ML20041C127
| ML20041C127 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Perry  |
| Issue date: | 02/22/1982 |
| From: | Davidson D CLEVELAND ELECTRIC ILLUMINATING CO. |
| To: | Schwencer A Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8202260235 | |
| Download: ML20041C127 (49) | |
Text
- - - - - -
THE CLEVELAND ELECTRtC ILLUMIN ATING COMPANY P.o. BOX 5000 m CLEVELAND. oHlo 44101 e TELEPHONE (216) 622-9800 e ILLUMINATING BLOG e 55 PUBLICSoVARE e ing e Best Location in the Nation Dalwyn R. Davidson SYST M E G NEERING AND CONSTRUCTION I
$1 9%
S OJ February 22, 1982 .
- "'ECyg.a. 9 A. Schwencer, Chief 3 "U Licensing Branch No. 2 e /'egU5z'o Division of Licensing ;4 g' A 10 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission ,, rq Washington, D. C. 20555 <
g ff Perry Nuclear Power Plant
- N Docket Nos. 50-440; 50-441 Response to Request for Additional Information -
Financial Qualifications
Dear Mr. Schwencer:
This letter and its attachment is submitted to provide responses to the concerns identified in your letter dated December 22, 1981, regarding financial qualifications. Due to the complexity involved in ascertaining esticates for property and liability insurance, part A of question 320.1 will be submitted to you on or before March 22, 1982.
Very Truly Yours, W
Dalwyn . Davidson Vice President System Engineering and Construction DRD: mlb cc: Jay Silberg, Esq.
John Stefano Max Gildner, NRC Resident Inspector 8
fsj 8202260235 820222 PDR ADOCK 05000440 I PDR
.o 4 's -1 +i - ,.
d
-320.lb Indicate the unit price per kwh experienced by each applicant on system-wide sales of electric power to all customers for the most recent 12-month period.
Response-The unit price per Kilowatt-hour for the applicants are as'follows:
Cleveland Electric Illuminating Company $0.05495 Duquesne Light Company 0.05019
^
OhioEdison' Company /PennsylvaniaPowerCompany 0.0505 Toledo Edison Company 0.05299-
o.
s
. Indicate the estimated costs of permanently shutting down each unit
'320.2 of the-facility, stating what is included in such costs, the.
assumptions made in estimating the costs, the. type of shutdown contemplated, and the intended source of funds to cover these costs.
Our response is as follows:
i l
i l-y % ,
w- -
4 7 i-- - g w , - , - - - - -e p- e w -- wpp=- - ww, . e-- -r-
s The Applicant has not yet formulated plans and policies for the decommissioning and d1amantling of the PNPP at the end of its useful life.
However, the alternatives available for decommissioning and dismantling -
include the following:
o Mothballing - fuel and radioactive fluids and wastes removed; monitoring and surveillance required o Entombment - all highly radioactive components sealed in a structure providing integrity until decay to unrestricted levels o Dismantlement - radioactive material removed until unrestricted levels are achieved The prices, as estimated by the NRC in NUREG/CR-0672, for the three decommissioning alternatives include 12 million dollars for building demolition for each alternative and a 25% contingency factor. The price estimates exclude the cost of disposal of the last core but include the cost of deep geologic disposal of highly activated components. All estimates are summarized in Table 1.
Costs for Immediate Dismantlement The estimated cost for immediate dismantlement of PNPP, as estimated by the NRC in NUREG/CR-0672, is expected to be about $56 million dollars per unit.
The cost for disposal of neutron activated wastes, contaminated materials, and radioactive wastes is about is about $8.7 million.
The disposal costs include the container, transportation and burial costs.
The cost for staff labor is about $17.6 million and does not include speciality contractor labor. The costs for. energy during immediate dismantlement is about S3.5 million - $1.5 for electricity and $1.9 million
- for oil. The costs for special tools and equipment is about $2.0 million.
The cost for miscellaneous supplies is about $1.9 million. These supplies include expendable glass-fiber and HEPA filters, anticontamination clothing, expendable hand tools, decontamination chemicals, etc. Speciality contractors will cost about $0.4 million. This estimate includes cost for explosives.
l l temporary radwaste handling, and environmental monitoring. The cost for l nuclear liability insurance for a policy limit of $125 million is estimated to l be $0.8 million. The costs for licensing services performed by the NRC are I
explained in 10 CFR 170 and are estimated to be $0.05 million. Demolition of buildings on the site will cost about $12 million. These estimates are l
summarized in Table 2. -
l Estimatated Costs of Mothballing with Delayed Dismantiment l
The cost for mothballing PNPP with dismantlement after 30 years is estimated to be $69 million per unit. A 30 year storage period was selected because it is the most expensive mothballing option and will give a conservative estimate of costs. The breakdown of the cost for this alternative includes the same items as described for the immediate dismantlement alternative. These costs are summarized in Table 3.
I
i s
' These' cost estimates do not' include costs for maintaining each unit of the facility in a-safe condition (continuing care). The estimatad annual cost is about $75,000 or $2.25 million over the 30 year storage period.
Estimated Costs for Entombment with Internals Removed The costs for entombing the reactor af ter removing the highly activated
- reactor. vessel' internals is estimated to be about $40.6 million. The breakdown of the cost for this alternative includes the same items as described for the immediate dismantlement alternative. - These ' costs are summarfzed in Table 4.
A reactor can be entombed with the internals in place for about $35.0 million.
The more conservative entombment option, however, was used in .the ER/0L.
These~ costs do not include continuing care which is estimated to cost $0.04 million annually per unit.
b 8 e 4 m
- 1 a
4-5
, , - - s-+
a s
.s Decomissioning Costs (Source of Funds)
It is anticipated that decomisioning costs will be recovered over the useful life of the plant as a component of the depreciation accural.- This would'be consistent withe PUC0 decision regarding the decomissioning cost associated with the Davis-Besse Nuclear Plant, authorized by the PUC0 in Case No.
77-1369-EL-UNC, and updated in Case No. 80-922-EL-AAM.
1 I
Iei i
TABLE I ESTIMATED COSTS FOR EACH DECOMMISSIONING ALTERNATIVE
- Estimated Cost-Alternative (millions 1978 dollars)
Immediate Dismantienent 56 Mothballing with delayed dismantlement 69 Entombment with Internals Removed 53 T
- Does not include costs for continuing care i
l I
h t
i e
r 4
, - e, - --+- . , , , , , - , - ,
4 v
-TABLE 2 ESTIMATED. COSTS PER UNIT FOR IMMEDIATE DISMANTLEMENT OF PNPP .
Estimated Costs ~
Cost Category (millions 1978 dollars)
Disposal of Radioactive Materials 8.7 Staff Labor- '17.6-Energy 3.5' Special Tools & Equipment 2.0 Miscellaneous Supplies 1.9' Specialty Contractors .0.4 Nuclear Insurance 0.8.
License Fees =0.05 Subcotal 34.95
- - 25% contingent 8.74-43.69 Building demolition 12.00 LTotal 55.7 I
t t
-- y- , ,-- , -
, , . _ - _ - . y -., , y- . . . ~ - --
4 TABLE 3 ESTIMATED COSTS PER UNIT OF MOTHBALLING PNPP WITH DELAYED DISMANTLEMENT
- Estimated Costs
' Cost Category (millions 1978 dollars)
Mothballing Disposal of Radioactive Materials 1.2 Staff Labor 11.3 Energy _
2.1 Special Tools & Equipment- 0.35 Miscellaneous Supplies 1.36 Specialty Contractors 0.20 Nuclear Insurance 0.50 License Fees 0.04 Total for Mothballing 17.05 Delayed Dismantlement (30 years)
Disposal of Radioactive Materials 7.46 Staff Labor 16.55 Energy 1.48 Special Tools & Equipment 1.73 Miscellaneous Supplies 0.59 Specialty Contractors 0.17 I Nuclear Insurance 0.40 0.02
~
l License Fees i
[
Total for Delayed Dismantlement 28.4 l
l Subtotal 45.4 25% centingency 11.4 Demolition of other buildings 12.0 Total 68.8 I ~*Does not include $2.2 million for continuing care l
l l
w
~
TABLE 4 ESTIMATED COSTS PER UNIT OF ENTOMBMENT OF PNPP WITH INTERNALS REMOVED
- Estimated Costs Cost Category (millions-1978 dollars)
Disposal of Radioactive Materials 5.7 Staf f Labor 18.1 Energy 3.8 Special Tools & Equipment 2.0 Miscellaneous Supplies 1.9 Speciality Contractors 0.2 Nuclear Insurance 0.8 License Fees 0.04 Subtotal 32.5 257. contingencies 8.1 Demolition of other buildings -12.0 Total 52.6
- Does not include costs for continuing care DW19/B/8/rd
v.
a 320.3 Provide an estimate of the annnal cost to maintain each unit of the shutdown facility in a safe condition.
Indicate what is included in the estimate, assumptiora, made in estimating costs, and the-intended source to cover these costs.
Response
Annual cost of maintaining the shutdown facility in a safe condition (continuing care), pertains to two decommissioning alternatives - en-tombment and mothballing with delayed dismantlement. Continuing care for the entombment alternative is estimated, by the NRC in NUREG/CR-0672, to cost about $0.04 million annnally per unit. There-fore, continuing care for 100 years would add $4 million to the de-commissioning costs for the entombment alternative. Continuing care for mothballing with delayed dismantlement will cost about
$0.075 million annually per unit. Therefore, continuing care for the 30 year storage period will cost about $2.25 million, and can be broken down as follows:
Estimated Annual Cost Per Unit Cost Category (1978 dollars)
Staff Labor $45,600 Repairs, utilities &' services 10, 200 Nuclear insurance 2,400 Equipment and supplies 1,200 License fee 600 Subtotal $60,000 Contingencies (25%) 15,000 Total $75,000
320.4 If the facility is jointly-owned provide a copy of the joint participation-agreement setting forth the pro-cedures by which the applicants will share operating expenses and decommissioning. costs.
Response
A copy of the construction agreement for Perry units 1 and 2, dated July 22, 1974 is provided. ' Section 5 of the' contract provides in part:
"The companies will, as soon as practicable, enter.
'into an.agraement providing for the operation and maintenance of each Unit with an equitable sharing of the costs thereof and in accordance with the principals stated in the Memorandum of UnderstanMng and the CAPCO Basic Generating Capacity Agreement referred' to in section 1 hereof."
The companies have not yet entered into the agreement described in section 5 Although the Memorandum of UnderstanMng referred '
to in section 5..was terminated pursuant to an agreement between the companies effective as of. September 1,'1980, and although the CAPCO Basic Generating Capacity; Agreement was never executed, the applicant companies are still bound pursuant to.section 5 of the contract to enter into an agreement providing for the op-eration and maintenance of each Unit with an equitable . sharing of the costs thereof. It is anticipated that this operating agreement will be negotiated and entered into by the end of 1982 and that it will provide for the sharing of operating. expenses and decommissioning costs.
320 5 Provide a copy of the prospectus for the most recent security issues and a copy of the me.,t recent SEC Form 10-K and 10-Q. Provide a copy of the preliminav prospectus for any penaing security issue. Submit a copy of the Annual Report to Stockholders each year as required by 10 CFR 50.71(b).
Response
Enclosed are the following items:
Cleveland Electric Illuminating Company.
Attachment 1 Prospectus on common stock Attachment 2 - Form 10-K Attachment 3 - Form 10-Q Attachment 4 - Annual report Duquesne Li6ht Company Attachment 1 - Annual Report Attachment 2 - Form 10-K Attachment 3 - Form 10-Q Attachment 4 - Prospectus 'no common stock Chio Edison Company Attachment 1 - Prospectus on common stock Attachment 2 - Form 10-K Attachment 3 - Form 10-Q-Attachment 4 - Annual report Pennsylvania Power Company Attachment 1 - Prospectus on bonds Attachment 2 - Annual report Attachment 3 - Form 10-Q Attachment 4 - Form 10-K Toledo Edison Company Attachment 1 --Form 10-K l Attachment 2 - Form 10-Q.
Attachment 3 - Prospectus on common stock Attachment 4 - Prospectus on bonds Attachment 5 - Annual report These documents have been submitted under separate cover.
I f
l L
l
a 320.6. Describe aspects of~its regulatory environment including..but not necessarily limited to, the'following: prescribed treatment of allowance for ' funds used duri'ng construction; rate base (original cost, fair value, other); accounting for. deferred income taxes and
' investment tax credits; fuel adjustment clauses in effect or-preposed; historical ~, partially projected, or. fully projected test year.
The responses are given as follows:
The Cleveland Electric Illuminating Co.
Duquesne Light Co.
Ohio Edison Co.
Pennsylvania Power Co.
Toledo Edison Co.
i Cleveland Electric Illuminating Co. Response to 320.6 r
Rigalatory Environment
- i. -
The Company's retail electric sales are regulated by the Public Utilities Commission of Ohio (PUCO). The following discusses-several aspects of the Company's regulatory environment:
Rate Case Timetable The Ohio Revised Code specifies a timetable for utility company rate applications: F q
-- Notice of Intent to file an application
-- Application (Filed not less than 90 days following Notice)
-- PUC0 Staff Review
-- Staff Report of Investigation
-- Public Hearings
-- Commission Decision-(275 days following formal Application)
- If a decision is not reached by the Commission within the 275 day limitation, the Company may seek Commission approval to place its proposed rates into effect, subject to refund.
T Rate Base -/
.l Rate Base, as evidenced in recent PUC0 Cases, is valued at a specified'date referred to as the date certain and is comprised of the following elements:
Plant In-Service (Valued at original cost)
! i, Less: Accumulated Reserve for Depreciation
= Net Plant l
Plus: . Construction Work In-Progress (75% Complete 0 Date Certain)
Plus: Working Capital v (Includes Cash, Materials & Supplies, Fuel ~Inientory)
Less: CeEtain Deferred Taxes
= Total Rate Base i
, + , . . , .., , . - , , . . , .e , - . . , -
. r
(
V q 4
4
,1 Test Year S
Provision is made for the test period and date certain in Ohio Revised Code s'a ction ' 4909.15(C), which states:
l'"(C) The~ test period, unless otherwise ordered by the public
- utilities commission, shall be the twelve-month period beginning six
, jmonths prior to the date the application is filed and ending six
. months subsequent to that date. The revenues and expenses of the
- utility shall be determined during the test period. The date certain shall be not later than the-date of filing."
However, in the Company's recent applications the concept of a fully projected' future test year '(a test year matching the implementation of new rates) has been considered. No formal action has yet .been taken by the Commission in adopting >the future test year concept.
\ l Accou'nting for Deferred' Income Taxes r The Company normalizes deferred taxes as authorized by the PUCO. The '
Commission reduces rate base by the accumulated deferred income taxes.
p Investment Tax Credit Invectment Tcx Chedits are normalized over the life of the property.
=, 4 Allowance for Funds' Used Duringg<
hinstruction$ (AFUDC)
~
' ~
GLri accordance vith rhe regulations \oU'thesFERC a'nd the PUCO, the Company capitalizes as part oIEtheyes Fof dpetty and Plant an allowance for the
- ccstoffundsrequiredtodinancec[onstructionworkinprogress. Such amount also is recorded inethe Income Statement as the " Allowance for Equity Funds Use,d During Construction" 'in Nonoperating Income and thdt" Allowance for Borreved Funds Used During Constrdction" in' Interest\ Cigrges. This allowance; becomis part of ConstructLad Work in Progress o.1 the Balance Sheet and,'when a cotistruction project is placed 'in ' service or determined.to be 75% complete for ratemaking, the:alldwance,is included in the rate base-ftogether with'
~
L ' construction labhr,' material and overhead costs capitalized) on whichithe Company is entitled to earn a fair rate of return. j. ,
1
! Fuel Adjustment Clause
! The Company's fuel adjGstment is regulated by the PUCO, as established by l Amended Substitute Ohio Hodse' Bill 4 No. 21. Hearings before the PUC0 are held -
l semi-snnually to determine a fuel recovery factor that is applied to
~
l customers' bills for six consecutive months. This factor is based on includable costs f'or the peried'sik months prior tofits implementation. The s' 3.
fuel adjustment includes provisions for recovery of purchased power transactions, deferred fuel'expe,nses and system line lesses.
,' ..g
.I
! s \ , \'
o , -
l i
.( ,a
! t k f .) '#
, p.t , y
4 Duquesne Light-Co.' Response to 320.6 Prescribed Treatment of Allowance for Funds Used During Construction In accordance with the uniform system of accounts prescribed by regulatory duthorities, an allowance for funds used during Construction (AFC) is included in construction work in progress and credited to other income for AFC attributable to borrowed funds. AFC is a non-cash item and is computed using a composite rate, which is applied to the balance of construction work _in progress and which assumes that funds used for construction are provided by borrowings and by preferred, preference and common stock equity. The AFC rate is calculated in accordance with Federal Power Ccmmission Order No. 561 issued February 2,1977. The debt component of the composite rate is included. net of the income tax effect as instructed in both FPC Order No. 561 and the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission order at lRate Investigation Docket
'No. 89 dated July 30,1974. This accounting procedure results in the inclusion
'in property, plant and equipment of amounts considered by regulatory authorities as an appropriate cost for the purpose of establishing rates for utility charges to customers.
Rate 3ase-Pennsylvania is a fair value rate base jurisdiction. However, original cost has been used as fair value in recent rate decisions.
Accounting for Deferred Income Taxes And Investment Tax Credits Since 1970-71, Pennsylvania has been a normalization state insofar as the
. Federal income tax effects of liberalized depreciation and the investment tax credit. Since 1971, Duquesne has been allowed the normalization, and the subsequent recovery in rates, of the tax effect of using the Asset l Depreciation Range Method of calculating income tax depreciation._ Since 1974, Duquesne has been allowed the' normalization of the income effect of liberalized depreciation on post-1969 properties that increase productive
- capacity and the five year write-off of pollution control facilities.
[ Rate base is rtduced by the accumulated deferred taxes but is not reduced by.
the accumulated Job Development Credit (Investment Tax Credit).
s L* Fuel Adjustment Clauses
- f. Duquesne presently has an Energy Cost Rate in effect which permits the recovery of the excess of all fuel and purchase power costs (excluding demand charges on parchased power) over a pre-determined base. Recovery is on a
- current basis in accordance with projected energy costs as determined by the Company.
l l
y + 1
! N- >
?
t
. 2 :.
1 4 . -.
Fully Projected Test > Yearn ..
- Pennsylvania permits the~filingfof~ rate requests' employing either an historic 3 rest year or 'a lfully proje$ted . test year: supported by historic test. year data..
4 L
5 f
-w emes, T
T e' -
4 I
s 9
+
1
, wre-. , --- , - - - , - m.,-... - .-, , m Aw ,,,ma- , r-n.-- - , , , r-w , , - w
e.
Ohio Edison Company Response to 320.6 s.
- In the; State of Ohio, plant-in-service in' rate base.is valued at original cost depreciated. Also included in rate base is an. amount for CWIP for those
, projects that are 75% complete at date certain (limited to 20% of total rate base). Upon approval by the Public Utilities' Commission of including certain CWIP projects in rate base, the accumulation of ' allowance for funds for these projects are stopped. When these projects, along with other facilities, are added to rate base, the aseociated AFUDC is capitalized.
An allowance for working capital consists of a cash element based on the day rule, fuel stock, nuclear fuel, materials and supplies, deferred fuel, and offsets for customer deposits and one-fourth of operating taxes.
Deductions from rate base are customer advances for construction, deferred tax balances in FERC accounts 281 and 282 and 3% and 4% balances of accumulated investments tax credits.
The PUC0 permits the filing of both a 6-month actual and month estimated ,
partially-forecasted test period and a fully-forecasted test period. To date all Ohio Edison rate-case decisions have been based on the partially-forecasted periods thoroughly.
The PUC0 allows in'the cost-of-service analysis, included in the filing, full tax normalization and annualizations for wage increases and for the level of fuel cost at the end of the test period.
Fuel hearings are held every. six months by the PUC0 to set a levelized monthly .
electric fuel component to be applied to customer bills.for a six-month period. The level of subsequent fuel components can include, if permitted by.
the Commission, a reconciliation adjustment for an over or an under recovery-in a prior period.
9 .
I
~
i i
i l
F
-s :
Pennsylvania Power Company Response to'320.6
- Response: Thh. rate base, or " measure of value,";as permitted'by the-
~
! Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission (PaPUC), includes Plant in Service
. (including AFUDC); Plant Held for Future Use (if usable in' ten year time
' frame); Leased Nuclear Fuel (carrying costs paid to PruLease plus the value of fuel on site in the test year); and Pollution Control Facilities Under
- Construction at Existing Plants (including only those plants previously
. included' in rate base) .. 'In addition the Working Capital' requirement includes Operation and Maintenance Expenses, Average Prepayments & Accrued Tax- -
Adjustments ;as the " cash" element and Coal and Oil Inventory, Material and Supplies -Inventory and any applicable Energy . Cost Rate Deferral as the "other"
~ element.. Compensating Bank-Balances ~are not pernitted-by the PaPUC.
A13 items included ~above are reduced by " Customer' Advances for Construction,"
" Deferred Income Taxes," and " Deferred Investment Tax Credits" to arrive at-the " Measure of.Value."
Pennsylvania :is currently determining rates' on an original . cost basis using a future test year if[ the' utility choses to use the future test year concept.
Final rates must be determined by the PaPUC nine months from the filing date.
Until the Company's recent retail filing, all' revenue determinations had been predicated on the " flow-through' tax methodology. In the Company's recent retail filing, the Commission has allowed the full " normalization" tax method' for both Federal'and State Income Taxes.
f The Company's fuel adjustment clause is characterized as the "Levelized - Energy Cost Rate" (LECR). ' The LECR is --calculated annually, ef fective January.1, on a projeted year basis, and includes the allowable costs of coal, oil, nuclear -
fuel, economy interchange, "other"' interchange, and the energy costs associated with Purchased Power. In' addition the costs of sulphur' oxide removal devices (lime and calcilox)-are included with the fuel costs. Fuel handling costs are not permitted. The LECR is'the same for'the entire year under normal operating circumstances.. '
i L
l
(
Toledo Edison's Response to 320.6 Regulatory Environment The dominant factor in the regulatory environment of the Toledo Edison Company is the regulation of retail electric rates by th'e Public Utilities Commission of Ohio. This jurisdiction covers about 91% of total operating revenue. The following information applies to PUC0 regulation of electric rates.
- 1. Allowance' for funds used during construction is capitalized for each major project and is included in construction work-in-progress costs when such items meet the requirements for inclusion in rate base.
Allowance for funds is not treated as an income item in determining revenue requirements or operating _ income.
- 2. Rate base consists of property used and useful at original costs less depreciation, construction projects which are seventy-five percent complete, limited to no more than twenty percent of plant in service, and an allowance for working capital. Deferred income tax.
balances a of the date certain are used as an offset to rate base.
- 3. Accounting for income taxes is on a normalized basis, with deferrals -
and amortization eliminated from operating income for rate-setting purposes.
- 4. The fuel adjustment in effect in Ohio is specified by Ohio law (0.R.C. Ch. 4901:1-11). The procedure provides for recovery of estimated fuel costs for a six month period, adjusted for actual
~
costs incurred and over or under recovery in prior periods. The fuel cost recovery factor is held constant for the six month period.
Semi-annual hearings and an annual audit of cost data are required.
Allowable fuel costs include the cost of all fuel consumed, including nuclear, and fuel costs of purchased power. Someldenand costs of economic purchases may be included with prior _ approval of the PUCO. The fuel costs of all energy sales-for resale'are deducted from allowable costs.
I 5. The test year used in Ohio is a partially projected ~ test year, with the original filing in a case'being'three months of actual data and nine _ months proj ected. Subsequent updates of data are required, and the updated filing showing six menths of actual data and six months projected usually becomes the data on which the PUC0 staff recommendations and the Commission decision is based.
DW19/A/8/rd
. Describe the nature and amount of its most recent rate relief
~
-320.7 action (s). 'In addition, indicate the nature and amount of any-pending rate relief action (s). Use the attached form to provide this information. Provide copies.of the submitted, financially..
related testimony and~ exhibits of the staff and company in the most' recent rate relief ation or pending action.- Furnish copies lof the-hearing examiner's report and recommendation,' and final opinion last-issued with respect to each participant,: including all financially.
related exhibits referred.to therein.
The responses are given as-follows:
' The Cleveland Electric Illuminating Co.
Duquesne Light Co.
Ohio Edison Co.
Pennsylvania Power Co.
Toledo Edison Co.
+ e- , * =t- ~ * - r
?.
__THE CLEVELAND ELECTRIC ILLUMINATINGS COMPANY'S RESPONSE FOR 320.7
.'~
. RATE DEVELOPMENTS Granted (PUCO' Case No. 80-376-EL-AIR 'lectric E Utility
- Test year utilized .
- 1980 Annual amount of revenue increase requested- $_ 168,085 1980 Test Year
' test year basis (000's) (See Note 1) ~ 174,032 1981 Test Year-
- Date petitioned filed .
' July 16,.1980 Annual anount of revenue increase allowed-test year basis-(000's) $ 147,818-Percent-increase in revenues allowed 17.6%_
Date of final order (See Note 2) May 4, 1981 original, June 3, 1981 Nunc Pro Tunc Effective date June 10, 1981 Rate base finding (000's) $1,738,214 Construction work in progress included in $ 177,227
^ Rate base (000's)
' Rate of return on rate base-authorized _
11.76%
Rate of return on common equity authorized 16.22%.
Revenue Effect (000's)
Amount _ received in year granted Amount received in subsequent _ year (If not available, annualize amounts received in year granted.')(See Note 3) $::147,818 The Company presented ~its case _using two' test years: -A traditional Note 1:
test period (1980) which contained 6 months actual data and'6 conths budgeted data and a fully projected
- test . year .(1981). The Commission. based its finding on the traditional test year.
2 Note 2: The Commission's Order was issued May 4,1981, however, it- contained a few errors. On June 3, 1981, a "Nunc Pro Tunc" Entry was issued 4
correcting the errors.
. - Note 3: In ' January 1980, the CAPC0 Group terminated its plans to build four nuclear power units, which were in various stages of preparation for .
, construction start-up. The PUCO in Electric. Case No. 79-537-EL-AIR' had authorized the Company to recover almost all of the Terminated Investment in rates by allowing it to be amoritzed over 10 years __
beginning.in July 1980 as an operating expense a-d increasing rates by a corresponding amount. On July 15, 1981, ths . Supreme Court of Ohio ruled that the PUCO did not have the statutory authority to authorize-the-Company to recover any of the Terminated Investment through rates. On September 2, 1981, the Company appealed the decision to the United States' Supreme Court.
, - . ~.
. 3.
i RATE! DEVELOPMENTS'(Continued)'
Note'3 (Continued)
.On October 21, 1981, in Case No. 81-1096-EL-COIlthe PUC0 ordered the Company to' discontinue omortization of investment in terminated-nuclear units and to reduce its rates accordingly, but not deduct-from earnings;to unamortized amount pending decision by the United
^
States Supreme Court. .Therefore, for service rendered after October 27, 1981, the Company reduced its rates about 0.5%,.
resulting in an estimated $6.7 million reduction in annual revenues
-and discontinued amortization of the Terminated Investment.'
4 ~Pending Requeste (PUC0' Case No. 81-146-EL-AIR) Electric Utility Test year utilized (See Note 1). 12 mos. ending 9/30/81; 1982 Amount (000's) $133,897; $134,352 i Percent increase- 12.74%; 12.27%-
Date petition filed May-5, 1981 Date' by which decision must be issued (Note 2) February 5,1982 Rate of return on rate base requested 12.92* - 13.28%-
L Rate of ' return on common equity requested - .19.004 - 20.00%'
Amount of rate base requested 'S2,081,195,098 Amount of construction work in progress $ 40,662,345' requested for inclusion in rate base.
. Note 1: The Company presented its case using'two test periods: A- .
traditional test-period (12 months-ending 9/30/81) which contained 3, months actual and 9 months budgeted data and a fully projected test year-(1982). Hearings'before the PUC0 are currently underway.
Note 2: Because of the timing and length of hearings in-this case,-it'is
- anticipated that the Commission will not reach 'its ' decision by' February 5, 1982.
Pending Requests (PUC0 Case No. 81-1378-EL-AIR On November. 13,'1981, the Company noticed its intent to file an Application to-
, . increase electric rates by approximately $221 million (presuming 100%
. authorization of the requested amount in Case No. 81-146-EL-AIR), which would take effect in early 1983. It is anticipated that 'the . formal application will
, be filed with the PUC0 in March 1982. This application will include a request t
to include Perry Unit No. 1 in rate base as 75% CWIP, as well as the' various financial data supporting the~ request.
I I
L ,
i i
l :
l-i 1
- . = - . -
6-
' RATE DEVELOPMENTS (Continued)
Granted (PUC0 Case No. 81-41-HT-AIR) Steam Utility Test year utilized Calendar year 1980 Annual amount of revenue increase requested-test year basis (000's) $ 6,875 Date petitioned filed April 9, 1981 Annual amount of revenue increase allowed-test year basis (000's) $ 7,021 Percent increase in revenues allowed 47.03%
Date of final order January 13, 1982 Effective date January 20, 1982 Rate base finding (000's) $27,757 Construction work in progress included in Rate base (000's) $ 4.748 Rate of return on rate base authorized 12.04%
Rate of return on common equity authorized ---
Revenue Effect (000's)
Amount received in year granted Amount received in subsequent year (If not available, annualize amounts received in year granted.) $ 7,021 Pending Requests (See Note 1)
Test year utilized Amount (600's)-
Percent increase Date petition filed l Date by which decision must be issued Rate of return on rate base requested l
h Rate of return on common equity requested Amount of rate base requested l Amount of construction work in progress requested for inclusion in rate base l
l l Note 1: The Company on November 9, 1981, noticed its intent to file an application to increase Steam Rates by $2.1 million, which would take effect in late 1982 or early 1983. The formal application along'with supporting financial data will be filed with the PUC0 in l February 1982.
i I
i
d The_following documents are provided for The Clever.and Electric Illuminating Company's response for question 320.7:
Attachment 1 Opinion and Order in Electric Rate Case No 80-376-EL-AIR, dated May 1, 1981, and Entry "Nunc Pru Tunc ". dated June 3, 1981.
Attachment 2- Opinion and Order in Electric Rate Case No. 79-537-EL-AIR, dated July- 10.-1980.
Attachment 3 . Opinion and Order in Electric Rate Case No. 78-677-EL-AIR, dated May 2, 1979.
Attachment 4 Opinion and Order in Depreciation Case No. 77-1639-EL-UNC, dated December 21, 1978, establishing' depreciation provision for the Davis-Besse Nuclear Plant including the-recovery of decommissioning costs.
Attachment 5 Order on Rehearing in Depreciation Case No. 77-1369-EL-UNC, dated December 12, 1979, . authorizing'the use of the Unit-of-Production depreciation method for'the Davis-Besse Nuclear Plant.
Attachment 6 Entry in Case No. 80-922-EL-AAM, dated December 23, 1980, authorizing an update to the Davis-Besse decommissioning cost estimate.
Attachment 7 Staff Report of Investigation, Pending Electric Case No. 81-146-EL-AIR.
Attachment 8 Opinion and Order in Steam Rate Casa No. 81-41-HT-AIR, dated January 13, 1982.
These documents have been submitted under separate cover.
d DUQUESNE LIGHT COMPANY'S RESPONSE FOR 320.7 On April 30, 1981, the Company filed with the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission a rate _ schedule affecting all classes of customers and estimated.to
. increase annual revenues based on levels of business at December 31, 1980,.by approximately $100.4 million or 14.9%. On June 29,-1981, the Commission entered an order instituting an investigation into the rate request and granting the Company the option to place a rate increase of approximately
$64.2 million or 10.4% into effect pending the outcome of the investigation if the Company reduced the increase requested to that amount. On June 30, 1981, the Company filed a new rate schedule in accordance with the option granted by the Commission. -On July 17, 1981,_the Commission approved the new rate schedule, thereby permitting the new rates to become effective .for service rendered on and after July 15, 1981, subject to refund with interest if the Commission's investigation results in approval of a small rate increase.
Petitions for review and supersedeas of the Commission's actions in the rate proceeding were filed by one of the complainants with the Pennsylvania Commonwealth and Supreme Courts. Two of the petitions before the Commonwealth Court are still pending. Unless the $64.2 million rate increase is reduced, it is expected that 1981 revenues will increase by about $29 million as a.
result of the Commission's June 29, 1981 order._ A final decision on the option rates of $64.2 million is expected before the end of January 1982.
Requested exhibits and reports are being provided.
@e
~.
i.
LATE DEVELOPMENTS-1 ' Granted Electric Test year utilized December 31, 1979
. Annual amount of revenue increase' requested-test year basis -(000's) $ 113.048 Date petitioned filed April 29,-1981 Annual amount of revenue increase allowed-test year basia (000's) $ 47,500 Percent increase in revenues allowed 8.0%
Date of final order Feb ruary - 20, 1981 Effective date February 21,1981 Rate base' finding (000's) .
$1,488,811 (Original cost-net)-
Construction work in progress included'in Rate base:(000's) $ 22,173 Rate of. return on rate b ase authorized - 10.56%
. Rate of return on common equity authorized 15.25%
Revenue Effect (000's)
Amount received in year granted S 38,733 Amount received in subsequent year $ 47,807 (If not available, annualize amounts received in year. granted.) S 7,021 Pending Requests (See Note 1)
Test year utilized December 31, 1980 Amount (000's) $ 100,400
> Percent increase 14.9%
- Date petition filed April 30, 1981 Date by~which decision must be issued Not Applicable Rate of return on rate base requested 11.50%'
Rate of return on common equity requested 17.00%- ,
Amount of rate base requested $1,654,501-(Original cost-net)
Amount of; construction work in progress requested for inclusion in rate base $ 10,795 4
J
The following' documents are provided'for The Cleveland Electric Illuminating Company's response for 320.7:
Attachment 1 Rate Testimony.
' Attachment 2 Rate Exhibits.
Attachment 3 Comission's opinion and Order.
These documents have been subnitted under separate. cover.
(Mllo FDitmh 01ttPAIIY'S PFSPONSE FOR 320.7 4410 FinlSnN CIW4PANY (Corpornte only)
Rate llevelopments Flectrical PUCD .lurisdiction FERC furisdiction-Case No. Case No. Docket No. Docket No.
FR80-454 ER82-79 Can Steam 80-ll39-El.-AIR 181-1711-F'.-AIR . , ,
llot Not Cranted Applicable- Applicable 12 Mos. Ending Test year utilized 8/3 t/8 t (a)
Annual amount of revenue increase requested- ,
test aar basis (000's) $ 137.865(b)
Date r... !iled 3/4/81 Annual amount of revenue increase allowed-test year basis (000's) $ 90.000(c)
Percent i nc reas.e in revenues alloued 9.2%
Date of final order 7/31/81(d)
Effective Date 8/1/81 Rate base finding (000's) $1.807.352(d)
Rate of return on rato base authorized 'II.741(d)
Rate of return on common equity authorized 16.98%(e)
Revenue Effect (000's)
Amount received in year granted ' $- 37.916 Amount received in subsequent year $ 90.459(f).
(if not available, annualize amounts received in year granted.)
Pending Requests 12 Hos.,Ending' Year Year Test year utilized 1982~
6/30/83(g) .
1980
$ 117.680 $13.965(h)- $ 14.859(1)
Amount (000's). 9.8% 37.2%(h) 31.32(1)
Percent increase .6/10/80 11/9/88 Date petition filed 1/4/82 -
Date by uhich decision must be issued '10/7/82 .--
13.70% 11.45% 13.65% -
Rate of return on rate base requested 17.00% 19.00%
Bate of return on common' equity requested . 19.50%
$2,022.336 $84.602 $101.751 Amount of rate base requested (000's)
Asmount of const ruction work in progress -$ 10.584 f
$ 20.124 $10.514 requested f or inclusion in base rate
. 1. .
- s. e
. Rate Developments (Continued)
- flotest (a) . Partially forecasted (6 ' months actual and 6 months estimated). --
(b)- Ortrinal request to be adlusted by $2.477.000 due to adjustment to allowable revenue from rehearing in prior case. , . . .
~
. (c) ' This was the amount ' reached as a settlement aCreement among all parties which the PtfC0 granted as emergency rate relief in Case No. 81-898-EL-AEM on July 31.-1981. -
- (d) :. These numbers are based on PUC0 staf f figures supporting the $90.0C0.000 increase.
.(e) J.This value was arrived at by fixing the rate of return of. ll.74% in the PUC0 Staf f's capital structure.
(f) This is an annualized amount for Year 1981 over and above the annualized amount from the final rates in the prior case.
(g) Fully-forecasted period.
(h) Interin rates producing a $10.6 million (28.4%) increase were put into effect on January 10 1981. subject to refund.
(1) These numbers are the amount and percentage increases over and above the interim rates in Docket No. FR80-454.
4 4
~
The-following documents are provided for Ohio Edison Company's response.for
' 320.7:
Opinion and Order of the Public Utilities Commission.
Attachment'l Attachment 2 Case No. 80-1139-EL-AIR Data and Forecasting.
Attach 7sent 3 Initial Testimony. .
-Attachment.4 Staff-Report of Investigation from'the Public Utilities Commission.
These documents have been submitted under separate cover.
4 e
h b
k
. 7 ,, , - . . - , - , - , -- w # , - - - . - . = - , .- , > . . - - , . . -
PENNSYLVANIA POWER-COMPANY'S RESPONSE FOR 320.7 RATE DEVELOPMENTS Electric-Granted Retail Wholesale Test year utilized .
1981 1981 Annual amount of revenue increase requested-test.-year basis (000's) $32.7 $1.7/2.3*-
-Date petition filed 4/15/81 10/7/81 Annual anount of revenue increase allowed-test year basis .(000's) (See note) $23.0 - 'S1.7.
Percent increase in revenues allowed 15.9%** 40.0%**
Date of final order' 1/22/82- ***
Effective date 1/23/82 1/24/82 Rate base finding (000's) $395,057 $12,251 Construction; work in progress included in Rate base ' (000's) 9.0 9.0~
Rate of return on rate base authorized 11.76. 11.76 Race of return on commen equity authorized 16.25% 16.5 Revenue Effect (000's)
- Amount received in year granted Amount received in subsequent year $23.02 (If not available, annualize amounts received in year granted.)
Pending Requests Test year utilized None -1981 Amount (000's) S.6 Percent increase ,. 13%
Date petition filed 10/7/81 Date by which decision must be issued Unknown Rate of' return on rate base requested 12.28
- Rate' of . return on common equity requested 18.0 Amount of rate base requested $12,102:
Amount of construction work in progress requested for inclusion in rate base - 9.0
- Two-part filing - Level A ($1.7M), Level B (2.3M)
- Sales ~to jurisdictional customers
- 0rder not final - subject to refund Note: Final allowed retail revenues will be available on January 22, 1982.
l m- s-- " e -e , m -
p-
The following documents are provided-for Pennsylvania Power. Company's response for 320.7:
Attachment 1 Administrative Law Judge Recommended Decision.
Attachment.2 Direct Testimony of F. J.-Hanley Concerning Fair Rate of Return.
Attachment 3 Electric Rates: Suspension, Waiver, Summary Disposition, Intervention, Price Squeeze.
Attachment 4 Information on Proposed Tariff Changes.
Attachment 5 Exhibit Accompanying the -Direct Testimony of F. J. Hanley.
Attachment 6 Testimony, Proposed Rate Schedules, Present/ Proposed Revenue Analysis and Transnittal Letters.
Attachment 7 Required Statements Statements AA through BL (Volume II A)
Period II (Level A).
Attachment 8 Required Statements, Statements AA through BL (Volume II B)
Period II (Level B).
Attachment 9 Required Statements, ' Statements AA through BL (Volume III)
Period II Workpapers.
Attachment 10 PaPUC Order in the Most Recent Retail Case.
These documents have been submitted under separate cover.
a
TOLEDO EDISCN COMPANY'S RESPONSE FOR 320.7 RATE DEVELOPMENTS Granted . Electric Test year utilized. : Calendar-1980 Annual amount of revenue increase' requested-test year basis (000's) $ 66,422 Date petitioned filed _
July 3, 1980 Annual-amount of revenue increase allowed-test year basis (000's) $ 65,427 Percent increase in revenues allowed 18.48%
Date of final order April 9,1981 Effective date April 14,1981
-Rate base finding (000's) _
$858,807 Construction work in progress included in Rate base (000's) $106,495 Rate of return on rate base authorized 11.44%
Rate of return on common equity authorized 15.30%
. Revenue Effect (000's)
Amount received in year granted S 42,820 Amount received in subsequent year $ 60,300 (If not available, annualize amounts received in year granted.)
Pending Requests (See Note 1)
Test year utilized Calendar-1981 Amount (000's) $ 48,311 Percent' increase 11.2%
Date petition filed . August. 21, 1981
'May 21, 1982 Date by which decision must be issued -
Rate of return on rate base requested 12.52%
Rate of return on common equity requested. -16.67%
Amount-of rate base requested $911,794 Amount of construction work in progress requested for inclusion in rate base $ 10,430-t-
m _ _ _ _ _ - , _ . . - _ - -
4 - .
The following/ documents are provided for Toledo Edison Company's response for
. 320.7:
Attachment 1 Revenue Requirements Six Months Actual Six Months. Estimated.
Attach' ment'2 -Case No. 81-620-EL-AIR Testimony.
Attachment 3 Case No. 81-620-EL-AIR Testimony.
Attachment 4- Opinion and Order.
- Attachment 5 Staff Report of Investigation from the Public Utilities Commission.
Attachment 6 Case No. 80-377-EL-AIR Exhibit 1.-
Attachment 7 Case No. 80-377-EL-AIR Six Months Actual - Six Months Estimated.
These documents have been submitted under separate cover.
1 1
i l ' DW19/C/15/es l
l t
I- - - - .- _ , , , . , __ _ . .
4
- 32 0.' 8 ' Complete the enciesed form entitled, " Financial Statistics," for the most recent twelve-month period and for the' previous-three calendar years.
The responses are given as.'follows:
The Cleveland Electric Illuminating Co.
Duquesne Light Co.
Ohio Edison ~Co.
Pennsylvania Power Co.
- Toledo Edison Co.
[
e i
i-
- i. -
1
[.. - -- - . . _ .- . - .
ATTACHMENT FOR ITEM NO. 320.8 THE CLEVELAND ELECTRIC ILLUMINATING COMPANY FINANCIAL STATISTICS 12 Months Ended-(Dollars in Thousands)~
1981* 1980 1979- 1978
$ 115,642 97,672 92,072 $ 75,438 Earnings available to common equity $ $
$ 671,314 Average common equity $ 918,008 $ 866,571 $' 764,647~
Rate of return on average common equity 13.1% 11.3% 12.0% 11.2%
, Times total interest earned before FIT:
Cross income (both including and excluding AFDC) + current and deferred FIT + total interest charges.+ amortization of debt discount and expense .
Including AFUDC 2.3 2.4 2.7 2.7 Excluding AFUDC 1.8 1.8 2.I' 2.1 j Times long-term interest earned before. FIT:
Gross income (both including and excluding AFDC) + current and deferred FIT-t-long -
term interest charges + amortization of debt discount and expense Including AFUDC 2.9 '2.8 2.9 2.7 Excluding AFUDC - 2.2 2.1 2.2 2.1 Bond ratings (end of. period) .
Standard and Poor's A AA- AA- AA A Aa. An' Aa Moody's
- September 30 ,
FINANCIAL STATISTICS (Continued) 12 Months Ended .
(Dollars in Thousands) 1981* 1980 14 3 1978 Times interest and preferred dividends earned after FIT:
Gross income (both including and excluding AFDC) + (total interest charges + amortizaton of debt diacount and expense) + preferred dividends
. Including AFUDC 1.7 1.7 1.8 1.8 Excluding AFUDC 1.2 ,1.2 1.3 1.4 AFUDC $ 76,208 $ 65,924' $ 49,165. $ .40,945 Net income after preferred dividends $ 115,642 $ 97,672 $ 92,072 $ 75,438 Percentage 65.9% 67.5% 53.4% 54.3%
Market price of common (end of period) $. 14.25 $- 14-5/8 '$ 16.25 '$ 16-7/8 Book value of common. $ 18.89 .$ 19.72 $ 19.88 $ 19.69 Market-book ratio-(end of period) 75.4% 74.2% 81.7% 85.7%
Earnings available for' common less AFDC +
depreciation and amortization, deferred-taxes, and investment tax credit adjustment-deferred 1.6 1.5 'l .7 1.8 Common dividends Ratio Short-term debt Bank loans $ 19,200 $ 17,087 $ 19,309 $ 10,902' Commercial Paper $ '80,000 $ 149,850 $ '67,025
- September 30
FINANCIAL STATISTICS (Continued)
'.12 Mont'hs' Ended (Dollars in Thousands) 1981* 1980 1979 1978-Capitalization (Amount)
Long-term debt $1,328,504 $1,211,528 $1,000,991 $ 920.973 423,071 355,571 .327,071 327,071 Preferred and Preference stock Common Equity 959,006 912,731 820,411. 708,883
$2,710,581 $2,479,830 $2,148,473- $1.956,927-Total Capitalization-(Percent) 47.1%.
Long-term deb _t 49.0% .48.9% 46.6%!
-15.6% ~14.3%' 15.2% 16.7%:
Preferred and Preference Stock 36.2%
Common equity 35.4%~ 36.8% 38.2%
Total 100.C% 100.0%: 100.0% .- 100.0%.
- September 30 e . 9- . ,
.DUQUESNE LIGHT COMPANY AND SUBSIDIARIES RESPONSE FOR 320.8 FINANCIAL STATISTICS-12 Months Ended (Dollars in Millions) 1981* 1980 1979 1978 Earnings available to common equity $ 84 $ 70 $ 58 $ 47-Average common equity $ 718 $ 661 $ 602 $ 557 Rate' of return on average common equity 11.7% 10.5%- 9.7% 8.4%
Times. total interest earned before FIT:
Gross income. (both including and- excluding AFDC) + current and deferred FIT.+ total interest. charges + amortization of debt discount and expense Including AFDC 2.31 2.35 2.22 2.15 1.97- 1.98 1.86 1.83 Excluding AFDC Times long-term interest earned before FIT:
Gross. income (both including and excluding AFDC) + current and deferred FIT + long-term interest charges + amortization of debt discount.and expense Including AFDC 2.48 2.47 2.31 2.33 i Excluding AFDCJ 2.11 2.07 1.94 1.98 Bond ratings (end of period)
St'andard and Poor's BBB+. A AA- AA
-A A A Aa Moody's
- November 30 F , 9
FINANCIAL STATISTICS -(Continued) 12 Months Ended (Dolla'rs in Millions) 1981* 1980 1979 -1978 Times interest and preferred dividends earned ~
after FIT:
Gross income'(both including and excluding AFDC) + (total interest charges + amortizaton of debt discount and expense) + preferred dividends Including AFDC 1.67 1.65 1.56 1.54 Excluding AFDC. 1.39. '1.36 1.28 -1.29
$ 35 $ 32 -$ 27 $ 21 AFUDC Net income after preferred dividends $ 84 $ 70 -$ 58 '$ .- 47 42% 45%. 145% 45%
Percentage Market price of common (end of period) $ 13.50 $ 12.63 $ 27 .$' 14'.75 Book value of common $ 16.61 $ 17.25 $ 17.67' $- 18.20 Market-book ratio (end of period) .81% .73% .77% .81%
Earnings available for common less AFDC +
depreciation and amortization, deferred taxes, and investment tax credit adjustment- .
deferred $ .125 $ 134. - $ ' 112 . $ '112
$. 77 $ 70 S 58 $. 55 Common dividends Ratio 1.62 1.92 1.94 2.05 Short-term debt .. .
$ 6.5 $. 8.5 Bank loans Commercial Paper ~ $ 28.5- $ 11.0- $ 26.0
- November 30 4
@ I ,
FINANCIAL STATISTICS ~(Continued) 12 Months Ended (Dollars in Millions) 1981* 1980 1979 1978 ,
i, Capitalization (Amount) _
$ Long-term debt $1,151 $1,038 $ 930. $ :845-
-Preferred and Preference stock 301 .^ A 303
306 311~
~
752 693- 628 577 Common Equity Total ;$2,204 $2,034 .$1,864- $1.733 Capitalization (Percent) .
48.8%
-* 'Long-tern debt 52.2% 51.0% .49.9%
13.7% 14.9%- 16.4% 17.9%-
Preferred.and Preference' Stock 33.3%
Common equity 34.1% 34.I% 33.7%
100.0% 100.0% 100.0%~ ;100.0%
Total f i.
t
- November 30 y s
,/#A
,.w'
,1 7
^
e, m
/g
'4, N. _
- Yf
^'
A' , . ]
,/.n' .: ..
, )
, ~ [O .7 s., ,
N '
L -.S -
_ . 1,5 i -
t ' Ji
~
o ,
jg 92 i
TOLEDO EDISON COMPANY RESPONSE FOR 320.8 FINANCIAL STATISTICS s t
,3 l'211onthk Ended (Dollars in Millions) 1979 1978 1977 1980 49.2 $ 44.7 $ 41.4 $ 38.1 Earnings available to common equity $
$ 469.0 $ 417.1, $ 366.3, $ 308.5 ,
Average common equity 10.7%- 11.3% ,, 12.3%
Rate of return on average common equity 10.5%
Timen total interest earned before FIT:
Gross income (both including and excluding AFDC) + current and deferred FIT + total ,5 interest charges + amortization of debt discount and expense 2.73 2.29 'yf 2.07- 2.40 Including AFDC 1.77 2.16 L1.06 l
Excluding AFDC 1.46 k
Times long-term interest earned before FIT: :: ~;
- i Gross income (both including and excluding' . " #: r AFDC) + current and deferred' FIT + leng- '
term interest charges +* amortization of ;-
l[ '/ '
. vi
' ,' i . *
_ ;. ,J
, /; j debt discougt and expense ~~ ,
2.58 ,' J. 2.62
~
2.84
' J2.,38 J
In,cluding AFDC 1.82 '
i.91. ,v m 1.25 1.10
, Excluding AFDC-
'I[
Bond ratings (end of. period) 9A-
,4- ' A-BBB+
Standard and Poor's Baa Baa Baa. Baa i Moody's ,
e E p ' 1
- %a u. ,
+ ' , .
N I g
FINANCIAL STATISTICS (Continued)
, 12 Months Ended (Dollars in Millions) 1980 1979 1978 1977 Times interest and' preferred dividends earned
+
after FIT:
Cross income (both including and excluding AFDC) + (total interest charges + amortizaton of debt discount and expense) + preferred dividends Including AFDC 1.54 1.65 1.72 1.80.
Excluding AFDC .90 1.02 1.17 .67 AFUDC $ 43.6 $ 33.5 $ 24.6 $ 43.6 Net income after preferred dividends S 49.2. $ 44.7 $ 41.4 $ 38.1 Percentage 88.7% 74.9% 59.3% 14.2%
l Market price of common (end of period) $ 15.875 $ 17.50 $ 21.625 ~ $ 25.125 Book value of common $ 23.37 $ 24.15 $ 24.29 $ 24.02-Market-book ratio (end of period) .67% .72% .89% l.05%
3 Earnings available for common less AFDC +
depreciation and amortization, deferred taxes, and investment tax credit adjustment-deferred $ 60.0 $ 50.0 $ 55.1 $ 21.1 Common dividends S 42.3 $ 37.1 $ 31.9 $ 27.9-Ratio 1.42 1.35 1.73 .76
- l Short-term debt Bank loans S 39.0 Commercial Paper $ 50.0 $ 23.5 . $ 9.5
FINANCIAL STATISTICS (Continued) 12 Months Ended (Dollars in Millions) 1980 1979 1979 1978 Capitalization (Amount)
Long-term debt S 714.4 $ 611.1 $ 560.6 $ 494.3' Preferred stock 216.5 184.0 159.5- 160.0 Common Equity' 479.0 432.6 382.1- ~328.1 Total. $1,409.9 $1,227.7 $1,102.2 $982.40 Capitalization (Percent) _
Long-term debt 50.7%-- 49.8% '51.0% 50.3% '
15.4% 15.0% 14.5%- =16.3%
Preferred Stock 33.4%
Common equity 34.0% 35.2% 35.0%
100.10%< 100.0% -100.50% 100.0%
Total O
e o..... .
OHIO EDISON COMPANY AND PENNSYLVANIA POWER COMPANY RESB)NSE FOR 320.8 FINANCIAL STATISTICS 4
12 Months Ended (Dollars in Millions) 1981* 1980** 1979** 1978**
$ 148.1 $ 101.4 $ 105.1 $- 61.3 e Earnings available to common equity $: 860.5 Average common equity $1,104.8 $1,051.1 $ 944.7 13.4% 9.7% 11.1% 7.1%
Rate of return on average common equity Times total interest earned before FIT: .
Cross income (both including and excluding AFDC) + current and deferred FIT + total '
interest charges + amortization of debt discount and expense 1.85 1.88- 2.25 1.73 Including AFDC 1.36 .99 1.39 .97-Excluding AFDC Times long-term interest earned before FIT: -
Cross income (both including and excluding AFDC) + current and deferred FIT t long-term interest charges + amortization of debt discount and expense
.2.04 2.16 2.63 ^1.82 Including AFDC 1.63 1.02 Excluding AFDC 1.50 1.14 Bond ratings (end of period) A- A-BBB- BBB+
Standard and Poor's A Moody's Baa A. A
- November
- December 31 4 .-
L
FINANCIAL STATISTICS (Continued) 12 Months Ended (Dollars in Millions) 1981* 1980** 1979**. 1978**
Times interest and preferred dividends earned after FIT:
Cross income (both including and excluding AFDC) t (total interest charges + amortizaton of debt discount and expence) + preferred dividends Including AFDC 1.50- 1.47 1.65 1.46~
Excluding'AFDC 1.07 .75 .97- .87 AFUDC $ 126.3 $ 106.5 S' 80.0 $ 56.9 Net income after preferred dividends $; 148.1 $ 101.4 $ 105.1 $ 61.3 85.3% 105.1% 76;1% 92.8%
Percentage Market price of common - close November 30, 1981 $ 13.00 S. 11.875 $ 13.375 $ 14.875 Book value of common November 30, 1981 $ 15.36 $. 15.57 $ 16.26 $ 16.33 Market-book ratio (end of period) .85% .77%- .82% .91%
Earnings available for common less AFDC +
depreciation and amortization, deferred taxes, and investment tax credit- adjustment-deferred .$ 154.5 $ 90.1 $ 125.5- $ 69.1 Common dividends- $ 126.0 $ 118.1 '$ 103.4 $ 90.8 Ratio 1.23 .76 1.21 .76' Short-term debt Bank loans $ 58.5 $ 41.5 $ 192.0 $ 96.6 Commercial Paper '
- November
. ** December 31
-o... .
FINANCIAL STATISTICS (Continued) 12 Months Ended (Dollars in Millions) 1981* 1980** 1979** 1978**
Capitalization (Amount)
Long-term debt -$1,676.3 $1,594.4~ $1,410.8 $1,343.2-Preferred stock 458.5- 463.9 458.3 405.5 Coninon' Equity 1,198.9 1,067.0 969.5 851.1
$3,333.70, $3,125.30 $2,838.60 $2,599.80 Total .
Capitalization (Percent).
Long- tern debt .. 50.3% 51.0% . 49.7% 51.7%
Preferred' Stock .13.7% 14.8% 16.1%' 15.6%
Consnon equity 36.0% , 34.2% 34.2% 32.7%
Total' 100.0% 100.0%. 100.0%. 100.0%-
- November
'** December 31 DW19/D/13/es .
o..i .
.