ML19308B233

Responds to Fifth Set of Interrogataries.Certificate of Svc Encl

ML19308B233
Person / Time
Site:	Oconee, Mcguire, McGuire
Issue date:	05/15/1974
From:	Leckie D, Levin M JUSTICE, DEPT. OF
To:
References
NUDOCS 7912170489
Download: ML19308B233 (25)

Text

_ _ _

G

/

M UNITED STATES OF AMERICA BEFORE THE ATOMIC ENERGY CODIISSION

}/

In the Matter of

) -

) Dochet Nos. ;u 269A, 50-270A DUKE PC'.JER COMPANY (Oconce Units 1, 2 and 3 ) 50-237A, 50-169A r

McGuire Units 1 and 2) ) 50-370A FIFIH RESPOSSE OF rdE DEPARTME';T OF JUSTICE TO ISTERROGATO2IES OF APPLICA::T s Pursuant to an agreement reached among the parties and in ccepliance with section 2.740(e) of the Commission. s Rules of Practice, the Department files this Fifth Response .

of the Department of Justice to Applicant's Interrogatories.

1. A market is en arena in which ccmpetition can taka .

place. When products are viewed as reascnably substitutable in response to tederate changes in price, they are within I

the .1ame market. Stated differently, pecducts . tith the same end use which are within the same price range are in the same product market -- for example, glass and metal ~

beer containers as was the fact situation in U. S. v.

Continental Can. Tha geographic bcundaries of a prcduct market enccmpass the area over which buyers can realistically turn for circreative sources of the product and over which sellers can reali:riccily supply tha prcduct. The gecgraphic scope of a market will be datcrcined in large measure by the presence of both natural and arcificial 1

. . barriers to entry which prevent or hinder the flow of goods into a particular geographic area. The relevant product markets and their geographic boundaries in this proceeding are :

(a) The market for distributien-voltage firm electric ocuer for sale to consumers in the area censistine of the service areas of all distribution svstems cresently served bv Acolicant at "holesale, includine its cun vertically intevrated distribution system, and that area at the cericherv of those service areas where trcnsmission could be realistically extended bv Acolicant or its oresent wholesale custcmers. Si= ply put, the geographic scope of this product market is that area where Applicant and its wholesale custc=ers can realistically scck retail customers and therefore is reascnably coincident with Applicant's wholesala service area. For brevity, this area will be called the Piednont Carolina s .

Within this general earket are several submarkets ,

l which are relevant for antitrust analysis. These sub-markets take into account significant variations in com-petit,ve possiol,101es cue to tne presence op. dittering legal barriers to entry. These markets are:

(1) The market for dittributien-voltsre firm 21actric power for sale to consurars in areas within the Piedmont Carolinas where cernetitica at retail is not crc:cribed either bv Ncrth Carclina or Scuch Carolina state action.

2 m

This would include all unassigned areas, assigned or incorporated areas within 300 feet of an unassigned or unfranchised distributcr's lines in certain specified situations, unassigned customers within assigned areas and unincorporated areas adj acent 'to municipalities who own or may establish their own retail distribution systems.

, There are no l'egal barriers to competition in this market.

Consumers in this market can potentially be served by Applicant, cooperatives, municipal systems, or other private companies.

(2) The market for distribution-voltate firm electric power for sale to industrial custcmers who intend to build new esnufacturinq niants within the Piedmont Carolinas. This market also is not subj ec t to any state territorial law, and therefore, there are no legal barriers to entry and ccmpetition can play a role.

Once a company has decided to move to the Piedmont i

! Carolinas, electric rates and the quality of service beccme a significant factor in intra-area plant loca-tion decisions. This is true because such important factors as climate, topography, taxes, labor and the availability of natural rescurces are to a large degree constant throughout the Piedmont Carolinas area.

(3) The market for dis tribution-vol tace firm . electric.

-3 O

v power for sale to consumers in municinalities where a municipality has its own distributien system and in municinalities where a franchise has been eranted which will exoire within five vears. Each municipality in the Piedmont Carolinas can acccamodate only one distribution system. However, there is competition for the right to be the monopoly supplier within the 1ccal market. The current distributien system cust ccmpete with E potential competit;r uaiting in the wings who will attempt to enter the market if the current supplier's service falters or price increases. A competitor may enter at any time where a municipality operates its own distribution system or may enter within a reasonable time where a franchise has been granted which will expire in less than five years. Compe-tition plays an important role in this market. Admittedly, the five-year figure is arbitrary; but as the length of the franchise shortens, competitive pressures increase.

(4) The carhet for distribution-voltana firm electric power for 3 ale to consumers in unincornorated areas where  ;

connetitien at retail has b 2en nrarcribed b r "crth Corclina or South Carolina law. l The distributien systems currently serving in these areas ara protected frca the direct ec= petition cf other i

distribution systems extending their lines and service into these areas. State law can alway.s' change, hcwever, (as it -

did in North Carolina in 1965 and in South Carolina in 1969 I

l l

l 4

i i

l l l

and 1973), to eliminate or modify these restrictions on c ompet it ion. Further, and most important, the state law in no way limits the very real ccmpetition over who will own or operate the one distribution system entitled to serve a particular area. For example, the members of a rural electric cooperative may at any time decide to sell all or part of their distribution systc= to the Applicant because their rates are too high, notwithstanding the territorial protection they enj oy. Conversely, if the Applicant finds it unprofitable to provide service to an area state law entitles it to serve, it may sell its facilities in the area to another distribution sys tem, or agree that another system may extend its lines into the area.

4 (5) The market for distribution-vcitane firn electric Dower for sale to censumers in areas where ?renchises hrte been cranted shich uill not excire within five vears. This i

is a market where ecmpetition plays a lesser role in l

I insuring t.ne provision or the , owest cost posstate l

electricity.

(b) The marh2 for trnnemission- and subtransriesi m-voltae.e bulh never for .ecle to retail distrib :cien evnt= s in the Fiedmont Ce rcl in s t . 'Thile this produe: is sought by retail distribution systems to meet the distribution-

. voltage recuirements of their custcmers, the censumer of this higher voltage product is the retail distribution l

l 5

e

system. The retail distribution system is no different than any manufacturer who purchases raw materials for fabrication. The transmission- and subtransmissien-voltage bulk power will be transformed to a distribution voltage.

Retail distribution systems in the Piedmont Carolinas can realistically turn for their bulk power supply only to systems who operate or have access to transmission within the Piedmont Carolinas. A seller cannot realistically supply a retail distributien system in this market unless he has transmission or access to transmission in the Piedmont Corolinas.

(c) The market for coord'natine services for sale to 2eneratine entities within the Piedmont Carolinas.

Coordinating services is a cluster of products (firm power, nonfirm power, reserves, maintenance power, emergency

. energy, econcay energy, and wheeling services) which together compose a distinct product with a distinct end use -- for example, cc mercial banking as was the fact situation in U. S. v. PhiladcInhia National Bank. This product is usad by generating entities in the production of firm pouer. Generating entities are both buyers and sellers in this market. The geographic scope of this market is bcth regional and local. Applicant can turn to companies operating over a large area of the Southeast for the provision of these services. However, potential gener-ating entities in the Piedment Carolinas can only-i 6

realistically turn to Applicant for the provision of these servic e s . Therefore, both the regional coordinating services market and the Piedmont Carolinas coordinating services market are relevant to this proceeding.

10(e). In 1952, the Southeastern Pouer Administration asked Applicant to wheel Clark Hill hydroelectric power to the Greenwood County Electric Power Commission and to other SEPA preference custcmers on a system-wide basis. The Secretary of the Interior ' concluded frca Applicant's respense and subsequent ecmmunications that "the Duke Power Company has refused to enter into a contract for system-wide trans-1 mission of electric power and energy from Government proj ects to preferred custcmers." Thereafter, SEPA decided to construct its own transmission line to Greenwood County.

See DJ Discovery Document Nos. 1116-1117 and 1130-1131.

12. The Department believes that the University of North Carolina owns thermal generation, within the geographic boundaries of the relevant market, which is substantial.

13(a) . A listing of contracts in which Applicant and its wholesale customers allocated markets between themselves can be found in a Federal Power Ccmmission Order To Show Cause, issued August 21, 1963, in Docket No. E-7122. _Sec Appendix A at 30 FPC 526. In addition, Applicant's whole-sale contract with the City of High Point contained a horsepower limitation shich is discussed at 32 FPC 594 1 (b). The Department will contend that these contracts 4

7

, ,. - - -. -,.e =. y

are relevant to this proceeding and will present evidence on such contracts. .

(c). The Department will contend that these contractual provisions have a- centinuing anticompetitive effect in market (a), submarket (a)(li and market (b) listed above l in response to Interrogatory No. 1.

f During the early grouth of municipal distribution i-systems in the Piedmont Carolinas, 1 cad limitations were inserted into the municipal systems' pcuer purchase con-

tracts with Applicant with the result that large loads, particularly industrici loads, were served by Applicant.

i Assured of these large loads, Applicant constructed facili-ties into municipal service areas where they did not have franchises to serve. Despite the deletion of these provi-I sions frca Applicant 's wholesale contracts in 1964, these facilities remain and place Applicant in a faverable posi-

} tion to ccepete with municipal systems for new industrial 4

i t

loads. Despite the absence of a franchise, Applicant can, under state law recognir.ing the rights of " secondary suppliers," l

. continue to compete for new industrial 1 cads which are

'i 1 within a certain distance of its existing facilities.

a Further, when a municipality does not serve large industrial loads within its servica areas, it is econcaically handi-

' l capped if its wishes to install its own generation. These i

contracts were not submitted to the Federal Pcwer Commission

) prior to 1963.

I 8 1

p ,- -

g -, ~ , . _ . - , , - . , ,. - ~ - - - -

/

/

5

/I Ac1c!  ! .>-

/

C yi

,f Y

v t -

(1i

when Applicant files rate increases with the state regulatory ce==issions and approval is granted, while the wholesale rate will be increased as fuel pr' ices increase.

The resultant ti=c lag handicaps Applicant's wholesale custc=crs in competing for new industrial leads.

26(b). The Department hereby withdraws its prior answer to this questien. Other than requests made by the Intervenors in this procacding and the In:ervenors in the Catawba proceeding, and requests for admissicn to the CARVA pool in which the Ocence and McGuire units were intended to be participation units, the Department knows of no refusals by Applicant to coordinate its nuclear expan-cion generation progrc=s.

27. The Department knows of no instances not recited in answers to other questions where Applicant has refused to interconnect with any other electric entity.

28. The D2partment will not contend that Applicant refused to wheel pcwar for Yankee-DL::ie, Inc. See cur answer to In:errogatcry 10(a) -for an instance of Applican refusing to wheel.

30 (a) (b) (c) . The Department cenaiders the interven- i tiens of the municipal Intervenors in the McGuire procacdir; and of tha municipal cnd cccperative Intervencrs in the Catauba proceeding as requests for cwnership participation in the McGuira and Catawba plants.

30 (d) (e) (f) . The Department knows of no requests for unit power purchases made by the Piedmon: Electric Cities

.11 L. -m

or any 'other group of cooperatives or municipalities to Applicant .

31. The requests discussed in the instant responses

-to interrogatories 26(b) and 30(a)(b)(c) were all made in a timely fashion.

36(a)(b)(3). The Department does not contend that Applicant's opposition to the constructich of the Carters 1 Island-Trotters Shoals Proj ect was a sham attempt to l influence governmentcl action or sham litigation. However, evidence of such activities may be admissible to show the purpose and character of other conduct.

37. Applicant, as a member of the CARVA pool, opposed the application of the Belhaven grcup in competition with VEPC0 for a license to build a pumped storage facility at Marble Valley. Stanley Regone, vice-president of VEPCO, presented a statement to the Federal ?cwer Ccemission on August 1, 1967, relating an approved CARVA pcol position on efforts cd the Delhaven group to use the Marble Valley project as a basis for admission to the CARVA pool. The Department does not contend that Applicant's opposition to a Marble Valley license for the Ee1 haven grcup was a , sham.

-The Department withdraus the sentence, "Since the threct was a general one,*:e are unchle to determina 'Occhcr this would constitute a sham," in its initial response to interroga-tory 37 (h) . Mr. Horn's uarning was a direct attempt to intimi-date Applicant's cc=petitors, and not an effort to influence governmental action, 12

38. The Department will contend that Applicant has imposed a rate squeeze on its wholesale customers.

Applicant's wholesale rate schedules 10, 11 and 11-A and industrial rate schedules I and 2-C since 1965 have been studied and compared. The assumptions for the cases studied vere a 16,000 kw load served under Applicant 's wholesale rate schedules with a monthly load factor of 60 percent. The cost of this custcmer purchasing pcuer frcm Applicant in this situction uns computed. U2xt it was assumed that the wholesale customer added an industrial load of 5000 kw at 85 percent lead factor and computed the wholesale custcmcr's power bill after that load had been added. The first bill was then subtracted frcm the second bill to determine the incremental cost of power.

This figure was then ccmpared with the cost to an industrial customer of purchasing power directly frca Applicant under one of its industrial rate schedules. In all cases, the l 1

incremental cost of power to the wholesale purchaser was l l

cither greater than the retail cost to the industrial l customer, or the m.argin of difference between the tuo bills was not su fficient to allow the uholesale custcmer to l l

serve a neu industrial lead withcut icsing noney,  : hen his distribution costs are taken into consideration. It is believed that similar results would be obtained assuming the addition of any new high-load-fac tor load to an existing wholesale load. The Depart =cnt's contention is without 13

regard to whether or not Applicant's rates are properly related to cost. Uevertheless, we believe the present rate differential is unjustified under the principles of cost of service rate making. No specific standards were devised to determine "that 'cargin over and above the cost of power uhich is sufficient to recover all properly allocabic costs of servicing a customer," as the margin was ei$hcr negative er de minimis in all cases studied.

14

44. The Department believes that Section 24-14(b) of Article 1.1 of Title 24 of the Code of Laws of South Carolina, 1962, would be invalid under Federal law if it were construed to restrict sales at wholesale frca an interstate power system.

45. The Depcrtment believes that long-term franchises l l

granted by North Carolina municipalities to Applicant contravene Federal antitrust policy.

46. Applicant and South Carolina Electric and Gas engaged in discussions ccncerning territorial allocations at wholesale in September-October, 1971. The Department d oes not know whether an agreement was censummatec. See DJ Discovery Decument Nos. 3507-3510 for the details of these discussions.

47(a). Applicant's attempted acquisition of the Highlands-Cashiers distribution line frcm Nantahala Power and Light Cenp ny is relevant to this proceeding.

4S (c) (d) . Section 24-14(6) of Article 1.1 of Title 24 would have an anticompetitive effect en the wholesale bulk power. supply market if construed to restrict sales at wholesale from an interstate pcuer system. The long-term franchises granted by North Carolina municipalitics have an anticompetitite effect en the retail distribution marhet.

54. The Departennt will centend that the application of antitrust princip1cs will lead to increased officiency in the electric industry and in particular to savings in

-fuel.

15- .

1 1

4 j u i

. . 60. The Department will maintain that a new situa-tion inconsistent with the antitrust laws is created by the introduction of nuclear technology into the Piedmont Carolinas--i.e., the licensing of the Oconee and McGuire units. Until the advent of' nuclear technology, Applicant's monopoly power in the wholesale bulk pcuer supply mark'ot .

was to a limited degree controlled by the presence of poten-tial cc=petitors who might enter the cerhet by installing small fossil-fueled generating units. I ith the constructica of the Oconce and McGuire units, the ins'tallation of small fossil-fueled units has beccme even less economic. In fact, the installation of large-scale fossil plants has become less ecencmic. According to Applicant 's own spokermen (Franz Seyer and W. S. Lee)., nuclear energy is the cheapest form of energy for the production of base load power to meet new leads. To compete with Applicant in the wholesale bulk power supply market, an entity must be able to install a nuclear unit with its massive capital costs and its cacsive_

capacity. In a February 4, 1974, specch to the New Ycrh Society of Security Analysts, Applicant's senior vice-president, construction and engineering, U. S. Lee, clearly outlined the trecendous cc=petitive advantages of nuclear power (DJ Discovery Occument '.!o. 3519).

With- respect to generation costs per kwh, Duke's 197 3 operating expense including . fuel was 2.4. mills :for nucicar compared to 5.5 mills for fossil. . In 1974, cur total bus-bar costs, ' including capital charges, ~are expected te be 1.4 mills lower

.16

+

V

. . for nuclear than new fossil capacity ecming into service this year on the basis of first year depreciation and return, and 2 mills icwcr on a ,

levelized basis assuming 70 percent capacity factor cparaticn for both. Current trends in  !

fuel costs suggest : hat this gap will viden in ,

the future. For nuclear, you pay the big ticket i when you build the plant, and thereafter nuclear f relatively less sensitive to inflation. If coal, oil and uranium should all double in crice, the impact of raw raterial input to fuel co'sts ,

for the cane electricity will be ten times as l great for fossil as for nuclear.

Only a large entity with substantial load growth and accesc to coordinatica, such as the Applicant, can install such units on its own. The pressure of potential competition  ;

on Applicant to keep its costs down and rates low will  !

disappear if Applicant is the only entity in its area enjoying the benefits of nucicar generation. The elimina-tion of potential cc= petition creates a new situation incensistent with the antitrust laws in addition to maintain-ing the situation wherein Applicant has moncpolized the wholesale bulk power supply market. This situation can be remedied by conditiening the Oconee and McGuire licenses so that the cc petitive advantages of federally-developed nuclear power beco=e available to other entitics in j Applicant's area.

60 (d) .- .ipplicent 's censideration of rate concessicas 2

to wholesale custcaers Oc prevent self-generation is indi-cated by Duke Discovery Document No. 7147.

17 4

L___

t

- 62. The Department does not believe that the i acceptance for filing or the approval of filed rates by a Federal or state regulatory cc= mission subj ects Applicant to- pervasive regulation such that it can realis-

tically be said the Applicant has no monopoly power.

66. See the Department's revised answer to Interrogatory No. 1 for an extensive discussion of the regional pcwer c:: change carhat, i.e., the coordinating.

sc vices carhet.

i.

67. The Department will not make the quoted conten-tion in this proceeding. The Department will contend that an effect of the ternination of the CARVA pool was to i

inhibit the ability of systems to enter the wholesale bulk -

power supply market and to install nuclear units. Withcut 4

the coordinated development and staggered construction features of the CalVA pool agreement, small systems are less abic to take cdvantage of nuclear technology.

].

4

68. The Depart =ent will not centend that the same s kinds of transacticns'are carried cut through VACAR as were formerly conducted through CARVA.

(

l 71. The Department will take no position in this 4

proceeding cencerning In crveners' contentien that " Duke, CP&L, SCZ5G, and V2FC3 together concpolize the g2neration 4

-of electric power over a substantial geographic area in North Carolina, South Carolina and Virginia."

18 i

4

.i.__.__m_____m___.___.__.___. _m '____c .u_m ________.._._.m

74. In addition to other instances of anticompetitive conduct alleged above, the following activities engaged in by Applicant have contributed to the creation of a situatien inconsistent with the antitrust laws:

(a) Apparently censidering the Yankee-Dixie proj ect a threat to its business, Applicant participated with other CARVA pool members in an extensive monitoring program of the proj ect frca its inception in 1965. This monitoring included cc=missioning a 1959 study of Yankee-rixie's feasibility by E3ASCO. See Duke Discovery Document 4

Nos. 59342, 42445, 19608, and 59333.

(b) Applicant has staged an extensive publicity campaign againct EPIC. Inc., and has sought long term franchises from municipalities in order to prevent their possible participation in EPIC.

(c) Applicant has provided wheeling and firming services to SEPA for the Hartwell project and accepted a 1cw rate of return therefor in order to prevent the cen-s truction of transmission and generation by SEPA or by others in coordination with SEPA.

(d) Effective participation by small systems in SERC wac inhibited by the denial of representative status to censulting engineers selected by there system:

to represent. them in SERC and the denial of technical i advisory participation of those engineers at SERC meetings..

Mr. W. 3. McGuire, then Duke's President, was also SERC's 19 .

i I

first Chairman.- See Exhibit 17'of.Intervenors' Exhibits to Initial Prehearing Statement and Duke !!iscovery Document Nos. 58343, 58344 and 583S4.

(e)- Applicant was concerned over possible

-future ccnflict with CP&L if it supported the efforts of its wholesale-customer, Albemarle, to secure service to a new subdivision located betueen Albemarle's lines and CP&L's. See Duke Discovery Document No.16185.

9 9

9 I

I

)

i e

1 1

e 1

' 20-e e ,

77 (a)(1) . Yes.

(2). Yes.

82. The Department will take no position in regard to the Intervenors' centention that " Duke has employed the substantial differentisls already existing in its own internal costing to shim the cream of the retail market."

85(a). Mr. Divid A. Lechie and Mr. Mark M. Levin have talked to the felicuing persons concerning Applicant :

(1) Mr. Raymond Muench, Public Ucrhs Director of Fayette-ville, N.C. , concerning the history of Yankee-Dinia, Inc.,

the formation of EPIC, Inc. , and the econcaic viability -

of EPIC, Inc.

(2) Mr. Thomas Wigglesworth, fonner SEPA Power Director, concerning SEPA's plans for the construction of the Trotters Shoals Dam and opposition thereto, the wheeling and firming contract between SIPA and Applicant, and the history.of the construction of the Greenwood County line.

(3) Mr. Robert Bathan and Prof. John F :hlman concerning the preparation of this case.

(4) Mr. Joe Botto, fermer director of Yanhee-Dinie, Inc.,

concerning the history of that organication and Applicant 's

. activities in relacica to that -crganir.a tien .

(5) Mr. Rolar.d Kampmeier, a consultant to the South  ;

- Carolina Public Service Authority, concerning the varicus requests of SCPSA for admis'sion to the CARVA pool, response -

21 F 5

thoroto, and the value to SCPSA of contracts finally negotiated.

(6) Mr. E. V. Lewis, General Manager of the Central Electrical Cooperative of Cayce, South Carolina, concern-ing electric utility competition at wholesale and retail in South Carolina, Applicant's opposition to Trotters Shoal.s,' impetus for territorial legislation, including legislation of Santec-Cooper's territories, negotiations pursuant to territerial legisla ion.

Mr. William T. Clabault epoke to Mr. T. Foley Tread.ay of Southern Engineering cob.cerning Blue Ridge Cooperative's request to Appalachian for power frca its proposed Scw River facility, Applicant 's attemptcd acquisition of Mantahala Power and Light, and Applicant's acquisition of the Greenwood.

County Electric System.

i 1

4 4

22 .

Supplemental Interrogatory 1. Applicant's President, Carl IIorn, offered en :ovember 10, 1965, not to competc at retail t:ith the IIc; mood Elcatric Me=ber Corporation in arecs where : orth Carolina law did not restrict retail ec;r. peti-tion if 11aywood EMC would not oppose Appliccnt's proposed purchase of the Ilighlands-Cashiers distribution line from Nantchcla Pouar and Light Ccapany. Thic offer ucs rejected by Il .y::ccd  ;'..C.

Respectfully cubaitted,

/r /

,/,$

/

..~e - f ' , .',: . .

? .

D.'. n u J. . Li_ Ca .2, Attorney Departacut of Justice s

W

,b' . % s :fe f. ,i . cn.:

a . ~

1:!.RX M. LEVI;;, Attorney Department of Justice Subscribed and s orn to before me on the 15th day of March, 1974.

,- i

g. r,: ,.. . . . ,

/ notary cuc ue y

m =., = , n,. ., ,m :. .,,

I i

I l

l l

l i

l 1

UNITED STATES OF-AMERICA BEFORE THE AT'0MIC EXERGY COI2IISSIC:'

\

In the Matter of )

) .

DUi E PO'JER COMPANY ) Docket Nos. 50-269A, 50-270A

.(Oconec Units 1, 2 and 3 ) 50-287A, 50-369A McGuiro Units 1 and 2) ) 50-370A G,1.. v.,. ., ,7 c_ ... .r. .e.

.r - e....m.

. . . : . , ,, t.

I hereby certi,y .

e,n at cooles or :.:.e m R,,.a,,,0..S,.

c .. c Or,T.dr.

D E,r,.s, u.r R., , .c .T O r J t. .. n,.-

. z .u ,.:.

, 1 0 a. r .3 L ,i C c... ,i. S m. .T .e.ac..,vG,,m,,.n, R 2. n o c , t;ated March 15, 1974, in the above-captioned marter have been served on the following by deposit in the United States raail, first class or air mail, this 15th day of March, 1974:

Honorable John D. Farmchides Mr. Frank W. Karcs, Chief Chainaan, Atomic Safety and Public Prceeedings Srrnch Ltcensing ocarc Ofrice or the a,,ccratcry or-U. S. Atomic :nergy Ccz: mission the Cemmissica Unchington, D. C. 20545 U. S. Atcaic Energy Cc=icsion Honorable Jocc:ph F. Tubridy Atc.::ic Sr.fe'.y and Liccacir.g Scard Josgh Rutherg, Esquire 4100 cc L'.u.dral Avenue , t'. .U. Ben-; ce.in H . Vercier , Es cu i r a Washington, D. C. 20016 Roc'ert J. Verdisco, Esc luira Honcrabic George R. Mc'.1 Antitrust Counsel far J.EC Ranulatory Staff Atcaic Safety onc Lie rc in'- 3 card U. b". .. m... A. r.... c,.v~.. H.. o...'.

m ~,..

. _ t ~...m..

U. S A: c:a !.c En 2 rgy C= : 1.csica

,v.,a s.aington,

. . Wash ie't c.n , D. C." 20543 rJ . C.

. zu' a e' a-Willica Warfield P.osc, .Escuire Mr. Abrcham Brairmen> Chi.ef Geor e A. Averv, r ecuiro Office of Ancitrust cr.l ind s- nic;. naits watson, kcm.ife U. - S. J.tcr'ic Jnar;:y Cr. ..is t io n Tcni K. Guldan, Eccuire T. ]s.

= e. * . 4 a. .e g .r.. D. .

. {. 7. vP s.C..* ')  ! *m.q ', f..l ,

3'.....'.t.......,..e_4._.

. f * .u..

, e e, 1.y3. 0 . . 4. . a_ ,. a.. , ._s , . n . c.

.. . m. , t. , i . . y. . .

Atcmic Snfety-cad Licancing.

Unshington, D. C. 20025 Scard Pcac1 U. S. Atcaic Energy Cerc:ission Carl Horn, Esquire Washim ten, D. C.. 20545 President, Duke Po'cr Cc .yany e.. cm e 9 _, . . o s . ,x. . ..2, . u. n. . ,.c.: m .. c. . , .

. Chai r ec.n , . J.:crie Saf:> y;;'...tnd s

Charlc'e te, < ::a :th Ce.rclina M.h 2M i . .:. .- , . , . 4 , ., ...s..,a. . . .......

~.....o .. .s ..

U. M. Accc:ic de:ernv C :. ::i.9sion Unchington, f u. G."" "0565 k--

William H. Grigg, Esqaire Troy B. Conner, Esquire Vice President and General Counsel Conner & Knotts ,

1/4/ I'ennSV LVan' a Avenue ,

,.,,l.

c. . .-

,1 02:P.*

L, uke ,i O*.ler LU;.

Un sh ingt on', D . C . 20026 422 South Church S:reet Charlotte, Morth Ccrolina 20201 David Stover, Esquire W. L. Porter, ELquire .- Tally & Tally Duke Pcwer Company Suite 307 1300 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.

422 Scuch Church Street Washington, D. C. 20026 Charlott a, ?;crth Carolina 20201 J. O. Tally, Jr., Esquire N Tally & Tr.lly Pos: Of:~ic a Ertz,:er 1660 p,s.c...,.,..,..,_._.,..-....,.m...

. m u. ..

. . v. _. _ m - _e . ...

., 0. ..m n. e.

/7.,+f

\

ny.,w/ -

/

MAPK '!. LEVIN Attorney, l.ititrust Division Depn:-tm:nt of Justice Washington, D. C. 20530 e

e

.