ML20050C393
| ML20050C393 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | South Texas, Comanche Peak, 05000000 |
| Issue date: | 04/05/1982 |
| From: | Dopsovic D, Mcmillen N JUSTICE, DEPT. OF |
| To: | |
| References | |
| ISSUANCES-A, NUDOCS 8204080461 | |
| Download: ML20050C393 (19) | |
Text
..
Op.M@
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA D"'
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION P ' -9 In the Matter of
)
)
HOUSTON LIGHTING & POWER
)
Docket Nos. 50-498A COMPANY, et. al.
)
50-499A (South Texas Project,
)
Units 1 and 2)
)
Docket Nos. 50-445A
)
50-446 TEXAS UTILITIES GENERATING
)
E D1 COMPANY, et. al.
)
8' s
(Comanche Peak Steam Electric
)
Station, Units 1 and 2)
)
6 RECEjVED
- ?.
APR 7 19823 9-n uta a:mtr errerm umumaxn 3
STATEMENT OF THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE '
mc REGARDING ISSUES TO BE RESOLVED L
v 0) w Pursuant to tne order of the Administrative Law Judge dated March 22, 1982, the Department of Justice
(" Department")
submits its statement of the history of these proceedings, the issues remaining for resolution, and its recommendations for resolving tnose issues.
I.
Procedural History of the Proceedings In 1973, subsidiaries of Texas Utilities Company ("TU"), 1/
filco tor the issuance of a construction permit for the 1/
TU's operating subsidiaries are Texas Power & Light Company T"TP& L), Texas Electric Service Company ("TESCO") and Dallas Power & Light Company ("OP& L).
Texas Utilities Generating Company ("TUGCO") is another subsidiary of TU which acts as an agent for TU's three operating subsidiaries in the operation of their jointly-owned generating stations and furnishes related services to the TU subsidiaries.
8204000461 CC0405 DR ADOCK 05000445 (7 0 PDR
Comanche Peak nuclear generating units. 2/
The Department conducted an antitrust review with respect to the application and, on January 17, 1974, advised the Nuclear Regulatory Commission ("NRC") that an antitrust hearing would not be necessary based on TUGCO's agreement to a set of negotiated license conditions.
The NRC thereafter issued a construction permit for Comanche Peak. 3/
Houston Lighting & Power Company ("HL&PP), Central Power &
Light Company ("CP&L"), the City of Austin
(" COA") and the City Public Service Board of San Antonio ("CPSB") filed for a construction permit to build the South Texas Project nuclear generating units in July of 1974. 4/
On October 22, 1974, the Department advised the NRC that an antitrust hearing would not no necessary with respect to the South Texas Project and, in January 1976, a construction permit was issued. 5/
2/
Application of Texas Utilities Generating Company, et al.
Tor Construction Permits and Operating License (Class 103) for the Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station, Units 1 and 2 (June 4, 1973).
l 3/
Texas Utilities Generating Co.,
(Comancho Peak Steam l
Electric Station, Units 1 and 2), LDP-74-88, 8 A.E.C. 1047 (Dec. 12, 1974).
4/
Houston Lighting & Power Co., Application for Construction Permits and Operating Licenses, Class 103, for the South Texas Project, Units 1 and 2 (July 2, 1974).
l S/
Houston Lighting and Power Co.,
(South Texas Project, Unit 1 and 2), ALAB-306, 3 N.R.C.
14 (Jan. 14, 1976). - - - -
A.
The South Texas Project: Changed Circumstances On May 4, 1976, the southern intrastate portion of the West Texas Utilities ("WTU") system began operating in interstate commerce.
HL&P and TU immediately opened their interconnections with the other members of the Texas Interconnected System
(" TIS"), and with each other.
Although TU and HL&P reestablished connections with each other within days, they remained isolated from the other TIS members.
As a result of these disconnections, the other three applicants for the South Texas Project (CP&L, COA and CPSB) were electrically isolated from HL&P, thus impairing their systems' reliability and potentially their ability to participate in that project.
On May 2, 1977, the Texas Public Utility Commission ("TPUC")
issued an order requiring all affected utilities to reconnect and prohibiting any utility from operating in interstate commerce. 6/
In June 1976, CP&L filed a peti tion with the NRC requesting an antitrust hearing regarding the South Texas Project.
The designated Licensing Board granted CP&L's petition'and ordered an antitrust hearing. 7/
6/
Application of Houston Lighting and Power Co., et al.,
for IIecommendation of the Texas Interconnect [ed) System, Docket No. 14 (TPUC May 2, 1977) (Interim Order).
7/
Order Granting Petition of Central Power and Light Co. for Leave to Intervene and for an Antitrust Hearing, Houston Lighting & Power Co.,
(South Texas Project, Units 1 and 2),
Docket Nos. 50-498A, 50-499A (Sept. 9, 1976), reversed, Houston Lighting & Power Company, (South Texas Project, Unit Nos. 1 and 2), C LI-7 7 -13, 5 N.R.C.
1303 (1977) (on the ground of lack of jurisdiction to reopen the construction permit proceeding). -
On June 15, 1977, the Commission determined that there had been " changed circumstances" 8/ and requested the advice of the i
of the Atomic Energy Department pursuant to Section 105c(i)
The Commission also allowed HL&P to file for an early Act.
operating license so that, if necessary, an antitrust hearing could be conducted as soon as possible.
On February 21, 1978, the Department advised the NRC that an antitrust hearing was warranted.
Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station: Changed B.
Circumstances In early 1978, TUGCO, TESCO, and TP&L filed for a license from the NRC to operate the Comanche Peak units. 9/
The Commission again ruled that there had been " changed 10/
On circumstances" and sought the advice of the Department.
August 1, 1978, the Department advised the NRC that an antitrust hearing was warranted.
l Notice of Hearing and Consolidation, Discovery and C.
Intervention by Other Parties Subsequent to the Attorney General's recommendations, hearings were scheduled for both Comanche Peak and the South 8/
Id. at 1319.
t Application of Texas Utilities Generating Co., et al.
for 9/
6perating Licenses (Class 103) for the Comanche Peak Steam 9
i Electric Station, Units 1 and 2 (April 21, 1978).
A 10/
Letter from Howard K. Shapar, Executive Legal Director, Shonefield, Assistant Huclear Regulatory Commission to John H.
Attorney General, Antitrust Division, Department of Justice f.
(June 26, 1978).
l -
t Texas Project.
In May 1978, the Public Utilities Board of the City Brownsville, Texas (" PUB") intervened in the South Texas Project proceeding and in September 1978, 17 members of the Tex-La Cooperative intervened in the Comanche Peak proceedings.
In December 1978, the Licensing Board consolidated the South Texas Project and Comanche Peak proceedings for the purpose of discovery, 11/ and on April 10, 1980 consolidated both proceedings for the purpose of hearing. 12/
Between July 1979 and February 1980, the Department and other parties engaged in extensive discovery.
D.
Settlement During the spring and summer of 1980, the parties engaged in intensive settlement discussions.
On September 15, 1980, TU, HL&P, CSW, the staff of the NRC and the Department submitted to the Licensing Board two proposed sets of license conditions (" settlement license conditions"), one relating to the Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station, and the other relating to the South Texas Project.
On September 25, 1980, 11/
Preliminary Conference Order Regarding Issues, Discovery and Consolidation.
Texas Utilities Generating Company (Comanche Peak Steam Electric station, Units 1 and 2), Docket Hos. 50-445A and 50-446A (December 5, 1978).
12/
Order Extending Procedural Dates, and Directing Consolidation (April 10, 1980).
l _
the PUB filed a motion for disapproval of the settlement license conditions. 13/
At the October 24, 1980 Prehearing Conference, the Board ordered the PUB to file its objections to the settlement license conditions and to include in that pleading all of its arguments in opposition to the proposed license conditions.
See October 24, 1980 Tr. at 1240.
On November 12, 1980, the PUB filed its comments opposing the settlement license conditions.
The Department filed a Reply to the PUB comments on December 3, 1980.
In March 1981, the PUB filed a pleading indicating that it had reached a settlement with Central and Southwest Company and its subsidiaries, CP&L and WTU, resolving their differences in this proceeding. 14/
The settlement agreement itself, however, was never filed.
E.
The Proceeding at the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission As these events occurred, related issues were being addressed in a proceeding at the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission ("FERC").
On February 9, 1979, CSW filed an 13/
Motion by the Public Utilities Board of the City of Erownsville, Texas for Disapproval of Proposed License Conditions; Comments Opposing Proposed License Conditions; and Request for Further Proceedings.
The Licensing Board did not require the other parties to respond to this pleading, nor to the PUB's Initial Trial Brief, filed October 3, 1980.
14/
Supplemental Brownsville Status Report of March 1981
(" PUB Supplemental Status Report"). u -
i application at FERC seeking an order under the Public Regulatory Policies Act ("PURPA") approving the construction of four alternating current synchronous interconnections ("AC Interconnections") between the Electric Reliability Council of Texas ("ERCOT") and the Southwest Power Pool ("SWPP"), as well as related transmission services and other relief. 15/
On June 27, 1980, in an attempt to settle, inter alia, the FERC proceeding and the proceedings before the NRC, CP&L filed an amended application 16/ seeking approval under PURPA of two direct current asynchronous interconnections ("DC Interconnections") between ERCOT and SWPP.
On July 28, 1980, CSW, TU, and flLP filed a settlement agreement accompanied by nupporting documentation and testimony.
The offer of settlecent sought to implement the DC Interconnections proposed in the amended application.
On September 11, 1980, I
CSW, TU and ilLP executed a letter agreement with the FERC staff i
l l
15/
Application of Central Power and Light Company and others l
Yor exemption from State Commission orders preventing voluntary i
coordination pursuant to Section 205 of the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act of 1978, and interconnection of facilities, provision of transmission services and related l
relief pursuant to Sections 202, 210, 211 and 212 of the Federal Power Act.
I 16/
Amendment to Application of Central Power and Light Company and others for interconnection of facilities, provision i
of traasmission and related relief pursuant to Sections 210, 211 and 212 of the Federal Power Act. l l
which was embodied in a supplemental offer of settlement filed on October 8, 1980. 17/
On September 17, 1980, the Department petitioned for leave to intervene in the FERC proceedings and, on September 29, 1980, filed comments contesting the supplemental offer of settlement on the grounds that the proposed DC Interconnections did not possess the procompetitive features of the initially proposed AC Interconnections and that the DC Interconnections exhibited certain anticompetitive characteristics when compared with AC Interconnections.
The Department's petition to intervene was granted on December 17, 1980.
In the spring of 1981, the Department and CSW engaged in extensive negotiations that resulted in a settlement between CSW and the Department satisfying the concerns raised by the Department in its comments to the PERC.
This agreement was incorporated into the proposed settlement agreement filed with FERC on June 22, 1981.
The PERO approved this settlement agreement on October 28, 1981, finding, inter alia, that the settlement was fair, reasonable and in the public interest. 18/
17/
The 54RC staff was also a signatory of this letter agreement.
The letter agreement embodied conditions to be attached to the proposal contained in the original of fer of settlement.
The conditions include rate methodologies for wheeling to, from and over the DC interconnections, reservation of capacity for firm power wheeling, and the opportunity for participation by other utilities in the ownership of incremental capacity increases in the DC interconnections.
18/
Central Power and Light Company, et al., Docket Hos.
EL79-8 and E-9558, Order Requiring Interconnection and Wnceling, and Approving Settlement, (Issued October 28, 1981) and Errata Notice (November 5, 1981).
II.
Resolution of Remaining Issues In the opinion of the Department, the PUB has raised no issues in its Comments Opposing Proposed Settlement License Conditions (" Comments") sufficient to prevent the immediate approval of the settlement license conditions by the Administrative Law Judge.
The Department has set forth its reasoning in detail in its reply to the Comments of the PUB filed on December 3, 1980, which the Department herein incorporates by reference. 19/
For the sake of convenience, the Department will summarize here the points made in that pleading.
Tne legal standard governing immediate effectiveness of license conditions proposed as a settlement is set forth in Duke Power Companz (Catawba 11uclear Station, Units 1 and 2),
L8P-74-47, 7 A.E.C. 1158, 1159 (1974). ~ Under Catawba tne conditions must be "a reasonable settlement of s
differences [among the cettling parties) within the public interest" 20/ with a focus on whether non-settling intervenors would be " improperly prejudiced or disadvantaged" 21/ by immediate effectiveness of the license conditions.
In the_ view 19/
Reply to the Comments of the Public Utilities Board of the Uity of Brownsville Opposing Proposed Settlement License Conditions (December 3,
1980).
20/
7 A.E.C.
at 1159.
21/
Id. -- -.....
of the Department, the settlement license conditions are in the public interest and the PUB has not shown that it will be
" improperly prejudiced or disadvantaged" by their immediate effectiveness.
Indeed, immediate effectiveness of the conditions could not prejudice the PUB since their effectiveness will not impair PUB's right to seek additional relief after their attachment by the presentation of evidence at a plenary hearing.
Furthermore, since the Applicants have agreed to the imposition of the settlement license conditions irrespective of the outcome of further hearings, the PUB will benefit by the fact that the conditions furnish relief which the PUB might not be able to obtain even after an evidentiary hearing.
The Attorney General's advice to the NRC that an antitrust hearing was warranted in this proceeding concluded that TU and HLP nad engaged in a concerted refusal to deal with interstate electric utilities for the apparent purpose of avoiding federal regulation.
The settlement license conditions expressly prohibit TU and HLP from engaging in or maintaining any
" agreement or understanding" with each other or with any other entity "to refuse to deal with another entity (ies) with the purpose of maintaining an exemption from jurisdiction under the Federal Power Act." 22/
Accordingly, the settlement license
(
(
conditions are adequate to cure that perceived 22/
South Texas Settlement Licence Condition I.B. (6) (b) ;
CEmanche Peak Settlement License Condition D. (2) (1) (b).
i.
j
, - +
em
4 i
situation inconsistent with the antitrust laws which prompted the Department's advice that a hearing be conducted.
In its Comments, the PUB argues that the settlement license conditions fail to cure three major aspects of the situation inconsistent with the antitrust laws.
The first two of those aspects 23/ clearly deal with joint action among utilities in Texas to preclude interstate electricity and to avoid federal regulation, the situation expressly cured by the settlement license conditions.
Although the PUB speaks in terms of
" unilateral" disconnections, its overriding concern is with joint action, s'nce the PUB admits that "no one utility could have succeeded in excluding interstate commerce without the agreement and cooperation of others." 24/
To the extent that the PUB in concerned with a truly unilateral refusal to deal by one of the Applicants, a situation act alleged by the Attorney General in his advice letters, tne proposed settlement license conditions neither authorize nor approve of such action.
Truly unilateral
~~23/ (i) tne agreements, combinations and monopolizations creating barriers to interstate power transactions; [and]
(ii) the divisions of the bulk power market within ERCOT resulting from the threat of unilateral disconnection by i
the major applicants as a means of enforcing this restriction on interstate power transactions.
(Comments at 7-8).
I 24/
Comments at 73.
i '
1 i
refusals to deal by TU or IIL&P would not necessarily be inconsistent with the antitrust laws.
Under the Sherman Act, a unilateral refusal to deal would be assessed in light of a variety of factors, including whether monopoly power existed and whether the refusal was based upon an intent to monopolize or had an anticompetitive effect.
It is not necessary for the Commission to impose a license condition absolutely prohibiting every unilateral disconnection or refusal to connect by TU or llL& P.
It is sufficient to provide, as do the settlement license conditions, that a unilateral refusal to deal by TU or flL&P will be subject to an enforcement proceeding and to potential Sherman Act liability.
Tne third " major objection" of the PUB to the settlement license conditions relates to "the historic and still unresolved refusal of [CP&L} to wheel firm power for Brownsville on a fair and practical basis and [CP&L] related anticompetitive activites as alleged by Brownsville." 25/
In March 1981, the PUB withdrew its oppnsition on these grounds to l
the settlement license conditions. 26/
In its Comments the PUB also a;gued that the DC interconnections would create or maintain a situation inconsistent with the antitrust laws.
This argument, too, is moot.
FBRC has found that the construction of the DC i
l t
25/
Comments at 8.
26/
PUB Supplemental Status Report at Appendix A. l t
l Interconnectiona in in the public interest and the PUB has withdrawn its opposition on this ground to the nettlement licence conditions. 27/
Other than the proposed nettlement license conditions addrenning the ability of any Applicant to disconnect from I
another entity discunned above, the PUB has only one concern:
2 To the extent that Brownsville requires, in order to make participation viable, the other applicant's adequate annurances that they will not seek unreasonable rates, terma and conditions, including those related to transmincion and back-up service, the j
license should be withheld until such assurances'are forthcoming.
(PUB Suppicmental Status Report, Exhibit A at 1).
In the view of the Department, it should not be the function of this Commission to immerso itself in rate-making i
i probican and nothodology.
The bodien which have the requisite
]
expertine in these matters, the FBRC or the TPUC, will where appropriate, 28/ decide such insuca in future proceedinga in which the PUB will be free to intervene.
Licence conditions, like consent decrees, are broad chartern governing the future conduct of the licensees subject to its terms.
They are not i
intended to, not realistically could they, cover the 1
l 27/
PUB Supplemental Status Report at 2; Exhibit A at 2.
28/
This Commission should reject any contention that it 1
should involve itself in any jurisdict.ional line drawing between FERC and the TPUC.
See Comments at p.
23-24, 112.
The l'ERC in the body in the first instance, not the NRC, which will, determine wnere its jurisdiction begins and ends.
! [
multitude of dealings of the utilities that are obligated by and benefit from the terms of the conditions, nor can they be drafted to solve all conceivable competitive problems of every affected or potentially affected electric system.
To the extent the PUB complains of ambiquity or omissions in tne proposed license conditions, it is requesting that the ALJ draft specific terms and condition or perform functions such as ratemaking entrusted to other agencies.
lihat the PUB in effect seeks is an enforcement action in which the Commission would enforce the proposed license conditions before they are imposed.
This is an improper basis for concluding that the settlement license conditions should not now be approved.
Tne PUB has not demonstrated that immediate approval of the license conditions will prejudice or disadvantage it.
Moreover, it seeks the imposition of terms which it could otherwise obtain only by proof that a situation inconsistent with the antitrust laws exists and that such terms are necessarily to remedy it.
Yet the PUB has not shown by evidence tnat such is the case.
It is still free to do so..
Since the Applicancs have agreed to the imposition of the proposed license conditions irrespective of further hearings, and since the PUB has failed to demonstrate that it would be improper.y prejudiced and disadvantaged by the settlement i
license conditions, the Department submits that the PUB's
suggested approach of a deferred ruling on the proposed license conditions will not advance the overall public interect but only the PUB's private interests.
III.
Conclusion and Recommendation The settlement license conditions are in the public interest and do not prejudice the PUB.
Accordingly, the Department requests that the Administrative Law Judge approve and make immediately effective the settlement license conditions in their entirety for both the Comanche Peak units and the South Texas Project.
Dated:
April 5, 1982 Respectfully submitted, Liashington, D.C.
~ 4SW Nancy li./McMillen OY)7#/f'//
O
. David A. D'opsofic Attorneys Energy Section Antitrust Division U.S. Department of Justice (Telephone No.: (202) 724-6616)
9 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Before the Atuy'- _ Safety _ and_ Licerising_ Boar _d In the Matter of
)
HOUSTON LIGliTING & POWER
)
3 COMPANY, et al.
(South
)
Docket Nos. 50-4.01.
Texas Project, Units 1 and
)
50-499A 2)
)
)
TEXAS UTILITIES GENERATING
)
COMPANY, et al.
(Comanche
)
Docket Nos. 50-445A Peak Steam Electric
)
50-446A Station, Units 1 and 2)
)
CERTIFICATE _OF_ SERVICE I hereby certify that service of the foregoing Status Report of the Department of Justice has been made on the following parties listed hereto this 5th day of April 1982, by depositing copies thereof in the United States mail, first class, postage prepaid.
James A.
Laurenson, Esquire Alan S.
Rosenthal, Esquire Administrative Law Judge Chairman U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Michael C. Farrar, Esquire Commission Thomas S. Moore, Esquire Washington, D.C.
20555 Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal doard Panel Samuel J. Chilk, Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Office of the Secretary of Commission the Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Hashington, D.C.
20555 Jerome E. Snarfman, Esquire Chase R. Stephens, Secretary U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Docketing and Service Branch Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Washington, D.C.
20555 Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Stephen H.
Lewis, Esquire Ann P.
Hodgdon U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Ottice of the Executive Legal Director Washington, D.C.
20555
o.
)
Jerome Saltzman Michael I. Miller, Esquire Chief, Antitrust and James A. Carney, Esquire Indemnity Group Sarah N. Welling, Esquire U.S. Nuc1 car Regulatory Isham, Lincoln 6 Beale Commission 4200 One First National Plaza hashington, D. C.
20555 Chicago, Illinois 60603 Mr. William C. Price Michael blume, Esquire Central Power G Light Co.
Frederic D. Chanania, Esq.
P.
U.
box 2121 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Corpus Christi, Texas 78403 Commission Washington, D. C.
20555 J. K. Spruce, General Manager City Public Service board Jerry L. liarris, Esquire
?. O. box 1771 City Attorney, San Antonio, Texas 78203 hichard C. Balough, Esquire Assistant City Attorney Perry G. Brittain City of Austin President P. O.
Box 1088 Texas Utilities Generating Austin, Texas 78767 Company 2001 bryan Tower Robert C. McDiarmid, Esquire Dallas, lexas 75201 Robert A. Jablon, Esquire Spiegel and McDiarmid R. L. Ilancock, Director 2600 Virginia Avenue, N.W.
City of Austin Electric hashington5 D. C.
20037 Utility Department P. O. Box 1088 Dan 11. Davidson Austin, Texas 78767 City Manager City of Austin G. K. Oprea, J r.
P. O. Box 1088 Executive Vice President Austin, Texas 78767 Ilouston Lighting 6 Power Company Don R. Butler, Esquire P. O. Box 1700 1225 Southwest Tower llouston, Texas 77001 Austin, Texas 78701 Jon C. Wood, Esquire Joseph Irion Worsham, Esq.
h.
Roger hilson, Esquire Merlyn D. Sampels, Esq.
Matthews, Nowlin, Macfarlane Spencer C. Relyca, Esq.
6 Barrett Robert A. Wooldridge 1500 Alamo National Building horsham, Forsythe 6 Sampels San Antonio, Texas 78205 2001 Bryan Tower, Suite 2500 Dallas, Texas 75201 David M. Stahl, Esquire Isham, Lincoln 6 beale Joseph Knotts, Esquire Suite 325 Nicholas S. Reynolds, Esq.
1120 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.
Leonard W. Belter, Esq.
Washington, D. C.
20036 Debevoise 6 Liberman 1200 17th Street, N.W.
Washington, D.
C.
20036
)
Douglas F. John, Esquire Robert Lowenstein, Esquire McDermott, Will and Emery J. A. bouknight, Esquire 1101 Connecticut Ave., N.h.
William J. Franklin, Esquire Suite 1201 Lowenstein, Newman, Reis, hashington, D. C.
20036 Axelrad 6 Toll 1025 Connecticut Avenue, N.h.
Norgan llunter, Esquire Kashington, D. C.
20036 McGinnis, Lochridge 6 Kilgore 5th Floor, Texas State Bank E. W. Barnett, Esquire builuing Charles G. Thrash, Jr., Esq.
900 Congress Avenue J. Gregory Copeland, Esq.
Austin, Texas 78701 Theodore F. Weiss, Jr.,
Esq.
Baker 6 botts Jay M. Galt, Esquire 3000 One Shell Plaza Looney, Nichols, Johnson llouston, Texas 77002 6 Ilayes 219 Couch Drive Kevin B. Pratt, Esquire Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73101 Assistant Attorney General P. O. Box 12548 Knoland J. Plucknett Capital Station Executive Director Austin, Texas 7,8711 Committee on Power for the Southwest, Inc.
Freacrick 11. Ritts, Esquire 5541 hast Skelly Drive Law Offices of Northcutt Ely Tulsa, Oklahoma 74135 hatergate 600 building hashington, D.
C.
20037 John W.
Davidson, Esquire Sawtelle, Goode, Davidson Donald M. Clements, Esq.
6 Tioilo Gulf States btilities Company 1100 San Antonio Savings P. O.
box 2951 building Beaumont, Texas 77704 San Antonio, Texas 78205 Mr. G. Ilolman hing W. S. Rchson i.esi Texas Utilities Co.
General Nanager P. O. Box 841 South 'lexas Electric Abilene, Texas 79604 Cooperative, Inc.
Route 6, building 102 h.
N. Woolsey, Esquire Victoria Regional Airport Kleberg, Dyer, Redford 6 Keil Victoria, Texas 77901 1030 Petroleum Tower Corpus Christi, Texas 78474 Robert N.
Racer, Esquire Conner, Noore 6 Corber Robert A. O'Neil 1747 Pennsylvania Ave.,
N.h.
Miller, Balis 6 0'Neil, P.C.
hashington, D. C.
20006 776 Executive Building 1030 Fifteenth Street, N.W.
R. Gordon Gooch, Esquire hashington, D.
C.
20005 John P. Mathis, Esquire Steven R. Ilunsicker baker 6 botts 1701 Pen.nsylvania Avenue, N.W.
- l. con J. Barish Assistant Attorney General (for Public utility Commission of Texas)
P.O. Box 12548 Capital Station Austin, Texas 78711 M
h7'
'II.' ~~ a i Attor Washingto, D. C.
2000 Energy Section, Antitrust Division, Department of Justice I
.