Holding ratepayers harmless

loading...
As the Public Utilities Commission reviews the proposed merger between CMP Group and Energy East, a natural question and one raised recently by an attorney representing an industry group, is whether CMP had other offers that would have given larger and more direct benefits to ratepayers. The question…
Sign in or Subscribe to view this content.

As the Public Utilities Commission reviews the proposed merger between CMP Group and Energy East, a natural question and one raised recently by an attorney representing an industry group, is whether CMP had other offers that would have given larger and more direct benefits to ratepayers. The question is interesting, but not one likely to prove relevant in the commission’s decision.

Anthony Buxton, an attorney for Industrial Energy Consumers Group, is requesting that the state consider the other offers before deciding whether to approve the merger of Energy East and CMP Group, the holding company for Central Maine Power. Mr. Buxton says he wants to know whether the offers would have helped Maine ratepayers reduce the enormous stranded costs of over-priced power that CMP was required to purchase in the 1980s.

Anything that could help reduce upcoming stranded costs would be welcome. State legislation to restructure the utility industry, in fact, instructs utilities to try to reduce potential stranded costs by all reasonable means and adds that the PUC will consider that effort when determining the amount of a utility’s stranded cost next year. The important point in this case, however, is that the law says nothing about holding up a stock sale, or taking any other similar definitive action, over the issue.

Instead, Maine statute directs the commission to impose such terms, conditions or requirements as, in its judgment, are necessary to protect the interests of ratepayers. The interest of ratepayers are spelled out in nine conditions, the most applicable of which is the final one, That neither ratepayers nor investors are adversely affected by the reorganization.

Investors are going to make out great under the proposal, being offered more than $29 for shares that had been trading in the low 20s before the proposed merger. Ratepayers may see a drop in prices based on efficiencies of scale within the larger corporation, but in any event are guaranteed to be no worse off than before. Whether other offers could have been pursued that eventually could have produced a better deal for ratepayers is speculative.

Interesting but speculative.


Have feedback? Want to know more? Send us ideas for follow-up stories.

comments for this post are closed

By continuing to use this site, you give your consent to our use of cookies for analytics, personalization and ads. Learn more.