DOCSLIB.ORG

Staff Proxy Group Merril Lynch Cost of Market September October

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Staff Proxy Group Merril Lynch Cost of Market September October Page 1 of 2 CASES 09-E-0715 et al. Staff Finance Panel Exhibit___(FP-9) Summary:Calculation of Cost of Equity for RG&E - Staff Proxy Group Merril Lynch Cost of Market Required Implied September 12.00% 11.90% October 11.90% 11.80% November 12.00% 11.90% Merril Lynch Cost of Markee 11.92% (Avg.09/09-11/09) Market Risk Premium 8.10% Treasury Rates2 10 year 30 year Sep-09 3.40% 4.19% Oct-09 3.39% 4.19% Nov-09 3.40% 4.31% Average 3.40% 4.23% Risk Free Rate (9/09 - 11/09) 3.81% Proxy Group Beta(Median) 0.70 Proxy Group OCF ROE 9.63% Traditional CAPM ROE 9.49% Zero Beta CAPM ROE 10.09% Generic (Average) CAPM ROE 9.79% 2/3 OCF & 1/3 CAPM Weighting 9.68% Credit Quality Adjustment 0.18% Issuance Cost Adjustment 0.00% ROM Adjustment 0.10% Recommended ROE 9.76% Page 2 of 2 CASES 09-E-0715 et al. Staff Finance Panel Exhibit___(FP-9) Summary: Calculation of Cost of Equity for NYSEG- Staff Proxy Group Merril Lynch Cost of Market Required Implied September 12.00% 11.90% October 11.90% 11.80% November 12.00% 11.90% Men"i1 Lynch Cost of Market1 11.92% (Avg. 09/09-11/09) Market Risk Premium 8.10% Treasury Rates2 10 year 30 year Sep-09 3.40% 4.19% Oct-09 3.39% 4.19% Nov-09 3.40% 4.31% Average 3.40% 4.23% Risk Free Rate (9/09 - 11/09) 3.81% Proxy Group Beta(Median) 0.70 Proxy Group OCF ROE 9.63% Traditional CAPM ROE 9.49% Zero Beta CAPM ROE 10.09% Generic (Average) CAPM ROE 9.79% 2/3 DCF & 1/3 CAPM Weighting 9.68% Credit Quality Adjustment 0.02% Issuance Cost Adjustment 0.00% ROM Adjustment 0.10% Recommended ROE 9.61~ 1Merrill Lynch cost of market figure is average of Implied and Required Returns for the 3 months ending November 2009 2Federal Reserve Statistical Release, FRS: Federal Reserve Statistical Release H.15 - Historical Data Website: 'http://federalreserve.gov/releases/h15/ Page 1 of 3 CASES 09-E-0715 et al. Staff Finance Panel Exhibit___(FP-10) VALUE LINE UNIVERSE OF ELECTRIC AND INTEGRATED ELECTRIC UTILITIES (CENTRAL USA) sap Numerical sap 2008 % of Company Moody's Rating sap Rating sap Numerical sap Numerical Utility Revenue Business Business Risk Financial Financial Risk Profile Weighting Profile Weighting 1 ALLETE Baa1 BBB+ Strong 2 Significant 4 89 1 2 Alliant Energy Corp • Baa1 BBB+ Excellent 1 Significant 4 88 3 Ameren Corp. Baa3 BBB- Satisfactory 3 Significant 4 81 4 American Electric Power Baa2 BBB Excellent 1 Aggressive 5 92 5 CMS Energy Corp. Ba1 BBB- Excellent 1 Aggressive 5 94 6 CenterPoint Energy Inc. Ba1 BBB Excellent 1 Aggressive 5 72 7 Cleco Corp. Baa3 BBB Strong 2 Significant 4 96 8 DPL Inc. Baa1 A- Excellent 1 Intermediate 3 76 9 DTE Energy Co. Baa2 BBB Excellent 1 Significant 4 75 10 Empire District Electric Co. Baa2 BBB- Strong 2 Aggressive 5 99 11 Entergy Corporation Baa3 BBB Strong 2 Significant 4 79 12 Great Plains Energy Inc. Baa3 BBB Excellent 1 Aggressive 5 71 13 ITC Holdings Corp. Baa3 BBB Excellent 1 Aggressive 5 100 14 Integrys Energy Group Inc. Baa1 BBB+ Excellent 1 Aggressive 5 31 15 M(3&E Company Aa3 AA- Excellent 1 Intermediate 3 99 16 OGE Energy Corp. Baa1 BBB+ Strong 2 Significant 4 48 17 Otter Tail Corp. Ba1 BBB- Satisfactory 3 Significant 4 26 18 Vectren Corporation2 Baa1 A- Excellent 1 Significant 4 79 19 Westar Energy Inc Baa3 BBB- Excellent 1 Aggressive 5 70 20 Wisconsin Energy Corp. A3 BBB+ Excellent 1 Aggressive 5 100 Page 2 of 3 CASES 09-E-0715 et al. Staff Finance Panel Exhibit___(FP-10) VALUE LINE UNIVERSE OF ELECTRIC AND INTEGRATED ELECTRIC UTILITIES (EAST USA) 2008 % of Company Moody's Rating S&P Rating S&P Numerical S&P Numerical Utility Revenue Business Business Risk Financial Financial Risk Profile Weighting Profile Weighting 1 Allegheny Energy Inc. Ba1 BBB- Strong 2 Aggressive 5 84 2 CH Energy Group Inc 1 A3 A Excellent 1 Intermediate 3 60 3 Central Vermont Public Service Corp. Baa3 BB+ Excellent 1 Highly leveraged 6 97 4 Consolidated Edison Inc. Baa1 A- Excellent 1 Significant 4 84 5 Constellation Energy Group Inc. Baa3 BBB- Satisfactory 3 Significant 4 19 6 Dominion Resources Inc. Baa2 A- Excellent 1 Significant 4 50 7 Duke Energy Corp Baa2 A- Excellent 1 Significant 4 77 8 Exelon Corp. Baa1 BBB Strong 2 Significant 4 62 9 FPL Group, Inc. A2 A Excellent 1 Intermediate 3 71 10 FirstEnergy Baa3 BBB Excellent 1 Significant 4 89 11 Northeast Utilities Baa2 BBB Excellent 1 Aggressive 5 99 12 NStar A2 A+ Excellent 1 Intermediate 3 96 13 PPL Corp. Baa2 BBB Satisfactory 3 Significant 4 51 14 Pepco Holdings Inc. Baa3 BBB Strong 2 Significant 4 51 15 Progress Energy Baa2 BBB+ Excellent 1 Aggressive 5 83 16 Public Service Enterprise Group Inc. Baa2 BBB Strong 2 Significant 4 68 17 SCANACorp. Baa2 BBB+ Excellent 1 Aggressive 5 65 18 Southern Co. (The) A3 A Excellent 1 Intermediate 3 99 19 TECO Energy Inc. Baa3 BBB Strong 2 Aggressive 5 82 20 UIL Holdings Corp Baa3 NR NR NR NR NR 100 1Used Central Hudson ratings as proxy for CH Energy Page 3 of 3 CASES 09-E-0715 et al. Staff Finance Panel Exhibit___(FP-10) VALUE LINE UNIVERSE OF ELECTRIC AND INTEGRATED ELECTRIC UTILITIES (WEST USA) S&P Numerical S&P 2008 % of Company Moody's Rating S&P Rating S&P Numerical S&P Numerical Utility Revenue Business Business Risk Financial Financial Risk Profile Weighting Profile Weighting 1 Avista Corp Baa3 BBB- Excellent 1 Aggressive 5 95 2 Black HillsCorp Baa3 BBB- Satisfactory 3 Significant 4 75 3 Edison International Baa2 BBB- Strong 2 Aggressive 5 80 4 EI Paso Electric Baa2 BBB Excellent 1 Aggressive 5 45 5 Hawaiian Electric Baa2 BBB Strong 2 Significant 4 89 6 IDACORP Inc Baa2 BBB Excellent 1 Aggressive 5 94 7 NV Energy Inc Ba3 BB Excellent 1 Highly leveraged 6 100 8 PG&E Corp Baa1 BBB+ Excellent 1 Significant 4 100 9 Pinnacle West Capital Baa3 BBB- Strong 2 Significant 4 93 10 PNM Resources Ba2 BB- Satisfactory 3 Highly leveraged 6 99 11 Portland General Electric Baa2 BBB+ Strong 2 Significant 4 87 12 Sempra Energy Baa1 BBB+ Strong 2 Significant 4 74 13 UniSource Energy Ba1 NR NR NR NR NR 78 14 Xcel Energy Inc Baa1 BBB+ Excellent 1 Significant 4 99 TOTAL 54 Page 1 of 1 CASES 09-E-0715 et al. Staff Finance Panel Exhibit___(FP-11) Staff Proxy Group 3 Month Average Price Data Three-month Sep-09 Oct-09 Nov-09 Comnanv Price High Low High Low High Low ALLETE $33.60 34.57, 32.91 35.19 32.57 34.11 32.23 1 Alliant Energy Corp. $27.23 28.78 25.67 28.40 26.40 28.07 26.08 2 Amaren Corp $25.41 27.27 25.02 26.08 24.22 26.06 23.78 3 American Electric Power $31.10 32.13 30.47 31.87 29.59 32.31 30.23 4 Avista Corp $19.85 20.83 18.86 21.11 18.88 20.95 18.48 5 Black Hills Corp $24.67 26.20 23.85 26.00 24.10 24.69 23.16 6 Cleco Corp. '$24.89 25.43 23.74 25.85 24,02 26.26 24.03 7 Con Edison Inc $41.18 41.77 39.29 42.25 40.15 42.99 40.61 8 DPL Inc. $25.99 26.62 24.61 26.38 25.10 27.86 25.35 9 DTE Energy $36.77 36.46 33.97 39.07 33.75 40.73 36.65 10 Duke Energy Corp $15.87 16.02 15.04 16.31 15.33 16.83 15.68 11 Edison International $33.20 35.20 32.58 34.02 31.54 34.44 31.42 12 Empire District Electric $18.25 18.56 17.83 18.66 17.91 18.77 17.78 13 Entergy Corporation $78.97 81.72 77.33 81.82 76.56 80.30 76.10 14 FirstEnergy $44.65 47.82 44.46 47.69 42.91 43.45 41.57 15 FPL Group, Inc. $52.49 56.54 53.13 55.28 48.78 52.65 48.55 16 Great Plains Energy $17.72 18.37 17.38 18.64 16.80 18.27 16.84 17 Hawaiian Electric $18.35 18.60 16.70 19.07 17.64 20.20 17.90 18 IDACORP, Inc. $28.81 29.37 27.83 29.65 28.00 30.28 27.71 19 MGE Energy Inc. $35.83 38.23 34.93 36.97 34.82 36.60 33.41 20 Northeast Utilities $23.61 24.78 23.41 24.01 22.64 24.60 22.20 21 NStar $31.89 32.91 31.20 32.25 30.80 33.40 30.76 22 PG&E Corp $41.31 41.97 39.53 43.21 39.74 43.00 40.40 23 Pinnacle West Capital $33.02 33.60 31.94 34.71 31.31 35.48 31.08 24 Portland General Electric Company $19.57 20.95 19.38 20.49 18.51 19.85 18.25 25 Progress Energy $38.44 39.94 38.61 39.13 36.67 39.38 36.91 26 Sempra Energy $50.98 51.77 48.10 53.75 49.38 54.00 48.90 27 Southern Co.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Pipeline Authority Annual Report 2018
    North Dakota Pipeline Authority Annual Report July 1, 2017 – June 30, 2018 Industrial Commission of North Dakota Governor Doug Burgum, Chairman Attorney General Wayne Stenehjem Agriculture Commissioner Doug Goehring North Dakota Pipeline Authority Annual Report July 1, 2017 – June 30, 2018 Overview At the request of the North Dakota Industrial Commission, the Sixtieth Legislature passed House Bill 1128 authorizing the North Dakota Pipeline Authority. It was signed into law on April 11, 2007. The statutory mission of the Pipeline Authority is “to diversify and expand the North Dakota economy by facilitating development of pipeline facilities to support the production, transportation, and utilization of North Dakota energy-related commodities, thereby increasing employment, stimulating economic activity, augmenting sources of tax revenue, fostering economic stability and improving the State’s economy”. As established by the Legislature, the Pipeline Authority is a builder of last resort, meaning private business would have the first opportunity to invest in and/or build additional needed pipeline infrastructure. By law, the Pipeline Authority membership is comprised of the members of the North Dakota Industrial Commission. Upon the recommendation of the Oil and Gas Research Council, the Industrial Commission authorized the expenditure of up to $325,000 during the 2017-2019 biennium for the Pipeline Authority with funding being made available from the Oil and Gas Research Fund. On August 1, 2008 the Industrial Commission named Justin J. Kringstad, an engineering consultant, to serve as Director of the North Dakota Pipeline Authority. The North Dakota Pipeline Authority Director works closely with Lynn Helms, Department of Mineral Resources Director, Ron Ness, North Dakota Petroleum Council President and Karlene Fine, Industrial Commission Executive Director.
    [Show full text]
  • Canadian Pipeline Transportation System Energy Market Assessment
    National Energy Office national Board de l’énergie CANADIAN PIPELINE TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM ENERGY MARKET ASSESSMENT National Energy Office national Board de l’énergie National Energy Office national Board de l’énergieAPRIL 2014 National Energy Office national Board de l’énergie National Energy Office national Board de l’énergie CANADIAN PIPELINE TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM ENERGY MARKET ASSESSMENT National Energy Office national Board de l’énergie National Energy Office national Board de l’énergieAPRIL 2014 National Energy Office national Board de l’énergie Permission to Reproduce Materials may be reproduced for personal, educational and/or non-profit activities, in part or in whole and by any means, without charge or further permission from the National Energy Board, provided that due diligence is exercised in ensuring the accuracy of the information reproduced; that the National Energy Board is identified as the source institution; and that the reproduction is not represented as an official version of the information reproduced, nor as having been made in affiliation with, or with the endorsement of the National Energy Board. For permission to reproduce the information in this publication for commercial redistribution, please e-mail: [email protected] Autorisation de reproduction Le contenu de cette publication peut être reproduit à des fins personnelles, éducatives et/ou sans but lucratif, en tout ou en partie et par quelque moyen que ce soit, sans frais et sans autre permission de l’Office national de l’énergie, pourvu qu’une diligence raisonnable soit exercée afin d’assurer l’exactitude de l’information reproduite, que l’Office national de l’énergie soit mentionné comme organisme source et que la reproduction ne soit présentée ni comme une version officielle ni comme une copie ayant été faite en collaboration avec l’Office national de l’énergie ou avec son consentement.
    [Show full text]
  • Canadian Mainline Sales and Marketing
    Fort Nelson ALBERTA H U D S O N B AY Fort St. John Canadian Mainline Gordondale Sales and Marketing Fort McMurray Grande Prairie SASKATCHEWAN MANITOBA Edmonton NGTL J A M TransGas ONTARIO E S B L A K A E Y W I N N R I E TransGas Centra P Union Nipigon V E I G R Saskatoon Calstock Empress Centrat MDA E Suffield SSDA SSDA WDA WDA Union C N Foothills Pipelines Liebenthal Centram NDA E ALL R T Shackleton NDA (Alberta) Richmond W Bayhurst A BURS MDA L Alberta/B.C. Calgary Success QUEBEC 2 Herbert T CABRI Tunis Power S 5 HERBERT SteelmanGrand Coulee ng Cranbrook 9 CARON NDA 13 Welwyn 391 REGINA TransCanada Canadian Mainline GRENFELL Medicine 17 AY OCK Hat Swift Current 21 MOOSOMIN Lethbridge Moose Welwyn RAPID CITY AGE CALST Kingsgate 392 25 HEARST Jaw Regina RT KLOTZLAKE MATTICE Gros Cacouna NEW 30 GERALDTON 88 PO 86 KAPUSKASING LA PRAIRIE VERMILION B JELLICOE 84 92 P. E . I . KENORA YDEN 80 95 BRUNSWICK Foothills Pipeline B.C. 34 DR Moosomin ALCON LAKE 52 77 393 ILE DES CHENES F 49 Hearst Cochrane Winnipeg SPRUCE 55 45 IGNACE Kapuskasing Energir NDA 41 RTIN 394 Brandon 43 NIPIGON 58 MA 99 Dryden EAGLEHEAD Kenora 75 Iroquois Sa CANADA 60 UPSALA 102 Falls Energir EDA 69 ALLS 1 Spruce 62 Larslan 105 Québec City U.S.A. Nipigon Union Fredericton 2 1 POTTER Saint John Emerson #1 68 Halifax 3 Emerson #2 107 EDA Enbridge RAMORE TransQuebec & Maritimes Pipeline (Viking) (GLGT) Thunder Bay SMOOTH ROCK F 110 EDA LACHENAIE ST.
    [Show full text]
  • Legal Principles Surrounding the New Canadian and American Arctic Energy Debate
    LEGAL PRINCIPLES SURROUNDING THE NEW CANADIAN AND AMERICAN ARCTIC ENERGY DEBATE Alexander J. Black* "The Arctic trails have their secret tales That would make your blood run cold" ' I. INTRODU~~ION Almost a quarter century ago, great plans were made by Canada and the United States to build a natural gas pipeline from Alaska to the contiguous forty-eight states. However, the project stalled and has only been reinvigorated recently. This article identifies some of the unresolved legal issues surrounding the Alaska Highway gas pipeline project and competing proposals concerning connection to Canada's Mackenzie Delta. My underlying theme is security of supply, a concern that has increased in importance following the act of war by terrorists in New York City on September 11, 2001. These legal issues and business proposals should be reconciled quickly in order to ensure security of supply between Canada and the United States. Both countries share strategic mutual interests. Thus, this article presents a synthesis of the legal issues in an attempt to advance the longstanding comity between our countries through informed and timely decision making. Ultimately, a decision has to be made about the 1977 bilateral international agreement, aimed at transporting natural gas from Prudhoe Bay, Alaska through Canada to the contiguous forty-eight states. The original project was called the Foothills (or Alaska Highway) project by Canadians, while Americans often called it the Alaska Natural Gas Transportation System (ANGTS). That acronym, ANGTS, sounds like 'angst', suggesting that some anxiety might exist about the outcome of this complicated project. Indeed this project has caused its share of angst over the past twenty-five years.
    [Show full text]
  • 2016 Annual Report Letter to Shareholders 4 CSR Performance Highlights 10 Corporate Governance 11 Investor Information 182
    Contents Company Snapshot 1 Enbridge Inc. Investment Proposition 2 2016 Annual Report Letter to Shareholders 4 CSR Performance Highlights 10 Corporate Governance 11 Investor Information 182 Bringing new energy to energy “Today, there’s a new energy around energy, and Enbridge is better positioned than ever to be a leader in North America’s energy future. Our combination with Spectra Energy has made us an even bigger force in energy infrastructure in North America, and sets us upfordecadestocome.” – Al Monaco, President & CEO, Enbridge Inc. Life Takes Energy® We’recommittedtoconnectingpeopletotheenergyweall need to fuel our quality of life, and we do that in three key ways: We Transport Energy No one is better equipped to deliver energy than Enbridge. We operate the world’s largest and most sophisticated transportation network for crude oil and liquids; and we move approximately 20 percent of all natural gas consumed in the U.S. We take pride in delivering it all with an unrelenting focus on safety. We Distribute Energy Our customers rely on the clean-burning natural gas we deliver to cook their food and heat their homes, water and workplaces. As owner and operator of Canada’s two largest natural gas distribution companies, we provide safe, reliable service to 3.5 million residential, commercial and industrial customers in Ontario, Quebec, New Brunswick and New York State. We Generate Energy Forward-Looking Information Our focus on the future of energy and sustainability This Annual Report includes references to forward-looking information. By its nature this information applies certain has led us to become a major and growing renewable assumptions and expectations about future outcomes, so energy company.
    [Show full text]
  • Alliance Pipeline Limited Partnership Annual
    ALLIANCE PIPELINE LIMITED PARTNERSHIP ANNUAL INFORMATION FORM For the Year Ended December 31, 2019 April 29, 2020 TABLE OF CONTENTS GLOSSARY OF TERMS.........................................................................................................................3 ABBREVIATIONS ................................................................................................................................9 FORWARD-LOOKING INFORMATION ................................................................................................ 10 CORPORATE STRUCTURE.................................................................................................................. 12 GENERAL DEVELOPMENT OF THE BUSINESS...................................................................................... 12 General .................................................................................................................................................12 Recent Developments ..........................................................................................................................14 DESCRIPTION OF THE BUSINESS ....................................................................................................... 15 The Alliance Pipeline System................................................................................................................15 RISK FACTORS.................................................................................................................................. 27 DESCRIPTION OF CAPITAL STRUCTURE
    [Show full text]
  • Management's Discussion and Analysis
    ENBRIDGE INC. MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS December 31, 2014 MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS This Management’s Discussion and Analysis (MD&A) dated February 19, 2015 should be read in conjunction with the audited consolidated financial statements and notes thereto of Enbridge Inc. (Enbridge or the Company) for the year ended December 31, 2014, prepared in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America (U.S. GAAP). All financial measures presented in this MD&A are expressed in Canadian dollars, unless otherwise indicated. Additional information related to the Company, including its Annual Information Form, is available on SEDAR at www.sedar.com. OVERVIEW Enbridge, a Canadian Company, is a North American leader in delivering energy. As a transporter of energy, Enbridge operates, in Canada and the United States, the world's longest crude oil and liquids transportation system. The Company also has significant and growing involvement in natural gas gathering, transmission and midstream businesses and an increasing involvement in power transmission. As a distributor of energy, Enbridge owns and operates Canada's largest natural gas distribution company and provides distribution services in Ontario, Quebec, New Brunswick and New York State. As a generator of energy, Enbridge has interests in more than 2,200 megawatts (MW) (1,600 MW net) of renewable and alternative energy generating capacity and is expanding its interests in wind, solar and geothermal facilities. Enbridge employs more than 11,000 people, primarily in Canada and the United States. The Company’s activities are carried out through five business segments: Liquids Pipelines; Gas Distribution; Gas Pipelines, Processing and Energy Services; Sponsored Investments; and Corporate, as discussed below.
    [Show full text]
  • ANNUAL REPORT 2018 Financial Highlights
    ANNUAL REPORT 2018 Financial Highlights ADJUSTED EARNINGS BEFORE INTEREST, TAX, DEPRECIATION 2018 DISTRIBUTABLE CASH FLOW AND AMORTIZATION (ADJUSTED EBITDA) 600 12% Iroquois 500 5% PNGTS 400 26% GTN 300 18% Northern Border 200 14% Bison 100 14% Great Lakes 0 3% Tuscarora 8% North Baja 2008(a) 2009(a) 2010 2011(a) 2012(a) 2013(a) 2014 2015(a) 2016(a) 2017 2018 (a) Recast information Year Ended December 31 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 (millions of dollars, except unit amounts) Cash Flow Distributable cash flow (1) 391 310 313(4) 290(4) 255(4) Cash distributions paid 218 284 250 228 212 Class B Distributions paid 15 22 12 - - Income Statement Net income (loss) attributable to controlling interests (182) 252 248(4) 37(4) 195(4) Adjusted earnings (1) 317 252 248(4) 236(4) 195(4) EBITDA (1) 27 445 433(4) 223(4) 401(4) Adjusted EBITDA (1) 526 445 433(4) 422(4) 401(4) Balance Sheet Total assets (2) 2,899 3,559 3,354(4) 3,459(4) 3,343 Long-term debt (2) (including current maturities) 2,118 2,415 1,920(4) 1,980(4) 1,689 Partners’ equity 699 1,068 1,272(4) 1,391(4) 1,818(4) Common Unit Statistics (per unit) Cash distributions paid 2.95 3.88 3.66 3.46 3.30 Net income (loss) per common unit – basic and diluted (2.68) 3.16 3.21 (0.03) 2.67 Adjusted earnings per common unit – basic and diluted (1) 4.18 3.16 3.21 3.03 2.67 Common Units Outstanding (millions) Units issued (3) 0.7 3.2 3.1 0.7 1.3 Weighted average for the year (3) 71.3 69.2 65.7 63.9 62.7 End of year (3) 71.3 70.6 67.4 64.3 63.6 (1) Distributable cash flow, EBITDA, adjusted EBITDA, adjusted earnings and adjusted earnings per common unit are non-GAAP measures.
    [Show full text]
  • TC PIPELINES, LP 1999 Annual Report
    TCPipelinesFolder.kk 4/19/00 10:26 AM Page 1 TC PIPELINES, LP BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE EXECUTIVE OFFICERS OF THE INVESTOR RELATIONS GENERAL PARTNER OF GENERAL PARTNER OF 1999 TC PIPELINES, LP TC PIPELINES, LP Theresa Jang (March 21, 2000) (March 21, 2000) Controller Annual Telephone: 1-877-290-2772 (toll-free) Russell K. Girling Garry P. Mihaichuk Report Senior Vice-President and President and Facsimile: (403) 261-3599 Chief Financial Officer Chief Executive Officer email: [email protected] TransCanada PipeLines Limited Calgary, Alberta Russell K. Girling OFFICES Chief Financial Officer Robert A. Helman Four Greenspoint Plaza Partner Paul F. MacGregor 16945 Northchase Drive Mayer, Brown & Platt Vice-President, Houston, Texas 77060 Chicago, Illinois Business Development Telephone: (281) 873-7774 Jack F. Jenkins-Stark Donald R. Marchand Senior Vice-President and Vice-President and Treasurer Chief Financial Officer 801 – 7th Avenue SW GATX Capital Gary G. Penrose Calgary, Alberta T2P 3P7 San Francisco, California Vice-President, Taxation Telephone: 1-877-290-2772 (toll-free) David L. Marshall Facsimile: (403) 261-3599 Karyn A. Brooks Corporate Director Vice-President Green Valley, California INTERNET SITE Garry P. Mihaichuk Theresa Jang www.tcpipelineslp.com Senior Vice-President and Controller President, Transmission STOCK EXCHANGE LISTING TransCanada PipeLines Limited Rhondda E.S. Grant Calgary, Alberta Secretary Nasdaq National Market Symbol: TCLPZ Walentin Mirosh Senior Vice-President, Corporate Strategy and Business Development AUDITORS TransCanada PipeLines Limited Calgary, Alberta KMPG LLP Calgary, Alberta Ronald J. Turner Senior Vice-President and TRANSFER AGENT President, International TransCanada PipeLines Limited ChaseMellon Calgary, Alberta Shareholder Services, L.L.C.
    [Show full text]
  • MD&A and Financial Statements
    ENBRIDGE INC. MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS December 31, 2013 MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS This Management’s Discussion and Analysis (MD&A) dated February 14, 2014 should be read in conjunction with the audited consolidated financial statements and notes thereto of Enbridge Inc. (Enbridge or the Company) for the year ended December 31, 2013, prepared in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America (U.S. GAAP). All financial measures presented in this MD&A are expressed in Canadian dollars, unless otherwise indicated. Additional information related to the Company, including its Annual Information Form, is available on SEDAR at www.sedar.com. In connection with the preparation of the Company’s first quarter consolidated financial statements, an error was identified in the manner in which the Company historically recorded deferred regulatory assets associated with the difference between depreciation expense calculated in accordance with U.S. GAAP and negotiated depreciation rates recovered in transportation tolls for certain of its regulated operations. The error was not material to any of the Company’s previously issued consolidated financial statements; however, as discussed in Note 4, Revision of Prior Period Financial Statements, to the consolidated financial statements as at December 31, 2013, prior year comparative financial statements have been revised to correct the effect of this error. This non-cash revision did not impact cash flows for any prior period. The discussion and analysis included herein is based on revised financial results for the year ended December 31, 2013 or other comparative periods as indicated. OVERVIEW Enbridge, a Canadian Company, is a North American leader in delivering energy.
    [Show full text]
  • Final Supplemental EIS for the Keystone XL Project
    Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 2 Keystone XL Project Description of the Proposed Project and Alternatives 2.2 DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES 2.2.1 Introduction As noted in the White House Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) guidelines, alternatives provide decision makers and the public a range of reasonable choices in addition to the proposed action (i.e., the proposed Project), and form the heart of an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) (40 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] 1502.14). This Final Supplemental EIS considers three categories of alternatives, consistent with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), including the No Action Alternative, major pipeline route alternatives, and other alternatives considered but eliminated from detailed analysis. This section describes these alternatives and the screening process to determine whether they should be carried forward for detailed analysis in this Final Supplemental EIS. This section also includes detailed discussions of major route variations and other alternatives considered. 2.2.2 Overview of Alternatives The following section provides an overview of the alternatives considered in this Final Supplemental EIS. 2.2.2.1 No Action Alternative The No Action Alternative includes a Status Quo Baseline and several potential scenarios that could result if the Presidential Permit is denied or the proposed Project is not otherwise implemented. Identification and analysis of these scenarios are informed by the Market Analysis in Section 1.4. The Status Quo Baseline is included for the purposes of comparing the impacts of the proposed Project to existing conditions. Under the Status Quo Baseline, the proposed Project would not be built. Environmental conditions under the baseline would therefore be the same as those described in the respective resource sections in Chapter 3, Affected Environment.
    [Show full text]
  • Phase III: Natural Gas-Fired Electric Power Generation Infrastructure Analysis an Analysis of Pipeline Capacity Availability
    Phase III: Natural Gas-Fired Electric Power Generation Infrastructure Analysis An Analysis of Pipeline Capacity Availability Appendix Gregory L. Peters President, EnVision Energy Solutions [email protected] 804.378.0770 1 Disclaimer: This report was prepared by Gregory L. Peters, President and Principal Consultant of EnVision Energy Solutions, for the benefit of the Midcontinent Independent Transmission System Operator (MISO). This work involves detailed analyses of interstate pipeline daily flow and capacity data; data obtained and compiled by Bentek Energy; and available public information from independent third parties. The appropriate professional diligence has been applied in the preparation of this analysis, using what is believed to be reasonable assumptions. However, since the report also necessarily involves assumptions regarding the future and the accuracy of the data, no warranty is made, expressed or implied. EnVision Energy Solutions is the prime contractor and Bentek Energy is the subcontractor for this analysis. 2 Table of Contents A1 MBA Methodology Details………………………………………………………………………………….6 A1.1 Summary of Pipeline Capacity Availability for Additional Gas-fired Generation....14 A2 Specific Pipeline Overview and Analyses……………………………………………………………18 A2.1 Alliance Pipeline, LP (Segment 1)……..……………………………………………………….…..….18 A2.2 ANR Pipeline Co. (Segments 2, 3, 4) …………..……………………………………………………..21 A2.3 CenterPoint (Enable) MRT (Segment 5)………………………………………………..……………26 A2.4 Great Lakes Transmission (Segment 6)……………………………………………………………….29
    [Show full text]