PENNSYLVANIA PUBLIC UTILITY COMMISSION

HARRISBURG, PENNSYLVANIA 17105-3265

Law Bureau Prosecutory Staff Public Meeting held December 15, 2005

Informal Investigation of the DEC-2005-OSA-0390*

Pennsylvania Electric Company Docket No. M-00051906

Service Terminations in Hastings

And Erie, Pennsylvania

MOTION OF COMMISSIONER BILL SHANE

Before the Commission for consideration today is the Settlement Agreement filed by Pennsylvania Electric Company (Penelec) and the Commission’s Law Bureau Prosecutory Staff (Prosecutory Staff) on September 27, 2005. Also before the Commission for consideration are the Comments filed on November 22, 2005, by Penelec, Prosecutory Staff, and the Office of Consumer Advocate (OCA) to the Commission’s Opinion and Order entered November 2, 2005.

In the Commission’s Opinion and Order entered November 2, 2005, we concluded that the public interest might be better served if the Settlement amount of $250,000 were treated as a financial contribution to Penelec’s CAP rather than a payment by Penelec to the Commonwealth’s General Fund. To this end, we noted that directing additional funds to Penelec’s CAP could mitigate the occurrence of unfortunate events in the future and provide truly needy customers with assistance in paying their heating bills. The Parties were given twenty days to file Comments to the proposed modification. Timely Comments to the proposed modification were filed by Penelec, Prosecutory Staff, and the OCA.

As stated in OSA’s proposed Opinion and Order, the commenting Parties all support the Commission’s proposed modification to the Settlement. Additionally, the Parties are unanimous in their recommendation that the $250,000 be directed to an external Low-Income Usage Service Program such as the Penelec Hardship Fund which is administered by the Dollar Energy Fund.

While I wholeheartedly agree with the Parties recommendation and OSA’s recommendation that the public interest would be better served if the proposed $250,000 civil penalty (to be imposed on Penelec) were instead directed to be a contribution to the Dollar Energy Fund, I do not believe that the proposed contribution amount of $250,000 is sufficient. Simply stated, I believe that there are real differences between a civil penalty and a contribution that warrant a higher contribution amount. Specifically, I believe that an additional $100,000 contribution should be made by Penelec to its CAP.

THEREFORE, I MOVE:

1.  That the Settlement Agreement at Docket No. M-00051906 is revised consistent with this Motion.

2.  That the Office of Special Assistants prepare the appropriate Opinion and Order consistent with this Motion.

______

DATE Bill Shane, Commissioner