ontr I umber: 47576 11 lln ill ill 11 Item Number: 55 ...

11111111 i 1111 iiii 11 ontr I umber: 47576

11 lln ill ill 11 Item Number: 55

Addendum StartPage: 0

-'- • L-3 DOCKET NO. 47576

APPLICATION OF THE CITY OF LUBBOCK THROUGH LUBBOCK POWER AND LIGHT FOR AUTHORITY TO CONNECT A PORTION OF ITS SYSTEM WITH THE ELECTRIC RELIABILITY COUNCIL OF TEXAS

20170C1 15 PM 2: 34 „TIF,FORE THE ,

PUBLIC UTILITY COMMISSION

OF TEXAS

DIRECT TESTIMONY

OF

JAMES W. DANIEL

ON BEHALF OF THE

CITY OF LUBBOCK

OCTOBER 16, 2017

DIRECT TESTIMONY OF JAMES W. DANIEL

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

I. INTRODUCTION AND QUALIFICATIONS 3

II. PURPOSE OF TESTIMONY 6

III. WHOLESALE TRANSMISSION RATE EFFECTS 10

IV. TEXAS RETAIL RATE EFFECTS 16

V. LP&L CUSTOMER RATE EFFECTS 19

VI. OVERVIEW OF THE COSTS AND BENEFITS OF LP&L'S TRANSITION TO ERCOT 22

VII. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 23

ATTACHMENTS

JWD-1 List of Testimony, Affidavits, and Expert Reports Presented in Regulatory and Court Proceedings

JWD-2 ERCOT Net Access Charge Effects JWD-3 ERCOT Net Access Charge Effects Excluding Overlapping Costs JWD-4 Appendix A of the LP&L Study JWD-5 Appendix B of the LP&L Study JWD-6 LP&L Retail Bill Effects

DOCKET NO. 47576 2 DIRECT TESTIMONY JAMES W. DANIEL

02

DOCKET NO. 47576

APPLICATION OF THE CITY OF LUBBOCK THROUGH LUBBOCK POWER AND LIGHT FOR AUTHORITY TO CONNECT A PORTION OF ITS SYSTEM WITH THE ELECTRIC RELIABILITY COUNCIL OF TEXAS

§ § § § § § §

BEFORE THE

PUBLIC UTILITY COMMISSION

OF TEXAS

DIRECT TESTIMONY OF JAMES W. DANIEL

1 I. INTRODUCTION AND QUALIFICATIONS

2 Q. PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND BUSINESS ADDRESS.

3 A. My name is James W. Daniel. My business address is 919 Congress Avenue, Suite

4 1110, Austin, Texas 78701.

5 Q. PLEASE OUTLINE YOUR FORMAL EDUCATION.

6 A. I received the degree of Bachelor of Science from the Georgia Institute of

7 Technology in 1973 with a major in Economics.

8 Q. WHAT IS YOUR PRESENT POSITION?

9 A. I am a Vice President of the firm GDS Associates, Inc. ("GDS") and Manager of

10 GDS's office in Austin, Texas.

11 Q. PLEASE STATE YOUR PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE.

12 A. From July 1974 through September 1979 and from August 1983 through February

13 1986, I was employed by Southern Engineering Company. During that time, I

14 participated in the preparation of economic analyses regarding alternative power

15 supply sources and generation and transmission feasibility studies for rural electric

16 cooperatives. I participated in wholesale and retail rate and contract negotiations with


03

1 investor-owned and publicly-owned utilities, prepared cost of service studies on

2 behalf of investor-owned and publicly-owned utilities, and prepared and submitted

3 testimony and exhibits in utility rate and other regulatory proceedings on behalf of

4 publicly-owned utilities, industrial customers, associations, and government agencies.

5 From October 1979 through July 1983, I was employed as a public utility consultant

6 by R.W. Beck and Associates. During that time, I participated in rate studies for

7 publicly-owned electric, gas, water, and wastewater utilities. My primary

8 responsibility was the development of revenue requirements, cost of service, and rate

9 design studies as well as the preparation and submittal of testimony and exhibits in

10 utility rate proceedings on behalf of publicly-owned utilities, industrial customers,

11 and other customer groups. Since February 1986, I have held the position of Manager

12 of GDS's office in Austin, Texas. In April 2000, I was elected as a Vice President of

13 GDS. While at GDS, I have provided testimony in numerous regulatory proceedings

14 involving electric, natural gas, and water utilities, and I have participated in generic

15 rulemaking proceedings. I have prepared retail rate studies on behalf of publicly-

16 owned utilities and I have prepared utility valuation analyses. I have also prepared

17 economic feasibility studies, and I have procured and contracted for wholesale and

18 retail energy supplies.

19 Q. HAVE YOU TESTIFIED BEFORE ANY REGULATORY COMMISSIONS?

20 A. I have testified many times before regulatory commissions. I have submitted

21 testimony before the following state regulatory authorities: the Public Utility

22 Commission of Texas (Commission"), the Texas Commission on Environmental

23 Quality, the Texas Railroad Commission, the Regulatory Commission of Alaska, the


04

1 Arkansas Public Service Commission, the Arizona Corporation Commission, the

2 Delaware Public Service Commission, the Florida Public Service Commission, the

3 Georgia Public Service Commission, the Illinois Commerce Commission, the State

4 Corporation Commission of Kansas, the Louisiana Public Service Commission, the

5 New Mexico Public Service Commission, the Oklahoma Corporation Commission,

6 the Oregon Public Utility Commission, the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission,

7 the South Dakota Public Utilities Commission, the Virginia State Corporation

8 Commission, and the Public Service Commission of West Virginia. I have also

9 testified before the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission ("FERC") and two

10 Condemnation Courts appointed by the Supreme Court of Nebraska. I also have

11 submitted an expert opinion report before the United States Tax Court on utility

12 issues. A list of regulatory proceedings in which I have presented expert testimony is

13 provided as Attachment JWD-1.

14 Q. WOULD YOU PLEASE DESCRIBE GDS?

15 A. GDS is an engineering and consulting firm with offices in Marietta, Georgia; Austin,

16 Texas; Auburn, Alabama; Manchester, New Hampshire; Madison, Wisconsin; and

17 Orlando, Florida. GDS has over 160 employees with backgrounds in engineering,

18 accounting, management, economics, finance, and statistics. GDS provides rate and

19 regulatory consulting services in the electric, natural gas, water, storm, and telephone

20 utility industries. GDS also provides a variety of other services in the electric utility

21 industry including power supply planning, generation support services, energy

22 procurement and contracting, energy efficiency program development, financial

23 analysis, load forecasting, and statistical services. Our clients are primarily privately-


05

1 owned utilities, publicly-owned utilities, municipalities, customers of investor-owned

2 utilities, groups or associations of customers, and government agencies.

3 Q. ON WHOSE BEHALF ARE YOU TESTIFYING?

4 A. I am testifying on behalf of the City of Lubbock by and through Lubbock Power &

5 Light, its municipally-owned utility (Lubbock" or "LP&L").

6 II. PURPOSE OF TESTIMONY

7 Q. WHAT WAS YOUR ASSIGNMENT IN THIS PROCEEDING?

8 A. My assignment was to describe the analyses performed to develop the portions of the

9 Lubbock Power & Light Transition to ERCOT Study ("LP&L Study") that describe

10 and present the expected effects (1) on wholesale transmission rates in the affected

11 regional transmission organizations ("RTOs") and (2) on the retail rates of the large,

12 investor-owned utilities ("IOUs") in Texas and of LP&L, which are Sections 6 and 7

13 of the LP&L Study. In addition, I will address all or portions of Issues 5, 6, 7, 8, 13,

14 14, 15, 16 17, 25, and 31 contained in the Commission's Preliminary Order that was

15 signed on September 29, 2017.

16 Q. ARE THERE OTHER WITNESSES APPEARING ON BEHALF OF LP&L?

17 A. Yes. The following persons are also presenting direct testimony on behalf of LP&L:

18 • David McCalla with LP&L,

19 • Dr. Mandhir Sahni with DNV-GL, and

20 • Neil Copeland with GDS.


06

1 Q. DID YOU RELY ON THE ANALYSIS AND TESTIMONY OF THESE

2 OTHER LP&L WITNESSES?

3 A. Yes. Mr. McCalla, who is a fact witness, provides an overview of the steps LP&L

4 has taken to obtain a cost-effective and reliable power supply for its customers after

5 June 2019 and discusses LP&L's position in this proceeding. Dr. Sahni, who is a

6 testifying expert witness, supports the analysis of the effects on the ERCOT

7 wholesale power market and transmission grid if LP&L moves 470 MW of its load

8 (the "Affected Load') to ERCOT. Mr. Copeland, who is a testifying expert witness,

9 supports the analysis of the effects on the SPP wholesale power market and

10 transmission grid if LP&L transfers the Affected Load to ERCOT or if it is ordered to

11 keep that load in SPP. I have relied upon the analyses supported by Dr. Sahni and

12 Mr. Copeland for purposes of developing my wholesale and retail rate impacts. I

13 would note that their analyses are independent of my analysis and stand alone for

14 their intended purposes.

15 Q. PLEASE EXPLAIN HOW COMMISSION PROJECT NO. 45633 RELATES

16 TO THIS PROCEEDING.

17 A. As discussed in the testimony of LP&L witness Mr. McCalla, LP&L conducted

18 various power supply solicitations and analysis to obtain a power supply source to

19 replace its power supply agreement (PSA") with Southwestern Public Service

20 Company ("SPS") that expires on June 30, 2019. Based on the results of those efforts

21 and analyses, LP&L determined that initially transferring 470 MW of load to ERCOT

22 was in the best interest of its customers. After LP&L met with the Commission to


07

1 present its plans, the Commission opened Project No. 45633 to identify the issues

2 pertaining to LP&L's plans to transfer most of its load to ERCOT.

3 In that project, the Commissioners and interested parties identified issues that

4 they wanted to be addressed regarding LP&L's plans. On June 30, 2017, both

5 ERCOT and SPP filed coordinated, yet independent, analyses and reports on the

6 impacts on their wholesale power markets and transmission grids if LP&L transfers

7 470 MW of load from SPP to ERCOT. Based on information provided in this project

8 and on further discussions with the Commission, LP&L filed its Application in this

9 proceeding, including the LP&L Study.

10 Q. IN PROJECT NO. 45633, DID THE COMMISSION INDICATE THAT IT

11 WANTED TO CONSIDER WHOLESALE AND RETAIL RATE IMPACTS

12 REGARDING LP&L'S PLANS TO TRANSFER 470 MW OF LOAD TO

13 ERCOT?

14 A. Yes. The Chairman of the Commission requested that this issue be addressed in a

15 memorandum filed in that Project on July 19, 2016.

16 Q. DID EITHER THE ERCOT OR SPP STUDIES FILED IN PROJECT NO.

17 45633 ADDRESS WHOLESALE OR RETAIL RATE IMPACTS?

18 A. No. However, the LP&L Study, which is attached to LP&L's Application, includes

19 the following rate effect analyses:

20 (1) ERCOT wholesale transmission rate effects,

21 (2) SPP wholesale transmission rate effects, including the effect on Southwestern

22 Public Service Company ("SPS"),


08

1

(3) Retail rate effects on the customers of the major investor-owned utilities

2

(IOUs") in Texas, and

3

(4) Retail rate effects on LP&L's customers.

4 In my testimony that follows, I will support and discuss each of these rate effect

5 analyses.

6 Q. IS THERE AN IMPORTANT PERSPECTIVE THAT DECISION MAKERS

7 SHOULD UNDERSTAND PRIOR TO REVIEWING THESE RATE EFFECT

8 ANALYSES?

9 A. Yes. It is important to understand that LP&L cannot just do nothing. LP&L's major

10 power supplier, SPS, has provided notice that it does not intend to renew or replace

11 their current PSA, which expires on June 30, 2019.1 In other words, there is not a

12 status quo alternative for the Commission to consider. LP&L has to obtain a new

13 power supply and transmission arrangement in ERCOT or SPP. Accordingly, there is

14 no basis for comparing future LP&L retail rates with projected current rates because

15 LP&L's current power supply will no longer exist. Instead, one should focus on and

16 only consider the LP&L retail rate effects concerning the only two options available:

17 (1) transferring 470 MW of load to ERCOT and (2) keeping all of its load in SPP

18 under a mostly new power supply and becoming a transmission provider and member

19 in SPP.

1 SPS and LP&L have since entered into a short-term "bridge PSA that expires on June 30, 2021.


09

1 Q. WOULD YOU PLEASE SUMMARIZE THE RESULTS OF YOUR REVIEW

2 AND ANALYSIS?

3 A. Yes. Based upon my review and analysis and the LP&L Study, I have reached the

4 following conclusions and recommendations:

5 (1) LP&L's proposed load transfer to ERCOT results in either lower rates or

6 slightly higher rates for affected customers. If LP&L's Application is

7 approved, the customers of IOUs in ERCOT will pay slightly higher rates, the

8 customers of the most affected IOU in SPP will pay lower rates, and the

9 customers of LP&L will pay significantly lower rates.

10 (2) If LP&L is ordered to stay in SPP, LP&L customers will pay substantially

11 higher transmission-related and power supply-related costs.

12 (3) LP&L's Application is in the public interest and should be approved by the

13 Commission.

14 III. WHOLESALE TRANSMISSION RATE EFFECTS

15 Q. IF LP&L'S PROPOSAL TO TRANSFER 470 MW OF LOAD TO ERCOT IS

16 APPROVED, HOW WILL ERCOT WHOLESALE TRANSMISSION RATES

17 BE AFFECTED?

18 A. There will be three major somewhat off-setting effects on ERCOT wholesale

19 transmission rates. First, the total ERCOT average four coincident peak ("4CP")

20 demand will be increased by including LP&L's load at the time of those 4CPs. This

21 will gradually reduce the total ERCOT access charge for wholesale transmission

22 service. The result is that LP&L will begin paying its load ratio share of the

23 ERCOT-wide transmission cost of service ("TCOS") while other load serving entities

24 ("LSEs") in ERCOT will be gradually paying less. Second, a third party will build


10

1 and own a portion of the additional transmission facilities needed to interconnect

2 LP&L with ERCOT. That entity will seek TCOS recovery for those new facilities.

3 Third, LP&L will seek to recover its TCOS in the ERCOT access charge. These last

4 two effects will increase the wholesale transmission service charges to the other LSEs

5 in ERCOT.

6 Q. WHAT ARE THE ESTIMATED AMOUNTS FOR THESE THREE EFFECTS

7 ON ERCOT WHOLESALE TRANSMISSION RATES?

8 A. My analysis is based on forecasted effects for 2021. LP&L's projected ERCOT

9 TCOS for 2021 is $29.8 million. The projected ERCOT TCOS for the additional

10 interconnection facilities built and owned by another entity is $42.2 million. The

11 total projected 2021 increase in the ERCOT TCOS is $72.0 million ($29.8 million

12 plus $42.2 million). In 2021, LP&L's projected ERCOT 4CP demand will be 395.8

13 MW and LP&L will pay $24.0 million in access fees. Therefore, the net projected

14 2021 effect on current LSEs in ERCOT is $48.0 million. This results in a net increase

15 in the ERCOT total monthly access charge of $0.05817 per 4CP kW, or an increase

16 of 1.3%.

17 Q. HAVE YOU CALCULATED THE EFFECT OF THIS NET ERCOT ACCESS

18 CHARGE INCREASE AMOUNT ON ALL OF THE LSE'S?

19 A. Yes. This information is provided on my Attachment JWD-2.


11

1 Q. WILL ANY ERCOT TRANSMISSION PROJECTS THAT ARE BEING

2 CONSIDERED CURRENTLY AFFECT THE COST OF TRANSMISSION

3 NEEDED TO TRANSITION LP&L INTO ERCOT?

4 A. Yes. In its integration analysis filed in Project No. 45633 and this docket, ERCOT

5 noted that the South Plains Project proposed by Sharyland Utilities, L.P.

6 (Sharylane) to the ERCOT Regional Planning Group in October 2016 contains

7 transmission facilities that overlap with Option 4ow. ERCOT estimated the cost of

8 the overlapping facilities to be $216 million. If the South Plains Project goes

9 forward, the cost of Option 4ow would be reduced by at least the $216 million, which

10 would reduce the cost to transition LP&L into ERCOT. Dr. Sahni provides more

11 context for the South Plains Project in his direct testimony.

12 Q. WHAT WOULD BE THE EFFECT OF THE REDUCTION IN THE COST TO

13 TRANSITION LP&L INTO ERCOT IF THE SOUTH PLAINS PROJECT

14 WERE BUILT?

15 A. The net increase in the ERCOT total monthly access charge associated with LP&L's

16 transition is reduced from $0.0517 per 4CP kW to $0.01672 per 4CP kW, or an

17 increase of 0.3%.

18 Q. HAVE YOU CALCULATED THE EFFECT OF THIS NET ERCOT ACCESS

19 CHARGE INCREASE AMOUNT ON ALL OF THE LSES?

20 A. Yes. This information is provided on my Attachment JWD-3.


12

1 Q. WILL LP&L'S PROPOSAL TO TRANSFER 470 MW OF LOAD TO ERCOT

2 ALSO HAVE AN EFFECT ON SPP'S WHOLESALE TRANSMISSION

3 RATES?

4 A. Yes. There will be two mostly off-setting effects on SPP's wholesale transmission

5 rates. First, SPP's transmission rate will not be increased to recover LP&L's annual

6 transmission revenue requirement (ATRR"). Currently, LP&L is not a member of

7 SPP and has not sought recovery of its ATRR under SPP's open access transmission

8 tariff ("OATT"). If LP&L is ordered to keep all of its load in SPP, LP&L will seek

9 recovery of its ATRR, which will increase the SPP Network Integration Transmission

10 Service ("NITS") charge. If LP&L's transmission facilities are moved to ERCOT,

11 this increase in SPP's NITS charge will be avoided.

12 Second, the SPP-wide average twelve coincident peak (12CP") demand will

13 be reduced by LP&L's 12CP associated with the 470 MW load transfer amount. This

14 will increase the load ratio share of the total SPP ATRR that is paid by the other

15 members of SPP.

16 Q. WHAT ARE THE ESTIMATED AMOUNTS FOR THESE TWO EFFECTS

17 ON SPP'S WHOLESALE TRANSMISSION RATES?

18 A. LP&L's projected ATRR in SPP for 2021 is $19.1 million. If LP&L' s Application is

19 approved, this amount will not be recovered in SPP's NITS charge. In addition, it is

20 projected that LP&L will pay $27.5 million in SPP NITS charges for the 470 MW

21 portion of its load in 2021 if its Application is not approved. Therefore, if the 470

22 MW load transfer is approved, other SPP transmission service customers will have to


13

1 pay the $27.5 million. The net effect of these two items if LP&L's Application is

2 approved is an $8.4 million increase.

3 Q. WHAT PORTION OF THIS NET INCREASE IN SPP'S WHOLESALE

4 TRANSMISSION COSTS WILL BE BORNE BY SPS'S TEXAS RETAIL

5 RATEPAYERS?

6 A. Of the $8.4 million net increase in SPP's wholesale transmission rates, approximately

7 $4.1 million will be borne by SPS's Texas retail customers.

8 Q. HAVE YOU INCLUDED ANY COSTS INCURRED BY ERCOT OR SPP

9 RELATED TO LP&L'S PROPOSED INTEGRATION IN THE WHOLESALE

10 TRANSMISSION RATE EFFECT ANALYSIS?

11 A. No. It is my understanding that the studies performed by those entities were entirely,

12 or mostly, performed by their staffs. Those expenses are recovered through their

13 administrative fees and should not have an effect on wholesale transmission rates.

14 Q. DOESN'T THE PRELIMINARY ORDER RAISE THE ISSUE OF WHO

15 SHOULD PAY FOR THE COST OF ERCOT'S AND SPP'S STUDIES

16 CONCERNING LP&L'S TRANSITION TO ERCOT?

17 A. Yes, it does.

18 Q. SHOULD THE COST OF CONDUCTING THE ERCOT AND SPP STUDIES

19 BE CHARGED TO LP&L?

20 A. Not in my opinion. As discussed above, those expenses are already recovered by

21 those entities through their administrative fees. In addition, with regard to ERCOT,

22 assigning any of ERCOT's expense to LP&L is contrary to Public Utility Regulatory

23 Act ("PURA") Section 35.004.


14

1 Q. HAVE THERE BEEN ANY SIMILAR COMMISSION CASES INVOLVING

2 PROPOSED LOAD TRANSFERS FROM SPP TO ERCOT?

3 A. Yes. In Docket No. 39070, Sharyland proposed to transfer all of its load in SPP to

4 ERCOT. The Commission approved Sharyland's load transfer.

5 Q. IN THE SHARYLAND CASE WERE ANY SPP OR ERCOT EXPENSES

6 CHARGED TO SHARYLAND OR UPLIFTED TO OTHER LSES?

7 A. No.

8 Q. IF THE LP&L TRANSITION IS APPROVED, WHO SHOULD BE

9 RESPONSIBLE FOR THE COST OF THE NECESSARY TRANSMISSION

1 0 FACILITIES CONSTRUCTED TO ACCOMPLISH THE INTEGRATION

1 1 INTO ERCOT?

12 A. Based on my understanding of PURA Section 35.004(d) and my experience in

13 ERCOT, the transmission-owning utilities in ERCOT collect their transmission cost

14 of service through a postage stamp rate from all LSEs in ERCOT. So, the

15 transmission service providers that construct the transmission facilities to integrate

16 LP&L into ERCOT should add the cost of these facilities to their transmission cost of

17 service and recover the costs just like any other transmission addition. In other

18 words, the costs would be collected through their postage stamp rate charged to all

19 LSEs.


15

1 Q. IN THE SHARYLAND LOAD TRANSFER CASE, DOCKET NO. 39070,

2 WERE ANY ERCOT INTERCONNECTION COSTS OR EXISTING

3 SHARYLAND TRANSMISSION FACILITIES COSTS ASSIGNED TO

4 SHARYLAND FOR COST RECOVERY?

5 A. No. All of these facilities costs were recovered from all LSEs in ERCOT through

6 the postage stamp rate.

7 IV. TEXAS RETAIL RATE EFFECTS

8 Q. HAS THE COMMISSION PREVIOUSLY EXPRESSED AND DOES THE

9 PRELIMINARY ORDER INCLUDE THE NEED TO IDENTIFY THE

10 EFFECTS OF LP&L'S APPLICATION ON TEXAS RATEPAYERS?

11 A. Yes. In Project No. 45633, the Commissioners discussed their interest in knowing the

12 effect of LP&L's proposed load transfer on the customer of other Texas utilities.2

13 Additionally, Issues 16 and 17 of the Preliminary Order also require a determination

14 of the effect of LP&L's proposed load transfer to ERCOT on the customers of other

15 Texas utilities.

16 Q. DO ERCOT'S AND SPP'S STUDIES OF THE EFFECTS OF LP&L'S

17 PROPOSED LOAD TRANSFER FILED IN THIS PROCEEDING INCLUDE

18 AN ANALYSIS OF THE EFFECT ON CUSTOMERS OF TEXAS UTILITIES?

19 A. No. In Project No. 45633, both ERCOT and SPP prepared studies of the effects of

20 LP&L's proposed load transfer.' Both of these studies have also been filed in this

2 Also see Chairman Nelson's memorandum dated July 19, 2016 filed in Project No. 45633.

3 ERCOT and SPP also filed a SPP-ERCOT Coordinated LP&L Integration Impact Analysis — Joint

Executive Summary in that Project.


16

1 proceeding. In their filings, neither SPP nor ERCOT analyzed the effects on

2 customers of Texas utilities.

3 Q. HAVE YOU PREPARED THE CUSTOMER EFFECTS NECESSARY TO

4 ADDRESS ISSUES 16 AND 17 OF THE PRELIMINARY ORDER?

5 A. Yes. I have prepared forecasted customer bill effects for various types and sizes of

6 customer of Texas IOUs in ERCOT and SPP. The current base rates and recent rate

7 adjustment factors for Texas electric cooperatives and municipally-owned electric

8 utilities (`MOUs") are not readily available so it was not possible to develop

9 projected customer bill effects for those utilities. The results of my bill effects for

10 customers of Texas IOUs are presented in the LP&L Study as Appendices A and B.

11 Q. PLEASE DESCRIBE YOUR TEXAS IOU CUSTOMER BILL EFFECT

12 ANALYSES.

13 A. For all IOUs, I used their current base rates as the starting point. I next adjusted the

14 base rates and/or transmission cost recovery factors ('TCRFs") to reflect rates with

15 and without the forecasted wholesale transmission-related charges for 2021 that are

16 discussed in the prior section of my testimony.

17 For the ERCOT IOUs, this resulted in their estimated 2021 unbundled

18 delivery rates with and without the LP&L load transfer. I then added to these

19 ERCOT IOU delivery charges an energy supply charges amount based on forecasted

20 ERCOT market prices with and without the LP&L load transfer to determine

21 projected total bills for the customers of ERCOT IOUs. As shown on Table 7.2 in the

22 LP&L Study, the monthly bill effects of LP&L's Application on the residential

23 customers of ERCOT IOUs using 1,000 kWh per month averaged approximately


17

1 0.2%, which is negligible. The projected monthly bill effects for various sizes of

2 customers in the major customer classes of the ERCOT IOUs is provided as my

3 Attachment JWD-4. This Attachment is also Appendix A to the LP&L Study.

4 Of the Texas IOUs in SPP, I only developed customer bill effects for

5 Southwestern Public Service Company ("SPS"). The only other Texas IOU in SPP is

6 Southwestern Electric Power Company (SWEPCO"). The effect on customers of

7 SWEPCO should be very minor, so I did not believe it would be useful to prepare

8 those customer bill effects. For the SPS customer effects, similar to my ERCOT IOU

9 customer effects, I started with SPS's current base rates. I then increased SPS's base

10 rates and TCRF charges to reflect the forecasted SPP wholesale transmission rates

11 (with and without the LP&L load transfer) that are discussed in the prior section of

12 my direct testimony and in Section 6 of the LP&L Study. Next, based on the analysis

13 of LP&L witness Mr. Copeland, I determined forecasted 2021 fuel and power supply-

14 related charges to SPS's retail customers with and without the LP&L load transfer.

15 The LP&L load transfer caused the transmission-related charges to increase slightly.

16 However, the reduction in power supply-related charges caused by the LP&L load

17 transfer more than offset the increase in transmission-related charges. Therefore, the

18 net effect of these two forecasted cost effects is a reduction in SPS customer bills.

19 For example, an SPS residential customer using 1,000 kWh per month would realize

20 a 1.2% reduction in their monthly bill in 2021. The projected monthly bill effects for

21 various sizes of customers in the major customer classes of SPS is provided as my

22 Attachment JWD-5. This Attachment is also Appendix B to the LP&L Study.


18

1 V. LP&L CUSTOMER RATE EFFECTS

2 Q. BRIEFLY DESCRIBE HOW YOU DEVELOPED THE RATE EFFECTS ON

3 LP&L'S CUSTOMERS UNDER THE MOVE-TO-ERCOT AND STAY-IN-SPP

4 SCENARIOS.

5 A. As previously mentioned, there is no status quo scenario upon which to compare

6 future rate effects on LP&L's customers. LP&L's current power supply and

7 wholesale transmission service arrangements expire in mid-2019. After a two-year

8 "bridge PSA with SPS expires in mid-2021, LP&L will need to obtain new long-

9 term power supply and transmission service arrangements. In other words, rates

10 based on LP&L's current power supply and transmission-related costs will no longer

11 be an option available to LP&L after that time. For purposes of determining future

12 rate effects, therefore, the proper comparison is between the potential future power

13 supply and transmission service options in ERCOT and in SPP.

14 Q. PLEASE EXPLAIN HOW YOU DEVELOPED PROJECTED LP&L RATE

15 EFFECTS UNDER ITS PROPOSAL TO TRANSFER 470 MW OF LOAD TO

16 ERCOT.

17 A. Similar to the IOU rate effects, the forecasted 2021 LP&L rate effects started with

18 LP&L's current rates. Those rates were approved in October 2016. We next

19 estimated 2021 power supply-related and wholesale transmission-related costs for the

20 portion of LP&L's load that will be transferred to ERCOT. Next, we determined the

21 revenues that LP&L would receive in 2021 for its ERCOT TCOS using information

22 from LP&L's financial forecast. We also forecasted SPS's 2021 wholesale power

23 supply and transmission service charges for the LP&L load that will remain in SPP.

24 Based on those forecasted amounts, we then developed average system rate effects


19

1 for these power supply and wholesale transmission service changes by rate class. As

2

an example, a residential customer using 1,000 kWh per month would pay

3 approximately $104.63 per month if LP&L' s Application is approved.

4 Q. PLEASE EXPLAIN HOW YOU DEVELOPED PROJECTED LP&L RATE

5 EFFECTS IF IT IS ORDERED TO STAY IN SPP.

6 A. Under this assumption, LP&L would be required to obtain power supply resources in

7 SPP for the 470 MW of load that would have transferred to ERCOT. As previously

8 discussed, wholesale power supply agreements with SPS will no longer be in effect in

9 2021. The forecasted power supply costs for this 470 MW is based on production

10 cost studies sponsored by LP&L witness Mr. Copeland. The forecasted SPP

11 transmission costs for this load are based on estimated SPP NITS charges. For the

12 170 MW load of LP&L that was already staying in SPP, the forecasted power supply-

13 related and wholesale transmission-related costs are the same as used for the ERCOT

14 load transfer scenario. We also determined the forecasted 2021 revenues LP&L

15 would receive for its SPP ATRR. Based on these analyses, we then developed

16 average system rate effects for these power supply and wholesale transmission

17 service changes by rate class. As an example, a residential customer using 1,000

18 kWh per month would pay approximately $123.81 per month in 2021 if LP&L is

19 ordered to remain in SPP.


20

1 Q. HOW DO THE FORECASTED 2021 LP&L RATES AND CUSTOMER BILL

2 AMOUNTS COMPARE UNDER THE ERCOT LOAD TRANSFER

3 SCENARIO AND THE STAY IN SPP SCENARIO?

4 A. For a residential customer using 1,000 kWh per month, the table below compares the

5 forecasted monthly bills under the two scenarios:

Residential Bill Comparison

ERCOT Load Trancfer S104.63 Stay in SPP 123_81

Increase if Ordered to Stay in SPP - S S 19_18

Increase if Ordered to Stay in SPP - % 18% 6

7 My Attachment JWD-6, which is a copy of Appendix C of the LP&L Study, provides

8 a similar comparison for additional sizes of residential customers and for other major

9 LP&L rate classes. As shown on that attachment, all LP&L customer types and sizes

10 will pay substantially more per month if the Affected Load of LP&L is ordered to

11 stay in SPP.

12 Q. IN ADDITION TO LOWER RATES ARE THERE OTHER BENEFITS THAT

13 LP&L WILL ACHIEVE IF THE COMMISSION APPROVES LP&L'S

14 APPLICATION?

15 A. Yes. These additional other benefits include the following:

16 • LP&L will have the option to opt-in to retail competition in ERCOT. This

17 option is not currently available in SPP.

18 • ERCOT has a more robust competitive wholesale power market than SPP.

19 This will likely result in lower power supply costs for LP&L's retail

20 customers.


21

1 • LP&L will avoid FERC regulation and FERC fees for the Affected Load.

2 VI. OVERVIEW OF THE COSTS AND BENEFITS OF

3 LP&L'S TRANSITION TO ERCOT

4 Q. IF LP&L'S APPLICATION IS APPROVED, WILL CURRENT CUSTOMERS

5 IN ERCOT REALIZE A NET BENEFIT OR A NET COST?

6 A. As previously discussed, customers of IOUs in ERCOT will likely realize a negligible

7 net increase in their 2021 electric bills of approximately 0.2%. If the South Plains

8 Project is approved, the net increase in their electric bills will be reduced to only

9 0.1%.

10 Q. WILL CUSTOMERS IN THE TEXAS PORTION OF SPS ALSO REALIZE A

1 1 NET BENEFIT OR A NET COST IF LP&L'S APPLICATION IS

12 APPROVED?

13 A. Customers in the Texas portion of SPS should realize a net decrease in their 2021

14 electric bills of approximately 1.2%.

15 Q. WILL LP&L'S CUSTOMERS ALSO RECEIVE A NET BENEFIT IF THE

16 APPLICATION IS APPROVED?

17 A. LP&L's customers will pay significantly lower rates if 470 MW of LP&L's load and

18 its transmission facilities are transferred to ERCOT. By comparison, if LP&L is

19 ordered to remain in SPP, its customers will pay $3.4 million more in transmission-

20 related and power cost-related costs. For a residential customer using 1,000 kWh per

21 month, their monthly bill will be approximately $19.18 more per month, or 18%

22 higher if LP&L is ordered to remain in SPP.


22

1 Q. IN ADDITION TO LP&L CUSTOMERS PAYING HIGHER RATES IF LP&L

2 IS ORDERED TO REMAIN IN SPP, WILL OTHER CUSTOMERS IN THE

3 TEXAS PORTION OF SPS ALSO PAY HIGHER RATES?

4 A. Yes. I previously discussed the rate benefits to retail customers of SPS if LP&L' s

5 application is approved. If instead LP&L is ordered to remain in SPP, the rate

6 benefits will not occur, i.e., those customers will pay higher rates.

7 VII. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

8 Q. WOULD YOU PLEASE SUMMARIZE YOUR CONCLUSIONS AND

9 RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING LP&L'S PROPOSAL TO TRANSFER

10 470 MW OF LOAD TO ERCOT?

11 A. Yes. Based upon my review and analysis and the LP&L Study, I have reached the

12 following conclusions and recommendations:

13 (1) LP&L's proposed load transfer to ERCOT results in either lower rates or

14 slightly higher rates for affected customers. If LP&L's Application is

15 approved, the customers of IOUs in ERCOT will pay slightly higher rates, the

16 customers of the mostly affected IOU in SPP will pay lower rates and the

17 customers of LP&L will pay significantly lower rates.

18 (2) If LP&L is ordered to stay in SPP, LP&L customers will pay substantially

19 higher transmission-related and power supply-related costs.

20 (3) LP&L's Application is in the public interest and should be approved by the

21 Commission.

22 Q. DOES THIS COMPLETE YOUR DIRECT TESTIMONY?

23 A. Yes.


23

ATTACHMENT JWD-1 Page 1 of 12

LIST OF TESTIMONY, AFFIDAVITS, AND EXPERT REPORTS PRESENTED IN REGULATORY AND COURT PROCEEDINGS BY

JAMES W. DANIEL

DATE REGULATORY AGENCY/COURT DOCKET UTILITY INVOLVED

ER76-530 Arizona Public Service Company 1/1/1976 Federal Power Commission

2/76 South Dakota Public Utility Commission ...•$'. 7:. .4., *: . ,":". .. • A „ ̂ ''' •#e*..

F-3055

;. •

Northwes em Public Service Company

.Ni7Z-/:* * . . 5/79 Federal Energy Regula ory Commission

.4 tiA i: >:' . ::f.,. ,':I• . 78-379, 380; 381; 382 383

, . •t'ti Indiana & Michigan Electric Company

.b• 0„,.--.4--::..- .... 'I - 'I: ,1 ' :::::. ,, , f. 7:17.:,77

1627

,.. .. . —3777?:177.'

Kit Carson Electric Cooperative

(Direct Testimony) 11/80 New Mexico Public Service Commission

,I';'"•

6/81 Arizona Corporation Commission , .

9962-E-1032 Citizens Utilities Company

9/81 Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

. . .. -

ER81-179

1

Arizona Public Service Commission

(Direct Testimony)

.,

3/84 Texas Pubhc Utility Commission

, ''' • '

5640 Texas Utilities Electric Company

4/2/1984 Public Utility Commission of Texas Y.2.

5560

ll

Gulf States Utility Company

(Direct Testimony)

.

7/3/84 Texas Public Utility Commission

r r •


(Direct Testimony)

11/15/1984 Texas Public Utility Commission . ,-*&'*'


(Direct Testimony)

1/85 Federal Energy Regulatory Commission ER84-568-000

—

. , Gulf States Utilities Company

(Direct Testimony) -

11/20/1985 Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

-- , .

ER85-538-001 Gulf States Utilities Company

(Direct Testimony) —

-,1 WC 9 17

1/7/86 Louisiana Public Service Commission

,

U-16510 Central Louisiana Electric Company

(Direct Testimony) _

3/10/86 Texas Public Utility Commission 6677

.. Texas Utilities Electric Company

. .


• ... - . „

ER85-538-001 Gulf States fljtili -ti;Company

Rebuttal and Surrebuttal Testimon , .

6/20/88 Texas Public Utility Comrnission

. , — •

Lower Colorado River Authority

(Direct Testimony)

8032

7/15/88 Texas Public Utility Commission • ., 41t

8032 Lower Colorado River Authority

(Supplemental Direct Testimony)

24



JAMES W. DANIEL


3/7/90 Texas Pubhc Utility Commission ..E.:!'

9165

T '

El Paso Electric Company

(Direct Testimony)

. r.;s.....q . :4...$ , ',..„,Mt..p',„ ,

4/12/90 Texas Public Utihty Commission

7" .ti- !, _ 9300

' ,,,-': '. :'''',,..':': Texas Utilities Electnc Company

(Direct Testimony - Revenue Requiremen s Phase

5/1/90 Texas Pubhc Utility Commission ,

.

9300

•

Texas Utilities Electric Company

(Direct Testimony - Phase II - Rate Design)

s . .-.


-1,

9300

F....--- ,

Texas Utilities Electnc Company

(Supplemental Testimony - Revenue Requirements)

rr - 7/10/90 Texas Public Utility Commission

• 9427 Lower Colorado River Authority

(Direct Testimony - Rate Design)

' i 4., - .


.

9427

, irli r . Lower Colorado River Authority

(Rebuttal Testimony - Ratc Design)

:' ';.;•.,/.! 4 . •*"• • - ' 8/23/90 Texas Public Utility Commission

•,,''.;-4.. sz' '

9561

' :; A Central Power & Light Company

(Direct Testimony - Rate Design)

1/11/91 Texas Public Utility Commission 9427 Lower Colorado River Authority

(Rebuttal Tes imony)

.i. ,,,:;', •

9/24/91 Texas Pubhc Utility Commission 10404

r •

Guadalupe Valley Electric Cooperative

(Direct Testimony) ,, .

.. V:

12/91 Rate Area 2&3 Nebraska Municipalities .., .

N/A A •

,

Peoples Natural Gas Company

... .•,,g .2i`.."&,4, '" •

7/31/92 Texas Public Utility Commission ‘ " ktt

11266

",',- -"t• .z

Guadalupe-Blanco River Authority

(Direct Testimony)

8/7/92 State Corporation Commission o Kansas

9/8/92 Texas Public Utility Commission .ZigiNK-1361Einifi lliffellniEMMMlitirCr4Kg-31fiffit,

180,416-U

11266

f 4

Peoples Natural Gas Company

(Direct Testimony)

Guadalupe-Blanco River Authority

(Direct Testimon

, ,, ...,•, •••• ' .:;\''IV•V'' .' . ' '''....;.̀,r.'s;• 10894

.. •!`e,1***(4' ..:7 Gulf States Utilities Company

(Direct Testimon )

9/92 Texas Public Utility Commission

5/93 Texas Public Utility Commission 11735 Texas Utilities Electric Company

(Rebuttal Testimony)

4 44 •, ..

*1** C ,*4"t':

6/93 Texas Public Utility Commission v , $ 7 ' '

11892 Generic Proceeding Regarding Purchased Power

(Direct Testimony)

25



JAMES W. DANIEL

DATE REGULATORY AGENCY/COURT DOCKET UTILITY INVOLVED . . ..

,

09/08/93 State Corporation Commission of Kansas 186,363-U KN Energy

(Direct Testimony)

.,.. _ ". „ . ,e*, • t.'4".* • ''.. .7:71'..' -7.47'' 09/94 State Corporation Commission of Kansas 190,362-U Kansas Natural Pipeline and Kansas

Natural Partnership

(Direct Testimony)

• * •..,...,. . • , 7:*:7*4- ..e... 10/17/94 Texas Public Utility Commission 12820 Central Power and Light Company

(Direct Testimon ) ...- - 1:::,•770W;%:r717:7:77-777" .' ..• r***"' * •••. - - .

11/15/1994 City of Houston NA Houston Lighting and Power Company

(Direct Testimon )

77,7771 • -7`0, j•*. • 1:—. - .

11/15/1994 Texas Public Utility Commission 12065 Houston Lighting and Power Company

(Direct Testimony - Revenue Requirements Phase) .— -. - •

- . . • - . ,

12/12/1994 Texas Public Utility Commission 12820 Central Power & Light Company

(Supplemental Testimony)

•..

1/10/1995 Texas Public Utility Commission 12065 Houston Lighting & Power Company

(Direct Testimony - Rate Design Phase) .. *•• •1:;•. , ''.7.r..x"% . r 7.,... ,!::77.--.," ' ---,

,‘.. . _ _ , , ,„ ,, , ...,,,, ,,, *.

?„1:7.::.'pr.i, .,"7:..797:2771.71' . , 5/23/95 Federal Energy Regulatory Commission TX94-4-000 Texas Utilities Electric Company and

Southwestern Electnc Service

(Affidavit)

.4.0.....• ..1.-o• 1 A.47.4-.A. .L...1; ..4 • 4'...'. :....,.. rPt''.;, _ 8/7/95 Texas Public Utility Commission 13369 West Texas Utilities Company

Rebuttal Testimony - Rate Design Phase)

-.."* ••••• t• *. * *'* ''t. '`.°44 ' tP1!•'••''t • ; * 10/31/95 Texas Pubhc Utility Commission 14435 Southwestern Electric Power Company

(Direct Teshmony)

.` . t- '. • . "'.7.77'..7. - 7

.. . .. .v.- • • 11/95 Rate Area 3 Nebraska Municipalities N/A Peoples Natural Gas Company

(Munici i al Report) .... -7 . .. • .

02/07/96 Federal Energy Regulatory Commission TX96-2-000 City of College Station, Texas

(Affidavit) . --.., .. — ....... . ....„ .

5/15/96 Texas Public Utility Commission 14965 Central Power & Light Company

(Direct Testimony) , -, . .. .. . _ _ r. . „..,._ . flfl i-- 1 flfl

„ fl fl . 5/29/1996 Texas Public Utility Commission 14965 Central Powcr & Light Company

(Rebuttal Testimony) flflflflfl .- ...

, , , ' i.':.4. • ..: .

07/19/96 Texas Public Utility Commission 15766 City of Bryan, Texas

(Direct Testimony)

1

8/29/1996 Texas Public Utility Commission 15296 City of Bryan, Texas

(Direct Testimony)

26



JAMES W. DANIEL


:.-;i:VIttq7.014141tW4W.Wiii*M.f.r,.- 4,: --''..';,7:;?",t.te.''..C.5.W.-.•"t:':T:', ...',71r0.,‘.t.afittIO*'',31';'-'11',F,;- ' '''.-:...!'..Y.,-- ' F. - ' :,' 08/07/96 State of Illinois Commerce Commission 96-0245 & 96-0248 Commonwealth Edison Company

(Direct Testimony)

09/06/96 Texas Public Utility Commission S!.:.C;144:1:4-111̀: ?t,'S4.," -:-* ).4:::.‘:;

15643 Central Power & Light Company and

West Texas Utilities Company (Direct Testimony)

.::.telL'i :Ifilf:AVV':P'Velt„..:. :;., ::,.^::`,;(1a0M,,,,.. : * . , A ,-, 9/17/1996 Texas Pubhc Utility Commission

"'31;14:;.',:,-:•'4;',, ..:, -i-, ,!'.:;.E*Ft 7:**.i.,;-. ;

15296 City of Bryan, Texas (Rebuttal Testimony)

k

k.* .r:!'..'‘?'t'i*eL tA41P-PWANStit460411421* * AW. * 'e. ..!:;'**Z a '

09/18/96 Texas Public Utility Commission . Z A ••'‘ *.CZ."-f: *'''+''''*- - ' '1''. '. V>:Vf..',".Wi Attiirke 1,.c'*; 'it4 ;i:4'.**11: ',

15638 Texas Utilities Electric Company (Direct TestimoilyL

S;:i4,10~,4/401/kCilklika6.I'L'44.kiL-?' 1,J3';;v: 10/22/96 Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission

:•,''....':'.. ..)::7~.41 4ZW4re.iYi* *AVAt:.';' ,-,:̀ ...i4T4:-- '*--1*.SCI.A14* 96-0652-UCR Longbranch Associates, L.P.

(Direct Testimony)

MItiettaNfilagattgri4WWW”:E, , 08/05/97 Arkansas Public Service Commission

'L*9A,:" - Wed,444ligAgelrf.j3W4aW*11440.Patig 97-019-U Arkansas Westem Gas Company

(Direct Testimony)

08/06/97 Texas Public Utihty Commission ..! ''''. ' ii`' ' -, . l''''.':..*:,..'.-":f"4:1?-. '44.1% .

16705 Entergy Texas (Direct Testimony)

08/25/97 Texas Pubhc Utility Commission .0i'-' ' -1 ...7- , .:i..^.*:.*

16705 Entergy Texas (Rebuttal Testimony - Rate Design Phase)

. -. . . ; '.i '.: 4744;,(1 * ks ,a• , .,. 1 .r -

09/23/97 Arkansas Public Service Commission A .aattik:R ir: *:1-Wkettgrkit teret!;".. 4 . . * . 4' . ^ :

97-019-U Arkansas Western Gas Company Surrebuttal Testimony

*.',;' ;4- .,,:, :.*??;'i, :t1.,,;1 ,,..,:,'",, 09/30/97 Texas Public Utility Commission

,. :1k-;•!;K.,90ffikViVagaMittiaVitttk441;":41: 16705 Entergy Texas

(Direct Testimony - Competitive Issues Phase)

12/97 United States Tax Court 7685-96 and 4979-97 Lykes Energy, Inc (Report)

tiglt. telerarteAtingaitli ‘'";•1'.4„:ii:**1 .: 'ts:''.*.' *.1 .;.ii" — * 12/97 Condemnation Court Appointed by the

Supreme Court of Nebraska

' :•1.t 'iiir '4. CAAW.070%-fi :;20,1" .dWAt 13880 Peoples Natural Gas

12/1/1997 Condemnation Court Appointed by the Supreme Court of Nebraska

.c.;4.4 "P‘..il. ,•'::;*tf .1.'";.!'".*, :.:',..; :-..' -.>:'':,. -:,-;::: -';::!,:;'.., k,!..,4:. NA Peoples Natural Gas Company

(Report to City of Wahoo, Nebraska)

:::'•,'.'L')- : * **.i z',!'f."':'...: , , .‘7 -:' :: :;‘'' k.* •. k -:`: '44144 8/1/1998 Condemnation Court Appointed by the

Supreme Court of Nebraska

AlligiatettaSttgariK?"ACJ I.. 101 Peoples Natural Gas

(Report to City of Scnbner, Nebraska)

27



JAMES W. DANIEL


, ,4 4:' Yi';.;;-'0,, ''. ,, i N, , V •

10/98 Federal Energy Regulatory Commission EL-99-6-000 Entergy Gulf States, Inc

(Affidavit)

•


••• ,

TX98- Gulf States Utilities Company

(Affidavit)

Valleg MM. ,'Ar. - 12/31/1998 Texas Public Utility Commission

7. fiatagii. 20292 Sharyland Utilities, L.P

(Direct Testimony)

- •• '' .‘14,•.

3/11/1999 Texas Public Utility Commission .*::,."...1•1'i' ..* ,

20292 Sharyland Utilities, L.P.



.. • . -.. . ., , iz:;:4"-",..,,.,4..

20292 Sharyland Utilities, L.P


,•,t, 7/16/1999 Texas Public Utility Commission

. . 19265 Central and South West Corporation and

American Electric Power Company, Inc.

(Direct Testimony)

....: „

11/1/1999 Texas Public Utility Commission " •!",. : .

21591 Sharyland Utilities, L P

(Direct Testimony)

INIMMINIMITAVEMOVIMP-j . 11/24/1999 Texas Public Utility Commission 21528 Central Power and Light Company

(Direct Testimony)

j` .,

e i:4t...!;:. 1/27/2000 Texas Railroad Commission

='!'f,z1: ,,,. ' • 8976 Texas Utilities Company Lone Star Pipeline

(Direct Testimony) -...• it


, ,

. .,. :


(Direct Testimony)

08/2000 Texas Public Utility Commission 20624 Reliant Energy FIL&P

(Direct Testimon )

.' .


..

22344 Generic Issues Associated with Unbundled Cost of

Service Rate

(Direct Testimon )


: ..„ , .

21956 Rehant Energy, Inc.

(Direct Testimon ) - 'TA' . -

11/14/2000 Texas Public Utility Commission 22350 TXU Electric Company

(Direct Testimony)

28


DATE


JAMES W. DANIEL

REGULATORY AGENCY/COURT DOCKET UTILITY INVOLVED

11/17/2000 Texas Pubhc Utility Commission 22352 Central Power and Light Company

(Direct Testimony)

12/12/2000 Texas Public Utility Commission 22355 Reliant Energy HL&P (Direct - Final Phase)

(Direct Testimony)

.... 12/21/2000

. . •.. Texas Public Utility Commission

. ,

22355 Reliant Energy HL&P

(Direct Test mony - Rate Case Expense Phase)

'r .

, 12/29/2000 Texas Public Utility Commission

, ;t1tW L",1,:::!'lA "!,-,,,,i „—",r'

22355 Reliant Energy HL&P

(Supplemental & Rebuttal Testimonies)

4.. 7/5/2001 Texas Pubhc Utility Commission

_ ;77.:',7: ar.'w ".

..t -,5"4: ''; ' , ..,

23950 Reliant Energy

(Direct Testimony)

N. -

..• • 9/6/2001

!,:: 4.V.:17' ‘ ,,,t-4- ,, Texas Public Utility Commission

.t.,--: ,..: q,'

,,,;.... A, k..,..„ •

24239 Mutual Energy CPL, LP

(Direct Testimony)

4/22/2002

• i ..1.-- l'f.:':.' -":•.,. State Corporation Commission of Kansas

• Of,/ 'iti;•: Z• 'AS.'" • l'"*'41;.',"! 02-WSRE-301-RTS Western Resources, Inc. and Kansas Gas and

Electric Company

(Direct Testimony)

•

.

6/19/2002 _

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

• ,

TX96-2-000 City of College Station, Texas

(Direct Testimony)

.. .

4*

8/5/2002 • ...a:** 1 ..'w 'f i*:4- - V

,

Oklahoma Corporation Commission

t

200100455 Oklahoma Gas and Electric Company

(Responsive Testimony)

12/31/2002

,. sa-

Texas Public Utility Commission _'',' 4'*':';'''a •:l : , 4

26195 CenterPoint Energy Houston Electric, LLC

(Direct Testimony)

4/24/2003 Texas Public Utility Commission 25089 Market Protocols for the Portions of Texas Within

the Southeastern Rehability Council


6/9/2003 Texas Pubhc Utility Commission . vnoriessz2.4-!-A-am-:

25089 Market Protocols for the Portions of Texas Within

the Southeastern Reliability Council

(Su .. lemental Direct Testimon )

7/11/2003 State Corporation Commission of Kansas

-•...• ' '4' .„ . •

03-KGSG-602-RTS Kansas Gas Service, a Division of ONEOK, Inc.

(Direct Testimony)

.

8/11/2003 Texas Public Utility Commission 4 '

25089 Market Protocols for the Portions of Texas Within

the Southeastern Rehability Council

(Second Supplemental Direct Testimony)

29



JAMES W. DANIEL


. :.,;i:: . ... i *$,

8/18/2003 State Corporation Commission of Kansas 03-KGSG-602-RTS Kansas Gas Service, a Division of ONEOK, Inc.

(Su. demental Testimony)

10/29/2003 Federal Energy Regulatory Commission ER04-35-000

. . Entergy Services, Inc

(Affidav it) ,

r . '4i7i;t2.7


• 26195

. '- CenterPoint Energy Houston Electric, LLC

(Sup .lemental Direct Testimony) ..


2 2

28840

7";

AEP Texas Central Company

(Direct Testimony)

illantitotiletAVANINIAM. k .:. 4 2 ''. '2 • 2 ,

2

6/1/2004 Texas Public Utility Commission 29526 CenterPoint Energy Houston Electnc, LLC,

Reliant Energy Retail Services, LLC, and

Texas Genco, LP

(Direct Testimony)

•

28813 Cap Rock Energy Corporation

(Affidavit)


•

8/30/2004 Texas Public Utility Commission 28813 Cap Rock Energy Corporation

(Direct Testimony)

. • ''..;*i


''.! ' •

30485

t.... 'i.

CenterPoint Energy Houston Electric, LLC

(Direct Testimon )

..

3/16/2005 Texas Public Utility Commission ..

30706

.'


(Direct Testimony)

s.

.. --., . .,... -

6/9/2005 Texas Public Utility Commission 29801 Southwestern Public Service Company

(Direct Testimony)

9/2/2005 Texas Public Utility Commission 31056 AEP Texas Central Company and

CPL Retail Energy, LP

(Direct Testimony)

9/9/2005 State Corporation Commission of Kansas

. ... „. , ...,

05-WSEE-981-RTS Westar Energy, Inc. and Kansas Gas and Electric

Company

(Direct Tcstimony)

9/29/2005 Georgia Public Service Commission 20298-U Atmos Energy Corporation

(Direct Testimony)

4/24/2006 Texas Public Utility Commission AEP Texas Central Company

(Cross Answering Testimony)

32475

30



JAMES W. DANIEL


''^-/-4., • ,-?!mt.71ge ....,v,:y.:*:1-1,Av

8/11/2006 Texas Public Utility Commission , .,

32093 CenterPoint Encrgy Houston Electric, LLC (Direct Testimony)

. ',,- i •:,,O,,:il.:A A ?Qs • - .0i444#60* ..• __

8/23/2006 Texas Public Utility Commission 1.;-••:,U-..' ,..f. - '' ...i.W44*.;4,4111M,Zi6",;,%,- -.--,,,,':,,,,,;,,,,, ,..

32795 Reallocation of Stranded Costs Pursuant to PURA §139.253(f)

(Direct Testimony)

''''1-4V •'';-' . r,E;*Alitliar J,C.Lw.iilliC; 8/24/2006 Texas Public Utility Commission

,,,,z,., , ',. . 1,', ititifM-Vt- - -';,=;--n..',

32758 AEP Texas Central Company (Direct Testimony)

12/22/2006 Texas Public Utility Commission 32766 Southwestern Public Service Company (Direct Testimony)

ViV'leitiit'


......

33309 AEP Texas Central Company (Direct Testimony)

,.,,,iC!'n': • .:: •

MOS461***0 ?

3/19/2007 State Corporation Commission of Kansas AtagNalki4M4fa' Vkiirkilit- '- ,. .. 07-AQLG-431-RTS Aquila Networks-KGO

(Direct Testimony)

Ahl fitig:/.110.1E41-!.--: • ..:— 0 4/27/2007 Texas Public Utihty Commission

., ) r",c,i1.::;.t., fts:IF:t..W- , 33687 Entergy Gulf States, Inc.

(Direct Testimony)

..4015. it.lt5V.'' ,44t1t036.W7

7/11/2007 Texas Public Utility Commission „,;,:

33823 CenterPoint Energy Houston Electric, LLC (Direct Testimony)

-***:. -1806001Aini119:4" :: 7/13/2007 Texas Pubhc Utility Commission

mrutigimarfalitt.crb, 4s': : . 33687 East Texas Cooperatives


-;-Itaftiatteftgi*.' :jAiiW,e', ".,. • . ' 1/11/2008 Texas Pubhc Utility Commission

leV ' '.'Ar.: ‘Atitee",k,

35219 Guadalupe Valley Electric Cooperative, Inc

(Direct Testimony)

-4 •


...,

I 35287 Sharyland Utilities, L.P.

(Direct Testimony)

7/1/2008 Georgia Public Service Commission 5 Algti3XXCOM ..KWAtiiite

27163 Atmos Energy Corporation

(Direct Testimony)

9/16/2008 Texas Public Utility Commission '.-... • AMMON(

34442 JD Wind

(Direct Testimony)

9/29/2008 State Corporation Commission of the State of Kansas 4/44-.. ., t' Fli tiVitAkilialigiW. ':'`'fitV41/iPP: ,

08-WSEE-1041-RTS Westar Energy, Inc. and Kansas Gas and Electric Company

(Direct Testimony) n ). .

. ... iP'X*, ' •'•"; • r " 10/13/2008 Texas Public Utility Commission

= VIOSINthqt. — 440. 35763 Southwestern Public Services Company

(Direct Testimony)

31



JAMES W. DANIEL

DATE REGULATORY AGENCY/COURT DOCKET UTILITY INVOLVED . • s:4" "' 1!..711; .:r..,' 41';5?' gigelefaliftEK ,

11/26/2008 Texas Public Utility Commission 35717 Oncor Electric Delivery Company

(Direct Testimony)

':

6/26/2009 State Corporation Commission of the State of Kansas 09-WSEE-641-GIE

., - r. . ,

Westar Energy, Inc and Kansas Gas and Electric Company

(Direct Testimony) ., '2 • •* l 4 • :::,',,•':- . ,*::•••it ,,, ••: -

• ,

6/29/2009 Texas Public Utility Commission 36918 CenterPoint Energy Houston Electric, LLC

(Direct Testimony)

, t ; 9/30/2009 State Corporation Commission of the State of Kansas 09-WSEE-925-RTS

W

.

estar Inc. and Kansas Gas and Electnc Company

(Direct Testimony)

..

Energy,

.,. ,•;

7/10/2010 Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission

.

R-2010-2161575, et. al. PECO Energy Company

(Direct Testimony)

•r , —


_,

38324 Oncor Electnc Delivery Company, LLC

(Direct Testimony)

"•»,t,' :, ,.. 4. th


•

38339

,'t . • ,„


(Direct Testimony)

•


.

38339

•


(Cross Rebuttal Testimony) -

4

9/27/2010 Texas Public Utility Commission 38324 Oncor Electnc Delivery Company, LLC

(Cross-Rebuttal Testimony)

i ' -

•̀• `,f-t*:'• ' • ,

11/5/2010 Texas Pubhc Utility Commission

t-, -

38577

. .. -- , •

Modification of CREZ Transmission Plan

(Direct Testimony)

.,

2/4/2011 Texas Railroad Commission

.,?.;


GUD 10038

39070

.,, t, *.t•- ''''

CenterPoint Energy Texas Gas

(Direct Testimony)

Sharyland Utilities, L.P.

(Direct Testimony)


.., ,

39856 Guadelupe Valley Electric Cooperative

(Direct Testimony)

i,.. , 5/1/2012 Texas Public Utility Commission

'''' 40364

, • t

Sharyland Untilies, L P.

(Direct Testimony)

32



JAMES W. DANIEL


4.11di.14.rLti:i.: -:'77,'„,.. .14..*:.76:1.-AM's:. i-74 r•,'; '''=:;.::=''.'..-SA"-;,':;•-•-AZ .77N'-,k1:;1.' 'Y'n ''''''''';',:i'''..4'',444-1-ibalWrrilki:4 :4. 5/15/2012 Delaware Public Service Commisison 11-528 Delmarva Power & Light Company

(Direct Testimony)

11/2/2012 Florida Public Service Commission 120015-EI Florida Power & Light Company

(Direct Testimony)

':1-...-3 .'" *.-..711.?..,..--,.;17,9??..4.:.,f.',.'.-1'.;C:7....?:' '....,17:•• '•-. ...1!C‘ ., \„::t'P,";:',it.14.1.7::::;'•:71::,..7% .."7-:.7„. 7:71.,..;:y: ,,,,‘. - .';'..;=...:74-! , .:!,,L1,!,5:-,,,lk .':4;',, ", 4,1,fiti.',44.'7,,,•,....CT, ,..:7,141,,, :,•,' 2/20/2013 Texas Public Utility Commission 40627 Westlake United Methodist Church

(Cross-Rebuttal Testimony)

7:•.7.,.. ,":;; 76,;-,-..:,:rt.

4/30/2013 Texas Public Utility Commission 41438 Sharyland Utilities, L.P

(Direct Testimony)

...' '.';...6--Ifir--',c;Y:',.-ij:47.' : s..i.r'"`g.4'.:.!•':;-,-S:,,','7.i.7:-• 114- '5;,..5ft:' .77.77.T!':',1. w. .-',....-,;',--:-.: 7:C.:-',..1...=,

- '',;::::i.77),52,•';',"-7-'74(111 -, >-;., ...... '.. ' .': 5/31/2013 Tcxas Public Utility Commission 41474 Sharyland Utilities, L.P.

(Direct Testimony)

7';;;'t *-3:,',:::Ii-jfi;::,:;,2"?:$4-L '',.... '... -,1 4,7,7:1. ' :•,:geZT.t.;-:..V..1 8/27/2013 Texas Public Utility Commission 41794 Sharyland Utilities, L.P.

(Direct Testimony)

'.•tV''':*-.?' '''...,:::"T'. 5.''1';P:147'-' :ict'4'.-.'' ,.A''.'- - V '" . •.''..-',51'4',*' -:"7-1;tt.'..1.'" 'r-7Z?;:i.:

11/7/2013 Texas Public Utility Commission 41474 Sharyland Utilities, L.P.


n:-.....,,,,,?,-, 41.1;',74F1 Wt.-77' " ' - :... >4. ,', 'rl'in'0'..'-.C;::!n i ' , t''''''-:-...,1

1/2/2014 Texas Public Utility Commission 42133 Sharyland Utilities, L P.

(Direct Testimony)

' • --.1' '‘.'.' C77,-7;-'7:': k ''f.i..,-6.-:;•;.3f.--f: d . '','',' :.7i7.7.7-.: ,z*S. •;: ''..-:-...' .: , . „ :::* I'• -"•g-f-'3,.:'''' -e--",*, i.,'''' v",',,.. e' --',2iV, 17:::-.41',. 1/9/2014 Michigan Public Service Commission U-17437 DTE Electric Company

(Direct Testimon ) Tyrrr,r, .• .4; - v-,,, 4',•t?'"'-'?7:.t..r-r-17, 7---i""--:-.:-,1" , T:'.1..: friv, ' :.•, ,4,-1•77:- . q..,..:.;1177.77""17.:":"W l':" 71."... :7" " -i*Tr-T•r7=',"rt•cr:7, „ ...yr ., ap 7.., - ,Tt.11. . ,p.,,...t.z-

5/19/2014 Public Service Commission o West Virginia 14-0344-E-GI SWVA, Inc

(Direct Testimony)

-ef,741'; ' p.., 11-,7771711F.V.M`Y;0,4,--c:-,4--?f:74.717,-..-,-!'''',- • - 4,-7,';c71- , - st,ii,.., -""...,:7114711':**1-'11'),-.7.P:41^,ril.--1,17 -,--„., -,- 'I .:41,1 Aiplxt,'*--, •ve!' '-, ' 1., ,, „•',...;:,,- , --,`, ..A.-.• ,„, --i,Avr„:„.-, ' :...1.,*:*"',4 1.4":%, .*" ., ,;....ro ,-'• . , . - -• - . 4 • '',, :22..'-" • '...: .•,^

6/17/2014 Texas Public Utility Commission 42087 The Hillwood Group

(Direct Testimony)

(' i-F-7 77' l',1,,,,,Z :7' *,'":::'":41:-.:7,-..:'11:7.,,,:"-,,,, .Cli'e. 7/23/2014 Texas Public Utility Commission 42699 Sharyland Utilities, L P.

(Direct Testimony)

'3F77'i7;',..'-',. ' r,,,,,,w7,,;,1--,..,77,,,::-r,13,r 7...--..,,77,i,

8/6/2014 Virginia State Corporation Commission 2014-00026 Steel Dynamics, Inc.

(Direct Testimony)

4.;.: ,•'1` *Witt'747P '. 4P ' - 1 '47.1-::- i 7-7"-I'''' ••, • 4,. ...-, -.If .: • '''' • ', •÷0',.. :' ' A4,,A n't 140.: : e.' S. , 1,4. -., , 411.4...... c,,,,,-",.. * JE . ':. ' ' "... ...,* 'yr - ', , 1-'," ..e.';'.4,,,,•••• '• • • • : - i *",;• • •:•.• •to


(Direct Testimony)

7-: 777-A7.:,--7.:'Zi. f::"."..,' -:'...". 7. -..-.'1' c.".-..7- :,-*'..t:;:',::„:".: 12/18/2014 Public Service Commission of West Virginia 14-1152-E-42T SWVA, Inc

(Direct Testimony)

33


DATE .


JAMES W. DANIEL

REGULATORY AGENCY/COURT DOCKET UTILITY INVOLVED


** ,


(Direct Testimony)

• . 2/10/2015

, At . .

Texas Public Utility Commission

t • •'..,

44438 ..1: '''''.4411Kigt;KSINPVE4SOMINIac

Sharyland Utilities, L.P

(Direct Testimony)

.v, „,,k ,:l. • .

4/8/2015

. ., '4, ;,:: .': ...' :•;..... :—' ;','+':,.-0


. . .. . . . . :'-1,:';-n"',.../4:,.:

44620

- - . „ ,..• .,.. . .. . "rs ..


(Direct Testimony) ut. t.

5/13/2015

- "--.1.:7-.

Regulatory Commission of Alaska

_. _ _ „., • .•

U-14-111

..- i . ft

Municipal Light & Power, Municipality of Anchorage

(Direct Testimony)

5/19/2015

•,r77.7,- .„..; : • •:•,-s- , West Virginia Public Service Commission

— — • , , --:::: -- - -;.:,,,,-:.:-,-7:1 15-0301-E-GI

, , : --:7--,-----.-- -•-e: — " - -7-7 SWVA, Inc.

(Direct Testimony)

6/15/2015

.

Oregon Public Utility Commission

•

Industrial Customers of Northwest Utilities

(Direct Testimony)

UE 294

9/8/2015

--r••••


- _ .- - -, - .

44620

.

Sharyland Utilities, L P.


10/23/2015

'" t•••

Oklahoma Corporation Commission 201500208 Public Service Company of Oklahoma

(Responsive Testimony) -..,-•

12/11/2015

:* . --


. •

44941

,

The Rate 41 Group

(Direct Testimony)


I

The Rate 41 Group


3/21/2016

,. , .. , ..•,• .


.. .. , ,

201500273

—

Oklahoma Attorney General


3/31/2016

--- ,..-• -...., .... :


-

201500273

... .

Oklahoma Attorney General


4/20/2016

..


_ . .. ,. ••


(Direct Testimony)


.„ . .


(Direct Testimony)

-

6/29/2016 West Virginia Public Service Commission

•t•-,••-•rx- -- i

15-1734-E-T-PC

......,„ „ „,

SWVA, Inc.

(Direct Testimony)

• . „ . - . . ..


(Direct Testimony)

:. ..

12/6/2016 Texas Public Utility Commission 46042 City of Lubbock

(Direct Testimony)

34



JAMES W. DANIEL


StAlfiN' • !.4.1. :":, , '

12/28/2016 Texas Public Utihty Commission 46710 Guadalupe Valley Electric Cooperative, Inc. (Direct Testimony)

,$,,i 1,1 41416a_, /

tyd

ia40,0Nsgimi

,

12/30/2016 Texas Public Utility Commission '' irri A: • Ilfv0.1 %At, ,,v..i.;',:: ,, — .

45414 Sharyland Utilities, L.P. & SDTS, LLC

(Direct Testimony)

-7,-,'It• -.,; '4'4::

Antannistatownmew- :kt a . YK • a4

s sssIP_ . • U-I 6-066 ENSTAR Natural Gas Company


4 2/7/2017 Regulatory Commission of Alaska

,. 3/7/2017 Texas Pubhc Utility Commission

J"• lk.“' . --::147:-•': '...41:41111WiMINVO .141.::,0—• 45414 Sharyland Utilities, L.P. & SDTS, LLC


er

, --.. Vik.':". •

4/6/2017 Public Service Commission of Utah

:44.. -.• H44). ' AtitIi •. qi*ilkfarliItgnkt. • 16035-036 Office of Consumer Services

(Direct Testimony)

' 4

1.* elate lintalitt?-114‘2MfigaiWVIII 4/27/2017 Public Service Commission of Utah

si

16035-036 Office of Consumer Services (Rebuttal Testimony)

3 5

DRAFT

Line No.

Effect of Lubbock Transition

Entity Name

Attachment JWD-2 Page 1 of 3

to ERCOT on ERCOT LSEs

Projected 2021 ERCOT Access Payment Without LP&L With LP&L Change $

1 Lubbock Power & Light - 22,814,769 22,814,769 2 AEP Texas Central (Formerly CPL) 295,305,802 298,925,597 3,619,795 3 AEP Texas North (Formerly WTU) 65,181,809 65,980,794 798,985 4 Austin Energy 152,310,473 154,177,462 1,866,989 5 Bandera Electric Coop 8,084,530 8,183,629 99,098

6 Bartlett, City of 156,377 158,294 1,917 7 Bastrop, City of 954,705 966,408 11,703 8 Bellville, City of 784,911 794,533 9,621 9 Bluebonnet Electric Coop 24,887,991 25,193,062 305,072

10 Boerne, City of 1,914,511 1,937,979 23,468

11 Brady, City of 870,133 880,799 10,666 12 Brazos Electric Coop 187,978,170 190,282,366 2,304,196 13 Brenham, City of 3,395,726 3,437,350 41,624 14 Bridgeport, City of 787,926 797,584 9,658

15 Brownsville Public Utilities Board 15,899,184 16,094,073 194,889 16 Bryan Texas Utilities 14,203,718 14,377,824 174,106

17 Burnet, City of 1,061,792 1,074,807 13,015 18 CenterPoint Energy Houston Electric 1,026,252,141 1,038,831,718 12,579,577 19 Central Texas Electric Coop 7,384,028 7,474,540 90,512 20 Cherokee County Electric Coop - - - 21 Coleman, City of 534,963 541,520 6,557 22 College Station, City of 11,576,904 11,718,811 141,907 23 Cross Texas Transmission, LLC - - 24 Cuero, City of 1,282,066 1,297,781 15,715 25 Deaf Smith Electric Cooperative Inc - - - 26 Deep East Texas Electric Coop - - - 27 Denton Municipal Electric 13,537,623 13,703,565 165,941 28 East Texas Electric Coop -

29 Electric Transmission Texas 30 Entergy Texas Inc - _

31 Fannin Electric Coop - _

32 Farmers Electric Coop -

33 Farmers Electric Coop NPL - - 34 Farmersville, City of 438,053 443,422 5,370 35 Fayette Electric Coop 3,293,843 3,334,218 40,375 36 Flatonia, City of 312,502 316,332 3,831 37 Floresville Electric Power System 4,636,519 4,693,352 56,833 38 Fredericksburg, City of 1,961,048 1,985,086 24,038

39 Garland Power and Light 12,649,521 12,804,576 155,055

40 Georgetown, City of 8,403,185 8,506,190 103,004 41 GEUS (Formerly Greenville) 3,575,375 3,619,201 43,826 42 Giddings, City of 763,659 773,020 9,361

36

DRAFT

Line No.

Effect of Lubbock Transition

Entity Name


to ERCOT on ERCOT LSEs


43 Golden Spread Electric Coop 6,004,329 6,077,928 73,600 44 Goldsmith, City of 49,720 50,329 609 45 Goldthwaite, City of 304,427 308,159 3,732 46 Gonzales, City of 1,094,746 1,108,165 13,419 47 Granbury Municipal Utilities 1,246,184 1,261,459 15,275 48 Grayson-Collin Electric Coop _

49 Greenbelt Electric Coop 50 Guadalupe Valley Electric Coop 22,468,022 22,743,430 275,408 51 Hallettsville, City of 552,078 558,845 6,767 52 Hamilton County Electric Coop 2,013,100 2,037,776 24,676 53 Hearne, City of 621,425 629,043 7,617 54 Hempstead, City of 722,316 731,170 8,854 55 Houston County Electric Coop - 56 Kerrville Public Utility Board 6,618,010 6,699,132 81,122 57 LaGrange Utilities 937,224 948,713 11,488 58 Lamar County Electric Coop - 59 Lampasas, City of 1,346,784 1,363,292 16,509 60 Lexington, City of 159,685 161,642 1,957 61 Lighthouse Electric Coop - - 62 Llano, City of 632,649 640,404 7,755 63 Lockhart, City of 1,505,485 1,523,939 18,454 64 Lone Star Transmission - 65 Lower Colorado River Authority - 66 Luling, City of 707,880 716,557 8,677 67 Lyntegar Electric Coop 1,366,328 1,383,076 16,748 68 Magic Valley Electric Coop - - 69 Mason, City of 330,683 334,736 4,053 70 Medina Electric Coop - - 71 Moulton, City of 134,349 135,996 1,647 72 New Braunfels Utilities 15,749,804 15,942,862 193,058 73 Oncor Electric Delivery 1,412,100,139 1,429,409,357 17,309,218 74 Pedernales Electric Coop AEP 321,614 325,556 3,942 75 Pedernales Electric Coop 77,099,566 78,044,635 945,070 76 Rayburn Country 44,081,544 44,621,886 540,342 77 Rio Grande Electric Coop 2,552,738 2,584,029 31,291 78 Rio Grande Electric Coop 1 2,707 2,740 33 79 Robstown Utility System, City of 1,210,676 1,225,516 14,840 80 San Antonio City Public Service 275,674,938 279,054,102 3,379,164 81 San Bernard Electric Coop 7,916,220 8,013,255 97,035 82 Sanger, City of 859,170 869,702 10,532 83 San Marcos, City of 7,428,776 7,519,836 91,060 84 San Miguel Electric Coop - -

37

DRAFT

Line No.

Effect of Lubbock Transition to

Entity Name


ERCOT on ERCOT LSEs


85 San Saba, City of 531,951 538,471 6,521

86 Schulenburg, City of 802,117 811,949 9,832

87 Seguin, City of 3,735,279 3,781,065 45,786

88 Seymour, City of 417,205 422,320 5,114

89 Sharyland Utilities (TDSP) 22,747,923 23,026,762 278,839

90 Sharyland Utilities - (McAllen) 1,202,852 1,217,597 14,744

91 Shiner, City of 597,177 604,497 7,320

92 Smithville, City of 578,929 586,026 7,096 93 South Texas Electric Coop 71,094,161 71,965,618 871,457

94 Southwest Rural Electric Association INC (EDSP) - - 95 Southwest Texas Electric Coop 2,054,859 2,080,047 25,188

96 Taylor Electric Coop 3,546,192 3,589,661 43,468

97 Texas Municipal Power Agency 27,631,443 27,970,143 338,700 98 Texas-New Mexico Power Company 98,091,599 99,293,984 1,202,386

99 Tex-La Electric Coop 6,766,620 6,849,564 82,944 100 Trinity Valley Electric Coop -

101 Waelder, City of 279,661 283,089 3,428 102 Wood County Electric Coop - - 103 Weatherford, City of 5,429,442 5,495,995 66,553 104 Weimer, City of 464,999 470,699 5,700

105 Western Farmers Electric Coop 39,233 39,714 481

106 Wind Energy Transmission Texas, LLC -

107 Yoakum, City of 1,132,644 1,146,528 13,884

108 System Total 4,011,336,791 4,083,321,659 71,984,868

38

DRAFT

Line No.

Effect of Lubbock Transition to ERCOT

Entity Name


on ERCOT LSEs - Excludes Overlapping Costs


1 Lubbock Power & Light 22,617,898 22,617,898 2 AEP Texas Central (Formerly CPL) 295,305,802 296,346,134 1,040,332 3 AEP Texas North (Formerly WTU) 65,181,809 65,411,438 229,629 4 Austin Energy 152,310,473 152,847,047 536,574 5 Bandera Electric Coop 8,084,530 8,113,011 28,481 6 Bartlett, City of 156,377 156,928 551 7 Bastrop, City of 954,705 958,068 3,363 8 Bellville, City of 784,911 787,676 2,765 9 Bluebonnet Electric Coop 24,887,991 24,975,669 87,678

10 Boerne, City of 1,914,511 1,921,256 6,745 11 Brady, City of 870,133 873,198 3,065 12 Brazos Electric Coop 187,978,170 188,640,398 662,228 13 Brenham, City of 3,395,726 3,407,688 11,963 14 Bridgeport, City of 787,926 790,702 2,776 15 Brownsville Public Utilities Board 15,899,184 15,955,195 56,011 16 Bryan Texas Utilities 14,203,718 14,253,757 50,038 17 Burnet, City of 1,061,792 1,065,532 3,741 18 CenterPoint Energy Houston Electric 1,026,252,141 1,029,867,522 3,615,381 19 Central Texas Electric Coop 7,384,028 7,410,041 26,013 20 Cherokee County Electric Coop - 21 Coleman, City of 534,963 536,847 1,885 22 College Station, City of 11,576,904 11,617,688 40,784 23 Cross Texas Transmission, LLC - - 24 Cuero, City of 1,282,066 1,286,583 4,517 25 Deaf Smith Electric Cooperative Inc _ - 26 Deep East Texas Electric Coop - 27 Denton Municipal Electric 13,537,623 13,585,315 47,692 28 East Texas Electric Coop 29 Electric Transmission Texas _ _

30 Entergy Texas Inc - - 31 Fannin Electric Coop _

32 Farmers Electric Coop - 33 Farmers Electric Coop NPL - - 34 Farmersville, City of 438,053 439,596 1,543 35 Fayette Electric Coop 3,293,843 3,305,447 11,604 36 Flatonia, City of 312,502 313,603 1,101 37 Floresville Electric Power System 4,636,519 4,652,853 16,334 38 Fredericksburg, City of 1,961,048 1,967,956 6,909 39 Garland Power and Light 12,649,521 12,694,084 44,563 40 Georgetown, City of 8,403,185 8,432,789 29,604 41 GEUS (Formerly Greenville) 3,575,375 3,587,970 12,596 42 Giddings, City of 763,659 766,349 2,690

39

DRAFT

Line No.

Effect of Lubbock Transition to ERCOT

Entity Name


on ERCOT LSEs - Excludes Overlapping Costs


43 Golden Spread Electric Coop 6,004,329 6,025,481 21,153 44 Goldsmith, City of 49,720 49,895 175 45 Goldthwaite, City of 304,427 305,499 1,072 46 Gonzales, City of 1,094,746 1,098,602 3,857 47 Granbury Municipal Utilities 1,246,184 1,250,574 4,390 48 Grayson-Collin Electric Coop - 49 Greenbelt Electric Coop - - 50 Guadalupe Valley Electric Coop 22,468,022 22,547,174 79,153 51 Hallettsville, City of 552,078 554,023 1,945 52 Hamilton County Electric Coop 2,013,100 2,020,192 7,092 53 Hearne, City of 621,425 623,615 2,189 54 Hempstead, City of 722,316 724,861 2,545 55 Houston County Electric Coop - 56 Kerrville Public Utility Board 6,618,010 6,641,325 23,315 57 LaGrange Utilities 937,224 940,526 3,302 58 Lamar County Electric Coop - 59 Lampasas, City of 1,346,784 1,351,528 4,745 60 Lexington, City of 159,685 160,248 563 61 Lighthouse Electric Coop - - 62 Llano, City of 632,649 634,877 2,229 63 Lockhart, City of 1,505,485 1,510,789 5,304 64 Lone Star Transmission - _

65 Lower Colorado River Authority - 66 Luling, City of 707,880 710,373 2,494 67 Lyntegar Electric Coop 1,366,328 1,371,142 4,813 68 Magic Valley Electric Coop - -

69 Mason, City of 330,683 331,848 1,165 70 Medina Electric Coop - 71 Moulton, City of 134,349 134,823 473 72 New Braunfels Utilities 15,749,804 15,805,289 55,485 73 Oncor Electric Delivery 1,412,100,139 1,417,074,823 4,974,684 74 Pedernales Electric Coop - AEP 321,614 322,747 1,133 75 Pedernales Electric Coop 77,099,566 77,371,179 271,614 76 Rayburn Country 44,081,544 44,236,839 155,295 77 Rio Grande Electric Coop 2,552,738 2,561,731 8,993 78 Rio Grande Electric Coop 1 2,707 2,716 10 79 Robstown Utility System, City of 1,210,676 1,214,941 4,265 80 San Antonio City Public Service 275,674,938 276,646,112 971,175 81 San Bernard Electric Coop 7,916,220 7,944,108 27,888 82 Sanger, City of 859,170 862,197 3,027 83 San Marcos, City of 7,428,776 7,454,947 26,171 84 San Miguel Electric Coop -

40

DRAFT

Line No.

Effect of Lubbock Transition to ERCOT on ERCOT

Entity Name


LSEs - Excludes Overlapping Costs


85 San Saba, City of 531,951 533,825 1,874

86 Schulenburg, City of 802,117 804,943 2,826

87 Seguin, City of 3,735,279 3,748,438 13,159 88 Seymour, City of 417,205 418,675 1,470

89 Sharyland Utilities (TDSP) 22,747,923 22,828,061 80,139

90 Sharyland Utilities - (McAllen) 1,202,852 1,207,090 4,238

91 Shiner, City of 597,177 599,281 2,104

92 Smithville, City of 578,929 580,969 2,040

93 South Texas Electric Coop 71,094,161 71,344,618 250,457 94 Southwest Rural Electric Association INC (EDSP) - 95 Southwest Texas Electric Coop 2,054,859 2,062,098 7,239 96 Taylor Electric Coop 3,546,192 3,558,685 12,493

97 Texas Municipal Power Agency 27,631,443 27,728,785 97,343

98 Texas-New Mexico Power Company 98,091,599 98,437,165 345,567

99 Tex-La Electric Coop 6,766,620 6,790,458 23,838 100 Trinity Valley Electric Coop - 101 Waelder, City of 279,661 280,646 985 102 Wood County Electric Coop - 103 Weatherford, City of 5,429,442 5,448,569 19,127

104 Weimer, City of 464,999 466,637 1,638 105 Western Farmers Electric Coop 39,233 39,372 138 106 Wind Energy Transmission Texas, LLC - 107 Yoakum, City of 1,132,644 1,136,634 3,990

108 System Total 4,011,336,791 4,048,086,217 36,749,426

41

Attachment JWD-4

Page 1 of 6

Impact of LP&L Load Transfer to ERCOT on ERCOT Retail Rates - CenterPoint Energy Houston Electric

Demand/Usage 2021 Estimated Monthly Bill

Line If LP&L Joins

No. Rate Class kWh NCP kVA 4CP kVA Status Quo ERCOT Increase - $ Increase -

la) (b) (c) (d) (e) (f) (g) (h)

1 Residential 500 $ 71.65 $ 71.79 $ 0.13 0.19%

2 1,000 137.83 138 10 0.27 0.20%

3 1,500 204.02 204.42 0.40 0.20%

4 2,000 270.20 270.74 0.54 0.20%

5 2,500 336.38 337 05 0.67 0.20%

6 5,000 667.29 668.64 1.35 0.20%

7 Secondary Service Less Than or Equal to 10 kVA 500 51.65 51.75 0.10 0.20%

8 1,000 97.28 97 49 0.21 0.21%

9 1,500 142.91 143.22 0.31 0.22%

10 2,000 188.54 188.95 0.41 0 22%

11 2,500 234.17 234 68 0 52 0.22%

12 5,000 462 32 463.35 1.03 0.22%

13 Secondary Service Greater Than 10 kVA Non-IDR 5,000 11 428.42 429.06 0.65 0.15%

14 5,000 14 449.36 450.12 0.75 0.17%

15 10,000 15 786.87 787.92 1.04 0.13%

16 10,000 18 807.82 808.97 1.15 0.14%

17 15,000 23 1,173.26 1,174.84 1.58 0.13%

18 15,000 27 1,201.19 1,202.92 1.73 0.14%

19 20,000 30 1,552.66 1,554.75 2.09 0.13%

20 20,000 37 1,601.54 1,603.88 2.34 0.15%

21 Secondary Service Greater Than 10 kVA IDR 5,000 11 7 519.57 520.24 0.67 0.13%

22 5,000 14 8 535.97 536.75 0.78 0.15%

23 10,000 15 14 891.84 893.25 1.40 0.16%

24 10,000 18 14 902.00 903.41 1.41 0.16%

25 15,000 23 22 1,276.71 1,278.85 2.13 0.17%

26 15,000 27 22 1,288.55 1,290 67 2.12 0.16%

27 20,000 30 29 1,654.79 1,657.59 2 81 0.17%

28 20,000 37 30 1,681.33 1,684 20 2.87 0.17%

29 Primary Service Non-IDR 25,000 38 1,669.13 1,671.78 2.66 0.16%

30 25,000 46 1,718.28 1,721.29 3 01 0.18%

31 50,000 76 3,153 32 3,158.64 5.31 0.17%

32 50,000 91 3,245.48 3,251 46 5 98 0.18%

33 100,000 152 6,121 72 6,132.34 10.62 0.17%

34 100,000 183 6,312 17 6,324.18 12.01 0.19%

35 250,000 381 15,033 04 15,059.65 26.61 0.18%

36 250,000 457 15,499.95 15,529.95 30.00 0.19%

37 Primary Service IDR 25,000 38 36 1,678.59 1,681.64 3.05 0.18%

38 25,000 46 37 1,697.68 1,700.77 3.09 0.18%

39 50,000 76 72 3,142.05 3,148.14 6.09 0.19%

40 50,000 91 73 3,175.19 3,181.32 6.13 0 19%

41 100,000 152 144 6,068.97 6,081.15 12.19 0.20%

42 100,000 183 146 6,140.29 6,152.59 12.30 0.20%

43 250,000 381 362 14,855.33 14,885.84 30.52 0.21%

44 250,000 457 366 15,025.50 15,056.23 30.73 0.20%

45 Transmission (Does not include EECRF) 250,000 381 362 15,737.17 15,770.02 32.85 0.21%

46 250,000 457 366 15,755.82 15,788.91 33.08 0.21%

47 500,000 761 723 29,865.22 29,930.86 65.63 0.22%

48 500,000 913 730 29,903.30 29,969.41 66.11 0.22%

49 750,000 1,142 1,085 43,998.13 44,096.61 98.48 0.22%

50 750,000 1,370 1,096 44,054.87 44,154.06 99.19 0.23%

51 1000,000 1,522 1,446 58,126.19 58,257 45 131.27 0.23%

52 1,000,000 1,826 1,461 58,202 34 58,334 56 132.22 0.23%

42

Attachment JWD-4

Page 2 of 6

impact of LP&L Load Transfer to ERCOT on ERCOT Retail Rates - Oncor Delivery Company

Line

No. Rate Class


Increase - $ Increase - % kWh NCP kW 4CP kW

If LP&L Joins

Status Quo ERCOT

( a ) ( b ) ( e ) ( d ) ( e ) ( f I ( g ) ( h )

l Residential 500 - $ 65.75 $ 65.88 $ 0.13 0.20%

2 1,000 128.45 128 71 0.26 0.20%

3 1,500 191.14 191.53 0.39 0 20%

4 2,000 253.84 254.36 0.52 0.21%

5 2,500 316.53 317.18 0.65 0.21%

6 5,000 630 01 631.31 1 30 0.21%

7 Secondary Less Than or Equal to 10 kW 500 52 04 52.12 0 08 0.15%

8 1,000 97.18 97.33 0.16 0.16%

9 1,500 142 31 142.55 0.23 0 16%

10 2,000 187.45 187.76 0.31 0.17%

11 2,500 232.59 232.98 0.39 0 17%

12 5,000 458.28 459.06 0.78 0 17%

13 Secondary Greater Than 10 kW Non-IDR 5,000 11 420.19 420 96 0.77 0 18%

14 5,000 14 445.37 446.28 0.92 0 21%

15 10,000 15 752.70 753.90 1.20 0 16%

16 10,000 18 777.88 779.22 1 35 0.17%

17 15,000 23 1,118.78 1,120.60 1.82 0.16%

18 15,000 27 1,152 34 1,154.36 2 02 0.18%

19 20,000 30 1,476.46 1,478.86 2.40 0.16%

20 20,000 37 - 1,535.20 1,537.95 2.74 0.18%

21 Secondary Greater Than 10 kW IDR 5,000 11 7 405.67 406.26 0.59 0.14%

22 5,000 14 8 426.89 427.57 0.68 0.16%

23 10,000 15 14 756.46 757 69 1.23 0.16%

24 10,000 18 14 770.27 771.51 1.24 0 16%

25 15,000 23 22 1,124.54 1,126.41 1.87 0.17%

26 15,000 27 22 1,140.94 1,142.79 1.85 0 16%

27 20,000 30 29 1,483.98 1,486.43 2.46 0 17%

28 20,000 37 30 1,519.57 1,522.09 2.52 0.17%

29 Primary Service Non-IDR 25,000 38 1,419 59 1,422.06 2.47 0.17%

30 25,000 46 1,474.26 1,477.07 2.81 0.19%

31 50,000 76 2,799 53 2,804.48 4 95 0.18%

32 50,000 91 2,902.04 2,907.62 5.58 0.19%

33 100,000 152 5,559.42 5,569.31 9.89 0.18%

34 100,000 183 5,771.28 5,782.48 11.20 0.19%

35 250,000 381 13,845.92 13,870.70 24.78 0 18%

36 250,000 457 14,365.32 14,393 31 27.98 0.19%

37 Primary Service IDR 25,000 38 36 1,448.00 1,450 75 2.75 0.19%

38 25,000 46 37 1,478.06 1,480 85 2.79 0 19%

39 50,000 76 72 2,856.36 2,861.86 5 50 0 19%

40 50,000 91 73 2,909 57 2,915.10 5.53 0.19%

41 100,000 152 144 5,673.08 5,684.08 11.00 0 19%

42 100,000 183 146 5,786 42 5,797.52 11 11 0.19%

43 250,000 381 362 14,130.82 14,158.38 27.55 0.19%

44 250,000 457 366 14,403 13 14,430.87 27 74 0.19%


46 250,000 457 366 13,131.10 13,156.90 25.79 0.20%

47 500,000 761 723 25,788.41 25,839.61 51 20 0.20%

48 500,000 913 730 25,904.80 25,956.34 51 55 0.20%

49 750,000 1,142 1,085 38,507.81 38,584.63 76.82 0.20%

50 750,000 1,370 1,096 38,682.10 38,759.44 77 34 0.20%

51 1,000,000 1,522 1,446 51,223.03 51,325.42 102.40 0 20%

52 1,000,000 1,826 1,461 51,455.79 51,558.89 103.09 0.20%

43

Attachment JWD-4

Page 3 of 6

Impact of LP&L Load Transfer to ERCOT on ERCOT Retail Rates - AEP Texas Central Company


Line If LP&L loins

No. Rate Class kWh NCP kW 4CP kW Status Quo ERCOT I ncrease - $ I ncrease - %

(a) (b) ( c ) ( d ) (e) (f) (g) (h)

1 Residential 500 $ 71.94 $ 72.06 $ 0.12 0.17%

2 1,000 137.14 137.39 0.25 0.18%

3 1,500 202.34 202.71 0.37 0.18%

4 2,000 267.54 268 04 0 50 0.19%

5 2,500 332.74 333.36 0.62 0.19%

6 5,000 658.74 659.98 1.24 0.19%

7 Secondary Less Than or Equal to 10 kW 500 69.87 69.95 0.07 0.10%

8 1,000 129.05 129 19 0.14 0.11%

9 1,500 188.22 188.44 0.21 0.11%

10 2,000 247.40 247.68 0.28 0.11%

11 2,500 306 57 306 93 0 36 0.12%

12 5,000 602.44 603.15 0.71 0.12%

13 Secondary Greater Than 10 kW Non-IDR 5,000 11 432.61 433.35 0.74 0.17%

14 5,000 14 454.76 455.63 0.87 0.19%

15 10,000 15 791.58 792 75 1 17 0.15%

16 10,000 18 813.74 815.04 1.30 0.16%

17 15,000 23 1,180.10 1,181.87 1.77 0.15%

18 15,000 27 1,209.64 1,211.59 1.95 0.16%

19 20,000 30 1,561.23 1,563.56 2.34 0.15%

20 20,000 37 1,612.92 1,615.56 2.64 0.16%


22 5,000 14 8 477.61 478.24 0 62 0.13%

23 10,000 15 14 834.19 835.33 1.14 0.14%

24 10,000 18 14 846.18 847.32 1.14 0.14%

25 15,000 23 22 1,224.32 1,226.04 1.72 0.14%

26 15,000 27 22 1,238.50 1,240.22 1.71 0.14%

27 20,000 30 29 1,606.86 1,609.13 2.27 0.14%

28 20,000 37 30 1,637.82 1,640.14 2.32 0.14%

29 Primary Service Non-IDR 25,000 38 1,706.78 1,710.80 4 02 0.24% 30 25,000 46 1,774.13 1,778.80 4.67 0.26%

31 50,000 76 3,258.01 3,266.05 8.04 0.25%

32 50,000 91 3,384.29 3,393.54 9.25 0.27%

33 100,000 152 6,360.46 6,376.55 16.09 0.25%

34 100,000 183 6,621.45 6,640.04 18 58 0.28%

35 250,000 381 15,676.25 15,716.54 40 29 0.26%

36 250,000 457 - 16,316.10 16,362.52 46.42 0.28%


38 25,000 46 37 2,131.46 2,135.37 3.91 0.18%

39 50,000 76 72 4,002.27 4,009.99 7.72 0.19%

40 50,000 91 73 4,056.99 4,064.76 7.77 0.19%

41 100,000 152 144 7,807.47 7,822.92 15.45 0.20%

42 100,000 183 146 7,925.79 7,941.38 15 59 0.20%

43 250,000 381 362 19,232.99 19,271.67 38.68 0.20%

44 250,000 457 366 19,514.45 19,553.40 38.95 0.20%


46 250,000 457 366 5,417.73 5,440.12 22.40 0.41%

47 500,000 761 723 9,878.88 9,923.22 44.34 0.45%

48 500,000 913 730 9,942.92 9,987.67 44 75 0.45%

49 750,000 1,142 1,085 14,376.07 14,442.60 66 53 0.46%

50 750,000 1,370 1,096 14,471.81 14,538.95 67.14 0.46%

51 1,000,000 1,522 1,446 18,868.92 18,957.60 88 67 0.47%

52 1,000,000 1,826 1,461 18,997.00 19,086.50 89.50 0.47%

44

Attachment 1WD-4

Page 4 of 6

impact of LP&L Load Transfer to ERCOT on ERCOT Retail Rates - AEP Texas North Company


Line If LP&L loins

No. Rate Class kWh NCP kW 4CP kW Status Quo ERCOT Increase - $ Increase - % (a) (b) (c) (d) (.) (f) (g) (h)

1 Residential 500 $ 79.95 $ 80.09 $ 0.14 0.17%

2 1000 151 72 152.00 0.28 0.18%

3 1,500 223.50 223.92 0.42 0.19%

4 2,000 295.27 295.83 0 56 0.19%

5 2,500 367 04 367.74 0.70 0.19%

6 5,000 725 90 727.30 1.39 0 19%

7 Secondary Less Than or Equal to 10 kW 500 68.71 68.80 0 09 0.12%

8 1,000 125.68 125.85 0.17 0.14%

9 1,500 182.64 182.90 0.26 0.14%

10 2,000 239.61 239.95 0 34 0.14%

11 2,500 296.57 297.00 0.43 0.14%

12 5,000 581.39 582.25 0.85 0 15%

13 Secondary Greater Than 10 kW Non-IDR 5,000 11 428.95 429.67 0.72 0.17%

14 5,000 14 458.18 459.04 0.86 0 19%

15 10,000 15 766.76 767.90 1.13 0 15%

16 10,000 18 796.00 797 26 1.27 0.16%

17 15,000 23 1,143.55 1,145.27 1.72 0 15%

18 15,000 27 1,182.53 1,184 43 1.90 0.16%

19 20,000 30 1,510 60 1,512.86 2.26 0.15%

20 20,000 37 1,578.81 1,581 38 2.58 0.16%


22 5,000 14 8 464.67 465.44 0.77 0 17%

23 10,000 15 14 804 08 805.46 1.38 0.17%

24 10,000 18 14 816.14 817.53 1.39 0 17%

25 15,000 23 22 1,180.46 1,182 56 2.10 0.18%

26 15,000 27 22 1,193.71 1,195.80 2.09 0.17%

27 20,000 30 29 1,547.15 1,549.92 2.76 0.18%

28 20,000 37 30 1,580.03 1,582 86 2.83 0.18%

29 Primary Service Non-IDR 25,000 38 1,510.56 1,512.50 1.95 0.13%

30 25,000 46 1,560.91 1,563 09 2.17 0.14%

31 50,000 76 2,865.12 2,869.01 3.89 0.14%

32 50,000 91 2,959 53 2,963.85 4.32 0.15%

33 100,000 152 5,574.23 5,582.02 7.78 0.14%

34 100,000 183 5,769 36 5,778.02 8.66 0.15%

35 250,000 381 13,707.88 13,727.36 19.49 0.14%

36 250,000 457 14,186 25 14,207.89 21.64 0.15%


38 25,000 46 37 1,550 01 1,552.36 2.36 0.15%

39 50,000 76 72 2,869.12 2,873.79 4.66 0.16%

40 50,000 91 73 2,900.14 2,904.83 4.69 0.16%

41 100,000 152 144 5,543 60 5,552.92 9.33 0.17%

42 100,000 183 146 5,610.85 5,620.26 9.41 0.17%

43 250,000 381 362 13,572.85 13,596.20 23.35 0.17%

44 250,000 457 366 13,732 55 13,756.05 23.50 0.17%


46 250,000 457 366 14,019.17 14,037.27 18.10 0.13%

47 500,000 761 723 27,112.34 27,148.33 35.99 0.13%

48 500,000 913 730 27,159.12 27,195.30 36.18 0.13%

49 750,000 1,142 1,085 40,233.73 40,287.73 54.00 0.13%

50 750,000 1,370 1,096 40,303.48 40,357.77 54.29 0.13%

51 1,000,000 1,522 1,446 53,349.88 53,421.87 71.98 0.13%

52 1,000,000 1,826 1,461 53,443.44 53,515.80 72.37 0.14%

45

Attachment PA/D-4

Page 5 of 6

impact of LP&L Load Transfer to ERCOT on ERCOT Retail Rates - Texas-New Mexico Power Company


Line If LP&L Joins

No. Rate Class kWh NCP kW 4CP kW Status Quo ERCOT Increase - $ I ncrease - %

(a) (b) (c) (d) I e) (f ) (g) (h)

1 Residential 500 $ 74 49 $ 74.64 $ 0.14 0.19%

2 1,000 143 74 144.02 0.28 0.20%

3 1,500 212.98 213.41 0 43 0.20%

4 2,000 282.22 282.79 0.57 0.20%

5 2,500 351.46 352.18 0.71 0.20%

6 5,000 697.68 699.10 1.42 0.20%

7 Secondary Service Less than 5 KW 500 58.35 58.50 0.15 0.26%

8 1,000 111.99 112.29 0.30 0.27%

9 1,500 165.64 166.09 0.45 0 27%

10 2,000 219.29 219.89 0.60 0.27%

11 2,500 272.93 273.69 0.75 0.28%

12 5,000 - 541.17 542.67 1.50 0 28%

13 Secondary Service Greater Than 5 kW Non-IDR 5,000 11 420.93 421.65 0.71 0.17%

14 5,000 14 449 45 450.29 0.85 0 19%

15 10,000 15 762.03 763.16 1 12 0.15%

16 10,000 18 790.55 791.80 1.25 0.16%

17 15,000 23 1,141 15 1,142.86 1.70 0.15%

18 15,000 27 1,179.17 1,181.05 1.88 0.16%

19 20,000 30 1,510.77 1,513.01 2.24 0.15%

20 20,000 37 1,577.30 1,579.85 2.55 0.16%

21 Secondary Service Greater Than 5 kW IDR 5,000 11 7 410.92 411.59 0.67 0.16%

22 5,000 14 8 436.70 437.49 0.79 0.18%

23 10,000 15 14 777.38 778.79 1.41 0.18%

24 10,000 18 14 794.05 795.47 1.42 0.18%

25 15,000 23 22 1,164.68 1,166 83 2.15 0.18%

26 15,000 27 22 1,184.42 1,186.55 2.13 0 18%

27 20,000 30 29 1,541.46 1,544 28 2.82 0.18%

28 20,000 37 30 1,584 49 1,587.39 2.89 0.18%

29 Primary Service Non-IDR 25,000 38 2,068 47 2,070.61 2.15 0 10% 30 25,000 46 2,121.62 2,123.96 2.35 0.11%

31 50,000 76 3,897.45 3,901.74 4.29 0.11%

32 50,000 91 3,997.11 4,001.78 4 67 0.12%

33 100,000 152 7,555.42 7,564.01 8.59 0.11%

34 100,000 183 7,761.39 7,770.75 9.36 0.12%

35 250,000 381 18,535.98 18,557.47 21.50 0.12%

36 250,000 457 - 19,040.94 19,064.32 23.38 0.12%


38 25,000 46 37 1,769.47 1,772.19 2.71 0.15%

39 50,000 76 72 3,212.18 3,217.54 5.36 0.17%

40 50,000 91 73 3,291.58 3,296.97 5 39 0.16%

41 100,000 152 144 6,185.38 6,196.10 10.72 0.17%

42 100,000 183 146 6,352.57 6,363.38 10.82 0.17%

43 250,000 381 362 15,113.99 15,140.83 26.84 0.18%

44 250,000 457 366 15,518.75 15,545.77 27.02 0 17%

45 Transmission (Does not include EECRF) 250,000 381 362 14,404.97 14,430.87 25 90 0.18%

46 250,000 457 366 14,418.20 14,444.27 26.08 0.18%

47 500,000 761 723 26,840.32 26,892.07 51.76 0.19%

48 500,000 913 730 26,867.31 26,919.42 52.11 0.19%

49 750,000 1,142 1,085 39,279.10 39,356.77 77.66 0.20%

50 750,000 1,370 1,096 39,319.33 39,397.52 78.19 0.20%

51 1,000,000 1,522 1,446 51,714.45 51,817 97 103.52 0.20%

52 1,000,000 1,826 1,461 51,768.44 51,872.67 104.23 0.20%

46

Attachment JWD-4

Page 6 of 6

impact of LP&L Load Transfer to ERGOT on ERCOT Retail Rates - Sharyland Utilities, LP.


Line If LP&L Joins

No. Rate Class kWh NCP kW 4CP kW Status Quo ERCOT Increase - $ Increase - %

( a ) ( b ) (c) (d) (e) ( f ) ( g ) (h)

1 Residential 500 $ 102.06 $ 102.20 $ 0.13 0 13%

2 1,000 194.12 194.39 0.27 0.14%

3 1,500 286.18 286.59 0.40 0 14%

4 2000, 378.25 378.78 0.54 0 14%

5 2,500 470.31 470.98 0.67 0.14%

6 5,000 930.62 931.96 1.34 0.14%

7 Secondary Less Than or Equal to 10 kW 500 86.46 86.57 0.11 0.13%

8 1,000 150.21 150.43 0.22 0 15%

9 1,500 213.97 214.30 0.33 0.15%

10 2,000 277.72 278.16 0.44 0.16%

11 2,500 341.48 342.03 0.55 0.16%

12 5,000 660.26 661.35 1.09 0.17%

13 Secondary Greater Than 10 kW Non-IDR 5,000 11 528 86 529.39 0.54 0.10%

14 5,000 14 580.69 581.31 0.62 0.11%

15 10,000 15 895 52 896.40 0.88 0.10%

16 10,000 18 947 36 948.32 0.96 0.10%

17 15,000 23 1,331.30 1,332 63 1 33 0.10%

18 15,000 27 1,400.42 1,401 86 1.44 0.10%

19 20,000 30 1,749 80 1,751.56 1.76 0.10%

20 20,000 37 1,870.75 1,872.70 1.95 0.10%

21 Secondary Greater Than 10 kW IDR 5,000 11 7 495.91 496 75 0.84 0.17%

22 5,000 14 8 538.76 539.77 1 00 0.19%

23 10,000 15 14 868 05 869.81 1.77 0.20%

24 10,000 18 14 905 41 907.20 1.78 0.20%

25 15,000 23 22 1,289 17 1,291.87 2.69 0.21%

26 15,000 27 22 1,337.50 1,340 17 2 67 0 20%

27 20,000 30 29 1,694.85 1,698.39 3.54 0.21%

28 20,000 37 30 1,784.54 1,788 17 3 64 0.20%

29 Primary Service Non-IDR 25,000 38 1,667.33 1,671 49 4.16 0.25%

30 25,000 46 1,777.59 1,782.44 4 85 0 27%

31 50,000 76 3,305.74 3,314 05 8.32 0.25%

32 50,000 91 3,512.46 3,522.08 9.61 0.27%

33 100,000 152 6,582.54 6,599 17 16.63 0.25%

34 100,000 183 7,009.78 7,029.09 19 31 0.28%

35 250,000 381 16,426.74 16,468 41 41.67 0.25%

36 250,000 457 17,474.16 17,522.40 48.24 0 28%


38 25,000 46 37 1,716.24 1,720.35 4 11 0 24%

39 50,000 76 72 3,257.79 3,265.88 8.09 0.25%

40 50,000 91 73 3,391.10 3,399.25 8 15 0.24%

41 100,000 152 144 6,486.65 6,502.84 16 19 0 25%

42 100,000 183 146 6,765.72 6,782.08 16.36 0.24%

43 250,000 381 362 16,186.38 16,226.93 40.56 0 25%

44 250,000 457 366 16,864.68 16,905.56 40.88 0.24%


46 250,000 457 366 13,058.94 13,098.60 39 66 0 30%

47 500,000 761 723 25,903.35 25,981.96 78.61 0.30%

48 500,000 913 730 25,950.80 26,030.04 79 25 0 31%

49 750,000 1,142 1,085 38,775.70 38,893.66 117.96 0.30%

50 750,000 1,370 1,096 38,846.52 38,965.43 118.90 0.31%

51 1,000,000 1,522 1,446 51,643.47 51,800.70 157.23 0.30%

52 1,000,000 1,826 1,461 51,738.38 51,896.87 158 49 0 31%

47

Attachment 1WD-5

Impact of LP&L Load Transfer to ERCOT or SPP RTOs on SPS Retail Rates

Demand/Usage 2021 Estimated Monthly Bill Decrease if LP&L Joins ERCOT

Line LPL Stays in LPL Moves to

No. Rate Class kWh NCP kW 4CP kW SPP ERCOT Amount Percent

(a) (b) (c) (d) (e) (f) (6) (h)

1 Residential Standard Service 500 $ 71.25 $ 70.45 $ (0.80) -1.12%

2 1,000 132.49 130 90 (1 59) -1.20%

3 1,500 193.74 191.35 (2.39) -1.23%

4 2,000 254.99 251 80 (3 19) -1.25%

5 2,503 316 24 312.25 (3.98) -1.26%

6 5,000 622.47 614.51 (7.97) -1.28%

7 Small General Service 500 64.32 63.51 (0.80) -1.25%

8 1,000 117.39 115.78 (1.61) -1.37%

9 1,500 170.45 168.04 (2.41) -1.41%

10 2,000 223.52 220.31 (3.21) -1.44%

11 2,500 276.59 272.57 (4.02) -1.45%

12 5,000 541.93 533.89 (8.04) -1.48%

13 Secondary General Service 5,000 14 503.92 495.84 (8.08) -1.60%

14 7,500 11 598.48 586.17 (12.31) -2.06%

15 7,500 21 743.08 730.96 (12.13) -1 63%

16 10,000 27 967 78 951.60 (16.19) -1.67%

17 15,000 23 1,185.82 1,161.21 (24.60) -2.07%

18 15,000 27 1,243.66 1,219.13 (24.53) -1.97%

19 20,000 30 1,562.91 1,530.10 (32.82) -2.10%

20 20,003 37 1,664.14 1,631.45 (32.69) -1.96%

21 Primary General Service 250,000 685 21,520.30 21,122.10 (398.21) -1.85%

22 250,000 1,142 27,096.75 26,705 99 (390.75) -1.44%

23 500,000 1,370 42,982.10 42,185 69 (796.41) -1.85%

24 750,000 3,425 81,161.03 79,988.76 (1,172.28) -1.44%

25 1,000,000 1,442 70,067.15 68,453.16 (1,613 98) -2.30%

26 1,250,000 2,283 93,432.50 91,422.86 (2,009.65) -2.15%

27 1,750,000 4,795 150,291.12 147,503.68 (2,787.44) -1.85%

28 2,250,000 4,110 168,139.03 164,521.68 (3,617.35) -2.15%

29 69 kV Large General Serv. Transmission 250,000 381 16,441.35 16,063.19 (378.15) -2.30%

30 250,000 457 17,199.29 16,822.44 (376.85) -2.19%

31 500,000 761 32,162.72 31,406.40 (756.32) -2.35%

32 500,000 913 33,678.61 32,924.89 (753.72) -2.24%

33 750,000 1,142 47,894.06 46,759.59 (1,134.47) -2.37%

34 750,000 1,370 50,167.91 49,037.33 (1,130.57) -2 25%

35 1,000,000 1,522 63,615.43 62,102.80 (1,512.64) -2.38%

36 1,000,000 1,826 66,647 23 65,139.78 (1,507.44) -2.26%

48

Attachment JWD-6

Impact of LP&L Load Transfer to ERGOT or SPP RTOs on LP&L Retail Rates

Line

No. Rate Class


Increase if Ordered to

Stay in SPP

kWh NCP kW

LPL Moves to

4CP kW ERCOT

LPL Stays in

SPP Amount Percent

(a) (b) ( c ) (d) (e) (f) (g) (h)

1 Residential Standard Service 500 $ 56.16 $ 65.75 $ 9.59 17.08%

2 1,000 104.63 123.81 19.18 18.33%

3 1,500 153.11 181.88 28 77 18.79%

4 2,000 201.58 239.94 38.36 19.03%

5 2,500 250.05 298.00 47 95 19.18%

6 5,000 492.41 588.31 95 90 19.48%

7 Residential Electric Space Heating 500 54.28 63.76 9.49 17.48%

8 1,000 100.86 119.83 18.97 18.81%

9 1,500 147.45 175.90 28.46 19.30%

10 2,000 194.03 231.97 37.94 19.55%

11 2,500 240.62 288.04 47.43 19.71%

12 5,000 473.54 568 39 94 85 20.03%

13 Small General Service 500 52.21 59.65 7.45 14.26%

14 1,000 91.51 106 40 14.89 16.27%

15 1,500 130.82 153.15 22.34 17.07%

16 2,000 170.12 199.90 29.78 17.51%

17 2,500 209.43 246 65 37.23 17 77%

18 5,000 - 405 95 480.40 74.45 18.34%

19 Large School Service 20,000 55 1,858.10 2,169 05 310.95 16.73%

20 20,000 91 2,294 06 2,667.29 373.23 16.27%

21 25,000 68 2,304.08 2,691.47 387.39 16 81%

22 25,000 114 2,861 14 3,328 11 466.97 16.32%

23 30,000 82 2,762.17 3,227.73 465.56 16 85%

24 30,000 137 3,428 22 3,988.93 560.71 16.36%

25 50,000 137 4,582.42 5,358 93 776.51 16 95%

26 50,000 228 5,684.43 6,618.37 933.94 16.43%

27 Secondary General Service 5,000 14 499.13 579.38 80.25 16.08%

28 7,500 11 595.90 694.27 98.38 16 51%

29 7,500 21 735.10 855.47 120.38 16.38%

30 10,000 27 957.14 1,115.44 158.30 16.54%

31 15,000 23 1,178.51 1,377.46 198 95 16.88%

32 15,000 27 1,234.19 1,441.94 207.75 16.83%

33 20,000 30 1,553.00 1,816.80 263 80 16.99%

34 20,000 37 1,650.44 1,929.64 279.20 16.92%

35 Primary General Service 250,000 685 23,718.81 27,603.81 3,885 00 16.38%

36 250,000 1,142 30,797.74 35,825.24 5,027.50 16.32%

37 500,000 1,370 47,141.96 54,911 96 7,770.00 16.48%

38 750,000 3,425 91,786.41 106,866.41 15,080.00 16.43%

39 1,000,000 1,442 73,882.24 86,177.24 12,295.00 16.64%

40 1,250,000 2,283 99,721 83 116,291.83 16,570.00 16.62%

41 1,750,000 4,795 164,257.71 191,452.71 27,195.00 16.56%

42 2,250,000 4,110 179,272.06 209,099 56 29,827 50 16.64%

43 Large Municipal Service 25,000 38 1,910.86 2,223 53 312.67 16.36%

44 25,000 46 2,019.82 2,349.21 329 39 16.31%

45 50,000 76 3,774.42 4,399 76 625.34 16.57%

46 50,000 91 3,978 72 4,635.41 656.69 16.51%

47 100,000 152 7,501 54 8,752.22 1,250.68 16.67%

48 100,000 183 7,923.76 9,239 23 1,315.47 16.60%

49 250,000 381 18,696.52 21,825 31 3,128.79 16.73%

50 250,000 457 19,731.64 23,019 27 3,287.63 16.66%

51 Small School Service 500 51.83 59 27 7.44 14.34%

52 1,000 91.30 106.17 14.87 16 29%

53 1,500 130 77 153.08 22.31 17.06%

54 2,000 170.24 199.98 29.74 17 47%

55 2,500 209.71 246 89 37.18 17 73%

56 5,000 407.06 481.41 74.35 18 27%

57 Small Municipal Service 500 51 83 59.27 7.44 14.34%

58 1,000 91.30 106.17 14.87 16 29%

59 1,500 130 77 153.08 22.31 17.06%

60 2,000 170.24 199.98 29.74 17 47%

61 2,500 209.71 246.89 37.18 17.73%

62 5,000 407.06 481.41 74.35 18 27%

49

Date post:	09-Nov-2021
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	0 times
Download:	0 times

ontr I umber: 47576 11 lln ill ill 11 Item Number: 55 ...

Documents