ML19296B560
| ML19296B560 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Comanche Peak, South Texas  |
| Issue date: | 02/12/1980 |
| From: | Blume M, Chanania F, Hodgdon A NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE LEGAL DIRECTOR (OELD) |
| To: | HOUSTON LIGHTING & POWER CO. |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8002210080 | |
| Download: ML19296B560 (62) | |
Text
' l r '. ( '
UNITED STATES OF N4 ERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of HOUSTON LIGHTING & POWER COMPANY NRC Docket Nos. 50-498A PUBLIC SERVICE BOARD OF SAN ANTONIO 50-499A CITY OF AUSTIN CENTRAL POWER #1D LIGHT COMPN 1Y (SouthTexasProject,UnitNos.1
)
and 2)
)
)
TEXAS UTILITIES GENERATING
)
NRC Docket Nos. 50-445A COMPNiY, et al.
)
50-446A (Comanche Peak Steam Electric
)
Station, Units 1 and 2)
)
UPDATED RESPONSE OF THE NRC STAFF TO HOUSTON LIGHTING & POWER COMPNiY'S FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES AND REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS The NRC Staff hereby updates its Response to the First Set of Interrogatories and Requests for Proauction of Documents p.ropounded by Houston Lighting &
Power Co. ("HL&P"), dcted December 1,1978. The answers and information set forth herein are complete, based upon the NRC Staff's present belief ano infomation, as of February 11, 1980.
However, since documentary and testi-monial discovery is ongoing, the NRC Staff may find it necessary to further update these responses prior to the commencement of hearing to include additional infomation, pursuant to 10 CFR 5 2.740(e).
2.
With respect to the South Texas operating license antitrust
- review, (a) identify those persons with whom the Staff communicated in the course of its South Texas operating license antitrust review; and (b) provide all documents relevant to such communications or otherwise to the review.
8002210
' Res ponse:
2(a).
In addition to the individuals listed in the previous response in the above-captioned proceedings, Staff has had contact with the following individuals:
J. E. Bondurant, Vice President, Gulf States Utilities Co.,
Beaumont, Texas; D. Clements, Attorney, Gulf States Utilities Co., Beaumont, Texas; A. M. Smith, Director of Operations, Western Division, Gulf States Utilities Co., Conroe, Texas; Aubrey Sprawls, Vice President for Consumer Affairs, Gulf States Utilities Co., Beaunor,t, Texas; William Earle, Director, City of Houston, Department of Public Service, Houston, Texas; M. A. Coursey, City of Houston, Department of Public Service, Houston, Texas; J. P. Plummer, Attorney, Exxon Company, Houston, Texas; T. Brinkworth, Chief Planning Engineer, Oklahoma Gas &
Electric Company, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma; M. Fate, Vice President, Public Service Company of Oklahoma, Tulsa, Oklahoma.
2(b).
Documents presently identified as responsive to this request have been previously produced. Additional documents presently identified as responsive to this request, or a listing thereof, are included in Appendix A hereto.
5.
(a) Does the Staff contend that Houston has denied any other utility access to or participation in the South Texas Project or any other nuclear plant?
(b)
If so, describe the circumstances surrounding each such denial, including: (1) identification of the requesting utility, (2) name and title of the person making the request, (3) fann of request (i.e.,
written or oral, in person or by telephone) and, if oral, a list of all persons present at the time the request was made, (4) date of request, (5) person to whom request was addressed, (6) name of person who responded to request, (7) form of response (i.e., written or oral, in person or by telephone) and, if oral, a list of all persons present at the time the (9)ponse was given, (8) person to whom the response was addressed, and res date of response.
'l,'
,., (c) State whether the Staff has knowledge that a utility has considered requesting Houston to grant access to or participation in the South Texas Project but did not communicate such request to Houston.
If so, identify each such utility and the circumstances surrounding such consideration.
(d) Provide all documents relevart to this interrogatory.
Res ponse:
5(a)-(c). In addition to its earlier response, Staff also contends that HL&P's intrastate-only policy, the tems of the South Texas Project participation agreement, and the intrastate-only policy and practice of the ERCOT-TIS utilities prevent interstate electric utilities from even considering access to or participation in the South Texas Project.
HL&P's intrastate-only policy and these other factors make requests from such utilities or even their own respec-tive consiaeration of cccess or participation futile.
In this way, Staff contends that HL&P has denied access to or partici-pation in the South Texas Project to such entities.
Staff believes
. sus _ ton's response to the request (s) of Brazos Electric Power Cooperative, Inc. for access to the South Texas Project to be tantamount to a denial. The Staff is also assessing CP&L's offer of 10 MW in the South Texas Project to PUB Brownsville, but such examination is not yet complete.
See also Department of Justice Second Supplemental Response to HL&P's First Set of Interrogatories and Request for Production of Documents [ hereinafter "D0J's Second Supplemental Response"], No.11(a)-(c).
5(d).
Documents presently identified as responsive to this interroga-tory, or a listing thereof, are included in Appendix B hereto.
' 6.
(a)
Does the Staff contend that the South Texas Project is in any way essential or uniquely advantageous to a utility which is a member of the Southwest Power Pool ?
(b)
If so, (1) set forth the facts upon which the Staff relies to support this contention; (2) explain why participation in STP is more essential than participation in the nuclear generating facilities which are proposed, under construction, or in operation within the Southwest Power Pool; and (3) provide all documents relevant to this interrogatory.
_Res ponse:
6(a)-(b). Staff objects to this interrogatory insofar as it calls for the mental impressions, opinions, conclusions, or legal theories of attorneys, contrary to 10 CFR Q 2.740(b)(2) and FED. R. CIV.
P. 26(b)(3;. The Staff contends that the South Texas Project is unique as to its size, timing, location, cost, and electrical effects on the systems to which it is connected, both directly and indi rectly.
Access to such unitt may be desirable or uniquely advantageous to one or more Southwest Power Pool entities. The particular desirability of any generation unit (i.e. the South Texas Project n-any other) to a particular utility will depend upon a number of factors including the unit's location, fuel type, cost, in-service date, the availability of transmission, and the utility's own generation capabilities and load forecast.
Accord-ingly, a complex planning process is involved, and access to any generation unit is an integral aspect of that planning process.
The intrastate-only policy restricts the planning process and operations of Southwest Power Pool and ERCOT utilities from that which it might of erwise be. As a result, Southwest Power Pool entities will not have been able to include the possibility of
'< South Texas Project access in their respective planning processes.
For that reason, the essential or advantageous nature of South Texas Project access (for Southwest Power Pool entities) is unlikely to have been manifested in express written or oral statenents of interest, but must be inferred. Gulf States Utilities (GSU), by virtue of its geographic position on the edge of ERCOT, by virtue f
of its forecasted capacity deficiency, and by virtue of its interest in and construction of nuclur generation, suggests itself as one interested Southwest Power Pool entity which could benefit frca South Texas Project access. Gulf States has expressed interest in obtaining generating and transmission backup in the western part of its system (located next to the HL&P system) and access to the South Texas Project could provide this backup. Other entities such as Sam Rayburn Dam Electric Cooperative, which is partici-pating in Gulf States' River Bend Nuclear Unit, might have been interested in the South Texas Project, either aside fron or in addition to access to the River Bend Nuclear Unit, but could not consider such access in light of HL&P's intrastste only policy.
As noted above, cost and transmission availability are factors necessarily taken into consideration in assessing the desirability of any particular generating unit.
In this fashion, the $800-$1000 per kw projected cost for the South Texas Project (as compared to the 51200-$1400 per kw projected cost for River Bend) as well as the proximity of the South Texas Project to GSU's Western Division are relevant considerations.
Staff notes that, despite delays in
u
., the fuel loading date for the South Texas Project, Houston has benefitted and will benefit from the transmission being added to the Texas Interconnected System grid (in the STIS area) in order to transmit South Texas Project energy. Taking all of t~ne above factors together, a determination as to whether any particular generating unit is essential or uniquely advantageous to any particular utility is a judgment to be made by that utility.
See also 00J's Second Supplcmental Response, No. 12(a)-(c). Documents presently identified as responsive to this request, or a listing thereof, are included in Appendix C hereto.
7.
(a) Does the Staff contend that Houston possesses monopoly power or s6me other degree of market power relevant to this proceeding?
(b)
If so, (1) identif which Houston has such power, (2)y each product and geographic ma.ket in describe the type and extent of competi-tion in each such identified market, (3) state the market share of every utility in each such market, (4) identify every action taken by Houston to acquire or maintain its alleged monopoly power, (5) identify each abuse cc each instance c~ such power by Houst:n,'and (6) identify each change in ach conduct since Ocivber 1974.
(a)j Does the Staff contend that TU possesses monopoly power o (c
Provide all documents ' relevant to this interrogetory.
8.
some other degree of market power relevant to this proceeding?
(b)
If so, (1) identify each product and geographic market in which TU has such power, (2) describe the type and extent of competition in each such identified market, (3) state the market share of every utility in each such market, (4) idcatify every action taken by TU to acquire or main-tain its alleged monopoly power, (5) identify each abuse of each instance of such power by TU, and (6) identify each change in such conduct since January 1974.
(c) Provide all documents relevant to this interrogatory.
Res ponse:
7-8.
Insofar as interrogatories 7 and 8 ask for Staff's position as to whether there has been a significant change in the conduct of
- Houston and/or TU, Staff objects that this calls for the mental impressions, opinions, conclusions, or legal theories of attorneys, contrary to 10 CFR 6 2. 40(b)(2) and FED. R. CIV. P. 26(b)(3).
See Staff's earlier response to interrogatory 18, as set forth in the Staff's response of December 1,1978, to Houston Lighting &
Power's first set of interrogatories.
7(a),(b)(1)-(2); 8(a),(b)(1)-(2):
Staff contends that Houston and TV, both jointly and individually, via their intrastate-only policies and restric-tions, have the power to preclude from the market possible alternative bulk power suppliers to the entities within ERCOT and to hinder the developnent of additional full or partial requirements generation within ERCOT. Accord-ingl.y, market power exists and competitive advantages are conferred. The type of competition which takes place now to a limited extent and which could take place to a greater extent without the intrastate-only policies and restrictions is also described in Staff's response herein to interroga-tories 14-17, infra.
The product markets where Staff asserts that market power exists are those for retail service, wholesale power, and coordination services. The coordi-nation services market exists but is not yet fully developed within ERCOT, but will become more important over time with the shift away from gas as a boiler fuel and the shift to larger generation units which provide economies of scale. The present geographic market for coordination services is necessarily limited by the intrastate-only policies and operations of ERCOT-
'l,
,, TIS, but absent that restriction, the potential geographic market would be la rger. The developnent and existence of such a market within TIS can be seen by San Antonio's offer to sell coal-fired electric energy on a periodic, interruptible basis, and by TV's sales of its " Ready Economy Energy" and its "Off Peak Interruptible Energy" which totalled more than $16,000,000 during the one year period from 11/1/78 to 10/31/79.
In the wholesale power market, the geographic extent of the market corresponds generally to the area included within or proximate to HL&P and TV's transmis-sf on facilities.
Insofar as HL&P retains or seeks to retain Community Public Service Company as a wholesale customer, it is a competitor in the wholesale power market. Houston may become more active in this market as its capacity and load situation changes in the future. The Staff ccatelds that TV has market power for wholesale power within the confines of the area reached by or proximately located near its transmission grid. Absent the intrastate-only agreement, potential geographic areas for this market might be larger.
In the retail service market, the present geographic extent of the market corresponds generally to the service area of HL&P and TV respectively.
The operating TV subsidiaries are dually certified in many ERCOT areas--mostly with rural distribution cooperatives.
Staff has not completed its assess-ment of the extent to which market power exists in these areas.
Staff also contends that Houston competes with GSU for new retail load in the Houston metropolitan area. Staff has not completed its assessment of the extent to
'l,
, which market power exists in that area.
See also the Staff's response herein to interrogatory 17, infra.
See also D0J's Second Supplemental Response, Nos. 3(b),14,15; Further Supplemental Response of PUB of Brownsville to HL&P's First Set of Written Interrogatories, dated Decembe r 19,1979 [ hereinafter "Further Supplemental Response of PUB Brownsville], Nos. 24, 25.
7(b)(3),8(b)(3):
No market shares have been calculated as of this time.
7(b)(4)-(5),8(b)(4)-(5):
For several reasons, monopoly or market power exists in various phases of the electric utility industry; some of those reasons are franchising and certification, economies of scale, limited land availability for generation and transmission facilities, but there may be othe rs.
Staff contends, however, that the intrastate-only policy and prac-tices are not necessary for a judicious fulfillment of TV and Houston public utility responsibilities, and that the intrastate-only policy increases the a
degree of market power of TV and Houston.
TU and Houston have abused their market power in those instances contained in tne D0J's Second Supplemental Response, Nos.1(a),10(a)-(c), 20, 21, 26(b)-
(c); Further Supplemental Response of PUB Brownsville, Nos. 33, 34.
In addi-tion TU has abused its market power by discouraging participation in joint generation plans and projects by conditioning participation on a " bring your own fuel" basis. Also, TU has unreasonably refused access to the Comanche Peak
.o
.., Nuclear Project to certain entities, while offering it to others.
See also the Staff's response herein to interrogatory 6(a)-6(b), supra.
7(c)-8(c):
Documents presently identified as responsive to this interroga-tory, or a listing thereof, are attached as Appendix D.
9.
(a) Notwithstanding the answers to Interrogatories 7 and 8, does the Staff contend that Houston and TU jointly possess monopoly power or some other degree of market power relevant to this proceeding?
(b)
If so, (1) identify each product and which Houston and TU jointly possess such power, (2) geographic market in describe the type and extent of competition in each such identified market, (3) state the market share of every utility in each such market, (4) state the basis upon which the Staff contends the market shares of Houston and TU may be aggregated to find joint monopoly power, (5) identify every action taken by Houston or TU to acquire or maintain each such instance of such joint power, (6) identify each abuse by Houston or TU of each such instance of such joint power, and (7) identify each chartge in such conduct since January,1974.
(c) Provide all documents relevant to this Interrogatory.
Res ponse:
9.
See Staff's response herein to interrogatories 7 and 8, supra.
10.
(a) Does the Staff contend that an agreement between Houston and TU existed ~ prior to May 4,1976, which provided that they would disconnect from any other member of TIS which enters interstate operation?
(b)
If so, (1) specify the details of such an agreement, (2) identify the persons involved in making the agreement, (3) state the date of the agreement, and (4) state the form of the agreement (e.g.,
written or oral, in person or by telephone), and, if oral, identification of all persons present.
(c) Provide all documents relevant to this interrogatory.
Response
10(a)-(c).
Staff contends that an agreement between Houston and TU existed prior to May 1,1976, and still does, which provided that they would disconnect from any other member of ERCOT or
'l,
, TIS which entered into interstate operation. This agreement is and was, in part, an oral agreement between the officers of both companies.
In part, the agreement is embodied in various TV and HL&P power contracts with other TIS and ERCOT entities.
See also Staff's response herein to interrogatory 11, infra; Staff's response No. 4(a) to HL&P's Third Set of Interrogatories and Request for Production of Documents to NRC Staff; D0J's Second Supplemental Response, No.1.
Docu.
ments presently identified as responsive to this request are in the possession of HL&P and TV.
Documents presently identi-fied as responsive to this request, or a listing thereof, are attached in Appendix E.
11.
(a) Does the Staff contend that Houston acted in concert with any other utility when it disconnected from all other TIS systems on May 4, 1976?
(b)
- f so, provide a basis for your answer, including (1) identi-ficction of all persons involved in each such action; and (2) date and time of day of such action.
(c)
Provide all documents relevant to this interrogatory.
Res ponse:
11(a)-(c).
Staff contends that Houston and TV acted in concert when they disconnected from all other ERCOT-TIS systems on May 4,1976.
HL&P and TV disconnected pursuant to the agreement referenced in Staff's response herein to interrogatory 10, supra. The persons involved in such concerted action were those present at the May 4,1976 meeting in the offices of Worsham, Forsythe and Sampels representing Houston and TU, as well as the
'l,
, officers of Houston and TV at that time.
See also D0J's Second Supplemental Response, Nos. 1, 21.
The interchange contract between TP&L and HL&P, referenced in Staff's original response of December 1,1978, to Houston's interrogatory 10(b), expresses the parties' mutual intention to operate intrastate until at least 1987. Testimony of TV and Houston employees during depositions indicate that the HL&P-TV interconnections eliminated or minimized HL&P's and TV's need for additional generation, which generation may have been or mry be more expensive than these interconnec-tions. Thus, whether explicit or implicit, the mutual under-standing between and mutual policies of Houston and TU were, in the event that a third party initiated interstate opera-tions (with the effect of conferring federal rate juris-diction on Houston or TV), that TU or Houston, either individually or together, would disconnoct from the third party so as to maintain the advantages accruing to each from the retention of interconnections, particularly the HL&P-TV interconnections.
Further, TV and Houston have refused to interconnect with other electric utilities engaged in inter-state commerce, absent a jurisdictional waiver from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.
- l,
, Deposition testimony and exhibits indicate that TESCO's costs during the disconnection from Houston and ERCOT-TIS were
$30,000 per day, attributable, in part, to additional fuel costs due to increased spinning reserves necessitated by the disconnection. The agreement between Houston and TV presumed these increased costs and the necessity of disconnecting from interstate electric utility companies.
Documents presently identified as responsive to this interrogatory, or a listing thereof, are contained in Appendix E.
13.
(a)
Identify each instance of alleged injury to actual competition from any unilateral decision or policy by Houston to operate in the intrastate mode, including identification of (1) each injured person; (2) the relevant product and geographic market; (3) the ty~ e and extent of competition in p
each such market; (4) the market share of every utility in each such market; and (5) the specific cause and nature of each such injury.
(b)
Provide a basis for your answer, and provide all documents relevant to this interrogatory.
Response
13.
Staff objects to this interrogatory on the ground that it is predicated on the false assumption that Houston's intrastate-only policies and practices are unilateral.
See also Staff's response herein to interroga-tory 14, infra.
14.
If the Staff contends that Houston was or is party to an " intra-state only" agreement:
(a)
Identify each instance of alleged injury to actual competi-tion from the alleged " intrastate only" agreement, including identification of (1) each injured person; (2).ne relevant product and geographic market; (3) the type and extent of competition in each such market; (4) the market share of every utility in each such market, and (5) the specific cause and nature of each such injury.
, (b)
Provide a basis for your answer, and provide all documents relevant to this interrogatory.
Res ponse:
- 14. The Staff's contentions related to this interrogatory have been set forth partially in responses herein to interrogatories 5, 6, 7, 8 and 17.
Staff also contends that the City of Austin, STEC/MEC, CPSB, and TMPA are disadvantaged by the intrastate-only agreement in that these systems may be unable or less able to sell excess capacity or energy they have or will I. ave due to generation additions as advantageously as might be the case without this restraint.
In addition, Gulf States Utilities has incurred and is incurring higher total costs to serve its actual and prospective load than would be the case if the Southwest Power Pool were interconnected with ERCOT. These costs are due, in part, to rapid load growth in GSU's Western Division (located next to HL&P) and its inability to interconnect for reliability purposes with utilities in, ERCOT. Staff contends that Gulf States is in competition with Houston and that it is competitively disadvantaged by the higher total costs discussed above.
See also, D0J's Second Supplemental Response Nos. 3,10 and 26; Further Supplemental Response of PUB Brownsville, Nos. 24, 33, and 34.
It is also Staff's contention that TP&L and TESCO (TV subsidiaries) are in competition at the retail level in dually-certified areas with various rural electric cooperatives and, further, that there may be competition at retail between TP&L, TESCO, and these entities for new
l
, customers in singly-certified areas which abut each other. Many of these rural coopera; Wes have incurred or are incurring higher supply costs than would be incurred were there no intrastate-only restric-tions.
Accordingly, they are disadvantaged in competing with TP&L and/or TESCO. The higher costs incurred by the rural cooperatives may result for one or more of the following reasons:
(1) the cooperative incurs higher costs to maintain a " split" system and is precluded from a more economical interconnection of the separate components of the split system because of the intrastate-only restriction; (2) the coopera-tive is precluded from " shopping" for low cost, interstate pcwer supplies outside of ERCOT and in seeking to sell any; and (3) the coop rative is artificially hindered by the intrastate-only restriction in its efforts to move toward full or partial requirements generation. The operation of a " split" system may alsc be viewed in tenns of reliability --
~
that is, a given level of reliability can be reached only at higher costs under a " split" system. With respect to (3) above, the hindrance may be caused by the limitation on joint generating partners, by difficul-ties caused by the " split" in the distribution system, by inability to dispose of surplus capacity and/or energy to interstate entities, or by inability to obtain coordination services from interstate entities.
Without attempting to be all-inclusive, the following are examples of rural electric cooperatives which run " split" systems as a result of the intrastate-only policy: Wood County, Deep East Texas, Rusk County, Jasper-Newton, Sam Houston, Lyntegar, and Houston County. The Staff has not yet systematically catalogued all of the instances involving dual
l
, certification. No market share figures have been calculated at the present time.
Southwest Power Pool entities which are precluded from supplying eit'ner coordination services or wholesale power within ERCOT may emerge as either actual or potential competitors in these markets with the lif ting of the intrastate-only restriction.
See also Staff's responses herein to interrogatories 15 and 16, infra. Documents presently identified as responsive to this interrogatory, or a lii, ting thereof, are contained in Appendix F.
15 (a) Identify each instance of alleged injury to potential competi-tion from any unilateral decision or policy by Houston to operate in the intrastate mode, including identification of (1) each injured person; (2) the relevant product and geographic market; (3) the type and extent of competition in each such market; (4) the market share of every utility in each such market; and (5) the specific cause and nature of each such injury.
(b)
Provide a basis for your answer, and provide all documents relevant to this interrogatory.
16.
If the Staff contends that Houston was or is party to an " intra-state only" agreement:
(a)
Identify each insti ;e of alleged injury to potential competi-tion from the alleged " intrastate only" agreement, including identification of (1) each injured person; (2) the relevant product and geographic market;
"(3) the type arid extent of competition in each such market; (4) the market share of every utility in each such market, and (5) the specific cause and nature of each such injury.
(b)
Provide a basis for your answer, and provide all documents relevant to this interrogatory.
Res ponse:
15-16.
Staff objects to Interrogatory No.15 on the ground that it is predicated upon the false assumption that Houston's intrastate-only practices are unilateral.
,':, The Staff's contentions related to this interrogatory have been set forth partially herein in responses to interrogatories 7, 8, 13, and 14, supra. The Staff considers potential competition to be related to positive perfomance effects which potential competi-tors can have on current behavior of established suppliers in a particular market. Because Southwest Power Pool entities are unable to supply power to entities within ERCOT because of the intrastate-only restriction, these Southwest Power Pool firms are not now considered either actual or potential competitors (within ERCOT) in any of the markets outlined in response to interroga-tories 7, 8,13, and 14, supra. Accordingly, the positive perform-ance effects of both actual and potential competition are not directly observable. However, the position of many of the Southwest Power Pool members at the margins of ERCOT (e.g., Western Farmers, Southwestern Public Service Company, Public Service Co. of Oklahoma, Oklahoma Gas and Electric, SWEPCU, Central Louisiana Electric, Cajun Electric Cooperative, and Gulf States) suggests that these fims, among others, would be either potential or actual competitors were the intrastate-only restriction removed.
Even though, at this stage, it is not possible to state with precision whether such fims would be either actual or potential competitors within ERCOT, it is not necessary to so state since either actual or potential competition would be likely to have positive perfomance impacts on various markets.
' :.'., The most likely markets in which these fims would be either potential or actual competitors are the wholesale power market and the coordination services market, but there may be some effects on the retail service market as well.
The coordination services market is present now and should develop further in the future as the need for the types and amounts of transactions in such a market increases. These transactions include, among other things, economy energy, maintenance exchanges, diversity exchanges, emergency support, and other sales, purchases, or exchanges of short-tem energy and/or capacity.
In the wholesale market, actual and/or potential competition from self-generating entities comprised of electric cooperative distributors is also harmed by the intrastate-only restriction in that the fomation of such entities is retarded by the limitation on available joint generating partners and the difficulties caused by " split" electric systems. The effects on the retail servicc market from potential and/or actual competition has not yet been detemined.-
Injured parties include the excluded interstate entities (some of which were listed above), and all intrastate ERCOT-TIS utilities.
These intrastate ERCOT-TIS utilities, in particular, are denied
. the availability of alternative supply sources and/or customers as well as any beneficial, procompetitive behavioral effects which the presence of actual or potential alternative suppliers would have upon the present market. Without attempting to be all inclu-
, sive, the following entities have specifically indicated a desire to search for power in the interstate market or obtain other advantages from that ability:
the PUB of Brornsville, Gate City, Electra, and Lone Wolf, Taylor, and Cap Rock, Deep East Texas, Wood County, Cherokee County, and Sam Houston electric cooperatives.
Others may be identified later.
See also D0J's Second Supplemental Response, Nos. 3, 23, 24, 29; Further Supplemental Response of PUB Brownsville, Nos. 24, 25, 34.
No market share figures have been calculated at this time. Documents presently identified as responsive to this interrogatory, or a listing thereof, are contained in Appendices C, D, E, F, and G.
17.
(a)
Identify each of the areas in which HL&P and/or TV are in competition with other utilities, including but not limited to:
(1) each relevant product and geographic market; (2) the nature and extent of competition in each market; (3) identity of each actual competitor (including, if rele-vant, Houston and TV) in each market, and a description of such competitor's activities in the market; (4) identity of each potential competitor (including, if relevant, Houston and TV) in each market, and a description of such competi-tor's potential activities in the market; and (5) the market share of every utility in each such market.
(b)
Provide a basis for your answer, and provide all documents relevant to this interrogatory.
Res ponse:
17.
The Staff's contentions related to this interrogatory have been set forth partially herein in responses to the interrogatories 7, 8 and 16, supra.
Although the Staff is continuing its factual investigation, the following " areas" of competition have been identified at this stage:
- .*:, Wholesale Power:
Cooperative and municipal electric utilities, which are generally small utilities, in and around ERCOT-TIS have, in the abstract, the option to obtain their firm bulk power requirements either through self-generation (including shares in jointly-owned units), full requirements purchases for resale, or a combination of the two. The utilities which supply finn bulk poder for resale, including HL&P and TV, are in competition both with other entities that can or could supply firm bulk power for resale and with any potential self-generating entity which could be formed by the smaller utili-ties. The wholesale power market includes firm bulk power production, since there is a high degree of substitutability between self-generation and firm purchases.
TU has numerous wholesale custoners.
Its wholesale supply is competitive with self-generation by these customers and with wholesale power supplied by other entities, Although each such wholesale customer must be considered, at least theoretically, to be a potential self-generator (e.g., through a cooperative organization and/or joint ownership in a large IOU-controlled coal, lignite, or nuclear unit), some are more actively exploring such-options than others.
Several Tex-La cooperatives are examples of finns which are more actively exploring self-generation.
Staff is not yet fully cognizant of TV's policy on wheeling power from other generating entities to requesting distribution entities reached by the TU transmission system.
Presuming that such wheeling requests would be granted, the other generating
,*.., entities within ERCOT may be considered either potential or actu61 competi-tors of TU in this market depending upon their own particular capacity and load situations.
If the intrastate-only restrictions were removed, other bulk power entities (especially in areas adjacent to ERCOT) could also be considered actual or potential TV competitors.
Regarding HL&P, the same can be said as to the options available to its wholesale customer, Community Public Service Company.
Insofar as wheeling of non-HL&P energy, and self-generation are or would be available to Community, Houston is in competition in the wholesale market for retention of this custmer.
Retail :
(i) Dually-certified Areas:
TV's 09erating su'sidiaries, TP&L and TESCO, u
are dually-certified to serve at retail with various entities, mainly rural electric cooperatives, in several areas.
In these areas, retail customers have some choice as to their electric supplier, and competition takes place between the two dually-certified electric suppliers both as to direct attempts to gain additional new or existing loads and as to the positive performance effects forced upon each supplier due to the presence of another alternative supplier to whom their new or existing customers could turn. Houston shares dually-certified areas with GSU and competes in these areas for retail.
Staff has not yet systematically catalogued all of the instances involving dual certification and the TV subsidiaries. No market share figures have been calculated at the present time.
' ;.'., (ii) New Industrial Load:
Staff contends that utilities in and around ERCOT generally are seeking new industrial loads and that instances arise where two or more utilities are seeking the same new load. The geographic extent of this retail competition is essentially specific to each instance given the numerous factors which affect an individual finn's location decision.
Such retail competition may include dually-or singly-certified areas.
Staff has not yet systematically catalogued the instances of such competition.
Market share calculations have not been made at the present time.
(iii) Service Area Margins:
Staff contends that Houston and Gulf States compete for the retail loads (some of which are new residential subdivisions) at the margins or fringes of their respective service areas.
Specific instances have not yet been catalogued at the present time; these will be added as soon as possible.
Coordination Services:
The coordination services market consists of the purchase, sale, or exchange of short-term capacity and/or energy including, among other things, economy energy, maintenance exchanges, emergency support, diversity exchanges, and other arrangements. With the intrastate-only restriction in place, present and future transactions are constrained to the ERCOT-TIS area. With the lifting of this restriction, transactions could take place involving ERCOT-TIS members and Southwest Power Pool members, particularly those located at or near the boundaries.
For certain short-tenn transactions, it is plausible that the geographic range for transactions could extend even further. On
'l
, the supply side, competition takes the form of utilities competing to market short-tenn qxcess capacity and energy that they might have. On the demand side, compe tition takes the form of utilities competing to purchase such inputs so that their final costs of production can be minimized. This market is now growing. Actual and potential competitors in this market are likely to inc1""2 entities within ERCOT and at least those imediately adjacent to ERCOT in the Southwest Power Pool.
Documents presently identi-fied as responsive to this interrogatory, or a listing thereof, are contained in Appendices C, D, E, F, and G.
20.
Does the Staff contend that there is the need and opportunity for coordination between interstate and intrastate utilities? If so, explain how intrastate utilities can coordinate or coopeiate with interstate utilities and still maintain their intrastate statcs under the legal standards of Florida Power & Light Company v. FPC, 404 U.s. 453, 92 S. Ct. 637 (1972).
Response
20.
Yes. The Staff objects to this interrogatory in that it seeks the mental impressions, opinions, conclusions, cr. legal theories of attorneys, contrary to 10 CFR 9 2.740(b)(2) and FED. R. CIV. P. 26(b)(3).
21.
(a) Does the Staff contend that, even given proper advance planning, CP&L and WTU cannot withdraw from TIS and operate in interstate comerce without operating difficulties, and without impairing their " competitive v iabili ty" ?
(b)
If so, state in detail the factual and legal basis for this conclusion, and provide all documents relevant to this interrogatory.
Res ponse:
21.
In addition to Staff's earl br response to this interrogatory, CP&L would be required to withdraw from the South Texas Project, forego any
l
, purchase of TU's ready economy and off-peak energy, forego participa-tion in coordinated services transactions with intrastate ERCOT-TIS members, forego any possibility of wheeling energy over Houston and TV transmission facilities which might have available capacity, and suffer imposition of greater transmission distances between CP&L/WTU and other entities to which they were interconnected causing higher transmission charges for sales and purchases of power. The Staff asserts that this listing may not yet be all-inclusive; documents presently identified as responsive to this interrogatory are contained in Staff's prior response.
22.
(a) Does the Staff have any evidence showing the effect, or lack of effect, of CSW's preferred mode of integration of its operating companies (i.e., Mode 4), as proposed.by CSW in SEC Administrative Proceeding File No. 3-4951, upon (1) the reliability of Houston's electric service, (2) Houston's capital expenditures, (3) Houston's operating costs, (4) Houston's electric rates to its customers, and (5) Houston in any other way.
(b) Does the Staff contend that CSW's Mode 4 integration plan will result in a net benefit to Houston? If so, state the basis for this conclu-sion and set forth facts upon which the Staff will rely on to support this conclusion.
(c) Provide all documents relevant to this interrogatory.
Res ponse:
- 22. The Staff has not, at this time, reached any independent conclusions as to the subject matter of this interrogatory. All documents relevant to this interrogatory which Staff has are in the possession of HL&P and/or are publicly available; see also, Appendix H, hereto.
23.
(a) Does the Staff contend that the City of Austin is responsible for the creation or maintenance of a situation inconsistent with the antitrust laws, within the meaning of 9105(c) of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, 42 U.S.C.
52135(c), in connection with the South Texas Project?
, (b)
If so, state the basis for your answer, and provide all documents relevant to this interrogatory.
- 24. (a) Does the Staff contend that the City of San Antonio is responsi-ble for the creation or maintenance of a situation inconsistent with the antitrust laws, within the meaning of $105(c) of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, 42 U.S.C.
62135(c), in connection with the South Texas Project?
(b)
If so, state the basis for your answer, and provide all documents relevant to this interrogatory.
- 25. (a) Does the Staff contend that CP&L is responsible for the creation or maintenance of a situation inconsistent with the antitrust laws, within the meaning of $105(c) of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 52135(c), in connection with the South Texas Project?
(b)
If so, state the basis for your answer, and provide all documents relevant to this interrogatory.
Res ponse:
23-25.
See Staff's earlier response to interrogatory 18, and the Staff's earlier responses to these interrogatories. However, the Staff does contend that the City of Austin, City Public Service Board of San Antonio, and CP&L have been or are parties to the intrastate-only understanding and/or agreement.
Documents presently identified as responsive to this interrogatory, or a listing thereof, are contained in Appendix I hereto.
- 27. Except as otherwise disclosed in answer to this discovery request, state whether the information furnished is within the personal knowledge of the affiant answering the interrogatories, and, if not, the name, address, occupation and title of each person to whom the infomation is a matter of personal knowledge, if known, or from whom infomation was obtained upon which said answer or a part thereof was based.
Response
27.
In addition to the infomation sycified in individual responses above, the infomation provided in this Updated Response to HL&P's First Set of Interrogatories and Request for Production of Documents is based upon documents obtained and testimony elicited in discovery in the
- l
, above-captioned proceedings and in West Texas Utilities Co. v. Texas Electric Service Co., et al., to which HL&P and TU have full access.
Respectfully submitted, d h, ((.c_..- i Tredric D. Chanania Counsel for NRC Staff Yi b
bu ?D6 Michael B. Blume
/
Counsel for NRC Staff bM1 h. W L TDC Ann P. Hodgdod
/
Counsel for NRC Staff Februa ry 12, 1980 Bethesda, Maryland
APPENDIX A - INTERR0GATORY 2(b)
Documents presently identified as responsive to this request, which Staff believes are already in Houston's possession, are listed below:
1.
Franchise Agreement between Houston Lighting & Power Company and the City of Houston, Texas, as contained in Ordinance No.57-929, December 18, 1957.
O
APPENDIX B - INTERROGATORY 5(d)
Documents presently identified as responsive to this request, which Staff believes are already in Houston's possession, are listed below:
1.
Deposition testimony of A. E. Naylor regarding GSU consideration of access to South Texas Project.
2.
Antitrust information provided to NRC Staff by HL&P listing entities contacted re access to South Texas Project.
3.
Letter of 5/30/73 from P. E. Johnson of L!berty, TX, U.S. Dept.
of Justice re application of HL&P for pennit to construct Allen's Creek Nuclear Station.
4.
Letter of 7/26/73 from T. L. Mitchell, Jasper-Newton Cooperative, to T. E. Kauper re application of TP&L for permit to construct Comanche Peak.
5.
23, Jan.1974 Itr to R. A. Segrest (Brazos) from: P. H. Robinson (HL&P).
6.
8, Nov.1973 ltr to C. B. Sherman (HL&P) from Brazos.
, 7.
8, Aug.1973 HL&P of fice memo from D. E. Simmons re: Allen's Creek Nuclear Plant meeting with FPC.
8 28, March 1979 ltr to D. A. Kaplan (Justice) fron: H. K. Shapar (NRC).
9.
8, March 1979 HRC Memo to J. Rutberg from: Argil Toalstan re:
Conanche Peak - Additior,al Applicants.
10.
1 March 1979 ltr to J. Saltzman (NRC) from: H. C. Schmidt (TV).
11.
15, Feb.1979 ltr to R. J. Gary (TV) from: J. E. Monahan (Brazos).
12.
Brazos Response to Question Nine,NRC Antitrust Review, Comanche Pesk Nuclear Project, Prepared Feb. 14, 1979.
13.
24, Aug.1977 ltr to M. Blume (NRC) from: J. E. Monahan (Brazos).
- 14. 30, June 1977 ltr to R. Campbell (TP&L) from: J. E. Monahan (Brazos).
15 29, June 1977 ltr to P. Cunningham (TMPA) from: J. E. Monahan (Brazos) re: questions pertaining to Comanche Peak.
16.
6, July 1977 ltr to M. Blume (NRC) from: R. A. Jablon (Spiegel and McDiamid).
5, Dec.1973 ltr to R. A. Segrest (Brazos) frca:~T. L. Austin (TV).
, 17.
30, Jan.1974 ltr to R. W. Phillips (Justice) from: R. A. Segrest (Brazos).
18.
23, Jan.1974 ltr to R. A. Segrest (Brazos) from: P. H. Robinson (HL&P).
19.
23, April 1976 ltr to A. Toalston (NRC) from: J. Rodney Lee (Nanan, Howell, Smith and Chase).
20.
22, March 1976 (Draf t) Agreement proposed by TV concerning the acquisition of U3 08 for TMPA and Brazos.
- 21. TU Regulatory Act.
- 22. 23, Jan.1974 ltr to R. A. Segrest (Brazos) from: P. H. Robinson (HL&P).
23.
20, Nov.1973 ltr to R. A. Segrest (Brazos) from: T. L. Austin (TV).
24 8, Oct.1973 ltr Agreement between City of Denton, City of Garland and City of Greenville.
, 25, 8, Hov.1973 ltr to P. G. Brittain (TV) from: A. Braf tman (AEC).
26, 2, Nov.1973 ltr to J. Rutberg (NRC) from: J. Saunders (Justice) re: TV - Comanche Peak Units 1 & 2.
8, Nov.1973 ltr to C. B. Sheman (HL&P) from: Ross A. Segrest (Brazos).
28.
Testimony on deposition in the above-captioned proceedings of H. E. Hastings, 286-90.
APPENDIX C - INTERROGATORY 6(b)(3)
The documents presently identified as responsive to this request, which Staff believes to be in Houston's possession, are:
1.
Letter of 7/26/73 from T. L. Mitchell, Jasper-Newton Electric Cooperative, to T. E. Kauper.
2.
Letter of uncertain date from N. R. Lee, Gulf States Utilities Co.,
to Garrett Morriss.
3.
Deposition testimony in the above-captioned proceedings of A. E.
Naylor.
4.
Deposition testimony in the above-captioned proceedings of D. D.
Jordan.
5.
1978 Annual Report, HL&P.
6, 1978 Annual Report, GSU.
7.
Documents produced by GSU in response to the subpoena duces tecum of the PUB Brownsville on the Keeper of Records.
'l
, 8.
Documents produced by GSU in response to the subpoena duces tecum of the NRC Staff to A. E. Naylor.
9.
Testimony and exhibits attached to the deposition in the above-captioned proceedings of K. L. Williams.
10.
Testimony and exhibits attached to the deposition in the above-captioned proceeding of R. M. McCuiston.
- 11. Documents produced by HL&P in response to Nos. 42, 43, 44 and 45 of NRC Staf's Initial Set of Interrogatories and Requests for Production of Documents Propounded to HL&P and TUGCO.
- 12. March 3,1978 Memorandum from J.W. Atkins from Mr. A.M.
Smith re Western Division EHV Development.
- 13. Undated Memorandum on EHV transmission system for Western Division (GSU).
- 14. July 7,1976 letter from Floyd Smith (GSU) to Kenneth ilumb, FPC re Docket No. E-9558.
- 15. May 8,1978 Memorandum from Naylor to Smith re Dow-HLP Generating Plant.
. 16.
May 8,1978 Memorandum from Naylor to Smith on Dow-HLP Generating Plant.
17.
September 22,1978 SWEPC0 letter to Naylor, et al. re generation plants.
- 18. Minutes, planning engineers meeting, Shreveport, Louisiana, October 3,1978.
19.
April 25,1978 Memorandum from Naylor to Lee re proposed SWEPC0 tie.
20.
April 24,1978 Memorandum from Snith to Atkins re Western Division EHV development.
- 21. Janua ry 12, 1979 letter from Naylor to Watt (SWEPC0) re GSU tie with SWEPCO.
22.
September 1,1978 letter from GSU to SWEPC0 re 345 kv tie._
- 23. May 26,1978 letter from GSU to Phillips re GSU-SWEPC0 tie.
/
- 24. June 9,1977 Memorandum from Calder to Atkins re Central-Southwest system tie with Western Division.
I, ',.
, 25.
Undated Memorandum EHV transmission system for Western Division (GSU).
26.
Undated cost summary Western Division EHV alternatives (AMS-GSU).
- 27. March 3,1978 Memorandum from Smith to Atkins re Western Division EHV development.
28.
August 31, 1978 Memorandum from Johnson to Bondurant re GSU-SWEPC0 interconnection.
- 29. August 18, 1978 Memorandum from Naylor to Lee re status report EHV tie Western Division.
30.
July 7,1978 Memorandum from Naylor to Lee re status report EHV tie Western Division.
31.
April 25,1978 Memorandum from Naylor to Lee re proposed tie with SWEPCO.
32.
Undated statement by Gulf States Utilities Company interconnections between ERCOT and SWPP.
33.
Hand written notes (GSU number 424) on benefits from TIS interconnection.
, 34.
June 13,1977 Memorandum from Atkins to Naylor re schedules and estimates relative to the Central-Southwest system tie with Western Division.
35.
November 17, 1970 Memorandum from Naylor to Adams re operation of HL&P interconnection, Winter 1970-71.
36.
May 26,1978 letter from Crawford to Phillips re GSU-CSW tie.
- 37. September 15,1976 7etter from Watt to Naylor re interconnection v'th CPL.
- 38. May 23,1978 letter from Turk to Naylor re sales to GSU from SWEPC0 in 1981-83.
39.
November 14, 1978 letter from Naylor to Watt re draft interconnec-tion agreement between GSU-Mississippi Power & Light.
40.
January 12, 1979 letter from Naylor to Watt re economic comparison of transmission lines, GSU vs. SWEPC0.
- 41. April 24, 1978 letter from Smith to Atkins re Western Division EHV development.
- 42. May 23, 1978 letter from Turk to Naylor re GSU-SWEPC0 sales in 1981-83.
APPENDIX 0 - INTERROGATORY 7(c)8.(c)
The documents presently identified as responsive to this request, which Staff believes to be in HL&P's possession, are:
1.
Certified area boundary maps for HL&P, and TV's service areas and surrounding areas.
2.
Letter of 5/30/73 from P. E. Johnson to U. S. Dept. of Justice.
3.
Franchise granted by City of Houston to HL&P; see item #1 on Appendix A hereto, supra.
4.
Testimony of and exhibits to deposition of M. D. Spence in the abovecaptioned proceedings.
5.
Testimony of and exhibits to deposition in the above-captioned proceedings of K. L. Williams.
6.
Testimony of and exhibits to deposition in the above-captioned proceedings, of T. L. Austin.
7.
Testimony of and exhibits to deposition in the above-captioned proceedings of D. E. Simmons.
/, ',.
, 8.
Testimony of and exhibits to the deposition in the above-captioned proceedings of G. W. Opreas.
9.
Letter from R. L. Hancock to members of the TIS Administrative Committee of 10/31/75.
- 10. Testimony of and exhibits to the deposition in the above-captioned proceedings of Max Tanner.
- 11. Testimony of and exhibits to the deposition in the above-captioned proceedings of J. D. Nichols.
12.
Testimony of and exhibits to the deposition in the above-captioned proceedings of E. Streidel.
13.
Testimony of and exhibits to the deposition in the above-captioned proceedings of F. Buchanan.
14.
Testimony of and exhibits to the deposition in the above-captioned proceedings of A. E. Naylor.
15.
Testimony of and exhibits to the deposition in the above-captioned proceedings of W. Bowers.
, 16. Testimony of and exhibits to the deposition in the above-captioned proceedings of J. Butts.
- 17. Testimony of and exhibits to the deposition in the above-captioned proceedings of J. Gambrell.
- 18. Testimony of and exhibits to the deposition in the above-captioned proceedings of M. Human.
- 19. Testimony of and exhibits to the deposition in the above-captioned proceedings of R. Raymond.
20 Testimony of and exhibits to the deposition in the above-captioned proceedings of J. Lytle.
21.
Tcstimony of and exhibits to the deposition in the above-captioned proceedings of W. Robson.
- 22. Testimony of and exhibits to the deposition in the above-captioned proceedings of L. E. Gross.
- 23. Testimony of and exhibits to the deposition in the above-captioned proceedings of L. Howard.
'l
, 24. Testimony of and exhibits to the deposition in the above-captioned proceedings cf R. Daniels.
- 25. Testimony of and exhibits to the deposition in the above-captioned proceedings of T. A. Standish, Sr.
26 Testimony of and exhibits to the deposition in the above-captioned proceedings of R. K. Campbell.
- 27. Testimony of and exhibits to the deposition in the above-captioned proceedings of J. F. Skelton, Jr..
- 28. Testimony of and ~ exhibits to the' deposition in the above-captioned proceedings of L. Fikar.
- 29. Testimony of and exhibits to the deposition in the above-captioned proceedings of L. Fish.
- 30. Testimony on deposition of John K. Spruce, September 14,1979, pp.
39, 117-19.
- 31. Testimony on deposition of Robert E. Roundtree, November 13,15, 1979, pp.174,188-192, 216-228.
- 32. Testimony on deposition of Larry R. Gawlik, November 13-14, 1979, pp.174-75, 213.
33.
See item #46 on Appendix E hereto, infra.
34.
Documents produced by HL&P in response to Nos. 4 and 8 of the NRC's Initial Interrogatories and Requests for Production of Documents Propounded to HL&P and TUGCO.
35.
See items #12-44 on Appendix C hereto, supra.
- 36. Monthly correspondence from TP&L (Loveless) to HL&P (Ham, Simmons) interruptible, off-peak economy energy and ready economy re:
energy 1978-1979.
- 37. Monthly correspondence from Smith and Warren (TUGCO) to Spence (TP&L) re: energy sales to BEPC, LCRA, Austin, TMPA, CP&L, HL&P, 1978-1979.
- 38. Monthly correspondence from TP&L (Loveless) to LCRA (Herring),
Brazos (Monahan), Austin (Hancock), and TMPA (Rodgers) re:
economy energy sales,1979.
39.
TP&L Letter Agreement of August 9,1979 with PUB Brownsville, associated correspondence, and draf ts from May 21, 1979 through 19 79.
APPEf4 DIX E - INTERR0GATORY 10(c)-11(c)
In addition to those documents provided by Staff in Appendix C in its response to HL&P's Third Set of Interrogatories and Requests for Production of Documents, the documents presently identified as responsive to this request, which Staff believes to be in Houston's possession, are:
1.
Testimony of and exhibits to the deposition in the above-captioned proceedings of T. L. Austin.
2.
Testimony of T. L. Austin in WTU v. TESCO.
3.
Testimony of and exhibits to the deposition in the above-captioned proceedings of D. E. Simnons.
4.
Testimony of D. E. Simmons in WTU v. TESCO.
5.
Testimony of and exhibits to the deposition in the above-captioned proceedings of G. W. Oprea.
6.
Testimony of P. H. Robinson in WTU v. TESCO.
7.
Testimony of B. B. Hulsey in WTU v. TESCO.
' /,*.,
, 8.
Testimony D. D. Jordan in WTU v. TESCO.
9.
Testimony of J. F. Skelton, Jr. in WTU v. TESCO.
- 10. Testimony of W. G. Marquardt in WTU v. TESCO.
- 11. Testimony of and exhibits to the deposition in the above-captied proceedings of J. F. Skel to.1, Jr..
- 12. Testimony of and exhibits to the deposition in the above-captioned proceedings of W. G. Marquardt.
- 13. Testimony of and exhibits to the deposition in the above-captioned proceedings of J. Robuck.
- 14. Testimony of and exhibits to the deposition in the above-cartioned proceedings of J. D. Nichols.
15.
Testimony of and exhibits to the deposition in the above-captioned proceedings of E. Streidel.
- 16. Testimony of and exhibits to the deposition in the above-captioned proceedings of F. Buchanan.
, 17.
Testimony on deposition of John K. Spruce, p. 92 et seg.
- 18. Testimony of and exhibits to the deposition in the above-captioned proceedings of W. Bowers.
- 19. Testimony of and exhibits tt the deposition in the above-captioned proceedings of J. Butts.
- 20. Testimony of and exhibits to the deposition in the above-captioned proceedings of W. Taylor.
21.
11, July 1977 Dkt. No.14 TPUC Re: The Application of liL&P, et al.
'for reconnection of the TIS.
22.
June 1977 Dkt. No.14 TPUC -Final Order Re: The Application of HL&P, et al., for Reconnection of TIS.
- 23. 31, May 1977 Reply Brief HL&P - TPUC.
24.
23, May 1977 Brief of South Texas (STEC) and Medina Re: Application of HL&P for Reconnection.
25.
23, May 1977 Brief of HL&P on Interconnection.
' /,*.,
, 26.
10, May 1977 ltr to TPUC from Evern R. Wall (El Paso Elec. Co.).
- 27. 25, April 1977 Intervenor's Original Petition - TPUC In the Matter of the emergency hearing on intrastate and interstate service of TIS.
28.
April 1977 Petition - TPUC in the Matter of emergency hearing on intrastate and interstate service of TIS.
29.
7, March 1977 CP&L and WTU Petition for Leave to Intervene and For Modification of Relief Ordered on Emergency Interconnections.
30.
14, Feb. l')77 ltr to HL&P and TU from: CSR seeking reconn.ntion.
31.
22, Feb.19771tr to Jordan (Pres.
HL&P) from: CSR seeking reconnection.
32.
25, Feb.1977 ltr to Bill Harris (Pres.) CSW from Burl Hulsey, TV requesting CSR discontinue ties into Oklahoaa.
33.
8, March 1977 ltr to X. Plumb (FPC) from: L. A. McHenanim (Isham, Lincoln & Beale) re: Dkt. No. E-9583.
34.
7, Jan.1977 Final Order - TPUC Re: Application of HL&P, et al.,
for reconnection of TIS.
, 35. 30, July 1976 TPUC Memo from: Philip F. Rickett re: Final Order Dkt. No. ECH-5.
36.
28, July 1976 Dkt. No. ECH-5 TPUC Order.
37, 29, June 1976 Dkt. No. ECH-5 TPUC Examiner's Report.
38, 25, May 1976 Memo to Reese from: Copeland re: CSW/PUC.
- 39. Dkt. No.14 TPUC Statement of the case and findings of fact.
40.
18, May 1976 ltr to PUC from: E. H. Soderberg (LCRA).
- 41. May 1976 Minutes of Commission Proceeding and Final Order regarding LCRA and City Public Service Board of San Antonio and the City of Austin reconnecting with the intrastate system.
42, 20, May 1976 ltr to G. Morris (TPUC) from: J. K. Spruce (City Public Service Board of San Antonio).
42a.
Position Statement of City Public Service of San Antonio, Texas Concerning TIS Discussions at TPUC.
43.
18, May 1976 ltr to PUC from: E. H. Soderberg (LCRA) re: statement on LCRA position relative to interstate vs. intrastate operations.
_ 44.
18, May 1976 ltr for J. Henderson (TPUC) from: J. D. Pieratt (LCRA) re: PUB Dkt. No. EC5-5.
45.
Two files containing approximately 200 documents relating to the instalhtion and/or maintenance of devices to segregate intra-and interstate power, covering a time span from 1938-1976, and which refer to WTU, TESCO, PSO, Western Farmers, El Paso, HLP, and others. These documents are available for inspection and copying upon timely request.
46.
One file containing approximately 500-800 documents relating to specific interconnection agreements or proposals, power agreenents or proposals, utility operations, and correspondence, memoranda, and analyses of the foregoing, covering a time span from 1946 to the present, and which refer to TU and its subsidiaries, HL&P,
-Tex-La, LCRA, Southwest Power Admin., Brazos, WTU, GSU, CP&L, ERCOT, SWPP, Western F'nners, OGE, PSO, the FPC, and others.
These documents are available for inspection and copying upon timely request.
47.
Letters and Summaries from D. E. Simmons to STIS Administrative Committee dated November 45, 1976.
APPENDIX F - INTERR0GATORY (14(b))
The documents pre:ently identified as responsive to this request, which Staff believes to be in Houston's possession, are:
1.
Testimony of and exhibits to the deposition in the above-captioned proceedings of R. L. Hancock.
2.
Testimony of and exhibits to the deposition in the above-captioned proceedings of H. L. Peterson.
3.
Jestimony of and exhibits to the deposition in the above-captioned proceedings of W. Robson.
4.
Testimony of and exhibits to the deposition in the above-captioned proceedings of L. E. Gross.
5.
Testimony of and exhibits to the deposition in the above-captioned proceedings of A. E. Naylor.
6.
Testimony of and exhibits to the deposition in the above-captioned proceedings of J. D. Nichols.
7.
Testimony of and exhibits to the deposition in the above-captioned proceedings of F. Buchanan, pp. 30-33, 61, 143-49.
, 8.
Testimony of and exhibits to the deposition in the above-captioned proceedings of E. Streidel, pp. 5-8, 59-64.
9.
Testimony of and exhibits to the deposition in the above-captioned proceedings of J. Butts.
- 10. Testimony of and exhibits to the deposition in the above-captioned proceedings of J. Gambrell.
- 11. One file containing approximately 50 documents relating to PSO, 0GE. SWEPCO, AP&L and other utilities' power agreements, FPC filings, rate matters, certificates of convenience, and proposals or modifications of the foregoing, spanning a time period from 1963-1976.
These documents are available for inspection and copying upon timely request.
- 12. See item #34 of Appendix D hereto, supra.
- 13. See items #12-44 of Appendix C hereto, supra.
- 14. Documents produced by TU on December 17,1979, re:
J. F. Meyer of HL&P (confidential) generation and transmission analysis.
APPENDIX G - INTERR0GATORY 17(b)
The documents presently identified as responsive to this request, which Staff believes to be in Houston's possession, are:
1.
Testimony of and exhibits to the deposition in the above-captioned proceedings of J. D. Nichols.
2.
Testimony of and exhibits to the deposition in the above-captioned proceedings of J. Butts.
3.
Testimony of and exhibits to the deposition in the above-captioned proceedings of E. Streidel.
4.
Testimony of and exhibits to the deposition in the above-captioned proceedings of F. Buchanan.
5.
Testimony of and exhibits to the deposition in the above-captioned proceedings of R. Raymond.
6.
Testimony of and exhibits to the deposition in the above-captioned proceedings of A. E. Naylor.
7.
Testimony of and exhibits to the deposition in the above-captioned proceedings of L. Howard.
, 8.
Testimony of and exhibits to the deposition in the above-capti'.,ned proceedings of R. K. Campell.
9.
Testimony of and exhibits to the deposition in the above-captioned proceedings of Barney Phillips.
- 10. Testimony of and exhibits to the deposition in the above-captioned proceedings of M. D. Spence.
- 11. Testimony of and exhibits to the deposition in the above-captioned proceedings of T. L. Austin.
- 12. Testimony of and exhibits to the deposition in the above-captioned proceedings of R. E. Roundtree, pp.195-98.
13.
Documents produced by Carter 011 Co.
in response to subpoena duces tecum from Department of Justice.
- 14. June 1975 Industrial KWH (Less Alcoa).
15.
16, March 1973 An Examination of the Relative Merits of Various-Industrial Expansion.
. 16.
5, May 1977 Memo to the files from: T. G. Ryan Re: DuPont Interview.
17.
17, Jan.19771tr to C. C. Blanco (HL&P) from: G. J. DiCaudo (Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co.)
18.
16, Dec.1976 ltr to M. Yugovich (Ford Motor Co.) from: T. E.
McMillan (TP&L).
18a.
Undated data on projected load growth and generating capacity.
- 19. 23, Nov.1976 ltr to A. Carlson (U.S. Plywood) from: F. Davis (Industrial Consultant).
20.
12, Nov.1976 ltr to F. Davis (TP&L) fron: A. C. Carlson (U.S.
Plywood).
- 21. Nov.1976 (Exhibit A) Before TPUC on behalf of the coastal industries group ocnsisting of ASAR Co. Incorp., Celanese Incorp., E. I. duPont de Nemours & Co., and Union Carbide Corp., Testimony and Exhibits of: A. D. Cypt ers, David L. Goris and C. B. White (2 copies).
22.
10, Jan.1973 ltr to E. H. Florence (Boise-Cass Elec. Coop.) from:
J. F. Skelton (TP&L).
/, ',.
, 23.
3, March 1976 ltr to H. Pratt (Borg-Warner Corp.) from: C. McAnear (Industrial Consultant).
24 18, Feb.1976 Minutes from Union Carbide Meeting.
25.
21, April 1975 ltr to A. M. Deck (Bayport Holding, Inc.) from E. D. Hinders (HL&P).
26.
4, April 1975 (HL&P) Memo to Hinckley from: Sykora re: Texas Gulf, Inc., Newgulf, Texas.
26a.
21, April 1975 ltr to A. M. Deck from: E. B. Hinders (HL&P).
27.
5, Sept.1974 (HL&P) Office Memo to Jordan from: Sykora re: Visit to Wilmington, Delaware and Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
27a.
(HL&P) Memo re: Texas Construction Materials Co.
(Lone Star CementCorp.).
28.
6, Jan.1939 (HLP) Office Memo to Clarke from: Austin re: Extens ion to League City 011 Field.
29.
18, March 197U (HL&P) office memo to Robinson from: Aus tin.
, 30.
17, Jan.1977 ltr to C. C. Blanco (HL&P) from: G. J. DiCaudo (Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co.).
31.
4, May 1966 (HL&P) Office memo to Austin from: Kuenemar.n (2 copies).
32.
13, May 1965 (HL&P) office memo to Robinson from: Staac ke.
- 33. Aug.1974 TV/HLP Promo Activities.
34.
27, Aug.19731tr to R. Whitesell (Rohm & Hass) from: HL&P.
35.
23, March 1973 (HL&P) Office memo to Industrial Files from: S. M.
Kessler re: Meeting Notes of Meeting with Ethyl Corp. March 20, 19 73.
36.
12, March 1973 ltr to D. Anderson (Baker & Botts) from: HL&P.
37.
19, April 1971 ltr to H. G. Stafford (HL&P) from: H. E. Whiteway (Assoc. Steel Co. of Houston).
38.
- 8. Oct.1970 ltr to J. D. Hanson (Lone Star Cement Corp.) from:
H. G. Safford (HL&P).
, 39.
26, Sept.1970 (HL&P) Office Memo to Sherman From: Saherd.
39a.
25 Sept.1970 (HL&P) office memo re: Texas Construction Materials Co.
- 40. 24, Sept.1970 HL&P Revised Estimate of Cost for Service to Texas Construction Materials Co.
41.
27, May 1970 (HL&P) Office memo to Arlitt from: Staacke re: Hudson Engineering.
42.
13, Aug.1969 ltr to B. Brimes (Eastern Products Corp.) from:
S. M. Kessler (HL&P).
43.
25, Apr. 1969 (HL&P) Office memo to Safford from: Robb re: Foreign Investment in Houston Conference.
44.
21, Feb.1969 ltr to D. E. Cochran (Duvall Corp.) from: D. Suhler (HL&P).
45.
24, Jan.1968 (CP&L) Office memo to M. H. Lovelady from: J. M. Wiener (2 copies) re: Territorial Limitation.
46.
23, May 1967 ltr to J. Jamison (Burkhead Manufacturing Co.) from:
K. L. Moore (HL&P).
,, 47.
II, May 1966 (HL&P) Office memo to Kuenemann from: Hussey re: U.S.
Steel Corp. Cedar Point.
48.
5, March 1965 ltr to G. W. Maegerle (E. I. duPont de Nemours &
Co., Inc. from R. F. Hussey (HL&P).
49.
20, Nov.1962 ltr to K. T. Feldman (Colonial Pipeline Co.) from:
F. Staacke.
50, 22, Aug.1957 ltr to E. H. McElroy (TP&L) from: J. R. Milligan (TP&L).
50a.
26, Jan.1971 Excerpt from ltr to E. C. Stanphill from:
D.
B. Bobbitt.
51.
29, March 1963 Excerpt from ltr to J. D. Eppright from:
E.
R. Williams.
- 52. 29, Jan.1954 ltr to G. H. Anderson (TP&L) from: C. H. Evans (DuPont).
53.
See item #46 on Appendix E hereto, supra.
54.
See items #12-44 on Appendix C hereto, supra.
APPENDIX H - INTERR0GATORY 22(c)
The documents presently identified as responsive to this request, which Staff believes to be in Houston's possession, are:
1.
The testimony of and exhibits to the deposition in the above-captioned proceedings of K. L. Williams.
2.
Testimony of and exhibits to the deposition in the abovecaptioned proceedings of J. F. Meyer.
3.
Testimony of and exhibits to the deposition in the above-captioned proceedings of J. M. McReynolds.
4.
Testimony of and exhibits to the deposition in the above-captioned proceedings of D. E. Simmons.
5.
Testimony of and exhibits to the deposition in the above-captioned proceedings of R. Ender.
6.
Testimony of and exhibits to the deposition in the above-captioned proceddings of T. L. Hatcher.
7.
The work of Power Technology. Inc. relating to interconnection between SWPP and ERCOT.
, 8.
The work of Stone and Webster relating to interconnection of SWPP and ERCOT.
9.
The FERC Study of 1978 relating to the interconnection of ERCOT-TIS and SWPP.
- 10. The 1968 study of interconnecting ERCOT-TIS and SWPP conducted by TP&L, HL&P, and GSU.
- 11. The work of Stagg System, Inc.
relating to the interconnection of ERCOT-TIS and SWPP.
O S
APPEND 1X I - INTERR0GATORY (23-25(b))
Documents presently identified as responsive to these requests, which Staff believes to be in Houston's possession, are:
1.
Testimony of and exhibits to the deposition in the above-captioned proceedings of J. Robuck.
2.
Testimony of and exhibits to the deposition in the above-captioned proceedings of W. G. Marquardt.
3.
Testimony of and exhibits to the deposition in the above-captioned proceedings of M. Tanner.
4.
Testimony of and exhibits to the deposition in the above-captioned proceedings of D. E. Simmons.
5.
Testimony of E. D. Scarth in WTU v. TESCO.
6.
Various drafts of TIS and ERCOT policy guidelines and agreements which were produced by HL&P and TV during the course of discovery in the above-captioned proceeding.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC AND SAFETY LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of
)
)
HOUSTON LIGHTING & POWER COMPANY
)
NRC Docket Nos. 50-498A PUBLIC SERVICE BOARD OF SAN ANTONIO
)
50-499A CITY OF AUSTIN
)
CENTRAL POWER AND LIGHT COMPANY
)
(South Texas Project. Unit Nos.
)
1 and 2)
)
)
TEXAS UTILITIES GENERATING
)
NRC Docket Nos. SU-445A COMPANY, et_al_.
)
50-446A (Comanche Peak Steam Electric
)
Station, Units 1 and 2)
)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of UPDATED RESPONSE OF THE NRC STAFF TO HOUSTON LIGHTING & POWER COMPANY'S FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES AND REQUEST FOR PRO-DUCTION OF DOCUMENTS in the above-captioned proceeding have been served on the following by deposit in the United States mail, first class, or, as indi-cated by an asterisk, through deposit in the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's internal mail system, this 12th day of February 1980:
I I
Marshall E. Miller, Esq., Chairman Donald A. Kaplan, Esq.
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Susan B. Cyphert U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Nancy A. Luque Washington, D. C.
20555 Frederick H. Parmenter, Esq.
David A.- Dopsovic, Esq.
Michael L. Glaser, Esq.
P. O. Box 14i41 1150 Seventeenth Street, N.W.
Washington, D. C.
20044 Washington, D. C.
20036 Mr. William C. Price Sheldon J. Wolfe, Esq.
Central Power & Light Co.
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel P. O. Box 2121 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Corpus Christi, Texas 78403 Washington, D. C.
20555 G. W. Oprea, Jr.
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Executive Vice President U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Houston Lighting & Power Company Washington, D. C.
20555 P. O. Box 1700 Houston, Texas 77001 Docketing and Service Section Office of the Secretary Robert E. Bathen U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission R. W. Beck & Associates Washington, D. C.
20555 P. O. Box 6817 Orlando, Florida 32803 R. L. Hancock, Director City of Austin Electric Utility Somervell County Public Library P. O. Box 1088 P. O. Box 417 Austin, Texas 78767 Glen Rose, Texas 76043
.. <., 1. Gordon Gooch, Esq.
Jerry L. Harris John P. Mathis, ESq.
Richard C. Balough Baker & Botts Dan H. Davidson, City Manager 1701 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
City of Austin Washington, D. C.
20006 P. O. Box 1088 Austin, Texas 78767 J.K. Spruce, General Manager City Public Service Board Jerome Saltzman, Chief P.O. Box 1771 Antitrust & Indemnity Group San Antonio, Texas 78203 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D C.
20555 Robert C. McDiarmid, Esq.
Robert A. Jablon, Esq.
Jay G51t, Esq.
David A. Giacalone, Esq.
Jack P. Fite, Esq.
. Marc R. Poirier, Esq.
Looney, Nichols, Johnson & Hayes Spiegel & McDiarmid 219 Couch Drive 2600 Virginia Avenue, N.W.
Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73102 Washington, D.C.
20037 Merlyn D. Sampels, Esq.
Jon C. Wood, Esq.
Jos. Irion Worsham, Esq.
W. Roger Wilson, Esq.
Spencer C. Relyea, Esq.
Matthews, Nowlin, Macfarlane Worsham, Forsythe & Sampels
& Barrett 2001 Bryan Tower, Suite 2500 1500 Alamo National Buildin9 Dall as, Texas 75201 San Antonio, Texas 78205 Morgan Hunter, Esq.
Mr. W. N. Woolsey McGinnis, Lochridge & Kilgore Kleberg, Dyer, Redford % Weil Fifth Floor, Texas State Bank Building 1030 Petroleum Tower 900 Congress Avenue Corpus Christi, Te as 78474 Austin, Texas 78701 Dick Terrell Brown, Esq.
Joseph B. Knotts, Esq.
800 Milam Building Nicholas S. Reynolds, Esq.
San Antonio, Texas 78205 Debevoise & Liberman 1200 Seventeenth Street, N.W.
E. William Barnett Esq.
Washington, D.C.
20036 Charles G. Thrash, Jr., Esq.
Melbert D. Schwarz, Esq.
Douglas F. John, Esq.
Theodore F. Weiss, Esq.
Akin, Gump, Hauer & Feld J. Gregory Copeland, Esq.
1333 New Hampshire Avenue, N.W.
Baker & Botts Suite 400 3000 One Shell Plaza Washington, D.C.
20036 Houston, Texas 77002 Don R. Butler, Esq.
Robert Lowenstein Esq.
Sneed, Vine, Wilkerson, Selman & Perry J.A. Bouknight, Esq.
P. O. Box 1409 William J. Franklin, Esq.
Austin, Texas 78767 Peter G. Flynn, Esq.
Douglas G. Green, Esq.
John W. Davidson, Esq.
Lowenstein, Newman, Reis, Axelrad Sawtelle, Goode, Davidson & Troilo
& Toll 1100 San Antonio Savings Building 1025 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.
San Antonio, Texas 78205 Washington, D.C.
20036
'f,,,.a Kevin B. Pratt C. Dennis Ahearn Esq.
Attorney General's Office Debevoise & Liberman State of Texas 1200 Seventeenth Street, N.W.
P. O. Box 12548 Washington, D.C.
20036 Austin, Texas 78711 Steven R. Hunsicker, Esq.
James E. Monahan Baker & Botts Executive Vice President and General Manager 1701 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Brazos Electric Power Cooperative, Inc.
Suite 300 P. O. Box 6296 Washington, D.C.
20006 Waco, Texas 76706 Frederick H. Ritts, Esq.
William H. Burchette, Esq.
Law Offices of Northcutt Ely Watergate 600 Building Washington, D. C.
20037 Michael I. Miller, Esq.
James A. Carney, Esq.
Sarah N. Welling, Esq.
Isham, Lincoln & Beale 4200 One First National Plaza Chicago, Illinois 60603 David M. Stahl, Esq.
Isham, Lincoln & Beale
'j Suite 701 n
105017th Straet, N.W.
M Washington, D.C.
20036 Fredric D. Chanania Counsel for NRC Staff Mr. G. Holman King West Texas Utilities Co.
P. O. Box 841 Abilene, Texas 79604 Maynard Human, General Manager Western Farmers Electric Cooperative P. O. Box 429 Anadarko, Oklahoma 73005 Donald M. Clements*, Esq.
Gulf States Utilities Company P. O. Box 2951 Beaumont, Texas 77704 Robert M. Rader, Esq.
Conner, Moore & Corber 1747 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C.
20006
.