Re: I/M/O the Verified Petition of JCP&L for Review and Approval of Increases in and Other Adjustments to its Rates and Charges for Electric Service, and For Approval of Other Proposed Tariff Revisions in Connection Therewith; and for Approval of an Accelerated Reliability Enhancement Program (“2012 Base Rate Filing”) OAL Docket No. PUC 16310-12N, BPU Docket No. ER12111052
On November 30, 2012 JCP&L filed a base rate case pursuant to the BPU’s Order granting Rate Counsel’s motion to require the company to come in due to evidence that it was over-earning. JCP&L originally requested a $31.47 million revenue increase or approximately 1.4%. JCP&L is also proposing to implement an infrastructure investment program called the accelerated reliability enhancement program (“AREP”). On February 22, 2013, the Company updated its filing to include Sandy storm costs. The total request for recovery with Major storm costs is $112 million or 5.1%. (Note: On March 20, 2013 the Board of Public Utilities issued an Order establishing a generic proceeding “to review the prudency of costs incurred by NJ utility companies in response to major storm events in 2011 and 2012” ordering that major storm costs to be returned to the Board for review lowering the amount the company may recover in the base rate case.)
Direct Testimonies filed by Robert Henkes (Revenue Requirement) Matthew I. Kahal (Rate of Return) Andrea Crane (Consolidated Income Tax and AREP), Peter Lanzalotta (Reliability) and Roger Colton (Customer Issues and Storm Response) on behalf of the Division of Rate Counsel on June 14, 2013.
Public Hearing Statement given by Brian Weeks on April 24, 2013 in Toms River, NJ.
Public Hearing Statement given by Ami Morita, on April 8, 2013 in Toms River, NJ.
Direct testimony of David Peterson (rate design) on behalf of the Division of Rate Counsel filed on July 2, 2013.
Direct testimony of Michael Majoros (depreciation) without attachments and David Peterson (rebuttal testimony) on behalf of the Division of Rate Counsel filed on August 7, 2013.
Attachments to Michael Majoros (depreciation) testimony- August 7, 2013
Rate Counsel’s Petition Directing Jersey Central Power & Light Company (“JCP&L”) to File a Base Rate Case.
On September 7, 2011, Rate Counsel filed with the Board of Public Utilities a petition requesting that the Board direct JCP&L to file a base rate case under the belief that the Company is over earning based on the most recent financial and other relevant documents pertaining to JCP&L that are publicly available at this time.
Rate Counsel Initial Brief filed on April 26, 2012
Rate Counsel's Reply Brief filed on May 10, 2012
I/M/O the Verified Petition of JCP&L for Authorization Pursuant to N.J.S.A. 48:3-7.2 for Approval to Participate in the FirstEnergy Corp, Intra System Money Pool Amendment No. 4 of the Petition, BPU Docket No. EF02030185.
By Order dated July 24, 2002, the Board granted JCP&L's earlier petition to participate in FirstEnergy's Money Pool pursuant to an approved Money Pool Agreement. The Money Pool is comprised of participating FirstEnergy utility subsidiaries and is intended to meet the participant's short term operating needs. On July 23, 2007, JCP&L filed a Verified Petition with the Board seeking approval of Amendment No. 4 to the Money Pool Agreement.
Comments filed by Rate Counsel on November 23, 2007.
JCP&L’S FORKED RIVER PLANT SALE
BPU Docket No.: EM07010026
JCP&L filed a Petition seeking approval to sell its Forked River generation plant and related assets of electric generating capacity to Forked River Power LLC, a subsidiary of Maxim Power (USA), Inc. for a purchase price of $20 million. The utility claims that its efforts in selling this plant are the equivalent of the BPU rules that apply to the auction of utility generation plant. JCP&L also requests waiver of the BPU rules on advertising the proposed sale of utility property. These exemptions are requested partly because they claim that the Forked River generation station is difficult to market. Rate Counsel filed testimony and its expert concluded that by selling the plant, ratepayers will have to lose $2 million in Forked River transaction expenses and incur tax obligations that will exceed the $20 million of sales proceeds by about $2 million. Rate Counsel argues that in keeping the plant, it will provide ratepayers with $32 million. Also, the sale was never advertised and was not a competitive bid as required by the Board rules.
Initial Brief filed June 26, 2007
Letter Reply Brief filed July 12, 2007