ML20004C272

Responds to Request for Assistance Re Antitrust Review of Application.No Antitrust Hearing Necessary Since Applicant Will Eliminate or Revise Contract Article I,Section 8

ML20004C272
Person / Time
Site:	Fermi
Issue date:	08/16/1971
From:	Mclaren R JUSTICE, DEPT. OF
To:	Schur B US ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION (AEC)
Shared Package
ML20004C270	List: ML20004C272 ML20004C277 ML20004C281 ML20004C282 ML20004C286 ML20004C293 ML20004C294
References
60-415-28, ISSUANCES-A, NUDOCS 8106020467
Download: ML20004C272 (2)

Text

- .

is o o, . .n :

-l)

I

.~

z'"

I

[arp: rimem i.. i.mdice ~ ,

ra-ase.rm . == k,bg* . ...

3_

/ ;

/y Q ,.,

U, t iq~ T: / l Attachment 1 ,

AUG 0 $71 Bertram H. Schur, Esquire l Associate General Counsel  !

United States Atomic Energy Commission Triashington, D. C. 20545 l Re: Detroit Edison Company Enrico Fermi Unit No. 2 AEC Docket No. 50-341A i Department of Justice File 60-415-28  !

l

Dear Mr. Schur:

You have requested our advice pursuant to the provisic::s of Section 105 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, 68 Stat.

919 42 U.S.C. 2011-2296 as amended by P.L.91-560, 84 Stat.

M7i (December 19, 1970), in regard to the above cited application.

Applicant Applicant is the largest electric utility in Michigan, in terms of electric load although the geographic area covered by applicant is less than that of Consumers Power Company. Its operation and planning are closely coordinated witn that of Consumers and other adjacent systems as more fully described to you in our letter of June 28, 1971, con-cerning Consumers' Midland applications in Docket Nos.

50-329A and 50-330A.

Our preliminary study of the application indicated tne possibility that contractual limitations in the Michigan pool agreement migh; unreasonably restrict entrance of third parties into the pool or coordination between each of the pool members and third party systems in Michigan.

In a meeting with the Applicant, these questions were discussed and Applicant stated that it interpreted the enntract not to restrict interconnection between either of

'FBE,-

'8106020 TsF 9

- - - , , - - . - - , ---,---,n,--g . - ,,,--r-------,--e -,-n--, - - , --e---e - , , - , - ~ -~ - - - , - - - - - - - - ~ - - - - - - - , - - ~ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

0 Attachment 1 enc ,.v v i members and a third pcrty and not to restrict coorainoced planning and eperations with that third party of various kinds, including but not limited,to emergency power exchanges, c'eficiency or unit power transactions, and economy energy transactions. .

Applicant further stated that Article I, Section 8 of the contract which provides:

By mutual agreement of the parties hereto, the pcrties may enter into nooling arrangements wich a third party. Such third sarties may par-ticipate in added economies whict result from such pooling arrangements. The Special Agreements recuired~witn these third parties shall be included in Supplehent E of Part II of this Agreement, and snail include provisions for initiation and term-ination thereof.

wer not intended unreasonably to restrict admission of any thirc party into a multilateral pooling arrangement as part of the Michigcn pool. Applicant has submitted a commitment to eliminate that provision, or to revise it, or otherwise to indicate that - t would consent to the admission of any l

tnird pcrty unich could meet specified reasonable criteria, t

Accordingly, we believe that no antitrust hearing will be necessary and that proper accommodation of antitrust colicy and power needs will be effectuated by imposition by che Commission of a license condition requiring the Applicant to fulfill the assurances set forth in its letter of August 13, 1971, which is attached hereto. As that leteer indicatec, the Applicant has no objection to this procedure.

1

' Sin er f y j

I urs .,

. n-

\ 'l7Q i .. M A..i x _...

RIC M RD W. Mc N Assistant Attorney G eral Antitrust Division l

l l

l

-- - . , , . . . - ~ , - - . - - . , , - . . , . , - - , -

-,y - , - . . - , .,.,,_.,v..-- ---,,-_.-w.-

,,..--..,..._---.,..--m.,_,