ML19309C290
| ML19309C290 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Summer  |
| Issue date: | 03/14/1980 |
| From: | Conner T CONNER, MOORE & CORBER |
| To: | Stephens C NRC OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY (SECY) |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8004080409 | |
| Download: ML19309C290 (2) | |
Text
~i*
LAW OFFICEM CONNER, MOORE & CORDER 1747 PE N N S Y LVA N I A AV E N U E, N. W.
[$[u ",*, # [ *g *,# ".'
WAS IIINGTON, D. C. 20006 x
Eoc e nt J. co ns E n M AKE J. WgT E R M A N N DON A LD J. S A LS LE Y, J M.
"2""."d *l."^?o5 "
March 14, 1980 9,,,,,,,,,,
5;OO E N T J. B ROO K S
... !.**,'".'.' l.
- * * ' " ' " " ' " ^ ' " ' ^ ~
mf DOCKETT D gg Mr. Chase R.
Stephens
}
USN(C I7 N>
k2 D
eting and Service Branch Office of the Secretary 0 OWdesecretwy U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 9
[
ce Washington, D.
C.
20555 4
to ca In the Matter of South Carolina Electric & Gas Company (Virgil C.
Summer Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2)
Docket No. 50-395A
Dear Mr. Stephens:
As you know, Central Electric Dcwer Cooperative, Inc. filed a Petition for a Finding of Significant Change and Request for Antitrust Hearing on Operating License on December 6, 1978.
In response, South Carolina Electric & Gas Company filed a Motion to Dismiss or, in the Alternative, for Summary Disposition.
Upon submission of other pleadings by the parties, the matter is now pending before the Commission for decision.
In keeping with our obligation as counsel to advise the Commission of newly decided, controlling authority, we note the decision of the United States Supreme Court in California Retail Liquor Dealers Association v. Midcal Aluminum, Inc.,
48 U.S.L.W.
4238 (March 3, 1980), which reaffirms the line of precedents beginning with Parker v. Brown, 317 U.S.
341 (1943),
previously discussed in our pleadings.
The Court analyzes the antitrust immunity for acts performed in accordance with State legislation as follows:
These decisions establish two standards for antitrust immunity under Parker v.
Brown.
First, the challenged restraint must be "one clearly articulated and affirmatively expressed as state policy"; second, the policy must be
" actively supervised" by the State it-self. -[48 U.S.L.W. at 4240]
8004080409
-Mr. ChaseLR. Stephens March 14, 1980.
Page 2 We believe -that this decision confirms the validity of South Carolina Act No. 412 under these standards as~a clearly articulated.and actively supervised statutory scheme for regulating the sale of electric' power in that state.
Sincerely, M- [
WQ,
- Troy B/ Conner, Jr.
- L
/dr I
k cc:
Wallace E.
Brand, Esq.
Mr.
P. T. Allen Hugh Morrison, Esq.
Robert A.
Jablon, Esq.
Wallace S. Murphy, Esq.
George H. Fischer, Esq.
Robert Medvecky,'Esq.
Frederic Chanania, Esq.
C. Pinckney Roberts, Esq.
t 9
w
+-p m
9