ML19329E187
| ML19329E187 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Midland |
| Issue date: | 09/17/1973 |
| From: | Watson K CONSUMERS ENERGY CO. (FORMERLY CONSUMERS POWER CO.), WALD, HARKRADER & ROSS |
| To: | JUSTICE, DEPT. OF |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8006110552 | |
| Download: ML19329E187 (8) | |
Text
&'
Cl-/ 7 4 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA BEFORE THE ATOM :C ENERGY CO:CIISSION In the Matter of
)
)
Docket Nos.h0-329D CONSUME RS PO'.iER COMPANY
)
60 a aun (Midland Plant, Units 1 and 2)
)
APPLICANT'S RESPONSE TO FURTHER REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS AND INTERROGATORIES Pursuant to Sections 2. 740 and 2. 742 of the Commission's Rules of Practice, 10 C.F.R.,
Part 2, Consumers Power Company
(" Applicant") answers the "Further Request For Admissions and Interrogatories", filed by the Department of Justice on August 22, 1973.
Applicant's responses are as follows:
1.
Deny.
In 1966 a City of Allegan official did approach Applicant about wholesale power purchase on a stand-by basis.
2.
Admit, assuming that the American Electric Power Company 's purchase of an investor-owned system is not considered.
3.
Admit, assuming that Southeastern Michigan Cooperative's construction of lines it considers to be transmission lines are not included.
4.
Withdrawn by the Department.
5.
Charlevoix.
Harbor Springs has been an all-requirements cus tomer since 1960 but until 1965 reserved 552 O
8006110 7
x the right to operate its generation f acilities in case of interruption of service by Applicant.
6.
Since 19 66, S t.
Louis has purchased all of its power requirements except for the output of its hydro plant.
However, St. Louis has not abandoned its other generation units and they are available to produce electric energy when St. Louis so determines.
7.
Deny.
8.
Since 1960, Applicant has disposed of twenty dam sites in Michigan pursuant to contracts provided by the Department as document numbers 22,595 to 22,814.
Nine of the twenty contain no provisions relating to use of the sites:
Allegan (22,704), Boardman (22,679), Elk Rapids (22,801),
Newaygo (22,635), Otsego (22,756), Plainville No. 1 (22,773),
Sabin (22,679), Trowbridge (22,787), and Union Street (22,629).
The remaining contracts do contain provisions relating to use.
9.
Until very recently, no municipal or coopera-tive has ever presented Applicant with a definitive request to wheel power.
Thus, Applicant has never had occasion to consider what f actors to "take account of" in responding to
" wheeling" proposals.
10.
Upon information and belief, no employees of Applicant provided such information or assistance.
-s
. 11.
Yes.
Assuming the phrase " bulk power.
customers" is restricted to existing firm wholesale power customers of another utility, Applicant offered to serve the Village of Paw Paw.
The Village was then receiving firm wholesale power from Michigan Gas and Electric Company and the offer was made pursuant to a request from Paw Paw in 1966.
12.
Yes.
In the mid-19 60 's, Detroit Edison Company offered to serve most of Southeastern Michigan Coopera-tive's requirements at a time when the Cooperative was a full requirements customer of Applicant.
The Cooperative now pur-chases most of its power requirements from Detroit Edison.
13.
Withdrawn by the Department.
14.
No.
However, Applicant has conducted studies which show dhat imprcper allocation of reserve responsibility pursuant to an MMCPP - Michican Pool interconnection could result in in-creased reserve responsibilities for the Michigan Pool.
15.
At the present time Applicant has insuf ficient knowledge about the present bulk pcwer alternatives of the municipals and cooperatives to respond to this question, in part because deposition inquiries about this subject have been
4-denied to Applicant.
However, evidence available to Applicant suggests that at least four municipal systems (Holland, Lansing, Grand Haven, and Traverse City) presently enjoy such alter-natives.
16.
At the present time, it is Applicant's best judg-ment that the municipals and cooperatives do not have sufficient load to justify construction of a nuclear generation unit, re-gardless of Applicant's providing wheeling, reserve sharing, or coordinated development.
To the extent this question relates to the future, Applicant has insufficient knowledge for the reasons set forth in response 15, supra.
17.
" Mutual benefit", as used by Applicant's officers, means' that each party to an interconnection should obtain from that interconnection a net benefit, on balance, and taking all relevant circumstances into account.
It is not necessary that a party benefit equally or from all aspects of a transaction but only, in its judgment, daat on balance, the positive aspects outweigh the negative.
It is not necessary that a party agree with an opposite party's assessment of benefits and burdens.
Benefits can involve lower costs and enhanced reliability, but are not necessarily confined to these f actors.
18.
Applicant believes that it is not justified in utilizing its size vis a vis other systems to compel or coerce such systems in negotiating with them.
- However, Applicant contends that it is entitled to consider the 1
disparity of size between it and other systems which propose i
interconnection arrangements,_ for the purpose of assessinq l
I
y.
the " net benefits" to be derived from such an arrangement.
See response 17, supra.
19.
No.
20.
Applicant contends that either through arrange-ments which do not involve Applicant or through bulk power and interconnection arrangements which Applicant has long offered,
.and will continue to offer, the municipals will continue to grow and prosper; i.e.,
to maintain their competitive and financial viability to the extent contemplated by law.
21.
As modified in the Department's letter of September 7, 19 73, the statement is admitted.
22.
Deny.
23.
Yes.
Where Applicant is franchised to serve an area, it seeks to serve loads in that area more vigorously where another utility in the area is not franchised than where the other utility is franchised -- all other things being equal.
24.
Yes.
25 and 26.
As used by some of Ap~plicant's employees,
" gentlemen's agreement" refers to the practice of generally not
" pirating" existing retail customers or duplicating lines to serve new retail cus tomers of another utility, without such utility's consent.
Applicant follows such a practice with respect to all utilities who adhere-to a similar practice.
At the present time,
t.
' only Bay City and Traverse City do not follow such practices vis a vis Applicant.
27.
Applicant contends that competition.is some-times detrimental to the electric utility industry.
Competi-tion is detrimental under circumstances which result in the duplication of electric facilities without overall economic justification or which result in the misallocation of economic resources.
28.
Applicant contends that the Federal Power Com-mission possesses the jurisdiction to grant the relief sought by the Department. concerning bulk power supply (under Section 205) and interconnection arrangements (under Section 202).
Respectfully submitted, Keith S. Watson Wald, Harkrader & Ross 1320 Nineteenth Street, N.W.
Washington, D.
C.
20036 September 17, 1973 Of-Counsel:
Harold P.
Graves, Esquire Consumers Pcwer Company 212 West Michigan Avenue
' Jackson, Michigan 49201
4 STATE OF ICCIEG.C )
)
SS.
-COU:CY OF JACKS 0:I )
W. A. Kirkb', being duly s; torn, says that he is an Attorney
/
employed by Applicant Consumers power Cc. pany, and that he has read the foregoing responses to the Justice Department's Further Request for Ad=issions and Interrogatories, dated August 22, 1973, and that said responses are correct to the best of his kno;tledge and belief.
l s
/,
. -/ -
Subscribed and strorn to before me this lhth day of September,1973 n.,
,o ll<li.iaU lC. 1 6.6 w U b Aileen R. Hazari-:, Ilotarf Puiclic Jackson, Michigan My Cc=nissica D:pires: Feb. 28, 1977
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ATOMIC ENERGY COID1ISSION In the Matter of
)
)
Decket Nos. 50-329A CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY
)
and 50-330A (Midland Units 1 and 2)
)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of APPLICANT'S RES-PONSE TO FURTHER REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS AND INTERROGATORIES,
dated September 17, 19 73, in the above-captioned matter have been served on the following by deposit in the United States mail, first class or air mail,- this 17th day of September, 1973:
Jerome Garfinkel, Esq., Chairman Dr.
J.
V.
Leeds, Jr.
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board P.
O.
Box 941 Atomic Energy Commission Hous ton, Texas 77001 Washington, D.
C.
20545 William T.
Clabault, Esq.
Hugh K.
Clark, Esq.
Joseph J.
Saunders, Esq.
P. O. Box 127A David A.
Leckie, Esq.
Kennedyville, Maryland 21645 Public Counsel Section Antitrus t Division James Carl Pollock, Esquire ~
Department of Justice 2600 Virginia Avenue, N. W.
Washington, D.
C.
20530 Washington, D.
C.
20037 Joseph-Rutherg, Jr., Esq.
Antitrust Counsel for AEC Regulatory Staff Atomic Energy Commission Washington, D.
C.
20545 Wallace~E. Brand, Esq.
Antitrust Public Counsel Section P.
O. Box 7513 Washington, D.
C.
20044 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Atomic. Energy Commission Was hingtcn,
D.
C.
20545 Keith S. Watson' e
__ ]
u