On October 15, 2008, Governor Edward Rendell signed HB 2200 into law
as Act 129 of 2008 (“Act 129” or the “Act”), with an effective date of November
14, 2008. Act 129 expands the oversight responsibilities of the Pennsylvania
CHRONOLOGY of PROBLEMS at the SUSQUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION
This chronology does not include the cost to the rate payer
to build Susquehanna-1 and -2. PP&L asked the Public Utility
Commission (PUC) for $315 million to recover the cost of
building Unit-1. The PUC granted $203 million on August 22,
1983, or a 16% increase to the customer. The company asked for
$330 million for Unit-2 but was allowed $121 million in April,
1985; an 8% increase to rate payers. In addition, PP&L
consumers have “contributed” approximately $4.6 million
annually (since 1985) to the decommissioning fund.
(Also, refer to May 15 and August 13, 1998, for information
on “stranded costs” passed on to “hostage” PP&L rate payers.)
Moreover, in the Winter 1999/2000, PPL unilaterally
devaluated the combined PURTA and Real Estate tax
assessments for the SSES. Prior to the Negotiated Settlement,
the nuclear power generating stations were assessed by PP&L at
approximately $1 billion. PPL is now claiming that the the SSES
is only worth $74 million or the same amount as the valuation of
the Columbia Hospital. If PPL prevails, the Berwick School
District and Luzerne County will experience revenue shock. PPL
is not paying or escrowing any moneys they owe to Luzerne
County and the Berwick School District.
(See April 23, 2001 and July 13, 2003, for related development).
The Susquehanna Steam Electric Station is owned by PP&L (90%)
and the Allegheny Electric Cooperative (10%). The Allegheny Electric
Cooperative (AEC) is responsible for 10% of the cost of decommissioning.
PP&L’s consultant, TLG, estimated PP&L’s decommissioning share to be
$724 million. Therefore, the AEC is responsible for the remaining 10%, or
$79 million, of the $804 million projected funding “target” for nuclear
To read more, download PDF
Eric Epstein has submitted a memo challenging sections of the petition of PPL Electric Utilities Corporation for Approval of an Energy Efficiency and Conservation Plan.
As a PPL customer, Epstein questions "the legality and appropriateness of PPL’s Time of Use programming," among other issues.
The documents below contain testimony and letters related to utility deregulation and rate increases.
Take a look at what's happened at the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission.