18 CFR 35.26 - Recovery of stranded costs by public utilities and transmitting utilities

Cite as18 CFR 35.26
    • This document is available in original version only for vLex customers

      View this document and try vLex for 7 days
    • TRY VLEX
10 practice notes
  • Transmission Access Policy Study v. Fed Energy Comm'n., No. 97-1715
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (District of Columbia)
    • June 30, 2000
    ...requirements contracts entered into on or before July 11, 1994 (the date of the stranded cost notice of proposed rulemaking). See 18 C.F.R. § 35.26(b)(8), As to precisely who should pay for stranded costs, utilities and customers not surprisingly had dramatically different positions. Custom......
  • Transmission Access Policy Study Group v. Fed Energy Regulatory Comm'n, 97-1715
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (District of Columbia)
    • November 14, 2000
    ...requirements contracts entered into on or before July 11, 1994 (the date of the stranded cost notice of proposed rule-making). See 18 C.F.R. s 35.26(b)(8), As to precisely who should pay for stranded costs, utilities and customers not surprisingly had dramatically different positions. Custo......
  • Town of Norwood MA v. Fed'l Energy Reg. Comm'n, Nos. 98-1847
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (1st Circuit)
    • October 5, 1999
    ...customers who had previously been power customers of the integrated supplier but now chose to use only its transmission system. See 18 C.F.R. § 35.26(b)(1), (c)(2) (1999). Norwood's first objection to the contract termination charge in this case is that although Norwood previously bought po......
  • Appeal of Sinclair Mach. Products, Inc., No. 84-380
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of New Hampshire
    • July 26, 1985
    ...base." Id. at 55, 480 A.2d at 25. The FERC, however, has applied a different rule in setting the wholesale rate in this case. See, 18 C.F.R. 35.26 (allowing CWIP in rate base). Costs related to the abandonment of the Pilgrim II and Montague plants have been allowed by the FERC in deter......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
10 cases
  • Transmission Access Policy Study v. Fed Energy Comm'n., No. 97-1715
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (District of Columbia)
    • June 30, 2000
    ...requirements contracts entered into on or before July 11, 1994 (the date of the stranded cost notice of proposed rulemaking). See 18 C.F.R. § 35.26(b)(8), As to precisely who should pay for stranded costs, utilities and customers not surprisingly had dramatically different positions. Custom......
  • Transmission Access Policy Study Group v. Fed Energy Regulatory Comm'n, 97-1715
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (District of Columbia)
    • November 14, 2000
    ...requirements contracts entered into on or before July 11, 1994 (the date of the stranded cost notice of proposed rule-making). See 18 C.F.R. s 35.26(b)(8), As to precisely who should pay for stranded costs, utilities and customers not surprisingly had dramatically different positions. Custo......
  • Town of Norwood MA v. Fed'l Energy Reg. Comm'n, Nos. 98-1847
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (1st Circuit)
    • October 5, 1999
    ...customers who had previously been power customers of the integrated supplier but now chose to use only its transmission system. See 18 C.F.R. § 35.26(b)(1), (c)(2) (1999). Norwood's first objection to the contract termination charge in this case is that although Norwood previously bought po......
  • Appeal of Sinclair Mach. Products, Inc., No. 84-380
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of New Hampshire
    • July 26, 1985
    ...rate base." Id. at 55, 480 A.2d at 25. The FERC, however, has applied a different rule in setting the wholesale rate in this case. See, 18 C.F.R. 35.26 (allowing CWIP in rate base). Costs related to the abandonment of the Pilgrim II and Montague plants have been allowed by the FERC in deter......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT