The Ratepayer Advocate argued that the BPU should not approve the merger as filed, because petitioners have not established that the merger will benefit retail competition in New Jersey. In fact, some of petitioners' own studies show that the merger may harm competition. The Ratepayer Advocate therefore recommended that the Board require the petitioners to present a more detailed assessment of market concentration and market power, including an energy system simulation model. Petitioners have not presented a study of the proposed merger's anticipated costs or associated savings. Impact on Employees Joint Petitioners have failed to present any credible evidence on the proposed merger's effect on GPU's New Jersey employees.
Key decisions concerning post-merger employees, functions, and services have yet to be decided on.
Therefore, the BPU cannot determine, based on petitioners' case, whether the merger would have a positive or negative effect on GPU's employees. Several intervenors in this case, including PJM, are concerned that FirstEnergy may be planning to remove GPU's transmission facilities from PJM if the merger is completed. Such removal could have significant, detrimental consequences for electric service in New Jersey. Accordingly, the Ratepayer Advocate recommended that, if the BPU approves the merger, it require that GPU's transmission assets be left under the control of PJM for at least ten years. Furthermore, if FirstEnergy wants to remove the assets from PJM, it should first seek and receive BPU approval, in addition to any other necessary regulatory approvals.