Document:

<PAGE>

EXHIBIT 10-25
                               STATE OF NEW YORK
                           PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION

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

COMMISSIONERS PRESENT:

Maureen O. Helmer, Chairman
Thomas J. Dunleavy
James D. Bennett
Leonard A. Weiss
Neal N. Galvin

CASE 01-E-0011 - Joint Petition of Niagara Mohawk Power
                 Corporation, New York State Electric & Gas
                 Corporation, Rochester Gas and Electric
                 Corporation, Central Hudson Gas & Electric
                 Corporation, Constellation Nuclear, LLC and Nine
                 Mile Point Nuclear Station, LLC for Authority
                 Under Public Service Law Section 70 to
                 Transfer Certain Generating and Related Assets and
                 for Related Approvals.

                       ORDER AUTHORIZING ASSET TRANSFERS

                    (Issued and Effective October 26, 2001)

BY THE COMMISSION:

                                 INTRODUCTION
                                 ------------
         On January 31, 2001, Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation (Niagara Mohawk),
Rochester Gas and Electric Corporation (RG&E), Central Hudson Gas & Electric
Corporation (Central Hudson) and New York State Electric & Gas Corporation
(NYSEG) submitted, pursuant to Public Service Law (PSL) (S)70, a Joint Petition
seeking authority to transfer their respective interests in the Nine Mile Point
Nuclear Generating Station to Constellation
<PAGE>

CASE 01-E-0011

Nuclear, LLC and Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station, LLC (together
Constellation)./1/

         The Administrative Law Judge assigned to this case conducted
conferences on January 17 in anticipation of the Joint Petition and on February
14, 2001./2/ Thereafter, the Judge required the parties to file comments or
testimony concerning the proposed sale and the ratemaking for the gain or loss
on the transaction./3/ On or about April 13, 2001, six parties filed either
comments or testimony: Department of Public Service Staff, the State Attorney
General's Office, the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers - Local
97, Nucor Steel Auburn, Inc., RG&E, and Mr. John Mavretich./4/ On or about May
11, 2001, NYSEG, RG&E, Central Hudson, Niagara Mohawk and IBEW Local 97
responded to the April 13 submissions.

         In accordance with 16 NYCRR 3.9, the petitioners notified the active
parties and other interested persons of the settlement conferences being
conducted in this case. The conferences began in March 2001 and continued
throughout the proceeding. As a result, each petitioner has executed a Joint
Proposal with Staff. The State Consumer Protection Board has also entered into
the Joint Proposals.

         Niagara Mohawk filed its Joint Proposal on May 7, 2001 and Multiple
Intervenors joined in it. If we adopt its terms,

____________________

/1/   Niagara Mohawk owns Nine Mile Unit 1 and 41% of Nine Mile Unit 2. NYSEG
      owns 18% of Nine Mile 2, RG&E owns 14%, and Central Hudson has 9%. The
      remainder belongs to the Long Island Power Authority. LIPA is not selling
      its interest at this time.

/2/   Additional conferences were held on May 15 and September 14, 2001. An
      evidentiary hearing was scheduled to begin on September 25, 2001; however,
      it was cancelled when the last Joint Proposal was executed.

/3/   The Joint Petition contained supporting affidavits and prefiled testimony
      from Constellation, Niagara Mohawk and the other Nine Mile 2 cotenants.
      This permitted the Judge to solicit other parties' positions early in the
      proceeding.

/4/   Mr. Mavretich appeared in this proceeding on behalf of Congressman Maurice
      D. Hinchey.

                                       -2-

<PAGE>

the Joint Proposal would resolve all matters pertaining to Niagara Mohawk.

         RG&E filed next on August 9, 2001. Like the first one, RG&E's Joint
Proposal seeks to resolve all matters related to the sale of the Nine Mile
facilities and the recovery of the company's costs. Central Hudson filed on
September 19, 2001. This proposal also seeks to resolve matters related to the
sale and other matters that could have been raised in this proceeding.

         On September 20, 2001, Constellation and Staff submitted a Joint
Proposal that addresses decommissioning trust fund matters. Finally, on
September 27, 2001, NYSEG filed a Joint Proposal like the other cotenants'
proposals that would resolve all the company's issues related to Nine Mile.

         By notices issued on September 18 and 28, 2001, we provided the public
and interested parties an opportunity to comment on the cotenants' and
Constellation's Joint Proposals. Comments and responses were received from the
State Attorney General's Office, Mr. Mavretich, IBEW Local 97, Nucor Steel
Auburn, Inc., Niagara Mohawk, Central Hudson, RG&E, NYSEG, Constellation and
Staff.

                              THE JOINT PETITION
                              ------------------
         Niagara Mohawk proposes to sell Nine Mile 1 to Constellation for $234
million subject to various specified price adjustments. Niagara Mohawk and the
other utility company cotenants propose to sell their 82% interest in Nine Mile
Unit 2 to Constellation for $581 million, also subject to price adjustments./5/
Half the purchase price is payable at the closing; the other half will be paid
in five annual installments with interest. The real, personal and intangible
property included

____________________

/5/   Adjustments will be made to the base purchase price for the actual closing
      date for the sale, human resource payments, capital additions and
      replacements, low-level waste disposal costs, the continuation of the
      facilities' NRC licenses, and uranium enrichment/fabrication costs.

                                      -3-
<PAGE>

in the sales is specified in the December 11, 2000 Asset Purchase Agreements./6/

         Constellation will assume various liabilities and obligations for the
fuel the units consume; the storage and disposal of spent nuclear fuel; high-
level and low-level waste; environmental liabilities; and, for injury and damage
to persons or property.

         Constellation will also be responsible for decommissioning the Nine
Mile units. The cotenants will transfer their decommissioning funds to
Constellation at the closing and adjustments will be made for any over- or
under-funding as necessary.

         Constellation has offered to employ the 1,337 employees who currently
work at the Nine Mile facilities. It will also assume the collective bargaining
agreement that exists between Niagara Mohawk and IBEW Local 97. Employees who
transfer to Constellation will retain their seniority and receive full credit
for their service with Niagara Mohawk.

         Niagara Mohawk and Constellation have entered into a Nine Mile 1 Power
Purchase Agreement (PPA). The PPA would run to August 22, 2009, concurrent with
the facility's NRC operating license. The cotenants and Constellation have also
entered into Nine Mile 2 Power Purchase Agreements for ten years. Pursuant to
the PPAs, Constellation will sell to the utility companies 90% of the capacity
and electric output from the generating units. The parties have agreed to
monthly base prices, differentiated between on-peak and off-peak periods. When
the PPAs expire, the utility companies will have no further right or obligation
to purchase any output from the Nine Mile units.

         In connection with Nine Mile 2, the cotenants have entered into ten-
year Revenue Sharing Agreements (RSAs). The RSAs provide the utility companies
80% of the amount by which

_________________

/6/     The property includes: spent nuclear fuel, high-level and low-level
        waste, and fuel-related inventory; machinery and equipment; transferable
        agreements, contracts and permits; books and records; and, unexpired
        warranties and guarantees from third parties.

                                      -4-
<PAGE>

actual market prices exceed a specific schedule of floor prices. Any such
amounts will be credited to the utility companies.

         In a related matter, RG&E, Central Hudson and the Long Island Power
Authority (LIPA) are selling their Nine Mile 2 transmission facilities to
Niagara Mohawk at their net book value./7/ Niagara Mohawk will also enter into
an agreement with NYSEG to operate and maintain NYSEG's 18% interest in the Nine
Mile 2 transmission facilities. Niagara Mohawk will provide Constellation
interconnection service and off-site services for Nine Mile 2 until they
mutually agree to terminate this arrangement.

         Niagara Mohawk will retain ownership of the Nine Mile 1 interconnection
facilities and provide Constellation interconnection service and off-site
services for this unit until they agree to end the arrangement.

         The Nine Mile 2 cotenants (including LIPA) have entered into a Cotenant
Agreement that addresses the materials and supply inventory, nuclear insurance
matters, and the accounting for employee pension and retirement benefits. This
agreement requires them to share Nine Mile 2 costs and benefits to the time of
the closing and as necessary to wind down the cotenancy. They will share the
cost of certain employee retention, incentive and severance payments.

         The selling cotenants have also entered into a Selling Cotenants
Agreement that specifies the closing and transaction costs they will and will
not share. This agreement also addresses the transfer of decommissioning funds
to Constellation, and the regulatory treatment for the Nine Mile 2 material and
supplies inventory.

         The petitioners have also entered into Reciprocal Easement Agreements
that provide the owners of the generation and transmission rights access to
certain facilities after the

________________

/7/   This transaction concerns the Scriba Substation, a tract of land
      encompassing the substation, and certain transmission lines that connect
      Nine Mile 2 to Niagara Mohawk's transmission system.

                                      -5-
<PAGE>

sale. Niagara Mohawk may also provide Constellation services after the closing
pursuant to a Service Agreement.

         Finally, the Town of Scriba entered into a Memorandum Of Understanding
(MOU) with the cotenants that addresses property taxes, special assessments, and
other levies applicable to the Nine Mile facilities. The MOU provides a gradual
tax reduction over five years and stable taxes thereafter. Over a ten-year
period, taxes are expected to be $125 million less than past amounts.
Constellation has agreed to accept the MOU.

                              THE JOINT PROPOSALS
                              -------------------
Niagara Mohawk
--------------

         The Niagara Mohawk Joint Proposal (NMJP) addresses the sale of the Nine
Mile 1 and 2 facilities and the recovery of the company's costs. Among other
things, it covers: operating practices, budgets, expenses, capital costs,
inventories, material and supplies, investment tax credits, excess deferred
federal income taxes, plant valuations, ratepayer benefits, costs and benefits
realized after the closing, nuclear insurance matters and stranded costs. The
Joint Proposal does not limit Staff's right to audit the final transaction costs
(and adjustments) for the sales.

         In general, the NMJP adopts the accounting and ratemaking methods
presented by two company witnesses in prefiled testimony that accompanied the
Joint Petition./8/ The NMJP reduces Niagara Mohawk's unamortized investment in
the Nine Mile units by $123 million before the company is permitted to record a
regulatory asset for the remainder. Until the Commission addresses Niagara
Mohawk's rates, the NMJP requires the company to record (in a memorandum
account) the

_________________

/8/   The NMJP incorporates the joint testimony of Messrs. Steven W. Tasker and
      Dennis B. Schafer. While this testimony supported an amortization period
      for the nuclear regulatory asset balance not to exceed ten years, the NMJP
      recognizes adjustments to the nuclear regulatory asset balance that can
      either shorten the amortization period or extend it beyond ten years.

                                      -6-
<PAGE>

amortization, variations and adjustments to the nuclear regulatory asset in
accordance with its terms.

         The NMJP applies the same rate of return to the nuclear regulatory
asset as applies to Niagara Mohawk's transmission and distribution assets. The
next time the Commission sets the company's rates, Niagara Mohawk will continue
to seek to earn the same return on the regulatory asset as applies to the
transmission and distribution assets.

         The NMJP applies the entire purchase price to the ratepayers' benefit
as of the closing and it does not wait for Constellation to pay the second half
over five years. For this reason, the NMJP permits Niagara Mohawk to retain the
interest payments and any prepayments Constellation makes.

         With respect to nuclear insurance matters, the NMJP requires Niagara
Mohawk to pass to ratepayers any future distributions from the Nuclear Electric
Insurance Limited (NEIL) related to the premiums it paid to ensure eligibility
for future distributions. If and when Niagara Mohawk accesses or converts its
nuclear insurance rights into an asset, it will flow them to ratepayers.

Rochester Gas & Electric
------------------------

         The terms of the RG&E Joint Proposal (RJP) resolve all matters related
to the sale of the company's interest in Nine Mile 2 and the recovery of its
costs. The RJP preserves Staff's right to audit the final transaction costs and
adjustments.

         Among other things, the RJP addresses: the auction, operating
practices, budgets, expenses, capital costs, inventories, Nine Mile 2 revenue
requirements, capacity and energy forecasts used to purchase electricity from
Constellation, replacement power costs, transaction costs incurred in this and
another proceeding, RG&E's right of first refusal, the company's Advantage New
York proposal, pension and retirement benefits, investment tax credits, excess
deferred federal income taxes, RG&E's Exit Agreement with Niagara Mohawk,
decommissioning costs, Nine Mile 2 valuation, ratepayer benefits, costs and
benefits realized after the closing, nuclear

                                      -7-
<PAGE>

insurance matters and regulatory asset recovery, including the rate of return on
and the risks associated with the regulatory asset.

         The RJP adopts the accounting and ratemaking methods presented by two
company witnesses in affidavits and testimony accompanying the Joint
Petition./9/  It allows RG&E to establish a $329.5 million regulatory asset when
Nine Mile 2 is sold. Thereafter, the company would write off and reduce this
amount by $20 million. The company would record its amortization, variations and
adjustments to the Nine Mile 2 regulatory asset in a specified account in
accordance with the terms of the Joint Proposal. The regulatory asset would earn
an 11.5% return until the next time RG&E's electric rates are set. RG&E will
seek to have the return on the regulatory asset set the same as its electric
utility business.

         Ratepayers would obtain the full benefits of the purchase price RG&E
receives from Constellation from the start. Consequently, the company would keep
the interest payments and any prepayments it receives from Constellation. Any
Nuclear Electric Insurance Limited (NEIL) distributions RG&E receives for Nine
Mile 2 would be flowed to customers, as would any portion of the asset rights
that convert to the company.

Central Hudson
--------------

         The Central Hudson Joint Proposal (CHJP) resolves all Nine Mile 2
matters that could have been raised in this case and it does not limit Staff's
rights to audit the final transaction costs. The matters covered by the CHJP
include: the auction, operating practices, budgets, expenses, capital costs,
inventories, transaction costs for this and another proceeding, retirement and
pension benefits, investment tax credits, excess deferred federal income taxes,
decommissioning costs, Nine Mile 2 valuation, ratepayer benefits, costs and
benefits realized after the closing, nuclear insurance costs, federal tax and

_______________

/9/   The RJP incorporates the affidavits and testimony of Messrs. James J.
      Fletcher and Joseph J. Syta.

                                      -8-
<PAGE>

auction incentives related to the Danskammer and Roseton Generating Stations
that Central Hudson has sold.

         The CHJP incorporates the accounting and ratemaking methods a company
witness presented in testimony filed with the Joint Petition./10/ The CHJP
requires Central Hudson to use the Nine Mile purchase price (net of adjustments,
offsets, and expenses) to benefit ratepayers. It also requires the company to
provide another $19 million to benefit ratepayers. The CHJP allows the company
to keep the interest payments and any prepayments Constellation provides. All
future NEIL distributions will flow to ratepayers, as would any rights that
convert to Central Hudson.

New York State Electric & Gas
-----------------------------

         The NYSEG Joint Proposal (NYJP) resolves all matters pertaining to Nine
Mile 2, including cost recovery. Like the other Joint Proposals, it does not
limit Staff's right to audit the final transaction costs and adjustments. Among
other things, it covers: the transfer of NYSEG's interest, rate and accounting
issues (other than complete disposition of the Nine Mile 2 gain), compliance
with the April 25, 2000 order in Case 99-E-0933, compliance with the Price Cap
Plan authorized by Opinion No. 98-6, auction results, operating practices,
budgets, expenses, capital costs, inventories, transactions costs incurred in
this proceeding and in other efforts to sell or transfer Nine Mile 2, pension
and retirement benefits, investment tax credits, excess deferred federal income
taxes, decommissioning costs, plant valuation, ratepayer benefits, costs and
benefits realized after the closing, nuclear insurance matters, and the use of
the sale proceeds.

         NYSEG has agreed to establish an Asset Sale Gain Account (ASGA) for the
$113 million it expects to receive for its interest in Nine Mile 2. The ASGA
will accrue interest and be used by the Commission for financially responsible
purposes. One year after it establishes the ASGA, NYSEG will begin to

___________________

/10/   It incorporates Mr. Arthur R. Upright's testimony.

                                      -9-
<PAGE>

place $1.78 million in the account monthly until new electric rates supercede
the prevailing Price Cap Plan. NYSEG will retain the interest payments it
obtains from Constellation. Ratepayers will receive all future NEIL
distributions and any rights that convert to NYSEG.

Constellation
-------------

         The Constellation Joint Proposal (CJP) resolves certain issues Staff
raised concerning the disposition of the decommissioning trust funds. It amends
the Nine Mile 1 and 2 Asset Purchase Agreements consistent with the prefiled
testimony Staff submitted in this case. The sellers agree with the proposed
amendments.

         In sum, the CJP retains Constellation's commitment to make payments to
the sellers should it realize unanticipated gains due to any delay in the
decommissioning schedules for the facilities. Rather than establish fixed
payment amounts for events not expected to occur for many years, the CJP
provides an approach that does not create any improper incentives concerning
plant decommissioning activity. It is similar to the one Consolidated Edison and
Entergy used for the sale of the Indian Point generating facilities. Should
decommissioning not occur at the end of the facilities' operating lives, half of
any excess decommissioning trust funds will flow to ratepayers.

Support for the Sale
--------------------

         In support of the sale, the Joint Petition acknowledges that the
divestiture of utility-owned generation facilities furthers electric industry
restructuring and fosters a competitive marketplace in New York. The cotenants
maintain that the proposed sale aptly responds to our request that they
establish the value of the Nine Mile facilities through an open market process.
They point out that experienced managers were used to conduct an auction open to
all licensed operators of nuclear power plants.

         The petitioners observe that each utility company will continue their
transmission and distribution businesses without

                                      -10-
<PAGE>

impairment and they will remain subject to Commission jurisdiction.
Constellation will become an electric company in New York subject to Public
Service Law requirements./11/

         The Joint Petition lists Constellation's qualifications to own and
operate the Nine Mile facilities. They include the parent company's sizable
generation and energy holdings and its interests in nuclear power plants in
Maryland./12/

         When the Nine Mile facilities stop generating electricity,
Constellation states, it will return the Oswego site to a greenfield condition.
To this end, it will apply the decommissioning trust funds in accordance with
NRC requirements and ratepayers will not have to provide any more contributions
to the trust funds.

         In addition to assuming decommissioning responsibilities, Constellation
will assume all operational costs and risks for the Nine Mile facilities. Its
ownership of the facilities is not expected to provide it market power in New
York. The petitioners note that Constellation does not own any transmission
facilities in the State.

         The petitioners state that they have addressed employee concerns and
labor interests by offering continued employment and compensation for transfers
and severances. They also claim the sale will benefit the local community in
Oswego County. Given a favorable real property tax agreement, the petitioners
believe Constellation will operate the generating plants reliably in the
competitive market.

         Staff also provides its support for the Joint Proposals. It states that
each one provides a reasonable balance between ratepayer and shareholder
interests. In each instance, Staff considers the amount of costs the utility
will

____________________

/11/   Constellation has petitioned for lightened regulation in Case 01-E-0349.
       An order in that case is being issued today.

/12/   The petitioners also point out that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission
       (NRC) requires license transferees to provide assurances that they are
       qualified to assume ownership. They specifically point to the NRC's
       safety, decommissioning, and financial requirements as providing
       additional support for the authorizations they are seeking here.

                                      -11-
<PAGE>

absorb (and not seek to recover from ratepayers) as an acceptable result in the
prevailing circumstances. Staff also credits the provisions it obtained for
various companies to apply amounts already being collected in rates to the
unrecovered investment in the nuclear facilities.

         Addressing the Power Purchase Agreements, Staff notes that the PPAs are
priced at the current estimate for electricity on the open market. As such, it
considers them to be good hedges against market price fluctuations that could
adversely affect customers. Likewise, with the Revenue Sharing Agreements, Staff
states that the RSAs provide good hedges against market price increases at
virtually no cost to ratepayers.

         Overall, Staff states that the Joint Proposals help to introduce
competition in the electric industry by ending controversy about the recovery of
nuclear power stranded costs.

         In support of the NMJP, Niagara Mohawk states that the proposal
provides an equitable resolution of the sale transaction issues and the
treatment of stranded and other costs. The company observes that the NMJP is
consistent with applicable law and public policy, and it provides a negotiated
result that is comparable to a litigated outcome. Niagara Mohawk considers the
NMJP's chief attributes to be its preservation of jobs in Oswego County and the
continuation of a zero-emission source of electricity.

         Multiple Intervenors also supports the NMJP. It states that the
proposal provides a reasonable resolution of the issues, including the reduction
of the company's investment by $123 million. MI specifically supports the
proposal's Nuclear Electric Insurance Limited (NEIL), purchased power, and
revenue sharing provisions.

         According to RG&E, the RJP balances customer and utility interests well
and it meets Commission objectives. Having used a competitive bid process, RG&E
insists that the purchase price for the facilities compares favorably with the
prices paid for other nuclear power plants. It also believes that the separation
of the Nine Mile facility from the

                                      -12-
<PAGE>

transmission and distribution assets will foster competition. Given the stranded
costs it will forgo and the rate amounts it will use to amortize stranded costs,
RG&E considers the proposal to be a fair resolution of the issues.

         Central Hudson also states that it made beneficial concessions to
customers that support adoption of the CHJP. By achieving closure on the nuclear
generation issues, Central Hudson believes it can focus better on the provision
of delivery services and more effectively implement the vision for a competitive
electric industry. Thus, the company considers its proposal to be reasonable and
in the public interest.

         NYSEG states that the NYJP adds to the development of a competitive
electric market and it points to the capital gain on the Nine Mile 2 sale that
can be used to benefit ratepayers. It notes that a non-bypassable wires charge
might have otherwise been needed to recover nuclear stranded costs. It also
notes that customers do not risk Nine Mile 2 replacement power costs during the
remainder of the prevailing rate restructuring plan. Finally, NYSEG states its
strong preference to avoid becoming a minority owner of Nine Mile 2 with little
control over its budget or operations.

                  COMMENTS CONCERNING THE JOINT PROPOSALS/13/
                  ---------------------------------------

State Attorney General
----------------------

         The State Attorney General's Office (OAG) believes that utility company
losses from the sale of nuclear power plants should be borne by shareholders and
not be charged to ratepayers./14/ According to OAG, shareholders should shoulder
the

_________________________

/13/  In addition to the comments reported below, comments were also received
      from NYSEG and RG&E. NYSEG's comments concerning the need for a new
      operating agreement for Nine Mile 2 is moot given the NYJP and the
      proposed sale of the company's interest in the facility. RG&E's comments
      concern a transmission facility dispute between it and Niagara Mohawk that
      is pending court action. Whether or not Staff helps to mediate this
      dispute, RG&E's comments neither detract from nor dispute the merits of
      the NMJP.

/14/  OAG took the same position concerning the recent sale of the Indian Point
      nuclear generation facilities. See,

                                      -13-
<PAGE>

risk of nuclear power plants in return for the rewards they may provide. Given
the sale of the Nine Mile facilities at less than their book value, OAG believes
the stranded costs should be written off and not be converted into regulatory
assets for ratepayers to pay. It contends that the utility companies' management
(not ratepayers) decided to make uneconomic investments in nuclear power plants.
According to OAG, the Commission has ample authority to relieve ratepayers of
the stranded cost burdens. It points out that the utility companies were never
provided any assurances that stranded costs would be recovered in rates.

         OAG also opposes provisions in various Joint Proposals that seek to
restrict parties' rights to challenge the rate of returns the companies will
seek in upcoming rate proceedings. It insists that no party should be precluded
from advocating a different rate of return for regulatory assets than the one
provided for transmission and distribution assets.

         Finally, OAG objects to Joint Proposal provisions that specify monthly
true-ups of purchase power costs with market costs./15/ It prefers that these
matters be considered in rate cases where other factors bearing on just and
reasonable rates can also be considered.

Mr. Mavretich/16/
-------------

         Mr. Mavretich recognizes the convenient opportunity the Joint Proposals
provide to end the Nine Mile 2 controversy. However, he see little benefit in
them for ratepayers. According to Mr. Mavretich, a greater portion of the
companies' stranded costs should be disallowed and not be recovered from
ratepayers. He believes that the Joint Proposals are lopsided and they favor
shareholder interests. He estimates that over $1

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

      Case 01-E-0040, Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc. - Asset
                      -----------------------------------------------------
      Sale, Order Authorizing Asset Transfer (issued August 31, 2001).
      ----

/15/  Such provisions are contained in the NMJP and the RJP.

/16/  As noted above, Mr. Mavretich appeared in this proceeding on behalf of
      Congressman Maurice D. Hinchey.

                                      -14-
<PAGE>

billion of cost recovery is provided to shareholders and he claims that
ratepayers will receive no comparable advantage. Consequently, he urges that the
Joint Proposals be rejected and that litigation or further negotiations be used
to obtain better results for ratepayers.

         Mr. Mavretich specifically endorses the Joint Proposals' terms
concerning the future benefits available from Nuclear Electric Insurance Limited
(NEIL). He states that they properly preserve the benefits for ratepayers and
they are consistent with the prefiled testimony he provided.

IBEW Local 97
-------------

         IBEW Local 97 represents 6,200 utility workers; 700 work at the Nine
Mile facilities. The union supports the Joint Proposals and states that they
reasonably balance shareholder and ratepayer interests. Local 97 urges us to act
expeditiously to end the uncertainty for workers at the facilities.

Nucor Steel Auburn
------------------

         Nucor Steel Auburn, Inc. believes the NYJP provides an acceptable
resolution of the issues concerning NYSEG. It specifically endorses the
establishment of an Asset Sale Gain Account that will be used to provide
ratepayer benefits in a financially responsible manner.

Alliance For Municipal Power
----------------------------

         In May 2001, the Alliance For Municipal Power (AMP) commented on the
NMJP. AMP is concerned about the exit fees that municipal customers pay before
they can leave the electric network. In general, AMP has complained about the
summary nature of the NMJP, contending that it should have included more details
about the purchase price and stranded costs. AMP specifically criticizes the
provision that would apply Niagara Mohawk's allowed rate of return to the
nuclear regulatory assets. It also wants to review the final transaction costs
for the sale. AMP proposes that Niagara Mohawk not be allowed to recover its
legal fees related to the sale.

                                      -15-
<PAGE>

Public Comments
---------------

         Throughout this proceeding, we have received letters, electronic mail,
and comments concerning the Joint Petition./17/ Recently, when the parties filed
their Joint Proposals, we conducted public information forums in Syracuse on
October 2, and in Oswego on October 3, 2001. At the forums, the staff of the
Office of Consumer Education and Advocacy described the Joint Petition, the
Joint Proposals and solicited comments. The public was also advised to mail,
telephone, or submit comments electronically over the internet.

         Among others, we have heard from a certified public accountant in
Liverpool who urges us to reject the Joint Proposal and from a resident of
Greenlawn who believes that the nuclear power plants should not be sold. A
student attending the State University of New York at Potsdam wrote us
concerning the safe operation of nuclear power plants and an RG&E ratepayer
believes his utility company should write off all the remaining Nine Mile 2
costs. A resident of Oswego not only opposes recovery of stranded costs he
believes a portion of the costs ratepayers have paid for the facilities should
be returned.

         At the public forums, 33 persons attended and 12 provided comments.
Several speakers urged that the power plants not be sold and that they no longer
operate. Others expressed concerns about public safety, decommissioning efforts,
and the need for more information. We also heard from an individual who was
unable to attend the public forums who is concerned about the risks of operating
nuclear power plants and would prefer that they be shut down.

                           DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION
                           -------------------------

         The proposed sale of the four utility companies' interests in Nine Mile
1 and 2, with associated facilities, is consistent with the policies the
Commission announced in 1996 to

________________

/17/  Some of the correspondence we received was initially sent to Governor
      Pataki and various state legislators. Such letters were forwarded to us to
      consider in this proceeding.

                                      -16-
<PAGE>

open the electric system to competition and to allow electric generation
companies to compete in the sale of electricity. Each of the utility companies
has been operating since that time pursuant to a rate restructuring plan the
terms of which the Commission has ordered.

         To their credit, the terms of the proposed sales to Constellation are
the result of a competitive bid and auction process. This is in stark contrast
to the sale terms two utility companies presented in mid-1999 that they
subsequently withdrew./18/ In Case 99-E-0933, we understood that multiple
bidders were interested in the nuclear generation facilities and we insisted
that the utility companies seek to obtain a substantially higher market value
for them. That objective has been met in this case with the results of
Constellation's successful bid that we find acceptable.

         To assist the utility companies in their auction efforts, in April
2000, we addressed nuclear stranded cost matters and provided several
observations. Chief among them, we stated that the sale of the nuclear
generation facilities at their current market value would constitute appropriate
mitigation of the stranded costs. We also stated our willingness to address the
ratemaking treatment for the Nine Mile sale at the same time we determined
whether the proposed asset transfer was in the public interest./19/

         As in the recent case involving Consolidated Edison's sale of the
Indian Point nuclear facilities to Entergy, the Office of the Attorney General
(OAG) has stated its general opposition to ratepayers paying the stranded costs
for sales that fail to produce sufficient proceeds to cover book costs. In this
case, two utility companies (Niagara Mohawk and RG&E) clearly have stranded cost
losses attributable to the sale of their nuclear generation facilities, a
portion of which ratepayers are being called upon to pay. The same might also be

________________________

/18/  Case 99-E-0933, Joint Petition to Transfer Nuclear Generation Assets,
                      ----------------------------------------------------
      Order Allowing Petitions to be Withdrawn (issued April 25, 2000).

/19/  Id., pp. 7 and 8.
      ---

                                      -17-
<PAGE>

said of the results of Central Hudson's and NYSEG's sale of their nuclear
generation assets; however, these companies used gains achieved from the sale of
other generating facilities to cover a portion of their book costs for Nine Mile
2.

         Addressing first the circumstances presented by Central Hudson and
NYSEG, we find that treatment of nuclear stranded costs provided by the CHJP and
the NYJP is acceptable and that they reasonably balance the interests of
ratepayers and shareholders. The CHJP requires Central Hudson to place its share
of the Nine Mile 2 purchase price in a benefit fund for ratepayers and it
requires the company to contribute another $19 million to the benefit fund.
These are substantial advantages for ratepayers that support our finding that
the sale of Central Hudson's portion of Nine Mile 2 is in the public interest
and should be authorized.

         Similarly, the NYJP requires NYSEG to establish an asset sale gain
account and to fund it with the company's portion of the Nine Mile 2 sale
proceeds and additional amounts. Like the funds Central Hudson is putting aside,
the NYSEG funds will be used to benefit ratepayers in a financially responsible
manner. These results support our finding that the sale of NYSEG's portion of
Nine Mile 2 is in the public interest and should be authorized.

         With respect to Central Hudson and NYSEG, we reject OAG's and Mr.
Mavretich's assertions that the gains achieved from the sale of other generation
facilities should not have been used to reduce their book costs for Nine Mile 2.
Given the acceptable terms of the CHJP and the NYJP that we can adopt, there is
no merit in the contention that ratepayer interests are not served by applying
the gain on other sales to the Nine Mile book costs.

         Turning to Niagara Mohawk and RG&E, and their proposals to establish
regulatory assets to recover Nine Mile stranded costs, in neither instance does
the utility company seek to recover their entire loss on the sale transaction.
The RJP requires RG&E to write off $20 million of its loss which we find to be a
proper amount given the company's current financial

                                      -18-
<PAGE>

and business circumstances, and considering the continuing challenges associated
with RG&E's ownership and operation of the Ginna Nuclear Station and its
remaining unrecovered nuclear investments. In addition, the RJP requires the
company to redirect and use up to $30 million currently being collected in rates
to amortize the nuclear regulatory asset. These are substantial ratepayer
benefits that otherwise reduce the charges that could have been applied to them.
For these reasons, we find that the terms of the RJP are acceptable and the sale
of RG&E's interest in Nine Mile 2 is in the public interest.

         As the sole owner of Nine Mile 1 and as the company with the largest
single interest in Nine Mile 2 (at 41%), it is no surprise that Niagara Mohawk
incurs the greatest loss on the sale of the nuclear facilities. The NMJP
balances ratepayer and shareholder interests by requiring the company to write
off $123 million of the loss on the sale. However, according to OAG and Mr.
Mavretich, Niagara Mohawk (and the other utility companies) should have written
off much more than this to provide a proper balance of ratepayer and shareholder
interests. Inasmuch as the generation assets were constructed to serve
ratepayers and Niagara Mohawk's regulated rate of return was constrained and
limited to its cost of capital, OAG's and Mr. Mavretich's contentions are
incorrect./20/ Thus, we find no merit in Mr. Mavretich's request for the parties
to engage in further negotiations or for us to initiate litigation in this case.

         As to other Joint Proposal terms that have drawn adverse comments, the
OAG and the Alliance For Municipal Power (AMP) object to any limits on the rate
of return issues in upcoming RG&E and Niagara Mohawk rate proceedings./21/ While
the RJP's provisions apply only to Staff and the company,/22/ OAG

________________________

/20/  We also note that Niagara Mohawk recently announced that it is willing, in
      the context of its proposal to merger with National Grid, to write-off an
      additional $850 million. Case 01-M-0075, Niagara Mohawk and National Grid
                                               --------------------------------
      Merger Proposal, Joint Proposal (dated October 11, 2001).
      ---------------

/21/  The CHJP and the NYJP do not contain any such provisions.

/22/  RG&E's Reply Comments (dated September 28, 2001), p. 8.

                                      -19-
<PAGE>

nonetheless objects to them as a matter of public policy. Both the OAG and AMP
object to the NMJP's provisions for the limits they seek to impose on third
parties.

         We find no compelling public policy reason to preclude Staff from
stating in advance the approach it will adhere to and use in upcoming rate
proceedings. We are not troubled by the commitments it has made with RG&E that
do not impose any limits or restrictions on any other party. With respect to the
restrictions the NMJP seeks on third parties proposing a different rate of
return for the nuclear regulatory asset, we will place no such restrictions on
the comments, or other submissions, that may be provided in other cases.

         OAG is also opposed to the purchase power cost true-up provisions
proposed by Niagara Mohawk and RG&E and claims this matter is better left to the
companies' upcoming rate proceedings./23/ In response, RG&E states that it only
intended the RJP's true-up provision to operate on an interim basis pending the
results of its next proceeding./24/ Thus, there does not appear to be any true
issue between these parties. With respect to Niagara Mohawk, as stated above,
any party who seeks to address the true-up provision in a ratemaking context
will not be precluded from submitting their comments or submissions.

         Finally, while AMP believes that Niagara Mohawk should not be allowed
to recover all its legal fees, the company's legal fees and final transaction
costs remain subject to a final audit./25/

         In summary, we have considered the Joint Petition, and the various
agreements the selling cotentants and Constellation

________________________

/23/  OAG also opposed such provision in the CHJP; however, Central Hudson
      denies that there are any provisions of this sort in its Joint Proposal.
      Central Hudson's Reply Comments (dated September 28, 2001), pp. 4 and 5.

/24/  RG&E's Reply Comments (dated September 28, 2001), pp. 9 and 10.

/25/  The companies' filing of their final costs will be made public and
      available for inspection by AMP or any other interested party.

                                      -20-
<PAGE>

have executed for the Nine Mile facilities. We have also considered the Joint
Proposals that the petitioners have executed with Staff, CPB and Multiple
Intervenors. Further, as discussed above, we have evaluated the comments that
the parties and the public have provided concerning the Joint Petition and the
Joint Proposals. All of this leads us to find that the proposed sale of the Nine
Mile nuclear generation assets is in the public interest and the transfer should
be authorized pursuant to PSL (S) 70.

State Environmental Quality Review Act Findings
-----------------------------------------------

         On May 3, 1996, the Commission issued a Final Generic Environmental
Impact Statement (FGEIS) that addressed the statewide environmental, social and
economic impacts of a policy opening New York's electric markets to competition.
/26/ The FGEIS acknowledged that localized impacts could arise as a result of
specific divestiture proposals presented by individual companies. To determine
if any such impacts existed, each company was directed to file a draft
Environmental Assessment Form (EAF) with its divestiture plan.

         The approval of the sale of Nine Mile 1 and 2 to Constellation
constitutes a subsequent action to the policy determinations issued in Case
94-E-0952 and to the rate and restructuring decisions made by the Commission
(Opinion Nos. 98-1, 98-6, 98-8, and 98-14.)/27/ Therefore, under the State
Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA), the Commission must determine whether
the impacts associated with the proposed transfer are within the conditions and
thresholds of the FGEIS.

________________________

/26/  Case 94-E-0952, et al., Competitive Opportunities Proceeding.
                      -- ---

/27/  Case 94-E-0952, supra, Opinion No. 96-12 (issued May 20, 1996); Case 96-E-
                      -----
      0898, Rochester Gas and Electric Corporation - Rate Restructuring, Opinion
            -----------------------------------------------------------
      No. 98-1 (issued January 14, 1998); Case 96-E-0891, New York State
                                                          --------------
      Electric & Gas Corporation - Rate Restructuring, Opinion No. 98-6 (issued
      -----------------------------------------------
      March 5, 1998); Case 94-E-0098, Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation -
                                      ----------------------------------
      Electric Rates, Opinion No. 98-8 (issued March 20, 1998); and, Case 96-E-
      --------------
      0909, Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corporation - Rate Restructuring,
            --------------------------------------------------------------
      Opinion No. 98-14 (issued June 30, 1998).

                                      -21-
<PAGE>

         The Commission issued a Final Supplemental Environmental Impact
Statement on October 5, 2001, which analyzed the detailed site-specific
information provided in the draft SEIS submitted by the petitioners as part of
their PSL (S) 70 filing and the other factual information referenced therein. It
identifies and addresses the environmental, social and economic impacts found to
arise as a result of the transaction. Determinations were made as to whether the
impacts identified are within the conditions and thresholds of the FGEIS.
Additionally, a comparison was made to the no action alternative to gauge the
extent to which impacts actually arose as a result of the proposed action.

         We solicited but did not receive any comments from the public on the
draft SEIS. Nonetheless, we recognized a potential significant adverse
impact--the asset transfer's effects on property tax revenues. This impact was
addressed and found to be mitigated to the maximum extent practicable by a
Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the cotenants and the Town of Scriba
that sets the property taxes for the Nine Mile facilities for the next ten
years. Constellation has agreed to accept and abide by the MOU.

         When the localized impacts identified are balanced against the overall
benefits to be derived from the proposed transfer (as addressed in this order),
it is clear that utility ratepayers, and the State as a whole, will be better
off by approving the transaction. The separation of generation facilities from
transmission and distribution assets should lead to a competitive marketplace
and reduced rates. Lower electric rates should lead to economic growth and
development. Given Constellation's focus on nuclear electricity, this
transaction should contribute to the safe and continued operation of the plants
and to system reliability.

         Accordingly, the Commission makes the findings stated above regarding
the environmental impacts associated with the sale. Pursuant to 6 NYCRR 617.11,
the Commission certifies that, consistent with environmental, social and
economic considerations from among the reasonable alternatives available,

                                      -22-
<PAGE>

the approval of the sale of Nine Mile 1 and 2, and related assets, avoids or
minimizes adverse impacts to the maximum extent practicable and satisfies the
requirements of SEQRA. The action is also consistent with applicable policies
set forth in Article 42 of the Executive Law (Local Waterfront Revitalization
and Coastal Resources), as implemented by 19 NYCRR 600, and will achieve a
balance between the protection of the environment and the need to accommodate
social and economic considerations.

Federal and State Regulation
----------------------------

         The petitioners interpret the Public Utility Holding Company Act
(PUHCA) as requiring a finding that new ownership of a generating facility will
benefit customers, is in the public interest, and does not violate state law,
before Constellation can be afforded exempt wholesale generator (EWG) status for
the Nine Mile 1 and 2 generating facilities. Constellation seeks this status so
it may operate the facilities free of federal regulation intended for monopoly
utilities. Constellation sees the requisite benefit for the public in its
participation in the wholesale competitive market, which should result in
increased competition.

         Therefore, the petitioners request that findings be made that the Nine
Mile generating facilities be determined to be "eligible facilities" as that
term is defined by PUHCA (S) 32, thereby allowing the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission (FERC) to issue a decision qualifying Constellation for EWG status
under federal law.

         In conformance with PUHCA and FERC's regulations,/28/ the Commission
finds that allowing the Nine Mile facilities to become eligible facilities, with
Constellation owning the plants (either directly or indirectly through one or
more affiliates as defined under federal law)/29/ will benefit New York
consumers, is in the public interest, and does not violate New York law.

___________________

/28/  15 U.S.C.A. (S) 79z-51; 18 C.F.R. (S) 365.
/29/  15 U.S.C.A. (S) 79b(a)(ii); 18 C.F.R. (S) 365(a)(1)(i).

                                      -23-
<PAGE>

         These findings are made on the same basis that we have found that the
transaction is in the public interest pursuant to PSL (S) 70. The Commission
determined in Case 94-E-0952 (Opinion No. 96-12) that a competitive marketplace
for the provision of electricity supply would benefit New York customers and
this transaction furthers that goal. Moreover, there is no violation of New York
law in transferring the plants to Constellation.

         While Constellation will become an electric corporation under New York
law when it assumes ownership of the Nine Mile facilities, it is being accorded
lightened regulation./30/ This approach to regulation has been previously
approved for generators that intend to participate entirely or primarily in the
wholesale market./31/ Constellation, however, will still be subject to state
regulation with respect to such matters as enforcement, investigation, safety
(subject to the NRC's jurisdiction over radiological matters), reliability and
system improvements.

The Commission orders:
---------------------

         1. The terms and conditions of the five Joint Proposals identified and
described herein are adopted and incorporated as part of this order.

         2. The Nine Mile 1 and 2 Asset Purchase Agreements are approved,
subject to the requirements of this order.

         3. The Cotenant Agreement (as amended by the First Amendment dated
September 28, 2000) and the Selling Cotenant Agreement (as amended by the First
Amendment dated September 28, 2000) are approved, subject to the requirements of
this order.

         4. The Transmission Purchase and Sale Agreement and the Transmission
Owners Agreement are approved, subject to the requirements of this order.

__________________

/30/  Case 01-E-0349, Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station, LLC, Order Providing For
                      ------------------------------------
      Lightened Regulation of Nuclear Generation Facilities (Issued October 29,
      2001).

/31/  See, e.g., Case 98-E-1670, Carr Street Generating Station, Order Providing
           ----                  ------------------------------
   for Lightened Regulation (issued April 23, 1999).

                                      -24-
<PAGE>

         5.  The Power Purchase Agreements and the Revenue Sharing Agreements
are approved, subject to the requirements of this order.

         6.  The Property Tax Memorandum of Understanding is deemed to be
reasonable, prudent, and in the public interest.

         7.  No later than 90 days following the closing of the sale and
transfer of the Nine Mile nuclear assets, the petitioners shall file with the
Commission a statement of the amount of proceeds received, the costs incurred,
and the proposed accounting and ratemaking treatment for the net proceeds, in
conformance with the requirements of this order.

         8.  The findings related to the Final Supplemental Environmental Impact
Statement required under the State Environmental Quality Review Act described in
the body of this order are made.

         9.  The findings on exempt wholesale generator status under the Public
Utility Holding Company Act described in the body of this order are made.

         10. This proceeding is continued.

                                       By the Commission,

             (SIGNED)                  JANET HAND DEIXLER
                                           Secretary

                                      -25-NOTE

U.S. $120,000.00                             February 12, 2002

     FOR VALUE RECEIVED, the undersigned, AMASYS Corporation, a
Delaware corporation (the "Borrower"), HEREBY PROMISES TO PAY to
the order of C. W. GILLULY  (the "Lender"), upon demand, the
principal sum of U.S. One Hundred and Twenty Thousand Dollars
($120,000.00), which constitutes the aggregate principal amount
of the Advance (defined below) made by the Lender to the Borrower
(defined below) and outstanding on the date hereof.

     The Borrower also promises to pay interest on the unpaid
principal amount of each Advance from the date of such Advance
until such principal amount is paid in full, at the rate of 10%
per annum.

     Both principal and interest are payable in lawful money of
the United States of America to the Lender, on or before February
11, 2003, at 415 First Street, S.E. Washington, D.C., 20003, or
such other address as the holder hereof may designate in writing,
in same day funds, without defense, offset or counterclaim.

     The Borrower acknowledges the receipt of the amount of
$120,00,000, which amount was loaned as of February 12, 2002 (the
"Advance").

     The Borrower shall pay all reasonable costs, fees and
expenses (including court costs and reasonable attorneys' fees)
incurred by the Lender in collecting or attempting to collect any
amount that becomes due hereunder or in seeking legal advice with
respect to such collection or a default hereunder.  This Note may
be prepaid at any time without penalty.

     The Borrower, and every guarantor and endorser hereof,
hereby waive presentment, demand, notice of dishonor, protest and
all other demands and notices in connection with the delivery,
acceptance, performance and enforcement of this Note.

     This Note shall be governed by and construed in accordance
with the laws of the Commonwealth of Virginia, without reference
to conflict of laws principles.

     THE BORROWER HEREBY WAIVES TRIAL BY JURY IN ANY LITIGATION
IN ANY COURT WITH RESPECT TO THIS NOTE OR THE ENFORCEMENT OR
COLLECTION HEREOF.

     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Borrower has caused this Note to be
executed by its duly authorized representative as of the day and
year first above written.

                         AMASYS Corporation

                         By:  /S/ S. AMBER GORDON
                              S. Amber Gordon
                              Corporate Secretary

<PAGE>

Source: [{"source": "alea-institute/alea-institute/kl3m-data-edgar-agreements/train-00034-of-00352.parquet"}, [{"source": "alea-institute/alea-institute/kl3m-data-edgar-agreements/train-00034-of-00352.parquet"}]]