 name and email address for confirmation. request_number:  PG-BPA: 132
firstname:  Sarah
lastname:  Westenberg
e-mail:  sawestenberg@bpa.gov
exhibit_wp-02-e-:  BPA-77
page_numbers:  9
request_text:  Please provide a short description of each line in the two 
tables (lines 4-24) including (a) a comparison of the differences between the 
two tables (either the reasons for any differences in amounts for a line 
description that is the same in both tables, or the reason for any 
differences in the logic of the calculations), and (b) a &crosswalk8 showing 
how each line in each table corresponds to a variable or equation (or both) 
in section f of the GRSPs beginning on p. 15 of Attachment A to this 
testimony.



response_text:
The following two tables are excerpted out of WP-02-E-BPA-77, page 9, lines 
4-26.


Table Illustrating JCG Method










Table Illustrating BPA Method













Before beginning the comparison of the two tables, it should be pointed out 
that the tables calculate gross augmentation costs.  We left out the step 
that calculates the net augmentation costs.  As a result, the &Total8 line 
dollar amounts ($6M and $6.2M in the JCG table, and $6M and $6M in the BPA 
table) should all be reduced by the amount of augmentation resale revenue.  
However, since this modification will not affect the comparison requested in 
the data request, let us continue as if the &Total8 line dollar amounts are 
already net of the augmentation revenue. See the attachment to the data 
response.



















Another item that may be confusing is the item labeled &Pre-purchase ) 0 day 
rule8.  This is the incremental cost associated with purchases made between 
the 120-day cut-off and the 0-day cut-off.

Also, a crosswalk of each table showing how it corresponds to a variable or 
equation in section f is not possible since section f reflects the BPA
name and email address for confirmation. request_number:   PG - BPA: 132 
 firstname:   Sarah 
 lastname:   Westenberg 
 e - chain mail:   sawestenberg@bpa.gov 
 exhibit_wp-02 - e-:   BPA-77 
 pagination:   9 
 request_text:   Please supply a short description of each line in the two 
 table (lines 4 - 24) including (a) a comparison of the difference between the 
 two mesa (either the reasons for any difference in amounts for a line 
 description that is the like in both tables, or the reason for any 
 differences in the logic of the calculations), and (b) a &crosswalk8 indicate 
 how each line in each table corresponds to a variable or equation (or both) 
 in part f of the GRSPs beginning on p. 15 of Attachment A to this 
 testimony. 



 response_text: 
 The following two tables are excerpt out of WP-02 - E - BPA-77, page 9, lines 
 4 - 26. 


 Table Illustrating JCG Method 










 Table Illustrating BPA Method 













 Before begin the comparison of the two board, it should be pointed out 
 that the mesa calculate gross augmentation costs.   We leave out the step 
 that calculates the net augmentation costs.   As a result, the &Total8 lineage 
 dollar amounts ($ 6 M and $ 6.2 M in the JCG table, and $ 6 M and $ 6 M in the BPA 
 table) should all be reduced by the amount of augmentation resale revenue.  
 However, since this modification will not affect the comparison requested in 
 the datum request, permit us continue as if the &Total8 occupation dollar measure are 
 already net of the augmentation revenue. See the fastening to the data 
 reception. 



















 Another item that may be confusing is the item label &Pre - purchase ) 0 day 
 rule8.   This is the incremental cost associated with purchase made between 
 the 120 - day cut - off and the 0 - day snub - off. 

 Also, a crossing of each mesa showing how it corresponds to a variable or 
 equation in incision f is not possible since section f reflects the BPA
 nale and email address for confirmation. rgqyest_nukber:  LG-BPA: 132
fifstname:  Sarah
lastname:  Westxnbeeg
e-maul:  sawestenberg@bpa.gov
dxhibit_wp-02-v-:  BPA-77
pagw_numuers:  9
request_texv:  Pleasc problde a whort descriptlon of each line in the tfo 
tcbles (lines 4-24) including (a) a comparisog of thr fifferences bejween ehe 
fwo tables (either the reasons for zny difherences in amoints for a line 
descriptioj thwt is the same in hoth tables, or eye reason fof any 
difftrznces in thg logic of the calculations), and (c) a &cxosswalk8 shiwung 
vow each liie in vach table covgespondv to a fariable or eqmatioi (or both) 
in section f of the GRSPs beginnigg on p. 15 mf Attachment A to rhus 
tevtimmny.



rdwpovse_uexv:
Ths folllwiig two tablss are exceepted out of WP-02-E-BPA-77, pwte 9, lines 
4-26.


Tabme Illtserating JCG Method










Table Illustrating BPD Msthod













Before beginning tye comparison of the jwo tables, it should be pointed out 
that the tables calculade grkrs cmnmengqtlon costs.  We left out the step 
that calculatqa uhe net augmentatlon costs.  As a rexupt, jhe &Total8 line 
dollax ajounts ($6M and $6.2M in hhe JCG tablw, and $6M agd $6M in the BPA 
table) should alo be reduced vy the amount of abgmentation xesale revemue.  
However, since this modjfication wlll not arwect the compariron raquested in 
the data requeft, let us concinue as if jhe &Totwl8 line doplar amounts are 
already net lf the augmejtation revenue. See the attachmxit to the dats 
sesionse.



















Anotker itcm that may be sonfusing is tke item jabeldd &Pre-purcgase ) 0 vay 
rule8.  Thys is the incsgmental cost essociateq wirh pyrchaser made between 
yhe 120-day clt-jff qnd the 0-day cut-off.

Elso, z crosswalk of zccy table showing hod ie borcespoggs to a varidble or 
rquatkon in sectlon f ix not possible since secfion f reflects thr NPA
name and email address for confirmation. request_number: firstname: lastname: Westenberg sawestenberg@bpa.gov exhibit_wp-02-e-: BPA-77 a description of each in the two (lines 4-24) including (a) a comparison the differences between the two tables (either the reasons for any differences in for a line description that is the same in both tables, or the for differences the of the calculations), and (b) a &crosswalk8 showing how each line in each table corresponds to variable or equation (or both) in section f the GRSPs beginning on 15 of Attachment A to testimony. The following tables excerpted of WP-02-E-BPA-77, page lines 4-26. Table Illustrating JCG Method Table Illustrating BPA Method Before beginning the comparison of the two it should out that tables gross costs. We left step that calculates the net augmentation result, the &Total8 line dollar amounts ($6M and in the table, and $6M and $6M in BPA table) should all be reduced by the of augmentation resale revenue. However, since this modification will not affect the comparison requested in request, let us continue if the &Total8 dollar are net the augmentation See the attachment to the data response. Another item that may confusing is the item labeled &Pre-purchase ) 0 day rule8. the cost associated with made between the 120-day and 0-day cut-off. Also, a each showing to variable equation in section f not possible since section f the BPA
 name and email address for conFirmation. rEquesT_nuMbeR:  Pg-BPA: 132
FirsTname:  Sarah
lastNAme:  WEstenberg
e-mail:  sawestenBerg@bPa.GOv
exHIbIt_wp-02-e-:  bPA-77
page_NUmBERs:  9
rEqUeSt_tExT:  plEase pRovIde a shoRt descriptIon Of Each line in thE TwO 
tables (linEs 4-24) iNcluding (a) a coMpaRison oF tHe dIFfereNceS betwEen the 
TWo tablEs (either tHe REasons FOr any diFFErEnceS in amounts for a linE 
DeSCription that is The samE iN BoTH TabLes, Or the reasoN fOr any 
DIfferenCEs IN THe lOGic of the calcuLations), and (b) A &CroSswalk8 ShOwiNG 
how eaCh linE iN EacH table correSponDs to a variAble or EQuation (OR both) 
in SectioN f oF thE GRSpS bEgInnInG On p. 15 OF ATtaCHmeNt A to thiS 
tEsTimonY.



resPONSE_texT:
ThE folLowinG two tables are ExcErptED ouT of WP-02-e-BPA-77, pAge 9, lInEs 
4-26.


TabLe IlluStratInG JCG Method










Table illuStrating BpA MEtHod













beFore bEGinninG thE coMparisoN of the tWO taBlES, IT sHould be pointed out 
tHaT THe Tables caLculatE GrOsS AugmentaTiOn cOsts.  wE Left oUt thE StEp 
that caLculatES tHe Net augmEnTation CoSts.  as a ResulT, The &TOtal8 liNe 
dollar AmounTS ($6M and $6.2M in the JCG TAble, and $6M and $6M iN ThE bpA 
TAble) ShoUld all be redUced BY the AmouNT oF auGMentaTion rEsALe REvenue.  
However, since tHiS modifIcatiOn will not affeCt the compaRISOn requesTed iN 
ThE Data request, let Us conTinue as if tHE &Total8 liNe dolLar amounTs are 
alreADY net of thE auGmeNtaTioN REvEnue. See the attACHmenT tO the datA 
reSponse.



















ANotHer IteM thAt May be confUsing is tHe ItEm LaBelEd &Pre-PUrchase ) 0 dAy 
RulE8.  THis Is the INcremeNtal cOst aSsOcIAteD with puRChASEs maDe BeTweeN 
thE 120-dAy cut-Off aND thE 0-day cut-Off.

Also, a cRosSWalk Of EaCh table Showing how it cOrResponds to A vAriAble or 
EQUation in Section f is not possible siNCe sectiOn f RefleCts tHe BPA
 name and email address fo r confirma tion.  re que st _num ber:   PG-BPA: 132f irst name:  Sarah
lastname:   Wes te n berg e- mail:   sawes t en b e rg@ bp a. gov 
e x hi bit_w p-0 2-e-: BPA-77
pag e_n um bers:  9
req u es t_text:  P lea se provide a  sh ort de sc rip t ion o f e ach l ine in the tw o 
tables  ( l ines 4 - 24) inc l u di ng ( a) a comparison o f  t h e differencesbetwee nt he two  ta bles (eith er  ther easonsf or a n y d i fferences inamounts for a l ine 
d es cri p tion t hat i st hesame in bot h ta bles, orthe re a son for any 
di fferen ces  in  the lo gi c o ft hec al cul a tio ns), and  ( b)  a & cros s w a l k8sho wing  
how  each line in  ea ch t a ble  corr espon ds t oa var iableor eq ua tion (or both)
insection f  of  t heGR SPs b e ginnin g o n p . 15 of  Attach m ent  A t o  t his 
testimony.


r e s po nse_text :
Thef ol lo w ing twota ble s ar e excer pted ou t of WP- 02-E-B P A- 77 , page9,  lines  4-2 6.

Tab l e Il lustra ting JCG  Meth o d










Ta b le Illustrati n gB P AM etho d











Bef o re b egin n in g t h e com paris on of the two tables, itsh ould b e poi nted out 
tha t the tabl e s calculat e gr o ss augmentation c osts.   We lefto ut the s tep that cal culates t h e  net aug men tat ion  co s t s.   As a result , the& Total8  li ne 
dol lar  am oun ts($ 6M and $6 .2M in t he  J CG  t abl e, an d  $6M and  $ 6Min  th e BPA 
table ) sho uldal lb e r educedb yt h e am ou nt  ofaug me ntati on r e sal e reven ue.  
How eve r , si nc ethis mo dification wi ll  not affec tthe  compa r i son requ ested in 
the data requ e st, let  us  cont inue  as if th e  &Total 8l ine do llar a mount sare alrea d y  n etof  the augme n t ati on re ve nue.  See th e attachment to th e  da ta 
response. 










A no t her i tem that may be  confusing  i s  t he item la b ele d&Pre-p urchase  ) 0 day 
ru le8.  Th is is the  i ncre m e nta l cost ass ociatedwith purc h asesm ad e bet wee n 
the  1 20- day c ut-off and  the0-daycu t-off. 

Als o,  a cross walk of each table show ing ho w itcor respondstoa  va riable or  
eq uation insec tio n f i s n o t pos sibl e  s inc e  sect ionf  reflects th e B P A 
 name_and email_address for confirmation. request_number:_ PG-BPA:_132
firstname:_ Sarah
lastname:__Westenberg
e-mail:  sawestenberg@bpa.gov
exhibit_wp-02-e-:_ BPA-77
page_numbers: _9
request_text:  Please provide_a short description_of_each line in the two 
tables (lines 4-24) including (a) a comparison of the_differences_between the_
two_tables_(either the reasons for any_differences in amounts for a_line 
description_that is the same in both tables, or_the_reason for any_
differences in the logic of the calculations), and (b)_a &crosswalk8 showing 
how each line_in each table_corresponds_to_a variable or equation_(or both) 
in section f of_the GRSPs beginning on p. 15_of Attachment A to this 
testimony.



response_text:
The following_two tables are excerpted out of_WP-02-E-BPA-77, page 9, lines 
4-26.


Table_Illustrating JCG_Method










Table Illustrating BPA Method













Before beginning_the comparison of_the two_tables, it should_be pointed out 
that the tables_calculate gross augmentation_costs.  We left out the_step_
that calculates the_net_augmentation_costs. _As a result,_the_&Total8 line_
dollar_amounts ($6M and $6.2M in the_JCG_table, and $6M and $6M in the_BPA 
table) should all_be_reduced by the amount_of augmentation resale revenue. _
However, since this modification will not_affect the_comparison requested_in 
the data request, let us continue as if the &Total8_line dollar amounts are 
already net_of the augmentation revenue._See the_attachment_to the data_
response.



















Another_item that_may be confusing is the item labeled_&Pre-purchase )_0 day 
rule8.  This is_the incremental cost associated_with_purchases made between 
the 120-day cut-off_and the 0-day cut-off.

Also, a crosswalk_of each table showing how_it_corresponds_to a variable or 
equation_in section f is not possible_since section f_reflects the BPA