ML19329E290
| ML19329E290 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Midland |
| Issue date: | 04/17/1973 |
| From: | Jablon R MICHIGAN MUNICIPAL COOPERATIVE POWER POOL, SPIEGEL & MCDIARMID |
| To: | US ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION (AEC) |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8006120590 | |
| Download: ML19329E290 (82) | |
Text
N*d-Y7+a W'?'] ff. ] d {- M D
~ ~ ~
A
/ y,.-**
p
.-.....:. s +
1.. %v w7~.-.,... b 1 /
.o.
}dhf UNITED STATES OF AMERICA BEFORE THE ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION In the Matter of
)
)
CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY
)
Docket N 50-329A
)
5-OA (Midland Plant, Units 1 and 2)
)
REPLY BRIEF OF 21 MUNICIPAL NON-PARTIES The issue to be decided is whether the Trial Board erred in not placing reasonable limits on Consumers Power's j
discovery against the non-parties.
Apparently, the trial board accepted the premise that there should be some weighing of the burden to non-parties against Applicant's l
need for the data (See Tr. 216).
However, in determining the discovery to be ordered against the non-parties the trial board i
fully accepted Applicant's premise that it is necessary to examine in minute detail the retail rates, costs and specific extent of competition for each individual system (e.g., Answer, p.
20, p. 46) in effect converting this proceeding into a l
multiplicity of rate cases.
Not only to protect the non-parties, but to keep these proceedings manageable, befcre embarking on l
a 8006120. N O D
o.
discovery and trial of the scope the Applicant maintains is necessary, the Commission should assess the validity of Consumers Power's alleged " defenses".
The non-parties are and have been willing to provide Consumers Power their annual reports, audits, rate schedules and reports made to the Federal Power Commission on the basis ordered by the trial board.
Under Michigan law all municiphi utilities are required to have annual financial reports.
- l l
Mich. Stat. Ann. 460.451.
In addition to'these audits we are informed that most of the non-parties file with the FPC I
applicable " Form 1" and " Form 12" reports, which contain detailed cost and operating information.
Many systems have l
annual reports containing additional general information.
l l
While we cannot assure the Board that the type of reports referred to above are available for all of the systems fbr j
every year, they are available for recent ' ears and for most of y
the systems for all years.
l This appeal rasies much broader questions than the burden on these particular non-parties.
By failing to make any initial determination of the scope of issues for trial--and l
- /
All references to State law are found in Appendix C or in Appendix B to our " Supplemental Motion to Quash on Grounds
.of Confidentiality", (February 20, 1973).
j.
- -,,. ~,
9 p
thereby ordering exceedingly broad discovery against the 21 non-parties--the trial board has made it impossible to determine antitrust issues in any reasonable amount of time.
While Consumers' Power attempts to sluff off the problem (Applicant 's Brief pp. 45-47), the most basic issue before the Appeals Board is whether by deferring ruling on basic issues of relevancy, these hearings will become so burdensome to threaten this Commission's functioning.
I.
CONSUMERS POWER'S DISCRIMINATORY SERVICE BELIES ITS CLAIM THAT IT NEEDS DATA FROM ALL THE LOWER PENINSULA SYSTEMS.
Consumers Power claims to need comolete discovery against-all of the 21 non-party municipals.
Its claimed justi-fication is that the relevant " market area" will probably be the Lower Michigan Peninsula. However, as we pointed out in our
" Appeal By Non-Parties", pp. 46,51, Consumers Power failed to subpoena all utilities in that Peninsula.
It failed to subpoena Alpena Power Company, a small private power company; it failed to subpoena Harbor Springs and Eaton Rapids, two small municipally owned power companies not members of the Michigan Municipal Electric Association ("MMEA").
It did not subpoena three REA-cooperatives, Fruit Belt Electric Cooperative,
- / We cite our " Appeal by Non-Parties from Adverse Orders
. Grant ng Subpoenas in Favor of Consumers Power" (March 16, 1973) i as above throughout this brief.
'o Southeastern Michigan Rural Cooperative and Thumb Electric Cooperative.
Nor did it subpoena Detroit Edison and Indiana
& Michigan, two large private power companies or Detroit Public Lighting Co.,
a public company supplying electricity for Detroit's public services.
The relevancy of Consumers Power's subpoening only members of the MMEA is not, as it infers, that we think it should be getting more discovery (Answer, p. 27).
Rather, it belies Consumers Power's contention of its need to get information from all systems in the Lower Peninsula.
In weighing the contentions of Consumers Power's need for the data, the trial board should have considered the practical import of this discriminatory service.
Whether the company's intent was to harass, the effect must be that small publicly owned systems in Michigan -- and elsewhere --
will believe that contesting 'the license requests of Consumers Power Company or other large utilities will lead to burdensome data requests.
The Atomic Energy Commission cannot afford this
/
result.-
Consumers Power belatedly attempts to devise a r tionale for its patchwork service of process (Answer, pp. 27-29).
It
- / As we pointed out in our Appeal by Non-Parties, p. 67, similar subpoenas have been requested in at least three other AEC licente proceedings..
U
claims that, since Detroit Public Lighting does not sell power at retail or wholesale, it 'cannot be deemed a competitor of Applicant.
But then it lists eight-systems that it subpoenaed who are served solely by Detroit Edison or Indiana & Michigan.
Retail' competition-to Consumers Power from systems within another major utility's primary area'of service is nonexistent and any
_/
wholesale competition would have a remote impact.
Under any i
standards the subpoenas should have been quashed against these I
systems.
Consumers Power now implies that it has obtained (or will obtain through the discovery of others) similar
.information against the nonsubpoenaed power systems on the
- /
Lower Peninsula.
However, its claimed reason for not being able to rely upon annual reports and annual audits is because i
of alleged.non-comparability of the data.
This is at the same time it finds that public reports for the non-party REA cooperatives are sufficient and that it can rely on the different Department of Justice-AEC staff intervenor discovery for non-party investor
- /' Note that Consumers Power's defense against revealing
_confidential information.is that usually customers are served only by.itself or a particular municipal.
Antwer, p. 40.
This is a practical admission'of noncompetition between-itself and the non-parties who are located outside its area of service.
- jb/
Before the trial board Consumers Power's stated. reason for not serving.non-MMEA municipals.was to " simplify matters" (Tr. 206). l^
- 'O owned utilities.
Answer, pp. 27-28.
Is it credible that none of the MMEA municipal members have adequate annual reports while all of the non-MMEA non-parties do?
Consumers Power's discriminatory service constitutes a clear pattern of harassment.
II.
CONSUMERS POWER DOES NOT SHOW THAT DISCOVERY FROM THE PARTIES IS NOT ADEQUATE TO SHOW THE CHARACTERISTICS OF COMPETITION BY SMALLER UTILITIES.
Consumers Power recognizes that as a predicate to its obtaining broad discovery against the non-parties it must establish that their information is necessary.
Thus, it states (Brief, p.13) :
"When asked by Board member Clark whether the Justice Department would be willing to exclude any evidence with regard to any small municipality or small power company who is not an intervenor in this case, - the Department's counsel replied,
'No, Your Honor, I would not'.
(TR. 217)
(Emphasis supplied by Applicant).
However, the Applicant fails t:ct quote the following statement by counsel for the Department of Justice (Tr. 324-325):
"If it please the Board, so that the record is complete, I.would like to complete a-response that I started to give to Judge Clark, who quite pertinently asked me if the Department of Justice was going to rely on data.
+
n-
q D
with respect to other systems not in-tervenors and the answer I gave was, yes, and we expect to do that, however, with respect to the non-party systems to this proceeding, with the exception of the City of Lansing, which is not typical, I think the record should show that the Department would be willing, with respect to those other cities, to stipulate that the facts relating to the costs and ability to compete of the intervenor cities is typical of the other cities. "
The scope of Consumers Power's proposed discovery is attempted to be justified based upon unexplained examples of differences in the non-party municipals cost reporting.
Answer, pp. 34-35.
It cites a number of reporting differences l
which might have been explained by informal requests.
Because a system may change its basis for classifying customers or because there may be a reporting error does not justify data requests and interrogatories forcing municipal systems to recast their books to suit Consumers Power's purposes.
In short, the non-parties should not have to do Consumers Power's work for it.
- /
Consumers Power infers we would not have complied with such
_requests because of our alleged unwillingness to negotiate.
(Answer, p. 36).
This alleged refusal is a leit motif of its brief.
The fact that we rejected Consumers Power's terms for settling these data issues neither means that we have refused to negotiate or that we would have refused to facilitate supplying this type of information.
We again call to the attention'of the' Appeals
. Board actions of other agencies directly charged with costing to limit the burden of discovery of questionnaire-type informa-
' ~
tion against~small parties.
See Appeal by Non-Parties, pp.
._]
50-51.
' III.-
THE DETERMINATION OF INDIVIDUAL COMPANY COSTS-OF-SERVICE WILL UNDULY BURDEN THIS PROCEEDING.
l The Appeals Board should assure that threshhold decisions are not now made-that will-threaten the effective exercise. of the ' AEC 's antitrust jurisdiction.
Under Consumers i
Power's view of the case, as a defense, it is necessary-for it to demonstrate the " viability" (i.e.,
costs-of-service) and i
competitive nature of every power-system in the Lower Michigan
- /
-Peninsula.
Judicial antitrust proceedings have taken years to try.
'A recent-Federal Power Commission electric rab case b
without-judicial review has'taken over 2-1/2 years.
Duke Power
- /
Company,-Docket No. E-7557.
Consolidated trial of rate i
issues has taken much longer.
The purpose for establishing
/ Consumers Power attempts to obliterate-the distinction between-parties and non-parties.
Answer, pp. 8-14.
n..
fact
.that-.a membership organization chooses to intervene in a pt?-
.ceeding'does not'make all its members participants.
LCompare Wainwright v. Kraftco,f54 FRD 532 (1972).
- / Consumers-Power has never denied that this is its intention.
S e e,' for. example, Answer, pp. 45-46.
- / The-petition-for rehearing was denied February 16, 1973; the rate. schedules were filed August 19,.1970.
e e..
,.n,
.g,
,,, ~
4 o
administrative agencies is to allow greater flexibility and effectiveness than the courts have provided in dealing with admittedly difficult problems.
If it is necessary to determine precise costs and the precise extent of competition in each individual service area in order for the AEC to determine whether it should allow access by smaller power systems to Midland Power and transmission services, then the antitrust hearings before this agency will become. unmanageable.
Further-more, the burden of the proceedings will become so great that smaller systems will avoid them, resulting in the AEC's juris-diction hindering rather than aiding competition for bulk power
- l-supplies.
Applicant's statement that the plant is not scheduled
.to begin operations until 1978 does not give much solace (Answer, p. 47).
- / At various places in its brief Consumers Power attempts to justify its discovery against the non-parties on the grounds that it and the parties have had to submit to extensive discovery.
E.g.,
Answer, pp. 22-23.
This argument is significant for what it implies.
Consumers Power is the anolicant.
It is applying for very valuable rights.
It is understandable that the AEC should demand full justification from it, a justification whose costs and burden will be relatively small compared ba the cost of the plant and of the potential benefits it will receive.
If Consumers Power, the seventh or eighth largest utility in the United States according to its counsel (Tr. 94) can place a similar burden on small neighboring systems because they belong to the leEA, it threatens the whole litigation process.
Such discouragement of small party intervention to protect their interests would help strengthen Consumers Power's monopoly power.
S 3
As we stated in our ' Appeal By Non-Parties" (pp. 23-30),
no one contests the basic facts.
Why is massive and cumulative discovery necessary against non-parties to prove that there is competition for large customers between Consumers Power and publicly owned systems and "that some of the municipalities may well be able ~ to purchase and sell electric power considerably below the rates currently charged by Consumers and earn a more than adequate return" (Tr. 324).
Nobody disagrees.
In any event, it is no defense to a claim of banning access to bulk power supply markets that a potential bulk power user is
./
making money without such access.
The right to alternate sources of supply is not limited to ecnomically failing systems.
The recently decided Otter Tail Power Co. v. United States, 93 S. Ct. 1022 (1973) and Gainesville v.
Florida Power Corporation, 40 F.P.C. 1227, 41 F.P.C. 4 (1969), 425 F.2d 1196 (5th Cir. 1970),
402 U. S. 515 (1971), make clear the right of access of small municipal systems to the bulk power supply transmission grids,
- /
Indeed, the benefits of access to a nuclear power supply
_which leads Applicant to want to build the plant denies this
" defense."
i
- /
interconnection and coordination.
While we raised the issues before the trial board, and While we specifically tried to elicit a statement of relevancy of the data from Consumers Power's counsel, the board never faced the question of Whether or to what extent the claimed "viabili ty" defense is re3 vant and in its reply brief Consumers Power argues its right to make its defense without coming to grips with the issues.
(Answer, pp. 15-25).
While it may be tempting to continue to delay such decision, this delay will inevitably cause either a trial of years or the cessation of interest of the small municipal and cooperative systems in achieving relief through the AEC or both.
- / According to Consumers Power (Br., p. 47, n. 1) Otter Tail is distinguishable since Otter Tail " contended that its activities were wholly immunized under the antitrust laws" and "since Applicant has not made such claims here."
In fact, Applicant has refused to state its views on the jurisdictional question whether the AEC has power to grant intervenors " direct access to power f'om the Midland plants.
(Tr. 190-191) and has argued r
it has very limited power, if any, to order transmission services.
(" Appeal of Non-Parties", pp.'19-21).
This refusal of applicant to even state a jurisdictional position makes understandable its reluctance to state what it intends to prove by its discovery.
However, before the Board embarks on a proceeding of the magnitude contemplated by Consumers Power, the alleged defenses ought to be shown to have some colorability.
After all, to the non-parties this will be a final order. --
,- - n IV.
IN BALANCING CONSUMERS PC77ER'S NEED FOR DATA AGAINST THE RIGHTS OF THE NON-PARTIES THE TRIAL BOARD SHOULD HAVE WEIGHED THAT CONSUMERS POWER IS IN DIRECT COMPETITION WITH APPLICANTS.
The non-parties raised the question before the trial board that certain of Consumers Power's data requests ask the specific details of the particularized coats to serve each of the largest customers cf each municipal syctem and of the specific negotiations underlying sales to such customers.
We made specific reference to Document Requests Nos. 4 and 5 and Interrogatory Requests 7, 8, 45, 46, 59 and 60.
The non-parties are particularly concerned about two types of information.
Both involve their relations with their customers.
Some'of the municipal utilities maintain the con-fidentiality of their bills to their customers.
This would affect bills and meter books.
They do so not to protect their own interests, but on behalf of their customers.
Compare Grayson v.,
i 1
Michigan State Board of Accountancy, 27 Mich. App. 26, 183 N. W.
2d j
424 '(1970).
The second type of information the non-parties claim ought not to be revealed except upon showing cf compelling need is specific negotiations with, sales to or costs of serving particular i
large customers.
Of course, we do not maintain published rates.
9
to be confidential and as applicant states it would be aware of municipals' largest customers (Answer,.p. 40).
- However, the fact that this general knowledge may be known to Applicant
.does not. justify revealing specific costs and specific negotiations.
In the utility industry it is not uncommon to design rates to meet competition for large customers.
This can be done by creating a special service classification or special block.
Promotional factors are one of the factors considered in designing rates.
Moreover, large customers are often concerned about valuable "non-price" considerations, such as undergrounding, terms of delivery, the building of feeder lines, etc.
Consumers Power's knowing additional specific cost break-5 downs and details of negotiations for large retail customers cannot aid the Board in determining license conditions, but such knowledge would be relevant to its ratemaking and to concessions that it might grant large customers.
The trial. board rejected our arguments in this regard on the premise largely based upon its reading of
--Michigan law.
" Order Denying Supplemental Motion of Twenty-One Municipalities -- Not Parties -- To Quash Subpoenas On Grounds of Confidentiality," March 5, 1973.
Its premise appears to 4
6 s
be that no harm can result from disclosure since all informa-tion of Michigan municipal utilities is open to the public.
(Tr. 292-299).
First,~even assuming much -- or even all -- of the data Consumers Power seeks would be available to it through
/
other channels (i.e.,
under Michigan law) tnis does not mean that the AEC should use its processes to force revelation.
Consumers Power has not attempted to get the information under Michigan law and the AEC has responsibility for its own de-cisions.
Thus, if there is a valid claim to privilege, the AEC should recognize it.
Second, while there are valid reasons for full disclosure by municipalities as a aeneral matter, Consumers Power has not shown that under Michigan law it could get the municipal systems to comply with the document requests and depositions which are at issue here.
While Michigan statutes and some of its case law establish a broad right of access by the public f o 'nformation, Michigan statutes and cases also
- /.There may be situations where a party can legally get certain privileges through a particular forum, but might have reason not to want to do so.
Y establish the right of municipalities to run electric plants, which plants function like other businesses.
Mich. Stat. Ann.
S5.1895, Andrews v.
City of South Haven, 187 Mich. 194 (1915); See also Gas and Ele'ctric Co. v. City of Dowagiac,
'273 Mich. 153 (1935).
Michigan cas law has also limited the general right to "public" information where there.are apparent grounds for non-disclosure, Grayson v. Michigan State Board of Accountancy, suora.
This is not dissimilar to the balancing processes.under Federal law.
Cf. Hickman v.
Taylor, 325 U.
S.
495 (1947).
Moreover, the policies of open access to information are to serve public purposes.
If a direct competitor of a municipal utility wanted specific backup material relevant to negotiations with the utility or information to aid it in pricing, the general policy of the statute would not be furthered.
Since there is no Michigan case law that directly answers whether a competitor could get this extent of information if asked, the AEC should not rule in advance of a determination that the Michigan courts would order completion of the proposed.
O
- /
document requests and interrogatories.
While Applicant stresses our " concession" that
-there is no absolute privilege to trade secrets (Applicant 's Answer, p. 38) and goes on to argue its need for the information discussed (pp. 4 2-45 ), neither Applicant nor the Board gave relevant consideration that granting Applicant information concerning municipals' direct costs, negotiations and in-house studies relating to their largest customers would do immediate business harm.
In balancing the need for disclosure against the need of Consumers Power for the data, the trial board should have determined a compelling need for revealing such data before allowing discovery relating to these items.
The trial board never made such balance.
- / We doubt that Michigan courts would uphold a discovery request such as this mide by a competitor to aid it in a case before a Federal agency.
Michigan discovery rules tend to follow the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which demand a strong showing of need before confidential data will be ordered disclosed.
E.g.,
Mich. Stat. Ann., General Court Rules 310.
See " Appeal by Non-Parties
" pp. 52-59.
In Florida, whose " Sunshine Laws" provide for among the most open public proceedings in the nation, the Florida Supreme Court refused to prohibit private teacher contract negotiations with a public board on grounds that:
"The public's representatives must be afforded at'least an equal position with that enjoyed by those -with whom they deal.
The public should not suffer a handican at the exnense of a purist view of open public meetings Bassett v.
Braddock, 262 So. 2d 425 (1972).
t a
V.
CONSUMERS POWER DOES NOT JUSTIFY THE AMOUNT OF BURDEN IT SEEKS TO IMPOSE ON THE NON-PARTIES.
, Consumers Power accuses the 21 municipals of being contradictory in asserting both that most of the data is available from public records and that compliance is burdensome.
In stating that most of the information it claims necessary to prove its defense is available we again point out that under Michigan law every system must supply annual audits.
Michigan Stat. Ann. 460.451.
We are informed that such audits must either conform to the Federal Power Commission or Michigan Public Service Commission reporting requirements, which are virtually identical, or to uniform accounting within the municipalities.
As we stated at the outset the cities also maintain rate schedules and file various financial and operating reports to the-Federal Power Commission (E.g.,
Form 1, Form 3, Form 12). ~Many have annual reports.
These p1blic reports provide a range of information which allows Applicant to ascertain detailed cost, rate and operations data fromeach system in a reasonably accurate form. Use of such public
. records supplemented with soecific questions where reports need clarification would have been permissible. 2
)
9 -
While Applicant can get detailed information from these reports, responding in the manner contemplated by Applicant would be. unduly burdensome and would add little not available.
In order to demonstrate the type of data available from t th reports as requested by the Board, we have taken the published reports and rate schedules of Holland and Zeeland, two of the municipal parties, and show the information available therein to answer Applicant's interrogatories.
We chose those two cities as examples because Holland is the largest intervenor municipal system and Zeeland the smallest (based on generation).
The information Consumers Power could have obtained from these sources is related to its interrogatories in Appendix A.
Ironically, in attempting to explain why its discriminatory process does not show harassment on its face, Consumers Power explains that it has REA reports, in effect admitting that reports would be sufficient.
Section II, suora.
(See Applicant's Answer, p. 28).
One of the major factors creating burden is the sheer cumulation of materials,_especially when related to the size of the non-parties.
Finding and supplying or copying annual ]
l I
j
reports alone is a great effort for systems which may have less than 25,or even 10 employees, not all of whom are assigned to the electric department.
See Appeal by Non-Parties, pp. 39-40.
Therefore, we specifically request that the requirement to supply " documents" as defined in the interrogatories be narrowed and that searches of archives not be required or that they only be required for annual reports, reports to public bodies and. rate schedules.
Consumers Power insists that the difficulty is the alleged inadequacy of the municipals' reporting.
(Answer, pp. 33-37).
Thus, through interrogatories they would in effect have the
- /
non-parties redo their reports.
Many of the interrogatories would appear to request compilation of figures, supplying numerical estimates or obtaining data at extreme burden, Consumers Power-providcs a f.orm with instructions to its interrogatories to
- /
which the answers are supposed to conform.
The difficulty to the non-parties may be seen by limited examples.
Certain
- / When the party-intervenors asked the company for a reference
-to the. requests for the documents Consumers Power had supplied (as had been supplied with the party-intervenors' discovery responses),
Consumers Power replied the request ran " afoul of the well-established principle that a party cannot be forced to ' create' a document to respond to a demand for document production."
~Soetaert v.-Kansas City Coca Cola Bottling Co.,
16 FRD, (DC Mo. 1954);
8 Wright and Miller, Federal Practice & Procedure (1970'Ed.),
- p. 625;
" Applicant's Answer to Motion to Compel Production of Index"
~
-(April 4, 1973, p. 3, n. 2).
- jb/
This form is Appendix B.
It was inadvertently omitted from Appendix A L of our Appeal. --.
interrogatory questions ask for cost (and other) information about our largest customers.
For example, question 46 seeks information as far back as 1960 by township or incorporated area about the 10 largest commercial and 10 largest industrial customers.
Question 7 is similar in form.
Question 8 asks the length and voltage of transmission or distribution lines to serve customers listed in Question 7.
However, the municipal non-parties may not know who these customers are.
If information is kept on a usage basis so that the answers can be determined, the question can be answered, but, if it is not, the non-parties would have to examine their monthly (or bi-monthly) bills for each customer for each year to find who they are and to get information.. Granted that in many instances the process could be simplified if bills are classified by type of service, but this could still mean examining and comparing thousands of bills.
Fur thermore, the bills themselves would likely have been destroyed after a few years.
The systems would then'have to search their archives for their meter' books and examine individual customer
. -l meter readings.
Such a task would be unconscionable.
- /
Similar problems would exist correlating information that is kept by' " meter" ba customers.
Question 44 requests a reconcilia-tion.
If a system does not know how many meters a customer has (and bills by meter) this could result in examining bills (or individual meter readings) for every customer for 1961, 1966 and 1971 and 1972. l
Similarly, if the systems did not have a breakdown of. distribution lines assigned to customers, they would have to create it.
Perhaps it could be done by physical examination.
However, the allocation between customers would be judgmental.
Consumers Power denies that its subpoenas create undue burden.-
While for reasons stated in our appeal and herein we believe this kind of discovery ought not'be permitted, if the Appeals Boar'd finds that Consumers Power is entitled to additional discovery this ought to be limited to requests for specific reports bearing on specific subjects such as system studies
./
relating to alternate sources of bulk power (Interrogatory 68).
Systems whose records are inaccessible or destroyed should be excused.
If it is necessary to examine accounting data under-lying the reports, the non-parties should not have the burden of examining, copying or compiling information from accounting ledgers.
With the exception of bills and meter books for systems which contain privileged information, Consumers Power could go to the offices of the individual systems and examine the accounting
._/
We find it difficult to delineate exactly what questions might have been permissible since Applicant's discovery has been so broad and justifi,ed in such general terms to make direct response impossible..
w records of the systems (e.g.,
ledgers).
If this were done during business hours without disruption to the system, the burden on the systems could be lessened and Consumers Power could get further information.
Should the Board reject this appeal atthe very least fairness demands that the non-parties have the option of making available at their home offices their files and records (or allowing Consumers Power into their archives) so that Consumers Power has the burden of the record search and of ob-taining, copying and computing whatever answers therefrom it deems necessary.
Moreover, responses ought not be necessary from all the systems.
While responses from the parties should be sufficient to inform the record of patterns of public power generation, in any event answers from_only a limited additional sample of cities is the maximum that should be required.
CONCLUSION
)
For the foregoing reasons, and reasons expressed in our " Appeal by Non-Parties", the subpoenas against the 21 municipal non-parties should be quashed.
Alternatively, they should be limted to annual reports, rate schedules and audits as ordered by the trial board for systems within.n
Consumers Power's area of service.
Alternatively, and without waiving the foregoing, the Appeals Board should grant appropriate relief including limitations on discovery and establishing reasonable: time and methods of compliance.
Respectfully submitted,
/.dd/
s.
?
p Robert A. Jablon Attorney for Cities of Bay City, Charlevoix, Chelsea, Clinton, Croswell, Dowagiac, Hart, Hillsdale, Lansing, Lowell, Marshall, Niles, Paw Paw, Petoskey, Portland, St. Loui s Sebewaing, South Haven, Sturgis, Union City and Wyandotte, Michigan April 17, 1973-Law Offices:
George Spiegel 2600 Virginia Avenue, N. W.
Washington, D. C.
20037 i
i inh 0RMkTIONIN NSWER TO CONSUMERS POWER'S INTERROGATORIES.
EOUND.IN ANNUAL REPORTS OR RATE SCHEDULES BASED UPON HOLLAND AND ZEELAND RESPONSES AND ALTERNATIVE SOURCES OF INFORMATION Number 1
(i)
In response to 4 (b) the City of Holland supplied Rules and Regulations Governing the Sale of Electricity and both old and current rate schedules which describe the rate and customer characteristics for the various classes of service, both inside and outside Holland corporate limits.
-(ii)
Zeeland responded co this interrogatory by supplying the rate schedules for the various classes of cus-tomers which describe the applicable customer char-acteristics.
Zeeland also supplied a copy of the City Charter which contains a section on utility Franchises and Municipal Ownership.
Note: Rate schedules for electric service are on file at both the Zeeland and Holland system offices and a copy can be.obtained by request at these offices.
No particular burden is attached to this response.
i 2
(a) (i)
Holland responded "None" to 4(a).
(ii)
Zeeland responded "None" to 4(a).
(b)
Since both Holland and Zeeland had no such rate schedule this was not applicable.
However, had such a rate been in offect, the. answer to this subpart may have required a search.through bills, meter books n
Number and/or ledgers to provide the information.
The burden of such a search would be extensive if, during a certain period, i. e., 19 6 0- 196 3 this rate would have been in effect and the records either would be in archival storage or the bills destroyed so that the computations would have to be made from an examination of all the meter readings.
(c)
This subpart was not asked of the party municipals, but again the burden of providing numbers, names and addresses of customers would require a search of all bills, ledgers and/or meter readings, and then j
compiling the information.
3 Both Holland and Zeeland responded to a much simpler version of this interrogatory (5 (a) ) by statirig "None".
The request of the party municipals entailed providing ail documents relating to such discussions (5(b)) and the answers were:
"None" and "Not Applicable" respectively.
The question directed to the non party municipals i
contains 5 subparts containing much more detailed information concerning any such discussions during the period 1960 to date.
If the answers of the Number non-parties should be comparable to Holland's and Zeeland's, the burden would be negligible; otherwise, if such discussions took place the response, which would include names and addresses, dates, differences of proposals with respect to other rates which could have been applicable and the periods of time during which such customer was served under another rate schedule, would be extremely burdensome, and require an extensive search of bills, meter readings and ledgers to obtain and then compile.
4 In response to interrogatory 6, Holland responded "None".
Zeeland referenced the fuel clause contained in the rate schedules,but stated it was not applied during the period 1960-1972.
It would appear that any such adjustment would be defined in applicable rate schedulec.
As to the
" basis on which each adjustment was determined",it would appear that the description given by Zeeland is adequate to determine such basis.
No attributable bur"en is attached to this response.
5.
In response to interrogatory 7, both Holland and Zeeland responded that no r a t e change had occurred -
Number during the period 1960 to date.
The rate schedules of Holland give the date of 1953; Zeeland's schedules are not dated but they are presumed to have been in effect prior to 1960, since that is the verified response.
The effect on revenues in dollar terms did not apply and thus were not furnished.
The non party responses would probably refer to the rate schedules for dates of any change.
The infor-mation concerning the effects on revenues could be obtained from annual reports, i.e., page 3 of both Holland and Zeeland Form 1-M report revenues with respect to Residential Sales, Commercial and Industrial Sales (both small and large), Public Street and Highway Lighting, Other Sales to ultimate customers, l
Sales for Resale, and Totals.
Form 1-M's for all systems are on file with the FPC and are available r
for copying or inspection.
6.
The comparable interrogatory addressed to the party municipals was No. 9.
The City of Holland listed those rates applicable to the particular levels of KWH; Zeeland referenced the rate schedules.
In both instances a typical or minimum bill can be
= -...
Number figured from the applicable rate schedules.
i This information with respect to the non-party municipals could be compiled from the rate schedules L
which are available upon request, or could be com-piled from current and previous issues of the Federal Power Commission's National Electric Rate Book which lists 16 of the 21 municipals.
All the t
questions referring to rates could be compiled for these 16 municipals from this Rate Book.
7 (a) (b)
Holland named its ten largest customers and cave the billing for June 1972.
Zeeland named its ten largest customers, provided addressed, demand and the amount billed for. February 1973.
Both systems 1
stated that the information is not readily avail-able and that bills and/or meter readings would be 4
made available for inspection.
The burden of searching for the 10 largest customers in each year during the period 1960 - 1971 would be very sub-stantial.
The alternative is to make this underlying O
P
-9
1 Number The non-parties are also asked to supply informa-tion with respect to the 10 largest customers served since 1960.
Detailed information concerning KWH
)
sales, revenues, peak demand and month of peak de-mand, annual load factor, applicable rate schedules, minimum monthly charge, and voltage of service for I
1972 or most recent year.
The systems are asked to state whether the above information is available for 1960-1971.
The burden of producing this information, which would have to be compiled especially for this re-quest, has not been lessened as to non-parties since Consumers Power has requested a statement con-cerning the availability "of the information for the period 1960 forward.
If ordered to supply this data, it is assumed that bills and meter readings for the entire period would be made available at each sys-tem for the compilation of the data by Consumers Power (to the extent available).
8 Both Holland and Zeeland supplied system maps in response to a later interrogatory, but both in-dicated that cost and description is not available., -
Number In nearly all cases it is impossible to attri-bute costs of cerving these particular customers since in not one instance was a single of these 10 large customers served on an individual basis.
In each instance, literally hundreds of other customers may be served by any single portion of the distribution system serving these parti-cular customers.
Any attempt to estimate the costs attributable would be worthless since it would entail a breakdown of each component of the entire system, as well as production, main-i j
tenance and operating expenses.
l The non-party systems supply a system map with the Form 12 filed with the FPC.
In discussing j
the availability of system maps with the parties, i
it was revealed that one master map is up-dated as changes occur and the copies supplied from this master.
As new maps are issued, old ones l !
4
Number are generally destroyed.
In some rare cases an old version of the system map is available.
Although the location of the 10 large customers could be placed on a current map, the old' maps and customers which would fall in this category are not available without a search through all. meter readings.
The cost data would be equally unavailable from the non party systems.
9 (a) (b) (c)
The comparable question addressed to the parties was No. 13 and Holland and Zeeland responded "None."
It is unlikely that any of the non party systems could indulge in these kinds of activities.
However, to the extent such activities exist, the cost and identification of the department or agency could be found in the Annual Audits.
10 This response was given to interrogatory No. 14 by Holland and Zeeland and the answer was "None."
The non-party systems would report any such expenditures Number in theIr Annual Audits.
s 11 (Deleted).
12 Holland and Zeeland responded "None" to interrogatory No. 17.
It is expected that the same response would be made by the non-party syste.as.
13 to 15 (Deleted) 16 (a)
The response to comparable interrogatory 23 (a) by Holland and Zeeland was a reference to the Annual Reports and/or Annual Audits.
Page 3 of FPC Form 1-M provides this information for both of these parties.
Also, the Annual Audits for 1971 show revenues and operatirJ expenses.
For Holland, this information is located at page 69 through 71 and at page 68.
l For Zeeland, the information is located at page 9-11.
(b)
Both systems responded to this subpart with "None" or "Not Applicable."
This information with respect to the non-party muni-cipals can be found in the Form 1-M's filed with the FPC or in the Annual Audits.
17 In response to No. 24, Holland and Zeeland referenced
'9 -
Number the Annual Reports and/or Annual Audits (s'ee response to 16 (a) supra.
This information is readily available through the Annual Reports or Audits.
18 In response to interrogatory 25, Holland and Zeeland referenced the Annual Reports or Audits.
Holland indicated that depreciation was on a straight-line basis.
Page 3 of Form 1-M reports the commentj attributed to depreciation for both systems.
For Holland, the depreciation amounts for 1972 tudit are shown at page 52-53, Zeeland's Audit for 1971 shows amounts of depreciation at pages 7-8.
The Annual Reports are available from the IPC for the 21 non party systems; the Annual Audits are i
available.
The information requested is thus, readily 1
1 available to Consumers Power.
19 Holland responded "None" to interrogatory 26.
We note, however, that at page 58 under Current Liabilities the Balance Sheets for 1972-1971 show a figure of
$7,381,80 attributed to Sales Tax.
Zeeland's Annual Audit for 1971 at page 9 shows the sales tax deducted from operating revenue.
10
Number
/
The municipal Annual Audits will show how each municipal attributes taxes as well as the amounts paid, thus, this information is readily available to Consumers Power.
20 The tax equivalents for Holland and Zeeland are indicated at page 7 of FPC Form 1-M.
For Holland, this is handled as a deduction from earned surplus at page 3 of FPC Form 1-M.
For Zeeland the amount is attributed to revenues and shown in Electric Sales Data at page 3 of Form 1-M.
Any such tax equivalents would be shown on the FPC Form 1-M.
In addition, the Audits would indicate such information, i.e, page 50 of Holland's 1972 Audit lists the amount attributed to the general operating fund.
Thus, the information would be readily availabb to Consumers Power through either the Form 1-M's through the FPC or in the audits.
21 Neither Holland nor Zeeland donated services to their municipalities.
Holland's Form 1-M for 1970 shows cash contributions of $3,650 to various civic projects.
Number The Form 1-M's provide the information requested; to the extent cash contributions for civic, poli-I tical and other related activities have been made.
It is assumed that any expenditures of dollar value would be reported in the audits.
Thus, the information reauested would be readily available to Consumers Power either through the FPC or the Audits.
22 The response by both Holland and Zeeland is a reference to the Annual Report (FPC Form 1-M) ; or the Annual Audits.
This is shown for Holland and Zeeland, page 3 of FPC Form 1-M.
(Interrogatory No. 29).
This information is readily available from the FPC Form 1-M's available to Consumers Power through the FPC or through the Annual Audits of the sys-tems.
23 The information requested was not supplied by Holland, which indicates that the information would be supplied at the system offices.
Zeeland referenced the Annual Audits which indicates at page 9 of the 1
12 1
Number 1971 Audit the amounts attributable to street lighting which is shown in the column labeled
" Actual Revenues and Expenses ".
Holland shows a Tax Equivalents report, as does Zeeland in the Form 1-M's at page 7.
While it is clear that Zeeland's report is for street lighting, Holland does not indicate the KWH supplied to the muni-cipality.
While the total KWH supplied the municipal is not clearly stated in the party municipal's responses, this information would appear in the Annual Audits or in the FPC Form 1-M.
24 Holland's response to~ Interrogatory No. 3 references rate schedules "D " and "L ".
Zeeland indicates the municipal pays the same rate as any other customer.
It is possible that inconsistencies will arise in the responses by the 21 municipals, but to the ex-tent a rate schedule is existent, it would be J
available either in the FPC's National Electric Rate Book, or would appear in the Annual Audit as an income and expense.
At any rate, the informa-tion should be available thrpugh sources outside j
the system.
Number 25 Holland responds to Interrogatory 32 by referencing the Annual Reports; Zeeland references the Annual Audits.
Holland supplies this information in its Form 1-M ' s and Form 12 ' s, as well as in the Annual
- Audits, i.e.,
see page 2 of Form l'M and pages 1 -
36 of Form 12 's; also see pages 53-54 of the 1972 Annual Audit.
Zeeland - page 2 of Form 1-M, pages l-36 of Form 12 and pages 6-7 of the 1971 Annual Audit.
The information requested can be found in FPC Forms or in Annual Audits which are readily available to Consumers Power.
26 Holland responded to Interrogatory 33 by referencing the Annual Reports (see Form 12 's) ; Zeeland referenced the Annual Audits (see pages 6-7 of the 1971 Audit).
The information requested can be found in FPC Forms or in Annual Audits which are readily available to Consumers Power.
27 Holland produces an Annual Report which is distri-buted to the public.
This report contains a large amount of information concerning the electric sys-tem including the information requested by Items o
Number 25, 26 and 27 which are comparable to Items 32, 33 and 34 directed to the municipal parties.
Zeeland references the Annual Audits for this information and pages 6-7 of the 1971 Annual Audit lists the information.
Likewise, comparable information is reported by both systems in FPC Forms 1-M. and 12.
The information requested is available to Consu-mers Power from any one of several public sources.
28 (No Interrogatory) 29 Holland and Zeeland both report long term debts in the Annual Audits.
For Holland, see page 69 of the 1972 Annual Audit which lists the Interest Rates and Dates, the Issue Date; the Final Maturity Date, the Amount Issued, the Bonds Retired, the Amount Outstanding, the Annual Payment dates, amounts and totals.
Zeeland's 1971 Annual Audit lists com-parable information at page 5.
(Response to In-terrogatory 36)
This information is reported in the Annual Audits.
s
Number 30 Both Holland and Zeeland reference the Annual Audits for short term debts in responses to In-terrogatory 37.
For Eclland, see page 69 of 1972 Annual Audit for current payments due.
For Zee-land, see Balance Sheet, page 18 of the 1971 Fi-nancial Audit.
The information requested is available in both the Annual Audits and in the FPC Form 1-M (page 2),
31 See response for Holland and Zeeland given in 29 l
supra.
32 (Delete) l I
33 Holland and Zeeland responded to comparable Inter-rogatory No. 40 with "AA" by Moody's and "A" by Moody's.
To the extent such information is reported the Moody's Reports will indicate the credit ratings, 1
and this is available in any Public Library.
i 34 Holland's Annual Audit shows the construction work in progress at page 48 for the 1972 Annual Audit; i _
Number.
Zeeland's 1971 Annual Audit reports this informa-tion at page 12.
35 Both Holland and Zeeland responded to comparable Interrogatory 42 with "None".
To the extent such data is ava ilable it would ap-pear in the Annual Audits or in Annual Public Re-ports.
36 Holland and Zeeland both report this information at page 5 of Form 1-M.
Comparable information also appears in Annual Audits (see page 51 of Holland's 1972 Annual Audit, and page 9 of Zee-land 's 1971 Annual Audit).
The requested information is available in either the FPC Form.1-M's or in the Annual Audits.
37 Holland and Zeeland both report that no change in accounting methodology has occurred, in response to Interrogatory 44.
The Annual Audits have a statement by the person
)
performing the audit as to the methods used in
~
preparation.
q
.17 -
j
Number 38 This interrogatory was not directed to either Holland or Zeeland so that we cannot relate data supplied by these parties.
No. 45 is somewhat similar.
The systems of both Holland and Zeeland include water service as well as electric service.
In both cases the annual audits reflect a strict division of revenues, expenses, funding and long term debt.
There is no apparent difficulty in ex-tracting the requested information from these two systems ' annual audits.
39 Holland and Zeeland report the information re-quested in both the Annual Reports (page 3) and in the Annual Audits (see page 51 of the Holland 1972 Annual Audit and page 9 of the Zeeland 1971 Annual Audit) - Interrogatory 46.
(a)
Neither Holland nor Zeeland break out those customers served outside the city limits.
Zeeland estimates f.idt less than 5%rof its customers are outside the city limits.
(b)
There would be no differences used in the totals used in response to previous interrogatories.
The.
Number information requested by this interrogatory is reported in both the Annual Reports and Annual Audits and are readily available to Consumers Power.
40 Hollaed in response to Interrogatory 47 references the rate schedu.'es and further states that no changes have occurred.
3eeland's response is not appli-
~
cable, but Zeeland also has supplied rate schedules which classify customers and since these rates have not changed over the period in question, Zeeland's answer is understandable.
The non-party rates which classify customers can be obtained for 16 of these municipals from FPC National Rate Books.
Those not rep;rted in these documents could be obtained by request from the individual system offices.
The FPC National Rate Book indicates the effective datcc of the rates reported.
By checking earlier versions of these books.for those rates reported, any changes can be ascertained and the information compiled.
41 Ali. of the party systems, including not only the municipals but also the cooperatives report meters. t
Number To respond by eliminating all such customers who are served by more than one meter would require an inventory of property, an analysis of meter readings correlated to bills and generally would require an extensive and burdensome task resulting in minimal information.
This would be particularly true for the years other than the most current.
All of the party systems have agreed to permit Consumers Power to inspect this underlying data to compile such information.
The amount of records involved is too extensive to permit copying or even removal from the systems.
The only practicable way to respond, if it were deemed necessary, would be for Consumers Power to examine the underlying data at the system offices.
42 Holland responded to Interrogatory 49 by referencing the Federal Power Conmission Reports.
Zeeland indicates that it has no farm customers and that its rates apply equally to commercial or indus-trial customers.
FPC Form 12A lists the defini-tions of these classes of customers at page 3, 1
-m
Number and the numbers of customers are reported for the various classifications.
Both systems in-dicate that no change has occurred during the period in question.
The information requested is readily available for those systems who report to the FPC on Form 12A.
Information is also given in Annual Audits with respect to services or revenue; and thus 1
is readily available to Consumers Power.
43 Both Holland and Zeoland report to the FPC on Form 12A and the information requested can be found on page 3 of that report.
Information with respect to revenues is also contained in the Annual Audits.
(See page 51 of Holland's 1972 Annual Audit and page 9 of Zeeland's 1971 Annual Audit).
The requested-information can be readily ob-tained through either the FPC Form 12 A's or through the Annual Audits.
44 As stated in response to Interrogatory 41, the _
~.
a Number systems report maters and not customers and do not have the information requested.
For ex-ample, one customer may have a meter serving his residence billed under the residential rate and another meter serving his business served under the commercial / industrial rate.
Under the circumstances, reporting the meters rather x.
than the customers more accurately reflects the information reported to the FPC, i.e.,
resi-dential or commercial industrial rates.
It would be incongruous to report the customer in this instance since the report would not be ac-curate.
It would also penalize this customer to force him to pay a commercial / industrial rate for his residence.
At any rate, the sys-tems have offered the underlying data for in-spection at the system by Consumer Power.
While we have not polled the 21 non-party municipals on this method of reporting, the fact that all of the party intervenors report meters and not customers would lead to a reasonable -
Number conclusion that these non-party municipals follow a similar procedure.
If this assumption is cor-rect, the information requested does not exist and would require an extremely burdensome procedure to provide this information.
45 Holland responded to comparable Interrogatory 52 by stating "None"; Zeeland responded to the same question with "No record".
In discussion with counsel for Consumers Power this question was linited to commercial or industrial customers.
This information has been incorporated in the re-quest to the non-parties.
In discussion with the municipal intervenors con-cerning this question, it was determined-that each of the parties has experienced gains over the period of years in question.
The systems have thus been faced with problems of expansion and any loss in customers would not be particularly noted.
- Further, the systems do not maintain records of customers lost, nor do they report them to the FPC or MPSC.
This is particularly true of cort. spondence files. --
Number While it may be possible to ascertain lossed by a comprehensive search and comparison of meter readings, this would create great burden for the systems.
46 Holland supplied the current 10 largest customers and revenues obtained during June 1972.
This sys-tem also offered to make the bills and meter books available for further information.
Zeeland also supplied the 10 largest customers in response to Interrogatory 10 and provided demand and revenues for February 1973.
This system also offered the meter books for inspection for the additional in-formation requested.
These.two systems do not maintain separate files on customers and the requested information could only be obtained by a search of the meter readings and a comparison of those readings for each year to obtain this information.
l The FPC Form 1-M's contain information concerning L
Numb;r large and small commercial / industrial customers without revealing names, addresses or specific information which could be used by a competitor.
These reports are readily available to consumers Power.
47 Holland and Zeeland responded to comparable In-terrogatory 54 with "None" and "No" respectively.
The interrogatory propounded to the 21 non-party municipals would very likely receive a similar response, although we have not polled them con-cerning this request.
If the answer should be in the affirmative, the subpart requests to this interrogatory could be either impossible or non-responsive because records would be unlikely to Number be maintained on the basis that the system's concern is with the customers it serves rather than with the castomers it does not serve.
48 Holland and Zeeland responded to comparable In-terrogatory 55 with "None" and "No change in area served".
The Annual Reports and Annual Audits report the total customers and KWH sales to each class.
By comparing these reports, Consumers Power can ob-tain the gains in customers and KWH sales.
Any annexation of territory would, of course, be readily available through the city clerk's office of the individual municipals and various state offices.
49 Holland and Zeeland both supplied current system maps indicating all the requested information.
Whatever is available would be supplied at the system office upon request.
Number 50 Holland supplied a copy of the study prepared by Black and Veatch in response to comparable In-terrogatory 57.
Zeeland reported "None".
To the extent studies of the nature requested have been prepared, a copy may have been lodged with the MPSC.
Otherwise, examination of such studies could be conducted at the systems of-fices.
In many instances, such documents may be acquired through the office of the City Clerk by paying for the copying expenses.
51 Holland and Zeeland both report annually to the FPC on Form 12A at page 5.
These systems also report generation information at pages 6 and 1
18 of FPC Form 1-M.
To the extent any of the non-party municipals generate, the requested information is readily available from the,FPC Annual Reports.
52 This information is also reported in the Annual Reports filed with the FPC.
Holland and Zeeland also report this information in their annual audits...
s Number 53 Holland and Zeeland do not report any trans-mission facilities but Form ~l-M provides for this information.
The requested information is available from reports filed with the FPC or through Annual Audits.
54 Holland reports this information in its Annual l
Public Reports which are widely distributed or are available, at least in the current issue, upon request.
Zeeland responded to Interrogatory 62 by reporting 31.7 miles of distribution fa-cilities.
l If a system map is supplied to either the FPC of MPSC, this information could be retrieved from this source.
Another possible source for information would be the public Annual Reports l
which might contain the information.
55 Holland responded to Interrogatory 63 by referencing the system map supplied in response
.to another. interrogatory.
Zeeland, which has.
Number no facilities comparing to those cited, responded "Not Applicable".
To the extent the 21 non-party municipals operate such facilities, it would be reported in an an-nual report filed with the'FPC or would be iden-tified on the system maps.
56 In reeponse to comparable Interrogatory 64, Holland reported "None"; Zeeland identified Consumers Power as being franchised in Zeeland and Holland Townships.
This information is available either through the City Clerk's office in each municipality or is on file with the MPSC and thus the information is readily available.
57 Holland and Zeeland responded to question 65 as follows: Holland - no option; Zeeland - no option in corporate limits - outside no knowledge.
Number The MPSC has information concerning franchises of electric utilities as does the City Clerk's office for each municipality and the County Clerk for each county.
Since the authority to operate is granted by franchise or ordinance, the information is readily available through public records.
58 Consumers Power operates in the territories served by Holland and Zeeland and this was so indicated by the responses to Interrogatory 66.
Both sys-tems stated that they had no knowledge concerning the customers served by Consumers Power.
The information recuested is either already in the hands of Consumers Power, as is the case with Holland and Zeeland, or could be obtained from -
Number records (with respect to franchises) or from the system actually serving the customers.
The muni-cipals do not have this information.
59 Holland and Zeeland responded "None" and "No" re-spectively to comparable Interrogatory 67.
The non-party municipals have been authorized to operate an electric utility system in their muni-cipality.
This authority is a public record readily available to Consumers Power.
While we have not examined the charters of the non-parties, we can state that the charters of two of the non-parties, namely Holland and Zeeland, have an expressed man-date to provide continuous and non-discriminatory service to the public. (See Chapter 12 of the Hol-land Charter, and Chapter 13 of the Zeeland Char-ter).
60 Holland and Zeeland both responded "None" to com-parable Interrogatory 68.
It should be noted that 11 of the 21 non-party municipals are not customers j
of Consumers Power and with respect to these, this information could appropriately be obtained from those suppliers.
The 10 1
4 Number who are in Consumers Power territory would only have customers who would be served by Consumers Power and it must be assumed that Consumers Power knows more about its customers than the municipals who do not serve them.
61 - 63 (Deleted) 64 Page 22 of Form 1-M contains this information and thus is readily available to Consumers Power.
Hol-land referenced its Annual Reports in response to comparable Interrogatory 73 ; Zeeland answered in detail and referenced the Annual Audits (see page 2 i
of the 1971 Audit).
The information may be obtained from the FPC Form 1-M and/or the Annual Audits.
^
65 The information requested is provided at page 19 of Form 1-M for 1971, and at pages 15-16 of the Power System Statement, Form 12A for 1971..,
Number Both Holland and Zeeland supplied these reports to Consumers Power.
66 Holland responded to 75 (b), the comparable Inter-rogatory directed to the party municipals, by referencing the interchange agreement with Con-sumers Power.
Zeeland responded "None".
Page 20 of the 1971 Form 1-M _rovides for responses by the reporting system which would augment the in-formation requested by Consumers Power.
67 Holland provided Consumers Power with copies of its Public Annual Reports which contains the infor-mation requested.
Although this system interpreted the question to mean cost per KWH to customers and thus referenced pages 28-29 of the 78th Annual Report, we note that costs of generation are also found at pages 10-11 of that report.
Zeeland referenced the Annual Audits and the Form 12.
The Form 1-M contains the costs associated with sales
Number in KWH nt page 3.
Also, the Annual Audit for 1971, page 2, gives an account of income and expense per KWH.
The information for past and future years is con-tained in the Form 1-M's on file with the FPC and thus is readily available to' Consumers Power.
68 Revelation of the present studies requested by this interrogatory could be damaging to the system in that information contained therein might refer to current negotiations with sources of power supply.
Most, if not all of the 21 non-party municipals are currently engaged in litigation over rate increases either with Consumers Power or Indiana and Michigan.
If ordered to produce such materials, irreparable i
harm to the systems could result, for once material has been supplied it becomes public property and available for all to review.
The Board should weigh the need for this information.aga:nst
- 34
~
Number the harmful results in supplying confidential business negotiations or plans.
69 With the exception of the small percentage of transmission grid operated by Wolverine and Northern Michigan, the entire transmission facili-ties over which alternate sources of bulk power could be wheeled are owned by Consumers Power and/or Detroit Edison and/or The Michigan Power Pool which consists of these two privately owned utilities. Thus any request or inquiry concerning the initiation of wholesale electric supply would have to be directed to Consumers, Detroit Edison or one of the members of the MIIO.
These systems are also tied to The Michigan, Indiana, Illinois, Ohio (MIIO) group and have est' blished working agreements a
with these privately owned utilities who are members.
Consumers Power is thus privy to any attempts to acquire bulk power from any of its associates.
Holland did not respond to comparable Interrogatory 79 and Zeeland's response was that it is not a mem-ber of the MCPP.
In this respect, the Department of Justice has been conducting studies relating to the instant case with various of the municipalities. \\
Number Any such information would not be supplied as pri-vileged work product.
70 Holland and Zeeland are both members of the Michigan Municipal Electric Association (MMEA) and the Ameri-can Public Power Association (APPA).
This was the response given to Interrogatory 81.
Consumers Power knows about the membership of the 21 non-party municipals in the MMEA.
Charlevoix, Chelsea, Clinton, Hart, Lowell, Paw Paw, Portland, St. Louis and Union City are not members of the APPA.
This latter information was determined by making a telephone call to the Washington Office c
2, -
of APPA, and the other organizations would probably not be reluctant to give out a list of non-members.
The APPA publishes a directory of publicly owned systems annually which also is a source of infor-mation concerning these systems and their genera-tion, purchases, meters and revenues.
71 (Deleted)
- 36.-
Number 72 In response to comparable Interrogatory 83, Holland referenced its organizational chart; Zeeland listed its r= nager,the City Clerk and two outside consul-tants.
In limited discussions with non-parties it has been determined that for all except Lansing, Bay City and W andotte, the manager and perhaps the plant y
superintendent performs the functions listed.
The information with respect to the larger systems can be obtained from the Annual Public Reports which are widely distributed.
73 Page 22 of the 1971 Form 1-M provides the informa-tion with respect to interchanges.
74 We know of no report which would require this infor-mation and suggest that if its relevance and ma-teriality be deemed appropriate to the issues that the systems supply this answer.directly.
75 The systems of Holland and Zeeland responded "No" l
and "None" respectively to comparable Interrogatory 87.
Since this represents the responses of the
4 Number
' largest (12,000 plus meters) and the smallest (1,800 plus meters) of the party municipals, it is expected that similar responses would be made by the non-party municipals with the exception of Lansing (67,000 plus meters) which is in a class of its own.
Bay City (12,000 plus meters) is com-parable to Holland except that it does not generate any of its power.
Of the remaining,18 municipals are smaller than Holland and a few are smaller than
- Zeeland, i.e., Charlevoix (1,600 meters), Clinton (800 meters), Croswell (910 meters), Lowell (1,278 meters), Portland (1,313 meters), St. Louis (1,400 meters), Sebewaing (900 meters), and Union City (1,000 meters).
Only Wyandotte (14,400 meters) is larger than Holland, but this system is not a custo-mer of Consumers Power.
76 Holland and Zeeland responded "None" to comparable Interrogatory 88.
t If such services resulted in expenses to the sys-i tems, it would appear in the Annual Audits.
To the l
Number extent Consumers Power provided such services, the information requested is readily available from their own records and there would be no need to acquire the information from the systems.
Since consumers Power is closely associated with Detroit Edison and Indiana and Michigan, this information should be readily available to Consumers Power upon request to those privately owned utilities.
77-78 (Deleted) 79 The comparable interrogatories directed to the-party municipals are 89 and 90.
Holland responded that its employees perform these dutles.
Zeeland responded "Not Applicable" to 89 ar S "By system employees " to 90.
To the extent the systems publish an annual public report, the information requested would be avail-able from this source.
The Annual Audits also reveal the costs attributed to the services in question and would be a further source of informa-tion available to Consumers Power. l
Number 80 The information with respect to reserves for current and past years is provided by the Form 12 's on file with the FPC.
(See pp. 26-28, 34 of 1971 Form 12).
The requested information is available through the annual reports filed with the FPC.
81 This information is also reported at page 34 of the 1971 Annual Report Form 12 and thus is readily available to Consumers Power through the FPC.
82 1
l
~
APPENDIX B S
ATTACllMENT A INSTRUCTIONS FOR REPORTING TYPICAL NET MONTHLY BILLS FOR ELECTRIC SERVICE AS OF JANUARY l OF THE YEARS 1960, 1965, 1970 and 1972 and JUNE 30, 1972.
SECTION I.
GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS 1.
EFFECTIVE DATE.
Use rate schedules in effect on January 1 of the years 1960, 1965, 19 70 and 1972,. and June 30, 1972 for computing bills.
A rate schedule is deemed effective on January 1 or June 30 of the year if any energy used on that day could have been billed thereunder.
Insert the schedule designation and the date on which the new rate schedule first became effective.
2.
NET BILLS.
Compute all bills _on..a net basis r
i.e., after prompt payment discounts or before delayed payment penalties.
3.
MONTHLY BASIS.
Compute all bills on a monthly basis.
Where rate schedules or any part thereof are quoted on an annual, quarterly, or bimonthly basis, prorate the bills to a monthly basis.
4.
FUEL ADJUSTMENT.
Adjust bills to reflect fuel adjustments, if any, for energy billed on January 1 of each of
)
the stated years, and on June 30 for 1972.
Enter the adjustment per kwh, the fuel cost and other pertinent data.
5.
METER RENTALS.
In computing bills include where applicable any charge made for meter rentals if the majority of customers are required to pay such meter rentals, but exclude such charge if the majority of customers furnish their~own meters.
In either case, state in a footnote the amount of the meter rental and whether or not the majority of customers furnish or rent meters.
6.
LAMP RENEWALS.
Compute bills on the assumption that lamp renewal service is not included in the rates.
When the charge for lamp renewal service cannot be segregated, state in a footnote that such charge is' included in the bills shown.
7.
SEASONAL RATES.
Do not compute bills under seasonal rates where year-round rates are available.
Where year-round rates are not available, compute bills for all seasons for which there are different rates and state the periods or seasons of the year for which each rate is available.
, 8.
TAX, PRICE, AND WAGE LEVEL ADJUSTMENTS.
The bills furnished are to reflect the charges actually paid by customers in accordance with the terms of the rate schedules, rules and regulations, etc.
Adjust bills to reflect tax, price and wage level adjustments, if any, for energy billed on January 1 of each of the stated years, and on June 30 of 1972.
Sales taxes are not to be included in computing the bills _, but where the revenue collected pursuant to the tax adjustment clause becomes an operating revenue of your system, the bills should reflect such tax adjustment.
9.
OTHER FACTORS.
Show by footnotes any other facts affecting the computations of the bills furnished or the choice o,f the schedules used.
Such factors would include rebates, periodic free service and inducement rates.
SECTION II.
SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS FOR RESIDENTIAL SERVICE 1.
DEFINITION.
Residential service is defined as service which is supplied to residential customers for lighting, refrigeration, cooking, water heating, and other domestic uses.
2.
RATE SCHEDULES TO BE USED.
Compute each bill using the rate schedule or combination of rate schedules on which the largest group of residential customers was billed for the specified consumption as of January 1 of each of the stated years, and as of June 30 of 1972.
3.
DEMAND ASSUMPTIONS.
Where charges are based on the number of rooms or measured demand, assume the following for computing bills:
(a)
Number of rooms - A five-room residence consisting of living room, dining room, kitchen and two bedrooms.
(b)
Measured. demand - For 500 kwh consumption assume a measured demand of 4.5 kw.
For 750 kwh consumption assume a demand of 5 kw.
For 1,000 kwh consumption assume a demand of 5.5 kw.
(c)
Water heating - Use demand and size of tank most generally applicable to water heaters using from 250 to 350 kwh per month, and state what demand and/or size of tank is used.
4.
KWH ASSUMPTIONS.
TWO OR MORE METERS.
Where residential service can be taken through more than one meter and.such is the general practice, assume the following:
4 5
n
d.
(a)
For the 500 kwh bill assume that 250 kwh for lighting, small appliances, refrigeration, and cooking are measured through the general service meter and that 250 kwh for water-heating are measured through the water-heating meter.
i 1
(b)
For the 750 kwh bill assume that 400 kwh for lighting, appliances, refrigeration and cooking are measured through the general service meter and that 350 kwh are measured through the water heating meter.
If cooking is metered separately from lighting and water heating, assume 150 kwh for cooking consumption.
If refrigeration is not metered with lighting and appliance load, assume 40 kwh for such consumption.
(c)
For the 1,010 kwh bill assume that 650 kwh for lighting, appliances, refrigeration and cocking are measured through the general service meter and that 350 kwh are measured through the water-heating meter.
If cooking is metered separately from lighting and water heating, assume 150 kwh for cooking consumption.
If refrigeration is not metered with lighting and appliance load, assume 40 kwh for such consumption.
(d)
In the case of rates providing for special night rates when water heating is used, assume for the 500 kwh bill-that 250 kwh are billed at the night rate.
For the 750 and 1,000 kwh bills assume that 350 kwh are billed at the night rate.
i
e
-4 SECTION III.
SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS FOR COMMERCIAL SERVICE 1.
DEFINITION.
Commercial service is defined as ser-vice which is supplied to commercial or business establishments such as stores, offices, restaurants, and garages for lighting and power purposes.
2.
RATE SCHEDULES TO BE USED.
Use all rate schedules ordinarily applicable to commercial service at the range of con-sumptions and demands given in Interrogatory 7 (b).
Do not use rate schedules restricted to a special class of enterprise such as department stores, hotels, laundries or apartment houses; nor to a special purpose such as sign lighting, refrigeration, heating, cooking, welding, auxiliary, or temporary service.
Industrial schedules specifically limited to manuf acturing customers should not be included.
3.
BILLS TO BE FURNISHED.
If but one schedule is applicable to commercial service, a bill is to be furnished under that schedule for every demand-energy combination listed in Interrogatory 3 7 (b).
If more than one schedule is applicable, bills should be shown for each schedule for those demand-energy combinations shown in that interrogatory, which come within the range of demand and/or energy consumptions for which the schedule is, or would be used in actual utility billing practice.
Bills outside of this range need not be shown.
At least one bill for each demand-energy combination should be furnished.
4.
SCHEDULE USE.
When a new schedule is used, state the minimum and maximum demands and consumptions beyond which the schedule is not, or would not be used.
5.
DIRECT CURRE'NT.
Do not compute any bills under schedules for direct-current service only._
6.
OFF-PEAK SERVICE.
Do not compute bills from rates which restrict service to off-peak hours.
7.
SERVICE VOLTAGE.
Compute bills only for energy delivered at secondary voltage (550 volts or less) and metered at such voltage on the secondary side of system-owned trans-former.
8.
TERM OF CONTRACT.
Footnote cases where contract term is over one year.
9 O'
9~
DEMAND.
(a)
Billing Demand.
The kilowatt demands requested are the actual bllling demands of a customer after all adjustments, except for power factor, have been made.
(b)
Compute all bills for schedules applicable to motive power and incidental cn: no lighting at 85% lagging power factor.
For schedules permitting unrestricted lighting in addition to power, compute bills' for 375, 750, and 1,500 kwh at unity power factor.
For the 6,000 and 10,000 kwh bills assume a lagging power factor of 85% (unless only a small motive power load is permitted, in which case assume unity power factor).
(c)
Kilovolt-amperes or Horsepower.
For schedules basing charges on kilovolt-amperes or horsepower, assume the following conversions:
BILLING DEMAND W
Kva Hy 3
3(1) 4 6
6(1) 8 12 12(1) 16 30 35.3 40 40 47 54 (1)
.For power schedules permitting incidental or no lighting assume 3.5 kva, 7 kva, and 14 kva for 3 kw, 6 kw and 12 kw, respectively.
10.
TYPE OF SERVICE.
Show the application of. rate schedules, using the following symbols:
L - lighting, and appliances with or without single phase or incidental power PL - motive power, and incidental lighting GEN - lighting, single or 3-phase power, and other used in any proportion desired P - motive power but no lighting
s e
? SECTION IV.
SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS FOR INDUSTRIAL SERVICE 1.
D2FINITION.
Industrial service is defined as ser-vice which is supplied to industrial establishments having demands of 50 kw or more, or consumptions of 15,000 kwh or more per month.
2.
RATE SCHEDULES TO BE USED.
Use all rate schedules for motive power applicable to industrial service as defined under paragraph 1 of this section.
Do not use rate schedules restricted to commercia' establishments or to special classes of enterprise, such as cement, mining, oil, or textile industries; or to a special purpose, such as auxiliary, breakdown, temporary, or inter-mittent services, industrial heating, or irrigation, or to indus-trial lighting.
3.
BILLS TO BE FURNISHED.
If but one schedule is applicable to industrial service, a bill must be furnished under that schedule,for every demand-energy combination listed in Inter-rogatory 7 (c).
If more than one schedule is applicable to this class of' service, bills should be furnished for each schedule for those demand-energy combinations shown in that interrogatory, which come within the range of demand and/or energy consumptions, for which the schedule is, or would be used in actual system billing practice.
Bills outside of this range should be noted.
4.
SCHEDULE USE.
When a new schedule is used, state the minimum and maximum demands and consumptions beyond which the schedule is not, or would not be used.
5.
DIRECT CURRENT.
Do not compute any bills under schedules for direct-current service only.
6.
OFF-PEAK SERVICE.
Off -peak rates which do not restrict the use of energy'during the normal hours of operation of industrial concerns may be shown.
7.
SERVICE VOLTAGE.
Use all rate schedules applic-able to industrial service as defined in paragraphs 1 and 2 of this section, regardless of voltage.
Indicate whether the bills furnished are for primary metering or for secondary metering, and whether the system or the customer owns the transformer.
When a rate schedule provides different rates for primary and secondary metering compute bills for primary metering only, assuming customer ownership of transformer.
Where the schedula permits, compute bills for 75 kw an4 150 kw demands at voltages between 2,200 and 4,000 and bills for 300 kw, 500 kw and 1,000 kw demands at voltages between 11,000 and 13,200.
otherwise compute bills for the voltage at which service is most generally rendered, and state in a footnote the voltages used.
_7_
8.
TERM OF CONTRACT.
If the rate schedule allows a discount to customers contracting for service for a period longer than one year, compute bills based on the longer contract term.
9.
DEMAND.
(a)
Billing Demand.
The kilowatt-demands shown in Interrogatory /),7 (c)' are the actual billing demands of a customer'after all adjustments, except those for power factor and voltage, have been made.
(b)
Compute all bills for motive power at 85% lagging power factor.
Note any adjustments.
(c)
Kilovolt-ampcres or Horsepower.
For schedules basing charges on kilovolt-amperes or horsepower assume the following. conversions:
BILLING DEMAND Kw Kva Hg 75 88 100 150 176 200 300 353 400 500 588 667 1,000 1,176 1,333 10.
TYPE OF SERVICE.
Show the application of the rate schedules using the following symbols:
M - where the schedule permits unrestricted motive power only MUL - where the schedule permits unne.'tricted lighting in addition to unrestricted motive power MRL - where the schedule permits unrestricted motive power and in addition restricting lighting 6
.- Q
APPENDIX C BASSETT v. ERADDOCK Fla.
425 Citea Fla 3 Sw.2d 4 ~.
contract negotiation > with teachers' repre-sentatives could in gotiate outside of public
. Patricia K. BASSETT, and Kenneth Hopkin. mectmgs without being in violation of the son, joined by Mrs. Crutcher Har.
rison, Appellants.
Sumhme lav F.S.A. g 286.011.
v.
- 2. Labor Relations C=>l79 C. Holmes BR ADDOCK et al., Appellees.
Scho.,1 i.oard may mstruct and consult v.
wnh its 141 or ns gotiators, in private without DADE COUNTY CLASSROOM TEACHERS.
being in violation of the %unshine law."
ASSOCI ATION, Inc., Intervenor Appellee.
"*5 No. 4 8315.
Supreme Court of Florida.
- 3. Schools and School Districts C=>53(1)
Slay 17, ifG:.
Any initial siolation of law resulting from election of chairman anil vice-chair.
man of school board by secret written bal-Action by citizens of county against lut w as cured by the corrective, open. puble.
school board for injunction ; teachers
- as. o-vote which followed.
F.S.A. s 286.011.
ciation ir.terv(ned upon counterclaim tor declaratory decree as to teacher *,' collective targaining rights. The Circuit Court, Dade William S. Frates, Larry S. Stewart and County, Rhea l' incus Grossman, J., entered J n I. G rdon, of Frates, Floyd, Pearson judgment and plaintiffs appealed. The Su-
& Stewart, liiami, for apptilants.
preme Court, Dek!c, J., held that labor nc-gotiators employed by school board in pre-Frank A. Iloward, Jr., liiami, for appel-liminary or tentative teacher contract ne-
- jees, gotiations with teachers' representatives Tobias Simon and Elizabeth J. duFresne, may negotiate outside of public meetings Sliami, for intervenor appellee.
without being in violation of the ** sunshine law" and that 1,oard may instruct and con-Robert L Shev.m, Atty. Gen., and Dam. l e
sult with its ! abor negotiators in private S.
Dearing Chief Tr. l Counsel,
Talla-ia without such vioiation.
hassee, as amici curiae.
Affirmed.
Roberts, P. J., concurred specially and DEKLE, justice.
fded opinion.
We af firm on this direct appeal the find.
Adkins, J., dissented and filed opinion ings and judgments of the learned chan-concurred in by Boyd, J.
cellor. An injunction was sought by cer-tain Dade County citizens as plaintiffs (ap-pellants) against Appellees Dade County L Labor Relations C=>l79 School Board for alleged faihtre to comply Attorney employed in public by school with the so-called " Government in the Sim I'oard for preliminary or tentative teacher t, hine" law.8 Dade County Clannaim 8 Fla. Stat. ! $t1.011, P.S \\.t "I'ni fic to le put.lic im etiu;:n open to t!.e pulatie ut inettinese and records; puidic inni,rrti. n ulI tinersi, nu.I no re.olution rule n.:ul.s-
~
pe naltire.-til.\\ll meetins:s of any tamr.1 tion or f. rmn1 ncti.oe slull I e niu idrred ur restuminion of nuy ht:tte n;:enry or un.
liitulung ewenst n4 taken ser pinde nf aspela liturity ser of nur nuclicy or nulliority of huvlin::. (0) Tlie ansnutcg elf u suretinar uhy enuhty, municipal n rporation
..r uny of nuy muels l=tard of eininnicion of..ny laelitient nulaliti i.pn, rrre pt av
,,f Arretie suelt state n;:euey or nullmrif y sliall ler pr ri.ird in (Ac n,..t,tnfion, as arAw&.,f.
promptly n unted nnd su li nwr Is imil firied arte arc su I,r tertrn are declared in oien to liedelic inspertion. Tiu cirenit it.2 sa u-aN
426 Fla.
262 SOUTHERN REPORTER,2d SERIES Teachers' Assoc., Inc., was interrenor upon vision. proposals in this regard have again counterclairn for declaratory decree as to been considered without passage. It is to teachcrs' " collective bargaining rights. Le hoped that this will in time reach frui.
The injunction was properly denied; the tion. Meanwile. however, this Court re-declaratory decree was correct as to "bar-mains hesitant to allow itself to be pro-gaining rights."
pelled into " judicial implementation." For purposes of this appeal, therefore, we mere-The prm.cipal issues are framed as fol-ly affirm the lower court's action.n these 3,.,,~
respects. To d) otherwise could well deny
- 1. Whether labor negotiators employed the public employees' rights to " bargain col-by the Board in preliminary or tentative lectively" as guaranteed by Fla.Const. art.
teacher. contract negotiations with the I, [ 6.
Such " intensity" of the "sunrays" teachers' representatives may negotiate under the statute, as urged by this appeal, outside of public meetings without being in could cause a damaging case of " sunburn" violation of the "Sumhine Law"?
to these employees or to the public which elected the Board. It quite possibly would 2.
Whether the Board may instruct and conflict with the protective umbrella of the consult with its labor negotiators in private constitutional guarantee of { 6.
without such violation?
IIere we have a literal constitutional ex-The appeal is from the chancellor's af.
ception expressly provided withm the Sun-firmative answers to these queries. We shine Law which states: ".
.. except affirm.
as otherwise provided in the constitution The constitutional question vesting juris-
." (emphasis ours) The " sun-diction in this Court (Fla.Const. art. V, i shine" of the statute is still afforded in the
-l(2)), F.S.A. relates to Fla.Const. art. I, debate and adoption of the ultimate em-
[ 6. which guarantees collective bargaining ployment contract at a public meeting but for employees? See also this Court's ex-with the constitutional polaroid filter from pression thereon in Dade County Classroom the damaging " ultra violet rays" of pre.
Teachers' Assoc., Inc. v. R an. 225 So.2d liminary skirmishing.
3 903 (Fla.1969).
The able chance!!or's finding as to bar-Implement ng legislation unfortunately gaining negotiations was based on im-has not yet. cen pas <ed to give guidance pressive. uncontroverted testimony by re-and meaning to this vital constitutionni spectable national authorities in the field, protection.3 Public employces are aho en-that meaningful collective bargaining in the tit lcd to their place in the ">unshme" At c:reumstances here would be destroyed if the 112 regular Icgi lative sc>sion. which full publicity were accorded at each step of is the third since pastage of this 1%S pro-the negotiations.* lt would pit the publie umrt. of lid = tat-hall 1.ne juri il4 tion
- 3. We nree.1 thi< in liaele ('lauroom Teach-to ion. injun. tb.n* t.. enfurer tIr. luirposo-e rs'.\\ ='n I ne. v. Ilyan. 2:5 80.31 f*3
..t' thi wet enn up..n ni.p!irati..n hv uny Wla.1!Ch.
citiren< at t hi t :n.
tenut.ha*i nur 6 4.
We qnnie e it h intercut frntn "On I'rior 2.
- x. t re. s h thd r N lik. b *rhe right it. traint" by I'nul.\\. I'reun.1 'OL imb-s
..f per..n-ta m ark hall ne.t hr.l. n i. s..r b he.1 in ti.e liarsnr.1 Law Shout lint-uhri4r.l.m a.mut.: of own.kr hip or non-
- 1. tin of.\\nguet, l!G1 :
nuanh. r Lip in nur in1.or union or labor s.r.
- 'I'he fr.unern e.f th- ('on*tituti.m arro.
nniroinn. *rbr rigt of e n.pinice-h>
pulon-ty nuintainc.1 the wecrecy of their an.1 thr..u:h a t i..r..rroJrati..n. in f ar
.b bkrati..n* in the n.nrenti..n of IN.
l
- nin...lb+tiir13 1.,it un. k.irin.-l or 31tli un** note *, ilm best remr.l. were not uhrih-.l. 1%h k.ns. boer. *l.11 n.. hnw puhti hat until hi=.lrath. forty 3eara later.
t he right t.. st rike '
- ere. y. it i fair in su ptwe. promoral t ree nnd can.h I lebate withm the enn.
f
'e s.
BASSETT ir. BRADDOCIs -
Fla.
427 Cite.. Ma..'vr2 8..tt W.
body as a sittual "!) avid" without benei;t "not unly formal acts, but al o acts of.
~
of *Amg"8 agam t the 4 ohath ehampa,n - dehbts. mon, dnen-ion and dseidmg. occur-(negotiatore for 7.9s) employees in tin, rmg. priur to.md leadmg up to affirmatise immediate case and os tr.91/m c n;du3tt-form.d actom.
Whi!c curevdmg that our who could be ultim.tely involved.
opinions base httu as I ro.uf as possiL!c to
!ct in the simshine undtr the Legislaturc's The public's representatac, must l e ai-i nacttnei.t. nertrtheless a careful rcread-forded at 1 cast un equal p.n:ttui. w:th that me of our op' mons and the Act t.nl to sup-eajoyed by thoic with whom they deal-port the foreguing contemiun. It wa> not The public should not suffer a handicap at specifical y involved m our prior decisions the expense of a purist view ui open pubbe which hase dealt prmeipally with " meet-meetings. so long as the ultimate dtbate ing,"(some mformal) of a I. card. We have and decisions are pubhc and the "oilicial m c::rher opimons referred to " matters acts" and " formal action" specified by the on w aich foresecaL!c action will be taken
. statute are taken in open "public meet-by the Board" and "any discuss;uns on mat.
ings."
- This afforJ< the adequate and ci-ters pertainmg to the duties and responsi-fective protection to the public on the side bilities of the livard of Puldic Instruction of the "right to know" which was inteml-of Ilroward County."" These are broad ed.1 -
considerations but they still do not invade the areas of dehberation here involved, for
[1] The Board's employed attorney for it will be noted that in all of these observa-I the negotiations (" negotiator") was em.
tions by the Court, they are predicated ployed in public; he had no authority to upon a " meeting." IIere the required ac-Lind the Board (and in fact his recom. tion under the statutes teas taken in a pub-mendations were later modified by the he meeting; changes were made and voting Board in open meetings); he made his re-had, all in public. The discussions and port to the Board in public where the deliberations, however, in an executive discussions were spirited and the ultimate process often take place beyond the veil vote was 4 to 3! Full considcration of of actual " meetings" of the body involved.
the recommendations of the Board's nego.
It is only in those "mcetings" that official tiator was accordingly had in a public meet-action is taken. Preliminary " discussions" ing and aired and voted upon in public. may never result in any action taken.
l Those recommendations were in. a sense There may be numerous informal ex-simply the acorn from which the final changes of ideas and possibilities, either contract grew-in the sunshine.' There is among members or with others (at the no violation.
coke machine. in a foyer, etc.) when there is no relationship at all to any meeting at Appellants urge that the Act and our which any. foreseeable action is contem-
. prior decisions compel public meetings for plated.'
Such things germinate gradually vention. and vitally encouraged the shifts' members believed it right to shicht their in voting, the arent <wtupromiscs, calculat-own discussions from the public and dis.
ed ambiguitics and deliberate lacunaa that close only the final actions taken."
made possible in the cud a masterful char-g ter.
The cricinal Conntitution mntnined no
- 6. Fla. Stat. $ 25fLO11.
ruarantee of freedom of stuwh. nnte far members of Congrens, and none for the L lbmrd of 1*nblic Instruction v. Doran.
I pecas. When the first Conarca proposed
=4 Sofd CD3 (Fla.i!H;til: City of Miami the Hrnt Amendment, the Senate, it in Ucach v. Berns. 24~, Soad 38 (Fla.1971).
worth rememin ring. xat in meercry. For
- 8. Id.
five yearn the Senate hehl its debaten be.
hind cloucd skorn. Uclievin:: in the lib-
- 9. Macachuscus has n "right.to know" law.
erty of the preu.' nt the name tinic the Maxmachusetts General leiws. Annot. Ch.
8 5
428 Fla.
202 SOUTHERN REPORTER, 2d SERIES and often without really knowing whether tage in order to be effective in his efforts.
any action or meeting will grow cat of the it might be noted that in a case like the exchanges or thinking.
present where the negotiator is an attorncy that certainly he ir entitled to consult with Every action emanate > from thoughts the Board on matters regard.mg preh.m. nary and creation
- of the m. d and exchanges adv. ices.3' IIe is also thereby gu.ded to-m i
with others. These are perhaps "dclibera-ward an effective result. It is not that tions" in a svnse but hardly demanded to appellees are " hiding., anything but simply be brought forward m. the spoken word at a trying to get the best obargam.,, available public meeting. To carry matters to such for the pubh.c schools and not to be placed an extreme approaches the ridiculous; it at a disadvantage m their efforts. It there-would defeat any meaningful and produc-fore follows that th.is is not m violation tive process of government. One must of the "Sunshm.e Law,, for the Board to m-maintain perspective on a broad provision struct and to consult with its labor nego-such as th. legu. lative enactment. in its ap-tiator in private without it be.mg a viola-is plication to the actual workings of an tion of I 236.011.
active 130ard fraught with many and var. d ie problems and demands.
[3] We affirm also on the Board's
[2] As to the second issue-the Board cross. appeal, the final judgment that the election of the chairman and vice-chairman instructing its negotiator in private-ii like.
wise follows that th;s is authorized on the of the Dade County School Board was valid same crounds and reasuning above. The in the particular circumstances here. It was "other side" (teachers' reptiator) is being first by secret written ballot but was then
" coached and given adviets privat *1y and unanimously by election upon motion and from time to time during the bargaining vote in open meeting. In this particular in-period : it is only common sense and fair stance, any ir.itial viola
- ion by secret writ-play that "our tea n" have the same advan-ten ballot was cured and rendered " sunshine A ' 3A e supp 19CN. An Attorney This is aho the view of the Attorney 39 2
General opinion La bil.1 this hw to be in.
General of Wiwon=in, where the statute applienhh. to.oih eriw harr iinir: eriou<
presid.s that no formal acticn of any con.hsered bet ween ne.wtintor.
Lin.1 ma> he introdu.e.l. deliberated upon.
"After e ni. ful ei n-i lerat ion.. I hase or ndopted at any riose.1 meeting of the ennrlu.h.i t hat thi taint-doe-nar nn-ch.e4 hoard. The Attorney General'a in-ply to odi.ctis c ha ;1itan - mon-wnh formal opinion reads av follow * :
wh.w ! cmphaer-Tho.l.u-iw punt
~f heliew it may he bromily stated that is that wu. h
-e inns nre not 'mee t in.:-
p&linunars negotiations betw een a rep-within the waning of tiut i rm in the r*-entatiw nf a tunnicipn! empin>cr and
-tature.
Th. n.eetina* to w his b tk n repn u ntatiw of its employren are not eit ut.. r. 4r-a re rath r *Lo-.. in w hi.b su bje. t to re.psirements nf Ser. 14.00.
t h..
internn' di-en--ions.
delileration=
stat.
( Anti-8 recy I.a w ). but that an.! u t me of an ng. n v nr. of publir
.Lhheratinn an l n.loption of any me-
.,.n., r n.
.t.,.lb et u r b. ire.i nine - --ion.
cific r%mna rnlation on the part of i
on the other t.arol. i a n ret tne,t whi, h the inunie:pnhts mu=t cornply with that t hr. mphip-r and. mph a r. - arr. n an d
.atute
% hnol II..a rd an.1 Teacher in n pr... -- ef an interebat.. und ana.
% coti ition
- in Wiu+n in Public ai of ea. h..t l.er'- prop. i-an!
onn-S. hn.1 ' at pp.11-12 Wiscon in Aesn.
t, t ;.t..p.
.d-Ti.i-i- a.hite reni L.n.t
..f school 11.cied. Winnamnne. Wi con.
119;7 -a; ented in Wollet t and
..f pr.re-
- r... that cisah.-d
.n ain
.,m.in. t ni an aerne.6 iniernal.lebber:.
Chnnin. upra.
tion or fl.e in dite of i'*..fi:cial le-
. i i..n.
I.et s. r f r..m m ie.\\ i...rton 10 The S ac en men to Neu pnper Guihl v.
t;rner d to t 'otunau r.ncr..f I L it i..n.
The S.o ram. nto i *ounty Itnard of Super-n..n 2G.5 t 'aLA ppf.'d 41, e;'s l'ahlt pt r.
t imen It tuerton. w ps. 12. INT. p
.n. Tin I.a r an-! l*r.se tw (IN.%. f. Times l'uhh Un, s. Wil-
--A yeae1i t irr..f T. i. ner.b.: a ca n.i - la LU. t '
O um 222 2. 2d 47n. 17.~.-47t; (2d IK'A I T.
Il i It4l.
nm! e1.nn Q
a-6 BASSETT v. BRADDOCK Fla.
429 Cite as Fla Oc0 Fo At 47, bright" by the corrective u n, pubbe vote ment in the sun >hite law). F.S.A., is appli-which followed.
cable to collective bargaining by public employees.
Affirmed.
Thus far the governmer.t in the sunsh.me law has withstood various attacks where a CARLTON and SicCAIN. JJ.. and few mi> guided local leards and agencies DREW *, J. (Retired), concur.
have attempted to <eek a means by which they could circumvent the law so as to re-ROBERTS, C. J., concurs specially with sume secret meetings.
opinion.
Appellees say that meaningful collective bargaining would be destroyed if full pub-ADKINS, J., dissents with opinion.
licity were accorded at each step of the negotiations. It should be recognized that every taxpayer b an interestd party 6 BOYD, J., dissents and agrees with AD-negotiations concerning the salaries to be g.g y*
paid public employees. The members of the school board are mere repres(ntatives of ROBERTS, Chief Justice (concurring the public and any action taken by the specially).
school board is the action of the public.
I concur in the opinion and judgment of g have previously defir.cd a secret Sir. Justice Dekle. However, I note that meetmg m the following language:
there was apparently an informal secret "A secret meeting occurs when public straw ballot between the members as to the officials meet at a time and place to avoid l-selection of a chairman with an obvious being seen or heard by the public. When understanding that the result of the straw at such meetings officials mentioned ir.
vote would be approved in an open formal Fla. Stat. $ 286.011, F.S.A., transact or
(
meeting. Since the secret straw vote was agree to transact public business at a fu-an integral part in the selection of the ture time in a certain manner they violate l
chairman, the vote of the individual mem-the government in the sunshine law, re-l bers at the informal straw poll should have gardless of whether the meeting is formal been made public in the minutes.
or. informal." City of Aliami Beach v.
Berns,245 So.2d 33,41 (Fla.1971).
ADKINS, Justice (dissenting):
Also in Board of Public Instruction of I dissent. The questions involved in this Broward Coimty v. Doran, 224 So.2d 693 litigation 'would never have arisen if the (Fla.1969), we held that the statute was in-Legislature by statute had impicmented the tended to cover any gathering dealing with l
provisions of Fla.Const. art. I (Declara. some matter on which foreseeable action l
tion of Rights), ! 6, F.S.A., reading:
would be taken by the Board.
The statute does not make reference to "The right of employees, by and through the existence of a quorum, so that a meet.
a labor organization, to bargain col-l ing i any agency or mithority of the lioard i
lectively shall not be denied or abridged.
which should be-I
- 'T I'* " P" C incetuy:
Public employees shall not heve the right pen t the pu W.e at aH tuna rhe innion i
to strike."
tant question is not whether a quorum inust In limiting our consideration of this case he present, but whether the agcucy or au-solely to the powers of the judicial branch thority of the Itoard deals with any matter of government, we should only determine on which forc>ccable action may be taken whether or not Fla. Stat. { 2S6.01 '(govern-by the lloard.
l
g() Fla.
2G2 SOU*HEEN REPORTER,2d SERIES The right o: the public to be present, to those with whom they deal. Such reason-be heard, and to participate should not be ing overlooks the provision in the constitu-circumvented by having sceret meetings of tion which prohibits strikes by public em-various committees appointed by the Board ployees, thereby removing the only weapon and scsted with authority to make recom-by which labor may insure good faith col-mendations or sugges.tions to the Board lective bargaining.
concernmg a matter on which foreseeable In other words, the constitution contem-ac' ion may 1.c taken. It is true that during plates open collective barga..ir.mg m good the early 3 ears of ou democracy pubh.c faith without secrecy and without strikes, officials felt that most meetings concerning The standards of performance.m bargain-governmental dca..sions should be secret, but ing collectively as contemplated in the Na-they soon became aware that an enlightened tional Labor Relations Act are discussed in pubhe is the foremost safeguard for th The Law of Labor Relations, by Werne, at contmued existence of ont form of govern-page y.3 '-
ment. It is even more important that local boards. subject to the immediate scrutiny "While the Act, as amended, defines of the local citizen, be required to conduct the dut3 to bargain collectively, it leaves their meeting in the presence of those who to the Board and to the courts the deter-uill be directly affec.ed by the decisions of mination of what tests shall be applied the Board. This is a renovation of the for the purpose of ascertaining whether
" town hall trcetmg where public officials employers and unions are performing were able to secure the benciit of the such duty. The standard of performance thoughts and wicas of those most interested is said to be negotiation in good faith to in gmernnwnt-that is, the citizens who the end that agreement shall be reached pay the tascs.
with respect to wages, hours and co:.di.
tions of work, and reduction of the agree-The gmcrrment m tac sun =nme law pre-ment to a signed contract for a f.ixed rea-sents the no rd from functiomng secre:lv sonable period. Mere gestures m such a under the guise ot small comm:ttees. It direction do not constitute collective bar-
- hts w ere.one. cach mcel.cr wouk! hase an gaining. h.or does the requirement that
.Tpornmity to con nit hm.<cli on some the emp oyees submit a h.st of demands,
~aner. en which torc >c(aele acnen u:.1 Se which are either accepted or rejected tamen in expres mg him cli at
.. seers t wnhout explanation, satisfy the require-comnat:ce mcenne in :he aMenet of. the fnents.
p::rt.c and w :hom g.urc the pubh.c an el-
"The submission of proposals by a p3rn.rit3 to 1.e heard. The uhtma:e action cf the entre Itoard n pubhc mectu:gs union or by an employer, with a take-it-
!c :.n affirmation of the cr cise' attitude, does not constitute col-wcuk! mercl3
.ar:ous siere: comm:t:ic ascunes hi.d m Icetn e 1.argaining. 'h'egotiations with an misr.t on13 to delay and postpone a settle-ut.2::. n oi the law.
ment until a strike can be broken
- are not Thc e :< :ca mo 3.;..: :he tr:s! lt.d.:e co"ective bargairing.
hrU that t ramnu fn* c0:kcta e bargan re
,Ir.:erchange et ideas, communication u. t a,.
..c cc :eu.
t.
. pa!.i c t>
were of t ets peculiarly within the kr.ow:edce
..c r.ed at c ach s:cp c 1 ths teco:ia:mns.
. either party, Mrsonal persuasion. and c:.
,cc hc.m : hat t.e
,,.i. ::ci. c :5 c... i no ai :i app. "d the opportum:y ta modify de nands m ac-ta: ate u o a !c t cc.sti:
.x ccidarce with the to:a! situation thus re-c A.cc: u : rca:r ; a. ! 1:..v..nst.. a et.
se. d..t the conterence is et the essence
.e
,t
. 1.. A..ua an:ct-ec : g-: to
.ar.
of the bargaine procc<s..
' ecru.3., t i.. X x. :Ma: et c.
i p.
- t. i < cia:. t
. ; w at:ordid s:
"T! c nature of the good. faith require-
.c..
A-
.c:5 F. : i r -o.s v '
-e.t micates : hit whither the star.dard 1
-n
4
-d Fla.
431 of perfortnance is met udt depend on the t roved by the sowe vote of the members at facts m each case where the issue ts the same mectmg.
raised. The guide posts for performance Although n.i my judgment the election of and the manifestations of non pttform-the Chairman by secret !. allot was contrary ance are considered in connection with t the spirit and letter of the government refusals to bargain collectively."
m the sunshme law, the sub>equent election The primary requirement is good faith. of the Chairman by voice vote in this in-
. Certainly, negotiations in public would not stance should not be upset. The reason for dettset from good faith I.argaining. In this view is that regardless of the prior vio-lation of the statute, the lloard mcmbers fact,it may be said that bad faith emanats, from closed doors. There is no case cited were at liberty to choose a Chairman of which requires that collective bargaining their choice by voice vote at a public meet-inc. This action should not be disturbed, negotiation must he behind closed doors:
therefore, for the Court to make this an ex.
although it may well be argued that it is t.hc ception to the government in the sunshine fruit of the illegal prmr action.
law would be legislation.
ItOYD J., concurs.
It is within the province of the Legisla-ture, as a matter of policy, to determme whether collective bargaining should be an exception to the government in the sunshine law. I express no opinion on such a matter of public policy, but believe that it is not a violation of Fla.Const., art.1. f 6. F.S.A.,
to require such collective bargaining to take place in public at a public meeting.
In Board of Public Instruction of Brow-ard County v. Doran,.rutra, w e held that the statute did not authorize secret meet-i_ngs on privileged matter..Ur. der this de-cision the instructions to the negotiator should also be a matter of public concern.
Even though this may, on its face, seem to give the negotiator for the teacher an un-fair advantage,it will be necessary for him to bargain in good faith with full knowledge that his position cannot be enhanced by the use of the one weapon which ensures true collective bargaining in the classical sense, the strike. This puts each side on an equal footing so that public negotiation may re-sult in benefits to the teachers, the Board, and the public. The Board is ivithout benc-fit of secrecy and the teachers are'without benefit of the threat of strike.-
The further question appearing in this case was vhether the sceret follot clection of a School-Board Chairman w's made a
valid when the action was subsequently ap-
l Michigan Statutos Annotated General Court Rules, 1963, Rule 310 Wie 310 Discovery and Production of Documents and Thig for Inspection, Copying or Photographing.
.1 Power of Court.. After commencement of an action the judge of the court in which the action is pending may, upon motion of any party and upon notice to all other parties, and subject to the provisions c: suhrule 300.2:
(1) order any party to produce and permit the inspection and copying or photographing, by or on behalf of the moving party, of any reasonably designated documents, papers, books, accounts, letters, photographs, objects, or tangible things, not privileged, which constitute or contain evidence relating to an3 of the matters within the scope of the examination pezmitted by subrule 302.2 and which are in his possession, custody, or control; or (2) order any party to panit entry upon designated land or I
other property in his possession or control for thz purpose of inspecting, measuring, surveying, testing, sampling, or photographing the property or any designated object or operation thereon within the scope of the examination per.
mitted by subrule 302.2; or (3) direct a person on whom a subpoena duces tecum has been served, to permit 'b inspection and copying or photo-graphing of such books, papers, documents or tangible things subpoenaed.
.2 Contents of Order. The order shall specify the time, place, and manner of making the inspection and taking the copies, photo-graphs, samples, etc. and may prescribe such terms and condi.
tions as are just.
.3 Other Discovery. If the party or person claims that the item is not in his possession or control or that he does not have informs tion calculated to lead to discovery of its whereabouts, he may be ordered to submit to examination in open court or by deposition regarding such claim.
.4 Use at Trial. The bo' ohs, papers and documents, or sworn copies thereof, produced under any order made in pursuance of the preced.
ing rules, shall have the same effect, when used by the party requir.
ing them, as if produced upon notice according to the pr:etice of the court.
o e
General Court Rules, 1963, Rule 310 Committee Corrdnent Committee Notes SOURCE: Federal Rule 34. Miehl. after all are symbols, and the sig.
gan Court Rule 40. CL (1918) 601.03 nificance of the symbols varies with (Mich Stats Ann 27.43).
the knowledge and experience of the mind receiving them. The certainty C011MITTEI: COMMENT: In gen.
of a description is always a matter eral Rule 310 is adapted from Fed. of degree... Ilow many identify.
eral Rule 34 and will supersede pres.
ing tokens we arc to exact the reason ent Michigan Court Rule 40. The and common sense of the situation substance of the present rule appears must tell us..."
in clear and simple modern language, (3) The items to be sought havs free from surplusage. The existing been listed, and it has been inad discovery rule is changed as indicated cient that discoscry for the purpose,,
by(the following paragraphst of sampling and testing may be hat
- 1) The protective provisions of (4) Presently Rule 40 allows dis.
subrule 300.2 are incorporated by ref.
covery to be granted when either erene'e into Rule 310 thereby ere.
of the parties need documents in or.
sting more explicit safeguards than der to answer pleadings, o r, after now exist under Rule du(5).
Issue has been joined, in order to (0) There is no mention in the prepare for trial. Discovery in aid Michigan rule as to how documents of pleading has been more liberath sought should be described. It has granted than when its purpose ii been held that a statement or list to facilitate preparation for trial, of the general nature sufficient to Rule 310 does not state when s identify the documents was proper. motion for discovery shall be raade Searney v. Clarke. 276 Mich. ::93, other than "after commencement of s 007 N.W. 841. The Federal Rule civil action." Nor does it attempt ts states that documents must be " des.
list the grounds for discovery. The ignated." It is certain that some de.
Inherent discretion of the court is
- gree of designation should be re.
granting orders is a sufficient safo quired. In order to provide so the guard to motions made in bad faith word arensonat.le" has been added or without the grounds of reasonatie to the Federal Rule counterpart. TLia necessity, is consistent with Cooper v. Dasher, (5) Present Rule 40 sets the scope 200 U.S.100, 54 R. Ct. O, 75 L. Yd.
of discovery to documents "relatig 203, wherein Cardozo, J., said "The to the merits." Rule 310 incorpo.
order gives the only description that rates.by reference the same scope as the r.ature of the case allows. The is set out in subrule 302.2 relating to respondent, and no one else, is in a depositions.
position to supply a better one. The (6) Subrule 310.3 is taken from Ini.
mandate is 4.ddreesed to him and to nois Supreme Court Rule 17 and him its meaning is definite, however merely serves to emphasize that us.
indsfinite to uhers. If it is clear der other provisior.s of the new rds (nuAh to be us,dtratood, it is clar a person snay 1 e examined as to the en%h to be obeyed... Wrds whereabouts of certain documents.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA BEFORE THE ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION In the Matter of
)
)
Docket Numbers 50-329A Consumers Power Company
)
50-330A (Midland Plant, Units 1 and 2)
)
AFFIDAVIT DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, SS:
Robert A. Jablon, being first duly sworn, deposes and says that the is an attorney for the Cities of Bay City, Charlevoix, Chelsea, Clinton, Croswell, Dowagiac, Hart, Hills-4 dale, Lansing, Loweil, Marshall, Niles, Paw Paw, Petoskey, Portland, St. Louis, Sebewaing, South Haven, Sturgis, Union City and Wyandotte, all in Michigan, and that as such he has signed the foregoing Reply Brief of 21 Municipal Non-Parties for and on behalf of said parties; that he is authorized so
.to do; that he has read said Brief and is familiar with the contents thereof; and that the matters and things therein set forth are true and correct to the best of his knowledge, l
\\
information or belief.
N, M
v Robert A.
Jablon Subscribed and sworn to before mc.this 17th' day]of April, 1973.
-)
,f,htV.: {
i b.
,i r,,
Notary,.Public My Commission Expires:
September 30, 1974
4 D
i e
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA BEFORE THE ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION In the Matter of
)
)
Docket Numbers 50-329A Consumers Power Company
)
50-330A (Midland Plant, Units 1 and 2)
)
Certificate of Service I hereby certify that the foregoing document in the above-captioned matter was served upon the following by deposit in the United States mail, first class or air mail, this 17th day of April, 1973.
Algie A. Wells, Esq., Chairman Joseph Rutberg, Esquire Atomic Safety.and Licensing Atomic Energy Commission Board Panel 7920 Norfolk Avenue U.
S. Atomic Energy Commission Bethesda, Maryland Washington, D.
C.
20545 4
Abraham Braitman, Chief Alan S.
Rosenthal, Esq., Chairman Office of Antitrust and Atomic Safety & Licensing Board Indemnity U.
S. Atomic Energy Commission U.
S. Atomic Energy Consissics Washington, D.
C.
20545 Washington, D.
C.
20545 Joseph J.
Saunders, Esquire Mr. Frank W.
Karas, Chief Department of Justice Public Proceedings Branch Antitrust Division Office of the Secretary Washington, D.
C.
20530 Atomic Energy Commission Washington, D.
C.
20545 Harold P.
Graves, Esquire V.
P.
and General Counsel Wallace Edward Brand, Esq.
Consumers Power Company Antitrust Public Counsel 212 West Michigan Avenue Department of Justice Jackson, Michigan 49201 Post Office Box 7513 Washington, D. C.
20044 William Warfield Ross, Esquire Wald,-Harkrader & Ross Dr.
J.
Venn Leeds, Jr.
1320 19th Street, N. W.
Post Office Box 941 Washington, D.
C.
20036 Houston, Texas 77001
e
.at,o Honorable Frank Kelly Attorney General State of Michigan Lansing, Michigan 49813 Atomic Safety & Licensing Board Panel U. S. Atomic Energy Commission Washington, D. C.
20545 William T. Clabault, Esquire David A. Leckie, Esquire Antitrust Division Department of Justice Post Office Box 7513 Washington, D.
C.
20044 Robert J. Verdisco, Esquire Counsel for AEC Regulatory Staff U. S. Atomic Energy' Commission Washington, D.
C.
20545 Mr. James B. Falahee General Attorney Consumers Power Company 212 West Michigan Avenue Jackson, Michigan 49201 l$
- /
b1 Robert A. Jablon One of the attorneys appearing specially for the Cities of Bay City, Charlevoix, Chelsea, Clinton, Croswell, Dowagiac, Hart, Hillsdale, Lansing, Lowell, Marshall, Niles, Paw Paw, Petoskey, Portland, St. Louis, Sebewaing, South Haven, Sturgis, Union City and Wyandotte i
April 17, 1973 Law Offices:
George Spiegel 2600 Virginia Avenue, N.'W.
Washington, D.
C.
20037
,_-