Resolution No. 5997
10
11
12
13
14
us
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
..,
1
RESOLUTION NO. 5997
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF VERNON APPROVING AND AUTHORIZING
THE EXECUTION OF A FIRM TRANSMISSION
SERVICE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF
VERNON AND SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON
COMPANY FOR THE TRANSMISSION OF CAPACITY
AND ASSOCIATED ENERGY PURCHASED FROM THE
SALT RIVER PROJECT (SRP) OR FROM THE LOS
ANGELES DEPARTMENT OF WATER AND POWER
(LADWP) PURSUANT TO A POWER SALE AGREEMENT
WITH SRP AND A TRANSPORTATION AND POWER
SALE AGREEMENT WITH LADwp
~
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Vernon adopted
9
Resolution No. 5933 on June 4, 1991, which approved and
authorized the execution of a Firm Power Sale Agreement with SRP
for the purchase of capacity and associated energy from August
1, 1991 through December 31, 1994; and
WHEREAS, the city Council of the City of Vernon adopted
Resolution No. 5934 on June 4, 1991, which approved and
authorized the execution of a Firm Transmission Service
Agreement (FTSA) with an associated power sale option with LADWP
for the transportation of capacity and associated energy
purchased from SRP pursuant to the Power Sale Agreement with SRP
and replacement capaci ty and associated energy from LADWP from
August 1, 1991 through December 31, 1994; and
WHEREAS, the power sale arrangement with SRP provides
for the delivery of capacity and associated energy to LADWP, and
the FTSA with LADWP provides that LADWP will accept deliveries
of capacity and associated energy from SRP and deliver said
capacity and associated energy to Southern California Edison
Company (SCE) at the Victorville-Lugo interconnection; and
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
WHEREAS, Vernon needs to obtain firm transmission
service from SCE from the Victorville-Lugo interconnection to
Vernon in order to make use of the capacity and associated
energy purchased from SRP or the replacement capacity and
associated energy purchased from LADWP; and
WHEREAS, the City of Vernon requested from SCE firm
transmission service from Victorville-Lugo to Vernon on June 30,
1989 and June 21, 1991; and
WHEREAS, SCE has presented to the ci ty of Vernon at
Vernon's request SCE's proposed Edison-Vernon Salt River Project
Firm Transmission Service Agreement on July 19, 1990 and August
20, 1991, for firm transmission service by SCE in connection
with Vernon's agreement with SRP and the LADWP; and
WHEREAS, the City of Vernon has attempted to engage in
negotiations with SCE for this FTSA to provide transmission
service for the capacity and associated energy purchased from
SRP andlor LADWP; and
WHEREAS, Vernon's City Attorney requested, in letters
to SCE's resale account and power contracts manager dated August
27, 1990 and September 5, 1991, attached hereto and made a part
hereof as Exhibits A and B, respectively, that the agreement
include various provisions, including:
(i) a provision relating to curtailments, and requested
that SCE include a provision in the agreement where Vernon
reserves the right to file with the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission (FERC) a request for revision of the curtailment
section if such a request can be supported by court remand in a
-2-
1 proceeding for the judicial review of FERC's opinion in Docket
2 No. ER84-75 (Phase II); and
3 (ii) that the FTSA be modified in order to be able to
4 be used for deliveries of non-firm energy from SRP at times that
5 Vernon elected not to purchase and receive firm power from SRP,
6 and further modified at page 9, lines 5 through 8, Section 6.5
7 because it impacts the interpretation of the FERC approved
8 Partial Requirement Tariff SchedUle, and modified to conform to
9 various other issues raised in said letters; and
10 WHEREAS, SCE has refused Vernon's request for inclusion
11 of these modifications, and SCE has stated its unwillingness
12 either to preserve Vernon's right to litigate before the FERC
13 any of these modifications, including such standards for
14 curtailment or interruption of service, or to make such
15 standards contingent on a final court determination in Docket
16 No. ER84-75 (Phase II); and
17 WHEREAS, the City council finds that SCE's refusal to
18 include Vernon's proposed modifications in the FTSA, its refusal
19 even to provide in the FTSA that Vernon is permitted to litigate
20 the aforesaid matters upon SCE's tender of the FTSA for filing
21 with the FERC without jeopardy to Vernon as to the timely
22 commencement of SCE's services provided for in the FTSA, and its
23 refusal even to allow for revision of the aforesaid standards of
24 curtailment or interruption, consti tutes bad faith on the part
25 of SCE and a failure of SCE to fairly implement its 1972
26 Settlement Agreement with Vernon, and a reflection of SCE's
27 recogni tion of the unequal bargaining power of the parties by
28
-3-
<,
1 virtue of the fact that SCE' s failure to reach agreement with
2 Vernon on the provisions of the FTSA can jeopardize Vernon's
3 ability to purchase the aforesaid capacity and associated energy
4 from SRP andlor LADWP; and
5 WHEREAS, SCE has placed Vernon in the same position
6 with regard to this FTSA as it has in connection with prior
7 arrangements negotiated between the parties; namely, the
8 position of having to elect between acceptance of SCE' proffered
9 FTSA or having no FTSA for the transmission of capacity and
10 associated energy to which Vernon is contractually entitled from
11 SRP andlor LADWP; and
12 WHEREAS, the aforesaid capacity and associated energy
13 from SRP andlor LADWP will be of great value to Vernon; and
14 WHEREAS, SCE has submitted a SRP/LADWP Firm
15 Transmission Service Agreement which SCE represents is its final
16 compromise offer; and
17 WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Vernon intends
18 to approve this agreement under protest to authorize the Mayor
19 to execute said agreement and to instruct the City Administrator
20 to write a letter to SCE expressing the City Council'S protest.
21 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF
22 THE CITY OF VERNON AS FOLLOWS:
23 SECTION 1: The City Council of the city of Vernon
24 hereby finds and determines that the recitals contained
25 hereinabove are true and correct.
26 SECTION 2: The City Council of the city of vernon
27 hereby approves the Edison-Vernon Firm Transmission Service
28
-4-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Agreement For Vernon's Purchases From Salt River Project, a copy
of which has been presented to the Ci ty Council concurrently
with this resolution, and the city Council hereby orders said
Agreement to be received and filed by the City Clerk.
SECTION 3: The City Council of the City of Vernon
hereby authorizes the Mayor and the City Clerk to execute said
Agreement for, and on behalf of, the City of Vernon and hereby
instructs the City Administrator to write a letter to SCE
expressing the protest of the City Council.
SECTION 4: The City Clerk of the city of Vernon shall
certify to the passage of this resolution and thereupon and
thereafter the same shall be in full force and effect.
APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 1st day of October, 1991.
-~
City Clerk
-5-
1 STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
)ss
2 COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES )
3 I, BRUCE V. MALKENHORST, City Clerk of the City of
4 Vernon, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution, being
5 Resolution No. 5997, was duly adopted by the City Council of the
6 City of Vernon at a regular meeting of the City council duly
7 held on Tuesday, October 1. 1991. and thereafter was duly signed
8 by the Mayor of the City of Vernon.
10
~
9
11
12 (SEAL)
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-6-
EXHIBIT
A
'"
,-
,
CITY COUNCIL
.
~
"Ii
l
; i
: I
'..
CITY CLERK ................583-8811
POUCE DEPT. .............. 587-5171
FIRE DEPT. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 583-4821
BUILDING DEPT. . . . . . . . . . . . . 583-8811
PUBUC WORKS DEPT. . . . . . . .583-8811
HEALTH DEPT. .............583-8811
OFFICERS
BRUCE V. MALKENHORST
City Administrator/City Qed'
DAVID B. BREARLEY,
City Attorney
VICfOR H. V AITS,
Director of Community Services
LEWIS R. ADAMS,
DUector of Water &: Power
LEONIS C. MALBURG, Mayor
THOMAS A. YBARRA, Mayor Pro-Tem
Wm. "BILL" DAVIS
H. "LARRY" GONZALES
W. MICHAEL McCORMICK
TELEPHONES
CITY HALL
LARRY SPADT,
FIl'C Olid
LOUIS ROSENKRANTZ
Police Chief
In Reply Refer to:
4305 SANTA FE AVENUE, VERNON, CAUFORNIA 90058
August 27, 1990
VIA TELECOPIER AND MAIL
Mr. Larry E. Williams, Manager
Resale Accounts & Power Contracts
Southern California Edison Company
P. O. Box 800
Rosemead, California 91770
Re: Vernon's Special Condition No. 12 Resources -
Comments to Proposed Firm Transmission Service
Agreements from Edison
Dear Mr. williams:
On July 19, 1990, you transmitted to me copies of Firm
Transmission Service Agreements which would be utilized to
provide firm transmission services for Vernon's special Condition
No. 12 Resources which have been noticed to begin on January 1,
1991.
I have reviewed the proposed agreements and find that they
track the previous CDWR and LADWP Firm Transmission Service
Agreements except for a few items. When Vernon and Edison
negotiated the first CDWR Firm Transmission Service Agreement,
both Vernon and Edison expressed views on various issues which
would provide Vernon with added protection and flexibility.
Since Edison has expressed the opinion many times that FERC
cannot compel Edison to provide terms and conditions of Firm
Transmission Service inVOluntarily, Vernon has been deprived of
the right to have Edison participate in good faith negotiations
on the terms and conditions of Firm Transmission Service
greements. Vernon has objected to Edison's position many times
in the past, and I see nothing to be gained by attempting to
renegotiate these issues today unless the recent FERC events
(i.e., Merger case et. al.) have caused Edison to re-think its
previous position. Therefore, for the record, Vernon does not
intend to waive any of its previous positions expressed in
previous negotiations or in previous or current litigation by not
restating them herein. For a further description of some of
Mr. Larry E. Williams
Page 2
August 27, 1990
those positions, please see my letter to you dated June 24, 1988
re Firm Service for CDWR Power Sales Agreement No.2. The
comments I am submitting herein are focused on those issues
Edison has appeared to have been willing to discuss in the past.
The comments provided below will apply to all of the
transmission service agreements unless otherwise noted. I am in
receipt of the following transmission service agreements
1. Edison-Vernon CDWR Firm Transmission Service Agreement;
2 . Edison-Vernon Firm Transmission service Agreement for
Vernon's Purchases from Los Angeles Department of Water
and Power; ..
3. Edison-Vernon Firm Transmission Service Agreement for
Vernon's Purchases from Salt River project;
4. Edison-Vernon Firm Transmission Service Agreement for
Vernon's Purchases from the city of Pasadena.
COMMENTS ON FIRM TRANSMISSION SERVICE AGREEMENTS
1. The CDWR-Vernon Agreement-Power Sale No. 3 is a three
(3) year agreement; therefore Section 2.5 should be modified
as follows:
If. . .during 1991 through 1993,".
2. The transmission capability-capacity dichotomy in
Section 4 and the procedure for non-jeopardy curtailment in
Section 6.2 are provisions that FERC ALJ zimmet found to be
unreasonable in FERC Docket No. ER 84-75 (Phase II) (Hoover
Firm Transmission). Vernon hereby requests that a) Edison
agree to modify these contracts to conform with the outcome
of these issues in FERC Docket No. ER 84-75 (Phase II) or b)
allow Vernon to relitigate these provisions in connection
with the present contracts without delaying the institution
of service.
3. section 5.2 (ii) should be modified as follows:
. .midnight, December 31, 1993."
4. In the third line of Section 6.2.2 "Sole Judgment"
should be changed to "Reasonable Judgment" in order to comply
with FERC precedent.
"
5. Vernon also suggests that the last sentence of
Section 6.5 that begins with "Further, city shall not
intentionally. ." should be deleted because the first
sentence of Section 6.5 Clearly limits the firm transmission
Mr. Larry E. Williams
Page 3
August 27, 1990
service to a "rate of delivery equal to the amount. . . City
is purchasing. . .".
Vernon and Edison may disagree on the interpretation to
be placed on various provisions in the FERC approved Partial
Requirement Tariff schedule relating to Vernon's discretion
in scheduling integrated and non-integrated resources, but
that disagreement is not relevant to the terms and conditions
of the Firm Transmission Service for Special Condition No. 12
Resources.. Edison's attempt to coerce and force Vernon to
accept a Firm Transmission Service term which denies Vernon
due process in obtaining FERC review of the scheduling
discretion is the type of coercion _which Judge Zimmet ruled
is improper. Therefore, Vernon strenuously rejects such
provision. If ~dison insists on such provision, then Vernon
should be permitted to litigate the reasonableness and
correctness of such provision without delaying the
institution of the Firm Transmission Service. This is not a
transmission issue and the elimination of this restriction
will not adversely affect Edison's position in respect to the
interpretation of the Partial Requirement Tariff schedule.
Vernon would have no objection to including a provision which
would provide that the omission of such clause would not be
considered an admission on Edison's part as to the
interpretation of the Partial Requirement Tariff schedule.
6. The scheduling and dispatching charges are left blank in
Section 8.2, and if Edison's intent is to track the
methodology provided for in FERC Docket No. ER 86-316,
language should be developed to be inserted in the agreement
in the event that the charge methodology is not final at the
time that the contract is executed by both parties.
7. The last sentence of Section 10.1 "Neither Party shall
execute. . .N appears to be a new provision that has not been
inserted in previous transmission service agreements. Would
you please provide an explanation as to the need or
justification for such insertion. After I have received your
explanation, I will be better able to provide an adequate
response.
8. The CPUC rate of return is stated in Section 11.2 of the
CDWR contract as 10.91%. and in the other three contracts as
10.7%. Since the contracts are for a similar time period and
will start on January 1, 1991, it appears that the
appropriate rate of return should be the same for all
contracts.
9. Section 11.3 of Regulatory Authority at the third
sentence which begins II (In addition, if either Party
believes. . .n and all of Section 11.4 appear to compel
Vernon to waive a statutory right. For example,
Mr. Larry E. Williams
Page 4
August 27, 1990
a) There is no need for a rate redetermination
mechanism when Edison reserves the right at any time to
file for a section 205 rate increase. The rate
redetermination procedure is simply a device which
enables Edison to obtain a rate increase without being
required to make a filing under Section 205 which
permits Vernon the benefit of certain consumer
protection provisions.
b) The rate redetermine procedures are strictly one
sided in favor of Edison. Although Vernon may request a
redetermination, Edison calculates it in accordance with
its procedures without Vernon having any rights to
impact the ultimate redetermined:rate.
c) There is not a paragraph which reserves Vernon's
rights to file for a Section 206 rate decrease.
Therefore the provisions in Section 11.4 seem to be
designed to compel Vernon to waive its rights to seek
relief under Section 206 of the Federal Power Act.
COMMENTS ON SPECIAL CONDITION NO. 12 RESOURCES
1. CDWR
Enclosed is a copy of a fully executed copy of Power
Sale Agreement No. 3 which has been reviewed by Edison and,
as indicated in your letter dated March 1, 1990, qualifies as
a Non-Integrated Source under special Condition No. 12.
Therefore, will you please provide an agreement for execution
for Firm Transmission Service consistent with my comments.
2. Los Angeles Department of Water and Power
Vernon has not received an execution copy of the Power
Sale Agreement and will provide a copy of such agreement to
Edison as soon as Vernon receives it. However, Vernon
requests that Edison provide comment to Vernon's proposed
changes to the Firm Transmission service Agreement.
3. salt River Pro;ect
Vernon has not received an execution copy of the Power
Sale Agreement and will provide a copy of such agreement to
Edison as soon as Vernon receives it. However, Vernon
requests that Edison provide comment to Vernon's proposed
changes to the Firm Transmission Service Agreement.
4. city of Pasadena
The city of Vernon has negotiated a power Sale Agreement
with utah Associated Municipal Power system (UAMPS), power
Mr. Larry E. Williams
Page 5
August 27, 1990
Sale Agreement No. 1 (1991-1992) wherein Vernon will receive
at Goodrich 30 megawatts of capacity and associated energy.
Vernon has negotiated a Firm Transmission Service Agreement
with Pasadena where Pasadena will schedule capacity and
deliver energy to Vernon at the Goodrich Substation.
Therefore, Vernon will be using the same Firm Transmission
Service path that was contemplated when Vernon intended to
purchase such capacity and energy from Pasadena. That is,
Firm Transmission Service from the Goodrich Substation to the
City of Vernon. The Power Sale Agreement with UAMPS and the
Firm Transmission service Agreement with Pasadena will be
available shortly and will be provided to Edison. However,
Vernon requires that Edison provide comments to Vernon's
proposed changes to the Firm Transmission Service Agreement.
Vernon representatives are available to meet and further
consider these matters. Please call me in order to arrange a
meeting if you believe a meeting would be helpful.
If you have any questions respecting these comments, please
do not hesitate to call me.
Very truly yours,
\:) o-J \). \)~
David B. Brearley
City Attorney
DBB:nc
Enclosure
- -..,-.-. ..~
I!
j!
I
lil
21
31
41
5~
~
6~
;i
7~
DWR Contract No. E-164391
...
,.
.-'"
"
"
..
iZ
an
5
~
~
9 ~
i!
10:j
11
POWER SALE AGREEMENT NO. 3 (1991-93)
12
13
BE'NEEN
DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES
14
15
OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
AND
16
THE CITY OF VERNON
17
18
19 .
.;
20
21:;
22
23
,24
25
26
27
COURT PAPER
S'rA'I'IE_~
STD.. 113 cREW. ..7:1
- "lIS."", --......
EXHIBIT
B
CITY COUNCIL
LEONIS C. MALBURG, Mayor
THOMAS A. YBARRA, Mayor Pro-Tern
Wm. "BILL" DAVIS
H. "LARRY" GONZALES
W. MICHAEL McCORMICK
TELEPHONES
CITY CLERK . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 583--8811
POLlCE DEPT. ..............587-5171
FIRE DEPT. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 583-4821
BUILDING DEPT. . . . . . . . . . . . . 583-8811
PUBLIC WORKS DEPT. . . . . . . . 5~3-881 1
HEALTH DEPT. .............583--8811
OFFICERS
BRUCE V. MALKENHORST,
City Administrator I City Clerk
DAVID B. BREARLEY,
City Attorney
VICTOR H. V AITS,
Director of Community Services
KENNETH J. DEDARIO
Director of Light &. Power
LARRY SPADT,
Fire Chief
4305 SANTA FE AVENUE, VERNON, CALIFORNIA 90058
CITY HALL
LOUIS ROSENKRANTZ
Police Chief
VIA TELECOPIER AND MAIL
September 5, 1991
In ReptQ)'Y. er 'fP ".c' ~\. 1.-;:
t O"--"'L \; \, \, ./
~/ i l,., (
r- p
.;. ,.......,
Mr. Larry E. Williams
Power Contracts Manager
Southern California Edison Company
P.O. Box 800
Rosemead, CA 91770
Telecopier No. 818-302-9663
Re: Firm Transmission Service Agreement For Vernon's
Purchases From Salt River project and Department
of Water and Power of the City of Los Angeles
Dear Mr. Williams:
This is in response to your letter to me dated August 16,
1991, with attached draft agreement, which was delivered by
messenger on August 20, 1991. Your comments appear to indicate a
misunderstanding of Vernon's intent expressed in my letter to you
of June 21, 1991.
Vernon is requesting 20 MW of firm transmission service from
Edison for service from Victorville-Lugo to Vernon. The firm
transmission service will transmit firm capacity and associated
energy from Salt River Project (SRP) most of the time, and from
the Department of Water and Power of the City of Los Angeles
(LADWP) as replacement capacity at times that LADWP firm service
is curtailed or SRP is unable to make deliveries. Both SRP and
LADWP firm energy deliveries will be dispatched by LADWP to
Edison for delivery at the Victorville-Lugo interconnection.
Further, the capacity and associated energy which is delivered by
LADWP or SRP will be used to satisfy Vernon's notice of 20 MW of
Special Condition No. 12 (SC-12) resource. Therefore, Vernon is
not requesting two different firm transmission services from
different locations.
Mr. Larry E. Williams
Page 2
september 5, 1991
I offer the following comments on the draft FTS agreement you
submitted to me:
1. section 7.7 of the Transmission service Agreement with LADWP
provides for the purchase of capacity and associated energy
during times of curtailment, therefore, Section 2.6 should be
modified at line 20 and the following should be added:
"and provides for the purchase of 20 MW of capacitv
and associated energy at the Victorville-Lugo mid-
point during periods when the firm transmission
service is curtailed or SRP is unable to make
deliveries."
2. June 13, 1991 should be inserted as the day of execution in
Section 4.6 at line 25.
3. Edison will be making schedules with LADWP at the
victorville-Lugo mid-point rather than making schedules with
SRPi therefore, the following change ,should be made on page
4, Section 4.8, line 10: strike the word "SRP" and insert the
word "LADWP".
4. An additional definition should be inserted in order to
define the agreement between Vernon and LADWP which provides
for firm transmission service and the sale and purchase of
capacity and associated energy. Insert on page 5, line 8,
the following definition in Section 4.12:
"Transmission Service Aareement" is an aareement
between LADWP and Vernon which provides for 20 MW
of firm transmission service to Vernon from the El
Dorado Substation. to the victorville-Luqo mid-
point. and provides for the purchase of 20 MW of
capacitv and associated enerqy at the victorville-
Luao mid-point."
5. At page 5, line 8, the original Section 4.12 should be
changed to Section 4.13, Victorville-Luqo Mid-point:.
6. On page 8, Section 6. 6, starting at line 17, the phrase "by
SRP to Edison" should be taken out and on line 18 after "Firm
Power Sale Agreement" the phrase "and the Transmission
Service Aareement" should be added.
7. Vernon objects to the transmission capacity-capability
curtailment dichotomy stated in Section 6.2.1. Vernon
anticipates filing a petition for court review of the FERC's
opinions in Docket No. ER84-75 (Phase II). Accordingly, we
request that the fOllowing be added to Section 6:
6.9 Vernon reserves the right to file with the
Mr. Larry E. Williams
Page 3
September 5, 1991
FERC a reauest for reV1S1on of Section 6 if such a
reauest can be supported bv a court remand in a
proceeding for the iudicial review of the FERC's
opinions in Docket No. ER84-75 (Phase II).
These words would not reflect any sort of Edison concession
and could not prejudice any position that Edison may take in
connection with any court order.
8. On page 8, Section 6.5, starting on line 11, delete the
sentence "Further, Vernon shall not intentionally use the
firm transmission service made available hereunder to meet
that portion of its load which is met by the amounts of
energy scheduled or dispatched from its integrated
resources."
9. On page 11, Section 9.3---
a. on lines 8 and 9, strike the words "The complaining" and
insert the word "Neither" and strike the word "not" after
the word "shall";
b. On line 10, insert the word "other" between the words "the
Party";
c. On line 11, delete the words "submitting each bill within
the time and in the manner herein specified." and insert
the words "in writing within 180 days."
d. After the word "specified" on line 12 on page 11, change
the period to a comma, and add: "provided that nothinq
herein shall be deemed a waiver of Vernon's riaht at any
time to comDlain of overcharge bY Edison where Vernon's
failure to brinq a bill to the attention of Edison within
such 180-day period was due to a cause or causes not
reasonablv chargeable to fault on Vernon's Dart."
10. Vernon objects to the rate redetermination provision included
in Section 11. 3 , starting with the words " In addition" on
line 3 of page 15. The redetermination rights so specified
are not equal as between Edison and Vernon. Although either
party would be able to initiate a redetermination, Edison
alone would have the right to make the redetermination
calculation. The standard that any redeterminated rate
"shall be determined in a manner consistent with the method
by which the initial rate. . .was determined" does not
provide adequate protection for Vernon, particularly in light
Mr. Larry E. Williams
Page 4
September 5, 1991
of the absence from the agreement of a description of how the
initial rate was computed. Because the agreement includes a
reservation of Edison's right to file Federal Power Act
Section 205 rate increases, the right of rate redetermination
is not necessary. The rate redetermination provision should
be deleted.
11. Edison's right to make Federal Power Act Section 205 rate
increase filings is preserved in Section 11.4. To avoid any
possible implication that Vernon has waived Federal Power Act
Section 206 rights, the following should be added to the end
of Section 11.4:
Nothinq herein shall be considered a waiver bv
Vernon of any riqht under Section 206 of the
Federal Power Act.
12. Also, the last sentence of Section 11.4 should be deleted.
Vernon is ready to discuss these matters with Edison at any
time. However, time is of the essence here, since SRP only
extended Vernon's right to initiate the agreement to September
30, 1991.
The City Council of the City of Vernon will meet on September
17, 1991, and be able to approve and execute a Firm Transmission
Service Agreement. Vernon will lose in savings approximately
$100,000 per month for each month that transmission service is
delayed.
I feel compelled to respond to the implications raised in
your letters of August 16, 1991 and July 2, 1991, that Vernon has
abandoned some of the resources noticed during June of 1991.
As I indicated in my letter of June 21, 1991, Vernon has had
to review its resources because of the Edison-Vernon rate
settlement in FERC Docket No. ER88-83. Vernon had communicated
this fact to Edison personnel during several confidential
settlement discussions.
Further, the settlement provided for a power sale agreement
between Edison and Vernon wherein Edison has still not responded
with a proposal. Therefore, Vernon is still reviewing its need
for these resources and expects Edison to honor its firm
transmission service commi tments if Vernon elects to complete
these transactions.
Mr. Larry E. Williams
Page 5
September 5, 1991
If you have any questions respecting the above, please do not
hesitate to call me.
Very truly yours,
Do-J1),~~
David B. Brearley
City Attorney
DBB: j 1
cc: Mr. Thomas E. Taber
Mr. Steve pickett
Mr. Arnold Fieldman
Mr. Bob Clay
Mr. Ken DeDario