Opinion ID: 511559
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The Commission's Rationale.

Text: 14 FERC ruled that petitioner had no right to bill the intervenors for PAI. It stated that the debt portion of the cost of capital was specifically defined, and thus circumscribed, by Factor BI--a definition which did not permit recoupment of actual interest costs associated with plant additions. 40 F.E.R.C. at p 61,012. The Commission found that BECO's reading of the catch-all clause was overinclusive, holding that the only reasonable purpose of the ... provision is to provide a mechanism to recover costs that were not specifically defined under the agreement. Id. Because debt cost was specifically defined in the financing formula, FERC opined that petitioner's rights of recapture were limited thereby. Id. On this point, the July order concluded with a finding that BECO's calculation of interest expense [was] clearly inconsistent with the contractual provision. Id. 15 Petitioner moved for rehearing, and proffered inter alia the affidavit of a former officer, Benjamin Weiner, who had been privy to negotiation of the Contract in the 1972-74 time frame. By this means, BECO sought to introduce extrinsic evidence to illumine the parties' intent and the reach of the catch-all clause. FERC denied the motion, describing petitioner's approach as inconsistent with the integrated, unambiguous contracts between BECO and the [municipal agencies]. 40 F.E.R.C. at p 61,949. The Contract, FERC ruled, was plain and clear on its face. Id. Accordingly, there was no need to resort to extrinsic evidence or to hold an evidentiary hearing. 16