ML20043B026
| ML20043B026 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Hatch, River Bend, Vogtle, Farley  |
| Issue date: | 03/26/1990 |
| From: | Philips J NRC OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATION (ADM) |
| To: | Spector B GERST, HEFFNER, CARPENTER & PODGORSKY |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20042C775 | List: |
| References | |
| FOIA-89-559 NUDOCS 9005240087 | |
| Download: ML20043B026 (9) | |
Text
.
v.s.wucttu ni ug@b
. euomi uona q
FOlA -
89-559 1
Y h**b e
m sm l
n'. =
lx leaniat l
RESPONSE TO FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT (FOIA) REQUEST N 2 6 19M I
o... j DOCMt.#,lhelAl pf enpd.:eaart at out 6f tfi Barry S. Spector PART 1.- AGENCY RICORDS RittA$tD OR NOT LOC ATL0 (See cheened t>oaes; 3
We egency rMorde subpect to the reevost have toen located.
No oddelsenei egency reco*0s sut> post to the eequest heve been toceled.
Roguested eecordt e.e evellebie through emother pubhc diet'atd.on prop.em $n Commentt Sect.en.
x A,ene,,eco.e..utene o.e,e uni ihei ce.eenu.e oa Ar. pend..ini A
ce ei,eee, eve ieb. io, puu.c.n.peci.on.no copy.no e ihe NRC Pubhc Document Room PIN t $1.eet. N W. Wuhmeton. DC 20666 A, enc,.no....ub,u noihe,e..u nheie.e enu e An.ne..ini P
4.e t.e.n mooe e.e ieve i, puu.c.peci.on e.d cop,m. m ihe y
NRC Pubhc Docurrent Room, 2120 t Strut, N W. Wuhmgion. DC..n 6 foidet undet th.s f otA numt.c and reountet nome The nonpropoetery vetten of the peoposel!s) that you eg.eed to eccept m e telephone converseten.itt 4 memter of my sieff.6 non tving enede e.ei able for pubhc t
sgecten end copyeg et the NRC PutAt Document Room 2 20 L $trut. N W. Wuhenpion, DC,.n e folder.ande this f otA numtge and reount, nome Agency rocket tutsect to the request that e.e identif+d Da Append stent may t.e espected and 40p.e6 et tte NRC Local Pubhc Document Room.dentifed in tte Commento $nten incic.ned es etermeten on be you me, ot. tem eccess to end the che ges to, copymg receos pieced m the N8tC Pubhc Document Ron. 2120 t $i.ut NW.
X wohegion DC y
Agency eno,en west to the eeovnt ce encious ' Records identi fied on App. B are enclosed.
mxwee eub,ect to the..ount have t.en refereed to anothe reovet scene,bui te reve. end o ect esponn to you You wik to b.tw tiv the NRC to' fees toteiine 8 in v== of NRC's responn to th s teownt. no furt'et acten is tems toten or, eppeal seiter ceted No PAR *. B. A-INFORMATION WITHHtt0 FROM PUBLIC DtSCLOSURE Cone.n.niemei.on in the eounies uwe... t.e.,.. mea v.o puu.c e..cio.u o eu..wenne the e.eme.on anc..t,te in eno i, o.e,n. n..icea.n een e.
Mci
- e. e. C. end D.n,,eioneo pon.on. onho eocueneni. io..h.ch onie ewi ov o.e.ecwe.. t.e.no..eeio ce dem, moot e.e. oole e, puu.c.peci.on e,.a cop,me e o,e NRC Puu.c Documeni noom. ei D 6 Si toi. N W. wnh.neion. DC.n e ioiae, uno, ih.. eoiA nus.e, one.eownie, nome COMMENil 3
In a telephone conversation with Natalie Brown of my staff on March 9,1990, you agreed to pay the additional fees for duplication of records.
You will be billed at the completion of the processing of your request.
9005240007 900326 PDR FDIA SPECTORB9-559 PDR.
o~.so,,t. D..tC,ps,oM o,,,tu ooo o, t~,o,. A,,0~.~o pm.,,0~,,mt,
9'***
e-we~e.-a===me+-.%.
- +
g&
I;
[
Re:
FOIA-89-559 E
APPENDIX A DOCUMENTS ALREADY AVAILABLE IN THE PDR
/
NUMBER DATE DESCRIPTION 1.
6/30/72 Letter from J. Rutberg to J.
Saunders, DOJ.
PDR Accession No. 8801110077 L
b 2.
9/27/73 Lettcr from H.
Shapar to The Honorable Elliot Richardcon.
PDR Accession No. 8801110100 3.
10/30/79' Memo from A. Toalston to M.
Collins.
PDR L
Accession No. 7911010393 4.
10/26/79 Letter from J.
G.
Weigand, Gulf States Utilities Co. to H.
Denton.
PDR Accension No. 7911010398 5.
11/8/79 Letter from H.
Shapar to Benjamin Civiletti, t
PDR Accession No. 7911280060 6.
5/5/80 Letter from Phillip Nicholson to Stephen Irving, Public Law Utilities Group.
PDR Accession No. 8006200545 7.
5/19/80 Letter from J.
Saltzman to N.. R.
Lee, Gulf States Utilities Co.
PDR Accession No.
8006180197 I
8.
5/21/80 Letter from J.
Saltzman to Rep.
M.
Udall.
PDR Accession No. 8006120131 9.
6/30/81 Letter from A. Schwencer to E.
Linn Draper, Gulf States Utility.
PDR Accession No.
8107130039 10, 2/3/84 Memo from Bill Lambe to The File.
PDR Accession No. 8402140533 11.
2/17/84 Letter from Prederick Ritts to Argil Toalston.
PDR Accession No. 8402210249 12.
4/27/84 Letter from W. J. Cahill, Gulf States, to L
William Regan.
PDR Accession No. 8405010478 l-13.
5/7/84 Letter from Daniel Guttman to William Lambe.
PDR Accession No. 8405140021 l
l l
pc n
i,-
Re:
FOI A-89 -559 f
APPENDIX A i
DOCUMENTS ALREADY AVAILABLE IN THE PDR (Continued)
NUMBER DATE DESCRIPTION i
14.
6/8/84 Letter from Robert Jebson, Daniel Davidson, i-and Daniel Cuttman, Attorneys for the City of Lafayette, Louisiana, to William Lambe and Benjamin Vogler.
PDR Accession No.
8406260427 15.
8/31/84 Letter from Benjamin Vogler to David Leckie.
PDR Accession No. 8409060270 16.
8/2/88 Letter from J.
Cathy Fogel to Frank Gillespie.
PDR Accession No. 8808170125
p h
t Re:
FOIA-89-559 i
APPENDIX B DOCUMENTS BEING PLACED IN THE PDR NUMBER DATE DESCRIPTION 1
1.
2/14/72 Letter from Lyall Johnson, AEC, to Floyd Smith, requesting information for the Attorney Genieral in conn 3ction with his i
review. (1 page) 2.
4/14/72 Letter from Lyall Johnson to Floyd Smith, regarding 2/14/72 letter.
(1 page) 3.
7/3/72 Letter from Abraham Braitman (AEC) to Floyd Smith, Gulf States Utilities.
(1 page) 4.
8/28/72 Letter from S.
L.
Adams, Gulf States Utilities, to Abraham Braitman, regarding request for information by the Attorney General for antitrust review.
(6 pages) 5.
12/18/72 Letter from S.
L. Adams to Abraham Braitman.
(2 pages) 6.
12/27/72 Memo from Jerome Saltzman to J.
- Rutberg, subject:
Gulf States Utilities Proposed Riverbend Nuclear Station. (1 page) 7.
6/11/73 Memo from Frank Petrosino to Francis J.
Williams, subject:
Acceptance Review:
Riverbend Station Units 1 & 2, Gulf Utilities Company. (1.page) 8.
12/12/73 Letter from Norman Lee, Gulf States Utilities, to C.
C.
Hargis, Special Assistant to the Mayor, Lafayette, Louisiana, regarding applications for AEC licenses.
(1 page) 9, 1973 Annual Report - Gulf States Utilities.
(24 pages) 10, 3/20/74 Prospectus - Gulf States Utilities Company.
(32 pages) 11.
4/5/74 Federal Register Notice:
Gulf States Utilities Co. - Notice of Receipt of Attorney General's Advice and Time for Filing of Petitions to Intervene on Antitrust Matters.
(4 pages)
r.
?
Ret FOIA-89-559 APPENDIX B DOCUMENTS BEING PlACED IN THE PDR (Continued) i NUMBER DATE DESCRI PTION 12.
5/8/74 Bylaws of Gulf States Utilities Company.
(14 pages) 13.
8/1974 Financial Review, Gulf States Utilities Co.
j (35 pages) 14.
9/27/74 Note to File from Benjamin Vogler, regarding i
status of Gulf States Utilities Company projects.
(1 page) 15.
12/1/74 Official Statement, $20,000,000, - Industrial Development Board of the Parish of Calcasieu, Inc. (Louisiana), Gulf States Utilities Company Project.
(44 pages) 16.
12/10/74 Letter from S.
L. Adams to E.
G.
- Case, subject:
River Bend Station License Application Document.
(21 pages) 17, 12/31/75 Letter from S.
L. Adams to Bernard Rucche, subject:
River Bond Station License Application Document.
(67 pages) 18.
10/15/76 Memo to River Bend File f rom Joseph Rutberg, regarding antitrust license conditions.
(1 page) 19.
1/18/80 Federal Register Notice - Gulf States Utilities Co., River Bend Station, Unit 1; Receipt of Additional Antitrust Information:
Time for Submisolon of Views on Antitrust Matters.
(3 pagos) 20, 5/9/80 Note from Ben Vogler to Argil Toalston, regarding Gulf States Utilities Co.
(1 page) 21, 3/30/81 Article from Public Power Weekly, "REA Nixes LEPA Effort to Buy Into Cajun Units.
(2 pages)
ff?
I Re:
FOIA-89-559 APPENDIX B DOCUMENTS BEING PLACED IN THE PDR (Continued)
I NUMBER DATE DESCRIPTION l
22.
7/30/81 Federal Register Notice - Gulf States Utilities Co. and Cajun Electric Power l
Cooperative; Receipt'of Antitrust Information. (46 FR 39063)
(2 pages) 23.
3/1982 Article from Nuclear Industry, "Progresc Chart Shows Industry Just How Much can Be Done."
(8 pages) (This document ic copyrighted, and not enclosed.
For the hard copy, please refer to NRC Public Document Room (PDR) Folder POIA-89-559) 24.
7/14/S2 Memo from L.
P.
Bourne to L. Guthrie, subject:
Five Points Substation Increase Capacity, Project 81-90900. (4 pages) 25.
12/13/82 Agreement Among Arkansas Power & Light Company, Louisiana Power & Light company, Mississippi Power & Light Company, New Orleans Public Service Inc., Middle South Services, Inc., Gulf States Utilities Company, and Alabama Power Company, Georgia i
Power Company, Gulf Power Coinpany, Mississippi Power Company, and Southern Company Services.
(855 pages) 26.
1/1/83 Agreement for Wholesale Electric Service to Municipalities - Gulf States Utilities Company.
(17 pages) 27.
1/13/83 Letter from Larry Campisi, Mayor, City of Abbeville, to George Irvin, Gulf States utilities, requesting to begin negotiations on a new contract with Gulf States.
(1 page) 28.
1/25/83 Letter from Harold Beard to George Irvin.
(2 i
pages) 29.
2/16/83 Letter from Harold Beard to George Irvin.
(1 page)
p Ret FOIA-89-559 l
l APPENDIX B
~
DOCUMENTS BEING PLACED IN THE PDR (Continued)
L NUMBER DATE DESCRIPTION L
30, 3/1/83 Letter from Harold Beard tc Malcolm Williams regarding electrical service to Abbeville,'
La. (1 page) f 31.
3/1/83 Letter from Malcolm Williams to Harold Beard, responding to 1/25/83 letter to George Irvin.
(2 pages) 32.
3/15/83 Letter from Malcolm Williams to Beard Engineering Company, responding to 3/2/83 letter.
(2 pages) 33, 4/7/83 Letter from George Irvin to Larry Campisi, providing offer for electric service to the City of Abbeville.
(2 pagc) 34.
4/11/83 Letter from George Irvin to Larry Campisi, regarding contract for electrical service.
(2 pages) 35.
4/28/83 Letter from Dud Lastrapes to Larry Campisi, subject:
Agreement by the City of Lafayette to Sell Electrical. Power and Energy to the City of Abbeville. (5 pages) 36.
4/29/83 Letter from L.
Campisi to Gulf States Utilities.
(2 pages) 37.
5/16/83 Letter from L. Campisi to Gulf States Utilities, subject:
Abbeville Electrical Power Purchase and Interconnections. (1 page) 38.
5/24/83 Letter from Summa Stelly, Gulf States, to L.
Campisi.
(1 page) 39.
5/26/83 Letter from Summa Stelly to L.
Campisi.
(1 page) 40.
5/27/83 Letter from L.
Campisi to Dud Lastrapes.
(2 pages) 41.
6/14/83 Letter from S.
Stelly to L. Campisi.
(1 page)
= - -.
Re:
FOIA-89-559 APPENDIX B L
DOCUMENTS BEING PLACED IN THE PDR (Continued)
NUMBER DATE DESCRIPTION.
i 42.
6/21/83 Letter from H.
Beard to Speigel and McDiarmid, regarding negotiations with Gulf States.
(1 page) 43.
6/24/83 Prospectus - Gulf States Utilities Company.
6 (17 pages) 44.
7/8/83 Federal Register Notice - Gulf States Utilities Co. Filing. (48 FR 31456) (1 page) 45.
8/16/83 Letter from Wm. Regan to E.
L.
- Draper, i
subject:- River Bend Station, Unit 1 Docket No. 50-458; Update Antitrust Information Responsive to the Commission's Regulatory Guide 9.3 (22 pages) 46.
9/22/83 Handwritten note from Argil to Bill.
(1 page) 47.
10/4/83 Memo from W.
Regan to R. Vollmer, subject:
Antitrust Activity. (2 pages) 48, 12/31/83 Form 10-K - Gulf States Utilities Co.-(16 pages) 49.
1/4/84 Federal Register Notice:
Gulf States Utilities and Cajun Electric Power Cooperative; Receipt of Additional Antitrust Information.
(49 FR 531) (1 page)
- 50. -
2/3/84 One page of document signed by Louie R.
Ervin.
(1 page) 51.
2/20/84 Article from Electric Utility Week, "GSU Seeks to Skirt-Antitrust Charges in Bid to Hang on to Major Customer."
(2 pages) (This document is copyrighted, and not enclosed.
For the hard copy, please refer to PDR Folder FOIA-89-559.)
52, 3/5/84 Article from Public Power Weekly, " Utility Seeks Court Order On Its Antitrust Immunity."
(1 page)
WW r.
s G i
1 t-Re:
FOIA-89-559 APPENDIX B DOCUMENTS BEING PLACED IN THE PDR r
(Continued)
NUMBER DATE DESCRIPTION 7
t 53.
6/16/84 Draft Power Delivery Agreement Between Gulf States Utilities Company. (49 pages) 54.
7/20/84 Note from Argil Toalston to Ben Vogler and Bill Lambe, subject:
River Bend OL Antitrust Analysis. (2 pages) 55.
8/16/84 Affidavit of Roy P. Herbert.
(3 pages) 56.
8/16/84
. Affidavit of Robert G.
Labbe.
(3 pages) 57.
8/16/04 Affidavit of Dr. Leroy G.
Suire.
(2 pages) 58.
8/17/84 Affidavit of Dalfares J. Trahan.
(1 page) 59.
8/20/84 Filing by David Lockie, Attorney:
- Protest, Motion To Intervene, Motion To Reject Or To issue Deficiency Letter, Request For Five-Month suspension, For Expedited Hearing on Certain Issues, And For Initiation of Price Squeeze Procedures By Abbeville, Erath, i
Gueydan, Kaplan, Rayne, St. Martinville and Welsh, Louisiana. (41 pages) 60.
1/12/85 First page of letter from Law Offices of-Wald, Harkrader & Ross, to John D. Whitler, attaching FERC hearing transcript from 3/11/84 hearing. (28 pages) 61.
3/20/85-Memo from J. Knight to H. Denton, subject:
Operating License Antitrust Analysis of River i
Bend Station, Unit 1, enclosing finding of no significant change in licensee activities relative to antitrust for the River Bend Station, and related documents.
(145 pages) 62.
7/18/88 Letter from Frank Gillespie to J.
Cathy Fogel, subject:
Your Letter Dated June 15, 1988 Pursuant to Cajun Electric Power Cooperative, Inc. and The Southern Company.
(2 pages)
v y
O LAW 077 ICES
'l CtRst, Httrwtx. CAAPINTER 8 Pot 40AsKY SUITE 1807 1700 K STktiT, N.W.
htAkY TODD CALPtwith WASHINGTON, D C. 20006 PHILADtLPHIA Of fiCl
- tRIC D Cf AST, P.C.
(202) 659 0026
$Ulft 900 PHilADEL7HtA DOUkSt JOHW D H!lFW1 A Tt tt Cortt b (202) 293+3319 2: SOUTH FIFTH STktiT AKWOLD D PODGokSKY PHILAbtLPHIA, PA 19106 kONALD C. PktCUP (215)S92 8st2 SAAkY3 SPECT0k i
CAAAll L. St'WCAkN!k'
[
- ADuititD owtv tw it Awb uo I
L December 20, 1989 1
[REEDOM OF INFORMATION i
ACT BE UESI o
of Freedom of Information M' [' ~
/g./g,6
& Publications Services Office of Aministration and Resources Management United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission i
2120 L Street, N.W.
j Washington, D.C.
20$55 Re: Freedom of Information Act Request
Dear Sir or Madam:
This request is made pursuant to the Freedom of f
Information Act ("FOIA"), 5 U.S.C. 552 et_ seg. (1983).
On behalf of Gulf States Utilities company (" Gulf States"), I request that you make.available for inspection and copying any and all documents that relate to:
1.
Antitrust reviews conducted by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (or its predecessor, the Atomic Energy i
Commission) and/or the Department of Justice with respect to the issuance of the construction permit and operating license for the River Bend nuclear plant owned by Gulf States and Cajun Electric Power Cooperative, Inc. ( "Caj un" ).
2.
Antitrust reviews, if any, conducted since the issuance of the operating license for the River Bend nuclear-plant which relate to River Bend, Gulf States, or Cajun.
3.
Any complaints which have been submitted by Cajun to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission with respect to any utility.
As used herein, the term " documents" includes, but is not limited to, all'non-identical copies of letters, correspondence, memoranda, agenda, statements, reports, working papers, records, press releases, surveys, studies, comparisons, i
t n a., ~,o, i g'
[W V TNV V f I C '
a
i i
e s
1
[
l Director Division of Freedom of Information E Publications Services December 20, 1989 Page 2 tabulations, charts, books, pamphlets, maps, photographs, minutes,' notes, diaries, microfilm, computer data files, telephone and telegraphic communications, and any written, printed, typed, recorded or graphic material relating to the subject matters described above, in the actual or constructive possession, custody, or control of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission or in the actual or constructive possession, custody or control of any of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's employees, attorneys, agents, or consu)tants.
As you know, the FOIA provides that if a portion of a document is withheld as exempt from disclosure, any reasonably segregable portion of the document must be provided after deletion of the portions for which exemption is claimed.
5 U.S.C. 552(b).
Therefore, if you determine not to release any portion of a requested document, I request that you make available.for inspection and copying, within the statutory time for response, a copy of each document without the allegedly exempt material.
Of courso, I reserve the right to appeal any determination by you not to release any portion of the requested documents.
With respect to documents or portions of documents that may be withheld under claims of exemption, I also request that a vaughn Index be provided describing the withheld information, identifying the specific exemptions claimed, and justifying the withholding.
I am prepared to pay all reasonable costs of locating and making available the requested documents.
I look forward to receiving your reply within ten (10) working days, as required by the FOIA.
Should you have any questions regarding this request, please telephone me at (202) 659-0026.
Sincerely, C
Barry S. Sp tor l
y,.
9 3
LAW of flCl3 -
c Ctksi. HtrrNER, CAkPENTER 8 PoocOR$KY SUITE 1807 1700 K STREET, N W.
[
htAR.Y TODD CARP!Wilk WASHINGTON, O C. 20006 PHILAblLPHIA of flCI Ikic D ct AST, P C.
(202)659 0026
$ ult! 900 PHILADtLPHIA DOUASI JOHN D Hlf fWik, ittacortta (202) 293 3319 21 SOUTH flFTH STktli AkWOLD 8 PODCORSKY PHILADlLPHIA, PA 19106 AONALD C PkiCUP (215) 592-8162 1
{ -' '
6AR.kY $ SFtCTok CAkkt! L BUMGAk,Nike
' Abulitt p owty tw it Awb wo December 27, 1989 Linda Robinson FOIA Branch Room P378 Huclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Re: Freedom of Information Act Request dated December 20, 1989
Dear Ms. Robinson:
As you requested, I am enclosing a copy of the letter complaint submitted by Cajun Electric Power Cooperative, Inc., to the NRC on June 15, 1988.
This letter relates to Request 3 in my letter dated December 20, 1989.
If you need any additional itiformation, please let me Si,nc
- ely, 9
Barry
.S tor Enclosure 1
anOS 3CfVTg o vv na--
Lan.%&y.../G4, 9 Lkb.M
~
' ~
m,y.,
..-,. e.. ms t2 d* -
p m.
'* '""o.'c'o's c8 *>o osa ca tt' 8*'t C'3 i
..;, u i
.t.
Sulf r coo ot=vg D8H 888 8C e: t ot,u s 4..o.g 16I5 e4 $T RrCT. N. W.
.., g o,,g l
. o o e an*=
[N-@
W AsHINGT oN. D. C. 2oo 3 6 ov=can..cmetmo.minta 5 oc c.c
.g(~g?o.~sca sao =ccaaottss teates ccotat wtae<*e g, o,3..,.,3, o ames r ettoou cinc6c j
cose6ss a *own
,s..ccs.6e=to
'tkt C O (8 083 * *i 8 3
samtA cgana,ca6tonesia closa J
(noel ese **os statet* C ottate go o.gissotte v omeo 4 agotowsca" S3(4m Stetti
...,no vt.
t 0, 9'4 V**f6 c.on..,....
f c.c..aae a actet
- c. uc.ie June 15, 1988
,,,,,,j,,g
.,,, Ec..t ve.. o o t.. a o..in t o a * * * ** * ' '" '""
itteo.= wisco=sa oao 1
-i BY HAND _
Benjamin Vogler Senior Supervisory Trial q
/
Attorney J
.U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commisslon 7735 Old Georgetown Road Room 10700 Bethesda, MD 20814
)
Inc.,
Cajun Electric Power Cooperative, Ret and Southern Company j
i
Dear Mr. Vogler :
Cajun Electric Power Cooperative, Inc.
(" Cajun *),
to institute requests the Nuclear Regulatory Commission ("NRC")
and its an investigation of the Southern Company (" Southern")
operating and service subsidiaries to determine whether Southern and/or one or more of its operating or service subsidiaries are In violation of the license conditions-currently existing regarding nuclear generating stations on the Southern system whether Southern and/or one or more of its ope
.The actions situation inconsistent with the antitrust laws.
giving rise to this request, as discussed in detail below, involve unreasonable or irrelevant constraints imposed by Southern and/or its operating subsidiaries as conditions on the transmission of Cajun generated power for ultimate delivery to potential Cajun customers located in Tennessee, Alabama and-Florida and on their purchase of economy energy from Cajun.
Cajun is a rural electric cooperative which generates, transmits and sells electric power and energy at wholesale.
v!
g.
O;
.5 s
s m
C c,e _
m s.
Jtfp -
,v.r uv av
~
. ~ Cojun is compossd of tho following thirteon rural eloctr ic Bonurcgard Elsetric cooporativos, which aro its membors: Cooperative, DeRidde Membership Corporation, Bossier City, Louisiana; ClaiborneHomer, L!
Electr ic Cooperative, Inc.,
Coop erat ive, Inc., Ferriday, Louisiana; Dixie Elec tr ic Me mber sh ip l
Corporation, Baton Rouge, Louisiana; Jef f erson Davis E Inc., Winnsboro, Iouis iana ; Pointe Coupee Electr ic
. Cooperative, Louisiana; South Louis f ana Cooperative, Membetship Corporation, New Roads, Electr ic Cooperative Associa tion, Houma, Louislana; Southwest l
Louisiana Electeic Membership Corporatlon, LaEayette, Louisiana; i
Inc., Jeanerette, Louislana; Valley Teche. Eleetr ic Cooperative, Eleetr Ic Membership Corporatlon, Natchitoches, Louislana; l
Washing ton-St. Tammany Electr ic Coopera tive, Franklinton, Cajun's primary responsibility is to supply the power and energy requirements of these member cooperatives, which, in Louisiana.
310,000 ru ral turn, resell power and energy to approximatelyin 54 of the 64 parishes i customer s at retail, Lou is iana.
Regarding generating capability, Cajun owns the following generating. stations:
4 Big Cajun 1 (gas; two units; 210 MW) 540 MW)
Big Cajun 2, Unit 1 (coal; Big Cajun 2, Unit 2 (coal; 540 MW)
Big Cajun 2, Unit 3 (coal; 313 MW).1/
4 28 2 MW).2.f River Bend (nuclear Cajun has generating capability which is in excess of its current native load and actively markets that excess power and energy in the southern and southeastern United St contracts and is actively renegotiating its contract with its l
fuel supplier to further enable Cajun to be competitive in the To this end, Cajun has entered into and consum-energy market.
output of this Unit, approximately remain ing If The is owned by Gulf States Utilities Conpany 227 MW,
( "G SU " ).
,2/
The remain ing output of th is plant, approx imately 658 MW, is owned by GSU.
c; g
l 4
C;
' >= ;
V
7
--- a v 1
c J
i metod several economy enorgy ond wheeling transactions with entitles other than Southern and its subsidiaries.
Southern is a holding company organized under the Sou thern's operating Public Utility Holding Company Act.
subsidiaries are Alabama Power Company (" Alabama Power"), Georgia Power Company ("Georg la Power "), Gulf Power Company (" Gulfand Mississippi Power Conpany (" Mississippi Power')
Powe r "),
Southern Conpany Services, Savannah Electric & Power Company.is a subsidiary service company of the Sou j
Inc. ( " SC S* )',
Southern subsidiar ies form a highly integrated and interconnected power pool, which coordinates both the installa-
-j system.
See Power Pooling in the_
tion and operation of facilities.
United States _, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (December In allowing the continued existence of Southern as a holding company, the Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC")
1981).
found that the. Southern subsidiaries "were under common ccatt See_ The Commonwealth &
as an integrated public utility system." Additionally, the SBC 26 SBC 464, 494 (19 47).
Southern Corp.,
found that the Southern subsidiaries "have had a history of common planning, development and operation co:nmen dispatching of fice in Birmingham, Alabama, has closely c change among the companies pursuant to contractual arrangements Id_. a t 4 7 7.
Such coordination con-which exist among them".See Southern Company Interconpany Interchange tinues today.
Con tr ac t, Oc t. 29, 1985.
The authority and jurisdiction of the NRC are invoked as a result of Georgia Power's ownership and operation of the(" P Edw in '. Hatch Nuclear Plant Generating Plant (" Plant Vog tle "), and of Alabama Power 's owner-Farley Nuclear Plant (" Plant ship and operation of the Joseph M.These plants are operated on beha Far ley").
Pursuant to the Southern Conpany Intercompany its < ubsidiaries.
energy f rom the plants is economically dis-Exchange Contract, (Section 3.4) and subject to being shared among sister patched Southern Company subsidiaries as surplus energy (Section 7.1) or e
It is cajun's understanding interchange energy (Section 8.1).
that Southern plans to operate these plants under the auspices of
'Ihus, both Southern and each of a subsidiary operating company.
its subsidiaries has a direct interest in the three nuclear power plants.
Cajun currently has no direct physical connection with' the Southern system.. However, Cajun does have access to the Southern' system through a physical interconnection between that Mississippi Power and Gulf States Utilities Conpany ("GSU") ;
connection being a 500 KV transmission line between GSU's O
M Mo H
C4 a
,,,e
~
v
McKnight substation and Missicsippi Powar's generating station, Cajun hl Plant Daniol ("McKnight/ Plant Daniol Lino *).
i l Lino, inter _
l to transmit power over the McKnight/ Plant Dan o
~
alia, under. the terms of the Power Interconnection Ag l
i~" PI A* )
which are part of the PI A.
Although it has sought contractual privity with i
Southern and. its operating subsidiaries, Cajun currently has no contractual rights to transmit power and energy over the Southern L
system or to sell power and energy to Southern or any members the Southern system.
' Cajun has attenpted since early 1987 to sell economy and replacement energy to Southern and to other entities, l
utilizing the transmission systens of Southern's.operating l
transmission system based on purported justifications which do subs id iar ie s.
rise to the level of good business reasons and based on purported justifications which, while used to deny Cajun access not to the Southern transmission system, are not used to deny trans-mission access to utilities other than Cajun for the same type of 4
These actions are not consistent with the princi-ples underlying the license conditions on Southern's nuclear transactions.
plants, and the actions create and maintain a situation inconsistent with the antitrust laws.
Cajun has sought wheeling services from Southern and its operating subsidiaries in a generic sense and with regard to three specific substantial power transactions between
(
l*
third par ties.
were denied.
l Pr ior to October,1987, Cajun requested generic trans-
- Southern, mission-rights over the Southern transmission system.
while not directly denying the requested service, erected barriers to such services by requiring Cajun to make transaction specific requests, thus, e f fectively denying Cajun's generic A letter of October 15, 1987, to Phillip transmiss ion request.Harr is, Cajun's Vice President of Operations, fro G.
stated t Usry, SCS's Vice President, Regarding your request that Southern Companies l
confirm that our transmission f acilities are available for arrangements Cajun is seeking that i
require transmission over Southern Companies Any delivery service over Southern Conpanies' electr ic system must be the subject of th is.
ag reed-upon delivery charges and other terms and CD H
wa CD '
WA
~%?
conditions so los not' to inter fere with the prudent operation of cur transmission systoa.
Before we could agree to such delivery service, we would havo i
to have a great deal more information about your l
proposed transactions, including information such as the proposed buyer, the proposed load, and other scheduling in formation.
Without such detailed information and the oppor tunity to study it, Southern can make no commitment for delivery service.
Exhibit A hereto at 2.
. Responding to Southern's request for specificity, in the fall of 1987, Cajun requested Southern to wheel Cajun power over the Southern transmission system for ultimate delivery to the Tenne ssee Valley Author ity ("TVA").
The transmission was to l
have commenced on January 1, 1988.
On November 30, 1987,
' Southern, th rough SCS, responded stating that it was willing to discuss the transaction; however, Southern demanded that it receive cer tain "necessary assurances" prior to the consummation of a wheeling contrac t.
Southern required the following:
A representation and warranty by Cajun Electric (a)
Power Cocperative that it has contractual or ownership rights to use GSU's transmission system including the right to use GSU's portion of the McKnight/ Plant Daniel Line.
I
( b)
Assurance from GSU in the form of representa-tions, war ranties, or appropr iate indemnity ag reements that Ca jun Electr ic Power Cooperative has the right to use GSU's transmission system and GSU's portion of the McKnight/ Plant Daniel Line.
Included within these assurances' and representations would be a representation that GSU does not object to the proposed energy transactions and will take steps to facilitate such transaction.
Assurances and representations from Cajun (c) including an appropriate indemnity agreement that it will protect and hold Southern Companies harmless in any litigation which arises out of or in any way concerns the electric transactions proposed by Cajun Electric Power Cooperative.
These " assurances" extend far beyond the Exhibit B, hereto.
r eque st for specificity in Southern's October 15, 1987 letter, i
constitute an unreasonable insertion into the Cajun transaction cr W
4CW CCl i
1
r-i of Southern's concerns rogarding a ' third party, and are unnecos-i sary to protect Southern's intorest, under any industry standard l
Indeed, the fir st assurance requested had pre-for wheeling.
Southern had not, viously been met on at least two occasions. notified Cajun that such assurance i
J 30, 1987, prior to Novemberwere insuf ficient or what corrections would be required to m]
them.su f fic ient.
See 9, n. 5, i n f r a_.
As the January 1,1988 commencement date approached for the TVA powe'r sale, Southern had not ag reed to provide the In order to make the power sale to requested wheeling services.
i TVA, Cajun was able to secure a transmission agreement to trans-1 the power through the Middle South Utilities system to TVA.
mit A third refusal to allow Cajun access to Southern transmission involved a potential sale by Cajun to Alabamafor the tim Elec tr ic Co-op, Inc.
(" AEC"),in the range of 160 MW.Cajun reached 1988, to May 31, 1998, this ag reeraent to sell power to AEC, significantly, af ter AEC had given notice of termination of power purchases' from AlabamaTo ef f ectuatel Power--a Southern operating subsidiary.
sale, ADC requested wheeling from Mississippi Power, also amis Southern subsidiary.
the Cajun power to ABC only if Mississippi Power transmit received assurances from GSU that GSU would continue to mak i
GSU's f acilities charge payments to Mississippi Power related to the McKnight/ Plant Daniel Line under an agreement
(" Facilities Charge company and Mississippi Power Company'ious request by Mississippi i
See Exhibit C.
This cur Ag reemen t").
Power to AEC to seek assurances f rom a third party (GSU) regarding the unrelated Facilities Charge Agreement presumably j
stems circuitously f rom Sou thern's stated concern that GSU may L
breach the Facilities Charge Ag reement.
~
Significantly, Alabama Pover, another Southern subsidiary, has license conditions before this Commission which That license condition require Alabama Power to wheel for AEC.
provides:
Licensee will provide, under contractual arrangements between Licensee and AEC, transmission services via its electric system f rom ABC 's e lec tr ic sy stem to ABC 's o f f -
(a) system members; and (b) to AEC's electr ic system f rom electr ic systems other than Licensee's, and from ABC's electric system to electric systems other than Licensees.
C3 W
e M
CD
,.i
- H CD 1
[
Alabama Power Co_._,13 NRC 1027 at 1112 (1981).
Apparently,
Southorn does not believo that theso license conditions imposo any obligations on other Southern subsidiar ies.
P An ag reement by Southern to wheel the Cajun power to forthcoming, and Mississippi Power recently ADC was not See its request to AEC for the GSU assurances.
for maliz ed Cajun did not conclude an agreement with ABC Exhib it D, hereto.
by the June 1,1988, deadline because of the further assurances required on the wheeling conditions imposed by Miss sale to _ another cooperative for the same per lods.
Power.
ready, willing and able to deliver the additional power needs and enter into other power transactions with ABC as soon as ABC can Cajun consummate a wheeling agreement with Mississippi Power. in has in this sought alternative transactions in order to minimize the losses incurred by the failure of Southern and its ' subsidiaries to provide transmission services.
The fourth instance of Southern operating subsidiaries' failure to transmit Cajun power involved a potential sale of Cajun A
power to Seminole Electric Power Co-operative (" Semino Seminole to purchase 150 MW of power at least over the summer recent Cajun stood peak electr ic conths of June, July and August. ready, willin The key to concluded an ag reement in principle with Seminole.
the transaction was the wheeling of Cajun power over the Southern
(
transmission system.
On May 19, 1988, representatives of Cajun and Southern met to discuss the wheeling of Cajun power for In response to Cajun's request ultimate delivery to Seminole.
its now-familiar for transmission service, Southern provided litany of reasons for its cefusal to wheel Cajun power.
First, Southern purportedly had not received adequate assurances that Cajun had the right to use the McKnight/ Plant This was the first time that Southern informed 1988, previously supplied Daniel Line.
Cajun that the letter of February 18, by Cajun and GSU to Southern, Exhibit E hereto, was insuf i
i to provide such assurances.
months to inform Cajun that the assurances were insufficient.
l g
3]
Pr ior to the February 18, 1988
- letter, Cajun had secu red from GSU two separate letters from GSU to Southern, both of which Southern belatedly rejected as insu f ficient to assure Southern that Cajun had access to the McKnight/ Plant Daniel Line.
Se e_ 9, n. 5 in fra_.
O M
%1 OM 1
O
~
' mm diately following the cubmission of tho Fobruory 18,.1988 i
I i
~
'. lotter, Cajun contacted Southern to dotermine whothGr tho 18, 1988, letter wero suf ficient.
i assurances in the February Southern's representative responded at that time that the legal consultation was assurances appeared sufficient but thatAt the May 19 meeting Southern necessary.
the assurances were insuf ficient.
i Se.cond, Southern required assurances that GSU would not l
rely on the ' Cajun use of the McKnight/ Plant Daniel Line to avoid
~
its per formance under the Facilities Charge Agreement regarding that transmission line.
Third, Southern Companies required assurance from GSU that GSU would not use the wheeling transaction in litigation GSU and Southern are before the Federal involving Southern.
and the United States Energy Regulatorg Commission ("FERC")
Distr ict Court N in cases involving GSU's responsibility to continue. to purchase substantial amounts of capacity and energy GSU has relied upon economy power sales by GSU to Southern as.evidrease that Sou thern did not have adequate capacity f rom Southern.
Southern seeks GSU's assurance to make the capacity sale to GSU.
that this wheeling transaction will not be used by GSU in anySouthe r
manner in this litigation.
First, in the FERC litiga-tion exposure fall for two reasons..
tion, the FERC has rejected GSU's arguments that GSU's econony sale to Southern indicates a lack of Southern generating. capa-See Sou ther n Comp any Se rv ic e s, Inc., e t al., FERC Dock e t Nos. EL8 6W-000 and EL8 6-57-000, Op. No. 300, 43 FERC 161,003 bility.
g 1988), reh 'q den ied_, Op. No. 300- A, 4 3 FERC 1 (April 1, Second, the transaction by Cajun is a wheeling
~
(May 1988).
This transaction, transaction, not a sale of power or energy.is irrelevant to an analysis of the re fore, Regardless, Southern still requires these assurances This is capacity.
pr ior to initiating a wheeling transaction for Cajun.
particularly offensive since Southern currently transmits power for other utilities, even GSU, without any such assurances.
Fourth, Southern requires assurances that Seminole has There the ability to import the power over the Florida' border.
exists a physical interconnection between Southern and certain L
l' I
FERC Dock et No. EL86-C3 4/
Sou thern Company Services, Inc.,
Utilities Company v.
Southern h' '
N 53-000; Gulf States el aA, FERC Docket No. EL86-ff Company Services, Inc.,57-000; Gulf States Utilities Company v. Alabama Power Comp any,
,e_t, a 1._,
Civ11 Action No.
B-86-634-CA (E. D.
Tex.).
l i
~...
riorida-utilities with o rotod capability of approximotoly 3200 MW.
Southorn claims to have secured the right to utilizo 2550 MW of Southern refuses to make any of this transfor
~
th is' capabili ty.
capability available for the Cajun / Seminole transaction and stated it would not consider a wheeling arrangement unless cajun or Seminole had access to a suf ficlent portion of the remaining 650 MW that of the transfer capability to ef fect the transaction.
At.this date, the Seminole transaction has not been consummated and the expectation is low that Southern will voluntarily wheel Cajun's power for ultimate delivery to'Ihe adve Se minole.
Further reflection of Southern's policy with Cajun is its refusal to purchase Cajun power, even where it is economi-In July cally bene ficial to Southern to purchase Cajun power.
1987, Cajun sought to sell power on an economy intercha J
with Sou thern.
See_ Exhib it A.
to purchase this economy energy from cajun.
Cajun met with its fuel suppliers to attempt to obtain a suf fi-ciently low fuel price to make the transaction extremely attrac-When Cajun believed a transaction was on the tive to Southern.
verge of consu'mmation, Southern refused to enter into Se e J
Southern transaction in the litigation discussed above. Assura.
Exhibit A.
t statement by GSU that Cajun was 5/
One such assurance, a the McKnight/ Plant Daniel Line, was au thor ized to use sent by GSU to Southern on April 16, 1987 when Cajun was a tte mpting to obtain an interconnection ag reement See Exhibit F.
Sou ther n re fu sed to with Sou thern. interconnection ag reement with Cajun, on enter into an the stated ground that Southern would not be physically See_ Exhibit G.
interconnected with Cajun f acilities.
On September 2,
- 1987, Cajun met with Sou thern to s
a tte mpt to salvage the economy energy sale trans-action.
At that time, Sou thern requested a fu rther assurance, in light of interv ening events involving Cajun and GSU, that Cajun had the r ight to use the McKnight/ Plant Dan tel Line.
On September 3, 1987, GSU second assurance letter almost identical to the first.
Cee Exhibit H.
The firat time that Southern L
sent 4
$g suggested that the proffered assurances were 1987 letter (Exhibit even I
insuf ficient was in a November 30, B hereto), more than seven months af ter the April 16, c--
N L
1987 letter.
N I',
1
l:
~ ~
~
l
' However, Southern is selectivo. in imposing this assurancoSou other suppliers, including the City of Dalton, Georgia (Georgia oblig at ion.
and Mississippi Power & Light Co. (Gulf Power, Alabama with no assurances from GSU Powe r) during the relevant time frame that.it would not use such purchases against Southern in Power) 4 li t ig a tion.
On yanuary 21,1988, Cajun met again with Southern and GSU in an attempt to salvage this economy energy transaction with that time, Southern again raised the specter of GSU use of the economy energy transaction in pending or future liti-Sou the rn.
At Additionally, Southern raised two other gation with Southern.
barriers to the transaction which mirror Southern's responses to Cajun wheeling requests.
First, Southern required assurances from GSU that Cajun was author ized to use the McKnight/ Plant Daniel Line to ef fect the transaction.
Second, Southern required assurances from GSU that GSU r
would not use the Cajun-Southern transaction to avoid payments to Mississippi Power under the Facilities Charge Agreem e
It is Cajun's understanding,
fail to make such payments.
however, that Southern will not currently require such indemni-fication if GSU will assure Southern that it will not use the.
Cajun / Southern economy energy trancaction to avoid payments un
(
the Facilities Charge Agreement.
The economy energy transaction remains stalled.
Having established that Southern will wheel or purchase economy energy only upon per formance by Cajun or third parties of unreasonable or irrelevant conditions, the matter of the intent and the import of these actions arises.
L Southern plans and constructs f acilities substantially See, Power Pooline, at 85; based upon the system as a whole.
see_ also Southern Cogany Interconpany Interchange contract; Southern a ncluding the nuclear power from these plants, are direct suora, at 3.
power, i conpetitors with Cajun for sales to ABC, Seminole, and TVA.
Thus, Southern's unreasonable and irrelevant conditions prevent Cajun f rom entering into transactions in the Southe subsid la r le s.
For the foragoing reasons, Cajun urges the Nuclear O
Reguletory Commission to investigate Southern and its subsi-HMi C
N:
. C4 !
F-'
-+-
e a
p.
.gv i-t dicties and to cxpand any conditions en tho nucloor plant licenses of Southern subsidiaries to-apply to the ontico Southern Otherwise, as is evident from ~ the system and. all 'subsid iaries.above discussions, an entity which is prote conditions applicable to one Southern subsidiary (such as AEC which has guaranteed wheeling f rom Alabama Power. pursuant to the Farley license conditions) will not be protected from refusal to wheel by another Sou thern subsidiary (such as Mississippi Power).
Cajun's representativen and Staf f look forward to meeting 'with you and your Staf f to discuss these matters.
Sinc er ely,
N t
James D. Pe mbro e J. Ca thy Fogel Attorneys for Cajun Electric Power Cooperative, Inc.
Enclosures Dr. Thomas Murley, Direc tor cc Of fice of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Joseph Ratberg Janet-Urban William Lambe H. Allen Franklin a
Robert O. Usry l
Rodney O. Mandy J.
A.
Vann, Jr.
4 O
=J CD b3 Sh
-._..