Exhibit (99) (i) 9

                                STATE OF NEW YORK
                            PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION

                                              At a session of the Public Service
                                                  Commission held in the City of
                                                      Albany on January 24, 2001

COMMISSIONERS PRESENT:
Maureen O. Helmer, Chairman
Thomas J. Dunleavy
James D. Bennett
Leonard A. Weiss
Neal N. Galvin
CASE 96-E-0909 -  In the Matter of Central Hudson Gas & Electric
                  Corporation's Plans for Electric Rate/
                  Restructuring Pursuant to Opinion No. 96-12.

CASE 96-E-0897 -  In the Matter of Consolidated Edison Company of
                  New York, Inc.'s Plans for (1) Electric Rate/ Restructuring
                  Pursuant to Opinion No. 96- 12; and (2) the Formation of a
                  Holding Company Pursuant to PSL section section 70, 108, and
                  110, and Certain Related Transactions.

CASE 94-E-0098 -  Proceeding on Motion of the Commission as to the
                  Rates, Charges, Rules and Regulations of Niagara Mohawk Power
                  Corporation for Electric Service.

CASE 94-E-0099 -  Proceeding on Motion of the Commission as to the
                  Rates, Charges, Rules and Regulations of Niagara Mohawk Power
                  Corporation for Electric Street Lighting Service.



                          ORDER CLARIFYING PRIOR ORDER
                     (Issued and Effective January 25, 2001)

BY THE COMMISSION:

                                    SUMMARY

           By petition dated September 21, 2000, Central Hudson Gas &
Electric Corporation (Central Hudson), Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation
(Niagara Mohawk), Consolidated Edison Company
<PAGE>

CASES 96-E-0909, 96-E-0897, 94-E-0098 and 94-E-0099


of New York, Inc. (Con Edison), collectively known as the Cotenants, and
Dynegy Power Corporation, on behalf of two wholly-owned entities, Dynegy
Danskammer, L. L. C. and Dynegy Roseton, L. L. C. (collectively, Dynegy)
jointly requested authority to transfer the Danskammer Generating Station
(Danskammer) and Roseton Generating Station (Roseton) to Dynegy. The
Commission approved this petition by Order issued December 20, 2000. 1

           On January 18, 2001, Central Hudson filed a petition for
clarification or rehearing of two issues addressed in the Auction Approval
Order. On January 19, 2001, Niagara Mohawk filed a petition for clarification of
one issue addressed in the Auction Approval Order. For the reasons set forth
below, the Commission will consider both petitions as petitions for
clarification.
                                  THE PETITIONS

CENTRAL HUDSON

           Central Hudson seeks clarification or rehearing of two aspects of the
Auction Approval Order, relating to (a) the accounting treatment specified for
the company's investment in the Nine Mile Point Unit 2 Nuclear Generating
Facility (NMP2); and (b) the company's ability to present a proposal in its
ongoing rate case 2 for the use of the net benefits, other than auction
proceeds, produced under its current rate plan.

1 Cases 96-E-0909, et al., In the Matter of Central Hudson Gas & Electric
Corporation's Plans for Electric Rate/ Restructuring Pursuant to Opinion No.
96-12, Order Approving Transfer of the Danskammer and Roseton Generating
Stations and Making Other Findings (issued December 20, 2000)(Auction Approval
Order).

2 Case 00-E-1273, Proceeding on Motion of the Commission as to the Rates,
Charges, Rules and Regulations of Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corporation for
Electric Service.

                                       -2-
<PAGE>

CASES 96-E-0909, 96-E-0897, 94-E-0098 and 94-E-0099


           As to its NMP2 investment, Central Hudson contends that its current
rate plan, approved by the Commission in Opinion No. 98-14, 3 provides that the
net proceeds from the sale of Danskammer and Roseton would be used, inter alia,
to reduce the book costs of NMP2. In its Public Service Law (PSL) section 70
filing, the company submitted journal entries to implement this provision.
However, the Auction Approval Order appears to reject the company's proposed
accounting treatment.

           Central Hudson argues that writing off its NMP2 investment is not
premature because the book costs are known with certainty, and are not dependent
on a sale of NMP2. The company also claims that the accounting treatment
required by the Auction Approval Order would inappropriately freeze its NMP2
investment on its books until a sale is consummated.

           Central Hudson's second issue relates to what it describes as a "pool
of net benefits" produced via ratemaking deferrals detailed in its rate plan.
The company explains that this pool of benefits is different from the "pool" of
net proceeds from the auction, and that its current rate plan contemplated
different uses for the two pools of benefits. Speculating that the Commission
may have misunderstood the proposal contained in its testimony in Case 00-E-1273
and its comments filed on or about November 30, 2000 in this proceeding, the
company seeks clarification that the Auction Approval Order did not preclude it
from pursuing its proposal as to the former pool of benefits in Case 00-E-1273.

3 Case 96-E-0909, supra, Opinion and Order Adopting Terms of Settlement Subject
to Modifications and Conditions, Opinion No. 98-14 (issued June 30, 1998).

                                       -3-
<PAGE>

CASES 96-E-0909, 96-E-0897, 94-E-0098 and 94-E-0099


NIAGARA MOHAWK

          The Auction Approval Order required the Cotenants to "maintain the
excess deferred tax and [Investment Tax Credit] balances for the time being." 4
Specific to Niagara Mohawk, the Commission noted that on July 11, 2000, Case
00-E-1162 5 was initiated to examine cost, expense and rate treatment issues
related to Niagara Mohawk's non-nuclear generation auctions, including
Roseton. 6

          Niagara Mohawk claims that the above-cited language is contrary to the
treatment of the ITCs related to the company's other non-nuclear generation
sales. The company explains that it proposed a different treatment of its
non-nuclear ITC balances in Case 00-E-1162, and that the Commission should
include the Roseton ITC balance in the treatment it has proposed in that case.
For this reason, Niagara Mohawk seeks clarification as to the applicability of
the Auction Approval Order's language to its Roseton ITC balance.

                            DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION

CENTRAL HUDSON'S REQUEST

          On the issue of the proper treatment of Central Hudson's investment in
NMP2, the company is correct that a sale need not occur to establish with
certainty the current NMP2 book costs. Central Hudson is also correct that it

4 Auction Approval Order, p. 29.

5 Case 00-E-1162, Petition of Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation for Permission to
defer for later recovery in rates for electric service certain costs relating to
the sale of its fossil and hydro generating assets, filed in C. 9187.

6 Auction Approval Order, p. 31.

                                       -4-
<PAGE>

CASES 96-E-0909, 96-E-0897, 94-E-0098 and 94-E-0099


is in ratepayers' best interests to eliminate on the company's books now, rather
than when a sale is closed, its investment in NMP2.

          This preferred treatment was prescribed in 1998, when Central Hudson's
rates were most recently reviewed. 7 Accordingly, the Commission clarifies that
treatment of the Danskammer and Roseton net proceeds specified in Opinion No.
98-14 shall continue to apply. The Auction Approval Order discussion of this
issue should be interpreted consistent with this clarification.

          As to Central Hudson's second request for clarification, both in this
proceeding and in Case 00-E-1273, the company references the two pools of net
benefits as the source of its request for an additional incentive. However, in
neither proceeding did the company distinguish between the treatment that should
be afforded to each pool. 8

          In Case 00-E-1273, the company originally submitted testimony
supporting its request for a share of each of these pools of funds. The basis
for its request was that it had undertaken additional activities in the auction,
for which it was entitled to an additional incentive, and that because of the
success of the auction, the company did not have any stranded costs and did not
therefore need the pool of ratemaking deferrals for use in mitigating stranded
costs.

7 See Opinion No. 98-14.

8 Central Hudson's submissions both in these proceedings and in Case 00-E-1273
indicate that the company was seeking a portion of each pool of benefits.
Accordingly, the company's argument that its request was misunderstood or
mischaracterized is incorrect.

                                       -5-
<PAGE>

CASES 96-E-0909, 96-E-0897, 94-E-0098 and 94-E-0099


          It was not contemplated that Central Hudson's request for a share of
each pool of benefits would be considered here. Rather, the Notice issued
November 14, 2000 in these proceedings specified that, to the extent the company
was seeking an additional auction incentive, such issue would be addressed in
the PSL section 70 proceeding, not in Case 00-E-1273. The Notice made no mention
of the incentive the company was seeking from the ratemaking deferral pool of
benefits.

          In the subsequent Auction Approval Order, it was decided only that
Central Hudson was not entitled to an additional auction incentive. The Order
did not address the company's request for a share of the other pool of benefits.
For this reason, clarification that Central Hudson may continue to pursue its
request in Case 00-E-1273 for a share of the ratemaking deferrals pool of
benefits is appropriate. Consideration of this proposal will occur if and when
it is brought before the Commission in Case 00-E-1273.

NIAGARA MOHAWK'S REQUEST

          The purpose of Case 00-E-1162 is to address all of Niagara Mohawk's
auction-related accounting and rate treatment issues, including matters relating
to federal income taxes and ITCs. Therefore, it is appropriate to include
consideration of the Roseton ITC balance with consideration of the other
non-nuclear generation ITC balances. Accordingly, the Auction Approval Order is
clarified such that Central Hudson and Con Edison shall maintain their ITC
balances for the time being, and Niagara Mohawk shall address its proposed
Roseton ITC treatment in Case 00-E-1162.

                                       -6-
<PAGE>

CASES 96-E-0909, 96-E-0897, 94-E-0098 and 94-E-0099


THE COMMISSION ORDERS:

          1. The Order Approving Transfer of the Danskammer and Roseton
Generating Stations and Making Other Findings, issued December 20, 2000 in these
proceedings, is clarified to the extent discussed in the body of this Order.

          2. These proceedings are continued.

                                          By the Commission,



            (SIGNED)                      JANET HAND DEIXLER
                                          Secretary


                                       -7-