ML19289D139

Motion to Compel Houston Power & Light to Provide Further Responses to DOJ 781122 Discovery Request Due to Insufficiency of 790111 Answers.Certificate of Svc Encl

ML19289D139
Person / Time
Site:	South Texas, Comanche Peak
Issue date:	02/06/1979
From:	Clark R, Harris J, Parmenter F JUSTICE, DEPT. OF
To:
References
NUDOCS 7902230051
Download: ML19289D139 (39)

Text

s -- o q yg UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

,s e' Int BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING DOARD /q} /o

'hl '. $ s

!! k> Id. .

) ~, -i c --

In the Matter of )

)

Docket Nos. 50-498A

".[3'y#

O? 9 HOUSTON LIGHTING AND POWER ) ,

CO., et al (South Texas ) 50-499A d' Project, Units 1 and 2) ) 's!'M, -

75J s

)

TEXAS UTILITIES GENERATING ) Docket Nos.' 50-445A COMPANY (Comanche Peak Steam ) Sp46A Electric Station, Units 1 )

and 2) )

)

MOTION OF THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE TO COMPEL HL&P TO PROVIDE FULLER RESPONSES TO THE DEPARTMENT'S FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES AND REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS John H. Shenefield Donald L. Flexner Assistant Attorney General Deputy Assistant Attorney General Antitrust Division Antitrusc Division Communications with respect to this document should be, addressed to:

Donald A. Kaplan Chief Robert Fabrikant Assistant Chief Energy Section Antitrust Division Department of Justice Washington, D.C. 20530 Judith L. Harris Ronald H. Clark Frederick H. Parmenter Attorneys Energy Section Department of Justice P.O. Box 14141 Washington, D.C. 20044 February 6, 1979 790223Cc5/

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

)

In the Matter of )

)

HOUSTON LIGHTING AND POWER ) Docket Nos. 50-498A CO., et al (South Texas ) 50-499A Project, Units 1 and 2) )

)

TEXAS UTILITIES GENERATING ) Docket Nos. 50-445A COMPANY (Comanche Peak Steam ) 50-446A Electric Station, Units 1 )

and 2) )

MOTION OF THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE TO COMPEL HL&P TO PROVIDE FULLER RESPONSES TO THE DEPARTMENT'S FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES AND REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS I. Introduction The Department of Justice (" Department") respectfully moves the Board, pursuant to 10 C.F.R. S2.740(f) of the NRC Rules, fo'r an order compelling Houston Lighting & Power Company ("HL&P") to supply further and fuller answers to the FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES AND REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS FROM DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE TO HOUSTON LIGHTING &

POWER AND TEXAS UTILITIES COMPANIES, dated November 22, 1978 (" Interrogatories").

HL&P's responses were contained in HOUSTON LIGHTING AND POWER COMPANY'S OBJECTIONS AND ANSWERS TO THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE'S FIRST SET OF WRITTEN INTERROGATORIES AND REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS (" Answers"), served on Janu-ary 11, 1979. The objections raised therein were also made

the subject of a motion for a protective order which was filed by HL&P on January 15, 1979. The Department's opposi-tion to that motion and its response to the objections raised by HL&P to the Department's Interrogatories are contained in the RESPONSE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE TO HOUSTON LIGHTING & POWER COMPANY'S OBJECTIONS AND MOTION FOR A PROTECTIVE ORDER REGARDING THE DEPARTMENT'S DISCOVERY REQUEST (" Opposition to Protective Order"), being filed simultaneously with th^ instant MOTION OF THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE TO COMPEL HL&P TO PROVIDE FULLER RESPONSES TO THE DEPARTMENT'S FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES AND REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS (" Motion to Compel").

Therefore, the Department will not concern itself here with those interrogatories to which HL&P raised a specific objection in lieu of providing an answer.

Rather, this Motion to Compel will address only those interrogatories to which ostensible answers were supplied but which answers, in the Department's opinion, are tanta-mount to no answers at all.

The URC rule relating to motions to compel discovery, 10 C.F.R. S2.740(f), states, in relevant part:

For purposes of this paragraph, an evasive or incomplete answer or response shall be treated as a failure to answei or respond (emphasis added). ,

The Department turns now to an analysis of those evasive and/or incomplete answers with respect to which it is moving to compel fuller responses. For the conv.7nience of the Board, in virtually every instance the Department has set forth both the interrogatory and the answer to which its comments pertain.

II. Analysis of Specific Interroaatory Answers

1. The Department's first interrogatory to HL&P reads as follows:

Providing the identity of the requestor, the date of the request (t), the individual contacted and the nature of response (s).

describe each occasion upon which an Electri-cal Utility engaged in interstate commerce, or interconnected with a Electrical Utility engaged in interstate commerce, contacted HL&P and/or TU, regarding: (a) a request to purchase, sell, or exchange electrical power or energy, including but not limited to wholesale transactions; (b) requests for the use of transmission services; (c) requests for membership in the Texas Interconnected System (TIS); (d) requests for membership in the Electric Reliability Council of Texas (ERCOT); and (e) provide all documents which relate to (a)-(d) above. (Interrogatories at 8).

HL&P supplied this response:

Houston Lighting & Power Company is not aware of any requests of the nature set forth in subparts (a)-(d) made to Houston Lighting &

Power Company other than as the question may relate to the interconnection between Houston Lighting & Power Company and Gulf States Utilities Company, which has existed since 1928. All documents related to the operation of the interconnection with Gulf States Utilities Company have been provided in connection with the matter of West Texas Utilities Co. and Central Power & Light Co. v. Texcs Electric Service Co. and Houston Lighting & Power Co., No. CA3-76-0633-F,

["the civil case"] and previously made available to the Department. Houston Light-ing & Power Company cannot and does not purport to answer for Texas Utilities.

(Answers at 2).

HL&P thus informs the Department, under oath, that no electrical utility engaged in interstate commerce, or interconnected with a utility engaged in interstate commerce, ever contacted HL&P to purchase, sell or exchange electrical power, to use transmission services or for membership in TIS or ERCOT with tne exception of Gulf States Utilities Company

("GSUC") which, apparently, has had an interconnection with HL&P since 1928.

This answer is deficient on its face because it gives none of the details sought surrounding the operation of HL&P's interconnection with GSUC. For example, the answer does not furnish the identity of the requestor 1/, the date of the request, the individual contacted, the nature of the response and a description of the occasion upon which the request was made.

1/ The definitional section in the Interrogatories states:

" Identify", when used (in the Department's Interrogatories] with respect to any person means that the person's name, current (or past if retired) business address, job title and employer should be specified. (Interrogatories at 3).

The fact that, as HL&P states, the documents relating to the GSUC interconnection are among the thousands of documents produced in another proceeding and thereafter made available to the Department does not cure this lack of responsiveness. HL&P should be compelled to supplement with appropriate details its response to the first interrogatory.

2. The Department's second interrogatory asks HL&P to:

Identify each contract, agreement, or under-standing among any Companies or between or among any Company and any third Electric Utility, since 1935 relating to: (a) the installation, maintenance and inspection of mechanical devices designed to prevent either the flow of power from interstate commerce into the lines of each Company, or the flow of power from each Company into interstate commerce; (b) procedures whereby sh,ould any Company desire to engage in interstate commerce, it would notify the other within a specified time; (c) any contract, understanding, agreement or plan whereby either or both Companies would afsconnect from any third Electric Utility with which they were interconnected should that third Electric Utility commence to transmit or receive electrical power or energy in interstate commerce; and (d) provide all documents which relate to (a)-(c) above. (Interrogatories at 8-9).

HL&P replied:

Houston Lighting & Power Company cannot and does not purport to answer for any other electric utility. Houston Lighting & Power Company has had no contract, agreement or understanding with any thi-d Electric Utility relating to the use of mechanical

devices to prevent the interstate flow of power, nor has it had any contract, under-standing or agreement with any other electric utility to the effect that both would disconnect from any third Electric Utility with which they were interconnected should that third Electric Utility commence inter-state operation. It has been the common understanding among all members of the Texas Interconnected Systems (" TIS") that should any individual member of TIS desire to engage in interstate operation it would provide notice to all the other members of TIS in order that each individual member of TIS could make a decision as to whether it would choose to remain in intrastate opera-tion or engage in interstate operation. This common understanding was explained at pages 256-257, 1141, 1145, 1152, 1189, 1269, 1271, 1307-08, 2754-55 of the transcript in the trial of West Texas Utilities Co. , et al. v.

Texas Electric Service Co., et al. supra. As also explained at pages 693-94, 712-14, 1141, 1145, 1152, 1189, 1269, 1271 of the transcript in that same proceeding, this was the interpretation placed upon interconnection agreements which were entered into prior to the formation of TIS. Copies of these interconnection agreements are included in the documents previously produced for review -

by the Department of Justice and/or in the exhibits in West Texas Utilities Co., et al.

v. Texas Electric Service, Co., et al.,

supra. (Answer at 2-3, emphasis added).

HL&P thus begins its answer by invoking the disclaim-er that it "cannot and does not purport to answer for any other electric utility." The Department again states for See Opposi-the record that it does not expect otherwise.

tion to Protective Order,Section II B. The Department does, however, expect HL&P to "[ijdentify each contract, agreement or understanding among any Companies or between or t

l t

I among any Company and any third Electric Utility," of which HL&P is aware, whether or not it is or was a party to that contract, agreement or understanding. P Additionally, the Department requests that HL&P be required to clarify that portion of its answer to the second interrogatory which reads:

Houston Lighting & Power Company, has had no contract, agreement or understanding with any '

third Electric Utility relating to the use of mechanical devices to prevent the interstate flow of power. (Answer at 2, emphasis added)

The Department wishes to know whether it should interpret the underlined word " third" as synonomous with the word "other," or whether the statement would be accurate as written if the word " third" were omitted altogether.

N e x t., in its answer to the second interrogatory, HL&P states that:

It has been the cormon understandino ameng all members of the Texas Interconnected Systems (" TIS") that should any individual members of TIS desire to engage in interstate operation it would provide notice to all the other members of TIS. (Answer at 2, emphasis added.)

Pursuant to subpart (d) of the second interrogatory, the Department is entitled to receive copies of any documents .

which formed the basis, even implicitly, for the underlined

" common understanding". Instead of providing copies of such documents, HL&P simply cites numerous pages of the civil trial transcript wherein, according to HL&P, the " common understanding" is explained. Then, HL&P states that relevant documents are:

included in the documents previously pro-duced for review by the Department of Justice and/or in the exhibits in West Texas Utilities Co., et al. v. Texas Electric Service, Co.,

et al., supra. (Answer at 3, emphasis added)

This answer is a good example of how HL&P has used the private civil case to frustrate discovery in these proceed-ings, contrary to the Board's orders. 2/

The cited portions of the transcript do not explain the

" common understanding", but rather, merely repeat, as if by rote, that a " common understanding" in fact existed. 1/

Moreover, simply because HL&P has already tried a case involving some of the same issues as those involved here, does not relieve HL&P of its obligation to respond separate-ly and fully to discovery requests in these proceedings.

That obligation is not satisfied by merely referring to.a multitude of pages (without even including volume numbers) to a trial transcript (consisting of twenty-two volumes).

2/ See July 13, 1978 and December 5, 1978 Orders of the Board.

3/ A good illustration of this can be found in the first transcript reference cited by HL&P: .

Well, I mean we have an understanding in TIS

-- everybody understands that we are going to be intrastate operators. (Testimony of P.H. Robinson, by deposition, Volume II of transcript in West Texas Utilities Co. , et al. v. Texas Electric Service Co., et al., at 256)

HL&P has not attached as exhibits to its interrogatory answers copies of the referenced pages, with relevant sections highlighted so as to facilitate the Department's review. Indeed, HL&P has not provided the Departrent with a copy of the transcript. The Department was required to expend its own funds to obtain a copy of the transcript; HL&P should not be permitted to use that fact to avoid providing separate and full discovery.

As for HL&P's representation that some relevant documents are included either in the documents that were already produced or are exhibits in the civil case, the Department refers again to Section II A of its Opposi-tion to Protective Order. Moreover, HL&P has never pro-vided the Department with copies of the exhibits in the civil case. 4/

The Department respectfully requests the Board to compel HL&P to provide a fuller answer to the second in-terrogatory, which contains, inter alia, all the infor-mation discussed above.

4/ The Department has an incomplete set of these exhibits ,

which was furnished by Central Power and Light Company

("CP&L").

3. The Department's third interrogatory reads:

(a) Describe in detail the reasons, factors or policies which were considered by HL&P and/or TESCO in determining to disconnect on May 4, 1976, from other Electric Utilities with which they had been interconnected. (b)

Provide all documents which relate to the response to this interrogatory. (Interroga-tories at 9).

HL&P replied:

The decision by Houston Lighting & Power Company to disconnect on May 4, 1976, was made by Mr. Don D. Jordan who was President of Houston Lighting & Power Company at that time, in consultation with other officers of Houston Lighting & Power Company. The reasons given by Mr. Jordan for the discon-nection are explained in exhaustive detail in his testimony set forth at pages 2718-2909 of the transcript in West Texas Utilities Co.,

et al. v. Texas Electric Service Co., et al.,

supra. The testimony of Mr. D.E. Simmons in that proceeding is also relevant in this regard in that Mr. Jordan consulted with

~

Mr. Simmons prior to making the decision to disconnect. Mr. Simmons' testimony is at pages 2915-3154 of the transcript. Houston Lighting & Power Company is not aware of any documents, other than those previously produced for the Department's inspection, which are relevant to this question.

(Answers at 3).

While the Department will carefully review Mr.

Jordan's testimony, it is clear that a blanket reference to almost 200 pages of a trial transcript (excluding the .

approximately 240 pages of testimony by Mr. Simmons) is not an adequate response to an interrogatory which asks for a description of the reasons, factors or policies which were considered by HL&P in deciding to disconnect from other utilities on May 4, 1976. HL&P should be required to summarize Mr. Jordan's testimony if that is the best way of describing those reasons, factors or policies about which the Department has inquired, and/or to provide a separate description of those reasons, factors or policies.

4. The Department's fourth interrogatory asks:

In order of their relative importance, describe the underlying policies or bases upon which HL&P and TU justify their refusal to engage in the interstate transmission or reception of electrical power or energy or to be interconnected with any other Electric Utility engaged in interstate commerce; provide any documents which state or describe these policies or bases. (Interrogator _es at

9) .

HL&P replied:

As stated in answer to Interrogatory No. 3, Houston Lighting & Power Company believes that this question can best be answered by reference to the testimony of Mr. Jordan, who made the decision to disconnect on May 4, 1976, wherein Mr. Jordan testified as to the reasons why he decided to order the discon-nection. Houston Lighting & Power Company cannot and does not purport to answer for Texas Utilities Company. ' Answers at 4).

Insofar as HL&P has answered the fourth interrogatory in the identical fashion that it responded to the third interrogatory, the Department makes the same objection to that answer as it did to the answer to the third interroga-tory. Moreover, the reasons given by Mr. Jordan as of May 4, 1976 for deciding to order a disconnection are not responsive as to how HL&P now justifies its continued refusal to engage in interstate commerce. For these reasons, HL&P should be compelled to provide a fuller response to the Department's fourth interrogatory.

5. The first subpart of the Department's fifth inter-rogatory reads as follows:

With respect to the South Texas Project, identify and describe (a) all requirements which had to be satisfied before any Elec-trical Utility would be allowed to par-ticipate in the project; (Interrogatories at 9).

HL&P replied:

The requirements for participation in the South Texas Project are contained in the South Texas Project Participation Agreement

["STPPA"). (Answers at 4).

The STPPA, exclusive of accompanying exhibits, consists of 63 pages. It begins with a two page " Table of Contents" (not included in the 63 pages). None of the 35 entries in that Table of Contents seems to relate to requirements for participation (though a few entries appear to p.ertain to the obligations of participants). In asking its interrogatory, the Department sought to determine what baseline requirements a utility had to meet before being considered for participa= ,

tion in the South Texas Project. If that information, in its entirety, is contained in the STPPA, the Department does not object to an answer which cites or quotes the relevant provisions of that agreement. 5/

The Department accepts, for purposes of this motion, HL&P's answers to subparts (c)-(e) of the fifth interroga-tory. Thus, the Department is requesting only that the Board compel fuller answers to subparts (a) and (b) of the fifth interrogatory.

6. The Department's sixth interrogatory reads:

State in current dollar amounts what cost, if any, would be borne by HL&P and TU if ERCOT '

were interconnected with the Southwest Power Pool. Had these costs, if any, been cal-culated prior to the opening of any intercon-nections on or about May 4, 1976? State all assumptions underlying these calculations, who made such assumptions, the basis for such assumptions, when the calculations were made, and whether these calculations were under-taken for any purpose other than to use in this or related litigation. Provide all studies, drafts, working papers, etc. relat-ing to the calculations of any such costs.

(Interrogatories at 10).

HL&P replied:

It is impossible to state what cost, if any, would be borne by Houston Lighting & Power Company or any other member of ERCOT if ERCOT were interconnected with the Southwest Power Pool without knowing the specific intercon-5/ The Department is not setting forth here subpart (b) of the fifth interrogatory because HL&P has made that the subject of a specific objection and, therefore, the Depart-ment has treated it in its Opposition to Protective Order at 14-15. In addition to the arguments made there, the Depart-ment points out that the arguments outlined in the text regarding HL&P's response to subpart (a) of the fifth interrogatory are equally applicable to HL&P's answer to subpart (b) of the fifth interrogatory.

nection proposal and the basis for allocation of cost among all the parties involved in the interconnection. As explained in the testi-mony of Mr. D.E. Simmons, located at pages 2915-3109 of the transcript in West Texas Utilities Co., et al. v. Texas Electric Service Co., et al., supra, Houston Light-ing & Power Company had on many occasions estimated the impact on the TIS transmission grid resulting from interconnection with the Southwest Power Pool without regard to specific transmission configurations. Copies of all the documents related to this calcula-tion are included in the documents produced for review by the Department and/or in the exhibits in West Texas Utilities Co., et al.

v. Texas Electric Service Co., et al., supra.

(Answers at 5-6).

Because the Department agrees with the first portion of HL&P's answer, the Department specifically asked that all assumptions (and bases for such assumptions) used in cal-culating !!L&P's response to the sixth interrogatory be supplied. A reference to Mr. Simmons' testimony in the civil case, consisting of almost 200 pages, does not fu1 fill HL&P's obligations to respond to this interrogatory and to explain all assumptions underlying its response. Moreover, a cursory glance at the referenced testimony reveals that those portions which appear to be even marginally responsive to the sixth interrogatory, are scattered throughout the .

transcript. Further, those sections which appear to relate to the costs of ERCOT-Southwest Power Pool ("SWPP") inter-connections are often based on vague assumptions and contain contradictory conclusions. Since the Department does not possess the exhibits referred to in Mr. Simmons' testimony, a reference to them by HL&P is not helpful to the Department.

For all the reasons discussed in the Department's analysis of HLSP 's response to the second interrogatory, and for the reasons discused in Section IIA of the Department's Opposition to Protective Order, HL&P should be compelled to supply a concice and complete answer to the sixth interroga-tory.

7& 8. For purposes.of this Motion to Compel, the Department accepts HL&P's responses to seventh and eighth interrogatories.

9. The Department's ninth interrogatory asks HL&P to:

(a) Identify each and every occasion, if any, upon which HL&P and/or TU communicated with West Texas Utilities Company or Central Power

& Light Company the subject of possible interstate operation by WTU or CP&L, giving the date(s) of any such communication (s), the surrounding circumstances, the individu-al(s) so commenicating, the recipients of any such communication (s) and the response (s), if any, of those recipients. (b) Frovide all ,

documents which relate to the response to this interrogatory. (Interrogatories at 12).

HL&P furnisned the following. response:

The or.ly occasion on which Houston Lighting &

Power Company has ever received a direct commun.catica from Central Power and Light Company re.garding Central Power and Light Company's desire to commence interstate operation was in December, 1975. The circumstances surrounding this meeting are described in the testimony of Mr. Don D.

Jordan in West Texas Utilities Co., et al. v.

Texas Electric Service Co., et al., supra.

Houston Lighting & Power Company has never discussed this mattet directly with West Texas Utilities Company. (Answers at 6, emphasis added).

Because there are means of communicating which are not direct, HL&P should be compelled to broaden the scope of its answer so as to include all communications, direct and indirect. Moreover, the Department's inquiry is not limited to communications " received" from CP&L. HL&P should be compelled to clarify its answer so as to include all com-munications among the named companies, regardless of which company initiated the communications or which company was the recipient. Finally, the Department again objects to a blanket reference to Mr. Jordan's testimony in the civil case, this time without page references, in lieu of a detailed answer.

10. The Department's tenth interrogatory reads:

(a) State whether HL&P and/or TU through any of its management or executive employees has ever promulgated, published, circulated, or

~16-f i

t

in any way communicated throughout the Company or to its shareholders, or to any external person, or entity, that it main-tained a policy or practice of operating exclusively in intrastate commerce. (b)

State whether HL&P and/or TU through any of its management or executive employees has ever promulgated, published, circulated, or in any way communicated throughout the Company or to its shareholders, or to any external person or entity, that it intended in the future to operate exclusively in intrastate commerce. (c) If the answer to either (a) or (b) is in the affirmative, give the date(s) of any such communica-tion (s), the surrounding circumstances, individual (s) so communicating, the recipients of any such communication (s) and the specific responses, if any, of those recipients.

(d) Provide all documents which relate to (a)-(c) above. (Interrogatories at 12).

In its response, HL&P stated:

10(a)-(d). Houston Lighting & Power Company's decision as to whether to operate on an intrastate basis has always been since 1935 a matter of decision by the President or Cheif

[ sic) Executive Officer. The present and past Presidents and Chief Executive Officers '

who are still living are Don D. Jordan, John G. Reese, and P.H. Robinson. Houston Light-ing & Power Company knows of no oral or written communications regarding their views about intrastate operation beyond that given in their testimony and/or depositions in West Texas Utilities Co., et al. v. Texas Electric Service Co., et al., supra, and the documents previously produced for inspection by the Department. Houston Lighting & Power Company has no way of stating any oral communications -

made by past Presidents or Chief Executive Officers who are now deceased other than as such communications may have been recorded in writing, in which event they would be con-tained in the documents previously produced for inspection by the Department. (Answer at 6-7).

f

While the Department accepts that the " decision as to whether to operate on an intrastate basis has always been since 1935 a matter of decision by the President or Cheif

[ sic} Executive Officer" of HL&P, the Departcent's tenth interrogatory seeks to know whether that decision has ever, in any way, been cormunicated to others and, if so, when, to whom, how, etc. To the extent this question is answered in the testimony or depositions of Don D. Jordan, John G. Reese and P.H. Robinson in the civil case, HL&P should either sur:crize the relevant contents of the afore-said testimony cr depositions or, at a minimum, cite the relevant pages.

The Departrent is informed that, cuculatively, the trial and deposition testimony referred to in HL&P's answer to the Department's tenth interrogatory is approx-irately 800 pages. To require the Departtent to read all of that testimony and to guess which portions of it HL&P contends are responsive to the tenth interrogatory, would be unduly burdensome and would require the Department to perform a task which could be nuch more easily perforced by HL&P.

11. The Department accepts HL&P's response to the eleventh interrogatory.

12. The Department's twelfth interrogatory reads:

With respect to the FERC's Port Worth re-gional office study, " STAFF REPORT ON ELECTRIC RELIABILITY COUNCIL OF TEXAS INTERCONNECTION AND RELIABILITY EVALUATION," March, 1978, do Houston and TU contend that:

(a) the report is incorrect in assessing the amount of cost necessary to interconnect ERCOT and SWPP as being $31,175,000 (p.

32);

(b) the report is incorrect in assert-ing: "' Internal' load flows for single contingency loss of the largest generating unit in South Texas (South Texas Project 1,250 MW un;_) and single contingency loss of the largest generating unit in North Texas (Comanche Peak 1,130 MW unit) were made for ERCCT interconnected with SWPP and the rest of the eastern interconnected systems group for 1982. No over loads or adverse effects were observed" (p. 28);

(c) if the answer to (a) and (b) is affirmative, and HL&P or TU does reject that finding of the study, explain the basis for that rejection; (d) provide all documents which relate to (a)-(c) above. (Interrogatories at 13-14).

HL&P responded as follows:

(a) Houston Lighting & Power Company has not made any detailed study of the FERC's inter-connection and reliability evaluation to assess the validity of the $31,175,000 figure as the cost of the facilities recommended in .

the evaluation, or the validity of the assumption and calculations that led the FERC staff to select those facilities and to exclude others.

Houston Lighting & Power Company did comment on the report by letter dated August 11, 1978, to Mr. Kenneth F. Plumb, Secretary of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, (Exhibit C hereto) and stated its belief that "any theoretical benefits available from interconnections beyond the present ERCOT service territory are outweighed by addi-tional transmission, management and re-liability costs." Houston Lighting & Power Company cannot and does not purport to answer for Texas Utilities.

12 (b). Houston Lighting & Power Company does not know whether the quoted passage is correct or in,orrect. Houston Lighting &

Power Company was not a participant in the PERC study, and it does not know what over-loads and/or adverse effects were or were not observed by the Port Worth regional office. Ilouston Lighting & Power Company points out that the discussion on page 28 of the evaluation deals with " inertial load flows", rather than " internal load flows", as suggested by subpart (b).

12 (c). Refer to the answers above.

12 (d).

See Exhibit C. (Answers at 8-9).

IIL&P's answer to subpart (a) of the twelfth interroga-tory is not directly responsive. The Department is attempt-ing to ascertain whether HL&P takes issue with the conclu-sion of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's ("FERC")

" Fort Worth" study to the effect that the cost of intercon-necting ERCOT and SWPP would be approximately $31,175,000.

This requires a "yes" or "no" answer. HL&P responds that it has not made any " detailed" study to assess the validity of the S31,175,000 figure. This response leaves open the possibility that IIL&P (or a consultant working on its

behalf) has made a preliminary or cursory study. If so, HL&P should be required to furnish the Department with copies of those studies. If no such studies have been performed, HL&P should be required to explain the basis for itr conclusion contained in the August 11, 1978 letter to Mr. Plumb that: "At present, however, our business judgment is that interconnecting ERCOT and SWPP is not justified. . . . any theoretical benefits available from interconnections beyond the present ERCOT service territory are outweighed by additional transmission, ranagement and reliability costs."

With respect to HL&P's answer to subpart (b) of the twelfth interrogatory, the Department was not asking whether FERC properly reported its own findings and observations.

Rather, the Department wishes to know whether HL&P (or its consultants) has (have) performed any studies whose ccnc'lu-sions differ from those of the FERC study and whether HL&P contends that, were it to perform a study, the conclusions reached would likely differ from the FERC study. In light of these clarifications, HL&P should be required to supply

~

fuller answers to the twelfth interrogatory.

13. HL&P specifically objected to supplying an answer to the Department's thirteenth interrogatory.

Its objection is treated in the Department's Opposition

l to Protective Order at 15-17. Poc all the reasons discuss- ,

ed therein, HL&P should be compelled to provide a response to this interrogatory.

14. The fourteenth interrogatory reads:

State whether, prior to the May 4, 1976 disconnection, HL&P and/or TU made, com-missioned or reviewed any analysis, study or evaluation as to possible adverse effects upon wholesale, industrial and residential consumers of electrical power throughout Texas which would result from HL&P and TU disconnecting from all other Electric Utilities with which they were interconnected. If so, state the conclusion of any such analysis, study or evaluation, and by whom, when and i under what circumstances it was made.

Provide all documents relating to such analysis, study or evaluation. (Interroga-tories at 14, emphasis added).

HL&P gave the following reply:

tlouston Lighting & Power Company had no reason to assume that any of Texas Utilities' operating companies would disconnect from any other electric utility should Houston Light-ing & Power Company be forced to disconnect from other electric utilities. Therefore, no study of the effects of a joint or simultaneous disconnection has ever been made. (Answers at 9).

The Department inadvertently inserted the phrase "HL&P and TU" the second time that phrase appeared in the four-teenth interrogatory, see underlining supra, rather than .

repeating the phrase "HL&P and/or TU" 6/ as it should have done. In addition to the answer supplied, the Department 6/ "TU" refers to Texas Utilities Generating Company and subsidiaries Dallas Power & Light, Texas Power and Light and TESCO.

I would, therefore, request HL&P'to inform the Department whether HL&P ever studied possible adverse effects which ,

would result from TU disconnecting from all other utilities ,

with which it was interconnected and/or whether HL&P ever studied possible adverse effects which would result from .

HL&P disconnecting from all other utilities with which it was interconnected. If the answer to either of these questions is in the affirmative, HL&P should provide the Department with all details and supporting documents.

15. The Department's fifteenth interrogatory reads:

Do HL&P and TU contend that if they become subject to FERC jurisdictional authority, the Commission could order them to implement interconnections, provide transmission services, or take other action, the result of which would be detrimental to their cus-tome,rs? If so, state the basis of that contention and provide all documents relating to that contention. (Interrogatories at 15).

HL&P responded:

Houston Lighting & Power Company cannot answer this question as stated since it is based on the mistaken assumption that Houston Lighting & Power Company is not subject to FERC jurisdictional authority for purposes of the implementation of interconnections and transmission services. The question as to whether any particular interconnection or -

wheeling order would be determintal [ sic] to flouston Lighting & Power Company's customers depends on the nature and terms of the order.

(Answers at 9).

In that 8'L&P objects to the manner in which the Department has worded its inquiry, the Department will

~~ w

explain what it meant by its fifteenth interrogatory, so as to enable HL&P to respond. Throughout these proceedings and in reviewing discovery and trial testimony from the civil case, it appears that HL&P has set as one of its goals the avoidance of FERC's jurisdiction. The Department is trying to ascertain the reasons for that goal and has assumed (though perhaps erroneously) that the desire to avoid FERC's jurisdiction is related to adverse consequences which HL&P believes its customers might suffer if HL&P were to come within FERC's jursidiction. By mentioning interconnections and transmission services, the Department was simply fur-nishing examples of the kind of consequences of FERC juris-diction which HL&P may fear.

HL&P states that if it were to come within FERC's jurisdiction, the question of whether the effect of any particular FERC order would be detrimental to its customers would depend on "the nature and terms of the order."

Accepting this as HL&P's position, HL&P should be required to explain why it has unequivocally opposed coming within FERC's jurisdiction, especially when it does not have any advance notice of what actions PERC might take in such a situation.

16. The Department's sixteenth interrogatory reads:

(a) State for every wholesale customer of HL&P and TU: the full name or title of the customer; complete address of the customer; and the amount of wholesale power purchased

~ _ _ .

by that customer by year for the period 1950-1978. (b) State all requests received by HL&P and/or TU for wholesale service whether or not such service was ever pro-vided, specifying when the request was received, by whom the request was made, and whether the requesting party was at the time of the request engaged in interstate commerce.

(c) Provide all documents relating to the response to this interrogatory. (Interroga-tories at 15).

HL&P supplied the following answer:

(a). As to Houston Lighting & Power Company:

Community Wharton Public County Elect.

Year Service Coop

[ DATA OMITTED BY DEPARTMENT]

(b). None.

(c). None.

(Answers at 10).

In addition to the data which HL&P has supplied, it should also give the full addresses of the two wholesa'le customers which it lists, as requested in subpart (a) of the eixteenth interrogatory. Moreover, HL&P should be required to answer subpart (b) of this interrogatory with respect both to its two actual customers and any other potential customers who approached HL&P regarding the purchase of wholesale power at some point but who decided not to enter into a buy / sell (or other) arrangement. Since HL&P ap-parently has two wholesale customers, "none" cannot possibly

be a proper response to subpart (b) of this interrogatory.

At the very least, HL&P should furnish the tacts underlying the figures presented (i.e., when the requests fvr power were initiated, by whom, etc.) and whether the request-ing party was, at the time of the request, engaged in interstate commerce.

Subpart (c) requests all documents relating to HL&P's response to the sixteenth interrogatory, to which HL&P once again responds, "none". At a bare minimum, HL&P should supply the written contracts between HL&P, Community Public Service and Wharton County Elec. Coop, as well as any related correspondence and any correspondence between HL&P and any other systems wherein preliminary inquiries regard-ing the purchase of wholesale power might have been made.

17. The Department accepts, for purposes of this Motion to Compel, HL&P's response to the seventeenth inter-rogatory. However, insofar as HL&P states that "(a]ll documents related to the formation of ERCOT were previously produced for inspection by the Department" (Answers at 11),

the Department again requests that the Board compel HL&P to identify the previously produced documents which respond to this interrogatory.

18. The Department's eighteenth interrogatory reads:

State the purpose for which the TIS was formed. Provide all documents relating to its formation. List every occasion upon which an Electrical Utility has requested membership in TIS and provide all documents relating to such request and the response to that request.

(Interrogatories at 16, emphasis added).

HL&P gave the following response:

This information was previously provided to the Department in response to Questions Number 4 and 8 of the South Texas Project Units 1 and 2, Antitrust Information. TIS's formation was the formalization of an evolv-ing process of interconnections between electric utilities in Texas over a period of several decades. The purpose of TIS was to put on a more formal basis the relationship that had grown up between electric utilities within Texas as a result of the electric interconnections referred to above. All documents in Houston Lighting & Power Com-pany's possession that relate to the forma-tion of TIS have previously been furnished for the Department's inspection.

To the extent that Houston Lighting & Power Company has information concernina requested membership in TIS by other electric utilities, that information is contained in the docu-ments that have previously been furnished for the Department's inspection. (Answers at 11, .

emphasis added).

With respect to that portion of the eighteenth inter-rogatory which asks HL&P to list "every occasion upon which a utility has requested membership in TIS and [to] provide all documents relating to such request and the response to that request" (emphasis added), HL&P simply responded that, to the extent it has any information, that information is contained in the documents previously furnished, see underlining supra. For the reasons previously discussed, if a party responding to interrogatories chooses to answer by producing documents, those documents must be specifically identified and a blanket reference to thousands of previous-ly produced documents is inadequate.

Moreover, not all requests for membership in TIS may have been formally memorialized in correspondence. There-fore, the Board should direct that attorneys for HL&P again ask officers of HL&P if they can remember any inquiries regarding, or requests for, membership in TIS, including oral and/or preliminary inquiries, made by electric utilities.

This information, along with all accompanying details, should then be supplied to the Department.

19. HL&P has specifically objected to answering the nineteenth interrogatory and the Department has responded to HL&P's arguments in the Department's Opposition to Protec-tive Order. For all of the reasons discussed there, HL&P should be compelled to provide a full response to this interrogatory.

20. The Department's twentieth interrogatory reads:

In reference to the formation of ERCOT, identify each occasion upon which any em-ployee of HL&P or TU engaged in any communi-cation with any other party, individual or entity, specifying the substance of each such commtm ic a t i o n , the employee of HL&P or TU who made it, the date, the recipient of the communication, and the recipient's response, if any, relating to:

(a) the advisability of limiting membership in ERCOT to Electric Utilities engaged only in intrastate commerce; (b) concern about possible antitrust implica-tions of so limiting membership to intrastate Electric Utilities only; (c) alternative devices or understandings, either formal or informal, whereby Electric Utilities engaged in interstate commerce could be f oreclosed f rom membership in L' COT without this being made an explicit require-ment for membership; and (d) provide all documents relating to (a)-(c) above. (Interrogatories at 16-17).

HL&P responded:

(a). Such communications with Houston Light-ing & Power Company that are not privileged, if any, would be contained in the deposition testimony of P.H. Robinson taken in West Texas Utilities Co., et al. v. Texas Electric Service Co., et al., supra, and the documents already made available for the Department's inspection. Houston Lighting & Power Company cannot and does not purport to answer for Texas Utilities.

(b). None.

(c). None. (Answers at 12).

The Department has the same objection to this answer as it has consistently had when HL&P responds to an inter-rogatory by merely referencing an individual's testimony in the civil case and relying upon documents already provided.

Here, HL&P refers, without any specific page citation, to the deposition testimony of P.H. Robinson taken in the civil case. That deposition testimony consists of approxi-mately 400 pages. It is simply not possible for the Depart-ment to reread this entire deposition in an effort to determine which portions of it HL&P believes are responelve to this interrogatory. Moreover, it appears from the language of HL&P's response to subpart (a) of this inter-rogatory that, eve. though HL&P is directing the Depart-ment's attention to P.H. Robinson's deposition testimony, HL&P itself has not reviewed that testimony (for this purpose). 7/

Even assuming Mr- Robinson did direct his atten-tion during his deposition to the general area covered in the twentieth interrogatory, it is unlikely he would have provided all the specific information sought by the inter-rogatory.. Yet, it appears obvious from HL&P's answer that, even assuming Mr. Robinson's deposition provides some starting point, HL&P has made no attempt to obtain addi-tional responsive details. Thus, HL&P should be compelled to supply a fuller response to the twentieth interrogatory.

7/ HL&P's answer states, in relevant part: "Such communi-cations with Houston Lighting & Power Company that are not privileged, if any, would be contained in the deposition testimony of P.H. Robinson." (Emphasis added).

21. HL&P's response to the twenty-first interrogatory, whici, basically asks about the reconnection of HL&P and TU following their disconnection on May 4, 1976, states:

This informatien was supplied in response to Interrogator'! No. 19 of Central Power

& Light Company's First Interrogatories in this proceeding. Ogler than the documents already made available for the Department's inspection, see Exhibit D. (Answer at 12).

The only language in HL&P's response to Interrogatory 19 of CP&L's first set of interrogatories which seems to relate to the Department's twenty-first interrogatory is the following:

HL&P agreed to reconnect with any member of TIS on the terms and conditions set forth in Exhibit D to HL&P's answer to Plaintiffs' "irst Set of Interrogatories in West Texas Utilities Company v. Texas Electric Service Company, supra; and as explained in response to Interrogatory Nos. 20-23 of those inter-rog6 tories, HL&P reconnected with Texas Utilities Company under that agreement.

(Answer of Houston Lighting & Power Company '

to Central Power and Light Company's First Interrogatories, Answer to Interrogatory 19 at 8).

Thus, to ascertain the answer to the twenty-first interroga-tory, the Department is dirscted # 3 look in yet another place.

The task of tracing the answer to the twenty-first interrogatory in compounded by two difficulties. First, copies of the relevant sections of the other discovery

-31

responses referred to are not even attached as exhibits to HL&P's Answers to the Department's Interrogatories.

Second, while the Department does ha,e a copy of what purports to be " DEFENDANT HL&P'S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFFS' FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES" in the civil case, that copy is undated, unsigned and not notarized and, therefore, es-sentially useless as evidence in these proceedings. More-over, the Department does not seem to have a copy of the cited " Exhibit D", or of any of the other exhibits to llL&P's answers in the civil case. If HL&P wishes to rely for its answer to the twenty-first interrogatory on exhibits and answers submitted in the civil case, HL&P should provide a copy of those exhibits and a dated, signed and sworn copy of those. answers, with relevant portions indicated.

22. The Department accepts, for purposes of this motion, HL&P's response to the twenty-second interrogatory.

23. For purposes of this motion, the Department accepts HL&P's answer to the twenty-third interrogatory.

However, insofar as that answer refers to another answer contained in HL&P's response to the plaintiff's first set of interrogatories in the civil case, HL&P should be required to furnish the Department with a signed and sworn copy of that response with all accompanying exhibits.

Additionally, the Department's twenty-third interrog-atory, in effect, asks about every occasion on which employees of HL&P and/or its attorneys visited generating plants, relays, installations or the like of other electric utilities for the purpose of inspecting relays, mechanical devices or other equipment designed to prevent the flow of electrical power or energy in interstate commerce. HL&P's interrogatory answer in the civil case identifies one such occasion on February 17, 1964 and another after May 4, 1976 (more such occasions might be identified in the exhibits). Unless the Department is informed otherwise by HL&P, the' Department will assume these were the only two occasions, of which HL&P is aware, which are relevant to the inquiry.

24. HL&P's full response to the twenty-fourth inter-rogatory was the phrase "not applicable". The Department inadvertently limited this interrogatory to TU. The Depart-ment apologizes for this error and requests that HL&P furnish an answer to this interrogatory, substituting the phrase "TU and/or Houston" for "TU", where that word ( : curs in the second line of the interrogatory at page 20.

25. The Department's twenty-fifth and final interrog-atory reads:

(a) Describe in detail how the desire, practice, preference, or policy of HL&P and TU i operate exclusively in intrastate cc c.erce has affected, influenced, con-trulled, or modified the design of physical facilities, plants, transmission facilities, or any other construction engaged in by the two Companies; (b) state whether or not the maintenance of intrastate status or operation on the part of HL&P and TU had any impact, influence, effect, or consequences upon the cost of the physical facilities, plants, transmission facilities, or other construc-tion costs borne by the two Companies; (c) indicate an approximate figure representing how much additional cost, if any, was borne by HL&P and TU since 1965 in undertaking new construction or maintenance of existing facilities as a result of any policy or desire to remain exclusively in intrastate operation; (d) state in detail what assump-tions and calculations were cmployed to prepare a response to subsection (c) of this interrogatory; and (e) identify every in-dividual, person or employee of HL&P or TU who decided, or participated in deciding, to .

design, construct, or build any facility or modify any existing facility in such a manner that the owner Company would not become engaged in interstate commerce. (Interrogatories at 20-21).

HL&P responded in this fashion:

It is Houston Lighting & Power Company's belief that its historical mode of operation has enabled it to maintain the highest degree of reliability at the lowest possible cost to its customers. Accordingly, Houston Lighting

& Power Company is not aware of any situation in which considerations of intrastate versus interstate operations had any effect on the design of its transmission and genera-tion facilities, and Houston Lighting & Power Company does not believe that the decision to operate on an intrastate basis has had any adverse cost impact on the design of its transmission or generation facilities.

(Answers at 12-13).

Even assuming that !!L&P chose its mode of operation solely because of . reliability and cost considerations, without regard to the intrastate-interstate issue, the testimony in the civil case renders it unlikely that this mode was never adjusted to prevent interstate forays or that other action was not purposely avoided in order to remain intrastate only. It is with respect to any such instances that the Board should compel HL&P to respond.

Por all of the reasons set forth above, the Department respectfully moves the Board for an order, pursuant to 10 C.P.R. S2.740(p), compel. ling IIL&P to provide full answers to all of the interrogatories just discussed as soon as is reasonably possible.

Respectfully submitted, U C{trU, f ffQ t W)

Judith L. Ila r r is Ronald 11. Clark Frederick II. Parmenter Attorneys, U.S. Department of Justice Energy Section Antitrust Division Washington, D.C. 20530 February 6, 1979 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY CCll!!ISSION BEFORE Tile ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD

)

In the Matter of )

)

IlOUSTON LIGi! TING AND POWER ) Docket Nos. 50-498A CO., et al.(South Texas ) 50-499A Project, Units 1 and 2) )

)

TEXAS UTILITIES GENERATING ) Docket Nos. 50-445A COMPANY (Comanche Peak Steam ) 50-446A Electric Station, Un:'s 1 * )

and 2) )

)

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that service of the foregoing MOTION OF THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE TO COMPEL IIL&P TO PROVICE FULLER RESPONSES TO THE DEPARTMENT'S FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES AND REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUf1ENTS has been made on the following parties listed hereto this 6th day of February, 1979, by depositing copics thereof in the United States mail, first class, postage prepaid.

Marshall E. Miller, Esquire Atomic Safety and Licensing Chairman Appeal Board Panel Atomic Safety & Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Panel Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Washington, D. C. 20555 Commission Washington, D. C. 20555 Richard S. Salzman, Esquire ,

Michael L. Glaser, Esquire

. . Nu gar egulatory 1150 17th Street, N.W. Washington, D. C. e 0555 Washington, D. C. 20036

, Jerome E. Sharfman, Esquire Sheldon J. Wolfe, Esquire U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Atomic Safety & Licensing Board Commission Panel Washington, D. C. 20555 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Chase R. Stephens, Secretary Washington, D. C. 20555 Docketing and Service Branch U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Samuel J. Chilk, Secretary Commission Office of the Secretary of the Washington, D. C. 20555 Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Jerome Saltzman Commission Chief, Antitrust and Washington, D. C. 20555 Indemnity Group U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C. 20555

Itoff Hardy Michael I. Miller, Esquire Chairman and Chief Executive "ichard E. Powell, Esquire Officer Javid M. Stahl, Esquire Central Power and Light Thomas G. Ryan, Esquire Company Isham, Lincoln & Beale P. O. Box 2121 One First National Plaza Corpus Christi, Texas 78403 Chicago, Illinois 60603 G. K. Spruce, General Manager Roy P. Lessy, Esquire City Public Service Board Michael Blume, Esquire P.O. Box 1771 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory San Antonio, Texas 78203 Comnission Washington, D. C. 20555 Perry G. Brittain President Jerry L. Harris, Esquire Texas Utilities Generating City Attorney, Company Richard C. Balough, Esquire 2001 Bryan Tower Assistant City Attorney Dallas, Texas 75201 City of Austin P.O. Box 1088 R.L. Hancock, Director Austin, Texas 78767 City of Austin Electric Utility Department Robert C. McDiarmid, Esquire P. O. Box 1088 Robert A. Jablon, Esquire Austin, Texas 78767 Spiegel and McDiarmid 2600 Virginia Avenue, N.W.

G. W. Oprea, Jr. Washington, D. C. 20036 Executive Vice President Houston Lighting & Power Dan H. Davidson Company City Manager P. O. Box 1700 City of Austin liouston, Texas 77001 P. O. Box 1088 Austin, Texas 78767 Jon C. Wood, Esquire ~

W. Roger Wilson, Esquire Don R. Butler, Esquire Matthews, Nowlin, Macfarlane 1225 Southwest Tower

& Barrett Austin, Texas 78701 1500 Alamo National Building San Antonio, Texas 78205 Joseph Irion Worsham, Esquire Merlyn D. Sampels, Esquire Joseph Gallo, Esquire Spencer C. Relyea, Esquire Richard D. Cudahy, Esquire Worsham, Forsythe & Sampels Robert H. Loeffler, Esquire 2001 Bryan Tower, Suite 2500 Isham, Lincoln & Beale Dallas, Texas 75201 Suite 701 1050 17th Street, N.W. Joseph Knotts, Esquire Washington, D. C. 20036 Nicholas S. Reynolds, Esquire Debevoise & Liberman 806 15th Street, N.U.

Suite 700 Washington, D. C. 20005

Douglas P. John, Esquire R. Gordon Gooch, Esquire Akin, Gump, Hauer & Peld John P. Mathis, Esquire 1100 Madison Office Building Baker & Botts 1155 15th Street, N.W. 1701 Dennsylvania Avenue, N.W.

Washington, D. C. 20024 Washington, D. C. 20006 Morgan Hunter, Esquire Robert Lowenstein, Esquire McGinnis, Lochridge & Kilgere J. A. Bouknight, Esquire 5th Floor, Texas State Bank William J. Franklin, Esquire Building Lowenstein, Newman, Reis, 900 Congress Avenue Axelrad & Toll Austin, Texas 78701 1025 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.

Washington, D. C. 20036 Jay M. Galt, Esquire Looney, Nichols, Johnson E. W. Barnett, Esquire

& Hayes Charles G. Thrash, Jr., Esquire 219 Couch Drive J. Gregory Copeland, Esquire Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73101 Theodore F. Weiss, Jr., Esquire Baker & Botts Knoland J. Plucknett 3000 One Shell Plaza Executive Director Houston, Texas 77002 Committee on Power for the Southwest, Inc. Kevin B. Pratt, Esquire 5541 East Skelly Drive Assistant Attorney General Tulsa, Oklahoma 74135 P.O. Box 12548 Capital Station Austin, Texas 78711 John W. Davidson, Esquire Sawtelle, Goode, Davidson

& Tioilo Frederick H. Ritts, Es. quire 1100 San Antonio Savings Law Offices of Northcutt Ely Building Watergate 600 Building San Antonio, Texas 78205 Washington, D.C. 20037 W. S. Robson ,

General Manager

?

South Texas Electric ,

Cooperative, Inc. kcl'dh k- bWd Route 6, Building 102 Judith L. Harris, Attorney Victoria Regional Airport Energy Section Victoria, Texas 77901 Antitrust Division Department of Justice