ML19291B112

Requests Antitrust Investigation in Connection W/Facility Const Be Reopened.Special Attention Should Be Paid to Activities of Niagara Mohawk Power Corp

ML19291B112
Person / Time
Site:	Sterling
Issue date:	08/25/1979
From:	Weber S ECOLOGY ACTION OF OSWEGO
To:	Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
References
NUDOCS 7908290418
Download: ML19291B112 (3)

Text

~ Box 9h Oswego, New York 13126 August 25, 1979 Office of Antitrust and Indemnity Directorate of Licensing gp n Nuclear Regulatory Courtission 9 Q%D

] hab, dNi t

ashington, DC Gentlemen This is a request to reopen the antitrust investigation perforced by your office in connection with the application by Rochester Gas and Electric Corp.

and three other utilities to build a nuclear pLsnt at Sterling, N.Y. Specifically, we ask that a new inquiry be held, focussing on the activities of Niagara Mohawk Power Corp., one of the other three utilities.

Since your investigation in 1975 and 1976, a significant change in the facts has occurred. The village of Eassena has conderned Niagara Lohawk's distribution system and hss contracted with the Pover Authoric'y of Eew York State for power from PAS'iY's St. Lawrence River hydro station. Despite the fact that the condemnation has survived every legal effort by Niagara Eohawk to reverse it, the utility is now trying to starve out rassena by refusing to transmit power from PASNT to the toan.

This rciusal to wheel power, at least on its face, seems an obvious attenpt to restrain free trade. On Feb. 26, 1976, your office asked the Sterlin; applicants about Miagara Lohawk's reported refusal to transe.it power to Massena.

This inquiry was part of your original antitrust investigation. By letter of March 31,197d, the applicar.ts replied that any conclusion about Niagara Mohawk's position was premture; that Massena was in the " preliminary stages" of a condeunation proceeding. The letter cited a legal brief by the company submitted to the Federal Power Co==ission, which said:

...it would be imprudent and igracticable for Niagara to either ' refuse' or 'agreet to what at present rust necessarily be a purely hypothetical ' wheeling agreerent' with rassena."

The situation is no longer " hypothetical." Hiagara Lohawk now ref uses to transmit power to the Massena tunicipal systen and has been t; ranted an injunction in Federal district court praventing the syster from starting up while this question is decided.

'.7e think thic aa tter bears directly on the Co:nission's dut/ to determine whether the activities under a license will create or maintain a situation "inconsistant with the antitrust laws (h2 US~ 2115 (5)). It ic obvious that your office agrees, or you vould not have inquired about it in 1976. Therefore, we ask that the antitrust incuiry be reopsned to determine if Xiagara 2ohawk's actions in repid to Massena violate the antitrust provision of the Atotic Enerar Act.

The Hassena situation is also relevant to Niagara Mohawk's construction O s

per-it to build Nine Mile Unit 2. If the conclusions of your investigation s Tarrant it, the.t construction perrd.t should also be reconsidered.

h )\f4 O Sincere'l;y, \

%,TccAA M ts Oh!

SuzaM.e 'Teber 7 9082 9041g , chairperson, Ecology Action of Oses 2012  ??

ob [

Copies of this letter have been sent to:

Iax Larson, laBoeufs Larbs Leiby & MacCrae; Stephen Sohiraci, EEC; Antitrust Division, U.S. Attorney General; How York State Erargy Office; Kew York State Attorney General; Mayor, Village of Massena.

201,2 ., C n