ML20247H196
| ML20247H196 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Vogtle  |
| Issue date: | 05/24/1989 |
| From: | Patrizia C, Ryan B OGLETHORPE POWER CORP., PAUL, HASTINGS, JANOFSKY & WALKER |
| To: | Thomas C Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20247H205 | List: |
| References | |
| RTR-REGGD-09.003, RTR-REGGD-9.003 NUDOCS 8905310185 | |
| Download: ML20247H196 (61) | |
Text
{{#Wiki_filter:-_ i 4 l: LAW OFFIC ES OF PAUL,llASTINGS, JANOFSKY & WALKER Les o. pm a ***tataswie inc6voie.s poorEssio=As commo=Avio=s GEORotA-Pacific CENTER mosset R Mastmas i33 PEACMtREE STREET, N. E. leo =Amo s. .sA=o'**' cMaatss M. wacata TW E L FT H FLOOR ATLANTA. OCORO6A 30303 TgLE,MONEi404 ses.geOO Los ANGELES OFFICE 105o CON N ECTIC UT AVEN U E, N. W. t'3s BOUTH FLOWER STREET CONNECircut OFFICE Los ANGELES, CAUFORNIA 9007: WAS H I N GTO N, D.C.20036 ONE C ANTERBURV GNEEN TELEPMONE (213) 683-6000 sTAMrORD CONNECTICUT DeDOI TELEpwoNE 1203) 357 0100 ORANGE COUNTY OFFICE ggw yong o,,,c g 695 TOWN CENTER DRIVE COSTA MES A, CALIFORNIA 93626 TWC 7 O- 822 - 9062 e WEST Bra STREET TELEpMON E (7a4) 641-5100 NEW YORK, NEW YORK IOoi9 TELECOPIER: (202) 452-8649 TELE PHONE (2:2183a-6100 WEST LOS ANGELES OFFICE 1899 OCEAN AVENUE TOKYO OFFICE TORANOMON OMTORI S UILDIN G BANTA MONacA. CALIFORNtA 90406 4-3, TORANOMON 1 CHOME TE LE pMOceE 121.si 45H2OO MIN ATO-MU, Tomv0 ICs - T ELEpMONE (031507-0730 wR,TEw. O. RECT O AL N Uw.ER May 24, 1989 OUR rile e: E HAND Mr. Cecil O. Thomas Chief, Policy Development and Technical Support Branch Program Management, Policy Development & Analysis Staff Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Re: Plant Vogtle, Unit 1 Alleged Non-Compliance With Antitrust License Conditions, Docket No. 50-424A
Dear Mr. Thomas:
On behalf of Oglethorpe Power Corporation ("Oglethorpe Power"), this responds to your April 26, 1989 request for additional,information relating to Georgia Power Company's ("GPCo's") failure to comply with its antitrust license conditions on Plant Vogtle Unit 1, as well as Plant Hatch Unit 2 and Plant Vogtle Unit 2 2/ J/ As your April 26, 1989 letter notes, Plant Hatch Unit 2 and Plant Vogtle Unit 2 are also implicated since the same co-licensees and antitrust license conditions are involved. ED7 8905310185 89052444 3 e i-PDR ADOCK 050
7_ _ ._ Mr. Cecil O. Thomas May 24, 1989 Page 2 INTRODUCTION j 1 The issues raised by oglethorpe Power go directly ! to the pro-competitive objectives the Commission sought to meet by its inclusion of the antitrust license conditions. The license conditions, as presented to the commission during the initial construction permit antitrust review and as interpreted by the Commission and its Staff since that time, give Oglethorpe Power the current right to use the Georgia Integrated Transmission System ("ITS") for off-system transactions. GPCo has not disputed this in previous filings with the Commission.2/ In the original permit proceeding, the Justice Department had significant antitrust concerns regarding GPCo's ability, through control over essential transmission facilities, to deny access to potential wholesale l l 2/ See, e.o., Georgia Power Response to Regulatory Guide 9.3 (Aug. 29, 1983) at p. 16 (Enclosures, Tab 1); Letter from Robert P. Edwards, Jr. to William Lambe, Planning and Program Analysis Staff, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, NRC (Aug. 11, 198 6) (Enclosures, Tab 2).
- - _ _ - _ - _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ . = -
m=_---__ - . 4
. Mr. Cecil O. Thomas
- May 24, 1989-Page 3 I
competitors and to " prevent or impede the development of competitive bulk power supply systems."3/ The Atomic Energy
' Commission's acceptance of the proposed license conditions was premised on the co-licensees' obtaining the "immediate access to the transmission grid" necessary to give them the capability of entering into competitive bulk power supply transactions and providing " alternative sources for wheeling arrangements . . . . "4/ Since the issuance of the license, the Contmission Staff has consistently recognized.
that use of.the ITS for off-system sales and other transactions is an important " competitive option"'that was not available to Oglethorpe Power and the other co-licensees l
- prior to the 1974 Settlement Agreement and the accompanying l-ITS agreements.d/
Despite its prior assurances to the contrary, GPCo seeks te bar the availability of that option by imposing as 3/ 1986 Plant Vogtle, Unit 1 " Finding of No Significant Antitrust Changes" ("1986 Vogtle 1 Staff Review") at
- p. 5, quoting Department of Justice advice letter dated August 2, 1972, at p. 3.
L 4/ Department of Justice advice letter, dated April 9, 1976, at p. 3. E/ See, e.a., 1986 Vogtle 1 Staff Review, at pp. 15-16, 23-24.)
i l Mr. Cecil O. Thomas May 24, 1989 Page 4 l a prerequisite a "self-sufficiency" requirement that GPCo reads into the existing antitru'st license conditions. GPCo also asserts-that, even after the co-licensees attain such "self-sufficiency," interconnection points between the ITS and other systems can be used for off-system transactions only on a "first come, first served" basis, at a time when GPCo's exercise of its market power and exclusive control over scheduling has already foreclosed other competitive transactions. These GPCo positions are fundamentally inconsistent with its obligations under the antitrust license conditions, properly construed in their overall context. As demonstrated herein, GPCo's actions in barring or hindering oglethorpe Power's rights to use the ITS have ; violated the antitrust license conditions. The effect of these GPCo activities has been the maintenance of the situation the license c..nditions were specifically designed to remedy. The Commission should therefore enforce the conditions so as to accomplish their original purpose and, in that context, restate the conditions in such a way as to end GPCo's ability to frustrate Oglethorpe Power's rights. i _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 1
Mr. Cecil O. Thomas May 24,l1989' Page 5 RESPONSES TO SPECIFIC REOUESTS FOR INFORMATION The following responds to the specific requests for additional information enclosed with ycur April 26, 1989 letter:
-REOUEST NO. 1: Is Oglethorpe Power Corporation alleging that GPCo is not living up to itr.
Integrated Transmission System (ITS) Agreement or is Oglethorpe Power alleging that GPCo is not complying with the-antitrust license conditions attached.to the Plant'Vogtle Unit 1 license? Explain and distinguish between the two. (c. 7)
.Oglethorpe Power alleges both that GPCo is not living up to its ITS Agreement with Oglethorpe Power and
-that GPCo is not. complying with the antitrust license conditions attached to the Plant Vogtle Unit 1 license. In
'this regard, Oglethorpe Power emphasizes that the license conditions-were design (.d to provide administrative recognition and enforceability for transmission access rights that the Justice Department had identified as necessary to reach its conclusion that a situation inconsistent with the antitrust laws would not be maintained. Those same rights are also provided for in the ITS Agreement, which was the product of negotiations among
Mr. Cecil O. Thomas May 24, 1989 Page 6. the parties and provides a fuller expression of the mechanism through which these rights would be implemented. The rights in the license conditions are not narrower than the rights in the ITS Agreement because they are the same righte. oglethorpe Power believes that GPCo has failed to comply with the antitrust license conditions imposed by the l Commission in at least the following respects: (1) Despite assurances to the Commission, the Commission Staff and the co-owners regarding its intentions j or willingness to entor into such arrangements, ria has refused to complete arrangements, or has delayed making or implementing arrangements, either for individual bulk power f i supply or sales or for generic agreements to permit ongoing alternative bulk power and wheeling transactions. (See, infra, pp. 17-20, 33-51.) (2) GPCo has, despite prior assurances to the Commission, the Commission Staff and the co-owners, placed j preconditions on access to and use of the ITS which are inconsistent with the obligations it accepted under the license conditions and the ITS Agreement. (See, infra, pp. 22-28.)
Mr. Cecil O. Thomas May 24, 1989 i Page 7 { (3) GPCo has sought unilaterally to reduce, or to. burden in such a way as to make uneconomic, Oglethorpe Power's access to alternative bulk power supplies and its ability to provide competitive bulk power sales and wheeling arrangements. (See, infra, pp. 48-51.) The antitrust license conditions must be interpreted in light of the fundamental antitrust concerns 1 that were raised by the Department of Justice and the factual context in which the conditions were imposed by the Commission. The requirements imposed by the conditions should not be determined on the basis of the abstract meaning of the words alone, in isolation from the situation in which the conditions were developed and have been interpreted by the Staff since that time. i A propar understanding of the antitrust license conditions thus requires a review of their development and i interpretation: i i {- l
_. = _ _ _ _ - _ - _ - _ _ _ _ _ 1 l; Mr. Cecil O. Thomas l May 24,.1989' l' , . Page 8 A. . Background and Development of the Antitrust License Conditions l
- 1. Initial 1972 Justice Department antitrust review At the time-GPCo filed applications for the initial construction permits for Hatch Unit 2 and Plant Vogtle, the Justice Department was consulted in accordance with Section 105(c) of the Atomic Energy Act. The
' Department concluded that there was evidence that GPCo had used its monopoly power and control over essential transmission facilities to prevent the establishment of alternative bulk power supply systems in Georgia and to impair the ability of wholesale customers to compete with GPCo at retail. (Aug. 2, 1972 Justice Department letter to AEC at pp. 8, 9.) In reaching this conclusion, the Department emphasized that a competitive bulk power supply
" ordinarily will require access over high voltage transmission lines for the sale and exchange of coordinating power and energy." (Id. at p. 3.) The Department also described actions by CPCo that had restricted transmission access, had imposed conditions on the sale or resale of power and had otherwise prevented competition, including by entering into what appeared to be territorial allocations
1 Mr. Cecil O. Thomas May 24, 1989 Page 9 with its Southern Company affiliates and with other utilities. (Id. at pp. 4-11.) Specifically i'ncluded as a concern were GPCo's efforts to restrict access to transmission facilities for sales of power into Florida. (Id. at pp. 6-7.) The Department recognized that co-ownership of nuclear units alone, without the full benefit of transmission access, was insufficient to remedy the anticompetitive situation and promote the development of competitors to GPCo. (Id. at pp. 10-11.) The Department thus concluded that, in issuing a license, the Commission should " impose appropriate conditions to eliminate the anticompetitive activities . . . .
" " Appropriate conditions" were defined by the Department to include relief from refusals to transfer wholesale power, territorial allocations with adjacent utilities, restrictions on recale of power, and inclusion of unreason?.ble restrictions in SEPA wreeling contracts. (12. at pp. 11-12.)
- 2. 1974 settlement and proposed l
license conditions 1 In response to the Department's determination that a full evidentiary hearing was required to address the 1 l t
l Mr. Cecil O. Thomas , May 24, 1989 l Page 10 anticompetitive situation, GPCo entered into negotiations with the Department and the interveners (which included Oglethorpe Power's member cooperatives). Those negotiations resulted in the April 1974 Settlement Agreement and proposed license conditions. On May 1, 1974, the Department advised the Commission that the negotiated conditions provided for
" access to the Hatch and Vogtle Units . . .; coordination and sharing of reserves; transmission services over Applicant's facilities; sales of partial requirements;-and sales of power at voltages appropriate for the load to be served." (See May 1, 1974 Justice Department letter at p.
2.) The Department specifically opined that the conditions provided the interveners with " competitive, alternative, power supply sources, and should enable them to effectively compete with Georgia Power." (Id.) Thus, as originally negotiated and proposed, the license conditions were considered by the Department of Justice to address the significant antitrust concerns it had identified two years earlier by promoting two fundamental remedial purposes: competitive alternative supply sources and the ability to compete, in significant part through transmission access. That is, the conditions were designed
j 1 Mr. Cecil O. Thomas May:24, 1989 Page 11 to assure'that the interveners would have both access to sources of power other than GPCo and the ability to compete effectively with GPCo in bulk power. markets. As the Justice Department had already emphasized, achieving effective competition in bulk power markets required that GPCo not be allowed to impede transactions through territorial allocations with utilities in adjacent states, f or through limiting transmission access in a way that prevented energy coordination and exchange. (See Justice Department Aug. 2, 1972 letter to AEC.)
- 3. Intervening transmission and ioint ownershio acreements The negotiations that led to the proposed license conditions did not conclude the commission's consideration, or the parties' negotiations over resolution, of these issues. Indeed, although the license conditions were proposed in 1974 and the Department recommended that the antitrust proceeding be dismissed, the construction permit for Plant Vogtle was not issued at that time.
As a result of additional negotiations, the parties entered into agreements not only for the joint ownership of Plant Hatch Unit 2, Plant Vogtle and other
. - . j
Mr. Cecil O. Thomas May 24, 1989 Page 12 plants (including several coal-fired units), but also for the joint ownership and use of the integrated transmission system serving the Georgia Territory. As a further result of these negotiations, the intervenor municipalities (except for the City of Dalton) formed the Municipal Electric Authority of Georgia ("MEAG"), and the intervenor cooperatives formed Oglethorpe Power's predecessor. MEAG and Oglethorpe Power then applied to the Commission for amendments to the license applications for the nuclear units to become co-licensees with GPCo.
- 4. 1976 Justice Department antitrust recommendation In accordance with its regulations, the Commission then obtained further Justice Department advice on the proposed amendments to the license applications and their relationship to the antitrust concerns that had been previously identified as requiring remedial action. In its I
April 9, 1976 letter to the Commission, the Department recalled the position taken in its May 1974 letter and confirmed that the addition of MEAG, Oglethorpe Power and Dalton as co-owners would not create or maintain a situation inconsistent with the antitrust laws. i 1
i Mr. Cecil O. Thomas May 24, 1989 Page 13 In describing the rights (and the factual and i legal situation) that the parties understood would be
]
created by the Commission's acceptance of the proposed license conditions, the Department stressed that Oglethorpe 1 Power and MEAG would not only acquire ownership interests in the nuclear units, but would also acquire joint ownership and use of the integrated transmission system: [Oglethorpe Power and MEAG] will i purchase partial ownership of add the use gf the high voltage transmission grid previcasly owned and controlled exclusively by [GPCo]. As a result, they will have the capability of enterina inta bulk power supolv arranaementa (th other electric systems. In .ddition, this immediate access tg tug transmission arid will provide alternative sources far'wheelina ' arrangements for electric systems in Georgia, (Justice Department April 9, 1976 letter to NRC at p. 3 (emphasis added).) There are several aspects of the Department's 1976 analysis that deserve particular emphasis: Ellst, in determining that Oglethorpe Power and MEAG vould have the capability to enter into bulk power supply arrangements and provide alternative sources for wheeling arrangements, the Department was conscious of its
l Mr. Cecil O. Thomas May 24, 1989 Page 14 own earlier determinations (to which it specifically referred). Thus, it was again concluding that Oglethorpe Power and MEAG would be able to have bulk power supply arrangements with utilities other than GPCo and that , Oglethorpe Power and MEAG would be able to provide
" alternative" wheeling arrangements, i.e., arrangements other than those provided by GPCo.
Second, both the bulk power supply and wheeling arrangements were discussed in the context of a purchase of ownership and use of the transmission system, not ownership of the nuclear units. The availability of alternative bulk power supplies and alternative wheeling arrangements was tied to the transmission arrangements and became effective with the purchase of an interest in the transmission system and with the approval of the license conditions.
-- Third, the Department specifically recognized that the agreement for joint ownership of the transmission system was a change from the situation that had prevailed to that point. GPCo would no longer have exclusive cunership and control of the transmission system.
-- Fourth, the Department's understanding was that the anticipated alternative wheeling arrangements were to be
l Mr. Cecil O. Thomas May 24, 1989 Page 15 provided by "immediate access to the' transmission grid." (Emphasis added.) No preconditions were to be imposed upon-such access; rather, the access was to be effective immediately. The Department also understood that these wheeling arrangements were to be fgr the benefit gf systems in Georgia: power could expressly be wheeled "for' those systems, and not merely wheeled "to" them. (April 9, 1976 letter at p. 3.) It was only in light of these' broad transmission access rights that the Justice Department advised-the
. Commission that Oglethorpe Power's status as.a co-licensee-
.and the issuance of the Vogtle 1 license would not create or maintain.a situation incons:. stent with the antitrust laws.
- 5. NRC issuance of the Voatle Unit i license It was in this factual and legal context that the Commission issued the construction permit for Plant Vogtle Unit 1 with the attached conditions. Because the L Commission's issuance of the permit refl&c:ed the Department's specific advice on the antitrust conditions, those conditions must be interpreted in light of the j
3 I l Mr. Cecil O. Thomas. May 24, 1989 Page 16 Department's advice and the factual circumstances upon which that advice rested. For example, the license conditions relating to transmission cannot be read narrowly to refer to a transmission system wholly-owned by GPeo. i.s the Department informed the Comniosion prior to the issuance of the license, the ITS was to be jointly-owned and jointly-used, with the parties having "immediate access" to its facilities. Thus, referenca.s in the license conditions to "the Applicant's" transmission system must be read in the context of a jointly-owned and operated system not contem-plated during tLe initial drafting of the proposed license conditions, but clearly contemplated at the time the conditions were issued by the Commission, as interpreted , f thereafter by the Staff. Nor can the antitrust license conditions be , 1 construed to permit GPCo to place other obstacles in the path of the co-licensees' access to the transmission grid (such as GPCo's purported "self-sufficiency" condition). Such restrictions would contradict the key Justice Department determination that immediate transmission access and the corresponding capability to provide competitive arrangements were assured by the license conditions. Such
l j l
)
Mr. Cecil O. Thomas May 24, 1989 Page 17 restrictions would also contradict the Department's advice to the Commission that Oglethorpe Power had purchased "the use" of-the ITS, and not merely an ownership interest in it. The' factual circumstances leading up to the issuance of the permit thus demonstrate that the license conditions must be read to require Oglethorpe Pover's immediate access to the transmission system, both for
" supply" arrangements and for other off-syntem transactions in which it would compete with GPCo for.both power sales and f alternative wheeling arrangements. This has al ays been Oglethorpe Power's understanding; the record demon,.trates that it was also the Staff's understanding, based in part on GPCo's assurances to the Staff.
B.< GPCo's Prior Assurances to the Commission and Oglethorpe Power Recardina Off-system Uses of the ITS Consistent with this understanding of the antitrust license conditions, GPCo expressly assured the Commission Staff in its subsequent antitrust licensing l l reviews that Oglethorpe Power and the other co-licensees had the present right to use the ITS for all off-system transactions.
- r. .
d._i________._.________._____________-__._-._--__.. - . . _ _
.]
I
'Mr.LCecil O. Thomas May.24,c1989 Page 18 In August 1983, for example, GPCo told the NRC Staff that " participants in the ITS use that system for delivery of power from the Company and power generated from self-owned resources, and gan use the ITE for off-system transactions."s/ On the basis of GPCo's assurances, Oglethorpe Power filed a response to Regulatory Guide 9.3 concurring in GPCo's statements regarding transmission access.2/
GPCo also made the same representations to Oglethorpe' Power shortly after GPCo's submission to the Commission. In an October 12, 1983 letter to Oglethorpe Power, GPCo expressly agreed: That.[Oglethorpe Power] is nqt restricted by the PR-7 Tariff, or any contractual relationship between thg l narties, from makina off-system sales, L including Unit Power Sales, and that [GPCo] will work with [Oglethorpe Power] tg resolve any operatina, schedulina 2I disnatchina arrangements reauired tg facilitate such sales in a timely fashion."g/ E/ GPCo Response to Regulatory Guide 9.3 (Aug. 29, 1983) at pp. 16-17 (emphasis added) (Enclosures, Tab 1).
' 2/ Oglethorpe Power submission to NRC, Aug. 29, 1983 (Enclosures, Tab 3).
H/ Letter from A. W. Dahlberg to Stan Hill (Oct. 12, 1983) (emphasis added) (Enclosures, Tab 4).
L l a Mr. Cecil-0. Thomas-
'May 24, 1989 Page-19 -3 i
During the Vogtle Unit 1 operating license review in 1986, GPCo made similar assurances both to the Commission and to Oglethorpe Power. Thus, GPCo's August 11, 1986 letter to the NRC' staff specifically confirmed Oglethorpe Power's right to use the ITS for off-system transactions with Florida power systems: Concerning oglethorpe Power Corp-oration's sale to Seminole Electric Cooperative in Florida, I would like to confirm that access by Oglethorpe Power Corporation to transmission owned by Geor[g]ia' Power Company is not an issue because of the Integrated Transmission System Agreement, which allows eaual access hy each Darty tg thg transmission facilities 21 thg other Darty.2/ The GPCo letter enclosed a copy of the scheduling services agreement applicable to the Oglethorpe Power-Seminole transactions, and further represented that " Georgia Power Company has also committed to Oglethorpe Power Corporation l 2/ Letter from Robert P. Edwards, Jr. to William Lambe, Planning and Program Analysis Staff, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, NRC (Aug. 11, 1986) (emphasis added) (Enclosures, Tab 2).
c l 1 l l Mr.-Cecil O.' Thomas
. May 24, _1989 Page 20 to develop a scheduling services agreement that-would be l applicable to other off-syttem transactions."12/
In light of these assurances,:the Director issued the 1986 finding of "no significant (antitrust) changes" in-the licensees' activities and issued the Vogtle Unit i license. See 51 Fed. Reg. 43253 (Dec. 1, 1986). C. Previous NRC Staff Recognition of Oglethorpe Power's Richts to Off-system Use of the ITS The' Commission Staff has consistently recegnized that Oglethorpe Power and the other co-licensees have the
- right, under the antitrust license conditions, to use the
- ITS for off-system bulk power sales and wheeling transactions, and relied on GPCo's assurances described above to determine that no further antitrust reviews were required.
12/ 1d. The letter thus confirmed previous GPCo representations to the Commission in February 1986, plainly suggesting that execution of any "necessary" scheduling agreements regarding off-system transactions was imminent. (GPCo Response to Regulatory Guide 9.3, Feb. 24, 1986, at p. 9 (Enclosures, Tab 5)). In fact, despite continuing efforts by Oglethorpe Power, GPCo has failed to conclude such an agreement. See pp. 33-51, infra. = - _ ___ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _:
}
Mr. Cecil O. Thomas May 24, 1989 Page 21 1 1 For example, the Staff specifically noted in its 1986 Vogtle Unit 1 operating license review: AD example gf off-system usaae p_f the IIS involves a crocosal by Oclethorne tg transfer enerav tg the Seminole Electric Cooperative, Inc. (Florida) from Plant Scherer. Although this agreement has not been finalized, Georgia Power has agreed to schedule Oglethorpe's energy to the Georgia-Florida border where Florida Power Corporation will in turn transmit the energy to Seminole. This tyJ)e nf transaction was not a competitive option open to Oclethorne orior tg the settlement aareement and the accompanying ITS aareement. i, Id. at p. 16 (emphasis added). See also id. at p. 8 (recognizing that the antitrust license conditions were designed specifically to alleviate Justice Department and AEC concerns "over Georgia Power's dominance in generation and transmission capabilities in the state of Georgia and the apparent abuse of this market power at the expense of and to the detriment of smaller power systems and the competitive process in the Georgia electric bulk power l supply industry"). l GPCo would now reinterpret these provisions to preclude the co-licensees from the very " competitive option" envisioned by the Justice Department and Commission in 1976 l.
f I-I Mr. Cecil O. Thomas May 24, 1989 Page 22 and invoked by GPCo and recognized by the Staff in its subsequent antitrust reviews. D. GPCo's Contradictions'of Its Prior Assurances to ., the' Commission Violate Oglethorpe Power's Rights l Under Both the Antitrust License Conditions and l the ITS Aareement. i GPCo's recent actions restricting Oglethorpe
; Power's ability to implement its right to use.of the ITS violate the antitrust license conditions, as they were intended by the Justice Department and the Commission at the time they ware imposed.- While GPCo's actions also violate the ITS Agreement, here'Oglethorpe Power seeks enforcement only of the license conditions.
As demonstrated above, the license conditions were included in the construction permits and operating licenses in order to correct a situation inconsistent with the antitrust laws. That situation included GPCo-imposed ' restrictions both on alternative bulk power supply i arrangements for its " captive" customers and on the development of effective competition for wholesale and retail loads. The conditions were accepted by the Department as providing sufficient assurances that this anticompetitive situation would not continue, and its advice
I l' l Mr. Cecil O. Thomas May 24, 1989 Page 23 to the Commission was based on its understanding that a new competitive situation would result. Similarly, the Co.? mission's issuance of the license rests on the determination that a situation that had been considered by the Justice Department to be inconsistent with the antitrust l laws would not be created or maintained. GPCo's actions to provent emergence of Oglethorpe Power as a viable bulk power competitor are now concen-trated on access to power sales and exchanges. The Justice Department recognized in 1972 that such sales and exchanges are ordinarily required for viable competition. (See August 2, 1972 Justice Department letter, at p. 3.) To address these actions, the Commission must enforce the license conditions consistent with their intent and, if necessary, restate that intent.11/ GPCo would deny the co-licensees the "immediate access" to the ITS anticipated by the Justice Department and the Commission by, inter alia, requiring each licensee to be 11/ The Commission staff has already recognized this in the Director's "no significant changes" finding by noting that the issues Oglethorpe Power raised were a continuation or repetition of the prior abuses that had prompted issuance of the antitrust license conditions. (See Director's Reevaluation, at pp. 4-5 (March 22, 1989).) A repetition of such abuses would necessarily constitute a violation of the license conditions imposed to correct them.
Mr. Cecil O. Thomas May 24, 1989 Page 24 generationally "self-sufficient" before-it can have access to the ITS either to' engage in any off-system sales of power.- or to provide any alternative wheeling arrangements for other systems. -GPCo's asserted reliance on License Condition 5(b) to deny this access is misplaced, since it both misreads that license condition and ignores the import of the ITS Agreement and the antitrust background of the conditions.11/ Moreover,-it is patently unreasonable.to assume that the co-owners purchased interests in the ITS and devoted substantial resources to its further construction and maintenance, only to benefit Georgia Power's and 12/ Georgia-Power asserts that its "self-sufficiency" argument assures that the co-owners of the transmission system do not affect the reliability of Georgia Territorial service by off-system sales and that co-owners do not
" lean" on Georgia Power resources. (See GPCo's March 21, i 1989 Letter at p. 10.) This argument is specious. License Condition 5(b) plainly is intended to provide for sales of excess capacity from individual units, such as occurred in the case of Oglethorpe's 1986 sale of energy to the Seminole Electric Cooperative, Inc. in Florida from Plant Scherer (1986 Vogtle 1. Staff Review at pp. 15-16); hence, its '
references to economic sizing, earlier operational dates and forecasting. (See License Condition 5(b).) Even GPCo has elsewhere conceded that Oglethorpe Power can sell excess energy under these circumstances without any restrictions. (See Letter from William J. Smith, GPCo, to John A. Johnson, [ Oglethorpe Power (Jan. 13, 1988) (Enclosures, Tab 6) . e_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Mr. Cecil O. Thomas May 24, 1989 Page 25 Southern's off-system transactions. Oglethorpe Power has invested over $396 million in its ITS ownership in fulfillment of the terms of its ITS agreement. As demonstrated above, the license conditions were recommended by the Department of Justice and accepted by the Commission only in the context of the ITS agreements (see Justice Department letter of April 9, 1976), and restrictions on resale of power were one of the monopolistic practices the Justice Department had specifically identified as requiring-remedy in 1972. GPCo's attempted resurrection of this monopolistic practice should fare no better now than it did 17 years ago. The rights granted Oglethorpe Power under the ITS Agreement are clear. Section 3.01 of the ITS Agreement provides in pertinent part: The parties shall utilize so far as practicable the Integrated Transmission , System to transmit capacity and energy ' supplied from their generating plants and to transmit capacity and energy purchased from other electric suppliers under contract therefor, for the separate distribution and sale of such capacity and energy by the parties, respectively, each for its own account. After the Effective Date, each party shall have the richt go to use the Intecrated Transmission System without charge, provided, however, that the parties' use of such system shall not be
Mr. Cecil O. Thomas May 24, 1989 Page 26 in violation of the provisions of Paragraph 5 of the Proposed License Conditions . . . (emphasis added). Section 3.01 grants each co-licensee the very same right to use the ITS, and limits that right only where the use would
" violate" License Condition 5 11/
Contrary to GPCo's suggestion, Li,ense Condition 5 does not in any way prohibit access to the ITS by a co-licensee, regardless of self-sufficiency. Thus, immediate ITS access cannot be a " violation" of License Condition 5 11/ In the absence of any such " violation," Section 3.01 of the ITS Agreement requires GPCo to grant Oglethorpe Power immediate and equal use of the ITS.12/ 13/ See also ITS Agreement, S 5.20 ("nothing contained herein shall be in violation of said Settlement
. Agreement, including Proposed License Conditions") (emphasis added).
11/ The only potential use of the ITS that could " violate" Paragraph 5 of the License Conditions, and thus be i barred under Section 3.01 of the ITS Agreement, is the transmission of bulk power obtained from the Tennessee , Valley Authority or its distributors ("TVA") in such a way as to make TVA a source of power supply outside the area of its jurisdiction. (License Conditions, Subparagraph 5(a)). Oglethorpe Power has not sought and does not seek such a use. 11/ Moreover, contrary to GPCo's present suggestion in connection with oglethorpe's proposed transaction with SEPA (Ege pp. 46-48, infra), License Condition 5(b) does not l l (continued...) l l 1 L_ _-- _ - _ - . J
Mr. Cecil O. Thomas
'May'24,_1989 Page 27-l The existing antitrust license conditions, correctly construed in their overall context, provide r access for off-system transactions, on an equal basis and regardless of "self-sufficiency." (Indeed, as the Commission Staff has recognized, the ability to engage in 1
competitive bulk power and wheeling arrangements over the ITS was specifically intended to assist Oglethorpe Power and H
'the.other co-licensees in attainina their goals of energy self-sufficiency. (51 Fed. Reg. at 43254.) License Condition 5(b) is part of a " broad set of license conditions" designed to mitigate GPCo's anticompetitive conduct (1989 Staff Review, Plant Vogtle Unit 2 " Finding of No Significant Antitrust Changes," at p. 5).and to
" stimulate the competitive process in the Georgia bulk power services market." (51 Fed. Reg. at 43253.) GPCo's inter-pretation, which restricts that' competitive process by 15/(... continued) even specifically address use of the ITS for alternative
" wheeling" arrangements with other electric systems -- one of the principal off-system uses intended by oglethorpe <
Power. At_the very least, GPCo should not be permitted to use the pro-competitive antitrust license conditions as a i shield against off-system ITS use to which the parties are I entitled under their ITS agreements. ' I w - _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ - _ _ _ _ - _ _
Nr. Cecil O. Thomas May 24, 1989 Page 28 precluding current ITS access, contradicts the very purpose of the antitrust license conditions.15/ REOUEST NO. 2: Provide the appropriate reference in the licence conditions that addresses the entities' " . . . rights to immediate access to the ITS for off-system transactions." (p. 5) Distinguish between off-[ system] ourchases and off-rsystemi sales. As described above, the parties, the Justice Department, the Commission and its Staff have consistently recognized that the existing antitrust license conditions reference the co-licensees' " rights to immediate access to 25/ GPCo's strained interpretation of License Condition 5(b) is perhaps best revealed by its own shifting position. Over the past few months, GPCo has interpreted the purported "self-sufficiency" requirement in at least three different, but continually restrictive, ways: (1) that Oglethorpe must actually "own{] generating resources in the State of Georaia sufficient to satisfy the requirements of its customers" (Feb. 28, 1989 letter at p.
- 3) (emphasis added) ; (2) that Oglethorpe can become self-sufficient "by acquiring reliable, firm bulk power in Georaia through contractual power purehases as well as through the actual ownership of generating facilities" (March 15, 1989 letter at p. 2) (emphasis added) ; and (3) most recently, that Oglethorpe can also become self-sufficient "by contracting to purchase power outside the Et,qtg of Georaia . . . . " (March 21, 1989 letter to the Commission at p. 12) (emphasis added). (Copies of the Feb.
28, 1989 and March 15, 1989 letters, as well as Oglethorpe Power's March 8, 1989 reply to the February 28 letter, are contained in the Enclosures, Tab 7.)
- a. .s w -
g,g XWW , j$ a; L y,, J =Mr.' Cecil--o. Thomas-
,May 24~,;1989 Page.29;
_the'ITS for:off-systemLtransactions,"'because the conditions i were' included:to' recognize administratively the rights which 'S arose-out of the full set of-negotiations-among the parties-
}. 'to. correct 1the antitrust abuses identified by'the Justice f Department. The AEC settlement'and license conditions were specifically; designed to provide the "immediate access" to transmission'that the Justice Department had earlier identified (333 Response to Request No. 1 above); without
.such access, the Justicc Department recommendation to approveLths conditions-would not have been made. Moreover, License Condition 8(d) expressly provides that GPCo "shall not.have the unilateral right to defeat the intended access by each entity to alternative sources of bulk power supply provided by the [ license]' conditions . . . .
The. Justice Department was concerned in 1972 with
~ the: development of alternative bulk power supply systems and resulting competition -- which, in the Department's view, required reasonable transmission access both for alternative bulk power supply arrangements (that is, arrangements for
-off-system purchases) and for off-system sales and exchanges. Both~ situations (i.e., off-system purchases and l
off-system sales or wheeling arrangements) were necessary to the development of viable bulk power competition, and it was
.- m __ _ _ _ _ - _ ____.__.-__.-_____L.m__._.m.-_ -
m._-_.____w-m__n____m._-__mm____m_umm -
I l Mr. Cecil O. Thomas k May 24, 1989 1 Page 30 only'on!its understanding that both situations were addressed and corrected that the Department recommended issuance of the~Vogtle 1 license. Whatever,its specific language, License Condition 5 was plainly intended to comprehend these rights. Each aspect of transmission access is addressed in the license conditions -- access to alternative sources of bulk power supply in License Condition 5(a), and access for bulk power sales and exchanges in License Condition 5(b). As described above, at the time these conditions were imposed, Oglethorpe Power had purchased both ownership and use of the ITS, and its rights were clearly defined in the ITS Agreement. GPCo no longer had exclusive ownership and control of the transmission grid; instead, the parties' arrangements provided "immediate access" to Oglethorpe Power and the other co-licensees for both off-system purchases and off-system sales and' wheeling transactions. The obligations imposed by the license conditions must be construed and enforced in this context. I _ --___.____ ___m_ _ _ - -____m. - _ _ - - _ - - _ - _ _ _ _ - - - - _ _ - - - - - _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - -
l l Mr. Cecil O. Thomas May 24, 1989 Page 31 REOUEST NO. 3: Provide a copy of the letter dated October l', 1983 from A.W. Dahlberg, GPCo, to Stan J4,11 oursuant to off-system enerav sales. ! Enclosed at Tab 4 is a copy of the letter dated October 12, 1983 from A. W. Dahlberg, GPCo, to Stan Hill of Oglethorpe Power.12/ As noted above, in this letter, GPCo expressly agreed that Oglethorpe Power "is not restricted by
. . . any contractual relationship between the parties, from making off-system sales . . . .
" GPCo also agreed that it would " work with [Oglethorpe Power] to resolve any operating, scheduling or dispatching arrangements required to facilitate such sales in a timely fashion."
REOUEST NO. 4: Provide a copy of the contract entitled
" Principles of Agreement" which was signed by GPCo and Oglethorpe Power on May 27, 1988. (This contract was characterized as a " successor arrangement" to an expiring partial requirement contract and was referenced in the letter dated February 28, 1989 from A.W. Dahlberg, GPCo, to F.F. I Stacv. Oclethorne Power.)
Enclosed at Tab 8 is a copy of a letter dated May 27, 1988 from F. F. Stacy, President and Chief Executive 12/ The letter was referenced at pp. 12-13 of Oglethorpe Power's March 17, 1989 Comments.
7 Mr. Cecil O. Thomas May 24, 1989 Page'32~ officer of Oglethorpe Power, to R. W. Scherer, Chairman of GPCo, setting forth several " principles of agreement." These principles were identified by GPCo and Oglethorpe Power "[a]s a basis for beginning the detailed negotiations" of a new power supply arrangement between the parties. . (Id . at p. 1.) Throughout the remainder of 1988, and as to some aspects continuing today, Oglethorpe Power and GPCo have engaged in discussions to. develop arrangements-between the parties relating to jointly-owned facilities and to provide an alternative to the existing partial requirements power supply arrangement. However, the May 27, 1988 letter represents only a basis for negotiations and constitutes neither a " contract" nor a " successor arrangement" to 1 partial requirements services by GPCo. As GPCo is aware, Oglethorpe Power cannot enter into binding contracts
-relating to power supply and similar issues without the consent and approval of the Rural Electrification Administration ("REA"). Moreover, any cuch arrangement for power sales by GPCo would require the approval of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission ("FERC"), which approval has neither been sought nor obtained.
1 i
. - - - _ _ - . , , _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . . _ _ . - _ - - . . . . . _ . . . . .- , . . . - . -_ __ _ . _ _ - . .- . . . - , _ _ . , - -._,---m. -
Y Mr. Cecil O. Thomas lhy 24, 1989 Page 33 IL REOUEST NO. 5: Do you maintain that the license conditions r obligate GPCo to enter into a " generic scheduling agreement?" (p. 16) If so, provide the appropriate reference and explain your. understanding of the ceneric schedulina acreement. GPCo assured-the Commission almost three vears ago that'it waa " committed" to developing a generic scheduling agreement with.Oglethorpe Power."13/ However, it has never entered into such an agreement and now asserts that its negotiation will be " time consuming."12/ While in_ theory a course of conduct in which off-system arrangements were easily, timely and regularly agreed between the parties and implemented without difficulty might be equivalent to a generic scheduling agreement, Oglethorpe Power's experience with GPCo has not borne out that theory. In practice, GPCo's hindrance of individual arrangements and its refusal to enter-into a generic agreement have effectively frustrated the co-licensees' ability to enter into competitive bulk power and wheeling arrangements. 18/ Letter from Robert P. Edwards, Jr. to William Lambe, Planning and Program Analysis Staff, Officer of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, NRC (Aug. 11, 1986), at p. 1 (Enclosures, Tab 2); ggg also GPCo Response to Regulatory Guide 9.3 (Feb. 24, 1986), at p. 9 (Enclosures, Tab 5). 12/ March 21, 1989 GPCo letter at p. 15. l
r__ __ _ f i Mr. Cecil.O. Thomas May 24, 1989 l Page 34 1 Oglethorpe Power's experience of unsuccessful scheduling l arrangements with GPCo has made clear that a generic scheduling agreement (rather than individually negotiated arrangements for specific transactions) is essential to provide the enforcement of the "immediate access" to the ITS guaranteed by the antitrust license conditions. Moreover, because GPCo continues to have effective control over the transmission grid through the scheduling and dispatch of power by Southern Company Services (although it no longer has full legal ownership and legal control),
-License Condition 3 supports requiring GPCo to enter into a generic scheduling agreement. Under License Condition 3, Oglethorpe Power has the right to an interconnection or similar agreement to provide for the economic dispatch and exchange of power resources because it has provided for "snme or all of its bulk power supply from sources other than [GPCo]."20/ Oglethorpe Power's generating resources 22/ License Condition 3 requires GPCo to interconnect with any entity that "has undertaken firm contractual obli-gations to provide, some or all of its bulk power supply -
from sources other than [GPCo) on terms to be included in an interconnection agreement . . . . The interconnection agreement shall provide for maintenance end coordination of reserves; emergency and maintenance suppo.-t; economy energy exchanges; purchase and sale of firm and nan-firm capacity and energy; and economic dispatch of power resources within (continued...)
Mr. Cecil 0. Thomas May 24,.1989 Page 35 include a 30 percent' ownership interest in Plants Hatch, l Wansley, and Vogtle (Unit Nos. 1 and 2), as well as a 60 percent interest in Plant Scherer.(Unit Nos. 1 and 2).
.oglethorpe. Power also has built and operates the Tallasee
~
facility at Harrison Dam, a wholly-owned hydro unit, and is presently constructing the Rocky Mountain Pumped Storage Hydroelectric Project scheduled to become commercially operable by 1996. Oglethorpe Power now has a total of over 2,700 MW of owned generation and thus has sources of power other than PR power purchased from GPCo. 1 I- In addition, License Condition 8(d) provides that GPCo does not have the unilateral right to defeat the l intended access by each entity to alternative sources of bulk power supply provided by the license conditions. As noted in Oglethorpe Power's March 17 Comments (at pp. 16-17), and as demonstrated in more detail below (see Response to Request No. 6, infra), GPCo's refusal to enter into a p 20/ ( . . . continued) l Georgia. (License Condition 3, $1(a)-(f)). GPCo's Partial Requirements Tariff ("PR Tariff") (Docket Nos. ER85-659-000, L ER85-660-000 and EL85-40-000) provides for coordination of L reserves for jointly-owned facilities; the purchase of firm and back-up power; and the ITS Agreement sets forth terms and conditions regarding the parties' responsibilities for certain interconnected facilities. However, no interconnection or similar agreement has ever been entered into to facilitate the remaining services.
Mr. Cecil O. Thomas May 24, 1989 Page 36 generic scheduling agreement has effectively defeated Oglethorpe Power's intended ITS access and precluded Oglethorpe Power from competing with GPCo in off-system transactions. A generic scheduling services or similar agreement with GPCo is essential to Oglethorpe Power's consummation of competitive off-system transactions. Such an agreement would eliminate the delay and endless negotiations with GPCo regarding separate scheduling arrangements for every individual transaction by oglethorpe Power and would promote the viable competition in bulk power arrangements sought to be promoted by the antitrust license conditions. I REOUEST NO. 6: Supply ". . . further detailed information and documentary evidence" of GPCo's non-compliance with its license conditions. (p. 16, footnote 10) Reference the pertinent license condition (s) and provide specific information to succort your basis. As demonstrated in the response to Request No. 1 above, the license conditions -- properly construed in light of the antitrust concerns they were designed to ameliorate, . I I the factual context in which they were imposed by the Commission, GPCo's statements to the Commission, and the j _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - _ _ - - _ - - _ _ - - - _ - - )
Mr. Cecil O. Thomas May 24, 1989 Page 37 Staff's interpretations -- grant Oglethorpe Power and the other co-licensees the right to use the ITS for off-system sales and wheeling transactions. By effectively frustrating these rights, GPCo fails to comply with its license conditions. When Oglethorpe Power fir,c began to explore the possibility of engaging in off-system transactions, GPCo expressed recognition of Oglethorpe Power's rights. For axampla. Mr. Dahlberg's October 12, 1983 letter to Mr. Hill cupressly agreed that Oglethorpe Power was not restricted from using the ITS for any off-system transactions. (Enclosures, Tab 4.) Similarly, in an April 23, 1984 meeting with oglethorpe Power to discuss Oglethorpe Pcwer's use of the ITS for off-system energy sales and wheeling arrangements, GPCo stated that Oglethorpe Power could use the ITS for such purposes, including interchange agreements with other electric utilities. However, the delays and lack of cooperation by GPCo experienced in attempting to effect the first such transaction with Seminole in 1986 21/ demonstrated that off- ) system transactions would likely be economically and 21/ The Seminole transaction is describef in Oglethorpe Power's March 17, 1989 Comments at pp. 17-19.
Mr. Cecil O. Thomas May 24, 1989 Page 38 logistically infeasible without an in-place, generic scheduling agreement. As a result, Oglethorpe Power initiated efforts to obtain a generic scheduling agreement with GPCo. By letter dated August 4, 1986, Oglethorpe Power confirmed to GPCo that it desired to establish a scheduling i services arrangement that would provide "the contractual and procedural mechanisms to enable Oglethorpe to transact a full range of off-system sales and purchases, including transmission service."22/ Oglethorpe Power notified GPCo that it desired to have such contractual and procedural mechanisms in place by June 1, 1987, to enable Oglethorpe Power to engage in various proposed transactions.22/ During this same period of time, the Commission was engaged in its antitrust review in conjunction with the licensing of Vogtle Unit 1. GPCo assured the Commission l that it was " committed" to developing a generic scheduling ' agreement applicable to each party's use of the ITS for off-22/ Letter dated Aug. 4, 1986 from George E. Taylor, Jr., Manager, Power Contracts, Oglethorpe Power, to Bill Smith, GPCo (Enclosures, Tab 9). 22/ Id. l
Mr. Cecil-O.' Thomas May.24,-1989 Page.39 system transactions 21/, and Oglethorpe Power and the Commission Staff relied on these '3surances. Notwithstanding these assurances, however,-the negotiations for such sua agreement continued without conclusion. It now appears that GPCo (despite its assurances to the Commission Staff) may have been attempting to prevent Oglethorpe Power from entering the off-system markets in competition with GPCo and Southern.25/ Thus, on November 20, 1987, John Johnson, Oglethorpe Power's Manager of Power Contracts, wrote GPCo, noting that Oglethorpe Power had "been trying to discuss the-necessary details to implement an interchange operation at Oglethorpe' Power Corporation since late last year."2f/ Mr. Johnson also pointed out that "[b]y not having such an 2ff.~EBs Letter duted August 11, 1986 from Robert P. Edwards, Jr. to William Lambe, Planning and Program Analysis Staff, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulations, NRC (Enclosures, Tab 2); see pp. 17-20, suorq. 25/ This is illustrated in part by GPCo's insistence that the agreement for the first Seminole transaction, executed after the Commission's antitrust finding on the operating license for Unit 1, include language purporting to limit its effect as precedent for off-system sales or purchases by oglethorpe Power. 25/ Letter dated Nov. 20, 1987 from John A. Johnson, Manager, Power Contracts Department, Oglethorpe Power, to Bill Smith, GPCo (Enclosures, Tab 10). i
I Mr. Cecil O. Thomas May 24, 1989 i Page 40 I agreement in place, Oglethorpe Power has missed several opportunities over the years to realize economic benefits for [its] Member Systems," and reminded GPCo of the commitments it had made in the October 12, 1983 Dahlberg letter.22/ In a November 24, 1987 GPCo-Oglethorpe Power meeting which followed, GPCo representatives told Oglethorpe Power they had " misplaced" drafts of the proposed interchange scheduling and operating procedures Oglethorpe Power had given them nearly eight months earlier. As the Justice Department noted in 1972, assured transmission access is essential to the bulk power competition it identified as the remedy to GPCo's abuse of its monopoly power and control. In order to engage in such transactions, Oglethorpe Power must be able to demonstrate to other energy suppliers and purchasers that it has the right to use the ITS and that it has the ability to execute off-system transactions quickly and efficiently. Doubt on either issue puts Oglethorpe Power at a severe competitive disadvantage.28/ No utility has an economic incentive to 22/ Id. 2H/ Similar problems have been noted by other utilities seeking to negotiate transmission arrangements involving use of Southern Company facilities. See, e.a., (continued...)
Mr. Cecil O. Thomas-May 24, 1989 Page 41' enter into an energy exchange or transmission services transaction with Oglethorpe Power when GPCo has succeeded in creating an aura.of uncertainty regarding oglethorpe Power's ability to carry.out such a transaction. By refusing to enter into a scheduling agreement or to give other assurances that Oglethorpe Power's off-system transactions would be scheduled, GPCo effectively precluded Oglethorpe Power from pursuing a number of advantageous power transactions with other electric .. utilities.29/ GPCo's actions were incor.sistent with its assurances to the Commission about Oglethorpe Power's right and undercut Oglethorpe 1swer's ability to compete. Za/ ( . . . continued) correspondence between Cajun Electric Power Cooperative, Inc. and the NRC regarding competitive concerns relating to The Southern Company (Cajun to NRC, June 15, 1988; NRC to Cajun, July 18, 1988). 22/ There should be no burden on Oglethorpe Power to demonstrate that GPCo has directly refused to schedule a specific transaction. This argument ignores economic and competitive reality. Oglethorpe Power did not approach GPCo with every proposed transaction precisely because a proposed transaction cannot proceed beyond the hypothetical stage until Oglethorpe Power's rights to use the ITS have been recognized by GPCo and a scheduling system put into place that would ensure that Oglethorpe Power's trans-actions could be exscuted in an economically viable manner.
Mr. Cecil O. Thomas May 24, 1989 Page 42 For example: (1) In the fall of 1987, Alabama Electric Cooperative ("AEC") approached Oglethorpe Power with a wheeling transaction under the energy exchange agreement executed between Oglethorpe Power and AEC in 1984. The proposed deal did not come to fruition because no scheduling services agreement with GPCo was in place, and Oglethorpe Power could not assure AEC that the transaction would not be affected by the same delay and disruptions that affected the 1986 Oglethorpe Power-Seminole transaction. See Letter dated Oct. 28, 1987 from B. Ray Clausen to John Johnson of Oglethorpe Power noting, "It is unfortunate that due to tangled interchange agreements with Georgia Power Company, you could not supply the energy that AEC purchased recently." (Enclosures, Tab 11.) (2) Also in October 1987, Oglethorpe Power began to explore a potentially promising relationship with Middle South Utilities Systems Services, Inc. ("Mid-South"). Once again, however, the lack of a scheduling services agreement and GPCo's refusal to express its recognition of Oglethorpe Power's rights kept Mid-South and Oglethorpe Power from consummating any off-system transactions until the short-lived transaction with Seminole in Summer 1988.
1 Mr. Cecil O. Thomas May 24, 1989 Page 43 (3) In-February 1988, after having led Oglethorpe Power to believe that good faith efforts were being made to negotiate a generic scheduling agreement, GPCo informed Oglethorpe Powerrfor the first time that a new territorial supply agreement and a new ITS agreement would be required before any scheduling services arrangement would be put into effect.19/ In a May 3, 1988 letter, GPCo formalized its new ! position and further told Oglethorpe Power that it would allow Oglethorpe Power to engage.only in small Seminole-type; . energy transactions until completion of<the new. territorial-supply agreement.21/ (4) GPCo also stated in its May 3, 1988, letter that any (as yet unexecuted) scheduling agreement for non-firm transactions out of Oglethorpe Power's retained ownership interest in Plant Vogtle and Plant Scherer would-29/ GPCo had similarly attempted to require Oglethorpe ! Power to sign the disputed PR Tariff as a condition to I its use of the ITS for off-system sales a few weeks earlier. Een letter from William J. Smith,'GPCo, to John A. Johnson,.Oglethorpe Power (Jan. 13, 1988) (Enclosures, Tab 6) . 21/ See Letter dated May 3, 1988 from Fred D. Williams, Vice President, Bulk Power Markets, GPCo, to G. Stanley Hill, Senior Vice President, Planning & System Operations Division, Oglethorpe Power (Enclosures, Tab 12). l l
i l l l Mr. Cecil O. Thomas l May 24, 1989 Page 44 l 1 terminate on December 31, 1988 22/ The letter also made clear that any future scheduling arrangements would be agreed upon only in connection with the new power supply agreement between the parties. GPCo stated that
"[s] specifically, upon execution of the Power Supply Agreement, GPC will acknowledge [Oglethorpe Power's] right to utilize the ITS for off-system transactions." (Id.)32/
(5) GPCo's new-found position is a further effort to prevent Oglethorpe Power's emergence as a competitor. For example, in a July 29, 1988 letter to Douglas Calvert of Oglethorpe Power from Larry Kellerman, President of Citizens Power and Light Corp. ("CP&L"), CP&L expressed a
" strong interest" in arranging for power purchases and wheeling agreements between Oglethorpe Power and CP&L. The 22/ This limited scheduling services agreement was executed solely to facilitate the second Seminole transaction.
It was executed in June 1988, amended in August 1988, and expired by its terms on November 1, 1988. The second agreement also contained, at GPCo's insistence, language stating that the transaction "shall neither be nor establish a precedent concerning the future use" of the ITS. 22/ As noted in GPCo's February 28, 1989 letter to Oglethorpe Power, GPCo has withdrawn from all negotiations concerning the territorial supply agreements and scheduling services agreement on that date. Subsequently, GPCo has taken the firm position that ; Oglethorpe Power is simply not entitled to use the ITS for off-system transactions. I i _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - _ _ _ _ _ . - - - - i
Mr. Cecil O. Thomas L May-24,.1989-
-Page 45:
letter outlined several proposed transactions. (Enclosures, Tab 13.) However, the controversy created by the lack of a scheduling services agreement, still supposedly under negotiation at that time,. hampered.oglethorpe Power's ability to pursue and consummate this advantageous opportunity. In a letter dated October 26, 1988 to Charles Nash of oglethorpe Power, Luis Molina of CP&L noted that "We very much understand the enormous difficulties involved in getting a power agreement and service schedule through Southern Company." (Enclosures, Tab 14.)'i/ Mr. Molina nevertheless expressed the hope that, in the event these difficulties could be resolved, specific bulk power transactions could be scheduled in 1989. (Id.) (6) These same problems have continued to hinder Oglethorpe Power's ability to expand its business relationships with Florida Power & Light. During several meetings with FP&L representatives in January 1988 and thereafter, FP&L has emphasized that in order for them to engage in off-system transactions with Oglethorpe Power, 11/- Similar opportunities with Cajun Electric Power Corp. (" Cajun") in 1988 have remained at the hypothetical stage because of GPCo's failure to acknowledge Oglethorpe Power's right to use the ITS.
Mr. Cecil O. Thomas May 24,.1989 Page 46 Oglethorpe Power must demonstrate its ability and right to use the ITS for these transactions, including its ability to schedule the transaction.s in a satisfactory manner.15/ FP&L has also pointed out that the priority of Oglethorpe Power's transactions with FP&L and of competing GPCo and Southern transactions over the Georgia-Florida interface will need to be satisfactorily addressed and resolved. GPCO's assertion of a "first come, first served" priority of use under these circumstances is analogous to the territorial allocation schemes previously identified by the Justice Department as a monopolistic abuse. (7) A further example of GPCo's interference with Oglethorpe Power's rights to use the ITS occurred just a few. weeps ago. Oglethorpe Power and the Southeastern Power Administration ("SEPA") have signed contracts under which oglethorpe Power will deliver power for SEPA to Oglethorpe Power's own members beginning June 1, 1989. Continuing discussions started in prior years, Oglethorpe Power and SEPA have also recently discussed the proposed transmission 35/ Indeed, as long ago as April 1985, FP&L had indicated to Oglethorpe Power that it would be necessary to have an adequate Oglethorpe Power-GPCo scheduling agreement in place before the specifics of any FP&L-Oglethorpe Power transmission arrangements could be negotiated.
I l l Mr. Cecil O. Thomas May 24, 1989 Page 47 , of SEPA power by Oglethorpe Power over the :TS to the Georgia-Alabama border for delivery to Alabama Electric Cooperative or its members, if Oglethorpe Power could transmit the power at a lower rate than that to be charged by GPCo for the same services from June 1, 1989 onward.26/ However, GPCo has flatly informed both SEPA and Oglethorpe Power that GPCo is the only entity that can provide these wheeling services over the ITS under the antitrust license conditions approved by the Commission, and thus that SEPA cannot negotiate alternative arrangements with Oglethorpe Power.22/ Despite GPCo's effort to preclude i 25/ Under Section 5 of the Flood Control Act of 1944, SEPA is obligated to transmit and dispose of excess power "in such manner as to encourage the most widespread use thereof at the lowest possible rates to ! consumers consistent with sound business principles," giving l preference to public bodies and cooperatives. 16 U.S.C. 5 825s (emphasis added). It is also authorized to acquire, by purchase or other agreement, "only such transmission lines and related facilities as may be necessary in order to make the power and energy generated . . . available in wholesale quantities for sale on fair and reasonable terms and conditions to [such) facilities . . . . Id. 22/ See Letter dated May 8, 1989 from GPCo to Oglethorpe Power (Enclosures, Tab 15); Letter dated May 4, 1989 from Oglethorpe Power to GPCo (Enclosures, Tab 16); Letter dated April 25, 1989 from Leon Jourolmon, Jr., Director, SEPA Power Marketing Division, to George Taylor, Oglethorpe Power, enclosing minutes of April 5, 1989 meeting between SEPA and GPCo and minutes of April 10, 1989 telephone conversation between SEPA and GPCo (Enclosures, Tab 17).
I Mr. Cecil O. Thomas May 24, 1989 Page 48 consummation of this valuable opportunity for Oglethorpe Power and SEPA, Oglethorpe Power presently is-attempting to salvage this proposed wheeling agreement.21/ REOUEST NO. 7: When did the second scheduling agreement (executed in 1988) between Oglethorpe Power and GPCo expire? Has Oglethorpe Power requested GPCo to initiate a new scheduling agreement for a specific energy transaction since the expiration of the 1988 acreement? (a) GPCo and Oglethorpe Power entered into a coordination services agreement on June 13, 1988 in order to-3H/ See Enclosures, Tab 16. The sole exception to GPCo's effort to maintain exclusive control over bulk power
' markets during this period is the 1988 Seminole transaction. GPCo " allowed" Oglethorpe to engage in this transaction in an apparent " carrot-and-stick" attempt to encourage Oglethorpe to enter into a new Territorial Power i Supply Agreement, and in an attempt to avoid Commission scrutiny. GPCo had never previously made a scheduling agreement contingent upon the power agreement negotiations, and there is no necessary connection between them as far as wheeling or buy-sell transactions are concerned. Moreover, the timing of GPCo's decision to " allow" a second Oglethorpe Power off-system transaction coincided with the Commission's antitrust review in conjunction with the Vogtle Unit 2 licensing. Sge Georgia Power Response to Regulatory Guide 9.3 (Aug. 23, 1988) (noting that GPCo had filed a scheduling services agreement with FERC to facilitate "a short term capacity and energy transaction" between Oglethorpe Power and Seminole, while making no mention of the' proposed new power supply agreement). This sequence of events dramatically minimizes any " good faith" that GPCo may seek to demonstrate by virtue of the limited cooperation it grudgingly' rendered in the 1988 Seminole transaction.
1-l l' L Mr. Cecil O. Thomas May 24, 1989 l- Page 49 facilitate a specific-transaction in which Oglethorpo Power would purchase firm capacity and associated energy from Middle South Utilities and then sell such power to Seminole
' Electric. Cooperative-in' Florida. This agreement by its terms ended on November 1, 1988.
(b) With one exception, Oglethorpe Power has not sought to enter into a new scheduling agreement to implement a specific t - nnsaction since the expiration of the 1988 Seminole agreement. Instead, Oglethorpe Power has. sought-for at least the past three years to enter into a generic. scheduling agreement with GPCo in order to avoid the repetitive and inconclusive discussions and related delays inherent in specific scheduling arrangements to facilitate individual off-system transactions. As noted in Oglethorpe Power's March 17, 1989 Comments (at pp. 17-19), Oglethorpe Power's first transaction with Seminole in 1986 was delayed for almost two years while Oglethorpe Power negotiated with GPCo regarding the necessary scheduling agreement; and the second Seminole transaction in 1988 was marred by GPCo's repeated interruption of transmission to Seminole due, in part, to GPCo's unwillingness to treat the transmission as a firm transaction.
Mr. Cecil O. Thomas May 24, 1989 Page 50 The one exception concerned Oglethorpe Power's recent request for GPCo to implement an interchange transaction. Specifically, on May 2, 1989, Oglethorpe Power advised GPCo that it was entering into an interchange transaction whereby oglethorpe Power would be purchasing 200 megawatts of firm capacity and energy from Big Rivers Electric Cooperative for the period June 1, 1989 through May 31, 1992, and would be providing information to GPCo necessary to implement the interchange. (Enclosures, Tab 18.) While purporting to be willing to negotiate an agreement to implement or schedule this transaction, GPCo stated in a letter to Oglethorpe Power dated May 4, 1989, that it would not give Oglethorpe Power credit for this capacity purchase under the PR Tariff. (Enclosures, Tab , 19.)22/ Without citing any section of the currently effective PR Tariff, GPCo claimed that Oglethorpe Power is required to give two years' notice under the PR Tariff before reducing its purchases by up to 200 megawatts in order to receive a credit for this amount. 29/ The PR Tariff provides customers with a credit for megawatts generated by the customer's own resources or purchased from other sources. PR Tariff, S 9. 1
)
l i
l Mr. Cecil O. Thomas May 24, 1989 Page 51 GPCo's conditioning of its willingness to schedule the transaction in this way (i.e., it will schedule only on the condition that Oglethorpe Power accedes to GPCo's "no credit" position) is not supportable under the currently effective PR Tariff 40/ and is tantamount to a refusal to schedule the purchase. Oglethorpe Power would end up paying twice for the same capacity, thereby undercutting the economic value of the transaction. (c) A new scheduling agreement would also be required to implement the SEPA wheeling described above (see pp. 46-48, sunra). GPCo's assertions of its exclusive right to wheel power for SEPA are an effective refusal to negotiate and conclude a scheduling agreement. AR/ The two-year notice provision on which GPCo presumably relies in fact expired almost four years ago, on May 31, 1985. See PR Tariff, Terms and Conditions S 6(a). The only other section of the PR tariff requiring notice for a reduction of purchases relates to long-term "take-or-pay" i contracts that Oglethorpe Power never entered into because (inter alia) they contain notice provisions which are unreasonably long and conflict with the terms and purposes of the AEC Settlement. GPCo has continued to supply partial requirements power without such a contract.
l 1 i Mr. Cecil O. Thomas May 24, 1989 Page 52 REOUEST NO. 8: Provide copies of any correspondence between Oglethorpe Power and GPCo l L pursuant to Oglethorpe Power's request to 1 GPCo to activate any relevant energy l exchange agreements between Oglethorpe Power, Alabama Electric Cooperative (AEC) or the South Mississippi Electric Power Association. (DD. 19, 20) There is no correspondence between Oglethorpe Power and GPCo specifically requesting GPCo to " activate" the energy exchange agreements between Oglethorpe Power, Alabama Electric Cooperative ("AEC") and South Mississippi Electric Power Association ("SMEPA"). The form of the question indicates a misunderstanding of the agreements between the parties. Oglethorpe Power's agreements with AEC and SMEPA provide for the exchange of economy energy and back-up energy, exchanges which must take place when such energy is available to be transmitted. The primary reauon that these agreements have not been successfully implemented or
" activated" is that GPCo has declined to enter into precisely the generic scheduling arrangement necessary for Oglethorpe Power to engage in these energy exchanges with AEC and SMEPA. Because Oglethorpe Power must be readily able to engage in such exchanges, it is essential that
Mr. Cecil O. Thomas May 24, 1989 Page 53 Oglethorpe Power have an appropriate scheduling arrangement with GPCo in place (or have the certainty of use of ITS interconnection points with other systems on a proportionate basis). The lack of a generic scheduling arrangement has thus effectively frustrated Oglethorpe Power's ability to engage in these transactions, undermining one of the key objectives of the Justice Department in recommending approval of the license conditions and settlement. The aborted energy transaction with AEC in October 1987, noted below, is an example of this frustration. REOUEST NO. 9: Elaborate on and provide documentation substantiating any energy transaction that was "aburted" in October 1987 because, Oglethorpe Power was unable to assure AEC that it could transmit the enerav that AEC had nurchased." (p. 20) As previously noted (supra, p. 42), AEC approached Oglethorpe Power in 1987 with an opportunity to wheel AEC power that it had purchased from another energy supplier under the energy exchange agreement between Oglethorpe Power and AEC. Oglethorpe Power was forced to turn down this opportunity because it could not assure AEC that it would be able to consummate the transmission t - _- --
Mr. Cecil O. Thomas May 24, 1989 Page 54 services in a reliable, economically efficient 4nanner, due to GPCo's refusal to acknowledge Oglethorpe Power's right to use the ITS for off-system sales and wheeling transactions and to enter into an appropriate scheduling agreement. By letter dated October 28, 1987, B. Ray Clausen, Manager, Engineering and Operations, AEC, informed John Johnson of Oglethorpe Power that "[ijt is unfortunate that due to tangled interchange agreements with GPCo Company you could not supply the energy that AEC purchased recently." (Enclosures, Tab 11.) REOUEST NO. 10: If not already included in the responses provided above, provide ". . . the other facts regarding its frustration of ITS access." (n. 30) While Oglethorpe Power has not sought at this stage to provide detailed evidence of every fact relating to GPCo's frustration of Oglethorpe Power's ITS access, the essential information is included in the responses provided above.
L I 1 l Mr. Cecil O.-Thomas May 24, 1989 Page 55 REOUEST NO. 11: What-" license modification" does Oglethorpe Power suggest-would remedy L any alleged non-cempliance of license L conditions by GPCo? (c. 30) In order to remedy GPCo's non-compliance with the antitrust license conditions, and to further the pro-competitive purposes of the Commission-approved Settlement and prevent GPCo from unreasonably restricting Oglethorpe Power's ability to use the ITS for off-system transactions, the following provisions should supplement or replace the transmission provisions of License Condition 5: (a) GPCo shall provide directly, or cause its affiliate Southern Company Services to provide, scheduling, dispatching and related services to any entity that is a participant in the Georgia Integrated Transmission System ("ITS"). Such services shall be provided pursuant to an agreement that affords such entities immediate and equal access to the ITS, including all interconnection points with other electric utility systems, so that such entities may engage in off-system purchases, sales and wheeling transactions. (b) Each such entity and GPCo shall have equal rights, in accordance with Section 3.01 of the parties' ITS Agreements, to use the ITS, including all interconnection points with other electric utility systems, to transmit capacity and energy that is either (1) associated with GPCo's or an entity's ownership interests in electric generating plants, (2) purchased from other electric , suppliers or (3) transmitted on behalf of l other electric suppliers or purchasers within or outside the Georgia Territorial System.
j l Mr. Cecil O. Thomas May 24, 1989 ; Page 56 (c) In the event there is insufficient capacity to meet the demand of each such entity and I GPCo available at any point on the ITS, including all interconnection points with other electric utility systems, each such entity shall be entitled to a proportionate share of the available capacity on the ITS equal to such entity's investment responsibi-lity ratio determined in accordance with Section 2.03(i) of the ITS Agreement between such entity and GPCo, unless the parties agree to a different scheduling arrangement or priority mechanism. The Commission's authority to modify the license conditions in this manner, in light of GPCo's violation of the current license conditions, is established in Houston Lichtinc & Power Co. (South Texas Proiect, Unit Nos. 1 and 11, 5 N.R.C. 1303 (1977). In Houston Lightinc & Power, the Commission noted thct Section 186 of the Atomic Energy Act, 42 U.S.C. 5 2236, grants the Commission authority to revoke a license for, inter alia, " failure to . . . operate a facility in accordance with the terms of the . . . license." 5 N.R.C. at 1311 n.7. The Commission held that this " power to revoke would normally imply the lesser power to modify licenses to incorporate conditions which would have been imposed at the time of initial licensing had subsequently developed circumstances then been known." Id. at 1311.
Mr. Cecil O. Thomas May 24, 1989 Page 57 Thus, the Commission's authority in the present case extends to the imposition of new license conditions, such as'those proposed here, that are designed to implement the intent of both'the Commission and the Justice Department in accepting and imposing the existing license conditions. L Such conditions would have been imposed at the time of initial licensing had the subsequently developed circumstances regarding GPCo's frustration of the co-licensees' use of the ITS then been known. Should the Commission Staff have any' questions with regard to the information submitted, or desire any additional information or documentation on the points addressed by oglethorpe Power, we.will be pleased to respond further on an expeditious basis. Respectfully submitted, C6A4.A4w/m Charles A. Patrizia Bruce D. Ryan PAUL, HASTINGS, JANOFSKY & WALKER Counsel for Oglethorpe Power Corporation Enclosures _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ i
l Enclosures to May 24r 1989 Letter to Cecil O. Thomas, Chief, Policy Development and Technical Support Branch Program Management, Policy Development & Analysis Staff Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation United States Nuclear Reaulatory Commission Charles A. Patrizia Bruce D. Ryan PAUL, HASTINGS, JANOFSKY & WALKER 1050 Connecticut Avenue, N.W. Twelfth Floor Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 223-9000 Counsql for Oolethorpe Power Corporation
L ] L l L ! 1 i INDEX f i Tab Enclosure 1 1
.1 Georgia Power Response to Regulatory Guide 9.3 (Aug. 29, 1983) 2 Letter from Robert P. Edwards, Jr. to William Lambe, Planning and Program Analysis Staff, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, NRC (Aug. 11, 1986) 3 Oglethorpe Power Response to Regulatory Guide e 9.3 to NRC (Aug. 29, 1983) 4 Letter from'A.W. Dahlberg, GPCo, to G.
Stanley Hill, Oglethorpe Power (Oct. 12, 1983) 5 Georgia Power Response to Regulatory Guide 9.3 (Feb. 24, 1986) 6 Letter from William J. Smith, GPCo, to John A. Johnson, Oglethorpe Power (Jan 13, 1988) 7 Letter to Darrel A. Nash, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation,. enclosing: (1) February 28, 1989 letter from A.W. Dahlberg, GPCo, to F.F. Stacy, Oglethorpe Power; (2) March 8, 1989 Letter from F.F. Stacy to A.W. Dahlberg; and (3) March 1S, 1989 Letter from A.W. Dahlberg to F.F. Stacy (March 21, 1989) 8 Letter from F.F. Stacy, Oglethorpe Power, to R.W. Scherer, GPCo (May 27, 1988) 9 Letter from George E. Taylor, Jr., Oglethorpe Power, to Bill Smith, GPCo (Aug. 4, 1986) 10 Letter from John A. Johnson, Oglethorpe Power, to Bill Smith, GPCo (Nov. 20, 1987) 11 Letter from B. Ray Clausen, Alabama Electric Cooperative, Inc., to John A. Johnson, Oglethorpe Power (Oct. 28, 1987) I 12 Letter from Fred D. Williams, GPCo, to G. Stanley Hill, Oglethorpe Power (May 3, 1988)
l 13 Letter from Larry Kellerman, Citizens Power
& Light Corporation (CP&L), to Douglas Calvert, Oglethorpe Power (July 29, 1988) -
1 14 Letter from Luis A. Molina, CP&L, to Charles Nash, Oglethorpe Power (Oct. 26, 1988) 15 Letter from A.W. Dahlberg, GPCo, to F.F. j Stacy, Oglethorpe Power (May 8, 1989) 16 Letter from F.F. Stacy, Oglethorpe Power, to A.W. Dahlberg, GPCo (May 4, 1989) 17 Letter from Leon Jourolmon, Jr., Director, SEPA Power Marketing Division, to George Taylor, Oglethorpe Power (April 25, 1989), enclosing: (1) minutes of April 5, 1989 meeting between SEPA and GPCo; and (2) , minutes of April 10, 1989 telephone conversation between SEPA and GPCo 18 Letter from Thomas W. Siegrist, Oglethorpe Power, to Fred D. Williams, GPCo (May 2, 1989) 19 Letter from Fred D. Williams, GPCo, to-Thomas W. Siegrist, Oglethorpe Power (May 4, 198te)
l l mA (iniip.il h el-
.o.,....
August 29, 1981 e d s/s//75 Mr. liarold R. Denton, Di rect or Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation U. S. Nuclear Re;;ulatory Commlnsion > Washington. D.C. 20555 NRC DOCKET NUMBERS 50-424 AND 50-425 CONSTRUCTION PERMIT NUMBERS CPPR-108 AND CPPR-109 V0GTI.1: f.l.l:CTR l(* GFNERATING Pl. ANT - l' NITS 1 AND 2 APPL.lCATION FOR OPERATING 1.lCI'.SSr$i
Dear Mr. Denton:
(;eorgin Power Company, act ing on it s own behnt f and at. ngent for Oglethorpe
' Power Corporat ion, Municipal 1: lect ric' Autluirit y of Georgin, and the Cit y of D.ilton, Georgia, herebf submits nild!tlonal iniormat lon requireil for applient ion for operat ing; 3 f eenses for the Vogt le f.!cet ric Generat ine. Plant - Pnit I and Unit 2.
This siibmitt.il consists ot*
- 1. Twent y set s of the Environment al Report - Operatinn 1. frena.e S t .n'.e const 4t ing of two volumes per uct t II. Twent y copies of I he Inf ormal lon f or t h Ant 1-t t ie.t pe"Irw of the Operat Ing 1.lcense Appileat lon Ior t he Vontle 1.1 e t Ic Lene ra t I n c.
Plantt II). T..n copter, of t he I:me rp.cncy Rewpon .e P l .in . In .edlltlon. thice copies of the I.mergency Plan are be l ne, t ransni t t eil ! v ropv o' t hi-let t er t o t he Region 11 Regional Aitmlnist r.it or; IV. Si .oples of the Security Pl.nl which inc l uiles the S.s t eri pc Conts.. ncv l'l.ni anil il x copies of the Scenr i t *. 'Ir.ining . m.I g pg/7 QnalitIcatlon I'lan alI of whleh ate helng i ransml t t ed on.fi r g gg ggr separat e cever wit h a re< pie t I hat Ihese document s he viihh 11 gj from public ill se l o..u re ior s"curit v reason 4 in accor.l.niec wi t 1. Se r t i on .' . J'10 o r he Cors:il .s I on ' - f(ep,u l a t I on t. : a n.1 V. Ihree %e t t, of elect rical, inst runn nt at i .e anil . on t i .. I .' r.wi nr - an.! tso set . of p i p i n;; .in.' .ns t rur ent .it ion .1 : nIn- h
~##g
, SG yo0S f & taf . N \
g Veb IU 'lip 1%d Aw+ Q')l.*leAu! S (?ds
'/M z e g ,wmf a m.n..nngue W
- i seo
.4 . gu.
Ft r . II.s ro fil R. llenton, fli rect or August 29, 198'l l'a ge 2 i I ti h..noring a retluest by t he NRC, a previous submit tal was maile consist lug of thirteen roples, including tliree originals of flie operat ing license appliratlon. eventeen sets of the PSAR, Inc lutling t wo t o I:t.6G lilaho, Inr., and five sets of the lirill 1.ogs, including one set of 1:C6G, t il.tho , Inc. The previous submit tal and the eni loscal submit t al completes our submit t al respilrement s for a iendered appiIcat lon. Should you have any apt'st lons on t he i nr1o%eil submlt Ial4, do not hesitate to +ontart u t. . o
..a Your. trulv, k
- a 11 O. Pos t e r DOF/KWK/sw l.n c l o su re t.
xc: .l. I'. O'Heilly (w/ J cople a of l'niercen v Pl.ni) St. A. >ll i t er I; . A . Thomas 18 l'. Ihatt oli
.l. A. it.i l l e y O. it.it um I.. 1. Co. w.i G. I'. 41i.ilil, .ir.
C. l' . l e ..wb r i .f r.e . I:r.epii re SWol:N A*,0 SI't;';rRLJti:li Ill.I'ol:l; 211~, 1111: [ b.W Ol' , 4 f , l'#H I. S < 'i f . / c$ys a $ , Not a ry l'ub I I c . i.co r r I .: St .it c .H 1.. e e . .o oha." c h.!.' . i e ..t . '.e .* . . e i c
*a. y t,. ..i ., . . s. , i , e v . i ." .- /'
t l rh.a
- k. #
/
d di
x - - - - - - - - -- - . . _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 4 [ \ l NRC Docket Nos. 50-424 and 50-425 l Construction Vogtle ElectricPermit Nos. Plant Generating CPPR-108 Units 1and and CPPR-109 2 l Owners: Georgia Power Company, Oglethorpe Power Corporation (An Electric Membership Generation and Transmission Corporation), l Municipal Electric Authority of Georgia, City of Dalton, Georgia Coorgia Power Company Information for the Antitrust Review of the operating License Application INTRODUCTION The following information is presented by Georgia Power Company (' Company") pursuant to the guidelines set forth in The Nuclear Regulatory Commission Regulatory Guide 9.3. f information has been compiled to assist the NRC's staff in ! determining whether an antitrust review is required as part of Units 1 proceedings for the issuance of an operating license for Vogtle"). and 2 of the Vogtle Electric Generating Plant ("Flant Such review is necessary only if significant changes in the j applicants' activities or proposed activities have occurred d subscquent to the previous review by the Attorney General an
, h lant' s the Commission in connection with the issuance of t e p I
construction permits. 1 1 $
~^~ - - - - - - _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
O BACKCROUND The Company has submitted information relating to antitrust matters to the government at points both prior to and subsequent Unit 1 to issuan*:e of the construction permits for Plant Vogtle 28, 1974. In 1971 th' (CPPR-108) and Unit 2 (CPPR-109) on June Company filed with the Atomic Energy Commission ("AEC") comprehensive information concerning forecasts, resources, and other system data as costs, transmission, interconnections, part of the construction permit application for Unit 2 of the The Company also Edwin I. Hatch Nuclear Plant (" Plant Hatch"). flied data relating to antitrust matters in 1976 as part of the l l Plant Hatch Unit 2 operating license application. As a result of the 1971 filing, the Department of Justice ' i d in advised the AEC in 1972 that an antitrust review was requ re No. connection with the licensing of Plant Hatch Unit 2 (Docket Tha Department also rendered similar advice in 1973 50-366A). d4 concerning the licensing of Plant Vogtle Units 1, 2, 3 an 50-425A, 50-426A and 50-427A, (Docket Nos. 50-424A, During late 1973 and early 1974 the Company respectively). hd negotiated with its territorial wholesale customers and reac e il 24, an agreement (" Settlement Agreement") with them on Apr l l The Settlement Agreement precluded the necessity for an l 1974. ditions f antitrust review hearing because it contained certain con Unit I which were subsequently incorporated in the Plant Vogtle f 2 and Unit 2 construction permits and the Plant Batch Unit construction permit and operating licenso.
O Pursuant to the license conditions, the Company agreed to hich take specific actions regarding certain other entities w generate, transmit or distribute electric service in the State of Georgia. In particular, the Company agreed to offer to sell d nuclear appropriate shares of tho' Company's existing and planne to transmit bulk power within the plants; to interconnect; to file partial requirements rate Company's service area; tariffs; and to provide full requirements service at transmission voltages. In order to facilitate implementation of the license conditions, 39 electric membership corporations distributing d into a electricity in principally rural areas of Georgia entere i 45-year contract in 1974 with a new entity, Oglethorpe Electr c j O Membership Corporation, now Oglethorpe Power Corporation (An Electric Membership Ceneration and Transmission Corporation)
]
("OPC"), pursuant to which OPC became the power supplier for its
^
OPC's announced policy is to own or control sufficient members. h electric generation and transmission fa-111 ties to meet t e Since 1975, OPC has purchased requirements of its 39 members. from the Company 30% of Plant Hatch, 30% of the Hal Wansley and 60% of (" Plant Wansley"), 30% of Plant Vogt?.e, Fossil Plant 2. Robert Scherer Fossil Plant (" Plant Scherer") Units 1 The Company has also sold portions of its generation The Munic2 pal Electr2c facilities to other entities in Georgia. Authority of Georgia ("MEAG"), a public p y corporate and d the polit e createa by the Georgia General Assembly in 1975 an I
.-3 l ___
~ - - - - _ - ._ d3
', )r M
-5 d
principal bulk power supplier to 47 political subdivisions in 4 l , Georgia, has purchased from the Company 17.7% of Plant Hatch, 15.1% of Plant Wansley,17.7% of Plant Vogtle, and 30.2% of .j ) The company has also sold to the i Plant Scherer Units 1 and 2. - ' City of Dalton, Georgia (" Dalton") 2.2% of Plant Hatch,1.4% of ;
..~
and 1.4% of Plant Scherer =r Plant Wansley, 1.6% of Plant Vogtle, '
- e Units 1 and 2.
in order to fulfill the obligation under the settlement.
- f. ;
I Agecement to provide interconnection and transmission service, t ("ITS") { the Company has formed an Integrated Transmission Sys em : t with OPC, MEAG and Dalton, wherein each entity has an investmen y.. responsibility in the total Georgia territorial transmission f system relative to its expected use of the transmission system. i( To meet their transmission system investment responsibilities, d p CPC, MEAC and Dalton have made and are continuing to make substantial investments in ITS facilities. To fulfill the commitment regarding wholesale rates in the F
~
the Company filed tariffs with the Federal Settlement Agreement, L, g 1975, pursuant to which it Power Commission ("FPC") on June 30, d offered to provida partial requirements wholesale service an h Company' s transmission service to wholesale customers within t e These tariffs (FPC Docket Nos. E-9521 and E-9522, service area. 1975. respectively) were made effective by the FPC as of July 1, The fore ping changes in the relationship of the Company and h its territo:-141 wholesale customers have been accompanied by t e establishment. of a Joint Committee composed of representatives 5
3--------___
\
The Joint Committee is from OPC, MEAG, Dalton nd the Company. responsible for implementation and administration of ii all agreements and contracts between and among these four ent t es relating to coordination of power systems, and it is also responsible for facilitation of generation and transminston planning by the entities on a joint basis. The general rearrangement of the relationship between the Company and its territorial wholesale customera providess an l I opportunity for such customers to obtain geners tion h resource through joint ownership of Company facilities, to purc ase blocks of power from others than the Company, to participate in in the ownsrahip of transmission facilities, and to engage and i significant joint planning of future additions of generat t ic on l transmission facilities to the Georgia territorial e ec r system. l Although much of the information contained herein was ting a so submitted in 1976 as part of the Plant Hatch Unit 2 opera license application, and although pre-1974 portions of thee information may have lost their antitrust significance becaus i of l of the Settlement Agreement and the subsequent restructur ng ' h l sale the Company's relationship with its territorial w o e pond as customers, the company has undertaken nevertheless to res fully as possible to the format and guidelines set forth in Regulatory Guide 9.3. I O
L 0 t l' ) INFORMAT40N NEEDED BY THE NRC REGULATORY STAFF IN CONNECTION WITH ITS ANTITRUCT REVIEW OF OPERATING LICENSE APPLICATIONS FOR NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS l 1(a) Generating Capacity Resources. R_egulatory Guide 9.3 Describe anticipated excess or shortage in generating capacity resources not expected at the construction permit stage. Give reasons for the excess or shortage, along with data i on how the excess will be allocated, distributed, or otherw se utilized, or how the shortavs will be obtained. Company's Response As in 1974, the Company currently plans generating ggl facilities based upon projections of system peak demand for the Georgia territorial service area. (That area includes all nd counties in Georgia except Chatham, Effingham, Fannin, Towns a Even though OPC, MEAC and Dalton have since Union Counties.) and CPC purchased portions of territorial generating 1'acilities, and MEAC have begun to project peak demand for their own constituents, the Company still uses territorial peak demand projections because generating facilities are planned lton. on a territorial basis in conjunction with OPC, MEAG and Da The (See discussion of Joint Committee in by section the Company1.(b).) territorial system peak demand projection made for the years 1982 through 1997 is presented in Table 1 of this
~6- .
section. The projection yields An annual growth rate in peak demand of 3.2% per year for the 15 years presented. Table 2 of this section represents the Territorial Generation Expansion Plan (83A11-Rev.1) made by the Company for 1983. The forecast peak demands used in the expansion plan are by the projected peak hour demands given in Table 1 adjusted estimated demand-side reductions. Table 3 of this section presents a comparison of the The territorial peak demand forecasts made in 1974 and in 1983. from table also presents projections of installed capacities territorial generation expansion plans made in each of these two years. For example, the peak demand projected for 1987 in 1974 was 34,128 MW; in 1983, the same 1987 demand is projected to be 12,618 MW, a reduction of 21,510 MW. In response to the declining demand forecasts, the Company's Using Table 3 expansion plans have been trimmed substantially. the 1974 expansion plan (74A1) again and 1987 as an example, projected 1987's total territorial installed capacity to be 40,839 MW while the 1983 plan (83A11-Rev.1) currently projects a difference of 23,625 MW. The that capacity to be 17,214 MW, by: cancellation
- reduction in capacity was achieved, in part, j and of six nuclear units (7500 MW), nine coal units (8190 MW),
2700 MW of combustion turbine capacity; deferral of one nuclear unit (1150 MW) and one coal unit (808 MW); cancellation of 311 MW of hydro capacity which was to have been built by the Army changes in unit ratings of approximately Corps of Engineers; J
- l D 1000 MW; changes in scheduled unit retirements of approximately 115 MW, the ,-oposed sale of 202 MW of Plant Scherer Unit 3 to Culf Power Company; and a rat change of approximately 127 MW in contracted exchanges with wholesale customers.
In addition to reductions in installed capacity, the Company (through its parent The Southern Company) is marketing bu3k power from available capacity to neighboring electric systems. For example, the Company has agreed to sell the output from v in 1987 in connection with approximately 1500 MW of its capac. The 1983 output sales from other Southera Company power plants. t projection of installed capacity has been reduced by the amoun Contracts for such sales to date of such dedicated unit sales. extend through mid-1995 and additional contracts are being in actively pursued in order to further adjust reserve margins the late 1J80's. The Company, as a member of The Southern Company power poo is also afforded the opportunity of sharing reserves with the Carrying costs associated other three companies in the pool. for with a portion of the Company's reserve capacity in 1987, f example, are expected to be shared as part of the pooling arrangement. = - - - - _ - - _
t
=
TABLE 1 -3
)
GEORGIA POWER COMPANY y
;f 1983 8UDGET FORECAST OF THE COMPONENTS OF pi GEORGIA TERRITORIAL (N) INTEGRATED HOUR PEAK t.F D d
ACWORTH HAMPTON_ DALTON 0 . P . C ._ M.E.A.G_ TEMt _ TOTAL TERRITORIAL 6 3 g 1 020 113 1 82,4 1982 11 097 6 3 $ 1 049 116 I4 4 11 391 1 882 3 p 1983 119 6 1 077 1984 11 686 1 938 6 3 I 1 106 121 R 1 992 3 J985 11 975 6 g 1 134 124 2 046 4 12 271 1986 1 176 129 6 f 12 714 2 124 4 1987 134 6 2 209 1 224 13 208 6 4 [ 1988 140 2 305 1 277 1989 13 770 1 333 145 6 4 ( 2 405 l 14 360 6 4 1990 1 51 2 500 1 387 14 919 6 5 1991 157 2 589 1 436 1992 15 447 6 5 1 485 162 2 673 1993 15 947 6 5 1 539 167 2 760 5 1994 16 468 6 1 582 172 2 842 ' 5 1995 16 950 6 1 629 177 2 922 6 1996 17 428 6 . 1 673 181 2 999 1997 17 887 SEPA, OPC, NEAG, Forecast includes those parts of the load supplied i County load by others and the city of Dalton. listed at their respective metering points. (The portion of the Cr supplied by MEAG is included in MEAG). h I L o@o . .
v 5 9 2 9 4 0 6 3 4 0 2 4 3 E 6 4 3 V 3 2 3 R 0 1 2 E 3 3 S E R 0 6 4 9 4 9 9 7 4 1 2 E 8 1 9 ? V S 7 1
- 4
# 1 9 4 A 0 3 E. F 4 6
1 t S 3 B 3 A E T R W M 0 0 e. 0 0 9 0 8 9 a 9 1 4 9 1 0 Dt 0 2 4 3 Ai 4 1 7 7 & 9 7 9 OC 3 8 1 1 1 Lt 1 1 1 J 1 Wn Ma r Y N N A 0 00 8 A L 4 51990 P M P t 7 0 7 01000 9 00 4 9.S.00 7405 4 1 4080 7 1 34
$4 9
t O N15 Mi 74439 6 30 8 5 504 3 6854 4 2 1 4 C 0 9 0 5 5
- 0S42 0 7 41
- 11 1 41S4 - 7 7 t V9 TEt 7 1 5 41 9 3 1 1 t tE1 ETt 4 e 8* 3- 3 - 4
- 8 1
t WR NSA YF 2 3 - 4 1 1 u A - - F1 SA 1 1 0 C P E1 3 E49 4 39 1 M81 9500 310.O.0 O. 0 C E 90 R T
.f 0 01000 7405 8 90s0 s.
- 4 6
0 S 4i 704 59 50 S 04 405eA 1 t Y 5 41 - 1 8 1R4 C S 1t 1 - 0342 41 - 11 1 - Ut 4 5 - 3 - JA - 9F AA C
??777 ne S5 66a6 en9s8 es 3 44444 a8 99a9 ip/ //
/ p E 9 99935 r/ // t/ t?344 I a T / ///// A4 1t I A A 4 12444 D
? N n 0 l e
/ 1 h
t
'e p t 3 1 t t
i i 1 f F g l
/
C 7 3 9 f t T 2 t 7 9 3 CN 4 ( A 3 e 7 1
%M E
O n t R 0 t 0 0. R u t
- 4. ST s r
a SAr g i t 4t 9U D Y g y 5 t e 9 6 ?E 3 7 3 r s g 4 3 t i T t f 3 T Nt 9 J H g t s 9 S t rH Y
/ E L-C /
1 A t A g / 4 cut 3 I i E A A t A 1 a 1 t FN E 3 Pt p N a t MC F t tr 3 Fg Tt 3 wI / rt 7 U t 3 Rt Rt # i 7 SA 3 n E 3 T S FE CL" C E. p t t / l tE A 7 F S0l A S
- 9 t L p U8N a 7 At 7 iatSF >O5aC n A 7 S n8 t am 3
9 1 E S J0ASM a M F k ? 1 uh D9M an Rt 3 Ut t St t A t A tug rO %i t tOu a W 3 A t . I AN1 w A M t 1 t t t u t A Y 2sf t wL t A u. 0t A T n1 D 1 0 nt
%fE
< M0 P
f 0 tO i P 0 1 Y i 0 T O t ti0L t tMPC 1 0 Pt F O T 4 0h S L t F. 1 4DL Y 1 F 91
; M F tkI W 1 1 t I T t Ft R1 M1 T f % MiCCtt I
T AE fT t % 5uRI T C0ON U4 t F hat R 4U A1 AN A%vRU RU N ACVNAt C e. T Ut UE C4DU tl # [ 3I
I' I TABLE 2 Page z of 2 I. O O
- i i
4 O M N 4 e w e h e *
- p ne ee e e
e
*
- M N
ee M D N N N m e p M N w n e W M
>e A A. h.
N , e A. - . 4 , m e . e
- to
%= y, e e .e m
,o 6 e h
S 6 4 h
" j m p h h M
- J W h 9 O U g a m W w
g[ 3 E
.e .* *
.e .e * *
- e ee M >
- e h
- 4 e,
e n e e M 4
- 4 qw n w h
- C. 4 -
eu e w w w - - - e a -
",f Em O
p i 6
> R /
R 4 h 4 kO w
> ee owd*O a e a we > eehk ee e>Men >
e e o e e e e e e e e e h e eh M o M e U
*=e O **
=De wh=
Kw 9 e * *e thm40 m4 pee e e M w e ew 4 h 6 mm & ee > e og h
- m e
eo m h N o e e o e e N W Wwe wwu e w a deee e m e e
- M N
# w 3
O h d EE 4 s a hw m*M Weg Me EE4 wh og W h e w = m
- ee O e tem TO O.
e C W O O. M h 6
- er Oe O. O. *. O. e o e e e M M O e wp e ce D e - -
m e sw cheeO M4 ped w Mw
- m. m e d e gu w ewe .
3 w
.c m eb 44 U
n * *
** N * *
- O * %
w OOO&& sceen * ** 9 I O
% 4 e
q %%% %% * #4 3 Damh4
,]
o N h
*V Tw CMM who M w ei h &
E 4-w w (* & O b =
& D D D w F w&6h e =Shw a
> E
% w %
m m
= m M W M
w 'd = > M w M W % ; E % w q& = M ww M w % w % J %
- 4 h g M W C h M M NOhhW w % 4 % EJ g
h o a b ( h p S e % Sw h 4 h we e e e
> Oec et m eC ed W e E E E
=
e5E S VE E J w = h C
*
- E E w sC w 4 =
C 3 C 3
, M 3*ww 3 = w s 3 C 3
- O
- O =
- J C 3 3
- C C 9
- 4 w
0 w hk hesw. a C46C
> =ew Y$ YEW me w C
m O w 3 C b a W 2 o e m CO vbE
=w
&m e 3 c
w w O h
=
E O w h m m 3 D O h w m e E D O w h O 2 D w e CCDwE 4D D
>GSOD D
1 1 TABLE 3 C. :. W:
.O
- 32 ::::3:: ::: 1 ::....... 323
--~~ *~:.
lw!
.g:: !
s y i. g : :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :3 M- S " :2-
*. gg..........--
"W..: :
Ig 3i3: '
- l
- -~==a 8 ::::"
g 1-:3 :"s := :=.*= . . . . *= I .0::::::=5:::
- 3. /
j sg i. l !. EIU E
*t*
bb: M I:. 8
- E O I p ns ., . :
s.n:" "o :!...........~~OM ... n R : I! - ga= ::==: .- 35"I M E.:::: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: ::: a: l DB > l
- s e: Ya g
M
==
=f
. .* . ...~
M:: : : : : : : :: :: :: :: :: :" ]3
*4 ::: ::: .g Ia: :::: 2.
ao Is n: 5: a w . Sa E !................ ::=: 06 0-3 :*:: := := := := := := := :a :" : :: !!a = = :
"E
! !! a 2
jI. j::":
- :: :: ": *:::: 2 : : : : :: : 2:==
l
~12-
m
. .. I b f H
I
. l l
) 1(b) Power Pool or Coordinating Group Membership. \ Requ1 story Cuide 9 3 g i Describe new power pools or coordinating groups or changes N or membarahip of in structure, activities, policies, practices, 1 1 power pools or coordinating groups in which the licensee was, is, or will be a participant. r. L Company's Response I. As in 1974, Georgia Power is still a member of The Southern Company power pool which is composed of the operating subsidiaries of The Southern Company ( Alabama Power Company, Georgia Power Company, Gulf Power Company, and Mississippi Power Company). Changes in the activities, policies and practices of it t the pool have been of a routine nature since 1974, cons s en ("IIC") with amendments to the Intercompany Interchange Contract The IIC and related amendments are by which the pool opera tes. " ERC"). on file with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission ( r f the Therc have been no changes in the membership or structure o OPC, MEAC and Dalton are not part of The pool since 1974. Southern Company power pool, although their portions of jointly-owned generation facilities are dispatched pursuant to l economic dispatch criteria used for the entire poo . the Company entered into a Joint On August 27, 1976, Committee Agreement which established a committee (" Joint and Committee") of representatives from the Company, OPC, MEAG, Dalton to implement and administer agreements and contracts l between and among those four entities relating to their
) <
--- -m
\ .. b e ' P
' l I An important function of the Joint respective power systems. d Committee is the coordination and facilitation of generation an transmission system planning by the parties to the Joint Cc:nmittee Agreement.
Accordingly, the four parties to the future generation and ' Agreement exchange load forecasts, L transmission expansion plans, and all other available data regarding specific planned facilities. There have been no other significant changes in the power is, or pools or coordinating groups in which the Company was, will be a participant.
% l
l 1(c) Changes in Transmission. Regulatory Guide 9.3 , f Describe changes in transmission with respect to (1) the nuclear plant, (2) interconnections, or (3) i connections to wholesale customers. Company's Response f The nuclear plant. When the a. nt Voatie PSAR ( *. ) was filed in 1971, it was anticipated that the plant would consist of four generating units. All four of the units were to be connected at the plant site to the company's ,O 500-kv transmission system. (See Plant Vogtle PSAR, In addition, 230-kv figures 8.2.1 through 8.2.6.) connections were to provide off-site power to Plant Vogtle and to connect the combustion turbines at the Company's Plant Wilson to the transmission grid. (Plant Wilson is If this plan situated adjacent to the Plant Vogtle site.) had been implemented, there would have been eight 500-kv lines and three 230-kv lines existing at the Plant Vogtle-Plant Wilson site. The present plan of transmission development for Plant Vogtle is depicted in Plant Vogtle FSAR figures 8.1-1 and 8.2.1-1 (attached as Diagrams 1, 2 and 3 to this section). j
-15. s
s O The plan shown is a result of the continued evaluation of Since the filing of the Plant Vogtle PSAR, system needs. , there have been significant changes in the load forecasts and an equally significant change in the scope of the project with the cancellation in late 1974 of Units 3 and 4. In the current transmission plan, Unit 1 is connected f
/
to the 230-kv bus and Unit 2 is connected to the 500-kv bus, with two 500/230-kv auto transformers connecting the The number of 500-kv lines 1 500-kv and 230-kv busses. existing at the Plant Vogtle-Plant Wilson site has been reduced from eight to two and the number of 230-kv lines i All connections has been increased from three to four. will be complete prior to the operation of Unit 1. During (2) Interconnections and (3) Connections. 4 1975 and 1976, individual Integrated Transmission System Agreements were made by the Company with OPC, MEAG and Dalton. Prior to these agreements, there were numerous electric membership corporations and municipalities in Georgia taking full requirements electric service from the Company. Now only the Acworth and Hampton municipal systems take full requirements service while participants in the ITS use that system for delivery of power from the and Company and power generated from self-owned resources, (See can use the !TS for off-system transactions. Diagram 4 for a map of ITS 500-kv and 230-kv lines.) Integrated Transmission System are required Members of the is to maintain investment parity in the system and this
- 2 q-
P accomplished primarily by the construction or purchase of As examples, the Plant transmission facilities. and sale 1 230-kv line is owned by OPC, Vogtle-Goshen No. of the Plant Vogtle-Wadley section of the Plant Vogtle-Plant Scherer 500-kv line to MEAC is being proposed so that MEAG may maintain parity. The Company also participates on a continuing basis in regional reliability studies. As a result of such studies, it has been the Company's continual policy to provide interconnections to the Integrated Transmission It has also been the Company's System whenever needed. policy to provice ITS connections to federal hydro projects as they have been developed in the stes. Connections to the Integrated Transmission System (other than connections to subsidiaries of The Southern Company) provided since 1974 include: DATE FACILITY 1974 West Point Dam 115-kv Connection for federal hydro project. 1975 Carters Dam 230-kv Connection for federal hydro project. 1975 Statesboro-McIntosh 230-kv Line Interconnection with Savannah Electric and Power Company.
_s.
~
1975 G Calnoun Falls 115-kv Interconnection with South Carolina Electric and Gas company. E77 Norcross-oconee 500-kv Lig Interconnection with Duke Power Company. 1979 j Kingsland-Yulee 230-kv Line
,a l Interconnection with Florida Power and Light company.
1982 Plant Hatch-Offerman-Duval 500-kv Line ' Interconnection with Florida Power and Light Company and Jacksonville Electric 1 Authority.
-s 1982
-? Plant Hatch-Thaimann-Duval 500-kv Line Interconnection with FlotAda Power and J Light Company and Jacksonville Electric
.4 Authority.
1983 230-kv Line _ South Bainbridge-Hopkins Interconnection with the City of Tallahassee, Florida. In addition to the foregoing, a 230-kv line is under d B. construction from East Watkinsville, Georgia to the Richar This line will not only l Russell Dam on the Savannah River. provide connection to this federal hydro project but it ith is anticipated that it will also provide an interconnection w Negotiations utilities in North Carolina and South Carolina. h South are also under way to provide an interconnection to t e k Carolina Electric and Cas Ccmpany f rom the Plant Vogtle 230- v
F D bus and such an interconnection could possibly be established by early 1985. Although this line would provide a desirable connection between the two systems, it is not required for the reliable, safe operation of Plant Vogtle. r
'\ .
1 O I i I e i 0
1 DIAGRAM 1 (Sources Plant Vogtle FSAR) i
.)
giyl '
'I # i' -
'y '
. I .
n
/ 2n - -
78'
~
g . h, - A,j l
- gli 1
uDi i ci
. r, 4
h _.- A. S G , 5 5 o f 1- -
, 15 LlL - , - ! 3
'. /- 2,.
o
.. n.
' ~
'x . /
(' ' 1 ' 7
. is y t' f, 4
f Q .
. _ _ _ _A I I -
!'k w).....___;pls
,q ~u reyae
(_
- a. .
y I g . o b =' m hj ' a
s
'R
. Eg H
1 DIAGRAM 2 - b l Plant vogtle FSAR) (Sources t l tr I k j E p. r b i 1
. (
r P I i sens N l I N N (. .. r > VEGP N em j" ' GW l w d- / F I SCHERER L
- 230.coov e~ sees
- 500.000V
' (
sgf* f EFFlNGHAM L WAYNESSORO . woctts THE'50tfTHERS COMPANY GRID S)* STEM stsevese samanafsms W dkMg gegrt 3 asic UnsT 2 FIGURE 3,1-1 (SHEET 2 OF 2)
l__-_____________. _ __ w
--- l i
DIACRAM 3 Plant Vogtle TSAR) (source: ,, ( i
$ l j
{ ! - J ~ '- i
,.!g - g JM 3 a f -
,,I 1.e -
4 m 0 z [ .
.. ............ It g n
.. ~..! . . . <. .., ! -
,.,g .
a = } .!..........,
- : .. t g ,,,
.............g~ 4 g b g t 58 84{ .-
i
~
3 pl ig . iij S--O
,.i,ge 9 _i p.~ Ie t 14 y pn (4'g.
1 u.- I --I e JM--: [N 3-el '@A y 9I! < 4 e# 11 .'.&.- =
-~
^#
d l ${ { $8 . p ? j ... ......... . . 0
#_.i
- _.i_ . .
i,i i ~i n i lig.d .. L- .--O l1L.L 4- . i I !J f
. . . . . - . I i ;-
_ s. I.- f I.
-l, i u _._ _ _.
l L al i._.1 g-i j -
+ !-{-3 -
I
- at an .
' - - - - - - - ~ - - _ . _ _ _ _ _ - - ~ - - - - - - - _ _ _ _ _ _ ^ ~-" ~ ~-
- ~~e m o DIACRAM 4 GEORGIA INTEGRATED Q l TRANSMISSION SYSTEM D- ., f Ws?'
= sr*=
iI Lh._ S$-
/ -
.... ar -
1\ P ...***8 e e _/" h , (' [
~
v .
\'s 'x \
w __ ( \" s O - <= 3 _ s s
~~
a . o- _ 1 ,e
.- /
?-~~ .-
r I l
/
l
._. _- ---- (
An
^
l :- - 1 y i.o
'O
-2J-
-m
]
l t 1(d) changes in ownership of Plant Hatch. Requ1 story Cuide 9.3 Describe changes in the ownership or contractual allocation l Reasons and basis for ] of the output of the nuclear facility. such changes should be included. Company's_ Response In implementing the Settlement Agreement and antitrust license conditions the Company has sold the following ownersh interests in Plant Vogtle Undivided ownership Interest Purchesar , 30.0% oPC 17.7% MEAG Dalton M% 49.3% Total
~
The Company is also discussing the sale of an additional interest of approximately 4% in Plant Vogtle to MEAG. The Company has agreed with oPC, and has separately agr I with MEAG, to buyback specific portions of the output from each The buyback of their respective shares of Plant Vogtle. h the arrangements are intended to provide CPC and MEAG wit i l opportunity to purchase portions of large generating faci jt es from the2r l at one point in time, yet receive the output d al ownership shares on a schedule commensurate with the gra u t The OPC l increases projected in their respective requiremen s. d in f and MEAG biryback agreements for Tiant Vogtle are quants le Table 2 of section 1(g) of th2s document.
1(e) Rate Changes. Regulatory Guide 9.3 Describe changes in design, provisions or conditions of rate Rate increases or schedules and reasons for such changes. decreases are not necessary. Company's Pasponse The Company's full requirements wholesale rate has not l changed significantly other than for changes in the rate leve , and a change in a chsr7e in the fuel adjustment clause, In general, the Company's full
~
available delivery voltages. ~s) s, - requirements rate le designed to allocate cost responsibility in on a 'isak period basis to customers, or classes of customers, proportion to their contribution to the system peak demand. Settlement Purauant to the license conditions contained in tha Agreement, the Company arended its full requirements tariff to The tariff permit receipt of power at transmission voltages. also provides an appropriate high voltage discount. The amendment to the fuel clause, mentioned above, was flied on December 30, 1975 to conform the full requirements tariff to 517 issued November 23, 1974 in FPC Docket No. FPC Order No. R-479. The revised fuel adjustment clause made changes required by Order No. 517 (e ng., inclusion of nuclear fuel and f generation, inclusson of energy or 'uel components of not bulk and differed fron the prior fuel adjustment l
,h power transactions) i
~25- ,
clause by utilizing current fuel cost estimates to match current ) The revised clause was made i expenses and current revenuos. { effective in March, 1976. i j and in order i Pursuant to the antitrust license conditions, h to facilitate OPC's ownership participation in Plant Hatch, t e a partial requirements wholesale Company filed on June 30, 1975 The PR rate is based upon a rationale developed tariff ("PP"). - by OPC's consulting enginn ra and embodies the philosophy and logic necessary for allocating capacity among base, intermediate, peaking and reserve categories and further first allocating the types of capacity for reserving each of the The rate assumes that a customer's percentage three categories. reserves will be the same as the Company's p ecentage reserves h joint so long as the customer's requirements are derived throug binations
;:lanning with the Company and are satisfied through com of specific self-owned generating resources, partial requirements purchases from t.he Company, and purchases of The Soute..actern Power Administru ; ion ("SEPA") hydro power.
rate is a 5sebar rateMoreover, and assumes that transmission the rate envisions operation I will be handled by the customer. l of the Company's and the customer's generation resources on an h economic dispatch basis, without regard to ownership of t ose Capacity and energy charges in the rate have been resources. as closely as possible, the operating designed to track, characteristics of the comrdote electric system. OPC, MEAC and Dalton began taking service under the PR rate on July 1, 1975, February 7, 1977 and June 1, 1977,
~26- +
t _ - _ - _ _ - - - _ _ _ - _ _ - _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ .
Since its inception, the PR rate has been refined respectively. i of l on several occasions to better achieve the rate's gor All changes have been agreed to by reflecting syste.s operation. d by OPC, MEAG, Dalton and the FERC staff, and have been accepte FERC. O 1 O
.__ m
Service Area, Schedule Transfers, G 1(f) Customers, Acquisitions and Mergers. Regulatory Guide 9.3 List all (1) new wholesale customers, (2) transfers from one rate schedule to another, including copies of schedules not (3) changes in licensee's service area, previously furnished, and (4) licensee's acquisitions or mergers. f Company's Response l The only "new" 1(f)(1) New Wholesale Customers. CPC territorial wholesale customers the Company has obtained are f the and MEAG, both of which serve former individual customers o Company. Several new wholesale customers situated h h outside the Georgia territorial service area have been added t" roug d
~
contracts for dedicated unit sales (* Unit Power Sales ) a The contracts were negotiated by the interruptible sales. h i operating subsidiaries of The Southern Company and Sout ern Inc. Georgia Power Company has a resulting Company Services, d specific ; l I assigned load ratio share of interruptible sales an I The Company's new capacity allocations of dedicated unit sales. wholesale customers under interruptible sales contracts are: Florida Power and Light Company; Jacksonville Electric the City of Tallahassee, Authority; Florida Power Corporation; and Mississippi Florida; Savannah Electric and Power Company; Customers added by dedicated unit Power and Light Company. sales contracts are Florida Power and Light Company, k
l Jacksonville Electric Authority, and Gulf States Utilities I l (beginning in 1984.) The Company also routinely and frequently sells power on a ility short-term, interruptible basis to several neighboring ut f systems. Subsequent to the 1(f)(2) Rate Schedule Transfers. formation of OPC in 1974 and prior to its conversion to the PR rate on July 1, 1975, OPC received full requirements service as dr the assignee of the power contracts of its constituents un e Since February, 1977, the Company's full requirements rate. MEAC has been taking service under the Company's PR rate; prior ice to formation, individual Georgia municipalities took serv The City of Dalton ~ under the Company's full requirements rate. has been taking service under the PR rate since June 1, 1977. 5 As OPC, MEAG and Dalton have begun to retain portions of the hip output of the plants in which they have purchased owners interests, the balance of their power requirements has bee.. satisfied under the PR rate and by purchases from the Southeastern Power Administration. There have been no 1(f)(3) Changes in Service Area. changes in the Company's service area. The Company has not 1(f)(4) Acquisitions or Mercers. been involved in any acquisitions or mergers. 1 D 1 $
w f d4 1 1(g) Generating Capacity Additions. 1 1 Regulatory Guide 9.3_ ej J List those generating capacity additions committed for ' operation after the nuclear facility, including ownership , 1 rights or power output allocations. I f i Company's Response - Ta' ole 1 of this section shows the type, size and F, ownership of generating units currently committed for r p The table corresponds to the construction and operation. k Territorial Generation Expansion Plan presented in Tkble 2 t of section 1(a) and indicates the first year a unit is e expected to be available to meet peak system demand. ' f IF Table 2 (8 pages) of this section presents in l numerical format the output buyback arrangements made by the Company with OPC and with MEAG for each of the the As can be seen from the table, jointly-owned units. Company's purchase of output declines gradually over time for each of the units. l Table 3 of this section shows how Unit Power Sales will be allocated from The Southern Company's generating Georgia Power Company's share of such sales will plants. be generated by Plant Scherer Units 1, 2, 3 and 4. Capacity sales from those units begin at 415 MW in 1983, and gradually increase to a maximum of 1931 MW in 198V, ramp down to zero by the end of 1995. O
w - C o
- r
- 5
- e 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 2
- w 0 2
- o
- P
- f y
- l l 1 u
- n E - G o L se B p it A 6 s T
i n 4 0 0 6 0 0 a h o 4 . 4m s t 1 1 i r l 1 1 dt e a ns n D ae w O 7 0 3n 2 2 0 0 7 0 0 a n % GA . . 7 s a E 0 0 7 1 ts ii l - 3 3 1 P - M n
- Un n -
0 0 0 0 , ro w o - C_ 0 0 0 0 0 3 s i - P 6 6 3 g eh Ys - O n rs Nn - i e Aa - t he cg Pp - 5 0 7 5 a Mx1 - 4 0 0 7 7 R Sa OE . - o 4 0 0 7 0 . t C . 1 0 nn v C 8 8 1 1 0 5 r ne - P 5 u ie O RoR Ei-Wt1 Oa1
- C H
o k yr ne ap c l p PrA l a a e3 l a l a a r o e me An8 o r o a c P oh o o o a c o CT Ie GG l c c r r e r e m e S d y l S r. R S S d y d l c e Ol u y c u w t ed Ea F w w H H u w H o N o s we Gi o o H L y ot r L L S Pa o L - i t . d ft i 8 7 0 8 e lo ug r 8 8 0 8 0 5 0 t r
- 4 5 0 6 a Ce W 0 0 0 1 8 1 8 n
e 8 8 1 8 1 m y T M 1 i t bg s n e ni y 4 oe 1 2 r n 3 2 e ib r i 1 t r t e a t i a ay t t t i t pl i i F t n i n n n n i n U k n U s it cn U U s u c U g t i t o U r o r n ie tr n r r t M e R e e i e e e e l r t rr U r r l y l t r e t t e a au e e t k g h a g h R Pc h h r c o o c c c a o o c G V S *
- S B R V S
- S 7 7 9 9 9 O 2 4 6 7 8 8 r 8 8 8 8 8 2 a 8 9 9 ? 9 9 9 9 9 1
e 0 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 Y 1
TABLE 2
- Page 1 of 8 j
. .e . :
O- - .- . h. ., O . .e e n- e. e- ee -- as
- n. o. . e e. n. . e e e e ooO e See e e.e.s. e o e e . .
ese e eeo w. -me - e-O - e ew nw h D ..
~
e
$U S
nem 3 ne o e se a. av - es 94 se 4
> E D 9> h se e em U *e - # e* en Sse eO w S* te e e e a e e e as 4 **** re e e o e e OOO O 3& *e # **
e e e Pm e e e e e e e e ee > O eso >>9 h 99O O Ee =* - O to e>O M ww en ee e We se pw te to e en me se ee ** ro se e*
*3 e h &D D 5m es S es em &4 Wt e e *
- 6 == ** es N MO w e
- e o
- 8 Se e so P=
* * *
- e o e e o e e A at O se M e
OOO O 9OO O e 4 * * *
- 9>0 95 e>0 e we
*e se == 9 re as art g te aw > ee n
*) se ep - n no ee se 1 6
Pm 3 66 O O s. >
- b E O ne no w 4g 4 e e e o e e e s ,
ee <* ee .ft O e e e e O ee h ** o e e e e e e e SOO O 6e9 ! E7 e o e h em O se e et O > M 4 8 * ** O art eeO O ww > h as N ee EM M - - -
- I
%9 I
** n om > i es ow e en w ee ee e e e e e e o e e '
&4 h se ee o e e e e e e e OOO O OOO e e a e e e e M w et # >
ee ea wSO fe OOO O k cri O wg se he M m go on ge
*3 8 G4 on oe e as h 3
@M W9 9e e
- E se Ow w W Ft P. em We e e e e o e e e et aw 9 ** en e e e e o e e e e e e
** M 9 w e e GSO O @OO G e e e Ft Pe O == e Eg oe Pm 9 9 tre OOO O bw ew e M
ee eg P. ** M M "3 e O, w O sig n e e e e e e3 99 9 es e e o
>e e o e e w #9 e e e Pm e
e e e e eee e e e e e eee e eee o a3 Oso e ese n. e no ,e n. h. o. e m.
. gg =U - e se 4s == rw Pm 3 e3 4 en E M S O e e e e EA Po ** = 0W es ee e e e e e O
OU S en ee oe e o e e o e e e OOO O OOO US e6 Es e e e e o e OOO O #OO e OOO O U e
# # #9O > e e 5e *3 *9 f9 4 e N N U SE *3 e ** en 3s 4 OU JE4. en e ** e e em C ee O .
e e * *
- a es Se >* e- e * * *
- e o e 000 O OOO O 4 e= 3 es *
- e e e e OOO O 900 O 900 0 e= 3 O *a OOO O ue ==e *) e M Ft
==
a e a es OU s 4 mm 3 e to E
- e a e e UU to em O e e e e e sa me w
- a O o e e e e e e a e e e e OOO O e
OOO O OOO O ses Es e *
- OCO O OOO O
# # *OO m ee n *=
"3 e -
e e e e e
*e e e o ae e e e e e + e e e OOO O OOO O oe e e e e . . e OOO O O6O O OOO O ee OOO O
*3 e pm 3 9a E e e e e e e e e u
ee w e e e e o e e e e e e e OOO O e OOO O OOO O e e e OOO O Ee es OOO O OOO O ee 7e U U U E em 3 L U U e- E U. e O U E e. E O U O U U en E e. O U O U U e. O o= #= t O U U to U4J > U 4 .J e e U e= > U e .A > O A tie C O
> ee U #= e- UEJ > U C .J eUC O ek U d 0Ee o=
a p 4 .J e ee d O e. a.e 4 O 0Ee e= 0Ee #= 4 e em to 4 O. OEO e= O 3" a #=
- e. 8 OEm e N
w P. e e 3 s 3 4 en h 3 h 3 D E em E e em 3 P. 3 en E e* E we se e e en E en E en so % 0 % O e == % O ** rgeU.e se O % O % O 0 W O w O Pe OE e % em Em
*=
- e ee O *
- O @
UO e e
- O Pm .* O O e =$ h e = e fa e .I' N
3 h M P* ** e e I se em E e 3 e e > e > e w e e, e ft e e a. e a,e a
- e e e= s e
e K e e J e .,e
- 8 w & a.
j
% C e 43 at to e 4
> ee e U L 3 s K U U r
X e e L 4 Z C U U m o= a e= U K U op
% 3 e U d M 4 3 e
==
e 4 E 3
# e 2
llI 'll ,\ I\lllI1 tII 1I
>=<se 1" y as r.se. N Ow **
Se 8
*. lt 4 I4 g. *** *
.. * * * ***
- D4e 4 4
- o. e S' e 4 tee 9 o 'a A
4 r.a ei tt 9
*33 3,
8 4 4 o-m i 9S 4S*** 9 9 84 m.-- t' e t' S' ee4 t' dSe Si S' 4 4 a- Dt r-96 M*
*- 64 g- *** * * **
. - ***
- 4ee e dse 4 8
*- 0e4 G 0t 4 e I r- 0t d n 4e 8 e t i ,4 t 4 l
a- *** * *** *
* +
- u- 9Ee I 4 O' 4 t Gee e 4t Dt 4
8 r-44 B
*- 4E C g- * + * * ** *
*
- 94e S a- 9 t' e e 8
t e' 4 e 94 e r-I 91 t S t 4 e m e e6 44 5 l o- * + * **
- d' g-G t t' t' D e' 4 4 4Se 6$
33 4 9 o-r- 94 4 o- 4D 9 g- *** * * ** *
-* -- **
- lie 4 4' e $ G 9O6 e tl 6 eg 4l 4
- m, g g 4 r-a . e3 g 4 n du ,, 4 u tD 8 g i eI 5 t, e 1 a- +** * *** 3 *** Ree 4' u- 94e 4 O s, t, a te, 3 3, e nM v iu dll S r-o- 9ee 4' e9 t 4 4 8 6 S a g- * * * * **
- 4, 3 ,, e l
n 44O' 6 G t' 4 4 tee 4 t C l 3 r-a l 5 t 9 e3 a u 4 9 3 m G 9 J, d 4 8 e e** 6 u *- *
- l u- * *
- 9' 4 O' t D4 t' t
- - t' 4 4' 4 S t i
e- t r-g- ***
- 4eC G e4e e
*- t' e 4 O' r-E t d a e mi
- l s' -- * * *
- 4 e' e e GGe S 9 e 4' t P-3 3 3 m 4 m 4
- m 4 e 1 o 3
* - e 3 Sl st 3t 3wi 4
& - 3vl A 3v1 1 S d3v 0 t -
- 43w 0 4a w ewe 1 u - 8me 1 0me A d
t -
- 4 e s -
*- 8 a e u -
ml - 4 u l ei 8 g # e 1 s 0v t C e 4 e t 3e- -
- e' e o
g g n g g
. 8 g 4 g l
g e a
. ,e 3 s v .
W 4 g g 3 1
- 1 1 ,e n 3
e - 3 4, 3 4, < n . 3 0 3 - e 3 I1J W fIl\ljj}
. 4 4
!fjl\jGa ll )1 r
1 l I l l TABLE 2 Page 3 of 8 j 1 ee e ew w 4 I
)
e Me ** *M ee a e e o e e e e e -- 54 ft ee de e de e e e e e e e e e w #6 e av e et e w e e e e *. e eo
*e e e e eee e e p.e e se h eee e ee M ==
en ft M en et se et et
** es o= 7e e em ee re tul e S ee o oN U $> K eo se we ee e e e. es, es en We to p> ee e e e e e 4p 4 e o e e #* #9 e FD e en 3e oe e e o e e e e
** ** e e e
eee e eee e St h e ew em w ee s ee eee S 79 es e fu en e WB se ert ee ! 9e ew M 1 M M e s- e ee M 1 wa se e w eM ee e o e e l ee MM 99 e e e e o e e e k en e ** ee e e e e e e e eee MMe O . 0 e e o e eee e e e eee e . e. g- e. g-M . St M r.m O e se g ,e .e e e 90 e M ee / I., o. o e e e dt M e e e e Wt e e e e I es ee e eM e o e ho ,e e e e e e e eee ese e se se e se e e en e eWb Ae ee o se em o th e eee,e e em 80 en ae
*e eee e e no se Se se O w Os e ie $n e Se se as ee G e e St e e w w ft de fe 80 e. e ee w 96 WD eS ee M pt e e e o e e e e e Se e O e e e e e o e eee e se se e e en 4ee so w e e ee ee e e e r= e 9 e e 8e
- O P6 eee se eos se e em St se Se O e fu as
*B e se se eM en e em -
4 em M .e . se 40 ee s. w w O W. O 4 ew . see 9e e e e e e e
- M*
- e. e #D e e e e O 8 We e o e o se e e **O e ee Ee e e e e **e e 940 e wee en e ee Oe es ee O pm e en te m se w e #e e se se 95 en R se e fe k oe se se **
"3 e su e 9e e eM w w e We et e ee eo Se WW b e e e e
*e e #* A w* M eee pt e e e e e e e eoe e eo e e e
- e e es e aw as se e se oe e + e e em e em e
We w e de e eee se e.
. et pp g om se se e
e ee es se eM St se as es 89 e se se .e
- 9e e e .e 1 !- enI. w e ce ee e se We e e
$lse ed
- e **
e e O e e e O o
.D WD se Wt e e e ee eM eee wee ee me e e e em es e se e e e e e se e se e
e e o e eee e e em 3e e ph e p. en e e eM e e et e e re e es e ) (I & =3 3E e e ee se se O #9 se se et es se Iff e.*$ M e ed E 4, e. 4e
*e 9h mm et #4 e se eM es w
ew ee w W eM
** es e o e 99 fu e e e e e O
CD E ee Se e e e o ee W5 e e e e e e Pm e e e e e e e en ew e M e eee ee eoe e se p 3 ee w en ** e es T #e e em e ww en oe S*e pt e WD e 99 p', e e et en e se e 4een M es se Im e.I es e
.es a M
e en 3
& >= b eM en e Fl FD r*
em O GW e 59 e rt 4me e e Pt se e e e e e es es ao
*e ma e O $= m e e e WD e e o e e Pm e. e WD M e Me e
Dee WI eee e 3e e e e Swe e e fu ese e w > re O fe e en et ew #9 h ee M 99 ft WD e rt ee *M ee e* ** ** 85 e e et e ee e e rt en $> e e e e ee p. p. FB P4 ee P* M e e e e e e e e eee O ee e ee Pm e o e o US e o e e Nt en e *w eee e e o e e to e M ee eee e et fe es e e e et e en * -
*p e et et rt
- e. m e 3 e De e en E e rs ne eeree e e o e e e en en e rs es ee == m oe h et.
79 P es e e e e e ee4 e oe ee o e e e e e e se > e se eee e ge ee e e e*O e e e en e ee Wt to e e 0 r5 re Mw p. no as We rt se se ee et et en re
*) e U U U U E e. E 6.
U U W & W e. gp o o O E e. f.L e. o o D u D e= e o o D e= U en p a .J e-e # D u U e= & 4 eJ > C G e= U ee ueJ > ueJ > hwC O &W4 en e u$s > ueJ > hw e c ew w t O cEm ,= a e O e. w e O. OEm > OEe > ese > e e ege w s.> OEe e
& a M e em be e
*= 3 e 3 e' 3 E
e e em 3 em 3 e= E en E e= e e ** 3 & em E se a
> E en se se
% e % e rgeu.ee = es e % e w re ==e oce % e %
- e. %.
. O e e e.
eo en e e e wee e e r= e 0 yt o e e e em e. M e p e es a M e e e .o . M e. e a ee e > e et w o e - t*
- w. e -w a e e a e es a s e se e a &
e o= e z e s e w e. W
== e 2 e e, e &
- ss a. Z 4 en u & W 4 2 4 E 4 U
= 3 e a= 4 2 U U U,
% 3 e ** 4 4 U 4 U 6 U, g
g e 4 U 3 3
.__C2--__-- -- - - - - ____s_ _ ._o
w TABLE 2 Page 4 of 8
** .. E. t. . t.
- 4. !. ..
.. .. gg. ;
D -- 4: - en E3 2I .
"1
~
E6 ..
.. gg g 4, g on g 3.
== .
.. 9*." ,
?! ..
.. .. gg. g. t
,;g .. "
e-E I 2
.5. .
. T.
s.. . c.. gg. g. si .
.. e: E. . s 4;
.. gg. tI
.. ~
E E.. .. !
.. . a. . 3
.. .. g. g E. .
3
.. t.ne. n.
.. .. .n MM
. e.
? u . - , 1 lmE .a a. W Y&. .. .. h. M.
... .. a.
..n
.. = .
I .. 3 5 t. I.I' 2" I . am.
* ' l. ..
22 5 l
. ~1 I.I
**b o -I .
ul ..
**.5 e
-*. . . /
- d. i. .. .. gg
- j
.g
- t. g. .. .. S.*
- m. e
' 2* f tI .
- c. . . C.
33 .e
- 70
. E. 5.Y 5.E u!"W uV"W 8t. ..
- uts.
bw. e
- St. -.
E E.t : i.wi.
~ . ..
g ua a .
- i. i. .
t M
~ ~
. w .
- ______ n l _ w lu ;
TABLE 2 Page 5 of 8 e. nn D - ,sg .. . 3 C E .. g* --
.. .. *. 9. p
.. .. ** 3 d., i., ..
se - - m. .
*I. .. ..
.. .. ; g gg. g- ;
4; ..
*I
-- .1 ** 5" 1 gg g gg g 4.:.
.. ... ... *
- I S. .
. . ....~. 3
.. gg g gg ;
tE .... a.
.. n. . .. a~ -
.. .. .. ** t* 2
, . ... s
. ,e.. ...
. .. .. ...3 . - a.
.. .. =.
- a -
..... .. .. - -- M
.- - 3 -
5 l y I . ..I E 2.3. gg. g. 3 52. gg. g g ., ; .. . 1.IC" ge . g
.i 55 .
.. gg g gg g
- ?4 !. .. .. - - "-
ij5r. I - - r * *i C. * "'. .** I gg . g. = , d.i. .. .. t - . 3.
**.g
.. .. g.
.. .. gg g
.. .. -- . A- .
,4 ,; .
.. g EI g.t*. i.est.
4.
.. e.e e
- e. e .. .a
~.
a n-
,. :1, E
. 8. Y 5.E EoE 5oE o
, . Y. uy3 uT3 - uV" .
- uV" - u!3 .
BEi 2
! uY3 821
- bri
- 811 2 &Yi E bii *
. I .I
~. ~. I ~. ,. . . .-
s . s ru. .
- - . .- .. s. .. n u..
5.. .s .. .
- s. .s p .
- ~
h
~ ~ - .
h.
~.
h
... ~ .
. g s .
~
- 3 t
. E t
'I, t
, - F, i u
ra u u i u u e 1 5 : . u . u S u S e S S I
l I : :s : TABLE 2 Page 6 of 8 a- a: : : : fiai () g:-
,ki i" i fiai 4 l
ll s's i isai iisi 4: : : :: : :: : _ki
- I iis i fisi ifai
.T : : : .=244 g e: 444 4 gee~ en a: ,
e: : : : : :: ta; a ta; a
=~ = ;n; E a: R E't .T :: : :: : :: :
I! 5d# $ is* i 55# i 4: : : :: : :: :
.: ag; 8 - -
Ea;- E ga;
.n c a
i.wmfa- i'n:
.T gg:e :i st saa a
?: ges- E O. 5=. i.g Ig es 4: . . - : :
- = n :: : ::
aa
-E g a.:: it;
. a ga;
.- E s:; a:
l Ir g
. s .. . I'-7 -
- x -
) :: 2: l 3 . das i Jai e 1: I \ 4: i.ts I
- R: 3-4: :: :- 2:
l ' gas- E 444 4 add a
': - : I
=n .T :: : : {
4 Y: Ja4 4 444 4 444 4 I 4: :" A :: R
. E : E *E*
a: a-
*
- a-
" a "Si ":i hs. :-
i
. :.. "he.Si - )
l El E8 EE $
- -E: -
w E
- l w t E : d s- # s' 3 I
.i l
. E. ' S IS . .
-- ------------________ene ___
j
1 TABLE 2 Page 7 of 8 e Mb *e e e e e e e e ee e o e e e e e e o e e e e SOS O e 909 e ee o e e 999 O See e See # as * *8 OOO 9
> *t e a
f 9 taf & 3 U > E
- w4 ee e e e e o9 e e e e e e e e Mb e e e o e o e o e e e o 49O O eOO O 3e a8 9OO O OO9 O OOO O OOO O e t
*9 e et e e o e Ot * *
- e e e e e e o e ee e e e e e e e *
- 99O O eee O et 9OO O O99 9 9ee O SO9 9 14 h *
- 9
> Ew es '
o e e e ee e e e e e e e o e o e e e e e e 900 O g4 e e o e OOO O OOO O OOO O OOO O se OOO O ee 44 ei o e * * *
- e e e4 *
- e e e e e e
- e e e e e *
- 9ee O 99e e eOO O e 8 et 909 9 OOO 9 eOO O
*3 8 e a
> m3w es a e e e a0 e e e e e e e e o e e e ge o e e o e e e a OO9 9 eOe S SOO O 4 0 909 9 OOO O OOO O e0
*3 0 et e e e e e e e e e O8 e e e e e e e o e e * * *
- e GSG S GOO O si SOO 9 900 9 999 9 999 9
># et W es 14a s se 9
3 4 > Ew e M Un W e en et e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e OOe O e e e e OOO O e u a ge e e e GOO 9 9OO O OOO O
&S *3 e8 9OO O EE e8 N d %0 U ee E 4 h as O w e8 e e e e e e e a e e 3 ef e e e e e e e 900 O 4> e e e a e e o e OOO O 900 O ee D D e8
*8 OOO 9 000 e OOO O Ua ** *9 i 5U w&
504 *
> 3 a
epg e, > g ps so w
- e e e e e e e e e e o e e W ge e0 o e e e e e e e e e e 9OO O 9OO O OOO O 64 999 9 OO9 O 999 9 et
*3 4 et e e e e e e e e e at e e o e e e e e OeO
- ee e e e e e e e OOO O OOO O OOO O H M ef eeO O 9OO O M a
> 3 OO >
> E ww ee
, e e e e e e e e ee e e e e e e o e e e e ewO N gg e e e e OOO O OOO O 900 O TN h 000 O 90O O s, 8, 78 U U U U U E A E 6 U
B & R & W A C U G U e E A O U D U Ue i e D U C U U e- U e= e U e- O e- U e-
> UtJ > U 4 .e > U t .a **
e
> U 4 .6 > U 4 .s aw4 O 6wC O a
e e U c .e awe o e, w c o swa e two e OEm > CEe > OEe o= e gee > OEA > OEe >
& 6 h w
> b e a 3 e 3 g 4 h 3 h 3 h 3 D E e > 3 > E D E & E r see e o E
- E e= = * *
% O se a % e % O E == s O % 0 % O w O rs ==
ose e os m O w e e e Uee .%. e
- o. e e e n a e O h e n - o n a re e a e N a e se > n b m e
& a g a M I e m > e > e a w e e i e W e end e em m *
% > e e e .a e en e
*l* K e .J L w L w e'.
> e=
W 8 e .U ** W & en & era 3 4 3 4 : C es
% 3 e > .I > d 2 a u 4
a u u u u u
- e < u a u ,
3 en e E E 3
. . . . . . - ~ . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... ... . _ . . . . . .
qO
TAftt.E 2 Page 5 of 8 e M9 ee Se e e e e e ee e e e o e e e
*e e00 e OOO e see O
==
> P 5W LU E D w is a 3 E We ** w e e e e e e e e ; E6 Ee e o e e eOe e oe eOO e ese O ee is j i
.e a ee e e e e e e e o e e e e ee se GOO O eeO O OOO O 7e h a l D 3 D E w w .
*e e. e e e e e e e e e e o @
Eg OOO O OOO O OOO ee ee I is j s
.e e e e e e o e o e e e e e ee SCO O OOO O ee 900 0 i s 4 m D y
& E m w e
es e e e e e e o e ge e e e OOO O SOS O GOO 9 ee
*e is ee e oe e Se e e e e e o e o se DOS O 909 9 WW ee 800 O EM
- i s
&J m M m &D 4 D y M > E & O 9 9 E4 WW S
- w ee ee @ e e
es e e e o e U2y Et e e e e 490 e a OOO O eOS e w w w We m3 EE s e
*e w W '7 e $W 4 JE DU @ @ 9 b4 bM @
e w ee ee e o O 9 e e o 9 e 4> 2 8e e e e e e wp o ee 499 e 409 4 Um w *e GOO O w w w w 5 a 7e 9 m UU E > 3 WA 4 E 9 O UU & D @ O ee M m w e @ G es o e o e e e e W Ke e e e e M MOO M GOO @ MOO & ee D D D
*e 7e oe # 8' *
# * *
- e Se e *
- e *
- e
- ee OOO O MOS M M**
w ee D D DM 7e
- M a D 3 >
D E @ # DO w O O D Dw M e ee ne e * *
- gg es ee e WOO e e 4
e OTO M
- ee 400 4 w M Fe to M M
ea w m " M 7e U U U E L 7 6 e t 6 O U D U e # D U Ow Uw
> Up USJ w a
e Utd > Uta > C swC D e kwt C 6wC > OEs e 4 e CEA > OES
& a e
h 3 e e e e 3 a 3 e e D E
- E Ewe = =
go e % O J 04 e % o 4 Ume M e > O e O O O p > p = e =
- M 6 m =
e
- E M e C a e w e
- % e a w e a e E
'D en . e a e
> b U 2 s = & 6
=
3 e U 4 6 e %
% D M D U e m e e > >
O
I t TABLE 3 l Cil3% R2R EBE BB BBB 83 EB88 CCR R4 R44 44 AAAA 44 A&E A4 83 2: 323
- BB 88 Bg g*
hk "271 E88 !! R*R 3R R Rifdj 3 RRR FE RRR RR R , r i{a-{gL 3 RRR 22
==
US*lt% 248, 248 . 88 . .
==9 9:~ :. E. E. E. E. E. eE.==E. E. 3. 2 A R # 4 M
~~ . ~~~ ~ .. .I .*
g*,%~ I l... ~~~ EER ~RR REE Rt *: : .. l 5.C I g33 ~~ 33,B333 g3 933 [2 --24 ** 5
~~~~ ~ ~~~ -
5, ,R ,E ,A I , n, ==~ -m n
. l=R122 LE ::t 442 24 244 24 2
~
R' la R2
;g ltt 202 228 32 33,4 E ~
- --- ~~~ ~~ ~ - ~~
n IEd
,, . o. g=
= =~ eso e. e--. .
wow eee *cea RRk eocf -- Es2 34 --4D92 RI so=11% 84 E4 ~: E8 ! IBEles Es -- -- -- --- .i .ett, g ((888.!.{88.,.84283 - EJi, ~. . S E,g S g-e.i 335 ES SSSI tSS I. .I. nI. I
) ,Ecl 51
-*al-
'5 Ell .'"21 5 t= s, 3 3 3 .2 4.2 = 3. nann R. t 1==5 =3=2 g ; s t a 3 2 y 2 g
3-g-C 8 8
~s~el ss :: :: ::: as s::= :: ::: ::
u 2.1. = 222R 2: 20%
**2" E** ****
er ol -
. = E 100 RE E 2 23 2R ful 2dl IM '"' *-* :: *** ::: ""i: s : :::= :: := ::
5L _!g;.is
,Ei ,
883 a.st $2 "02 R$ ~ 1 2*8g2 = 1: :E ::: 2*% c- 33 - ~ a.s SA R A*l "I S.i- l -- = == === .. .. .. ., , El 38 2A E8 E4 4 2 si f .. is i 2 I 33 33. 313 3 ; I El E
' I 2 ' d. " 'o ... .
g I 3)ls~i a 3 82 558 18 ES%t as 3*: I #7 ! 58; 2.f.0. E.g . ..tgar gg .. gg ., eu nu nu nu
-s d-l. -
eu nu a u vu .u nu eu . =
*I E E$
>u
$$ ad =i>4 I$ af deINi.=35is$$ 44ad se$d le DN' 44 Eld! =4 4.4 44 =44 4 4:34 44 424 44 44 44 44 9- .E144 424 434 44 4 4 4 g ~ ; ; c .
2 : B t. E 5 t t c= 513 3 s t t t t t t t t t
- - - fit
j h 1(h) Requests fer,_ Electric Service. Regulatory Guide 9.3 Summarize requests or indications of interest by other ' electric power wholesale or retail distributors, and licensee s response, for any type of electric service or cooperative l venture or study. Company's _Re..ponse New connections to the Integrated Transmission System by non-territorial wholesale customers have been summarized in section 1(c) above. Requests by the Company's territorial wholesale customers for and retail distributors for partial requirements servica, gf participation in ownership of generation and transmission and the Company's resulting I facilities, and for joint planning, d in commitment to satisfy those requests, have been formalize the antitrust license conditions in the Plant Vogtle ' construction permits and in the rearrangement of the Company s relationship with its wholesale customers and retail Requests by customers for changes at specific distributors. l delivery points which were made prior to the handling of such and the Company's response thereto, requests by OPC and MEAG, i 15, 1976 (and are inc u eldd were submitted in detail on January in the Company's antitrust information as Attachment A herein) The for the Plant Hatch Unit 2 operating license application. following is the best available information regarding requests
- 41-l
1 A h which were listed as "Under process of being established" in the 1976 submission: ACTION TAKEN Voltage Increased Change _ Delivery Point Capacity EMC New Point Estab'd 12/17/80 by OPC Walton #13 Estab'd 6/15/75 by CPC Mitchell County #14 (No information nysilable) Coweta Fayette #11 , Flint #19 (No information available) Estab'd 3/15/76 by CPC Elint #20 (No if.iormation available) Flint #21 Estab'd 4/13/83 by OPC Habersham #9 Estab'd 7/16/76 by OPC Troup Co. #11 Estab'd S/26/76 by CPC Troup Co. #12 Estab'd B/20/76 by CPC Oconee #9 Estab'd 7/30/76 by CPC Tri County #6 Delivery Point Municipal Albany #13 (No information available) Estab'd 12/15/76 O Fitzgerald #3 Marietta #9 Albany #12 Estab'd 7/15/76 (No information available) it For the delivery points noted "No information availabla." is the opinion of those familiar with such requests that the delivery points were proposed but were withdrawn and, therefore, not established. Since their formation, OPC and MEAC have handled the requests for new or changed service points made by their Thus, if a retail distributor is a individual constituents. member of OPC or MEAG and desires to add or change a service point, it would request such an addition or change from either as appropriate. Such of those two bulk power suppliers, engineered and constructed I I additions and changes can be planned, l
m by the requesting party or, depending upon their respective h workloads and experience in particular areas, by MEAC or CPC. Moreover, OPC, MEAG, Dalton, and others can and do hire the company and other contractors to perform a variety of engineering and construction services relating to such requests. In many instances, construction projects are put up The Company's primary involvement with for competitive bids. , to l the requests for additionai or changed service points made OPC or MEAG (other than when it has been hired to perform the work) is as a member of the Joint Cosenittee which determines h such service points affect Integrated Transmission System parity. (See section 1(b) for a discussion of the Joint Committee.) Regarding requests for cooperative studies, the Company has participated on a continuing basis in regior.a1 reliabiitty studies as noted in section 1(c) above. 'O I
E 1 M 5 f Irelementation of Antitrpst conditions. h' . j
=
oculatory Guide 9.3 yj w Licensees whose construction permits include conditione lE 7 ertaining to antitrust aspects should list and discuss those {g l t d in accordance 4ctions or policies which have been imp emen e N rith such conditions. 3% ; s a'
!J g
- empany's Response -pj As previously noted, Plant Vogtle's construction permits ds! J In general, the Company ??
contain antitrust conditions. r,; rocagnizes in the conditions that it is of ten in the public h intorest for those engaging in bulk power supply and purchases d hk \ to interconnect, coordinate for reliability and economy, an ly transactions in order to increase !]% y M I' gengo in bulk power supp fjj s interconnected system reliability and reduce the costs of Specifically, the Campany interconnects with
]
oloctric power. k3 { cortain entities in Georgia (as defined in the antitrust i!!
<3 i ,
73 conditions), provides full requirements service to such entit es 9g l 7. at transmission voltages, provides partial requirements service '$ its ) to cuch entities, provides transmission service wathin 45 and permits such entities to purchase appropriate M cervice area, 75 ownership interests in the company's nuclear plants (although /d f;l _g" the commitment does not include Plant Hatch Unit 1). -- The Company's full requirements tariff on file with FERC has -
=
been amended so as to offer full requirements service at The transmission voltage to any full requirements customer. *
*ariff contains an appropriate high voltsge discount which -n I.
_4 4 T
~- - - - - - _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _
G reflects the Company's savings when it is not required to transform power to distribution voltages. Also as detailed elsewhere in this document, the Company filed a partial 1975 which permits customers to requirements tariff on June 30, contract for base, intermediate, peaking and reserve capacity and energy to supplement their own generating resources or ' On June 30, 1975, the Company off-system bulk power purchases. also filed its transmission service tariff which permits an entity to enter into an integrated transmission system FERC's predecessor, the Federal arrangement with the Company. 1975. Power Commission, made such tariffs effective July 1, OPC, MEAC and Dalton have each subsequently begun to take service under the partial requirements tariff and each has executed an Integrated Transmission System Agreement with the Moreover, a Joint Committee of representatives from Company. the Company, OPC, MEAG, and Dalton has been established to implement and administer all agreements and contracts between and among these entities relating to their respective power systems, and to plan generation facilities on a joint basis. As described above, the Company has sold undivided interests in Plant Vogtle and Plant Hatch to OPC, MEAC and Dalton, and is negotiating the sale of an additional interest in Plant Vogtle I to MEAG. It should be noted that Plant Hatch Unit I was not f covered by similar antitrust conditions in its construction I permit or operating license, but has been included in the asset sales that ' nave been made to date.
+
)
I f I J Information for Antitrust Review of Operatina License ) 3. Application. Five copies of this document, "Information for Antitrust Review of Operating License Application," containing th* I information requested in Regulatory Cuide 9.3, are sube.itted herewith. i D Revised August 11, 1983. O , 0548m - _ _ - - _ _ - - - - - _ - _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _
l I . I C O ATTACHMENT A Data supplied with Plant Hatch Unit 2 Operating License Application - Antitrust Information (Regulatory Guide 9.3.1(h)). (6 Pages) C F
Fage 1 of 6 I e CI1gg Ig g g g Increased Voltage Delivery Point Capacity Change EMC _ New Point _ X Okefenoke (3 X Jackson #6 X Walton #5 X Walton #6 X Sawnee #4 X Ocmulgee #2 X Habersham #2 X Hart County #1 X X l Snapping Shoals #2 X Oconee f5 X Jefferson County #8 Walton #13 (1) X Canoochee #2 X Cobb County #5 X Satilla #10 X Cobb County #6 . Estab'd 11/9/72 O Altamaha #8 Altanaba #9 Estab'd 5/3/74 X Col uitt County #7 X l Col uitt County #10 X Col uitt County #12 X , Colquitt County #13 X Three Notch #7 X Col uitt County #6 X Col uitt County (15 X Cra y County #6 X Crady County f5 X Colquiet County #12 Satilla #16 Estab'd 8/15/73 Satilla #15 Estab'd 10/6/73 X Coweta Faye':te #3 Irwin County #7 Estab'd 6/7/73 Cobb County #9 Estab'd 7/5/72 X Rayle #6 Estab'd 3/12/73 Canoochee #8 Estab'd & Retired Cobb County #8-A Cobb County #8-5 Estab'd & Retired Hitchell County #13 Estab'd 4/13/73 X l Okefenoke #2 O (1) Under process of being established. I ' I
-16 Page 2 of 6 6CIlog IAEEE Increased Voltage Delivery Point Capaeity__ Chan g EMC _
New Foint_ _ X Jefferson County #1
#12 Estab'd 8/30/74 X Jefferson Colquitt County County #1 X
Excelsior #7 Estab'd 6/5/74 Marc County 013 Central Ceorgia (14 Estab'd 7/13/73 X central Ceorgia (6 X central Georgia #9 X Cobb County #1 Flint (17 Estab'd 10/3/73 Savnee #9 Estab'd 4/17/75 sawnee #10 Estab'd 6/75 Oceulgee #5 Estab'd 6/18/74 Colquitt County #22 Estab'd 6/25/73 K
'Three Notch #8 X Co1quitc County 09 K Satilla #8 X Satilla (6 X O 1.amar #4 Grady County #10 Troup County #3 Estab'd 3/15/73 X X
X Irwin County #3 Jefferson County #13 Estab'd 7/24/73 Altamaha #10 Estab'd 7/5/73 Alcamaha #9 Estab'd 5/3/74 Cobb County 97-A Estab'd 7/18/73 okefenoke 910 Estab'd 8/9/74 okefenoke ill Estab'd 9/26/74 X
#2 Upson County #8 Cobb County .Estab'd 12/19/73 X
Valton il Sumter ill Estab'd 4/18/74 X Walton #6 X Grady (4 Estab'd 10/18/74 oconee #8 X Sawnee #5 Estab'd 6/14/74 Cobb County #10 X Troup County #6 Satt11a #17 Estab'd 9/20/74 Amicalola ill Estab'd 3/7/74 X Satilla #10 X Excelsior #5 10
Page 3 of 6 n v acIIEE I6EEE increased Voltage \ ' Delivery Point Capacity Channe EMC _
.New Point _ _
X Slash Pine #4 X Crady County il X Jackson #3 X Jackson #7 4 X Colquitt County (#5 K Colquiet County #7 X Col uitt County #10 X Col uitt County #14 X X X Col Douglas uitt County County #2 X Washington #7 Douglas County #12 Estab'd 6/6/74 Douglas Councy ill Estab'd 10/7/74 X Savnee il X Rayle #8 (1) M*tchell County (14 Sumter #12 Estab'd 5/29/75 Es tab' d 3/7/75 Sumter #13 Estab'd 7/11/75 Snapping Shoals ill Estab'd 7/1L/E O Satmee #11 Oconee #4 X Crady County ill Estab'd 8/74 X Flint #10 X Sumter #7 X Sumter #4 X Satilla #7 X Satilla #4 X Satilla #1 Estab'd 10/24/74 Carroll ill Little Ocmulgee il X X Waste gton County #3 X Washington County il X Cm era Fayette #5 - X Three Notch #1 X (8 X Mitchell County #5 Coweta Fayette X Mitchell County #8 X Three Notch il Estab'd 9/75 Central Ceorgia #15 C<neta Fsyette #10 Estab'd 6/28/74 Coweta T'ayette ill (1) X Cobb County f.i X Cobb County #4 O (1) Under process of being established.
-- _ '~ _ _
i
,, 3 .,
Page 4 of 6 3
.uzus run j
Increased Voltage Delivery Point New Point Capacity Change EHC X X Washington County f4 Flint #18 Estab'd 7/1/74 Flint #19 (1) Flint #20 (1) Flint #21 (1) X Cobb County #3 X Altamaha #4 . X Carroll #3 X Carroll #5 X Carroll #6 X Carroll #7 X Jefferson #4 X Amicalola #1 X Douglas County #1 X Douglas County #6 X Douglas County #12 Habersham #9 (1) Flint #22 Estab'd 8/20/74 X Excelsior #2 X Tri County #2 X O Walton #8 Walton #6 X X Flint #4 (1) Troup County #11 Troup County (12 (1) Oconee (9 (1) Cobb County ill Estab'd 5/30/75 Cobb County #12 Estab'd 7/75 Tri County #6 (1) Tri County #5 Estab'd 6/15/71 X Mitchell County #1 X Micchell County #5 X Jefferson #6 X Excelsior $8 X Excelsior #1 Estah'd 10/25/72 Carroll fl0 Carroll #12 Estah'd 12/4/73 central #13 Estab'd 7/27/73 Coastal f4 Estab'd 9/16/73 Cowetta Fayette #8 Estab'd 11/21/72 l Cowetta Fayette 99 Esteh'd 7/16/71 Deuglas #10 Estab'd 1/5/72 Excelsior (19 Estab'd '.2/11/72 ) O (1> tinoer gro=ess or 6 ter. t>621**"'
~ ~ - - - - - - - - - - _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - - - - - _ - _ _ _ - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Page 5 of 6
, ,,9 ACTION -- -
TAKEN l Increased Voltage Delivery Point Capacity Change _ EMC New Point _ Flint #15 Estab'd 8/20/71 Flint #16 Estab'd 6/22/72 } #9 Estab'd 9/14/71 Crady#12 Hart Estab'd 8/25/71 Jackson (South of Per Load Growth Cainesville) Future Estab'd 7/1 Study /72 Jackson (21 Estab'd 2/27/73 Jackson #20 Estab'd 9/9/71 Little Ocmulgee #7 Onefenokee #9 Estab'd 7/16/71 Planters #7 Estab'd 8/31/71 Planters #8 Estab'd 2/21/75 Rayle #10 Estab'd 6/26/74 Esta,b'd 8/13/73 Rayle #11 Estab'd 6/21/72 Troup County fl0 Estab'd 3/20/72 Walton #12 Increased Voltage Delivery Point New Point _ Capacity _ Change _ Municipal _ Criffin 63 Estab'd 5/16/73 X Albany #3 X X Albany #2 X Albany #10 X Dalton #7 X Calhoun #2 X Washington X Mansfield X Lafayette X Marietta #6 X Marietta #5 Estab'd 3/14/74 Dalton #10 X Covington il X Dalton (9 X East Point #3 X Monroe X College Park 03 X Thomsaton #3 X Douglas X X East Point Estab'd 6/21/74 Newnan #3 Estab'd 1/23/74 Jackson #2 Estab'd 7/10/74 LaCrange #5 l6
^~ ' - ----- -_ _ _ _ "--' % , _ _
s j Page 6 of 6
.!O .
6E11gN, 16EEg g Voltage i
/
Increased Delivery Point New Point _ Capacity _ Change l Municipal Lafayette #1-A Served & Retired Albany (13 (1) X Thomasville #3 (1) Fitzgerald #3 Estab'd 7/10/74 College Park #5 X l l Hogansville X College Park #2 (1) Marietta #9 (1) Albany #12 X Elberton #2 X l Lawrenceville il X / Lawrenceville (2 Estab'd 6/6/73 l East Point 61 Estab'd 4/12/73 Norcross #2 X Albany #2 X College Park #3 X Newnan (2 X Blakely #2 Estab'd 5/75 Lafayette #2 X X Buford =atad 4 sit ><74
<9-^
O xartatta Acworth #1-A Service is ready X Sylvania #2 X X Washington X LaCrange (3 X X Doerun X 14 X Albany Fort Va (lley (2 Albany #17 Estab'd 6/18/75 X Criffin #3 X Hampton X Griffin t'2 X Albany #7 l (1) Under procers of being established l l
.O ~
- e. -
TROUTMAN, SANDERS, LOCKERMAN & ASHMORE
, ATTORNEYS AT LAW CANDLem sustosNo ATLANTA.GEORG(A 30043 aos one.aooo C"JBERT P. EDWARDS. JR. ese-eao?
August 11, 1986 VIA FEDERAL EXPRESS William Lambe Planning and Program Analysis Staff Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation United States Regulatory Commission 7920 Norfolk Avenue Room P-420 Bethesda, Maryland 20814
Dear Mr. Lambe:
The purpose of this letter is to answer your questions concerning Georgia Power Company' and Oglethorpe Power Corpor-ation bulk power marketing activity as described in the Supplemental Information For Antitrust Review submitted by
. Georgia Power Company on February 24, 1986.
SEPA. With respect to the Southeastern Power Admini-stration (hereinaf ter "SEPA") federal power marketing discussed on page ten, this progran has been implemented. The only dispute which threatened its implementation was a complaint by a group of cities in North Carolina that SEPA improperly divided the output of the Army Corps of Engineers projects among South-eastern states. That complaint was dismissed in Electricities of North Carolina, Inc. v. Southeastern Power Administration, 621 F. Supp. 358 (W.D.N.C. 1985), and no appeal was taken from the final judgment affirming SEPA's program. Oglethorpe Power Corporation. Concerning Oglethorpe Power Corporation's sale to Seminole Electric Cooperative in Florida, I would like to confirm that access by oglethorpe Dower Corporation to transmission owned by Georia Power Ccapany is not an issue because of the Integrated Transmission System J ! Agreement, which allows equal access by each party to the i transmission facilities of the other party. Enclosed with thin j lotter is a scheduling Services Agres. ment dat60 April 30,1986 i L , which memorializes pertain arrangements and establishes procedures ; ! to accommodate the proposed Seminole transaction. Georgia Power ] ( Company has also committed to Oglethorpe Power Corporation to ; } develop a scheduling services agreement that would be applicable 1 to other off-system transactions. Discussions concerning the I development of such an agreamcnt are in progrens. Also enclosed I is a copy of oglethorpe Power Corporation's Interconnection Agreemer.t with Alaba Electric Cooperative. Oglethorpe Power i h .
9 Tk!UTMAN,tANDEts.LoCMERMAN & ASHMoRE g.- . . .. . .. ... . . .
. Mr. William Lambe August. 11, 1986 Page Two Corporation excised portions it wished to keep confidential from Georgia Power Company. The Oglethorpe Power Corporation
' Agreement with South Mississippi Electric Cooperative is cimilar.
As we discussed,.the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission has not asserted jurisdiction over bulk power transactions among cooperatives. These. specific transactions are the outcome of the discussions involving Oglethcrpe Pcwer Corporation which were more generally described in the Georgia Power Company submittal. Georgia Power Company. The discussions with utilities in Florida and tha Carolinas have yielded two new schedules: ' Service Schedule EP and a Short Term Power Sales Agreement, dated June 20, 1986 and May 27, 1986, respectively, copies of which are enclosed. The Georgia Power off-system discussions referenced in the earlier submittal are du cussions with the Unit Power Sales customers of The Southerr, Company system concerning modification of their contracts. Other than the modifications previously reported, they have not yet resulted in proposed changes to the Unit Power Sales. contracts. Please do not hesitate to give me a call if any more information or clarification is needed or would be useful. If I cannot answer your questions, I will be able to put you in
,immediate touch with someone who can.
Very truly yours, Robert P. Edwards, Jr. Counsel for Applicant RPE, Jr./jdC Georgia Power Company - Enclosures
NRC Docket Nos. 30-424 and 50425 Construction Permit Nos. CPPR-108 a.wi CPPR-109 Vogtle Electric Generating Plant Units I and 2 Owners: Georgia Power Company, Oglethorpe Power Corporation (An Electric Membership Generation
& Transmission Corporation),
Municipal Electric Authority of Georgia, City of Dalton, Georgia hformation for Antitrust Review of Operatinst Ucense Application Ir4TRODUCTION_ The following information is submitted pursuant to the requirements set fort Regulatory Commission Guide 9.3. The information has been compiled NRC's staff in determining whether an antitrust review O Generating Plant (" Plant Vogtie"). BACKGROUND _ Oglethorpe Pwer Corporation (aoglethorpe") is an electric generation a
- cooperative formed under the laws of the State of Georgiai in August 1 purpose of Oglethorpe is to serve as the power supplier for 39 electric me corporations (" members" or 'tfistribution cooperatives") which distribut primarily rural areas of Georgia. The area served by these 39 distributi covers approximately 71% of the land area ni the S f its the year 2022 pursuant to which Oglethorpe serves as the sole pwer suppli 1 cooperative members, except for power received under individual mem the Southeastern Pwer Administration.
Since 1975 Oglethorpe has actruited from Georgia
%te Paver of Georgia. Company an owne Oglethorpe's in certtin generating facilities Irscated within the3C% of Tiant EMn L H; mh,30% of Pla tynnenhlp interest is as follon:
30% or Plant Alvin V'. Vogtie and 60% of Plant Rooert Schuer, Units I and 2. ' does not directly operate these facihtles, ibutd rather h which Georgia Power Company acts as the agent for Oglethorpe in i the operat o raa!nter.ance of the facili*ies. Oglethorpe does not curre prtial requkements customer ci Georgia Power Company. Ogie:horpe is dedicated to achieving generation sufficiency on behalf of system electric distribution cooperatives during the 1990s.
i h Suf ficiency, as defined by Oglethorpe, means adequa to be met through purchased power arrangements due to economic considerations, h addition to the ownershipinterests and Operation Agreementa,f Oglethorpe p with Georgia Power Company, the City of Dalton and the Municipal Electric Auth Georgia in an htegrated Transmission System. Under this arrangement each has equa' access to a statewide transmission system. Each participant has an in responsibility in the total territorial system relative to its espected h use of the transmission system. Oglethorpe, Georgia Power Company, the City of Dalton and Municipal Electric Authority of Georgia have formed a joint committee in order to iacilitate implementation of the contractual relationships among the various parti in these joint agreements. INFORMATION NEEDED BY THE NRC REGULATORY STAFFj WITH fT5 ANTITRUST REY!EW OF OPERATING LICENSE ( APPLICATIONS FOR NUCLEAR POWER PLANT 5.
!(a) Generating Capacity Resources.
Regulatory Guide 9.3_ Descrde anticipated excess stage. or shortage Give in generatin capacity resources not expected at the construction perm a!!ocated, distributed, or otherwise utilized or how - obtained. Oglethorpe's Response The Oglethorpe peak demand projection, r.oincident with the Georgia te f given in Table L The Oglethorpe Peak Demand The is me load is projected to be served by the Southeastern Power Administration (" anticipated SEPA allocation is based on a proposed SEPA i Marketing f SEPA Policy. C the Marketing Policy are possible and may result in changes in the allocat on o resources. Table 11 lists the existing and projected resources of Oglethorpe. Oglethorpe j 9 units with Georgia Power Company, the Municipal Electric Authority of Ge City of Dalton. Six of the units are on-fire and three are presently under c Table 11 shows OPC retained ownership iP in generating units ine.luding the r Cornpany.
.,eliback agreements betw een Oglethorpe and Georg a owe Table ill prewnts a r.omparison of Oglethoge's, pak thmarvf ash grojectee arsd in 2uh 19f,3. Tab!c !!! also preams projections of genernting mourca mad cf tMse w o yers. The major change between the April 1976 and h!y 1973 pro is changs in projected futtee load gnwth, whkN reflects actual load growth Pro}ected generation resources have also decreased '
in-service date aM sellback sctvedules for Plant Sche"er. O
b Agrl! !976 Oglethorpe had been in existence less than two years and no p developed to f Ily meet Oglethorpe's gro}ected peak demand with owned gen capacity. Shortages in resources shown in the 1976 pan were expected to with power purchased from Georgia Power Company. Oglethorpe i has resp to respond to this decrease in pro}ected load growth in the future by reduc ng p purchases from Georgia Power Company. Reductions of purt:hased po Power Company are st111 part of Oglethorpe's pans, but at an accelerated r 197L Despte the decrease in pro}ected resources between the 1976 and 19 0g144 g currently pro}ects that its resources will exceed peak demand i earlier than was gro}ected in 1970 ) 1 (. O
; p.
a
I i l TMM I h 051etherpe Power Corporation Demand Forecast 3 ult 1983 (MW) I Lead Served by Projected SEPA Not Oglethorpe Lead Forecast of* t,erved by SEPA Lesses" Orletherpe_ Allocation Year Peak Demand 1816 1739 77 2033 296 1983 69 IH) 1378 2122 34 8 1984 71 1688 1617 2193 378 1983 74 1764 1690 2268 378 19 86 78 1841 60s 1763 19 87 2371 80 1898 638 1818 1988 24 % 33 1972 638 1889 1989 2327 86 2031 638 1963 1990 2603 89 2109 638 2020 1991 2638 91 2164 638 2073 1992 2711 93 2211 638 2118. 1993 27 %
- Load measured at Oglethorpe's metering points.
** Projected to ce 6.4% of Oglethorpe's load cot servec by SEPA.
O
TA8l.E I! Projected Oglethorpe Generating Resources
- I l
July,198)(MW) l Plant Plant Plant Plant Vogtle_ Total _ Wansley_ $ 6 erer_ Hatch _
- h 963 .
486 98 ! 1983 379 tilS 521 195 1984 403 l 1248 521 293 4 34 1985 1376 521 390 1986 45 115 1588 4 87 465 521 1987 1721 585 150 M5 521 1988 1967 { 682 299 465 521 1989 2133 779 368 45 521 1990 2300 877 437 465 521 1991 518 2429 521 925 1992 465 598 2558 521 974 1993 465
- Resources available at the time of the projected peak load (containe
=.
I f I i c l l< )
~
O
t TABl.E Ill Ottethorpe Projections of Peak Demanjynd Operating Resources Projected Generating Decrease in Projected Peak Decrease in Projected Generating Projected Resources (MW) Resources (MW) Demand (MW) Year April,1976 July.19831 Peak Demand (MW) Aprile1976_ July,1983**_ 191 1976 1518 241 1977 1699 378 1978 1904 535 1979 2138 644 19t0 2407 847 1981 2710
- 1104 1982 3054 963 488 L
1635 1451 3451 1816 1983 723 1842 Ii19 1643 2259 1984 3902 1248 1040 2741 2288 4429 1688 1985 1067 2443 1376 1764 3262 1986 5026 1588 924 3864 2512 5705 18kl 1987 873 2594 1721 189a 4577 1988 6475 719 2686 1967 1972 5377 1989 7349 2133 578 6290 2731 8341 2051 1990
} 2.if 0 1991 2109
,_ 2429 2164 7 1992 1,
2550 2213 1993
~ [~
r
*To be served by Ogletnorpe (see 7able D.
**From Table II.
O ,
-b-
~ - - - - - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
n ag.
- ,v' ; w, y .
Power Pool or Coordinating Group Membership. 1(b) Regulatory Guide 9.3 Describe new power pools or coordinating groups or changes in structure, activities, policies, practices, or membership of power pools or coordinating groups in which the licensee was, is, or will be a participant. ! Oglethorpe's Response Oglethorpe is not a member of any power pool, but is a member of the Jo described in Georgia Power Company's submittal. Insofari asPower the information co therein relates to Oglethorpe, Oglethorpe adopts the statement by Georg a Company. O . O .
4 1 1(c) Chantes in Transmission. Regulatory Guide 9.3 Deselbe changes in transmission with respect to (1) the nuclear plant, (2) inter connections, or (3) connections to wholesale customers. Orlethorpe's Response insofar as the information contained therein relates to Oglethorpe, Oglethorpe a statements by Georgia Power Company contained in its submittal pursuant to Reg 1 Guide 9.3.
}
l ) I ( ) - -
1
)
l I wi o< ei a 'es-O ><e) es >' i o Regu atory Guide 9.3 Describe changes in the ownership or contractual allocation of the output of the nuclear facility. Reasons and basis ior such chantes be included. Oslethorpe's Response _ h insof ar as the information contained therein relates to Oglethorpe, Ogl statements by Georgia Power Company contained in its submittal purs Guide 9.3. I O I f
~ --___
w -~ l 1(e) Rate Changes._ Remulatory Guide 9.3 Describe changes in design, provisions, or conditions of rate schedules Rate increases or decreases are not and reasons for such changes. necessary. f Onlethorpe's Response. j i ' Oglethorpe sells power under one wholesale rate schedule which is o 39 distribution cooperatives. The initial Oglethorpe wholesale rates to its members were identical in full requirements rate structure under which Oglethorpe i li purchased po Power Company. For these rates, demand billing was based i upon nonc each point of delivery. Oglethorpe's wholesale d r the rate w used when Oglethorpe began purchasing power from Georgia Power Compan Partla! Requirements Rate. O O lO . c29 S cp __ _ _
I m- - - - - - _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ l e
?.
i 4 3(f) Customers, Schedule Transfers, Serv' ice Area. Acoutsitions and Merrers.,- Regulatory Guide 9.3 I' - l List of all (1) new wholesale customers, (2) transfers previously from one rate # schedule to another, including copies of schedules notfu " acquisitions or mergers.
' Response g
O rlethorpe s 1(fXI) New Wholesale Customers . Oglethorpe has 39 cooperative M from the Anception og ogletrg, have constituted its wholesale customers. is f. 1(fX2)A copy changes. Transfers Fromcurrent of oglethorpe's Onerate Rate Schedule kIdule, not previously to furnished, Another . b L attached hereto. 1(f X3) Chantes in Licensee's Service Area - There have been noI cha
~
service area since its formation. l(tX4) Licensee's Acquisitions or Mergers - Oglethorpe has not been invo acquistnons or mergers, s L 1 J i I, C Ji a D e I I
~11- ,
I Page 1 of 3 RATE SCHEDULE D TO WHOLESALE POWER CONTR ACT OPC-6 AVAILABILITY: Available to Members of Seller. 61tling hereunder shall be by Member with delivery point meter readings totalized by hour, less the allocation of power and energy provided by the Southeastern Power Administration. SCHEDULE OF CH ARCES (MONTHLY): Demand Charge:
$6.68 per kW o( 611 ting Demand EntfeY Chartet First 500 hours use of Billing Demand at 27.58 mills per kWh at 22.58 mills per kWh Excess l Station Charret
$1,500 per Point of Delivery in the event the Point of Delivery is classified by the Seller as a Distribution Point of Delivery, the Station Charge will be half the above charge.
In the event that two or more parties share a common Point of Delivery, the Station C%rge for that Point of Delivery shall be equally divided by the parties, i f Ef f ective knuary 26,1932 I l,
e
' Page 2 of 3 DETERMIN AT!ON OF BILLING DEM AND:
The monthly Billing Demand shall be based on the sixty minute demand measured coincident with the Georgia Territorial Monthly Peak Hour Demand and with the Highest Georgia Territorial Demands Year-to-Date. Each month a Multi-hour Demand shall be computed by multiplying the average l of the Mc.nber's demands co:ncident with the highest year-to-date Georgia . I TerritorialDemands times the ratio of the highest Georgia Territoria! Demand since June i to the average of the highest year-to-date Georgia Territorial Demands, such highest year-to-date demands measured in accordance with the following tables Number of Highest Hours . Year-To-Date (Since June 1) 6 June 31 July 43 August 44 September - May For the Billing Month of June, the Billing Demand shall be the greater of: . (1) The Multi-hour Demand applicable to the current month, or . (2) 9'1% of the Multi-hour Demand for the previous contract year. For the Billing Months of July through September, the Billing Demand shall be the Multi-hour Demand applicable to the current month, s For the Billing Months of October through May, the Billing Demand shall be the greater of t (1) 75% of demand measured coincident with the Georgia Territorial Peak Demand for the current month, or (2) g5% of the Multi-hour Demand app!! cable to the current month. FUEL AD3USTMENT PROVISION: All balls rendered shall be respectively increated or decreased in an amount per kWh equal to the dif ference between the estimated current month cost to the Seller of fuel per kWh of sales and the base period cost of 17.21 mills per kW5 of sales. Estimated energy sales shall be all kWh sold, excluding inter-system sales. Estimated fuel costs shall be the cost of: (1) Fotsil fuel recorded in Account 501 and nuclear fuel recorded Account 513 consumed in the Seller's own plants and the Se!!er's share of fossil and nuclear fuel consumed in jointly owned or leased plants; plus I Elfective January 26,1932 9 V i
' Page 3 of 3 (2) The actual identifiable fossil and nuclear fuel costs associated with energy purchaseo for reasons other than identifiec in(3) below; plus (3) The net energy cost of energy purchased recorded in Account 555, exclusive of capacity or demand charges (irrespective of the designation assigned to such transaction) when such energy is purchased on an economic dispatch basis. Included herein may be such costs as the charges for economy energy purchases and the ,
charges as a resul' of scheduled outage, all such kinds of energy ' being purchased by the Seller to substitute for its own higher cost ! energy; and .tss (4) The cost of fossil and nuclear fuel recovered through inter-system sales incluving the fuel costs related to economy energy sales and other energy sold on an economic dispatch basis. month and shall include an Determination shall be made for the current adjustment for accuracy of previous month's estimate in order that the accumulated ' excess fuel costs a!!ocable to Member kWh sales shall equal as nearly Theasresulting possible to
' revenues recovered under the terms of this fuel adjustment.
adjustment in the rates, if any, shall be taken to the nearest one-thousandth of a cent (.00!() per kWh. PAYMENT: Member shall submit, either by depository transfer check, wife transfer, or regular check in funds co!!ected on the date indicated on monthly for payment of Partial Requirements indebtedness. Any payment not received on the date indicated shall be deemed delinquent and sha!! bear interest at the National Rural Utilities Cooperative Finance Corporation (CFC) prime rate as of the date when such delinquency first occurs. Effective January 26,1932 O v
Page1 of1 RATE SCHEDULE D TO WHOLESALE POWER CONTR ACT STANDBY SERVICE RIDER (OPC-6) f AVAILABILITY: Available to Members of Seller at annually agreed upon individual points of delivery where firm backup capacity is required to support Member consumer owned and operated generation. SCHEDULE OF CH ARCES: Monthly Charget f or llandby l#f WlC0 hereunder Shall 99 C0mputed in 4CC0fde6Ce 0 with the schedule of charges contained in Rate Schedule D (OPC-6), provided however, for Bi!!ing Demand purposes, a minimum monthly demano shall be applied equal to thirty percent (30%,) of the Contract Standby Capacity. The Contract Standby Capacity is the maximum amount of capacity that Se!!er is obligated to deliver. 1 Ef fective January 26.1932
s-9 i
- i Page D of 3 j
d ATE SCHEDULE D ' TO THOLE 5At.E POWER CONTR AC_T Ql'ALicVING FACILITIES RfDERS (OPC-6) l INTRODUCTION: The final rules issued by FERC to implement sections 201 and 210 of the Public , Utility Re:ylatory Policies Act of 1973 (PU!1PA) require all electric utilities to interconnect with and to buy and sell electric energy and capacity from and to
" qualifying cogeneration facilities" and " qualifying small power procuction facilities" (such qualifying f acilities are referred to as"QFs"in these ri6ers).
Supplementary, interruptible, back-up, and maintenance power must be sold to QFs at "just and reasonable" rates, established in accordance with traditional ratemaking concepts. I. Supplemental and Backuo Service Rideg To meet the needs of Member in con. plying with the requirements of PURPA, 5eller offers four categories of service de igned to meet the total electric power needs of QF consumers of Memoer. These are: Supplemental - Firm Service Supplemental- Interruptible Service Backup - Unscheduled Service Backup - Scheduled Service A!! capacity made available by Member to QF consumers with a capacity requirement of 10 kW or more must be contracted for and covered under someF combination of these services. QF-A, Member must report to Seller the contracted capacity by type of service, and, by month, the average demand coincident with the peak hours determining billing demands un6er OPO4, and monthly energy requirements. For QFs selling power to Seller under Rate QF-8 Membee mustwith report theto Seller peak the determining hours monthly aggregate bi!!ing estimated average tiemands coincicet: demands u.vfer OPC4, and aggregate menthly energy requirements. ' '
- 1. Suorlemerital- Firm Service This service applies to a!!capscity available free Member 21to- QF consumers Interrupt ble of Member, except for that covered .by contracts for Supplemen:
5ervice Backup - Unscheduled Ser vice: ano Backup - Schecuted Service. Charges for snis service will be the same as those ccessined in Rate Schedule D {0PC-4). Montn!y silling demand f or this service ws!! be the gres:er of: (a) contracted Supplements!- Firm Capacity; or ,
1 l l Page 2 of 3 (b) Montnly Billmg Demanos'of QF consumers of *.te noer. .et of- any ca scaty Schecuted supplied under Supplemental - Interrupt ste or Bsexup service.
- 2. Suoolemental- Interruotible Service This service is available only for capscity for which Seller, Member, and the QF consumer have entered into an interruptible service contract providing for up to 00 hours of interruption per year upon notification by Se!!er. So long as the consumer ;
complies with the total interruption provisions of the contract monthly capJcity ' billing to Member will include a discount for capacity beyond that capscaty coverec under Supplemental - Firm, Backup - Unscheduled, and Backup - Scheduled Services, up to the amount of Contracted Interruptible Capacity. Demand charges to Member for interruptible capscity will be at an 80% discount; all other charges will be the same as those contained in Rate Schedule D f (OPC-6).
- 3. Backuo - Unscheduled Service l
l This service is available to back up QF consumer owned and operated
- f.
- generation, where the QF consumer has entered into a Backup - Unscheduled Service Contract with Member, Seller must be notified whenever power is received unoer this service. Member may sell a QF no more than 1,31t+ hours per year under this service. Charges to Member for backup service will be computed in accordance with
- 1. ate Schedule D (OPC-6), provided however, for Billing Demand purposes, a minimum monthly demand will be applied equal to thirty percent (30'3) of the -
Contract Backup - Unscheduled Capacity. Normal charges fr Supplemental Firm Service will apply whenever this service is utilized. The Contract Backup - Unscheduled capacity is the maximum amount that Seller is obligated to deliver.
- 4. Backuo - Scheduled Service This service is available to back up QF consumer-owned and operated generation, only when Se!!er, Member, and the QF consumer have entered into a Backup- Scheduled Service Contract. The consumer may receive up to four weeks per year of service under such a contrset, subject to scheduling by Seller.
Charges to Member for Backup - Schecuted Sernce Capscity will be $1 per kW per week; all other castges will be the same as those centained in Rate Schedule D (CPC-6). IL Billing Adjustments to Reflect Pcwer and Energy Received at QF Delivf1v Points Rider All power and energy purchased by Seller from a QF interconnected with Member distribu: son systern and simultaneously sold by Seller to Member shall, for purposes of computng Member's demand and energy charges, be measured and adjusted in the manner prescrioed by contract among Seller, Me:nber and the QF, and Member shall pay far the amounts of energy and demand so determined at the rates prescribed in R, ate Scheoule D (CPC-6). [ Ef fective Janusry 26,1932
Page 3 of 3 111. Member Partial Reevirements Service Rider in the event that Member purchases power from a QF. Seller may reallocate to
.\ ember the costs that have not been avoided as a result of Member's purchases from O
l 1 t ] l j
~
0 e ,ee,,.. ,-a , u. ,,,, .
1(g) Generating Capacity Additions. 4 Regulatory Guide 9.3 List those generating capacity additions committed for operation after the nuclear facility, including ownership rights or power output allocations, Oglethorpe's Respense h Oglethorpe has at times prepared generation plans whichd calle generating units after Plant Vogtle's completion. At the present tim for addition after Plant Vogtle's completion date are in the earliest stage
\
planning no land has been purchased, no construc does not consider these units to be 'tommitted ior construction and operation Although none of the units involved in seliback arrangements betw Georgia Power Company are added after Plant Vogtle, reduction amounts cb occur after Plant Vogtle begins operation. Since these capacity amounts are similar to capacity additions, Table 1k has projected increases in Oglethorpe's resources resulting from ch capacity amounts af ter Unit 2 of Plant Vogtle is placed irwservi Additions are due solely to reductions in sellback and no new un operation. Additions shown are determined at the time of Ogle u load. t .- i
- i .
\ 1 \ O
.n..
TABl.E I h Oglethorpe Power Corporation Committed Generating Capacity Additions Af ter Plant Vogtle Unit #2 Plant Vogtle Plant Scherer Unit 2 Total
~ Unit i Unit 2 Unit i Year 0 131.88 48.48 34.50 1989 48.90 34J0 166.38 48.48 34JO 1990 48.90 34.30 166.38 4L48 34.30 1991 48.90 34.30 128.98 48.48 46.00 1992 0 34.50 128.98 48.48 46.00 1993 0 46.00 46.00 0 0 1994 0 46.00 46.00 0 0 1993 0 O
,O i .
~ 1 1(h) Requests for Electric Service.
Regulatory Guide 9.3 D ) Summarize requests or indications of interest by other electric power wholesale or retalt distributors, and licensee's response, for any type of electric service or cooperative venture or study. Oglethorpe's Response h Since January 6,1975, e16 ty-three requests for new None have been refused. A member system desiring to add a new service point must Af ter obtain conducting a agreement by Electrification Administration that such service point is needed. a verbal feasibility study, including investigation of all reasonable alternatives, presentation is made to the Power Planning and Technical Advisory Com Oglethorpe's Board of Directors. If this Committee recommends approval of Directors grants approval, Oglethorpe can, and m certain limited circumstances, such service point constructed by the requesting member system. In additio and construction services relating to such requests. 7; Concerning the requests or indications of interest by ot O of marketing arrangements with neighboring electric sy consumers of Oglethorpe's Member Systems. Regarding requests for cooperative studies, Oglethorpe has il benefitte reliability studies. Oglethorpe's interests are represented by a designated memb which sits as an associate member of the Southeastern Electric Reliability Cou Through such representation, Oglethorpe is a recipient of all reliability s by the Southeastern Electric Reliability CounclL O
- - ^ - ~ - - - - - ~ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ,
f 2 Implementation of Antitrust Conditions. Regulatory Guide 9.3 Licensees whose construction permits include conditions pertaining to antitrust aspects tould list and discuss those actions or policies which have been implemented in accordance with such conditions. Orlethorpe's Response Insofar as the information contained therein relates to Oglethorpe, Oglethorpe staterr.ents by Georgia Power Company contained in its submittal pursuant to Re Guide 9.3. O O
- ~ - - - - - - - - - - _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _
1 1 Information for Antitrust Review of Operating License Application. ) 3 Regulatory Guide 9.) Five copies of this document, "Information for A.stitrust Review of Operating License Application," containing the information required by Nuclear Regulatory Commission Guide 9.), are submitted herewith. .a O lO , ao j j os
4Gesteis Power" Company
.-.
- 333 Pedmont Atenue
" * # ~e .o '
- Attenta, Georgia 30308 Totophone 404 526-7211 Maihng Address:
Post offee Son 4545 Allema. George 30302 A. W. Dahlberg senior vee premoen Sulk Power Resources Wie soulnemodscire erstem October 12, 1983
~~
Mr. G. Stanley Hill' Oglethorpe P:mer Corporation ! 2888 Woodcock Boulevard *
/
Atlanta, Georgia. 30341 f 8 .
+
Dear Stan:
- GPC agrees
- 1. That OPC is not restricted by the PR-7 tariff, or any contractual relationship between the parties, from making offesystem sales, including Unit Power Sales, and that GPC will work with OPC to resolve any operating, L scheduling or dispatching arrangements required to facilitate such sales in a timely fashion. ,,
,2. To wo6C with OPC to. develop by June 1984 a project plan p
and conceptual framework for a pooling relationship. If a pooling relationship is determined to be feasible, the plan should be extended to develop a schedule for implementation as soon as practical. GPC further agrees that to the extent outside resources are required for ' this initial development work, GPC will' share with OPC costs of those resources which are mutually agreeable. .
- 3. OPC and GPC agree that resolution of'the ITS contract *:-
revisions are an appropriate step in facilitating both . off-system sales and pooling. . Yours truly, i & -- ..;. A. W. Dahlberg O AWD:vn S h
m-- _ _ ____ _ ______________ _ __ _ (
~ .
TROUTMAN. SANDERS,LOCKERMAN & ASHMORE ATTORNEY & AT LAW
!g caw o6 s m_ s u s k o e w o -
l/. - ATLANTA. GEORGIA 30043
'*' ***~*** . n n .. ....c.
- c. 6c;-.c.e.. ,,,,
pggnT P. EDWARDS.JR. February 24, 1986 HAND DELIVERED William Lambe Planning and Program Analysis Staff Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation United States Regulatory Conmission 7920 Norfolk Avenue Room P-420 Bethesda, Maryland 20814 Re Vogtle Electric Generating Plant Unit 1 -- Docket No. 50-424A
~ '
Regulatory Guide 9.3 Information
Dear Mr. Lambe:
Enclosed is the update of Regulatory Guide 9.3 information concerning Plant Vogtle requested by Mr. Jesse L. Funches Please do in his December 18, 1986 letter to Mr. Donald O. Foster. not hesitate to call me if you have any questions. Very truly yours, f L. NANZ[ar. Robert P. Ed ds, Jr. f 2-; *
.+-
l RPE, Jr./jdC I Enclosures . cca J. L. Funches, Director Planning and Program Analysis Staff Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation (without enclosures) D. O. Foster (without enclosures)
/ James A. Bailey (with enclosures)
I h LED Q W- _ Ol' '
)
^
, p-4
)
NRC Docket Nos. 50-424A, and 425 j Vogtle Electric Generating Plant Units 1 and.2 k [ Owners: Georgia Power Company, Oglethorpe Power Corporation (an Electric Membership. Generation and Transmission Corpora-tion), Municipal Electric Authority of Georgia, and City of Dalton, Georgia Georcia Power Company Supplemental Information For Antitrust Review Introduction On December 18, 1985 the Nuclear Regulatory Commission . Staff requested that Georgia Power Company (hereinafter
" Georgia Power" or the " Company") update for NRC Docket
(]} 50-424A its August 29, 1983 submission for itself and as agent for the other owners of the Vogtle Electric Generat-concerning Sections ing Plant (hereinafter " Plant Vogtle") B-1 and B-2 in Regulatory Guide 9.3. The other owners of (" Dalton"), Plant Vogtle are the City of Dalton, Georgia and the Municipal Electric Authority of Georgia ("MEAG"), i Oglethorpe Power Corporation ("Oglethorpe"). B.l.a: Anticipated excess or shortage in generating the con-4 capacity resources not expected at struction permit stage. Reasons for the ' excess or shortage along with data on how the excess will be allocated, distributed, or otherwise utilized or how the shortage will be obtained. There has been no major change in anticipated excess or shortage of generating capacity resources since the although both load forecasts and August 29, 1983 report,
- l
s generation expansion plans have been revised. The Com-pany's current forecasted territorial peak demand projec-tions through 2010 are shown on Exhibit 1. These projec-tions yield an average annual grcwth rate of 3.1% for the period 1985 (est.) through 2000. The first column of Exhibit 1 is Georgia Territorial demand which includes Georgia Power's load, that of the other owners of Plant Vogtle (Oglethorpe, MEAG, and Dalton), and Georgia Power's two full requirements customers (the cities of Acworth and Hampton, Georgia). The succeeding columns of Exhibit 1
'- state the loads of these entities separately. The second column of Exhibit 2 shows Georgia Power's territorial reserves resulting from the load forecast shown on Exhibit I and the current generation expansion plan. The other
(,' , columns of Exhibit 2 show forecasted reserves for Georgia Power's affiliates in the Southern electric system and system reserves. Exhibits 3 and 4 show the current load forecasts independently adopted by MEAG and Oglethorpe, for their loads, respectively. Oglethorpe's higher load forecast, a reduction from the previously assumed allocation of power from the Southeastern Power Administration ("SEPA"), and changes in the sell-back of capacity from Vogtle Unit I will likely cause Oglethorpe's purchased power requirements to be higher than that indicated in the August 1983, submission. Oglethorpe w _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ ____
.x-y ..
expects to meet these higher requirements through ~ I increased purchases as necessary from Georgia power and additional construction on the mid to late 1990s. 4 B.1.b: New power pools or coordinating groups or activities, policies, changes in structure, practices, cr membership of power pools or coordinating groups in which the license was, is, or will be a participant. Neither Georgia power, Dalton, MEAG, or Oglethorpe is participating in any new power pools or coordinating
- I groups. There have been no changes in the pools or coordinating groups with which the Company participates other than annual adjustments to the Intercompany i Interchange Contract which governs Georgia Power Company's participation in the Southern Company pool and is regulated by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
( ("FERC")' . to 3 B.1.c: Changes in transmission with respect (1) the nuclear plant, (2) interconnections, or (3) connections to wholesale customers. to B.1.c. (1) Chances in Transmission With Respect Plant Voctle: l f ' The commercial operation dates of plant Vogtle Units 1 l and 2 have been extended to June of 1987, and September of 1988, respectively. The owners of plant Vogtle partici-l pate in the Integrated Transmission System described in the August, 1983 submission, to which plant Vogtle will be I l interconnected. Exhibit 5 shows the presently planned ) I i
i , u L transmission configuration for Plant Vogtle, which is p 1983 submission. somewhat modified from the August, Exhibit 6 shows Plant Vogtle's relationship to the Inte-grated Transmission System. Changes With Respect to Interconnect-B.1.c. (2) _tionsi The interconnection tc the Richard B. Russell Dam on The in-service . the Savannah River has been completed. date for'the Plant Vogtle/ South Carolina Electric & Gas 1986. Company interconnection is now May,
-( )
B.1.c. (3) Connecti_on to Wholesale Customers: in The Integrated Transmission System was described , Exhibit 6 shows the present the August, 1983 submission. kv) of and planned bulk power components (500 kv and 230 the Georgia Integrated Transmission System. . Changes in the own;ership or contractual B.1.d: allocation of the output of the nuclear fa'cility. Reasons and basis for such changes should be included. 19, Pursuant to an agreement entered into on November 1933, the Municipal Electric Authority of Georgia (here-purchased in 1984 an additional 5% inafter "MEAG") This agree-interest in Plan Vogtle from Georgia Power. f 1985 to make ment was subsequently amended on April 9, 1..
certain rearrangements in sales by MEAG to Georgia power of po'rtions of MEAG's interest in plant Vogtle (the " buy-i. back"). The purchase of an additional 5% interest and adjustments to the buy-back related to portions of MEAG's Voghle ownership enabled Georgia power and MEAG to adjust their ownership and retention of plant Vogtle capacity and ene'rgy to meet their requirements more economically. The Exhibit 7 shows the revised MEAG buy-back schedule. buy-back adjustments also helped better assure MEAG's Currently, the ability to finance on a tax-exempt basis. (~Jg L Company owns 45.7% of Plant Vogtle, Oglethorpe owns 30%, The delay in the MEAG owns 22.7%, and Dalton owns 1.6%. commercial operation date of Vogtle Unit I will also ( '; change Oglethorpe's sell-back schedule as previously reported. B.l.e: Changes in design, provisions, or conditions of rate schedules and reasons for such chan-ges. Rate increases or decreases are not necessary. . i
/~T There have been no significant changes in the Company's (j/
full or partial requirements rate schedules other than rate increases. These schedules have been modified in the context of resolving rate increase applications by the Company in order to improve the rate's reflection of system operations. All changes havc been dgscid to by the affected parties and FERC Staff and have been accepted by l l i I L_________________________ I
1 J the FERC. MEAG's additional 5% interest in Plant Vogtle 4 is a bulk power supply project (" Project Four") separate MEAG for financing purposes f rom MEAG's prior projects. / entered into Project Four Power Sale Contracts dated November 16, 1983, with its participants on terms and conditions similar to the Project Power Sales Contract's for. Projects Two and Three. These contracts and rates will be designed to recover 100% of Project Four costs. submission, Oglethorpe's wholesale Since the August 1983, rate has been amended to base responsibility on each of 7 (
\
) Oglethorpe's Member System's contribution to Oglethorpe's base, intermediate and peaking category load requirements, and on contribution to Oglethorpe's system peak demand.
(' The amendment was adopted to reflect accurately each Member's contribution to Oglethorpe's cost of providing power. The rate was further amended, effective February 28, 1986, with a rider that applies to certain Member Systems' loads that meet stated load level and load 2f~0 g . This rider was adopted to reflect factor requirements. the beneficial impact of high load factor loads on power supply cost. List of all (1) new customers, (2) transfers including B.1.f.: from one rate schedule to another, previously fur-copies of schedules notchanges in licensee's service nished, (3) area, and (4) licensee's acquisitions or mergers. l I
P' B.l.f. (1): New wholesale customers. There have been no changes from August 1983, with f Gulf respect to Georgia Power except for the addition o {.j( States Utilities as a Unit Power Sales off-system customer of Georgia Power as stated in the August 1983 response. l Neither Oglethorpe nor Dalton has added any wholesa e MEAG added the city of Oxford, Georgia as a customers. 1986. Oxford had Participant effective January 1, ity of previously purchased its requirements from the The c Covington, Georgia, which is a MEAG Participant.
,s id not addition of Oxford as a Participant accordingly d change the load MEAG serves.
B.l.f. (2): Rate schedule changes. and Schedule "R" have both been filed by Schedule "S" ( Georgia Power and have become effective with the FER . C "S" is a purchase and resale agreement designed Schedule ille Elec-to facilitate transactions between the Jacksonv and tric Authority and Florida Power and Light Company A copy of the relevant filing utilities in the Carolinas. Schedule "R" revises the is enclosed with this filing. f Unit Power sales pricing formula in order to make pur-l A copy of the relevant filing is d chases more economical. also enclosed, 'i i. e 3
'l k
s ik' D 7- .ili li! - - - _ - _ - _ - - -
/
4 1
. :/
B.1.f. (3): Changes in service area _.
- ' /
I / There ha: been no change in service areas. B .1. f . - '(4): Acquisitions or meraers. There have been no acquisitions or mergers. B.1.g: List of those generating capacity additions committed for operation after the nuclear facility, including ownership rights or power output allocations. - Or~ The generation expansion plan attached as Exhibit 8 shows major future planned capacity additions for all mem-Georgia Power's bers of the Southern electric system.
~ operating company affiliate Gulf Power Company purchased,
(, in 1983 a 25% undivided interest in Plant Scherer Unit 3 in common facilities unique and a 12.5% undivided interest There are no other major generation to Units 3 and 4.
- 1 or sources committed for operation following Vogtle Unit Unit 2 at this time. Since 1983 Oglethorpe has received Preliminary Permits for two potential pumped storage hydroelectric sites. Oglethorpe currently plans to file a pumped storage license application in 1988.
B.l.h: Summary of requests or indications of inter-est by other electric power wholesale or retail distributors, and licensee's response, for any type of electric service or cooper-ative venture or study. k i--_________.____
t Georgia Power and Oglethorpe are discussing the sale and purchase of the Rocky Mountain Pumped Storage Georgia Power and
>f ,
Hydroelectric Plant shown on Exhibit 8.
. Oglethorpe also' individually have periodic discussions i g bulk with utilities outside their service areas concern n i power supply, including joint ownership of electr c Oglethorpe intends to sell power from generating plants.
Plant Scherer Units 1 and 2 to Seminole Electric Although Georgia Power has agreed Cooperative in' Florida. ts to facilitate such a transaction, the necessary agreemen Florida Power and have not been reached as of this date. have Light Company and the Jacksonville Electric Authority both requested that Georgia Power facilitate transactions
~
between them and utilities in North and South Carolina, as These well as thel Middle South Utilities system. have to date yielded Schedules discussions are ongoing, "S' and "R",.and other schedules may be forthcoming. Florida Power and Light also has requested that Oglethorpe facilitate transactions between Florida Power and Light To date, there and utilities in North and South Carolina. Oglethorpe has also have not been any such transactions. entered into interconnection and interchange agreements i i pi with Alabama Electric Cooperative and South Miss ss p Electric Power Associations, respectively. _9-s I
. . .m
/' 1
/
/
B.2: Licensees whose construction permits include conditions pertaining to antitrust aspects , {-
~,
should list and discuss chose actions or I
' Policies which have been implemented in f
accordance with such conditions. 1 { The joint ownership, integrated transmission, joint l planning, and partial requirements power relationships among Plant Vogtle's owners described in '.he previous filing have continued. In 1984, Georgia Power, the licensee of Plant Vogtle which is subject to antitrust license conditions, sold additional transmission facilities to Oglethorpe and MEAG in furtherance of the
,s
! I' In
'~' Integrated Transmission System which is in place.
addition, in February, 1985, SEPA and Georgia Power entered into a revised contract for a term ending May 31, 1994, to make SEPA hydroelectric power available on a firm and usable basis to public bodies and cooperatives contracting with SEPA in Georgia Power's service area (including Dalton, MEAG's Participants, and Oglethorpe's Members) and in the service areas of Georgia Power's affiliates, known as western marketing area of SEPA's j Georgia-Alabama system. Under this contract, Georgia Power is responsible for the transmission component of f 1 this arrangement until May 31, 1989. The owners of Plant Vogtle anticipate that some or all of the participants in the Integrated Transmission System in which they participate will be responsible for the transmission 1 f k
/"
[' ' ,
. p. / j : ...
31, 1989. This component'of this arrangement after May revi$edcontractenabledSEPAtoimplementitsmarketing l / t program in the western area of its Georgia-Alabama System in a fashion satisfactory to it and to its western area ! cus;t'ome r s . Respectfully submitted, '
') 4
/ /
Robert P. Edwards, Jr. Counsel for Licensee , f~, Georgia Power Company Q. TROUTMAN, SANDERS, LOCKERMAN
& ASHMORE ~
1400 Candler Building '1 Atlanta, Georgia 30043 (404) 658-8000 9 . 4 1
Geor; 3 Power comcar.v 333 Piedmont Asence Atlanta Georgia 30?09 Teleonene 404 5.?6 E506 Mail.rg Address - nost O'tice Hon 4545 ' ; J, j }i
.y(
Atlanta. GeC*g:a 30302 E) N
~
ri 1988 Georgia Power Bulk Power fearketing Services ,,,.y,,,, , g,,
~
nUNEg r,0NfRACTS - v. January 13,_1987 , Mr. John A. Johnson Oglathorpe Power Corporation 2l00 E. Exchange Place P. O. Box 1349 Tucker, Georgia' 30085-1349 ,
Dear John:
This is to confirm our meeting on January 15, 1988, to discuss a proposed Interchange Scheduling Services Agreement between Oglethorpe Power Corporation and Georgia Power Company. It is Georgia Power Company's intention to work with oglethorpe to mutually develop procedures to implement the provisions granted it in the various Generating Plant Participation Agreements and the-Integrated Transmission System Agreement. As you will recall, we terminated discussions during the summer and fall of 1987 pending resolution of the Rocky Mountain negotiations which included related scheduling and operations matters. Now that those discussions have been successfully completed, we can again give our attention to this project. With regard to the October 12, 1983 memo to Mr. G. Stanley Hill, Mr. Dahlberg correctly stated that the PR tariff or any other contractual agreement does not restrict Oglethorpe from making off system sales. For example, Oglethorpe can sign the PR tariff and perform the necessary notice requirements (which Georgia Power Company has stated would satisfy the AEC settlement conditions), removing any restrictions to Oglethorpe making off system sales. Oglethorpe could also contract with Georgia Power company as they did with the sale of Scherer energy to Seminole. As evidenced by the Seminole Agreement, the multi-year involvement in the Georgia Power Supply Project, and the new ITSA negotiations, Georgia Power has demonstrated its willingness to work with oglethorpe, and will continue to do so in the future. I am looking forward to a productive meeting on January 15. Should you have any questions in the meantime, please advise. ) s I 7 ! C, L-h cerely,,' .J / . QL/L,sa h. M William J.\ mith WJS/aa k cc: F. D. Williams i _.j}}