Monongahela Power Co/OH – ‘POS AMC’ on 5/9/94 – EX-99

As of:  Monday, 5/9/94   ·   Accession #:  67646-94-26   ·   File #:  70-06179

in

this entire Filing. an “Entity” Search.

Show

Documents searched

and

each “hit”. the 1st “hit”.

↓↑Hints

Post-Effective Amendment to a U-1   —   Form U-1
Filing Table of Contents

Document/Exhibit                   Description                      Pages   Size 

 1: POS AMC     Pleasants Post-Effective Amendment No. 9               2      7K 
 2: EX-99       Exhibit D-5(A) to Pleasants Post-Eff. Amend. No. 9     1      6K 

EX-99   —   Exhibit D-5(A) to Pleasants Post-Eff. Amend. No. 9

                                    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                                                                          

Dates Referenced Herein   and   Documents Incorporated by Reference

This ‘POS AMC’ Filing		Date		Other Filings
Filed on:		5/9/94
		5/5/94		424B5
				List all Filings