mike cox attorney general - force.com

STATE OF MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF ATTORNEY GENERAL

P.O. BOX 30755 LANSING, MICHIGAN 48909

MIKE COX ATTORNEY GENERAL

November 30, 2010

Ms. Mary Jo Kunkle Executive Secretary Michigan Public Service Commission 6545 Mercantile Way Lansing, MI 48911 Dear Ms. Kunkle: Re: MPSC Case No. U-15675-R I am attaching for filing the Direct Testimony and Exhibits of Michael J. McGarry, Sr., on Behalf of Attorney General Michael A. Cox. This filing is being submitted electronically pursuant to the instructions in the Commission's notice of hearing. I am also attaching a proof of service.

Sincerely, Donald E. Erickson Assistant Attorney General

c All Parties

PROOF OF SERVICE - U-15675-R

The undersigned certifies that a copy of the Direct Testimony and Exhibits of Michael J. McGarry, Sr., on Behalf of Attorney General Michael A. Cox was served upon the parties listed below by mailing the same to them at their respective addresses with first class postage fully prepaid thereon on the 30th day of November 2010. ____________________________________ Wendy J. Cadwell Administrative Law Judge: SHARON L. FELDMAN PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION 6545 MERCANTILE WAY, SUITE 14 PO BOX 30221 LANSING, MI 48909-8195 MPSC Staff: PATRICIA S. BARONE ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL PUBLIC SERVICE DIVISION 6545 MERCANTILE WAY, SUITE 15 LANSING MI 48911 MEC: CHRISTOPHER M. BZDOK OLSON BZDOK & HOWARD PC 420 E. FRONT ST TRAVERSE CITY MI 49686 Cadillac Renewable Energy LLC et al DAVID E. S. MARVIN THOMAS J. WATERS FRASER TREBILCOCK DAVIS & DUNLAP PC 124 W. ALLEGAN SUITE 1000 LANSING MI 48933 MCAAA: DON L KESKEY (P23003) PUBLIC LAW RESOURCE CENTER PLLC 505 N CAPIT0L AV LANSING MI 48933-1209

Consumers Energy Company: JOHN C. SHEA CONSUMERS ENERGY COMPANY ONE ENERGY PLAZA JACKSON, MI 49201 Midland Cogeneration Venture Ltd Partnership (MCV): RICHARD J. AARON WARNER NORCROSS & JUDD LLP 120 N. WASHINGTON SQ., STE. 410 LANSING, MI 48933 GARY B. PASEK MIDLAND COGENERATION VENTURE LTD PARTNERSHIP 100 PROGRESS PLACE MIDLAND MI 48640 Hemlock Semiconductor Corp.: JENNIFER U HESTON FRASER TREBILCOCK DAVIS & DUNLAP PC 124 W. ALLEGAN SUITE 1000 LANSING MI 48933

STATE OF MICHIGAN

BEFORE THE MICHIGAN PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION

In the matter, on the Application of CONSUMERS ENERGY COMPANY for the Reconciliation of Power Supply Cost Recovery (PSCR) Costs and Revenues for the Calendar Year 2009

)))))))

Case No. U-15675-R

DIRECT TESTIMONY AND EXHIBITS OF

MICHAEL J. MCGARRY, SR.

ON BEHALF OF

ATTORNEY GENERAL MICHAEL A. COX

November 30, 2010

DIRECT TESTIMONY OF MICHAEL J. MCGARRY, SR.

Q. PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND BUSINESS ADDRESS. 1

A. My name is Michael J. McGarry, Sr. My business address is 2131 Woodruff 2

Road, Suite 2100, PMB 309 Greenville, SC 29607. 3

6

Q. BY WHOM ARE YOU EMPLOYED AND WHAT IS YOUR POSITION? 4

A. I am employed by Blue Ridge Consulting Services, Inc. located in Greenville, 5

South Carolina, as President and Chief Executive Officer.

QUALIFICATIONS 7

9

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Q. PLEASE STATE YOUR EXPERIENCE AND EDUCATIONAL 8

BACKGROUND.

A. Prior to assuming my present position, I was Vice President of East Coast 10

Operations from July 2003 to June 2004 with Hawks, Giffels & Pullin (HGP),

Inc. In that position, I was responsible for developing and overseeing client

engagements in utility regulatory affairs, management audit, and rate case

management. From August 2001 to July 2003, I was an independent consultant

working on a number of different projects, including a renewal/update of delivery

service tariffs for Illinois Power and several utility street lighting cost benefit

assessment projects. From June 2000 until August 2001, I was a senior consultant

with Denali Consulting, Inc., a utility supply chain and e-procurement strategy

and implementation firm. From October 1997 through June 2000, I was

employed by Navigant Consulting, Inc. and several of its predecessors or acquired

firms working on a number of different projects, including a management audit of

Southern Connecticut Gas Company and the original delivery service tariff filing

MJM-1


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

for Illinois Power. From July 1985 through October 1997, I was with the New

York State Department of Public Service (NYSDPS) in its Utility Operational

Audit Section where we conducted focused, operational audits in many facets of

utility operations for all sectors of the utility industry including gas, electric,

telecommunications, and water. Prior to my employment with the NYSDPS, I

was a rate analyst with Orange and Rockland Utilities (1981 to 1983) and then

Seminole Electric Cooperative (1983 to 1985). I received my Masters of

Business Administration from the State University of New York at Buffalo in

1996 and a Bachelor of Arts in Economics from Potsdam College (SUNY) in

1981.

Q. HAVE YOU TESTIFIED BEFORE? 11

A. Yes. I have presented or supported testimony in Colorado, Delaware, Illinois, 12

Maine, Michigan, Maryland, New York Nova Scotia, Pennsylvania and Utah.

These proceedings included testimony involving management decision and

prudence impacts, operations and maintenance expenses, capital investments,

revenue requirements, project management, and other areas. Most recently, I

provided testimony in response to Consumers Energy Company’s filing regarding

its compliance with Public Acts 286 and 295 in Case No. U-15805 and U-15889,

Detroit Edison Company’s filing in Case No. U-15806. I have testified in a

number of proceedings before the Michigan Public Service Commission

(Commission or MPSC) on behalf of the State Attorney General and before the

Maryland Public Service Commission on behalf of Staff. These cases have

MJM-2


1

2

4

9

11

12

13

14

Q. HAVE YOU INCLUDED A MORE DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF YOUR 3

QUALIFICATIONS?

A. Yes. A description of my qualifications is included as Appendix A. 5

Q. ON WHOSE BEHALF ARE YOU TESTIFYING? 6

A. I am appearing on behalf of Attorney General Michael A. Cox. 7

Q. ARE YOU SPONSORING ANY EXHIBITS IN CONNECTION WITH 8

YOUR TESTIMONY?

A. Yes. 10

Exhibit AG-1 (MJM-1) CECo Response to 15675R-AG-CE-43

Exhibit AG-2 (MJM-2) CECo Response to 15675R-ST -CE-34

Exhibit AG-3 (MJM-3) CECo Response to 15675R-ST -CE-35

PURPOSE AND SUMMARY OF TESTIMONY 15

18

19

20

21

Q. WHAT IS THE PURPOSE OF YOUR TESTIMONY? 16

A. The purpose of my testimony is to present positions on behalf of the Attorney 17

General of significant concern with respect to (1) the transfer price for renewable

energy sources that are flowing into the PSCR proposed by Consumers Energy

Company (CECo or Company), (2) the inclusion of the replacement power cost

during the Karn 1 planned stator replacement outage in fall 2009, and (3)

MJM-3


1

2

3

5

7

8

10

13

15

16

17

comment on the reasonableness of including the excess fuel and variable O&M

expenses proffered by the various interveners known as BioMass Merchant

Plants.

Q. WHAT HAVE YOU REVIEWED IN THE PREPARATION OF YOUR 4

TESTIMONY?

A. I have reviewed the Company’s and BioMass Merchant Plants’ intervenor 6

testimony,1 supporting exhibits and workpapers, responses to data requests, and

previous orders of the Commission.

Q. WAS THIS TESTIMONY PREPARED BY YOU OR UNDER YOUR 9

DIRECT SUPERVISION?

A. Yes. 11

Q. PLEASE SUMMARIZE YOUR CONCLUSIONS AND 12

RECOMMENDATIONS

A. In general, I conclude that (1) the transfer price for renewable energy resources 14

included in PSCR expense for each PSCR reconciliation should reflect the lower

of the actual cost under the related renewable energy power purchase agreements

or the reasonable-and-prudent, economically-dispatched, LMP price for electricity

1 Testimony includes Direct Testimony of Timothy R. Schimke on Behalf of Cadillac Renewable Energy, LLC, Direct Testimony of William (Bill) E. Smith on Behalf of Genesee Power Station Limited Partnership, Direct Testimony of Edward P. ("Ted") Barrett Jr. on Behalf of Genesee Power Station Limited Partnership as Well as the Biomass Merchant Plants, Collectively, Direct Testimony of Philip E. Lewis on Behalf of Grayling Generating Station Limited Partnership, Direct Testimony of Keith A. Mulka on Behalf of Hillman Power Company, LLC, Direct Testimony of Robert Joe Tondu on Behalf of TES Filer City Station, Limited Partnership, Direct Testimony of Neil R. Taratuta on Behalf of Viking Energy of Lincoln, Inc., Direct Testimony of Thomas V. Vine on Behalf of Viking Energy of McBain, Inc., Direct Testimony of Donald Adams on Behalf of Viking Energy of McBain, Inc., Viking Energy of Lincoln, Inc., and Exhibits to the above testimony

MJM-4


1

2

3

4

5

thereby reducing PSCR’s expenses by $39,715, (2) the replacement power costs

that totaled $6,338,461 required by the Karn 1 fall 2009 outage should be

removed from the 2009 PSCR case, and (3) reduce PSCR expenses for the

amount paid to BioMass Merchants Plants of $15,474,782. In total, I am

recommending the PSCR expense be reduced by $21,852,958.

TRANSFER PRICE 6

8

10

11

12

13

14

16

18

19

20

21

Q. WHY HAVE YOU REACHED THE CONCLUSION CONCERNING THE 7

TRANSFER PRICE?

A. In combination, a utility should not recover more under 1983 PA 304 and under 9

2008 PA 295 than the costs it actually incurred for renewable energy delivered.

On the other hand, a utility should not recover in a PSCR reconciliation any

portion of actual renewable energy expense that exceeds the costs the utility

would have incurred if the utility had dispatched available, alternative, and more

economic energy.

Q. DOESN'T 2008 PA 295 REQUIRE CECO TO SATISIFY MINIMUM 15

RENEWABLE PORTFOLIO STANDARDS (RPS)?

A. Yes, but in my opinion only actual renewable energy costs up to the available, 17

alternative, and more economic energy resources should be transferred to PSCR

expenses. The cost, if any, of renewable energy resources that exceeds the

economic dispatch cost should remain in and be recovered as an incremental cost

of compliance via renewable energy surcharges under 2008 PA 295.

MJM-5


2

4 5 6 7 8

9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17

18

19 20

21 22

23 24 25

26 27 28

29

30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38

Q. PLEASE PROVIDE THE RELEVANT INFORMATION AND 1

BACKGROUND THAT SUPPORTS YOUR CONCLUSION.

A. MCL 460.1045(1) provides in relevant part: 3

(1) For an electric provider whose rates are regulated by the commission, the commission shall determine the appropriate charges for the electric provider's tariffs that permit recovery of the incremental cost of compliance subject to the retail rate impact limits set forth in subsection (2).

(2) An electric provider shall recover the incremental cost of compliance with the renewable energy standards by an itemized charge on the customer's bill for billing periods beginning not earlier than 90 days after the commission approves the electric provider's renewable energy plan under section 21 or 23 or determines under section 25 that the plan complies with this act. An electric provider shall not comply with the renewable energy standards to the extent that, as determined by the commission, recovery of the incremental cost of compliance will have a retail rate impact that exceeds any of the following:

(a) $3.00 per month per residential customer meter.

(b) $16.58 per month per commercial secondary customer meter.

(c) $187.50 per month per commercial primary or industrial customer meter.

(3) The retail rate impact limits of subsection (2) apply only to the incremental costs of compliance and do not apply to costs approved for recovery by the commission other than as provided in this act.

(4) The incremental cost of compliance shall be calculated for a 20-year period beginning with approval of the renewable energy plan and shall be recovered on a levelized basis.

MCL 460.1047(1) provides in relevant part:

(1) Subject to the retail rate impact limits under section 45, the commission shall consider all actual costs reasonably and prudently incurred in good faith to implement a commission-approved renewable energy plan by an electric provider whose rates are regulated by the commission to be a cost of service to be recovered by the electric provider. Subject to the retail rate impact limits under section 45, an electric provider whose rates are regulated by the commission shall recover through its retail electric rates all of the electric provider's incremental costs of compliance during the 20-year period beginning when the electric

MJM-6


1 2 3 4 5 6 7

8

9 10 11 12

13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

26 27 28 29

30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38

39 40 41 42

provider's plan is approved by the commission and all reasonable and prudent ongoing costs of compliance during and after that period. The recovery shall include, but is not limited to, the electric provider's authorized rate of return on equity for costs approved under this section, which shall remain fixed at the rate of return and debt to equity ratio that was in effect in the electric provider's base rates when the electric provider's renewable energy plan was approved.

(2) Incremental costs of compliance shall be calculated as follows:

(a) Determine the sum of the following costs to the extent those costs are reasonable and prudent and not already approved for recovery in electric rates as of the effective date of this act:

(i) Capital, operating, and maintenance costs of renewable energy systems or advanced cleaner energy systems, including property taxes, insurance, and return on equity associated with an electric provider's renewable energy systems or advanced cleaner energy systems, including the electric provider's renewable energy portfolio established to achieve compliance with the renewable energy standards and any additional renewable energy systems or advanced cleaner energy systems, that are built or acquired by the electric provider to maintain compliance with the renewable energy standards during the 20-year period beginning when the electric provider's plan is approved by the commission.

(ii) Financing costs attributable to capital, operating, and maintenance costs of capital facilities associated with renewable energy systems or advanced cleaner energy systems used to meet the renewable energy standard.

(iii) Costs that are not otherwise recoverable in rates approved by the federal energy regulatory commission and that are related to the infrastructure required to bring renewable energy systems or advanced cleaner energy systems used to achieve compliance with the renewable energy standards on to the transmission system, including interconnection and substation costs for renewable energy systems or advanced cleaner energy systems used to meet the renewable energy standard.

(iv) Ancillary service costs determined by the commission to be necessarily incurred to ensure the quality and reliability of renewable energy or advanced cleaner energy used to meet the renewable energy standards, regardless of

MJM-7


1 2

3 4

5 6

7 8

9 10 11 12 13

14 15 16 17 18

19 20

21 22 23 24 25 26

27

28 29

30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42

the ownership of a renewable energy system or advanced cleaner energy technology.

(v) Except to the extent the costs are allocated under a different subparagraph, all of the following:

(A) The costs of renewable energy credits purchased under this act.

(B) The costs of contracts described in section 33(1).

(vi) Expenses incurred as a result of state or federal governmental actions related to renewable energy systems or advanced cleaner energy systems attributable to the renewable energy standards, including changes in tax or other law.

(vii) Any additional electric provider costs determined by the commission to be necessarily incurred to ensure the quality and reliability of renewable energy or advanced cleaner energy used to meet the renewable energy standards.

(b) Subtract from the sum of costs not already included in electric rates determined under subdivision (a) the sum of the following revenues:

(i) Revenue derived from the sale of environmental attributes associated with the generation of renewable energy or advanced cleaner energy systems attributable to the renewable energy standards. Such revenue shall not be considered in determining power supply cost recovery factors under section 6j of 1939 PA 3, MCL 460.6j.

(ii) Interest on regulatory liabilities.

(iii) Tax credits specifically designed to promote renewable energy or advanced cleaner energy.

(iv) Revenue derived from the provision of renewable energy or advanced cleaner energy to retail electric customers subject to a power supply cost recovery clause under section 6j of 1939 PA 3, MCL 460.6j, of an electric provider whose rates are regulated by the commission. After providing an opportunity for a contested case hearing for an electric provider whose rates are regulated by the commission, the commission shall annually establish a price per megawatt hour. In addition, an electric provider whose rates are regulated by the commission may at any time petition the commission to revise the price. In setting the price per megawatt hour under this subparagraph, the commission shall consider factors including, but not limited

MJM-8


1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19

20 21 22 23

24 25 26

27 28

30

31

32

33

35

36

to, projected capacity, energy, maintenance, and operating costs; information filed under section 6j of 1939 PA 3, MCL 460.6j; and information from wholesale markets, including, but not limited to, locational marginal pricing. This price shall be multiplied by the sum of the number of megawatt hours of renewable energy and the number of megawatt hours of advanced cleaner energy used to maintain compliance with the renewable energy standard. The product shall be considered a booked cost of purchased and net interchanged power transactions under section 6j of 1939 PA 3, MCL 460.6j. For energy purchased by such an electric provider under a renewable energy contract or advanced cleaner energy contract, the price shall be the lower of the amount established by the commission or the actual price paid and shall be multiplied by the number of megawatt hours of renewable energy or advanced cleaner energy purchased. The resulting value shall be considered a booked cost of purchased and net interchanged power under section 6j of 1939 PA 3, MCL 460.6j.

(v) Revenue from wholesale renewable energy sales and advanced cleaner energy sales. Such revenue shall not be considered in determining power supply cost recovery factors under section 6j of 1939 PA 3, MCL 460.6j.

(vi) Any additional electric provider revenue considered by the commission to be attributable to the renewable energy standards.

(vii) Any revenues recovered in rates for renewable energy costs that are included under subdivision (a).

Q. WHAT RENEWABLE ENERGY COSTS HAVE YOU CONCLUDED CAN 29

BE SUBTRACTED FROM REASONABLY AND PRUDENTLY

INCURRED ACTUAL RENEWABLE ENERGY COSTS AND

TRANSFERRED TO PSCR EXPENSE IN DETERMINING THE

INCREMENTAL COST OF COMPLIANCE?

A. I have concluded that to establish the so-called transfer price the Commission 34

must consider factors including, but not limited to, projected capacity, energy,

maintenance, and operating costs; information filed under section 6j of 1939 PA

MJM-9


1

2

3

4

7

8

9

10

13

14

16

18

19

21

3, MCL 460.6j; and information from wholesale markets, including, but not

limited to, locational marginal pricing (LMP). Furthermore, relying upon MCL

460.1049(3)(c), I have concluded that the Commission must set an annual actual

transfer price in each annual RE plan reconciliation case.

Q. WHAT POLICY SHOULD THE MPSC ADOPT? 5

A. The MPSC should transfer to this PSCR reconciliation for renewable energy 6

received and redelivered to PSCR customers a price not exceeding the marginal

costs that CECo would have incurred if the electricity the Company received from

renewable energy resources had been received from available alternative

resources.

Q. WHY DID YOU REACH THAT CONCLUSION? 11

A. I reached that conclusion because PSCR customers should not be forced to pay 12

PSCR expenses greater than they would have paid under CECo's economic

dispatching procedure.

Q. DOESN'T THIS MEAN THAT YOU ARE PROPOSING TO DENY 15

RENEWABLE COSTS RECOVERABLE UNDER SECTIONS 45 AND 47?

A. No. The difference between costs recoverable under those statutes and the so-17

called transfer price would be recoverable incremental costs of compliance under

Section 45.

Q. DO YOUR CONCLUSIONS CONFLICT WITH PRIOR ORDERS ISSUED 20

BY THE COMMISSION?

MJM-10


A. No. On page 15 in its May 26, 2009, order in U-15805, the Commission stated: 1

"The Commission reiterates that in approving this plan, it is not approving any 2

actual costs. All actual costs incurred for PPAs or self-build renewable generation

are subject to Commission review for reasonableness and prudence. Moreover,

the Commission will have the advantage of knowing not only what Consumers

proposes to spend, but also what other Michigan utilities are proposing to pay for

renewable generation equipment and PPAs."

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

13

15

16

17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29

Therefore, in my opinion, the Commission's prior orders do not prohibit in

PSCR reconciliation cases making an appropriate, just-and-reasonable allocation

of renewable energy costs between PSCR expense and recovery of the

incremental cost of compliance.

Q. IS THERE ANY ADDITIONAL RELEVANT HISTORY THAT YOU'VE 12

CONSIDERED?

A. Yes. In the Company’s compliance filing in Case No. U-15805/U-15889, in 14

response to the question “Please describe how the Transfer Price for each resource

is to be calculated,” CECo witness Ronk stated,

“Each generation resource used to comply with PA 295 will produce electric energy, electric capacity, and electric ancillary services which will offset the provision of energy, capacity and ancillary services from other conventional facilities. Each of these attributes has a market value which is currently recovered in each electric provider’s rates. To the extent the new renewable resources offset the cost incurred for energy, capacity and ancillary services, the December 4, 2008 Temporary Order issued by the Commission indicates that those costs are to be transferred to the electric provider’s PSCR rates. On January 8, 2009 the Company sent a letter to the Commission Staff providing the results of an energy and capacity value

MJM-11


1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

10 11

12

13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29

forecasting effort undertaken with The Detroit Edison Company and other Michigan Electric Providers. That letter is provided as Exhibit A-14 (DFR-7). That letter and its various attachments provide the basis for the transfer price calculation used by the Company in preparing its Renewable Energy Plan. Jennifer Rose provides additional testimony applying the energy and capacity price forecast to the Company’s Renewable Energy Plan.” (U-15805 Direct testimony of David F. Ronk, Jr. pages 16 & 17)

Witness Ronk then continues, asking and then answering the question, “In what

way will the Commission reconcile the Transfer Price?”

“At the time the Commission approves EPC contracts associated with each Electric Provider’s Renewable Energy Plan, we anticipate that in accordance with section XI (4) of the Commission’s December 4, 2008 order in MPSC Case No. U-15800, the Commission will also “lock in” the transfer price forecast that will apply to each such Provider-owned resource. The forecast, as provided and summarized in Attachment 4 of Exhibit A-14 (DFR7), provides an energy value for each period over the 20 year plan. Thereafter, as part of the Electric Provider’s PSCR plan and reconciliation cases, the Commission would determine the revenue requirements associated with the approved Provider-owned resource that will be recovered through the PSCR process by applying the locked in price forecasts to the quantities of energy, capacity, and ancillary resources delivered in each year. For resources that are not Provider owned, we anticipate that the transfer price will be based on the actual energy and capacity values observed at the 30

31 32 33 34 35 36

39

40

time energy is delivered. The remainder of the Renewable Energy Plan cost is the Incremental Cost of Compliance that is recovered through the Renewable Energy Plan surcharge discussed in the testimony of Hubert Miller.” (U-15805 Direct testimony of David F. Ronk, Jr. pages 17 & 18)

Q. WHAT IS YOUR OPINION CONCERNING THIS TESTIMONY? 37

A. CECo witness Ronk envisioned locking in the transfer price based on 20-year 38

forecast provided in analysis prepared in response to the Commission Order in

U-15800 and provided by the Company in a letter dated January 8, 2009.

MJM-12


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

10

11

12

13

16

17

18

19

21

However, witness Ronk did distinguish between Provider contracts, in which the

transfer price for Provider owned contracts would be locked, and non-provider

purchases, in which non-provider owned contracts would be based on actual.

Even if the transfer price should be or is locked-in for purposes of determining the

total recoverable renewable energy cost under each contract, the actual amount

transferred to reconciled PSCR expenses should not be based upon the total

recoverable renewable energy cost.

Q. WHY? 8

A. Based on the analysis submitted on January 8, 2009, the Company intended to use 9

the MISO LMP as the cost of the energy from renewable sources that would flow

through the PSCR. But those prices were forecasted and as a result would most

likely result in either an over or under recovery situation when actual prices were

later compared to the forecast.

Q. WHAT WAS THE PROJECTED TRANSFER PRICE IN U-15805? 14

A. The Company used monthly peak and off-peak prices from the January 2009 15

analysis for each of the sources it procured renewable energy from in the months

that it purchased power, specifically October and November of 2009. On average

the projected transfer price for that period was approximately $44.80 per

megawatt hour.2

Q. WAS THIS PRICE DERIVED FROM A MISO LOCATIONAL 20

MARGINAL PRICE (LMP)?

2 U-15805 Exhibit No. A-2 (TPC-2) (col e, line 1).

MJM-13


2

3

5

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

17

18

19

20

21

A. Yes. It was based on an analysis done by the Company and submitted to the 1

Commission on January 8, 2009. That analysis was included as an exhibit in Case

U-15805.3

Q. WHAT IS YOUR POSITION REGARDING WHAT TRANSFER PRICE 4

SHOULD BE REFLECTED IN THIS PSCR RECONCILIATION?

A. The amount of dollars that should flow into the annual PSCR reconciliation 6

should be based on the lower of the actual price for renewable energy or the

alternative LMP price. If the actual cost is higher than the LMP price, then the

remainder of the costs stays in the renewable energy plan reconciliation so that

the balance of the total reasonable and prudent costs incurred for a renewable

energy contract is recovered through that mechanism, not through the PSCR

reconciliation. To determine whether the actual cost paid is higher or lower than

the LMP price requires coordination with CECo's RE plan reconciliation to know

what PSCR expense should be included in this PSCR reconciliation.

Q. WHY SHOULD THIS BE DONE? 15

A. Transferring to this PSCR reconciliation a price above an avoided and lower 16

alternative PSCR expense would create a situation in which PSCR expense would

reduce and subsidize the total costs that flow through the RE plan and

reconciliation surcharge as part of the incremental costs of compliance. By way

of example, assume that a renewable contract price is based upon a $50 per MWh

transfer price and that the actual LMP price in a related PSCR reconciliation is

3 U-15805 Exhibit No. A-14 (DFR-7).

MJM-14


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

16

17

19

20

21

22

23

also $50. In that case, there is no problem. But transferring the contract price

when the actual LMP price is lower than the renewable contract price would

increase recoverable PSCR expense because renewable energy was an

uneconomic source of the electric energy. On the other hand, if the LMP price

exceeds the transfer price, then the PSCR expense would exceed actual costs if

the LMP price is used as the transfer price. Neither of these results is just and

reasonable, and MCL 460.1047(2) does not require either result. MCL

460.1047(2)(b)(iv) says that the Commission shall annually establish a price per

megawatt hour and that the Commission shall consider factors, including but not

limited to, projected capacity, energy, maintenance, and operating costs. The

actual LMP price reflects those factors. In other words, the LMP price is the price

that the Commission should use to annually determine the transfer price under

MCL 460.1049(3)(c) and to determine the annual PSCR expenses for renewable

energy under MCL 460.1047(2)(b)(iv).

Q. DOES THIS MEAN THAT CECO WOULD NOT RECOVER ALL OF 15

THE COSTS ITS INCURS UNDER ITS RENEWABLE ENERGY

CONTRACTS?

A. No. When the contract price equals or is less than the LMP price, then CECo will 18

recover the full contract price as a PSCR expense. When the contract price is

higher than the LMP price, CECo will recover the LMP price as a PSCR expense

and the balance of the contract price as an incremental cost of compliance under

MCL 460.1047(2)—assuming the contract price was reasonable and prudent as

required by MCL 460.1047(1).

MJM-15


2

4

5

6

Q. DO YOU KNOW WHAT SITUATION EXISTS WITH RESPECT TO THE 1

INSTANT PROCEEDING?

A. Yes. In Detroit Edison’s PSCR reconciliation filing in Docket No. U-15677-R 3

Exhibit A-18, Detroit Edison included a table that shows the MISO 2009 Plan

Case LMP Prices as well as the 2009 actuals both for the Detroit Edison Load

Node and Michigan Hub.

Q. WHAT DOES THIS TABLE SHOW? 7

A. For ease of reference, I have and reproduced it below. 8

MJM-16


1

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

A. As shown at line 17, for the 2009 Plan Case in U-15806, the average monthly On-2

Peak price was estimated to be $74.21 per megawatt hour. The Off-Peak price

was expected to be $40.90, and the RTC (round the clock) was $56.50. On line

55, Detroit Edison reported that the actual MISO LMP prices at the Michigan Hub

for 2009 were $37.79 On-Peak, $24.56 Off-Peak and $30.74 RTC, respectively.

This represents a reduction of 49%, 40%, and 45% respectively compared to the

previous forecast. This is by no means insignificant. I recognize that the way that

the transfer price was set is slightly different from that reported here. However,

MJM-17


1

2

3

5

7

8

9

10

11

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

both analyses are based on the hourly load and cost data at MISO, and a recasting

of the 2009 transfer price, using the same methodology utilized by the Company

in its 2009 analysis, should show a similar reduction relationship.

Q. HOW DOES THIS AFFECT CECO's REQUESTED RECOVERY FOR 4

RENEWABLE ENERGY IN THIS CASE?

A. The price used by CECo to report PSCR expense for renewable energy costs 6

should be reduced to the applicable LMP prices unless approved actual renewable

energy contract prices fall below those actual prices. In that case, the lower actual

prices should be included in the renewable energy expense calculation. The result

of my analysis shows that the renewable energy expense should be lowered by

$39,714.59.

Q. HOW HAVE YOU CALCULATED THE DIFFERENCE? 12

A. As shown in the table below, I have applied the average reduction percentage of 13

the MISO LMP price between the 2009 plan and the actual reports for 2009, as I

described early. In that discussion, I mentioned calculating the reduction of the

plan to actuals of 49%, 40%, and 45% for on-peak, off-peak and RTC energy

costs, respectively. To determine the reasonable renewable energy costs to pass

through to the Company’s PSCR reconciliation in this case, I reduced the plan

Transfer Price of $44.798 by 45% (using the MISO LMP RTC price reduction

2009 plan to actual). This results in a per megawatt hour price of $24.64. I then

applied this number to the Actual 2009 purchases (2030.739 MWhrs) as shown in

Exhibit A-2 (TPC-2). When added to the capacity costs, this results in a total

MJM-18


1

2

3

4

5 6

transfer cost of $51,258.41. I then subtracted this amount from the Company’s

proposed expense of $90,973 as shown on Exhibit A-2 (TPC-2) to arrive at my

proposed reduction in PSCR expense in this case of $39,714.59. The following

table shows the derivation of this amount.

AG’s Derivation of PSCR Expense Reduction for Transfer Price Reduction

Line No. Description Amount Note1 2009 Plan Transfer Price ‐ $ per megawatt Hour 44.80$ 2 Percentage Reduction ‐ 2009 Plan to 2009 Actual 45%

3 Adjusted Transfer Price 24.64$ Line 1 x (1‐line 2)

4 2009 Actual Volume (MWhrs) 2,030.739 Exhibit A‐2(TPC‐2) Column C, Line 1

5 Actual Renewable Energy PSCR expense 50,037.41$ Line 3 x line 46 Capacity Costs 1,221.00$ Exhibit A‐1 (TPC‐1), Column H, Line 4)

Total Transfer Costs per AG 51,258.41$ 7 Less: DECo proposed renewable energy PSCR expense $90,973.00 Exhibit A‐1 (TPC‐1), Column K, Line 4)

7 AG Proposed Adjustment to CECo 2009 PSCR Expense (39,714.59)$ Line 5 ‐ Line 6

7

KARN 1 FALL 2009 OUTAGE 8

11

12

13

14

15

16

Q. PLEASE PROVIDE BACKGROUND ON THE KARN 1 OUTAGE ISSUE. 9

A. According to the testimony of Company Witness David B. Kehoe, (Witness 10

Kehoe), Karn 1 was shut down on September 10, 2009, to replace the stator coils.

Inspection and testing of the insulation surrounding the coils during the previous

Karn 1 outage ending February 19, 2009, indicated deterioration for which safe

and uninterrupted operation of the coils required replacement “as soon as

possible” 4. The unit was returned to service 103 days later on December 22,

2009.

4 Direct Testimony of David B Kehoe page 7 Lines 20-21

MJM-19


2

4

5

7

9

10

12

13

15

16

17

18

19

20

Q. WHY WERE THE STATOR COILS NOT REPLACED DURING THE 1

PREVIOUS KARN 1 OUTAGE ENDING FEBRUARY 19, 2009?

A. Witness Kehoe stated that the Company could not perform the work during the 3

earlier outage because at the time of the previous outage when the deterioration

was discovered “the material and vendor support was not available”5.

Q. WAS THE FALL 2009 STATOR COILS REPLACEMENT OUTAGE 6

THEREFORE NECESSARY?

A. Although the decision to replace the stator coils was necessary, the Company 8

should have inspected, tested, and decided to replace the stator coils during an

earlier outage.

Q. DID CECO REASONABLY KNOW THAT IT SHOULD HAVE 11

INSPECTED AND TESTED THE STATOR COILS AND INSULATION

DURING AN EARLIER OUTAGE?

A. Yes. The manufacturer estimates the life expectancy of the insulation surrounding 14

the coils to be 30 to 40 years. The stators on Unit 1 were 50 years old6.. The

Company had reasonable knowledge about the potential breakdown of the

insulation long before actual discovery during the 2008-2009 Karn 1 outage. In

other words, with reasonable and prudent planning, the Company could have

secured the material and vendor support for availability during the previous 2008-

2009 outage. A separate outage could have then been avoided.

5 Direct Testimony of David B Kehoe page 7 Lines 21-24 6 Direct Testimony of David B Kehoe page 7 Lines 20-21

MJM-20


2

4

5

7

9

10

11

12

13

Q. WHAT WAS THE COST OF REPLACEMENT POWER FOR THIS 1

OUTAGE?

A. According to the Company, the net replacement power cost for the outage 3

(replacement power cost minus variable operating expense that would have

occurred had the unit been operational) is $6,338,4617.

Q. WHAT IS YOUR CONCLUSION CONCERNING THE KARN 1 2009 6

FALL OUTAGE?

A. Considering the information available about the life expectancy of the stator coil 8

insulation, the Company could and should have reasonably foreseen the problem

and should have planned to address this problem during the prior outage to avoid

a subsequent outage. Ratepayers should not bear the burden of incremental costs

for replacement power during this outage. The Commission should disallow the

net replacement power cost of $6,338,461.

BIO MASS MERCHANT PLANT EXPENSES 14

16

17

19

20

Q. HAVE YOU DETERMINED WHAT CECO IS INCLUDING RELATED 15

TO PAYMENTS MADE TO BIOMASS MERCHANT PLANTS IN THIS

PSCR RECONCILIATION?

A. Yes. Included in CECo witness David F Ronk, Jr’s Testimony is a statement that 18

the Company is including $15,474,782 for payment made to Biomass Merchant

Plants (BMP) per the Commission order in U-16048.

Q. HAVE YOU DETERMINED WHAT IS INCLUDED IN THIS AMOUNT? 21

7 Exhibit AG-1 (MJM-1) CECo response to 15675R-AG-CE-43

MJM-21


2

A. Yes. This amount consists of the following items: 1

Line Description Amount Source

1 2009 Annual payment to BMP’s $12,000,000 $1,000,000 payment x 12 months

2 2008 Prorated Amount (10/6/08-12/31/08) $2,838,710 Exhibit BMP-2 Line 8

3 2009 NOx Payment to TES Filer City LP $636,073 Exhibit BMP-2 Line 15

4 Total: $15,474,7838 Sum lines 1-3 3

5

7

8

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

Q. IS THERE ANY PORTION OF THIS AMOUNT THAT SHOULD NOT BE 4

INCLUDED IN THE COMPANY’S 2009 PSCR RECONCILIATION?

A. Yes. For the reasons I will discuss below, in my opinion the Commission should 6

not allow CECo to recover the $15,474,783 in payments to the BMP as part of its

2009 PSCR reconciliation.

Q. PLEASE EXPLAIN. 9

A. From my review of the Company’s testimony and that of the various BMP 10

witnesses, this testimony fails to adequately show these expenses were reasonable

and prudent.9 And those witnesses do not present objective benchmarks or

standards upon which the Commission could base a conclusion that BMP

reasonably and prudently incurred costs above the amount of energy charge

reimbursements that CECo paid to them. Also, I have included the Company’s

reply to Staff data request 15675R-ST-CE-34 as my Exhibit AG-2 (MJM-2), and

the Company admits that it did not audit the BMP expenses. Further, there is no

8 Off $1 due to rounding 9 There might also be legal objections to including these costs; however, such issues should be addressed in briefs submitted by the parties.

MJM-22


1

2

3

4

5

7

8

10

11

12

13

14

15

justification for including the NOx payment ($636,073) to one BMP intervener,

TES Filer City, LP. The witness for TES Filer City, Robert Joe Tondu, simply

states that TES incurred the NOx expense and its amount.10 Mr. Tondu does not

state why TES Filer City incurred that expense, and CECo does not mention the

TES Filer City LP NOx expense in its testimony.

Q. PLEASE EXPLAIN WHY YOU BELIEVE THESE WITNESSES HAVE 6

NOT PROVIDED ADEQUATE SUPPORT TO SHOW THAT THESE

EXPENSES WERE REASONABLY AND PRUDENTLY INCURRED.

A. First, the provisions in 2008 PA 286 that allow specified merchant plants who 9

generate electricity from wood or wood by-products to recover additional costs

took effect on October 6, 2008, but under MCL 460.10j(12). But under MCL

460.6j(12) this reconciliation case covers only January 1, 2009, through

December 31, 2009. Therefore, the prorated dollars for the end of 2008 cannot be

recovered in this case even if each of the plants of the BMPs reasonably and

prudently incurred those excess costs.

10 Direct testimony of Robert Joe Tondu, TES Filer City LP, page 7, line 12.

MJM-23


2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

A. Subsection (7) of 2008 PA 286 provides: 1

(7) If, on or before January 1, 2008, a merchant plant entered into a contract with an initial term of 20 years or more to sell electricity to an electric utility whose rates are regulated by the commission with 1,000,000 or more retail customers in this state and if, prior to January 1, 2008, the merchant plant generated electricity under that contract, in whole or in part, from wood or solid wood wastes, then the merchant plant shall, upon petition by the merchant plant and subject to the limitation set forth in subsection (8), recover the amount, if any, by which the merchant plant’s reasonably and prudently incurred actual fuel and variable operation and maintenance costs exceed the amount that the merchant plant is paid under the contract for those costs. This subsection does not apply to landfill gas plants, hydro plants, municipal solid waste plants, or to merchant plants engaged in litigation against an electric utility seeking higher payments for power delivered pursuant to contract. (emphasis

10 11 12 13 14 15

added). 16 17 18 19

20

21

22

25

26

27

28

29

So in order for merchant plants to recover excess costs from CECo and in order

for CECo to recover excess costs via a PSCR reconciliation, each BMP must

accurately identify any excess costs and must prove that they reasonably and

prudently incurred the excess costs.

Q. PLEASE CONTINUE. 23

A. From my review of the pre-filed testimony and exhibits, CECo simply relies on 24

the BMP’s cost projections for dispatch11 and has not audited the actual costs.12

The only witnesses supporting claims that excess costs were reasonably and

prudently incurred are the BMP witnesses.13 For example, the BMPs’ witness

Edward P. (“Ted”) Barrett Jr proffered the following line of questions and

answers:

11 Exhibit AG-3 (MJM-3) CECo Response to 15675R-ST -CE-35 12 Exhibit AG-2 (MJM-2) 13 See earlier footnote for list of witnesses for the BIOMASS Merchant Plants.

MJM-24


1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36

37

38

39

Q. IN CONNECTION WITH YOUR FUEL PROCUREMENT DECISIONS, DID YOU EXERCISE YOUR BEST JUDGMENT? A. Yes. Q. ARE YOU FAMILIAR WITH THE PROCUREMENT PRACTICES IN YOUR INDUSTRY? A. Yes. Q. IN YOUR OPINION, WERE YOUR FUEL PROCUREMENT PRACTICES CONSISTENT WITH INDUSTRY-ACCEPTED PRACTICES? A. Yes, they were. Q. IN YOUR OPINION, WERE YOUR FUEL PURCHASING PRACTICES REASONABLE AND PRUDENT? A. Yes, definitely. Q. IN YOUR OPINION, WERE MMR’s ACTUAL FUEL CHARGES FOR THE PERIOD FROM OCTOBER 6, 2008 THROUGH DECEMBER 31, 2009 6 REASONABLE AND PRUDENT? A. Yes. Q. IN YOUR OPINION, AS A PERSON WITH EXTENSIVE EXPERIENCE IN THE FIELD OF FUEL PROCUREMENT, DO YOU THINK THAT ANY OF MMR’S ACTUAL FUEL COSTS WERE EXTRAVAGANT, UNNECESSARY, INEFFICIENT OR IMPRUDENT? A. Absolutely not.14

Beyond these conclusory statements, the evidentiary record does not present

comparative benchmark costs in the industry or comparable prices from other

suppliers.

14 Direct Testimony of Edward P. (“Ted”) Barrett Jr, ON BEHALF OF GENESEE POWER STATION LIMITED PARTNERSHIP AS WELL AS THE BIOMASS MERCHANT PLANTS, COLLECTIVELY

MJM-25


2

3

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

16

17

19 20 21 22 23 24

Q. PROVIDE AN EXAMPLE OF THE TYPE OF ANALYSIS AND/OR 1

AUDIT YOU WOULD EXPECT TO SHOW THE REASONABLENESS

AND PRUDENCY OF THE BMP’S PROCUREMENT PRACTICES?

A. Supporting testimony should identify the contract/spot strategy used to obtain the 4

fuel, and each witness should have compared and analyzed the industry best

practice to demonstrate (1) that each company’s strategy was consistent with

strategies used by similarly situated biomass generators who are not seeking relief

in this case and (2) that unrelated generators experienced similar total costs. One

BMP witness stated that either a spot or contract would have been reasonable;

nevertheless,, without specifically explaining why, the witness stated that spot

fuel purchases are most advantageous.15 Logically, these positions conflict. Since

these expenses to BMPs exceed $15 million, the Commission should require more

evidentiary support before ruling that the excess expenditures were reasonably

and prudently incurred.

Q. WHAT IS YOUR OPINION CONCERNING THE BMP’s REQUEST TO 15

INCLUDE FUEL AND VARIABLE EXPENSES ABOVE THE ALLOWED

CAP?

A. MCL 460.6a(8) states: 18

The total aggregate additional amounts recoverable by merchant plants pursuant to subsection (7) in excess of the amounts paid under the contracts shall not exceed $1,000,000.00 per month for each affected electric utility. The $1,000,000.00 per month limit specified in this subsection shall be reviewed by the commission upon petition of the merchant plant filed no more than

15 Direct Testimony of TIMOTHY R. SCHIMKE ON BEHALF OF CADILLAC RENEWABLE ENERGY, LLC page 8

MJM-26


1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30

31

32

33

34

37

once per year and may be adjusted if the commission finds that the eligible merchant plants reasonably and prudently incurred actual fuel and variable operation and maintenance costs exceed the amount that those merchant plants are paid under the contract by more than $1,000,000.00 per month. The annual amount of the adjustments shall not exceed a rate equal to the united states consumer price index. An adjustment shall not be made by the commission unless each affected merchant plant files a petition with the commission. As used in this subsection, "united states consumer price index" means the united states consumer price index for all urban consumers as defined and reported by the united states department of labor, bureau of labor statistics. If the total aggregate amount by which the eligible merchant plants reasonably and prudently incurred actual fuel and variable operation and maintenance costs determined by the commission exceed the amount that the merchant plants are paid under the contract by more than $1,000,000.00 per month, the commission shall allocate the additional $1,000,000.00 per month payment among the eligible merchant plants based upon the relationship of excess costs among the eligible merchant plants. The $1,000,000.00 limit specified in this subsection, as adjusted, shall not apply with respect to actual fuel and variable operation and maintenance costs that are incurred due to changes in federal or state environmental laws or regulations that are implemented after the effective date of the amendatory act that added this subsection. The $1,000,000.00 per month payment limit under this subsection shall not apply to merchant plants eligible under subsection (7) whose electricity is purchased by a utility that is using wood or wood waste or fuels derived from those materials for fuel in their power plants.

Under this statute, the evidence may or may not justify adjustments to the

ceilings, but since the BMPs have not presented objective grounds for ruling that

the reported excess costs were reasonably and prudently incurred, the

Commission should not grant their request to adjust the statutory ceilings.

Q. PLEASE SUMMARIZE YOUR POSITIONS. 35

A. I recommend the following reductions to CECo’s 2009 recoverable PSCR 36

reconciliation expense:

MJM-27


MJM-28

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

1) Remove $39,715 associated with the renewable energy transfer price

issue

2) Remove $6,338,461 for replacement power costs associated with the

extended Karn 1 outage

3) Remove $15,474,782 for payments to the BMP because the evidence

does not prove that the excess costs reported by them were reasonably

and prudently incurred.

In total, I request the Commission to reduce CECo’s recoverable 2009 PSCR expense

reconciliation by $21,852,958.

Q. DOES THIS CONCLUDE YOUR TESTIMONY? 10

A. Yes it does. 11

Appendix A - Qualifications of Michael J. McGarry, Sr.

Summary Mr. McGarry’s professional experience spans twenty-nine years within the private

and public sectors. He has conducted over thirty comprehensive management and operational audits of investor-owned energy, telecommunications, and water utilities. These audits have included comprehensive management audits and/or operational audits on most utility functions including corporate governance, strategic planning, internal auditing, capital and operating budget process and practices, distribution operations and maintenance, fuel procurement, supply chain management, demand side management, crew operations, affiliates transactions, commodity trading and construction program practices.

Project Management Mr. McGarry’s experience includes management of multi-discipline teams for a

wide range of client engagements, development and implementation of detailed work plans and project schedules. He has analyzed and planned interdivisional resource utilization, supervised, developed and coached interdivisional team members and created numerous executive reports, briefings, and presentations.

Regulatory and Rate Case Management Mr. McGarry has worked with clients to manage all aspects of the regulatory and

rate case process. He has developed efficient processes to prepare supporting analyses and testimony for submission to the regulatory bodies and interveners. He is a seasoned project manager and has analytical expertise to respond to interrogatories and data requests from all rate case interveners in a timely manner. Mr. McGarry has assisted a number of clients in preparing revenue requirement and cost of service analyses. He has also developed rate structure and billing determinant information analyses, time of day and interruptible rates analyses, fuel and purchased power reports and annual wholesale rates for member cooperatives. He has developed complex revenue requirement models to present alternative positions to a utility’s proposed rate request.

Testimony and Witness Preparation Mr. McGarry has proffered and /or supported testimony in Colorado, Delaware,

Illinois, Maine, Michigan, Maryland, New York, Nova Scotia, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Utah. These proceedings included testimony involving management decision and prudence impacts, operations and maintenance expenses, capital investments, revenue requirements, project management and others.

Utility Management and Operational Audits Mr. McGarry has conducted over thirty comprehensive management and

operational audits of investor-owned energy and telecommunications utilities. These audits have included comprehensive management audits and/or operational audits on most functions with the utility environment including corporate governance, strategic planning, internal auditing, capital and operating budget process and practices, distribution operations and maintenance, fuel procurement, supply chain management,

MJM-A-1


demand side management, crew operations, affiliates transactions, commodity trading and construction program practices.

Restructuring, Unbundling, and Cost Allocation Mr. McGarry has developed the supporting analyses and regulatory filing

requirements needed to support unbundling rates for utilities. This has included detailed studies where the company’s plant-in-service and depreciation reserve was allocated to each unbundled function. He has assessed utility management actions to prepare the company for competition, including the processes and practices used by the utility to prepare to enter new markets and offer new services.

Training and Public Speaking Mr. McGarry has presented topics before Commission staff groups, NARUC sub-

committee groups, and as a program faculty member (2010) for the Institute of Public Utilities at Michigan State University. Topics presented include management auditing and prudence reviews, service company costs and allocations, forecasting methodology and modeling, revenue requirements, rate base, and price regulation theory.

Education

Potsdam College, B.A., Economics, 1981 University at Buffalo School of Management, MBA, 1996

Regulatory Experience Before the Connecticut Department of Utility Control Docket 10-02-13 Application of Aquarion Water Company to Amend its Rate Schedules On behalf of the Connecticut Department of Public Utility, April 2010 – August 2010 Project Manager. Oversaw rate case analysis and assessment of company’s proposed revenue requirement specifically related to cash working capital and test year expenses. Assisted with analysis of specific issues and preparation of Commission’s recommended decision. Docket 07-07-01 Diagnostic Management Audit of Connecticut Light and Power Company. On behalf of the Staff of the Connecticut Department of Public Utility, July 2008-June 2009 Project Manager. Performed overall day to day project management responsibilities to conduct a diagnostic management audit of the Connecticut Light & Power Company (CL&P). Managed a project team of accountants, engineers and industry specialists who were responsible for evaluating the effectiveness of the management and operations of all aspects of the company. In addition, managed a focused prudency review of Northeast Utilities’ (CL&P’s parent company) development and implementation of a $122 million customer information system known as CustomerCentral or C2.

MJM-A-2


Before the Delaware Public Service Commission Docket No. 09-414 On behalf of the Staff of the Delaware Public Service Commission in the matter of the application Delmarva Power & Light Company for approval of modifications to its electric base rates, September 2009 - May 2010 Project Manager. Oversaw rate case analysis and assessment of company’s proposed revenue requirement. Assisted with analysis of specific issues and preparation of witness testimony. Docket No. 07-239F On behalf of the Staff of the Delaware Public Service Commission in the matter of the application Delmarva Power & Light Company for approval of modifications to its gas cost rates, October 2007-April 2008 Project Manager. Oversaw a review of Delmarva Power and Light’s gas hedging program. Docket No. 06-287 On behalf of the Staff of the Delaware Public Service Commission in the matter of Chesapeake Gas Corporation’s implementation of a Gas Hedging program, June-August 2007 Project Manager. Provided industry expertise and suggestions to the Commission on a proposal plan to implement a gas hedging procurement program at the Company. Docket No. 06-284 On behalf of the Staff of the Delaware Public Service Commission in the matter of Delmarva Power and Light Company’s request for a $15 million increase in gas base rates, October 2006-March 2007 Project Manager and testifying witness. Provide expert testimony on several rate base and revenue requirement issues. Recommended Commission reduce proposed rate increase request to $8.4 million (56%). Before the District of Columbia Public Service Commission Formal Case No. 1076 In the Matter of the Application of the Potomac Electric Power Company for Authority to Increase Existing Retail Rates and Charges for Electric Distribution Service. On Behalf of the DCPSC, July-June 2010 Project Manager: Advised Commission Staff on the Company’s and intervener’s filings and testimony regarding revenue requirements, rate base, cost of service, rate design, bill stabilization, and depreciation. Formal Case No. 1053 - Technical consultant for the Commission in the matter of Potomac Electric Power Company’s request for a $50.4 million increase in base rates, February 2007-June 2008 Project Manager. Provide technical expertise to Commission in evaluating the Company’s rate case filing. Commission accepted adjustments which reduced the allowed increase by a significant percentage. Formal Case No. 1032 In the Matter of the Investigation into Potomac Electric Power Company’s Distribution Service Rates On Behalf of the DCPSC, January-March 2005

MJM-A-3


Project Manager. Review and evaluation of Potomac Electric Power Company compliance filings for class cost of service and revenue requirements for distribution service pursuit to a settlement approved in May 2002. Provided analysis and recommended adjustments to Staff on 23 designated issues and 13 Company proposed adjustments. Proceeding was settled in anticipation of a full rate case for rates to be effective August 8, 2007. Formal Case No. 1016 In the Matter of the Application of Washington Gas Light Company, District of Columbia Division, for Authority to Increase Existing Rates and Charges for Gas Service On Behalf of the DCPSC, June-December 2003 Project Manager and Consultant to Commissioners and Staff. Project Manager for the analysis of WGL’s rate filings. Provided analysis and recommended adjustments to the DCPSC Staff on WGL’s proposed increase to base rates. Advised the Commission during deliberations on party positions and possible recommendations. Before the Hawaii Public Utilities Commission Docket No. 05-0075 In the matter of a proceeding to investigate Kauai Island Utility Cooperative’s Proposed Revised Integrated Resource Plan and Demand Side Management Framework, June-November 2005 Project Manager. Managed a team of consultants responsible for evaluating the impact of the changes proposed by the Company. Before the Illinois Commerce Commission Case: 05-0597 On behalf of the Illinois Citizens Utility Board, Cook County States Attorney’s Office and City of Chicago, November 2005-May 2006 Project Manager and Testifying Witness. Provided analysis and recommended adjustments in the general rate increase of 20.1% or $320 million filed by ComEd. Consultant to Illinois Power Company. Conducted mandated compliance filing to un-bundle utility’s rate tariffs. Prepared filing requirements and all support schedules analysis to justify allocation of generation, transmission and distribution. Prepared testimony on behalf of the Company’s Controller. Consultant to Illinois Power Company. Prepared 2001 required update filing for the Illinois Commerce Commission compliance filing to un-bundle utility’s rate tariffs. Prepared filing requirements and all support schedules analysis to justify allocation of generation, transmission and distribution. Prepared testimony on behalf of the Company’s Controller. Before Maine Public Utilities Commission Case No 2008-151 Maine Public Utilities Commission Investigation into Maintenance and Replacement Program for Northern Utilities Inc.’s Cast Iron Facilities (Phase II) On behalf of Maine Public Advocate, July 2008 - present Project Manager and Testifying Witness. Litigated proceeding and led a consultant team to assist the State of Maine Public Advocate to follow-up on investigation for the need

MJM-A-4


for the program and the company’s management of the repair or replacement of its cast iron facilities. Case No 2004-813 Maine Public Utilities Commission Investigation into Maintenance and Replacement Program for Northern Utilities Inc.’s Cast Iron Facilities (Phase I) On behalf of Maine Public Advocate, November 2004-March 2005 Project Manager and Testifying Witness. Litigated proceeding and led a consultant team to assist the State of Maine Public Advocate to investigate the need for the program and the company’s management of the repair or replacement of its cast iron facilities. Before the Maryland Public Service Commission Case No. 9092/9093 (Phase II) On behalf of the Staff of the Commission in Base Rate Proceeding for Potomac Electric Power Company and Delmarva Power and Light Company December-March 2008 Project Manager. Provided rebuttal testimony on behalf of the Commission related to the reasonableness of the costs and charges of Pepco Holdings, Inc. Service Company. Case No. 9092 On behalf of the Staff of the Commission in Base Rate Proceeding for Potomac Electric Power Company, January-June 2007 Project Manager. Reviewed and analyzed company’s base increase request and all pro formas, adjustments to test year revenue requirement and supported witness testimony. Commission approved less than 20% of Company’s original request. Case No. 9062 On behalf of the Staff of the Commission in the matter of the application of Chesapeake Utilities Corporation for authority to revise its rates and charges for gas service, May-October 2006 Project manager. Managed a project team responsible for providing expert witness testimony in the areas of revenue requirements, rate base, cost of service, revenue allocation, rate design, revenue normalization, and cost of capital. Before the Massachusetts Department of Public Utilities Case No. D.P.U. 08-110 On behalf of the Massachusetts Department of Public Utilities regarding the Petition and Complaint of the Massachusetts Attorney General for an Audit of New England Gas Company, February 2010-August 2010 Project manager. Managed a project team of accountants and industry specialists who were responsible for evaluating the accuracy of the accounting records, practices and procedures used in the development of New England Gas Company’s revenue requirements calculations in the Company’s base rate request. Before the Michigan Public Service Commission Case No. U-16047 On behalf of the Attorney General of the State of Michigan in the matter of the application of The Detroit Edison Company for authority to implement a Power Supply Cost Recovery Plan in its rate schedules for 2010 metered jurisdictional sales of electricity, January-May 2010 Project manager and testifying witness. Reviewed power supply cost recovery plan requirements and testified to appropriateness of specific components of that factor.

MJM-A-5


Case No. U-15415-R On behalf of the Attorney General of the State of Michigan in the matter of the application of Consumers Energy Company for the reconciliation of power supply cost recovery costs and revenues for the calendar year 2008 and for other relief related to pension and OPEB costs, May-November 2009 Reviewed gas cost recovery reconciliation and provided analysis of potential issues and developed recommendations including basis, past precedence, and/or industry expertise. Case No. U-15806/U-15890 In the matter of Detroit Edison’s and Michigan Consolidated Gas Company’s to comply with Public Acts 286 and 296 regarding their Renewable Energy Plan and Energy Optimization Plan, March-June 2009 Reviewed the Energy Optimization Plans of both Detroit Edison and Michigan Consolidated Gas and provided analysis of issues and shortcomings concerning the plans in relation to the specifications of the Act and the benefit to customers. Case No. U-15805/15889 In the matter of Consumers Energy Company to comply with Public Acts 286 and 295 regarding their Renewable Energy Plan and Energy Optimization Plan, March-June 2009 Reviewed the Energy Optimization Plans of Consumers Energy Company and provided analysis of issues and shortcomings concerning the plans in relation to the specifications of the Act and the benefit to customers. Case No. U-15677 On behalf of the Attorney General of the State of Michigan in the matter of the application of The Detroit Edison Company for authority to implement a power supply cost recovery plan in its rate schedules for 2009 metered jurisdictional sales of electricity, January 2009-June 2010 Project manager and testifying witness. Reviewed power supply cost recovery plan requirements and testified to appropriateness of specific components of that factor. Case No. U-15415 On behalf of the Attorney General of the State of Michigan in the matter of the application of Consumers Energy Company for approval of a power supply cost recovery plan and for authorization of monthly power supply cost recovery factors for the year 2008, January-March 2008 Project Manager. Reviewed power supply cost recovery plan requirements and provided summary briefing to Michigan Attorney General. Case No. U-15320 On behalf of the Attorney General of the State of Michigan in the matter of the application of Midland Cogeneration Venture Limited Partnership for the Commission to eliminate the “availability caps” which limit Consumers Energy Company’s recovery of capacity payments with respect to its power purchase agreement with Midland Cogeneration Venture Limited Partnership, October 2007-June 2008

MJM-A-6


Project Manager. Oversaw project to provide industry expertise to evaluate issue in case and recommend alternative arguments. Case No. U-15245 On behalf of the Attorney General of the State of Michigan in the matter of the application of Consumers Energy Company for authority to increase its rates for the generation and distribution of electricity and for other relief, July 2007-April 2008 Project Manager and testifying witness. Provided expert testimony on partial and interim rate relief, Consumers’ decision to acquire Zeeland Power Company from Broadway Gen Funding, LLC. Provided testimony in permanent phase to reduce company’s net operating income to more closely reflect the expected costs in 2008. Case No U-15244 On behalf of the Attorney General of the State of Michigan in the matter of the application of Detroit Edison for authority to increase its electric base rates, September 2007-October 2008 Project Manager and testifying witness. Provided expert testimony on revenue requirements. Case No U-15190 On behalf of the Attorney General of the State of Michigan in Base Rate Proceeding for Consumer’s Energy, March-September 2007 Project Manager. Reviewed the revenue decoupling proposal and supported the witness testimony. Case No U-15040 On behalf of the Attorney General of the State of Michigan in Gas Cost Recovery 2007/08 Plan proceeding, March-August 2007 Project Manager and Testifying Witness. Reviewed gas cost recovery plan requirements and provided analysis of the potential benefits of gas procurement hedging program. Case No. U-15001 On behalf of the Attorney General of the State of Michigan in Power Supply Cost Recovery 2007/08 Plan proceeding, November 2006-August 2007 Project Manager and Testifying Witness. Reviewed power supply cost recovery plan requirements and testified to appropriateness of specific components of that factor. Case No. U-14701-R On behalf of the Attorney General of the State of Michigan in Power Supply Cost Recovery 2006/07 reconciliation proceeding, June-November 2007 Project Manager and Testifying Witness. Reviewed power supply cost recovery reconciliation. Case No. U-14547 On behalf of the Attorney General of the State of Michigan in the matter of the application of Consumer Energy Company for authority to increase rates for the distribution of natural gas and for other relief, December 2005-April 2006 Expert Witness and Project Manager. Provided analysis, recommended adjustments and filed testimony for the Michigan Attorney General on Consumers Energy proposed increase to base rates.

MJM-A-7


New Mexico Public Service Commission Special Case Study: Public Service Company of New Mexico NM PRC Docket No. 10-00086-UT, August 2010 Blue Ridge worked with QSI Consulting, Inc. to conduct a training session for the New Mexico PSC Staff and develop training materials for presentation to Commission Staff on the basic elements of future test year proceedings, how those may differ from traditional rate cases, and how to apply and interpret the forecasting methodologies and modeling that will come into play; and analyze the pending PNM rate case and provide an analytic framework for Staff to apply to the forecasting issues in the case. Before the Nova Scotia Utility and Review Board Case No. P-886 On behalf of the Consumer Advocate of the Province of Nova Scotia in the base rate proceeding of Nova Scotia Power, December 2006-March 2007 Project Manager and testifying witness. Provided an evaluation of a management audit of Nova Scotia Power and that report’s usefulness to assess the Company’s management performance and operational efficiency within the context of that proceeding. Before the Public Utilities Commission of Ohio Case No. 08-0917-EL-SSO On behalf of the Ohio Hospital Association in the matter of the Application of American Electric Power of Ohio for authority to increase rates for distribution of electric service. (Hired by Ohio Hospital Association’s attorney for utility matters, Bricker and Eckler, to provide expertise in negotiating rate with American Electric.), September 2008-March 2009 Evaluated revenue and rate impact on member hospitals. Case No. 08-0072-GA-AIR On behalf of the Staff of Ohio Public Utilities Commission in the matter of the Application of Columbia Gas of Ohio, Inc. for authority to increase its gas base rate, April-August 2008 Project Manager. Oversaw multi-discipline team of accountants, auditors, engineers and analysts to conduct a comprehensive rate case audit of Columbia Gas of Ohio’s gas base rate filing. Primary goal of project was to validate information in filing, provide findings conclusions and recommendations concerning the reliability of information and data in the filing and support Staff in its evaluation of the reasonableness of the filing. Case No. 07-0829-GA-AIR On behalf of the Staff of Ohio Public Utilities Commission in the matter of the Application of The East Ohio Gas Company d/b/a Dominion East Ohio for authority to increase its gas base rate, November 2007-April 2008 Project Manager. Oversaw multi-discipline team of accountants, auditors, engineers and analysts to conduct a comprehensive rate case audit of Dominion East Ohio’s gas base rate filing. Primary goal of project was to validate information in filing, provide findings conclusions and recommendations concerning the reliability of information and data in the filing and support Staff in its evaluation of the reasonableness of the filing. Case No. 07-0589-GA-AIR On behalf of the Staff of Ohio Public Utilities Commission in the matter of the Application of Duke Energy Ohio, Inc., for an increase in Gas Rates. November 2007-February 2008

MJM-A-8


Project Manager. Oversaw multi-discipline team of accountants, auditors, engineers and analysts to conduct a comprehensive rate case audit of Duke Energy – Ohio’s gas base rate filing. Primary goal of project was to validate information in filing, provide findings conclusions and recommendations concerning the reliability of information and data in the filing and support Staff in its evaluation of the reasonableness of the filing. Case No. 07-0551-EL-UNC On behalf of the Ohio Schools Council in the matter of the Application of First Energy Ohio (and its operating companies Ohio Edison, Cleveland Electric and Toledo Edison) for authority to Increase rates for distribution service, modify certain accounting practices and for tariff approval, August 2007-April 2008 Project Manager. Hired by Ohio Schools Council’s attorney for utility matters (Bricker and Eckler, LLP) to provide industry expertise in reviewing First Energy’s application with respect to cost of service and rate design and the resulting impact on Council’s member school systems energy costs. Case No. 06-0986-EL-UNC On behalf of the City of Cincinnati in the matter of the Application of Duke Energy Ohio, Inc., to modify its market-based Standard service over, May-August 2007 Project Manager. Hired by City of Cincinnati’s Water and Sewer District attorney for utility matters (Bricker and Eckler, LLP) to provide industry expertise in reviewing Duke Energy Ohio’s proposal and impact on City’s project energy costs. Oregon Public Utilities Commission Docket No. UP205 Examination of NW Natural’s Rate Base and Affiliated Interests Issues Co-sponsored between NW Natural, Staff, Northwest Industrial Gas Users, Citizens Utility Board, August 2005-January 2006 Project Manager. Led a team that conducted a management audit of NW Natural Gas that included an evaluation of rate base issues for Financial Instruments (gas and financial hedging) Deferred Taxes, Tax Credits, Cost for a Distribution System, Security Issuance Costs and AFUDC calculations as well as Affiliate Transactions for Cost Allocations and Transfer Pricing, Labor Loading, Segregation of Regulated Rate Base and Subsidiary Investments and Properties, and validation of tax paid from / to affiliates are proper. Audit was to ensure Company compliance with orders, rules and regulations of the OPUC, with Company policy and with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles. Utah Division of Public Utilities Docket No. 09-035-23 In the Matter of the Application of Rocky Mountain Power for Authority to Increase its Retail Electric Utility Service Rates in Utah and for Approval of its Proposed Electric Service Schedules and Electric Service Regulations, June-December 2009 Project Manager and testifying witness. Verified the reasonableness of the revenue requirements as provided by the company in its application and testified before the Public Service Commission of Utah.

MJM-A-9


Docket No. 09-035-15 In the Matter of the Application of Rocky Mountain Power for Approval of its Proposed Energy Cost Adjustment Mechanism - Net Power Cost Evaluation (NPC), Rocky Mountain Power (RMP) 2009 General Rate Case, July-December 2009 Project Manager and testifying witness. Analyzed the reasonableness and technical accuracy of the RMP’s NPC request, performed a comprehensive review of the Company’s NPC estimate and developed recommendations to ensure an accurate baseline for the ECAM, analyzed special issues addressed in the NPC portion of the case, analyzed the Company’s fuel price hedging policies and provided recommendations appropriate for the ECAM, and reviewed intervener NPC issues as well as analyzing additional issues as raised by the Company and testified to hedging issues. Before the Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission Independent Third-Party Evaluation of Puget Sound Energy’s (PSE) Conservation Incentive Mechanism (ECIM) under the co-direction of PSE and the Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission staff, Phase I: July-October 2009; Phase II: October 2009 – September 2010 Project Manager: Assess the extent to which the design and implementation of the incentive mechanism addressed key issues and objectives required by the Commission: accuracy of implementation in calculations of incentives or penalties, compliance with the conditions and requirements of the pilot program, proper use of the calculation methodology, and which assumptions or methods were used to calculate and verify the savings report. Before the Public Utilities Commission of the State of Colorado Docket No. 04A-050E Review of the Electric Commodity Trading Operations of Public Service Company of Colorado On behalf of the COPUC Staff, March 2004-September 2004 Project Manager. Focused operational audit within the bounds of a litigated proceeding to determine if ratepayers were subsidizing or negatively impacted by PSCo’s energy trading function. South Carolina State Senator Advised Senator on regulatory process for requesting States Public Service Commission for a comprehensive review of Duke Power Company’s storm and restoration and right of way management. Reviewed and advised Senator of results of report finding. Before the Missouri Public Service Commission Consultant to Ameren UE. Conducted revenue requirement analysis in preparation of Missouri Public Service Commission compliance filing to un-bundle utility’s rate tariffs. Prepared the filing requirements and all support schedules analysis to justify allocations of generation, transmission and distribution.

MJM-A-10


Southern Connecticut Gas Consultant. As part of a team that conducted a comprehensive management audit of the management and operations of the Company, completed the capital budgeting area of the audit. Before the New York Public Service Commission Case: 94-C-0657 Commission Staff. Proceeding to evaluate the compliance of NYNEX with Commission rules and orders related to operational support system costs to competitors. Part of staff panel to facilitate discussion between company and potential competitors (i.e., users of operational support systems) and report back to Commission. Focused review of the preparedness of RG&E and ConEd for competition in the electric industry. Evaluated all aspects of the company’s management actions to prepare for competition including strategic planning, goals and objectives and senior management’s attention to the company operations in a de-regulated industry Case: 97-M-0567 Commission Staff. Litigated proceeding to determine the benefits of a proposed merger of LILCO / Brooklyn Union Gas. Analyzed the proposed synergy savings. Case: 96-E-0132 Show Cause Proceeding Regarding Rate Relief for Ratepayers of Long Island Lighting Company Commission Staff and Testifying Witness. Litigated proceeding where Staff proffered testimony containing a benchmark study showing that Long Island Lighting Company’s operations and maintenance expenses were excessive compared to a peer group of 24 utilities. Panel testimony concerning the findings and conclusions resulting from the benchmark study. Case: 96-M-0858 Prudence Investigation into the Scrap Handling Practices in the Western Division of Niagara Mohawk Power Company Commission Staff and Testifying Witness. Litigated proceeding as a result of allegations of bribery and corruption in company practices related to a specific vendor who purchased company scrap metal. Lead team of 10 staff examiners to quantify the extent to which the Company paid excessive rates to this vendor. Testified to the findings of the analysis. Case settled with ratepayers receiving a credit to bills Case: 91-C-0613 Operational Audit of the Outside Plant Construction and Rehabilitation Program of New York Telephone Company Commission Staff. Comprehensive operational audit of the company’s management and implementation of a $150 million capital program to rehabilitate the outside plant distribution network. Served as Staff Examiner responsible for crew supervision, goals monitoring, contractor oversight, and report preparation. Case: 91-W-0583 Prudence Proceeding Regarding the Operations and Management of Jamaica Water

MJM-A-11


Commission Staff and Testifying Witness. Litigated proceeding as a result of audit to determine extent to which management inattention and inappropriate practices resulted in excessive costs to rate payers. Testified on a Staff panel to the excessive costs associated with management’s inattention to sound business practices related to the design, purchase and installation of the Company customer information system. Case: 92-W-0030 Operational Audit of Jamaica Water Company Operations and Management Commission Staff. Comprehensive management audit of company operations. Responsible for work plan development, and specific topics areas including engineering, contracting, and information technology. Findings led to prudence proceeding. Case: 92-M-0973 Management Audit of Rochester Gas and Electric Commission Staff. Comprehensive management audit of company operations. Responsible for work plan development, supervision of staff and specific topics areas including purchasing and internal controls. Case: 93-E-0918 Operational Audit of the Demand Side Management Function at Rochester Gas and Electric Commission Staff. Comprehensive operational audit of the demand side management function including program planning, management and energy savings verification. Developed and supervised the implementation of the work plan. Case: 88005 Operational Audit of the Materials and Supply Function at National Fuel Gas Commission Staff. Comprehensive operational audit of the materials and supplies function including warehouse operations, inventory control and procurement. Developed and implemented the work plan for this project. Operational Audit of the Fuel Procurement and Contracting of Long Island Lighting Company Commission Staff. Comprehensive operational audit to determine effectiveness of ratepayer funds spent on non-nuclear fuel. Provided research and data evaluation expertise to the project. Operational Audit of the Fuel Procurement and Contracting of Consolidated Edison Company of New York Commission Staff. Comprehensive operational audit to determine effectiveness of ratepayer funds spent on non-nuclear fuel. Provided research and data evaluation expertise to the project Case: 90007 Operational Audit of the Fuel Procurement and Contracting of Central Hudson Gas and Electric Commission Staff. Comprehensive operational audit to determine effectiveness of ratepayer funds spent on non-nuclear fuel. Provided research and data evaluation expertise to the project

MJM-A-12


Operational Audit of the Fuel Procurement and Contracting of Orange and Rockland Utilities Commission Staff. Comprehensive operational audit to determine effectiveness of ratepayer funds spent on non-nuclear fuel. Provided research and data evaluation expertise to the project Operational Audit of the Fuel Procurement and Contracting of Rochester Gas and Electric Commission Staff. Comprehensive operational audit to determine effectiveness of ratepayer funds spent on nuclear fuel. Provided research and data evaluation expertise to the project Case: 98-E-115 Prudence Proceeding to Investigate the Construction Costs Associated with the Homer City Coal Cleaning Plant Commission Staff and Testifying Witness. Litigated proceeding as a result of audit to determine extent to which management inattention and inappropriate practices resulted in excessive construction charges related to the Homer City Coal Cleaning Plant. Testified on a Staff panel to the fuel price differential costs resulting from the failure of the coal cleaning plant to function as designed as well as surrebuttal testimony on the cost of a flu-gas de-sulfurization plant and ancillary equipment and facilities. Case settled with customers receiving $125 million credit. Case: 87003 Operational Audit of the Homer City Coal Cleaning Plant Commission Staff. Comprehensive operational audit to determine effectiveness of ratepayer funds spent on the construction of the Homer City Coal Cleaning Plant jointly owned by NYSEG and Penelec. Responsible for fuel and construction costs analysis, benchmarking costs and alternative methods for meeting EPA Clean air restrictions, contracting practices and report preparation. Case: 87003 Operational Audit of the Fuel Procurement and Contracting of New York State Electric and Gas Commission Staff. Comprehensive operational audit to determine effectiveness of ratepayer funds spent on non-nuclear fuel. Responsible for fuel cost analysis, benchmarking costs, contracting practices and report preparation. Case: 86007 Operational Audit of the Field Crew Supervision and Utilization of New York State Electric and Gas Company Commission Staff. Comprehensive operational audit to determine effectiveness of field crew utilization and supervision. Staff examiner responsible for verifying supervisor activities, reporting, goals attainment and report preparation. Case: 86005 Prudence Proceeding to Investigate the Fuel Procurement and Contracting Practices at Niagara Mohawk Power Company Commission Staff. Litigated proceeding as a result of audit to determine extent to which management inattention and inappropriate practices resulted in excessive fuel charges to

MJM-A-13


MJM-A-14

customers. Responsible for fuel cost analysis and benchmarking costs, contracting practices and testimony preparation. Case settled with customers receiving $66 million credit. Case: 86005 Operational Audit of the Fuel Procurement and Contracting of Niagara Mohawk Power Company. Commission Staff. Comprehensive operational audit to determine effectiveness of ratepayer funds spent on non-nuclear fuel. Responsible for fuel cost analysis and benchmarking costs, contracting practices and report preparation. Case: 85001 Operational Audit of the Research and Development Function of Consolidated Edison Company of New York Commission Staff. Comprehensive operational audit to determine effectiveness of ratepayer funds spent on R&D activities. Staff examiner on the project responsible for reviewing projects documentation and control, outside contracting a report preparation.

mike cox attorney general - force.com

Documents