B O N N E V I L L E P O W E R A D M I N I S T R A T I O N BP-14 Transmission Pre-Rate Case August 8,...

B O N N E V I L L E P O W E R A D M I N I S T R A T I O N

BP-14 TransmissionPre-Rate Case

August 8, 2012

2


August 8, 2012 Predecisional - For Discussion Purposes Only

Agenda

• Incremental Rate

• Redispatch

• Revenue Forecast Follow-up

• Large Generation Interconnection Agreement (LGIA) Credits Follow-up

• Risk Assessment/Use of Reserves

• Segmented Revenues Follow-up


Rates Workshop Follow-Up Items

4



A B C

# Customer Request BPA Response Date Completed

1 7/25/12 - Transmission pre-rate case workshop follow-up items:

2 What are the differences in “use” compared to “demand”?

3 What is the aggregate of total system load by month?

4 What are the months of de-rate for the DC and when will it come back on? Will be discussed during Revenue Forecast Follow-up portion of Pre-Rate Case Workshop on 8/8/12.

5 Provide the 12 NCP billing information. Will be discussed during Revenue Forecast Follow-Up portion of Pre-Rate Case Workshop on 8/8/12.

6 What is the demand of MW decrease due to conversion?

7 Have a discussion on 12 NCP. Will be discussed during Revenue Forecast Follow-Up portion of Pre-Rate Case Workshop on 8/8/12.

8 What is the interest for LGIA when not operational? Will be discussed during Segmented Revenues Follow-up portion of Pre-Rate Case Workshop on 8/8/12.

9 If we were to use the FERC “Brightline” test, 1) how much would be directly assigned and 2) how much would stay in the network in the past and in the future?

10 Provide an updated wind forecast.

11 Provide information on revenue credits.

Rates Workshop Follow-Up Items

5



Rates Workshop Follow Up Items, cont.A B C

# Customer Request BPA Response Date Completed

12 Why is the segmented O&M changing from $112 million to $178 million? What are the drivers?

13 Provide an MRNR comparison of what we projected to what we experienced. Will be discussed during Segmented Revenues Follow-up portion of Pre-Rate Case Workshop on 8/8/12.

14 Provide the LGIA presentation that Alex and Ron talked about. Will be discussed during Segmented Revenues Follow-up portion of Pre-Rate Case Workshop on 8/8/12.

15 Include variability for creditworthiness and resales, in revenue assumptions.

16 Is Method 1 for NT LGIA Transmission repayment industry standard?


Incremental Rate

7



Background• New Transmission facilities required to serve new

requests for service are subject to the “higher of” test, also known as the “or” test. Under this test, BPA may charge the higher of the embedded cost rate with the new facilities included, or an incremental cost rate that fully recovers the costs of the new facilities from the requests that need the facilities over the contract term.

• Under our current (FY12-13) Rate Schedules, incremental cost rates must be established in a 7(i) rate case.

• In the workshops prior to the FY10-11 and FY12-13 rate cases, BPA and customers considered developing a formula incremental rate. Discussions were productive, but BPA and customers ultimately decided in the workshops not to develop a formula incremental rate during these rate cases.– BPA and customers decided to focus on other rate case

issues instead.

8



Background, cont.• BPA continues to believe that it could have a need for

incremental costs rates in the future. – Network Open Season reform is being discussed now.

Network upgrades identified in future Network Open Season cluster studies as required for service, but that do not move forward at embedded costs rates, will be subject to incremental rates.

– Intertie upgrades may also be subject to incremental costs rates.

– The incremental rate would apply to service taken under the upgrades, once they were constructed and energized.

– If there is not a formula incremental rate in place, the incremental rate would have to be developed in a 7(i) process after or simultaneously with completion of the NEPA study. This could be an iterative process and may have to be repeated for each individual project that was moving forward at an incremental rate.

9



Question• The question at this point is whether it would be beneficial to

take the time now to work through specific Network and Intertie examples to better understand all the inter-related revenue requirement and revenue recovery issues involved in developing a formula incremental rate, or wait to have such a discussion when we are ready to establish rates through the 7(i) process.– Advantages to developing and adopting a formula rate now:

• Formula would be in place when it was needed, potentially minimizing the time required to offer service under the rate.

• In theory, would eliminate the need to run a special 7(i) process to develop the rate later.

• While it may be difficult to develop a formula incremental rate in the abstract, BPA could use the Garrison to Ashe project from the 2010 NOS as an example in developing the formula.

– Advantages to waiting to develop a rate:• May be easier to develop and tailor an incremental rate for a specific

project, rather than developing one in the abstract. • May be a more efficient use of BPA and customer resources to develop a

rate at the time it is needed.

10



Feedback

• Do customers have a preference as to whether we continue to discuss developing a formula incremental rate now, or wait until a specific project is identified and moving forward?

• Other questions/comments?

11



Next Steps

• Looking for customer comments on:– Do customers have a preference as to whether we

continue to discuss developing a formula incremental rate now, or wait until a specific project is identified and moving forward?

• Comments due by August 22, 2012:– [email protected]– Please include in subject line: “BP14 Transmission

Rate Case – Incremental Rate”.


Attachment M - Redispatch

13



Types of Redispatch Under Attachment M Under Bonneville’s Open Access Transmission Tariff (OATT), Attachment

M, Transmission Services (TS) requests redispatch from Power Services as part of its congestion management efforts.

There are three different types of Attachment M redispatch: Discretionary Redispatch - requested by TS prior to curtailing any firm or

non-firm point-to-point (PTP) schedules or secondary NT schedules for the purpose of avoiding or ameliorating curtailments.

NT Firm Redispatch - requested by TS for the purpose of maintaining firm network transmission (NT) schedules after non-firm point-to-point (PTP) and secondary NT schedules are curtailed according to NERC curtailment priority.

Emergency Redispatch - requested by TS in response to a “system emergency” as defined by NERC.

Under Attachment M, in response to any redispatch request, including requests for redispatch specific to Network Load located either within or outside of the BPA control area, Power Services (PS) may provide redispatch through redispatch of federal generation, purchases and/or sales of energy, or purchases of transmission.

14



Discretionary Redispatch TS may request Discretionary Redispatch from PS prior

to curtailing any firm or non-firm PTP schedules or any firm or secondary NT schedules in order to avoid or ameliorate curtailments.

PS has the discretion whether or not to provide requested amount, or any amount less than the total request.

TS has the discretion to request Discretionary Redispatch and PS has the discretion to provide Discretionary Redispatch. There is no obligation on either party.

15



NT Redispatch Requested by TS only after all applicable non-firm point-to-

point (PTP), secondary NT schedules and conditional firm schedules are curtailed according to NERC curtailment priority.

For NT Reliability Redispatch, TS requests redispatch from PS and simultaneously curtails firm PTP schedules in amounts proportionate to the firm NT and firm PTP flows on the affected transmission flowgates at the time of the request.

PS must comply with requests for NT Reliability Redispatch to the extent that it can do so without violating non-power constraints.

BPA is currently reviewing options for using non-federal resources, in addition to the FCRPS, to provide NT Reliability Redispatch.

16



Additional NT Redispatch Options• BPA’s OATT, based on the pro forma tariff, provides for

Redispatch of all designated Network Resources.• BPA agrees in principle that processes, systems and

business practices to implement least cost redispatch from all federal and non-federal Network Resources with the potential to resolve the transmission constraint is desirable.

• Reduction in FCRPS flexibility. – Due to non-power constraints placed on the FCRPS for flood control, fish and

wildlife, navigation, recreation, and other special operations, the ability to move/adjust federal generation has become more limited since the inception of Attachment M in 2001.

– Balancing Authority Area (BAA) requirements such as additional balancing reserves for variable generation have further reduced FCRPS flexibility.

• Additional resources for NT Redispatch are needed to maintain reliable service to Network Loads through Redispatch during transmission congestion.

17



Attachment M Redispatch - Actual and Forecasted Costs

In the 2012 Transmission Rate Case, Transmission Services forecasted a total of $400,000 per year for Attachment M Redispatch costs. This amount was included as part of the overall Transmission Services’ revenue requirement.

Power Services is only compensated when there is a redispatch event.

Actual FY 2009

Actual

FY 2010

Actual

FY 2011

Discretionary Redispatch

$170,157 $46,439 $11,355

NT Redispatch $392,162 $49,261 $470,500

Emergency Redispatch

$964 $1,510 -

Attachment M Total Cost

$563,282 $97,210 $481,855

2012 Rate Case Forecast (per yr)

Actual FY 2012

(through April)

$175,000 $3,924

$225,000 $201,878

- -

$400,000 $205,802

18



Potential FY 2014-2015 Rate Case Items In the 2012 Transmission Rate Case, Attachment M

costs were estimated and included in the network revenue requirement. Because the rate levels were settled, Attachment M costs were not allocated to customer classes.

BPA is considering three alternatives for rate recovery of Redispatch costs. Under all three alternatives, the cost of NT Redispatch would be allocated to NT Customers only. Alternative 1: Recover all Redispatch costs in the network

revenue requirement. Alternative 2: Recover all Redispatch costs through a Formula

Rate. Alternative 3: Recover NT Redispatch costs through a Formula

Rate and Discretionary and Emergency Redispatch costs in the network revenue requirement.

19



Redispatch Rate RecoveryAlternative 1

Alternative 1: Recover all Redispatch costs in the network revenue requirement.

Pros: Creates more certainty for customers with regard to cost since

they will be set in the rate case. Is the most administratively simple to implement. No impact to billing.

Cons: Redispatch costs have varied significantly from year-to-year and

are difficult to forecast because they occur infrequently. NT Redispatch costs, in particular, will be difficult to forecast

because it is difficult to anticipate congested network conditions and BPA is considering significant changes to the resource pool that will provide NT Redispatch during the rate period.

Under or over-recovery is likely, the magnitude of which may be significant for NT Redispatch.

20




Alternative 2: Recover all Redispatch costs through a Formula Rate (NT Redispatch will be allocated to NT Customers only).

Pros: Redispatch costs have varied significantly from year-to-year and are difficult

to forecast because they occur infrequently. Use of a formula rate would ensure that redispatch costs would not be under or over-recovered.

The costs of redispatch have historically been relatively small. A formula rate would not create a great deal of uncertainty for customers with regard to their total cost of transmission.

Decisions on specific resources to add to the resource pool for the NT Redispatch program could be made after the initial rate proposal because BPA would not have to forecast redispatch costs.

Cons: Customers would not know the redispatch costs they would have to bear

until after they have been billed. This may make budgeting more difficult. Creates additional workload for billing, particularly for Discretionary and

Emergency redispatch which requires allocation among customer classes.

21




Alternative 3: Recover NT Redispatch costs through a Formula Rate and Discretionary and Emergency Redispatch costs in the network revenue requirement (NT Redispatch will be allocated to NT Customers only).

Pros: Addresses the particular forecasting challenge for NT Redispatch. Some billing implementation workload, but less than Alternative 2. Creates certainty for customers on Discretionary and Emergency

Redispatch costs. Cons:

Uncertainty of forecast Discretionary and Emergency Redispatch costs.

Under or over-recovery is still an issue for Discretionary and Emergency Redispatch.

22



Next Steps After consideration of customer comments, BPA

will propose a rate treatment. Please provide comments and/or proposals on

rate treatments for Redispatch by August 22. Comments due by August 22, 2012:

– [email protected]– Please include in subject line: “BP14 Transmission

Rate Case – Redispatch”.


Revenue Forecast Follow-Up

24



Sales Forecast Follow-up• Customers requested information on the IR & FPT

contracts that were not expected to rollover. – That total demand is 600 MW. The tables below show a further

breakout (in average monthly MW) of the changes between FPT & IR forecast in RC12 and the RC14 Initial Proposal.

• Customers also had questions about the increases in PTP related to NOS.– An additional handout has been provided showing how the

monthly averages discussed were calculated based on demand during the rate period.

(A) (B) (C)Average RC MW Comments

1Changes in Avg FPT Demand

from RC12 5022 FPT converting during RC 14 3863 Difference 1164 Explanation of the Difference

5TSRs Not Expecting to

Convert 100

Demand of 600 MW will expire in 6/15 and is not

expected to convert

6Update to FPT Forecast since

RC 12 16

Updated to show a 18 MW request was terminated and a

2 MW that is being billed

FPT Conversions(A) (B) (C)

Average RC MW Comments

1Changes in Avg IR Demand

from RC12 7682 IR converting during RC 14 5643 Difference 2044 Explanation of the Difference

5TSRs Not Expecting to

Convert 0

6TSRs Converting Earlier

Than Expected 194

Conversion of 194MW on 10/1/11 was not forecast in

RC 12.

7TSRs Forecast to Convert

During RC12 10160MW Converting in 11/1/13

6MW Converting in 1/1/15

IR Conversions

25



Sales Forecast Follow-up, cont.• Customers requested information on what are

the months of de-rate for the DC upgrade and when will it come back on? – Increase rated capacity from 3,100 MW to 3,220 MW. – Project construction begins early 2015 with de-rate to

2,000 MW (10-11 months).– Then a curtailment to 0 MW for a few months in late

2015 to early 2016.

– Energization in early 2016.

26



Network Segment Long Term Sales

27



Intertie Segment Long Term Sales

28



Short Term Sales

29



Delivery A B C D

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

30



Revenue Credits


Large Generation Interconnection Agreement

(LGIA) Credits Follow-up

32



Method 1 vs. Method 2

• Method 1 – 34 Credit Balances• Method 2 – 5 Credit Balances• COI – 10 Credit Balances

33



LGIA Interest

• Transmission Credits Business Practice – Version 7– “Interest begins to accrue at the 10-year Government

Agency Borrowing Rate on all funds advanced for the construction of Network Upgrades from the date BPA Transmission Services receives the payment(s) for Network Upgrades from the Interconnection Customer.” – Page 2, Section A, #3

34



LGIA Cash Deposits

• It is likely that the amount of cash forecasted to be deposited during FY 13-15 will not be as high as $130 Million.

• The LGIA forecast will be adjusted to better reflect our current outlook on Generation Interconnection.


Risk Assessment/Use of Reserves

36



Brief History

• BPA’s TPP Standard– Adopted in the 1993 Rate Case

• Financial Reserves– Cash in the BPA Fund– “Treasury Specials” in the BPA Fund– Deferred Borrowing

37



Brief History, cont.

• PNRR – Planned Net Revenues for Risk.– Augments financial reserves in a rate case if needed

to increase TPP.

• CRAC – Cost Recovery Adjustment Clause.– Augments cash flow between rate cases.

• TPP calculations during rate cases.• TS TPP over time.

38



The 2012 Rate Case

• Initial Proposal.– Preliminary TS TPP was over 99%.– Preliminary PS TPP was below 95%.– BPA proposed that PS be allowed to temporarily rely

for TPP purposes on reserves attributed to TS.• Controversial.

39



The 2012 Rate Case, cont.

• Initial Proposal, cont.– Reserves-based ACS rates subject to Power CRAC.

• Controversial.• Complicated, too: while the rates are levied by TS, the costs

allocated to them come from the system managed by PS.

40



The 2012 Rate Case, cont.

• Final Proposal.– PS TPP was over 95% without reliance on

reserves attributed to TS.– Therefore, reserves attributed to TS played no

part in the final PS risk mitigation package.

41



Preview of the 2014 Rate Case

• TPP will probably be above 95% for each BL (though it is too early to be sure of that).

• ACS rates and financial risk mitigation will be discussed in future workshop(s).


Segmented Revenues Follow-up

43



LGIA’S EFFECT ON REVENUE REQUIREMENTS

WITHOUT LGIA/COI

FY 20121 CASH FROM CURRENT OPERATIONS2 EXPENSES NOT REQUIRING CASH:3 DEPRECIATION & AMORTIZATION 190,8844 AMORTIZATION OF CAPITALIZED BOND PREMIUMS 5615 CAPITALIZATION ADJUSTMENT (18,968)6 ACCRUAL REVENUES (AC INTERTIE/FIBER) (6,631)7 CASH PROVIDED BY CURRENT OPERATIONS 165,846

8 CASH FROM TREASURY BORROWING AND APPROPRIATIONS9 DEBT SERVICE REASSIGNMENT PRINCIPAL (41,141)

10 REPAYMENT OF LONG-TERM DEBT (25,000)11 REPAYMENT OF CAPITAL APPROPRIATIONS (175,110)12 CASH FROM TREASURY BORROWING AND APPROPRIATIONS (241,251)

13 ANNUAL INCREASE (DECREASE) IN CASH (75,405)

14 MINIMUM REQUIRED NET REVENUES 75,405

15 TOTAL ANNUAL INCREASE (DECREASE) IN CASH 0

TRANSMISSION REVENUE REQUIREMENTSTATEMENT OF CASH FLOWS

($thousands)

44



LGIA’S EFFECT ON REVENUE REQUIREMENTS, cont.

LGIA/COI ONLY

FY 20121 CASH FROM CURRENT OPERATIONS2 EXPENSES NOT REQUIRING CASH:3 DEPRECIATION & AMORTIZATION 6,7035 TRANSMISSION CREDIT PROJECTS NET INTEREST 17,9706 ACCRUAL REVENUES (AC INTERTIE/FIBER) (41,985)7 CASH PROVIDED BY CURRENT OPERATIONS (17,312)

8 CASH FROM TREASURY BORROWING AND APPROPRIATIONS9 DEBT SERVICE REASSIGNMENT PRINCIPAL

10 REPAYMENT OF LONG-TERM DEBT11 REPAYMENT OF CAPITAL APPROPRIATIONS12 CASH FROM TREASURY BORROWING AND APPROPRIATIONS 0

13 ANNUAL INCREASE (DECREASE) IN CASH (17,312)

14 MINIMUM REQUIRED NET REVENUES 17,312

15 TOTAL ANNUAL INCREASE (DECREASE) IN CASH 0


($thousands)

45




WITHOUTTOTAL LGIA/COI LGIA/COI

1 CASH FROM CURRENT OPERATIONS2 EXPENSES NOT REQUIRING CASH:3 DEPRECIATION & AMORTIZATION 198,513 6,703 190,7934 TRANSMISSION CREDIT PROJECTS NET INTEREST 17,970 17,9705 AMORTIZATION OF CAPITALIZED BOND PREMIUMS 561 5616 CAPITALIZATION ADJUSTMENT (18,968) (18,968)7 ACCRUAL REVENUES (LGIA/AC INTERTIE/FIBER) (48,616) (41,985) (6,631)8 CASH PROVIDED BY CURRENT OPERATIONS 149,460 (17,312) 165,755

9 CASH FROM TREASURY BORROWING AND APPROPRIATIONS10 DEBT SERVICE REASSIGNMENT PRINCIPAL (41,141) (41,141)11 REPAYMENT OF LONG-TERM DEBT (25,000) (25,000)12 REPAYMENT OF CAPITAL APPROPRIATIONS (175,110) (175,110)13 CASH FROM TREASURY BORROWING AND APPROPRIATIONS (241,251) (241,251)

14 ANNUAL INCREASE (DECREASE) IN CASH (91,791) (17,312) (75,496)

15 MINIMUM REQUIRED NET REVENUES 91,791 17,312 75,496

16 TOTAL ANNUAL INCREASE (DECREASE) IN CASH 0 0 0

1/ Line 16 must be greater than or equal to zero, otherwise net revenues will be added so that there are no negative cash flows for the year.

FY 2012


($thousands)

A B C

46




• The unique nature of the revenue credits associated with LGIA is that payback occurs via rates that must fully recover the costs of the Network.

47



MRNR Rate Case/Actual ExampleBPA Transmission

Minimum Required Net Revenue Example FY 2011

($000)

Rate Case Actuals

1. NONCASH EXPENSES

2. DEPRECIATION/AMORTIZATION 201,536 192,396 3. AMORTIZATION OF CAPITALIZED BOND PREMIUMS 692 692

4. CAPITALIZATION ADJUSTMENT (18,968) (18,968)

5. CUSTOMER-FUNDED NET INTEREST 13,057 4,803

6. ACCRUAL REVENUES (47,097) (38,051)

7. FUNDS FROM OPERATION 149,220 140,872

8. CASH REQUIREMENTS 9. DEBT SERVICE REASSIGNMENT PRINCIPAL (154) (154)

10. BONDS AND APPROPRIATIONS (224,707) (247,365) 11. USE OF RESERVES FOR EXPENSED SPACER DAMPERS 22,658

12. CASH REQUIRED (224,861) (224,861)

13. CASH FLOW/(MRNR) (75,641) (83,989)

14. ACTUAL NET REVENUE 71,787

A B

48



Next Steps• Upcoming Workshops

– August 22• Transmission Pre-Rate Case - AM

– Reservation Fee– Montana Intertie– Segmentation

• Generation Inputs - PM

– September 12 & 26 - Transmission Pre-Rate Case - All Day

– http://www.bpa.gov/corporate/ratecase/bp14_meeting_ws.cfm

49



Appendix

50



Links to Materials from Previous Discussions

• Links to previous presentations on incremental rates:

– July 14, 2010 presentation (pre-FY 2012/2013 rate case) (beginning on slide 23): http://www.bpa.gov/corporate/ratecase/2012/docs/BPA-12%20Final%20Transmission%20Rates%20Workshop_071410.pdf

– April 14, 2010 presentation (pre-FY 2012/2013 rate case) (beginning on slide 30): http://www.bpa.gov/corporate/ratecase/2012/docs/04-14-2010%20Workshop%20Transmission%20Slides%20.pdf

– November 9, 2009 presentation (pre-FY 2012/2013 rate case): http://www.bpa.gov/corporate/ratecase/2008/2010_BPA_Rate_Case/docs/Afternoon%20Session_Transmission%20Rates%20Meeting_%20Incremental%20Rate%20Design_110909.pdf

51



Links to Materials from Previous Discussions, cont.

• October 2008-February 2009 materials (pre-FY 2010/2011 rate case):

– February 4, 2009: Potential rate schedule language: http://www.bpa.gov/corporate/ratecase/2008/2010_BPA_Rate_Case/docs/DraftProposedIncRateSched.pdf

– Draft proposals from workshops: • January 9, 2009:

http://www.bpa.gov/corporate/ratecase/2008/2010_BPA_Rate_Case/docs/Workshop_FormulaIncrementalRateProposal_1-9-09.pdf

• December 5, 2008: http://www.bpa.gov/corporate/ratecase/2008/2010_BPA_Rate_Case/Docs/12-5-08Workshop_Formula%20Incremental%20Rate%20Proposal.pdf

• November 21, 2008: http://www.bpa.gov/corporate/ratecase/2008/2010_BPA_Rate_Case/docs/Workshop_Formula%20Incremental%20Rate%20Proposal.pdf

– October 23, 2008 presentation (beginning on slide 13): http://www.bpa.gov/corporate/ratecase/2008/2010_BPA_Rate_Case/docs/TR-10%20Transmission%20Workshop_102308_Phase%20III.pdf


Rate Case Forecastto Actual Variances

53



Rate Case Forecast to Actual Variance Summary

• Over FY09 through FY12, Transmission revenues before Reimbursable and Generation Inputs Rate Case revenue forecasts have been well aligned within ~2.5% variance.

• In FY08, a 5.7% positive variance is driven by:– Strong NT load growth to go along with colder winter and warmer

summer seasons. – High hydro run-off in May and June resulted in a ~$40M PTP ST year.

• There is a 6 to 8% positive variance in FY06 through FY07 due to:– Approximately 1,600 MW average of Point-to-Point (PTP LT)

acquisitions more than forecast in Rate Case in FY07.– Approximately 780 MW average over FY06 through FY07 of Southern

Intertie (IS LT) acquisitions more than forecasted in Rate Case. – Above average water year in 2006 resulted in high levels of short term

sales, a ~$40M PTP ST year.

54


August 8, 2012 Predecisional - For Discussion Purposes Only* FY12 Actual is FY12 Q3 Forecast

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013Rate Case Forecast 673.9$ 682.5$ 724.7$ 734.6$ 774.1$ 790.0$ 817.6$ 836.0$

Actual Revenue 719.8$ 739.9$ 761.5$ 758.2$ 768.6$ 798.4$ 814.1$ Variance (Actual - Forecast) 45.9$ 57.3$ 36.8$ 23.6$ (5.5)$ 8.4$ (3.6)$

% Variance 6.5% 8.3% 5.7% 2.4% -0.5% 1.1% -0.4%

55




Actual Revenue 107.6$ 118.6$ 121.5$ 118.9$ 120.0$ 120.0$ 123.0$ Variance (Actual - Forecast) (6.2)$ 2.9$ 4.7$ 0.4$ (2.3)$ (6.5)$ (6.9)$

% Variance -5.5% 2.5% 4.0% 0.4% -1.9% -5.1% -5.3%

56




Actual Revenue 209.0$ 241.5$ 274.9$ 289.4$ 337.4$ 354.3$ 365.1$ Variance (Actual - Forecast) (0.4)$ 23.6$ 3.2$ 9.5$ (0.3)$ (4.5)$ 2.4$

% Variance -0.2% 10.8% 1.2% 3.4% -0.1% -1.3% 0.7%

57





% Variance 4.2% 2.1% 0.2% 3.5% -1.7% 10.0% -13.5%

58




Actual Revenue 36.4$ 33.7$ 30.3$ 30.2$ 26.0$ 25.3$ 25.4$ Variance (Actual - Forecast) 0.9$ 0.7$ 1.2$ 1.1$ 1.4$ 1.2$ (0.2)$

% Variance 2.5% 2.2% 4.0% 3.7% 5.8% 4.9% -0.9%

59




Actual Revenue 80.2$ 78.4$ 85.0$ 83.9$ 83.7$ 84.2$ 92.3$ Variance (Actual - Forecast) 11.5$ 11.2$ 1.2$ 3.7$ (0.2)$ 0.8$ 0.1$

% Variance 16.7% 16.6% 1.4% 4.6% -0.3% 0.9% 0.1%

60





% Variance 218.1% 55.8% 125.4% 26.8% -15.9% 38.8% -2.4%

61




Actual Revenue 6.1$ 6.2$ 5.5$ 2.9$ 3.1$ 8.2$ 4.9$ Variance (Actual - Forecast) (2.6)$ (2.8)$ 1.0$ (1.6)$ (1.3)$ 3.8$ 0.6$

% Variance -29.6% -31.3% 21.2% -36.2% -29.2% 84.6% 14.3%

62




Actual Revenue 70.0$ 74.1$ 78.1$ 77.5$ 84.3$ 89.6$ 93.0$ Variance (Actual - Forecast) 5.7$ 8.0$ 4.7$ 3.0$ (1.8)$ (0.5)$ (0.4)$

% Variance 8.9% 12.1% 6.4% 4.0% -2.1% -0.6% -0.5%

63



2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013Rate Case Forecast 29.8$ 29.5$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$

Actual Revenue 30.1$ 30.2$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ Variance (Actual - Forecast) 0.3$ 0.7$

% Variance 0.9% 2.5%

64




Actual Revenue 2.7$ 2.9$ 2.6$ 2.6$ 2.4$ 2.3$ 2.4$ Variance (Actual - Forecast) 0.1$ 0.2$ 0.6$ 0.7$ (0.2)$ (0.1)$ (0.5)$

% Variance 3.2% 7.8% 32.3% 36.5% -8.6% -4.3% -17.6%

65




Actual Revenue 55.1$ 52.5$ 51.5$ 53.6$ 55.3$ 56.0$ 58.1$ Variance (Actual - Forecast) 5.1$ 2.6$ (1.7)$ (0.8)$ 3.2$ 3.6$ 5.7$

% Variance 10.2% 5.2% -3.2% -1.5% 6.1% 6.8% 10.8%

B O N N E V I L L E P O W E R A D M I N I S T R A T I O N BP-14 Transmission Pre-Rate Case August 8,...

Documents

Transcript of B O N N E V I L L E P O W E R A D M I N I S T R A T I O N BP-14 Transmission Pre-Rate Case August 8,...