Power companies' PUHCA exemption bill to have hearing

THE

N

EWS

F

0

c u s

with commercial operation ex-

er President Richard Disbmw, at

Commission, told the NARUC

pected in 1989. Construction on

its July 26 meeting in San Diego.

Committee that the EEI bill poses

Unit 2 would begin in September,

Under the EEI bill, said Disbrow,

serious problems. “The proposed

1989.

an IPP could be anyone who

legislation does not address the

owns or operates facilities used

monopoly power that utility-

for wholesale sales, but would ex-

owned IPI3 would have by virtue

clude retail sellers. The bill would

of being authorized to own the

-Kennedy

P. Maize

Companies’ PUHCA Exemption Bill To Have Hearing Power

exempt an IPP from regulation

interconnecting transmission facil-

under the Holding Company Act.

ities . . . . Indeed, the legislation

NARUC Committee members,

simply includes such transmis-

The Energy and Power Subcom-

still pondering the effects of the

sion facilities in the definition of

U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in

IPPs, which are then exempted

mittee of the House Energy and

Mississippi Pozuer & Light Co. v.

from KJHCA requirements,” said

Commerce Committee will hold

Mississippi, -U.S._

Nixon.

(June 24,

Also addressing the NARUC

hearings in September on a meas-

1988), responded cautiously but

ure that has no identified sponsor

respectfully to Disbrow’s PUHCA

group was industrial customer

and has not yet been introduced.

bill, which he characterized as be-

spokesman Dr. John Anderson.

The bill, prepared under auspices of

ing needed to permit investor-

Anderson said industrial groups

the Edison Electric Institute (EEB,

owned utilities or their affiliates

believe any changes in PUHCA

would exempt “independent power

to compete with other suppliers.

sought by the private utilities

producers” (IPI%)-including

affil-

should be considered in the con-

“The provisions of the Holding

iates of investorowned utilities or

Company Act stand as a signifi-

text of an amendment to PURPA,

registered holding companies-

cant hurdle to the development of

since it involves unregulated, non-

from pmvisions of the Public Utility

independent power producers,”

utility resources. “Nothing should

said D&brow. “Our proposal

be done in this area without a

would provide that IPP owner-

commitment on transmission by

(D-IN)] has not decided what

ship or partial ownership would

the utilities,” said Anderson.

should be done, if anything,” said

not in and of itself change [al com-

do so would make the competi-

Subcommittee Counsel Richard

pany’s status under the Holding

tive situation worse, not better.”

Lehfeldt. “But the companies have

Company Act.”

Holding Company Act (PUHCA). “The Chairman [Rep. Phil Sharp

made their case to Committee

“To

NARUC Committee members also received a paper prepared by

Disbrow said the EEI bill also

members and the Chairman felt it

provides that a holding company

Washington, D.C. consumer-

was time for a hearing on the mat-

or its associated companies could

group attorney Scott Hempling

ter. We don’t expect any action in

establish an BY? and negotiate

which was sharply critical of the

this session.”

arrangements with the IPP with-

proposed EEI bill. Hempling

out need of prior Securities and

urged the NARUC group not to

been taking their case to the pub-

Exchange Commission (SEC)

lic, including such unlikely allies

permission, though SEC would

take action on the EEI proposal. Until there is clarification of the

EEI proponents of the bill have

as the American Public Power

maintain control over financial

states’ role in regulation after the

Association and the National

relationships between the holding

Mississippi Power & Light case,

Association of Regulatory Utility

company and any IPP affiliate.

“states should not risk any further

Commissioners (NARUC)

.

NARUC’s Electricity Committee heard from a proponent of the measure, American Electric Pow-

loss in authority by supporting

Critics of the EEI exemption measure were quick to respond.

the formation of new utility affil-

Walter W. Nixon, III, special coun-

iates,” Hempling said. Rep. John Bryant (D-TX) has

sel to the Arkansas Public Service

i

i

6

TheElectricity Journal

THE

N

F

EWS

0

C

U

S

also introduced a PUHCA exemp-

litigating for the rest of our lives.”

issues at the plant at the request

tion bill, which would permit util-

She says the Dallas-based utility

of the citizens group. The agree-

ities to invest in non-utility enter-

has realized “we have something

ment provides for CASE represen-

prises without being considered a

to offer to make the plant safer”

tation on the project operations

holding company

and cites as a turning point in the

review committee for at least five

is similar to an earlier bill rejected

negotiations a letter that Texas

years or until Comanche Peak’s

by the same Subcommittee sever-

Utilities Electric Co. Vice Presi-

second unit has been in operation

al years ago.

dent W. G. Counsil sent to her

for a year.

The Bryant bill

which admitted that company

PeaceBreaks Out At Comanche Peak

When asked what would hap

management had not been as sen-

pen if the CASE representative

sitive as it could have been. “That

were to be out-voted on a safety

started us talking,” Ellis said.

matter while serving on the committee, Ellis said “we still have the

Texas Utilities may have ended 14

ability to walk out of the meeting

years of war over its still unfinished

and call a press conference to

Comanche Peak nuclear plant by

raise Cain.” “The utility knows

entering into a novel agreement

we’ve never been bashful,” she

that gives a citizens group an offi-

adds. Dick Ramsey, communications

cial role in monitoring plant operations. The Citizens Association for

director for Texas Utilities, said

Sound Energy (CASE), which has

the settlement removes a major

dogged the troubled tracks of the

adverse impact on the licensing

Dallas-based utility’s only nuclear

schedule for Comanche Peak,

plant for over a decade, dropped its

since more hearings would have

remaining contentions in the feder-

meant delay and additional ex-

al licensing proceedings that have

penses. The plant’s price tag is

been examining safety problems at Comanche Peak since 1981, in ex-

that while the utility still has to

change for a continuing role in pmj

already $9 billion. Ramsey noted The citizens group will be able to monitor operations on a continuing basis.

prove to NRC staff that it has met all pm-licensing safety concerns, it

ect oversight extending into the plant operating period. In July the

Texas Utilities agreed to pay the

will no longer have to do so in a

U.S. Atomic Safety Licensing Board

citizens group $4.5 million for it’s

confrontational hearing environ-

dismissed the licensing proceedmgs

expenses incurred over the past

ment.

in the wake of the agreement.

10 years and to pay up to $5.5 mil-

He said the company hopes to

lion to settle outstanding lawsuits and claims filed by former Com-

have Comanche Peak licenses by

group to monitor decisions as

anche Peak workers and whistle-

end of 1989. Texas Utilities now

they are being made, instead of

blowers. As a result of the agree-

owns 87.8 percent of the plant

criticizing them after the fact. She

ment, in August mid-level Texas

and expects to take over 97.8 per-

says the group still has concerns

Utilities managers will undergo

cent, when deals to buy out the

CASE President Juanita Ellis says the pact allows the citizens

mid-1989 and in operation by the

about the utility’s implementation

training in better ways to deal

ownership shares of Texas Munici-

plan to correct deficiencies at the

with whistleblowers.

pal Power and Brazos Electric

plant located 80 miles southwest of Dallas, but after 14 years of

also promised to foot the bill for

Power Coop receive regulatory

up to $150,000 a year for technical

approval.

fighting, she adds “we can’t keep

consultants to research safety

August/September

The utility

7