By: Danielle Ulman

Constellation Energy Group won approval from regulators on its $4.5 billion deal with Electricite de France Friday, with a pretty concise list of conditions.

The uncertainty of how the Public Service Commission would rule made reading through the ruling kind of exciting — if you like that sort of thing — but on my second or third time through, what made it better were the little zings and oddities here and there. Regulars at the commission will recognize the following as typical of the PSC.

Re: The conditions that make sure BGE remains stable.  The commission quotes, of all people, Warren Buffett. Constellation canceled a merger deal with his company, MidAmerican, in favor of the EDF deal.

“As with any prudent investment, the returns to ratepayers may not be flashy or immediate, but then again, ‘[s]omone’s sitting in the shade today because someone planted a tree a long time ago.’”

Re: Calvert Cliffs 3

“It is unfortunate, though, if public officials, unions, churches, Chambers of Commerce, business owners, the press, and, most of all, the Companies’ employees, have been (mis)led to believe that our decision approving this Transaction guarantees that Calvert Cliffs 3 will be built.” Zing.

Re: Changes to the transaction provided very late in the game (this is a footnote quoting hearing testimony).

Chairman Doug Nazarian: “I’m saying we would have liked to have a hearing about the actual bloody deal as opposed to the hypothetical one you’re in the middle of changing. When we’re sitting here hour after hour until midnight with witnesses who are testifying…and you’re sitting there knowing that it’s going to be different…”

Re: Addressing those people who want to make the case about their own interests

“Before digging into the public interest analysis itself, we feel compelled to say something about issues that are not part of this case…In this case, the public and political debate around our proceeding unfortunately has assumed a life of its own, and at times has left us scratching our heads wondering if the case being discussed is the case we are deciding. First, we are mystified by the way in which this case has been cast as a referendum on a new nuclear plant at Calvert Cliffs. This is absurd on its face, of course, because this Transaction and the documents executed to effectuate the Transaction relate only to CEG’s existing nuclear fleet…”

Also not part of the case: re-regulation and the “magnitude” of Constellation’s executive pay

Re: Benefits of the deal to Constellation

“If the Transaction closes, CEG will emerge from the Transaction with significantly less debt, a stronger balance sheet, and its existing structure intact. Although we do not subscribe blindly to the 1950s’ notion that ‘what’s good for [Constellation Energy] is good for [Maryland],’ we cannot forget that CEG careened toward bankruptcy only thirteen months ago.”

And you thought regulatory filings were boring.