,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