Free Motion for Leave to File - District Court of Federal Claims - federal

,Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM
Alan Brownstein

.......

Document 846-9
Washington , D.

Filed 07/14/2004

Page 1 of 11

May 23, 2002

Page 105

1 I have the understanding that the approved DCSs could ~

have different value to different utilities?
MR . CRAWFORD:

Objection, compound; and

objection ,

vague; objection,
THE WITNESS:

foundation.
queue,

If you take two utilities

that had, you know, different places in the

their situations on, for instance, their cost of
storage could have been different.
couple of examples.

ll give you a

Maybe one utility had an early allocation
that would have been easy for them to rerack or, you
know, they had already made the capital costs for a storage facility or had excess storage capacity

wi thin their pool.
The value -- we believed the value of that

place in the queue to that utility was less than a

utility that,
maj or capi tal

if they did not receive the services in

that particular year, they would have had to make a

expense.

So you can see a natural

imbalance to the utilities themselves and the value

of receiving fuel at any particular

time.

And, if there was that imbalance, we
assumed, certainly the contract allowed for, you
know, a market to develop.

And we were going to then

be a part of that because the contract required us to

Alderson Reporting Company, Inc. 1111 14th Street, N. W. Suite 400 1- 800- FOR- DEPO Washington , DC 20005

'--Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM
Alan Brownstein

Document 846-9
Washington, D.

Filed 07/14/2004

Page 2 of 11

May 23, 2002

approve it,

~en the gove=ent has

to approve

it. '
Page 106

We wanted to be careful how
interfered with the marketplace.

we, quote,

And there were

these issues, these technical issues that, if we

resolved together, would have -- again, since these

were primarily equity issues, not issues of key
importance to us, we wanted to do as little as

possible in interfering with the

market.

Tha t

was my

rationale in how these -- how this subject
BY MR. STOUCK:

developed.

And that was a subject that
12 .

you, that

being a subj ect

of exchanges of DCSs, approved DCSs,

that was something you certainly had responsibility

for?
Yes.
And you wanted to be careful in not
interfering too much with this marketing DCS
exchanges because, as a general proposi tion, you know

markets are good, you wanted to allow the utili

ties

to pursue presumably their self interest in making
economic exchanges; is that what was behind it or was
there something else behind it?
MR. CRAWFORD:
THE WITNESS:

Objection, compound.

Markets are

efficient.

And

the efficiency of that market increases with the

Alderson Reporting Company, Inc. 1111 14th Street, N. W. Suite 400 1- 8oo- FOR- DEPO Washington, DC 20005

Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM
Alan Brownstein

Document 846-9
Washington , D.

Filed 07/14/2004

Page 3 of 11

May 23, 2002

Page 107

information that I s available.

Whether it

be the -- who has got what place in the queue or how
the rules are going to be interpreted and

applied.

It I S one of
went out of our way.

the reasons we did some -- we

When we decided to move forward

wi th the APR process, we did something very strange I

think.

We went out and published a draft APR and best as we

sort of alerted to the utili ties as
look at this.

could,

hey, we' re going to do this, please take a serious

We tried to do everything we could that
the department would minimize its interference in the

markets.

I hope that I s responsive
BY MR. STOUCK
Tha t'

to your question.

s very respons i ve .

But I guess we I re

still left with the fact on this same subject that
there were these -- it I S my understanding that this

ACR issue resolution process, and my recollection is

34 or maybe 36, but some number like that, those
issues were never resolved, at least many of those
issues were never resolved?
MR. CRAWFORD:
THE WITNESS:

Objection, overbroad.

First of all of

those,

whether it was 34 or 36, did not -- were not
associated with this particular

issue. Let me see.

Alderson Reporting Company, Inc. 1111 14th Street, N. W. Suite 400 1- 800- FOR- DEPO Washington , DC 20005

Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM
Alan Brownstein

Document 846-9
Washington , D.

Filed 07/14/2004

Page 4 23, 2002 of 11 May

Page 108

There I S another part of the question.

There was some number, yeah.

You did what

with the APR in terms of getting
information out to as I understand your testimony
sort of lay the groundwork, if you will, to the
extent possible for an efficient market mechanism?
That was certainly our motive.

Okay.

That was your motive in getting

this APR out, at least getting the APR out for

comment and making sure people took it took
seriously, took their obligations to give you the

best data

you could getting the RW- 859s?

Right.
But nonetheless,

notwithstanding that

motive and those actions with respect to the APR,

there were, , were there not, some number of issues in
the issue resolution process that did have a bearing
on exchanges or at least could that were not

resolved, right?
MR . CRAWFORD :

Objection, vague,

overbroad.
BY MR. STOUCK

Is that right?

Yes, the subset of those 34 issues that
Alderson Reporting Company, Inc. 1111 14th Street, N. W. Suite 400 1- 800- FOR- DEPO Washington, DC 20005

.. '
Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM
Alan Brownstein
Washington, D.

~/

Document 846-9

Filed 07/14/2004

Page 5 of 11
May 23, 2002

Page 245

Thank you.
(Whereupon, at 4:25 p. m., the deposition

adj ourned. )

Signature of the Witness

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this
;j v. IJ-l20

1(')

i I;

day

;2-

(2. 1/ 4a~(
NOTARY PUBI, I

My Commission expires:

3/';

:J

1111 14th

Street;~. Suite 400 1- 800- FOR- DEPO Washington, DC 20005

Alderson Reporting Company, Inc.

Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM

Filed 07/14/2004 Eh, ATA SHEET FOR THE TRANSCR. . OF:

Document 846-9

Page 6 of 11

Notice Date: May 28 , 2002 Case Name: Yankee Atomic VS. United Case Number: 98- 126C- 987 4C Dep. Date: ' May 23 , 2002

States

Deponent: Alan Brownstein (continued)

Place: Washington DC
Ref. No. : 4269-

CORRECTIONS:

Page

Line

Now Reads

Should Read

Reasons Therefore

:2.
!J-:2ffl'tJtle.

i/c.SJ
/IS tA/.e

t;

I'J
WJ

I(?O/'dc/c. tA I JJ Ve...J
rl,c

pCS,J.

';2..

11"7

c!..c;. c.,

~c7
,1-t.

~20
;).. 3~

/2-

u.s

usecJ
fl9kf'.c Ad s~Je ,
.$c.lrQ c.vJ.4 7"
:z;.

~,.;rt~ tI

X yneq.n T h1 P.~",

.,t:

rloT:
11y

Signature of Deponent

Date of Signature

/oL-

:"""'-'. ". ,,.'

----

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM
Alan Brownstein
Washington, D.

Document 846-9

Filed 07/14/2004

Page 7 of 11
June 14, 2002

Page 246

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS

YANKEE ATOMIC ELECTRIC COMPANY

(98- 126C) (Merow, S.
CONNECTICUT YANKEE ATOMIC POWER COMPANY

(98- 154C) (Merow, S.
MAINE YANKEE ATOMIC POWER COMPANY

(98- 474C) (Merow, S.

CZRTHFIED

It I

Plaintiffs,
THE UNITED STATES,

Defendant.
-----r

Washington, D. C .
Friday, June 14, 2002
Continued deposition of ALAN BROWNSTEIN, a
witness herein, called for examination by counsel for
Plaintiffs in the above-entitled matter, pursuant to

agreement, the witness being previously duly

sworn,

taken at the offices of Spriggs & Hollingsworth, 1350
I Street, N. W., Washington, D. C., 20005- 3305,

at

8:40 a. m.,

Friday, June 14, 2002, the proceedings

being taken down by Stenotype by JAN A. WILLIAMS,
RPR, and transcribed under her direction.

1111

Alderson Reporting Company, Inc. 14th Street, N. W. Suite 400 1- 800- FOR- DEPO Washington, DC 20005

Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM
Alan Brownstein

Document 846-9
Washington, D.

Filed 07/14/2004

Page 8 of 11
June 14, 2002

Page 342

this document would be consistent with that is a

mischaracterization.
BY MR. STOUCK

Let me just ask this, is that true, that
DOE had made the decision to rej ect Yankee
before the meeting was held?
I don t think that' s a fair statement.

s position

mean the purpose of the meeting was to hear what they

had to say and we were going to listen to

it.

And

perhaps there was something that we hadn' t considered
or known before.

We were trying to do what the We were trying to implement the

contract said. contract.

To the extent that they could not bring to
our attention any information that was new or
different, we obj ected to the position outright to

the extent that we were implementing the contract as

we understood

it. So I think that' s a little
s fair enough.

different characterization.

That'

The next paragraph,

first sentence, says, DOE urged us to swap delivery

schedules with other contract holders as the most
equitable way for
Do you see that?

achi ~ i ng ace

e 1

er a

ted deli veri es.

Yes.
Alderson Reporting Company, Inc.
1111

14th Street, N. W. Suite 400 1- 8oo- FOR- DEPO Washington, DC 20005

Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM
Alan Brownstein

Document 846-9
Washington , D.

Filed 07/14/2004

Page 9 of 11
June 14, 2002

Page 343

And is that an accurate report of one of
the things DOE said?
MR . CRAWFORD:

Same obj ection as I had

before.
THE WITNESS:

Urge is a little

subjective.

We certainly made it clear that the contract which
they were party to gave them the right to exchange

approved DCSs of which they can achieve their

obj ecti ves .
We wanted to make sure that they were
aware of that and, you know, we saw that as a way
that all parties could benefit.
So ,

you know, we

made them aware, I think we encouraged -- I don
know if there

I s a difference between encouraged and

urged. But meeting.

we certainly discussed that at the

BY MR. STOUCK:

Encouraged swaps as a way -- as a possible

way of helping Yankee achieve its obj ecti

ve?

Yes, that'

s true.

MR . CRAWFORD :

Let me just state for the

record, okay,

if it is your intent to proceed in this I m going to same fashion through this document, I

object to best evidence because we have before us

Exhibits 96 and 97, two different memos reflecting

Alderson Reporting Company, Inc.
1111 14th Street, N. W. Suite 400 1- 8oo- FOR- DEPO Washington, DC 20005

Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM
Alan Brownstein

Document 846-9
Washington, D.

Filed 07/14/2004

Page 10 of 11
June 14, 2002

Page 440

have been correct had that said ACR instead of

contract.
MR . STOUCK :

Mr. Browns tein, you are done

for today subj ect

to what I just told

you.

THE WITNESS:
MR . CRAWFORD :

Thank you.
We III reserve any further

questioning of the witne&s until the time of
(Discussion off the record.
MR . CRAWFORD :

trial.

I will reserve the right to

ask questions should Mr. Stouck succeed as he '. states
that he intends to do in getting Mr. Brownstein
before him ~gain.

But I will say that we will oppose

that.
MR.

STOUCK:

Okay.

Good.

Thanks

a lot.

(Whereupon, at 3:30

m., the takin~ of

the ins tan

t

deposition ceased.

Signature of the Witness

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this
of

~wJ;

day

f.I/lf,

, 2

o.fl)-.

NOTARY PUBLIC

My Commission expires:

~;f 1/0 b

1111

14th Street

, N.~~uite 400 1- 8oo-FOR- DEPO Washington , DC 20005

Alderson Reporting Company, Inc.

Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM Document 846-9 Filed 07/14/2004 ERf, , fA SHEET FOR THE TRANSCRIF JF: Notice Date: June 17, 2002 Case Name: Yankee Atomic vs. United States Case Number: 98- 126C- 987 4C Dep. Date: June 14 , 2002 Deponent: Alan Brownstein Washington DC 4269-45 Ref. No.

Page 11 of 11

Place:
Page

CORRECTIONS:
Line Now Reads

Should Read

Reasons Therefore

2,3
~c;3
f)... ~
:3 "3

J I

SIt;

ii'J

7'/,12-

SIC" ;."t rA
J:

fZ..

'f
f(

J /'" ~IJI"
c.

/u B.

LA/

t.:e

ol w.rl tJ,1/

r,ve
"TfrJNI

C(

7;i;
Ol"~/'~~ O
i/(J!

I)..

I') e/' T"..

TIP I' n

all

S0
SCt

01

ff (

,I

~O&--

c/;, Te/.

dl/

~c-

Signature of Deponent