ML17207A638

Response in Opposition to Fl Cities 791116 Motion to Lodge FERC Opinion 57-A.No Relation Exists Between FERC Findings Re Tariff Matters & Findings in Present Proceeding Re Antitrust Violations.Certificate of Svc Encl

ML17207A638
Person / Time
Site:	Saint Lucie, Turkey Point
Issue date:	12/03/1979
From:	Bouknight J, Gribbon D COVINGTON & BURLING, FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT CO., LOWENSTEIN, NEWMAN, REIS, AXELRAD & TOLL
To:	NRC COMMISSION (OCM)
References
NUDOCS 7912110438
Download: ML17207A638 (18)

Text

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION QPg 4 13(

Before the Commission

~

'Z/

In the Matter of:

Florida Power 6 Light Company Docket No. 50-335A (St. Lucie Plant, Unit No. 1)

Florida Power a Light Company Docket No. 50-250A (Turkey Point Plant, Units 3 50-251A and 4)

RESPONSE OF FLORIDA POWER 6 LIGHT COMPANY TO CITIES'OTION TO LODGE E C OPINION NO. 57-A 1<a ~y On November 16, 1979, the Cities moved to "lodge" ~

in these dockets FERC Opinion No. 57-A.1/

FPL opposes this latest Motion and relies on the reasons set forth in its Response to Cities Motion to Lodge filed. in this matter on August 24, 1979. The denial of rehearirig leaves Opinion No. 57 subject to judicial review and, further, does nothing to remedy the jurisdictional flaw in Cities'arlier motion: namely, that the FERC's findings concerning the justness and reasonableness of a tariff in no way relate to findings of antitrust violations by a court, of competent, jurisdiction, the predicate for any action under Section 105a of the Atomic Energy Act.

1/ The Cities moved on August 9, 1979 to lodge FERC Opinion No. 57. Opinion 57-A denies rehearing of Opinion No. 57.

Under the Federal Power Act, rehearing must be sought before judicial review of an FERC order can be obtained. '-

16 U.S.C. 58251(a)

I

>~~sr zo

FPL recuests that the Commission deny the Hotion.

Respectfully Submitted, Daniel M. Gribbon Herbert Dym Covington & Burling SSS 16th Street, N.>1.

washington, D.C. 20006 J.A. Bouknight, Jr.

Lowenstein, Newman, Reis, Axelrad and Toll 1025 Connecticut Avenue, N.N.

Washington, D.C. 20036 I

'I John E. Nathews, Jr.

Naihews, Osborne, Ehrlich, NcNatt, Gobelman & Cobb 1500 American Heritage Life Building 11 East Porsyth Street Jacks ille, ori~ 32202 By e J A. Bouknx.gh', Jr.

Att eys for Florida Power & Light Company Dated: December 3, 1979

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COIL>1ISSION Before the Commission.

In the Natter. of:

Florida Power 6 Light Company Docket No. 50-335A

{St. Lucie Plant, Unit No. 1)

Florida Power 6 Laght Company Docket, No. 50-250A

{Turkey Point Plant, Units 3 50-251A and 4)

CEPTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that copies of the following:

RESPONSE OF FLORIDA POWER 6 LIGHT TO CITIES'OVEI'ABER 16 MOTION TO LODGE have been served on the persons shown on the, attached list by deposit in the United States Mail, properly stamped and addressed, on December 3, 1979.

By:

J.A. Bouknag t, Jr.

Lowenstein, Newman, Peis, Axelrad a Toll 1025 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20036 Attorney for Florida Power 6 Light Company

ehaiMan Joseph ll. Hendrie Robert A. Jablon, Esquire Office of the Commissioners Spiegel a HcDiarmid U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2600 Virginia Avenue, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20555 Washington, D.C. 20037 Commissioner Victor Gilinsky Robert Fabricant, Esquire Office of the Commissioners Janet R. Urban, Esquire U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Antitrust Division Washington, D.C. 20555 U.S. Department of Justice P.O. Box 14141 Commissioner Richard Kennedy Washington, D.C. 20044 Office of the Commissioners U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Lee Scott Dewey, Esquire Washington, D.C. 20555 Counsel for the Staff U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Commissioner Peter Bradford Washingt:on, D.C. 20555 Office of the Commissioners U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission C.-R. Stephens, Supervisor (20)

Washington, D.C. 20555 Docketing and Service Station Office of the Secretary of the Commissioner John F. Ahearne Commission Office of the Commissioners U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission LJashington, D.C. 20555 Washington, D.C. 20555 William C. Wise, Esquire Alan S. Rosenthal, Esquire Suite 200 Atomic Safety and Licensing 1019 19th Street, N.Ã.

Appeal Board Panel Washington, D.C. 20036 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.g. 20555 William H. Chandler, Esquire Chandler, O'Neal, Avera, Gray, Jerome E. Sharfman, 'Esquire Lang 6 Atomic Safety and Licensing St:ripling'.O.

Drawer 0 Appeal Board Panel Gainesville, Florida 32602 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Nashington, D.C. 20555 Jerome Saltzman Chief, Antitrust and Indemnity Richard S. Salzman, Esquire Group Atomic Safety and Licensing U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Appeal Board Panel Washington, D.C. 20555 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission D.C., 20555 'ashington, Samuel J. Chilk Secretary Robert M. Lazo, Esauire U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Washington, D.C. 20555 Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Ivan W. Smith, Esquire Chairman, Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Valentine B. Deale, Esquire Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555

~

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION gp g g(g Before the ommission Qogtg tr.

V~a ~."'/

)s/> m In the Matter of: Wll p

Florida Power 6 L'ight Company Docket No ~ 0-335A (St. Lucie Plant, Unit, No. 1}

Florida Power 6 Light, Company Docket No. 50-250A (Turkey Point Plant, Units 3 50-251A and 4)

RESPONSE OF FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY TO CITIES'OTION TO LODGE FERC OPINION NO. 57-A On November 16, 1979, the Cities moved to "lodge" in these dockets FERC Opinion No. 57-A.1/

FPL opposes this latest Motion and relies on the reasons set, forth in its Response to Cities Motion to Lodge filed in this matter on August 24, 1979. The denial of reheariztg leaves Opinion No. 57 subject to judicial review and, further, does nothing to remedy the jurisdictional flaw in Cities'arlier motion: namely, that the FERC's findings concerning the justness and reasonableness of a tariff in no way relate to findings of antitrust violations by a court of competent jurisdiction, the predicate for any action under Section 105a of the Atomic Energy Act.

The Cities moved on August 9, 1979 to lodge FERC Opinion No. 57. Opinion 57-A denies rehearing of Opinion No. 57.

Under the Federal Power Act, rehearing must be sought before judicial review of an FERC order can be obtained.

U.S.C.

'6

$ 8251(a)

FPL recuests that the Commission deny the  !'emotion.

Respectfully Submitted, Daniel N. Gribbon Herbert Dym Covington & Burling 888 16th Street, N.VT.

Washington, D.C.. 20006 J.A. Bouknight, Jr.

Lotwenstein, Newman, Reis, Axelrad and Toll 102S Connecticut Avenue, N.W.

washington, D.C. 20036 John E. Nathews, Jr.

Hathews, Osborne, Ehrlich, PlcNatt, Gobelman & Cobb 1500 American Heritage Life Build'ng 11 East Forsyth Street Jacks ille, ori 32202 By:

J A. Bouknigh , Jr.

Att eys for Florida Power & Light Company Dated: December 3, 1979

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COIE1ISSION Before the Commission, In the Natter. of: )

)

Florida Power 6 Light Company ) Docket No. 50-33SA (St. Lucie Plant, Unit No. 1) )

)

Florida Power 6 La.ght Company ) Docket No. 50-250A (Turkey Point Plant, Units 3 ) 50-251A and 4) )

CEPTIFICATE OF SERVICE 1

I HEREBY CERTIFY that copies of the following:

RESPONSE OF FLORIDA POWER 6 LIGHT TO CITIES'OVEMBER 16 MOTION TO LODGE have been served on the persons shown on the attached list by deposit in the United States Hail, properly stamped and addressed, on December 3, 1979.

By:

J.A. Bouknig t, Jr.

Lowenstein, Newman, Peas, Axelrad & Toll 1025 Connecticut, Avenue, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20036 Attorney for Florida Power 6 Light Company

Chairman Joseph bl. Hendrie Robert A. Jablon, Esquire Office of the Commissioners Spiegel & llcDiarmid U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2600 Virginia Avenue, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20555 Washington, D.C. 20037 Commissioner Victor Gilinsky Robert Fabricant, Esquire Office of the Commissioners Janet R. Urban, Esquire U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Antitrust Division Washington, D.C. 20555 U.S. Department of Justice P.O. Box 14141 Commissioner Richard Kennedy Washington, D.C. 20044 Office of the Commissioners U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Lee Scott Dewey, Esquire Washington, D.C. 20555 Counsel for the St'aff U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Commissioner Peter Bradford Washington, D.C. 20555 Office of the Commissioners U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission C.R. Stephens, Supervisor (20)

Washington, D.C. 20555 Docketing and Service Station Office of the Secretary of the Commissioner John F. Ahearne Commission Office of the Commissioners U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Washington, D.C. 20555 William C. Wise, Esquire

. Alan S. Rosenthal, Esquire Suite 200 Atomic Safety and Licensing 1019 19th Street, H.W.

Appeal Board Panel Washington, D.C. 20036 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.g. 20555 William H. Chandler, Esquire Chandler, O'Heal, Avera, Gray, Jerome E. Sharfman, Esquire Lang 6 Atomic Safety and Licensing Stripling'.O.

Drawer 0 Appeal Board Panel Gainesville, Florida 32602 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Jerome Saltzman Chief, Antitrust and indemnity Richard S. Salzman, Esquire Group Atomic Safety and Licensing U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Appeal Board Panel Washington, D.C. 20555 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. .20555 Samuel J. Chilk Secretary Robert M. Lazo, Esquire U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Washington, D.C. 20555 Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Zvan W. Smith, Esquire Chairman, Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Valentine B. Deale, Esquire Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.. 20555

~ II Ib/8 ~

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Florida Power & Light Company Docket No 0-335 (St. Lucie Plant, Unit No. 1)

Florida Power & Light Company Docket Nos. 50-250A (Turkey Point Plant, Unit Nos. 50-251A 3&4)

FLORIDA CITIESI MOTION TO LODGE On August 9, 1979, Florida Cities 1/ moved to lodge in the above-captioned dockets FERC Opinion No. 57 titled "Opinion and Order Reversing Initial Decision and Rejecting Tariff Availability Limitations and Notice of Cancellation,"

issued on August 3, 1979, in Florida Power & Li ht Co.,

Docket No. ER78-19 (Phase I).

In its August 24, 1979 Response to Florida Cities'otion to Lodge, Florida Power & Light Company ("FP&L")

objected because, among other reasons, FERC's Order was sub-ject to reconsideration by that Commission. On September 4, 1979, FP&L applied for rehearing of Opinion No. 57. In Opinion No. 57-A issued October 4, 1979, the FERC denied FP&L's Application for Rehearing.

1/ Florida Cities include the Fort Pierce Utilities Authority of the City of Fort Pierce, the Gainesville-Alachua County Regional Electric Water and Sewer Utilities, the Lake Worth Utility Authority, the Utilities Commission of New Smyrna Beach, the Orlando Utilities Commission, the Sebring Utilities Commission, and the Cities of Alachua, Bartow, St.

Fort Cloud Meade, Key West, Lake Helen, Mount Dora, Newberry, and Tallahassee, Florida, and the Florida Municipal Utilities Association.

For the reasons set forth in their August 9, 1979 Motion to Lodge, Florida Cities hereby respectfully move that FERC's Opinion and Order Denying Rehearing, issued on October 4, 1979 in Florida Power a Li ht Com an, FERC Docket No. ER78-19 (Phase I), et al., a copy of which is attached, be lodged in the above-captioned dockets..

Respectfully submitted, 4'<~c 6, Robert A. Jab on Attorney for the Fort Pierce Utilities Authority of the City of Fort Pierce, the Gainesville-Alachua County Regional Electric Water and Sewer Utilities, the Lake Worth Utility Authority, the Utilities Commission o f New Smyrna Beach, the Orlando Utilities Commission, the Sebring Utilities Commission, and the Cities of Alachua, Bartow, Fort Meade, Key West, Lake Helen, Mount Dora, Newberry, St. Cloud, and Tallahassee, Florida, and the Florida Municipal Utilities Association

Enclosure:

FERC Opinion and Order Denying Rehearing dated October 4, 1979 November 16, 1979 Law Offices of:

Spiegel & McDiarmid 2600 Virginia Avenue, N. W.

Suite 312 Washington, D. C. 20037 (202)333-4500

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Florida Power & Light Company Docket No. 50-335A (St. Lucie Plant, Unit No. 1)

Florida Power & Light Company Docket Nos. 50-250A (Turkey'oint Plant, Unit Nos. 50-251A 3&4)

AFFIRMATION OF SERVICE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, ss:

I, SUSAN G. WHITE, being first duly sworn, affirm that copies of the foregoing FLORIDA CITIES'OTION TO LODGE in the above-captioned proceeding have this 16th day of November, 1979, been served upon the following persons by deposit in the U. S. mail, first class, postage prepaid:

Chase Stepehens, Chief Herbert Dym, Esq.

Docketing & Service Section Daniel Gribbon, Esq.

Nuclear Regulatory Commission Joanne Grossman, Esq.

Washington, D. C. 20555 Covington & Burling 888 16th Street, N. W.

Lee Dewey, Esq. Washing ton, D. C. 20006 Fred Chanania, Esq..

Dave Evans, Esq. Mel Berge, Esq.

Office of the Executive Mildred Calhoun, Esq.

Legal Director Department of Justice Nuclear Regulatory Commission 1101 Pennsylvania Avenue, N. W.

Washington, D. C. 20555 Washington, D. C. 20530 Ivan W. Smith, Chairman John E. Mathews, Jr., Esq.

Atomic Safety & Licnesing Board Mathews, Osborne, Ehrlich, Nuclear Regulatory Commission McNatt, Gobelman & Cobb Washington, D. C. 20555 1500 American Heritage Life Building Robert Lazo, Esq. Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Atomic Safety & Licensing Board Nuclear Regulatory Commission J. A. Bouknight, Jr., Esq.

Washington, D. C. 20555 E. Gregory Barnes, Esq.

Lowenstein, Newman, Reis & Axelrad Jerome Saltzman, Chief 1025 Connecticut Avenue, N. W.

Antitrust & Indemnity Group Washington, D. C. 20555 Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C., 20555 Valentine B. Deale, Esq.

Atomic Safety & Licensing Board Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C. 20555

rSusan G. Whi e Subscribed and sworn to before me thi 16th y of November, 1979.

yN tary Public /

My Co~!:"ton K::padres jan. 31, 1932

r ~

~ .

=D S::. -S, 0= ~2 .= C%

5 Agf At

~oi>> i4 Ms'~

(tf % 8/lt 0 $ +fan'JaQg pQQg$ 0 sea f vw~vso C":.~:. ~ ~tO.

) Octa" Ncs. --378-19

) (2:.awe X) ar.c.

) "=3.7 8-8 1 OP ZN:CH ~~i'D CBQZP. D~c..tv~3G 3:-:"- 4~~7G Ql <<o Cc>>cue 'tg '/9

UNITED S A ES QP A~:.RICA

.. EDENTAL ENERGY REGULATORS CCi+.'IISS ION 3efcr Commissioners: Cha les 3. Cu=-s, Cha'a .;

Geo-"'ana She'don, liat='we~;o'en, and Ceo"c R. Hall.

"-lorida Power 8 Licht Docket Nos. "-R78-19 Company (Phase I) anc ER78-81 OPINION NO. 57-A OP INION AÃD ORDER DENYING RE:"EARING (Issued Cc""be 4, 1979)

On August 3, 1979, the Commission issued Opinion No. 57

'n "aese consolidated proceecings which rejectec the proposal of ."-lorida Power & Ligh" Company (."-P6L or Company) to limit the availability of its firm wholesale recuirements service to cer "ain named and existing customers. Notices of cance'-

lat on fi'ec by PPGL vi"h regard to two existing wholesale j

cus" amer s wer e also r e ec ted, because the v wer e based on the Companv's "est ictive availabi'tv proposal. In our decis'on ve found that FPGL's proposals vere unjust and unreasonable under the stancards of Sections 205 and 206 o" the ."-

ceral Powe. Act, particula lv because of their anticompeti" ive ef-

=ec"s. On September 4, 1979, PP&L filed an appl'cation for rehearing of Opinion Ho. 57 in which 't requests that th decision be modified in certain lim'ed respects. 1/ The Com-pany has raised no legal or factual consideration not are-viouslv consicered anc we shall deny the application. However, we wsh "a r mphasi o the ho'd'nc of our oainion in 1'cht of seve al representa 'ons made by .">>Pa in its 'atest pleac'na.

":PRL now res a willingness to prov'ce wholesale se v .'ce under its t riifs "o a number o" ":lorica recu'rements acc'esents u='l'".'es in "'on to those prese..tl v served:

..e Com anv is e'he>> serving I o>> is w'lli, c ta "rovice servce to, the following: Clewiston; 1/ No a=her "arty a-pliec, ar rehear'.-.c.

"ccket Dos. "-R7S-l9 (Phase ) arc "-R78-81 orida P bl'c U'ilit'es at, Fernancina Beach;

.>>ort Pierce; Green Cove Springs; Homestead; Jacksonville Beach; Key Egest; E,ake Helen; E,ake North; Hew Smyrna Beach; Starke; Vero Beach; Clay "-lectric Cooperative; Florida Keys Elect ic Cooperative; Glades =lectric Cooperat've; Eee County "-lee.r ic Cooperative; Oke fenokee Rural

"-'ec" ic Cooperat've; Peace River Electric Cooperative; and 'Suwanee Valley Electric Coopera-tive. Reasonable terms and conditions, including reasonab'e notice provisions, will, of course, be necessary, as toe Commission 'selr recogn'es

( mimeo, p. 40 ) .

The Company is willi..g to continue provid'ng service to the cooperatives list d above to he .extent of their loacs in the geographical areas in which thev are now receiving service om FP& j. Z/

No cont=ove sy .emains recardinc the provis'on of wholesale recuirements service to these uti' ies. Also, FP&E, now agrees to provide recuirements service to "new ut'lities in its service area "hat may be establ'shed bv those en-ti ies i" pr esentlv serves at'etail .. ~

." 3/

.he sole purpose of FP&L's appl'cat'on is to recuest

.that we modify Opinion No. 57 to perm't the insertion of a new ava'labi'ity restriction into the Company's recu're-ments se v'ce " rif=s. FP&E now proposes to exc'uce large sel=-sufficient utilities, 'ncluding the Jacksonv'l'e

=-lect ic Authcritv, the Orlando Utilit'es Commission anc the C'y of Ga'nesville. The Company does not ropresent hat any such large utility has recuested serv'ce.

2/ Application for Rehearinc of Florida Power & Light Company at 3. Two of these ut'l't'es, Fort Pierce- anc Homes eac, were the subjects o the not'ces of cence'la"'on rejected in Opinion Nc . 57.

3/ :d. a 2. Se , Cpin'on No. 57 at 39.

Dcclcet Ncs ~ 78 La I'Dhase 7) and

-278-8'u"cort o '"s recuest for modifica>>ion ."-P&L rei" rates he arguments corsice>>ed dur'ng our earli r deliberations.

argues that our dec s'on should be mod'fied in l'ght of the Company's wheel'ng'olicy and opportunities offered to othe>>

util ties to gart'c'gate in ."-P&L's St. Lucie No. 2 nuc ear

~

gower "lant.

Ne shall not consider adoption of the Companv's new grogosa't this stage of the proceedings. Z ."-'P&L wishes to grooose any term or cond'tion of service under i"s

>>ecu'>>ements tari>>f, the Company should do so in a new fil'na

~herein i" should be prepared to demonst=ate that the grogosaL

's "the least an icomgetve method of oi taininc legitimate "lanning or other objectives." 4/

The Comm'ss.'on orders:

."-'P&L', agglication for rehearing of Opin'on No. 57 is herebv cenied.

Bv the Commiss'on.

(S=.A' Kenneth: . P lumb, Sec=et xy.

Cg .". cn No. 0/ at 2 ~