ML19257A067

Memorandum in Opposition to Applicant Motion for Directed Certification & Review of ASLB 791113 Order Denying Summary Disposition.Stds for Interlocutory Appeal Are Not Met.Board Correctly Applied Collateral Estoppel.W/Certificate of Svc

ML19257A067
Person / Time
Site:	South Texas, Comanche Peak
Issue date:	12/14/1979
From:	Cyphert S, Luque N, Parmenter F JUSTICE, DEPT. OF
To:	NRC ATOMIC SAFETY & LICENSING APPEAL PANEL (ASLAP)
References
NUDOCS 8001020035
Download: ML19257A067 (16)

Text

g - Y .

p .,

'A

- 'kj UNITED STATES OF AMERICA OI 85 C

.-

• %v g NUCLEAR PEGULATORY CCfff1ISSION

-4 CJ b

Defore the Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Poard 4

• y In the Matter of )

HOUSTON LIGHTING & POWER ) Docket Nos. 50-498A COMPANY, et al. (South ) 50-499A Texas Project, Units 1 )

and 2) )

)

TEXAS UTILITIES CENERATING )

COM PANY , et al. (Comanche ) Docket Nos. 50-445A Peak Steam Electric ) 50-446A Station, Units 1 and 2) )

MEMOPANDUl! OF THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE IN OPPOSITION TO PETITION OF HOUSTON LIGHTING & POWER CO!!PANY FOR DIRECTED CERTIFICATION AND REVIEW OF THE LICENSING BOARD'S ORDER DENYING MOTIONS FOR

SUMMARY

DECISION Pursuant to the November 13, 1979, Order of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board (" Appeal Board") in the above captioned proceedings, the Department of Justice (" Department")

submits this Memorandum in Opposition to the Petition of Houston Lighting and Power Company For Directed Certification and Review of the Licensing Board's Order Denying Motions For Summary Decision. This Memorandum addresses the following issues: (1) whether interlocutory appellate review by the Appeal Poard is warranted, and (2) whether the doctrine of collater21 estoppel bars the Central & South West Corporation

("CSW") from participating in the proceedings being conducted by the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (" Licensing Board") .

1665 074 y 8001020 h, b

,

' '

.

I.

BACKGROUND On May 3, 1976, Central Power and Light Company ("CP&L")

and West Texas Utility Company ("WTU") 1/ filed a complaint in the United States District Court in Dallas, Texas,(" Dallas District Court") alleging that Texas Electric Service Company ("TESCO")

and Houston Lighting & Power Company ("HL&P"), and other Texas utilities conspired to restrict their operat. ions (i.e.,

transmission of electric power) to the State of Texas, thereby effecting an unreasonable restraint of trade in violation of section 1 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. S1. On January 30, 1979, the Dallas District Cour t issued a memorandum opinion and order, West Texas Utilities Co. v. Texas Electric Service Company, et al., 470 F. Supp. 798 (N.D. Tex. 1979), appeal docketed, No. 79-2677(Sth Cir. Nov. 15, 1979), in which the court found no violation of 15 U.S.C. 51. The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals has not ye t set a date for oral argument in that case. 2/

On April 3, 1979, 9L&P filed a Motion for Summary Disposition in Docket Nos. 50-498A and 50-499A (" South Texas proceeding") . _3/

1/ WTU and CP&L are two of the four electric utility subsidiar-ies of the Central and South West Corporation 2/ On November 7, 1979, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission filed an amicus curiae brief supporting CP&L.

3/ Several other motions were filed by other parties at that time requesting either partial or full summary disposition of Docket Nos. 50-498A and 50-499A Station, Units 1 and 2") (", Comanche (" Comanche Peak Steam Electric Peak proceeding") and in (Footnote continued on next page.)

1665 075

.

. - <

.

HL&P's Motion requested tha t the findings of the Dallas District Court be given collateral estoppel effect against CSW and that HL&P be dismissed from the South Texas proceeding. On April 23, 1979, the Department filed a Motion in Opposition to HL&P's Motion for Summary Disposition. 1/ The Licensing Board heard oral arguments on the issues raised by HL&P and other parties on June 1, 1979. On June 25, 1979, the Licensing Board entered an Order denying HL&P's Motion for Summary Disposition. On October 5, 1979, the Licensing Board issued an Opinion in support of its Order denying HL&P's Motion for Summa ry Disposition and declined to certify the issues raised therein to the Nuclear Regula tory Commission (" Commission")

3/(cont.) the South Texas proceeding. In the South Texas proceeding, Texas Utilities Generating Co. ("TUGCO") filed "TUGCO's Motion for an Order Barring CP&L From Seeking to Obtain Any Relief Therein Inconsistent with the District Court Decision and For Summary Disposition in Favor of TUGCO a nd Aga inst CP&L. " In the Comanche Peak proceeding TUGCO filed, "TUGCO's Motion to Dismiss CSW as a Pa r ty Intervenor , Or, in the Alterna tive, for Summary Disposition, and for Steps Toward Termination of Proceeding". The City of Austin, an applicant in the South Texas proceeding, filed " City of Austin's Brief on Question of Collateral Estoppel to Dispose of or Limit the Antitrust Proceeding Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board",

seeking the relief requested by the aforementioned Motions by HL&P and TUGCO. To date neither TUGCO nor the City of Austin has requested direct certification to appeal the Licensing Boards' Order of July 25, 1979, denying their Motions.

1/ On April 23, 1979, the NRC Sta f f filed an " Answer in Opposition to Motions for Full or Par tial Summa ry Judgment Filed By Houston Lighting & Power Company and Texas Utilities (Footnote continued on next page.)

1665 076

.

. ,

or the Appeal Board. On November 9, 1979, HL&P petitioned the Appeal Board for directed certification and review of the Licensing Board's Order of June 25, 1979.

II.

HL&P'S PETITION FOR DIRECTED CERTIFICATION SHOULD BE DENIED HL&P's Petition should be denied because it does not meet the standards applicable to interlocutory appeal under the Nuclea r Regulatory Commission Rules of Practice. Interlocutory appea ls a t the Nuclear Regula tory Commission ("NRC") are governed by Rule 2.730(f), which provides:

(f) Interlocutory appeals to the Commission. No interlocutory appeal may be taken to the Commission from a ruling of the presiding officer.

When in the judgment of the presiding officer prompt decision is

,

necessary to prevent detriment to the public interest or unusual delay or expense, the presiding officer may refer the ruling promptly to the Commission, and notify the parties either by announcement on the record or by written notice if the hea ring is not in session. 10 C.F.R. S2.730(f) 1/(cont.) Genera ting Company, et al . " The City of Brownsville, an intervenor Motions in South Texas proceedings, filed " Response to For Summary Decision Dismissal" on Apr il 23, 1979.

Tex-La Electric Coopera tive, Inc. , an intervenor in the Comanche Peak Proceedings filed " Answer of Tex-La Electric Coopera tive ,

Inc. to TUGCO's Motion to Dismiss CSW As A Party Intervenor or, In The Alternative, For Summary Disposition" on April 23, 1979.

CP&L is a co-applicant in the South Texas proceedings and CSN is an intervenor in Comanche Peak. On April 23, 1979, they filed a joint pleading and Central and South West Corporation et al. to Motions of" Answer of Cen Texas Utilities Generating Company and Houston Lighting & Power Company and Brief of City of Austin."

1665 077

4

. ,

• The only exception to this blanket prohibition against interlocutory appeals is that Licensing Board orders ruling on petitions to intervene and/or requests for hearings may be challenged through an interlocutory appeal. 10 C.F.R. S2.714(a).

Since the Licensing Board has refused to refer this ma tter to the Appeal Board, HL&P bears a heavy burden in pursuading the Appeal Board tha t the issues raised in its Petition do require

" prompt decision...to prevent detriment to the public interest or unusual delay or expense. . . " . Id.

The Appeals Board has consistently followed a stringent standard in reviewing requests for interlocutory appeals. Thus, for example, in Public Service Company of Indiana, Inc.

(Marble Hill Nuclear Generating Station, Units 1 and 2, ALAB-405, 5 NRC 1190 (1977)), the Appeal Board stated:

Almost without exception in recent times, we have undertaken discretionary interlocutory r eview only where the ruling below either (1) threa tened the pa rty adversely affected by it with immediate and serious irreparable impact which, as a pract ical ma tter ,

could not be alleviated by a la ter appeal or (2) af fected the basic structure of the proceeding in a pervasive or unusual manner. 5 NRC a t 1192 HL&P cannot meet either of the tests set forth by the Appeal Board.

The only issue raised by HL&P's Petition is whether the Licensing Board acted correctly in refusing to apply collateral estoppel in denying HL&P's Motion for Summary Disposition. The 166$ 078

. .

. . <

6- -

applicability of collateral estoppel to CSW in this licensing proceeding is a procedural issue that will not have any substantial impact on the character of the proceedings because none of the other parties would be fcreclosed from presenting evidence.

HL&P cites, but doas not discuss, United Sta tes Energy Fesearch and Development Administration Project Management Corpora tion Tennes.see Valley Authority (Clinch River Breeder Reactcr Plant) CLI-76-13, 5 NRC 67 (1976) in support of its argument for cer t ifica t ion , but tha t ca se is inapposite to the instant proceeding. 1/ In the Clinch River Breeder Reactor Plant proceeding the full Commission granted sua sponte review of the Appeal Board's refusal to hear argument on interlocutory rulings of a Licensing Board that vastly expanded the scope of a hearing regarding the need for an overall liquid metal fast breeder reactor in the Clinch diver plant. In granting review the Commission expressly found that the rulings of the Licensing Board were "in conflict with statutory requirements and involve important questions of public policy. Moreover, the rulings appea red to threa ten substantial delay in the proceedings --

delay which would be unwarranted, offensive to Congressionally established allocations of authority among federal agencies, and irremediable at any later time . " _Id . a t 7 5.

1/ The other cases cited by HL&P involve a denial of directed certification of interlocutory rulings. See Pacific Gas and Electric Company (Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2) ACAB-514, 8 NRC 697 (1978), appeal dismissed for mootness, CLI-79-1, 9 NRC 1 (1979); offshore Power Systems (Floa ting Nuclea r Plants), ALAB-517, 9 NRC 8 (1979).

1665 079

.

It is obvious that the issue raised by HL&P does not rise to the level of importance of the issues in the Clinch River Breeder Reactor Plant proceeding , and even assuming that the Licensing Board ruled erroneously on HL&P's Motion, this would not constitute a " conflict with statutory requirements," and would not "threa ten substantial delay in these proceedings" that would be " irremediable at cny la ter time." In fact, the Licensing Board's ruling will not "a f f ec t the basic structure of the proceeding" at all in this matter, and certainly not

_

"in a pervasive or unusual manner. " Public Service Company of Indiana, Inc., 5 NRC a t 1195. CSW's ability to participa te fully in the hearing, as they have during the deposition discovery, will only assist the Licensing Board 's evalua tion of the allega tions and the evidence by providing it with a complete picture of the facts and circumstances surrounding the South Texas Project.

In any event, it is well established that the stringent

, standards adapted by the NRC in dealing with interlocutory appeals reflects the well established principles followed by federal cour ts which weigh against piecemeal appeals. See e.g., Switzerland Cheese Association, Inc., et al . v. E. Horne's Market, Inc., 385 U.S. 23 (1966); Baltimore Contractors, Inc.

v. Bodinger, 348 U.S. 176 (1954). The strict criteria which 1665 080

.

'

must be met to seek an appeal of an interlocutory order in federal courts are set forth-in 28 U.S.C. S1292(b), which states that an interlocutory order cannot be immediately appealed unless the district court certifies that the " order involves a controlling question of law as to which there is substantial ground for dif ference of opinion and. . .an immediate appeal f rom an order may ma terially advance the ultima te termination of the litiga tion . . . " .

Federal courts have routinely held that certification under this section should be granted only sparingly

-

and in exceptional circumstances. E.g., Spinetti v. Atlantic Richfield Co.,

552 F.2d 927 (T.E.C.A. 1977).

It is particularly important to note that the Supreme Court has held that since a denial of a motion for summary judgment relates to pretrial procedures and not to the merits, a denial of a motion for summary disposition is not interlocutory and therefore not appealable under 28 U.S.C.

S1292(a)(1). In Switzerland Cheese Association, Inc., et al.

.

v. E. Horne's Market, Inc. 385 U.S.

23, 25 (1966), the Supreme Cour t stated that:

denial of a motion for summary judgment because of unresolved issues of fact does not settle or even tentatively decide anything about the merits of the cla im . It is strictly a pretrial order tha t decides only one thing - that the case should go to trial."

385 U.S. a t 25.

1665 081

,

'

'

The express language of that case dictates that HL&P's Petition be denied because HL&P is simply seeking an interlocutory appeal from an order denying a summary judgment motion.

The fact tha t HL&P's motion for summary judgment was based on collateral estoppel arguments does not, of course, require a departure from the rule that an interlocutory appeal may not be taken to review an order denying summary judgment. HL&P's Petition fails to cite a single case in either the federal courts or agencies where certification for an interlocutory appeal was granted to a party who was denied summary judgment ba sed on a cla im of colla teral estoppel .

Finally, the applicability of the doctrine of collateral estoppel to ma tters before the NRC is well settled, and does not raise unique legal or policy issues warranting an interlocutory appea l .

In its written Opinion, the Licensing Board expressly acknowledged the long standing applicability of the doctrine of collateral estoppel to NRC proceedings. 1/ Nor will certifica tion of HL&P's Petition materially advance the ultimate termination of the litiga tion.

See United States Rubber Company v. Wright, 359 F.2d 784, 785 (1966). Even assuming arguendo that HL&P preva ils on appeal of this issue and CSW is precluded from presenting 1/ See, Licensing Board Order Regarding Motions Based Upon Decision 1979, pg sof United States District Court, da ted October 5,

. 3-8.

1665 082

. -

,

.

,

evidence of matters on which the Dallas District Court made

-

findings of fact, as argued above, none of the other parties to the South Texas proceeding, i.e., the Department, Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff, City of Brownsville, Texas, South Texas Electric Cooperative and Medina Electric Coopera tive are bound by collateral estoppel since they were not associated in any way with the prior l it iga t ion . 1/ Moreover, where substantial discovery has been completed such that granting an interlocutory appeal would tend to delay the termination of the litiga tion, certifica tion for interlocutory appeal will be denied. Rypkema

v. Bowers, et al . , 66 P.R.D. 564 (D.C. W.Va. 1974); Struthers Scientific & Intern Corp. v. General Foods Corp., 290 F. Supp.

122 (1968).

III.

THE LICENSING BOARD'S OCTOBER 5, 1979 ORDER CORRECTLY APPLIED THE DOCTRINE OF COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL HL&P's Petition is addressed only to the applicability of the Dallas District Court's findings to CSW. Since HL&P has not sought to have the Department collaterally estopped, and since 1/ It would be a violation of due process for the Dalla s Distr ict Cour t j udgment to be binding on the Department since the Department was neither a party to nor privy to the prior litiga tion and has had no opportunity to present evidence or be hea rd.Pa r klane Hoisery, Inc., v. Shore, 439 U.S. 322, 327 n.7 (1979). The Depa r tmen t 's righ t to present evidence is discussed further a t pg s . 12 - 13 infra.

1665 083

. -

-

.

_11_

the Department has already expretsed its view on the applicability of collateral estoppel to the Licensing Board, the Department will make only a brief argument to the Appeal Board on this issue.

The Licensing Board was correct in holding that the doctrine of collateral estoppel does not bar CSW from pa rticipa ting in these proceedings. It would have been erroneous for the Licensing Board to have found that CSU is collaterally estopped in these proceedings because the legal standards used by the Dallas District Court and the Licensing Board are significantly different.

The Dallas District Cour t's examination of the evidence was in the context of dt;termining whether an antitrust viola tion occurred, whereas the Licensing Board will be applying the broader standard of whether issuance of the operating license sought by HL&P would create or maintain a situation inconsistent with the antitrust laws or their underlying policies. Section 105(c) of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, 42 U.S.C. S2135(c).

In The Toledo Edison Company (Davic-Besse Nuclear Power Station, Units 1, 2 and 3), ALAB-560, 10 NRC (September 6, 1979), the Appeal Board recently confirmed the long standing rule that:

Where the legal standards of two statutes are significantly different, the decision of an issue under one statute does not give rise to colla teral estoppel in a litigation of a similar issue under a dif f erent statute. Slip Opinion at 209.

1665 084

, -

See Consumers Power Company (Midland Plant, Units 1 and 2)

ALAB-452, 6 NRC 892, 908-912 (1977).

Thus, the Licensing Board's ruling in this case is consistent with this agency's application of the doctrine of collateral estoppel and accordingly should be followed by the Appea l Boa rd. See, e.g., Alabama Power Company (Joseph M.

Parley Nuclea r Plant, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-182, 7 AEC 203, 204, 210(1974); Public Service Company of New Hampshire (Seabrook Station Units 1 and 2), ALAB-349, 4 NRC 235, 246,

-

vacated on other grounds, CLI-76-17, 4 NRC 451(1976); The Toledo Edison Company (Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Sta tion, Units 1, 2 and 3), ALAB-378, 5 NRC 557(1977); Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc. (Indian Point Station, Unit No. 2), ALAB-399, 5 NRC 1156(1977).

Finally, HL&P's Petition cites to the Department's oral argument at the June 1,1979, pretrial hearing to the effect that the Department will not present the same evidence to the Licensing Board as was, presented by CSW to the Dallas District

.

Court.

HL&P argues that barring CSN from being able to submit such evidence will therefore result in a shortening of the proceeding. This argument is misplaced. The obvious reason why the Department stated it would not present the same case as CSW did in the Dallas District Court is tha t the standard under 1665 085

.

teMM e '

. u.m.M 9 U

. .-. DT

-

.

F*78W N W $ 'i* I O #0 9 N**" '

- -

.,

,

Section 105(c) is broader and more inclusive than 15 U.S.C. Sl.

Thus the Department anticipates that although some of the evidence ma y be , in fact, similar to evidence adduced in the civil tr ial ,

a considerable amount of additional evidence will be presented.

Thus, no judicial economy would be achieved by collaterally estopping CSW from participating in the License Board proceeding.

Ala ba ma Power Company (Joseph M. Parley Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2), ALAB 1&2, 7 AEC 210, 212(1974).

IV.

CONCLUSION Therefore, for all of the foregoing reasons, the Department urges the Appeal Board to deny HL&P's Petition.

Respectfully submitted, S an ~ff)4Wl Braden CyphY ArtY h']

~ _

$'

J' / wv-f

.

Pre r ids 1. P2rgenterW,,t%el%t9]A').Q, f

-. _ . . -

Nancy Lug '

Washington, D. C. Attorneys December 14, 1979 Energy Section Antitrust Division U.S. Department of Justice (202-724-6667)

Subscribed and sworn to before me, a notary public, this /d/'t day ofsE, /tv , 1979.

Da ted : December 14, 1979 Wa shing ton , D. C. ' f) .

V ~ -h s d /, , o c A M m . [<,..t c -

hew O ur cE_e , - o .n.

1665 086

-

UNITED STATES OF N4 ERICA

-

NUCLEAR REGULk1ORY COMMISSIO1

.

Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board

)

In the Matter of )

)

IOUS'IOtl LIGHTING AND PGiER ) Docket Nos. 50-498A CO. , et al . (South Texa s ) 50-499A Project, Units 1 and 2) )

)

TEXAS UTILITIES GENERATING ) Docket Nos. 50-445A CDMPANY (Coranche Peak Steam ) 50-446A Electric Station, Units 1 )

and 2) )

)

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that service of the foregoing MFJ10RANDUM OF 'IEE DEPARTMEt7f OF JUSTICE IN OPEOSITIQ1 'IO PETITIQ1 OF HOUSTON LIGHTING & POKER COMPANY EOR DIRECTED CERTIFICATICU AND REVIEN OF TMZ LICENSING BOARD'S ORDER DENYING MOTIONS EDR

SUMMARY

- DECISION has been made on the following parties listed hereto this 14th day of December 1979, by depositing copies thereof in the United States mail, first class, postage prepaid.

Ibrshall E. Miller, Esquire Chainnan Atomic Safety and Licensing

.

At Safety & Licensing Board U. N 1 ar Regu atory

• # "^ Y g m D. C. 20555 m shington, D. C. 20555 Richard S. Salzman, Esquire Michael L. Glaser, Esquire U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 1150 17th Street, N.W. Commission m shington, D. C. 20036 m shington, D. C. 20555 Sheldon J. Wolfs, Esquire Jerome E. Sharfman, Esquire Atomic Safety & Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory knel Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory m shington, D. C. 20555 Commission m shington, D. C. 20555 Chase R. Stephens, Secretary Docketing and Service Branch

,

Samuel J. Chilk, Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Office of the Secretary of the Commission Commission m shington, D. C. ,0555 4

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Jerome Saltzman m shington, D. C. 20555 Chief, Antitrust and Indemnity Group U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission m shington, D. C. 20555 1665 087

.

Poff Ibrdy Michael I. Miller , Esquite Chairman and Chief Executive mvid M. Stahl, Esquire Officer Thonus G. Ryan, Esquire Central Power and Light Partha E. Gibbs, Esquite Company Isham, Lincoln & Beale P. O. Box 2121 One First tutional Plaza Corpus Christi, Texas 78403 Chicago, Illinois 60603 G. K. Spruce, General bbnager Roy P. Lessy, Esquire City Public Service Board Michael Blume, Esquire P.O. Box 1771 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory San Antonio, Texas 78203 Commission Vbshington, D. C. 20555 Perry G. Brittain President Jerry L. Ibrris, Esquire Texas Utilities Generating City Attorney, Company Richard C. Balough, Esquire 2001 Dryan Tower Assistant City Attorney mllas, Texas 75201 City of Austin P.O. Box 1088 R.L. Ibncock, Director Austin, Texas 78767 City of Austin Electric Utility Department Robert C. McDiarmid, Esquire

_ P. O. Box 1088 Robert A. Jablon, Esquire Austin, Texas 78767 Spiegel and McDiarmid 2600 Virginia Avenue, N.W.

G. W. Oprea , Jr . Washington, D. C. 20036 Executive Vice President Houston Lighting & Power Dan H. Etividson Company City tbnager P. O. Box 1700 City of Austin Houston, Texas 77001 P. O. Box 1088 Austin, Texas 78767 Jon C. Wood, Esquire W. Roger Wilson, Esquire Don R. Butler, Esquire fbtthews, Nowlin, Macfarlane 1225 Southwest Tower

& Barrett Austin, Texas 78701 1500 Alamo National Building San Antonio, Texas 78205 Joseph Irion Worsham, Esquire Merlyn D. Sampels, Esquire Joseph Gallo, Esquire Spencer C. Relyea, Esquire Richard D. Cudahy, Esquire Wbrsham, Forsythe & Sampels Robert H. Loeffler, Esquire 2001 Bryan Tower, Suite 2500 Isham, Lincoln & Beale Enllas, Texas 75201 Suite 701 1050 17th Street, N.W. Joseph Knotts, Esquire Vbshington, D. C. 20036 Nicholas S. Reynolds, Esquire Debevoise & Libertran 1200 17th Street, N.W.

Vbshington, D. C. 20036 1665 088

. ..

..

,

Douglas F. John, Esquire R. Gordon Gooch, Esquire Akin, Gump, Ibuer & Feld 1333 New flampshire Avenue, N.W.

John P. Kathis, Esquite Suite 400 Baker & Dotts vhshington, D. C. 1701 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.

20036 m shington, D. C. 20006 Morgan ilunter, Esquire Robert Iowenstein, Esquire McGinnis, Lochtidge & Kilgore J. A. Bouknight, Esquire 5th Floor, Texas State Bank Building William J. Franklin, Esquire 900 Congress Avenue Iowenstein, Newman, Reis, Austin, Texas 78701 Axelrad & Toll 1025 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.

Washington, D. C. 20036 Jay M. Galt, Esquire Looney, Nichols, Johnson

& lbyes E. W. Barnett, Esquire 219 Couch Drive Charles G. Thrash, Jr., Esquire Oklahoma City, Oklahorro 73101 J. Gregory Copeland, Esquire Theodore F. kbiss, Jr. , Esquire Baker & Botts Knoland J. Plucknett 3000 One Shell Plaza Executive Director Houston, Texas 77002 Cmanittee on Power for the Southwest, Inc.

5541 East Skelly Drive Kevin B. Pratt, Esquire Tulsa, Oklahoma 74135 Assistant Attorney General P.O. Box 12548 Capital Station John W. Davidson, Esquire Austin, Texas 78711 Sawtelle, Goode, Davidson

& Tiollo 1100 San Antonio Savings Frederick H. Ritts, Esquire Building Iaw Offices of Northcutt Ely San Antonio, Texas 78205 yatergate 600 Building Washington, D.C. 20037 W. S. Robson General Manager Dona 1d M. C1ements, Esq.

South Texas Electric Gulf States Utilities Company Cooperative, Inc. P.O. Box 2951 Beaumont, Texas 77704 Route 6, Building 102 victoria Regional Airport Victoria, Texas 77901 y g, Robert M. Rader, Esquire Conner, Moore & Corber / Susan B. Cyphert, Attorney Energy Section 1747 Pennsylvania Ave. , N.W.

M shington, D.C. 20006 Antitrust Division Department of Justice W.N. Woolsey, Esquire Dyer and Redford 1030 Petroleum Tower Corpus Christi, Texas 78474 1665 089