ML20126K001
| ML20126K001 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | San Onofre  |
| Issue date: | 04/21/1971 |
| From: | Mcdiarmid R, Spiegel G, Strebel S SPIEGEL & MCDIARMID, SPIEGEL, G. |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20126J991 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8105080254 | |
| Download: ML20126K001 (6) | |
Text
. _..
APPENDD( 6 O
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA BEFORE THE A~.M~J El.ERC: C..>..:.....
~
)
.I. -he Matter Of
)
)
Southern California Edison Company )
and San Diego Gas and Electric
)
Docket Nos. 50-361
)
50-362 Company
)
(San Onofre Nuclear Generating
)
)
Station Units 2 and 3)
PETITION TO INTERVENE, REQUEST FOR HEARING, AND REQUEST FOR SUBMISSION OF VIEWS TO THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR ANTITRUST REVIEW The Cities of Anaheim, Riverside and Banning, "the Cities "),
California (collectively referred to herein as hereby petition to intervene as full parties in interest in accordance with Section 189 of and request a hearing, the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended ("the Act ") and e
Section 2.714 of the Commission's Rules of Practice, and their views be presented to the Attorney General request that for his censideration in the antitrust review of the applica-as amended to Sections 105 and 182 of the Act, tion, pursuant of the Commission's by Public Law 91-560, and Section 2.101(b)
Rules of Practice.
'p 0509
APPENDIX 6
~'
"i t i es are the operators of municipal electric
_a,:resently an all require-enu c'.:sterer cf a:.__..ae.
~s_..
I;ue.ern Ca'.f:rnia Edison Company (semetimes hereinafter "3 E"), one of the applicants herein.
In 1970, Anaheim had a maximum demand of 171,400 kw, and purchased from SCE 990,000,000 kwh of energy for 57.4 million to serve its In the same period, Kiverside had a maximum 4 0,3 00 customers.
demand of 183,600 kw and purchased from Edison 808,512,000 kwh of energy for 56.3 million to serve its 46,900 customers.
Banning had a maximum demand of 9,520 kw and purchased 43,128,000 kwh for $368,000 to serve its citizen-customers
- I during that period.
Anaheim and Riverside are presently interconnected with SCE at 69 and 66 kv, respectively, while Banning is interconnected at 33 kv.
As customers, the Cities have a broad and direct interest in this proceeding, will be af fected by the costs and reliability of these generators, desire to see a full and complete evidentiary record made, and based on such record reserve the right to support or oppose the license.
All data as to sales figures are taken from SCE's FPC
- /
Form 1 for 1970.
-2 i
APPEND 1X 6
.= Ci ties have been forced by SCE to remain all-
- :: : : r.: r : *: ; f.: apparently unlawful use Of
_ ___._..~..
sci.
....;;_y p:wers.
Th Cities have sought to cbtain participate with SCE in building new generation the ri:ht t:
,cint basis and to be able to utilize SCE transmission on a capacity excess to SCE's needs, on payment of a reasonable fee therefor, to transmit bulk power which the Cities could purchase from sources other than SCE.more economically.
SCE has refused to allow the cities these rights, and has insisted on long-term, all-requirements contracts, thus monopolizing the power supplies to the Cities by the use of its monopoly on transmission in the area.
In this proceeding, the Cities, which have been injured by SCE's apparently un-lawful activities which have prevented them from obtaining lower cost bulk power supplies for the benefit of their citizen-customers, oppose the grant of any license unless and until SCE makes available to them, on a nondiscriminatory i
basis 1) the right to participate in the project and 2) trans-mission rights for power purchases over the SCE transmission system, together with the necessary partial requirements rates and back-up and pooling arrangements.
Absent these l
.1
~
- ~. - -
t
' APPENDIX 6 j
t Y
- hts
- c
- he C.:::i r,. : :. : r aar :nat the gr nt of the p
C c.. ~-
r i :.:si:::
- f f
t
--;33_..,f
- e
, t3 n ; - ;..
7 -; 3pp, :3n 3
.:; a -:r.:p:ly...
c.:..:.
-- :r :;-:r :- ::- - arez, and thus wodid create or main:ain a situation inconsistent with antitrust law and policy, as shown in more detail below.
III The Cities are parties whose interests may be affected.by the proceeding.
They seek the right to purchase a portion of the project, or the power therefrom, on a non-discriminatory basis.
They contend that the Ocmmission lawfully grant the requested license without requiring cannot that SCE make available power from the project, together with the necessary transmission, to the Cities on a non-discriminatory basis,' and that SCE cease its discriminatory and unlawful refusal transmit power over its monopoly transmission lines for the cities.
These contentions are plainly related to matters within the jurisdicti:n of the C mmission.
See P.
L.
91-56 0.
IV The Cities request the submission to the Attorney General of their views contained herein and in the Accompanying 4
_,_,_..._,..A.>.
APPENDIX 6
.:a t Or in Connecti:n with he ant;;;us r evie'.. now in
_u e
...le_.
h;r r3-
~ rs;an. :- :..= : e r:. :
cf.: :-- ;s s ::r s no:::: 1._ :. id:.::r
- c
..; ; s s f Frar:::e.
- r:::.:: 's V
While the Cities have enough information on practices of SCE which appear to be unlawful exertions of monopoly power over transmission intended to tie the Cities to the supply of power generated by SCE to submit the accompanying Statement of Facts, we do not purport to have available to us the full story of SCE's monopoli:ation tactics.
The s to ry remains,
so far, in SCE's hands, and will not be told in its entirety unless and until this proceeding is set for hearing.
Since the far:s as to the monopolization to date by SCE are plainly relevant to the anticipated course which SCE will follow in the future, if strengthened by an unrestricted license frcm this mmission, the matter will ebviously have to be set for a heari
- n ths antitrust issues, and the Cities hereby so request.
CCNCLUSICN For the abo"e sta:ed reasons, the Cities pray that the Commission admit them as parties to this proceeding, with 5-8
hPPENDIX 6
- '... r L : ?. ~. 5 :,......
~.h i 7.L '....
. f *; : :
.,..1.
- r rect : p: O f.:.-
ci :h t.
the /:.ews of the ::.
ss ::n t a :.n e :. :. :......
e......-
. n l..-
the attached Sta:emer.. be submitted :: :c.i A: :r.e. :-en era l review required by for his consideration in the antitrust the Act.
Respectfully submitted, I
J Jn S p. = W1 v
r~
Of Counsel:
Robert C. McDiarmid City of Anaheim:
r
- ^ ' 4 Joseph Geisler, Esq.
"Tandra J. S tfebel Alan R. Watts, Esq.
City of Riverside:
Attorneys for the Cities of John E. Woodhead, Esq.
Anaheim, Riverside and Banning, California April 21,1971 i
Law office:
\\
George Spiegel 2600 Virginia Ave.ue, N.
W.
Washington, D.C.
2002<
1 l
l l
.. _. = _,
-.