DIRECT TESTIMONY OF KENNETH KANE LONG ISLAND POWER AUTHORITY

Transcription

1 BEFORE THE LONG ISLAND POWER AUTHORITY IN THE MATTER of a Three-Year Rate Plan Matter Number: - DIRECT TESTIMONY OF KENNETH KANE LONG ISLAND POWER AUTHORITY JANUARY 0, 0

2 Matter Number: - Q. PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME, TITLE AND BUSINESS ADDRESS. A. Kenneth Kane, CPA, Managing Director of Finance and Budgeting, Long Island Power Authority, Earle Ovington Boulevard, Suite 0, Uniondale, New York. Q. PLEASE SUMMARIZE YOUR EDUCATIONAL BACKGROUND AND PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE. A. I have a BA from Pace University and a MBA in Finance from Hofstra University. I worked in public accounting beginning in and joined the Long Island Lighting Company ( LILCO ) as an accountant in. I joined the Authority in and served as Director of Financial Reporting until 00 when I was named Controller. I was appointed Managing Director of Finance and Budgeting in late 0. I am responsible for the finance and budgeting operations, as well as our efforts to obtain and administer various grants, including those associated with storm recovery and hardening. Q. WHAT IS THE PURPOSE OF YOUR TESTIMONY? A. My testimony presents our projections of the Authority s portion of general and administrative ( G&A ) expense and the costs of financing the

3 Matter Number: - Authority s electric system, which consists of debt service (including principal and interest expenses and related fees, such as remarketing fees, broker dealer fees, and letter of credit fees). I will also present the projections of amounts that have been deferred and their subsequent amortizations, Federal Grants and Other Income and Deductions, which include grant income. Lastly, I will provide the debt service amounts that are used to determine revenue requirements under the Public Power Model that is discussed in the testimony of Thomas Falcone, the Authority s Chief Financial Officer. Q. CAN YOU EXPLAIN THE AUTHORITY S BUDGET PROCESS? A. Yes. The Rate Plan projections of the Authority s portion of the budget are contained in PSEG Long Island ( PSEG-LI ) Ratemaking and Revenue Requirements Panel Exhibit (RRP-), Schedule A-. The Authority s structure, operations, and staffing have been dramatically changed by the Amended and Restated Operating Service Agreement ( OSA ), pursuant to which PSEG-LI became the system operator on January, 0. The Authority s 0 Budget was prepared through an iterative process involving the department heads and senior executives. The Board adopted the 0

4 Matter Number: - Operating Budget in December 0. This filing also contains projected budgets through 0. Those projected budgets have not been approved by the Board. The Authority presents its budgets for approval in December of each year for the coming year; that is, the budget for 0 will be presented in December 0, and so forth. Q. DOES THE 0 BUDGET INCLUDE THE AUTHORITY PORTION OF THE OPERATING BUDGET? A. Yes. The total consolidated 0 Operating Budget of the Authority and PSEG-LI is $. billion. The 0 Authority Operating Budget totals $ million, which includes the expense portion of the PSEG-LI management fee of $. million ($.0 million of the total fee of $. million, including performance based compensation if fully paid out, will be capitalized). The $ million excludes approximately $. million of transition costs being deferred. The OSA has established the PSEG-LI management compensation at a fixed annual rate (with escalation clauses based on the CPI), and provides PSEG-LI the ability to earn additional compensation if certain agreed upon levels of performance are reached. The amounts within this case assume that PSEG-LI will reach such performance levels. The Authority s Operating

5 Matter Number: - Expense Budget for 0 is $. million, a reduction of $. million from 0. Total Authority staffing is 0 FTE employees, down from approximately 0 employees in 0 and 0 employees in 0. Total Authority labor costs, which include salaries and benefits, are budgeted at $. million for 0, a reduction of $. million from 0. Professional services in 0 were budgeted at $. million, a reduction of $. million from 0. The primary cost changes in professional services are due to reductions in expenses related to the Power Markets Department moving to PSEG-LI, and the absence of fees associated with the Management Audit, FEMA, and CDBG claims administration. The Authority s expenses are shown in the PSEG-LI Ratemaking and Revenue Requirements Panel Exhibit (RRP-), Schedule A-. Q. HOW DID YOU FORECAST THE AUTHORITY S EXPENSES FOR THE THREE-YEAR RATE PLAN? A. Projected Consolidated Operating Budgets through 0, including the Authority s projected operating expenses, are presented in PSEG-LI Ratemaking and Revenue Requirements Panel Exhibit (RRP-), Schedule A-. The Authority s labor is based on a head count of 0, with compensation

6 Matter Number: - adjusted for inflation through 0. Professional services are based on projected activity levels, primarily associated with audits and operator oversight. Each department head who will incur such costs was asked to provide an estimate for the upcoming periods. Such estimates are based upon anticipated work efforts and billing rates. Q. HAS THE AUTHORITY RECEIVED FEMA FUNDING? A. Yes. As a public power entity, the Authority is eligible for certain damage reimbursements from the Federal Emergency Management Agency ( FEMA ) not available to investor-owned utilities. The Authority estimates that it will spend approximately $0 million to repair and replace its facilities damaged by Superstorm Sandy that struck in October 0. While normally limited to % reimbursement, damage was so extensive that the Authority (and all other New York State applicants) was entitled to 0% reimbursement. We have recovered $0 million from FEMA related to Superstorm Sandy. This was the most expensive storm to ever impact the electrical system on Long Island. In August 0, Long Island was struck by Hurricane Irene, which at that time was the most expensive storm to strike Long Island s electric grid. The Authority incurred approximately $ million to repair

7 Matter Number: - and replace damaged facilities. LIPA has to date recovered approximately $ million from FEMA related to Hurricane Irene. In February 0, Long Island was struck by a nor ester that was named NEMO. LIPA incurred just over $ million to restore power after that event. LIPA is working with FEMA to settle that claim. The Federal disaster area was identified as Suffolk County only, and LIPA estimated that approximately % of the $ million of costs noted above was related to damages in Suffolk County. Several meetings have been held with FEMA regarding NEMO, but to date no reimbursement has been provided. Q. ARE OTHER FEMA BENEFITS AVAILABLE TO THE AUTHORITY? A. Yes. The Authority has applied for and been awarded 0% funding for a $0 million storm hardening program under FEMA s program. This program is intended to improve system resilience and mitigate the impact of future storms and will also benefit day-to-day reliability. Those incremental capital expenditures are projected to take place from 0 to 0. The expenditures for storm hardening and mitigation are in addition to the normal annual Capital Budgets. The Capital Budgets are set out in PSEG-LI s Exhibits, and explained in the PSEG-LI testimony of the Capital Budget Panel.

8 Matter Number: - Q. DOES THE AUTHORITY ANTICIPATE RECEIVING GRANT INCOME? A. Yes. In September 0, the Authority signed a Community Development Block Grant ( CDBG ) agreement for $. million. The grant is funded by the United Stated Department of Housing and Urban Development ( HUD ). This grant is to reimburse the Authority for some of the non-match FEMA funding related to Superstorm Sandy and Hurricane Irene, and to fund $ million of storm mitigation protective measures. The storm mitigation protective measures are reflected in the approved Operating Budget for 0. The Authority had anticipated recovery of the $ million balance of this grant during 0. However, $0 million was received in January 0. The Authority now expects to recover the remaining $ million during 0, plus the $ million for storm mitigation protective measures. The 0 grant income is budgeted at $ million, which is down from 0. Beyond the CDBG grant agreement, grant income is primarily Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative ( RGGI ) funds to support energy efficiency programs of $. million and $. million related to a Build America Bond subsidy. We are projecting grant income of $0. million, $. million, and $. million in

9 Matter Number: - 0, 0, and 0, respectively. That is shown on PSEG-LI Ratemaking and Revenue Requirements Panel Exhibit (RRP-), Schedule A-. Q. WHAT IS THE AUTHORITY S PROJECTION OF OTHER INCOME AND DEDUCTIONS? A The Authority expects to generate other income that reduces revenue requirements from a number of sources. Other income includes interest income earned on the Authority s cash balances, the nuclear decommissioning trust fund related to the Authority s % interest in Unit of the Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station (the earnings on which remain in the trust), the Suffolk Property Tax Settlement (which offsets the interest expense incurred on the Property Tax Settlement debt issued to fund customer rebates), the Visual Benefits Assessment, the OPEB Account (the earnings on which remain in the account), and other miscellaneous items. Investment earnings on projected account balances are based on reasonable interest rate assumptions for planning purposes provided by the Authority s financial advisor, Public Financial Management, Inc. ( PFM ). That forecast assumes rising interest rates over the Rate Plan period. The Authority has little control over the actual investment earnings, which are dependent on market-based rates of return.

10 Matter Number: - Our projection of Other Income is shown on PSEG-LI Ratemaking and Revenue Requirements Panel Exhibit (RRP-), Schedule A-. Q. CAN YOU EXPLAIN DEFERRALS AND AMORTIZATIONS? A. Deferrals and amortizations are shown on Exhibit (KK-). Deferrals (and their subsequent amortizations) represent items other than physical plant that are placed on the balance sheet after Board approval, which are typically recovered from customers through an amortization over the useful life of the expenditure, unless such recovery period is modified to ameliorate a rate impact. The Authority s deferrals total approximately $. billion. For financial statement reporting purposes, the amortization of such deferrals are projected to be between $ million and $ million each year during the period of this Rate Plan. However, under the Public Power Model of rate setting, these amortizations are not explicitly part of the revenue requirement as they are non-cash expenses in each year. Instead, our customers repay the monies borrowed to fund the deferrals at the time the cash expenditure was incurred. It is also important to note that the Authority spreads the recovery of these costs over the period of benefit through the debt issuance used to fund the deferral rather than the amortization period of the deferral, thereby

11 Matter Number: - minimizing the current period rate impact. For example, the Authority funded the Outage Management System with bonds that mature over the life of the OSA contract with PSEG-LI, so the period of cost recovery (principal and interest) is aligned with the period of benefit to the customer. Q. PLEASE CONTINUE. A. The largest deferral is the Acquisition Adjustment at $. billion. The Acquisition Adjustment represents the unamortized balance of the premium in excess of the book value of plant and certain other assets (customer accounts receivables) that the Authority paid for the acquisition of LILCO in. That premium is being amortized straight-line over a -year period that began in June. The Suffolk Property Tax Settlement ($0 million) represents the unamortized balance of the rebates and credits required to be provided to all ratepayers over the five-year period that began in May in accordance with the Property Tax Settlement, which includes annual debt service costs on the bonds issued (as part of Bond Series A and 000A) to finance the Settlement. Beginning in June 00, Suffolk County customer bills have

12 Matter Number: - included a surcharge that is being collected over the succeeding -year period to pay the associated debt service. The Visual Benefits Assessment is the money due from customers in the designated area of the Town of Southampton for the incremental expense of burying a portion of a transmission line. Debt issuance costs include underwriters discounts, legal and accounting fees incurred when the Authority issues debt. These costs are amortized over the life of each debt issue in accordance with the provision of GASB, which incorporated regulatory accounting (ASC 0/FASB ) into the governmental standards. The Authority also deferred the costs it incurred related primarily to facilities owned by others necessary for the operation of the generating stations under contract to the Authority not owned by National Grid. For example, the Authority funded the gas pipe and compressor station necessary to supply natural gas to a recently completed power station, but as those facilities are owned by the local gas distribution company, the costs were deferred and are

13 Matter Number: - being amortized over the life of the PPA to Fuel and Purchased Power at a rate of approximately $ million per year. Q. WHAT COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH THE TRANSITION HAVE BEEN DEFERRED FOR FUTURE RECOVERY? A. In order to support the three-year rate freeze that includes 0, certain costs associated with the transition from National Grid to PSEG-LI as service provider were deferred, including: i) costs expended by the Authority in 0 through 0 to prepare for the transition; ii) costs expended on the new Outage Management System ( OMS ) and Enterprise Resource Planning ( ERP ) system; iii) costs to settle the outstanding pension and other postemployment benefits ( OPEB ) with the termination of the National Grid contract; iv) retirement benefits (pension and OPEB obligations) related to the PSEG-LI employees that transitioned from National Grid; v) costs to prepare and support this rate plan; and vi) costs incurred in 0 to transition the Power Supply Management function to PSEG-LI beginning January, 0. Estimates of the costs that were deferred and the proposed period of recognition in the financial statements are shown on Exhibit (KK-). Each

14 Matter Number: - of these deferrals and subsequent amortizations has been approved by the Authority s Board of Trustees. Q. PLEASE EXPLAIN UTILITY DEPRECIATION EXPENSE. A. Forecasted depreciation expense for the three years of the Rate Plan is shown on PSEG-LI s Ratemaking and Revenue Requirements Panel Exhibit (RRP-), Schedule A-. This forecast was prepared by PSEG-LI, which maintains the Authority s plant accounting records under the OSA. Foster and Associates completed a depreciation study on behalf of the Authority in 0. The study concluded that the Authority s assets have longer useful lives than is currently reflected in depreciation rates, and as such utility depreciation expense is budgeted at $. million in 0, a reduction of $. million from the 0 budget. The study also determined that the Authority had a reserve imbalance (surplus) of $ million. Foster Associates offered four alternative treatments to deal with this imbalance, one of which is to offset that balance against the unamortized balance of the Acquisition Adjustment. As noted in the Foster Associates report, this option would require restating the recorded reserves for each plant account to that which was computed within the study, and transferring the difference to the Acquisition

15 Matter Number: - Adjustment. The report goes on to note that this treatment would be fitting for the Authority if service rates are set to produce cash flows sufficient to cover debt service obligations [the public power model] rather than a traditional rate base/rate of return formulation of revenue requirements. As the Authority finds the approach outlined by Foster and Associates to be reasonable, it has been reflected in this filing as being instituted effective January, 0. Accordingly, the unamortized balance of the Acquisition Adjustment will be reduced by approximately $ million, which is the estimated balance of the reserve imbalance as of January, 0. With the Board s approval, the offset to the Acquisition Adjustment will be recorded at the same time, which will reduce the period of amortization from years to years. Q PLEASE DESCRIBE THE AUTHORITY S CAPITAL STRUCTURE. A. Exhibit (KK-) shows the Authority s projected capital structure through 0. The Capital Budget for 0 was approved by the Board in December 0 and was provided to the DPS in January 0. The projected Capital Budgets for 0 to 0 are described in the testimony of PSEG-LI s Capital Panel.

16 Matter Number: - Q. PLEASE DESCRIBE THE AUTHORITY S INTEREST EXPENSE. A. Interest expense is projected to be $ million in 0. Projected expense for the three years of the Rate Plan is shown on PSEG-LI Ratemaking and Revenue Requirements Panel Exhibit (RRP-), Schedule A-. The projection of interest expense is based on the amount of debt outstanding in each year, the interest associated with each series, and the amortization of expenses related to the issuance of each series (cost of issuance, bond premiums or discounts, and deferred gains or losses on early retirement of debt). Interest and related expenses are forecast to be $ million in 0; $ million in 0; and $0 million in 0. The forecasted cost for new tax exempt debt is.% for 0, increasing to.0% in 0. Short-term variable rate instruments are assumed to cost 0.% in 0 escalating to.% in 0. The interest rates used to calculate interest expense are provided by the Authority s financial advisor, PFM, and are reasonable planning assumptions. Q. WHAT IS DEBT SERVICE AND HOW IS IT DIFFERENT FROM INTEREST EXPENSE?

17 Matter Number: - A. Interest expense is the amount of interest and related expense that is recognized in the financial statements each year in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles. It is not necessarily cash paid. Debt service is the amount of principal and interest paid each year to bond holders. Debt service schedules are established for each bond when it is issued, and must be paid according to that schedule to avoid defaulting on that bond. As described in the testimony of Thomas Falcone, the rating agencies look at the coverage required on the Authority s fixed obligations, which looks not only at debt, but debt-like obligations, such as payments made under capitalized leases. The fixed coverage ratio is often used by investors and rating agencies, and as such will be shown in this case. For capitalized leases, LIPA also prepares a minimum lease payments table that shows the fixed monthly payments over the life of the lease, which must be paid to avoid defaulting on the lease. Total debt service (including LIPA and UDSA) is included in PSEG-LI Ratemaking and Revenue Requirements Panel Exhibit (RRP-), Schedule A-, and is estimated at $ million, $ million, and $ million in 0, 0, and 0, respectively, before giving effect for the savings from the proposed securitization legislation. With refinancing, total debt service is

18 Matter Number: - projected at $0 million, $ million, and $ million in 0, 0, and 0, respectively. This projection assumes significant bond refinancing savings using the Utility Debt Securitization Authority, as illustrated in the Exhibit and described in Authority Witness Falcone s testimony. Debt service associated with existing debt will be approximately $ million, $ million, and $ million in 0, 0, and 0, respectively, if the refinancing savings are achieved as projected. Debt service associated with new debt issued during the period of this case to fund system improvements will be approximately $ million, $ million, and $ million in 0, 0, and 0, respectively. As noted in the testimony of Mr. Falcone, coverage on debt service plus capitalized lease obligations (fixed obligation coverage) is a commonly used metric by investors and rating agencies. The Authority s debt-related recoveries, including debt service and coverage requirements, are projected at $ million in 0, $ million in 0, and $ million in 0. Coverage on fixed obligations is projected to be $ million in 0, $ million in 0, and $0 million in 0.

19 Matter Number: - Q. DOES THIS COMPLETE YOUR PRE-FILED DIRECT TESTIMONY A. Yes. AT THIS TIME?