KGRKJGETMRETU895U-589TY5MIGM5JGB5SDFESFREWTGR54TY
Server : Apache/2.4.62
System : FreeBSD fbsdweb2.web.rcn.net 14.1-RELEASE FreeBSD 14.1-RELEASE releng/14.1-n267679-10e31f0946d8 GENERIC amd64
User : www ( 80)
PHP Version : 8.3.8
Disable Function : NONE
Directory :  /domains/enrgy/statelin/

Upload File :
current_dir [ Writeable ] document_root [ Writeable ]

 

Current File : /domains/enrgy/statelin/9807olsn.htm
<html>

<head>
<title>Pennsylvania: Public Utility Commission Reduces Request for Stranded Cost Recovery
by $1.2 Billion</title>
</head>

<body style="font-family: Arial" vlink="#808080">
<div align="center"><center>

<table border="0" cellpadding="8" cellspacing="0" width="98%" bgcolor="#000000">
  <tr>
    <td width="100%" valign="middle"><a name="top"></a><img src="../images/pmamagsm.gif" alt="PMA Online Magazine" border="0" align="right" WIDTH="229" HEIGHT="100"></td>
  </tr>
</table>
</center></div><div align="center"><center>

<table border="0" cellpadding="8" width="98%">
  <tr>
    <td width="15%" valign="top" align="center">
    <!--webbot bot="Include" U-Include="sl_sidebar.htm" TAG="BODY" startspan -->

<table border="2" cellpadding="8" width="15%" id="table1" bordercolor="#FFFF00" bgcolor="#C0C0C0">
  <tr>
    <td width="100%" valign="top" align="center"><map name="FPMap0_I1">
      <area href="http://www.powermarketers.com/adrates.html" shape="rect" coords="14, 297, 97, 322">
      <area href="http://www.powermarketers.com/pmajobs.htm" shape="rect" coords="11, 230, 95, 257">
      <area href="http://www.powermarketers.com/main.htm" target="_parent" shape="rect" coords="12, 163, 96, 189">
      <area href="http://www.powermarketers.com/power2.htm" target="_blank" shape="rect" coords="12, 95, 96, 121">
      <area href="../pmamag.htm" shape="rect" coords="11, 29, 96, 54"></map><img rectangle="(12,163) (96,189) http://www.powermarketers.com/main.htm##_parent" rectangle="(12,95) (96,121) http://www.powermarketers.com/power2.htm##_blank" rectangle="(11,29) (96,54) ../pmamag.htm" src="../images/magmenu.gif" alt="PMA OnLine Magazine Menu" border="0" align="center" usemap="#FPMap0_I1" width="110" height="350"><p><a href="../searchpma.htm"><img src="../images/archives.gif" alt="Archives Search" border="0" align="center" WIDTH="70" HEIGHT="40"></a></p>
    <p align="left"><strong><small><font face="Arial">About The Author:</font></small></strong></p>
    <p align="left"><font face="Arial" style="font-size: 9pt">Robert A. Olson is a partner in the law firm of
    Brown, Olson &amp; Gould, P.C. which maintains a nationwide practice in energy law,
    public utility law and related commercial transactions.</font></p>
    <p><small><font face="Arial"><font style="font-size: 9pt">He can be reached at:</font><br>
    <br>
    <b><font color="#0000FF">Brown, Olson & Gould, PC</font></b><br>
2 Delta Drive<br>
    Suite 301<br>
Concord, NH 03301<br>
&nbsp;<a href="mailto:[email protected]">[email protected]</a><br>
    (603) 225-9716<br>
<a href="mailto:[email protected]"></a></font></small></p>
    <p>&nbsp;</p>
    <p>&nbsp;</p>
    <p>&nbsp;</p>
    <p>&nbsp;</p>
    <p>&nbsp;</p>
    <p>&nbsp;</p>
    <p>&nbsp;</p>
    <p>&nbsp;</p>
    <p><a href="#top"><img src="../images/b-t-top.gif" alt="Back To Top" border="0" width="71" height="35"></a></td>
  </tr>
</table>

<!--webbot bot="Include" i-checksum="45188" endspan --></td>
    <td width="69%" valign="top"><img src="../images/statelin.gif" alt="STATELINE by Robert Olson" border="0" WIDTH="375" HEIGHT="75"><p><b><u>
    <br>
    <br>
    July 1998</u><br>
    <br>
&nbsp;</b></p>
    <p><font size="6"><b>Pennsylvania: Public Utility Commission Reduces Request 
    For Stranded Cost Recovery By $1.2 Billion<br>
    </b></font><strong>by Robert Olson&nbsp; -- &nbsp; Brown, Olson and Wilson, P.C.<br>
    </strong><font face="Arial" size="2">(<em>originally published by PMA OnLine Magazine:
    07/98</em>)</font></p>
    <font FACE="Palatino" SIZE="3"><p ALIGN="JUSTIFY"></font><font face="Arial">On June 4, 1998, the Pennsylvania Public Utility
    Commission (&quot;PUC&quot;) issued an order modifying the restructuring plan proposed by
    Pennsylvania Power &amp; Light Company (&quot;PP&amp;L&quot;) and in that order reduced
    PP&amp;L&#146;s stranded cost recovery from $4.5 billion to approximately $2.8 billion.
    The PUC also ruled that PP&amp;L could recover its stranded costs through June 30, 2007 by
    imposition of a competitive transition charge (&quot;CTC&quot;) applicable to all PP&amp;L
    customers.</font></p>
    <p ALIGN="JUSTIFY"><font face="Arial">Initially, PP&amp;L asserted that it had the right
    to recover 100% of its stranded cost under a &quot;regulatory compact&quot; theory and
    under the provision of the United States Constitution which prohibits the unlawful taking
    of property. The PUC&#146;s administrative law judge (&quot;ALJ&quot;) endorsed
    PP&amp;L&#146;s &quot;regulatory compact&quot; theory and permitted PP&amp;L to recover
    $4.0 billion of stranded cost. The PUC ruled, however, that it is not required to grant
    PP&amp;L 100% of its claimed stranded cost under either constitutional grounds or the
    &quot;regulatory compact&quot; theory. In addition, the PUC noted that the legislative
    history of the Pennsylvania Restructuring Act (&quot;PaAct&quot;) indicates there was no
    intent to provide for 100% recovery of a utility&#146;s claimed stranded investment. The
    PUC stated that the legislative history of the PaAct indicates that it differs from the
    California Restructuring Act in this respect. The PUC also stated that under traditional
    rate regulation a utility was never entitled to a guaranteed recovery, but rather rates
    were set to provide a reasonable opportunity for the utility to earn its anticipated
    revenue requirement.</font></p>
    <p ALIGN="JUSTIFY"><font face="Arial">The PUC order rejected PP&amp;L&#146;s proposal to
    determine the stranded costs associated with its generating assets. Under its proposal,
    PP&amp;L had projected that its generating assets resulted in &quot;lost revenues&quot; of
    approximately $3.5 billion. The PUC rejected the &quot;lost revenues&quot; approach,
    stating that it was not conceptually sound. The PUC reasoned that the major flaw in the
    PP&amp;L lost revenues approach was that it assumed a revenue stream which purported to
    duplicate expected regulated revenues in a competitive environment. The PUC stated this
    assumption is inconsistent with the goals of the PaAct and inconsistent with traditional
    ratemaking. Instead, the PUC ruled that stranded costs associated with a utility&#146;s
    generating assets should be derived using an &quot;asset valuation&quot; method. Under
    this method, the net book value of a utility&#146;s generating plants as of January 1,
    1999 are to be compared to the value of the generating plants in a competitive market. In
    addition, the PUC ruled that the market value of PP&amp;L&#146;s generating assets was
    approximately $2.5 billion and, therefore, the resulting stranded cost was $1.5 billion.
    The PUC authorized PP&amp;L to recover $2.8 billion of stranded costs through the CTC
    until June 30, 2007 notwithstanding the fact that the PaAct generally required the
    recovery of stranded cost by December 31, 2005. The PUC permitted PP&amp;L to recover
    stranded costs over this extended period: because of the large amounts involved; to assure
    that competitive power suppliers have reasonable opportunity to compete; and to ensure
    consumers have a reasonable opportunity to save during the transition period. The PUC also
    noted that PP&amp;L had not requested securitization of its stranded cost but stated that
    a substantial portion of PP&amp;L&#146;s stranded cost should be securitized thereby
    benefitting consumers and PP&amp;L.</font></p>
    <p ALIGN="JUSTIFY"><font face="Arial">In accordance with the PaAct, PP&amp;L will act as
    the supplier of last resort. This duty to serve, according to the PUC, applies not only to
    customers who do not choose a competitive supplier, but also applies to customers who
    cannot find a willing supplier and to the provision of backup energy supply. The PUC
    rejected PP&amp;L&#146;s proposal that PP&amp;L honor this statutory requirement by using
    its competitive supplier affiliate to provide this energy service. Rather, the PUC ruled
    that all customer who do not have a competitive supplier shall be served by PP&amp;L
    pursuant to the applicable tariff. In addition, the PUC noted that customers returning to
    this service shall be treated no differently than customers who never selected a
    competitive supplier. Recently, PP&amp;L requested the PUC to reconsider the order.</font><font FACE="Palatino" SIZE="3"></p>
    </font><!--webbot bot="Include" u-include="sl_bottom.htm" tag="BODY" startspan -->

    <hr color="#FFFF00">
    <blockquote>
      <p align="left"><font face="Arial">
      <small>Robert A. Olson is a partner in the law firm of Brown, Olson &amp; 
		Gould P.C.
      which maintains a nationwide practice in energy law, public utility law and related
      commercial transactions. He can be reached at:</small></font><p align="center">
      <font face="Arial"><small><font color="#0000FF"><b>Brown, Olson & Gould, PC</b></font><br>
2 Delta Drive, Suite 301<br>
Concord, NH 03301 <br>
      <br>
      <a href="mailto:[email protected]">[email protected]</a> | (603) 225-9716<a href="mailto:[email protected]"></a></small></font>
    
<!--webbot bot="Include" i-checksum="27861" endspan --><blockquote>
      <p align="left"><font face="Arial">
  </tr>
</table>
</center></div>

<p align="center"><a href="9807olsn.htm#top"><img src="../images/b-t-top.gif" alt="Back To Top" border="0" WIDTH="71" HEIGHT="35"></a></p>
</body>
</html>

Anon7 - 2021