Download Baltimore Gas and Electric Company

IN THE MATTER OF THE CONTINUING
INVESTIGATION OF THE COMMODITY
AND PURCHASED GAS ADJUSTMENT
CHARGES OF BALTIMORE GAS AND
ELECTRIC COMPANY
____________________________________
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
BEFORE THE
PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION
OF MARYLAND
______________
Case No. 8500(y)
______________
Motion for Alteration of Page Limitation of
Baltimore Gas and Electric Company
Pursuant to Code of Maryland Regulations (COMAR) 20.07.02.13(C), Baltimore Gas
and Electric Company (BGE or Company) hereby requests that the 15-page limitation applicable
to a memorandum on appeal be altered in the above-captioned proceeding. In the interest of
administrative efficiency, the Commission may wish to grant this motion, not by separate ruling,
but by simply accepting the Memorandum on Appeal filed simultaneously by BGE in this docket
under separate cover. Although the Company’s Memorandum on Appeal exceeds the page
limitation, COMAR 20.07.02.13(C) provides that alteration or waiver of the 15-page limit may
be granted for good cause.1
The Company submits that good cause exists that warrants an alteration of the page
limitation. First, the sheer magnitude of the Hearing Examiner’s disallowance – $7.9 million out
of a requested $9.4 million – and the negative financial impacts of such a disallowance – merit
considerable discussion and thought. A $7.9 million disallowance is a huge sum of money. The
disallowance would completely eliminate recent Company earnings of $1 million from the
capacity release program, which gave rise to the $9.4 million over-refund to customers. The
1
The Commission regularly grants requests for waivers or alterations of various technical administrative rules
when good cause is shown. See, e.g., Letter Order dated December 27, 1999 in Case No. 8793 granting the
Motion for Expansion of Page Limitation of Pulte Home Corporation, and Letter Order dated October 1, 1999 in
Case No. 8766 granting the request of Bell Atlantic – Maryland, Inc. for an extension of the filing deadline
applicable to its Memorandum on Appeal.
enormity of a $7.9 million disallowance is highlighted by the fact that it exceeds the amount of
BGE’s last gas base rate increase, a $6.4 million rate hike. Finally, a $7.9 million disallowance
is an extremely material amount for a gas division with 2001 earnings of only $38 million.
Second, not only did the Hearing Examiner base his decision to disallow BGE’s recovery
of $7.9 of the $9.4 million on a premise that was not litigated by the parties, he also ignored or
disregarded evidence and precedent in the record that contradicted this premise. These
newfound arguments and independent actions require substantial analysis and response. BGE
must be given the opportunity in its Memorandum on Appeal to fully explore the Hearing
Examiner’s rationale and decision.
Finally, throughout this proceeding, the Commission Staff and the Office of People’s
Counsel have acted as allies insofar as they both seek significant disallowances. They rely on
essentially the same arguments to support similar positions on how much of the over-refund
BGE should be precluded from recovering. As it is likely that they will continue to put forth the
same arguments in their Reply Memoranda, Staff and OPC will effectively have 30 pages – 15
pages each – to represent essentially identical interests. As the sole party on the opposite side of
the case, BGE should not be disadvantaged by being allowed only 15 pages to oppose the
consolidated position that will be put forth by Staff and OPC in 30 pages.
Therefore, BGE respectfully requests that the Commission accept BGE’s Memorandum
on Appeal, which is 26 pages or less than the combined 30 pages available to Staff and OPC, so
that it can put forth a comprehensive argument to address the Hearing Examiner’s novel decision
and fully discuss significant issues of public policy. In closing, the Commission will render a
more informed decision by considering these arguments, which demonstrate, among other things,
the negative impact of regulatory disallowances on both investment in Maryland utilities and the
cost of capital paid ultimately by Maryland consumers.
2
Respectfully submitted,
______________________________
Jeffrey P. Trout
Beverly A. Sikora
Attorneys for
Baltimore Gas and Electric Company
39 W. Lexington Street
Baltimore, Maryland 21201
(410) 234-5799
Dated: January 27, 2003
3
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that on this 27th day of January, 2003, a copy of the foregoing
Motion for Alteration of Page Limitation of Baltimore Gas and Electric Company was mailed,
postage prepaid, to all parties listed on the official service list in this proceeding.
_______________________________
Beverly A. Sikora