ML19317E429
| ML19317E429 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Oconee, Mcguire, McGuire  |
| Issue date: | 01/29/1973 |
| From: | Avery G, Golden T, Ross W, Watson K DUKE POWER CO., WALD, HARKRADER & ROSS |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7912170610 | |
| Download: ML19317E429 (28) | |
Text
s. -o .
n q .' 5 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA f '" '
ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION In the Matter of )
) Docket Nos . '.5'0-M; DUKE POWER COMPANY ) 50-270A
) 50-287A (Oconee Units 1, 2, and 3; ) 50-369A McGuire Units 1 and 2) ) 50-370A APPLICANT'S MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY BY INTERVENOR SHELBY IN REGARD TO CERTAIN REQUESTS To the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board:
Duke Power Company (hereinafter " Applicant") respect-fully moves this Board, pursuant to sections 2.730 (a) and (b) and 2. 740 (f) of the Commission's Rules of Practice, 10 C.F.R. Part 2, for an order compelling the city of Shelby, North Carolina, an intervenor in this proceeding, to clarify its responses and/or respond more fully to certain interrogatories and document requests heretofore served.
Intervenor Shelby submitted responses to request items 5, 6, 8-10, 12-16, 19-38, 41-54, 56-71, 74, 76-81, 83, 85-90 on December 29, 1972, which were received by Applicant's counsel on January 2, 1973. The responses submitted appear to be intended as full and complete responses to the requests pro-pounded. For the reasons stated below, Applicant submits that a clarification or further response is necessary in regard to the following items : 9, 10, 14, 16, 23-25, 28-35, 43, 46, 47, c
7912170 hk 1 i(L
49, 52, 53, 56-58, 61, 62, 65, 68-70, 74, 80 and 83.--1/
As previously indicated in similar motions submitted earlier, it may be possible for counsel to resolve some of~the items; where this is possible, we would hope to do so prior to 4
the February 15, 1973, Prehearing Conference. However, should certain items be lef t unresolved, we request the Board to con-sider them at the conference.
The Specific Itema
- 9. The request asked for the identification of and rates paid by any customer not served under the rate schedules submitted in response to item 4. The answer submitted names a particular customer and attaches the city's ordinary commercial rate schedules. It, therefore , is unclear how this customer is distinguished from any other commercial customer and the responses should be clarified accordingly.
- 10. This item asked for the computation of the city 's typical bills at various times and at various consumption levels for residential, commercial and industrial customers . In response, Shelby submitted its rate schedules. This is not sufficient and is contrary to the agreement made by counsel in regard to the question.
--1/ Because of the large number of deficient responses, the full text of the requests is contained in Appendix A hereto.
It had been agreed among counsel that the intervenors would not have to compute each typical bill requested as long as they each submitted three things: (1) their rate schedules; (2) any applicable adjustment level; and (3) an identification of which schedule the intervenor would use to compute each bill.
While Shelby has complied with the first two parts of the compromised response, it has not identified which schedule it would use to compute each typical bill. Applicant is willing to undertake the computation of each bill, but it cannot do so without such identification. Since counsel for the intervenors has already agreed to this approach, Shelby should be directed to supplement its answer as requested. --2/
- 14. The request seeks information on whether Shelby or any of its agencies or departments has or had an industrial development department or individuals or groups of individuals who engaged in such activi ties . Shelby replies that it "has not engaged any group to attract commercial or industrial facilities to locate in the municipality or within the area served by its electric facilities." Shelby then s tates that
_2/ One minor supplement sought regards Shelby's Rate Schedule No. 10A. It submitted one page for this rate schedule, but there is an indication at the 1. _com of that page that the schedule continues on one or more additional pages; these should be provided.
9 it considers the question not applicable to the City of shelby.
Applicant believes tha t this response is misleading and incom-plete, particularly in light of Shelby's response to question 16 which states that "Shelby engaged in normal contacts with prospective commercial or industrial customers * **" .
- 16. Again the question relates to contacts with pros-pective customers. Shelby states that because it "does not normally have any contact with such potential customers
[it t]herefore [has] no records or documents relating to any discussions with prospective customers." Applicant believes that the conclusion to the response does not follow. Merely because there are no contacts, does not mean there are no doc ume nts , e . g . , correspondence, memoranda and the like.
Accordingly, we request that Shelby be directed to supplement this response.
- 23. The item seeks documents relating to the effect of municipal ownership of an electric system on electric rates, ;
quality of service, indus trial development, municipal tax rates, or moneys or services provided by the electric system to any i other municipal department, agency or activity. Shelby responds 1
that "The audit reports furnished in response to the question l l
1 No. 2 with complete information on the effect of municipal i ownership of an electric power system on the local tax :: ate [ sic ] . "
Applicant submits that this answer is not responsive, and cer- j tainly is unclear; it therefore should be supplemented.
1
9 24, 25, 28, 29-35, 61 and 62. All of these questions relate to particular financial or operating data. Some of the deficiencies have been outlined in regard to the question of tax equivalents and transfers about which Applicant and inter-3/
Because of the related venors have had much correspondence.
nature of all of these items, we believe that the Board should consider them together at the Prehearing Conference. It should be noted, however, that Shelby relies heavily in many of these responses on the fact that it is not required by state law to maintain certain accounts or records. Applicant submits that this does not answer the question. Applicant still has no way of knowing whether such data are actually available or can be cbtained.
- 43. The request calls for the amount of each of the following expenses for each year 1960 through 1971:
(a) Customer accounts expenses; (b) Administrative and general expenses; l (c) Distribution expenses; (d) Transmission expenses.
Shelby states that the response to this question is contained in its Annual Reports to the North Carolina Utilities Commission which reports were previously submitted to Applicant.
1 A review of those reports, however, indicates that the answer submitted is not sufficient. For the years ending June 30, 1963
_3/ See particularly the letter of January 9, 1973, attached hereto as Appendix B.
l l
through 1972, Shelby lumps together its customers ' Accounting and Collecting, Sales Promotion and Administrative and General Expenses. It should be directed to segregate those expenses. -~4/
- 46. The item seeks information regarding, among other things , the average and year-end number of customers served by Shelby, both wi .hin and without the municipality 's corporate limits. Shelb: states that the data requested are contained in its Annual Reports to the North Carolina Utilities Commission.
The reports c) not provide complete answers to the question in several respacts: (1) they do not break out customers served outside the corporate limits; (2) they do not provide the aver-age number of the customers served, only year-end figures; (3) for 19 63, the Annual Report does not include any number of customer data at all; and (4) they do not indicate in any year that Shelby has any street lighting customers, although it reports at least one such customer in some of its FPC Forms 12-A. Because of these deficiencies, Shelby should be directed to supplement and clarify this answer.
47 and 49. The questions relate to the methods by 4
which customers are classified as residential, commercial or industrial. Sb lby refers to the classification shown on its rate schedules in response. Shelby, however, indicates in
_4/ Prior to 1963, no expenses are shown in either the Cus-tomers' Accounting or Sale', Promotion category.
t FPC Forms 12-A that it classifies certain customers as "indus-trial", but it has not submitted any industrial rate schedule.
Accordingly, Applicant has no way of knowing how Shelby dis-tinguishes between its commercial and industrial customers.
Shelby, therefore , should be directed to respond further to these questions .
- 52. The question relates to the ten largest customers which ceased taking service from Shelby since 1960. Shelby responds "none". Shelby's FPC Forms 12-A, however, indicate that over the years Shelby plainly did lose certain customers; for example, from 1960 to 1961 the number of commercial customers shown declined; so too, from 1964 to 1965, 1965 to 19 66 and 1968 to 1969. Furthermore, in those years in which there was a net increase in the number of customers, there is no indication that certain customers ray not have ceased taking service; only that at year-end there was a positive net change. Accordingly, the response is not sufficient and Shelby should be directed to amend it.
53 (a) . The item asks for the ten largest customers which began taking service since 1960. Shelby provides a list of ten customers; however, one of them began taking service prior to January 1, 1960. Another name, accordingly, should be sub-mitted.
53 (b) and (c). Subpart (b) asks for information re-garding any of the ten new customers which came into Shelby's
territory as a result of relocation. Shelby replies that "none" did. Subpart (c) then asks for information regarding those cus-tomers for which relocation was not involved. Shelby states this answer is " inapplicable. " Since no customers came as a result of relocation, the information requested in subpart (c) is applicable and Shelby should be required to respond.
53 (d) and (e) requested other types of information regarding these new customers . Shelby has responded "inapplic-able" to both parts, but does not state why this is so. Accord-ingly, these responses should be amende
- 56. The item seeks informatisn regarding each change in territory outside Shelby's corporate limits served with water or sewer service by Shelby from January 1, 1960 to date. Shelby responds that "There has been considerable growth of water and sewer services outside the city limits *** . To dig this out of this minutes would take many, many hours of research and even so would not cover all possibilities. We are therefore furnish-ing maps of our current water system and sewer systems as answer to this ques tion. "
Applicant contends that the answer is deficient.
Shelby has not heretofore objected to this question, and Appli-cant believes that it should be answered as propounded. Appli-cant has been required to make a similar "research" effort in replying to the Joint Request and accordingly submits that the excuse presented is wholly insuf ficient and out of time.
- 57. The question involves any petitions for annexa-tion which have been denied. Shelby states that there has been one such petition since 1960 and attaches some documents in support thereof. It does not, however, attach the excerpt of the minutes of the City Council in which the petition actually was denied. A copy of these minutes should be provided.
- 58. Certain system maps were requested. Shelby submits several current ones in response and refers to those filed with the FPC for earlier years. Applicant heretofore has requested Shelby to provide copies of the maps filed with the
_s/
FPC and that request is repeated here.
- 69. The item asks for documents or information regarding any customer who has ever declined to accept an offer of electric service by Shelby. The answer submitted states that Shelby has "no record of any [such] customer * ** " . The request is not merely one for the production of documents, but also is stated as an interrogatory. The answer, therefore ,
should be supplemented to reflect the knowledge or belief of those participating in the operation and management of the Shelby electric system.
- 74. The item requested citations to certain documents which in any way restricted the right of Shelby to construct or own system facilities or to interconnect or coordinate with any i
_5/ Applicant's Motion to Compel dated December 15, 1972.
)
i 1
other system. Shelby states in response "Here again we feel that we have ventured into the field of legal opinion and are not qualified to answer this question. " As the Board will recall, this matter was raised by the intervenors in their objections and it was agreed among counsel that while state statutes and other case citations need not be provided, the intervenors would submit any relevant local ordinances, bond indentures and/or the like. Accordingly, Shelby should be directed to respond further to this question. This same direction snould apply to items 65, 69 and 70 to which Shelby has submitted similar responses.
- 80. In reply to this item, Shelby has submitted sev-eral documents . There are some references to other documents which have not been provided. Accordingly, we request that the Board direct Shelby to produce the following documents :
(1) Copy of November 15, 1962, letter mentioned in the November 1, 1963, letter from Leavy to ,
Van Sleen: l
- (2) The two enclosures attached to the November 1, 1963, le tter (a draft contract and a draft resolu-tion);
(3) Letter of November 27, 1963, referred to in the Minutes of the City Council for December 2, i 1963; and (4) Any other documents relating to the SEPA of fer and its rejection by the City Council.
- 83. The names of system employees are sought. Some have been provided, but it would appear from the organization chart submitted in response to item 91, to which Shelby referred I
i l
l
Applicant, that persons engaged in the following responsibilities i
should be named as well. They are those in charge of: (1) the Billing and Records Office; (2) the electric systemh meter ser-vice; (3) its equipment, lines, and substation operations and maintenance division; and (4) its lines construction section.
Applicant recognizes that the clarifications sought are numerous. It is therefore hoped that many of these matters can be resolved informally. If this is not possible, Applicant requests, for the reasons stated above, that the Board compel Shelby to produce the clarifications and additional material specified.
Respectfully submitted, Wm. Warfield Ross George A. Avery Keith S. Watson Toni K. Golden WALD, HARKRADER & ROSS 1320 Nineteenth Street, N.W.
Washington, D. C. 20036 (202) 296-2121 Attorneys for Applicant January 29, 1973
APPENDIX A
- 9. List the nana and address of each' customer served under a rate schedulo, tariff, contract, agreement, or any
\
arrang'eqent
..s for service other than those described in respense to Interrogatory 4. Cescribe the rates and other terms and __
conditions upon which each such customer has been served during the period January 1, 1960 to date, and describe each custoner's annual peak demand and annual kilowatt-hokr consumption and the gross annual revenues received by the system from each such customer. -
. 10. For each of the' dates January 1, 1961, January 1, 19 66, January 1, 1971, January 1, 1972, and June 30, 1972, furnish typical net conthly bills for electric service employing the assumptions and definitions set forth in Attachment A for each of the following custerer classifications and monthly demand-energy combinations (designate the rate schedule used fer each calculacica and identify any discount or special charge):
(a) Residential (i) mini. .u.- bill and number of kile.tatt-hours included; indicate the number of minimum bills rendered in each centh of each cf these yecrs;
, (ii) 100' kilowatt-hours; (iii) 250 kilowatt-hours; (iv) 500 kilowatt-hours; (v) 750 kilowatt-hours; (vi) 1,000 kilowatt-hours; (vii) 1,500 kilowatt-hours; (b) Co==ercial "b\ (i) 3.0 kilowatts-375 kilowatt-hours; (ii) 6.0 kilowatts-750 kilowatt-hours; (iii) 12.0 kilowatts-1,500 kilowatt-hours; (iv) 30.0 kilowatts-6,000 kilowatt-hours; (v) 40.0 kilowatts-l'0,000 kxtowatt-hours-(vi) 50.0 kilowatts-12,500 kilowatt-hours; (vii) 50.0 kilowatts-15,000 kilowatt-hours; (viii) 100.0 kilowatts-25,000 kilowatt-hours; (ix) 100.0 kilowatts-30,000 kilowatt-hours; (x) 250.0 kilowatts-6 2,5 00 kilowatt hours; (xi) 250.0 kilowatts-75,000 kilowatt-hours; (c) Industrial -
(i) 75 kilowatts-15,000 kilowatt-hours; (ii) 75 kilowatts-30,000 kilowatt-hours; (iii) 150 kilowatts-30,000 kilowatt-hours;
, (iv) 150 kilowatts-60,000 kilowatt-hours; (v) 300 kilowatts-60,000 kilowatt-hours; (vi) 300 kilowatts-320,000 kilowatt-hours;
(vii) 500 kilowatts-100,000 kilowatt-hours; (viii) 500 kilowatts-200,000 kilowar.t hours; (ix) 1,000 kilowatts-200,000 kilowatt-hours; (x) 1,000 kilowatts-400,000 kilowatt-heurs; (xi) 1,500 kilowatts-300,000 .<ilowatt-heurs; (xii) 1,500 kilowatts-600,0d0 kilowatt-heurs; (xiii) 2,500 kilowatts-4,000,000 kilowatt-hours.
- 14. (a) State whether the system or the munkcipality or any agency or department of the municipality at any time from January 1,\ 1960 to date has had an industrial development depart-1-
ment or an individual employee or group of employees, a prescribed or substantial de facto cart of whose dutiis'~ls or has been to
~
attract commercial and/or industrial customers for the system.
'If so: .
- s, .
(i) provide the names and addresses of ,
such present or former department and its present and former chief (s) and all such individual employee (s); and (ii) provide the dates from January 1, 1960 to the present during which such depart-
_4_
ment existed and such departmental chief (s) and/or individual employee (s) were employsf.
(b) State whether the system or the municipality, or any department or agency of the municipality, at any time from January 1, 1960 to date has retained, employed, or been cdvised on a consulting basis by any person or organization to advise on, investigate or in any way conduqt activities or other efforts designed to attract commercial and/or industrial customers for the system. If so, provide the name and address of each person or organization employed, retained, or rendering advice as a consultant for this purpose
- . \
during the period January 1, 1960 to date, together with the name of the entity by whom and the dates"dufiHg which ~such person or organization was employed, retained, cn rendered cdvice as a consultant. ,
(c) Describe in detail the activities or other efforts undertaken during the period January 1, 1960 to data by the system or the municipality, or.any agency cr department of ,
the municipality, or by any person or other entity employed, re-l tained or consulted by or on behalf of the system or the munici- l
-4(a)-
Pality or any of its agencies or departments, to attract ccamercii; and/or industrial' facilities to locate in the municipality or within the area served by any of its sewage, gas, water, or ,
electric facilities, specifying in each case the name of the entity i.\conducting such activity or other efforts and the dates relevant thereto.
(d) Furnish a copy of any document relating to the activities described in subparagraphs (a) to (c) of this Interrogatory. ,
- 16. Furnish copies of all documents relating to any approach to~ or discussion or contact with each commercial and/or industrial customer or potential commercial and/or industrial customer with whom any such di,scussion, approach or other contact was made during the period January 1, 1960 to date, utilizing, in whole or in part, information or material described in Interrogatory 14 or 15.
l h
- 23. Furnish copies of each document prepaked for or by the system or the municipality, or any agency or depart-ment of the municipality, relating to the effect of municipal ownership of an electric power system'on electricity rates or quality of service, industrial development, municipal tax rates;,},qr m;aeys or services provided by the electric system to any other municipal department, agency or activity.
- 24. (a) State the system's operating revenues ,
excluding any sales tax receipts, for each year 1960 through 1971. s (b) State whether the figures provided include an imputation for the value or cost of services donated to or provided to the municipality or any of its agencies or depart-ments. If so:
(i) state the amount of any such imputa-tion; (ii) state whether each amount is classi-fled as a tax equivalent.
- 25. (a) State the , system's operating expenses for
- /
~~
each year 1960 through 1971.
- / In response to this Interrogatory and to all others indi-cated by an asterisk use the same time period as was used in response to Interrogatory 24; e.g., if calendar years i
were used there, use calendar years, if fit )al years ending l
June 30, use fiscal years ending June 30. Data should be l providad for each year ending on or before August 31, 1972.
i f
~
o .
(b) State b'hether the figures provid;ed in response to subparagraph (a) of this Interrogatory i nclude an imputation for the value or cost of services donater, to or pro-vided to the mu..icipality or any of its agencies or departments.
If so: , .
(i) state the amount of any such imputaticn;
" state how that value was determined; (ii)
(iii) state whether this amount is classified as a tax equivalent; (iv) state whether this imputation is included in the system's operating revenue figures furnished
~
in response to Interrogatory 24.
/ /' 28. (a) State the amount of tax equivalents for ,
each year 1960 through 197' * '
(b) Describe in detail each service provided or payment made which is classified by the system as tax l
equivalents and set forth: 1 p\ (i) the estimated value given to each such service in each year; (ii) the method by which the value of any service donated to or provided to the municipality or any of its agencies or departments was determined; (iii) whether each amount specified in .
response to subparagraphs (a) and (b) of this Interrogatory is included in the operating revenue and expense data fur-nished in answer to Interrogatories 24 and 25, respectively.
-7
- 29. (a) State the cost and estimated value of, ,
$ VISED and describe in detail,each service donated to or provided
~
to the municipality or any of its agencies.or departments.
by the system, for each year 1960 through 1971.
(b) List the amount and date of each payment i.\
made to the municipality, or any of its agencies or depart-ments, which is not classified as a tax equivalent but is included in the c',;erating revenue and cest data furnished in response to Interrogatories 24, 25 and 2 8.,
(c) .For each payment specified in response to subparagraph (b) of this Interrogatory, state'how'the 4
i value of any service donated to or provided to the munici-pality or any of its agencies or departments-was determined. l
- 30. State the amount of the total funds t rans- l ferred by the system to the general funds , or other account, )
of the municipality or to the account of any other r.unicipal department or agency during each year 1960 through :.971.*
In each case specify:
(a) the amount; g
(b) title of the account to which such funds
' ~~ ~~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~
were transferred; (c) the year in which such transfer was made; (d) the year in which it is reflected in the data. .
~8-
- 31. State the total kilowatt-hours supplied to the municipality and any of its agencies and departments by the system "for each year 1960 through 1971* and the total revenues actually derived therefrom for each such year.*
- 32. State the price per kilowatt-hour paid by the municipality and any of its agencies and departments for electric. energy supplied to it by the system during each year 19,60s. s throuch 1971.*
- 33. State the system's total electric plant in se rvice , accumulated provisions for depreciatien of electric utility plant and net electricity utility plant at the end of each year 1960. through 1971.* ,
- 34. (a) State the electric total transmission plant in service and the accumulated provisions for depreciatica of electric utility transmission plant at the end of each year 19 6 0 th rough 1971. *
(b) For each year 1960 through 1971 state the basis on which the system classified such facilities as trans-mission plant. -
l'
- 35. (a) State the electric total distribution plant in service and the accumulated provisions for deprecia- -
tion of electric utility distribution plant at the end of each year 1960 through 1971.*
(b) For each year 1960 through 1971 state the basis on which the system classified such f acilities as dis-tribution plant.
~
- 43. State the amount of each of the following ex-penses for each year 1960 through 1971:*
(a) Customer accounts expenses; (b) Administrative and general expenses; ,
(c), Distribution expenses; (d) Transmission expenses.
" 46. For each year 1960 through ,1971 state the munici-pal electric system's annual kilowatt-hour sales, average .ind year-end number of customers, and annual revenue, by class of customer (residential, commercial, industrial, other and ultimate):
(a) Within the municipality's corporate limits; (b) .For each township, incorporated or unin-corporated arca served outside of the' corporate limits of the v
municipality; (c) Total used in response to Interrogatory 24.
- 47. (a) State in detail the basis used in each year for classifying customers into the residential, commercial, industrial and other classifications employed i'n response to Interrogatory 46.
5\ (b) If this basis has been changed at any time during the period covered by Interrogatory 46, state the date (s) on which such change (s) became effective and describe the sub-stance of such change.
4
- l'0 -
(c) If any change is noted in response to sub- .
paragraph (b) of this Interrogatory, furnish data in response to Interrogatory 46 which are adjusted for each such change and are comparable over the time period 1960 through 1971.
- 49. (a) State in detail the basis used by the syster
,,g ,
for categorizing customers into the " farm, excluding irrigaticn and drainage pumping", " irrigation and drainage pumping",
"nonfarm-residential", " commercial", " industrial", and other classifications utilized in completing either Schedule 4 of the Federal Pcwer Commission's (FPC) Form 12A for the year ended December 31, 1971 or Schedule 10 of the Federal Power Commission's Form 12 for the year ended December 31, 1971.
(b) State whether a different basis ever has been used during 1960 through 1971 for purposes of reporting to the\ FPC on Forms 12 or 12A? If so, state the date (s) on which such change (s) became effective and describe the sub-stance of each such change.
- 52. (a) For the municipality or for each township, incorporated or unincorporated area served by the system, state the names and addresses of the system's ten largest customers
~
9
wa
- -11_
eased taking in terms of annual kilowatt-hour consumption which c<
electric service form the system during'the period 1 360 to date.
consumed by In making this determination, use the kilowatt-hours each such customer in the full year preceding such t armination.
(b) State the reasons, if known, for the loss of each custcmer spe.cified in response to subparagral ph (a) of this Interrogatory, and the date each terminated service.
- ). \ (c) State whether any service drops or other facilities were transferred by the system to any other electric If so, specify:
supplier as a result of such termination.
(i) the facilities transferred; (ii) the compensation,' if any, received by the system for such transfer; (iii) the date on which such transfe.r was made.
(d) Furnish all documents relating in any way to the loss of each such customer or the f acilities transferred in connection with such loss of customer. -
(e) Name the electric supplier who now serves each customer named in response to subpara@raph (a) of this Interrogatory.
- 53. (a) For the municipality and for each township, incorporated or unincorporated area served by the system, state the names and addresses of the system's ten largest customers in terms of annual kilowatt-hour consumption which began taking f 1
electric service from the system during the period 1960 to date. 1 l
1
e
- O In making this determination, use the' kilowatt-hours consumed by each such custo.h.er during 1971, or fiscal year 1972 if such fiscal year ended on or before August 31, 1972. St' ate the date on which service was initiated to each such customer.
(b) State which of such customers were acquired as a result of relocation into the service area of the system, from where each came and the utility previously supplying electribity to each such customer.
(c) As to each of those customers for which relocation was n;d involved, state:
(i) the electric utility formerly providing service to each of the customers in question; (ii) .the reasons for the change in elec- -
tricity suppliers.
)
(d) State whether any service drops or other ,
facilities were transferred by the utility formerly providing service to the system as a result of acquiring the new customer.
If any transfer of . facilities occurred, specify:
(i) the facilities transferred; !
i (ii) the compensation, if any, paid by i the ,eystem; i
I (iii) the date on which such transfer was made. .
(e) Furnish all documents relating to any customer acquisition and any facilities transferred in con-nection with suc,h acquisiticn specified in response to subpara-graphs (a) to (d) of this Interregatory.
4 =
9
- 56. Describe each change in territory (ot tside the municipality's corporate limits) served with sewer or water service by the municipality from January 1,1960 to date.-
- 57. Has any area which petitioned for anr6exation been denied; if so, describe the area and state the dates and nature of the petition and the reasons upon which s 2ch denial
' I was based. .
- 58. Furnish maps or sketches (or marked :ity maps) i.i of present system facilities and of system facilities as of year-end 1960 through 1971 which ,show the geographi: location of power plants, principal substations, power lines, all con-necticns and transfer points with other systems, and the boundary line of the area served together with the communities
\
therdin supplied with electric energy. On such documents, show:
(a) For each line of-12 kilovolts and above (and for any other line regardless of voltage which constitutes a tic line between generating stations or from generating ,
stations to voltage systems of 12 kilovolts or above): ,
(i) the length in miles; (ii) the voltage at which it is operated; (iii) the voltage for which it is insulated if different than the operating voltage.
(b) The phase - (one-phase , two-phase, or three-phase) for all alternating current lines. -
(c) The rating and locati6ns of transformer banks at power plants and principal substations including interconnections with other systems. .
l (d) The approximate scale (feet per inch or miles por inch).
A
. \
- -14 ,
o .
- 61. (a) State the system's number of pole miles of transmission facilities and the number of circuit miles of transmission f acilities by voltage as of year-end 1960 through 1971.
(b) If the basis for . classifying such facilities dif f e r..\s from that used in response to Interrogatory 34:
(i) explain each change made and the
- . \
reason for each such change; (ii) furnish data in response to subpara-graph (a) of this Interrogatory which are comparable to those provided in response to Interrogatory 34., -
- 62. (a) State the system's number of pole miles of distribution f acilities and the number of circuit miles of ove:chead ac.d underground distribution f acilities as of year-end 1960 th' rough 1971.
(b) If the basis for classifying such facilities differs from that used in -Interrogatory 35 :
(i) explain each change made and the reason for each such change; (ii) furnish data in response to subpara-graph (a) of this Interrogatory which are ccmparable to those provided in response to Interrogator / 35.
- 65. (a) State whether customers within the corporate limits of the municipality or within the area generally rendered f electric service by its system presently have, or at any time during the period January 1, 1960 to date had, the option of
.15-(i) changing from electric service by the system to service by any other utility, or (ii) changing from electric service by another utility to service by the system.
(b) State for each year 1960 through 1971:
(i) the number of customers by customer class who changed during each year from electric service by
. i.\ ,
another electricity supplier to service by the system; (ii) the kilowatt-hour sales to'such cus-tomers in each year, or portion thereof, in which service was supplied by the system. ,
~
(c) State for each year 1960 through 1971:
(i) the number of customers by customer classidho changed during the year from electric service by the system to service by another electricity supplier; (ii) the kilowatt-hour consumption by such customers and supplied by the system in the year such change occurred and in the five years imme'diately preceding such change.
- 68. (a) State the name and address of each customer served at any time during the period January 1, 1960 to date by any other electricity supplier within the corporate limits of the municipality or in the area served,by its electric system which has ever declined to accept an offer of electric .
service by the system.
(b) Describe the circumstances of each such incident and provide the date (s) on which it occurred; (c) Furnish each document relating to each such incident. .
- 69. State whether any electricity supplier, other I
than the system, is now, or has been at any time during the period.7anuary 1, 1960 to date, legally or otherwise limited in its present ability to acquire new customers within the
~
corporate limits of the municipality or in the area served by its electric system. If so, describe each limitat' ion and the basis of'it.
- 70. State whether there ar2 any legal restrictions which presently limit the ability of the system to provide electric service , either .t retail or wholesale, outs;ide the municipality's corpora' .imits. If so, Jescribe such restric-tion (s) and state the date on which each such restriction became effective.
- 74. Furnish citations to and copies of each provision of any municipal bond indenture, municipal ordinance, state law or any other law, rule regulation or order which restricts or defines in any way the authority of the municipality or any agency or department thereof, to:
(a) Construct system facilities outside of the municipality;
(b) Construct system facilities for the sale of electricity outside the municipality; (c) Share the ownership of electric facilities with any other utility or entity; ,
(d) Intercennect with any other utility or entity; (c) Coordinate or integrate in any other way with any other utility or entity. ,
REVISED 80. State whether, during the period January 1, 1960 ,
to date, the system or the municipality, or any agency ur depart-ment of the municipality, ever has sought, requested, considered
~
(insofar as such consideration is reflected in any written documen t) , or inquired into the initiation of wholesale electricity supply to it by any electric utility, other than Duke Pcwer Company. If so, describe in detail each such instance and furnish each docenent relating to each such instance.
- 83. State the name, address and present position of each person employed by the system during the period January 1, 1960 to date who had or new has managerial responsibility in each of the following areas, together with the dates during which each person held the position:
(a) Marketing; (b) Sales; (c) Accoun ting; (d) Financial planning;
Chief executive officer, supervisor or manager; (e)
(f) Chief operating officer; (g) Research and development; (h) Engineering.
If any such person is no longer employed by the system, state
- i. \ .
the date on 1:hich such person left the system's employ and the reason for such terminatien. .
k t
Y
~ ,
. PENDIX B L Au or. .e r ;
'WA LD. H A R K R A O C R & R O S S no ti, eef t maa
,* A fa . L 'a i*e a *. A rt u os a
- C at s320 NI'4[?EENTH Sf 64ECT N W . WASHINGTON. D. C 20:24 w.4 w a 1 F s C 6 t1 eas'. ".
S i t t'n t. n L. e. r ., s s. ASCA.LSC202 DO N A t n H M*9N 290*2*2s b C L ** * *
- L4 WIN C CaskC AOOn,ss WALHAAK T H C ** a 4 C .8 & ' ' '* C W '. ' Ra JOC6 r. wa r r M a pe GCChat A avC2' graca ALCraNotesw%
,C C~CC n.~. January 9, 1973 wtLL:A e4 A w ff l $ t ad & N S T C 8'n C N M f 58 v e't J AM b 3 M WMl? F m Csf H $ watson J A M C f, DO U C L A S .w C LC ae i M6CM aCL OmriNWC40C R OF COwae ggg GeMsLIP CLee&N NC AL P. Auf LEQuC David F. Stover, Esquire Tally, Tally & Bouknight Suite 311 429 N Street, S. W.
Washington, D. C. 20024
Dear Mr. Stover:
At the November 17 prehearing conference, the Board directed that the intervenors undertake to prepare a stipula-tion providing us with the information sought by Interroga-tories 24, 25, 28 (a) and 29 through 32. On December 14, not having heard from you, I wrote you concerning this matter. On December 18, you replied, suggesting that the information sought could be obtained from audit reports already furnished -
to us.
Mrs. Gciden responded on December 26, indicating our preliminary view that the audit reports did not provide adequate responses to the items in questions. Those documents now have been more fully reviewed by Applicant's economic consultant and by us. We also considered the additional responses received from Shelby, but found that they provided insufficient infor-mation in reuponse to the items in question. The review substantiates our earlivr view that the reports do not provide adequate or complete respcnses to those items .
A year-by-year review of the audit reports for 3
those intervencrs who thus far have submitted these documents --
Lexington , Shelby , Landis, Albemarle and Monrce -- seemed unnecessary at this time to illustrate our position. Nor, indeed, do we have the reports for even those intervenors for all fiscal years requcsted, 19 60 through 197 2. Accordingly, the fol.?.owing analysis indicates only some of the more readily apparent deficiencies. We reccgnize that Forms MU and I-M could be used to answer parts of the interrogatories; but,
~
I
\
1 j
WALD. H ARKR ADER & ROSS t I
David F. Stover, Esquirc January 9, 1973 Page 2 First, these forms there again, we have some difficulties.Secondly, a cross-have not, been provided in all cases.
check cf some of the figures reported in the audit reports with comparable figures in Forms MU and I-M indicates that a number of inconsistencies exist in the revenue and expense figures which we could not reconcile. Some of these are mentioned in the analysis which follows.
The review concentrated on the audit reports for 1972, 1967 and 1962, but also included Shelby's direct res-ponses to the particular items. (No audit reports were supplied by Lexington for 1972-or by Monroe and Albemarle for 1962.)
The analysis , made on an interrogatory-by-interrogatory basis, indicates some of the inadequacies which have been unccvered 2
and illustrates why the audit reports do not provide the in-formation requested.
24 (a) State the system's operating revenues, excluding any sales tax receipts, for each year 1960 through 1971.
(b) State whether the figures provided in-clude an imputation for the value or cost of services donated to or provided to the municipality or any of its agencies or de-par tments . If so:
(i) state the amount of any such impu-tation; (ii) state whether each amount is classified as a tax equivalent.
Electric revenues can be found in the audit reports
, supplied with the exception of the 1967 Monroe audit which does not provide a revenue figure segregating tdua electric depart-ment from the total utility department. In a number of in-stances, the revenue figures in the audit reports disagree with the operating revenues in the Form MU and I-M. For example:
1 I
WALD. H AR K R ADER & ROS S David F. Stover, Esquire January 9, 1973 Page 3 l
Year Audit Recort Other Form Shelby 1972 $1,862,064 S1,865,435 (MU)
Shelby 1967 1,270,538 1,272,206 (MU)
Lexington 1971 3,244,272 3,198,250 (I-M)
Landis 1972 338,605 323,331 (MU)
Landis 1967 214,780 217,470 (MU)
Landis 1962 154,852 153,517 (MU)
No disagreements were found comparing the 1962 Shelby audit and MU, tho' 1967 Lexington audit and MU, the 1962 Lexington audit and I-M or the 1972 and 1967 Albemarle audits and I-M's.
The Forms MU and I-M were unavailable for Monroe in 1972 and thus the audit could not be compared. Because of these incon-sistencies, a specific revenue figure should be provided by each intervenor for each year in response to 24 (a) .1/
Interrogatory 24(a) also requests that sales taxes, which are levied in North Carolina, be excluded from the rev-enue figures provided. None of the audit reports, including Shelby's, indicate whether such taxes , in fact, are included or excluded. Therefore, a complete answer to 24 (a) must include a specification of how sales taxes are handled in the reported figures .
The audit reports generally are not responsive to Interrogatory 24(b). In mos t cases , those reports give no indication whether revenues are imputed for services donated to the municipality. Some information of this nature is found in the 1972 Monroe audit report. Here revenues are shown for ' city services," but whether this amount is actually billed or only imputed for billing purposes is not indicated.
Shelby has answered that the " figures provide a value for the cost of services provided to the municipality"; since the amount is grouped with other utility services, no segregated amount for electric service is shown. Shelby s tates that
" the exact figure is not readily obtainable", but does not indicate what effort would have to be made in order to provide a complete response.
- 25. (a) State the system's operating expenses for each year 1960 through 1971.
1/ We assume that Shelby has done this. In its direct response, it refers to the revenue figure in the audit report.
WA LD, H ARK R ADER & ROSS f
David F. Stover, Esquire January 9, 1973 Page 4 (b) State whether the figures provided in response to subparagraph (a) of this Interrog-atory include an imputation for the value or cost of services donated to or provided to the municipalit/ or any of its agencies or depart-ments. If so:
(i) state the amount of any such imputation; .
(ii) state how that value was deter-mined; (iii) state whether this amount is classified as a tax equivalent; (iv) state whether this imputation is included in the system's operating revenue figures furnished in response to Interroga-tory 24.
Electric system operating expenses are reported in the audit reports. However, again it should be noted that the figures sometimes disagree with supposedly comparable numbers in the Forms MU and I-M. This is evident for Shelby in 19 62 ($564,220 is reported in the audit and S500,620 in the MU) , Lexington in 1967 (S1,468,572 is reported in the audit and $1,801,975 in the MU) and Landis in 1967 ($166,694 is reported in the audit and $168,533 in the MU) . No discrep-ancies are found between the 1972 and 1967 Shelby audits and MU's, the 1972 and 1962 Landis audits and MU's and the 1972 and 1967 Albemarle audits and I-M's. The 19 62 Lexington Form I-M did not provide an expense figure with which the audit figure could be compared and no Forms MU or I-M are available to compare the 1972 and 1967 Monroe expenses re-ported in the audit. From its recent response, Shelby appears to be relying on the audit figures as opposed to those appearing elsewhere.
A complete response to part (b) of the interrogatory is not provided by any of the audits filed. Prior to the sub-mission of Shelby's direct answers, the only instance of a response in this area is found in the 1972 Monroe audit.
There " miscellaneous - free services" valued at $3,629.33 is included in the operating expenses. While this may answer Interrogatory 25 (b) (i) , even in this ins tance, there are no responses to Interrogatories 25 (b) (ii) , 25 (b) (iii) or
WALD, H ARKRADER & ROSS David F. Stover, Esquire January 9, 1973 Page 5 25 (b) (iv) . In the case of Shelby, various utility services again are lumped together. Shelby also states that it used its " regular rate schedule" to determine the value included, but does not identify which schedule that is.
- 28. (a) State the amount. of tax equivalents '
for each year 1960 through 1971.
(b) Describe in detail each service pro-vided or payment made which is classified by the system as tax equivalents and set forth:
(i) the estimated value given to each such service in each year; (ii) the method by which the value of any service donated to or provided to the municipality or any of its agencies or depart-ments was determined; (iii) whether each amount specified in response to subparagraphs (a) and (b) of this Interrogatory is included in the operat-ing revenue and expense data furnished in answer to Interrogatories 24 and 25, respec-tively.
Nothing found in the audit reports sheds any light on the information requested here. These reports do not show a tax equivalent account on their income statement. Shelby now states that it has none, but we do not know if a similar claim is made by the other intervencrs.
- 29. (revised) (a) State the cost and esti-mated value of, and describe in detail each service donated to or provided to the muni-cipality or any of its agencies or departments by the system, for each year 1960 through 1971.
List the amount and date of each (b) payment made to the municipality, or any of its agencies or departments, which is not classified as a tax equivalent but is in-cluded in the operating revenue and cost data furnished in response to Interrogatories 24, 25 and 28.
_s -
WALD, H ARKR ADER & ROSS David F. Stover, Esquire January 9, 1973 -
Page 6 (c) For each payment specified in response to sabparagraph (b) of this Inter-rogatory, state how the value of any service donated to or provided to the municipality or any of its agencies or departments was determined.
The audit reports do not provide an answer to this interrogatory. Note that even in the one example cited above it is not clear whether the " free services" included in the City of Monroe's 1972 expenses are provided to the munici-pality or how their value was determined.
Again in the case of Shelby, the direct response provides little additional information. The answer to subpart (a) refers to aggregate figures; the audit report responds to s ubpart(b) for 1967, but not for the other years sampled; again in response to subpart(c) reference is made to the value being determined from the city 's " regular rate schedules",
without specifying which schedules.
- 30. State the amount of the total funds transferred by the system to the general funds, or other account, of the munici-pality or to the account of any other municipal department or agency during each year 1960 through 1971. In each case specify:
(a) the amount; (b) title of the account to which such funds were transferred; (c) the year in which such transfer was made:
(d) the year in which it is reflacted in the data.
The audit reports examined do not answer this inter-rogatory consistently . Where the audit segregates the elec-tric system from the other functions of the utility department, I
. i WALD, HARKR ADER & ROSS ,
i
\ i David F. Stover, Esquirc January 9, 1973 Page 7 i
the transfers can usually be traced. Thus, funds transferred can be traced for Landis in 1972 and 1962, Monroe in 1972 and Albemarle in 1972. However, when the utility department data .
are consolidated, no answer to this interrogatory can be ob-tained. This is the case for Shelby in 1972, Lexington in 1967 and 1962 and Albemarle in 1967. Finally, because the audits do not provide sufficient detail, answers cannot be obtained for Shelby in 1967 and 1962, Landis in 19 67 and 1962 and Monroe in.1967.
- 31. State the total kilowatt-hours supplied to the municipality and any of its agencies and departments by the system for each year 1960 through 1971 and the total revenues actually derived therefrom for each such year.
- 32. State the price per kilowatt-hour paid by the municipality and any of its agencies and departments for electric energy supplied to it by the system during each year 19 60 through 1971.
None of the audit reports reviewed indicate the num-ber of kilowatt-hours supplied to a municipality. Thus no response to either Interrogatory 31 or 32 can be obtained from this source. Shelby responded that the data requested are found in the Forms MU filed with the North Carolina Commission for 1972; that is so; but for 1967 there is no indication of the kilowatt-hours supplied or the price paid for those supplied and for 1962 the hours are shown, but not the price paid.
In sum, the audit reports, even as supplemented by Shelby's responses, do not provide adequate responses to items 24, 25, 28(a) and 29 thrcugh 32. This information is important in the preparation of our case. The Board, we believe, has indicated that we are entitled to a response.
(Tr. 291-95.) Pursuing the course which the Board has indicated for us, we again ask you to come forward with information called for by these interrogatories on the basis of which we can reach a stipulation. In order that any remaining problems in this regard can be dealt with by the Board
d 9
WALD. HARKR ADER & ROSS David F. Stover, Esquire January 9, 1973 Page 8 at the forthcoming February 15 prehearing conference, we suggest that you provide us with the information you propose to furnish by January 25. This should provide time to work out an agrooment by February 15. If we have not received your proposal by the 25th, we will have to pursue the matter with the Board.
Sincerely, i George A. Avery ,
GAA:eah cc: The Hon. Walter W. K. Bennett The Hon. Joseph F. Tubridy The Hon. John B. Farmakides J. O. Tally, Jr., Esquire (Fayetteville)
Wallace E. Brand, Esquire Joseph Rutherg, Jr., Esquire
- k. h D 7cA. Q
't
o UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION In the Matter of )
) Docket Nos. 50-269A, 50-270A DUKE POWER COMPANY ) 50-287A, 50-369A (Oconee Units 1, 2 and 3 ) 50-370A McGuire Units 1 and 2) )
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of APPLICANT'S MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY BY INTERVENOR SHELBY IN REGARD TO CERTAIN REQUESTS, dated January 29, 1973, in the above-captioned matter have been served on the following by deposit in the United States mail, first class or air mail, this 29 th day of January, 1973:
Walter W. K. Bennett, Esquire J. O. Tally, Jr., Esquire P. O. Box 185 P. O. Drawer 1660 Pinehurst, North Carolina 28374 Fayetteville, N. Carolina 28302 Joseph F. Tubridy, Esquire Troy B. Connor, Esquire 4100 Cathedral Avenue, N. W. Reid & Priest Washington, D. C. 20016 1701 K Street, N. W.
Washington, D. C. 20006 John B. Farmakides, Esquire Atomic Safety and Joseph Rutberg, Esquire Licensing Board Panel Benjamin H. Vogler, Esquire Atomic Energy Commission Antitrust Counsel for Washington, D. C. 20545 AEC Regulatory Staf f Atomic Energy Commission Atomic Safety and Washington, D. C. 20545 Licensing Board Panel Atomic Energy Commission Mr. Frank W. Karas, Chief Washington, D. C. 20545 Public Proceedings Branch Office of the Secretary Abraham Braitman, Esquire of the Commission Special Assistant for Atomic Energy Commission Antitrust Matters Washington, D. C. 20545 Office of Antitrust and Indemnity Joseph Saunders, Esquire Atomic Energy Commission Antitrust Division Washington, D. C. 20545 Department of Justics Washington, D. C. 20530
\.
- - n d
William T. Clabault, Esquire J. A. Bouknight, Jr., Esquire David A. Leckie, Esquire David F. Stover, Esquire Antitrust Public Counsel Section Tally, Tally & Bouknight Department of Justice Suite 311 P. O. Box 7513 429 N Street, S. W.
Washington, D. C. 20044 Washington, D. C. 20024 Wallace E. Brand, Esquire Antitrust Public Counsel Section Department of Justice P. O. Box 7513 Washington, D. C. 20044 Wald, Harkrader & Ross By:
Attorneys for Duke Power Company 1320 Nineteenth Street, N. W.
Washington, D. C. 20036