ML19329E513
| ML19329E513 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Midland |
| Issue date: | 11/01/1972 |
| From: | Fairman J, Joseph E Pollock MICHIGAN MUNICIPAL COOPERATIVE POWER POOL, SPIEGEL & MCDIARMID |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8006160311 | |
| Download: ML19329E513 (41) | |
Text
c
.A-
/Qy2 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA BEFORE THE ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION In the Matter of
)
(fb
)
Docket Nos. 50-329A Consumers Power Company
)
and 50-330A (Midland Units 1 and 2)
)
ANSWER OF INTERVENORS TO APPLICANT 'S OBJECTIOT TO DOCUMENT REQUESTS AND MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER
../
The Intervenors hereby answer Applicant Consumers Power Company's Objection to Document Requests and Motion for Protective Order dated October 26, 1972
(" Applicant 's Objection and Motion").
The Intervenors request that the objections and motion be denied for the reasons set forth herein, and that the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board ( "B oa rd ")
direct the Applicant to provide
- /
discovery as sought by the Joint Discovrers, pursuant to the
- / Electric Departments or Boards of Public Works of Holland, Grand Haven, Zeeland, Coldwater and Traverse City, Michigan; Northern Michigan Electric Cooperative, Wolverine Electric Cooperative and the Michigan Municipal Electric Association.
- / By agreement among the parties and with the concurrence of the Board at prehearing conference on July 12, 1972, the Depar tment of Justice, the Atomic Energy Commission Regulatory Staff, and the Intervenors consolidated their requests in a First Joint Request dated July 20, 1972.
8006160 3//
A
O Board authority under Section 2.740(c) of the Commission Rules of Practice ( " Rules "), 10 C.F.R. part 2, as amended (37 F.
R. 15127, 15133).
It is further requested that the Board deny the Applicant 's motion that oral argument be heard.
In support of their request for denial of Applicant 's Objection and Motion the Intervenors state:
1.
Oral argument is not necessary to resolve the matters raised in the Applicant's Objection and Motion.
The Applicant has stated no grounds in support of its motion in request thereof, and the policy expressed in Section 2.730 (c) and (d) of the Commission 's Rules con-templates that reply by the moving party or oral argument is not deemed necessary in the disposition of matters raised by motion.
By its lengthy submission the Applicant has stated its position and the matters therein have been discussed by counsel for the parties in meetings held on September 8, 1972, September 18, 1972 and October 5,1972.
Furthermore, Applicant has had nearly three months to study the Joint Document Request, and had notice thirty days prior to the second prehearing conference that the Board on October 25th intended
-2 l
inter alia, to " determine the present status of discovery
- l between the parties. "
The Objection and Motion addressing itself to specific matters affecting "the present status of discovery" was served by mail the day immediately following the date when all parties were convened to resolve outstanding questions related to
- /
discovery.
Applicant 's request that the Board and counsel convene again to hear oral argument affronts the administrative process, is illtimed, and if granted will further delay discovery.
2.
The Applicant 's objection to Request 10 is without merit.
Section 2.741 (c) (37 F. R. 15134) provides in pertinent part:
"The request shall set forth the items to be inspected either bv individual item or catecory, and describe each item or category with reasonable particularity."
Request 10 as propounded conforms to this instruction.
Lacking clairvoyance, and without benefit of a list describing the contents of such files the request sets
- / Notice and Order for Second Prehearing Conference,
_September 2 5, 1 972.
- /
It should be noted, also, the Applicant simultaneously l
served on the Intervenors a Motion to Canpel Discovery from l
members of Michigan Municipal Electric Association, despite notice by letter. dated October 11, 1972 to counsel and the i
Boards of its intention to do so, submission was likewise on October 26 th..
,.7 y
_._~p-.
-,,+--
9 t
forth a description of the item Qg.g., files identified by customer name) or category (g.g., communication with officials, managers of the Applicant 's wholesale customers; analysis of customer system operation).
The characterization of the documents sought and identification of type of file (item) believed to contain such documentation has been made with reasonable particularity.
Applicant sells electricity for resale (wholesale sales) to only seventeen electric systems, and interchanges power with the municipal U
electric systems of Holland and Lansing.
Attached as Appendix A hereto are copies of documents, received by Intervenors from the Applicant, which are expected to reside in the files described or categorized by Request 10 and illustrative in part of their contents.
Moreover, the totality of contents of each such file requested constitutes the context in which the documents have been prepared and filed, and can be expected to contain the memoranda or communications underlying and relating to such documents.
The course of events, decisions and policies of the Applicant
- / Consumers Power Company Annual Report 1971, FPC Form
_No. 1, pp. 412 -413, 42 4A. !
I
f
~
affecting these wholesale customers are embodied in such files.
The information contained therein is their 1
'Yaison d 'etre. "
It is precisel'1 this " day-to-day contact that such customers have had with the Applicant," and which the Applicant asserts is wholly irrelevant (Applicant Objection and Motion, p. 14) that will form the basis for the Board's determination of the relevant matters in
.- /
controversy.
The Applicant at page 14 of its Objection and Motion cites Schwimmer v. United States, 232 F.2d 855 (8th Cir. 1956) in support of its contention that the Discoverer's request is impermissible.
The Discoverers are not on a fishing expedition.
Tha t of ten used characteriza-tion in its ordinary usage describes an attempt to discover original grounds for initiating a proceeding or, alternatively, to broaden the scope of a proceeding underway.
Such is not J
the case with Request 10.
The documents contained in the files described, their categorization and the nature of such
- j "C.
RELEVANT MATTERS IN CONTROVERSY "6.
The basic thrust of Justice's case is that (a) applicant has the power to grant or deny access to coordination:
(b) applicant has used this power in an anticompetitive fashion against the smaller utility systems; (c) applicant 's said use of its power has brought into existence a situation inconsistent with the antitrust laws, which situation would be maintained by activities under the licenses that applicant seeks.
Neither rhe. intervening parties nor the Atomic Energy Commission 's regulatory staff enlarge this scope.
Hence, the scope of the relevant matters in controversy is as herein outlined."
Prehearing Conference Order, August 7,1972, p. 3.._
materials illustrated in part by Appendix A hereto make their discovery essenti.al to this proceeding.
It is not "open-ended and undirected invasion of privacy" - an unreasonable search and seizure objected to in the Schwimmer case.
As the Court therein noted the test regarding sud1 discovery is "Whether the thing done or attempted to be done, in the sum of its form and scope, nature, incident and effect, impresses as being fundamentally unfair or unreasonable in the specific situation" (232 F.2d at 861).
The Court further noted that discovery of records and files is not properly characterized as unreasonable When it is apparent that the production sought "is not an attempt to obtain a sea for the conducting of a general fishing expedition or.
to make possible an exploratory in-vestigation Whose purposes and limits can be only determined as it proceeds.'"
The Board 's Order dated August 7, ~1972 stating the matters in controversy precludes this result.
(See footnote, page 5, suora).
3.
The Applicanu's objection that the Request 2 is " improper since it constitutes no more than a fishing
^
expedition" (Applicant 's objection and Motion, p. 2) is -
9
- J devoid of substance and premised upon unsound reasoning.
The purpose of Request 2 is to obtain from the Applicant documents showing or describing the file and subject classifications utilized in the Applicant's corporate operations to better equip the Department of Justice, the Commission Staff and the Intervenors to comply with the Board's direction for specificity in requesting documents and in formulating interrogatories throughout the course 1
of discovery.
Rather than a " fishing expedition" this is a relevant and reasonable request which, if produced for i
inspection either at the Company's offices in Michigan or at their counsel's offices in Washington, would be employed by counsel to reduce the burden on all parties.
Some exploration or fishing necessarily is inherent and entitled to exist in all documentary production (See Schwimmer v.
- /
United States, 232 F.2d at 862, 863).
The production 4
- / The test of Request 2 is :
" File indexes and documents describing the fili n g system utilized by the Company, its departments, divisions and subunits, pertaining to active, inactive or stored files and records. "
- / On this point the Court in Schwimmer observed:
[A] grand jury has no catalogue of what books and papers exist and are involved in a situation with which it is attempting to deal (232 F 2d at 862). -
of indexes and related documents can facilitate discovery.
Section 2.740 of 10 C.F.R., Part 2, states at paragraph (b) (1 ) :
" Parties may obtain discovery reaarding any matter, not privileged, which is relevant to the subject matter involved in t he proceeding.
(Emphasis added).
Section 2.741 of 10 C.F.R., Part 2 states in part at paragraphs (a) and (a) (1) :
"(a)
Any party may serve on any other party a request to:
"(1)
Produce and permit the party making the request, or a person acting on his behalf, to inspect and copy any designated documents which are in the possession, custody or control of the party upon whom the request is served; (Emphasis added).
Applicant 's objections to this request is based solely on the claim that it is an "open ended and undirected invasion of the privacy of Applicant 's filing system" and i
further that it is "an effort to ' fish' for additional issues or evidence" (page 4).
The request does not seek to uncover new issues, but rather to obtain information relevant to the proceeding -- the existence, custody and location of documents and identity of perscas having knowledge of discoverable matter.
(Rules, Section 2.740 (b) (1)).
If the Applicant's claims were permitted to set the standards for discovery proceedings there would be none.
A request to.-
examine file indexes is not an invasion of the files and 4
compliance with the request does not preclude the Applicant from raising valid objections to any subsequent requests l
4 for production, based upon such information as may be i
contained in the indexes, which in its view reach privileged matters or which may be irrelevant to the issues of this proceeding.
The Company's fear that an examination of file indexes might produce additional issues is baseless in view of these guide lines established by the Board.
The Intervenors respectfully request the Board to compel the Company to produce the requested indexes for inspection, and copying if required, at a location and time mutually convenient to the parties pursuant to Section 2.740(f) of 10 C.F.R.,
Part 2.
4.
The Intervenors oppose the Applicant's request that Requests 5(d), 5 (e) and 5(i) be denied.
It is contended that issuance of construction permits for nuclear generating and their operation has " absolutely no operating or other relationship to Applicant 's gas business. "
(Applicant 's Objection and Motion, p. 12).
This assertion misses the mark.
Consumers Power Company, deriving nearly half its
-9_
i 6-revenues from natural gas sales. stands as a major energy supplier in Michigan -- natural gas and electricity.
To the extent that natural gas sales are made to other electric f
utilities for use as boiler fuel in their electric generating plants, which cther utilities also purchase electricity for l
resale from Consumers (Reques t 5 (d) ), the interrelationship between these natural gas sales and practices or policies underlying such gas sales and the sale of electricity in bulk is evident.
The common supplier (of both gas for i.
generating electricity and electricity for resale) is in a market position to exercise control over both sources of complementary energy required by its customer.
J Request 5(e), likewise, is relevant to the i
. matter of what control the Applicant can, has and does exercise over an electric utility selling electricity at i
retail in competition with Consumers ' retail gas sales, i
especially where Consumers may sell electricity at wholesale to such competitor in the retail energy market.
In this j
instance, Consumers ' position is as a marketer of wholesale electric energy to an electric energy retailer in areas where Consumers simultaneously sells natural-gas at retail.
<- 4 i
i
,8
Obviously, arrangements for and the cost of bulk electric pcwer which will be resold at retail in competition with natural gas sales by Consumers can and may well involve policy determinations reflecting on the retail gas market served by Consumers.
Discussion among counsel on these matters attempted to resolve this controversy by restricting the review required of Applicant to those files or documents which are most i
reasonably expected to set forth policy and sales practices regarding gas operations in a company which supplies both electricity and natural gas.
The Intervenors do not seek engineering, operating or customer billing information pertaining to the Applicant 's gas business.
5.
The Intervenors oppose Applicant 's request for denial of discovery pertaining to " Applicant 's Political Activity."
The objections to the production of documents 4
as itemized in the Joint Requests :
3 (e) ; 5 (f) (2 ) (ii) ;
5(f) (2)(iii); 5 (k); 10(e); 10(f) and 22 are based on the erroneous characterization -- political activity.
(Applican t 's
- Objection and Motion, pp. 4-9).
In stating its generalized objections the Applicant seeks to raise the specter of a
" chill" to its constitutionally protect e d First Amendment rights by contending that discovery of such activities is immune from this antitrust proceeding under the Noerr-Pennington doctrine.
This position is not well taken.
The Joint Request for documentary evidence, which is fully within the ambit of the discovery rules, and this proceeding has not been initiated to seek iniunction of activities as described by Noerr or to determine whether these Consumers Power activities were illeaal as defined
./
by Penninaton.
The request does not seek to discover previously undisclosed names of Consumers Power personnel, thereby compelling the disclosure of this company's affiliation with aroues enaaaed in advocaev as defined in NAACP v. Alabama, 357 U. S. 449 (1958).
Consumers Power is a regulated public utility with attendant responsibilities and obligations.
As the Applicant, Consumers is the advocate of an unconditioned license, and has the responsi-bility to supply information relevant to the matters before j
the Commission, rather thar. attempting to block the discovery of the requested documents.
It is clearly within the discretion of the Board to admit evidence of " political" activities if it
- / Eastern R.
R.
President's Conf.
v.
Noerr, 365 U. S.
127 (1961) ; United Mine Workers v.
Penninaton, 381 U. S. 657 (1965). -
,mrw
-n r
is probative, and not unduly prejudicial.
This was
-./
the finding in the Penninaton case cited by the Applicant in suppor.t of its requested denial.
The Applicant characterizes the Joint Requests as probing into " political" activities.
However, among such activity would be included concacts with public officials who directly or indirectly are responsible for the activities of municipal electric system operation.
The intervening municipals and cooperatives are particularly
-interested (and legitimately so) in all the local dis-cussions, meetings, correspondence and covert campaigns relating to the electric utility systems and their properties,.whether they be " political" in nature, or programs of economic self interest sponsored by the Applicant to influence citizens, tax payers and electric energy customers.
The documents sought by the Joint Requests covered by this blanket objection are relevant to the matters in controversy and should be produced pursuant to Section 2.741 of the Commission 's Rules.
- /
381 U. S. at 670, fn. 3
L 6.
The Applicant 's objection to Request 4 stems from its own unwillingness to permit inspection of the materials requested.
No party wants irrelevant documents or even copies of the same for examination.
The joint discoverers with the aid of the indexes sought in Request 2 would be able to define with a greater degree of particularity the document sought.
The Board should order the Applicant to make these documents available in Jackson, Michigan if it is agreeable, and permit the inspection to resolve this aspect of the discovery.
The pooling arrangement and policies under which planning and pa :icipation is carried out are of vital importance to the Board ar.d parties, serving as this information can to provide a basis for understanding pooling operations h1 Michigan and a potential source to which to-look in formulating appropriate license conditions as may be required.
7.
The Applicant 's contention that pre-1960 documents are not relevant is without merit.
Intervenors requests made by letter dated 4
September 21, 1972 from Mr. Fairman to Mr. Ross were ;
i I
specific and limited in the number of years covered.
A-copy of this letter is attached as Appendix B.
These t
requests were submitted informally, not by direct application to the Board for its ruling, and at no time during the t
intervening period did Applicant advise counsel the requests i
i were objectionable.
The relevance of the events falling into the pre-1900 period is apparent from a reading of the documents included in Appendix A hereto.
In February 1950, the Applicant while acknowledging the importance to Coldwater l
of the " flexibility of power supply achieved through connection with a transmission network (letter by James H. Campbell to 1
Members of the Power Supply Survey Committee, Coldwater, J
Michigan, dated February 9, 1950, p. 2 ), refused to make i
j wholesaling agreements for the supply of power.
By April 1950 the Applicant was offering to buy Coldwater's utility plant i
(letter dated April 26, 1950 from Campbell to Owen Decker, Mayor).
In Traverse City the company in 1955 was proffering an interconnection that was preferable to ole with a REA system ("Why Consumers Power Company Proporal for An Interconnection is Better, D.B.H. 9/2 9/55 ").
The relationships between Consumers and the intervenor elcetric systems are --
what they are now because of the policies and practices of the Applicant.
Only by full discovery of the Applicant in the seven designated areas will the Board and the parties to the proceeding have an adequate record upon which to make the determinations required.
The importance af competition in transmission services and coordination is shown in the Traverse City document.
When the REA system was in a position to propose arrangements for interconnection, the Applicant undertook to propose a "better" arrangement.
Another important facet of competition for loads and desirability of adequate bulk power supply is illustrated
'l I
by the following excerpts taken from Minute Book 12 of the Holland Board of Public Works :
"Page 316, regular Board meeting on June 30, 1952:
i 4
i "The superintendent next stated that in a conversation with a representative of the Consumers Power Company he was given to believe that the Consumers Power Company is not interested in a tie line with our Holland system.
Further investigation is to be made. "
"Page 354, No. 12, regular Board meeting on March 16, 1953:
"Mr. Klaasen called attention to the dis-cussion with the consumers Power company pertaining to a reciprocal tie-in between the facilities of the Consumers Power Company and the Holland Board of Public Works, said discussion having been held with the gentleman who is now the president of Consumers _- --
Power Company.
At that time a faccrable re-action had been obtained.
Mr. Rendleman reported i
that he had talked with the Grand Rapids Division Manager of Consumers Power Company who said they are not interested now.
Mr. Klaasen suggested that the president and vice president of the Board confer with the Consumers Power Company president soon to discuss the matter fully.
Mr. Bosh requested that Mr. Klaasen be added to the committee.
Action i
was postponed to allow further consideration."
i l
"Page 393, No. 12, regular meeting of Board on January 18, 1954:
" Chairman Klomparens reported that he had contacted Mayor Harrington relative to a letter i
received from Consumers Power Company about the l
use of Consumers services by the General Electric plant to be erected, and that the Mayor had stated that one of the conditions in obtaining the plant for Holland was the use of Consumers Power.
Mr. Klaasen said that he was under the impression that at an earlier meeting with General Electric representatives, the company would not make definite arrangements with Consumers unless they made provision for a tie line with the City of Holland.
Chairman Klomparens suggested that a letter to Consumers Power Company be draf ted, in reply to the one received by the Board calling attention to the arrangement which was in effect and which the Board of Public Works feels should remain in effect except for this one exception.
Mr. Klomparens and Mr. Klaasen were designated to draft the letter for submission to the Board."
The Holland story illustrates the basis for initiating an interconnection; namely a big industrial load, l
GE, wanted assurance that nearby generating capacity (Holland's) was available for purposes of assuring alternate i l
(more reliabld power source.
The foregoing examples need full exposition and the Intervenors request hereby that the Board order production of documents sought by their letter dated September 21, 1972.
1 CONCLUSION i
WHEREFORE, for the foregoing reasons the t
Intervenors request that the Board deny the Applicant 's objections, and request for oral hearing, and further
' request that Applicant be ordered to produce the documents 4
requested by Intervenors in their letter to counsel for Applicant dated September 21, 1972.
Respectfully submitted,
. nun v.
- astisu,
,/ ~.es F. Fairman, Jr.
If h a. _ 0 4 h M Jained Carl Pollock Attorneys for Intervenors November 1, 1972 i
Law Offices:
George Spiegel 2600 Virginia Avenue, N. W.
Washington, D. C.
20037 e,
]
.i 1
i 1
i i.
APPENDIX A i
1 4
I 1
f
-- - 7
,,_,,-.m,-,
m,.,
...-,,-y.
.. c -
,.'s s
/'.rs
~
V-b w:..w.u n q p
-i
..... v. w g
l t. ( C ' ;,
n....,
.- ;.,.. U.
- ." 2...,
Q '
CEW6 I
/
1 nonn...i oi.i.iom e i s..ime. sir..
Tr...,.. city weme.a.oes.
4,.. coa. e,o e.7.e.co j
\\
March 29, 1968 Fr. Joseph Wolfe, Superintendent City Licht and Power Department Funicipal Building Traverse City, Michigan 49684
Dear Mr. Wolfe:
We vich to affi m oui discussion with you and Mr. Bob Daveman of Davenrin Associates on Thursday, March 14, con-cerning the general terms under which electric power from Consumer Pcrer Ccmpany might bc chared with or supplied to the Traverse City Light and Power Department.
There are three plans under which accured electric pcuer vould be available to City Light and Pcwcr Department from the Consumers Power Company system. These may be described as inter-connections for mutual assistance, purchase of power to supplement Ceneration and', purchase of entire system requirements.
~
In order to dete mine the availability of an inter-I connection agreenent, it is necessary to dete =ine the amount of Cencration on each system which is available for mutual accista.nce.
l Since the City Licht and'Pover Department annual peak requirczent now approximates 13,500 Et and the cencratinc capacity withcut the.
t largest unit is only 15,000 Et, it appears probable in the very near.
4 future that there will be no reserve generation for charing. Because
'of this lack of reserve generation you do not meet the requirenents l
for a mutually beneficial interconnection.
Ue unddratand Mr. Dave =an has supplied you vith rato details for the plans for supplying power either to supplement cencratien or for total sy ten requirements. These plans are gen-erally the same with a. price advantage for the purchase of total sy: ten requirements. With either plan the Company would cc=dt Cencration and tran: mission capacity to be available at all times
- 1 to cupply the predictable pcuer requirements of City Licht and Power Department. Because of this invectaent, vc require a minimum capacity charge based on the electrical demand actually establiched on the cupply system.
,.,,,,..-_,-,,_.,,.----._.-,.~w,.-,--
_ =
i
/
2 F'. Joseph Wolfe, Superintendent
, City Licht and Pcver Department 2hrch 29, 1968 j
I This demand is measured by its Eva characteristics as that is' the most accurate measure of the system capacity required to serve it. Because the time element'is only a fifteen minute interval we recognise this requires constant attention by the pur-chaser. However, we have many customers who for a' number of years have purchased power at a low and economical rate with this type of demand measurement.
Wo sugggst that there may be some items in a supply
~
contract that vill not completely satisfy the purchaser. It is our practice to continually review our rate provisions and impic=ent changes whenever benefits will accrue to the customer. McVever, if Traverse City users are to roccive the benefits of large unit power i
Generation at the earliest possible time, we believe it will be necessary for City Light and Pcwer Department to make a decision to,
purchase power and ncGotiate the best available contract in order to l
provide firm power at all times"to the city's custcmers.
We are sure you are aware that Consumers Power Company is willing to work with City Light and Power Department in exploring the overall economics of a purchase plan at 'any time.
Thank you.
Yours very trily, f'
..e $O Willis C. Allen Marketing Superintendent
-WCA/mo CC: BDHilty
~
Ehd 4
I g.
4 4
i
.y m
~
r e,y
,,-+
~"
r*..,........y
,g
\\, \\.
L"..... n. ;. d 2
f
~
,g/ _
Y@...
t
..~s t
P ~ ** * *',/
\\
//
7
'Yg G. W. Heward Ca****r*dd
-s' D.ves an f.fana;ee i.
Satt.e Cree. Div s.on: 24 Capitat Asenwe.P.E.sartie Creen.Macmigen 4s01e. Area Coce sie G42 40St Noventer 22,' 19c6
\\
h..~,. a c.e o..M 4 c tJ+ _4 9 4 4,,4..,
City of Celivater Coldnter, y.ichi;an Gentlenen:
We wish to sut: it for your censideration the attached study en electrie pcVer costs for the City cf Coldwater.
The study indicates that over the ne:ct seven years a savings of at least $~40,542 can be realized for the citizens of Colinter if the additional pcver requirenants are purchased rather than generated. The study is ba:ed on what we feel to be nininum ccsts for engine generation and, in addition, these costs have not
- been escalated to allow for probeble continued inflationary pressures on costs assceinted with generation. On the other hand, wholesale power costs have declinsi in recent yer.rs and can be e:cpected to con-tinue to decline in viev cf future developnents in nuclear Sencration and ;;ver pooling. Also, wholesale power ccsts can te fixed for up to ten years en a centract tacis.
As appointed representativec of the people of Coldwater,
~
ve feel that ycu should vaish this natter very e
^ "y and thorour,hly consider all the alternatives before you reach a final decision. C;nsunarc ? ver Cenpany wishes to extend its cenplete eco,ncration and ass 1 stance to the Scard in providins the City with an adec.uate and deteniable sur.ely of 30ver at 'the lovest rocsible costs.
Sincerely ycurs, li,h.,,A_Y, & s~:Y f
^
Robert E. Brewster Marketing Superintendent l
s RZ3:ef t
t I
t I
~~
- - - - ~
~-
~ ~ ~ ~ ' - ~ ~ ~ - - - - -
.y
- 7 4 al~u- &
A I:%./
Wu I n &f G%J CITY OF COLEWATER Electric Power Supply and Cost Study t
- o Cennt=erc Fover Company 11/17/C6
s.
CO!iTE'ES 1
Page No.
i
't 1
-INTROEUCTION.........................
2 CONCLUSIO::S PRESEIi? ATD FUTURE POWER REQUIPS25TS 3
4 PROPCSED ISTliOD CF OFERATION.
4 INSTALLATICil COSTS.
COMPARIS03 0F /al;'.UAL COSTS.
4-5 1
EXHI3ITS A
Surrnry of Cc:dparative Power. Costs.
Estimated Power Costs - Additional Generation B
Esti:nated Power Costs - Additional Purchase C
1
}
t 4
1 J
4 i.
8
)
4 I
i 4
1
.. _ ~........ -.
,_.v.
-.m
4 CITY OF COLT'JATER Electric Power Supply and Cost Study INTRODUCTION The City of Coldwater operates an electric generating plant and distribution system and for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1966, generated or purchased a net total of 49,k86,625 kwh for sale to its customers. A =axinus demand for pcwer reached 9,848 kw in Dece=ber 1965 Power requirements were supplied by a ec=bination of generated and purchased pcVer as follevs:
Generated - Steam Plant 46,596,750 Kwh Generated - Diesel Plant 41,875 Purchased - CP Co.
-2,848,000 Total 49,486,625 Kwh I
1 As indicated frc= the above, the system power require-ments are generally supplied by the steam plant generation with the diesel plant cnd the Consu=ers Pcver Ccspany connection used only for standby or supplemental purposes. However, a continual increase in power requirements vill necessitate additional diesel generation and purchase or the installation of new generating equipment.
The city is presently considering the installation of three dual fuel, 3,000 kv engine generators esticated to cost $1,500,000. An alternative to added generation vould be to purchase the additional power requirenents.
It is estimated that the proposed plant expansien would enable the city to generate its own power requirements, exclusive of I
standby or emergency pcuer purchases, through the fiscal year ending June 30, 1974. At this time, the city would censider another expansion of its stema power plant. The purpose of this study is to compare the costs of the two alternatives over this seven-year period,1968 through
. 1974, and' probable costs for the years 1975 through 1977
2 1
4 CITY OF COL:'. TATER Electric Fover Supply and Cos; Study (Contd) t i
CONCLUSIONS i
t It can be concluded from this report that the city would i
save an estimated $340,542 over the next seven-year period through l
additional power purchase as compared to costs of additional generation l.
(Exhibit A).
In addition to the direct savings in power costs, the city vould not have increased its total indebtedness as vould be the case with additional generation. The city can, therefore, substantially improve the overall financial conditien of the electric department through the purchase of additional power require =ents at this time.
It is difficult to estimate pcVer costs beyond the capa-bility of the proposed expansion since details as to type of additional 4
plant, its operation end costs, are not known at this ti=e.
However, to show the effects of another similar plant expansion in 1974, the cost conparison was projected through 1977 This projected study indicates an additional savings through purchased power of $241,493 (Exhibit A).
The savings computed in this report should be ebnsidered the mininum probable since generated costs were not increased to reflect the effects of centinued inflationary pressures on costs associated with generatien, such as fuel, labor, supplies, and materials. Also, it can be assured that the contindal dcunvard trend in wholesale power costs vill continue with such new developnents of atomic and pumped storage power, and expanded interconnections and power pooling.
In addition to its direct econcaic benefits, purchased 1
pcVer offers other advantages, such as flexibility, reliability and in-proved cysten operation.
+ N
- M *Ww t-gs' tame swee-m-mM----
_ m m *Imer e eO
- gm
.,gp ee ao e
4 3,p gneumag e
~ -..
GAS-OIL ENGINE FUNICIPAL ELECTRIC GDIERATING PIAN'IS operating Data and Costs - 1964 Gross Net Load oil Gas operating Cost Data - g/Kwh Code Plant Rating Kwh Generated Kwh Generated Factor Costs Costs Fuel Inbe Inbor Supplies Maint. Other Total C
18,180 hp 32,865,100 31,917,950 49 1%
9.87p
-p
'.742
.024
.208
.028
.074 -
1.077 c-T 15,290 hp-31,121,700 29,584,400 53.4%
9 95d 53 94.622.076
.154
.014
.053
.002
- 852, c
14,432 hp 21,255,600 20,478,180 24.2% 10 56# 48.1p 597.025
.266
.040
.004 -
931 c
8,940 hp 12,767,200 12,104,100 43.4% lo.37p 28.2 152 7.026 141 3
.006
.031
.008 912 B-T 9,400 hp 21,616,100 23,405,300 41.4% lo.15p 51.6p
.619.027
.111
.035
.092
.032 917 4
4 5
c 6,700 hp 9,616,960 8,291,629 57 5% lo.32p 44.7d.655
.036 336
.018
.0149
-o-1.094 c
6,360 hp 12,830,300 12,459,500 61.0%
9 32# 49.o#.743
.021+
.253
.036
.o26 -
1.083 c
5,907 hp 12,459,400 11,826,850 45 9% 10 96p 51 9/
920.059 307
.075
.096
.044 1 501 c-T 11,840 hp 13,824,300 13,098,700 49 3%
9.69# 30 3#
516.023 343
.012
.082 -
976 171,386,660 163,166,600 Avg.649.035
.266
.029
.066 038 Station Use 8,220,060 4.8%
Code C, Complete Ioad C-T, Tie With Utility B-T, Base Irad Plus Tie h
a RLP 2/8/66 a..
ew*.
,/'
~-
x, CCriSMiB r
O:
9503T
/
p... e m.,
s.o.Hitty
/
uDuD;Calj\\
Division Manager Nodhwest olvision: 821 Hastings Street.Treverse City.MicNgan 49084. Area Code 616 947-8400 Traverse City, Michigan October 17, 1966
't
' f/d
.y
.,.pr <.
".a 5-
Dear Neighbor:
- t.:P You are aware, I am'sure, that the Traverse City light plant, located on Grandview Parkway in downtown Traverse City, is to be greatly expanded. 'You are aware, too, that there has been considerable controversy over this construction.
Many residents of Traverse City were dismayed to learn that even the initial expansion of the City light plant would result in a vastly bigger structure on the water-
-front.
Indeed, it was necessary to change the City's zoning regulations to permit construction of a building nearly 100 feet tall. And it became clear that this was only the begin-ning.
Further expansion is planned in future years, and this again will require still more buildings.
In mentioning these points, my intention is only to summarize published discussions over the past few uceks. The purpose of this letter is to state the position of Consumers Power Company.
We are now, and we always have been, willing to supply all the power requirements of Traverse City. We stand ready, as in the past, to incorporate Traverse City's energy requirements in our long-range planning for all the areas of the Lower Peninsula which we serve.
We have offered, in the past, to acquire the facilities of the Traverse City Light Department. We have felt, and continue to believo, that we could be growing partners of Traverse City in the orderly development of Northwest Michigan i
with an unlimited and dependable source,of electric power.
e oc h
e
D October 17, 1966 2
We are willing to make an offer to p rchase the City's existing facilities. More than that, we are pre-pared to accept large obligations of expense which have been contracted for by the City Commission, even though it would not be our intention to proceed with this expansion program.
As to the value of the City's facilities, we suggest an impartial survey by independent experts associated with neither the City nor Consumers Power.
' i I feel it is important, in the light of exist-ing controversy, to make our position clear. We believe in the future of Traverse City. We believe in preserving the natural beauties of Traverse City. We stand ready to make a new offer, if the people of Traverse City desire it.
i Sincerely, CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY
'f k(*
?
~.
l p*
BDH/nt B. D. Hilty O
F G
I
$t t
0 e
8
.o e
O e
.f
..-iY CC;?3tJ.225 2C..O. CCISADY PRCPCSAL FC.>. L. I. 2CO.:iOCTIC : I3 EE'fER The City's Investment Uill Ie SubstentiM17 S~clier Censurers vill build the connecting line at no cost to the City. Censumers vill also supply the 5,000 hva transfcmer and the 500 kva regulater; two of the cost costly iters in the substation.
The City Uill Z:a':e Yearl/ Gavin. s en Fixed Charges With fixed charges (interest, depreciation and insurance) at 7-1/2$, each $1,C00 saved in intial construction ecsts will return the City $7500peryear.
The Rate per Kilevatt-hcur is " air to Ecth City and Cc pany Any u-isalance in irh.rs in any three tenths' period vill be sold at a rate of 1.2:!. The cooperative plan calls for 1.14p. The latter vould be a bit more aivantacecus to the City when purchasing but less advanta; ecus when sellin;;.
The City Uill Eave the Advsnta e of Drawinre on the Electric Resources CF A btrene intercenn20 ten cyster Any interconnection with Censurers is cade with an integrated 140,0C0 volt transmission systen with nany cenerating scurces and is not dependent on one line and cne Eencrating plant as it would be with the Northern Cooperative.
The City Can C' stain The Technical Assistance of I-:any Specialists in Electric Generatin~ an _,istricuuien crcolens Consumers ent;;ineers have had broad experience in the design and operation of power plants, substaticns and tran=1ssion lines and vill be available for censultation.
2 Operatinr: Personnel Cperating personnel of Censu-ers e.re imediately available An Traverse City to operate or maintain Consurcrs equipment on intercennecticn.
Censeners Ecs a Record cf Successful C eration cf Interconnections Interconnections 'cetween the Censurers system and the Detroit Ediscn Coupany, and betacen thp systens of Conceners and the City of Lsnning,,
have been in successful operation for many years.
Censurers also supplies pcVer to a number of municipalities and to one rural electric cooperative.
Stabilire Frequency of the Traverse City System 4
This will improve electric clock operation and elcetronic con-trola in industry applications.
\\
.2 Rag Consu=srs Power Cc=pany Proposal
'Ccntinuity cf Service conocers power can cover 1 css of generation without any strain
- on transcission facilities -icich nay not be the case with EEA supply.
Voltar;e Sticilization Stabilize voltage ecnditions so Traverse City system supply to industry custeners vculd be ctrengthened, so that najor velding and electric furnace equip.ent could be served.
Sources of Power Interconnection with Conc =crs vill afford =cre fi: : source of power because of the Eca dcan Substaticn in Traverse City end because of the lines feciing this substation. FEA has one line and a mil station in tne area.
Stand-by power
/.n interconnectica vill supply stand-by power for auxiliaries in case of necessity of total shut-dovn of the Traverse City plant.
Coal Strike or Shippin j; Strike Traverse City system could conserve coal supply in case of coal strike or strike in chipping facilitics. There is the possibility that Traverce City eculd nake less investment in coal stock to tide them over vinter period with an interconnecticn.
Reserve Capacity C;cratin ; Cost i
The interconnection vill allev Traverse City system to operate I
at both lisht and hea./ load periods with less recerve capacity.
It vill also allow res; efficient operation of present cenerating equipment.
1 i
l Reserve Capacity Investment Cost An interconnection can defer investment cost in neu generating equipment as Traverse City cysten eculd possibly operate with a stall reserve capacity. This vould defer inctallation of new equiptent until lead approaches capacity already installed.
Industries Like to F.ncv Their Electric Service is Streng and rependiale Cften the stre;1gth end dependability of ciectric service is a key factor when en indu;tr/- cocks a new plant 1ccation. Throuch it; Industrial Ecvelognent Departtent, Concurers is worPin ; for the inductrial prosperity of I!orthwectern achicen. An interconnection with Censuters vill be additional recscurance to present and prccpective custcnerc cf the Traverce City systen.
The Cit / Uill Ec Cealine "ith a Geod Citicen cf Traverse City Concuncrs accept; the recpcncibilit-/ of a cocd citicen and in a centributor and activo supporter of charitable and civic projects.
Its =cre than l'iC engloyec: and their familica represent a cubstantial cement of the City's retail uarket.
t.
3 C '- 'a -" h ocasa~'
3 m
CCC3'.
8,.8 '~-..a"
~~-
' ^^ ~
g,gi, *..'ill Ic "calir. ? !!ith A Cocd Citicen cf Oraver:e City Continued In addition,-because of the ve / nature of their work they t ce pare than ordina:/ 1r.terest cni activity in diverse civic affairs.
Throut.;h tc::es, payrcll, local purchaces and contributions,
- ~
8
'# e n W ave se City.
R C*nst:Cr3 'E*UUS U*
as a s-e in T.he cc nunity. The interests of Traverse City are its interests.
+
t-w Censurers vill strive to eccperate with the City in ever vay
/
to brin; c': cut the nost efficient and ecencuical operation of both systecs.
e 9
e e
a e
e Y..' ' D.e s *.
.e
.t.
v Ye
- Gl'.'
- t
,.-~
,,, =--
., C,.e v.
I April 26, 1950
- 'r. 07/. "' D9 ch'?r, ' '3 ;'o r,
Cit; of Coldwater, C O l W'0 ? Ar,
.'.*1 Chi [*111.
Deau.*r.
rechor:
This letter is directed to you es chief officer of the nunicipal.;,overn.icnt of the City of Coldwater.
It is inten&d to be a acrnunication to each norther of the Cit:-
- o :ncil an-1 "s written with that thour:ht in mind.
An efficial con ~ 1 os been depcsited with the City' lerk.
1 Last 'Mnder evenin,, in co:npany with ':r. Claude
- ull.1 :en, pivision ::cnar.er of Consumers Power Co:'ipany's P.attle Creeh-Divisien, I attended the rer.ular session of the City Council conJueted in the Council cha~.bers.
Upon invitation from the procidin-officer, I addressed the "cotin.3 and, in behalf of Consts ors forter Coupany, nade public sn aral offer to.rurchase i
i the electric power pro?votion and distr'.'ution facilition now a
owned ';y the..r.'nicipality.
This letter reduces that offer to writin: and confir:as it viithout er.coption.
Conse: tors Power Jonnan"s is prepared to.na's-to the people of Coldwater, tiu ouch their elected representatives, the stn of one n1111on dollars (C1,000,000.00) in cash as tctal con-cidornt' c.n for the purchase of the electric power production er.d distribution facilitics.
Consumers Power Cor.pa:iy reserves the 4
rir;ht to withdraw this offer at its 07 1 discretion; however, as I po!M ed out last ni:;ht, we do not trake the offer li,;htly and we dc :.ot intend to be unreasonably abrupt in withdrawing it.
Specifically, this offer contemplatcc that the Sit: of "oldriater would transfer its ow:ership of the following fr.cilit ion to the Consu.iers ?cvrer Co apany, subject to the opprovel 1
- of t.:m B oc tora te, and that Consirners foner Compeny would fulfill a ce M ct.e and unnivided responsibility to the citisens for
-crficient electric service.
I r.
<- ~,- - -
-+---'-C
- ^
' " - ' ~ ' ' ~ ^ - ~ '
d.
00?Y
~
.c m.. T. -..r "T..;.;g p..r, ngu.~n -.. n..".
c.,...m...
n
-'le a r.r t e Pr~ -1.te t t on Plant, Structures and Equipment
'.Y.C.'..R. and.ennett S treet S t,r v:tures Turbo-enerctor ?uilding roller House 71esel Plar.t Suilding concretc ?. lock 3 tora;;;e Building Equipnent all Turbo-generator 7: nits All Boilers (both in service and reAer construction)
All Diesel-el+ctric equipment Oil tanks, piping, etc. for Diesel Plant Occling Tor.er and "quipment Cocling Pond and 2quipucnt Concrete Stack Coal and Ash."cndlint-Equipment All Slectrical Equipnont, Liring, Conduit, etc.
All Plant Pi?ing All Steros and supplien Zi.3.
This offer includen assets involved in tho vcork in progresa for the new boiler.
This offer ricca not include a2y Viater Department structures, viells nor equipment; nor does it include trancportati n equipment, cffice furniture and fixtures, nor general office structure.
ElectM.e Distribution Plant V.1 poles.. Toriers and Finturea All Overhond Conductors and Devices All Trancforners, capacitors, Re.~ulators and Accessories All Sorvicen All Hotors and retorirr- :culpnent All Stre t Li'htin;.Yqt:1pnont All Store: and Supolics Oencen1 Plan.t f.31 Lnberntor; and Shop 3qulpment 1.11 Tool:.nd 'icrh Eqeipnont (Electric cir)
This of Cor contenpla* cc tlint title to land bc trons-f errod only to '.he extent necescary to r,1ve effect to the ortnership of.?lr.nt str'mteros.
It is not contenplated that riator Departnent operations be cit.'w.ted einer;here and tho offer cockc no interoct
- in innd o ther ':hv that outlined above.
t
3, C0PY This letter is intended to outline the terns of or etccr to the City of Coldwater.
In itself, it does not purport to be a proposed contract.
A suitable sales agreement can be prepared as the transaction procresses.
Such eli agree-ment would include provisions for the establishment of a franchise, transfer of rights of way, creation of street lightinc and water punning power centracts, and various details of pro-cadure in connection with physical transfer of property.
Cher.e details can all be agreed upon through join.t cenaultation and incornorated in such a contract.
Naturally we hope that the City Council will wei-h this offer and conclude to present the choice to the people at an election.
Only then can the electorate reach an informed decision.
'lle believe that the record clearly shows that the benefits of power supply from a large inte. grated network are real and enderin:.
If you agree that this is a matter which the people ought to decide, we will do our best to e7. plain those benefits to the cit'rens of Coldwater so that they may cone to an informed 4
opinion on he subject.
Sincerely, CONSU?.ERS PCUZR CCI! PAN'?
e James If. Campbell Vice-President k
h e
O
LAlf 1 CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY OF.NEH AI. OFFICES JACKSON. MICHIGAN February 9, 1950 To the Members of the Power Survey Ccemittee Coldwater, Michigan Gentle an:
In his official capacity as Chairman of the l'.syor's Pover Survey Cc=sittee, Mr. A. E. Sieg vrote a letter on January 13, 1950 which served as a directive to the engineering firm of Jensen, Bown & Farrell in their preparation of an electric rate curvey. The
. report developed by Jensen, Boven & Farrell is being tendered directly to your ccusittee in accordance with the mutual understanding reached at a joint meeting early this year.
Mr. Sieg's letter also posed certain questions con-
'ccrnin6 vholeccle supply of power which fell outside the province of the engineering consultant inasmuch as they related exclucively to Consumers Power Company's position. Consequently, I shall undertake to reply to these four quections in this letter.
Point One Purchase of St:nd-By Fover only Consumero Pover Ccepany does not care to ear =crk gener-atin6 capacity end line facilities for stand-by crrange=ents. Frankly, the requirecento for systes capacity orc such that facilitica can be more gainfully e= ployed on a full production basis.
Point T.ro Supply Complete nequirements on a Uholescle Basic For reasons which I have already presented -to your cca-cittee at a previous meeting, Consumera PcWr Ccapany prefers to decline wholesaling agree =ents for cupply of power. Utis point of view alco precludes adoption of arrangenents under Point E:rce of your letter--a propoac1 whereby some fraction of Coldwater's requirc=ents nicht be provided.
9
2 COPY Power Survey Co=tittee Coldvater, Hichigan February 9,1950 Point ? cur "Any other plausible plan - - - - - which might be advan-tageous to both."
,+
the cer::.inity of Coldvater to solve its electric service probles.Con specialiced business is the tanufacture, delivery and retail sale ofOur electricity, and ve believe that this "know-hov" in supplying integrated electric service, frca generators to custccers' hones and factorics, has been amply de=enstrated.
The facts speak for themselves.
The unbiased report prepared by Je$1sen, Boven & Farrell is a factual study of electric rates.
It discloses that the cec = unity of Coldwater is paying more for electric service thrcuch municipal oper-ation than vculd be tha case if Consumers Pover Company served the people of the cc=. unity.
As a natter of fact, there are many other consider-ations favoring Consurars Pover Ccapany as a supplier which do not appear in the Jensen, Boven & Farrell report.
1.
For exenple, if Consuners Pover Cc=pany cerved Cold-vater, the ec=iunity would benefit fron local tax revenues snounting to thoueands of dollars per year.
2.
Another benefit to Coldvater, which it is difficult tb appraise in dollars, is the flexibility of pover supply achieved through connection with a transnicsien netverk.
real assistance in attracting nev industries to the city and also in-Such a connectic i
sures that existirq industrics vill not be hc=pered in expannion plans by inadequate power supply.
to a ccenunity isolated frc.:: large pcVer rescurces.These considerations can pr 3
to sustain the large expenditures vhich vill be necessary to obtainC catisfactory develo;:_ent of nunicipally-cened power facilities.
other vords, further rate increases, in eddition to those circady levied, In sprear to be a probability if the city continues in the power business.
Such increases vould serve to viden the gap betveen local rates and Consumers Pover Cenpany's standard schedules.
4.
The general trend in Concurers Pover Cc=peny's elec-tric rates has been dernvard at a pace which hcc been appreciably faster than the national average.
k*e believe that the mass-production efficiencies poscibic cnly on a large systen such as ours vill take it possible for us to continue in a position of leadcrchip in giving good cervice at manicun econeny.
a
~
COPY Power hrvey Cc::__ittee February 9, 1950 Coldvater, Michigan The afore-centioned censiderations by no means exhaust the list of benefits which a ccesaunity enjoys through association with a large power network. They do serve as exc=ples of the sort of advan-tages Coldvater can gain by selling its municipal plant to specialists in the power business.
As the next logical step in Coldvater's inquiry into its electric utility probles, Consumers Powr Cc pany vould lite to suggest that the proper municipal officials authorize the steps necessary to be tahen in order that a bcna fide purchase proposal nay be submitted to the people. Such an authori::ation docs not ec= nit the cc = unity to sell the electric syste=.
It merely per=its the investigation of the probles to proceed to its icgical conclusion--a decision by the voters sa to vhat they desire to be done.
Sincerely, 7
CO iSLC".JS FO'n:R CC:9A!iY
(
7 mss)//.
/
Ja:es H. Ca=pbell Ascistnnt to the President
"- ~
JUC/anf
~
t t
e 8
APPENDIX B LAW OFFICES oF GEORGE SPIEGEL 26CO VIRGANI A AVENUE, N. W.
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20037 September 21, 1972 AREA CCCE 202 JAME4 F. F AIRM AN. JR.
RSSERT C. MCDIARMID CANMA J. STRESEL Wm. Warfield Ross, Esq.
Wald Harkrader Nicholson & Ross 1320 - 2.9th Street, N. W.
Washington, D. C.
20036 Re:
Consumers Power Company (AEC 50-329A, 50-330A)
Dear Fr. Ross :
Pursuant to our discussions in the recent meetings this is to request that documents contained in the of counsel, files and records of the Consumers Power Company pertaining Such materials to the matters listed below be produced.
predate the January 1,1960 " cut--off" for discovery established 1972 (Order by the Licensing Board in its Order of August 7, proposals and contractual
- p. 4, paragraph 10).
Negotiations, arrangements between the company and many of the intervenor We electric systems were initiated between 1950 and 1960.
believe the material requested is encompassed by Items '3d, its 5(f) (2) and 10 of the First Joint Request and that Sa, production will serve to afford a complete review of the developments from which the present relationships have We would expect that the material requested will evolved.
not comprise a quantity of documents which would serve to delay or otherwise burden the discovery.
We request the following for the time period indicated:
('
Wm. Warfield Ross, Esq. September 21, 1972 l.
Documents relating to the company's proposal
.for and electric service to the General Electric manufacturing plant in Holland, Michigan (1951-1954).
2.
Documents comprising or relating to feasibility studies, proposals, negotiations and discussions between the company and members or employees of the Holland Board of Public Works or other city officials for interconnection or electric service (1952-1960).
3.
Documents comprising or relating to discussions, negotiations and proposals to interconnect, sell or interchange electric service with Traverse City (1955 to 1960).
4.
Documents comprising or relating to a wholesale power agreement between Wolverine Electric Cooperative and the company for interchange of power at White Cloud, Michigan, effective August 12, 1949 (1949-1952).
5.
Documents comprising or relating to discussions, negotiations, fdasibility studies and proposals for (a) standby service to Wolverine Electric Cooperative and (b) the company's contract for electric service to Wolverine dated March 23, 1956 (1955-1960).
6.
Documents comprising or relating to discussions, feasibility studies, proposals and negotiations between the company and members or employees of the Coldwater Board of Public Utilities or other city officials for the acquisition of the city 's electric plant, the furnishing of wholesale electric service to the city and the securing of authorization for retail service by the company within the city (1950-1960).
Wm. Warfield Ross, Esq. September 21, 1972 7.
Documents relating to discussions, studies, invitations and proposals to acquire the electric system facilities ' owned by the City of Grand Haven (1958-1959).
Sincerely yours, f: s et._,
C45v~
a es F. Fairman, Jr.
JFF/njz cc:
Members of the Board J. Rutberg, Esq.
W. Brand, Esq.
4 6
t 4
.m_.
AFFIDAVIT DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, SS:
James F. Fairman, Jr., being first duly sworn, deposes and says that he is an attorney for the Electric Departments or Boards of Public Works of Holland, Grand Haven, Zeeland, Coldwater and Traverse City, Michigan; Northern Michigan Electric Cooperative, Wolverine Electric Cooperative and the Michigan Municipal Electric Association; and that as such he has signed the foregoing Answer of Intervenors to Applicant 's Objection to Document Requests and Motion for Protective Order for and on behalf of said parties; that he is authorized so to do; that he has read sid Answer 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, information or belief.
, d _,.,.
- w: H~ - n
[JdmesF. Fairman, Jr.
//
Subscribed and sworn to before me this 1st day of November, 1972.
O
-a W it : ?,..
/.*,e, l
Notary. Public'
- f. '
My. commission expires:
September 30, 1974 l
t