ML19329E664
| ML19329E664 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Midland |
| Issue date: | 01/26/1973 |
| From: | Joseph E Pollock MICHIGAN MUNICIPAL COOPERATIVE POWER POOL, SPIEGEL & MCDIARMID |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8006160443 | |
| Download: ML19329E664 (8) | |
Text
-
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ATOMIC ENERGY. COMMISSION
)
In the Matter of
)
)
Consumers Power Company
)
Docket Nos. 50-329A
-)
50-330A (Midland Plant Units 1 and 2)
)
)
.. MOTION.TO COMPEL THE PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS To:
Jerome Garfinkel, Chairman, The Atomic Safety and Licensing Board The Interveners / in the above-captioned case, pur-suant to paragraph 10 of the Board's Prehearing Conference Order dated August 7, 1972, request the Board to order Con-sumers Power Company to produce the documents predating 1960 as described below.
In support of this motion, the Interveners state as follows:
1.
The first informal request for these documents
- /
Electric Departments or Boards of Public Works of Holland, Grand Haven, Zeeland, Coldwater and Traverse City,I.2chigan; Northern Michigan Electric Cooperative, Wolverine Electric Cooperative, and the Michigan Municipal Electric Associa-tion.
8006160 k 3
/27
9 was contained in a letter from Mr. Fairman to Mr.
Ross dated September 21, 1972.
This informal ap-proach was stressed by the Chairman in a telephone conference with the counsel for parties on August 29, 1972.
It was not until Consumers Power filed its objections to document requests on October 26, 1972 that the informal document requests were raised (pages 16 to 23), in which specific reference was made to the Fairman to Ross letter of September 21, 1972.
Consumers Power then requested the Board to order that these document requests be denied (page 21).
2.
Interveners answered the Consumers Power Objections on November 1, 1972 and devoted discussion to the relevance of the pre-1960 document requests (pages 14 - 18) and attached examples of the types of docu-ments sought as Appendix A.
The September 21, 1972 letter listing the requests for. documents was attached i
as Appendix B.
These appendices are incorporated herein by reference.
3.
The docume'nt requests as listed in the September 21, 1972 letter and their relevance to the issues in con-troversy are as follows:.
(1)
Documents relating to the company's proposal for and electric service to the General Electric Manufactur-ing plant in Holland, Michigan (1951 -
1954).
Relevance:
These documents relate to the rele-vant matters in controversy as defined by the Board in the Prehearing Con-ference Order issued August 7, 1972 and particularly to paragraph (b)
"ap-plicant has used this power in an anti-competitive fashion against the smaller utility systems;".
The documents con-cerning the GE plant in Holland would demonstrate the power of che company to take over service areas served by the utility system.
(2)
Documents comprising or relating to feasibility studies, proposals, nego-tiations and discussions between the company and members or employees of the Holland Board of Public Works or other city officials for interconnec-tion or electric service (1952 - 1960).
Relevance:
This request grows out of request Number 1 and the documents relating to the interconnections with Holland form the basis of current agreements which include a reserve clause far more stringent than that imposed on either Consumers Power or Detroit Edison in similar agreements.
These documents would also show that Con-sumers Power refused to coordinate -.
with the City of Holland until forced to do so by G.E. who wanted standby reserve power and directly relate to paragraph (a) of the Board's Order of August 7, 1972.1/
(3)
Documents comprising or relating to discussions, negotiations and propo-sals to interconnect, sell or inter-change electric service with Traverse City (19 55 - 19 60).
Relevance:
The Traverse City story reveals to what extent Consumers Power would deal when faced with a possible REA-Municipal interconnection.
These attempts by the company to limit competition in trans-mission service and coordination are di-rectly related to paragraph (a), (b) and (c) of the Board's Order of August 7, 1972.
The past policies and practices of Consumers Power directly relate to the company's present coordination with the Interveners.
(4)
Documents comprising or relating to a wholesale power agreement between
- / " C.
Relevant Matters in Controversy 6.
The Basic Thrust of Justice's Case is that (a) ap-plicant has the power to grant or deny access to coordi-nation; (b) applicant has used this power in an anticom-petitive fashion against the smaller utility systems; (c) applicant's said use of its power has brought into exis-tence a situation inconsistent with the antitrust laws, which situation would be maintained by activities under the licenses that cyplicant scnks.
Neither the inter-vening parties nor the Atcmic Energy Commission's regu-latory staff enlarge this scope.
Hence, the scope of relevant matters in controversy is as herein outlined."
Wolverine Electric Cooperative and the Company for interchange of power at White Cloud, Michigan, effective August 12, 1949 (1949 - 1952).
Relevance:
This request relates to the basic agreement between Consumers Power and Wolverine and its subsequent termina-tion in 1952.
The problems relating to current coordination are founded in this past relationship with the Company and the reasons for its termination, after which the Cc.apany acquired terri-tory and custcmers in the White Cloud areas, and are related to paragraph (b) of the Board's Order of August 7, 1972.
{
(5)
Documents comprising or relating to dis-cussions, negotiations, feasibility studies and proposals for (a) standby service to Wolverine Electric Cooperative and (b) the company's contract for electric ser-vice to Wolverine dated March 4, 1956 (1955 - 1960).
Relevance:
These requests relate directly to Consumers Power's control of bulk power and transmission facilitics and the methods of wholesaling this bulk power to a ccmpetitor.
The requested dccuments relate directly to the cur-rent relationship between Consumers Pcuer and Wolvorine, and this inter-vener's attempts to acquire nuclear energy generation facilities.
The re-quested documents directly relate to paragraph (a) of the Eoard's Order of August 7, 1972.
l l
5_
(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 elec-tric plant, the furnishing of whole-sale electric service to the city and the securing of authorization for ser-vice by the Company within the city (1950 - 1960).
Relevance:
These documents relate to the Com-pany's anticompetitive practices in the municipality of Coldwater, as well as to attempts to set up "barricrs to entry" into the market.
The requested documents relate to the relevant matters in controversy as defined by the Board.
(7)
Documents relating to discussions, studies, invitations and proposals to acquire the electric systent facilities owned by the City of Grand Haven (1958 -
1959).
Relevance:
These documents relate to Consumers Power's attempts to expand its monoply position by buying out a competitive system.
The request also relates to the present policies and practices of the Company uith rerpect to coordination, monopoly of the Michigan market, and at-tempts to maintain their monopoly posi-tion..
4.
The seven document requests are narrowly defined
'1 as to particular interveners and should not require a sweeping search of the company files to produce.
Furthermore, the re-quests relate specifically to the antitrust issues with respect i
to the interveners.
Attempts cy the Company to buy-out munici-pals, to abort attempts by the municipals and cooperatives to
- \\
increase generation capacity and coordinate, and to force in-dustrial customers to purchase electric energy from the Company are clearly relevant to the issues in controversy established by the Board.
1 WHEREFORE, for the foregoing reasons, the inter-a vening municipals and cooperatives respectfdlly request the Board to order the production of documents, as set forth herein, within 30 days of the issuance of such order.
Respectfully submitted,
&:- w Ge ec. SM Jamch darl Pollock a
Attorney for the Electric De-partments or Boards of Public Works of Holland, ' Grand Haven, Zeeland, Coldwater and Traverse City, Michigan; Northern Michigan Electric Cooperative, January 26, 1973 Wolverine Electric Cooperative, and 4
the Michigan Municipal Electric As-sociation.
Law Offices of:
George Spiegel 2600 Virginia Avenue, N. W.
Washington, D. C..-.
. _.= - --
AFFIDAVIT DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, SS; James Carl Pollock, 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; Norther Michigan Elec-tric Cooperative, Wolverine Electric Cooperative and the l
Michigan Municipal Electric Association; and that as such he i
has signed the foregoing Motion To Compel The Production of Documents for and on behalf of said partics; that he is auth-i ori:cd by them so to do; that he has read said Motion and is familiar with the contents thoroof; and that the matters and l
things therein set forth are true and correct to the best of his knowledge, information or ' belief.
%,% dar C. Ehw JamkJ Carl Pollock
'Subccribed and sworn to before me thiu 26th day of January 1973.
')
.. i
) 7
/,: 7 >.,t/
- p. n '
,., j 7
Notary I3blic i
My ccmmission cxpires:
September 30, 1974.
I
,--