STATE OF NEW JERSEY OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW BEFORE HONORABLE WALTER J. BRASWELL ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

Transcription

1 STATE OF NEW JERSEY OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW BEFORE HONORABLE WALTER J. BRASWELL I/M/O THE PETITION OF PUBLIC SERVICE ELECTRIC AND GAS COMPANY FOR APPROVAL OF AN INCREASE IN ELECTRIC AND GAS RATES AND FOR CHANGES IN THE TARIFFS FOR ELECTRIC AND GAS SERVICE, B.P.U. N.J. NO. 14 ELECTRIC AND B.P.U. N.J. NO. 14 GAS PURSUANT TO N.J.S.A. 48: 2-21 AND N.J.S.A. 48: AND FOR APPROVAL OF GAS WEATHER NORMALIZATION; A PENSION EXPENSE TRACKER AND FOR OTHER APPROPRIATE RELIEF ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) BPU DOCKET No. GR OAL DOCKET No. PUC TESTIMONY OF ROBERT J. HENKES ON BEHALF OF THE NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF THE PUBLIC ADVOCATE DIVISION OF RATE COUNSEL RONALD K. CHEN PUBLIC ADVOCATE OF NEW JERSEY STEFANIE A. BRAND, ESQ. DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF RATE COUNSEL DIVISION OF RATE COUNSEL 31 Clinton Street, 11 th Floor P. O. Box Newark, New Jersey Phone: njratepayer@rpa.state.nj.us FILED: NOVEMBER 19, 2009

2 PUBLIC SERVICE ELECTRIC AND GAS COMPANY BPU Docket No. GR Direct Testimony of Robert J. Henkes TABLE OF CONTENTS Page I. STATEMENT OF QUALIFICATIONS. 1 II. SCOPE AND PURPOSE OF TESTIMONY 3 III. PENSION EXPENSE TRACKER 4 APPENDIX I:

3 Direct Testimony of Robert J. Henkes Public Service Electric and Gas Company BPU Docket No. GR I. STATEMENT OF QUALIFICATIONS Q. WOULD YOU STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS? A. My name is Robert J. Henkes and my business address is 7 Sunset Road, Old Greenwich, Connecticut Q. WHAT IS YOUR PRESENT OCCUPATION? A. I am Principal and founder of Henkes Consulting, a financial consulting firm that specializes in utility regulation Q. WHAT IS YOUR REGULATORY EXPERIENCE? A. I have prepared and presented numerous testimonies in rate proceedings involving electric, gas, telephone, water and wastewater companies in jurisdictions nationwide including Arkansas, Delaware, District of Columbia, Georgia, Kentucky, Maryland, New Jersey, New Mexico, Pennsylvania, Vermont, the U.S. Virgin Islands and before the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. A complete listing of jurisdictions and rate proceedings in which I have been involved is provided in Appendix I attached to this testimony. 1

4 Direct Testimony of Robert J. Henkes Public Service Electric and Gas Company BPU Docket No. GR Q. WHAT OTHER PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE HAVE YOU HAD? A. Prior to founding Henkes Consulting in 1999, I was a Principal of The Georgetown Consulting Group, Inc. for over 20 years. At Georgetown Consulting I performed the same type of consulting services as I am currently rendering through Henkes Consulting. Prior to my association with Georgetown Consulting, I was employed by the American Can Company as Manager of Financial Controls. Before joining the American Can Company, I was employed by the management consulting division of Touche Ross & Company (now Deloitte & Touche) for over six years. At Touche Ross, my experience, in addition to regulatory work, included numerous projects in a wide variety of industries and financial disciplines such as cash flow projections, bonding feasibility, capital and profit forecasting, and the design and implementation of accounting and budgetary reporting and control systems Q. WHAT IS YOUR EDUCATIONAL BACKGROUND? A. I hold a Bachelor degree in Management Science received from the Netherlands School of Business, The Netherlands in 1966; a Bachelor of Arts degree received from the University of Puget Sound, Tacoma, Washington in 1971; and an MBA degree in Finance received from Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan in I have also completed the CPA program of the New York University Graduate School of Business. 20 2

5 Direct Testimony of Robert J. Henkes Public Service Electric and Gas Company BPU Docket No. GR II. SCOPE AND PURPOSE OF TESTIMONY Q. WHAT IS THE SCOPE AND PURPOSE OF THIS TESTIMONY? A. I was engaged by the New Jersey Department of the Public Advocate, Division of Rate Counsel ( Rate Counsel ) to conduct a review and analysis and present testimony with regard to the Pension Expense Tracker proposed by Public Service Electric and Gas Company ( PSE&G or the Company ) as part of its combined electric and gas base rate filing The purpose of this testimony is to present to the New Jersey Board of Public Utilities ( BPU or the Board ) Rate Counsel s recommended position regarding the Company s proposed Pension Expense Tracker In developing this testimony, I have reviewed PSE&G s initial and supplemental filings; supporting testimonies and exhibits; and responses to initial and follow-up data requests issued by Rate Counsel and the BPU Staff with regard to the Pension Expense Tracker issue Q. WAS THIS TESTIMONY PREPARED BY YOU OR UNDER YOUR DIRECT SUPERVISION? A. Yes, this testimony was prepared by me

6 Direct Testimony of Robert J. Henkes Public Service Electric and Gas Company BPU Docket No. GR III. PENSION EXPENSE TRACKER Q. PLEASE GENERALLY DESCRIBE THE PENSION EXPENSE TRACKER ( PET ) RATE MECHANISM THE COMPANY HAS PROPOSED IN THIS CASE. A. In this case, PSE&G has proposed a new rate mechanism (the PET) which would allow the implementation of a reconcilable tracker to recover the Company s annual pension expenses on a guaranteed, dollar-for-dollar basis. The PET is proposed to become part of the Company s current Capital Adjustment Clause ( CAC ) that was established by the Board in April 2009 to collect costs associated with PSE&G s Capital Economic Stimulus Infrastructure Investments ( CESI ) program The proposed PET is addressed in the testimony of PSE&G witness Mark Kahrer. In his testimony, Mr. Kahrer states that, due to the recent collapse of the financial markets, PSE&G is experiencing a very substantial increase in its pension expense. As an example of that, Mr. Kahrer claims that while the Company s actual pension expenses in 2008 amounted to $8.3 million 1, based upon the latest actuarial report, the equivalent 2009 test year expense has increased to $73.7 million, and the Company expects a further expense increase to approximately $82 million at March 1, 2010, the date new base rates are 19 expected to go into effect. 2 In order to maintain financial stability, the Company is therefore proposing the PET which would provide revenues for full collection of pension costs through the CAC. 1 In its responses to RCR-PT22(a)(g), Mr. Kahrer confirms that this $8.3 million expense amount is incorrect and that the correct pension expense amount booked by PSE&G in 2008 is $13.3 million. 2 Testimony of Mr. Kahrer, page 17, lines

7 Direct Testimony of Robert J. Henkes Public Service Electric and Gas Company BPU Docket No. GR The PET is proposed to operate in the following way: 1) The current distribution base rate case will establish a revenue level sufficient to recover the level of pension expense to be incurred by PSE&G s electric and gas distribution operations for the 12-month rate year ending February 28, 2011; 3 2) Any difference between the Company s actual annual pension expenses (established by PSE&G s actuary in accordance with FASB 87) and the pension expenses included in base rates to be established in this case will be deferred each month and included in the CAC over/(under) recovered balance; 3) CAC rates being reset on January 1 st each year, will reflect revenue requirements associated with the PET in the CAC that adjusts for any over/(under) recovery and reflects the difference between the actual pension expense level and the level of expense reflected in base rates; 4) At the next and all subsequent distribution base rate cases, after the implementation of this proposed change to the CAC, pension expense levels to be recovered in base rates will be reset, thereby resetting the base upon which the adjustment to be collected through the CAC will be determined going forward An illustrative example of the proposed PET rate mechanism is contained in the response to RCR-PT-17. There is no impact of the proposed change to the CAC associated with the PET as of this time. The first impact on the CAC would be when the CAC rate is reset on January 1, Based on the assumption that the rates to be established in this case will become effective March 1,

8 Direct Testimony of Robert J. Henkes Public Service Electric and Gas Company BPU Docket No. GR Q. PLEASE STATE YOUR OVERALL RECOMMENDATION REGARDING THE COMPANY S PROPOSED PET RATE MECHANISM. A. I recommend that PSE&G s proposed PET rate mechanism be rejected by the Board as this proposed rate mechanism: 1) Represents inappropriate single-issue ratemaking; 2) Is in violation of accepted ratemaking principles and inconsistent with appropriate regulatory policy; 3) Represents a request for extraordinary remedy that is not warranted and is unsubstantiated; and 4) Reduces the Company s incentive to manage its pension plan and associated expenses in the most efficient manner and at the lowest possible cost Q. WHY DOES PSE&G S PET PROPOSAL REPRESENT INAPPROPRIATE SINGLE-ISSUE RATEMAKING? A. A very important principle of proper ratemaking is the principle of matching all of the components in the ratemaking formula. In other words, at the time rates are set or changed, all of the ratemaking components that determine a utility s revenue requirement within a defined test period must be considered and subjected to regulatory review. The proposed PET rate mechanism violates this matching principle because it would permit PSE&G to change its rates between rate cases based on the consideration of one selected ratemaking component without at the same time considering changes in all other ratemaking components. Under a proper regulatory process, the appropriate measure is not whether 6

9 Direct Testimony of Robert J. Henkes Public Service Electric and Gas Company BPU Docket No. GR one single cost element has changed, but, rather whether an appropriate rate of return is being achieved. Thus, the proposed PET would inappropriately change rates without regulatory scrutiny of all of PSE&G s revenue requirement components and could result in an achieved return higher than justified if all components of the ratemaking formula were considered. This single-issue ratemaking proposal is inappropriate and should be rejected by the Board Q. WHY IS THE COMPANY S PROPOSED PET RATE MECHANISM IN VIOLATION OF ACCEPTED RATEMAKING PRINCIPLES AND INCONSISTENT WITH APPROPRIATE REGULATORY POLICY? A. The Company s pension expenses represent ordinary business expenses that have traditionally been recovered in the Company s base rates, similar to wages and salaries, medical expenses, insurance expenses, taxes, etc. The proposed PET rate mechanism 14 represents a drastic move away from this traditional regulatory approach. It seeks a guaranteed, dollar-for-dollar recovery of selective costs incurred between rate cases. One of the most important tenets of ratemaking is that utilities are not guaranteed cost recovery; rather, the ratemaking process entitles the utility no more than a reasonable opportunity to 18 recover its costs and earn a fair rate of return. Regulation is not intended to be a mechanism whereby a utility is guaranteed dollar-for-dollar recovery of its costs. This inappropriate kind of regulation is generally referred to as reimbursement ratemaking. Instead, traditional regulation is based on the principle that the utility has an opportunity to recover its costs and earn its rate of return. It is poor regulatory policy to guarantee revenue requirement recovery because the production of safe, adequate and proper utility 7

10 Direct Testimony of Robert J. Henkes Public Service Electric and Gas Company BPU Docket No. GR services at the lowest possible cost requires that a company exert itself and work efficiently; and I believe that the Company will be less likely to do so if it is guaranteed that the consequences of its operating decisions are immune from any cost recovery risks By proposing the PET rate mechanism, the Company has completely disregarded the foundation upon which the regulatory process was developed, that is, that regulation is supposed to be a substitute for competition. This principal of regulation was designed to stimulate a utility to act as it would if it were in a competitive industry. Clearly, if a utility s cost recovery is guaranteed, this represents a departure from traditional ratemaking foundations. Competitive entities do not have any such return guarantees. Regulation is intended to take the place of competition, therefore, regulated entities should not receive guaranteed cost recovery if such guarantees are not available in the competitive marketplace In summary, this issue represents a major policy decision to be made by the Board in this case. Either the Board can retain the current regulatory process, where the risks and rewards of the efficient operation of the Company remain with the utility and which provides the utility the opportunity to recover its costs and earn its authorized rate of return, or it can resort to reimbursement ratemaking which shifts all the risks 4 to the ratepayers and guarantees dollar-for-dollar recovery of the utility s pension costs. For all of the preceding and following reasons, I would respectfully urge the Board to favor the first alternative Ordinarily, the risks of stock market fluctuations are borne by the utility. 8

11 Direct Testimony of Robert J. Henkes Public Service Electric and Gas Company BPU Docket No. GR Q. HAS THE COMPANY SUBSTANTIATED THE NEED FOR THE PROPOSED PET RATE MECHANISM? A. No. The proposed PET rate mechanism is essentially a request by PSE&G for 4 extraordinary rate relief. As I explained before, traditional ratemaking involves the establishment of a base rate that allows the utility a reasonable opportunity to recover its cost of service and to earn a fair rate of return but does not guarantee either. Both the risk and reward of the efficient operation of the company are on the utility when the cost of service is recovered through base rates. Adjustment clauses such as the proposed PET rate mechanism are formula rates that set up the elements of cost to be collected under the rate. The purpose of an adjustment clause is to guarantee rate recovery for the particular ratemaking element for which the clause was set up From a regulatory policy standpoint, the impact of an adjustment clause established in the context of a general rate case - where the base rates are set based on traditional principles of ratemaking - is to declare that the general rates established in the case cannot in and of themselves be fair, just and reasonable because the revenue requirement covered by the clause cannot be accommodated within the traditional ratemaking process. Typically, the use of reconcilable surcharges or adjustment clauses to provide a utility with extraordinary rate relief have been limited to costs of service that have a significant impact on the utility s financial condition. These are the properties that underlie the most commonly utilized adjustment clauses such as fuel adjustment clauses and gas cost recovery clauses. Extraordinary rate relief through an automatic rate adjustment mechanism should be allowed only when warranted by conditions that could jeopardize the financial well-being 9

12 Direct Testimony of Robert J. Henkes Public Service Electric and Gas Company BPU Docket No. GR of the utility. 2 3 PSE&G s proposed PET rate mechanism does not meet this requirement. In the table below, I have listed the Company s actual gas and electric distribution-related pension O&M expenses as a percentage of the Company s total actual gas and electric distribution O&M expenses from 2001 through the 2009 test year (6+6 basis): Gas/Electric Pension Total Gas/Electric Distribution O&M Exp. Distribution O&M Exp. ($millions) 5 ($millions) 6 Percentage ,928.56% , , , , , , , (6+6) , As shown in the above table, during the last 8 years, from 2001 through 2008, the Company s gas/electric pension distribution O&M expenses have been less than 1%, and have averaged around.57%, of the Company s total gas/electric distribution O&M expenses. While the Company s estimated 2009 pension O&M expense of $73.9 million represents a large increase from 2008, it still represents a very small percentage (approximately 1.1%) of the Company s total estimated 2009 O&M expenses. Thus, I do not believe that this issue is material enough to warrant the extraordinary rate treatment Response to RCR-PT-1 Response to RCR-PT-10 Exhibit P-7, Schedule MGK-31 R-1 10

13 Direct Testimony of Robert J. Henkes Public Service Electric and Gas Company BPU Docket No. GR proposed by the Company in the form of the PET rate mechanism. In addition, the Company has not provided evidence in this case that its future projected pension expenses, absent the proposed PET rate mechanism, will have a significant impact on PSE&G s overall financial condition, or could jeopardize the financial well-being of the Company In summary, I do not believe that PSE&G has met the burden of proof that there is a true and legitimate need for the extraordinary remedy sought by it in this case through the proposed PET rate mechanism Q. DOES THE PROPOSED PET RATE MECHANISM PROVIDE THE PROPER INCENTIVE FOR PSE&G TO RUN ITS OPERATIONS AT THE LOWEST POSSIBLE COST? A. No, it does not. Under current traditional ratemaking, PSE&G management has an incentive to make efficient and economical pension plan decisions as the Company strives to achieve its rate of return objectives. Based on the current economic climate, many companies are right-sizing costs, including pension obligations. PSE&G could similarly be motivated to re-evaluate its pension obligations. However, this incentive will be lost if the PET rate mechanism is implemented. The guaranteed pension cost recovery provided by the proposed PET removes or reduces the incentives for the Company to manage its pension obligations in the most efficient manner and at the lowest possible cost. If these incentives are removed or reduced through the implementation of the PET, it may leave ratepayers to fund unnecessarily high pension expenses with a reduced prospect for 23 management attention to pension expense containment. Guaranteed cost recovery 11

14 Direct Testimony of Robert J. Henkes Public Service Electric and Gas Company BPU Docket No. GR mechanisms such as the proposed PET that diminish the incentive for a utility to efficiently and cost-effectively manage its costs remove some of the ratepayer protections provided under traditional regulation Q. MR. HENKES, DOES THIS CONCLUDE YOUR TESTIMONY? A. Yes, it does

15 APPENDIX I PRIOR REGULATORY EXPERIENCE OF ROBERT J. HENKES

16 Appendix Page 1 * = Testimonies prepared and submitted ARKANSAS Southwestern Bell Telephone Company Docket U 09/1983 Divestiture DELAWARE Delmarva Power and Light Company Docket /1980 Electric Fuel Clause Proceeding Delmarva Power and Light Company Docket /1981 Electric Fuel Clause Proceeding Delmarva Power and Light Company Complaint 04/1981 Sale of Power Station Generation Docket Delmarva Power and Light Company Docket /1981 Delmarva Power and Light Company Docket /1981 Gas Delmarva Power and Light Company Docket /1983 Electric Fuel Clause Proceeding* Delmarva Power and Light Company Docket /1984 Electric Fuel Clause Proceeding* Delmarva Power and Light Company Docket /1985 Electric Fuel Clause Proceeding* Delmarva Power and Light Company Docket /1986 Electric Fuel Clause Proceeding* Delmarva Power and Light Company Docket /1986 Report of DP&L Operating Earnings* Delmarva Power and Light Company Docket /1986 * 01/1987 Delmarva Power and Light Company Docket /1986 Report Re. PROMOD and Its Use in

17 Appendix Page 2 Fuel Clause Proceedings* Diamond State Telephone Company Docket /1987 Delmarva Power and Light Company Docket /1988 Electric Fuel Clause Proceeding* Delmarva Power and Light Company Docket 90-35F 05/1991 Electric Fuel Clause Proceeding* Delmarva Power and Light Company Docket /1991 * Delmarva Power and Light Company Docket /1992 Gas Artesian Water Company Docket /1997 Artesian Water Company Docket /1998 United Water Delaware Docket /1998 Delmarva Power and Light Company Not Docketed 12/1998 Revenue Requirement and Stranded Cost Reviews Artesian Water Company Docket /1999 (Direct Test.) Artesian Water Company Docket /1999 (Supplement. Test) Tidewater Utilities/ Public Water Co. Docket No /2000 s* Delmarva Power & Light Company Docket No /2001 Competitive Services Margin Sharing Proceeding* Artesian Water Company Docket No /2001 Chesapeake Gas Company Docket No /2001

18 Appendix Page 3 Gas Tidewater Utilities Docket No /2002 Artesian Water Company Docket No /2002 Delmarva Power & Light Company Docket No /2003 Electric Cost of Service Proceeding Delmarva Power & Light Company Docket No /2003 Gas Artesian Water Company Docket No /2004 United Water Delaware Docket No /2006 United Water Delaware Docket No /2009 DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA District of Columbia Natural Gas Co. Formal Case /1988 Gas District of Columbia Natural Gas Co. Formal Case /1990 Gas District of Columbia Natural Gas Co. Formal Case /1990 Waiver of Certain GS Provisions Chesapeake and Potomac Telephone Co. Formal Case /1991 Chesapeake and Potomac Telephone Co. Formal Case /1993 Bell Atlantic - District of Columbia Formal Case /19/94 SPF Surcharge Proceeding Bell Atlantic - District of Columbia Formal Case 814 IV 07/1995 Price Cap Plan and Earnings Review

19 Appendix Page 4 GEORGIA Southern Bell Telephone Company Docket 3465-U 08/1984 Base Rate Proceeding Southern Bell Telephone Company Docket 3518-U 08/1985 Base Rate Proceeding Georgia Power Company Docket 3673-U 08/1987 Electric Base Rate and Nuclear Power Plant Phase-In Proceeding* Georgia Power Company Docket 3840-U 08/1989 Electric Base Rate and Nuclear Power Plant Phase-In Proceeding* Southern Bell Telephone Company Docket 3905-U 08/1990 Base Rate Proceeding Southern Bell Telephone Company Docket 3921-U 10/1990 Implementation, Administration and Mechanics of Universal Service Fund* Atlanta Gas Light Company Docket 4177-U 08/1992 Gas Southern Bell Telephone Company Docket 3905-U 03/1993 Report on Cash Working Capital* Atlanta Gas Light Company Docket No U 08/1993 Gas Atlanta Gas Light Company Docket No U 08/1994 Gas Base Rate Proceeding Georgia Independent Telephone Companies Various Dockets 1994 Earnings Review and Show Cause Proceedings Georgia Power Company Earnings Review - Report to GPSC* Non-Docketed 09/1995 Georgia Alltel Telecommunication Companies Earnings and Rate Reviews Docket No U 07/1996

20 Appendix Page 5 Frontier Communications of Georgia Earnings and Rate Review Docket No U 07/1996 Georgia Power Company Electric Base Rate / Accounting Order Proceeding Docket No U 12/1998 Savannah Electric Power Company Docket No U 03/2002 Electric Base Rate Case/Alternative Rate Plan* Georgia Power Company Electric Base Rate / Alternative Rate Plan Proceeding* Docket No U 12/2004 Savannah Electric Power Company Docket No U 03/2005 Electric Base Rate Case/Alternative Rate Plan* Georgia Power Company Docket No U 10/2007 Electric Base Rate Case/Alternative Rate Plan* FERC Philadelphia Electric/Conowingo Power Docket ER /558 07/1981 * KENTUCKY Kentucky Power Company Case /1982 * Kentucky Power Company Case /1983 * Kentucky Power Company Case /1984 * South Central Bell Telephone Company Case /1985 Kentucky-American Water Company Case /1997 Delta Natural Gas Company Case /1997

21 Appendix Page 6 Kentucky Utilities and LG&E Company 97-SC-1091-DG 01/1999 Environmental Surcharge Proceeding Delta Natural Gas Company Case No /1999 Experimental Alternative Regulation Plan* Delta Natural Gas Company Case No /1999 Louisville Gas & Electric Company Case No /2000 Gas Kentucky-American Water Company Case No /2000 Jackson Energy Cooperative Corporation Case No /2001 * Kentucky-American Water Company Case No /2001 Base Rate Rehearing* Kentucky-American Water Company Case No /2001 Rehearing Opposition Testimony* Union Light Heat and Power Company Case No /2001 Gas Louisville Gas & Electric Company and Kentucky Utilities Company Deferred Debits Accounting Order Case No /2001 Fleming-Mason Energy Cooperative Case No /2002 Northern Kentucky Water District Case No /2004 Water District Base Rate Proceeding Louisville Gas & Electric Company Case No /2004 * Louisville Gas & Electric Company Case No /2004 Gas Delta Natural Gas Company Case No /2004

22 Appendix Page 7 Union Light Heat and Power Company Case No /2005 Gas Big Sandy Rural Electric Cooperative Case No /2005 Louisville Gas & Electric Company Case No /2005 Value Delivery Surcredit Mechanism* Kentucky Utilities Company Case No /2005 Value Delivery Surcredit Mechanism* Kentucky Power Company Case No /2006 * Cumberland Valley Electric Cooperative Case No /2006 South Kentucky Rural Electric Cooperative Case No /2006 Duke Energy Kentucky Case No /2006 * Atmos Energy Corporation Case No /2006 Gas Show Cause Proceeding* Inter County Electric Cooperative Case No /2007 Atmos Energy Corporation Case No /2007 Gas Columbia Gas of Kentucky Case No /2007 Gas Delta Natural Gas Company Case No /2007 Gas Base Rate Proceeding Alternative Rate Mechanism* Nolin Rural Electric Cooperative Corporation Case No /2007 Electric Rate Proceeding Fleming-Mason Energy Cooperative Case No /2007

23 Appendix Page 8 Jasckson Energy Cooperative Case No /2008 Jackson Purchase Energy Corporation Case No /2008 Blue Grass Energy Cooperative Case No /2008 Louisville Gas & Electric Company Case No /2008 Electric and Gas Base Rate Proceedings* Kentucky Utilities Company Case No /2008 * Owen Electric Cooperative Corporation Case No /2008 Kenergy Corporation Case No /2008 Kentucky-American Water Company Case No /2009 Grayson Rural Electric Cooperative Case No /2009 Farmers Rural Electric Cooperative Case No /2009 Big Sandy Electric Cooperative Case No oo401 04/2009 Columbia Gas Company Case No /2009 Gas Duke Energy Kentucky Case No /2009 Gas Licking Valley Rural Electric Cooperative Case No /2009 MAINE Continental Telephone Company of Maine Docket /1990

24 Appendix Page 9 Base Rate Proceeding Central Maine Power Company Docket /1991 New England Telephone Corporation - Maine Docket /1994 Chapter 120 Earnings Review MARYLAND Potomac Electric Power Company Case /1980 * Delmarva Power and Light Company Case /1980 * Chesapeake and Potomac Telephone Company Case /1980 Western Electric and License Contract Chesapeake and Potomac Telephone Company Case /1980 Washington Gas Light Company Case /1980 Gas Base Rate Proceeding Delmarva Power and Light Company Case /1981 * Chesapeake and Potomac Telephone Company Case /1981 Chesapeake and Potomac Telephone Company Case /1982 Chesapeake and Potomac Telephone Company Case /1982 Computer Inquiry II* Chesapeake and Potomac Telephone Company Case /1983 Divestiture AT&T Communications of Maryland Case Base Rate Proceeding Chesapeake and Potomac Telephone Company Case /1985

25 Appendix Page 10 Potomac Electric Power Company Case Delmarva Power and Light Company Case NEW HAMPSHIRE Granite State Electric Company Docket DR NEW JERSEY Elizabethtown Water Company Docket /1975 Jersey Central Power and Light Company Docket /1975 Middlesex Water Company Docket /1976 Jersey Central Power and Light Company Docket /1976 Public Service Electric and Gas Company Docket /1976 Electric and Gas Base Rate Proceedings Atlantic City Electric Company Docket /1977 * Public Service Electric and Gas Company Docket /1978 Electric and Gas Base Rate Proceedings* Public Service Electric and Gas Company Docket /1979 Raw Materials Adjustment Clause Rockland Electric Company Docket /1979 * New Jersey Bell Telephone Company Docket /1980 Base Rate Proceeding

26 Appendix Page 11 Rockland Electric Company Docket /1981 Electric Fuel Clause Proceeding* Rockland Electric Company Docket /1981 * Rockland Electric Company Docket /1982 Electric Fuel Clause Proceeding* Public Service Electric and Gas Company Docket /1982 Electric Fuel Clause Proceeding* Public Service Electric and Gas Company Docket /1982 Raw Materials Adjustment Clause New Jersey Bell Telephone Company Docket /1982 Base Rate Proceeding Rockland Electric Company Docket /1982 Electric Fuel Clause Proceeding* Public Service Electric and Gas Company Docket /1983 Electric and Gas Base Rate Proceedings* New Jersey Bell Telephone Company Docket /1983 Base Rate Proceeding AT&T Communications of New Jersey Docket /1984 Rockland Electric Company Docket /1984 Electric Fuel Clause Proceeding* AT&T Communications of New Jersey Docket /1985 Public Service Electric and Gas Company Docket ER /1986 Electric and Gas Base Rate Proceedings* Public Service Electric and Gas Company Docket ER /1986 Electric Fuel Clause Proceeding* Rockland Electric Company Docket ER /1986 Electric Fuel Clause Proceeding* Rockland Electric Company Docket ER /1988

27 Appendix Page 12 Electric Fuel Clause Proceeding* Public Service Electric and Gas Company Docket ER /1988 Electric Fuel Clause Proceeding* United Telephone of New Jersey Docket TR /1989 Base Rate Proceeding Rockland Electric Company Docket ER /1990 Electric Fuel Clause Proceeding* United Telephone of New Jersey Docket TR J 02/1991 Base Rate Proceeding Elizabethtown Gas Company Docket GR J 05/1991 Gas Rockland Electric Company Docket ER J 11/1991 Electric Fuel Clause Proceeding Jersey Central Power and Light Company Docket ER J 03/1992 Electric Fuel Clause Proceeding New Jersey Natural Gas Company Docket GR J 03/1992 Gas Public Service Electric and Gas Company Docket ER J 07/1992 Electric and Gas Base Rate Proceedings* Rockland Electric Company Docket ER J 12/1992 Electric Fuel Clause Proceeding Middlesex Water Company Docket WR J 01/1993 Elizabethtown Water Company Docket WR J 02/1993 Public Service Electric and Gas Company Docket ER J 03/1993 Electric Fuel Clause Proceeding New Jersey Natural Gas Company Docket GR /1993 Gas Atlantic City Electric Company Docket ER /1994 Electric Fuel Clause Proceeding

28 Appendix Page 13 Borough of Butler Electric Utility Docket ER Various Electric Fuel Clause Proceedings Elizabethtown Water Company Non-Docketed 11/1994 Public Service Electric and Gas Company Docket ER /1994 Electric Fuel Clause Proceeding Rockland Electric Company Electric Fuel Clause Proceeding and Docket Nos Purchased Power Contract By-Out and ER /1994 Jersey Central Power & Light Company Docket ER /1995 Electric Fuel Clause Proceeding Elizabethtown Water Company Docket WR /1995 Purchased Water Adjustment Clause Proceeding* Middlesex Water Company Docket WR /1995 Purchased Water Adjustment Clause Proceeding New Jersey American Water Company* Docket WR /1996 Base Rate Proceeding Rockland Electric Company Docket ER /1996 Electric Fuel Clause Proceeding United Water of New Jersey Docket WR /1996 Elizabethtown Water Company Docket WR /1996 New Jersey Water and Sewer Adjustment Clauses Non-Docketed 03/1996 Rulemaking Proceeding* United Water Vernon Sewage Company Docket WR /1996 United Water Great Gorge Company Docket WR /1996 South Jersey Gas Company Docket GR /1996 Base Rate Proceeding

29 Appendix Page 14 Middlesex Water Company Docket WR /1996 Purchased Water Adjustment Clause Proceeding* Atlantic City Electric Company Docket No.ER /1996 Fuel Adjustment Clause Proceeding* Public Service Electric & Gas Company and Docket Nos. ES Atlantic City Electric Company & ES /1996 Investigation into the continuing outage of the Salem Nuclear Generating Station* Rockland Electric Company Docket No.EC /1997 Electric Fuel Clause Proceeding* Consumers New Jersey Water Company Docket No.WR /1997 Atlantic City Electric Company Docket No.ER /1997 Fuel Adjustment Clause Proceeding* Public Service Electric & Gas Company Electric Restructuring Proceedings* Docket Nos. EX912058Y, EO , EO , EO /1997 Atlantic City Electric Company Docket No.ER /1997 Limited Issue Rate Proceeding* Rockland Electric Company Docket No.ER /1997 Limited Issue Rate Proceeding South Jersey Gas Company Docket No.GR /1997 Limited Issue Rate Proceeding New Jersey American Water Company Docket No.WR /1997 Limited Issue Rate Proceeding Elizabethtown Water Company and Mount Docket Nos. WR , Holly Water Company WR /1997 Limited Issue Rate Proceedings United Water of New Jersey, United Water Docket Nos.WR , Toms River and United Water Lambertville WR , Limited Issue Rate Proceedings WR /1997 Public Service Electric & Gas Company Docket Nos. EX912058Y,

30 Appendix Page 15 Electric Restructuring Proceedings* EO , EO , EO /1998 Consumers New Jersey Water Company Docket No. WR /1998 New Jersey-American Water Company Docket No.WR /1998 Consumers New Jersey Water Company Docket No.WM /1998 Merger Proceeding Atlantic City Electric Company Docket No.ER /1999 Fuel Adjustment Clause Proceeding* Middlesex Water Company Docket No.WR /1999 Mount Holly Water Company Docket No. WR /1999 Base Rate Proceeding - Phase I* Mount Holly Water Company Docket No. WR /1999 Base Rate Proceeding - Phase II* New Jersey American Water Company Docket Nos. WM /1999 Acquisitions of Water Systems WM /1999 Mount Holly Water Company Docket No. WM /1999 Merger with Homestead Water Utility Applied Wastewater Management, Inc. Docket No.WM /1999 Merger with Homestead Treatment Utility Environmental Disposal Corporation (Sewer) Docket No.WR /2000 Elizabethtown Gas Company Gas Cost Adjustment Clause Proceeding Docket No.GR /2000 DSM Adjustment Clause Proceeding Docket No. GR /2000 New Jersey American Water Company Docket No. WM /2000 Gain on Sale of Land Jersey Central Power & Light Company Docket No. EM /2000 NUG Contract Buydown

31 Appendix Page 16 Shore Water Company Docket No. WR /2000 Base Rate Proceeding Shorelands Water Company Docket No. WO /2000 Water Diversion Rights Acquisition Mount Holly and Elizabethtown Water Companies Docket Nos. WO /2000 Computer and Billing Services Contracts WO /2000 United Water Resources, Inc. Docket No. WM /2000 Merger with Suez-Lyonnaise E Town Corporation Docket No. WM /2000 Merger with Thames, Ltd. Consumers Water Company Docket No. WR /2000 Atlantic City Electric Company Docket No. EE /2000 Buydown of Purchased Power Contract Applied Wastewater Management, Inc. Docket No. WR /2000 Authorization for Accounting Changes Elizabethtown Gas Company Gas Cost Adjustment Clause Proceeding Docket No. GR /2000 DSM Adjustment Clause Proceeding Docket No. GR /2000 Trenton Water Works Docket No. WR /2000 Middlesex Water Company Docket No. WR /2000 New Jersey American Water Company Docket No. WM /2000 Land Sale - Ocean City Pineland Water Company Docket No. WR /2000 Pineland Wastewater Company Docket No. WR /2000 Wastewater Elizabethtown Gas Company Regulatory Treatment of Gain on Sale of Docket No. GR /2001 Property*

32 Appendix Page 17 Wildwood Water Utility Docket No. WR /2001 Roxbury Water Company Docket No. WR /2001 SB Water Company Docket No. WR /2001 Pennsgrove Water Company Docket No. WR /2001 Public Service Electric & Gas Company Docket No. GR /2001 Gas Direct Testimony Public Service Electric & Gas Company Docket No. GR /2001 Gas Surrebuttal Testimony Elizabethtown Water Company Docket No. WR /2001 Middlesex Water Company Docket No. WF /2001 Financing Proceeding New Jersey American Water Company Docket No. WF /2001 Financing Proceeding Consumers New Jersey Water Company Docket No. WF /2002 Stock Transfer/Change in Control Proceeding Consumers New Jersey Water Company Docket No. WR /2002 New Jersey American Water Company Docket No. WM /2002 Change of Control (Merger) Proceeding* Borough of Haledon Water Department Docket No. WR /2002 New Jersey American Water Company Docket No. WM /2002 Change of Control (Merger) Proceeding Public Service Electric & Gas Company Docket No. ER /2002

33 Appendix Page 18 Direct Testimony* United Water Lambertville Docket No. WM /2002 Land Sale Proceeding United Water Vernon Hills & Hampton Docket No. WE /2002 Management Service Agreement United Water New Jersey Docket No. WO /2002 Metering Contract With Affiliate Public Service Electric & Gas Company Docket No. ER /2002 Surrebuttal and Supplemental Surrebuttal Testimonies* Public Service Electric & Gas Company Docket No. EO /2002 Minimum Pension Liability Proceeding Public Service Electric & Gas Company Docket No. ER /2002 Supplemental Direct Testimony* Public Service Electric & Gas Company Docket No. ER /2003 Electric Deferred Balance Proceeding Direct Testimony* Rockland Electric Company Docket No. ER /2003 Direct Testimony* Public Service Electric & Gas Company Docket No. ER /2003 Supplemental Direct Testimony* Rockland Electric Company Docket No. ER /2003 Supplemental Direct Testimony* Consumers New Jersey Water Company Docket No. WM /2003 Acquisition of Maxim Sewerage Company Rockland Electric Company Docket No. EA /2003 Audit of Competitive Services New Jersey Natural Gas Company Docket No. GA /2003 Audit of Competitive Services

34 Appendix Page 19 Public Service Electric & Gas Company Docket No. EA /2003 Audit of Competitive Services Mount Holly Water Company Docket No. WR /2003 Elizabethtown Water Company Docket No. WR /2003 New Jersey-American Water Company Docket No. WR /2003 Water and Sewer Applied Wastewater Management, Inc. Docket No. WR /2004 Water and Sewer Middlesex Water Company Docket No. WR /2004 Consumers New Jersey Water Company Docket No. WR /2004 Roxiticus Water Company Docket No. WR /2004 Purchased Water Adjustment Clause Rockland Electric Company Docket No. ET /2004 Societal Benefit Charge Proceeding Wildwood Water Utility Docket No. WR / Interim Rates United Water Toms River Docket No. WF /2004 Litigation Cost Accounting Proceeding Lake Valley Water Company Docket No. WR /2004 Public Service Electric & Gas Company Docket No. EE /2005 Customer Account System Proceeding Jersey Central Power and Light Company Docket No. EM /2005 Various Land Sales Proceedings Docket No. EM /2005 Docket No. EM /2005 Environmental Disposal Corporation Docket No. WR /2005

35 Appendix Page 20 Universal Service Fund Compliance Filing Docket No. EX /2005 For 7 New Jersey Electric and Gas Utilities Rockland Electric Company Docket No. ET /2005 Societal Benefit Charge Proceeding Public Service Electric & Gas Company Docket No. ET /2005 Buried Underground Distribution Tariff Proceeding Aqua New Jersey Acquisition of Berkeley Water Co. Docket No. WM /2005 Water Merger Proceeding Middlesex Water Company Docket No. WR /2005 Public Service Electric & Gas Company Docket No. EM /2005 Land Sale Proceeding Public Service Electric & Gas Company Docket No. EM /2005 Merger of PSEG and Exelon Corporation Direct Testimony Public Service Electric & Gas Company* Docket No. EM /2005 Merger of PSEG and Exelon Corporation Surrebuttal Testimony Public Service Electric & Gas Company* Docket No. ER /2005 Financial Review of Electric Operations Rockland Electric Company Docket No. EA /2005 Competitive Services Audit Public Service Electric & Gas Company Docket No. EE /2006 Customer Accounting System Cost Recovery Roxiticus Water Company Docket No. WM /2006 Stock Sale and Change of Ownership and Control Public Service Electric & Gas Company Docket No. EA /2006 Competitive Services Audit Wildwood Water Company Docket No. WR /2006 Pinelands Water Company Docket No. WR /2006

36 Appendix Page 21 Pinelands Wastewater Company Docket No. WR /2006 Wastewater Aqua New Jersey Water Company Docket No. WR /2006 Public Service Electric & Gas Company Docket No. GR /2006 Gas New Jersey American Company Docket No. WR /2006 Consolidated,* New Jersey American Water Company, Elizabethtown Water Company, and Mount Holly Water Company Roxiticus Water Company Docket No. WR /2007 United Water Company of New Jersey Docket No. WM /2007 Change of Control Proceeding United Water Company of New Jersey Docket No. WR /2007 Middlesex Water Company Docket No. WR /2007 Maxim Wastewater Company Docket No. WR /2007 Purchased Sewerage Treatment Adjustment Clause Fayson Lake Water Company Docket No. WF /2007 Financing Case Atlantic City Electric Company Docket No. EM /2007 Sales of Utility Properties Atlantic City Sewerage Company Docket No. WR /2008 Base Rate and Purchased Sewerage Treatment Clause Proceedings SB Water Company Docket No. WR /2008 Aqua New Jersey Water Company Docket No. WR /2008

37 Appendix Page 22 Environmental Disposal Corporation Docket No. WR /2008 Middlesex Water Company Docket No. WF /2008 Financing Case Aqua New Jersey Water Company Docket No. WE /2008 Franchise Case Aqua New Jersey Water Company Docket No. WF /2008 Financing Case New Jersey American Water Company Docket No. WR /2008 United Water Toms River, Inc. Docket No. WR /2008 New Jersey American Water Company Docket No. WR /2008 Purchased Water and Purchased Sewer Treatment Adjustment Clauses Pinelands Water Company Docket No. WR /2008 Pinelands Wastewater Company Docket No. WR /2008 Wastewater Base Rate Proceeding Applied Wastewater Management, Inc. Docket No. WR /2009 Wastewater Base Rate Proceeding New Jersey-American Water Company Docket No. WO /2009 Implementation of Distribution System Improvement Charge (DSIC)* United Water New Jersey Docket No. WR /2009 United Water Arlington Hills Sewerage Company Docket No. WR /2009 Wastewater Base Rate Proceeding United Water West Milford Inc. Docket No. WR /2009

38 Appendix Page 23 Middlesex Water Company Docket No. WR /2009 Purchased Water Adjustment Clause Atlantic City Sewerage Company Docket No. WR /2009 Purchased Sewerage Treatment Adjustment Clause Roxiticus Water Company Docket No. WR /2009 Purchased Water Adjustment Clause Lawrenceville Water Company Docket No. WM /2009 Change of Control Proceeding Roxbury Water Company Docket No. WR /2009 Elizabethtown Gas Docket No. GR /2009 Gas NEW MEXICO Southwestern Public Service Company Case /1985 * El Paso Electric Company Case Rate Moderation Plan El Paso Electric Company Case /1987 Gas Company of New Mexico Case /1988 Gas El Paso Electric Company Case /1988 * Public Service Company of New Mexico Case 2146/Phase II 10/1988 Phase-In Plan* El Paso Electric Company Case /1989 * Gas Company of New Mexico Case /1990 Gas El Paso Electric Company Case /1990

39 Appendix Page 24 Rate Moderation Plan* Generic Electric Fuel Clause - New Mexico Case /1991 Amendments to NMPSC Rule 550 Southwestern Public Service Company Case /1994 Rate Reduction Proceeding El Paso Electric Company Case /1998 Base Rate Proceeding OHIO Dayton Power and Light Company Case PENNSYLVANIA Duquesne Light Company R.I.D. No. R /1982 * AT&T Communications of Pennsylvania Docket P /1984 AT&T Communications of Pennsylvania Docket P /1984 National Fuel Gas Distribution Company Docket R /1987 Gas RHODE ISLAND Blackstone Valley Electric Company Docket No Newport Electric Company Report on Emergency Relief VERMONT Continental Telephone Company of Vermont Docket No Base Rate Proceeding

40 Appendix Page 25 Green Mountain Power Corporation Docket No /1994 Central Vermont Public Service Corp. Docket No /1994 Rate Investigation Central Vermont Public Service Corp. Docket No /1994 * Green Mountain Power Corporation Docket No /1995 * Green Mountain Power Corporation Docket No /1996 * VIRGIN ISLANDS Virgin Islands Telephone Corporation Docket 126