1. On May 23, 2001, Mirant Dickerson Development, LLC ("Mirant") filed an application for a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity ("Certificate") (i) to upgrade existing simple cycle peaking units known as Station H, located at the Dickerson Generating Station site in Montgomery County, Maryland, by converting the existing units to combined cycle electric generation units through the construction of additional facilities, and (ii) to construct new combined cycle units at the site. The project, if approved, would increase the electrical generating capacity of the Dickerson Generating Station by 740 MW.

2. On June 18, 2001, Duke Energy Frederick, LLC ("Duke") applied for a Certificate to construct a 640-MW generation facility, on a site just upstream from the Dickerson Generating Station in Frederick County, Maryland, one mile north of the Potomac River. PSC Case No. 8891. Duke is also considering adding fuel oil-backup capability for its proposed plant. Duke’s "plans have been designed to take full advantage, environmentally and economically, of the proposed site’s location and proximity to key support facilities," including the existing water supply. Duke Application at 4.

3. Both Mirant and Duke are non-utility generators, and plan to sell power into the wholesale market on a "merchant basis." Neither Mirant nor Duke have committed to selling any output from their proposed facilities to end-users in Maryland. See Duke Application at 3 and Mirant Application at 3.

4. Mirant and Duke have requested waiver of the Commission’s statutory requirement that an application for a Certificate be filed at least two years prior to commencing construction of an electric generation facility under PUC Article § 7-208. Duke Application at 6 and Mirant Application at 4.

5. Both the Mirant and the Duke proposals are in the beginning stages of the Commission’s Certificate proceedings and both propose to begin construction of generation facilities in 2002. Duke Application at 4 and Mirant Application at 3.

6. Both Mirant and Duke plan to appropriate massive quantities of water from the Potomac River in the operation of their proposed generation facilities and intend to discharge wastewater into the Potomac. Duke Application at 5 and Mirant Application at 4.

7. Mirant and Duke’s proposals are subject to environmental review as part of their Certificate applications. Both Mirant and Duke’s proposed facilities will increase the emission of regulated pollutants into the ambient air and will have a cumulative impact upon air quality in the area.

8. The public interest requires that the Commission’s oversight of power plant construction in the state be cognizant of cumulative impacts of multiple power plants upon the general welfare of the public. In order to ensure that the cumulative impacts of generation facilities are carefully examined, they must be addressed in a single comprehensive proceeding.

9. As is apparent, Mirant and Duke’s Certificate proposals involve a commonality of issues, most appropriately addressed in a single proceeding. These issues include the cumulative impact the proposed power plants could have upon not only the Potomac, but also upon the Chesapeake Bay, by withdrawing massive quantities of water from the Potomac and discharging waste into the River. In addition, the cumulative impact on air quality in Maryland must be addressed in a comprehensive fashion because of the cumulative increase in the emission of regulated pollutants into the ambient air. Finally, both proposals will generate noise pollution and the construction process will impact the surrounding communities.

10. A consolidation of cases is in the public interest form a perspective of both economies of litigation time and expense and administrative efficiencies gained. Further, the Certificate proceedings have common questions of fact and law.

11. Neither Mirant nor Duke will be prejudiced by the consolidation of these proceedings as the Commission has not yet taken significant action on either of their Certificate applications. Further, their respective procedural schedules will only have to be adjusted slightly. Further, neither Mirant nor Duke have offered adequate justification, which would compel the Commission accept their respective requests of wavier of the two-year requirement. As a result, an adequate time exists in which the Commission can thoughtfully consider the cumulative impacts of the two proposed facilities.

12. If the Commission does not consolidate these proceeding the cumulative impacts of the two facilities will be ignored and lead to an inefficient and inequitable result. In fact, the Commission would be effectively reviewing Certificate application in a regulatory vacuum, at the expense of the general public.