ML19326A649

Transcript of 760127 Hearing in Silver Spring,Md. Pp 4166-4249

ML19326A649
Person / Time
Site:	Davis Besse, Perry
Issue date:	01/27/1976
From:	Mccabe R, Rigler D Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel, PENNSYLVANIA, COMMONWEALTH OF
To:
References
NUDOCS 8002260734
Download: ML19326A649 (83)

Text

' A, a... -a.

e, z;>

.,,c.,-9. 3.x;

<ts.

s 4e g

s m

lRif.f(; ~,L

'M2B f ~

~

lsi 0 4

m.e s.

g

• • 4.., W 'y t

blQ':"wlyo.gw k.

W'L3!

us wg p4. w./

u~

-m

J IN THE MATTER OF:

,25.s.

A cw sh_,.,H m

p > ~.s - p _.< :n g

u x y>-

a

- m

.w

.,,. 7s,.

a:.

y _,;

Wy

.. 73 -

x.; TOLEDO EDI. SON COMP.AN.Y and.

N

. NnD7, Y UhM.y.

. iCLEVELAND ELECTRIC ILLUMINATING CO~

.)~

--M^

+L'.>yw,

).

us, y

).

-e u ' y. :M....,.

~.

i; N '(Dav,is-Besse Nuclear Power Station,

-)- ' Docket $ Nos'.3d M 3 ' M Units ik 2, 'and '3) -

~

x r

. )'

'. > M%%W.

[

M NMy %.jf"ly[,. f.

U) J50-34hA

)4.o,50-5,00A,2(Y h h h f

~

~ W q X N.s w-and'-1~t. th:.. m" a

3D.N t~

9. J,..,.

n u M W )T "~ )b d " U W D K MA f Q

~

[ W M $v$wWMWiU4~%e:MQ:

~e v

w nm

,3 A _, h 4

a

'T *

{s; M fQJ:W CLEVELAND ~ ELECT p

M;wg&eo% t<~5t[;N__e y-;RICS.ILLUMTNATING W

^

"n WCCO d WWh@%w p -MMW^ '- MNW NNN9A s

<.ac 1

yc::,.

)e.e 50-440A2

.z e

. wg.

y un. y, y._

e

..

ww ;v 3

gqg

.3 gg (Perry Nuclear' Power Plants,1 Units

)L

.u y QG ' } }..

,, 3.I "s..,,

n" v1.

% $ [%y.Mmk.

~

p

.y

.3 n

k "b '

• j @,..,.f'b.at. %l } y

_'7,'

.,g n r.

xe.

, dpg"' T.g

.f

.~ e _ w.% n.& _, u,.

3

. ~, ~

~.. ~... n y.n.,Manilarik.,. -

Silver.- Sprin'g, T

+

.m.1.

jdN,,N.. n.d

.,. +

n. g..,

,T m

W Daten', Tuesday, W +a+ry. d.-

. w,,q w fh ' ' ' ' ' s

" Fo9es 4gjg 43gg_.

Janu 27 1976 4% 4.

4

' h' y }$ '

s %g Sw;e#

wge mmgs.yqu;', -

,,3 y ;

yw

5. -

~..

> y- '

. wac.;;

e

• '%n

.,4 2

?.

R 6;'2?Q. 4,

'y%Q ? !

t eL W

J. g.

. s& : > -f%5x

.; < x. y

,'N

..l.

r

,.y.

" sui. c,-- e x.

m

- + W-~.

• v gg -

.~

.e e-

. 1-MLJ c-

'1 M !s 3

?,'.

4.-

9:

-m m ya g -. U. S *y -

p., - g : t gr v.

1. ,1 1 :! ~,1

'1HIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS f:DhMEn

+

~

sr

. c

, a stwnw'

~ + <w a m&@y=. G s

D M%s.v:.,e

~ ?.,a.,.V '- l J.w "; d@

POOR QUALITY PAGES

K D W@M @,d, a -

m. m,p: h.. _4y

~ wuW s *' n_.-

~

.p.

,s ~e

. c:: o w. gs

,~ ~.amn~ w g A.&..m;w.a e

e.-

DR

1. m.gA4W O iy, y% y. _x M..$cc As.$e'Nf(

3d'

,h w;g?.

m. 7 re 3

qcad. 2an sm22r.

h-

,.M,' [ Y,w m:.{.w((g g..e : +{

~.$kk Uk

..x,. _,.. n

a., $; m@.%sf&.%%@R 7$f22.1 a

20@g:g&& up:d 2edDQhW&iACERFEDERAL REPORTERS,INC.

,.(

j!

kW ari g m.,y w.y,G4m:2g@y% w p m enW:w w W.ap%;.%OfficialRepreers~ : w8"Q.0,%;y0 nw.y A

> %.;;f 2

I

[

V weg mammmaew

.D:cm amo.-mm N

JW i

4165 l

aw UNI' FED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR P.CGUL?. TORY COMICS 9 ION 2

i 3

,t I

4

'L In the matter of:

4 e

Docket Non.

l TOLEDO EDISON COMPANY and i

i CLFVELAND ELECTRIC ILLUMINATING CO_

G-L16 A 50-500A 0

(Davis-Dessa Nuclear Pouer S tation, 50-501A Unites 1, 2 and 3) ar.d G

CLEVELAND ELECTRIC ILLUMINATING CO.

50-440A 9

et al.

50- 4.ilA 4

10 i (Perry Nuclear PGwer ?lsnt, Units 1 and 2) 11

___..__.____x i.3 I3

(

Firdt Flcor Hearing 7.cora 7915 Eastern Avenua t

Silver Spring. Marylar.d

-l t-

• J Tuesday, January 27, 197:3 16 Hearing in F.he a,bove-entitled natter.

17 18 was reconvened, pursuant to adjournment, at 9:30 a, n, 19 BEFORE:

20 MR-DOtICLAS FIC.LER, Chairmc-n G

21 MR. JOHN FRYSIAK, Menher 22 MR, IVAN SMITH, Member a

23 APPEARANCES:

24 As heretofore noted, 15 4

t___

n l

4167 ar i

EEEEEEIE l

2 MITNESS:

D_IRECT CiY:SS PJj0J 92@',

RECRO' I

f 3,. Robert F. McCabe., Jr.

4153 4234 4236 (Recalled) 4 i

1 l

1 f

5 l

1 t

C t

7 3,

9, EXHIBITS:

MARKED RECEIVED.

10 Applicant 's 4 E (DL), letter 4171 4181 it Applicant's 49 (DL), meraorandum of j

understanding 4174 4181 12 Applicant's 50 (DL), proceedings 4194 before the Pennsylvania 33 -b Public titilities ccmmission, i

14 Applicati6n of the Borough of f

Pitenirn.

i 15 16 Applicant's 51(DL), newspaper 4194 article, dated August 13, 1959,

7

" Times-Express."

f

.g Applicant's 52 (OE-PP), letter i

dated January 11, 1960 4216 4223 19 Applicant's 53 (GE-PP), lettor 4217 23 dated January 30, 1968 4223 0

21 Applicant's 54 (OE-PP), latter dated l

February 6, 1968 421s 4223 j

22 l

~~

Applicant's 55 (OE-PP), letter dated 23 February 12, 1968 4220 l

24 i

25 I

i I

'l 4167A CON?SNTG (Contd) 2' EXIIISITS MARKED

_RE.CEIV2D

)

l Applictnt's Snhibit Mc. 5d (~.'Z) x22S d227

'r

,I letter dated January 2,1963,

~

ernal Document No, 3-080S j

0 Applicant's Exhibit ;;o. 57 (TE) 4225 4227 letter dated January 25, 1363; j

frac John D. Davis.

Applicant's Exnibit No. SE (TE) 4225 422,7 letter dated February 29, 1968, g

Internal Document No B-0097

-l Applicant's E:cnibit Ro, 59 (CEI) 4228 4233 Internhl Doct* ment No.11 10 !,-

t I

Applicant's C::aibit No. 50 (CEI) 4228 4233 Internal Coctmtent No, 12 12 l 4

Staff Exhibit 208, report entitled

,3l!

"CA?CO Baseload Generating Capacity Requirements Follcwing Perry No.

4, 1981 to 1984," Planning Committae Report No. 5, dated Januar1 IUli 14, 1973 4242 4243 Staff Exhibit 209, pages from deposition of Willina D.

Fiastars 4242

,7 a

t 13 19 EO O

21.

22 5

23 24 e

25j i

4168 I

PRO _P _R. O

.C_ _E.S D I _!!. G S.

pl 2

9 fir. LESSY:

Mr. McCsbe in present tcuay to return 3

for the completion of his crosa exanination.

4 I

C~tlhTRMAN RIGLER:

Mr. McCabe will you resunc the f

5 stand, and I remind you ycu are a till under cath.

0

Wereupon, 7

no3ERT F. MC CAnn, JR.,

8 was recalled and, having been previously duly sworn, was 9

examined and testified further as follows:

10 MR, LERACH:

'iay I proceed, Mr. Chairnan?

11 CHAIRMAN RIGL1?R:

You may.

12 CROSS-EXM INATION (Con t ' d. )

13 BY T1R, LCRACII:

14 G

T4r. McCabe, we appreciate your ccning back.

It 15 has been scne time since you testified.

16 If you find it necessary to lock at exhibits 17 which were shown to you during thu original portion of your 18 testimony, I'm sure you will speak up and let us know.

19 Now, Mr. McCabe, in October or Ncvember of 1970, 1

20 an energency connection between Duquesne Light and the w

21 Borough of Pitcairn was established shortly after Pitcairn 22 had suf fered a brown-out, 23 A.

That is correct, I thought it was a little bit 24 later than that.

25 G

Early December, whatever,, just by way of background.

I L

4169 bw2 i

1 I won't hold you to the date.

It in in the I

i 2

late part of 1970.

I 3

j 1

It is dif ficult to keep the years atraight_, but i

e 4

I'm pretty sure it uns 1970, yes, y

5 G

Abcut a year later, the differences bebreen i

G Pittcairn and Duquesne wara finally settled and a permanent a

7 connection was established and power was sold to Pitcairn i

8' from that time forward pursuant to an FPC-approved rate?

9 A

That is correct.

10 f

G Now, at the time that the differences between t;

Pitcairn and Duquesne ware ultimate satticS, is it true' 12 that Pitcairn decided on its cwn to case any further 13 generation of electricity?

54 A

Even at the time of the settlement, Duequesne 1

15 refused to operate' in parallel with us.

For that reason, j

16 it was foolish for us to continue to attempt to maintain 17 the generating equipment which had no uso.

g I believe that just to amplify that a little bit,

g I believe that Duquesne insisted there he no connection 20 between our generating equipment and the line, so that if a

g

, Duquesno had an outage, it would require us to reuire or 22 reconnect our power to the bus, so that we could supply the g3 thing which I understand would emount to some substantial 24 delay.

It couldn't be used under those circumstancec as 3

emergency standby, ESl i

l 4170 arl 1

0 Did you understand that for an electric system

1. 2 i

P.

the size of Pitcairn te operate in parallel with a system 3[

the si:o of Duq'uaana syctem uould requirc scohisticanad i

e r

4j protactivt equipment, nostly te protect the smaller system 5

from damage?

g.

6, A

When you say " dd I understand," T 'm not an engineetl.

7 I had heard those statements made.

I had always sonewhat 6

discounted them because I knew that Duquesne Light did run s,

in parallel with Mes tinghouse 'Rlectric Corporation at their 10 Trafford facility.

I 11 L It was my undarstanding that "estinghouse l

la '

Electric generating facilities at Trafferd 13 were not substantially larger than thoca at Pitcairn.

14 j Q

That was the bcsis of your ccnclusion that IS Duquesne did not want to oparatre in parallel?

1 16 A

They told us they didn't want to operate in 17 parallel.

In fact, I think they told un they would not, je Q

You _ discountad the statement regarding the

g reg'uirement for sa fety equipment on the basis of your own 20 ju 4 rent that the Westinghouse system at Trafford was a 21 similar size to Pitcairn's?

22 A

B'r. Lerach, we had professional engineering i

I assistance at that tino, and they also discounted the 23 I

24 seriousness or the major complications of providing 25 protective equipment.

So that -I want my answer to be i

h 4171 ar2 l

L 1

accurate.

I wasn't really making the :.scisien.

In my i

2 i, own datermination the Trafford situation gave me the t'

i 3 i.

feeling that i was not an impossible arrangement to make, e

I 4!l n

What steps did you undertake to determine the 5 li cize of the Westinghouse Electric generation capability i

G; at its Trafford Plant?

I 7

A Nothing in a formal nature.

I do know come of the G

people at work in the power generating system there, and I O

had discussed it with them.

1 10 l 0

So it was word of mouth?

i 11 lL A

That's correct.

12 O

Now what studies did you have -- ctrike that.

I 13 i 7 assume when you refer to the professional l

14 y engineering assistance available to the Borough cf f

15 [ Pitcairn at the time referenced in your prior answer, you f

3G meant Mr. Lewis?

jy l A

That's correct.

8 O

What studies did Mr. Lewis perform for the to i Borough to determine the practicality of the Borough 20 operating in parallel with Duquesne?

21 A

I really at the prm, oat time don't recall what 22 studies he performad.

He was in contact with un 23[

through these negotiations and I relied on his advice, but g4 I really don' t know what stud'.es he performed.

,y pg O

Can you testify under oath that he made any i

lk I

l

4172 ar3

.i 1

ctudios regarding the practicality of operating in 1

2 lI parallol with Daquenna Light Company?

3 E.

A Just what do you mean by acudy?

a Q

Studies to dotcrmine the r.ature and cost of 3[

the equipment taat would be required tc protect the respective i

e systems.

I,.

A I presuna that from his engineering experience I

g he had a knowledge of the nature and cost of that type G

of equipment.

I do not know what scudies he made specifically ti g 1:

"or this purpone.

11 il Q

I move to strike all th9.t part of 'he answer c

73 y prior to the last phrase where he said ho did not know what i

1, h, cutides were made, as unr-asponsive.

.a c

y,g l CHAIRMAN RIGLER:

Granted.

)

a gh MR. MELVIN BERGER:

Can I have the last question g3 jj and answer read back?

i l'

17 !'i (Whereupon, the reportar read from the l-TO p record, as raquested.)

1:

'l 99 CHAIPMAN RIGLER:

Is there any testimony that i

l! any protective equipment was necessary already in the y,,

.s.. l..

N record?

_d l<

~

f

[

MR. LERACH:

Having not been present every 9,.

p f,

day at the hearing, it is difficult for me to respond.

I'm 21 24 n t sure I can say that there are with respect to those tiro systems.-

(

Zo, i

l.,'

a

lJ l

l 4173 ar4 j

1 BY MR. LERACH:

1 2

Q Is it true that the Borough of Pitcairn had never

!f operated in parallol with any other cloctric system?

3 :l I

4]

A That is true.

h Is it true, thare ore, from your knowledge that j

l 3

0 G

the people who were actually operating the Borough

.l 7

alectric system had no experience in operating in parallel?

o A

Mr. Lerach, to my knowledge, the people operating 9

the system had no experience, but I am not knowledgeable i

10 on the background and qualifications of all of the people we had working there, so I really can only answer it to my l-

i

knowledge.

n 13 Q

How many people actually worked in the operations 1

t g1 end of the Pitcairn electric system?

1 A

There again, I can give you an estir.: ate, but I

(

15 t

4

3 9 don't know the exact number.

There were probably about eight If or nina, something in that neighborhood.

2/ g 13 0

In any event, you being the person that was in l

t

g j charge of these negotiations, you are unable to tell us today l

\\

i 20 1 under oath whether anyone who worked for the Borough I

v

{

clectric system had knowledge and experience in the

.y

-a problems of operating electric systems in parallel?

.w

'9 l

A I believe I answered that question.

33 Q

In case you havan't, will you answer it again?

24 A

I told you to my knowledge I was unaware.

25 l

l e.

. l' I ar5 4174 i

i Q

Thank you.

2I!

Now there is a letter in the pile in front of bi 3jj you, Mr. McCabo, dated. November 23, 1971, and it baars a V

d; document number 8063 from you to Mr.

S* ark.

c 5l Do you see that latter?

G!

A Yes, I do.

I

~

J.

Q And would you also loch for a document in your p

0 'll pila, styled " Memorandum of Understanding Detween i

9 Borough of Pitcairn and Duquasne Light Company," and it's iG i

got a notation in the upper right-hand cornar, item 10.

ei A

Yes, I have that.

12 MR. LERACE:

I would like to have both of 13 those documents marked for identification, Mr. Chairman, and l

11 I will get the number for you in a moment.

!S,

The lecter will be Applicant's 48, and the i

16 momorandum of understanding will be Applicant's 49 (DL)

I 17 i on bcth of them.

!8 (The documents referred to i

1E were marked Applicant's 20 48(DL) and 49 (DL) for 21 identification.)

4

. nt '

end 3

~

13 lj 25 I

s -

25 1

l'l U

i 4175 l

!lll MR. LERACl!:

The document number on i

?.liNovember23, l

bwl 1971, letter should be D-8068.

U 1

3 5 -i BY MR. LERACII:

b' l

4 ll G

Do you recognize E::hibit 14nnber 48 to be a I

E 5

latter you wrote to Mr. 5tark of Duqucune Light Company

!a S D on the date indicated?

I 7!

A Yes, I do, l.

3 G

This was the manner in which you info med the a

Light Ccmpany that the Borough of Pitcairn did not plan 1

li

O,'

to generato any electricity call power cfter the inter-p connection?

12 A.

That is correct.

t Ii 13 G

Notica, there is a reference there tc the 53 I protection equipment which would be required if Je wera g

to continue generating should not be needod.

il 10g Can you tell us what protection equipment you

 ! had in mind?

j 4-

i il, A.

I didn't have any protaction equipment, any g -i

., l cpacific protection' equipment in mind.

I had been told il 20 I in the course of the negotitions that protactive equipment 3; l would be needed.

I'm not an engineer.

It is completely l

22 out of my line.

23 3

Did you investigate how much the protection y,

equipment would cost, regardless of what it was ccmprised Of7

\\.

25 1

'l

'I il

4176 bw2 1

A I don't recall,to the best of my recollection, 2

. I would say no.

I do not recall.

Il' 3 j CHAIRMAN RIGLER:

'fr. FcCaha,.eho told you

~

.1-4 f protection equipnent would be needed*/ Una it a reprecentative L

5 of Ducuesne or one of the Borough's cwn people.

c G[

Tile WITNESS:

To try to answer that quention 7

recurately, we met en two dif ferent occasions that I can ai recall tha t the matter of protection equipment came up, i,

9{

The first nceting that I recall was a maetinq 10 {

held here in Washington under the auspices of the Federal i Power Power Comnission at the time wo interconnected uith 3; ;

1 12 '

Duquesne Light on an emergency basis, where they took over one loop, 13 yi At that meeting, representatives of the Duquesne Light Company,and I'n not absolutely sure which of Duquesne 15 t

i g!

Light's engineeers was present at that time.

l They said they could not run in parallel with l

g7 us, because of the great danger of the problems between 18 the systens, and it would require expensive protection 39 79 equipment to do this.

Subsequently, we net in my office in Pittsburgh, 3;

22l when *we negotiated the final tesolution of our problems with '

Duquesne T lght, and at that time I believe Mr. Fit: patrick 23 Ducuesne Light's sengineering staff was present, We were 24 A

25 again told substantially the same thing. That was the basis i

4177 bw3 1

of my understanding about this, 2

My recollecticn in that our engiaccr, Mr. Lewis, 3

e indicated that less protectica equi. snt wc2 needed and p

4 that it /idn't have to be dono in thic elchorate fashion, 3

' as Duquesne Light, But we were atr.empting to resolve this l

.0 matter, and we resolved it, by electing to proceed without 7

the protection equipmont and without attempting to inter-8 connect.

9 BY HR. LERACH:

Did anyone fran the Fedoral Power 10 Cenmission disagree with Duquesne Light statements regarding 11 the required protective equipment?

I ~'

A The meeting at the Federal Power Ccamission was 13 an infornal meeting. To the best of my recollection, and it 14 i;' becomes difficult after this time, they did not take an 15 active part in those discussiens.

And, to the best of my 15 understanding, they had not -- that is the Federal Power

' Commission Staff had not made any analysis of the many 18 problems that existed.

19 G

But your answer is, they did not, to your 20 recollection, disagree with the statements made?

o.

A My answer is to the best of my recollection v

they neither agreed nor disagreed,

~~

23 0

Was Mr. Lewis present at that meeting?

24 A

I believe he was, 25 ES3 I

I4 4178 crl i

Q Now, Applicant's Exhibit !!o. 49, which is

'i 2

the memorandum of understanding, arc you familiar with this i.

O {j document, and are you aucre that it war. an amendment, if you l

t 4

j will, of the final settlement agr2 ament betreon Duquesne and i

5l Pitcairn regarding their ongoing difficultisc?

l 4

A I have no present recollection of this piece of 6

i 7;

paper.

I can identify Mr.

.4yers' signature and Mr. Troy's I

S j.

signature and Mr. Gilfillin's ' signature.

I would have to assurve 9 i.

it is a corroet document.

It was not prepared on my type-l' i

to uriter.

I presume it was probably prepared by Duquesne 11 i Light and I presuma we in fact signed it at the time.

b 12 I have no independent recollection of it at u3 this point.

14 O

At the time of this document date, January gg S, 1972, you woro the Borough solicitor?

l g,

A That's correct.

17 0

You were actively involved in counseling them 18 regarding their Duquecno Light problems?

A That's correct.

I'm sure this prchably passed gg 20,

through my hands.

3; Q

I guess that would be my next question.

Do

^ 22 you have any reason to doubt that this is in fact an amendment 23 to the prior settlement understanding?

i' A

I have no reason to doubt that, no.

24 MR. LERACH:

I would offer into evidence 2o.

g I

i

4179 ar2 1

Applicant No. 48 and Applicant No. 49.

2 ]

!!R. LESSEY:

May I have one mcment, please?

i 3 j, CIIAIP").H RIGLEA:

Everyone uit tight.

I'm

!I 4

going to look for my admission sheets which I don't l

5 appear to have brought in.

5 (Pause.)

l l

7 MR. LESSEY:

With respect to the motion to c

put Applicant's 48 and 49 into evidence, Staf f is e

i curious as to why the letters in this packet and the

[o r:cwspeper articles have c documsnt number stampad on them.

48 has 3068 and all of the other cues appear tt i

12 to, with the exception of the memorandum of understanding.

I 13 It does not have a document number.

Why is that co?

y,,;

MR. LZPJ\\CII:

I suspect that the answer to Mr.

h li 15 Lessey's question is that the memorandum of understanding, i

i the one-page document was stapled to the back of the 93 criginal settlement agreement when the documents were 1

73 numbered and therefore the document number would appear gg only on the full settlement agreement which may or may not be in evidence.

90 4

I'm not sure.

21 MR. LESSEY:

The settlement agreement is in 33 i

evidence.

The copy of the settlement agreement from our 23 files which was from Duquesne's files did not have the 24 mem randum of understanding en it.

Without --

s 5

1 l

I I

ar3 4 go 1

1 MR. LERACH:

Mr. Lessey, so hava been down this i

2 h road once before now.

l-3[

MR. LESSE7:

tiy questica is, can you toll me that e

.1 4 ]

this document was produced on discovery?

If you cc: mot

}

U ':

tell me that with certainty, we will have to raview our

\\l 6

i files.

1 I

7 MR. RIESLER:

I found this document in the i

0[

documents in the central repository which ucra documents o

copied by you, the Capartment of Justice, and the City of 1

l I

Cleveland.

,o l

1 That is where this came from.

1 la 6 MR. LESSEY:

Uns it attached to the settlement 11

l i s *:

agreement?

74

}

MR. RIESLER:

As I recall, it was, because I i

g was somewhat puzzled by the item 10 notation in the corner.

3 j That seemed to be a series of items on the settlemrent i

7 agreement itself.

You are stretching my ner.ory there l

2

g somewhat because that was several months ago, i

10 MR. MELVIH BERGER:

I would like to request wa 10 be provided with the rest of these items, perhaps the first nine, and cover letter that went with this.

I have not 21 fully screened all Duquesne documents, but I do not recall

". 1 ever seeing this one before.

g MR. LERACH:

At least, in my docu.T.ents that I have 2.?

in my notebook for the case, this item 10 does appear as g

,1

cr4 4181 I

part of the settlement agreemant.

2 CHAIILFAN RIGLSR:

Do you have the first nine 3

items?

4 MR. LERAC3:

I'm not cure it is numbared 1 5

through 9.

I'm willing no show you its current form.

6 CHAIRMAN RIGLER:

Show the Justice Department 7

during the first break, please.

8 In the meantime, we will admit 43 and 49 I

9 into evidence.

10 MR. REYHOLD5:

I will note the continuing 11 objection on behalf of the other Applicants.

12 CHAIEMAN RIGLER:

Overruled.

3 MR. ItELVIN BERGER

You have admitted 497 3,g CHAIRMAN RIGLER:

Yes.

15 MR. MELVIN DERGER:

I hope our objection on 16 that was noted.

17 (The documents previously marked 18 Applicant's 4G(DL) and l

gg Applicant's 49 (DL) for 20 identification, were received i

21 in evidence.)

CHAIR 1AN RIGLER:

Mr. Lerach, the settlement 22 23 agreement we have has only seven items.

MR. LERACH:

I can tell you what it is, Mr.

24 g er.

u are familiar with it from your corporate 25

F 4182 ar5 1

practice.

They had a closing and they numbered all of 2

the documents exchanged by numbars as part of the closing.

il 3[

My copy of the settlement agreen. ant has in the apper right-j t

f 4 l hand column item 10(1).

I cuggest that they I

j 5

were documents exchanged at tha settlenent.

That does not 6!

mean to say they are cll cne document.

7 I

CHAIRMAN RIGLER:

The problem in Mr. Derger wants i

a i, to make sure he has all of the documents exchanged in l

9j connection with this particular trancaction.

to MR. LERACH:

I don't know that I have them all.

tj We produced everything called for by production.

Whether

2 there was produccd a bound cettlement volume is another I

13 ques tion.

If one exists and it wasn't produced and they V

l want to see it, we will get it for them.

g,4

.l I

2n I don't know whether such an item exists.

I 16 j

CHAIRMAN RIGLER:

All right.

I 1

BY MR. LERACH:

..j i

18 Q

Mr. McCabe, we had talkad with you earlier I

9 in your testimony regarding possible. benefits to Duquesne l

g l Light from being interconnected with the Pitcairn system e

i 21 in the sense that there would be a two-way flow of energy.

I want to e.xplore some of those in more detail cy um with you.

-,ca 24 Do you recollect giving testimony generally to the effect that you believe that the Pitcairn system could provida 25

4103 ar C 1

start-up capacity for the Duquesne Light System in tha 2 l, event the Duquesne System had to be started from a dead O

hu h

3 ';l cturt or rotal outage.

Li 4

i A

Yes.

S Q

Now, were you aware that Duquesne Light's --

i G

i first of all, at the time you were ha' ting your negotiations i

I 7r wich ouquesne Light, do you recollect that one of 81 Duquesne's power stations was known as the Coalfax Power 1

tl 3 lj Station?

10 A

I am familiar that one of their stations was called' 1:

Coalfax.

I'm not much more familiar than that.

i;i

2 Q

You knew it existed and i'c was the name of one?

13 A

YeS-1 3 4 'l Q

Were you aware that that system was -- that 13 q station was designed to be able to start up on its cwn?

li if A

Mo, I was not aware of that.

1S

7l Q

Was the basis of your judgment that Duquesne d

i needed this capability to be started up from a dead start l

gg t

jg from outside that Duquesne had all steam-fired stations?

20 Steam generators?

A That was one of my considerations in making that 21 statement.

I believe in the answers to the interrogatories 22.

i 23 filed in the antitrust case, they indicated only steam

~

generation.

2..

Q Were you aware that Coalfax had the facility 25

]>

0 1:

ar7 4184 1

for the boilers to be hand-fired and steam-drivan pumps 2

that would enab.'.e that statica to start up?

3 MR. MELVIN SERGER:

Chjection to that.

I think 4

Mr. Lerach ic stating a fcet not in evidence.

5 MR. L3RACH:

In cross-e::anination, it is my G

understanding you are always permitted to ask a witness 7

whether or not he was aware of a given fact.

The burden is a

on me to subsequently produce. hose facts to impeach his 9

testimony.

je CHAIRMAN RIGLER:

The Board hac not taken any of

1 the assumptions contained in Mr. Larach's pact two questions.

32 (Whereupon, the reporter road frcm the 33 record, as requested.)

14 THE WITNESS:

I was not aware of that, but let me 15 amplify my answer a bit, if I might.

16 It is my understanding that no stcam turbine can be started from dead-out.

Ycu have to get steam in 97 18 them and take quite a bit of tima before you get tham up gg to sufficient speed before you put them on line.

Whereas 20 the diesel equipment we had could be started from dead-

^

ut and be on the line in about five minutes.

21 That was what I had in mind.

I don't knew what 12 their arrangements or system was at Coalfax.

No one at 23 Duquesne ever brought that to my attention.

24 25

I l

cr8 4185 1

BY MR. LERACH:

2 Q

Would it be of significance 'o you in c

i 3

thinking about the testimony juat givan if I told you the 4

pumps at Coalfax were stcam-driven?

I O

A Well, they would have to get the steam from t

G some place.

It would take time to generate the steam, and 7

I presume although I don't know, that it would take longer 8

for them to get on from dead-out than it would us.

9 Q

I had not understood your testimony earlier i

10 to indicate that it was the time differential in starting up the system that was important in your mind, but rather 12 the fact that Duquesne could not start its system at all.

I 13 A

Well, the original questions had to do with 14 what benefit we could be to Duquosne Light.

One of the I

g3 possible areas of possible benefit was that we had the 16 facility to start up from dead-out and supply them emergency 1

17 start-up powor.

13 Q

If Duquesne had that capability on its own, then

9 that potential benefit was not much that you could give them, wa. it?

20 A

Well, I would still think tha potential 21 benefit would exist.

If they had other sources to be 22 btain this, then, of course, perhaps we would not 23 giving them something unique.

But it wouldn't change my g

i thinking, Mr. Lerach, that it would still be a potential 25

ar9 4186 i

. l 1

]

benefit to them.

2 O

Did you ever ask Mr. Lawis to perform c.ny 5

calculations or studies to determine whether er nct trans-4 formers loss or line losc would eliminate the capability 5

of ?itcairn asnding enough power to Duquasnu to start up its l

5 i

system?

7 A

I did not know.

6 Q

Do you know if he ever performed any such calcu-O lations?

e 10 !!

A I do not know.

I kncu that Duquesne indicated to r

11 l

me that there would be a problem of line losc.

I believe Mr.

12 Dempler made those indications, l.

l3 Q

Did you ever ask Mr. Lewis to perform any 14 studies regarding the type of equipment that would be 15l required for Pitcairn to interconnect tbsough a 245 kV f

,e transmission line network?

-I 37 A

I did not, and to the best of my knowledge, the

g Borough did not.

19 C

Now, Mr. McCabe, I'm going to ask you some 20 questions that may be somewhat general and I hope you will 21 be able to explain, becausa I think they will be helpful to 22 the Board in understanding the Borough of Pitcairn better.

c3 Is it true that the Borough is about a half a u,.

square mile in area?

y 7,3 I believe that is about right.

A I,

I ar10 4187 I

Q What is its current populatien, about?

I 2

i A

The prasent population, I believs, is slightly 3lj under 5000.

4 Q

Is it true that the population has been 5

basically stagnant or declining clightly over the lact 6

decade?

7 A

I would say that your statement is correct.

3 It has been about the same, or perhaps there 0

has been a slight decline.

10 Q

Can you toll me whether the tax base of the 1;

Borough, the real estate tax base, has increased 12 significantly in valuation in real terms in the last, let's i

13 say, six or eight years?

ja A

The real estato base tax base has not changed 13 significantly in real terms or any other terms.

The 16 county did have a reassccament in Pitcairn a few years ago 17 which changed the figurec.

Even then it did not substantially gg change the overall tax base.

10 The tax base, I believe, is about $5,200,000.

EO Q

Is it fair to say the Borough's financial 21 condition today, 1975-76, is generally the same as it would have been in 1970?

2 2

i A

Yes, I think the Borough's financial condition 23 18 Pretty much the sama as it was in 1970.

We have not 24 A

increased our tax millage due to inflationary 25 i

at I-I nr11.

4188 I

pressures uhich have affected everybody.

s 1 [j We have had certain problema, revonne-sharing e

i 3 i.'

has screwhat he:1 ped us out a little bit.

tJe have found 4

it neces sary to institute a chargo for garbage nervice which 4

Ol we did not make in ' he pas t; but cvorall, our financial c

i.

-G condition is quite comparable to 1970.

end 4-7 'I I

.i O l' It.

9!!

f 10 i i

E!

1 y o.

+

2 5

?

u nl l

- tj is l1 i7 it 5

IE. I.

~

,I,i 10 ' '.

EO lt l

.t i

{

33-24 I

E es i

e

+

--~1

.-w

.y 9wy v-

i 4189 i'

1[

G Now, co you remember thatat the tineof ths S3 I

'wl 3}Ll November -- well, the late 1970 brerncti: which reculted in I

p 3 h the emergency intercor.nection thct Pitccirn carefully i.

+

t 4 !{ considered the pcsaibility of purchasir.g additional D

5 generation equipn ent for itself and rejectad that J

., alternative as tco expensive?

Ifti 7h A.

In the surer of 1970, after the crank abaft i

f O

broke on Engina Ntmber 7, wo explored the possibility of s

. attempting to br.y additional generating cr.pscity. And

!i 10 we went so far as to prapare specifications and take bids i;Ikonthat.

I t

12 j; The bids were rejected. partly because of the 13 cost and partly lecause we weren't satisfied with the bid I

le [. or the bids that we received.

1..

" ~

S G

I thot.ght you testified earlier on cross ; and it

, e3 y may have been on direct, page 1837, that you rejected the l' bids, because they were too expensive. Were they, in fact, l

17 i-

.3 i too expensive for the Borough to afford?

I 19f A.

I was making two different statements, I il I

10 believe, Mr. I.ernch.

Certainly we rejected the bids as 3; I,j bids, because Counsel thought the bids were too high.

I n

If the bids had been in a rango that Counsel n

1 a

' thought was acceptable, I presume Counsel would have accepted 1

y them, yes.

1 25)

G Now, was the size of the unit to be, I think you 1

I i

I l

i.

l

!+

ij

,1 4190 l

?-

3 y said around 2,00"> kl.10wants?

t

- i' I

.o 3.

T'~.e. c it w: r.2 =o.1.w23.on I'm ru 2 :. :1.va.'? cura

.i

_, '! 6.:.t -

.I t i:- - hat 2.t vac I t r.9 t ch's-13c:1y Turnntce i

1 n

.. r, a..

1; Edst r: ca.~.lachian is acomh' ?. ^ '10

f. '.o ra it3 7

.e A

.c.

A Y 3.s a

i.

..a.-

- z..<,.,

m....,.s., -,.7.,,zp 7.,.,. <. s... < n, r-

a..

p t.Lo.-

z,.,. -,. n.. u n.,l t.. -

a a,.

.~.

5 u w.-

.r a

g rd you,

.C vart you to ghnc.a et it.

It la c a Novenbec 1, i

e., p i M C..r~.dcla and ' 'n f airly certain 1. in frcm tha r

a

i

+

1. T ir.tes Fxpre.a

.2 is entitled "I2i :cr.irn R2 iacts sids 1

i J.i l

'i S

t a - m:.....t..r

..,,..,, i n, i... t. s.,.

$.....c.s_

t.

1 1

3; I dirza; ynur specif1'.: attention to tha information i q:.

4 nf

.., y ' cer.c.alned therein in that the one bid,taa $320,000 and r

the Other bid was G10.5,000, Oc you remember these figures

..i.,.

I as being eccurac: Dr -hn hida ths: vers cu bitted 7 i

W_.

1 it wa no inkpemdent reco31ectian, T4r, '.atrech.

b

T ' prears tha. the fit.ures that spearm in - the paper were

s. ',

a a ccurate, n1though '.new'.nq the ""ir.nn-I;;;precs

• muyhn tb a.h r

is a rather brn're assu:n. tien,,

36 r

j

.MR. LES3Y:

2ncase m, if I may, Thc;e haven't l

l 1[

I:

[

been-marked for'idantification,

! would li::e to state 42,;

that they probably. oucht e.c he right n:r<6 and Stad will

. :, ', obf;ectito the uss of a nwapscer artt.cle to be introducad

,i

.a, b

i into evidencayon.fi2 ground t;;at it in henr:;ay, and w have d

,. j

' r.c way of cross-enar.ininit a newspace:.: to ebhain the truth

.f j zof ;ths statainents. contained tharcin, f

t a.

. ~

4191 bw3 1

MR. LERACH:

The motion is premature.

I did not 2

attempt to introduce the newspaper article in evidence.

If the Board wants ce to mark them for the racord I will.

3 4

The Chainnan indicated to me not to do that by c nod of

~

5 his head for tha record.

6 BY MR. LERACH:

7 You cannot recall the amounta of the bida 8

you received for tha generation equipment --

CHAIEF AN RIGLER:

Ho just said that.

9 10 i

MR. LE'. TACH :

I want to test his recollection and see if he might try for me.

11 L

MR. LESSY:

Thin matter was gone into on cross 12 and not direct, this question of the bids.

la o

CHAIRFAN RIGLER:

Yes, we seem te be recovering 34 a16 f the grot.nd we have been through, Mr. Larach.

15 I was 1 coking at page 1835, for example.

We opcnt five jg minutes going over an area where the questions and answers at are practically identical to something we covered a month

g ago?

g MR. LERACH

What area was that?

so CHAIRMAN RIGLER:

You look at 1935 and you find g

out.

It concernt, the dead-out starts, It concerns tha subject matter you just spent five minutes going over.

23 MR, LERACH:

I thought his testimony significantly 4

C expanded on the prior evidence, g

4192 bw4 BY MR, LERACH:

7 I

i 0

Mr.

Cabo, are you svare that in li>59, 2

1 "N

U#

1. 8*

E

" 9 ""

C#

3 i

l customers located in the Monroaville area and sold the 4

equipment that the system had,to Duqueena Light Ccmpany?

g nR. mmvIn sERcER:

I woula lixe to object to g

j that, That is si:: years prior to the cut-off dato which was l

Septemberi, 1965.

g I don't believe this was even covered on direct g

examination.

g

- 3 f

MR. LESS'I:

I would object on the ground as Al g beyond the ccipo of direct. There was a question we asked the Witness that was answered in two paragraphs, as to the j

general historical relationship between 1902 and lawsuit, 14

(

but I don't think that should open up the door for all moves of

,10 I

the Pitcairn's electrical system during that time, iG MR. LIRACH:

I'w'ould ask if there be any further i

1 discussion that the Witness be excused frorn'the room.

16

\\

CHAIRyiAN RIGLER:

All right.

Mr. McCabe?

(Witness temporarily es:cused.)

to MR. LERACH:

The Monroeville situation is directiv 21 relevant to the possibility of Pitcairn ever competing with Duquesne Light Company in the retail market for customers

,43 As I have explained to the Board, I think in my opening, hite Pennsylvania law does contemplate that under certain 25

J 4193

! circumstances a barcurjh may seek frem the Pennsylvania 1

i i

2.!?UC a certificate of nublic convenience to pr xida e.lectric bwS 3

service outside of its boundarien Th e fact that Pitcairn i

4 at one timo did this illegally,without ':utherisation. of the 5

' PUC,was forced tc cease doing it, admitted c. heir ser'cice 6

was inadequate,. sinitted they cculd not afford to render 7

.adecunto service, indicatas to me -- is prebative to ne en a

the question of wnether or not Pitesirn represent.s a potential

~ s cc:npetitor of Duquusne Light in tha retail market, l

~

CHAIF3AN RIGLER:

It is far too remote in tine.

iO 1

~ rhat line will not ha permitted.

12 ' i MR LERACli:

Okny, i

13 For the record and prior to the Witness cendng 14 back in, I would like t2 then mrrk for ident!fication and 4

13 ! place in the record, certtin avidence that we would have 1

g I

~

is

put in on thic mai

ter, so that a subsequent review

- l

7 will be intelligerh.

I g3 In that regard, I would like marked and place n [ in the record the Pennsylvania Public Utility -- proceedings i;

y,o before the Pennsylvania Public Utilities Commisaion, npplicatica

{ of the Borough of Pitcairn and if you want us to use an 7;

l Exhibit number :.n it, Mr. Chairman --

22 1

23 CEAIRMAN RIGLER:

Yes, please, l.

y, MR. LETIRER:

I will have tc try to get better g.;,

copies for us, I realize this is a difficult copy to read.

r la

i 4194

!j hw6 j

Perhqs -- I have a rather good copy that cculd i

2 l!

l l go in the officit.1 record.

P:

3 lj We will attempt to procure a batter original

' 3 !

to make a better cory from for ovarybc5y.

j

^

' t.

i i

t 5

CHAIRB'AN ItEGLER:

hil right.

3 C

MR, LFRACH: Do you want that w rked Applicants e

i

'-l i

7 f 50(DL)?

g s

t Op CHAIRMAN RIGLER:

Yes.

t 0 ;-

(The doctment raferrsa to was C.

10 i

marked Applicanta Exhibit 50(DL)

1 for identification.)

.j 12 1 MR. U RACH:

Also the " Times-E:gress* newspaper I

is article dated Aucust 13, 1959, Document Mur.ber D-8031 14 '

which contains the ocinion of Solicitor McCabe,which he i

I is gave to the Borotgh of Pitcairn regarding the sale j

i 13 and which contair_s admissicas that tho :cer'tice wac 1

17p inadequate, et cetera,.

i3 }

That sould bc Applican~ s 51(DL) and.:e will ask i

c j that they be in the record and we will not try to put them to so ;

in as exhibits chvicusly, l'

1 21 1 (Tete dcewaent ' referred to van I,

22 1 marked Applicants 3:thibit 51(DL)

- E05 72 l-for identification.)

24 25 t

I i

s j

l 4195 M

1 MR. LESSY:

Staff cbjects on the ground arl 3 h that the time of these occurrences being 20 rcraote, 195B 3 [l i

and 1959, that they would not be relevant.

I 4 !.

Secordly, they are boycad the point cut-off of 0

u 5

discovery and vera not available to Staff.

6 Thirdly, they are beyond the scope of direct 7

examination of tha uitneus.

8 MR. FELVIN BERGER:

The Department would concur G

with those objec.tlons.

10 MR. LERACH:

Is the objection that my ti evidence is 00 remote in time that I would not be able to 12 l

argue them as relevant before an appellato court?

13 CHAIEMAN RIGLER:

Do you want to move them into evidence?

14 l

15 MR. IERACH:

I will mcVe them into evidenco and you 16 may formally re ect them.

17 CHAIDIAN RIGLER:

Exhibit 50, which is an f

g unsigned applics. tion, which has no docket numbur before gg the Pennsylvania. Utility Commissicn by the Borough of 20 Pitcairn, will Le marked as Applicant's 50(DL) and will be 2g rejected from admission into evidence.

Applicant's Exhibit No. 51, an August 13, 1959 93 article from the Times Expresa also will be rajected from

~

23 1

admission into evidence.

24 t

MR. FELVIN BERGER:

I believe Mr. Lerach may have 23 1

11

4196 ar2 1

misspoke a moment ago.

In referring to the Times Express 2 i article, I believe he said it contlined statements by Mr.

i 3

l Z<cCabe.

1 f

4 MR. LERACH:

I meant to say Mr. McGinnis.

5 HR. IfELVIll BERGER:

Okay.

S CIIAIR!iAN RIGLER:

!b. Reynolds?

7 MR. REniOLDS:

Mr. Chairman, I uculd like the recorc.

8 to note as to both doctments Applicants mcke their continuing 9

objection, Applf. cants other than Duquesne Light.

10 CHAIRMAN RICLER:

Objection will'he sustained, but 11 not on the ground by which the continuing objection has 12 been made.

13 MR. REYNOLDS:

I want the record to be clear that 14 the continuing objection was made ac to thoco.

15 16 17 18 19 20 o

21 22

~

23 24 25

l 4197 crl

l Whereupon, N

1,l ROBERT MC CADE 3 f resumed the stand 2nd, having been previously duly I

,;I sworn, wac examined and testified further ac follows:

I' 3

BY MR. LERACH:

,3 O

Mr. McCabe, during the time period 1966-1968, 7

did you ever review the Duquesne Light Company's t

3 published tariff?

A Yes, I did.

l g

Q Did :fou become familiar with a rule in the tariff, Rule No.

g ; i-IS, relating to resale of electricity?

A

2 I will tell you my recollection.

13J My racollcotion is that Duquesne Light's tariff I

g, provided that they could not resell -- they could not cell 3g !

power to customars for resale without the ccmpany's permission or something to that affect.

,,to

,y !!

Q Your recollection was that it was in the company's option to soll for resale or not cell for rosale?

.,3

{

A

Yes, I know there was a provision in the tariff.

7g

)

I don't know exactly what it says.

I do know they did t

sell for resale at that time.

Q To municipalities?

2,.

l A

23 Not to municipalities, but to certain office buildings in the Pittsburgh area.

4 Q

Did you investigate the circumstances under 2_3

I i.

4193 ar2 1

i I

i which those sales for resale ucre made?

2; A

I made some effort in that direction.

I'm j

not sure that ny invo.suigation vac particularly fruitful.

2 1

4 i

But I was aware -- my office happened to ha in the l

5 i

Grant Building, and the Grant Building resold the electric 1

l power to us.

I believe that the Jenkins Arcade did the same g

6 thing.

There was a case in, I believe, the Superior 7

s Court in Pennsylvania in which this fact was mentioned, 6

perhaps by way of a footnote.

9 to j

Q Yes.

Do you remember that case at all?

l tg A

I think I have it in my briefcase.

12 O

I don't think we need it road into the record.

13 The Board will be in a position to read that case also.

I

4 Did you assist in preparing the answers --

15 Pitcairn's answers to interrogatories filed by i

p3 Duquesne in the antitrust litigation?

A Yes, I did.

37 Q

Do you have a recollection that questions were

g a

g asked requesting Pitcairn to provide informatica regarding 20 the hours per year that each one of its generating units was unavailable for service due to maintenance, for -

, 1 failures, and also the number of times that each unit failed 22 during a period of time?

23 MR. LESSY:

I will object on two grounds:

24 One, it is beyond the scope of direct.

2a.

4199 ar3 3

Secondly, during the direct examination of 2-this witness, Staff atter.pted to put into the record 3[

certain documents relating to tho antitruct suit.

4 The only one, I believe, that got in was the settlement.

Accordingly, the actual document from the 5

lawsuit or matters read therefrom, we object to on the o i ground of relevancy.

7 8

.m se me.

H mams aladng to intermga-

"9 9,

g be forced on redirect to put in answers to interrogatories by Duquesne and pretrial stipulations, and it will greatly expand the scope of the testimony.

MR. LERACH:

Of course, Mr. Lessy is entitled to put into evidence Duquesne's answers to interrogatories, 14, as I should be entitled to put Pitcairn's in.

There are documents submitted under oath which 15 distinguish them from the statement of Pitcairn which Mr. Lessy attempted to put in on his direct case.

The question I'm asking goes directly to the reliability --

CHAIRMAN RIGLSR:

Fine.

Ask about reliability.

21 It is not necessary to get there by way of answers to interrogatories.

23

~

MR. LERACH:

I will try another way, if the 24 Chairman please, reserving my right to come back this way 25 u

4200 ar4 I

if it appears necessary.

a' 3Y MR. LSF.ACH :

li

[

O Mr. McCabe, did tne acrough of Pitcairn 3

4 i-l retain records that would enable it in '65 and '69 3 h to determine the hours per year that each of its senerating il li 6 t' units was not available for service due to ceintenance for 7

the time period in the preceding 10 years?

3 A

To the best of my recolloction, the light plant l

0 kept a log on its operating equipment 'ahich I presume 10 would show the inscrmation you have reference to, i

f it Q

Now would that log also have shown the hours l

per year that each unit was not available for service 12 13 due to failures during each of the preceding 10 years?

14. :

A Mr. Lerach, I have to say in all honesty, I

". i

o bel eve they kept a log.

I have no direct knowledg3 of the categories and details represented in that log.

S exact t

(7 I would presume that probably that infornation tol would be available.

I do not know that of my own knowledge.

13 Q

Isn't it a fact that when you anawared the interrogatories and those questions were asked, you said 20 21 unknown, you couldn't answer it?

22 l

MR. LESSY:

I object to reference to 1

' interrogatories that are not in the record, for the 23 24 reasons stated previously.

l 23 MR. LERACH:

If I --

i I

fl

4201 ar5 1

CHAIRMAN RIGLER:

I'm going to permit that ques-2 tion.

3 THE WITNESS:

Mr. Lcrach I have to scy that if 4

that was the answer in the interrogatory, then 5

apparently those categories did not appear in the log.

6 BY MR. L3RACH:

7 Q

So that our record is clear, then, another a

question that was asked is the nurnber of times each unit 9

had failed in each year in the prsceding 10 years.

to Do you know whether Pitcairn had records that y;

would have enabled it to answer that question in 19637 12 A

No, I do not.

13 Q

D you remember that when this question was 14 asked of Pitcairn in interrogatories, tho answer was

" unknown"?

15 A

I have no independent recollection of the 33 l

97 answers to those interrogatories.

I will accept your

, o, statament as being accurate.

Q I don't want you to accept it at the present 39 time.

I want t show you a document now to refresh your 20 rec 11e tion, if it can.

21 22 Mr. McCabe, I have shown you what I believe t

23 pies of Duquesne interrogatories in the case, and are Pitcairn's answers, directing your attention to question 4, c4 XI, XII and XIII.

5

4202 ar6 1

Does that refresh your recollection that

' I 2

the Borough of Pitcairn under oath answered " unknown" as to i

3ll tha indicated questions?

I 4l A

Mr. Larach, I want to be accurate.

I don't want

{

i 5

to testify to anything that I cannot be accurate to.

6 The answe.rs appear to be the answers to tha interrogatories 7

filed and that was the response to ttose.

i 3

I beliava that to be corrscc.

But I don't really 9

have any independent reccliection of it.

3

o Q

And you ware counsel of record for the Ecrough of Pitcairn during that litigation?

72 MR. LESSY:

That has aircady been ostablished.

13 Objection.

gt; CHAIRMAN RIGLER:

Sustained.

15 BY MR. LERACH:

16 Q

Wac one of the concerns motivating you in q

1967 in attempting to make power supply arrangemsnts 4

18 for the Borough of Pitcairn the fear of a double contingency 19 outage occurring?

A That was one of the considerations.

20 Q

Now leaving aside the question of cost per 21 22 kilowatt hour, isn't it a fact that rate M powar from Duquesne 23 Light would have enabled you to plan for a double contingency U"D*98?

24 A

Cost aside?

2_

,0

4203 cr7 1

Q Cost aside.

si 2[

A Yes.

30 0

After the final cattlement of your differences 9

4 with Duquesne, and when you had the FPC-approved tariff, 5

can you tall us wh. ether the cost of electricity to Pitcairn G

at that point from Duquesne was louer than Pitcairn's i

7 generating costs would have been?

8 MR. MELVIN BERGER:

I would liko to object.

9 I'm not sure what Mr. Lerachmeans by FPC-approved tariff.

10 l MR. LESSY:

I would like to object to the i

t characterization as to final acttlement of differences 12 with Duquesno.

There was a settlement of a lawsuit.

13 Direct testimony indicates that Pitcairn'got 14 certain things out of the settlement and it did not get cortail 15 other things.

g To the extent that that is a characterization j7 of testimony, I would object to it.

If he says final 18 settlauent of the lawsuit with Duquesne, if he cays final 39 settlement of differences, I think the record is different 20 as to that.

21 MR. LERACH:

I will withdraw the question.

22 SY MR. LERACH:

23 Q

Tell us, Mr. McCabe, was the seutlement 24 agreement signed between Duquesne and Pitcairn intended to be a settlement of all of the existing differences between 25 o

4204 ar8 i

the Borough and the light company?

2l A

Yes.

I 3i O

Leaving asido the FPC approval,trhich seeme l

4I to excite people, when Duquesne --

i G

CHAIRMAN RIGLER:

We can do without the t

I 6

editorial ccmnent, Mr. Lerach.

Juct ask questions.

7l BY MR. LERACH:

I e

Q When Duquesne began to sell pouer to Pitcairn 3

at the agreed-upen rate in late 1971, was that rato i

.; l lotter than what it would have cost Pitcairn to generate the power through its own equipment?

12 A

Yes.

13 Q

What amount of that saving was passed along 3,3 to the residents of the Borough of Pitcairn?

I g

I I

A The Borough of Pitcairn has as a recult of 15.-

I.

I gg this been able to very much limit any increases in the l

i.

3l cost of electricity to its customers and, in addition,

'i the Barough was able to use the revenues 18 39 generated from the electrical operation to defray general 20 B r ugh operating expenses.

Q Perhaps I was not specific enough.

21 Did you lower the rates, the electric rates 12l when you began to take power from Duquesne?

23 A

We did not lower the electric ratos When we 24 began to take power from Duquosne Light.

\\

i

i 4205 ar9 i

l Perhaps I can erplain that a little bit so that I

2 you have a clear answer to the qucation.

i, I

3 During the period of tins apprcrimately 10 t

I 4J months, I beliete, that we took part of our load frcm 5

Duquesne and generated pa:t of our load, our expenses ware r

G extremely cut of line, becauso we had all of the fixed 7

conto of running our plant and yet we woro paying - raquired S

to pay Duquesne Light for approximately a third of our 9

load which made our overall costs greatly higher, and it i

10 took a while to adjust that and recoup that, and also i

to pay the expenses, CAPCO exponcos of the interconnection.

it O

Have you ever lowered the rates of Pitcairn's 12,

electric service to its residents since November 1977.?

13 14 A

We have changed the rate stnicture format which j

15) did not have tha effect of lowering the rates, but we have Y

not increased the electric rates other than for passing on a gg fuel adjustment clause since we entered into the agreement 17 gg[

with Duquesne Light, and in ccmparison with other utilities, this would indeed result in a substantial 39 l

20 l reduction.

l 1

21 Q

How much money did Duquesne Light pay the Borough of Pitcairn when the antitrust case was settled?

22 A

Duquesne Light did not pay the Borough of

~3 o

Pitcairn any money.

We paid Duquesne Light.

g l

Q Thank you.

l g

i l

i 8

ar10 4206 I

. MR. LERACH:

I think if we took a five-minute 2

break, it might enable me to completo :nore quickly.

I'm 3

getting relatively close to the end.

4 CHAIRMAll RICLER:

Fina.

4 5

(necess )

, nd 6 6

7 2

1 3

i 9

4 10 11 12 1

13 14 15 16 i

17 18 19 20-21 21 23 24 25

.D.

l' J 4207 i

S7

,I BY MR. LERACH:

bwl 9~j g

.Mr. McCabe, sinca N&renber 1972 there hac net eI o I-

• ti been a reduction in real terms in the rates fer electricity

• I;vithin the Borough.

j A

That is correct.

0 The rcason,is it not true, thatone of the significant!

i 7l reasons you have J+1'n ablo to maintain your ratas relctively f

i 0 ' constant, with the exception of the fuol cost adjust:wnt i

9 is because Duquecne Light has not raised the basic charge l

9hforthepcwaritsellsyou?

i I.*

A That is correct.

IE S

of course, you no longer havaa the capital costs 13 'thatyou would have had with your cwn generatien?

I4 A

That is correct, 'de hero other capital costs 15 in connection with the substation, of course.

I5 Y

g You have, in fact the - the Borough of Pitcaira i

l 17 Lhas, in fact, sold its generation equipment?

l IS A

That is correct.

23 0

You currently nave no generation capability 4

I

'O whatsoever?

t 2I A

That is correct.

E2 g

During your direct testimony you gave some 23 testimony regarding load growth for the Pitcairn system 24 and used a figure of five percent per year and rercading 25 that testimony it was not clear to m: exactly what time period 8

0

4208 tw2 9

ycu were referring to or what was growth.

Let me !

2l explore it with you by way of a couple cf questionn.

3 What was the growth rate of peak load for the time period, let's ncy, '53 -

260 to '67, or if you can use I

}

g i a period you are aware of, give it tc me.

,7 MR. LESS'Is I would prefer the period about frem '65 on.

CHAIRMAN RIGLER:

Ycur period was S4 g

gl MR. LERACH:

I said the period 860 to '67, because igj that would have been time period prior to negotiations with i

,, I Duequesne.

I said to the Witness, if that is a tima period

.. I n t completely f amiliar to you and you car. give me a 12 growth rate in another tima period identify it and do so.

1 :, g

_w RIGLER:

I will permit it.

l

..r, e

Y 15 your questions, as best I can without caeming to know things

, o, that I don't know.

Mr. Lewis made some studiss which you 1_

previously made reference to.

I believe that those 3

studies were made around 1967 or 1968, and indicated a growth

,9 of about five percent a year.

20 Now, I bulieve that the growth in peak demand and our overall growth were semanhat consistent But that is just my recollection based on his studies, cnd that is the only accurate knowledge that I have cf the growth.

I have some rather inaccurate knowledce frem the billings

.s.

l

4209 bw3 1

and things which go through Counsel, aa to the fcet that t

2' I believo the incunt of electri.:ity we bay frca Duquosno 3

has incret.ned.

d.

BY MR, LEPACH 3

G But it in fair to say that if we ucnt to G

know spacifically the growth raten, we have to go to the 7

Lewis report, That was the scurce of your detailed information?

8 l

A That was the source of my information, yes.

9 G

In giving testimony as to the potential benefits 10 ' you thought taht teh Pitcdirn system cevid provide to Duquesne it in the event of coordinated cpar.:tions, you indicated that 12 you believed that Pitcairn might be abic to provida an 13 alternative cource of power to certain areas of Monroaville?

14 l A

That is correct.

15 3

Monroeville is contiguous to Pitcairn?

16 A

Monroeville completely surrounds Pitosirn.

ty G

Is it not true, that to the e:: tant there wad a l

13 need for alternative pcwer into the Borough of Pitcairn 19 that the dif ficulty for Duquesne would be in its distribution to system and not its generation system?

21 A

Your question isn't clear.

22 0

Did you have in mind a failura of servica in 23 the Monroeville area?

A Yes..

g4 25 g

Now, that would occur if there was a breakdown

[

4210 bw4 j

1 in sceo area in Fitcairn'a distribution syctem in Monroeville, 2

,fould it not?

3p A

Or their generating cables, For whatavar I

4j reason, cpocifically, I believe the schools require a dual U

cystem of power, in caso of en emergency outage. This is I

sometimes, I believe, or in some other public buildings 7

which is provided by battery-powerad lights in hallways and 3

3o CD.

9 It was my thoic.ght that we could perhaps provide I'J that in the event of any type of outage.

11 C

Was it your understanding that there was some 12 legal requirement in Pennsylvania for school buildings to 13 have alternative sources of power?

14 A

It was my understanding that there was cor.e 15 legal requirement in Pennsylvania for :carcain s'blic buildings 16 to hsve some alternato pcuer sources, G7 17

!8 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 i

I s..,

1 a

I 9' f1 1

WQ h

ti>

t.a. u -a.

.....,2 po...

., t...

1.

t'.. a*-*

"I

s '.

• • 2...'.

T *. n..

g..

}

.w su w.

6' l

..I;

• ?,. %.= t. 1. .

a e 4

. Ob,.

{,

.. n r.

'3.y.

.s.

.A

.... ;3 s

C

..s.,

~

s

• s e..

..,Ls,w t

L aL D

• ~.=n.1..'

r. gy., s %.

1Lm [:~

W.s'[: s.

1..i,y

.*J..

.1

.n 4.

...,.-.4..,.

.....ms.1.'..,.

• t.

- tI f,.

'fs3. v qu,..e,...>

~,,

....,z.

a... f w.

.~

,s

.g s'

4cs

.. g,.a,

i3.,

, y i..., ', ) O. t..n... '.N

.)

S.,. 4;.= G Cl (,... n. v r.0.'.... '<a.r.3 4

E, ?

g

'f

?.

.5 NyA ..

i,

' <.a *.

r. = g.'.... + t. S 4..*,, I.I. g..3

,,..is

• q u.... g ; =.4...a.q g.,

v

} l

{ e.

g (.*

e

~..

i l.

n.

t.,.. c..

p..J..:.r,.,'... 3,

,.6

s....... r% A..,,

.. v.,.. 1 1...

... 4

,j-4,1 g-f..c.

n..g.

4. 5.,.

j o...

., 7 t,

mve an intarn.t. nym a co r

=..1 u / st2.ca :

n.

4

., r.-

. m.

a..

.t J....

w. <,

....t....

ac.

~

.s

,y c 0

Can you ihm.*.iy for ::u a ly F.dlia.viLia:ig in f,

i!

A11agner,y County that haa en alternauiva uce.cr s. tom:S

-i

.e 4

.c.

s s.w

n.. i ~Qs : tr.. t v g..

. c,. %. y.. i

...c.:..!....*...'".

y1.,.

g. 3 n, w e. n..j

u... y s

y.

s t*

.t

~..

..%.. e... n.v

,. ~...l

.wcv.

"s.s.;...,. ; %.

..r.

i;s A.

.i.,

s

>.u Oi

.s u

3 if ream, y se eco d w.

I

/u9..y q. 'r*uy 'cg.T, k" e..

{ v. ! '..*;.

9.v, s,, I. s.

j.

.W

.s.

3; i

. t.

d-Lr- -

.n m...r. s.e.,.,

• ?,.a.. 3.,

.u.a..,.

4_.e.

.,.. a..

1 a

e i

s

1. .t e '.

~.f. -,3. 2,

Q.. -

7..,7.3.*., e., ' y ~.

n.. %..

1 4..,. %

gse. y,.v.oyg &.. #

. j.{. e. {.

My.ay. n...a.

s

..., ~

4 ws a

,7 S.,

1

.<.n,,.

.r.-...,

v

-s,.n.*

.3. :

9..i.w.,

4..n

.-,.s.. 0.1.,

s,... ?.

i. s i.,

s... p.....

.. P 3.-.

s

.u 4.,

,.<u.

e.4

a

1. i g

Lia.ht to.eur.m. iv. tha.t with that ev.,e c1 c.ower.

i I.f

[

1 i

a., aR.

w,.t.

.~a. :

n.

w..

i 4s. 3

.s s

g.

m... " t *. a a* n,", v %_. ".,

."P.... #c n.It a'..^. t.-

'r.1

s w

~

.. d.s were rare of?

i i

A That is all I was v7are Of, t

-v bI h

i t

t si f

4212 ar2 1

Q It was only the Pitcairn Gymnaaium that you 2

were aware'of?

i s u

3j{

A Yes.

4 4

Q Does that suggest to you that the Pitcairn 3

i system was too unreliable,that the Gymnasium necdad an 6

alternative power source?

7 MR. LESSY:

I object to the characterization 6

of the question.

9 CHAIRMAN RIGLER:

I will permit it.

39 THE WITNESS:

No, Mr. Larach, it did not ruggest 11 that.

I can truthfully and honently adviso you that 12 the Pitcairn system was more rollable than the Duquesne 13 system in the immediate area at the tiac we were di= cussing this.

g 33 We had fewer outages than the people corved by Duquesne Light in the Monrceville area.

t o-BY MR. LERACH:

7 Q

That is the basis of comparinen, the 1G Monroeville area, as compared to the Pitcairn araa?

g s

I og That is my basis, yes.

A c

Q g

Duquesne took over your distribution cystem in Monroeville, isn't that right?

MR. LESSY:

Objection.

This is an area that has been excluded here.

~

CHAIRMAN RIGLER:

Sustained.

25 i

l

L 4213 1

ar3 1

You are roferring to something that happened F'

o i

2 yl in 1959, Mr. Lerach.

i 3 li, 11R. LERLCH:

I was trying to probe a vitacco' l

t i

I 4;

prior answer.

f 3ll CHAIRMAM RIGLER:

But in prching, you nade a 6

fact assumption.

Did that fact ausumption occar in 19597 7

MR. LSRACH:

I did not have a specific timo S,l period in mind as to where I was going to go.

The uitness j

l 9

brought up Monrooville and I wanted to explora it with him.

10 i i

That was all.

li i

CHAIRMMI RIGLER:

All night.

Sustained.

I 12 MR. LERACH:

I will movo to atrika, 13 though, his prior answer then on the ground that I navo j

I yi not been permitted to crocs-examine hin on it, on tha p

g3 h. basia that he formad his conclusion.

i g

(Whercupon, the repartor read from tho g

,o, record, as requested.)

l 18 CHAIRMAN RIGLER:

Mr. Lerach, if tne take-i gg over occurred in 1959, by the time you get to the late j

i g

'60s, I can't see the relevance of when the tahoover 1

y took place; moreover,the entire line of questioning 1i 22 related to, as I understcod it, future benefits.

The l

1 g

}

motion to striko will be deniad.

i f

Also y c:

editoria'lizing again about not being 24 25 allowed to ask questions about Monraaville is improper, becaust

I f

4214

{

ar4 1 !.

it would depend on the question.

e, 2

CEIRMAN RIGLER:

For exampic, you inquired as i

=

2 f to whether Monroeville was contiguous 23 the Pitcairn 4

system.

That wac pernissible.

r 5

BY MR. LERACII:

5 j

Q Did the Borough of Pitcairn at one time own rl 7!

distribution, clectric distribution fccilities, locatad 6

within the Monroeville Tcwnship area?

I 9

A Yes.

10,

Monroevillo ic a borcugh, by the way.

11 Q

Sorough.

Fine.

Thank you.

^

32 When you testified earlier en cross that there 13 had been a refusal to operate in parallel, you said "they,"

i which obviously meant Duquesne in the context of your y

i' l

- [

answer.

4

g Will you toll me the individuals that you have in mind?

7 d

A Yea.

The individuals that I have in mind were

g i

.g Mr. David McNeil Olds of tne law firm of Reid, Smith, 1

20,

Shaw, McVay, that was actively involved in these discussions.

l This matter came up at the FPC office in 21 i

%2l Washington, D.C.

I believe Mr. Gilfillin was with Mr.

olds at that time.

I believe thore was an engineer fros 23 Duquesne who I do not recall.

It may have been Mr. Dempler 44l 25 h r Mr. Onan.

I don't really recall who was there.

I t

I i

d 4215 1

ar5 lai I

At the time of our settic2ent discussiona at i

i.

d N. cur office in Pittchurgh, 20 discu;sions we.cc viuh Mr.

Jcck Stark of Cuquueno Light and Mr.. ?'ount Fitt: patrick.

J'

/

4:l Q

Anyone else?

5 A

Thoco are the only parsons that I can recall Gj being procent at these acetingc when that matter was I

~

7-discunced.

h aji MR. L2RACH:

No furt.cr qucEtions.

V 9!

MR. BERGER:

Your Honor, if you can give mo thrt i

0 ij minutes, I should be able to bring tha documents I plan n

[

to put in with Mr. McCabe into the roco..

I an having copies o

2 made of thrxn now.

33l MR. REYNOLDS:

Mr. Chairman, so ue can keep 2 [

things moving I would like to introduca a couple of 11 g !!

documants on bahalf of Toledo Edicon Ccapany, and I baliave

,1, g; ll that cach of the other Applicants have a couple of n

97 p documents they also.culd like to introduce through Mr.

l 3

McCaba.

.n

.v i

I think it wculd he fairly brief.

I'm in a

g position where I can go forward while we are waiting for Mr.

20 ~

1 Berger, if you want.

g CHAIRMAN RIGLER:

Will any of the other Applicants o,

i F

have cross-examination?

,3 e.

i MR. RZ'INOLDS:

The croso-evanination of each of 4

c the other Applicants '. rill be directed to this particular ag e

' I,

ars 421G

q area.

That will ha tho excent of the cross-examination 20 of the other Applicants.

h.

1 2 i; CHAID14AN RIGLER:

Will you be conducting the cross-

'i 11 exanination on behalf of other Applicants once the doo m nts gl are in?

s, MR. REYNGISSs There will be no additional 7

cross-examination except that relating to the documents L

e and each of the Applicants will do it.

The counsal for

.1

(

g Toledo Edison was unable to get in this mcraing.

I'm going l

c ro, on behalf of Toledo Edicon, play that particular role t

i y

for purposes of getting theco docurnents in.

i, 12 j CHAIRMAN RIGLER:

Fina.

,3[

I see that Mr. Berger is back and he is ready.

o if

4q Why don't you procacd, since you are on your fact?

Il MR. STEVEN BERGER:

Your Honor, I would like 15qj to have marked fcr identificatien as Applicant's No. 52 i

Ic*rt G ;.

Document No. 03-19, a letter dated January ll, 1960, from h'

Mr. McCabe to Mr. Mansfield.

1G 1

gj

{The document referred to a

i

.3 l was marked Applicant's 52 (CE;PP) for 21

,i identification.)

u~,

BY MR. STEVEN BERGER:

3 9

O Do you recall sending the letter dated 24 25 L

Ni,

ar7 4217 1

i A

Yes, I do.

l.

i P.

Q Did you receive a respOnce, to that lattor?

I

'I si 3ll A

Yes, I believe I did.

j i:

l

~

4]

MR. ST2VEN 3 ERG 2R:

I uould like to have l

marked for identification ao applicant's E::hibit No. 53

)

5 i

1 6

(OE-PP) Docu:::ent No. 03-20, a letter dated January 30, 1968

)

7 from Mr.,Mansfield to 24r. McCabc.

Although the signaturn i

3 doesn't appear on this copy, I would like to have it r

c 9

marked.

L 10 (The docucant reforred to l

was n:arked 2,pplicant's

!l 53 (OE-i?P) for 12 i

hl identification.)

!3 7,;9 BY MR. STEVEN BERCER:

I t

15 i; Q

Hr. McCabe, is Applicant's Exhibit No. 53 e

t 16 l marked for identification a ecpy of the racponsa you i

t

.i 7 '

rocaived from Mr. Mansfield to your letter dated January i

t 5

g '

11, 19687

g d A

I believe that it is, yes.

li O

In that lett:r OL. M:: fic1d uggented that

, 3 ;!

tr 1

27)i you arrange to meet with Mr. White.

22 Did you contact Mr. White for the purpose of gj arranging for such a meeting?

A No, I did not.

I Q

Did you contact Mr. Whito at all?

.m i.!!

M_

I cr3 4218 1

i A

I believe that I did.

I mat trith Duqucane li 21 Light and I believe that I advised Mr. IThite that I would l

}

3 be meeting with Duquecne Light and : ccia not request 4

any meeting with him until after I had mot with Dugnesne 5

Light.

i G

MR. STEVEN BERGER:

I would like to have marked 7

for identification a dccument dated February 6,1968, a O

letter from Mr. McCabe to Mr. ~42ite.

CHAIRMAN RIGLER:

Applicant 54, Doct=cnt 0E-21.

9 10 (The document refarred to i

11 l' was markcd Applicant'a

!2 54 (OE-PP) for 13-identification.)

14 MR. LESSY:

Does connael want to nove in 52 15 and '537 1

16 MR. SYEVEN BERGER:

I havo one morc, and I will t

i 17 move them all in toiether, J

ge BY MR. STBVEN BERGER:

19 Q

Mr. Mcqabe, have you had opportunity to --

i l

I CHAIRMAN RIGLER:

Wait a minuto.

20 21 MR. STEVEN BERGER:

I have marked as 22 Applicant's Exhibit 54, the letter dated Februa_"I 6,.1968 23 from Mr. McCabe to Mr. White.

i 24 CHAIRMAN RIGLER:

I_s that Document OE-21?

i 25 MR. STEVEN BERGER:

Yes, sir.

l

cr9 4219 1

MR. SMITH:

~. think ve hava confusion on de dCCum3at numb.3fS.

2

• l t

• n

.c mwf.i'.is. in, ?' in,..t.

"w.,. T, s.n.

.s.

-....e

v.. r.

.~1..s.'~.

~. s.

m v...

.~

i 4

startoi today.

l 5

IG.. SMITH:

Coni'ured in ancuer to the 6

Chairman's qu2stion, you caid do.;unant 21, which I undar-7 stood to ha 22.

3 CHAIZG.N RIGLER:

Lat8 3 clear thic no en the 9

reccrd.

1C I havo Applicant's D9.ibit 52 ?.a OE-13.

e. I MR. STEVEL? BERGER:

Correct.

12 CHAIR >3li RIGI,ER:

Applicant 's R-hihi 53 is i

13 document 02-20.

g4 MR. STEVEN BERGER:

Ccrrect.

I gg CHAIENAN RIGLER:

Applicant *: 54 is CE-21.

MR. STEVEN BERGER:

I hr. von't marked as yat the gg

.i last doctinent in the serios, t

17 B'? Ila. STEVEN DERGER:

gg i

O Mr. McCabe, in answer to a trior cuastic., you 19 indicated to me you dio not contact Mr. White.

After i

,0 e.

j 4

~

having read Applicant's Exhibit ro. 53, would you li.in to

_1 reconsider that answar?

22 I

A My papers arsn't r.a=ted.

23 O

That is your letter of Fe.bruarv 6. 1963 to Mr.

24 White?

o r

arlC 4220 i

A I don't helieve that I did contnct Mr. White after 2 ;-,

I wrote to hiu on February ~,.

38.

That

.3 ny recal'cc-lt

.1 3 i.l.

tion.

e 4

Q You cid contact him Po nm.ry 6, 1962 20:

I El purposes of arrar.ging a meeting tiith him, did ycu na -?

l G!

A Yes.

Isn't that what I cald beforeI o

/

O I didn't thin: sc.

I thought I asked the qucation i

3 mcre generally as to @. ether er not you co :tacted.'ir. White I

e i

gi at all pursuant to 1.4.r.

Ms aafield ' ? suggestion.

i io !l A

I said I had.

O I'm corcy.

I 12 MR. STEVEN EERGER:

I :/ould like to hava marked I

l for identification as Applicant's E::hibit 35, Document OE-22, i3

.,g l the lettar data /i Februcry 12, 1932, from Mr. White to Mr.

I i

i i

McCabe.

l

3. :-2,

1 l

CHAIRMAN RIGLER:

Moll, identify it Applicant's TG l

.j SS(OE-PP), Document OE-22.

l I

(

I

. n.

(The doccuent referrad to n

1s was marked Applicant's 20 55 (CE-PP) for t

1 identification.)

y:

I f

i BY MR. BERGER:

9, p

Q Mr. McCabe, can you identify B.pplicent's 53 e,

u-gg as a response from Mr. White to you of your letter of February 6, 1968?

5 i

h. 6

1 :

arll 4221 A

That acper.rs to ha r. co.c" of his res_ cense v.es.

fl 1

2[

Q Did ycu ccan*ict sir. iDite any fartaar aftor lc I

il 3 h.,

thu Mbruary 12,19G3 respu:*a frc.+. 1.119 H

4!

A To the bann of mf recallect;.cnI Z did not, t

i

5. Il 2'R. STEVEK 22RG2R; I hrlza no furthar questienu,

+

t G 1, Your Honor.

7 At this tima I weald like to nove into otridence I

8 Applicant's Erhibits Moa. 52, 53, 54, 55, 9

HR. LESS*i:

5ts.ff has no objection to 10 Applicant's 52, 53, 54.

11 With respset to 7.pplicant o 55, %cre are initialed 5

12 copies at the bottom of that with the indication not shot n

< e, on the oricinal -- that vasn' t shown on the original.

l i.

I 14 Presumably Mr. :-icCabe didn't receive that.

t I

n~:

Could counsel identify whose ths iaitials ara IG.

so no will have a acmplate record as to the docu:nant?

i I.

17 MR. STEVEM BEEGER:

I can givo - Icaka th2 i8 record more clear just by putting in -~ substituting l

-ror yls a copy or the document as origina_.ly received una.

u i

19 i

y as testified-to by Mr. McCabe.

CHAIRILMi RIGLER:

Mr. Lancy's request in a fair

.. e

.o.g one.

He wasn't objecting to :he admission of the document.

He is just asking for identification of ths 23 g

people-shown as receiving carbon copics.

ad 73 g

=

I

l l

fI I

.!222 1 e. '

)

,l MR. STEVSN EEEGER:

W :.

?

Mr. McCube, do you knott who these in.'. tin'.s are?

[t,

7. havQ n ") $dSU.

G 17ere they on the 1cutar uhan you rec.)i'acd them?

}.

-."l A.

I do not believe they were.

I h.ve the original

~

I

-* [, cithe letter, if you want es: to get it,

.f;.

l CHAIRMAN TIGLER:

Do vou kncu tihe they are, I

e*

Mr. Earger?

c, MR. STEVEN BERGER:

No, I don't, your Honor.

Mi CHAIMfAN RIGLER:

Do you have any knculadge cc to whether any of the initic,1c are ncn-Ghio Edisen personnal?

i I

.2 MR, STEVEM EERGER: I'm not prepared to respond i

n~ j' to that, your Hcnor.

.#' h CHAIMtAN RIGLER:

Maybe, you can supply un tha 30 j

list, i

M i

MR. STEVEN EEEGER:

I will try to do that.

17l MR. LESS'l:

I ask that the Ecard -- that the record i

2l note that this is being received into evidence, subjecP. to 19 the chligation of Counsel to supply a list m to who the individuals are.

21 MR. STEVEN BERGER:

I will withdraw the 22 docur.ent and submit another doci: rent which is the docurcant 23 received by Mr. McCabe as he testified to it, j

t.

24 '

MR. LESSY:

I den't think this is a proper way 23

! to proceed.

I think it is important to identify who the

4223

! persons are.

'2 2l CHAIEMAN RIGLER:

You hr79 the right to withdraw 3 ll the docur.ont, but the net result is going to be-and ii ycu riny.

The net result will be tha.t Mr. Tes:;y will l

5 introduce this cae into evidenes and como bcck to you and

.j ask those questions.

3 7

The Board is interested in the answa:, and the 3

Doard is going to ask you te supply the information,in 9j any event.

gl MR, STEVEN BERGEE

? cur Honor, that is finc.

et i

CHAIDIAN RIGLER:

Multber 35 is withdre.wn.

~..

i;:

s

.i2 j There being no cbjections to number 52, 53, 54,

!i,they will be received into evidence at this time.

.n

,I

-~.

H c:

L (The dccuments heretofore marked m ;

., :. P Applicants Exhibits 52, (GE-PP),

i

..)

3..

53(OE-PP) and 54 (OE-PP) were a

received in evidence.)

,,, it.

P I

MR, REYNOLDS:

Mr. Chairman, just for clarification

!}fl with respect to this docurnent that was withdrent and the w

N

.,1 colloquy on the identity of the signatures.

Mr. John White g

is designated as a witness in this proceeding. To the extent it should be determined on the recoed who the initials belong to, that that would be the person through whem that should g

be done.

.r.,4 I don't think there is any problem with doing

,uo I

i:

l i

R

)

4224 bw3 1

it that way.

If tir. Lassy wants to reintroduca it, you

(

2 suggested that the Applicants provide a list or Mr. Darger 3

provide a list.

It was Mr. John Jaita, tud he will be called as a uitneris,that would be sc;acthing he een provide i

I 5

to us.

Unless Mrc Lessy has objection to doing it that 6i W3Y-7 If it is going to be fact evidence, it :.:hculd G

come through a fact witness and not Ccunsel. Thct is what I'm suggesting.

g N iI W,3 ER: That secus sensible to me, "O

even though Mr. White ulil not be a Staff witness.

I 12 think your suggestion has merit.

MR. STEVEN SERGER:

Last the Board should infer 3

s I was trying to withhold inforb.ation frem them, that is n

e ase, e.en sa d I was not pmpared to mapond to 15 e Board's pasdon, I was not prepand to mapan.d to e.e 16 a

t Board's question.,

,7 i

CHAIRMAN RIGLER:

No, wa understocd that,

,a n

Mr. Berger.

,g

• "U

• 28

~~

20 the easiest way to do this is to mark for identification g

and show siou all at one time three different letters.

22 the first one is a letter frcm yourself to g

Mr. Jchn K. Davis, ipresident of the 'Ioledo Edison Cor.pany, 24 dated January 2,1968, which I will m.c.rk as ApplicrJ.ts l

i 4225 1, Exhibit [56 (TE).

The accument number, internal docurcent bw4

'1

.2I number'ic 3-0088.

I l

n

.c il (The decc.mont referr.3d to i

0 i

l uns marked Applicants Ezhibit i

4i I

No. 3G (TE), for identification.)

5 s

MR. REYNOLDS: The cecend docenent in dated 7

January 25, 1968, and it is a letter from John D. Davis e

to yourself, Mr. McOsbe.

I will mark this for identification as Applicanta Er.hibit liumber 57(TE), and I dcn't have cn 9

internal document number for thiu ens.

10 (The document referrod to wa5 f

t1 f

marked Applicants E::hibit 12 No. 57(TE) for idantification,) L lae

)

MR. REYNOLDS:

The third document, a letter i

,4s, dated February 29, 19G6, and I will raark this as Applicants g

Exhibit 58(TE) and the internal document number'is 6

i, B-0897 77 I

(The doctr.ent reforrad to tras l o-I marked Applicants E::hibit No.

gg 58(TE) for identificc. tion.)

c0 BY MR. REYNOLDS:

39 G

While we have been merking the letters, have 22 you had opportunity to review them?

g A

Yes.

g 9

Dc these letters represent correspondence you had l.

i

i

.l 4226 il bar5 t l with Toledo Edicon Ccapany concerning the matter of pessible H

2 !! mmbership by the Scrough of Pitcairn in the CAFCO Pcuer ii 3 ) pc3;p j!

4 A

Thay reprecant: pe:u of that corrocpondance, yes.

5l 0

Was there additional correspondence to your r

3hrecollection?

I 7

A.

I had originally writtan to Mr. Davin undar date G (; of December 5,1967, and had had sn original reply to that I

t 9 ;.

under date of Dacember 19, 1967, 1 C' O

And other than those b.ro communicaricas, did you 11 hr.ve any other correspondente with Mr. Davis?

12 A.

I had no other correspondence that I can recall.

13 0

Did you hava any other correspondence or communi-14 cations with anybody else at Toledo Edicen Cerapany regarding 15 tis matter?

I 16 A.

I do not believe I did.

17,

MR, REYNOLDS:

I don't hava any further questions i

16 ', on behalf of Toledo Edison Company, I would like to 1

i9 ' move the admission of the threa documents I have identified, 20 ' Applicants Exhibits SS, 57, 5,3 into evidence en behnif of

1 ! '.'oledo Edison I

l 22 MR. LESSY:

No objection, j

CHAIPi!AN RIGLER:

SplicMtf1 Exhihu:s 56, 57, 5G 23 l

24 will be received into evidence at this tima.

25 l

4227 ow6 1

(The documents heretofore 2

marked Applicants E;:hibits i

2 No. 5 5 (TE), 5? (TE) and SC(TE) 4 for idantification, were 1

I 5

recaived in ovidence.)

G MR. GREENSLADE:

I would lika to have two 7

doctuaenta intreduced into evidence G

The first document being a letter frca nchert P.

9 McCabo, addressed to Carl H. Rudolph, President, Cleveland to Electric Illuminating Company, dated January 2,1963, and 11 I would like to have that document marksd for identification 12 as Applicants Hunter 59 (CEI).

It is internal document 13 number 11.

14 Tha secend document I would like marked for 15 identification ic a letter from Carl II. Rudolph, President, 16 addressed to Mr. Rchert F. McCabe, Jr., Solicitor, dated 17 January 30, 1963, 18 I would like that marked Applicanta Exhibit 60 (CEI).

19 It l' Internal Document 12, 20 CHAIRMMI RIGLER:

Do you unnt us to marh Documnt Number CEI-11 and 12 designations?

The document you handed 21 22 as 59 bears the stamp

6477, Should we ignore that?

23 MR. GREEN! LADE :

Yes, sir.

24 CHAIRMAN RIGLER:

These will be marked e" l'

Applicants 59 and 60, and we will give them the internal 25 document numbers 11 and 12.

c 4228 hw7 7l (The documenta referrad to i

?are marked Applicants 2

b

,u 3'

Exhibits SS (CEI) and50(CEI)j 1

/,

for identificatien.)

3 BY MR, GREENSLADE:

,gl G

Mr. McCaba, I am Victor Greenslada, representing I

CEI in this procsoding, g

Have you had a chance to identify tha documents?

A Yes, I have.

g i

3 G

Calling your attention to Applicanta Exhibit

.. g 59, which is a letter dated January 2, 1960, do you recall i

writing that.'. letter?

A Yes.

,,..a f

3 G

And did you receive a reply to that letter?

l t

73l A

Yes, I did.

C Would Applicunts Exhibit Number 60 constituto

[

.;g i

the reply you received to that letter?

l A

Yes, it would.

3 13 0

a ing y ur a n

on the last paragraph g) ; in Applicant's Exhibit Number 60, do recall calling or I

I writing Victor F, Greenslado, Jr., as follow-up to the letter?

j 9,

-6 3

A My re llecticn is I did.

I wrote to him.

22 23 i

M T.5

lI t

4229 ILO j

n1 t

Q Do you have a copy of the recponso-that ycu a

2 ;! - wrote -- or do ycu rc:all tiriting it -- with you, by any D

3 chance?

A I tras just locking through the pupars I have 4y g

.t 5!!

here.

I don't seem to hava the correspondance.

(

6 If you vait a second, I wi31 try to double-

.i 7y chtc4.

I 3

I find I have a copy of a letter I urcte to you j

l 9

l on February 29, 196G, and it makes reference to a letter

1 10 that you wroec to 20 on February 21, 1968.

It i

I don't think I am going to be able to locate the t

12 t; originals cf your cc.rrecpondence, but if vc can take a su second, I will 1cok.

s., J i

14 l I had made some separations in uy. files, and I l

y; thcught I had them with me here coday, but apparently I do f

I

$3 -

.not.

i I don't appear no have any corrcspondence vinh 17 l

7;3 ;

you or your company other than thic copy of a February 29 letter.

g 20 Q

Did I understand, Mr. McCabe, that you have a gj copy of a letter you wrote to Mr. Greenslade dated February u2 29, 19687 A

Tnat's correct.

23 O

Which refers to.an earlier letter to you from Mr.

94 t

Graanslade dated February 21 1968?

3 L

I

{

ar2 4230 I

1' A

Thsc's ccrrech.

t 2!

O Mr. McCake, the letter ?.2 c :atu.or shos..

l 3

14ttar.

M2.ghn os?. yon 2.c.':n

u.a.ci sca.. 12.. i;r.o..u:

l

~

4; record, plence?

I 5'

A Yes I uculd be ploa:<td to.

't.'nis i t my copy.

i i

G I It ':as obviously on Pitcairn Sc:;cugh "tatiorory, I rce.+.ll 7

tha: to be tha casa.

It was dancd 72bruary 29, 1953, a

uddressed to Mr. Victor F. C-racn::ladc, O'r., principal 9

Corporate Councel, Clevaland Illiutin=. ting Cor.pany, 10[

Claveland, Ohio.

l 71 l

Dear Mr. Green 319.f.c:

I "ThanN you sierv much for "our letler of 4

su a

13 February 21.

I hcVe discussed the matter of the 1,.,

Borough of Pitcairn'a :r. ems erchip in the CAPCO Pcuar Paol with the Duquaano Light Ccmpany on a preliminary banis.

l 1G.

I feci that the r.ost beneficial acproach 1.'ould be to cenplete.

17 my discussions with then before imposing upon yoc: tinte.

,8 As soon as I have had an cpportunitv to complete thaso 19 discussions I will be in touch with you if it ap? cars that 2

tha discussion with the other nerhars of the C70C0 Pcol 9

gg i would be fruitful.

l 22 "Very truly yours, Robert F. McCabe, Jr."

Q Thani you, Mr. McCabe.

23 I

Mr. McCaba, could I cnli your ar.t2ntion, sir, 34 to Applicant's Erhibit !!c. 59 for a moment?

2o,

4231 l

ar; i

?

~

i[

A Will you give.ne o sar identificc. tion?

j.

?. O Q

It is a lutter frca ycu c.ddrecacc b kr.

u 5 ('

nudciph,<1ated January 2 im.

4

.p 7

Jan.

,1?

i 54 0

Did ycu send ccpics o# " '- 1stter, degli:at:

[

s copies or carbon copies of this istter, to any of the l

)

7 other CAFCO ccmpanies?

I C

i A

No, I did not.

7. cent niatilar lettars to

[

t i

l other memberu of the CAPCO co;npanien in respanca to their 9

letters to me, which all nr id it '..'r.c ircractical Ecr us 10 -

I

u..

to join, buc I didn't cend enrhen co71cs to unycne.

<g Q

Could I di::oct your attcutica, cir, to Applicant's 4

13 Schibit No. 59 (TE) whic'1 is the letter front Jou to !!r. John i

i y,

3.

Davis, president, of tha Tcicdo I:dicen Ccmpany, l

i dated Februarv 29, 1958.

w

,a

, I; A

Yes,

,d li i

a i

1,'

O Fould you c:cplain to to, sir, tha diffarance in the letterhead betueen Apolicant's 58 and Appilctnn's eG 1

s J

Exhibit 59?

9 g,)

A Ch, now, I den't have the Applics.nt's nisthers,

1

(

g; so please excuse me.

59 is the letter of January 2,-1968.

Q Yas, cir, and 53 is the letter of: 72bruary 29, 1968

^.,.2

.3 (1 A

The copy which you supplied to ma cf the letter 1

c i

of January 2, 19f.8 is a copy of my carbon frou my fils.

It c..n, i

I has not letterhand on it at all.

I would prasume that this-I

-1

4232 cr4 was cbtained either from the Juccice Departman' ct frca 2

the Corcnission Staff, both of which !:..d. a :ocan cc :..y 'li l c G and 3

made copies of thasa.

4 O

Mr. McCaba, if I Ucro to 62.1 you ::hcu cur

~

l 5

lotter of January 2,1968 was obtainci frc.n the filS3 of i

6 the Duquesne Light Company, could you c:: plain ta 50 ho't they y

obtained a carbon of your letter to Mr. Rudolch?

8 A

Yes.

We were engaged in litigation wi::h the g

Duquesne Light Company, and Dy lett<3rs wtra, I beliGVe, 10 marked as exhibits er ct 1 cast muda available :s e:tibits in this case.

12 of course, any ccpy fould havo had to have been a I

13 copy from my fi e.

1 l

y Q

It was my understanding ? rom the tr:nscriph g-that it had been your testir. cay thr: there ww no dcaur.ccu 1

16 discovery in the earlier antitrust prccasding ?.c.ehich you just referred.

37 7g Is it now ycur tastimonv thr.t his unterial c

I gg was produced as a result of discovery?

l l

i.

A I don't racall tactifying! thct there was no 20 3;

document discovery.

I do recall that there ware certain Proceedings in connection with the untitrusc cuit there I --

22 my recollection is I planned to uso some of thesa latters 23 as Some evidencc.

g4 I have to confess that ny 2 xact recollection of all 25 i

i

4233 aru l

1!

of the procedural matters that took plcca in the cntitrust il i

2j seit is not as & cute us I 'iculd liko it to b?..

i.-

3f I hc.vc scr.e race!.lectica thth thcrt my have been 5

1 4[

a : notion -- c questiIn fcr afmiecienc :thian W11 cculd 5l have included copies of thasc docilmen ts.

But to sort of sum 1

5l up, I think it wculd have been highly li:.uly that they 7

could have obr.ained it at that tine, a

I do knoa that Duquesne : Sight had acca.so to tne 9

Pitcairn Borough files, cent people to our office who 10 made copies of thosa files.

t.

11]

If I had said tners was no discovary at como 12 prior time, I ninspoke becausa th<aro ras at least come l3 document discovery.

14 MR. GREENSLADE:

Thank you.

I have no further questions.

g At this time I would like to :nove for 16 introduction into evidence Applican:'s igo. 59(CEI) and

7 l

Applicant's Exhibit No. 60.(CEI), on behalf of CEI.

yg MR. LESSY:

No chjection.

19 CHAIEMAN RIGLER:

Applic. Int's 59 nand 60

g will be admitted into cvidence at this tima.

23 (The documents previcusly v.

marked Applicant's 59

?.3 i l

i (CEI) and Applirtnt's 60 24 (CEI) for if.entification, wer e 5

6 received in evidence.)

'l

423,1 ar6 CHAIPJiAN RIGLER:

Mr. Lassy?

. i 1

M2. LESSY:

If va can havo 10 rainutn.: uid 2 ]il 31 the witnesa, we can hw.c a short radircut.

4 CHAITGN CGLER:

All right.

5 MR. LERAC3:

With the vitness, did you sa:,n 6

M2. LESSY:

Yes.

7 (2eces.s. )

8 C3 AIRMAN RZGLER:

Mr. Greenslada?

9 MR. GEEENSTJiDE :

Mr. Cha!.rman, be" ors :.:r. Laasy to begins his redirect, Mr. McCabe in his testimony on t

i 1; '

cross-el: amination raferred to a lottar which he had i

12 written -- I'm carry -- a lettor which Mr. Greenslade had I

13 written to Mr. McCabe dated February 21, 1963.

I 14 I would like to non mehc a requoct of Mr. Lesay 1

15 or Mr. McCabe that a copy of that letter be provided to I

iG the Cleveland Electric Illuminating Ccmpany.

i i

37 MR. LESSY:

We would be happy to.

10 REDIRECT E72MINATICU j

10 BY MR. LESSY:

no j Q

Mr. McCabe, does the Duquesne Light Company f

21 l serve any custoners within the corporate limits of the i

,l Borough of Pitcairn at present?

.e.

A Yes, it does.

23 Q

Have you ever discussed these customars with the 24 Duquesne Light Company?

25

4235 2r7

<. W 1.,.:, - f

,. 3.v,...>.1 y a w: *,... T.

),.., L.., i s r.

.,. 1.1 v~.3.iCry a.

i

..t.

.m w.

c.

,4 9

l

• i

.s n..s g G >..3 4 p o g.. r.,,s

?.....-. ;...

c.' wy. p v., r.. g s.i....,9 (. s.2..m..

i w

.4 9.,,

R

.. e.

, j, s..

p.. -

t il

,5 s e.

.iC e L3

,.c. +...g *

..b..

v s3...,..,.,,

344-.

,p g

.g

6. c

,3..... 3 m.

v 2

g 0

t, customers, i

sI n

jo Q

Wha t un; the rea.r.nne.. Of Onn..acnc to that requesty e

3 A

They refused to dc ro st'.as; caqtceta.? by their i

I 7j customer.

I e i.,

O Did they state a gratu.d for th Ir refucal?

~,

b. a

.y.. a.... -.s -.. ',.s,.

g

.s

n.,,,,.,.,.

..... ~.

10 !I rafacal.

They sr.ancd dat it rea B e '. r -.. mal gosici;n o,

p. e u whaof n.

a.

4 n c

.4,,.- :.f.

s s.

r. ~

i.n' n m

n -

.s u.s.,4, 3

...s i

1.,.,

Ecroucrh of Fitcairn.

The basic of that franchiso went bac;t, I think, to -- naybe I'm not ccrrecc - the Valley O'.cctric l

ei i

i f

Conpany which had a franchi.su in Pa.uton "cuneh:.p :.3: ore j

i

... l.

the Borough of Pitcairn

<as incarno:.cted.

I i

O Ac. proximat-C.y how many -- hcu r.:an..i custo..urr does m.

g{

Duquesne Light approxiuctely sarve lithin the cor:c.:nto 1

i, linits of the Dorouch of Pitcairn?

,G i

I.

, e.,

[g A

I believe it '.ns fcur.

.. i l

,,n.

i.

Q Now the current contract between the !!c :Ough i.

j of Pitcairn and the Duquesne Light Cov.pany,

.n affect

.i does that have a fuel ccst adjustment in 1.?

g A

Yes, it does.

23 \\

..., ',,,, d O

What has been the result of the fuel..aat r

adjustment to the cost cf service for rescle nrovided,.b.s

.5; in

4236 ar8 i

Duquasne to tha 3crough of ?.4tcaira?

I l

3 l

MR. REYNOLDS:

CcuM I h.p.: tha c,u.o u..ca 1

3 4

before you an:ver, plcce??

4 d'

(Uhurcucon. the rapartar rend v.k2

{

5 pendin? question, as requestad.)

6.

THE WITNESS:

The fnvl Gi9n3 Lant clacca hcc 4'

7 steadily inercased since che concract uns ini':intsd.

8 Tha last time I caanined a hill with reference tc thia, O

which wa; several months ago, I bt'. lave the fusi cort 10 adjustment rnprecent:50 t.hout ona-third of thu :.:otal 4

t cbc.rge or appro

cimatel.y a 50 parcont increat:0 in thra cc.:t 1.o.

of D.ower.

i 13 MR. LESOY-Staff has no further questienc.

1%

KR. ICLVIN SERGER:

Tha D :pe.rtt.icnt has ene i

15 additionni qusation.

g P2 CROSS-Ere!Ir.TIO.'.i a

j g7 '

BY MR. MELVIN BERG 2R:

{

Q Mr. McCcbo, in regard to the letters you 3Gnt at

$3 i

- 79 various timas to th; different CAPCO ccmpanion, do y a avar cO recall ser. ding carbon conies of that correspondence to CIGCC u

4 e mp'aniaa other than the addrancee?

21 MR. REYNOLDS:

I will cbjact on bahalf of cll 22 Applicants to any recross by the Departn: ant of Justice of

.e..a r-this tiitness.

c4 CID'lRMAN RZGLER:

Overruled.

t.a

\\ -.

i n

m.;_

.a...____

t I

ar9 0

4237 1

THZ ?CTNESS:

T hava a very spec;.nc reco.u. action - y i

t 2 j, CH.3.IPJ9.N RIGLER:

'" hic gc cc,h.y the. c.;, te nacumant.

it l

9 3h, which the Apolicantn pu into cvidanc:- c3 pc.rt c:' their cross-e::amina. ion.

Thera us.n no o.n.0ertunihy for J23cica l

4, !

.i i

I g

to examine with respect to thoce docurento, c

Go ahead.

I 7

033 WITNESS:

I ha're vary specific.7.acollection a

with respect i:o the correspondence I iu.d with the variouc 9

C"*sPCO members. In that I did not on any occasion ever send

9 l carbon copiac of that correspcndence to anyone.

i te MR. MELVIN ESKG3R:

We havc. no :.cro c'uasticus.

i2 MR. REYNOLDS:

Mr. Chairmin, I owe th'a Eocrd g

and Department ol' Justica an apology.

I just laanrcd that that 1

y; was -- I just leanrod that Mr. McCabe was on the i

taitness list b;r the Departnant of Juctice, and tha.cefore 15 the Department's interrogation was in the nature of 16 redirect and not recronn.

...u

g g

I misspoke in terms of my objecti-m, i

g}

MR. HJELMFELT:

The City of Cleveland hac l

nO questions, 0j

.)

BY MR. LEU.CH:

,,1 O

Mr. McCabe,is it not n fact thct rogardine these

<.a

'four customers that were being served by Dur.Tue sne 2a.,

that Duquesne terminate its service to something called

,,4 the Kennecott Club when the club co requ.sted?

1

,,5

=

i

s

I ar10 4238 1[

A The Pennzcott Clt:b war not lccated wi2hin i

2l the Borough of Pt.tcairn at thcx tim;.

i t

3;l 0

Wr.s that ona of the -unna thau th w e w.s i

b J ;I' argument on th."t 7.h>.qucCro Wu verving trita.'.2 tnc PC-rcugh l

5l at this cinc?

6, A

I don't think so, bcccuse that club Ucs not within 7

the corpordta limits at that time.

The Pennecett Club used a e

building in an area in 61onroeville inmediatcly adjacent l

I g

to the Borough Of Pitcairn which had bean rented for t

13 roany years from the Pehary]vanic Railroad and thtn was

.i 11 acquired by the Borough for purpcans of ecndemns.tien of f

i 12 the Pennsylvania Railroad.

13 I know the Pennacict wanted to and we subsequently ja did supply them with free electric power. but they 15 certainly were not a paying custcmar, jg Q

Did you receive a lett2r frcm a Mr. deicley from Duquesne Licht Compane explaininc to you the cvolution a

10 of the varicus franchines by which Duquesne believed itnolf 4

79 entitled to serve these four cuctomers?

A Yes, the response to my request cace irca Mr.

20 21 Heisley and he did reiterate his understanding of tha franchise, 22 t

I O

Did you disagree with that?

l 23 A

Mr. Lerach, at the time I had scro slight reserva-

,4 u

tions.

25L I was aware of some of those old franchisas having

arll 4239 1

1 lcoked -- I balisve hey appear in 9.L Pennsylranin Public c

.o.

p.. ;. 4. tv

.5.. at."s.*.. ~..."...~..~o~ o.. *

1. *_.s- "

.'.7:

~.c a

^"

i PGnnS'fliTali2. 2d c -'.'.'d.:. t.'i C!1 1 ?. "' 1 1oC.D.J.:.s aO l

I a,,

C t=,..t'<.i..'. n'.'r r. 7~ th. c~.*.. th0,- +..-~s. C..',- '_v..~.

s 7

1 i

3.

customers invol~rtd, it una Pitanirn's er my r'.:carandation i

il i

G l

that the matter not to purcu2d.

7 Q

E3F DCGuaGra Cin00 th0 hi%3 Of hhis ".nchango 1

n 8

of the correspondence that was raderref. to mv.de any 1

I o.,

attempt to cervo cin" other 7a rle within uho Eocca.,rh c4 a

l to Pitcairn?

i 11 A

Not to the best of my kno.tladsc.

72 1

Q Would it be your pcsition ;w Dorouch calicitor 6

33 that they cannot introduca elcetric service into the

!=

,a Borough withont vour permission?

i, i

A That would be ny casiticn vez, cir.

io-t 1G Q

Are you am m of any discrimination whatsce7ar in cha manner in which the fuel acst adiust'.unt 4

..j l

t i

clauco has been applied to Pitcairn as oncoced to c.ny other

.n su

~~

9 Duquesne customer?

i

?!R. - LESSY:

Could 'rn have a -- uhat does counsc1

.g i

j mean by discrimination?

Does he mean econo aic die rilaination? 1 9_I MR. LERBAC I:

I mean dicarininanion in the normal, e.2 a capted terminology and use in the English language.

23 g

TIE ITITNESS:

The fuel adjnstment clause. which 24 is charged to the Borough of Pitcairn by Duque3na Light, to

.,,5 e.

=

E

1 ar12 j,

4240 4

ij ny knowledge, is different from the fuel adjustmant charge

2j mcde to any of Duquesne Light's other customers.

3 That is, it is my underntanding that this was because 4

the Federal Power Ccmmissicn, which regulates thic conuract 5

between Pitcairn and Duquesns Light, vould not patr.it 6 i certain itens of e:rpense which the Pennsylvania Public d

7.

Utility Commission dess permit, and therefore the fuel 8

adjustment clause formula uas established differently t

9 for the Sorough of Pitcaire.

c BY MR. LERACH

jj Q

Have you complained to any governmental 12 agency about the manner in which the fuel cost adjustment clause has been administersd?

13 A

Mo.

34 M2. LEFACH:

Nothinc further.

.-so CHAIRMAN RIGLER:

Does that conclude the

g

,7 l Staff's case, Mr. Lessy?

MR. LESSY:

We have two documents we uculd 8

like to put in now.

After that there are a couple of -- I I

,9 want to review the transcript to make sure there are no loosa 20

}

21 l ends.

For example, Chapter 4096 of the Ohio Ccde we vere to i

bring up to date.

There are a few little things like that.

This

~2 does conclude our case subject to that.

., 4 CHAIRMAN RIGLER:

Thank you, Mr. McCabe.

,,us

)

'l 1

I

i I

i 1

arl2

't, n,

.s 1

(Ifitness 2::cused.

1 4-il I

Il I

Ond 13 3 I' i

i a i, t,

6

-i O

g D

f I

l 7.'I I

fi l

O f.

c:

j i

i 10 i

e k

• 1 a4 l

i; 12 i

i 13 14 h

8

1. 67 i

i

1. A, j

17 I

e 4

18 l.

.a i

20 t

21 1

99 t

24 u.g o

I i

i i

li i.

4. 9. 4~ 9

~

S11 I

MR. LESSY:

!r Chein:On tra t culd lika to have ti

? ;, inn :.cd for identification as Stcif It:hihit 209, a ropcrt Wt

[

g ant:.;;1cd CTPCO 3assintd G mera';ing Capm:ity %ciuire.tants l:

< h,..culi.cWing Perr;' !stncer 19 91 to 19 f'M c " Planning CCT.'InittCe 1

5 y Rooort Ntt. Thor 5, dated.7anuary 14, 1973; and ita would like

.I G j to have nur}.ed for identification m; Staff E::nibit 7

Number 209, the front page of the deposition of II 3 !! William D. Masters, and pages 26, 27, 2 C.,

Doth of theso

'l 0 h.1docunents wera referred to e:calicitly in the dir2ct t

0 tnstjmeny of Dr, Willi

n ilughes.

I

'l

.I i' I would like to treat then differantly for f 2 ii eurocnes of the r.:otion.

it -

da 13 o The deposition of Masterc war foot".oted on.oaa.c i

t 4 i

24 cf Cr. Hughc.s ' tes timony, 'Ind the CAPCO Report on Pcgo 31, Y

s 5 : I understood frca Counsel for Applicant tnat there is no e

15 chjaction to 20 8, the CAFCO Raport :md, accordingiv, trould i

n, u ;j like to move it into evidence.

i, is !

(The documents refarred te Il

!? !j were narked Staf f 3:.dlibita 70 i Nc, 203 and 209 fcr 21 identification,)

22 :

C11AIPNAN RIGLER:

208 will be received into 23 evidence.

I y

st 25,

?

I.

l I

I f

4243 bw2

.}

l (The dccument heretofore

?9ff marked Stcff E thibit No. 209 a.

?

g for identifier. tion was j

o l

received in evidtnce.)

o I

MR. L35SY: With respect to 209, we vould like to

~

3j 1 offer it pursucnt to Faderal Rule 703, which is entitled,

,I 6 '

.I

• Basia of Cpinion, Zrport Testinony by Exports," cnd S

. provides that the facts or data in the particular case on which an expe::tbases an opinion or inference may be those e

t

i. perceived by or made kncun to him at or befcre tha

.. d. henring.

[

If of a type reasonably relied upon by experiance is

. in a particular field in forming opinions or inferencos on a particular subject, the fact er data need not ha

.+

i admiscible into evidanco.

I 13 h

We were aware of the Board's porition with a

s i I

respect to depositions in certain Uontentions. Ha would

7 '

like to indicate with respect tothese particular pages that

. a-the prepared direct testimony of Dr. Hughes was filed with ni 4:q the Board on October 17, and it as relied upon, and it io the f.0 r I

type of thing that can be taken considsration of and according1/

g n.

1. :

pursuant to Rule 703, we would like to offer those exer 22 excerpted padas into evidence that us referenced j'

').

}

.9 i-CHAIRMAN RIGLER:

Give ne a minuce to utedy 24 ')( the pages.

.. ; t n

3 1

i

3 4244 I

I I

1 i

MR, Fn~NOLDS:

Fir, Cha.rann, ISn goinct to bw

..s 2 0 object to the introductiar. Into evidenca cf 3"=3' W hit i,

3 :! 209 which is the cuero. t of the tw:imony frcr4 Mr. ihatc.r0' t

p 4 !! deposition.

l 5

I don't think that 703 cures the prchitct that ic I.

G j raised by trying to in troduce into evidance naterial that i

7' was contained in transcripts of deacsitions under the a

8 fi guideline with which ue undertock diccovery and undertock e j depositienc in this case, l-10 li I find it a littla curious that Mr. Lessy e.

1.

is introducing this into evidenca in lic,ht of the fact V

12 t! that.at an earlier point in the proceeding tihen ha vao l

13 ] cross-exenining Mr. Pandy and m.ade effort to introduco i.

• l 1.; y+ deposition material for purpose of impeachment, ?t. Lassy il

s vehen ntly objected cnd indiented that it was his.tader-1 1

5 l standing that wo wuce excluding all evidence relating te i

I 17 g depositions.

That objection var sustainad.

t a ;j I don't see that there is any differenca either h

1 is i in terms of form or cubstance with respect to the material 20 j that has been introduced here. The depocition matarial l

21 that has been. intrcducad here, and tha depositien mctarial i

n... i thstApplicanta had attampted to uce earlier for nus peces 23 ;

of impeachment.

I think that Mr. Masters is acheduled as I

h 1

.-4i a witness to be called and to the extent tl.at the Staff -

1 A

4 8

4.

g t.

i I

f

4245 bw4 MR. REYNOLDS:

Mr. Masters is an empicyee of 1

the Cleveland Electrical IlluminatincJ Cor.pe.ny.

To the extent that Mr., Less * :4ich oc to int:::. duce into evid.vnce r

=

w t statements by Mr. Master <; en any points it seenc to its hc=

l 4

I can do it at the time Mr. Msetera comes on the stand, and 5

there is full cpportunity for cross-enaminaticn, CHAIRMAN RIGLER:

On whoce witness list dces I

I 7

Mr. Masters appear?

3 MR. PSTNOLDS:

He is on C"I list, 91; a.r fois.

10 I

-11 3

12 13 14 3

15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 b

24

~25 1,

4

.I 1....

o, s.

4236 s

..v

.%= I.~.. a6 P...*.. ",.. w. g %. s =. 4

1. ..+

.".Tr.:.

'u*.'.~. =...~;... "

ar1 1 _,!.

, ~... ;.a.

a n..e.

fj.,.

.?

, u

..., w,.::.. c.

s-.:.. u..

e.e.r

,e..

9

.d <.. n. L,. -

e

g. v. r..

..t..

dy

.13,.,u

.s

.a 4

4..,,. r. m, /.. 4.,. e :.;. i.

. 2

.-.4,.,..-

,e.

. s.

.a n g _.4.,.,.4...,4g g

.t,,~c n

2.,

..,,.,...e..,.'u.3, 3

. t..

.. ~

. a

~.

y s

1

• .-. <..ts.4,, a a.,. i

,,,,.1...'.

4.

7 O.

a.t ;

.A.c.

/ua '.>', a3dG 4

.5.

~

1:

3 74 0 CRw-.G Ga-,.w.r u.

-6

~

I c. : <.... '. +.,....' ' e.m. ~. o o

• t,...,.

'. ~.. = <.. c' 1.~ ?.>

5

~

4 -r-.v.r.opm._

to 'ua'm, 's.i '.. v..-~~

~

u.

o G

stand, and when thara ie na opportunii-n:m te in crrogate

'the witness as to his opinion en the n curecies of cha 7

statemanta that were contain d or the ertant to 7thich he aay 8

9 or may not have relied en it.

Iu-CHAIEGI ICGLER:

Mr. 'Iass;1 cro *;cu scohina to introduca this for the truth of the riters contained on It ip, these pages?

3f that,.C suppone '7a nov.id be talking about whether or not thera is c :tajor r.dvantage by aggregating the

$3 y

leac.ts or. al_3 parties.:.nto a s:..ng3_e.:. cad, or tra yon i

introducing it nercly to shcu tin.u Mr. iiughes wac ' el? acJ

2. :.

ur;on it -- this testimony ac ha fo:cna:'. his e:;oarf-1G

a. l conclusions?

5. 7 )

4 u.o u.

.e,,. s t, 2

.. t...

_4,.

3., o.

l,....,.,,

ar cS.7 rs et_,..

s

~ _.

...a

.v~

.s.

.so truth of the mattar.

This is the matter Dr. ii2ghe..A u;ci in 79 his.ccctnota ana he ro..2 :.c n, o n 2. t.

.' ne rni.a arovac.os t. e.

a

.:0 relied on, r...ne zact or ev:...ctence ne2a not ac 2.n riloanca.

.m..

Alca with respect to -- I r.'11 ha is to rar.d o-a.

the rectrd on the Pandy problcm I ft.el decos can 3.0 used g

for impeachment pr.rposes.

3 QG_IR!ET RIGLER:

That i.s corract.

2o sa.

h

'Nn.

]

. N 4249 ti' ar1.

dircut case of the Staff.

j.

g.. m,. --,- 4muw y.~a sm.,,

w,..:

r.y.,.., m. a..

I.

{i ID.acuarico. cff the racord,*-

d

'~

i I

l CHAIR:Gi RIGL3R:

U3 i;ill atart, thca, en.th i

I r

j

.rcrning cf-February 9.

MR. PITNOLDS:

I just. ranted to in:!uire whether

l che partiec migt.t be able to enpect a ruling by the Eccrd

)

on Ac.olicant's mobion on crocedural matters before

}

i February 9.

CHAIRMAN RIGLER:

I hope this unfortu:2.ta delay will give us an opportunity to eget that ruling out.

31R. MELVIl! EERGER:

Wocid the sa:ne be true on I.

7, _

pg.

Department's motion for production of cortain documents;

.c ]

CEI 6.ocuments?

i

>'.',I CUJilPJtAN RIGLES:

Yes.

e We will reconvena on the morning of the Eth, 3

a to take the Department of Justice's case, and ?ce vill

.j i

reconvene.at 9:30.

,,3 (Whereupon, at 12:50 p.m.,

the hearing

. 3 was. adjourned, to reconvene February 9, 1975

-: sv i

11 N

at 9:30 a.m.)-

~,

a

.1-I)

- i O

. s, ele

====es s ee,4_

$,6.,N.

1 1

4 i.3'I t

• t o

y

.. k..

i 4247:

4 r

' N. e

.,2

• 4 E, -., $

.1.

Nbr. A

.~$ 0

--. N ?... 5 ~$

51.1"$

t ? lL'

$0 $

22.

i t

.. j,

c..

c... 3

.l

=..

,4.

..., 3 ;.. G On h,

..il a. J...:,.. :. --;....

.m a

., t -a I

4'.,

. v.J e

..c

..u..

2.

w

.4

i. i.

(

e 4

I 9,

y..

O,r,.. 1..n D r, 2.. -.a

,c i 4.....>.

'2.,

, 3.:

...3

.a...,....,.

-4

---..~.

e

+[

~

.. t

e. u...-i,~_. ;.:,,.

- n :,...

4 e,

,?.,..

m., p

.., e

.. u O

..h.,..

...... a_. ; v,.,.

.2~

n 5;

uit21 Mr. Fand'1 and ths

oson I 2f1..enca it, th= u.'u cf l

0 6a depositions '..rna depocitica o" nac.-ir. cay o ;.nar chs.n Mr.

I i

7*

Pandy Which iG Vcly L.uch akin CO What

'>lG a/fa geDtiDG into i

6 i

9

-UGra.

i c,a a 4.

,.n-.

.. :41c..:,.:,.

1. 1,1,m. n.

..2.

4 s

9

.4 y.:

.3...

. 2.m u

I i

t.oj trvin5' to su.: gest if it had baen 2. Pendv i; de.ocai cion i

4

,. L. a

4. 4,..,.

t,,.. am.. u u a. c.,.,1er;.i.

., i _, ;

...r...,

.n. o..

m......_., c s

m u.

..fl 4

inn.eachment nurpoaac.

it d

I ha'.'c dif ficulty dif1'erentiating that 13 s

1 situation from the t.:rasent cne where dacosition was eferenced 4

3 i :...

ot:1ar cnan tne witnese on the stand.

j 1

CliAIR11AN RIGLER:

What van the IIugha ruftrence

.a to the Masters testimon'O 1

1 MR LESSY:

On race F..

,.s 20 I

79j C2 AIRMAN RIGLER:

Would you rcaf. it int

-he H

recora,

r.,:. ease.?

.,,)

I o

c.1 MR. LESSY:

'2he first paragraph is focOnoted as a o

f whole.

The.jaragraph provides in the direct testimony, at

,;.3 C

8 3 ;

lines 4 through 12, there is ample evidenca in tue record i

g that accass to the hanefits of efficient large-scale bulk

' 5;.

cower Ju.uplv b.v sv. stems in the CAPCO rxea c.encrally rec.uires 6