16, 1998, 84 F.E.R.C. ¶ 61,229. Neither PEI nor ComEd had cited this decision in its pleadings.
6 The presiding judge found that all that had changed since Byng became involved in the transaction was that "a few meters have been added and a few lines have been leased or sold. The energy, purportedly sold by People's, flows from [People's wholesale suppliers] to end-users without any intervening action by People's as a 'wholesale supplier' or by
[Byng] ¼ as a supposed distributor of electric power and energy."
Id at 65,067.
7 The presiding judge believed that People's and Byng had entered into the transaction in order to evade the jurisdiction of the Oklahoma Commerce Commission (OCC). Apparently, People's wanted: (1) to add new loads without having to compensate Oklahoma Gas & Electric and Public Service Company of Oklahoma for any stranded investments; and (2) to charge rates lower than those allowed by the OCC. Id at 65,068.
8 76 F.E.R.C. ¶ 61,127 at p. 61,702 (1996) ("We do not see how the installation of duplicate meters to measure power that moves across [Southern California] Edison's wires to the same end users constitutes delivery within the meaning of the statute.").
9 77 F.E.R.C. ¶ 61,355 at p. 62,551 (1996).
10 See Cleveland Elec. Illuminating Co., 76 F.E.R.C. ¶ 61,115 at p. 61,559 (1996) and Southwestern Public Service Co. v. El Paso Elec. Co., 80 F.E.R.C. ¶ 61, 159 at p. 61,695, slip op. at 7 (1997).
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.