ML19225A722
| ML19225A722 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | South Texas, Comanche Peak  |
| Issue date: | 06/26/1979 |
| From: | Jablon R TEXAS, STATE OF |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19225A713 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7907190846 | |
| Download: ML19225A722 (19) | |
Text
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA BEFORE THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of
)
)
HOUSTON LIGHTING & POWER COMPANY,
)
Doc ke t Nos. 50-498A et al.
)
and 50-499A
)
( South Texas Project, Unit Nos.
)
1 and 2)
)
)
)
)
In the Matter of
)
)
TEXAS UTILITIES GENERATING COMPANY,)
Docke t Nos. 50-445A et al.
)
and 50-446A
)
(Comanche Peak Steam Electric
)
Station, Unit Nos. 1 and 2)
)
SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE OF THE PUBLIC UTILITIES BOARD OF THE CITY OF BROWNSVILLE, TEXAS TO HOUSTON LIGHTING & POWER COMPANY'S FIRST REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOC UMENTS AND TO HOUSTON LIGHTING & POWER COMPANY'S FIRST SET OF WRITTEN INTERROGATORIES The Public Utilities Board of the City of Brownsville,
(" PUB") hereby supplements its May 2, 1979 Response to Houston Lighting & Power Company's First Request for Production of Documents and First Set of Written Interrogatories.
4\\1
\\D2 9
79071900'6
/
24.
Identify separately every area in which PUB ccm-petes with HL&P, including but not limited to:
(a) every known instance of competition between HL&P and PUB to serve retail electric customers; Answer 24.
PUB cannot identify any specific instances of competition between HL&P and PUB to serve retail electric customers, since in the normal course of business potential industrial custcmers do not, in inquiring about PUB's rates and services, discuss the other utilities from which tney may be seeking such information.
The Port of Brownsville, which is administered by the Brownsville Navigation District, is the area in Brownsville most suited for large industry.
Officials of the Brownsville Navigation District state that they receive numerous inquiries from industries which are considering the Port area as a plant site about the availability and price of electricity and other utility services, and that the reliability and cost of electricity are of principle interest to such industries.
The Port officials believe that PUB service may not be competitive with service provided by other utilities in this regard and believe they lose and have lost po-tential industry in the area because of this, as is shown in the documents supplied in response to Interrogatory No. 43.
These officials cannot identify such industries specifically, nor do their records appear to be maintained in such a way as to provide this information.
417 103
26.
List and describe every instance since January 1, 1968, known to PUB in which an officer or director of PUB has prepared or approved any writing, including handwritten notes, or made or approved any oral statement that concerns the presence, absence or extent of competition between PUB and any other electric utility, excluding pleadinga, motions, or affidavits filed in any proceeding to which HL&P is a party.
State the identity and loca-tion of every document referring or relating to or setting forth the matters inquired into in this Interrogatory.
Answer Documents relating to competition between PUB and CP&L and Magic Valley Electric Cooperative to serve the El Valle North and Iowa Estates Subdivisions are attached.
Also attached are a number of documents which, while certainly relating to competition, do not specifically comprise statements by PUB members or officials as to the presence or ab-sence of competition.
Statements relating to 1/ competition be-tween PUB and neighboring utilities are reflected from time to time in the minutes of meetings of the Public Utilities Board which are available for inspection in Brownsville.
Documents relating to CP&L's 1968 offer to purchase the PUB electric system and PUB action in response to that offer are provided since PUB regards this kind of take over attempt as a form of competition between organizations.
1/
These statements relate to competition in the sense that if competition did not exist such statements would not be made.
4\\1
\\C0
33.
State separately every action or course of conduct by HL&P that PUB believes has injured its competitive position in any relevant market, and with respect to each such action separately state:
Answer As initially stated in response to this interrogatory, PUB believes that its competitive position in acquiring large re-tail industrial load and in obtaining bulk power supply and genera-tion fuels has been injured by HL&P's exclusionary conduct.
These actions by HL&P are described in response to Interrogatory No. 34.
33(b) the identity of every actual and/or potential com-petitor in that market; Answer PUB's actual and potential competitors for retail industrial customers are other electric utilities located in and around Texas.
PUB is also in actual or potential competition for economic bulk power supply with other electric utilities located in and around Texas.
Documents detailing PUB's efforts, in competition with the South Texas Electric Cooperative and Medina Electric Coopera-tive, to obtain an allocation of power from the Falcon-Amistad Dam Hydroelectric Projects are attached.
PUB is in actual and potential competition with any other electric utility which has sought, or will seek, to obtain bulk power from those utilities from which PUB has similarly sought bulk power supply arrangements.
See PUB's response to Interrogatory Nos.
6, 7 and 8, and documents supplied in response to those interrogatories.
417 105
33(e).
the identity of every actual and/or potential customer in the market with respect to whom PUB's competitive posi-tion has been injured; Answer As stated in response to Interrogatory No. 24, PUB can-not specifically identify actual or potential customers with respect to whom PUB's competitive position has been injured.
417 106
34.
Separately state every action or course of conduct by HL&P that PUB believes has restricted PUB's access to any rele-vant market, and with respec t to each such activity or course o.
conduct separately state:
Answer
- 34. As :
ited in its initial respense to Interrogatory No. 33, PUB believe-t has been injured by HL&P's exclusionary conduct restricting PUB's access to bulk power supply and related power supply services and limiting PUS's ability to economically and reliably serve its customers.
HL&P has concurred with and participated in actions of TIS and STIS excluding, until March of this year, PUB from member-ship in those organizations.
From 1968 until its most recent re-quest in January 1979, PUB on numerous occasions sought membership in TIS, both in writing and during meetings with CP&L.
PUB's re-quests were, until March, either denied, ignored or simply referred to another person--who denied or ignored them.
Attacheu are a letter dated October 30, 1968, from R.
E.
Schneider, PUB, to P.
K. Robinson, HL&P, requesting member-ship in STIS, internal HL&P office memoranda dated November 14, 1968, from E.
D.
Scarth to B.
B.
Hulsey, and from P.
K. Robinson to F. Austin, and an undated memorandum from L.
D.
Collins concern-ing a meeting of STIS on May 21, 1969, all obtained from the U.
S-District Court discovery dccuments made available to PUB in Houston.
These documents indicate that HL&P was aware of PUB's requests for membership in TIS and agreed with and supported a policy to exclude PUB, and similar small municipal utilities, from 4i7 107
such membership.
The May 21, 1969 memorandum further shows that STIS and TIS, and HL&P as a member thereof, were deliberately pursuing a policy intended to restrict PUB and other municipal utilities from membership in TIS and STIS.
HL&P is signatory to the South Texas Project Participa-tion Agreement, executed as of July 1, 1973.
As such, HL&P, to-gether with the other parties to that Agreement, effectively denies PUB access to that nuclear project.
Both Section 8.2 of the Agree-ment requiring that each participant construct and own transmission facilities between its system and the STP switchyard, and Section 18, establishing rights of first refusal, copies of which are at-tached, are exclusionary provisions which function to virtually deny small systems such as PUB the opportunity to participate.
HL&P has concurred with and participated in actions in-tended to restrict ERCOT electric utilities from operating inter-state.
As indicated in response to Interrogatory Nes. 36 and 37, HL&P together with the Texas Utilities companies instigated the Texas Public Utility Commission's Docket No. 14 proceedings, which resulted in Orders restraining ERCOT utilities from operating interstate.
The record of this proceeding shows that HL&P vigorously advocated this result.
While PUB representatives have reviewed the record of this proceeding, PUB was not party to it and believes that HL&P possesses more complete documentation relating to it than does PUB.
417 108
Prior to the Texas PUC Docket 14 proceedings, HL&P had participated in bilateral agreements which permitted HL&P to disconnect and terminate the agreement if the other party entered interstate operation.
Judge Porter, in his January 30, 1979 Order found this to be the case (p. 12):
"It has been the common understanding and agreement among all the electric utilities and TIS that if one of the members of the TIS decided to commence inter-state operations, it would provide prior notice to the other members so that each could independently decide whether to exercise its unilateral right to disconnect and remain in an intrastate mode.
This understanding was, for example, reflected in the WTU-TESCO contract which was subject to immediate cancellation by tele-phonic notice.
Plaintiff gave no notice prior to their commencement of interstate operation on May 4, 1976 be-cause they feared defendants would exercise their right to disconnect."
Numerouc documents in the U.S.
District Court antitrust case discovery indicate that TIS and ERCOT, and HL&P as a member thereof, drafted reports and responded to various requests for information from FPC and NERC relating to interconnection with the Southwest Power Pool and related matters in ways intended to discourage NERC and FPC interest in pursuing such an interconnection.
Certain of these documents are being supplied.
PUB is continuing its review of documents produced and being produced in response to its discovery requests and anticipates that it will be able to identify further such documents.
417 109
As indicated in the attached documents (obtained by PUB through its discovery requests), it appears that during the 1973 gas curtailments, TIS members were able to assist each other through power transfers and joint scheduling of gas curtailments, thereby alleviating some of the fuel and maintenance costs as-sociated with extensive gas curtailment.
Because of its exclusion from TIS and STIS, PUB was deprived of the benefits of a coordinated response to extensive gas curtailment, and has been disadvantaged relative to the TIS members, including HL&P, who benefited from their coordinated re-sponse to that si'.uation.
417 110
35.
Separately state every action or course of conduct by HL&P that PUB believes has caused a degradation in PUB's ability to serve its customers, and with respect to each such action or course of conduct separately state:
Answer 35.
PUB's ability to serve its customers has been degraded by the actions and course of conduct of HL&P described in response to Interrogatory Nos. 33 and 34.
As stated in I soonse to Interrogatory No. 43, the adverse impact upon PUB's reliability of these actions cannot be quantified, However, since PUB's general system reliability is adversely affected, all of PUB's custcmers have suffered some degree of reduced service reliability as a result of HL&P exclusionary conduct.
Such service reliability problems are shown by the documents supplied in response to Interrogatory No. 29 concerning Union Carbide Corporation and the documents supplied in response to Interrogatory No. 43 concerning service to the Brownsville Navigation District.
417 111
43.
State whether HL&p has ever denied PUB access to any service or facility that PUB considered nece=rary to effectively serve its customers, and if so separately state:
(a) the service or facility denied; (b) the date of such denial; (c) the person (s) at HL&P denying such service or facility; 43.
PUB believes its exc'usion from TIS and STIS has had a generalized and continuing adverse impact on its reliability and cost of service.
Without a detailed study, however., PUB is not able to quantify this adverse impact further than it has in its initial response to this interrogatory.
Article I of the 1969 amendment of the 1967 Texas In-terconnected System Coordination Agreement states:
"1.1 The purpose of this Agreement is to augment further the reliability of the bulk electric power supply systems of the parties recognizing that reliability can best be achieved through coordination of the planning and operation of a manageable number of e'actric systems operating within a major area of reasonable geographical boundaries."
Being excluded from TIS, PUB has been excluded from the "further augmentation of the reliability of its bulk power supply"--the stated purpose of the Coordination Agreement--and has been disad-vantaged relative to the TIS members whose reliability is enhanced as a result of their p.2rticipation in the agreement.
This disad-vantage is well illustrated in PUB's response to Interrogatory No.
29 and the documents supplied in response thereto concerning Union Carbide Corporation and in documents previously suppliec in response to this Interrogatory.
72
PUB's disadvantage is further illustrated by the inade-quate transmission to which i t is interconnected, and the past general policies against wheeling. That policy, which appears to have been general throughout TIS, a conclusion supported by the terms of the South Texas Participation Agreement, permits CP&L to threaten an effective cessation of service by failing to strengthen its inadequate transmission and to decline to permit PUB itself to strengthen that transmission, unless PUB agrees to CP&L's onerous terms on other unrelated matters, thus damaging PUB's competitive position. Further, as is evidenced by HL&P's participation in denying PUB access to TIS and STIS, there appears to have been a general refusal to deal in bulk 'o PUB's disadvantage. power services c 417 113
44. Separately describe every instance in which PUB studied or analyzed the possibility of taking electric power from the South Texas Project, and with respect to each instance state separately: (a) whether FUB made any study of the cost of obtaining power from the South Texas Project, and if so fully describe the cost identified by such study; Answer Burns & McDonnell, consulting engineers, are presently engaqed in a power supply study on behalf of PUB. Ownership par-ticipation in the South Texas Project is among the power supply alternatives they are considering. Recently obtained preliminary results of this study indicate that, of the alternatives studied (including purchased wholesale power and joint participation in a lignite fired plant, among others), the purchase of 100 MW of the South Texas Project wculd be the least expensive of PUB's power supply alternatives over the 20-year period studied. Over the 20-year study period, the total incremental cost to PUB to meet its power supply needs by purcitasing wholesale power from CP&L would be $1,306,758,000. The total incremental cost involved in purchasing 50 MW of the first South Texas unit and 50 MW of the second South Texas unit over the 20 year study period would be $1,157,694,000. Based on capital and fuel cost estimates provided PUB by Austin and CP&L, Burns & McDonnell estimate that the cost of purchasing 50 MW of the first STP unit would be $1,122 per kw, in 1983 dollars, and the cost of purchasing 50 MW of the second STP unit would be $970 per kw, in 1984 dollars. A copy of these preliminary results has been requested and will be provided as soon as we receive it. 41/ 114
In general, present PUB personnel are familiar with the basic economics of various modes of generation, including nuclear generation, and concluded, in early 1978, that the South Texas Project would probably be an attractive source of power supply for PUB if access and wheeling could be arranged. No detailed study was done at that time other than general investigation of parameters. In 1974, a consulting engineer for PUB, after discussion with CP&L, concluded that South Texas would be a very desirable source of power for PUB, but that the policy of the applicants which required each participant to bring its own transmission to the plant site would increase the cost so much as to make parti-cipation by PUB infeasible. The Project was then anticipated to cost something in excess of S400 per kw, and to be on line in the Fall of 1980 and the Fall of 1982. 417 115
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA BEFORE THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of ) ) HOUSTON LIGHTING & POWER COMPANY, ) Docke t Nos. 50-498A et al. ) and 50-499A ) (South Texas Project, Unit Nos. ) 1 and 2) ) ) ) ) In the Matter of ) ) TEXAS UTILITIES GENERATING COMPANY,) Docke t Nos. 50-445A et al. ) and 50-446A ) (Comanche Peak Steam Electric ) Station, Unit Nos. 1 and 2) ) AFFIDAVIT I, Robert A. Jablon, being first duly sworn, depose and state that I am counsel for the Public Utilities Board of the City of Brownsville, Texas, that the foregoing SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE OF THE PUBLIC UTILITIES BOARD OF THE CITY OF BROWNSVILLE, TEXAS TO HOUSTON LIGHTING AND POWER COMPANY'S FIRST REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS AND TO HOUSTON LIGHTING AND POWER COMPANY'S FIRST SET OF NRITTEN INTERROGATORIES from the Public Utilities Boarc of the City of Brownsville, Texas, was prepared at my direction and under my supervision, that I have reviewed such Response, and that the information and matters set forth therein are true and correct to the best of my information, knowledge and belief. Robert A. Jqdlon Subscribed and Sworn to before me this 26th day of June, 1979. Notary Public e 417 110 m = = -
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA BEFORE THE NUCLEAR RFGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of ) ) HOUSTON LIGHTING & POWER COMPANY, ) Doc ke t Nos. 50-498A et al. ) and 50-499A ) (South Texas Project, Unit Nos. ) 1 and 2) ) ) ) ) In the Matter of ) ) TEXAS UTILITIES GENERATING COMPANY,) Docke t Mos. 50-445A et al. ) and 50-446A ) (Comanche Peak Steam Electric ) Station, Unit Nos. 1 and 2) ) AFFIRMATION OF SERVICE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, ss: I, SUSAN G. WHITE, being first duly sworn, af firm that copies of the foregoing GUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE OF THE PUBLIC UTILITIES BOARD OF THE CITY OF BROWMSVILLE, TEXAS TO HOUSTON LIGHTING AND POWER COMPANY'S FIRST REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS AND TO HOUSTON LIGHTING AND POWER COMPANY'S FIRST SET OF WRITTEN INTERROGATORIES in the above-captioned pro-ceeding have this 26th day of June, 1979 been served upon the following persons by deposit in the U. S. mail, first cla postage prepaid: Marshall E. Miller, Chairman Joseph J. Saunders, tsquire Atomic Safety & Licensing Board Chief, Public Counsel & Leg isla t ive Panel Section Nuclear Regulatory Commission Department of Justice Washington, D. C. 20555 P. O. Box 14141 Washing ton, D. C. 20044 Sheldon J. Wol fe, Esquire Atomic Safety & Licensing Board Joseph Gallo, Esquire Panel Richard D. Cudahy, Esquire Nuclear Regulatory Commission Robert H. Loe f fle r, Esquire Washington, D. C. 20555 Isham, Lincoln & Beale Suite 701 Michael L. Glaser, Esquire 1050 17th Street, N. W. 1150 17th Street, N. W. Wash ing ton, D. C. 20036 Washington, D. C. 20036 417 ii7
- John D. Whitler, Esquire Joseph Rutherg, Esquire Ronald Clark, Esquire Antitrust Counsel Department of Justice Counsel for NRC Staff P. O. Box 14141 Nuclear Regulatory Ccmmission Washington, D. C. 20044 Washington, D. C. 20555 Joseph Knotts, Esquire Chase R. Stephens Chief Nicholas S. Reynolds, Esquire Docketing and Service Section Debevoise & Liberman Office of the Secretary 1200 17th Street, N. W. Nuclear Regulatory Ccmmission Washing ton, D. C. 20036 Washington, D. C. 20555 Douglas F. John, Esquire Joseph I. Worsham, Esquire Akin, Gump, Hauer & Feld Merlyn D. Sampels, Esquire 1100 Madison Office Building Worsham, Forsythe & Sampels 1155 15th Street, N. W. 2001 Bryan Tower, Suite 2500 Washington, D. C. 20024 Dallas, Texas 75201 R. Gordon Gocch, Esquire Spencer C. Relyea, Esquire John P. Mathis, Esquire Worsham, Forsythe & Sampels Baker & Botts 2001 Bryan Tower, Suite 2500 1701 Pennsylvania Avenue, N. W. Dallas, Texas 75201 Washington, D. C. 20006 R. L. Hancock, Director Robert Lowens tein, Esquire City of Austin Electric J. A. Ecuknight, Jr., Esquire Utility Department Lowenstein, Newman, Reis & P. O. Box 1088 Axelrad Austin, Texas 78767 10 25 Connecticut Avenue, N. W. Washington, D. C. 20036 Jerry L. Harris, Esquire City Attorney William J. Franklin, Esquire City of Austin Lowens tein, Ne wman, Reis & P. O. Box 1088 Axelrad Austin, Texas 78767 1025 Connecticut Avenue, N. W. Washington, D. C. 20036 Richard C. Salough, Esquire Assistant City Attorney Frederick E. Ritts, Esquire City of Austin Law Offices of Northcutt Ely P. O. Box 1088 Watergate 600 Euilding Austin, Texas 78767 Washington, D. C. 20037 Dan E. Davidsen Wheatley & Wolleson City Manager 1112 Watergate Office Building City of Austin 2600 Virginia Avenue, N. W. P. O. Box 1088 Nashington, D. C. 20037 Austin, Texas 78767 4\\1 \\\\S
. Roff Hardy, Chairman and Chief Don R. Butler, Esquire Executive Officer Sneed, vine, Wilkerson, Selman Central Power & Light Ccmpany & Perry P. O. Box 2121 P. O. Box 1409 Corpus Christi, Texas 78403 Austin, Texas 78767 G. K. Spruce, General Manger Morgan Hunter, Esquire City Public Service Board McGinnis, Lochridge & Kilgore P. O. Box 1771 900 Congress Avenue San Antonio, Texas 78203 Austin, Texas 78701 Jon C. Wood, Esquire Kev in B. Pratt, Esquire W. Roger Wilson, Esquire Assistant Attorney General Matthews, Nowlin, Macfarlane P. O. Ecr 12548 & Barrett Capital Station 1500 Alamo National Building Austin, Texas 78711 San Antonio, Texas 78205 Linda L. Aaker, Esquire Perry G. Brittain, President Assistant Attorney General Texas Utilities Generating P. O. Box 12548 Company Capital Station 2001 Bryan Tbwer Austin, Texas 78711 Dallas, Texas 75201 E. W. Barne tt, Esquire John E. Mathews, Jr., Esquire Charles G. Thrash, Jr., Esquire Mathews, Csborne, Ehrlich, Baker & Botts McNatt, Gobelman & Cobb 3000 Cne Shell Plaza 1500 American Eeritage Life Bldg. Ecuston, Texas 77002 Jacksonville, Florida 32202 J. Gregory Copeland, Esquire Robert E. Bathen Thecdore F. Weiss, Jr., Esquire R. W. Beck a Associates Baker & Botts P. O. Box 6817 3000 Cne Shell Placa Orlando, Florida 82803 Ecuston, Texas 77002 Somervell County Public Library G. W. Cprea, Jr. P. O. Box 417 Executive Vice President Glen Rose, Texas 76403 Houston Lighting & Power Ccmpany P. O. Ecx 1700 Maynard Human, General Manager Houston, Texas 77001 Western Farmers Electric Coop. P. O. Box 429 Anadarko, Cklahoma 73005 \\\\0 k\\l
, W. S. Ecbson, General Manager South Texas Electric Cooperative, Inc. James E. Mcnahan Route 6, Building 102 Executive Vice President and 7ictoria Regional Airport General manager Victoria, Texas 77901 Brazos Electric Power Coop., Inc. P. O. Box 6296 Michael I. Miller, Esquire Waco, Texas 76706 Richard E. Powell, Esquire Isham, Lincoln & Beale Judith Earris, Esquire One First National Plaza Department of Justice Chicago, Illinois 60603 P. O. Box 14141 Washington, D. C. 20044 Dav'.2 M. Stahl, Esquire Themas G. Ryan, Esquire Jerome Saltzman, Chief Isham, Lincoln & Beale Antitrust & Indemnity Group Cne First National Plaza Nuclear Regulatcry Ccmmission Chicago, Illinois 60603 Washington, D. C. 20555 Knoland J. Plucknett Jay M. Galt, Esquire Executive Director Econey, Nichols, Johnson & Committee on Power for the Eayes Southwest, Inc. 219 Couch Drive 5541 Skelly Drive Oklahoma City, Cklahoma 73101 Tulsa, Cklahoma 74135 W. N. Woolsey, Esq. Robert M. Rader Dyer and Redford Conner, Moore & Corber 1030 Petroleum Tower 1747 Pennsylvania Avenue, N. W. Corpus Christi, Texas 78474 Washington, D. C. 20006 Donald Clements, Esc. Gulf States Utilities Co. P. O. Box 2951 Beaumont, Texas 77704 Susan G. White SUBSCRIBED AND EWORN TO before me, a Notary Public in and for the City of Washington, District of Columbia, this 26th day of June, 1979 Notary Public 4
- ==b=cu r_wm.
.y,_ w m}}