A. The Joint Petition Pursuant to our Regulations at 52 Pa. Code § 5.231, it is the Commission’s policy to promote settlements. The Commission must, however, review proposed settlements to determine whether the terms are in the public interest. Pa. PUC v. M-00031768 (January 7, 2004); Philadelphia Gas Works, Pa. PUC v. C S Water and 74 Pa. P.U.C. 767 (1991); 60 Pa. Sewer Assoc., Pa. PUC v. Philadelphia Electric Co., P.U.C. 1 (1985). Accordingly, we will address the terms of the Joint Petition. 1. Revenue Requirement PECO has agreed to accept a increase in annual revenues than it had originally requested. The proposed Settlement permits PECO to establish overall distribution and transmission rates that produce additional annual operating revenue of $198.3 million and $26.7 million, respectively, for an overall revenue increase of $225.0 million. The new rates take effect January 1, 2011, the end of the suspension period. In its original filing, PECO requested an increase in distribution revenues of $289.7 million and an increase in transmission revenues of $26.7 million, or an overall increase in operating revenues of $316.4 million. While the agreement leaves PECO’s requested transmission revenue increase unchanged, the distribution revenue increase proposed in the Settlement represents an approximate $91.4 million decrease from PECO’s originally requested $289.7 million increase (later revised to $267.3 million). Joint Petition at 5. The ALJs indicate that Parties extensively analyzed PECO’s filing and determined that the proposed operating revenue increase of $225 million represents a result that would be within the range of likely outcomes in the event of full litigation of the case. R.D. at 13. We agree. The revenue increase proposed in the Settlement is a significant reduction from the amount originally requested and provides customers with
A. The Joint Petition Pursuant to our Regulations at 52 Pa. Code § 5.231, it is the Commission’s policy to promote settlements. The Commission must, however, review proposed settlements to determine whether the terms are in the public interest. Pa. PUC v. Philadelphia Gas Works, M-00031768 (January 7, 2004); Pa. PUC v. C S Water and Sewer Assoc., 74 Pa. P.U.C. 767 (1991); Pa. PUC v. Philadelphia Electric Co., 60 Pa. P.U.C. 1 (1985). Accordingly, we will address the terms of the Joint Petition. 1. Revenue Requirement PECO has agreed to accept a increase in annual revenues than it had originally requested. The proposed Settlement permits PECO to establish overall distribution and transmission rates that produce additional annual operating revenue of $198.3 million and $26.7 million, respectively, for an overall revenue increase of $225.0 million. The new rates take effect January 1, 2011, the end of the suspension period. In its original filing, PECO requested an increase in distribution revenues of $289.7 million and an increase in transmission revenues of $26.7 million, or an overall increase in operating revenues of $316.4 million. While the agreement leaves PECO’s requested transmission revenue increase unchanged, the distribution revenue increase proposed in the Settlement represents an approximate $91.4 million decrease from PECO’s originally requested $289.7 million increase (later revised to $267.3 million). Joint Petition at 5. The ALJs indicate that Parties extensively analyzed PECO’s filing and determined that the proposed operating revenue increase of $225 million represents a result that would be within the range of likely outcomes in the event of full litigation of the case. R.D. at 13. We agree. The revenue increase proposed in the Settlement is a significant reduction from the amount originally requested and provides customers with
1116058.docx