File No. 70-6179
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
Washington, D.C. 20549
POST-EFFECTIVE AMENDMENT NO. 9
TO
APPLICATION OR DECLARATION
UNDER
THE PUBLIC UTILITY HOLDING COMPANY ACT OF 1935
Monongahela Power Company
1310 Fairmont Avenue
Fairmont, WV 26554
The Potomac Edison Company
10435 Downsville Pike
Hagerstown, MD 21740-1766
West Penn Power Company
800 Cabin Hill Drive
Greensburg, PA 15601
(Name of company or companies filing this statement and addresses
of principal executive offices)
Allegheny Power System, Inc.
(Name of top registered holding company parent of each applicant
or declarant)
Nancy H. Gormley, Esq.
Allegheny Power System, Inc.
12 East 49th Street
New York, NY 10017
(Name and address of agent for service)
<PAGE>
The Applicants hereby further amend their Application or
Declaration on Form U-1 as follows:
1. By filing herewith the following material as part of Item 6.
Exhibits and Financial Statements:
(a) Exhibits
D-5(a) No-Action Letter of the Public
Service Commission of West Virginia
regarding Monongahela's and Potomac
Edison's Application.
SIGNATURE
Pursuant to the requirements of the Public Utility Holding Company Act
of 1935, the undersigned companies have duly caused this statement to be
signed on their behalf by the undersigned thereunto duly authorized.
MONONGAHELA POWER COMPANY
By NANCY H. GORMLEY
Nancy H. Gormley
Counsel
THE POTOMAC EDISON COMPANY
By NANCY H. GORMLEY
Nancy H. Gormley
Counsel
WEST PENN POWER COMPANY
By NANCY H. GORMLEY
Nancy H. Gormley
Counsel
Dated: May 9, 1994
Exhibit D-5(a)
May 5, 1994
Robert R. Winter, Esquire
Vice President, Legal Services
Monongahela Power Company
P. O. Box 1392
Fairmont, WV 26555-1392
Dear Mr. Winter:
Recently, you requested advise as to whether or not Monongahela
Power and Potomac Edison would require additional Commission approval to
refinance pollution control bonds in connection with pollution control
equipment improvements at the Pleasants Station. In Case Nos. 9109 and 9429
the Commission, by orders dated October 27, 1977 and July 27, 1978, granted
approval to the companies to place a second lien on the pollution control
improvements to secure Pleasants County pollution control bonds.
Under similar circumstances, J. Steven Hunter, former general
counsel to the Public Service Commission, and I have advised that the
companies were not required to obtain Commission approval with respect to
refinancing of pollution control revenue bonds concerning pollution control
facilities at other power stations. Like this situation, the Commission had
approved the underlying financial transactions.
Although the terms of this particular proposed refinancing are not
specified, I am assuming for the purposes of this response that any such
refinancing would be favorable and in the best interest of the ratepayers of
the companies. Under those circumstances, I do not believe any additional
Commission approvals are necessary to refinance the bonds.
Sincerely,
RICHARD E. HITT
Richard E. Hitt
General Counsel
REH/jm
