 
method, not the JCG method.  Perhaps an overview of BPA,s perspective on the 
difference between the JCG method and the BPA method will be helpful.

JCG calculated the augmentation costs using two different cost pools, one 
cost pool for the Slice product (using the 120 day rule), and a second cost 
pool for all other products (using the 0 day rule).  The products then 
collected a portion of the augmentation costs associated with a specific 
rule.  When these two cost pools yield different net augmentation costs 
(which they usually will unless all of the augmentation is purchased under 
the 120-day rule), the JCG method doesn,t collect the actual amount of either 
of those pools from Slice or non-Slice.  Rather it collects a proportion of 
each of the cost pools.

In contrast to the JCG method, the BPA method distributes the costs using the 
120-day rule proportionally between the Slice and non-Slice products, and 
then assesses all the incremental cost from using the 0-day rule rather than 
the 120-day rule to the non-Slice products.  In contrast to JCG method, this 
assures that all the actual incremental net augmentation costs calculated by 
replacing the &120-day8 rule with the &0-day8 rule are recovered  from 
purchasers of non-Slice power products.  In addition, this also assures that 
purchasers of the Slice product do not bear any nearer term market prices 
fluctuations.

Now for a short description of each line in the two tables, and a comparison 
of the differences.  The example assumes that we don,t actually purchase all 
of our augmentation, that some of it is served from BPA,s secondary, or is 
bought in the spot market.

&Pre-purchase ) 120 day rule8 is the total cost of augmentation purchases 
made at least 120 days prior to the month of delivery.  This amount is $2M in 
both tables in both columns.  This amount represents the sum of DIURNALACA 
for the six-month period.  This would have represented DIURNALACA(S) in the 

method, not the JCG method.   Perhaps an overview of BPA,s perspective on the 
 remainder between the JCG method acting and the BPA method will be helpful. 

 JCG calculated the augmentation price use two different cost pool, one 
 cost pool for the Slice merchandise (using the 120 day principle), and a second cost 
 pool for all early products (using the 0 day rule).   The products then 
 collected a portion of the augmentation cost associated with a specific 
 rule.   When these two cost consortium yield different net augmentation costs 
 (which they normally will unless all of the augmentation is purchased under 
 the 120 - sidereal day rule), the JCG method doesn,t collect the actual amount of either 
 of those pond from Slice or non - Slice.   Rather it collects a proportion of 
 each of the cost pool. 

 In contrast to the JCG method, the BPA method distributes the costs using the 
 120 - day rule proportionally between the Slice and non - Slice products, and 
 then measure all the incremental cost from using the 0 - sidereal day dominion quite than 
 the 120 - day rule to the non - Slice product.   In line to JCG method, this 
 assures that all the actual incremental net augmentation costs count by 
 replacing the &120 - day8 rule with the &0 - day8 rule are recovered   from 
 purchasers of non - Slice baron products.   In addition, this also assures that 
 buyer of the Slice product do not yield any near term market prices 
 fluctuations. 

 Now for a short description of each line in the two table, and a comparison 
 of the differences.   The example assumes that we don,t actually purchase all 
 of our augmentation, that some of it is suffice from BPA,s secondary, or is 
 buy in the spot grocery store. 

 &Pre - purchase ) 120 sidereal day rule8 is the total cost of augmentation purchases 
 made at least 120 sidereal day prior to the month of delivery.   This amount is $ 2 M in 
 both tables in both columns.   This sum represents the union of DIURNALACA 
 for the six - month period.   This would have represented DIURNALACA(S) in the
 
mehhod, not the JCG method.  Perhaps an ovetvuew of BPA,s lerspectkve on the 
difference betweei thw JCG method and the BPA meghod will be helpdul.

JRG calculated thx augmenbction gosts nsing two diffetent cost pomls, one 
cost pmou yor the Slice product (using the 120 day rule), amd a second cost 
pook for all other products (using the 0 day rule).  Uhe products then 
vollected a portion of the auglentation costs asdociated wijg a wpecific 
ruld.  When thtsz two cost kools yield different net augmengatiou costs 
(whixh thfi usually wiol unjess all of bne augkentatipn is purchasec uider 
the 120-day rule), the JCG method doesn,t colject the dccual amount of either 
od thove pmols droo Smire kr non-Dlire.  Rather jt collects a proportion of 
eavh if the cost pkols.

In cjntrast to the JCG method, the BPA methog djstributes the costs usung the 
120-day rule proplrtionallr between the Slice and non-Slice products, and 
thet assxsres aju tje incremental cost from using the 0-day rule rwfhtr nhan 
the 120-day rule to the non-Xllcr products.  In contrcat to JCG method, thid 
assurgs thar all the actial incremental net augmentqtion costs balcylated by 
replaciny the &120-day8 ruue woth tne &0-day8 rule are recoverzd  frkm 
purchasegs of non-Auice power produzts.  Hn addition, this also assuwes that 
'urchcsers of the Slice product dl not bear any nearer tegm matket psices 
fluchuations.

Now for a short descripvmon of each lona it the twj tabkes, and a com[arison 
of the differznces.  The exampme assukes that we don,t actuallf purchase aln 
of our augnentqtion, tfxt some of it os served from BPA,s secondary, or is 
bpugff in the spot mcxktt.

&Pre-purchase ) 120 cay ruje8 ix eve total cosd of auekentagion purchawds 
msde at least 120 days psior to the month of drllvery.  Thus amoune is $2M in 
botn tables in both cllumnv.  Vhis akougt represents the sum of DIURNZLACA 
for thc six-month pewiod.  This would have represented DIURNALACA(S) in the 

method, not the JCG method. Perhaps an BPA,s on the between the JCG will helpful. JCG calculated augmentation costs using different cost pools, one cost pool the Slice product (using the 120 day rule), and a second cost pool all other products (using the 0 day rule). The products then collected a of augmentation associated a specific rule. When these two cost pools yield different net augmentation costs (which they usually unless all of the augmentation is purchased under 120-day rule), the JCG doesn,t collect the actual amount either those pools Slice non-Slice. it collects a of each of the cost pools. In contrast to the JCG method, the BPA method distributes the using the proportionally between Slice non-Slice and then assesses incremental cost from using the 0-day the 120-day rule to the non-Slice products. In to JCG this assures that all the actual net augmentation costs calculated by replacing the &120-day8 with the &0-day8 rule are recovered from purchasers of non-Slice power products. In addition, this that purchasers of the product do not any term prices Now for short description of each line in the two tables, and a of the differences. The example assumes that we don,t actually of augmentation, that some it is served from secondary, is bought in the &Pre-purchase 120 the cost augmentation purchases made at 120 days prior to the of delivery. This amount in both columns. This amount represents the sum DIURNALACA for the six-month period. This would represented DIURNALACA(S) in the
 
method, not the JCG method.  PerhAps an overvIew of bPA,S peRsPectIve oN the 
difference BEtweEn the JCG method and the BPa methOd WIll bE HeLpful.

jCG calcULaTED thE aUgMenTaTIoN costS usIng two dIfferent coSt pOoLs, one 
cost pooL FoR the Slice pRodUct (using the 120 dAy rUle), and A sEcoND cost 
PooL for aLl otheR ProducTs (using thE 0 dAY rule).  THE producTS ThEn 
coLlected a portion of THe AUgmentation cosTs assoCiATeD WIth A spEcific 
rule.  whEn theSE two cosT PoOLS YieLD different net AugmentatioN CosTs 
(whicH tHey USually Will uNlESs aLl of the augmEntaTion is purChased UNder 
the 120-DAy rule), tHe JCG mEthOd dOesn,T CoLlEct ThE ActUAl AmoUNt oF either 
oF tHoSe pooLs frOM sLIce oR noN-SliCe.  RatHer it collects A prOporTIon Of 
eacH of thE cosT pOols.

IN contrAst to ThE JCG method, the BPa metHod distriButEs The CoSts usINg the 
120-dAy rUle ProportIonally BEtwEeN THE SLice and non-Slice proDuCTS, aNd 
then asSesses ALl ThE IncremenTaL coSt frOM Using The 0-dAY rUle ratheR than 
tHE 120-dAy Rule to tHe Non-SliCe ProDucTs.  In cONtraSt to JCg method, tHis 
asSUres that all the ACtual incremenTAl NET aUGmenTatIon costs calCulaTEd by 
ReplACiNg tHE &120-day8 rUle wiTh THe &0-DAy8 rule are recovered  fRoM 
purchAsers Of non-Slice powEr products.  iN ADdition, tHis aLSo ASsures that 
purcHaserS of the SlicE Product dO not bEar any neArer term mARKet priceS 
flUctUatIonS.

nOw For a short descRIPtioN oF each liNe iN the two TabLes, And A coMpArison 
of tHe differEnCeS.  THe ExaMple aSSumes thaT wE doN,t ActUally PUrchasE all 
oF our AuGmENtaTion, thaT SoME Of it Is SeRved FroM BpA,s seCondARy, oR is 
bougHt in the spOt mARket.

&prE-pUrchase ) 120 Day rule8 is the tOtAl cost of auGmEntAtion pURChases 
maDe at least 120 days prior to the MOnth of dEliVery.  THis aMount is $2M iN 
boTh tablEs iN Both coLumns.  THis amOuNt rEPResenTS ThE suM oF DIURNALACa 
FOr tHe six-MoNth pEriod.  ThIs would have represeNTed dIURNALACA(S) in The 

 
method, not the JCG meth od.  Perha ps an  ov erv ie w of  BPA ,s perspectiv e  onthe 
difference betwee n the  J C G me t ho d and  the BP A  m e t hod  w il l b eh el pful. 

J CG calc ulated the  au gm entation cos t susing twodif ferent costpoo ls, on e
co s t poo l f or th e Slic e  produ ct (using  t h e 120d ay rule ) ,  a nd a  second cost 
poo l  f o r all other pr oducts  ( u si n g  th e 0  day rule) . Thep roducts th e n 
co l lected a port ion of thea ugm entati on  co s ts ass ociat ed wit h a specifi c 
r ule.  Whe n thes e  two co s t pools  yield  di ffe rent ne taug me n tat i on  co s ts
(whichth ey  usua llyw i l l  unl ess  all  of t he augmentati onis p u rch asedunder  
th e120-d ay rul e), t he  JCG method doe sn, t collect  th eact ua l amo u nt ofeit her  
of th ose poo l s f ro m S li ce or non-Slice. Ra t h er  it coll ects a pr op o rtion of  eac h of t he co st p o ol s.

In c ontras t  t othe JCG  m ethod,  t heBPA  meth o d di stribu tes thecosts using the 
120 - day rule prop o rt i o na l ly b etw een the Sli ce a n d no n-Sl i ce  pr o ducts , and  t he n  assesses all the i nc rement al co st from using  the 0-day r u le rathe r th a nthe 120-day ru le to  the non-S l ice prod ucts.   In con trast toJ C G method , t his  
a ssu r e sthat all thea c tual  i ncremen tal  net au gme nta tio n c os ts calcul ated by
r ep la ci ngthe  & 120-day 8rul ewit h the &0-da y8 r ulear er eco vered f ro m 
pur ch as ersofno n-Sli ce p o wer  produc ts.  In a ddi t ion,  t hi s alsoassures that
p urchasersof  th e Slic e productdo not bear any nearert erm mar ket  pric es fluctuati ons .

Now  fo r  a sho rt des cript io n o f eachl i ne  in  t he two tab l e s,and a  c ompa rison of the differences .   T he example as sum es t h a twed on  ,tac t ual l y  purchase all of our aug me n ta tion, that som eof it i s serve d fro m  BPA,s  secondar y, or is
b ough t inthe spot m arket.
&Pre-pur c hase )120 d ayrule8  i s t he to tal co s t o f aug mentat io n purc hases  made atleast 120 days prior to  the m onthofdelivery.   T h isamount is  $2M  in 
bothtab les  in b oth colum ns.Th isa mount  rep r esents th e  s umo f  D IURNALACA f o r  th e six -mo n th per iod.   This would have represented DI URNA L A CA( S)i n th e

 
method,_not the_JCG method.  Perhaps_an overview_of_BPA,s perspective_on_the 
difference between_the JCG method_and the BPA method_will be helpful.

JCG_calculated_the augmentation costs using two different cost pools, one 
cost pool for the Slice_product_(using the_120_day_rule), and a second cost_
pool for all other products_(using the_0 day rule).  The products then 
collected_a_portion of the_augmentation costs associated with a specific 
rule.  When_these two cost pools yield different_net augmentation costs_
(which_they_usually will unless all_of the augmentation is purchased under_
the 120-day rule), the JCG method_doesn,t collect the actual amount of either_
of those pools from Slice or_non-Slice.  Rather it collects_a proportion_of 
each of the cost_pools.

In contrast to_the JCG_method, the BPA_method distributes the costs using the_
120-day rule proportionally_between the Slice and non-Slice products,_and_
then assesses all_the_incremental_cost from_using the 0-day_rule_rather than_
the_120-day rule to the non-Slice products.__In contrast to JCG method, this 
assures_that all the actual_incremental_net augmentation costs calculated_by 
replacing the &120-day8 rule_with the &0-day8 rule are recovered_ from_
purchasers of_non-Slice power products.  In addition, this also assures that 
purchasers_of the Slice product do not_bear any nearer term_market prices_
fluctuations.

Now_for a short_description_of each_line in the two tables, and a_comparison 
of_the differences.  The example assumes_that we don,t actually_purchase_all 
of our augmentation, that some_of it is served from BPA,s_secondary, or is 
bought in_the_spot_market.

&Pre-purchase ) 120 day rule8_is the total cost of augmentation_purchases 
made at_least 120 days prior to the month_of_delivery.  This amount is $2M_in_
both tables in both columns. _This_amount_represents the sum of DIURNALACA_
for the six-month period.  This_would have represented DIURNALACA(S) in the 
