Docstoc

Rogers Cable Communications Inc INTERROGATORY List

Document Sample
Rogers Cable Communications Inc INTERROGATORY List Powered By Docstoc
					                                                               Filed: October 19, 2009
                                                               EB-2009-0096
                                                               Exhibit H
                                                               Tab 8
                                                               Schedule 1
                                                               Page 1 of 2

 1              Rogers Cable Communications Inc. INTERROGATORY #1 List 1
 2
 3   Interrogatory
 4
 5   [Reference: Ex. GI1T41S5] The evidence cites a fixed service charge for USL customers
 6   derived from the Cost Allocation Study of $27.80, being the sum of a starting fixed
 7   service charge of $33.95 and a derived USL credit of $6.15.
 8
 9   [Reference: Ex. GL1T41S2, p.2J The evidence cites a proposed fixed charge for the
10   General Service Energy Billed customer class of $35.79.
11
12      (a) Please confirm the quantum of the fixed and variable charge components
13             proposed for legacy general service energy billed customers for 2010.
14
15      (b) Please confirm that the variable charge for legacy USL customers is proposed to
16          be the same as the variable charge for legacy GSe customers.
17
18      (c) Please reconcile the $33.95 fixed charge cited in the first referenced exhibit and
19          the $35.79 fixed charge cited in the second referenced exhibit.
20
21      (d) Please document the derivation (i.e. component elements) of the proposed $6.15
22          USL fixed charge credit.
23
24      (e) In EB-2007-0681 the USL credit was derived as $6.86 [see Ex. G1/T4/S5 in that
25          proceeding]. Please reconcile and explain the decrease in USL fixed charge
26          credits from the EB-2007-0681 proceeding to the current proceeding.
27
28
29   Response
30
31   a) The fixed service charge for legacy general service energy billed customers is $33.62.
32      The corresponding variable charge is 3.8 cents/kWh.
33
34   b) Yes, the variable charge for legacy USL customers is proposed at 3.8 cents/kWh the
35      same as the variable charge for legacy GSe customers.
36
37   c) The fixed service charge of $33.95 for legacy GSe customers shown in Exhibit G1,
38      Tab 4, Schedule 5 is composed of the fixed service charge of $33.62 plus USL meter
39      charge of $0.33. The fixed service charge of $35.79 in Exhibit G1, Tab 4, Schedule 2
40      is the fixed service charge of $33.62 plus the smart meter charge of $2.17.
41
42   d) The USL fixed credit is derived from the cost allocation model. Further details on the
43      component elements can be found in Exhibit G2, Tab 1, Schedule 1 Attachment 1,
44      Tab O3.5 USL Metering Credit.
     Filed: October 19, 2009
     EB-2009-0096
     Exhibit H
     Tab 8
     Schedule 1
     Page 2 of 2

 1   e) The USL credit has declined since the EB-2007-0681 proceeding for the following
 2      two reasons:
 3
 4      •   USoA 5065 – Meter Expense has seen a significant reduction due to the mass
 5          deployment of Smart Meters for Residential and General Service Energy
 6          customers. As per OEB guideline, Smart Meter costs are being maintained in a
 7          separate Regulatory Asset Account.
 8
 9      •   The mass deployment of Smart Meters has brought down the meter and meter
10          related costs, changing the underlying meter capital costs and allocation to the
11          General Service Energy class. Please refer to Exhibit G2, Tab 1, Schedule 1,
12          Attachment 1, Tab 17.1 for further details.
                                                                Filed: October 19, 2009
                                                                EB-2009-0096
                                                                Exhibit H
                                                                Tab 8
                                                                Schedule 2
                                                                Page 1 of 1

 1              Rogers Cable Communications Inc. INTERROGATORY #2 List 1
 2
 3   Interrogatory
 4
 5   [Reference: Ex. GI/T41S2, p.2 and GUT4/S5J The evidence proposes a fixed charge per
 6   account of $ 1.00 for street lights and sentinel lights, and a fixed charge of $27.80 per
 7   connection for USL customers (after application of the derived metering credit for USL
 8   customers).
 9
10      (a) Please explain the difference between an account, as used in reference to street
11          lights and sentinel lights, and a connection as used in reference to USL customers.
12
13      (b) Please explain the difference in distribution services provided to street lights and
14          sentinel lights on the one hand, and to USL customers on the other, which explain
15          the apparently significant difference in fixed charges.
16
17
18   Response
19
20   a) A Street Light or Sentinel Light account can have multiple connections, while USL is
21      one account per connection.
22
23   b) The difference in the fixed charges for Street Light and Sentinel Light versus USL
24      customers is due to the treatment of these classes in the cost allocation and rate design
25      model. The difference can not be explained by differences or similarities in the
26      distribution services provided.
27
28      Historically, Street Lights and Sentinel Lights have always been separate Rate classes
29      in Hydro One as it is possible to more accurately estimate their consumption. In
30      2008, for the first time, these rate classes included a nominal fixed charge of $1.00.
31      Prior to this, street light and sentinel light customers only paid volumetric rates.
32
33      Unmetered Scattered Load (USL) has historically been a sub-class of General Service
34      class and hence the fixed rates are derived from the General Service Energy billed
35      customer class. Hydro One Distribution received Board approval for the cost
36      allocation and rate design treatment for USL in proceeding EB-2007-0681.
                                                               Filed: October 19, 2009
                                                               EB-2009-0096
                                                               Exhibit H
                                                               Tab 8
                                                               Schedule 3
                                                               Page 1 of 1

 1              Rogers Cable Communications Inc. INTERROGATORY #3 List 1
 2
 3   Interrogatory
 4
 5   [Reference: Ex. Gl/T31SI] The referenced exhibit provides the revenue to cost ratios
 6   resulting from Hydro One's cost allocation study in support of this application.
 7
 8      (a) Please provide a revenue to cost ratio for legacy USL customers. Please provide
 9          all detail in support of the derivation of the ratio.
10
11      (b) If a precise revenue to cost ratio for legacy USL customers cannot be provided,
12          please provide the basis for the requested approval for distribution charges
13          proposed for USL customers in this application, and explain how the Board can
14          conclude that the proposed USL charges are in accord with the directions
15          provided in the Board's November 28, 2007 EB-2007-0667 report - Application
16          of Cost Allocation for Electricity Distributors - at Page 9 regarding USL
17          customers.
18
19
20   Response
21
22   a) To provide separate revenue to cost ratio for legacy USL customers, a substantial
23      amount of effort and information that is not readily available, would be required to re-
24      run the cost allocation. The effort would include making modifications to the OEB
25      cost allocation model and developing load data for USL customers separately. This
26      can not be accomplished within the Interrogatory response timelines.
27
28   b) The requested approval of the distribution charges proposed for USL customers is
29      based on the review and approval of USL charges by the Board in proceeding EB
30      2007- 0681. Please see the OEB Decision with Reasons for proceeding EB 2007-
31      0681, pages 26 - 28.

				
DOCUMENT INFO
Shared By:
Categories:
Tags:
Stats:
views:3
posted:10/10/2011
language:English
pages:4