ML19260E094: Difference between revisions

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
← Older edit
VisualWikitext
StriderTol Bot change
StriderTol Bot change
 
Line 16: Line 16:


=Text=
=Text=
{{#Wiki_filter:.                                                                      , , .
{{#Wiki_filter:.
f
f
                                                                    ,Q'                 %
,Q' Y
Y          ,          /
/
                                                                            ,st; "e f''
,st; "e f'',
r
C, r
                                                                          'I
V
                                                                              ,        V C,
'I b.pG 1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA             lj-b.pG      1 hUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION         C                           7' q,y t
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA lj-hUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION C
s Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board                 N[           p O                 \
7 t
hl         "
q,y s
In the Mattor of                   )
Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board N[
        !!OUSTON LIGliTING & POWER     )
p O
COMPANY, et al. (South         )   Docket Nos. 50-498A Texas Project, Units 1         )                 50-499A and 2)                         )
\\
                                        )
hl In the Mattor of
1EXAS UTILITIES GENERATING         )
)
COMPANY, et al. (Comanche       )   Docket Nos. 50-445A Peak Steam Elactric             )                 50-446A Station, Units 1 and 2)         )
!!OUSTON LIGliTING & POWER
SECOND SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE OF DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE TO Il00STON LIGitTING & POWER COMPANY'S FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES AND REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS AND NOVEtiBER 30, 1979 MOTION TO COMPEL The Department of Justice (" Department") hereby submits its Second Supplemental Response to Interrogatories 1/ propounded by by !!ouston Lighting & Power Company ("HLsP") 2/ and its First Supplemental Response to HL&P's Motion to Compel. 3/       The answers and information provided herein are complete to the Department's information and belief as of February 1, 1980.
)
COMPANY, et al. (South
)
Docket Nos. 50-498A Texas Project, Units 1
)
50-499A and 2)
)
)
1EXAS UTILITIES GENERATING
)
COMPANY, et al. (Comanche
)
Docket Nos. 50-445A Peak Steam Elactric
)
50-446A Station, Units 1 and 2)
)
SECOND SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE OF DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE TO Il00STON LIGitTING & POWER COMPANY'S FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES AND REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS AND NOVEtiBER 30, 1979 MOTION TO COMPEL The Department of Justice
(" Department") hereby submits its Second Supplemental Response to Interrogatories 1/ propounded by by !!ouston Lighting & Power Company ("HLsP") 2/ and its First Supplemental Response to HL&P's Motion to Compel. 3/
The answers and information provided herein are complete to the Department's information and belief as of February 1, 1980.
1/ The Department previously supplied information responsive to this request in its Response to Applicant's First Request for Production of Documents and Answer to Interrogatorias on October 10, 1978 and December 4, 1978.
1/ The Department previously supplied information responsive to this request in its Response to Applicant's First Request for Production of Documents and Answer to Interrogatorias on October 10, 1978 and December 4, 1978.
2/ First Set of Interrogatories and Requests for Producti0n of Documents f rom tIouston Lighting & Power Company to Antitrust Division, U.S. Dept. of Justice, August 1, 1978.
2/ First Set of Interrogatories and Requests for Producti0n of Documents f rom tIouston Lighting & Power Company to Antitrust
: Division, U.S.
Dept. of Justice, August 1, 1978.
3/ On November 30, 1979, HL&P filed " Motion to Compel the Depart-ment of Justice and the NRC Staff to Respond to Houston's First Set of Interrogatories and Requests for Production of Documents.
3/ On November 30, 1979, HL&P filed " Motion to Compel the Depart-ment of Justice and the NRC Staff to Respond to Houston's First Set of Interrogatories and Requests for Production of Documents.
On December 14, 1979, the Department filed its initial response as
On December 14, 1979, the Department filed its initial response as
    " Department of Justico Motion for Extension of Time."
" Department of Justico Motion for Extension of Time."
                                                                              't f (, Q h           g00c130
't f (, Q h
g00c130


However, as substantial documentary and testimonial discovery is still being conducted in these proceedings, it may be necessary for the Department, pursuant to Section 2.740(e) of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's Rules of Practice to supplement or amend these Responses prior to trial to include any additional infor-mation which may become available.
. However, as substantial documentary and testimonial discovery is still being conducted in these proceedings, it may be necessary for the Department, pursuant to Section 2.740(e) of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's Rules of Practice to supplement or amend these Responses prior to trial to include any additional infor-mation which may become available.
HL&P Interrogatory 1(a)
HL&P Interrogatory 1(a) 1.
: 1. At several points in the South Texas OL advice letter the Division refers to an " intrastate only agreement" between Houston and TU.
At several points in the South Texas OL advice letter the Division refers to an " intrastate only agreement" between Houston and TU.
(a)   Explain what is meant by the term " intrastate only agreement" and state the e..act terins of the alleged agreement.
(a)
Explain what is meant by the term " intrastate only agreement" and state the e..act terins of the alleged agreement.
Department's Initial Response to HL&P Interrogatory 1(a)
Department's Initial Response to HL&P Interrogatory 1(a)
The Department contends that Houston Lighting and Power and Texas Utilities (and its operating subsidiaries) are parties to agreements and an understanding that provides,.at least in part, that neither utility will engage in interstate commerce or allow itself to become connected with any utility that is engaged in in-terstate commerce. Further, the Department contends that HL&P and TU have mutually agreed to disconnect from any utility that engages in interstate commerce or becomes interconnected with any utility engaged in interstate commerce.
The Department contends that Houston Lighting and Power and Texas Utilities (and its operating subsidiaries) are parties to agreements and an understanding that provides,.at least in part, that neither utility will engage in interstate commerce or allow itself to become connected with any utility that is engaged in in-terstate commerce.
Further, the Department contends that HL&P and TU have mutually agreed to disconnect from any utility that engages in interstate commerce or becomes interconnected with any utility engaged in interstate commerce.
Department's Supplemental Response to HL&P Interrogatory 1(a)
Department's Supplemental Response to HL&P Interrogatory 1(a)
The Department contends that HL&P, TU, and other electric utilities which are members of the Texas Interconnected System
The Department contends that HL&P, TU, and other electric utilities which are members of the Texas Interconnected System
(" TIS"),1/ have engaged in a continuing agreement and concert of action, and have one or more understandings, inconsistent 1/ The Department does not contend that the City of Brownsville, which was admitted as a TIS nember in May, 1979, is a party to the " intrastate only agreemen'."
(" TIS"),1/ have engaged in a continuing agreement and concert of action, and have one or more understandings, inconsistent 1/ The Department does not contend that the City of Brownsville, which was admitted as a TIS nember in May, 1979, is a party to the " intrastate only agreemen'."


  .                                         with the antitrust laws in violation of Section 105(c) of the Atomic Energy Act, 42 U.S.C. S2135. This continuing agreement, concert of action and understanding (s) is referred to in the OL advice letter as the " intrastate only agreement" .
. with the antitrust laws in violation of Section 105(c) of the Atomic Energy Act, 42 U.S.C.
S2135.
This continuing agreement, concert of action and understanding (s) is referred to in the OL advice letter as the " intrastate only agreement".
The " intrastate only agreement" has been incorporated in at least the terms and conditions of: (1) contracts between and among HL&P, TU and other utilities with whom HL&P and TU are intercon-nected, inter alia, directly or indirectly in synchronous operation; 1/
The " intrastate only agreement" has been incorporated in at least the terms and conditions of: (1) contracts between and among HL&P, TU and other utilities with whom HL&P and TU are intercon-nected, inter alia, directly or indirectly in synchronous operation; 1/
(2) the Comanche Peak Participation %greement ("CP Participation Agreement"); (3) the South Texas Project Participation Agreement
(2) the Comanche Peak Participation %greement ("CP Participation Agreement"); (3) the South Texas Project Participation Agreement
("STP Participation Agreement"); and (4) the Electric Reliability Council of Texas ("ERCOT") Agreement. The terms of the agreement have also been manifested in the acts of the parties to the agreement. Among the principal acts which evidence the " intrastate only agreement" between HL&P, TU and other members of TIS are:
("STP Participation Agreement"); and (4) the Electric Reliability Council of Texas ("ERCOT") Agreement.
The terms of the agreement have also been manifested in the acts of the parties to the agreement.
Among the principal acts which evidence the " intrastate only agreement" between HL&P, TU and other members of TIS are:
(1) the refusal by HL&P and/or TU to interconnect with any electric utility in interstate commerce, including the refusal to inter-connect with any electric utility that operates in interstate commerce unless HL&P and TU can obtain a jurisdictional waiver or exemption from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission ("FERC")
(1) the refusal by HL&P and/or TU to interconnect with any electric utility in interstate commerce, including the refusal to inter-connect with any electric utility that operates in interstate commerce unless HL&P and TU can obtain a jurisdictional waiver or exemption from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission ("FERC")
1/ This group of utilities, including HL&P and TU, will be referred to throughout as the " TIS area utilities."
1/ This group of utilities, including HL&P and TU, will be referred to throughout as the " TIS area utilities."


                                      ~4_
~4_
(See Department's Supplemental Response to HL&P Interrogatory 26(b)-(c) hetein.); (2) the agreement between or among HL&P and/or TU and other TIS area utilitiec to disconnect from any electric utility, with whic:h they are interconnected that enters into interstate commerce end is subject to FERC jurisdiction; (3) the actual disconnection of HL&P and TU from other members of TIS when West Texas Utilities and Central Power & Light entered into interstate commerce on May 4, 1976; (4) the requirement that third party utilities with which TU and HL&P are interconnected, directly or indirectly, that wish to remain interconnected with HL&P and/or TU to operate only in intrastate commerce, unless HT.&P and TU can obtain a waiver or exe.mption from FERC jurisdiction; (5) an agreement to plan and operate its electrical syste's in such a manner that neither HL&P nor TU operates in interstate commerce, unless HL&P and TU could obtain a waiver or exemption from FERC jurisdiction; (6) inspection by TU and HL&P c f transmission and distribution lines and potential interstate intersonnection points to insure that no electrical power flows into or out of the State of Texas; and (7) the contention of HL&P and TU in West Texas Utilities Co. v.
(See Department's Supplemental Response to HL&P Interrogatory 26(b)-(c) hetein.); (2) the agreement between or among HL&P and/or TU and other TIS area utilitiec to disconnect from any electric utility, with whic:h they are interconnected that enters into interstate commerce end is subject to FERC jurisdiction; (3) the actual disconnection of HL&P and TU from other members of TIS when West Texas Utilities and Central Power & Light entered into interstate commerce on May 4, 1976; (4) the requirement that third party utilities with which TU and HL&P are interconnected, directly or indirectly, that wish to remain interconnected with HL&P and/or TU to operate only in intrastate commerce, unless HT.&P and TU can obtain a waiver or exe.mption from FERC jurisdiction; (5) an agreement to plan and operate its electrical syste's in such a manner that neither HL&P nor TU operates in interstate commerce, unless HL&P and TU could obtain a waiver or exemption from FERC jurisdiction; (6) inspection by TU and HL&P c f transmission and distribution lines and potential interstate intersonnection points to insure that no electrical power flows into or out of the State of Texas; and (7) the contention of HL&P and TU in West Texas Utilities Co. v.
                              ~
~
Texas Electric Service Company, et al., that Section 8.2 of the STP Participation Agreement precludes Central Power & Light, City Public Service Board of San Antonio, City of Austin Electric Department, HL&P and any future owners of STP from operating in interstate commerce so as to become subject to FERC jurisdiction.
Texas Electric Service Company, et al.,
that Section 8.2 of the STP Participation Agreement precludes Central Power & Light, City Public Service Board of San Antonio, City of Austin Electric Department, HL&P and any future owners of STP from operating in interstate commerce so as to become subject to FERC jurisdiction.
The aforementioned acts, however, cannot be considered alone,
The aforementioned acts, however, cannot be considered alone,


in isolation from each other since HL&P, TU and the other members of TIS have operated their systems with the knowledge and understanding that all members of TIS would abide by the
. in isolation from each other since HL&P, TU and the other members of TIS have operated their systems with the knowledge and understanding that all members of TIS would abide by the
      " intrastate only agreement" . Individually and collectively the aforementioned acts a' circumstances are evidence.of the
" intrastate only agreement".
      " intrastate only ag reement" , which the Department contends is inconsistent with the antitrust laws.
Individually and collectively the aforementioned acts a' circumstances are evidence.of the
HL&P Interrogatory 1(b)
" intrastate only ag reement", which the Department contends is inconsistent with the antitrust laws.
: 1. At several points in the South Texas OL advice letter the Division refers to an " intrastate only agreement" between Houston and TU.
HL&P Interrogatory 1(b) 1.
(b)   Does the Division contend that such an agreement has existed only since October, 1974? If not, explain how the character of sucn agreement, and any refusals pureuant to it, prior to October, 1974 differs from such agreement and refusals after October, 1974.
At several points in the South Texas OL advice letter the Division refers to an " intrastate only agreement" between Houston and TU.
(b)
Does the Division contend that such an agreement has existed only since October, 1974?
If not, explain how the character of sucn agreement, and any refusals pureuant to it, prior to October, 1974 differs from such agreement and refusals after October, 1974.
Department's Initial Response to HL&P Interrogatory 1(b)
Department's Initial Response to HL&P Interrogatory 1(b)
The Department does not contend that such agreement has existed only since October, 1974. The Department objects to the remainder of this section of the interrogatory on the grounds that the question elicits neither facts nor evidence but is argumentative in nature the and tone; mental furthet, conclusions, impresnions, the question is designed to elicit opinions and legal theories of the Department's attorneys in R.
The Department does not contend that such agreement has existed only since October, 1974.
contr avention of NRC Rule of Practice S2.740(b)(2) and FED.
The Department objects to the remainder of this section of the interrogatory on the grounds that the question elicits neither facts nor evidence but is argumentative in nature and tone; furthet, the question is the mental impresnions, conclusions, designed to elicit opinions and legal theories of the Department's attorneys in contr avention of NRC Rule of Practice S2.740(b)(2) and FED.
CIV. P. 26(bl(3).
R.
CIV.
P. 26(bl(3).
Department's Suppleniental Response to HL&P Interrogatory 1(b)
Department's Suppleniental Response to HL&P Interrogatory 1(b)
The Department has no further information to supplement its previous response.
The Department has no further information to supplement its previous response.
HL&P Interrogatory 1(c) & (d)
HL&P Interrogatory 1(c) & (d) several points in the South Texas OL advice letter 1.
: 1. At several points in the South Texas OL advice letter the Division refers to an " intrastate only agreement" between Houston and TU.
At between the Division refers to an " intrastate only agreement" Houston and TU.


(c)   State whether the Division has knowledge of any spe-cific refusal by HL&P or TU to in te rconnec t with an interstate utility in furtherance of the alleged agreement, and as to each such refusal furnish the following information: (1) identification of each person representing HL&P or TU who decided upon or made the refusal; (2) identification of the refused utility; (3) identifi-cation of each person who received the refusal; (4) identification of the refused interconnection; (5) description of the circumstances surrounding the refusals; (6) date of refusal; (7) form of refusal (i.e., written or oral, in person or by telephone), and, if oral, identification of all persons present; (8) action taken by the refused utility; (9) identification of any other utilities or persons with whom HL&P or TU consulted or communicated before making the refusal or as a result of the refusal; and (10) date and form of such consultation or communication.
. (c)
(d)   State the basis for, and provide all documents relating to, the Division's allegation that "the clear intent of the [ intrastate only] agreement is to prevent the parties from entering into interstate commerce." (p. 8).
State whether the Division has knowledge of any spe-cific refusal by HL&P or TU to in te rconnec t with an interstate utility in furtherance of the alleged agreement, and as to each such refusal furnish the following information: (1) identification of each person representing HL&P or TU who decided upon or made the refusal; (2) identification of the refused utility; (3) identifi-cation of each person who received the refusal; (4) identification of the refused interconnection; (5) description of the circumstances surrounding the refusals; (6) date of refusal; (7) form of refusal (i.e., written or oral, in person or by telephone), and, if oral, identification of all persons present; (8) action taken by the refused utility; (9) identification of any other utilities or persons with whom HL&P or TU consulted or communicated before making the refusal or as a result of the refusal; and (10) date and form of such consultation or communication.
(d)
State the basis for, and provide all documents relating to, the Division's allegation that "the clear intent of the [ intrastate only] agreement is to prevent the parties from entering into interstate commerce." (p. 8).
Department's Initial Response to HL&P Interrogatory 1(c)-(d)
Department's Initial Response to HL&P Interrogatory 1(c)-(d)
Because of the delay in obtaining documents from HL6P and TU, the Department has not yet had the opportunity to complete its review of discovery niaterials to the extent necessary to respond to this part of the interrogatory. Document review and investigation are continuing.
Because of the delay in obtaining documents from HL6P and TU, the Department has not yet had the opportunity to complete its review of discovery niaterials to the extent necessary to respond to this part of the interrogatory.
Department's Supplemental Response to HL&P Interrogatorv 1(c)(1)-(10) and (d)                                   .
Document review and investigation are continuing.
Refer to Department's Supplemental Response to HL&P Inter-rogatory 1, 26(b)-(c) and 29 herein. The information sought by the remainder of this interrogatory is contained in the deposition transcripts in these proceedings, the deposition transcripts and testimony in West Texas Utilities Co. v.
Department's Supplemental Response to HL&P Interrogatorv 1(c)(1)-(10) and (d)
Texas Electric Service Company, et al., the documents provided to the Department during discovery, to which HL&P and TU have had access, and the documents provided to the Department by other parties. Any documents the Department has.which have
Refer to Department's Supplemental Response to HL&P Inter-rogatory 1, 26(b)-(c) and 29 herein.
* 1 t
The information sought by the remainder of this interrogatory is contained in the deposition transcripts in these proceedings, the deposition transcripts and testimony in West Texas Utilities Co. v.
t not been produced e;ther oy HL&P or TU, or in discovery, are being pr'vided in t!     epartment's Response to Houston Lighting
Texas Electric Service Company, et al.,
    & Power Company's Third Interrogatories, filed herewith.
the documents provided to the Department during discovery, to which HL&P and TU have had access, and the documents provided to the Department by other parties.
HL&P Interrogatory 2
Any documents the Department has.which have
: 2.       State the basis for, and provide all documents relating to, the Division's allegation that "HL&P and TU of fered the only realistic opportunity for interconnection to these systems" (p. 5), and in so doing identify the specific systems referred to by the term "these systems".
 
Department's Initial Response to HL&P Interrogatory 2 The advice letter, as is evident on its face, is discussing the situation in Texas, as viewed by the Justice Department, during the time of the Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station construction permit antitrust review. The basis for the quoted statement in Interrogatory No. 2 is set forth in that part of the paragraph on page 5 of the advice letter preceding the quoted portion. As indicated therein, the size of HL&P and TU, and the nature, extent, and location of their generation, transmission, and distribution facilities resulted in their being the only realistic opportunity for interconnection of the systems in central and south Texas.     "These systems" referred to on page five of the advice letter includes the other members of TlS:     the Lower Colorado River Authority, City Public Service Board of San Antonio, City of Austin, Central Power and Light Company and West Texas Utilities Company. The documents upon which this portion of the advice letter is based are those documents and maps provided to the Department by TU and HL&P as part of the antitrust review process of the Comanche Peak and Allens Creek construction permit applications.
1
- t t
not been produced e;ther oy HL&P or TU, or in discovery, are being pr'vided in t!
epartment's Response to Houston Lighting
& Power Company's Third Interrogatories, filed herewith.
HL&P Interrogatory 2 2.
State the basis for, and provide all documents relating to, the Division's allegation that "HL&P and TU of fered the only realistic opportunity for interconnection to these systems" (p. 5), and in so doing identify the specific systems referred to by the term "these systems".
Department's Initial Response to HL&P Interrogatory 2 The advice letter, as is evident on its face, is discussing the situation in Texas, as viewed by the Justice Department, during the time of the Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station construction permit antitrust review.
The basis for the quoted statement in Interrogatory No. 2 is set forth in that part of the paragraph on page 5 of the advice letter preceding the quoted portion.
As indicated therein, the size of HL&P and TU, and the nature, extent, and location of their generation, transmission, and distribution facilities resulted in their being the only realistic opportunity for interconnection of the systems in central and south Texas.
"These systems" referred to on page five of the advice letter includes the other members of TlS:
the Lower Colorado River Authority, City Public Service Board of San Antonio, City of Austin, Central Power and Light Company and West Texas Utilities Company.
The documents upon which this portion of the advice letter is based are those documents and maps provided to the Department by TU and HL&P as part of the antitrust review process of the Comanche Peak and Allens Creek construction permit applications.
Department's Supplemental Response to HL&P Interrogatory 2 HL&P and TU dominate total generation in TIS.Therefore TIS area utilities depend on HL&P and TU for wholesale power sales.
Department's Supplemental Response to HL&P Interrogatory 2 HL&P and TU dominate total generation in TIS.Therefore TIS area utilities depend on HL&P and TU for wholesale power sales.
TU dominates transmission in NTIS, and TU and HL&P dominate trans-mission botween STIS and NTIS.     Therefore utilities in the NTIS area depend on TU for transmission, and utilities located in the STIS area depend on TU and HL&P for transmission between NTIS and STIS. Moreover, the other systems in TIS depend on TU or HL&P for
TU dominates transmission in NTIS, and TU and HL&P dominate trans-mission botween STIS and NTIS.
Therefore utilities in the NTIS area depend on TU for transmission, and utilities located in the STIS area depend on TU and HL&P for transmission between NTIS and STIS.
Moreover, the other systems in TIS depend on TU or HL&P for


e                                                                   !
e
for coordiration services. For these reasons, the Department believes that "HL&P and TU offer the only realistic opportunity for interconnection to these systems."
. for coordiration services.
HL&P Interrogatory 3(a)
For these reasons, the Department believes that "HL&P and TU offer the only realistic opportunity for interconnection to these systems."
: 3.     State the basis for, and provide all documents relating to, the Division's allegation that ' membership in TIS was essential if the smaller electric syst<ms were to compete ef fectively with the larger systems that vere members of TIS" (p. 6), and in so doing:
HL&P Interrogatory 3(a) 3.
(a)     identify the specifi: sjstems referred to by the terms " smaller electric systems", and " larger systems"; and Department's Initial Response to HL&P lnterrogatory 3(a)
State the basis for, and provide all documents relating to, the Division's allegation that ' membership in TIS was essential if the smaller electric syst<ms were to compete ef fectively with the larger systems that vere members of TIS" (p. 6), and in so doing:
This statement was restating the views of the Department as set forth in its 1974 letter of advice with respect to the Comanche Peak antitrust review. The basis for this statement on page 6 of the advice letter is that isolated systems, that is, electric systems without interconnections, will have a higher cost of power and reduced reliability as compared to a system having interconnections with other electric systems over which emergency and maintenance services can be exchanged, reserves can be shared, economy energy can be exchanged,and other programs of coordinated operation and coordinated development can be carried out. A system with higher costs and less reliablity resulting from not being able to engage in these activities will be at a competitive disadvantage with another system that is able to interconnect and achieve lower cost and higher reliability through those inter connec t ions . No specific documents were relied on by the Department in making this statement.
(a) identify the specifi: sjstems referred to by the terms " smaller electric systems", and " larger systems"; and Department's Initial Response to HL&P lnterrogatory 3(a)
This statement was restating the views of the Department as set forth in its 1974 letter of advice with respect to the Comanche Peak antitrust review.
The basis for this statement on page 6 of the advice letter is that isolated systems, that is, electric systems without interconnections, will have a higher cost of power and reduced reliability as compared to a system having interconnections with other electric systems over which emergency and maintenance services can be exchanged, reserves can be shared, economy energy can be exchanged,and other programs of coordinated operation and coordinated development can be carried out.
A system with higher costs and less reliablity resulting from not being able to engage in these activities will be at a competitive disadvantage with another system that is able to interconnect and achieve lower cost and higher reliability through those inter connec t ions.
No specific documents were relied on by the Department in making this statement.
The " smaller electric systems" referred to in the letter were Brazos Electric Power Cooperative, the members of the Texas Municipal Power Pool, South Texas Electric Cooperative, Medina Electric Cooperative, and any other electric systems in the state that owned generation or that might subsequently acquire generation capability and that were physically located in or around the geographic area served by the members of the Texas Interconnected System.
The " smaller electric systems" referred to in the letter were Brazos Electric Power Cooperative, the members of the Texas Municipal Power Pool, South Texas Electric Cooperative, Medina Electric Cooperative, and any other electric systems in the state that owned generation or that might subsequently acquire generation capability and that were physically located in or around the geographic area served by the members of the Texas Interconnected System.
The " larger systems" referred to in the letter are the nine members of the Texas Interconnected System as of the time of the Department's Comanche Peak antitrust review in 1974.
The " larger systems" referred to in the letter are the nine members of the Texas Interconnected System as of the time of the Department's Comanche Peak antitrust review in 1974.


Department's Supplemental Response to HL&P Interrogatory 3(a)
. Department's Supplemental Response to HL&P Interrogatory 3(a)
See Department 's Supplemental Response to HL&P Interrogatory 27 herein. In addition, some of the smaller electric systems listed in the Department's Supplemental Desponse to HL&P Interrogatory 28, which only distribute power at this time, may benefit from TIS membership vis-a-vis their present or future interests in generation. This list, however, does not include various electric utilities not in Texas but whose systems may be or are af fected b:r the " intrastate only agreement" and which may have an interest in obtaining TIS membership.
See Department 's Supplemental Response to HL&P Interrogatory 27 herein.
In addition to the information previously provided, the Department contends that TIS membership is essential to the smaller electric systems since they must have knowledge of and input into the planning and operating decisions of the TIS in order to be able to plan and operate their own systems in the most efficient and economical manner and thereby compete effectively with current TIS members. Specifically, the " smaller electric systems" need information pertaining to sources of     ,
In addition, some of the smaller electric systems listed in the Department's Supplemental Desponse to HL&P Interrogatory 28, which only distribute power at this time, may benefit from TIS membership vis-a-vis their present or future interests in generation.
available bulk power, the terms and conditions for purchasing such power (e.g., wheeling arrangements) and access to such bulk power. Furthermore, information regarding the terms and conditions
This list, however, does not include various electric utilities not in Texas but whose systems may be or are af fected b:r the " intrastate only agreement" and which may have an interest in obtaining TIS membership.
                                          ~
In addition to the information previously provided, the Department contends that TIS membership is essential to the smaller electric systems since they must have knowledge of and input into the planning and operating decisions of the TIS in order to be able to plan and operate their own systems in the most efficient and economical manner and thereby compete effectively with current TIS members.
for obtaining services such as partial requirement power, emergency power, reserve sharing, and maintenance services, which are cur-rently provided by TIS members to each other, is a valuable benefit of the TIS system. Without TIS membership, the " smaller electric systems" may also be deprived of an important forum in which to
Specifically, the " smaller electric systems" need information pertaining to sources of available bulk power, the terms and conditions for purchasing such power (e.g., wheeling arrangements) and access to such bulk power.
Furthermore, information regarding the terms and conditions
~
for obtaining services such as partial requirement power, emergency power, reserve sharing, and maintenance services, which are cur-rently provided by TIS members to each other, is a valuable benefit of the TIS system.
Without TIS membership, the " smaller electric systems" may also be deprived of an important forum in which to


_lo_
_lo_
Line 116: Line 173:
: v. Texas _E_1_ectric Service Company, et al, the documents provided to the Department by HL&P or TU, the documents provided to the Department during discovery, to wh_ch HL&P and TU have had access, and the documents provided to the Department by other parties.
: v. Texas _E_1_ectric Service Company, et al, the documents provided to the Department by HL&P or TU, the documents provided to the Department during discovery, to wh_ch HL&P and TU have had access, and the documents provided to the Department by other parties.
Any documents the Department has which have not been produced either by HL&P or TU, or in discovery, are being provided in the Department's Response to Houston Lighting & Power Company's Third Interrogatories, filed herewith.
Any documents the Department has which have not been produced either by HL&P or TU, or in discovery, are being provided in the Department's Response to Houston Lighting & Power Company's Third Interrogatories, filed herewith.
HL&P Interrogatory 3(b)
HL&P Interrogatory 3(b) 3.
: 3.     State the basis for, and provide all documents relating to, the Division's allegation that " membership in T1S was essential if the smaller electric systems were to compete effectively with the larger systems that were members of TIS" (p. 6), and in so doing:
State the basis for, and provide all documents relating to, the Division's allegation that " membership in T1S was essential if the smaller electric systems were to compete effectively with the larger systems that were members of TIS" (p. 6), and in so doing:
(b)     identify (1) all product and geographic mark     '
(b) identify (1) all product and geographic mark in which each such " smaller electric system" competes with each such larger system that was a member of TIS, (2) the type and extent of competition in each such market, and (3) the tarket shares of each utility in each such market.
in which each such " smaller electric system" competes with each such larger system that was a member of TIS, (2) the type and extent of competition in each such market, and (3) the tarket shares of each utility in each such market.
Department's Initial Response to HL&P Interrogatory 3(b)(1), (2) &_(3)
Department's Initial Response to HL&P Interrogatory 3(b)(1), (2) &_(3)
No formal or documented study was performed relating to product and geographic markets, the type and extent of competition, and the market shares of the utilities in each such market other than what is set forth in the Comanche Peak advice letter.
No formal or documented study was performed relating to product and geographic markets, the type and extent of competition, and the market shares of the utilities in each such market other than what is set forth in the Comanche Peak advice letter.


                                    -11_
-11_
Department's Supplemental Response to HL&P Interrocatory 3(b)
Department's Supplemental Response to HL&P Interrocatory 3(b)
The " smaller electric systems" are listed in the Department's Supplemental Response to HL&P's Interrogatory 27 and 28 herein.
The " smaller electric systems" are listed in the Department's Supplemental Response to HL&P's Interrogatory 27 and 28 herein.
The " larger systems" are TIS members except Brownsville.     The
The " larger systems" are TIS members except Brownsville.
      " smaller electric" systems compete with the " larger systems" in these four relevant product markets:
The
(A)     retail service market; (B)     wholesale power marke t; (C)     coordination services market; and the (D)     transmission services market (A)     In the retail service market, there are four general categories of actual competition:     (1) industrial; (2) yardstick; (3) franchise; and (4) fringe area.     The geographic extent of the market (1) for actual competition to attract actual industrial customers and (2) for actual yardstick competition between publicly, cooperatively, and privately owned utilities is the State of Texas.
" smaller electric" systems compete with the " larger systems" in these four relevant product markets:
Market shares have not been calculated for the markets in which in-dustrial customer and yardstick competition occur. The geographic extent of the retail service markets for (3) actual franchise compe-tition and (4) actual fringe area competition, is the general service area 1/ of each of the larger systems. Market shares 1/ The term " general service area" includes the retail service areas of the neighboring smaller systems within or near the retail service areas of a larger s . tem and the border areas between larger systems.
(A) retail service market; (B) wholesale power marke t; (C) coordination services market; and the (D) transmission services market (A)
In the retail service market, there are four general categories of actual competition:
(1) industrial; (2) yardstick; (3) franchise; and (4) fringe area.
The geographic extent of the market (1) for actual competition to attract actual industrial customers and (2) for actual yardstick competition between publicly, cooperatively, and privately owned utilities is the State of Texas.
Market shares have not been calculated for the markets in which in-dustrial customer and yardstick competition occur.
The geographic extent of the retail service markets for (3) actual franchise compe-tition and (4) actual fringe area competition, is the general service area 1/ of each of the larger systems.
Market shares 1/ The term " general service area" includes the retail service areas of the neighboring smaller systems within or near the retail service areas of a larger s. tem and the border areas between larger systems.


for the retail service area markets in which actual franchise and fringe area competition occur are shown in Appendix A.
. for the retail service area markets in which actual franchise and fringe area competition occur are shown in Appendix A.
In addition to actual competition in the retail service markets, there is the potential for competition in two of the aforementioned general categories of competition:     (3) franchise and (4) fringe area. Potential competition in these two cate-gories would occur in a larger geographic market than the geographic market for actual competition but for the " intrastate only agreement".
In addition to actual competition in the retail service markets, there is the potential for competition in two of the aforementioned general categories of competition:
B.     In the wholesale power market, there is actual competition to sell wholesale power to captive and independent retail distribution load centers. The geographic extent of these markets is the same as for actual competition in the categories of fringe area and franchise competition in the retail service area markets, axcept for the three combined     TU subsidiaries which together constitute a single geographic market.     Market shares for this set of markets are shown in Appendix B.     In addition to actual competition in the wholesale power market, there is the, potential for competition to sell wholesale power to captive and independent retail load centers. Potential
(3) franchise and (4) fringe area.
    ' competition in the wholesale power market would occur in a larger geographic market than the geographic market for actual competition but for the " intrastate only agreement".
Potential competition in these two cate-gories would occur in a larger geographic market than the geographic market for actual competition but for the " intrastate only agreement".
B.
In the wholesale power market, there is actual competition to sell wholesale power to captive and independent retail distribution load centers.
The geographic extent of these markets is the same as for actual competition in the categories of fringe area and franchise competition in the retail service area markets, axcept for the three combined TU subsidiaries which together constitute a single geographic market.
Market shares for this set of markets are shown in Appendix B.
In addition to actual competition in the wholesale power market, there is the, potential for competition to sell wholesale power to captive and independent retail load centers.
Potential
' competition in the wholesale power market would occur in a larger geographic market than the geographic market for actual competition but for the " intrastate only agreement".


C. The coordination services market includes operational and developmental coordination services. Operational coordina-tion includes services such as reserve sharing and control, economy energy, maintenance power, and short-term power. Develop-mental coordination includes services such as the joint planning, construction, and ownership of new bulk power generation and transmission facilities. There is actual competition to gain access and to purchase, sell, and exchange these services. The geographic extent of the actual coordination services market is the TIS area. Market shares for this market have not been calculated. Market shares for reserve sharing and control in STIS and NTIS are shown in Appendix C.
C.
In addition to actual competition in the coordination services market, there is the potential for competition in the coordination services markets. Potential competition in the coordination services market would occur in a larger geographic market than the geographic market for actual competition but for the " intrastate only agreement."
The coordination services market includes operational and developmental coordination services.
D. The transmission services market includes the trans-portation of wholesale bulk power and coordination services bulk power from generating plants to distribution load centers. The geographic extent of actual competition in the transmission services market is the TIS area. Market shares for this market have not been calculated.
Operational coordina-tion includes services such as reserve sharing and control, economy energy, maintenance power, and short-term power.
Develop-mental coordination includes services such as the joint planning, construction, and ownership of new bulk power generation and transmission facilities.
There is actual competition to gain access and to purchase, sell, and exchange these services.
The geographic extent of the actual coordination services market is the TIS area.
Market shares for this market have not been calculated.
Market shares for reserve sharing and control in STIS and NTIS are shown in Appendix C.
In addition to actual competition in the coordination services market, there is the potential for competition in the coordination services markets.
Potential competition in the coordination services market would occur in a larger geographic market than the geographic market for actual competition but for the " intrastate only agreement."
D.
The transmission services market includes the trans-portation of wholesale bulk power and coordination services bulk power from generating plants to distribution load centers.
The geographic extent of actual competition in the transmission services market is the TIS area.
Market shares for this market have not been calculated.


In addition to actual competition in the transmission services market there is the potential for competition in the transmission services market.           The geographic extent of the potential transmission services market would occur in a larger geographic market but for the " intrastate only agreement."
. In addition to actual competition in the transmission services market there is the potential for competition in the transmission services market.
The geographic extent of the potential transmission services market would occur in a larger geographic market but for the " intrastate only agreement."
HL&P Interrogatory 4(a)-(f)
HL&P Interrogatory 4(a)-(f)
With respect to the Division's statement in the Comanche Peak OL advice letter that "certain allegations were received, the general input of which was that [TU] has misused its dominant position in generation and transmission to restrain the competitive opportunities of smaller systems in Texas" (p. 3)
With respect to the Division's statement in the Comanche Peak OL advice letter that "certain allegations were received, the general input of which was that [TU] has misused its dominant position in generation and transmission to restrain the competitive opportunities of smaller systems in Texas" (p. 3)
(a)       identify all persons with whom the Division communicated in the course of its Comanche Peak antitrust review; (b)       identify by date, persons and utilities involved, each alleged misuse by TU of its dominant position in generation and transmission; (c)       specify to what extent, if any, Houston was involved in each such alleged misuse by TU; (d)       state the exact manner in which this alleged misuse of TU's dominant position was made possible by restrictions on interstate operation and, if so, why the Division did not object to such restrictions in its review of Comanche Peak in 1974; (e)       state why such allegations are relevant to proceedings in connection.with the STP or Comanche Peak operating license antitrust proceedings and explain why the conditions in the Comanche Peak construction permit were not adequate to remedy these allegations; and (f)       provide all documents which relate to (a) through (e) above.
(a) identify all persons with whom the Division communicated in the course of its Comanche Peak antitrust review; (b) identify by date, persons and utilities involved, each alleged misuse by TU of its dominant position in generation and transmission; (c) specify to what extent, if any, Houston was involved in each such alleged misuse by TU; (d) state the exact manner in which this alleged misuse of TU's dominant position was made possible by restrictions on interstate operation and, if so, why the Division did not object to such restrictions in its review of Comanche Peak in 1974; (e) state why such allegations are relevant to proceedings in connection.with the STP or Comanche Peak operating license antitrust proceedings and explain why the conditions in the Comanche Peak construction permit were not adequate to remedy these allegations; and (f) provide all documents which relate to (a) through (e) above.
Department's Initial Response to HL&P Interrogatory 4(a)-(f)
Department's Initial Response to HL&P Interrogatory 4(a)-(f)
(a)   1.         Ross A. Segrest, General Manager, Brazos Electric Power Cooperative, Inc.
(a) 1.
: 2.         J.F. Skelton, President, Texas Power & Light Company
Ross A. Segrest, General Manager, Brazos Electric Power Cooperative, Inc.
: 3. Perry Britten of Texas Utilities
2.
: 4. Argil L. Toalston, AEC
J.F.
: 5. Andrew Popper, AEC
Skelton, President, Texas Power & Light Company
: 6. Roger D. Ledbetter, TU Services
 
: 7. Joe Knotts, Debevoise & Liberman
. 3.
: 8. Nick Reynolds, Debevoise & Liberman
Perry Britten of Texas Utilities 4.
: 9. Neal D. Anderson, Worsham, Forsythe & Sampels
Argil L.
: 10. Mr. Maurice Messier, AEC
Toalston, AEC 5.
: 11. Charles Herring, General Manager, LCRA
Andrew Popper, AEC 6.
: 12. Robert Sites, Chief of Operations, LCRA
Roger D.
: 13. Elof Sodberg, Chief Engineer, LCRA
Ledbetter, TU Services 7.
: 14. Mr. L. E. Gross, General Manager of the Medina Electric Cooperative
Joe Knotts, Debevoise & Liberman 8.
: 15. Mr. Crawford, Counsel to Medina Electric Cooperative
Nick Reynolds, Debevoise & Liberman 9.
: 16. Mr. Pokorny, City of Austin
Neal D.
: 17. Mr. Rommel, City of Austin
Anderson, Worsham, Forsythe & Sampels 10.
: 18. Mr. D. Butler, City of Austin
Mr. Maurice Messier, AEC 11.
: 19. W. B. Townsend of Brazos Electric Power Cooperative
Charles Herring, General Manager, LCRA 12.
: 20. Mr. Coke Mills, Counsel to Brazos
Robert Sites, Chief of Operations, LCRA 13.
: 21. Mr. Trommershawsen, Consultant to Brazos
Elof Sodberg, Chief Engineer, LCRA 14.
: 22. Mr. J. T. Deely, General Manager, City of Public Service Company of San Antonio
Mr.
: 23. C. L. Cooke, Community Public Service Company of Fort Worth, Texas
L.
: 24. R. D. Wooster, Community Public Service Company of Fort Worth, Texas
E.
: 25. F. G. Von Huben, Community Public Service Company of Fort Worth, Texas
Gross, General Manager of the Medina Electric Cooperative 15.
: 26. W. D. Nuckols, Community Public Service Company of Fort Worth, Texas
Mr. Crawford, Counsel to Medina Electric Cooperative 16.
: 27. Jack Dickerson, City Manager, City of Commerce
Mr. Pokorny, City of Austin 17.
: 28. Charles Goforth, Southwestern Electric Service Company
Mr. Rommel, City of Austin 18.
: 29. Robert Rice, Southwestern Electric Service Company
Mr. D.
: 30. J. P. Rice, Southwestern Electric Service Company
Butler, City of Austin 19.
: 31. H. E. Hayes, Southwestern Electric Service Company
W.
: 32. Joseph Rutberg, AEC
B.
: 33. Maurice Messier, AEC
Townsend of Brazos Electric Power Cooperative 20.
: 34. Howa rd K . -Shapar , AEC 4(b)
Mr. Coke Mills, Counsel to Brazos 21.
Mr. Trommershawsen, Consultant to Brazos 22.
Mr. J.
T.
Deely, General Manager, City of Public Service Company of San Antonio 23.
C.
L.
Cooke, Community Public Service Company of Fort Worth, Texas 24.
R.
D.
Wooster, Community Public Service Company of Fort Worth, Texas 25.
F. G. Von Huben, Community Public Service Company of Fort Worth, Texas 26.
W. D. Nuckols, Community Public Service Company of Fort Worth, Texas 27.
Jack Dickerson, City Manager, City of Commerce 28.
Charles Goforth, Southwestern Electric Service Company 29.
Robert Rice, Southwestern Electric Service Company 30.
J.
P.
Rice, Southwestern Electric Service Company 31.
H.
E.
Hayes, Southwestern Electric Service Company 32.
Joseph Rutberg, AEC 33.
Maurice Messier, AEC 34.
Howa rd K. -Shapar, AEC 4(b)
It appears that there were serious allegations made regarding the willingness of the TU system to engage in coordination and shared participation in nuclear plants with smal le r systems.
It appears that there were serious allegations made regarding the willingness of the TU system to engage in coordination and shared participation in nuclear plants with smal le r systems.
In particular, questions were raised about participation by Brazos in the Comanche Peak Project, as well as whether TU would support the application of Brazos to become a full member of TIS. Furthermore, there was evidence that the City of Commerce, who wished to interconnect with the City of Greenville, could not accomplish this objective due to the unwillingness of TP&L to allow access to its transmission lines. These allegations,
In particular, questions were raised about participation by Brazos in the Comanche Peak Project, as well as whether TU would support the application of Brazos to become a full member of TIS.
Furthermore, there was evidence that the City of Commerce, who wished to interconnect with the City of Greenville, could not accomplish this objective due to the unwillingness of TP&L to allow access to its transmission lines.
These allegations,


and other potentially anticompetitive practices relating to the Cities of Greenville, Medina, and Gar land, were not investigated more thoroughly due to the acceptance by TU of agreed licensed conditions to be affixed to the construction permit for Comanche Peak.
. and other potentially anticompetitive practices relating to the Cities of Greenville, Medina, and Gar land, were not investigated more thoroughly due to the acceptance by TU of agreed licensed conditions to be affixed to the construction permit for Comanche Peak.
4(c)
4(c)
At the time the construction permit review for Comanche Peak was undertaken, there was no indication of involvement by Houston Lighting and Power in the alleged anticompetitive practices of TU, other than HL&P was also a dominant member of TIS.
At the time the construction permit review for Comanche Peak was undertaken, there was no indication of involvement by Houston Lighting and Power in the alleged anticompetitive member of practices of TU, other than HL&P was also a dominant TIS.
4(d)
4(d)
The Department objects to interrogatory 4(d) on the grounds that the question elicits neither facts nor evidence but is argumentative in nature and tone; further the question is designed to elicit the mental impressions ~, conclu sions, opinions and legal theories of the Department's attorneys in     contravention R. CIV. P. 26(b)(3),
The Department objects to interrogatory 4(d) on the grounds that the question elicits neither facts nor evidence but is argumentative in nature and tone; further the question is the mental impressions ~, conclu sions, opinions designed to elicit legal theories of the Department's attorneys in contravention and of NRC Rule of Practice S2.740(b)(2) and FED.
of NRC Rule of Practice S2.740(b)(2) and FED.
R.
and calls for a response that is privileged communication between attorney and client and is therefore not subject to discovery pursuant to Fed. R. Evid. 501.
CIV. P.
26(b)(3),
and calls for a response that is privileged communication between attorney and client and is therefore not subject to discovery pursuant to Fed.
R.
Evid. 501.
4(e)
4(e)
The Department objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that the question elicits neither facts nor evidence but is argumentative in nature and tone; further, the question is designed to elicit the mental impressions, conclusions, opinions and legal theories of the Department's attorneys in R.
The Department objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that the question elicits neither facts nor evidence but is argumentative in nature and tone; further, the question is designed to elicit the mental impressions, conclusions, opinions and legal theories of the Department's attorneys in contravention of NRC Rule of Practice S2.740(b)(2) and FED.
contravention of NRC Rule of Practice S2.740(b)(2) and FED.
R.
CIV. P. 26(b)(3), and calls for a response that is privileged communication between attorney and client and is therefore not subject to discovery pursuant to Fed. R. Evid. 501.
CIV. P. 26(b)(3), and calls for a response that is privileged communication between attorney and client and is therefore not subject to discovery pursuant to Fed.
R.
Evid. 501.
Department's' Supplemental Response to HL&P Interrogatory 4(a)-(f)
Department's' Supplemental Response to HL&P Interrogatory 4(a)-(f)
The Department has no additional information responsive   to this interrogatory request which reflects the Department's knowledge at th e time of the Comanche Peak OL advice letter. The documents responsive to this interrogatory request include the deposition transcripts in these proceedings, the deposition transcripts and testimony in West Texas Utilities Co. v. Texas Electric Servic_e_
The Department has no additional information responsive to this interrogatory request which reflects the Department's knowledge at th e time of the Comanche Peak OL advice letter.
The documents responsive to this interrogatory request include the deposition transcripts in these proceedings, the deposition transcripts and testimony in West Texas Utilities Co. v. Texas Electric Servic_e_
Company, et al., the documents provided to the Department by HL&P
Company, et al., the documents provided to the Department by HL&P


or TU, the documents provided to the Department by HL&P or TU, the documents provided to the Department during discovery, to which HL&P and TU have had access, and the documents provided to the Department by other parties. Any documents the Department has which have not been produced, either by HL&P or TU, or in discovery, are being provided in the Department's Response to Houston Lighting & Power Company's Third Interrogatories, filed herewith.
or TU, the documents provided to the Department by HL&P or TU, the documents provided to the Department during discovery, to which HL&P and TU have had access, and the documents provided to the Department by other parties.
HL&P Interrogatory 5(a)
Any documents the Department has which have not been produced, either by HL&P or TU, or in discovery, are being provided in the Department's Response to Houston Lighting & Power Company's Third Interrogatories, filed herewith.
: 5.     With respect to the Divisi.on's statement in the Allens Creek advice letter that the Division "has uncovered no evidence that would indicate that [ Houston] is attempting to prevent participation in the joint ownership of nuclear facilities by any system or is otherwise presently impairing the competitive opportunities of other systems" (p. 3):
HL&P Interrogatory 5(a) 5.
(a)   identify those persons with whom the Division communicated in the course of its Allens Creek construction permit antitrust review; Department's Initial Response to HL&P Interrogatory 5(a)
With respect to the Divisi.on's statement in the Allens Creek advice letter that the Division "has uncovered no evidence that would indicate that [ Houston] is attempting to prevent participation in the joint ownership of nuclear facilities by any system or is otherwise presently impairing the competitive opportunities of other systems" (p. 3):
: 1. J. Alejandro, Manager, City of Robstown Utility Systems
(a) identify those persons with whom the Division communicated in the course of its Allens Creek construction permit antitrust review; Department's Initial Response to HL&P Interrogatory 5(a) 1.
: 2. Milton D. Hines, General Manager, Guadalupe Valley Electric Cooperative, Inc.
J. Alejandro, Manager, City of Robstown Utility Systems 2.
: 3. Preston E. Johnson, City Attorney, City of Liberty, Texas
Milton D.
: 4. Ross A. Segrest, General Manager, Brazos Electric Power Cooperative, Inc.
Hines, General Manager, Guadalupe Valley Electric Cooperative, Inc.
: 5. L. E. Gross, General Manager, Medina Electric Cooperative
3.
: 6. Mr. Crawford, Attorney for Medina Electric Cooperative
Preston E. Johnson, City Attorney, City of Liberty, Texas 4.
: 7. J. T. Deely, General Manager, City Public Service Board of San Antonio
Ross A. Segrest, General Manager, Brazos Electric Power Cooperative, Inc.
: 8. Charles Herring, General Manager, LC RA
5.
: 9. Robert Sites, Chief of Operations, LCRA
L.
: 10. Elof Soderberg, Chief Engineer, LCRA
E. Gross, General Manager, Medina Electric Cooperative 6.
: 11. Mr. Pokorny, City of Austin
Mr. Crawford, Attorney for Medina Electric Cooperative 7.
: 12. Mr. Rommel, City of Austin
J.
: 13. Mr. D. Butler, City Attorney, City of Austin
T. Deely, General Manager, City Public Service Board of San Antonio 8.
Charles Herring, General Manager, LC RA 9.
Robert Sites, Chief of Operations, LCRA 10.
Elof Soderberg, Chief Engineer, LCRA 11.
Mr. Pokorny, City of Austin 12.
Mr. Rommel, City of Austin 13.
Mr. D.
Butler, City Attorney, City of Austin


    ,                              14. C. L. Cooke, President and Chief Executive Of ficer, Community Public Service Company
14.
: 15. R. D. Woofter, Vice President, Operations, Community Public Service Company
C.
: 16. P.G. Von lluben, Vice President and General Counsel, Community Public Servi ~e Company
L. Cooke, President and Chief Executive Of ficer, Community Public Service Company 15.
: 17. W. D. Nuckols, Vice President and Chief Engineer, Community Public Service Company
R.
: 18. W. B. Townsend, Brazos Electric Power Cooperative
D. Woofter, Vice President, Operations, Community Public Service Company 16.
: 19. Coke tiills, Attorney for Brazos Electric Cooperative
P.G. Von lluben, Vice President and General Counsel, Community Public Servi ~e Company 17.
: 20. fir. Trommershausen, Consultant to Brazos Electric Power Cooperative
W.
: 21. Howard K. Shapar, Assistant General Counsel, Atomic Energy Commission
D.
: 22. Maurice Messier, AEC
Nuckols, Vice President and Chief Engineer, Community Public Service Company 18.
: 23. Robert J. Verdisco, AEC
W.
: 24. Gulf States Utilities
B. Townsend, Brazos Electric Power Cooperative 19.
: 25. Jackson Electric Cooperative, Inc.
Coke tiills, Attorney for Brazos Electric Cooperative 20.
: 26. Mid-South Electric Cooperative Association
fir. Trommershausen, Consultant to Brazos Electric Power Cooperative 21.
: 27. Sam Ilouston Electric Coop, Inc.
Howard K. Shapar, Assistant General Counsel, Atomic Energy Commission 22.
: 28. San Bernard Electric Coop, Inc.
Maurice Messier, AEC 23.
: 29. Wharton County Electric Coop
Robert J. Verdisco, AEC 24.
: 30. Joseph Rutberg, AEC
Gulf States Utilities 25.
: 31. Fred C. Sandlin, City flanager, City of Pryan
Jackson Electric Cooperative, Inc.
: 32. Thos. Wilkinson, Manager, Ft. Belknap Electric Cooperative, Inc.
26.
: 33. Jim Harless, City Engineer, City of Ilearne, Texas
Mid-South Electric Cooperative Association 27.
: 34. Dave Marr, Jr. , City Secretary, City of Sanger, Texas
Sam Ilouston Electric Coop, Inc.
: 35. N. M. Malone, Office Manager, City of Weatherford
28.
: 36. M. D. IIead , Manage r, Wise Electric Coop
San Bernard Electric Coop, Inc.
: 37. James C. Feazelle, City Superintendent, City of Brady
29.
: 38. Roy McCorkle, City Manager, City of Coleman, Texas
Wharton County Electric Coop 30.
: 39. Jack Dickerson, City Manager, City of Comme rce, Texas
Joseph Rutberg, AEC 31.
: 40. John H. Butts, Assistant Manager, Deep East Texas Electric Cooperative, Inc.
Fred C. Sandlin, City flanager, City of Pryan 32.
: 41. Norman R. Lea, Execu tive Vice Pr esident, Gulf States Utilities Company
Thos. Wilkinson, Manager, Ft. Belknap Electric Cooperative, Inc.
: 42. City of Caldwell, Texas
33.
: 43. Lee McWilliams, Manager, Houston County Electric Cooperative, Inc.
Jim Harless, City Engineer, City of Ilearne, Texas 34.
: 44. Wayne DuBose, City Manager, City of Jasper, Texas
Dave Marr, Jr., City Secretary, City of Sanger, Texas 35.
: 45. Tom Hutchison, Vice Coordinator, Pedernales Electric Cooperative, Inc.
N.
: 46. Charles D. Go for th, President, Southwestern Electric Service Company
M. Malone, Office Manager, City of Weatherford 36.
: 47. Mr. J. P. Rice, Attorney, Southwestern Electric Service Company
M. D.
: 48. Roy G. Kain, City Manager, City of Teague, Texas
IIead, Manage r, Wise Electric Coop 37.
: 49. L. B. Council, Director of Physical Plant, Texas A&M University
James C.
Feazelle, City Superintendent, City of Brady 38.
Roy McCorkle, City Manager, City of Coleman, Texas 39.
Jack Dickerson, City Manager, City of Comme rce, Texas 40.
John H.
Butts, Assistant Manager, Deep East Texas Electric Cooperative, Inc.
41.
Norman R.
Lea, Execu tive Vice Pr esident, Gulf States Utilities Company 42.
City of Caldwell, Texas 43.
Lee McWilliams, Manager, Houston County Electric Cooperative, Inc.
44.
Wayne DuBose, City Manager, City of Jasper, Texas 45.
Tom Hutchison, Vice Coordinator, Pedernales Electric Cooperative, Inc.
46.
Charles D. Go for th, President, Southwestern Electric Service Company 47.
Mr. J.
P.
Rice, Attorney, Southwestern Electric Service Company 48.
Roy G.
Kain, City Manager, City of Teague, Texas 49.
L.
B.
Council, Director of Physical Plant, Texas A&M University
~-
~-
_        _m-
_m-


Department's Supplemental Response to HL&P Interrogatory 5(a)
. Department's Supplemental Response to HL&P Interrogatory 5(a)
The Department has no additional information which supplements its previous response.
The Department has no additional information which supplements its previous response.
HL&P Interrogatory 5(b)
HL&P Interrogatory 5(b)
With rc7,pect to the Division's statement in the Allens Creek advice letter that the Division "has uncovered no evidence that would indicate that [ Houston] is attempting to prevent participation in the joint ownership of nucicar facilities by any system or is otherwise presently impairing the competitive opportunities of other systems" (p. 3):
With rc7,pect to the Division's statement in the Allens Creek advice letter that the Division "has uncovered no evidence that would indicate that [ Houston] is attempting to prevent participation in the joint ownership of nucicar facilities by any system or is otherwise presently impairing the competitive opportunities of other systems" (p. 3):
(b)     state whether the Division has any evidence that HL&P is now attempting to prevent participation in the joint ownership of nuclear facilities or is otherwise impairing the competitive opportunities of other systems, and if so, specify each specific instance of any alleged attempt to do so and describe the manner in which there has been a cignificant change since October, 1974 in HL&P's conduct toward any electric system identified in response to this interrogatory; Department's Initial Response to HL&P Interrogatory 5(b)
(b) state whether the Division has any evidence that HL&P is now attempting to prevent participation in the joint ownership of nuclear facilities or is otherwise impairing the competitive opportunities of other systems, and if so, specify each specific instance of any alleged attempt to do so and describe the manner in which there has been a cignificant change since October, 1974 in HL&P's conduct toward any electric system identified in response to this interrogatory; Department's Initial Response to HL&P Interrogatory 5(b)
At the present time, the De par tme nt is continuing its investigation and review of available discovery materials.
At the present time, the De par tme nt is continuing its investigation and review of available discovery materials.
Because of the delay in obtaining documents from HL&P and TU, the Department has not yet had the opportunity to complete its review of discovery materials to the extent necessary to respond to this part of the interrogatory.
Because of the delay in obtaining documents from HL&P and TU, the Department has not yet had the opportunity to complete its review of discovery materials to the extent necessary to respond to this part of the interrogatory.
Department's Supplemental Response to HL&P Interrogatory 5(b)
Department's Supplemental Response to HL&P Interrogatory 5(b)
Refer to Department's Supplemental Response to HL&P Interrogatory 1(a) herein.
Refer to Department's Supplemental Response to HL&P Interrogatory 1(a) herein.
HL&P Interrogatory 5(c)
HL&P Interrogatory 5(c) 5.
: 5.     With respect to the Division's statement in the Allens Creek advice letter that the Division "has uncovered no evidence that would indicate that [ Houston] is attempting to prevent participation in the joint ownership of nuclear facilities by any system or is otherwise presently impairing the competitive opportunities of other systems" (p. 3):
With respect to the Division's statement in the Allens Creek advice letter that the Division "has uncovered no evidence that would indicate that [ Houston] is attempting to prevent participation in the joint ownership of nuclear facilities by any system or is otherwise presently impairing the competitive opportunities of other systems" (p. 3):


(c)   provide all documents which relate to the subject matter of this interrogatocy, the advice rendered in the Allens Creek advice letter, or any communications had in the course of the Allens Creek antitrust review.
, (c) provide all documents which relate to the subject matter of this interrogatocy, the advice rendered in the Allens Creek advice letter, or any communications had in the course of the Allens Creek antitrust review.
Department's Supplemental Response to HL&P Interrogatory 5(c)
Department's Supplemental Response to HL&P Interrogatory 5(c)
All documents responsive to this request have already been provided to HL&P and are still available for review.
All documents responsive to this request have already been provided to HL&P and are still available for review.
HL&P Interrogatory 6(a) and (b)
HL&P Interrogatory 6(a) and (b) 6.
: 6. With respect to the South Texas CP advice letter, (a)   identify those persons with whom the Division communicated in the course of its South Texas construction permit antitrust review; and (b)   provide all documents which relate to such communications or otherwise to the advice rendered.
With respect to the South Texas CP advice letter, (a) identify those persons with whom the Division communicated in the course of its South Texas construction permit antitrust review; and (b) provide all documents which relate to such communications or otherwise to the advice rendered.
Department's Initial Response to HL&P Interrogatory 6(a) & (b)
& (b)
Department's Initial Response to HL&P Interrogatory 6(a)
No additional investigation beyond that which was conducted for Allens Creek was undertaken for the South. Texas Project construction permit review.
No additional investigation beyond that which was conducted for Allens Creek was undertaken for the South. Texas Project construction permit review.
Department's Supplemental Response to HL&P Interrogatory 6(a) and (b)
Department's Supplemental Response to HL&P Interrogatory 6(a) and (b)
The Department has no additional information which supplements its previous response. All documents responsive to this request have already been provided to HL&P and are still available for review.
The Department has no additional information which supplements its previous response.
HL&P Interrogatory 7(a) and (b)
All documents responsive to this request have already been provided to HL&P and are still available for review.
: 7. With respect to the South Texas OL advice letter, (a)   identify those persons with whom the Division communicated in the course of its South Texas operating license antitrust review; and (b)   provide all documents which relate to such communications or otherwise to the advice rendered.
HL&P Interrogatory 7(a) and (b) 7.
With respect to the South Texas OL advice letter, (a) identify those persons with whom the Division communicated in the course of its South Texas operating license antitrust review; and (b) provide all documents which relate to such communications or otherwise to the advice rendered.


Department's Initial Response to HL&P Interrogatory 7(a)
Department's Initial Response to HL&P Interrogatory 7(a) 1.
: 1. Frederick H. Ritts, Attorney for Tex-La Electric Cooperative
Frederick H.
: 2. Michael I. Miller, Isham, Lincoln & Beale
Ritts, Attorney for Tex-La Electric Cooperative 2.
: 3. Richard E. Powell, Isham, Lincoln & Beale
Michael I.
: 4. David M. Stahl, Isham, Lincoln & Beale
Miller, Isham, Lincoln & Beale 3.
: 5. Joseph Gallo, Ishan , Lincoln & Beale
Richard E.
: 6. Richard D. Cudahy, Isham, Lincoln & Beale
Powell, Isham, Lincoln & Beale 4.
: 7. Mr. Lou Odle, City Manager, City of Bryan, Texas
David M.
: 8. Mr. Redman, Utility Manager, ' 'exas A&M University, College Station, 're xa s
Stahl, Isham, Lincoln & Beale 5.
: 9. Merlyn D. Sampels, Worsham, Forsythe & Sampels
Joseph Gallo, Ishan, Lincoln & Beale 6.
: 10. E. W. Barnett, Baker & Botts
Richard D. Cudahy, Isham, Lincoln & Beale 7.
: 11. J. Gregory Copeland, Baker & Botts
Mr. Lou Odle, City Manager, City of Bryan, Texas 8.
: 12. Theodore F. Weiss, Jr., Baker & Botts
Mr. Redman, Utility Manager, ' 'exas A&M University, College Station, 're xa s 9.
: 13. J. A. Bouknight, Lowenstein, Newman, Reis
Merlyn D. Sampels, Worsham, Forsythe & Sampels 10.
                & Axelrad
E.
: 14. Andrew Mcdonald, Attorney, SEC
W. Barnett, Baker & Botts 11.
: 15. McNeil Roberts, FERC
J. Gregory Copeland, Baker & Botts 12.
: 16. Stephen Taube, FERC
Theodore F.
: 17. Rodney Lee, Texas Municipal Power Authority
Weiss, Jr., Baker & Botts 13.
: 18. Roy P. Lessey, NRC Staff
J. A. Bouknight, Lowenstein, Newman, Reis
: 19. Michael Blume,- NRC Staf f Department's Supplemental Response to HL&P Interrogatory 7(a) and (b)
& Axelrad 14.
The Department has no additional information responsive to this request. All documents responsive to this interrogatory request have already been provided to HL&P and are still avail-able for review.
Andrew Mcdonald, Attorney, SEC 15.
HL&P Interrogatory 8(a)
McNeil Roberts, FERC 16.
: 8. State the basis for, and provide all documents relating to,' the Division's allegation that "the fuel situation in Texas has changed drastically since our prior letters of advice" (p. 7,, and in so doing:
Stephen Taube, FERC 17.
(a)   explain the exact nature of such fuel changes (e.g.,
Rodney Lee, Texas Municipal Power Authority 18.
Roy P.
Lessey, NRC Staff 19.
Michael Blume,- NRC Staf f Department's Supplemental Response to HL&P Interrogatory 7(a) and (b)
The Department has no additional information responsive to this request.
All documents responsive to this interrogatory request have already been provided to HL&P and are still avail-able for review.
HL&P Interrogatory 8(a) 8.
State the basis for, and provide all documents relating to,' the Division's allegation that "the fuel situation in Texas has changed drastically since our prior letters of advice" (p.
7,,
and in so doing:
(a) explain the exact nature of such fuel changes (e.g.,
are these changes in costs, availability, other factors or a combination of factors?);
are these changes in costs, availability, other factors or a combination of factors?);
Department's Initial Response to HL&P Interrogatory 8(a)
Department's Initial Response to HL&P Interrogatory 8(a)
The basis for the Department's statement regarding the drastic change in the fuel situation is set forth in the same paragraph from which the Applicant's have taken the quote. In addition to the documents provided pursuant to this request,
The basis for the Department's statement regarding the drastic change in the fuel situation is set forth in the same paragraph from which the Applicant's have taken the quote.
In addition to the documents provided pursuant to this request,


i the Department has also a number of PPC (now FERC) publications and other government publications dealing with the price and availability of natural gas.         These materials are all public documents and will be made available for inspection upon request.
i the Department has also a number of PPC (now FERC) publications and other government publications dealing with the price and availability of natural gas.
These materials are all public documents and will be made available for inspection upon request.
Department's Supplemental Response to HL&P Interrogatory 8(a)
Department's Supplemental Response to HL&P Interrogatory 8(a)
Since 1974, the price and supply of natural gas in Texas have changed dramatically, as reflected in the Orders of the Therefore, Texas Railroad Commission in Dockets 500 and 600.
Since 1974, the price and supply of natural gas in Texas have changed dramatically, as reflected in the Orders of the Texas Railroad Commission in Dockets 500 and 600.
many electric utilities which previously generated their power from natural gas have shifted either to alternative fuel sources or attempted to purchase bulk power.         These alternative generation fuels include nuclear, lignite, or coal.         However, in order to take advantage of the economies of scale in such generation, these
Therefore, many electric utilities which previously generated their power from natural gas have shifted either to alternative fuel sources or attempted to purchase bulk power.
                " smaller utilities" can only viably enter into joint generation projects with the larger utilities as partners.           HL&P and TU have either failed to make such opportunities available to all such smaller utilities or have ef fectively precluded the smaller electric utilities from taking advantage of joint generation projects by adherence to the " intrastate only agreement" .
These alternative generation fuels include nuclear, lignite, or coal.
However, in order to take advantage of the economies of scale in such generation, these
" smaller utilities" can only viably enter into joint generation projects with the larger utilities as partners.
HL&P and TU have either failed to make such opportunities available to all such smaller utilities or have ef fectively precluded the smaller electric utilities from taking advantage of joint generation projects by adherence to the " intrastate only agreement".
The documents which relate to this interrogatory response include the deposition transcripts in these proceedings, the
The documents which relate to this interrogatory response include the deposition transcripts in these proceedings, the
              ' deposition transcripts and testimony in West Texas Utilities Co.
' deposition transcripts and testimony in West Texas Utilities Co.
: v. Texas Electric Service Company, et al., the documents provided to the Department by HL&P or TU, the documents provided to the
: v. Texas Electric Service Company, et al.,
the documents provided to the Department by HL&P or TU, the documents provided to the


. ~ .
. ~.
Department during d'.scovery, to which HL&P and TU have had access, and the documents provided to the Department by other parties. Any documents the Department has which have not been produced either by HL&P or TU, or in discovery, are being provided in the Department's Response to Houston Lighting & Power Company's Third Interrogatories, filed herewith.
' Department during d'.scovery, to which HL&P and TU have had access, and the documents provided to the Department by other parties.
HL&P Interrcqqtory 8(b)
Any documents the Department has which have not been produced either by HL&P or TU, or in discovery, are being provided in the Department's Response to Houston Lighting & Power Company's Third Interrogatories, filed herewith.
: 8. State the basis for, and provide all documents r elating to, the Division's allegation that "the fuel situation in Texas has changed drastically since our prior letters of advice" (p. 7), and in so doing:
HL&P Interrcqqtory 8(b) 8.
(b)   explain why these changes in "the fuel situation in Texas" were not foreseeable by the Division as of October, 1974.
State the basis for, and provide all documents r elating to, the Division's allegation that "the fuel situation in Texas has changed drastically since our prior letters of advice" (p. 7), and in so doing:
(b) explain why these changes in "the fuel situation in Texas" were not foreseeable by the Division as of October, 1974.
Department's Initial Response to HLTP Interrogatory 8(b)
Department's Initial Response to HLTP Interrogatory 8(b)
The Department objects to this section of the interrogatory on the grounds that the question elicits neither facts nor evidence but is argumentative in nature and tone; further, the question is designed to elicit the mental impressions, conclusions, opinions and legal theories of the Department's attorneys in contravention of NRC Rule of Practice S2.740(b)(2) and FED. R. CIV. P. 26(b)(3).
The Department objects to this section of the interrogatory on the grounds that the question elicits neither facts nor evidence but is argumentative in nature and tone; further, the question is designed to elicit the mental impressions, conclusions, opinions and legal theories of the Department's attorneys in contravention of NRC Rule of Practice S2.740(b)(2) and FED.
R.
CIV. P. 26(b)(3).
Department's Supplemental Response to HL&P Interrogatory 8(b)
Department's Supplemental Response to HL&P Interrogatory 8(b)
The Department has no additional information which supplements its previous response.                             ,
The Department has no additional information which supplements its previous response.
HL&P Interrogatory 9 l
HL&P Interrogatory 9 l
: 9. State the basis for, and provide all documents relating to, the Division's allegation that "this changing fuel situation has had a significant impact on the competitive posture of the various utilities in Texas" (p. 7), and in so doing explain what is meant by the term " competitive posture";
9.
State the basis for, and provide all documents relating to, the Division's allegation that "this changing fuel situation has had a significant impact on the competitive posture of the various utilities in Texas" (p. 7), and in so doing explain what is meant by the term " competitive posture";
identify each of the referenced "various utilities in Texas";
identify each of the referenced "various utilities in Texas";
O
O


i I
. i I
and explain the exact manner in which the alleged change in the fuel situation has impaired their competitive posture in specified product and geographic markets.
and explain the exact manner in which the alleged change in the fuel situation has impaired their competitive posture in specified product and geographic markets.
Department's Initial Response to HL;P's Interrogatory 9 The term " competitive posture" refers to a system's ability to compete. As gas prices have risen in Texas the cost of generating electric power has likewise increased. An increase in tl'   ost of power may have an adverse effect on a utility's abilit, *o compete if its competitor is not exposed to the same increase in power costs, or if its competitor can otherwise mitigate any potential increases in power costs by increasing its coordinating activities and switching to alternative types of generation with relatively lower overall costs.
Department's Initial Response to HL;P's Interrogatory 9 The term " competitive posture" refers to a system's ability to compete.
          "The various utilities" refers to utilities in Texas with gas fired generation. While the Department had no specific utilities in mind with its reference to the various utilities, clearly those depending in whole or in part on the pipeline system of Lo Vaca Gas Gathering Company for their natural gas supply or on any other pipeline supplier whosc prices have increased commensurate with Lo Vaca's gas prices are the most affected. This group includes Central Power & Light, City Public Service Board of San Antonio, City of Austin, City of Brownsville, South Texas Electric Cooperative, Medina Electric Cooperative, and City of Robstown. The Department is still in the process of analyzing the effect of the increased gas prices on the power supply costs of these and other utilities in the state and is not in a position at present to explain the exact manner in which the fuel situation has impaired their competitive posture in any market relevant fo r ar.titru st analysis purposes.
As gas prices have risen in Texas the cost of generating electric power has likewise increased.
In general, however, increased costs of generating power will have an adverse effect on any and all levels of marketing electric power, whether retail, wholesale, or at the coordinating services market.               -
An increase in tl' ost of power may have an adverse effect on a utility's
Department's S*upplemental Response to HL&P's Interrogatory 9     I The Departr.ent believes that the changed fuel situation has affected virtually every electric utility in Texas.
: abilit,
*o compete if its competitor is not exposed to the same increase in power costs, or if its competitor can otherwise mitigate any potential increases in power costs by increasing its coordinating activities and switching to alternative types of generation with relatively lower overall costs.
"The various utilities" refers to utilities in Texas with gas fired generation.
While the Department had no specific utilities in mind with its reference to the various utilities, clearly those depending in whole or in part on the pipeline system of Lo Vaca Gas Gathering Company for their natural gas supply or on any other pipeline supplier whosc prices have increased commensurate with Lo Vaca's gas prices are the most affected.
This group includes Central Power & Light, City Public Service Board of San Antonio, City of Austin, City of Brownsville, South Texas Electric Cooperative, Medina Electric Cooperative, and City of Robstown.
The Department is still in the process of analyzing the effect of the increased gas prices on the power supply costs of these and other utilities in the state and is not in a position at present to explain the exact manner in which the fuel situation has impaired their competitive posture in any market relevant fo r ar.titru st analysis purposes.
In general, however, increased costs of generating power will have an adverse effect on any and all levels of marketing electric power, whether retail, wholesale, or at the coordinating services market.
Department's S*upplemental Response to HL&P's Interrogatory 9 I
The Departr.ent believes that the changed fuel situation has affected virtually every electric utility in Texas.


The documents which relate to this interrogatory response include the deposition transcripts in these proceedings, the deposition transcripts and testimony in West Texas Utilities Co.
. The documents which relate to this interrogatory response include the deposition transcripts in these proceedings, the deposition transcripts and testimony in West Texas Utilities Co.
: v. Texas Electric Service Company, et a l ._ , the documents provided to the Department by HL&P or TU, the documents provided to the Department during discovery, to which HL&P and TU have had accets, and the documents provided to the Department by other parties.
: v. Texas Electric Service Company, et a l._, the documents provided to the Department by HL&P or TU, the documents provided to the Department during discovery, to which HL&P and TU have had accets, and the documents provided to the Department by other parties.
Any documents the Department has which have not been produced either by HL&P or TU, or in discovery, are being provided in the Department's Response to Houston Lighting .& Power Compar.y's Third Interrogatories, filed herewith.
Any documents the Department has which have not been produced either by HL&P or TU, or in discovery, are being provided in the Department's Response to Houston Lighting.& Power Compar.y's Third Interrogatories, filed herewith.
HL&P's Interrogatory 10 (a)-(e)
HL&P's Interrogatory 10 (a)-(e) 10.
: 10. State the basis for, and provide all documents relating to, the Division's allegation that "these [ smaller]
State the basis for, and provide all documents relating to, the Division's allegation that "these [ smaller]
utilities (dependent on natural gas] must switch to alternatives, such as coal, l ig ni t e , and nuclear fueled generation, if they are to continue in existence, let alone be able to compete with their larger neighb]rs, such as HL&P and TU," {p. 7) and in so doing:
utilities (dependent on natural gas] must switch to alternatives, such as coal, l ig ni t e, and nuclear fueled generation, if they are to continue in existence, let alone be able to compete with their larger neighb]rs, such as HL&P and TU,"
(a)   identify each of these smaller utility systems; Department's Initial __ Response to HL&P interrogatory 10(a)
{p. 7) and in so doing:
        !!L&P and TU, because of their size, are able to build large nuclear basel.oad units, as well as coal and lignite fired units, and through the high voltage interconnection between the two systems can engage in sufficient coordination to keep their power costs at a competitive level.
(a) identify each of these smaller utility systems; Department's Initial __ Response to HL&P interrogatory 10(a)
A utility dependent on natural gas as a fuel for the generation of its electric power has been faced with increasing power supply costs and, under the Texas Railroad Commission Order in Docket 600, will be unable to meet load growth through the addition of gas fired generating units.     It may not be possible to replace existing gas fired units that are retired
!!L&P and TU, because of their size, are able to build large nuclear basel.oad units, as well as coal and lignite fired units, and through the high voltage interconnection between the two systems can engage in sufficient coordination to keep their power costs at a competitive level.
A utility dependent on natural gas as a fuel for the generation of its electric power has been faced with increasing power supply costs and, under the Texas Railroad Commission Order in Docket 600, will be unable to meet load growth through the addition of gas fired generating units.
It may not be possible to replace existing gas fired units that are retired


~m_
~m_
from service with new gas fired units.       All of these f ac'to r s add up to forcing a utility to switch to alternatives in order to keep their power supply costs at a competitive level.           If the utility is unable to maintain its power supply costs at a competitive level it may lose its franchises to serve at r e '. a i l , it may lose wholesale customers, and it may be unable to market or dispose of its unused capacity and energy -- risking eventual acquisition by its larger competitors, such as HL&P and TU.
. from service with new gas fired units.
All of these f ac'to r s add up to forcing a utility to switch to alternatives in order to keep their power supply costs at a competitive level.
If the utility is unable to maintain its power supply costs at a competitive level it may lose its franchises to serve at r e '. a i l, it may lose wholesale customers, and it may be unable to market or dispose of its unused capacity and energy -- risking eventual acquisition by its larger competitors, such as HL&P and TU.
The smaller systems referred to in the Department's letter are any electric utilities in or around the area served by HL&P and TU that generate electric power for sale or for resale to ultimate users or that may in the future engage in the generation of electric power for that purpose.
The smaller systems referred to in the Department's letter are any electric utilities in or around the area served by HL&P and TU that generate electric power for sale or for resale to ultimate users or that may in the future engage in the generation of electric power for that purpose.
Department's Supplemental Response to HL&P Interrogatory 2_0(a)
Department's Supplemental Response to HL&P Interrogatory 2_0(a)
Line 355: Line 533:
: v. Texas Electric Service Company, et al., the documents provided to the Department by HL&P or TU, the documents provided to the Department during discovery, to which HL&P and TU have had access, and the documents provided to the Department by other parties.
: v. Texas Electric Service Company, et al., the documents provided to the Department by HL&P or TU, the documents provided to the Department during discovery, to which HL&P and TU have had access, and the documents provided to the Department by other parties.
Any documents the Department has which have not been produced either by HL&P or TU, or in discovery, are being provided in the Department's Response to Houston Lighting & Power Company's Third Interrogatories, filed herewith.
Any documents the Department has which have not been produced either by HL&P or TU, or in discovery, are being provided in the Department's Response to Houston Lighting & Power Company's Third Interrogatories, filed herewith.
HL&P Int'errogatory 10(b)
HL&P Int'errogatory 10(b) 10.
: 10.       State the basis for, and provide all documents relating to, the Division's allegation that "these [ smaller]
State the basis for, and provide all documents relating to, the Division's allegation that "these [ smaller]
utilities [ dependent on natural gas] must switch to alternatives,
utilities [ dependent on natural gas] must switch to alternatives,


O such as coal, lignite, and nucJear fueled generation, if they are to continue in existence, let alone be able to compete sith their larger neighbors, such as HL&P and TU," (p. 7) and in so doing:
O
(b)   explain exactly how HL&P has impaired each specified system's ability to convert to alternate fuels; Department's Initial Response to Interrogatory 10(b)
. such as coal, lignite, and nucJear fueled generation, if they are to continue in existence, let alone be able to compete sith their larger neighbors, such as HL&P and TU,"
Because of the delay in obtaining documents from HL&P and TU, the Department has not yet had the opportunity to complete its review of discovery materials to the extent necessary to respond to this part of the interrogatory. Document review and investigation are continuing.
(p. 7) and in so doing:
(b) explain exactly how HL&P has impaired each specified system's ability to convert to alternate fuels; Department's Initial Response to Interrogatory 10(b)
Because of the delay in obtaining documents from HL&P and TU, the Department has not yet had the opportunity to complete its review of discovery materials to the extent necessary to respond to this part of the interrogatory.
Document review and investigation are continuing.
Deparment's Supplemental Response to 10(b)
Deparment's Supplemental Response to 10(b)
The " smaller utilities" must be able to market any excess power generated from these facilities.       The " intrastate only agreement" between HL&P, TU and the other members of TIS have impaired the smaller utilities f rom taking advantage of the economies of scale derived by participating ef fectively in coal, lignite, and nuclear fuel generation, since they would be unable to market any excess power to interstate electric utilities.
The " smaller utilities" must be able to market any excess power generated from these facilities.
The " intrastate only agreement" between HL&P, TU and the other members of TIS have impaired the smaller utilities f rom taking advantage of the economies of scale derived by participating ef fectively in coal, lignite, and nuclear fuel generation, since they would be unable to market any excess power to interstate electric utilities.
Likewise, the " intrastate only agreement" has impaired these sm.411er utilities from participating in generation outside Texas, since HL&P, TU, and other members of the " intrastate only agreement" will not transmit power into Texas.
Likewise, the " intrastate only agreement" has impaired these sm.411er utilities from participating in generation outside Texas, since HL&P, TU, and other members of the " intrastate only agreement" will not transmit power into Texas.
HL&P Interrogatory 10(c)
HL&P Interrogatory 10(c) 10.
: 10. State the basis for, and provide all documents relating to, the Division's allegation that "these [ smaller]
State the basis for, and provide all documents relating to, the Division's allegation that "these [ smaller]
utilities [ dependent on natural gas] must switch to alternatives, such as coal, lignite, and nuclear f ueled generation, if they
utilities [ dependent on natural gas] must switch to alternatives, such as coal, lignite, and nuclear f ueled generation, if they


are to continue in existence, let alone be able to compete with their larger neighbors, such as HL&P and TU,"       (p. 7) and in so doing:
. are to continue in existence, let alone be able to compete with their larger neighbors, such as HL&P and TU,"
(c)       state whether you have any evidence showing that HL&P was motivated by anticompetitive consid e r atio ns in taking such action and set for each specific fact related to such evidence; Department's Initial Response to Interrogatory 10(c)
(p. 7) and in so doing:
Because of the delay in obtaining documents from HL&P and TU, the Department has not yet had the opportunity to complete its review of discovery materials to the extent necessary to respond to this part of the interrogatory. Document review and investigation are continuing.
(c) state whether you have any evidence showing that HL&P was motivated by anticompetitive consid e r atio ns in taking such action and set for each specific fact related to such evidence; Department's Initial Response to Interrogatory 10(c)
Because of the delay in obtaining documents from HL&P and TU, the Department has not yet had the opportunity to complete its review of discovery materials to the extent necessary to respond to this part of the interrogatory.
Document review and investigation are continuing.
Department's Supplemental Response to HL&P Interrogatory 10(c)
Department's Supplemental Response to HL&P Interrogatory 10(c)
The Department contends that HL&P's adherence to the
The Department contends that HL&P's adherence to the
        " intrastate only ag reement" was motivated by anticompetitive c onsid e r atio ns . The Department's Supplemental Response to Interrogatory 1(a), 10(b), 13, and 26(c)-(d) herein sets forth the actions which evidence the " intrastate only agreement".
" intrastate only ag reement" was motivated by anticompetitive c onsid e r atio ns.
The Department's Supplemental Response to Interrogatory 1(a), 10(b), 13, and 26(c)-(d) herein sets forth the actions which evidence the " intrastate only agreement".
The documents which relate to this interrogatory response include the deposition transcripts in these proceedings, the deposition transcripts and testimony in West Texas Utilities Co.
The documents which relate to this interrogatory response include the deposition transcripts in these proceedings, the deposition transcripts and testimony in West Texas Utilities Co.
: v. Texas Electric Service Company, et al., the documents provided to the Depar'tment by HL&P or TU, the documents provided to the Department during discove ry, to which HL&P and TU have had access, and the documents provided to the Department by other parties.
: v. Texas Electric Service Company, et al.,
the documents provided to the Depar'tment by HL&P or TU, the documents provided to the Department during discove ry, to which HL&P and TU have had access, and the documents provided to the Department by other parties.
Any documents the Department has which have not been produced either by HL&P or TU, or in discovery, are being provided in the Department's Response to Houston Lighting & Power Company's Third Interrogatories, filed herewith.
Any documents the Department has which have not been produced either by HL&P or TU, or in discovery, are being provided in the Department's Response to Houston Lighting & Power Company's Third Interrogatories, filed herewith.


HL&P Interrogatory 10(d)
. HL&P Interrogatory 10(d) 10.
: 10.     State the ba s i s f o r , and provide all documents relating to, the Division's allegation that "these [ smaller]
State the ba s i s f o r, and provide all documents relating to, the Division's allegation that "these [ smaller]
utilities [ dependent on nataral gas] must switch to alternatives, such as coal, lignite, and nuclear fueled generation, if they are to continue in existence, let alone be able to compete with their larger neighbor s, such as HL&P and TU,"               (p. 7) and in so doing:
utilities [ dependent on nataral gas] must switch to alternatives, such as coal, lignite, and nuclear fueled generation, if they are to continue in existence, let alone be able to compete with their larger neighbor s, such as HL&P and TU,"
(d)     State whether this need to convert to alternative fuels arose only after October, 1974, and if not, explain how HL&P's decision to continue operation in intrastate commerce will now interfere with such conversion efforts whereas it would not have done so before October, 1974; and Department's Initial Response to HL&P Interrogatory 10(d)
(p. 7) and in so doing:
It is the Department's understanding that so:ae of the u t il i t ies in Texas were beginning to convert to alternative fuels prior to October, 1974. The Department objects to the section of the interrogatory following the phrase " October, 1974" on the grounds that the question elicits neither facts nor evidence but is argumentative in nature and tone; further, the question is designed to elicit the mental impressions, conclusions, opinions and legal theories of the Department's attorneys in contravention of NRC Rule of Practice S2.740(b)(2) and FED. R. CIV.     P. 26(b)(3).
(d)
State whether this need to convert to alternative fuels arose only after October, 1974, and if not, explain how HL&P's decision to continue operation in intrastate commerce will now interfere with such conversion efforts whereas it would not have done so before October, 1974; and Department's Initial Response to HL&P Interrogatory 10(d)
It is the Department's understanding that so:ae of the u t il i t ies in Texas were beginning to convert to alternative fuels prior to October, 1974.
The Department objects to the section of the interrogatory following the phrase " October, 1974" on the grounds that the question elicits neither facts nor evidence but is argumentative in nature and tone; further, the question is designed to elicit the mental impressions, conclusions, opinions and legal theories of the Department's attorneys in contravention of NRC Rule of Practice S2.740(b)(2) and FED.
R.
CIV.
P.
26(b)(3).
Department's Supplemental Response to HL&P Interrogatory 10(d)
Department's Supplemental Response to HL&P Interrogatory 10(d)
Refer to Department's Supplemental Response to HL&P Interroga-tory 10(b) herein.       Additional information is contained in the deposition transcripts in these proceedings, the deposition transcripts and testimony in West Texas Utili ties Co. v. Texas Electric Service Company, et al., the documents provided to the
Refer to Department's Supplemental Response to HL&P Interroga-tory 10(b) herein.
  ' Department by HL&P'or TU, the documents provided to the Department during discovery, to which HL&P and TU have had access, and the documents provided to the Department by other parties. Any documents the Department has which have not been produced either
Additional information is contained in the deposition transcripts in these proceedings, the deposition transcripts and testimony in West Texas Utili ties Co. v. Texas Electric Service Company, et al., the documents provided to the
' Department by HL&P'or TU, the documents provided to the Department during discovery, to which HL&P and TU have had access, and the documents provided to the Department by other parties.
Any documents the Department has which have not been produced either


by HL&P or TU, or       in discovery, are being provided in the Department's Response to Houston Lighting & Power Company's Third Interrogatories, filed herewith.
. in discovery, are being provided in the by HL&P or TU, or Department's Response to Houston Lighting & Power Company's Third Interrogatories, filed herewith.
HL&P Interrogatory 10(e).
HL&P Interrogatory 10(e).
: 10.     State the basis for, and provide all documents relating to, the Division's allegation that "these [ smaller]
10.
utilities [ dependent on natural gas] must switch to alternatives, such as coal, lignite, and nuclear fueled generation, if they are to continue in existence, let alone be able to compete with their larger neighbors, such as HL&P and TU,"       (p. 7) and in so doing:
State the basis for, and provide all documents relating to, the Division's allegation that "these [ smaller]
(e)     identify (1) each product and geographic market wherein each identified smaller utility competes with HL&P or TU, (2) the type and extent of competition in each such market, and (3) the market share of each utility in each such market.
utilities [ dependent on natural gas] must switch to alternatives, such as coal, lignite, and nuclear fueled generation, if they are to continue in existence, let alone be able to compete with their larger neighbors, such as HL&P and TU,"
(p. 7) and in so doing:
(e) identify (1) each product and geographic market wherein each identified smaller utility competes with HL&P or TU, (2) the type and extent of competition in each such market, and (3) the market share of each utility in each such market.
Department's Initial Response to Interrogatory 10(e)
Department's Initial Response to Interrogatory 10(e)
Because of the delay in obtaining documents from HL&P and TU, the Department has not yet had the opportunity to complete its review of discovery materials to the extent necessary to respond to this part of the interrogatory.         Document review and investigation are continuing.
Because of the delay in obtaining documents from HL&P and TU, the Department has not yet had the opportunity to complete its review of discovery materials to the extent necessary to respond to this part of the interrogatory.
Document review and investigation are continuing.
Department's Supplemental Response to HL&P Interrogatory 10(e)
Department's Supplemental Response to HL&P Interrogatory 10(e)
Refer to Department's Supplemental Response to HL&P Interrogatory 3(b) herein.
Refer to Department's Supplemental Response to HL&P Interrogatory 3(b) herein.
HL&P Interrogatory 11(a)-(c)
HL&P Interrogatory 11(a)-(c) 11.
: 11.     (a)       Does the Division have any evidence showing that Houston has denied any other utility access to or participation in the South Texas Project ("STP") or any other nuclear plant?
(a)
(b)     If so, describe the circumstances surrounding each such denial, including:       (1) identification of the requesting utility, (2) name and title of the person making the request, (3) form of request (i.e., written or oral, in person or by telephone) and, if oral, a list of all persons present at the time the request was made, (4) date of request, (5) person to
Does the Division have any evidence showing that Houston has denied any other utility access to or participation in the South Texas Project ("STP") or any other nuclear plant?
(b)
If so, describe the circumstances surrounding each such denial, including:
(1) identification of the requesting utility, (2) name and title of the person making the request, (3) form of request (i.e.,
written or oral, in person or by telephone) and, if oral, a list of all persons present at the time the request was made, (4) date of request, (5) person to


whom request was addressed, (6) name of person who responded to request, (7) form of response (i.e., written or oral, in person or by telephone) and, if oral, a list of all persons present at the time the response was given, (8) person to whom the response was addresed, and (9) date of response.
. whom request was addressed, (6) name of person who responded to request, (7) form of response (i.e., written or oral, in person or by telephone) and, if oral, a list of all persons present at the time the response was given, (8) person to whom the response was addresed, and (9) date of response.
(c)   Provide all documents relating to the subject matter of this interrogatory.
(c)
Provide all documents relating to the subject matter of this interrogatory.
Department's Initial Response to HL&P Interrogatory ll(a)-(c)
Department's Initial Response to HL&P Interrogatory ll(a)-(c)
HL&P conditioned partic.ipation in the South Texas Project upon the requirement that the utility requesting participation be engaged exclusively in intrastate commerce within the State of Texas. The Department, however, is not alleging at this time that HL&P has denied any utilities access to or participation in the South Texas Project ("STP") or any other nuclear plant other than through its actions of disconnecting from certain of the STP joint participants in May of 1976, and refusing to reestablish those interconnections while those other joint participants were operating in interstate commerce.
HL&P conditioned partic.ipation in the South Texas Project upon the requirement that the utility requesting participation be engaged exclusively in intrastate commerce within the State of Texas.
The Department is continuing at the present time its investigation and document review relating to the contentions offered in response to this interrogatory. Should this investiga tion and document review develop any further in-formation, the Department will provide this as part of its continuing obligation to up-date its responses to this set of interrogatories.
The Department, however, is not alleging at this time that HL&P has denied any utilities access to or participation in the South Texas Project ("STP") or any other nuclear plant other than through its actions of disconnecting from certain of the STP joint participants in May of 1976, and refusing to reestablish those interconnections while those other joint participants were operating in interstate commerce.
The Department is continuing at the present time its investigation and document review relating to the contentions offered in response to this interrogatory.
Should this investiga tion and document review develop any further in-formation, the Department will provide this as part of its continuing obligation to up-date its responses to this set of interrogatories.
Department's Supplemental Response to HL&P Interrogatory ll(a)-(c)
Department's Supplemental Response to HL&P Interrogatory ll(a)-(c)
The Department contends that HL&P has ef fectively denied any utilities which operates outside of Texas from access to or participation in the South Texas Project because of the "in-trastate only agreement". Although the Department is unaware of any specific electric utilities which operate outside   of Texas that currently wish to participate in or have access to the South Texas Project, the " intrastate only agreement" has 9
The Department contends that HL&P has ef fectively denied any utilities which operates outside of Texas from access to or participation in the South Texas Project because of the "in-trastate only agreement".
Although the Department is unaware of any specific electric utilities which operate outside of Texas that currently wish to participate in or have access to the South Texas Project, the " intrastate only agreement" has 9
O
O


prohibited and will continue to ef fectively prohibit interstate utilities from participating in or gaining access to the South Texas Project.     Likewise, so long as the " intrastate only agreement" remains in effect, electric systems in Texas, who           ,
. prohibited and will continue to ef fectively prohibit interstate utilities from participating in or gaining access to the South Texas Project.
I may wish to sell part or all of the power received from parti-cipation in the South Texas Project outside of Texas, will be I
Likewise, so long as the " intrastate only agreement" remains in effect, electric systems in Texas, who I
effectively denied meaningful access to the South Texas Project.       ;
may wish to sell part or all of the power received from parti-cipation in the South Texas Project outside of Texas, will be I
The documents which relate to the Department's evidence concerning this interrogatory response include the deposition transcripts in these proceedings, the deposition transcripts and testimony in West Texas Utilities Co. v. Texas Electric Service Company, et al., the documents provided to the Department by HL&P or TU, the documents provided to the Department during discovery, to which HL&P and TU have had access, and documents provided to the Department by other parties. Any documents the Department has which have not been produced either by HL&P or TU, or in discovery, are being provided in the Department's Response to Houston Lighting & Power Company's Third Interrogatories, filed herewith.
effectively denied meaningful access to the South Texas Project.
The documents which relate to the Department's evidence concerning this interrogatory response include the deposition transcripts in these proceedings, the deposition transcripts and testimony in West Texas Utilities Co. v. Texas Electric Service Company, et al.,
the documents provided to the Department by HL&P or TU, the documents provided to the Department during discovery, to which HL&P and TU have had access, and documents provided to the Department by other parties.
Any documents the Department has which have not been produced either by HL&P or TU, or in discovery, are being provided in the Department's Response to Houston Lighting & Power Company's Third Interrogatories, filed herewith.
HL&P Interrogatory ll(d)
HL&P Interrogatory ll(d)
(d)     State whether the Division has knowledge of the fact that a utility has considered requesting Houston to grant access to or participation in STP but did not communicate such request to HL&P. If so, specify the identity of any such utility and provide all documents relating to the subject matter of this interrogatory.
(d)
State whether the Division has knowledge of the fact that a utility has considered requesting Houston to grant access to or participation in STP but did not communicate such request to HL&P.
If so, specify the identity of any such utility and provide all documents relating to the subject matter of this interrogatory.


1 Department's Initial Response to HL&P Interrogatory ll(d)
1 Department's Initial Response to HL&P Interrogatory ll(d)
Because of the delay in obtaining documents from HL&P and TU, the Department has not yet had the opportunity to complete its     {'
Because of the delay in obtaining documents from HL&P and TU, the Department has not yet had the opportunity to complete its
review of discovery materials to the extent necessary to respond to this part of the interrogatory. Document review and investi-gation are continuing.
{
1' Department's Supplemental Response to HL&P Interrogatory ll(d)
review of discovery materials to the extent necessary to respond to this part of the interrogatory.
The Department does not know whether any interstate utility has considered requesting HL&P to grant access to or participation in STP but has not communicated any such request to HL&P. The Department, however, believes that the City of Brownsville may consider doing so.
Document review and investi-gation are continuing.
1 Department's Supplemental Response to HL&P Interrogatory ll(d)
The Department does not know whether any interstate utility has considered requesting HL&P to grant access to or participation in STP but has not communicated any such request to HL&P.
The Department, however, believes that the City of Brownsville may consider doing so.
The documents responsive to this interrogatory request include the deposition transcripts in these proceedings, the deposition transcripts and testimony in West Texas Utilities Co.
The documents responsive to this interrogatory request include the deposition transcripts in these proceedings, the deposition transcripts and testimony in West Texas Utilities Co.
: v. Texas Electric Service Company, _et al., the documents provided to the Department by HL&P or TU, the documents provided to the Department during discovery, to which HL&P and TU have had access, and the documents provided to the Department by other parties.
: v. Texas Electric Service Company, _et al.,
the documents provided to the Department by HL&P or TU, the documents provided to the Department during discovery, to which HL&P and TU have had access, and the documents provided to the Department by other parties.
Any documents the Department has which have not been produced either by HL&P or TU, or in discovery, are being provided in the Department's Response to Houston Lighting & Powe r Company's Third Interrogatories, filed herewith.
Any documents the Department has which have not been produced either by HL&P or TU, or in discovery, are being provided in the Department's Response to Houston Lighting & Powe r Company's Third Interrogatories, filed herewith.
HL&P Interrogatory 12(a)-(c)
HL&P Interrogatory 12(a)-(c)
(a)   Does the Division have any evidence showing that STP is in any way essential or uniquely advantageous to a utility which is a member of the Southwest Power Pool?
(a)
Does the Division have any evidence showing that STP is in any way essential or uniquely advantageous to a utility which is a member of the Southwest Power Pool?


_____..m   .  . .. . . . . _ _ . ~ . . . - - . - - _ . . . - . _ . - . _ _ _ - - - - - - . . . - - - _ - - - - - - - . . . . _ . . .
_____..m
(b)         If so, (1) specify the exact details of such evidence; and (2) explain why participation in STP is more essential than participation in the nuclear generating facilities which are proposed, under construction or in operation within the Southwest Power Pool.
....... _ _. ~... - -. - - _... -. _. -. _ _ _ - - - - - -... - - - _ - - - - - - -.... _...
(c)         Provide all documents relating to the subject matter of this interrogatory.
. (b)
If so, (1) specify the exact details of such evidence; and (2) explain why participation in STP is more essential than participation in the nuclear generating facilities which are proposed, under construction or in operation within the Southwest Power Pool.
(c)
Provide all documents relating to the subject matter of this interrogatory.
Department's Initial Response to IIL&P Interrogatory 12(a)
Department's Initial Response to IIL&P Interrogatory 12(a)
The Department does not allege at this time that the South Texas Project is essential or uniquely advantageous to a utility which is a member of the Southwest Power Pool.
The Department does not allege at this time that the South Texas Project is essential or uniquely advantageous to a utility which is a member of the Southwest Power Pool.
Department's Initial Response to llL&P Interrogatory 12(b)
Department's Initial Response to llL&P Interrogatory 12(b)
The Department objects to that part of interrogatory 12(b) f ollowing the designation "( 2) ," on the grounds that the request elicits neither facts not evidence but is argumentative in nature and tone; further, the question is designed to elicit the mental impressions, conclusions, opinions and legal theories of the Department in contravention of NRC Rule of Practice S2.740(b)(2) and FED. R. CIV. P. 26(b)(3).
The Department objects to that part of interrogatory 12(b) f ollowing the designation "( 2)," on the grounds that the request elicits neither facts not evidence but is argumentative in nature and tone; further, the question is designed to elicit the mental impressions, conclusions, opinions and legal theories of the Department in contravention of NRC Rule of Practice S2.740(b)(2) and FED.
R.
CIV.
P. 26(b)(3).
Department's Supplemental Response to IIL&P Interrogatory 12(a)-(c)
Department's Supplemental Response to IIL&P Interrogatory 12(a)-(c)
The Department contends that STP is essential or uniquely advantageous to a utility that is a member of the Southwest Power Pool because the power from STP will be available in the near future, its cost of installed capacity should be less than for other nuclear plants of a similar type constructed at a later date.* The essential and unique characteristics of STP will further be enhanced if the fuel for STP has been contracted for on a long term basis, since this would allow STP to experience more stable fuel costs than alternative types of generating plants. In addition, if the " intrastate only agreement" is removed, the potential competition which exists between members
The Department contends that STP is essential or uniquely advantageous to a utility that is a member of the Southwest Power Pool because the power from STP will be available in the near future, its cost of installed capacity should be less than for other nuclear plants of a similar type constructed at a later date.* The essential and unique characteristics of STP will further be enhanced if the fuel for STP has been contracted for on a long term basis, since this would allow STP to experience more stable fuel costs than alternative types of generating plants.
In addition, if the " intrastate only agreement" is removed, the potential competition which exists between members


                                        ~35-of the Southuert Power Pool and T1s members vould bt converted to actual coupetition in the coordination services trancmission, and wholesale power markets.       In such circuras tances, access to STP coul d con tr ibu t.e to the ability of the Southwunt Power Pool membero to cor.'pe t e wi th TIS r.: embers in these raa rke ts.
~35-of the Southuert Power Pool and T1s members vould bt converted to actual coupetition in the coordination services trancmission, and wholesale power markets.
In such circuras tances, access to STP coul d con tr ibu t.e to the ability of the Southwunt Power Pool membero to cor.'pe t e wi th TIS r.: embers in these raa rke ts.
The documenta which reJate to this interrogatory renponce include the deposition tranceripto in these proceedings, the deposition transetipts and te s t in.on y in Went Texas UtiJi' ties Co.
The documenta which reJate to this interrogatory renponce include the deposition tranceripto in these proceedings, the deposition transetipts and te s t in.on y in Went Texas UtiJi' ties Co.
: v. Texan l'lectric Servies Corneny, et al., the documents pro'/ided to the Department by IIL&P or TU, the documents provided to the Department during diceovery, to which IIL&P and TU have had acceus, and the docuicents provided to the Depar tment by other p'rtiec.
: v. Texan l'lectric Servies Corneny, et al.,
Any doeurrents the Department has which have not been produced eit her by I!L&P or TU, or in discovery, are being provided in the Department's Ilesponce to IIouston Ligh ting & Pouer Corpany's Third s
the documents pro'/ided to the Department by IIL&P or TU, the documents provided to the Department during diceovery, to which IIL&P and TU have had acceus, and the docuicents provided to the Depar tment by other p'rtiec.
Interrogatories, filed herevith.
Any doeurrents the Department has which have not been produced eit her by I!L&P or TU, or in discovery, are being provided in the Department's Ilesponce to IIouston Ligh ting & Pouer Corpany's Third Interrogatories, filed herevith.
O
s O


HL&P Interrogatory 13(a)
. HL&P Interrogatory 13(a) 13.
: 13. State the basis for, and provide all documents relating to, the Division's allegation that "This coordination (of operation and development] cannot be done independently of the two dominant Texas utilities, HL&P and TU, without incurring substantially increased cost, decreased reliability and an erosion of the smaller utilities' competitive capabilities" (p. 7), and in so doing:
State the basis for, and provide all documents relating to, the Division's allegation that "This coordination (of operation and development] cannot be done independently of the two dominant Texas utilities, HL&P and TU, without incurring substantially increased cost, decreased reliability and an erosion of the smaller utilities' competitive capabilities" (p. 7), and in so doing:
(a)     explain the criteria by which HL&P and TU are labeled
(a) explain the criteria by which HL&P and TU are labeled
    " dominant Texas utiliti s," and state whether this dominance is based on a contention taat each utility independently dominates some market, or is based upon an aggregation of the HL&P and TU generation and transmission f acilities or market shares; Department's Initial Response to HL&P Interrogatory 13(a)
" dominant Texas utiliti s," and state whether this dominance is based on a contention taat each utility independently dominates is based upon an aggregation of the HL&P and TU some market, or generation and transmission f acilities or market shares; Department's Initial Response to HL&P Interrogatory 13(a)
HL&P and TU are dominant Texas utilities because of their size, the nature and amount of generation they each own, the nature and amount of transmission they each own, and because of their irapo r tanc e to their smaller neighbors as a source of coordinating services.     HL&P is the dominant utility in the southern portion of the Texas Interconnected System (" TIS"),
HL&P and TU are dominant Texas utilities because of their size, the nature and amount of generation they each own, the nature and amount of transmission they each own, and because of their irapo r tanc e to their smaller neighbors as a source of coordinating services.
and TU is che dominant utility in the northern portion of TIS; together they are dominant within the whole of TIS. Their dominance extends to each level at which electric power is marketed:   retail, wholesale, and power exchange services.
HL&P is the dominant utility in the southern portion of the Texas Interconnected System
(" TIS"),
and TU is che dominant utility in the northern portion of TIS; together they are dominant within the whole of TIS.
Their dominance extends to each level at which electric power is marketed:
retail, wholesale, and power exchange services.
Department's Supplemental Response to HL&P Interrogatory 13(a)
Department's Supplemental Response to HL&P Interrogatory 13(a)
          'rhe criteria by which HL&P and TU are labeled " dominant Texas utilities" are the market share data set forth in the Department's Supplemental Response to HL&P Interrogatory 3(b) contained herein, and the actions taken by HL&P and TU in fur-therance of the " intr astate only agreement", as set forth in the Department's Supplemental Response to HL&P Interrogatory 1(a),
'rhe criteria by which HL&P and TU are labeled " dominant Texas utilities" are the market share data set forth in the Department's Supplemental Response to HL&P Interrogatory 3(b) contained herein, and the actions taken by HL&P and TU in fur-therance of the " intr astate only agreement", as set forth in the Department's Supplemental Response to HL&P Interrogatory 1(a),
10(b), 26(b)-(c) herein.
10(b), 26(b)-(c) herein.


r l
r l The documents which relate to this interrogatory request are contained in the deposition transcripts in these proceedings,the deposition transcripts and testimony in West Texas Utilities Co.
The documents which relate to this interrogatory request are contained in the deposition transcripts in these proceedings,the deposition transcripts and testimony in West Texas Utilities Co.
: v. Texas Electric Service Company, et a l._, the documents provided to the Department by HL&P or TU, the documents provided to the Department dur ing discovery, to which HL&P and TU have had access, and the documents provided to the Department by other parties.
: v. Texas Electric Service Company, et a l ._ , the documents provided to the Department by HL&P or TU, the documents provided to the Department dur ing discovery , to which HL&P and TU have had access, and the documents provided to the Department by other parties.
Any documents the Department has which have not been produced in discovery, are being provided in either by HL&P or TU, or the Department's Response to Houston Lighting & Power Company's Third Interrogatories, filed herewith.
Any documents the Department has which have not been produced either by HL&P or TU, or       in discovery, are being provided in the Department's Response to Houston Lighting & Power Company's Third Interrogatories, filed herewith.
IIL&P Interrogatory 13(b) 13.
IIL&P Interrogatory 13(b)
State the basis for, and provide all documents relating to, the Division's allegation that "This coordination
: 13. State the basis for, and provide all documents relating to, the Division's allegation that "This coordination
[of operation and development] cannot be done independently of the two dominant Texas utilities, HL&P and TU, without incurring substantially increased cost, decreased reliability and an erosion of the smaller utilities' competitive capabilities" (p. 7), and in so doing:
[of operation and development] cannot be done independently of the two dominant Texas utilities, HL&P and TU, without incurring substantially increased cost, decreased reliability and an erosion of the smaller utilities' competitive capabilities" (p. 7), and in so doing:
identify (1) each product and geographic market which(b)  either TU or Houston, or both, dominate; (2) the type and extent of competition in each such market; and (3) the market share, in percentage terms, of every utility in each such ma r ke t; Department's Initial' Response to HL&P Interrogatory 13(b)
(b) identify (1) each product and geographic market which either TU or Houston, or both, dominate; (2) the type and extent of competition in each such market; and (3) the market share, in percentage terms, of every utility in each such ma r ke t; Department's Initial' Response to HL&P Interrogatory 13(b)
The Department cannot respond to this request with any degree of specificity until it has progressed further into the discovery process. Since the Department only recently received the documents it has selected from HL&P and has not yet received the documents selected from TU, it has neither had an adeouate opportunity to review those documents nor to formulate any follow-up discovery request.       The Department will respond to this request as soon as it is in a position to do so.
The Department cannot respond to this request with any degree of specificity until it has progressed further into the discovery process.
Since the Department only recently received the documents it has selected from HL&P and has not yet received the documents selected from TU, it has neither had an adeouate opportunity to review those documents nor to formulate any follow-up discovery request.
The Department will respond to this request as soon as it is in a position to do so.


Department's Supplemental Response to HL&P Interrogatory 13(b)
Department's Supplemental Response to HL&P Interrogatory 13(b)
Refer to Department's Supplemental Response to HL&P Interrogatory 3(b) herein.
Refer to Department's Supplemental Response to HL&P Interrogatory 3(b) herein.
HL&P Interrogatory 13(c)
HL&P Interrogatory 13(c) 13.
: 13. State the basis for, and provide all documents relating to, the Division's allegation that "This coordination
State the basis for, and provide all documents relating to, the Division's allegation that "This coordination
        !of operation and development] cannot be done independently of ti e two dominant Texas utilities, HL&P and TU, without incurring substantially increased cost, decreased reliability and an erosion of the smaller utilities' competitive capabilities" (p. 7), and in so doing:
!of operation and development] cannot be done independently of ti e two dominant Texas utilities, HL&P and TU, without incurring substantially increased cost, decreased reliability and an erosion of the smaller utilities' competitive capabilities" (p. 7), and in so doing:
(c)   state whether this alleged dominance has arisen only since October, 1974; Department's Initial Response to HL&P Interrogatory 13(c)
(c) state whether this alleged dominance has arisen only since October, 1974; Department's Initial Response to HL&P Interrogatory 13(c)
No.
No.
Department's Supplemental Response to HL&P Interrogatory 13(c)
Department's Supplemental Response to HL&P Interrogatory 13(c)
See Department's Supplemental Response to HL&P Interrogatory 13(a) herein. The documents responsive to this interrogetory request include the deposition transcripts in these proceedings, the deposition transcripts and testimony in West Texas Utilities Co. v. Texas Electric Service Company, et al., the documents provided to the Department by HL&P or TU, the documents provided to the DepSrtment during discovery, to which HL&P and TU have had access, and the documents provided to the Department by other parties. Any documents the Department has which have not been produced either by HL&P or TU, or in discovery, are being provided in the Department's Response to Houston Lighting & Power Company's Third Interrogatories, filed herewith.
See Department's Supplemental Response to HL&P Interrogatory 13(a) herein.
The documents responsive to this interrogetory request include the deposition transcripts in these proceedings, the deposition transcripts and testimony in West Texas Utilities Co. v. Texas Electric Service Company, et al.,
the documents provided to the Department by HL&P or TU, the documents provided to the DepSrtment during discovery, to which HL&P and TU have had access, and the documents provided to the Department by other parties.
Any documents the Department has which have not been produced either by HL&P or TU, or in discovery, are being provided in the Department's Response to Houston Lighting & Power Company's Third Interrogatories, filed herewith.


HL&P Interrogatory 13(d)
. HL&P Interrogatory 13(d) 13.
: 13. State the basis for, and provide all documents relating to, the Division's allegation that "This coordination
State the basis for, and provide all documents relating to, the Division's allegation that "This coordination
[of operation and development] cannot be done independently of the two dominant Texas utilities, HL&P and TU, without incurring substantially increased cost, decreased reliability and an erosion of the smaller utilities' competitive capabilities" (p. 7), and in so doing:
[of operation and development] cannot be done independently of the two dominant Texas utilities, HL&P and TU, without incurring substantially increased cost, decreased reliability and an erosion of the smaller utilities' competitive capabilities" (p. 7), and in so doing:
(d)   state whether the Division has evidence that HL&P or TU has refused to coordinate with such smaller utilities, and if so, set forth each specific fact related to such evidence and state whether these facts have occurred since October, 1974; Department's Initial Response to HL&P Interrogatory 13(d)
(d) state whether the Division has evidence that HL&P or TU has refused to coordinate with such smaller utilities, and if so, set forth each specific fact related to such evidence and state whether these facts have occurred since October, 1974; Department's Initial Response to HL&P Interrogatory 13(d)
At this time, the Department's allegation is limited to HL&P's and TU's ref usal to coordinate in connection with the May, 1976 disconnection and subsequent refusal to reestablish interconnection even under FPC jurisdictional exemptions. As noted in our response to Interrogatory J h b), we have not had an adequate opportunity to review the documents selected from the files of HL&P and TU.
At this time, the Department's allegation is limited to HL&P's and TU's ref usal to coordinate in connection with the May, 1976 disconnection and subsequent refusal to reestablish interconnection even under FPC jurisdictional exemptions.
As noted in our response to Interrogatory J h b), we have not had an adequate opportunity to review the documents selected from the files of HL&P and TU.
Department's Supplemental Response to HL&P Interrogatory 13(d)
Department's Supplemental Response to HL&P Interrogatory 13(d)
The Department alleges that HL&P and TU have continually refused to coordinate with such smaller utilities, since at least 1974. The specific facts which 4te responsive to this interrogatory are contained in the Department's Supplemental Response to HL&P Interrogatory 26(b) herein, and in the deposition transcripts in these proceedings, the deposition transcripts and testimony in West Texas Utilities Co. v. Texas Electric Service Company, et al., the documents provided to the Department by HL&P or TU, the documents provided to the Department during discovery, to which HL&P and TU have had access, and the documents provided to the Department by other parties.     Any
The Department alleges that HL&P and TU have continually refused to coordinate with such smaller utilities, since at least 1974.
The specific facts which 4te responsive to this interrogatory are contained in the Department's Supplemental Response to HL&P Interrogatory 26(b) herein, and in the deposition transcripts in these proceedings, the deposition transcripts and testimony in West Texas Utilities Co. v. Texas Electric Service Company, et al.,
the documents provided to the Department by HL&P or TU, the documents provided to the Department during discovery, to which HL&P and TU have had access, and the documents provided to the Department by other parties.
Any


_40-documents the Department has which have not been produced either by HL&P or TU, or in discovery, are being provided in the Department's Response to Houston Lighting & Power Company's Third Interrogatories, filed herewith.
_40-documents the Department has which have not been produced either by HL&P or TU, or in discovery, are being provided in the Department's Response to Houston Lighting & Power Company's Third Interrogatories, filed herewith.
HL&P Interrogatory 13(e)
HL&P Interrogatory 13(e) 13.
: 13. State the basis for, and provide all documents relating to, the Division's allegation that "This coordination
State the basis for, and provide all documents relating to, the Division's allegation that "This coordination
[of operation and development] cannot be done independently of the two dominant Texas utilities, HL&P and TU, without incurring substantially increased cost, decreased reliability and an erosion of the smaller utilities' competitive capabilities" (p. 7), and in so doing:
[of operation and development] cannot be done independently of the two dominant Texas utilities, HL&P and TU, without incurring substantially increased cost, decreased reliability and an erosion of the smaller utilities' competitive capabilities" (p. 7), and in so doing:
(e)   identify any utilities other than HL&P and TU which are " dominant Texas utilities" and as to such utilities identify the product and geographic market which each other such utility dominates; and Department's Initial Response to HL&P Interrogatory 13(e)
(e) identify any utilities other than HL&P and TU which are " dominant Texas utilities" and as to such utilities identify the product and geographic market which each other such utility dominates; and Department's Initial Response to HL&P Interrogatory 13(e)
The Department has made no determination as to whether other utilities in the State of Texas are dominant Texas utilities for any purpose relevant to this proceeding.
The Department has made no determination as to whether other utilities in the State of Texas are dominant Texas utilities for any purpose relevant to this proceeding.
Department's Supplemental Response to HL&P Interrogatory 13(e)
Department's Supplemental Response to HL&P Interrogatory 13(e)
Refer to the Department's Supplemental Response to HL&P Interrogatory 3(b) herein.
Refer to the Department's Supplemental Response to HL&P Interrogatory 3(b) herein.
HL&P Interrogatory 13(f)
HL&P Interrogatory 13(f)
              ' 13 . State the basis for, and provide all documents relating to, the Division's allegation that "This coordination
' 13.
State the basis for, and provide all documents relating to, the Division's allegation that "This coordination
[of operation and development] cannot be done independently of the two dominan* Texas utilities, HL&P and TU, without incurring substantially ii.:reased cost, decreased reliability and an erosion of the smaller utilities' competitive capabilities" (p. 7), and in so doing:
[of operation and development] cannot be done independently of the two dominan* Texas utilities, HL&P and TU, without incurring substantially ii.:reased cost, decreased reliability and an erosion of the smaller utilities' competitive capabilities" (p. 7), and in so doing:
(f)   identify all the utilities referred to as " smaller utilities, " and identify (1) each product and geographic market in which each such smaller utility has " competitive capabilities," (2) describe the type and extent of such
(f) identify all the utilities referred to as " smaller utilities, " and identify (1) each product and geographic market in which each such smaller utility has " competitive capabilities," (2) describe the type and extent of such
  'm
'm


                                        ~41-alleged competition in each such market, (3) state the market share of every utility in each such market, (4) state the specific conduct of HL&P which has eroded the competitive capabilities of the smaller utilities in each of those markets, and (5) state whether, in the Department's view, HL&P 's conduc t was motivated by anticompetitive purposes, and if so, state the facts which support such a contention.
~41-alleged competition in each such market, (3) state the market share of every utility in each such market, (4) state the specific conduct of HL&P which has eroded the competitive capabilities of the smaller utilities in each of those markets, and (5) state whether, in the Department's view, HL&P 's conduc t was motivated by anticompetitive purposes, and if so, state the facts which support such a contention.
Department's Initial Response to HL&P Interrogatory 13(f)
Department's Initial Response to HL&P Interrogatory 13(f)
The " smaller utilities" referred to in the Department's letter of advice dated February 21, 1978, are all utilities in or around the area served by HL&P and TU of a lesser size than HL&P and TU. With respect to Interrogatory]3(f)(4), the disconnection in May of 1976 by HL&P and TU from its competitors eroded the latter's competitive capabilities as evidenced by their decreased reliability, increased operating costs, and inability to conduct future planning of generation addition as a result of the then uncertainty as to what interconnections may be available to them in the future.       The Department cannot otherwise respond to request items 13(f)(1)-(5) until it has progressed further into the discovery process.
The " smaller utilities" referred to in the Department's letter of advice dated February 21, 1978, are all utilities in or around the area served by HL&P and TU of a lesser size than HL&P and TU.
With respect to Interrogatory]3(f)(4), the disconnection in May of 1976 by HL&P and TU from its competitors eroded the latter's competitive capabilities as evidenced by their decreased reliability, increased operating costs, and inability to conduct future planning of generation addition as a result of the then uncertainty as to what interconnections may be available to them in the future.
The Department cannot otherwise respond to request items 13(f)(1)-(5) until it has progressed further into the discovery process.
Department's Supplemental Response to HL&P Interrogatory 13(f)
Department's Supplemental Response to HL&P Interrogatory 13(f)
Refer to Department's Supplemental Response to HL&P Interrogatory 1(a), 3(b), 10(b)-(c), 13, 26(b)-(c), 27 and 28 contained herein.
Refer to Department's Supplemental Response to HL&P Interrogatory 1(a), 3(b), 10(b)-(c), 13, 26(b)-(c), 27 and 28 contained herein.
HL&P Interrogatory 14(a)
HL&P Interrogatory 14(a) 14.
: 14.     (a) With reference to the Division's statement that Houston is a " dominant Texas utility" (p. 7), is it the Division's contention that Houston possesses monopoly power or some other degree of market power relevant to this proceeding?
(a) With reference to the Division's statement that Houston is a " dominant Texas utility" (p. 7), is it the Division's contention that Houston possesses monopoly power or some other degree of market power relevant to this proceeding?
Department's Initial R'esponse to HL&P Interrogatory 14(a)
Department's Initial R'esponse to HL&P Interrogatory 14(a)
Yes.
Yes.
Line 509: Line 748:
Refe r to Depar tment's Supplemental Response to HL&P Interrogatory 14(b)-(c) herein.
Refe r to Depar tment's Supplemental Response to HL&P Interrogatory 14(b)-(c) herein.


1 HL&P Interrogatory 14(b)-(c)
1
If so, (1) identify each product and geographic market in which Houston has such power, (2) describe the type and extent           .
* HL&P Interrogatory 14(b)-(c)
of competition in each such identified market, (3) state the market share of every utility in each such market, (4) identify every action taken by Houston to acquire or maintain its alleged monopoly power, (5) identify each abuse of each instance of such power by Houston, and (6) explain whether there has been any change in such conduct since October, 1974.
If so, (1) identify each product and geographic market in which Houston has such power, (2) describe the type and extent of competition in each such identified market, (3) state the market share of every utility in each such market, (4) identify every action taken by Houston to acquire or maintain its alleged monopoly power, (5) identify each abuse of each instance of such power by Houston, and (6) explain whether there has been any change in such conduct since October, 1974.
(c)     Provide all documents which relate to the subject matter of this interrogatory.
(c)
Provide all documents which relate to the subject matter of this interrogatory.
Departmen''s Initial Response to HL&P Interrogatory 14(b)-(c)
Departmen''s Initial Response to HL&P Interrogatory 14(b)-(c)
See Response to Interrogatories 13(d) and (f).
See Response to Interrogatories 13(d) and (f).
Department's Supplemental Response to HL&P Interrogatory 14(b)-(c)
Department's Supplemental Response to HL&P Interrogatory 14(b)-(c)
        . Refer to the Department's Supplemental Response to HL&P Interrogat.ory 3(b) herein for the information requested in items (1) through (3). With respect to items '4) through (6),
Refer to the Department's Supplemental Response to HL&P Interrogat.ory 3(b) herein for the information requested in items (1) through (3).
With respect to items '4) through (6),
refer to the Department's Supplemental Response to HL&P Interrogatory 1(a), 10(b)-(c), 13, 26(b)-(c) herein.
refer to the Department's Supplemental Response to HL&P Interrogatory 1(a), 10(b)-(c), 13, 26(b)-(c) herein.
The documents responsive to this interrogatory request include the deposition transcripts in these proceedings, the deposition transcripts and testimony in West Texas Utilities Co. v. Texas , Electric Service Company, et al., the documents provided to the Department by H L&P o r TU , the documents provided to the Department during discovery, to which HL&P and TU have had access, and the documents provided to the Department by ether parties. Any documents the Department has which have r.ot
The documents responsive to this interrogatory request include the deposition transcripts in these proceedings, the deposition transcripts and testimony in West Texas Utilities Co. v. Texas, Electric Service Company, et al.,
the documents provided to the Department by H L&P o r TU, the documents provided to the Department during discovery, to which HL&P and TU have had access, and the documents provided to the Department by ether parties.
Any documents the Department has which have r.ot


been produced either by HL&P or TU, or in discovery, are being prov;ded in the Department's Response to Houston Lighting &
. been produced either by HL&P or TU, or in discovery, are being prov;ded in the Department's Response to Houston Lighting &
Power company's Third Interrogatories, filed herewith.
Power company's Third Interrogatories, filed herewith.
HL&P Interrogatory 15(a) l 15     (a) With reference to the Division's allegation     .
HL&P Interrogatory 15(a) l 15 (a) With reference to the Division's allegation that TU is a " dominant Texas utility" (p. 7), does the Division contend that TU possesses monopoly power or some other degree of market power relevant to this proceeding?
that TU is a " dominant Texas utility" (p. 7), does the Division contend that TU possesses monopoly power or some other degree of market power relevant to this proceeding?
Department's Initial Response to HL&P Interrogatory 15(a)
Department's Initial Response to HL&P Interrogatory 15(a)
Yes.
Yes.
Line 529: Line 771:
Refer to Department's Supplemental Response to HL&P Inter-rogatory 15(b)-(c) herein.
Refer to Department's Supplemental Response to HL&P Inter-rogatory 15(b)-(c) herein.
HL&P Interrogatory 15(b)-(c)
HL&P Interrogatory 15(b)-(c)
(b)   If so, (1) identify each product and geographic market in which TU has such power, (2) describe the type and extent of competition in each such identified market, (3) state the market chare of every utility in each such market, (4) identify every action taken by TU to acquire or maintain its alleged monopo ly powe r, (5) identify each abuse of each instance of such power by TU, and (6) explain whether there has been any c h ang e in such conduct since January, 1974.
(b)
(c)   Provide all documents which relate to the subject matter of this interrogatory.
If so, (1) identify each product and geographic market in which TU has such power, (2) describe the type and extent of competition in each such identified market, (3) state the market chare of every utility in each such market, (4) identify every action taken by TU to acquire or maintain its alleged monopo ly powe r, (5) identify each abuse of each instance of such power by TU, and (6) explain whether there has been any c h ang e in such conduct since January, 1974.
(c)
Provide all documents which relate to the subject matter of this interrogatory.
Department's Initial Response to HL&P Interrogatory 15(b)-(c)
Department's Initial Response to HL&P Interrogatory 15(b)-(c)
See response to Interrogatories 13(d) and (f).
See response to Interrogatories 13(d) and (f).
Department's Supplemental Response to HL&P Interrogatory 15(b)-(c)
Department's Supplemental Response to HL&P Interrogatory 15(b)-(c)
Refer to Department's Supplemental Response to HL&P Inter-rogatory 14(b)-(c) herein. The documents which relate to this
Refer to Department's Supplemental Response to HL&P Inter-rogatory 14(b)-(c) herein.
The documents which relate to this


        -w___
-w___
interrogatory response are contained in the deposition transcripts in these proceedings, the deposition transcripts and testimony in West Texas Utilities Co. v. Texas Electric Service Company, et al.,       the documents provided to the Department by HL&P or TU, the documents provided to the Department during discovery, to which HL&P and TU have had access, and the documents provided to the Department by other parties.           Any documents the Department has which have not been produced either by HL&P or TU, or in discovery, are being provided in the Department's Response to Houston Lighting & Power Company's Third Interrogatories, filed herewith.
. interrogatory response are contained in the deposition transcripts in these proceedings, the deposition transcripts and testimony in West Texas Utilities Co. v. Texas Electric Service Company, et al., the documents provided to the Department by HL&P or TU, the documents provided to the Department during discovery, to which HL&P and TU have had access, and the documents provided to the Department by other parties.
HL&P Interrogatory 16(a)
Any documents the Department has which have not been produced either by HL&P or TU, or in discovery, are being provided in the Department's Response to Houston Lighting & Power Company's Third Interrogatories, filed herewith.
: 16.     (a) Notwithstanding the answers to Interrogatories 14 and 15, does the Division contend that Houston and TU jointly possess monopoly power or some other degree of market power in any market relevant to this proceeding?
HL&P Interrogatory 16(a) 16.
(a) Notwithstanding the answers to Interrogatories 14 and 15, does the Division contend that Houston and TU jointly possess monopoly power or some other degree of market power in any market relevant to this proceeding?
Department's Initial Response to HL&P Interrogatory 16(a)
Department's Initial Response to HL&P Interrogatory 16(a)
Yes.
Yes.
Line 545: Line 791:
Refer to Department's Supplemental Response to HL&P Interrogatory 16(b)-(c) herein.
Refer to Department's Supplemental Response to HL&P Interrogatory 16(b)-(c) herein.
HL&P Interrogatory 16(b)-(c)
HL&P Interrogatory 16(b)-(c)
(b)     If so, (1) identify each product and geographic market in which Houston and TU jointly possess such power, (2) describe the type and extent of competition in each such jdentified market, (3) state the market share of every utility in each such market, (4) state the basis upon which the Division contends the market shares of Houston and TU may be aggregated to find joint monopoly power, (5) identify every
(b)
If so, (1) identify each product and geographic market in which Houston and TU jointly possess such power, (2) describe the type and extent of competition in each such jdentified market, (3) state the market share of every utility in each such market, (4) state the basis upon which the Division contends the market shares of Houston and TU may be aggregated to find joint monopoly power, (5) identify every


action taken by Houston or TU to acquire or maintain each such instance of such joint power, (6) identify each abuse by Houston or TU of each sr-h instance of such joint power, and (7) identify any change in such conduct since January, 1974.
. action taken by Houston or TU to acquire or maintain each such instance of such joint power, (6) identify each abuse by Houston or TU of each sr-h instance of such joint power, and (7) identify any change in such conduct since January, 1974.
(c)   Provide all documents which relate to the subject matter of this interrogatory.
(c)
Provide all documents which relate to the subject matter of this interrogatory.
Department's Initial Response to HL&P Interrogatory 16(b)-(c)
Department's Initial Response to HL&P Interrogatory 16(b)-(c)
See response to Interrogatories 13(c) and (f). With respect to Interrogatory 16(b)(4), the basis upon which the Department contends that the market shares of hL&P and TU may be aggregated to find joint monopoly power are Sect. ion 1 of the Sherman Act, Section 2 of the Sherman Act, and Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act.
See response to Interrogatories 13(c) and (f).
With respect to Interrogatory 16(b)(4), the basis upon which the Department contends that the market shares of hL&P and TU may be aggregated find joint monopoly power are Sect. ion 1 of the Sherman Act, to Section 2 of the Sherman Act, and Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act.
Department's Supplemental Response to HL&? Intertogatory 16(b)-(c)
Department's Supplemental Response to HL&? Intertogatory 16(b)-(c)
See Department's Supplemental Respor.se to HL&P Interrogatory 14(b)-(c) and 15(b)-(c) herein.
See Department's Supplemental Respor.se to HL&P Interrogatory 14(b)-(c) and 15(b)-(c) herein.
HL&P Interrogatory 17 Does the Division have any evidence showing that CP&L and WTU cannot withdraw from TIS and operate in interstate commerce without operating difficulties, and without impairment of their
HL&P Interrogatory 17 Does the Division have any evidence showing that CP&L and WTU cannot withdraw from TIS and operate in interstate commerce without operating difficulties, and without impairment of their
        " competitive viability" even if such withdrawal and disconnection from TIS is done with proper planning.         If so, specify the exact details of such evidence and provide all documents related to the subject matter of this in ter r og a to ry .
" competitive viability" even if such withdrawal and disconnection from TIS is done with proper planning.
If so, specify the exact details of such evidence and provide all documents related to the subject matter of this in ter r og a to ry.
Department's Initial Response to HL&P Interrogatory 17 The Department objects to this interrogatory on the ground that the question is unclear and ambiguous.
Department's Initial Response to HL&P Interrogatory 17 The Department objects to this interrogatory on the ground that the question is unclear and ambiguous.
Department's Supplemental Response to HL&P Interrogatory 17 The Department has no further response to this interrogatory request. The documents which relate to CP&L and WTU's rela-tionship with the members of TIS are the deposition transcripts in these proceedings, the deposition transcripts and testimony
Department's Supplemental Response to HL&P Interrogatory 17 The Department has no further response to this interrogatory request.
The documents which relate to CP&L and WTU's rela-tionship with the members of TIS are the deposition transcripts in these proceedings, the deposition transcripts and testimony


in West Texas Utilities Co. v. Texas Electric Service Company, et al., the documents provided to the Department by HL&P or TU, the documents provided to the Department during discovery, to which HL&P and TU have had access, and the documents provided to the Department by other parties. Any documents the Department has which have not been produced either by HL&P or TU, or in discovery, are being provided in the Department's Response to Houston Lighting & Power Compariy's Third Interrogatories, filed herewith.
. in West Texas Utilities Co. v. Texas Electric Service Company, et al.,
HL&P Interrogatory 18(a)
the documents provided to the Department by HL&P or TU, the documents provided to the Department during discovery, to which HL&P and TU have had access, and the documents provided to the Department by other parties.
: 18.   (a) Does the Division have any evidence showing that CSW's preferred mode of integration of its operating companies (i.e., Mode 4), as proposed by CSW in SEC Administrative Proceeding File No. 3-4951, (1) will have no effect on the reliability of Houston's electric service, (2) will not increase Houston's capital expenditures, (3) will not increase Houston's operating costs, and (4) will not increase Houston's electric rates to its customers.
Any documents the Department has which have not been produced either by HL&P or TU, or in discovery, are being provided in the Department's Response to Houston Lighting & Power Compariy's Third Interrogatories, filed herewith.
N (b)   For each subpart of (a) answered in the affirmative, state the basis for your answer and provide all related documents.
HL&P Interrogatory 18(a) 18.
(a) Does the Division have any evidence showing that CSW's preferred mode of integration of its operating companies (i.e., Mode 4), as proposed by CSW in SEC Administrative Proceeding File No. 3-4951, (1) will have no effect on the reliability of Houston's electric service, (2) will not increase Houston's capital expenditures, (3) will not increase Houston's operating costs, and (4) will not increase Houston's electric rates to its customers.
N (b)
For each subpart of (a) answered in the affirmative, state the basis for your answer and provide all related documents.
Department's Initial Response to Interrogatory 18 The Department has no documents relating to the subject matter of this interrogatory that are not already in the possession of,HL&P and TU.
Department's Initial Response to Interrogatory 18 The Department has no documents relating to the subject matter of this interrogatory that are not already in the possession of,HL&P and TU.
Department's Supplemental Response to HL&P Interrogatory 18 The documents the Department has which relate to CSW's Mode 4 are the deposition transcripts in these proceedings,the deposition transcripts and testimony in West Texas Utilities Co. v. Texas Electric Service Company, et al., the documents 4
Department's Supplemental Response to HL&P Interrogatory 18 The documents the Department has which relate to CSW's Mode 4 are the deposition transcripts in these proceedings,the deposition transcripts and testimony in West Texas Utilities Co. v. Texas Electric Service Company, et al.,
the documents 4
I
I


provided to the Department by HL&P or TU, the documents provided to the Department during discovery, to which HL&P and TU have         ,
. provided to the Department by HL&P or TU, the documents provided to the Department during discovery, to which HL&P and TU have I
I had access, and the documents provided to the Department by other     l parties. Any documents the Department has which have not been produced either by HL&P or TU, or in discovery, are being provided in the Department's Response to Houston Lighting &
had access, and the documents provided to the Department by other l
parties.
Any documents the Department has which have not been produced either by HL&P or TU, or in discovery, are being provided in the Department's Response to Houston Lighting &
Power Company's Third Interrogatories, filed herewith.
Power Company's Third Interrogatories, filed herewith.
HL&P Interrogatory 19(a)
HL&P Interrogatory 19(a) 19.
: 19.     (a) Provide all documents and identify and describe all communications which relate to, or describe, th; possible denial of participation of Brazos Electric Membership Cooperative in the planned joint generation facility with South Texas Electric Cooperative and Medina Electric Cooperative (South Texas OL advice letter,     p. 8; Baker letter, p. 3).
(a) Provide all documents and identify and describe all communications which relate to, or describe, th; possible denial of participation of Brazos Electric Membership Cooperative in the planned joint generation facility with South Texas Electric Cooperative and Medina Electric Cooperative (South Texas OL advice letter, p.
8; Baker letter, p.
3).
Department's Initial Response to HL&P Interrogatory 19(a)
Department's Initial Response to HL&P Interrogatory 19(a)
There were one or more telephone conversations between the Department and representatives of Brazos Electric Membership Cooperative during the preparation of the Department's letter of advice dated January 25, 1977. There were one or more telephone conversations between the Department and representatives of Brazos Electr ic Membership Cooper .tive dur ing the prepar ation of the Department's leter of ad vice cated February 21, 1978.
There were one or more telephone conversations between the Department and representatives of Brazos Electric Membership Cooperative during the preparation of the Department's letter of advice dated January 25, 1977.
There were one or more telephone conversations between the Department and representatives of Brazos Electr ic Membership Cooper.tive dur ing the prepar ation of the Department's leter of ad vice cated February 21, 1978.
Department's Supplemental Response to HL&P Interrogatory 19(a)
Department's Supplemental Response to HL&P Interrogatory 19(a)
      ,      In connection with the Brazos-Comanche Peak Antitrust Review, the Department visited the Brazos offices in Waco, Texas, on July 26-27, 1979, to inspect documents.       On August 23, 1979, the Department again visited the Brazos offices to meet with Mr. Monahan and Mr. Townsend.       The Department made documents relating to the Brazos-Comanche Peak Antitrust Review available to HL&P for inspection on January 14-15, 1980.     HL&P counsel
In connection with the Brazos-Comanche Peak Antitrust Review, the Department visited the Brazos offices in Waco, Texas, on July 26-27, 1979, to inspect documents.
On August 23, 1979, the Department again visited the Brazos offices to meet with Mr. Monahan and Mr. Townsend.
The Department made documents relating to the Brazos-Comanche Peak Antitrust Review available to HL&P for inspection on January 14-15, 1980.
HL&P counsel


inspected these documents in the offices of the Antitrust Division in Washington and selected certain of these documents for copying.
. inspected these documents in the offices of the Antitrust Division in Washington and selected certain of these documents for copying.
HL&P Interrogatory 19(b)
HL&P Interrogatory 19(b)
Does the Division have any evidence       showing that this joint if CP&L and WTU planned generation f acility would be inf easible for the orderly withdrawal from TIS, which withdrawal would include adequate compensation by CP&L and HTU to any system which is now dependent on NTU and CP&L for interconnections and wheeling.
Does the Division have any evidence showing that this joint if CP&L and WTU planned generation f acility would be inf easible for the orderly withdrawal from TIS, which withdrawal would include adequate compensation by CP&L and HTU to any system which is now dependent on NTU and CP&L for interconnections and wheeling.
Department's Initial Response to HL&P Interrogatory 19(b) .
Department's Initial Response to HL&P Interrogatory 19(b).
The Department objects to this section of the interrogatory on the grounds that the question elicits neither facts nor evidence but is argumentative in nature and tone; further, the question is designed to elicit the mental impressions, conclusions, opinions and legal theories of the Department       in contravention of R. CIV. P. 26(b)(3).
The Department objects to this section of the interrogatory on the grounds that the question elicits neither facts nor evidence but is argumentative in nature and tone; further, the question is designed to elicit the mental impressions, conclusions, opinions and legal theories of the Department in contravention of NRC Rule of Pr actice S2.7 40(b) (2 ) and FED.
NRC Rule of Pr actice S2.7 40(b) (2 ) and FED.
R.
Department's Supplemental Response +o HL&P Interrogatory 19(b)
CIV.
The Department has no additional information responsive to this interrogatory request.
P. 26(b)(3).
+o HL&P Interrogatory 19(b)
Department's Supplemental Response The Department has no additional information responsive to this interrogatory request.
HL&P Interrogatory 20_
HL&P Interrogatory 20_
: 20.     (a) Does the Division have any evidence of an ag re _,ae nt between Houston and TU that existed prior to May 4, 1976, that provides that they would disconnect from any other member of TIS which enters interstate operation?
20.
(a) Does the Division have any evidence of an ag re _,ae nt between Houston and TU that existed prior to May 4, 1976, that provides that they would disconnect from any other member of TIS which enters interstate operation?
Department's Initial Response to HL&P Interrogatory 20(a)
Department's Initial Response to HL&P Interrogatory 20(a)
See response to interrogatory No. 1 Department's Supplemental Response to HL&P Interrogatory 20(a)
See response to interrogatory No. 1 to HL&P Interrogatory 20(a)
Refer to Department's Supplemental Response to HL&P Interrogatory 1(a) and 26(b) herein.
Department's Supplemental Response to HL&P Refer to Department's Supplemental Response Interrogatory 1(a) and 26(b) herein.


        ~ ~.- -
~ ~.- -
HL&P Interrogatory 20(b)-(c)
. HL&P Interrogatory 20(b)-(c)
(b)     If so, (1) specify the exact details of such an ag r eeme n t; (2) identify the persons involved in making the ag r eeme n t; (3) provide the date of the .greement; and (4) provide the form of the agreement (e.g , written or oral, in person or by telephone), and, if oral, identify all persons present.
(b)
(c)    Provide all documents which relate to the subject matter of this interrogatory.
If so, (1) specify the exact details of such an ag r eeme n t; (2) identify the persons involved in making the ag r eeme n t; (3) provide the date of the.greement; and (4) provide the form of the agreement (e.g, written or oral, in person or by telephone), and, if oral, identify all persons present.
Provide all documents which relate to the subject (c) matter of this interrogatory.
Department's Initial Response to HL&P Interrogatory 20(b)
Department's Initial Response to HL&P Interrogatory 20(b)
The Department has not yet had the opportunity to complete its review of discovery materials to the extent necessary to respond to this part of the interrogatory.         Document review and inves tiga tion ut e continu linj .
The Department has not yet had the opportunity to complete its review of discovery materials to the extent necessary to respond to this part of the interrogatory.
Document review and inves tiga tion ut e continu linj.
Department's Supplemental Response to llL&P Interrogatory 20(b)-(c)
Department's Supplemental Response to llL&P Interrogatory 20(b)-(c)
See Department's Supplemental Response to HL&P Interrogatory 20(a) herein.         Any additional information responsive to this interrogatory request is contained in the deposition transcripts in these proceedings, the deposition transcripts and testimony in West Texas Utilities Co. v. Texas Electric Service Company, et al.,     the documents provided to the Department by HL&P or TU, the documents provided to the Department during discovery, to which HL&P and TU have had access, and the documents provided to the Department by other parties. Any documents the Department has which have not been produced either by HL&P or TU or in to discovery, are being provided in the Department's Response Houston Lighting & Power Company's Third Interrogatories, filed herewith.
See Department's Supplemental Response to HL&P Interrogatory 20(a) herein.
                                                                            'l d
Any additional information responsive to this interrogatory request is contained in the deposition transcripts in these proceedings, the deposition transcripts and testimony in West Texas Utilities Co. v. Texas Electric Service Company, et al., the documents provided to the Department by HL&P or TU, the documents provided to the Department during discovery, to which HL&P and TU have had access, and the documents provided to the Department by other parties.
n a
Any documents the Department been produced either by HL&P or TU or in has which have not to discovery, are being provided in the Department's Response Houston Lighting & Power Company's Third Interrogatories, filed herewith.
'l d
na
:t "f
:t "f


HL&P Interrogatory 21(a)-(c)
. HL&P Interrogatory 21(a)-(c) 21.
: 21.     (a) Does the Division have any evidence that Houston acted in concert with any other utility when it disconnected from all other TIS systems on May 4, 1976?
(a) Does the Division have any evidence that Houston acted in concert with any other utility when it disconnected from all other TIS systems on May 4, 1976?
(b)     If so, provide a basis for your answer, including (1) identification of all persons involved in each such action; and (2) date and time of day of such action.
(b)
(c)     Provide all documents which relate to the subject matter of this interrogatory.
If so, provide a basis for your answer, including (1) identification of all persons involved in each such action; and (2) date and time of day of such action.
(c)
Provide all documents which relate to the subject matter of this interrogatory.
Department's Initial Response to HL&P Interrogatory 21(a) & (b)
Department's Initial Response to HL&P Interrogatory 21(a) & (b)
Yes, the Department alleges that HL&P and TU acted in concert on May 4 1976[ sic]. In addition to the intrastate only agreement as man 1 #ested by the contract between HL&P and TU and other actions to police that agreement, the Department is aware of extensive communication between HL&P management personnel and attorneys and their counterparts in Texas Utilities company immediately following the disconnection of May 4, 1976 as set forth in responses to interrogatories served on HL&P and TU in   ,
Yes, the Department alleges that HL&P and TU acted in concert on May 4 1976[ sic].
the private antitrust ac tion.
In addition to the intrastate only agreement as man 1 #ested by the contract between HL&P and TU and other actions to police that agreement, the Department is aware of extensive communication between HL&P management personnel and attorneys and their counterparts in Texas Utilities company immediately following the disconnection of May 4, 1976 as set forth in responses to interrogatories served on HL&P and TU in the private antitrust ac tion.
Department's Initial Response to HL&P Interrogatory 21(c)
Department's Initial Response to HL&P Interrogatory 21(c)
The Department has no documents relating to the subject matters of this interrogatory that are not already in the possession of HL&P and TU.
The Department has no documents relating to the subject matters of this interrogatory that are not already in the possession of HL&P and TU.
Department's Supplemental Response to HL&P Interrogator,v 21(a)-(c)
Department's Supplemental Response to HL&P Interrogator,v 21(a)-(c)
See Department's Supplemental Response to HL&P Inter agatory 1(a), 26(b)-(c) herein. Any additional information responsive to this interrogatory request is contained in the deposition tran-scripts in these p oceedings, the deposition transcripts and testimony in West Texas Utilities Co. v. Texas Electric Service Company, et al., the documents provided to the Department by HL&P or TU, the documents provided to the Department during discovery,
See Department's Supplemental Response to HL&P Inter agatory 1(a), 26(b)-(c) herein.
Any additional information responsive to this interrogatory request is contained in the deposition tran-scripts in these p oceedings, the deposition transcripts and testimony in West Texas Utilities Co.
: v. Texas Electric Service Company, et al.,
the documents provided to the Department by HL&P or TU, the documents provided to the Department during discovery,


4 t
4 t to which HL&P and TU have had access, and the documents provided to the Department by other parties.
to which HL&P and TU have had access, and the documents provided to the Department by other parties. Any documents the Department has which have not been produced either by HL&P or TU, or in discovery, are being provided in the Department's Response to Houston Lighting & Power Company's Third Interrogatories, filud herewith.
Any documents the Department has which have not been produced either by HL&P or TU, or in discovery, are being provided in the Department's Response to Houston Lighting & Power Company's Third Interrogatories, filud herewith.
HL&P Interrogatory 22
HL&P Interrogatory 22 22.
: 22.         (a) Does the Division contend that Houston's unilateral reservation of the r igh t to determine whether it operates in interstate commerce during the term of the South Texas operating licenses would create or maintain a situation inconsistent with the antitrust laws within the meaning of S105(c)(5) of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, 42 U.S.C. S2135(c)(5)?
(a) Does the Division contend that Houston's unilateral reservation of the r igh t to determine whether it operates in interstate commerce during the term of the South Texas operating licenses would create or maintain a situation inconsistent with the antitrust laws within the meaning of S105(c)(5) of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, 42 U.S.C. S2135(c)(5)?
(b)         If so, (1) state whether the situation would be created   or maintained; (2) identify the antitrust laws wi th which the inconsistency would arise; and (3) explain why the reservation of such a right became inconsistent with the antitrust laws only after October, 1974.
(b)
(c)         If not, state whether the Division contends that the reservation of such a right is inconsistent with the antitrust laws only if carried out in concert with another utility and if it does so contend then (1) state whether the situation would be created or maintained; (2) identify the antitrust laws with which the inconsistency would arise; and (3) explain why the reservation of such right became inconsistent with the antitrust laws only after October, 1974.
If so, (1) state whether the situation would be created or maintained; (2) identify the antitrust laws wi th which the inconsistency would arise; and (3) explain why the reservation of such a right became inconsistent with the antitrust laws only after October, 1974.
(d)         For each antitrust law identified in your answer to (b)(2) or (b)(3), state specifically the legal theory or theories upon wh ich the Division bases its contention that "a situation inconsistent with the antitrust law" would be created or maintained.
(c)
If not, state whether the Division contends that the reservation of such a right is inconsistent with the antitrust laws only if carried out in concert with another utility and if it does so contend then (1) state whether the situation would be created or maintained; (2) identify the antitrust laws with which the inconsistency would arise; and (3) explain why the reservation of such right became inconsistent with the antitrust laws only after October, 1974.
(d)
For each antitrust law identified in your answer to (b)(2) or (b)(3), state specifically the legal theory or theories upon wh ich the Division bases its contention that "a situation inconsistent with the antitrust law" would be created or maintained.
Department's Initial Response to HL&P Interrogatory 22(a)-(d)
Department's Initial Response to HL&P Interrogatory 22(a)-(d)
The Department objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that the question sets forth a hypothetical situation contrary to the alle'ations g          being made by the Department in this proceed-ing and as such it elicits neither facts nor evidence bu t is
The Department objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that the question sets forth a hypothetical situation contrary alle'ations being made by the Department in this proceed-to the g
ing and as such it elicits neither facts nor evidence bu t is


_...._.a s
_...._.a s argumentative in nature and tone; further, the question is designed to elicit the mental impressions, conclusions, opinions and legal theories of the Department's attorneys in contravention of NRC Rule of Practice S2.740(b)(2) and PED.
argumentative in nature and tone; further, the question is designed to elicit the mental impressions, conclusions, opinions and legal theories of the Department's attorneys in contravention of NRC Rule of Practice S2.740(b)(2) and PED. R. CIV. P. 26(b)(3).
R.
CIV.
P.
26(b)(3).
Department's Supplemental Response to HL&P's Interrogatory 22(a)-(d)
Department's Supplemental Response to HL&P's Interrogatory 22(a)-(d)
The Department has no further information responsive to this interrogatory request.
The Department has no further information responsive to this interrogatory request.
HL&P Interrogatory 23
HL&P Interrogatory 23 23.
: 23.   (a) Identify each instance of alleged injury to actual competition from either the alleged " intrastate only" agreement, or f rom any unilateral decision or policy by Houston to operate on an intrastate basis, including identification of (1) each injured person: (2) the relevant product and geographic ma rke t; (3) the type and extent of competition in each such ma rke t; (4) the market share of every utility in each such market; and (5) the specific cause and nature of each such injury (Emphasis in original).
(a) Identify each instance of alleged injury to actual competition from either the alleged " intrastate only" agreement, or f rom any unilateral decision or policy by Houston to operate on an intrastate basis, including identification of (1) each injured person: (2) the relevant product and geographic ma rke t; (3) the type and extent of competition in each such ma rke t; (4) the market share of every utility in each such market; and (5) the specific cause and nature of each such injury (Emphasis in original).
(b)   State the basis for your answer, and provide all doc-uments which relate to the subject matter of tnis interrogatory.
(b)
State the basis for your answer, and provide all doc-uments which relate to the subject matter of tnis interrogatory.
Department's Initial Response to HL&P Interrogatory 23(a)
Department's Initial Response to HL&P Interrogatory 23(a)
Due to the delay on the part of HL&P and TU in providing the Department with the documents selected by the Department from the discovery material in the private antitrust action, the Department has been unable to complete a timely review of that material and initiate its own follow-up discovery. As a result, the Department is not in a position to give full and complete responses to Interrogatory 23 at this time.
Due to the delay on the part of HL&P and TU in providing the Department with the documents selected by the Department from the discovery material in the private antitrust action, the Department has been unable to complete a timely review of that material and initiate its own follow-up discovery.
Actual competition was injured during the approximately one year period that HL&P a:id TU were refusing to interconnect with those utilities with whom it had historically mair tained interconnections. The injury was manifested by reduced reliability and increared cost as a result of the disconnection and refusal to reestablish interconnections. Those utilities affected were CP&L, NTU, Lower Colorado River Authority, City of Austin, Public Utility Board of San Antonio, STEC/MEC, Brazos Electric Membership Cooperative, and the membets of the TMPP.
As a result, the Department is not in a position to give full and complete responses to Interrogatory 23 at this time.
Actual competition was injured during the approximately one year period that HL&P a:id TU were refusing to interconnect with those utilities with whom it had historically mair tained interconnections.
The injury was manifested by reduced reliability and increared cost as a result of the disconnection and refusal to reestablish interconnections.
Those utilities affected were CP&L, NTU, Lower Colorado River Authority, City of Austin, Public Utility Board of San Antonio, STEC/MEC, Brazos Electric Membership Cooperative, and the membets of the TMPP.


_ m-
_ m-
                                .,. -- -- =,_.         -        . ,;-    -
-- -- =,_.
* i
i t i i
  ,                                                                                      t i
Department's Initial Response to HL&P Interrogatory 23(b)_
i Department's Initial Response to HL&P Interrogatory 23(b)_                       i The basis for the Department's answer to Interrogatory 23(a) are representations made by counsel and of ficials of CP&L and Central and Suu tnt. st Corporation, the pleadings filed, and the record compiled, ia Docket No. 14 before the Texas Public Utility Commission, ccmmunications with counsel for Brazos Electric Membeship Cooperative, and the City Managcr of Bryan, Texas.
i The basis for the Department's answer to Interrogatory representations made by counsel and of ficials of CP&L 23(a) are and Central and Suu tnt. st Corporation, the pleadings filed, and the record compiled, ia Docket No. 14 before the Texas Public Utility Commission, ccmmunications with counsel for Brazos Electric Membeship Cooperative, and the City Managcr of Bryan, Texas.
Department's Supplemental Responpe to HL&P Interrogatory 23(a)-(b)
Department's Supplemental Responpe to HL&P Interrogatory 23(a)-(b)
Th" information responsive to items (2), (3) and (4) of this interrogatory request is contained in the Department's Supplemental Response to HL&P Interrogatory 3(b) hereir .         The information responsive to the remainder of this interrogat.?ry r.. quest is contained in the Department's Supplemental Response to HL&P Interrogatory 1(a), 3(b), 10(b)-(c), 13, 26(b)-(c) and in the deposition transcriots in these proceedings, the otposition transcripts and teatimony in West Texas Utilities Co.         v. Texas Electric Service Company, et al., the documents provided to the Department by HL&P or TU, the documents provided to the Department during discovery, to which HL&P and TU have had access, and the documents provided to the Department by other parties.         Any documents the Department has which have not been produced either by HL&P or TU, or in discovery, are being provided in the Department's Response to Houston Lighting & Power Company's Third Interrogatories, filed herewith.
Th" information responsive to items (2), (3) and (4) of this interrogatory request is contained in the Department's Supplemental Response to HL&P Interrogatory 3(b) hereir.
HL&P Interrogatory 24(a)
The information responsive to the remainder of this interrogat.?ry r.. quest is contained in the Department's Supplemental Response to HL&P Interrogatory 1(a), 3(b), 10(b)-(c), 13, 26(b)-(c) and in the deposition transcriots in these proceedings, the otposition transcripts and teatimony in West Texas Utilities Co.
: 24.     (a) Identify each instance of alleged injury to potential competition from either the alleged "intrestate only" agreement, or from any unilateral decision or policy by Houston
: v. Texas Electric Service Company, et al.,
the documents provided to the Department by HL&P or TU, the documents provided to the Department during discovery, to which HL&P and TU have had access, and the documents provided to the Department by other parties.
Any documents the Department has which have not been produced either in discovery, are being provided in the by HL&P or TU, or Department's Response to Houston Lighting & Power Company's Third Interrogatories, filed herewith.
HL&P Interrogatory 24(a) 24.
(a) Identify each instance of alleged injury to potential competition from either the alleged "intrestate only" agreement, or from any unilateral decision or policy by Houston


        ~ - -
~ - -
to operate on an intrastate basis, includ ing identification of (1) each injured person; (2) the relevant product and geographic market; (3) the       type and extent of competition in each such market; (4) the       narket share of every utility in each such market; and (5)       the specific cause and nature of each such injury (Emphasis       in original).
. to operate on an intrastate basis, includ ing identification of (1) each injured person; (2) the relevant product and geographic market; (3) the type and extent of competition in each such market; (4) the narket share of every utility in each such market; and (5) the specific cause and nature of each such injury (Emphasis in original).
(b)       State the basis for your answer, and provide all documents which relate to the subject matter of this interrogatory.
(b)
State the basis for your answer, and provide all documents which relate to the subject matter of this interrogatory.
Department's Initial Response to HL&P Interrogatory 24(a)
Department's Initial Response to HL&P Interrogatory 24(a)
As noted on page 9 of the Department's advice letter dated February 21, 1978, sources of potential competition must be inferred from facts showing the geographic proximity of intrastate utilities, and the possible need or incentive to establish connection with such systems. In view of the increased costs of purchasing bulk power at wholesale, and absent institutional barriers (until recently there were no barriers of this nature) or artificial restrictions such as the intrastate only agreement of HL&P and TU, wholesale customers would look for other sources of lower cost power, wherever economically feasible. The intrastate only agreement tends to restrict this type of competition so that it is limited to systems situated on the in tr as t ate /in te r s ta te boundary, such as College S t a t io n . Where the system purchasing firm bulk power at wholesale is some distance away, the intrastate only agreement ef fectively precludes an interstate utility from providing service. This is so since any type of wheeling arrangement would not be possible without violating the intrastate only requirement of the HL&P and TU agreement, as was the case when the City of Jacksonville, Texas, considered a change of power suppliers in March of 1979.
As noted on page 9 of the Department's advice {{letter dated|date=February 21, 1978|text=letter dated February 21, 1978}}, sources of potential competition must be inferred from facts showing the geographic proximity of intrastate utilities, and the possible need or incentive to establish connection with such systems.
In view of the increased costs of purchasing bulk power at wholesale, and absent institutional barriers (until recently there were no barriers of this nature) or artificial restrictions such as the intrastate only agreement of HL&P and TU, wholesale customers would look for other sources of lower cost power, wherever economically feasible.
The intrastate only agreement tends to restrict this type of competition so that it is limited to systems situated on the in tr as t ate /in te r s ta te boundary, such as College S t a t io n.
Where the system purchasing firm bulk power at wholesale is some distance away, the intrastate only agreement ef fectively precludes an interstate utility from providing service.
This is so since any type of wheeling arrangement would not be possible without violating the intrastate only requirement of the HL&P and TU agreement, as was the case when the City of Jacksonville, Texas, considered a change of power suppliers in March of 1979.
Department's Initial Response to HL&P Interrogatory 24(b)
Department's Initial Response to HL&P Interrogatory 24(b)
The basis for the Department's response to Interrogatory 24(a) are the material provided to the Department as part of the construction permit review of the Comanche Peak, Allens Creek and South Texas Project, FERC maps and recent editions of the Electric World Directory of Electric Utilities listing private and public utilities in the area, conversations between the Department and the City Manager of Bryan, Texas and the TPUC Reports and Orders in Docket No. 409, and a letter from South Western Electric Power Company to the City of Jackson dated May 16, 1977.
The basis for the Department's response to Interrogatory 24(a) are the material provided to the Department as part of the construction permit review of the Comanche Peak, Allens Creek and South Texas Project, FERC maps and recent editions of the Electric World Directory of Electric Utilities listing private and public utilities in the area, conversations between the Department and the City Manager of Bryan, Texas and the TPUC Reports and Orders in Docket No. 409, and a letter from South Western Electric Power Company to the City of Jackson dated May 16, 1977.


                  . . =
.. =
Department's Supplemental Response to IIL&P Interrogatory 24(a)-(b)
, Department's Supplemental Response to IIL&P Interrogatory 24(a)-(b)
The information responsive to items (a)(2), (3) and (4) of this interrogatory request is contained! in the Department's Supplement al Response to IIL&P Interrogatory 3(b) herein.       The information responsive to the remainder of this interrogatory request is contained in the Department's Supplemental Response to llL&P Inter roga tory 23(a)-(b) and 29 herein, in the deposition transcripts in these proceedings, the deposition transcripts and testimony in West Texas Utilities Co. v. Texas Electric Service _
The information responsive to items (a)(2), (3) and (4) of this interrogatory request is contained! in the Department's Supplement al Response to IIL&P Interrogatory 3(b) herein.
Company, et al.,     the documents provided to the Department by llL&P or TU, the documents provided to the Department during discovery, to which IIL&P and TU have had access, and the documents provided to the Department by other parties.         Any documents the Department has which have not been produced either by IIL&P or TU, or in discovery, are    being provided in the Department's Response to llouston Lighting & Power Company's Third Interrogatories, filed herewith, ilL&P Interrogatory 25
The information responsive to the remainder of this interrogatory request is contained in the Department's Supplemental Response to llL&P Inter roga tory 23(a)-(b) and 29 herein, in the deposition transcripts in these proceedings, the deposition transcripts and testimony in West Texas Utilities Co. v. Texas Electric Service _
: 25.     (a) Identify each of "the areas in which flL&P and TU f ace competition or could reasonably compete" (p. 9), including but not limited to:
Company, et al., the documents provided to the Department by llL&P or TU, the documents provided to the Department during discovery, to which IIL&P and TU have had access, and the documents provided to the Department by other parties.
(1)     each relevant product and geographic market; (2)     the nature and extent of competition in each market; (3)     each actual competitor (including, if relevant, Houston and TU) in each market, and describe such competitor's dctivities in the market;
Any documents the Department has which have not been produced either by IIL&P or TU, or in being provided in the Department's Response to discovery, are llouston Lighting & Power Company's Third Interrogatories, filed
: herewith, ilL&P Interrogatory 25 25.
(a) Identify each of "the areas in which flL&P and TU f ace competition or could reasonably compete" (p. 9), including but not limited to:
(1) each relevant product and geographic market; (2) the nature and extent of competition in each market; (3) each actual competitor (including, if relevant, Houston and TU) in each market, and describe such competitor's dctivities in the market;


          --        - - ~ ~       --
- - ~ ~
(4)     each potential competitor (including, if relevant, Houston and TU) in each market, and describe such competitor's potential ac tivi ties in the market; and (5)     the market share of every utility in each such market.
. (4) each potential competitor (including, if relevant, Houston and TU) in each market, and describe such competitor's potential ac tivi ties in the market; and (5) the market share of every utility in each such market.
Department's Initial Response to HL&P Interrogatory 25(a)
Department's Initial Response to HL&P Interrogatory 25(a) in HL&P and TU face competition or could reasonably compete any area within the geographic area in which they presently have facilities or in any area within which they could economically construct facilities, absent legal or institutional restraints on their ability to so extend their system.
HL&P and TU face competition or could reasonably compete   in any area within the geographic area in which they presently have facilities or in any area within which they could economically construct facilities, absent legal or institutional restraints on their ability to so extend their system.
Interrogatories 25(a)(1)-(5) are, in the Department's view, redundant with Interrogatories 23 and 24 and were answered to the extent possible in our responses to those interrogatories, given the present status of discovery.
Interrogatories 25(a)(1)-(5) are, in the Department's view, redundant with Interrogatories 23 and 24 and were answered to the extent possible in our responses to those interrogatories, given the present status of discovery.
Department's Supplemental Response to HL&P Interrogatory 25(c)
Department's Supplemental Response to HL&P Interrogatory 25(c)
Line 670: Line 967:
Define the term " reasonably compete" and state the source of this definition.
Define the term " reasonably compete" and state the source of this definition.
Department's Initial Response to HL&P Interrogatory 25(b)-(c)
Department's Initial Response to HL&P Interrogatory 25(b)-(c)
The term " reasonably compete" is part of the phrase "In the area in which HLEP f aces competition or could reasonably compete..." and refers to that area defined in the response to In terroga tory 25( a) in which either HL&P or TU, if they so chose, could economically extend their facilities or services over the f acilities of another utility and compete.       Thus,
The term " reasonably compete" is part of the phrase "In the area in which HLEP f aces competition or could reasonably compete..." and refers to that area defined in the response to In terroga tory 25( a) in which either HL&P or TU, if they so chose, could economically extend their facilities or services over the f acilities of another utility and compete.
    " reasonably compete" means to compete economically versas to compete uneconomically. The term is based on an assumption by the Department that an electric utility would not extend its facilities or otherwise seek to provide services unless it were reasonable and is analogous to the potential competition tests applied in United States v. Falstaff Brewing Corp., 410 U.S.
: Thus,
" reasonably compete" means to compete economically versas to compete uneconomically.
The term is based on an assumption by the Department that an electric utility would not extend its facilities or otherwise seek to provide services unless it were reasonable and is analogous to the potential competition tests applied in United States v.
Falstaff Brewing Corp., 410 U.S.
526 (1973).
526 (1973).


u--.--.--n-_.----~.,___               _ _ _ , ~~
u--.--.--n-_.----~.,___
    , , + . -
~~
,, +. -
(
(
I Department's Supplenental Response to HL&P Interrogatory 25(b)-(c)
I Department's Supplenental Response to HL&P Interrogatory 25(b)-(c)
(
(
Re fe r to Department's Supplemental Respons to HL&P               4 Interrogatory 3(b) herein.
4 Re fe r to Department's Supplemental Respons to HL&P Interrogatory 3(b) herein.
f HJr&P Interrogatory 25(c) i State the basis for your answer, and provide all documents           ;
f HJr&P Interrogatory 25(c) i State the basis for your answer, and provide all documents which relate to the subject matter of this interrogatory.
which relate to the subject matter of this interrogatory.
I Department's Supplemental Response to HL&P Interrogatory 25(c)
I Department's Supplemental Response to HL&P Interrogatory 25(c)
The documents which relate to this interrogatory response include the deposition transcripts in these proceedings, the deposition transcripts and testimony in West Texas Utilities Co.
The documents which relate to this interrogatory response include the deposition transcripts in these proceedings, the deposition transcripts and testimony in West Texas Utilities Co.
: v. Texas Electric Service Company, et al., the documents provided to the Department by HL&P or TU, the documents provided to the Department during discovery, to which HL&P and TU have had access, and the documents provided to the Department by other parties.
: v. Texas Electric Service Company, et al.,
Any documents the Department has which have not been produced either by HL&P or TU, or in discovery, are being provided in the Department's Response to Houston Lighting & Power Company's Third Interrogatories, filed herewith.
the documents provided to the Department by HL&P or TU, the documents provided to the Department during discovery, to which HL&P and TU have had access, and the documents provided to the Department by other parties.
Any documents the Department has which have not been produced in discovery, are being provided in either by HL&P or TU, or the Department's Response to Houston Lighting & Power Company's Third Interrogatories, filed herewith.
HL&P Interrogatory 26_(a)
HL&P Interrogatory 26_(a)
Describe how "the intrastate only egreement has ef fectively precluded serious attempts to establish interstate connections" (p. 9, emphasis in original).
Describe how "the intrastate only egreement has ef fectively precluded serious attempts to establish interstate connections" (p.
9, emphasis in original).
Department's Initial Response to Interrogatory 26(a)
Department's Initial Response to Interrogatory 26(a)
The intrastate only agreement required any utility interconnected with HL&P or TU to refrain from interconnecting with another utility operating in interstate commerce as a conditio n to retaining the interconnections with HL&P and TU.
The intrastate only agreement required any utility interconnected with HL&P or TU to refrain from interconnecting with another utility operating in interstate commerce as a conditio n to retaining the interconnections with HL&P and TU.
Line 693: Line 995:
Refer to Department's Supplemental Response to HL&P Inter-rogatory 1(a), 26(b)-(c) herein.
Refer to Department's Supplemental Response to HL&P Inter-rogatory 1(a), 26(b)-(c) herein.


HL&P Interrogatory 26(b)
. HL&P Interrogatory 26(b)
(b)   Identify each serious attempt by a member of ERCOT to establish interstate connections, including (1) date; (2)
(b)
Identify each serious attempt by a member of ERCOT to establish interstate connections, including (1) date; (2)
Persons making the attempt; (3) actions taken which constitute the attempt; (4) type and purpose of the interstate connection attempted; and (5) causes of failure of the attempt.
Persons making the attempt; (3) actions taken which constitute the attempt; (4) type and purpose of the interstate connection attempted; and (5) causes of failure of the attempt.
Department's Initital Response to HL&P Interrogatory 26(b)
Department's Initital Response to HL&P Interrogatory 26(b)
Line 700: Line 1,003:
Department's Supplemental Response to HL&P Interrogatory 26(b)
Department's Supplemental Response to HL&P Interrogatory 26(b)
The following list pr ovid es the Department's present knowledge of apparent attempts by members of ERCOT to establish interstate interconnections.
The following list pr ovid es the Department's present knowledge of apparent attempts by members of ERCOT to establish interstate interconnections.
A. 1953 WTU Interconnection.
A.
B. Western Farmers /Brazos Interconnection.
1953 WTU Interconnection.
C. Interconnections Between Brazos, Upshur-Rural Coop, and the SPA.
B.
D. Gate City Interconnection with Western Farmers.
Western Farmers /Brazos Interconnection.
E. May 4, 1976 Interconnection by WTU with Utilities in Oklahoma.
C.
F. Tex-La Coops Interconnections.
Interconnections Between Brazos, Upshur-Rural Coop, and the SPA.
G. WTU-PPG Coops Interconnections.
D.
H. City of Electra's Emergency Interconnection.
Gate City Interconnection with Western Farmers.
I. Gulf States Utilities Co. - HL&P Huffman Intercon-nection.
E.
May 4, 1976 Interconnection by WTU with Utilities in Oklahoma.
F.
Tex-La Coops Interconnections.
G.
WTU-PPG Coops Interconnections.
H.
City of Electra's Emergency Interconnection.
I.
Gulf States Utilities Co. - HL&P Huffman Intercon-nection.
The following charts supply the information requested by this interrogatory in items (1)-(5).
The following charts supply the information requested by this interrogatory in items (1)-(5).


(1)                   (2)                   (3)                             (4)                   (3)
- (1)
IPersons Involved in the Apparent Data of Apparent         Attempt to       Actions Taken hhich     Type and Purpose of Inter- Apparent heascns bny Atte :pt Attempted             Obtain the           Constitute the       state Interconnect 1ons         Dic hot naterialice Intarconnection       Interconnection     Apparent Attenct       Apparently Attempted           in Whole or in Part
(2)
      .; t.~U contacted     J. F. Longley, HTU   GTU apparised TLSCO of     BTU's proposed relay       TESCO disconnected f rom uTU.
(3)
j .;SCO regarding                               plans which HTU developed systems was designed to
(4)
    ..n interconnection                         for a relay system bet-   provide service to WTU's round Dececcer                           ween the southern instra- customers when outages l .-i, 1954.                                     state portion of hTU's   occurred and emergency inte; connections.
(3)
system, an6 the northern, interstate portion of li                                                its system.
IPersons Involved in the Apparent Data of Apparent Attempt to Actions Taken hhich Type and Purpose of Inter-Apparent heascns bny Atte :pt Attempted Obtain the Constitute the state Interconnect 1ons Dic hot naterialice Intarconnection Interconnection Apparent Attenct Apparently Attempted in Whole or in Part t.~U contacted J.
I I
F. Longley, HTU GTU apparised TLSCO of BTU's proposed relay TESCO disconnected f rom uTU.
i    _) Tite meeting       R.A. Segrest, Brazos Brazos and Western Far-   Western Farmers ana Bra-     TP&L.planneo to cisconnect l     stwean western     H.A. Dalton, Brazos   mers completed the       zos proposed to interconnect from Brazos.
j.;SCO regarding plans which HTU developed systems was designed to
Jarmers and Brazos   W.S. Robson, Brazos   initial studies of the   tneir transmission systems
..n interconnection for a relay system bet-provide service to WTU's round Dececcer ween the southern instra-customers when outages l.-i, 1954.
!    .or tr.e purpose of   R.b. Hiller, Brazos   planned interconnection   in the counties of Wichita,
state portion of hTU's occurred and emergency system, an6 the northern, inte; connections.
      .oteloping an inter- naynard liuman, bes-   and had drawn up a ser-   biltarger, and Baylor,
l interstate portion of its system.
      .annection started     tern Farmers       les of contracts which   Texas. They operated Jounc July 3, 1961. E.L. Karnes, Western applied to the planned     in this area on an Farmers             interconnection.         isolated system basis until P.R. hall, Jr.,                               existing contracts had Wastern Farmers                          ''  terminated, at which time Jack Taylor, bestern                         3 they proposed to operate in Farmers                                       parallel, western Farmers Tom Craddock, B-K                               and Brazos planned to Cooperative                                   build and operate a 138kV Milton Sturdivant,                             interconnection. The pro-Drazos                                       posed date for undertaking E.T. Ankele, Brazos                           this project was after harch 15, 196G, wh*n the then ex-isting Brazos-TP&L contract expired.
i I
I i
_)
Tite meeting R.A.
Segrest, Brazos Brazos and Western Far-Western Farmers ana Bra-TP&L.planneo to cisconnect l
stwean western H.A.
Dalton, Brazos mers completed the zos proposed to interconnect from Brazos.
Jarmers and Brazos W.S.
Robson, Brazos initial studies of the tneir transmission systems
.or tr.e purpose of R.b. Hiller, Brazos planned interconnection in the counties of Wichita,
.oteloping an inter-naynard liuman, bes-and had drawn up a ser-biltarger, and Baylor,
.annection started tern Farmers les of contracts which Texas.
They operated Jounc July 3, 1961.
E.L. Karnes, Western applied to the planned in this area on an Farmers interconnection.
isolated system basis until P.R. hall, Jr.,
existing contracts had terminated, at which time Wastern Farmers 3
Jack Taylor, bestern they proposed to operate in Farmers parallel, western Farmers Tom Craddock, B-K and Brazos planned to Cooperative build and operate a 138kV Milton Sturdivant, interconnection. The pro-Drazos posed date for undertaking E.T. Ankele, Brazos this project was after harch 15, 196G, wh*n the then ex-isting Brazos-TP&L contract expired.
9
9


                                                        - 5 9. -
- 5 9. -
(1)                 (2)                   (3)                             (4)                       (5)
(1)
                      ) Persons Involved in the Apparent 0:te of Apparent       Attempt to         Actions Taken Which     Type and Purpose of Inter- Apparent Eeascns bny Attempt A-terated           Obtain the           Constitute the       state Interconnections           Dic hot aaterialize
(2)
:rtarcohnoction     Interconnection       Apparent Attangt       Apparently Attempted             in Whole or in Part
(3)
  ; :.TU contacted   J. F. Longley, WTU     WTU apparised TESCO of   LTU's proposed relay         TESCO disconnected from i.TU.
(4)
; LSCO regarding                             plans whien GTO developed systems was designed to interconnection                         for a relay system bet-   provide service to hTU's round recember                             veen the southern instra- customers when outages
(5)
.,,    1954.                                 state portion of LTU's   occurred and emergency system, and the northern, interconnections.
) Persons Involved in the Apparent 0:te of Apparent Attempt to Actions Taken Which Type and Purpose of Inter-Apparent Eeascns bny Attempt A-terated Obtain the Constitute the state Interconnections Dic hot aaterialize
:rtarcohnoction Interconnection Apparent Attangt Apparently Attempted in Whole or in Part
; :.TU contacted J. F. Longley, WTU WTU apparised TESCO of LTU's proposed relay TESCO disconnected from i.TU.
; LSCO regarding plans whien GTO developed systems was designed to interconnection for a relay system bet-provide service to hTU's round recember veen the southern instra-customers when outages 1954.
state portion of LTU's occurred and emergency system, and the northern, interconnections.
interstate portion of its system.
interstate portion of its system.
_; The reeting       R.A. Segrest, Brazos Brazos and Western Far-     bestern Farmers and Bra-       TP&L.plannec to oisconnect
_; The reeting R.A. Segrest, Brazos Brazos and Western Far-bestern Farmers and Bra-TP&L.plannec to oisconnect
  't.cean i.estern   h.A. Dalton, Brazos   mers completed the         zos proposed to interconnect from Brazos.
't.cean i.estern h.A. Dalton, Brazos mers completed the zos proposed to interconnect from Brazos.
.:rrers and bra:os   h.S. hobson, Brazos   initial studies of the     tneir transmission systems
.:rrers and bra:os h.S.
.ar :.e purpose of   R.b. 11 iller, Bra:cs planned interconnection   in the counties of bichita,
hobson, Brazos initial studies of the tneir transmission systems
.cieloping an inter- acynard Haman, bes-   and had drawn up a ser-   bilbarger, and Baylor,
.ar :.e purpose of R.b.
. nnection started     tern Farmers         ies of contracts which     Texas. They operated
11 iller, Bra:cs planned interconnection in the counties of bichita,
-round July 3, 1961. E.L. Karnes, Western applied to the planned     in this area on an Farmers             interconnection.           isolateo system basis until P.R. liall, Jr.,                                 existing contracts had Gastern Farmers                            ''  terminated, at which time Jack Taylor, bestern                           4 they proposed to operate in Farmers                                         parallel. n.estern Farmers Tom Craddock, B-K                               and Brazos planned to Cooperative                                     build and operate a 13BkV Milton Sturdivant,                               interconnection. The pro-Drazos                                         posed date for undertaking E.T. Ankele, Brazos                             this project was af ter harch 15, 1960, when the then ex-isting Brazos-TP&L contract expired.
.cieloping an inter-acynard Haman, bes-and had drawn up a ser-bilbarger, and Baylor,
 
. nnection started tern Farmers ies of contracts which Texas.
(2)                  (3)                          (4)                          (5)
They operated
-round July 3, 1961.
E.L.
Karnes, Western applied to the planned in this area on an Farmers interconnection.
isolateo system basis until P.R. liall, Jr.,
existing contracts had terminated, at which time Gastern Farmers Jack Taylor, bestern they proposed to operate in 4
Farmers parallel. n.estern Farmers Tom Craddock, B-K and Brazos planned to Cooperative build and operate a 13BkV Milton Sturdivant, interconnection. The pro-Drazos posed date for undertaking E.T. Ankele, Brazos this project was af ter harch 15, 1960, when the then ex-isting Brazos-TP&L contract expired.
(1)
(1)
Persons Involved in                                                               Apparent heasons ..:1y Cate of Apparent       the Apparent     Actions Taken Ghich         Type and Purpose ot Inter-Atterpt to Obtain         Constitute the           state Interconnactions     Attempt Diu t. o t oaterialize Attarpted                                                                                        in 6. hole or in Part Interconnection      Interconnection    Accarent Attempt            Apparently Attonated One plan proposed by      ??&L's plan to cisconnect
(2)
  .) Tan initial meet- Douglas bright, SPA Upshur Rural, SPA, tra-zos, the City of Gar-       Brazos, Upshur-Rural, dPA, from SPA. Brazos ano any ngs aetwean tce      V.3. dtanley, SPA                                                            other utility wnicn went
(3)
  ;.arties bagan around F.E. Conway, SEA   land ("Gcriand"), and       Garland and Greenville R.F. Sanford, Dept. Grconville obtained         consisted of tne construc- into interstate cotrerce.
(4)
June 6, 1962.
(5)
of the Interior,     financing from RLA and     tion or generation and Tulsa               had perforned studies       transmission facilities L.F. Dicking, Dept. regarding interconnec-     which was intenced to of the Interior,     tions and the construc-   interconnect the Tulsa               tion of generation         acove systeme into a H.A. Calton, Braros facilities.                   coordinatec group of U .S . Robson, Brazos                             syste.ms that operated R.A. Segrest,                                     in parallel.
Persons Involved in Cate of Apparent the Apparent Actions Taken Ghich Type and Purpose ot Inter-Apparent heasons..:1y Attarpted Atterpt to Obtain Constitute the state Interconnactions Attempt Diu
Brazos C.J. Smitn, Brazos R.F. Richter, Rural Electrification Administration
: t. o t oaterialize Interconnection Interconnection Accarent Attempt Apparently Attonated in
: 6. hole or in Part
.)
Tan initial meet-Douglas bright, SPA Upshur Rural, SPA, tra-One plan proposed by
??&L's plan to cisconnect ngs aetwean tce V.3. dtanley, SPA zos, the City of Gar-Brazos, Upshur-Rural, dPA, from SPA. Brazos ano any
;.arties bagan around F.E. Conway, SEA land ("Gcriand"), and Garland and Greenville other utility wnicn went June 6, 1962.
R.F.
Sanford, Dept.
Grconville obtained consisted of tne construc-into interstate cotrerce.
of the Interior, financing from RLA and tion or generation and Tulsa had perforned studies transmission facilities L.F. Dicking, Dept.
regarding interconnec-which was intenced to of the Interior, tions and the construc-interconnect the Tulsa tion of generation acove systeme into a H.A. Calton, Braros facilities.
coordinatec group of U.S. Robson, Brazos syste.ms that operated R.A. Segrest, in parallel.
Brazos C.J. Smitn, Brazos R.F.
Richter, Rural Electrification Administration
("RLA")
("RLA")
J.L. Johns, Upshur-Eural
J.L. Johns, Upshur-Eural
: h. 1; Clair, Upshur-Eural R.L. diller, Bra:oc talton sturdivant, Brazos
: h. 1; Clair, Upshur-Eural R.L. diller, Bra:oc talton sturdivant, Brazos Altert Russell, City of Greenville
* Altert Russell, City                           '
of Greenville
("Greenville")
("Greenville")
Gilbart Pullen, Greenville
Gilbart Pullen, Greenville (1)
 
(2)
(1)                 (2)                     (3)                   (4)                           (5) f  Persons Involved in Date of Apparent     the Apparent Attempt Actions Taken Which     Ty pe and Purpose of Inter-   Apparent Reasons Why Attenpted             Obtain the           Constitute the     state Interconnections     Attempt Did Not Material-Interconnection       Interconnection         Apparent Attempt   Apparently Attempted       lize in Whole or in Part D) On December 12,   R.A. Yarbrough,     Gate City proposed to   Refer to 3 (D).in           WTU was not permitted by 1974, Gate City       Gate City           build a transmission   this response.             TIS members to delete the filed a protest       Maynard Human, Wes-   line to transfer power                             " intrastate only" clause dt the FPC to the     tern Farmers         from Western Farmers.                             f rom a proposed contract contract offered                                                                               between WTU and Gate City.
(3)
(4)
(5)
Persons Involved in f
Date of Apparent the Apparent Attempt Actions Taken Which Ty pe and Purpose of Inter-Apparent Reasons Why Attenpted Obtain the Constitute the state Interconnections Attempt Did Not Material-Interconnection Interconnection Apparent Attempt Apparently Attempted lize in Whole or in Part D) On December 12, R.A. Yarbrough, Gate City proposed to Refer to 3 (D).in WTU was not permitted by 1974, Gate City Gate City build a transmission this response.
TIS members to delete the filed a protest Maynard Human, Wes-line to transfer power
" intrastate only" clause dt the FPC to the tern Farmers from Western Farmers.
f rom a proposed contract contract offered between WTU and Gate City.
to it by h70.
to it by h70.
E) May 4, 1976       Durwood Chalker,     WTU established a       The purpose was to esta-   See Depattment's Supple-WTU                 radial tie from Texas   blish an interstate inter- mental response to HL&P's into Oklahoma.           connection.                 interrogatory 1(a), herein.
E) May 4, 1976 Durwood Chalker, WTU established a The purpose was to esta-See Depattment's Supple-WTU radial tie from Texas blish an interstate inter-mental response to HL&P's into Oklahoma.
connection.
interrogatory 1(a), herein.
Numerous hTU officers and employees.
Numerous hTU officers and employees.
O
O (1)
 
(2)
(1)                 (2)                 (3)                   (4)                         (5)
(3)
Persons Involved in Date of Apparent     the Apparent Attempt Actions Taken Which Ty pe and Purpose of Inter-   Apparent Reasons Why
(4)
.      Attsepted         to Obtain the       Constitute the       state Interconnections   Attempt Did Not Material-Interconnection       Interconnection     Apparent Attempt   Apparently Attempted     lize in Whole or in Part F) Tex-La presently   Fred Buchanan,     Tex-La is a party   Tex-La seeks interconnec-   TP&L's wholesale contract seeks interconnec-     Cherokee Coop     to the Comanche Peak tions which would permit   with Tex-La provides that tions which would     Juan Nicholas, Wood proceeding, where,   its member coops to pur-   Tex-La may not interconnect link the intrastate   County Coop       among other relief, chase SPA power which will into interstate commerce and interstate por-   Eldridge Streidel, they seek interstate become available in the     so long as Tex-La is inter-tiot   of the member   Sam Houston Coop   interconnections. future, to receive power   connected with TP&L. Thus coop system to-       John Butts, Deep                         from SWEPCO's Pirkey Plant, " intrastate only agreement" gether.               East Coop.                             to participate effectively has prevented Tex-La from in the Comanche Peak plant, effectively entering into to use TP&L's power to     interstate commerce.
(5)
Persons Involved in Date of Apparent the Apparent Attempt Actions Taken Which Ty pe and Purpose of Inter-Apparent Reasons Why Attsepted to Obtain the Constitute the state Interconnections Attempt Did Not Material-Interconnection Interconnection Apparent Attempt Apparently Attempted lize in Whole or in Part F) Tex-La presently Fred Buchanan, Tex-La is a party Tex-La seeks interconnec-TP&L's wholesale contract seeks interconnec-Cherokee Coop to the Comanche Peak tions which would permit with Tex-La provides that tions which would Juan Nicholas, Wood proceeding, where, its member coops to pur-Tex-La may not interconnect link the intrastate County Coop among other relief, chase SPA power which will into interstate commerce and interstate por-Eldridge Streidel, they seek interstate become available in the so long as Tex-La is inter-tiot of the member Sam Houston Coop interconnections.
future, to receive power connected with TP&L.
Thus coop system to-John Butts, Deep from SWEPCO's Pirkey Plant,
" intrastate only agreement" gether.
East Coop.
to participate effectively has prevented Tex-La from in the Comanche Peak plant, effectively entering into to use TP&L's power to interstate commerce.
serve the interstate por-tions of their respective systems; and to use SWEPCO power to serve the intra-state portions of their respective systems.
serve the interstate por-tions of their respective systems; and to use SWEPCO power to serve the intra-state portions of their respective systems.
 
(1)
(1)                 (2)                     (3)                   (4)                 (5)
(2)
Persons Involved in                         Type and Purpose of Apparent Reasons Wny Date of Apparent     the Apparent Attempt   Actions Taken Which   Interstate Intercon-to Obtain tw           Constitute the     nections Apparently   Attempt Did Not Mat erial-Attempted Interconnection       Interconnectic.   ,
(3)
Apparent Attempt         Attempted       lize ir. Whole or in Part Carl Stover, Con-   The WTU-PPG coops have The WTU-PPG coops     WTU is currently unable G) WTU and PPG                                                    seek the ability to   to wheel power to the Coops are presently    sulting Engineer    been negotiating a new considering inter-     for the WTU-PPG     wholesale power con-   wheel power through   WTU-PPG coops from inter-state interconnec-     coops.             tract with WTU which   the WTU system       state sources due to tions.                                     provides that WTU will from utilities that   the TPUC Order in Docket WTU and PPG Coop     provide wheeling ser- operate in both       114 dated May 3, 1977, officers and         vices so that the BTU- interstate and intra- which was precipitated by employees who       PPG coops can purchase state commerce.       the " intrastate only are clients of       power from utilities                         agreement."
(4)
Mr. Stover.         other than WTU which operate either in in-trastate or interstate commerce.
(5)
H) At ; east as early Paul Hayers         Requests were made to Refer to 3 (H).       TESCO has refused to as 1972, the City     John McKelvery       TESCO for an emergency in this Response. grant the interconnec-Electra has requested                       interconnection.                             tion pursuant to the that TESCO provide                                                                       " intrastate only agree-Electra with an                                                                        ment."
Persons Involved in Type and Purpose of Date of Apparent the Apparent Attempt Actions Taken Which Interstate Intercon-Apparent Reasons Wny Attempted to Obtain tw Constitute the nections Apparently Attempt Did Not Mat erial-Interconnection Interconnectic.
emergency intercon-nection.
Apparent Attempt Attempted lize ir. Whole or in Part G) WTU and PPG Carl Stover, Con-The WTU-PPG coops have The WTU-PPG coops WTU is currently unable Coops are presently sulting Engineer been negotiating a new seek the ability to to wheel power to the considering inter-for the WTU-PPG wholesale power con-wheel power through WTU-PPG coops from inter-state interconnec-coops.
I
tract with WTU which the WTU system state sources due to tions.
 
provides that WTU will from utilities that the TPUC Order in Docket WTU and PPG Coop provide wheeling ser-operate in both 114 dated May 3, 1977, officers and vices so that the BTU-interstate and intra-which was precipitated by employees who PPG coops can purchase state commerce.
(1)                   (2)                   (3)                     (4)                   (5)
the " intrastate only are clients of power from utilities agreement."
Persons Involved in                           Type and Purpose of Date of Apparent   The Apparent At tempt Actions Taken Which     Interstate Intercon- Apparent Reasons Why Attempted         to Gbtain the         Constitute the       nections Apparently Attempt Did Not Material-Interconnection     Interconnection     Apparent Attempt           Attempted       lize in Whole or in Part I) February 7, 1957 Federal Power Com-   On Fetruary 7, 1957,   A 138 kv intercon-   HL&P experienced several mission             HL&P applied for per-   nection between Gulf difficulties when the Mr. Robi nson, HL&P   mission from the FPC   States and HL&P near interconnection was Mr. Del Homme, HL&P   to close the "Huffman   Huffman, Texas.     operated closed. These Mr. J. G. Reese, HL&P Tie", which intercon-                       included:
Mr. Stover.
Mr. T. H. Wharton,   nected Gulf States and HL&P gathered infor- a. Load swings by the HL&P               HL&P. HL&P sought to   nation and complied       systems connected Mr. Joseph H. Gutride close the interconnee- data regarding this       to the east. However Secretary, FPC     tion for a trial period interconnection in         the South Texas Mr. Leon M. Fuquay   and maintained that it order to deterimine       Systems, when opera-Secretary, FPC'     must obtain an exemp-   if additional power       ting as a separate tion from being placed could be obtained in     closed loop pool, within FPC jurisdiction order to serve its       were not seriously during that time.       grewing commercial       disturbed by these and industrial load.       fluctuations.
other than WTU which operate either in in-trastate or interstate commerce.
The FPC granted the                         b. The difficulty of request for operation                             accounting for energy of the Huffman tie                   ,          when the tie was during a trial period.                           closed.
H) At ; east as early Paul Hayers Requests were made to Refer to 3 (H).
HL5P then upgraded the Huffman tie from                         The continued closed oper-69kv to 138kv and                           ation of the Huffman tiv 1
TESCO has refused to as 1972, the City John McKelvery TESCO for an emergency in this Response.
commenced trial oper-                       was therefore terminated ations of the line                           and HL&P was permitted by for approximately a                         the FPC to operate the year.                                       "Huffman Tie" as an exemp-tion from FPC jurisdiction while operating the tie on
grant the interconnec-Electra has requested interconnection.
,                                                                                        an emergency basis.
tion pursuant to the that TESCO provide
" intrastate only agree-ment."
Electra with an emergency intercon-nection.
I (1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
Persons Involved in Type and Purpose of Date of Apparent The Apparent At tempt Actions Taken Which Interstate Intercon-Apparent Reasons Why Attempted to Gbtain the Constitute the nections Apparently Attempt Did Not Material-Interconnection Interconnection Apparent Attempt Attempted lize in Whole or in Part I) February 7, 1957 Federal Power Com-On Fetruary 7,
: 1957, A 138 kv intercon-HL&P experienced several mission HL&P applied for per-nection between Gulf difficulties when the Mr. Robi nson, HL&P mission from the FPC States and HL&P near interconnection was Mr. Del Homme, HL&P to close the "Huffman Huffman, Texas.
operated closed. These Mr. J. G. Reese, HL&P Tie", which intercon-included:
Mr. T.
H.
: Wharton, nected Gulf States and HL&P gathered infor-a.
Load swings by the HL&P HL&P.
HL&P sought to nation and complied systems connected Mr. Joseph H. Gutride close the interconnee-data regarding this to the east.
However Secretary, FPC tion for a trial period interconnection in the South Texas Mr. Leon M.
Fuquay and maintained that it order to deterimine Systems, when opera-Secretary, FPC' must obtain an exemp-if additional power ting as a separate tion from being placed could be obtained in closed loop pool, within FPC jurisdiction order to serve its were not seriously during that time.
grewing commercial disturbed by these and industrial load.
fluctuations.
The FPC granted the b.
The difficulty of request for operation accounting for energy of the Huffman tie when the tie was during a trial period.
closed.
HL5P then upgraded the Huffman tie from The continued closed oper-69kv to 138kv and ation of the Huffman tiv 1
commenced trial oper-was therefore terminated ations of the line and HL&P was permitted by for approximately a the FPC to operate the year.
"Huffman Tie" as an exemp-tion from FPC jurisdiction while operating the tie on an emergency basis.
f
f


liL&P Interrogatory 26(c)
. liL&P Interrogatory 26(c)
(c)   Identity each serious attempt by a member of the SWPP to esta nich interconnections with a member of ERCOT, including (1) d:te; (2) persons making the attempt; (3) actions taken which constitute the attempt; (4) type and purpose at the interconnection attempted; and (5) causes of failure of the attempt.
(c)
Identity each serious attempt by a member of the SWPP to esta nich interconnections with a member of ERCOT, including (1) d:te; (2) persons making the attempt; (3) actions taken which constitute the attempt; (4) type and purpose at the interconnection attempted; and (5) causes of failure of the attempt.
Dep'rtment'a Initial Response to IlL&P Interrogatory 26(c)
Dep'rtment'a Initial Response to IlL&P Interrogatory 26(c)
The Department cannot respond to these interrogatories given the current status of discovery caused by the delay of IIL&P and TU in providing the Department with discovery material from the private antitrust action.
The Department cannot respond to these interrogatories given the current status of discovery caused by the delay of IIL&P and TU in providing the Department with discovery material from the private antitrust action.
Department's Supplemental Response to IfL&P Interrogatory 26(c)
Department's Supplemental Response to IfL&P Interrogatory 26(c)
The following list provider the Department's present knowleoge of attempts by members of SWPP to establish interconnections witn a member of ERCGT.
The following list provider the Department's present knowleoge of attempts by members of SWPP to establish interconnections witn a member of ERCGT.
A. Western Farmers /Brazos Interconnection.
A.
B. Interconnections Between Brazos, Upshur-Rural, anu the SPA.
Western Farmers /Brazos Interconnection.
C. WTU Interconnee. ion with Utilities in Oklanoma on May 4, 1976.
B.
D. SPA Interconnections.
Interconnections Between Brazos, Upshur-Rural, anu the SPA.
E. Western Farmers Interconnections.
C.
F. Gulf States Interconnections.
WTU Interconnee. ion with Utilities in Oklanoma on May 4, 1976.
The information sought by items (1)-(5) or tnis interrogatory request relating to A,   B, and C above, have been proviaed in the Department's Supplemental Response to IIL&P Interrogatory 26(b) herein. The following charts supply the information requested by this interrogatory in items (1)-(5) which relate to D, L and F above.
D.
 
SPA Interconnections.
(1)               (2)                       (3)
E.
Persons Involved in (4)                       (5)
Western Farmers Interconnections.
Type and Purpose of Date of 1.pparent     the Apparent Attempt   Actions Taken Which Attempted         to Obtain the         Constitute the Interstate Intercon-      Apparent Reascas Why Interconnection                                                          nections Apparently   Attempt Did Not Materialize Interconnection       Apparent Attempt                 Attempted             in whole or in Part D) SPA currently fav- James llammett, SPA The SPA has hydroelec-   SPA seeks to coordinate the ors interconnections  Walter Bowers, SPA                                                        TP&L's present contrac.t tric power available which would permit                                                  Whitney and Denison Dams     with SPA forbids intr.r-SPA to coordinate for allocation and delivery in the future.
F.
with the remainder of the     state operations b/ SPA.
Gulf States Interconnections.
the Whitney Dam and                                                SPA system, to allocate In addition, SPA is     power to cooperatives in the southern portion                       prepared to coordinate of the Denison Dam                                                  Texas that presently cannot with the remainder the Denison and Whitney receive interstate power, of the SPA system.
The information sought by items (1)-(5) or tnis interrogatory request relating to A, B,
Dams with the remainder and to pu. chase efficier.rf of the SPA system, vhich power from ERCOT member would require use of     utilities.
and C above, have been proviaed in the Department's Supplemental Response to IIL&P Interrogatory 26(b) herein.
transmission facilities
The following charts supply the information requested by this interrogatory in items (1)-(5) which relate to D, L and F above.
* of ERCOT members and interstate utilities.
(1)
SPA also seeks to pur-
(2)
'                                            chase deficiency power from ERCOT members.
(3)
 
(4)
(1)               (2)                   (3)                                 (4)
(5)
Persons Involved ir                                                                          (5)
Persons Involved in Type and Purpose of Date of 1.pparent the Apparent Attempt Actions Taken Which Interstate Intercon-Apparent Reascas Why Attempted to Obtain the Constitute the nections Apparently Attempt Did Not Materialize Interconnection Interconnection Apparent Attempt Attempted in whole or in Part D) SPA currently fav-James llammett, SPA The SPA has hydroelec-SPA seeks to coordinate the TP&L's present contrac.t ors interconnections Walter Bowers, SPA tric power available Whitney and Denison Dams with SPA forbids intr.r-which would permit for allocation and with the remainder of the state operations b/ SPA.
Type and Purpose of Date of Apparent the Appa rent At tempt   Actions Taken Which             Interstate Intercon-     Apparent Reasons Why Attempted       to Obtain the           Constitute the Interconnection                                                            nections Apparently Attempt Did Not Materialize Interconnection       Apparent Attempt                     Attempted in Whole or in Part E) Arouno Septem- Durwood Chalker,       In September of 1977 ber 16, 1977        WTU Western Farmers would have   TP&L refused to sell any Mr. Spence of TP&L con-     needed Interconnections be- power to Western Farmers.
SPA to coordinate delivery in the future.
Maynard Human,         tacted Durwood Chalker     tween WTU and/or TP&L to Western Farmers     of WTU and of f ered to     have purchased the power sell 300-400 Mw of         made available by TP&L.
SPA system, to allocate the Whitney Dam and In addition, SPA is power to cooperatives in the southern portion prepared to coordinate Texas that presently cannot of the Denison Dam the Denison and Whitney receive interstate power, with the remainder Dams with the remainder and to pu. chase efficier.rf of the SPA system.
power to WTU. WTU then communicated this offer to Western Farmers.
of the SPA system, vhich power from ERCOT member would require use of utilities.
transmission facilities of ERCOT members and interstate utilities.
SPA also seeks to pur-chase deficiency power from ERCOT members.
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
Persons Involved ir Type and Purpose of Date of Apparent the Appa rent At tempt Actions Taken Which Interstate Intercon-Apparent Reasons Why Attempted to Obtain the Constitute the nections Apparently Attempt Did Not Materialize Interconnection Interconnection Apparent Attempt Attempted in Whole or in Part E) Arouno Septem-Durwood Chalker, In September of 1977 Western Farmers would have TP&L refused to sell any ber 16, 1977 WTU Mr. Spence of TP&L con-needed Interconnections be-power to Western Farmers.
Maynard Human, tacted Durwood Chalker tween WTU and/or TP&L to Western Farmers of WTU and of f ered to have purchased the power sell 300-400 Mw of made available by TP&L.
power to WTU.
WTU then communicated this offer to Western Farmers.
Mr. Human wrote Mr.
Mr. Human wrote Mr.
Spence of TP&L on Sep-tember 16,1977 request-ing to purchase this power. On September 23, 1977 Mr. Spence informed Mr. Human that it was not possible for TP&L to sell power outside of Texas.
Spence of TP&L on Sep-tember 16,1977 request-ing to purchase this power.
F) Around May 17, Alfred Naylor,       Gulf States informed 1977                                                                The Department is unable to   The Depa r tme n t is not (GSU)               the TPUC that Gulf         answer this portion of the Norman Lee,                                                                    aware of the reasons why States would benefit       interrogatory since the in-   this attempt by Gulf (CSU)             from an interconnection     formation the Depar tment   States has not materi-with HL&P.                 would reveal is the subject   alized, however, HL&P has of a Protective Order which   a standing refusal to in-dpplies to Gulf States docu-   terconnect with any utii-ments and portions of Nay-   ity that operates in lor's deposition which were   interstate commerce.
On September 23, 1977 Mr. Spence informed Mr. Human that it was not possible for TP&L to sell power outside of Texas.
designated to be confiden-tial. HL&P and TU are parties to this Protective Order so this information is or should be known to them.                                                 -
F) Around May 17, Alfred Naylor, Gulf States informed The Department is unable to The Depa r tme n t is not 1977 (GSU) the TPUC that Gulf answer this portion of the aware of the reasons why Norman Lee, States would benefit interrogatory since the in-this attempt by Gulf (CSU) from an interconnection formation the Depar tment States has not materi-with HL&P.
would reveal is the subject alized, however, HL&P has of a Protective Order which a standing refusal to in-dpplies to Gulf States docu-terconnect with any utii-ments and portions of Nay-ity that operates in lor's deposition which were interstate commerce.
designated to be confiden-tial.
HL&P and TU are parties to this Protective Order so this information is or should be known to them.
e
e


                                  ~68-HL&P Interrogatory 26(d)
~68-HL&P Interrogatory 26(d)
(d)   State how the Division would determine what is a
(d)
    " serious attempt" to establish interstate connections.
State how the Division would determine what is a
" serious attempt" to establish interstate connections.
_D_epartment's Initial Response to HL&P Interrogatory 26(d)
_D_epartment's Initial Response to HL&P Interrogatory 26(d)
The Department objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that the question elicits neither facts nor evidence but is argumentative in nature and tone; further, the question is designed to elicit the mental impressions, conclusions, opinions, and legal theories of the Department's attorneys in contravention of NRC Rule of Practice S2.740(b)(2) and PED. R. CIV. P. 26(b)(3).
The Department objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that the question elicits neither facts nor evidence but is argumentative in nature and tone; further, the question is designed to elicit the mental impressions, conclusions, opinions, and legal theories of the Department's attorneys in contravention of NRC Rule of Practice S2.740(b)(2) and PED.
R.
CIV.
P.
26(b)(3).
Department's Supplemental Response to HL&P Interrogatory 26(d)
Department's Supplemental Response to HL&P Interrogatory 26(d)
The Department has no additional information responsive to this interrogatory request.
The Department has no additional information responsive to this interrogatory request.
Line 832: Line 1,241:
Department's Supplemental Response to HL&P Interrogatory 26(e)
Department's Supplemental Response to HL&P Interrogatory 26(e)
The documents responsive to this interrogatory request include the deposition transcripts in these proceedings, the deposi tion transcripts and testimony in West Texas Utilities Co.
The documents responsive to this interrogatory request include the deposition transcripts in these proceedings, the deposi tion transcripts and testimony in West Texas Utilities Co.
: v. Texas Electric Service Company, et al., the documents provided to the Department by HL&P or TU, the documents provided to the Department during discovery, to which HL&P and TU have had access, and the documents provided to the Department by other parties. Any documents the Department;;has which have not been produced either by HL&P or TU, or in discovery, are being provided in the Department's Response to Houston Lighting &
: v. Texas Electric Service Company, et al.,
the documents provided to the Department by HL&P or TU, the documents provided to the Department during discovery, to which HL&P and TU have had access, and the documents provided to the Department by other parties.
Any documents the Department;;has which have not been produced either by HL&P or TU, or in discovery, are being provided in the Department's Response to Houston Lighting &
Power Company's Third Interrogatories, filed herewith.
Power Company's Third Interrogatories, filed herewith.


IlL&P Interrogatories 27 and 28
. IlL&P Interrogatories 27 and 28 27.
: 27.     Identify each of the " privately-owned and publicly-owned systems that generate and market clactric power" referenced on page 9 of the South Texas OL advice latter.
Identify each of the " privately-owned and publicly-owned systems that generate and market clactric power" referenced on page 9 of the South Texas OL advice latter.
: 28.     Ident if v each of the " distr icution-only systems purchasing power at wholesale" referencea on page 9 of the South Texas OL advice letter.
28.
  -_ Department's Initial Response to !!L&P Interrogatories 27 and 28 PRIVATLLY OWNLD SYSTLMS Cent a1 Power & Light Co.
Ident if v each of the " distr icution-only systems purchasing power at wholesale" referencea on page 9 of the South Texas OL advice letter.
-_ Department's Initial Response to !!L&P Interrogatories 27 and 28 PRIVATLLY OWNLD SYSTLMS Cent a1 Power & Light Co.
Corpus Christi, Texas Cochran Power & Light Co.
Corpus Christi, Texas Cochran Power & Light Co.
Morton, Texas Community Public bervice Co.
Morton, Texas Community Public bervice Co.
Line 845: Line 1,257:
Beaumont, Texas Southweste r n Llectric Service Co.
Beaumont, Texas Southweste r n Llectric Service Co.
Dallas, Texas Southwestern Public Service Co.
Dallas, Texas Southwestern Public Service Co.
Amarillo, Texas Southwestern Public Service Company Public 'crvice
Amarillo, Texas Southwestern Public Service Company Public 'crvice Company of Oklahoma Oklahoma Gas & Llectric Central Louisiana Llectric Power, Inc.
                  ,        Company of Oklahoma Oklahoma Gas & Llectric Central Louisiana Llectric Power, Inc.
Southwestern Electric Power Company Tuco, Inc.
Southwestern Electric Power Company Tuco, Inc.
Amarillo, Texas West Texas Utilities Company Abileng, Texas PUBLICLY ObNLD SYSTLMS Austin Electric Department Austin, Texas Baird 11unicipal Light Dept.
Amarillo, Texas West Texas Utilities Company Abileng, Texas PUBLICLY ObNLD SYSTLMS Austin Electric Department Austin, Texas Baird 11unicipal Light Dept.
Baird, Texas Bartlett Municipal Light Dept.
Baird, Texas Bartlett Municipal Light Dept.
Bar tlett , Texas Bastrop Electric Department Bastrop, Texas
Bar tlett, Texas Bastrop Electric Department Bastrop, Texas


                                                                                '%.4
'%.4
    ~ .
~..
Bellville Light     &
Bellville Light
Bellville, Texas Power System Boerne Utilities Boerne, Texas Bowie Utilities Bowie, Texas Brady hater &
& Power System Bellville, Texas Boerne Utilities Boerne, Texas Bowie Utilities Bowie, Texas Brady hater &
Bracy, TexasLight Works Brenham Munic Light &
Bracy, TexasLight Works Brenham Munic Light &
Brenham, Texas           Power System Bridgeport Light       &
Brenham, Texas Power System Bridgeport Light
Bridgeport, Texas Power System Brownfield Munic Light &
& Power System Bridgeport, Texas Brownfield Munic Light Brownfiela, Texas Power System Brownsville Public Utilities Boa d Brownsville, Texas r
Brownfiela, Texas           Power System Brownsville           Public Utilities Boa Brownsville, Texas                     r d BryanBryan,hunicipal Texas Llectric System Burnett       Utilities Burnett, Texas Caldwell Caldwell, Municipal Texas Light Dept      .
Bryan hunicipal Llectric System Bryan, Texas Burnett Utilities Burnett, Texas Caldwell Municipal Light Dept Caldwell, Texas Canadian City Power Plant Canadian, Texas Castroville Utility System Castroville, Texas Coleman Municipal Power &
Canadian City Power Plant Canadian, Texas Castroville Utility System Castroville, Texas Coleman Municipal Power &
Coleman, Texas Light Dept.
Coleman, Texas                   Light Dept.
College Station Utilities Collega Station, Texas Commerce Lignt & Power Dept.
College Station Utilities Collega Station, Texas Commerce Lignt &
Commerce, Texas Crosbyton Power & Light System Crosbyton, Texas Cureo Llectric Dept.
Commerce, Texas Power Dept.
Cureo, Texas Denton Municipal Utilities Denton, Texas Farmersville Municipal Light Farmersville, Texas
Crosbyton Power &
& Power Platonia Electric Dept.
Crosbyton, Texas Light System Cureo Llectric Dept.
Platonia, Texar Floresville Lle-
Cureo, Texas Denton         Municipal Utilities Denton, Texas Farmersville Municipal Light Farmersville, Texas                   & Power Platonia Electric Dept.
.ic Light &
Platonia, Texar                                             ,
Floresville, Texas Power System Floydada 1;lectric Dept.
Floresville Lle- .ic             Light &
Floydada, Texas Fredericksburg Llectric Utility Fr ederi ck s bu rg, Texas N
Floresville, Texas                     Power System Floydada 1;lectric Dept.
.p-,,..-..
Floydada, Texas                           ,
Fredericksburg Fr ederi ck s bu rg, Llectric Utility                      .
Texas N
                                                      .p-,,..-..


Garland Llectric Department Garland, Texas Garrison Llectric Dept.
- Garland Llectric Department Garland, Texas Garrison Llectric Dept.
Garrison, Texas Georgetown Water & Light Plant Georgetown, Texas Giddings Lighting & Power System             i Giddings, Texas Goldthwaite Utilities Goldthwaite, Texas Gonzales Clectric System Gonzales, Texas                   .
Garrison, Texas Georgetown Water & Light Plant Georgetown, Texas Giddings Lighting & Power System i
j Granbury Municipal Llectric Dept.             !
Giddings, Texas Goldthwaite Utilities Goldthwaite, Texas Gonzales Clectric System Gonzales, Texas Granbury Municipal Llectric Dept.
Granbury, Texas                       l Greenville Municipal Light & Power Dept.
j Granbury, Texas l
Greenville, Texas                     l Halletsville liunicipal Utilities             I Halletsville, Texas Hearne Municipal Llectric System Ilearne, Texas Hondo Electric System llo n d o , Texas Jasper Llectric System Jasper, Texas Kirbyville Light & Power Co.
Greenville Municipal Light & Power Dept.
l Greenville, Texas Halletsville liunicipal Utilities I
Halletsville, Texas Hearne Municipal Llectric System Ilearne, Texas Hondo Electric System llo n d o, Texas Jasper Llectric System Jasper, Texas Kirbyville Light & Power Co.
Kirbyville, Texas La Grange Utilities La Grange, Texas Lampasas Public Utilities Lampasas, Texas Lexington Municioal Electric Dept.
Kirbyville, Texas La Grange Utilities La Grange, Texas Lampasas Public Utilities Lampasas, Texas Lexington Municioal Electric Dept.
Le xi ng to n , Texas Liberty flunicipal Elect ric Dept.
Le xi ng to n, Texas Liberty flunicipal Elect ric Dept.
Liberty, Texas Livingston Municipal Light Dept.
Liberty, Texas Livingston Municipal Light Dept.
Livingston, Texas Llano Utilities Llano, Texas
Livingston, Texas Llano Utilities Llano, Texas Lockhart Utilities Lockhart, Texas Lubbock Utilities Lubbock, Texas Mason Utilities Mason, Texas Moulton Llectric Department floulton, Texas New Braunfels Utilitias New Brauntels, Texas
      . Lockhart Utilities Lockhart, Texas Lubbock Utilities Lubbock, Texas Mason Utilities Mason, Texas Moulton Llectric Department floulton, Texas New Braunfels Utilitias New Brauntels, Texas


Newton !!unicipal L tilities Newton, Texas Fobstown Utility System Robstown, Texas San Antonio Public Service Board San Antonio, Texas San Augustine Light & Water Dept.
. Newton !!unicipal L tilities Newton, Texas Fobstown Utility System Robstown, Texas San Antonio Public Service Board San Antonio, Texas San Augustine Light & Water Dept.
San Augustine, Texas Sanger Llectric System Sanger, Texas Schulenburg Utilities Dept.
San Augustine, Texas Sanger Llectric System Sanger, Texas Schulenburg Utilities Dept.
Schulenburg, Texas Sequin Electric System Sequin, Texas Seymour flunicipal Light Plant Seymour, Texas Shiner Light & Water Utilities Shiner, Texas Smithville Light & Water Dept.
Schulenburg, Texas Sequin Electric System Sequin, Texas Seymour flunicipal Light Plant Seymour, Texas Shiner Light & Water Utilities Shiner, Texas Smithville Light & Water Dept.
Smithville, Texas Sonora Ilunicipal Power & Light Sonora, Texas Timpson Light & Water Dept.
Smithville, Texas Sonora Ilunicipal Power & Light Sonora, Texas Timpson Light & Water Dept.
Timpson, Texas Tulia Ilunic. Power & Light Tulia, Texas Vernon Municipal Power Plant Vernon, Texas Weatherforo Ilunicipal Electric
Timpson, Texas Tulia Ilunic. Power & Light Tulia, Texas Vernon Municipal Power Plant Vernon, Texas Weatherforo Ilunicipal Electric
          & Water System Weatherford, Texas beimar Electric Utilities Weimar, Texas Whitesboro Light & Power Dept.
& Water System Weatherford, Texas beimar Electric Utilities Weimar, Texas Whitesboro Light & Power Dept.
Whitesboro, Texas Winters !!unicipal Light Winters, Texas Yoakum Ilunicipal Utilities Yoakum, Texas RURAL ELLCTRIC COOPERATIVE SYSTEIIS Bailey County Electric Cooperative Association Ilul e s hoe , Texas Bandera Electric Cooperative, Inc.
Whitesboro, Texas Winters !!unicipal Light Winters, Texas Yoakum Ilunicipal Utilities Yoakum, Texas RURAL ELLCTRIC COOPERATIVE SYSTEIIS Bailey County Electric Cooperative Association Ilul e s hoe, Texas Bandera Electric Cooperative, Inc.
Bandera, Texas Bartlett Electric Cooperative, Inc.
Bandera, Texas Bartlett Electric Cooperative, Inc.
Bartlett, Texas
Bartlett, Texas


Belialls Llectric Cooperative, Inc.
. Belialls Llectric Cooperative, Inc.
Rosebud, Texas B-K Llectric Cooperative, Inc.
Rosebud, Texas B-K Llectric Cooperative, Inc.
Seymour, Texas Bluebonnet Electr ic Cooperative, Inc.
Seymour, Texas Bluebonnet Electr ic Cooperative, Inc.
Giddings, Texas Bowie-Cass Electric Cooperative, Inc.
Giddings, Texas Bowie-Cass Electric Cooperative, Inc.
Doug lassv il le , Texas Brazos Llectric Power Cooperative, Inc.
Doug lassv il le, Texas Brazos Llectric Power Cooperative, Inc.
Waco, Texas Cap Rock Llectric Cooperative, Inc.
Waco, Texas Cap Rock Llectric Cooperative, Inc.
Stanton, Texas Central Texas Llectric Cooperative, Inc.             ,
Stanton, Texas Central Texas Llectric Cooperative, Inc.
Fredericksburg, Texas                             '
Fredericksburg, Texas Cherokee Co Electric Cooperative Assn.
Cherokee Co Electric Cooperative Assn.              .
Rusk, Texas Coleman County Llectric Cooperative, Inc.
Rusk, Texas Coleman County Llectric Cooperative, Inc.
Coleman, Texas Comanche County Llectric Cooperative Comanche, Texas Concho Valley Llectric Cooperative, Inc.
Coleman, Texas Comanche County Llectric Cooperative Comanche, Texas Concho Valley Llectric Cooperative, Inc.
f.an Angelo, Texas Cooke Co. Llectric Cooperative Assn.
f.an Angelo, Texas Cooke Co. Llectric Cooperative Assn.
flue ns te r , Texas Deaf Smith Llect ric Cooperative, Inc.
flue ns te r, Texas Deaf Smith Llect ric Cooperative, Inc.
Hereford, Texas Deep Last Texas Llectric Cooperative, Inc.
Hereford, Texas Deep Last Texas Llectric Cooperative, Inc.
San Augustine, Texas Denton County Llectric Cooperative, Inc.
San Augustine, Texas Denton County Llectric Cooperative, Inc.
Denton, Texas Dewitt County         Llectric Cooperative, Inc.
Denton, Texas Dewitt County Llectric Cooperative, Inc.
Cuero, Texas Dickens County Llectric Cooperative, Inc.
Cuero, Texas Dickens County Llectric Cooperative, Inc.
Spur, Texas Erath County Llectric Cooperative Assn.
Spur, Texas Erath County Llectric Cooperative Assn.
Stephenville, Texas                           '
Stephenville, Texas Fannin County Llectric Cooperative Bonham, Texas Farmers Electric Cooperative, Inc.
Fannin     County Llectric Cooperative Bonham, Texas Farmers Electric Cooperative, Inc.
Greenville, Texas Payette Electric Cooperative, Inc.
Greenville, Texas Payette Electric Cooperative, Inc.
La Grange, Texas Fort Belknap Llectric Cooperative, Inc.
La Grange, Texas Fort Belknap Llectric Cooperative, Inc.
Olney, Texas Gate City Llectr ic Cooperative, Inc.
Olney, Texas Gate City Llectr ic Cooperative, Inc.
Childr ess, Texas Gr ayson-Collin Llectric Cooperative,       Inc.
Childr ess, Texas Gr ayson-Collin Llectric Cooperative, Inc.
Van Alstyne, Texas
Van Alstyne, Texas


Greenbelt Electric Cooperative bellington, Texas Guadalupe Valley Llectric Cooperative, Inc.
. Greenbelt Electric Cooperative bellington, Texas Guadalupe Valley Llectric Cooperative, Inc.
Gonzales, Texas Hall County Llectric Cooperative, Inc.
Gonzales, Texas Hall County Llectric Cooperative, Inc.
flemp h i s , Texas Hamilton County Electric Cooperative, Inc.
flemp h i s, Texas Hamilton County Electric Cooperative, Inc.
Hamilton, Texas Hill Co. Llectric Cooperative Itasca, Texas Houston Co. Llectric Cooperative, Inc.
Hamilton, Texas Hill Co. Llectric Cooperative Itasca, Texas Houston Co. Llectric Cooperative, Inc.
Crockett, Texas Hunt-Collin Ulectric Cooperative, Inc.
Crockett, Texas Hunt-Collin Ulectric Cooperative, Inc.
Greenville, Texas J.A.C. Llectric Cooperative Assn.
Greenville, Texas J.A.C.
Llectric Cooperative Assn.
Bluegrove, Texas Jackson Llectric Cooperative, Inc.
Bluegrove, Texas Jackson Llectric Cooperative, Inc.
Edna, Texas Jasper-Newton Electric Coopera tive, Inc.
Edna, Texas Jasper-Newton Electric Coopera tive, Inc.
Line 943: Line 1,350:
McGregor, Texas
McGregor, Texas


Greenbelt Llectric Cooperative belling ton, Texas Guadalupe Valley Llectric Cooperative, Inc.
.. Greenbelt Llectric Cooperative belling ton, Texas Guadalupe Valley Llectric Cooperative, Inc.
Gonzales, Texas Hall County Llectric Cooperative, Inc.
Gonzales, Texas Hall County Llectric Cooperative, Inc.
Memphis, Texas Hamilton County Electric Cooperative, Inc.
Memphis, Texas Hamilton County Electric Cooperative, Inc.
Hamilton, Texas Hill Co. Llectric Cooperative Itasca, Texas Houston Co. Llectric Cooperative, Inc.
Hamilton, Texas Hill Co. Llectric Cooperative Itasca, Texas Houston Co. Llectric Cooperative, Inc.
Crockett, Texas Hunt-Collin Llectric Cooperative, Inc.
Crockett, Texas Hunt-Collin Llectric Cooperative, Inc.
Greenville, Texas J.A.C. Electric Cooperative Assn.
Greenville, Texas J.A.C.
Electric Cooperative Assn.
Bluegrove, Texas Jackson Elec tric Cooperative, Inc.
Bluegrove, Texas Jackson Elec tric Cooperative, Inc.
Edna, Texas Jasper-Newton Llectric Cooperative, Inc.
Edna, Texas Jasper-Newton Llectric Cooperative, Inc.
Line 964: Line 1,372:
McGregor, Texas
McGregor, Texas


Medina Electric Cooperative, Inc.
.. Medina Electric Cooperative, Inc.
Hondo, Texas Mid-South Cooperative Association Navasota, Texas Mid-West Electric Cooperative, Inc.,
Hondo, Texas Mid-South Cooperative Association Navasota, Texas Mid-West Electric Cooperative, Inc.,
Roby, Texas Navarro County Electric Cooperative, Inc.
Roby, Texas Navarro County Electric Cooperative, Inc.
Line 989: Line 1,397:
Azle, Texas
Azle, Texas


Upshur-Rural Electric Cooperative Corporation Gilmer, Texas Victoria County Electric Cooperative Victoria, Texas Western Farmers Electric Cooperative Tulsa, Oklahoma Wharton County Electric Cooperative, Inc.
. Upshur-Rural Electric Cooperative Corporation Gilmer, Texas Victoria County Electric Cooperative Victoria, Texas Western Farmers Electric Cooperative Tulsa, Oklahoma Wharton County Electric Cooperative, Inc.
El Campo, Texas Wise Electric Cooperativ., Inc.
El Campo, Texas Wise Electric Cooperativ., Inc.
Decatur, Texas Wood County Electric Cooperative, Inc.
Decatur, Texas Wood County Electric Cooperative, Inc.
Quitman, Texas Department's Supplemental Response to HL&P Interrogatory 27 Purchased All   Purchased   Generation Power         Power       of Power (No Generation) (Generation) (No Purchased; Austin Electric Dept.                                     x Baird Municipal Power Plant                                             x Bartlett Municipal Light Dept.             x Bastrop Electric Dept.                     x Bellville Light and Power System           x Boerne Utilities                 ,        x Bowie Utilities                             x Brady Water and Light Works                                             x Brenham Munic Light and Power System       x Bridgeport Light and Power System           x Brownfield Munic Light and Power Plant                                   x Brownsville Public Utilities Board                         x Bryan Municipal Electric System                           x Burnet Utilities                           x Caldwell Munic Light Dept.                 x
Quitman, Texas Department's Supplemental Response to HL&P Interrogatory 27 Purchased All Purchased Generation Power Power of Power (No Generation)
(Generation)
(No Purchased; Austin Electric Dept.
x Baird Municipal Power Plant x
Bartlett Municipal Light Dept.
x Bastrop Electric Dept.
x Bellville Light and Power System x
Boerne Utilities x
Bowie Utilities x
Brady Water and Light Works x
Brenham Munic Light and Power System x
Bridgeport Light and Power System x
Brownfield Munic Light and Power Plant x
Brownsville Public Utilities Board x
Bryan Municipal Electric System x
Burnet Utilities x
Caldwell Munic Light Dept.
x


Purchased All   Purchased   Generation Power         Power       or Power (No Generation) (Generation) (tio Purchases)
, Purchased All Purchased Generation Power Power or Power (No Generation)
Canadian City Power Plant                                 x Castroville Utility System                 x Coleman Munic Power and Light Dept.                       x College Station Utilities                 x Commerce Light and Power Dept.                           x x
(Generation)
Crosbyton Power and Light System Cuero Electric Utility                     x Denton Municipal Utilities                               x Llectra Light and Power System                             x Farmersville Munic Light and Power                       x Flatonia Llectric Dept.                   x Floresvili Electric Light and Power System                           x floydada Electric Dept.                                   x Fredericksburg Electric Utility           x Garland Electric Dept.                                   x Garrison Llectric Dept.                   x Georgetown bater and Light Plant x
(tio Purchases)
Giddings Lighting and Power System         x Goldthwaite Utilities                     x Gun: ales Electric System                 x Granbury Municipal Electric Dept.         x
Canadian City Power Plant x
Castroville Utility System x
Coleman Munic Power and Light Dept.
x College Station Utilities x
x Commerce Light and Power Dept.
x Crosbyton Power and Light System Cuero Electric Utility x
Denton Municipal Utilities x
Llectra Light and Power System x
Farmersville Munic Light and Power x
Flatonia Llectric Dept.
x Floresvili Electric Light and Power System x
x floydada Electric Dept.
Fredericksburg Electric Utility x
Garland Electric Dept.
x Garrison Llectric Dept.
x Georgetown bater and Light Plant x
Giddings Lighting and Power System x
Goldthwaite Utilities x
Gun: ales Electric System x
Granbury Municipal Electric Dept.
x


Purchased All   Purchased         Generation Power         Power           of Power (No Generation) (Generation)     (No Purchaser,)_
Purchased All Purchased Generation Power Power of Power (No Generation)
l Greenville Munic Light and                                   x Power Dept.
(Generation)
Italletsville Municipal Utilities             x x
(No Purchaser,)_
licarne Municipal Electric System x
l Greenville Munic Light and x
Power Dept.
Italletsville Municipal Utilities x
x licarne Municipal Electric System x
liemphill x
liemphill x
lieppstead llondo Llectric System                       x X
lieppstead x
Jasper Llectric System Kirbyville Light and Power Co.                 x La Grange Utilities                           x Lampasas Public Utilities                     x Lexington flunic Electric Dept.                             1/
llondo Llectric System X
Liberty flunic Electric System                 x Livingston Munic Light Dept.                   x Llano Utilities                               x Lockhart Utilities                             x X
Jasper Llectric System Kirbyville Light and Power Co.
Lubbock Power and Light Dept.
x x
Luling Utilities                             x hason Utilities                               x Houlton Electric Dept.                         x
La Grange Utilities Lampasas Public Utilities x
    .l_/ LLI's Llectrical Directory, 1978, which does not indicate
1/
    'anetner it had any generation.
Lexington flunic Electric Dept.
x Liberty flunic Electric System x
Livingston Munic Light Dept.
Llano Utilities x
Lockhart Utilities x
X Lubbock Power and Light Dept.
x Luling Utilities hason Utilities x
Houlton Electric Dept.
x
.l_/ LLI's Llectrical Directory, 1978, which does not indicate
'anetner it had any generation.


Purchased All   Purchased   Generation Power       Power       of Power (No Generation) (Generation) (No Purchases) x New Braunfels Utilities Newton Municipal Utilities                       x x
. Purchased All Purchased Generation Power Power of Power (No Generation)
hobstown Utility System San Antonio City Public Service Board                         x san Augustine Light and hater Dept.             x Sanger Electric System                           x Schulenburg Utilities Dept.                     x Seguin Llectric System                                       x beymour Electric System                         x bhiner Light and hater Utilities                 x dmithville Light and hater Dept.               x Soncta Municipal Power and Light                 x Timpson Light and Water Dept.                   x Tulia Munic Power and Light                                               x Vernon Municipal Power Plant                                 x beatherford Munic Electric and and hater System                           x beimar Llectric Utilities                       x hhitesboro Light and Power Dept.               X hinters Municipal Light                                     1/
(Generation)
Yoakum flunicipal Utilities                     x Source:   Reports submitted to Federal Power Commission, 1977 b tt!'s Llectrical Directory, 1970, wnich does not indicate whet her it hau any generation.
(No Purchases)
New Braunfels Utilities x
Newton Municipal Utilities x
x hobstown Utility System x
San Antonio City Public Service Board san Augustine Light and hater Dept.
x x
Sanger Electric System Schulenburg Utilities Dept.
x x
Seguin Llectric System beymour Electric System x
bhiner Light and hater Utilities x
dmithville Light and hater Dept.
x Soncta Municipal Power and Light x
Timpson Light and Water Dept.
x x
Tulia Munic Power and Light Vernon Municipal Power Plant x
beatherford Munic Electric and and hater System x
beimar Llectric Utilities x
hhitesboro Light and Power Dept.
X hinters Municipal Light 1/
Yoakum flunicipal Utilities x
Source:
Reports submitted to Federal Power Commission, 1977 b tt!'s Llectrical Directory, 1970, wnich does not indicate whet her it hau any generation.


Department's Supplemental Response to HL&P Interrogatory 28 Bailey County Electric Cooperative Association Muleshoe, Texas Bandera Electric Cooperative, Inc.
. Department's Supplemental Response to HL&P Interrogatory 28 Bailey County Electric Cooperative Association Muleshoe, Texas Bandera Electric Cooperative, Inc.
Bandera, Texas Bartlett Electric Cooperative, Inc.
Bandera, Texas Bartlett Electric Cooperative, Inc.
Bartlett, Texas Belfalls Electric Cooperative, Inc.
Bartlett, Texas Belfalls Electric Cooperative, Inc.
Line 1,038: Line 1,517:
Greenville, Texas
Greenville, Texas


4 Fayette Electric Cooperative, Inc.
4
. Fayette Electric Cooperative, Inc.
La Grange, Texas Port Belknap Electric Cooperative, Inc.
La Grange, Texas Port Belknap Electric Cooperative, Inc.
Olney, Texas Gate City Electric Cooperative, Inc.
Olney, Texas Gate City Electric Cooperative, Inc.
Line 1,046: Line 1,526:
Hamilton, Texas Hill County Electric Cooperative Itasca, Texas Houston County Electric Cooperative, Inc.
Hamilton, Texas Hill County Electric Cooperative Itasca, Texas Houston County Electric Cooperative, Inc.
Crockett, Texas Hunt-Collin Electric Cooperative, Inc.
Crockett, Texas Hunt-Collin Electric Cooperative, Inc.
Greenville, Texas J.A.C. Electric Cooperative Assn.
Greenville, Texas J.A.C.
Electric Cooperative Assn.
Bluegrove, Texas Jackson Electric Cooperative, Inc.
Bluegrove, Texas Jackson Electric Cooperative, Inc.
Edna, Texas Jasper-Newton Electric Cooperative, Inc.
Edna, Texas Jasper-Newton Electric Cooperative, Inc.
Line 1,061: Line 1,542:
McGregor, Texas
McGregor, Texas


Mid-South Cooperative Association Navasota, Texas Mid-West Electric Cooperative, Inc.
. Mid-South Cooperative Association Navasota, Texas Mid-West Electric Cooperative, Inc.
Roby, Texas Navarro County Electric Cooperative, Inc.
Roby, Texas Navarro County Electric Cooperative, Inc.
Corsicana, Texas New Era Electric Cooperative, Inc.
Corsicana, Texas New Era Electric Cooperative, Inc.
Line 1,078: Line 1,559:
Lubbock, Texas South West Te u ns Electric Cooperative, Inc.
Lubbock, Texas South West Te u ns Electric Cooperative, Inc.
Eldorado, 'le xas Stamford El(ccric Cooperative, Inc.
Eldorado, 'le xas Stamford El(ccric Cooperative, Inc.
Stamford, Texas Swisher Elecc 'e Cooperative, Inc.
Stamford, Texas Swisher Elecc
'e Cooperative, Inc.
Tulia, Texas Taylor Electric Cooperative Inc.
Tulia, Texas Taylor Electric Cooperative Inc.
Merkel, Texas Tri-County Electric Cooperative, Inc.
Merkel, Texas Tri-County Electric Cooperative, Inc.
Azle, Texas Upshur-Rural Electric Cooperative Cooporation Gilmer, Texas Victoria County Electric Cooperative Victoria, Texas
Azle, Texas Upshur-Rural Electric Cooperative Cooporation Gilmer, Texas Victoria County Electric Cooperative Victoria, Texas


          ~     --
~
bharton County Llectric Cooperative, Inc.
, bharton County Llectric Cooperative, Inc.
El Campo, Texas Wise Electric Cooperative Inc.
El Campo, Texas Wise Electric Cooperative Inc.
Decatur, Texas boca County Elec tric Cooperative, Inc.             e Quitman, Texas HL&P Interrogatory 29(a)
Decatur, Texas boca County Elec tric Cooperative, Inc.
State the basis for, and provide all documents relating to, the Division's allegation that "there appear to exist substantial opportunities for exchanges of power between tne interstate and     ,
e Quitman, Texas HL&P Interrogatory 29(a)
intrastate utilities" (p. 9), and in so doing:
State the basis for, and provide all documents relating to, the Division's allegation that "there appear to exist substantial opportunities for exchanges of power between tne interstate and intrastate utilities" (p. 9), and in so doing:
(a)   identify each such opportunity as to the party wishing to sell sucn power, the party whicn may wish to purcnase such power and the duration, type of exchange, amount of power and the economic terms of each such oppo rtunity transaction; Department's Initial Response to IIL&P Interrogatory 29(a)
(a) identify each such opportunity as to the party wishing to sell sucn power, the party whicn may wish to purcnase such power and the duration, type of exchange, amount of power and the economic terms of each such oppo rtunity transaction; Department's Initial Response to IIL&P Interrogatory 29(a)
The Department is presently aware of the to11owing opportunities for exchanges of power between interstate and intrastate utilitica:       (1) Gulf States' desire for an inter-connection at the wc stern end of its system as set forth in its letter to the Texas Public Utility Commission on May 17, 1977; (2) Western Farmers Llectric Cooperative's inquiry into the purchase of capacity and energy from TU; (3) the Tex-La group of cooperatives' (some of which are servea by the intrastate utilitics) desire to participate in the Comanene Peak units by the intrastate members to obtain more SPA power; (4) the integration of SPA resources, some of which are in Texas, to achieve economies; (5) the prJposal by the subsidiaries of the Central and Southwest Corporation to integrate its operations in order to achieve greater reliability and economic benefits; (6) the City of Brownsville's desire to nave access to sources of power outside of Texas; (7) STEC/MEC's desire to have an interstate outlet for possible surplus power supply capacity; and (8) the excess capacity position of other TIS members. It is the Department's present understanding that, except for the fifth item of those listed above, the intrastate only policy of HL&P and TU has precluded these opportunities trom progressing beyond tne general expressions or interest by the various utilities in the area.
The Department is presently aware of the to11owing opportunities for exchanges of power between interstate and intrastate utilitica:
(1) Gulf States' desire for an inter-connection at the wc stern end of its system as set forth in its letter to the Texas Public Utility Commission on May 17, 1977; (2) Western Farmers Llectric Cooperative's inquiry into the purchase of capacity and energy from TU; (3) the Tex-La group of cooperatives' (some of which are servea by the intrastate utilitics) desire to participate in the Comanene Peak units by the intrastate members to obtain more SPA power; (4) the integration of SPA resources, some of which are in Texas, to achieve economies; (5) the prJposal by the subsidiaries of the Central and Southwest Corporation to integrate its operations in order to achieve greater reliability and economic benefits; (6) the City of Brownsville's desire to nave access to sources of power outside of Texas; (7) STEC/MEC's desire to have an interstate outlet for possible surplus power supply capacity; and (8) the excess capacity position of other TIS members.
It is the Department's present understanding that, except for the fifth item of those listed above, the intrastate only policy of HL&P and TU has precluded these opportunities trom progressing beyond tne general expressions or interest by the various utilities in the area.


Department's Supplemental Response to HL&P Interrogatory 29(a)
. Department's Supplemental Response to HL&P Interrogatory 29(a)
The documents responsive to this interrogatory response include in the deposition transcripts in these proceediegs, the deposition transcripts and testimony in West Texas Utilities Co.
The documents responsive to this interrogatory response include in the deposition transcripts in these proceediegs, the deposition transcripts and testimony in West Texas Utilities Co.
: v. Texat Electric Service Company, et al., in documents provided to the Department by HL&P or TU, in documents provided to the Department ducing discovery, to which HL&P and TU have had access, and the documents provided to the Department by other parties. Any documents the Department has which have not been produced either by HL&P or TU, or in discovery are being provided in the Department's Response to Houston Lighting &
: v. Texat Electric Service Company, et al.,
in documents provided to the Department by HL&P or TU, in documents provided to the Department ducing discovery, to which HL&P and TU have had access, and the documents provided to the Department by other parties.
Any documents the Department has which have not been produced either by HL&P or TU, or in discovery are being provided in the Department's Response to Houston Lighting &
Power Company's Third Interrogatories, filed herewith.
Power Company's Third Interrogatories, filed herewith.
The Department's present knowledge is that opportunities for exchanges of power between interstate utilities and intra-state utilities are virtually unlimited in Texas and neighboring states if the intrastate only agreement was eliminated. These opportunities include the purchase and sale of power and energy, and the ability to participate in joint generation and tr ansmission f acilities. The further information sought by this interrogatory is contained in the documents responsive to this interr   $ tory request.
The Department's present knowledge is that opportunities for exchanges of power between interstate utilities and intra-state utilities are virtually unlimited in Texas and neighboring states if the intrastate only agreement was eliminated.
These opportunities include the purchase and sale of power and energy, and the ability to participate in joint generation and tr ansmission f acilities.
The further information sought by this interrogatory is contained in the documents responsive to this interr
$ tory request.
HL&P Interrogatory 29(b)
HL&P Interrogatory 29(b)
(b)     state whether the Division has made any study of the question cf whether such potential exchanges of power would be economical in light of the costs required to interconnect TIS and SWPP;
(b) state whether the Division has made any study of the question cf whether such potential exchanges of power would be economical in light of the costs required to interconnect TIS and SWPP;


Department's Initial Response to !!L&P Interrogatory 29(b)
, Department's Initial Response to !!L&P Interrogatory 29(b)
The Department has not made any study of whether the not     t benefits from any (or a combination or any) of the potential       '
The Department has not made any study of whether the not benefits from any (or a combination or any) of the potential t
exchanges listed in the response to Interrogatory 29(a) would exceed any cost associated with the exchanges.
exchanges listed in the response to Interrogatory 29(a) would exceed any cost associated with the exchanges.
Department's Supplemental Response to HL&P Interrogatory 29(b)
Department's Supplemental Response to HL&P Interrogatory 29(b)
The Department has no additional information to supplement     ,
The Department has no additional information to supplement this inter rogatory response.
this inter rogatory response.
HL&P Interrogatory 29(c) i (c) state the exact source of excess generating capacity with suf ficient f uel within TIS which could be relied upon by each utility identified in (a);
HL&P Interrogatory 29(c) i' (c)     state the exact source of excess generating capacity with suf ficient f uel within TIS which could be relied upon by each utility identified in (a);
Department's Initial Response to HL&P Interrogatory 29(c)
Department's Initial Response to HL&P Interrogatory 29(c)
The Department is not aware at this time of the exact sources of excess generating capacity with sutticient fuel within TIS which could be used for the purpose stated in this interrogatory.
The Department is not aware at this time of the exact sources of excess generating capacity with sutticient fuel within TIS which could be used for the purpose stated in this interrogatory.
Line 1,112: Line 1,600:
Refer to Department's Supplemental Response to HL&P Interrogatory 32(c) herein.
Refer to Department's Supplemental Response to HL&P Interrogatory 32(c) herein.
HL&P Interrogatory 29(d)
HL&P Interrogatory 29(d)
(d)   state whether the Division has made any study or analysis which demonstrates the accuracy of such allegation; Department's Initial Response to liL&P Interrogatory 29 (d)
(d) state whether the Division has made any study or analysis which demonstrates the accuracy of such allegation; Department's Initial Response to liL&P Interrogatory 29 (d)
No.
No.
Department's Supplemental Response to HL&P Interrogatory 29(d)
Department's Supplemental Response to HL&P Interrogatory 29(d)
Tne Department has made no such study but has conducted interviews and depositions to determine whether excess generating In addition, the capacity exists in any of the TIS systems.
Tne Department has made no such study but has conducted interviews and depositions to determine whether excess generating capacity exists in any of the TIS systems.
In addition, the


h i
h i
l l
l
l 1
. l l
Department has examined numerous documents on this subject         ;
1 Department has examined numerous documents on this subject matter which were provided, in large part, by liL& P, TU and I
matter which were provided, in large part, by liL& P, TU and I
I other TIS members which substantiate the Department's contention that but for the " intrastate only ag reement" come or all of those opportunities for exchanges of power would have been realized.
I other TIS members which substantiate the Department's contention that but for the " intrastate only ag reement" come or all of those opportunities for exchanges of power would have       ,
been realized.
HL&P Interrogatory 29(e)
HL&P Interrogatory 29(e)
(c)   state whether these alleged facts have changed since   i October, 1974, and if so, state the nature of such changes;         -
(c) state whether these alleged facts have changed since i
                                                                        }
October, 1974, and if so, state the nature of such changes;
}
Department's Initial Response to HL&P Interrogatory 29(e)
Department's Initial Response to HL&P Interrogatory 29(e)
The request is unclear. Assuming however ' hat the request     ;
The request is unclear.
is seeking to determine whether, in the Departmint's view, these opportunities for exchanges of power existed at the time of the 19 74 antitrust review, the answer is that some may have.     For reasons set forth in our advice letter of February 21, 1978, their importance has increased substantially since the Department's 1974 antitrust review.
Assuming however ' hat the request is seeking to determine whether, in the Departmint's view, these opportunities for exchanges of power existed at the time of the 19 74 antitrust review, the answer is that some may have.
For reasons set forth in our advice letter of February 21, 1978, their importance has increased substantially since the Department's 1974 antitrust review.
Department's Supplemental Response to HL&P Interrogatory 29(e)
Department's Supplemental Response to HL&P Interrogatory 29(e)
The following are among the changes which have occurred I
The following are among the changes which have occurred I
since October 19 74 which have af fected the opportunities for       j i
since October 19 74 which have af fected the opportunities for j
i exchanges of power between the interstate and intrastate utilities:   cost of fuel and power; availability of fuel and I
ii exchanges of power between the interstate and intrastate utilities:
I power; growth in peak loads; perceived viability r.d need for interstate' connections, as evidenced, in part, Oy new studies on this subject and attempted interstate interconnec-t io ns ; new constr uction of generation; potential availability of transmission; overall domestic and international       ergy situation; potential introduction of new technology relating to utilization of fuel for electric power generation; cost         I e
cost of fuel and power; availability of fuel and I
I power; growth in peak loads; perceived viability r.d need for interstate' connections, as evidenced, in part, Oy new studies on this subject and attempted interstate interconnec-t io ns ; new constr uction of generation; potential availability of transmission; overall domestic and international ergy situation; potential introduction of new technology relating to utilization of fuel for electric power generation; cost I
e


of transportation of coal and other fuels; rate differen-tials; judicial administrative and regulatory environment; differences in costs of financing; and growth of reserve capacity in Texas.
'' of transportation of coal and other fuels; rate differen-tials; judicial administrative and regulatory environment; differences in costs of financing; and growth of reserve capacity in Texas.
Refer to Department's supplemental responses to HL&P interrogatory 1(a) and 8(a) and the Department's OL advice letter on the Sou*.h Texas Project.
Refer to Department's supplemental responses to HL&P interrogatory 1(a) and 8(a) and the Department's OL advice letter on the Sou*.h Texas Project.
HL&P Interrogatory 29(f)
HL&P Interrogatory 29(f)
(f)     State how " exchanges of power between the interstate and intrastate utilities" will affect competition in any market relevant to the proceeding; and Department's Initial Response to HL&P Interrogatory 29(f)
(f)
Exchanges of power between interstate and intrastate utilities may affect competition by opening up new geographical areas for the utilities to compete in at all levels of marketing electric power, including allowing . utilities now operating interstate to compete in the areas now served by the intrastate utilities.
State how " exchanges of power between the interstate and intrastate utilities" will affect competition in any market relevant to the proceeding; and Department's Initial Response to HL&P Interrogatory 29(f)
Exchanges of power between interstate and intrastate utilities may affect competition by opening up new geographical areas for the utilities to compete in at all levels of marketing electric power, including allowing. utilities now operating interstate to compete in the areas now served by the intrastate utilities.
In addition, such exchanges may increase the ability of the utilities to compete within their present geographic area by expanding opportunities to lower power supply cost through coordinated operation and development between those utilities divided into interstate and intrastate as a result of the intrastate only agreement of HL&P and TU.
In addition, such exchanges may increase the ability of the utilities to compete within their present geographic area by expanding opportunities to lower power supply cost through coordinated operation and development between those utilities divided into interstate and intrastate as a result of the intrastate only agreement of HL&P and TU.
Department's Supplemental Response to HL&P Interrogatory 29(f)
Department's Supplemental Response to HL&P Interrogatory 29(f)
The " exchanges of power between the interstate and intra-state utilities" will affect competition in each of the actual markets listed in response to HL&P Interrogatory 3 (b) herein by increasing the number of electric utilities that could compete in each of those markets.                                           The potential markets listed in response to the HL&P Interrogatory 3 (b) herein may be affected since they may become actual markets.
The " exchanges of power between the interstate and intra-state utilities" will affect competition in each of the actual markets listed in response to HL&P Interrogatory 3 (b) herein by increasing the number of electric utilities that could compete in each of those markets.
The potential markets listed in response to the HL&P Interrogatory 3 (b) herein may be affected since they may become actual markets.


HL&P Interrogatory 29(g)
.. HL&P Interrogatory 29(g)
(9)   state whether the Division disagrees witn the conclusions reached by the Staff of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission in its 1978 study under S202(a) of the Federal Power Act that ERCOT would not benefit frcm interconnection with SUPP until the 1990's, and if not, does the Division contend that HL&P is nonetheless acting in an anticompetitive fashion in opposing CSW's efforts to force interconnections with ShPP?
(9) state whether the Division disagrees witn the conclusions reached by the Staff of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission in its 1978 study under S202(a) of the Federal Power Act that ERCOT would not benefit frcm interconnection with SUPP until the 1990's, and if not, does the Division contend that HL&P is nonetheless acting in an anticompetitive fashion in opposing CSW's efforts to force interconnections with ShPP?
Department's Initial Response to HL&P Interrogatory 29(g)
Department's Initial Response to HL&P Interrogatory 29(g)
The Department does not agree with tne characterization by HL&P and TU in this request item that the " conclusions reacned by the staff of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commision in its 1978 study uncer S202(a) of the Federal Power Act [were] that LRCOT would not benefit from interconnection with SWPP until the 1990's...."   The Department does contend that HL&P in concert with TU acted in an anticompetitive fashion in disconnecting from the other members of the TIS with whicn tney ao or coula compete and refusing to reestaolish those interconnections except on terms and conditions that restrict their competitors' coordinating opportunities and prevent or inhibit tne flow of power between utilities in and out of the state.
The Department does not agree with tne characterization by HL&P and TU in this request item that the " conclusions reacned by the staff of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commision in its 1978 study uncer S202(a) of the Federal Power Act [were] that LRCOT would not benefit from interconnection with SWPP until the 1990's...."
The Department does contend that HL&P in concert with TU acted in an anticompetitive fashion in disconnecting from the other members of the TIS with whicn tney ao or coula compete and refusing to reestaolish those interconnections except on terms and conditions that restrict their competitors' coordinating opportunities and prevent or inhibit tne flow of power between utilities in and out of the state.
Department's Supplemental Response to HL&P Interrogatory 29(g)
Department's Supplemental Response to HL&P Interrogatory 29(g)
The Department has no additional information which supplrments this interrogatory response.
The Department has no additional information which supplrments this interrogatory response.
HL&P Interrogatory 30(a)
HL&P Interrogatory 30(a) 30.
: 30. State the basis for, and provide all documents relating to, the Division's allegation that " Utilities in the Southwest Power Pool are faced with declining reserve margins and will need to purchase generating capacity to maintain adequate reliability until additional generation can be constructea" (p. 9), and in so doing:
State the basis for, and provide all documents relating to, the Division's allegation that " Utilities in the Southwest Power Pool are faced with declining reserve margins and will need to purchase generating capacity to maintain adequate reliability until additional generation can be constructea" (p. 9), and in so doing:
(a)     identify each utility in the Southwest Power Pool facec with declining reserve margins; Department's Iriitial Response to HL&P Interrogatory 30(a)
(a) identify each utility in the Southwest Power Pool facec with declining reserve margins; Department's Iriitial Response to HL&P Interrogatory 30(a)
This statement in based upon FERC publications showing present and projected lo ad and generating capacity for tne bbDP.
This statement in based upon FERC publications showing present and projected lo ad and generating capacity for tne bbDP.
It is the Department's understanding based on representations made by of ficials of Gulf States Utilities to NhC statf attorneys that Guit States was in a ucclining reserve situation.
It is the Department's understanding based on representations made by of ficials of Gulf States Utilities to NhC statf attorneys that Guit States was in a ucclining reserve situation.
The request made by Western Farmers Llectric Cooperative to TU
The request made by Western Farmers Llectric Cooperative to TU


to purchase capacity is also a manifestation of the reserve situation. The Department is not otherwise aware of the present or projected reserve margins of other utilities in the SWPP.
.. to purchase capacity is also a manifestation of the reserve situation.
The Department is not otherwise aware of the present or projected reserve margins of other utilities in the SWPP.
Such information is readily available to HL&P and TU trom public sources.
Such information is readily available to HL&P and TU trom public sources.
Department's Supplemental _liesponse to HL&P Interrogatory 30(a)
Department's Supplemental _liesponse to HL&P Interrogatory 30(a)
The Department has not performed the statistical analysis to demonstrate that reserve margins of utilities in the South-west Power Pool are declining, but the information requestea by this portion of the interrogatory can be found in the "Llectrical borld Directory of Llectric Systems".
The Department has not performed the statistical analysis to demonstrate that reserve margins of utilities in the South-west Power Pool are declining, but the information requestea by this portion of the interrogatory can be found in the "Llectrical borld Directory of Llectric Systems".
HL&P Interrogatory 30(b)
HL&P Interrogatory 30(b)
(b)   for each utility identified in (a) specifify the reserve margins for each year to which the statement relates; Department's Initial Response to liL&P Interrogatory 30(b)
(b) for each utility identified in (a) specifify the reserve margins for each year to which the statement relates; Department's Initial Response to liL&P Interrogatory 30(b)
The Department is not aware, at this time, of the specific reserve margins for any member of the SwPP at any given time.
The Department is not aware, at this time, of the specific reserve margins for any member of the SwPP at any given time.
This type of information is available to HL&P and TU trom public sources.
This type of information is available to HL&P and TU trom public sources.
Line 1,169: Line 1,664:
Refer to Dcpartment's supplemental response to hL&P's inter-rogatory 30(a) herein.
Refer to Dcpartment's supplemental response to hL&P's inter-rogatory 30(a) herein.
HL&P Interrogatory 30(c)
HL&P Interrogatory 30(c)
(c)   state whether the utilities in the Southwest Power Pool have faced declining reserve margins only since October, 1974; Department's Initial Response to HL&P Interrogatory 30(c)
(c) state whether the utilities in the Southwest Power Pool have faced declining reserve margins only since October, 1974; Department's Initial Response to HL&P Interrogatory 30(c)
The Department is not aware at this time when the SWPP members' reserve margins began to decline. This type of information should be available from public sources.
The Department is not aware at this time when the SWPP members' reserve margins began to decline.
This type of information should be available from public sources.


_90_
_90_
Line 1,176: Line 1,672:
Refer to Department's supplemental response to HL&P's interrogatory 30(a) herein.
Refer to Department's supplemental response to HL&P's interrogatory 30(a) herein.
HL&P Interrogatory 30(d)
HL&P Interrogatory 30(d)
(d)   explain why the utilities identified in (a) cannot purchase capacity from other utilities within the Southwest Power Pool or another region already interconnected with the Southwest Power Pool.
(d) explain why the utilities identified in (a) cannot purchase capacity from other utilities within the Southwest Power Pool or another region already interconnected with the Southwest Power Pool.
Department's Initial Response to HL&P Interrogatory 30(d)
Department's Initial Response to HL&P Interrogatory 30(d)
The Department objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that the question elicits neither facts nor evidence but is argumentative in nature and tone; further, the question is designed to elicit the mental impressions, conclusions, opinions and legal theories of the Department 's attorneys in contravention of NRC Rule of Practice S2.740(b)(2) and FED. R. CIV. P.
The Department objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that the question elicits neither facts nor evidence but is argumentative in nature and tone; further, the question is designed to elicit the mental impressions, conclusions, opinions and legal theories of the Department 's attorneys in contravention of NRC Rule of Practice S2.740(b)(2) and FED.
R.
CIV.
P.
26(b)(3).
26(b)(3).
Department's Supplemental Response to HL&P Interrogatory 30(d)
Department's Supplemental Response to HL&P Interrogatory 30(d)
The Department has no additional information responsive to this interrogatory request.
The Department has no additional information responsive to this interrogatory request.
HL&P Interrogatory 31(a)
HL&P Interrogatory 31(a) 31.
: 31. With respect to the Division's statement that
With respect to the Division's statement that
    " Western Farmers Cooperative sought to purchase 300 to 400 mw of surplus generating capacity from TU but was unable to do so becaase of the intrastate only restriction" (p. 9),
" Western Farmers Cooperative sought to purchase 300 to 400 mw of surplus generating capacity from TU but was unable to do so becaase of the intrastate only restriction" (p. 9),
(a)   State (1) names and titles of persons involved:
(a)
State (1) names and titles of persons involved:
(2) description of the circumstances surrounding the action; (3) terms upon which Western Farmers Cooperative sought this capacity; (4) date of the action; (5) form of communication (i.e.,
(2) description of the circumstances surrounding the action; (3) terms upon which Western Farmers Cooperative sought this capacity; (4) date of the action; (5) form of communication (i.e.,
written or oral, in person or by telephone) and, if oral, a list of all persons present; and (6) response given by TU.
written or oral, in person or by telephone) and, if oral, a list of all persons present; and (6) response given by TU.
Department's Initial Response to HL&P Interrogatory 31(a)(1) and (2)-(6)
Department's Initial Response to HL&P Interrogatory 31(a)(1) and (2)-(6)
The names and titles of persons involved are:
The names and titles of persons involved are:
Michael D. Spence, Division Manager, Texas Power &
Michael D.
Light Co. ; Maynard Human, General Manager, Western
Spence, Division Manager, Texas Power &
              ~
Light Co. ; Maynard Human, General Manager, Western Farmers Electric Coop.
Farmers Electric Coop.
~
During the early part of September, 1977, Mr. Spence telephoned Durwood Chalke r, P r e sid en t of West Texas Utilities and offered to sell 300-400 megawa tts of powe r. West Texas
During the early part of September, 1977, Mr. Spence telephoned Durwood Chalke r, P r e sid en t of West Texas Utilities and offered to sell 300-400 megawa tts of powe r.
West Texas


_91 Utilities conveyed the existence of this offer to Western Farmers Electric Cooperative. On September 16, 1977,     Mr. Human wrote a letter to Mr. Spence indicating Western Farmers' interest in possibly purchasing this poewr. Western Farmers offered no terms since its communication was in the form of an inquiry as to the availability of this power for sale by TP&L. On September 29, Mr. Spence telephoned Mr. Human in order to respond to the letter of September 16. Mr. Spence stated that it was not possible for Texas Power and Light to sell any power outside of the State of Texas. The reason given by Mr. Spence was that such sales were prohibited by a recent order of the Texas Public Utilities Commission.
_91 Utilities conveyed the existence of this offer to Western Farmers Electric Cooperative.
On September 16, 1977, Mr. Human wrote a letter to Mr. Spence indicating Western Farmers' interest in possibly purchasing this poewr.
Western Farmers offered no terms since its communication was in the form of an inquiry as to the availability of this power for sale by TP&L.
On September 29, Mr. Spence telephoned Mr. Human in order to respond to the letter of September 16.
Mr. Spence stated that it was not possible for Texas Power and Light to sell any power outside of the State of Texas.
The reason given by Mr. Spence was that such sales were prohibited by a recent order of the Texas Public Utilities Commission.
Department's Supplemental Response to HL&P Interrogatory 31(a)
Department's Supplemental Response to HL&P Interrogatory 31(a)
(a) and (2)-(6)
(a) and (2)-(6)
Additional inf ormation responsive to this interrogatory response can be found in the documents which include the deposition transcribes in these proceedings, the deposition transcripts and testimony in West Texas Utilities Co. v.
Additional inf ormation responsive to this interrogatory response can be found in the documents which include the deposition transcribes in these proceedings, the deposition transcripts and testimony in West Texas Utilities Co.
Texas Electric Service Company, et al., the documents provided to the Department by HL&P or TU, the documents provided to the Department during discovery, to which HL&P and TU have had access, and the documents provided to the Department by other parties. Any documents the Depart-ment has which have not been produced either by HL&P or TU, or in discovery, are being provided in the Department's Response to Houston Lighting & Power Company's Third Inter-rogatories, filed herewith.
v.
Texas Electric Service Company, et al.,
the documents provided to the Department by HL&P or TU, the documents provided to the Department during discovery, to which HL&P and TU have had access, and the documents provided to the Department by other parties.
Any documents the Depart-ment has which have not been produced either by HL&P or TU, or in discovery, are being provided in the Department's Response to Houston Lighting & Power Company's Third Inter-rogatories, filed herewith.
HL&P Interrogatory 31(b)-(c)
HL&P Interrogatory 31(b)-(c)
(b)   State whether Houston had any involvement in TU's response, and, if so, state (1) names and titles of persons involved; (2) description of the circumstances surrounding Houston's action; (3) description of actions taken by Houston; and (4) date of action taken by Houston.
(b)
(c)   Provide all documents relating to the subject matter of this interrogatory.
State whether Houston had any involvement in TU's response, and, if so, state (1) names and titles of persons involved; (2) description of the circumstances surrounding Houston's action; (3) description of actions taken by Houston; and (4) date of action taken by Houston.
(c)
Provide all documents relating to the subject matter of this interrogatory.


                          . -  ~         _-          .      _- -          --
a
  - .         a pepartment's Initial nesponse to nL&P Interrogatory 31(b)-(c)                 I At this point in time, the Department does not allege any involvement by Houston Lighting & Power in the matter whicn is the subject of this interrogatory otner than to tne extent tnat               l the intrastate only agreement between HL&P and TU may nave contributed to the situation.                                                 l I
~
. pepartment's Initial nesponse to nL&P Interrogatory 31(b)-(c)
I At this point in time, the Department does not allege any involvement by Houston Lighting & Power in the matter whicn is the subject of this interrogatory otner than to tne extent tnat l
the intrastate only agreement between HL&P and TU may nave contributed to the situation.
l I
i Department's Supplemental Response to HL&P Interrogatory l
i Department's Supplemental Response to HL&P Interrogatory l
31(b)-(c)                                                                     t j
31(b)-(c) t The Department contends that HL&P is a member of the j
The Department contends that HL&P is a member of the                   !
" intrastate only agreement" and therefore is involved in TP&L's refusal to transmit power in interstate commerce in furtherance I
        " intrastate only agreement" and therefore is involved in TP&L's               !
of the " intr astate only ag reement".
refusal to transmit power in interstate commerce in furtherance I
HL&P Interrogatory 32(a) 32.
of the " intr astate only ag reement" .
State the basis for, and provide all documents relating to, the Division's allegation that "a number of the utilities in Texas, including competitors of HL&P and TU, have a surplus of generating capacity" (p. 9), and in so doing:
HL&P Interrogatory 32(a)
(a) identify each such utility having a surplus of capacity; Department's Initial Response to Interrogatory 32(a)
: 32.     State the basis for, and provide all documents relating to, the Division's allegation that "a number of the utilities in Texas, including competitors of HL&P and TU, have a surplus of generating capacity" (p. 9), and in so doing:
The basis for the Department's statement that a number of the utilities in Texas, including competitors of HL&P and TU, have a surplus of generating capacity is baseo on generating capacity and peak load information listed in the Llectrical World Directory of Electric Utilities (1977-78 Ldition) ana discussions witn tne City Manager of Bryan, Texas.
(a)       identify each such utility having a surplus of capacity; Department's Initial Response to Interrogatory 32(a)
The basis for the Department's statement that a number of the utilities in Texas, including competitors of HL&P and TU, have a surplus of generating capacity is baseo on generating capacity and peak load information listed in the Llectrical
* World Directory of Electric Utilities (1977-78 Ldition) ana discussions witn tne City Manager of Bryan, Texas.
It is the Department's understanding that all of the members ot TIS have generating capacity in excess of their peak load plus a fifteen percent of peak load reserve requirement.
It is the Department's understanding that all of the members ot TIS have generating capacity in excess of their peak load plus a fifteen percent of peak load reserve requirement.
D'epartment's Supplemental Response to hL&P Interrogatory 32(a)
D'epartment's Supplemental Response to hL&P Interrogatory 32(a)
The basis of the statement can be found in data, available from the Texas Public Utilities Commission.       The Department's preliminary analysis indicates that the following utilities in Texas have a projected surplus of generation capacity in 1980:
The basis of the statement can be found in data, available from the Texas Public Utilities Commission.
The Department's preliminary analysis indicates that the following utilities in Texas have a projected surplus of generation capacity in 1980:


Entity                                                 Reserves Brazos Llectric Power Coop Inc.                           15%
. Reserves Entity 15%
Central Power & Lignt Co.                                 39%
Brazos Llectric Power Coop Inc.
City of Austin                                             48%
39%
City Public Service Board of San Antonio                   56%
Central Power & Lignt Co.
Dallas Power & Light Co.                                   52%
48%
Ll Paso Electric Company                                   33%
City of Austin City Public Service Board of San Antonio 56%
16%
52%
Gulf States Utilities Houston Lighting & Power Co.                               21%
Dallas Power & Light Co.
Lower Colorado River Authority                             61%
33%
Ll Paso Electric Company Gulf States Utilities 16%
Houston Lighting & Power Co.
21%
Lower Colorado River Authority 61%
Southwestern Llectric Power Co.
25%
25%
Southwestern Llectric Power Co.
Southwestern Public Service Co.
Southwestern Public Service Co.                             32%
32%
Texas Power & Light Co.                                     34%
Texas Power & Light Co.
TESCO                                                      43%
34%
BTU                                                        14%
43%
The Department does not, represent or contend that this list includes all utilities in Texas that have a projected surplus of generating capacity in 1980.
TESCO 14%
BTU The Department does not, represent or contend that this list includes all utilities in Texas that have a projected surplus of generating capacity in 1980.
HL&P Interrogatory 32(b)
HL&P Interrogatory 32(b)
(b)     for each such competitor of HL&P or TU with excess capacity, (1) identify the utility; (2) state the product and geographic market in wh,ich it competes with Houston and/or TU; (3) state the type and extent of competition in each such market; and (4) state the market share of every utility in each such market; Department's Initial Response to HL&P Interrogatory 32(b)
(b) for each such competitor of HL&P or TU with excess capacity, (1) identify the utility; (2) state the product and geographic market in wh,ich it competes with Houston and/or TU; (3) state the type and extent of competition in each such market; and (4) state the market share of every utility in each such market; Department's Initial Response to HL&P Interrogatory 32(b)
This request is redundant with Interrogatories 13(b),
This request is redundant with Interrogatories 13(b),
13(f), 14(b), 15(b), and 16(b), and has been answered by the Department, to the extent it is able to do so given the present status of discovery, in its responses to those interrogatories.
13(f), 14(b), 15(b), and 16(b), and has been answered by the Department, to the extent it is able to do so given the present status of discovery, in its responses to those interrogatories.


Department's Supplemental Response to ifL&P Interrogatory 32(b)
. Department's Supplemental Response to ifL&P Interrogatory 32(b)
The Department has no additional information to supple-ment its initial response, llL&P Interrogatory 32(c)
The Department has no additional information to supple-ment its initial response, llL&P Interrogatory 32(c)
(c)   identify each such surplus of generating capacity by owner, quantitative measure of the surplus, the cost at which surplus capacity coulo be solo and period of time over which the surplus will or is expected to exist; Department's Initial Response to HL&P Interrogatory 32(c)
(c) identify each such surplus of generating capacity by owner, quantitative measure of the surplus, the cost at which surplus capacity coulo be solo and period of time over which the surplus will or is expected to exist; Department's Initial Response to HL&P Interrogatory 32(c)
The Department does not have the facts in its possession at this time to enable it to answer these interrogatories.
The Department does not have the facts in its possession at this time to enable it to answer these interrogatories.
Department's Supplemental Response to llL&P Interrogatory 32(c)
Department's Supplemental Response to llL&P Interrogatory 32(c)
The Department's preliminary analysis indicates that the quantitative surplus generating capacities of utilities in Texas in 1980 are:
The Department's preliminary analysis indicates that the quantitative surplus generating capacities of utilities in Texas in 1980 are:
Entity                                         Estimated 1980 Surplus *
Entity Estimated 1980 Surplus *
(MW)
(MW)
Brazos Electric Power Coop Inc.                         101 hw Central Power & Light Co.                               971 MW City of Austin                                           633 I1W City Public Service Board of San Antonio             1,085 kW Dallas Power & Light Co.                               1,161 MW L1 Paso Electric Company                                 258 MW Gulf States Utilities                                   881 MW llouston Lighting & Power Co.                         2,113 MW Lower Colorado River Authority                           690 MW
Brazos Electric Power Coop Inc.
 
101 hw Central Power & Light Co.
Southwestern Electric Power Co.                         605 MW Southwestern Public Service Co.                         554 MW Texas Power & Light Co.                               1,794 MW TESCO                                                 2,821 MW**
971 MW City of Austin 633 I1W City Public Service Board of San Antonio 1,085 kW Dallas Power & Light Co.
WTU                                                     131 MW
1,161 MW L1 Paso Electric Company 258 MW Gulf States Utilities 881 MW llouston Lighting & Power Co.
* Net capability less peak load
2,113 MW Lower Colorado River Authority 690 MW Southwestern Electric Power Co.
    ** , Figure for 1979 The Department has no knowledge of the cost at which surplus CapaLity Could be sold or how long the surplus is expected to exist.
605 MW Southwestern Public Service Co.
554 MW Texas Power & Light Co.
1,794 MW TESCO 2,821 MW**
WTU 131 MW Net capability less peak load
, Figure for 1979 The Department has no knowledge of the cost at which surplus CapaLity Could be sold or how long the surplus is expected to exist.
HL&P Interrogatory 32(d)
HL&P Interrogatory 32(d)
(d)   state whether and on what terms fuel supplies are available to generate power from the " surplus" capacity identified in this response; Department's Initial Response to HL&P Interrogatory 32(d)
(d) state whether and on what terms fuel supplies are available to generate power from the " surplus" capacity identified in this response; Department's Initial Response to HL&P Interrogatory 32(d)
The Department does not have the facts in its possession at this time to enable it to answer these questions.
The Department does not have the facts in its possession at this time to enable it to answer these questions.
Department's Supplemental Response to HL&P Interrocatory 32(d)
Department's Supplemental Response to HL&P Interrocatory 32(d)
The Department believes that fuel supplies are available to generate power for the " surplus capacity" described herein but the Department has no specific knowledge as to the terms on which these fuel supplies are or will be available other than through the documents, produced to the Department during discovery which include the deposition transcripts in these proceedings, the deposition transcripts and testimony in West Texas Utilities Co. v. Texas Electric Service Company, et al., the documents provided to the Department by HL&P or TU, in documents provided to the Department dur ing discove ry, to which HL&P and TU have had access, and the documents provided to the Department by
The Department believes that fuel supplies are available to generate power for the " surplus capacity" described herein but the Department has no specific knowledge as to the terms on which these fuel supplies are or will be available other than through the documents, produced to the Department during discovery which include the deposition transcripts in these proceedings, the deposition transcripts and testimony in West Texas Utilities Co. v. Texas Electric Service Company, et al.,
the documents provided to the Department by HL&P or TU, in documents provided to the Department dur ing discove ry, to which HL&P and TU have had access, and the documents provided to the Department by


other parties. Any documents the Department has which have not been produced either by HL&P or TU, or in discovery, are being pr ov id ed in the Department's Response to llouston Lighting &
. other parties. Any documents the Department has which have not been produced either by HL&P or TU, or in discovery, are being pr ov id ed in the Department's Response to llouston Lighting &
Power Company's Third Interrogatories, filed herewith.
Power Company's Third Interrogatories, filed herewith.
HL&P Interrogatories 32(e)-(f)
HL&P Interrogatories 32(e)-(f)
(e)     state whether the Division contends that this surplus power could be sold in SUPP but not in ERCOT; and (f)     state whether the Division has made any study or analysis which demonstr ates that it would be economically feasible to build interconnections with SUPP in order to sell such excess power.
(e) state whether the Division contends that this surplus power could be sold in SUPP but not in ERCOT; and (f) state whether the Division has made any study or analysis which demonstr ates that it would be economically feasible to build interconnections with SUPP in order to sell such excess power.
Department's Initial Response to HL&P Interrogatories 32(e)-(f)
Department's Initial Response to HL&P Interrogatories 32(e)-(f)
No.
No.
Department's Supplemental Response to HL&P Interrogatories 32(e)-(t)
Department's Supplemental Response to HL&P Interrogatories 32(e)-(t)
The Department has me.de no such study or analysis which demonstrates that it would be economically feasible to build interconnections with SWPP in order to sell such excess power, but the Department has. conducted interviews and depositions to determine whether such an interconnection with ShPP is economically feasible. In addition, the Department has examined numerous documents on this subject matter which were provided, in large part, by HL&P, TU and other members of TIS which substantiate that such'an interconnection is economically feasible to build.
The Department has me.de no such study or analysis which demonstrates that it would be economically feasible to build interconnections with SWPP in order to sell such excess power, but the Department has. conducted interviews and depositions to determine whether such an interconnection with ShPP is economically feasible.
IIL& P Interrogatory 33(a)
In addition, the Department has examined numerous documents on this subject matter which were provided, in large part, by HL&P, TU and other members of TIS which substantiate that such'an interconnection is economically feasible to build.
: 33.     (a) State the basis for and provide all documents which relate to the following allegations by the Division:
IIL& P Interrogatory 33(a) 33.
(1)     "[B]ecause of its higher power cost the City (of Bryan, Texas) is losing College Station as a wnolesale customer." (p. 9-10)
(a) State the basis for and provide all documents which relate to the following allegations by the Division:
(1)
"[B]ecause of its higher power cost the City (of Bryan, Texas) is losing College Station as a wnolesale customer." (p. 9-10)


(2)     " College Stations represents approximately 27 percen*
, (2)
" College Stations represents approximately 27 percen*
of Bryan's electric Load." (p. 10)
of Bryan's electric Load." (p. 10)
(3)     "The city 's rema ining customers will have to absorb the cost of this excess capacity if it is not sold, thus further eroding Bryan's ability to compete." (p. 10)
(3)
(4)     "Although Gulf States Utilities will have hign voltage transmission lines in the area and may constitute a ready market for the capacity...." (p. 10)
"The city 's rema ining customers will have to absorb the cost of this excess capacity if it is not sold, thus further eroding Bryan's ability to compete." (p. 10)
(5)     "[T]he City would not be able to sell its surplus capacity to Gulf States without violating the intrastate only restriction and risking disconnection f rom the other members of TIS." (p. 10)
(4)
"Although Gulf States Utilities will have hign voltage transmission lines in the area and may constitute a ready market for the capacity...." (p. 10)
(5)
"[T]he City would not be able to sell its surplus capacity to Gulf States without violating the intrastate only restriction and risking disconnection f rom the other members of TIS."
(p. 10)
Department's Initial Response to HL&P Interrogatory 33(a)
Department's Initial Response to HL&P Interrogatory 33(a)
The basis for the statements listed in Interrogatory 33(a)(1)-(5) are conversations between the Department and the City Manager of Dryan, Texas and the Manager of the utility system at College Station, Texas; the report and order in Texas Public Utility Commission Docket No. 409; maps of the area prepared by the FPC (now FLhC), and the material provided to the Department pursuant to the antitrust review of tne subject nuclear plant and the Comanche Peak and Allens Creek units; and Electrical World Directory of Electrical Utilities (1977-1978 Ldition).
The basis for the statements listed in Interrogatory 33(a)(1)-(5) are conversations between the Department and the City Manager of Dryan, Texas and the Manager of the utility system at College Station, Texas; the report and order in Texas Public Utility Commission Docket No. 409; maps of the area prepared by the FPC (now FLhC), and the material provided to the Department pursuant to the antitrust review of tne subject nuclear plant and the Comanche Peak and Allens Creek units; and Electrical World Directory of Electrical Utilities (1977-1978 Ldition).
Department's Supplemental Response to HL&P Interrogatory 33(a) (1-5)
Department's Supplemental Response to HL&P Interrogatory 33(a) (1-5)
The documents responsive to this interrogatory request include the deposition transcripts in these proceedings, the       -
The documents responsive to this interrogatory request include the deposition transcripts in these proceedings, the deposition transcripts and testimony in West Texas Utilities Co.
deposition transcripts and testimony in West Texas Utilities Co.
: v. Texas Electric Service Company, et al.,
: v. Texas Electric Service Company, et al., the documents provided to the Department by HL&P or TU, the documents provided to the Department during discovery, to which HL&P and TU have had access, and the documents provided to the Department by other parties. Any documents the Department has which have not been produced either by HL&P or TU, or in discovery, are being provided in the Department's Response co Houston Lighting &
the documents provided to the Department by HL&P or TU, the documents provided to the Department during discovery, to which HL&P and TU have had access, and the documents provided to the Department by other parties.
Any documents the Department has which have not been produced either by HL&P or TU, or in discovery, are being provided in the Department's Response co Houston Lighting &
Power Company's Third Interrogatories, filed herewith.
Power Company's Third Interrogatories, filed herewith.


IIL&P Interrogatory 33(b)
. IIL&P Interrogatory 33(b)
(b)   Provide the actual power cost for Bryan, Texas, for each of the past 5 years and the projected power cost for each of the past 5 years and the projected power cost for the next 5 years; Department's Initial Response to HL&P Interrogatory 33(b)
(b)
Provide the actual power cost for Bryan, Texas, for each of the past 5 years and the projected power cost for each of the past 5 years and the projected power cost for the next 5 years; Department's Initial Response to HL&P Interrogatory 33(b)
The Department is not aware, at this time, of the actual power cost for Bryan, Texas, for each of the past 5 years and the projected power cost for the next 5 years.
The Department is not aware, at this time, of the actual power cost for Bryan, Texas, for each of the past 5 years and the projected power cost for the next 5 years.
Department's Supplemental Response to HL&P Interrogatory 33(b)
Department's Supplemental Response to HL&P Interrogatory 33(b)
The documents to this interrogatory request are available for inspection at the Department's office on reasonable notice.
The documents to this interrogatory request are available for inspection at the Department's office on reasonable notice.
IIL&P Interrogatory 33(c)
IIL&P Interrogatory 33(c)
(c)   At what rate, and on what terms and conditions did Bryan offer to sell power to College Station?
(c)
At what rate, and on what terms and conditions did Bryan offer to sell power to College Station?
Department's Initial Response to HL&P Interrogatory 33(c)
Department's Initial Response to HL&P Interrogatory 33(c)
The Department is not aware, at this time, at what rate, and on what terms and conditions Bryan of ferred to sell power to College Station.
The Department is not aware, at this time, at what rate, and on what terms and conditions Bryan of ferred to sell power to College Station.
Line 1,300: Line 1,834:
Refer to Department's supplemental r es ponse to HL&P inter-rogatory 33(b) herein.
Refer to Department's supplemental r es ponse to HL&P inter-rogatory 33(b) herein.
HL&P Interrogatory 33(d)
HL&P Interrogatory 33(d)
(d)   Describe fully the reasons for College Station's change of power suppliers; Department's Initial Response to HL&P Interrogatory 33(d)
(d)
Describe fully the reasons for College Station's change of power suppliers; Department's Initial Response to HL&P Interrogatory 33(d)
The reason College Station changed power suppliers was due to the higher cost of wholesale power delivered by Bryan, Texas and that the main reason for the higher cost of power from Bryan was due to the latter's high fuel (natural gas) costs.
The reason College Station changed power suppliers was due to the higher cost of wholesale power delivered by Bryan, Texas and that the main reason for the higher cost of power from Bryan was due to the latter's high fuel (natural gas) costs.


Line 1,306: Line 1,841:
Other factors which may have influenced College Station to change wholesale power suppliers were College Station's projected load growth and its interest in obtaining FERC jurisdiction.
Other factors which may have influenced College Station to change wholesale power suppliers were College Station's projected load growth and its interest in obtaining FERC jurisdiction.
HL&P Interrogatory 33(e)
HL&P Interrogatory 33(e)
(e)   Identify from whom College Station will acquire its wholesale power, and under what terms and conditions, including cost and duration of service; Department's Initial Response to HL&P Interrogatory 33(e)
(e)
College Station will acquire its wholesale power from Gulf States Utilities. The Department is not aware at this time of the terms and conditions of that purchase.
Identify from whom College Station will acquire its wholesale power, and under what terms and conditions, including cost and duration of service; Department's Initial Response to HL&P Interrogatory 33(e)
College Station will acquire its wholesale power from Gulf States Utilities.
The Department is not aware at this time of the terms and conditions of that purchase.
Department's Supplemental Response to HL&P Interrogatory 33(e)
Department's Supplemental Response to HL&P Interrogatory 33(e)
The information sought by this interrogatory request is contained in documents available for inspection at the Department's office on reasonable notice.
The information sought by this interrogatory request is contained in documents available for inspection at the Department's office on reasonable notice.
HL&P Interrogatory 33(f)
HL&P Interrogatory 33(f)
(f)   State whether Gulf States has expressed an interest in purchasing Bryan's excess capacity, and if so, provide the details as to such expression of interest and provide all relevant documents.
(f)
State whether Gulf States has expressed an interest in purchasing Bryan's excess capacity, and if so, provide the details as to such expression of interest and provide all relevant documents.
Department's Initial Response to HL&P Interrogatory 33(f)
Department's Initial Response to HL&P Interrogatory 33(f)
The Department is not aware at this time of any expression of interest by Gulf States in purchasing Bryan's excess capacity.
The Department is not aware at this time of any expression of interest by Gulf States in purchasing Bryan's excess capacity.
Line 1,318: Line 1,856:
The Department is aware that Gulf States has expressed an interest in an interconnection in this area at least as early as 1977.
The Department is aware that Gulf States has expressed an interest in an interconnection in this area at least as early as 1977.


                  ==--a__-                     ._
==--a__-
1
1
                                          -100-liL&P's Interrogatory 33(g)
-100-liL&P's Interrogatory 33(g)
(g)       State whether Bryan has expressed an interest in selling its excess capacity to Gult States, and if so, provide the details as to such expression of interest and provide all relevant documents.
(g)
I Department's Initial Response to IIL&P Interrogatory 33(g)             I s
State whether Bryan has expressed an interest in selling its excess capacity to Gult States, and if so, provide the details as to such expression of interest and provide all relevant documents.
The Department is not aware at this time     of any such The intrastate only    ,I interest being expressed to Gulf States.
I Department's Initial Response to IIL&P Interrogatory 33(g)
policy of flLLP and TU would have made any such expression of           ;
I s
1 interest by Bryan fruitless.                                           !
The Department is not aware at this time of any such interest being expressed to Gulf States.
The intrastate only
,I policy of flLLP and TU would have made any such expression of 1
interest by Bryan fruitless.
i Department's Supplemental Response to IIL&P Interrogatory 33(g)
i Department's Supplemental Response to IIL&P Interrogatory 33(g)
The Department has no additional information to supplemental its previous response.
The Department has no additional information to supplemental its previous response.
IIL&P Interrogatory 33(h)
IIL&P Interrogatory 33(h)
Does the Division have any evidence showing that it would(h)be feasible for Bryan to sell power to Gulf States witnout the complete interconnection of TIS and ShPP 30 long as Bryan remains interconnected with TIS, and if so, state the exact details of such evidence.
(h)
Does the Division have any evidence showing that it would be feasible for Bryan to sell power to Gulf States witnout the complete interconnection of TIS and ShPP 30 long as Bryan remains interconnected with TIS, and if so, state the exact details of such evidence.
Department's Initial Response to llL&P Interrogatory 33(h)
Department's Initial Response to llL&P Interrogatory 33(h)
The Department cannot respond to this interrogatory because the term " complete interconnection of TIS and SWPP" used therein is vague and undefined.
The Department cannot respond to this interrogatory because the term " complete interconnection of TIS and SWPP" used therein is vague and undefined.
Line 1,335: Line 1,877:
The Department has no additional information to supplement its previous response.
The Department has no additional information to supplement its previous response.
IiL&P Interrogatory 33(i)
IiL&P Interrogatory 33(i)
(i)       Does the Division have any evidence showing that Bryan could not provide for its orderly disconnection from TIS and proceed with interconnection witn GUlt States in order to sell its excess capacity to Gulf States, and if so, state the exact details of such evidence.
(i)
Does the Division have any evidence showing that Bryan could not provide for its orderly disconnection from TIS and proceed with interconnection witn GUlt States in order to sell its excess capacity to Gulf States, and if so, state the exact details of such evidence.


                                -101-Department's Initial Response to HL&P Interrogatory 33(i)
-101-Department's Initial Response to HL&P Interrogatory 33(i)
In order to do so under the present intrastate only policy of HL&P and TU, Bryan would have to forego membership in the TMPP and its planned pa rticipation in Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station, as well as all benefits resulting from its interconnections with other members of TIS.
In order to do so under the present intrastate only policy of HL&P and TU, Bryan would have to forego membership in the TMPP and its planned pa rticipation in Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station, as well as all benefits resulting from its interconnections with other members of TIS.
Department's Supplemental Response to HL&P Interrogatory (i)
Department's Supplemental Response to HL&P Interrogatory (i)
The Department has no additional information to supplement its previous response.
The Department has no additional information to supplement its previous response.
HL&P Interrogatory 34(a)(1)
HL&P Interrogatory 34(a)(1) 34.
: 34.     (a) State the basis for and provide all documents which relate to the following allegations by the Division:
(a) State the basis for and provide all documents which relate to the following allegations by the Division:
(1)   "The intrastate onir restrictions could also prevent municipal and cooperative systems in Texas from being able to receive an increased share of low cost Southwestern Power Administration (" SPA") power should additional amounts of power become available." (p. 10)
(1)
"The intrastate onir restrictions could also prevent municipal and cooperative systems in Texas from being able to receive an increased share of low cost Southwestern Power Administration
(" SPA") power should additional amounts of power become available." (p. 10)
Department's Initial Response to HL&P Interrogatory 34(a)(1)
Department's Initial Response to HL&P Interrogatory 34(a)(1)
It is the Department's understanding, based on conversations with a representative of the Texas-Louisiana group of REA cooperatives, that the group is interested in receiving a portion of some Southwestern Power Administration (" SPA") power which may be available to preference customers in the near future. Under the present intrastate only policy of HL&P and TU, some of the preference customers in Texas will not be able to receive this power should it be made available to them because the transportation of that power would be in interstate commerce.
It is the Department's understanding, based on conversations with a representative of the Texas-Louisiana group of REA cooperatives, that the group is interested in receiving a portion of some Southwestern Power Administration
(" SPA") power which may be available to preference customers in the near future.
Under the present intrastate only policy of HL&P and TU, some of the preference customers in Texas will not be able to receive this power should it be made available to them because the transportation of that power would be in interstate commerce.
Department's Supplemental Response to HL&P Interrogatory 34(a)(1)
Department's Supplemental Response to HL&P Interrogatory 34(a)(1)
The SPA anticipates it will have power available for allocation to preference systems in the future. The SPA has stated:   "Since the ERCOT systems are not interconnected with utilities outside of the state of Texas, it is impossible for SWPA to allocate capacity from resources within these two hydroelectric projects [Denison and Whitney Dams] to preference customers in the ERCOT portion of Texas."   Federal Register Vol. 44, No. 150 at 45473.
The SPA anticipates it will have power available for allocation to preference systems in the future.
The SPA has stated:
"Since the ERCOT systems are not interconnected with utilities outside of the state of Texas, it is impossible for SWPA to allocate capacity from resources within these two hydroelectric projects [Denison and Whitney Dams] to preference customers in the ERCOT portion of Texas."
Federal Register Vol. 44, No. 150 at 45473.


W
W
                                  -102-The documents which relate to this interrogatory response include the deposition transcripts in these proceedings, the deposition transcripts and testimony in West Texas Utilities Co. v. Texas Electric Service Company, et al., the documents provided to the Department by HL&P or TU, the documents provided to the Department during discovery, to which hL&P and TU have had access, and the documents provided to the Department by other parties. Any documents the Depart-ment has which have not been produced either by HL&P or TU, or in discovery, are being provided in the Department's Response to Houston Lighting & Power Company's Third Inter-rogatories, filed herewith.
-102-The documents which relate to this interrogatory response include the deposition transcripts in these proceedings, the deposition transcripts and testimony in West Texas Utilities Co. v. Texas Electric Service Company, et al., the documents provided to the Department by HL&P or TU, the documents provided to the Department during discovery, to which hL&P and TU have had access, and the documents provided to the Department by other parties.
Any documents the Depart-ment has which have not been produced either by HL&P or TU, or in discovery, are being provided in the Department's Response to Houston Lighting & Power Company's Third Inter-rogatories, filed herewith.
HL&P Interrogatory 34(a)(2)
HL&P Interrogatory 34(a)(2)
(2)     "The SPA may also constitute a market for the surplus capacity noted above since, when it ic f aced with low water levels on its system, it must purchase aeticiency power in order to meet its contractual obligations to its preference customers." (p. 10).
(2)
"The SPA may also constitute a market for the surplus capacity noted above since, when it ic f aced with low water levels on its system, it must purchase aeticiency power in order to meet its contractual obligations to its preference customers." (p. 10).
Department's Initial Response to HL&P Interrogatory 34(a)(2)
Department's Initial Response to HL&P Interrogatory 34(a)(2)
This statement is based on the Department's understanding of SPA's contracts with its pref erence customers wherein SPA is obligated to deliver to its preference customers a certain amount of power and, in the event the resources of SPA are inadequate to meet that obligation, SPA must acquire an amount equal to its deficiency from other sources.
This statement is based on the Department's understanding of SPA's contracts with its pref erence customers wherein SPA is obligated to deliver to its preference customers a certain amount of power and, in the event the resources of SPA are inadequate to meet that obligation, SPA must acquire an amount equal to its deficiency from other sources.
Line 1,358: Line 1,910:
Refer to Department's supplemental response to HL&P Inter-rogatory 26(b)-(c) and 29 herein.
Refer to Department's supplemental response to HL&P Inter-rogatory 26(b)-(c) and 29 herein.


                                  -103-HL&P Interrogatory 34(b)
-103-HL&P Interrogatory 34(b)
(b)   Specify the facts that support the allegation that
(b)
    " additional amounts of power" may "become available" from SPA and in so doing specify the quantity of such power, the cost of such power, and the time period for which it will be available and explain why this power could not be sold to municipal and cooperative systems in Texas.
Specify the facts that support the allegation that
" additional amounts of power" may "become available" from SPA and in so doing specify the quantity of such power, the cost of such power, and the time period for which it will be available and explain why this power could not be sold to municipal and cooperative systems in Texas.
Department's Initial Response to HL&P Interrogatory 34(b)
Department's Initial Response to HL&P Interrogatory 34(b)
An amount of power equal to 170 mw may be made available to preference customers of SPA when an existing contract between SPA and Reynolds Hetals expires in 1979. The Department is not aware at this time of the time period for whicn the power may be made available. The request for an explanation of why tnis power coula not be sold to municipal and cooperative systems in Texas is redundant with Inter rogatory 34(a) (1) .
An amount of power equal to 170 mw may be made available to preference customers of SPA when an existing contract between SPA and Reynolds Hetals expires in 1979.
The Department is not aware at this time of the time period for whicn the power may be made available.
The request for an explanation of why tnis power coula not be sold to municipal and cooperative systems in Texas is redundant with Inter rogatory 34(a) (1).
Department's Supplemental Response to HL&P Interrogatory 34(b)
Department's Supplemental Response to HL&P Interrogatory 34(b)
Refer to Department's supplemental response to HL&P inter-rogatory 34(a)(1) herein and the documents responsive to this interrogatory request include the deposition transcripts in these proceedings, the deposition transcripts and testimony in West Texas Utilities Co. v. Texas Llectric Service Company, et al., the documents provided to the Department by HL&P or TU, the documents provided to the Department during discovery, to which HL&P and TU have had access, and the documents provided to the Department by other parties. Any documents the Department has wnich have not been produced either by HL&P or TU, or in dissovery, are being provided in the Department's Response to Houston Lighting & Power Company's Third Interrogatories, tiled herewith.
Refer to Department's supplemental response to HL&P inter-rogatory 34(a)(1) herein and the documents responsive to this interrogatory request include the deposition transcripts in these proceedings, the deposition transcripts and testimony in West Texas Utilities Co.
v.
Texas Llectric Service Company, et al.,
the documents provided to the Department by HL&P or TU, the documents provided to the Department during discovery, to which HL&P and TU have had access, and the documents provided to the Department by other parties.
Any documents the Department has wnich have not been produced either by HL&P or TU, or in dissovery, are being provided in the Department's Response to Houston Lighting & Power Company's Third Interrogatories, tiled herewith.
HL&P Interrogatory 34(c)
HL&P Interrogatory 34(c)
(c)   Identify and describe the circumstances surrounding each instance in which a municipal or cooperative system in Texas has requestea, expressed interest in or otherwise considered tue possiblity or receiving power from SPA (it it does not now receive such power) or of increasing its share of such power (if it now receives such power).
(c)
Identify and describe the circumstances surrounding each instance in which a municipal or cooperative system in Texas has requestea, expressed interest in or otherwise considered tue possiblity or receiving power from SPA (it it does not now receive such power) or of increasing its share of such power (if it now receives such power).


                                -104-Department's Initial Response to HL&P Interrogatory 34(c)
-104-Department's Initial Response to HL&P Interrogatory 34(c)
The Department cannot respond to this request until it has substantially completed discovery.
The Department cannot respond to this request until it has substantially completed discovery.
Department's Supplemental Response to HL&P Interrogatory 34(c)
Department's Supplemental Response to HL&P Interrogatory 34(c)
Line 1,375: Line 1,935:
and the Tex-La Cooperatives.
and the Tex-La Cooperatives.
HL&P Interrogatory 34(d)
HL&P Interrogatory 34(d)
(d)   State the quantities of " deficiency power" which the Division estimates that SPA will purchase in each of the next 10 years and identify the time period over which such purchases are expected.
(d)
State the quantities of " deficiency power" which the Division estimates that SPA will purchase in each of the next 10 years and identify the time period over which such purchases are expected.
Department's Initial Response to HL&P Interrogatory 34(d)
Department's Initial Response to HL&P Interrogatory 34(d)
The Department has made no estimates of SPA's deficier y power requirements for each of the next 10 years.
The Department has made no estimates of SPA's deficier y power requirements for each of the next 10 years.
Line 1,381: Line 1,942:
The Department has no additional information to supplement lts previous response.
The Department has no additional information to supplement lts previous response.


                                -105-HL&P Interrogatory 34(e)
-105-HL&P Interrogatory 34(e)
(e)   State why the SPA will be unable to purchase such deficiency power in SWPP or from other regions interconnected with SWPP.
(e)
State why the SPA will be unable to purchase such deficiency power in SWPP or from other regions interconnected with SWPP.
Department's Initial Response to HL&P Interrogatory 34 (e)
Department's Initial Response to HL&P Interrogatory 34 (e)
The Department objects to this interrogatory on the ground that the Department has made no allegation that the SPA will be unable to purchase deficiency power from members of the ShPP and therefore, the request elicits neither facts nor evidence but is argumentative in nature and tone; further, the question is designed to elicit the mental impressions, conclusions, opinions and legal theories of the Department's attorneys in contravention of NRC Rule of Practice S2.740(b)(2) and FED. R. CIV. P. 26(b)(3).
The Department objects to this interrogatory on the ground that the Department has made no allegation that the SPA will be unable to purchase deficiency power from members of the ShPP and therefore, the request elicits neither facts nor evidence but is argumentative in nature and tone; further, the question is designed to elicit the mental impressions, conclusions, opinions and legal theories of the Department's attorneys in contravention of NRC Rule of Practice S2.740(b)(2) and FED.
R.
CIV.
P. 26(b)(3).
Department's Supplemental Response to HL&P Interrogatory 34(e)
Department's Supplemental Response to HL&P Interrogatory 34(e)
The Department has no additional information responsive to this interrogatory request.
The Department has no additional information responsive to this interrogatory request.
HL&P Interrogatory 34(f)
HL&P Interrogatory 34(f)
(f)   Describe the sources of such " deficiency power" now available to SPA and terms on which it is available.
(f)
Describe the sources of such " deficiency power" now available to SPA and terms on which it is available.
Department's Initial Response to HL&P Interrogatory 34(f)
Department's Initial Response to HL&P Interrogatory 34(f)
The Department is not aware at this time of the present sources of deficiency power now available to SPA nor of the terms on which it is available.
The Department is not aware at this time of the present sources of deficiency power now available to SPA nor of the terms on which it is available.
Line 1,394: Line 1,960:
The information sought by this interrogatory request is contained in the deposition transcripts in these proceedings, and in the documents provided to the Department during dis-covery to which HL&P and TU have had access.
The information sought by this interrogatory request is contained in the deposition transcripts in these proceedings, and in the documents provided to the Department during dis-covery to which HL&P and TU have had access.
UL&P Interrogatory 34(g)
UL&P Interrogatory 34(g)
(g)   Identify and describe the circumstances surrounding each instance in which SPA has requested, expressed interest in or otherwise considered the possiblity of purchasing " deficiency power" from any system now a member of TIS.
(g)
Identify and describe the circumstances surrounding each instance in which SPA has requested, expressed interest in or otherwise considered the possiblity of purchasing " deficiency power" from any system now a member of TIS.


                                            -105a-D e p a r t.r/ e n t ' s iInit al fe nonce to IIL! P Interroaatory 34.(.o.-)
-105a-D e p a r t.r/ e n t ' s Init al fe nonce to IIL! P Interroaatory 34.(.o.-)
The Depar t ip nt is neither aware at this time of any innlance in which SPA han requented, exprecced interent. in or o the nti ne considered the possi.bility of purchasing deficiency pouer f ron any synt.e a now a renber of TIS, nor han it knowledge of any expcension of interest or considera-tion by a n eriber of TIS to purchane such power from SPA.
i The Depar t ip nt is neither aware at this time of any innlance in which SPA han requented, exprecced interent. in or o the nti ne considered the possi.bility of purchasing deficiency pouer f ron any synt.e a now a renber of TIS, nor han it knowledge of any expcension of interest or considera-tion by a n eriber of TIS to purchane such power from SPA.
Any request, expression of interect or consideration would have been precluded from ever being implemented because of the intractate only agreement of HL5P and TU.
Any request, expression of interect or consideration would have been precluded from ever being implemented because of the intractate only agreement of HL5P and TU.
Department's Supplcmental Rnnponse to HL&P Interrogator Q 4(a) i The Department has no additionc! information responcive to this interrogatory request other than that provided in the in the deposition transcr ipts in thcce proceed ings, the deposition transcripts and testimony in gst Texas Util it-ies                       1 Co. v. Texan Electric Service Cornonv, et al., in documents provided to the Department by IIL&P or TU, in documents provided to the Depar traent dur ing discovery, to whicli HL&P and TU have had access, or by other parties.                 Any documents the Departuent   ,
Department's Supplcmental Rnnponse to HL&P Interrogator Q 4(a) i The Department has no additionc! information responcive to this interrogatory request other than that provided in the in the deposition transcr ipts in thcce proceed ings, the deposition transcripts and testimony in gst Texas Util it-ies 1
has which have not been produced either by HL&P or TU or in discovery in being provided in the Department's Response to llouston Lighting & Power Company's Third Interrogatorien, filed herewith.
Co. v. Texan Electric Service Cornonv, et al.,
in documents provided to the Department by IIL&P or TU, in documents provided to the Depar traent dur ing discovery, to whicli HL&P and TU have had access, or by other parties.
Any documents the Departuent has which have not been produced either by HL&P or TU or in discovery in being provided in the Department's Response to llouston Lighting & Power Company's Third Interrogatorien, filed herewith.


    ~~
~~
                                      -106-Department's Supplemental Response to HL&P Interrogatory 34(g)
-106-Department's Supplemental Response to HL&P Interrogatory 34(g)
The Department has no additional information responsive to this interrogatory request other than that provided in the deposition transcripts in these proceedings, the documents provided to the Department by HL&P or TU, the documents provided to the Department during discovery, to which HL&P and TU have had access, or by other parties.       Any documents the Department has which have not been produced either by HL&P or TU, or in discovery, are being provided in the Department's Response to Houston Lighting & Power Company's Third Interrogatories, filed herewith.
The Department has no additional information responsive to this interrogatory request other than that provided in the deposition transcripts in these proceedings, the documents provided to the Department by HL&P or TU, the documents provided to the Department during discovery, to which HL&P and TU have had access, or by other parties.
Any documents the Department has which have not been produced either by HL&P or TU, or in discovery, are being provided in the Department's Response to Houston Lighting & Power Company's Third Interrogatories, filed herewith.
HL&P Interrogatory 34(h)
HL&P Interrogatory 34(h)
(h)   Identify and describe the circumstances surrounding each instance in which SPA has requested, expressed interest in or otherwise considered the possiblity of purchasing " deficiency power" from any system now a member of TIS.
(h)
Identify and describe the circumstances surrounding each instance in which SPA has requested, expressed interest in or otherwise considered the possiblity of purchasing " deficiency power" from any system now a member of TIS.
Department's Initial Response to HL&P Interrogatory 34(h)
Department's Initial Response to HL&P Interrogatory 34(h)
The Department is neither aware at this time of any instance in which SPA has requested, expressed interest in or otherwise cons id e red the possibility of purchasing deficiency power from any system now a member of TIS, nor has it knowledge of any expression of interest or consideration by a member of TIS to sell such power to SPA. Any request, expression of interest or consideration would have been precluded from ever being implemented because of the intrastate only agreement of HL&P and TU.
The Department is neither aware at this time of any instance in which SPA has requested, expressed interest in or otherwise cons id e red the possibility of purchasing deficiency power from any system now a member of TIS, nor has it knowledge of any expression of interest or consideration by a member of TIS to sell such power to SPA.
Any request, expression of interest or consideration would have been precluded from ever being implemented because of the intrastate only agreement of HL&P and TU.
HL&P Interrogatory 34(i)
HL&P Interrogatory 34(i)
(i)   If the Division contends that SPA might be able to purchase " deficiency power" f rom new sources within Texas on terms more favorable than those now available to SPA, (1) identify the potential seller (s) and (2) explain the basis for the contention.
(i)
If the Division contends that SPA might be able to purchase " deficiency power" f rom new sources within Texas on terms more favorable than those now available to SPA, (1) identify the potential seller (s) and (2) explain the basis for the contention.
Department's Initial Response to Interrogatory 34(i)
Department's Initial Response to Interrogatory 34(i)
The Department does contend that, absent the intrastate only agreement of HL&P and TU, SPA might be able to purchase deficiency power from sources within Texas at a lower cost.
The Department does contend that, absent the intrastate only agreement of HL&P and TU, SPA might be able to purchase deficiency power from sources within Texas at a lower cost.


                                -107-The potential sellers in Texas would be any utility that coulo provide the power at a lower cost than what SPA could purchase it for elsewhere.
-107-The potential sellers in Texas would be any utility that coulo provide the power at a lower cost than what SPA could purchase it for elsewhere.
Department's Supplemental Resnonse to Interrogatory 34(i)
Department's Supplemental Resnonse to Interrogatory 34(i)
Refer to Departmei.'s supplemental response to HL&P interrogatory 34(g) - (h) herein.
Refer to Departmei.'s supplemental response to HL&P interrogatory 34(g) - (h) herein.
HL&P Interrogatory 34(j)
HL&P Interrogatory 34(j)
(j)   Provide all documents relating to the subject matter of this interrogatory.
(j)
Provide all documents relating to the subject matter of this interrogatory.
Department's Supplemental Response to HL&P Interrogatory 34(j)
Department's Supplemental Response to HL&P Interrogatory 34(j)
The documents which relate to this interrogatory response include the deposition t ', scripts in these proceed-ings, the documents provided to the Department by HL&P or TU, the documents provided to the Department during discovery, to which HL&P and TU have had access, and the documents provided to the Department by other parties. Any documents the Department has which have not been produced either by HL&P or TU, or in discovery, are being provided in the Department's Response to Houston Lighting & Power Company's Third Interrogatories, filed herewith.
The documents which relate to this interrogatory response include the deposition t ', scripts in these proceed-ings, the documents provided to the Department by HL&P or TU, the documents provided to the Department during discovery, to which HL&P and TU have had access, and the documents provided to the Department by other parties.
HL&P Interrogato~cy 35
Any documents the Department has which have not been produced either by HL&P or TU, or in discovery, are being provided in the Department's Response to Houston Lighting & Power Company's Third Interrogatories, filed herewith.
: 35. Identify specifically the " valuable business service" mentioned in the Division's allegation that "[t]he concerted action by HL&P and TU deprived competitors of a valuable business service needed in order to compete ef fectively" (p. 11)
HL&P Interrogato~cy 35 35.
Department's Initial Response to HL&P Interrogatory 35 That portion of the Department's letter of February 21, 1978 to which Interrogatory 35 references is in response to the NRC's reqaest for "ar. evaluation of the legal significance of the various facts and contentions dealt with in the Assistant Attorney General's letter of January 25, 1977." At the time the Department's letter of January 25, 1977 was written, HL&P and TU had disconnected from certain other members of TIS and were refusing to reestablish those interconnections while those
Identify specifically the " valuable business service" mentioned in the Division's allegation that "[t]he concerted action by HL&P and TU deprived competitors of a valuable business service needed in order to compete ef fectively" (p. 11)
Department's Initial Response to HL&P Interrogatory 35 That portion of the Department's letter of February 21, 1978 to which Interrogatory 35 references is in response to the NRC's reqaest for "ar. evaluation of the legal significance of the various facts and contentions dealt with in the Assistant Attorney General's letter of January 25, 1977."
At the time the Department's letter of January 25, 1977 was written, HL&P and TU had disconnected from certain other members of TIS and were refusing to reestablish those interconnections while those


                                    -108-other members were operating in interstate commerce. The valuable business service was referring to the economic and reliability benefits that those systems would have realized from the coordinated operations and development possible because of the interconnect ions with IIL&P and TU. When !!L&P and TU opened those interconnections in May, 1976, the utilities that were no longer interconnected with IIL&P and TU were deprived of those economic and reliability benefits.
-108-other members were operating in interstate commerce.
The valuable business service was referring to the economic and reliability benefits that those systems would have realized from the coordinated operations and development possible because of the interconnect ions with IIL&P and TU.
When !!L&P and TU opened those interconnections in May, 1976, the utilities that were no longer interconnected with IIL&P and TU were deprived of those economic and reliability benefits.
Department's Supplemental Response to HL&P Interrogatory 35 The Department has no additional information responsive to this request.
Department's Supplemental Response to HL&P Interrogatory 35 The Department has no additional information responsive to this request.
IIL& P Interrogatory 36
IIL& P Interrogatory 36 36.
: 36. With respect to the Division's reference to "the need and opportunity for coordination between interstate and intrastate utilities" (p. 12), does the Division contend that the intrastate utilities can coordinate or cooperate with interstate utilities and still maintain their intrastate status under the legal standards of Florida Power & Light Company v.
With respect to the Division's reference to "the need and opportunity for coordination between interstate and intrastate utilities" (p. 12), does the Division contend that the intrastate utilities can coordinate or cooperate with interstate utilities and still maintain their intrastate status under the legal standards of Florida Power & Light Company v.
PPC, 404 U.S. 453, 92 S.Ct. 637(1972)?
PPC, 404 U.S.
Department's Initial Response to ilL&P Interrogatory 36 The Department believes that the premise of this question is too hypothetical, and involves such a multitude of possible variables, that any effort to respond in terms of how the deci-sion in Florida Power & Licht Company v. FPC, 404 U.S. 453 (1972),
453, 92 S.Ct. 637(1972)?
Department's Initial Response to ilL&P Interrogatory 36 The Department believes that the premise of this question is too hypothetical, and involves such a multitude of possible variables, that any effort to respond in terms of how the deci-sion in Florida Power & Licht Company v.
FPC, 404 U.S.
453 (1972),
could relate to this situatton would constitute speculation.
could relate to this situatton would constitute speculation.
Department's Supplemental Response to IIL&P's Interrogatory 36 The Department has no additional information responsive to this interrogatory request.
Department's Supplemental Response to IIL&P's Interrogatory 36 The Department has no additional information responsive to this interrogatory request.
IIL& P Interrogatory 37
IIL& P Interrogatory 37 37.
: 37. Except as o'therwise disclosed in answer to this discovery request, state whether the information furnished is within the personal knowledge of the affiant answering the interrogatories, and if not, the name, address, occupation and title of each person to whom the information is a matter of personal knowledge, if known, or from whom information was obtained upon which said answer or a part thereof was based.
Except as o'therwise disclosed in answer to this discovery request, state whether the information furnished is within the personal knowledge of the affiant answering the interrogatories, and if not, the name, address, occupation and title of each person to whom the information is a matter of personal knowledge, if known, or from whom information was obtained upon which said answer or a part thereof was based.
Department's Initial Response to 11L&P Interrogatory 37 Raymond W. Philipps Trial Attorney Antitrust Division U.S. Department of Justice Washington, D. C. 20530
Department's Initial Response to 11L&P Interrogatory 37 Raymond W.
Philipps Trial Attorney Antitrust Division U.S.
Department of Justice Washington, D.
C.
20530


                                  -109-Depar tment's Supplemental Response to IIL&P Interrogatory 37 The information provided in the Department's Second Ou ppl eme n tal Response to !!L&P's First Set of Interrogatories is based on the deposition transcripts in these proceedinns, the deposition transcripts and testimony in West Texas Utilities Co. v. Texas Electric Service Company, et al., the documents provided to the Department by IIL&P or TU, the documents provided to the Department during discovery, to whien IIL&P and TU have had access, and the documents provided to the Department by other parties.           Any docuraents the Department has which have not been produced either by llL&P or TU, or in discovery, are being provided in the Department's Response to flouston Lighting & Power Company's Third Inter-rogatories, filed herewith.
-109-Depar tment's Supplemental Response to IIL&P Interrogatory 37 The information provided in the Department's Second Ou ppl eme n tal Response to !!L&P's First Set of Interrogatories is based on the deposition transcripts in these proceedinns, the deposition transcripts and testimony in West Texas Utilities Co. v. Texas Electric Service Company, et al., the documents provided to the Department by IIL&P or TU, the documents provided to the Department during discovery, to whien IIL&P and TU have had access, and the documents provided to the Department by other parties.
Any docuraents the Department has which have not been produced either by llL&P or TU, or in discovery, are being provided in the Department's Response to flouston Lighting & Power Company's Third Inter-rogatories, filed herewith.
Based on the information presently in the Department's possession, the supplemental information provided herein is, to the best of the Department's present belief and knowledge, true and correct.
Based on the information presently in the Department's possession, the supplemental information provided herein is, to the best of the Department's present belief and knowledge, true and correct.
Respectfully submitted, ldOOM             AY"     7 'f
Respectfully submitted, ldOOM A Y "
                                .      n Braden Cyphert F
'f n Braden Cyphert 7
                                      'awAn[MI erick 11. Parmenter ygdff"    7 Attorneys, Energy Section Antitrust Division U.S. Department of Justice Telephone: (292) 724-6667)
'awAn[MI ygdff" F
erick 11. Parmenter 7
Attorneys, Energy Section Antitrust Division U.S. Department of Justice Telephone: (292) 724-6667)
Washington, D.C.
Washington, D.C.
February 1, 1980 Subscribed and sworn to before me,~ a notary public, this 1st day of February 1980.      ,
February 1, 1980 1st day of February 1980.
Q. " ' . ,
~ a notary public, this Subscribed and sworn to before me, Q. " '.
                                            ' ( ,, u- <   ,j'../ .,: ,,/
' (,,
My Commission expires                 , . , ,      .
u- <
,j'../.,:,,/
My Commission expires


I UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board                     ,
I UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board In the Matter of
In the Matter of                   )
)
HOUSTON LIGtiTING AND POWER )       Docket Nos. 50-498A               ,
HOUSTON LIGtiTING AND POWER )
CO.,   et al.(South Texas       )               50-499A               !
Docket Nos. 50-498A CO., et al.(South Texas
Project, Units 1 and 2)         )
)
                                              )
50-499A Project, Units 1 and 2)
TEXAS UTILITIES GENERATING         ) Docket Nos. 50-445A                 }
)
COMPANY (Comanche Peak           )               50-446A                 I i
)
Steam Electr ic Station,         )
TEXAS UTILITIES GENERATING
Units 1 and 2)                   )
)
Docket Nos. 50-445A
}
COMPANY (Comanche Peak
)
50-446A I
i Steam Electr ic Station,
)
Units 1 and 2)
)
_C,ERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that service of the foregoing Second Supplemental Response of Department of Justice to Houston Lighting and Power Company First Set of Interrogatories and Requests for Production of Documents and November 30, 1979 Motion to Compel has been made on the following parties listed hereto this 1st day of February, 1980, oy depositing copies thereof in the United States mail, first class, postage prepaid.
_C,ERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that service of the foregoing Second Supplemental Response of Department of Justice to Houston Lighting and Power Company First Set of Interrogatories and Requests for Production of Documents and November 30, 1979 Motion to Compel has been made on the following parties listed hereto this 1st day of February, 1980, oy depositing copies thereof in the United States mail, first class, postage prepaid.
d'< Marshcll E. Miller, Esqu ir e           Alan S. Rosenthal, Esquire Chairman                               Chairman Atomic Safety & Licensing Board         Michael C. Farrar, Esquire Panel                               Thomas S. Moore, Esquire U.S. Nuclear Regulatory               Atomic Safety and Licensing Commission                             Appeal Board Panel Washington, D. C.       20555         U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
d'<
: 4. Michael L. Glaser, Esqu ir e           Washington, D. C. 20555 1150 17th Street, N.W.
Marshcll E. Miller, Esqu ir e Alan S.
Washington, D. C.       20036         Jerome E. Sharfman, Esquire U.S. Nuclear Regulatory       ,
Rosenthal, Esquire Chairman Chairman Atomic Safety & Licensing Board Michael C.
4 Sheldon J.     Wolfe, Esquire             Commission Atomic Safety & Licensing Board       Washington, D. C. 20555 Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory               Chase R. Stephens, Secretary Commission                         Docketing and Service Branch Washington, D. C.       20555           U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Samuel J. Chilk , Secretary         Washington, D. C. 20555 Office of the Secretary of the Commission                         AJerome Saltzman U.S. Nuclear Regulatory                 Chief, Antitrust and Commission                             Indemnity Group Wash i ng ton, D. C. 20555           U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C. 20555
Farrar, Esquire Panel Thomas S.
Moore, Esquire U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Atomic Safety and Licensing Commission Appeal Board Panel Washington, D.
C.
20555 U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission
: 4. Michael L. Glaser, Esqu ir e Washington, D.
C.
20555 1150 17th Street, N.W.
Washington, D.
C.
20036 Jerome E.
Sharfman, Esquire U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 4 Sheldon J.
Wolfe, Esquire Commission Atomic Safety & Licensing Board Washington, D.
C.
20555 Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Chase R.
Stephens, Secretary Commission Docketing and Service Branch Washington, D.
C.
20555 U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission Samuel J.
Chilk, Secretary Washington, D.
C.
20555 Office of the Secretary of the Commission AJerome Saltzman U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Chief, Antitrust and Commission Indemnity Group Wash i ng ton, D.
C.
20555 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.
C.
20555
* The following persons were mailed copies on February 1, 1980.
* The following persons were mailed copies on February 1, 1980.
  .          The remainder of the service list was mailed on Feberuary 2-4,1980 as copying was completed.
The remainder of the service list was mailed on Feberuary 2-4,1980 as copying was completed.


i Mr. William C. Price           A Roy P. Lessy, Esquire               ,
i Mr. William C. Price A Roy P.
Central Power & Ligh t Co.       Michael Blume, Esquire P. O. Dox 2121                   U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Corpus Chr isti, Texas 78403       Commission Washington, D. C. 20555 G. K. Spruce, General Manager City Public Service Board
Lessy, Esquire Central Power & Ligh t Co.
* Jerry L. Harris, Esquire P.O. Box 1771                   City Attorney, San Antonio, Texas     78203   Richard C. Balough, Esquire Assi   ant City Attorney Perry G. Brittain               City of Austin Pr esid e n t                   P.O. Box 1088 Texas Utilities Generating       Austin, Texas 78767 Company 2001 Bryan Tower               unobert C. McDiarmid, Esquire Dallas, Texas 75201             Robert A. Jablon, Esquire Spiegel and McDiarmid R.L. Hancock, Director           2600 Virginia Avenue, N.W.
Michael Blume, Esquire P.
City of Austin Electric         Washington, D. C. 20036 Utility Department P. O. Box 1088                   Dan H. Davidson Austin, Texas 78767             City Manager City of Austin G. W. Oprea, Jr.                 P. O. Box 1088 Executive Vice President         Austin, Texas 78767 Houston Lighting & Pawer Company                       Don R. Butler, Esquire P. O. Box 1700                   1225 Southwest Tower Houston, Texas     77001       Austin, Texas 78701 Jon C. Wood, Esquire           thJoseph Irion Worsham, Esquire W. Roger Wilson, Esquire       Merlyn D. Sampels, Esquire Matthews, Nowlin, Macfarlane     Spencer C. Relyea, Esquire
O.
            & Barrett                     Worsham, Forsythe & Sampels 1500 Alamo National Building     2001 Bryan Tower, Suite 2500 San Antonio, Texas     78205   Dallas, Texas   75201 A David M. Stahl, Esquire         4 Joseph Knotts, Esquire Isham, Lincoln & Beale           Nicholas S. Reynolds, Esquire Suite 701                       Debevoise & Liberman                 l 1050 17th S t reet, N.W.         1200 17th S tr eet, N.W.
Dox 2121 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Corpus Chr isti, Texas 78403 Commission Washington, D.
Washington, D. C.     20Q36     Washington, D. C. 20036           ;
C.
F Michael     I. Miller, Esquire A Douglas F. John, Esquire James A. Carney, Esquire         Akin, Gump, Hauer & Feld             '
20555 G. K.
Sarah N. We ll ing , Esquire     1333 New Hampshire Avenue, N.W.
Spruce, General Manager City Public Service Board
Isham, Lincoln & Beale           Suite 400 4200 One First National Plaza   Washington, D. C.     20036 Ch ic ag o, Illinois   60603 y
* Jerry L.
Harris, Esquire P.O.
Box 1771 City Attorney, San Antonio, Texas 78203 Richard C.
Balough, Esquire Assi ant City Attorney Perry G.
Brittain City of Austin Pr esid e n t P.O.
Box 1088 Texas Utilities Generating Austin, Texas 78767 Company 2001 Bryan Tower unobert C.
McDiarmid, Esquire Dallas, Texas 75201 Robert A. Jablon, Esquire Spiegel and McDiarmid R.L.
Hancock, Director 2600 Virginia Avenue, N.W.
City of Austin Electric Washington, D.
C.
20036 Utility Department P. O.
Box 1088 Dan H.
Davidson Austin, Texas 78767 City Manager City of Austin G.
W. Oprea, Jr.
P. O.
Box 1088 Executive Vice President Austin, Texas 78767 Houston Lighting & Pawer Company Don R.
Butler, Esquire P. O.
Box 1700 1225 Southwest Tower Houston, Texas 77001 Austin, Texas 78701 Jon C. Wood, Esquire thJoseph Irion Worsham, Esquire W.
Roger Wilson, Esquire Merlyn D.
Sampels, Esquire Matthews, Nowlin, Macfarlane Spencer C.
Relyea, Esquire
& Barrett Worsham, Forsythe & Sampels 1500 Alamo National Building 2001 Bryan Tower, Suite 2500 San Antonio, Texas 78205 Dallas, Texas 75201 A David M.
Stahl, Esquire 4 Joseph Knotts, Esquire Isham, Lincoln & Beale Nicholas S.
Reynolds, Esquire Suite 701 Debevoise & Liberman l
1050 17th S t reet, N.W.
1200 17th S tr eet, N.W.
Washington, D.
C.
20Q36 Washington, D.
C.
20036 F Michael I.
Miller, Esquire A Douglas F. John, Esquire James A. Carney, Esquire Akin, Gump, Hauer & Feld Sarah N. We ll ing, Esquire 1333 New Hampshire Avenue, N.W.
Isham, Lincoln & Beale Suite 400 4200 One First National Plaza Washington, D.
C.
20036 Ch ic ag o, Illinois 60603 y
M il
M il


w e
w e
Morgan Hunter, Esqu ir e         iRobert Lowenstein, Esquire McGinnis, Lochr idge & Kilgore     J. A. Bouknight, Esquire 5th Floor, Texas State Bank         William J. Franklin, Esquire Building                         Lowenstein, Newman, Reis, 900 Congress Avenue                   Axelrad & Toll Austin, Texas   78701             1025 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.
Morgan Hunter, Esqu ir e iRobert Lowenstein, Esquire McGinnis, Lochr idge & Kilgore J.
Washington, D. C.     20036 Jay M. Galt, Esquire Looney, Nichols, Johnson         A. E . W. Barnett, Esquire
A.
                & Hayes                           Charles G. Thrash, Jr., Esquire 219 Couch Drive                     J. Gregory Copeland, Esquire Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73101       Theodore P. Weiss, Jr., Esquire Baker & Botts Knoland J. Plucknett               3000 One Shell Plaza I:xecutive Director                 Houston, Texas     77002 Committee on Power for the Southwest, Inc.                   Kevin B. Pratt, Esquire 5541 East Skelly Dr ive             Assistant Attorney General Tulsa, Oklahoma 74135               P.O. Box 12548 Capital Station John W. Davidson, Esquire           Austin, Texas 78711 Sawtelle, Goode, Davidson
Bouknight, Esquire 5th Floor, Texas State Bank William J.
                & Tioilo                     4 Frederick H. Ritts, Esquire 1100 San Antonio Savings           Law Offices of Northcutt Ely Building                         Watergate 600 Building San Antonio, Texas 78205           Washington, D.C.     20037 W. S. Robson                       Donald M. Clements, Esq.
Franklin, Esquire Building Lowenstein, Newman, Reis, 900 Congress Avenue Axelrad & Toll Austin, Texas 78701 1025 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.
General Manager                     Gulf States Utilities Company South Texas Electr ic               P.O. Box 2951 Cooperative, Inc.                 Beaumont, Texas 77704 Route 6, Building 102 Victoria Regional Airport           Mr. G. Holman King Victoria, Texas 77901               West Texas Utilities Co.
Washington, D.
P. O. Box 841 4 Robert M. Rader, Esquire           Abilene, Texas     79604 Conner, Moore & Corber                                                 ;
C.
1747 Pennsylvania Ave. , N.W.       W. N. Woolsey, Esquire Washington, D.C. 20006             Kleberg, Dyer, Redford & Weil 1030 Petroleum Tower 4 R. Gordon Gooch, Esquire           Corpus Christi, Texas       78474 John P. Mathis, Esquire Baker & Botts           -
20036 Jay M. Galt, Esquire Looney, Nichols, Johnson A. E.
W.
Barnett, Esquire
& Hayes Charles G.
Thrash, Jr.,
Esquire 219 Couch Drive J. Gregory Copeland, Esquire Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73101 Theodore P.
Weiss, Jr., Esquire Baker & Botts Knoland J.
Plucknett 3000 One Shell Plaza I:xecutive Director Houston, Texas 77002 Committee on Power for the Southwest, Inc.
Kevin B.
Pratt, Esquire 5541 East Skelly Dr ive Assistant Attorney General Tulsa, Oklahoma 74135 P.O.
Box 12548 Capital Station John W.
Davidson, Esquire Austin, Texas 78711 Sawtelle, Goode, Davidson
& Tioilo 4 Frederick H.
Ritts, Esquire 1100 San Antonio Savings Law Offices of Northcutt Ely Building Watergate 600 Building San Antonio, Texas 78205 Washington, D.C.
20037 W.
S.
Robson Donald M.
Clements, Esq.
General Manager Gulf States Utilities Company South Texas Electr ic P.O.
Box 2951 Cooperative, Inc.
Beaumont, Texas 77704 Route 6, Building 102 Victoria Regional Airport Mr. G.
Holman King Victoria, Texas 77901 West Texas Utilities Co.
P.
O. Box 841 4 Robert M.
Rader, Esquire Abilene, Texas 79604 Conner, Moore & Corber 1747 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W.
W. N.
Woolsey, Esquire Washington, D.C.
20006 Kleberg, Dyer, Redford & Weil 1030 Petroleum Tower 4 R. Gordon Gooch, Esquire Corpus Christi, Texas 78474 John P. Mathis, Esquire Baker & Botts 4 fq f'((,j'.g;(f
'/
1701 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
1701 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D. C.     20006     F 4 /fq"pf'((,j'.g;(f
/ "p Washington, D.
                                                    '/
C.
                                              / Susan D. Cyphert, Attorney
20006 F
                                            /   Energy Section Antitrust Division Department of Justice
/ Susan D.
Cyphert, Attorney
/
Energy Section Antitrust Division Department of Justice


5 l
5 l
h APPEND I X                 A I
h APPEND I X A
I Retail Service Area Markets Market Share flarkets             Entities                                                               of KWil sales
I I
: 1. Austin             City of Austin                                                                 100%
Retail Service Area Markets Market Share flarkets Entities of KWil sales
: 2. CP&L               Central Power & Light Co.                                                         91%
: 1. Austin City of Austin 100%
Brownsville                                                                         3%
: 2. CP&L Central Power & Light Co.
Cooperative & Municipals                                                           6%
91%
: 3. DP&L               Dallas Power & Light                                                           100S
Brownsville 3%
: 4. IIL&P             llouston Lighting & Power Co.                                                     95%
Cooperative & Municipals 6%
Community Public Service                                                             5%
: 3. DP&L Dallas Power & Light 100S
: 5. LCRA               Lower Colorado River Authority                                                   18%
: 4. IIL&P llouston Lighting & Power Co.
Cooperatives                                                                     48%
95%
Municipals                                                                       34%
Community Public Service 5%
: 6. San Antonio       City Public Service Board                                                         98%
: 5. LCRA Lower Colorado River Authority 18%
of San Antonio                                                                       2%
Cooperatives 48%
Municipals 34%
: 6. San Antonio City Public Service Board 98%
of San Antonio 2%
Other Municipals
Other Municipals
: 7. TESCO             Texas Electric Service Co.                                                       94%
: 7. TESCO Texas Electric Service Co.
Community Public Service                                                             1%
94%
Cooperatives & Municipals                                                           4%
Community Public Service 1%
: 8. TP&L               Texas Power & Light Co.                                                           80%
Cooperatives & Municipals 4%
Community Public Service Co.                                                         2%
: 8. TP&L Texas Power & Light Co.
Cooperatives                                                                         9%
80%
Municipals                                                                           8%
Community Public Service Co.
: 9. WTU               West Texas Utilities Co.                                                           82%
2%
Community Public Service Co.                                                         3%
Cooperatives 9%
Cooperatives                                                                       13%
Municipals 8%
Municipals                                                                           2%
: 9. WTU West Texas Utilities Co.
82%
Community Public Service Co.
3%
Cooperatives 13%
Municipals 2%


APPENDI X             B Wholesale Power Markets Share of tiarket Market               Entities                           in KWil sales
APPENDI X B
: 1. Austin           City of Austin                           100%
Wholesale Power Markets Share of tiarket Market Entities in KWil sales
: 2. CP&L             Central Power & Light Co.                 91%
: 1. Austin City of Austin 100%
Brownsville                                 3%
: 2. CP&L Central Power & Light Co.
South Texas Electric Coop.                   6%
91%
Brownsville 3%
South Texas Electric Coop.
6%
and Medina Electric Coop.
and Medina Electric Coop.
: 3. IIL& P           Houston Lighting & Power Co.             100%
: 3. IIL& P Houston Lighting & Power Co.
: 4. LCRA             Lower Colorado River Authority           100%
100%
: 5. San Antonio       City Public Service Board               100%
: 4. LCRA Lower Colorado River Authority 100%
: 5. San Antonio City Public Service Board 100%
of San Antonio
of San Antonio
: 6. TU               Brazos Power Electric Cooperative,         3%
: 6. TU Brazos Power Electric Cooperative, 3%
Inc.
Inc.
Texas Utilities Co:                       93%
Texas Utilities Co:
Dallas Power & Light Co.     20%
93%
Texas Electric Service Co   . 32%
Dallas Power & Light Co.
Texas Power & Light Co.       41%
20%
TMPA Members:                                   St Bryan                         1%
Texas Electric Service Co 32%
Denton                         1%
Texas Power & Light Co.
Garland                       2%
41%
                              - Greenville                     -
TMPA Members:
e 9
St Bryan 1%
e
Denton 1%
Garland 2%
- Greenville e
9 e


b %
b %
APPENDIX           C NTIS Coordination Services Reserve Sharing and Control Market Market Utility                       Share % (Peak Load - mw)
APPENDIX C
Brazos                         3.1 TMPA Members                   4.2 TU                             86.5 DP&L                 20.3 TP&L                 35.9 TESCO               30.3 WTU                             6.2 Total                         100%
NTIS Coordination Services Reserve Sharing and Control Market Market Utility Share % (Peak Load - mw)
STIS Coordination Services Reserve Sharing and Control Market Market Utility                       Share % (Peak Load - mw)
Brazos 3.1 TMPA Members 4.2 TU 86.5 DP&L 20.3 TP&L 35.9 TESCO 30.3 WTU 6.2 Total 100%
Austin                         4.7 Drownsrille                     0.7 CP&L                           14.6 IlL&P                         61.1 LCRA                           6.2 San Antonio                   11.5 STEC - MEC                     1.1 Total                         100%                           -
STIS Coordination Services Reserve Sharing and Control Market Market Utility Share % (Peak Load - mw)
Austin 4.7 Drownsrille 0.7 CP&L 14.6 IlL&P 61.1 LCRA 6.2 San Antonio 11.5 STEC - MEC 1.1 Total 100%
g
g
    ~4
~4
                .                                                .}}
.}}

Latest revision as of 12:22, 3 January 2025

Second Response to Houston Lighting & Power 780801 Interrogatories & Requests for Production of Documents & to Util 791130 Motion to Compel.Supplements 781010 & 12 Responses.Certificate of Svc & Apps Encl
ML19260E094
Person / Time
Site: South Texas, Comanche Peak  
Issue date: 02/01/1980
From: Cyphert S, Parmenter F
JUSTICE, DEPT. OF
To:
HOUSTON LIGHTING & POWER CO.
References
NUDOCS 8002130340
Download: ML19260E094 (115)
v • d • e


Text

.

f

,Q' Y

/

,st; "e f,

C, r

V

'I b.pG 1

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA lj-hUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION C

7 t

q,y s

Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board N[

p O

\\

hl In the Mattor of

)

!!OUSTON LIGliTING & POWER

)

COMPANY, et al. (South

)

Docket Nos. 50-498A Texas Project, Units 1

)

50-499A and 2)

)

)

1EXAS UTILITIES GENERATING

)

COMPANY, et al. (Comanche

)

Docket Nos. 50-445A Peak Steam Elactric

)

50-446A Station, Units 1 and 2)

)

SECOND SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE OF DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE TO Il00STON LIGitTING & POWER COMPANY'S FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES AND REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS AND NOVEtiBER 30, 1979 MOTION TO COMPEL The Department of Justice

(" Department") hereby submits its Second Supplemental Response to Interrogatories 1/ propounded by by !!ouston Lighting & Power Company ("HLsP") 2/ and its First Supplemental Response to HL&P's Motion to Compel. 3/

The answers and information provided herein are complete to the Department's information and belief as of February 1, 1980.

1/ The Department previously supplied information responsive to this request in its Response to Applicant's First Request for Production of Documents and Answer to Interrogatorias on October 10, 1978 and December 4, 1978.

2/ First Set of Interrogatories and Requests for Producti0n of Documents f rom tIouston Lighting & Power Company to Antitrust

Division, U.S.

Dept. of Justice, August 1, 1978.

3/ On November 30, 1979, HL&P filed " Motion to Compel the Depart-ment of Justice and the NRC Staff to Respond to Houston's First Set of Interrogatories and Requests for Production of Documents.

On December 14, 1979, the Department filed its initial response as

" Department of Justico Motion for Extension of Time."

't f (, Q h

g00c130

. However, as substantial documentary and testimonial discovery is still being conducted in these proceedings, it may be necessary for the Department, pursuant to Section 2.740(e) of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's Rules of Practice to supplement or amend these Responses prior to trial to include any additional infor-mation which may become available.

HL&P Interrogatory 1(a) 1.

At several points in the South Texas OL advice letter the Division refers to an " intrastate only agreement" between Houston and TU.

(a)

Explain what is meant by the term " intrastate only agreement" and state the e..act terins of the alleged agreement.

Department's Initial Response to HL&P Interrogatory 1(a)

The Department contends that Houston Lighting and Power and Texas Utilities (and its operating subsidiaries) are parties to agreements and an understanding that provides,.at least in part, that neither utility will engage in interstate commerce or allow itself to become connected with any utility that is engaged in in-terstate commerce.

Further, the Department contends that HL&P and TU have mutually agreed to disconnect from any utility that engages in interstate commerce or becomes interconnected with any utility engaged in interstate commerce.

Department's Supplemental Response to HL&P Interrogatory 1(a)

The Department contends that HL&P, TU, and other electric utilities which are members of the Texas Interconnected System

(" TIS"),1/ have engaged in a continuing agreement and concert of action, and have one or more understandings, inconsistent 1/ The Department does not contend that the City of Brownsville, which was admitted as a TIS nember in May, 1979, is a party to the " intrastate only agreemen'."

. with the antitrust laws in violation of Section 105(c) of the Atomic Energy Act, 42 U.S.C.

S2135.

This continuing agreement, concert of action and understanding (s) is referred to in the OL advice letter as the " intrastate only agreement".

The " intrastate only agreement" has been incorporated in at least the terms and conditions of: (1) contracts between and among HL&P, TU and other utilities with whom HL&P and TU are intercon-nected, inter alia, directly or indirectly in synchronous operation; 1/

(2) the Comanche Peak Participation %greement ("CP Participation Agreement"); (3) the South Texas Project Participation Agreement

("STP Participation Agreement"); and (4) the Electric Reliability Council of Texas ("ERCOT") Agreement.

The terms of the agreement have also been manifested in the acts of the parties to the agreement.

Among the principal acts which evidence the " intrastate only agreement" between HL&P, TU and other members of TIS are:

(1) the refusal by HL&P and/or TU to interconnect with any electric utility in interstate commerce, including the refusal to inter-connect with any electric utility that operates in interstate commerce unless HL&P and TU can obtain a jurisdictional waiver or exemption from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission ("FERC")

1/ This group of utilities, including HL&P and TU, will be referred to throughout as the " TIS area utilities."

~4_

(See Department's Supplemental Response to HL&P Interrogatory 26(b)-(c) hetein.); (2) the agreement between or among HL&P and/or TU and other TIS area utilitiec to disconnect from any electric utility, with whic:h they are interconnected that enters into interstate commerce end is subject to FERC jurisdiction; (3) the actual disconnection of HL&P and TU from other members of TIS when West Texas Utilities and Central Power & Light entered into interstate commerce on May 4, 1976; (4) the requirement that third party utilities with which TU and HL&P are interconnected, directly or indirectly, that wish to remain interconnected with HL&P and/or TU to operate only in intrastate commerce, unless HT.&P and TU can obtain a waiver or exe.mption from FERC jurisdiction; (5) an agreement to plan and operate its electrical syste's in such a manner that neither HL&P nor TU operates in interstate commerce, unless HL&P and TU could obtain a waiver or exemption from FERC jurisdiction; (6) inspection by TU and HL&P c f transmission and distribution lines and potential interstate intersonnection points to insure that no electrical power flows into or out of the State of Texas; and (7) the contention of HL&P and TU in West Texas Utilities Co. v.

~

Texas Electric Service Company, et al.,

that Section 8.2 of the STP Participation Agreement precludes Central Power & Light, City Public Service Board of San Antonio, City of Austin Electric Department, HL&P and any future owners of STP from operating in interstate commerce so as to become subject to FERC jurisdiction.

The aforementioned acts, however, cannot be considered alone,

. in isolation from each other since HL&P, TU and the other members of TIS have operated their systems with the knowledge and understanding that all members of TIS would abide by the

" intrastate only agreement".

Individually and collectively the aforementioned acts a' circumstances are evidence.of the

" intrastate only ag reement", which the Department contends is inconsistent with the antitrust laws.

HL&P Interrogatory 1(b) 1.

At several points in the South Texas OL advice letter the Division refers to an " intrastate only agreement" between Houston and TU.

(b)

Does the Division contend that such an agreement has existed only since October, 1974?

If not, explain how the character of sucn agreement, and any refusals pureuant to it, prior to October, 1974 differs from such agreement and refusals after October, 1974.

Department's Initial Response to HL&P Interrogatory 1(b)

The Department does not contend that such agreement has existed only since October, 1974.

The Department objects to the remainder of this section of the interrogatory on the grounds that the question elicits neither facts nor evidence but is argumentative in nature and tone; furthet, the question is the mental impresnions, conclusions, designed to elicit opinions and legal theories of the Department's attorneys in contr avention of NRC Rule of Practice S2.740(b)(2) and FED.

R.

CIV.

P. 26(bl(3).

Department's Suppleniental Response to HL&P Interrogatory 1(b)

The Department has no further information to supplement its previous response.

HL&P Interrogatory 1(c) & (d) several points in the South Texas OL advice letter 1.

At between the Division refers to an " intrastate only agreement" Houston and TU.

. (c)

State whether the Division has knowledge of any spe-cific refusal by HL&P or TU to in te rconnec t with an interstate utility in furtherance of the alleged agreement, and as to each such refusal furnish the following information: (1) identification of each person representing HL&P or TU who decided upon or made the refusal; (2) identification of the refused utility; (3) identifi-cation of each person who received the refusal; (4) identification of the refused interconnection; (5) description of the circumstances surrounding the refusals; (6) date of refusal; (7) form of refusal (i.e., written or oral, in person or by telephone), and, if oral, identification of all persons present; (8) action taken by the refused utility; (9) identification of any other utilities or persons with whom HL&P or TU consulted or communicated before making the refusal or as a result of the refusal; and (10) date and form of such consultation or communication.

(d)

State the basis for, and provide all documents relating to, the Division's allegation that "the clear intent of the [ intrastate only] agreement is to prevent the parties from entering into interstate commerce." (p. 8).

Department's Initial Response to HL&P Interrogatory 1(c)-(d)

Because of the delay in obtaining documents from HL6P and TU, the Department has not yet had the opportunity to complete its review of discovery niaterials to the extent necessary to respond to this part of the interrogatory.

Document review and investigation are continuing.

Department's Supplemental Response to HL&P Interrogatorv 1(c)(1)-(10) and (d)

Refer to Department's Supplemental Response to HL&P Inter-rogatory 1, 26(b)-(c) and 29 herein.

The information sought by the remainder of this interrogatory is contained in the deposition transcripts in these proceedings, the deposition transcripts and testimony in West Texas Utilities Co. v.

Texas Electric Service Company, et al.,

the documents provided to the Department during discovery, to which HL&P and TU have had access, and the documents provided to the Department by other parties.

Any documents the Department has.which have

1

- t t

not been produced e;ther oy HL&P or TU, or in discovery, are being pr'vided in t!

epartment's Response to Houston Lighting

& Power Company's Third Interrogatories, filed herewith.

HL&P Interrogatory 2 2.

State the basis for, and provide all documents relating to, the Division's allegation that "HL&P and TU of fered the only realistic opportunity for interconnection to these systems" (p. 5), and in so doing identify the specific systems referred to by the term "these systems".

Department's Initial Response to HL&P Interrogatory 2 The advice letter, as is evident on its face, is discussing the situation in Texas, as viewed by the Justice Department, during the time of the Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station construction permit antitrust review.

The basis for the quoted statement in Interrogatory No. 2 is set forth in that part of the paragraph on page 5 of the advice letter preceding the quoted portion.

As indicated therein, the size of HL&P and TU, and the nature, extent, and location of their generation, transmission, and distribution facilities resulted in their being the only realistic opportunity for interconnection of the systems in central and south Texas.

"These systems" referred to on page five of the advice letter includes the other members of TlS:

the Lower Colorado River Authority, City Public Service Board of San Antonio, City of Austin, Central Power and Light Company and West Texas Utilities Company.

The documents upon which this portion of the advice letter is based are those documents and maps provided to the Department by TU and HL&P as part of the antitrust review process of the Comanche Peak and Allens Creek construction permit applications.

Department's Supplemental Response to HL&P Interrogatory 2 HL&P and TU dominate total generation in TIS.Therefore TIS area utilities depend on HL&P and TU for wholesale power sales.

TU dominates transmission in NTIS, and TU and HL&P dominate trans-mission botween STIS and NTIS.

Therefore utilities in the NTIS area depend on TU for transmission, and utilities located in the STIS area depend on TU and HL&P for transmission between NTIS and STIS.

Moreover, the other systems in TIS depend on TU or HL&P for

e

. for coordiration services.

For these reasons, the Department believes that "HL&P and TU offer the only realistic opportunity for interconnection to these systems."

HL&P Interrogatory 3(a) 3.

State the basis for, and provide all documents relating to, the Division's allegation that ' membership in TIS was essential if the smaller electric syst<ms were to compete ef fectively with the larger systems that vere members of TIS" (p. 6), and in so doing:

(a) identify the specifi: sjstems referred to by the terms " smaller electric systems", and " larger systems"; and Department's Initial Response to HL&P lnterrogatory 3(a)

This statement was restating the views of the Department as set forth in its 1974 letter of advice with respect to the Comanche Peak antitrust review.

The basis for this statement on page 6 of the advice letter is that isolated systems, that is, electric systems without interconnections, will have a higher cost of power and reduced reliability as compared to a system having interconnections with other electric systems over which emergency and maintenance services can be exchanged, reserves can be shared, economy energy can be exchanged,and other programs of coordinated operation and coordinated development can be carried out.

A system with higher costs and less reliablity resulting from not being able to engage in these activities will be at a competitive disadvantage with another system that is able to interconnect and achieve lower cost and higher reliability through those inter connec t ions.

No specific documents were relied on by the Department in making this statement.

The " smaller electric systems" referred to in the letter were Brazos Electric Power Cooperative, the members of the Texas Municipal Power Pool, South Texas Electric Cooperative, Medina Electric Cooperative, and any other electric systems in the state that owned generation or that might subsequently acquire generation capability and that were physically located in or around the geographic area served by the members of the Texas Interconnected System.

The " larger systems" referred to in the letter are the nine members of the Texas Interconnected System as of the time of the Department's Comanche Peak antitrust review in 1974.

. Department's Supplemental Response to HL&P Interrogatory 3(a)

See Department 's Supplemental Response to HL&P Interrogatory 27 herein.

In addition, some of the smaller electric systems listed in the Department's Supplemental Desponse to HL&P Interrogatory 28, which only distribute power at this time, may benefit from TIS membership vis-a-vis their present or future interests in generation.

This list, however, does not include various electric utilities not in Texas but whose systems may be or are af fected b:r the " intrastate only agreement" and which may have an interest in obtaining TIS membership.

In addition to the information previously provided, the Department contends that TIS membership is essential to the smaller electric systems since they must have knowledge of and input into the planning and operating decisions of the TIS in order to be able to plan and operate their own systems in the most efficient and economical manner and thereby compete effectively with current TIS members.

Specifically, the " smaller electric systems" need information pertaining to sources of available bulk power, the terms and conditions for purchasing such power (e.g., wheeling arrangements) and access to such bulk power.

Furthermore, information regarding the terms and conditions

~

for obtaining services such as partial requirement power, emergency power, reserve sharing, and maintenance services, which are cur-rently provided by TIS members to each other, is a valuable benefit of the TIS system.

Without TIS membership, the " smaller electric systems" may also be deprived of an important forum in which to

_lo_

protect themselves against the possibility that TIS members will undertake actions or policies which may adversely impact upon the "smalle r elect ric utili'.ies' " reliability and competitive position.

The documents which relate to this interrogatory response include the deposition transcripts in these proceedings, the deposition transcripts and testimony in West Texas Utilities Co.

v. Texas _E_1_ectric Service Company, et al, the documents provided to the Department by HL&P or TU, the documents provided to the Department during discovery, to wh_ch HL&P and TU have had access, and the documents provided to the Department by other parties.

Any documents the Department has which have not been produced either by HL&P or TU, or in discovery, are being provided in the Department's Response to Houston Lighting & Power Company's Third Interrogatories, filed herewith.

HL&P Interrogatory 3(b) 3.

State the basis for, and provide all documents relating to, the Division's allegation that " membership in T1S was essential if the smaller electric systems were to compete effectively with the larger systems that were members of TIS" (p. 6), and in so doing:

(b) identify (1) all product and geographic mark in which each such " smaller electric system" competes with each such larger system that was a member of TIS, (2) the type and extent of competition in each such market, and (3) the tarket shares of each utility in each such market.

Department's Initial Response to HL&P Interrogatory 3(b)(1), (2) &_(3)

No formal or documented study was performed relating to product and geographic markets, the type and extent of competition, and the market shares of the utilities in each such market other than what is set forth in the Comanche Peak advice letter.

-11_

Department's Supplemental Response to HL&P Interrocatory 3(b)

The " smaller electric systems" are listed in the Department's Supplemental Response to HL&P's Interrogatory 27 and 28 herein.

The " larger systems" are TIS members except Brownsville.

The

" smaller electric" systems compete with the " larger systems" in these four relevant product markets:

(A) retail service market; (B) wholesale power marke t; (C) coordination services market; and the (D) transmission services market (A)

In the retail service market, there are four general categories of actual competition:

(1) industrial; (2) yardstick; (3) franchise; and (4) fringe area.

The geographic extent of the market (1) for actual competition to attract actual industrial customers and (2) for actual yardstick competition between publicly, cooperatively, and privately owned utilities is the State of Texas.

Market shares have not been calculated for the markets in which in-dustrial customer and yardstick competition occur.

The geographic extent of the retail service markets for (3) actual franchise compe-tition and (4) actual fringe area competition, is the general service area 1/ of each of the larger systems.

Market shares 1/ The term " general service area" includes the retail service areas of the neighboring smaller systems within or near the retail service areas of a larger s. tem and the border areas between larger systems.

. for the retail service area markets in which actual franchise and fringe area competition occur are shown in Appendix A.

In addition to actual competition in the retail service markets, there is the potential for competition in two of the aforementioned general categories of competition:

(3) franchise and (4) fringe area.

Potential competition in these two cate-gories would occur in a larger geographic market than the geographic market for actual competition but for the " intrastate only agreement".

B.

In the wholesale power market, there is actual competition to sell wholesale power to captive and independent retail distribution load centers.

The geographic extent of these markets is the same as for actual competition in the categories of fringe area and franchise competition in the retail service area markets, axcept for the three combined TU subsidiaries which together constitute a single geographic market.

Market shares for this set of markets are shown in Appendix B.

In addition to actual competition in the wholesale power market, there is the, potential for competition to sell wholesale power to captive and independent retail load centers.

Potential

' competition in the wholesale power market would occur in a larger geographic market than the geographic market for actual competition but for the " intrastate only agreement".

C.

The coordination services market includes operational and developmental coordination services.

Operational coordina-tion includes services such as reserve sharing and control, economy energy, maintenance power, and short-term power.

Develop-mental coordination includes services such as the joint planning, construction, and ownership of new bulk power generation and transmission facilities.

There is actual competition to gain access and to purchase, sell, and exchange these services.

The geographic extent of the actual coordination services market is the TIS area.

Market shares for this market have not been calculated.

Market shares for reserve sharing and control in STIS and NTIS are shown in Appendix C.

In addition to actual competition in the coordination services market, there is the potential for competition in the coordination services markets.

Potential competition in the coordination services market would occur in a larger geographic market than the geographic market for actual competition but for the " intrastate only agreement."

D.

The transmission services market includes the trans-portation of wholesale bulk power and coordination services bulk power from generating plants to distribution load centers.

The geographic extent of actual competition in the transmission services market is the TIS area.

Market shares for this market have not been calculated.

. In addition to actual competition in the transmission services market there is the potential for competition in the transmission services market.

The geographic extent of the potential transmission services market would occur in a larger geographic market but for the " intrastate only agreement."

HL&P Interrogatory 4(a)-(f)

With respect to the Division's statement in the Comanche Peak OL advice letter that "certain allegations were received, the general input of which was that [TU] has misused its dominant position in generation and transmission to restrain the competitive opportunities of smaller systems in Texas" (p. 3)

(a) identify all persons with whom the Division communicated in the course of its Comanche Peak antitrust review; (b) identify by date, persons and utilities involved, each alleged misuse by TU of its dominant position in generation and transmission; (c) specify to what extent, if any, Houston was involved in each such alleged misuse by TU; (d) state the exact manner in which this alleged misuse of TU's dominant position was made possible by restrictions on interstate operation and, if so, why the Division did not object to such restrictions in its review of Comanche Peak in 1974; (e) state why such allegations are relevant to proceedings in connection.with the STP or Comanche Peak operating license antitrust proceedings and explain why the conditions in the Comanche Peak construction permit were not adequate to remedy these allegations; and (f) provide all documents which relate to (a) through (e) above.

Department's Initial Response to HL&P Interrogatory 4(a)-(f)

(a) 1.

Ross A. Segrest, General Manager, Brazos Electric Power Cooperative, Inc.

2.

J.F.

Skelton, President, Texas Power & Light Company

. 3.

Perry Britten of Texas Utilities 4.

Argil L.

Toalston, AEC 5.

Andrew Popper, AEC 6.

Roger D.

Ledbetter, TU Services 7.

Joe Knotts, Debevoise & Liberman 8.

Nick Reynolds, Debevoise & Liberman 9.

Neal D.

Anderson, Worsham, Forsythe & Sampels 10.

Mr. Maurice Messier, AEC 11.

Charles Herring, General Manager, LCRA 12.

Robert Sites, Chief of Operations, LCRA 13.

Elof Sodberg, Chief Engineer, LCRA 14.

Mr.

L.

E.

Gross, General Manager of the Medina Electric Cooperative 15.

Mr. Crawford, Counsel to Medina Electric Cooperative 16.

Mr. Pokorny, City of Austin 17.

Mr. Rommel, City of Austin 18.

Mr. D.

Butler, City of Austin 19.

W.

B.

Townsend of Brazos Electric Power Cooperative 20.

Mr. Coke Mills, Counsel to Brazos 21.

Mr. Trommershawsen, Consultant to Brazos 22.

Mr. J.

T.

Deely, General Manager, City of Public Service Company of San Antonio 23.

C.

L.

Cooke, Community Public Service Company of Fort Worth, Texas 24.

R.

D.

Wooster, Community Public Service Company of Fort Worth, Texas 25.

F. G. Von Huben, Community Public Service Company of Fort Worth, Texas 26.

W. D. Nuckols, Community Public Service Company of Fort Worth, Texas 27.

Jack Dickerson, City Manager, City of Commerce 28.

Charles Goforth, Southwestern Electric Service Company 29.

Robert Rice, Southwestern Electric Service Company 30.

J.

P.

Rice, Southwestern Electric Service Company 31.

H.

E.

Hayes, Southwestern Electric Service Company 32.

Joseph Rutberg, AEC 33.

Maurice Messier, AEC 34.

Howa rd K. -Shapar, AEC 4(b)

It appears that there were serious allegations made regarding the willingness of the TU system to engage in coordination and shared participation in nuclear plants with smal le r systems.

In particular, questions were raised about participation by Brazos in the Comanche Peak Project, as well as whether TU would support the application of Brazos to become a full member of TIS.

Furthermore, there was evidence that the City of Commerce, who wished to interconnect with the City of Greenville, could not accomplish this objective due to the unwillingness of TP&L to allow access to its transmission lines.

These allegations,

. and other potentially anticompetitive practices relating to the Cities of Greenville, Medina, and Gar land, were not investigated more thoroughly due to the acceptance by TU of agreed licensed conditions to be affixed to the construction permit for Comanche Peak.

4(c)

At the time the construction permit review for Comanche Peak was undertaken, there was no indication of involvement by Houston Lighting and Power in the alleged anticompetitive member of practices of TU, other than HL&P was also a dominant TIS.

4(d)

The Department objects to interrogatory 4(d) on the grounds that the question elicits neither facts nor evidence but is argumentative in nature and tone; further the question is the mental impressions ~, conclu sions, opinions designed to elicit legal theories of the Department's attorneys in contravention and of NRC Rule of Practice S2.740(b)(2) and FED.

R.

CIV. P.

26(b)(3),

and calls for a response that is privileged communication between attorney and client and is therefore not subject to discovery pursuant to Fed.

R.

Evid. 501.

4(e)

The Department objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that the question elicits neither facts nor evidence but is argumentative in nature and tone; further, the question is designed to elicit the mental impressions, conclusions, opinions and legal theories of the Department's attorneys in contravention of NRC Rule of Practice S2.740(b)(2) and FED.

R.

CIV. P. 26(b)(3), and calls for a response that is privileged communication between attorney and client and is therefore not subject to discovery pursuant to Fed.

R.

Evid. 501.

Department's' Supplemental Response to HL&P Interrogatory 4(a)-(f)

The Department has no additional information responsive to this interrogatory request which reflects the Department's knowledge at th e time of the Comanche Peak OL advice letter.

The documents responsive to this interrogatory request include the deposition transcripts in these proceedings, the deposition transcripts and testimony in West Texas Utilities Co. v. Texas Electric Servic_e_

Company, et al., the documents provided to the Department by HL&P

or TU, the documents provided to the Department by HL&P or TU, the documents provided to the Department during discovery, to which HL&P and TU have had access, and the documents provided to the Department by other parties.

Any documents the Department has which have not been produced, either by HL&P or TU, or in discovery, are being provided in the Department's Response to Houston Lighting & Power Company's Third Interrogatories, filed herewith.

HL&P Interrogatory 5(a) 5.

With respect to the Divisi.on's statement in the Allens Creek advice letter that the Division "has uncovered no evidence that would indicate that [ Houston] is attempting to prevent participation in the joint ownership of nuclear facilities by any system or is otherwise presently impairing the competitive opportunities of other systems" (p. 3):

(a) identify those persons with whom the Division communicated in the course of its Allens Creek construction permit antitrust review; Department's Initial Response to HL&P Interrogatory 5(a) 1.

J. Alejandro, Manager, City of Robstown Utility Systems 2.

Milton D.

Hines, General Manager, Guadalupe Valley Electric Cooperative, Inc.

3.

Preston E. Johnson, City Attorney, City of Liberty, Texas 4.

Ross A. Segrest, General Manager, Brazos Electric Power Cooperative, Inc.

5.

L.

E. Gross, General Manager, Medina Electric Cooperative 6.

Mr. Crawford, Attorney for Medina Electric Cooperative 7.

J.

T. Deely, General Manager, City Public Service Board of San Antonio 8.

Charles Herring, General Manager, LC RA 9.

Robert Sites, Chief of Operations, LCRA 10.

Elof Soderberg, Chief Engineer, LCRA 11.

Mr. Pokorny, City of Austin 12.

Mr. Rommel, City of Austin 13.

Mr. D.

Butler, City Attorney, City of Austin

14.

C.

L. Cooke, President and Chief Executive Of ficer, Community Public Service Company 15.

R.

D. Woofter, Vice President, Operations, Community Public Service Company 16.

P.G. Von lluben, Vice President and General Counsel, Community Public Servi ~e Company 17.

W.

D.

Nuckols, Vice President and Chief Engineer, Community Public Service Company 18.

W.

B. Townsend, Brazos Electric Power Cooperative 19.

Coke tiills, Attorney for Brazos Electric Cooperative 20.

fir. Trommershausen, Consultant to Brazos Electric Power Cooperative 21.

Howard K. Shapar, Assistant General Counsel, Atomic Energy Commission 22.

Maurice Messier, AEC 23.

Robert J. Verdisco, AEC 24.

Gulf States Utilities 25.

Jackson Electric Cooperative, Inc.

26.

Mid-South Electric Cooperative Association 27.

Sam Ilouston Electric Coop, Inc.

28.

San Bernard Electric Coop, Inc.

29.

Wharton County Electric Coop 30.

Joseph Rutberg, AEC 31.

Fred C. Sandlin, City flanager, City of Pryan 32.

Thos. Wilkinson, Manager, Ft. Belknap Electric Cooperative, Inc.

33.

Jim Harless, City Engineer, City of Ilearne, Texas 34.

Dave Marr, Jr., City Secretary, City of Sanger, Texas 35.

N.

M. Malone, Office Manager, City of Weatherford 36.

M. D.

IIead, Manage r, Wise Electric Coop 37.

James C.

Feazelle, City Superintendent, City of Brady 38.

Roy McCorkle, City Manager, City of Coleman, Texas 39.

Jack Dickerson, City Manager, City of Comme rce, Texas 40.

John H.

Butts, Assistant Manager, Deep East Texas Electric Cooperative, Inc.

41.

Norman R.

Lea, Execu tive Vice Pr esident, Gulf States Utilities Company 42.

City of Caldwell, Texas 43.

Lee McWilliams, Manager, Houston County Electric Cooperative, Inc.

44.

Wayne DuBose, City Manager, City of Jasper, Texas 45.

Tom Hutchison, Vice Coordinator, Pedernales Electric Cooperative, Inc.

46.

Charles D. Go for th, President, Southwestern Electric Service Company 47.

Mr. J.

P.

Rice, Attorney, Southwestern Electric Service Company 48.

Roy G.

Kain, City Manager, City of Teague, Texas 49.

L.

B.

Council, Director of Physical Plant, Texas A&M University

~-

_m-

. Department's Supplemental Response to HL&P Interrogatory 5(a)

The Department has no additional information which supplements its previous response.

HL&P Interrogatory 5(b)

With rc7,pect to the Division's statement in the Allens Creek advice letter that the Division "has uncovered no evidence that would indicate that [ Houston] is attempting to prevent participation in the joint ownership of nucicar facilities by any system or is otherwise presently impairing the competitive opportunities of other systems" (p. 3):

(b) state whether the Division has any evidence that HL&P is now attempting to prevent participation in the joint ownership of nuclear facilities or is otherwise impairing the competitive opportunities of other systems, and if so, specify each specific instance of any alleged attempt to do so and describe the manner in which there has been a cignificant change since October, 1974 in HL&P's conduct toward any electric system identified in response to this interrogatory; Department's Initial Response to HL&P Interrogatory 5(b)

At the present time, the De par tme nt is continuing its investigation and review of available discovery materials.

Because of the delay in obtaining documents from HL&P and TU, the Department has not yet had the opportunity to complete its review of discovery materials to the extent necessary to respond to this part of the interrogatory.

Department's Supplemental Response to HL&P Interrogatory 5(b)

Refer to Department's Supplemental Response to HL&P Interrogatory 1(a) herein.

HL&P Interrogatory 5(c) 5.

With respect to the Division's statement in the Allens Creek advice letter that the Division "has uncovered no evidence that would indicate that [ Houston] is attempting to prevent participation in the joint ownership of nuclear facilities by any system or is otherwise presently impairing the competitive opportunities of other systems" (p. 3):

, (c) provide all documents which relate to the subject matter of this interrogatocy, the advice rendered in the Allens Creek advice letter, or any communications had in the course of the Allens Creek antitrust review.

Department's Supplemental Response to HL&P Interrogatory 5(c)

All documents responsive to this request have already been provided to HL&P and are still available for review.

HL&P Interrogatory 6(a) and (b) 6.

With respect to the South Texas CP advice letter, (a) identify those persons with whom the Division communicated in the course of its South Texas construction permit antitrust review; and (b) provide all documents which relate to such communications or otherwise to the advice rendered.

& (b)

Department's Initial Response to HL&P Interrogatory 6(a)

No additional investigation beyond that which was conducted for Allens Creek was undertaken for the South. Texas Project construction permit review.

Department's Supplemental Response to HL&P Interrogatory 6(a) and (b)

The Department has no additional information which supplements its previous response.

All documents responsive to this request have already been provided to HL&P and are still available for review.

HL&P Interrogatory 7(a) and (b) 7.

With respect to the South Texas OL advice letter, (a) identify those persons with whom the Division communicated in the course of its South Texas operating license antitrust review; and (b) provide all documents which relate to such communications or otherwise to the advice rendered.

Department's Initial Response to HL&P Interrogatory 7(a) 1.

Frederick H.

Ritts, Attorney for Tex-La Electric Cooperative 2.

Michael I.

Miller, Isham, Lincoln & Beale 3.

Richard E.

Powell, Isham, Lincoln & Beale 4.

David M.

Stahl, Isham, Lincoln & Beale 5.

Joseph Gallo, Ishan, Lincoln & Beale 6.

Richard D. Cudahy, Isham, Lincoln & Beale 7.

Mr. Lou Odle, City Manager, City of Bryan, Texas 8.

Mr. Redman, Utility Manager, ' 'exas A&M University, College Station, 're xa s 9.

Merlyn D. Sampels, Worsham, Forsythe & Sampels 10.

E.

W. Barnett, Baker & Botts 11.

J. Gregory Copeland, Baker & Botts 12.

Theodore F.

Weiss, Jr., Baker & Botts 13.

J. A. Bouknight, Lowenstein, Newman, Reis

& Axelrad 14.

Andrew Mcdonald, Attorney, SEC 15.

McNeil Roberts, FERC 16.

Stephen Taube, FERC 17.

Rodney Lee, Texas Municipal Power Authority 18.

Roy P.

Lessey, NRC Staff 19.

Michael Blume,- NRC Staf f Department's Supplemental Response to HL&P Interrogatory 7(a) and (b)

The Department has no additional information responsive to this request.

All documents responsive to this interrogatory request have already been provided to HL&P and are still avail-able for review.

HL&P Interrogatory 8(a) 8.

State the basis for, and provide all documents relating to,' the Division's allegation that "the fuel situation in Texas has changed drastically since our prior letters of advice" (p.

7,,

and in so doing:

(a) explain the exact nature of such fuel changes (e.g.,

are these changes in costs, availability, other factors or a combination of factors?);

Department's Initial Response to HL&P Interrogatory 8(a)

The basis for the Department's statement regarding the drastic change in the fuel situation is set forth in the same paragraph from which the Applicant's have taken the quote.

In addition to the documents provided pursuant to this request,

i the Department has also a number of PPC (now FERC) publications and other government publications dealing with the price and availability of natural gas.

These materials are all public documents and will be made available for inspection upon request.

Department's Supplemental Response to HL&P Interrogatory 8(a)

Since 1974, the price and supply of natural gas in Texas have changed dramatically, as reflected in the Orders of the Texas Railroad Commission in Dockets 500 and 600.

Therefore, many electric utilities which previously generated their power from natural gas have shifted either to alternative fuel sources or attempted to purchase bulk power.

These alternative generation fuels include nuclear, lignite, or coal.

However, in order to take advantage of the economies of scale in such generation, these

" smaller utilities" can only viably enter into joint generation projects with the larger utilities as partners.

HL&P and TU have either failed to make such opportunities available to all such smaller utilities or have ef fectively precluded the smaller electric utilities from taking advantage of joint generation projects by adherence to the " intrastate only agreement".

The documents which relate to this interrogatory response include the deposition transcripts in these proceedings, the

' deposition transcripts and testimony in West Texas Utilities Co.

v. Texas Electric Service Company, et al.,

the documents provided to the Department by HL&P or TU, the documents provided to the

. ~.

' Department during d'.scovery, to which HL&P and TU have had access, and the documents provided to the Department by other parties.

Any documents the Department has which have not been produced either by HL&P or TU, or in discovery, are being provided in the Department's Response to Houston Lighting & Power Company's Third Interrogatories, filed herewith.

HL&P Interrcqqtory 8(b) 8.

State the basis for, and provide all documents r elating to, the Division's allegation that "the fuel situation in Texas has changed drastically since our prior letters of advice" (p. 7), and in so doing:

(b) explain why these changes in "the fuel situation in Texas" were not foreseeable by the Division as of October, 1974.

Department's Initial Response to HLTP Interrogatory 8(b)

The Department objects to this section of the interrogatory on the grounds that the question elicits neither facts nor evidence but is argumentative in nature and tone; further, the question is designed to elicit the mental impressions, conclusions, opinions and legal theories of the Department's attorneys in contravention of NRC Rule of Practice S2.740(b)(2) and FED.

R.

CIV. P. 26(b)(3).

Department's Supplemental Response to HL&P Interrogatory 8(b)

The Department has no additional information which supplements its previous response.

HL&P Interrogatory 9 l

9.

State the basis for, and provide all documents relating to, the Division's allegation that "this changing fuel situation has had a significant impact on the competitive posture of the various utilities in Texas" (p. 7), and in so doing explain what is meant by the term " competitive posture";

identify each of the referenced "various utilities in Texas";

O

. i I

and explain the exact manner in which the alleged change in the fuel situation has impaired their competitive posture in specified product and geographic markets.

Department's Initial Response to HL;P's Interrogatory 9 The term " competitive posture" refers to a system's ability to compete.

As gas prices have risen in Texas the cost of generating electric power has likewise increased.

An increase in tl' ost of power may have an adverse effect on a utility's

abilit,
  • o compete if its competitor is not exposed to the same increase in power costs, or if its competitor can otherwise mitigate any potential increases in power costs by increasing its coordinating activities and switching to alternative types of generation with relatively lower overall costs.

"The various utilities" refers to utilities in Texas with gas fired generation.

While the Department had no specific utilities in mind with its reference to the various utilities, clearly those depending in whole or in part on the pipeline system of Lo Vaca Gas Gathering Company for their natural gas supply or on any other pipeline supplier whosc prices have increased commensurate with Lo Vaca's gas prices are the most affected.

This group includes Central Power & Light, City Public Service Board of San Antonio, City of Austin, City of Brownsville, South Texas Electric Cooperative, Medina Electric Cooperative, and City of Robstown.

The Department is still in the process of analyzing the effect of the increased gas prices on the power supply costs of these and other utilities in the state and is not in a position at present to explain the exact manner in which the fuel situation has impaired their competitive posture in any market relevant fo r ar.titru st analysis purposes.

In general, however, increased costs of generating power will have an adverse effect on any and all levels of marketing electric power, whether retail, wholesale, or at the coordinating services market.

Department's S*upplemental Response to HL&P's Interrogatory 9 I

The Departr.ent believes that the changed fuel situation has affected virtually every electric utility in Texas.

. The documents which relate to this interrogatory response include the deposition transcripts in these proceedings, the deposition transcripts and testimony in West Texas Utilities Co.

v. Texas Electric Service Company, et a l._, the documents provided to the Department by HL&P or TU, the documents provided to the Department during discovery, to which HL&P and TU have had accets, and the documents provided to the Department by other parties.

Any documents the Department has which have not been produced either by HL&P or TU, or in discovery, are being provided in the Department's Response to Houston Lighting.& Power Compar.y's Third Interrogatories, filed herewith.

HL&P's Interrogatory 10 (a)-(e) 10.

State the basis for, and provide all documents relating to, the Division's allegation that "these [ smaller]

utilities (dependent on natural gas] must switch to alternatives, such as coal, l ig ni t e, and nuclear fueled generation, if they are to continue in existence, let alone be able to compete with their larger neighb]rs, such as HL&P and TU,"

{p. 7) and in so doing:

(a) identify each of these smaller utility systems; Department's Initial __ Response to HL&P interrogatory 10(a)

!!L&P and TU, because of their size, are able to build large nuclear basel.oad units, as well as coal and lignite fired units, and through the high voltage interconnection between the two systems can engage in sufficient coordination to keep their power costs at a competitive level.

A utility dependent on natural gas as a fuel for the generation of its electric power has been faced with increasing power supply costs and, under the Texas Railroad Commission Order in Docket 600, will be unable to meet load growth through the addition of gas fired generating units.

It may not be possible to replace existing gas fired units that are retired

~m_

. from service with new gas fired units.

All of these f ac'to r s add up to forcing a utility to switch to alternatives in order to keep their power supply costs at a competitive level.

If the utility is unable to maintain its power supply costs at a competitive level it may lose its franchises to serve at r e '. a i l, it may lose wholesale customers, and it may be unable to market or dispose of its unused capacity and energy -- risking eventual acquisition by its larger competitors, such as HL&P and TU.

The smaller systems referred to in the Department's letter are any electric utilities in or around the area served by HL&P and TU that generate electric power for sale or for resale to ultimate users or that may in the future engage in the generation of electric power for that purpose.

Department's Supplemental Response to HL&P Interrogatory 2_0(a)

See Department's Supplemental Redponse to HL&P Interrogatory 27 and 28 herein.

The documents which relate to *.his interrogatory response include the deposition transcripts in these proceedings, the deposition transcripts and testimony in West Texas Utilities Co.

v. Texas Electric Service Company, et al., the documents provided to the Department by HL&P or TU, the documents provided to the Department during discovery, to which HL&P and TU have had access, and the documents provided to the Department by other parties.

Any documents the Department has which have not been produced either by HL&P or TU, or in discovery, are being provided in the Department's Response to Houston Lighting & Power Company's Third Interrogatories, filed herewith.

HL&P Int'errogatory 10(b) 10.

State the basis for, and provide all documents relating to, the Division's allegation that "these [ smaller]

utilities [ dependent on natural gas] must switch to alternatives,

O

. such as coal, lignite, and nucJear fueled generation, if they are to continue in existence, let alone be able to compete sith their larger neighbors, such as HL&P and TU,"

(p. 7) and in so doing:

(b) explain exactly how HL&P has impaired each specified system's ability to convert to alternate fuels; Department's Initial Response to Interrogatory 10(b)

Because of the delay in obtaining documents from HL&P and TU, the Department has not yet had the opportunity to complete its review of discovery materials to the extent necessary to respond to this part of the interrogatory.

Document review and investigation are continuing.

Deparment's Supplemental Response to 10(b)

The " smaller utilities" must be able to market any excess power generated from these facilities.

The " intrastate only agreement" between HL&P, TU and the other members of TIS have impaired the smaller utilities f rom taking advantage of the economies of scale derived by participating ef fectively in coal, lignite, and nuclear fuel generation, since they would be unable to market any excess power to interstate electric utilities.

Likewise, the " intrastate only agreement" has impaired these sm.411er utilities from participating in generation outside Texas, since HL&P, TU, and other members of the " intrastate only agreement" will not transmit power into Texas.

HL&P Interrogatory 10(c) 10.

State the basis for, and provide all documents relating to, the Division's allegation that "these [ smaller]

utilities [ dependent on natural gas] must switch to alternatives, such as coal, lignite, and nuclear f ueled generation, if they

. are to continue in existence, let alone be able to compete with their larger neighbors, such as HL&P and TU,"

(p. 7) and in so doing:

(c) state whether you have any evidence showing that HL&P was motivated by anticompetitive consid e r atio ns in taking such action and set for each specific fact related to such evidence; Department's Initial Response to Interrogatory 10(c)

Because of the delay in obtaining documents from HL&P and TU, the Department has not yet had the opportunity to complete its review of discovery materials to the extent necessary to respond to this part of the interrogatory.

Document review and investigation are continuing.

Department's Supplemental Response to HL&P Interrogatory 10(c)

The Department contends that HL&P's adherence to the

" intrastate only ag reement" was motivated by anticompetitive c onsid e r atio ns.

The Department's Supplemental Response to Interrogatory 1(a), 10(b), 13, and 26(c)-(d) herein sets forth the actions which evidence the " intrastate only agreement".

The documents which relate to this interrogatory response include the deposition transcripts in these proceedings, the deposition transcripts and testimony in West Texas Utilities Co.

v. Texas Electric Service Company, et al.,

the documents provided to the Depar'tment by HL&P or TU, the documents provided to the Department during discove ry, to which HL&P and TU have had access, and the documents provided to the Department by other parties.

Any documents the Department has which have not been produced either by HL&P or TU, or in discovery, are being provided in the Department's Response to Houston Lighting & Power Company's Third Interrogatories, filed herewith.

. HL&P Interrogatory 10(d) 10.

State the ba s i s f o r, and provide all documents relating to, the Division's allegation that "these [ smaller]

utilities [ dependent on nataral gas] must switch to alternatives, such as coal, lignite, and nuclear fueled generation, if they are to continue in existence, let alone be able to compete with their larger neighbor s, such as HL&P and TU,"

(p. 7) and in so doing:

(d)

State whether this need to convert to alternative fuels arose only after October, 1974, and if not, explain how HL&P's decision to continue operation in intrastate commerce will now interfere with such conversion efforts whereas it would not have done so before October, 1974; and Department's Initial Response to HL&P Interrogatory 10(d)

It is the Department's understanding that so:ae of the u t il i t ies in Texas were beginning to convert to alternative fuels prior to October, 1974.

The Department objects to the section of the interrogatory following the phrase " October, 1974" on the grounds that the question elicits neither facts nor evidence but is argumentative in nature and tone; further, the question is designed to elicit the mental impressions, conclusions, opinions and legal theories of the Department's attorneys in contravention of NRC Rule of Practice S2.740(b)(2) and FED.

R.

CIV.

P.

26(b)(3).

Department's Supplemental Response to HL&P Interrogatory 10(d)

Refer to Department's Supplemental Response to HL&P Interroga-tory 10(b) herein.

Additional information is contained in the deposition transcripts in these proceedings, the deposition transcripts and testimony in West Texas Utili ties Co. v. Texas Electric Service Company, et al., the documents provided to the

' Department by HL&P'or TU, the documents provided to the Department during discovery, to which HL&P and TU have had access, and the documents provided to the Department by other parties.

Any documents the Department has which have not been produced either

. in discovery, are being provided in the by HL&P or TU, or Department's Response to Houston Lighting & Power Company's Third Interrogatories, filed herewith.

HL&P Interrogatory 10(e).

10.

State the basis for, and provide all documents relating to, the Division's allegation that "these [ smaller]

utilities [ dependent on natural gas] must switch to alternatives, such as coal, lignite, and nuclear fueled generation, if they are to continue in existence, let alone be able to compete with their larger neighbors, such as HL&P and TU,"

(p. 7) and in so doing:

(e) identify (1) each product and geographic market wherein each identified smaller utility competes with HL&P or TU, (2) the type and extent of competition in each such market, and (3) the market share of each utility in each such market.

Department's Initial Response to Interrogatory 10(e)

Because of the delay in obtaining documents from HL&P and TU, the Department has not yet had the opportunity to complete its review of discovery materials to the extent necessary to respond to this part of the interrogatory.

Document review and investigation are continuing.

Department's Supplemental Response to HL&P Interrogatory 10(e)

Refer to Department's Supplemental Response to HL&P Interrogatory 3(b) herein.

HL&P Interrogatory 11(a)-(c) 11.

(a)

Does the Division have any evidence showing that Houston has denied any other utility access to or participation in the South Texas Project ("STP") or any other nuclear plant?

(b)

If so, describe the circumstances surrounding each such denial, including:

(1) identification of the requesting utility, (2) name and title of the person making the request, (3) form of request (i.e.,

written or oral, in person or by telephone) and, if oral, a list of all persons present at the time the request was made, (4) date of request, (5) person to

. whom request was addressed, (6) name of person who responded to request, (7) form of response (i.e., written or oral, in person or by telephone) and, if oral, a list of all persons present at the time the response was given, (8) person to whom the response was addresed, and (9) date of response.

(c)

Provide all documents relating to the subject matter of this interrogatory.

Department's Initial Response to HL&P Interrogatory ll(a)-(c)

HL&P conditioned partic.ipation in the South Texas Project upon the requirement that the utility requesting participation be engaged exclusively in intrastate commerce within the State of Texas.

The Department, however, is not alleging at this time that HL&P has denied any utilities access to or participation in the South Texas Project ("STP") or any other nuclear plant other than through its actions of disconnecting from certain of the STP joint participants in May of 1976, and refusing to reestablish those interconnections while those other joint participants were operating in interstate commerce.

The Department is continuing at the present time its investigation and document review relating to the contentions offered in response to this interrogatory.

Should this investiga tion and document review develop any further in-formation, the Department will provide this as part of its continuing obligation to up-date its responses to this set of interrogatories.

Department's Supplemental Response to HL&P Interrogatory ll(a)-(c)

The Department contends that HL&P has ef fectively denied any utilities which operates outside of Texas from access to or participation in the South Texas Project because of the "in-trastate only agreement".

Although the Department is unaware of any specific electric utilities which operate outside of Texas that currently wish to participate in or have access to the South Texas Project, the " intrastate only agreement" has 9

O

. prohibited and will continue to ef fectively prohibit interstate utilities from participating in or gaining access to the South Texas Project.

Likewise, so long as the " intrastate only agreement" remains in effect, electric systems in Texas, who I

may wish to sell part or all of the power received from parti-cipation in the South Texas Project outside of Texas, will be I

effectively denied meaningful access to the South Texas Project.

The documents which relate to the Department's evidence concerning this interrogatory response include the deposition transcripts in these proceedings, the deposition transcripts and testimony in West Texas Utilities Co. v. Texas Electric Service Company, et al.,

the documents provided to the Department by HL&P or TU, the documents provided to the Department during discovery, to which HL&P and TU have had access, and documents provided to the Department by other parties.

Any documents the Department has which have not been produced either by HL&P or TU, or in discovery, are being provided in the Department's Response to Houston Lighting & Power Company's Third Interrogatories, filed herewith.

HL&P Interrogatory ll(d)

(d)

State whether the Division has knowledge of the fact that a utility has considered requesting Houston to grant access to or participation in STP but did not communicate such request to HL&P.

If so, specify the identity of any such utility and provide all documents relating to the subject matter of this interrogatory.

1 Department's Initial Response to HL&P Interrogatory ll(d)

Because of the delay in obtaining documents from HL&P and TU, the Department has not yet had the opportunity to complete its

{

review of discovery materials to the extent necessary to respond to this part of the interrogatory.

Document review and investi-gation are continuing.

1 Department's Supplemental Response to HL&P Interrogatory ll(d)

The Department does not know whether any interstate utility has considered requesting HL&P to grant access to or participation in STP but has not communicated any such request to HL&P.

The Department, however, believes that the City of Brownsville may consider doing so.

The documents responsive to this interrogatory request include the deposition transcripts in these proceedings, the deposition transcripts and testimony in West Texas Utilities Co.

v. Texas Electric Service Company, _et al.,

the documents provided to the Department by HL&P or TU, the documents provided to the Department during discovery, to which HL&P and TU have had access, and the documents provided to the Department by other parties.

Any documents the Department has which have not been produced either by HL&P or TU, or in discovery, are being provided in the Department's Response to Houston Lighting & Powe r Company's Third Interrogatories, filed herewith.

HL&P Interrogatory 12(a)-(c)

(a)

Does the Division have any evidence showing that STP is in any way essential or uniquely advantageous to a utility which is a member of the Southwest Power Pool?

_____..m

....... _ _. ~... - -. - - _... -. _. -. _ _ _ - - - - - -... - - - _ - - - - - - -.... _...

. (b)

If so, (1) specify the exact details of such evidence; and (2) explain why participation in STP is more essential than participation in the nuclear generating facilities which are proposed, under construction or in operation within the Southwest Power Pool.

(c)

Provide all documents relating to the subject matter of this interrogatory.

Department's Initial Response to IIL&P Interrogatory 12(a)

The Department does not allege at this time that the South Texas Project is essential or uniquely advantageous to a utility which is a member of the Southwest Power Pool.

Department's Initial Response to llL&P Interrogatory 12(b)

The Department objects to that part of interrogatory 12(b) f ollowing the designation "( 2)," on the grounds that the request elicits neither facts not evidence but is argumentative in nature and tone; further, the question is designed to elicit the mental impressions, conclusions, opinions and legal theories of the Department in contravention of NRC Rule of Practice S2.740(b)(2) and FED.

R.

CIV.

P. 26(b)(3).

Department's Supplemental Response to IIL&P Interrogatory 12(a)-(c)

The Department contends that STP is essential or uniquely advantageous to a utility that is a member of the Southwest Power Pool because the power from STP will be available in the near future, its cost of installed capacity should be less than for other nuclear plants of a similar type constructed at a later date.* The essential and unique characteristics of STP will further be enhanced if the fuel for STP has been contracted for on a long term basis, since this would allow STP to experience more stable fuel costs than alternative types of generating plants.

In addition, if the " intrastate only agreement" is removed, the potential competition which exists between members

~35-of the Southuert Power Pool and T1s members vould bt converted to actual coupetition in the coordination services trancmission, and wholesale power markets.

In such circuras tances, access to STP coul d con tr ibu t.e to the ability of the Southwunt Power Pool membero to cor.'pe t e wi th TIS r.: embers in these raa rke ts.

The documenta which reJate to this interrogatory renponce include the deposition tranceripto in these proceedings, the deposition transetipts and te s t in.on y in Went Texas UtiJi' ties Co.

v. Texan l'lectric Servies Corneny, et al.,

the documents pro'/ided to the Department by IIL&P or TU, the documents provided to the Department during diceovery, to which IIL&P and TU have had acceus, and the docuicents provided to the Depar tment by other p'rtiec.

Any doeurrents the Department has which have not been produced eit her by I!L&P or TU, or in discovery, are being provided in the Department's Ilesponce to IIouston Ligh ting & Pouer Corpany's Third Interrogatories, filed herevith.

s O

. HL&P Interrogatory 13(a) 13.

State the basis for, and provide all documents relating to, the Division's allegation that "This coordination (of operation and development] cannot be done independently of the two dominant Texas utilities, HL&P and TU, without incurring substantially increased cost, decreased reliability and an erosion of the smaller utilities' competitive capabilities" (p. 7), and in so doing:

(a) explain the criteria by which HL&P and TU are labeled

" dominant Texas utiliti s," and state whether this dominance is based on a contention taat each utility independently dominates is based upon an aggregation of the HL&P and TU some market, or generation and transmission f acilities or market shares; Department's Initial Response to HL&P Interrogatory 13(a)

HL&P and TU are dominant Texas utilities because of their size, the nature and amount of generation they each own, the nature and amount of transmission they each own, and because of their irapo r tanc e to their smaller neighbors as a source of coordinating services.

HL&P is the dominant utility in the southern portion of the Texas Interconnected System

(" TIS"),

and TU is che dominant utility in the northern portion of TIS; together they are dominant within the whole of TIS.

Their dominance extends to each level at which electric power is marketed:

retail, wholesale, and power exchange services.

Department's Supplemental Response to HL&P Interrogatory 13(a)

'rhe criteria by which HL&P and TU are labeled " dominant Texas utilities" are the market share data set forth in the Department's Supplemental Response to HL&P Interrogatory 3(b) contained herein, and the actions taken by HL&P and TU in fur-therance of the " intr astate only agreement", as set forth in the Department's Supplemental Response to HL&P Interrogatory 1(a),

10(b), 26(b)-(c) herein.

r l The documents which relate to this interrogatory request are contained in the deposition transcripts in these proceedings,the deposition transcripts and testimony in West Texas Utilities Co.

v. Texas Electric Service Company, et a l._, the documents provided to the Department by HL&P or TU, the documents provided to the Department dur ing discovery, to which HL&P and TU have had access, and the documents provided to the Department by other parties.

Any documents the Department has which have not been produced in discovery, are being provided in either by HL&P or TU, or the Department's Response to Houston Lighting & Power Company's Third Interrogatories, filed herewith.

IIL&P Interrogatory 13(b) 13.

State the basis for, and provide all documents relating to, the Division's allegation that "This coordination

[of operation and development] cannot be done independently of the two dominant Texas utilities, HL&P and TU, without incurring substantially increased cost, decreased reliability and an erosion of the smaller utilities' competitive capabilities" (p. 7), and in so doing:

(b) identify (1) each product and geographic market which either TU or Houston, or both, dominate; (2) the type and extent of competition in each such market; and (3) the market share, in percentage terms, of every utility in each such ma r ke t; Department's Initial' Response to HL&P Interrogatory 13(b)

The Department cannot respond to this request with any degree of specificity until it has progressed further into the discovery process.

Since the Department only recently received the documents it has selected from HL&P and has not yet received the documents selected from TU, it has neither had an adeouate opportunity to review those documents nor to formulate any follow-up discovery request.

The Department will respond to this request as soon as it is in a position to do so.

Department's Supplemental Response to HL&P Interrogatory 13(b)

Refer to Department's Supplemental Response to HL&P Interrogatory 3(b) herein.

HL&P Interrogatory 13(c) 13.

State the basis for, and provide all documents relating to, the Division's allegation that "This coordination

!of operation and development] cannot be done independently of ti e two dominant Texas utilities, HL&P and TU, without incurring substantially increased cost, decreased reliability and an erosion of the smaller utilities' competitive capabilities" (p. 7), and in so doing:

(c) state whether this alleged dominance has arisen only since October, 1974; Department's Initial Response to HL&P Interrogatory 13(c)

No.

Department's Supplemental Response to HL&P Interrogatory 13(c)

See Department's Supplemental Response to HL&P Interrogatory 13(a) herein.

The documents responsive to this interrogetory request include the deposition transcripts in these proceedings, the deposition transcripts and testimony in West Texas Utilities Co. v. Texas Electric Service Company, et al.,

the documents provided to the Department by HL&P or TU, the documents provided to the DepSrtment during discovery, to which HL&P and TU have had access, and the documents provided to the Department by other parties.

Any documents the Department has which have not been produced either by HL&P or TU, or in discovery, are being provided in the Department's Response to Houston Lighting & Power Company's Third Interrogatories, filed herewith.

. HL&P Interrogatory 13(d) 13.

State the basis for, and provide all documents relating to, the Division's allegation that "This coordination

[of operation and development] cannot be done independently of the two dominant Texas utilities, HL&P and TU, without incurring substantially increased cost, decreased reliability and an erosion of the smaller utilities' competitive capabilities" (p. 7), and in so doing:

(d) state whether the Division has evidence that HL&P or TU has refused to coordinate with such smaller utilities, and if so, set forth each specific fact related to such evidence and state whether these facts have occurred since October, 1974; Department's Initial Response to HL&P Interrogatory 13(d)

At this time, the Department's allegation is limited to HL&P's and TU's ref usal to coordinate in connection with the May, 1976 disconnection and subsequent refusal to reestablish interconnection even under FPC jurisdictional exemptions.

As noted in our response to Interrogatory J h b), we have not had an adequate opportunity to review the documents selected from the files of HL&P and TU.

Department's Supplemental Response to HL&P Interrogatory 13(d)

The Department alleges that HL&P and TU have continually refused to coordinate with such smaller utilities, since at least 1974.

The specific facts which 4te responsive to this interrogatory are contained in the Department's Supplemental Response to HL&P Interrogatory 26(b) herein, and in the deposition transcripts in these proceedings, the deposition transcripts and testimony in West Texas Utilities Co. v. Texas Electric Service Company, et al.,

the documents provided to the Department by HL&P or TU, the documents provided to the Department during discovery, to which HL&P and TU have had access, and the documents provided to the Department by other parties.

Any

_40-documents the Department has which have not been produced either by HL&P or TU, or in discovery, are being provided in the Department's Response to Houston Lighting & Power Company's Third Interrogatories, filed herewith.

HL&P Interrogatory 13(e) 13.

State the basis for, and provide all documents relating to, the Division's allegation that "This coordination

[of operation and development] cannot be done independently of the two dominant Texas utilities, HL&P and TU, without incurring substantially increased cost, decreased reliability and an erosion of the smaller utilities' competitive capabilities" (p. 7), and in so doing:

(e) identify any utilities other than HL&P and TU which are " dominant Texas utilities" and as to such utilities identify the product and geographic market which each other such utility dominates; and Department's Initial Response to HL&P Interrogatory 13(e)

The Department has made no determination as to whether other utilities in the State of Texas are dominant Texas utilities for any purpose relevant to this proceeding.

Department's Supplemental Response to HL&P Interrogatory 13(e)

Refer to the Department's Supplemental Response to HL&P Interrogatory 3(b) herein.

HL&P Interrogatory 13(f)

' 13.

State the basis for, and provide all documents relating to, the Division's allegation that "This coordination

[of operation and development] cannot be done independently of the two dominan* Texas utilities, HL&P and TU, without incurring substantially ii.:reased cost, decreased reliability and an erosion of the smaller utilities' competitive capabilities" (p. 7), and in so doing:

(f) identify all the utilities referred to as " smaller utilities, " and identify (1) each product and geographic market in which each such smaller utility has " competitive capabilities," (2) describe the type and extent of such

'm

~41-alleged competition in each such market, (3) state the market share of every utility in each such market, (4) state the specific conduct of HL&P which has eroded the competitive capabilities of the smaller utilities in each of those markets, and (5) state whether, in the Department's view, HL&P 's conduc t was motivated by anticompetitive purposes, and if so, state the facts which support such a contention.

Department's Initial Response to HL&P Interrogatory 13(f)

The " smaller utilities" referred to in the Department's letter of advice dated February 21, 1978, are all utilities in or around the area served by HL&P and TU of a lesser size than HL&P and TU.

With respect to Interrogatory]3(f)(4), the disconnection in May of 1976 by HL&P and TU from its competitors eroded the latter's competitive capabilities as evidenced by their decreased reliability, increased operating costs, and inability to conduct future planning of generation addition as a result of the then uncertainty as to what interconnections may be available to them in the future.

The Department cannot otherwise respond to request items 13(f)(1)-(5) until it has progressed further into the discovery process.

Department's Supplemental Response to HL&P Interrogatory 13(f)

Refer to Department's Supplemental Response to HL&P Interrogatory 1(a), 3(b), 10(b)-(c), 13, 26(b)-(c), 27 and 28 contained herein.

HL&P Interrogatory 14(a) 14.

(a) With reference to the Division's statement that Houston is a " dominant Texas utility" (p. 7), is it the Division's contention that Houston possesses monopoly power or some other degree of market power relevant to this proceeding?

Department's Initial R'esponse to HL&P Interrogatory 14(a)

Yes.

Department's Supplementary Response to HL&P Interrogatory 14(a)

Refe r to Depar tment's Supplemental Response to HL&P Interrogatory 14(b)-(c) herein.

1

  • HL&P Interrogatory 14(b)-(c)

If so, (1) identify each product and geographic market in which Houston has such power, (2) describe the type and extent of competition in each such identified market, (3) state the market share of every utility in each such market, (4) identify every action taken by Houston to acquire or maintain its alleged monopoly power, (5) identify each abuse of each instance of such power by Houston, and (6) explain whether there has been any change in such conduct since October, 1974.

(c)

Provide all documents which relate to the subject matter of this interrogatory.

Departmens Initial Response to HL&P Interrogatory 14(b)-(c)

See Response to Interrogatories 13(d) and (f).

Department's Supplemental Response to HL&P Interrogatory 14(b)-(c)

Refer to the Department's Supplemental Response to HL&P Interrogat.ory 3(b) herein for the information requested in items (1) through (3).

With respect to items '4) through (6),

refer to the Department's Supplemental Response to HL&P Interrogatory 1(a), 10(b)-(c), 13, 26(b)-(c) herein.

The documents responsive to this interrogatory request include the deposition transcripts in these proceedings, the deposition transcripts and testimony in West Texas Utilities Co. v. Texas, Electric Service Company, et al.,

the documents provided to the Department by H L&P o r TU, the documents provided to the Department during discovery, to which HL&P and TU have had access, and the documents provided to the Department by ether parties.

Any documents the Department has which have r.ot

. been produced either by HL&P or TU, or in discovery, are being prov;ded in the Department's Response to Houston Lighting &

Power company's Third Interrogatories, filed herewith.

HL&P Interrogatory 15(a) l 15 (a) With reference to the Division's allegation that TU is a " dominant Texas utility" (p. 7), does the Division contend that TU possesses monopoly power or some other degree of market power relevant to this proceeding?

Department's Initial Response to HL&P Interrogatory 15(a)

Yes.

Department's Supplemental Response to HL&P Interrogatory 15(a)

Refer to Department's Supplemental Response to HL&P Inter-rogatory 15(b)-(c) herein.

HL&P Interrogatory 15(b)-(c)

(b)

If so, (1) identify each product and geographic market in which TU has such power, (2) describe the type and extent of competition in each such identified market, (3) state the market chare of every utility in each such market, (4) identify every action taken by TU to acquire or maintain its alleged monopo ly powe r, (5) identify each abuse of each instance of such power by TU, and (6) explain whether there has been any c h ang e in such conduct since January, 1974.

(c)

Provide all documents which relate to the subject matter of this interrogatory.

Department's Initial Response to HL&P Interrogatory 15(b)-(c)

See response to Interrogatories 13(d) and (f).

Department's Supplemental Response to HL&P Interrogatory 15(b)-(c)

Refer to Department's Supplemental Response to HL&P Inter-rogatory 14(b)-(c) herein.

The documents which relate to this

-w___

. interrogatory response are contained in the deposition transcripts in these proceedings, the deposition transcripts and testimony in West Texas Utilities Co. v. Texas Electric Service Company, et al., the documents provided to the Department by HL&P or TU, the documents provided to the Department during discovery, to which HL&P and TU have had access, and the documents provided to the Department by other parties.

Any documents the Department has which have not been produced either by HL&P or TU, or in discovery, are being provided in the Department's Response to Houston Lighting & Power Company's Third Interrogatories, filed herewith.

HL&P Interrogatory 16(a) 16.

(a) Notwithstanding the answers to Interrogatories 14 and 15, does the Division contend that Houston and TU jointly possess monopoly power or some other degree of market power in any market relevant to this proceeding?

Department's Initial Response to HL&P Interrogatory 16(a)

Yes.

Department's Supplemental Response to HL&P Interrogatory 16(a)

Refer to Department's Supplemental Response to HL&P Interrogatory 16(b)-(c) herein.

HL&P Interrogatory 16(b)-(c)

(b)

If so, (1) identify each product and geographic market in which Houston and TU jointly possess such power, (2) describe the type and extent of competition in each such jdentified market, (3) state the market share of every utility in each such market, (4) state the basis upon which the Division contends the market shares of Houston and TU may be aggregated to find joint monopoly power, (5) identify every

. action taken by Houston or TU to acquire or maintain each such instance of such joint power, (6) identify each abuse by Houston or TU of each sr-h instance of such joint power, and (7) identify any change in such conduct since January, 1974.

(c)

Provide all documents which relate to the subject matter of this interrogatory.

Department's Initial Response to HL&P Interrogatory 16(b)-(c)

See response to Interrogatories 13(c) and (f).

With respect to Interrogatory 16(b)(4), the basis upon which the Department contends that the market shares of hL&P and TU may be aggregated find joint monopoly power are Sect. ion 1 of the Sherman Act, to Section 2 of the Sherman Act, and Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act.

Department's Supplemental Response to HL&? Intertogatory 16(b)-(c)

See Department's Supplemental Respor.se to HL&P Interrogatory 14(b)-(c) and 15(b)-(c) herein.

HL&P Interrogatory 17 Does the Division have any evidence showing that CP&L and WTU cannot withdraw from TIS and operate in interstate commerce without operating difficulties, and without impairment of their

" competitive viability" even if such withdrawal and disconnection from TIS is done with proper planning.

If so, specify the exact details of such evidence and provide all documents related to the subject matter of this in ter r og a to ry.

Department's Initial Response to HL&P Interrogatory 17 The Department objects to this interrogatory on the ground that the question is unclear and ambiguous.

Department's Supplemental Response to HL&P Interrogatory 17 The Department has no further response to this interrogatory request.

The documents which relate to CP&L and WTU's rela-tionship with the members of TIS are the deposition transcripts in these proceedings, the deposition transcripts and testimony

. in West Texas Utilities Co. v. Texas Electric Service Company, et al.,

the documents provided to the Department by HL&P or TU, the documents provided to the Department during discovery, to which HL&P and TU have had access, and the documents provided to the Department by other parties.

Any documents the Department has which have not been produced either by HL&P or TU, or in discovery, are being provided in the Department's Response to Houston Lighting & Power Compariy's Third Interrogatories, filed herewith.

HL&P Interrogatory 18(a) 18.

(a) Does the Division have any evidence showing that CSW's preferred mode of integration of its operating companies (i.e., Mode 4), as proposed by CSW in SEC Administrative Proceeding File No. 3-4951, (1) will have no effect on the reliability of Houston's electric service, (2) will not increase Houston's capital expenditures, (3) will not increase Houston's operating costs, and (4) will not increase Houston's electric rates to its customers.

N (b)

For each subpart of (a) answered in the affirmative, state the basis for your answer and provide all related documents.

Department's Initial Response to Interrogatory 18 The Department has no documents relating to the subject matter of this interrogatory that are not already in the possession of,HL&P and TU.

Department's Supplemental Response to HL&P Interrogatory 18 The documents the Department has which relate to CSW's Mode 4 are the deposition transcripts in these proceedings,the deposition transcripts and testimony in West Texas Utilities Co. v. Texas Electric Service Company, et al.,

the documents 4

I

. provided to the Department by HL&P or TU, the documents provided to the Department during discovery, to which HL&P and TU have I

had access, and the documents provided to the Department by other l

parties.

Any documents the Department has which have not been produced either by HL&P or TU, or in discovery, are being provided in the Department's Response to Houston Lighting &

Power Company's Third Interrogatories, filed herewith.

HL&P Interrogatory 19(a) 19.

(a) Provide all documents and identify and describe all communications which relate to, or describe, th; possible denial of participation of Brazos Electric Membership Cooperative in the planned joint generation facility with South Texas Electric Cooperative and Medina Electric Cooperative (South Texas OL advice letter, p.

8; Baker letter, p.

3).

Department's Initial Response to HL&P Interrogatory 19(a)

There were one or more telephone conversations between the Department and representatives of Brazos Electric Membership Cooperative during the preparation of the Department's letter of advice dated January 25, 1977.

There were one or more telephone conversations between the Department and representatives of Brazos Electr ic Membership Cooper.tive dur ing the prepar ation of the Department's leter of ad vice cated February 21, 1978.

Department's Supplemental Response to HL&P Interrogatory 19(a)

In connection with the Brazos-Comanche Peak Antitrust Review, the Department visited the Brazos offices in Waco, Texas, on July 26-27, 1979, to inspect documents.

On August 23, 1979, the Department again visited the Brazos offices to meet with Mr. Monahan and Mr. Townsend.

The Department made documents relating to the Brazos-Comanche Peak Antitrust Review available to HL&P for inspection on January 14-15, 1980.

HL&P counsel

. inspected these documents in the offices of the Antitrust Division in Washington and selected certain of these documents for copying.

HL&P Interrogatory 19(b)

Does the Division have any evidence showing that this joint if CP&L and WTU planned generation f acility would be inf easible for the orderly withdrawal from TIS, which withdrawal would include adequate compensation by CP&L and HTU to any system which is now dependent on NTU and CP&L for interconnections and wheeling.

Department's Initial Response to HL&P Interrogatory 19(b).

The Department objects to this section of the interrogatory on the grounds that the question elicits neither facts nor evidence but is argumentative in nature and tone; further, the question is designed to elicit the mental impressions, conclusions, opinions and legal theories of the Department in contravention of NRC Rule of Pr actice S2.7 40(b) (2 ) and FED.

R.

CIV.

P. 26(b)(3).

+o HL&P Interrogatory 19(b)

Department's Supplemental Response The Department has no additional information responsive to this interrogatory request.

HL&P Interrogatory 20_

20.

(a) Does the Division have any evidence of an ag re _,ae nt between Houston and TU that existed prior to May 4, 1976, that provides that they would disconnect from any other member of TIS which enters interstate operation?

Department's Initial Response to HL&P Interrogatory 20(a)

See response to interrogatory No. 1 to HL&P Interrogatory 20(a)

Department's Supplemental Response to HL&P Refer to Department's Supplemental Response Interrogatory 1(a) and 26(b) herein.

~ ~.- -

. HL&P Interrogatory 20(b)-(c)

(b)

If so, (1) specify the exact details of such an ag r eeme n t; (2) identify the persons involved in making the ag r eeme n t; (3) provide the date of the.greement; and (4) provide the form of the agreement (e.g, written or oral, in person or by telephone), and, if oral, identify all persons present.

Provide all documents which relate to the subject (c) matter of this interrogatory.

Department's Initial Response to HL&P Interrogatory 20(b)

The Department has not yet had the opportunity to complete its review of discovery materials to the extent necessary to respond to this part of the interrogatory.

Document review and inves tiga tion ut e continu linj.

Department's Supplemental Response to llL&P Interrogatory 20(b)-(c)

See Department's Supplemental Response to HL&P Interrogatory 20(a) herein.

Any additional information responsive to this interrogatory request is contained in the deposition transcripts in these proceedings, the deposition transcripts and testimony in West Texas Utilities Co. v. Texas Electric Service Company, et al., the documents provided to the Department by HL&P or TU, the documents provided to the Department during discovery, to which HL&P and TU have had access, and the documents provided to the Department by other parties.

Any documents the Department been produced either by HL&P or TU or in has which have not to discovery, are being provided in the Department's Response Houston Lighting & Power Company's Third Interrogatories, filed herewith.

'l d

na

t "f

. HL&P Interrogatory 21(a)-(c) 21.

(a) Does the Division have any evidence that Houston acted in concert with any other utility when it disconnected from all other TIS systems on May 4, 1976?

(b)

If so, provide a basis for your answer, including (1) identification of all persons involved in each such action; and (2) date and time of day of such action.

(c)

Provide all documents which relate to the subject matter of this interrogatory.

Department's Initial Response to HL&P Interrogatory 21(a) & (b)

Yes, the Department alleges that HL&P and TU acted in concert on May 4 1976[ sic].

In addition to the intrastate only agreement as man 1 #ested by the contract between HL&P and TU and other actions to police that agreement, the Department is aware of extensive communication between HL&P management personnel and attorneys and their counterparts in Texas Utilities company immediately following the disconnection of May 4, 1976 as set forth in responses to interrogatories served on HL&P and TU in the private antitrust ac tion.

Department's Initial Response to HL&P Interrogatory 21(c)

The Department has no documents relating to the subject matters of this interrogatory that are not already in the possession of HL&P and TU.

Department's Supplemental Response to HL&P Interrogator,v 21(a)-(c)

See Department's Supplemental Response to HL&P Inter agatory 1(a), 26(b)-(c) herein.

Any additional information responsive to this interrogatory request is contained in the deposition tran-scripts in these p oceedings, the deposition transcripts and testimony in West Texas Utilities Co.

v. Texas Electric Service Company, et al.,

the documents provided to the Department by HL&P or TU, the documents provided to the Department during discovery,

4 t to which HL&P and TU have had access, and the documents provided to the Department by other parties.

Any documents the Department has which have not been produced either by HL&P or TU, or in discovery, are being provided in the Department's Response to Houston Lighting & Power Company's Third Interrogatories, filud herewith.

HL&P Interrogatory 22 22.

(a) Does the Division contend that Houston's unilateral reservation of the r igh t to determine whether it operates in interstate commerce during the term of the South Texas operating licenses would create or maintain a situation inconsistent with the antitrust laws within the meaning of S105(c)(5) of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, 42 U.S.C. S2135(c)(5)?

(b)

If so, (1) state whether the situation would be created or maintained; (2) identify the antitrust laws wi th which the inconsistency would arise; and (3) explain why the reservation of such a right became inconsistent with the antitrust laws only after October, 1974.

(c)

If not, state whether the Division contends that the reservation of such a right is inconsistent with the antitrust laws only if carried out in concert with another utility and if it does so contend then (1) state whether the situation would be created or maintained; (2) identify the antitrust laws with which the inconsistency would arise; and (3) explain why the reservation of such right became inconsistent with the antitrust laws only after October, 1974.

(d)

For each antitrust law identified in your answer to (b)(2) or (b)(3), state specifically the legal theory or theories upon wh ich the Division bases its contention that "a situation inconsistent with the antitrust law" would be created or maintained.

Department's Initial Response to HL&P Interrogatory 22(a)-(d)

The Department objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that the question sets forth a hypothetical situation contrary alle'ations being made by the Department in this proceed-to the g

ing and as such it elicits neither facts nor evidence bu t is

_...._.a s argumentative in nature and tone; further, the question is designed to elicit the mental impressions, conclusions, opinions and legal theories of the Department's attorneys in contravention of NRC Rule of Practice S2.740(b)(2) and PED.

R.

CIV.

P.

26(b)(3).

Department's Supplemental Response to HL&P's Interrogatory 22(a)-(d)

The Department has no further information responsive to this interrogatory request.

HL&P Interrogatory 23 23.

(a) Identify each instance of alleged injury to actual competition from either the alleged " intrastate only" agreement, or f rom any unilateral decision or policy by Houston to operate on an intrastate basis, including identification of (1) each injured person: (2) the relevant product and geographic ma rke t; (3) the type and extent of competition in each such ma rke t; (4) the market share of every utility in each such market; and (5) the specific cause and nature of each such injury (Emphasis in original).

(b)

State the basis for your answer, and provide all doc-uments which relate to the subject matter of tnis interrogatory.

Department's Initial Response to HL&P Interrogatory 23(a)

Due to the delay on the part of HL&P and TU in providing the Department with the documents selected by the Department from the discovery material in the private antitrust action, the Department has been unable to complete a timely review of that material and initiate its own follow-up discovery.

As a result, the Department is not in a position to give full and complete responses to Interrogatory 23 at this time.

Actual competition was injured during the approximately one year period that HL&P a:id TU were refusing to interconnect with those utilities with whom it had historically mair tained interconnections.

The injury was manifested by reduced reliability and increared cost as a result of the disconnection and refusal to reestablish interconnections.

Those utilities affected were CP&L, NTU, Lower Colorado River Authority, City of Austin, Public Utility Board of San Antonio, STEC/MEC, Brazos Electric Membership Cooperative, and the membets of the TMPP.

_ m-

-- -- =,_.

i t i i

Department's Initial Response to HL&P Interrogatory 23(b)_

i The basis for the Department's answer to Interrogatory representations made by counsel and of ficials of CP&L 23(a) are and Central and Suu tnt. st Corporation, the pleadings filed, and the record compiled, ia Docket No. 14 before the Texas Public Utility Commission, ccmmunications with counsel for Brazos Electric Membeship Cooperative, and the City Managcr of Bryan, Texas.

Department's Supplemental Responpe to HL&P Interrogatory 23(a)-(b)

Th" information responsive to items (2), (3) and (4) of this interrogatory request is contained in the Department's Supplemental Response to HL&P Interrogatory 3(b) hereir.

The information responsive to the remainder of this interrogat.?ry r.. quest is contained in the Department's Supplemental Response to HL&P Interrogatory 1(a), 3(b), 10(b)-(c), 13, 26(b)-(c) and in the deposition transcriots in these proceedings, the otposition transcripts and teatimony in West Texas Utilities Co.

v. Texas Electric Service Company, et al.,

the documents provided to the Department by HL&P or TU, the documents provided to the Department during discovery, to which HL&P and TU have had access, and the documents provided to the Department by other parties.

Any documents the Department has which have not been produced either in discovery, are being provided in the by HL&P or TU, or Department's Response to Houston Lighting & Power Company's Third Interrogatories, filed herewith.

HL&P Interrogatory 24(a) 24.

(a) Identify each instance of alleged injury to potential competition from either the alleged "intrestate only" agreement, or from any unilateral decision or policy by Houston

~ - -

. to operate on an intrastate basis, includ ing identification of (1) each injured person; (2) the relevant product and geographic market; (3) the type and extent of competition in each such market; (4) the narket share of every utility in each such market; and (5) the specific cause and nature of each such injury (Emphasis in original).

(b)

State the basis for your answer, and provide all documents which relate to the subject matter of this interrogatory.

Department's Initial Response to HL&P Interrogatory 24(a)

As noted on page 9 of the Department's advice letter dated February 21, 1978, sources of potential competition must be inferred from facts showing the geographic proximity of intrastate utilities, and the possible need or incentive to establish connection with such systems.

In view of the increased costs of purchasing bulk power at wholesale, and absent institutional barriers (until recently there were no barriers of this nature) or artificial restrictions such as the intrastate only agreement of HL&P and TU, wholesale customers would look for other sources of lower cost power, wherever economically feasible.

The intrastate only agreement tends to restrict this type of competition so that it is limited to systems situated on the in tr as t ate /in te r s ta te boundary, such as College S t a t io n.

Where the system purchasing firm bulk power at wholesale is some distance away, the intrastate only agreement ef fectively precludes an interstate utility from providing service.

This is so since any type of wheeling arrangement would not be possible without violating the intrastate only requirement of the HL&P and TU agreement, as was the case when the City of Jacksonville, Texas, considered a change of power suppliers in March of 1979.

Department's Initial Response to HL&P Interrogatory 24(b)

The basis for the Department's response to Interrogatory 24(a) are the material provided to the Department as part of the construction permit review of the Comanche Peak, Allens Creek and South Texas Project, FERC maps and recent editions of the Electric World Directory of Electric Utilities listing private and public utilities in the area, conversations between the Department and the City Manager of Bryan, Texas and the TPUC Reports and Orders in Docket No. 409, and a letter from South Western Electric Power Company to the City of Jackson dated May 16, 1977.

.. =

, Department's Supplemental Response to IIL&P Interrogatory 24(a)-(b)

The information responsive to items (a)(2), (3) and (4) of this interrogatory request is contained! in the Department's Supplement al Response to IIL&P Interrogatory 3(b) herein.

The information responsive to the remainder of this interrogatory request is contained in the Department's Supplemental Response to llL&P Inter roga tory 23(a)-(b) and 29 herein, in the deposition transcripts in these proceedings, the deposition transcripts and testimony in West Texas Utilities Co. v. Texas Electric Service _

Company, et al., the documents provided to the Department by llL&P or TU, the documents provided to the Department during discovery, to which IIL&P and TU have had access, and the documents provided to the Department by other parties.

Any documents the Department has which have not been produced either by IIL&P or TU, or in being provided in the Department's Response to discovery, are llouston Lighting & Power Company's Third Interrogatories, filed

herewith, ilL&P Interrogatory 25 25.

(a) Identify each of "the areas in which flL&P and TU f ace competition or could reasonably compete" (p. 9), including but not limited to:

(1) each relevant product and geographic market; (2) the nature and extent of competition in each market; (3) each actual competitor (including, if relevant, Houston and TU) in each market, and describe such competitor's dctivities in the market;

- - ~ ~

. (4) each potential competitor (including, if relevant, Houston and TU) in each market, and describe such competitor's potential ac tivi ties in the market; and (5) the market share of every utility in each such market.

Department's Initial Response to HL&P Interrogatory 25(a) in HL&P and TU face competition or could reasonably compete any area within the geographic area in which they presently have facilities or in any area within which they could economically construct facilities, absent legal or institutional restraints on their ability to so extend their system.

Interrogatories 25(a)(1)-(5) are, in the Department's view, redundant with Interrogatories 23 and 24 and were answered to the extent possible in our responses to those interrogatories, given the present status of discovery.

Department's Supplemental Response to HL&P Interrogatory 25(c)

See the Department's Supplemental Response to HL&P Ynterrogatory 3(b) herein.

HL&P Interrogatory 25(b)

Define the term " reasonably compete" and state the source of this definition.

Department's Initial Response to HL&P Interrogatory 25(b)-(c)

The term " reasonably compete" is part of the phrase "In the area in which HLEP f aces competition or could reasonably compete..." and refers to that area defined in the response to In terroga tory 25( a) in which either HL&P or TU, if they so chose, could economically extend their facilities or services over the f acilities of another utility and compete.

Thus,

" reasonably compete" means to compete economically versas to compete uneconomically.

The term is based on an assumption by the Department that an electric utility would not extend its facilities or otherwise seek to provide services unless it were reasonable and is analogous to the potential competition tests applied in United States v.

Falstaff Brewing Corp., 410 U.S.

526 (1973).

u--.--.--n-_.----~.,___

~~

,, +. -

(

I Department's Supplenental Response to HL&P Interrogatory 25(b)-(c)

(

4 Re fe r to Department's Supplemental Respons to HL&P Interrogatory 3(b) herein.

f HJr&P Interrogatory 25(c) i State the basis for your answer, and provide all documents which relate to the subject matter of this interrogatory.

I Department's Supplemental Response to HL&P Interrogatory 25(c)

The documents which relate to this interrogatory response include the deposition transcripts in these proceedings, the deposition transcripts and testimony in West Texas Utilities Co.

v. Texas Electric Service Company, et al.,

the documents provided to the Department by HL&P or TU, the documents provided to the Department during discovery, to which HL&P and TU have had access, and the documents provided to the Department by other parties.

Any documents the Department has which have not been produced in discovery, are being provided in either by HL&P or TU, or the Department's Response to Houston Lighting & Power Company's Third Interrogatories, filed herewith.

HL&P Interrogatory 26_(a)

Describe how "the intrastate only egreement has ef fectively precluded serious attempts to establish interstate connections" (p.

9, emphasis in original).

Department's Initial Response to Interrogatory 26(a)

The intrastate only agreement required any utility interconnected with HL&P or TU to refrain from interconnecting with another utility operating in interstate commerce as a conditio n to retaining the interconnections with HL&P and TU.

Thus a utility was faced with a choice, it could give up the Department's Supplemental Response to HL&P Interrogatory 26(a)

Refer to Department's Supplemental Response to HL&P Inter-rogatory 1(a), 26(b)-(c) herein.

. HL&P Interrogatory 26(b)

(b)

Identify each serious attempt by a member of ERCOT to establish interstate connections, including (1) date; (2)

Persons making the attempt; (3) actions taken which constitute the attempt; (4) type and purpose of the interstate connection attempted; and (5) causes of failure of the attempt.

Department's Initital Response to HL&P Interrogatory 26(b)

The Department cannot respond to these interrogatories given the current status of discovery caused by the delay of HL&P and TU in providing the Department with discovery material from the private antitrust action.

Department's Supplemental Response to HL&P Interrogatory 26(b)

The following list pr ovid es the Department's present knowledge of apparent attempts by members of ERCOT to establish interstate interconnections.

A.

1953 WTU Interconnection.

B.

Western Farmers /Brazos Interconnection.

C.

Interconnections Between Brazos, Upshur-Rural Coop, and the SPA.

D.

Gate City Interconnection with Western Farmers.

E.

May 4, 1976 Interconnection by WTU with Utilities in Oklahoma.

F.

Tex-La Coops Interconnections.

G.

WTU-PPG Coops Interconnections.

H.

City of Electra's Emergency Interconnection.

I.

Gulf States Utilities Co. - HL&P Huffman Intercon-nection.

The following charts supply the information requested by this interrogatory in items (1)-(5).

- (1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(3)

IPersons Involved in the Apparent Data of Apparent Attempt to Actions Taken hhich Type and Purpose of Inter-Apparent heascns bny Atte :pt Attempted Obtain the Constitute the state Interconnect 1ons Dic hot naterialice Intarconnection Interconnection Apparent Attenct Apparently Attempted in Whole or in Part t.~U contacted J.

F. Longley, HTU GTU apparised TLSCO of BTU's proposed relay TESCO disconnected f rom uTU.

j.;SCO regarding plans which HTU developed systems was designed to

..n interconnection for a relay system bet-provide service to WTU's round Dececcer ween the southern instra-customers when outages l.-i, 1954.

state portion of hTU's occurred and emergency system, an6 the northern, inte; connections.

l interstate portion of its system.

i I

I i

_)

Tite meeting R.A.

Segrest, Brazos Brazos and Western Far-Western Farmers ana Bra-TP&L.planneo to cisconnect l

stwean western H.A.

Dalton, Brazos mers completed the zos proposed to interconnect from Brazos.

Jarmers and Brazos W.S.

Robson, Brazos initial studies of the tneir transmission systems

.or tr.e purpose of R.b. Hiller, Brazos planned interconnection in the counties of Wichita,

.oteloping an inter-naynard liuman, bes-and had drawn up a ser-biltarger, and Baylor,

.annection started tern Farmers les of contracts which Texas.

They operated Jounc July 3, 1961.

E.L. Karnes, Western applied to the planned in this area on an Farmers interconnection.

isolated system basis until P.R. hall, Jr.,

existing contracts had terminated, at which time Wastern Farmers 3

Jack Taylor, bestern they proposed to operate in Farmers parallel, western Farmers Tom Craddock, B-K and Brazos planned to Cooperative build and operate a 138kV Milton Sturdivant, interconnection. The pro-Drazos posed date for undertaking E.T. Ankele, Brazos this project was after harch 15, 196G, wh*n the then ex-isting Brazos-TP&L contract expired.

9

- 5 9. -

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

) Persons Involved in the Apparent 0:te of Apparent Attempt to Actions Taken Which Type and Purpose of Inter-Apparent Eeascns bny Attempt A-terated Obtain the Constitute the state Interconnections Dic hot aaterialize

rtarcohnoction Interconnection Apparent Attangt Apparently Attempted in Whole or in Part
.TU contacted J. F. Longley, WTU WTU apparised TESCO of LTU's proposed relay TESCO disconnected from i.TU.
LSCO regarding plans whien GTO developed systems was designed to interconnection for a relay system bet-provide service to hTU's round recember veen the southern instra-customers when outages 1954.

state portion of LTU's occurred and emergency system, and the northern, interconnections.

interstate portion of its system.

_; The reeting R.A. Segrest, Brazos Brazos and Western Far-bestern Farmers and Bra-TP&L.plannec to oisconnect

't.cean i.estern h.A. Dalton, Brazos mers completed the zos proposed to interconnect from Brazos.

.:rrers and bra:os h.S.

hobson, Brazos initial studies of the tneir transmission systems

.ar :.e purpose of R.b.

11 iller, Bra:cs planned interconnection in the counties of bichita,

.cieloping an inter-acynard Haman, bes-and had drawn up a ser-bilbarger, and Baylor,

. nnection started tern Farmers ies of contracts which Texas.

They operated

-round July 3, 1961.

E.L.

Karnes, Western applied to the planned in this area on an Farmers interconnection.

isolateo system basis until P.R. liall, Jr.,

existing contracts had terminated, at which time Gastern Farmers Jack Taylor, bestern they proposed to operate in 4

Farmers parallel. n.estern Farmers Tom Craddock, B-K and Brazos planned to Cooperative build and operate a 13BkV Milton Sturdivant, interconnection. The pro-Drazos posed date for undertaking E.T. Ankele, Brazos this project was af ter harch 15, 1960, when the then ex-isting Brazos-TP&L contract expired.

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

Persons Involved in Cate of Apparent the Apparent Actions Taken Ghich Type and Purpose ot Inter-Apparent heasons..:1y Attarpted Atterpt to Obtain Constitute the state Interconnactions Attempt Diu

t. o t oaterialize Interconnection Interconnection Accarent Attempt Apparently Attonated in
6. hole or in Part

.)

Tan initial meet-Douglas bright, SPA Upshur Rural, SPA, tra-One plan proposed by

??&L's plan to cisconnect ngs aetwean tce V.3. dtanley, SPA zos, the City of Gar-Brazos, Upshur-Rural, dPA, from SPA. Brazos ano any

.arties bagan around F.E. Conway, SEA land ("Gcriand"), and Garland and Greenville other utility wnicn went June 6, 1962.

R.F.

Sanford, Dept.

Grconville obtained consisted of tne construc-into interstate cotrerce.

of the Interior, financing from RLA and tion or generation and Tulsa had perforned studies transmission facilities L.F. Dicking, Dept.

regarding interconnec-which was intenced to of the Interior, tions and the construc-interconnect the Tulsa tion of generation acove systeme into a H.A. Calton, Braros facilities.

coordinatec group of U.S. Robson, Brazos syste.ms that operated R.A. Segrest, in parallel.

Brazos C.J. Smitn, Brazos R.F.

Richter, Rural Electrification Administration

("RLA")

J.L. Johns, Upshur-Eural

h. 1; Clair, Upshur-Eural R.L. diller, Bra:oc talton sturdivant, Brazos Altert Russell, City of Greenville

("Greenville")

Gilbart Pullen, Greenville (1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

Persons Involved in f

Date of Apparent the Apparent Attempt Actions Taken Which Ty pe and Purpose of Inter-Apparent Reasons Why Attenpted Obtain the Constitute the state Interconnections Attempt Did Not Material-Interconnection Interconnection Apparent Attempt Apparently Attempted lize in Whole or in Part D) On December 12, R.A. Yarbrough, Gate City proposed to Refer to 3 (D).in WTU was not permitted by 1974, Gate City Gate City build a transmission this response.

TIS members to delete the filed a protest Maynard Human, Wes-line to transfer power

" intrastate only" clause dt the FPC to the tern Farmers from Western Farmers.

f rom a proposed contract contract offered between WTU and Gate City.

to it by h70.

E) May 4, 1976 Durwood Chalker, WTU established a The purpose was to esta-See Depattment's Supple-WTU radial tie from Texas blish an interstate inter-mental response to HL&P's into Oklahoma.

connection.

interrogatory 1(a), herein.

Numerous hTU officers and employees.

O (1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

Persons Involved in Date of Apparent the Apparent Attempt Actions Taken Which Ty pe and Purpose of Inter-Apparent Reasons Why Attsepted to Obtain the Constitute the state Interconnections Attempt Did Not Material-Interconnection Interconnection Apparent Attempt Apparently Attempted lize in Whole or in Part F) Tex-La presently Fred Buchanan, Tex-La is a party Tex-La seeks interconnec-TP&L's wholesale contract seeks interconnec-Cherokee Coop to the Comanche Peak tions which would permit with Tex-La provides that tions which would Juan Nicholas, Wood proceeding, where, its member coops to pur-Tex-La may not interconnect link the intrastate County Coop among other relief, chase SPA power which will into interstate commerce and interstate por-Eldridge Streidel, they seek interstate become available in the so long as Tex-La is inter-tiot of the member Sam Houston Coop interconnections.

future, to receive power connected with TP&L.

Thus coop system to-John Butts, Deep from SWEPCO's Pirkey Plant,

" intrastate only agreement" gether.

East Coop.

to participate effectively has prevented Tex-La from in the Comanche Peak plant, effectively entering into to use TP&L's power to interstate commerce.

serve the interstate por-tions of their respective systems; and to use SWEPCO power to serve the intra-state portions of their respective systems.

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

Persons Involved in Type and Purpose of Date of Apparent the Apparent Attempt Actions Taken Which Interstate Intercon-Apparent Reasons Wny Attempted to Obtain tw Constitute the nections Apparently Attempt Did Not Mat erial-Interconnection Interconnectic.

Apparent Attempt Attempted lize ir. Whole or in Part G) WTU and PPG Carl Stover, Con-The WTU-PPG coops have The WTU-PPG coops WTU is currently unable Coops are presently sulting Engineer been negotiating a new seek the ability to to wheel power to the considering inter-for the WTU-PPG wholesale power con-wheel power through WTU-PPG coops from inter-state interconnec-coops.

tract with WTU which the WTU system state sources due to tions.

provides that WTU will from utilities that the TPUC Order in Docket WTU and PPG Coop provide wheeling ser-operate in both 114 dated May 3, 1977, officers and vices so that the BTU-interstate and intra-which was precipitated by employees who PPG coops can purchase state commerce.

the " intrastate only are clients of power from utilities agreement."

Mr. Stover.

other than WTU which operate either in in-trastate or interstate commerce.

H) At ; east as early Paul Hayers Requests were made to Refer to 3 (H).

TESCO has refused to as 1972, the City John McKelvery TESCO for an emergency in this Response.

grant the interconnec-Electra has requested interconnection.

tion pursuant to the that TESCO provide

" intrastate only agree-ment."

Electra with an emergency intercon-nection.

I (1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

Persons Involved in Type and Purpose of Date of Apparent The Apparent At tempt Actions Taken Which Interstate Intercon-Apparent Reasons Why Attempted to Gbtain the Constitute the nections Apparently Attempt Did Not Material-Interconnection Interconnection Apparent Attempt Attempted lize in Whole or in Part I) February 7, 1957 Federal Power Com-On Fetruary 7,

1957, A 138 kv intercon-HL&P experienced several mission HL&P applied for per-nection between Gulf difficulties when the Mr. Robi nson, HL&P mission from the FPC States and HL&P near interconnection was Mr. Del Homme, HL&P to close the "Huffman Huffman, Texas.

operated closed. These Mr. J. G. Reese, HL&P Tie", which intercon-included:

Mr. T.

H.

Wharton, nected Gulf States and HL&P gathered infor-a.

Load swings by the HL&P HL&P.

HL&P sought to nation and complied systems connected Mr. Joseph H. Gutride close the interconnee-data regarding this to the east.

However Secretary, FPC tion for a trial period interconnection in the South Texas Mr. Leon M.

Fuquay and maintained that it order to deterimine Systems, when opera-Secretary, FPC' must obtain an exemp-if additional power ting as a separate tion from being placed could be obtained in closed loop pool, within FPC jurisdiction order to serve its were not seriously during that time.

grewing commercial disturbed by these and industrial load.

fluctuations.

The FPC granted the b.

The difficulty of request for operation accounting for energy of the Huffman tie when the tie was during a trial period.

closed.

HL5P then upgraded the Huffman tie from The continued closed oper-69kv to 138kv and ation of the Huffman tiv 1

commenced trial oper-was therefore terminated ations of the line and HL&P was permitted by for approximately a the FPC to operate the year.

"Huffman Tie" as an exemp-tion from FPC jurisdiction while operating the tie on an emergency basis.

f

. liL&P Interrogatory 26(c)

(c)

Identity each serious attempt by a member of the SWPP to esta nich interconnections with a member of ERCOT, including (1) d:te; (2) persons making the attempt; (3) actions taken which constitute the attempt; (4) type and purpose at the interconnection attempted; and (5) causes of failure of the attempt.

Dep'rtment'a Initial Response to IlL&P Interrogatory 26(c)

The Department cannot respond to these interrogatories given the current status of discovery caused by the delay of IIL&P and TU in providing the Department with discovery material from the private antitrust action.

Department's Supplemental Response to IfL&P Interrogatory 26(c)

The following list provider the Department's present knowleoge of attempts by members of SWPP to establish interconnections witn a member of ERCGT.

A.

Western Farmers /Brazos Interconnection.

B.

Interconnections Between Brazos, Upshur-Rural, anu the SPA.

C.

WTU Interconnee. ion with Utilities in Oklanoma on May 4, 1976.

D.

SPA Interconnections.

E.

Western Farmers Interconnections.

F.

Gulf States Interconnections.

The information sought by items (1)-(5) or tnis interrogatory request relating to A, B,

and C above, have been proviaed in the Department's Supplemental Response to IIL&P Interrogatory 26(b) herein.

The following charts supply the information requested by this interrogatory in items (1)-(5) which relate to D, L and F above.

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

Persons Involved in Type and Purpose of Date of 1.pparent the Apparent Attempt Actions Taken Which Interstate Intercon-Apparent Reascas Why Attempted to Obtain the Constitute the nections Apparently Attempt Did Not Materialize Interconnection Interconnection Apparent Attempt Attempted in whole or in Part D) SPA currently fav-James llammett, SPA The SPA has hydroelec-SPA seeks to coordinate the TP&L's present contrac.t ors interconnections Walter Bowers, SPA tric power available Whitney and Denison Dams with SPA forbids intr.r-which would permit for allocation and with the remainder of the state operations b/ SPA.

SPA to coordinate delivery in the future.

SPA system, to allocate the Whitney Dam and In addition, SPA is power to cooperatives in the southern portion prepared to coordinate Texas that presently cannot of the Denison Dam the Denison and Whitney receive interstate power, with the remainder Dams with the remainder and to pu. chase efficier.rf of the SPA system.

of the SPA system, vhich power from ERCOT member would require use of utilities.

transmission facilities of ERCOT members and interstate utilities.

SPA also seeks to pur-chase deficiency power from ERCOT members.

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

Persons Involved ir Type and Purpose of Date of Apparent the Appa rent At tempt Actions Taken Which Interstate Intercon-Apparent Reasons Why Attempted to Obtain the Constitute the nections Apparently Attempt Did Not Materialize Interconnection Interconnection Apparent Attempt Attempted in Whole or in Part E) Arouno Septem-Durwood Chalker, In September of 1977 Western Farmers would have TP&L refused to sell any ber 16, 1977 WTU Mr. Spence of TP&L con-needed Interconnections be-power to Western Farmers.

Maynard Human, tacted Durwood Chalker tween WTU and/or TP&L to Western Farmers of WTU and of f ered to have purchased the power sell 300-400 Mw of made available by TP&L.

power to WTU.

WTU then communicated this offer to Western Farmers.

Mr. Human wrote Mr.

Spence of TP&L on Sep-tember 16,1977 request-ing to purchase this power.

On September 23, 1977 Mr. Spence informed Mr. Human that it was not possible for TP&L to sell power outside of Texas.

F) Around May 17, Alfred Naylor, Gulf States informed The Department is unable to The Depa r tme n t is not 1977 (GSU) the TPUC that Gulf answer this portion of the aware of the reasons why Norman Lee, States would benefit interrogatory since the in-this attempt by Gulf (CSU) from an interconnection formation the Depar tment States has not materi-with HL&P.

would reveal is the subject alized, however, HL&P has of a Protective Order which a standing refusal to in-dpplies to Gulf States docu-terconnect with any utii-ments and portions of Nay-ity that operates in lor's deposition which were interstate commerce.

designated to be confiden-tial.

HL&P and TU are parties to this Protective Order so this information is or should be known to them.

e

~68-HL&P Interrogatory 26(d)

(d)

State how the Division would determine what is a

" serious attempt" to establish interstate connections.

_D_epartment's Initial Response to HL&P Interrogatory 26(d)

The Department objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that the question elicits neither facts nor evidence but is argumentative in nature and tone; further, the question is designed to elicit the mental impressions, conclusions, opinions, and legal theories of the Department's attorneys in contravention of NRC Rule of Practice S2.740(b)(2) and PED.

R.

CIV.

P.

26(b)(3).

Department's Supplemental Response to HL&P Interrogatory 26(d)

The Department has no additional information responsive to this interrogatory request.

HL&P Interrogatory 26(e)

(e) provide all documents which relate to the subject matter of this interrogatory.

Department's Supplemental Response to HL&P Interrogatory 26(e)

The documents responsive to this interrogatory request include the deposition transcripts in these proceedings, the deposi tion transcripts and testimony in West Texas Utilities Co.

v. Texas Electric Service Company, et al.,

the documents provided to the Department by HL&P or TU, the documents provided to the Department during discovery, to which HL&P and TU have had access, and the documents provided to the Department by other parties.

Any documents the Department;;has which have not been produced either by HL&P or TU, or in discovery, are being provided in the Department's Response to Houston Lighting &

Power Company's Third Interrogatories, filed herewith.

. IlL&P Interrogatories 27 and 28 27.

Identify each of the " privately-owned and publicly-owned systems that generate and market clactric power" referenced on page 9 of the South Texas OL advice latter.

28.

Ident if v each of the " distr icution-only systems purchasing power at wholesale" referencea on page 9 of the South Texas OL advice letter.

-_ Department's Initial Response to !!L&P Interrogatories 27 and 28 PRIVATLLY OWNLD SYSTLMS Cent a1 Power & Light Co.

Corpus Christi, Texas Cochran Power & Light Co.

Morton, Texas Community Public bervice Co.

Port L. orth, Texas El Paso Llectric Co.

El Paso, Texas Gulf States Utilities Co.

Beaumont, Texas Southweste r n Llectric Service Co.

Dallas, Texas Southwestern Public Service Co.

Amarillo, Texas Southwestern Public Service Company Public 'crvice Company of Oklahoma Oklahoma Gas & Llectric Central Louisiana Llectric Power, Inc.

Southwestern Electric Power Company Tuco, Inc.

Amarillo, Texas West Texas Utilities Company Abileng, Texas PUBLICLY ObNLD SYSTLMS Austin Electric Department Austin, Texas Baird 11unicipal Light Dept.

Baird, Texas Bartlett Municipal Light Dept.

Bar tlett, Texas Bastrop Electric Department Bastrop, Texas

'%.4

~..

Bellville Light

& Power System Bellville, Texas Boerne Utilities Boerne, Texas Bowie Utilities Bowie, Texas Brady hater &

Bracy, TexasLight Works Brenham Munic Light &

Brenham, Texas Power System Bridgeport Light

& Power System Bridgeport, Texas Brownfield Munic Light Brownfiela, Texas Power System Brownsville Public Utilities Boa d Brownsville, Texas r

Bryan hunicipal Llectric System Bryan, Texas Burnett Utilities Burnett, Texas Caldwell Municipal Light Dept Caldwell, Texas Canadian City Power Plant Canadian, Texas Castroville Utility System Castroville, Texas Coleman Municipal Power &

Coleman, Texas Light Dept.

College Station Utilities Collega Station, Texas Commerce Lignt & Power Dept.

Commerce, Texas Crosbyton Power & Light System Crosbyton, Texas Cureo Llectric Dept.

Cureo, Texas Denton Municipal Utilities Denton, Texas Farmersville Municipal Light Farmersville, Texas

& Power Platonia Electric Dept.

Platonia, Texar Floresville Lle-

.ic Light &

Floresville, Texas Power System Floydada 1;lectric Dept.

Floydada, Texas Fredericksburg Llectric Utility Fr ederi ck s bu rg, Texas N

.p-,,..-..

- Garland Llectric Department Garland, Texas Garrison Llectric Dept.

Garrison, Texas Georgetown Water & Light Plant Georgetown, Texas Giddings Lighting & Power System i

Giddings, Texas Goldthwaite Utilities Goldthwaite, Texas Gonzales Clectric System Gonzales, Texas Granbury Municipal Llectric Dept.

j Granbury, Texas l

Greenville Municipal Light & Power Dept.

l Greenville, Texas Halletsville liunicipal Utilities I

Halletsville, Texas Hearne Municipal Llectric System Ilearne, Texas Hondo Electric System llo n d o, Texas Jasper Llectric System Jasper, Texas Kirbyville Light & Power Co.

Kirbyville, Texas La Grange Utilities La Grange, Texas Lampasas Public Utilities Lampasas, Texas Lexington Municioal Electric Dept.

Le xi ng to n, Texas Liberty flunicipal Elect ric Dept.

Liberty, Texas Livingston Municipal Light Dept.

Livingston, Texas Llano Utilities Llano, Texas Lockhart Utilities Lockhart, Texas Lubbock Utilities Lubbock, Texas Mason Utilities Mason, Texas Moulton Llectric Department floulton, Texas New Braunfels Utilitias New Brauntels, Texas

. Newton !!unicipal L tilities Newton, Texas Fobstown Utility System Robstown, Texas San Antonio Public Service Board San Antonio, Texas San Augustine Light & Water Dept.

San Augustine, Texas Sanger Llectric System Sanger, Texas Schulenburg Utilities Dept.

Schulenburg, Texas Sequin Electric System Sequin, Texas Seymour flunicipal Light Plant Seymour, Texas Shiner Light & Water Utilities Shiner, Texas Smithville Light & Water Dept.

Smithville, Texas Sonora Ilunicipal Power & Light Sonora, Texas Timpson Light & Water Dept.

Timpson, Texas Tulia Ilunic. Power & Light Tulia, Texas Vernon Municipal Power Plant Vernon, Texas Weatherforo Ilunicipal Electric

& Water System Weatherford, Texas beimar Electric Utilities Weimar, Texas Whitesboro Light & Power Dept.

Whitesboro, Texas Winters !!unicipal Light Winters, Texas Yoakum Ilunicipal Utilities Yoakum, Texas RURAL ELLCTRIC COOPERATIVE SYSTEIIS Bailey County Electric Cooperative Association Ilul e s hoe, Texas Bandera Electric Cooperative, Inc.

Bandera, Texas Bartlett Electric Cooperative, Inc.

Bartlett, Texas

. Belialls Llectric Cooperative, Inc.

Rosebud, Texas B-K Llectric Cooperative, Inc.

Seymour, Texas Bluebonnet Electr ic Cooperative, Inc.

Giddings, Texas Bowie-Cass Electric Cooperative, Inc.

Doug lassv il le, Texas Brazos Llectric Power Cooperative, Inc.

Waco, Texas Cap Rock Llectric Cooperative, Inc.

Stanton, Texas Central Texas Llectric Cooperative, Inc.

Fredericksburg, Texas Cherokee Co Electric Cooperative Assn.

Rusk, Texas Coleman County Llectric Cooperative, Inc.

Coleman, Texas Comanche County Llectric Cooperative Comanche, Texas Concho Valley Llectric Cooperative, Inc.

f.an Angelo, Texas Cooke Co. Llectric Cooperative Assn.

flue ns te r, Texas Deaf Smith Llect ric Cooperative, Inc.

Hereford, Texas Deep Last Texas Llectric Cooperative, Inc.

San Augustine, Texas Denton County Llectric Cooperative, Inc.

Denton, Texas Dewitt County Llectric Cooperative, Inc.

Cuero, Texas Dickens County Llectric Cooperative, Inc.

Spur, Texas Erath County Llectric Cooperative Assn.

Stephenville, Texas Fannin County Llectric Cooperative Bonham, Texas Farmers Electric Cooperative, Inc.

Greenville, Texas Payette Electric Cooperative, Inc.

La Grange, Texas Fort Belknap Llectric Cooperative, Inc.

Olney, Texas Gate City Llectr ic Cooperative, Inc.

Childr ess, Texas Gr ayson-Collin Llectric Cooperative, Inc.

Van Alstyne, Texas

. Greenbelt Electric Cooperative bellington, Texas Guadalupe Valley Llectric Cooperative, Inc.

Gonzales, Texas Hall County Llectric Cooperative, Inc.

flemp h i s, Texas Hamilton County Electric Cooperative, Inc.

Hamilton, Texas Hill Co. Llectric Cooperative Itasca, Texas Houston Co. Llectric Cooperative, Inc.

Crockett, Texas Hunt-Collin Ulectric Cooperative, Inc.

Greenville, Texas J.A.C.

Llectric Cooperative Assn.

Bluegrove, Texas Jackson Llectric Cooperative, Inc.

Edna, Texas Jasper-Newton Electric Coopera tive, Inc.

Kirbyville, Texas Jetferson Davis Llectric Coop.

Johnson County Llectric Cooperative Association Clegurne, Texas Karnes Electric Cooperative, Inc.

Karnes City, Texas Kaufman County Electric Cooperative, Inc.

Kaufman, Texas Kimble Llectric Cooperative, Inc.

Juntion, Texas Lamar County Electric Cooperative Assn.

Paris, Texas Lamb County Electric Cooperative Littletield, Texas Lighthouse Llectric Cooperative, Inc.

Floydada, Texas Limestone County Llectric Cooperative Mart, Texas Lone Wolf Electric Cooperative Inc.

Colorada City, Texas Lyntegar Electric Cooperative, Inc.

Tahoka, Texas Magic Valley Electric Cooperative, Inc.

Mercedes, Texas McCulloch Electric Cooperative, Inc.

Brady, Texas Mc!.or. nan County Llectric Cooperative, Inc.

McGregor, Texas

.. Greenbelt Llectric Cooperative belling ton, Texas Guadalupe Valley Llectric Cooperative, Inc.

Gonzales, Texas Hall County Llectric Cooperative, Inc.

Memphis, Texas Hamilton County Electric Cooperative, Inc.

Hamilton, Texas Hill Co. Llectric Cooperative Itasca, Texas Houston Co. Llectric Cooperative, Inc.

Crockett, Texas Hunt-Collin Llectric Cooperative, Inc.

Greenville, Texas J.A.C.

Electric Cooperative Assn.

Bluegrove, Texas Jackson Elec tric Cooperative, Inc.

Edna, Texas Jasper-Newton Llectric Cooperative, Inc.

Kirbyville, Texas Jefferson Davis Llectric Coop.

Johnson County Llectric Cooperative Association Clegurne, Texas Karnes Electric Cooperative, Inc.

Karnes City, Texas Kaufman County Electric Cooperative, Inc.

Kaufman, Texas Kimble Llectric Cooperative, Inc.

Juntion, Texas Lamar County Electric Cooperative Assn.

Paris, Texas Lamb County Electric Cooperative Littlefield, Texas Lighthouse Electric Cooperative, Inc.

Ploydada, Texas Limestone County Llectric Cooperative Mart, Texas Lone Wolf Electric Cooperative Inc.

Colorada City, Texas Lyntegar Electric Cooperative, Inc.

Tahoka, Texas Magic Valley Llectric Cooperative, Inc.

Mercedes, Texas McCulloch Llectric Cooperative, Inc.

Brady, Texas McLennan County Llectric Cooperative, Inc.

McGregor, Texas

.. Medina Electric Cooperative, Inc.

Hondo, Texas Mid-South Cooperative Association Navasota, Texas Mid-West Electric Cooperative, Inc.,

Roby, Texas Navarro County Electric Cooperative, Inc.

Corsicana, Texas New Era Electric Cooperative, Inc.

Athens, Texas North Plains Electric Cooperative, Inc.

Perryton, Texas Nuexes Electric Cooperative, Inc.

Robstown, Texas Panola-Harrison Electric Cooperative, Inc.

Marshall, Texas Pedernales Electric Cooperative, Inc.

Austin, Texas Rio Grande Electric Cooperative, Inc.

Brackettville, Texas Rita Blanca Electric Cooperative, Inc.

Dalhart, Texas Robertson Electric Cooperative, Inc.

Franklin, Texas Rusk County Electric Cooperative, Inc.

Henderson, Texas Sam Houston Electric Cooperative, Inc.

Livingston, Texas San Bernard Electric Cooperative, Inc.

Bellville, Texas San Patricio Electric Cooperative, Inc.

Sinton, Texas South Plains Electric Cooperative, Inc.

Lubbock, Texas South Texas Electric Cooperative, Inc.

Victoria, Texas South West Texas Elect.ric Cooperative, Inc.

Eldorado, Texas Stamford Electric Cooperative, Inc.

Stamford, Texas Swisher Electric Cooperative, Inc.

Tulia, Texas Taylor Electric Cooperative Inc.

Merkel, Texas Texas-Louisiana Electric Cooperative, Inc.

Tri-County Electric Cooperative, Inc.

Azle, Texas

. Upshur-Rural Electric Cooperative Corporation Gilmer, Texas Victoria County Electric Cooperative Victoria, Texas Western Farmers Electric Cooperative Tulsa, Oklahoma Wharton County Electric Cooperative, Inc.

El Campo, Texas Wise Electric Cooperativ., Inc.

Decatur, Texas Wood County Electric Cooperative, Inc.

Quitman, Texas Department's Supplemental Response to HL&P Interrogatory 27 Purchased All Purchased Generation Power Power of Power (No Generation)

(Generation)

(No Purchased; Austin Electric Dept.

x Baird Municipal Power Plant x

Bartlett Municipal Light Dept.

x Bastrop Electric Dept.

x Bellville Light and Power System x

Boerne Utilities x

Bowie Utilities x

Brady Water and Light Works x

Brenham Munic Light and Power System x

Bridgeport Light and Power System x

Brownfield Munic Light and Power Plant x

Brownsville Public Utilities Board x

Bryan Municipal Electric System x

Burnet Utilities x

Caldwell Munic Light Dept.

x

, Purchased All Purchased Generation Power Power or Power (No Generation)

(Generation)

(tio Purchases)

Canadian City Power Plant x

Castroville Utility System x

Coleman Munic Power and Light Dept.

x College Station Utilities x

x Commerce Light and Power Dept.

x Crosbyton Power and Light System Cuero Electric Utility x

Denton Municipal Utilities x

Llectra Light and Power System x

Farmersville Munic Light and Power x

Flatonia Llectric Dept.

x Floresvili Electric Light and Power System x

x floydada Electric Dept.

Fredericksburg Electric Utility x

Garland Electric Dept.

x Garrison Llectric Dept.

x Georgetown bater and Light Plant x

Giddings Lighting and Power System x

Goldthwaite Utilities x

Gun: ales Electric System x

Granbury Municipal Electric Dept.

x

Purchased All Purchased Generation Power Power of Power (No Generation)

(Generation)

(No Purchaser,)_

l Greenville Munic Light and x

Power Dept.

Italletsville Municipal Utilities x

x licarne Municipal Electric System x

liemphill x

lieppstead x

llondo Llectric System X

Jasper Llectric System Kirbyville Light and Power Co.

x x

La Grange Utilities Lampasas Public Utilities x

1/

Lexington flunic Electric Dept.

x Liberty flunic Electric System x

Livingston Munic Light Dept.

Llano Utilities x

Lockhart Utilities x

X Lubbock Power and Light Dept.

x Luling Utilities hason Utilities x

Houlton Electric Dept.

x

.l_/ LLI's Llectrical Directory, 1978, which does not indicate

'anetner it had any generation.

. Purchased All Purchased Generation Power Power of Power (No Generation)

(Generation)

(No Purchases)

New Braunfels Utilities x

Newton Municipal Utilities x

x hobstown Utility System x

San Antonio City Public Service Board san Augustine Light and hater Dept.

x x

Sanger Electric System Schulenburg Utilities Dept.

x x

Seguin Llectric System beymour Electric System x

bhiner Light and hater Utilities x

dmithville Light and hater Dept.

x Soncta Municipal Power and Light x

Timpson Light and Water Dept.

x x

Tulia Munic Power and Light Vernon Municipal Power Plant x

beatherford Munic Electric and and hater System x

beimar Llectric Utilities x

hhitesboro Light and Power Dept.

X hinters Municipal Light 1/

Yoakum flunicipal Utilities x

Source:

Reports submitted to Federal Power Commission, 1977 b tt!'s Llectrical Directory, 1970, wnich does not indicate whet her it hau any generation.

. Department's Supplemental Response to HL&P Interrogatory 28 Bailey County Electric Cooperative Association Muleshoe, Texas Bandera Electric Cooperative, Inc.

Bandera, Texas Bartlett Electric Cooperative, Inc.

Bartlett, Texas Belfalls Electric Cooperative, Inc.

Rosebud, Texas B-K Electric Cooperative, Inc.

Seymour, Texas Bluebonnet Electric Cooperative, Inc.

Giddings, Texas Bowie-Cass Electric Cooperative, Inc.

Douglassville, Texas Cap Rock Electric Cooperative, Inc.

Stanton, Texas Central Texas Electric Cooperative, Inc.

Fredericksburg, Texas Cherokee County Electric Cooperative Assn.

Rusk, Texas Coleman County Electric Cooperative, Inc.

Coleman, Texas Comanche County Electric Cooperative Comanche, Texas Concho Valley Electric Cooperative, Inc.

San Angelo, Texas Cooke County Electric Cooperative Assn.

Muenster, Texas Deaf Smith Electric Cooperative, Inc.

Hereford, Texas Deep East Texas Electric Cooperative, Inc.

San Augustine, Texas Denton County Electric Cooperative, Inc.

Denton, Texas Devitt County Electric Cooperative, Inc.

Cuero, Texas Dickens County Electric Cooperative, Inc.

Fpur, Texas Erath County Electric Cooperative Assn.

Stephenville, Texas Fannin County Electric Cooperative Bonham, Texar.

Farmers Electric Cooperative, Inc.

Greenville, Texas

4

. Fayette Electric Cooperative, Inc.

La Grange, Texas Port Belknap Electric Cooperative, Inc.

Olney, Texas Gate City Electric Cooperative, Inc.

Childress, Texas Grayson-Collin Electric Cooperative, Inc.

Van Alstyne, Texas Greenbelt Electric Cooperative Wellington, Texas Guadalupe Valley Electric Cooperative, Inc.

Gonzales, Texas Hamilton County Electric Cooperative, Inc.

Hamilton, Texas Hill County Electric Cooperative Itasca, Texas Houston County Electric Cooperative, Inc.

Crockett, Texas Hunt-Collin Electric Cooperative, Inc.

Greenville, Texas J.A.C.

Electric Cooperative Assn.

Bluegrove, Texas Jackson Electric Cooperative, Inc.

Edna, Texas Jasper-Newton Electric Cooperative, Inc.

Kirbyville, Texas Johnson County Electric Cooper <arive Association Clegurne, Texas Karnes Electric Cooperative, Inc.

Karnes City, Texas Kaufman County Electric Cooperative, Inc.

Kaufman, Texas Kimble Electric Cooperative, Inc.

Junction, Texas Lar ar County Electric Cooperative Assn.

Paris, Texas Lamb County Electric Cooperative Littlefield, Texas Lighthouse Electric Cooperative, Inc.

Floydada, Texas Limestone County Electric Cooperative Mart, Texas Lone Wolf Electric Cooperative Inc.

Colorada City, Texas Lyntegar Electric Cooperative, Inc.

Tahoka, Texas Magic Valley Electric Cooperative, Inc.

Marcedes, Texas McCulloch Electric Cooperative, Inc.

Brady, Texas McLennan County Electric Cooperative, Inc.

McGregor, Texas

. Mid-South Cooperative Association Navasota, Texas Mid-West Electric Cooperative, Inc.

Roby, Texas Navarro County Electric Cooperative, Inc.

Corsicana, Texas New Era Electric Cooperative, Inc.

Athens, Texas North Plains Electric Cooperative, Inc.

Perryton, Texas Nuexes Electric Cooperative, Inc.

Robstown, Texas Panola-Harrison Electric Cooperative, Inc.

Marshall, Texas Pedernales Electric Cooperative, Inc.

Austin, Texas Rio Grande Electric Cooperative, Inc.

Brackettville, Texas Rita Blanca Electric Cooperative, Inc.

Dalhart, Texas Robertson Electric Cooperative, Inc.

Franklin, Texas Rusk County Electric Cooperative, Inc.

Henderson, Texas Sam Houston Electric Cooperative, Inc.

Livingston, Texas San Bernard Electric Cooperative, Inc.

Bellville, Texas San Patricio Electric Cooperative, Inc.

Sinton, Texas South Plains Electric Cooperative, Inc.

Lubbock, Texas South West Te u ns Electric Cooperative, Inc.

Eldorado, 'le xas Stamford El(ccric Cooperative, Inc.

Stamford, Texas Swisher Elecc

'e Cooperative, Inc.

Tulia, Texas Taylor Electric Cooperative Inc.

Merkel, Texas Tri-County Electric Cooperative, Inc.

Azle, Texas Upshur-Rural Electric Cooperative Cooporation Gilmer, Texas Victoria County Electric Cooperative Victoria, Texas

~

, bharton County Llectric Cooperative, Inc.

El Campo, Texas Wise Electric Cooperative Inc.

Decatur, Texas boca County Elec tric Cooperative, Inc.

e Quitman, Texas HL&P Interrogatory 29(a)

State the basis for, and provide all documents relating to, the Division's allegation that "there appear to exist substantial opportunities for exchanges of power between tne interstate and intrastate utilities" (p. 9), and in so doing:

(a) identify each such opportunity as to the party wishing to sell sucn power, the party whicn may wish to purcnase such power and the duration, type of exchange, amount of power and the economic terms of each such oppo rtunity transaction; Department's Initial Response to IIL&P Interrogatory 29(a)

The Department is presently aware of the to11owing opportunities for exchanges of power between interstate and intrastate utilitica:

(1) Gulf States' desire for an inter-connection at the wc stern end of its system as set forth in its letter to the Texas Public Utility Commission on May 17, 1977; (2) Western Farmers Llectric Cooperative's inquiry into the purchase of capacity and energy from TU; (3) the Tex-La group of cooperatives' (some of which are servea by the intrastate utilitics) desire to participate in the Comanene Peak units by the intrastate members to obtain more SPA power; (4) the integration of SPA resources, some of which are in Texas, to achieve economies; (5) the prJposal by the subsidiaries of the Central and Southwest Corporation to integrate its operations in order to achieve greater reliability and economic benefits; (6) the City of Brownsville's desire to nave access to sources of power outside of Texas; (7) STEC/MEC's desire to have an interstate outlet for possible surplus power supply capacity; and (8) the excess capacity position of other TIS members.

It is the Department's present understanding that, except for the fifth item of those listed above, the intrastate only policy of HL&P and TU has precluded these opportunities trom progressing beyond tne general expressions or interest by the various utilities in the area.

. Department's Supplemental Response to HL&P Interrogatory 29(a)

The documents responsive to this interrogatory response include in the deposition transcripts in these proceediegs, the deposition transcripts and testimony in West Texas Utilities Co.

v. Texat Electric Service Company, et al.,

in documents provided to the Department by HL&P or TU, in documents provided to the Department ducing discovery, to which HL&P and TU have had access, and the documents provided to the Department by other parties.

Any documents the Department has which have not been produced either by HL&P or TU, or in discovery are being provided in the Department's Response to Houston Lighting &

Power Company's Third Interrogatories, filed herewith.

The Department's present knowledge is that opportunities for exchanges of power between interstate utilities and intra-state utilities are virtually unlimited in Texas and neighboring states if the intrastate only agreement was eliminated.

These opportunities include the purchase and sale of power and energy, and the ability to participate in joint generation and tr ansmission f acilities.

The further information sought by this interrogatory is contained in the documents responsive to this interr

$ tory request.

HL&P Interrogatory 29(b)

(b) state whether the Division has made any study of the question cf whether such potential exchanges of power would be economical in light of the costs required to interconnect TIS and SWPP;

, Department's Initial Response to !!L&P Interrogatory 29(b)

The Department has not made any study of whether the not benefits from any (or a combination or any) of the potential t

exchanges listed in the response to Interrogatory 29(a) would exceed any cost associated with the exchanges.

Department's Supplemental Response to HL&P Interrogatory 29(b)

The Department has no additional information to supplement this inter rogatory response.

HL&P Interrogatory 29(c) i (c) state the exact source of excess generating capacity with suf ficient f uel within TIS which could be relied upon by each utility identified in (a);

Department's Initial Response to HL&P Interrogatory 29(c)

The Department is not aware at this time of the exact sources of excess generating capacity with sutticient fuel within TIS which could be used for the purpose stated in this interrogatory.

Department's Supplemcntal Response to HL&P Interrogatory 29(c)

Refer to Department's Supplemental Response to HL&P Interrogatory 32(c) herein.

HL&P Interrogatory 29(d)

(d) state whether the Division has made any study or analysis which demonstrates the accuracy of such allegation; Department's Initial Response to liL&P Interrogatory 29 (d)

No.

Department's Supplemental Response to HL&P Interrogatory 29(d)

Tne Department has made no such study but has conducted interviews and depositions to determine whether excess generating capacity exists in any of the TIS systems.

In addition, the

h i

l

. l l

1 Department has examined numerous documents on this subject matter which were provided, in large part, by liL& P, TU and I

I other TIS members which substantiate the Department's contention that but for the " intrastate only ag reement" come or all of those opportunities for exchanges of power would have been realized.

HL&P Interrogatory 29(e)

(c) state whether these alleged facts have changed since i

October, 1974, and if so, state the nature of such changes;

}

Department's Initial Response to HL&P Interrogatory 29(e)

The request is unclear.

Assuming however ' hat the request is seeking to determine whether, in the Departmint's view, these opportunities for exchanges of power existed at the time of the 19 74 antitrust review, the answer is that some may have.

For reasons set forth in our advice letter of February 21, 1978, their importance has increased substantially since the Department's 1974 antitrust review.

Department's Supplemental Response to HL&P Interrogatory 29(e)

The following are among the changes which have occurred I

since October 19 74 which have af fected the opportunities for j

ii exchanges of power between the interstate and intrastate utilities:

cost of fuel and power; availability of fuel and I

I power; growth in peak loads; perceived viability r.d need for interstate' connections, as evidenced, in part, Oy new studies on this subject and attempted interstate interconnec-t io ns ; new constr uction of generation; potential availability of transmission; overall domestic and international ergy situation; potential introduction of new technology relating to utilization of fuel for electric power generation; cost I

e

of transportation of coal and other fuels; rate differen-tials; judicial administrative and regulatory environment; differences in costs of financing; and growth of reserve capacity in Texas.

Refer to Department's supplemental responses to HL&P interrogatory 1(a) and 8(a) and the Department's OL advice letter on the Sou*.h Texas Project.

HL&P Interrogatory 29(f)

(f)

State how " exchanges of power between the interstate and intrastate utilities" will affect competition in any market relevant to the proceeding; and Department's Initial Response to HL&P Interrogatory 29(f)

Exchanges of power between interstate and intrastate utilities may affect competition by opening up new geographical areas for the utilities to compete in at all levels of marketing electric power, including allowing. utilities now operating interstate to compete in the areas now served by the intrastate utilities.

In addition, such exchanges may increase the ability of the utilities to compete within their present geographic area by expanding opportunities to lower power supply cost through coordinated operation and development between those utilities divided into interstate and intrastate as a result of the intrastate only agreement of HL&P and TU.

Department's Supplemental Response to HL&P Interrogatory 29(f)

The " exchanges of power between the interstate and intra-state utilities" will affect competition in each of the actual markets listed in response to HL&P Interrogatory 3 (b) herein by increasing the number of electric utilities that could compete in each of those markets.

The potential markets listed in response to the HL&P Interrogatory 3 (b) herein may be affected since they may become actual markets.

.. HL&P Interrogatory 29(g)

(9) state whether the Division disagrees witn the conclusions reached by the Staff of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission in its 1978 study under S202(a) of the Federal Power Act that ERCOT would not benefit frcm interconnection with SUPP until the 1990's, and if not, does the Division contend that HL&P is nonetheless acting in an anticompetitive fashion in opposing CSW's efforts to force interconnections with ShPP?

Department's Initial Response to HL&P Interrogatory 29(g)

The Department does not agree with tne characterization by HL&P and TU in this request item that the " conclusions reacned by the staff of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commision in its 1978 study uncer S202(a) of the Federal Power Act [were] that LRCOT would not benefit from interconnection with SWPP until the 1990's...."

The Department does contend that HL&P in concert with TU acted in an anticompetitive fashion in disconnecting from the other members of the TIS with whicn tney ao or coula compete and refusing to reestaolish those interconnections except on terms and conditions that restrict their competitors' coordinating opportunities and prevent or inhibit tne flow of power between utilities in and out of the state.

Department's Supplemental Response to HL&P Interrogatory 29(g)

The Department has no additional information which supplrments this interrogatory response.

HL&P Interrogatory 30(a) 30.

State the basis for, and provide all documents relating to, the Division's allegation that " Utilities in the Southwest Power Pool are faced with declining reserve margins and will need to purchase generating capacity to maintain adequate reliability until additional generation can be constructea" (p. 9), and in so doing:

(a) identify each utility in the Southwest Power Pool facec with declining reserve margins; Department's Iriitial Response to HL&P Interrogatory 30(a)

This statement in based upon FERC publications showing present and projected lo ad and generating capacity for tne bbDP.

It is the Department's understanding based on representations made by of ficials of Gulf States Utilities to NhC statf attorneys that Guit States was in a ucclining reserve situation.

The request made by Western Farmers Llectric Cooperative to TU

.. to purchase capacity is also a manifestation of the reserve situation.

The Department is not otherwise aware of the present or projected reserve margins of other utilities in the SWPP.

Such information is readily available to HL&P and TU trom public sources.

Department's Supplemental _liesponse to HL&P Interrogatory 30(a)

The Department has not performed the statistical analysis to demonstrate that reserve margins of utilities in the South-west Power Pool are declining, but the information requestea by this portion of the interrogatory can be found in the "Llectrical borld Directory of Llectric Systems".

HL&P Interrogatory 30(b)

(b) for each utility identified in (a) specifify the reserve margins for each year to which the statement relates; Department's Initial Response to liL&P Interrogatory 30(b)

The Department is not aware, at this time, of the specific reserve margins for any member of the SwPP at any given time.

This type of information is available to HL&P and TU trom public sources.

Department's Supplemental Response to HL&P Interrogatory 30(b)

Refer to Dcpartment's supplemental response to hL&P's inter-rogatory 30(a) herein.

HL&P Interrogatory 30(c)

(c) state whether the utilities in the Southwest Power Pool have faced declining reserve margins only since October, 1974; Department's Initial Response to HL&P Interrogatory 30(c)

The Department is not aware at this time when the SWPP members' reserve margins began to decline.

This type of information should be available from public sources.

_90_

Department's Supplemental Response to HL&P Interrogatory 30(c)

Refer to Department's supplemental response to HL&P's interrogatory 30(a) herein.

HL&P Interrogatory 30(d)

(d) explain why the utilities identified in (a) cannot purchase capacity from other utilities within the Southwest Power Pool or another region already interconnected with the Southwest Power Pool.

Department's Initial Response to HL&P Interrogatory 30(d)

The Department objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that the question elicits neither facts nor evidence but is argumentative in nature and tone; further, the question is designed to elicit the mental impressions, conclusions, opinions and legal theories of the Department 's attorneys in contravention of NRC Rule of Practice S2.740(b)(2) and FED.

R.

CIV.

P.

26(b)(3).

Department's Supplemental Response to HL&P Interrogatory 30(d)

The Department has no additional information responsive to this interrogatory request.

HL&P Interrogatory 31(a) 31.

With respect to the Division's statement that

" Western Farmers Cooperative sought to purchase 300 to 400 mw of surplus generating capacity from TU but was unable to do so becaase of the intrastate only restriction" (p. 9),

(a)

State (1) names and titles of persons involved:

(2) description of the circumstances surrounding the action; (3) terms upon which Western Farmers Cooperative sought this capacity; (4) date of the action; (5) form of communication (i.e.,

written or oral, in person or by telephone) and, if oral, a list of all persons present; and (6) response given by TU.

Department's Initial Response to HL&P Interrogatory 31(a)(1) and (2)-(6)

The names and titles of persons involved are:

Michael D.

Spence, Division Manager, Texas Power &

Light Co. ; Maynard Human, General Manager, Western Farmers Electric Coop.

~

During the early part of September, 1977, Mr. Spence telephoned Durwood Chalke r, P r e sid en t of West Texas Utilities and offered to sell 300-400 megawa tts of powe r.

West Texas

_91 Utilities conveyed the existence of this offer to Western Farmers Electric Cooperative.

On September 16, 1977, Mr. Human wrote a letter to Mr. Spence indicating Western Farmers' interest in possibly purchasing this poewr.

Western Farmers offered no terms since its communication was in the form of an inquiry as to the availability of this power for sale by TP&L.

On September 29, Mr. Spence telephoned Mr. Human in order to respond to the letter of September 16.

Mr. Spence stated that it was not possible for Texas Power and Light to sell any power outside of the State of Texas.

The reason given by Mr. Spence was that such sales were prohibited by a recent order of the Texas Public Utilities Commission.

Department's Supplemental Response to HL&P Interrogatory 31(a)

(a) and (2)-(6)

Additional inf ormation responsive to this interrogatory response can be found in the documents which include the deposition transcribes in these proceedings, the deposition transcripts and testimony in West Texas Utilities Co.

v.

Texas Electric Service Company, et al.,

the documents provided to the Department by HL&P or TU, the documents provided to the Department during discovery, to which HL&P and TU have had access, and the documents provided to the Department by other parties.

Any documents the Depart-ment has which have not been produced either by HL&P or TU, or in discovery, are being provided in the Department's Response to Houston Lighting & Power Company's Third Inter-rogatories, filed herewith.

HL&P Interrogatory 31(b)-(c)

(b)

State whether Houston had any involvement in TU's response, and, if so, state (1) names and titles of persons involved; (2) description of the circumstances surrounding Houston's action; (3) description of actions taken by Houston; and (4) date of action taken by Houston.

(c)

Provide all documents relating to the subject matter of this interrogatory.

a

~

. pepartment's Initial nesponse to nL&P Interrogatory 31(b)-(c)

I At this point in time, the Department does not allege any involvement by Houston Lighting & Power in the matter whicn is the subject of this interrogatory otner than to tne extent tnat l

the intrastate only agreement between HL&P and TU may nave contributed to the situation.

l I

i Department's Supplemental Response to HL&P Interrogatory l

31(b)-(c) t The Department contends that HL&P is a member of the j

" intrastate only agreement" and therefore is involved in TP&L's refusal to transmit power in interstate commerce in furtherance I

of the " intr astate only ag reement".

HL&P Interrogatory 32(a) 32.

State the basis for, and provide all documents relating to, the Division's allegation that "a number of the utilities in Texas, including competitors of HL&P and TU, have a surplus of generating capacity" (p. 9), and in so doing:

(a) identify each such utility having a surplus of capacity; Department's Initial Response to Interrogatory 32(a)

The basis for the Department's statement that a number of the utilities in Texas, including competitors of HL&P and TU, have a surplus of generating capacity is baseo on generating capacity and peak load information listed in the Llectrical World Directory of Electric Utilities (1977-78 Ldition) ana discussions witn tne City Manager of Bryan, Texas.

It is the Department's understanding that all of the members ot TIS have generating capacity in excess of their peak load plus a fifteen percent of peak load reserve requirement.

D'epartment's Supplemental Response to hL&P Interrogatory 32(a)

The basis of the statement can be found in data, available from the Texas Public Utilities Commission.

The Department's preliminary analysis indicates that the following utilities in Texas have a projected surplus of generation capacity in 1980:

. Reserves Entity 15%

Brazos Llectric Power Coop Inc.

39%

Central Power & Lignt Co.

48%

City of Austin City Public Service Board of San Antonio 56%

52%

Dallas Power & Light Co.

33%

Ll Paso Electric Company Gulf States Utilities 16%

Houston Lighting & Power Co.

21%

Lower Colorado River Authority 61%

Southwestern Llectric Power Co.

25%

Southwestern Public Service Co.

32%

Texas Power & Light Co.

34%

43%

TESCO 14%

BTU The Department does not, represent or contend that this list includes all utilities in Texas that have a projected surplus of generating capacity in 1980.

HL&P Interrogatory 32(b)

(b) for each such competitor of HL&P or TU with excess capacity, (1) identify the utility; (2) state the product and geographic market in wh,ich it competes with Houston and/or TU; (3) state the type and extent of competition in each such market; and (4) state the market share of every utility in each such market; Department's Initial Response to HL&P Interrogatory 32(b)

This request is redundant with Interrogatories 13(b),

13(f), 14(b), 15(b), and 16(b), and has been answered by the Department, to the extent it is able to do so given the present status of discovery, in its responses to those interrogatories.

. Department's Supplemental Response to ifL&P Interrogatory 32(b)

The Department has no additional information to supple-ment its initial response, llL&P Interrogatory 32(c)

(c) identify each such surplus of generating capacity by owner, quantitative measure of the surplus, the cost at which surplus capacity coulo be solo and period of time over which the surplus will or is expected to exist; Department's Initial Response to HL&P Interrogatory 32(c)

The Department does not have the facts in its possession at this time to enable it to answer these interrogatories.

Department's Supplemental Response to llL&P Interrogatory 32(c)

The Department's preliminary analysis indicates that the quantitative surplus generating capacities of utilities in Texas in 1980 are:

Entity Estimated 1980 Surplus *

(MW)

Brazos Electric Power Coop Inc.

101 hw Central Power & Light Co.

971 MW City of Austin 633 I1W City Public Service Board of San Antonio 1,085 kW Dallas Power & Light Co.

1,161 MW L1 Paso Electric Company 258 MW Gulf States Utilities 881 MW llouston Lighting & Power Co.

2,113 MW Lower Colorado River Authority 690 MW Southwestern Electric Power Co.

605 MW Southwestern Public Service Co.

554 MW Texas Power & Light Co.

1,794 MW TESCO 2,821 MW**

WTU 131 MW Net capability less peak load

, Figure for 1979 The Department has no knowledge of the cost at which surplus CapaLity Could be sold or how long the surplus is expected to exist.

HL&P Interrogatory 32(d)

(d) state whether and on what terms fuel supplies are available to generate power from the " surplus" capacity identified in this response; Department's Initial Response to HL&P Interrogatory 32(d)

The Department does not have the facts in its possession at this time to enable it to answer these questions.

Department's Supplemental Response to HL&P Interrocatory 32(d)

The Department believes that fuel supplies are available to generate power for the " surplus capacity" described herein but the Department has no specific knowledge as to the terms on which these fuel supplies are or will be available other than through the documents, produced to the Department during discovery which include the deposition transcripts in these proceedings, the deposition transcripts and testimony in West Texas Utilities Co. v. Texas Electric Service Company, et al.,

the documents provided to the Department by HL&P or TU, in documents provided to the Department dur ing discove ry, to which HL&P and TU have had access, and the documents provided to the Department by

. other parties. Any documents the Department has which have not been produced either by HL&P or TU, or in discovery, are being pr ov id ed in the Department's Response to llouston Lighting &

Power Company's Third Interrogatories, filed herewith.

HL&P Interrogatories 32(e)-(f)

(e) state whether the Division contends that this surplus power could be sold in SUPP but not in ERCOT; and (f) state whether the Division has made any study or analysis which demonstr ates that it would be economically feasible to build interconnections with SUPP in order to sell such excess power.

Department's Initial Response to HL&P Interrogatories 32(e)-(f)

No.

Department's Supplemental Response to HL&P Interrogatories 32(e)-(t)

The Department has me.de no such study or analysis which demonstrates that it would be economically feasible to build interconnections with SWPP in order to sell such excess power, but the Department has. conducted interviews and depositions to determine whether such an interconnection with ShPP is economically feasible.

In addition, the Department has examined numerous documents on this subject matter which were provided, in large part, by HL&P, TU and other members of TIS which substantiate that such'an interconnection is economically feasible to build.

IIL& P Interrogatory 33(a) 33.

(a) State the basis for and provide all documents which relate to the following allegations by the Division:

(1)

"[B]ecause of its higher power cost the City (of Bryan, Texas) is losing College Station as a wnolesale customer." (p. 9-10)

, (2)

" College Stations represents approximately 27 percen*

of Bryan's electric Load." (p. 10)

(3)

"The city 's rema ining customers will have to absorb the cost of this excess capacity if it is not sold, thus further eroding Bryan's ability to compete." (p. 10)

(4)

"Although Gulf States Utilities will have hign voltage transmission lines in the area and may constitute a ready market for the capacity...." (p. 10)

(5)

"[T]he City would not be able to sell its surplus capacity to Gulf States without violating the intrastate only restriction and risking disconnection f rom the other members of TIS."

(p. 10)

Department's Initial Response to HL&P Interrogatory 33(a)

The basis for the statements listed in Interrogatory 33(a)(1)-(5) are conversations between the Department and the City Manager of Dryan, Texas and the Manager of the utility system at College Station, Texas; the report and order in Texas Public Utility Commission Docket No. 409; maps of the area prepared by the FPC (now FLhC), and the material provided to the Department pursuant to the antitrust review of tne subject nuclear plant and the Comanche Peak and Allens Creek units; and Electrical World Directory of Electrical Utilities (1977-1978 Ldition).

Department's Supplemental Response to HL&P Interrogatory 33(a) (1-5)

The documents responsive to this interrogatory request include the deposition transcripts in these proceedings, the deposition transcripts and testimony in West Texas Utilities Co.

v. Texas Electric Service Company, et al.,

the documents provided to the Department by HL&P or TU, the documents provided to the Department during discovery, to which HL&P and TU have had access, and the documents provided to the Department by other parties.

Any documents the Department has which have not been produced either by HL&P or TU, or in discovery, are being provided in the Department's Response co Houston Lighting &

Power Company's Third Interrogatories, filed herewith.

. IIL&P Interrogatory 33(b)

(b)

Provide the actual power cost for Bryan, Texas, for each of the past 5 years and the projected power cost for each of the past 5 years and the projected power cost for the next 5 years; Department's Initial Response to HL&P Interrogatory 33(b)

The Department is not aware, at this time, of the actual power cost for Bryan, Texas, for each of the past 5 years and the projected power cost for the next 5 years.

Department's Supplemental Response to HL&P Interrogatory 33(b)

The documents to this interrogatory request are available for inspection at the Department's office on reasonable notice.

IIL&P Interrogatory 33(c)

(c)

At what rate, and on what terms and conditions did Bryan offer to sell power to College Station?

Department's Initial Response to HL&P Interrogatory 33(c)

The Department is not aware, at this time, at what rate, and on what terms and conditions Bryan of ferred to sell power to College Station.

Department's Supplemental Response to !!L&P Interrogatory 33(d)

Refer to Department's supplemental r es ponse to HL&P inter-rogatory 33(b) herein.

HL&P Interrogatory 33(d)

(d)

Describe fully the reasons for College Station's change of power suppliers; Department's Initial Response to HL&P Interrogatory 33(d)

The reason College Station changed power suppliers was due to the higher cost of wholesale power delivered by Bryan, Texas and that the main reason for the higher cost of power from Bryan was due to the latter's high fuel (natural gas) costs.

_99 Department's Supplemental Response to HL&P Interrogatory 33(d).

Other factors which may have influenced College Station to change wholesale power suppliers were College Station's projected load growth and its interest in obtaining FERC jurisdiction.

HL&P Interrogatory 33(e)

(e)

Identify from whom College Station will acquire its wholesale power, and under what terms and conditions, including cost and duration of service; Department's Initial Response to HL&P Interrogatory 33(e)

College Station will acquire its wholesale power from Gulf States Utilities.

The Department is not aware at this time of the terms and conditions of that purchase.

Department's Supplemental Response to HL&P Interrogatory 33(e)

The information sought by this interrogatory request is contained in documents available for inspection at the Department's office on reasonable notice.

HL&P Interrogatory 33(f)

(f)

State whether Gulf States has expressed an interest in purchasing Bryan's excess capacity, and if so, provide the details as to such expression of interest and provide all relevant documents.

Department's Initial Response to HL&P Interrogatory 33(f)

The Department is not aware at this time of any expression of interest by Gulf States in purchasing Bryan's excess capacity.

Gulf States, however, has expressed an interest in establishing an interconnection with the TIS members in that general area and has communicated that interest to the Texas Public Utility Commission.

Department's Supplemental Response to HL&P Interrogatory 33(f)

The Department is aware that Gulf States has expressed an interest in an interconnection in this area at least as early as 1977.

==--a__-

1

-100-liL&P's Interrogatory 33(g)

(g)

State whether Bryan has expressed an interest in selling its excess capacity to Gult States, and if so, provide the details as to such expression of interest and provide all relevant documents.

I Department's Initial Response to IIL&P Interrogatory 33(g)

I s

The Department is not aware at this time of any such interest being expressed to Gulf States.

The intrastate only

,I policy of flLLP and TU would have made any such expression of 1

interest by Bryan fruitless.

i Department's Supplemental Response to IIL&P Interrogatory 33(g)

The Department has no additional information to supplemental its previous response.

IIL&P Interrogatory 33(h)

(h)

Does the Division have any evidence showing that it would be feasible for Bryan to sell power to Gulf States witnout the complete interconnection of TIS and ShPP 30 long as Bryan remains interconnected with TIS, and if so, state the exact details of such evidence.

Department's Initial Response to llL&P Interrogatory 33(h)

The Department cannot respond to this interrogatory because the term " complete interconnection of TIS and SWPP" used therein is vague and undefined.

__ Department's Supplemental Response to llL&P Interrogatory 33(h)

The Department has no additional information to supplement its previous response.

IiL&P Interrogatory 33(i)

(i)

Does the Division have any evidence showing that Bryan could not provide for its orderly disconnection from TIS and proceed with interconnection witn GUlt States in order to sell its excess capacity to Gulf States, and if so, state the exact details of such evidence.

-101-Department's Initial Response to HL&P Interrogatory 33(i)

In order to do so under the present intrastate only policy of HL&P and TU, Bryan would have to forego membership in the TMPP and its planned pa rticipation in Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station, as well as all benefits resulting from its interconnections with other members of TIS.

Department's Supplemental Response to HL&P Interrogatory (i)

The Department has no additional information to supplement its previous response.

HL&P Interrogatory 34(a)(1) 34.

(a) State the basis for and provide all documents which relate to the following allegations by the Division:

(1)

"The intrastate onir restrictions could also prevent municipal and cooperative systems in Texas from being able to receive an increased share of low cost Southwestern Power Administration

(" SPA") power should additional amounts of power become available." (p. 10)

Department's Initial Response to HL&P Interrogatory 34(a)(1)

It is the Department's understanding, based on conversations with a representative of the Texas-Louisiana group of REA cooperatives, that the group is interested in receiving a portion of some Southwestern Power Administration

(" SPA") power which may be available to preference customers in the near future.

Under the present intrastate only policy of HL&P and TU, some of the preference customers in Texas will not be able to receive this power should it be made available to them because the transportation of that power would be in interstate commerce.

Department's Supplemental Response to HL&P Interrogatory 34(a)(1)

The SPA anticipates it will have power available for allocation to preference systems in the future.

The SPA has stated:

"Since the ERCOT systems are not interconnected with utilities outside of the state of Texas, it is impossible for SWPA to allocate capacity from resources within these two hydroelectric projects [Denison and Whitney Dams] to preference customers in the ERCOT portion of Texas."

Federal Register Vol. 44, No. 150 at 45473.

W

-102-The documents which relate to this interrogatory response include the deposition transcripts in these proceedings, the deposition transcripts and testimony in West Texas Utilities Co. v. Texas Electric Service Company, et al., the documents provided to the Department by HL&P or TU, the documents provided to the Department during discovery, to which hL&P and TU have had access, and the documents provided to the Department by other parties.

Any documents the Depart-ment has which have not been produced either by HL&P or TU, or in discovery, are being provided in the Department's Response to Houston Lighting & Power Company's Third Inter-rogatories, filed herewith.

HL&P Interrogatory 34(a)(2)

(2)

"The SPA may also constitute a market for the surplus capacity noted above since, when it ic f aced with low water levels on its system, it must purchase aeticiency power in order to meet its contractual obligations to its preference customers." (p. 10).

Department's Initial Response to HL&P Interrogatory 34(a)(2)

This statement is based on the Department's understanding of SPA's contracts with its pref erence customers wherein SPA is obligated to deliver to its preference customers a certain amount of power and, in the event the resources of SPA are inadequate to meet that obligation, SPA must acquire an amount equal to its deficiency from other sources.

Department's Supplemental Response to HL&P Interrogatory 34(a)(2)

Refer to Department's supplemental response to HL&P Inter-rogatory 26(b)-(c) and 29 herein.

-103-HL&P Interrogatory 34(b)

(b)

Specify the facts that support the allegation that

" additional amounts of power" may "become available" from SPA and in so doing specify the quantity of such power, the cost of such power, and the time period for which it will be available and explain why this power could not be sold to municipal and cooperative systems in Texas.

Department's Initial Response to HL&P Interrogatory 34(b)

An amount of power equal to 170 mw may be made available to preference customers of SPA when an existing contract between SPA and Reynolds Hetals expires in 1979.

The Department is not aware at this time of the time period for whicn the power may be made available.

The request for an explanation of why tnis power coula not be sold to municipal and cooperative systems in Texas is redundant with Inter rogatory 34(a) (1).

Department's Supplemental Response to HL&P Interrogatory 34(b)

Refer to Department's supplemental response to HL&P inter-rogatory 34(a)(1) herein and the documents responsive to this interrogatory request include the deposition transcripts in these proceedings, the deposition transcripts and testimony in West Texas Utilities Co.

v.

Texas Llectric Service Company, et al.,

the documents provided to the Department by HL&P or TU, the documents provided to the Department during discovery, to which HL&P and TU have had access, and the documents provided to the Department by other parties.

Any documents the Department has wnich have not been produced either by HL&P or TU, or in dissovery, are being provided in the Department's Response to Houston Lighting & Power Company's Third Interrogatories, tiled herewith.

HL&P Interrogatory 34(c)

(c)

Identify and describe the circumstances surrounding each instance in which a municipal or cooperative system in Texas has requestea, expressed interest in or otherwise considered tue possiblity or receiving power from SPA (it it does not now receive such power) or of increasing its share of such power (if it now receives such power).

-104-Department's Initial Response to HL&P Interrogatory 34(c)

The Department cannot respond to this request until it has substantially completed discovery.

Department's Supplemental Response to HL&P Interrogatory 34(c)

The Department is aware that at least the following cooperations have requested or have expressed an interest in receiving such power from SPA: Lamar County Electric Cooper-ative ("Lamar"), Hunt-Collin Electric Cooperative, Parmers Electric Cooperative (" Farmers"), New Era Electric Coopera-tive ("New Era"), Kaufman County Electric Cooperative

("Kaufman"), Grayson-Collin Electric Cooperative ("Grayson-Collin"), and Fannin County Electric Cooperative ("Fannin"),

and the Tex-La Cooperatives.

HL&P Interrogatory 34(d)

(d)

State the quantities of " deficiency power" which the Division estimates that SPA will purchase in each of the next 10 years and identify the time period over which such purchases are expected.

Department's Initial Response to HL&P Interrogatory 34(d)

The Department has made no estimates of SPA's deficier y power requirements for each of the next 10 years.

Department's Supplemental Response to HL&P Interrogatory 34(d)

The Department has no additional information to supplement lts previous response.

-105-HL&P Interrogatory 34(e)

(e)

State why the SPA will be unable to purchase such deficiency power in SWPP or from other regions interconnected with SWPP.

Department's Initial Response to HL&P Interrogatory 34 (e)

The Department objects to this interrogatory on the ground that the Department has made no allegation that the SPA will be unable to purchase deficiency power from members of the ShPP and therefore, the request elicits neither facts nor evidence but is argumentative in nature and tone; further, the question is designed to elicit the mental impressions, conclusions, opinions and legal theories of the Department's attorneys in contravention of NRC Rule of Practice S2.740(b)(2) and FED.

R.

CIV.

P. 26(b)(3).

Department's Supplemental Response to HL&P Interrogatory 34(e)

The Department has no additional information responsive to this interrogatory request.

HL&P Interrogatory 34(f)

(f)

Describe the sources of such " deficiency power" now available to SPA and terms on which it is available.

Department's Initial Response to HL&P Interrogatory 34(f)

The Department is not aware at this time of the present sources of deficiency power now available to SPA nor of the terms on which it is available.

Department's Supplemental Response to HL&P Interrogatory 34(f)

The information sought by this interrogatory request is contained in the deposition transcripts in these proceedings, and in the documents provided to the Department during dis-covery to which HL&P and TU have had access.

UL&P Interrogatory 34(g)

(g)

Identify and describe the circumstances surrounding each instance in which SPA has requested, expressed interest in or otherwise considered the possiblity of purchasing " deficiency power" from any system now a member of TIS.

-105a-D e p a r t.r/ e n t ' s Init al fe nonce to IIL! P Interroaatory 34.(.o.-)

i The Depar t ip nt is neither aware at this time of any innlance in which SPA han requented, exprecced interent. in or o the nti ne considered the possi.bility of purchasing deficiency pouer f ron any synt.e a now a renber of TIS, nor han it knowledge of any expcension of interest or considera-tion by a n eriber of TIS to purchane such power from SPA.

Any request, expression of interect or consideration would have been precluded from ever being implemented because of the intractate only agreement of HL5P and TU.

Department's Supplcmental Rnnponse to HL&P Interrogator Q 4(a) i The Department has no additionc! information responcive to this interrogatory request other than that provided in the in the deposition transcr ipts in thcce proceed ings, the deposition transcripts and testimony in gst Texas Util it-ies 1

Co. v. Texan Electric Service Cornonv, et al.,

in documents provided to the Department by IIL&P or TU, in documents provided to the Depar traent dur ing discovery, to whicli HL&P and TU have had access, or by other parties.

Any documents the Departuent has which have not been produced either by HL&P or TU or in discovery in being provided in the Department's Response to llouston Lighting & Power Company's Third Interrogatorien, filed herewith.

~~

-106-Department's Supplemental Response to HL&P Interrogatory 34(g)

The Department has no additional information responsive to this interrogatory request other than that provided in the deposition transcripts in these proceedings, the documents provided to the Department by HL&P or TU, the documents provided to the Department during discovery, to which HL&P and TU have had access, or by other parties.

Any documents the Department has which have not been produced either by HL&P or TU, or in discovery, are being provided in the Department's Response to Houston Lighting & Power Company's Third Interrogatories, filed herewith.

HL&P Interrogatory 34(h)

(h)

Identify and describe the circumstances surrounding each instance in which SPA has requested, expressed interest in or otherwise considered the possiblity of purchasing " deficiency power" from any system now a member of TIS.

Department's Initial Response to HL&P Interrogatory 34(h)

The Department is neither aware at this time of any instance in which SPA has requested, expressed interest in or otherwise cons id e red the possibility of purchasing deficiency power from any system now a member of TIS, nor has it knowledge of any expression of interest or consideration by a member of TIS to sell such power to SPA.

Any request, expression of interest or consideration would have been precluded from ever being implemented because of the intrastate only agreement of HL&P and TU.

HL&P Interrogatory 34(i)

(i)

If the Division contends that SPA might be able to purchase " deficiency power" f rom new sources within Texas on terms more favorable than those now available to SPA, (1) identify the potential seller (s) and (2) explain the basis for the contention.

Department's Initial Response to Interrogatory 34(i)

The Department does contend that, absent the intrastate only agreement of HL&P and TU, SPA might be able to purchase deficiency power from sources within Texas at a lower cost.

-107-The potential sellers in Texas would be any utility that coulo provide the power at a lower cost than what SPA could purchase it for elsewhere.

Department's Supplemental Resnonse to Interrogatory 34(i)

Refer to Departmei.'s supplemental response to HL&P interrogatory 34(g) - (h) herein.

HL&P Interrogatory 34(j)

(j)

Provide all documents relating to the subject matter of this interrogatory.

Department's Supplemental Response to HL&P Interrogatory 34(j)

The documents which relate to this interrogatory response include the deposition t ', scripts in these proceed-ings, the documents provided to the Department by HL&P or TU, the documents provided to the Department during discovery, to which HL&P and TU have had access, and the documents provided to the Department by other parties.

Any documents the Department has which have not been produced either by HL&P or TU, or in discovery, are being provided in the Department's Response to Houston Lighting & Power Company's Third Interrogatories, filed herewith.

HL&P Interrogato~cy 35 35.

Identify specifically the " valuable business service" mentioned in the Division's allegation that "[t]he concerted action by HL&P and TU deprived competitors of a valuable business service needed in order to compete ef fectively" (p. 11)

Department's Initial Response to HL&P Interrogatory 35 That portion of the Department's letter of February 21, 1978 to which Interrogatory 35 references is in response to the NRC's reqaest for "ar. evaluation of the legal significance of the various facts and contentions dealt with in the Assistant Attorney General's letter of January 25, 1977."

At the time the Department's letter of January 25, 1977 was written, HL&P and TU had disconnected from certain other members of TIS and were refusing to reestablish those interconnections while those

-108-other members were operating in interstate commerce.

The valuable business service was referring to the economic and reliability benefits that those systems would have realized from the coordinated operations and development possible because of the interconnect ions with IIL&P and TU.

When !!L&P and TU opened those interconnections in May, 1976, the utilities that were no longer interconnected with IIL&P and TU were deprived of those economic and reliability benefits.

Department's Supplemental Response to HL&P Interrogatory 35 The Department has no additional information responsive to this request.

IIL& P Interrogatory 36 36.

With respect to the Division's reference to "the need and opportunity for coordination between interstate and intrastate utilities" (p. 12), does the Division contend that the intrastate utilities can coordinate or cooperate with interstate utilities and still maintain their intrastate status under the legal standards of Florida Power & Light Company v.

PPC, 404 U.S.

453, 92 S.Ct. 637(1972)?

Department's Initial Response to ilL&P Interrogatory 36 The Department believes that the premise of this question is too hypothetical, and involves such a multitude of possible variables, that any effort to respond in terms of how the deci-sion in Florida Power & Licht Company v.

FPC, 404 U.S.

453 (1972),

could relate to this situatton would constitute speculation.

Department's Supplemental Response to IIL&P's Interrogatory 36 The Department has no additional information responsive to this interrogatory request.

IIL& P Interrogatory 37 37.

Except as o'therwise disclosed in answer to this discovery request, state whether the information furnished is within the personal knowledge of the affiant answering the interrogatories, and if not, the name, address, occupation and title of each person to whom the information is a matter of personal knowledge, if known, or from whom information was obtained upon which said answer or a part thereof was based.

Department's Initial Response to 11L&P Interrogatory 37 Raymond W.

Philipps Trial Attorney Antitrust Division U.S.

Department of Justice Washington, D.

C.

20530

-109-Depar tment's Supplemental Response to IIL&P Interrogatory 37 The information provided in the Department's Second Ou ppl eme n tal Response to !!L&P's First Set of Interrogatories is based on the deposition transcripts in these proceedinns, the deposition transcripts and testimony in West Texas Utilities Co. v. Texas Electric Service Company, et al., the documents provided to the Department by IIL&P or TU, the documents provided to the Department during discovery, to whien IIL&P and TU have had access, and the documents provided to the Department by other parties.

Any docuraents the Department has which have not been produced either by llL&P or TU, or in discovery, are being provided in the Department's Response to flouston Lighting & Power Company's Third Inter-rogatories, filed herewith.

Based on the information presently in the Department's possession, the supplemental information provided herein is, to the best of the Department's present belief and knowledge, true and correct.

Respectfully submitted, ldOOM A Y "

'f n Braden Cyphert 7

'awAn[MI ygdff" F

erick 11. Parmenter 7

Attorneys, Energy Section Antitrust Division U.S. Department of Justice Telephone: (292) 724-6667)

Washington, D.C.

February 1, 1980 1st day of February 1980.

~ a notary public, this Subscribed and sworn to before me, Q. " '.

' (,,

u- <

,j'../.,:,,/

My Commission expires

I UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board In the Matter of

)

HOUSTON LIGtiTING AND POWER )

Docket Nos. 50-498A CO., et al.(South Texas

)

50-499A Project, Units 1 and 2)

)

)

TEXAS UTILITIES GENERATING

)

Docket Nos. 50-445A

}

COMPANY (Comanche Peak

)

50-446A I

i Steam Electr ic Station,

)

Units 1 and 2)

)

_C,ERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that service of the foregoing Second Supplemental Response of Department of Justice to Houston Lighting and Power Company First Set of Interrogatories and Requests for Production of Documents and November 30, 1979 Motion to Compel has been made on the following parties listed hereto this 1st day of February, 1980, oy depositing copies thereof in the United States mail, first class, postage prepaid.

d'<

Marshcll E. Miller, Esqu ir e Alan S.

Rosenthal, Esquire Chairman Chairman Atomic Safety & Licensing Board Michael C.

Farrar, Esquire Panel Thomas S.

Moore, Esquire U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Atomic Safety and Licensing Commission Appeal Board Panel Washington, D.

C.

20555 U.S.

Nuclear Regulatory Commission

4. Michael L. Glaser, Esqu ir e Washington, D.

C.

20555 1150 17th Street, N.W.

Washington, D.

C.

20036 Jerome E.

Sharfman, Esquire U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 4 Sheldon J.

Wolfe, Esquire Commission Atomic Safety & Licensing Board Washington, D.

C.

20555 Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Chase R.

Stephens, Secretary Commission Docketing and Service Branch Washington, D.

C.

20555 U.S.

Nuclear Regulatory Commission Samuel J.

Chilk, Secretary Washington, D.

C.

20555 Office of the Secretary of the Commission AJerome Saltzman U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Chief, Antitrust and Commission Indemnity Group Wash i ng ton, D.

C.

20555 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.

C.

20555

  • The following persons were mailed copies on February 1, 1980.

The remainder of the service list was mailed on Feberuary 2-4,1980 as copying was completed.

i Mr. William C. Price A Roy P.

Lessy, Esquire Central Power & Ligh t Co.

Michael Blume, Esquire P.

O.

Dox 2121 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Corpus Chr isti, Texas 78403 Commission Washington, D.

C.

20555 G. K.

Spruce, General Manager City Public Service Board

  • Jerry L.

Harris, Esquire P.O.

Box 1771 City Attorney, San Antonio, Texas 78203 Richard C.

Balough, Esquire Assi ant City Attorney Perry G.

Brittain City of Austin Pr esid e n t P.O.

Box 1088 Texas Utilities Generating Austin, Texas 78767 Company 2001 Bryan Tower unobert C.

McDiarmid, Esquire Dallas, Texas 75201 Robert A. Jablon, Esquire Spiegel and McDiarmid R.L.

Hancock, Director 2600 Virginia Avenue, N.W.

City of Austin Electric Washington, D.

C.

20036 Utility Department P. O.

Box 1088 Dan H.

Davidson Austin, Texas 78767 City Manager City of Austin G.

W. Oprea, Jr.

P. O.

Box 1088 Executive Vice President Austin, Texas 78767 Houston Lighting & Pawer Company Don R.

Butler, Esquire P. O.

Box 1700 1225 Southwest Tower Houston, Texas 77001 Austin, Texas 78701 Jon C. Wood, Esquire thJoseph Irion Worsham, Esquire W.

Roger Wilson, Esquire Merlyn D.

Sampels, Esquire Matthews, Nowlin, Macfarlane Spencer C.

Relyea, Esquire

& Barrett Worsham, Forsythe & Sampels 1500 Alamo National Building 2001 Bryan Tower, Suite 2500 San Antonio, Texas 78205 Dallas, Texas 75201 A David M.

Stahl, Esquire 4 Joseph Knotts, Esquire Isham, Lincoln & Beale Nicholas S.

Reynolds, Esquire Suite 701 Debevoise & Liberman l

1050 17th S t reet, N.W.

1200 17th S tr eet, N.W.

Washington, D.

C.

20Q36 Washington, D.

C.

20036 F Michael I.

Miller, Esquire A Douglas F. John, Esquire James A. Carney, Esquire Akin, Gump, Hauer & Feld Sarah N. We ll ing, Esquire 1333 New Hampshire Avenue, N.W.

Isham, Lincoln & Beale Suite 400 4200 One First National Plaza Washington, D.

C.

20036 Ch ic ag o, Illinois 60603 y

M il

w e

Morgan Hunter, Esqu ir e iRobert Lowenstein, Esquire McGinnis, Lochr idge & Kilgore J.

A.

Bouknight, Esquire 5th Floor, Texas State Bank William J.

Franklin, Esquire Building Lowenstein, Newman, Reis, 900 Congress Avenue Axelrad & Toll Austin, Texas 78701 1025 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.

Washington, D.

C.

20036 Jay M. Galt, Esquire Looney, Nichols, Johnson A. E.

W.

Barnett, Esquire

& Hayes Charles G.

Thrash, Jr.,

Esquire 219 Couch Drive J. Gregory Copeland, Esquire Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73101 Theodore P.

Weiss, Jr., Esquire Baker & Botts Knoland J.

Plucknett 3000 One Shell Plaza I:xecutive Director Houston, Texas 77002 Committee on Power for the Southwest, Inc.

Kevin B.

Pratt, Esquire 5541 East Skelly Dr ive Assistant Attorney General Tulsa, Oklahoma 74135 P.O.

Box 12548 Capital Station John W.

Davidson, Esquire Austin, Texas 78711 Sawtelle, Goode, Davidson

& Tioilo 4 Frederick H.

Ritts, Esquire 1100 San Antonio Savings Law Offices of Northcutt Ely Building Watergate 600 Building San Antonio, Texas 78205 Washington, D.C.

20037 W.

S.

Robson Donald M.

Clements, Esq.

General Manager Gulf States Utilities Company South Texas Electr ic P.O.

Box 2951 Cooperative, Inc.

Beaumont, Texas 77704 Route 6, Building 102 Victoria Regional Airport Mr. G.

Holman King Victoria, Texas 77901 West Texas Utilities Co.

P.

O. Box 841 4 Robert M.

Rader, Esquire Abilene, Texas 79604 Conner, Moore & Corber 1747 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W.

W. N.

Woolsey, Esquire Washington, D.C.

20006 Kleberg, Dyer, Redford & Weil 1030 Petroleum Tower 4 R. Gordon Gooch, Esquire Corpus Christi, Texas 78474 John P. Mathis, Esquire Baker & Botts 4 fq f'((,j'.g;(f

'/

1701 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.

/ "p Washington, D.

C.

20006 F

/ Susan D.

Cyphert, Attorney

/

Energy Section Antitrust Division Department of Justice

5 l

h APPEND I X A

I I

Retail Service Area Markets Market Share flarkets Entities of KWil sales

1. Austin City of Austin 100%
2. CP&L Central Power & Light Co.

91%

Brownsville 3%

Cooperative & Municipals 6%

3. DP&L Dallas Power & Light 100S
4. IIL&P llouston Lighting & Power Co.

95%

Community Public Service 5%

5. LCRA Lower Colorado River Authority 18%

Cooperatives 48%

Municipals 34%

6. San Antonio City Public Service Board 98%

of San Antonio 2%

Other Municipals

7. TESCO Texas Electric Service Co.

94%

Community Public Service 1%

Cooperatives & Municipals 4%

8. TP&L Texas Power & Light Co.

80%

Community Public Service Co.

2%

Cooperatives 9%

Municipals 8%

9. WTU West Texas Utilities Co.

82%

Community Public Service Co.

3%

Cooperatives 13%

Municipals 2%

APPENDI X B

Wholesale Power Markets Share of tiarket Market Entities in KWil sales

1. Austin City of Austin 100%
2. CP&L Central Power & Light Co.

91%

Brownsville 3%

South Texas Electric Coop.

6%

and Medina Electric Coop.

3. IIL& P Houston Lighting & Power Co.

100%

4. LCRA Lower Colorado River Authority 100%
5. San Antonio City Public Service Board 100%

of San Antonio

6. TU Brazos Power Electric Cooperative, 3%

Inc.

Texas Utilities Co:

93%

Dallas Power & Light Co.

20%

Texas Electric Service Co 32%

Texas Power & Light Co.

41%

TMPA Members:

St Bryan 1%

Denton 1%

Garland 2%

- Greenville e

9 e

b %

APPENDIX C

NTIS Coordination Services Reserve Sharing and Control Market Market Utility Share % (Peak Load - mw)

Brazos 3.1 TMPA Members 4.2 TU 86.5 DP&L 20.3 TP&L 35.9 TESCO 30.3 WTU 6.2 Total 100%

STIS Coordination Services Reserve Sharing and Control Market Market Utility Share % (Peak Load - mw)

Austin 4.7 Drownsrille 0.7 CP&L 14.6 IlL&P 61.1 LCRA 6.2 San Antonio 11.5 STEC - MEC 1.1 Total 100%

g

~4

.

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML19260E094&oldid=4863956"