ML19364A150
| ML19364A150 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Wolf Creek  |
| Issue date: | 03/01/1999 |
| From: | Robert Elliott Kansas Electric Power Cooperative, Miller, Balis & O'Neil |
| To: | NRC/SECY |
| SECY/RAS | |
| References | |
| 50-482-LT | |
| Download: ML19364A150 (4) | |
Text
LAW OF FI CES f)* nc ,1,1r*1*cn L , ' .t". L.. ,._,
ORIGINAL
~ ~ ,., I * ("'I ..
WILLIAM T MILLER MILLER, BALIS & O'NEIL
- C ARRJE L. HILL STANLEY W. BALIS A PROFESS IONAL CORPORATION "LISA M. OCHSENHIRT ROBERT A. O'NE IL "DEBRAH. REDN IK JAMES R. C HOUKAS-BRADLEY 1140 NINETEENTH STREET. NW 'DQ MAP. -4 p 3 :I 3 "MATTHEW E. ROSS JO HN MJCHAEL ADRAGNA SUITE 700
- CRA IG W. SI LVERSTE IN JAME S H. BYRD W ASHJNGTON. D.C. 20036-6600 JOHN P. GREGG (202) 296-2960 MARY A. HEKMAN SEANT BEENY FAX (202) 296-0 166 JOS HUA L. MENTER "BENJAM IN L. WILLEY SUSANN. KE LLY COUNSEL RANDO LPH LEE EL LI OTT p.J.* *ADrvITTTE.D IN OlliER THAN TiiE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA March 1, 1999 Secretary of the Commission United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001 Attention: Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff Re: Docket No . 50-482 Request for the Transfer and Amendment of the Wolf Creek Generating Station Facility Operating License NPF-42 to Reflect Transfer of Ownership To Whom It May Concern:
On February 18, 1999, we filed a Petition To Intervene and Request for Hearing on Behalf of Kansas Electric Power Cooperative, Inc. , in the above matter.
It has come to our attention that two pages (43 and 46 ) are missing from the Direct Testimony of Gordon T.C. Taylor, Ph.D., that was attached to the petition. Enclosed are the missing two pages.
For the convenience of the Commission, we are this day sending a copy of the petition and the complete Taylor Testimony by electronic mail to the Secretary of the Commission.
Sincerely, Raudolph Lee Elliott Attachment cc: General Counsel, Nuclear Regulatory Commission Jay E. Silberg, Esq .
Exhibit_ (GT-1), page 43 1 Q. Have you included the Kansas City, Kansas, Board of Public Utilities 2 ("BPU") in the Westar-area market?
3 A. No. The BPU is a municipally-owned electric utility owning generation, 4 transmission, and distribution. The BPU's transmission system is directly interconnected to 5 Western Resources and to KCPL. The proposed merger would make the BPU dependent 6 entirely on Westar for transmission access to any buyer or seller of generation. In its 7 transmission area, the BPU operates its own control area. Thus, the BPU would not be a 8 part of the Westar control area (transmission area). The Joint Applicants calculate import 9 capability from electric utilities outside Westar transmission area, such as the BPU. Thus, 10 as I have defined the Westar-area market, this market does not include the BPU.
11 Q. What would be the Westar-area load?
12 A. In his exhibits, Dr. Spann estimates that the Westar-area load would be 7,955 13 MW.35/
14 Q. Would a hypothetical monopolist owning all of the generating capacity 15 within the Westar area be able to raise price profitably?
,..., 16 A. Yes. For example, the Merger Guidelines state that a 35% market share 17 probably would be sufficient for a firm to profitably restrict output and raise price.36/ In the 18 Westar transmission area, a hypothetical monopolist would have a 91 % market share even 19 if all of the import capability into the Westar area were used to import requirements 20 power.37/ Thus, there is insufficient import capability for generating units located outside r
35 Spann KCC-2, Exhibit_ (RMS-13), page 2.
36 Merger Guidelines, § 2.22.
37 Westar area load of 7,955, minus 704 MW served by imports, equals 7,251 MW served by the hypothetical monopolist.
,., Exhibit_ (GT-1) , page 46 I
l
,, \
1 ("MW'). For the denominator, I use total generating capacity in the Westar area plus import I 2 capability into the Westar area . I measure both generating capacity and import capability in 3 megawatts.
4 Q. What would be the market shares in the Westar-area market?
5 A. As shown in my Exhibit_ (GT-2), Westar-area generating capacity equals 6 10,035 MW, and simultaneous import capability equals 704 MW, a total of 10,739 MW.
7 Westar would own 8,752 MW of this generating capacity .41 / Thus, Westar would have an r
B 81 % share of the relevant market.
9 Q. How does this market share figure compare with the Merger Guidelines' 1o merger-created market share evaluation criteria?
11 A. The critical market-share threshold is 35%, so the proposed merger would create 12 a firm that would have a market share greatly exceeding the critical threshold . As I partially 13 quoted above, the Merger Guidelines explain that:
r 14 Where products are relatively undifferentiated and capacity 15 primarily distinguishes firms and shapes the nature of their 16 competition, the merged firm may find it profitable unilaterally
,..., 17 to raise price and suppress output. The merger provides the 18 merged firm a larger base of sales on which to enjoy the 19 resulting price rise and also eliminates a competitor to which 20 customers otherwise would have diverted their sales. Where 21 merging firms have a combined market share of at least 22 thirty-five percent, merged firms may find it profitable to raise 23 price and reduce output below the sum of their pre-merger
,..., 24 outputs because the lost markups on the foregone sales may 25 be outweighed by the resulting price increase on the merged 26 base of sales.~/]
,..., 27 41 Direct testimony of Leslie D. Morgan, page 3, lines 5-6; and Direct Testimony of Frank L.
Branca , page 3, line 6 ..
42 Merger Guidelines, § 2.22.
r'
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that I have this day served the foregoing document upon the following persons in accordance with the notice at 64 Fed. Reg. 4726 and 10 C.F.R. § 2.1313:
Jay Silberg, Esq.
Shaw, Pittman, Potts & Trowbridge 2300 N Street N.W Washington, DC 20037 General Counsel United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 Secretary of the Commission United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001 Attention : Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff Dated at Washington, D.C. this 1st day ofMarch, 1999.
2~ ~)ft;J-"
Randolph Lee Elliott Miller, Balis & O'Neil, P.C.
I 140 Nineteenth Street, N.W.
Suite 700 Washington, D .C. 2003 6 (202) 296-2960