Nelson Mullins

Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough LLP Attorneys and Counselors at Law

4140 Parklake Avenue / GlenLake One / Second Floor / Raleigh, North Carolina 27612

Tel: 919.877.3800 Fax: 919.877.3799 www. nelsonmullins. com

MAR 0 8 2013 Clerk's Office

N.C. Utilities Commission

Joseph W. Eason

919.877.3807

Fax: 919.877.3140

joe .eason@nelsonmul I i ns. com

March 8,2013

guns

VIA HAND DELIVERY

Ms. Gail Mount North Carolina Utilities Commission 430 N. Salisbury Street 5th Floor - Clerk's Office Raleigh, NC 27699-4325

RE: In the Matter of Application of Investigation of Certain Aspects of Lead-Lag Studies Used in General Rate Case Proceedings for Major Electric and Natural Gas Utilities (NCUC Docket M-100, Sub 137) Our File No. 19128.00001

Dear Ms. Mount:

Enclosed for filing on behalf of Nucor Steel-Hertford are an original and thirty (30) copies of following documents filed on behalf of Nucor Steel-Hertford:

1. Petition to Intervene; and

2. Initial Comments.

Also enclosed is an additional copy of each of the documents to be stamped as "filed" and returned to me via my courier.t/Thank you for your assistance in this matter. With best regards, I am.

Very truly yours,

JWE:njw Enclosure

cc: All parties of record (w/enc, via electronic mail and/or U.S. Mail)

Offices in the District of Columbia, Florida, Georgia. Massachusetts, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee and West Virginia

F I L E D MAR 0 8 2013

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA N.C ulltes Sission UTILITIES COMMISSION

RALEIGH

DOCKET NO. M-100, Sub 137

BEFORE THE NORTH CAROLINA UTILITIES COMMISSION

In the Matter of ) Investigation of Certain Aspects of Lead- ) PETITION TO INTERVENE OF Lag Studies Used in General Rate Case ) NUCOR STEEL-HERTFORD Proceedings for Major Electric and ) Natural Gas Utilities )

Pursuant to Rule Rl-19 of the Rules and Regulations of the North Carolina

Utilities Commission, Nucor Steel-Hertford, a division of Nucor Corporation, hereby

moves to intervene in the above-captioned proceeding. In support of its petition, Nucor

states:

1. On September 16, 2009, Dominion North Carolina Power filed its 2009

Integrated Resource Plan.

2. Nucor is a corporation organized pursuant to the laws of the State of

Delaware with its corporate headquarters located at 2100 Rexford Road, Charlotte, North

Carolina 28211.

3. Nucor owns and operates a steel recycling facility located in Hertford

County, North Carolina, which produces steel plate. Virginia Electric and Power

Company does business in North Carolina as Dominion North Carolina Power

(hereinafter "DNCP"). Nucor is a customer of DNCP and takes service pursuant to a

special contract for electric service, as amended, subject to the jurisdiction of the North

Carolina Utilities Commission.

4. As a current customer of DNCP, Nucor has an interest that is directly

affected by the outcome of this proceeding, and, in accordance with the Commission's

Rule Rl-19, has a right to intervene in this proceeding.

5. Nucor's interest is not adequately represented by any other party and

Nucor should not be consolidated with any party or group of parties.

6. All correspondence related to this proceeding should be addressed to:

Joseph W. Eason Phillip A. Harris Nelson, Mullins, Riley & Scarborough, LLP 4140 ParkLake Avenue, Suite 200 Post Office Box 30519 Raleigh, NC 27622-0519 Telephone: (919) 877-3807 Facsimile: (919) 877-3140 joe.eason@nelsonmullins.com phillip.harris@nelsonmullins.com

And to:

Damon E. Xenopoulos Brickfield, Burchette, Ritts & Stone, P.C. 1025 Thomas Jefferson St, N.W. 8th Floor, West Tower Washington, D.C. 20007 Telephone: (202) 342-0800 Facsimile: (202) 342-0807 dex@bbrslaw.com

Of Counsel

WHEREFORE, Nucor respectfully requests that the commission allow it to

intervene in this proceeding, and become a party thereto for all purposes.

Respectfully submitted, this 8th day of March, 2013.

Josepli W. Eason Phill/p A. Hajris Nelsot^Miifms, Riley & Scarborough, LLP 4140 ParkLake Avenue, Suite 200 Post Office Box 30519 Raleigh, NC 27622-0519 joe.eason@nelsonmullins.com phillip.harris @nelsonmullins.com

Of Counsel:

Damon E. Xenopoulos Brickfield, Burchette, Ritts & Stone, P.C. 1025 Thomas Jefferson St., N.W. 8th Floor, West Tower Washington, D.C. 20007 dex@bbrslaw.com

ATTORNEYS FOR NUCOR STEEL-HERTFORD

VERIFICATION

Joseph W. Eason, first being duly sworn, deposes and says that he is the attorney for Nucor; that he has read the foregoing Petition to Intervene and that the same is true of his personal knowledge, except as to any matters and things therein stated on information and belief, and as to those, he believes them to be true; and that he is authorized to sign this verification on behalf of Nucor.

This 8th day of March, 2013.

NORTH CAROLINA

WAKE COUNTY

Sworn toand subscribed before me This _3^day o f j ^ ^ c ^ c h . > 2013

* NoU$ PufeH.

Print-Notary Public Name

S Notary PutsHo | Johnston County £ My Commission Expires ~ 01/3Q/2016

fro

My Commission Expires: J J

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

The undersigned attorney for Nucor Steel-Hertford hereby certifies that he served the foregoing document upon the parties of record in this proceeding by email and/or depositing copies in the United States mail, postage prepaid as follows:

Thomas J. Roberts AQUA North Carolina, Inc. 202 MacKenan Court Cary,NC 27511

Robert Page Crisp, Page & Currin, LLP 4010 BarrettDrive, Suite 205 Raleigh, NC 27609-662

Margaret A. Force N.C. Department of Justice P.O. Box 629 Raleigh, NC 27602

Martin Lashua Carolina Water Service, Inc. of NC Suite 101 5701 Westpark Drive Charlotte, NC 28217

Robert W. Kaylor, Esq. 3700 Glenwood Avenue, Suite 330 Raleigh, NC 27612

Horace P. Payne Karen Bell Mark O. Webb Dominion Resources Services, Inc. 120 Tredegar Street PHI Richmond, VA 23219

Lawrence B. Somers Duke Energy Corporation P.O. Box 1551, PEB 20 Raleigh, NC 27602-155

Ralph (Bo) McDonald Adam Oils Bailey & Dixon, L.L.P P.O.Box 1351 Raleigh, NC 27602-1351

James Y. Kerr, II E. Brett Breitschwerdt McGuire Woods P.O. Box 27507 Raleigh, NC 27601

Michael D. Youth NC Sustainable Energy Association P.O. Box 6465 Raleigh, NC 27628

Mary Lynne Grigg McGuire Woods, LLP Post Office Box 27507 Raleigh, NC 27611

Joseph K. Reid, III K.M. Dahl Elaine S. Ryan McGuire Woods One James Center 901 East Gary Street Richmond, VA 23219-403

Ms. Antoinette Wike North Carolina Utilities Commission 4326 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NC 27699-4326

Candy Paton Public Service Company of NC, Inc. 800 Gaston Road P.O.Box 1398 Gastonia,NC 28053-139

John Runkle Post Office Box 3793 Chapel Hill, NC 27515

James H. Jeffries IV Mindy Vervais Brian Heslin Moore & Van Allen PLLC 100 North Tryon Street, Suite 4700 Charlotte, NC 28202-4003

Brian R. Greene Seltzergreen, PLC Suite 1025 707 East Main Street Richmond, VA 23219

Robert A. Ganton U.S. Dept. of the Army Office of Judge Advocate General 901 N. Stuart Street, Suite 525 Arlington, VA 22203-183

Betty Lou Lewis Program Assistant V North Carolina Utilities Commission Public Staff- Legal Division 4326 Mail Service Center Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-4326

David A. Cetola Hess Corporation One Hess Plaza WoodbridgeNJ 0 ^ 5

This 3 day of March, 2013.

Pia Powers Piedmont Natural Gas Company, Inc. P.O. Box 33068 Charlotte, NC 28233

B. Craig Collins Assistant General Counsel SCANA Corporation 220 Operation Way MC C22 Cayce, SC 29033-370

Benjamin Kuhn The Kuhn Law Firm Suite 500 127 West Hargett Street Raleigh, NC 27601

M. Gray Styers Jr. Styers & Kemerait 1101 Haynes Street, Suite 101 Raleigh, NC 27604

Sharon Miller Carolina Utility Customer Association, Inc. Suite 210, Trawick - Professional Center 1708 Trawick Road Raleigh, NC 27604

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA F I L E D U T I L I T I E S COMMISSION

RALEIGH MAR 0 8 2013 Clerk's Office

DOCKET NO. M-100, Sub 137 N 0 Commission

B E F O R E T H E NORTH CAROLINA U T I L I T I E S COMMISSION

In the Matter of Investigation of Certain Aspects of Lead-Lag Studies Used in General Rate Case Proceedings for Major Electric and Natural Gas Utilities

INITIAL COMMENTS OF NUCOR STEEL-HERTFORD, A DIVISION OF NUCOR CORPORATION

On January 15, 2013, the North Carolina Utilities Commission ("Commission")

issued an Order Initiating Generic Proceeding and Requesting Comments ("January 15th

Order") in this matter. In its January 15 th Order, the Commission listed five specific

items to be addressed in comments, with a sixth item requesting citations to specific

authority in support of positions, where applicable. Utilities' and the Public Staff are

required to respond to the January 15 th Order. The Commission also invited other

interested parties to file comments.

Nucor Steel-Hertford (hereinafter "Nucor") respectfully submits the following

Initial Comments regarding Item Nos. 1 through 3 and 5 set forth in the January 15 th

Order.

1 The "Utilities" are specifically identified as Carolina Power & Light Company, d/b/a Progress Energy Carolinas, Inc.; Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC; Virginia Electric and Power Company, d/b/a Dominion North Carolina Power; Piedmont Natural Gas Company, Inc.; and Public Service Company of North Carolina, Inc., d/b/a PSNC Energy.

Introduction Related to Item Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 5: The Purpose of a Cash Working Capital Allowance

Cash working capital represents the investment that is needed to support the day-

to-day cash operating costs of a utility. Cash working capital is calculated as the

difference between the utility's payment of expenses or costs incurred to serve customers

and the utility's receipt of revenues from customers for the service provided. Thus, the

cash working capital requirement is the net outlay of cash that must be furnished to

provide service to customers before the payment for the service is received from

customers. A lead-lag study is used to determine the revenue lag days and expense lead

days experienced by the utility.

After conducting a lead-lag study to determine the revenue lag days and the

expense lead days and applying the results of that study to the operating costs, if it is

determined that a utility is required, on average, to pay the expenses incurred to serve

customers before receiving the revenues from customers, a positive cash working capital

need arises. However, i f it is determined that the utility is able to collect revenues from

customers prior to the cash payment for operating expenses being made, a negative cash

working capital exists.

If a positive cash working capital requirement results, then investors are providing

the cash to fund the day-to-day operations of the utility. If a negative cash working

capital requirement exists, then ratepayers are essentially providing the cash needed to

fund the day to day operations.

Inclusion of cash working capital in rate base allows for a return to be earned on

the cash that is provided to fund the day-to-day operations of the utility.

Item No. 1

Is the (a) unadjusted test-period per books or (b) the fully-adjusted test-period level of operations the most appropriate basis for use in a lead-lag study performed for the purpose of determining the cash working capital allowance in the context of a general rate case proceeding? Please explain fully and in detail why the approach proposed is the most appropriate.

Initially, please see the Introduction, above. It important to clarify that the lead-

lag study that is used to calculate the revenue lag days and the various expense lead days

should be based on actual, historic information. Once the lead/lag days have been

determined through a lead-lag study using actual, historic information, the resulting

lead/lag days are applied to the various categories in calculating the cash working capital

requirements. The question to be answered is whether the resulting lead/lay days, which

were calculated based on actual historic information, should then be applied to the

unadjusted test-period per book amounts or applied to the fully-adjusted test-period

amounts.

In order to fully synchronize the various components of the revenue requirement

calculation, it is reasonable to apply the lead/lag days to the Commission adjusted test

year amounts, by category included in the cash working capital calculations. This

ensures that the resulting cash working capital allowance included in the adjusted rate

base is consistent with the adjusted test year expenses approved by the Commission and

ensures synchronization of the various test year components.

The Commission has consistently used unadjusted per books amounts in

calculating the cash working capital requirements.2 Public Staffs testimony in Docket

2 Footnote 1 in the January 15,h Order, on page 1, indicates that for over 30 years the Commission has ".. .consistently utilized actual per book cost of service to determine the amounts of cash working capital that should be included in rate base of major utilities."

3

No. E-22, Sub 479, asserted that going to adjusted test year amounts adds complexity to

the computation without resulting in meaningful improvements in the accuracy of the

estimate of a utility's working capital needs. While there may be disagreements in cases

regarding various items such as how the lead/lag days should be calculated in the lead-lag

studies and what specific categories of costs should be separated in a lead-lag study, the

application of the lead/lag days to the various expenses is a fairly straight-forward

process. Accordingly, the more accurate synchronized amount should be used.

In the spreadsheets that the parties to rate proceedings use to calculate their

recommended revenue requirements, and in the model that would be used by the

Commission or its Staff in calculating the revenue requirement that results from the

Commission's decision, it is a fairly simple process to flow or link the impact of the

various adjustments through the cash working capital calculations. While some items

contained in the cash working capital calculation may result in a "circular reference" in

the model, the model can be set to run through several iterations to overcome this

problem.

Income tax expense is a prime example of an item causing a circular reference

when going to an adjusted test year approach. This is because cash working capital is a

rate base component and therefore impacts the interest synchronization calculation in

determining income tax expense, and income tax expense is a component in the cash

working capital calculation. However, setting the impacted cells in the model to run

several iterations produces an accurate result.

Inclusion in the cash working capital calculation of income available for common

equity also causes a circular reference. If the amount of income available for common

equity is excluded from the cash working capital calculations, as is recommended by

Nucor in addressing Item No. 2, below, then the number of items contained in the

calculation that result in circular references are reduced.

In E-22, Sub 479, as support for staying with the historic method, the Public Staff

identified the fact that the recovery of some costs may change outside of the general rate

case proceeding, such as changes in revenues associated with fuel costs or purchase gas

costs. However, if income available for common equity is excluded from the cash

working capital calculation, as recommended by Nucor under Item No. 2, below, this

concern is largely alleviated.

In fact, the largest difference between Public Staffs recommended cash working

capital balance and Dominion North Carolina Power's ("DNCP") requested balance in

said E-22, Sub 479 was caused by the inclusion of income available for common equity.

The Commission specifically pointed this out in its Order, as follows: "...the. public

Staffs adjustment to reduce Income Available for Common Equity by ($5,021,000)

comprises the majority of the ($4,656,000) difference between the Company's proposed

amount and the Public Staffs recommended amount for cash working capital in this

proceeding." Thus, the largest difference between Public Staff and DNCP in their cash

working capital calculations was due to the fact that DNCP included the requested

increase in revenues associated with its adjusted test year in the income available for

common equity component. Removing the income available for common equity

component would significantly reduce the difference caused by using adjusted test year

balances in the cash working capital calculation as compared to using unadjusted per-

book amounts. However, regardless of whether the current method of using unadjusted

per-book balances remains in place or the calculation instead uses the adjusted test year

balances in calculating cash working capital, income available for common equity should

be excluded from the cash working capital balance that is included in rate base. As will

be discussed below, income available for common equity is not representative of cash

needed to fund day-to-day operations and, thus, should be excluded from the calculation

of the cash working capital requirement.

Item No. 2

Should income available for common equity be a component of the lead-lag study and, consequently, effect the test-period level of cash working capital or is the lag in collection of the return-on-equity component of the cost of service, in effect, provided for, inherently, in the cost of common equity capital and, thus, should not be included in the allowance for working capital, per say, because to do so would provide for double recovery of costs? Explain fully in detail.

Initially, please see the Introduction, above. The income available for common

equity should not be included in the cash working capital calculation. As indicated

above, the very purpose of including cash working capital as a component of rate base is

to allow a return on the cash needed to fund the day-to-day operations of a utility. The

income available for common equity is the return to investors for investing in the utility.

In other words, it is the profit or return built into rates for the shareholders and investors

in the utility — it is not cash needed to fund the day-to-day operations of a utility. By

including the income available for common equity in the cash working capital

calculation, one would essentially be applying an additional return on the return that is

already being earned. In other words, investors would be receiving a double return on

their investments by including this item in the cash working capital calculation and, thus,

in rate base.

The purpose of including cash working capital in rate base is not to allow

investors to earn a return on the return on equity they are already receiving. In cases in

which a positive cash working capital requirement exists, the purpose is to allow

investors to earn a return on the cash they are providing to fund the day-to-day

operations.

Additionally, the income available for common equity is not an expenditure that

is used to fund the day to day operations of a utility. While the income available for

common equity may be dispersed to investors as dividends, it may also be retained within

the utility and used to fund additional capital. That additional capital is then included in

rate base upon which a return is earned. Thus, investors are not harmed by the exclusion

of income available for common equity in the cash working capital calculation as they are

already earning a return on their investment, and are allowed to earn a return on the cash

provided to fund the day-to-day operations by including the cash expenditures in the cash

working capital calculations.

Not only would inclusion of income available for common equity be incorrect but

its application would also be problematic as it would raise the question of how one

determines the lag days to apply to the balance. There is a lag between when the

revenues are received by a utility (that would go towards the income available for

common equity) and the date on which dividends are actually paid out by the utility.

Additionally, some of the funds would be reinvested in plant and not dispersed to

shareholders or investors. Shareholders or investors earn a return on the amount

reinvested by including that plant in rate base. What expense lag days should one assign

in that situation? Additionally, it is ultimately the investors, or the Board of Directors

7

representing the investors, that decides how those funds should be utilized and whether

they should be reinvested or dispersed through dividends.

For the reasons stated above, income available for common equity should not be

included in the cash working capital calculation.

Item No. 3

In consideration of the approach employed by the Commission historicatlyy should any other components) be included in or excluded from the lead-lag study if such study is based upon a fully-adjusted test period? Please explain fully and in detail.

Initially, please see the Introduction, above. As a general principle, non-cash

items should be excluded from the cash working capital calculations. Again, the very

purpose of including cash working capital as a component of rate base is to allow a return

on the cash needed to fund the day-to-day operations of a utility. By their very nature,

non-cash items should be excluded.

In the recent Dominion North Carolina Power ("DNCP") general rate case,

Docket No. E-22, Sub 479, both Public Staff and DNCP included depreciation expense

and amortization expense in their cash working capital calculations with zero expense lag

days.3 This is incorrect because depreciation expense is a non-cash item. There is no

cash outflow associated with the booking of depreciation expense on a utility's books.

Rather, the cash outflow would have occurred at the time the plant being depreciated was

built and investors are already made whole for their portion of this cash outflow

elsewhere in the revenue requirement calculations.

During the plant construction process, a return is applied to the utility's cash

outlays by the application of the allowance for funds used during construction (AFUDC)

Docket No. E-22, Sub 479, Boswell Exhibit 1, Schedule 3, page I of 2

making investors whole for the period during which the plant is being built. After the

plant is completed and placed into service, it is then included in rate base. Investors then

earn a return on their cash investment in the plant by the very inclusion of the net plant in

service balance in rate base. Investors receive a return of their investment through the

application of depreciation and a return on their investment through inclusion of the net

plant in service balance in rate base. Thus, they are already earning a return both of and

on the investment that is made in plant in service. The booking of depreciation expense

does not trigger a cash outflow and should not be included in the cash working capital

calculation. Amortization expense is similar in nature to depreciation expense with no

cash outflow as a result of the amortization being booked and the investors are already

made whole for their investment in the asset being amortized elsewhere in the revenue

requirement calculations.

Nucor recommends that all non-cash items, including depreciation expense and

amortization expense, be excluded from the cash working capital calculations because

there are no associated cash outflows and investors are already receiving a return on and

of their investment through the rate base and revenue requirement calculations.

Item No. 5

In "Accounting for Public Utilities" by Robert L. Haltne and Gregory E. Atiff (Matthew Bender), the following statement appears: "[t]he treatment offunds relating to net operating income is subject to a wide difference of opinion in the evaluation of lead-lag study procedures'* and that "Itjhe most prevalent is probably not to consider the operating income component in the lead-tag study, which results in not recognizing a needfor cash working capital to cover operating income..." Please comment.

Initially, please see the Introduction, above. Nucor agrees with the above

statement by Mr. Hahne and Mr. Aliff expressed in "Accounting for Public Utilities. " As

addressed in Item No. 2, above, it is Nucor's position that it is not reasonable or

appropriate to include operating income available for common equity in the calculation of

cash working capital. In most U.S. jurisdictions, the income available for common equity

is typically excluded from the cash working capital calculations because it not a

component of cash needed to fund the day-to-day operations. North Carolina is one of

the few jurisdictions where the income available for common equity is included in the

cash working capital calculation. For the reasons set forth in Item No 2 above, Nucor

believes that the majority approach (to exclude operating income available for common

equity) is preferable on principle and more accurate in fact.

Respectfully submitted, this 8th day of March, 2013.

Joseph W\bas Pnillip A. Hams Nfejson, Mi^Ilins, Riley & Scarborough, LLP 4145TaffcLake Avenue, Suite 200 Post Office Box 30519 Raleigh, NC 27622-0519 joe.eason@nelsonmulIins.com phillip.harris @nelsonmullins.com

Of Counsel:

Damon E. Xenopoulos* Brickfield, Burchette, Ritts & Stone, P.C. 1025 Thomas Jefferson St, N.W. 8th Floor, West Tower Washington, D.C. 20007 dex@bbrslaw.com

ATTORNEYS FOR NUCOR STEEL-HERTFORD

10

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

The undersigned attorney for Nucor Steel-Hertford hereby certifies that he served the foregoing document upon the parties of record in this proceeding by email and/or depositing copies in the United States mail, postage prepaid as follows:

Thomas J. Roberts AQUA North Carolina, Inc. 202 MacKenan Court Gary, NC 27511

Margaret A. Force N.C. Department of Justice P.O. Box 629 Raleigh, NC 27602

Robert Page Crisp, Page & Currin, LLP 4010 BarrettDrive, Suite 205 Raleigh, NC 27609-662

Martin Lashua Carolina Water Service, Inc. of NC Suite 101 5701 Westpark Drive Charlotte, NC 28217

Robert W. Kaylor, Esq. 3700 Glenwood Avenue, Suite 330 Raleigh, NC 27612

Horace P. Payne Karen Bell Mark O. Webb Dominion Resources Services, Inc. 120 Tredegar Street PHI Richmond, VA 23219

Lawrence B. Somers Duke Energy Corporation P.O. Box 1551, PEB 20 Raleigh, NC 27602-155

Mary Lynne Grigg McGuire Woods, LLP Post Office Box 27507 Raleigh, NC 27611

Ralph (Bo) McDonald Adam Oils Bailey & Dixon, L.L.P P.O. Box 1351 Raleigh, NC 27602-1351

Joseph K. Reid, III K.M. Dahl Elaine S. Ryan McGuire Woods One James Center 901 East Gary Street Richmond, VA 23219-403

James Y. Kerr, II E. Brett Breitschwerdt McGuire Woods P.O. Box 27507 Raleigh, NC 27601

Ms. Antoinette Wike North Carolina Utilities Commission 4326 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NC 27699-4326

Michael D. Youth NC Sustainable Energy Association P.O. Box 6465 Raleigh, NC 27628

Candy Paton Public Service Company of NC, Inc. 800 Gaston Road P.O. Box 1398 Gastonia,NC 28053-139

John Runkle Post Office Box 3793 Chapel Hill,NC 27515

Pia Powers Piedmont Natural Gas Company, Inc. P.O. Box 33068 Charlotte, NC 28233

James H. Jeffries IV Mindy Vervais Brian Heslin Moore & Van Allen PLLC 100 North Tryon Street, Suite 4700 Charlotte, NC 28202-4003

Brian R. Greene Seltzergreen, PLC Suite 1025 707 East Main Street Richmond, VA 23219

Robert A. Ganton U.S. Dept. of the Army Office of Judge Advocate General 901 N. Stuart Street, Suite 525 Arlington, VA 22203-183

B.Craig Collins Assistant General Counsel SCANA Corporation 220 Operation Way MCC22 Cayce, SC 29033-370

Benjamin Kuhn The Kuhn Law Firm Suite 500 127 West Hargett Street Raleigh, NC 27601

M. Gray Styers Jr. Styers & Kemerait 1101 Haynes Street, Suite 10: Raleigh, NC 27604

Betty Lou Lewis Program Assistant V North Carolina Utilities Commission Public Staff - Legal Division 4326 Mail Service Center Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-4326

Sharon Miller Carolina Utility Customer Association, Inc. Suite 210, Trawick - Professional Center 1708 Trawick Road Raleigh, NC 27604

David A. Cetola Hess Corporation One Hess Plaza WoodbridgeNJ 07095

This Q day of March, 2013