that a hearing be held on antitrust issues in both matters, is now in accord with the settlement.
Interested parties have been affored the opportunity to intervene All interveners were given the opportunity to object to the settlement and proposed license conditions. None did so.
Since no party to this O
consoiieated proceedin, opposes the settiement or proposed iicense conditions, it would not be fruitful or in the public interest to dNs~ect th
~
settlement agreements in search of an antitrust issue for* hearing.
Hence, I find that. based upon the foregoing, the proposed settleoent and license
~
conditions are fair and reasonable and are in the public interest.
1 Accordingly, the settlement is approved and the conditions shall be att to the operating licenses.
Since no further relief is requested by any party to this consolidated proceeding, this action is DISMISSED.
WEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED this 6th day of May,1982, that the settiem agreements are hereby APPROVED.
e
(
O
~
4 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Conformed License Condition's fo.r Comanche
~ Peak attached hereto and incorporated herein, marked as " Appendix A-Comanche Feak* shall be imediately effective and shall be attached to the operating Itcense of Comanche Peak.
, IT 15 FURTHER ORDERED that the Conformed License Conditions 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.
0.
O
^
~ James A. Laurenson ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE
- g 0
O e
9 O
e S
e e
y e
_h__*.__OL
s.
CONFORMED December 1530 LICEGSE C0 CIT 30':S FOR COSAn:HE PIAK STIAM ELECTRIC STATION UNITS 1 AND 2 D.
(1) The following definitions apply to paragraph 3.D.(2):
(a)
- Applicents' means severally and jointly Texas Utilities Generating Company, Dellas Power & Light Company, Texas i
Electric Service tempany, Texas Power & Light Company. Texas Utilities Company and each other subsidiary, affiliate or successor company now or hereaf ter engaged in the generttien, transmission and/or the distribution of electric power in the State of Texas.
{
(b)
Anderson, Andrews, Angeline, Archer, Bastrop, Beylor, Bell, Bordon, Bosque, Brown, Burnet, Cherokee, City, Coke, Collin, Comanche, Cooke, Coryell, Crane, Culberson, Dellas, Dawson, Delta, Denton, Ecstland, Ector, Ellis, Crath, 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, Nntague.
Hacogdoches Navarro. Nolan, Palo Pinto. Parker, Pecos.
O P11ns, Reagan, Red River, Reeves, Rockwall, Rusk, Scurry, schackelford, Smith, Somervell, Stephens, Sterling. Tarrant.
Terry, Tom Green, Travis, Upton, Van Zandt, Ward, Wichita, Wilberger, 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 l
authority, a municipality, a cooperative, or an association owning, operating or contractually controlling, or' proposin) in good faith to twn, operate or contractually control, facilities for generation of electric power and energy; 3.D. (2)(b), 3.D. (2)(g)), 3.D. (2 )(1), 3.D. (2f(j)3 provided, however, that as used in paragra hs (a) and (b 3.D.(2)(k),3.0.(2)(1 and 3.D. (2)(m), " Entity
- means an electric utility which is a person, a private or public corporation, a goverrrnental agency or authority, a munici-pality, a cooperative, or an association owning or operating, or proposir.g in good faith to twr. 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 cwns or operates facilities for the generation, transmission and/or distribution of electric power in arty area within the North Texas Area.
{
Aeoendix A - Comanche Peak
L' UNITED STATES OF AMERICA TEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION Eafore Commissioners 1 C. M. Butler III, Chairman; Georgiana Sheldon and A. G. Sousa.
l Central Power and Light company,
)
Public Service Company of Okalahoma,
)
Southwestern Electric Power Company,
)
Docket Hos. EL79-6 West Texas Utilities company
)
E-955s ORDER REQUIRING INTERCOt.*NECTION AND WEEELING, AND APPROVING SETTLEMENT (Issued October 28, 1981) en February 9,1979, four public utilities, Central Power.
and Light Company, Public Service Company of Oklahoma, Southwestern Electric Power company /and West Texas Utilities Company, jointly filed an application _1 for (1) exemption from state regulation pre.-
venting voluntary coordination of the utilities pursuant to section 20$(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 t.be rederal Power Act (Act), as amended.
The four utilities are wholly owned subsidiaries of Central and. South West Corporation (C5W) and here-af ter will be referred to collectively as C5W.
Csw requested
~
approval of four synchronous alternating current interconnections between two electric reliability councils, the Electric Reliability Council of Tesas (ERCor) and the southwest Power Pool (SWPP).
The application was opposed by Bouston Lighting and Power Company (ELP) and the operating subsidiaries 2/ of the Tasas Utilities Company *(TUC).
b !
Cn June 27, 1980, in an attempt to settle, among other things, this proceeding and a related proceeding before the Nuclear Regula-tory Camission, 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 TDC submitted an offer of settlement which would effectuate t.be proposal set forth in the amended application.
1
}/ This proceeding had $ts antecedents in a complaint filed on May 4, 1976, in Central Power and Licht Co., Docknt No. E-9558, alleging a nuncer at uta.htaes 2 n Texas were public utilities subject to the jurisdiction and interconnection. authority of the c maission.
J/ These companies are Dallas Power & Light Company, Texas Electric Service Company, and Tasas Power & Light Company.
7 6
- 4. fi-17"Il p
n
~~
Docket Nos. EL79-8 and E-9558 The of fer of settlement nas been supplement *ed on two occasions.
The offer first was supplemented by agreement dated September 11, 1980, executed by the Commission staf f, 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 (DOJ)r under which DoJ agreed not to contest the offer of settlement as supple-mented by the supplemental of fer of settlement and as amended by,the second supplemental offer of settlement.
The offer of s e ttinme nt, as supplemented, will hereafter 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 judge 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 innta11ed between ERCOT and SWPP.
These would consist of a North Interconnection, to be constructed by C5W, which would consist of two back-to-back l
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 Service Company of Oklahoma's power station Ln Lawton, Oklahoma, and a 345 kw AC transmission line from Lawton to the northern bus of the interconnection at Oklannion, a distance of some 61
~
ailes.
The south Interconnection, to be constructed jointly by L Csw and ELP, would consist of a direct current transmission line approximately 153 miles long with terminals having an initial
, capacity of 500 sw in Walker County, Texas, and at the south Texas Project (STP), a generating plant under construction near say City,jTexas.
Initially, CSW will pay for and be the owner of 100 percent of the North Interconnection.
As to the South Interconnection, CKW will pay for and own 50 percent, while ELP will pay fo'r and own the remaining 40 percent.
Other utilities in IRCOT and SWPP have an opportunity to participate in the construction a'ad 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 saximum intervals of three 30, 1983, to June 30, 2004, other utilities years from June which are members of ERCOT or SWPP will be given an oportunity to participate.in planning and ownership of any capac4ty increases in the interconnections.,
e e
e y
L---__-_____-.___
-______n__,___nn__,__
,Docket Nos. EL79-8 and 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 SITP"
~
having loads less than 500 ex.
Rates and service will be determined from time to time in accordance with the procedures of sections 205 and 206 of the Act.
CSW, ELP, and TUC agree to file rates with the Commission for wheeling power to, frem, or over the proposed direct current interconnecting f acilities which will roll in each of their alternating and diaeet current transmission costs with the result that any utility using any of their AC or DC lines for wheeling j
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, CsW aust, upon request, cor.iult with any entity which owns or operates electric generation or transmission facilities concerning the technical feasibility of any specific alternating current synchronous interconnection between ERCOT and 5'47P which is proposed in good f aith.
This shall include l
assisting in the formulation and performance of load flow and stability studies and supplying technical and financial information necessary to f acilitate the entity's planning of the proposed AC
~
interconnection.
s' The Commission staff prepared an Environmental Analysis Report concerning the settlement proposal which concluded that j
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 pursuant to section 210 of the Act is in the public interest, will encourage overall conservation of energy and capital, will optimise 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 he 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'empetitive relationships.
t (C)
The order issued herewith is not likely to reshit in a reasonably ascertainable uncompensated economic loss for any electric stility affected by the order, nor will it place an e
Ll:-_---_-__._-___.__-_
_Oe'___._______*
____**Q______
f.-9558 1
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.
(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 ordered 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 f air, reasonable and in the public interest and should be approved.
(F)
All outstanding material issues in Central Power and Licht Co._, Docke t No. E-9558 are either resolved or rencered mooc by this order.
(G)
The order issued herewith does not constitute a
~
major federa,1 action that significantly affects the quality of the human environment.
(E)
The sitigation and reporting requirements ordered herein mitigate any potential adverse environmental effect to the human environment that could arise from this order.
The Com=ission orders (1)
The settlement agreement is approved and adopted by the Commission.
CSW, ELP, and TUC shall construct the intercon-nections and take all actions necessary to implement the settle =ent agreament.
(2)
Central Power and Licht Co.," Docket No. E-9558, is dismissed with pregudace.
(3)(a) ! Compliance with this order or any provisions hereof shall not make TUC, any of TUC's operating subsidiaries, ELP, 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 TUC'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.
t e
F f
=
~
~
^
Docket Nos. EL79-8 and 5=
,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 of 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 1
part of an overall settlement which involves cases and con-troversies at other agencies and in various courts and that settlement of this case is contingent upon parallel resolution in the other forums, including, but not limited to, Securities 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, CSW or any other party that challenges dis order, and will grant rehearing for further consideration until such time as ELP, TUC, and W either file a withdrawal of their respective applications for rehearing or file a notice that the settlement is withdrawn; brevided, that until such time as applications,
for rehearing or the settlement are withdrawn by ELP, TUC,
' and CsW, the Caamission, on its own motion (or motion of any party), af ter reasonable notice and an opportunity to comment, may withdraw this order and rasand the case to the administrative law judge to proceed with the case on the original or amended
, application filed by CrW.
(5) The agreement between C5W and DCL7 attached to the second supplemental
- offer to settlement is hereby incorporated
~
by reference and approved by the Commission; provided however that no acts undertaken pursuant to the agreement, or this
' Commission!s. approval thereof or the incorporation of such agreement herein shall affect in any way the non-jurisdic-tional status of ILP or TUC provided in this order.
3 (7)
C5W and ELF, and any other owners of the North or
. South Interconnections shall comply with the sitigation sessures contained in the commission staff's Environmental Analysis Report, dated October 29, 1980, to minimize the impact resulting from construction of the ditect current transmissica lines.
(3)
CSW and ELP, and any other owners of the North or South Interconnections'shall conruit with the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, the' Texas Parks and Wildlife Department and the Texas state 51storical Preservation Office in order to determine environmental guidelines appropriate to l
reasonably mitigate any potential adverse effect to the quality l
of the human environment that could arise from this order.
O e
'6
~
- " ~. Docket Nos.. EL7C-8 cnd E-9558 (9)
No leas than 90 days prior to the comrancement 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 Ft. Worth regional engineer.
This report shall include the final ri,ght of way identified for the North and/or South Interconnections and shall identify the environmental guidelines adopted to reasonably sitigate any adverse effects to the quality of the human environment.
Thereafter, until each interconnection is operational, annual reports shall be submitted by the owner (s) showing that the environmental guidelines have been observed.
By the Commission.
($EAL)
Y.
Kenneth F. Plur.b, secretary.
8 o
e o
l l
l l
l l
l 1
o.
l l
f l
.n n..
o
- = _
=.
1 r
..I g
2 n s..!.
- .::3
., y 3 l p:,l'1 sp,3 *l.1.n!p:ily: 1 ;y. l.
3
- !o.,5 g
21
- g e
I,s g"ai;:.l!
-8 i
.:.gg> - =gsst 3
3n 8:: :
31 sj1
- 1
.j.
r 1
Ers:
8:: rs !:1
..:::.r 3.3,. g : 3.,.
- p i,:,, 3.::;.:l 2.2 3 :1.:
8,x :I 1 r g.I
- I:n u s
n.
.i
-2:
.t 2 'u'::g:i": l:~1
- g8 :
i 2 : n :n"s -
'., : i 2. ; : s.. :'
8:
1
~
I en :8 8_18
- p. 8 yn r.,,
2;.x p:.-: a-u r2:12-1 n:g. is_213 3
)
- - r.,
3 i:.:.
=!
u--n-ses;,.p_!!u:1.g.,g82:
g_:!.l53].!g 2v=4p=-
.ji n
3*:g mi![. 84i::8 ::.,l"
- 81g. n
-[n=:.n:: g i
.- 5 I:
. _ : p,8 2
I:sg. p[ p
=
,s nl::.
- g[. 2:.1 slI[
2..,_g.-(jn e :-
l y: :-::: :..]5 2n:t;..;y 3.3. a.
3 a,.
5
- t.:
2.ij,!!:.,2g:
c-I
- sl,:11 5:
s p-t n
m a
14-1 :!g. 85 I n !.1:
p5 r::
i_
!ja: =t.,l gis,,p:. j ji!:. 3_ : -m.al::;1i
{35l:.1 -l1.
tt: -
u
- P'::
1-2I-):r8x i Ha 1-4 4
i
- r.g**
!, 1.:Ig
- r p!: s gin. 8.
8.20::,.:p:!:t,g...ps.g}
8:
a
- :1.
i m
2 1-.
2 f.n: ! :dia. f {:le :! :: *:.,,.
- -i a n
1s
.-187 ::318::
4, j.il!c]11:.::teli n:!,
8 r i p : l j.:
5.:s
- 1
-8[2 s
j 1
ilt 1:12 131:11125. El:isl:15:17:111!!!
or i
31 1*
g 1=
2 3 is..
[:.!
.21 l
- t: t u :.
3 t-s;5 1 t'
12.r8I :I
.a
~
5--!.:: : l. :.
~i -
- s es, j
- n-I lj.8h. :::iE i Mf
~h353 U
- ei j
I i
lel::
E t
l:
a r., !:
- 1 E
a m
- .! li.:-
1 ::,i es:
sg 2
ti s
p:g:: :3 3:
. J.t t.5 g. 3:-
2
=g n
e:,2 1 :::
. sa I. -
3 52 ::,
y ps,::
yE
~~~ 8,_.:
.,!. 4 :,1 t:. 4 21
- 1, 1:
2 ::
sistsn :y
~4g n - ls -.g. e1 n
sg
- g.: e :
2 8:
u.p: -
., g
.!! s..y:::
- g
- 3. j vt -
3::n.::
n-t u
8 e.
g.I:c::g,,,;
- e-u l.
j!
- 3.:::pp:i
-u
.t 1
a
- . 5 :
g.1
- ,. j.
.1 1
..,. i. :
I av vi a
E-s-
,v :
t
- :ia'l.,il P. 11 :::::
- p-,l _3 e
- .3 a
r:2.
g 5*
l :z..::g sy..
- en:1 2,.-y
]$:::
ll 8
- _g g : gs.; ;s j :::::: 1- :,on a
.l :.. ~.
-ea:, -
s3 e
.g I
42:. :
gl 3
8: 8:
i s. - i l *,, :::,.
... e y. 25 ::j.j gnis. 3; g::
le:.
3.:. a n:s:.! g.
57-
. :5 g
1
---:=: :
. t-3 mouc wd l
, k..3 I
b!kN1 5
. F64 ADOCK 05000455 '
________?_-___________
_ I e*
e
+.
I i
(SCll:
- ) *(I 'LIC 3ffinittventM se.* ;.s t r i nr.., e.*.e.e 4ir g ee.f..; a e..g :,.;;
. e 3 e.l..r,4 *. g e.....i..,, g..;.. e. 4 8 o:u
.i. 4 ii.,i. e;< :: iii,y 1
)
n s
~-
o,
.c..
i i:
- s=
. e.. vi 1,
.: ::g
- 13 l.!=:
4 :. 1
-- 1E-
-2
-I :::n.r: :.-
li:
sz s.su ;:2 :!
3::I
,.n I
j g CI
!$ 2 %.! ?
j
- gralp;fj -
ni.js:
5
.- a s. 7
.. - T..i
- c,8:
1
.c 31 :.2 ::.!.:
e:
5::;;:_
t e:
n :;--, al t r, :- i. 8 n 7:.
- o 1,: s :.
a
- e. gI.:: !
- I.::.::{.,
- 2 :l.:
- e 1
4 *g:8.5
- g 0-3.
ta*:1 g :.}..l:$ 1"2:1*
El. :.2
. ij--
8 j;st:og ! e:-
- 8. 1ge:::
.. - 3 " '.:..:.1 -
- ::-.:1:.:::3 r
1 :.2:::
=
k.
a::51".':
I e
- ~ * * " - 5 " 5 8 - --
.3 18I"
-::tjf th.. :
w it
- =s r
!pe:::=
8"
- 3 :21:31* 2::
- 8 :..20::.n::.
1.
,51'g-
- r 2
--3..
31 i
5:
azza:
!:ritsen::
e
y-_
h8
{
8 d
e 0
0 e
APPENDIX C O
O 9 0 en e
9 8
9 0
e a
I e
O O
e w_.._
n.
l TXX-6715 September 8,
1987 EXHIBIT D 316617 U'NITID STATIS OT AMIRICA TIDERAL INIRGY RIGULATORY COMMISSION ELICTRIC RATIS: S e t:1'e:s..:
Be fore co==issioners:
Martha 0. Messe, Chair =an:
Anthony C. Sousa, Charles C. Stalon Charles A. Trabandt and C. M. Naeve 8
, Central Power and Light Company,
)
Public Service Co:pany of Oklahoma,
)
Docket No. EL79-4 "C2 Southwestern Electric Power Companr,
)
West Texas Utilities co=pany
)
CRDER APPROVING SETTLEMINT
~
(Issued July 23, 1987) on June 10, 1987, Central Power and Light company (" CPL"),
Public Service Company of Oklahoma ("PSC"), Southwestern Electric Cenpany ("SWIPCo"), West Texas Utilities company (*WTUa) (collee-tively, the *CSW cperating Co=panies"), Nouston 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 on May 1,1986, by the CSW operating Companies and ML&P, modifying the' prior Orders of the Commission in Docket No. EL79-5 to the extent set forth herein.
Baekereund By its Order issued in Docket Nos. EL79-8 and E-9558 n
October 28, 1981,* as corrected by the Errata Notice issued u.
November 5, 1981, 17 yERC 1 61,078, and its order on Rehearing
'f issued January 29, 1982, 18 yCRC 1 61,100, incorporating by reference the form of " Order Approving settlement" submitted with the Second supplemental offer 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 ("rRCCT")
and electric utilities in the Southwest Power Pool (asWPP").
The original orders also required the provision of transmission I
TXX-6715 September 8,
1987.
EXHIBIT D Docket No. EL7F-8-002 318518.
by the CSW operating companies, HL&P and the elservice for w operating companies et Tex Electric is the successor.as Utilities company,ectric utility to which TV ce=panies and NL&P to "censtruct or cause to be construct!
necessary facilities to effect the interconnections as described s
in or consistent with the settlement agreement."
The settlecent agreement and the original orders described two interconnections:
(1) an asynchronous direct current interconnection between PSD system facilities near Lawton, oklahoma and wrU system facilities near oklaunion, Texas, having an initial no=inal capacity of 200 MW (the " North Interconnection"), to be constructed by the esW operating companies and (2) an asynchronous direct current Interconnection between the CSW operating companies in Walker county, Texas and the south Texas Project (the " south to be constructed by the CsW cperating companies and H North Interconnection and the south Interconnection being referred to herein jointly as the " Interconnections ).
a The Eorth Interconnection was placed in service on Dece=ter y
24, 1984.
Paragraph (10)(c)(ii) of the *0rder 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 wh intervals of no more than every three years after June 30 until June 30, 2004,
- 1983, given the opportunity to participate in the planning of increasesele in the capacity of the Interconnections and of participating in the ownership of any incremental capacity added, provided certain
~
conditions are set.
by offering participation to erect and sWPP electric utilities,Having the csW operating cospanies entered into an agreement to permit the ' expansion of the North Interconnection from a nominal capacity of 200 MW to a nominal capacity of 300 MW.
of expanded cap,acity wculd be owned by the city of Austin, Texas.
The 100 MW On February 18, 1983, Public Utility commission of Texas (*TPUcaCpL, swtpco and ML&P filed with the the issuance of a certificate of convenienc)e and necessity for an application for the construction and operation of the south Interconnection.
certification and attendant delays in the certification,Becaus r
construction and operation of the south 2 interconnection, on May 2, 1986, the CSW operating Companies and HL&P filed a Petitlen with the commission proposing that the South Interconnection be relocated.
orders be modified so as to (a)Specifically, Fatitioners requested that origina) current terzinals and such associated alternating currentrequire construction O
a
,.... - = = * * **
l TXX-6715 f
September B, 1987
~
EXHIBIT D t
Docket No. EL79-8-002 trans=ission 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"):
require the CSW operating Ce:panies, HL&P and TU Electric to (h) interconnect with each other at the East Interconnection: (c) require such ovnership of the East Interconnection by the CSW operating Com coordination,panies, ML&P and others, and such vneeling, comming11ng, alle and exchange of electric pcVer to, from and over the East Interconnection or within the state cf 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 end 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 that the original orders and the proposed modification thereof preclude any consideration by the TPuc of the adequacy of existing service and the need for additional service.
All.'other parties, while reserving their respective
~
posititns in the event the commission rejects or modifies the offer of Settlement, have either affirmatively joined in the proposal or announced their intention to accept the proposed order without appeal.
The Offer of Settle?ent 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 between SWEPCo's Welsh genereting station and TU Electric's Monticello generating station, both located in Titus County, Texas, with an initial nominal capacity of 600 MW (the " East Interconnect ~ nn"), and for the construction, operation, ownership and use thereof by the CSW operating Companies, HL&P and TV The offer of settlement further provides that the 1
Electric.
North Interconnection may be arpanded to a nominal capacity of 300 MW.
The East Interconnection is to consist of the following facilities:
(1) a 345 kv AC switchyard facility at the TU Electric Monticello generating station necessary for the inter-connection of the TU Electric AC electric system with the Welsh-Menticello Line (the *Monticello switchyard racility"); (2) the
..a
~~m
4AA-O/Ab September 8,
- 1987, IXHIBIT D Docket No. IL79-8-002 318s20
-4
- Welsh-Monticello Line," which is a 345 kv At trans=ission line between the Monticello Switchyard Tacility and the KVDC Ter=inal:
(3) the 'NVDC 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 f acility at the SWIPCO Welsh generating station necessary for the
)
inte connection of the SWIPCO AC electric system with the NVDC Ter=inal (the " Welsh Switchyard racility").
The offer of settlement provides that the foregoing facilities are to be owned as follows:
(1) the Monticello switchyard racility by TU Ilectrict (2) the Welsh-Monticello Line by SWIPCO: (J) the NVDC Ter=inal by CPL, SWIPCO, ML&P and TU Electric (the " Participants") in accordance with the ratio of their respective evnership interests set forth below to the total NVDC Ter=inal nominal capacity of 600 megawatts:
CPL 150 nominal megawatts SWIPCO 150 nominal megawatts MLE P 200 nomit al megawatts
,TV Electric 100 nominal megawatts and (4j the Welsh switchyard recilities by_ SWIPCD.
Notwithstanding the separate ownership of certain of the facilities comprising the East Interconnection, all of such facilities are to be exclusively dedicated to the transmission of electric energy to, from and over the East Interconnection
~
pursuant to the provisions of this order.
, The Participants shall compensate SWIPCD, as the owner of the Welsh-Honticello Line and the Welsh switchyard Facilities, and TU Ilect'ric, as the owner of the Monticello switchyard Tacility, for use of such facilities by an annual facility charge
~
suf ficient to, compensate SWIPCD and TU Electric for their costs, including a reasonable return on investment.
)
i elseussien As proposed by the offer of settlement, the construction of
- L.
the East Interconnection vill enable the parties to give effect to the commission's original orders, consistent with the objectives of the cor. mission's original orders.
In this regard, l
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 30, 1983.
Notwithstanding this opportunity, nothing herein is to be O
.c.=
+-*
TXX-6715 l
September 8,
1987 EXHIBIT D Decket No. EL79-3-002-318521 1 in the East Interconnection, except as limited by the provisionsc
)
of Paragraph (10)(c)(1) of the original Orders.
tien, The offer of settlement, which provides for the interconnect-of the CSW Operating Co:panies in ERCOT with those in the SWPP and for the interconnection of HL&P and TU Electric in IRCOT
{
vith the SWPp pursuant to sections 210 and 212 of the rederal Power Act, as amended (the "Act"),
tives ofathe ce= mission's original Orders and preserves theis consistent with the rights set out therein.
The ce==lssion 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 Con =ission has reviewed the engineering reports submitted by the Participants, and investigated the inter-connections proposed in the offer of settienent, in order to determinr whether they ere in the public ! 3.erest.1/
Pursuant to sections 210 and 7ta(a) of the Act, th*s Order is in the public ;iiterest, vila improve the reliabi.Lity of each electric utility system to which this Order applies, and will reasonably preserve existing competitive relationships.
The order will not 3
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.alectric utility affected by the Order.
The condission 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 environ = ental recommendations ordered below will provide adequate mitigation of the potential adverse environmental effects of the actions required by this Order.
The CeP*ission Orders *
.y 1/
The commission notes that the participants have indi-cated that transient stability studies related to the operation of the arpanded North Interconnection will be conducted prior to construction of the expansion of that interconnection.
- y
- ____.E..___---------------
- - - - ^ - - ~ ^
TXX-6715 l
September 8,
19'87, EXHIBIT D Oncket No. IL79-8-002 (A)
The CSW Cperating Cc:panies, HL&P and TV Ele'etric shall described in ordering Paragraph (E)(1) construct or cause to be constru of this order, 'to ef f ect direct current asynchronous East Interconnection with a nominal a
capacity of 600 MW between SWIPCo's Welsh generating station and 7U Electric's Monticello generating station.
(B)
Consistent with the expansion provisions of the Criginal Orders, the North HVDC Interconnection may be expanded l
to a nominal capacity of 300 megawatts.
(C)
The CSW Operating Co=panies, HL&P and TU Electric shall interconnect with each other and with any other adjacent utility at (1) the East Interconnection, (ii) at locations which are i
presently in place and (111) at such locations which may be mutually agreed uper.,7 the Csw operating Companies, ML&P or TU Electric and any utility in order to permit or to facilitate the transmission, purchase, sale, exchange, wheeling, coordination or ce= mingling of electric power in interstate conserce, *.o, from er over such interconnections (including the North Interconnection and the East Interconnection, being referred to herein jointly as the *NVDC 2 interconnections") or within ERCCT by or for the C5u Operating Companies, HL&P or TU Electric, or,any other electric utility.
The C5W operating Companies, ML&P and TU Electric will maintain:and use any such interconnection for any purpose, except in and,'dcring emergencies as determined by the Csw operating Companies, HL&P or TU Electric or except when otherwise ordered by a governmental entity with' putative authority, regardless of the source of the electric power in interstate commerce, and whether or not authorized or ordered by the commission or by any other governmental authority.
However, the C5W Cperating 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 operate a facility for the transmission of electric power in interstate 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.
Unless any such interconnection is a non-jurisdictional interconnection ordered by the Commissien under the provisions of sections 210, 11 and 212 of the Act, (1) HL&P may disconnect in the event it determines that to
- maintain any such interconnection would affect its non-jurisdictional status under the Act, and (ii) TU Electric say
.L discennect in the event it determines that to maintain any such 2
l Interconnection would affect its non-jurisdictional status under the Act.
In any event, ML&P or TU Electric may elect to maintain any interconnection without prejudice to its non-jurisdictional status set forth in ordering paragraph (2).
(D)
The C5W Operating Companies, HL&P and TV Electric shall permit other utilities to participate in the construction and e
9 ym m_,__
______a
~-I
24A-6715 September 8, 1987 EXHIBIT D
\\
3ibb20 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 I
share of the cests of constructing the East Interconnection and undertakes to pay its pro rata share of the costs of operating L
i and maintaining that Interconnection and agrees further to be beund 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 Electricthe Monticello switchyard racility, Line, which shall be owned by SWIPCO: (b) the Welsh-Menticello (c) the EVDC Terminal, which shall be owned by the Participants in accordance 'with the ratio of their respective ownership interests set forth belev to the total NvDC Terminal nominal capacity of soo segvatts:
CFL 150 nominal megawatts SWIPCO 150 nominal negawatts HL&P 200 nominal megawatts TU Electric 100 nominal negawatts and (d) the Welsh switchyard Tacilities, which shall be evned by SWEPCO.
(2)
Notwithstanding the separate evnership of certain of the facilities co=prising the East Interconnection, all of such facilities shall be exclusively dedicated to the trans-mission of electric energy to, from and over the East Interconnection and for use by the Participants in proportion to their relative ownership 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,with 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 SWEPCO, as the owner of the Welsh-Monticello Line and the Welsh Switchyard Facilities, and TU Zlectric, as the owner of the Monticello switchyard racility, for use of such facilities by an annual facility charge sufficient to coopensate SWIPCo and TU Electric
.Y for their cost, including a reasonable return on investment.
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 unilaterally be flied by each owner-Participant from time to tine with the con =ission, and the commission shall review such agreements pursuant to the procedures of section 205 of the referal Power Act.
The first such agreements shall be filed so a
~~
8 TXX-6715 44 September 8,
- 1987, EXHIBIT D Docket No. EL79-8-0C2
- as to beco=e effective prior to the comnercial operatien of the facilities.
(T)
Subject to the provisions of section 203 of the Tederal 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 tice withcut further order of the cc==ission.
(G)
(1)
Except as other otherwise provided in Ordering
'1 Paragraphs (G)(4) and (5), and unless limited by contract, each Participant or ovner shall use and h' ave the exclusive right to the use,' for any purpose, of that HVOC Interconnection in which it has an ownersbip interest, I
to the extent of its evnership interest that HVDC Interconnection, or in the case of the East
{
Interconnection, to the extent of its ovaership interest in the HVDC Terninal.
l (2)
HL&P and TV Electric shall use the HVDC l
Interconnections for any purpose, exchange, wheeling, coord: nation, commingling or transfer ofincluding the pur i
electric power and energy in interstate co==erce.
. (3)
The cSW operating coepanies shall use the HVDC Interconnections for any purpcse, of energy between and a:eng the CSW operating conpanies toincluding the cent enhance the economic operation of the CSW operating cc=panies as j
a single integrated and coordinated system.
i t
may be unus(4)
Any capacity in the HVDC Interconnections which ed at any point in ti=e may be used by any other system in ERCOT or SWPP upon request, and subject to payzant of such rates as shall be adeany Pa recover the cost of such use of the Interconnection,quate to
~
and other terns and conditions as may be unilaterally filed by the Participant or evner from time to time with the com=ission in accordance with the procedures of Sections 205 and 206 of the Federal Power Act, whether or not otherwise applicable, by virtue of agreement of the parties pursuant to section 211(d)(3) of the Act.
(5) will each reserve 15% of their respective capacity in the HVDCTh Interconnections for fire power wheeling and purchase by r
original orders) under the terns, conditions and 11citationsqu provided by the commission's original orders.
utilities m(us)t be accc panied by a signed binding agreement a
O l
m,,
_ _ _ca m -
so c=> O " " "
- 4AA-e/15 September 8, 1987 EXHIBIT D Docket No. EL79-B-002 316625 the reservation of thh capacity sought or for the purcha'se of such capacity.
(b)
If, in respense to the annual solicitation to qualified utilities for reserved capacity, the aggregate of requests to use and/or purchase such capacity exceeds the a=ount of unce==itted reserved capacity, then capacity will be made available pursuant te such requests on the following basis:
(i)
Each qualified utility requesting reservation capacity shall be entitled to con-tract for the use of, or to purchase, a EI2 Ilia share of the available reservation capacity based on the proportion its request bears to the total of all requests.
(ii)
The agrecoent 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 the requester is unable to receive as large a share of capacity as requested due to the RI2 IAIA reduction set forth in subparagraph (bf(1) above.
If a requester finds it necessary to cancel its re bf the EIR IA11 reduction, quest as a result the capacity so
" relinquished will be divided among the tenaining requesters on a RI2 rata basis pursuant to subparagraph (b) (1) above.
(c)
Purchase of reservation capacity by qualified utilities in the East Interconnection shall be on a RI2 IAla basis from the esW operating companies, HL&P and TU Electric A
unless the CSW c otherwise agree.perating companies, ML&P and TU Electric
'Whenever planning is undertaken to increase the (6) capacity of the HVDC 2 interconnections, but at intervals of no more than every three years af ter June 30, the North Interconnection, and af ter June 30,1986, with respect to 1989, with respect to the East Interconnection, until June 30,"2004, electric utilities in ERCOT and SWPP shall be given the opportunity to participate in the planning of increases in the capacity of
. L.
j the HVDC Interconnections and of participating in the evnership 1
of any incremental capacity added, provided again that each party 1
that wishes to participate pays its EI2 reta share of all costs I
and undertakes to pay its gr2 EA1A share of the costs of operating and maintaining that NvDC Interconnection and agrees further to be bound by the terms and conditions of the applicable Agreecent among the owners or Participants of that HVDC Inter-connection.
Any such planned increase in the capacity of either HVDC Interconnection shall be subcitted to the co==ission for
4AA D/AD September 8,
1987 EXHIBIT D Docket No. EL79-8-002 3185cv O action pursuant to sections 210, 211and212ofthehederal7:ver Act.
i (H) wheel power for each other and for other electric syste=s inThe C ERCOT and sh*PP to, frcm and over the East Intercennecticn at the rates and under the terms and conditions set forth in the se: le-m' ent tariffs sub=itted in Docket Nos. ER82-545-000, 31 A1.,
except that such tariffs shall be zodified as necessary to c:rply with this order.
Such modified tariffs shall be filed with the Com=1ssion as compliance filings within ninety (90) days after entry,cf this order.
(2) co:pliance with this order and the offer of settle ent shall not make HL&P or TU Ilectrie or any other electric utility i
er other entity a "public utility
- As that term is defined by
)
section 201 of the Act and subject to the jurisdiction of the cor. mission for any purpose other than for the purpose of carrying i
eut the provisions of sections 210, 211 and 212 of the Act.
(J)
As a result of this order, HL&P and TU Electric may be or vill be operating in interstate commerce by virtue of the interconnect 1 ens required by this order and the wheeling, trans' zission, purchase, sale, exchange, coordination er cc= singling of electric power to, from or within ERCOT, including the ownership or use:of facilities therefor, or by virtue of the synchreneus or asynchronous operation of electromagnetic unity of response of interconnected elec.ric facilities: HL&P and TU 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 as a direct er indirect result of the flow of power and energy through the North Interconnection er the East Interconnection, or ownership!cf the North Interconnection or'the East Intercennee-tion, such jurisdiction shall not affect the non-jurisdictional status of MLAP cr TU Electric.
(L)
Since the parties have already agreed on the ter=s and conditions upon which this order is to be carried out, includinc the apportionment of costs between them and the compensation er' reimbursement reasonably due to any of them, no proposed order The Cc==ission approves (the settlecent and, pursuant to sectionpurs
- L.
212(c)(2)(A) of the Act, the terms and conditions of the settle-ment relating to apportionment of costs, compensation and rein-bursement as set forth therein are hereby incorporated in this order.
(M)
The owners of the 100 mw expansion of the North Inter-connection shall submit to the Commission transient stability
~'
Txx-6715 September 8,
1987 EXHIBIT D Docket No. EL79-8-002 studies relating to the expanded North Interconnection prior to the construction of that interconnection.
(N)
The Participants in the East Interconnection shall ccrply with the zitigation measuras contained in Attachment A hereto in order to mininize the environmental impact resulting frem construction of the AC transmission lines, (c)
Not less than 90 days prior to the ce==encenent of construction (right-of-way clearing) of the East Interconnee-tion, the Participants shall sub=it to the Division of Environ-cental Analysis, office of Hydropower Licensing, a report detailing co=pliance with Environ = ental Reco==endations 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 af ter the trans=ission line is energized, the Participants shall submit a report detailing ec=pliance with Environ = ental Reco==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 feree raieure, the CSW operating Companies, HL&P and TV Electfic will cet=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.
(b)
Upon construction of the East Interconnection, the CSW operating Co=panies and HL&P shall he relieved of any obligation to construct, install, expand or operate cr. to make capacity available in the South Interconnection as required by the original orders and from any obligation to transmit power for other electric utilities to, from and over the south Inter-connection. : (
(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 precedent regarding any principle or issue in this proceeding.
P By the Commission.
(5EAL)
Kenneth T. Plumb, Secretary.
I
l l
.I TXX-6715 l
September 8,
IS87 EXHIBIT D
- psses Docket Nc. EL79-B-002 Attach =ent A Environ = ental Recommendations 1.
SWIPco, bef ore starting any land-clearing or land-I disturbing activities, should consult with the Ian-devners, the Soil Conservation Service and the U.S.
Tish and Wildlife Service about developing a plan that includes the best management practices to control erpsien and sedimentation as a result of project construction and maintenance.
SWIPeo should include in the plan an implementation schedule, monitoring and maintenance progra=s for project construction, and provisions for periodic review of the plan and for making any necessary revisions to the plan.
2.
SWIPeo, af ter consultation with the U.S. Tish and I
Wildlife Service and the Taxas Parks and Wildlife De pa rtment, should locate the final right-of-way (ROW)
~
align =ent of the East Interconnection so that bottom-land hardvoeds and other wetlands are avoided.
Where bottomland hardwoods and other vetlands cannot be f
avoided, SWIPC0 should, as much as possible, avoid the placement of transmission towers within wetlands, span streams, and allow shrubs to revegetate the ROW following construction.
3.
SWIPCo, after consultation with the'O.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the Texas Parks and Wildlife
~ ' Department, should develop a wildlife zitigative plan that will provide for the clearing, revegetation, and maintenance of the project transmission line right-of-way for tJun benefit of wildlife resources.
4.
SWEPCC, after consulting with the State Historic Preservation office (SHPo), should conduct a survey of t
the area of the project's potential environmental ispact (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
.y APEI and should culminate in a survey report that adequately docunents every National Register and eligible property in the APEI.
This survey report, along with the comments and recommendations of the SHPO, should be filed with the Cor. mission before SWEPCO begins constructing the proposed transmission line.
)
O e
-TXX-6715 September 8, 1987 EXHIBIT D Acket No. EL7 9"B-002 In the survey rdport, SWIPeo should identify each National Register and eligible property in the APII, according to the National Register criteria of eligibi-lity in 36 Code of rederal Regulations (CTR) 60.
SWIPco should specify the criteria that each National Register and eligible prcperty satisfies, and should describe each National Register and eligible property a
according to the applicable criteria.
In the survey report. SWIPCD 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 effec
- in 36 CTR 800.
SWIPCo should then determine, in the case of each effect, whether or not the effect would likely be adverse.
SWIPCo should apply the criteria of effect and adverse effect to the specific characteris-ties of the National Register and eligible properties that have substantially contributed to satisfying the National Register criteria of eligibility.
l In the survey report, SWIPeo 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 National Register criteria of eligibility.
SWIPC0 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 KHPO 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 concur with sWIPCo's determinations of eligibility, effect, and adverse effect.
SWIPCD should not begin construction of the transmis-sien line in a manner or location that might affect a 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 informed SWIPCo.
5.
SWIPCO should coordinate with the operators of the two radio towers (TAA and southwestern Bell) located in the l
project area to insure that the interconnection would not degrade the performance of these facilities.
The results of coordination with the operators should be flied with the cocnission.
- - - - ^ ^ - -
.?
TXX-6715 September 8,
1987 EXHIBIT D 316S30 Docket No. EL79-6-002 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.
sWIPeo shculd use an AM radio receiver in the survey, and should evaluate the reception of the pripcipal broadcasting stations serving the area at each location i
both with the line energized and deenergized.
The results-of this survey should be filed with the cor.=ission.
L i
e-W e
6 t
e h
'e 5%. ;-
9 O
)
j
1 l
l I
i i
'1 i
1 i
a i
l APPENDIX D e
D 4
e J
n b
SECU!!!Ti!.S & Excetur ry,q UfITED SIRTES T APG:RICA before the MAILED FW +. y SICURITIES AND IXCHANGE CDMHISSICN APN 0:31982 PUBLIC UTILITY ICLDING CDMPAW ACT T 1935
. / l'. O e.y
'.e e:
Release ?b.
22439 / Acril 1, 1982 EN
'i In the Matter of O
-v 1:p # I f
e CENIRAL' AND ER37IH HEST ERPORATICN
'ISTRATIVE PROCEEDING I :
CENTRAL PCWER AND LIGfT CIMPANY File No. 3-4951 PUBLIC SERVICE CDMPANY T CEINKHA SCUIHdESTERN ELECTRIC 304ER CDKPANY TRANSOK PIPE LINE CDMPANY i
WEST '1D(AS UTILITIES CIMPANY t
(59-5) l
~
MDORANDLM TINICH AND ORDER MMINATING PROCEEl DING 16, 1945, we issued a decision in s ich we determined that On Hebruary the electric utility system of central and South West Ctxporation
("CSW") was an integrated electric public utility system, as defined in Section 2(a)(29)(A) of the Public Utility Ibiding Chqpany Act of 1935
("Act"), and that, subject to certain adjustments sich have long been effected, CSW ccrqplied with the requirements of Section 11(b)(1) cf the Act. Se Middle West Cbreration, et al.,18 SEC 296 (1945). CSi has been and is a registered 1olding cx:npany.
CSR owns all of the outstanding shares af cznnon stock of the following
~
~
Omntral operating electric utility cenpanies (' operating conpanies").
Power and Light Cbnpany ("CPsL") cperates in a portion of south hxas; Public Service Cbnpany of Oklahtma ('PSO"), in portions of eastern and southwestern Oklahcum; Ibuthwestern Electric Power ocnpany ('SWEPOD"),
in portions of east Texas, western Arkansas and northwestern Louisiana; and West hxas Utilities Chapany ("WIU"), in a part of west central hxas.
Physically, the C3W system cxrqprises roughly Own prters af a circle -
De aperating crsqpanies are With a center in' north central hxas.
intews.ected and to and around this arc, extending from CPEL in asuth hxas, between the Rio Grande and the Gulf of Mexico, through a relatively narrow corridor in west Texas (WIU) to inte i.ect with PSO inte-i.ects in eastern Oklahoma with SREPOD. Se cperating PSO.
ocupanies together serve a territiory of approximately 152,000 square r.
miles with an astimated population of 3,000,000,, the largest cities V
served are Cbrpus Dristi, Abilene, Imredo, San Angelo and Longview in hxas, hisa and Iawton in Oklahana, Ehreveport and Boasier City in Icuisiana, and hxarkana in hxas and Arkansas. Pertinent -.si.ic data concerning the cperating conpanies for the year ended Decenber 31, F
1980, is as follows:
e e
a a e 'o++===.
e e a===
amme es=p -
m
j I
.. 1 Net
/
'\\
Net Generating System
/
1 Utility Operating Station Maximten.
351
]
Plant Revenues Capacity Demand
- Sales (millions)
(millions)
(MR)
(W)
_(billions) h CPt.L
$ 1,386
$ 670 3,882 2,505 13.4 PSO 1,190 522 3,969 2,839 16.4 SWEPCO 995 385 3,029 2,652 13.2 m
226 181 1,054 9 54 5.2 On March 26, 1974, the Oklahczna cities of Altus, Frederick, Cbrdell and Mannford and verdigris Valley I2ectric Cooperative and Indian Electric Cooperative, Inc., solesale custczners of PSO, ctrqplained to the f
Ccruission that CSR had ceas.ed to cperate as an integrated electric utility system and requested, mong other things, that the ceder of l
February 16, 1945, be modified or revoked. Section 11(b) petwides that the caninission pay revoke ce nodify a gior crder issued thereunder if
- it finds that the conditions spon sich the order was pedicated &
{
not exist." -
j on January 30, 1976, the Ocznission crdered that a hearing be held to reconsider in light of current conditions the conclusion reached in 1
1945 regarding CSW's ccrqpliance with the integration standards of Section 11(b)(1), and to determine tether plans developed by CBW and its subsidiaries affecting future cperations of the system could achieve compliance with Section 11(b)(1).1/ Under that section, the
-Carsnission is directed to limit the operations of a registered system to "a single integrated publie-utility system." Section 2(a)(29)(A) defines that term with respect to an electric utility system as one whose utility assets 'are 5hysically inter-i. sed or capable af physical interconnection and tich urder rormal conditions rey be e-.suically operated as a single interconnected and cocedinatm5 i
system.*..'
PSO and SWEPCO are sentiers of the Southwest Power Pool ('8WPP"), and are intes-i.ected with a natiorwide system af intes i.ec^d generation and transmission facilities. CPL and W operate in the i
State of itxas and are interconnected with other utilities that l
cumprise the Electric Reliability Cbuncil of 2xas (*Iactn"). All the
)
sambers of ERCOT are electrically isolated from PSO, SfEPCO, and other utilities operating in e ole or in part in states other than h xas.
l the ERCUT interchange agreements in effect preclude direct cr indirect L
e exchange of electric energy with utilities receiving ce transmitting e
electric energy in interstate czzmerce. y men CPEL and W joined m
ERCUr, they ceased to exchange electric energy with PSD and SWEPCD, except for a special arrangement under dich the ncrthern division af t
J/ BCMt 2.19361 (January 30, 1976), as amended by ICAR 2. 20031 (May 18, 1977).
404
)
y Cf. Federal Power Cternission v. Florida Ptwer & Light Q).,
Es. 453 (1972) (certain intrastate interconnections jurisdictional under Finderal power Act due to related interstr.te energy flows).
3 i
WN, adjacent to the Oklahoma border, cocid operate alternately either,
with PSo or with DCCfr as long as simultaneous interconnection was
/
avoided.
'!he rvcw,$ing'carrnenced before an a&ninistrative law judge in 1976.
Certain state agencies ard authorities were admitted as parties pursuant to Rule 9(a) of the Q:r:rnission's kles of Practice, and O#
limited participant status pursuant to Rules 9(c) and (d) was granted to certain others, principally muston Lighting and Power Omnpany
('HLt.P"), an cperating electric utility company serving Houston and a portion of the gulf coast area of hxas, and hxas Utilities 0:rnpany l
(*2V"), an exempt electric utility holding campany W ose subsidiaries l
i serve a large portion of north central hyls, including the Dallas-Fort Worth area, the principal other members of DCCfr.
'the integration plans initially submitted by C5H in this r eceeding pur.ed to reestablish interconnections among its subsidiaries, but s
turned on eether interconnections with DCCfr could be saintained ce directed. Contxtwersies developed concerning these satters and spawned related suc& dings before the Ftderal Energy Regulatory Q:sumission
(*rDe ) 3/,'the Nuclear Regulatory Qmrnission (*NIC") g, tion in ed the and litiga Public Utility Omtrnission of hxas ("TPUC"),5f, dings.
there was separate litigation in easence challenging th6f In a5dition, federal and state courts involving those r~
e validity of the DCCrr au.rgts ander federal antitrust laws. y In 1978 Congress enacted the Public Utility Regulatory Policias Act of 1978. 8/ Under that statute FERC was given authority to order, meer prescribed standards, certain inteww.i.ection and eeeling relief
~
2 affecting electric utilities ret cperating in interstate conserce, with the proviso that the ceder would not sake such an electric utility subject to FIRC's jurisdiction for any other purpose. 01 July 28, 3/ auC IbcKet Nos. F 9558 and EL 7F8.
y NRC Ebcket Hos. 50-445A, 50-446A, 50-498A and 50-499A.
y me :=cuee no.14.
y See, e.g., Central Ptwer and Light Cartpany v.
74deral Energy Regulatory Ccrrnission, 575 F.2d 937 (D.C. Cir.1978), cert. denied 439 U.s. 981 (1978); Public Utility Q:rtrnission of hxas v.
Fwderal Enertry Regulatory Carrnission (5th Cir. 2. 79-3054); hx-Ia D ectric Cooperative v.
Fwderal thergy Regulatory Q:strnission (D.C.
g.
y Cir. Na. 80-1173); Central Power and Light Carpany v. Public Utility Omrnission of hxas (53rd Judicial District of hxas, 2.
7E7605).
y West hxas Utilities Ompany v. hxas Electric service Ozpany, 470 F. Supp. 798 (N.D. hx 1979), cm gpeal 5th Cir. 2.t 79-2677.
y Pub. L. 2. 95417 (mvernber 9,1978).
.:- 1980, CSW, 'N and HMP submitted an offer of settlement to FERC in the -
w M ings before that agency. W at settlement sp w snt, as ssupplemented (" Settlement Agreement *), Irovides for a crr:prehensive, resolution of the disputes in all forums. It was agprwed by IUC by order dated October 28, 1981. 9/ hat order, aM the Settlement Agreement (incita$ing moerlyir@ evidentiary rnaterial tpon sich it was rw
- ding.
Q Predicated), are in evidence in this
'the Settlement Agreement, among other things, provides for the installation of two asynchronous interconnections between I:RO77 and Sh7P. Dese 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 m cn either side of the I:R:%5 SWPP border at Ok1& union, 'Itxas. CSW will also construct an alternating current terminal at PSO's Tower station in Lawton, Oklahoma, aM a 345 kw AC transmission line fran Lawton to the rorthern bus of the interconnection at Oklaunion, a distance of approximately 61 miles. De South Interconnection, to be constructed jointly by CSW and HMP, would consist of a direct current transmission line approximately 153 miles long with terminals having an initial capacity of 500 w in mlker County, 'Dexas, aM at the South Stxas Project, a generating plant moer construction near Bay City, 'Dexas. Sene planre$ facilities will in effect interconnect Wm and PSO () brth Interconnection) and SRE:KD and CFL (South Intenus,ection).
De record before IUC, and as supplanented in this r M ing, indicates that substantial savings are expected to be achieved in revenue requirements to ratepayers of the W subsidiaries from operation of the CSW system in an interconnected zo6e as a result of the planned interconnections between ERC77 and Sh7P. De ceder issued by FIRC finds, among other things, that the cxanstruction of the planned interconnection facilities "is in t}e public interest, will encourage overall conservation of energy and capital, will eptimize the use of facilities and resources, and will imptwe the reliability of each
{
electric utility system to tich the ceder aqpplies.' De IERC order is j
a final ceder.
On Ptbruary 8,1982, GW, pursuant to stipulation with EMP anS TU, rxes*ing, moved for an order specifying further yrocedures in this including waiver of an initial decision by the administrative law gudge and consent to the interested division of the Conrrission assisting in the preparation of the Cbnrtission's decision. Os February 9,1982, the administrative law judge issued a rotice to all parties e
and participants concerning the action. Dere being ro object. ion, the V
sotion was granted on Ftbruary 26, 1982.
I
,9/ Central Pwer and Light f.brpany, et al., FI:RC Ibcket R>s. EL 79-8 and L-9558 (October 28, 1981). mat order has been amended, in l
respects rot here asterial, by ceders dated Novenber 5,1981, and January 29, 1982.
1
s
~5-In view of the foregoing, the issues W ich led to the institution of
/
this b vc.+ ding have been disposed of and resolved.
/
IT IS OFDDED, accordingly, that this proceeding be, ed it hereby is, terr.inated, a*d that the Q2r.ission's decision cd order of February 16, 1945, continues to reain in effect.
O e the w -ion.
/
e-
/*Y(
George A.
itzs ns Secretary e
e un O
9 O
m 9
0 i
e r
O e
9
O 44 e
0 4 4 e
9 W
APPENDIX E O
e 4
e S
O e
_______m._
J TU ELECTRIC TRANSMISSION AND SCHEDULING AGREEMENTS TV Electric has entered into several transmission and scheduling agreements that have facilitated power flows benefiting a number of power systems in Texas. These agreements are briefly described below:
1.
In August of 1986, the City of Brownsville, Texas and TU Electric reached an agreement whereby TU Electric will provide wheeling service for the output from Brownsv111e's ownership share in a coal fired plant (Oklaunion) near the Texas-Oklahoma border.
2.
In October of 1984, TV Electric entered into a scheduling agent agreement with Tex-La and Rayburn Country Electric Cooperative whereby TV Electric 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 enits 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 Texas-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.
6.
In 1980, TU Electric transmitted 20MW of power from the Texas Municipal Power Pool to the South Texas Electric Cooperative.
7.
TU Electric has entered into equivalent power transmission agreements 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 TU Electric and the City of Austin provides for the delivery of 68HW 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, TU Electric wheeled amounts of power ranging from 300MW to 800MW to Houston Lighting & Power Co. from the City of Austin.
______.______-___m-__
______m
2
- 12. During the period 1983-87, TU 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 Central 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);fromWestTexasUtilitiesin1987; 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.)
0
]
APPENDIX F e
4 0
O O
O e
1 1
]
i TU ELECTRIC INTERCONNECTION AG9EEMENTS l
Since the settlement agreement was consummated in 1980, TV Electric has amended or entered into several new interconnection agreements with various Texas power systems. These agreements are briefly described below:
1.
"On May 6,1987, TV 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 l
(Texas-New Mexico Power Compan6 proposed plant in Robertson County into 10 Electric's transmission network will be negotiated."
2.
Interconnection agreements between TV and Brazos Electric Power Cooperative and TU and West Texas Utilities Company have been amended by TU to conform to the provision in the antitrust license conditions that address restrictions pursuant to interstate power sales.
3.
"Brazos Electric Power Cooperative and the Lower Colorado River i
Authority, with whom TU Electric has maintained contractual l
relationships, have refused to sign agreements amending interstate clauses in a manner consistent with the License Conditions. 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 l
l offered by TU. These options would include power purchases from suppliers other than TU as well as the possibility of Rayburn Country acquiring generating capability of its own.
(This master agreement was I
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.)
1 l
l
4
\\
b t l
e 9
APPENDIX G j
s O
(
e J
e e
k o e v
de e
gat l
r lh dn nm b
ee ot no i gf a hs s
hat nonot t
te h
t eo.iti t
m hss r
ttli f
t siowcn6 resee oya ewt i 8 eviio lh t
ieth9t rwp nst ot pccc1 ee oe rsanau.dsnCr os peCars o
a iet t rn t
dP nts cpe oohr t 9ier
.d usv trtoft 1 meen ree prcoA n pna bm t
r oc yol e
e sse erWas ati yvn t
1 neh o
e.Mst nro cn
. d 5nt9 ewAet F
ot t rs2i o4 e1 t e y
end ane p1 r=t ne
.r e
- 2. fosu
.it ya npie ee n
t obg e
om v hv6srn2 3
nom he e e o 4 'n 8 5 C ponl
.it o tr uCoo
~
is btt0 o3 end C ec ngt e ne2i rheen ne enir oie c.otk eoe aS tit t
t e1 acih e
tl et os
.l1 n yt ott R
u ro e C o 2. o b eipo gt o.s epmh t
ef n n n
n r i nCDo3ddb t
ro ee eai ii y.C 9 neis 3l roh w
ohei cTh st rne i ett e l e r
- h eoooh5fd c
dmttt3 inoit e.wi ag esotft n tnneh nat nf.bni f o otet i e i o R. d c c e s n t I orw o id segh e e 4 P. l at uoc hths rl ue tm e tct e eiDe1 eeie pf W2Cober op (nwl y
h toyrs Sn r
yd g.d 5 s l a p t en ooe nl r. n1 li r i eireag ect A u e t. a 1 on t w pt pne hr n
tete hep 1 ee on it resraali tht s
,1 2 et tpt ib engt l
tIii gat dospsef u a
rs eresereoem p
rt o
l eeecpt t oe esep ldrl o oeocl r pehp i et orrrhreho ott o f F S R P o P t pb t f 0
dn 2
9 d
y e
n dW e
f n
0 a
nSy n i oo e
eaCn f
e d il t
l d
8 rn
- ar o ee o tl e n do n
9 P
ee) pe WvT m aehl etns e
tt etb Cea 7
O wh* em1 srSo.
o e
.t gt L
oeOho1i oCn onesl I
t g n n
.t e t P g s y n e td e
plCtCrhf ey tae E
h S neaie so kP etf ert t
tot.re ohhn nf* noarcteLitmtr t
g t
e w ye n tcu oo iM ot hMl at t
e fO A
rfSl wsie no l
et
.fUtt gesrs e
C to*eot h d yC h e t h al seTe
.nhaen vPidtee tsntr* er fsit po 9
t I
n t
9 e
F ey i o
rsruieE eCsedroem soc eoa m nRehne t mre 1
k t
C n yt a y1 ge ednkSshneUTtahynoeswo s
e anc f1 A4 c
o
. paegifl rel" osogT tt ecveSt Cg o
Io D
m 6 m p1 nd eo e Cii
.d t o h pem.oTC s
ltht yea n
mC t
9om1i oto,twe e hsbcs t rLhrondf ee t
mp 9Cootmnr MT or9 1
Ceh epeenthael sniMceConoht ne uu an t a tt AR re6 e
t gompt re(tt s n w 'y o q. e w g t e
e O
13iIi)I p9
.er)i teat t e o9 1l e*L l
eswtkeo nCee onemt sg OA c
1 vwu nte nt ce csa reh i noaei s
FT e
ps lthtirt el r r o e e s e r 'O m u e n i c a d f S t b L
iw yrof not sU To.
- eePwet eeecbj re tG It nS
- tssdt oeitCotnewurr t o tE TS ct ee enonrrunPCiop seo,ee 6
AR ES nei wtf cit o P e qi t Tims poohrr T
y PI ot ryon o i ne wc toeeOctt i y
ST r n M
itnMs r,PtrortSincCl r t e e
e C
e a
rM M tbca orenLce! n ria tl W.rnoh Dp w
p oO(
a u e pd c e i o M e e tl ent gt eSgeit t Et o m C
hPimn flt nli arechf aigCowh rsdnett reetott e t otde Tw t
P o
c t.toaefhoaenoee uwio tcrel pine C
It h
t C
w N
g n c l
el n
)t et acWPocttbgea he war i e i e t
e*
re*
e e
r t
e nrf)tec
.f UL s
tbs ie c
hid ses.ec entprt ywrneP P
L p r e t
tLeeedhss e
R m
t t
F tFtt eettoet t ass relteaOi,b E
d o c t
oCstt n iCt nsl er* ttt e
hc et D
n Cee 1
F n* e1 nog nie*
w1 einnee Tndin1trWhnneen M
(
t a
nl 1
O eeE t
e h1 ptiIhpt erde1 eeStoovl es r eh t
E kyttmit tmnh1 o t1tdC ii eettd e yl e n yU C
anuUotp oett ettsn ttt tin wnvt rn I
tao Cee..Crucrwet ueeccdf e a F
oarteas T
pSs pcgt roeeoe g heeenoee m
ennguSn1 nnenetnnna nt s o.ng ppeotpn O
eorrostaeooe,enee n1 onsit nnn en) sienc mS sme U
gott l o feoe Cl ei*
dmi n
TtPeeetthcehceaircccenc1 aCeowCT e
r 1
h tO asrel actrecrTrdirrrrer1 t
1 t
t hStrtectre e ne eeueeeehe1 p n b e s gPsendoterdt sytdns qt t t h c t em a
e o e e i* e p" rrepinntennee ennntsneo C
.p t W L(WOI opsOdaIi sI a gl riII oeIfC I
e l
u l
e
l 1
1 6
l 1
i 1
1 i
l i
l 1
a APPENDIX H 9
O e
0 0
l J
WHOLESALE POWER DEVELOPMENTS TU Electric supplies many wholesale power customers throughout its vast service area and attributes a significant portion of its annual revenues to wholesale power sales. TV Electric has reported substantial activity involving existing or new wholesale customers since the antitrust settlement in 1980. A number of power entities have contacted TU Electric regarding either sale or purchase of wholesale power:
1.
In March of 1986, representatives of the City of Bowie, Texas, a total re-quirements customer of TU Electric, contacted TV 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 further substantive discussions have taken place.
2.
In 1983 the City of Electra, Texas, inquired as to TU Electric's willingness to supply wholesale power beginning in 1988. TV 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.
3.
The City of Weatherford Texas (served by Brazos Electric Power Cooperative) inquired to TU Electric concerning TU Electric's willingness to supply wholesale power and possibly join in construction of future generating facilities. TV 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 TV 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 2,1986TUElectric9.3) 5.
In July of 1986, Rayburn Country Electric Cooperative notified TU Electric of its intent to transfer approximately one megawatt of demand from TV Electric to the Southwestern Electric Power Company. TV Electric indicated it would make the necessary billing corrections and will provide other i
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, 1986 TU Electric 9.3)
1 a
2 7.
"In April,1985, TMPA [ Texas Municipal Power Agency] inquired es 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 caoacity needed by it in the early to mid-1990's.
The Company responded that its current resource plan did not include units 1
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 ir,quiries have been reserved from TMPA."
B.
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-J chase of cogenerated energy. TU Electric indicated that there were no projected benefits to its customers from such an agreement, but that it (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 p1 ming personnel met with TUEC repre-sentatives to discuss long-range possibilities for mutual cooperation."
(September 2, 1986 TU 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-pansion of the capability of the North DC Tie. TUEC will not at this time participate in the expansion of the North Tie."
(September 2,1986 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:
- 13. "In 1983, Cajun Electric Power Cooperative, Inc. of Baton Rouge, Louisiana notified TU Electric that it was seeking partners for ownership of up to 300 megawatts of expected excess capacity from a 540 megawatt lignite plant it then had under construction. Cajun cited reduced load growth as l
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
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 TU Electric noted that it did not expect the arrangements proposed could be beneficial."
- 14. "In 1985, KG&E made inforn'al contact with TU Electric to determine. its 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 TU 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 TV 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 sumer 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 foiacast 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 TU 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 eggregate 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 FNM objectives.
.. ~. _
i 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, TV Electric concluded that commitment to this project was an unacceptable option for its resource plan and responded to PNM accordingly."
I
- 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 TV 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. TV Electric responded that any future interest it might have would be dependent on a 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 TU Electric of 400 megawatts of short-term reserve capacity, excluding cogeneration purchases, which fully covered requirements for the 1985 peak load period. The 400 megawatts consisted of 200 megawatts each from Texas Municipal Power Agency (TMPA) and the Lower Colorado River Authority period and Houston Lighting A Power Company (HL&P) y for the 1986 pea (LCRA). TMPA later offered to sell reserve capscitoffered 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."
i e
1 i
e.
1 l
4 4 e
i l
f l
W AP?ENDIX I e
1 9
4 h
l
%n y s,.y.gEGK"==Mi.16.4 V+-fJJi.T. -M"j@idi%NQ[s.,7 *,yaT '
%.g g
ne.cr sc.w.2'.r/W N, h.
.,r..c a
~,
L, n. ~ m.e-W.W
~e
,.fr.*y'.' ' 'f' gmyr
.:_,'i'-- '~ e VedL5/ f t g.'
~
^
e x
g (E tlC 9 (sI,0So W.M 1917).
i r - y. ; 6. -, : 3 (he -: y r - -
-t In Reply Mefer tor Docket Nos. ER82-545-000, "P ER82-546-000, ER83-610-000, ER83-611-000, ERB 3-635-000, and ER83-657-000 Reid.& Priest
- M Attention:
Mr. Floyd L. Korton, IV Attorney for Tesas Utilities Electric company >
1111 19th Street N.w.
JAN 271987 Washington, "J.C.
20036
Dear Mr. Norton:
On De cer.ber 23, 1985, as supplemented on December 31, 1985, January 24, 1986, and April 7, 1986, TUEC filed an offer of set-tiement in an attempt to resolve all issues in the above-referenced dockets.3 Ilowever, various comments and briefs regarding the settleswnt were subsequently submitted and, on June 6,1986, the presiding administrative law $udge certified the matter to the Commission as a contested offer of settlement.
Subsequently, on November.7,1986, the settlement was further supplemented to I
resolve the.resaining issues.
On Noves5er 26, 1986, staff sub-mitted comments in support of the settlement, an ultimately supplemented No other comments to the' of fer of settlement, as ultimately supplemented, were received.
The settlement, as ultimately supplemented, i s deemed to be an uncontested G
settlement.*.
The*isubject settlement is in the public interent and is hereby approved.
The revised proposed order submitted witn the supplement-on November '3, 1986, is hereby made a part of thfa ordet and is included as Enclosure A hereto.
....: e,
.,v
.. x. c.
Section 2 of Enclosure A: specifies rates for the ERCOT tariffs and' requires filinos to change the rates.
Within thirty (30) days of the date of this' order, sub: it revised settlement tariffs for.EACOT service reflecting such specified rates.
Set-tienent rate schedule designations for the non-ERCOT tariffs are shown' orr Enclosure B.
1 :.. J '.
Within fif tsen (15) days af ter making the refunds required under the settlem~ent, as specified'.on' Enclosure A h6retoFthe*M' companies
- shall: file with this Commission compliancedieports!'M r?*
- showing 1 monthly billino.determinantai revenue receiptrdates","sno W revenues' ender th'e~prio'r', present, and settlement rates, the mor.thly ravenue refund, and the monthly interest comnutet4pAfr,
']'
gether with a summary of such information fa f$8BartyfbnbA d
's r.g(Lt.
period.
The comr.anies shall furnish copies b
supp i
dgg rC0pY e'~e[qd..-2 the affected wholesale customors and to each StMi ion within whose jurisdiction the wholesale cust
], '.L
men
_eA nr.CDd'> 4lP e
- . r..
.. t,
- 3. l.h' f..sh
C
. ' ' ' y-2-
sell electric energy; st,retall.p,e f,.,-
qg The companies are b'ereb'y. directed, t.o f11e complete service agreements for each customer takino service under the settlement tariffs.
This letter te rminates the aboio-referen'eed d'ocksto.
New
'subdockets will be assioned in ER82-545 upon receipt of the
~
compliance refund reports and revised rate echedules.
By direction of the Commission.
x
. - -. ~
..__.:=._
Sacretary i
Enclosures A and B
,,ces To All Parties t
Text.s Public Utilities Commission
' ?
7800 Shoal ~ Creek Doulevard.
Suite 450 H.
(]g 2--
- ' Louisiana Public Service Commission' Suite 1630 2
One'Amtrican Plaza
~"
Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70025
~rti:.'
~
Okishoma Commerce Commission l
500 Jim Thorpe Office Buildina s Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73105 Arkansas Public Service Ccamission
'# 1000 Center Building'i box C-400 1000 Center Street
~~
' * 'Little Roch, Arkansas 72203'.
dEPR I
~~.
N
. (I' ~ Sammon, J.smet
~
12/30/86-
. Registry / RIMS, Dockets, Interoffice Files, DPI, SEC, ALJ, bcct OC C (1)(2), Vault, DEPI Director, Murdock, Shulman, Milbourn, 0; ecchio, Sammon, Tindall, Der, Forman, Bublitz, Elliot, Harlan-ERF(2), WERI(1)(2) s
\\
3 Enclosure A l
k I
~
. I l
1 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 l
ORDER APPROVING SETTLEMENT 1
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-l 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 ("PORPA"),16 U.S.C. 55824a, 8241, E24j and 824k.
The application was docketed as Docket No. EL79-8.
By their application, the CSW Operating Co'mpanies acught from the Co:. mission ordt s which would require interconnection of the Elvet:ic Reliability Council. cf Texts ("ERCOT") and the Southwest Power Pool ("SRFP").
The C5W Operating Companies in ERCOT are Central Power a-d Light Company (* CPL") and Wett Texas Utilities Company ("PTU").
The CSW Operating Companies in EWFP are Publ.ic
)
f
l i
- Service Company of Oklahoma ("PSO") andSouthwesternEkectric 4
i
\\
Power Company (*SWEPCO").
I on June 27, 1980, in an attempt to settle, among other 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 Lighting & Power Company-(*EL&P') and the operating subsidiaries of Texas Utilities company ("TUC")' submitted an of fer of Settle-ment in Docket No. EL79-8 which would effectuate the proposal set forth in the amended application.
The offer of settlement was j
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-pienental offer of settlement was filed, advising the Commission that an agreement had been executed by CSW and the U.S. Depart-me t.: of Justice ("DOJ"), under which DOJ agreed not to contest the offer of Settlement as supplemented by the Supplemental offer of Settlement and as amended by the Second supplemental offer of Settlement.
The Offer of settlement, as supplemented, was certi-O 6
O
fled to the Commission as an uncontested Offer of Settlement on 1
July 10, 1981.
Pursuant to the authority conferred by Sections 210, 211 and 212 of the Act, the Commission issued an " Order Recuiring Interconnection and Wheeling, and Approving Settlement" in Docket Nos. EL79-8 and E-9558, on October 28, 1981, as corrected by the Errata Notice issued on November 5, 1981, 17 TERC 561,078, er nodified by the " Order en Rehearing" issued Janucry 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 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&P and the operrting utilities which constituted what is now Texas. Utilities l
Electric Company ("TUEC") were ur6ered to file tariffc that vould comply with t'ne provisions of the form of Order Approving Settle-ment which the Commission incorporated by reference in its Order on Rehersting.
In addition, CPL and WTU were required to file tariff s that would comply with certain provisions of the feno of Order Approving Settlement for transmission service within EECOT 4
1 l
e
.i,
available to utilities with loads less tha:.1500 MW.
PSO and SWEPCO were also recuired to file tariffs that would comply with certain other provisions 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 tarif f s 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:
Brazos Electric Power Cooperative, Mid-Texas Electric Cooperative, Inc., and The Texas Cooperatives (collectively, "VCG " ) ; Municipal Electric Systems of Oklahoma; South Texas Elec-tric Cooperative, Inc.; Medina Electric Cooperative, Inc.; North-l I
1 Docket Nes. ERB 2-545-000 and ERB 2-546-000 concern the tariffs filed by PSO and SVEPCO for transmission within SKTP and by CPL and WTU for transmission service within ERCOT.
" Order Accepting j
rer Filing and Suspending Tariffs, Granting in Part and Denying
)
in Part Mction for Summary Disposition, Granting Interventions, Cor.solidating Dockets and Establishing Procedures," 20 FERC 561,082 (Culy 23, 1982).
DocXet Nos. ER83-610-000 and ERE3-611-000 concern the tariffs for transmission service to be i
provided by the CSW Operating Companies to, from and over the EVDC Inttreonnections,
" Order Accepting For Filing and i
Suspending Tarifft,, Noting Interventions, Summarily Disposing of Certain issues, Consolidating Dockets and Establishing Procedures," 24 FERC 161,266 (August 30, 1983).
Docket Nos.
ERB 3-635-000 and ER83-657-000 concern the tariffs for transmission ra.tvice to, from and over the HVDC Interconnections i
filed by TUEC and EL&P, respectively.
" Order Accepting For Filing and Suspending Tariffs, Granting Ir.terventions, Summarily Disposing of Issue, Consolidating Lockets, and Establishing Procedures," 24 FERC 161,291 (September 16, 1983).
t 5
S O
1 i
- )
l
}
l east Texas Electric Cooperative, Inc. ("NTEC"); Tex-La' Electric j
Cooperative of Texas, Inc.; Rayburn Country Electric Cooperative, Inc. ("Rayburn Country"); City of Lafayette, Louisiana; Public l
Utilities Board of Brownsville, Texas ("Brownsville"); Valley View Energy Corporation; Oklahoma Corporation Commission; and the Public Utility Commission of Texas ("PUCT").
Prehearing and
.status conferences were conducted befcire 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 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 st'aff.
On December 23, 1985, certain partses to these proceed-ings and the Staf.f of the Commission jointly filed an offer of Settlement, which would reso2ve the matters at issue.2 The fci-lowing parties withdrew from the proceeding:
Municipal Electric Systems of Oklahoma, City of Laf ayette, Louisiana and Rayburn.
4 I
2 Two of the pa ties, 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 service tariffs (Appendices 3 and 4).
}
e
I
~
.g. )
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, Brownsv111e's 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, 1986, 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 Offer of settlement, as certified, contains a Memorandum of Agreement among the settling parties, certain se lement 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 STLC/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.
executed a Supplement to offer of Settlement as well as the Mem-orandum of Agreement, thereby joining the pending Offer of Set-tiement.
The Supplement to Offer of Settlement, together with a revised draft Order Approving settlement, was filed with the Commission on November 7, 1986.4 Therefore, the Offer of Settle-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, reasonable and in the public interest.
)
The Commission finds:
(1)
The Commission has jurisdiction to issue this Order under Fections 210, 211 and 212 of the rederal Power Act, by virtue of prior Orders issued in Docket No. EL79-8.
By agree-ment in Decket No. EL79-8, the rates approved herein are deter-eined in eccotdance 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 Tariffs attached to the Offer j
i I
}
.The O fer of Fettlement filed December 23, 1985, as supplemented j
by the Supplement to offer of Settlement filed November 7,
- 1986, is hereinafter ce' treed to as the Offer of Settlement.
i f
f
-~-
t
c.
1 s
)
cf Settlement as Appendices 1-8 are fair, reasonable and in the public interest.
The Commission orders:
(1) The Offer of Settlement and the settlement tariffs as modified in accordance with this Order are approved, and ae-cepted for filing to become effective as of the date on which 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 service and system megawatt-mile data provided to the Staff'and evaluated in the Staff com-
_s ments on the Offer of Settlement.
Such rates are 554.23 per MW-mile for CPL, S76.98 per MW-mile for WTU, S95.65 per MW-mile for EL&P and $45.50 per MW-mile for TUEC.
Within 30 days of the issu-ance of this Order, CPL, WTU, EL&P and TUEC shall revise their rerpective settlement tariffs to set forth the foregoing rates.
Before CPL, WTO, EL&P or TUEC may use a different rate under its settlement tariff, it must file sech rate as a change in rate.
(3) No refunds to the parties to the settlement for charges billed or collected under the provisions of the tariffs originally filed in these pececedings are required for the perio6
' covering service rendered prior to the date of this order, and for such period amounts billed or collected co.nsistent with the I
e
_______________________m
originally filed tariffs shall no longer be subject to refund.
Within 90 days of the effective date of the Offer of Settlement and the' settlement tariffs revised pursuant to the preceding paragraph, TUEC, HL&P, CPL, WTU, PSO and SWEPCO shall make re-funds of those amounts collected under the originally filed tar-iffs in excess of the amounts, if any, which would have been co'lected under the settlement tariff s, for service rendered between the date of this order and said effective date, together with interest thereon calculated in accordance with Section 35.19a of the Commission's Regulations.
(4) The tariffs filed with the Offer of Settlement, as modified pursuant to this Order, conform in every material re-spect to the Commission's Orders in Docket No. EL79-8,
- i.ncluding the form of Order Approving Settlement incorporated by reference t
in those Orders, and the Orders entered in Docket No. EL79-8
)
remain un-hanged and in full force and effe$t..
f (S)(c) Approval of this settlement constitutes a reso-f lutinn of all issues in this proceeding, except that STEC/MEC t
shall nor be foreclosed from arguing, or the Commission from i
deciding, against the rolling-in of AC and DC oosts in any future proceeding involving the CPL and W7U intra-ERC07 transmission service tariffs.
Except as provided in the preceding senter;ce, the parties te the of.fer of Settlement may not (i) contest any provision of the Commission's Orders in Docket No. EL79-8, except W
O
t *
~ '.:. ~.
~ - ~.
.)
as expressly provided for in this paragraph; (ii) contest any provision of TUEC's, EL&P's or CSW's tariffs filed in settlement of Docket Nos. ER82-545-000, et al.
or (iii) contest the offer of Settlerent and proposed Order Approving Settlement filed therein.
(b) In the event that TUEC, HL&P or CSW proposes an 1
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 any provision of such tariff unless the filing party seeks a material change to such provision.
(c) TUEC, HL&P and CSW shr11 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
_d with the provisions of the Commission's Orders in Docket No.
EL79-8 including, but not limited to, paragraph 8(d) of the form i
of Order Approving Settlement, except that CSW shall be free to seek modifications of paragraph 8(d).cf the form of Order Approv-ing fettlement in Docket No. EL79-8 with regard to the rate methodology prescribed for the FTU and CPL intra-ERCOT tariffs,
'and to file tariffs embodying rate methodologies other than those currently prescribed in said paragraph 8(d) for the WTU and CPL intra-ERCOT tariffs and except further that CSR shall be free to seek modifiestions of paragraph 8(e) of the form of Order Approv-ing settlement in Docket No. EL79-8 and to file tariffs not con-sistent with the provisions of said paragraph 8(e) for the PSO 1
i
4 i and SWEPCO intra-SWPP tariffs.
(d) TUEC, HL&P, and CSW, without mutual consent, shall 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 HVDC interconnections from the positive difference megawatt-mile methodology as pre-sently practiced in ERCOT to any other methodology permitted by the Commission's Orders in Docket No. EL79-8 for a period of ten I
(10) years.
(e) Notwithstanding the provisions of this para-graph, TUEC, EL&P or CSW may at any time, with mutual consent, seek a modification to the Commission Orders in Docket No. EL79-8 or the tarif f s in Docket Nos. ERB 2-545-000, et al., and no party g
I to the Of fer of Settlement, other than Staff, may oppose such modification, so long as such modification does not adversely affect any of the rights that such party may have under the Or-ders issued on October 28, 1981, November 5, 19E1, and January 29, 1982, incorporating by reference the form of Order Appreving Settlement, in Docket No. EL79-8 or the Of fer of Settlement and I
proposed Order Approving Settlement in this proceeding, and such p&rty shall limit its opptsition, if any, to such proposed medi-fication and shall not seek to change, modify or relitigate any other provision of the Orders in Docket No. IL79-8 or the Offer of f,ettlement and proposed Order Approving Settlement in this proceeding.
(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 re-suit of such service; and any such transmission service charges shall not be unlawful by virtue of the fact that such charges are j
imposed by entities which are not subject to plenary jurisdiction of the FERC and which have not filed tariffs or rate schedules with the FCRC applicable to charges for service originating and terminating within ERCOT.
I (7) Thic Order does not constitute appro"al of, or precedent reghrding, any principle or issue in this proceeding, I
i except that (a) the tariffs required to be filed pursuant to the Orders entered in Docket He. EL79-B are and will continue to be governed by such Orders, including paragraph 8 of the form of Order Approvir.g Settlement, incorporated by reference in those Orders (b) the tariffs filed with the offer of Settlement are consistent with the Commission's Orders in Docket No. EL79-8, h
e
,.
- 2 l
- 1 including the form of Order Approving Settlement; and (c) this Order shall, in any future proceeding instituted by reason of the Orders in Docket No. EL79-8 or this Order, constitute approvel
~
and precedent with regard to the principles set forth and issues determined in such Orders (except as otherwise stated hereite).
1 e
e 4
l
}
I 1
e I
i I
i
L Enclosurs B 1
Settlement Des iona tions Date Filed:
December 23, 1985 j
l l
l Designations Descriptions l
Docket No. ERB 3-610-000 i
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)
Southwestern Electric Power Company (2)
FERC Electric Tariff, SPP Interpool trans-First Revised Volume No. 2, mission Service Tariff, Original Sheet Nos. I through 21 dated October 31, 1985 (Supersedes FERC Electric Tariff, Original Volume No. 2)
Docket No. ERB 2-545-000 Public Service Company of Oklahoma (3)
FERC Electric Tariff, Intra-SPP transmission First Revised Volume No. 1, Service Tariff, dated Original Sheet Nos.1 through 15 October 31, 1985 (Supersedes FERC' Electric Tariff, Original Volume No. 1)
Southwestern Electric Power Company (4)
FERC Electric Tariff, Intra-SPP transmission First Reviued Volume No. 1, Service Tariff, dated Original Sheet Nos. I through 15 October 31, 1985 (Supersedes FERC Electric Tariff, Original volume No. 1) a
____._______.._____m.__._
___m._
.__