ML20245H783

Discusses Transaction Between Oglethorpe Power Corp & Seminole Power Cooperative,Per Antitrust Review.Antitrust Review Reflects Assertions That Are Factually Incorrect & Should Reflect Addl Facts Available

ML20245H783
Person / Time
Site:	Vogtle
Issue date:	02/28/1989
From:	Patrizia C OGLETHORPE POWER CORP., PAUL, HASTINGS, JANOFSKY & WALKER
To:	Rutberg J NRC OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL (OGC)
References
NUDOCS 8903060005
Download: ML20245H783 (3)

Text

__ - - - _ _ - _ -- - - - - --

7~

q n ;, ' is ; ?j u- -

,?m mw~ -

, 1 y .

1 law orrsecs or j C1 . PAUL,HASUNGS, JANOFSKY & WALKER '

6.n~::.

, y1

.; moes., a mas,c em '

.a...,.........-.....a....,.... ..o , 'e!,'c'L,,a- 1

- 6ao=ano.e. s s4=o.osu. wa6as.a' , ass peacutast starrt w. c..  ;

C"*"'s - TWE LFTH frLOOpt - athauta, o ia oso k-60s anoc6ts orrecc ,

,g,g ,,,, g ,zono, ,,, ,,s,.,,,s, i 1050 CON N ECTICUT AVEN UE, N. W.

.,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, i amo , ca on= a eco? LWASHINGTON D. C. 20036

• tg6sewong saias eas4ooo -

,,,,g,g

,,N,,*,',",e'o",",*g"e".[,g* ",'$

onamos cow =vv orrica - T""ow s ison) aas-sooo -

ess town etwtse caeve - cw l

, ,, ,_ , ,g ,cian ,,,,,o,rrice,

,,gg j ts6te ou a e i itop va,.Ecomic m: taoal ese-sies

. west Los awoc6ts orrect gg ',$,","'g"',",[ ," j ,*

es .,, 6..-o..

"~N*C...s*,lo': 'oi.. -,. o.o.a. tonvo orrect .

i

'***",,**::,,2*ll"',.

,,,o.. .,o..o ,",,ll'"*

i!

os-  ;

. vsorenome cos> oor-otso ;  ;

waitza s einset osas wwweta own ri6 No:

February 28, 1989 j

_ y

.VIA TELECOPY 07995.41979 Joseph Rutberg, Esq.

Deputy Assistant-General Counsel United States Nuclear Regulatory commission 15D19 One White Flint North 11555 Rockville Pike:

Rockville, Maryland.20555

. RE: Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, Docket

No. 50-425-A

Dear Mr. Rutberg:

In light of our telephone conversation.yesNerday. # r I afternoon,-I have checked with my client, oglethorpe Power _

Corporation, concerning the transaction between Oglethorpe.

- Power Corporation and Seminole Power Cooperative'which may be mentioned in the antitrust review which is currently under consideration by your office. Apparently your staff is referring to an Energy Exchange Agreement in 1986 between -

oglethorpe and Seminole, which your staff believes involved power: transmitted'from TVA,1and that Georgia Power filed a tariff at FERC to permit the sale to occur.

'This t'ransaction took nearly one and one-half years of discussions.and negotiations with Georgia Power Company to consummate and involved not TVA power, but capacity and energy from oglethorpe's co-owned Scherer facility. The period of negotiations resulted in lost revenue to oglethorpe, and an impairment of its customer goodwill and

' . reputation as a. reliable source of electric' power; In

' addition, Oglethorpe was unable to complete to its y

I' "8903060005 890228 Q

{ jos Apock0500g5 g  ;[/d

ly

~

[. . ,. , .

PAUL.HASTINGS.JANOPSKY & WALKER

) 4 Joseph'Rutberg,.Esq.

' February 28,.1989 Page 2

]

satisfaction ~a power sale to Seminole.in 1988, because'of Georgia' Power's delays in negotiation and an interruption.' of (

the transmission and delivery by Georgia Power. 'j It.is precisely because of these negotiation delays in

.p implementing specific sales-and our related concerns, that oglethorpe has been discussing these matters with Georgia Power for some time. "

To the degree that the antitrust review would take the position that the 1986 sale represented a successful implementation of we.do not believe.the' that pro-competitive-license conditions,.

the facts support that analysis.

Rather, we believe the underlying facts are symptomatic of-the difficulties we described in our meeting on Friday.

Under these circumstances,.we believe that the discussion in the antitrust review may not reflect fully 1 the underlying factual situation, and would.be concerned

-that publication of the review in the-Federal Register would be inappropriate.- Recognizing the concern that~we both share about delays in_the licensing procedure, I must nonetheless emphasize that the antitrust review apparently now reflects assertions which are factually' incorrect, and it should reflect some additional facts that apparently are only now being made available to you and your staff. I wiJ1 be delighted'to provide as much information as you seek in-relation.to these points, on a rapid basis..

As wa understand the license conditions, they are intended to foster a procompetitive environment, and the review is conducted to determine whether a significant change has occurred. We would suggest that no significant change.has occurred, including no change related to implementation of the condit' ions resulting in'further pro-competitive environment. Therefore, while we do not believe that a new antitrust analysis is required (there having been no significant change), we also do not believe that the commission or its staff can take the position that pro-competitive effects have occurred, as the facts clearly demonstrate.otherwise. Thus, we urge that the antitrust review should not take the position that the license conditions have been successfully implemented in this regard. It is.important that the antitrust review not encumber my client's ability to pursue its rights in an y

J

)b I

- PAUL,llASTINGS,JANOPSKY & 't/ALKER f

Joseph Rutberg, Esq.

February 28, 1989 Page 3 6 .F appropriate forum, if Georgia Power and my client'are not able satisfactorily to resolve the matter in the near future.

As I have already indicated, we would be happy to provide you additional information as required.

Very t lyyours,g JA (WV' '

Charles A. Patrizia of Paul, Hastings, Janofsky & ker cc: Charles Autry, Esq.

Tom Kilgore Steve McGee i

i i

d-  ;