HomeMy WebLinkAbout20111007Higgins Direct.pdfBOEHM, KURTZ & LOWRY
ATTORNS AT lAW36 EAT SE STRT
SUIT 1510
CICIATI, OHIO 45202
TELEPHONE (513) 421.2255
TELECOPIER (513) 421-764
,P\~ r= r r: f.,.~.:, ,:.:. '.'" r_ "'., l"'" _.... ~c._-
ini l OCT -7 PH l2: 57
VIA OVERNIGHT MAIL
October 6,2011
Jean D. Jewell, Secretary
Idaho Public Utilities Commission
P.O. Box 83720
472 W. Washington Street
Boise, Idaho 83720-0074
In re: Case No. IPC-E-ll-08
Dear Ms. Jewell:
Enclosed please find the original and (7) copies of the DIRCT TESTIMONY AN EXHllITS OF
KEVIN C. HIGGINS on behalf of THE KROGER CO. d//a FRED MEYER AN SMITH'S FOOD AN
DRUG to be fied in the above referenced matter. I also enclose a CD containing same in .Word and Excel
format.
Please place this document of file.Rlicr~"
KtJ.'¿ehm, Esq.
BOEHM, KURTZ & LOWRY
MLKkew
Ene\.
G:\ WORK\MLK\KROGER\IDAHO\IPC-E-ii-08\Commission letter.docx
y
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that tre copy of the foregoing was served by electronic mail (when available) and regular
U.s. mail, unless otherwise noted, this 6th day of October, 2011 to the following:~~Kurt J. Boehm, Esq.
IDAHO POWER COMPANY
Lisa D. Nordstrom
Donovan E. Walker
Jason B. Wiliams
Idaho Power Company
1221 W. Idaho St. (83702)
Boise, ID 83707-0070
E-mail: Inordstromt?idahopower.com
dwalkert?idaopower.com
jwillamscqidahopower.com
Bay Village, OH 44140
E-mail: tonvßyanke1.net
Gregory W. Said
Vice President, Regulatory Affairs
Idaho Power Company
1221 W. Idaho St. (83702)
PO Box 70
Boise, ID 83707-0070
E-mail: gsaidcqidahopower.com
INDUSTRIAL CUSTOMERS OF IDAHO
POWER:
Peter J. Richardson
Gregory M. Adams
Richardson & O'Leary, PLLC
515 N. 77th Street
PO Box 7218
Boise, ID 83702
E-mail: peterßùrichardsonandolearv.com
gregßùrichardsonandoleary.com
Don Reading
6070 Hill Road
Boise, ID 83703
E-mail: dradingcqmindspring.com
COMMISSION STAFF:
Donald L. Howell, II
Karl Klein
Deputy Attorneys General
Idaho Public Utilities Commission
472 W, Washington (83702)
PO Box 83720
Boise, ID 83720-0074
E-mail: don.howeiicqpuc.idaho.gov
kar1.kleinwuc.idaho.gov
THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF
ENERGY:
Arhur Perr Bruder
Attomey- Advisor
United States Department of Energy
1000 Independence Ave., SW
Washington, DC 20585
Email: Arur.bruderßùhg.doe.gov
IDAHO IRRGATION PUMPERS
ASSOCIATION, INC:
Eric L. Olsen
Racine, Olson, Nye, Budge & Bailey, Chartered
201 E. Center
PO Box 1391
Pocatello, ID 83204-1391
E-mail: eloßù.racine1aw.net
Anthony Yanicel
29814 Lake Road
Dwight Etheridge
Exeter Associates, Inc.
5565 Sterrett Place
Suite 310
Columbia, MD 21044
Email: detheridgeCfexeterassociates.com
Steven A. Porter
Assistant General Counsel
Electricity and Fossil Energy
United State Department of Energy
E-mail: steven.porterßùhg.doe.gov
G:\WORK\MLK\KROGER\IDAHO\lPC-E-II-08\Commission letter.docx
COMMITY ACTION PARTNRSHIP
ASSOCIATION OF IDAHO:
Brad M. Purdy, Attorney at Law
2019 N. 17th St.
Boise, ID 83702
E-mail: bmpurdvßhotmai1.com
MICRON TECHNOLOGY, INC:
Richard E. Malmgren
Sr. Asst. General Counsel
Micron Technology, Inc.
800 South Federal Way
Boise, ID 83716
E-mail: remalmgrenCfmicron.com
MaryV. York
Thorvald A. Nelson
Mark A. Davidson
Holland & Hart, LLP
6800 S. Fiddlers Green Circle
Suite 500
Greenwood Vilage, CO 80111
Email: rnyorkßùhollandhrt.com
tnelsonßùhollandhart.com
madavidsonßùhollandhart.com
IDAHO CONSERVATION LEAGUE:
Benjamin J. Otto
Idaho Conservation League
710 N. Sixth Street
PO Box 844
Boise, ID 83701
Email: bottocqidahoconservation.org
SNAKE RIVER ALLIANCE:
Ken Miller
Snake River Alliance
PO Box 1731
Boise, ID 83701
Email: kmilerCfsnakeriveralliance.org
G:\WORK\MLK\KROGER\IDAHO\lrC-E-II-08\Commission 1etter.docx
BEFORE THE
IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION )
OF IDAHO POWER COMPANY FOR )
AUTHORITY TO INCREASE ITS RATES )
AND CHARGES FOR ELECTRIC SERVICE )mID~O )
Ri=ri=i\Jr:~~ 'l.,,, .-.J '"~ Ii c¡t ;,'.. :,...'
2011 OCT -7 PH 12: 51
Case No. IPC-E-ll-08
Direct Testimony of Kevin C. Higgins
on behalf of
The Kroger Co.
October 7, 2011
DIRECT TESTIMONY OF KEVm C. HIGGINS1
2
3 Introduction
Please state your name and business address.4 Q.
5 A.
6
7 Q.
8 A.
9
10
11 Q.
12 A.
13
14
15
16
17 Q.
18 A.
19
20
21
22
23
24
Kevin C. Higgins, 215 South State Street, Suite 200, Salt Lake City, Utah,
84111.
By whom are you employed and in what capacity?
I am a Principal in the firm of Energy Strategies, LLC. Energy Strategies
is a private consulting firm specializing in economic and policy analysis
applicable to energy production, transportation, and consumption.
On whose behalf are you testifying in this proceeding?
My testimony is being sponsored by The Kroger Co. ("Kroger"). Kroger
is one of the largest retail grocers in the United States, and has over 25 accounts
served by Idaho Power, which together consume over 30 milion kWh per year. A
large portion of Kroger's load takes service under Schedule 9. Kroger's Schedule
9 load takes service at both secondar and primar voltage.
Please describe your professional experience and qualifications.
My academic background is in economics, and I have completed all
coursework and field examinations toward a Ph.D. in Economics at the University
of Utah. In addition, I have served on the adjunct faculties of both the University
of Utah and Westminster College, where I taught undergraduate and graduate
courses in economics. I joined Energy Strategies in 1995, where I assist private
and public sector clients in the areas of energy-related economic and policy
analysis, including evaluation of electrc and gas utilty rate matters.
HIGGINS /1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7 Q.
8 A.
9
10
11 Q.
12
13 A.
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
Prior to joining Energy Strategies, I held policy positions in state and local
governent. From 1983 to 1990, I was economist, then assistant director, for the
Utah Energy Offce, where I helped develop and implement state energy policy.
From 1991 to 1994, I was chief of staff to the chairman of the Salt Lake County
Commission, where I was responsible for development and implementation of a
broad spectrum of public policy at the local governent leveL.
Have you testifed previously before this Commission?
Yes. I testified in Idaho Power's 2008 general rate case, Case No. IPC-E-
08-102007; its 2007 general rate case, Case No. IPC-E-07-8; and in its 2003
general rate case, Case No. IPC-E-03-13.
Have you testified previously before any other state utilty regulatory
commissions?
Yes. I have testified in approximately 140 proceedings on the subjects of
utility rates and regulatory policy before state utilty regulators in Alaska,
Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Georgia, Ilinois, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky,
Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, New York,
Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Texas, Utah, Virginia,
Washington, West Virginia, and Wyoming. I have also fied affidavits in
proceedings at the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.
HIGGINS/2
1 Overview and Conclusions
What is the purpose of your testimony in this proceeding?
My testimony addresses the limited issue of the appropriate level of the
Energy Efficiency Rider, Schedule 91.
By way of background, is Kroger a part to the Stipulation that has been
filed in this case?
Yes. Kroger fully supports the Stipulation package. The matter of the
appropriate level of the Energy Efficiency Rider has been reserved in Section
II(a) of the Stipulation as a contested issue.
What is your recommendation to the Commission?
I recommend that the Commission approve the Stipulation as fied. In
addition, I recommend that the Energy Efficiency Rider be reduced from 4.75% to
3.40% to recognize that $11.2 milion in demand response program costs are
being shifted from energy efficiency funding into base rates pursuant to the
Stipulation. Even after my proposed reduction in the Energy Effciency Rider, the
fuding for non-demand-response programs wil increase by $1.2 milion relative
to pro forma levels due to the underlying 4.1 % rate increase proposed in the
Stipulation.
2 Q.
3 A.
4
5 Q.
6
7 A.
8
9
10 Q.
11 A.
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20 Energy Efficiency Rider Adjustment
21 Q.
22 A.
23
24 Q.
What is the current level of Idaho Power's Energy Efficiency Rider?
The current level of Idaho Power's Energy Effciency Rider, Schedule 91,
is 4.75%.
What is level of funding is recovered from this rider?
HIGGINS / 3
1 A.
2
3 Q.
4
5 A.
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
As shown in line 18, column (c) of Kroger Exhibit No. 501, approximately
$39.7 milion would be recovered through this rider in 2012 at current rates.!
Please explain the basis of your proposed adjustment to the Energy
Efficiency Rider.
Demand response program costs are currently recovered through the
Energy Efficiency Rider. In its rate case filing, Idaho Power proposed to shift
recovery of these costs, which amount to $11.2 milion, into base rates. Idaho
Power did not offer a corresponding reduction in the Energy Efficiency Rider to
recognize this change.
The Stipulation accepts the shifting of cost recovery from the Energy
Efficiency Rider into base rates, but reserves the question of the appropriate level
of the Energy Efficiency Rider. In my opinion, it would be reasonable to reduce
the Energy Efficiency Rider charge to account for fact that $11.2 milion in
current program costs wil be recovered in base rates going forward.
As shown in Kroger Exhibit No. 501 (line 18, column f), non-demand-
response program cost recovery through the Energy Efficiency Rider at current
rates amounts to $28.5 milion (for 2012). This amount can be recovered - at
current rates - with a 3.4% rider charge. Ifthis level of rider charge is applied to
the revenue requirement recommended in the Stipulation, revenues to fud non-
demand-response program wil increase by nearly $1.2 milion to $29.6 millon?
i This calculation is eonsistent with Idao Power Energy Effcieney Rider revenues presented in Idaho
Power Exhibits No. 47 (Sparks) and No. 43 (Youngblood) and includes expected Energy Effcieney Rider
reeovery from Hoku First Block sales effective Januar 1,2012.2 Additionally, going forward, $5.2 million in Custom Efficiency costs wil be booked as a regulatory asset,
providing additional headroom for non-demand-response programs relative to historical fuding levels.
HIGGINS /4
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8 Q.
9
10
11 A.
12
13
14
In light of these facts, I recommend that the Commission reduce the Energy
Efficiency Rider to 3.4%.
This approach allows for net growth in funding for non-demand-response
programs while being mindful of the overall rate impacts being borne by Idaho
Power customers. In contrast, shifting $11.2 milion into base rates while raising
those base rates by 4.1 % - and failing to adjust the Energy Efficiency Rider
charge downward - would pose an unreasonable cost burden on customers.
If the Energy Efficiency Rider is reduced to 3.4%, how would this surcharge
compare to those of other utities in the region that levy a percentage
surcharge?
In Table KCH-l, below, I have compiled a list ofthe utilities in the West,
of which I am aware, that levy a percentage surcharge for energy efficiency
program cost recovery.
Table KCH-l
15 Percentage Energy Efficiency Riders in Western States
16 Utility
17 El Paso Electrc (New Mexico)
18 Public Service Co. of New Mexico
19 Rocky Mountain Power (Idaho)
20 Rocky Mountain Power (Utah)
21 Rocky Mountain Power (Wyoming)
22
23
24
DSMRider
1.8052%
2.262%
3.40%
3.70% (Industrial) / 3.91 % (Residential)
0.43% (Industral) / 1.87% (Residential)
As shown in the table, a 3.4% surcharge is equal to the surcharge
approved for Rocky Mountain Power in Idaho, but is stil in the upper par of the
HIGGINS / 5
2
3
4 Q.
5 A.
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17 Q.
18 A.
range. Adopting my recommendation would result in a surcharge for Idaho
Power customers that is not out of line with what is charged elsewhere in the
region for energy efficiency cost recovery.
Please summarize your recommendation to the Commission.
Kroger fully supports the Stipulation as filed. In my opinion, it produces
just and reasonable rates and I recommend its adoption by the Commission.
The appropriate level of the Energy Effciency Rider remains a contested
issue in this case. I recommend that the Energy Efficiency Rider be reduced from
4.75% to 3.40% to recognize that $11.2 milion in demand response program
costs are being shifted from energy efficiency funding into base rates pursuant to
the Stipulation. Even after my proposed reduction in the Energy Efficiency Rider,
the funding for non-demand-response programs wil increase by $1.2 milion due
to the underlying 4.1 % rate increase proposed in the Stipulation. The resulting
3.4% rider is equal to the surcharge approved for Rocky Mountain Power in
Idaho, and is consistent with the level of percentage surcharges levied elsewhere
in the region for energy efficiency cost recovery.
Does this conclude your direct testimony?
Yes, it does.
HIGGINS/6
BEFORE THE IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION
OF IDAHO POWER COMPANY FOR
AUTHORITY TO INCREASE ITS RATES
AND CHARGES FOR ELECTRIC SERVICE
IN IDAHO
)
)
)
)
)
Case No. IPC-E-ll-08
AFFIDAVIT OF KEVIN C. HIGGINS
STATE OF UTAH )
)COUNTY OF SALT LAKE )
Kevin C. Higgins, being first duly sworn, deposes and states that:
i. He is a Principal with Energy Strategies, L.L.C., in Salt Lake City, Utah;
2. He is the witness who sponsors the accompanying testimony entitled "Direct
Testimony of Kevin C. Higgins;"
3. Said testimony and exhibits were prepared by him and under his direction and
supervision;
4. If inquiries were made as to the facts and exhibits in said testimony he would
.respond as therein set forth; and
5. The aforesaid testimony and exhibits are true and correct to the best of his
knowledge, information and belief.
!.
Kevin
Subscribed and sworn to or affirmed before me this 61h day of October, 2011, by Kevin C.
Higgins.
My Commission Expires: ~
Pr
e
s
e
n
t
v
s
K
r
o
g
e
r
R
e
c
o
m
m
e
n
d
e
d
E
n
e
r
g
y
E
f
f
i
c
i
e
n
c
y
R
i
d
e
r
R
e
v
e
n
u
e
at
S
t
i
p
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
R
e
v
e
n
u
e
I
n
c
r
e
a
s
e
(a
)
(b
)
(c
)
(d
)
(e
)
(t
)
(g
)
(h
)
(i
)
G)
(k
)
Ra
t
e
Cu
r
r
n
t
Cu
r
r
n
t
Cu
r
r
n
t
Cu
r
n
t
Se
t
t
l
e
m
e
n
t
Re
c
o
m
m
e
n
d
e
d
Se
t
t
l
e
m
e
n
t
Re
c
o
m
m
e
n
d
e
d
Ch
a
n
g
e
i
n
Li
n
e
Sc
h
e
d
u
l
e
Ba
s
e
EE
EE
-
D
R
EE
-
N
o
n
D
R
Ba
s
e
EE
EE
-
D
R
EE
-
N
o
n
D
R
EE
-
N
o
n
D
R
No
.
T
a
r
f
f
D
e
s
c
n
p
t
i
o
n
No
.
Re
v
e
n
u
e
!
Re
v
e
n
u
e
s
Po
r
t
i
o
n
Po
r
t
o
n
Re
v
e
n
u
e
!
Re
v
e
n
u
e
s
Po
r
t
o
n
Po
r
t
i
o
n
Re
v
e
n
u
e
s
(!
4
.
7
5
%
(=
1
.
5
%
)
(=
3
.
4
0
%
)
(!
3
.
4
0
%
(=
3
.
4
0
%
)
Un
i
f
o
n
n
T
a
n
f
f
S
c
h
e
d
u
l
e
s
1
Re
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
1,
3
,
4
,
5
$3
8
0
,
4
4
9
,
7
0
2
$1
8
,
0
7
1
,
3
6
1
$5
,
1
2
0
,
6
8
8
$1
2
,
9
5
0
,
6
7
3
$3
9
6
,
3
8
3
,
7
7
2
$1
3
,
4
9
3
,
0
7
6
$1
3
,
4
9
3
,
0
7
6
$5
4
2
,
4
0
2
2
Sm
a
l
l
G
e
n
e
r
a
l
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
7
$1
4
,
3
6
0
,
8
0
6
$6
8
2
,
1
3
8
$1
9
3
,
2
9
0
$4
8
8
,
8
4
8
$1
4
,
9
6
2
,
2
7
1
$5
0
9
,
3
2
2
$5
0
9
,
3
2
2
$2
0
,
4
7
4
3
La
r
g
e
G
e
n
e
r
a
l
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
9P
,
9
T
$1
8
,
4
9
2
,
9
4
9
$8
7
8
,
4
1
5
$2
4
8
,
9
0
7
$6
2
9
,
5
0
8
$1
9
,
2
6
7
,
4
8
5
$6
5
5
,
8
7
4
$6
5
5
,
8
7
4
$2
6
,
3
6
6
4
La
r
g
e
G
e
n
e
r
a
l
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
9S
$1
7
0
,
5
9
6
,
7
9
8
$8
,
1
0
3
,
3
4
8
$2
,
2
9
6
,
1
5
9
$5
,
8
0
7
,
1
8
9
$1
7
7
,
7
4
1
,
7
3
2
$6
,
0
5
0
,
4
0
6
In
c
l
u
d
e
d
$6
,
0
5
0
,
4
0
6
$2
4
3
,
2
1
6
5
Du
s
k
/
D
a
w
n
L
i
g
h
t
i
n
g
15
$1
,
1
2
8
,
7
4
4
$5
3
,
6
1
5
$1
5
,
1
9
2
$3
8
,
4
2
3
$1
,
1
7
6
,
0
1
4
$4
0
,
0
3
2
in
$4
0
,
0
3
2
$1
,
6
0
9
6
La
r
g
e
P
o
w
e
r
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
19
S
,
1
9
P
,
1
9
T
$8
2
,
8
7
2
,
1
0
8
$3
,
9
3
6
,
4
2
6
$1
,
1
1
5
,
4
2
3
$2
,
8
2
1
,
0
0
3
$8
6
,
3
4
2
,
9
7
2
$2
,
9
3
9
,
1
5
2
Ba
s
e
R
e
v
e
n
u
e
$2
,
9
3
9
,
1
5
2
$1
1
8
,
1
4
9
7
Ir
r
g
a
t
i
o
n
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
24
$1
0
3
,
0
6
6
,
5
2
9
$4
,
8
9
5
,
6
6
0
$1
,
3
8
7
,
2
3
1
$3
,
5
0
8
,
4
2
9
$1
0
7
,
3
8
3
,
2
5
6
$3
,
6
5
5
,
3
7
3
$3
,
6
5
5
,
3
7
3
$1
4
6
,
9
4
3
8
Un
m
e
t
e
r
e
d
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
40
$1
,
0
6
2
,
1
1
5
$5
0
,
4
5
0
$1
4
,
2
9
6
$3
6
,
1
5
4
$1
,
1
0
6
,
5
9
8
$3
7
,
6
6
9
$3
7
,
6
6
9
$1
,
5
1
5
9
Mu
n
c
i
p
a
l
S
t
r
e
e
t
L
i
g
h
t
i
g
41
$2
,
7
8
6
,
7
5
2
$1
3
2
,
3
7
1
$3
7
,
5
0
8
$9
4
,
8
6
3
$2
,
9
0
3
,
4
3
9
$9
8
,
8
3
4
$9
8
,
8
3
4
$3
,
9
7
2
10
T
r
a
f
f
c
C
o
n
t
r
o
l
L
i
g
h
t
i
n
g
42
$1
6
0
,
1
9
1
$7
,
6
0
9
$2
,
1
5
6
$5
,
4
5
3
$1
6
6
,
9
0
1
$5
,
6
8
1
$5
,
6
8
1
$2
2
8
11
To
t
a
l
I
d
a
h
o
R
a
t
e
s
$7
7
4
,
9
7
6
,
6
9
4
$3
6
,
8
1
1
,
3
9
3
$1
0
,
4
3
0
,
8
5
0
$2
6
,
3
8
0
,
5
4
3
$8
0
7
,
4
3
4
,
4
4
0
$2
7
,
4
8
5
,
4
1
9
$2
7
,
4
8
5
,
4
1
9
$1
,
1
0
4
,
8
7
5
Sp
e
c
i
a
l
C
o
n
t
r
c
t
s
12
Mi
c
r
o
n
26
$1
6
,
1
8
6
,
3
3
3
$7
6
8
,
8
5
1
$2
1
7
,
8
6
1
$5
5
0
,
9
9
0
$1
6
,
8
6
4
,
3
8
4
$5
7
4
,
0
7
1
$5
7
4
,
0
7
1
$2
3
,
0
8
1
13
Si
m
p
l
o
t
29
$5
,
8
9
2
,
2
9
9
$2
7
9
,
8
8
4
$7
9
,
3
0
8
$2
0
0
,
5
7
6
$6
,
1
3
9
,
0
1
5
$2
0
8
,
9
7
5
In
c
l
u
d
e
d
$2
0
8
,
9
7
5
$8
,
3
9
9
14
D
O
E
l
I
N
L
30
$7
,
6
6
1
,
3
8
4
$3
6
3
,
9
1
6
$1
0
3
,
1
1
9
$2
6
0
,
7
9
7
$7
,
9
8
2
,
1
8
9
$2
7
1
,
7
1
7
in
$2
7
1
,
7
1
7
$1
0
,
9
2
0
15
Ho
k
u
-
1
s
t
B
l
o
c
k
C
h
a
r
g
e
s
32
$2
4
,
2
0
4
,
3
4
3
$1
,
1
4
9
,
7
0
6
$3
2
5
,
7
8
0
$8
2
3
,
9
2
6
$2
4
,
2
0
4
,
3
4
3
$8
2
3
,
9
2
6
Ba
s
e
R
e
v
e
n
u
e
$8
2
3
,
9
2
6
$0
16
H
o
k
u
-
2
n
d
B
l
o
c
k
C
h
a
g
e
s
32
$7
,
0
8
4
,
0
0
7
$3
3
6
,
4
9
0
$9
5
,
3
4
8
$2
4
1
,
1
4
2
$7
,
3
8
0
,
6
8
1
$2
5
1
,
2
4
2
$2
5
1
,
2
4
2
$1
0
,
0
9
9
17
T
o
t
a
l
S
p
e
c
i
a
l
s
$6
1
,
0
2
8
,
3
6
6
$2
,
8
9
8
,
8
4
7
$8
2
1
,
4
1
5
$2
,
0
7
7
,
4
3
2
$6
2
,
5
7
0
,
6
1
2
$2
,
1
2
9
,
9
3
1
$2
,
1
2
9
,
9
3
1
$5
2
,
4
9
9
18
T
o
t
a
l
I
d
a
h
o
R
e
t
a
i
l
S
a
l
e
s
$8
3
6
,
0
0
5
,
0
6
0
$3
9
,
7
1
0
,
2
4
0
$ 1
1
,
2
5
2
,
2
6
5
$2
8
,
4
5
7
,
9
7
5
$8
7
0
,
0
0
5
,
0
5
2
$2
9
,
6
1
5
,
3
4
9
$2
9
,
6
1
5
,
3
4
9
$1
,
1
5
7
,
3
7
4
19
Sti
p
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
R
e
c
o
m
m
e
n
d
e
d
C
h
a
n
g
e
i
n
B
a
s
e
R
e
v
e
n
u
e
$3
3
,
9
9
9
,
9
9
2
20
S
t
i
p
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
R
e
c
o
m
m
e
n
d
e
d
C
h
a
n
g
e
i
n
B
a
s
e
R
e
v
e
n
u
e
P
e
r
c
e
n
t
4.
1
%
Br
e
a
k
d
o
w
n
o
f
E
n
e
r
g
E
f
f
c
i
e
n
c
y
R
e
v
e
n
n
e
Pc
t
o
f
C
u
r
e
n
t
Pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
Pc
t
o
f
P
r
o
p
o
s
e
d
Cu
r
n
t
A
m
o
u
n
t
B
a
s
e
R
e
v
e
n
u
e
s
Am
o
u
n
t
Ba
s
e
R
e
v
e
n
u
e
s
21
De
m
a
n
d
R
e
s
p
o
n
s
e
(
D
R
)
P
o
r
t
i
o
n
2
$1
1
,
2
5
2
,
2
6
5
1.
5
%
De
m
a
n
d
R
e
s
p
o
n
s
e
(
D
R
)
P
o
r
t
i
o
n
In
Ba
s
e
R
e
v
.
NA
22
No
n
-
D
e
m
a
n
d
(
N
o
n
D
R
)
R
e
s
p
o
n
s
e
P
o
r
t
i
o
n
$2
8
,
4
5
7
,
9
7
5
3.
4
0
%
No
n
-
D
e
m
a
n
d
(
N
o
n
D
R
)
R
e
s
p
o
n
s
e
P
o
r
t
i
o
n
$2
9
,
6
1
5
,
3
4
9
3.
4
0
%
23
To
t
a
l
E
E
R
e
v
e
n
u
e
s
$3
9
,
7
1
0
,
2
4
0
4.7
5
%
To
t
a
l
E
E
R
e
v
e
n
u
e
s
$2
9
,
6
1
5
,
3
4
9
3.
4
0
%
Da
t
a
S
o
u
r
c
e
s
:
1.
S
e
t
t
e
m
e
n
t
S
t
i
p
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
E
x
h
i
b
i
t
N
O
.
2
.
2.
1
P
C
w
i
t
n
e
s
s
M
a
t
t
e
w
T
.
L
a
r
k
i
E
x
h
b
i
t
N
o
.
3
1
,
p
,
6
6
o
f
1
4
5
.
Kr
o
g
e
r
E
x
h
i
b
i
t
N
o
.
S
O
l
Ca
s
e
N
o
.
I
P
C
-
E
-
l
l
-
0
8
Wi
t
n
e
s
s
:
K
e
v
i
n
C
.
H
i
g
g
i
n
s
Pa
g
e
i
o
f
t