Answers to the following questions will greatly help the Task Force in completing its charge. Please feel free to attach any supporting documentation.

• Interest Groups
• Utilities

Interest Groups

1. Did you or your organization take a position on EDECA, and specifically on the issues relating to deferred balances, before the Act was passed? If so, please describe.
   
   
2. Were there provisions relating to deferred balances that you or your organization opposed and/or believed should have been included in EDECA but where not? For example, some organizations opposed the imposition of rate caps, while others supported a levelized adjustment clause or a trigger mechanism to prevent mandated rate reductions if savings from competition were not realized.
   
   
3. What do you or your organization believe are the principal factors responsible for the accumulation of nearly $1 billion in deferred balances? Possible explanations include utility management, certain provisions in EDECA, or factors in the energy market unrelated to EDECA.
   
   
4. Are there specific remedies that you or your organization support to address the issue of deferred balances? Do you or your organization support the securitization of deferred balances as allowed for by S-869?
   
   
5. What are your or your organization's views on the process by which deferred balances should be investigated and heard by the Board of Public Utilities?
   

Utilities

1. Did your company take a position on EDECA, and specifically on the issues relating to deferred balances, before the Act was passed?
   
   
2. When EDECA was passed, did your company anticipate accruing significant deferred balances? Why or why not? If this assessment changed please describe when and why.
   
   
3. Please provide, in a matrix, the positive/negative of purchase power costs (i.e., deferred costs) for each month since deregulation commenced up to the present time.
   
   
4. Why deferred balances were accrued:
   
   1. To what degree did the provisions of EDECA contribute to the accumulation of deferred balances? Would any specific changes in EDECA have decreased the scope of the deferred balance problem?
      
   2. To what degree was utility management responsible for the accumulation of deferred balances?
      
   3. How did unanticipated external factors (e.g. changes in the electricity market) contribute to deferred balances?
      
   4. Why do utilities have such vastly different deferred balances, even on a per customer basis?
      
   
   
5. Prudency Review / Mitigation:
   
   1. Explain the process your company utilized for purchasing power in wholesale markets. Specifically, please describe:
      
      1. the sources of power purchases
      
      
      2. the methods by which prices were bid and/or negotiated
      
      
      3. the types of agreements entered into (e.g. short- or long-term contracts, hedge agreements, etc.)
      
      
      4. identify the sources of the power by quantity and price.
      
      
   2. Describe all efforts to mitigate or reduce your purchased power costs and deferred balances, particularly at periods of peak demand, and including but not limited to the following mitigation techniques:
      
      1. negotiating and/or bidding techniques
      
      
      2. the search for alternative supply sources
      
      
      3. attempts at demand side management, particularly at periods of peak demand
      
      
      4. attempts to renegotiate non-utility generation contracts that were above market rates
   
   
   
6. Are there specific remedies that your company supports to address the issue of deferred balances? Does your company support the securitization of deferred balances as allowed for by S-869?
   
   
7. Does your company have a position on the process by which deferred balances should be investigated and heard by the Board of Public Utilities?