Proposed Rates. T-2 Summer Winter Summer Winter ------ ------ ------ ------ Customer Charge with Customer Charge with Ratchet kW = First 150 kW $30.86 $30.86 Ratchet kW = First 150 kW $27.77 $27.77 < 300 kW $127.37 $127.37 < 300 kW $114.62 $114.62 > 300 kW $185.20 $185.20 > 300 kW $166.67 $166.67 > 1,000 kW $416.22 $416.22 > 1,000 kW $374.57 $374.57 Demand Charge kW x $24.52 $11.45 Distrib/Access Energy Charge On-Peak kWh x $0.03975 $0.02757 Demand Charge kW x $21.09 $9.32 Off-Peak kWh x $0.01784 $0.01445 Transmission ----------------------------------------------------------- Demand Charge kW x $0.98 $0.98 Base Bill Subtotal Subtotal Distrib/Access Energy Charge On-Peak kWh x $0.04890 $0.03795 Retail Fuel & Purchased Off-Peak kWh x $0.02919 $0.02614 Power Charge kWh x $0.03709 $0.03709 Transmission Net Performance Energy Charge On-Peak kWh x $0.00000 $0.00000 Adjustment Charge kWh x $0.00481 $0.00481 Off-Peak kWh x $0.00000 $0.00000 DSM kWh x $0.00381 $0.00381 ------------------------------------------------------------------ ----------------------------------------------------------- Delivery Component Subtotal Subtotal Combined Adjustment Charge $0.04571 $0.04571 Generation Charge On-Peak kWh x $0.02800 $0.02800 Off-Peak kWh x $0.02800 $0.02800 122 File Name: S\SHARED\SALESGEN\TYPCBILL\TYP98SE2.WK4 Boston Edison Company Last Update: 28-May-97 M.D.P.U. Nos. 96-100 & 96-23 Range Name: RATE T-2 Attachment 1 Exhibit 4 Page 26 of 29 Boston Edison Company Settlement Proposal 1998 Rate Designs (Seasonality & Time-of-Use in Access & Distribution) Impact on T-2 Rate Customers Hours Use: 350 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Maximum Present Rates Proposed Rates Difference Ratchet Average Monthly Adjustment Annual Delivery Energy Annual Difference % of % of kW kW kWh Base Factors Total Component Component Total In Totals Base Total ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 150 100 35,000 $31,161.50 $19,198.20 $50,359.70 $33,559.68 $11,760.00 $45,319.68 ($5,040.02) -16.2% -10.0% 300 250 87,500 $78,506.38 $47,995.50 $126,501.88 $84,441.55 $29,400.00 $113,841.55 ($12,660.33) -16.1% -10.0% 1,000 500 175,000 $156,178.28 $95,991.00 $252,169.28 $168,132.26 $58,800.00 $226,932.26 ($25,237.02) -16.2% -10.0% > 1,000 1,000 350,000 $312,906.40 $191,982.00 $504,888.40 $336,759.27 $117,600.00 $454,359.27 ($50...
Proposed Rates. The Respondent shall provide Exhibit 2 – MAT Services Proposed Rates, that illustrates the cost to provide MAT Services to Patients within LASD County jail facilities (Service Delivery Facility) and shall include the proposed MAT Services start-up cost. Methadone services shall be billed at a “per patient” “per day” unit and includes the medication administered, the purchase, storing, transporting and the staffing to facilitate the preparation and dosing. The Respondent’s proposed rates and start-up costs may be taken into consideration for selection.
Proposed Rates. The proposer shall submit a Proposed All Inclusive Hourly Rate for each title listed in this Attachment. Such All Inclusive Hourly Rates shall apply as follows: (a) if the method of payment for services is through fee(s), the All Inclusive Hourly Rates shall be used as a basis for negotiating fees with the Consultant, and (b) if the method of payment for services is on a time card basis, All Inclusive Hourly Rates shall be used to calculate payment to the Consultant.
Proposed Rates. The proposer shall submit a Proposed All Inclusive Hourly Rate for each title listed below. The All Inclusive Hourly Rates shall apply to the three year base term of the Contract. Minimum Requirements per title are set forth in Section III (H) of this RFP. TITLE ASCE (A) NICET (N) GRADE ALL INCLUSIVE HOURLY RATE Project Manager A-VI Project Engineer A-IV Senior Civil Engineer - HWY A-V Senior Structural Engineer A-V Engineer A-III Junior Engineer A-II Urban Design - Landscape Manager, R.L.A. Senior Landscape Architect - Urban Design Landscape Architect Junior Landscape Architect Arborist/ Forester Survey Manager, R.L.S. Party Chief/Xxxxxxx N-III Instrument Person N-II Rod Person N-I Senior Traffic Engineer A-V Traffic Engineer A-III Junior Traffic Engineer – Technician A-II Project Environmental Engineer/Manager Senior Environmental Engineer/Planner ATTACHMENT 6 (Continued) TITLE ASCE (A) NICET (N) GRADE ALL INCLUSIVE HOURLY RATE Environmental Engineer Junior Environmental Engineer Certified Industrial Hygienist Industrial Hygienist Project Geotechnical Engineer / Manager A-VI Senior Geotechnical Engineer A-V Geotechnical Engineer A-III Project Scientist Senior Mechanical Engineer A-V Mechanical Engineer A-III Senior Electrical Engineer A-V Electrical Engineer A-III Archeologist/Historian Senior Archeologist Junior Archeologist Senior CAD Operator N-IV CAD Operator N-III Junior CAD Operator N-II
Proposed Rates. The following parties oppose Union’s position with respect to the timing of dealing with rate seasonalization: Xxxxxx Xxxxx; and Pollution Probe. OCAP reserves its position with respect to rate seasonalization but takes no position on all other issues related to proposed rates. The following parties oppose Union’s position with respect to removing the Rate 25 buy/sell option: the “Consortium”; ECNG. The following parties oppose Union’s position with respect to the design of Rate 100: TCP. The following parties take no position on these issues: CAC; “Alliance”; CEED; Kitchener; Consumers; CENGAS; GEC; HVAC; CAESCO; Comsatec; Tractebel; Nova; NRG; Ontario Hydro; TCPL; Alliance Gas Management; WGSPG; Consumersfirst Ltd.; and Northland Power. Union did not file any 1999 rate proposals with respect to either seasonalizing general service rates in the Southern Operations Area or implementing a summer rate as advocated by the Ontario Hot Mix Producers Association in E.B.R.O. 493/494 (H1/T1/P18-19) in the Northern and Eastern Operations Area. Union proposes to deal with the issue of seasonalization in the context of rate harmonization and subsequent to changes resulting from further rate unbundling. Union’s evidence at C1/T2/p.18-19 states that historically, customers have been offered the opportunity to supply their Rate 25 volumes under a buy/sell contract. The customer would supply gas at Empress in an amount equal to their total annual consumption (firm and interruptible) at their facility. These supplies and the customers’ consumption is targeted to be equal on an annual (contract term) basis such that the customer is not an overall net supplier to the system. These Rate 25 buy/sell supplies at Empress are, in essence, simply part of the overall gas supply portfolio utilized to serve firm customers. There is no link between the supply of Rate 25 buy/sell supplies at Empress and the molecules acquired and used to support the Rate 25 service at the customer’s facility. Specifically, Union does not contract for firm transportation capacity to serve interruptible demands. Increased demand on both the Northern and Eastern area’s system and TCPL’s total system over time have resulted in an increasing reliance on Union acquiring delivered spot gas supplies to support the Rate 25 service. As future direct purchase is facilitated, Union’s remaining TCPL capacity will continue to be utilized for new firm direct purchase customers. Given these two conditions, Union prop...
Proposed Rates. Cal Water’s established rates may be applicable to the acquired customers, but adequate justification must be provided. A detailed description of water system facilities being acquired, based on the best information available from the acquired water system operator and Cal Water’s good faith effort to supplement deficiencies. This should include, but not be limited to, such items as a distribution system map, showing pipe sizes and fire flow and pressure area deficiencies. Acquisition advice letters for water systems which do not meet the minimum design and service standards of General Order (GO) 103 shall require Commission action by Resolution. Cal Water’s planned water system improvements for the acquisition, including estimated costs and the rate impact on the acquired and existing Cal Water customers. Estimated Summary of Earnings before and after the acquisition both with and without the estimated cost of water system improvements from D. above. The names and addresses of all utilities, corporations, persons or other entities whether publicly- or privately-operated, with which the acquisition is likely to compete, and of cities or counties within which service will be rendered. A certification that a copy of the acquisition advice letter has been served upon or mailed to each such entity or person in F. above. A map of suitable scale showing the location of the acquisition and its relation to other public utilities, corporations, persons or entities with which the same is likely to compete. (Appendix) A statement identifying the franchises and such health and safety permits as the appropriate public authorities have required or may require. A detailed statement of the amount and basis of the original cost (estimated if not known) of all plant and of the depreciation reserve and purchase price. The parties understand that the original cost is subject to change after verification of the acquired system’s records and facilities. Cal Water shall include a full showing for each acquisition in the next general rate application which affects the acquisition. The Director of WD shall review all filed protests and concerns raised by WD staff to the acquisition advice letter. Where appropriate, the Division may recommend the Chief Administrative Law Judge convert the advice letter to a formal application. Prior to such conversion, Cal Water shall have an opportunity to supplement its advice letter, as provided by GO 96-A, to address the filed protests. The adv...
