log no. via email cdonohue@png - bcuc.com€¦ · 3.7 do the company’s depreciation rates include...

ERICA M. HAMILTON COMMISSION SECRETARY

[email protected] web site: http://www.bcuc.com

SIXTH FLOOR, 900 HOWE STREET, BOX 250 VANCOUVER, B.C. CANADA V6Z 2N3

TELEPHONE: (604) 660‐4700 BC TOLL FREE: 1‐800‐663‐1385 FACSIMILE: (604) 660‐1102

Log No. 30927

PF/PNGNE_2010RR/A‐5_BCUC_IR‐2 (L)

VIA EMAIL [email protected] December 15, 2009 PNG (N.E.)

2010 REVENUE REQUIREMENTS EXHIBIT A‐5

Mr. Craig P. Donohue Director, Regulatory Affairs & Gas Supply Pacific Northern Gas Ltd. Suite 950 1185 West Georgia Street Vancouver, BC V6E 4E6 Dear Mr. Donohue:

Re: Pacific Northern Gas (N.E.) Ltd. Project No. 3698578/Order G‐131‐09

2010 Revenue Requirements Application Further to your October 2, 2009 2010 Revenue Requirements Application requesting approval to amend the rate schedules of PNG (N.E.) effective January 1, 2010, please find enclosed Commission Information Requests No. 2 for the Dawson Creek/Fort St. John and Tumbler Ridge Divisions. In accordance with the Regulatory Timetable and the Commission’s Document Filing Protocols, please file your responses by Friday, December 18, 2009. Yours truly, Original signed by: Y. Lapierre for: Erica M. Hamilton /yl Enclosures cc: Registered Intervenors (PNGNE‐2010RR‐RI)

PNG (N.E.) TR 2010 Revenue Requirements 1 Information Request No. 2

BRITISH COLUMBIA UTILITIES COMMISSION Commission Information Request No. 2

Pacific Northern Gas (N.E.) Ltd. (“PNG NE”) Tumbler Ridge (“TR”)

2010 Revenue Requirements Application (“RRA”)

RETURN ON RATE BASE (7.58 percent)

1.0 Reference: Return on Rate Base Exhibit B‐1: Tab Application, p. 3; Tab Rates; Tabs 1‐6 Weighted Average Cost of Capital (“WACC”)

1.1 Please file Tab Application p. 3, Tab Rates and Tabs 1‐6 calculated under the currently approved WACC.

COST OF SERVICE

2.0 Reference: Operating, Maintenance and Administrative & General Expenses Exhibit B‐1, p. 4 Non Regulated Business

2.1 Do any of the $834 thousand of Operating, Maintenance, and Administrative & General Expenses relate to Non Regulated Businesses?

2.1.1 If yes, please identify the amount and what specifically it relates to?

Depreciation Expenses ($1.5 Million)

3.0 Reference: Depreciation Expense Exhibit B‐2, IR 12.1 Depreciation Rates

3.1 Please explain how the current depreciation rates were determined.

3.2 Is there anything that PNG NE (TR) is aware of that would lead it to believe that any of the current depreciation rates are not the best measure available?

3.3 Do the current depreciation rates approximate the asset’s useful lives?

3.4 When does PNG NE (TR) plan on having a new depreciation study prepared? Please explain the rationale.

3.5 For regulatory purposes where are gains/losses on asset disposals and retirements recorded?

3.6 What is the cumulative net and gross unrealized gains/losses on asset disposals and retirements at the end of last fiscal year?


3.7 Do the company’s depreciation rates include a provision for negative salvage costs?

UTILITY RATE BASE ($1.8 million)

4.0 Reference: Utility Rate Base Exhibit B‐1, Tab 2, p. 1, line 16 Exhibit B‐2, IR 20.1 Reserve for Damage

4.1 Why was a $155,000 reserve for damages collected from customers?

4.2 Please provide the rationale for the reserve to continue.

5.0 Reference: Utility Rate Base Exhibit B‐2, IR’s 33.15 & 33.19 Working Capital

5.1 PNG NE (TR) has reported residential ‘Billing Lag Days’ of 11.0. Terasen Gas submitted a Cash Working Capital Lead‐Lag Study with its 2010‐2011 Revenue Requirements Applications showing residential Billing Lag Days of approximately 1. Please describe PNG NE (TR)’s billing policy and explain the large discrepancy with how Terasen bills?

5.2 Considering that PNG NE (TR) has not recently analyzed payment lead days for expenses, other than gas purchases, how confident is PNG NE (TR) that the expense lead days of 29.2 is accurate?

5.3 Please explain why PNG NE (FSJ/DC) has payment lead days of 39.5, while PNG NE (TR) only has 29.2 lead days.

2010 FORECAST GAS DELIVERIES

6.0 Reference: Rate Matters Exhibit B‐2, IR 29.1, p. 41

6.1 Please provide tabular data used in response to IR 29.1 in fully functional electronic spreadsheets.

7.0 Reference: 2010 Forecast Gas Deliveries Exhibit B‐2, IR 25.1, p. 34

7.1 Given that PNG NE (TR) does not keep track of normalized deliveries for all customer classes, please provide similar data for actual deliveries in the following format:

PNG(N.E.)-TR Total Actual Deliveries and Transportation (GJ)2005 2006 2007 2008 2009P 2010F

Residential (RS1)Small Commercial (RS2)Large Commercial (RS3)Industrial Transport (CNRL)Total

Customer GroupsActual Deliveries and Transportation (GJ)


7.1.1 Please use the tabular data above to:

7.1.1.1 Prepare a stacked bar that illustrate the proportional composition of actual gas deliveries and transportation during the period 2005 to 2008 for the various user classes. Please also extend the bar graph and tabular data to include forecasted actual deliveries and transportation of natural gas in 2009F and 2010F.

7.1.1.2 On a consolidated basis for all user groups, please provide a linear graph of the actual deliveries for the period 2005F to 2010F. Please include a trend line and linear equation for the period 2005F to 2009F.

7.1.2 For all of the above questions, please provide tabular data and graphical figures in fully functioning electronic spreadsheets.

8.0 Reference: 2010 Forecast Gas Deliveries Exhibit B‐2, IR 26.1‐26.2, pp. 36‐37

8.1 Please provide tabular data and graphs used in response to IR 26.1, IR 26.1.1 and IR 26.2 in fully functional electronic spreadsheets.

8.2 PNG NE (TR)’s response to IR 26.1 indicates 1,058 TJ’s of gas deliveries in 2009F. In response to IR 32.1, p. 47 PNG NE (TR) has indicated 1,015,373 GJ’s of gas deliveries in 2009F. Please reconcile the difference.

9.0 Reference: 2010 Forecast Gas Deliveries Exhibit B‐2, IR 30.1‐30.1.2, pp. 41‐44

9.1 The following data and graph are based on the information provided by PNG NE (TR) in response to IR 30.1. Please confirm whether the following table and graph accurately reflects the normalized actual UPC (GJ/year) for Residential Rate 1 during the period 2004F to 2009F. If not, please provide an updated table and graph.


9.1.1 The above graph indicates that there is a 95% confidence level that based on historical UPC trends (2004 to 2009F); the UPC for Residential Rate 1 in 2010F will be 88.4 GJ/year. PNG NE (TR) is forecasting 84.5 GJ/year. Please reconcile this difference and explain how PNG NE (TR) has derived their forecast for Residential UPC in 2010F.

9.2 The following data and graph are based on the information provided by PNG NE (TR) in response to IR 30.1. Please confirm whether the following table and graph accurately reflects the normalized actual UPC (GJ/year) of Small Commercial Rate 2 during the period 2004F to 2009F. If not, please provide an updated table and graph.

Residential Rate 1 ‐ Normalized Actual Average UPC (GJ/year) *

TR Normalized Actual Average UPC (GJ/year)Customer Groups 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009F 2010FResidential Rate 1 70 70.8 75.6 80.2 83.3 83.8 * Prepared by Commission staff

y = 3.1743x + 66.173R² = 0.9527

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009F 2010F

Residential Rate 1

Linear (Residential Rate 1)

Small Commercial Rate 2 ‐ Normalized Actual Average UPC (GJ/year) *

TR Normalized Actual Average UPC (GJ/year)Customer Groups 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009F 2010FSmall Commercial Rate 2 524.7 432.3 748.4 731.4 674.1 696.4 * Prepared by Commission staff

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009F 2010F

Small Commercial Rate 2

Linear (Small Commercial Rate 2)


9.2.1 Assuming that the answer to the above question is “yes”, the above graph indicates that there is a general trend of increasing UPC for Small Commercial Rate 2 customers. Please explain why PNG NE (TR) is forecasting a decrease from 696.4 GJ/year in 2009F to 656.5 GJ/year in 2010F.

9.2.1.1 Please provide an electronic copy of data and calculations in support of your answer to the above question.


10.1 Please provide tabular data and graphs used in response to the above quoted IR’s in fully functional electronic spreadsheets.

11.0 Reference: 2010 Forecast Gas Deliveries Exhibit B‐2, IR 32.1, p. 47

11.1 Please provide tabular data used in response to the above quoted IR in fully functional electronic spreadsheets.

12.0 Reference: Company Use Gas Exhibit B‐2, IR 34.1, p. 48

The following table was prepared by PNG NE (TR) in response to IR 32.1:

12.1 Please confirm whether the above tabular data represents actual or normalized Company Use Gas. Please compare actual to normalized Company Use Gas for the period 2004 to 2008.

12.2 In 2009, Unaccounted for Gas (“UAFG”) represented approximately 25% of Company Use Gas. Please explain how customer rates are impacted by UAFG.

12.2.1 Assuming that all UAFG had to be expensed in the year in which loses are incurred, please indicate the cost associated with UAFG in 2009.

12.3 Please confirm whether the cost of UAFG is recorded as part of the Delivery Charge. If so, please explain why the cost of UAFG has been deducted from PNG NE (TR) Company Use Gas.

12.4 Does PNG NE (TR) believe that it should be at risk for UAFG volumes? If not, why not?

12.5 Please forecast the volume of UAFG in 2010F. If it is not possible to forecast UAFG, please discuss the mechanisms contributing to UAFG.


12.6 In response to IR 26.1, p. 36, PNG NE (TR) has indicated that total gas deliveries will decrease from 1,058 TJ in 2009F to 1,020 TJ in 2010F. Despite the reduction in forecasted gas deliveries in 2010F, PNG NE (TR) is forecasting a 55% increase in Company Use Gas between 2009F and 2010F. Please explain the increase in Company Use Gas in 2010F.

12.7 For the above questions, please provide an electronic copy of tabular data in the form of a fully functional spreadsheet.


The following tabular data and graph are based on the information provided by PNG NE (TR) in response to IR 36.1.1 p. 49 and IR 36.1.2, p. 50:

13.1 Please confirm whether the above table accurately reflects the Gas Sales for the PNG NE (TR) region during the period 2006F to 2009F. If not, please provide an updated table and graph.

13.2 If the answer to the above question is “yes”, the graph indicates that there is a 96% confidence level based on historical Gas Sales (2004F to 2009F) that Gas Sales in 2010F will be 188,481 GJ’s. PNG NE (TR) is forecasting 170,285 GJ’s in 2010. There is a 9.7% difference between these two values. Please reconcile this difference and explain how PNG NE (TR) has derived their forecast for Gas Sales in 2010F.

PNG (N.E.) ‐ Tumbler Ridge: Gas Sales Per Year *

* Prepared by Commiss ion staff

2006 2007 2008 2009F 2010F Gas Sales per Year (GJ) 137,903 149,155 167,882 173,489

Source of data: Exhibit B‐2, IR 36.1, p. 50

y = 12549x + 125736R² = 0.9643

120,000

140,000

160,000

180,000

200,000

2006 2007 2008 2009F 2010F

Gas Sales Per Year (GJ's)

Gas Sales per Year (GJ)

Linear (Gas Sales per Year (GJ))

2010 Forecast


OTHER

14.0 Reference: Other ‐ Bill Comparison of Current Rates and January 2010 Rates Exhibit B‐2, IR 37.1‐37.2, pp. 52‐53 Competitiveness of Natural Gas

14.1 Given that all residential customers require hydro service, irrespective of whether natural gas is used, please discuss whether it is reasonable to include a Basic Charge of $46.14 in the following calculation:

14.2 Please confirm whether the following table accurately reflects the price comparison between natural gas and hydro based on noted assumptions:

14.2.1 If the answer to the above question is “no”, please provide an updated table. Please include an electronic copy in the form of a fully functional electronic spreadsheet.

14.2.2 For the above question, please explain why, or why not, PNG believes that energy efficiency of 80% for natural gas is appropriate (table reference C2). To the extent possible, please provide copies of supporting data and literature.

Summary Residential Comparison for 2010 A B C D E Line Ref.

Utility Energy SourceBasic Charge ($/month)

Energy Efficiency (%)

Average Annual Energy Cost ($)

Cost Difference ($)

BC Hydro Electricity $0.00 100% $1,598 $843.71 1

PNG‐ Tumbler Ridge Natural Gas $10.75 80% $755 $0.00 2

Notes :

B1: Al l res identia l cus tomers use hydro, therefore no additiona l bas ic charge assumed.

C2: Assumed effi ciency of natura l gas appl iances 80% for current customer base.

D1: As provided in response to Exhibi t B‐2, BCUC IR 37.1: $1,644.41 ‐ 46.14 = $1,598

D2: As provided in response to Exhibi t B‐2, BCUC IR 37.1


15.0 Reference: Other Exhibit B‐1, Tab Rates, p. 2

Bill Comparison 15.1 Please confirm whether the following table accurately reflects the average annual

energy cost of natural gas in the indicated regions. If not, please provide an updated table.

16.0 Reference: Other Exhibit B‐2, IR 14.12.1 & 41.1

Updates to Application

16.1 In IR 41.1 PNG NE (TR) noted that it will not be filing an update to its Application; however, in response to IR 14.12.1 PNG has said that “The impact will be shown in the update [to] the application”. Please reconcile these differing responses.

Comparison of Average Annual Energy Cost for Residential Customers *

Bill ComponentsPNG

West DivisionPNG

Tumbler Ridge

PNG (N.E) ‐ FSJ/DC (Combined Average)

Terasen ‐East Kootenays

Terasen ‐ Lower Mainland/Squamish

Terasen Inland/Other areas

Basic charge ($/month) $10.75 $8.50 $7.00 $11.84 $11.84 $11.84Delivery Charge ($/GJ) $11.295 $4.912 $2.652 $2.795 $2.795 $2.795Commodity Cost ($/GJ) $4.95 $4.95 $4.95 $4.95 $4.95 $4.95GCVA Riders ($/GJ) ‐$0.264 ‐$2.197 ‐$0.868 N/A N/A N/ARSAM Rate Rider ($/GJ) $0.074 ‐$0.034 $0.095 N/A N/A N/AMidstream ($/GJ) N/A N/A N/A $1.05 $1.02 $0.98Average Annual Energy Cost ** ($/GJ) $1,486 $747 $661 $886 $882 $879

* Prepared by Commission staff**Based on average UPC for Residential Rate 1 in TR (84.5 GJ/year). Does not include applicable taxes.

PNG (N.E.) FSJ/DC 2010 Revenue Requirements 1 Information Request No. 2

BRITISH COLUMBIA UTILITIES COMMISSION Commission Information Request No. 2

Pacific Northern Gas (N.E.) Ltd. (“PNG NE”) Fort St. John/Dawson Creek (“FSJ/DC”)

2010 Revenue Requirements Application (“RRA”)

RETURN ON RATE BASE (6.19 Percent)

1.0 Reference: Return on Rate Base Exhibit B‐1: Tab Application, p. 3; Tab Rates; Tabs 1‐6 Weighted Average Cost of Capital (“WACC”)

1.1 Please file Tab Application p. 3, Tab Rates and Tabs 1‐6 calculated under the currently approved WACC.

COST OF SERVICE

2.0 Reference: Operating, Maintenance and Administrative & General Expenses Exhibit B‐1, p. 4 Non Regulated Business

2.1 Do any of the $5.835 million of Operating, Maintenance, and Administrative & General Expenses relate to Non Regulated Businesses?

2.1.1 If yes, please identify the amount and what specifically it relates to?

Depreciation Expenses ($1.5 Million)

3.0 Reference: Depreciation Expense Exhibit B‐2, IR 18.1 Depreciation Rates

3.1 Please explain how the current depreciation rates are determined.

3.2 Is there anything that PNG NE is aware of that would lead it to believe that any of the current depreciation rates are not the best measure available?

3.3 Do the current depreciation rates approximate the asset’s useful lives?

3.4 When does the Company plan on having a new depreciation study prepared for PNG NE? Please explain the rationale.

3.5 For regulatory purposes where are gains/losses on asset disposals and retirements recorded?


3.6 What is the cumulative net and gross unrealized gains/losses on asset disposals and retirements at the end of last fiscal year?

3.7 Do the company’s depreciation rates include a provision for negative salvage costs?

Amortization ($19 Thousand)

4.0 Reference: Amortization Exhibit B‐1, Tab Rates, p. 20 Rate Base Deferral Accounts – RSAM

4.1 Please provide details of the estimated ($439,906) RSAM recovery in 2009?

Investment Income, Other Revenue (‐$196 Thousand)

5.0 Reference: Other Revenue Exhibit B‐2, IR 22.7 Tomslake Distribution System Fees

5.1 In response to IR 22.7 PNG NE noted that the upfront payments of $1,420 are

being treated as a contribution in aid of construction while the $10 per month fee is treated as other income. Over the next 20 years what is the estimated revenue requirements impact of treating the forecasted $10 per month fee as a contribution in aid of construction as opposed to other income?

UTILITY RATE BASE ($39 Million)

6.0 Reference: Capital Additions Exhibit B‐1, p. 16 Exhibit B‐2, IR 28, p. 36 New Additions ($938,000)

6.1 New Additions total $938,000 with Tomslake representing $150,000. Please provide details for the remaining $788,000 of additions, including details of the location.

7.0 Reference: Capital Additions Exhibit B‐2, IR 27, p. 36 Mobile/Heavy Equipment ($80,000)

7.1 Why should this truck be replaced when it has only 125,000 km? Can this purchase be deferred for another year?


8.0 Reference: Capital Additions Exhibit B‐1, p. 16 Exhibit B‐2, IR 28, p. 36 New Additions – Tomslake

8.1 Please provide an update on the status of the project, costs to date in relation to the budget and number of customers that have signed up for gas.

9.0 Reference: Utility Rate Base Exhibit B‐1, Tab 2, p. 1, line 17 Exhibit B‐2, IR 32.1 Reserve for Damage

9.1 Why was the reserve for damages collected from customers?

9.2 Please provide the rationale for the reserve to continue?

10.0 Reference: Utility Rate Base Exhibit B‐2, IR’s 33.15 & 33.19 Working Capital

10.1 PNG NE (FSJ/DC) has reported residential ‘Billing Lag Days’ of 11.0. Terasen Gas submitted a Cash Working Capital Lead‐Lag Study with its 2010‐2011 Revenue Requirements Applications showing residential Billing Lag Days of approximately 1. Please describe PNG NE (FSJ/DC)’s billing policy and explain the large discrepancy with how Terasen bills?

10.2 Considering that PNG NE (FSJ/DC) has not recently analyzed payment lead days for expenses, other than gas purchases, how confident is PNG NE (FSJ/DC) that the expense lead days of 39.5 is accurate?

2010 FORECAST GAS DELIVERIES

11.0 Reference: 2010 Forecast Gas Deliveries Exhibit B‐2, IR 37.1, pp. 47‐48

11.1 Given that PNG NE does not keep track of normalized deliveries for all customer classes, please provide data for actual deliveries in the following format:

PNG(N.E.)-FSJ/DC Total Actual Deliveries and Transportation (GJ's)2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009P 2010F

Residential (Rate 1)Small Commercial (Rate 2)Large Commercial (Rate 3)Commercial Transport (RS23)Small Industrial (RS4)Industrial Transport (RS6, RS7, RS9, RS10, RS11)Total

Customer GroupsAcutal Deliveries and Transportation (GJ)


11.1.1 Please use the tabular data above to:

11.1.1.1 Prepare a stacked bar that illustrate the proportional composition of actual gas deliveries and transportation during the period 2005 to 2008 for the various user classes. Please also extend the bar graph and tabular data to include forecasted actual deliveries of natural gas in 2009F and 2010F.

11.1.1.2 On a consolidated basis for all user groups, please provide a linear graph of the actual delivers for the period 2005F to 2010F. Please include a trend line and linear equation for the period 2005F to 2009F.

11.1.2 For all of the above questions, please provide tabular data and graphical figures in fully functioning electronic spreadsheets.

12.0 Reference: 2010 Forecast Gas Deliveries Exhibit B‐2, IR’s 38.1–38.3, pp. 49‐51 Deliveries of Natural Gas

“As noted in response to IR 37.1, the information is provided only for residential and small commercial customers as PNG does not keep records of normalized deliveries to the other customer classes.”

12.1 Please explain why PNG NE does not keep records of normalized deliveries to Rate 3, and Rate 4 customers classes.

12.2 The table below was prepared by PNG and supplied in the form of a spreadsheet (file name: BCUC IR No. 1 (FSJ‐DC) Q.38.1 Actual vs Normalized deliveries.xls). In addition to containing normalized data for Rates 1 and 2, it also contains normalized data for Rates 3 and 4. Please reconcile the difference between the PNG’s above statement that it only keeps records of normalized data for residential and small commercial and the table below which indicates otherwise.

2009F 2010FActual Normalized Actual Normalized Actual Normalized Actual Normalized Actual Normalized Actual Actual

Residential (Rate 1) 1,650 1,677 1,525 1,685 1,587 1,652 1,669 1,653 1,673 1,634 1,714 1,662 Small Commercial (Rate 2) 1,164 1,193 1,131 1,260 1,192 1,265 1,200 1,177 1,245 1,213 1,319 1,296 Large Commercial (Rate 3) 260 260 314 314 364 364 256 256 295 295 340 305 Small Industrial (Rate 4) 239 239 207 207 257 257 232 232 226 226 245 189 Commercial Transport (Rate 23) - - 8 8 104 104 96 96 16 67 Transport (Rates 6,7,9,10,11) 1,237 1,237 1,274 1,274 1,191 1,191 1,195 1,195 1,269 1,269 1,318 1,114

4,549 4,606 4,450 4,740 4,600 4,737 4,655 4,616 4,804 4,733 4,952 4,633

(000's GJ's)20082004 2005 2006 2007


12.2.1 Data provided in the above table is not consistent with data provided in other sections of the Application. The tables below are illustrative of these discrepancies. Please explain and reconcile these differences:

12.3 Please confirm whether the tabular data that was presented in response to BCUC IR 38.1 was used to generate the linear graphs in response to BCUC IR 38.1.1, p. 50. If not, please re‐create the graphs on p. 50 with the data provided on p. 49.

12.3.1 Please provide a trend lines for both graphs and linear equations for the period 2005F to 2009F.

12.4 For all of the above questions, please provide copies of all tabular data and graphs in fully functional electronic spreadsheets.

13.0 Reference: 2010 Forecast Gas Deliveries Exhibit B‐2, IR 41.2.2, p. 55 Margin

13.1 In support of response to IR 41.2.2, please provide a copy of the requested tabular data and graphs in fully functional electronic spreadsheet(s).

13.2 For the FSJ/DC regions, please provide the following information for Residential Rate 1:

13.2.1 Please repeat the above question for Small Commercial Rate 2.

Example 1

Above Table Response to Q38.1

Difference (GJ's)

Difference %

Residential (Rate 1) - 2009F 1,714 1,337 (377) -22%Residential (Rate 1) - 2010F 1,662 1,329 (333) -20%

Small Commercial (Rate 2) - 2009F 1,319 931 (388) -29%Small Commercial (Rate 2) - 2010F 1,296 887 (409) -32%

Forecasted Actual Deliveries (GJ's)User Class

Example 2:

Response to Q38.1

Response to Q37.1

Difference (GJ's)

Difference %

Residential (Rate 1) - 2007 1,415 1,337 (78) -6%Residential (Rate 1) - 2008 1,332 1,329 (3) -0.2%

Small Commercial (Rate 2) - 2007 838 931 93 11%Small Commercial (Rate 2) - 2008 836 887 51 6%

User ClassHistorical Normalized Deliveries (GJ's)

PNG(N.E.) - Residential Rate 1 - FSJ/DC

FSJ/DC Region 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009P 2010F

1 Weighted Average Dilivery Cost ($/GJ)

2 Actual Deliveries (000's GJ's)

1 (Delivery charge + company use gas + GCVA Co. use rider + RSAM) per GJ2 Combined Actual Deliveries in FSJ/DC Region (GJ's)


13.2.2 On a single graph, please plot the weighted average delivery cost ($/GJ) for Residential Rate 1 and Small Commercial Rate 2 over the period 2004F to 2010F.

13.2.3 Please provide an electronic copy of tabular and graphical data.

14.0 Reference: 2010 Forecast Gas Deliveries Exhibit B‐2, IR’s 43.1‐43.2, pp. 57‐60 Use per Customer – Residential and Small Commercial

14.1 Please confirm whether the following tabular data and graph accurately reflects Residential weighted average Use per Customer (UPC) for the FSJ/DC region. If not, please provide an updated table and graph.

14.2 Please confirm whether the following tabular data and resulting graph accurately reflects Small Commercial weighted average Use per Customer (UPC) for the FSJ/DC region. If not, please provide an updated table and graph.

FSJ/DC - Residential Use Per Cumstomer/year

* Prepared by Commission staff2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

126.87 125.38 120.36 117.34 113.85 114.04 113.71

y = ‐2.4517x + 128.6

100.00

105.00

110.00

115.00

120.00

125.00

130.00

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

FSJ /DC: Weighted Average UPC (GJ/year)

FSJ/DC -Small Commercial Use Per Cumstomer/year

* Prepared by Commission staff2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

580.7 597.4 582.9 542.0 542.9 541.4 553.9

y = ‐8.3072x + 596.27

500.0

520.0

540.0

560.0

580.0

600.0

620.0

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

FSJ /DC: Weighted Average UPC (GJ/year)


15.0 Reference: 2010 Forecast Gas Deliveries Exhibit B‐2, IR’s 44.1‐44.2, pp. 61‐65 Number of Customers – Residential and Small Commercial

15.1 In support of IR response 44.1.3, p. 63, please provide tabular data and graphical figures in fully functioning electronic spreadsheets.

15.2 In support of IR response 44.2, p. 65, please provide tabular data and graphical figures in fully functioning electronic spreadsheets.

16.0 Reference: 2010 Forecast Gas Deliveries Exhibit B‐2, IR 45.1, p. 66 Customer Sales; and Utility Income & Return

16.1 The above table was provided in response to IR 45.1, p 66. Please provide a copy of the above tabular data in a fully functional electronic spreadsheet.

16.2 Between 2009 and 2010 PNG NE is indicating that the average number of Residential customers in FSJ will increase from 9,091 to 9,149 respectively. During the same period PNG NE is expecting UPC to increase from 114.9 GJ to 115.1 GJ. Please explain why PNG NE is forecasting a decrease of 5,020 GJ’s in 2010 despite an increase in the number of customers and UPC.

16.3 Between 2009 and 2010 PNG NE has indicated that the average number of Small Commercial customers in FSJ will increase from 1,543 to 1,549 respectively. During the same period PNG NE is expecting UPC to increase from 519.1 GJ to 533.9 GJ. Please explain why PNG NE is forecasting a decrease of 7,148 GJ’s in 2010 despite an increase in the number of customers and UPC.

16.4 For Large Commercial (Rate 3), please provide a tabular summary of sales (GJ’s) over the period 2004F to 2010F.

16.4.1 Between 2009 and 2010 PNG NE has forecasted that Large Commercial sales will experience a decrease of 14,900 GJ’s. Please explain the reason for the decrease in sales.


16.4.2 For the period 2008F to 2010F, please provide a tabular summary of sales (GJ’s) to the 10 largest Rate 3 customers. Please include the name of the customer and volume of sales for each.

16.4.3 Between 2009F and 2010F, PNG NE has indicated that they would be delivering to one less Large Commercial customer (i.e. 18 customers in 2009 vs. 17 customers in 2010). Please indicate the name of the lost customer and the sales (GJ’s) to that customer for the past 2 years.


17.1 Please provide a copy of the above tabular data in a fully functional electronic spreadsheet.

17.2 Between 2009 and 2010 PNG NE has indicated that the average number of Small Commercial (Rate 2) customers in Dawson Creek will increase from 778 to 787 respectively. During the same period PNG NE is expecting UPC to increase from 585.6 GJ to 593.2 GJ. Please explain why PNG NE is forecasting a decrease of 970 GJ’s in 2010 despite an increase in the number of customers and UPC.

17.3 Between 2009 and 2010 PNG NE has indicated that the average number of Large Commercial (Rate 3) customers in Dawson Creek will increase from 10 to 15. Please explain why PNG NE is forecasting a decrease of 43,700 GJ’s in 2010 despite an increase in the number of customers. Please provide supporting data wherever possible.

17.4 Please explain the reason for the decrease of 16,304 GJ’s in 2010F for Small Industrial sales in Dawson Creek.


“Canfor is projected to consume 10,000 GJ in 2010, thus accounting for a net reduction of 137,000 GJ (i.e. 147,000 GJ less 10,000 GJ).”


18.1 The table provided in response Exhibit B‐2, IR 45.4, p. 68 indicates that there will be no sales to Canfor in 2010. Please reconcile this with PNG NE’s above statement that sales to Canfor will be 10,000 GJ in 2010.

OTHER

19.0 Reference: Other Exhibit B‐2, IR’s 53.1–53.1.1, p. 79 Historical Rates

19.1 Please provide tabular data and supporting calculations provided in response to BCUC IR 53.1 and 53.1.1 in fully functioning electronic spreadsheets.

20.0 Reference: Other Exhibit B‐1, Tab Rates, p. 8 Rate Matters

20.1 Please confirm whether the following table accurately reflects the average annual energy cost of natural gas in the indicated regions. If not, please provide an updated table, including the source of the information.

21.0 Reference: Other Pacific Northern Gas Ltd. web site Investment Rating

21.1 Please file Appendix A to PNG’s June 2009 Investor Presentation, titled “DBRS Confirms Pacific Northern Gas Rating at BBB (low) & Pfd‐3 (low) with Negative Trends” dated 23 January, 2009.

Comparison of Average Annual Energy Cost for Residential Customers *

Bill ComponentsPNG

West DivisionPNG

Tumbler Ridge

PNG (N.E) ‐ FSJ/DC (Combined Average)

Terasen ‐East Kootenays

Terasen ‐ Lower Mainland/Squamish

Terasen Inland/Other areas

Basic charge ($/month) $10.75 $8.50 $7.00 $11.84 $11.84 $11.84Delivery Charge ($/GJ) $11.295 $4.912 $2.652 $2.795 $2.795 $2.795Commodity Cost ($/GJ) $4.95 $4.95 $4.95 $4.95 $4.95 $4.95GCVA Riders ($/GJ) ‐$0.264 ‐$2.197 ‐$0.868 N/A N/A N/ARSAM Rate Rider ($/GJ) $0.074 ‐$0.034 $0.095 N/A N/A N/AMidstream ($/GJ) N/A N/A N/A $1.05 $1.02 $0.98Average Annual Energy Cost ** ($/GJ) $1,948 $967 $858 $1,139 $1,135 $1,130

* Prepared by Commission staff**Based on 113.3 GJ/year. Does not include applicable taxes.

log no. via email cdonohue@png - bcuc.com€¦ · 3.7 do the company’s depreciation rates include...

Documents