The Ohio Public Utilities Commission (PUC) has proposed regulations to allow electric utilities to use fuel-cost clauses to recover gains or losses from trading Clean Air Act emission allowances....
A History Lesson How the PUC Viewed the Case
ON APRIL 1, 1997, nearly four months after Pennsylvania Gov. Tom Ridge (R) had signed the state's Electricity Generation Customer Choice and Competition Act, PECO Energy Co. filed its restructuring plan with the state Public Utility Commission. To bolster the plan, PECO gathered a group of stakeholders to review it and craft a settlement. That agreement, somewhat different from the April restructuring plan, was filed with the PUC on Aug. 25. It became known as the Partial Settlement.
On Oct. 7, Enron submitted a counter-proposal, attacking the Partial Settlement and promising to pay a lump sum of $5.461 billion to cover PECO's requested stranded costs in return for taking on the responsibility as the default provider of electric power for all PECO customers. The plan promised to deliver a better deal than PECO's (see table, "Rate Cuts and the CTC").
But the PUC rejected both proposals and adopted its own restructuring plan for PECO Energy Co. Under the plan, one-third of PECO's customers will have choice of suppliers by Jan. 1, 1999, with all customers eligible by 2000. No rate cuts are guaranteed. Docket Nos. R-00973953 and P-00971265, Dec. 11, 1997, 181 PUR4th 517 (Pa.P.U.C.).
(em Elizabeth Striano, managing editor.
Articles found on this page are available to Internet subscribers only. For more information about obtaining a username and password, please call our Customer Service Department at 1-800-368-5001.