STATE OF CONNECTICUT PUBLIC UTILITIES REGULATORY AUTHORITY DOCKET NO

STATE OF CONNECTICUT PUBLIC UTILITIES REGULATORY AUTHORITY DOCKET NO. 1-- APPLICATION OF THE CONNECTICUT LIGHT AND POWER COMPANY DBA EVERSOURCE ENERGY TO AMEND ITS RATE SCHEDULES TESTIMONY OF MICHAEL L. SHELNITZ ON BEHALF OF THE CONNECTICUT LIGHT AND POWER COMPANY DBA EVERSOURCE ENERGY NOVEMBER, 01

TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION... 1 II. OVERVIEW OF PROPOSED RATE CHANGE... III. CALCULATION OF RATE BASE AND THE TREATMENT OF SYSTEM RESILIENCY CAPITAL EXPENDITURES... IV. CALCULATION OF REVENUES... 1 V. CALCULATION OF OPERATIONS & MAINTENANCE EXPENSE... 1 VI. A. Adjustments for Payroll, Employee Benefits and Pension Expense... 1 B. Adjustments for Storm-Related Items... 1 C. Adjustment for Vegetation Management Expense... D. Adjustment for Depreciation... E. Adjustment for Deferred Asset Amortization... F. Adjustment for Property Tax Expense... G. Facilities Consolidation Adjustments... H. Exclusion of Certain Operating Costs... I. Adjustment for Decline in Sales and Demand... J. Adjustment for the Fee Free Customer Payment Proposal... K. Miscellaneous Adjustments... 0 GRID MODERNIZATION WILL BE EXAMINED IN A SEPARATE FUTURE DOCKET... 1 VII. PROPOSAL TO RE-OPEN THE DOCKET FOR MATERIAL CHANGES IN LAW AFFECTING TAXES, HEALTHCARE AND FERC-APPROVED ALLOCATIONS.. VIII. SUMMARIZATION OF THE TOTAL RATE RELIEF REQUESTED IN THIS CASE.... EXHIBITS MLS-1 Shelnitz Biographical Information

STATE OF CONNECTICUT PUBLIC UTILITIES REGUATORY AUTHORITY DOCKET NO. 1-- APPLICATION OF THE CONNECTICUT LIGHT AND POWER COMPANY DBA EVERSOURCE ENERGY TO AMEND ITS RATE SCHEDULES 1 I. INTRODUCTION Q. Please state your name, business address and position with Eversource Energy ( Eversource ). A. My name is Michael L. Shelnitz. My business address is Selden Street, Berlin, Connecticut. I am the Manager of Revenue Requirements for Eversource Energy Service Company testifying on behalf of The Connecticut Light & Power Company d/b/a Eversource Energy ( the Company or CL&P). I am registered as a Certified Public Accountant (CPA) in the State of Connecticut. Additional biographical information is provided in Exhibit MLS-1. 1 Q. Have you previously testified before the Public Utilities Regulatory Authority ( Authority )? A. Yes. I have previously testified before the Authority. 1 1 1 1 1 1 Q. What is the purpose of your testimony in this proceeding? A. The purpose of this testimony is to support the calculation of the revenue requirement and associated revenue deficiency for CL&P for the three-year rate period that will be examined in this rate case. The Rate Years for this case are May, 01 through May, 01 ( Rate Year 1 ), May, 01 through May, 00 ( Rate Year ), and May, 00 through May, 01 ( Rate Year 1

). Collectively, these Rate Years represent the Three-Year Rate Plan or Rate Plan. The distribution operating revenue increases being proposed for each of these Rate Years were based on calculations of the revenues required to operate the business for Calendar Years 01, 01 and 00. organized as follows: This testimony is i. Section I is the introduction. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ii. Section II provides an executive summary of the Company s rate filing. As discussed in Section II, CL&P proposes to increase distribution rates to address a distribution operating revenue deficiency of $. million for Calendar Year 01 that it seeks to recover in rates during Rate Year 1; $ million for Calendar Year 01 that it seeks to recover in rates during Rate Year, and $ million for Calendar Year 00 that it seeks to recover in rates during Rate Year. This operating revenue deficiency is primarily driven by four factors: (1) capital investments in the electric system since the last rate case; () increased federal, state and municipal taxes; () increased depreciation expense; and () a decline in sales and demand for electricity, which has reduced the number of billing units over which the revenue deficiency can be collected. 1 0 1 iii. Section III describes how the Company calculated rate base for the Three- Year Rate Plan. Section III also explains how the Company reflected in this rate case its pre-approved and proposed additional system resiliency costs into this case.

iv. Section IV explains the process the Company used to calculate the revenue deficiency for the Three-Year Rate Plan. v. Section V describes the Company s proposed adjustments to operating expense for the Rate Plan, which include adjustments to reflect payroll and benefits expense; pension expense; storm-related expense; vegetationmanagement expense; depreciation; amortization of deferred assets; property taxes; the proposed fee free credit card payment option for customers; and several other adjustments. Section V also describes how reductions in electric sales are preventing the recovery of reasonable and prudent costs. 1 1 1 vi. Section VI describes the Company s request for authorization to submit a separate, future filing in a new docket to develop an Electric Distribution Infrastructure Capital Tracker or EDICT Mechanism to enable the Company s grid-modernization proposal. 1 1 1 1 1 vii. Section VII contains the Company s proposal to re-open this docket as necessary during the Three-Year Rate Plan to address material changes in tax or healthcare law at the federal level or actions taken by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission ( FERC ) adjusting the existing methodology for allocating costs among the affiliates of Eversource. 0 1 viii. Section VIII summarizes the total proposed adjustment to the Company s distribution revenue requirement for the Rate Plan. II. OVERVIEW OF PROPOSED RATE CHANGE Q. Please summarize the rate change proposed by the Company s application.

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 A. Table MLS-1 below demonstrates that the Company has an operating revenue deficiency of $. million for Calendar Year 01 that is primarily comprised of the following four components. (1.) $ million of rate-base growth since the Company s last rate case to install and improve electric distribution facilities; (.) $1 million of increased federal, state and municipal taxes; (.) $ million of increased depreciation expense; and (.) $ million of revenue shortfall caused by a decline in electric sales and demand. Table MLS-1 below demonstrates that the first three factors above are the primary drivers of the Company s distribution-related revenue deficiencies for Calendar Years 01 and 00. TABLE MLS-1 Primary Drivers of Revenue Requirements Increase ($Millions) # 01 01 00 1 Rate Base Growth Taxes 1 1 1 1 Depreciation Expense Decline in Demand & Sales - Subtotal of Rows 1 through 0 Total Rate Relief Requested. Q. Does any portion of the rate relief requested by the Company in this case reflect the cost of system resiliency programs already approved by PURA? 1 The total of $1 million in taxes is comprised of: (i) $ million of property tax, (ii) $ million of current/deferred income tax and ITC; and (iii) $1 million of gross earnings tax.

A. Of the total operating revenue deficiency of $. million, approximately $ million in the Calendar Year 01 represents the 01 Test Year level of system resiliency costs that PURA previously authorized the Company to recover in rates. These costs are currently recovered through the non-bypassable federally mandated congestion charge ( NBFMCC ). Effective on the date that PURA approves new Distribution rates in this case, collection of pre-approved system resiliency costs through the NBFMCC rate will end and these costs will be incorporated into base Distribution rates. Section III of this pre-filed testimony addresses system resiliency costs in greater detail. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 Q. What impact does the decline in electric sales and demand have on the revenue deficiency for Calendar Year 01? A. Table MLS-1 demonstrates that the decline in electric sales and demand is contributing to the revenue deficiency by approximately $ million in 01. This means that, of the $. million deficiency calculated to exist in Calendar Year 01, $ million is caused by the fact that sales revenues have fallen below the level built into the revenue requirement for the Company s last base-rate case in Docket No. 1-0-0. In combination with the $ million attributable to preapproved system resiliency costs, there is a total of $ million of the $. million deficiency in 01 (or 1%) that is related to a shift in cost recovery, rather than an increase in costs since the last rate case. 1 Q. What methodology did the Company use to determine its overall revenue requirement for the Rate Plan?

A. As indicated previously, the Test Year is the 1-month period ending December 1, 01. The Company calculated its revenue requirement for Calendar Years 01 00 by applying traditional pro forma and rate year adjustments to Test Year data. The pro forma and rate year adjustments project CL&P s Calendar Year income statements, rate base and capital structure, as outlined in Section.1 of PURA s Standard Filing Requirements ( SFRs ) for rate case applications. The Company is requesting the rate increase beginning May, 01 through May, 01. 1 1 1 1 1 In addition, with respect to the Authority s SFRs, I sponsor SFRs in Section A Revenue Requirements; Section B Rate Base; and Section C Operating Income. For purposes of the proposed May, 01 distribution rate increase, SFR Schedule A-1.0 identifies the rate increase associated with CL&P s income statement, rate base and capital structure for Calendar Years 01-00. Moreover, the Company has included this increase within the SFR F Schedules to align its request with the operating revenues and expenses included in its forecasted financial data. 1 1 1 0 1 Moreover, in order to calculate the Company s revenue requirement for the Three- Year Rate Plan, we used internal specific estimates when available. In other instances, the Company calculated the incremental expense for the Calendar Years using objective, well-established escalation factors like Labor Escalation Rates from Moody s Analytics to calculate conservative adjustments to expenses for the Rate Years.

Q. Provide a general description of the calculation of CL&P s requested rate relief. A. Schedule A-1.0 A of the SFRs takes the pro forma Calendar Year 01 operating income before the proposed rate increase and compares it to the Company s required operating income. The required operating income is calculated by multiplying the pro forma rate base by the rate of return ( ROR ) that is discussed and recommended in the pre-filed testimony of CL&P s witness, Mr. Robert Hevert. This ROR incorporates a return on equity of.0 percent. This analysis calculates a total revenue deficiency for Calendar Year 01. Schedules A-1.0 B and A-1.0 C of the SFRs utilize the same process to calculate the total revenue deficiency for Calendar Years 01 and 00, respectively. 1 1 III. CALCULATION OF RATE BASE AND THE TREATMENT OF SYSTEM RESILIENCY CAPITAL EXPENDITURES 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 Q. How was the Company s rate base for the Three-Year Rate Plan developed? A. Schedule B-1.0 A of the SFRs shows the Company s projected total average multi-year rate base level for Calendar Year 01. Consistent with past rate case proceedings, the Company used an average Calendar Year rate base in its calculation of the required rate relief. Using the average rate base calculation provides the appropriate midpoint of Calendar Year 01 for calculating a revenue deficiency. Schedules B-1.0 B and B-1.0 C of the SFRs utilize the same process to calculate rate base for Calendar Years 01 and 00, respectively. Q. What are the major factors causing the increase in rate base? A. Generally speaking, since it has been three years since the Company s last rate

case in Docket No. 1-0-0, the factors creating the most significant change in rate base are additional plant in service, accumulated depreciation and accumulated deferred income taxes ( ADIT ). Q. Please identify the total amount of plant CL&P has placed in service net of retirements since its last rate case, as well as the amount it intends to place in service during the period covered by new rates. A. The Utility Plant in Service as of the end of the last rate case totaled $, million. In the intervening period, the Company has made significant investments in its distribution business. Specifically, the Company made $ million of 1 1 1 1 1 capital expenditures in 01 and is planning to make additional capital expenditures of $ million in 01. Through December 1, 01, this $ million of new spending ($ million + $ million = $ million) is forecast to result in additional net plant in service totaling $ million more than the amount allowed in the last rate case (forecasted net utility plant in service at December 1, 01 of $, million, less utility plant in service allowed in the last rate case of $, million = $ million). 1 1 1 0 1 In addition, during the Calendar Years beginning on January 1, 01 and ending on December 1, 00, the Company expects to make additional capital expenditures of $1, million in distribution plant. These capital expenditures are forecast to result in additional plant placed in service net of retirements of $0 million during the three-year period.

Q. Please summarize expected capital expenditures versus the amount expected to be placed in service and included in rate base for January 1, 01 through December 1, 00. A. Forecasted capital expenditures for January 1, 01 through December 1, 00 are summarized in the table shown below, including the forecasted amount of new net plant in service to be added to the existing rate base. Year Table MLS- Capital Expenditures vs. New Net Plant in Service Capital Expenditures ($ Millions) New Net Plant in Service 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 01 $0. $1. 01 $. $. 00 $. $01. As shown in Table MLS-, and consistent with the data described above for the period between the Company s last rate case through December 1, 01, annual capital expenditures are different than net plant placed in service due to the timing of when each capital project was started versus when it is expected to be completed and in-service, as well as due to offsets to gross plant additions, such as retirements, which are reflected in net plant in service, but not in capital expenditures. Source: Pre-filed Testimony of Kenneth B. Bowes at Chart KBB-.

Q. How did the Company project the amount of capital that will be in-service in each of the Calendar Years 01 through 00? A. The Company reviewed the projected capital expenditures and estimated the dates of project completion to determine how much would be placed in service each year. In addition, the Company analyzed the relationships between projected capital expenditures, projected construction work in progress ( CWIP ) balances, and projected capital additions. This analysis showed that the projected levels of capital additions were reasonable when compared to historical levels of expenditures, CWIP and capital additions. The Company also reflected a decrease to plant in service for estimated retirements in each year. For 1 additional information on the Company s projected capital expenditures, please see the pre-filed testimony of Mr. Kenneth B. Bowes. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 Q. How was the capital investment for CL&P s System Resiliency Plan treated in this rate case? A. The January 1, 01 decision in Docket No. 1-0-0 approved a system resiliency plan for the period 01-1. The January 1, 01 decision in that docket stated that PURA approves the Company s proposal to flow the costs of the Plan through the NBFMCC until the Company s next rate case, at that time the costs will be factored into Company revenue requirements. In addition, a June, 01 decision in Docket No. 1-0-0RE01 approved additional system resiliency programs for the period 01-1. PURA s June, 01 decision also explained that in between rate cases the Company will recover its system Docket No. 1-0-0, January 1, 01 Decision, at page.

resiliency expenses in the NBFMCC, and the unrecovered portion of this program cost will be recovered in base Distribution rates at the time of the Company s next rate case in 01. 1 PURA therefore directed CL&P to combine its PURA-approved system resiliency expenditures into the base distribution rate at the time of its next rate case. Consistent with that decision, the Company has incorporated its pre-approved system resiliency expenditures into the plant and associated accumulated depreciation amounts in this case. As a result, pre-approved system resiliency costs that would otherwise continue to be recovered in the NBFMCC, will be removed from the NBFMCC and incorporated into the base Distribution rate effective upon PURA s approval of new Distribution rates in this case. For the Test Year ending December 1, 01, this amount was $ million. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Moreover, as indicated previously, PURA s decision in Docket No. 1-0-0RE01 authorizes system resiliency programs through December 1, 01. Mr. Bowes pre-filed testimony describes several system resiliency programs that the Company proposes to continue for Calendar Years 01-00. The Company s proposal to continue the system resiliency program into Calendar Years 01-00 is reflected in the plant and associated accumulated depreciation amounts in this case. System resiliency costs for the period December 01 through November 01 will be recovered through the NBFMCC and the remaining portion of the Initial Plan that has not been recovered through the NBFMCC will be incorporated into base distribution rates at the time of the Company s next rate case in 01. Docket No. 1-0-0RE01, June, 01 Decision, at Page.

Q. How did the Company project accumulated depreciation and ADIT? A. Consistent with the approach taken for plant in service, the Company started with the actual accumulated depreciation and ADIT balances as of the end of the Test Year on December 1, 01 and rolled the balances forward based on projected activity for 1 months ending December 01, December 01 and December 00. For accumulated depreciation, the balance was increased by the annual amount of depreciation expense and decreased by the annual amount of retirements and costs of removal. For ADIT, the Company projected the timing differences between book depreciation and federal tax depreciation and calculated the annual amount of deferred federal and state income tax expense. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Q. How did the Company determine the cash working capital allowance in this application? A. CL&P, similar to all utility companies, experiences a time lag between when it is required to pay its own operating expenses and when it receives revenues from its customers. This lag most often results in the Company utilizing investor funds for those operating expenses. Traditional ratemaking accounts for this net lag by including a working capital allowance in rate base that essentially recovers the cost to the Company of using investor funds for this purpose. 1 To calculate the working capital allowance for this application, the Company 0 conducted a lead/lag study. The study was performed on revenues, and 1 essentially all operating expenses incurred during the Test Year. The Authority has previously authorized CL&P to include the Generation Service Charge ( GSC ) working capital portion of the federally mandated congestion charge 1

( FMCC ) in the FMCC tracking mechanism. Therefore, the working capital costs associated with the GSC mechanism have not been included. The wholesale transmission rate has also been excluded because it already includes a working capital component. After completing the Test Year calculation, the individual revenue and expense leads and lags were applied to the revenue and expense amounts for Calendar Year 01. The result for Calendar Year 01 was a net revenue receipt lag of.0 days, which has been applied to the overall revenue requirements for Calendar Year 01 to determine the working capital allowance of $. million for the 1 months ending December 1, 01. 1 1 1 1 1 Table MLS- Calculation of Calendar Year 01 Working Capital Net Lag 1. Expense including Rate Increase $,0,,000. # of Days in Year. Per day expense $,1,1. Working Capital Needed $,,000. Lag Days - Lines /.0 Similar calculations were performed for Calendar Years 01 00 resulting in working capital allowances of $.0 million and $. million, respectively. 1 1 1 0 Q. Does rate base include any remaining approved deferred asset balances? A. Yes. Rate base includes several deferred regulatory assets that were approved in prior dockets. Schedule B-. provides a listing of the deferred asset balances, 1 and identifies the docket proceedings where recovery was approved. 1 The

Company has also added several new deferred assets to its rate base in this application. These deferred assets are as follows: Deferred AllConnect Revenues recovered since December 1, 01. Additional catastrophic storm costs incurred since December 1, 01. Pre-staging costs incurred since December 1, 01 that were in excess of the $ million level approved in Docket No. 1-0-0. Deferred rate-case expenses to recover OCC/PURA consultant costs in excess of what was allowed in Docket No. 1-0-0, plus new expenses incurred since Docket No. 1-0-0. 1 1 The deferred asset balances for the items above are shown on Schedule B-. of the SFRs. The corresponding amortizations for each of these deferred assets are included in the income statement. Details of the amortizations are provided in Schedule C-. of the SFRs. 1 1 Q. What were the rate base adjustments made for closed facilities? A. As part of Phase of the Company s facilities consolidation plan, the Company 1 closed the Waterbury and Simsbury area work centers ( AWCs ). The 1 1 1 0 1 Company s Waterbury AWC was closed in 01 and the net savings resulting from this closure is reflected in this rate case. Similarly, the Company s Simsbury AWC, which the Company leased from a third-party landlord, was closed in 01, and the associated net reduction to operating expense is reflected in this rate case. The net savings resulting from other facilities the Company previously 1

closed under Phase 1 of its facilities consolidation plan were already credited to customers in the Company s last rate case in Docket No. 1-0-0. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 Q. What is the cost of capital applied to rate base in this application? A. The cost of capital applied to the Company s adjusted rate base for Calendar Years 01-00 are overall rates of return of.%,.% and.% for 01, 01 and 00, respectively. The Return on Equity (ROE) embedded in these overall rates of return was.% for all years. The capital structure used is the forecasted capital structure expected to be in place during each year, which is provided in SFR Schedule D-1.0, pages 1, and. This approach is generally consistent with the approach the Company identified in its last rate case in 01, when it explained that, In the Company s next case, however, it will present its actual capital structure. This approach is also generally consistent with the January, 01 decision in Docket 1--, which stated: CL&P stated its capital structure goal is to have an equity ratio of approximately % which should enable the Company to maintain or enhance its financial integrity thereby providing access to capital at competitive rates under a variety of economic and financial market conditions. CL&P assesses its capital structure by comparing it to other utilities with similar financing requirements and business risks. Using that methodology, an approximate % to % equity ratio would be in line with its peer electric utilities. CL&P believes that an equity ratio of approximately % would be viewed positively by the rating agencies and supportive of a ratings upgrade. Response to Interrogatory FI-1. The Authority is in agreement with CL&P s capital structure goals. (emphasis added) The Company s proposed capital structure is supported by the pre-filed testimony of the Company s witness, Mr. Robert Hevert. See Docket No. 1-0-0, data response Q-OCC-1. Docket No. 1-0-0, June, 01 Pre-Filed Testimony of Michael J. Mahoney at Page. Docket No. 1--, January, 01 Decision at (emphasis added). 1

IV. CALCULATION OF REVENUES Q. Please describe the process CL&P used to calculate its revenue for Calendar Years 01-00, as well as the Three-Year Rate Plan period. A. Revenue at current rates for Calendar Years 01 00 are based on the Company's sales and customer forecast, which assumes normal weather. The sales forecast and its assumptions are described in the pre-filed testimony of Mr. Dan Ludwig, Team Lead-Forecasting. The schedules supported by the pre-filed testimony of Ms. Jennifer Ullram, Manager of Rates-Connecticut, illustrates the development of revenues at current rates, by rate class, for the Test Year using both actual and normal weather, as well as for the Rate Years. 1 1 1 1 1 Q. Did the Company make any adjustments to Other Revenues in this application? A. Yes. The Company adjusted Other Revenues to reflect the revised rates to the Company s existing CATV, telecommunications and municipal pole attachment tariffs. A minor adjustment was also made to reflect a small reduction in the revenues anticipated from our facilities charges. 1 1 1 0 1 V. CALCULATION OF OPERATIONS & MAINTENANCE EXPENSE Q. Please describe the Company s adjustment to operations & maintenance expense for Calendar Years 01-00. A. There is an increase of $1. million in O&M expense between the 01 Test Year and 01. The incremental O&M increases for the remaining two years are $. million for 01 and $.1 million for 00. 1

In addition, as part of the SFR C Schedules, CL&P includes Schedule C-.0 A, C-.0 B and C-.0 C, for each Calendar Year 01, 01 and 00, respectively, which have been formatted as income statements showing revenue less operating expenses by category ultimately calculating a net operating income prior to the requested rate relief. These schedules show both Pro Forma and Calendar Year adjustments by expense category. adjustments in greater detail below. I will discuss the major 1 A. Adjustments for Payroll, Employee Benefits and Pension Expense Q. What is included in the Company s payroll expense? A. The Company s payroll expense includes CL&P s share of base and overtime payroll for both CL&P distribution employees and Eversource Energy Service Company ( EESCO ) employees. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 Q. How did the Company develop its payroll expense projections? A. In the development of its payroll expense for Calendar Years 01-00, the Company started with the actual roster of CL&P distribution employees and their annual base salaries as of the end of the Test Year on December 1, 01. By utilizing the actual employees on hand as of December 1, 01, the Company was able to account for any full-time equivalents ( FTE ) changes and pay rate changes that had occurred during the 01 Test Year. The Company then applied to the base payroll at December 1, 01 payroll escalation for the 1 interim year (01) and Calendar Years (01-00). The escalation rates utilized reflect either contractual rates or conservative estimates provided by the Company s Human Resources Department. A projection of overtime payroll 1

expense was then added to the base payroll expense. SFR Schedule C-. shows the total payroll costs that have been or will be incurred by CL&P based on this methodology. An expense percentage has been applied to the total payroll costs as shown on work paper WP C-., column B, for CL&P and EESCO, respectively, to reflect only the operating expense included in the Company s rate relief request. In other words, this adjustment removes the payroll associated with capital and other non-o&m expense. Schedule C-. therefore reflects only the payroll O&M expense requested by CL&P. In addition, the Company is requesting additional payroll expense for new full time equivalents ( FTEs ) that it plans to hire in years 01 00. CL&P expects to add 1 full time positions between 01 and 00. The summary detail 1 1 1 1 1 regarding those additions is provided on Schedule C-., WP C-., page of. The Company also plans on adding 1 new Service Company FTEs in Calendar Year 01 that will allocate a portion of their expense to CL&P. Summary detail regarding those Service Company FTEs is included on Schedule C-., WP C-., at page 1. 1 1 1 0 1 Q. Did the Company utilize a vacancy rate for FTEs when it developed its payroll expense projections? A. Yes. The Company s last rate case decision in Docket No. 1-0-0 recommended that the Company use a vacancy rate when it calculates its Rate Year FTE levels for purposes of calculating payroll expense projections. In Docket No. 1-0-0, December 1, 01 Decision at Page ( The Authority reiterates its concern regarding the lack of a vacancy rate in determining an expected FTE level. ). 1

response to the Authority s request, the Company utilized a vacancy rate of % in this case when it calculated its Calendar Year payroll expense. A vacancy rate reflects that no matter how hard the Company tries to fill open FTE positions a certain percentage of open positions will typically remain open due to, among other things, normal attrition, and the time needed to advertise for and interview qualified candidates for these job openings. The Company s utilization of a vacancy rate of % is shown in the detail pages to SFR Schedule C-.. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 Q. What are the payroll escalation rates that have been utilized for this rate case? A. Escalation rates by employee type appear in the table below. The pre-filed testimony of Mr. Sasha Lazor, Director of Compensation, provides further support for the employee compensation escalation rates used to escalate the payroll expense. TABLE MLS- Payroll Escalation Employee Type 01 01 01 00 Exempt.0%.0%.0%.0% Non-exempt.0%.0%.0%.0% Union - CL&P.0%.0%.0%.0% Union - EESCO.0%.0%.0%.0% Q. Were changes to the cost of employee benefits projected for Calendar Years 01-00? A. Yes. Schedule C-. summarizes the Pro Forma and Calendar Year Adjustments related to pension and other employee benefit costs. Although there have been increases in certain employee benefits, those increases have been 1

significantly offset by reductions in pension expense. Additional information concerning pension costs is provided in the pre-filed testimony of Ms. Jenifer B. Rizza, Trust Investments Manager. Additional information concerning cost changes in other employee benefits is provided in the pre-filed testimony of Mr. Michael P. Synan, Director of Benefits Strategy. Q. What is the pro forma adjustment related to variable pay? A. CL&P and its affiliate, EESCO, annually pay variable compensation to employees who qualify for such compensation, which depends on several factors, including individual performance and achievement of departmental goals, among other factors. This compensation is variable in order to recognize employees for 1 1 1 1 1 1 achievements both individually and as a group, which is a vital element of the Company s efforts to meet performance goals for distribution operations. Initially, the Company accrues on its books an estimate for the current year s variable compensation payout. The following year, the Company adjusts or trues-up that amount for the actual payment made. The pre-filed testimony of Mr. Sasha Lazor, Director of Compensation, discusses the variable pay compensation program in greater detail. 1 1 0 1 Q. Describe the Test Year payroll tax expense calculation and pro forma adjustments. A. Test Year payroll taxes reflect the expense portion of FICA, Medicare, State Unemployment and Federal Unemployment taxes charged or allocated to CL&P s distribution business during calendar 01. Using Test Year payroll taxes as the basis for projected payroll taxes, the Company reflected the impact on each 0

category of payroll taxes (i.e., FICA, Medicare, etc.) resulting from Test Year pro forma and Calendar Year payroll expense adjustments as well as variable pay adjustments. B. Adjustments for Storm-Related Items Q. Does CL&P seek to recover in this case the cost of any catastrophic storms that have not already been recovered through the reserve for catastrophic storms? A. Yes. Catastrophic storms are those events in which CL&P incurs incremental expense in excess of $ million. The Company currently collects in rates $ million annually, which is placed into a reserve account in order to reimburse the Company for its catastrophic storm costs. Mr. Bowes pre-filed testimony 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 demonstrates that there were three catastrophic storms since the last rate case totaling approximately $ million, but that amount does not reflect the recent severe windstorm that commenced on October, 01. However, the amount in the storm reserve was insufficient to fully reimburse the Company for these three catastrophic storms. Therefore, SFR Schedule C-., WP C-. page of, identifies the total unreimbursed catastrophic storm costs of $1. million the Company seeks to recover in this case for these three specific catastrophic storms. Mr. Bowes pre-filed testimony provides additional information about these three catastrophic storms. Mr. Bowes pre-filed testimony explains that these three catastrophic storms that occurred since the last rate case were: (1) severe thunderstorms 0//01 to //1; () Winter Storm Lexi 0/0/01; and () Winter Storm Petros 0//01 to 0//01. This rate case does not reflect the storm costs the Company incurred to respond to the recent severe windstorm event that commenced on //1. 1

Q. Is the Company proposing any increase to the $ million it currently recovers annually in rates to pay for the cost of catastrophic storms? A. Yes. The Company has been recovering $ million in rates annually for this purpose since approximately 1. In the Company s last rate case in Docket No. 1-0-0, it proposed to increase [this amount] from $ million annually to $ million annually..., but the Authority denied that request. Since the last rate case, the Company evaluated the frequency with which it experiences catastrophic storms and the associated cost of those storms, and it continues to conclude that the $ million it annually recovers in rates is insufficient. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 The historical cost levels demonstrate that it is necessary to increase the current annual funding level for the storm reserve to keep pace with the actual costs CL&P is incurring to restore power to customers under current performance standards and customer expectations. However, in light of the concerns the Authority expressed in 01 in Docket No. 1-0-0 on this topic, the Company has reduced its 01 proposal to increase the annual accrual to $ million, and instead, it now proposes in this case a comparatively smaller adjustment that would enable it to recover $ million annually in rates to fund the reserve for catastrophic storms. Increasing the annual recovery to $ million ensures there is a more appropriate level of funds in the storm reserve to timely reimburse the Company for catastrophic storms, and it mitigates the size of potential future rate The Company has been utilizing this accrual method and annual amount since approved in the Decision dated June 1, 1 in Docket No. --, Application of the Connecticut Light and Power Company to Amend its Rate Schedules. Docket No. 0-1-0, June 0 CL&P Decision, at page 0. Docket No. 1-0-0, December 1, 01 Decision at.

relief the Company will seek in future rates cases when it seeks to recover unreimbursed catastrophic storm costs that have arisen since its last rate case. 1 1 Q. Does the Company seek to recover in this rate case any unreimbursed costs since the last rate case to pre-stage and prepare for anticipated storms? A. Yes. In the Company s last rate case in Docket No. 1-0-0, the Authority acknowledged the benefits of pre-staging stating in relevant part, The Authority finds that since it has strongly encouraged both EDCs to take actions that will require them to incur pre staging costs, the PURA should provide surety that the costs are recoverable to lessen any financial disincentive to take those actions. 1 SFR Schedule C-., WP C-. Page of identifies the total unreimbursed pre-staging costs of $.0 million that the Company incurred since its last rate case, which it seeks to recover in this rate case. 1 1 1 1 Q. Does the Company seek to adjust the $ million it annually recovers in rates for pre-staging costs? A. Yes. In Docket No. 1-0-0 in 01, the Company and PURA examined for the first time what was the appropriate amount that should be recovered in rates 1 annually to reimburse the Company for pre-staging costs. Since 01, the 1 0 1 Company has obtained additional information and experience on pre-staging costs. The Company s historical cost levels demonstrate that it is necessary to increase the current annual funding level for pre-staging from $ million annually to $ million annually to keep pace with the actual costs the Company is incurring. 1 Docket No. 1-0-0, December 1, 01 Decision at.

For this reason, this rate case proposes to increase its annual accrual for pre- staging costs by $1 million. 1 Q. Please describe the Company s proposal to continue to recover in rates a fixed annual amount to offset the Company s costs for non-catastrophic storms. A. The Company currently recovers in rates $. million annually to offset the cost of non-catastrophic storms, which are storms in which the Company s per-storm incremental expense is less than $ million. Costs associated with this category of incremental expense incurred for storm restoration include such items as overtime, intercompany expenses for labor, materials and supplies, travel expenses and outside services including services of other utilities, electrical and tree trimming contractors. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 In this case, the Company proposes to decrease the current $. million that is collected annually to offset the cost of non-catastrophic storms to $. million. The Company calculated this amount using a historical average that is identical to the methodology used by the Authority in the Company s last two rate cases in Docket Nos. 0-1-0 and 1-0-0. As reflected in the Table below, CL&P identified the incremental storm expense of $. million for the Rate Plan by taking the total incremental storm expense after capitalization and transfers to the storm reserve for the past six years of 0-1 of $.1 million. The total net incremental cost was then reduced by removing the low and high years (01 and 01, respectively) to yield a net incremental storm expense. This net incremental storm expense amount was then averaged based on the remaining

costs during the four years that were selected out of this six-year period, which produced an average annual amount of approximately $. million. The Company has reflected the adjustment for the $. million in SFR Schedule C-.. Table MLS- O&M Expense for Non-Catastrophic Storms 0-1 Source WP C-. (Thousands of Dollars) Actual Year Amounts 0 $, 01, 01,01 01,0 01 01,1 Six Year Total,1 Less: Low Year (01) () Less: High Year (01) (,) Adjusted Total 1, Year Average, Round the rate year to $,00 1 1 1 1 1 1 C. Adjustment for Vegetation Management Expense Q. What is the source of the vegetation management costs in this filing? A. The Company is proposing to recover $. million of annual O&M expense through its distribution rate for vegetation management expense for the Calendar Years 01-00, which represents the continuation of the amount expended in the 01 Test Year of $.0 million minus a 01 Calendar Year adjustment of $,000, which results in a net expense of $. million. In order to continue the Company s present four-year tree trimming cycle, CL&P is proposing to recover

$. million annually for maintenance-related vegetation management expense for 01-00 in the distribution revenue requirement. Additional support for this calculation is provided in SFR Schedule C-.. D. Adjustment for Depreciation Q. Did CL&P perform a depreciation study? A. Yes. The Company retained Mr. Ned Allis of Gannet Fleming to perform the study. Mr. Allis pre-filed testimony describes the results of that study. 1 1 Q. Has depreciation expense been adjusted in this rate relief request? A. Yes. Depreciation expense has been calculated and reflects additional expense for the Calendar Years 01-00 due primarily to changes in reserve accrual rates resulting from the consultant s study, as well as increases in plant placed in service since the last rate case. The change in reserve accrual rates is described in greater detail in Mr. Allis pre-filed testimony. 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 E. Adjustment for Deferred Asset Amortization Q. What do the Pro Forma and Calendar Year adjustments for deferred asset amortization represent? A. Schedule C-. of the SFRs identifies the Company s Pro Forma and Calendar Year adjustments for deferred asset amortization. This Schedule calculates an increase of $. million for 01, which is primarily driven by new catastrophic storms that have occurred since the last rate case and have not been recovered through the reserve for catastrophic storms; a decrease of $,000 for 01; and a decrease of $. million for 00.

F. Adjustment for Property Tax Expense Q. Please describe the increase in the Company s Calendar Year property tax expense. A. Property taxes for each Calendar Year are based on known assessed property values, updated for estimated depreciation, capital additions and retirements and escalated mill rates, including adjustments associated with the Company s facilities consolidation plan. The property taxes are then amortized over the appropriate fiscal year starting July 1st. SFR Schedule C-. summarizes the property tax expense for each of the three Calendar Years and the supporting work papers provide the detailed calculations for the property taxes. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 In addition, while this case is pending before the Authority, the Company intends to update the evidentiary record to reflect updated property tax expense reflected in: (1) forthcoming municipal property tax invoices that are due and payable on July 1, 01; and () data reflecting additional plant-in-service that is sent in the Fall of 01 to municipal tax assessors, which the assessors utilize to update the Company s property tax expense. This additional data will enable the Authority to develop a more accurate calculation of the Company s property tax expense for the Calendar Years. 1 0 1 G. Facilities Consolidation Adjustments Q. What does the Pro Forma adjustment to facilities maintenance represent? A. The Company closed two facilities in the 01 Test Year (Waterbury and Simsbury), and the net reductions to facilities maintenance expense of $,000 resulting from these closures are reflected in the Company s rate application.

Facilities maintenance expenses are expenses incurred to operate and maintain CL&P s facilities and the portion of EESCO s facilities that support the shared services provided to CL&P. These expenses include such items as janitorial services, rubbish removal, utilities, building repair and security guard services. The pro forma credit of $,000 reflects the net reduction to operating costs for building maintenance and daily operations resulting from these two closings. 1 Q. Please describe the pro forma adjustment for rent expense. A. CL&P also adjusted its pro forma rent expense to reflect the removal of rent expense associated with the closing of the Simsbury facility, which the Company leased from a third-party landlord. The amount of rent expense credit associated with the closure of the Simsbury facility that CL&P leased is shown in SFR Schedule C-.1 A. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 H. Exclusion of Certain Operating Costs Q. Did the Company exclude any operating expenses from this application? A. Yes. The Company excluded from the computation of the revenue requirement the variable pay (incentive compensation) for senior officers (i.e., officers above the level of Vice President), as shown in the following table: Table MLS- Summary of Excluded Operating Expenses ($000) O&M Expenses: Percent Reduction Rate Year SFR Ref 1 Officer Incentive Plan % ($,) C-. A

This reduction is reflected as a Calendar Year adjustment to the above referenced SFR C Schedule. 1 I. Impact of Electric Sales and Demand Reductions Q. Does the Company s rate application seek to adjust rates to reflect declines in sales and demand? A. Yes. SFR C-.0 A, C-.0 B and C-.0 C identify reductions to operating revenues of $ million for 01, $ million for 01 and $(-) million for 00 primarily due to a decline in sales and demand. The pre-filed testimony of Mr. Daniel Ludwig contains the Company s sales forecast. As indicated previously, the $ million impact to Calendar Year 01 is caused by the fact that sales revenues have fallen below the level built into the revenue requirement for the Company s last base-rate case in Docket No. 1-0-0. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 J. Adjustment for the Fee Free Customer Payment Proposal Q. Please describe the Company s proposal to adjust rates for its fee free proposal. A. The pre-filed testimony of Ms. Penelope McLean Conner describes the Company s proposal to implement a new program that would allow customers to utilize their credit cards or debit cards to pay their utility bills without paying a surcharge or convenience fee. The net cost to implement this program is $. million, $. million and $. million for 01, 01 and 00, respectively, 1 which is described in SFR Schedule C-.. This net expense reflects the anticipated savings resulting from the implementation of this proposal, including a reduction to the cost of processing payments received by mail.

1 1 1 K. Miscellaneous Adjustments Q. Did the Company include an amount for rate case expenses associated with the preparation and support of this application? A. Yes. The Company has included, as part of the proposed deferred assets and deferred asset amortization, rate case expense associated with the preparation, support and review of this rate case filing. The rate case expense is an estimate and will be updated during the pendency of this proceeding. The rate case costs that the Company is seeking to recover include consultant analysis for the preparation of testimony related to depreciation, capital structure and rate of return. The Company also has hired outside legal counsel as well as other additional external resources to support CL&P in this case. This expense is detailed in SFR Schedule C-., WP C-., at page. Q. Please describe the regulatory assessment adjustment. A. Regulatory expenses include those expenses assessed to CL&P by the Authority 1 to cover costs incurred by PURA for regulatory oversight. The Company 1 1 1 1 0 1 accounts for these costs as a pre-payment and amortizes the costs on a monthly basis. The Company included Calendar Year Adjustments of $,000, $1,000 and $1,000 for 01, 01 and 00, respectively, in SFR Schedule C-.1 to reflect an increase in the Authority s assessment based on labor escalation rates from Moody s Analytics. The Calendar Year Adjustment for 01 also included escalation related to the interim year 01. 0

VI. REVIEW OF GRID MODERNIZATION IN A SEPARATE DOCKET Q. Does the Company s filing in this case include a request for authorization to commence a grid-modernization plan with associated cost recovery? A. No. The Company is not requesting authorization to commence a gridmodernization plan or to recover the associated costs through base Distribution rates set in this rate case. Instead, the Company intends to submit a separate filing to PURA in the future, in a new docket, to allow for review and approval of the Company s grid modernization proposal and associated funding request. 1 1 Q. What is the Company s request from the Authority in this case in relation to grid modernization? A. In this case, the Company seeks the Authority s confirmation that the most appropriate forum in which to periodically evaluate, and approve cost recovery for, grid modernization initiatives is an Electric Distribution Infrastructure Capital 1 Tracker or EDICT Mechanism. The Company seeks to recover its grid 1 1 1 1 1 modernization costs in a rate mechanism operating outside of base rates to allow for annual evaluation and line-of-sight monitoring by PURA and other stakeholders in order to evaluate and prioritize program spending as technology continues to evolve, as additional program performance data is obtained, and as policy objectives and legislative goals change. 0 1 PURA s December 1, 01 rate case decision for The United Illuminating Company in Docket No. 1-0-0 1 stated that although the Authority has no 1 Docket No. 1-0-0, Application Of The United Illuminating Company To Increase Its Rates And Charges. 1

explicit statutory authorization to implement an EDICT, it has broad jurisdiction over the amount that public utility companies collect in rates and the manner in which those rates are collected, which provides ample authority to adopt and approve such a mechanism. See, Conn. Gen. Stat. 1-1 et seq. 1 In addition, more recently in Docket No. 1-1-0, 1 PURA concluded that it had the authority, at any time, to re-visit the need to establish an EDICT Mechanism. Specifically, PURA stated that it may revisit the need, desirability and feasibility of establishing an EDICT Mechanism in the future, if appropriate.... If future electric distribution project planning or legislatively-mandated capital projects suggest the need for cost and rate tracking or adjustment mechanisms for such projects, the Authority may revisit the issue at that time. 1 1 1 1 1 1 If PURA provides such confirmation in this rate case, then the Company will submit a future filing that asks the Authority to establish a new docket to develop an EDICT Mechanism for the Company; to annually evaluate the details of the Company s grid modernization proposals; and to authorize cost recovery for any initiatives that are approved by PURA. 1 1 VII. PROPOSAL TO RE-OPEN THE DOCKET FOR MATERIAL CHANGES IN LAW AFFECTING TAXES, HEALTHCARE AND FERC-APPROVED ALLOCATIONS 1 Q. Does the Company propose to re-open this docket under certain 1 Docket No. 1-0-0, Application Of The United Illuminating Company To Increase Its Rates And Charges, December 1, 01 Rate Case Decision at page (emphasis added). 1 Docket No. 1-1-0, PURA Investigation into the Implementation of an Electric Distribution Infrastructure Capital Tracking Mechanism. 1 Docket No. 1-1-0, PURA Investigation into the Implementation of an Electric Distribution Infrastructure Capital Tracking Mechanism, March, 01 PURA Letter Order Closing Docket at Page 1.