ML19329C950
| ML19329C950 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Davis Besse, Perry  |
| Issue date: | 10/30/1975 |
| From: | Benbow T OHIO EDISON CO., PENNSYLVANIA POWER CO., WINTHROP, STIMSON, PUTNAM & ROBERTS |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8002200924 | |
| Download: ML19329C950 (22) | |
Text
-
.. s c
/=h UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of: )
)
THE TOLEDO EDISON COMPANY and ) NRC Docket Nos. 50-346A THE CLEVELAND ELECTRIC ILLUMINATING ) 50-500A COMPANY ) 50-501A (Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station, )
Units 1, 2 & 3) )
)
THE CLEVELAND ELECTRIC ILLUMINATING ) NRC Docket Nos. 50-440A COMPANY, ET AL. ) 50-441A (Perry Nuclear Power Plant, )
Units 1 & 2) )
OHIO EDISON COMPANY'S AND PENNSYLVANIA POWER COMPANY'S MOTION FOR ADDITIONAL DISCOVERY FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE AND NRC STAFF Ohio Edison Company (" Ohio Edison") and Pennsylvania Power Company ("Penn Power") hereby move pursuant to Sections 2.740 (b) (1) ,and 2.730 of the Ccmmission's Rules of Practice for an order requiring the Department of Justice ("the Department") and the NRC Staff ("Staf f") to produce certain documents and answer certain additional interrogatories as pyomptly as possible.
On the brink of the evidentiary hearing herein, Ohio Edison and Penn Power presently find themselves in the incredible 8002 200 72y
2.- i 3
l i
l l
position of having to meet numerous specific charges of anti-competitive conduct alleged by the Department and Staff of l
which the companies have only recently received notice at a time after the discovery period established by this Board had been concluded. The series of events and the positions of our opponents which have given rise to this deplorable situation are generally set forth in " Applicant's Response to Request by the Department of Justice for Leave l
to Amend Pleadings", dated October 21, 1975. More specifi-cally, however, this situation has developed with regard i to Ohio Edison and Penn Power as follows. l Prior to the issuance of the Department's letter of advice on the Davis-Besse 2 & 3 applications, the j Department concluded in connection with the Beaver l Valley 2 and Perry 1 & 2 applications that, based upon its investigations in connection with those applications, no situation inconsistent with the antitrust laws would be created or maintained by the activities of Ohio Edison or Penn Power under the Beaver Valley 2 and Perry 1 & 2 licenses. There-after, by letter dated February 14, 1975, the Department advised the Commission with regard to the Davis-Besse 2 & 3 applications that the activities-of each of the Applicants ,
under the licenses sought would maintain situations in- j
! consistent with the antitrust laws and therefore recommended that "the Commission hold an antitrust hearing concerning the 4
--,,.,y, w -_- _ - - - _ _
3 conduct and policies of each of the applicants . . . . j (Emphasis added) Aside from some generalized allegations of denial of access to the benefits of coordination to small systems in the respective service areas of each of the Applicants, the only specific allegations of anticompetitive conduct alleged against Ohio Edison and Penn Power in the Davis-Besse 2 & 3 letter of advice were (1) Ohio Edison and Penn Power individually and collectively with the other Applicants herein refused the Borough of Pitcairn's request for membership in the CAPCO pool, and (2) that Ohio Edison allegedly made unreasonable demands concerning the establish-ment of four new delivery points pursuant to the Ohio Pcwer Company-Ohio Edison contract involving the transmission of power on behalf of Buckeye for its member cooperatives, and that as a result of such unreasonable demands, the expense of constructing substantial transmission facilities had to be borne by Buckeye.* Although Ohio Edison and Penn Power repeatedly asked for greater specificity as to the charges which were being alleged against them and on which evidence would be introduced at the evidentiary hearing, no such greater specification was given and they were required to con-duct and, indeed, had to complete discovery without the bene-fit of any further specification of charges than was reflected in the. Davis-Besse 2 & 3 letter of advice.
- It should be noted that no small system in Ohio Edison's or Penn Power's service areas has ever petitioned'to intervene before this Commission in connection with any of the applications filed by Ohio Edison and Penn Power.
4.-
Thereafter on September 5, 1975, the Department filed its " Response of the Department of Justice to Appli-cants' Interrogatories and Requests for the Production of Documents" (" Department's Allegations") , and on the same date, Staff filed the " Nature of Case to be Presented by NRC Staff" (" Staff 's Allegations") , each setting forth numercus charges of specific anticompetitive conduct against Ohio Edison and Penn Power of which the companies had no prior notice nor which they could have reasonably anticipated.
Of course, in a normal litigation context, it would be difficult for any party to justify going to an evidentiary hearing on such serious allegations without an opportunity to discover into the basis for such chargos. Moreover, the possibility of adverse findings and conclusions as to those allegations herein and any possible collateral estoppel effect that such findings and conclusions may have in other forums further manifests the need for discovery if Ohio Edison and Penn Power are to have a meaningful opportunity to defend on those chargos. The problem, however, of a construction permit for the Perry Units 1 & 2 being required by the spring of 1976 coupled with the inability to obtain consent from our oppcsition to post-license antitrust
- review effectively precludes Ohio Edison and Penn Power from-seeking a stay of the evidentiary hearing in order to conduct reaningful discovery and otherwise properly prepare their defense l
1 . -
5.-
, e -
on these new specific charges of alleged anticompetitive l conduct. Nevertheless, and without in any way waiving any claim of deprivation of due process rights which may be available as a result of the present situation, Ohio Edison and Penn Power seek the following production of documents and answers to interrogatories so as to enable them to prepare their defenses to these new charges as l
effectively as is possible under the present circumstances.
l ADDITIONAL DISCOVERY SOUGHT FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
- 1. State the basis for the statement in the Department's Allegations of September 5 (p.8) that:
" Prior to 1973, Ohio Edison enforced provi-sions in its wholesale power contracts with municipal systems which allocated customers and territories thereby restricting competition between itself and the municipal systems."
In responding to this interrogatory, (a) identify who made such allegation, when it was made, and whether the allegation was made orally or in writing; (b) set forth the names of the municipal systems involved, when the alleged enforcement activities took place, and who on behalf of Ohio Edison allegedly enforced the
~
contract restrictions; (c) state the extent to which com- ~ ,
petition was restricted thereby; (d) set forth the
~_
6.-
specific terms of any provision in the wholesale power contracts which allocate customers or territories; and (e) state whether it is the Department's position that such enforcement is still continuing at the present time.
- 2. State the basis for the statement made in the Department's Allegations of September 5 (p . 8 ) that:
"In 1974, Ohio Edison repeatedly refused to wheel power for its wholesale municipal customers. These acts effectively foreclosed bulk supply alternatives."
In responding to this interrogatory, (a) identify who made such allegation, when it was made, and whether the allegation was made orally or in writing; (b) describe each specific request for wheeling made in 1974 to Ohio Edison including the details as to when, by whom and to whom such requests were made, and when, by whom and to whom such refusals were made; and (c) specify what bulk power supply alternatives were ef-fectively foreclosed as a result of the alleged refusals to wheel.
- 3. State the basis for the statement made in the Department's Allegations of September 5 (p.8) that:
" Ohio Edison has eliminated the ability of its wholesale municipal customers to compete
~ *-- ---- - - -*r
7.-
)
i with it for industrial customers by (1) the aforementioned allocation agreements, (2) setting its industrial power rates equal to, or lower than, its wholesale municipal power rates, and (3) refusing, since at least 1970, the requests of the Niles and Cuyahoga Falls municipal electric systems that Ohio Edison file rates for 138 kv service."
In responding to this interrogatory, (a) identify who it is that has made each allegation contained therein, when they were made, and whether the allegations were made orally or in writing; (b) identify each wholesale munici-pal rate and corresponding industrial power rate which has climinated the ability of a municipality to compete with Ohio Edison for industrial customers; (c) describe the details of the requests of Niles and Cuyahoga Falls municipal electric systems that Ohio Edison file rates for 138 kv service including when, by whom and to whom refusals were made of such requests; and (d) state the extent to which the refusal to file rates for 138 kv service eliminated the ability of Niles and Cuyahoga Falls to compete for industrial customers including an identification of the specific industrial customers involved.
e w..
~~ -
8.-
- 4. State the basis for the statement made in the Department's Allegations of September 5 (p.8) that:
"In 1962, Ohio Edison offered a substantial subsidy to the Hiram municipal electric system's largest customer to switch over to Ohio Edison in order to further its goal of acquiring that system."
In responding to this interrogatory, (a) identify who made such allegation, when he did so, and whether the allegation was made orally or in writing; (b) describe specifically the details of such subsidy including the person making such offer, to whom it was made and whether it was made orally or in writing; (c) state whether such offer was inconsistent with a rate schedule approved by the Public Utilities Commission of Ohio; and (d) if so, explain in what manner and to what degree.
- 5. State the basis for the statement made in the Department's Allegations of September 5 (p.8) that:
"In 1965, Ohio Edison refused to sell the Newton Falls municipal electric system power for resale thereby denying it the benefits of coordination."
In responding to this interrogatory, (a) identify who made such allegation, when he did so, and whether the allegation was made orally or in writing; (b) describe the request of Ohio Edison by Newton Falls, indicating when and to whom '
i such request was made, and whether it was made orally or j
9.-
in writing; (c) specify as to such request, the amount of electric energy desired and whether a parallel intercon-nection was requested; and (d) set forth the date of Ohio Edison's refusal to sell power for resale, indicate who communicated such refusal to Newton Falls, whether he did so orally or in writing, and what reasons were given therefore.
- 6. State the basis for the statement made in the Department's Allegations of September 5 (p . 9 ) that:
"In 1971, Ohio Edison refused to wheel power from Buckeye Power, Inc. to Narwalk in order to further its goal of acquiring that system."
In responding to this interrogatory, (a) identify who made such allegation, when he did so, and whether the allegation was made orally or in writing; (b) describe the request of Ohio Edison by Norwalk to wheel power, indicating when and to whom such request was made, and whether it was communicated orally or in writing; (c) specify as to such request from what power supply source Buckeye Power, Inc. comtemplated supplying Norwalk, at what times and in what amount; and (d) set forth the date of Ohio Edison's refucal to wheel power, indicate who communicated such refusal to Norwalk, whether he did ,
so orally or in writing, and what reasons were given therefore.
l 1
\
{
I
10.-
l l
- 7. State the basis for the statement made in the Department's Allegations of September 5 (p . 9 ) that:
"At least prior to 1971, Ohio Edison had a territorial allocation agreement with File- '
lands Rural Electric Cooperative with respect to new customers." .
In responding to this interrogatory, (a) identify who made such allegation, when he did so, and whether the allegation was made orally or in writing; (b) give the details of such agreement including its datc, where entered, period of duration and the specific terms thereof which provides for an allocation of territories with respect to new customers; and (c) state whether it is the Department's position that such agreement is still continuing at the present time.
- 8. State the basis for the statement made in the Department's Allegations of September 5 (p.9) that:
"In 1965, Ohio Edison entered into an agree-ment with Ohio Power Company that should Buckeye Power, Inc. be dissolved, the rural electric distribution cooperatives purchacing Buckeye generated power from Ohio Power through Ohio Edison vould become Ohio Edison customers again."
In responding to this interrogatory, (a) identify who ;
made such allegation, when he did so, and whether the i
allegation was made orally or in writing; (b) give the I details of such agreement including its date, where entered, period of duration, and the specific terms which i
l l
l l
l I
___J
11.--
provides for rural electric cooperatives to become customers of Ohio Edison should Buckeye Power, Inc. be dissolved; and (c) state whether it is the Department's position that such agreement is still continuing at the present time.
- 9. State the basis for the statement made in the Department's Allegations of September 5 (p . 9 ) that:
"In 1966, Ohio Edison attempted to foreclose competition with Buckeye, Inc. in supplying
' bulk power by offering Firelands Rural Elec-tric Cooperative a new delivery point if it would withdraw from membership in Buckeye Power, Inc." .
In responding to this interrogatory, (a) identify who made such allegation, when he did so, and whether the allegation wr.s made orally or in writing; (b) describe specifically the details of such offer including the person making such offer, to whom it was made, and whether it was made orally or in writing; and (c) state the extent to which such offer is deemed to be anti-competitive conduct.
- 10. State the basis for the statement made in the Department's Allegations of September 5 (p . 9 ) that:
"Since the mid-1960's, Ohio Edison has had an agreement with CEI that restricts competition between the two with respect to new customers."
In responding to this interrogatory, (a) identify who made such allegation, when he did so, and whether the
/
12.-
allegation was made orally or in writing; (b) give the l details of such agreement including its date, where l entered, period of duration, and set forth the specific l terms thereof which restricts competition between Ohio l Edisom _ 1 CEI with respect to new customers; and (c) l I
state whether it is the Department's position that such l agreement is still continuing at the present time.
- 11. State the basis for the statement made in the Department's Allegations of September 5 (p .10 ) that:
"[Penn Power] had, and has, a corporate policy of restricting competition between the muni-cipal electric systems and itself for industrial CustCmers."
In responding to this interrogatory, (a) identify who made such allegation, when.it was made, and whether the allegation was made orally or in writing; (b) set forth the name of the person or persons who stated this policy on behalf of Penn Power and when and to whom such statements were made; and (c) specify in detail the instance
' or instances in which competition was in fact restricted, including the names of the municipal electric systems and industrial customers involved in such instance or instances.
- 12. State the basis for the statement made in the Department'.s Allegations of September 5 (p.10) that:
13.-
s s l
"In 1959 PPC refused to sell partial require-ments power to Grove City municipal electric l system, with the intent and effect of preventing !
competition with the municipal system for industrial customers."
In responding to this interrogatory, (a) identify who made such allegation, when it was made, and whether the allegation was made orally or in writing; (b) identify the person or persons who made statements evidencing an intention by Penn Power to prevent competition with the I municipal system of Grove City for industrial custoners, and when, where, and to whom such statements were made; and (c) identify each industrial customer who was affected by Penn Power's refusal to sell partial requirements power to Grove City.
- 13. State the basis for the statement made in the Department's Allegations of September 5 (p .10 ) that:
"Since mid-1966 PPC has enforced territorial customer allocation provisions in its con-tracts with its municipal wholesale customers thereby eliminating these systems' ability to compete with it for industriak commercial,and residential customers at retail."
In responding to this interrogatory, (a) identify who made such allegation, when it was made, and whether the allegation was made orally or in writing; (b) set forth the specific terms of any contract provision in the wholesale contracts which allocate customers or territories; (c) set forth the names of the municipal systems involved in the 7
e
, , #~.
alleged enforcement activities, and who on behalf of Ohio Edison allegedly enforced the contract restrictions; i
and (d) state the extent to which the ability of the muni-cipal wholcsale customers to compete was eliminated by the alleged enforcement activities.
- 14. State the basis for the statement made in the Department's Allegat!ons of September 5 (p .10 ) that:
"During the period 1965 to 1966, PPC refused to I supply maintenance power to the Grove City municipal i electric system, thereby weakening the com- i petitive viability of the municipal system." l In responJing to this interrogatory, (a) identify who ,
I made such allegation, when it was made, and whether the !
l allegation was made orally or in writing; (b) state when, j by whom and to whom the request for maintenance power to Grove City was made, and when, by whom and to whom the refusal was made; and (c) opecify the manner in which PPC's refusal weakened the competitive viability of the municipal system or had any other anticcmpetitive effect.
- 15. State the basis for the statement made in the Department's Allegations of September 5 (p.10 ) that:
"PPC had, and has, a corporate policy of refusing to file a rate for 69 kv service to its wholesale municipal customers, there-by restricting the municipalities' ability to compete with it for industrial customers." ,
In responding to this interrogatory, (a) identify who made such allegation, when it was made, and whether the allegatica na 'ade orally or in writing; (b) identify l the person or p sns who s*.ated this policy on behalf of l
~_
- - - - - - - - - . . - - . -.,n . , , - - , , , , , - - , _ , , - - - - - . . , , , , --..-s,, - - - . , .
15.-
,s r
Penn Power, and where, when, and to whom such statements were made; (c) state when, by whom and to whom requests to file rates for 69 kv service were made and when, by whom and to whom refusals of such requests were made; and (d) specify all instances where the stated policy of Penn Power restricted a wholesale municipal customer from serving an industrial customer identifying in each instance the municipality and industrial customers involved.
If any of the Department's Allegations of September 5 quoted above are,in whole or in part, based upon documentation in the possession, custody or control of the Department, request is hereby made that the Department promptly produce the document to Ohio Edison or Penn Power, as the case may be, accompanied by a statement as to where and from whom the document was obtained. Of course, if the Department has i
reason to believe that Applicant already has a copy of any ;
relevant document, then mere identification of the document will suffice.
l l
-,w--- ,-m- , - -- - -- mngy-
16.-
ADDITIONAL DISCOVERY SOUGHT
_FROM THE NRC STAFF
- 1. State the basis for the statement made in Staff's Allega-tions of September 5 (p . 5 ) that Ohio Edison has:
"A policy of requiring some of its wholesale customers to participate in customer alloca-tion agreements which are inconsistent with the antitrust laws."
In responding to this interrogatory, (a) identify who made such allegation, when it was made, and whether the allegation was made orally or in writing; (b) set forth the names of the wholesale customers involved; (c) identify each wholesale contract which has c'.iminated the ability of a wholesale customer to compete with Ohio Edison for customers; (d) set forth the specific terms of any provi-sion in the wholesale power contracts which allocate customers or territories; and (e) set forth the name of the person or persons who stated this policy on behalf of Ohio Edison and when and to whom such statements were made.
- 2. State the basis for the statement made in Staff's A11ega-tions of September 5 (p . 5 ) that Ohio Edison has:
"A past and present policy of refusing to provide or discuss the possibility of providing transmission services (' wheeling')
of power over its transmission lines for the -
benefit of certain wholesale customers, not-withstanding a written request on behalf of its wholesale customers requesting such services on Auguct 11, 1972.
In responding to this interrogatory, (a) identify who
17.-
l l made such allegation, when it was made, and whether the I
allegation was made orally or in writing; (b) set forth j the name of the person or persons who stated this policy on behalf of Ohio Edison and when and to whom such statements were made; and (c) describe each specific request for wheeling made to Ohio Edison including the details as to when, by whom and to whom such requests were made, and when, by whom and to whom such refusals were made.
- 3. State the basis for the statement m:de in Staff's Allega-tions of September 5 (p.5) that Ohio Edison has:
"A past and present policy of effectively frustrating cenpetition between OE and with its wholesale customers for industrial loads."
In responding to this interrogatory, (a) identify who made such allegation, when it was made, an( whether the allegation was made orally or in writing; (b) set forth the name of the person or persons who stated 'his policy on behalf of Ohio Edison, and when and to whom such statements were made; and (c) specify in detail the instance or instances in which competition was in fact frustrated including the names of the wholesale customers and industrial loads involved in such instance or .
instances.
l I
)
l l
l
~
M 1
4
~
18.-
- 4. State the basis for the statement made in Staff's Allega-tions of September 5 (p.5) that Ohio Edison has:
"A policy of imposing long-term capacity restrictions in contracts with wholesale custcmers which restrictions have an adverse effect on the operation and growth of the systems of said customers in a manner inconsistent with the antitrust laws."
In responding to this interrogatory, (a) identify who made such allegation, when it was made, and whether the allegation was made orally or in writing; (b) set forth the name of the person or persons who stated this policy on behalf of Ohio Edison, and when and to whom such statem2nts were made; (c) indicate precisely the manner in which such restrictions adversely affected the operation and growth of each system subject to such restrictions; and (d) state whether it is the Staff's position that the stated policy is still continuing at the present time.
- 5. State the basis for the statement made in Staff's Allega-tions of September 5 (p.6) that Penn Power has engaged in a:
" Refusal to sell the town of Grove City, Pennsylvania partial requirements firm power for resale on certain terms."
In responding to this interrogatory, (a) identify who made such allegation, when it was made, and whether the e
19.-
m allegation was made orally or in writing; (b) state when, by whom and to whom the request for partial requirements firm power for Grove City was made, and when, by whom and to whom the refusal was made; and (c) specify the manner in which Penn Power's refusal weakened the competitive viability of the municipal system or had any other anticompetitive effect.
- 6. State the basis for the statement made in Staff's Allega-tions of September 5 (p.6) that Penn Power has engaged in a:
" Refusal to sell Grove City other partial requirements power for required maintenance of its system "
In responding to this interrogatory, (a) identify who -
made such allegation, when it was made, and whether the
- allegation was made orally or in writing; (b) state when, by whom and to whom the request for maintenance power to Grove City was made, and when, by whom and to whom the refusal was made, and (c) specify the manner in which Penn Power's refusal weakened the competitive viability of t the municipal system or had any other anticompetitive effect.
4 s
20.-
If any of the Staff's Allegations of September 5 quoted above are, in whole or in part, based upon documenta-tion in the possession, custody or control -of the Staff, request is hereby made that the Staff promptly produce the document to Ohio Edison or Penn Power, as the case may be, accompanied by a statement as to where and from whom the document was obtained. Of course, if the Staff has reason to believe that Applicant already has a copy of any relevant document, then mere identification of the document will suffice.
Respectfully submitted, WIUTHOP, STLMSON, PUTNM1 & ROBERTS By Wu W A Mimber of tMe Firm 40 Wall Street New York, New York 10005 (212) WH 3-0700 1
Counsel for Ohio Edison Company and Pennsylvania Power Company OF COUNSEL:
Steven A. Berger Dated: October 30, 1975 ,
e
- e g,~ - - - - --, -- - - , m-, y- g,a , w ..g- t - - --,-+s - - -
s
- CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of the foregoing " Ohio Edison Company's and Pennsylvania Power Company's Motion for Additicnal Discovery from the Department of Justice and NRC Staff", dated October 30, 1975, have been served by first class U.S. mail, postage prepaid, on this 30th day of October,1975 on the following:
Douglas Rigler, Esq. Andrew Popper, Esq.
Chairman Benjamin H. Vogler, Esq.
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Roy P. Lessy, Jr., Esq.
Foley, Lardner, Hollabaugh & Jacobs Office of the General Counsel 815 Connecticut Avenue, N.W. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20006 Washington, D.C. 20555 Ivan W. Smith, Esq. Gerald Charnoff, Esq.
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board William Bradford Reynolds, Esq.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission Shaw, Pittman, Potts & Trowbridge Washington, D.C. 20555 910 Seventeenth Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20006 John M. Frysiak, Esq.
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Lee C. Howley, Esq.
Nuclear Regulatory Ccmmission Vice President & General Counsel Washington, D.C. 20555 The Clevelar.d Electric Illuminating Company Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Post Office Box 5000 Panel Cleveland, Ohio 44101 Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Donald H. Hauser, Esq.
Corporate Solicitor Mr. Chase R. Stephans The Cleveland Electric Docketing and Service Section Illuminating Company U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Post Office Box 5000 1717 H Street, N.W. Cleveland, Ohio 44101 Washington, D.C. 20006 John Lansdale, Jr., Esq. I Abraham Braitman Cox, Langford & Brown Office of Antitrust and Indemnity 21 Dupent Circle, N.W.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20036 ;
Washington, D.C. 20555 1 Chris Schra.f, Esq. !
Herbert R. Whitting, Esq. Office of Attorney General Robert D. Hart, Esq. State of Ohio Law Department State House City Hall Columbus, Chio 43215 Cleveland, Ohio 44114 Karen H. Adkins, Esq.
Reuben Goldberg, Esq. Assistant Attorney General 1 David C. Hjelmfelt, Esq. Antitrust Section l' 1700 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. 30 East Broad Street Suite 550 15th Floor Washil.; tor., D.C. 20006 -
Columbus, Ohio 43215
- . r3 2.-
Thomas A. Kayuha, Esq. Victor F. Greenslade, Jr., Esq.
Ohio Edison Company Principal Staff Counsel 47 North Main Street The Cleveland Electric Akron, Ohio 44308 Illuminating Company Post Office Box 5000 David M. Olds, Esq. Cleveland, Ohio 44101 Reed, Smith, Shaw & McClay 747 Union Trust Building Robert P. Mono, Esq.
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15213 George, Greek, King, McMahon
& McConnaughey Mr. Raymond Kudukis Columbus Center Director of Utilities 100 East Broad Street City of Cleveland Columbus, Ohio 43215 1201 Lakeside Avenue Cleveland, Ohio 44114 James B. Davis, Esq.
Robert D. Hart, Esq.
Edward A. Matto, Esq. Director of Law Assistant Attorney General City of Cleveland Chief, Antitrust Section 213 City Hall 30 East Broad Street Cleveland, Ohio 44114 15th Floor Columbus, Ohio 43215 Lee A. Rau, Esq.
Joseph A. Rieser, Jr., Esq.
Richard M. Firestone, Esq. Reed, Smith, Shaw & McClay Assistant Attorney General Suite 404 Antitrust Section Madison Building 30 East Broad Street Washington, D.C. 20005 15th Floor Columbus, Ohio 43215 Leslie Henry, Esq.
Fuller, Henry, Hodge & Snyder Wallace L. Duncan, Esq. 300 Madison Avenue Jon T. Brown, Esq. Toledo, Ohio 43604 Duncan, Brown, Weinberg & Palmer 1700 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20006 Aku) G ALu . J Steven A. Berger l
.