GRSPs proposed by the JCG in their Direct Case.

&Pre-purchase ) 0 day rule8 is the additional cost of pre-purchases made less 
than 120 days prior to the month of delivery.  This amount is $1M in both 
tables in the non-Slice column.  The 0-day rule pre-purchases are not 
applicable to the Slice product, thus the N/A in the Slice column in both 
tables.  If &Pre-purchase ) 120 day rule8 and &Pre-purchase ) 0 day rule8 
were summed the sum would represent DIURNALACA(NS) in the GRSPs proposed by 
the customers.  Note that the Pre-purchase ) 0 day rule appears in a 
different row in the BPA table since BPA has proposed that these incremental 
cost enter the calculations at a different point.

Short position is the cost of the amount of AAMTA that is not pre-purchased.  
This is the amount that is valued at PRICE in the GRSPs.  In the JCG, the 
short position is different between the Slice and non-Slice columns.  This is 
because the example has BPA purchasing some additional augmentation ($1M 
worth) under the 0-day rule, and there is a corresponding reduction in the 
value of BPA,s short position.  The change also reflects that the short 
position is valued using different PRICEs for the 120 day rule and the 0 day 
rule.  In the BPA example, Short position is $3M for both Slice and non-Slice 
products, and the difference (-$0.8M) is found in the row &Short position 0 
day rule8

&Buydown8 is the cost of all buydowns.  It is the same in both tables, for 
both Slice and non-Slice products.  In the examples BPA spent $1M buying down 
load.

&Total8 is the gross cost of augmentation.  As stated above, it should be 
reduced by the augmentation resale revenue.  To continue on, let us assume 
that &Total
GRSPs proposed by the JCG in their Direct Case. 

 &Pre - purchase ) 0 day rule8 is the additional monetary value of pre - purchase made less 
 than 120 days prior to the month of pitch.   This amount is $ 1 M in both 
 tables in the non - Slice column.   The 0 - sidereal day rule pre - purchases are not 
 applicable to the Slice product, therefore the N / A in the Slice column in both 
 table.   If &Pre - purchase ) 120 sidereal day rule8 and &Pre - purchase ) 0 day rule8 
 were summed the sum would present DIURNALACA(NS) in the GRSPs proposed by 
 the customers.   Note that the Pre - purchase ) 0 day rule look in a 
 different row in the BPA table since BPA has nominate that these incremental 
 cost enter the calculations at a different detail. 

 Short position is the cost of the amount of AAMTA that is not pre - purchased.  
 This is the sum that is valued at PRICE in the GRSPs.   In the JCG, the 
 short position is different between the Slice and non - Slice columns.   This is 
 because the example has BPA purchasing some additional augmentation ($ 1 M 
 worth) under the 0 - day rule, and there is a corresponding reduction in the 
 value of BPA,s inadequate position.   The change besides reflect that the brusque 
 position is valued use unlike PRICEs for the 120 day rule and the 0 sidereal day 
 rule.   In the BPA example, Short position is $ 3 M for both Slice and non - Slice 
 products, and the dispute (-$0.8 M) is found in the row &Short position 0 
 day rule8 

 &Buydown8 is the monetary value of all buydowns.   It is the same in both table, for 
 both Slice and non - Slice products.   In the examples BPA spent $ 1 M buying down 
 load. 

 &Total8 is the crude cost of augmentation.   As stated above, it should be 
 reduced by the augmentation resale gross.   To continue on, let us assume 
 that &Total
GRSOs proposed by the JCG ik their Direct Ccwe.

&Pre-pnrchase ) 0 day rjle8 is the additional cost oh prw-purcyases made less 
than 120 aays priog to the nonti of delivery.  Tijs amoukc is $1J in yovh 
tables in thg non-Slice cmlumn.  The 0-day rjlz pre-purchases are not 
applicable to the Slocf product, thus the G/A ih the Slice column in both 
tables.  If &Pre-kurchase ) 120 day rulr8 and &Pre-purchase ) 0 day rupe8 
wfre summed the sum would reprgaene DIURNALACA(NR) in the GGVPs proposgd by 
the customers.  Note that tfe Prz-purchase ) 0 dqy gole appears mn a 
dpfferent row lm the TPA tabke since BPA hss 'ropised that these increkental 
cost enter jhe calculdtnons at a different piibt.

Shott povitiub ir tge ckst of thx amount of AAMTA that is not pre-purchasec.  
Nnis is the ajount ehwt is valued at PRICE in the GRSPs.  In uhe JDG, the 
short position iw different between tje Slice wnd non-Slice columns.  This is 
because the example has UPX pbvghaskbg some additional augmentation ($1M 
worth) under trs 0-caj rule, and there ls a corresponding rfdistion in the 
xalue of GPA,s short positioj.  The shangw also reslecys that the short 
position us valued uspng eifferent PRICEs flr the 120 day rulg and yhe 0 day 
rule.  In the B'A exajple, Short oosition jr $3M for both Slize sng non-Slice 
products, and thq differeice (-$0.8M) is fouvd im the wow &Short oositlmn 0 
day rule8

&Buydowj8 is jhe covt of all huydowns.  It is the same in boti tables, for 
nodh Vlice anb non-Skice products.  In the exampkes BPA speng $1M buying down 
lmad.

&Total8 is the gross covj of augmentavion.  As ftatwd avove, it rhould be 
reduved by thv cugmentatuon resale revenue.  Tu continue on, lec ow assume 
that &Yotxl
GRSPs proposed by the JCG in their &Pre-purchase 0 day is the additional than days prior to month of delivery. amount is $1M in both tables the non-Slice column. The 0-day rule pre-purchases are not applicable to the Slice thus the N/A in the Slice column in both tables. If &Pre-purchase ) day and ) day rule8 were summed the sum would represent DIURNALACA(NS) in the GRSPs proposed by the customers. that the Pre-purchase ) 0 day rule appears a different row in BPA table since BPA has that incremental cost the at different point. Short is the cost of the amount of AAMTA that is not pre-purchased. This is the amount that valued at the GRSPs. the the position is different Slice and non-Slice columns. This is has BPA purchasing some additional augmentation ($1M worth) the 0-day and there is a corresponding reduction the value of BPA,s short position. The change reflects that the short position is valued using different PRICEs for the 120 day rule 0 day rule. In BPA example, Short is for Slice non-Slice products, the difference (-$0.8M) is found in the row &Short position 0 rule8 &Buydown8 is the cost of all buydowns. It is in tables, for both and non-Slice products. In examples spent $1M buying down is gross As above, should be reduced by augmentation resale revenue. To continue let us assume that
GRSPs proposed by the JCG in thEir Direct CAse.

&PrE-puRchAsE ) 0 day Rule8 Is the additionaL Cost Of pre-purchases made less 
Than 120 dAyS PrioR To The moNth of deLIvERY.  ThIs AmOunT iS $1m iN both 
TabLes in thE non-Slice cOluMn.  the 0-day rule prE-PuRchases are Not 
Applicable to The slice pRoDucT, Thus tHe N/a in thE Slice COlumn iN both 
tablEs.  iF &Pre-puRChase ) 120 daY RUlE8 and &pre-purchase ) 0 day rulE8 
WeRE summed the sum wOuld rePrESeNT dIUrNAlACA(NS) in thE GrSPs pROposed bY 
ThE CUStoMErs.  Note that thE Pre-purchasE ) 0 Day Rule apPeArs IN a 
diffErent RoW In tHe BPA table sInce bPA has proPosed tHAt these INcremenTal 
cosT enTer The cALcUlAtiOnS At a DIfFerENt pOint.

ShorT pOsItion Is thE COST of tHe aMounT of AAmTA that is not pRe-pUrchASed.  
this iS the aMounT tHat is Valued At PRIcE In the GRSPs.  In the jCG, tHe 
short poSitIoN is DiFfereNT betweEn tHe SLice and Non-SlicE ColUmNS.  tHiS is 
because the exampLe HAS BpA purchaSing soME aDdITional auGmEntAtioN ($1m 
Worth) UndeR ThE 0-day rule, And theRE iS a CorrespOnDing reDuCtiOn iN the 
vALue oF BPA,s sHort posiTion.  THE change also refLEcts that the shORt 
POSiTIon iS vaLued using diFferENt PRiCEs FOr The 120 DAy rulE and tHe 0 DAy 
RUle.  In the BPA example, SHoRt posiTion iS $3M for both SlicE and non-SliCE 
PRoducts, aNd thE DiFFerence (-$0.8M) is founD in thE row &Short pOSition 0 
daY rule8

&buydown8 iS the cost oF ALl buydowNs.  IT is The SamE IN bOth tables, for 
bOTH SliCe And non-SLicE producTs.  IN thE exAmpLeS BPA spent $1m buying dOwN 
lOaD.

&TOtaL8 is thE Gross cosT oF auGmEntAtion.  aS stateD abovE, it sHoUlD Be 
rEduced bY ThE AUgmeNtAtIon rEsaLe RevenUe.  To COntInue on, lEt us assumE 
thAT &TotAl
GRSPs proposed by the JCGin their D irect  Ca se. 
&Pr e-pu rchase ) 0 da y  rul e8 is the additionalcostof pre- p ur chase s madel es s 
th an  1 20da y sprior  to  the mo nth of del ive ry .  This amou n tis $1M inbot h 
tables in  th e non- Sl ice colum n. The0-dayr ule pr e-purchas es are no t  
appli c a bl e to  the Slice produc t ,t hus the N/A in  the S li c ec o lum n i n both 
ta bl es. I f &Pre - pu r c h ase ) 120 day ru le8 and & P re- purcha se  ) 0 dayrule 8wer e summed th e su m would r eprese n t DIURN A LACA(NS ) in t heGRS Ps p r op os edby 
th e  c ust o mer s.  Note  t ha t the  Pre - p u r chas e  ) 0day r ule appears i n a  
di f fer ent r ow in  the  B PA ta ble si nce B PA  has proposed t hatthese inc rem en tal  coste nter t hecal culatio ns at a dif fe r e n tpoint.

Short posi ti o n  i s the co st oft he  a m ount ofAA MTA  tha t is no t pr e -p urchased .  
Th i sis  the am ou nt tha tisval ued a t  PRI CE inthe GRSP s.  I n  the JCG, theshort positio n  i s di f fere ntbetween the  Sli c e an d no n -S lic e  colu mns. T h is is 
because the exa mp le has  BPApurchasing so me additio n a l  augment atio n  ( $ 1M 
worth) und er th e 0-day ru l e, and t hereis a cor respondin g reductio n i n t he
va l u eof BPA,s sho r t  pos it ion.  T hechangeals o r efl ect sthat theshort 
p os it io nisvalue d  using d if fer en t P RICEs for th e 120  day  r ul e  an d the 0 da y 
rul e.  In t heBP A exa mple ,  Sh ort pos ition is$3M forbo th  Sliceand non-Slice  products,an d t he dif f e rence (- $0.8M) is found in ther ow &Sh ort  posi tion  0 
day r ule 8

& Buy d own8is the  cost  o f a l l  buyd o w ns . It  is the sa m e  in  both  t able s, for
both Slice and no n -Sl ice products.   I n th e ex amp l es BPA  s p ent $ 1M buying down
load.

& To t al 8 is theg ros scost of  augmen tatio n .  As s tated abo ve, it sh ou ld b e 
re duced by t he augme ntation r e saler ev enue.   T o cont in ueon, l et usa ssu me 
t hat & To tal
GRSPs proposed_by the_JCG in their Direct_Case.

&Pre-purchase )_0_day rule8_is_the additional cost_of pre-purchases made_less 
than 120 days_prior to the_month_of delivery.  This amount is $1M in both 
tables in the non-Slice column.__The 0-day_rule_pre-purchases_are not 
applicable to the_Slice product, thus the N/A_in the_Slice column in both 
tables.  If &Pre-purchase_)_120 day rule8_and &Pre-purchase ) 0 day rule8 
were summed the_sum would represent DIURNALACA(NS) in the_GRSPs proposed by_
the_customers._ Note that the_Pre-purchase ) 0 day rule appears_in a 
different row in the_BPA table since BPA has proposed that_these incremental 
cost enter the calculations_at a different point.

Short position_is the_cost of the amount of_AAMTA that is_not pre-purchased._ 
This is_the amount that is valued at_PRICE in the_GRSPs.  In the JCG, the_
short_position is different_between_the_Slice and_non-Slice columns. _This_is 
because_the_example has BPA purchasing some additional_augmentation_($1M 
worth) under the 0-day rule, and_there is a corresponding_reduction_in the 
value of_BPA,s short position.  The_change also reflects that the short_
position is_valued using_different PRICEs for the 120 day rule and the 0 day_
rule.  In the BPA example,_Short position is $3M_for both_Slice_and non-Slice 
products,_and_the difference_(-$0.8M) is found in the row &Short_position 0_
day rule8

&Buydown8 is the cost of_all buydowns.  It_is_the same in both tables, for_
both Slice and non-Slice products. _In the examples BPA spent_$1M_buying_down 
load.

&Total8 is the gross_cost of augmentation.  As stated_above, it should_be 
reduced by the augmentation resale revenue.__To continue on, let us assume_
that_&Total