ML19208C626

Response by Util to Intervenor Skagitonians Concerned About Nuclear Power 790710 Motion to Compel Answers to 790625 Discovery Request.Util Did Not Withhold Info Re Use of Generating Subsidiary.Certificate of Svc Encl

ML19208C626
Person / Time
Site:	Skagit
Issue date:	07/17/1979
From:	Thomsen F PERKINS, COIE (FORMERLY PERKINS, COIE, STONE, OLSEN, PUGET SOUND POWER & LIGHT CO.
To:
References
NUDOCS 7909270159
Download: ML19208C626 (5)

Text

'

MG PUBLIC DCCUMENT Rooy

. e ,

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSICN BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD

~.._

In the Matter of )

)

PUGET SOUND POWER & LIGHT ) Docket Nos. 50-522 COMPANY, et al., ) 50-523

)

(Skagit Nuclear Power Project )

Units 1 and 2) ) July 17, 1979

)

APPLICANTS' REPLY TO INTERVENOR SCANP'S MOTION TO COMPEL ANSWERS On June 25, 1979 Intervenor SCANP served a set of interrogatories and requests for production purportedly based on a newspaper article of June 7, 1979. The article reviewed some of the background of the Pacific Northwest regional power legislation that has been under consideration by Congress since 1977 and scme of the pros and cons of the possible use by the private utilities of the region (if that legislation is adopted as proposed) of generating subsidiaries to own and operate new power plants under an arrangement whereby the output would be purchased by the BPA. The article pointed out that use of this alternative financing probably would require a legislative exemption from the Public Utility Holding Company Act of 1935, the wisdom of which has been questioned by some, as well as legislative authority for he BPA to purchase the output of such projects, which has also been questioned.

7909270K7 -

1050 149

On July 6, 1979 Applicants objected to SCANP's inter-rogatories and requests on the dual grounds that they were

' untimely and also seek information outside the permissible scope of discovery under the Commission's regulations. In their response, Applicants pointed out, as is evident from their prefiled testimony on financial qualifications, that i

Applicants, in demonstrating their ability to finance the Skagit Project, do not rely on the benefits that might result from (a) the adoption of regional power legislation, (b) the formation of a generating subsidiary company, or (c) the purchase by the BPA of the output of the Skagit units. As is apparent from the newspaper article relied on by SCANP, the regional power bill, including the proposed exemption from the Holding Company Act and the proposed authorization for the BPA to purchase the oittput of new plants, continues to be the subject of considerable public discussion and dif-ference of opinion, as it has been since it was originally introducted in 1977. Obviously Applicants are not able to predict whether or when or in what form regional power legis-lation might be adopted or whether, if adopted, the use of a generating subsidiary might prove feasible and advantageous for financing the Skagit Project. Accordingly they have not relied on that possibility in demonstrating their ability to finance the Skagit Project for th'e purposes of this proceeding.

On July 10, 1979 SCANP filed a' motion to compel answers to its interrogatories and requests. Among other things,

\DSD \50 SCANP's motion suggests that Applicants " withheld infor-mation" concerning the possible use of a generating sub-sidiary until the newspaper article of June 7 and that they were " derelict" in failing to include a description of this possibility in their financial qualifications testimony.

This is ridiculous. The possibility of using generating subsidiaries to facilitate the financing of new generating plants has been of interest to the utility industry for many years, and such subsidiaries have been successfully used by those able to secure exemptions from the Public Utility Holding Company Act. A legislative exemption has long been included in the proposed regional power bill and has been the subject of considerable discussion in the industry and in legislative hearings. The June 7 article on which SCAMP relies could not have been " news" to anyone even casually following the course of the regional power bill during the past several years.

DATED: July 17, 1979 Respectfully submitted, PERKINS, COIE, STONE, OLSEN & W rLIA33 Bi s F. Theodore Thomsen Attorneys for Applicants 190.0 Washington Building Of Counsel: Seattle, Washington 98101 (206). 682-8770 Lowenstein, Newman, Reis, Axelrad & Toll 1025 Connecticut Avenue N.W.

Washington, D. C. 20036 (202) 862-8400 1050 151

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of )

)

PUGET SOUND POWER & LIGHT COMPANY,) DCCKET NOS.

et al. )

) 50-522 (Skagit Nuclear Power Project, ) 50-523 Units 1 and 2) )

)

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that the following:

APPLICANTS' REPLY TO INTERVENOR SCANP'S MOTION TO COMPEL ANSWERS in the above-captioned proceeding have been served upon the persons shown on the attached list by depositing copies thereof in the United States mail on July i8, 1979 with proper postage affixed for first class mail.

DATED: July 13, 1979

/

F.

/ att Theodore Thomsen Arrruk 4' '

Counsel -for Puget Sound Power &

Light Company 1900 Washington Building Seattle, Washington 98101 1050 152

~

Date: July 18, 1979

• Valentine B. Deale, Chairman Robert C. Schofield, Director Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Skagit County Planning Department 1001 Connecticut Avenue, N.W. 218 County Administration Building Washington, D. C. 20036 Mount Vernon, WA 98273

• Dr. Frank F. Hooper, Member Richard M. Sandvik, Esq.

Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Assistant Attorney General School of Natural Resources 500 Pacific Building University of Michigan 520 S.W. Yamhill Ann Arbor, MI 48109 Portland, OR 97204

• Gustave A. Linenberger, Member

• Roger M. Leed, Esq.

Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Room 610 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 1411 Fourth Avenue Building Washington, D. C. 20555 Seattle, WA 98101 Alan S. Rosenthal, Chairman

• CFSP and FOB Atomic Safety and Licensing E. Stachon & L. Marbet Appeal Board 19142 So. Bakers Ferry Road U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Boring, OR 97009 Washington, J. C. 20555 Robert Lowenstein, Esq.

Dr. John H. Buck, Member Lowenstein, Newman, Reis, Axelrad Atomic Safety and Licensing & Toll Appeal Board 1025 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C. 20036 Washington, D. C. 20555 Warren Hastings, Esq.

Michael C. Farrar, Member Associate Corporate Counsel Atomic Safety and Licensing Portland General Electric Company Appeal Board 121 S.W. Salmon Street U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Portland, OR 97204 Washington, D. C. 20555 Richard D. Bach, Esq.

Docketing and Service Section Rives, Bonyhadi, Drummond & Smith Office of the Secretary 1400 Public Service Building U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 920 S.U. 6th Avenue Washington, D. C. ~20555 Portland, OR 97204 (original and 20 copies)

Canadian Consulate Generai Richard L. Black, Esq. Donald Martens, Consul Counsel for NRC Staf f 412 Plaza 600 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 6th and Stewart Street Office of the Executive Legal Seattle, WA 98101 Director Washington, D. C. 20555 Patrick R. McMullen, Esq.

Skagit County Prosecuting Attorney Nicholas D. Lewis, Chairman Courthouse Annex Energy Facility Site Evaluation Mount Vernon, WA 98273 Council -

820 East Fifth Avenue Olympia, WA 98504 -

• Thomas F. Carr, Esq.

• Personally served at hearing Assistant Attorney General on July 17, 1979.

Temple of Justice Olympia, WA 98504 1050 153 7/6/79