Docket 6107

Vermont Department of Public Service

PSB Docket No. 6107: Tariff filing of Green Mountain Power Corporation requesting a 12.9% rate increase

DPS Direct Testimony, and DPS Rebuttal Prefiled Testimony in the Investigation into the Tariff filing of Green Mountain Power Corporation requesting a 12.9% rate increase, to take effect June 22, 1998.

Please note: most of the documents listed below are in Adobe Acrobat PDF format
and require the Acrobat PDF reader which is free and can be downloaded from Adobe.

DPS Direct Testimony in PSB Docket 6107, filed September 21, 1998

William R. Steinhurst, DPS. The purpose of Dr. Steinhurst's testimony is to review the conclusions of the Department's witnesses on the Hydro Quebec Contract, to explain the Department's position regarding that Contract, and to recommend the rates that should be set for the Company.

Raymond E. Koliander, DPS. Mr. Koliander explains to the Board that the rate design and cost allocation proposed by Green Mountain power is premature due to inconsistency with Bonbright's rate design principals.

Dave Lamont, DPS. The purpose of Mr. Lamont's testimony is to discuss the Department's proposed adjustments to the Company's power costs and to calculate a provisional disallowance using the Board's Docket 5983 methodology.

Scudder H. Parker, DPS. Mr. Parker's testimony addresses GMP's failure to make good-faith efforts to acquire all cost-effective energy-efficiency resources, as directed by the Board, and recommends a reduction in the Company's allowed return on equity as a penalty. Mr. Parker also recommends that the Board find GMP in clear violation of its obligations under 30 V.S.A. § 218c, and based on that finding order it to fund the delivery of its DSM programs through an Efficiency Utility

Thomas Dunn, DPS. The purpose of Mr. Dunn's testimony is to: (1) discuss shortcomings in Green Mountain Power Corporation's reliability reporting, tree trimming and pole inspection programs; (2) discuss the consequences of these shortcomings; and (3) offer remedies that the Public Service Board should order the company to implement.

Kathryn Parlin, West Hill Energy Associates. Ms. Parlin reviewed GMP's DSM program performance in the residential sector. Her testimony describes specific instances in which GMP's DSM performance in the residential sector is inconsistent with the principles outlined in Docket 5270. She recommends a number of program cost and ACE disallowances.

Bruce Biewald, Synapse Energy Economics, Inc. Mr Beiwald's testimony addresses issues of excess capacity, used and useful, and the economics of GMP's purchase from Hydro Quebec.

Michael D. Dirmeier, Georgetown Consulting Group, Inc. Mr Dirmeier's testimony addresses the issues of appropriate adjusted rate base, return on rate base, cost of service and revenue requirement for Green Mountain Power Company.

Michael D. Dirmeier, Georgetown Consulting Group, Inc. Appendix to support Mr Dirmeier's testimony.

Michael D. Dirmeier, Georgetown Consulting Group, Inc. Exhibits 1 - 23 to support Mr Dirmeier's testimony.

Philip H. Mosenthal, Optimal Energy, Inc. Mr. Mosenthal's testimony addresses GMP's efforts to pursue all cost-effective C&I energy efficiency savings during and after the cost recovery period. It also proposes specific ACE adjustments to GMP's C&I programs.

Paul Chernick, Resource Insight, Inc. Mr Chernick's testimony primarily responds to a series of questions that the Board raised in its order in Docket No. 5983 with respect to the damages that resulted from GMP's decision to lock into the HQ-VJO purchase prematurely, in August 1991. In this connection, he explains why the conclusions of GMP witnesses Oliver and Higgins on the damages resulting from the premature lock-in are incorrect. In addition, he places in perspective certain arguments about the application of the prudence test raised by GMP witness Reed and witnesses Oliver and Higgins. He also updates the Board regarding the status of GMP's Distributed Utility planning efforts.

Paul Chernick, Resource Insight, Inc. Exhibits 1 - 4 to support Mr Chernick's testimony.

Wilbur L. Ross, Jr., Rothschild Inc. The purpose of Mr. Ross's testimony is to discuss, in general terms, the financial position of Green Mountains Power ("GMP") and, more specifically, to discuss GMP's application for a rate increase of 12.93%.

Wilbur L. Ross, Jr., Rothschild Inc. Exhibits 1 - 4 to support Mr Ross's testimony.

DPS prefiled surrebuttal testimony and exhibits in PSB Docket No. 6107, including text of the Memoradum of Understanding containing the settlement between DPS and GMP, as well as prefiled testimony explaining the settlement, file November 13, 2000.

Mr. Sedano's testimony explains the rationale behind the decision of the DPS to pursue a settlement with Green Mountain Power in docket 6107. His testimony also explains how the settlement is consistent with this rationale.

Third Memorandum of Understanding This Third Memorandum of Understanding (the "Memorandum" or "MOU") sets forth the Agreement between the Vermont Department of Public Service (the "Department" or "DPS") and Green Mountain Power Corporation ("GMP"), regarding GMP's rate increase request filed in this docket. .

Ms. Frankel's testimony is given to support the service quality and reliability plan that is a portion of the stipulated agreement between DPS and GMP.

Mr. Dirmeier recommends that the Public Service Board adopt the Surrebuttal Memorandum of Understanding Regarding GMP's Allowed Costs of Service.

Mr. Koliander's testimony discusses the following issues concerning the proposed settlement: (1) treatment of any excess earnings caused by the rate increase and in light of the two year stay out; (2) the write-off of certain deferred debits; (3) the elimination of carrying costs on other deferred debits; (4) the amortization period for certain regulatory assets; (5) the elimination of the Winter/Summer rate design; and (6) the effects of the elimination of Winter/summer rates.

Mr. Ross's testimony recommends to the Board the approval of the Third Memorandum of Understanding ("MOU") from a the standpoint of Green Mountain Power's financial viability. With the approval of this MOU the company will be able to obtain the necessary financing for GMP and the ratepayers of Vermont benefit.

Dr. Steinhurst's testimony discusses the range of rate making options available to the Board in connection with the Hydro Quebec Contract, explains how the proposed settlement of this case relates to those options, discusses several provisions of the proposed settlement, and addresses the testimony of certain GMP rebuttal witnesses.

Mr. Litkovitz's testimony is given to support the sections of the Third Memorandum of Understanding between the Green Mountain Power Corporation and the Department of Public Service that address: 1) system reliability and worker safety standards in the service quality and reliability plan; and 2) capital budgets.
Testimony Attachments files.