ML19343A383
| ML19343A383 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crane  |
| Issue date: | 09/10/1980 |
| From: | Ketner M METROPOLITAN EDISON CO. |
| To: | Vollmer R Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8009170291 | |
| Download: ML19343A383 (25) | |
Text
.
Metropolitan Edison Company Q
e Post Office Box 542 Reading Pennsylvania 19640 215 929-3601 Writer's cirect Diai Numter 921-6287 September 10, 1980 Mr. Richard H. Vollmer Director, Three Mile Island #2 Support Office of :Tucle" h actor Regulation U. S. Nuclear Regulatcry Cc =ission 7920 Norfolk Avenue 3ethesda, MD 200lk Re:
NRC Dceket No. 50-289 - ri!-l Restart Prceeeding In accordance with your letter dated September 21, 1979 to R. C. Arncld and Mr. J. C. Petersen's data recuesta sent to C.
~4. Smyth en Ncvember 9,1979, enclesed are eight (8) ccpies of the recc= ended decision of Administrative Law Judge J. P. Matuschak and the final order of the Pennsylvania Piclic Utility Cc=ission issued en August 28, 1980 adopting the recc = ended decisicn.
Also enciesed are eight (8) copies of the Pa.P.U.C. order initiating an investigatica of T1 riff Electric Pa.P.U.C. Nc. kk filed v' th the Cc ission on July 29, 1980. This irriestigation is decketed E-80051196.
i If you need firther informatica en arc / of the material ncy being sent er material previously sent, please contact us.
Future infer aticn will sent to ycu as it beccees ay111able.
Very truly yours, M
Mark E. Ketner Manager-Rate Administratica dw Encicsures cc:
M. Karlcwicz - 1 copy J. C. Petersen - 1 ccpy h
'4. D. Garl1nd - w/c encl.
L. P. Centieu - w/c encl.
g<\\
\\
80092go i
cr Metrcccstan Ec.sen Comcary :s a Memcer :t tre Oxera ;uc< c Lt : t.es Eswn
G.
,5
.s PENNSYLVANIA PUBLIC UTILITY CO> MISSION Harrisburg, PA 17120
~
Public Meeting beld August 28, 1980 Commissioners Present:
Susan H. Shanaman, Chairman
. Michael Johnson James H. Cawley Linda C. Taliaferro Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission v.
P-80070235 Metropolitan Edison Company ORDER SY THE COBE!ISSION:
We adopt as our action the Recommended Decision of Administrative Law Judge Matuschak dated August 20, 1980; THEREFORE, 4
IT IS ORDERED:
1.
That the Petition of Metropolitan Edison Company for Extraordinary Rate Relief in the amount of $35 million, pursuant to the provisions of Section 1308(e) of the Public Utility Code, is hereby denied without prejudice.
2.
That the exceptions, as filed by the Office of the Consumer Advocate, Metrc 'olitan Edison Company, the Commission Trial Staff, Citibank and Chemical Bt.
, Victaulic Company of America, P.H. Clatfelter Co., St.
Regis Paper Company, and National Gypsum Company, are hereby denied.
BY THE CO) IISSION, S
William P. Thierfelder Secretary (SEAL)
ORDER ADOPTED: August 28, 1980 ORDER ENTERED: August. 28, 1980
~
.r.
, a-s.
/
PENNSYLVANIA PUBLIC UTILITY COMMISSION Hr.rrisburg, PA 17120 Public Meeting Held August 28, 1980 Commissioners Present:
Jusan M. Shanaman, Chairman Michael Johnson James h, Cawley Linda C. Taliaferro Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission Docket No.
v.
-R-80051196 Metropolitan Edison Company, Respondent ORDER BY THE COMMISSION:
,,, On July 29, 1980, the. respondent, Nctropolitan Edicon Company, filed Tariff Electric-Pa. P.U.C. No. 44, to b,ecome effective
- September.27, 1980,. containing proposed cnanges in p
rates, rules and 'regYalationi. calculated to produce $7'6,487,456 in additional annual jurisdictional revenues,, based upon the projected IcVel of operations in a future test ' year ended March 31, 1981.
The tariff will be suspended by operation of, law t.i until April 27, 1981, unless permitted by Commission order to
~
become effective at an earlier date.
Investigation and analysis of the tariff filing and sup orting data indicate that the proposed changes in rates, rules and regulations may be unlawful, unjdst, unreasonable, and
~
~
contrary t6 thc public intcrest.
It also appears that considera-tion should be given to the reasonableness of respondent's existing D
n-
o o
2~
~
^
rates, rules and regulations; TilEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED:
1.
That an investigation on Commission motion is c
hereby instituted to determine the lawfulness, justness, and
- reasonableness of the rates, rules and regulations proposed in Tariff Electric-Pa. P.U.C. No. 44.
2.
That this investigation shall include consideration of the lawfulness, jus'tness, and reasonableness of renpondent's existing rates, rules and regulations.
3.
That the Office of Administrative Law Judge shall assign this matter to an Administrative Law Judge for recommended decision and shall schedule such' hearings as may be necessary.
'4.
That a copy of this order shall be served upon the l
respondent and any persons who have filed formal complaints against' resp'onden't's proposed rate changes.
BY Tile COI@
Sy 7,
./
1 William P. Thierfelder
/
Secretary (SEAL) l ORDER ADOPTED: August 28, 1980 ORDEd ENTERED: August 28, 1980
i, Before the PENNSYLVANIA PUBLIC UTILITY COMMISSION PENNSYLVANIA PUBLIC UTILITY COMMISSION, et al Docket No. R-80051196 v.
Docket No. P-80070235 METROPOLITAN EDISON COMPANY RECOMPETDED DECISION (Subject to Co= mission A,4 proval)
BEFORE:
Joseph P. Matuschak Administrative Law Judge APPEARANCES:
Ryan, Russell & McConaghy, Esquires Samuel B. Russell, Esquire W. Edwin Ogden, Esquire Alan Michael Selt:er, Esquire For: Metropolitan Edison Company Steven A. McClaren, Esquire Bohdan R. Pankiw, Esquire Edward Muace, Esquire For:
Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission Walter W. Cohen, Esquire David M. Barasch, Esquire 1
Craig A. Burgraff, Esquire For: Office of the Consumer Advocate McNees, Wallace & Nurick, Esquires Maurice A. Frater, Esquire For:
P. H. Glatfelter Co.
St. Regis Paper Company National Gypsum Company Duane, Morris & "ce.kscher, Esquires Roland Morris, Esquire Robert E. Kelly, Jr., Esquire i
For: Victaulic Company of A= erica j
b
p
.; y; o'.
Wolf, Block, Schoor and Solis-Cohen Esqui;es Gerald Gornish, Esquire For: Citibank, N.A., Agent, and Chemical Bank, Co-Agent BRIEFS:
Briefs were filed by Metropolitan Edison Company, Commission Trial Staff, Office of the Consumer Advocate, and Victaulic Company of America. Joint briefs were filed by (1) Citibank and Chemical Bank, and (2) P.H. Glatfelter Co., St. Regis Paper Company, and National Gypsum Company.
e er i
?
i 4
.e
o Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission:
R-80051196 P 80070235 Office of the Consue.er Advocate R-80051196C001 David C. Thomsen R-80051196C002 Victaulic Company of America R-80051196C003 P. H. Glatfelter Co.
R-80051196C004 St. Regis Paper Company R-80051196C005 Robert Jude Jenison R-80051196C006 v.
k Metropolitan Edison Company L
- l e
e e
HISIORY OF THE PROCEEDING On July 29, 1980, Metropolitan Edison Company (Met Ed) filed its Tariff Electric Pa. P.U.C. No. 44 with the Commission for a proposed increase in its retail base rates of $76.5 million per year, or an increase in overall charges to retail customers of 17.2%.
In conjunction with this filing, Met Ed filed a Peti *. ion for Extrordinary Rate Relief under Section 1308(e) of the Public Utility Code, 66 Pa. C.S., Section 1308(e), requesting that
$35 mi114ca,1/ or approMmately 46% of the total request, be allowed to go into effect not later than September 1,1980, 2/
A number of complaints-- to both the rate proceeding and the petition for extraordinary rate relief have been con-i solidated with the proceeding on the petition. In addition, we granted the petitica of Citibank, N.A., Agent, and Chemical Bank, Co-Agent, to intervene in the proceeding.
1/ While no doubt coincidental, this is almost exactly the amount of deferred energy costs estimated to be collected by Met Ed by year-end 1980. The intervening banks suggest that such deferred energy cost receipts should be applied to reduce Met Ed's short-term debt, and not, as projected, to be used for other purposes.
2/ Complaints were filed by: The Office of the Consumer Advocate, David C. Thomsen, Vertaulic Company of America, P.H. Glatfelter Co., S t. Regis Paper Company, and Robert Jude Jenison, i
b.
=.
.a Hearings were held before us in Harrisburg on August 4, 5, 11 and 12, 1980.
s At the hearing held on August 4, the Office of the Consumer Advocate (Consumer Advocate) submitted a motion to dismiss Met Ed's petition for extraordinary rate relief on the ground that the petition failed to comply with the provisions of the Commission's Statement of Policy entered on November 6,1978 at M-78100089, which directed that certain specified information, in the form therein set forth, is to be submitted with a petition for extraordinary rate relief, purportedly as a regulation under 52 Pa. Code, Section 53.1, et seq.
Upon inquiry, we ascertained that while a copy of said Statement of Policy was, in fact, served on Met Ed on November 7, 1978, the Statement of Policy was never published in the Pennsylvania Bulletin, as required by the provisions of 1 Pa. Code, Section 31.13 for rulenking purposes.
Comission Trial Staff (Commission Staff) recommended that the Consumer Advocate's motion to dismiss be denied.
We held that while we would not give rulemaking effect to the Statement of Policy, neither would we disregard the Commission's expressed need for such information. We directed Met Ed to promptly supply the information of the kind and in the form required. We j
l further held that no useful purpose would be served in requiring a reformed petition: no party would be prejudiced if the infor=ation was promptly submitted, and the information would be-available for the Comnission's purposes. Accordingly, we denied the Consumer Advocate's motion to dimiss Met Ed's petition for extraordinary rate relief..
0 d
INTRODUCTION Although the Commission has not yet suspended the rate -
filing of Met Ed, we and all parties have proceeded here en the assumption that such suspension is forthcoming.
It must be understood that nothing contained herein shall be considered as a predisposition of any matters involved in the i
rate filing, or as approving or not approving any of the matters therein contained, or as to the ultimate outcome of the rate proceeding.
4.
'I
_ ~ _ _ _.
(
,.^
DISCUSSION Legal Authority The Commission's authcrity to grant extraordinary rate relief is governed by Section 1308(e) of the Public Utility Code, 66 Pa. C.S., Section 1308(e), which provides:
Extraordinary Rate Relief. -- Upon petition to the Commission (? the time of filing a rate re-quest or t.t any time during the pendency of proceedings on such rate requests, any public utility may seek extraordinary rate relief on such portion to the total rate relief requested as can be shown to be immediately necessarv for the maintenance of financial stability in order to enable the utility to continue oroviding normal services to its customers, avoid reductions in its normal maintenance programs, avoid substantially reducing its employment, and which will provide no more than the rate of return on the utilit"'s common equity established by the Commission in consideration of the utility's preceding rate filing, except that no utility shall file, either with a request for a general rate increase or at any time during the pendency of such a request, more than one petition under the subsection pertaining to rates for a particular type of service, nor any supplement or amendment thereto, except when permitte1 to do so by order of the commission. Any public utility requesting extraordinary rate relief shall file with the petition sufficient additional testimony and exhibits which will permit the Commission to make appropriate findings on the petition. The public utility shall give notice of the petition in the same manner as its filing upon which this petition is based. The commission shall within 30 days from the date of the filing of a petition for extraordinary rate relief, and after hearing for the purpose of cross-a'r:mination of the testimony and exhibits of the public utility, and the presentation of such other evidentiary testimony as the commission may by rule prescribe, by order l
. i
.I
setting forth its reasons therefor, grant' or deny, in whole or in part, the extraordinary rate relief requestud. Absent such order, the petition shall be deemed to have been denied. Rates established pursuant to extraordinary rate relief shall not be deemed to be temporary rates within the meaning of that term as it is used in Section 1310.
[ Emphasis supplied]
In our opinion, the purpose of Section 1308(e) is to assure adequate and concinuous service to ' utility customers and to prevent interruptions thereof due to the financial instability of the utility.
it must be noted, however, that imlike prior legislation, Section 1308(e) requires a specified showing by a utility to obtain interim relief. The showing is more specific and inflexible than previously required. We must treat the instant petition'in the light of the letter and the spirit of statutory directives.
e W
W j
...-----....u o
Burden of Proof Met Ed, in seeking the exercise of the Commission's dis-cretion to grant its request for extraordinary race relief, prior to the Commission's determination of the revenue requirement, bears a heavy burden.
As stated in the Commission's Order entered on September 21, 1978 in Pa. P.U.C. v. Pennsylvania Electric Cocoany, 26 PUR (4th) 337, Section 1308(e)
... entitles Petitioner to extraordinary rate relief only if it can show such rate relief is immediately r.ecessary for the maintenance of Petitioner's fiaancial stability (1) in order to continue providing normal services, (ii) avoid reductions in its normal maintenance programs, and (iii) avoid s,2bstantis11y reducing e=ployment.
Proof of the i= mediate necessity for such rate relief required for the maintenance of the utility's
}
financial stability must be clear and fully sup-portable of a finding by the Commission that the financial stability of the utility is actually in jeopardy.
[ Emphasis supplied]
The fact that the rate increase sought by the p'etition cannot be made retroactive, and failure to grant interim increases may result in unrecoverable loss ol' revenue during the interin of the period, does not relieve Met Ed from this burden.
Nor can the Commission grant interin relief on speculatica or conjecture.
\\
In its brief, at page 5, Met Ed admits that:
It is clear that a utility seeking extraordinary rate relief has the formidable task of showing circumstances which would justify the conclusion.
l I
g.-
that it is suffering from financial constraints sufficiently severe that, if not remedied, would result in the impairment of safe and reliable electric service to consumers. This view has been confirmed by order of the Public Utility Commission on September 5, 1978 in Pa. P.U.C. v.
Pennsylvania Electric Company at R-78040599.
For the reasons hereinaf ter set forth, it is our opinion that Met Ed has not sustained the statutory burden placed upon it for entitlement to extraordinary rate relief.
From our review of all the evidence, it is our view that the major thrust of this petit 1on is to make available funds, directly or indirectiv, for clean up of TMI. This is not a valid puruose for extraordinary rate relief under the stringent requirements of the statute.
(,
y_ _-_...;_-.
- u....
Met Ed's Presentation Met Ed's request for $35 million in extraordinary rate relief is based upon the future test year for the 12 months ended March 31, 1981, excluding the investment and associated costs of TMI-1 and TMI-2, rind is claimed to yield no more than 13.38:: return on common equity allowed by the Commission in Met Ed's last rate case.
In support of its petition, Met Ed avers that:
(a) Met Ed has been unable to issue any first mortgage bonds, debentures or preferred stock since January of 1979.
(b)
For the 12 months ended June 30, 1980, Met Ed had a pre-tax interest coverage ratio of only 1.45 times, which is below the 2.0 times requirement in its debenture indenture for the issuance of additional funded debt.
(c) For the 12 months ended June 30, 1980, Met Ed had a after-tax preferred stock coverage ratio below the 1.04 times, which is below the 1.5 times required under Met Ed's charter for the issuance of additional preferred stock.
(d) Met Ed has paid no dividends on its common stock since February,1979, and has ne visable prospect of paying any.
(e) The return on Met Ed's average cc.Inon equity investment for the 6 months ended June 30, 1980, was a negative 0.6 percent.
(f) Met Ed'; return on com=on equity for 1980 v.thout rate relief is projected to be a negative 2.3 percent..
(g) Met Ed's securities have been downgraded below investment grade.
(h) Met Ed's present transmission and distri-bution expenditures are the lowest they have been in more than 10 years.
(1) Met Ed's present operation and maintenance expenditures are significantly below normal levels.
(j) The number of Met Ed's transmission and distribution and operating and maintenance employees are significantly below normal levels.
(k) Met Ed's short term debt under the revolving credit agreement (RCA) is $83 million and is subject to a present limitation of $105 million.
(1) Absent (a) prompt rate relief, or (b) the substantial cut-backs in expenditures needed to conserve the substantial equi-valent of the cash which would be generated by the requested rate relief, Met Ed vill i
I need cash in excess of that available under the RCA in April of 1981 (m) The $105 million limitation on short-term debt for Met Ed under RCA is neither guaranteed nor insured and should be expected to be reduced still further in the near future.
Met Ed offered testimony generally in support of such contentions.
_9
.y Position of the Parties
, Met Ed Met Ed submits that it has forcefully demonstrated that the requested $35 million of extraordinary rate relief meets each and every one of the criteria contained in Section 1308(e) of the Code, and that such race relief should be allowed on or before September 1, 1980.
Commission Staff Commission Staff requests the Commission to deny Met Ed's petition because:
a) Met Ed is financially solvent, sta ble, and 1bs a condition consistent with the Commission's May 23 Order.
b) Potential Staff adjustments to Met Ed's claim I
would require substantial refunds.
c) Met Ed's proposal for uniform increase per KWR fails to correct inequities in the existing rate structure and fails to encourage energy conservation in any specific way.
Consumer Advocate The Consumer Advocate takes the position that Met Ed's '
petition does not comport with the requirements of Section 130S(e) or sound regulatory principles and should, therefore, be denied.
If the Commission grants part or all of Met Ed's requested relief, it urges that the revenues be recovered on an equal KWK basis as l
suggested by Met Ed.
1 l
, _J
O St. Regis Paper Company P. H. Glatfelter Company National Gypsum Company These industrial concerns state that the Cocmission should give consideration to Met Ed's request for extraordinary rate relief, but they take no position with respect to the level of rate relief to be granted.
They urge, however, that any extraordinary rate relief granted by the Cocmission should be recovered on the basis of the non-fuel portion of the present races, or in the alternative, on the Lasis of the present base rates, rather than on the K'4H basis as suggested by Met Ed.
Victaulic Company of America This company urges that the extraordinary rate relief request by Met Ed be denied.
- Citibank, N.A., Agent and Chemical Bank, Co-Agent These intervening banks state that Met Ed has shown a continuing deterio>ation in its earnings, the rapid amortization of its deferred energy account, and the effect of its projected financial picture on its short-term debt balance under the Revolving Credit Agreement (RCA), which, absent any relief from the Commission, will exceed the $105 million debt limit currently in effect by April, 1981.
Further= ore, they aver that although Met Ed's projections show a short-term debt balance of $90.3 million as of December, 1980,.
w
I l
absent extraordinary rate relief, there is no assurance that such amount will be permitted by the banks. In any event, vit.1 or without interim rate relief, they stated there would be a step-down of Met Ed's short-term debt limitation under the RCA, but that such limitation may be lower without interim relief.
4 4
e l
1 Reductions in Service, Maintenance and Employment The specific statutory requirement for extraordinary rate relief is that it:
... can be shown to be immediately necessary for the maintenance of financial stability in order to enable the utility to continue pro-viding normal services to its customers, avoid reductions in its normal maintenance programs, avoid substantially reducing its employment.
(Emphasis supplied]
Met Ed has failed to meet this statutory requirement. The statute itself specifically cites the nature of the financial stability giving right to extraordinary rate relief.
In our opinion, the statutory reference to " extraordinary" rate relief connotes an emergent form of rate relief.
tihile Met Ed, I
k in its brief, finds fault with the use by other parties of the word
" extraordinary" and " emergency" interchangeably, we note that Met Ed, itself, in its Exhibit B-1, refers to its petition for extraordinary rate relief as an " Emergency Petition." It further states that its petition for extraordinary rate relief seeks a " level of emergency rate relief." The Commission, too, has in the past referred to extra-ordinary rate relief as " emergency rate relief."
(R-78040599)
Is there such an emergency? None has been shown by Met Ed under present circumstances, nor has it been shown that any e=ergency condition is likely within the next few months. While it appears from
_13_
l l
I y
the record that Met Ed is suffering both from a revenue deficiency and an earnings erosion, these have not created a situation which the statute seeks to prevent.
Mr. Newton, General Public Utilities (GPU) Vice President of System Operations, testified on page 17 of his prepared Staterant F, as follows:
Q.
Mr. Newton, do you have an opinion regarding the levels of employees in the T&D area at 5/31/807 A.
Yes.
In my opinion, the level of employees at year ending 5/31/80 are reasonable and appropriate in the light of all of the exist-ing circumstances.
However, this level is not sufficient to maintain the existing quality of service to our customers if such level re-mains constant over a period of several years.
The number of T&D employees will definitely have to be increased with time or the quality of service will inevitably be degraded.
(Emphasis supplied]
He further testified on cross-examination as follows:
Q.
Mr. Newton, counsel asked you if the company did not receive extraordinary rate relief, what deductions would take place in employees, and I believe you said, you would expect attrition in transmission and distribution employees of approximately 40 over the next twelve months, is that correct?
A.
That's correct.
Q.
If you receive extraordinary rate relief, in this respect, how would the con:pany operate differently?
j A.
Its impossible to predict precisely all of the demands that are going to be presented for the utilization of that amount of increased revenue.
] i
We in the T and D area will certainly make as aggressive a plea for maintaining at least the present level --- so we will not have that attrition. But its a matter of decision by the board exactly how the increased revenues will be distributed among the company demands.
Q.
I take it from your answer that its entirely possible that if the company gets extraordinary rate relief, that you will still have the expected attrition of 40 employees without employees to replace them.
A.
That's possible. I like to think that it won't happen that way, but its possible.
Q.
Isn't it your testimony that the company has not had a normal complement of transmission and distribution employees since 19737 A.
That is correct.
(Emphasis supplied]
l His testimony as to construction employees was in the same vein.
i l
Met Ed's witnesses could not be certain that any of the requested $35 million interim race relief would be expended for con-tinuation of normal services, maintenance and employment, or that given such interim relief, specific reductions would be avoided.
Mr. Graham, GPU Treasurer, admitted that there were no corporate plans to apply early revenues, and that specific assurance could not be given that such interim revenues would not be used to fund TMI clean-up, to reduce short-term debt, or for other purposes.
i.
y Mr. Dieckamp, GPU President and Acting President of Met Ed.
described the " areas of cost reduction." He could give no definite plan of cost reduction, but asserted that operation and maintenance expenses and construction budgets are at the minimum acceptable levels, and absent early rate relief, the budgeted amounts would exceed the revolving credit agreement (RCA) limit. The stated areas of cost reduction, however, were designed to meet the state tax payment due in April,1981, a point in time well beyond the short-term period contemplated by Section 1308(e). This testimony indicates that while additional funds may be required in the future, they are not Lamediately necessary to avoid reductions outlined by Mr. Dieckamp. A careful read-ing of Mr. Dieckamp's testimony shows that Met Ed's major concern in this petition is its effect on TFI cleanup.
(
In its May 23, 1980 Order in Fa. P.U.C. v. Metropolitan
\\
Edison Company and Pennsylvania Electric Company, nimeo, p. 4, the Commission stated:
. The Co= mission will provide Met Ed the means of financial rehabilitation. However, we will write no blank checks on its ratepayers.
Met Ed's witnesses either were unable or reluctant to identify the specific needs for, or the intended use of, the requested
$35 million interin rate increase, as it related to the avoidance of reduction in service, maintenance or employment.
While Met Ed alleges that its present di;;tribution and transmission expenses, and its number of distribution and trans-mission employees are below " normal," Met Ed agrees that even as late as March ?,1, 1980 its service was adequate, despite the fact that such "below normal" conditions had existed over the last several years. At least, this would indicate that no i= mediate emergency condition exists in this respect.
From the statutory criteria, we would consider "nor=al" to refer to the " ordinary" " typical" or " usual" complement of expenditures or employees, or as averaging over a number of years, rather than a " preferred" or " desired" level, or a level existing several years before. Productivity gains, too, should be gi"en some consideration.
~
I t
Met Ed's Financial Condition As we view it, the weakness of Met Ed's presentation is that though it established a valid record showing that it is in a precarious financial condition, it failed to meet the statutory test that such financial condition requires the immediate extra-ordinary rate relief to continue to provide normal services to I
its customers, avoid reductions in its normal maintenance programs, or avoid reducing its employment.
There is no question that the financial condition of Met Ed is poor.
It presently has no access to permanent financing.
and must depend on short-term debt for its cutside funds.
Mr. Graham, Treasurer of GPU, recognized that for the next two years, and until TMI-l returns to service and to rate base, Met Ed will not have access to the bond or equity =arkets, and that Met Ed will have to continue to rely heavily on short-term credit.
But though poor, Met Ed's financial condition is stable
)
~
l in the statutory sense, and is projected to remain stable, by its own cash projections, until about April, 1981, when a state tax payment becomes due.
In short, Met Ed does not need the i= mediate infusion of cash to maintain its financial stability; it faces no immediate emergency.
The Commission, in its May 23 Order, determined that Met Ed should remain financially viable; 1ncreased Met Ed's energy
cost recovery to a fully current level; and provided for an 18-month recovery of all deferred energy costs.
The Commission's May 23 Order stabilized Met Ed's financial condition. Although there has been a continuing deterioration of the earning, there has been no material change in Met Ed's financial condition since the May 23 Order.
The following Met Ed's estimates of its short-ters debt balance in the event no extraordinary rate relief is granted, are indicative of its financial stability for that period.
1980 July August September October November December Short-term debt balance SS6.9m $86.6m $88.lm S87.7m
$91.1m S90.5m i
Met Ed's current financial problems consist of a lack of adequate earnings rather than cash flow.
Met Ed, in its presentation, has calculatted that a 13.38" rate of return on the utility's common equity established by the Commission in the last rate case, based on a year-end rate base for a future test year ended Mar ch 31, 1981, would yield $35.3 million.
Commission Staff, however, in a preliminary review of Met Ed's submissions, has arrived at potential adjustments of some S47 million, which could reduce Met Ed's revence requirement well below the
$35 million interim rate relief requested.
Since no emergency has been shown by Met Ed, any interim relief should await further development of the facts within the next few =onths.
It must be conceded by all that Met Ed still faces enormous financial problems.
It is apparent that this financial difficulty arises not only from the accident at TMI-2 and the inactive status of TMI-1, but also the resulting effect of endeavoring to render adequate service to its customers, while at the same time spending millions to restore and clean up ".MI-l and TMI-2.
In its Order entered on June 19, 1979 in Pa. P.U.C. v.
Metropolitan Edison Company and Pennsylvania Electric Company, at I-79040308, mimeo p. 13, the Commission said:
The Comnission is of the view that none of the cost of responding to the accident, including repair, disposal of wastes and decontamination are recoverable from rate-payers. These costs are and saould be p
insurable.
As it now turns out, millions of dollars will have to be expended by Met Ed, over and above.the $300 million insurance recovery, in order to restore and clean up TMI.
Because of seth impact upon Met Ed's finances, we cannot divorce this petition from TMI.,even though certain data calculations in support thereof, exclude the investment and associated costs of TMI.
The result is that Met Ed customers may be required indirectly to pay for a substantial portion of such clean up costs through increased races, in order to support the financing for such purposes. This petition is the first step in that direction.
Before embarking on that course, the Commission may first want to i
make a reassessment of the TMI restoration and clean-up upon the ratepayers, be it direct or indirect.
i 1
Mr. Graham stated that if TMI-2 would be considered a r
l cotal loss by the insurance carrier, as he was pressing, the balance of the insurance proceeds would be immediately paid, affording Met Ed f
another substantial possible source of funds to meet its expenses during the next few months.
As to the apprehension of the intervening banks, the l
Commission said in Pa. P.U.C. v. Metropolitan Edison Company and Pennsylvania Electric Company, at I-79040308, mimeo p. 4, on May 23, 4
1980: " Respondent must convince its bank creditors that it has the will and the ability to rehabilitate itself." The Commission by its 1
May 23 Order, provided the means for Met Ed to rehabilitate itself.
We shall expect the same concern by other involved parties.
Met Ed will not be in a serious cash flow problem until 1
April 15, 198:
In the interim, all parties and the Commission will l
have the opportunity to reassess their positions in the light of events as they occur. As permitted by Section 1308(e), the Commission 4
will keep,- its doo'r for another petition for extraordinary rate relief, if need be, at a more appropriate time, and for a more valid l
4,
7
,.-,,7
.-,.c--r---
3.-7, m-.
purpose, ir. a more deliberate and more informed climate.
The Commission has the ability to meet any crAr.fcal situation as it may occar, be i t at the conclusion of the rate hearing, or prior thereto.
Here, M+t Ed's petition is premature in its stated apprehension for the future.
Statutory provisions must be followed in the granting of extraordinary rate relief.
In Pa. P.U.C. v. Pennsylvania Electric Cc.pany, at R-78040599, on September 21, 1978, the Commission said:
The 1976 amendments to the Public Utility Code reduced to seven months, af ter the effective date of filed races, the maximum period which could elapse before proposed rates could become effective. These 1976 amendments evidenced a legislative intent that rate cases be expeditiously resolved and that multi-stage rate filings be limited..Uc find no legislative intent that a utility may, under the guise of petitioning for extraordinary rate relief, secure increased i
revenues in order to maintain or improve its return on common equity, absent clear and con-vincing proof that such extraordinary rate relief is immediately necessary under the c.riteria set forth in Section 308(f) (now Section 130S(e)]
of the Public Utility Code. We wish to make clear that an inability to earn the rate of return on common equity determined to be appropriate by the Commission in the previous rate proceeding or dis-satisfaction with such rate of return cannot support a request for extraordinary rate relief under Section 308(f) (Section 1308(e)]
Here, as t'. tere, the utility failed to meet its burden of showing that emergency rate relief.is immediately necessary for the maintenance of its financial stability under the statutory criteria.
The difference is a matter of degree.
I l
l L _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
The purpose served by Section 1308(e) is not to thrust the cost of nonfunctioning TMI capital assets onto the atepayers,
_but to permit the recoverv of extraordinary costs incident to serving the public. Here, to the contrarv, emergency relief is sought frors the ratepayers largely for the costs attendant to capital assets not in the public service.
o Expedited Rate Case Proceeding Because the investigation and consideration of a rate application can become such a complex and time-consuming procedure, the Legislature has given the Commission the authority to suspend the collection of the proposed rate increase during which ti=e the Cocsission is investigating and deliverating on the application, a provision obviously designed to pr2tect the public interest from the collection of rate increases which the Ccesission may later determine to be unwarranted.
Commission Staff recoc= ends that Met Ed's petition for extraordinary rate relief be denied, but that the Commission expedite the general rate case proceeding for conclusion prior to year-end 1980.
We are not persuaded that such recoc=endation should be adopted, both because of possible due process infirmity and pragmatic weakness.
Due process means different things at different times l
and under different circu= stances. In an expedited procedure, as herein, involving it teris rate increases with refund provisions l
under extraordinary situations, only minimal opportunity for testing may be required.
On the other hand, in a per=nnent rate proceeding, due process would require the opportunity for a more thorough testing of the propriety of the utility's request for a rate increase.
1
- T 1
The permanent rate proceedings for Met Ed and Pennsylvania Electric Company (Penelec), sister company, are scheduled to be consuitdated, so far as possible, in rate hearing procedure. We are con.:erned not only that due process considerations may not be adequately met by Staff's recommendation, but even more importantly, from a practical viewpoint, that the suggested expedited procedure may prove to be counterproductive. We question that sufficient opportunity would be given to all parties to test the propriety of the rate request, including investigation, preparation of prepared testimony, discovery, cross-examination of witnesses, briefs, recammended decision, exceptions and Commission action. Short-cutting in procedure could result in short-cutting either Met Ed or its customers. ~.
Proposed Allocation of Extraordinary Rate Increase In view of our treatment of Met Ed's petition for extraordinary rate relief, we do not reach the issue of the appropriate method of spreading such proposed interim rate increase among Met Ed's classes of customers. Some comment in this connection, however, may be appropriate.
We reject Commission Staff's contention that some alleged inequity, either in Met Ed's existing or proposed interim rates, supports the deniaJ of extraordinary rate relief.
If the Commission were to otherwise determine that all or part of the extraordinary rate relief should be granted, the fact that precise and ultimately equitable allocation of the increase cannot at this time be finally determined, should not be a cause for the rejection of the request.
If extraordinary rate relief must await a rull investigation and determination of ultimate allocations, Section 1308(e), which requires a speedy disposition, would be meaningless.
Further, if the Commission should grant the extraordinary rate relief request, in whole or in part, we recommend the allocation of such rate increase on the basis suggested by Met Ed as appropriate..
i Once revenue requirements have been determined, it rammina how, and from whom, the additional revenue is to be obtained.
4 It is at this point that many countervailing considerations come 4
)
into play. The Commission, acting in a legislative manner, may i
then balance factors such as cost of service, ability to pay, e
tax consequences and ability to pass on the increase, in order l
to achieve a fair and reasonable allocation of the increase among 4
the consumer classes, the' careful balancing of public policies i
and private needs. The Commission may balance both cost and non-a I
cost factors in making choice among public policy alternatives.
i While the Commission may not be in position to finalize an equitable allocation of a proposed increase in rates, certain obvious con-siderations may be sufficient to support short-term interim races.
The Commission has repeatedly rejected the "zero-energy" approach of allocating rate increases, as advocated by some of 4
the industrials. Nor can it be said that in the present time frame, with changing enery considerations, reliance can be given to the use of existing base races, as urged by such industrials as an alternative. While we agree with Commission Staff that extraordinary rate relief, based solely on an energy component, may not precisely reflect all aspects of cost, we are of the opinion that until a full
)
review of rate allocation can be completed, a temporary reliance in the interim on a uniform KWH is the most appropriate approach.
4 l
FINDINGS OF FACT 1.
Met Ed has been unable to issue any first mortgage bonds, debentures or preferred stock since January of 1979.
2.
Met Ed avers that for the 12 months ended June 30, 1980, Met Ed had a pre-tax interest coverage of only 1.45 times, which is below the 2.0 times requirement in its debenture indenture for the issuance of additional funded debt, but such data has not been verd.fied.
3.
Met Ed avers that for the 12 months ended June 30, 1980, Met Ed had a after-tax preferred stock coverage ratio below the i
1.04 times, which is below the 1.5 times required under Met Ed's l
l charter for the issuance of additional preferred stock, but such data has not been verified.
i
)
4.
Met Ed has paid no dividends on its common stock since February,1979, and has no visabla prospect of paying any.
5.
Met Ed claims a return on its connon. equity investment i
for the 6 months ended June 30, 1980, was a negative 0.6 percent, but such data has not been verified.
6.
Met Ed claims a return on common equity for 1980 without I
rate relief projected to be 2.3 percent.
7.
Met Ed's securities have been downgraded below in-vestment grade.
.~
}
8.
Met Ed's present transmission and distribution expenditures are sufficient to render adequate service to its customers, and to maintain a normal maintenance program.
9.
Met Ed's present operation and maintenance ex-penditures are sufficient to render adequate service tu its customers, and to maintain a normal maintenance program.
10.
Met Ed has sufficient financial ability to avoid any substantial reduction in the number of its employees.
j
)
- 11. Met Ed has sufficient cash flow, and will continue j
to maintain sufficient cash flow until about April 15, 1981.
- 12. Met Ed's financial condition is stable.
i
- 13. Met Ed has no plans for the utilization of the I
proposed interim revenues, and has no plans for specific reductions if no extraordinary rate relief is granted.
14.
Met Ed has sufficient financial stability to enable i
it to continue to render normal services, avoid reduccisn in its maintenance program, and avoid any substantial reduction in its employment.
- 15. Met Ed has sufficient short-erm credit available at least until year-end 1980.
- 16. Met Ed has no immediate need for extraordinary rate relief under the provisions of Section 1308(e) of the Public Utility Code.
~
17.
Since no extraordinary rate relief is granted, it is unnecessary to address the appropriate method of allocation of any interim rate increase.
18.
Met Ed faces no imediate emergency financial situation.
- 19. Met Ed has given no assurance that the interim rate increase revenues would be applied to the continuation of normal services, the avoidance of reduction in its normal maintenance program, or the avoidance of reduction in its employment.
20.
Het Ed may face cash flow problems on or about April 15, 1981.
i
.r.
e l
, ]
l l
l
)
l-s i
i l
QQJ.USIONS OF LAW t
1.
The Connaission has jurisdiction of the parties and of the subject matter.
2.
The parties are properly before the Cotamission.
3.
Met Ed has not sustained its burden to entitle it j
to the $35 million extraordinary rate relief, under the provisions i
l of Section 1308(e) of the Public Utility Code, 66 Pa. C.S., Section 4
1308(e).
4.
Met Ed's petition for extraordinary rate relief should be denied, without prejudice.
1 4
?
t e
t
)
A i
i I
I l
. l
..~,
)
RECOMMENDED ORDER (Subj ect to Coc=nission Appro',el)
IT IS HERE3Y ORDERED that the petition of Metropolitan Edison Company for extraordinary rate relief in the amount of
$35 million, pursuant to the provisions of Section 1308(e) of the Public Utility Code, be, and is hereby denied, without pre-judice.
/
/
/
f \\#
r" < 17;IAAu<<xbuW
/
nn%
Joseph P. Matuschak Administrative Law Judge August 20, 1980
\\
l l
t l
i l
_J
D ITIRO1VLITAN FDIt,0:( COMPAfif STATINE ff OF IUCO:E TTLVE tio: rill 3 El'DED (fl%usands)
June Sta rch December September June March 1983 1900 1979 1979 _
1979 1979 Total Revenues
$378,371 g55,255
$333,136
$329,500
$319,972
$317,6&>
Less Dierr.y Revenues In in.ee Imtes (a) 69,907 70,2ho 69,532 63,672 67,206 57,143 Energy Clruss 86,819 Q,Q 35,1h4 3 p55 23,159
_ 31,2%
6
- 7429, 114,C11 102,627 4.0,3.45 10,39)
Total Dicrgy Revenues 1%,h00 1
tret Ttevenues 221,*)tn
_2EP R 223,3s61 22u,*/; 3 229,57/_
22y,257 Operating Eig ensen:
Energy Costs (b) 205,202 007,231 176,036 134,297 107,577 93,179 twrerre.1 Dicrr.y Cocts (a)
(fl,725)
(70,115)
(59,279)
(30,055)
(16,132)
(h,537) i ter.n Derr.y it-vernica 156,h06 131,229 11h,67'i lo?,6 !7
's)0,lef.5 till,yp) tHt Dier6y Costs
- /,071 3,167 2,55F 1,t315 1,ojo 243 Iteccrve Cnpacity 207 416 (633) 532 1,316 2,35 ruel Ibndlina 2,031 2,1f.8 2,295 2,173 2,202 2,13fs rayroll 36,737 34,069 34,369 33,693 33,668 34,362 15,112 other O*ft 50,61 1 h7,172 13,266 12,rAl L3,178 4
4 6
1xpreciation 30,686 37,7c8 37,708 35,570 32,296 29,307 Tsixes, Ottn:r Than inecane 26,651 22gil 22,602 22,724 24,502 25 911 Tut:1 oper. E>p.
T 1,8Mi 37,6W 144,h 1';
ly)ft73 11/,7GT TQ,,EK operating Income Derore Incomo Taxes 60,11i1 74.380 79,066 07,175 91,702 91,092 Ineme Tucs
_{2 PM) le 633 1] 261 14,703 21,184 25.213 2
a Operating Income 62,ho5 6'),755 3,*/ 1 72,b12
- I0,3D
_ f.6, y,4 Cther Income & 1>: ductions:
Allownnee for Other runds (1.h60)
(1,399) 5 5,ht.o 10,906 16,251 Other (!!ct) 517 Sh3 le21 8.h2 293 U2 (9ii (bG 425 I
$ 2 Ing 78@,yd 61,675 )
ul,M)
Tatr:1 other Income le 117 7 1,917 M, Q 69, Mil Cro::s Incur.c Interect, f>p in::e.
- >7,560
$3,993 50.702 87,262 15,3tt I3,959 i
All nrance ror uorrowed runds (h,170)
(3,570)
(3,074)
(3,246)
(8.,602)
(5,f93)
Allow.nce for corrowed nmJo (Tw) 001)
,122)
(3,575)
J,@
JJi
}h1,311 gog)
-- 3haja 11, ?G 201 (4,894)
(6,699) 3 9
Total rat Inese 11.913 21,W6 25.6 %
37,539 7 5,7d2
- $1,503 x
Prererred Stoch 111vidends
_ 10,209 10202 10,2fa9 10,209 10,?39 10,289 y
$41ance Avallnble for Ccamon
}_.,1,,Q Qg M,50]
QQ QSg jpg (4) inclu.!es 1.murt. of PuPUC Cicrase
.U Prier to 7-1-70 5,607
$ h,001
$ 3,239 n 1,879 5 21s Petcr to 6-1-00 1,909 gt c
g g
(b) Ercludes :l::ndling costs, Etc.
$ 2,031
$ 2,1!.0
$ 2,295
$ 2,173
$ 2,202
$ 2,13%
4 i
~
s
-___m_
h
=_.
NETROPOLITAN EDISON CCMPANY Consolidated Balance Sheet (5lhousands)
June Harch Decenter September June March Assets 1980 1980 1979 1979 1979 1979 Utility Plant:
In Service
$1,302,605.0
$1,298,562.2
$1,294.485.3
$1.281,098.7
$1,277,235.8
$1,265,961.2 Less Accun4 slated dapreciation 260,637 1 251 l31.6 241 28.5 4 234 467.5 225 957.1 217 98'i.8 t
2 2-1,041,96b T047,UO3 1,052,499.9 V4il,,6]Ef T051,2E7 V T',UTT Construction work in progress.
15.558.1 12,982.5 11,582.5 19,808.5 17,786.1 20,768.8 I! eld Inr future use 11,575.5 11,575.5 12.579.4 12,576.3 12.574.9 12,567.5 fluclear fuel 65,729.4 60,041.5 58,119.9 55,979.6 53,062.6 72,735.9 less: amortlption of nuclear fuel 7 399.0 Itat utility plant W,.D Cf V I,.199,T 9 7,39ho 7
0 7
7 399 0 11 906 4 14,393.3 631.
332.7
~l3ff,.59b Vf,lMN E9.6G6TI investaents 649.5 063.7 058.6 658.7 658.8 C65.7 Current Assets:
5,858.1 3,533.5 2.861.7 Cash / Temp. Cash inv.
392.1 1,459.8 2,131.2 Accrsunts receivable Customers
'24,941.6 27,753.4 20,707,3 20,952.0 19.046.3 20,380.7
-Giber 12,686,7 8,776.2 7,227.1 22,933.5 17,810,1 22,723.0 inventcries Itaterials and supplies 10,713.1 16,844.6 15.038.6 14,156,4 13,864,2 12,370.9
.,, 7 fuel 11.372.4 11,223.7 19,609.6 16,641.0 12,718.4 13,658.2 3,,
Prepayments 6,089.0 827.3 940.6 2,576.1 6,380,0 870.9
- A O tlier 2,001.8
-- 4J94 2
2,9,79 3 2 960 4 2 765.4
~"
Total 7 6.99 C T 7 1 / 79.)3 68)748200 3 86.09h 7,,8 75,MQ (ff 2
a Octerred Debits:
Deferred energy costs 85,640.1 97,339.9 82,499.0 56,764.9 43,915.5 26,524.8 t'
Accuciulated deferred income taxes 3,640.4 3,825.2 5,000.7 7,255.8 2,827.3 2,987.7 Other 40,659.8 46 391.2 43 76,595.4 164.2
~~ Mj,193.0$3]
I;0Ji6'T 49,MT5 8,380.2 Q
Total 129.54iG 147,,M4.}
l 95 37.89E7 s.
Total Assets
$1.335,018.4 1L114_ 513d ILR1.diLA 51.354.MLD.
11.295.674.6 iL21L845.5 N
.1 i
a METROPOLITAN ED150!! COMPANY Consolidated Bah...? Sheet (I lhousands! ~
June March Decenhar Septer.ber June March tlabilities anJ Capital 1980 1980 1979 1979 1979 1979 First enortga9e bonds and debentures, including unanortized prem (disc) net
$ 542,379.9
$ 542.548.5 5 529.596.5
$ 536.754.7
$_ 536,805.3
$ 536,972.8 Cunulative preferred stock, including preinium and expense 139,874.2 139.874.2 139.874.2 139,874.2 139,874.2 139,874.2 Cowen stock and consolidated surplus:
Comon stock 66,273.4 66,273.4 66.273.4 C6,273.4 66,273.4 66.273.4 Capital surplus 280,523.6 200,523.6 280.523.6 280,523.6 280,523.6 280.523.6 Retained earnings 29,450.8 34,130.3 31,604 '
31,532.7 2L7C6.0 3M,420.72iET 23 Total comon equity 3id,F0 3 3til.527. 3 378,40 l. 's 7 0,3297 7 74.563.0 Total lon9-term and capital 1,058,501.9 1,063,950.0 1 047.072,4 1.054,958.6 1,051,142.5 1,047,064.7 Current Liabilities:
Sinking funds t. current maturities 7,476.2 7,475.5 14,474.9 7,764.3 9,223.7 9,103.1 tiotes payable to banks ba.000.0 70,000.0 68,000.0 80,200.0 45,450.0 29,70v.0 Accounts payable 35,162.6 31,975.0 35,927.4 32,349.9 27,541.5 30,969.0 Dividends payable on cumulative prefe, red stock 2,572.2 2.572.2 2,572,2 2,572.2 2,572.2 2.572.2 Tames rued 2,979.9 13.300.3 7,970.5 3,460.7 3,925.4 11,944.3 Interc..ccrued 11,413.7 6,136.0 11,0$7.4 6 J90.6 10,970.1 5,977.9 Other 7,418.2 7,002 o 5,677 2 3,476 9 3,223.6 5 833.7
]'l411,6d.5 146.4/)t, 746,h,5 74,2) {,.T 72,))4.T 7,y0]J, p gr Total 3,8
+
Defersed Ciedits:
E,$,
Ceferred income taxes 118.034.6 120,414.1 110,630,9 99,302.7 83,012.7 72,297.6 ee n Unvortized I.T.C.
6,607,4 9.850.9 18,199,6 32,535.1 32,006.6 33,977.2 o,, p Other L}40 5 Total 7 f7,8/U.6 735,,067,d 3
5 7,d} 7,7
' 7 1,961 2 3
4 22 24 020.1 3 267.4
- r 2
j 9d.
100.6 7 43,,81 G 7 9i5If~l
]
3il Reserves 6232 190 0 090,7 994J 1.050.2 1,138.4 C
Total 1. labilities & Capital
$1,335,018.4
$1,'144,r 14
$1,327,140.6
$_l,354.957,8
$1,295,674.6
$1,253,845.5 d
l NN
....w.
mg.
ee.
-o.
e e e a,,
~
~.
Mat-Ed Exhibit No. [P)-II.7 METROPOLITAN EDISON COMPMiY Int'erest Coverage Debenture Test Twelve Months Ended June, 1980 1.45 l
March, 1980 1.73 December, 1979 1 99 September, 1979 2.04 June, 1979 2.17, March, 1979 2.40 Preferred Stock Coverage Twelve Months Ended June 1980 1.04 i
March, 1980 1.03 Dece:aber,1979 1.19 September, 1979 1.28
]
June, 1979 1.56
)
March, 1979 1.71 J!
1 i
e i
' [
Mat-Ed Exhibit No. 8 - // f '
METROPOLITAN EDISON COMPANY Bi-Weekly Cash Balances and Monthly Customer Accounts Receivable Balances
($000)
Custoner Line Accounts No.
Description Balances Receivable 1
January k, 1980
$ 3,503 2
January 18 6,231 3
January 31
$21,857 4.
February 1 697 5
February 15 11,247 6
February 29 3,284 24,943 7
March 14 2,712 8
March 28 3,61o 9
March 31 27,753 lo April 11 8,56o 11 April 25 5,849, 12 April 30 25,385 13 May 9 3,126 14 May 23 8,986 15 May 31 23,055 16 June 6 4,646 17 June 20 945 18 June 30 2k,9k2
~
I e
- L
Met-EdExhibitnd,$2ffs METROPOLITA!I EDISON COMPA?.T Annual Interest and Dividend Reduiraments
~
t on Long Term Debt and Preferred Stock Outstanding at July 31, 1980 Line No.
Description Amount
$36,636,516 1
First mortgage bonds 6,487,875 2
Debentures 3
Total interest
$43,124,391 4
Preferred dividends 10,288,7h8 5
Total interest and dividends
$53,413,139 l
l t
e 9
e G
9 l
m Met-Ed Exhibit: f' 'f I b METROPOLITAll EDISON COMPANY Return on Average Conr.on Equity Twelve Months Ending Last Five Calendar Years (S Thousands)
Earnings Available Average Return for Common Equity Common Equity
~ (Col. 1 + Col. 2)
(1)
(2)
(3) 1979
$15,585
$374,272 4.16%
1978
$48,318
.$374,308 12,91%
1977
$48,544
$370,793 13,10%
1976
$41,322
$368,849,
11,19%
1975
$41,641
$365,977 11,38%
Twelve Months Endino in 1980 f
June, 1980
$ 1,685
$378,137 0.45%
May, 1980
$ 4,785
$377,854 1.27%
April, 1980
$ 8,727
$377,509 2.31%
March, 1980
$11,310
$376,711 3.00%
February,1980
$13,338
$375.588 3.55%
Janua ry,1980
$12,654
$374,985 3,37%
.