ML20039G889
| ML20039G889 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png |
| Issue date: | 12/29/1981 |
| From: | Skjei S Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20039G887 | List: |
| References | |
| ISSUANCES-A, NUDOCS 8201190264 | |
| Download: ML20039G889 (18) | |
Text
-
e NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION DOCKET NO. 50-322A LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY NOTICE OF FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT ANTITRUST CHANGES AND TIME FOR FILING OF REQUESTS FOR REEVALUATION The Director of Nucler.r Reactor Regulation has made an initial finding in accordance with Section 105c(2) of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, that no significant (antitrust) changes in the licensee's activities or pro-posed activities have occurred subsequent to the previous construction permit review of the Shoreham Nuclear Power Station by the Attorney General and the Commission. The finding is as follows:
l "Section 105c(2) of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, provides for an antitrust review of an application for an operating license if the Commission determines that significant changes in the licensee's activities or proposed activities have occurred subsequent to the previous construction permit review. The Commission has delegated the authority to make the
'significant change' detemination with respect to nuclear reactors to the Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
Based upon examination of events that have transpired since issuance of the Shoreham Nuclear Power Station construction pemit to the Long Island Lighting Company, the staffs of the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation and the Office of the Executive Legal Director, hereafter referred to as the ' staff,' have jointly concluded, after consulting with the Department of Justice, that the changes that have occurred since the antitrust construction pennit review are not 'significant' in an antitrust context to require a second formal antitrust review at the operating license stage of the ap-plication for licenses; i.e., the changes which have occurred either are not reasonably attributable to the licensee or do not have antitrust implications that would likely warrant some Commission remedy.
In reaching this conclusion, the staff considered th'e structure of the ele 'tric utility industry in New York state, the events relevant to the Shoreham construction permit antitrust review, and the events that have occurred subsequent to that permit review.
"The Conclusion of the staff's analysis is as follows:
' Applicant's activities subsequent to the Shoreham CP antitrust review have been evaluated on several occasions.
The staff's review of the operating license application in 1976 found no significant antitrust changes at that time.
Subsequent antitrust 8201190264 811229 DRADOCK05000g
e 2
reviews of the Long Island Lighting Company with respect to the Jamesport, Nine Mile Point No. 2 and New York State Electric and Gas nuclear plants were conducted by the Attorney General.
Each of these reviews indicated no actual or potential violation of the antitrust laws on the part of LILCO. These previous reviews have described changes in the Applicant's activities, occurring since the Shoreham CP antitrust review, which have had either no apparent effect on competition or have enhanced the competitive posture of smaller systems in LILCO's service area.
' Interconnection agreements have been negotiated between Applicant and the Cities of Freeport and Rockville Center.
These agreements call for various coordination services, including LILCO's wheeling of power and energy from the Power Authority of the State of N.Y.
The City of Greenport has entered into a more limited interconnection agreement with the Applicant which calls for wheeling services only.
' Based on the findings of this current review, the October,1976 review, and the Attorney General's advice letters with respect to other nuclear facilities, staff has concluded that the changes in the Applicant's activities since the completion of the Shoreham CP antitrust review do not have any antitrust implications that would likely warrant some Commission remedy.
As a result, these changes do not meet the 'significant change' criteria and therefore do not require a further, formal antitrust review at the operating license stage. The Department of Justice has concurred in this Analysis.'
" Based on the staff's analysis, it is my finding that a formal operating license antitrust review of the Long Island Lighting Company with respect to the Shoreham Nuclear Power Station is not required."
Signed on December 17, 1981 by Harold R. Denton, Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
Any person whose interest may be affected pursuant to this initial determination may file with full particulars a request for reevaluation with the Director of Neclear Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555 by (60 days).
FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION i_
.D..
- b Stephenf Skjei, Chief Antitrust and Economic Analysis Branch Division of Engineering Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
SHOREHAM NUCLEAR POWER STATION OPERATING LICENSE l
SIGNIFICANT CHANGES REVIEW DOCKET NO. 50-322A LONG ISLAND LIGHTING C0.
TABLE OF CONTEtiTS PAGE A.
INTRODUCTION 1
B.
STRUCTURE OF THE ELECTRIC POWER INDUSTRY IN NEW YORK STATE 3
-1.
Investor-0wned Utilities 3
4 4
2.
Municipal Systems 3.
Federal and State-0wned Systems 6
4.
The Applicant 6
C.
BACKGROUND 8
D.
CHANGES IN APPLICANT'S ACTIVITIES OR PROPOSED ACTIVITIES 9
1.
Jamesport Nuclear Power Station 9
2.
Nine Mile Point No. 2 11 3.
New York State Electric and Gas Unit Nos.1 and 2 (NYSEG 1 & 2) 12 4.
Other Changes in Applicant's Activities 13 E.
CONCLUSION 14 APPENDICES A.
Memorandum from Argil Toalston, AIG, U.S. NRC., to Joseph Rutberg, OELD, U.S. NRC., October 28, 1976 B.
State of New York Operating Electric Systems C.
Summary of Major Additions, Long Range 1981-1996 Base Plan D.
Factors Affecting Coal Conversion of Generating Units Indicated By NYPP E.
Information for Antitrust Review of Operating License Application, Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, September 30, 1980
r SHOREHAM NUCLEAR POWER STATION OPERATING LICENSE l
SIGNIFICANT CHANGES REVIEW DOCKET N0. 50-322A l
LONG ISLAND LIGHTING C0.
A.
INTRODUCTION Electric utilities sacking authorization to construct commercial nuclear plants undergo a thorough antitrust review prior to receiving a construction permit (CP).
The intent of this review is to determine whether licensing such facilities would create or maintain a situation
" inconsistent with the antitrust laws."I If, as a result of this initial review, it is detennined that conditions exist which " demonstrate with ' reasonable probability' that an anticompetitive situation would result... L'even where no actual violation of statute occurs]... the Commission may refuse to issue a [CPJ or [may] issue one with remedial conditions [ appended.]"2 The review procedure is different' for entities applying for an operating license (0L) for nuclear facilities.
At the OL stage, l
a narrower,,second antitrust review is conducted if -- and only if - "... the Commission determines such review is advisable on the ground that significant changes in the [ applicant's] activities or proposed activities have occurred subsequent to the [CP antitrust review]."3 1
Section 105c(5) of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended.
2 South Carolina Electric and Gas Co. and South Carolina Public Service Authority (Virgi) C. Summer Nuclear Station Unit No.1)
Commission Memorandum and Orcer (CLI-80-28), June 30, 1980, (page 4, Fn. 8 and accompanying text).
3 Section 105c(2) of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended.
l e
e The Canmission has delegated authority to make the "significant change" determination with respect to nuclear reactors to the Director, Office of fluclear Reactor Regulation.
In its tiemorandum and Order of June 30, 1981 (CLI-80-28), the Commission set forth the standards by which an affinnative significant change determination can be made. A finding of significant change would trigger a formal request, by the Commission, for advice from the Attorney General concerning the need to initiate an antitrust proceeding.
The Commission's standards require that the change or changes in the applicant's I
activities "(1) have occurred since the previous antitrust review of the licensee (s); (2) are reasonably attributable to the licensee (s); and (3) have antitrust implications [which] would likely warrant some Commission recedy."
This analysis examines the activities of the Long Island Lighting Co. (LILC0, Applicant) in light of the Commission's criteria.
The Attorney General's advice letter with respect to the construction permit antitrust review
- was published in the Federal Register in September,1971.
Since no petitions to intervene were received in response to the publication, the CP antitrust review effectively tenninated and the review period for purposes of this study begins at that time.
Although a prior review was conducted by the staff in October,1976,4 that review must necessarily be updated to reflect changes which have subsequently occurred in the Applicant's activities.
Furthermore, the Commission's "significant change" criteria did not formally exist at the I
time of the 1976 review.
For these reasons this updated review has been conducted.
4 Appendix A.
8.
STRUCTURE,0F THE ELECTRIC POWER INDUSTRY IN NEW YORK STATE Operating electric utility systems in the state of New York include nine investor-owned companies (one of which owns no generating facilities), 46 l
municipal systems, four rural electric cooperatives and one state-owned generation and transmission wholesaler.5 1.
Investor-0wned Utilities The seven major investor-owned systems in the state and the Power Authrity of the State of New York (PASNY) are signatories to the New York Power Pool 4
(NYPP) agreement.0 This pool accounts for over 90 percent of all electric energy generated in the state.
Of the capacity existing in the NYPP in 1980, 60 percent was oil-fired, 11 percent was coal-fired, and 17 percent was composed of hydro generation, both conventional and pumped storage units.
The remaining 12 percent was composed of nuclear facilities.7 From these statistics, it is readily ap-parent that electric systems in New York state currently place considerable i
reliance on scarce and expensive fuel oil.
5 These systems are identified in Appendix B.
6 The seven private utilities are Central Hudson Gas and Electric Corp.,
Consolidated Edison Co. (Con Ed), Long Island Lighting Co., New York State Electric and Gas Corp., Niagara Mohawk Power Corp; Orange and Rockland Utilities Co., and Rochester Gas and Electric Corp.
I 7
These facilities include:
Nine Mile Point No.1, 610 MW; Indian Point j
No. 2, 849 MW; Ginna No.1, 470 MW; Fitzpatrick, 810 MW; Indian Point 1
No. 3, 855 MW and Indian Point No. 1, rated 265 MW, but shutdown pending.
(
s
l.-
1 -
The NYPP's 20-year generation expansion plan indicates the awareness, on the part of member systems, of the need to achieve greater diversity in generation mix and to reduce system dependence on oil.
Considerable effort will be expended in (1) converting some 3665 MW of existing oil-fired 9
generation to coal use and (2) installing refuse-fired plants, hydro facilities, and additional coal and nuclear units.
Over 50 percent of all transmission in the state is owned by Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation.
The New York State Electric and Gas Co. owns mcre then 20 percent with PASNY owning approximately 11 percent.
f.pproximately j
585 circuit miles of transmission is undergrourij or submarine cable.
1 Consolidated Edison Co. owns 66 percent of this cable and Applicant owns 21 percent.
Multiparty capacity and/or energy transactions, particularly those involving PASNY and its customers, are likely to involve the facilities of one or more of these systems.
l 2.
Municipal Systems Eight of the 46 municipal and cooperative systems operating in the state own generating facilities which supply all or part of their system requirements.
These eight systems are owned by the municipalities of Freeport, Greene, Greenport, Jamestown, Rockville Center, Skaneateles, Springville and Watertown.
The remainder of the municipals purchase their full requirements from individual members of the NYPP.
The majority receive all or part of this service from PASNY.
Three of the eight municipal systems which own generating facilities operate within the Applicant's service area.
Each of these systems, Rockville Center, Freeport and Greenport, purchases portions of their capacity and energy needs directly from LILC0 or, through wheeling arrangements with Applicant, from PASNY.
8 Appendix C.
9 Appendix D.
V..
l t.
.s
.l l}
-s L-
\\'
i 3
' Ths City of Rockvill has been interconnected with LILC0 since'1937. Since 1960'the two systems have been operating under a contract which provides for the exchange of emergency power and energy, when necessary.
As of January, 1979, Rockville owned'31.3 MW of oil-fired internal combustion capacity, partially meeting a 1978 summer peak load of 34.2 MW.
During 1978 the system's energy load totalled 72,000 MWh.
Approximately 85 percent of this total was supplied through purchases.
The remainder was generated by the City.
Freeport has been interconnected with the Applicant since 1954.
The City owns oil-fired generating capacity totalling 50.2 MW.
The system's 1977 summer peak load exceeded 39 MW with that year's energy requirements amounting to 174,621 MWh.
Purchases from LILCO and PASNY during that year exceeded 93,000 MWh or 53 percent of system requirements.
The remainder requirements were supplied by the City.
The Greenport Electric Department, with oil-fired generating capacity of nearly 8.4 MW, experienced a 1978 peak load of 3.2 MW.
Energy requirements during that year exceeded 16,000 MWh with purchases from PASNY (wheeled by LILC0) totalling 7273 MWh.
Other than the wheeling agreement between Applicant and Greenport, no contract for other coordination services cur-rently exists between the two systems.10 10 Applicant's response to Reg. Guide No. 9.3.
Copy of excerpts are attached as Appendix E.
1
o
. 3.
Federal and State-0wned Systems There are two government-owned systems operating in the State of New York, the U.S. Military Light and' Power Plant (MLP) and the Power Authority of the State of New York.
The MLP system is interconnected with the Orange and Rockland Utilities Co. and p,ovides power and energy primarily to the West Point Military Academy.
The Power Authority of the State of New York is a state-owned generation and transmission wholesaler created to supply power and energy to municipals, co-operatives and high load factor industrials.
As of January 1981, PASNY served 50 municipal and rural cooperative systems.
Power from PASNY is delivered to its customers over transmission facilities owned by the Authority as well as the transmission facilities of appropriate investor-owned systems.
PASNY owns no distribution facilities; therefore, electric service supplied to its customers at voltages below transmission levels necessarily involves the use of distribution facilities of systems in physical proximity to PASNY's l
customers.
In 1979, LILC0 and PASNY entered into a transmission agreement which provides for LILC0 to wheel capacity and energy from PASNY to the Cities of Freeport, Greenport and Rockville Center.
This service will supply all cspacity and energy needs for Greenport and partial needs for Freeport and Rockville.
4.
The Applicant The Long Island Lighting Co., with a service area of approximately 1230 square miles, provides electric service for an estimated 2.7 million people.11 11 Applicant also supplies natural gas requirements in its franchise, area.
O
. During 1979 approximately 49 percent of the company's revenues was derived from residential sales and 47 percent of revenues was received from commercial and industrial sales, with remaining revenues attributed to street and highway lighting, railroad and other public utilities.
l LILC0's 1980 peak demand totalled 3143 MW.
Energy generated during that year exceeded 14,000 GWh, yielding a system load factor of 50.9 percent.
Demand and energy are anticipated to increase at average annual compound rates of 1.4 and 1.7 percent, respectively, during the 1981-1996 planning period.
LILC0's 1980 installed generating capacity consisted exclusively of oil-fired l
units - steam, diesel and combustion turbines - with aggregate summer capability of 3721 MW.
The company plans the installation of some 1039.4 MW of additional generating capacity during the 1981-1986 period (two refuse-fired units of 32 MW total capacity are currently scheduled for commercial operation in May 1981 and are not included in this total).
Approximately 1013 MW of this capacity is represented by two nuclear units, the Shoreham l
Unit No.1, 819 MW, and the 18 percent share of the Nine Mile Point No. 2 unit, 194 MW.
Applicant further plans to convert to coal use four 760 MW units, two of which will be completely modified by August,1987.
The remaining two will be operational as coal-fired in October,1987.
LILC0 is a comparatively isolated system as a result of the physical characteristics of its service area.
There are two major bulk power utilities adjacent to the LILC0 system, Consolidated Edison Company (Con-Ed) to the west and Connecticut Light and Power Company (CLP) l to the north.
LILC0 is bounded on the east and south by the Atlantic l
Ocean.
l l
The Applicant is interconnected with both of its neighboring systems.
l
~
Its interconnection with Con Ed consists of 3-138kv submarine cables i
o and one 345 kv submarine cable.
With CLP, LILC0 maintains a 138 kv submarine interconnection which extends between CLP's Norwalk Harbor plant and LILC0's Northport substation.
These interconnections provide LILC0 with the means of making contractual arrangements with CLP and the New England Power Pool (of which CLP is a member) and allows LILC0's daily participation in the NYPP.
Furthermore, over these ties LILC0 wheels power and energy for the municipals operating in its service area.
The Applicant has negotiated agreements with the Cities of Rockville Center and Freeport (FPC rate schedule Nos. 15 and 29, respectively) to provide capacity and energy should PASNY become unable to fulfill its contractual obligations.
C.
BACKGROUND On May 15,1968, LILC0 filed an application for a construction permit for its proposed Shoreham Nuclear Power Station.
At the time of the Applicant's filing, the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (the Act) contained no provision for antitrust review of the activities of potential licensees.
Licensing policies were primarily concerned with issues related to the effects on human health and safety of comr9rcial nuclear facilities.
With the De,cember 19, 1970 enactment of PL 91-560, Sec~ tion 105c of the Ar,t was
- signed into law.
This section established the procedures whereby ap-plicants are subjected to a two-stage antitrust review procedure.
Companies which had applications for cps or OLs on file with the Commission at the time of enactment of Section 105c were granted
" grandfather" status. That is, these companies were allowed to receive cps or OLs in advance of the termination of staff's antitrust review.
How-ever, all cps or OLs issued after December 19, 1970, under this framework 4
_9 were conditioned such that any subsequent findings or orders related to the competitive posture of the licensee (s) would be given full " force and effect."12 On February 9,1971, staff requested the Attorney General's advice pursuant to Section 105c(1), concerning the antitrust implications of granting a CP for the Shoreham facility.
The Attorney General's response was received August 4,1971, and stated in part:
"After examination of the application and review of relevant data, we conclude that the activities proposed under the license applied for by Long Island Lighting Co., as described in the application, would not create or maintain a situation inconsistent with tie antitrust laws."
Protracted health and safety proceedings prohibited issuance of the construction parmit until April 14, 1973.
The CP was granted with no remedial conditions affixed related to antitrust matters.
Several changes have occurred in the Applicant's activities or proposed activities since the CP antitrust review.
In the remainder of this discussion, these changes are described and measured against the Commission's three "significant change" criteria.
D.
CHANGES IN APPLICANT'S ACTIVITIES OR PROPOSED ACTIVITIES 1.
Jamesport Nuclear Power Station On August 24,1974, LILC0 applied to the Commission for a construction permit for its proposed Jamesport nuclear facility.
This plant, to be located in s
12 Section 105c(8) of the Act, commonly referred to as the " grandfather clause." This gubsection was included as part of Section 105c to avoid any undue delay in the issuance of licenses to applicants of record.
l l
. i Suffolk County, N.Y., was proposed to consist of two 1150 MWe pressurized water reactors.
An antitrust review was initiated by staff and the advice of the Attorney General was solicited.
l The Attorney General indicated that although the Cities of Rockville and 13 Freeport indicated no interest in opposing this application, their principal concern centered around LILC0's willingness to wheel power and energy to l
them from PASNY.
At the time, the Applicant assured the Cities of its I
desire to negotiate equitable wheeling arrangements.
Subsequently, these arrangements were formalized.14 The Attorney General concluded that no antitrust hearing would be necessary with respect to the Jamesport ap-plication.
Construction permits CPPR-175 and CPPR-176 were issued to l
LILC0 and the New York State Electric and Gas Co. (NYSEG)15 on January 4, 1979.
On September 8,1980, the N.Y. State Board on Electric Generation Siting and the Environment (State Board) denied permits for the construction of l
the Jamesport facility.
The State Board announced that only one coal-fired unit would be granted a construction permit at the Jamesport site.16 As a consequence of that decision, Applicant petitioned the Commission to l
terminate all preceedings with respect to Jamesport.
The construction permits were revoked on February 6, 1980.
l l
With regard to the Commission's criteria for the determination of "significant change," the foregoing events comply with criterion number one in that 13 See "Municipals" section of " Structure of the Electric Power Industry in New York State" earlier in this discussion.
14 Pages 6 and 7 earlier in this discussion.
15 LILC0 negotiated the sale of 50' percent interest in Jamesport to NYSEG on February 2,1976.
16 Currently, Applicant and NYSEG share equal ownership interest in i
this coal plant.
l
.- activities regarding th2 licensing of Jamesport occurrcd subsequent to completion of the Shoreham CP antitrust review.
Criterion number 2 dictates that the change or changes be reasonably attributable to the Applicant.
Although LILC0 was primarily responsible for initiation of the effort to construct the Jamesport facility, the responsibility for i
the demise of these plans rested with the State Board.
Criterion number 3 states that any change must have antitrust implications which would likely warrant Commission remedy.
The antitrust review conducted during the CP stage indicated no adverse finding with respect to the facility's effect on area competition.
The State Board's action lies beyond the jurisdiction of the Commission, thereby rendering moot any remedial action potentially available to the Commission.
2.
Nine Mile Point No. 2 On June 7,1972, Niagara Mohawk Power Corp. (NMP) filed an application with the Cammission for authorization to construct the Nine Mile Point No. 2 nuclear generating unit.
This facility, an 1100 MWe boiling water reactor, is to be located on a 900 acre site in Oswego County, N.Y.
On June 24, 1974, a construction permit, No. CPPR-112, was issued to NMP following, among other licensing procedures, the Attorney General's advice letter which indicated no evidence of the existence of any situation inconsistent with the antitrust laws.
l On February 6,1978, NMP filed with the Commission a petition to amend the Nine Mile Point CP to include additional owners.
These proposed co-owners included LILC0, NYSE, Rochester Gas and Electric Corp., and Central Hudson Gas and Electric Corp.
This petition for amendment triggered a second CP antitrust review involving the proposed new owners.
The Attorney General's July 31, 1978 advice letter, concerning the new applicants, stated in part:
e
"(The Office of the Attorney General] concludes taat no j
intervening circumstances have appeared to warrant a l
17 Each of these companies had previously undergone antitrust reviews concerning other nuclear facilities.
- reversal of the advice given [previously with regard to the applicants' operating practices]... we conclude that no antitrust hearing will be required."
As a result, the original construction permit was amended to include LILC0 and the other four utilities as co-owners of the Nine Mile Point facility.
Since LILC0's application for 18 percent ownership interest in Nine Mile Point was approved after the issuance of the Shoreham CP, this change in Applicant's activities complies with the Commission's criterion number 1.
- Likewise, criterion number 2 is satisfied since LILCO, upon its own motion, initiated negotiation with NMP for an ownership interest.
As a result of the considerable antitrust scrutiny each co-owner has undergone (relative to Nine Mile Point and other nuclear facilities), no evidence exists which indicates that the change in activities occasioned by this facility has any negative antitrust implications.
Therefore, criterion number 3 is not met.
3.
New York State Electric and Gas Unit Nos.1 and 2 (NYSEG 1 and 2)
On November 22, 1978, New York State Electric and Gas Co. filed application for itself and LILC0 for a construction permit for NYSEG 1 and 2.
On July 14, 1978, the Attorney General advised the Commission that no adverse impact on competiton would result from the grant of a CP for the NYSEG 1 & 2 uni ts. Moreover, the Attorney General stated that each applicant had been the subject of prior antitrust reviews, none of which resulted in a formal hearing procedure.
On October 16, 1980, NYSEG and LILC0 requested withdrawal of the NYSEG 1 & 2 CP application.
The Atomic Safety and Licensing Board allowed withdrawal of the application and cancelled the construction permit proceeding on November 6, 1980.
s
.t The events involving the Applicant's intent to license NYSEG 1 and 2 occurred following issuance of the Shoreham CP and were primarily attributable to actions on the part of Applicant.
Therefore, Conmission criteria 1 and 2 are satisfied.
Withdrawal of the application for the CP renders moot any discussion relative to criterion number 3, particularly in light of the fact that no other electric system in the area indicated interest in co-ownership of the subject facility.
4.
Other Changes in Applicant's Activities The following changes in Applicant's activities or proposed activities comply with Commission criteria 1 and 2.
1.
Changes in load forecast; 6
2.
Changes in service dates of planned generating facilities; 3.
Changes in installed reserve requirements for NYPP members from the 14 percent quoted during the construction permit stage to the current 18 percent requirenents.
4.
Interconnection with the City of Greenport, and new whe'eling agreenients with the Cities of Rockville, Freeport and Greenport.
5.
Interconnection agreements with Freeport and Rockville Center which provide for various coordination services.
Changes indicated in items one through 3 above are not unique to the Applicant.
Nationally, systems have been modifying their load forecasts and capacity expansion' program in response to dramatic changes in consumer use since the 1973 oil embargo.
Growth in energy use and peak demand has slowed, necessitat-ing these changes in capacity and energy plans.
There is little likelihood L
These modifications do not have antitrust implications which could be remedied through Commission actions.
Items 4 and 5 above comply with Commission criteria numbers 1 and 2.
- However, the activities contemplated by these changes would serve to increase competition in Applicant's service area rather than require Commission action under criterion number 3.
1 E.
CONCLUSION Applicant's activities subsequent to the Shoreham CP antitrust review have been evaluated on several occasions. The staff's review of the operating license application in 1976 found no significant antitrust changes at that time.
Subsequent antitrust reviews of the Long Island Lighting Comsany with respect to the Jamesport, Nine Mile Point No. 2 and New York State Electric and Gas nuclear plants were conducted by the Attnrney General.
Each of these reviews indicated no actual or potential violation of the antitrust laws on the part of LILCO. These previous reviews have described" changes in the Applicant's activities, occurring since the Shoreham CP antitrust review, which have had either no apparent effect on competition or have enhanced the competitive posture of smaller systems in LILCO's service area.
Interconnection agreements have been negotiated between Applicant and the Cities of Freeport and Rockville Center.
These agreements call for various coordination services, including LILC0's wheeling of power and energy from the Power Authority of the State of N.Y.
The City of Greenport has entered into a more limited interconnection agreement with the Applicant which calls for wheeling services only.
^
==*
b Based on the findings of this current review, the October,1976 review, and the Attorney General's advice letters with respect to other nuclear facilities, staff has concluded that the changes in the Applicant's activities since the completion of the Shoreham CP antitrust review do not have any antitrust implications that would likely warrant some Commission remedy.
As a result, these changes do not meet the "significant change" criteria and therefore do not require a further, formal antitrust review at the operating license stage. The Department of Justice has concurred in this analysis.
9 9
6 e
F k
_ _ _ _