Cost Allocation for 2009 STEP, Appendix B: Comparison of Highway/Byway/Local v. Currently Effective Cost Allocation Methods 1/21/2010.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
10/22/20101 Westar Formula Rate and your bill. 10/22/20102 What we will be going over Transferring the results from the Westar Formula Rate to the SPP.
Advertisements

TRANSFERS FROM BP: FOR WHAT TIME PERIOD? June 28, 2011 Mike Proctor.
Tennessee High School Survey Summary Graphs Percentage of students who: Note: This graph contains weighted results. See the corresponding summary tables.
1 RTWG Tariff update to the BOD, MOPC, SPC, and RSC January 4, 2005.
Comparing Exponential and Linear Functions Lesson 3.2.
Microsoft Project 2010 Dr. Nouh Alhindawi Jadara University.
1 Using SPSS: Descriptive Statistics Department of Operations Weatherhead School of Management.
Highway-Byway Cost Allocation: What it Offers MISO January 2010 Presented to the Organization of MISO States CARP and the Midwest ISO RECB Task Force Meeting.
Mandatory Savings and Retirement Adequacy: A Portfolio Simulation of EPF in Sri Lanka Wasana Karunarathne The University of Melbourne.
4_1 Day 2 The natural base: e.. WARM-UP: Graph (5/3)^x (5/3)^-x -(5/3)^x (5/3) ^x (5/3)^(x-2)
Common Page Design. Graphics and Tables Uses: Objects Numbers Concepts Words.
Strategic Project Alignment With Team Expert Choice
Funds Management SCT Banner Financial Aid 4.02IntroductionsIntroductions  Name  Organization  Title/Function  Job Responsibility  SCT Banner Experience.
1 American Electric Power Company Transmission Formula Rate AEP East Companies Annual Formula Rate Update June 2012.
1 American Electric Power Company Transmission Formula Rate AEP Appalachian Transmission Co., Inc. AEP Indiana Michigan Transmission Co., Inc. AEP Kentucky.
Graphing Examples Categorical Variables
Monthly Product Performance Report. 2 What Is The Monthly Product Performance Report? Shows the performance of the bank’s microfinance product, particularly.
1 WELCOME Transmission Formula Rate Customer Meeting Annual Update TFR October 26, 2010.
Basic Descriptive Statistics Percentages and Proportions Ratios and Rates Frequency Distributions: An Introduction Frequency Distributions for Variables.
Need for Transmission Investment 2010 Mid-American Regulatory Conference AEP.
CCSS Content Standards G.MG.3 Apply geometric methods to solve problems (e.g., designing an object or structure to satisfy physical constraints or minimize.
OSC Meeting April 27, Transmission Cost Allocation Overview.
1 Westar Energy’s 2013 Annual Transmission Revenue Requirement Meeting October 30, 2012.
Updated 1/28/2011. Cost Allocations and Affordability of Tariffs March 8, 2011 Jay Caspary ·
2011 Transmission Customer Meeting October 12, 2011.
The most comprehensive program for NAIC analysis PMG and PERT.
VISUALIZATIONS 2014 v1.0. Visualize Introduction The Visualize tab offers several ways of visualizing complex data sets in order to better understand.
1 1 Chapter 3: Graphical Data Exploration 3.1 Exploring Relationships with a Continuous Y Variable 3.2 Exploring Relationships with a Categorical Y Variable.
CRR Shortfall – Revenue Equalization Part 3 (Continuation from 3/5/08 TPTF discussion) Bill Barnes/Sharon Wang TPTF 3/21/2008.
October 23, 2015 Rochester Public Utilities Presentation on Formula Development of Transmission Revenue Requirements for 2016.
Chapter 9 Cost Planning and Performance. 222 Learning Objectives Items to consider when estimating cost Preparing a baseline budget Cumulating actual.
TCR to CRR Transition Plan Proposed method for TCR Auction Revenue refunds Contingency plans For TAC Nov 1st, 2007.
SPP.org Transmission Expansion and Cost Allocations for FERC SPP-Entergy CBA 1.
SPP.org 1. Final Report: Reliability and Economic Assessments Stakeholder Meeting December 1, 2008 Austin, TX.
West Virginia Middle School Survey Summary Graphs Percentage of students who: Note: This graph contains weighted results. See the corresponding summary.
1.
Graphing. Data Tables are a neat and organized way to collect data Graphs allow you to easily show the data in a way that people can draw conclusions.
1 Rate Impact Task Force’s Updated Results for it’s Report to the SPP Regional State Committee January 24, 2011.
Easy Substitution Assignment. 1. What are the steps for solving with substitution?
1. Rate Impact Task Force’s Updated Results for it’s Report to the SPP Regional State Committee 11/30/2010 DRAFT.
Parametric Equations Lesson Movement of an Object Consider the position of an object as a function of time  The x coordinate is a function of.
Data Table and Graphing Notes. What information needs to be on the Data Tables? A) Number of Trials B) Column for the IV C) Column for the DV D) Units.
Section 13.2 Loans. Example 8 Find the future value of each account at the end of 100 years if the initial balance is $1000 and the account earns: a)
EE590 Transmission Planning Projects and Cost Allocation Ming NI Economic Studies, Midwest ISO.
IT 210 Week 2 Individual Application-Level Requirements To purchase this material link
Rochester Public Utilities Presentation on Formula Development of Transmission Revenue Requirements for 2016 October 23, 2015.
2016 Projected Attachment O-PPI Open Stakeholder Meeting
Chapter 9 Cost Planning and Performance
Nebraska High School Survey 2016 Youth Risk Behavior Survey Results
Clarification of the Resident Load Definition
1.
How do management fees affect my investments?
Welcome to Facility Engagement
Rochester Public Utilities Presentation on Formula Development of Transmission Revenue Requirements for 2016 October 23, 2015.
Rochester Public Utilities Presentation on Forward-Looking Transmission Revenue Requirements Update for Calendar 2017 October 28, 2016.
T.O. Highway/Byway Recommendations
2016 Attachment O True-Up Stakeholder Meeting
Westar Formula Rate and your bill
Sales Quick View A demo for Rich Internet applications
A graphing calculator is required for some problems or parts of problems 2000.
ВОМР Подмярка 19.2 Възможности за финансиране
Споразумение за партньорство
Rochester Public Utilities Presentation on Forward-Looking Transmission Revenue Requirements Update for Calendar 2018 October 20, 2017.
Rochester Public Utilities Presentation on Forward-Looking Transmission Revenue Requirements Update for Calendar 2019 October 17, 2018.
Functions and Their Representation
Authors Limit# 6 (list affiliations beneath authors)
2019 Attachment O Projection Stakeholder Meeting
Transferring Funds.
Chapter 9 Cost Planning and Performance
Southwestern Public Service Company
Presentation transcript:

Cost Allocation for 2009 STEP, Appendix B: Comparison of Highway/Byway/Local v. Currently Effective Cost Allocation Methods 1/21/2010

2 General Study Notes  Committed ATRRs Include:  Legacy Tariff Rates, Attachment H, Column 3, ATRR $665M/yr  Previously Allocated Projects from the STEP plan, year 2006 to present, ATRR $342M/yr  Balanced Portfolio, E&C $770M, ATRR $131M/yr  Nebraska Transition Projects, E&C $171M, ATRR $23M/yr  Total Committed ATRR $1.16B/yr  2009 STEP Projects Needing NTCs Allocated with Currently Effective Base Plan Funding Method:  4-year economic commitment window: E&C $1.03B, ATRR $172M/yr  2-year economic commitment window: E&C $791M, ATRR $102M/yr  Total ATRR Studied = Committed ATRR STEP ATRR  4-year window: $1.16B/yr + $172M/yr = $1.33B/yr  2-year window: $1.16B/yr + $102M/yr = $1.26B/yr

Cost Allocation Comparison  Currently Effective Rates and Base Plan Funding Method is used to Develop the Base Case  Highway/Byway/Local Method Applied to the 2009 Appendix B Projects is used to Develop the Change Case  Comparisons are calculated between the two 3

Base Case: Currently Effective Method  2009 STEP Appendix B projects are Allocated using the Currently Effective Base Plan Funding Method  Gross ATRR = Project E&C * Host Zone Carrying Charge  Zonal Allocation = 0.67 * Gross ATRR * Project’s MW-mi impact percentage for each Rate Zone  Regional Allocation = 0.33 * Gross ATRR * Load Ratio Share (LRS) for each Rate Zone

Change Case: Highway/Byway/Local Method  Facilities over 300 kV (Highway), 100% Regionalized  Gross ATRR * LRS  Facilities between 100kV and 300kV (Byway), Split Allocation  0.67 * Gross ATRR directly Rate host zone  0.33 * Gross ATRR by LRS Rate region  Facilities under 100kV (Local), 100% Zonal  Gross ATRR directly assigned Rate host zone 5

Change Case Notes (cont.)  Option 7: Comparative Cost Allocation for 2009 STEP Appendix B projects with NTCs needed in years 1 through 4 using the Highway/Byway/Local methodology v. Base.  Option 8: Comparative Cost Allocation for 2009 STEP Appendix B projects with NTCs needed in years 1 and 2 using the Highway Byway Methodology v. Base. Projects with NTCs needed in years 3 and 4 are not included.  Option 9: Comparative Cost Allocation for 2009 STEP Appendix B projects with NTCs needed:  In years 1 and 2 using Base Plan Funding methodology  In years 3 and 4 using the Highway/Byway/Local methodology

Results (see attachments) Graphical results and summary tables are presented for:  % Difference = (Change Case – Base Case) / Base Case * 100%  ATRR by Rate Zone = Committed ATRR + Allocation of the 2009 STEP  Base Case (Base Plan Funding Method)  Option 7: Highway Byway for years 1 through 4 of 2009 STEP, App. B  Option 8: Highway Byway for years 1 and 2 of 2009 STEP, App. B, do not consider years 3 and 4  Option 9: Base Plan Funding years 1 and 2, Highway Byway for years 3 and 4 of 2009 STEP, App. B

List of Attachments 1.Graph: Total ATRR Shown with Committed ATRR 2.Graph: Total ATRR Shown as Zonal and Regional Components 3.Graph: Total ATRR Shown as Highway, Byway, and Local Components 4.Graph: 2009 STEP Appendix B Total ATRR's 4-Year Economic Window: Currently Effective Method v. Highway/Byway/Local Method 5.Graph: % Difference Total ATRR 4-Year Economic Window: Currently Effective Method (Base) v. Highway/Byway/Local (Change) 6.Graph: 2009 STEP Appendix B Total ATRR's 2-Year Economic Window: Currently Effective Method v. Highway/Byway/Local Method 7.Graph: % Difference ATRR 2-Year Economic Window: Currently Effective Method (Base) v. Highway/Byway/Local (Change) 8

List of Attachments, cont. 8.Graph: 2009 STEP Appendix B Total ATRR's 4-Year Economic Window: Year 1-4: Currently Effective Method v. Year 1-2 Currently Effective Method, Year 3-4: Highway/Byway/Local Method 9.Graph: 2009 STEP Appendix B Total ATRR's 4-Year Economic Window: Option 7 v. Option 9 10.Graph: % Difference Total ATRR, 4-Year Economic Window: Currently Effective Method (Base) v. Yr 1-2 Current, Yr 3-4 H/B/L(Change) 11.Summary Table: Base Case 12.Summary Table: Option 7 13.Summary Table: Option 8 14.Summary Table: Option 9 9

List of Attachments, cont. 15.Project Data: 4-Year Window 16.Project Data: 2-Year Window 17.Summary Data for Charts 18.Area Data 10

11 Questions?