ML19305E127

Responds to Public Utils Board of City of Brownsville,Tx Opposition to Joint Motion for Extension of Time.Objects to Alleged Refusal to Wheel & Submits ML Borchelt Affidavit in Response to Alleged Exclusion from Discussions

ML19305E127
Person / Time
Site:	South Texas, Comanche Peak
Issue date:	04/11/1980
From:	Stahl D CENTRAL & SOUTH WEST CORP., ISHAM, LINCOLN & BEALE
To:	Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
Shared Package
ML19305E128	List: ML19305E127 ML19305E130
References
NUDOCS 8004230002
Download: ML19305E127 (3)

Text

j'u Q UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of: S S

HOUSTON LIGHTING & POWER S NRC DOCKET NOS. 50-498A i COMPANY, THE CITY OF SAN S 50-499A ,

ANTONIO, THE CITY OF AUSTIN,5 and CENTRAL POWER AND LIGHT S COMPANY S (South Texas Project, S Unit Nos. 1 and 2) S S

TEXAS UTILITIES GENERATING S NRC DOCKET NOS. 50-445A COMPANY, et al. S 50-446A (Comanche Peak Steam S Electric Station, S Unit Nos. 1 and 2) S RESPONSE OF CENTRAL AND SOUTH WEST CORPORATION TO OPPOSITION BY BROWNSVILLE TO JOINT MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME AND AFFIDAVIT OF MERLE L. BORCHELT In its Opposition to Joint Motion for Extension of Time, the Public Utilities Board of the City of Browns-ville, Texas alleged that it had been excluded from negotia-tions and discussions concerning a direct current (dc) inter-connection between the Texas Interconnected System and the Southwest Power Pool and that such an interconnection would be contrary to the public interest. At the oral argument on the Joint Motion for Extension of Time before the Licensing Board on April 9, 1980, counsel for the Central and South West Corporation ("CSW") represe'nted that, contrary to

8 0 0 4 3 3 9(gg_

i

. e. ,

these allegations, Brownsville had in fact been apprised of p the discussions concerning a dc interconnection, had been advised that its reaction and comments on the interconnection  !

i would be welcome and expressed an interest in pursuing the l r i matter further. Counsel for CSW further stated that he l would be able to provide an affidavit verifying the truth of I i

those representations, and contradicting the conclusions in l

the Brownsville opposition. i Attached hereto pursuant to that representation,  ;

is the Affidavit of Merle L. Borchelt, Executive Vice-President l i

! of Central Power and Light Company (" CPL") . This Affidavit .

t is submitted only in respense to the allegation that Browns- .

ville had been excluded from discussions concerning the de l 4

interconnection, and does not address other matters alleged in the Brownsville Opposition since those other matters have no bearing on the issue whether the extension of time should have been granted by the Licensing Board. CSW does, however, r

take strong exception to the other matters alleged in the l Opposition, particularly the allegation that CPL has refused  ;

and is refusing to wheel for Brownsville or other " smaller" electric utilities in Texas. As counsel for Brownsville l 4 well knows, CPL is in fact wheeling power for Brownsville at >

the present time. CSW and CPL further disagree with Browns-ville's characterization of other aspects of negotiations between CSW, CPL and Brownsville and the allegations that [

l CPL has' committed anticompetitive practices against l

Brownsville. Omission of these matters from the attached Affidavit should not be regarded as concurrence in the truth of those allegations. As mentioned, they are not referred to in the Affidavit only because those allegations were not the basis for Brownsville's opposition to the requested t extension.

Respectfully submitted, ISHAM, LINCOLN & BEALE d

/h .

Atdorneys for THE CENTRAL AND SOUTH WEST COMPANIES Suite 325 1120 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20036 202/833-9730 One First National Plaza Chicago, Illinois 60603 312/558-7500 Dated: April 11, 1980 t

4 t