Resolution No. 83273
4
5
6
FM
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
RESOLUTION NO. 8327
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
VERNON ESTABLISHING THE TRANSMISSION REVENUE
BALANCING ACCOUNT ADJUSTMENT IN ACCORDANCE WITH
VERNON'S TRANSMISSION OWNER TARIFF AND PROVIDING
FOR TARIFF SHEET CHANGES TO IMPLEMENT THE
ADJUSTMENT
WHEREAS, the City of Vernon is a Participating Transmission
Owner ("PTO") with the California Independent System Operator ("ISO")
and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission ("FERC") has approved its
Transmission Owner Tariff ("TO Tariff"); and
WHEREAS, the City of Vernon TO Tariff provides for periodic
recalculation of the Transmission Revenue Balancing Account Adjustment
("TRBAA') which is a ratemaking mechanism designed to ensure that all
Transmission Revenue Credits are flowed through to transmission
customers; and
WHEREAS, on December 4, 2002, the City Council of the City of
Vernon adopted Resolution No. 8112 establishing the TRBAA and the City
made its TRBAA filing on December 9, 2002 in FERC Docket No. EL03-31;
and
WHEREAS, on June 9, 2003, the FERC accepted the City's
December 9, 2002 filing, effective January 1, 2003; and
WHEREAS, Peter J. Lanzalotta, a consultant to the City, has
prepared testimony and exhibits which determine the TRBAA consistent
with the TO Tariff and support the TRBAA, along with TO Tariff sheet
changes to implement the new TRBAA effective January 1, 2004; and
WHEREAS, a Notice of Public Hearing was posted on
November 19, 2003, notifying all interested parties that a hearing to
consider evidence to establish Vernon's new TRBAA was scheduled for
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
December 3, 2003, at approximately 5 p.m.; and
WHEREAS, by letter dated November 25, 2003, Bruce V.
Malkenhorst, City Administrator/City Clerk, recommended that the TRBAA
and Appendix I to the TO Tariff implementing the TRBAA be approved; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has heard and considered all
evidence, both written and oral, presented in consideration of the
establishment of Vernon's new TRBAA and amended Appendix I to the TO
Tariff implementing the new TRBAA.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF VERNON AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1: The City Council of the City of Vernon hereby
finds and determines that the recitals contained hereinabove are true
land correct.
SECTION 2: The City Council of the City of Vernon further
finds that all persons have had the opportunity to be heard or to file
written comments to the proposed establishment of Vernon's new TRBAA
and amended Appendix I to the Vernon TO Tariff implementing the new
TRBAA, and after due consideration of any and all evidence submitted at
the public hearing determines that there are compelling reasons to
justify the establishment of Vernon's new TRBAA and an amended Appendix
I to the TO Tariff implementing the new TRBAA, a copy of which is
attached hereto as Exhibit "B" and made a part hereof.
SECTION 3: The City Council of the City of Vernon hereby
approves the establishment of Vernon's new TRBAA and amended Appendix I
to the TO Tariff implementing the new TRBAA, to be effective January 1,
2004, described in the testimony and exhibits prepared by Mr. Peter
Lanzalotta, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit "A" and made
a part hereof, pursuant to the TO Tariff.
2 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
SECTION 4: The City Council of the City of Vernon hereby
authorizes the submittal of the Prepared Direct Testimony of Peter J.
Lanzalotta on behalf of the City of Vernon to the FERC.
SECTION 5: The City Clerk of the City of Vernon shall
certify to the passage of this resolution, and thereupon and thereafter
the same shall be in full force and effect.
APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 3rd day of December, 2003.
ATTEST:
BRUCE V. MALKENHORST, City Clerk
LEONIS C. MALBUR __Mayor
- 3 -
1'
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
) ss
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES )
I, BRUCE V. MALKENHORST, City Clerk of the City of Vernon, do
hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution, being Resolution No.
8327, was duly adopted by the City Council of the City of Vernon at a
regular meeting of the City Council duly held on Wednesday, December 3,
2003, and thereafter was duly signed by the Mayor of the City of
Vernon.
(SEAL)
BRUCE V. MALKENHORST, City Clerk
- 4 -
EXHIBIT
0
I EXHIBIT NO. VER-1
2
3 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
4 BEFORE THE
5 FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION
6
7
8
9
10
11 CITY OF VERNON, CALIFORNIA ) DOCKET NO. EL04-
12
13
14
15 Prepared Direct Testimony of
16 Peter J. Lanzalotta
17
18 on behalf of the
19 City of Vernon, California
20
21 December 2003
22
23
24 Q. Please state your name, affiliation and business address.
25 A. Peter J. Lanzalotta, Lanzalotta & Associates LLC, 9762 Polished Stone,
26 Columbia, Maryland 21046.
27
28 Q. Please describe your educational background.
29 A. I am a graduate of Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, where I received a
30 Bachelors of Science degree in Electric Power Engineering. In addition, I hold
31 a Masters degree in Business Administration with a concentration in Finance
32 from Loyola College in Baltimore.
33
34 Q. Please describe your professional experience.
35 A. I am a Principal of Lanzalotta & Associates LLC, which was formed in January
36 2001. Prior to that, I was a partner of Whitfield Russell Associates, with which
City of Vernon, California
Docket No. EL04-
Exhibit No. VER-1
Page 2 of 11
1 I had been associated since March 1982. My areas of expertise include electric
2 system planning and operation, cost of service study, and utility rate design. I
3 am a registered professional engineer in the states of Maryland and
4 Connecticut. My prior professional experience is described in Exhibit No.
5 VER-2, which is attached hereto.
6
7 I have been involved with the planning and operation of electric utility systems
8 and with utility regulatory matters, including cost of service, cost allocation,
9 and rate design, as an employee of and as a consultant to a number of privateiy-
10 and publicly -owned electric utilities, regulatory agencies, developers, and
11 electric loads over a period exceeding thirty years.
12
13 Q. Have you qualified to offer expert testimony in any judicial or quasi-judicial
14 proceedings?
15 A. Yes, I have presented expert testimony before the Federal Energy Regulatory
16 Commission ("FERC"), other regulatory commissions, city councils and utility
17 boards, and other administrative, judicial and legislative bodies in 16 states, the
18 District of Columbia, and the Provinces of Alberta and Ontario. My clients
19 have included utilities, regulatory agencies, ratepayer advocates, independent
20 producers, industrial consumers, the United States Government, and various
21 city and state governmental entities. Proceedings in which I have testified are
22 listed in Exhibit No. VER-3.
23
24 Q. What is the purpose of your testimony?
25 A. The purpose of my testimony is to present Vernon's Transmission Rovenue
26 Balancing Account Adjustment ("TRBAA") proposed to become effective
27 January 1, 2004.
28
29 Q. Can you summarize your testimony?
30 A. Yes. The Vernon TRBAA is a rate -making mechanism that is part of Vernon's
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
City of Vernon, California
Docket No. EL04-
Exhibit No. VER-1
Page 3 of 11
TO Tariff, as approved by the FERC. The balance in the Vernon TRBA as of
September 30, 2003 is $52,379. For 2004, wheeling revenues are projected to
be a credit of $119,428 while net usage/congestion revenues are projected to be
a credit of $158,765. Taken together, these items sum up to a TRBAA for the
twelve months starting January 1, 2004 of a credit of $225,814.
Q. What is the TRBAA?
A. The TRBAA is a tariff mechanism designed to ensure that all Transmission
Revenue Credits ("TRCs") are flowed through to California Independent
System Operator Corporation ("ISO") transmission tariff customers via annual
update filings at FERC by Participating Transmission Owners ("PTO"). In.
Appendix F, Schedule 3, Section 6.1(b), the California ISO Tariff describes the
annual TRBAA calculation as "... a dollar amount based on projected
Transmission Revenue Credits as adjusted for the true up of the prior year's
difference between projected and actual credits.
Section 5.2 of the Vernon TO Tariff identifies the items to be reflected in the
TRBAA and sets forth the procedure for revising the TRBA on an annual basis,
as follows:
5.2 Transmission Revenue Balancing Account Adjustment
("TRBAA") The Participating TO shall maintain a Transmission
Revenue Balancing Account ("TRBA") that will ensure that all
Transmission Revenue Credits and the refunds, specified in Sections 6
and 8 of Appendix F, Schedule 3 of the ISO Tariff, flow through to
transmission customers. y.
The TRBAA shall be equal to: TRBAA = TRCF + TRCT+ I
TRCF = The forecast of Transmission Revenue Credits for the
City of Vernon, California
Docket No. EL04-
Exhibit No. VER-I
Page 4 of 11
1 following calendar year.
2
3 TRCT = The balance representing the prior period difference
4 between the projected Transmission Revenue Credits and
5 the actual credits.
6
7 I = The interest balance for the TRBA, which shall be
8 calculated using the interest rate pursuant to Section
9 35.19(a) ofFERC's regulations under the Federal Power
10 Act (18 CFR Section 35.19(a)). Interest shall be
11 calculated based on the average TRBA principal balance
12 each month, compounded quarterly.
13
14 Q. How are Transmission Revenue Credits ("TRCs") defined?
15 A. TRCs are defined in Section 3.25 of the Vernon TO Tariff as follows:
16
17 3.25 Transmission Revenue Credit. Collectively, 1) the sum of: a) all
18 revenues received by the Participating TO from the ISO for Wheeling
19 service, plus b) Usage Charge revenues received by the Participating TO
20 pursuant to Section 7.3.1.6(ii) of the ISO Tariff, plus c) Net FTR
21 Revenue received by the Participating TO; minus 2) any charges
22 attributable to the Participating TO (but not those attributable to the
23 FTR Holder) pursuant to ISO Tariff 7.3.1.7.
24
25 Q. What are the results of your calculation of Vernon's TRBAA to be effective
26 January 1, 2004?
27 A. A summary of the elements of the Vernon TRBAA is shown in Exhibit No.
28 VER-4. It shows that the balance in the Vernon TRBA as of September 30,
29 2003, which reflects services rendered through June 30, 2003, is $52,379,
30 including interest. Wheeling revenues are projected to be a credit of $119,379
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
City of Vernon, California
Docket No. EL04-
Exhibit No. VER-1
Page 5 of 11
while usage/congestion revenues are projected to be a credit of $158,765.
Taken together, these items sum up to a TRBAA for the twelve months starting
January 1, 2004 of a credit, or negative, balance of $225,814.
It is worth noting that all of the Vernon transmission facilities that are reflected
in Vernon's transmission rates and the TRBAA are high voltage facilities.
Therefore, there is no need to allocate TRCs, or other TRBAA components,
between high voltage and low voltage rates.
It is also worth noting that the settlement period reflected in this TRBAA
update covers actual services rendered during the twelve months starting July 1,
2002 and ending June 30, 2003. Because of the time lag inherent in the ISO's
invoices, these services are reflected in invoices received in the twelve-month
period ending September 30, 2003.
I will review the derivation of the elements of the Vernon TRBAA using the
components of the TRBAA, as stated in Section 5.2 of the Vernon TO Tarrif
and listed above, as a reference. The TRBAA is equal the sum of : TRCF +
TRCT + I.
Q. How was the balance of $52,379 Vernon TRBA as of September 30, 2003
determined?
A. This balance represents the sum of the TRCT and the I components.
The TRCT Component of Vernon's TRBAA
Q. What does TRCT represent?
A. TRCT represents a balance that reflects the prior period difference between the
projected TRCs and the actual credits. The prior period in this case is the 12
City of Vernon, California
Docket No. EL04-
Exhibit No. VER-1
Page 6 of 11
1 month period starting October 1, 2002 and ending September 30, 2003.
2
3 A summary of the determination of the September 30, 2003 balance in the
4 Vernon TRBA is shown in Exhibit No. VER-5. The TRCT component reflects
5 1) the previously projected 2002 TRCs for Vernon of $528,587, or $44,049 per
6 month, for the months October through December 2002,1 and 2) projected 2003
7 TRCs of $40,203,2 or $3,350 per month, for the months January through
8 September 2003, both as reflected on Line No. 9 of Exhibit No. VER-5.
9 Adjustments for actual payable TRCs reflecting 1) congestion refunds payable
10 to the transmission owner ("TO"), i.e., Vernon, 2) high voltage wheeling
11 revenue payable to the TO, and 3) Net FTR Revenue associated with Firm
12 Transmission Rights ("FTRs") that Vernon receives pursuant to Section 9.4.3
13 of the ISO Tariff are reflected in Lines 10-14 of Exhibit No. VER-5 and
14 produces the Under (Over) Collection figures for the monthly payable TRC
15 balances reflected in Line 17 of Exhibit No. VER-5. These monthly balances
16 are carried forward from month to month in Line 17 of Exhibit No. VER-5.
17 Interest is calculated monthly (the I component) on the under (over) payment
18 and is compounded quarterly into the monthly payable TRC balances, pursuant
19 to Section 5.2 of the Vernon TO Tariff. The interest calculation for payable
20 TRC balances is shown in Lines 19-23 of Exhibit No. VER-5.
21
22 The calculation of the Net FTR Revenue associated with FTRs that Vernon
23 receives pursuant to Section 9.4.3 of the ISO Tariff is discussed in more detail
24 in the concluding section of this testimony.
25 „.
26 These payable TRC balances are then adjusted to reflect payment of TRC
27 revenues owed to Vernon from the period prior to 2003. These payments are
See letter order of June 9, 2003 approving Vernon's TRBAA filing in Docket No. EL03-31, 103
FERC 161,306, ¶ 2.
2 Id
City of Vernon, California
Docket No. EL04-
Exhibit No. VER-1
Page 7 of l 1
1 reflected in Lines 32-44 of Exhibit No. VER-5, under "Prior Period TRC
2 Payment Received" and are subtracted from the payable TRC balances at the
3 end of the year. Prior Period TRC Payments Received are developed in Exhibit
4 No. VER-6.
5
6 Exhibit No. VER-6 shows the allocation of net ISO market invoice payments to
7 the TRC function. This allocation uses a ratio of the adjusted accrued TRCs
8 reflected in each month's ISO invoice to the net ISO invoice amount. These
9 ratios are shown in Column H of Exhibit No. VER-6 for each month for which
10 invoices were not paid by the ISO when due.
11
12 Interest is calculated monthly on the Prior Period TRC Payments balance and is
13 compounded quarterly into the monthly Prior Period TRC Payment balances.
14 The interest calculation for the monthly Prior Period TRC Payment balances is
15 shown in Lines 40-44 of Exhibit No. VER-5.
16
17 The I (Interest) Component of Vernon's TRBAA
18
19 Q. What does the I component of the TRBAA formula reflect?
20
21 A. As discussed above, the I component reflects interest on payable balances and
22 on payments for prior year TRCs. As provided in Section 5.2 of Vernon's TO
23 Tariff, monthly interest carrying costs are calculated using the 18 CFR §
24 35.19(a) interest rates and calculation method. These interest rates reflect the
25 prime rate values published in the Federal Reserve Bank's "Selected, Interest
26 Rates" and, for each month in a quarter, the average rate for the three months
27 preceding the quarter is applied, as provided for in 18 CFR § 35.19(a).
28
29 The calculation of interest is reflected in Exhibit No. VER-5 and is included as
30 an integral part of the calculation of the TRBA balance on September 30, 2003.
City of Vernon, California
Docket No. EL04-
Exhibit No. VER-1
Page 8 of 11
1
It is not reflected as a separate line item in Exhibit No. VER-4.
2
3
The TRCF Component of Vernon's TRBAA
4
5
Q.
What does TRCF stand for?
6
A.
TRCF stands for the forecast of TRCs for the following calendar year, in this
7
case 2004. These forecast TRCs reflect projected wheeling revenues and
8
projected usage/congestion revenues for 2004.
9
10
Q.
How were the projected wheeling revenues and usage/congestion revenues
11
developed?
12
A.
Wheeling revenues, which correspond to ISO Charge Type 384, are projected
13
to be a credit of $119,428. Net FTR Revenues, which correspond to the hourly
14
net of FTR revenues received under ISO Charge Types 204 and 254 and
15
charges paid under ISO Charge Types 203, 253, 255, 256, are projected to be a
16
credit of $158,765. These projections are shown in Exhibit No. VER-7.
17
18
These projections are based on the accruals for services provided during the
19
twelve-month period ending June 30, 2003, which are reflected in the ISO's
20
invoices to Vernon through September 30, 2003. A summary of the monthly
21
accruals to these Charge Types for the twelve months ending September 30,
22
2003 is shown in Exhibit No. VER-8. The annual accrual for the twelve
23
months ending September for ISO Charge Type 384 regarding wheeling
24
revenues is $204,062, while the annual accruals in ISO Charge Type 254
25
regarding hour -ahead inter -zonal congestion refunds are $2,673.
26
27
Determining Vernon's Net FTR Revenues
28
29
Q.
Has the treatment of FTR revenues changed in the calculation of Vernon's
30
TRBAA?
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
City of Vernon, California
Docket No. EL04-
Exhibit No. VER-1
Page 9 of 11
A. Yes. A settlement filed on December 26, 2002 in Docket No. EL02-1033
requires that Vernon credit hourly Net FTR Revenues from Section 9.4.3 FTRs
that Vernon receives during the Transition Period against Vernon's TRBA, for
the period beginning July 1, 2002. For the prior period, all revenues associated
with Vernon's Section 9.4.3 FTRs were properly excluded from Vernon's
TRBAA, as expressly then provided in Vernon's TO Tariff, and as provided in
Section 1.1 of the Docket No. EL02-103 settlement.
The settlement provided that effective July 1, 2002 Section 3.25 of the Vernon
TO Tariff be modified so as to read as shown earlier in this testimony and that
the following new definition of Net FTR Revenue be added to the Vernon TO
Tariff as new Section 3.19(a):
Net FTR Revenue. The sum of: 1) The revenue received by the
Participating TO from the sale, auction, or other transfer of the FTRs
provided to it pursuant to Section 9.4.3 FTR, or any substantively
identical successor provision, of the ISO Tariff; and 2) For each hour:
a) the Usage Charge revenue received by the Participating TO
associated with its Section 9.4.3 FTRs; minus b) Usage Charges that
are: i) incurred by the Scheduling Coordinator for the Participating TO
under ISO Tariff Section 7.3.1.4, ii) associated with the Participating
TO's Section 9.4.3 FTRs, and iii) incurred by the Participating TO for
its energy transactions but not incurred as a result of the use of the
transmission by a third -party and minus c) the charges paid by the
Participating TO pursuant to Section 7.3.1.7, to the extent sueh charges
are incurred by the Scheduling Coordinator of the Participating TO on
Congested Inter -zonal Interfaces that are associated with the Section
9.4.3 FTRs provided to the Participating TO. The component of Net
s Approved by February 5, 2003 letter order, 102 FERC ¶ 61,141.
City of Vernon, California
Docket No. EL04-
Exhibit No. VER-1
Page 10 of 11
1 FTR Revenue represented by item 2) immediately above shall not be
2 less than zero for any hour.
3
4 Accordingly, I have calculated Vernon's Net FTR Revenue as follows:
5
6 Revenue received by a PTO from the sale, auction, transfer of the FTRs
7 provided to it pursuant to Section 9.4.3; Plus
8
9 For each hour, the greater of zero or the hourly net quantity determined
10 as follows:
11 a. The usage charge revenue received by the PTO
12 associated with its Section 9.4.3 FTRs (that portion of
13 Charge Types 204 and 254 which is associated with
14 Vernon's Section 9.4.3 FTRs); Minus,
15 b. Usage charges that are: i) incurred by the Scheduling
16 Coordinator ("SC") for the PTO under ISO Tariff
17 7.3.1.4, ii) associated with the PTO's Section 9.4.3 FTRs,
18 and iii) incurred by the PTO for its (i.e., Vernon's)
19 energy transactions, but not incurred as a result of the use
20 of the transmission by a third -party. Charges that are
21 deducted under this sub -section are: hour ahead inter-
22 zonal congestion debit due PTO, that part of Charge
23 Type 255 which is applicable to FTR Holders (ISO
24 Tariff Section 7.3.1.7(1)), day ahead inter -zonal
25 Congestion Charge due SC (Charge Type 203),(ISO
26 Tariff Section 7.3.1.4), and hour ahead inter -zonal
27 congestion charge due SC (Charge Type 253)(ISO Tariff
28 Section 7.3.1.4), up to Vernon's Section 9.4.3 FTR
29 entitlement on the path; Minus,
30 c. The charges paid by the PTO pursuant to ISO Tariff
City of Vernon, California
Docket No. EL04-
Exhibit No. VER-1
Page 11 of 11
1 Section 7.3.1.7, to the extent such charges are paid by the
2 SC of the PTO on congested inter -zonal interfaces that
3 are associated with the Section 9.4.3 FTRs provided to
4 the PTO. The Charge Type that is deducted under this
5 paragraph is hour ahead inter -zonal congestion debit to
6 SC (Charge Type 256) (ISO Tariff Section 7.3.1.7 (2)),
7 up to Vernon's Section 9.4.3 FTR entitlement on the
8 path.
9
10 Exhibit No. VER-9 summarizes this Net FTR Revenue calculation for invoices
11 received by Vernon during the twelve-month period ending September 30, 2003
12 by revenue type and Charge Type classifications. Exhibit No. VER-9 shows
13 $179,134 of revenues attributable to ISO Charge Types 204 and 254 and
14 $20,369 of hourly net charges attributable to ISO Charge Types 203, 253, 255,
15 and 256. (The underlying hourly gross charges attributable to ISO Charge
16 Types 203, 253, 255, and 256 are shown as $25,687.)
17
18 Exhibit No. VER-10 breaks the total FTR revenues and total charges shown in
19 Exhibit No. VER-9 down into monthly amounts by ISO Charge Type.
20
21 Q. Does this conclude your prepared direct testimony?
22 A. Yes.
AFFIDAVIT OF
PETER J. LANZALOTTA
State of South Carolina )
) ss.
County of Beaufort )
Peter J. Lanzalotta, being duly sworn, deposes and states that the foregoing Direct
Testimony prepared on behalf of the City of Vernon, California, and the attached exhibits, were
prepared by him or at his direction and under his supervision, that he would respond in the same
manner as shown therein if asked the questions therein, and that the facts contained therein are
true and correct to the best of his knowledge, information, and belief.
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO before me, this 2nd day of December, 2003.
N ARY -PUBLIC in and for
the State of South Carolina. My
commission expires
NOTARIAL SEAL
City of Vernon, California
Docket No. ELO -
Exhibit VER-2
Page 1 of 2
2 Prior Experience Of Peter J. Lanzalotta
3
4 Mr. Lanzalotta has more than twenty-five years experience in electric utility
5 system planning, power pool operations, distribution operations, electric
6 service reliability, load and price forecasting, and market analysis and
7 development. Mr. Lanzalotta has appeared as an expert witness on utility
8 reliability, planning, and operation matters in more than 60 proceedings in
9 16 states, the District of Columbia, and the Provinces of Alberta and
10 Ontario. He has developed evaluations of electric utility system cost, value,
11 reliability, and condition. He has participated in negotiations between
12 utilities and customers or regulators in more than ten states regarding
13 transmission access, the need for facilities, electric rates, electric service
14 reliability, the value of electric system components, and system operator
15 structure under wholesale competition.
16
17 Prior to his forming Lanzalotta & Associates LLC in 2001, he was a Partner
18 at Whitfield Russell Associates for fifteen years and a Senior Associate for
19 approximately four years before that. He holds a Bachelor of Science in
20 Electric Power Engineering from Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute and a
21 Master of Business Administration with a concentration in Finance from
22 Loyola College of Baltimore.
23
24 Prior to joining Whitfield Russell Associates in 1982, Mr. Lanzalotta was
25 employed by the Connecticut Municipal Electric Energy Cooperative
26 ("CMEEC") as a System Engineer. He was responsible for providing
27 operational, financial, and rate expertise to Coop's budgeting, ratemaking
28 and system planning processes. He participated on behalf of CMEEC in the
29 Hydro-Quebec/New England Power Pool Interconnection projegt and
30 initiated the development of a database to support CMEEC's pool billing
31 and financial data needs.
32
33 Prior to his CMEEC employment, he served as Chief Engineer at the South
34 Norwalk (Connecticut) Electric Works, with responsibility for planning,
35 data processing, engineering, rates and tariffs, generation and bulk power
City of Vernon, California
Docket No. EL0_-
Exhibit VER-2
Page 2 of 2
1 sales, and distribution operations. While at South Norwalk, he conceived
2 and implemented, through Northeast Utilities and NEPOOL, a peak -shaving
3 plan for South Norwalk and a neighboring municipal electric utility, which
4 resulted in substantial power supply savings. He programmed and
5 implemented a computer system to perform customer billing and maintain
6 accounts receivable accounting. He also helped manage a generating station
7 overhaul and the undergrounding of the distribution system in South
8 Norwalk's downtown.
9
10 From 1977 to 1979, Mr. Lanzalotta worked as a public utility consultant for
11 Van Scoyoc & Wiskup and separately for Whitman Requart & Associates in
12 a variety of positions. During this time, he developed cost of service, rate
13 base evaluation, and rate design impact data to support direct testimony and
14 exhibits in a variety of utility proceedings, including utility price squeeze
15 cases, gas pipeline rates, and wholesale electric rate cases.
16
17 Prior to that, He worked for approximately 2 years as a Service Tariffs
18 Analyst for the Finance Division of the Baltimore Gas & Electric Company
19 where he developed cost and revenue studies, evaluated alternative rate
20 structures, and studied the rate structures of other utilities for a variety of
21 applications. He was also employed by BG&E in Electric System
22 Operations for approximately 3 years, where his duties included operations
23 analysis, outage reporting, and participation in the development of BG&E's
24 first computerized customer information and service order system.
25
26 Mr. Lanzalotta is a member of the Institute of Electrical & Electronic
27 Engineers, the National Society of Professional Engineers, the Association
28 of Energy Engineers, the National Fire Protection Association, the
29 American Solar Energy Society, and the Financial Management,
30 Association. He is also registered Professional Engineer in the states of
31 Maryland and Connecticut.
City of Vernon, California
Docket No. ELO_-
Exhibit VER-3
Page 1 of 12
Proceedings In Which
Peter J. Lanzalotta
Has T s ifi d
1. In re: Public Service Company of New Mexico, Docket Nos. ER78-337
and ER78-338 before the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission,
concerning the need for access to calculation methodology underlying
filing.
2. In re: Baltimore Gas and Electric CompaU, Case No. 7238-V before the
Maryland Public Service Commission, concerning outage replacement
power costs.
3. In re: Houston Loghting & Power Company, Texas Public Utilities
Commission Docket No. 4712, concerning modeling methods to determine
rates to be paid to cogenerators and small power producers.
4. In re: Nevada Power Company, Nevada Public Service Commission,
Docket No. 83-707 concerning rate case fuel inventories, rate base items,
and O&M expense.
5. In re: Virginia Electric & Power Company, Virginia State Corporation
Commission, Case No. PUE820091, concerning the operating and
reliability -based need for additional transmission facilities.
6. In re: Puhlic Service Electric Gas Company-, New Jersey Board of
Public Utilities, Docket No. 831-25, concerning outage replacement power
costs.
7. In re: Philadelphia Electric Company. Pennsylvania Public Utilities
Commission, Docket No. P-830453, concerning outage replacement power
costs.
City of Vernon, California
Docket No. ELO_-
Exhibit VER-3
Page 2 of 12
Proceedings In Which
Peter J. Lanzalotta
Has Testified
8. In re! Cincinnati (was & Flectric Company, Public Utilities Commission
of Ohio, Case No. 83-33-EL-EFC, concerning the results of an
operations/fuel-use audit conducted by Mr. Lanzalotta.
9. In re: Kansas City Power and Light Company, before the State
Corporation Commission of the state of Kansas, Docket Nos. 142,099-U
and 120,924-U, concerning the determination of the capacity, from a new
base -load generating facility, needed for reliable system operation, and the
capacity available from existing generating units.
10. In re: Philadelphia Electric Company., Pennsylvania Public Utilities
Commission, Docket No. R-850152, concerning the determination of the
capacity, from a new base -load generating facility, needed for reliable
system operation, and the capacity available from existing generating units.
11. In_re-_ ARC Method Pronosed for Annliention to Pnhlie 4erviee
Company of Colorado, before the Public Utilities Commission of the State
of Colorado, on behalf of the Federal Executive Agencies ("FEA"),
concerning a production cost allocation methodology proposed for use in
Colorado.
12. In re! Duquesne Light Company, Docket No. R-870651, before the
Pennsylvania Public Utilities Commission, on behalf of the Office of
Consumer Advocate, concerning the system reserve margin needed for
reliable service.
13. In re: Pennsylvania Power Company, Docket No. I-7970318 before the
Pennsylvania Public Utilities Commission, on behalf of the Office of
Consumer Advocate, concerning outage replacement power costs.
City of Vernon, California
Docket No. ELO_-
Exhibit VER-3
Page 3 of 12
Proceedings In Which
Peter J. Lanzalotta
Has Testified
14. In re: Commonwealth Fdison Company, Docket No. 87-0427 before the
Illinois Commerce Commission, on behalf of the Citizen's Utility Board of
Illinois, concerning the determination of the capacity, from new base -load
generating facilities, needed for reliable system operation.
15. In re: Central Illinois Publie'Rervice Company, Docket No. 88-0031
before the Illinois Commerce Commission, on behalf of the Citizen's Utility
Board of Illinois, concerning the degree to which existing generating
capacity is needed for reliable and/or economic system operation.
16. In re: Tllinois Power Comtjanv, Docket No. 87-0695 before the State of
Illinois Commerce Commission, on behalf of Citizens Utility Board of
Illinois, Governors Office of Consumer Services, Office of Public Counsel
and Small Business Utility Advocate, concerning the determination of the
capacity, from a new base -load generating facility, needed for reliable
system operation, and the capacity available from existing generating units.
17. In re: Florida Power Corporation, Docket No. 860001-EI-G (Phase II),
before the Florida Public Service Commission, on behalf of the Federal
Executive Agencies of the United States, concerning an investigation into
fuel supply relationships of Florida Power Corporation.
18. In re: Potomac Electric Power Company, before the Public Service
Commission of the District of Columbia, Docket No. 877, on behalf of the
Public Service Commission Staff, concerning the need for and ayailability
of new generating facilities.
City of Vernon, California
Docket No. EL0_-
Exhibit VER-3
Page 4 of 12
Proceedings In Which
Peter J. Lanzalotta
Has Testified
19. In re: South Carolina Electric & Gas Company, before the South
Carolina Public Service Commission, Docket No. 88-681-E, On Behalf of
the State of Carolina Department of Consumer Affairs, concerning the
capacity needed for reliable system operation, the capacity available from
existing generating units, relative jurisdictional rate of return, reconnection
charges, and the provision of supplementary, backup, and maintenance
services for QFs.
20. In re: Commonwealth Edison Company , Illinois Commerce Commission,
Docket Nos. 87-0169, 87-04271 88-0189, 88-0219, and 88-0253, on behalf
of the Citizen's Utility Board of Illinois, concerning the determination of the
capacity, from a new base -load generating facility, needed for reliable
system operation.
21. In re: Illinois Power Com any., Illinois Commerce Commission, Docket
No. 89-0276, on behalf of the Citizen's Utility Board Of Illinois, concerning
the determination of capacity available from existing generating units.
22. In re: Jersey. Central Power & Light Company, New Jersey Board of
Public Utilities, Docket No. EE88-121293, on behalf of the State of New
Jersey Department of the Public Advocate, concerning evaluation of
transmission planning.
23. In re: Canal Flectric Come, before the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission, Docket No. ER90-245-000, on behalf of the Municipal Light
Department of the Town of Belmont, Massachusetts, concerning the
reasonableness of Seabrook Unit No. 1 Operating and Maintenance
expense.
City of Vernon, California
Docket No. ELO_-
Exhibit VER-3
Page 5 of 12
Proceedings In Which
Peter I Lanzalotta
Has Testified
24. In re: New Hampshire Electric Cooperative Rate Plan .Proposal, before
the New Hampshire Public Utilities Commission, Docket No. DR90-078, on
behalf of the New Hampshire Electric Cooperative, concerning contract
valuation.
25. In re: Connecticut Light Power Comp, before the Connecticut
Department of Public Utility Control, Docket No. 90-04-14, on behalf of a
group of Qualifying Facilities concerning O&M expenses payable by the
QFs.
26. In re: nuke Power Company, before the South Carolina Public Service
Commission, Docket No. 91-216-E, on behalf of the State of South Carolina
Department of Consumer Advocate, concerning System Planning, Rate
Design and Nuclear Decommissioning Fund issues.
27. In re: Jersey Central Power & Light Comb, before the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, Docket No. ER91-480-000, on behalf of
the Boroughs of Butler, Madison, Lavallette, Pemberton and Seaside
Heights, concerning the appropriateness of a separate rate class for a large
wholesale customer.
28. In re: Potomac Electric Power Company., before the Public Service
Commission of the District of Columbia, Formal Case No. 912, on behalf of
the Staff of the Public Service Commission of the District of Columbia,
concerning the Application of PEPCO for an increase in retail rates for the
sale of electric energy.
29. Coinmonw .al h of Pennsylvania, Honse of Representatives, General
Assembly House Bill No. 2273. Oral testimony before the Committee on
Conservation, concerning proposed Electromagnetic Field Exposure
Avoidance Act.
City of Vernon; California
Docket No. ELO_-
Exhibit VER-3
Page 6 of 12
Proceedings In Which
Peter J. Lanzalotta
Has Testified
30. In re: Hearings on the 1990 Ontario Hvdro Demand\Sullply Plan,
before the Ontario Environmental Assessment Board, concerning Ontario
Hydro's System Reliability Planning and Transmission Planning.
31. In re: Mani Electric C mlla�, Docket No. 7000, before the Public
Utilities Commission of the State of Hawaii, on behalf of the Division of
Consumer Advocacy, concerning MECO's generation system, fuel and
purchased power expense, depreciation, plant additions and retirements,
contributions and advances.
32. In re: Hawaiian Electric Company. Inc., Docket No. 7256, before the
Public Utilities Commission of the State of Hawaii, on behalf of the
Division of Consumer Advocacy, concerning need for, design of, and
routing of proposed transmission facilities.
33. In re: Col h Edison Com anv, Docket No. 94-0065 before the
Illinois Commerce Commission on behalf of the City of Chicago,
concerning the capacity needed for system reliability.
34. In re: Commonw .al h Edison Com anv, Docket No. 93-0216 before the
Illinois Commerce Commission on behalf of the Citizens for Responsible
Electric Power, concerning the need for proposed 138 kV transmission and
substation facilities.
35. In re: Cornmonw .al h Edison Com anv, Docket No. 92-0221, before the
Illinois Commerce Commission on behalf of the Friends of Illinois Prairie
Path, concerning the need for proposed 138 kV transmission and substation
facilities.
36. In re: Commonw .alth Edison Com anv, Docket No. 94-0179 before the
Illinois Commerce Commission on behalf of the Friends of Sugar Ridge,
City of Vernon, California
Docket No. ELO_-
Exhibit VER-3
Page 7 of 12
Proceedings In Which
Peter J. Lanzalotta
Has Testified
concerning the need for proposed 138 kV transmission and substation
facilities.
37. In re: Puhlic Service Comfy of Colorado, Docket Nos. 95A-531EG
and 95I-464E before the Colorado Public Utilities Commission on behalf of
the Office of Consumer Counsel, concerning a proposed merger with
Southwestern Public Service Company and a proposed performance -based
rate -making plan.
39.
and Carolina Power & Light Company., Docket No. 95-1192-E, before
the South Carolina Public Service Commission on behalf of the South
Carolina Department of Consumer Advocate, concerning avoided cost rates
payable to qualifying facilities.
Case No. 55899, before the Superior Court of the State of California on
behalf of Truckee Dormer Public Utility District, concerning the
reasonableness of electric rates.
40. In re: Black Hills Power & light Company-, Docket No. OA96-75-000,
before the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission on behalf of the City of
Gillette, Wyoming, concerning the Black Hills' proposed open access
transmission tariff.
r,
41. In re- Metronolitan Fdison Camnnnv and Pennevlvanin Fleetrie
Company -for Approvals of the Restructuring Plan Under Section 2806,
Docket Nos. R-00974008 and R-00974009 before the Pennsylvania PUC on
behalf of Operating NUG Group, concerning miscellaneous restructuring
issues.
City of Vernon, California
Docket No. ELO_-
Exhibit VER-3
Page 8 of 12
Proceedings In Which
Peter J. Lanzalotta
Has Testified
42. In re: New jerseyState Restructurong Proeeed*ne for consideration of
proposals for retail competition under BPU Docket Nos. EX94120585U;
E097070457; E097070460; E097070463; E097070466 before the New
Jersey BPU on behalf of the New Jersey Division of Ratepayer Advocate,
concerning load balancing, third party settlements, and market power.
43. In re: Arbitration Proceeding In City of Chicago v Commonwealth
Edison for consideration of claims that franchise agreement has been
breached, Proceeding No. 51 Y-114-3 50-96 before an arbitration panel
board on behalf of the City of Chicago concerning electric system
reliability.
44. In re: Transalta Utilities Corporation, Application No. RE 95081 on
behalf of the ACD companies, before the Alberta Energy And Utilities
Board in reference to the use and value of interruptible capacity.
45. In re: Consolidated Edison Company, Docket No. EL99-58-000 on
behalf of The Village of Freeport, New York, before FERC in reference to
remedies for a breach of contract to provide firm transmission service on a
non-discriminatory basis.
46. In re: ESRI Alberta Ltd__ Application No. 990005 on behalf of the FIRM
Customers, before the Alberta Energy And Utilities Board concerning the
reasonableness of the cost of service plus management fee proposed for
1999 and 2000 by the transmission administrator. ,
47. In re: South Carolina Electric & Gas Company, Docket No. 2000-0170-
E on behalf of the South Carolina Department of Consumer Affairs before
the Public Service Commission of South Carolina concerning an application
for a Certificate of Environmental Compatibility and Public Convenience
and Necessity for new and repowered generating units at the Urquhart
City of Vernon, California
Docket No. ELO_-
Exhibit VER-3
Page 9 of 12
Proceedings In Which
Peter J. Lanzalotta
Has Testified
generating station.
48. In re: RGL Case No. 8837 on behalf of the Maryland Office of People's
Counsel before the Maryland Public Service Commission concerning
proposed electric line extension charges.
49. In re: PEPC.n_ Case No. 8844 on behalf of the Maryland Office of
People's Counsel before the Maryland Public Service Commission
concerning proposed electric line extension charges.
50. In re: G .nPow .r Anderson T.T .0 Docket No. 2001-78-E on behalf of the
South Carolina Department of Consumer Affairs before the Public Service
Commission of South Carolina concerning an application for a Certificate of
Environmental Compatibility and Public Convenience and Necessity for
new generating units at the GenPower Anderson LLC generating station.
51. In re: Pike County Light & Power Company, Docket No. P-00011872,
on behalf of Pennsylvania Office of Consumer Advocate before the
Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission concerning the Pike County
request for a retail rate cap exception.
52. In re: Potomac Electric Power Company and Conectiv, Case No. 8890,
on behalf of the Maryland Office of People's Counsel before the Maryland
Public Service Commission concerning the proposed merger of Potomac
Electric Power Company and Conectiv. 1.
53. In re: South Carolina Electric & Gas Company- Docket No. 2001-420-E
on behalf of the South Carolina Department of Consumer Affairs before the
Public Service Commission of South Carolina concerning an application for
a Certificate of Environmental Compatibility and Public Convenience and
Necessity for new generating units at the Jasper County generating station.
City of Vernon, California
Docket No. ELO_-
Exhibit VER-3
Page 10 of 12
Proceedings In Which
Peter J. Lanzalotta
Has Tes ifi .cl
54. In re: Conn .cticut Tight & Power Comna_nv Docket No. 217 on behalf
of the Towns of Bethel, Redding, Weston, and Wilton, Connecticut before
the Connecticut Siting Council concerning an application for a Certificate of
Environmental Compatibility and Public Need for a new transmission line
facility between Plumtree Substation, Bethel and Norwalk Substation,
Norwalk.
55. In re! The City of Vernon, CaNfornia Docket No. EL02-103 on behalf of
the City of Vernon before the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
concerning Vernon's transmission revenue balancing account adjustment
reflecting calendar year 2001 transactions.
56. In re: San Di ¢n Gas & Elec,tric, Company et al., Docket No. EL00-95-
045 on behalf of the City of Vernon, California before the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission concerning refunds and other monies payable in the
California wholesale energy markets.
57. In re: The City of Vernon, California Docket No. EL03-31 on behalf of
the City of Vernon before the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
concerning Vernon's transmission revenue balancing account adjustment
reflecting 2002 transactions.
58. In re: Jersey Central Power & Ught Company,, Docket Nos. .
ER02080506, ER020805079 ER02030173, and EO02070417 oR behalf of
the New Jersey Division of Ratepayer Advocate before the New Jersey
Board of Public Utilities concerning reliability issues involved in the
approval of an increase in base tariff rates.
• MUM ' - # • 1
��VTM i o
City of Vernon, California
Docket No. ELO_-
Exhibit VER-3
Page 11 of 12
Proceedings In Which
Peter J. Lanzalotta
Has Testified
PSC Regulation Docket No. 50, on behalf of the Delaware Public Service
Commission Staff before the Delaware Public Service Commission
concerning proposed electric service reliability rules, standards and indices.
60. In re! Central Maine Power Company, -Docket No. 2002-665, on behalf
of the Maine Public Advocate and the Town of York before the Maine
Public Utilities Commission concerning a Request for Commission
Investigation into the New CMP Transmission Line Proposal for Eliot,
Kittery, and York.
61. In re: Metropolitan Edson Company, Docket No. C-20028394, on behalf
of the Pennsylvania Office of Consumer Advocate, before the Pennsylvania
Public Utility Commission concerning the reliability service complaint of
Robert Lawrence.
City of Vernon, California
Docket No. ELO_-
Exhibit VER-3
Page 12 of 12
Proceedings In Which
Peter J. Lanzalotta
Has Tes ifi d
62. In re! The C'atiforn*a Indenendent SXstem Operator Corporation.
Docket No. ER00-2019 et al. on behalf of the City of Vernon, California
before the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission concerning wholesale
transmission tariffs, rates and rate structures proposed by the California
ISO.
City of Vernon, California
Docket No. EL04-
Exhibit No. VER-4
A B C D E F G H
1
2
3
CITY OF VERNON
4
TRANSMISSION REVENUE BALANCING ACCOUNT ADJUSTMENT (TRBAA)
5
CALENDAR
YEAR 2004
6
7
DESCRIPTION
TOTAL'
8
9
Balance in TRBA on September 30, 2003
$52,379-T-
10
including interest
11
12
Forecast Wheeling Revenues
($119,428)
13
14
Forecast Net FTR Revenues
1
($158,765)i
15
16
17
18
TRBAA
�
($ - 5,814);
�
19
-
20
-
—
21
Source:
22
Line 9
Exhibit No. VER-5, Column N, Line No. 52.
23
Line 12
Exhibit No. VER-7, Column C, Line No. 23.
24
Line 14
Exhibit No. VER-7, Column D, Line No. 23.
-
26
r
27
i
-
— --
28
29
30
-I
-
31
YA
TRBAA-04 Exhibit Prep C 11 19 03 11/19/2003
W
O
S
O
N
O
n N
0
Im S
O
O
O
.O
N O
O
tP�i
V O
d1
tU
t�
W
m N
N
Q
fV N
m
tV
l7
O
O
O
O
O
Cl
ONO
lh
N N
N
N
O
m
O
fV
IN
fM
O O
C'I Ol
z
m 0
O
M H
H
m H
P
W
N Q
N
N
tNI N
m
Q
H
H
H
Q
Q
Q H
C
H
H
V
Q tP�l
yy
O
O
O
O)
M
G
N N
YI
tG
Vl
O
O
o
rn
N
N tN
Ih
O$
N
Mm
m
O
m
N
M
M
M
N
W
H
O
a
Om
H
IH
M
H
O
H
H
H
H
^
H
H
P
H
co
S
H
H
D
W
¢
Ix
z
O
r
N
O
m
m
m
N O
O
O
M
mm
W
m N
0
M
O
H
H
M H
m
m
N
O
fV
, qw
m
��
LL' LL
Q
O
Q
N
W
Y
N
P
I�
O
cq
M
M
m
W
N
M
N
m
F F-
m
H
N
m
W
W
Q H
O
ro
W�
W
W
H
OOi
W W
z Z
Z
'<
z
mI
IN O
O
O
W
m
O
W ems'
N
N
O
O
O
O
O
S
$
O
O
2' O
m0
O
O
�
Z
8
z O
N
M N
W
O N
m
pmp
mQ04
N
w
S
H
w
OHKH
O
o
O
Y
cM
I j
O
m
M
(
O
N
W
O
n
Q
I
Im
m
H
H
H
H
W
W
Iz
2 C
z
z
IW
2 C
W W
f"ZUMm
N $$$
$
M H
H
H
N
I
O
IH
O
O
O
O
O�NO
O
;
NO
ON
�,ryQS
H
H
H
H
HQH
H
vi
c�
.w
S
NmN
$
$H
NQ,I�O
OH
a
H
O
w
O N
I H
H
HS
H
H
Oo
Z
H
MH
N
I
a
l
Wm
H
i t
> w
ll
OmV
WQ
0
O
O
NQ OOH
_
W
>
I
8•`�
O
O
hH<
�
7'0
1Qh
UD
HS
HO
HOO
HOO
HOO
OHO
U KZ
1mm_n
Hi
N
h
N
imq
H
OH
H
H
I
7
fC1
I--
I O
N
y
N O
O
N
O
ONI
Cm1.
m
Omi N
?
`O
S
O
O
O
S
N O
O
I
-
1 C
W
M
0
amD
O OH
W
ap
m
Q
Nj
O
O
O
O
O
O
Q C
O
I
i 0
(J
V%
Z
2
W,
M
m
Of
N
M Q
N
(N�l.
(ntpp
I
C
C
tOI
O
S
n
O
W
b
I
I
}
mQmQ
O
O
O
O
A
aD
(p
M N
�(j �
M
lV
Q
m
O
O
O
O�
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
�[f 0
H O
O
O
I
'
I 0
I
I
H
H
H
E
MI
W
� o
o
o
o
n
m
o
o
m
mm
n
o
m
m a�
<ymo
m
P
o
0
0
$
0
o
ae o
0
I
!
w
I`m
E
No
N
10
O
O
�U
O
o
e.P
(U
Ol
P
r
m
m
I
o
O
H'
o
O
H
o
O
H
O
H
o
O
H
omol
o
HQH
v o
o
O
H
I
W
NQ$
a
I
�
a
E$
Q O
O
W
O
P
r
N
P P
'T
P
O
O
Oj
OI
O
O
O
O
O
O
ONO
O
P O
O
O
o
Q
>
N
m
QH
M
M
mH
N
N
N
I
a
z
H
H
w
H
H
I
I
I
I
I
m
E
I`
oI
nl m
o
o
$
a
o
of
mn
m�
M
v�
N2
�nQ
N
Q
W
o
Iol
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
oXo
ouzo
o
OI
I
I R
Id
N
M G
O IQ
K
OH
N
HI
N
W
'
mm
t+l Q
M
O
10
O
O
O
O
O
n O
OI
I
U
O$
O
N
m w
I
�
Q
m
Om
M
m<
M
H
ro
I I
I
I
I
C
N
N
m
O
U
I
Q
N
Q
N
Q
M
N
0I
I
I
!
tm�l
I
I r
I
I
�
I
I O
Z
'
Ioi
0
m
y
�
OI
O
z
w
I
mU
Z O
O ti
w
z
U j
`s
w
K
!
I
J
a
ClON=
<
zo
0
Z
mm
W j
O Gj
O.
m
z
I
m
Z
O
J
I
U
I I
I
ZI ul
z op
z
Z
`?
3
E
rc,
W
I
m
IW
Q
I I
I
O
g I W
O NZ
y C7
W
w IC
O N
M
I n�
<
W
p
I
N
�.
��'
�'. LL.
w u
W W
w
F'W
z
S
3:0
m
I
I
I
I
l
a
m l
W..
w w
3 1 �_
f �o
w .
z
°w
w
U
_�
Z
W
U' I p
�� _�
w p Z
f7
�wN
O;
m
j
I�
��
oz
Q
0�
<
a
c
w
0
s
c
i
Z
��LLa
0
m K
m
O
m
m
TW
W
FO
W
m
01
W
I
I,
ZI aoxyo
zI to
xz 4w
>o
ap
c�
mn
�ww
c�
c
c
¢WOz
>z
mwm
m
x
W
Y u Z
W
7 m
K a'
K I
p I
O
1.
} z
z
>
m is
I
oa io
U{
Yo
1- I
io zai
w
a??
Iw
I
a
m
I O�
_�
=aW'
w`
N
N N N
N N
N N
N N
M M
I
�
op$p$$
I
oO$Oo
oO$O$
$o
I
op$po
$$$$
o$p$OpoO
IN
oo
I$o$o
O
N
HNHH
HHH
NHH
HNW
p$p
I
HHW
I HOHH
H
I
I
H.9H
pp
H
H
H
I
HHO
$$$p$p
$$$
$$p$
O
H
H N
H
H
W W
-,.,a
p$pS$
- H
W N
p$o$$
H N H
oo$p$op$op$O
N
W W
H
p$ooS$
H
M H
H
p$
w
p$
M
po$$$$
y
H
O
$$$$
$o$
o$$
$$$
$$$
awn.$
N�.fOn.mn
N
1
N
CGp
HHW
GOp
HHH
py0pp
WW
HW
ppG
HI
pp
HHH
aIH
NN
m
�m
M H
l-O
Hnn
W
N
N
O�
NHW;g
OiN
ci
yNy
M
W
$$$p$p
$p$p$
$$$Gp
'$$
$S$$
K
O
HHHH
ppS$
NHH
HHH
ONH
O HM
p$p$$p$p
NNH.9
ONNH
pp$
b
p$p
H
p$p$$$
(HHMO
00
00 O
O
O
O O
O
O
O O
O
Oo
O
O O
O OI
00
0 0
O O
O
O $
0
0 0
S
S
O
O O
O
O
O
'
H
OOO
H N
H
p p
N H
H
p
M N
pO
H
H H
ee
H H H
H
OO
N W
H
N S.
Op
H
pp
W
p
H
G
H H
O
I
i
a
c
o
a
S
$wo
S$
o$$
$woH
$'$
O�y�
$
$
w$w
o
$o
0
c!
I.R$..9
00
.Sm$&S
0 0
00
$oo
o
o
0
0
w
o$
0
la4i$$o
$o
Em
o0
poo
G$
0
o000
ONM
0
$o
o$
$oo
00
OO
o$
$
p
o$o
p
o$$
pp
'$
O
$$$g$
IH
p
O
tlg
HH19I
H
WHH
iH
YIH
HHH
HHH
NHN
H
H
WHO
i+
m
I
l
V
7
0
pOp
N
p Op O
H H
O
O
S p Op
H .9
O
O
H
O O
H N
O
H
o Op O
W N
p$p
W
ppO O
W N
pp$
H
O
O O
O
922
S $
S
S
S
'gig
S O
S
O
2
C
0
m
LL
I14
.
I
O
p0
yyy
a»H
MH»
»
aSv
181.18
.
SS
�H»
NOOHS3Sp,
I 66o0
$
»Hq
jO
pOOO
J
S
p$
HHH
pO O
S
HHN
S pp$
pSpIB
a
S
$
MNIH
ppO pOo
$
NON
$ $
SSp
Hw.o9
S S
pOp
.9-.2
S pOp
O
IH
O
88
NNIH
OO
o
0
NHOO
0 0
0
o
0 p0
p$o
0 0
po
O O
0
Co
0 0
IOO
pSp ppO
0
0 0
0
--{��-p
Io
it
I
Y
HHW
HIHO
HW
M�
I.q1
.9 .9
HN
IM
is
pof
'$
OOyl
OwO
Z
O
81.8
HNW
O O
O p Op
0
NHOO
I
0 0
0 0
0
0
O
O
WHNO
O O
OpO pp
O
O
S.$
S
N
S
0O
0$$p
i
S
S S
O
p$$p$
gas
I
I
S
IO
I
O
O
O
gar
HHNH
i
H
W
HNO
.I
N
V
CmNNN
Cy
O
N V
O
O h
N
0
0 0
0
c O
S N
N
m W
V 0
W
W f
r
fS
'H
fWHOr^Hj
G
W
H
/DyHNy
H
OHW�ia
.9
Vl
!S-HHNM
~WHNN
e9N
1/1
ONHNN
I
N'NII
Q
C W
H H
.m5
r
r0
E
0
U
m
o
E
amm-
0..
-`mm.
E
a�am�'-`m
E
E
E
E
amm'm
E
o e
Q
a
NjJ
y�7
NJIg
�>j
I IN
795
EE
�N
I
f IO
>
=
W
m
a
O
O
G
�
W
O
m
m
W
�
ici
I Y
I
N
`N'II
ol
ao'm
z3
�{N
Ntp
leap
W Nam-
N NN
ONNPb
N
NNN
W O, e-N th
M.O
aa~M.n
�O�aD
W
OY Y
V O
Y V
00
W
N.-�np
NN n
City of Vernon, California
Docket No. EL04-
Exhibit No. VER-7
A B I C D
E
1
CITY OF VERNON
2
FORECAST TRANSMISSION CREDITS
3
CALENDAR YEAR 2004
4
5
6
Month
Wheeling
Net FTR
Total
7
8
January-04
($9,952.30)
($13,230.44)
($23,182.75)
9
February-04
($9,952.30)
($13,230.44)
($23,182.75)
10
March-04
($9,952.30)
($13,230.44)
($23,182.75)
11
April-04
($9,952.30)
($13,230.44)
($23,182.75)
12
May-04
($9,952.30)
($13,230.44)
($23,182.75)
13
June-04
($9,952.30)
($13,230.44)
($23,182.75)
14
July-04
($9,952.30)
($13,230.44)
($23,182.75)
15
August-04
($9,952.30)
($13,230.44)
($23,182.75)
16
September-04
($9,952.30)
($13,230.44)
($23,182.75)
17
October-04
($9,952.30)
($13,230.44)
($23,182.75)
18
November-04
($9,952.30)
($13,230.44)
($23,182.75)
19
December-04
($9,952.30)
($13,230.44)
($23,182.75)
20
21
--
22
---
23 ITotal
($119,427.61
$158,765.34)
($278,192.95
TRBAA-04 Exhibit Prep C 11 19 03 11/19/2003
City of Vernon, California
Docket No. EL04-
Exhibit No. VER-8
A B C D E
F
1
�
i
2
Vernon Historical Transmission Credits
3
4
Wheeling Revenues
5
ISO Invoice
ISO Invoice
6
Month
CT 384
CT 3384
7
(Cash Basis)
Final
Final
Total
8
9
October-02
($41,812.41)
($41,812.41)
10
November-02
($33,429.87)
($33,429.87)
11
December-02
($10,386.57)
($10,386.57)
12
Janua -03
($1,840.77)
($1,840.77)
13
February-03
($1,693.59)
($1,693.59)
14
March-03
($2,504.91)
($2,504.91).
151
April-03
($6,628.15)
($6,628.15)
16
May-03
($3,021.86)
($3,021.86)
17
June-03
($5,755.28)
$1,749.14
($4,006.14)1
18
Jul -03
($2,396.46)
$16,63,1.64
$14,235.18
19
August-03
($11,654.15)
($11,654.15),
20
September-03
($16,684.37)
($16.684.37)
21
22
($119.427.61)
23
--�
24
PTO Charges/ (Credits)
25
F CT 255
CT 204
CT 254
26
October-02
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
27
November-02
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
28
December-02
_
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
29
January-03
_
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00:
30
February-03
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
31
March-03
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
32
April-03
_ -
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
_
33
May-03i
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
34
June-03
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
35
July-03
_
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
36
August-03
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
37
September-03
0.00
$0.00
$0.00
38
39
40
41
Net FTR: Sum
of CT 204,CT 254,CT 203, CT 253,CT255,
CT 256
42
( Sum of Hourly Net FTR Revenue that is greater than zero )
43
1
1
1I
44
October-02
($50,626.68)
45
November-02
($2,087.65)
_
46
December-02
($485.68)
_
471
January-03
($4,987.99)
481
February-03
($2,904.92)
49
March-03
($3,267.03)
50
April-03
($593.40)
51
May-03
($1,851.45)
52
June-03
($58,261.29)
53
July-03
($19,055.39) I
54
August-03,
($10,859.89)1
55 1
September-03
3 783.96
7
[556_
8
TRBAA-04 Exhibit Prep C 11 19 03 11/19/2003
City of Vernon, California
Docket No. EL04-
Exhibit No. VER-9
A B C D E
1
�
2
Net Transmission FTR Revenue Break-out
3
4
_
Amount
5
Charge Type
Amount
(after hourly
Netting)
6
Revenues
7
204 and 254
($179,134.28)
($179,134.28)
8
9
Charges
10
203
$19,079.61
11
253
$1, 537.88
12
255
$214.12
13
256
$4,855.14
14
$25,686.75
$20,368.94
15
---
16
Net FTR
($153,447.53)
($158,765.34)
17
--
18
19
Note: Per the TO Tariff, amount undercharge type 253
20
includes expenses only. The net amount is ($1,158.10).
21
22
�
- --- i
—
23
— —
24
25
-- --
26
--
TRBAA-04 Exhibit Prep C 11 19 03 11/19/2003
City of Vernon, California
Docket No. EL04-
Exhibit No. VER-10
A B C D E F G
1
�
2
Net Transmission FTR Revenue Monthly Detail
3
-
4
Month
CT 203
CT 204
CT 253
CT 254
CT 255
CT 256
5
6
Jul-02
($48.08)
($48,050.30)
($0.24)
($2,673.77)
$57.68
7
Aug-02
($105.56)
($1,516.91)
($577.90)
$7.16
8
Sep-02
($467.78)
($18.60)
$0.70
9
Oct-02
($417.70)
($4,570.29)
10
Nov-02
($126.55)
$376.87
($3,155.45)
$0.21
$663.27
11
Dec-021
$110.00
($182.17)
$68.46
($3,201.76)
12
Jan-03
($593.40)
_
13
Feb-03
$60.00
($613.08)
($2,613.00)
($1,375.21)
$22.60
$134.28
14
Mar-03
($8,365.50)
($49,895.80)
151
Apr-03
$8,295.55
($27,177.70)
($79.20)
($468.62)
$45.28
$468.04
16
May-03
$8,046.15
($18,847.60)
($119.08)
$4.48
$275.35
17
Jun-03
laL21.56
d5.061.10)
llQ89.01
j$1,856.481
$76.01
12IL4.20
18
19
_
Total
$19.079.61
($110.826.391
($1.158.101
_($68.506.361
_
$214.12
14
20
TRBAA-04 Exhibit Prep C 11 19 03 11/19/2003
EXHIBIT
III
• o
� M Y
Transmission Owner Tariff (cont.)
0
APPENDIX I
Transmission Revenue Requirement and TRBAA
The Vernon Base Transmission Revenue Requirement is $10,216,178.
The TRBAA is a negative $ 225,814 for the 12-month period effective January 1, 2004.
All of Vernon's transmission facilities and Entitlements placed under the ISO's Operational
Control are High Voltage Facilities as defined by the ISO Tariff.
The TRBAA will be recalculated annually consistent with the ISO Tariff, approved by the
Vernon City Council, and provided to the ISO.
Authorized by City of Vernon
Ordinance No. 940
Issued on:
Resolution No. Effective: January 1, 2004
Third Revised Sheet No. 22
Superseding Second Revised Sheet No. 22
SUPPORTING
DOCUMENTS
4
LANZALOTTA & ASSOCL4TESLLC
PUBLIC UTILITY CONSULTANTS
9762 POLISHED STONE
COLUMBIA, MARYLAND 21046
Phone: (240) 456-0899
Facsimile: (240) 456-0898
E-Mail:petelanz@lanzalotta.com
PETER J. LANZALOTTA
Principal
By Federal Express
December 2, 2003
To: Jorge Somoano
From: Peter J. Lanzalotta q �
Re: Original Affidavit
Enclosed is my original notarized affidavit in the TRBAA proceeding.
AFFIDAVIT OF
PETER J. LANZALOTTA
State of South Carolina )
) ss.
County of Beaufort )
Peter J. Lanzalotta, being duly sworn, deposes and states that the foregoing Direct
Testimony prepared on behalf of the City of Vernon, California, and the attached exhibits, were
prepared by him or at his direction and under his supervision, that he would respond in the same
manner as shown therein if asked the questions therein, and that the facts contained therein are
true and correct to the best of his knowledge, information, and belief.
0'rA FARM,,
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO before me, this 2nd day of December, 2003.
N ARY P BLIC in and for
the State of South Carolina y
commission expires
NOTARIAL SEAL
SUPPORTING
DOCUMENTS
b � f
b
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
The City of Vernon will conduct a Public Hearing which
you may attend.
PLACE: Vernon City Hall
City Council Chambers
4305 Santa Fe Avenue
Vernon, CA 90058
DATE AND TIME: Wednesday, December 3, 2003, at 5:00
p.m., or as soon thereafter as the
matter may be heard
PURPOSE: To consider evidence to establish
Vernon's new Transmission Revenue
Balancing Account Adjustment for its
high voltage (over 200 kV) transmission
facilities and entitlements (all
located outside the City) pursuant to
Vernon's Transmission Owner Tariff
Any interested person may attend and may make an oral
presentation to the City Council at the time of the
hearing, or may present written comments prior to the
hearing.
If you challenge the approval of the establishment of
Vernon's new Transmission Revenue Balancing Account
Adjustment or any provision thereof in court, you may be
limited to raising only those issues you or someone else
raised at the hearing described in this notice or in
written correspondence delivered to the City of Vernon at,
or prior to, the meeting.
Information may be obtained by contacting the office
of the City Clerk at the above address.
The hearing may be continued or adjourned to a stated
time and place without further notice of a public hearing.
Dated: November 19, 2003
BRUCE V. MALKENHORST,
City Administrator/City Clerk
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES)
CITY OF VERNON )
AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING
ss
I, Gloria J. Orosco, Chief Deputy City Clerk, of the City of Vernon do
hereby certify that I had, on the 19th of November 2003, posted one
(1) copy of:
PUBLIC NOTICE to consider evidence to establish Vernon's new
Transmission Revenue Balancing Account Adjustment for its high
voltage (over 200kV) transmission facilities and entitlements
(all located outside the City) pursuant to Vernon's Transmission
Owner Tariff.
On each of the following place, to wit: on the bulletin board in the
lobby of the City Hall of the City of Vernon located at 4305 Santa Fe
Avenue, all in said City, there being no newspaper of general
circulation printed and published in the City of Vernon.
Gloria J. Orosco
Chief Deputy City Clerk
State of California )
) ss
County of Los Angeles)
On r� 3, R 6 3 before me,
Notary Public
personally appeared - 0,-d �670
Personally known to me sis ^f mar i -fac-t nry
^��id-a-p-) to be the person (.T) whose name ($') is/awe subscribed to the
within instrument and acknowledged to me t-hna�/she/they executed the
same in +ris/her/the-irr authorized capacity, and that by kris/her/t4te�-i-r
signature(-5) on the instrument the person(-e, or the entity upon
behalf of which the person(-e' acted, executed the instrument.
ITNESS my hand and official seal
IWI,NUEI.A GIF20N
Commission � 1328374 Z
z � Notary Public -California
® Los Angeles County
My Comm. Expires Nov 4, 2005
AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES) ss
CITY OF VERNON )
I, Martha S. Valenzuela, Office Manager, of the City of Vernon do
hereby certify that I did, on the 19th of November 2003, post two (2)
copies of:
PUBLIC NOTICE to consider evidence to establish Vernon's new
Transmission Revenue Balancing Account Adjustment for its high
voltage (over 200kV) transmission facilities and entitlements
(all located outside the City) pursuant to Vernon's Transmission
Owner Tariff.
On each of the following places, to wit: at the northwest corner of
38th Street and Santa Fe Avenue; the northeast corner of Leonis Blvd.,
and Pacific Blvd., all in said City, there being no newspaper of
general circulation printed and published in the City of Vernon.
Date:
Martha S. Valenzuela
Office Manager
State of California )
) ss
County of Los Angeles)
On o before me,
i I�_WA ,ice
. _
personally appeared Martha S. Valenzuela
Personally known to me (or known to me on the basis of satisfactory
evidence) to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the
within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the
same in his/her/their authorized capacity, and that by his/her/their
signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon
behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument.
WITNESS my hand and official seal
^ GLORIA /L7
J. OROSCO
•. COMM.11370778 0
NOTARY PUBLIC-CALIEORNIA
� Los Angeles County "�
MV Comm. Expires Aug. 27, 2006 ■+