JERSEY CENTRAL POWER & LIGHT CO
8-K, 1997-04-02
ELECTRIC SERVICES
Previous: JEFFERSON PILOT CORP, 8-K, 1997-04-02
Next: WESTERN RESOURCES INC /KS, 8-K, 1997-04-02
















                          SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

                               WASHINGTON, D.C.  20549

                                 ___________________

                                       FORM 8-K

                                    CURRENT REPORT

                          PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF
                         THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934




          Date of Report (date of
          earliest event reported):               March 24, 1997


                         JERSEY CENTRAL POWER & LIGHT COMPANY
                  (Exact name of registrant as specified in charter)


            Pennsylvania             1-3141              21-0485010        
          (State or other         (Commission          (IRS employer
           jurisdiction of        file number)         identification no.)
           incorporation)




              2800 Pottsville Pike, Reading, Pennsylvania   19605      
          (Address of principal executive offices)           (Zip Code)




          Registrant's telephone number, including area code: (601) 929-3601<PAGE>





          ITEM 5.   OTHER EVENTS.

                    As  has been  previously  reported, on  June 27,  1996,

          Jersey Central  Power & Light  Company ("JCP&L")  entered into  a

          Stipulation  of Final Settlement  ("Global Settlement")  with the

          Staff of the New  Jersey Board of Public Utilities  ("NJBPU") and

          the  New  Jersey  Ratepayer  Advocate to  resolve  numerous  rate

          matters pending before the NJBPU.  Among other things, the Global

          Settlement, as  later supplemented,  includes a base  rate freeze

          until the year  2000, a  net rate reduction  of approximately  $5

          million  annually and  recovery of buyout  costs of  certain non-

          utility generation projects.

                    On  March 24th,  1997,  the NJBPU  approved the  Global

          Settlement.   Regarding  JCP&L's  request to  recover over  seven

          years  up to $135  million of  the buyout  costs of  the Freehold

          Cogeneration Project, however, the NJBPU gave interim approval to

          JCP&L's  request pending further review.  In its order, the NJBPU

          stated that it would conduct this review on an expedited basis to

          resolve an  apparent conflict  between JCP&L's statements  in the

          proceeding and  statements made by the  Freehold Project sponsors

          in other  civil litigation  regarding the Project's  viability at

          the time JCP&L agreed to the buyout.

                    Copies of  the NJBPU's  order and JCP&L's  related news

          release are annexed as exhibits.<PAGE>






          ITEM 7.   FINANCIAL STATEMENTS, PRO  FORMA FINANCIAL  INFORMATION
                    AND EXHIBITS.


                    (c)  Exhibits.

                         1.   Summary Order,  dated March 24, 1997,  of the
                              NJBPU.

                         2.   New Release, dated March 24, 1997.<PAGE>





                                      SIGNATURE



                    PURSUANT TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE

          ACT OF  1934, THE REGISTRANT  HAS DULY CAUSED  THIS REPORT TO  BE

          SIGNED  ON   ITS  BEHALF   BY  THE  UNDERSIGNED   THEREUNTO  DULY

          AUTHORIZED.

                                        GPU, INC.



                                        By:______________________________
                                             T.G. Howson
                                             Vice President and Treasurer


          Date:  April 2, 1997<PAGE>







                            EXHIBITS TO BE FILED BY EDGAR



          EXHIBITS.


               (c)  Exhibits.

                    1.   Summary Order, dated March 24, 1997, of the NJBPU.

                    2.   New Release, dated March 24, 1997.<PAGE>







                                                                 Exhibit 1
                                                       AGENDA DATE: 3/24/97

                                 STATE OF NEW JERSEY
                              Board of Public Utilities
                                  Two Gateway Center
                                  Newark, .NJ 07102


     I/M/O THE PETITIONS OF JERSEY CENTRAL   )
     POWER & LIGHT CO. FOR APPROVAL OF AN    )        SUMMARY ORDER
     INCREASE IN ITS LEVELIZED ENERGY ADJ.   )    ______________________
     CHARGE, DEMAND SIDE FACTOR, IMPL. OF A  ) OAL Dkt. Nos. PUCRA12423-95N,
     REMED. ADJ. CLAUSE (RAC), OTHER TARIFF  )  PUCOTO9673-94N, PUC 9739-96
     CHANGES, RECOVERY OF CROWN/VISTA AND    )   BPU Dkt. Nos. ER95120633,
     FREEHOLD BUYOUT COSTS, CHANGES IN DEPR. )   ER95120634, EM95110532,
     RATES, SETTLEMENT OF PHASE 1 OF THE     )   EX93060255, EO95030098
     BOARD'S GENERIC PROCEEDING ON THE       )
     RECOVERY OF NUG CAPACITY PAYMENTS       ) 


                                     (Service List Attached)


               This  Order  memorializes action  taken  by the  Board  at a
          special agenda  meeting held on March  24, 1997 by a  vote of two
          commissioners. By Order in  Docket No. EX93060255 dated September
          16,  1994, the  Board  initiated generic  proceeding to  consider
          potential  overrecoveries of  capacity  costs  attributed to  the
          inclusion of the capacity component  of power purchases from non-
          utility generators  ("NUGs") in  the Levelized  Energy Adjustment
          Clauses  ("LEACs") of  the  electric utilities  regulated by  the
          Board.  The initial fact-finding  phase (Phase 1)  of the generic
          proceeding was  transmitted to  the Office of  Administrative Law
          ("OAL")  on   October  4,  1994,  and   following  discovery  and
          evidentiary hearings, was concluded for Public Service Electric &
          Gas   Company   ("PSE&G"),   Atlantic   City   Electric   Company
          ("Atlantic")   and   Rockland   Electric  Company   by   separate
          Stipulations approved  by the Board  by Order dated  December 19,
          1996.  However, Phase  1 remains open for Jersey  Central Power &
          Light Company ("Jersey Central,"  "JCP&L" or "Company," now doing
          business  as GPU  Energy), pending  Board  action on  the instant
          Stipulation of Final Settlement.

               On  March  3, 1995,  JCP&L filed  a  petition in  Docket No.
          EO95030098  for  changes  in  depreciation  rates  applicable  to
          certain categories of  utility plant. Specifically, the  petition
          sought   a   decrease   in  annual   depreciation   accruals  for
          transmission and  distribution plant of $8.6  million, a decrease
          in accruals for general plant of $0.2 million, and an increase in
          nuclear plant  accruals of  $10.2 million to  reflect actual  and
          projected  capital  additions  made  or  to  be  made  after  the
          conclusion of the Company`s last base rate case.  The net effect 
          of the changes would increase the Company's overall depreciation  
          expense by  $1.4 million.  However, rate recovery of this increased
          annual depreciation expense was not requested in the petition.
<PAGE>







               On  November 9, 1995, JCP&L  filed a petition  in Docket No.
          EM95110532  seeking approval of the proposed ratemaking treatment
          of  the buyout  of  its power  purchase agreements  ("PPAs") with
          Crown  Energy, L.P. and Vista  Energy, L.P., the  developers of a
          362 Mw  coalfired independent power producer  ("IPP") HUG project
          planned for construction in  West Deptford Township in Gloucester
          County,  of which Jersey  Central had contracted  to purchase 200
          Mw. The PPAs, each for lOOMw, were bought out for $17 million.

               On December  8, 1995, JCP&L  filed petitions in  Docket Nos.
          ER95120633 and ER95120634 seeking approval of 1) a $37.6 million,
          1.9% revenue  increase for recovery  of costs recoverable  by its
          LEAC and  Demand  Side Factor  ("DSF");  2) implementation  of  a
          Remediation  Adjustment Clause  ("RAC") for  the recovery  of the
          Company's   share  of   the  cost   of  remediating   its  former
          manufactured gas  plant  sites; and  3) the  elimination of  $3.2
          million of late  payment and connection/disconnection costs  from
          base rates and the prospective application of such charges to the
          specific customeers for whom such costs are incurred.

               By letter dated April  3, 1996 the Company amended  its LEAC
          petition  to seek recovery of  the $125 million  cost, plus third
          party  termination costs,  of buying  out the  PPA  with Freehold
          Cogeneration  Associates,  L.P. ("Freeholder  or  "FCA")  for the
          purchase of l00  Mw of  the capacity of  a cogeneration  facility
          planned   for  construction  on   the  Nestle   Beverage  Company
          ("Nestle's")  plant  site  for the  manufacture  of  freeze-dried
          coffee in Freehold in Monmouth County. The Company re-noticed the
          amended  filing, requesting  a  total revised  increase of  $45.2
          million (2.3%) annually, including  $7.3 million for the recovery
          of  Crown/Vista and  $5.0 million  for  the recovery  of Freehold
          buyout  costs, $6.2  million for  a nuclear  performance standard
          ("NPS") reward, $19.8 million for increased DSM costs filed under
          its DSM*2 Plan, and initial RAC recovery of $0.1 million.

               By  order  dated  June   5,  1996,  the  Board  approved   a
          provisional LEAC  settlement executed  by JCP&L, Board  Staff and
          the the Division of the Ratepayer  Advocate ("Advocate" or "RPA")
          on  May 31, 1996 and approved by Administrative Law Judge ("ALJ")
          William  Gural on June  3, 1996. The  provisional LEAC settlement
          provided  for  an  annual  revenue  increase  of  $27.9M  (1.4%),
          reflecting uncontested cost increases  of $16.9M for energy costs
          and the  NPS  reward, and  $11.OM  for DSM  costs.  There was  no
          provision for  recovery of either Crown/Vista  or Freehold buyout
          costs.

               On June 27, 1996, a Stipulation of Final Settlement ("Global
          Settlement")  was  executed by  JCP&L,  Staff  and the  Ratepayer
          Advocate and filed with  the OAL (Attachment A).   The Settlement
          addressed and  proposed to resolve the  pending matters described
          above,  and  an Initial  Decision  approving  the Settlement  was
          issued by  ALJ Gural on July  1, 1996. On December  31, 1996, the
          same parties  executed an Addendum (Attachment B)  to reflect the
          effect  of  the  unanticipated  delay in  implementing  the  rate
          compression  and   similar  provisions  of  the   June  27,  1996<PAGE>





          Settlement.  The  Global Settlement  as  amended  would make  the
          provisonal LEAC increase granted on June 5, 1996 final, and among
          its other provisions are the following:

               o    a disallowance  of $3.0  million of Crown/Vista  buyout
                    costs and  recovery of the $14  million balance through
                    the LEAC over 2 years without carrying costs, resulting
                    in an  additional LEAC increase  above the  provisional
                    level of  $7.0 million. By terminating  the Crown/Vista
                    PPAs,  the  Company   estimates  ratepayers  will  save
                    approximately $700 million in nominal dollars' or about
                    $250 million on a  net present value (NPV)  basis, over
                    the 20-year terms of the PPAs;

               o    recovery  of Freehold  buyout  costs,  including  third
                    party termination  payments to Nestle Beverage  Co. and
                    New  Jersey Natural Gas Co.  when known, of  up to $130
                    million, and  50% of  buyout  costs in  excess of  $130
                    million up  to a maximum  of $135 million,  through the
                    LEAC over 7 years  without carrying costs. Initial LEAC
                    recovery will be $5.0 million, achieved by reallocating
                    revenue  for the  recovery of  other energy  costs. The
                    Company estimates  that  terminating the  Freehold  PPA
                    will   save  ratepayers  over  $1  billion  in  nominal
                    dollars, or approximatley $300 million on an NPV basis,
                    net  of contract  termination costs,  over  its 20-year
                    term;

               o    base  rate  reductions  aggregating  $12.0  million  to
                    settle  the Phase  1 double  recovery" of  NUG capacity
                    costs issue before the OAL ($5.0 million), to recognize
                    cost reductions potentially achievable over the term of
                    the settlement ($4.2  million), partial  implementation
                    of the  proposed  base tariff  changes for  residential
                    customers  ($1.4 million), and  an additional reduction
                    of $1.4 million to adjust for the delay in implementing
                    these reductions;

               o    Company  agreement  to   not  seek  increases  in   its
                    LEAC/DSF/RAC  and base  rates  during the  term of  the
                    Settlement  except  under   limited  circumstances   (a
                    combined  balance  of   deferred  LEAC/DSF/RAC   costs,
                    exclusive  of unamortized  buyout  costs, in  excess of
                    $40.0 million, a financial  emergency or downgrading of
                    the Company's bonds to less than investment grade, or a
                    major change in the regulatory environment, such as the
                    allowance of retail wheeling);

               o    "excess" equity return, if any, is to be used to reduce
                    rates  and accelerate  the  recovery of  stranded costs
                    (regulatory assets)  currently included  in rates.   If
                    after  deducting   DSM  and  and   nuclear  performance
                    incentives  the  Company's  rate  of return  on  common
                    equity  as booked  exceeds its  last allowed  return of
                    12.2%, but is less than 12.7%, 25% of the excess is  to
                    be  used to reduce customer base rates and 75% to write<PAGE>





                    down stranded  costs.  If equity  return exceeds 12.7%,
                    50% of the excess is to be used to reduce rates and 50%
                    to write down stranded costs;

               o    nuclear  depreciation  is  to  be  increased  by  $16.8
                    million  annually  and  offset  by a  decrease  in  T&D
                    depreciation  of $11.5  million, with  no current  rate
                    recovery of the $5.3 million difference;

               o    effective   January    1,   1998,   previously-deferred
                    post-employment  benefits  other than  pensions (PBOPS)
                    are to be  amortized over 15  years, and together  with
                    the ongoing  annual  accrual and  amortization  of  the
                    transition obligation,  are to  be deemed  recovered by
                    current rates. The resultant increase in booked expense
                    of approximately $13 million per year in the years 1998
                    and 1999 is to  be absorbed by the Company  without any
                    rate adjustment;

               o    based   on   site-specific  estimates,   the  Company's
                    provision for  nuclear decommissioning  costs is  to be
                    increased  by   approximately  $11  million   per  year
                    effective January  1, 1998, with the  increase absorbed
                    by the company without any rate adjustment;

               o    when implemented, the stranded cost  recovery mechanism
                    developed in Phase 2 of New Jersey's Energy Master Plan
                    is to be adopted by the Company in lieu of the stranded
                    cost treatment provided for in the Settlement;

               o    the  Company  agrees to  increase  its  funding of  the
                    Project Helping Hand program to  $150,000 annually, and
                    to  explore  with other  appropriate  organizations the
                    implementation  of  a  comprehensive,   state-wide  low
                    income energy assistance fund program;

               o    the Settlement does not  limit the Board's authority to
                    assure just and reasonable rates under Title 48.

               The  net effect of the Global Settlement as amended on rates
          is a reduction of approximately $5.0 million (a $7.0 million LEAC
          increase  offset by  an aggregate  base rate  reduction  of $12.0
          million),  or  0.3%, and  if  approved,  would would  reduce  the
          average monthly  bill of  the typical residential  customer using
          500  kwh per month from $61.67 to  $61.33, or by $0.34 per month,
          representing decrease of approximately 0.5%.

               On July  8, 1996,  additional public notice  and opportunity
          for comment was given  on those aspects of the  Global Settlement
          not previously noticed  for the public hearings held  in February
          and May 1996. In July and August of 1996, comments were submitted
          to the Board  by intervenors  Nestle and New  Jersey Natural  Gas
          Company  ("NJNG"), as well  as Nabisco, Inc.,  a large commercial
          customer of the Company's, and the Coalition for Fair Competition
          ("CFC").  On September  5, 1996,  the Board  voted to  remand the
          proceeding  to the  OAL  for the  sole  purpose of  conducting  a<PAGE>



          limited, expedited evidentiary hearing  On Freehold buyout issues
          raised by  Nestle. A hearing was  held at the OAL  On October 30,
          1996,  and a second Initial Decision, i.e., on remand, was issued
          by ALJ Gural on December 10, 1996.

               In  his Initial  Decision on  Remand, among  other findings,
          Judge Gural found  that the sworn testimony  of JCP&L's witnesses
          supports approval of the Global Settlement, including recovery of
          the costs attendant to  the buyout agreement, as provided  for in
          the  Settlement. In  so finding,  however, Judge Gural  notes the
          potential impact of statements made by Freehold in separate civil
          litigation, introduced in the record in this matter, which appear
          to  raise questions as to  whether the project  meets the Board's
          viability criteria established for rate recovery of buyout costs,
          as  set forth in  the Board's Order I/M/O/  the Joint Petition of
          Public Service Electric & Gas Company and Towner Electric I, L.P.
          for  Approval   of  Second   Amendment  to  Power   Purchase  and
          Interconnection Agreement (the  Board's "Towner" Order issued  in
          Docket No. EM91040844 on April 12,  1993).  In brief, in addition
          to  the  expectation  of  significant energy  cost  savings  from
          terminating the PPA, this Order requires a showing with regard to
          the viability  of the  NUG project in  the absence  of a  buyout.
          Accordingly,   while   recommending   approval   of   the  Global
          Settlement, the ALJ  notes that Staff  or the Ratepayer  Advocate
          may  bring a motion for revocation or modification of the Initial
          Decision  if further  information comes  to light  (if Freehold's
          assertions  are   upheld)  at   the  conclusion  of   that  civil
          litigation.

               Exceptions to the Initial Decision were submitted on January
          7 and 8,  1997 by the Company,  Staff, the Advocate, Nestle  NJNG
          and  Nabisco.  Replies  to  exceptions were  submitted  later  in
          January  by  JCP&L, Nestle  and Nabisco.  The  Board and  the OAL
          granted  two 45  day  extensions in  the  effective date  of  the
          Initial Decision, to May 1, 1997.

               Further, on March 20,  1997, Nestle filed a motion  with the
          Board  requesting that the record  in this matter  be reopened to
          introduce  a  March  7, 1997  ruling  by  the  Honorable E,  Benn
          Micheletti, the  judge hearing  Nestle's complaint filed  against
          Freehold and Jersey Central  in the Law Division of  the Superior
          Court of New Jersey,  Monmouth county on October 7, 1996.   Judge
          Micheletti's ruling addresses an  alleged conflict of interest on
          the part of counsel jointly representing both  Jersey Central and
          Freehold in that proceeding, in view of the respective  positions
          on the viability of  the Freehold project taken  by JCP&L in  the
          instant  proceeding  and  by  Freehold  in  the  Monmouth  County
          litigation  (previously, now-stayed  litigation  in  the  Circuit
          Court for Baltimore County, Maryland).

               After carefully considering all of the information before us
          in  this matter, subject to the modifications set forth below, we
          ACCEPT the  Initial  Decision on  Remand and  HEREBY APPROVE  the
          amended Stipulation  of Final Settlement as modified hereinbelow.
          Approval and  implementation of the  Settlement will result  in a
          net  decrease in  rates  of approximately  $5  million and  other<PAGE>



          benefits, as noted above.

               While the testimony offered by Jersey Central's witnesses in
          this matter supports the decision by JCP&L to buyout the Freehold
          PPA,  and  indicates  that  there will  be  substantial  benefits
          therefrom, statements made in  the Monmouth County litigation (as
          well as  statements made  by Freehold  in litigation with  Heller
          Financial, Inc.  in Illinois) appear to  contradict the testimony
          in  this proceeding.    Accordingly, the  Board believes  further
          proceedings   are  necessary   to   resolve   these   potentially
          conflicting statements  before giving  its final approval  on the
          rate  recovery of  Freehold buyout  costs.   We therefore  HEREBY
          MODIFY the Initial Decision on Remand  solely and specifically as
          it  pertains to  the recovery  of costs  related to  the Freehold
          buyout   agreement,  and  HEREBY  FIND  that  the  terms  of  the
          Stipulation  of  Final  Settlement  addressing  the  treatment of
          Freehold buyout costs, specifically paragraphs  13 (a) and (b) on
          pages 16  through 18, are  approved on an  interim basis only  at
          this  time,  subject to  refund  with  interest, pending  further
          review.

               The Board will conduct a further review of the circumstances
          and conflicting  position" taken  by Jersey Central  and Freehold
          with respect to the viability of the Freehold project on or about
          the  time the buyout agreement  was executed, for  the purpose of
          making a  final determination as  to whether the  Freehold buyout
          meets the Board's Towner criteria.  Such a review may require and
          include the  calling of representatives of  Freehold and/or other
          relevant witnesses, by subpoena if necessary.

               We hereby authorize the  advising Deputy Attorney General in
          this  matter to  develop,  on an  expedited  basis, the  specific
          procedures and timing for this review for our further approval.

               We address one additional issue herein pertaining to JCP&L's
          request in its April 3, 1996 filing for rate recovery of Freehold
          buyout  costs. Section  3 (a) ("Purchase  Priced") of  the buyout
          agreement between  Jersey Central and Freehold  executed on April
          2, 1996, provides as follows:

                       As  consideration for  the purchase  of the
                   Power  Purchase Agreement, JCP&L  shall pay to
                   Freehold  an  aggregate  of  $125,000,000 (the
                   "Purchase Price"). Payment  of Purchase  Price
                   shall be made as follows:

                       (i)   $65,000,000 on the Effective
                             Date  [April  2, 1996];

                       and, subject to receipt of any required order of the
                       NJBPU as described below,

                       (ii)  $15,000,000, payable on or
                             before March  28, 1997; and
<PAGE>

                       (iii) $15,000,000, payable on  or
                             before March 27, 1998; and

                       (iv)  $30,000,000, payable on  or
                             before March 26, 1999.

                       Promptly  following   the  Effective  Date,
                   JCP&L  shall file  a petition  with  the NJBPU
                   seeking an order authorizing  deferred payment
                   of the  Purchase Price  as provided  above. In
                   the  event the  NJBPU fails  to issue  such an
                   order on  or before  March 25, 1997,  then the
                   entire remaining balance of the Purchase Price
                   shall become  due  and payable  on  March  26,
                   1997.

               Accordingly,  while asserting  that it  did not  believe the
          obligation  to make  the  deferred payments,  as provided  above,
          should be considered evidence  of indebtedness within the meaning
          of N.J.S.A. 48:3-9, the Company, in paragraph 15 on page 8 of its
          April 3, 1996 petition, requested such authorization, as follows:
          follows:

                   JCP&L  does not  believe that  the  three-year
                   payout by  JCP&L of the balance  of the Buyout
                   Costs,  as   contemplated  by   the   [buyout]
                   Agreement,   should  properly   be  considered
                   "evidence of indebtedness payable more than 12
                   months after the date or dates thereof" within
                   the meaning  of N.J.S.A. 48:3-9.   JCP&L  will
                   not  be issuing  "any  bonds,  notes or  other
                   evidence   of  indebtedness"   evidencing  its
                   contractual  obligation  to  Freehold,  nor is
                   JCP&L  paying  Freehold   any  interest   with
                   respect  to  these   amounts.    Moreover,  in
                   accordance  with the FERC's  Uniform System of
                   Accounts, JCP&L will be recording these unpaid
                   amounts  on   its  balance  sheet   as  "Other
                   Deferred  Credits" under  A/C 253, and  not as
                   Long  Term Debt  under A/C  224. Nevertheless,
                   since the  matter may not be  wholly free from
                   doubt,  JCP&L  hereby  requests   the  Board's
                   specific authorization  and approval, pursuant
                   to  N.J.S.A  48:3-9, to  make the  payments to
                   Freehold    over    the   three-year    period
                   contemplated by the Agreement.

               N.J.S.A. 48:3-9 provides, in pertinent part, as follows:

                   No public utility shall, unless it shall  have have
               first obtained authority from the board so to do:

                   (a) Issue any stocks, or any bonds, notes  or other
               evidence of indebtedness  payable more  than 12  months
               after the date or dates thereof, or extend or renew any
               bond,  note or  any other  evidence of  indebtedness so
               that any extension or  renewal thereof shall be payable<PAGE>
               later  than 12  months after the  date of  the original
               instrument, or

                   (b)  Permit any demand  note to remain unpaid for a
               period of more than 12 months after the date thereof.

                    The Board  shall approve any  such proposed issue,
               with  or  without  hearing   at  its  discretion,  when
               satisfied that such issue is  to be made in  accordance
               with  law and  the purpose thereof  is approved  by the
               Board.

               Based on  its  review  of  the Company's  petition  and  the
          relevant  statute, and for  the reasons advanced  by the Company,
          the  Board HEREBY FINDS that the subject transactions do not fall
          within   the  ambit   of  N.J.S.A   48:3-9.     In  making   this
          determination, the Board also  notes that it has no  objection to
          and will authorize the Company to make the installment  payments,
          as  indicated above, in lieu of paying the full remaining balance
          of  the  PPA purchase  price  on  March 26,  1997.    However, we
          emphasize  that  nothing in  this  Order  shall constitute  Board
          approval of the buyout agreement or Jersey Central's  prudence in
          entering into this  agreement, or the ratemaking treatment  to be
          accorded the buyout  payments, which, as indicated above, will be
          subject  to further review and addressed in a subsequent Order of
          the Board.

               By letter  dated January 10,  1997, Jersey Central  moved to
          strike Nabisco's exceptions to  Judge Gural's Initial Decision on
          Remand on the basis that the  filing of exceptions by Nabisco was
          not authorized  by the  ALJ's Order granting  Nabisco participant
          status. By letter dated  January 14, 1997, in response  to Jersey
          Central's motion to strike, Nabisco petitioned the Board for full
          intervenor  status,   or,  in  the  alternative,   to  allow  its
          exceptions to  stand. Jersey  Centralis motion is  HEREBY DENIED,
          allowing Nabisco's exceptions to stand.

               By  letter dated March 20, 1997, Nestle moved to enter Judge
          Micheletti's  March  7,  1997  decision in  the  Monmouth  County
          litigation  in the  evidentiary record  of this  proceeding. Such
          submission,  while objected  to  with respect  to the  inferences
          drawn  by  Nestle,  was not  opposed  by  Jersey  Central in  its
          response dated March 21, 1997.  We HEREBY APPROVE Nestle's motion
          that  the subject  decision be  entered into  the record  of this
          proceeding.

<PAGE>


               Finally  we  recognize that  our  decision  in this  matter,
          specifically with regard to the interim  recovery of the Freehold
          buyout  costs, represents  modification to  certain terms  of the
          Stipulation of  Final Settlement.   Accordingly, we  will provide
          the parties  to the  Stipulation fifteen  business days from  the
          date of this Order  to indicate, in writing, whether  they accept
          these modified  terms  or whether,  pursuant to  their rights  as
          preserved  in  the Stipulation,  they  opt to  withdraw  from the
          Stipulation of Final Settlement.




          DATED:  March 24, 1997                BOARD OF PUBLIC UTILITIES
                                                BY:


                                                HERBERT H. TATE
                                                PRESIDENT


                                                CARMEN J. ARMENTI
                                                COMMISSIONER

          ATTEST:
               _______________________
               JAMES A. NAPPI, ESQ.
               SECRETARY<PAGE>








                                                                  Exhibit 2


                         (GPU ENERGY NEWS RELEASE LETTERHEAD)


          Date:                March 24, 1997

          Further Information: Ron Morano, 201-644-4297

          For Release:         Immediately

          Release Number:      35-97



          NJ BOARD  OF  PUBLIC UTILITIES  APPROVES GPU  ENERGY GLOBAL  RATE
          SETTLEMENT



               Morristown--The New  Jersey Board of  Public Utilities (BPU)

          today approved GPU Energy's global rate settlement which includes

          a  variety of rate-related items  to reduce rates  for New Jersey

          customers  of GPU Energy and provide rate stability into the year

          2000.   The  agreement  provides  for  a  net  rate  decrease  of

          approximately $5 million.

               JCP&L,  now doing business as  GPU Energy, the  Staff of the

          BPU  and the Ratepayer Advocate had agreed to the settlement last

          June,  pending  review by  an  Administrative  Law Judge  of  GPU

          Energy's request  to recover buyout  costs for the  Freehold non-

          utility generation project.

               The agreement includes a freeze on base rates until the year

          2000, a $12 million reduction in base rates and an approximate $7

          million  increase  in  the  levelized  energy  adjustment  clause

          (LEAC).

               "We  are pleased  to have  reached this  agreement with  the

          BPU,"  said  GPU  Energy   president  Dennis  Baldassari.    "The

          agreement which  freezes rates  until the year  2000 demonstrates<PAGE>



          the  commitment of the BPU, the BPU Staff, the Ratepayer Advocate

          and GPU Energy  to mitigate potential stranded  costs and provide

          rate stability to our customers.  We believe the issues addressed

          in  this settlement will help  pave the way  in the transition to

          the new competitive electricity  markets recently outlined in the

          BPU's proposed  findings and recommendations  in Phase II  of the

          New  Jersey  Energy  Master  Plan  on the  Restructuring  of  the

          electric Power Industry in New Jersey."

               One  element  of the  settlement  calls  for GPU  Energy  to

          recover over a seven-year  power purchase agreement with Freehold

          Cogeneration Associates L.P. (FCA).  The company entered into the

          agreement because the FCA  contract would have required customers

          to  pay more than $1 billion in  excess future energy costs.  The

          BPU approved this recovery on an interim basis subject to further

          expeditious review  of a possible conflict  between the testimony

          submitted to  the Administrative Law Judge  during the proceeding

          and certain  assertions being  made by FCA  in other  proceedings

          regarding the financing for the project.

               "While we certainly  would have preferred  that the BPU  not

          make the Freehold buyout  recovery interim," Baldassari said, "we

          are confident that the  BPU will quickly complete its  review and

          grant  final  approval,  assuring  full recovery  of  the  buyout

          costs."

               The other principal elements of the rate settlement are:

          o    A two-year recovery of  $14 million in buyout costs  for the

               Crown/Vista non-utility generation project.  GPU Energy will

               write off the remaining $3 million.

          o    A cap on GPU Energy's earnings at 12.2 percent.  if earnings

               exceed 12.2 percent, the surplus will be used to reduce base<PAGE>





               rates and potential stranded costs.


          o    A  $17   million  nuclear  depreciation   expense  increase,

               combined  with a transmission  and distribution, and general

               plant depreciation decrease of $12 million.

          o    An  $11 million  nuclear  decommissioning expense  increase,

               effective Jan. 1, 1998.

          o    A  $13 million increase  in the expense  of certain employee

               post-employment benefit costs, effective Jan. 1, 1998.

          o    Resolution, for GPU  Energy, of current generic  proceedings

               before  the  BPU  regarding  the  collection of  non-utility

               generation capacity costs.

          o    Current   rate  recovery  of  the  depreciation  of  certain

               generating plants, which will be retired in the near future,

               will  continue to  be  applied to  the  amortization of  the

               unrecovered plant balances.

          o    A new structure for the collection of certain late payments,

               and a separate  new structure for the  collection of certain

               disconnect and reconnect fees.

          o    An  increase in  the company's  contribution to  the Helping

               hand  program for  low-income and  financially disadvantaged

               customers.

          o    No increase in the Levelized Energy Adjustment Clause (LEAC)

               until the  year 2000, unless  there is an  accumulated under

               recovery of $40 million in costs includable in the LEAC.<PAGE>


© 2022 IncJournal is not affiliated with or endorsed by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission