Attached to and made part of the Petition are the testimonies and supporting schedules of Company witnesses

Transcription

1 300 Connell Drive, Suite 3000 Berkeley Heights, NJ phone Via FedEx & Electronic Mail September 13, 2013 Kristi Izzo, Secretary State of New Jersey Board of Public Utilities 44 South Clinton Avenue, 9 th Floor Post Office Box 350 Trenton, New Jersey Re: In The Matter Of The Petition Of Pivotal Utility Holdings, Inc. d/b/a Elizabethtown Gas To Revise The Remediation Adjustment Clause Component Of Its Societal Benefits Charge Rate BPU Docket No. GR Dear Secretary Izzo: Enclosed for filing are an original and ten copies of the Petition of Pivotal Utility Holdings, Inc. d/b/a Elizabethtown Gas ( Elizabethtown or Company ) to the Board of Public Utilities ( BPU or Board ) to revise the Remediation Adjustment Clause ( RAC ) component of the Societal Benefits Charge ( SBC ) rate. Attached to and made part of the Petition are the testimonies and supporting schedules of Company witnesses Thomas Kaufmann and Steven L. Cook, marked as exhibit numbers P-1 and P-2, respectively. The RAC Component of the SBC Rate Elizabethtown's SBC was approved by the Board by an Order dated March 30, 2001 in BPU Docket No. GX , et al. and November 21, 2001 in Docket No. EX , et al. The SBC currently consists of four components: (1) the Remediation Adjustment Clause ( RAC ) component, (2) the New Jersey Clean Energy Program ( CEP ) component, (3) the Universal Service Fund ( USF ) component, and (4) the

2 exempt from the charge pursuant to the Long-Term Capacity Agreement Pilot Program legislation enacted on January 28, Petitioner is not proposing changes to the CEP, USF or Lifeline rates in this filing. On June 21, 2013, the Company filed to change the USF and Lifeline rates effective October 1, 2013 in Docket No. ER On August 23, 2013 in Docket No. GR , the Company filed to revise its CEP rate effective October 1, These filings are currently pending. Elizabethtown proposes to increase its currently effective RAC rate from $ per therm to $ per therm, effective December 1, Elizabethtown s current SBC rate for the RAC was approved by the Board s April 29, 2013 Order with an effective date of May 10, 2013 in Docket No. GR The Company's RAC annual reconciliation filing for the period filed in BPU Docket No. GR remains pending before the Board. The proposed RAC rate is designed to enable Elizabethtown to recover approximately $14.1 million during the period ending September 30, A comparison of the components of the SBC reflecting the current rates and the proposed RAC rate is as follows: Current Rate Proposed Rate CEP $ per therm $ per therm RAC $ per therm $ per therm USF $ per therm $ per therm Lifeline $ per therm $ per therm TOTAL $ per therm $ per therm 2

3

4 IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION OF PIVOTAL UTILITY HOLDINGS, INC. d/b/a ELIZABETHTOWN GAS TO REVISE THE REMEDIATION ADJUSTMENT CLAUSE COMPONENT OF ITS SOCIETAL BENEFITS CHARGE RATE BPU DOCKET NO. SERVICE LIST Steven Cook Elizabethtown Gas 300 Connell Drive, Suite 3000 Berkeley Heights, NJ Susan Potanovich Elizabethtown Gas 300 Connell Drive, Suite 3000 Berkeley Heights, NJ Archie Hickerson AGL Resources Ten Peachtree Place Atlanta, GA David Weaver AGL Resources Ten Peachtree Place Atlanta, GA Kristi Izzo, Secretary Board of Public Utilities 44 South Clinton Avenue, 9th Floor P.O. Box 350 Trenton, NJ Michael Ryan Board of Public Utilities 44 South Clinton Avenue, 9th Floor P.O. Box 350 Trenton, NJ Beverly Tyndell Board of Public Utilities 44 South Clinton Avenue, 9th Floor P.O. Box 350 Trenton, NJ Brian Lipman, Litigation Manager Division of Rate Counsel 140 East Front Street, 4th Floor Trenton, NJ Alex Moreau, DAG Dept. of Law & Public Safety Division of Law 124 Halsey Street P.O. Box Newark, NJ Deborah Franco, Esq. Cullen & Dykman Garden City Center 100 Quentin Roosevelt Blvd. Garden City, NY Thomas Kaufmann Elizabethtown Gas 300 Connell Drive, Suite 3000 Berkeley Heights, NJ Scott Carter AGL Resources Ten Peachtree Place Atlanta, GA Erica McGill, Esq. AGL Resources Ten Peachtree Place Atlanta, GA Tricia Caliguire, Esq. Board of Public Utilities 44 South Clinton Avenue, 9th Floor P.O. Box 350 Trenton, NJ Jerome May Board of Public Utilities 44 South Clinton Avenue, 9th Floor P.O. Box 350 Trenton, NJ Robert Schultheis Board of Public Utilities 44 South Clinton Avenue, 9th Floor P.O. Box 350 Trenton, NJ Stefanie A. Brand, Director Division of Rate Counsel 140 East Front Street, 4th Floor Trenton, NJ Henry Ogden, Esq. Division of Rate Counsel 140 East Front Street, 4th Floor Trenton, NJ Marisa Slaten, DAG Dept. of Law & Public Safety Division of Law 124 Halsey Street P.O. Box Newark, NJ Kenneth T. Maloney Cullen & Dykman th Street NW, Suite 550 Washington, DC Mary Patricia Keefe, Esq. Elizabethtown Gas 300 Connell Drive, Suite 3000 Berkeley Heights, NJ Greg Corbett AGL Resources Ten Peachtree Place Atlanta, GA Elizabeth Wade, Esq. AGL Resources Ten Peachtree Place Atlanta, GA Robert Catona Board of Public Utilities 44 South Clinton Avenue, 9th Floor P.O. Box 350 Trenton, NJ Henry Rich Board of Public Utilities 44 South Clinton Avenue, 9th Floor P.O. Box 350 Trenton, NJ Scott Sumliner Board of Public Utilities 44 South Clinton Avenue, 9th Floor P.O. Box 350 Trenton, NJ Christine Juarez, Esq. Division of Rate Counsel 140 East Front Street, 4th Floor Trenton, NJ Felicia Thomas-Friel, Esq. Division of Rate Counsel 140 East Front Street, 4th Floor Trenton, NJ Babette Tenzer, DAG Dept. of Law & Public Safety Division of Law 124 Halsey Street P.O. Box Newark, NJ 07101

5 STATE OF NEW JERSEY BOARD OF PUBLIC UTILITIES x In The Matter Of The Petition Of Pivotal Utility : Holdings, Inc. d/b/a Elizabethtown Gas To Revise : Docket No. GR The Remediation Adjustment Clause Component : Of Its Societal Benefits Charge Rate : SUMMARY SHEET x This Petition presents the request of Pivotal Utility Holdings, Inc. d/b/a Elizabethtown Gas ( Petitioner ) that the Board of Public Utilities ( Board ) accept the filing of Petitioner s revised Remediation Adjustment Clause ( RAC ) component of the Societal Benefits Charge ( SBC ) rate. The Petition proposes that Petitioner s RAC rate be increased from $ per therm to $ per therm effective December 1, The proposed filing would increase the monthly bill of a typical residential heating customer using 100 therms by $2.12 or 1.8%.

6 PIVOTAL UTILITY HOLDINGS, INC. d/b/a ELIZABETHTOWN GAS REMEDIATION ADJUSTMENT CLAUSE ( RAC ) FILING MINIMUM FILING REQUIREMENTS (MFR) INDEX Minimum Filing Requirements 1. Please provide a vendor listing for the prior RAC period that contains information concerning vendor expenditures by MGP site, also showing a description of the services provided and the amount of each vendor invoice. The vendor list should include the monthly actual expenditures for the twelve month RAC period. 2. Identify the three MGP sites with the highest level of expenditures during the prior RAC period. For each identified site, provide a copy of the latest work plan, remediation report, or major work product submitted to the NJDEP. The copies should include the narrative portion of the report or work plan but need not include the technical supporting workpapers, charts and tables. 3. For each of the same three MGP sites, provide all correspondence between the Company and the NJDEP concerning submissions for the site, reply comments, and other major items which have a material impact on remediation activities and associated costs incurred by the Company. The correspondence should span the twelve months of the most recent RAC period. 4. For each of the same three MGP sites, provide expense documentation for any contractor or supplier whose invoices for the RAC period exceed $250,000 in aggregate. The expense documentation should include descriptions of services rendered, applicable invoices, and any tracking of invoiced charges vs. budgets. The expense detail need not include expense reports or time sheets, but it should include supporting documentation for any subcontractor and third party expenses totaling $100,000 or more for the period. 5. For each of the same three MGP sites, provide a narrative description and organization chart for that site, showing the vendors and project control structure for the remediation effort. The response should show what entities supervise all significant contractors and subcontractors and which Company personnel are involved in site and remediation supervision and control. 6. Provide a detailed narrative describing Company activities and any reimbursements related to insurance claims or potentially responsible parties liabilities for all of the Company s MGP sites. The narrative, with supporting documentation, should cover the prior RAC period. In addition, the Company should provide a listing of all insurance reimbursements received from each insurance company through the end of the year covered by the filing, but need not disclose any insurance company s identity. 7. Provide copies of any RAC audit reports or related materials prepared by the Board s Audit Staff, FERC, or the Company s internal or external auditors during the previous twelve months. To the degree applicable, please also provide any materials prepared in response to the audits or in compliance with any audit findings. 8. Provide a narrative concerning all material events, whether related to NJDEP mandates or not, which could have an impact on the Company s ultimate MGP remediation liability, with claimed confidential information Schedule SLC-2 SLC-2 SLC-2 SLC-2 Confidential SLC-2 SLC-2 SLC-2 SLC-2

7 PIVOTAL UTILITY HOLDINGS, INC. d/b/a ELIZABETHTOWN GAS REMEDIATION ADJUSTMENT CLAUSE ( RAC ) FILING MINIMUM FILING REQUIREMENTS (MFR) INDEX Minimum Filing Requirements provided pursuant to a confidentiality agreement. The narrative should encompass all sites, whether or not active remediation efforts on the site are under way. 9. Provide schedules and supporting workpapers and documents, which show the reconciliation of the prior period RAC expenditures and recoveries as well as the derivation of the deferred tax credit and the interest accrual on any unamortized balances. 10. Provide the Company s bid evaluation studies, reports, workpapers or other material related to the two largest MGP remediation contracts awarded during the previous RAC period. The response should include the criteria utilized for bid evaluation and the comparisons between the terms and conditions offered by the competitive bidders. 11. Provide documentation relating to the two largest supplemental contract amendments authorized by the Company during their previous RAC period. The response should provide the contractor s request for supplemental funding, the reasons cited for the request, and the Company s evaluation and action taken concerning the request. 12. Provide documentation relating to any instances during the previous RAC period where the Company sought to modify, change, or eliminate the NJDEP site remediation requirements for any of its MGP sites. The response should provide copies of any such Company requests, the NJDEP responses, and the ultimate outcome concerning the requests. 13. Provide a calculation of the carrying costs that the Company seeks to recover in its filing, including workpapers and supporting documentation. 14. The Company currently provides a schedule that summarizes the expenditures incurred by major cost category by site on a quarterly basis. These data will be reported with its annual filing. 15. For each of the Company s MGP sites, provide a schedule showing the status of the remediation effort and estimated dates for the completion of remaining milestones, along with a discussion of major remediation problems. The parties understand that the timeframes to complete the remediation efforts are subject to a great deal of uncertainty due to factors beyond the Company s control. 16. Provide an update concerning the status of discussions with the NJDEP concerning its NRD initiative as well as any other NRD-related activities, with claimed confidential information provided pursuant to a confidentiality agreement. Such update will include information about NRD-related expenditures during the prior RAC period and related documentation, as well as total NRD-related expenses deferred to date. 17. Provide information about unreasonable delays in remediation efforts caused by the inability to obtain requisite approvals, clearances or other rights from the NJDEP, local authorities or property owners, or other circumstances that are unduly impeding remediation efforts. The Company will address issues that are outside of the ordinary experience for these matters. Schedule TK-2 SLC-2 Confidential SLC-2 Confidential SLC-2 TK-3 SLC-2 SLC-2 SLC-2 SLC-2

8 PIVOTAL UTILITY HOLDINGS, INC. d/b/a ELIZABETHTOWN GAS REMEDIATION ADJUSTMENT CLAUSE ( RAC ) FILING MINIMUM FILING REQUIREMENTS (MFR) INDEX Minimum Filing Requirements 18. Provide details concerning all remediation related charges to the Company from or through AGLR and its affiliates for the past RAC period. The response should show amounts by month, by entity, and should describe the nature of services provided. Schedule SLC-2

9 STATE OF NEW JERSEY BOARD OF PUBLIC UTILITIES x In The Matter Of The Petition Of Pivotal Utility : Holdings, Inc. d/b/a Elizabethtown Gas To Revise The : Docket No. GR Remediation Adjustment Clause Component Of Its : Societal Benefits Charge Rate : PETITION x To The Honorable Board of Public Utilities: Petitioner, Pivotal Utility Holdings, Inc. d/b/a Elizabethtown Gas ( Petitioner ), a public utility corporation duly organized under the laws of the State of New Jersey subject to the jurisdiction of the Board of Public Utilities ( Board ), respectfully states: 1. Petitioner s principal business office is located at 300 Connell Drive, Suite 3000, Berkeley Heights, New Jersey follows: 2. Communications and correspondence concerning these proceedings should be sent as Mary Patricia Keefe, Esq. Erica McGill, Esq. Vice President, Regulatory Affairs AGL Resources Inc. Pivotal Utility Holdings, Inc. Ten Peachtree Place d/b/a Elizabethtown Gas Atlanta, GA Connell Drive, Suite 3000 Tel No. (404) Berkeley Heights, New Jersey Fax No. (404) Tel No. (908) emcgill@aglresources.com Fax No. (908) mkeefe@aglresources.com Kenneth T. Maloney Deborah M. Franco, Esq. Cullen and Dykman LLP Cullen and Dykman LLP 1101 Fourteenth Street, N.W. Garden City Center Suite Quentin Roosevelt Boulevard Washington, DC Garden City, NY Tel No. (202) Tel No. (516) Fax No. (202) Fax No. (516) kmaloney@culldyk.com dfranco@culldyk.com 3. Petitioner is engaged in the business of transmission and distribution of natural and mixed gas to approximately 277,000 customers within its service territory located principally in Hunterdon, Mercer, Middlesex, Morris, Sussex, Union and Warren Counties. 1

10 4. The purpose of this filing is to revise the rate associated with Petitioner's Remediation Adjustment Clause ( RAC ) component of the Societal Benefits Charge ( SBC ) and to reconcile costs and cost recoveries associated with the clause for the period in which the clause is applicable. 5. Annexed hereto and made a part of this Petition is Exhibit P-1, which Petitioner suggests be marked as indicated. Exhibit P-1 is the testimony and supporting schedules of Thomas Kaufmann, Manager of Rates and Tariffs for Petitioner. The following schedules supporting the tariff sheets and the derivation of the proposed RAC rate are attached and referred to in Exhibit P-1: (a) (b) (c) Tariff Schedule TK-1, consists of revised tariff sheets in clean and redlined form; Forecast Schedule TK-1; and RAC Schedule TK-1 through RAC Schedule TK Also annexed hereto and made a part of this Petition is Exhibit P-2, which Petitioner suggests be marked as indicated. Exhibit P-2 is the testimony of Steven L. Cook, Manager of Environmental Programs for Petitioner. The following schedules are included with Mr. Cook s testimony: (a) Schedule SLC-1 through Schedule SLC In a September 22, 2011 Board Order in BPU Docket Nos. GR , GR and GR concerning the reconciliation of Petitioner s SBC for the , and periods, it was agreed that Petitioner would provide information responsive to certain minimum filing requirements ( MFRs ) as part of future filings to reconcile its RAC rate. An Index to the MFRs is included with this Petition. As noted in the MFR Index, some of the MFR information being provided by the Company is deemed confidential and as such will be redacted and provided to those parties executing a mutually acceptable confidentiality agreement entered into subsequent to the filing of this Petition. The RAC Component of the SBC Rate 8. Petitioner s SBC was approved by the Board by Orders dated March 30, 2001 in BPU Docket Nos. GX , et al., and November 21, 2001 in Docket Nos. EX , et al. The SBC 2

11 consists of four components: (1) the Remediation Adjustment Clause ( RAC ) component, (2) the New Jersey Clean Energy Program ( CEP ) component, (3) the Universal Service Fund ( USF ) component, and (4) the Lifeline component. Petitioner is not proposing changes to the CEP, USF or Lifeline rates in this filing. The SBC charge is applicable to all customers, with the exception of those exempt from the charge pursuant to the Long-Term Capacity Agreement Pilot Program legislation enacted on January 28, On June 21, 2013, the Company filed to change the USF and Lifeline rates effective October 1, 2013 in Docket No. ER On August 23, 2013 in Docket No. GR , the Company filed to change the CEP rate effective October 1, Both of these filings are currently pending. 10. Petitioner s current RAC rate of $ per therm was approved by the Board in a April 29, 2013 Order with an effective date of May 10, 2013 in Docket No. GR Petitioner s RAC rate reconciliation filing for the period remains pending in BPU Docket No. GR Petitioner is proposing to increase its current RAC rate of $ to $ per therm effective December 1, Petitioner s accounting for RAC-related costs reflected in the calculation of the RAC factor is based on actual data for the period July 1, 2012 through June 30, 2013 plus prior period true-up amounts. All information for the 2014 Recovery Year, which is the twelve month period ending September 30, 2014, reflects forecast data. In this year s filing, the rate is designed to recover approximately $14.1 million as reflected on RAC Schedule TK-1 Line In accordance with Petitioner s tariff, the RAC component is determined by first calculating the sum of (a) one seventh of Petitioner s net deferred remediation costs incurred during the twelve months ended June 30th, for the periods ending 2013, 2012, 2011, 2010, 2009, 2008 and 2007, less the deferred tax benefit, as shown on RAC Schedule TK-2 pages 1 through 7. The calculation of the proposed rate of $ per therm is described and detailed in Mr. Kaufmann s testimony. Interest accrued on RAC-related costs is calculated in the manner approved by the Board in its order in BPU 3

12 Docket No. GX dated March 30, 2001, et al. 13. As discussed in the testimony of Mr. Cook, Petitioner owns, owned and/or operated six former MGP sites located at Erie Street in Elizabeth, South Street in Elizabeth, Rahway, Perth Amboy, Flemington and Newton. Petitioner s remediation costs are incurred to enable Petitioner to comply with applicable laws and regulations in a prudent manner. 14. Under the RAC, the total annual charge to Petitioner s customers during any Recovery Year may not exceed five percent (5%) of Petitioner s total revenues from sales transportation and storage services during the previous annual July 1 through June 30 period. As set forth in Exhibit P-1, the application of this cap calculation does not require a reduction in the remediation costs recoverable during the 2014 Recovery Year. 15. Under the RAC, Petitioner is required to project its anticipated remediation costs for the July 1, 2013 through June 30, 2014 Remediation Year. As discussed by Mr. Cook, Petitioner estimates that it will incur approximately $8 million of net deferred remediation costs during that period. However, this is only an estimate. Petitioner s actual costs will be determined by its need to comply with applicable environmental laws and regulations in a prudent manner. Overall Impact 16. The overall impact of Petitioner s filing in this proceeding is a proposed increase in the monthly bill of a typical residential heating customer using 100 therms by $2.12, from $ to $121.87, or an increase of 1.8%. A comparison of the components of the SBC rate reflecting the current rates and the proposed RAC rate is as follows: Current Rate Proposed Rate CEP $ per therm $ per therm RAC $ per therm $ per therm USF $ per therm $ per therm Lifeline $ per therm $ per therm TOTAL $ per therm $ per therm 4

13

14 PIVOTAL UTILITY HOLDINGS, INC. D/B/A ELIZABETHTOWN GAS NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARINGS TO OUR CUSTOMERS: On September 13, 2013, Pivotal Utility Holdings, Inc. d/b/a Elizabethtown Gas ( the Company ) filed a Petition with the New Jersey Board of Public Utilities ( BPU or Board ) in BPU Docket No. to revise the Remediation Adjustment Clause ( RAC ) component of its Societal Benefits Charge ( SBC ) rate. The Company has petitioned the Board to establish a RAC rate of $ per therm to be effective December 1, A comparison of the current and proposed rates is as follows: Current Rate Proposed Rate Per Therm Per Therm RAC $ $ The proposed rate is subject to Board approval and may be higher or lower depending on the Board's final determination and the date on which such rate is made effective. The effect of the Company's filing to a typical residential customer using an average of 100 therms per month is illustrated below: Consumption in Therms Present Bill Proposed Bill Change in Bill Percent Change 100 $ $ $ % Any assistance required by Customers in ascertaining the impact of the proposed rate increase will be provided by the Company on request. The Board has the statutory authority to establish the aforementioned rates at levels it finds just and reasonable. Therefore, the Board may establish this rate at a level other than that proposed by Elizabethtown. Copies of the Petition are available for inspection at the Company offices located at 300 Connell Drive, Suite 3000, Berkeley Heights, New Jersey, online at Elizabethtown s website: and at the Board of Public Utilities, 44 South Clinton Avenue, 9 th Floor, Trenton, New Jersey. PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that Public Hearings have been scheduled on the above mentioned Petition at the following times and places: Date and Time Hunterdon County Complex, Route 12, Building #1, Flemington, New Jersey Date and Time Rahway Municipal Council, Court Chambers, City Hall Plaza, Rahway, New Jersey The public is invited to attend and interested persons will be permitted to testify and/or make a statement of their views on the proposed increase. In order to encourage full participation in this opportunity for public comment, please submit requests for needed accommodations, including interpreter, listening devices and/or mobility assistance, 48 hours prior to this hearing. In addition, members of the public may submit written comments concerning the Petition to the BPU regardless of whether they attend the hearing by addressing them to: Kristi Izzo, Secretary, Board of Public Utilities, 44 South Clinton Avenue, 9 th Floor, Post Office Box 350, Trenton, New Jersey, Hearings will continue, if necessary, on such additional dates and at such locations as the Office of Administrative Law may designate in order to ensure that all interested persons may be heard. Pivotal Utility Holdings, Inc. d/b/a Elizabethtown Gas Brian MacLean Vice President of Operations

15

16

17 EXHIBIT P-1 PIVOTAL UTILITY HOLDINGS, INC. d/b/a ELIZABETHTOWN GAS DIRECT TESTIMONY OF THOMAS KAUFMANN Q. PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND BUSINESS ADDRESS. A. My name is Thomas Kaufmann. My business address is 300 Connell Drive, Suite 3000, Berkeley Heights, New Jersey Q. BY WHOM ARE YOU EMPLOYED AND IN WHAT CAPACITY? A. I am employed by Pivotal Utility Holdings, Inc. d/b/a Elizabethtown Gas ( Elizabethtown or Company ) as Manager of Rates and Tariffs. Q. WHAT IS THE SCOPE OF YOUR DUTIES AT ELIZABETHTOWN? A. I am responsible for designing and developing rates and rate schedules for regulatory filings with the New Jersey Board of Public Utilities ( Board ) and internal management purposes. I also oversee daily rate department functions, including tariff administration, monthly parity pricing, competitive analyses and preparation of management reports. Q. PLEASE DESCRIBE YOUR PROFESSIONAL QUALIFICATIONS AND BUSINESS EXPERIENCE. A. In June 1977, I graduated from Rutgers University, Newark, N.J. with a Bachelor of Arts degree in Business Administration, majoring in accounting and economics. In 1

18 EXHIBIT P July 1979, I graduated from Fairleigh Dickinson University, Madison, N.J. with a Masters of Business Administration, majoring in finance. My professional responsibilities have encompassed financial analysis, accounting, planning, and pricing in manufacturing and energy services companies in both 7 regulated and unregulated industries. In 1977, I was employed by Allied Chemical Corp. as a staff accountant. In 1980, I was employed by Celanese Corp. as a financial analyst. In 1981, I was employed by Suburban Propane as a Strategic Planning Analyst, promoted to Manager of Rates and Pricing in 1986 and to Director of Acquisitions 13 and Business Analysis in In 1993, I was employed by Concurrent Computer as a Manager, Pricing Administration. In 1996, I joined NUI Corporation ( NUI ) as a Rate Analyst, was promoted to Manager of Regulatory Support in August 1997 and Manager of Regulatory Affairs in February 1998, and named Manager of 19 Rates and Tariffs in July NUI Corporation was acquired by AGL Resources Inc. ( AGL ) in November AGL is now the parent company of Elizabethtown. Q. WHAT IS THE PURPOSE OF YOUR TESTIMONY IN THIS PROCEEDING? A. I will discuss the derivation of the Remediation Adjustment Clause ( RAC ) component of the Societal 2

19 EXHIBIT P Benefits Charge ( SBC ) rate to be assessed to the Company s customer classes subject to the RAC for the 2014 Recovery Year, which is the twelve month period ending September 30, Q. WHAT EFFECTIVE DATE IS THE COMPANY PROPOSING FOR THE RAC RATE? A. The Company is proposing that the proposed RAC rate take effect on December 1, Q. WHEN WAS THE COMPANY S RAC RATE LAST REVISED? A. This rate was last revised by an April 29, 2013 Order ( April 29 Order ) with an effective date of May 10, 2013 in Docket No. GR The April 29 Order resolved the Company s then - pending 2011 annual SBC reconciliation filing and approved the Company s current RAC rate which is a charge of $ per therm. Q. WHAT IS THE STATUS OF THE 2012 RAC ANNUAL RECONCILIATION FILING? A. The 2012 RAC filing in Docket No. GR is still pending. Q. DOES YOUR TESTIMONY INCLUDE ANY ILLUSTRATIVE SCHEDULES? A. Yes. My testimony includes schedules and proposed tariff sheets that were prepared under my direction and supervision. As explained in the Petition some of these schedules contain information responsive to the Minimum 3

20 EXHIBIT P Filing Requirements agreed to in a Board Order involving the Company s 2007, 2008 and 2009 SBC filings. An Index to the MFRs is included with the Petition. The schedules are as follows: (1) Tariff Schedule TK-1 consists of revised tariff sheets in redlined and clean form which reflect the proposed RAC rate. (2) Forecast Schedule TK-1 provides the level of forecast sales and services for the 2014 Recovery Year, which was utilized in the calculation of the proposed RAC rate. (3) RAC Schedule TK-1 sets forth the calculation of the proposed RAC rate for the 2014 Recovery Year. (4) RAC Schedule TK-2 consists of seven pages and presents the calculation of the recoverable portion of remediation costs for the twelve months ended June 30, 2013, 2012, 2011, 2010, 2009, 2008 and 2007, respectively, to be recovered through the proposed RAC rate. (5) RAC Schedule TK-3 sets forth the calculation of carrying costs applied to the RAC consistent with the Board s Order dated March 30, 2001 in Docket No. GX , et al. 4

21 EXHIBIT P (6) RAC Schedule TK-4 sets forth the prior year reconciliation of 2013 Recovery Year recoverable costs versus actual recoveries for the twelve month period ended June 30, 2013, which is included in the calculation of the proposed RAC rate. (7) RAC Schedule TK-5 sets forth the calculation to determine whether Elizabethtown s proposed recovery of remediation costs exceeds 5% of the Company s total revenues from sales, transportation and storage services during the twelve months ended June 30, (8) RAC Schedule TK-6 sets forth the RAC recoveries for the twelve months ended June 30, REVENUE FORECAST Q. WHAT IS THE METHODOLOGY USED TO PROJECT FIRM SALES AND SERVICES FOR THE RECOVERY YEAR IN ORDER TO DERIVE THE COMPANY S PROPOSED RAC RATE? A. The methodology used is the same as that used in the demand forecast which supports Elizabethtown s Basic Gas Supply Service ( BGSS ) rates. A summary of the forecast of normalized sales and services is set forth on Forecast Schedule TK

22 EXHIBIT P Q. WHAT PERIOD IS COVERED BY THE DEMAND FORECAST? A. The gas sales demand forecast as set forth on Forecast Schedule TK-1 for the RAC is for the twelve month period ended September 2014, a period of 12 months, also referred to as the 2014 Recovery Year. Q. WERE THE COMPANY'S FIRM AND NON-FIRM SALES AND TRANSPORTATION REVENUE FORECASTS PREPARED USING THE SAME METHODOLOGY USED BY THE COMPANY IN PREPARING LAST YEAR'S REVENUE FORECASTS? A. Yes. The Company continues to use regression equations based on actual historical sales demand data as well as any known customer changes to develop the forecast demand. THE RAC COMPONENT OF THE SBC RATE Q. PLEASE DESCRIBE THE SBC. A. The SBC currently consists of the following components: (1) the RAC, (2) the New Jersey Clean Energy Program ( CEP ), (3) the Universal Service Fund ( USF ) charge, and (4) the Lifeline charge. Q. WHAT CUSTOMERS ARE ASSESSED THE SBC? A. The SBC charge is applicable to all customers, with the exception of those exempt from the charge pursuant to the Long-Term Capacity Agreement Pilot Program legislation enacted on January 28,

23 EXHIBIT P Q. IS THE COMPANY PROPOSING ANY CHANGES TO THE CEP, USF OR LIFELINE RATES IN THIS FILING? A. No, as explained in the Petition, the reconciliations of those rates have been addressed in separate filings. Q. WHAT RAC RATE IS THE COMPANY PROPOSING BY THIS FILING? A. Elizabethtown is proposing a RAC rate of $ per therm, which is an increase of $ per therm from its currently effective RAC rate of $ per therm. Q. PLEASE EXPLAIN HOW THIS PROPOSED RAC RATE WAS CALCULATED. A. The proposed RAC rate is calculated by determining the sum of one seventh of the Company s net deferred remediation costs, less the deferred tax benefit associated with the unamortized balances of these costs during each of the Remediation Years ended June 30, 2013, 2012, 2011, 2010, 2009, 2008 and 2007 respectively, as shown on Pages 1-7 of RAC Schedule TK-2, as adjusted for applicable carrying costs as shown on RAC Schedule TK-3, and the prior year s projected over or under-recovery balance shown on RAC Schedule TK-4. All of these items are as shown on RAC Schedule TK-1. The net total represents the amount to be recovered in the 2014 Recovery Year through the RAC component, as shown on RAC Schedule TK-1. This total is then divided by the volumes 7

24 EXHIBIT P projected for the Recovery Year for the service classifications and customers subject to the SBC as shown on Forecast Schedule TK-1, with the resulting quotient adjusted for applicable taxes and assessments to arrive at a RAC rate of $ per therm. Q. WHAT IS THE LEVEL OF DEFERRED REMEDIATION COSTS ELIGIBLE FOR RECOVERY FOR THE REMEDIATION YEAR ENDED JUNE 30, 2013? A. The level of total deferred remediation costs for the twelve month period ended June 30, 2013 period is $4,677,398 as discussed in the testimony and supporting schedules of Company witness Steven L. Cook. The amount is then adjusted for third party recoveries and deferred insurance litigation costs as shown on RAC Schedule TK-2, 15 page 1 of 7. The resulting net amortizable recoverable costs of $4,493,256, divided by seven and adjusted for the deferred tax benefit as set forth on RAC Schedule TK- 2, page one of seven, yields $612,343. Q. WHAT ARE THE CURRENT REMEDIATION COSTS ELIGIBLE FOR RECOVERY? A. The table presents the eligible recoverable costs by year as well as each year s filing status: 23 8

25 EXHIBIT P Year Eligible Amount Filing Status / Date Approved: 2013 $612, $1,034,196 pending in Docket No. GR $1,366,481 April 29, 2013 in Docket No. GR $440,508 May 23, 2012 in Docket No. GR $458,317 September 22, 2011 in Docket No. GR $361,806 September 22, 2011 in Docket No. GR $83,579 September 22, 2011 in Docket No. GR Total $4,357,230 Q. HOW IS THE DEFERRED TAX BENEFIT CALCULATED? A. The deferred tax benefit is calculated by multiplying the unamortized portion of the Company s net deferred remediation costs by the effective statutory income tax rate and the RAC Interest Rate. In accordance with the Board s Order dated July 8, 1999 in Docket No. GR , et al., the statutory tax rate used in the calculation of the deferred tax benefit is 40.85% and includes Corporate Business Tax. This results in a deferred tax benefit of $29,551 for the twelve months 13 ended June 30, This calculation is presented in RAC Schedule TK-2, page one of seven which is the same methodology applied to the prior years being amortized. Q. WHAT ARE THE RESULTS OF THE PRIOR YEAR S RECOVERY RECONCILIATION? 9

26 EXHIBIT P A. RAC Schedule TK-4 provides a reconciliation of the 2013 Recovery Year which shows an under-recovery balance of $9,239,451 as of June 30, Q. WHAT LEVEL OF COSTS IS THE PROPOSED RAC RATE DESIGNED TO RECOVER? A. The proposed RAC rate is designed to recover an amount of $14,117,176 as set forth on RAC Schedule TK-1, Line 4. Q. PLEASE DESCRIBE THE ANNUAL CAP CALCULATION. A. Under the RAC, total annual remediation costs charged to the Company s customers during any recovery year may not exceed five percent (5%) of the Company s total revenues from sales, transportation and storage services during the preceding July 1 through June 30 period. For the twelve month period ended June 30, 2013, total revenues were $373,766,001. RAC Schedule TK-5 illustrates that the total remediation costs do not exceed the five percent cap. Q. ARE CARRYING COSTS INCLUDED IN THE RAC CALCULATION? A. Yes. In accordance with the Board s Order dated March 30, 2001 in Docket No. GX et al., the Company is permitted to recover carrying costs. The carrying costs have been accrued at the interest rate applicable to all SBC-related balances. 10

27 EXHIBIT P Q. HOW ARE THE CARRYING COSTS CALCULATED? A. Carrying cost rates are applied to each year s net prior year balance and current year expenditures and recoveries. The interest rate is based on the rate available from seven year constant maturity Treasury 6 securities established closest to August 31 st of each year 7 8 plus 60 basis points. This interest rate, currently 1.61%, is applied to monthly net RAC balances as shown on 9 10 RAC Schedule TK-3. compounded. Interest on monthly balances is not Q. PLEASE SUMMARIZE THE PROPOSED CHANGE TO THE RAC RATE. A. The current RAC rate is $ per therm and the proposed RAC rate is $ per therm, which the Company proposes to take effect December 1, Q. WHAT IS THE IMPACT OF THE PROPOSED RAC RATE CHANGE ON TYPICAL RESIDENTIAL CUSTOMERS? A. The total impact of the proposed adjustment to the RAC rate on a typical residential heating customer using 100 therms is to increase the customer's typical monthly bill by $2.12 from $ to $121.87, an increase of 1.8%, as compared to the Company s present rates. Q. DOES THIS CONCLUDE YOUR TESTIMONY? A. Yes, it does. 11

28 Tariff Schedule TK-1 Page 1 of 3 ELIZABETHTOWN GAS B. P. U. NO. 14 GAS CANCELLING B. P. U. NO. 13 GAS NINTH REVISED SHEET NO. 109 RIDER "D" SOCIETAL BENEFITS CHARGE ("SBC") Applicable to all tariff Service Classifications except those Customers under special contracts that explicitly do not permit the Company to apply increased charges or assessments as filed and approved by the NJBPU and those customers exempted pursuant to the Long-Term Capacity Agreement Pilot Program ( LCAPP ), P.L. 2011, c.9, codified as N.J.S.A. 48: See the LCAPP Exemption Procedures at the end of this Rider. The SBC is designed to recover the (1) cost of Comprehensive Resource Analysis Programs that were approved by the Board pursuant to its Comprehensive Resource Analysis regulations prior to April 30, 1997, (2) cost of Manufactured Gas Plant Remediation, and (3) cost of Consumer Education and any other new programs which the Board determines should be recovered through the Societal Benefits Charge. SBC Rate Components: Per Therm I. New Jersey Clean Energy Program ( CEP ) $ II. Remediation Adjustment Charge ( RAC ) $0.0106$ III. Universal Service Fund and Lifeline: 1. Universal Service Fund ( USF ) $ Lifeline $ TOTAL $0.1053$ In accordance with P.L. 1997, c. 162, the charges applicable under this Rider include provision for the New Jersey Sales and Use Tax, and when billed to customers exempt from this tax shall be reduced by the amount of such tax included therein. I. New Jersey Clean Energy Program Component ( CEP ) The Comprehensive Resource Analysis ( CRA ) name was changed to the Clean Energy Program - CEP per Board Order dated January 22, 2003 in Docket No. EX et.al. The CEP is a mechanism that will (1) establish a rate to recover the costs of the Core and Standard Offer Programs in the Company's CEP Plan which was approved by the Board of Public Utilities ("BPU") in Docket No. GE , and (2) compensate the Company for the revenue erosion resulting from conservation savings created by the Standard Offer Program. The annual recovery period for the CEP is from October 1 through September 30. The CEP recovers program costs and revenue erosion incurred during the previous CEP year ended June CEP program costs include the costs of core programs, standard offer payments and any administrative costs not recovered directly from standard offer providers. Date of Issue: June 12, 2013 Effective: Service Rendered on and after June 10, 2013 Issued by: Jodi Gidley Sr. Vice President, Mid-Atlantic Operations 300 Connell Drive, Suite 3000 Berkeley Heights, New Jersey Filed Pursuant to Order of the Board of Public Utilities Dated May 29, 2013 in Docket No. GR

29 CLEAN Tariff Schedule TK-1 Page 2 of 3

30 Tariff Schedule TK-1 Page 3 of 3 ELIZABETHTOWN GAS B. P. U. NO. 14 GAS CANCELLING B. P. U. NO. 13 GAS REVISED SHEET NO. 109 RIDER "D" SOCIETAL BENEFITS CHARGE ("SBC") Applicable to all tariff Service Classifications except those Customers under special contracts that explicitly do not permit the Company to apply increased charges or assessments as filed and approved by the NJBPU and those customers exempted pursuant to the Long-Term Capacity Agreement Pilot Program ( LCAPP ), P.L. 2011, c.9, codified as N.J.S.A. 48: See the LCAPP Exemption Procedures at the end of this Rider. The SBC is designed to recover the (1) cost of Comprehensive Resource Analysis Programs that were approved by the Board pursuant to its Comprehensive Resource Analysis regulations prior to April 30, 1997, (2) cost of Manufactured Gas Plant Remediation, and (3) cost of Consumer Education and any other new programs which the Board determines should be recovered through the Societal Benefits Charge. SBC Rate Components: Per Therm I. New Jersey Clean Energy Program ( CEP ) $ II. Remediation Adjustment Charge ( RAC ) $ III. Universal Service Fund and Lifeline: 1. Universal Service Fund ( USF ) $ Lifeline $ TOTAL $ In accordance with P.L. 1997, c. 162, the charges applicable under this Rider include provision for the New Jersey Sales and Use Tax, and when billed to customers exempt from this tax shall be reduced by the amount of such tax included therein. I. New Jersey Clean Energy Program Component ( CEP ) The Comprehensive Resource Analysis ( CRA ) name was changed to the Clean Energy Program - CEP per Board Order dated January 22, 2003 in Docket No. EX et.al. The CEP is a mechanism that will (1) establish a rate to recover the costs of the Core and Standard Offer Programs in the Company's CEP Plan which was approved by the Board of Public Utilities ("BPU") in Docket No. GE , and (2) compensate the Company for the revenue erosion resulting from conservation savings created by the Standard Offer Program. The annual recovery period for the CEP is from October 1 through September 30. The CEP recovers program costs and revenue erosion incurred during the previous CEP year ended June CEP program costs include the costs of core programs, standard offer payments and any administrative costs not recovered directly from standard offer providers. Date of Issue: Issued by: Jodi Gidley Sr. Vice President, Mid-Atlantic Operations 300 Connell Drive, Suite 3000 Berkeley Heights, New Jersey Effective: Service Rendered on and after Filed Pursuant to Order of the Board of Public Utilities Dated in Docket No.

31 Forecast Schedule TK-1 PIVOTAL UTILITY HOLDINGS, INC. d/b/a ELIZABETHTOWN GAS FORECASTED SALES VOLUME RECOVERY YEAR SBC Therms * Sales RDS & GLS Residential 220,366,900 SGS & GDS Commercial 69,947,829 LVD & EGF Industrial 722,775 IS, CS, CSI & Spec. Contracts Interruptible 2,087,626 Total Sales 293,125,130 Transportation RDS Residential, included above - GDS Commercial 65,009,800 FTS & Firm Spec. Contracts Industrial 50,002,439 IS, CS, & IT Spec. Contracts Interruptible 69,526,591 Total Transportation 184,538,831 Total Sales and Transportation 477,663,961 * Excludes LCAPP therms used for wholesale electric generation. Forecast-13-TK.xls TK-1

32 RAC Schedule TK-1 PIVOTAL UTILITY HOLDINGS, INC. d/b/a ELIZABETHTOWN GAS SOCIETAL BENEFITS CHARGE (SBC) REMEDIATION ADJUSTMENT CLAUSE (RAC) CALCULATION OF THE RAC COMPONENT OF THE SBC October 1, 2013 through September 30, 2014 RECOVERY YEAR a Recovery Year Amortization Costs (Sch. TK-2, L5, pgs ) $4,502,235 1.b Recovery Year Deferred Tax benefits (Sch. TK-2, L16, pgs ) ($145,005) 1 Recovery Year Recoverable Costs (1.a +1.b) $4,357,230 2 Accrued Carrying Costs (Sch. TK-3 ) $520,495 3 Prior Year RAC Underrecovery (Sch. TK-4) $9,239,451 4 Total Recovery Year Recoverable / (Refund) Costs (L1+L2+L3) $14,117,176 5 Projected Normalized Sales and Services (Forecast Sch. TK-1) 477,663,961 therms 6 RAC COMPONENT, before taxes and assessment (L4/L5) $ /therm 7 BPU & RC Assessment Factors RAC COMPONENT, before taxes (L6*L7) $ Sales & Use 7.00% $ RAC COMPONENT (L8+L9) $ /therm RAC-13-TK.xlsx TK-1

33 PIVOTAL UTILITY HOLDINGS, INC. d/b/a ELIZABETHTOWN GAS REMEDIATION ADJUSTMENT CLAUSE RAC Schedule TK of 7 AMORTIZATION RECOVERY YEAR Y/E 6/30/13 1 Total Recoverable Costs $4,677,398 2 Adjustments to Recoverable Costs 2A A. 100% of Third Party Recoveries ($7,843) 2B B. Prior Period(s) Deferred $71,171 2C C. Deferral of 50% of Ins. Litgation Awaiting Recovery ($247,470) 3 Less Miscellaneous Adjustments $0 4 Amortizable Recoverable Costs $4,493,256 5 Amortization Recoverable Cost (L4/7) $641,894 6 Deferred Tax Calculation 7 Unamortized Recoverable Costs: 8 Upcoming Recovery Year Remediation Year Difference (L8-L9) 1 11 Unamortized Factor (7-(difference-1))/ Unamortized Recoverable Costs (L4*L11) $4,493, Tax Rate 40.85% 14 Deferred Taxes on Net Deferred Remediation Cost (L12*L13) $1,835, Interest on Deferred Taxes at the RAC interest rate set August 31st 1.61% equal to the seven year constant maturity Treasuries plus 60 basis points. 16 Deferred Tax Benefit (L14*L15) ($29,551) Remediation Year (L5+L16) $612,343 RAC-13-TK.xlsx TK-2-13

34 PIVOTAL UTILITY HOLDINGS, INC. d/b/a ELIZABETHTOWN GAS REMEDIATION ADJUSTMENT CLAUSE RAC Schedule TK of 7 AMORTIZATION RECOVERY YEAR Y/E 6/30/12 1 Total Recoverable Costs $7,605,951 2 Adjustments to Recoverable Costs 2A A. 100% of Third Party Recoveries ($78,199) 2B B. Prior Period(s) Deferred $80,202 2C C. Deferral of 50% of Ins. Litgation Awaiting Recovery ($71,171) 3 Less Miscellaneous Adjustments $0 4 Amortizable Recoverable Costs $7,536,783 5 Amortization Recoverable Cost (L4/7) $1,076,683 6 Deferred Tax Calculation 7 Unamortized Recoverable Costs: 8 Upcoming Recovery Year Remediation Year Difference (L8-L9) 2 11 Unamortized Factor (7-(difference-1))/ Unamortized Recoverable Costs (L4*L11) $6,460, Tax Rate 40.85% 14 Deferred Taxes on Net Deferred Remediation Cost (L12*L13) $2,638, Interest on Deferred Taxes at the RAC interest rate set August 31st 1.61% equal to the seven year constant maturity Treasuries plus 60 basis points. 16 Deferred Tax Benefit (L14*L15) ($42,487) Remediation Year (L5+L16) $1,034,196 RAC-13-TK.xlsx TK-2-12

35 PIVOTAL UTILITY HOLDINGS, INC. d/b/a ELIZABETHTOWN GAS REMEDIATION ADJUSTMENT CLAUSE RAC Schedule TK of 7 AMORTIZATION RECOVERY YEAR Y/E 6/30/11 1 Total Recoverable Costs $9,991,455 2 Adjustments to Recoverable Costs 2A A. 100% of Third Party Recoveries ($26,501) 2B B. 50% Prior Period(s) Deferred allowed for Recoverable $5,865 2C C. Deferral of 50% of Ins. Litgation Awaiting Recovery ($80,202) 3 Less Miscellaneous Adjustments TK-3 $0 4 Amortizable Recoverable Costs $9,890,617 5 Amortization Recoverable Cost (L4/7) $1,412,945 6 Deferred Tax Calculation 7 Unamortized Recoverable Costs: 8 Upcoming Recovery Year Remediation Year Difference (L8-L9) 3 11 Unamortized Factor (7-(difference-1))/ Unamortized Recoverable Costs (L4*L11) $7,064, Tax Rate 40.85% 14 Deferred Taxes on Net Deferred Remediation Cost (L12*L13) $2,885, Interest on Deferred Taxes at the RAC interest rate set August 31st 1.61% equal to the seven year constant maturity Treasuries plus 60 basis points. 16 Deferred Tax Benefit (L14*L15) ($46,464) Remediation Year (L5+L16) $1,366,481 RAC-13-TK.xlsx TK-2-11

36 PIVOTAL UTILITY HOLDINGS, INC. d/b/a ELIZABETHTOWN GAS REMEDIATION ADJUSTMENT CLAUSE RAC Schedule TK of 7 AMORTIZATION RECOVERY YEAR 2014 Y/E 6/30/10 1 Total Recoverable Costs $3,251,160 2 Adjustments to Recoverable Costs $0 2A A. 100% of Third Party Recoveries ($78,425) 2B B. 50% Prior Period(s) Deferred allowed for Recoverable $0 2C C. Deferral of 50% of Ins. Litgation Awaiting Recovery ($5,865) 3 Less Miscellaneous Adjustments TK-3 $0 4 Amortizable Recoverable Costs $3,166,870 * 5 Amortization Recoverable Cost (L4/7) $452,410 6 Deferred Tax Calculation 7 Unamortized Recoverable Costs: 8 Upcoming Recovery Year Remediation Year Difference (L8-L9) 4 11 Unamortized Factor (7-(difference-1))/ Unamortized Recoverable Costs (L4*L11) $1,809, Tax Rate 40.85% 14 Deferred Taxes on Net Deferred Remediation Cost (L12*L13) $739, Interest on Deferred Taxes at the RAC interest rate set August 31st 1.61% equal to the seven year constant maturity Treasuries plus 60 basis points. 16 Deferred Tax Benefit (L14*L15) ($11,902) Remediation Year (L5+L16) $440,508 * Reduced by $5.865 to reflect the deferral of litigation costs pending a third party recovery. RAC-13-TK.xlsx TK-2-10

37 PIVOTAL UTILITY HOLDINGS, INC. d/b/a ELIZABETHTOWN GAS REMEDIATION ADJUSTMENT CLAUSE AMORTIZATION RECOVERY YEAR Y/E 6/30/09 RAC Schedule TK of 7 1 Total Recoverable Costs $3,269,694 2 Adjustments to Recoverable Costs 2A A. 100% of Third Party Recoveries $0 2B B. 50% Prior Period(s) Deferred allowed for Recoverable $0 2C C. Deferral of 50% of Ins. Litgation Awaiting Recovery $0 3 Less Miscellaneous Adjustments TK-3 $3,099 4 Amortizable Recoverable Costs $3,272,793 * 5 Amortization Recoverable Cost (L4/7) $467,542 6 Deferred Tax Calculation 7 Unamortized Recoverable Costs: 8 Upcoming Recovery Year Remediation Year Difference (L8-L9) 5 11 Unamortized Factor (7-(difference-1))/ Unamortized Recoverable Costs (L4*L11) $1,402, Tax Rate 40.85% 14 Deferred Taxes on Net Deferred Remediation Cost (L12*L13) $572, Interest on Deferred Taxes at the RAC interest rate set August 31st 1.61% equal to the seven year constant maturity Treasuries plus 60 basis points. 16 Deferred Tax Benefit (L14*L15) ($9,225) Remediation Year (L5+L16) $458,317 * Adjusted for $3,096 of Expenses not previously reported in July 08 - June 09 and Dec 08 South St $26.25 to $29.25 RAC-13-TK.xlsx TK-2-09

38 PIVOTAL UTILITY HOLDINGS, INC. d/b/a ELIZABETHTOWN GAS REMEDIATION ADJUSTMENT CLAUSE AMORTIZATION RECOVERY YEAR Y/E 6/30/08 RAC Schedule TK of 7 1 Total Recoverable Costs $2,566,402 2 Adjustments to Recoverable Costs 2A A. 100% of Third Party Recoveries $0 2B B. 50% Prior Period(s) Deferred allowed for Recoverable $0 2C C. Deferral of 50% of Ins. Litgation Awaiting Recovery $0 3 Less Miscellaneous Adjustments TK-3 $0 4 Amortizable Recoverable Costs $2,566,402 5 Amortization Recoverable Cost (L4/7) $366,629 6 Deferred Tax Calculation 7 Unamortized Recoverable Costs: 8 Upcoming Recovery Year Remediation Year Difference (L8-L9) 6 11 Unamortized Factor (7-(difference-1))/ Unamortized Recoverable Costs (L4*L11) $733, Tax Rate 40.85% 14 Deferred Taxes on Net Deferred Remediation Cost (L12*L13) $299, Interest on Deferred Taxes at the RAC interest rate set August 31st 1.61% equal to the seven year constant maturity Treasuries plus 60 basis points. 16 Deferred Tax Benefit (L14*L15) ($4,823) Remediation Year (L5+L16) $361,806 RAC-13-TK.xlsx TK-2-08

39 PIVOTAL UTILITY HOLDINGS, INC. d/b/a ELIZABETHTOWN GAS REMEDIATION ADJUSTMENT CLAUSE AMORTIZATION RECOVERY YEAR Y/E 6/30/07 RAC Schedule TK of 7 1 Total Recoverable Costs $676,694 2 Adjustments to Recoverable Costs 2A A. 100% of Third Party Recoveries $0 2B B. 50% Prior Period(s) Deferred allowed for Recoverable ($87,767) 2C C. Deferral of 50% of Ins. Litgation Awaiting Recovery $0 3 Less Miscellaneous Adjustments TK-3 $0 4 Amortizable Recoverable Costs $588,927 * 5 Amortization Recoverable Cost (L4/7) $84,132 6 Deferred Tax Calculation 7 Unamortized Recoverable Costs: 8 Upcoming Recovery Year Remediation Year Difference (L8-L9) 7 11 Unamortized Factor (7-(difference-1))/ Unamortized Recoverable Costs (L4*L11) $84, Tax Rate 40.85% 14 Deferred Taxes on Net Deferred Remediation Cost (L12*L13) $34, Interest on Deferred Taxes at the RAC interest rate set August 31st 1.61% equal to the seven year constant maturity Treasuries plus 60 basis points. 16 Deferred Tax Benefit (L14*L15) ($553) Remediation Year (L5+L16) $83,579 * June 07 payroll removal in the 2007 filing $5, January 07 payroll removal $8, March 07 payroll removal $3,595 $17,447 RAC-13-TK.xlsx TK-2-07

40 PIVOTAL UTILITY HOLDINGS, INC. d/b/a ELIZABETHTOWN GAS SOCIETAL BENEFITS CHARGE (SBC) REMEDIATION ADJUSTMENT CLAUSE (RAC) RAC Schedule TK-3 Carrying Costs Total Third Party (Recoveries) / Credit for Ending Balance Beginning Remediation Recoveries Adjustments Disbursement Deferred Tax Ending Average Interest Carrying plus Cumulative Balance Costs (2) at 100% (3) (see below) TK-6 Benefit (4) Balance Balance Rate * Costs Interest ** a b c d d.1 e f =b+c+d+d.1+e+ h=(b+g)/2 i j=h*i/12 m=g+ cum of j Beginning Balance (1) (Over) / Under Jul-12 $28,209,723 $927,760 $0 $0 ($19,074) ($15,789) $29,102,620 $28,656, % $51,581 $29,154,201 Aug-12 $29,102,620 $636,586 $0 $0 ($19,533) ($15,789) $29,703,884 $29,403, % $52,926 $29,808,391 Sep-12 $29,703,884 $107,842 $0 $0 ($18,741) ($15,789) $29,777,196 $29,740, % $39,902 $29,921,605 Oct-12 $29,777,196 $1,004,291 ($343) $0 ($22,000) ($15,789) $30,743,355 $30,260, % $40,599 $30,928,363 Nov-12 $30,743,355 $87,362 $0 $0 ($37,383) ($15,789) $30,777,545 $30,760, % $41,270 $31,003,823 Dec-12 $30,777,545 $81,318 $0 $0 ($60,751) ($15,789) $30,782,323 $30,779, % $41,296 $31,049,897 Jan-13 $30,782,323 $367,255 ($7,500) $0 ($71,029) ($15,789) $31,055,260 $30,918, % $41,483 $31,364,317 Feb-13 $31,055,260 $81,598 $0 $0 ($89,293) ($15,789) $31,031,776 $31,043, % $41,650 $31,382,483 Mar-13 $31,031,776 $560,420 $0 $0 ($79,098) ($15,789) $31,497,309 $31,264, % $41,947 $31,889,963 Apr-13 $31,497,309 $229,409 $0 $0 ($56,710) ($15,789) $31,654,219 $31,575, % $42,364 $32,089,237 May-13 $31,654,219 $417,161 $0 $0 ($120,166) ($15,789) $31,935,425 $31,794, % $42,658 $32,413,101 Jun-13 $31,935,425 $176,396 $0 $0 ($201,494) ($15,788) $31,894,539 $31,914, % $42,819 $32,415,034 Total $4,677,398 ($7,843) $0 ($795,272) ($189,467) $520,495 Notes: (1) Beginning Balance is the ending balance from (2) These costs include 100% of all expenses as such, they may vary from the amortizable recoverable costs on RAC Schedule TK-2. The primary difference would be the deferral of all NRD expenses and fifty percent of the costs incurred in pursuit of third party claims which are deferred pending a Third Party recovery. (3) Recovery credit at 100%, as all expenses have been included, for purposes of deriving Carrying costs. (4) Reduction of the Remediation Costs to reflect a Deferred Tax Benefit on a monthly basis sourced from last year's RAC TK-2 Schedules 1-7. * Interest Rate seven year constant maturity Treasuries closest to August 31 of each year plus 60 basis points per the Board's Order in Docket No. GX et al. ** Net (Over) / Under Recovery Position RAC-13-TK.xlsx TK-3

41 RAC Schedule TK-4 PIVOTAL UTILITY HOLDINGS, INC. d/b/a ELIZABETHTOWN GAS SOCIETAL BENEFITS CHARGE (SBC) REMEDIATION ADJUSTMENT CLAUSE (RAC) AMORTIZATION RECOVERY YEAR Prior Year's Reconciliation FOR RECOVERY YEAR Total to be Recovered / (Refunded), (prior year Sch TK-1) $10,034,723 2 Other $0 3 Adjusted Prior Year Balance (L1+L2) $10,034,723 4 Actual Recoveries / (Refunds) (Sch TK-6) $795,272 5 Prior Year Under Recovery, (L3-L4) $9,239,451 RAC-13-TK.xlsx TK-4

42 RAC Schedule TK-5 PIVOTAL UTILITY HOLDINGS, INC. d/b/a ELIZABETHTOWN GAS SOCIETAL BENEFITS CHARGE (SBC) REMEDIATION ADJUSTMENT CLAUSE (RAC) Annual Cap Calculation RECOVERY YEAR Total Revenues 12 months ended June 30, 2013 $373,766, % of Line 1 $18,688,300 3 Total Remediation Costs to be Recovered this Year, (Sch TK-1) $14,117,176 4 Excess Remediation Costs to be Deferred $0 (L4 = If L3 < L2 then zero, else L3 - L2) RAC-13-TK.xlsx TK-5

43 RAC Schedule TK-6 PIVOTAL UTILITY HOLDINGS, INC. d/b/a ELIZABETHTOWN GAS SOCIETAL BENEFITS CHARGE (SBC) REMEDIATION ADJUSTMENT CLAUSE (RAC) Cost Recoveries 12 Months Ended June-13 (Therms) Rate w/o tax * Recovery / (Disbursement) Jul-12 18,480,759 $ $19,074 Aug-12 17,787,106 $ $19,533 Sep-12 17,163,502 $ $18,741 Oct-12 19,962,780 $ $22,000 Nov-12 33,618,800 $ $37,383 Dec-12 54,609,726 $ $60,751 Jan-13 63,574,238 $ $71,029 Feb-13 79,374,138 $ $89,293 Mar-13 70,740,623 $ $79,098 Apr-13 51,352,901 $ $56,710 May-13 28,703,631 $ $120,166 Jun-13 21,568,054 $ $201,494 Total 476,936,258 $795,272 * Billing at the tariff rate yields the dollars recovered, inclusive of rate proration, if any The rate presented is derived from dividing that amount by the therms, as such rounding differences to the tariff / billing rate may result. RAC-13-TK.xlsx TK-6

44 Exhibit P-2 PIVOTAL UTILITY HOLDINGS, INC. d/b/a ELIZABETHTOWN GAS PREPARED DIRECT TESTIMONY OF STEVEN L. COOK Q. PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND BUSINESS ADDRESS. A. My name is Steven Cook. My business address is 300 Connell Drive, Suite 3000, Berkeley Heights, New Jersey Q. BY WHOM ARE YOU EMPLOYED AND IN WHAT CAPACITY? A. I am employed by AGL Resources as Manager, Environmental Programs. As such, I am responsible for the efforts of Pivotal Utility Holdings, Inc. d/b/a Elizabethtown Gas ( Elizabethtown or Company ) to investigate, contain, and remediate its former Manufactured Gas Plant ("MGP") sites. Q. WHAT IS YOUR PROFESSIONAL AND EDUCATIONAL BACKGROUND? A. I am a graduate of East Texas State University where I received my BA Degree in political science and of Seton Hall University School of Law where I earned a Juris Doctorate degree. I am also a member of the New 17 Jersey Bar. I have over twenty years of experience in the environmental field. I have been employed by AGL Resources Inc. ( AGL ) since December Prior to AGL s acquisition of NUI -1-

45 Exhibit P Corporation in 2004, I worked for more than nine years in the environmental department of NUI Utilities, Inc. ( NUI Utilities ), a subsidiary of NUI Corporation. In this position, I managed environmental compliance and liability issues associated with the operations of NUI Utilities including its New Jersey Division, Elizabethtown Gas. In this position, I participated in managing specific issues associated with the investigation and remediation of Elizabethtown s MGP 10 sites. From 1990 to 1995, I was employed by Foster 11 Wheeler Environmental Corporation. There, I held the title of Regulatory Affairs Specialist where I was responsible for assessing the impacts of federal, state and local environmental laws and regulations on various 15 environmental projects. My particular responsibilities included site remediation, permitting and compliance, and environmental liability management. Q. WHAT IS THE PURPOSE OF YOUR TESTIMONY? A. The purpose of my testimony is to support Elizabethtown's Petition in this proceeding to review the Remediation Adjustment Clause ("RAC") component of 22 the Societal Benefits Charge ( SBC ). I will discuss 23 Elizabethtown's efforts to investigate, contain and -2-

46 Exhibit P remediate its former MGP sites in a prudent manner and will discuss the costs incurred by the Company during the period July 1, 2012 through June 30, I will also discuss the Company's treatment of costs incurred to obtain third party and/or insurance recoveries of MGP-related costs and briefly describe the MGP-related rate and third party recovery that the Company has obtained during the period July 1, 2012 through June 30, Finally, I will provide a projection of the MGPrelated costs that the Company is likely to incur during the period July 1, 2013 through June 30, Q. DOES YOUR TESTIMONY INCLUDE ANY ILLUSTRATIVE SCHEDULES? A. Yes. My testimony includes the schedules listed below that were prepared under my direction and supervision. As explained in the Petition, these schedules contain information responsive to the Minimum Filing Requirements ( MFRs ) reflected in a Stipulation that was approved in the proceedings involving the Company s 2007, 2008 and 2009 SBC filings. An Index to the MFRs is included with the Petition. are as follows: The schedules (1) Schedule SLC-1 consists of a summary of MGP- related expenses incurred by the Company from July -3-

47 Exhibit P , 2012 through June 30, This schedule also provides information concerning insurance, third party and rate recoveries of MGP-related expenses. (2) Schedule SLC-2 contains information responsive to MFRs 1 through 8, MFRs 10 through 12 and MFRs 14 through 18. Q. HOW MANY FORMER MGP SITES HAS ELIZABETHTOWN OWNED OR OPERATED? A. Elizabethtown owns, owned and/or operated MGPs at six sites located within the State of New Jersey. These six sites will be referred to as (1) Erie Street, Elizabeth; (2) South Street, Elizabeth; (3) Rahway; (4) 13 Perth Amboy; (5) Flemington; and (6) Newton. Four of these six sites (Erie Street, South Street, Rahway, and Perth Amboy) were owned and/or operated solely by Elizabethtown and/or its predecessor companies. The remaining sites (Newton and Flemington) were also owned and operated by a predecessor of Jersey Central Power & Light Company, which is now owned by First Energy, herein referred to as ( JCP&L ). Elizabethtown also is responsible for a site that I will refer to as the Renora Landfill. -4-

48 Exhibit P Q. HAVE ELIZABETHTOWN'S MGP-RELATED COSTS AT ITS VARIOUS SITES BEEN INCURRED TO COMPLY WITH APPLICABLE LAWS AND REGULATIONS? A. Yes. In all instances, Elizabethtown's efforts to test, contain, and remediate its former MGP sites have been directed toward complying with applicable laws and regulations in a reasonable, cost prudent manner. Q. PLEASE UPDATE THE STATUS OF EACH OF ELIZABETHTOWN'S FORMER MGP SITES AND THE COSTS INCURRED FROM JULY 1, 2012 THROUGH JUNE 30, A. Set forth below is a discussion of the activities that were either ongoing or completed during the period July 1, 2012 through June 30, 2013 at each of the Company s MGP sites: Erie Street In accordance with applicable laws and regulations, the Company is continuing to conduct remedial investigations and to perform interim remedial measures at the Erie Street site. Activities performed during this RAC period include the completion of pre-design investigation work in Area A of the site in order to support the design of a 23 remedial action for this Area of Concern ( AOC ). The -5-

49 Exhibit P information obtained during the pre-design investigation will be used to develop bid specifications for completing the remedial action which is planned to begin during the 2014 RAC period and be completed during the 2015 RAC period. The Company also conducted work necessary to 7 complete the site remedial investigation. Delineation was achieved for all areas except vertical delineation of deep bedrock in the western portion of the site and an ecological risk assessment for the adjacent Elizabeth 11 River sediments. The Company is on track to meet the mandatory deadlines for completing the remedial investigation by May During this RAC period, the Company also completed the relining of an outfall pipe which transected the US Army Corps of Engineers flood control berm. The drainage swale and catch basin leading to the outfall 18 were rehabilitated during a prior RAC period. During that work it was determined that the outfall should be relined in order to ensure the stability of the outfall and to prevent the berm from being undermined. The Company also completed what amounted to a defacto interim remediation of site impacts that had -6-

50 Exhibit P-2 1 migrated into Third Avenue which is adjacent to the 2 site. During this RAC period, the City of Elizabeth replaced the combined sewer running down Third Avenue to the north of the site. The Company provided independent environmental oversight of the City s work, during preparation of the work, including test excavations and utility relocation and during the implementation of the sewer replacement. During the excavation work associated with the sewer replacement, the Company was able to further delineate impacts within Third Avenue and remove impacted material and groundwater encountered during the sewer replacement work. MGP impacted soil and groundwater encountered during the sewer work were transferred from Third Avenue to the MGP site for characterization and disposal by the Company. This may result in simplified future remediation efforts by the Company within Third Avenue. Quarterly river inspections were also performed during this RAC period in accordance with the NJDEP mandate to conduct these inspections

51 Exhibit P Renora Landfill Remediation of the Renora site was completed by the Renora RD/RA trust in early On September 27, 1999 the United States Environmental Protection Agency ( USEPA ) issued a letter constituting a Certificate of Completion of the Remedial Action for the Renora site. Effective March 20, 2000, the Renora site was deleted from the National Priorities List. Elizabethtown anticipates future costs for the Renora site will be limited to reimbursement of a portion of site inspection and maintenance fees. Costs Incurred for Erie Street, Including the Renora Landfill During the current remediation period, July 1, 2012 through June 30, 2013, the Company incurred costs of $1,483,494 in connection with the Erie Street site, 17 including the Renora Landfill. A breakdown of those expenses is included in Schedule SLC-1. South Street In accordance with applicable laws and regulations and an Administrative Consent Order with the NJDEP dated April 9, 1991, Elizabethtown is continuing to conduct -8-

52 Exhibit P environmental investigations and remediation at the South Street site. During this RAC period the Company completed onsite and offsite soil remediation activities at the South Street site. This included extensive excavation within South Street and Fourth Avenue and the City of Elizabeth right-of-way up to a multi-use residential/commercial structure across Fourth Avenue from the site. Some additional activities will need to be performed within the City streets due to some relatively small impacted areas which were identified during the interim remedial measure ( IRM ) work in the streets which could not be excavated due to the presence of old fragile sewer pipes which could not be supported during the work. The Company plans on remediating these small impacted areas in coordination with the City of Elizabeth future sewer replacement activities within the City streets. Also during this RAC period a draft Remedial Action report was prepared as well as a draft Perimeter Air Monitoring Report. These reports were undergoing review and should be finalized and submitted for Licensed Site -9-

53 Exhibit P Remediation Professional ( LSRP ) approval during the 2014 RAC period. Additional future work will include groundwater and bedrock investigations in order to develop and implement a groundwater remediation strategy and continued negotiations with the City of Elizabeth to obtain a deed restriction for City-owned property located on the opposite side of the Route 1 viaduct. In addition, the Company will develop a containment strategy for MGP impacts remaining beneath the Route 1 viaduct that could not be excavated during the IRM due to safety concerns of the New Jersey Department of Transportation. Costs Incurred for South Street During the current remediation period, July 1, 2012 through June 30, 2013, Elizabethtown incurred remediation costs of $1,838,860 in connection with the South Street site. A breakdown of those costs is included in Schedule SLC-1. Rahway Activities conducted at or with respect to investigation/remediation of the Rahway site during the July 1, 2012 through June 30, 2013 reporting period included Elizabethtown s implementation of the Post IRM -10-

54 Exhibit P Groundwater Monitoring Plan and associated reporting. The Company also continued permitting, design, and planning efforts in support of the remediation of impacted sediments within the adjacent river and impacts within the river bank adjacent to the site. This remediation work is planned during the RAC period. Based on observed improvements in groundwater quality since the 2008 soil remediation and an NJDEPapproved Remedial Action Report for soil remediation at the site, a Response Action Outcome ( RAO ) for the site may be issued upon the satisfactory completion of the river sediment and river bank remediation. Costs Incurred for Rahway During the current remediation period, July 1, 2012 through June 30, 2013, Elizabethtown incurred remediation costs of $256,622 in connection with the Rahway site. A breakdown of those costs is included in Schedule SLC-1. Perth Amboy In accordance with applicable laws and regulations, Elizabethtown continued to conduct environmental investigations activities at the Perth Amboy site. -11-

55 Exhibit P During this RAC period, the Company continued negotiations with the property owner, Saint Demetrios Greek Orthodox Church ( Church ), regarding planned remedial strategy and site access and logistics. However, a mutually acceptable agreement has not been reached with the Church as of yet. Remediation is anticipated to begin in the late spring/summer of Costs Incurred for Perth Amboy During the current remediation period, July 1, 2012 through June 30, 2013, Elizabethtown incurred remediation costs of $8,046, in connection with the Perth Amboy site. A breakdown of those costs is included in Schedule SLC-1. Flemington In accordance with applicable laws and regulations, Elizabethtown continued to conduct environmental investigations activities at the Flemington site. During this RAC period, the Company completed planning and permitting in support of an interim remedial measure for soils on a portion of the site to support the construction of a Company operations facility. In preparation for the IRM, the Company also -12-

56 Exhibit P performed pre-design investigation activities and developed a Remedial Action Report which was approved by the site LSRP. The Company initiated and completed the IRM during the winter of 2013 and is currently preparing a Remedial 6 Action Report to be submitted to the site LSRP. The Company also initiated the design of a vapor intrusion mitigation system for the planned operations building which will be installed early in the 2014 RAC period and will resolve any future vapor intrusion concerns at the 11 site. Planning activities for the remediation of the remaining site area outside of the IRM area will be performed during the 2014 RAC period. During this RAC period, the Phase IV Supplemental Remedial Investigation Report was also revised and resubmitted to and approved by the site LSRP. The revised report included the results of the vapor intrusion investigation conducted during the prior RAC year. The Company also evaluated performing an ecological risk assessment for the sediments in the adjacent stream

57 Exhibit P Costs Incurred for Flemington During the current remediation period, July 1, 2012 through June 30, 2013, Elizabethtown incurred net remediation costs of $424,658 in connection with the Flemington site. A breakdown of those costs is included in Schedule SLC-1. Newton In accordance with applicable laws and regulations, Elizabethtown continued to conduct environmental investigations activities at the Newton site. The Company completed wetlands sediment sampling and initiated activities in support of subdividing a portion or impacted wetlands currently part of the adjacent Brookes property in an attempt to reduce the extent of required wetland remediation. The Company also installed additional wells on site to further delineate groundwater impacts and conducted 18 groundwater sampling. The Company also worked to gain access to install an additional well on an offsite property which will be completed during the 2014 RAC period. The Company also abandoned the impacted Brooke s production well and evaluated the need for a -14-

58 Exhibit P supplemental ecological investigation and evaluated remedial alternatives for the site. The Company anticipates the development and implementation of an IRM to address impacts associated with a subsurface gas holder and to remove free and residual product during the RAC period. Costs Incurred for Newton During the current remediation period, July 1, 2012 through June 30, 2013, Elizabethtown incurred net remediation costs of $75,095, in connection with the Newton site. A breakdown of those costs is included in Schedule SLC-1. Q. HAS ELIZABETHTOWN INCURRED ANY MGP-RELATED COSTS THAT ARE NOT SPECIFICALLY RELATED TO PARTICULAR MGP SITES? A. Yes. In addition to the costs specifically allocated to the individual Elizabethtown MGP sites, Elizabethtown has incurred additional costs of $222,338 for the overall management of the investigation and remediation of the Company's MGP sites. These unallocated costs are included in Schedule SLC-1, Lines 8 and 9. These unallocated costs include internal labor costs in accordance with the Stipulation approved by the Board in the Company s last base rate case proceeding in -15-

59 Exhibit P BPU Docket No. GR and costs associated with liability cost estimating in accordance with the Stipulation approved by the Board in BPU Docket Nos. GR , GR and GR Q. HAS ELIZABETHTOWN OBTAINED BASE RATE RECOVERY OF ANY MGP-RELATED EXPENSES? A. No. As a result of the Board s March 30, 2001 Order in Docket No. GX et al, Elizabethtown has, since June 1, 2001, deferred all MGP-related costs for recovery through the RAC component of the SBC. Q. DOES ELIZABETHTOWN'S NET DEFERRED MGP-RELATED COSTS INCLUDE ANY COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH INSURANCE LITIGATION AND PURSUING THIRD PARTY CLAIMS? A. Yes. Elizabethtown has incurred $368,285 of such costs during the period July 1, 2012 through June 30, 2013 associated with third party claims, fifty percent of which ($184,142) is being deferred pending receipt of third party recoveries. In 2013 third party recoveries amounted to $7,843, allowing for a like amount of the deferred balance to be recovered. Elizabethtown continues to work to preserve the Company s rights to insurance proceeds for future recoveries. -16-

60 Exhibit P Q. ARE THERE ANY SALE OF PROPERTY ALLOCATIONS REFLECTED IN THE DETERMINATION OF THE RAC COMPONENT OF THE SBC? A. No allocations from the sale of property are reflected in the RAC component of the SBC for this reporting year. Q. PLEASE SUMMARIZE THE TOTAL MGP-RELATED EXPENDITURES THAT ELIZABETHTOWN SEEKS TO BEGIN TO RECOVER IN THIS PROCEEDING. A. As set forth on Schedule SLC-1, Elizabethtown incurred remediation costs of $4,677,398. In this proceeding, after adjusting for the receipt of Third Party Recoveries and deferred litigation costs, the Company is seeking to recover $4,493,256. The net costs are used to calculate the proposed RAC factor in this proceeding. Q. PLEASE PROVIDE AN ESTIMATE OF THE REMEDIATION COSTS THAT ELIZABETHTOWN IS LIKELY TO INCUR DURING THE PERIOD JULY 1, 2013 THROUGH JUNE 30, A. Based on the scope of work planned during this period, I estimate that the Company may incur approximately $8 million of remediation costs during the 22 year ending June 30, However, this is only a 23 rough estimate. The Company s costs will continue to be -17-

61 Exhibit P driven by its need to comply with applicable laws and regulations. Q. DOES THIS CONCLUDE YOUR TESTIMONY? A. Yes, it does. -18-

62 Schedule SLC-1 Pivotal Utility Holdings, Inc. d/b/a Elizabethtown Gas Manufactured Gas Plant Remediation Program Summary Statement of Site Expenses Annual Report July 1, 2012 through June 30, 2013 (1) Natural (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) Net Resource Total Ins. Lit/ Recovery of Remediation Line Consulting/ NJDEP Damages Remediation NRD Third Party Deferred Third Party Cost No. Description Remediation Legal Oversight (NRD) Other Expenses Deferral 100% Deferral 50% Expenses Recoveries This Period 1 Elizabeth (Erie Street) $1,453,284 $26,495 $3,715 $0 $0 $1,483,494 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,483,494 2 Elizabeth (South Street) $1,799,365 $26,495 $13,000 $0 $0 $1,838,860 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,838,860 3 Rahway $253,342 $0 $3,280 $0 $0 $256,622 $0 $0 $0 $0 $256,622 4 Perth Amboy $5,746 $0 $2,300 $0 $0 $8,046 $0 $0 $0 $0 $8,046 5 Flemington $424,658 $0 $0 $0 $0 $424,658 $0 $0 $0 $0 $424,658 6 Newton $73,187 $1,908 $0 $0 $0 $75,095 $0 $0 $0 $0 $75,095 7 Renora $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 (Erie Street) 8 Internal $0 $0 $0 $0 $57,253 $57,253 $0 $0 $0 $0 $57,253 9 Misc. $154,698 $0 $0 $0 $10,387 $165,085 $0 $0 $0 $0 $165, Insurance Litigation/ $1,228 $367,057 $0 $0 $0 $368,285 $0 ($184,142) $7,843 ($7,843) $184,143 Third Party Claims 11 $4,165,508 $421,955 $22,295 $0 $67,640 $4,677,398 $0 ($184,142) $7,843 ($7,843) $4,493,256 Notes: 1 Elizabeth, Erie Street site includes costs incurred for Renora Landfill. 2 Pursuit of Third Party Claims at 100% of expenses incurred, 50% of which is deferred pending a Third Party recovery % of Natural Resource Damages deferred pending BPU resolution. 4 50% of the expenses incurred in the pursuit of Insurance and/or Third Party Claims. 5 Allowable recovery of the deferred expenses incurred in pursuit of Insurance and/or Third Party recoveries. 6 Credit of 100% of amounts received from Third Parties. RAC-13-SLC.xlsx SLC-1

63 Schedule SLC-2

64 SLC-2 MFR-1 MFR-1 Please provide a vendor listing for the prior RAC period that contains information concerning vendor expenditures by MGP site, also showing a description of the services provided and the amount of each vendor invoice. The vendor list should include the monthly actual expenditures for the twelve month RAC period. Please see attachment MFR-1.1 for vendor expenditures by site and MFR-1.2 for a description of the services provided by each vendor.

65 MFR 1.1 Elizabethtown Gas MGP Vendor Expenditures July 2012 through June 2013 Vendor Name Erie St South St Rahway Flemington Perth Amboy Newton Misc. Ins Litigation/ Ins Recovery Internal Total AECOM Inc , , $338, CoreStaff Services , $1, Covington & Burling , $367, Creamer Environmental 86, ,467, $1,553, Environmental Cost Management , $2, Expense Journal , $10, GEI Consultants, Inc 1,281, , , $1,450, H&G Public Affairs, LLC , , $26, Insurance Recovery (checks) (7,842.50) 0.00 ($7,842.50) JCP&L , , $93, Langan Engineering & Environmental , , , $172, Larry's Landscaping , $2, Lasser Sussman Associates LLC , $4, NJ Division of Revenue 3, , , , $22, Panther Technologies, Inc , $271, Payroll , $57, Riker, Danzig, Scherer & Hyland 26, , $52, TRC Solutions , $163, Veolia Environmental Services 85, , $88, $1,483, $1,838, $256, $424, $8, $75, $165, $360, $57, $4,669, Note: Creamer Environmental, GEI Consultants and Panther Technologies represent the contractors whose invoices exceeded $250,000 in aggregate for the period for the top three sites. MFR 1.1.xlsx

66 MFR-1.2 Elizabethtown Gas MGP Remediation Vendor Services* July 2012 through June 2013 AECOM Rahway MGP Engineering consulting for the design and implementation of remedial investigation and remedial action CoreStaff Services All MGP Sites Provided temporary staffing to assist in the electronic compilation of historical MGP invoices for insurance litigation settlement discussions. Covington & Burling All MGP Sites Legal services relating to insurance recovery and insurance recovery litigation Creamer Environmental Erie Street and South Street MGP Remedial construction Environmental Cost Management All MGP Sites Assist in the development of environmental liability cost estimates for ETG s MGP sites 1

67 MFR-1.2 GEI Consultants Flemington and Erie Street MGP Engineering consulting for the design and implementation of remedial investigation and remedial action activities H&G Public Affairs South Street and Flemington MGP Public relations and community outreach services JCP&L Flemington and Newton MGP Responsible party for remedial investigation and remedial action Langan Engineering and Environmental Services South Street MGP Engineering consulting for the design and implementation of remedial investigation and remedial action Preparation of specification and bid documents and analysis of bids received Engineering oversight of the remediation construction contractor Perth Amboy MGP Engineering consulting for the design and implementation of remedial investigation activities. Newton MGP Engineering consulting for the design and implementation of remedial investigation activities. 2

68 MFR-1.2 Larry s Landscaping Rahway MGP Property maintenance at MGP remediation site Lasser Sussman Associates LLC Newton MGP Appraisal services for land. New Jersey Dept. of Treasury / Div. of Revenue All MGP Sites Regulatory oversight Panther Technologies, Inc. Flemington MGP Remedial construction Riker, Danzig, Scherer and Hyland Erie Street and South Street MGP Legal services associated with the Elizabeth River litigation TRC South Street MGP Perimeter air monitoring and reporting during remediation activities 3

69 MFR-1.2 Veolia ES Erie Street and Flemington MGP Regulated waste disposal services primarily for IDW *For a detailed description of specific services provided by a given vendor under the general categories listed above, please see description of services included with individual vendor invoices. 4

70 SLC-2 MFR-2 MFR-2 Identify the three MGP sites with the highest level of expenditures during the prior RAC period. For each identified site, provide a copy of the latest work plan, remediation report, or major work product submitted to the NJDEP. The copies should include the narrative portion of the report or work plan but need not include the technical supporting workpapers, charts and tables. The three MGP sites with the highest level of expenditure during the prior RAC period are the Flemington former MGP site, the South Street former MGP site and the Erie Street former MGP site. Attachment MFR-2.1 contains a copy of the latest major work product submitted to NJDEP for the Flemington site. No work plans, remediation reports or major work product was submitted to NJDEP for the South Street or Erie Street sites during this RAC period. The draft South Street Remedial Action Report is currently being reviewed and the Erie Street Phase II Remedial Investigation Report is currently being drafted. The Company anticipates a new report will be available for the 2014 filing based on current timelines.

71 MFR-2.1 Page 1 of 27 Geotechnical Environmental and Water Resources Engineering Interim Remedial Measure Work Plan Flemington Former MGP Site Block 5, Lot 14 Borough of Flemington, Hunterdon County, New Jersey Block 18.01, Lot 14 Raritan Township, Hunterdon County, New Jersey NJDEP SRP ID: Submitted to: AGL Resources, Inc. 300 Connell Drive, Suite 3000 Berkeley Heights, New Jersey Submitted by: GEI Consultants, Inc Horizon Way, Suite 200 Mount Laurel, New Jersey (856) November 2012 Project Kathleen F. Slimon, P.E. Senior Engineer Barry J. Raus, P.G. Project Manager

72 I N T E R I M R E M E D I A L M E A S U R E W O R K P L A N A G L R E S O U R C E S, I N C. F L E M I N G T O N F O R M E R M G P S I T E N O V E M B E R MFR-2.1 Page 2 of 27 Table of Contents Abbreviations and Acronyms Executive Summary iv v 1. Introduction 1 2. Remedial Investigation Summary Remedial Investigation Activities Pre-Design Investigation Nature and Extent of Contamination 4 3. Description of Remedial Action Objectives of Proposed Remedial Action Remedial Action Preparation Permits Soil Erosion and Sediment Control Permit Dewatering Wetlands Permit Tree Removal Permit Property Access Public Notification Waste Characterization Sampling Site Preparation Erosion Control/Staging Property Condition Surveys Excavation Description Excavated Materials Management Excavation Dewatering Off-Site Soil Treatment/Recycling Health and Safety/Environment Backfilling and Restoration Demobilization Health and Safety Plan Cost Estimate Schedule 17 References 18 ii

73 I N T E R I M R E M E D I A L M E A S U R E W O R K P L A N A G L R E S O U R C E S, I N C. F L E M I N G T O N F O R M E R M G P S I T E N O V E M B E R MFR-2.1 Page 3 of 27 Table of Contents (continued) Tables 1 Case Inventory Document 2 Soil Sample Analytical Data within IRM Footprint Figures 1 Site Location Map 2 Aerial Site View 3 Current Site Conditions and Historical Structures 4 Analytical Results Previous Investigations 5 Summary of Visual Impacts Within IRM Footprint 6 Proposed Limits of Excavation Appendices A Pre-Design Investigation Summary Report B Health and Safety Plan iii

74 I N T E R I M R E M E D I A L M E A S U R E W O R K P L A N A G L R E S O U R C E S, I N C. F L E M I N G T O N F O R M E R M G P S I T E N O V E M B E R MFR-2.1 Page 4 of 27 Abbreviations and Acronyms AOCs ARRC CID Clean Earth CRZ CSM ETG ft bgs GEI HASP HDPE IRM JCP&L LSRP MGP MOA N.J.A.C. NJDEP OSHA PDI RAO RAR SRS RU SESC SRP SRRA SRS the Site USEPA Areas Of Concern Admission Requirements Remediation of Contamination Sites Case Inventory Document Clean Earth, Inc. Contamination Reduction Zone Conceptual Site Model Elizabethtown Gas Company feet below ground surface GEI Consultants, Inc. Health and Safety Plan high-density polyethylene Interim Remedial Measure Jersey Central Power and Light Company Licensed Site Remediation Professional manufactured gas plant Memorandum of Agreement New Jersey Administrative Code New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection Occupational Safety and Health Administration Pre-Design Investigation Response Action Outcome Remedial Action Report Soil Remediation Standard restricted use Soil Erosion and Sediment Control Site Remediation Program Site Remediation Reform Act Soil Remediation Standards The Former Flemington Manufactured Gas Plant (MGP) Site United States Environmental Protection Agency iv

75 I N T E R I M R E M E D I A L M E A S U R E W O R K P L A N A G L R E S O U R C E S, I N C. F L E M I N G T O N F O R M E R M G P S I T E N O V E M B E R MFR-2.1 Page 5 of 27 Executive Summary GEI Consultants, Inc. (GEI) has prepared this Interim Remedial Measures Work Plan (IRM Work Plan) for implementation of an IRM on a portion of the former Flemington manufactured gas plant (MGP) site (the Site) located in Flemington Borough, Hunterdon County, New Jersey. The IRM will be performed on behalf of Jersey Central Power and Light Company (JCP&L) and Elizabethtown Gas Company (ETG), an AGL Company, pursuant to the Technical Requirements for Site Remediation Title 7, Section 26E of the New Jersey Administrative Code (N.J.A.C. 7.26E) and the Administrative Requirements for the Remediation of Contaminated Sites (ARRCS) Rules N.J.A.C. 7:26C. The objective of the IRM is to remove surface soil MGP impacts above the Direct Contact Soil Remediation Standards (DCSRS) and free and/or residual product within the overburden and fill material beneath the footprint of a proposed office building and associated parking areas. The Site consists of two parcels, both owned by ETG: Block 5 Lot 14 Flemington Borough, and Block Lot 14 Raritan Township. The IRM will be performed on a portion of the Raritan Township parcel, on which ETG currently owns and operates a service center. This IRM Work Plan has been prepared to meet the requirements of N.J.A.C. 7:26E Section5.5, Remedial Action Work Plan Requirements, the NJDEP 1998 Revised Guidance Document for the Remediation of Contaminated Soils, and the NJDEP Alternative and Clean Fill Guidance for SRP Sites dated December 29, The selected soil remedy is excavation with off-site treatment/recycling of soils. Excavated areas will be backfilled with certified clean fill. The excavation depth is expected to range from 2 to 7 feet below the current ground surface. The area of excavation is within the referenced Raritan Township parcel. Approximately 3,850 cubic yards of soil will be excavated. This IRM Work Plan describes the general plans for excavation, dewatering, backfill, and permitting. Confirmation soil sampling will not be necessary since excavation will remove surface soils impacts to provide for a clean soil buffer within the IRM footprint and the objective of deeper soil excavation is to remove free and/or residual product to protect groundwater. This remedy provides for restricted use of the IRM area which is consistent with the overall conceptual remedy for the MGP site. Groundwater related site activities will be limited to excavation dewatering as required to allow for the safe excavation of soils. Minimal dewatering is anticipated during the IRM because the limits of excavation are not expected to intersect the water table for the majority of the excavation area. Groundwater encountered during the excavation will be containerized and shipped off site for treatment and disposal at an approved facility. v

76 I N T E R I M R E M E D I A L M E A S U R E W O R K P L A N A G L R E S O U R C E S, I N C. F L E M I N G T O N F O R M E R M G P S I T E N O V E M B E R MFR-2.1 Page 6 of Introduction This interim remedial measure (IRM) Work Plan was prepared for a portion of Block Lot 14 Raritan Township. This Raritan Township parcel along with Block 5 Lot 14 Flemington Borough is the site of the former Flemington manufactured gas plant (MGP) located in Flemington Borough, Hunterdon County, New Jersey (Site). The IRM will be performed on behalf of Jersey Central Power and Light Company (JCP&L) and Elizabethtown Gas Company (ETG) pursuant to the Technical Requirements for Site Remediation Title 7, Section 26E of the New Jersey Administrative Code (N.J.A.C. 7.26E) and the Administrative Requirements for the Remediation of Contaminated Sites (ARRCS) Rules N.J.A.C. 7:26C.The Flemington Borough parcel was the site of the original MGP which operated in the late 19 th century, and the Raritan Township parcel was the location of the MGP in the early to mid-1900s. Currently, the Site operates as an ETG service center and is surrounded by a mix of residential and commercial properties. ETG plans to construct a new office building and associated parking areas on a portion of the Raritan Township parcel, currently scheduled for construction in early GEI developed this IRM Work Plan to address free and/or residual product and surface soil analytical impacts beneath the proposed office building and associated parking areas (the IRM footprint). A topographic site location map is included as Figure 1. An aerial photograph view highlighting the parcels comprising the Site is included as Figure 2. Figure 3 depicts the current site conditions and permitted monitoring well locations, the location of historic structures including those comprising the former MGP site, and the proposed IRM footprint. Previous site investigations indicate that surface soil and subsurface soil within some areas of the IRM footprint have constituent concentrations above the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP) Soil Remediation Standards (SRS) and contain visual impacts including free and/or residual product. The extents of free and residual product within the IRM footprint were confirmed by a pre-design investigation (PDI) conducted the week of July 30, The results of this investigation are summarized in Appendix A. This IRM Work Plan has been developed in accordance with the N.J.A.C. 7:26E-5.5, Remedial Action Work Plan Requirements, the Revised Guidance Document for the Remediation of Contaminated Soils (NJDEP, 1998) and the Alternative and Clean Fill Guidance for SRP Sites (NJDEP, December 2011). The NJDEP Site Remediation Program (SRP) preferred identification number for the Site is This IRM Work Plan specifies removal of surface soil with MGP impacts above the Soil Remediation Standards (SRS) and subsurface soil with MGP-related visual impacts to 1

77 I N T E R I M R E M E D I A L M E A S U R E W O R K P L A N A G L R E S O U R C E S, I N C. F L E M I N G T O N F O R M E R M G P S I T E N O V E M B E R MFR-2.1 Page 7 of 27 address free and/or residual product present in fill and overburden soils within the IRM footprint. This IRM does not address visual impacts within in bedrock, MGP-related analytical impacts present above the SRS or default impact to groundwater criteria (IGW) in subsurface soil, or groundwater impacts that may be present within the IRM footprint. Remediation of analytical impacts in surface soil and visual impacts in subsurface soil within the IRM footprint site will be conducted in one phase via soil excavation to provide for restricted use of the area that is protective of human health and the environment through the removal of free and/or residual product and surface soil impacts above the SRS and the covering of remaining subsurface analytical soil impacts with a minimum of 2-feet of clean fill. This IRM is consistent with the overall conceptual site remedy. 2

78 I N T E R I M R E M E D I A L M E A S U R E W O R K P L A N A G L R E S O U R C E S, I N C. F L E M I N G T O N F O R M E R M G P S I T E N O V E M B E R MFR-2.1 Page 8 of Remedial Investigation Summary 2.1 Remedial Investigation Activities Environmental characterization of the Site began in 1985 and has included surface and subsurface soil sampling, sediment sampling, rock coring, and surface and groundwater gauging and sampling. Wetlands delineation surveys and groundwater receptor surveys have also been conducted at and near the Site. Prior investigations have been performed at the Site by Dames & Moore, United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), and GEI. These investigations included: Preliminary Site Investigation, Dames & Moore, Phase II Subsurface Investigation, Dames & Moore, Phase III Remedial Investigation Additional Work Plan and Focused Feasibility Study, Dames & Moore, 1993 USEPA National Priority List Investigation, USEPA, 1993 Historical Review Report, Dames & Moore, 1994 Phase III Remedial Investigation Addendum, GEI/Atlantic, 1997 Phase IV Remedial Investigation Report, GEI, 2007 Supplemental Phase IV Remedial Investigation Report, GEI, 2011 Reports documenting findings of the aforementioned investigations were previously submitted to the NJDEP in February 1993, July 1993, July 1994, March 1998, September 2007, and April 2011, respectively. A report documenting an investigation of the presence of historic fill adjacent to the Site was prepared by JMZ Geology in 1994 on behalf of JCP&L and ETG. 2.2 Pre-Design Investigation A PDI was performed the week of July 30, 2012 to support the IRM activities presented in this Work Plan. The results of the PDI investigation are summarized in Appendix A. The objectives of the PDI were as follows: Confirm the extent of free and residual product within overburden and fill material within the limits of the IRM. Collect waste classification soil samples as required to obtain pre-approval at selected ETG and JCP&L-approved soil disposal facilities. Obtain additional data on the depth to bedrock and depth to water within the limits of the IRM. 3

79 I N T E R I M R E M E D I A L M E A S U R E W O R K P L A N A G L R E S O U R C E S, I N C. F L E M I N G T O N F O R M E R M G P S I T E N O V E M B E R MFR-2.1 Page 9 of 27 The following activities were performed during the PDI: Ten test trenches were completed (TP-74 through TP-83) to competent bedrock. Soil samples were collected for waste characterization purposes. 2.3 Nature and Extent of Contamination Data from the multi-phased investigation of the former MGP site have demonstrated the presence of MGP-related contaminants in soil, groundwater, and sediment at concentrations above respective NJDEP remediation criteria. A Case Inventory Document (CID) has been completed providing a summary of each area of concern (AOC) and major case components for the Site. The CID is presented in Table 1. This IRM Work Plan specifies removal of surface soil with MGP impacts above the SRS and subsurface soil with MGP-related visual impacts to address free and/or residual product for fill and overburden soils within the IRM footprint. This IRM does not address visual impacts within in bedrock, MGP-related analytical impacts present above the SRS or default impact to groundwater criteria (IGW) in subsurface soil, or groundwater impacts that may be present within the IRM footprint. The soil analytical results within the IRM footprint from all phases of investigation are summarized on Figure 4 and a summary of visual impacts within the IRM footprint is provided on Figure 5. The soil analytical data for samples collected within the footprint of the IRM are provided on Table 2. Surface soil and subsurface soil within some areas of the IRM footprint have constituent concentrations above the SRS and contain visual impacts including free and/or residual product. The extent of free and residual product within the IRM footprint was confirmed by the PDI conducted the week of July 30, These results indicate that the extent of free and residual product within the IRM foot print is limited to the southwest portion of the IRM area, adjacent to the former holder foundation. The deepest impacts were encountered in TP- 78 to the top of bedrock, a depth of 7 feet below ground surface (ft bgs). TP-78 was performed during the PDI and these results are consistent with impacts identified in TP-61 performed during the preliminary site investigation. Free and residual product was not identified below 3 ft bgs in the majority of the test pits performed within the IRM footprint as illustrated on Figure 5. 4

80 I N T E R I M R E M E D I A L M E A S U R E W O R K P L A N A G L R E S O U R C E S, I N C. F L E M I N G T O N F O R M E R M G P S I T E N O V E M B E R MFR-2.1 Page 10 of Description of Remedial Action 3.1 Objectives of Proposed Remedial Action The objectives of the proposed remedial action are to remove surface soils with concentrations of MGP-related constituents above the SRS and free and/or residual product in subsurface soil within the IRM footprint (the area beneath the proposed office building and associated parking areas) by excavation and provide the covering of remaining subsurface soil impacts with minimum of 2-feet of clean fill. The proposed excavation area and depths are shown on Figure 6. The excavation will result in the removal of approximately 3,850 cubic yards of fill and overburden soil. The excavation depths may be adjusted based on visual observations during excavation if conditions vary substantially from those observed in the PDI and previous investigations. If visual impacts are encountered within the IRM footprint beneath the specified excavation depths, excavation will continue to 2 feet below the visual impacts or until the top of competent bedrock. The IRM footprint encompasses only a portion of the Site; future remedial actions will address MGP impacts on the remainder of the Site beyond the limits of the IRM footprint. The goal of the IRM is to provide the LSRP with the information needed to support the preparation of a restricted use, soils only, Response Action Outcome with remedial action permitting for this portion of the MGP site. 3.2 Remedial Action Preparation The proposed remedial action will consist of excavation, off-site thermal destruction of contaminants and beneficial reuse of site soil, with dewatering as needed to maintain a dry excavation. Remedial action preparation will consist of obtaining required permits, waste characterization sampling (performed during the PDI), construction of erosion control measures, and construction of temporary soil stockpiling and staging areas Permits The remedy will be implemented in compliance with local, state, and federal permit requirements, as applicable. Specific applicable permits are identified below Soil Erosion and Sediment Control Permit The IRM area of disturbance is greater than 5,000 square feet, thus a soil erosion and sediment control (SESC) permit will be required. This permit will be obtained from the Hunterdon County Soil Conservation District. 5

81 I N T E R I M R E M E D I A L M E A S U R E W O R K P L A N A G L R E S O U R C E S, I N C. F L E M I N G T O N F O R M E R M G P S I T E N O V E M B E R MFR-2.1 Page 11 of Dewatering The limits of excavation are not expected to penetrate the water table within the majority of the IRM footprint; therefore, only limited dewatering is anticipated. Groundwater that enters the excavation by seepage of perched water or storm water runoff will be pumped from the excavation, containerized, and transported off site to a licensed facility for treatment and disposal. There is no project-specific permit required for this method of dewatering and offsite treatment and disposal Wetlands Permit Wetlands permits will not be required for the scope of work for the IRM as the area is beyond the jurisdictional limits of the NJDEP. Delineated wetlands at the Site and the associated transition areas (buffers) completed to obtain land use permits, GP-4 and GP-5, are shown on Figure 3. This information was provided to the NJDEP for a determination of jurisdiction. In response, the NJDEP provided an on July 3, 2012 confirming that the proposed IRM activities are outside the limits of the freshwater wetlands and transition area NJDEP jurisdiction Tree Removal Permit The safe excavation of contaminated soils at the Site may require the removal of several trees of varying size. Prior to contracting for the removal of the trees the Borough of Flemington will be contacted to determine whether a permit or authorization as outlined in Chapter of the General Ordinances will be required Property Access ETG owns both of the parcels comprising the Site. Access to the Site will be from an established driveway to East Main Street. A secondary access to the Site from Hopewell Avenue would require access to adjacent properties not owned by ETG. This secondary access is not expected to be used by the remediation contractor for implementation of the IRM, although ETG employees may use this access to reach the service center while remedial excavation work blocks the main site entrance Public Notification ETG will implement a public notification plan that will include notification of NJDEP, the Borough of Flemington, Hunterdon County, and residents and businesses within 200-feet of the Site at least 60-days prior to the initiation of the proposed remedial activities. A copy of this IRM Work Plan will be provided to the Borough of Flemington if requested. Additionally, a fact sheet outlining the proposed activities that includes a contact number for additional questions will be generated and made available for distribution to the public. 6

82 I N T E R I M R E M E D I A L M E A S U R E W O R K P L A N A G L R E S O U R C E S, I N C. F L E M I N G T O N F O R M E R M G P S I T E N O V E M B E R MFR-2.1 Page 12 of Waste Characterization Sampling Pre-characterization of soil to be excavated was performed as part of the PDI. A summary of the samples collected for waste characterization is provided in Appendix A. The waste characterization data will be provided in a separate PDI Data Report for use in the preparation of the remedial construction design. This report will also be provided to contractors as part of the bidding process. Soil was characterized for off-site treatment by thermal desorption at Clean Earth, Inc. s (Clean Earth) facilities in New Castle, Delaware and Morrisville, Pennsylvania. Samples were collected from test pits and analyzed in accordance with each facility s permit requirements. Using the excavation dimensions shown of Figure 6, the estimated volume of soil to be excavated is approximately 3,850 cubic yards. Assuming a soil density factor of 1.5 tons per cubic yard, the proposed soil excavation and disposal volume is equivalent to 5,775 tons. It is expected that excavated soil will be direct loaded for off-site transport during the remedial action Site Preparation Site preparation will include protection of utilities and permitted monitoring wells, improvement of the access/haul road and installation of a construction entrance, installation of the dewatering and treatment system, removal of some existing fencing and installation of temporary fencing, removal of light poles within the excavation area, minimal clearing and grubbing, removal of several trees, and installation of sediment and erosion control measures. The only monitoring wells within the IRM footprint are MW-21D and MW-21DD, both of which are constructed with steel casings into bedrock. These wells will be protected during the work, although the fill and overburden surrounding the wells will be excavated and backfilled. All other monitoring wells adjacent to the IRM footprint will be protected during the work. No monitoring wells will be abandoned. The New Jersey One Call system will be contacted and provided with excavation plans and other applicable documentation prior to site mobilization. A private utility locator will be contracted to mark out utilities in the excavation area. Utilities known to exist within the IRM footprint include underground electric, gas and water. The approximate locations of these utilities are provided on Figure 3. The utilities will be protected and/or removed and replaced during implementation of the IRM. The existing access road will be improved as necessary for construction truck traffic and in accordance with the approved SESC plan to allow for access and egress of contractor personnel, equipment, and vehicle (e.g. soil transport via tri-axle). This will include a stone construction entrance. 7

83 I N T E R I M R E M E D I A L M E A S U R E W O R K P L A N A G L R E S O U R C E S, I N C. F L E M I N G T O N F O R M E R M G P S I T E N O V E M B E R MFR-2.1 Page 13 of 27 Portions of the existing fence around the ETG service center will be removed to allow for access to the IRM footprint. A temporary fence or similar barrier will be placed outside the excavation perimeter prior to commencement of excavation activities. Minimal clearing and grubbing is anticipated within the IRM footprint because the Site is generally open and free of vegetation with the exception of several trees located along the northern fence line. Several trees within the limits of the excavation, those posing a safety hazard, or those affecting construction activities may be removed prior to commencement of excavation activities. Soil erosion and sediment control structures will be installed in accordance with the SESC permit Erosion Control/Staging Although direct-loading is expected for the majority of excavated soil, a temporary soil staging area may also be constructed. Erosion control measures will consist of perimeter hay bales and/or silt fence in accordance with the SESC permit. Temporary soil staging areas may be relocated as the excavation proceeds. In accordance with the NJDEP Guidance Document for the Remediation of Contaminated Soils (revised 1998), excavated soil will be staged on an impervious surface and covered with a waterproof material. The containment will be maintained for the duration of the staging period to minimize contaminant volatilization, runoff, and leaching or fugitive dust emissions Property Condition Surveys Only the ETG service center is likely to be affected by the work, so no property condition surveys are expected to be performed. No sheet piling is expected to be installed for the excavation so vibratory impacts to adjacent properties should be minimal. The remediation contractor will perform road condition surveys (photographs) prior to the start of work to document existing road conditions. 3.3 Excavation Description Excavation within the IRM footprint as described in Section 3.1 will be performed with conventional excavating equipment to the horizontal excavation limits shown on Figure 6. The approximate vertical extent of proposed excavation is 2 ft bgs in the northern portion of the IRM footprint and between 2.5 ft and 7 ft bgs in the southern portion. Based on the areas and depths shown on Figure 6, the total volume of soil removal for the IRM footprint is estimated to be approximately 3,850 cubic yards. The excavation depths may be adjusted based on visual observations during excavation if conditions vary substantially from those 8

84 I N T E R I M R E M E D I A L M E A S U R E W O R K P L A N A G L R E S O U R C E S, I N C. F L E M I N G T O N F O R M E R M G P S I T E N O V E M B E R MFR-2.1 Page 14 of 27 observed in the PDI and previous investigations. If visual impacts are encountered within the IRM footprint beneath the specified excavation depths excavation will continue to 2 feet below the visual impacts or until the top of competent bedrock. The vertical and lateral extent of excavation will be surveyed by a licensed New Jersey surveyor. Excavation around known utilities will require them to be protected. Protection of utilities may include specialized excavation techniques, physical barriers against damage, temporary removal, relocation, and/or replacement. The specifications and requirements for utility protection/abandonment /replacement during excavation will be included in the contract documents (technical specifications and design drawings). No mechanically supported excavation is anticipated. Benching and sloping of excavations and trenches will follow Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) guidance for Sloping and Benching in 29 CFR 1926 Subpart P Appendix B. The remediation contractor will provide a Competent Person for daily inspection of trenches and excavations. Excavation dewatering will be performed as needed to maintain a dry excavation. The purpose of maintaining a dry excavation is to observe soil conditions and to maintain excavation stability. Dewatering is described in Section The excavation will be sequenced to allow for a portion of the Site to remain at grade while other portions are being excavated. The specific sequence of the excavation will be determined by the Site remediation contractor. Because one of the objectives of the IRM is to remove free and/or residual product in surface and subsurface soil rather than meet an analytical regulatory goal for subsurface soils, no post-excavation soil sampling is required Excavated Materials Management Based on analytical data collected during remedial investigation activities and the PDI, the soil to be excavated is non-hazardous. Excavated materials will be handled in a manner conforming to the NJDEP Guidance Document for the Remediation of Contaminated Soils (revised 1998). In the event that small volumes of excavated soil are unable to be directly loaded to trailers, the soil will be temporarily stockpiled at the Site in the staging area. If staging is required, excavated soil will be placed on an impervious surface and covered with a water-resistant material. These controls will be maintained for the duration of the staging period to minimize contaminant volatilization, runoff, and leaching or fugitive dust emissions. Excavated debris, if any, will be segregated from soil and stockpiled separately. 9

85 I N T E R I M R E M E D I A L M E A S U R E W O R K P L A N A G L R E S O U R C E S, I N C. F L E M I N G T O N F O R M E R M G P S I T E N O V E M B E R MFR-2.1 Page 15 of Excavation Dewatering Data collected during remedial investigation activities and the PDI indicate that minimal dewatering will be required to perform the excavation. Perched ground water, precipitation and surface run-on are expected to be the only sources of water in the excavation. Dewatering is expected to be intermittent in response to rain events. Dewatering will be performed by pumping from the excavation to a container staged on site. The water will be transported off site to an approved facility for treatment and disposal Off-Site Soil Treatment/Recycling Excavated soil will be transported by truck under manifest to one or more of these facilities: Clean Earth of New Castle, Delaware, or Clean Earth of Southeast Pennsylvania. A copy of the treatment/recycling facility s acceptance of the soil, its permit to operate, bills of lading, and certificates of destruction will be included in the Remedial Action Report. 3.4 Health and Safety/Environment The remediation contractor will prepare and implement a site-specific Health and Safety Plan (HASP) in accordance with OSHA regulations (29 C.F.R , 29 CFR 1926). Site workers will be trained in Hazardous Waste Operations and Emergency Response. GEI personnel will operate under GEI s site-specific HASP, which is included in Appendix B Perimeter Air Monitoring plan The objectives of the perimeter air monitoring are to assure that the community around the site is not exposed to unacceptable levels of volatile organic compounds or dust from site remedial activities. The system will be operated by GEI. It will provide an early warning system if site activities are causing concentrations of total volatile organic compounds (TVOCs), particulates (i.e. dust), or odors in ambient air to approach action levels. It will also determine whether mitigation control measures to abate the emissions are effective in reducing ambient air concentrations back below the action level. TVOCs and dust will be monitored continuously at four locations (AMS1-4) during intrusive remedial activities (Figure 2). Each air monitoring station will be equipped with a PhotoVac 2020 photo ionization detector (PID) and a DustTrak aerosol monitor. These are capable of integrating over a period of 15 minutes for comparison to the action levels. The equipment will be calibrated daily during Site activity. Each station is provided with a paging system to notify the GEI site manager of any exceedance of the action levels. A meteorological tower will be deployed to measure wind speed and direction. 10

86 I N T E R I M R E M E D I A L M E A S U R E W O R K P L A N A G L R E S O U R C E S, I N C. F L E M I N G T O N F O R M E R M G P S I T E N O V E M B E R MFR-2.1 Page 16 of 27 A gas chromatograph (GC) will be maintained on site to speciate an air sample for analytes commonly found at MGP sites such as benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylenes (BTEX). Supplemental ambient air analytical sampling will be conducted at the perimeter of the work area at one location upwind and one location downwind, on a weekly basis for volatile organic compounds (VOC). Samples will be collected in batch-certified 6-liter Summa canisters over a 24-hour period and analyzed by a New Jersey certified laboratory. A standard list of analytes will be quantified by United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) Method TO-15 plus the addition of naphthalene, and will be provided as a full analytical services protocol (ASP) deliverable. Field duplicate samples will be collected at a rate of 1 per 20 samples. In the case of an alert level or action level exceedance, GEI will inform the remediation contractor and ETG. The remediation contractor will implement mitigation control measures to abate the emissions and reduce levels back below the alert level or action level. Action levels for TVOC and BTEX compounds are based on one-tenth of the corresponding OSHA values. These levels have been recommended by the Wisconsin Department of Health and Family Services for use during MGP remediations (Wisconsin, 2004) and have generally been used as an industry standard. If the ambient air concentration of TVOCs at the downwind perimeter of the work area exceeds the alert level of 0.37 parts per million (ppm) above upwind background conditions for the 15-minute average, action will be taken by the remediation contractor to implement mitigation control measures to abate the emissions and reduce levels back below the alert level. If the ambient air concentration of TVOCs at the downwind perimeter of the work area exceeds the action level of 0.5 ppm above upwind background conditions for the 15-minute average, GEI will notify ETG and the remediation contractor. The remediation contractor will implement mitigation control measures to abate the emissions and reduce levels back below the action level. Work activities will be temporarily halted and monitoring will continue. If the ambient air concentration of TVOCs readily decreases (per instantaneous readings) below 0.5 ppm over upwind background conditions, work activities will resume with continued monitoring. When TVOC concentrations exceed the 0.5 ppm action level a portable gas chromatograph will be used to measure compound specific BTEX concentrations. If the ambient air concentration of particulates at the downwind perimeter of the work area exceeds 100 micrograms per cubic meter (µg/m 3 ) above upwind background conditions for the 15-minute average, or if airborne dust is observed leaving the work area, then dust suppression techniques will be employed. GEI will notify the remediation contractor who will then implement mitigation control measures to abate the emissions and reduce levels 11

87 I N T E R I M R E M E D I A L M E A S U R E W O R K P L A N A G L R E S O U R C E S, I N C. F L E M I N G T O N F O R M E R M G P S I T E N O V E M B E R MFR-2.1 Page 17 of 27 back below the alert level. Work will continue with dust suppression techniques provided that the downwind particulate concentration does not exceed 150 µg/m 3 above the upwind background conditions, and provided that no visible dust is migrating from the work area. If, after implementation of dust suppression techniques, downwind PM-10 particulate concentrations persist at levels in excess of 150 µg/m 3 above the upwind background conditions, work will be stopped and activities will be re-evaluated. Work will resume provided that dust suppression measures and/or other controls are successful in reducing the downwind particulate concentrations to within 150 µg/m 3 of the upwind background conditions and preventing visible dust migration. Verification VOC samples will be collected in accordance with the attached Standard Operating Procedures (SOP), GEI SOP No. AR-006: VOCs in Ambient Air using Summa Canisters. Samples will be shipped to the laboratory on the end day of sample collection. Samples will be accompanied by a chain-of-custody as described in the attached SOP, GEI SOP No. FD-003 Sample Management and Chain of Custody (Appendix A). A Data Usability Report (DUR) will be prepared for each data package that addresses the project specific data quality objectives. Full deliverables will be reviewed in accordance with the USEPA Contract Laboratory Program National Functional Data Validation SOPs for Data Evaluation and Validation to support completion of a DUR. GEI will maintain a log of air monitoring activities completed each day including calibration, maintenance, equipment malfunctions, sampling times, and exceedances. After the completion of remedial activities, a community air monitoring summary report will be submitted to ETG. The report will summarize air monitoring data collected during the project, list exceedances noted, and describe responses taken during remedial activities Decontamination Excavation equipment and trucks transporting soil off site will be decontaminated prior to departure from the work area. Decontamination operations will be conducted within a decontamination pad that will be constructed in the contamination reduction zone (CRZ) at the Site. Adjacent streets will be monitored and fugitive soil swept as necessary. Sweepings and soil contained by erosion controls will be managed as contaminated materials. 12

88 I N T E R I M R E M E D I A L M E A S U R E W O R K P L A N A G L R E S O U R C E S, I N C. F L E M I N G T O N F O R M E R M G P S I T E N O V E M B E R MFR-2.1 Page 18 of Backfilling and Restoration Clean fill from an off-site source will be used to return the elevation of the excavation area approximately to existing grade. Clean fill documentation in accordance with the requirements of NJDEP Alternative and Clean Fill Guidance for SRP Sites, December 29, 2011 will be obtained and provided in the Remedial Action Report (RAR). The documentation requirements will be provided in the technical specifications and will include analytical sampling requirements, identification/location of the source, the use of fully executed bills of lading to document that the incoming fill is from the approved donor site, surveyed documentation of the volume, thickness and location where clean fill has been placed, and description of its geotechnical properties. The geotechnical properties of the clean fill will be specified by the engineer responsible for the planned new building construction and will be included in the technical specifications. A sidewall barrier indicating the limits of excavation and separating clean backfill from undisturbed soil will be placed along the southern, eastern, and western sidewalls of the excavation. The extent of impacts has been delineated to the north and future remedial action is not anticipated in this direction. The barrier will consist of a heavy-duty nonwoven geotextile or a HDPE polymer sheet. The engineering properties of the barrier will be provided in the technical specifications. The sidewall barrier will be overlapped at joints for continuous coverage and extend from the toe of the sidewall slope to the top of the slope. The barrier will be placed prior to backfilling. The clean soil backfill will be placed in lifts using a compactor to meet density standards that will be specified in the design documents. The ground surface will be restored to existing grades or as otherwise directed by ETG to facilitate planed structural improvements. Existing grade slopes gently to the southeast toward Bushkill Brook. Restoration will include the stabilization of disturbed areas with gravel in the majority of the area, and with topsoil, seed, and straw in areas outside the existing parking areas and planned redevelopment footprint. Restoration will be performed in accordance with the requirements of the SESC plan. No tree and shrub replacement is anticipated. No wetlands or wetland transition areas will be affected, so no restoration of these areas is anticipated. Impacted sections of the county or municipal right-of-way including grass medians, curbs, and roadways will be restored as necessary to satisfy the presiding authority. 3.6 Demobilization Demobilization will include removal of temporary erosion controls, decontamination facilities, temporary fencing and barriers, earthmoving equipment, and temporary office and sanitary facilities. Surplus construction materials (e.g., stockpiles of clean fill), waste 13

89 I N T E R I M R E M E D I A L M E A S U R E W O R K P L A N A G L R E S O U R C E S, I N C. F L E M I N G T O N F O R M E R M G P S I T E N O V E M B E R MFR-2.1 Page 19 of 27 materials, and rubbish will be removed from the Site and disposed of in accordance with applicable laws and regulations. Post-remediation road condition surveys will be performed on adjacent streets similar to surveys conducted prior to the remediation. A topographic survey of the final grade within the IRM footprint will be performed prior to demobilization. 14

90 I N T E R I M R E M E D I A L M E A S U R E W O R K P L A N A G L R E S O U R C E S, I N C. F L E M I N G T O N F O R M E R M G P S I T E N O V E M B E R MFR-2.1 Page 20 of Health and Safety Plan A site-specific HASP for the proposed IRM reviewed by GEI s Corporate Health and Safety Officer is included as Appendix B. GEI personnel will work under this HASP at the Site. The selected remediation contractor will prepare their own site-specific HASP in accordance with N.J.A.C. 7:26E-1.9, 29 CFR and 29 CFR Remediation contractor personnel will work under the remediation contractor s HASP, which may include activities not covered in the GEI HASP. GEI will provide a copy of the GEI HASP to the remediation contractor to aid them in developing their own site-specific HASP. 15

91 I N T E R I M R E M E D I A L M E A S U R E W O R K P L A N A G L R E S O U R C E S, I N C. F L E M I N G T O N F O R M E R M G P S I T E N O V E M B E R MFR-2.1 Page 21 of Cost Estimate In accordance with N.J.A.C. 7:26E-5.5, the overall cost associated with the project is estimated to be $1,040,000. This preliminary cost estimate will be refined upon the completion of the remedial design. 16

92 I N T E R I M R E M E D I A L M E A S U R E W O R K P L A N A G L R E S O U R C E S, I N C. F L E M I N G T O N F O R M E R M G P S I T E N O V E M B E R MFR-2.1 Page 22 of Schedule As required under N.J.A.C. 7:26E-5.5, a preliminary schedule for the IRM implementation is presented as part of the IRM Work Plan. Actual time frames for the various components of the site remediation will be determined by ETG based on permit approvals and availability of the selected remediation contractor. 17

93 I N T E R I M R E M E D I A L M E A S U R E W O R K P L A N A G L R E S O U R C E S, I N C. F L E M I N G T O N F O R M E R M G P S I T E O C T O B E R References MFR-2.1 Page 23 of 27 Dames & Moore, Preliminary Site Investigation. Prepared by Dames & Moore. Dames & Moore, Phase II Subsurface Investigation. Prepared by Dames & Moore. Dames & Moore, Phase III Remedial Investigation Additional Work Plan and Focused Feasibility Study. Prepared by Dames & Moore, Dames & Moore, 1994a. Historical Review Report, Elizabethtown Gas Company and Jersey Central Power & Light Company Former MGP Facility Flemington, New Jersey. Prepared by Dames & Moore, Dames & Moore, 1994b. Phase III Progress Summary Report, Elizabethtown Gas Company and Jersey Central Power & Light Company Former MGP Facility. Prepared by Dames & Moore, GEI/Atlantic, Phase III Remedial Investigation Addendum. Prepared by GEI, GEI Consultants, Inc., Supplemental Phase IV Remedial Investigation Report, Flemington Former MGP Site, Flemington, New Jersey. Prepared by GEI Consultants, April 25, New Jersey Administrative Code (N.J.A.C.), N.J.A.C. 7:26E-5.5, Remedial Action Work Plan Requirements, and the NJDEP 1998 Revised Guidance Document for the Remediation of Contaminated Soils. N.J.A.C., Technical Requirements for Site Remediation, May 7, 2012 (Technical Requirements). USEPA, USEPA National Priority List Investigation. 18

94 I N T E R I M R E M E D I A L M E A S U R E W O R K P L A N A G L R E S O U R C E S, I N C. F L E M I N G T O N F O R M E R M G P S I T E O C T O B E R Tables MFR-2.1 Page 24 of 27

95 I N T E R I M R E M E D I A L M E A S U R E W O R K P L A N F L E M I N G T O N F O R M E R M G P S I T E A G L R E S O U R C E S, I N C. A U G U S T Figures MFR-2.1 Page 25 of 27

96 I N T E R I M R E M E D I A L M E A S U R E W O R K P L A N F L E M I N G T O N F O R M E R M G P S I T E A G L R E S O U R C E S, I N C. A U G U S T Appendix A MFR-2.1 Page 26 of 27 Pre-Design Investigation Summary Report

97 I N T E R I M R E M E D I A L M E A S U R E W O R K P L A N F L E M I N G T O N F O R M E R M G P S I T E A G L R E S O U R C E S, I N C. A U G U S T Appendix B MFR-2.1 Page 27 of 27 Health and Safety Plan

98 SLC-2 MFR-3 MFR-3 For each of the same three MGP sites, provide all correspondence between the Company and the NJDEP concerning submissions for the site, reply comments, and other major items which have a material impact on remediation activities and associated costs incurred by the Company. The correspondence should span the twelve months of the most recent RAC period. During this RAC period, the remediation at these sites was under the oversight of LSRPs pursuant to SRRA. As such, there was no correspondence between the Company and the NJDEP concerning submissions for the site, reply comments, and other major items which had a material impact on remediation activities and associated costs incurred by the Company.

99 SLC-2 MFR-4 MFR-4 For each of the same three MGP sites, provide expense documentation for any contractor or supplier whose invoices for the RAC period exceed $250,000 in aggregate. The expense documentation should include descriptions of services rendered, applicable invoices, and any tracking of invoiced charges vs. budgets. The expense detail need not include expense reports or time sheets, but it should include supporting documentation for any subcontractor and third party expenses totaling $100,000 or more for the period. Please see attachment MFR-1.1 for the list of vendor costs by site. Attachment MFR-4.1 contains a detailed list of invoices for the three vendors (Creamer Environmental, GEI Consultants and Panther Technologies) that met the $250,000 criteria detailed above. Also included are summaries for the subcontractors employed by each of these vendors, used to determine which subcontractors met the $100,000 threshold described above. Attachment MFR-4.2 provides the summary for GEI Consultants - Erie Street, attachment MFR-4.3 is the summary for Creamer Environmental - South Street and attachment MFR-4.4 is the summary for Panther - Flemington. All three vendors had subcontractors exceeding the $100,000 threshold. The Company considers the requested invoices confidential and proprietary. Such information is competitively sensitive in that it would provide potential vendors with information that is normally not made available in negotiations. The requested information will be provided to parties executing an appropriate confidentiality agreement.

100 Vendors With Invoices Exceeding $250,000 July 2012 June 2013 Creamer South St MFR 4.1 Page 1 of 5 Site Name Vendor GL Status Invoice No. RAC Total Account Date Approved Acct DeptID South St Creamer Environmental Posted CE , Jul South St Creamer Environmental Posted CE , Jul South St Creamer Environmental Posted CE , Aug South St Creamer Environmental Posted CE , Oct South St Creamer Environmental Posted CE , Oct Total $ 1,467, MFR invoices.xlsx

101 Vendors With Invoices Exceeding $250,000 July 2012 June 2013 GEI Erie St MFR 4.1 Page 2 of 5 Site Name Vendor GL Status Invoice No. RAC Total Account Date Approved Acct DeptID Erie St GEI Consultants, Inc Posted , Jul Erie St GEI Consultants, Inc Posted , Jul Erie St GEI Consultants, Inc Posted , Jul Erie St GEI Consultants, Inc Posted , Jul Erie St GEI Consultants, Inc Posted , Jul Erie St GEI Consultants, Inc Posted Jul Erie St GEI Consultants, Inc Posted , Aug Erie St GEI Consultants, Inc Posted Aug Erie St GEI Consultants, Inc Posted , Oct Erie St GEI Consultants, Inc Posted , Nov Erie St GEI Consultants, Inc Posted , Nov Erie St GEI Consultants, Inc Posted , Jan Erie St GEI Consultants, Inc Posted , Jan Erie St GEI Consultants, Inc Posted , Jan Erie St GEI Consultants, Inc Posted , Jan MFR invoices.xlsx

102 Vendors With Invoices Exceeding $250,000 July 2012 June 2013 GEI Erie St MFR 4.1 Page 3 of 5 Site Name Vendor GL Status Invoice No. RAC Total Account Date Approved Acct DeptID Erie St GEI Consultants, Inc Posted Jan Erie St GEI Consultants, Inc Posted , Jan Erie St GEI Consultants, Inc Posted , Jan Erie St GEI Consultants, Inc Posted , Jan Erie St GEI Consultants, Inc Posted , Jan Erie St GEI Consultants, Inc Posted , Mar Erie St GEI Consultants, Inc Posted , Mar Erie St GEI Consultants, Inc Posted , Mar Erie St GEI Consultants, Inc Posted , Mar Erie St GEI Consultants, Inc Posted May Erie St GEI Consultants, Inc Posted , May Erie St GEI Consultants, Inc Posted , May Erie St GEI Consultants, Inc Posted , May Erie St GEI Consultants, Inc Posted May MFR invoices.xlsx

103 Vendors With Invoices Exceeding $250,000 July 2012 June 2013 GEI Erie St MFR 4.1 Page 4 of 5 Site Name Vendor GL Status Invoice No. RAC Total Account Date Approved Acct DeptID Erie St GEI Consultants, Inc Posted May Total $ 1,281, MFR invoices.xlsx

104 Vendors With Invoices Exceeding $250,000 July 2012 June 2013 Panther Flemington MFR 4.1 Page 5 of 5 Site Name Vendor GL Status Invoice No. RAC Total Account Date Approved Acct DeptID Flemington Panther Technologies, Inc Posted 2949PAN 81, Mar Flemington Panther Technologies, Inc Posted 2955PAN 189, Apr Total $ 271, MFR invoices.xlsx

105 GEI Consultants, Inc. MFR-4.2