1. Stakeholder Consultation Workshop on Compensation Cost Benchmarking Study
May 30, 2011

2. Facilitator’s Remarks – Bob Betts
Introductions Facilitator, Bob Betts & OPTIMUS | SBR support team
Meeting Facilities
Safety Review
Note taking process
Participant Introductions

3. Agenda
9:30 AM – Welcome
Allan Cowan, Director, Major Applications, Hydro One Networks
9:40 AM – Introductions, Background on Compensation Cost Benchmarking Study and Key Points of Agreement from February 10th Stakeholder Session
Bob Betts, Facilitator, Optimus |SBR
10:00 AM – Approach to Compensation Cost Benchmarking Study & Facilitated Discussion
Iain Morris, Mercer
Bob Betts
10:45 AM – BREAK

4. Agenda Cont’d
11:00 AM – Approach to Compensation Cost Benchmarking Study & Facilitated Discussion
Iain Morris
Bob Betts
11:45 AM – Next Steps and Closing Remarks
Bob Betts/ Allan Cowan
12:00 PM – Adjourn

5. Meeting Process Mobile phones “Off” or “Silenced”
Avoid side discussions while others speaking
All questions are good ones
Materials and notes will be posted on Hydro One’s Regulatory Website:

6. Compensation Cost Study Background
Board Direction to do a study in 2007/2008 TX
Mercer Study filed in 2009/2010 TX
Board Directed update in 2011/2012 TX
The Board directs Hydro One to revisit its compensation cost benchmarking study in an effort to more appropriately compare compensation costs to those of other regulated transmission and/or distribution utilities in North America.
More robust evidence on initiatives to achieve a level of costs per employee closer to market value.
Compensation increases to be matched with demonstrated productivity gains.
Hydro One to consult with stakeholders about how the Mercer study should be updated and expanded to produce such analyses.

7. Feb. 10, 2011 Consultation- Key Points of Agreement (1)
Principle objective - to revisit the Mercer Study to appropriately compare HONI compensation costs to those of regulated Transmission and Distribution utilities in North America.
Keep it simple to entice survey participants
Be independent, testable, repeatable and market‐based
Provide participants with the assurance that their information could not be attributable to them

8. Feb. 10, 2011 Consultation- Key Points of Agreement (2)
Be based on the groups surveyed in the Mercer study and expanded as deemed appropriate by the consultant
Mirror the scoping in the Mercer study for peer selection, job classes, etc, changed as deemed appropriate by the consultant
Enable reasonable comparison to the last Mercer study and provide trending analysis for Hydro
Consider median, or the mean, or both.

9. Feb. 10, 2011 Consultation- Key Points of Agreement (3)
Consider adjustments to reflect regional costs of living amongst the study participants
No attribution of data to particular participant
Request data about pension as a percentage of total benefits, and benefits as a percentage of compensation
Rely on the expertise of the selected consultant to recommend appropriate changes in methodology and assumptions.
Consultant to recommend productivity metric or metrics that can be used for internal comparisons using readily available internal data

10. The May 30, 2011 Consultation Task
To provide further input on the proposed approach the consultant will undertake in the study.