ML19309H021

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Forwards Us Atty General Providing Addl Antitrust Advice Re CP Application Per Atomic Energy Act of 1954, Section 105C.Ltr Concludes That No Basis Disclosed to Conclude That Antitrust Hearing Is Necessary Re Ownership
ML19309H021
Person / Time
Site: Wolf Creek 
Issue date: 04/04/1980
From: Toalston A
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To: Dingell J, Hart G, Moffett T, Udall M
HOUSE OF REP., GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS, HOUSE OF REP., INTERIOR & INSULAR AFFAIRS, HOUSE OF REP., INTERSTATE & FOREIGN COMMERCE, SENATE, ENVIRONMENT & PUBLIC WORKS
References
NUDOCS 8005080165
Download: ML19309H021 (2)


Text

Yf$f p atc.,

c

\\ /

'o UNIT ED sT ATEs

' E '", 7 c I,,n NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

  • h*

j 800**80/b5 E

WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 lift; 4 la#)

Docket flo. 50-482A The Honorable Morris K. Udall, Chairman Subcommittee on Energy and the Environment Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs i

United States House of Representatives Washington, DC 20515

Dear Mr. Chairman:

This is to inform the Subcommittee on Energy and the Environment that the Commission has received additional antitrust advice from the Attorney General in connection with Kansas Gas and Electric Company and Kansas City Power and Light Company's construction permit application for Wolf Creek Generating Station, Unit flo.1.

This advice is rendered pursuant to section 105c of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended.

A copy of the Attorney General's letter dated March 28, 1980, is enclosed.

In his letter he concludes:

"Our review of the information submitted, as well as other relevant information available to us, has disclosed no basis upon which to conclude that an antitrust hearing is necessary regarding

[ Kansas Electric Power Cooperative, Inc.] KEPC0's ownership of a 195 megawatt share in Wold Creek Unit 1."

Sincerely,

/// A.LToelston Argil Toalston, Acting Chief Antitrust and Indemnity. Group Office of fluclear Reactor Regulation

Enclosure:

Attorney General's Letter cc:

Rep. Steven Symns

Identical letters sent to:

The Honorable John D. Dingell, Chairman Subcommittee on Energy and Power Conmittee on Interstate anf Foreign Commerce United States House of Representatives Washington, DC 20515 cc:

Rep. Clarence J. Brown The Honorable Toby Moffett, Chairman Subconmittee on Envirc< ment, Energy and Natural Resources Committee on Government Operations United States House of Representatives Washington, DC 20515 cc:

Rep. Paul N. McCloskey, Jr.

The Honorable Gary liart, Chairman Subcommittee on Nuclear Regulation Committee on Environment and Public Works United States Senate Washington, DC 20510 cc:

Sen. Alan Simpson 9

Unittb Ctatts Dtpartmtut of Ittstice 9.~s.y WASillNG10N, D.C. 20530 g

gg np9ee p *$[

' *~~

AS515f a%' ATTDMNET CthER AL ANIt?mulf Devil:0N Howard K.

Shapar, Esquire Executive Legal Director Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.

20555 Re:

Kansas Gas and Electric Company and Kansas City Power and Light Company (Wolf Creek Generating Station, Unit No. 1, NRC Dkt.

No. 30-482A)

Dear Mr. Shapar:

You have requested our advice pursuant to Section 105c of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, regarding the acquisition by Kansas Electric Power Cooperative, Inc. (KEPCO) of an ownership interest in the above referenced unit.

KEPCO has been negotiating for a 17 percent interest in the unit, or approximately 195 megawatts.

This power will be blended in with hydroelectric power from the Southwestern Power Administra-tion and supplemental power purchased from neighboring utilities and used by KEPCO to supply its cooperative members.

The Department rendered antitrust advice with regard to the Wolf Creek Generating Station, Unit No.

1, by letter of December 10, 1974.

Kansas Gas and Electric Company and Kansas City Power and Light Company, the original owners of the unit, agreed to accept license conditions that, in the view of the Department, made an antitrust hearing unnecessary.

The pur-chase of an ownership interest in the Wolf Creek Generafing Station, Unit 1, by KEPCO is pursuant to the license conditions agreed to in 1974.

Our review of the information submitted, as well as other relevant information available to us, has disclosed no basis upoi which to conclude that an antitrust hearing is necessary rec.irding KEPCO's ownership of a 195 megawatt share in Wolf Creek Unit 1.

S cor ly,

~

Sa' ford c.

Assi tant Attor ey General Antitr st Division