ML19253A254
| ML19253A254 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | South Texas, Comanche Peak  |
| Issue date: | 07/23/1979 |
| From: | Burchette W NORTHCUTT ELY, LAW OFFICES OF |
| To: | |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7908200395 | |
| Download: ML19253A254 (41) | |
Text
=c,NIC O
D coy,D 0
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ROOy NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION In the Matter of
)
)
HOUSTON LIGHTING & POWER
)
DocketNos.f50-498A COMPANY, et al.
)
(50-49CA
)
(South Texas Project, Unit
)
Nos. 1 and 2)
)
)
In the Matter of
)
)
TEXAS UTILITIES GENERATING
)
Docket Nos. 50-445A COMPANY, et al.
)
50-446A
)
(Comanche Peak Steam
)
Electric Station, Units 1
)
and 2)
)
(Cor.solidated for Discovery)
RESPONSE OF TEX-LA ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE, INC.
TO FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES AND REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS FROM TEXAS UTILITIES GENERATING COMPANY l_/
In accordance with the provisions of Rule 2.740(b) of this Commission's Rules of Practice, Tex-La Electric Cooperative, Inc.
(hereafter " Tex-La") hereby responds to Texas Utilities Generating Company's (hereafter "TUGCO") First Set of Interrogatories and Requests for Production of Documents.
l/
This response to Texas Utilities Generating Company's First Set of Interrogatories is tendered on behalf of ten of the original seventeen cooperatives which petitioned for intervention in this cause.
The cooperatives responding are as follows:
Cherokee County Electric Cooperative Association Deep East Texas Electric Cooperative, Inc.
Houston County Electric Cooperative, Inc.
5 Jasper-Newton Elcctric Cooperative, Inc.
N Rusk County Electric Cooperative, Inc.
h Sam Houston Electric Cooperative, Inc.
- 3een 1
Wood County Electric Cooperative, Inc.
67 Jg 24 /gg 3
Bowie-Cass Electcic Cooperative, Inc.
]
Panola-Harrison Electric Cooperative h'
3 Upshur Rural Electric Cooperative Corp.
k (footnote cantinued on next page) o 082gg
, Interrogatory 1(a):
Identify each witness, other than an expert witness, whom Tex-La expects to or may call in these proceedings and provide a summary of all matters (including the substance of all facts) as to which each such witness is expected to or may testify.
Answer:
The following individuals may be called upon to testify for 1
Tex-La in this proceeding:
Mr. Juan D. Nichols Wood County Electric Cooperative, Inc.
501 South Main P.O.
Box 398 Quitman, Texas 75783 Mr. John H.
Butts Deep East Texas Electric Cooperative, Inc.
P.O.
Drawer N San Augustine, Texas 75972 Mr. Eldridge Striedel Sam Houston Electric Cooperative, Inc.
Hwy. 190 East P.O. Box 1121 Livingston, Texas 77351 Mr. Fred S.
Buchanan Cherokee County Electric Cooperative Association 117 W.
5th P.O. Box 257 Rusk, Texas 75785 (footnote 1 continued from previous page)
As discussed during the deposition of Mr. Robert Gross, Tex-La intends to notify the Board that the following cooperatives should be deleted as party intervenors in this proceeding:
Fannin County Electric Cooperative, Inc.
Farmers Electric Cooperative, Inc.
Grayson-Collin Electric Cooperative, Inc.
Hunt-Collin Electric Cooperative, Inc.
Kaufman County Electric Cooperative, Inc.
Lamar County Electric Cooperative Association New Era Electric Cooperative, Inc.
802 211
, In general, these individuals may be asked to testify to, inter alia, their individual electric utility systems (operations and planning), their custcaters, and their bulk power suppliers (existing and potential).
Interrogatory 1(b) :
Identify all documents upon which each such witness is ex-pected to or may rely in any way, and provide copies of any such document not already in the possession of TUGCO.
Answer:
Documentary materials which may be relied upon by these witnesses have not been identified at this time.
Interrogatory 2(a):
Identify each expert witness whom Tex-La expects to or may call in these proceedings.
Answer:
Mr. Robert M.
Gross, Jr.
Southern Engineering Company of Georgia 1000 Crescent Avenue, N.E.
Atlanta, Georgia 30309 Mr.
O.
Franklin Rogers Southern Engineering Company of Georgia 1000 Crescent Avenue, N.E.
Atlanta, Georgia 30309 Mr. David A.
Springs Southern Engineering Company of Georgia 1000 Crescent Avenue, N.E.
Atlanta, Georgia 30309 802 21p
(
. Interrogatory 2(b):
State (or produce) the educational and professional quali-fications, experience, and credentials of each such expert witness.
Answer:
See Attachments A, B,
and C, respectively.
t Interrogatory 2(c):
State the subject matter on which the expert is expected to or may testify.
Answer:
See Attachments A, B,
and C, respectively.
Interrogatory 2 (d) :
Provide a summary of the testimony which each such witness is expected to or may offer, including the substance of all facts and all opinions to which the expert is expected to or may testify.
Answer:
The individuals listed as possible expert witn wses in answer to interrogatory 2(a) have not had sufficient opportunity to determine what areas of study,.r any, need be prepared in connection with this proceeding.
No studies have been conducted nor are any planned at this time.
Simply stated, a summary of testimony for each expert witness is premature at this point.
802 213
, Interrogatory 2(e):
State the grounds for each opinion each such expert witness expects to or may present in his/her testimony.
Answer:
See answer to interrogatory 2(d).
Interrogatory 2 (f) :
Identify all documents prepared by, for, or under the super-vision of each such expert witness, or reviewed or relied upon in any way by such expert in the performance of his/har duties, formulation of his/her conclusions or opinions, or preparetton of his/her testimony, including particularly work papers, status reports, preliminary outlines and memoranda, and communications between such expert and Tex-La or any of its members, any party to the proceeding, or any person with knowledge in any way relied upon by such expert, and provide copies of any such document not already in the possession of TUGCO.
Answer:
vith the exception of documents previously provided counsel for TUGC0 in connection with the deposition of Mr. Robert M.
Gross, Jr. and the communications with Tex-La members discussed during the course of such deposition, there are none.
(See transcript of deposition of Mr. Gross.)
802 214
, Interrogatory 2(g):
Identify any person affiliated with a party to these pro-ceedings, and (separately) each other person, from whom infor-mation was obtained which is in any way relied upon or taken into account by such expert, with whom such expert has communicated.
Answer:
To the best of our knowledge, there has been no receipt of information from any party to this proceeding which has in any way been relied upon or ta'.en into consideration by the potential expert witnesses listed in interrogatory 2 (a).
Interrogatory 2 (h) :
Provide a copy of any contracts, letter agreements, or other understandings between the prospective witness or his employer and Tex-La or any of its members or successors of either which relate in any way to these proceedings.
Answer:
There are no contracts or letter agreements between the prospective expert witnesses listed in interrogatory 2(a) or his employer and Tex-La which relate to these proceedings.
It is understood, however, that Mr. Robert Gross will evaluate this proceeding and advise Tex-La in a -imely manner as to his re-commendations regarding the natare and extent of testimony which should be prepared in connection with this proceeding.
802 215
, Interrogatory 2(i):
Identify all documents not produced in response to the fore-going which have been sent or given to the prospective witness or his or her employer or to which his/her/their attention has been directed which relate in any way to these proceedings, and provide copies of any such document not already in the possession of TUGCO.
Answer:
To the best of our knowledge, TUGCO has been provided all documents relating to this proceeding which have been sent or given to the prospective expert witnesses listed in interrogatory 2(a).
Interrogatory 3:
With respect to each expert witness listed in your response to Item 2. (a),
(a) list each judicial or administrative proceeding since January 1, 1970 in which each individual has been proferred as an expert witness.
Answer:
Mr. Gross has testified as a rate expert and cost of service witness before the State Commissions of Kentucky, Indiana, Michigan, Vermont, Texas, and Virginia.
He has also testified before the Federal Power Commission in proceedings involving Mississippi Power Company, FPC Docket No. E-7685; Appalachian Power Company, FPC Docket No. E-7775; Duke Power Company, FPC Docket No. E-7994; 802 216
, Gulf States Utilities Company, FPC Docket No. E-8911; Appalachian Power Company, FPC Docket No. E-9101; Virginia Electric Company, FPC Docket No. E-9147; Arizona Public Service Company, FPC Docket No. E-8621; Public Service Company of Indiana, Inc., FPC Docket Nos. ER76-149 and E-9537; Carolina Power & Light Company, FPC Docket No. ER75-495; Georgia Power Company, FPC Docket Nos. E-9101, E-9521, E-9522, ER76-587 and ER78-166; Southern California Edison i
Company, FPC Docket No. ER76-205; Carolina Power & Light Company, FERC Docket No. ER77-485; Kansas Gas & Electric Company, FERC Docket No. ER77-578 and Louisiana Power & Light Company, FERC Docket No. ER77-533.
Mr.
O.
Franklin Rogers has testified as a rate expert before several State Commissions including North Carolin.., South Carolina, Kentucky, and Indiana.
He has previously testified before the Federal Power Commission in the following proceedings:
Mississippi Power & Light Company, FPC Docket No. E-7577; Carolina Power &
Light Company, FPC Docket No. E-7564; Georgia Power Company, FPC Docket No. E-7548; Public Service Company of Indiana, FPC Docket No. E 7645; Alabama Power Company, FPC Docket No. E-7674; Gulf Power Company, FPC Docket No. E-7686; Mississippi Power Company, FPC Docket No. E-7625; Florida Power Corporation, FPC Docket No.
E-7679; Duke Power Company, FPC Docket No. E-7720; Pennsylvania Electric Company, FPC Docket No. E-7718; Public Service Company of New Hampshire, Docket No. E-7742; Indiana and Michigan Electric Company, FPC Docket No. E-7740; Virginia Electric and Power Company, FPC Docket No. E-8026; Carolina Power & Light Company, FPC Locket No. E-8881; Toledo Edison Company, FPC Docket No.
'802 217
. E-7929; consumers Power Company, FPC Docket No. E-7803; Appalachian Power Company, FPC Docket No. E-7775; Mississippi Power Company, FPC Docket No. E-7625; Carolina Power and Light Company, FPC Docket No. E-3834; Alabama Power Company, FPC Docket No. E-8851; Gulf Power Company, FPC Docket No. E-8911; Potomac Electric Power Company, FPC Docket No. E-8741; Florida Power & Light Company, FPC Docket No. E-8008; Delmarva Power & Light Company, FPC Docket No. E-8947; and Mississippi Power Company, FPC Docket No. E-9135.
Mr. Rogers has also testified before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board of the United States Atomic Energy Commission (now the Nuclear Regulatory Commission) in Consumers Power Company (Mid-land Plant, Units 1 and 2), NRC Docket Nos. 50-329A and 50-330A.
Additionally, he has testified before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board in the matter of Alabama Power Company (Joseph M. Farley Nuclear Plants, Units 1 and 2), NRC Docket Nos. 50-348A and 50-364A.
Mr. Spri.sgs has testified before the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission in Carolina Power and Light Company, Docket No. E-7564; Georgia Power Company, Docket Nos. E-7548 and E-9091; Florida Power Corporation, Docket No. E-7679; Duke Power Company, Docket No E-7720; Central Vermont Public Service Company, Docket No. E-7685; and Florida Power and Light Company, FERC Docket No.
ER78-19.
He has also testified before the Atomic Energy Commission (now the Nuclear Regulatory Commission) in Alabama Power Company, Joseph M.
Farley Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2, Docket Nos. 50-348A and 50-364A.
He has also testified before the Public Service Board of the State of Vermont on two occasions.
802 218
, (b) As to each such proceeding, indicate whether he or she was accepted as an expert witness.
Answer:
It is our understanding the prospective expert witnesses listed in interrogatory 2(a) were accepted as expert in all proceedings in which they have testified.
(c) Provide a copy of the testimony of each such witness as an expert witness in any judicial or administrative proceeding since January 1, 1970.
Answer:
In answer to interrogatory 3(a), Tex-La has endeavored to provide a listing of the proceedings, including docket numbers, which involve the testimonies of the prospective expert witnesses.
As discussed with counsel to TUGCO, due to the overall bulk of these documents, they are being forwarded to TUGCO under separate cover.
(d) List the publications of each such witness.
Answer:
The prospective witnesses listed in answer to interrogatory 2(a) are reviewing their files to determine their respective publi-cations.
This review process is incomplete at this time.
A listing of the publications will be produced as soon as they become known and available.
Interrogatory 4(a):
Identify every document or thing which Tex-La expects to offer in evidence in these proceedings, other than the testimony
k of witnesses summarized in response to the preceding interroga-tories.
Answer:
At present, Tex-La is unable to determine which document (s),
if any, will be offered into evidence in these proceedings.
Interrogatory 4(b):
Produce or make available the documents or things identified in 4(a) to the extent not already in the possession of TUGCO.
Answer:
See answer to interrogatory 4(a).
Interroaatory 5 (a) :
Identify each person affiliated with Tex-La who has, since January 1, 1972, communicated with either the NRC Staff (or pre-decessor AEC Staf f) or the Antitrust Division of the Department of Justice (state which) with regard to any matter pertaining to the antitrust review or antitrust aspects of the Comanche Peak proceeding.
Answer:
Mr. Juan D. Nichols, Mr. John H.
Butts, Mr. Eldridge Striedel, Mr.
E.R.
Rhodes, and Mr. J.L. Johns.
(See answer to interrogatory 5(b).)
Interrogatory 5 (b) :
Specify (by date) and describe each occasion on which such communication took place and the nature and form of such communica-tion.
. Answer:
On January 17, 1979, :ounsel for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission Staff and the Department of Justice met with Mr.
Phodes, Mr. Seriedel, Mr. Nichols, Mr. John Butts, and cour.sel for Tex-La.
The purpose of this meeting was primarily to familiarize government counsel with the general organizational structure and I
operations of the Tex-La cooperatives and their intent to form three G&T cooperatives.
Also discussed were the effects of split-systems, rate comparisons, and access to Comanche Peak.
On June 5, 1979, counsel for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission met with Mr. John Butts, Mr. Jucn Nichols, and counsel for Tex-La.
This meeting was concerned with the reorganization plans of Tex-La and Tex-La's interest in participating in the Comanche Peak project, the effect of split-systems and rate comparisons.
On June 6, 1979, counsel for tne Department of Justice met with Mr. Nichols and counsel for Tex-La.
This meeting was concerned with the reorganization plans of Tex-La and Tex-La's interest in participating in the Comanche Peak project, the effect of split-systems and rate comparisons.
On June 14, 1979, counsel for the Department of Justice met with Mr.
J.L.
Johns.
The purpose of this meeting was to discuss the organizational structure of Tex-La in general, the operations of Upshur-Rural Electric Cooperative, Inc., and the formation of Northeast Texas Electric Cooperative, Inc.
Interrogatory 5(c):
Identify the other person or persons involved in the com-munication.
. Answer:
In addition to Tex-La members, counsel for Tex-La, counsel for the Nuclear Regulatory Commissi and the Department of Justice, the following individuals particpated in the meeting s referenced in answer to interrogatory 5(b):
Meeting of January 17, 1979:
William Zelinsky Robert M.
Gross Meeting of June 5, 1979:
William Zelinsky Rodney Frame Interrogatory 5 (d) :
State the substance of each communication to the extent such is not documented in correspondence, memoranda, summaries, notes, minutes or the like, which you are hereby requested to identify and produce.
Answer:
To our knowledge, no memoranda, notes, minutes, or the like were prepared in conjunction with the meetings referenced in answer to interrogatory 5 (b).
With respect to notes or communicatior.3 prepared by representatives of the Department of Justice or the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Tex-La is without knowledge of the preparation of any such documents by the government.
The topics of conversation during these meetings are as outlined in response to interrogatory 5(b).
Interrogatory 5(e):
Identify any other document which relates to any such com-munication or series of commurications, as well as any document provided to or obtained frca the NRC Staff or the Antitrust Division 802 222
14 -
(state which) and produce each such document not already in the possession of TUGCO.
Answer:
There are none.
Interrogatory 6 (a) :
Has Tex-La or any of its member cooperatives or successors of either intervened as a party (or parties) in any proceeding (or with regard to any request to institute a proceeding) before FERC under amendments to Part 2 of the Federal Power Act made by the Public Utilities Regulatory Policy Act of 1978 (PURPA), or otherwise, relating to any request for relief from any order of any agency of the State of Texas, for interconnection or wheeling, or any or all of the foregoing?
Answer:
Yes - Northeast Texas Electric Cooperative, Inc., a newly formed generating and transmission cooperative organization or-ganized under and pursuant to the Texas Electric Cooperative Corporation Act, has intervened in the Central Power and Light Company. Public Service Company of Oklahoma, Southwestern Electric Power Company, and West Texas Utilities Company's application to the FERC for an interconnection pursuant to section 205 of the Public Utilities Regulatory Policy Act of 1978 (16 U.S.C. S825a-
- 1).
(Docket No.
EL'"-8).
A cooy of the Petition to Intervene is annexed hereto as Attachment D.
'802 223
15 -
Interrogatory 6(b):
Does Tex-La or any of its member cooperatives or successors of either expect to institute such a proceeding before FERC at any time in the next ten years?
Answer:
This question is so highly speculative as to be incapable of answering.
Interrogatory 6(c):
If the answer to (a) or (b) is affirmative, would such request, if granted, involve or potentially involve use, by or for Tex-La or any member or successor, of the transmission system of (i) any of the operating subsidiaries of Texas Utilities Company
(!.e.,
DP&L, TP&L, or TESCO) or (ii) of any system which is a member of TIS?
Answer:
See answers to interrogatory 6(a) and (b).
Again, this que-.
is so highly speculative as to be incapable of a response.
Interrogatory 6(d):
If so, identify each system which would be involved, and describe the transactions for which use or access would be re-quired, including the nature of the servic-9 approximate duration, and the transmission and/or interet aection configuration and capacity contemplated.
Produce any maps, diagrams or other documents relating to this subparagraph.
802 224
. Answer:
See answer to interrogatory 6(a), (b}, and (c).
Interrogatory 6 (e) :
If the answer to 6(a) or (b) and (c) are in the affirmative, state briefly whether Tex-La believes that there is any relief l
to which it might be entitled in the Comanche Peak operating license antitrust proceeding which is not also available under PURPA and the Federal Power Act, as amended.
Answer:
Tex-La objects to the form of this question on the basis that it calls for a legal conclusion.
Interrogatory 6(f):
If your answer to 6(e) is in the affirmative, state briefly why.
Answer:
See answer to interrogatory 6(e).
Interrogatory 7 (a) :
State whether Tex-La believes that it is now or may be in the future (and if so when in the future) in competition with DP&L, TP&L, or TESCO (state which).
Answer:
Tex-La members are presently in competition with Texas Power
& Light Company.
802 225
. Interrogatory 7 (b) :
If the response to subpart (a) is in any respect in the affirmative, state briefly tl.e product and geographic market or markets involved,- and generally the nature and extent of competition claimed.
Answer:
The cooperatives in east Texas which have collectively been known as Tex-La, have recently formed three generating and tran -
mission cooperative corporations pursuant to the Texas Electr.'
Cooperative Corporation Act of the State of Texas.
Although these cooperatives currently have no generating capacity of their own, negotiations are currently ongoing between Southwestern Electric Power Company and Gulf States Utilities for possible joint con-struction and ownership of generating stations.
These three generation and transmission cooperatives (Northeast Texas Electric Cooperative, Inc.; Tex-La Electric Cooperative of Texas, Inc.;
and Sam Rayburn G&T, Inc.) have as their primary goals the lowering of costs for power, better efficiency, and improved reliability on all of their electric utility systems.
At some point in the future, it is possible these newly formed G&T's will organize on a federated basis much like the G&T's in Missouri and Georgia in order to coordinate and consolidate their bulk power supply needs.
Texas Power & Light and the Tex-La members are also in competition for retail customers.
This is true both with respect to service areas in general and dually certified service areas.
802 22f
. Interrogatory 7 (c) :
Identify and produce all documents relating to this inter-rogatory.
Answer:
Tex-La is aware of no documents relating to this interro-gatory which TUGCO does not have ready access to or already have in its possession.
Interrogatory 8:
Reference is made to Tex-La's petition to intervene.
Re-ference is also made to the existing conditions in the Comanche t
Peak construction permits.
(a) In what respects specifically does Tex-La contend such conditions should be modified in order to afford relief to which Tex-La asserts it is entitled?
Answer:
See letter from Fred Ritts, attorney for Tex-La, to Michael B.
Blume, attorney, Nuclear Regulatory Commission, dated July 16, 1979.
(Annexed hereto as Attachment E.)
(b) Identify and produce all documents relating to (a).
Answer:
See answer to interrogatory 8(a).
802 22t
. Interrogatory 9(a):
Please describe generally how Tex-La anticipates that its inembers will be constituted or configured over the next thirty-forty years (the approximate durarion of the Comanche Peak license) and state how, if at all, such is different from the situation pre-vailing at the ti:'e your petition to intervene herein was filed.
(Reference is made, inter alia, to Tex-La's cnswer to TUGCO's motion to dismiss CSW, et al. and for other relief, wherein mention is made of formation of three G&T cooperatives.)
Answer:
See answer to interrogatory 7(b).
Interrogatory 9(b):
Explain generally how such configuration and expected future pattern of operations bears on the relief sought and Tex-La's theory of this case, including how such have changed, if at all, since the petition to intervene was filed.
Answer:
With respect to the configuration and expected future patterns of operation of Tex-La, see answer to interrogatory 7(b).
The relief sought by Tex-La in its petition to intervene is unchanged.
(See also, Attachment E.)
Interrogatorg 9(c):
Identify and produce all maps, diagrams, or other documents relating to this interrogatory.
802 ggg-
. Answer:
There are none.
Respectfully submitted,
_, /;
'/
f i
.c Law Offices of Northcutt Ely by William H.
Burchette Watergate 600 Building Washington, D.C.
20037 (202) 342-0800 Attorney for Tex-La Electric Cooperative, Inc.
July 23, 1979 802 227
h.,.
s I
Attachment A, p.
1 of 1 E
Roarar M. CR0$$. JR.
i D
3 EDUCATION J
h Bachelor of Industrial Engineering, Georgia Institvca of Technology.
5 Maater of Eusineas Administrstion - Finan:2, Osorpa Scate ni/tralt?.
REGISTRATION l
Georgia Professional Engineer Registration Fo. 9406 l
i PEMBF_tSHIP k
A=erican Institute of Industrial Engiehers
[
1 EI?E31ESCE j
tockhead Geortia coeeany (1965-1969)-f.ndustrial Engineer s
3 J
Southern Enceering Coc:cacy of caoreis, Atlasts. ceorgia (1969-PresentM
'j
'6acies as follows:
supervised or prepared aetail Rato Sensies for over 100 electric systens in 15 states.
1 bponsible for preparation of Cost of Service Stud.ies, wholesale Rate Negotiations and Wholesale and Retail 3 ate Cases before varicu.9 State t
3 regulatory bodies am.d the Federal Energy Regulatorv Co:r;issi:'n.
u-i 1
Supervised the preparation of various f t uncial docu=ents, :erger studies,
.}
rata of return studies and financial analyees of hath privsee and I
publicly owed Electric Utilities.
}
Testified as a rate expert and cost of service vitness before state regu.latory ec--a sions in Virgin.is, North Carolina, Vcr=onc, Indiana, Kentucky and Michigan, before the state District Caurts in 71crida l
ami F.1.ssissippi and before the Federal Energy Regulaterv CMsion i
la nu=ercus wholesale rate proceedings i=volving.,2jor investar-evned -
utilities selling at wholesale.
I a-oject Engineer for engagements associated with Joint ?sreicipation Cenerati:n and Tracamission Projects for public power cliants in p
Texas, tout:iana, Georgis, and Delaware. hpon.sible for all CcrPan7
)
reisted seriices fron Feasibility Seu!.7 Developmnt to Project 1
Participation Contract %cgotiation.s.
l t-t a
pM f
,M ppy@1diurb i
W %o vM4 i
e I
1 802 230
Attachment B, p.
1 of 1 0 FRANXI,IN RCCE2S EDUCATION Eachelor of Industrial "+;'oceri:q fms the GeorTis Institute of rech wlog, A:lasta, GNrgia, with t'.'o y3ars of ut.deg.adcate vori at Coorgia Tech, with two prior years at Etery University. Eczary Uaiversity Law School; acsucally qualified to becoes a eher of the Georgis Sar (no plans to become a me=ber or to practice In).
i i.
REGISTRATION
.I Rec.istered Itofessional Engineer in Ceargis. Prior to beccoing registered, certified as qualified to take the examination in both t
In.dustrial sud Electrical Engineering.
If EXPE'd,TENCE hp while in Collese and while ecotovee of Stste Richway bent. (1950-1955)--
I-Genersi surreying and subdivision layout, highway rouring and pf et ag.
i U._ S, _ Lw - CEficer - 1955-1953 Southern Enrincaring Co=narrr of Georef a. Atlants Cear=is (1953-1977)--
t A ::w..ber of the firm of Southern E4ncering co=pany and Head of the 3,
Power Supply and Hate Depart =mcst.
Financial analyses and rate studiec F
for operating utilities (over seventy-five rats studios).
Iw nr supply i
studias involving analysis of separate sources of supply. Wholesale pcuer contract analysis and negotiatioca in ninetees ststes. Rate sad
~
cost revie; of utility operations for Cc=zission proceedings i cluding preparation of exhibits and/or testi=ony bufers various State Coccissions, the Federsi power Counisaica, and the Atomic hafety and I.icensicg Board of the United States Atonic Energy Cocaission. Testified b4 fore +hasa Federal Cocnissions on over twenty occasions. Nagotiated wpolesa e power sapply cenersets with cuare than thirty power ccapanies.
Filed con:ents concerning rule =nking changes by the Federal Pover' Co==rissica on behalf of the American Public Power Association, the 34tional Rnrsl Electric Cooperative Association and over twenty
{
cooperative and - -M cipal gtoups. Four of the coat recent filings concerned fuel adjustuent clauses in.rholessle electric rate schedules, fined rate conteset provisions in initial and superseding electric rate schedules, the inclusion of construction work in progress in ests basa, and the deterninstion of the rate for coc:puting rhe allowance for funds U5ed during conScrCCtion.
Southern En:tineerint Cocioany of Geords. Atlanta, Gaorvia - (1977.Presant).-
Executive Vice President, Southern Enginaaring Co=pany of Georga
[
8.02 231
<9 t
.u H
d Attachment C, p.
1 of 2 DAVT.D A. SPRINCS S
!.)
I 1,
EDUCATICN s
f Eachelor of Electrical Engineering and Easter of Science fu Electrical v~ d-sering frc:n the Georgia fas-1 ute of Technolom Atle.2, Georgh
~!
2EGISTEATION a
i i
NCEE - No. 4207 CeargIA - No. 5341 3
South Carolina - No. 7141 Kentucky - No. 10736 ckhhen:s - No.10735 chio - No. E-041524 S
Kansas - No. 6649 Nebraska - No. E-4320 i
'diaconsin - No. E-17660 NEE 3ER$'IP d
i l
Associate Ysr.ber u_r.r.,
CSPE, SSPE, AIEE, Tau Beta Pi; Eta 1tappa Ha
=t J
EIP m PtCE U.S. Ar=v - 1943-1946
+
i
)
Geoegis Institute of Technolo:rr, At1:nta, Cecreia (1948-1949) -
~
Assierant operator of C4argia T ch A.C. Network Ca.iculator (during l
graduate studics)
Southern bgineerite '*ornary of Georgia, Atlanta, Geor=ia (1949-19521 -
Engbeer sich Ccepany vorking in geceral 'd1a'tribution systcw design and
~
g j
per ' '-Niry transT;ission systezz desip. Distribution wrk included voltage regulatien studies, sectio **-ing studies, and cost of feast-bilit7 st"d'-*.
Transmission wrk included -A.C. Seevork Calculator stwiins of systes ccufiguestica sud c=psbility and preli=inary design of tre-* 4af an lines and schstaticus with cost estic.ates.
South Carot 'a1t Public Survie.m Authorit? oncks Cor :er, S.C. (1952 1962) 7%esale Supervisor is F14
""g Section. '4ork includad pawr contracts l
ana.tyses and rare samlyses; studies of present and projeen i future cost i
of utt'ity everstice to deter-6 adequacy of applicable power ratas;
}
centract negociacicus; eccueele analyses; and sted.ias for ccordinating
(
sta== and hydro ge:teratina.
(1956-1962) Planning Engineer a charaa of Flaening Secticr., bgineecing Depart 2 nt.
In addition to the abcru, responsibilities '-r$.;ded the necessary studies for recc=cecdatter. of both ammal'and long-range additicus to the Authority's system 1:rcivi:3 trans=ission li ws, substaticus, capacitor bass, regulators, generaticg stations, and associated equipeent. Also =.sde recc::rendatien.s to trans-3 prScriCGs.
&@M"55icn 2nd pr$ded!. ion depSrC">M P 3 %f
!q e caJh WBb Q@d'rg.
i
~'
e hm 802 232 j
4
.l
'. I
}
Attachment C, p.
2 of 2 3
DAVID A. SPRINGS (Continued)
.l
.l l
South __ Carolina _ Public serylee Authority, Encks Corre.r, S.C. (1962-1C63) -
IndustW F.egineer in ch.arge of Tr:destrial Depart =ent with pr+ g re-sw..sibility for tbs sale of tt.oleule esto=er reistic.s.
Southern Ene12eering Cotoan? of Geore12. Atlants, Georzia (1963-presa=t) -
3 In charge of Po :er Supply Planning and Fower Systes fissning Section perfoming or superrising generation and transmissica planning sti Af as i
for the purpose of testing the feasibility of proposed systers and for j
the step-by-step systen espansion of e.xisting systens to cent load growt.n, also providins or supervising technical assistance in negoti-ating coetracts regarding joint arra=se=ents and coordination betwen clients and other powr suppliers in the states of Mains, Vermont, L
l Vi.rginia, North Carolina, Scuch Camlina, Georgia, Florida, Alabama, i.
I Mississippi, Oklaho=a. Kansas. Ill.incia. Kentucky, Chlo; also providing l.
expert testimuy before the Federal power Cocnission in Carolins Pow.
1
& Light Co pany, FFC Docket No. E-7564; Georgis Powe Cocpsny, FPC U
h Docket No. E-7548, Florida Power Co:cany, FFC Decint No. E-7720; g
Central Ver:nne Fuhlf c Ser rice Cc=pany, 7FC Docket No. E-7633; and j
twice before the Public Service Board of tbc State of Vercont.
i i
_50_ uthrn Enciceerica Cc 9aev of Geortis, At1==ts, Ccorc-is (July _19 /_6)-
Vice President
'r 1
l 1
l l
9 i
?
9
~
.y ;-
- w:; y:~;: : ~-- g'a rr. y'.m.; : -, ;; r; ~'..
. -==~ :- s e, - -,--,,,.,_.;,
-r----',,
3~*.> 93 v.
1;;rqq f-Aa l=
il e 431L 802 233 t
Attachment D, p.
1 of 6
. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION Central Power & Light Company,
)
Public Service Company of Oklahoma,
)
Southwestern Electric Power Company,
)
Docket No. EL79-8 West Texas Utilities Company
)
PETITION TO INTERVENE OF THE NORTHEAST TEXAS ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE, INC.
?
The Northeast Texas Electric Cooperative, Inc. (hereinafter
" Northeast" or " Petitioner") hereby petitions the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (hereinafter "the Commission") for leave to intervene in the above-captioned proceeding.
All correspondence or communication relating to this pro-ceeding should be sent to:
Frederick H.
Ritts William H.
Burchette Law Offices of Northcutt Ely Watergate 600 Building Washington, D.C.
20037
- and -
Mr.
J.L.
Johns President Northeast Texas Electric Cooperative, Inc.
Post Office Box 70 Gilmer, Texas 75644 On February 9, 1979, Central Power & Light Company ("CP&L"),
Public Service Company of Oklahoma ("PSO"), Southwestern Electric Power Company ("SWEPCO"), and West Texas Utilities Company ("WTU")
(collectively referred to as the "CSW Companies"), made application 802 234 8 0',
_s
Attachment D, p.
2 of 6 to the Commission seeking orders, pursuant to section 205 of the Public Utility Regulation Policy Act of 1978 (16 U.S.C.
S825a-1),
which would exempt CP&L and WTU from orders of the Public Utility Commission of Texas prohibiting the interstate transmission of electricity.
The application further requests, pursuant to sections 202(b), 211, and 212 of the Federal Power Act, as amended (16 U.S.C.
SS824 (a) (b), 824(i), 824 (j ), ard 824(k)), the Commission order, inter alia, interconnections of transmission facilities between Texas Electric Service Conipany, Houston Light-ing & Power Company, and other members of the Electric Reliabil-ity Council of Texas, with the transmission facilities of CP&L and WTU.
Of particular interest to Northeast, relief requested by the Application calls for physical interconnection of trans-mission facilities between Texas Electric Service Company and Texas Power & Light Company with the facilities of PSO and SWEPCO.
In support of its petition to intervene in this proceeding, Northeast respectfully shows as follows:
Northeast Electric Cooperative, Inc. is a newly formed gen-erating and transmission cooperative corporation organized under, and pursuant to, the Texas Electric Cooperative Corporation Act of the State of Texas.
l/
-1/
Members of the Northeast Cooperative have, in the past, been epresented before this Commission, the Public Utility Commission of the State of Texas and in other regulatory and judicial proceed-ings by the Tex-La Electric Cooperative, Inc.
The interests of the member cooperatives of Northeast in this proceeding, however, are separate and distinct from the interests of all of the indi-
-vidual member cooperatives of the Tex-La organization because the relief sought by the Applicant impacts directly on the members of the Northeast Cooperative.
The members of the Northeast Cooperative, while seeking intervention in this proceeding in the name of Northeast, maintain their membership and active role in the Tex-La organization.
802 2)$
A men D,
p.
3 of 6 The Northeast Cooperative, through its members, 2/ purchases the majority of its power and energy requirements at wholesale from SWEPCO and the Southwestern Power Administration ("SWPA").
In addition to direct purchases from SWEPCO, Northeast, through contracts with SWPA and SWEPCO, purchases 117,000 Kw of hydro peaking power from SWPA which, in turn, is sold by Northeast to SWEPCO in return for firm power.
Thus, any action taken by the Commission with respect to the Application of the CSW Companies directly affects the Petitioner's existing bulk power supply arrangements.
Although Northeast has no generating capacity of its own at the present time, negotiations are currently under way between SWEPCO and Northeast for possible joint construction and owner-ship of a coal-fired station.
Any interconnections by SWEPCO to other systems may bear directly on the engineering requirements and over_11 economic viability of a new generation facility contemplated by SWEPCO and Northeast.
The interests which Northeast seeks to protect in this proceeding are significant and are of such a nature as not to be adequately represented by any of the existing parties to this proceeding.
The opportunity for rull presentation of its inter-ests is essential to Northeast and in keeping with the Commission's mandate to protect the public interest.
2/
Three of the members purchase wholesale power from Texas Power & Light Company.
t 802 236
Attachment D, p.
4 of 6
_ 4_
With respect to its position on the merits of the Applica-tion filed by t.e.CSN Companies, Northeast supports the concept of interconnection and coordination among utility systems when such interconnections and coordinat on are predicated on sound engineering and economic principles.
Interconnections which culminate in lower costs for power, better efficiency, and improved reliability, are supported by Northeast, be they interstate or in-trastate connections.
In the present case, due to Northeast's dependence on the SWEPCO system for its power ar.d energy require-ments, support of the proposed interconnections nust be based en whether such interconnections are beneficial to SWEPCO and its system.
Savings to SWEPCO as a result of eliminating duplicative transmission facilities, or improved reliability and economy obtained through emergency or economy interchanges with other bulk power suppliers, necessarily benefits Northeast and its custoners.
To the extent that the interconnections requested by the Applicant will serve to benefit SWEPCO, Northeast is supportive of the Application.
Based on the foregoing, Petitioner respectfully requests that it be allowed ta intervene in this proceeding and to become a party hereto for all purposes.
Further, Petitioner would request that the Commission grant to Northeast such further relief as may seem appropriate under the circumstances.
802 237-802 2
Attachment D, p.
5 of 6 Respectfully submitted,
/
//
pm, ff m f w cbY Law Offices of Northcutt Ely Frederick H.
Ritts William H.
Burchette Watergate 600 Building Washington, D.C.
20037 (202) 337-0200 Attorneys for Northeast Electric Cooperative, Inc., Petitioner April 13, 1979 802 238
Attachment D, p.
6 of 6 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that I have this day served by mail the foregoing document upon each person designated on the official service list compiled by the Secretary in this proceeding in accordance with the requirements of 51.17 of the Pules of Prac-tice and Procedure.
Dated at Washington, D.C.,
this 13th day of April 1979.
m' William H. Burchette Attorney for Northeast Texas Electric Cooperative, Inc.
802 239
LAW OFFICES Attachment E, p.
1 of 8 o,
N O RT H C U TT ELY WATERCATE SIX HUNDRED BUILDING T E LE PHON E 202-342-0800 TE LEX: 89535 WASHINCTON, D. C. 20037 CABLE CUADRANCLE NO RTHCUTT EU '
FRE D E RICK H. RlrTs R.OBE RT F P{ ROW $%IIR.
WILLI W H. BU RCH E TTE
"^""'C' 5
July 16, 1979 Michael B.
Blume, Esquire United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555
Dear Mr. Blume:
You have requested that Tex-La furnish you the principles which we desire to form the basis of new licens e conditions for Comanche Peak.
Bulk Power Suoply Alternatives The dually served cooperative members of Tex-La 1/ have physi-cally split distribution systems, with some delivery points served by TP&L and other delivery points served by SWEPCO or GSU. 2/
For example, Deep East Texas Electric Cooperative has eight delivery points with TP&L and four delivery points with SWEPCO, and approxi-mately 80 percent of Deep East's power requirements are served by TP&L and 20 percent by SWEPCO.
Deep East's delivery points with TP&L cannot be severed and then reoriented to be SWEPCO delivery points unless the cooperative constructs costly new transmission and distribution facilities.
As a result, the delivery points served by TP&L always must remain TP&L delivery points.
Thus, the 1/
These cooperatives are:
Deep East Texas Electric Cocperative, Houston County Electric Cooperative, Jasper-Newton Electric Coop-erative, Rusk County Electric Cooperative, Sam Houston Electric Cooperative, and Wood County Electric Cooperative.
2/
Cherokee County Electric Cooperative is partially served by Southwestern Electric Service Company, which is in turn served by TP&L.
t 802 240
LA W OF,1CES OP bh3 RT H C U TT E LY Attachment E, p.
2 of 8 Michael B.
Blume, Esquire July 16, 1979 Page two only power suppliers to thoce delivery points can be TP&L or util-ities which are interconnected with TP&L.
This is no alternative because utilities in Texas have service areas which are approved by the Public Utility Commission, and therefore there is little chance that Deep East could purchase power from Houston Lighting &
Power, Brazos, or TMPA.
As a practical matter, therefore, Deep East's TP&L delivery points can be considered as captive and the only practical alternative to wholesale power supply from TP&L, at a cost lower than TP&L's wholesale rates, is t.1 rough (1) the dupli-cation of transmission and distribution facilities required to change from TP&L-supplied service, or (2) the ownership-participation in Comanche Peak and other generating resources planned by TP&L.
In order for a cooperative to borrow money to finance owner-ship in a generating plant, the cooperative must be able to show its customers and the lender that the proposed project has economic feasibility (i.e.,
that the cost of electric power through owner-ship will be lower than the cost of power through continuing to be a full requirements wholesale power customer).
The cornerstone of this economic feasibility is that a cooperative is non-profit and has access to lower cost capital than its power supplier; for example, a cooperative such as Deep East can finance its share of Comanche Peak with approximately 9 percent money while TP&L's share of the same plant would require 10.5 percent money.
Recognition of the Cooperativen' Status as Compared to Utilities in Texas This initial basis of economic feasibility can be defeated easily by means of contractual arrangemer's with the major project owner (here TP&L).
To take two extreme examples:
(i) If TP&L required Tex-La to pay for standby capacity at a rate based on the hh
4 LAW OFFICES or N o RT H C U TT E LY Attachment E, p.
3 of 8 Michael B.
Blume, Esquire July 16, 1979 Page three highest cost unit owned by TP&L, economic feasibility would be re-duced; (ii) if TP&L's transmission service rate were based on incremental costs, Tex-La could not afford to have power wheeled.
The cooperatives' ownership of a portion of th. ~^manche Peak unit must be integrated with other power supply resources in order to realize an economically viable bulk power supply system.
Since the cooperatives do not possass these required power supply re-sources at this time, and since TP&L is the only practical alterna-tive available to them for the sup;1y of these resources, then the license condition should contain a requirement placed upon TP&L to provide such services, i.e.,
backup energy, standby capacity, and supplemental power.
These services should be available at the option of Tex-La with reasonable notice to TP&L and should be pro-vided by TP&L as a firm wholesale service, the same as for any other firm customer service of TP&L based upon appropriately allo-cated costs in accordance with rate schedules filed with either the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission or the Texas Public Utility Commission, whichever is appropriate.
Some utility companies have a quick answer to the above prin-ciples:
"We will treat the cooperatives the same as we treat neighboring utilities, no better and no worse."
This is a simplis-tic and deceiving response.
Distribution entities like Tex-La's members cannot possibly be treated by TP&L in the same manner that TP&L treats neighboring interconnected utilities such as TESCO, HL&P, Brazos, TMPA, and Dallas Power & Light.
The following clarifies the reasons why Tex-La cannot be
" treated just like the others."
}f9 007
4 LAW OPPICES A
achment E, p.
4 of 8 bh3 RT H C U TT E LY Michael B.
Blume, Esquire July 16, 1979 Page four (a)
The above utilities are independent, fully integrated operations which have load control responsibility for their respective systems.
(b)
Tex-La is not an-independent generating utility system with generating resources, nor does it have load control responsibility.
(c)
Tex-La is a firm wholesale customer while other utilities interconnected with TP&L are not.
(d)
Only a small part of Tex-La's load will be met from its own generation from jointly owned plants, and thus it will continue to purchase significant portions of its power from TP&L at wholesale.
(e)
Tex-La has no integrated transmission system.
The other utilities do.
(f)
Since Tex-La is presently a full requirements customer, TP&L has had in the past, and will have in the future, load responsibility to plan for Tex-La's power needs even though Tex-La may participate in Comanche Peak.
(g)
Ultimately Tex-La remains fully dependent on TP&L to sup-ply its load, just as any other firm wholesale customer.
Tex-La merely supplies capital to help finance system generation additions.
Thus, Tex-La's ownership in these facilities will not cause any change whatsoever in the manner in which TP&L operates the system.
Nor does own-ership by Tex-La place any new risk on TP&L.
We submit that these are compelling distinctions.
To ignore these distinctions would mean discrimination against Tex-La because 80 en,2 243 n.
b LAW OFFICES OF NO RT H C UTT E LY Attachment E, p.
L of 8 Michael B.
Blume, Esquire July 16, 1979 Page five to equate Tex-La with the others' systems means that a small owner-ship share of the Comanche Peak resource is supposed to be equi-valent to the multiple generating resources of HL&P, TESCO, DP&L, Brazos, and TP&L.
Such a comparison is simply not realistic.
j Principles for License Conditions i'
In general, the relevant contractual features (and license conditions) which are needed to obtain and maintain economic fea-sibility are as follows:
1.
Ownership-Participation Contract This contract, although lengthy and seemingly complex, really is rather basic.
It typically provides that all co-owners share equally in all costs, expenses, and benefits.
Economic feasibility can be ruined, however, if the junior co-owners must pay a premium for the project's fuel, while the project manager has lower cost fuel, even though the source is the same.
Feasibility also can be destroyed unless all co-owners are entitled to receive their share of a jointly owned unit's output at all times when the project is operating.
In general, the Comanche Peak ownership contracts appear to be fair although we are reviewing the fuel sharing and fuel cost terms.
2.
Power Supply Contract A.
Supplemental Power:
When a cooperative undertakes the risk 3/ of buying into a new unit, it purchases a share which is large enough to meet only a small portien of its total needs. 4/
3/
Transition from a distribution-only entity to a generation and transmission entity creates new problems and risks.
4/
As a full requirements wholesale customer, a cooperative's wholesale rate from the supplier is based on average system costs--
a blend of a company's oldest, low cost plant with its newest, high cost plant.
A cooperative loses economic feasibility if it pur-chases a large share in the new and highest cost plant.
nn 9
A
@4' 4
1 c,.
-4
law OFFICES or Attachment E, p.
6 of 8 NO RTHC UTT E LY Michael B.
Blume, Esquire July 16, 1979 Page six Thus it must purchase the remainder of its power requirements (known as supplemental power) at the supplier's system-wide whole-sale rates.
In other words, a company cannot charge a higher rate for supplemental wholesale power to a co-owner than it sells to a non-co-owner wholesale customer.
The obligation to serve the sup-plemental power load must be firm, not on an "as available" basis.
l This firm obligation is the same obligation a supplier has to its full requirements wholesale customers.
B.
Standby Capacity:
The cooperative co-owners must be en-titled to purchase standby capacity from TP&L at reasonable rates, to back up the cooperative's share of a jointly owned plant.
The cooperative should not be required by TP&L to maintain a greater reserve percentage level than the reserve percentage level planned by TP&L.
The cooperative should not be required to provide re-serves on that portion of its load which is met though firm whole-sale purchases.
C.
Backup Energy:
When a jointly owned unit is out of ser-vice for scheduled or non-scheduled outage, TP&L must furnish backup energy at a price no higher than TP&L charges its other customers.
For example, if a unit is out of service and TP&L pur-chases equal amounts of energy from TESCO (at 30 mills) and Dallas Power & Light (at 60 mills), the charge to Tex-La should be the average (45 mills) and not the maximum (60 mills).
If Tex-La did not own a joint unit and remained a full requirements wholesale customer, it would receive the same energy at 45 mills.
The furnishing of backup energy by TP&L to Tex-La must be a firm obligation; if the unit were down, and Tex-1.a were not a ec-owner, TP&L would have a firm obligation to supply replacement energy.
The obligation must be the same when Tex-La is a co-owner of a small portion of a unit.
802 245
o LAW orrects OF Attachment E, p.
7 of 8 hh3 RT H C U TT ELY Michael B.
Blume, Esqui e July 16, 1979 Page seven D.
Sellback of Excess Capacity:
Jecause of the high capacity costs of a new project, Tex-La is limited economically in its abil-ity to retain more than its normal load ratio share of a project's capacity.
In many existing arrangements (e.g.,
Hatch, Marble Hill, Fermi) involving a large power company and a small cooperative joint owner, the cooperative sells back to the major owners some excess capacity and energy for a few years, on a take or pay basis, and at a price which reflects the savings gained from the coopera-tive's lower cost capital.
Each month TP&L would purchase from Tex-La that portion of Tex-La's unit capacity which Tex-La did not retain for its own use (Sell-Back Capacity).
TP&L would pay Tex-La for Sell-Back Capacity at a rate designed to share, equally between Tex-La and TP&L, the dollar-per-kilowatt savings made available through Tex-La's financing and non-profit operation associated with its interest in the project.
In short, the sell-back price is based on an average of the cooperatives' capital costs and a company's capital costs.
3.
Transmission Service Contracts When a cooperative jointly owns a unit, it typically only owns the generating plant and not the transmission facilities running from the unit to the service area.
Thus, the major co-owner must have the firm obligation 5/ to transmit the cooperative's power from the unit to the cooperative's service area.
That obligation must be just as if the cooperative did not own a portion of the unit and instead remained a wholesale customer receiving power from all of the company's generating resources.
5/
The obligation cannot be on an "as available" basis, or " excess capacity" basis, or "best efforts" basis.
80?
246
LAW CFPICES ent E, p.
8 of 8 N O RT H C U TT E LY Michael B.
Blure, Esquire July 16, 1979 Page eight The transmission rate must be devised in the same manner as the transmission component of the wholesale rates.
Thus if the transmission component of the wholesale rate to a non-co-owner is based on average embedded system costs, the transmission rate to a co-owner must be based on the same method.
The above principles represent means for cooperatives to have access to alternative power supplies through co-ownership.
The li-cense conditions-should be drafted to reflect the principles which make co-ownership possible.
Very truly yours, A
i I
L Frederick H. Ritts FHR:dsf Copy to Jrdy Harris, Esquire Mr. Fred S.
Buchanan (Cherokee County Electric Cooperative)
Mr. Homer Murray (Deep East Texas Electric Cooperative)
Mr.
W.H.
Holcomb (Houston County Electric Cooperative)
Mr. Carl Morgan (Jasper-Newton Electric Cooperative)
Mr. Carl Messec (Rusk County Electric Cooperative)
Mr. Milton T.
Potts (Sam Houston Electric Cooperative)
Mr. Juan D.
Nichols (President, Tex-La of Texas) 802
?47
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing " Response of Tex-La Electric Cooperative, Inc. to First Set of Interrogatories and Requests for Production of Documents From Texas Utilities Generating Company" has been served on each of the following persons by deposit in the United States mail, first class, postage pre-paid, this 24th day of July 1979.
Samuel J. Chilk, Secretary Mr. Perry G.
Brittain U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission President Washington, D.C.
20555 Texas Utilities Generating Co.
2001 Bryan Tower Atomic Safety and Licensing Dallas, Texas 75201 Appeal Board Panel U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission Mr.
R.L.
Hancock, Director Washington, D.C.
20555 City of Austin Electric Utility Department Richard S.
Salzman, Esquire P.O. Box 1088 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Austin, Texas 78767 Washington, D.C.
20555 Mr.
G.W.
Oprea, Jr.
Jerome E.
Sharfman, Esquire Executive Vice President U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission Houston Lighting & Power Co.
Washington, D.C.
20555 P.O.
Box 1700 Hcuston, Texas 77001 Chase R. Stephens, Secretary Docketing and Service Section Jon C. Wood, Esquire U.S.
Nuc; ear Regulatory Commission W.
Roger Wilson, Esquire Washingt 1,
D.C.
20555 Matthews, Nowlin, MacFarlane
& Barrett Jerome Saltzman 1500 Alamo National Building Chief, Antitrust and Indemnity San Antonio, Texas 78205 Group U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission Joseph Gallo, Esc' lire Washington, D.C.
20555 Richard D. Cudet., Esquire Robert H.
Loefflem, Esquire Mr. Roff Hardy Tsham, Lincoln and Beale Chairman and Chief Executive Officer 1050 17th Street, N.W.
Central Power & Light Compan?
Washington, D.C.
20036 P.O. Box 2121 Corpus Christi, Texas 78403 Michael I. Miller, Esquire Richard E.
Powell, Esquire Mr.
G.K.
Spruce David M.
Stahl, Esquire General Manager Thomas G.
Ryan, Esquire City Public Service Board Isham, Lincoln and Beale P.O.
Scx 1771 One First National Plaza San Antonio, Texas 78203 Chicago, Illinois 50603 802 248
.s 4 s
.s
..)
e..
, Roy P.
Lessey, Esquire Morgan Hunter, Esquire Michael Blume, Esquire McGinnis, Lochridge & Kilgore U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission 900 Congress Avenue Washington, D.C.
20555 Austin, Texas 78701 Jerry L.
Harris, Esquire Jay M.
Galt, Esquire City Attorney Looney, Nichols, Johnson Richard C.
Balough, Esquire
& Hayes Assistant City Attorney 219 Couch Drive City of Austin Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73101 1
P.O.
Box 1088 Austin, Texas 78767 Knoland J. Plucknett Executive Director, Committee Mr. Dan H.
Davidson on Power for the Southwest City Manager 5541 East Skelly Drive City of Austin Tulsa, Oklahoma 74135 P.O.
Box 1088 Austin, Texas 78767 Mr. W.S.
Robson South Texas Electric Coopera-Don R.
Butler, Esquire tive, Inc.
1225 Southwest Tower Route 6, Building 102 Austin, Texas 78701 Victoria Regional Airport Victoria, Texas 77901 Joseph Irion Worsham, Esquire Merlyn D.
Sampels, Esquire R.
Gordon Gooch, Esquire Spencer C.
Relyea, Esquire John P. Mathis, Esquire Worsham, Forsythe & Sampels Baker and Botts 2001 Bryan Tower, Suite 2500 1701 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Dallas, Texas 75201 Washington, D.C.
20006 Joseph Knotts, Esquire Robert Lowenstein, Esquire Nicholas S.
Reynolds, Esquire J.A.
Bouknight, Jr., Esquire Debevoise & Liberman William J.
Franklin, Esquire 1200 Seventeenth 5treet, N.W.
Lowenstein, Newman, Reis Washington, D.C.
20036 and Axelrad 1025 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.
Ronald Clark, Esquire Washington, D.C.
20036 Energy Section Antitrust Division E.W.
Barnett, Esquire Department of Justice Charles G. Thrash, Jr.,
Esquire P.O. Box 14141 J.
Gregory Copeland, Esquire Washington, D.C.
20044 Theodore F. Weiss, Jr.,
Esquire Baker and Botts Douglas F.
John, Esquire 3000 One Shell Plaza Akin, Gump, Hauer & Feld Houston, Texas 77002 1333 New Hampshire Avenue, N.W.
Suite 400 Washington, D.C.
20036 80,2,.24$
8 t,
..<evin B.
Pratt, Esquire Robert M.
Rader, Esquire Assistant Attorney General Conner, Moore & Corber P.O.
Box 12548 1747 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W.
Capital Station Washington, D.C.
20006 Austin, Texas 78711 Donald M. Clements, Esquire Robert C.
McDiarmid, Esquire Gulf States Utilities Company Spiegel & McDiarmid Post Office Box 2951 2600 Virginia Avenue, N.W.
Beaumont, Texas 77704 Washington, D.C.
20037 W.N.
Woolsey, Esquire Dyer and Redford 1030 Petroleum Tower Corpus Christi, Texas 78474 42 William H.
Burchette Attorney for Tex-La Electric Cooperative, Inc.
801c25:-3 e
z au