C i t y C o u n c i l M e e t i n g

6 J u n e 2 0 1 7

Review of Comparative DataBainbridge and PSE Final Reports

Randal W. Samstag, PEIsland Power Steering Committee Member

Hittle Final ReportHittle Final Report PSE ReportPSE Report

Comparison of Annual Cost Trends

Comparison of 2040 Annual Costs

Estimated Financing Cost Comparison2020 Dollars

Some Definitions

Assessed value – Value that Kitsap County has determined fordistribution infrastructure (source: Hittle Report)

OCLD – Original cost less depreciation aka net book value in theUTC order on the Jefferson PUD sale; Basis for Hittle estimate forBainbridge. Not presented in PSE consultant report. Hittleconsiders this the minimum possible value for the Bainbridgedistribution infrastructure. Does not include system improvements.

RCLD – Replacement cost less depreciation; Escalated net bookvalue. Used in PSE consultant study as basis for existinginfrastructure value. Includes bridge transmission and many capitalimprovements.

RCNLD – Reproduction cost new less depreciation. Hittleconsidered this the upper bound for the value of the Bainbridgeinfrastructure with a premium of 100% over OCLD.

RCLD/RCNLDBased on the Same Purchase Year - 2020

Purchase Price / RCNLD MultiplierBased on the Same Purchase Year - 2020

Comparison of Cost Ratios

Why is the PSE study acquisition cost estimate so high?

Includes bridge transmission lines not necessary forBPA supply

Includes significant improvements during 2017 to2021 period

Includes high land and easement purchase cost

High multiplier on RCNLD: 1.8 (4.8 times the tax-assessed value!)

$146.8 million is the seller’s estimate of total cost toBainbridge (even though Mr. Wappler estimated it atone half this in 2016.)

Compare Purchase PriceBased on the Same Purchase Year - 2020

WUTC Review of JPUD Purchase

• The UTC did not quarrel with the JPUD sale price,but required PSE to give back more than half toratepayers (us).

“While we determine that the purchase price of $103million is an appropriate one and sufficient to fullycompensate PSE for the sale of the assets . . . . Thebalance of the proceeds, $52.7 million, is allocated toratepayers. “

Source: WUTC DOCKET UE-132027 Order 04 September 11, 2014.

This is what PSE said to us in 2016.

PSE has not delivered on reliability.

Source: PSE WUTC 2014 Reliability Report, Web and Personal Communications with Pubic Utilities.

13

628686

12689

39

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

PSE Kitsap (5-Year Average

SAIDI)

Bainbridge (2010 -2014 Average)

Snohomish PUD(Five-year average

SAIDI)

Pen Light (2010-2014 Average

SAIDI)

Port Angeles Light(2010 -2013 SAIDI)

Annual Outage(Minutes)

Comparison of PSE Kitsap / Bainbridge Outage Data to Some Public PowerUtilies

PSE has not delivered on clean energy.

This is where 35 percent of our power comes from.

PSE Fuel MixPSE Fuel Mix BPA Fuel MixBPA Fuel Mix

We could get 97 percent fossil fuel free power from BPA.

Source: PSE Website 2017. Source: http://www.commerce.wa.gov/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/Energy-FMD-2014-final.pdf

PSE is the leader in carbon pollution in Washington State.

In the absence of a carbon tax PSE projects 12 million tonsper year of carbon pollution through 2035.

Conclusions

The final Hittle study provides a peer-reviewed basis forevaluation of a reasonable purchase price for Bainbridgedistribution infrastructure that could permit us to get 97percent fossil fuel free power from BPA.

The PSE study presents the “seller’s price.” As buyers, wedon’t need to start there.

PSE has not delivered on its promises on reliability andclean energy.

There will be challenges, but our view is that takingcontrol of our own electric power is a reasonable choice.

L E T ’ S M A K E B A I N B R I D G E P O W E R

F O S S I L F U E L F R E E !

Thank You!