ML19338C420
| ML19338C420 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | South Texas, Comanche Peak  |
| Issue date: | 08/13/1980 |
| From: | Ahearn C, Knotts J DEBEVOISE & LIBERMAN, TEXAS UTILITIES ELECTRIC CO. (TU ELECTRIC) |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| ALAB-279, ISSUANCES-A, NUDOCS 8008150383 | |
| Download: ML19338C420 (20) | |
Text
_
C\\3 r
t 4
Mc<erto t.
C 1
Alfg I 31980 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 11-NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 3
~i
.b fh Jy In the Matter of:
)
Wh
)
a
)
HOUSTON LIGHTING AND POWER CO.,
)
Docket Nos. 50-498A
_et _al.
)
50-499A g
(South Texas Project, Units
)
1 and 2)
)
)
TEXAE UTILITIES GENERATING
)
Docket Nos. 50-445A COMPANY, _et _al.
)
50-446A (Comanche Peak Steam Electric
)
Station, Units 1 and 2)
)
ANSWER OF TUGCO TO THE PETITION OF THE TEXAS BORDER COOPERATIVES FOR LEAVE TO INTERVENE OUT OF TIME On July 31, 1980, about twenty-seven months after the South Texas notice 1! and some twenty-two months after the Comanche Peak notice S! of opportunity to intervene in these the opera-ting license antitrust proceedings, a group of twelve Texas l
Cooperatives, styling themselves the " Border Cooperatives",
filed by mail a petition for leave to intervene out of time.
Timely petitions were due in May and September, 1978 in South Texas and Comanche Peak, respectively.
The relief sought by the petition is not concerned with either of these two facil-ities, or even the applicants for licenses, but instead a
S! 43 Fed. Reg. 15,811 (1978).
S! 43 Fed. Reg. 34850, (1978).
. seeks to oppose the establishment of the DC intercon-nections which are the subject of a settlement among certain private parties herein and of an amended application and offer of settlement in the FERC proceeding under PURPA in Docket EL 79-8. For the reasons which follow, TUGCO believes that this petition is inexcusably late, devoid of merit, addressed to the wrong forum, and capable of unnecessarily delaying and broadening these proceedings.
TUGCO therefore respectfully requests that the Licensing Board deny this petition.
Faced with an untimely petition to intervene in an antitrust proceeding, an NRC Licensing Board must consider factors beyond the usual criteria for intervention.3/ The Board must first consider whether and the extent to which a showing of good cause for the late filing has been made, and
-3/ Kansas Gas & Electric Company (Wolf Creek Generating Station, Unit No. 1), ALAB-279, 1 NRC 559, 574-75 (1975) j described the criteria for intervention in an antitrust proceeding.
A petition to intervene must set forth with particularity facts which describe (1) the petitioner's interest; (2) a situation inconsistent with the anti-trust laws or their underlying policies; (3) the exis-tence of a meaningful nexus between the activities under the nuclear license and that situation; and (4) the specific relief sought. Of course, any petitioner must show how his interest would be affected by the outcome of the proceeding and he must also state at least one well-pleaded contention.
t l
l l
l
. then must consider the other four factors specified in 10 CFR $2.714(a).A/
INTEREST Before considering the other pertinent factors, it is important to note what is the interest of the petitioners in this proceeding.
The Border Cooperatives are not interested in access to the Comanche Peak facility or in the purchase of power from that facility, nor do they state that they have sought and been denied power from DP&L, TP&L or TESCO.
Rather, their sole interest is founded on their status as I
dissatisfied customers of West Texas Utilities who have a newfound interest in bulk power supply in Texas and who oppose the coastruction of DC interconnections which they allege might have some detrimental effect on their ability to purchase power from unnamed out-of-state utilities at some unspecified future date. West Texas Utilities (WTU) is A!
See Nuclear Fuel Services, Inc. (West Valley Reprocessing Plant), CLI-75-4, 1 NRC 273 (1975).
The Commission there stated:
Late petitioners properly have a substantial burden in justifying their tardiness.
And the burden of justifying intervention on the basis of the other factors in the rule is considerabley greater where the latecomer has no good excuse.
[W]e stress that favorable findings on some or even all of the other factors in the rule [10 CFR
{2.714(a)] need not in a given case outweigh the effect of inexcusable tardiness.
Conversely, a showing of good cause for a late filing may nevertheless result in a denial of intervention where assessment of the other factors weighs against the peti-tieners.
M. at 275.
I
-T
. an intervenor, not an applicant, in Comanche Peak.
No condition in the Comanche Peak license could remedy any alleged misconduct by WTU.
These twelve cooperatives have known of these proceedings since at least November, 1978, and considered intervening because of their interest in assessing potential alternate bulk power suppliers, but elected not to do so. 5!
This Board is not called upon to order or approve DC interconnections.
Finally, since Texas Utilities has no plans to construct any DC inter-connection facilities now or for the foreseeable future, the Border Cooperatives have no proper interest whatsoever in the Comanche Peak proceeding.
These points will be developed further below, but is is worth noting at the outset that these cooperatives do not have a cognizable interest in these proceedings; therefore, their petition for intervention should be denied.
GOOD CAUSE Turning now to the arguments which petitioners make to excuse their late filing, it is seen that they basically have three points.
First, they state that at the time the notices of opportunity to intervene in these proceedings were published, all of them were purchasing all or most of their electric power and energy from West Texas Utilities 5!
See pp. 5-6, infra.
See also deposition of Carl Stover at 40-46.
All depositions referred to should by now have been duly filed, along with accompanying exhibits.
Testimony is of course under oath or affir-mation.
I Company and were satisfied with those arrangements.
They imply that those contracts were terminated suddenly and without opportunity for consideration of alternate supplies on January 1, 1980, and add that WTU substituted for the favorable contract rates, terms, and conditions which these customers find onerous.
They then seek to relate their explorations pertaining to new terms and conditions with WTU or alternate suppliers of bulk power to the current time frame.
What these cooperatives have not told the Board is that the depositions in this proceeding show that they were well aware of the impending expiration of their con-tracts with WTU and the need to renegotiate or explore alternatives at or before the time the notices of hearing were issued, and had formed a group and retained a consultant at a much earlier point in the proceeding.
-6/
The group's consultant, Mr. Carl Stover of C. H.
Guernsey and Company, was deposed on July 24, 1979. He indicated that he was involved in doing a study of alter-native power suppliers for the coops. 7/ In Mr. Stover's presentation before the Public Meeting on Interconnection, Wheeling and Pooling in Oklahoma City on November 29, 1978, he indicated that he represented a group of Cooperatives 6/ See Deposition of Mr. James Driver at 39, 44-5.
-7/ See Stover deposition at 10-13.
. who purchased from West Texas Utilities, who sought to explore their planning alternatives, and who, he stated at that time, fcit. very strongly about the question of inter-state interconnection. (Stover Exhibit 4).
Three of the coop managers indicated in their depositions that they were studying alternative power suppliers, either individually or through Mr. Stover's study.E!
Petitioners were taus well aware of the bulk power supply issues they now seek to use to excuse lateness prior to November 29, 1978 and cannot claim to have just discovered them.
It is worth repeating that West Texas Utilities Company is one of the interve.nors in Comanche Peak (as a subsidiary of CSW) but is not one of the applicants in Comanche Peak nor is it an applicant in South Texas.
License conditions applicable to WTU cannot be imposed in the Comanche Peak proceeding, and it is a novel question whether such would be imposed through an affiliate (CP&L) in the South Texas proceeding.
For these reasons, petitioners seem to be in the wrong forum in compJ aining of the conse-
- uences ensuing upon termination or expiration of their revious contracts with WTU.
l, The second reason which petitioners give for their late filing is that at the time of the notices of these pro-E!
See depositions of McGinnis at 14, 18, and 50; Hart at 27-30, 93; and Driver at 28-29, and 35-47.
. ceedings, the Central & South West Companies were seeking alternating current (AC) interconnections between ERCOT and the South West Power Pool (SWPP), and these twelve coopera-tives, which allegedly saw improved competitive oppor-tunities and operational efficiencies in such intercon-nections, say they had no compelling reason to seek inter-venor status because other parties (evidently NRC and Justice - see Stover 44-45; compare the petition which implies they were relying on CSW) were adequately protecting their interests.
It is precisely this line of reasoning which was rejected in the Davis-Besse proceeding.E!
That case stands for the proposition that potential intervenors may not lay back, assuming that some other party would reprusent their interests, and then come forward at the eleventh hour asserting their new-found lack of confidence E!
Toledo Edison Company (Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station), LBP-74-13, 7 AEC 282, 284 (1974), Aff'd sub nom. Ducuesne Light Company (Beaver Valley Power Station, Unit 2), ALAB-208, 7 AEC 959 (1974), Aff'd CLI-74-24, 7 AEC 953 (1974).
Thus this petition was approximately 30 days late.
Cleveland states that it had expected AMP-O to intervene and repre-sent Cleveland's interest and that AMP-O apparently failed to communicate with t
l Cleveland when its plans changed.
This appears to be, at best, a casual attitude towards pursuing its interest with respect to a most serious matter, and Cleveland should not now be heard to say that its j
agent's failure somehow provides good cause and permits Cleveland a second opportunity c
to intervene.
The Board finds that I
Cleveland has failed to show good cause for the late filing as required by Section l
2.714.
l l
. -k l
3...
In other parties to protect the interest which they mis-takenly failed to protect earlier.
Since this excuse has even less merit in this proceeding (where the delay was almost two years) than it had in the Davis-Besse proceeding (where the delay was for only one month), it should lOtewise be found inadequate to provide good cause for the late filing.
Thirdly, petitioners indicate that there have been significant developments recently which create issues of grave concern to these cooperatives.
They point to the proposed direct current interconnections between ERCOT and the South West Power Pool as potentially creating " serious long-term economic and competitive detriment" to them.
Petitioners seem to assume that this Commission will =andate such an interconnection or approve it.
Obviously, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission is not in the business of ordering interconnections between entire regions of the country, involving numerous utilities large and small who are not before the NRC.
Particularly is that the case when an application is pending before FERC under PURPA for an order mandating such interconnection, where all interested utilities are parties, including these same twelve coopera-tives.10/
They intervened in FERC Docket No. EL-79-8
---10/ Although the twelve cooperatives are identical in each proceeding, it should be noted that the name of cne has changed.
See McGinnis deposition at p. 33.
by petition dated March 30, 1979, in which, contrary to their apparent reliance on participation by other parties in the NRC proceeding, these cooperatives affirmatively represented to FERC that "no other party can adequately protect their interest in this [FERC] proceeding. "11!
A key part of the argument made by these cooperatives to excuse their lateness is that they would have the Board believe that AC interconnections between ERCOT and the South West Power Pool were a foregone conclusion at the outset of this proceeding, and that, since it now appears that DC ties may be ordered (which, in our view, is not authorized or contemplated at NRC), they are entitled to intervene in opposition to such ties.
This is little more than rationalization, however, since it was always a possi-bility that no ties between ERCOT and the South West Power Pool or DC ties as well as AC ties would emerge as a result of the various related proceedings, and that any relief which was ordered would differ substantially frcm what the petitioners hoped for.
If these cooperatives thought that 11! Petition to Intervene in FERC Docket EL 79-8 at p.
3.
Note also that three of the twelve cooperatives have requested limited appearances in South Texas (Taylor, South West Texas and, through the Committee on Power for the Southwest, Gate City) and one in Comanche Peak (Gate City as above).
10 -
this Commission had jurisdiction to bring about the type of ties they desired, then the time for them to assert their interest was at the outset of this proceeding, not at this late date.
None of the reasons which petitioners have advanced for their late filing are sufficient to provide the " good cause" necessary to excuse their untimely petitien.
- Thus, the burden which petitioners must meet under the other four factors of 10 CFR $2.714(a) is substantially increased.12/
OTHER MEANS TO PROTECT INTERESTS The matter of availability of other means whereby the petitioners' interest will be protected weighs against a
granting intervention in this proceeding.
These petitioners neither allege that they are in competition with DE&L, TP&L or TESCO, nor do they request cwnership participation in, or cthgr access to, the nuclear units before this Board.
Since their interests do not lie with the matters with which this Board is concerned, and since their interests are more properly addressed to another forum, namely FERC (which has
--12/
See fn. 4, supra; late filings in antitrust cases are strictly scrutinized.
Florida Pcwer & Light Co.,
(St.
Lucie Plant, Unit No. 2), CLI-78-2, 7 NRC 939, 946 (1978).
n
. a WTU rate case before it in one proceeding and in another proceeding will approve or disapprove the DC ties) it is clear that FERC provides the means to protect those interests.
Thus there are indeed available "other means whereby the petitioners' interest will be protected."
This first factor can thus not be said to favor the granting of inter-vention in this proceeding.
ASSISTANCE IN DEVELOPING RECORD The petiticners do not even address the second factor, which is the extent to which their participation =ay reasonably be expected to assist in developing a sound record.
It should be noted that sc=e of the officials of these cccperatives have been designated as potential wit-nesses 13/ and that = cst of these have been deposed.
The cooperatives state that they do not anticipate tendering witnesses at a hearing ordered in these cases, and that
"[o]f the witnessec the Border Cooperatives would call, all but one have been identified as prospective witnesses and have been deposed." li!
The one witness when peti-12/
Mr. James C.
Driver of Gate City Electric Cooperative by the NRC Staff; Mr. Driver and Mr. Roy Yarborough of Gate City Electric Cocprative, Mr. Donald Eart of Taylor Electric Cooperative, Mr. Elton McGinnis of South West Texas Electric Cooperative, and Mr. Parker Wetzel of Midwest Electric Cocperative by the Depart-
=ent of Justice.
Mr. Wetzel has not been cade available for deposition.
1'I Petition For Leave To Intervene Cut Of Time,
- p. 10.
l
. r tioners do state that they would offer is said to be an expert in transmission systems, but they do not specify how the testimony offered by experts of the other parties requires augmentation.
There is no showing of a significant contribution which these petitioners could bring to the record in this proceeding.
This second factor can thus not be considered to favor the granting of their interven-i tion petition, either.
OTHER PARTIES The third factor, the extent to which the petitioners' interest will be represented by existing parties, also does not favor the granting of this intervention petition since it would appear that any interest which they have will be adequately represented by the NRC Staff 15! and the Depart-ment of Justice.
1 i
SCOPE AND DURATION OF PROCEEDING As to the fourth consideration, the extent to which their participation will broaden the issues or delay the proceeding, petitioners indicate that they are prepared to accept the record established as they find it, will accept 3
the evidence and discovery acquired to date, and do not desire to delay or enlarge the proceeding.
They i
--15/
The Commission has specifically charged the NRC Staff with "assur[ing] that a complete picture is presented to the Licensing Board" in antitrust proceedings whether or not the other parties to the proceeding i
address all the relevant issues.
Florida Power & Light Company (St. Lucie Plant, Unit No. 2), CLI-78-12, 7 NRC 939, 949 (1978).
13 -
state that they wish to be heard on the subject of the DC ties.
But these twelve cooperatives, already parties to a FERC proceeding involving the DC ties, would thus enlarge the scope of the proceeding.
The admission of new intervenors at this late stage has a large potential for just the type of unnecessary delay which Congress wished to avoid in operating license antitrust reviews. 16/
This delay factor has been held to be of importance when determining whether or not to grant an extremely late intervention petition.
1!
- Also, the Commission itself has expressly stated in this very proceeding that:
6/
See the discussion of the relevant Legislative History in Houston Lighting & Power Company (South Texas Project, Unit Nos. 1& 2), CLI-77-13, 5 NRC 1303, 1315-16 and 1321 (1977).
--17/
See Long Island Lighting Company (Jamesport Nuclear Power Station, Units 1 & 2 ), ALAB-292, 2 NRC 631, 650-51 (1975) (Opinion of Mr. Rosenthal speaking for the entire Board on this point); Project Manager.ent Corporation (Clinch River Breeder Reactor Planc),
ALAB-354, 4 NRC 383, 394-95 (1976).
Accord, Detroit Edison Company (Greenwood Energy Center, Units 2 & 3),
ALAB-475, 7 NRC 759, 762 (1978).
In the one proceeding where an extremely late (thirty-one months) antitrust intervention petition was granted, both the Licensing and Appeal Boards noted that the agreement of the prospective intervenors to the issuance of the con-struction permit before the completion of the anti-trust proceeding eliminated the possibility of delay and was a critical factor in the decision to grant intervention.
Florida Power & Light Co. (St. Lucie Plants, Units 1 and 2), LBP-77-23, 5 NRC 789, 800-801 (1977), Aff'd sub. nom. Florida Power & Light Co.
(St. Lucie Nuclear Power Plant, Unit No. 2), ALAB-420, 6 NRC 8, 23 (1977), Aff'd, CLI-78-12, 7 NRC 939 (1978).
. In fairness to utilities engaged in long-range planning.
a potential petitioner for antitrust intervention [should not] be able to stand on the sidelines at the construction permit stage and raise a claim at the operating license s gpe that could have been raised earlier.
The policy considerations underlying this statement are directly applicable to the instant intervention petition with even increased force since, not only did petitioners fail to intervene and demand a construction permit hearir; but they also failed to intervene in the operating license proceeding in a timely manner. Given the increased weight to be accorded to this factor, the clear potential for broad-ening the issues and delaying the proceeding, and the Commission policy disfavoring the granting of a hearing on antitrust issues which could have been raised previously, it must be said that this factor weighs against granting the instant intervention petition.
None of these four factors weigh in favor of granting the Border Cooperatives' intervention petition.
Coupled with the total lack of a showing of good cause for their ex-tremely late filing, these factors can in no way be said to j
have overcome the heavy burden imposed upon a late inter-I vention petitioner.
Having failed to meet the standards for late intervention petitions, the Border Cooperatives' petition must be denied.
18/ South Texas, supra, fn. 16, at 1321.
l
\\
I i
. BASIC STANDARDS FOR INTERVENTION Although this petition must be denied as untimely, an examination of the factors applicable to any petition to intervene in an antitrust proceeding (whether or not timely),
demonstrates that this petition would have to be dismissed on those grounds alone.
The standard formulation of these factor 1 was given by the Appeal Board in the Wolf Creek proceeding.11!
A petition to intervene seeking to raise antitrust contentions must set forth with particularity facts which describe (in addition to the petitioners' interest already mentioned) (1) a situation inconsistent with the antitrust laws or their clearly underlying policies, (2) the existence of a meaningful nexus between that situ-ation and the activities under the nuc3 aar license, and (3) the specific relief (within the scope of the proceeding -
see 10 CFR I2.714(h) and 10 CFR Part 2, Appendix A, III(a)(1), 2d. para.) sought.
These petitioners have failed l
to satisfy any of these three criteria.
i l
Nowhere in their petition do the Border Cooperatives I
even attempt to plead or describe a situation inconsistent with the antitrust laws.
The sum total of their petition is 1
a disagreement with the possibility of the construction of AS!
Kansas Gas & Electric Company (Wolf Creek Generating Station, Unit No. 1), ALAB-279, 1 NRC 554, 574-75 (1975).
l i
l
l l l
(
DC rather than AC interconnections.
They do not set out
(
"with particularity" any facts that would describe a present i
situation which could be considered inconsistent with the antitrust laws or their clearly underlying policies.
Petitioners have lixewise failed to establish any meaningful nexus between the activities under the Comanche Peak (or South Texas) operating license and any such situations.
The Commission itself underlined the importance of estab-lishing such a nexus in the Waterford proceeding l
where it stated:
The hearing issues cannot and should not be divorced from the overriding requirement that there be a reasonable nexus between the alleged anticompetitive practices and the activities under the particular nuclear license.
This is a primary and predominant question which must pervade the proceeding. 20/
Finally, as indicated above at pp. 6-11, the relief they seek is more properly addressed to FERC rather than the NRC.
S!
Louisiana Power & Light Company (Waterford Steam Electric Generating Station, Unit 3), CLI-73-25, 6 AEC 619, 621 (1973).
l l
l
. CONCLUSICN For the foregoing reasecs, MCO respectfully sub=its that the petition to intervene cut of ti=e shculd be denief.
Respectfully subcitted, "A
t h w s4 b7 (I
(-
Josecly 3. Knotts,/Jr.
C. W nis Ahearn
.n r : r.s v a a,-m er k e v. = r.: m v swa e-.
1200 Seventeenth Street, N.W.
Washingten, D.C.
20036 (202) 857-95C0 August 13, 19'30
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION In the Matter of:
HOUSTON LIGHTING AND POWER 'CO.,
)
Docket Nos. 50-498A et al.
)
50-499A
)
(South' Texas Project, Units
)
1 and 2)
)
)
1 TEXAS UTILITIES GENERATING
)
Docket Nos. 50-445A COMPANY, et al.
)
50-446A
)
(Comanche Peak Steam Electric
)
' Station, Units 1 and 2)
)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of " Answer Of TUGCO To The Petition Of The Texas Border Cooperatives For Leave To Intervene Out Of Time" in the above-captioned matters, were served upon the following persons by deposit in the United States mail, first class postage prepaid, and hand-delivered to those designated by an asterisk, this 13th day of August, 1980.
- Marshall E. Miller, Esq.
Mr. Jerome D.
Saltzman U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Chief, Antitrust and Commission Indemnity Group Washington, D.C.
20555 Nuclear Reactor Regulation U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
- Michael L.
Glaser, Esq.
Commission 1150 17th Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C.
20555 Washington, D.C.
20036 J.
Irion Worsham, Esq.
- Sheldon J. Wolfe, Esq.
Merlyn D.
Sampels, Esq.
U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Spencer C.
Relyea, Esq.
Commission Worsham, Forsythe & Sampels Washington, D.C.
20555 2001 Bryan Tower, Suite 2500 Dallas, Texas 75201 Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board Panel Jon C. Wood, Esq.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory W.
Roger Wilson, Esq.
Commission Matthews, Nowlin, Macfarlane &
Washington, D.C.
20555 Barrett 1500 Alamo National Building Chase R.
Stephens San Antonio, Texas 78205 Docketing and Service Branch U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Dick Terrell Brown, Esq.
Commission 800 Milam Building Washington, D.C.
20555 San Antonio, Texas 78205
, - - - ~. -
-,---,,---7 n.-
Charles G. Thrash, Jr., Esq.
Robert Fabrikant, Esq.
E.W. Barnett, Esq.
Rangeley Wallace, Esq.
Theodore F. Weiss, Esq.
David A. Dopsovic, Esq.
J. Gregory Copeland, Esq.
Frederick H. Parmenter, Esq.
Baker & Botts Nancy Luque, Esq.
3000 One Shell Plaza Kenneth M. Glazier, Esq.
Eonston, Texas 77002 U.S.
Departnant of Justice Antitrust Division Steven R.
Hunsicker, Esq.
P.O. Box 14141 R.
Gordon Gooch, Esq.
Washington, D.C.
20044 John P. Mathis, Esq.
~
Baker & Botts Jerry L. Harris, Esq.
1701 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Richard C.
Balough, Esq.
Washington, D.C.
20006 City of Austin P.O. Box'1088
- Fredric D.
Chanania, Esq.
Austin, Texas 78767 Michael B.
Blune, Esq.
Stephen H.
Lewis, Esq.
Robert Lowenstein, Esq.
Ann P.
Hodgdon, Esq.
J.A.
Bouknight, Jr., Esq.
U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Willian J.
Franklin, Esq.
Co d ssion Douglas G.
Green, Esq.
Washington, D.C.
20555 Lowenstein, Newman, Reis, Axelrad and Toll Mr. Roff Hardy 1025 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.
Chairman and Chief Executive Washington, D.C.
20036 Officer Central Power and Light ConpanY John W. Davidson, Esq.
P.O. Box 2121 Sawtelle, Goode, Davidson &
Corpus Christi, Texas 78403 Tioilo 1100 San Antonio Savings Bldg.
Mr. Perry G. Brittain San Antonio, Texas 78205 President Texas Utilities Generating.
Douglas F. John, Esq.
Conpany McDermott, Will and Enery 2001 Bryan Tower 1101 Connecticut Ave., N.W.
Dallas, Texas 75201 Suite 1201 Mr.
R.
L. Hancock, Director City of Austin Electric Utility Bill D.
St. Clair, Esq.
P.O. Box 1086 Morgan Hunter, Esq.
Austin, Texas 78767 McGinnis, Lockridge & Eilgore Fifth Flcor, Texas State Mr.
G.
W. Oprea, Jr.
Bank Building Executive Vice President 900 Congress Avenue Houston Lighting & Power Austin, Texas 78701 Cenpany P.O.
Box 1700 David M.
Stahl, Esq.
Houston, Texas 77001 Ishan, Lincoln & Beale 1120 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.
Don R.
Butler, Esq.
Suite 325 211 East Seventh Street Washington, D.C.
\\
o~
Mr. G.
Holman King Sara Welling, Esq.
Michael I. Miller, Esq.
West Texas Utilities Co.
P.O. Box 841 James A.
Carney, Esq.
Isham, Lincoln & Beale Abilene, Texas 79604 One First National Plaza Kevin B. Pratt, Esq.
Suite 4200 Chicago, Illinois 60603 Attorney General's Office State of Texas Mr. Don H. Davidson P.O. Box 12548 City Manager Austin, Texas 78711 City of Austin P.O. Box 1088 Frederick H.
Ritts, Esq.
~
William H. Burchette, Esq.
Northcutt Ely Mr. W.S.
Robson Watergate 600 Duilding Genera'_ Manager Washington, D.C.
20037 South Texas Electric J.
K.
Spruce, General Manager Cooperative, Inc.
City Public Service Board Post Office Box 151 Nursery, Texas' 77976
,3
[A nio Texas 78296 George Spiegel, Esq.
Robert C. McDiarmid, Esq.
[
- [f~
Robert Jablon, Esq.
C.- Dennis arn Marc Poirier, Esq.
Spiegel & McDiarmid 2600 Virginia Ave., N.W.
Ste. 312 Washington, D.C.
20037 W.N. Woolsey, Esq.
Dyer and Redford 1030 Petroleum Tower Corpus Christi,. Texas 78474 Mr. Donald M.
Clements Gulf States Utilities Company Post Office Box 2951 Beaumont, Texas 77704 Marc J. Wetterhahn, Esq.
Robert M.
Rader, Esq.
Conner & Moore 1747 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C.
20006 Mr. William C. Price Central Power & Light Co.
P.O.
Box 2121 Corpus Christi, Texas 78403 Robert A.
O'Neil, Esquire Miller, Balis & O'Neil, P.C.
1030 Fifteenth Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C.
20005
_