ML19329C849
| ML19329C849 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Davis Besse, Perry  |
| Issue date: | 05/28/1974 |
| From: | Jonathan Brown, Charno S, Goldberg R, Popper A, Vogler B AMP, INC., CLEVELAND, OH, JUSTICE, DEPT. OF, US ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION (AEC) |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8002200830 | |
| Download: ML19329C849 (8) | |
Text
-
-l h
m UllITED STATES OF Ai1 ERICA v.'
AT0!1IC E!1ERGY C0:01I5510:1
,,. :. l ' !
- - 14 BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY Al!D LICE:!SIi!G BMRD c<t-*.-
- s~-
d / c, o i
"..., n wm '
~ ; ". d h* 11. W! L. i '
- 7 +*
9 In the !!atter of
-[/
N"';
The Toledo Edison Company and
)
The Cleveland Electric Illuminating
)
Docket fio.
0-346A Company
)
(Davis-Cesse l uclear Power. Station The Cleveland Electric Illuminating
)
Docket I;os. 50-440A Company, et al.
)
50-441A (Perry Plant, Units 1 and 2)
)
JOI!!T STATU!EitT OF AEC REGU,LATORY STAFF, DEPARTMEt:T OF JUSTICE, A:D I:!TERVE;!0RS REGARDI;'G THE CCf!TE : Tid'lS AND MATTERS Iil C0lTR0VEC.SY Pursuant to the order of the Atcmic Safety and Licensing Board issued
.on April 11, 1974, the above parties have held meetings to consider co=on issues which could be adopted as a Joint Statement of Matters in Controversy.
The AEC isegulatory Staff, the Department of Jus tice, and the Intervenors,
City of Cleveland and American Municipal Power-Ohio, agree that these issues shculd be the guidelines for determining the scope of discovery, and the basis of determinations regarding relevancy. The issues are divided into two categories, Broad Issues and. corresponding Matters In Controversy.
Broad Issue I:
A.
Whether Applicants 3 have the ability in the revelant markets to hinder or prevent:
/
_l] " Applicants" refers to Applicants acting individually, together with each other, or with others.
80 02 2.0 0 f30 p
(1) other elec,ric entities from achieving access to the benefits of coordinated operatio 2( either among themselves, or with Applicants or othr electric entities:
(2) other electric en,tities from achieving access to the benefits of econoc/ of size of large electric generating units by coordinated development -3( either among them-selves, or with Applicants or other electric entities.
B.
In the event that such ibility is shown to exist, has it been; is it being or can c'an it be used to create or maintain a situation or situations inconsistent with the antitrust laws or the policies clearly underlying these laws.
'llattprs in controversv !!nder nrnad issue I (1) What are the relevant product and geographic markets for anti-trust analysis in this proceeding.
(2) Whether Applicants have control over bulk power transmission facilities in the relevant markets.
(3) Whether access to Applicants' bulk pcwer transmission facilities is necessary to achieve the benefit of:
(a) Coord'inated operation, or (b) Coordinated development.
2/ " Coordinated ooeration" includes but is not limited to such activities as reserve sha' ring, exchange or sale of firm power and energy, deficiency power and energy, emergency power and energy, surplus pouer and energy,-
and economy power and energy.
J " Coordinated development" includes but is not limited to joint planning and development of generation and transmission facilities,.
e S
.r--
. (4) Whether Applicants have exercised control over bulk p <er transmission facilities to deny to other electric entities:
a.
Access to the benefits of coordinated operation, either among themselves or with other electric entities, or 4
b.
Access to the benefits of economy of size of large electric i
generating units by coordinated development, either among themselves or with other electric entities, or c.
The benefits enumerated in subparts a. or b. for the purpose 4
or effect of eliminating one or more of the other entities in its service area."
(5) Whether Applicants dominate the generation of bulk power in the relevant markets.
(6) Whether Applicants' policy has been net to offer or 0011 unit 3
power or ownership shares in nuclear units to other electric entities,.thus depriving such other electric entities that are 2
connected or could be connected with Acplicants of the benefit of power from such nuclear units.
l (7) Whether Applicants have in any otner way failed to grant access to the benefits of coordinated operation or coordinated development.
(8) Have the Applicants engaged in any other activities or manifested any other policies having the purpose or effect of restraining actual or potential' competition in the relevant markets.
(9) Whether a situation or situations inconsistent with the antitrust i
laws or the policies clearly underlying these laws are created or maintained by one or more of matters (1) through (8).
i W
4 t
-c
-m---.-
---~.,
t 4-l Broad Issue II N
s Whether Applicants have achieved d5minance in the relevant wholesale area - / retail markets so as to create or maintain a situation incon-sistent with the antitrust laws, or whether the activities under the proposed license will create or maintain one or more of the situations described in Broad Is' sue I.
Matters in Centroversy Under Broad Issue II (9) The relationship of activities under the proposed licenses for the nuclear units in question to transmission of electric power 4
in bulk.
(10) The relationship of activities under the proposed licenses for the nuclear units in question to coor'dinated operation anong and between other entities.
(11) The relationship of activities under the proposed licenses for
~
the nuclear u. nits in question to coordinated development among and between other entities.
. (12) The relationship of activities under the proposed licenses to the supply and cost of power in the relevant geographic market.
- / The wholesale market includes, but is not limited to, various recognized
--' oforms of energy exchanges and sale and transfer, of firm and non-firm bulk power.
9 Vy f f
e T
5-Remedies s
BROAD ISSUE III j
e A..
If it is found that the activities under the license will create or 1
maintain a situation incnnsistent with the antitrust laws, what action should i
the Commission take, upon considering that conclusion, along ivith other 4
factors as are necessary to protect the public interest, including the need for power in the affected area?
MATTERS Ill CONTROVERSY UNDER BROAD ISSUE III (A) Sh'ould the Applicants be required to make available t6 other electric entities any or all of the following in connection with the Matters in Contenvetsy under Broad Issues I and II.
(1) Danership of an appropriate portien of the licensed unit or unit power therefrom.
(2) The necessa'" transmission services to transmit this power to the other electric entities at a point or points on Applicants' transmission system to'which the other electric entities are or may be interconnected.
(3) Transmission services to facilitate the exchange of bulk power between and among other electric entities with which Applicants are or may be interconnected.
-(4) Other forms of coordinated development, including bdt not limited to joint planning.
(5) Emergency service and/or scheduled maintenance service.
~
(6)_ Firm power and. energy to meet all or a portion of other electric entities needs.
o e-w---
m
~ "
(7)
Interconnection arrangements for equalized reserves between Applicants and other electric entities.
(8) Participation in future generating plants through ownership or purchase of unit power.
('9) Specified coordination terms to accomplish the foregoing.
(B) Should the Applicants in connection with the f4atters in Controversy under Broad Issues I and II be required to make available any other relief.
h It is the position of the NEC Regulatory Staff, the Department of Justice, and the Intervenors that these issues can be made more specific from a legal and factual standpoint only after discovery has been ccmpleted.
' Consequently, we submit these issues to the Board in this form without further conmentary.
Respectfully submitted, Mr
/
h fLug.f.
Steven fl. Charno
/
Attorney Antitrust Division Department of Justice t
r YO?!Nd%k
&Q
$ t/( VO fr L Q w a
' Benjcy.in H. Vogler Andrew F. Popper */ ///
Assistant Antitrust Counsel AEC Regulatory Sta'ff' Counsel for AEC Regulatory Staff'
([
.v-
\\
t ww
/a
.s Attorney for City of Cle[veiand Jon T. Brown, Esq.
/
Recoen Golaberg, Esq.
Attorney for A;iP-Chio /
Dated at Bethesda, llaryland this 28th day of 11ay 1974.
e m
e T
m
=
-=7 i
w+-
w
^
srlITED STATES OF A !ERfCA ATOMIC ENERGY C0V11SSION
\\
BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AfiD LICENSI!G BOARD In the Matter of THE TOLED0 EDIS0N COMPAriY and
)
THE.CLEVELA;iD ELECTRIC ILLUMINATING
)
AEC Docket No. 50-346A COMPAtiY
)
(Davis-Besse fluclear Power Station)
)
)
THE CLEVELAND ELECTRIC ILLUMINATING
)
)
Docket Nos. 50-440A (Perry ?!uclear Power Plant,
)
50-441A Units 1 and 2)
)
)
DUQUES!!E LIGHT COMPA!!Y, ET AL.
)
(Beaver Valley Pcwer Station,
)
Docket No. 50-412A Unit No. 2)
)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that cocios of J0I:IT STATE!ENT OF AEC REGULATORY STAFF, DEPARTME!!T OF JUSTICE, A:!D I!!TERVENORS REGARDING THE CONTE::TIO:iS A:10 MATTERS Ill CONTROVERSY, dated May 23, 1974,- in the capticned matter,
' have been served uoan the follouina by deoosit in the United States mail, first cless or dirmail, this 2Sth day' of May 1974:
John B. Farmakides, Esq., Chai rman Mr. Frank W. Karas, Chief Atomic Safety and Licensing Ecard Public Proceedings Staff U. S. Atomic Energy Ccetaission Office of the Secretary Washington, D. ' C.
20545 U. S. Atomic Energy Con.nission Washington, D. C.
20545 John H. Brebbia, Esq.
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Joseph J. Saunders, Esq.
Alston, Miller & Gaines Steven Charno, Esc.
+
1776 K Street, it. W.
Antitrust Division Washington, D. C.
20006 Department of Justice Washington, D. C.
20530 Dr. George R. Hall Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Reuben Goldberg, Esq.
U. S. Atomic Energy' Commission David C. Hjelmfelt, Esq.
Washington, D. C.
20545 1700 Pennsylvania Avenue, N. W.
Washington, D. C.
20006 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Frank R. Clckey,.Esq.
- U. S. Atomic Energy Commission Special Assistar t Attorney General Washington, D. C.
20545 Room 219 Towne House Apartments Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17105 e
e
{
i
_2 Herbert R. Whiting, Director
, C. Raymond Marvin, Esq.
Robert D. Hart, Esq.
Assistant Attorney General Department of Law Chief, Antitrust Section 1201 Lakeside Avenue 8 East Long Street Cleveland, Ohio 44114 Columbus, Ohio 43215 John C. Engle, President George Chuplis, Esq.
N4P-0, Inc.
Commission of Light & Power Municipal Building Director of Utilities 20 High Street City of Cleveland Hamilton, Ohio 45012 1825 Lakeside Avenue Cleveland, Ohio 44114 George B. Crosby Director of Utilities Deborah M. Powell, Esq.
Piqua, Ohio 45350 Assistant Attorney General Antitrust Section Donald H. Hauser, Esq.
8 East Long Street Managing Attorney Suite 510 The Cleveland Electric Columbus, Ohio 43215 Illuminating Ccmaany 55 Public Square
\\
Christopher R. Schraff, Esq.
Cleveland, Ohio 44101 Assistant Attorney General Environmental Law Seccion Leslie Henry, Esq.
361 East Broad Street, 5tn Floor
. Fuller, H2nry, Hodge & Snyder Columbus, Ohio 43215 300 Madison Avenue Toledo, Ohio 43604 Mr. Raym:nd Kudukis, Director Dept. of Public Utilities John R. tihite, Esq.
City of Cleveland Executive Vice President 1201 Lakeside Avenua Ohio Edison Company Cleveland, Ohio 4all4 47 florth Main Street Akron, Ohio 44308 Gerald Charnof f, Esq.
Brad Reynolds, Esq.
Thomas J. Munsch, Esq.
Shaw,. Pittman, Potts & Trewbridge General Attorney 910-17th Street, it. W.
Duquesne Light Ccmpany Washington, D. C.
20006 435 Sixth Avenue Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15219 Wallace L. Duncan, Esq.
. Jon T. B rown, Esq.
Duncan, Brcun, Weinberg, & Palmer-1700 Pennsylvania Avenue,f!. W.
7
/
Washin,gton, D. C.
20006 (i' w t{, M v ',, Q (-
Andrew F. Popper JV Counsel for /g Wrht yStaff Y~Lt y
g$.S 7A-a e
q s
r-n-y