The ALJ also rejected the Companies’ argument that they should be able to extract a premium price for default service based on The ALJ stated: “goodwill.” However, is not considered as part of a “goodwill” ratemaking process. Des Moines Gas Company v. City of Des 238 U.S. 153 (1915). The Supreme held that Moines, good will has no place in the fixing of valuation for the purpose of rate-making. at 165 (citing Id. Wilcox v. 212 U.S. 19, 52 (1909)). The Consolidated Gas Co., Commission has also made similar holdings in Application of Docket No. PPL for Approval of Restructuring Plan, R00973952 at 64-65 (Order entered April 1, 1998) and Docket No. Application of Shenango Valley Water Co., A21275F0002 at 10 (Order entered July 12, 1994). R.D. at 57. The ALJ that the modifications to the MAC proposed by RESA and Dominion appear to be on the surface.” The ALJ noted that only default Id. “inequitable service customers would be charged for the MAC but all residential customers would receive the credit from any leftover MAC revenues. Id. Exceptions to the Recommended Decision The Companies except to the ALJ’s finding that the MAC provides a and, for that reason, should not be considered a that EDCs may recover “return” “cost” under 66 Pa. C.S. § 2807(e)(3.9). Companies Exc. at 12. The Companies state that in the regulated sphere, a is granted in order to compensate utilities for the opportunity “return” costs they incur by dedicating their resources to meet their statutory service obligations. The Companies argue that a is an integral part of the of service” and Id. “return” “cost not a non-cost based as the ALJ seemed to suggest. at 13. The Companies Id. “adder” submit that contrary to the ALJ’s assessment, this cost is real and significant. The
The ALJ also rejected the Companies’ argument that they should be able to extract a premium price for default service based on “goodwill.” The ALJ stated: However, “goodwill” is not considered as part of a ratemaking process. Des Moines Gas Company v. City of Des Moines, 238 U.S. 153 (1915). The Supreme held that good will has no place in the fixing of valuation for the purpose of rate-making. Id. at 165 (citing Wilcox v. Consolidated Gas Co., 212 U.S. 19, 52 (1909)). The Commission has also made similar holdings in Application of PPL for Approval of Restructuring Plan, Docket No. R00973952 at 64-65 (Order entered April 1, 1998) and Application of Shenango Valley Water Co., Docket No. A21275F0002 at 10 (Order entered July 12, 1994). R.D. at 57. The ALJ that the modifications to the MAC proposed by RESA and Dominion appear to be “inequitable on the surface.” Id. The ALJ noted that only default service customers would be charged for the MAC but all residential customers would receive the credit from any leftover MAC revenues. Id. Exceptions to the Recommended Decision The Companies except to the ALJ’s finding that the MAC provides a “return” and, for that reason, should not be considered a “cost” that EDCs may recover under 66 Pa. C.S. § 2807(e)(3.9). Companies Exc. at 12. The Companies state that in the regulated sphere, a “return” is granted in order to compensate utilities for the opportunity costs they incur by dedicating their resources to meet their statutory service obligations. Id. The Companies argue that a “return” is an integral part of the “cost of service” and not a non-cost based “adder” as the ALJ seemed to suggest. Id. at 13. The Companies submit that contrary to the ALJ’s assessment, this cost is real and significant. The