ML19319B867
| ML19319B867 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Perry, Davis Besse  |
| Issue date: | 08/04/1977 |
| From: | Goldberg R, Hjelmfelt D CLEVELAND, OH, GOLDBERG, FIELDMAN & HJELMFELT |
| To: | |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8001280715 | |
| Download: ML19319B867 (40) | |
Text
- ;m.,
~
- q a O..>
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
~~
Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board In the Matter of The Toledo Edison Company and
)
Dock 2t Nos. 10-346A The Cleveland Electric Illuminating )
50-500A Company
)
50-501A (Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station, )
~~
Units 1, 2 and 3)
)
)
The Cleveland Elec'ric Illuminating )
Docket Nos. 50-440A Company, et al.
)
50-441A (Perry Nuclear Power Plant,
)
Units 1 and 2)
)
9~
REPLY BRIEF OF CITY OF CLEVELAND IN SUPPORT OF EXCEPTIONS FILED BY CITY OF CLEVELAND
,. ;:+
Reuben Goldberg David C. Hjelmfelt s _
Michael D. Oldak "g
Goldberg, Fieldman & Hjelmfelt, P.C.
' M <g
. pq -
1700 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
- ,e Washington, D.C.
20006
,,f% 'N Malcolm Douglas t :', f'4y Director of Law Robert D. Hart
~ N5 First Assistant Director of Law City of Cleveland l
213 City Hall Cleveland, Ohio 44114 Attorneys for L.
City of Cleveland, Ohio August 4, 1977 8001280 7/ [
/7f s
1 TABLE OF CONTENTS
- Page,
[
I APPLICANTS SHOULD BE REQUIRED TO SELL FIRM ALL REQUIREMENTS WHOLESALE POWER.
1 A.
The FPC Has No Jurisdiction And Authority Under The Power Act With Respect To Abandonment Of Service..
2
'p.
B.
The Sale of Wholesale Power Is Not i
Merely A Pricing Technique.
8 C.
Applicants' Good Faith...............
9 II THE LICENSE CONDITION LIMITING CAPCO 7-VOTING RIGHTS SHOULD BE MODIFIED.
9 III THE LICENSE CONDITIONS SHOULD APPLY TO BEAVER VALLEY UNIT 2...............
11 CONCLUSION.
12 APPENDIX A APPENDIX B f *.
J L
b r
we YA4 h
I l -
1' r
L
'H
3 AUTHORITIES CITED P,, age, Court Cases FPC v. Sierra Pacific Power Co., 350 U.S. 348 (1956).
4 Pennsylvania Water & Power Co. v. FPC, 343 U.S.
414 (1952) 7 United Gas Pipe Line Co. v. Mobile Gas Service I~
Corporation, 350 U.S. 373 (1956).
4 Commission Decisions City of Mishawaka v. American Electric Power Co. (initial decision), Docket Nos. E-9548 and E-9549.............
2 Mid-Continent Area Power Pool, Opinion No. 806............
10 Nevada Power Co. (initial decision), Docket i
No. E-9306.
2 r[~
Statutes and Miscellaneous FPC Rules of Practice and Procedure, Part 2, General Policy and Interpretations Section 2.4.
3 s
l Federal Power Act:
Section 205............................
4 Section 206............................
4 Natural Gas Act:
Section 7(b).
3, 4 t-Section 4..
4 r-Section 5.............................
4
[,
Hearings on H.R. 5423 before the House Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, 74th Cong.,
1st Sess. Pt. 1 (1935)...................
5 r
Senate Report No. 621, 74th Cong., 1st Sess. (1935)...
5 H. Rep. No. 1318, 74th Cong., 1st Sess. (1935)............
5 36 FPC Ann Rep. 6 (1956).......
6 37 FPC Ann Rep. 20 (1957).
6
... s..................
38 FPC Ann Rep. 19 (1958)...
6 u_
39 FPC Ann Rep. 22 note (1959).
6 40 FPC Ann Rep. 21 (1961).....
6 41 FPC Ann Rep. 11 (1962)...
6 be
'e W
'h 11 5
3
~
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board In the Matter of
)
)
i The Toledo Edison Company and
)
Docket Nos. 50-346A F-The Cleveland Electric Illuminating )
50-500A Company
)
50-501A (Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station, )
Units 1, 2 and 3)
)
)
The Cleveland Electric Illuminating )
Docket Nos. 50-440A Company, et al.
)
50-441A (Perry Nuclear Power Plant,
)
Units 1 and 2)
)
[
REPLY BRIEF OF CITY OF CLEVELAND IN SUPPORT OF EXCEPTIONS FILED r.
[
BY CITY OF CLEVELAND
~~
Applicants' brief in opposition to the exceptions filed by the City of Cleveland (City) ignores recent FPC decisions and befogs the issues r
by misconstruing the evidence.
In this reply brief City will not repeat the arguments contained in its initial brief but will respond to Applicants' r_
arguments.
e
(_
I APPLICANTS SHOULD BE REQUIRED TO SELL r-FIRM ALL REQUIREMENTS WHOLESALE POWER Applicants argue that City lacks stanch.g to argue that Applicants should be required to offer firm all requirements wholesale power because the City now has a contract for the purchase of such power from CEI. Appli-I cants argue (Brief in Opposition pp. 3-5) that CEI cannot cease providing wholesale service without prior approval of the FPC. Further, Appliennts argue that the various services such as maintenance power and economy energy F
i'
~
e.
exchange provide City will full requirements wholesale power and that City mere-ly wants to obtain the same thing at a different rate. (Brief in Opposition pp. 6-7).
A.
The FPC Has No Jurisdiction And Authority Under The Power Act With Respect To Abandonment Of Service Applicants cite the decision of the Administrative Law Judge in r-City of Mishawaka v. American Electric Power Co., Docket Nos. E-9548 and E-9549 for the proposition that the FPC has jurisdiction to approve or dis-approve cancellation of wholesale service. No final decision of the Commis-sion is cited in support of that proposition. In Mishawaka, the ALJ ordered the company not to threaten to terminate service to its wholesale customers.
Applicants failed to mention Nevada Power Company, DLcket No. E-9306, decided 4
December 15, 1976, in which the ALJ approved termination of wholesale service.
c It should also be noted that the Company in the Mishawaka case con-tended that it had nor threatened to cut off wholesale service to any of its customers but merely sought to r rminate the service agreements it had with those customers (Slip Op. p. 5).
Indeed, counsel for the Company represented f
that "it was not, and is not, the intent of AEP to remove itself from the wholesale business" (Slip Op. p. 6). Moreover, the company in Mishawaka re-cognized a public utility responsibility to serve wholesale customers (Slip t'
Op. p. 13) and to wheel power for its wholesale customers (Slip Op. p. 11),
which is not what the Applicants have done. Despite the Company's represen-tations that it would continue wholesale service, as have Applicants, the i
Commission granted releif.
~
As has been pointed out, no final decision of the FPC has been cited in support of the argument that the FPC has authority to approve or disapprove cancellation of wholesale service. Despite two ALJ decisions to the contrary, the legislative history of the Federal Power Act makes it clear that no such we
j 3_
jurisdiction exists.
The FPC's Regulations under the Power Act (Section 35.15) require electric utility companies that are "public utilities" within the definition f~
of Section 201(e) of the Power Act to file a " Notice of Cancellation" when
(
they intend to terminate a rate schedule on file with the FPC. The FPC has
-r-asserted authority under the Power Act to approve or deny abandonment of service.
FPC Rdles of Practice and Procedure, Part 2. General Policy and Interpretations, Section 2.4.
But the FPC's Regulation and its assertion of authority over abandonment of service are nullities unless that authority has been conferred by the Power Act on the FPC.1/
It is City's position that j._
the FPC has no such authority under the Power Act.
e l
Under the Natural Gas Act, the FPC is expressly given authority over abandonment of service.
Section 7(b) of the Natural Gas Act (Gas Act) provides that no " natural gas company" -- a term of art under that Act de-fined to mean "a person engaged in the transportation of natural gas in e
interstate commerce, or the sale in interstate commerce of such gas for re-sale" (Section 2(6)) - "shall abandon all or any portion of its facilities
[
subject to the jurisdiction of the Commission, or any service rendered by means of such facilities, without the permission and approval of the Commis-E sion first had and obtained, after due hearing, and a finding by the Commis-sion that the available supply of natural gas is depleted to the extent that u
the continuance of service is unwarranted, or that the present or future L
public convenience or necessity permit such abandonment."
There is no similar provision relating to abandonment of service
?~
1/
This is not to say that the FPC may not as a matter of housekeeping --
[
1.e., being informed on what rate schedules are still in force -- require L-
"public utilities" to file a Notice of Cancellation of rate schedules that I
are terminated.
But the FPC may not through such a requirement attempt to exercise authority over termination or abandonment of service which it does not have.
i in the Power Act, not by inadvertence, but by deliberate design of Congress.
The FPC, nevertheless, has sought to find that authority in Sections 205 and
[
206 of the Power Act. But there is no such authority conferred upon the FPC by these rate-review and rate-fixing sections, which are companion to il Sections 4 and 5 of the Gas Act.
FPC v. Sierra Pacific Power Co., 350 U.S.
348 (1956); United Gas Pipe Line Co. v. Mobile Gas Service Corporation, 350 U.S. 373 (1956).
- ~
{
If, as the FPC has asserted, the rate-review and rate-fixing sec-i p.
tions of the Power Act confer upon the FPC authority over abandonment of
\\
service by pubJic utilities, why does the Gas Act, despite the identical provisions of Sections 4 and 5 of that Act, include Section 7(b) of the Natural Gas Act which expressly confers abandonment authority on the FPC7 The obvious and short answer is that the rate-review and rate-fixing sec-l L--
tions of that Act relate only to new rates, charges and service, and changes I
in rates, charges, and service from one level or type to another. They have
[
nothing whatever to do with termination, abandonment, or elimination of rates, charges, and service. A fortiori, Sections 205 and 206 of the Power Act con-fer no authority on the FPC with respect to abandonment of service by "public utilities".
To say that the just and reasonable, not unduly discriminatory and l
preferential rate making standards of Sections 205 and 206 refer and have l_.
application to abandonment of service makes no sense at all. These are standards that are evaluated in terms of cost of providing a service. There are no costs of service to be evaluated where there is no service. Observe that the standards of Section 7(b) of the Gas Act for the evaluation of an application to abandon service are not the rate-review and rate-making stan-dards of Sections 4 and 5 -- which are the same standards as those set forth in Sections 205 and 206. The standards of Section 7(b) are exhaustion of the
.y m
ws-.-
-r
i i gas supply or "present or future public convenience or necessity."
\\
The legislative history of Part II of the Power Act confirms the
[
fact that the Power Act does not confer abandonment authority on the FPC.
That history discloses that H.R. 5423 introduced in the House Of Represen-c-
f tatives by Congressman Sam Rayburn (Hearings on H.R. 5423 before the House I'
Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, 74th Cong., 1st Sess. Pt. 1,
[
54-55 (1935)) and S.1725 introduced in the Senate in the same Congress pp.
and session, respectively, proposed to give the FPC authority over abandon-3 ment of electric service.
This authority was deleted from the Bills when
\\
reported out by the House and Senate Committees.
S. Rep. No. 621, 74th Cong., 1st Sess. (1935);
H. Rep. No. 1318, 74th Cong., 1st Sess (1935).
(
The Senate Report stated (at p. 20):
l "The requirement in section 204 of S. 1725 that a public utility secure a certificate of convenience and necessity before constructing, acquiring, or abandoning facilities has been L
eliminated entirely. While it may ultimately be desirable to adept a provision of this kind,
[
the committee is of the opinion that for the present there is no imminent danger of excessive extension that would prove disadvantageous to Customers."
P f"~
At the hearings before the House and Senate Committees, the only references to the section that would have conferred upon the FPC certificate authority and authority.over abandonments similar to the provisions in Sec-tion 7 of the Gas Act disclose opposition thereto as unnecessary and an en-croachment upon State authority. House Hearings, 74th Cong., 1st Sess., pp.
437-440, 565-566, 1073; Senate Hearings, 74th Cong., 1st Sess., p. 346.
~
In debates on the Bill in the Senate, Senator Wheeler stated that the certificate authority and authority over abandonments was removed at his sug-gestion (79th Cong. Record 8431 (1935)):
"In the committee I insisted that this (provision) should be stricken out, because I felt that we
(,
-,,r
-,-m
~
,I '
a l r' should not go so far in this bill, because d
it was not necessary."
Thus, two things are made abundantly clear by the legislative his-r-
tory of Part II of the Power Act.
One, Congress did not give the FPC autho-m rity over abandonment of service.
Two, Congress withheld that authority deliberately because it did not want the FPC to have that authority.
Foryears the FPC in its Annual Reports to Congress' tried 'unsuccess-9 j-fully to persuade Congress to give it authority over abandonment of electrical 1
facilities and service, mirroring the provisions of Section 7 of the Gas Act.
[
36 FPC Ann Rep. 6 (1956); 37 FPC Ann Rep. 20 (1957);
38 /PC Ann Rep. 19 A
(1958);
39 FPC Ann Rep. 22, note 2 (1959);
40 FPC Ann Rep. 21 (1961);
41
+6 f
FPC Ann Rep. 11 (1962).
In the 1962 recommendation, the FPC said (41 FPC Ann Rep.17):
.l
" Amendments to the Federal Power Act.
12.
Abandonment of interstate facilities.
t
-- Amend section 202 by adding a new subsection requiring Commission approval, upon a finding of
(-
consistency with the public interest, after notice and opportunity for hearing, of the abandonment or curtailment of interstate electric facilities or service.
\\
Such amendment would be comparable (except for elimination of the provision for compulsory
{
hearing) to an eristing provision in section 7(b) of the Natural Gas Act relating to abandonment by g,
natural gas companies.
Interstate electric service is becoming of increasing importance as the indus-try expands its interconnections to take full advan-
'~
tage of the economies of coordinated operations. It is essential, however, that the parties served by
[
these facilities be protected against arbitrary abandonment of such operations. We believe that such authority already exists (see Pennsylvania j
Water & Power Co. v. F.P.C., 343 U.S. 414 (1952),
but our proposal, by bringing the two acts subject to our jruisdiction into line on this matter, will remove any doubt that the Commission is able to provide this protection and at the same time do so 4
withcut serious inconvenience to the utilities per-forming the service." 41 F.P.C. Ann. Rep.- 17 (1962).
l v
m w
.-------,w-mp,e,ew--
- p-
" The FPC's reliance on dictum in the Supreme Court's decision in
- i Pennsylvania Water & Power Co. v. FPC, 343 U.S. 414 (1952), for its belief that it already has authority over abandonments is clearly wrong. In the y--
Penn Water case, no termination of service was involved.
In that case Penn Water contended that the FPC's rate order (it was a rate proceeding)
~
was invalid because, Penn Water alleged, it was based on a contract which violated the Federal antitrust laws and was void. Pennsylvania Water &
1 i
j Power Co. v. Consolidated Gas Electric Light & Power Co.,184 F.2d 552 (CA 4, 1950), cert. den., 340 U.S. 906 (1950). Penn Water's contention a
/
was rejected by the Supreme Court because the FPC's rate reduction order o
in tnat case was not dependent upon the contract, the FPC having the autho-k rity under Section 206(a) not only to prescribe the reasonable rates but T
the reasonable terms and conditions of service as well, independent of the
(.
contract.
In the course of its decision, the Supreme Court said (343 U.S.
(~
423):
L "If Penn Water wishes to discontinue some or all of the services it has rendered for the past twenty years, the Act, as the Commission
?~
pointed out, opens up a way provided Penn Water can prove its wishes are consistent with the public interest."
iL.
In this dicta the Court was referring to allegations of Penn Water in its application for rehearing filed with the FPC and to the FPC's response in its order denying rehearing. Pennsylvania Water & Power Co., 8 F.P.C. 170, 1
h' 173-6 (1949). Penn Water had alleged that it had terminated its contract with Consolidated Gas Electric Light-& Power Company and had changed the L
operations so that it would no longer receive energy in interstate commerce.
l To these allegations the FPC responded that changes cannot be made unilaterally and must be filed with the FPC under Section 205(d) of the Power Act.
Asdi-l:
I.
j
. [~
tionally, the FPC asserted that if termination of service be involved, a
(
Notice of Cancellation must be filed under then Section 35.5 (now Section 35.15) of the Regulations.
What is important in considering that case is:
(1) there was no 7
termination of service alleged, only a change in service; (2) there was no
{
issue concerning the FPC's authority over abandonments of service since l
there was no termination; and (3) the question of Penn Water's right to change the service or terminate it had not been put before the FPC.2/
Research reveals no judicial decisions in a case in which the question of the FPC's authority over abandonment of electric service has s
y been squarely presented or was the controlling question in the case.
To sum up, the provisions of the Power Act, the existence of abandonment authority in the Gas Act notwithstanding the identical authority with respect to rates, charges, classifications, and service in the Power and Gas Acts, and the legislative history of Part II of the Power Act, alone and together, compel the conclusion that the FPC has no jurisdiction and authority over abandonment of service under the Power Act.
B.
The Sale Of Wholesale Power Is Not Merely A Pricing Technique.
The argument that a wholesale contract for all requirements firm power does not call for a product different from maintenance power, emer-gency power, nuclear power, reserve sharing, wheeling and membership in CAPCO (Brief in Opposition pp. 5-6) but is only a pricing technique is ridiculous.
2/
We have reviewed the briefs filed in the Supreme Court in the Penn Water case. This review confirms that neither the petitioners nor the FPC presented any arguments or contentions which drew into consideration the FPC's arthority over abandonment of service through Section 205 of the Power Act.
n-
)
(~
_9 Applicants' own economic expert, Dr. Pace, has testified that emergency power and economy power are not substitutable products (App. Ex.
i 190 p. 31). The Licensing Board has ruled that emergency service for sale
[-
by Duquesne Light is not the equivalent of wholesale power (5 NRC 183).
1 Applicants themselves have defined emergency power as capacity or energy supplied in the event of breakdown or other emergency and scheduled main-s tenance power as energy supplied in connection with scheduled maintenance repair, and overhauling of generating equipment.
Economy energy is ex-i changed between utilities with generating capacity (Wein DJ 587 pp.106-107).
[
Clearly, wholesale firm power available around the clock is a y.
separate product. While it is true that electricity is fungible, the various L
classes of service provided are not.
r-C.
Applicants' Good Faith, r
Applicants argue that based upon their good faith representation L
that they will continue to offer wholesale power, there is no need for a L
license condition requiring them to sell wholesale power (Brief in Opposi-
[
tion pp. 11-12).
City would point out that CEI's response to a request by City for an agreement to wheel PASNY power was a draf t service schedule at odds both with license condition 3 and their repeated representations that their system has ample capacity to wheel PASNY power (See Appendix B).
II THE LICENSE CONDITION LIMITING CAPCO VOTING RIGHTS SHOULD BE MODIFIED
~~
Applicants argue that voting rights in CAPCO should be limited as w
provided in the license conditions because there would be no mutuality between the municipal systems and the present CAPCO members (Brief in Opposition pp.
12-15). Applicants' theory of the requirement of mutuality has recently
=
e
.I 1 r been rejected by the FPC in Mid-Continent Area Power Pool, Opinion No. 806.
i The FPC in the MAPP case held that payments in money could take the place of r
return of services in kind; size is not a reasonable criterion for pool rmm-bership; and significant long-term impacts of power pooling requires I
close scrutiny of terms which deny access to the benefits of the pool. While I
it is true that MAPP does not engage in all of the transactions engaged in by CAPCO, the FPC did not predicate its holdinC on the extent of the trans-l actions taking pirace in MAPP.
Applicants argue that there does not " appear to be any realistic prospect that the optimum one-system plan for the CAPCO companies as a whole i-(including municipalities) would ever be in the best interest of the smaller i
participating systems" (Brief in opposition p. 15).
First, Applicants' argument points up the necessity of opening a variety of power supply al-ternatives to small electric systems. Wholesale power from a CAPCO member
(
will not necessarily provide the optimum power supply arrangement for a
[~
small system.
Second, there is no evidence that the optimum one-system plan for CAPCO would be the best plan for any of the Applicants considered r
individually.
For example, building the Mansfield plant was not the best u
plan for CEI (Williams Tr. 10,370). Third, the record shows that CAPCO has L
not adopted the optimum one-system plan even for the existing members.
Lo-
[
cation of the first four generating units was a compromise between engin-eering considerations and the desire of each company to have a unit located r
in its service area (Williams Tr. 10,430).
Further, what const.itutes opti-L.
num coordination is a matter of judgmenc upon which opinions differ (Williams L
Tr. 10,458-9). Units planned for construction under the one-system method have been deferred because of financing problems (Williams Tr. 10,412-43).
"^
In footnote 15 (Brief in Opposition p.17) Applicants argue that syst. ems must have installed generating capacity to be considered possible
>^
-m.
,F:'
g
.. r voting members under the City's proposed license conditions and the license condition ordered by the Licensing Board.
Contrary to Applicants' assertion, r
i
(
both the license condition and the City's proposal speak in terms of system
[-
capability, not system generating capability. Moreover, even if the refer-I ence to system capability were construed to mean generating capability, r~
there is no basis for suggesting that what is maant is existing generating s
capability.
r-III e
l THE LICENSE CONDITIONS SHOULD APPLY TO BEAVER VALLEY UNIT 2 r-L Despite numerous assurances to the contrary, Applicants now argue
?"
that the relief ordered in these proceedings should not apply to Beaver Valley Unit 2 (Brief in Opposition pp. 20-28).
City submits that what is
(~
{
at issue is the good faith of Applicants and the Nuclear Regulatory Commis-sion which stated repeatedly that City would be fully protected by the Com-mission's ability to give systenuide relief.
t
~
Applicants argue that City would never find it advantageous to
~
purchase a share of Beaver Valley Unit 2 because the cost of power from that unit when it becomes operational will be more than the current average
[
cost of wholesale power from CEI (Brief in Opposition p. 27 fn. 31).
The 1_
argument is not relevant.
If it were relevant, the comparison of present
~
wholesale costs to future power costs is transparently unrealistic unless E
CEI now proposes to offer City a long-term fixed rate wholesale contract.
Additionally, ths. estimated cost of power to Applicants from a nuclear unit is more than the cost of power to a municipality participating in the unit l
as an owner.
Further, any economic comparison of wholesale powc costs to costs of a particular unit must consider costs over the life of the unit.
' l a-p
-.7-g n
I' I
' Finally, Applicants argue that City is unable to finance partici-pation in Beaver Valley Unit 2 or any other unit. Again, whether or not City I
can finance participation is irrelevant, particularly so when one considers j~
that City's financial problems are the result of Applicants' egregious anti-1 trust violations. Applicants' reliance on Judge Krupensky's Memorandum and r
Order (Brief in Opposition p. 27) is misleading. Applicants failed to in-l 2
form the Appeal Board that contrary to the Judge's opinion the City has, in fact, paid each bill for electric service provided in 1977 (See Appendix r-A).
To the extent that Judge Krupansky's twmorandum and Order relies on FPC Opinion Nos. 644 and 644-A to determine the rate for load transfte ser-
[
vice for the period February 1970 through May 1972, it is clearly in error.
t On July 1, 1977, the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit r-issued its Order Directing Compliance With Mandate in City of Cleveland v.
Federal Power Commission, 174 U.S. App. D.C. 1, 525 F.2d 845 (1976).
Ac-r cordingly, the FPC must reconsider that portion of its Opinion Nos. 644 r-and 644-A.
L i-CONCLUSION lu WHEREFORE, for the reasons stated herein and in its main brief, City prays that the Appeal Board amend and modify the license conditions
{;
ordered by the Licensing Board to require Applicants to make wholesale all i
L requirements firm power available to non-Applicant entities in the CCCT and-to at least permit new members of CAPCO to participate as voting nem-L 9
^
W
I' l
. r bers when their system capacity equals or exceeds 50 megawatts. The p-license conditions as amended and modified should be made applicable to I
Beaver Valley Unit 2.
~
Res ptfully submitted, l
%k~
i WJc 7 '
.ZF Reuben Goldberg r-l David C. Hjelmfelt Michael D. Oldak Goldberg, Fieldme.n & Hjelmfelt, P.C.
1700 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
i Washingten, D.C.
20006 Telephone (202) 393-2444
{
Malcolm Douglas Director of Law Robert.D. Hart 7
First Assistant Director of Law City of Cleveland 213 City Hall Cleveland, Ohio 44114 Telephone (216) 694-2737 r-Attorneys for i
City of Cleveland, Ohio e
August 4, 1977 e
L, a
b w
we L
r:
I g
r i
F t
F CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
(
r
(
I hereby certify that I have served a copy of the foregoing " Reply Brief of City of Cleveland in Support of Exceptions Filed By City of
['
Cleveland" on the parties listed on the attachment hereto, this 4th day i
of August, 1977, by depositing copies thereof in the United States mail, first class postage prepaid, c
F b7M
(_
DAVID C. HJE @ T
/
j L
C Attachment
.L.
f' L
i:
t.
V L
f~
q r
ATTACHMENT r
1
(
Christopher R. Schraff, Esq.
Douglas V. Rigler, Esq.
Assistant Attorney General Foley, Lar 2ner, Hollabaugh and Jacobs Environmental Law Section 815 Conn'.cticut Avenue, N. W.
361 East Broad Street, 8th floor p
Washington, D. C.
20006 Columbus, Ohio 43215
~ Alan S. Rosenthal, Chairman Ivan W. Smith, Esq.
r Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board John M. Frysiak, Esq.
[
U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Washington, D. C.
20555 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
r.
Washington, D. C.
20555
[
Richard S. Salzman Jerome E. Sharfman Andrew C. Goodhope, Esq.
r Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board 3320 Estelle Terrace k
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Wheaton, Maryland 20906 Washington, D. C.
20555 l~
Robert M. Lazo, Esq., Chairman
(
Howard K. Shapar, Esq.
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Executive Legal Director U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C.
20555 Washington, D. C.
20555 Daniel M. Head, Esq., Member
~
Mr. Frank W. Karas, Chief Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Public Proceedings Branch U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of the Secretary Washington, D. C.
20555 I
-U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission L
Washington, D. C.
20555 Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board Panel Abraham Braitman, Esq.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Antitrust and Indemnity Washington, D. C.
20555 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C.
20555 Joseph Rutberg, Esq.
- Jack R. Goldberg, Esq.
Frank R. Clokey, Esq.
Office of the Executive Legal Director Spacial Assistant' Attorney General U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Towne House Apartments, Room 219 Washington, D. C.
20555 Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17105 Benjamin H. Vogler, Esq.
I
_ Edward A. Matto, Esq.
Roy P. Lessy, Jr., Esq.
l Assistant' Attorney General Office of the General Counsel Chief, Antitrust Section Regulation E-30 East Broad Street,15th floor U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Columbus, Ohio 43215 Washington, D. C.
20555 l
lW
+
ATTACHMENT (continued)
David McNeill Olds, Esq.
Melvin G. Berger,.E sq.
- William S. Lerach, Esq.
Joseph J. Saunders,' E sq.
Reed, Smith, Shaw & McClay
~
David A. Leckie, Esq.
Post Office Box 2009
' Janet R. Urban, Esq.
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15230 Antitrust Division Dspartment of Justice Terrence H. Benbow, Esq.
Post Office' Box 7513 Steven B. Peri, Esq.
Washington, D. C.
20044 Winthrop, Stimson, Putnam & Roberts 40 Wall Street p
Karen H. Adkins, - Esq.
New York, New York -10005 Richard M. Firestone, Esq.
Assistant Attorneys General Alan P. Buchmann, Esq.
Antitrust Section Squire, Sanders & Dempsey
- 30 East Broad Street, 15th floor 1800 Union Commerce Building Columbus, Ohio 43215 Cleveland, Ohio 44115 Russell J. Spetrino, Esq.
Leslie Henry, Esq.
Thomas A. Kayulm, Esq'.
Michael M. Briley, Esq.
Ohio Edison Company Roger P. Klee, Esq.
~
47 North Main Street '
Fuller, Henry, Hodge & Snyder Akron, Ohio 44308 Post Office Box 2088 Toledo, Ohio 43604
~
l Jchn Lansdale, Jr., Esq.
Cox, Langford & Brown James R. Edgerly, Esq.
21 Dupont Circle, N. W.
Secretary and General Counsel
~
Washington, D. C.
20036 Pennsylvania Power Company One East Washington Street Richard A. Miller, Esq.
New Castle, Pennsylvania 16103 Vice President and General Counsel The Cleveland Electric Hluminating Co.
Donald H. Hauser, Esq.
Post Office Box 5000 Victor A. Greenslade, Jr., Esq.
Cleveland, Ohio 44101 The Cleveland Electric Bluminating Co.
Post Office Box 5000 Garald Charnoff, Esq.
Cleveland, Ohio 44101 Wm. Bradford Reynolds, Esq.
Robert E. Zahler, Esq.
Thomas J. Munsch, Jr., Esq.
Joy H. Berstein,. Esq.
General Attorney Shaw, Pittman, Potts & Trowbridge Duquesne Light Company
?l800 M ' Street, N. W.
435 Sixth Avenue Washington, D. C.
20036 Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15219 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Docketing and Service Section
. U. S.n Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of the Secretary Washington, - D. C. -
20555' U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
' ~ -
Washington, D. C.
20555 I
.. r I'
ATTACHMENT (continued) p I
. Joseph A. Rieser, Esq.
I.
Rord, Smith, Shaw & McClay l
.1150 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.
.Woshington, D. C.
20036 r-John C. Engle, President F
AMP-O, Inc.
20 High Street 7_
Hamilton, Ohio 45012 i
Michael R. Gallagher, Esq.
g l
630 Bulkley Building 1501 Euclid Cleveland, Ohio 44115 I
i m
w, F
iL L
1~
E w
N g-0 1
I I
I b
r-~
5 a
i 9
i e-U pm.
APPENDIX A i _
m W.
e W~
re b
T!iE CLEVELAND ELECTRIC ILLUM!N ATING COMPANY ILLUMINATING BLDG. e PUBLIC SOUARE e CLEVELAND. OHIO 44101 m TELEPHONE (216) 623-1350 m MAIL ADDRESS:
P. O. BOX 5000 Serving The Best f.ocation in the Nation d
July 12, 1977 3c/t RECEIVED GW JUL141977
~
Mr. Kenneth F. Plumb, Secretary LAW OFFICES Federal Power Commission GOLDBERG.FIELDMAN & HJELMFEL r-825 N. Capitol Street, N.E.
Washington, D.C.
20426 Re: Docket No. E-7631
-7633 and E-7713 - Report terest Charged for Billing Period of Amount a
.6-1-77 Through 6-30-77 -- 138 kV Interconnection -
Temporary 69 kV Emergency Non-Synchronous Inter-connection - 11 kV Load Transfer Service
~
Dear Mr. Secretary:
Pursuant to orders of the Commission in the above proceedings, we are re-porting the amounts charged for service and interest over the 138 kV inter-connection, the temporary 69 kV emergency non-synchronous, interconnection, and the 11 kV load transfer service.
MELP has taken service over the 138 kV interconnection continuously since May 4, 1975, except for 26 minutes on Monday, September 22, 1975 During the month of June, CEI delivered 46,969,200 kilowatt-hours of Firm Power Service.
CEI did not deliver any emergency service during this period.
The attaching billing' memorandum was delivered to MELP for the billing period 6/1/77through6/30/77 Following is a sumavy:
O Temporary 11 kV Load 138 kV Inter-69 kV Inter-
. Transfer
~
connection connection Service Total
$ 1,031,256.93 Total Charge
$ 1,031,256 93 $
Deliveries During June 1977 Interest Added 179,968.13 4 14,881.51 $
17,883.55 $
212,733 19 Between 6-8-77 and 7-11-77 Total Due CEI
$15,601,354.65 $ 1,098,249 06 $ 1,902,798.90 $18,602,402.61 From Previous Bill eet
r Mr. Kennsth F. Plumb, Secrntary July 12, 1977
.~
Federal Power Commission Page 2 Temporary 11 kV Load 138 kV Inter-69 kV Inter-Transfer connection connection Service,
Total Less Payment for (928,780.50) $
o.oo $
o.00 $
(928,780.50)
A ril 1977 P
r.
Received 6-23-77 Total Amount owed for Service
$15,88,,799 21 $ 1,113,130.57 $ 1,920,682.45 $18,917,612.23 Amount owed for 138 kV installation cost incurred thru 15,241.00 July 31, 1975 Amount owed for 138 kV Right-of-Way rental charge 24,000.00 Amount owed for 138 kV Maintenance Work in January 1977 17,379.00
-Total Amount owed
$18,974,232.23
~
As the summary shows, the amount billed for service during June was $1,031,256.93 As indicated above, a payment for service in' April, 1977 was received in the amount of $928,780 50.
This was the full amount billed for service during that period.
Interestchargedduringtheperiod6/1/77through6/30/77 totaled $212,733.19 Sincerely, w
Donald H. Hauser General Attorney DEH:qd Encl.
.i
Mr. Kenneth F. Plumb, Secretary July 12, 1977 Federal Power Co:n=ission Page 3 STATE OF OHIG
)
) SS.
COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA )
DONALD H. HAUSER, being first duly sworn says'that the state-ments contained in the foregoing letter and the attached billing memorandum which'is made a part thereof, set forth the amounts charged under the rates j
orderedbytheFederalPowerCommissionforthebillingperiod6/1/77through 6/30/77 1
L
/ n Aj t+
~ DONALD H. HAUSER SWORN to and subscribed before me this 12th day of July,1977 AIotary Public WILLIAM J. kERNER, Attorney
" '1".eti 147 cn c M,c. sT so ow cc: Joseph W. Bartunek, Esq.
Alan P. Buchmann, Esq.
s Malcolm Douglas, Esq.
Steven M. Charno, Esq.
S Bernard A. Cromes, Esq.
Edward Fowlkes i_
Leo E. Forquer, Esq.
Reuben Goldberg, Esq.
Robert Hall, Esq.
Robert Hart, Esq.
John Lansdale, Esq.
Daniel J. O'Loughlin, Esq.
Harry A. Poth, Esq.
Wm. Bradford Reynolds, Esq.
Steven A. Taube, Esq.
Robert J. Verdisco, Esq.
Benjamin H. Vogler, Esq.
l.
T 5.1 T-n i c l>' p ; a
.1' g
- s. L r. p, a : vs, a. e,i ! ;
l,.,' ;'. : ; M P 7. i.N. g UI;2a2m m p D n N. 3 r s'
_._,t!
a.u.
n1 /
r.
, a a. a.
ILLUMINATING BLOG. e PUBLIC SOUARE e CLEVELAND. OHIO 44101 e TELEPHONE (216) 623.1350 m MAIL ADDRESS: P.O. BOX 5000 Serving The Best Location in the Nation June 9, 1977
,. f *( ' '
g-a
'j
-h Mr. Kenneth F. Plumb, Secretary E
.lj Federal Power cerrmiasion 825 N. Capitol Street, N.E.
'61 : - '
Washington, D.C.
20426 Re: Docket Nos.' E-7631, E-7633 and E-7713 - Report of Amounts and Interest Charged for Billing Period 5-1-77 Through 5-31 138 kV Inta. w umction -
Temporary 69 kV Emergency Non-Synchmnous Inter-connection - 11 kV Icad Transfer Service
Dear Mr. Se w E y:
Pursuant to orders of the hi== ion in the above prev Wings, we are re-porting the ammnts charged for service and interest over the 138 kV inter-connection, the t%ary 69 kV erim.3=cy non-synclu.wous interconnection, and the 11 kV load transfer service.
MELP has taken service over the 138 kV interconnection continuously since May 4,1975, except for 26 minutes en Monday, SettanMr 22, 1975.
During the month of May, CEI delivered 48,480,600 kilowatt-hours of Firm Power Service. CEI did not deliver any una.vacy service during this period.
The athehing billing nmwandum was delivered to MELP for the billing period 5/1/77 through 5/31/77. Ibliowing is a sumary:
h w ary 11 kV Icad r
138 kV Inter-69 kV Inter-Transfer connection connection Service Total
$ 1,036,272.05
'Ibtal Charge for
$ 1,036,272.05 $
Deliveries'During May 1977 Tne-liv 1-ing Adjustments Interest Added 105,758.96 $
10,873.75 $' 13,422.61 $
130,055.32 Between 5-9-77 and 6-8-77 l
RECEIVED JUN 131977 LAW 0FFICES GOLDBERG. FIELDU.Att & lijELMFEL
.e
~
Mr. Kenneth F. Plumb, Secretary June 9, 1977 Federal Power Cr=niasion Page 2
% @ rary 11 W Ioad 138 kV Inter-69 kV Inter-Transfer cocumction cannection Service Total
'Ibtal Due CEI
$15,321,935.23 $ 1,087,375.31 $ 1,889,376.29 $18,298,686.83
~.
frtm Previous Bill Less Payment for $
(862,611.59) $
0.00 $
0.00 $
(862,611.59)
March 1977 Received 5-25-77 Total Amount Owed for Eervice $15,601,354.65 $ 1,098,249.06 $ 1,902,798.90 $18,602,402.61 Amount Owed for 138 kV Installation Oosts Incurred Thru July 31, 1975 15,241.00 Amount Owed for 138 kV Right-of-Way Rental Charge 18,000.00 Amount Owed for 138 kV Maintenance Work in January 1977 17,379.00
'Ibtal Amnunt Owed
$18,653,022.61 As the m= nary shows, the amount billM for service during May was $1,036,272.05.
As hxlicated above, a payment for service in March,1977 was. received in the amount of $862,611.59. This was' the full amount billM for service during that period.
Interest charged during the Wrv15/1/77 through 5/31/77 totaled $130,055.32.
Sincerely, A Mi l
- u a. nauser i
General Attorney IIIH:jc l
Encl.
1 A,
4mm
Mr. Kenneth F. Plumb, Secretary June 9, 1977 Farlaval Power C-insion Page 3 f
1 STATE w osIo
)
)
SS.
cotwry T canHOGA )
I IX1RLD H. HAUSER, being first duly sworn says that the state-ments contained in the foregoing letter and the attached billing necrandu:n which is made a part thereof, set forth the amounts charged under the rates ordered by the Federal Power Ccmnission for the billing period 5/1/77 through 5/31/77.
I di DCNALD H. HAum SWOBN to and subscribed before me this 9th day of June, 1977.
W
/
Notary Public
/
JUDITH A. COLL i'
cc: Joseph W. Bartunek, Esq.
tiotary Puti;c Fcr Cuyahoga County, Ohio My Commissi n Expires Feb.13,1979 Alan P. B v,ui, Esq.
z l
Malcolm Douglas, Esq.
l.
Steven M. Chavnn, Esq.
prnard A. Cranes, Esq.
Edward Fowlkes Ieo E' Forquer,'Esq.
Reuben Colelharg, Esq.
H Bobert Hall, Esq.
Robert Hart, Esq.
John T anarlala, Esq.
Daniel J. O'Iarblin, Esq.
l Harry A. Poth, Esq.
Wu. BraMnrd Reynolds, Esq.
Steven A. Taube, Esq.
Bobert J. Va Mi e, Esq.
Benjamin H. Vogler, Esq.
W
(
^
1 PUBLIC SOU41E. CLEVELAND OH10 44101. TELEPHONE (216) 6231350. Mall ADDRE3S :
P. O. BOX 5000 y
tLLUVINATING BLOG e Serving The Best Location in the Nation May 11, 1977 Mr. Kenneth F. Plumb, Secretary Federal Power Ccn1 mission 825 N. Capitol Street, N.E.
Washington / D.C.
20426 Re: Docket Nos.
-7631, E-7 7713 - Report of Amounts
.ui ~~" N.argMor Billing Period 4-1-77 Through 4-30 138 kV Interconnection -
Ternporary 69 kV Emergency Non-Synchronous Inter-connection - 11 kV Ioad Transfer Service e
(
Dear Mr. Secretary:
Pursuant to orders of the Ccmnission in the above proceedings, we are re-porting the amounts charged for service and interest over the 138 kV inter-connection, the tenporary 69 kV energency non-synchronous interconnection, and the 11 kV load transfer service.
MEEP has taken service over the 138 kV interconnection continuously since Fay 4,1975, except for 26 minutes on bbnday, Sept =1bar 22,1975.
During the nonth of April, CEI delivered 44,990,400 kilowatt-hours of Firm Pcser Service. CEI did not deliver any &&ydcy service.during this
~
period.
t The attached billing mernorandtra was delivered to FELP for the billing period 4/17/7 through 4/30/77. Follcr.fing is a stmnary:
Temporary 11 kV Ioad 138 kV Inter-69 kV Inter-Transfer connection connection Service Total 928',780.50 Total Charge for 928,780.50 Deliveries During April 1977 Interest Added 120,607.40 $
6,981.74 $
9,090.24 $
136,679.38 Between 4-11-77 and 5-9-77
'Ibtal Due CEI
$15,162,125.80 $ 1,080,393.57 $1,880,286.05 $18,122,805.42 Frcm Previous Bill-RECEIVED MAY 161977
- LAVI 0FFICES GOLDBEM, FIELD!.iAN & HJEL!.1F
r t
Mr. Kenneth F. Plumb, Secretary May 11, 1977
^
Federal Power cerrmission Page 2 F
Temporcry 11 kV Ioad 138 kV Inter-69 kV Inter-Transfer connection connection Service Total 1
Less Payment for (888,572.79) $
0.00 $
0.00 $
(888,572.79)
February 1977 Total Amount Owed for Service
$15,322,940.91 $ 1,087,375.31 $1,889,376.29 $18,299,692.51 l
Amount Owed for 138 kV Installation Costs Incurred 15,241.00 Thru July 31, 1975 z
Amount Owed for 138 kV Right-of-Way Rental Charge 18,000.00 Amount Owed for 138 kV Maintenance Work in Januanf, 1977 17,739.00 Total Amount Owed
$18,14,2,338.98 As the sumary shows, the amount billed for service during April was
$928,780.50.
As indicated above, a payment for service in February,1977 was received in the amount of $888,572.79. This was the full amount billed for service during that period.
z Interest charged during the period 4-1-77 through 4-30-77 totaled $136,679.38.
Sincerely, n
\\
Donald H. Hauser General Attorney DHH:jc Encl.
D b a-
I~
{
n.
Mr. "denneth F. Plunb, Secretary May 11, 1977 Federal Power Ccmnission Page 3 i
r-STATE & ohio
)
)
ss.
N OF CUYAHOGA )
(
DCNALD H. HAUSER, being first duly sworn, says that the statements contained in the foregoing letter and the attached billing netorandun which is mde a part thereof, set forth the amounts charged under the rates ordered by the Federal Power Ccmnission for the billing period 4-1-77 through 4-30-77.
(
by DCNALD H. HAUSER SNOPN to and subscribed before me this lith day of May,1977.
t
,rA&
ll.
~
/
Notary Public JUDITH A. COLL cc: Joseph W. Bartunek, Esq.
[y*c
- curahoga ecunty, Ohio a
m
.D, D79 Alan P. Buchmann, Esq.
Malcolm Douglas, Esq.
Steven M. Charno, Esq.
Bernard A. Crmes, Esq.
Edward Fowlkes
~
Leo E.'Forquer, Esq.
Beuben Goldberg, Esq.
Bobert Hall, Esq.
Robert Hart, Esq.
John Lanwhle, Esq.
Daniel J. O'Ioughlin, Esq.
Harry A. Poth, Esq.
Mn. Bradford Reynolds, Esq.
Steven A. Taube, Esq.
j Bobert J. Verdisco, Esq.
Benjamin H. Vogler, Esq.
7 7y g
.,p r
sy v,o.,
g f-
.lLLLIMINAfiNG BLDG. e PUBLIC SOUARE e CtfVFL AND OHIO 44t01 e T[t f PHONF (216) f173 1350 e FAAll ADDRESS P. O. BOK 5000 April 15, 1977
/ st
-it l
g---
(
Mr. Kenneth F. Plumb, Secretary
,pv5[
7-Federal Pomr Ccmnission f /),
y 825 N. Capitol Street, N.E.
L,&, i Washington, D.C.
20426 Fe: Docket'Nos. E-7631, E-7633 and E-7713 - Repo.-t of
?
Aucunts and Interest Charged for Billing Period 3-1-77 Through 3-31 138 kV Interconnection -
Temporary 69 kV Emergency Non-Synchronous Inter-connection - 11 kV Ioad Transfer Service s
Dear Mr. Secretary:
e 1
Pursuant to orders of the Ccmnission in the above proceedings, we are re-porting the amounts charged for service and interest over the 138 kV inter-e
}
connection, the terporary 69 kV etergency non-synchronous interconnection, and the 11 kV load transfer service.
FELP has taken service over the 138 kV interconnection continuously since May 4,1975, except for 26 minutes on bbnday, September 22, 1975.
By a letter dated March 23,1977,1ELP notified CEI of a change in contract demand for finn power from 70 FH to 90 bW on April 1,1977, and requested a waiver of the required thirty (30) day written notice. CEI, by letter of March 30, 1977 agreed to waive the thirty (30) day written notice and
(
affirmed that it muld provide the 90 FM of firm power under Schedule B and the Interconnection Agreenent.
I Consistent with this change,1ELP has advised that it has ceased all coal-fired generation as of April 6, 1977.
l During the month of March, CEI delivered 43,576,600 kilowatt-hours of Finn L
Power Service, O kilowatt-hours of Class III energency service, 202,400 kilowatt-hours of Class II emergency service, and 89,200 Pdlowatt-hours of Class I energency service.
The attached billing menorandum was delivered to IELP for the billing t
[
period 3-1-77 through 3-31-77. Following is a suninary:
L F
Tauporary 11 kV Ioad 138 kV Inter-69 kV Inter-Transfer connection connection Service Total
-Total Charge for S
862,611.59 862,611.59 Deliveries During RECEIVED March 1977 u.-
APR 2 01977
~
LAW'0FFICES COLDERG, HLLDi.1AN & lllELUFELT 1
1
(/
~
Mr. Kenneth F. Plumb, Secretary April 15, 1977 Federal Power Commission Page 2 i
i Tenporary 11 kV Ioad
~
138 kV Inter-69 kV Inter-Transfer connection connection Service Total r
Interest Added 174,675.25 $
14,443.85 $
17,357.60 206,476.70
(
Between 3-8-77
{
and 4-11-77 j
r
)
Total Due CE:I
$ 15,162,840.81 $ 1,065,949.72 $ 1,862,928.45
$18,091,718.98 From Previous Bill Iess Payment for $ (1,039,007.53) $
0.00 $
0.00
$ (1,039,007.53)
January 1977 I
(
Plus Cw.ddon $
1,005.68 $
0.00 $
0.00 1,005.68 February 1977 Bill r
Total Amount Owed for Service $ 15,162,125.80 $ 1,080,393.57 $ 1,880,286.05
$18,122,805.42 Amount Owed for 138 kV Installation Costs Incurred 15,241.00 Thru July 31, 1975 Anount Owed for 138 kV Right-of-Way Rental Charge 18,000.00 Amount Owed for 138 kV Maintenance Work in January 1977 17,379.00
'Ibtal Amaunt Owed
$18,173,425.42 As the sumary chows, the amount billed for service during thrch was
(
$862,611.59.
As indicated aoove, a payment for service in January, 1976 was received on thrch 23,1977 in the anount of $1,039,007.53. This vras the full amount billed for service during that period.
l Interest charged during the period 3-8-77 through 4-11-77 totaled $206,476.70.
Sincerely, C+ w.
W-2__
Donald H. Hauser
~
General Attorney DHH:jc
. Encl.
..ee
1 1.-
Mr. Kenneth F. Plumb, Secretary April 15, 1977 r'
Federal Power Catmission Page 3 i
e-SpaE OF OHIO
)
)
SS.
a]UmY OF CUnHOFA )
[~
DOtMD H. HAUSER, being first duly sworn, says that the stat ts
(
contained in the foregoing letter and the attached billing netorandum which is made a part thereof, set forth the amounts charged under the rates ordered p-by the Federal Power Ccumission for the billmg period 3-1-77 through 3-31-77.
6 I
~
l wn/)W w
DONALD H. HAUSER SNOIN to and subscribed before me this 15th day of April,1977.
5 A_
m Notary Public
/
JUDITH A. COLL cc: Joseph W. Bartunek, Esq.
tism s untie ro, cuyat.oea county. Ohi, Alan P. Buchmann, Esq.
t acm::nc boire: re,23, jgg Malcolm Douglas, Esq.
Steven M. Charno, Esq.
Bernard A. Crcmes, Esq.
Edward Fowlkes Leo E. Forquer, Esq.
Reuben Goldberg, Esq.
Pobert Hall, Esq.
Ibbert Hart, Esq.
John inneA,le, Esq.
)
Harry A. Poth, Esq.
Mn. Bradford Reynolds, Esq.
Steven A. Taube, Esq.
Robert J. Verdisco, Esq.
Benjamin H. Vogler, Esq.
j l
i
~
1.
.~
^ 9 Y O P
- 1 *i!
l 2
8_ J j i t;.! ]. a a i 1.J.
i] 3
~1i.
?. T ! A L. s. i j :.;),
K l "' ts $.O j O fl Y T F ~~
- '.s 1.
- };f K I
" " * * ~
4 7*
4 G
L; b :.3 : AE:
t i ;_l :
2 s O 1
ILLUMINATING BLDG. e PUBUC SOUARE e CLEVELAND, OHIO 44101 e TELEPHONE (216) 623 1330 m MAIL ADDT.ESS:
P. O. BOX 5000 r
Serving The Best Location in the Nation March 14, 1977
)! %
'In;')._
Mr. henneth F. Pltrnb, Secretary C
ye:h, -
Federal Pcwer Ccmnission F
825 N. Capitol Street, N.E.
Washington, D.C.
20426 t
Re: Docket Nos.c -7631, E-7633 awl R n
- Moort of Amounts ana.Lnterest Charged for Bil :.g Period 2-1-77 Throtgh 2-28 138 kV Interconnection -
Temporctry 69 kV Edwa.wercy Non-Synchronous Inter-connection - 11 kV Ioad Transfer Service
Dear Mr. Secretary:
Pursuant to orders of the Cemnic:sion in the above prm#Ngs, we are re-porting the amounts charged for service and interest over the 138 kV inter-connection, the temporary 69 kV energency non-synchronous interconnection, and the 11 kV load transfer service.
MELP has taken service over the 138 kV intru.wmection continuously since May 4,1975, except for 26 minutes on Monday, SepNmbar 22, 1975.
During the nonth of January, CEI clolivered 41,717,800 kilowatt-hours of Firm Power Service, O kilowatt-hours of Class III sneu.we.ucy service, 519,800 kilowatt-hours of Class II emeu.wrucy service, and 48,600 kilowatt-hours of Class I emergency service.
The attached billing menorandum was delivered to MELP for the billing period 2-1-77 through 2-28-77, Following is a sumary:
~
T-lory 11 kV Ioad 138 kV Inter-69 kV Inter-Transfer connection connection Service Total S
S 888,572.79 Total Charge for S
888,572.79 Deliveries During February 1977 Interest Added 131,042.19 10,553.96 S 13,027.86 154,624.01 Beteen 2-8-77 and 3-8-77
.'Ibtal Due CEI
$15,127,503.53
$1,055,395.76 $1,849,900.59
$18,032,799.88 Frtm Previous Biu RECENED MAR 171977 l
l LAvfO'RCES l
GOLD 3 ERG. HiLD:.9.t! & HJEU/. FELT
^
=
y a.
Mr. Kenneth F. Plumb, Secretary March 14, 1977 Federal Power Cemnimaion Page 2 c.
(
h @rary 11 kV Icad 138 kV Inter-69 kV Inter-
-Transfer connection connection Service Total r
l less Payment for _ $
(984,277.70) 0.00 0.00 (984,277.70)
Decenber 1976 e
Received 2-18-77 Total Amount
$15,162,840.81
$1,065,949.72
$1,862,928.45 J18,091,718.98 7
Owed for Service Amount Owed for 138 kV Installation Costs Incurred 15,241.00 Thru July 31, 1975 Amount Owed for 138 kV Right-of-Way Rental Charge 18,000.00 Anrnnt Owed for 138 kV Maintenance Work in January,1977 17,379.00 Total Anount Owed
$18,142,338.98 As the s= nary shows, the amount billed for service during Febriam.f was
$888,572.79.
As irainated above, a payment for service in December,1976 was received on February 18, 1977 in the amount of $984,277.70. This was the full anount l
billed for service during that period.
i Interest charged during the period 2-8-77 through 3-8-77 totaled $154,624.01.
i Sincerely,
/ /
Wald H. Hauser General Attorney IEH:jc Encl.
wd
%e b
I
+
+
9
i Mr. Kenneth F. Plunb, Secretary March 14, 1977 Federal Power Cn =iesien Page 3 s
.U ATE OF OMIO
)
F
)
E.
t OoomT OF CUYAEX:iA )
['
contained in the foregoing letter and the attached billing memorandum which DO SLD H. HAUSER, being first duly sworn, says that the statements is made a part thereof, set forth the amounts charged under the rates ordered r
by the Federal Power Onminsion for the billing period 2-1-77 through 2-28-77.
l f
~ -Q DONALD H. HAUSER SWORN to and subscribed before me this 14th day of March,'1977.
/
/
Notary Public JUDITH A. COLL Notary Fut:ie rer canhet: county, eso Cc: Joseph W. Bartunek, Esq.
My Ccmminaca Ex;!ns Fab.13,1HD g p, Malcolm Douglas, Esq.
Steven M. Charno, Esq.
Bernard A. Crcrnes, Esq.
Edward Fowlkes Leo E. Forquer, Esq.
Reuben Goldberg, Esq.
Robert Hall, Esq..
Robert Hart, Esq.
John Lanarlale, Esq.
Harry A. Poth, Esq.
Wn. Bradford Reynolds, Esq.
Steven A. Taube, Esq.
Ibbert J. Verdisco, Esq.
Benjamin H. Vogler, Esq.
- 7..-
d i
I r-l 6
7 1
7 4
(* e r~
APPENDIX B 6
- p. i-M l
1 I
e 1
Q l
l 1
W
\\
e-
)
THE CLEVELAND ELECTRIC ILLUMIN AllN(5 COMPAki
~
c (LLUMINATING BLDG. e PUBUC SOUARf a CLEVELAND OHIO 44101 = TELEPHONE (216) 6231350 m MAIL ADDRf$$;
P. O. BOX SOOO Semng The Best Locatro. r the Nation June 29, 1977 r
lI 1
r Mr. George S. Pofok, Systems Engineer j
Division of Utilities Engineering Department of Public Utilities i
1201 Lakeside Avenue p
=
Cleveland, Ohio 44114' 3
I
Dear Mr. Pofok:
Your letter dated May 6,1977 to Mr. R. A. Miller which we received May 19, 1977, has been referred to me. As you know, I am the alternate representative j
of The Illuminating Caupany on the Administrative Ccmnittee provided for in
.the CEI-Cleveland Agreenent of April 17, 1975.
\\
Subsequent to receipt of your letter, Council of the City of Cleveland, on 1
May 23, 1977, enacted an orrlimnce authnriving the mala of the Municipal Electric Light Plant's systen to The Illuminating Ccrapany. Cn June 7, 1977, r
the Executive Ccmnittee of the Board of The Cleveland Electric Il3 2ninating Crapany accept.ed the proposal of sale authorized in that or inanm and author-a ized the officers of the coupany to carry out the accept.arce of the sale of the assets of the Mmicinal Electric Light System.
This would appear to make the issue of whaaling PASNY power noot. However, p
in the interim before th actual transfer of the aunicipal systen takes place, if the City is able to ac+mally get any power and energy frcrn the Power Au-t thority of the State of New York (PASNY) delivered to the system of The T11"minating cmpany, in empliance with the conditions imposed by the Atanic Safety and Licensing Board on the issuance of the Operating TAcanse for Davis-Besse No.1 and the Construction Permits for Perry No.1 and Perry No. 2, The Illuninating Company will provide transnission services for that PASNY pwer and energy to a delivery point of the City. He, of course, would also provide transnission services for the City fran any source other than the Power Author-u ity of the State of New York to a delivery point of the City. The Illuminating
[
Ccanpany would also provide 'hsion services for power and energy of the City to a delivery point on CEI's systen to another entity. The Illuminating t_
Coupany's agreenent to provide such transmission services.would tamimte upon the date of the final decision'of the Nuclear Regulatory Ccmnission in the antitrust review associated with the licenses and permits for the Davis-Besse and Perry relaar units which is presently pending before an Appeal Board.
Such transmission services would be provided in accordance with a service schedule such as the draft which accanpanies this letter which differs frcm the draft which you forwarded with your letter.
I
June 29, 1977 i
Mr. George S. Pofok, Systems Engineer Division of Utilities Engineering Paga 2 r-Depau.6 nit of Pnh14e' Utilities f'
If you believe scrne useful purpose would be sead by rneeting to elice, ass this O
draft, we can get together. I will wait until I hear further from you.
I, Very truly yours, e
) /
d m I'lu 0 tN, b ->,
g.
c Wi114 = N. Bingham Principal Rate Engineer i
r hNB:jc Ene 1 =n
~
cc: City of Cleveland, Iaw Department s
O 9
D l 9 G
r- ~
4 SERVICE SCHEDULE C TRANSMISSION SERVICES r
~
Under Agreement Dated April 17, 1976 Between 7
The Cleveland Electric Illuminating Company and
[
The City of Cleveland, Department of Public Utilities t
.SECTION 1 - DURATION 1.1 This Service Schedule, a part of an Agreement dated April 17, 1975, I
(Agreement) between The Cleveland Electric Illuminating Company (CEI) and the City of Cleveland (City) shall become effective on the i
day of
, 1977 and shall continue in effect for one
~
year, and thereafter for similar periods unless changed, modified, or
{
superseded.
1.2 This Schedule shall be subject to the jurisdiction of the governmental f
bodies having regulatory authority over services rendered hereunder.
This Schedule, the services to be rendered, compensation and the terms, i
conditions, and rates included herein are subject to being superseded, u
j changed, or modified either in whole or in part, made from time to time by a legally effective filing of CEI with or by order of the regulatory authoriti having jurisdiction and both CEI and the City shall have the right at any time to seek unilaterally superseding services, compensation, terms, conditions, and rates from such regulatory authority.
1.3 This Service Schedule shall terminate and be of no force and effect on and l
after the date of the final decision of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission L
in the antitrust proceedings associated with the lice.nses and permits for i
j the Davis-Besse and' Perry nuclear units.
l
r e
2_
l.
SECTION 2 - SERVICES TO BE RENDERED 2.1 CEI shall within the limits of the capacity of its bulk transmission facilities, and related facilities, of which CEI shall be the sole judge, without undue interference with service to its 'custo.:,ers (customers shall V
be deemed to include other' interconnected systems the operations of which are c'onducted, in whole or in part, pursuant to the provisions of an agree-r ment with CEI, including other members'of the CAPC0 group), and to the extent that such transmission does not, in the sole judgment of CEI, im-pose a burden upon the System of CEI, from time to time, upon'(i) written request by City for the reservation of transmission capacity for a period of not less than 12 consecutive' calendar months, (ii) concurrence in such request by CEI, (iii) tha execution and delivery of a Supplemental Schedule, as provided below, (1,
,ancurrence by CEI from time to time in the maximum amount reserved and the duration (not less than 12 consecutive calendar months for any single transmission service) of the service so requested to be reserved, transmit from an Interconnection Point established pursuant to such Supplemental Schedul.e, to City, power in an amount up to but not exceeding the amount reserved, and the energy associated-therewith; or transmit from City to an Interconnection Point established pursuant to such Supplemental Schedule for the account of City for a patron of City, power in an amount up to but not exceeding the amount reserve'd, and the energy associated therewith (with the amounts of power and energy appropriately adjusted for losses).
The Interconnection Point from which, or to which, any such power and energy shall be transmitted shall be established by mutual agreement between the
~. - - + - -
~.s..
c 3-Parties to the Agreement and shall be set forth in a Supplemental Schedule f
to the Agreement, which shall also contain the arrangements, and the obli-gations which City is assuming, in connection with the construction, operation and maintenance of the facilities necessary to provide such Interconnection Point and such delivery point and the scheduling from time to time of transmission between such points.
SECTION 3 - COMPENSATION r
3.1 City shall, with respect to transmission services which shall be reserved during any period of not less than 12 consecutive calendar months (the Reserved Period) under this Schedule, pay to CEI monthly:
3.11 an amount calculated separately for each Interconnection Point equal to the product of (i) $.72 and (ii-) the maximum amount of Ir.0ctts P
.which shall have been reserved (the Reserved Quantity) for trans-mission from or to such Interconnectiois Point during the I;eserved r-Period;provided,however,that(a)ifatanytimeduringsaid l
Reserved Period (i) the amount of gwer and energy actually delivered at the delivery point, (ii) adjusted for losses thereon " rom or to the Interconnection Point for which such transmission servica shall be so reserved, shall exceed (iii) the actual amount of power and energy received at the receiving point, the exces's shall be der med to be, and, if in excess of A110wable' Inadvertent Power, shall be pid for' by City as an unscheduled inadvertent power delivery under Section 4.3.2 of the Agreement of which this Schedule is a part.
3.12 there shall be added to any amount calculated pursuant to any of the foregoing provisions of this Section 3.1 an amount in dollars suffi-e e
w
..e G.
.s.-
cient to reimburse CEI for any amounts paid or payable by it as sales.
exciseorsimilartaxes(otherthantaxesbaseduponormeasuredby
~
net income) in respect of the total amount payable by Cleveland to i
CEI, after provision for such taxes to realize the net amount payable F.
by City under such provision.
I IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have caused this Agreement to this' Service Schedule C, " Transmission Services", to be executed by their duly authorized officers this I
day of 1977.
THE CLEVELAND ELECTRIC ILLUMINATING COMPANY 1
Attest:
By L
CITY OF CLEVELAND Attest:
By no e
W 9
5 e
h 1
9
_-,--v-3
,