ML19309C896

Petition to Intervene in Proceeding.Urges Commission to Accept Interconnection Agreement for Filing,Suspend Agreement Operation for One Day & Set Issue for Immediate Conference & Hearing

ML19309C896
Person / Time
Site:	Grand Gulf
Issue date:	03/28/1980
From:	Mcdiarmid R MICHIGAN, STATE OF, SPIEGEL & MCDIARMID
To:
Shared Package
ML19309C895	List: ML19309C894 ML19309C896
References
NUDOCS 8004090368
Download: ML19309C896 (8)

Text

{{#Wiki_filter:T

      * -   .                                                                ATTACHfTNT A UNITED STATES OF AMERICA BEFORE THE FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION Mississippi Power & Light Company        )  Docket No. ER80-261 PETITION TO INTERVENE I.

Pursuant to the Notice of Filing issued in this docket by the Commission on March 6, 1980, the Cities of Clarksdale and Greenwood, Mississippi, herewith file this petition for intervention, in accordance with Section 1.8 and 1.10 of the Commission's Rules of Practice. II. Clarksdale and Greenwood (" Cities"), through the Municipal Energy Agency of Mississippi, arranged well

s. over a year ago for the delivery of power and energy to Gulf States Utilities for redelivery to MP&L and further delivery to Cities. It is the interface arrangement between Gulf States and MP&L which the instant filing is designed to cover. As we shall note, there seems to be considerable question as to what types of transactions can be carried out over that interconnection between Gulf States and MP&L under this contract, and considerable question as to whether the terms of the contract ~ as filed are just and reasonable. No other party can represent Cities' interests here and Cities may be bound by the Commission's action in this proceeding.

Consequently, Cities are entitled to intervention herein._ Since this petition is filed on behalf of two entities, rather than separate petitions being filed for each, Cities v.equest, in the interest of reducing proliferation of filed documents, tha t the following names and addresses be placed upon the official service list: Mr. Marvin Carraway Assistant Superintendent  : Clarksdale Water & Light Department l P.O. Box 940 l Clarksdale, Mississippi 38614 l Mr. Charles M. Matthews  ! ( Manager ' Greenwood Utilities Commission  ; P.O. Box 866 Greenwood, Mississippi 38930 _- _. . 80040 9.0. ._

                                                     ^

t. David R. Hunt, Esq. Sullivan, Hunt, Spell, Henson,

                                       & Chapman P.O. Box 1196 123 Court Street Clarksdale, Missisippi 38614 Robert C. McDiarmid, Esq.

Spiegel & McDiarmid 2600 Virginia Avenue , N.W. Washington, D.C. 20037 III. Cities have engaged in litigation with MP&L before this Commission (FERC Docket Nos. ER78-583 and ER78-584), which forms a backdrop to this filing. In the Settlement Agreement reached in those dockets, MP&L entered into certain commitments with Cities and with the Municipal Energy Agency of Mississippi ("MEAM"). While there is apparently some argument yet remaining as to MP&L's obligation to transmit

    ..               f rom the Gulf States interconnection, absent an interconnec-tion agreement with Gulf States, MP&L undertook expeditiously to conclude an agreement with Gulf States that would moot the question of its obligation.

We understand that negotiations between MP&L and Gulf States proceeded upon a very erratic basis. Cities have been given quite different representations as to the course of these negotiations from information received from the two sides. Compare, e.g., the filing letter here with Attachment A hereto. Cities have also been in receipt of letters from MP&L's corporate sibling, Louisiana Power & Light ("LP&L"), which first appeared as though LP&L might be threatening suit if MP&L in fact transmitted power or energy over its inter-connection with Gulf States. If that communication was intended as a threat, Cities believe it has been withdrawn by a subsequent communication from LP&L. , i Cities are not privy to the reasons behind this , filing of an unconsented to interconnection " agreement". , From an operating point of view, Cities find it difficult to l understand how an interconnection " agreement" could be ' expected to operate without provisions for accounting for  ; payments for the transactions which take place under the , (/ l 1

f agreement. If no service schedules are necessary, it would

           'seem to bear out Cities' contention all along tha t no inter-connection agreement was in fact necessary for transmission f rom the Gulf States point of interconnection with MP&L, a contention which MP&L has heretofor vigorously disputed.

Cities are aware of one very salient point to them; no energy has in fact been transmitted over the interconnection. While Cities may have their own views as to which of the parties to the interconnection " agreement" might be at fault in this regard, it seems clear that the interconnection " agreement" will not operate without at least acquiescence on both sides. As a consequence, Cities urge tha t the " agreement" be accepted for filing, suspended for one day, and set for rapid hearing. Cities also urge an investigation of this arrange-ment by Staff so that the efficiencies available to the Cities, and the parties to the " agreement" available from transactions over this interconnection be permitted to take place. Since Cities are by no means sure of the reasons of Gulf States or MP&L for their positions, we urge that a expeditious conference of the parties be convened, so that it can be determined whether the problems apparent here are real for anyone other than Cities and, if real, resolved. t. IV. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, Cities urge that the Commission accept this " interconnection agreement" for filing, suspend its operation for one day, and set the issue of its justness and reasonableness for immediate. conference and hearing. Respectfully submitted, r~s , Robert C. McDiarmid l Counsel for Cities of Clarksdale and Greenwood, Mississippi March 28, 1980 C Law offices of:

              ' Spiegel & McDiarmid 2600 Virginia Avenue, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20037

nns_s am-=s agA uuoN 7 co 7CxA s

                                                                                                                                                                    &  77704
                             *OS7      0*7       CE   ao*     3891     .
                                                    , A A CA   COOC 78 3         838     463I December 14, 1979 Mr. ft. L. Stampley, Vice President                                                                                                           g Mississippi Power & Light Ccmpany P. O. Box 1640                                    .                ..                                        g                         (v      b Jackson, Mississippi 39205                                          0 D

Dear Norris:

As you are aware, we have been negotiating for months upon an appropriate interconnection agreement between our companies. Early in the year we exchanged drafts. In May we submitted to you a revised draft which we thought contained the significant changes you had requested. At that time we thought the agreement was substantially in final form for execution. In mid-October you submitted to us a totally new draft of C a proposed interconnection agreement, stating that it was adapted frem one you had recently executed. Since your recent draft is , significantly different in important respects frca the previous drafts, we have tried to reconcile the differences, hopefully so as to permit each sf us to be consistent with respect to the services we respectively offer.

   ?m.-     -                          With this in mind, we have taken your draft and made a few
   -M.                       proposed revisions to it. Attached is a copy of your draft con-q.;7/ .                    taining our proposed revisions. In the areas in which our respec-

f. n - . tive positions differ materially or which are not covered in your proposed form of agreement, we suggest that each company incorporate

        --                     its provisions into its service schedules.

For instance, we have provisions in our interconnection agreements regarding continuity of service and billing and settle-ment which are either not covered by or differ from the provisions in your proposed agreement. We suggest that our standard provisions be incorporated in the GSU service schedules attached to the inter-connection agreement, and you incorporate your standard provisions in your service schedule. This would hopefully allow each of us to be consistent in, imposing the same provisions with respect to services offered by each of us within our own service areas. If this sounds like an acceptable alternative, please let me know and Q we will promptly submit to yeu. a proposed GSU transmission service

                   ~ _ .           -       ~ ~ ~         ,
                                                             ---c----    ,_

6 '

                ~

nr. n. u. nous s es .- -~~-~- - -- - schedule with our conditions included in'it. We will also make the m appropriate modifications, as outlined above, to our other service

   '-                      schedules which were included in the May draft. lie would expect you to add the bill'ing and settlement provisions which were contained in
  .                        your interconnection agreement to your service schedules.

We have discussed'with you our need for transmission service - on your system. This letter constitutes our formal request that transmission service be nade available to us on substantially the same basis as that we understand you are now offering to others. For this reason, we expect the interconnection agreement at least to include initially a service schedule providing such transmission service. - Please let us have your cocuents as soon as possible. Sincerely,

                                                                  /[[ lelay

(

 -                                                            A. E. Naylor Manager-Power Interconnections AEN:am Attachment

( cc:id(r. C. M. Mathews *

• Vice Chairman - MEAM Mr. Charles Burchfield

           .                     Cccmissioner - MEAM C                              Mr. Jack Davey 24:j.{                          Vice President & Chief Engineer - LP&L
  }.yNLg
                  -s .
    ' ' ' '                      Mr. John F. Vogt, Jr.

Vice President - Middle South Services Mr.. Marvin L. Carraway Secretary-Treasurer - MEN 1 4 9 s @D - i

6 , . VERIFICATION s DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, SS: Robert C. McDiarmid, being first duly placed upon affirmation, deposes and says that he is an attorney for the Cities of Clarksdale and Greenwood, Mississippi, and that as such he has signed the for~egoing PETITION TO INTERVENE for , and on behalf of said parties; that he is authorized by the parties so to do; that he has read said Comments and is fami- - liar with the contents thereof; and that the matters and things therein set forth are true and correct to the . best of his knowledge, information and belief. Robert C. McDiarmid Subscribed and sworn to before me this ' 28th day of March, 1980. Luh AC Notary 'Public_. gy < , r..r tzpt.u Tan.3L U C m, CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that I have this day caused to be served the foregoing document upon each person designated on the official service list compiled by the Secretary in this proceeding in accordance with the requirements of Section 1.17 of the Rules of Practice and Procedure. Dated at Washington, D.C. this 28th day of March, 1980. A Robert C. McDiarmid we

ATTACHMEUT B Sity a Slarksdale mammawaaas]

                                                                                                         .oer omcc son .4o 0$alcr aml big lst Separtmerl February 13, 1980 RECElVED FE8191980 Mr. Jack Davey                   SPIEC2! 0 .~.'S!.teU.!!D Vice President and Chief Engineer Louisiana Power & Light Company 142 Delaronde Street New Orleans, Louisiana 70174

Dear Mr. Davey:

Clarksdale is in receipt of your letter of February 5,1980, which apparently threatens some sort of suitif Mississippi Power G Light Company agrees with Culf States Utilities Company to transmit power from its' interconnection with Culf States to the City of Clarksdale, as we believe it has promised it would do in the course of a settlement reached and filed at the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. As we understand it, LPSL seeks payment for transmission based upon a " load flow" rather than a " contract path" basis, a method heretofore unused in the Southwest Power Pool transacticns. The Municipal Energy Agency of Mississippi and its Members, Clarksdale and Greenwood, would be pleased to consider the use of a true " load flow" transmission rate if it is to be proposed. As we understand it, that would result in a single

              " postage stamp" rate for all of the Southwest Power Pool, and would be considerably less expensive than the double rate (for MPSL and Gulf States) which your corporate affiliate, MPSL, has insisted upon. If you are proposing a true load flow basis, I am sure that all of the people to whom you wrote will be pleased to negotiate with you within the context of the Southwest Power Pool. If, of course, you mean to state that LPSL seeks a third full transmission rate based upon its own costs, we believe you are incorrect conceptually, as well as incorrect legally. We would                                              ,

appreciate clarification in this regard. l l Yo very truly, l MW Richard M. Webster, Jr.  ; Mayor l cc: Mr. A. E. Naylor i M r . W . L . S tampicy l Hon. Kenneth F. Bowen i C . M . .$.ta thews

                                       .= c r. 3 d l

.. r -id. Esq. '

 ....n.                         -o ..      4.e,c.          e....... ....,...a..         .............                   .,c..n....

6sa=es'e=to eeseieeseoee ma,ee s o me.e eeems e G e m es.eese s s e

\ .'

ATTACHMENT C c -- - - e . - a l LauisiAruA , ,c,u.cuc, ,1.,,, P O W E R & L I G H Tj p o. sox ecce N,w cattAus. tousANA 70174 . <504: 3682345 urut.d sistau JACK OAVEY February 25, 1980 "'#" and Ch.et Engsneer R E.C EI V E D Hon. Richard M. Webster, Jr. MAR 4 1980 Mayor, City of Clarksdale Post Office Box 940 SP!EGEL & i,kOtARMID Clarksdale, Mississippi 38614

Dear Mayor Webster:

We have your letter dated February 13, 1980. ' We are unable to find any indication in our past correspondence of any threat of a suit or litigation of any kind, and we hope that nobody involved in this trans-action will go in that direction. All that we were saying to the. interested parties was, and is, that Louisiana Power & Light- Company cannot. and will not transmit electricity over 'itsJfacilities without being paid for that transmission. Respectfully yours, Y w. Jack Davey Vice President and Chief Engineer JD:cb cc: Mr. A. E. Naylor Mr. N. L. Stampley Hon. Kenneth F. Bowen Mr. C. M. Mathews . Mr. Sylvan Richard Middle South Operating Committee p

                                     , - . .- - .-    -_-          . , . m -  -_ .+ .        -}}