ML20104A139

Motion to Compel City of Austin,Tx to Provide Fuller Responses to DOJ 781130 Discovery Request Because of Insufficiency of 790112 Answers.Certificate of Svc Encl

ML20104A139
Person / Time
Site:	South Texas, Comanche Peak
Issue date:	02/06/1979
From:	Clark R, Harris J, Parmenter F JUSTICE, DEPT. OF
To:
References
NUDOCS 7902260220
Download: ML20104A139 (16)

Text

{{#Wiki_filter:. NUCLEAR ltEGill.ATO!:Y COmlISSION PUF08tR THP AT mic S AFETY A"D f.1CI'NS1HC ilOAI'D I s %}A A.[? } .~ ) In the itatter oi ) @p W IIOUST0tl LTGIITING A';D POWER ) Docke t Non. l50-4 9fi A CO., et al (South Texan ) 150- 4 9 'M Project, Units'l and 2) ) ) TEXAS UTILTTIES GENERATING ) Docket Nos. 50-445A COMPANY (Comanche Peak Steam .) 50-446A Electric Stat-lon, Units 1 ) and 2) -) __) MOTION OF THE DIPAl<TMENT OF JUSTICE TO COf1PEL Ti!E CITY OF AUrTIN TO l'PO'/IDf: FULt.I.li I!f:SPOilSES TO T!!E DEPADTMENT'S FIRST SET OF 1N71.}!SOGATORIUS AND ftEOUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF ... _D O_C_l_it.:.Erl T S j John II. Shenefleid Donald I. Plexner Ancistant Attorney General Deputy Assistant Attorney General Ant.itrust Division Antitrust. Divisions Communications with recpect t this document should be cddressed to: 4 s Donald A. Kaplan Chief A-Robert PahrJkant Assistant Chief \\ Energy Section Antitrust. Division R Department of Justice Washington, D.C. 20530 Judith L. Harris Ronald H. Clark Freder~lck H. Parmenter V l Energy Section ' [,j Attorneys l Department of Justice P.O. Box ~.14141 Washington, D.C. 20044 FChruary 6, 1979 c x ~ . f. -f ~i. ,h(,,N' ? j +k t ) '3,r + u y m moa260290 ) nd

UNITED STATES'OF Af1ERfCN C NUCLt.4R.El'GULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE Till: ' ATOM TC SAFETY AND I,1CI:NSING !!OAliD l ) In the Matter of ) ) / ROUSTON LICllTING AND POWER' ) Docket Nos. 50-498A CO., et al (South Texas ) 50-499A Project, Units 1 and 2) ). )" TEXAS-UTII.ITIES GENERATING ) Docket Nos. 50-445A COMPANY (Cor:ancho Peak Steam' )g ~50-446A Electric Station, Units 1 end 2) . )' ~' )- 1 .( ') NOTION OF THE DEPARTMI:NT OF JUSTICE TO COMPCI. THE CITY OF AUSTIN TO PROVIDE FULIER RESPONSES TO Tile DEPARTMENT'S FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES AND REQUESTS F.OR PliODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS I. Introductio'n The Departtrent of Justice (" Department") respectfully Eves this Board, pursuant to 10 C.F.H. 52.740(f), for an crder compelling the City of Austin (" Austin") to provide fcirther and fuller responses to the FIRST SET OF INTERROG-T j ATORIES AND REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS FROM~THE ~ t' DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE TO THE CITIES OF AUSTIN AND SAN l ANTONIO (". Interrogatories"), served by mall on November 30, 1978. On January 12, 1979, the. RESPONSE OF THE CITY OF AUSTIN TO THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE'S FIRST SET OF Ih'TERRO-GATORIES AND REQUESTS FOR PRODDCTION (" Response") was served, by mall, .m ./- b s " 'U. :(, ?,. Q 3 +.m .e k 4

q. .} - $-, 4 4 .W m t The Department contends that Austin has ignored or foiled to comply with the rules of the Nuclear Regulatory ~ Cammission (" Commission")'and with the Department's instruc-tions in supplying written. interrogatory answers. In addition, the Department urges that Austin has not discharged l'ts burden to search comprehensively every ~ possible place where relevant documents might be found in order to produce all documenis requested by the Department. II. Deficiencies of Tendered Responses The Depar'tment objects, in particular, to the responsen provided by Austin to interrogatories 5, 7, 12, 13, 19 and - 2 2. The defi'ciencies which permea.te. Austin's responses to these interrogatories are, by and large, the same. There-i j fore, rather than addressing each' interrogatory, and 2 Auctin's individual answers, thereby unnecessarily burdbning tho Board, th6 Department will address these responses as a group. There,are three principal types of deficiencies which l cppear throughout the cited interrogatory answers.

First, i

l Amotin, in response to a particular inquiry, will indicate ~ that a certain event or communication has taken place but ) ~ + %i ',.~.e ? Y.. Y ,f g., w ..--.. -4. ~ ~ - -,. _ _. -,.,., -. - _ _ _ - -,. - - _ _ --.. m.-. ..-..w

4 6 will not give -the details and/or the complete in fo r ma t i on which the interrogatories and the accompanying inntructionc r eq ue s t. For example, the fifth interrogatory reads: (a) State every occasion since 1965, if any, on which San Antonio or Austin com.municated with. or considered communicat ing wi th any l other Electrical. Utility to dissuade that. j ut ility f rom comm.encing to operate, or to discontinue its then current operation, in interstate commerce. (b) Wi th respect. to each such occasion identified in response to (a), describe and/or identif y all individuals involved in any such comnunications or contemplated cormunications, the surrounding circumntancen, the s'bstance of any such u commun ici: t ions, the individuals (and the entit.ies for which they worked) to whon such commugications were made, and:.the.recronse(s) of t ho se-individuals or entities. (c) Provide all documents which relate to the '~ response to this interrogatorge. (Interroga'- tor,les at 10). Auntin responded as follows: (a) Thp ctaff of the City of Austin com-municated with the' Lower Colorado River. Autho.rity and San Antonio af ter Hay 4,1976 in an,~ attempt to restore the Texas Intercon-nected System to a more reliable mode of operation ~. (b) The' City of Austin is not aware of any documentation of the above discussions nor the participants of such discussions other than the general knowledge that such took place and that various levels of staff participated from time to time in connection with Docket No.14 before the Public Utility Commission of Texas. l (c) None of which tho' City of Austin is t \\ ewa re.. (Response at 2). l Consider al 'o the Department's niniteenth interrogatory: 1 s 'V, .c a,, [. ^

v. n..

s .a s. min + 'a ^ Pertaining to the May 4, 1976, disconnections by Houston Lighting & Power and'TU from Electrical Utilities with which they had been , interconnected, state: (a) whether prior to'these disconnections, any communication took place between any i employees or agents of HL&P and/or TU and employees of San Anto'nio or Austin, regarding what action those Electrical Utilities ought to undertake in response to WTU's radial tie and transmission of electrical power and energy into interstate coumerce;. (b) whether subsequen't'tolthese?disconnec-tions, any communication tonk place between any employces or agents of HL&P ;and/or TU and employees of San Antonio or Austin regarding under what conditions HL&P and/or TU would reconnect wi th any Electrical Utili ty,. including but not limited to Sa'n Antnnio and' Austin; n,z ~ (c) if. the answer to either part (a) or (b) of this. interrogatory is af firmative, then-relate in detail the substance of each such l communication, the indivi~ duals involved, the date on,uhich each such communic ~ation took s place,-the response to each sucH' communication, and the, surrounding circumstances; and (d) provide all documents. relating to (a)-(c) i above. (Interrogatories at 18-19). Austin's entire answer reads:. (a) Immediately prior to its d'isconnection, TU cmployees notified Austin of the discon-nec t i~o n., (b-d) There were probably numerous communica-tions.between City of Austin employees and HL&P and TU employees but there are no records'of which Austin is aware as to whom I the part'icipants were or when or where l these' conversations took place. (Response} a't.6). .O [ Both of the foregoing responses do no't contain the degree of opecificity envisioned by the Commission's discovery rules 'i r 2 e c. 5

f. *

^ * -j s .g.._.,,,, --.----n

o;.. .w # . O.d i's he instructions accompanying the interrogatories. Those instructions require that detailed and comprehensive information be provided as part of any interrogatory response which refers to people, documents, possible or contemplated actions and the like. Austin has ignored these instructions, and provided skeletal answ'ers. Further, Austin seems.to have ex.:used itself from the duty. to inquire further (of its employeer or of others who might po vess relevant-knowledge) co as to uncover responsive.' eta'.ls. d The second type of de~ficiency t.hich pervades Austin's responses, relates to Austin's tendency to direct'the Depart-ment's attentiod to purportedly. relevant documents'rather than to respond in detail to the Department's requestc. As ) on example of this, consider Austi s answer to the Depart-l mant's tse nty-second in ter roga tory:; 1/ ' ( y (a) Attached is an agreement with the Uni.rer-3 l sity of Texas at Austin which allows for a decrease in pricing for more electricity used by U.T...which may have the-effeet of decreas'- {' ing generation. Appendi'x H. '(Re'sponse at 7). The referenced agreemer.t does not; respond directly to the l tirenty-seco6d interrogatory. 2/ By answering in this fashion, 1/ See also,: Austin's answers to Interrogatories 12 and 13 Et 4 and 5,, respectively. 1 i. 2/ The twenty'-second interrogatory stated, in relevant part: i,~ Specifying the' substance of each communica- ~ j J/ ' tion, the individuals, ' companies, organis.a-tions:or entities. involved, the date on which e j each communication occu'tred, the response to '., each communication, and the surrounding 97 (footnote. con't on next.page) v: ej.. \\ \\. t e i' [* ?.th N (

41.g p.q ~ -, c Au'stin has again ignored. its obligation t'o supply the details soug'ht by the Department and has failed to meet the otandard specified in 10 C.F.R. S 2-740(b) that each interrogatory "be answered separately and fully in writing". The third serious deficiency' consists of Austin's failure to uildertake a thorough an' d complete examination of its files to find any documents which might pertain to the Interrogatories. While the bepartment cannot be certain that Austin,did not' attempt to discharge this responsibility f aith f ul ly, the surprisingly small number of documents i produced, 3_/ and at least one problea discovered by.the Department, wh'ich is discussed belo'w, suggest that an cdditional document search is warranted.~ ^

• d;'

circumstiances, state every occasion upon which. San Antonio or' Austin contacted any individual., company, organization, or entity i for the. purpose of soliciting, requesting, encouraging or persuading the recipient (s) i a l to: 9 (a) discontinue or decrease self-generation. and comme'ilee to receive part or all of its electrical requirements from San Antonio or Austiri; '(Interrogatories at 20). 3_/ The Response to the Department's extensive Interroga-tories (over tuenty pages of instructions, definitions and interrogatorles) consists of only seven double-spaced, typed l pagos, accompanied by only 101 pages of documentation. .9 d 1 '. L -a2 c r.: A fra ggi q*m e,._ e - - -. - -.-.-. - - -. - - - +

m .u p. S. a-F ~ Austin's response to the nineteenth interrogatory excmplifies this third deficiency. That interrogatory eat out in full at 4, supra, asks,'among other things, about communication [s which took place following the 14ay 4,1976, 4 dicconnection., Austin's answer, also set forth in full at 4, supra, states that, while there -probably were ~ numerous communications falling within thd request, there are no records, of which Austin is aware, regarding such communica-1 4

tions, C

j ontrary to Austin's response, the Departmont is aware, ~ of at least one written communicat,lon, between Austin and j HL&P, which expressly dealt with the subject. matter covered ~ ~ l ~ by this interrogatory. As evidence of this fact,. the l Dopartment attaches hereto, as Appendi'x A, a ' copy of a letter from D.E. Simmons of HL&P., dated 'May 5, ~.1976, to,. cmong ot'ers, Mr. Dan Davidson,' City' Ma' nager,.~ City of h Auctin, specifically < dealing with the conditions under which HL&P would ' reconnect with other -electric utilities following 1 the May 4, 1976, disconnection. The Department knows of thic document because r, copy of it was tendered to the Department by.the City of San' Antonio (to which the letter .wac also addressed) in response to the identical interroga-tcry. -d a

• [ N #

4 8 g% g 1. ~ :: 4 m- .Lci,4 v -7.-y.. n ~ \\ Nh h lh hl* $b i"N $:*' Y ?

.n . m.m 6 V W - \\ ^ This document clearly establishes that communications folling with.in the scope of the nineteenth interrogatory did tcke place (the letter alr.o makes mention of a telephone conversatio'n' the day be fore'), that at least some of that communication was written and that it was directed to Austin. Nevertheless, and despite the' fact that th'c le tter ~ wos sent to the personal. attention of Dan Davidson, who is stilI the City Manager of Austin, the Depart-1 cent was neither provided with a copy of the letter nor with en explanatidh as to its khereabouts or.possible destruc- . tion. Section B of the instructions contained in the Interrogatories specifically sta,tes: ,\\- c Ifia section V.ny document described in' tiiis as, on or after December.19, 1.970 'date of, enactment of P.L. 91-560)~,-but is no ~ longer in. San Antonio or Austin's'cpossession, or subj'ct.to its control, or in existence,. e state whpther it (a) is missing or' lost (b) has been Bestroyed, (c) has been transferred to others', or (d) has'been otherwise disposed-of. In each instance, explain the circum-stances surrounding such.dispositio~n and identify the person (s) directing or authoriz-ing same, and the date(s) of such direction or authorization. Identify each such docu-ment by listing its author and addressee, type (e.g., let ter, memorandum, telegram, chart, photograph, etc.), date, subject matter, whether the document-(or copies) is still in?cxistence and, if so, l'ts present location and custodian (s). (Interrogatories at 5-6).. b t / .h -g-p i-ph ;A jj, .,4, , M *\\. i s.~5-{. b ' d. %..- M* i A ~ ,e N ,,c.

+ a m _,:r.. +yn.4 yyy .q. +~ p In addition, Austin failed to produce any correspondence 10 response to the Interrogatories. 1/ It is difficult to believe th.Tt, Austin's files contain no correspondence or othat documents which are responsive to the Interrogatories. CONCLUSION ~ f i The Department respectfully requests that the Board direct Austin to discharge its responsibility to respond to the interrogatories at issue, specifically Interrogatories 5, 7, 12, 1 3, '1 9', and 22, in the comprehensive and detailed fochion outlined in the definitions and instructions of the Interrogatories. Austin has ten [ered no object $1ons to those ) dofinitions and.. instructions, thereby evincing its acceptance ,~of their va idity. Those definitions and Instructions Q.- ock noth*ing more t han that Austin provid[the ' kind of full ' responses to interrogatories required' byjthe Commission's s. ruleo. < g,3 \\ r - b* aT '? s. .q - 0 ,1/ The closest Austin came to providing the Depart- %p:, ment with any correspondence in response to the Interroga-i tcrlos. was to furnish copies of,two letter agreements (Texas Ty3 ~j l Power & Light Agreement of October 28,1977, Appendix E, and ? Tax 00 Power & Light Agreement of March 20, 1978, Appendix F, ~ ! rm cnswer-to Interrogatory 18 at 6)..1. i a. . w. - g 4 .~- l 2 4 ,, e

l..,...,, % ' t;s,.

[*- l . ae. .r y i l. r, -(l'1 ? J' ,( '} } :}l ~ [ 'o

n.. .s a. % gun &As ,, +. +. + =: -Additionally, the Department respectfully requests that the Doord direct Austin to undertake another search of its file to find all documents responsive to the Interrogatories. With respect to those documents known to have existed but ~ .not found i'n the search, Austin'should be required to ,V provide the information sought in Section D of the instruct-ions, regarding missing documents. Finally, the Department rcquests that counsel for Austin be directed to file with the Doord a'n affidavit describing precisely the efforts t undertaken to search. fully all places 'where. relevant ~ documents might reasonably have been found. ~ Res'pectful y submitted, -r { .. ^ 'y ildLN ' . !k.lus\\.03.' C l Jutith L. Harris ' Ronald H. Clark ~ Frederick'H. Parmenter . v.c I^e g Attforneys, Energy ~Section Antitrust Division U.S. Department of Justice Washington, D.C. 20530 Fcbruary 6, 1979 .E J;,,, J., j i r.3,, '.,,Ir. ; o.: ~ 4 } . g,. ' ', 4 4.j l' l '6 'j q 4.. ,E. . f* b* [' 'hf + + _-' 3y sgg_> 1** +- 6 g

')h)t; hapt 3N't(g(;ggg Ng'4 g% -(,g 3)lg (*,(,l.g h,g;;Y': "M E. 'jd p e (US 'i 1 " li.wcur.1 : vs w>os 1.'s. -, 5. 1 fi'/ o . is 8. g3p

s..

sa.... ~ -. M r. E. II. Soc.' beig Mr. W. G. Sleirelin lower Colors Jo P.Iver Au'thori,ty Central Power 4 f.ight Compaisy P. O. Dox 220 P. O. P.ox 2121 Austin, Texas 78767 Corpun Christi, Texn '78403 Mr. D5n' Dav!dr.on Mr. J. B. Poston City Miinager City PaWie Ouvice I'Mrd City of Austin of San Antonio P. O. Box 1088 P. O. Box 1771 Auctin, Texas 78767

• San Antonio, Texas 789.06 Mr. G. R. Cafhnan Texun Power & I.lght Company P. O. P.o.x G33)

Dallos, Tc:uin 7527.2 Gentlemen:- This in to. notify you that as of this date lif &PCO is contInutng to operate with all nf our extcinnt intore.:,nn' ctions open. Wo indicatud e to sopropont etives of r.1ost of your companics in a telci. hone call yestorday tivt in the ovont,of an cmorgeric'y, llouston 1,lahting & 2 Power Corh;uny would consider roostablishing.those interconnoctions ^ if thin would piovic'c some relief. Our legal couon'el this morning has o~dvined us that certain 1.roccclures

• - # must be follawed in reentnblishing theco Interconnections in order to r,soteci'otir k: gal iIghts. These proc [durou ecrohll611y requiro lhet

.3 reentablishing those interconnectic.nc will requiro authorization from the Pet.lcral Pa.wcr Cominission declaring that an emergency cxists and. ' ordering us to reentablinh the intercominction under an omorgency f. condition. l Wo do not know how long wo may have to romtiin in opciation wi,th theso interconnections opan. We did fool that you nhould know: about thoso Icoal resttlettons on tocatablishing theso interconnectio'nn. 15%. ^. e 'Iho abovo information was transmitto*d to cach of you by telephone 5 f:q, - to da*y... 1 , 3,;,g p Y, 81necr61'y yhurs,;" j { ft e .l /// ff n.v a s. ~, ,.. _ _ _ ~ f . c ' '- ).3375-s.A. 4.,, .. p) i A e to y l $ f ~ p g g :g y % Q ): ' f $ h k i g 5;,.r M, g {s W., ..i~ q.3.- 4

q. ppje

~

~ PJjPODE THE NTONICNAPbNhND LICENSp1b_BO_ARD l c In the Matter of ) ) HOUSTON LICllTING AND POWER ) Docket Nos. 50-498A CO., et al.(South Texas. ) 50-499A ( Project, Units 1 and 2) ) ) TEXAS UTILITIES CENERATING ) Docket Nos. 50-445A COMPANY (Comancho Pea's Steam ) 50-446A Electric, Station, Units.1 .) and 2) r) ) CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby cortify that cervicte of the foregoing MOTION OF THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE TO COMPEL Tile CITY OF AUSTIN TO, PROVIDE FULLER RESPONSES TO THE DEPAPTMENT'S FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES AND REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF-DOCUHRNTS has been made on the following parties listed hereto thic 6th day of February, 1979, by depociting copico thereof in the United States mail, first class, postage prepaid. Marshall E. Miller, Esquire Atom'ic Safety and Licensing Chairman Appeal Doard Panol 'Atcu.ic Safety & Licensing Doard U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Panel Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Washington, D. C. 20555 Comnission Washington, D. C. 20555 Richard S. Salzman, Esquire U.S. Nuclear Regulatory f Michael L. Glaser, Esquire Commission 1150 17th Street, N.W. Washington, D. C. 20555 Washington, D. C. 20036 Jerome E. Sharfman, Esquire Sheldon J. Wolfe, Esquire U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Atomic Safety & Licensing Board Commission Panel Washington, D. C. 20555 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Chase R. Stephens, Secretary Washington, D. C. 20555 Docketing and Servico Branch U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Samuel J. Chilk, Secretary Commission Office of the Secretary of the Washington, D. C. 20555 2 Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Jerome Saltzman Commission Chief, Antitrust and x Washington, D. C. - 205551r Indemnity Group . l:. . : 2 ,j }.wSA) 5.ya U.S. Nuclear' Regulatory ^ " ~, 9 Commission m

~ Av~, 1. J E s[ ~..~ ~ ~'l' ] ~~ ~' ~~' 2 t.. t . Roff Hardy Michael I. Miller, Esquire Chairman.and Chief Executive . Richard E. Powell, Enquire Officer David M. Stahl, Esquire Central Power and Light-Thomas G. Ryan, Esquire Company' Isham, Linco'In & Beale P. O. Box 2121 One First National Plaza Corpus Christi, Texas 78403 Chicago, Illinois 60603 1 G. K. Spruce, General Manager Roy P. Lessy, Esquire City Public Service Board Michael Blume, 1: squire P.O. Box 1771 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory San Antonio, Texas 78203 Commission Washington, D. C. 20555 l '. Perry G. Brittain i President Jerry L. Harris, Esquire i 'lexas Utilities Generating . City Attorney, l Company Richard C. Balough, Esquire. 2001 Bryan Tower Assistant City Attorney Dallas-, Texas 75201 City of Austin P.O. Box 1088 R.L. Hanc'ock, Director Austin, Texas 78767 City of Au,stin Electric Utility Department Robert C. McDiarmid, Esquire. P. O. Box 1088 ' Robert A. Jablon, Esquire i Austin, Texas 78767 Spiegel and McDiarmid 2600 Virginia Avenue, N.W. 20036 G. W. Oprea, Jr. Washington, D. C.. Executive Vice President } Houston Lighting & Power Dan ll..Davidson ~ Company City Manager j P. O. Boxsl700 . City of Austin j Houston, Texas 77001 P. O. Box 1088 2 l 1, Austin, Texas.78767 I ~ Jon C. Wood, Esquire ) W. Roger Wilson, Esquire Don R. Buticr, Esqu' ire Matthews, Nowlin, Macfarlane 1225 Southwest Tower 1 & Bar' rett - Austin, Texas 78701 1500 Alamo National Building 4 San Antonio, Texas 78205 Joseph Irion Worsham, Esquire j Merlyn D. Sampels, Esquire i Joseph Gallo, Esquire Spencer C. Relyea, Esquire l Richard.D. Cudahy, Esquire Worsham, Forsythe & Sampels i Robert H. Loeffler, Esquire 2001 Bryan Tower, Suite 2500 Isham, Lincoln & Beale Dallas, Texas 75201 3 Suite 701 I ~d 1050 17th Street, N.W. Joseph Knotts, Esquire l? Washington, D.lc. 20036 Nicholas S. Reynolds, Esquire 4+>7 Debevoise & Liberman f,/;j. 806 15th Street, N.W. ! l k." Suite 700 Washington, D. C. 20005 S , b, yl;

ce w g @.g A-_____ _ _ _ -_ _ b..3 N. w l D5uglas P. John, Esquire. R. Gordon Gooch, Esquire Akin, Gump, llauer & Feld John P. Mathis, Esquire 1100 Madison Office Building Baker & Botts 1155 15th Street, N.W. 1701 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Washington,.D. C. 20024 Washington, D. C. 20006 i l Morgan Hunter, Esquir'e Robert Lowenstein, Esquire McGinnis,~Lochridge & Kilgore J. A. Bouknight, Esquire Sth Floor, Texas State Bank William J. Franklin, Esquire Building-Lowenstein, Newman, Reis, 900 Congress Avenue Axelrad E Toll Austin, Texas 78701 1025 Conn'ecticut Avenue, N.W. Washingt.on, D. C. 20036 Jay M. Galt, Esquire Looney, Nichols, Johnson E. W. Barnett, Esquire & Hayes Charles G. Thrash, Jr., E' squire i 219 Couch Drive J. Gregory Copeland, Esquire Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73101 Theodore F. Weiss, Jr., Esquire Baker & Botts i Knoland J. Plucknett 3000 One Shell Plaza i Executive Director Hpunton, Texas' ' 77002 Committee on. Power for the Southwest, Inc. Kevin B. Pratt,JEsquire 5541 East Skelly Drive Assistant Attor'ney General Tulsa, Oklahoma 74135 P.O. Box.12548 Capital Station i l' John W. D,avidson, Esquire Austin, Texas 78711 Sawtelle, Goode, Davidson & Tiollo Frederick H. Ritts, Esquire 1100 San Antonio Savings Law Offices of Northcutit Ely Building Watergate 600 Building San Antonio, Texas 78205 Washington, D.C. 20037 a i. W._S. Robson Genera) Manager i b p ve n 4 Route 6, Building 102 Judith L. Harris, Attorney Victoria. Regional Airport Energy Section Victoria, Texas 77901 Antitrust Division Department of Justice 8 ,g

t.,

l 'ge 1

i, 8

[ 4 e 'f! . s 7 I 5* 6* ' 'k'.t' { e d a .------,,------.--+,-_nn- - - - - - -, - -, - - -, - - - -}}