Berkshire Gas 2016 5-Year Forecast

PIERCE ATWOODd
James M. Avery
July 8, 2016
100 Summer Street

Suite 2250
Boston, MA 02110
HAND DELIVER and ELECTRONIC
617.488.8125 voice
617.824.2020 fax
javery@pierceatwood.com
www.pierceatwood.com
Mark D. Marini, Secretary

Department of Public Utilities
One South Station, 5th Floor
Boston, Massachusetts 02110
Re:
Admitted in: MA
The Berkshire Gas Company - D.P.U. 16-103

2016/20176 to 2020/2021 Forecast and Supply Plan
Dear Secretary Marini:

Enclosed please find five (5) copies of the Forecast and Supply Plan of The Berkshire Gas
Company ("Company"). This filing is made pursuant to the requirements of G.L. c. 164, 69I.
Also enclosed please find a form of Appearance of Counsel and a check in the amount of
$100.00 which represents the filing fee.
Please note that the Company has accelerated its initial filing in this proceeding in order to
facilitate the more comprehensive and, potentially, expedited review of the Forecast and Supply
Plan. As described in more detail in the enclosed report, in light of the recent cancellation of the
so-called Northeast Energy Direct project, the Company is undertaking a comprehensive and
updated analysis of resource options to address, among other things, the ongoing moratorium in
its Eastern Division. The Company expects to provide further updates and supplements to the
enclosed report as it completes ongoing analyses. This expedited submittal will permit the
earlier and efficient consideration of other matters such as the Company's econometric forecast.
Thank you for your consideration.
Very truly yours
AU
James M. Avery
JMA/cdw
Enclosure
Kevin F. Penders, General Counsel (w/enc via hand delivery and electronic)
cc:
George Yiankos, Director, Gas Division (w/enc via hand delivery and electronic)
Rebecca L. Tepper, Division Chief (w/enc and electronic)
Nathan C. Forster, Deputy Division Chief (electronic)
Michael J. Altieri, General Counsel - DOER (via electronic)
Service List - D.P.U. 14-98 (electronic)
Karen L. Zink, President and COO (electronic)
Jennifer M. Boucher, Manager - Regulatory Economics (electronic)
Robert Gyurjan, Lead Analyst - Regulatory (electronic)
PORTLAND, ME
{W5623322.1}
BOSTON, MA
PORTSMOUTH, NH
PROVIDENCE, Rl
AUGUSTA, ME
STOCKHOLM. SE
WASHINGTON, DC
COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC UTILITIES
Petition of The Berkshire Gas Company for approval

by the Department of Public Utilities of the Company's
Company's Five-Year Forecast and Supply Plan
pursuant to G.L. c. 64, 691
)
)
D.P.U. 16-103
APPEARANCE OF COUNSEL
In the above-referenced proceeding, I hereby appear for and on behalf of The Berkshire
Gas Company.
Respectfully submitted
mm-n
parries M. Avery, Esq.

Pierce Atwood LLP
100 Summer Street, Suite 2250
Boston, MA 02110
P: 617.488.8100
F: 617.824.2020
iaverv@pierceatwood.com
Dated: July 8, 2016
{W5623379.1}
D.P.U. 16-103
THE BERKSHIRE GAS COMPANY
Long Range Forecast and Supply Plan
July 2016
TABLE OF CONTENTS
2016 Long-Range Forecast and Supply Plan
LIST OF ATTACHMENTS ........................................................................................................ i
I.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................................. 1
II.
OVERVIEW ..................................................................................................................... 4
A.
Update on Corporate Structure ............................................................................ 4
B.
Marketing and Development Opportunities .......................................................... 4
C.
Energy Efficiency Programs ................................................................................. 5
D.
Transportation...................................................................................................... 6
III.
FORECASTING METHODOLOGY.................................................................................. 8
A.
Introduction .......................................................................................................... 8
B.
Econometric Forecasting ..................................................................................... 8
1.
Summary of Forecast Results ................................................................ 10
C.
Comparison of 2014 Demand Forecasts ............................................................ 11
D.
Planning Standards and Weather Analysis ........................................................ 12
1.
Normal Year Planning Standard ............................................................. 13
2.
Design Day Planning Standard............................................................... 13
3.
Design Year Planning Standard ............................................................. 13
4.
Cold Snap Planning Standard ................................................................ 14
5.
Conclusion - Planning Standards ........................................................... 14
IV. RESOURCE PORTFOLIO AND FACILITIES ................................................................ 14

A.
Resource Planning Process ............................................................................... 14
B.
Portfolio Design Process .................................................................................... 16
1.
Contract Changes .................................................................................. 17
2.
Supply Planning Adequacy and Flexibility .............................................. 18
3.
Action Plan ............................................................................................. 20
4.
Distribution Planning .............................................................................. 23
5.
Summary of Resources and Facilities .................................................... 25
B.
Future Planning ................................................................................................. 29
1.
Portfolio Optimization ............................................................................. 29
2.
Pipeline and Regional Supply Project Changes ...................................... 29
V.
CONCLUSION .............................................................................................................. 30
VI. REQUIRED TABLES ..................................................................................................... 31
LIST OF ATTACHMENTS
Tab A:
The Berkshire Gas Company Demand Forecast and Supporting

Workpapers/Appendices
Tab B:
Sendout Data Normal Weather 2016/17 through 2020/21
Tab C:
Sendout Data Design Weather 2016/17 through 2020/21
Tab D:
Sendout Data Cold Snap 2016/17 through 2020/21
Tab E:
Summary of Planned Enhancements, Northeast Natural Gas Pipeline Systems

LONG-RANGE FORECAST AND RESOURCE PLAN
2016/17 TO 2020/21
I.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Berkshire Gas Company (Berkshire or the Company) is pleased to submit this
Long-Range Forecast and Supply Plan (the Forecast and Supply Plan or the F&SP) for the
split-years 2016/17 to 2020/21 for review by the Department of Public Utilities (the Department
or the D.P.U.) pursuant to G.L. c. 164, 69I. Also accompanying the Forecast and Supply
Plan is documentation relating to major components of such analysis. This analysis includes
forecasts of Firm Sendout1 and Planning Load2 under two scenarios: 1) Base Case and 2) High
Growth Case.
Associated workpapers and dispatch data for the five forecast years under
normal weather conditions, design weather conditions and cold snap weather conditions are
also provided. Pursuant to the Departments requirements, electronic versions of forecast data
are to be provided under separate cover.
The Companys Forecast and Supply Plan incorporates long-range planning standards
and techniques that are reviewable, appropriate and reliable. Similar to previously approved
F&SPs, expected demand over the planning period was determined by utilizing an econometric
forecast that is included in Tab A. The forecast reflects and considers appropriate assumptions
and expected conditions. The Companys long-range demand forecast accurately projects the
Companys sales and sendout requirements. In addition, Berkshires resource planning process
is appropriate and has secured a resource portfolio that will provide reliable, least-cost service
with a minimum impact upon the environment. The Company continues to actively manage its
Firm Sendout represents firm sales and firm transportation load (and excludes interruptible and special contract
load).
2
Planning Load includes the load that the Company is required to plan for pursuant to mandatory capacity
assignment including firm sales and non-exempt firm transportation.
resource portfolio in order to reduce costs for the benefit of customers and its efforts, both in
terms of long-term resource decisions as well as day-to-day activities, have secured substantial
benefits for customers.
Berkshires most recent Forecast and Supply Plan was reviewed in docket D.P.U. 14-98
and in an order dated July 30, 2015 (the July 30th Order), the Department approved such
F&SP. The Company has addressed the Departments directives from the July 30th Order in the
instant filing, including directives to: 1) improve its model specifications by identifying, testing,
and using more logical and causal economic drivers, and include only those dummy variables
that can be associated with specific, known situations3; and 2) to change the method used to
calculate historical and forecast gas prices for its customer segment use models4.
This Forecast and Supply Plan describes the Companys sophisticated and
comprehensive planning process, including the identification of an action plan to address two
specific concerns. The first was the need to address a deficiency in gas supply principally
pursuant to a plan to procure so-called Citygate supplies in an amount sufficient to meet the
requirements for all relevant planning standards. The seconds relates to a concern described in
the Companys most recent Forecast and Supply Plan, namely the Companys capacity
constraints and projected inability to serve requests for new or expanded service in the Eastern
Division. Indeed, as anticipated soon after the submittal of that Forecast and Supply Plan, the
Company was required to declare a moratorium on such incremental service for its Eastern
Division.
The Company has regularly consulted with the Department, other officials and
stakeholders with respect to the nature and implications of the moratorium, which remains in
place. The Companys most recent Forecast and Supply Plan also described the Companys
then-current proposal to secure capacity in the so-called Northeast Energy Direct Project (NED
Project) which was, at that time, under development by Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company,
3
4
Order, p. 17.
Order, p. 18.
L.L.C. (Tennessee). The NED Project was particularly advantageous to Berkshires customers
as it would provide needed incremental capacity and avoid the need for the expansion of
distribution infrastructure, addressing the need for incremental supply while also providing the
ability to respond to new requests for service.
The NED Project, however, was recently cancelled.
In response, the Company is
executing an updated and a comprehensive review of resource alternatives that would be

consistent with the Companys Forecast and Supply Plan, but also enable the Company to
serve incremental customer demand in the Eastern Division. Given these circumstances, the
Company determined that it would be appropriate to modify its presentation in this proceeding in
order to facilitate the comprehensive and expedited consideration of the Companys resource
plan. Therefore, the Company has provided its sendout forecast and a description of its existing
resource portfolio in this initial filing. The Company is currently undertaking a comprehensive
and sophisticated analytical process to identify and evaluate potential resource alternatives that
would effectively address the requirements of existing customers while also permitting the
termination of the moratorium.
The Company is currently seeking to identify any and all
practical or feasible resource alternatives that might address the Companys resource
requirements and permit service to incremental customers. Once this process is Complete, the
company will consider the feasibility of these alternatives and determine which resources are
appropriate for more comprehensive analysis.
Consistent with established regulatory
requirements, one alternative to be considered will be the no build approach which would, of
course, require the maintenance of the moratorium. The Company will next apply detailed
engineering and environmental assessments and an appropriate and robust stakeholder
process in order to determine the preferred resource strategy and location for any necessary
facilities.
The Company will provide updates or supplements to this analysis to describe its
determination as to the preferred resource and at other appropriate times.
3
In sum, Berkshire submits that this Forecast and Supply Plan as described herein is
reviewable, appropriate and reliable. The Company believes that its current forecasting and
resource planning processes are appropriate and continue to provide customers with reliable,
least-cost service that has a minimum impact upon the environment. Berkshires resource plan
provides for reliable service for expected design day, seasonal and annual loads, as well as
during an extended cold snap. Finally, Berkshire recognizes that its resource planning process
must continue to respond to changing market and regulatory conditions. The Company remains
committed to these initiatives in order to continue to provide reliable and least-cost service to its
valued customers.
II.
OVERVIEW
A.
Update on Corporate Structure
The Berkshire Gas Company is a local gas distribution company that provides natural
gas service to approximately 40,000 residential, commercial and industrial customers in 20
communities in western Massachusetts.
The population of the Companys service area is
estimated to be approximately 200,000. Berkshire has been in business for over 160 years,
since 1853.
In terms of corporate structure, a change has occurred since the Companys most recent
Forecast and Supply Plan. In December 2015, pursuant to a settlement agreement approved in
D.P.U. 15-26, a transaction was completed whereby, among other things, Berkshire became
indirectly and wholly-owned by Iberdrola USA Networks, Inc., a subsidiary of Iberdrola, S.A.
B.
Marketing and Development Opportunities
Since its August 2014 F&SP filing, the Companys recent experience with
unprecedented demand for natural gas service has waned, as the price benefits of natural gas
compared with alternative fuels (and in particular fuel oil) has diminished over the last twelve
months.
In addition, the necessary declaration of a moratorium in the Eastern Division in
December 2014 is contributing to lower growth levels. The moratorium is specifically addressed
in Section IV.B.4 below.
Berkshire continues to promote cost-effective marketing plans in its Western Division
using direct mail, newspaper, billboards, electronic media (interactive website pages and
internet newsletters) and telemarketing. Consistent with the Companys long-standing policies
and regulatory requirements, any new (or incremental) natural gas load must meet certain
financial return criteria and may only be added based on distribution system availability.
Particular consideration is given to Non-Heat to Heat Conversions because there is typically
little-to-no capital expenditure required on the Companys part, since the customer already
maintains a meter and service on its property.
Berkshire also continues to offer a Rental
Program that enables customers to rent natural gas equipment (i.e. water heaters and
conversion burners) without a substantial initial capital investment; this approach has
successfully allowed customers to convert to natural gas who otherwise could not afford the
significant up-front conversion expense.
C.
Energy Efficiency Programs
On July 2, 2008, An Act Relative to Green Communities, Acts of 2008, chapter 169
(Green Communities Act or Act) was signed into law. The Green Communities Act, a
landmark piece of legislation which positions the Commonwealth as a national leader in energy
efficiency, mandated significant changes to the energy efficiency programs developed and
administered by the Commonwealths electric and gas distribution companies and municipal
aggregators (collectively the Program Administrators). Subsequently, on January 28, 2010, the
Department approved the Companys three-year plan for the calendar years 2010 through 2012
in docket D.P.U. 09-124. Then, on January 31, 2013 the Companys subsequent three-year
plan for the calendar years 2013 through 2015 was approved by the Department.
More
recently, in docket D.P.U. 15-165 (2016), the Department approved Berkshires most recent
three-year plan for the calendar years 2016 through 2018. Berkshire has reflected the most
5
recent estimates of energy efficiency savings in this instant filing. Since savings goals for the
post-2018 period have not yet been established, the Company has assumed the same energy
efficiency savings each year for the 2019 through 2021 periods will be consistent with the
expected dekatherm savings in 2018.
The Company is proud of its energy efficiency efforts to date and is committed to refining
the design and implementation of its programs in order to reflect changing markets and
technologies, regulatory mandates and the best interests of its customers. A full array of energy
efficiency programs are offered to various customer segments, ranging from traditional
weatherization to new construction/major renovation programs to specialty applications such as
food service and commercial laundry services. Berkshire recognizes that energy efficiency
resources are an important component of its resource plan and remains fully committed to these
programs, recognizing that they will continue to contribute to the avoidance or deferral of
incremental resources.
D.
Transportation
Since the comprehensive framework for full unbundling in Massachusetts was

established nearly two decades ago in the late 1990s, and full customer choice was initiated on
November 1, 2000, the Companys level of firm gas sales to its customers has been significantly
impacted.5 Participation in customer choice has always been largely focused on the commercial
and industrial customer segment, with just a handful of residential customers ever being
enrolled in transportation service.
Again in 2015 approximately 50% of the Companys total sendout was served by
competitive suppliers.6
While this figure demonstrates that the competitive market has
expanded dramatically over the last 15+ years, it also highlights a serious potential risk:
In Docket D.T.E. 98-32-B, issued February 1, 1999, the Department established the framework for unbundling the
market. However, it was not until the issuance of Docket D.T.E. 98-32-E that the rules governing the unbundling of
services were established. Thus, full customer choice was not available until November 1, 2000.
6
This includes special contract customers that are not included in the forecast.
namely, that while Berkshires resource planning has been appropriate, the Company does not
maintain resources that would enable it to mitigate non-performance of third-party suppliers,
possibly jeopardizing the reliability of service to all customers (both firm sales and
transportation) should substantial third-party supply fail to be delivered. Nearly two decades
after the restructuring of the retail gas markets, the robust capacity market that was envisioned
in the late 1990s still has not developed, and regional pipeline constraints continue to
exacerbate the pricing differential between Massachusetts and New England and other parts of
the country, even though the prolific Marcellus region is only a few hundred miles away.
The Company has articulated its concerns with respect to its relatively high levels of
Capacity Exempt transportation load on its system for more than a decade, since its 2005 F&SP
filing. Capacity Exempt or Grandfathered customers are exempt from capacity assignment
because they were either taking transportation service on February 1, 1999 or initiated service
after that date and were provided the commodity of natural gas by a third-party supplier within
the requisite days of service outlined in the Terms and Conditions. Berkshires primary concern
with respect to many of its Capacity Exempt customers has been their unique characteristic of
being critical needs facilities, such as hospitals/medical facilities, nursing homes, public and
private schools, major institutions of higher learning, jails and public housing authorities.
Reliability of service to these customers has, at a minimum, important public health and safety
implications.
In response to significant interest from Capacity Exempt customers to initiate Default
Service, Berkshire, along with other Massachusetts Gas Local Distribution Companies
(together, the MA LDCs), received approval from the Department in both D.P.U. 14-111 and
D.P.U. 15-43 to plan for up to 30 percent of the winter gas supply requirements of Capacity
Exempt customers.
In its 2015 order in D.P.U. 15-43, the Department acknowledged the
continuing migration of CE customers: Therefore, until the present capacity constraints are
alleviated by adding new pipeline or another reliable source of natural gas supply, we expect
7
that capacity-exempt customers will continue to seek default service. Order at 14. Over the
last several years, approximately 50% of Berkshires design-day Capacity Exempt load has, in
fact, initiated Default Service. While it was never envisioned that Capacity Exempt customers
would seek the Companys Default Service, Berkshire understands anecdotally from these
customers that the significantly lower rate of Default Service as compared to competitive
supplier rates over the last two years was the impetus behind this trend.
In addition, more recently in Order in D.P.U. 15-43 the Department addressed the longterm planning perspective of this Capacity Exempt phenomenon by issuing a new Forecast &
Supply Plan directive for each LDC to incorporate a forecast of reverse migration in all future
forecast and supply filings. The Company has addressed this directive in its Demand Forecast.
Berkshire believes that market conditions were the primary driver of the recent Capacity Exempt
conversions to Default Service and that there will be limited interest in the future.
III.
FORECASTING METHODOLOGY
A.
Introduction
The Company provides firm sales service to those customers that elect its default
service, while it provides firm transportation service to those customers that choose a
competitive supplier for their gas commodity.
Berkshires econometric forecasts of Firm
Sendout include both of these customer segments in order to ensure proper resources are
available during peak periods for downstream, or distribution, planning purposes.7
A Planning
Load forecast was developed separately for supply planning purposes in order for the Company
to ensure proper upstream capacity and supply resources are available to serve firm sales
service and non-capacity exempt transportation load in peak conditions.
B.
Econometric Forecasting
Once again, the Company has employed econometric modeling techniques to forecast
growth for its customer segments. This forecasting methodology relies upon such exogenous
7
Special contract, T-54 and interruptible loads are not included in the Companys forecasts.
variables as weather, customer levels, the pricing and availability of alternate fuels, market area
personal income and employment, retail sales, gross domestic product, as well as the demand
for and pricing of natural gas. A report entitled The Berkshire Gas Company Demand Forecast
2016/2017 2020/2021 dated July 2016 is included in this filing as Attachment A. This report,
prepared by Concentric Energy Advisors, Inc. (Concentric), describes:
(i) the Companys
forecasting methodology and database; (ii) the analyses and model evaluations performed;
(iii) the results of the forecasting process; and (iv) the actual forecasts generated.
An econometric model is able to relate underlying causal factors, such as income, price
and weather to the energy requirements of a system over time. Econometric techniques are
used to statistically verify and quantify those relationships by developing equations that account
for a large degree of the historical variation in sales. In addition to the exogenous variables
mentioned above, econometric forecasting takes into consideration other Company operating
statistics such as number of customers, usage levels and average price. In this case, the
Company provided more than seventeen years of monthly historical data (through March 2016).
These historical data sets provided a credible history upon which to forecast future trends in
gas.
The forecast demonstrates that, as a general matter, customer demand and growth
opportunities for the Company have declined as compared to previous forecasts (primarily as a
result of more competitive fuel oil prices).
The Companys rate classes are aggregated into four groups (residential non-heat,
residential heat, low-load factor C&I and high-load factor C&I) and econometric models for each
group were developed based on quarterly data. In addition, the Company adjusted its demand
forecasts for incremental savings from its expanded energy efficiency initiatives based on its
programs described earlier. These Base Case forecasts are the foundation of the Companys
F&SP. However, in order to fully test the Companys resource portfolio and its ability to serve
customers, Berkshire also employed a High Growth scenario. Importantly, this High Growth
scenario was developed based on optimistic scenario economic and demographic data obtained
9
from Moodys Economy.com and the Energy Information Administration. The summary of these
forecasts is presented below.
1.
Summary of Forecast Results
Based upon the normal weather conditions under the Base Case scenario, annual Firm
Sendout is expected to increase throughout the forecast period at lower levels than previous
forecasts.
The Base Case compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of Firm Sendout from
2016/17 through 2020/21 is projected to be approximately 0.1% under normal weather

conditions. The total number of firm customers is projected to increase in a similar manner over
the forecast period, from 39,779 in 2016/17 to 40,840 in 2020/21.
Below is a comparison of the Companys forecast by customer segment.
RESIDENTIAL CUSTOMERS
a.
Residential Non-Heating (R1/R2):
The customer count on this rate is expected to continue to decline. The Company
projects the loss of (973) customers over the five year planning period, from 3,119 customers in
2016/17 down to 2,146 customers in 2020/21. This decline is largely attributable to continued
conversions to heating load. Under the Base Case scenario, Berkshire also projects use per
customer to remain relatively constant throughout the period, from 17.8 Dth per year to 17.7 Dth
per year by the end of the period.
b.
Residential Heating (R3/R4):
Berkshires forecast projects the number of Residential Heating customers to increase

over the forecast period by less than 6.0% over the five-year forecast period to 33,123 by 2021.
Residential Heating use per customer under Base Case conditions is expected to decrease
slightly throughout the forecast period from 101.2 Dth per year to 99.6 Dth per year. This
represents a significant continuation in the pattern of reducing use per customer since the
Companys most recent rate case test year, calendar year 2000, where rates were designed
based upon average use per customer of more than 118 Dth per year. The Company attributes
10
this marked reduction in use per customer primarily to its successful and comprehensive energy
efficiency initiatives.
COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL LOAD
Unlike the residential classes where few customers, if any, have elected transportation
service, all of the Companys C&I classes have achieved substantial penetration with respect to
customers participating in the third-party market to purchase their gas commodity. The total
throughput forecasts for each C&I class are presented below, aggregated by load factor.
a.
C&I Low Load Factor (G-41/G-42/G-43):
Berkshire's forecast projects the total number of low load factor commercial and
industrial customers to increase by more than 4.0% over the forecast period to 4,517 by
2020/21. Use per customer, beginning at 660.9 Dth annually, is expected to decrease slightly to
644.2 Dth per year by 2020/21.
b.
C&I High Load Factor (G-51/G-52/G-53):
Berkshire's forecast projects the total number of high load factor commercial and
industrial customers to remain relatively stagnant throughout the forecast period. This relative
stability is largely a result of modest growth offset by marketing programs targeting these
customers for conversion from non-heating to heating load. Use per customer, currently at
1,513.5 Dth per year, is expected to decrease slightly to 1,436.0 Dth annually by 20/21.
C.
Comparison of 2014 Demand Forecasts
The Company compared the projections from its last filing in August 2014 to what
actually occurred, on a weather-normalized basis, for split years 2014/2015 and 2015/2016
(inclusive of forecasts for the remaining months of April through October 2016). Berkshires
analysis found that in the residential non-heating class, the actual number of customers was
3.1% lower than forecasted, while sendout was approximately 4 BBtu, or 3.3%, higher than
forecasted; this is attributable to a higher level of non-heat to heat conversions.
In the
residential heating class, the actual number of customer additions was 0.6% lower than
11
forecasted and sendout was 1.7%, or 103 BBtu, higher than projected. For the Commercial and
Industrial classes, the actual number of customers was 1.1% lower, while the sendout was 4.3%
higher than projected, or 352 BBtu. For the total Company, the number of customers was 0.9%
lower than projected, while the sendout was 3.2% higher than forecasted, or 459 BBtu for the 2year period. Notably, for the 2014-2015 period, the total forecasted number of customers was
exactly equal to the total actual number of customers, or 100% accurate.
D.
Planning Standards and Weather Analysis
In this section of the Forecast and Supply Plan, Berkshire describes, in detail, the
development and analysis of its planning standards for normal year, design day, design year
and cold snap. The Companys planning process continues to recognize the importance of
applying appropriate design standards. The Company continues to utilize 20-year average
weather as the basis for its normal year. Design day, design year and cold snap weather
standards based on effective degree-days (EDD) were updated for this F&SP. The Company
also performed an appropriate cost/benefit analysis of its design standards, and, in turn, applied
these standards to develop corresponding planning load forecasts that were employed in the
resource planning process. Importantly, the Company considered an appropriate level of
reliability in refining its design standards.
The planning criterion is as follows:
1)
The normal year is based on the most recent 20-year average weather, or 6,881
EDD;
2)
The design year is 7,993 EDD based on a 1:30-year probability;
3)
The ten-day cold snap is 633 EDD based on a 1:30-year probability; and
4)
The design day planning criterion slightly increased from 78.6 EDD to 79.8 EDD
based on a 1:30-year probability.
12
1.
Normal Year Planning Standard
The Companys normal year is the 20-year average EDD and is calculated to be 6,881
effective degree days. This standard is consistent with Department precedent and calculated as
the mathematical average of the total EDD by month for the most recent 20-year period. The
use of updated EDD data ensures that the resource planning process will more accurately
reflect the normal year weather pattern and corresponding sendout that the Company expects
to experience during the forecast period.
2.
Design Day Planning Standard
In determining the appropriate standard for its design day, that is, the amount of systemwide throughput required to maintain the integrity of the distribution system, the Companys
planning standard was updated using accepted statistical techniques consistent with
Department precedent. A design day of 79.3 EDD was derived with a probability of occurrence
of once in thirty years. This is slightly higher than the previous weather studys conclusion of
78.6 EDD in 2014 but slightly lower than the Companys recent actual experience of an 81.0
EDD on February 13, 2016.
The Department has noted the benefits of analyzing the cost and benefits associated
with a range of design standards so that a quantifiable comparison can be made of the costs
and benefits of each standard. In light of the Departments requirements in this area, the
Company retained Concentric to perform a cost/benefit analysis for a design day and design
year. The results of its analysis are contained in Attachment A and confirm that Berkshires
resource plan is based upon appropriate standards.
Berkshire notes that its cost/benefit
analysis was performed in a manner that has previously been accepted by the Department.
3.
Design Year Planning Standard
The Companys design year planning standard was also updated for this F&SP. Using a
1-in-30 year planning standard, a design year of 7,993 EDD was developed. Berkshire noted
that this standard applied the same criteria for its other planning standards. The Company
13
believes that it employs a resource plan and planning standards that ensures a great degree of
reliability.
4.
Cold Snap Planning Standard
In order to ensure that gas companies maintain adequate supplies, it is important to

analyze the ability to meet extended periods of peak or near peak weather. In this F&SP,
Berkshire relies upon a statistically derived 1-in-30-year standard of 633 EDD.
Berkshire
believes that the statistically derived standard is appropriate in analyzing the resource portfolio,
particularly given the Companys actual January 2004 cold snap of 635 EDD.
5.
Conclusion - Planning Standards
As a result of its analysis, the Company has concluded that its planning standards are
reviewable, reliable and appropriate.
The derivation of the Companys planning standards
involved a sophisticated statistical analysis that determined a range of probabilities for each
standard based upon the best available weather data. The Company confirmed the
appropriateness of its standards based upon: actual experience; comparisons to other utility
standards; a comprehensive assessment of its resource portfolio; and the implications of any
change to such portfolio in terms of relative costs and benefits performed by Concentric.
Berkshire believes that these standards are appropriate for planning purposes. The Company
continues to be well-positioned for the ongoing market and regulatory changes in terms of its
ability to meet relevant planning standards while retaining a flexible resource portfolio.
IV.
RESOURCE PORTFOLIO AND FACILITIES

A.
Resource Planning Process
The Company uses its Planning Load forecast as the basis for designing its portfolio of
resources. The resource requirements are determined for normal year, design year (including
design day) and cold snap weather conditions. The Company employed Ventyxs SENDOUT
model to evaluate the particular mix of resources that should be included in the portfolio
required to meet the daily projected sendouts on a least-cost scenario. The types of resources
14
needed are determined in large measure by the shape of the customers load distribution on the
Companys system. Berkshires portfolio objectives are to continue to provide reliable, leastcost service with a minimum impact upon the environment under normal and design conditions.
Like most gas distribution companies in Massachusetts, Berkshires resources need to
meet the typical loads experienced on its system, i.e. base, seasonal and peaking.
In
Berkshires case, the weather patterns experienced in its service territory are some of the
coldest and most severe in the state. The base load is the sendout expected daily that is not
affected by seasonal or peak weather changes. Seasonal loads are sensitive to changes in
weather patterns during the months of September through June. Peaking loads occur during
the coldest portion of the year, traditionally late December through February (though at times,
late November and early March). The resources to meet these various scenarios are described
in the Summary of Resources and Facilities section below.
The Companys continually expanded energy efficiency programs also continue to be an
important resource for the Company and its customers. Berkshire believes that the application
of its comprehensive energy efficiency initiatives have provided a range of benefits, including
the deferral of major capital investments.
In addition, the Company has entered into
agreements with several large customers (with alternate fuel capabilities) that provide significant
load management flexibility in that the Company may curtail service for a designated period of
time in order to promote the efficient use of its distribution system (also referred to as demandside management).
The Company has been a leader in terms of its load management
initiatives.
As part of its continuing effort to satisfy its public service obligations by providing
economical gas service to its customers on a safe and reliable basis, the Company continually
monitors and evaluates its resource plan. The resource plan is the result of the ongoing efforts
of the Company to pursue a "Least Cost Supply Strategy" while maintaining long-term supply
security and economies.
This strategy includes ensuring the availability of adequate peak

15
period supplies and minimizing short-term costs by monitoring daily gas index prices and
changing the supply mix to achieve cost savings. On a daily, weekly and monthly basis, the
Company evaluates its resource requirements and optimizes those assets not required to serve
its current system needs via off-system sales and capacity release, and appropriately returns
values received for those assets to its firm sales customers.
Longer-term resource
requirements are generally addressed at least twice per year, and more frequently if mandated
by particular circumstances, such as a potential pipeline expansion in the New England region.
This practice allows the Company to consistently analyze its resource requirements and
consider the timing of adjustments to its supply and capacity resources. Consistent with its
regulatory obligations, Berkshires ongoing goal is to continue to maintain a long-term supply
plan that achieves a proper balance of the overall goals of flexibility, stability, diversity and
reliability for its existing customers.
The pursuit of a "Least Cost Supply Strategy" allows
Berkshire to provide for the public health, safety and welfare of its customers with a reasonably
priced gas supply. Indeed, the Companys decision to declare a moratorium was made in
furtherance of these regulatory obligations.
The Companys overall resource plan also seeks to maintain a diversified mix of supply
resources along with the maintenance and operation of a sound distribution system. In addition,
the resource plan must be flexible to allow the Company to respond to changing market and
regulatory conditions. Berkshires supply plan and resources continue to be evaluated for such
additional factors as existing contractual changes and projected regulatory requirements. For
example, any decision made by the Department regarding Capacity Exempt customers, or the
mandatory capacity assignment program, will have an impact on the Companys contract
decisions.
B.
Portfolio Design Process
In designing the resource portfolio for Berkshire, many factors are taken into
consideration.
First, the Company must identify what resources are needed on a daily,
16
seasonal and annual basis as well as during a design day, cold snap or design year scenario.
Second, the Company will compare what resources are available to meet all those
requirements. Finally, the resources will be selected based on a number of factors including,
but not limited to, price, length of contract, reliability, flexibility and environmental impact. As
noted above, the Company is currently undertaking a detailed technical analysis and eventual
stakeholder process in order to assess currently available resource alternatives that might
facilitate the termination of the moratorium in the Eastern Division.
The daily and seasonal requirements of the Company described above are met with a
combination of long-haul and short-haul transportation capacity on Tennessee and
corresponding gas supply volumes (and storage gas) to be delivered via that pipeline capacity.
During peak periods, supplemental resources are needed to serve the additional load
requirements. Thus, the Company supplements its portfolio with a combination of liquefied
petroleum gas (LP), liquefied natural gas (LNG) (delivered in liquid form to the Whately
facility) and Firm Citygate services to meet its firm obligations to customers.
1.
Contract Changes
a.
Transportation Contract Decisions
There were no transportation or storage contract renewals since the most recent F&SP.
However, on August 31, 2015 in docket D.P.U. 15-48, Berkshire received approval of a
Precedent Agreement with Tennessee for the Market Path portion of its so-called NED Project.
Berkshires Eastern Division is served solely by a lateral interstate transmission line; the NED
Project would have provided a second, main line supply source. Subsequently, on April 21,
2016, Berkshire received notice from Tennessee exercising its right to terminate the
Department-approved Precedent Agreement.
Subsequently, Berkshire and Tennessee
commenced "good faith negotiations," towards a possible amendment to determine whether

some other agreement might achieve mutual objectives. However, the 30-day negotiation period
17
provided for under the Precedent Agreement expired on May 20, 2016 and Tennessee and
Berkshire were unable to agree to an alternative arrangement. Therefore, the Precedent
Agreement terminated. The Company is undertaking a comprehensive process to identify and
evaluate other potential alternatives to the NED Project as described above, including new
resource options that may have become available by reason of the cancellation of the NED
Project.8
b.
Gas Supply Contract Decisions
Berkshire had several short-term gas supply contracts that terminated during the 20142016 timeframe. The Company has also continued to expand its list of counterparties in an
effort to secure the best possible pricing, diversity and flexibility for its customers. Berkshire
prepared and issued a number of supply-related RFPs in the 2014-2016 timeframe that were
employed in making gas supply decisions. The Company routinely secures winter-only supply
contracts pursuant to a RFP to ensure that customers are paying current and competitive
market prices for gas supplies.
c.
Other Contract Decisions
The Company is currently seeking approval of an LNG contract with Engie (formerly
GDF Suez) dated October 12, 2015 in docket D.P.U. 16-04. This contract has an MDQ of 3,000
dth per day (i.e. 3 truckloads per day) and an annual contract quantity of 130,000 dth.
2.
Supply Planning Adequacy and Flexibility

a.
Normal Year Scenario
The Companys resource portfolio analysis for Planning Load customers under a normal
scenario for the period ending in split year 2020/21 are shown in tables G22N and G22NH and
demonstrates the Company does not have adequate supply resources in meeting normal
demand under the Base Case scenario for the planning period. Also, the SENDOUT results
8
Berkshire also sought approval of a Precedent Agreement for the Supply Path portion of the NED Project in D.P.U.
15-178, which was also terminated pursuant to notice by Tennessee. On May 24, 2016, Berkshire notified the
Department of its withdrawal of its Petition in the Supply Path proceeding.
18
demonstrating the deficiency in the Companys resources are provided in Attachment B. The
Companys plan for mitigating its deficiency is described in Section IV.B.3, below.
b.
Design Year Scenario
The Companys analysis for Planning Load customers under a design year scenario for
the period ending in split year 2020/21 are shown in tables G22D and G22DH and illustrates the
Companys supply resources are
deficient under all scenarios. The SENDOUT results
demonstrating the performance of the Companys supply resources are provided in Attachment
C, displaying that design year demand is not met under any scenario.
This deficiency is
described in Section IV.B.3, below.

c.
Cold Snap
As noted, Berkshire updated its statistically derived ten-day cold snap to 633 EDD. The
SENDOUT results demonstrating the performance of the Companys portfolio under these
conditions to serve Planning Load for both the Base Case and High Growth scenarios are
provided in Attachment D, and demonstrate the Companys resources similarly are insufficient
in all scenarios. This deficiency is described in Section IV.B.3, below.
d.
Design Day
The Companys resource portfolio analysis for Planning Load customers under design
day conditions is shown on table G23 for the planning period. The results illustrate that the
Companys supply resources are deficient in all years. This deficiency is described in Section
IV.B.3, below.
e.
Contingency/Scenario Planning
Berkshire analyzed its resource plan under different weather and growth scenarios to
ensure its ability to continue to provide reliable, least cost service to its customers. The
Company continues to recognize the need to evaluate its resource plan under scenarios that
reflect different levels of sendout. Accordingly, the Company recognizes the need for flexibility
and responsiveness in its supply plan.
19
As a general matter, the Company regularly revisits and analyzes its resource portfolio.
The Company also considers the impacts of continued aggressive efficiency programs.
In
addition, as mentioned previously, Berkshire optimizes its resource portfolio when opportunities
are available on a daily, monthly, or seasonal basis, generating substantial benefits for
customers while maintaining appropriate reliability. In sum, while the Company is required to
plan for peak conditions, there are a myriad of opportunities to reduce costs for customers in the
non-peak periods. Berkshire submits that its resource plan is substantially flexible and able to
respond appropriately to the results of increased efficiency programs.
Berkshire believes that its planning process and its current resource portfolio enable it to
continue to optimize its supply portfolio and provide customers with reliable, least-cost service.
The Company will continue to analyze its contracts and requirements and negotiate for the most
favorable terms and flexibility in all future contracts. Accordingly, the Company has structured
sufficient flexibility into its existing portfolio, and will seek to continue that flexibility in future
contracts to allow it to manage its resources under different customer migration and economic
condition scenarios that may occur over the forecast period.
3.
Action Plan
The analyses of the Companys resource portfolio under the various design standards
show that the resource portfolio could be interpreted to be inadequate to meet expected
contingencies throughout the planning period (assuming the preference to serve incremental
customer demand).
This need for additional resources was previously established in
Berkshires 2014 F&SP. The Companys Action Plan in the 2014 F&SP outlined its then-current
participation in discussions and negotiations with Tennessee to establish a Precedent
Agreement for service pursuant to the NED Project (described above in Section IV.B.1.c).
The NED Project afforded the Company a unique, long-term opportunity to
simultaneously provide needed pipeline capacity while, at the same time, solving Berkshires
long-standing pressure constraints in the northern portion of the Eastern Division. The NED
20
Projects facilities would have traversed Berkshires service territory in both its Eastern and
Western divisions (that are non-contiguous). From a locational and reliability perspective, the
NED Project would have provided unmatched benefits the Company and its customers. In its
Order in D.P.U. 15-48, the Department affirmed the Companys process for identifying and
subsequent analysis of plausible alternatives and ultimate decision to participate in the NED
Project, finding that Berkshire had appropriately considered the logistics, safety, reliability, and
flexibility associated with these options and properly concluded that they were not viable
alternatives to the [market path]).
As a result of the recent termination of the NED Project, Berkshire has initiated a
comprehensive process to first identify and then evaluate all potential and currently available
resource alternatives to provide both a needed gas supply resource, as well as to explore
potential remedies to the Eastern Division capacity and distribution constraints. Berkshire has
applied a wide range of internal experts to this process and also engaged the independent
engineering firm of Woodard & Curran to assist initially with the wide-ranging and complex
process to identify and screen resource options. Once practical resource options are identified
and screened, the Company will undertake detailed engineering and environmental analyses
and will also initiate an appropriate and robust stakeholder process in developing its
recommended approach. As noted, the Company will be supplementing or updating this filing
so as to facilitate an expedited review of these important questions. The addition of upstream
pipeline capacity in New England is infrequent (particularly those serving western
Massachusetts), and the Company intends to explore all possible long-term solutions. It is
important to note that because of the nature Berkshires requirements, it is likely that the
Company will need to implement one or more solutions to meet its unique needs. For example,
additional gas supply resources will likely need complementary distribution system expansion.
21
Currently, the assessment is expected to include the following possible solutions:

A.
No Build involves the addition of no new resources and the continuing
provision of least cost, reliable service to existing customers. Essentially assumes the indefinite
continuation of ongoing moratorium.
Massachusetts regulatory requirements mandate the
consideration of this alternative.

B.
Expansion of pipeline delivery capability to the Eastern Division.
C.
This alternative would also require the installation of an upgrade to the
Companys existing Eastern Division distribution infrastructure.

D.
Expansion of Whately LNG Facility Berkshire will consider the construction of
additional storage tanks at its existing satellite storage and vaporization facility. This alternative
would also require the installation of an upgrade to the Companys existing Eastern Division
distribution infrastructure.
E.
Install New LNG Facility install a new, larger LNG storage and vaporization
facility in northern portion of Eastern Division. This alternative would also require the installation
of an upgrade to the Companys existing distribution infrastructure.
F.
Lateral Displacement Service from another Tennessee Lateral shipper.
This
alternative would also require the installation of an upgrade to the Companys existing Eastern
Division infrastructure.
G.
Install Propane Air Facilities additional propane air facilities in southern portion
of Eastern Division. This alternative would also require the installation of an upgrade to the
Companys existing Eastern Division infrastructure.
H.
Expanded Load Management identify potential opportunities, if any, and
negotiate additional load management arrangements beyond Companys industry-leading

efforts. This alternative may also require the installation of an upgrade to the Companys
existing Eastern Division infrastructure.
22
I.
Expansion of Energy Efficiency further expand energy efficiency programs
beyond current substantial levels.
This alternative may also require the installation of an
upgrade to the Companys existing Eastern Division infrastructure.

Again, Berkshire expects that the ongoing comprehensive resource identification and
screening process will be completed by the fall of 2016. The Company will then move to
detailed analyses and stakeholder processes to consider and evaluate the practical and feasible
resource alternatives. Until such time as a long-term solution(s) is developed, the Company will
plan to meet its resource requirements with one or more supplies of Firm Citygate deliveries.
With the inclusion of Firm Citygate purchases, Berkshires portfolio remains sufficient to meet
Planning Load requirements.
The Companys analyses performed in connection with the preparation of this filing
demonstrate that the Company should continue to maintain a flexible resource portfolio.
Berkshires resource portfolio provides least cost service to customers, appropriate flexibility to
respond to changing market conditions and reflects an action plan to ensure that adequate
supplies will be obtained to meet its projected firm Planning Load requirements.
4.
Distribution Planning
The Companys overall resource plan must reflect the requirements of diversification of
supply resources as well as the maintenance and operation of a sound distribution system. The
ability of a distribution system to reliably deliver gas supply from the source, (i.e. city gate) to
end users is an essential planning consideration to ensure reliable, appropriate and least-cost
supply.
Berkshire regularly assesses conditions throughout its distribution system and
addresses distribution-related concerns on an ongoing basis.

Distribution capacity has specifically been a concern in the Eastern Division for more
than a decade, as enumerated in many Company filings dating back to the late 1990s (e.g. the
early establishment of load-management rates, LNG facility in 1999, F&SP filings, and
agreements for efficient, curtailable gas supply, the contracting for Northampton Lateral
23
Expansion Project and the recent NED Project). In December 2014, Berkshire was required to
declare a moratorium for new load additions, including new customers as well as incremental
load from existing customers. Simply put, as a result of distribution infrastructure constraints
(and capacity limitations), the Company determined that it was necessary to implement policies
precluding the provision of service to new load in order to protect the public health and safety by
maintaining safe and reliable service to its existing customers.
Indeed, extremely strong
demand for gas service at the time absorbed all available incremental capacity in the Eastern
Division at a rate well in excess of historical experience and expectations.
Because of its location, Berkshire has limited long-term options for increasing design day
requirements in the Eastern Division.
The Company previously determined that temporary
alternatives (i.e. LP, LNG), absent a permanent, long-term solution (i.e. the NED Project), would
not be prudent and would jeopardize the public health and safety by risking service interruptions
to all customers in the Eastern Division. There are also operational limitations, such as mixing
limitations for LP. As explained above, the NED Project would have addressed all the identified
resource needs for the Eastern Division on a cost-effective basis. Minimal increases in Eastern
Division deliverability could theoretically permit the addition of incremental load. However, the
Company has determined that the appropriate approach for meeting regulatory standards for
both reliability and economic purposes is to develop and implement an updated comprehensive,
holistic, long-term plan for the benefit of customers.
As described above, the Company is currently assessing options for additional
resources to serve the Eastern Division to allow Berkshire to terminate the moratorium. In terms
of demand, the Companys forecasts in the instant filing exclude any growth in the Eastern
Division. Concentric also prepared a no moratorium scenario that may be used in the event
that a replacement resource is identified for the Eastern Division over the 5-year forecast period,
and natural gas service for new and incremental load is resumed.
24
5.
Summary of Resources and Facilities
This section describes the resources available to meet forecasted firm sendout
requirements. These resources include long-haul and short-haul pipeline transportation and
storage contracts, gas supply contracts and supplemental resources described above.
a.
Transportation and Storage Contracts
The Company has capacity entitlements on Tennessee that provide access to gas
production and storage fields for transporting gas deliveries to Berkshires service territory. The
majority of these transportation contracts that the Company maintains with TGP are renewed
through October 2019.
The interstate pipeline capacity available to meet system requirements and utilized to fill
underground storage fields can be logically separated into three segments. First is the long-haul
capacity from the lower-48 states producing region. This capacity is 18,751 MMBtu per day. The
second segment, 15,854 MMBtu per day, is short-haul capacity used to transport gas from
underground storage fields in Pennsylvania, New York and West Virginia to western
Massachusetts. The third segment is the short-haul capacity used to bring approximately 1,057
MMBtu per day from the U.S./Canada border to western Massachusetts and 4,300 MMBtu per
day from Wright, NY (the Tennessee interconnection with the Iroquois Gas Transmission
System). A summary of Berkshires transportation and storage contracts is provided in Table
G24 of Appendix A.
b.
Gas Supplies
The Companys current portfolio consists of several supply, storage and pipeline
contracts. Berkshires gas supply resources are purchased under the North American Energy
Standards Board (NAESB) gas supply contract. This NAESB is an enabling contract with
standard generic provisions (and Special Provisions may be negotiated) which allows
transactions to be effectuated efficiently. All of the Companys contracts feature market-based,
competitive prices, a level of reliability consistent with the Companys sales requirements, and
25
varying degrees of daily, seasonal and monthly flexibility in nomination and purchase
requirements.
1.
Supplies for Long-haul Contracts
MDQ = 18,751 MMBtu

ACQ = 6,844,115 MMBtu
The Company routinely issues a request for proposal to supply its winter long-haul
natural gas requirements. For the winter 2016/2017 period (i.e. November March), as a result
of a competitive solicitation, the Company has executed agreements with suppliers in Zone 4 at
Station 219 which include provisions to access primary receipt points in the Gulf region in the
event of any pipeline restrictions.9 This flexibility provides customers with the opportunity for
cost savings while at the same time preserves reliability.
Berkshire has selected Southwestern
Energy Services Company and DTE Energy Services for suppliers in Zone 4. These short-term
contracts ensure that customers continue to enjoy competitive, market-based supply pricing.
2.
Short-haul Supplies
MDQ = 5,357 MMBtu

ACQ = 1,955,305 MMBtu
The Companys short-haul supplies are comprised of 1,057 MMBtu/d from Niagara Falls,
NY and 4,300 MMBtu/d from Wright, NY. In terms of gas supply, similar to its long-haul supply
procurement practices, the Company issues a request for proposal for the winter period for its
short-haul supplies.
After a competitive solicitation process, the Company selected
Constellation as its Wright supplier, and DTE for its Niagara supplier.
The Companys long-haul contracts provide primary receipt from points in the Gulf of Mexico. Berkshires analysis
demonstrates that procuring commodity at Station 219 (along the path of its long-haul contracts) can provide
significant cost savings to firm sales customers. However, the Company also plans for supply availability in the Gulf
in the event there are primary point pipeline restrictions.
26
3.
LNG Liquid
MDQ = 3,000 MMBtu

ACQ = 130,000 MMBtu
For many years, Berkshires resource portfolio has included LNG in liquid form to be
delivered by truck to the Companys LNG facility in Whately, MA.
As described above,
Berkshire is currently seeking approval of a 4-year agreement with Engie in docket D.P.U. 1604.
c.
Supplemental Resources
Supplemental facilities are local production plants that store liquid propane or LNG until
vaporized. These supplemental resources are utilized to meet peak season requirements in
excess of pipeline resources. Because they can be brought on line quickly, these facilities are
also used to meet hourly fluctuations in demand, maintain deliveries to customers and balance
pressures across portions of the distribution system during periods of high demand. In the event
that gas resources on one part of the system were suddenly lost, adequate resources would be
on line to help maintain delivery pressures and/or supply requirements.
Berkshire's supplemental facilities are distributed strategically across the service area to
enhance service reliability and to provide supply across a diverse distribution system. The LP
facilities in Greenfield and North Adams are installed in service areas that are fed by a single
interconnection off of a lateral with the TGP and, therefore, are the only backup source available
to the Company in those areas.
1.
Propane Facilities
MDQ = 7,900 MMBtu per day

Storage Capacity = 53,240 MMBtu
The Company has the ability to take between 0 and 100 percent of the MDQ depending
on mixing conditions on a given day. The Company reactivated its Greenfield LP Plant in 2012.
Daily output is limited to on-site storage capacity, trucking limitations, the necessary flow-by of
27
natural gas, as well as pressure conditions. Berkshire typically moves product from its Pittsfield
LP Plant to its Greenfield LP Plant to meet facility requirements for pressure dispatch. During
the summer, the Company refills its LP Plants and, consistent with its historical resource
planning, plans to secure a call contract for optional gallons of propane for the November
through March period. These LP facilities are relatively old and will require certain capital
expenditures in order to maintain safe and reliable service in the future.
2.
Whately LNG Facility
MDQ = Approximately 3,300 MMBtu

Storage Capacity = 10,032 MMBtu
The Whately LNG facility provides the Company with a dual-purpose resource that
allows it to reliably serve its existing customers in the Eastern Division. Berkshire requires the
LNG facility for peak period supply purposes, as well as to maintain distribution system
pressures in the northern portion of its Eastern Division. Berkshires gas control department
operates the plant remotely to vaporize up to 3,300 MMBtu per day. Throughout the winter,
Berkshire schedules deliveries of up to three loads of LNG per day so as to maintain an
appropriate inventory level during peak or near-peak conditions. The facility also provides some
redundancy for the Greenfield Division during the non-peak portion of the year and has
historically enabled the Company to respond to sudden changes in TGPs operating conditions,
though historical contingency pressure situations have been mitigated with the TGP
Northampton Lateral upgrade in 2012. The dual purpose of the Whately facility is somewhat
unusual and reflects the Companys creative approach to resource planning. One important
feature of this plant is the need for a three-day storage standard. This standard was critical to
the maintenance of reliable service in the February 2015 period as the facility was operated
extensively.
28
B.
Future Planning
1.
Portfolio Optimization
While no formal third-party optimization structure is currently in place (i.e. alliance,

asset manager, etc.), Berkshire continues to work aggressively to pursue gas supply savings
opportunities for its customers, including the use of sophisticated optimization strategies.
Previously, the Company worked closely and cooperatively with two of the largest wholesale
market participants and producers in North America under alliance-type arrangements,
Berkshire gained valuable knowledge with respect to various optimization strategies that
complements its knowledge of traditional gas supply. These alliances provided a cross-training
vehicle for intended personnel broadening overall internal knowledge and understanding of the
complex natural gas market. This access to information has provided the Company with key
insights into issues related to natural gas commodity supply and pricing.
The Company typically focuses on capacity release transactions during non-peak
periods in order to generate margins for customers. Off-system sales continue to be made
when feasible, with any margins derived returned to customers in conformance with the
directives in D.P.U. 10-62 (2013).
2.
Pipeline and Regional Supply Project Changes
Certain pipeline and regional supply project changes could occur during this planning
period to address regional needs and demand growth. The Company will continue to monitor all
of these projects and developments seeking to identify and evaluate appropriate opportunities
for the benefit of customers. A summary from the Northeast Gas Association outlining these
planned enhancements is provided as Appendix F to this report.
In sum, the Company will monitor the progress of these pipeline and supply projects and
their development. Many of these projects may have an indirect but nevertheless beneficial
impact on Berkshires customers, as new supplies and infrastructure will help in contributing to
meet the regions requirements and maintaining stable and economical natural gas prices.
29
V.
CONCLUSION
Berkshire believes that it has implemented a forecast and supply plan that is reviewable,
reliable and appropriate. The Companys planning process and its current resource portfolio are
flexible and enable the Company to optimize its portfolio on a continual basis while continuing to
provide customers with reliable, least cost service.
The resources are flexible whether
customers migrate to transportation service or migrate back to default sales service. Peaking
resources are available for a design day, design year or cold snap scenarios.
While the
Company has identified certain requirements for additional resources, it is developing and
implementing an appropriate and effective action plan that will involve substantial technical
review and stakeholder participation.
Accordingly, the Company has structured a flexible
portfolio that will allow it to manage its resources under different transportation migration and
economic condition scenarios.
30
VI.
REQUIRED TABLES
5603536.4
31
The Berkshire Gas Company

D.P.U. 16-103
2016 Forecast & Supply Plan
Required Tables
Page 1 of 31
REQUIRED TABLES
1.1
1.2
1.3
1.4
1.5
1.6
1.7
1.8
1.9
1.10
1.11
1.12
1.13
1.14
1.15
1.16
1.17
1.18
1.19
1.20
Table DD: Degree Day Data

Table FA: Forecast Accuracy
Table G-1: Residential with Gas Heating
Table G-2: Residential without Gas Heating
Table G-3(LLF): Low Load Factor Commercial and Industrial
Table G-3(HLF): High Load Factor Commercial and Industrial
Table G-4: Interruptible, Sales for Resale, Company Use and Unaccounted For
Table G-5: Total Firm Company Sendout
Table G-6: Impact of Causative Variables on Use Factors
Table G-14: Existing Gas Manufacturing and Storage Facilities
Table G-15: Participation in or Services from Manufacturing and Storage Faculties Planned Outside of Massachusetts
Table G-16: Exempt and Approved Manufacturing and Storage Facilities in Massachusetts and Not Yet in Operation
Table G-17: Proposed Manufacturing and Storage Facilities in Massachusetts
Table G-21: Proposed Pipelines in Massachusetts Over a Mile in Length and Over 100 PSI
Table G-22N: Comparison of Resources and Requirements: Normal Year, Non Heating Season
Table G-22NH: Comparison of Resources and Requirements: Normal Year, Heating Season
Table G-22D: Comparison of Resources and Requirements: Design Year, Non Heating Season
Table G-22DH: Comparison of Resources and Requirements: Design Year, Heating Season
Table G-23: Comparison of Resources and Requirements: Design Day
Table G-24: Agreements for Gas Supply

D.P.U. 16-103
Required Tables
Page 2 of 31
TABLE DD
MASS DPU 07/16
SPLIT -YEAR
11/1 - 10/31
2011-2012
2012-2013
2013-2014
2014-2015
2015-2016
NORMAL
DESIGN
EFFECTIVE DEGREE DAY DATA

NON-HTG
SEASON
1,300
1,552
1,418
1,393
1,537
1,537
1,537
HEATING
SEASON
4,519
5,291
5,889
5,979
4,466
5,343
6,455
CRITERION
1. NORMAL YEAR [1]
DEGREE
DAYS
6,881
TIME PERIOD
ANALYZED
4/1996-3/2016
2. DESIGN YEAR [2]
7,993
4/1986-3/2016
3. DESIGN DAY [3]
80
4/1986-3/2016
BERKSHIRE GAS
JULY 2016
TOTAL
SPLIT-YR
5,819
6,843
7,307
7,372
6,003
6,881
7,993
PEAK
DAY
63
69
70
75
81
X
80
METHOD USED
20 Year Average
Weather Study Recommendation
(1 in 30 Years)
Weather Study Recommendation
(1 in 30 Years)
NOTES:
[1]: Normal Year - (6881 Effective Degree Days). The most recent twenty (20) years of
Effective Degree Day Data was averaged to calculate the number of Effective Degree Days
that can be expected in the Heating and Non-Heating Seasons.
[2]: Design Year - (7993 Effective Degree Days) - the coldest year for which the Company
plans to meet its firm customers' requirements.
[3]: Design Day - (80 Effective Degree Days) - the coldest day for which the Company
plans to meet its firm customers' requirements.
NOTE: 2015-2016 contains actual data through March 2016 and forecast data from April-October 2016.

D.P.U. 16-103
Required Tables
Page 3 of 31
TABLE FA
MASS DPU 07/16
TOTAL SPLIT YEAR NORMALIZED FIRM SENDOUT

BBTU
( % DIFFERENCE)
FORECAST PREPARED FOR FIVE YEAR PERIOD
BERKSHIRE GAS
JULY 2016
SPLIT YEAR
ACTUAL
NORMALIZED
SENDOUT
2011 - 2012
2012 - 2013
2013 - 2014
2014 - 2015
2015 - 2016
2011 - 2012
5,967
10.86%
2012 - 2013
6,507
2.03%
2013 - 2014
7,450
11.00%
2014 - 2015
7,555
6.49%
2015 - 2016
7,331
NOTE: THE YEAR 2015-2016 CONTAINS ACTUAL DATA THROUGH MARCH 2016 AND FORECAST DATA FROM APRIL-OCTOBER 2016
NOTE: THE COMPANY DID NOT INCLUDE SPECIAL CONTRACT, T-54, OR INTERRUPTIBLE CUSTOMER DATA
0.91%

D.P.U. 16-103
Required Tables
Page 4 of 31
TABLE G-1
MASS DPU 07/16
SPLIT -YEAR
11/1 - 10/31
2011-2012
2012-2013
2013-2014
2014-2015
2015-2016
SPLIT -YEAR
11/1 - 10/31
2016-2017
2017-2018
2018-2019
2019-2020
2020-2021
BERKSHIRE GAS
JULY 2016
RESIDENTIAL WITH GAS HEATING
AVG # OF
CUSTOMERS [1]
26,983
28,156
29,504
30,428
30,886
AVG # OF
CUSTOMERS [1]
31,286
31,672
32,156
32,654
33,123
HEATING
SEASON
1,636,385
1,904,962
2,263,840
2,356,814
1,846,174
Sales and Transportation Loads

HISTORICAL SENDOUT (Dth)
ACTUAL
NON-HTG
TOTAL
HEATING
SEASON
SPLIT-YR
SEASON
643,916
2,280,301
1,844,736
803,842
2,708,804
1,953,804
891,707
3,155,547
2,146,797
907,907
3,264,721
2,171,536
896,157
2,742,331
2,098,110
NORMAL
NON-HTG
SEASON
742,680
799,940
876,915
920,105
896,157
HEATING
SEASON
2,215,053
2,241,984
2,266,486
2,288,938
2,311,924
FORECASTED SENDOUT (Dth) [2]

NORMAL
DESIGN
NON-HTG
TOTAL
HEATING
SEASON
SPLIT-YR
SEASON
953,467
3,168,520
2,558,380
962,583
3,204,568
2,589,390
966,087
3,232,573
2,619,124
969,984
3,258,923
2,647,036
975,109
3,287,033
2,675,175
NORMAL USE / CUST

HEATING
NON-HTG
SEASON
SEASON
70.8011
30.4762
70.7868
30.3919
70.4835
30.0435
70.0973
29.7052
69.7989
29.4393
NOTES:
[1]: Average number of customers is calculated for the four quarters Q4 through Q3 (October through September).
[2]: Forecasted Customer Count and Sendout includes effects of the Moratorium and Energy Efficiency.
General Note: "Sendout" and "Demand" are used interchangeably in the EFSB tables.
TOTAL
SPLIT-YR
2,587,416
2,753,744
3,023,712
3,091,641
2,994,267
ACTUAL USE / CUST

HEATING
NON-HTG
SEASON
SEASON
60.6460
23.8641
67.6586
28.5501
76.7308
30.2236
77.4550
29.8377
59.7738
29.0150

D.P.U. 16-103
Required Tables
Page 5 of 31
TABLE G-2
MASS DPU 07/16
RESIDENTIAL WITHOUT GAS HEATING
SPLIT -YEAR
11/1 - 10/31
2011-2012
2012-2013
2013-2014
2014-2015
2015-2016
HEATING
SEASON
38,394
36,366
35,731
35,438
28,716

ACTUAL
NON-HTG
TOTAL
HEATING
SEASON
SPLIT-YR
SEASON
38,801
77,195
39,907
36,786
73,152
36,666
34,972
70,703
35,076
31,901
67,339
34,536
30,107
58,823
29,959
NORMAL
NON-HTG
SEASON
39,623
36,700
34,888
32,015
30,107
HEATING
SEASON
27,108
25,017
22,921
20,820
18,726

NORMAL
DESIGN
NON-HTG
TOTAL
HEATING
SEASON
SPLIT-YR
SEASON
28,111
55,218
28,547
25,864
50,881
26,345
23,609
46,529
24,137
21,358
42,178
21,925
19,113
37,839
19,720
NORMAL USE / CUST

HEATING NON-HTG
SEASON
SEASON
8.6904
9.0118
8.6985
8.9930
8.7059
8.9673
8.7130
8.9382
8.7248
8.9054
SPLIT -YEAR
11/1 - 10/31
2016-2017
2017-2018
2018-2019
2019-2020
2020-2021
AVG # OF
CUSTOMERS [1]
4,511
4,185
3,877
3,613
3,383
AVG # OF
CUSTOMERS [1]
3,119
2,876
2,633
2,390
2,146
GENERAL NOTES:
BERKSHIRE GAS
JULY 2016
TOTAL
SPLIT-YR
79,530
73,366
69,964
66,551
60,067
ACTUAL USE / CUST

HEATING NON-HTG
SEASON
SEASON
8.5114
8.6017
8.6907
8.7910
9.2163
9.0206
9.8086
8.8298
8.4890
8.9003

D.P.U. 16-103
Required Tables
Page 6 of 31
TABLE G-3(HLF)
MASS DPU 07/16
SPLIT -YEAR
11/1 - 10/31
2011-2012
2012-2013
2013-2014
2014-2015
2015-2016
SPLIT -YEAR
11/1 - 10/31
2016-2017
2017-2018
2018-2019
2019-2020
2020-2021
HIGH LOAD FACTOR COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL

ACTUAL
AVG # OF
HEATING
NON-HTG
TOTAL
HEATING
CUSTOMERS [1]
SEASON
SEASON
SPLIT-YR
SEASON
3,923
1,571,824
536,317
2,108,141
1,788,857
4,034
1,850,507
633,434
2,483,941
1,877,604
4,155
2,173,846
721,593
2,895,439
2,046,004
4,219
2,251,003
733,344
2,984,347
2,058,309
4,250
1,717,071
757,155
2,474,227
1,961,626
AVG # OF
CUSTOMERS [1]
4,317
4,366
4,418
4,469
4,517

NORMAL
HEATING
NON-HTG
TOTAL
SEASON
SEASON
SPLIT-YR
2,079,217
776,806
2,856,023
2,093,092
786,920
2,880,012
2,115,782
783,827
2,899,610
2,121,292
772,959
2,894,251
2,125,904
766,236
2,892,140
DESIGN
HEATING
SEASON
2,405,051
2,422,544
2,449,205
2,458,568
2,466,794
NOTES:
BERKSHIRE GAS
JULY 2016
NORMAL
NON-HTG
SEASON
622,887
651,708
730,332
741,018
757,155
TOTAL
SPLIT-YR
2,411,744
2,529,313
2,776,336
2,799,327
2,718,782

D.P.U. 16-103
Required Tables
Page 7 of 31
TABLE G-3(HLF)PL
MASS DPU 07/16
BERKSHIRE GAS
JULY 2016
SPLIT -YEAR
11/1 - 10/31
2011-2012
2012-2013
2013-2014
2014-2015
2015-2016
Planning Load (Sales & Capacity Assigned Loads)

ACTUAL
HEATING
NON-HTG
TOTAL
SEASON
SEASON
SPLIT-YR
1,104,035
360,660
1,464,695
1,311,445
447,186
1,758,632
1,587,897
536,887
2,124,784
1,728,163
577,469
2,305,632
1,451,697
649,892
2,101,590
HEATING
SEASON
1,274,220
1,335,577
1,491,076
1,567,565
1,641,261
SPLIT -YEAR
11/1 - 10/31
2016-2017
2017-2018
2018-2019
2019-2020
2020-2021

NORMAL
HEATING
NON-HTG
TOTAL
SEASON
SEASON
SPLIT-YR
1,773,174
667,614
2,440,788
1,789,218
676,626
2,465,845
1,813,425
672,944
2,486,369
1,820,066
661,803
2,481,869
1,825,569
654,994
2,480,563
DESIGN
HEATING
SEASON
2,048,574
2,068,241
2,096,423
2,106,920
2,116,039
NOTES:
NORMAL
NON-HTG
SEASON
431,264
461,995
537,372
580,632
649,892
TOTAL
SPLIT-YR
1,705,483
1,797,572
2,028,448
2,148,197
2,291,154

D.P.U. 16-103
Required Tables
Page 8 of 31
TABLE G-3(HLF)CE
MASS DPU 07/16
BERKSHIRE GAS
JULY 2016
SPLIT -YEAR
11/1 - 10/31
2009-2010
2010-2011
2011-2012
2012-2013
2013-2014
Capactiy Exempt Loads

ACTUAL
HEATING
NON-HTG
TOTAL
SEASON
SEASON
SPLIT-YR
234,818
301,793
536,611
357,572
427,600
785,172
371,950
459,652
831,602
392,285
469,602
861,886
402,404
457,115
859,519
HEATING
SEASON
236,050
354,192
384,143
393,575
401,141
SPLIT -YEAR
11/1 - 10/31
2014-2015
2015-2016
2016-2017
2017-2018
2018-2019

NORMAL
HEATING
NON-HTG
TOTAL
SEASON
SEASON
SPLIT-YR
398,406
455,293
853,699
397,350
453,001
850,351
394,924
448,557
843,481
391,042
442,111
833,154
386,078
435,517
821,595
DESIGN
HEATING
SEASON
412,713
411,673
409,262
405,395
400,445
NOTES:
NORMAL
NON-HTG
SEASON
301,569
428,042
460,839
470,367
457,115
TOTAL
SPLIT-YR
537,620
782,234
844,982
863,942
858,256

D.P.U. 16-103
Required Tables
Page 9 of 31
TABLE G-3(LLF)
MASS DPU 07/16
SPLIT -YEAR
11/1 - 10/31
2011-2012
2012-2013
2013-2014
2014-2015
2015-2016
SPLIT -YEAR
11/1 - 10/31
2016-2017
2017-2018
2018-2019
2019-2020
2020-2021
LOW LOAD FACTOR COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL

ACTUAL
AVG # OF
HEATING
NON-HTG
TOTAL
HEATING
CUSTOMERS [1]
SEASON
SEASON
SPLIT-YR
SEASON
1,057
646,960
772,483
1,419,443
670,601
1,044
690,256
823,695
1,513,951
692,685
1,054
716,917
873,744
1,590,661
704,580
1,053
709,804
904,445
1,614,249
691,527
1,053
650,533
882,570
1,533,103
674,942
AVG # OF
CUSTOMERS [1]
1,058
1,058
1,057
1,056
1,054

NORMAL
HEATING
NON-HTG
TOTAL
SEASON
SEASON
SPLIT-YR
724,164
872,717
1,596,880
717,068
860,757
1,577,825
706,172
844,055
1,550,228
693,981
829,004
1,522,985
684,177
816,578
1,500,756
DESIGN
HEATING
SEASON
753,038
745,952
735,043
722,812
712,955
NOTES:
BERKSHIRE GAS
JULY 2016
NORMAL
NON-HTG
SEASON
781,489
825,510
875,483
906,320
882,570
TOTAL
SPLIT-YR
1,452,090
1,518,195
1,580,063
1,597,847
1,557,512

D.P.U. 16-103
Required Tables
Page 10 of 31
TABLE G-3(LLF)PL
MASS DPU 07/16
BERKSHIRE GAS
JULY 2016
SPLIT -YEAR
11/1 - 10/31
2011-2012
2012-2013
2013-2014
2014-2015
2015-2016

ACTUAL
HEATING
NON-HTG
TOTAL
SEASON
SEASON
SPLIT-YR
286,034
326,217
612,252
317,282
344,531
661,814
346,504
359,128
705,632
385,571
413,513
799,083
390,210
438,822
829,032
HEATING
SEASON
306,275
319,496
336,419
369,917
410,999
SPLIT -YEAR
11/1 - 10/31
2016-2017
2017-2018
2018-2019
2019-2020
2020-2021

NORMAL
HEATING
NON-HTG
TOTAL
SEASON
SEASON
SPLIT-YR
426,895
436,752
863,647
424,509
432,605
857,113
420,511
426,397
846,908
415,642
420,266
835,908
411,337
415,032
826,370
DESIGN
HEATING
SEASON
451,737
449,352
445,333
440,415
436,049
NOTES:
NORMAL
NON-HTG
SEASON
334,730
346,030
360,551
415,521
438,822
TOTAL
SPLIT-YR
641,005
665,526
696,969
785,438
849,821

D.P.U. 16-103
Required Tables
Page 11 of 31
TABLE G-3(LLF)CE
MASS DPU 07/16
BERKSHIRE GAS
JULY 2016
SPLIT -YEAR
11/1 - 10/31
2011-2012
2012-2013
2013-2014
2014-2015
2015-2016
Capactiy Exempt Loads

ACTUAL
HEATING
NON-HTG
TOTAL
SEASON
SEASON
SPLIT-YR
360,925
446,266
807,191
372,974
479,164
852,138
370,414
514,616
885,029
324,233
490,932
815,165
260,324
443,748
704,072
HEATING
SEASON
364,326
373,190
368,162
321,610
263,943
SPLIT -YEAR
11/1 - 10/31
2016-2017
2017-2018
2018-2019
2019-2020
2020-2021

NORMAL
HEATING
NON-HTG
TOTAL
SEASON
SEASON
SPLIT-YR
297,269
435,964
733,233
292,559
428,152
720,711
285,662
417,658
703,320
278,339
408,738
687,077
272,840
401,546
674,386
DESIGN
HEATING
SEASON
301,301
296,600
289,711
282,397
276,906
NOTES:
NORMAL
NON-HTG
SEASON
446,759
479,480
514,932
490,799
443,748
TOTAL
SPLIT-YR
811,085
852,670
883,094
812,409
707,691

D.P.U. 16-103
Required Tables
Page 12 of 31
TABLE G-4(A)
MASS DPU 07/16
BERKSHIRE GAS
JULY 2016
INTERRUPTIBLE [1]
SPLIT -YEAR
11/1 - 10/31
2011-2012
2012-2013
2013-2014
2014-2015
2015-2016

ACTUAL
HEATING
NON-HTG
SEASON
SEASON
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
TOTAL
SPLIT-YR
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
SPLIT -YEAR
11/1 - 10/31
2016-2017
2017-2018
2018-2019
2019-2020
2020-2021
FORECASTED SENDOUT (Dth)

NORMAL
HEATING
NON-HTG
SEASON
SEASON
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
TOTAL
SPLIT-YR
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NOTES:
[1]: Actual interruptible sales and transportation data is not reported;
interruptible demand is not reflected in Resource Plans.

D.P.U. 16-103
Required Tables
Page 13 of 31
TABLE G-4(B)
MASS DPU 07/16
BERKSHIRE GAS
JULY 2016
SALES FOR RESALE (FIRM) [1]
SPLIT -YEAR
11/1 - 10/31
2011-2012
2012-2013
2013-2014
2014-2015
2015-2016

ACTUAL
HEATING
NON-HTG
SEASON
SEASON
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
SPLIT -YEAR
11/1 - 10/31
2016-2017
2017-2018
2018-2019
2019-2020
2020-2021
FORECASTED SENDOUT (Dth)

NORMAL
HEATING
NON-HTG
SEASON
SEASON
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NOTES:
[1]: Actual Sales for Resale data is not reported; Sales for Resale demand is
not reflected in Resource Plans.
NORMAL
HEATING
NON-HTG
SEASON
SEASON
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
DESIGN
HEATING
SEASON
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA

D.P.U. 16-103
Required Tables
Page 14 of 31
TABLE G-4(C)
MASS DPU 07/16
BERKSHIRE GAS
JULY 2016
COMPANY USE AND UNACCOUNTED FOR
SPLIT -YEAR
11/1 - 10/31
2011-2012
2012-2013
2013-2014
2014-2015
2015-2016

ACTUAL
HEATING
NON-HTG
SEASON
SEASON
(146,619)
289,572
(293,057)
352,341
(441,618)
312,396
(422,678)
188,504
(233,007)
318,623
SPLIT -YEAR
11/1 - 10/31
2016-2017
2017-2018
2018-2019
2019-2020
2020-2021

NORMAL
HEATING
NON-HTG
SEASON
SEASON
(303,515)
316,909
(306,432)
319,990
(310,804)
322,806
(313,942)
326,056
(316,801)
329,359
NORMAL
HEATING
NON-HTG
SEASON
SEASON
(165,078)
286,613
(300,877)
325,978
(413,001)
276,069
(377,930)
235,268
(281,602)
318,623
DESIGN
HEATING
SEASON
(363,065)
(366,651)
(371,844)
(375,824)
(379,476)
NOTES:

D.P.U. 16-103
Required Tables
Page 15 of 31
TABLE G-4(C)PL
MASS DPU 07/16

ACTUAL
SPLIT -YEAR
HEATING
NON-HTG
11/1 - 10/31
SEASON
SEASON
2011-2012
(133,099)
255,371
2012-2013
(254,439)
316,228
2013-2014
(381,413)
295,090
2014-2015
(377,004)
189,595
2015-2016
(219,125)
300,142
SPLIT -YEAR
11/1 - 10/31
2016-2017
2017-2018
2018-2019
2019-2020
2020-2021

NORMAL
HEATING
NON-HTG
SEASON
SEASON
(284,923)
298,693
(288,062)
302,050
(292,611)
305,035
(295,944)
308,378
(298,934)
311,756
BERKSHIRE GAS
JULY 2016
NORMAL
HEATING
NON-HTG
SEASON
SEASON
(149,781)
252,793
(262,197)
292,733
(356,392)
261,716
(335,488)
232,575
(263,556)
300,142
DESIGN
HEATING
SEASON
(340,802)
(344,610)
(349,981)
(354,156)
(357,938)
NOTES:

D.P.U. 16-103
Required Tables
Page 16 of 31
TABLE G-4(C)CE
MASS DPU 07/16
SPLIT -YEAR
11/1 - 10/31
2011-2012
2012-2013
2013-2014
2014-2015
2015-2016
Capacity Exempt Loads

ACTUAL
HEATING
NON-HTG
SEASON
SEASON
(13,520)
34,201
(38,618)
36,112
(60,205)
17,306
(45,673)
(1,091)
(13,881)
18,482
SPLIT -YEAR
11/1 - 10/31
2016-2017
2017-2018
2018-2019
2019-2020
2020-2021

NORMAL
HEATING
NON-HTG
SEASON
SEASON
(18,592)
18,216
(18,370)
17,940
(18,193)
17,771
(17,997)
17,678
(17,867)
17,603
BERKSHIRE GAS
JULY 2016
NORMAL
HEATING
NON-HTG
SEASON
SEASON
(15,297)
33,820
(38,680)
33,245
(56,610)
14,352
(42,443)
2,693
(18,046)
18,482
DESIGN
HEATING
SEASON
(22,263)
(22,041)
(21,864)
(21,668)
(21,538)
NOTES:

D.P.U. 16-103
Required Tables
Page 17 of 31
TABLE G-5
MASS DPU 07/16
SPLIT -YEAR
11/1 - 10/31
2011-2012
2012-2013
2013-2014
2014-2015
2015-2016
SPLIT -YEAR
11/1 - 10/31
2016-2017
2017-2018
2018-2019
2019-2020
2020-2021
HEATING
SEASON
3,746,944
4,189,034
4,748,716
4,930,380
4,009,488
TOTAL FIRM COMPANY SENDOUT

(including Company Use and Unaccounted For Gas)
ACTUAL
NON-HTG
TOTAL
HEATING
SEASON
SPLIT-YR
SEASON
2,281,089
6,028,032
4,179,023
2,650,098
6,839,133
4,259,882
2,834,412
7,583,128
4,519,455
2,766,101
7,696,481
4,577,978
2,884,613
6,894,101
4,483,036
HEATING
SEASON
4,742,026
4,770,730
4,800,558
4,811,089
4,823,930

NORMAL
DESIGN
NON-HTG
TOTAL
HEATING
SEASON
SPLIT-YR
SEASON
2,948,009
7,690,035
5,381,951
2,956,115
7,726,844
5,417,580
2,940,385
7,740,942
5,455,665
2,919,361
7,730,450
5,474,517
2,906,396
7,730,326
5,495,169
BERKSHIRE GAS
JULY 2016
NORMAL
NON-HTG
SEASON
2,473,293
2,639,837
2,793,687
2,834,726
2,884,613
NOTES:
TOTAL
SPLIT-YR
6,652,315
6,899,719
7,313,142
7,412,704
7,367,648
ACTUAL
PEAK
DAY
48,907
54,703
56,882
56,936
61,179

D.P.U. 16-103
Required Tables
Page 18 of 31
TABLE G-5PL
MASS DPU 07/16
SPLIT -YEAR
11/1 - 10/31
2011-2012
2012-2013
2013-2014
2014-2015
2015-2016
SPLIT -YEAR
11/1 - 10/31
2016-2017
2017-2018
2018-2019
2019-2020
2020-2021
HEATING
SEASON
2,931,749
3,315,617
3,852,558
4,128,981
3,497,672

ACTUAL
NORMAL
NON-HTG
TOTAL
HEATING
NON-HTG
SEASON
SPLIT-YR
SEASON
SEASON
1,624,965
4,556,714
3,315,357
1,801,090
1,948,574
5,264,191
3,383,345
1,937,399
2,117,784
5,970,342
3,652,975
2,071,443
2,120,385
6,249,366
3,808,066
2,180,849
2,315,120
5,812,792
3,916,774
2,315,120
HEATING
SEASON
4,157,306
4,192,667
4,230,732
4,249,522
4,268,623

DESIGN
NORMAL
NON-HTG
TOTAL
HEATING
DESIGN
SEASON
SPLIT-YR
SEASON
DAY
2,384,636
6,541,942
4,746,437
64,182
2,399,729
6,592,395
4,788,718
64,705
2,394,072
6,624,804
4,835,036
65,081
2,381,789
6,631,311
4,862,141
65,229
2,376,004
6,644,627
4,889,045
65,432
NOTES:
BERKSHIRE GAS
JULY 2016
TOTAL
SPLIT-YR
5,116,447
5,320,744
5,724,417
5,988,915
6,231,894
ACTUAL
PEAK
DAY
40,991
44,923
48,589
49,740
56,316

D.P.U. 16-103
Required Tables
Page 19 of 31
TABLE G-5CE
MASS DPU 07/16
SPLIT -YEAR
11/1 - 10/31
2011-2012
2012-2013
2013-2014
2014-2015
2015-2016
SPLIT -YEAR
11/1 - 10/31
2016-2017
2017-2018
2018-2019
2019-2020
2020-2021
BERKSHIRE GAS
JULY 2016
Capacity Exempt Loads

HEATING
SEASON
815,194
873,418
896,158
801,399
511,816
ACTUAL
NON-HTG
SEASON
656,124
701,524
716,628
645,716
569,493
HEATING
SEASON
584,720
578,063
569,826
561,567
555,308

NORMAL
DESIGN
NON-HTG
TOTAL
HEATING
SEASON
SPLIT-YR
SEASON
563,373
1,148,093
635,514
556,386
1,134,449
628,862
546,313
1,116,139
620,629
537,572
1,099,139
612,376
530,391
1,085,699
606,124
TOTAL
SPLIT-YR
1,471,318
1,574,941
1,612,786
1,447,115
1,081,309
HEATING
SEASON
863,666
876,537
866,481
769,912
566,262
NORMAL
NON-HTG
SEASON
672,203
702,438
722,244
653,877
569,493
NOTES:
TOTAL
SPLIT-YR
1,535,869
1,578,975
1,588,725
1,423,789
1,135,755
ACTUAL
PEAK
DAY
7,916
9,780
8,293
7,196
4,863

D.P.U. 16-103
Required Tables
Page 20 of 31
TABLE G-6
MASS DPU 07/16
IMPACT OF CAUSATIVE VARIABLES ON USE FACTORS
SEE NARRATIVE OF FORECAST DOCUMENTATION AND METHODOLOGY
BERKSHIRE GAS
JULY 2016

D.P.U. 16-103
Required Tables
Page 21 of 31
TABLE G-14
EXISTING GAS MANUFACTURING AND STORAGE FACILITES (BBTU)
MASS DPU 07/16
TYPE OF
FACILITY
ON SITE:
L P AIR
L P AIR
L P AIR
LNG Plant
OFF SITE:
NATURAL
NATURAL
BERKSHIRE GAS
JULY 2016
MAXIMUM
DAILY DESIGN
CAPACITY
STORAGE
CAPACITY
EXPECTED
AVERAGE BTU
CONTENT PER
CUBIC FOOT
FORECAST PERIOD
ANTICIPATED
RETIREMENT
DATE
LAST ACTUAL
SPLIT-YEAR
SENDOUT
LAST ACTUAL
SPLIT-YEAR
MAXIMUM
24 HR SENDOUT
PITTSFIELD
GREENFIELD
NORTH ADAMS
WHATELY
NONE
NONE
NONE
NONE
0.22
6.78
0.00
59.66
0.15
0.79
0.00
3.94
3.50
2.00
2.40
3.33
32.76
4.10
16.38
12.26
1130
1130
1130
1058
DOMINION
TENNESSEE
NONE
NONE
101.02
474.86
1.15
12.81
1.31
14.55
143.78
1039.39
1024
1024
LOCATION
Berkshire's LP-Air and LNG facilities and their capacities are listed on this table. Last Actual Split Year Total Sendout and Last Actual Split Year Maximum 24 Hours Sendout for these facilities
was determined by using Company records. Underground Natural Gas Storage contracts are also included on this table, but the volumes depicted do not reflect assigned storage capacity to marketers.
An explanation of LP and LNG operations are included in the supply narrative to improve understanding of such operations role in the Company's forecasting and planning.
*Maximum Daily Design Capacity of LNG Plant is based on 3-day onsite storage requirement

D.P.U. 16-103
Required Tables
Page 22 of 31
TABLE G-15
MASS DPU 07/16
CATEGORY
PARTICIPATION IN OR SERVICE FROM MANUFACTURING AND STORAGE

FACILITIES PLANNED OUTSIDE OF MASSACHUSETTS
LOCATION
ANTICIPATED
IN SERVICE
DATE
ANNUAL
SENDOUT
NONE
PEAK DAILY
SENDOUT
STORAGE
CAPACITY
BERKSHIRE GAS
JULY 2016
STORAGE
CAPACITY

D.P.U. 16-103
Required Tables
Page 23 of 31
TABLE G-16
MASS DPU 07/16
CATEGORY
EXEMPT AND APPROVED MANUFACTURING AND STORAGE FACILITIES

IN MASSACHUSETTS AND NOT YET IN OPERATION
LOCATION
ANTICIPATED
IN SERVICE
DATE
ANNUAL
SENDOUT
NONE
PEAK DAILY
SENDOUT
BERKSHIRE GAS
JULY 2016
STORAGE
CAPACITY
STORAGE
CAPACITY

D.P.U. 16-103
Required Tables
Page 24 of 31
TABLE G-17
MASS DPU 07/16
CATEGORY
PROPOSED MANUFACTURING AND STORAGE FACILITES IN MASSACHUSETTS
NAME OF
FACILITY
LOCATION
SITE
IN SERVICE ANNUAL
ACREAGE
DATE
SENDOUT
NONE
PEAK DAILY
SENDOUT
STORAGE
CAPACITY
BERKSHIRE GAS
JULY 2016
EXPECTED AVERAGE
BTU CONTENT
PER CUBIC FOOT

D.P.U. 16-103
Required Tables
Page 25 of 31
TABLE G-21
MASS DPU 07/16
NUMERICAL
DESIGNATION
PROPOSED PIPELINES IN MASSACHUSETTS

OVER A MILE IN LENGTH AND OVER 100 PSI
ORIGIN
TERMINUS
LENGTH
NONE
DIAMETER
BERKSHIRE GAS
JULY 2016
MAXIMUM
ALLOWABLE
OPERATING
PRESSURE
IN-SERVICE
DATE

D.P.U. 16-103
Required Tables
Page 26 of 31
TABLE G-22(D)
MASS DPU 07/16
LINE
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
COMPARISION OF RESOURCES AND REQUIREMENTS

DESIGN YEAR
BBTU
NON - HEATING SEASON
REQUIREMENTS
NORMAL PLANNING LOAD
SALES FOR RESALE
INTERRUPTIBLES
FUEL REIMBURSEMENT
STORAGE REFILL:
UNDERGROUND
PROPANE
LIQUEFACTION
LNG
TOTAL
RESOURCES
THIRD PARTY SUPPLIERS-FIRM
THIRD PARTY- INTERRUPTIBLE
STORAGE RETURN
CANADIAN
LNG LIQUID
PROPANE
OTHER
TOTAL
BERKSHIRE GAS
JULY 2016
2016 - 2017
1,795
0
0
35
2017 - 2018
1,810
0
0
35
2018 - 2019
1,820
0
0
35
2019 - 2020
1,824
0
0
35
2020 - 2021
1,830
0
0
35
1,006
0
0
0
1,006
0
0
0
1,006
0
0
0
1,006
0
0
0
1,006
0
0
0
2,836
2,850
2,861
2,865
2,871
2,776
0
0
58
0
0
0
2,662
0
0
186
0
0
0
2,627
0
0
231
0
0
0
2,599
0
0
262
0
0
0
2,604
0
0
264
0
0
0
2,834
2,848
2,858
2,862
2,867

D.P.U. 16-103
Required Tables
Page 27 of 31
TABLE G-22(DH)
MASS DPU 07/16
LINE
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21

DESIGN YEAR
BBTU
HEATING SEASON
REQUIREMENTS
PLANNING LOAD SENDOUT
SALES FOR RESALE
INTERRUPTIBLES
FUEL REIMBURSEMENT
STORAGE REFILL:
UNDERGROUND
PROPANE
LIQUEFACTION
LNG PURCHASES
BERKSHIRE GAS
JULY 2016
2016 - 2017
5,482
0
0
39
2017 - 2018
5,527
0
0
39
2018 - 2019
5,559
0
0
39
2019 - 2020
5,572
0
0
39
2020 - 2021
5,589
0
0
39
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
TOTAL
5,522
5,566
5,599
5,611
5,628
TOTAL
2,843
0
1,006
762
120
60
0
0
4,791
2,843
0
1,006
764
120
60
0
0
4,793
2,844
0
1,006
765
120
60
0
0
4,794
2,838
0
1,006
771
120
60
0
0
4,795
2,838
0
1,006
772
120
60
0
0
4,795
RESOURCES
THIRD PARTY SUPPLIERS-FIRM
THIRD PARTY- INTERRUPTIBLE
STORAGE RETURN
CANADIAN
LNG LIQUID
PROPANE
OTHER

D.P.U. 16-103
Required Tables
Page 28 of 31
TABLE G-22(N)
MASS DPU 07/16
LINE
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21

NORMAL YEAR
BBTU
NON-HEATING SEASON
REQUIREMENTS
PLANNING LOAD SENDOUT
SALES FOR RESALE
INTERRUPTIBLES
FUEL REIMBURSEMENT
STORAGE REFILL:
UNDERGROUND
PROPANE
LIQUEFACTION
LNG PURCHASES
TOTAL
BERKSHIRE GAS
JULY 2016
2016 - 2017
1,830
0
0
36
2017 - 2018
1,845
0
0
36
2018 - 2019
1,854
0
0
36
2019 - 2020
1,855
0
0
35
2020 - 2021
1,859
0
0
36
1,006
0
0
0
1,006
0
0
0
1,006
0
0
0
1,006
0
0
0
1,006
0
0
0
RESOURCES
THIRD PARTY SUPPLIERS - FIRM
THIRD PARTY - INTERRUPTIBLE
STORAGE RETURN
NIAGARA
LNG LIQUID
PROPANE
OTHER
2,872
2,886
2,895
2,897
2,900
2,805
0
0
64
0
0
0
2,688
0
0
194
0
0
0
2,655
0
0
236
0
0
0
2,625
0
0
268
0
0
0
2,628
0
0
269
0
0
0
TOTAL
2,869
2,883
2,891
2,893
2,896

D.P.U. 16-103
Required Tables
Page 29 of 31
TABLE G-22(NH)
MASS DPU 07/16
LINE
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21

NORMAL YEAR
BBTU
HEATING SEASON
REQUIREMENTS
NORMAL FIRM SENDOUT
SALES FOR RESALE
INTERRUPTIBLE SALES
FUEL REIMBURSEMENT
STORAGE REFILL:
UNDERGROUND
PROPANE
LIQUEFACTION
LNG PURCHASES
TOTAL
RESOURCES
THIRD PARTY SUPPLIERS - FIRM
THIRD PARTY - INTERRUPTIBLE
STORAGE RETURN
NIAGARA
LNG LIQUID
PROPANE
OTHER
TOTAL
BERKSHIRE GAS
JULY 2016
2016 - 2017
4,711
0
0
39
2017 - 2018
4,748
0
0
39
2018 - 2019
4,771
0
0
39
2019 - 2020
4,776
0
0
39
2020 - 2021
4,785
0
0
39
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4,750
4,786
4,810
4,814
4,824
2,809
0
1,006
716
120
60
0
2,810
0
1,006
719
120
60
0
2,807
0
1,006
724
120
60
0
2,799
0
1,006
733
120
60
0
2,797
0
1,006
736
120
60
0
4,711
4,715
4,717
4,718
4,719

D.P.U. 16-103
Required Tables
Page 30 of 31
TABLE G-23
MASS DPU 07/16

DESIGN DAY PLANNING LOAD SENDOUT (BASE CASE)
BBTU
LINE
EXISTING RESOURCES
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
PIPELINE
BERKSHIRE GAS
JULY 2016
2016 - 2017
2017 - 2018
2018 - 2019
2019 - 2020
2020 - 2021
18.8
1.1
4.3
18.8
1.1
4.3
18.8
1.1
4.3
18.8
1.1
4.3
18.8
1.1
4.3
TGP STORAGE
DOM STORAGE
CITYGATE DELIVERED
PROPANE
LNG LIQUID
14.6
1.3
0.0
7.9
3.3
14.6
1.3
0.0
7.9
3.3
14.6
1.3
0.0
7.9
3.3
14.6
1.3
0.0
7.9
3.3
14.6
1.3
0.0
7.9
3.3
TOTAL RESOURCES
51.2
51.2
51.2
51.2
51.2
PLANNING LOAD DEMAND
64.2
64.7
65.1
65.2
65.4
TGP GOM SUPPLY

TGP NIAGARA
TGP WRIGHT
STORAGE / PEAKING

D.P.U. 16-103
Required Tables
Page 31 of 31
TABLE G-24
MASS DPU 07/16
AGREEMENTS FOR GAS SUPPLY

INCLUDE THE FOLLOWING TYPES OF AGREEMENTS ONLY:
PG - PURCHASE OF GAS
PP - PURCHASE OF PROPANE
SG - SALE OF GAS
LF - LEASE OF GAS MANUFACTURING OR STORAGE FACILITY
PF - PURCHASE OF GAS MANUFACTURING OR STORAGE FACILITY
SF - SALE OF GAS MANUFACTURING OR STORAGE FACILITY
SS - STORAGE SERVICE
BERKSHIRE GAS
JULY 2016
FERC/DPU
FILE OR DOCKET
NUMBER
OTHER
PARTIES
EFFECTIVE
DATE
TERMINATION
DATE
DELIVERABILITY
BASIS
AGREEMENT
TYPE
ANNUAL
QUANTITY
MAXIMUM
DAILY QUANTITY
RP96-312-018
D.P.U. 13-06
TENNESSEE
GAS PIPELINE
SEPTEMBER 1, 1993
OCTOBER 31, 2019
365 DAYS A YEAR
SS
STORAGE CAPACITY
1,039,388 DTH
14,549 DTH
CP80-65
DOMINION
TRANSMISSION INC.
APRIL 1, 1980
MARCH 31, 2020
365 DAYS A YEAR
SS
STORAGE CAPACITY
143,780 DTH
1,305 DTH
D.P.U. 12-125
GDF SUEZ
GAS NA LLC
NOVEMBER 1, 2013
( Liquid Contract)
OCTOBER 31, 2015
NOVEMBER-MARCH
(APR - OCT UP TO 10,000 DTH)
PG
80,000 DTH
1,900 DTH
D.P.U. 16-04
GDF SUEZ
GAS NA LLC
NOVEMBER 1, 2016
( Liquid Contract)
OCTOBER 31, 2020
NOVEMBER-MARCH
(APR - OCT UP TO 10,000 DTH)
PG
130,000 DTH
3,000 DTH
SOUTHWESTERN
ENERGY SERVICES
NOVEMBER 1, 2016
MARCH 31, 2017
NOVEMBER-MARCH
PG
2,423,550 DTH
16,050 DTH
DTE ENERGY
TRADING, INC.
NOVEMBER 1, 2016
MARCH 31, 2017
NOVEMBER-MARCH
PG
2,423,550 DTH
16,050 DTH
CONSTELLATION/
EXELON
DECEMBER 1, 2016
FEBRUARY 28, 2017
DECEMBER-FEBRUARY
PG
387,000 DTH
4,300 DTH
Massachusetts D.P.U. 16-103

Attachment A

DEMAND FORECAST
2016/2017 2020/2021
July 2016

Attachment A Demand Forecast
TABLE OF CONTENTS
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
Introduction ............................................................................................................................ 1
Forecast Methodology and Results ...................................................................................... 1
1.
Summary of Forecast Results .................................................................................. 1
2.
Methodology Overview ........................................................................................... 2
Customer Segment Forecasts................................................................................................ 2
1.
Introduction ............................................................................................................... 2
2.
Variable Descriptions ............................................................................................... 4
3.
Customer Segment Model Results ......................................................................... 7
4.
Residential Heating Customer Segment ................................................................ 7
5.
Residential Non-Heating Customer Segment ....................................................... 9
6.
C&I LLF Customer Segment ................................................................................11
7.
C&I HLF Customer Segment ...............................................................................14
8.
Company Use ..........................................................................................................16
9.
Customer Segment Results ....................................................................................17
10.
Unbilled Sales and Losses ......................................................................................21
11.
Adjustments to Customer Segment Demand Forecasts ...................................21
12.
Firm Sendout and Planning Load Forecast.........................................................22
Daily Planning Load Forecast .............................................................................................22
1.
Introduction .............................................................................................................22
2.
Daily Planning Load Forecast Results .................................................................23
Planning Standards and Design Forecasts ........................................................................24
1.
Weather Data ...........................................................................................................24
2.
Normal Year ............................................................................................................24
3.
Design Year..............................................................................................................25
4.
Design Day ..............................................................................................................28
5.
Cold Snap .................................................................................................................30
6.
Growth Scenarios....................................................................................................33

A.
INTRODUCTION
The Berkshire Gas Company (Berkshire or the Company) retained Concentric Energy
Advisors, Inc. (Concentric) to develop a demand forecast in support of Berkshires 2016 Long
Range Forecast and Supply Plan (2016 F&SP). This report was prepared by Concentric to
summarize the methodology that was used to develop the demand forecast and the results from that
demand forecast.
B.
FORECAST METHODOLOGY AND RESULTS

1.
Summary of Forecast Results
Berkshires Normal Year Firm Sendout1 is expected to increase at a 0.1% compound annual
growth rate (CAGR) from 2016/17 through 2020/21 (the Forecast Period), while Normal Year
Total Planning Load2 is expected to increase at a 0.4% CAGR during the forecast period. Residential
demand3 is forecasted to increase by approximately 0.9% per year, and Commercial and Industrial
(C&I) demand4 is forecasted to decline by approximately -0.2% per year during the Forecast Period.
These forecast results reflect the effects of the ongoing moratorium in Berkshires Eastern Division,
as explained in Berkshires 2016 F&SP. The Normal Year Firm Sendout and Planning Load forecast
results are summarized in the table below.
Normal Year Total Firm Sendout and Planning Load Forecast Results Summary (Dth)
Commercial
Split
&
Energy
Year Residential Industrial Efficiency
2016/17 3,229,737
4,462,262
(15,358)
2017/18 3,265,191
4,474,251
(26,156)
2018/19 3,292,677
4,473,336
(37,073)
2019/20 3,318,506
4,447,819
(47,990)
2020/21 3,346,110
4,430,564
(58,906)
CAGR
0.9%
-0.2%
39.9%
1
2
3
4
Misc.
13,394
13,558
12,002
12,114
12,558
-1.6%
Total
Firm
Sendout
7,690,035
7,726,844
7,740,942
7,730,450
7,730,326
0.1%
Energy
C&I
Efficiency
Capacity (Capacity
Exempt
Exempt) Misc.
(1,150,835)
2,367
376
(1,138,868)
3,989
430
(1,122,153)
5,593
422
(1,106,663)
7,204
320
(1,094,772)
8,809
264
-1.2%
38.9%
-8.5%
Total
Planning
Load
6,541,942
6,592,395
6,624,804
6,631,311
6,644,627
0.4%
Firm Sendout includes firm sales and firm transportation customer demand, Company Use, losses, unbilled sales, and
energy efficiency; Firm Sendout excludes all interruptible and T-54/special contract demand.
Planning Load includes total sales and capacity assigned transportation demand including Company Use, Energy
Efficiency, losses, and unbilled sales.
Residential demand includes Residential Heating and Residential Non-Heating. Residential demand is reported prior
to accounting for the effects of Energy Efficiency programs.
C&I demand includes C&I Low Load Factor and High Load Factor firm sales and firm transportation (both capacity
assigned and capacity exempt). C&I demand is reported prior to accounting for the effects of Energy Efficiency
programs.
Page 1 of 34

2.
Methodology Overview
The demand forecast was conducted in two phases: (1) quarterly Customer Segment models
were prepared based on economic and demographic data to determine forecast levels; and (2) a daily
shape model was prepared for total Planning Load based on weather and time-related data (e.g., date
or seasonal). The results of the daily shape model were calibrated on an annual basis to match the
quarterly Customer Segment model results. The quarterly Customer Segment models and the daily
shape model were developed using regression (econometric) modeling techniques, proper and
appropriate economic theory, and proper and appropriate statistical practices and procedures.
Supporting detail is provided in Appendix 1.
C.
CUSTOMER SEGMENT FORECASTS

1.
Introduction
The Customer Segment forecasts5 are used to develop long-term projections of Firm Sendout
and Planning Load based on forecasted changes in economic and demographic conditions in the
Companys service territory, and include the effects of the moratorium. In accordance with the
Departments Order issued September 29, 2009 in D.P.U. 08-39, the Companys 2008 Forecast and
Supply Plan proceeding (the 2008 F&SP Order), the Customer Segment forecast was developed by
preparing separate quarterly forecast models for the following four Customer Segments:
Residential Heating;
Residential Non-Heating (including Gas Lights);
C&I Low Load Factor, including Firm Transportation (i.e., primarily heating loads); and
C&I High Load Factor, including Firm Transportation (i.e., primarily process loads).
For each Customer Segment, forecast models were developed for: (1) number of customers;
and (2) use per customer. The total demand forecast for each Customer Segment is determined by
multiplying the forecasted results from these two models by quarter.6 In addition, in accordance with
the Departments Order issued July 19, 2011 in D.P.U. 10-100, the Companys 2010 Forecast and
Supply Plan proceeding (the 2010 F&SP Order), quarterly models for C&I Low Load Factor and
C&I High Load Factor capacity exempt demand were developed to separate the total C&I demand
into (1) capacity exempt, and (2) sales plus capacity assigned transportation (i.e., C&I Planning Load).
5
6
All forecasts are for firm demand only (i.e., firm sales and firm transportation) and exclude interruptible and T54/special contract demand.
The total demand by Customer Segment for each quarter in the Forecast Period is calculated by multiplying the
forecasted number of customers by the forecasted use per customer in that forecasted quarter.
Page 2 of 34

Regression modeling techniques7 were used to develop the number of customers, use per customer,
and capacity exempt demand forecasts based on variables such as weather, natural gas prices, and
other economic and demographic variables. In accordance with the Departments order on October
1, 2015 in D.P.U. 15-43, forecasting of capacity exempt reverse migration is addressed in Sections
C.6.d and C.7.d below.
Forecasts for Company Use, Energy Efficiency, Emerging Markets, Unbilled Sales and Losses
were developed and added to the Customer Segment forecast to develop the Firm Sendout and
Planning Load forecasts.
In accordance with the directives of the 2008 F&SP Order and the 2010 F&SP Order, these
models address heteroskedasticity, instability, multicollinearity, ex post analysis and outlier issues, in
addition to testing for and correcting any autocorrelation. The model development process is
described in Appendix 6.
The Customer Segment forecast methodology used in the 2016 F&SP is similar to the
methodology used in the 2014 F&SP and approved in the Departments Order issued July 30, 2015
in D.P.U. 14-98, the Companys 2014 Forecast and Supply Plan proceeding (the 2014 F&SP Order),
with a few notable exceptions:
To address the moratorium, the regression models to forecast customer counts were
developed using historical data that represented customer counts prior to the
moratorium (i.e., through 2015Q1). To develop forecasted customer counts, the
projected rates of change from the regression model forecast were applied to the
customer count in the Western Division, while the customer count in the Eastern
Division was held constant at 2015Q1 levels. This analysis was conducted separately
for each Customer Segment.
The high-growth scenario was based on optimistic forecasts prepared by Moodys

Economy.com and the EIA, which is discussed in detail in Section E.6.a.
This demand forecast contains an alternate scenario that forecasts expected demand
if the moratorium had not occurred (No Moratorium Scenario), which is discussed
in detail in Section E.6.b.
All analyses were conducted using the IBM SPSSTM software package.
Page 3 of 34

2.
Variable Descriptions
The five general data and variable categories that were utilized in the development of the
forecast are described below.8
a.
Customer Segment Data
The Company provided monthly billing data by customer class for the period January 1994
March 2016, which was compiled into four Customer Segments, as shown in the table below.
Customer Class
R-1
R-2
GL
R-3
R-4
G-41
G-42
G-43
G-41T
G-42T
G-43T
G-51
G-52
G-53
G-51T
G-52T
G-53T
Customer Segment
Residential Non-Heating (including Gas Lights)
Residential Heating
C&I Low Load Factor Sales Service and

C&I Low Load Factor Transportation Service
C&I LLF
C&I High Load Factor Sales Service and

C&I High Load Factor Transportation Service
C&I HLF
The following steps were used to compile the quarterly Customer Segment data:
Billing month data by Customer Class was provided by the Company for the historical
period January 1994 through March 2016;9
Accounting and billing adjustments were made to the billing month data;
The data was compiled into Customer Segments as defined by the table above; and
The data was summarized into billing quarters to be used in the customer and use per
customer quarterly forecast models.10,11
8
9
10
11
All variables tested in the Customer Segment models are listed in Appendix 3.
Data from January 2000 through March 2016 (i.e., 2000Q1 through 2016Q1) was used in model development. The
starting and ending quarter depends on the model.
Quarterly models were developed based on calendar year quarters (Q1 = January, February, March; Q2 = April, May,
June; Q3 = July, August, September; Q4 = October, November, December).
Graphs of the dependent variables are provided in Appendix 2.
Page 4 of 34

b.
Weather Variable
Historical daily Effective Degree Day (EDD) data was provided by the Company for
January 1, 1975 through March 31, 2016 for use in the Customer Segment models. The historical
daily EDD data was converted to a billing quarter basis to correspond with the Customer Segment
data, which is compiled into billing quarters. The billing quarter EDD calculations are described in
Appendix 4.
c.
Natural Gas Price Variable
A natural gas price variable was developed for the Customer Segment use per customer
models, because economic theory suggests that price can influence demand. Historical natural gas
prices were derived from Company data, and forecasted natural gas prices were developed using
regression (econometric) modeling based on gas price data from the EIA. The methodology that was
used to develop the natural gas price variable is described in Appendix 5.
d.
Economic and Demographic Variables
Data sets for a number of economic and demographic variables that could be included in the
customer and use per customer models, based on economic theory, were purchased from Moodys
Economy.com, a division of Moodys Analytics. All of the Economy.com data was specific to the
Pittsfield, Massachusetts Metropolitan Statistical Area except for oil price data, which is national retail
#2 oil prices. The table below lists the quarterly data that was purchased from Economy.com for the
period 1994Q1 through 2021Q4.
Moodys Economy.com Variables

Pittsfield Metropolitan Statistical Area, MA
Households
Housing Completions
Housing Stock
Total Resident Population
Median Household Income
Employment, Total Non-Agricultural
Employment, Manufacturing
Gross Metro Product
Consumer Price Index
US # 2 Diesel Retail Sales by All Sellers (Nationwide)
e.
Other Variables
The following variables were created to be used in the development of the Customer Segment
models:
Page 5 of 34

A household size variable was created by dividing population by number of

households.
A total non-manufacturing employment variable was created by subtracting total

manufacturing employment from total non-agricultural employment.
A cumulative housing completions variable was created by adding each quarterly

number of housing completions to the sum of all previous housing completions.
Variables that Economy.com provided in nominal dollars were converted to real 2014
dollars using the consumer price index provided by Economy.com.
Annual and quarterly trend variables were created to account for systematic changes
in the number of customers or use per customer that were a function of time.
Dummy variables (or indicator variables) were created to represent time-related

events.12
Interactions related to the dummy variables were created to test if the relationships
between the dependent variable and the independent variables changed as a result of
time-related events.
A ratio of gas prices to oil prices by customer class was developed to test the possible
effects of gas prices relative to oil prices. A cumulative savings from fuel switching
variable was also developed.
Variables with one-quarter and four-quarter lags were created from several of the variables to
test if the impact of that variable on the number of customers or use per customer was not immediate,
but instead is delayed one or four quarters.
In total, 81 variables (excluding dummy variables and interaction terms) were tested in the
development of the number of customer, use per customer, and capacity exempt demand models;13
however, only the final equations for each Customer Segment will be discussed in the following
sections of this report.
12
13
These time-related Dummy variables equal 1 when that specific time-related event occurs, and equal 0 outside of that
specific time.
Appendix 3 is a table listing all variables tested in the Customer Segment models.
Page 6 of 34

3.
Customer Segment Model Results
Annual results of each Customer Segment model are summarized below and in Appendix 12.14
As required by the 2008 F&SP Order and the 2010 F&SP Order, and discussed in more detail in
Appendix 6, each of the final regression models addresses autocorrelation, heteroskedasticity,
multicollinearity, stability, ex post analysis and outlier issues, in addition to having significant
independent variables, and good explanatory power. Detailed statistical results for each Customer
Segment model are contained in Appendix 14.
4.
Residential Heating Customer Segment
Residential Heating15 is the largest Berkshire Customer Segment in terms of number of

customers and annual demand. In 2014/15, the Residential Heating Customer Segment represented
approximately 77% of total customers and approximately 41% of total actual Customer Segment
demand. The number of Residential Heating customers increased by 3.5% per year between 2010/11
and 2014/15,16 and weather normalized Residential Heating customer demand increased by 4.6% per
year.
a.
Residential Heating Customer Model Results
Economic theory and standard utility forecasting practice suggests that the number of
Residential Heating customers may be dependent on such variables as the number of people living in
the service territory (i.e., households or population), income levels (i.e., personal income or income
per capita), and residential gas prices relative to oil prices.
Cumulative housing completions,
Residential Heating cumulative savings from fuel switching, quarterly dummy variables, and various
time-specific dummy variables were statistically significant in the regression equation selected to
predict the number of Residential Heating customers. This regression equation was used to predict
the number of Residential Heating customers in the Western Division; Eastern Division Residential
Heating customer counts were held flat due to the moratorium. Over the Forecast Period, the number
of Residential Heating customers is expected to grow at an annual rate of 1.4%, as shown in the table
below.
14
15
16
Pursuant to the directive in the 2010 F&SP Order, Appendix 12 contains annual tables of normalized historical data,
forecast data and annual growth rates, rather than CAGRs. Pursuant to the directive in the 2012 F&SP Order, these
tables are also presented in the text in Section C.9.
The Residential Heating Customer Segment consists of Rate Classes R-3 and R-4
Historical growth rates were calculated over the 5-year period 2010/11 through 2014/15 because the 2015/16 gas
year is not complete and therefore is a partial historical year and a partial forecast year.
Page 7 of 34

Residential Heating Customer Model Forecast17

Split Year
2016/17
2017/18
2018/19
2019/20
2020/21
CAGR
b.
Forecast
31,286
31,672
32,156
32,654
33,123
1.4%
Residential Heating Use Per Customer Model Results
Economic theory and standard utility forecasting practice suggests that the Residential Heating
use per customer may be dependent on such variables as weather, natural gas prices, income levels,
and the average number of people per house (i.e., household size). In the final Residential Heating
use per customer regression equation, the following variables were statistically significant: Quarterly
EDDs, Residential Heating natural gas price, median household income, and various time-specific
dummy variables and interactions. Over the Forecast Period, the use per customer for the Residential
Heating segment is expected to decline at an annual rate of -0.4%, as shown by the table below.
Residential Heating Use Per Customer Model Forecast (Dth/Customer Normal Year)18
Split Year
2016/17
2017/18
2018/19
2019/20
2020/21
CAGR
c.
Forecast
101.2
101.2
100.7
100.1
99.6
-0.4%
Residential Heating Demand Results
The Residential Heating demand forecast was calculated by multiplying the forecasted number
of Residential Heating customers for each quarter by the forecasted Residential Heating use per
customer for that quarter. Over the Forecast Period, the total demand from the Residential Heating
segment is expected to increase by approximately 1.0% per year, as shown by the table below.
17
18
All number of customer forecasts are presented in split years that correspond to calendar quarters (i.e. October
September).
All use per customer forecasts are presented in split years that correspond to calendar quarters (i.e. October
September).
Page 8 of 34

Residential Heating Demand Forecast (Dth Normal Year)19, 20

Split Year
2016/17
2017/18
2018/19
2019/20
2020/21
CAGR
5.
Forecast
3,174,519
3,214,310
3,246,147
3,276,328
3,308,271
1.0%
Residential Non-Heating Customer Segment
Residential Non-Heating is the smallest Berkshire Customer Segment in terms of annual

demand, and second smallest in terms of customer count.21 In 2014/15, the Residential Non-Heating
Customer Segment represented approximately 9% of total customers and approximately 1% of total
actual demand. The number of Residential Non-Heating customers declined by -6.9% per year from
2010/11 through 2014/1522, and normalized Residential Non-Heating demand decreased by -6.1%
per year.
a.
Residential Non-Heating Customer Model Results
Economic theory and standard utility forecasting practice suggests that the number of
Residential Non-Heating customers may be dependent on such variables as residential gas prices
relative to oil prices. In the final Residential Non-Heating customer regression equation, a quarterly
trend variable, quarterly dummy variable, and time-specific dummy variables were statistically
significant. This regression equation was used to predict the number of Residential Non-Heating
customers in the Western Division; Eastern Division Residential Non-Heating customer counts were
held flat due to the moratorium. Over the Forecast Period, the number of Residential Non-Heating
customers is expected to decline by -8.9% per year, as shown by the table below.
19
20
21
22
All Customer Segment forecast results are shown before adjustments for Energy Efficiency savings, unless otherwise
noted.
All demand forecast split-years are November through October. To develop a split-year forecast for the traditional
gas year (i.e., November through October), the fourth quarter results were allocated to the appropriate gas year (e.g.,
October of 2017 was allocated to the 2016/17 split-year, while November and December of 2017 were allocated to
the 2017/18 split-year).
The Residential Non-Heating Customer Segment consists of Rate Classes R-1, R-2, and Gas Lights.
Page 9 of 34

Residential Non-Heating Customer Model Forecast

Split Year
2016/17
2017/18
2018/19
2019/20
2020/21
CAGR
b.
Forecast
3,119
2,876
2,633
2,390
2,146
-8.9%
Residential Non-Heating Use Per Customer Model Results
Economic theory and standard utility forecasting practice suggests that the Residential NonHeating use per customer may be dependent on such variables as weather, natural gas prices, and the
average number of people per house (i.e., household size). In the final Residential Non-Heating use
per customer regression equation, EDDs, Residential Non-Heating natural gas price, quarterly dummy
variables, and various time-specific dummy variables were statistically significant. Over the Forecast
Period, the use per customer for Residential Non-Heating customers is expected to decrease by -0.1%
per year, as shown by the table below.
Residential Non-Heating Use Per Customer Model Forecast (Dth/Customer Normal Yr)
Split Year
2016/17
2017/18
2018/19
2019/20
2020/21
CAGR
c.
Forecast
17.8
17.8
17.8
17.7
17.7
-0.1%
Residential Non-Heating Demand Results
The Residential Non-Heating demand forecast was calculated by multiplying the forecasted
number of Residential Non-Heating customers for each quarter by the forecasted Residential NonHeating use per customer for that quarter. The Residential Non-Heating customer demand is
expected to decline by -9.0% per year, as shown by the table below.
Residential Non-Heating Demand Forecast (Dth Normal Year)

Split Year
2016/17
2017/18
2018/19
2019/20
2020/21
CAGR
Forecast
55,218
50,881
46,529
42,178
37,839
-9.0%
Page 10 of 34

6.
C&I LLF Customer Segment23
The C&I LLF Customer Segment is the second largest Berkshire Customer Segment in terms
of customer count, and the second largest in terms of annual demand.24 In 2014/15, the C&I LLF
Customer Segment represented approximately 11% of total customers and approximately 38% of total
demand. The number of C&I LLF customers increased by 2.4% per year and normalized C&I LLF
demand increased by 4.2% per year from 2010/11 through 2014/15.25
a.
C&I LLF Customer Model Results
Economic theory and standard utility forecasting practice suggests that the number of C&I
LLF customers may be dependent on such variables as the number of people living in the service
territory (i.e., households or population), employment levels, and C&I natural gas prices relative to oil
prices. In the final C&I LLF customer regression equation, non-manufacturing employment, C&I
LLF cumulative savings from fuel switching, quarterly dummy variables, and various time-specific
dummy variables were statistically significant. This regression equation was used to predict the
number of C&I LLF customers in the Western Division; Eastern Division C&I LLF customer counts
were held flat due to the moratorium. Over the Forecast Period, the number of C&I LLF customers
is expected to increase by 1.1% per year, as shown by the table below.
C&I LLF Customer Model Forecast

Split Year
2016/17
2017/18
2018/19
2019/20
2020/21
CAGR
b.
Forecast
4,317
4,366
4,418
4,469
4,517
1.1%
C&I LLF Use Per Customer Model Results
Economic theory and standard utility forecasting practice suggests that C&I LLF use per
customer may be dependent on such variables as weather, employment levels and natural gas prices.
In the final C&I LLF use per customer regression equation, the following variables were statistically
significant: Quarterly EDDs, C&I LLF natural gas price, non-manufacturing employment, and various
23
24
25
The C&I LLF segment analysis is based on combined firm sales and firm transportation data.
The C&I LLF Customer Segment consists of Rate Classes G-41, G-42, G-43, and includes both sales and
transportation customers.
Page 11 of 34

time-specific dummy variables and interactions. The C&I LLF Customer Segment use per customer
is expected to decline by -0.6% per year over the Forecast Period, as shown by the table below.
C&I LLF Use Per Customer Model Forecast (Dth/Customer Normal Year)
Split Year
2016/17
2017/18
2018/19
2019/20
2020/21
CAGR
c.
Forecast
660.9
660.0
658.1
650.6
644.2
-0.6%
C&I LLF Demand Results
The C&I LLF demand forecast was calculated by multiplying the forecasted number of C&I
LLF customers for each quarter by the forecasted C&I LLF use per customer for that quarter. The
demand for the C&I LLF Customer Segment is expected to increase by 0.5% per year over the
Forecast Period, as shown by the table below.
C&I LLF Demand Forecast (Dth Normal Year)

Split Year
2016/17
2017/18
2018/19
2019/20
2020/21
CAGR
d.
Forecast
2,862,321
2,891,398
2,916,109
2,915,863
2,918,865
0.5%
C&I LLF Planning Load
The Company offers transportation service in accordance with Gas Unbundling, D.T.E. 9832-B (1999). Transportation customers are categorized as: (1) capacity assigned (also referred to as
non-capacity exempt, or non-grandfathered) transportation customers for which the Company is
required to provide capacity resources (i.e., not exempt from capacity assignment requirements), or
(2) capacity exempt (i.e., exempt from capacity assignment requirements either because the customer
converted from firm sales to firm transportation service prior to the grandfather date set by the
Department or because the customer has never received firm sales service). From a capacity planning
perspective, the Company is required to plan for all sales customers plus capacity assigned
transportation customers, which is referenced as the Planning Load. The Planning Load associated
with the C&I LLF Customer Segment was determined by subtracting a quarterly forecast of C&I LLF
capacity exempt transportation demand from the total LLF C&I demand forecast.
Page 12 of 34

In 2012/13, the Companys C&I LLF demand was comprised of 71% Planning Load and 29%
capacity exempt transportation demand, and as a result of C&I LLF capacity exempt customers
switching back to planning load, in 2014/15, the Companys C&I LLF demand was comprised of 77%
Planning Load and 23% capacity exempt transportation demand. This trend of reverse migration
continued in 2015/2016.26 To address the reverse migration of capacity exempt customers, in D.P.U.
15-43 the Department directed each of the LDCs to incorporate a forecast of reverse migration in
all future forecast and supply filings.27 Pursuant to the Departments directive, Concentric worked
with the Company to determine an appropriate C&I LLF capacity exempt forecast that considers the
potential of reverse migration. The Company indicated that the vast majority of the C&I LLF capacity
exempt load that had been expected to reverse migrate had switched back to Planning Load by the
end of the winter of 2015/2016. Therefore, Concentric developed the LLF capacity exempt demand
forecast based on the load for those LLF customers that remained capacity exempt as of March 2016,
as the historical usage associated with the current LLF capacity exempt customers is most
representative of what the Company expects going forward.28
Concentric did not assume any
additional reverse migration. Thus, a model was developed to forecast LLF capacity exempt
transportation demand for those LLF customers that were capacity exempt as of March 2016 based
on calendar year quarterly EDDs and time specific dummy variables and interactions. The forecast of
C&I LLF Planning Load was developed by subtracting the forecast of C&I LLF capacity exempt
transportation demand from the forecast of total C&I LLF demand. As discussed in Section C.6.c,
total C&I LLF demand is expected to increase by 0.5% per year over the forecast period. C&I LLF
capacity exempt transportation load is expected to remain constant and C&I LLF Planning Load is
expected to increase by 0.6% per year over the forecast period, as shown by the table below.
26
27
28
Appendix 2, page 5 of 6 illustrates the historical capacity exempt load.

Petition of Massachusetts Local Distribution Gas Companies to the Department of Public Utilities pursuant to G.L. c. 164, 69I
and 76 for authorization to plan for a portion of the Winter 2015/2016 gas supply requirements of capacity-exempt transportation
customers, D.P.U. 15-43, Order (October 1, 2015) at 17.
The historical C&I LLF Capacity Exempt load used for forecasting is provided in Appendix 14, pages 31-32.
Page 13 of 34

C&I LLF Capacity Exempt and Planning Load Demand Forecast (Dth Normal Year)
Split Year
2016/17
2017/18
2018/19
2019/20
2020/21
CAGR
7.
Total
C&I
LLF
2,862,321
2,891,398
2,916,109
2,915,863
2,918,865
0.5%
Normal Year Forecast (Dth)

C&I LLF
C&I LLF Capacity
Planning
Exempt Transport
Load
416,145
2,446,176
415,801
2,475,598
415,591
2,500,518
415,462
2,500,400
415,384
2,503,481
0.0%
0.6%
C&I HLF Customer Segment29
The C&I HLF Customer Segment is the smallest Berkshire Customer Segment in terms of
number of customers, and the second smallest in terms of annual demand.30 In 2014/15 the C&I
HLF Customer Segment was approximately 3% of total customers and approximately 20% of total
actual demand. The number of C&I HLF customers decreased by -0.6% per year and normalized
C&I HLF demand increased by 3.2% per year from 2010/11 through 2014/15.31
a.
C&I HLF Customer Model Results
Economic theory and standard utility forecasting practice suggests that the number of C&I
HLF customers may be dependent on such variables as employment levels, C&I natural gas prices
relative to oil prices, and/or other measures of economic activity. In the final C&I HLF customer
regression equation, manufacturing employment and various time-specific dummy variables were
statistically significant. This regression equation was used to predict the number of C&I HLF
customers in the Western Division; Eastern Division C&I HLF customer counts were held flat due
to the moratorium. Over the Forecast Period, the number of C&I HLF customers is expected to
decrease by -0.09% per year, as shown by the table below.
C&I HLF Customer Model Forecast

Split Year
2016/17
2017/18
2018/19
2019/20
2020/21
CAGR
29
30
31
Forecast
1,058
1,058
1,057
1,056
1,054
-0.09%
The C&I HLF segment analysis is based on combined firm sales and firm transportation data.
The C&I HLF Customer Segment consists of Rate Classes G-51, G-52, G-53, and includes both sales and
transportation customers.
Page 14 of 34

b.
C&I HLF Use Per Customer Model Results
Economic theory and standard utility forecasting practice suggests that C&I HLF use per
customer may be dependent on such variables as weather, natural gas prices and employment levels.
In the final C&I HLF use per customer regression equation, the following variables were statistically
significant: Quarterly EDDs, C&I HLF natural gas price, and various time-specific dummy variables
and interactions. Over the Forecast Period, the use per customer for the C&I HLF Customer Segment
is expected to decrease by -1.3% per year, as shown by the table below.
C&I HLF Use Per Customer Model Forecast (Dth/Customer Normal Year)
Split Year
2016/17
2017/18
2018/19
2019/20
2020/21
CAGR
c.
Forecast
1,513.5
1,497.9
1,475.0
1,452.8
1,436.0
-1.3%
C&I HLF Demand Results
The C&I HLF demand forecast was calculated by multiplying the forecasted number of C&I
HLF customers by the forecasted C&I HLF use per customer for that quarter. Over the Forecast
Period, the demand for the C&I HLF Customer Segment is expected to decrease by -1.4% per year,
as shown by the table below.
C&I HLF Demand Forecast (Dth Normal Year)

Split Year
2016/17
2017/18
2018/19
2019/20
2020/21
CAGR
d.
Forecast
1,599,941
1,582,853
1,557,228
1,531,957
1,511,699
-1.4%
C&I HLF Planning Load
As discussed previously, C&I Planning Load includes C&I firm sales demand and capacity
assigned transportation load, and excludes capacity exempt transportation load. In 2012/13, the
Companys C&I HLF demand was comprised of 44% Planning Load and 54% capacity exempt
transportation demand, and as a result of C&I HLF capacity exempt customers switching back to
planning load, in 2014/15, C&I HLF demand was comprised of 50% Planning Load and 50% capacity
Page 15 of 34

exempt transportation demand. This trend of reverse migration continued in 2015/2016.32 As
discussed in Section C.6.d., pursuant to the Departments directive in D.P.U. 15-43, Concentric
worked with the Company to determine an appropriate C&I HLF capacity exempt forecast that
considers the potential of reverse migration. The Company indicated that the vast majority of the
C&I HLF capacity exempt load that had been expected to reverse migrate had switched back to
Planning Load by the end of the winter of 2015/2016. Therefore, Concentric developed the HLF
capacity exempt demand forecast based on the load for those HLF customers that remained capacity
exempt as of March 2016, as the historical usage associated with the current HLF capacity exempt
customers is most representative of what the Company expects going forward.33 Concentric did not
assume any additional reverse migration. Thus, a model was developed to forecast C&I HLF capacity
exempt transportation demand for those HLF customers that were capacity exempt as of March 2016
based on quarterly calendar year EDDs, C&I HLF natural gas price, and various time specific dummy
variables and interactions. The forecast of C&I HLF Planning Load was developed by subtracting
the forecast of C&I HLF capacity exempt transportation demand from the forecast of total C&I HLF
demand. As discussed in Section C.7.c, total C&I HLF demand is expected to decrease by -1.4% per
year over the forecast period. C&I HLF capacity exempt transportation demand is expected to
decrease by -1.9% per year, while C&I HLF Planning Load is expected to decrease at an annual rate
of -1.0%, as shown by the table below.
C&I HLF Capacity Exempt and Planning Load Demand Forecast (Dth Normal Year)
Split Year
2016/17
2017/18
2018/19
2019/20
2020/21
CAGR
8.
Normal Year Forecast (Dth)

Total
C&I HLF
C&I HLF
C&I
Capacity Exempt
Planning
HLF
Transport
Load
1,599,941
734,690
865,250
1,582,853
723,067
859,786
1,557,228
706,563
850,665
1,531,957
691,200
840,756
1,511,699
679,387
832,312
-1.4%
-1.9%
-1.0%
Company Use
Company Use gas is (a) metered gas usage for space heating at Company buildings and (b)
metered gas used in the production of gas at Company facilities. In the final Company Use regression
32
33
Appendix 2, page 5 of 6 illustrates the historical capacity exempt load.

The historical C&I HLF Capacity Exempt load used for forecasting is provided in Appendix 14, pages 45-46.
Page 16 of 34

equation, quarterly EDD variables and various time-specific dummy variables and interactions were
statistically significant. As demonstrated by the table below, Company Use is expected to be constant
over the Forecast Period.
Company Use Model Forecast (Dth Normal Year)

Split Year
2016/17
2017/18
2018/19
2019/20
2020/21
CAGR
9.
Forecast
9,697
9,697
9,697
9,697
9,697
0.0%
Customer Segment Results34
In aggregate, the total number of customers is expected to increase over the Forecast Period
by 0.7% per year, as shown in the tables below.
Total Company Customer Count by Segment, Historical and Forecast
Historical Actual
Partial Historical (Nov-March) Partial
Forecast (April-Oct)
Forecast
34
2010/11
2011/12
2012/13
2013/14
2014/15
2015/16
Residential
Regular
4,808
4,511
4,185
3,877
3,613
3,383
Residential
Heating
26,480
26,983
28,156
29,504
30,428
30,886
C&I
LLF
3,831
3,923
4,034
4,155
4,219
4,250
C&I
HLF
1,079
1,057
1,044
1,054
1,053
1,053
Total
36,197
36,473
37,417
38,589
39,313
39,572
2016/17
2017/18
2018/19
2019/20
2020/21
3,119
2,876
2,633
2,390
2,146
31,286
31,672
32,156
32,654
33,123
4,317
4,366
4,418
4,469
4,517
1,058
1,058
1,057
1,056
1,054
39,779
39,972
40,264
40,568
40,840
Pursuant to the directive in the 2012 F&SP Order, historical and normalized historical data from the previous 5 years
together with annual average growth rates are included in the text.
Page 17 of 34

Total Company Customer Count by Segment, Historical and Forecast

Annual and Average % Growth Rates
2010/11
2011/12
2012/13
2013/14
2014/15
2015/16
Residential
Regular
NA
-6.18%
-7.23%
-7.35%
-6.81%
-6.37%
Residential
Heating
NA
1.90%
4.35%
4.79%
3.13%
1.50%
C&I
LLF
NA
2.40%
2.83%
3.01%
1.55%
0.73%
C&I
HLF
NA
-2.02%
-1.23%
0.93%
-0.09%
0.06%
Total
NA
0.76%
2.59%
3.13%
1.88%
0.66%
2016/17
2017/18
2018/19
2019/20
2020/21
-7.79%
-7.80%
-8.46%
-9.24%
-10.18%
1.29%
1.24%
1.53%
1.55%
1.44%
1.56%
1.13%
1.20%
1.15%
1.08%
0.44%
0.02%
-0.06%
-0.15%
-0.18%
0.52%
0.48%
0.73%
0.75%
0.67%
Historical Average Annual % Growth

2010/11 2014/15
-6.89%
3.54%
2.45%
-0.60%
2.09%
Forecasted Average Annual % Growth

2016/17 2020/21
-8.92%
1.44%
1.14%
-0.09%
0.66%
Historical Actual
Partial Historical (Nov-March) Partial
Forecast (April-Oct)
Forecast
In aggregate, the Customer Segment demand is expected to grow at a rate of 0.3% per year
over the Forecast Period. Planning Load is expected to grow at 0.5% per year, LLF capacity exempt
transportation demand is expected to decrease at -0.05% per year, and HLF capacity exempt
transportation demand is expected to decrease at -1.94% per year as shown by the tables below.
Page 18 of 34

Normalized Demand by Customer Segment (Dth) Historical and Forecast
Normalized
Historical
Partial Historical 35
Partial Forecast 36
Forecast, Prior to
adjustments37
35
36
37
2010/11
2011/12
2012/13
2013/14
2014/15
2015/16
2016/17
2017/18
2018/19
2019/20
2020/21
Residential Residential
Regular
Heating
C&I LLF
85,484
2,593,881 2,382,974
79,530
2,587,416 2,411,744
73,366
2,753,744 2,529,313
69,964
3,023,712 2,776,336
66,551
3,091,641 2,799,327
60,067
2,996,110 2,720,096
55,218
50,881
46,529
42,178
37,839
3,174,519
3,214,310
3,246,147
3,276,328
3,308,271
2,862,321
2,891,398
2,916,109
2,915,863
2,918,865
C&I LLF
Capacity
Exempt
724,826
706,261
731,740
747,888
651,130
427,814
416,145
415,801
415,591
415,462
415,384
C&I LLF
C&I HLF C&I HLF
Planning
Capacity Planning
Load
C&I HLF Exempt
Load
1,658,148 1,408,993
783,728 625,265
1,705,483 1,452,090
811,085 641,005
1,797,572 1,518,195
852,670 665,526
2,028,448 1,580,063
883,094 696,969
2,148,197 1,597,847
812,409 785,438
2,292,282 1,558,631
708,254 850,377
2,446,176
2,475,598
2,500,518
2,500,400
2,503,481
November through March

April through October
Adjustments for Energy Efficiency Savings and Unbilled Sales
Page 19 of 34
1,599,941
1,582,853
1,557,228
1,531,957
1,511,699
734,690
723,067
706,563
691,200
679,387
865,250
859,786
850,665
840,756
832,312
Company
Use
16,229
14,919
15,247
14,218
9,923
9,559
Total
Sendout
6,487,561
6,545,700
6,889,865
7,464,292
7,565,289
7,344,463
Total
Planning
Load
4,979,007
5,028,354
5,305,455
5,833,310
6,101,750
6,208,395
9,697
9,697
9,697
9,697
9,697
7,701,696
7,749,139
7,775,710
7,776,022
7,786,371
6,550,861
6,610,271
6,653,556
6,669,359
6,691,599

Normalized Demand by Customer Segment, Historical and Forecast Annual and Average % Growth Rates
Normalized
Historical
2010/11
2011/12
2012/13
2013/14
2014/15
Partial Historical38
Partial Forecast 39 2015/16
2016/17
2017/18
Forecast, Prior to
2018/19
adjustments40
2019/20
2020/21
Historical Average Annual %
Growth - 2010/11 - 2014/15
Forecasted Average Annual
% Growth - 2016/17 2020/21
38
39
40
Regular
Heating
C&I LLF
NA
NA
NA
-6.97%
-0.25%
1.21%
-7.75%
6.43%
4.87%
-4.64%
9.80%
9.77%
-4.88%
2.25%
0.83%
C&I LLF
Capacity
Exempt
NA
-2.56%
3.61%
2.21%
-12.94%
C&I LLF
C&I HLF C&I HLF
Planning
Capacity Planning
Load
C&I HLF Exempt
Load
NA
NA
NA
NA
2.85%
3.06%
3.49%
2.52%
5.40%
4.55%
5.13%
3.83%
12.84%
4.08%
3.57%
4.72%
5.90%
1.13%
-8.00%
12.69%
Company
Use
NA
-8.07%
2.20%
-6.75%
-30.21%
Total
Sendout
NA
0.90%
5.26%
8.34%
1.35%
Total
Planning
Load
NA
0.99%
5.51%
9.95%
4.60%
-9.74%
-8.07%
-7.85%
-8.55%
-9.35%
-10.29%
-6.06%
-3.09%
5.95%
1.25%
0.99%
0.93%
0.97%
4.56%
-2.83%
5.23%
1.02%
0.85%
-0.01%
0.10%
4.17%
-34.30%
-2.73%
-0.08%
-0.05%
-0.03%
-0.02%
-2.42%
6.71%
6.71%
1.20%
1.01%
0.00%
0.12%
6.75%
-2.45%
2.65%
-1.07%
-1.62%
-1.62%
-1.32%
3.20%
-12.82%
3.73%
-1.58%
-2.28%
-2.17%
-1.71%
1.05%
8.27%
1.75%
-0.63%
-1.06%
-1.16%
-1.00%
5.94%
-3.67%
1.44%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
-10.71%
-2.92%
4.86%
0.62%
0.34%
0.00%
0.13%
3.96%
1.75%
5.52%
0.91%
0.65%
0.24%
0.33%
5.26%
-9.01%
1.04%
0.49%
-0.05%
0.58%
-1.41%
-1.94%
-0.97%
0.00%
0.27%
0.53%

Page 20 of 34

10.
Unbilled Sales and Losses
To develop a forecast of unbilled sales, Concentric determined the percent of demand that
occurred in the prior period, but was billed in the current period (i.e., unbilled sales) based on two
years of meter read dates by cycle and the number of meters read in each cycle. These unbilled sales
percentages were determined seasonally (i.e., winter and summer) and applied to the seasonal demand
forecast, as explained in Appendix 7.41 The Company does not have actual unbilled sales data by
customer segment, therefore it cannot model both billed and unbilled loads combined.42
The percentage of Forecast Period losses was assumed to be zero, based on historical losses.
11.
Adjustments to Customer Segment Demand Forecasts
Forecasted demand is affected by factors that are not captured in the historical data set. To
reflect these factors, post-modeling adjustments were made to the Customer Segment forecast for the
effects of the Companys energy efficiency programs. As explained below, the Company also reviewed
potential emerging markets, and determined that emerging markets would not affect demand during
the forecast period.
a.
Energy Efficiency
On January 28, 2016, in D.P.U. 15-165, the Department approved Berkshires Three-Year
Energy Efficiency Plan for 2016 through 2018; the next Three-Year Energy Efficiency Plan is
expected to be filed with the Department on October 31, 2018. The Companys Three-Year Energy
Efficiency Plan for 2016 through 2018 represents increases in energy efficiency activities compared to
prior plans, consistent with the Green Communities Act. Reductions in demand that result from these
energy efficiency initiatives affect Berkshires Forecast and Supply Plan by decreasing the Companys
overall need for gas supplies. The Customer Segment demand forecasts discussed above were
developed without making energy efficiency-related adjustments to the historical values; therefore, the
resulting forecasts include the effects of historical energy efficiency savings. An out of model
adjustment was applied to deduct the amount of energy efficiency that exceeds historical energy
efficiency savings from the forecast to account for forecasted incremental energy efficiency savings.
Appendix 8 demonstrates these calculations. Therefore, consistent with Department precedent, the
Customer Segment demand forecasts have been adjusted for the estimated demand reductions
associated with energy efficiency initiatives.
41
42
Addresses the directive in the 2010 F&SP Order to provide additional detail regarding the unbilled sales forecast.
Addresses the directive in the 2012 F&SP Order to model both billed and unbilled loads combined, or explain why
the Company does not or cannot do so.
Page 21 of 34

b.
Emerging Markets
The Company explored the possibility that emerging markets for natural gas could materially
influence its resource plan; however, none were identified. Although the electric generation sector
appears strong and has produced a significant demand for natural gas in New England, the Company
believes that there is little likelihood that new electric generation loads will develop within its service
territory during the Forecast Period. In any case, new electric generation would represent a significant
load addition that could not be served without special consideration outside of the normal planning
process. It is likely that any electric generation load would qualify for service on the T-54 tariff, a rate
which precludes the Company from offering default service. In addition, while distributed generation
is receiving attention throughout the nation, there is no indication of any significant distributed
generation additions in the Berkshire service territory during the Forecast Period. Therefore, the
Company has not made any adjustments to its forecast for emerging markets.
12.
Firm Sendout and Planning Load Forecast
The Normal Year Firm Sendout and Planning Load forecasts were calculated by summing the
Normal Year total demand and Planning Load forecasts for the four Customer Segments, reduced by
energy efficiency savings, plus Company Use, Unbilled Sales and Losses, and are shown in the table
below. Normal Year Firm Sendout and total Planning Load are expected to increase by 0.1% and
0.4% per year over the Forecast Period, respectively.
Firm Sendout and Planning Load Forecast includes adjustments for EE, Company Use,
Losses and Unbilled Sales (Dth Normal Year)
Split Year
2016/17
2017/18
2018/19
2019/20
2020/21
CAGR
D.
Total Firm
Sendout
7,690,035
7,726,844
7,740,942
7,730,450
7,730,326
0.1%
Total
Planning
Load
6,541,942
6,592,395
6,624,804
6,631,311
6,644,627
0.4%
DAILY PLANNING LOAD FORECAST

1.
Introduction
A daily Planning Load forecast was developed to provide daily results under various weather
scenarios for supply planning purposes. The Company used daily gate-station meter data to develop
Page 22 of 34

the daily Planning Load shape. Similar to the Customer Segment forecasts, regression modeling was
used to develop the daily Planning Load shape model, including variables such as weather and
date/season-related variables.43 The daily Planning Load forecast follows a methodology similar to
the methodology used in the 2014 F&SP, and approved in the 2014 F&SP Order, and is discussed in
detail in Appendix 9 and Appendix 13.44
2.
Daily Planning Load Forecast Results
The daily Planning Load shape model was used to generate a daily Planning Load shape for
the split-year November 2016 through October 2017, assuming normal weather. The daily Planning
Load shape for each year of the Forecast Period was increased or decreased as necessary using annual
calibration percentages to produce results consistent with the Planning Load forecasts developed using
the Customer Segment models discussed above.
The graph below illustrates the Normal Year load duration curve for 2016/17 forecast
Planning Load. The shape of the load duration curve for the other forecast years is the same; the load
duration curve for the other forecast years shifts up or down based on the change in total Planning
Load. As discussed below the shape of the load duration curve is different for the Design Year and
Cold Snap scenarios.
2016/2017 Normal Year Load Duration Curve - Planning Load
70,000
60,000
50,000
Dth
40,000
30,000
20,000
10,000
Normal Year
0
1
43
44
21
41
61
81 101 121 141 161 181 201 221 241 261 281 301 321 341 361
Day
Variables used in the development of the daily Planning Load shape model are provided in Appendix 9.
Pursuant to the 2010 F&SP Order, Appendix 9 contains additional detail regarding the calculation of the calibration
percentages for normal year, and pursuant to the 2012 F&SP Order, Appendix 13 contains additional detail regarding
the design-year and design-day Planning Load forecasts.
Page 23 of 34

E.
PLANNING STANDARDS AND DESIGN FORECASTS
The 2016 F&SP is the result of a planning process designed to ensure resources are adequate
to meet customer requirements under various weather scenarios (e.g., Normal Year, Design Year,
Design Day, and Cold Snap) and growth scenarios (e.g., Base Case, High Growth, and No
Moratorium).
1.
Weather Data
As discussed in Section C.2, the Company provided a weather database that contains daily
EDD starting from January 1, 1975. Table DD (found in Section VI. Required Tables of the 2016
Long-Range Forecast and Supply Plan) contains historical actual EDDs for the last five years, as well
as a summary of the normal and design conditions used in this 2016 F&SP.
2.
Normal Year
Normal year is the typical or average weather scenario for which the Company expects to
provide resources/capacity for its customers. Normal year is defined as 20-year average weather and
was calculated by summing the 20-year average EDDs for each month using data from April 1, 1996
to March 31, 2016. The 20-year monthly averages and total annual EDDs are shown in the table
below.
Normal Year EDDs (EDDs)

20 Year
Average
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
Total
1,325
1,126
974
572
242
51
158
515
798
1,121
6,881
Because the 20-year average for each day in the year would produce an artificially flattened
Normal Year, a string of daily normal EDDs that reflects the day-to-day randomness seen in actual
Page 24 of 34

EDD data was developed for each month by identifying a historical actual month that had total EDDs
and standard deviation similar to the 20-year average for that month (a typical month). Since the
sum of the daily EDDs in the typical month did not exactly equal the 20-year average, the EDDs for
each day in the typical month were adjusted by a proportional factor so the total for the month equaled
the 20-year monthly average. Repeating this process for each month of the year resulted in a daily
string of EDDs that represented a Normal Year and summed to the Normal Year total of 6,881
EDDs. This definition of Normal Year, including the process of developing daily normal EDDs, was
approved by the Department in the 2014 F&SP Order.
Historical actual EDDs were used as independent variables in the Customer Segment and daily
Planning Load models; the Normal Year EDDs were used to forecast normal demand for the Forecast
Period. Billing month quarterly normal EDDs45 were used in the Customer Segment Normal Year
forecasts. Daily normal EDDs were used in the daily Planning Load shape model Normal Year
forecast.
3.
Design Year
a.
Introduction
The Design Year planning standard represents extreme winter weather conditions that have a
statistically defined probability of occurring on a very infrequent basis. The Design Year standard is
used to develop a forecast of Design Year demand that is then the basis for an assessment of the
Companys resource plans to provide reliable service under extremely cold weather conditions. Design
Year Planning Load, by day, was calculated in the Daily Planning Load Model using the Design Year
daily EDDs. The extremely cold weather of Design Year conditions is assumed to occur during the
five winter months, November through March; Design Year EDDs in the remaining seven months
are assumed to be the same as normal EDDs.
For the 2016 F&SP, Design Year was defined as having a one-in-30 year probability of
occurrence, which produces a one-in-30 year Design Year of 7,993 EDD based on EDD data from
April 1, 1986 to March 31, 2016. This Design Year standard is similar to the Design Year standards
used by other Massachusetts LDCs and is consistent with the Design Year standard approved by the
Department in Berkshires prior F&SP Orders (e.g., Order D.P.U. 14-98, Order D.P.U. 12-62, Order
D.P.U 10-100 and Order D.P.U 08-39). For reference, the 1978/79 gas year had 8,039 EDD, and the
1987/88 gas year had 7,960 EDD, which are similar to the Design Year standard proposed for this
45
The process that was used to convert from calendar month to Billing Month EDDs is explained in Appendix 4.
Page 25 of 34

2016 F&SP. A cost/benefit analysis was conducted to support the Design Year EDD level; the
following section summarizes the Design Year cost/benefit analysis.46
b.
Design Year Cost/Benefit Analysis
By long-standing Department precedent, a societal cost/benefit analysis is used to identify the

optimal level of Design Year EDDs that an LDC should use to determine Design Year load
requirements. The optimal level of Design Year EDDs is the level of annual EDDs where the
marginal benefits to society (measured as the value of production that would be lost if gas service to
the C&I customers responsible for that production had to be curtailed) is equal to the marginal cost
to society of the gas supplies and capacity required to prevent that curtailment (i.e., the cost to
purchase supplies to serve all customers under Design Year conditions).
For this analysis, marginal societal costs were measured by calculating the costs of the natural
gas supplies and capacity that would be required to avoid a curtailment of natural gas service to C&I
customers. The base scenario, at which all demands could be met without curtailment, is defined as
the Planning Load requirements at the 30-year annual average EDD level. An additional fourteen
incremental Planning Load scenarios are also defined, representing load that is incremental to the base
scenario; each Planning Load scenario is associated with an incremental level of annual EDDs.47 The
High Cost alternative is based on the cost to serve the incremental Planning Load using LNG; the
Low Cost alternative is based on the cost to serve the incremental Planning load using long-haul
pipeline supplies.
For this analysis, marginal societal benefits are measured by calculating the value of production
that would be lost due to curtailment of service for each of the fourteen Planning Load Demand
scenarios.48 This analysis assumes that only C&I loads are curtailable. The maximum potential value
of production that could be lost due to curtailment of service is based on an estimate of the portion
of the value of daily production associated with Berkshires C&I customers. The expected value to
society of avoiding a level of curtailment was calculated to reflect the annual probability that a specific
Planning Load demand scenario would occur. Finally, to reflect the concept that the Companys C&I
customers would attempt to take mitigating actions to avoid losing production due to curtailments of
46
47
48
A detailed description of the Design Year cost/benefit methodology is provided in Appendix 10.
Each set of annual EDDs is calculated according to the following formula: EDD Scenario (n) = 30-Year Annual
Average EDD + n x 100 EDD; n= 0, 1, 14.
For this Societal Cost / Benefit analysis, the value of lost production is a benefit to society if the potential loss of
production can be avoided by planning for sufficient supplies and capacity to meet the load requirements.
Page 26 of 34

gas service, the estimated value of production that could not be mitigated is estimated to be 33% and
67% of the probability-weighted values of the potential maximum value of lost production.
This Design Year cost/benefit analysis results in a range of EDD levels that produce optimal
marginal societal benefits and marginal societal costs. The midpoint of that range is 8,096 EDD with
a 1-in-49 year frequency of occurrence which is consistent with and supports the proposed Design
Year standard of 7,993 EDD with a one-in-30 year frequency of occurrence.
c.
Determination of Daily Design Year EDDs
Total five-month winter period EDDs (6,455) are determined by subtracting normal EDDs
for the seven non-winter months (1,537) from the Design Year standard (7,993). Monthly Design
Year EDDs for each of the five winter months are determined by adding the standard deviation for
each winter month times an equal adjustment factor49 to the normal EDD for each winter month. An
appropriate pattern of Design Year daily EDDs was determined for each winter month by selecting
an actual historical month that closely matched the calculated Design Year EDD for that month,
taking into consideration both the total EDD and the standard deviation over the days in that month.
The actual month of historical EDD data selected for the design winter was adjusted by a constant
factor to exactly equal the calculated Design Year EDD for that month. A further adjustment was
made to the January Design Year EDDs to include the Design Day EDD; all of the remaining daily
EDD levels for January were adjusted by a constant factor so that the sum of the daily January Design
Year EDDs equaled the calculated January Design Year EDDs.
d.
Design Year Planning Load Requirements
Based on the Design Year daily EDDs, the daily Design Year Planning Load requirements
were calculated for the 2016/17 November through October split-year using the Daily Planning Load
model discussed above. Similar to the Normal Year scenario, calibration percentages were developed
to ensure consistency between the Customer Segment forecasts and the Planning Load forecast under
Design Year conditions, and are discussed in detail in Appendix 13.
The Planning Load forecast results for the Design Year are approximately 11.5% higher than
the Normal Year results. The table below demonstrates an increase in the Design Year forecast
Planning Load over the Forecast Period of 0.48% per year.
49
The adjustment factor was calculated as follows: Adjustment factor = (Design Winter total EDD Normal Winter
EDD) / (monthly standard deviations Winter Months).
Page 27 of 34

Planning Load Model Forecast (Dth Design Year)50

Split Year
Forecast
2016/2017
2017/2018
2018/2019
2019/2020
2020/2021
CAGR
7,277,388
7,336,657
7,379,374
7,396,156
7,419,132
0.48%
The graph below illustrates the load duration curves for the 2016/17 forecasted Planning Load
under Normal and Design Year conditions.51
2016/2017 Load Duration Curve - Planning Load
70,000
65,000
60,000
55,000
50,000
45,000
Dth
40,000
35,000
30,000
25,000
20,000
15,000
10,000
5,000
Normal Year
Design Year
0
1
4.
21
41
61
81 101 121 141 161 181 201 221 241 261 281 301 321 341 361
Day
Design Day
a.
Introduction
The Design Day standard represents extreme weather conditions on a single day that has a
statistically defined probability of occurring on a very infrequent basis. The Design Day standard is
used to assess the Companys plans to provide reliable service on a day of extremely cold weather
conditions. Design Day Planning Load was calculated in the Daily Planning Load model by using the
Design Day EDD level. Design Day is assumed to occur during a non-weekend day in January.
50
51
This table excludes Planning Load demand for Leap Day in the 2019/20 split-year.
The shape of the load duration curves for the other forecast years will be the same; they will simply shift up or down
based on the change in total demand.
Page 28 of 34

For the 2016 F&SP, Design Day was defined as having a one-in-30 year probability of
occurrence. This Design Day standard is similar to the Design Day standards used by other
Massachusetts LDCs and is consistent with the Design Day standard approved by the Department in
Berkshires prior F&SP Orders (e.g., Order D.P.U. 14-98, Order D.P.U. 12-62, Order D.P.U 10-100
and Order D.P.U 08-39). Using the coldest day in each of the last 30 years produces a one-in-30
Design Day of 79.8 EDD. For reference, on January 15, 2004 the Company experienced an 81.8
EDD and on February 13, 2016 the Company experienced an 81 EDD, which are higher than the
Design Day standard proposed for this 2016 F&SP. A cost/benefit analysis was conducted to support
the Design Day EDD level; the following section summarizes the Design Day cost/benefit analysis.52
b.
Design Day Cost/Benefit Analysis
By long-standing Department precedent, a societal cost/benefit analysis is used to identify the

optimal level of Design Day EDD that an LDC should use to determine Design Day load
requirements. The optimal level of Design Day EDD is the level of daily EDD where the marginal
benefits to society (measured as the value of one days production that would be lost if gas service to
the C&I customers responsible for that production had to be curtailed) is equal to the marginal cost
to society of the gas supplies and capacity required to prevent that curtailment (i.e., the cost to
purchase supplies to serve all customers under Design Day conditions).
For this analysis, marginal societal costs are measured by calculating the costs of gas supplies
and capacity that would be required to avoid a curtailment of natural gas service to C&I customers.
The base scenario at which all demands could be met without curtailment is defined as the Planning
Load requirements at 69 EDD, which is the average of the highest annual EDD values from 1987 to
2016. An additional nineteen incremental Planning Load scenarios are also defined, representing
demand that is incremental to the base scenario; each Planning Load scenario is associated with an
incremental level of one daily EDD.53 The cost of meeting each Planning Load scenario is based on
the cost to serve the incremental Planning Load using LNG until LNG capacity is exhausted, and is
based on the cost to serve the incremental Planning Load using propane thereafter.
For this analysis, marginal societal benefits are measured as the value of production that would
be lost due to curtailment of service for each of the nineteen Planning Load demand scenarios.54 This
52
53
54
A detail description of the Design Day cost/benefit methodology is provided in Appendix 11.
Each daily EDD is calculated according to the following formula: EDD Scenario (n) = Average Highest Daily EDD
+ n EDD; n= 0, 1, 19.
For this societal cost/benefit analysis, the value of lost production is a benefit to society if the potential loss of
Page 29 of 34

analysis assumes that only C&I loads are curtailable. The maximum potential value of production that
could be lost due to curtailment of service is based on an estimate of the portion of the value of daily
production associated with Berkshires C&I customers. The expected value to society of avoiding a
level of curtailment is calculated to reflect the probability that a specific incremental Planning Load
demand scenario would occur.
This Design Day cost benefit analysis results in marginal societal costs equaling marginal
societal benefits at 79.9 EDD, a one-in-31 year occurrence, which is consistent with the proposed
Design Day standard of 79.8 EDD. In addition, the Company experienced an 81.8 EDD day on
January 15, 2004 and an 81 EDD on February 13, 2016. The Design Day standard of one-in-30 years
is supported by the analysis, is consistent with the Companys Design Year standard and is also
consistent with the Design Day standards of other Massachusetts LDCs.
c.
Design Day Planning Load Requirements
As discussed in Section E.4.a, the Design Day was assumed to occur in a Design Year January
to ensure the Design Day had a high impact on daily load. To further increase the impact of the
Design Day load, the Design Day was assumed to occur on a workday and to occur after another
relatively cold day to capture the increased load related to the prior day EDD. Based on the
assumption that the Design Day occurred on January 18, the Design Day Planning Load requirements
were calculated as part of the Design Year Planning Load requirements discussed in Section E.3.
The table below demonstrates an increase in the Design Day forecast Planning Load over the
Forecast Period of 0.48% per year. The Planning Load Forecast results for Design Day are
approximately 12% higher than the Normal Year peak day results.
Planning Load Model Forecast (Dth Design Day)

Split Year
2016/17
2017/18
2018/19
2019/20
2020/21
CAGR:
5.
Design Day
64,182
64,705
65,081
65,229
65,432
0.48%
Cold Snap
In addition to analyzing Design Year and Design Day, the systems ability to meet customer
requirements is tested during a prolonged 10-day cold period (i.e., a cold snap).
Page 30 of 34

The Cold Snap used in this 2016 F&SP was defined as a one-in-30 year occurrence. 55 Based
on EDD data through March 31, 2016, the total Cold Snap EDDs are 633; the daily EDDs range
from 55 to 70. For reference February 1979 had a 10-day Cold Snap of 704 EDD, and January 2004
had a 10-day Cold Snap of 629 EDD, which are similar to the Cold Snap standard proposed for this
2016 F&SP.
The Cold Snap was assumed to occur in a Normal Year February to ensure the Cold Snap had
a high impact on load. To further increase the impact of the Cold Snap load, the Cold Snap period
was assumed to include only one weekend and to occur after another relatively cold day to capture
the increased load related to the prior day EDD. Based on the assumption that the Cold Snap started
on February 13, the Cold Snap Planning Load requirements were calculated as part of the Normal
Year Planning Load requirements discussed in Section D.2.
The table below demonstrates an increase in the Cold Snap forecast Planning Load over the
Forecast Period of 0.39% per year.
Planning Load Model Forecast (Dth Cold Snap)

Split Year
2016/17
2017/18
2018/19
2019/20
2020/21
CAGR:
10-Day
Cold Snap
561,864
566,197
568,980
569,539
570,683
0.39%
The Planning Load Forecast results for the Cold Snap are approximately 53.5% higher than
the Normal Year results for that same 10-day time period, as shown in the graph below.
55
This methodology is consistent with the methodology approved in Order D.P.U. 14-98, Order D.P.U. 12-62, Order
D.P.U 10-100 and Order D.P.U 08-39.
Page 31 of 34

Planning Load Model Forecast Graph Normal Year (Winter) and Cold Snap
65,000
Cold Snap
60,000
Normal Year
55,000
50,000
Dth
45,000
40,000
35,000
30,000
25,000
20,000
23-Feb
Date
16-Feb
9-Feb
2-Feb
26-Jan
19-Jan
12-Jan
5-Jan
29-Dec
22-Dec
15-Dec
8-Dec
1-Dec
15,000
The graph below illustrates the load duration curves for the 2016/17 forecast Planning Load
under Normal Year, Normal Year including Cold Snap, and Design Year weather conditions.56
2016/17 Load Duration Curve Planning Load

70,000
65,000
60,000
55,000
50,000
45,000
Dth
40,000
35,000
30,000
25,000
20,000
15,000
10,000
5,000
Normal Year
Design Year
Cold Snap
0
1
56
21
41
61
81 101 121 141 161 181 201 221 241 261 281 301 321 341 361
Day
The shape of the load duration curves for the other forecast years are the same; the other years load duration curves
simply shift up or down based on the change in total Planning Load.
Page 32 of 34

6.
Growth Scenarios57
To further test the systems ability to serve customers under varying conditions, two alternative
scenarios were developed, a High Growth scenario and a No Moratorium scenario.
a.
High Growth Scenario
The High Growth scenario is the base-case forecast results discussed in Section C modified
for more optimistic economic variables. Consistent with the Departments directive in the 2014 F&SP
Order, Concentric developed High Growth scenario results by re-running the econometric models
with optimistic scenario economic and demographic data obtained from Moodys Economy.com and
EIA.
The High Growth scenario was applied to the Normal Year, Design Year and the Cold Snap
weather scenarios resulting in three additional Planning Load scenarios against which the Companys
resources were tested. The Base Case Planning Load increases by 0.39% and 0.48% per year over the
Forecast Period in Normal Year and Design Year respectively, while the High Growth scenario
produces an annual increase in Normal Year Planning Load of approximately 1.22% and Design Year
Planning Load growth of 1.25% per year. The annual Planning Load associated with each of these
additional scenarios is shown in the table below.
Planning Load Model Forecast High Growth (Dth) 58

Split
Year
2016/17
2017/18
2018/19
2019/20
2020/21
CAGR:
b.
Normal
Year
6,624,855
6,755,587
6,856,953
6,911,656
6,954,306
1.22%
Forecast Scenario
Design
Design
Year
Day
7,360,783
64,918
7,501,401
66,158
7,614,429
67,155
7,681,025
67,742
7,735,376
68,221
1.25%
1.25%
Cold
Snap
6,825,572
6,960,265
7,064,702
7,121,062
7,165,005
1.22%
No Moratorium Scenario
The No Moratorium scenario modifies the base-case forecast results discussed in Section C
to assume the moratorium did not occur. Concentric developed the No Moratorium scenario by
applying the projected rates of change from customer count regression model results to customer
57
58
Addresses the directive in the 2014 F&SP Order to either use the Moodys optimistic forecasts for the high-growth
scenario or address in detail why the Companys preferred approach to developing the high-growth scenario is more
reasonable than using Moodys optimistic forecasts.
This table excludes Planning Load demands for Leap Day in the 2019/20 split-year.
Page 33 of 34

counts in both the Eastern and Western Divisions (i.e., the Eastern Division customer counts were
not held flat).
The No Moratorium scenario was applied to the Normal Year, Design Year and the Cold Snap
weather scenarios resulting in three additional Planning Load scenarios against which the Companys
resources were tested. The Base Case Planning Load increases by 0.39% and 0.48% per year over the
Forecast Period in Normal Year and Design Year respectively, while the No Moratorium scenario
produces an annual increase in Normal Year Planning Load of approximately 0.79% and Design Year
Planning Load growth of 0.89% per year. The annual Planning Load associated with each of these
additional scenarios is shown in the table below.
Planning Load Model Forecast No Moratorium (Dth) 59

Split
Year
2016/17
2017/18
2018/19
2019/20
2020/21
CAGR:
59
Normal
Year
6,636,141
6,713,090
6,774,885
6,808,881
6,847,688
0.79%
Forecast Scenario
Design
Design
Year
Day
7,383,225
65,115
7,472,419
65,902
7,548,470
66,573
7,596,650
66,998
7,648,793
67,458
0.89%
0.89%
Cold
Snap
6,837,199
6,916,480
6,980,147
7,015,173
7,055,156
0.79%
This table excludes Planning Load demands for Leap Day in the 2019/20 split-year.
Page 34 of 34

2016 Forecast and Supply Plan
Appendices
OUTLINE OF APPENDICES
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
Summary of Demand Forecasting Phases

Dependent Variable Graphs
Variable Descriptions Customer Segment Forecasts
Calculation of Billing Cycle EDD Variable
Calculation of Natural Gas Prices
Modeling of Forecast Equations Statistical Techniques & Glossary
Unbilled Sales
Energy Efficiency
Daily Planning Load Results
Design Year Planning Standards Cost/Benefit Analysis
Design Day Planning Standards Cost/Benefit Analysis
Annual Tables
Design Year And Design Day Planning Load Results
Detailed Statistical Output
A-1
APPENDIX 1. SUMMARY OF DEMAND FORECASTING PHASES
Purpose
Periodicity
Units of Time
Historical Time
Period
Independent
Variable Types
Demand Data
Detail
Demand Data
Source
Determination
of Demand
Forecast Period
Transportation
Customers
Forecast and
Supply Plan
Report

Appendix 1
Page 1 of 1
Customer Segment Forecast
Planning Load Model
Forecast demand for gas on a quarterly

basis for the period 2016Q2 through
2021Q4 based on projected economic
and demographic conditions
Quarterly
Billing quarter/Billing month
2000Q1 2016Q1 (i.e., 65 quarters)
Produce a daily shape based on various

weather and time-based variables to
develop daily load for testing resource
adequacy
Daily
Gas day (10:00 am to 10:00 am)
4/1/2015 3/31/2016 (i.e., 366 days)
Econometric, demographic and weather

data
Four Customer Segments, plus Two
Capacity Exempt Segments, plus
Company Use
Internal Company reports
Weather and date/seasonal-related data
Results from (1) number of customers

model times (2) use per customer model
equals demand
2016/17 2020/21 Split-Years
Daily Planning Load Shape Model
All transportation customers included in

customer and UPC models; capacity
exempt volume modeled separately and
subtracted from Customer Segment
results to produce Planning Load
Section C
A-2
Planning Load
Gate station meter reads
2016/17 Daily (with extrapolations for

2017/18 through 2020/21)
Includes sales loads plus loads of
capacity assigned transportation
customers.
Section D
33,000
135
31,000
125
29,000
115
27,000
Dth/Customer
Dth/Customer
26,000
A-3
1995Q1
1995Q3
1996Q1
1996Q3
1997Q1
1997Q3
1998Q1
1998Q3
1999Q1
1999Q3
2000Q1
2000Q3
2001Q1
2001Q3
2002Q1
2002Q3
2003Q1
2003Q3
2004Q1
2004Q3
2005Q1
2005Q3
2006Q1
2006Q3
2007Q1
2007Q3
2008Q1
2008Q3
2009Q1
2009Q3
2010Q1
2010Q3
2011Q1
2011Q3
2012Q1
2012Q3
2013Q1
2013Q3
2014Q1
2014Q3
2015Q1
2015Q3
2016Q1
1995Q1
1995Q3
1996Q1
1996Q3
1997Q1
1997Q3
1998Q1
1998Q3
1999Q1
1999Q3
2000Q1
2000Q3
2001Q1
2001Q3
2002Q1
2002Q3
2003Q1
2003Q3
2004Q1
2004Q3
2005Q1
2005Q3
2006Q1
2006Q3
2007Q1
2007Q3
2008Q1
2008Q3
2009Q1
2009Q3
2010Q1
2010Q3
2011Q1
2011Q3
2012Q1
2012Q3
2013Q1
2013Q3
2014Q1
2014Q3
2015Q1
2015Q3
2016Q1
Quarterly Customers
Sales and Transportation Combined:

32,000
Residential Heat Customers
30,000
22,000
20,000
Residential Heat Rolling Four Quarter

Customers
25,000
95
23,000
85
21,000
75
1995Q1
1995Q3
1996Q1
1996Q3
1997Q1
1997Q3
1998Q1
1998Q3
1999Q1
1999Q3
2000Q1
2000Q3
2001Q1
2001Q3
2002Q1
2002Q3
2003Q1
2003Q3
2004Q1
2004Q3
2005Q1
2005Q3
2006Q1
2006Q3
2007Q1
2007Q3
2008Q1
2008Q3
2009Q1
2009Q3
2010Q1
2010Q3
2011Q1
2011Q3
2012Q1
2012Q3
2013Q1
2013Q3
2014Q1
2014Q3
2015Q1
2015Q3
2016Q1
1995Q1
1995Q3
1996Q1
1996Q3
1997Q1
1997Q3
1998Q1
1998Q3
1999Q1
1999Q3
2000Q1
2000Q3
2001Q1
2001Q3
2002Q1
2002Q3
2003Q1
2003Q3
2004Q1
2004Q3
2005Q1
2005Q3
2006Q1
2006Q3
2007Q1
2007Q3
2008Q1
2008Q3
2009Q1
2009Q3
2010Q1
2010Q3
2011Q1
2011Q3
2012Q1
2012Q3
2013Q1
2013Q3
2014Q1
2014Q3
2015Q1
2015Q3
2016Q1
Quarterly Customers

Appendix 2
Page 1 of 6
Appendix 2: Dependent Variable Graphs
70
Residential Heat Use Per Customer
60
28,000
50
40
24,000
30
20
10
0
Residential Heat Rolling Four Quarter

Use Per Customer
105
5,500
5,000
Dth/Customer
5,000
4,500
Dth/Customer
5,500
A-4
1995Q1
1995Q3
1996Q1
1996Q3
1997Q1
1997Q3
1998Q1
1998Q3
1999Q1
1999Q3
2000Q1
2000Q3
2001Q1
2001Q3
2002Q1
2002Q3
2003Q1
2003Q3
2004Q1
2004Q3
2005Q1
2005Q3
2006Q1
2006Q3
2007Q1
2007Q3
2008Q1
2008Q3
2009Q1
2009Q3
2010Q1
2010Q3
2011Q1
2011Q3
2012Q1
2012Q3
2013Q1
2013Q3
2014Q1
2014Q3
2015Q1
2015Q3
2016Q1
1995Q1
1995Q3
1996Q1
1996Q3
1997Q1
1997Q3
1998Q1
1998Q3
1999Q1
1999Q3
2000Q1
2000Q3
2001Q1
2001Q3
2002Q1
2002Q3
2003Q1
2003Q3
2004Q1
2004Q3
2005Q1
2005Q3
2006Q1
2006Q3
2007Q1
2007Q3
2008Q1
2008Q3
2009Q1
2009Q3
2010Q1
2010Q3
2011Q1
2011Q3
2012Q1
2012Q3
2013Q1
2013Q3
2014Q1
2014Q3
2015Q1
2015Q3
2016Q1
Quarterly Customers
7,000
Residential Non Heat Customers
3,500
3,000
Residential Non Heat Rolling Four Quarter

Customers
7,000
6,500
4,000
18
3,500
17
1995Q1
1995Q3
1996Q1
1996Q3
1997Q1
1997Q3
1998Q1
1998Q3
1999Q1
1999Q3
2000Q1
2000Q3
2001Q1
2001Q3
2002Q1
2002Q3
2003Q1
2003Q3
2004Q1
2004Q3
2005Q1
2005Q3
2006Q1
2006Q3
2007Q1
2007Q3
2008Q1
2008Q3
2009Q1
2009Q3
2010Q1
2010Q3
2011Q1
2011Q3
2012Q1
2012Q3
2013Q1
2013Q3
2014Q1
2014Q3
2015Q1
2015Q3
2016Q1
1995Q1
1995Q3
1996Q1
1996Q3
1997Q1
1997Q3
1998Q1
1998Q3
1999Q1
1999Q3
2000Q1
2000Q3
2001Q1
2001Q3
2002Q1
2002Q3
2003Q1
2003Q3
2004Q1
2004Q3
2005Q1
2005Q3
2006Q1
2006Q3
2007Q1
2007Q3
2008Q1
2008Q3
2009Q1
2009Q3
2010Q1
2010Q3
2011Q1
2011Q3
2012Q1
2012Q3
2013Q1
2013Q3
2014Q1
2014Q3
2015Q1
2015Q3
2016Q1
Quarterly Customers

Appendix 2
Page 2 of 6

8.00
Residential Non Heat Use Per Customer
6,500
6,000
7.00
6.00
5.00
4,000
4.00
3.00
2.00
Residential Non Heat Rolling Four Quarter

Use Per Customer
23
6,000
22
21
20
4,500
19
3,800
3,600
3,400
Dth/Customer
3,400
Dth/Customer
3,600
3,200
2,600
A-5
1995Q1
1995Q3
1996Q1
1996Q3
1997Q1
1997Q3
1998Q1
1998Q3
1999Q1
1999Q3
2000Q1
2000Q3
2001Q1
2001Q3
2002Q1
2002Q3
2003Q1
2003Q3
2004Q1
2004Q3
2005Q1
2005Q3
2006Q1
2006Q3
2007Q1
2007Q3
2008Q1
2008Q3
2009Q1
2009Q3
2010Q1
2010Q3
2011Q1
2011Q3
2012Q1
2012Q3
2013Q1
2013Q3
2014Q1
2014Q3
2015Q1
2015Q3
2016Q1
1995Q1
1995Q3
1996Q1
1996Q3
1997Q1
1997Q3
1998Q1
1998Q3
1999Q1
1999Q3
2000Q1
2000Q3
2001Q1
2001Q3
2002Q1
2002Q3
2003Q1
2003Q3
2004Q1
2004Q3
2005Q1
2005Q3
2006Q1
2006Q3
2007Q1
2007Q3
2008Q1
2008Q3
2009Q1
2009Q3
2010Q1
2010Q3
2011Q1
2011Q3
2012Q1
2012Q3
2013Q1
2013Q3
2014Q1
2014Q3
2015Q1
2015Q3
2016Q1
Quarterly Customers
4,400
Low Load Factor Customers

450
4,200
400
4,000
350
3,800
300
3,200
150
3,000
100
2,800
50
2,600
0
Low Load Factor Rolling Four Quarter

Customers
4,400
1995Q1
1995Q3
1996Q1
1996Q3
1997Q1
1997Q3
1998Q1
1998Q3
1999Q1
1999Q3
2000Q1
2000Q3
2001Q1
2001Q3
2002Q1
2002Q3
2003Q1
2003Q3
2004Q1
2004Q3
2005Q1
2005Q3
2006Q1
2006Q3
2007Q1
2007Q3
2008Q1
2008Q3
2009Q1
2009Q3
2010Q1
2010Q3
2011Q1
2011Q3
2012Q1
2012Q3
2013Q1
2013Q3
2014Q1
2014Q3
2015Q1
2015Q3
2016Q1
1995Q1
1995Q3
1996Q1
1996Q3
1997Q1
1997Q3
1998Q1
1998Q3
1999Q1
1999Q3
2000Q1
2000Q3
2001Q1
2001Q3
2002Q1
2002Q3
2003Q1
2003Q3
2004Q1
2004Q3
2005Q1
2005Q3
2006Q1
2006Q3
2007Q1
2007Q3
2008Q1
2008Q3
2009Q1
2009Q3
2010Q1
2010Q3
2011Q1
2011Q3
2012Q1
2012Q3
2013Q1
2013Q3
2014Q1
2014Q3
2015Q1
2015Q3
2016Q1
Quarterly Customers

Appendix 2
Page 3 of 6

Low Load Factor Use Per Customer
250
200
Low Load Factor Rolling Four Quarter

Use Per Customer
4,200
750
4,000
700
650
600
550
3,000
2,800
500
450
1,150
1,100
Dth/Customer
1,100
Dth/Customer
1,150
1,050
1,000
A-6
1995Q1
1995Q3
1996Q1
1996Q3
1997Q1
1997Q3
1998Q1
1998Q3
1999Q1
1999Q3
2000Q1
2000Q3
2001Q1
2001Q3
2002Q1
2002Q3
2003Q1
2003Q3
2004Q1
2004Q3
2005Q1
2005Q3
2006Q1
2006Q3
2007Q1
2007Q3
2008Q1
2008Q3
2009Q1
2009Q3
2010Q1
2010Q3
2011Q1
2011Q3
2012Q1
2012Q3
2013Q1
2013Q3
2014Q1
2014Q3
2015Q1
2015Q3
2016Q1
1995Q1
1995Q3
1996Q1
1996Q3
1997Q1
1997Q3
1998Q1
1998Q3
1999Q1
1999Q3
2000Q1
2000Q3
2001Q1
2001Q3
2002Q1
2002Q3
2003Q1
2003Q3
2004Q1
2004Q3
2005Q1
2005Q3
2006Q1
2006Q3
2007Q1
2007Q3
2008Q1
2008Q3
2009Q1
2009Q3
2010Q1
2010Q3
2011Q1
2011Q3
2012Q1
2012Q3
2013Q1
2013Q3
2014Q1
2014Q3
2015Q1
2015Q3
2016Q1
Quarterly Customers
1,250
High Load Factor Customers
1,200
1,050
1,000
High Load Factor Rolling Four Quarter

Customers
1,250
1,200
1995Q1
1995Q3
1996Q1
1996Q3
1997Q1
1997Q3
1998Q1
1998Q3
1999Q1
1999Q3
2000Q1
2000Q3
2001Q1
2001Q3
2002Q1
2002Q3
2003Q1
2003Q3
2004Q1
2004Q3
2005Q1
2005Q3
2006Q1
2006Q3
2007Q1
2007Q3
2008Q1
2008Q3
2009Q1
2009Q3
2010Q1
2010Q3
2011Q1
2011Q3
2012Q1
2012Q3
2013Q1
2013Q3
2014Q1
2014Q3
2015Q1
2015Q3
2016Q1
1995Q1
1995Q3
1996Q1
1996Q3
1997Q1
1997Q3
1998Q1
1998Q3
1999Q1
1999Q3
2000Q1
2000Q3
2001Q1
2001Q3
2002Q1
2002Q3
2003Q1
2003Q3
2004Q1
2004Q3
2005Q1
2005Q3
2006Q1
2006Q3
2007Q1
2007Q3
2008Q1
2008Q3
2009Q1
2009Q3
2010Q1
2010Q3
2011Q1
2011Q3
2012Q1
2012Q3
2013Q1
2013Q3
2014Q1
2014Q3
2015Q1
2015Q3
2016Q1
Quarterly Customers

Appendix 2
Page 4 of 6

450
High Load Factor Use Per Customer
400
350
300
250
200
150
High Load Factor Rolling Four Quarter

Use Per Customer
1,650
1,550
1,450
1,350
1,250
1,150
1,050
950
850
750
260,000
210,000
160,000
Quarterly Demand
310,000
500,000
400,000
300,000
200,000
A-7
2002Q1
2002Q3
2003Q1
2003Q3
2004Q1
2004Q3
2005Q1
2005Q3
2006Q1
2006Q3
2007Q1
2007Q3
2008Q1
2008Q3
2009Q1
2009Q3
2010Q1
2010Q3
2011Q1
2011Q3
2012Q1
2012Q3
2013Q1
2013Q3
2014Q1
2014Q3
2015Q1
2015Q3
2016Q1
2002Q1
2002Q3
2003Q1
2003Q3
2004Q1
2004Q3
2005Q1
2005Q3
2006Q1
2006Q3
2007Q1
2007Q3
2008Q1
2008Q3
2009Q1
2009Q3
2010Q1
2010Q3
2011Q1
2011Q3
2012Q1
2012Q3
2013Q1
2013Q3
2014Q1
2014Q3
2015Q1
2015Q3
2016Q1
Quarterly Demand
Low Load Factor Capacity Exempt Demand

All Customers
460,000
245,000
410,000
225,000
360,000
205,000
110,000
85,000
60,000
65,000
10,000
45,000
Low Load Factor Capacity Exempt

Rolling Four Quarter Demand
All Customers
1,010,000
800,000
910,000
700,000
810,000
100,000
310,000
0
210,000
2002Q1
2002Q3
2003Q1
2003Q3
2004Q1
2004Q3
2005Q1
2005Q3
2006Q1
2006Q3
2007Q1
2007Q3
2008Q1
2008Q3
2009Q1
2009Q3
2010Q1
2010Q3
2011Q1
2011Q3
2012Q1
2012Q3
2013Q1
2013Q3
2014Q1
2014Q3
2015Q1
2015Q3
2016Q1
600,000
Quarterly Demand
900,000
2002Q1
2002Q3
2003Q1
2003Q3
2004Q1
2004Q3
2005Q1
2005Q3
2006Q1
2006Q3
2007Q1
2007Q3
2008Q1
2008Q3
2009Q1
2009Q3
2010Q1
2010Q3
2011Q1
2011Q3
2012Q1
2012Q3
2013Q1
2013Q3
2014Q1
2014Q3
2015Q1
2015Q3
2016Q1
Quarterly Demand

Appendix 2
Page 5 of 6
Capacity Exempt Transportation :

High Load Factor Capacity Exempt Demand
All Customers
185,000
165,000
145,000
125,000
105,000
High Load Factor Capacity Exempt

Rolling Four Quarter Demand
All Customers
710,000
610,000
510,000
410,000
1998Q1
1998Q3
1999Q1
1999Q3
2000Q1
2000Q3
2001Q1
2001Q3
2002Q1
2002Q3
2003Q1
2003Q3
2004Q1
2004Q3
2005Q1
2005Q3
2006Q1
2006Q3
2007Q1
2007Q3
2008Q1
2008Q3
2009Q1
2009Q3
2010Q1
2010Q3
2011Q1
2011Q3
2012Q1
2012Q3
2013Q1
2013Q3
2014Q1
2014Q3
2015Q1
2015Q3
2016Q1
Quarterly Demand
1998Q1
1998Q3
1999Q1
1999Q3
2000Q1
2000Q3
2001Q1
2001Q3
2002Q1
2002Q3
2003Q1
2003Q3
2004Q1
2004Q3
2005Q1
2005Q3
2006Q1
2006Q3
2007Q1
2007Q3
2008Q1
2008Q3
2009Q1
2009Q3
2010Q1
2010Q3
2011Q1
2011Q3
2012Q1
2012Q3
2013Q1
2013Q3
2014Q1
2014Q3
2015Q1
2015Q3
2016Q1
Quarterly Demand

Appendix 2
Page 6 of 6
Company Use:
10,300
Company Use Demand
9,300
8,300
7,300
6,300
5,300
4,300
3,300
2,300
1,300
300
Company Use Rolling Four Quarter

Demand
4,600
4,400
4,200
4,000
3,800
3,600
3,400
3,200
3,000
2,800
2,600
2,400
2,200
2,000
A-8

Appendix 3
Page 1 of 2
APPENDIX 3. VARIABLE DESCRIPTIONS - CUSTOMER SEGMENT FORECASTS

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
Variable Name
RRC
RHC
HLFC
LLFC
RRUPC
RHUPC
HLFUPC
LLFUPC
COUSE
Description
Residential Non-Heating Number of Customers
Residential Heating Number of Customers
C&I HLF Number of Customers
C&I LLF Number of Customers
Residential Non-Heating Use Per Customer
Residential Heating Use Per Customer
C&I HLF Use Per Customer
C&I LLF Use Per Customer
Company Use
LLFCE
HLFCE
C&I LLF Capacity Exempt Volumes

C&I HLF Capacity Exempt Volumes
TRENDQ
TRENDY
Q1
Q2
Q3
Q4
HH
POP
MEDHHINC
GMP
EMP
MANEMP
NMANEMP
HHSIZE
HSTOCK
HCOMP
CUMULATIVEHC
CPI
RRNGP
RHNGP
LLFNGP
HLFNGP
RRNGOIL
RHNGOIL
LLFNGOIL
HLFNGOIL
RRNGOIL_MIN
Quarterly Trend
Annual Trend
Quarter 1 Dummy Variable
Number of Households in the Pittsfield Metropolitan Area (Thousands)
Total Resident Population of the Pittsfield Metropolitan Area (Thousands)
Median Household Income of the Pittsfield Metropolitan Area ($2014)
Gross Metro Product for the Pittsfield Metropolitan Area (Billions, $2014)
Pittsfield Metropolitan Area Employment, Total Nonfarm (Thousands)
Pittsfield Metropolitan Area Employment, Manufacturing (Thousands)
Pittsfield Metropolitan Area Employment, Non-manufacturing (Thousands)
Household Average Size of the Pittsfield Metropolitan Area
Total Housing Stock for the Pittsfield Metropolitan Area (Thousands)
Total Housing Completions for the Pittsfield Metropolitan Area
Cumulative Housing Completions for the Pittsfield Metropolitan Area
Consumer Price Index for the Pittsfield Metropolitan Area
Residential Non-Heating Natural Gas Price ($/Dth, $2014)- Rolling 4 Quarters
Residential Heating Natural Gas Price ($/Dth, $2014)- Rolling 4 Quarters
C&I LLF Natural Gas Price ($/Dth, $2014)- Rolling 4 Quarters
C&I HLF Natural Gas Price ($/Dth, $2014)- Rolling 4 Quarters
Residential Non-Heating Natural Gas to Oil Price Ratio Rolling 8 Quarters
Residential Heating Natural Gas to Oil Price Ratio Rolling 8 Quarters
C&I LLF Natural Gas to Oil Price Ratio Rolling 8 Quarters
C&I HLF Natural Gas to Oil Price Ratio Rolling 8 Quarters
Residential Non-Heating Minimum Natural Gas to Oil Price Ratio Rolling 8
Quarters
Residential Heating Minimum Natural Gas to Oil Price Ratio Rolling 8
Quarters
C&I LLF Minimum Natural Gas to Oil Price Ratio Rolling 8 Quarters
C&I HLF Minimum Natural Gas to Oil Price Ratio Rolling 8 Quarters
Residential Non-Heating Cumulative Savings from Fuel Switching
Residential Heating Cumulative Savings from Fuel Switching
C&I LLF Cumulative Savings from Fuel Switching Sales and Transportation
C&I HLF Cumulative Savings from Fuel Switching Sales and Transportation
HH Lag 1 Quarter
39
RHNGOIL_MIN
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
LLFNGOIL_MIN
HLFNGOIL_MIN
RROIL_NG_SAVE
RHOIL_NG_SAVE
LLFOIL_NG_SAVE
HLFOIL_NG_SAVE
HHL1
A-9

Appendix 3
Page 2 of 2
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
Variable Name
HHL4
POPL1
POPL4
MEDHHINCL1
MEDHHINCL4
GMPL1
GMPL4
EMPL1
EMPL4
MANEMPL1
MANEMPL4
NMANEMPL1
NMANEMPL4
HHSIZEL1
HHSIZEL4
HSTOCKL1
HSTOCKL4
HCOMPL1
HCOMPL4
CUMULATIVEHCL1
CUMULATIVEHCL4
CPIL1
CPIL4
RREDD
71
RHEDD
72
73
74
LLFEDD
HLFEDD
COUSEEDD
75
RRDESEDD
76
77
78
79
80
81
RHDESEDD
HLFDESEDD
LLFDESEDD
COUSEDESEDD
CAL_EDD
CAL_DESEDD
Various Dummy
Variables
Various Interaction
Variables
Description
HH Lag 4 Quarters (i.e. 1 Year)
POP Lag 1 Quarter
POP Lag 4 Quarters (i.e. 1 Year)
MEDHHINC Lag 1 Quarter
MEDHHINC Lag 4 Quarters (i.e. 1 Year)
GMP Lag 1 Quarter
GMP Lag 4 Quarters (i.e. 1 Year)
EMP Lag 1 Quarter
EMP Lag 4 Quarters (i.e. 1 Year)
MANEMP Lag 1 Quarter
MANEMP Lag 4 Quarters (i.e. 1 Year)
NMANEMP Lag 1 Quarter
NMANEMP Lag 4 Quarters (i.e. 1 Year)
HHSIZE Lag 1 Quarter
HHSIZE Lag 4 Quarters (i.e. 1 Year)
HSTOCK Lag 1 quarter
HSTOCK Lag 4 quarters (i.e.: 1 year)
HCOMP Lag 1 Quarter
HCOMP Lag 4 Quarters (i.e. 1 Year)
CUMULATIVEHC Lag 1 Quarter
CUMULATIVEHC Lag 4 Quarters (i.e. 1 Year)
CPI Lag 1 Quarter
CPI Lag 4 Quarters (i.e. 1 Year)
Residential Non-Heating Billing Cycle EDDs (History = Actual; Forecast = 20Year Normal)
Residential Heating Billing Cycle EDDs (History = Actual; Forecast = 20-Year
Normal)
C&I LLF Billing Cycle EDDs (History = Actual; Forecast = 20-Year Normal)
C&I HLF Billing Cycle EDDs (History = Actual; Forecast = 20-Year Normal)
Company Use Billing Cycle EDDs (History = Actual; Forecast = 20-Year
Normal)
Residential Non-Heating Billing Cycle EDDs (History = Actual; Forecast =
Design)
Residential Heating Billing Cycle EDDs (History = Actual; Forecast = Design)
C&I HLF Billing Cycle EDDs (History = Actual; Forecast = Design)
C&I LLF Billing Cycle EDDs (History = Actual; Forecast = Design)
Company Use Billing Cycle EDDs (History = Actual; Forecast = Design)
Calendar Month EDDs (History = Actual; Forecast = 20-Year Normal)
Calendar Month EDDs (History = Actual; Forecast = Design)
Consists of 0s and 1s to Represent Specific Time Period - (Described with
Each Model)
Consists of 0s and Values of Another Independent Variable - Calculated by
Multiplying a Dummy Variable Times Another Independent Variable
(Described with Each Model)
A-10
APPENDIX 4. CALCULATION OF BILLING CYCLE EDD VARIABLE

Appendix 4
Page 1 of 3
Typically, demand for natural gas is strongly affected by weather, including both temperature
and wind. Use per customer models, should include a weather variable that (a) reflects temperature
and wind speed and (b) measures weather in a manner that reflects the way that the customer class
gas usage data is measured and recorded.
It is common operating practice for gas distribution companies, including Berkshire Gas, to
measure and record gas usage data in billing months. For that purpose, customers are divided
into approximately seventeen groups, or billing cycles1, and each group of billing cycle customers is
processed through the Companys billing procedures in succeeding business days throughout the
month. Distribution companies set the billing cycle schedules to accommodate weekends and
holidays, and also to accommodate the completion of the prior months billing cycles so that
customers in a billing cycle are read at approximately the same time of the month, every month.
As a result of this billing process, most of the gas consumption of customers in an early
billing cycle (e.g., Cycles 1 or 2) occurs in the prior calendar month; in contrast, most of the gas
consumption of customers in a later billing cycle (e.g., Cycles 16 or 17) occurs in the current
calendar month. Billing Month deliveries are the gas deliveries as measured by meter readings and
recorded by billing month (which includes consumption in the prior and current calendar month),
and Calendar Month deliveries are estimated gas deliveries by calendar month.
For Berkshires 2016 F&SP Customer Segment models, Concentric converted monthly
EDDs to a billing quarter basis to be consistent with the Customer Segment data that was provided
by the Company in billing months (and summed to billing quarters). Separate billing month EDDs
were calculated for each customer segment based on the number of bills by class read in each billing
cycle and the meter read dates associated with each billing cycle.
For example, if cycle 1 Billing Month December meters were read on December 2 nd and
Billing Month January meters were read on January 5th, cycle 1 January billing month usage would
consist of 5 days of usage in the current month (January 1st 5th) and 29 days of usage in the prior
month (December 3rd 31st). Repeating these calculations of billing cycle days in the current and
prior month for all the billing cycles in a month produces a weighted average percent of usage days
in the current month and the prior month by class. An illustration of these calculations for the
Residential Heating class for January 2016 is presented below:
Dividing the customers into billing cycles allows for the most efficient use of meter reading and billing systems.
A-11

Appendix 4
Page 2 of 3
Weighted Average Percentage of Current Month and Prior Month

Residential Heating - January 2016
Cycle
Cycle
Cycle
Cycle
Cycle
Cycle
Cycle
Cycle
Cycle
Cycle
Cycle
Cycle
Cycle
Cycle
Cycle
Cycle
Cycle
Total
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
# Bills
1,859
1,238
1,985
1,692
1,433
2,558
1,719
2,219
2,470
1,882
3,148
2,449
2,388
1,841
2,170
5
0
31,056
%
5.99%
3.99%
6.39%
5.45%
4.61%
8.24%
5.54%
7.15%
7.95%
6.06%
10.14%
7.89%
7.69%
5.93%
6.99%
0.02%
0.00%
100.00%
Jan-16
January
December
Days
Days
4
30
5
29
6
28
7
27
8
24
11
23
12
22
13
21
14
20
15
17
18
16
19
15
20
14
21
13
22
10
28
2
31
0
January
Weighted
0.24
0.20
0.38
0.38
0.37
0.91
0.66
0.93
1.11
0.91
1.82
1.50
1.54
1.24
1.54
0.00
0.00
13.74
40.84%
December
Weighted
1.80
1.16
1.79
1.47
1.11
1.89
1.22
1.50
1.59
1.03
1.62
1.18
1.08
0.77
0.70
0.00
0.00
19.90
59.16%
These weighted average percents of days of use in the current month and prior month by
class were compiled over approximately twelve years (January 2004 March 2016). The actual
historical percents by class were applied to the historical monthly EDD to determine the percentage
of calendar month actual EDD to be applied (a) to the current billing month and (b) to the prior
billing month by class.2,3 For the forecasted EDD (i.e., normal and design year EDD), a two year
average percent was calculated for each class by month based on historical data from April 2014
through March 2016. The two year average percents by class were then used to determine the
percentage of normal or design year EDD to be applied to the current and prior billing month by
class. Finally, billing month EDD values were compiled to produce billing quarter EDDs by class to
use as independent variables in the quarterly use per customer models.
The chart below compares actual, calendar quarter EDDs and the billing quarter EDDs for
Residential Heating customers for 2006-2016Q1:
2
3
For actual monthly EDDs that occurred prior to 2004, a three year average percent was calculated for each class by
month based on the actual percents from 2004 through 2006.
C&I LLF percent usage in the current month and prior month was calculated as the average results for G-41, G42,
G-43, G-41T, G-42T, and G-43T weighted by usage; C&I HLF percent usage in the current month and prior
month was calculated as the average results for G-51, G52, G-53, G-51T, G-52T, and G-53T weighted by usage.
A-12

Appendix 4
Page 3 of 3
Calendar Quarter vs. Residential Heating Billing Quarter EDD

4,500
Calendar Year EDD
Residential Heating EDD
4,000
3,500
2,500
2,000
1,500
1,000
500
A-13
2016Q1
2015Q3
2015Q1
2014Q3
2014Q1
2013Q3
2013Q1
2012Q3
2012Q1
2011Q3
2011Q1
2010Q3
2010Q1
2009Q3
2009Q1
2008Q3
2008Q1
2007Q3
2007Q1
2006Q3
2006Q1
EDD
3,000
APPENDIX 5. CALCULATION OF NATURAL GAS PRICES

Appendix 5
Page 1 of 3
Because economic theory suggests that price is likely to influence demand, an appropriate natural gas
price variable that reflects the price that Berkshire Gas customers pay for natural gas was developed
to be tested in the use per customer models. Historical natural gas prices were developed from
Company data by dividing the quarterly Customer Segment revenues by quarterly Customer Segment
volume; the calculated values represent the full cost to customers of natural gas at the burnertip. All
nominal historical prices were converted to real 2014 dollars using a consumer price index (CPI)
from the Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration (EIA). To develop forecasted
gas prices by Customer Segment for the Berkshire Gas service territory, these Berkshire historical
prices were used as the dependent variables in regression (econometric) models, with natural gas prices
for New England residential, commercial, and industrial customers compiled using EIA data as the
independent variables.1
Natural gas prices used for the independent variables in the regression models were developed
using a combination of: (1) the EIA Short Term Energy Outlook (STEO),2 which provides quarterly
history and approximately two years of quarterly forecasts, and (2) EIAs 2015 Annual Energy Outlook
with Projections to 2040 (AEO).3 The STEO and AEO both provide New England natural gas
prices for residential, commercial, and industrial customer classes. All EIA prices were converted to
2014 dollars using CPI. To produce quarterly EIA New England gas prices through the end of the
forecast period that were used as the independent variables in the gas price regressions, the quarterly
STEO data was used through 2017, and the appropriate forecasted annual growth rate from the AEO
was applied from 2017 through the end of the forecast period to develop the longer-term price
forecast.
Econometric forecasts of natural gas prices by Customer Segment for the Berkshire Gas
service territory as a function of quarterly EIA New England gas prices and various time-specific
dummy variables and AR terms were developed. EIA New England gas prices for residential
customers were used to forecast quarterly Residential Heat and Residential Non-Heat gas prices for
Berkshire Gas. EIA New England gas prices for commercial customers were used to forecast
quarterly LLF C&I gas prices for Berkshire Gas. EIA New England gas prices for industrial customers
were used to forecast quarterly HLF C&I gas prices for Berkshire Gas.
1
2
3
Addresses the directive in the 2014 F&SP Order to develop econometric forecasts of its internal gas prices.
Dated April 11, 2016, Table 5b, U.S. Regional Natural Gas Prices.
Dated April 2015, Natural Gas Delivered Prices by End-Use Sector and Census Division.
A-14

Appendix 5
Page 2 of 3
The price variable that was used in the use per customer models was determined by calculating
rolling four quarter averages from the historical and forecasted quarterly natural gas prices resulting
from the regression models. The price variable, measured as rolling four quarter averages, reflects the
concept that gas equipment purchases and changes in gas usage behavior are customer decisions that
occur over an extended twelve month period.4 The following graphs illustrate the quarterly historical
and forecast natural gas prices and the rolling four quarters price variable that was used in the use per
customer models.
Residential Natural Gas Prices

History
$34.00
Forecast
$32.00
$30.00
$28.00
$26.00
$24.00
Real $2014/Mcf
$22.00
$20.00
$18.00
$16.00
$14.00
$12.00
$10.00
Residential Non-Heating Quarterly Price
Residential Non-Heating Rolling 4-Quarter Price
Residential Heating Quarterly Price
Residential Heating Rolling 4-Quarter Price
2021Q1
2020Q1
2019Q1
2018Q1
2017Q1
2016Q1
2015Q1
2014Q1
2013Q1
2012Q1
2011Q1
2010Q1
2009Q1
2008Q1
2007Q1
2006Q1
2005Q1
2004Q1
2003Q1
2002Q1
2001Q1
2000Q1
1999Q1
1998Q1
1997Q1
1996Q1
1995Q1
1994Q1
$8.00
A price variable that is calculated as rolling four quarter averages also avoids a statistical problem with data known as
simultaneity, which occurs when two variables have an effect on each other at the same time. For example, the
price of gas service, measured as average revenues per therm may be generally higher in the summer, and lower in the
winter because of the impact of fixed customer charges on the average rate, divided by low delivery quantities in the
summer and high delivery quantities in the winter. Simultaneity occurs because in this example, a high price did not
cause low usage; rather, a high price was caused by low usage.
A-15

Appendix 5
Page 3 of 3
C&I Natural Gas Prices

$22.00
Forecast
History
$20.00
$18.00
$16.00
$12.00
$10.00
$8.00
$6.00
$4.00
C&I LLF Quarterly Price
C&I LLF Rolling 4-Quarter Price
C&I HLF Quarterly Price
C&I HLF Rolling 4-Quarter Price
A-16
2021Q1
2020Q1
2019Q1
2018Q1
2017Q1
2016Q1
2015Q1
2014Q1
2013Q1
2012Q1
2011Q1
2010Q1
2009Q1
2008Q1
2007Q1
2006Q1
2005Q1
2004Q1
2003Q1
2002Q1
2001Q1
2000Q1
1999Q1
1998Q1
1997Q1
1996Q1
1995Q1
$2.00
1994Q1
Real $2014/Mcf
$14.00

Appendix 6
Page 1 of 7
APPENDIX 6. MODELING OF FORECAST EQUATIONS STATISTICAL TECHNIQUES & GLOSSARY
Regression modeling techniques were used to generate the demand forecasts. Customer
segment regression models were developed for (1) number of customers, (2) use per customer, and
(3) Capacity Exempt volumes, and a total company regression model was developed for daily
Planning Load; all models were based on external variables such as weather, price and other
economic and demographic variables. All analyses were conducted using the IBM SPSSTM software
package.1
Regression Analysis
Econometrics involves the application of statistical techniques and analyses to the study of
economic data. A fundamental statistical method of econometrics is regression analysis, which is
concerned with the study of the relationship between one variable, the dependent variable, and one
or more other variables, the independent or explanatory variables. One of the primary applications
of regression analysis is to predict or forecast values of the dependent variable, given the values of
the independent variables.2 To develop forecast models of number of customers, use per customer
or demand3 for Berkshire Gas, regression equations that included appropriate variables (i.e., weather,
natural gas price, economic data, dummy variables etc.) were identified and tested. The final models
explain historical values of the dependent variable as a function of historical values of the
independent variables; the final models produce forecasted values of the dependent variable based
on forecasted values of the independent variables.
Sound econometric modeling and analysis generally follows a common process: (a) create
statement of theory; (b) collect data; (c) specify mathematical model; (d) specify statistical model; (e)
estimate model parameters; (f) check model accuracy; (g) test hypotheses; and (h) use model for
forecasting. (Essentials of Econometrics, Damodar Gujarati, p. 3 (1999 Irwin McGraw-Hill)).
The forecast models that were developed for this F&SP followed this process. First, based
on economic theory and standard utility forecasting practice, independent variables were identified
that may affect the dependent variable in each equation, and the appropriate sign of those variables
was determined. For example, the EDD variable is expected to affect use per customer, and the
1
2
3
In 2009, SPSS was acquired by IBM

A glossary of statistical terms can be found at the end of this Appendix 6.
A total of 12 regression models were developed: four number of customers models, four use per customer models,
one Company Use model, two Capacity Exempt models and one Planning Load model.
A-17

Appendix 6
Page 2 of 7
relationship would be expected to be positive (i.e. when EDDs increase, demand should increase,
and vice versa). The price variable is also expected to affect use per customer and the relationship
would be expected to be negative (i.e. when natural gas prices increase, demand should decrease, and
vice versa).
For each model, after the possible explanatory variables were identified and the data sets
were developed, preliminary regression equations were created to test various combinations of
independent variables. Regression equations were selected for further testing and evaluation from
the preliminary regression equations based on (1) the theoretical relevance and signs of the
independent variables; (2) the results of various statistical tests that assess the significance of the
independent variables included in the equation; and (3) the explanatory power of the equation as a
whole. Preliminary regression equations were discarded if the sign of an independent variable was
counter to expectations or if important variables were not significant. The statistical significance of
each independent variable was determined by examining the variable t-test values; variables that
were significant at the 0.10 level were included in a model.4 Lastly, equations were evaluated based
on explanatory power, as determined by the R2. Models that met all of these criteria were subjected
to further testing for autocorrelation, heteroskedasticity, multicollinearity, stability, and outliers; the
performance of each model was also assessed using an ex post analysis.
Autocorrelation
Statistical theory requires that the residuals associated with a regression equation (the
errors) be independent of one another (i.e., there should be no relationship or correlation in the
residuals over time) to ensure that the equation is efficient.5 Correlation of residuals over time is
known as autocorrelation. One aspect of time series analysis is to identify and correct for
autocorrelation.
Autocorrelation can be present between two consecutive periods (lag 1 or first-order),
periods separated by one period (lag 2 or second-order), periods separated by two periods (lag 3 or
third-order), etc.
4
5
The autocorrelation function (ACF) and partial autocorrelation function
Depending on specific circumstances, acceptable statistical practice allows for including variables that are not
statistically significant in a regression model.
An efficient model has parameters with the smallest (i.e. minimum) variance.
A-18

Appendix 6
Page 3 of 7
6
(PACF) values and graphs can be used to test for orders of autocorrelation. Advanced statistical
packages correct for higher order autocorrelation, based on user inputs. The F&SP forecast models
were tested for orders of autocorrelation from 1 through 8 using the ACF and PACF values and
graphs. If autocorrelation was identified, the appropriate autoregressive terms (AR) were added to
the regression equation to correct for the autocorrelation (e.g., autocorrelation at lag 4 would be
corrected by adding an AR4 term to the regression equation). The regression equations were reevaluated after any necessary corrections for autocorrelation were made.
If correcting for
autocorrelation in residuals decreased an independent variables t-statistic to the extent that the
variable was no longer significant, the equation parameters were re-estimated with the statistically
insignificant variables excluded.
Heteroskedasticity
To ensure that a regression equation is efficient, statistical theory also requires that the
residuals associated with a regression equation have constant variance. Non-constant variance is
known as heteroskedasticity. The F&SP forecast models were tested for heteroskedasticity using
Whites Test. The Whites Test statistic is developed by regressing the squared residuals from the
original regression against the original independent variables, the independent variables squared, and
the cross products. The R2 from this regression is multiplied by the number of observations and
compared against a 2 distribution to test for significance; models with Whites Test results that were
not significant at the 0.01 level were considered to not exhibit heteroskedasticity.
Multicollinearity
A key assumption of multiple regression analysis is that there is no exact linear relationship
among the independent variables.
In the case of an exact linear relationship (or perfect
multicollinearity) estimation of the parameters of the model is not possible. In practice, there is
always some degree of less-than-exact multicollinearity among the independent variables of a
multiple regression model.
To test for multicollinearity, Concentric calculated and evaluated a correlation matrix of
driving variables7 for each model developed8. The correlation matrixes did not include interactive
6
The presence of autocorrelation is indicated by ACF or PACF values that fall beyond two standard errors.
Variables that are not driving variables include, for example, single point dummy variables or very short duration
shift dummy variables.
A-19

Appendix 6
Page 4 of 7
terms (or product terms) if one or more of its component parts were also in the model, because
according to Jaccard and Turrisi (2003):
high levels of collinearity between a product term and its component parts
generally will not be problematic for interaction analysis unless the collinearity is so
high that it disrupts the computer algorithm designed to isolate the relevant standard
errors in a standard computer statistical package. (Jaccard, James and Turrisi, Robert,
Interaction Effects in Multiple Regression. Sage Publications, 2003, p. 27-28)
If a particular equation demonstrated high correlation values among driving variables (i.e.,
greater than 0.9, or less than -0.9), Concentric performed a Klein test to further evaluate the
presence of multicollinearity.9 In those instances where the Klein test failed, the equations were respecified to address the multicollinearity.
Stability and Structural Change
The Chow test was used to test for break points or structural changes in each model. The
Chow test involves splitting the historical data into two parts and comparing the sum of squared
errors from the original model to the sum of squared errors of the two subset models that are based
on re-estimating the original model prior to and post the potential structural break. If the two
subset models have significantly lower sum of squared errors than the original model, then the
original model is considered to have failed the stability test. Models with Chow test results that were
not significant at the 0.01 level were considered to be stable.
The Chow test was performed for each regression equation for any break point suspected of
being associated with a structural change. If any structural change was determined to be statistically
significant on the basis of the Chow test, shifts in either the intercept or a particular slope coefficient
associated with the structural change were incorporated into the model with additional dummy
variables and interaction terms.
Outliers
Residual values are provided for each customer segment model in the detailed statistical
appendix, which contains tables of quarterly values of actuals, fitted values, residuals, percent
8
9
The model shows no multicollinearity in driving variables D.P.U. Order 10-100, Berkshire Gas Company, p.
11.
Basic Econometrics, Damodar N. Gujarati and Dawn C. Porter, McGraw-Hill Book Company, 2009, pp. 337-341.
A-20

Appendix 6
Page 5 of 7
residuals, and standardized residuals. Standardized residuals express the residuals in terms of their
deviations from average values (i.e. standard errors), providing a basis for identification of possible
dummy variables to be included in the set of explanatory variables in a model. Concentric respecified models that had standardized residuals over 3.0, which indicates an outlier that is
approximately outside the 99.7% confidence interval.
Ex Post Analysis
An ex post forecast provides a method to evaluate a forecasting model. The Company was
directed in the 2008 F&SP Order (D.P.U. 08-39) to prepare an ex post forecast of the last four
quarters of historical data. Thus, an ex post analysis was conducted by suppressing the last four of
historical data and re-estimating the model. The forecast for the suppressed quarters was compared
with the actual data for these quarters and the parameter estimates from the new models with the
suppressed quarters were compared with the parameter estimates from the original models.10
Summary
If the overall explanatory power of the model was drastically reduced after correcting for the
statistical issues described above, another preliminary model was examined. This process continued
until a model was developed with appropriate statistical properties and explanatory power. Details
associated with final model results, including all parameters, residuals, and the results of all the
statistical tests described above can be found in Appendix 14.
10
As noted in Appendix 14, there were several cases in which structural shifts occurred near or during the ex post
period. Because the ex post model cannot predict these structural shifts, results for the ex post analysis for these
models have limited meaning and usefulness. Concentric appropriately accounted for these structural shifts when
developing the models.
A-21

Appendix 6
Page 6 of 7
Glossary of Statistical Terms11

Term
Adjusted R2
Autocorrelation
Autocorrelation Function
(ACF)
Correlation
Dependent Variable
Estimate (of the

Coefficient of the
Independent Variable)
F statistic
Forecast
Independent Variable
Model
11
Definition
A measure of the overall goodness of fit for the regression model,
taking into account the number of independent variables in the model.
Adjusted R2 ranges from 0 to 1; the closer the Adjusted R2 value is to
1, the better the fit of the model. Adjusted R2 can be interpreted as
the amount of variability of the dependent variable that is explained by
the regression equation, taking into consideration the number of
independent variables in the model.
A measure of the correlation of the values of a series with the values
lagged by 1 or more orders (Equivalent terms include: serial
correlation).
A function defined as the autocorrelation of the residuals at a selected
range of orders of autocorrelation; can be shown as a graph
A measure of the extent of a statistical relationship between two
variables. The value of a correlation can range from -1 to 1, with
values close to +/-1 indicating a strong relationship between two
variables and a correlation close to 0 indicating no relationship
between the variables.
A dependent variable is one that is observed to change in response to
the independent variables (Equivalent terms include: response variable,
result variable, outcome variable, endogenous variable, output variable,
Y-variable)
A measure of the value of the model parameter (i.e. independent
variable) (Equivalent terms include: coefficient of the independent
variable)
A measure of whether a regression equation is significant (i.e., whether
the set of independent variables in a model explains a significant
portion of the variability of the dependent variable). Calculated as the
mean-square regression divided by the mean square residuals.
The value of the F statistic ranges from zero to positive infinity, with
large positive values indicating that the model is significant.
(Equivalent terms include: t-Statistic, t-Test, Students t)
The dependent variable values predicted by the model for the forecast
period
A variable used to explain the behavior of the Dependent Variable in a
regression equation (Equivalent terms include: explanatory variable,
exogenous variable, external variable, predictor variable, causal
variable, input variable, X-variable, regressors)
An equation consisting of a set of independent variables and their
parameters to explain a dependent variable
These terms are defined as they relate to econometric/regression analysis used in this F&SP.
A-22

Appendix 6
Page 7 of 7
Term
Number of Observations
(N)
Partial Autocorrelation
Function (PACF)
R2
Residual
Root Mean Square Error

(RMSE)
Significance of the t
statistic
Standard Error (of the

Estimate of the
Independent Variable)
(SE)
t statistic
Definition
The amount of data used to develop the model (i.e., the number of
data points that are included for each variable in the model)
A function defined as the partial autocorrelation of the residuals at a
selected range of orders of autocorrelation. Partial autocorrelation is a
measure of the correlation of the values of a series with values lagged
by one or more orders, after the effects of correlations at the
intervening lags have been removed; can be shown as a graph
A measure of the overall goodness of fit for the regression model. R2
ranges from 0 to 1; the closer the R2 value is to 1, the better the fit of
the model. R2 can be interpreted as the amount of variability of the
dependent variable that is explained by the regression equation
The difference between the actual historical values of the dependent
variable and the values predicted by the model (i.e. the model fits)
(Other equivalent terms include: error, error term)
A measure of the variability of the residuals. An equivalent term is
Standard Error of the Regression.
A measure of the strength (or significance level) of the t statistic. A
low value of the significance level of the t statistic is desired, as it
indicates the related independent variable is significant in the equation.
In this F&SP, only independent variables that had t-statistics that were
significant at the 0.10 level (i.e. less than 0.10) were included in the
final equation. (An equivalent term is: p-value) Although statistical
significance is dependent on the number of observations and number
of explanatory variables in the equation, generally, t statistics greater
than 2.0 are statistically significant
A measure of how much the value of a test statistic varies (i.e. the
standard deviation of the sampling distribution for a statistic), in this
case the Estimate of the Independent Variable
A measure that tests if the coefficient for an independent variable is
statistically different than zero. Calculated as the Estimate of the
Independent Variable divided by its Standard Error. The value of t
ranges from negative infinity to positive infinity, with values far from
zero indicating that the independent variable is significant in the model
(Other equivalent terms include: t-Statistic, t-Test, Students t)
A-23

Appendix 7
Page 1 of 8
APPENDIX 7. UNBILLED SALES
Unbilled sales refers to gas that has been used by customers by the end of a calendar month,
but that has not been recorded by the distribution company, because most customers meters are not
read on the last day of the month. To develop a forecast of unbilled sales, Concentric determined the
percent of demand that occurred in the prior period, but was billed in the current period (i.e., unbilled
sales) based on an analysis of eleven gas years of meter read dates by billing cycle and the number of
meters read in each billing cycle by class. Unbilled sales percentages were determined seasonally (i.e.,
winter and summer) and applied to the seasonal demand forecast.
Specifically, the same meter read dates and number of bills by billing cycle that were used to
convert calendar EDDs to billing EDDs as discussed in Appendix 4, were used to determine the
percent of unbilled sales by season by class according to the following process: (1) the number of
customer usage days (i.e., number of days times the number of bills) in each billing month that
occurred in the current calendar month versus the prior calendar month was calculated by class for
the last eleven gas years; (2) these customer usage days were compiled by season and the percent of
customer usage days that occurred in the prior season, but were billed in the current season and the
percent of customer usage days that occurred in the current season and were billed in the current
season were calculated; and (3) two-year averages of the winter and summer percent of customer
usage days that occurred in the prior and current seasons were calculated and used to calculate
forecasted unbilled sales by class (historical unbilled sales are based on the actual winter and summer
percent of customer usage days that occurred in the prior and current seasons).
To determine the calendar season demand, the billing season demand was divided into the
portion that occurred in the current calendar season and the portion that occurred in the prior
calendar season based on the average percentage of customer usage days in current and prior seasons
discussed above. Demand from the current calendar season was added to the portion of demand
from the next calendar season that occurred in the prior calendar season to produce calendar season
demand. These calculations, which were conducted by Customer Segment, are shown in the tables
below.
A-24

Appendix 7
Page 2 of 8
Calendar Period Sales as a Percent of Billing Period Sales1
Residential
Residential
Regular
Heating
C&I LLF
C&I HLF
Winter
87.1%
87.8%
92.8%
95.4%
Summer
91.1%
91.4%
94.8%
97.3%
G=
E(Current
Period) +
F(Next
Period)
B = Customer
Segment
C = Calculated
Forecast
in Attachment
Result
Appendix 7a
H=GD=1-C
E=B*C
F=B*D
B
% of Billing
Billing
% of Billing
Period in Billing Period Period in
Net
Residential
Forecast
Period in
Prior
in Current
Prior
Forecast
Unbilled
NonBilling Period
Current
Calendar
Calendar
Calendar
Calendar
Sales
Heating
(Dth)
Calendar Period
Period
Period (Dth) Period (Dth) Period (Dth) (Dth)
winter
2016/17
27,108
87.1%
12.9%
23,613
3,495
26,110
(998)
summer
2017
28,111
91.1%
8.9%
25,614
2,497
28,839
729
winter
2017/18
25,017
87.1%
12.9%
21,792
3,226
24,089
(928)
summer
2018
25,864
91.1%
8.9%
23,567
2,297
26,522
658
winter
2018/19
22,921
87.1%
12.9%
19,965
2,955
22,062
(858)
summer
2019
23,609
91.1%
8.9%
21,512
2,097
24,196
587
winter
2019/2020
20,820
87.1%
12.9%
18,135
2,684
20,033
(787)
summer
2020
21,358
91.1%
8.9%
19,461
1,897
21,875
517
winter
2020/21
18,726
87.1%
12.9%
16,311
2,414
18,009
(717)
summer
2021
19,113
91.1%
8.9%
17,416
1,698
19,560
447
A
Attachment Appendix 7(a) contains the eleven years of data used to calculate the unbilled sales percentages by season
by class.
A-25

Appendix 7
Page 3 of 8
G=
E(Current
Period) +
F(Next
Period)
B = Customer C = Calculated
Segment
in Attachment
Forecast Result Appendix 7a
D=1-C
E=B*C
F=B*D
% of
Billing
Billing
Residential
% of Billing
Period in Billing Period Period in
Heating
Forecast
Period in
Prior
in Current
Prior
Forecast
Billing Period
Current
Calendar
Calendar
Calendar
Calendar
(Dth)
Calendar Period
Period
Period (Dth) Period (Dth) Period (Dth)
winter
2016/17
2,215,053
87.8%
12.2%
1,944,442
270,611
2,026,141
summer
2017
953,467
91.4%
8.6%
871,768
81,699
1,145,669
winter
2017/18
2,241,984
87.8%
12.2%
1,968,083
273,901
2,050,563
summer
2018
962,583
91.4%
8.6%
880,104
82,480
1,156,998
winter
2018/19
2,266,486
87.8%
12.2%
1,989,592
276,894
2,072,372
summer
2019
966,087
91.4%
8.6%
883,307
82,780
1,162,944
winter
2019/2020
2,288,938
87.8%
12.2%
2,009,301
279,637
2,092,415
summer
2020
969,984
91.4%
8.6%
886,870
83,114
1,169,315
winter
2020/21
2,311,924
87.8%
12.2%
2,029,479
282,445
2,113,032
summer
2021
975,109
91.4%
8.6%
891,556
83,553
1,176,739
A-26
H=GB
Net
Unbilled
Sales
(Dth)
(188,912)
192,202
(191,421)
194,414
(194,114)
196,857
(196,523)
199,331
(198,892)
201,630

Appendix 7
Page 4 of 8
A
LLF
winter
2016/17
summer
2017
winter
2017/18
summer
2018
winter
2018/19
summer
2019
winter
2019/2020
summer
2020
winter
2020/21
summer
2021
B=
Customer
Segment
Forecast
Result
C = Calculated
in Attachment
Appendix 7a
D=1-C
E=B*C
F=B*D
% of Billing % of Billing
Period in
Period in Billing Period Billing Period
Forecast
Current
Prior
in Current
in Prior
Billing Period
Calendar
Calendar
Calendar
Calendar
(Dth)
Period
Period
Period (Dth) Period (Dth)
G=
E(Current
Period) +
F(Next
Period)
H=G-B
Forecast
Calendar
Period
(Dth)
Net
Unbilled
Sales (Dth)
2,079,217
92.8%
7.2%
1,928,516
150,701
1,968,556
(110,661)
776,806
94.8%
5.2%
736,766
40,040
888,473
111,667
2,093,092
92.8%
7.2%
1,941,386
151,707
1,981,947
(111,145)
786,920
94.8%
5.2%
746,358
40,562
899,710
112,790
2,115,782
92.8%
7.2%
1,962,431
153,351
2,002,833
(112,949)
783,827
94.8%
5.2%
743,425
40,402
897,176
113,349
2,121,292
92.8%
7.2%
1,967,541
153,751
2,007,383
(113,909)
772,959
94.8%
5.2%
733,117
39,842
887,202
114,243
2,125,904
92.8%
7.2%
1,971,819
154,085
2,011,315
(114,590)
766,236
94.8%
5.2%
726,740
39,495
881,598
115,362
A-27

Appendix 7
Page 5 of 8
A
HLF
winter
2016/17
summer
2017
winter
2017/18
summer
2018
winter
2018/19
summer
2019
winter
2019/2020
summer
2020
winter
2020/21
summer
2021
B=
Customer
Segment
Forecast
Result
C = Calculated
in Attachment
Appendix 7a
D=1-C
E=B*C
F=B*D
% of Billing % of Billing
Period in
Period in Billing Period Billing Period
Forecast
Current
Prior
in Current
in Prior
Billing Period
Calendar
Calendar
Calendar
Calendar
(Dth)
Period
Period
Period (Dth) Period (Dth)
G=
E(Current
Period) +
F(Next
Period) H = G - B
Forecast
Calendar
Period
(Dth)
Net
Unbilled
Sales (Dth)
724,164
95.4%
4.6%
690,539
33,625
714,089
(10,075)
872,717
97.3%
2.7%
849,167
23,550
882,462
9,745
717,068
95.4%
4.6%
683,773
33,295
707,000
(10,068)
860,757
97.3%
2.7%
837,530
23,227
870,319
9,562
706,172
95.4%
4.6%
673,383
32,789
696,160
(10,013)
844,055
97.3%
2.7%
821,279
22,777
853,502
9,447
693,981
95.4%
4.6%
661,758
32,223
684,128
(9,853)
829,004
97.3%
2.7%
806,634
22,370
838,402
9,398
684,177
95.4%
4.6%
652,409
31,768
674,445
(9,733)
816,578
97.3%
2.7%
794,543
22,035
825,932
9,353
A-28

Appendix 7
Page 6 of 8
Attachment Appendix 7(a)
R1
Billing Period
winter 04/05
summer 05
winter 05/06
summer 06
winter 06/07
summer 07
winter 07/08
summer 08
winter 08/09
summer 09
winter 09/10
summer 10
winter 10/11
summer 11
winter 11/12
summer 12
winter 12/13
summer 13
winter 13/14
summer 14
winter 14/15
summer 15
winter 15/16
Winter Average (2 yr)
Summer Average (2 yr)
% of
Billing
Period in
Prior
Calendar
Period
11.4%
8.9%
11.0%
8.6%
11.6%
8.5%
11.7%
8.3%
12.1%
8.6%
11.8%
9.0%
11.4%
8.9%
11.1%
8.6%
12.4%
8.5%
13.4%
8.5%
13.1%
9.3%
12.7%
% of
Billing
Period in
Current
Calendar
Period
88.6%
91.1%
89.0%
91.4%
88.4%
91.5%
88.3%
91.7%
87.9%
91.4%
88.2%
91.0%
88.6%
91.1%
88.9%
91.4%
87.6%
91.5%
86.6%
91.5%
86.9%
90.7%
87.3%
12.9%
8.9%
87.1%
91.1%
R3
% of
Billing
Period in
Prior
Calendar
Period
10.9%
8.7%
10.5%
8.6%
11.1%
8.5%
11.6%
8.1%
11.4%
8.5%
11.3%
8.9%
10.8%
8.7%
10.4%
8.4%
11.6%
8.2%
12.6%
8.2%
12.4%
8.9%
12.1%
12.2%
8.6%
% of
Billing
Period in
Current
Calendar
Period
89.1%
91.3%
89.5%
91.4%
88.9%
91.5%
88.4%
91.9%
88.6%
91.5%
88.7%
91.1%
89.2%
91.3%
89.6%
91.6%
88.4%
91.8%
87.4%
91.8%
87.6%
91.1%
87.9%
87.8%
91.4%
A-29
G-41
% of
% of
Billing
Billing
Period in
Period in
Prior
Current
Calendar
Calendar
Period
Period
10.2%
89.8%
8.4%
91.6%
10.0%
90.0%
8.3%
91.7%
10.5%
89.5%
8.2%
91.8%
10.9%
89.1%
8.0%
92.0%
10.7%
89.3%
8.2%
91.8%
10.6%
89.4%
8.6%
91.4%
10.3%
89.7%
8.3%
91.7%
9.8%
90.2%
8.1%
91.9%
11.2%
88.8%
8.1%
91.9%
12.0%
88.0%
8.0%
92.0%
12.0%
88.0%
8.8%
91.2%
11.7%
88.3%
11.8%
8.4%
88.2%
91.6%
G-41T
% of
% of
Billing
Billing
Period in
Period in
Prior
Current
Calendar
Calendar
Period
Period
10.3%
89.7%
7.6%
92.4%
9.2%
90.8%
7.0%
93.0%
9.8%
90.2%
7.5%
92.5%
10.6%
89.4%
7.3%
92.7%
9.8%
90.2%
7.7%
92.3%
10.0%
90.0%
7.9%
92.1%
9.7%
90.3%
7.9%
92.1%
9.4%
90.6%
7.6%
92.4%
10.2%
89.8%
7.5%
92.5%
11.7%
88.3%
7.8%
92.2%
11.6%
88.4%
8.5%
91.5%
11.8%
88.2%
11.7%
8.1%
88.3%
91.9%
G-42
% of
% of
Billing
Billing
Period in
Period in
Prior
Current
Calendar
Calendar
Period
Period
7.6%
92.4%
6.3%
93.7%
8.1%
91.9%
6.5%
93.5%
8.5%
91.5%
6.2%
93.8%
8.4%
91.6%
5.8%
94.2%
8.5%
91.5%
6.1%
93.9%
8.2%
91.8%
6.6%
93.4%
8.3%
91.7%
6.1%
93.9%
7.8%
92.2%
6.1%
93.9%
8.4%
91.6%
6.3%
93.7%
10.0%
90.0%
6.3%
93.7%
9.1%
90.9%
6.7%
93.3%
8.0%
92.0%
8.5%
6.5%
91.5%
93.5%

Appendix 7
Page 7 of 8
Billing Period
G-42T
G-43
G-43T
G-51
G-51T
G-52
% of
% of
% of
% of
% of
% of
% of
% of
% of
% of
% of
% of
Billing
Billing
Billing
Billing
Billing
Billing
Billing
Billing
Billing
Billing
Billing
Billing
Period in Period in Period in Period in Period in Period in Period in Period in Period in Period in Period in Period in
Prior
Current
Prior
Current
Prior
Current
Prior
Current
Prior
Current
Prior
Current
Calendar Calendar Calendar Calendar Calendar Calendar Calendar Calendar Calendar Calendar Calendar Calendar
Period
Period
Period
Period
Period
Period
Period
Period
Period
Period
Period
Period
winter 04/05
summer 05
winter 05/06
summer 06
winter 06/07
summer 07
winter 07/08
summer 08
winter 08/09
summer 09
winter 09/10
summer 10
winter 10/11
summer 11
winter 11/12
summer 12
winter 12/13
summer 13
winter 13/14
summer 14
winter 14/15
summer 15
winter 15/16
5.0%
3.7%
5.5%
3.8%
5.1%
4.0%
5.3%
4.0%
5.0%
4.0%
5.5%
4.3%
5.9%
4.1%
5.5%
4.2%
5.8%
4.8%
8.4%
4.6%
6.6%
4.7%
7.9%
95.0%
96.3%
94.5%
96.2%
94.9%
96.0%
94.7%
96.0%
95.0%
96.0%
94.5%
95.7%
94.1%
95.9%
94.5%
95.8%
94.2%
95.2%
91.6%
95.4%
93.4%
95.3%
92.1%
1.1%
2.1%
2.5%
0.9%
2.9%
3.0%
3.7%
3.4%
5.8%
3.1%
3.2%
3.2%
4.3%
1.8%
3.2%
1.8%
2.0%
3.0%
7.7%
2.9%
2.9%
2.5%
3.1%
98.9%
97.9%
97.5%
99.1%
97.1%
97.0%
96.3%
96.6%
94.2%
96.9%
96.8%
96.8%
95.7%
98.2%
96.8%
98.2%
98.0%
97.0%
92.3%
97.1%
97.1%
97.5%
96.9%
1.3%
0.4%
1.4%
0.6%
0.8%
0.8%
0.9%
1.0%
0.7%
0.8%
1.2%
0.9%
1.4%
0.7%
1.3%
1.2%
1.1%
1.1%
2.6%
1.1%
1.3%
1.2%
1.8%
98.7%
99.6%
98.6%
99.4%
99.2%
99.2%
99.1%
99.0%
99.3%
99.2%
98.8%
99.1%
98.6%
99.3%
98.7%
98.8%
98.9%
98.9%
97.4%
98.9%
98.7%
98.8%
98.2%
10.2%
8.0%
9.8%
8.0%
10.3%
7.9%
10.9%
7.0%
10.9%
7.9%
11.0%
8.4%
10.4%
8.0%
9.8%
7.8%
11.0%
7.7%
12.0%
7.7%
11.6%
8.5%
11.5%
89.8%
92.0%
90.2%
92.0%
89.7%
92.1%
89.1%
93.0%
89.1%
92.1%
89.0%
91.6%
89.6%
92.0%
90.2%
92.2%
89.0%
92.3%
88.0%
92.3%
88.4%
91.5%
88.5%
10.3%
8.0%
9.8%
7.3%
9.9%
7.1%
10.4%
6.5%
9.8%
7.2%
10.8%
8.0%
9.4%
7.6%
9.4%
6.9%
9.8%
6.9%
11.3%
7.3%
10.9%
7.6%
11.1%
89.7%
92.0%
90.2%
92.7%
90.1%
92.9%
89.6%
93.5%
90.2%
92.8%
89.2%
92.0%
90.6%
92.4%
90.6%
93.1%
90.2%
93.1%
88.7%
92.7%
89.1%
92.4%
88.9%
9.3%
7.0%
9.1%
6.9%
9.6%
6.9%
9.7%
6.5%
9.5%
7.2%
9.8%
7.2%
9.8%
7.1%
9.1%
7.3%
10.2%
7.6%
11.6%
7.0%
10.6%
7.6%
9.9%
90.7%
93.0%
90.9%
93.1%
90.4%
93.1%
90.3%
93.5%
90.5%
92.8%
90.2%
92.8%
90.2%
92.9%
90.9%
92.7%
89.8%
92.4%
88.4%
93.0%
89.4%
92.4%
90.1%

7.2%
4.6%
92.8%
95.4%
3.0%
2.7%
97.0%
97.3%
1.6%
1.2%
98.4%
98.8%
11.6%
8.1%
88.4%
91.9%
11.0%
7.4%
89.0%
92.6%
10.2%
7.3%
89.8%
92.7%
A-30

Appendix 7
Page 8 of 8
Billing Period
G-52T
G-53
G-53T
LLF (weighted)
HLF (weighted)
% of
% of
% of
% of
% of
% of
% of
% of
Billing
Billing
Billing
Billing
Billing
Billing
Billing
% of Billing Billing
% of Billing
Period in Period in Period in Period in Period in Period in Period in
Period in
Period in
Period in
Prior
Current
Prior
Current
Prior
Current
Prior
Current
Prior
Current
Calendar Calendar Calendar Calendar Calendar Calendar Calendar
Calendar
Calendar
Calendar
Period
Period
Period
Period
Period
Period
Period
Period
Period
Period
winter 04/05
summer 05
winter 05/06
summer 06
winter 06/07
summer 07
winter 07/08
summer 08
winter 08/09
summer 09
winter 09/10
summer 10
winter 10/11
summer 11
winter 11/12
summer 12
winter 12/13
summer 13
winter 13/14
summer 14
winter 14/15
summer 15
winter 15/16
5.4%
4.2%
5.0%
3.8%
4.4%
3.9%
5.3%
3.9%
4.7%
3.6%
6.8%
5.4%
6.3%
5.2%
6.1%
5.0%
6.5%
5.1%
8.2%
5.8%
7.9%
5.4%
8.8%
94.6%
95.8%
95.0%
96.2%
95.6%
96.1%
94.7%
96.1%
95.3%
96.4%
93.2%
94.6%
93.7%
94.8%
93.9%
95.0%
93.5%
94.9%
91.8%
94.2%
92.1%
94.6%
91.2%
3.0%
1.1%
1.7%
0.8%
1.0%
2.4%
2.8%
1.6%
1.3%
1.2%
2.5%
1.5%
2.7%
1.1%
2.3%
1.4%
1.4%
1.6%
4.8%
1.7%
1.1%
0.9%
2.3%
97.0%
98.9%
98.3%
99.2%
99.0%
97.6%
97.2%
98.4%
98.7%
98.8%
97.5%
98.5%
97.3%
98.9%
97.7%
98.6%
98.6%
98.4%
95.2%
98.3%
98.9%
99.1%
97.7%
1.6%
0.9%
1.6%
0.9%
1.2%
1.0%
1.2%
1.5%
1.5%
0.2%
0.5%
0.4%
0.6%
0.3%
0.5%
0.9%
0.7%
0.7%
1.2%
0.6%
0.4%
0.2%
0.6%
98.4%
99.1%
98.4%
99.1%
98.8%
99.0%
98.8%
98.5%
98.5%
99.8%
99.5%
99.6%
99.4%
99.7%
99.5%
99.1%
99.3%
99.3%
98.8%
99.4%
99.6%
99.8%
99.4%
6.4%
4.9%
6.4%
4.8%
6.4%
5.0%
6.3%
4.6%
6.3%
4.6%
6.3%
4.6%
6.3%
4.4%
5.9%
4.3%
6.3%
4.8%
8.2%
5.0%
7.2%
5.4%
7.3%
93.6%
95.1%
93.6%
95.2%
93.6%
95.0%
93.7%
95.4%
93.7%
95.4%
93.7%
95.4%
93.7%
95.6%
94.1%
95.7%
93.7%
95.2%
91.8%
95.0%
92.8%
94.6%
92.7%
5.7%
4.1%
5.5%
4.1%
5.3%
4.2%
5.9%
3.8%
5.5%
3.3%
4.9%
3.3%
4.1%
2.8%
3.8%
3.0%
4.2%
2.9%
5.5%
2.8%
4.6%
2.6%
4.6%
94.3%
95.9%
94.5%
95.9%
94.7%
95.8%
94.1%
96.2%
94.5%
96.7%
95.1%
96.7%
95.9%
97.2%
96.2%
97.0%
95.8%
97.1%
94.5%
97.2%
95.4%
97.4%
95.4%

8.4%
5.6%
91.6%
94.4%
1.7%
1.3%
98.3%
98.7%
0.5%
0.4%
99.5%
99.6%
7.2%
5.2%
92.8%
94.8%
4.6%
2.7%
95.4%
97.3%
A-31

Appendix 8
Page 1 of 2
APPENDIX 8. CALCULATION OF ENERGY EFFICIENCY FORECAST (DTH)
Residential
Year
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
Average
Historical
Incremental Energy
Efficiency Savings
16,870
15,084
33,225
27,099
24,039
30,164
Forecasted
Incremental Energy
Efficiency Savings
Forecasted
Incremental Energy
Efficiency Savings
Less Historical
Trend
31,084
27,848
28,245
28,245
28,245
28,245
28,245
28,245
6,670
3,434
3,832
3,832
3,832
3,832
3,832
3,832
24,414
A-32
Cumulative Forecasted
Energy Efficiency
Savings Less Historical
Trend
6,670
10,104
13,936
17,768
21,600
25,432
29,264
33,096

Appendix 8
Page 2 of 2
C&I
Year
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
Average
Historical
Forecasted
Incremental Energy
Incremental Energy
Efficiency Savings
Efficiency Savings
13,688
10,680
15,437
24,167
35,957
10,980
25,310
25,439
25,570
25,570
25,570
25,570
25,570
25,570
18,485
A-33
Forecasted
Incremental Energy
Efficiency Savings
Less Historical
Trend
6,826
6,954
7,085
7,085
7,085
7,085
7,085
7,085
Cumulative Forecasted
Energy Efficiency
Savings Less Historical
Trend
6,826
13,780
20,865
27,950
35,035
42,120
49,205
56,290
APPENDIX 9. DAILY PLANNING LOAD RESULTS

Appendix 9
Page 1 of 6
A daily Planning Load forecast was developed to provide daily results under various weather
scenarios for supply planning purposes. The Companys daily gate-station meter data is the source
for the daily Planning Load model dependent variable data. Similar to the Customer Segment
forecasts, regression modeling was used to develop the daily Planning Load model that includes
independent variables such as weather and date/season-related variables.
1) Data Descriptions
The following data and variable categories were utilized in the development of the daily
Planning Load model:
a) Daily Planning Load Data (Dependent Variable)
Historical Daily Planning Load was calculated by subtracting historical daily capacity exempt
transportation, special contract, and interruptible loads from historical Total System Sendout.
Historical daily Total System Sendout data was calculated by summing daily gate station meter reads
and daily LNG and propane production. Daily Planning Load data for April 2015 through March
2016 was used in model development. In the 12 months of daily data that was used to develop the
Daily Planning Load model, the average daily Planning Load was 14,587 Dth and the highest Planning
load day during that time period was 56,548 Dth (which occurred on a day with 65 EDD, which was
after a day with 81 EDD).
b) Weather Data
The daily EDD data provided by the Company was used to measure weather. The following
variations of the EDD variable were tested in preliminary daily Planning Load models to test the
responsiveness of daily Planning Load to non-linear forms of EDD data, simple EDD
transformations and prior day EDDs:
EDD
EDD2
EDDs base 55 (positive values of EDD 10)
Prior Day EDD
Second Prior Day EDD
A-34
c) Date/Season-Related Variables

Appendix 9
Page 2 of 6
Daily Planning Load is also likely to be responsive to time-related elements (e.g., the day of
the week or the season); dummy variables were created to represent specific time periods throughout
the year.1 For example, dummy variables were created for the months of the year, the days of the
week, holidays, workdays, and seasons. In addition to the dummy variables, a daily trend variable was
created to test for potential systematic daily changes in Planning Load over time.
d) Interaction Variables
Interactions between the weather data and the date/season-related dummy variables were
created to reflect possible time-related differences in the relationship between daily Planning Load and
other explanatory variables. Interactions are created by multiplying the values of two or more
variables. The following are examples of interactions that were tested and the reasoning behind the
development of each of these variables:
Winter workday dummy variable: Workday daily load may be different in the
winter than in other months.
January EDDs, February EDDs; Winter month prior day EDDs: Customer
responsiveness to weather may vary by month and by season.
In total, 73 variables were developed and tested for the daily Planning Load models (excluding
date-specific dummy variables).2
2) Daily Planning Load Model
The daily Planning Load regression model was created with the IBM SPSSTM software package;
as part of the modeling process autocorrelation was tested for and corrected if appropriate. The Daily
Planning Load Model Results Table provides the model statistics and parameters for the daily Planning
Load regression equation:
The time-responsiveness of daily loads can be explained by considerations such as: (a) many industrial customers
operate only on week days, and therefore do not use gas for process loads on weekends; (b) heating loads for
commercial buildings that have been unoccupied all weekend may be different on Mondays, while the cool building
is being warmed up; and (c) many businesses, schools, etc have different schedules in the summer compared to the
remainder of the year.
A table listing all variables tested in the daily Planning Load model can be found at the end of this Appendix 9.
A-35

Appendix 9
Page 3 of 6
Daily Planning Load Model Results3

Model Statistics
Model
Number of
PLANLOAD-Model_1
Predictors
15
Model Fit statistics

R-squared
.990
RMSE
1,084.225
ARIMA Model Parameters

PLANLOAD-Model_1 PLANLOAD
EDD
PRIOR1EDD
PRIOR2EDD
EDDB45
JANEDD
FEBEDD
MAREDD
APREDD
SEPEDD
OCTEDD
NOVEDD
DECEDD
WTR6P1EDD
WORKDAY
WTR6WKDY
Estimate
4227.802
.328
-.113
198.737
114.562
26.974
142.379
222.963
235.924
183.949
142.980
-106.826
89.691
139.592
187.890
65.459
472.506
507.262
Constant
AR 1
AR 8
SE
170.742
.051
.052
29.092
18.653
8.430
24.077
34.666
34.572
33.492
33.596
50.498
32.252
33.169
33.521
20.019
176.667
236.479
t
24.761
6.428
-2.191
6.831
6.142
3.200
5.914
6.432
6.824
5.492
4.256
-2.115
2.781
4.209
5.605
3.270
2.675
2.145
Sig.
.000
.000
.029
.000
.000
.002
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.035
.006
.000
.000
.001
.008
.033
The Daily Planning Load Model includes 15 variables that are statistically significant. In
addition to EDDs, several significant variables indicate that the daily Planning Load changes based on
extreme temperatures, seasons, and days of the week. The R2 of 0.990 indicates that the equation
explains all except 1.0% of the variation in daily Planning Load.
The daily Planning Load model was used to generate a daily Planning Load shape for the splityear November 2016 through October 2017, assuming normal weather. For each year of the Forecast
Period for the Normal Year, the daily Planning Load shape is adjusted by applying calibration
percentages that are calculated so that the sum of the daily forecast loads equals the Normal Year
Planning Load forecasts developed using the Customer Segment models. The calibration percentages
and the data used to calculate the Normal Year calibration percentages are shown below.
The statistical metrics used in these tables are explained in Appendix 6.
A-36

Appendix 9
Page 4 of 6
Customer Segment vs. Daily Model Normal Year Calibration Percentages (%)
A
Gas Year
2016/2017
2017/2018
2018/2019
2019/2020
2020/2021
Daily Planning
Load Model
Results (Dth)
5,992,224
5,992,224
5,992,224
5,992,224
5,992,224
C
Customer Segment
Model Results (including
EE, Losses and Unbilled
Sales) (Dth)
6,541,942
6,592,395
6,624,804
6,631,311
6,644,627
D=C-B
E = D/B
Difference
(Dth)
549,718
600,172
632,580
639,087
652,403
Calibration
(%)
9.17%
10.02%
10.56%
10.67%
10.89%
The table below summarizes the total, average day and peak day results for Normal Year
Planning Load over the Forecast Period.
Planning Load Model Forecast (Dth Normal Year)4

Split Year
2016/2017
2017/2018
2018/2019
2019/2020
2020/2021
CAGR:
Demand
6,541,942
6,592,395
6,624,804
6,631,311
6,644,627
0.39%
Excludes demand for Leap Year in the 2019/20 split year.
A-37
Average Day
17,923
18,061
18,150
18,168
18,204
0.39%
Peak Day
57,223
57,664
57,948
58,005
58,121
0.39%

Appendix 9
Page 5 of 6
VARIABLE DESCRIPTIONS DAILY PLANNING LOAD FORECAST
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
Variable Name
SEQ
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
SEP
OCT
NOV
DEC
Holiday
Workday
Monday
Tuesday
Thursday
Friday
Saturday
Sunday
Winter6
Summer6
Winter3
Spring3
Summer3
Fall3
WTR6WKDY
SUM6WKDY
WTR6SAT
WTR6SUN
SUM6SAT
SUM6SUN
WTR6MON
SUM6MON
WTR3WKDY
SUM3WKDY
WTR3SAT
WTR3SUN
SUM3SAT
SUM3SUN
WTR3MON
SUM3MON
Description
Daily Trend
January
February
March
April
May
June
July
September
October
November
December
Holiday
Workday
Monday
Tuesday
Thursday
Friday
Saturday
Sunday
Winter 6mo (Nov., Dec., Jan., Feb., Mar., Apr.)
Summer 6mo (May, Jun., Jul., Aug., Sep., Oct.)
Winter 3mo (Dec., Jan., Feb.)
Spring 3mo (Mar., Apr., May)
Summer 3mo (Jun., Jul., Aug.)
Fall 3mo (Sep., Oct., Nov.)
Winter (6mo) Work Day
Summer (6mo) Work Day
Winter (6mo) Saturday
Winter (6mo) Sunday
Summer (6mo) Saturday
Summer (6mo) Sunday
Winter (6mo) Monday
Summer (6mo) Monday
Winter (3mo) Work Day
Summer (3mo) Work Day
Winter (3mo) Saturday
Winter (3mo) Sunday
Summer (3mo) Saturday
Summer (3mo) Sunday
Winter (3mo) Monday
Summer (3mo) Monday
A-38

Appendix 9
Page 6 of 6
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
Variable Name
EDD
PRIOR1EDD
PRIOR2EDD
EDD2
EDDB55
EDDB45
EDDB35
EDDB25
EDDB15
EDDB5
JANEDD
FEBEDD
MAREDD
APREDD
MAYEDD
JUNEDD
JULEDD
SEPEDD
OCTEDD
NOVEDD
DECEDD
WTR6P1EDD
WTR6P2EDD
WTR3P1EDD
WTR3P2EDD
WTR6EDD
WTR3EDD
SPR3EDD
SUM3EDD
FALL3EDD
ATREND
Dummy Variables
Description
EDD
Prior Day EDD
Second Prior EDD
EDD2
EDD Base 55
EDD Base 45
EDD Base 35
EDD Base 25
EDD Base 15
EDD Base 5
January EDD
February EDD
March EDD
April EDD
May EDD
June EDD
July EDD
September EDD
October EDD
November EDD
December EDD
Winter (6mo) Prior Day EDD
Winter (6mo) Prior 2 Day EDD
Winter (3mo) Prior Day EDD
Winter (3mo) Prior 2 Day EDD
Winter (6mo) EDD
Winter (3mo) EDD
Spring (3mo) EDD
Summer (3mo) EDD
Fall (3mo) EDD
Annual Trend
Consists of 0s and 1s to Represent Specific Time Period;
the dummy variables that were used are described with the
model
A-39

Appendix 10
Page 1 of 7
APPENDIX 10. DESIGN YEAR PLANNING STANDARDS COST/BENEFIT ANALYSIS
As discussed in Section E.3.b of the report, a societal cost/benefit analysis was used to
determine an optimal level of Design Year EDDs as guidance for the level of Design Year EDDs
that Berkshire used to determine Design Year load requirements and to test the adequacy of
Berkshires resources to meet the Design Year load requirements. The optimal level of Design Year
EDDs is the level of annual EDDs where the marginal benefits to society (measured as the value of
production that would be lost if natural gas service to the C&I customers responsible for that
production had to be curtailed) is equal to the marginal cost to society of the gas supplies and
capacity required to prevent that curtailment (i.e., the cost to purchase supplies to serve all
customers under Design Year conditions). The Design Year cost/benefit analysis methodology
used in this 2016 F&SP and described below was approved by the Department in prior F&SP orders
(e.g., Order D.P.U. 14-98, Order D.P.U. 12-62, Order D.P.U. 10-100 and Order D.P.U 08-39).
Table 10-1 was prepared to show the societal cost benefit analysis. Marginal societal costs
were estimated by calculating the costs of the natural gas supplies and capacity that would be
required to avoid a curtailment of natural gas service to C&I customers. The incremental Planning
Loads associated with incremental EDDs were calculated using the daily Planning Load model. The
base scenario, at which all demands could be met without curtailment, is defined as the Planning
Load requirements at the 30-year annual average EDD level. An additional fourteen incremental
Planning Load scenarios are also defined, representing load that is incremental to the base scenario;
each Planning Load scenario is associated with an incremental level of 100 annual EDDs, assumed
to occur in the winter.1 The marginal societal costs to serve this incremental Planning Load were
estimated for High Cost and Low Cost gas supply alternatives. The High Cost alternative is
based on the cost to serve the incremental Planning Load using LNG; the Low Cost alternative is
based on the cost to serve the incremental Planning Load using long-haul pipeline supplies. The
unit costs associated with the High Cost and Low Cost alternatives were multiplied by the
incremental Planning Load at each incremental EDD level to determine the total High Cost and
Low Cost of serving the incremental Planning Load.
Each set of annual EDDs is calculated according to the following formula: EDD Scenario (n) = 30-Year Annual
Average EDD + n x 100 EDD; n= 0, 1, 14.
A-40

Appendix 10
Page 2 of 7
Table 10-1
30 Year Annual Mean EDD
Standard Deviation
Degree day
level
level 1
level 2
level 3
level 4
level 5
level 6
level 7
level 8
level 9
level 10
level 11
level 12
level 13
level 14
level 15
Annual
Degree
Days
7,086
7,186
7,286
7,386
7,486
7,586
7,686
7,786
7,886
7,986
8,086
8,186
8,286
8,386
8,486
# of Std.
Deviations
0.00
0.20
0.40
0.61
0.81
1.01
1.21
1.42
1.62
1.82
2.02
2.23
2.43
2.63
2.83
Design Year Cost Benefit Analysis - Cost of an Outage
7,086
494
Recurrence
Probability of Probability
Outage
in years
50.00%
41.98%
34.28%
27.19%
20.91%
15.58%
11.23%
7.83%
5.27%
3.43%
2.15%
1.30%
0.76%
0.43%
0.23%
2.0
2.4
2.9
3.7
4.8
6.4
8.9
12.8
19.0
29.2
46.5
76.9
131.9
234.9
434.1
Equivalent
Days of
Interruption
Customer
Load
(in Dth)
0.0
5.4
10.5
15.6
20.5
25.2
29.8
34.3
38.7
42.9
47.1
51.1
55.0
58.8
62.5
6,146,129
6,220,363
6,294,668
6,368,984
6,443,386
6,517,788
6,592,190
6,666,592
6,741,059
6,815,552
6,890,045
6,964,537
7,039,030
7,113,523
7,188,016
A-41
Incremental High Cost

Load
per Dth Total High Cost
LNG
- $ 13.24 $
74,234 $ 13.24 $
982,890
148,539 $ 13.24 $ 1,966,710
222,855 $ 13.24 $ 2,950,685
297,257 $ 13.24 $ 3,935,797
371,659 $ 13.24 $ 4,920,909
446,060 $ 13.24 $ 5,906,021
520,462 $ 13.24 $ 6,891,134
594,930 $ 13.24 $ 7,877,114
669,423 $ 13.24 $ 8,863,428
743,915 $ 13.24 $ 9,849,742
818,408 $ 13.24 $ 10,836,055
892,901 $ 13.24 $ 11,822,369
967,394 $ 13.24 $ 12,808,683
1,041,886 $ 13.24 $ 13,794,996
Low Cost
Total Low
per Dth
Cost
Long haul pipeline
$
4.52 $
$
4.52 $
335,246
$
4.52 $
670,810
$
4.52 $ 1,006,426
$
4.52 $ 1,342,430
$
4.52 $ 1,678,435
$
4.52 $ 2,014,439
$
4.52 $ 2,350,443
$
4.52 $ 2,686,744
$
4.52 $ 3,023,158
$
4.52 $ 3,359,572
$
4.52 $ 3,695,986
$
4.52 $ 4,032,400
$
4.52 $ 4,368,814
$
4.52 $ 4,705,228

Appendix 10
Page 3 of 7
The marginal societal benefits associated with the incremental Planning Loads are estimated
by calculating the value of production that would be lost due to curtailment of service for each of
the fourteen Planning Load Demand scenarios.2,3 The potential value of production that could be
lost is based on an estimate of the portion of the value of daily production associated with
Berkshires C&I customers, which is shown in Table 10-2 below. The value of daily production
associated with Berkshires C&I customers was estimated using gross domestic product data for the
geographic areas served by Berkshire.
Concentric obtained gross domestic product (GDP)
estimates from Moodys Economy.com for Berkshire County, Hampshire County and Franklin
County. The annual GDP estimates were divided by 365 to produce a daily value, which were scaled
to represent Berkshires service territory within these counties based on the population of the towns
in Berkshires service territory as compared to the total population of the county. The total service
territory daily GDP of approximately $26M was reduced by 30% to reflect that not all C&I
customers in Berkshires territory use natural gas and reduced by 29% to reflect that not all of
Berkshires C&I load is included in the Planning Load (i.e., a portion of the load is capacity exempt,
and therefore excluded from Planning Load). The value of daily GDP associated with Berkshires
curtailable C&I Planning Load was determined to be approximately $13M.
2
3
For this Societal Cost / Benefit analysis, the value of lost production is a benefit to society if the potential loss of
This analysis assumes that only C&I loads are curtailable.
A-42

Appendix 10
Page 4 of 7
Table 10-2
Gross Domestic Product Analysis
Berkshire County Annual GDP
Berkshire County Daily GDP
$ 6,981,079,756
$
19,126,246
Franklin & Hampshire County Annual GDP

Franklin County & Hampshire Daily GDP
$ 10,360,195,734
$
28,384,098
Berkshire County
Total Population
Adams Town
Cheshire Town
Clarksburg Town
Dalton Town
Great Barrington Town
Lanesborough Town
Lee Town
Lenox Town
North Adams City
Pittsfield City
Stockbridge Town
Williamstown Town
Total Population in Service Area:
Service Area Population as a % of Total Population
Service Area Daily GDP - Berkshire County
127,828
8,187
3,158
1,659
6,661
6,907
2,991
5,816
4,988
13,263
43,303
1,938
7,620
106,491
83.31%
$
Franklin & Hampshire Counties

Total Population
Amherst Town
Deerfield Town
Greenfield Town
Hadley Town
Hatfield Town
Montague Town
Sunderland Town
Whately Town
Total Population in Service Area:
Service Area Population as a % of Total Population
15,933,700
231,893
39,833
5,015
17,450
5,352
3,298
8,272
3,657
1,518
84,395
36.39%
Service Area Daily GDP - Hampshire County
10,330,092
Total Service Area GDP:
26,263,792
Proportion of C&I Customers in service area using natural gas
70%
Proportion of C&I demand in planning load
71%
Value of Curtailable Daily GDP
A-43
13,002,887

Appendix 10
Page 5 of 7
As shown in Table 10-3 below, the expected value to society of avoiding a level of
curtailment (i.e., the cost of an outage) was calculated to reflect the annual probability that a specific
Planning Load demand scenario would occur using the mean and standard deviation of the annual
EDD. The sum of the partial interruptions throughout the year at each incremental EDD level
provides the equivalent days of interruption. The equivalent day of interruption times the daily
GDP associated with Berkshires curtailable C&I load produces the total value of lost production
(i.e., the benefit of avoiding an interruption). This total value of lost production is multiplied by the
probability of an outage to produce the probability-weighted value of lost production. Finally, two
scenarios were developed to reflect the concept that the Companys C&I customers would attempt
to take mitigating actions to avoid losing production due to curtailments of gas service. The
estimated values of production that could not be mitigated were assumed to be 33% and 67% of the
probability-weighted values of the potential maximum value of lost production.
A-44

Appendix 10
Page 6 of 7
Table 10-3
30 Year Annual Mean EDD
Standard Deviation
Degree day
level
level 1
level 2
level 3
level 4
level 5
level 6
level 7
level 8
level 9
level 10
level 11
level 12
level 13
level 14
level 15
Annual
Degree
Days
7,086
7,186
7,286
7,386
7,486
7,586
7,686
7,786
7,886
7,986
8,086
8,186
8,286
8,386
8,486
# of Std.
Deviations
0.00
0.20
0.40
0.61
0.81
1.01
1.21
1.42
1.62
1.82
2.02
2.23
2.43
2.63
2.83
Design Year Cost Benefit Analysis - Cost of an Outage

7,086
494
Recurrence
Probability of Probability
Outage
in years
50.00%
41.98%
34.28%
27.19%
20.91%
15.58%
11.23%
7.83%
5.27%
3.43%
2.15%
1.30%
0.76%
0.43%
0.23%
2.0
2.4
2.9
3.7
4.8
6.4
8.9
12.8
19.0
29.2
46.5
76.9
131.9
234.9
434.1
Equivalent
Days of
Interruption
0.0
5.4
10.5
15.6
20.5
25.2
29.8
34.3
38.7
42.9
47.1
51.1
55.0
58.8
62.5
A-45
Total Value of
Lost Production
Probabilityweighted Value
Benefits
Benefits
of Lost
Assuming 33.3% Assuming 66.7%
Production
Impact
Impact
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
69,600,740
137,155,513
202,667,026
266,347,358
328,142,369
388,134,903
446,403,013
503,126,362
558,305,848
611,965,935
664,168,787
714,973,218
764,434,910
812,606,626
29,219,132
47,020,821
55,101,334
55,696,021
51,123,088
43,596,406
34,950,379
26,525,395
19,134,792
13,155,095
8,635,415
5,419,487
3,254,808
1,871,900
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
9,739,711
15,673,607
18,367,111
18,565,340
17,041,029
14,532,135
11,650,126
8,841,798
6,378,264
4,385,032
2,878,472
1,806,496
1,084,936
623,967
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
19,479,421
31,347,214
36,734,222
37,130,681
34,082,059
29,064,271
23,300,253
17,683,596
12,756,528
8,770,063
5,756,943
3,612,991
2,169,872
1,247,933

Appendix 10
Page 7 of 7
A graphical depiction of the Design Year marginal societal costs and benefits of avoiding
curtailments is presented in Figure 10-4 below.
The intersections of the lines on this graph
represent the areas where the cost of additional supplies equals the benefits of avoiding an outage
for each scenario. This Design Year cost/benefit analysis results in a range of EDD levels that
produce optimal marginal societal benefits and marginal societal costs. The low cost, low benefit
scenario produces an optimal level of 8,139 EDD; the high cost, low benefit scenario procures an
optimal level of 7,913 EDD; the low cost, high benefit scenario procures an optimal level of 8,267
EDD; the high cost, high benefit scenario procures an optimal level of 8,063 EDD. The average of
these four values is 8,096 EDD (a 1 in 49 year frequency of occurrence), which is consistent with
and supports the proposed Design Year standard of 7,993 EDD with a one in 30 year frequency of
occurrence.
Figure 10-4
$40,000,000
Design Year Planning Standard Cost Benefit Analysis

Benefits Assuming 33.3% Impact
Benefits Assuming 66.7% Impact
Total Low Cost
Total High Cost
$35,000,000
Marginal Cost, Benefit
$30,000,000
$25,000,000
$20,000,000
$15,000,000
$10,000,000
$5,000,000
$0
7,086
7,286
7,486
7,686
7,886
Annual EDD
A-46
8,086
8,286
8,486

Appendix 11
Page 1 of 3
APPENDIX 11. DESIGN DAY PLANNING STANDARDS COST/BENEFIT ANALYSIS
As discussed in Section E.4.b of the report, a societal cost/benefit analysis was also used to
identify an optimal level of Design Day EDDs as guidance for the level of Design Day EDDs that
Berkshire used to determine Design Day load requirements and to test the adequacy of Berkshires
resources to meet Design Day requirements. The optimal level of Design Day EDDs is the level of
EDDs where the marginal benefits to society (measured as the value of production that would be
lost if natural gas service to the C&I customers responsible for that production had to be curtailed)
is equal to the marginal cost to society of the gas supplies and capacity required to prevent that
curtailment (i.e., the cost to purchase supplies to serve all customers under Design Day conditions).
The Design Day cost/benefit analysis methodology used in this 2016 F&SP and described below
was approved by the Department in prior F&SP orders (e.g., Order D.P.U. 14-98, Order D.P.U. 1262, Order D.P.U. 10-100 and Order D.P.U 08-39).
Table 11-1 was prepared to show the Design Day societal cost benefit analysis. Marginal
societal costs were estimated by calculating the costs of the natural gas supplies and capacity that
would be required to avoid a curtailment of natural gas service to C&I customers. The incremental
Planning Loads associated with incremental Design Day EDDs were calculated using the daily
Planning Load model. The base scenario, at which all demands could be met without curtailment, is
defined as the Planning Load requirements at 69 EDD, which is the average of the highest annual
EDD values from 1987 to 2016. An additional nineteen incremental Planning Load scenarios are
also defined, representing load that is incremental to the base scenario; each Planning Load scenario
is associated with an incremental level of one daily EDD.1
The societal cost of meeting each
Planning Load scenario is based on (a) the cost of LNG supplies until LNG capacity is exhausted,
and (b) the cost of propane supplies thereafter. The unit costs of LNP or LP were multiplied by the
incremental Planning Load at each incremental EDD level to determine the total cost of serving the
incremental Planning Load.
The marginal societal benefits associated with the incremental planning loads are estimated
by calculating the expected value to society of avoiding a level of curtailment (i.e., the cost of an
outage), which reflects the probability that a specific Design Day Planning Load demand scenario
would occur using the mean and standard deviation of the peak day EDD. The analysis assumes
1
Each daily EDD is calculated according to the following formula: EDD Scenario (n) = Average Highest Daily
EDD + n EDD; n= 0, 1, 19.
A-47

Appendix 11
Page 2 of 3
that the portfolio is adequate to serve Planning Load in the base case, but if additional supplies are
not purchased, the load associated with the incremental Design Day EDD would be curtailed. The
probability-weighted benefit of avoiding lost production (i.e., the benefit of avoiding an interruption)
is calculated by multiplying: (a) the portion of C&I load curtailed times (b) the estimated daily GDP
associated with Berkshires curtailable C&I load of approximately $13 million (described above in
Appendix 10) times (c) the probability of an outage.
Table 11-1
Average Peak Day EDD
Standard Deviation
Firm Sales Heating
Increment Dth/EDD
EDD Level
level 1
level 2
level 3
level 4
level 5
level 6
level 7
level 8
level 9
level 10
level 11
level 12
level 13
level 14
level 15
level 16
level 17
level 18
level 19
level 20
EDD
69.0
70.0
71.0
72.0
73.0
74.0
75.0
76.0
77.0
78.0
79.0
80.0
81.0
82.0
83.0
84.0
85.0
86.0
87.0
88.0
Design Day Cost Benefit Analysis
69.0 30 year average peak day

5.9 30 year stdev of peak day
564.1 Calculated based on daily Planning Load Model
Annual Cost
of Incremental
ProbabilitySupply (LNG
weighted
Probability Recurrence Incremental until 72.49 Curtailable Percent of
Benefit of
# of Std.
of
Probability
Supply EDD, Propane
C&I
Customers Avoiding Lost
Deviations Occurrence
in years
Required
thereafter)
Load
Curtailed
Production
0.00
0.17
0.34
0.51
0.68
0.85
1.02
1.19
1.36
1.53
1.70
1.87
2.04
2.21
2.38
2.55
2.72
2.89
3.06
3.23
50.00%
43.26%
36.71%
30.52%
24.85%
19.79%
15.41%
11.72%
8.71%
6.32%
4.47%
3.09%
2.08%
1.36%
0.87%
0.54%
0.33%
0.19%
0.11%
0.06%
2
2
3
3
4
5
6
9
11
16
22
32
48
73
115
184
304
515
895
1598
564
1,128
1,692
2,256
2,820
3,384
3,949
4,513
5,077
5,641
6,205
6,769
7,333
7,897
8,461
9,025
9,589
10,153
10,717
A-48
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
7,469
14,937
22,406
30,608
39,592
48,576
57,560
66,544
75,528
84,512
93,496
102,480
111,464
120,448
129,432
138,416
147,400
156,384
165,368
24,095
24,425
24,754
25,084
25,413
25,743
26,072
26,402
26,731
27,061
27,390
27,719
28,049
28,378
28,708
29,037
29,367
29,696
30,026
30,355
0.0%
2.3%
4.6%
6.7%
8.9%
11.0%
13.0%
15.0%
16.9%
18.8%
20.6%
22.4%
24.1%
25.8%
27.5%
29.1%
30.7%
32.3%
33.8%
35.3%
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
129,898
217,513
267,724
286,835
281,913
260,101
228,006
191,237
154,144
119,749
89,839
65,182
45,783
31,154
20,550
13,147
8,159
4,914
2,872
Excess
Benefits
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
122,430
202,575
245,318
256,226
242,321
211,525
170,446
124,693
78,616
35,236
(3,657)
(37,298)
(65,682)
(89,294)
(108,882)
(125,270)
(139,241)
(151,471)
(162,496)

Appendix 11
Page 3 of 3
A graphical depiction of Design Day marginal societal costs and benefits associated with
avoiding curtailments is presented in Table 11-2 below. The intersection of the lines on this graph
represents where the cost of additional supplies equals the benefits of avoiding an outage. This
Design Day cost/benefit analysis results in an EDD level that produces optimal marginal societal
benefits and marginal societal costs of 79.9 EDD, a 1 in 31 year occurrence, which is consistent with
and supports the proposed Design Day standard of 79.8 EDD with a one in 30 year frequency of
occurrence.
Table 11-2
Design Day Planning Standard Cost Benefit Analysis
$350,000
Probability-weighted Benefit of
Avoiding Lost Production
$300,000
Annual Cost of Incremental

Supply (LNG until 72.49 EDD,
Propane thereafter)
Marginal Cost, Benefit
$250,000
$200,000
$150,000
$100,000
$50,000
$0
69.0
71.0
73.0
75.0
77.0
79.0
Daily EDD
A-49
81.0
83.0
85.0
87.0

Appendix 12
Page 1 of 3
APPENDIX 12. ANNUAL TABLES
Customer Count by Segment
Historical Actual
Partial Historical (Nov-March)
Partial Forecast (April-Oct)
Forecast
2010/11
2011/12
2012/13
2013/14
2014/15
Residential
Regular
4,808
4,511
4,185
3,877
3,613
Residential
Heating
26,480
26,983
28,156
29,504
30,428
C&I
LLF
3,831
3,923
4,034
4,155
4,219
C&I
HLF
1,079
1,057
1,044
1,054
1,053
Total
36,197
36,473
37,417
38,589
39,313
2015/16
2016/17
2017/18
2018/19
2019/20
2020/21
3,383
3,119
2,876
2,633
2,390
2,146
30,886
31,286
31,672
32,156
32,654
33,123
4,250
4,317
4,366
4,418
4,469
4,517
1,053
1,058
1,058
1,057
1,056
1,054
39,572
39,779
39,972
40,264
40,568
40,840
Customer Count by Segment Annual % Growth Rates
Historical Actual
Partial Historical (Nov-March)
Partial Forecast (April-Oct)
2010/11
2011/12
2012/13
2013/14
2014/15
2015/16
2016/17
2017/18
Forecast
2018/19
2019/20
2020/21
Historical Average Annual % Growth
2010/11 2014/15
Forecasted Average Annual % Growth
2016/17 2020/21
Residential
Regular
NA
-6.18%
-7.23%
-7.35%
-6.81%
Residential
Heating
NA
1.90%
4.35%
4.79%
3.13%
C&I
C&I
LLF
HLF
NA
NA
2.40% -2.02%
2.83% -1.23%
3.01% 0.93%
1.55% -0.09%
Total
NA
0.76%
2.59%
3.13%
1.88%
-6.37%
-7.79%
-7.80%
-8.46%
-9.24%
-10.18%
1.50%
1.29%
1.24%
1.53%
1.55%
1.44%
0.73% 0.06%
1.56% 0.44%
1.13% 0.02%
1.20% -0.06%
1.15% -0.15%
1.08% -0.18%
0.66%
0.52%
0.48%
0.73%
0.75%
0.67%
-6.89%
3.54%
2.45% -0.60%
2.09%
-8.92%
1.44%
1.14% -0.09%
0.66%
A-50
Normalized Demand by Customer Segment (Dth)

C&I LLF
Capacity
Regular
Heating C&I LLF Exempt

Appendix 12
Page 2 of 3
C&I
C&I LLF
C&I HLF HLF
Planning
Capacity Planning Company
Load
C&I HLF Exempt
Load
Use
Total
Sendout
Total
Planning
Load
2010/11
2011/12
2012/13
2013/14
2014/15
85,484
79,530
73,366
69,964
66,551
2,593,881
2,587,416
2,753,744
3,023,712
3,091,641
2,382,974
2,411,744
2,529,313
2,776,336
2,799,327
724,826
706,261
731,740
747,888
651,130
1,658,148
1,705,483
1,797,572
2,028,448
2,148,197
1,408,993
1,452,090
1,518,195
1,580,063
1,597,847
783,728
811,085
852,670
883,094
812,409
625,265
641,005
665,526
696,969
785,438
16,229
14,919
15,247
14,218
9,923
6,487,561
6,545,700
6,889,865
7,464,292
7,565,289
4,979,007
5,028,354
5,305,455
5,833,310
6,101,750
2015/16
2016/17
Forecast, Prior 2017/18
to
2018/19
adjustments3 2019/20
2020/21
60,067
55,218
50,881
46,529
42,178
37,839
2,996,110
3,174,519
3,214,310
3,246,147
3,276,328
3,308,271
2,720,096
2,862,321
2,891,398
2,916,109
2,915,863
2,918,865
427,814
416,145
415,801
415,591
415,462
415,384
2,292,282
2,446,176
2,475,598
2,500,518
2,500,400
2,503,481
1,558,631
1,599,941
1,582,853
1,557,228
1,531,957
1,511,699
708,254
734,690
723,067
706,563
691,200
679,387
850,377
865,250
859,786
850,665
840,756
832,312
9,559
9,697
9,697
9,697
9,697
9,697
7,344,463
7,701,696
7,749,139
7,775,710
7,776,022
7,786,371
6,208,395
6,550,861
6,610,271
6,653,556
6,669,359
6,691,599
Normalized
Historical
Partial
Historical 1
Partial
Forecast 2
1
2
3

A-51

Appendix 12
Page 3 of 3
Normalized Demand by Customer Segment Annual and Average % Growth Rates

C&I LLF
Capacity
Regular
Heating C&I LLF Exempt
C&I
C&I LLF
C&I HLF HLF
Planning
Capacity Planning Company
Load
C&I HLF Exempt
Load
Use
2010/11
2011/12
2012/13
2013/14
2014/15
NA
-6.97%
-7.75%
-4.64%
-4.88%
NA
-0.25%
6.43%
9.80%
2.25%
NA
NA
1.21% -2.56%
4.87%
3.61%
9.77%
2.21%
0.83% -12.94%
NA
2.85%
5.40%
12.84%
5.90%
2015/16
2016/17
Forecast, Prior 2017/18
to
2018/19
adjustments6 2019/20
2020/21
-9.74%
-8.07%
-7.85%
-8.55%
-9.35%
-10.29%
-3.09%
5.95%
1.25%
0.99%
0.93%
0.97%
-2.83% -34.30%
5.23% -2.73%
1.02% -0.08%
0.85% -0.05%
-0.01% -0.03%
0.10% -0.02%
6.71%
6.71%
1.20%
1.01%
0.00%
0.12%
-6.06%
4.56%
4.17%
-2.42%
6.75%
3.20%
-9.01%
1.04%
0.49%
-0.05%
0.58%
-1.41%
Normalized
Historical
Partial
Historical4
Partial
Forecast 5
Historical Average
Annual % Growth 2010/11 - 2014/15
Forecasted Average
Annual % Growth 2016/17 - 2020/21
4
5
6

A-52
NA
3.06%
4.55%
4.08%
1.13%
Total
Sendout
Total
Planning
Load
NA
NA
3.49% 2.52%
5.13% 3.83%
3.57% 4.72%
-8.00% 12.69%
NA
-8.07%
2.20%
-6.75%
-30.21%
NA
0.90%
5.26%
8.34%
1.35%
NA
0.99%
5.51%
9.95%
4.60%
-2.45% -12.82% 8.27%

2.65%
3.73% 1.75%
-1.07% -1.58% -0.63%
-1.62% -2.28% -1.06%
-1.62% -2.17% -1.16%
-1.32% -1.71% -1.00%
-3.67%
1.44%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
-2.92%
4.86%
0.62%
0.34%
0.00%
0.13%
1.75%
5.52%
0.91%
0.65%
0.24%
0.33%
5.94%
-10.71%
3.96%
5.26%
-1.94% -0.97%
0.00%
0.27%
0.53%
1.05%

Appendix 13
Page 1 of 4
APPENDIX 13. DESIGN YEAR AND DESIGN DAY PLANNING LOAD RESULTS
Design Year Planning Load
The methodology to produce design year planning load is the same as the methodology to
produce normal year planning load, except the normal year forecasted EDDs are replaced with design
year forecasted EDD. The step-by-step methodology that was used to calculate design year planning
load is outlined below:
1. The quarterly UPC models for each customer segment were applied to forecasted design year
EDD to develop design year UPC forecasts. The design year UPC forecasts were multiplied
by the customer count forecasts for each customer segment to produce design year demand
for each customer segment. The quarterly company use model was applied to forecasted
design year EDD to develop design year company use. The sum of the customer segment
design year demand and the company use design year demand were adjusted for losses,
unbilled sales, and energy efficiency to produce total design year firm sendout. The tables
below illustrate these calculations:
Design Year UPC1

(from running UPC models with Forecast Design Year EDD)
Split Year
2016/2017
2017/2018
2018/2019
2019/2020
2020/2021
Residential
Heating
113.72
113.78
113.27
112.65
112.19
Residential
Non-Heating
18.33
18.33
18.32
18.30
18.29
LLF
744.12
743.17
741.33
733.76
727.38
HLF
1,545.26
1,529.74
1,506.82
1,484.63
1,467.75
Customer Counts2
Split Year
2016/2017
2017/2018
2018/2019
2019/2020
2020/2021
1
2
Residential
Heating
31,286
31,672
32,156
32,654
33,123
Residential
Non-Heating
3,119
2,876
2,633
2,390
2,146
Split years are Q4-Q3.

Split years are Q4-Q3.
A-53
LLF
4,317
4,366
4,418
4,469
4,517
HLF
1,058
1,058
1,057
1,056
1,054

Appendix 13
Page 2 of 4
Design Year Demand (Design Year UPC * Customer Count)3

Split Year
2016/2017
2017/2018
2018/2019
2019/2020
2020/2021
Residential
Heating
Residential
Non-Heating
3,569,651
3,614,204
3,652,101
3,688,555
3,726,410
56,986
52,512
48,022
43,533
39,057
LLF
HLF
3,223,262
3,256,365
3,285,473
3,289,483
3,296,489
1,633,571
1,616,492
1,590,849
1,565,529
1,545,211
Design Year Adjustments:4

Company Use, Losses, Unbilled Sales, Energy Efficiency
Split Year
Company Use
2016/2017
2017/2018
2018/2019
2019/2020
2020/2021
10,989
10,989
10,989
10,989
10,989
Unbilled Sales
4,443
4,774
3,236
3,292
3,693
Energy
Efficiency
(15,358)
(26,156)
(37,073)
(47,990)
(58,906)
Losses
0
0
0
0
0
Total
74
(10,393)
(22,848)
(33,709)
(44,225)
Design Year Firm Sendout5

(Design Year Demand + Design Year Adjustments)
Split Year
Design Year
Firm Sendout
2016/2017
2017/2018
2018/2019
2019/2020
2020/2021
8,483,544
8,529,180
8,553,596
8,553,392
8,562,942
2. The quarterly capacity exempt load models were applied to forecasted design year EDD to
develop design year demand forecasts for capacity exempt load. The design year capacity
exempt load was adjusted for losses, unbilled sales, and energy efficiency and subtracted from
the design year firm sendout to produce design year planning load, as illustrated in the tables
below.
3
4
5
Includes adjustment to convert from calendar quarters to gas year; split years are November-October
Split years are November - October
A-54
Design Year Capacity Exempt6

Split Year
LLF Capacity
Exempt
2016/2017
2017/2018
2018/2019
2019/2020
2020/2021
HLF Capacity
Exempt
469,605
469,261
469,051
468,923
468,845

Appendix 13
Page 3 of 4
Total Capacity
Exempt
739,278
727,655
711,151
695,788
683,975
1,208,883
1,196,916
1,180,202
1,164,711
1,152,820
Design Year Adjustments for Capacity Exempt:7

Losses, Unbilled Sales, Energy Efficiency
Split Year
Unbilled Sales
2016/2017
2017/2018
2018/2019
2019/2020
2020/2021
Energy
Efficiency
(376)
(430)
(422)
(320)
(264)
Losses
(2,351)
(3,963)
(5,557)
(7,155)
(8,745)
Total
0
0
0
0
0
(2,727)
(4,393)
(5,979)
(7,475)
(9,009)
Design Year Firm Planning Load8

(Design Year Firm Sendout minus Design Year Capacity Exempt)
Split Year
Design Year Firm

Planning Load
2016/2017
2017/2018
2018/2019
2019/2020
2020/2021
7,277,388
7,336,657
7,379,374
7,396,156
7,419,132
3. The daily planning load model described in Appendix 9 was applied to forecasted design
year EDD to develop a design year planning load shape.
4. For each year of the forecast period, the daily design year Planning Load shape was adjusted
by applying calibration percentages to ensure the sum of the daily design year planning load
6
7
8

A-55

Appendix 13
Page 4 of 4
shape equals the design year Planning Load forecasts developed using the quarterly
Customer Segment Models.
Customer Segment vs. Daily Model Design Year Calibration Percentages (%)
A
Gas Year
2016/2017
2017/2018
2018/2019
2019/2020
2020/2021
Daily Planning
Load Model
Results (Dth)
6,815,497
6,815,497
6,815,497
6,815,497
6,815,497
C
Customer Segment
Model Results (including
EE, Losses and Unbilled
Sales) (Dth)
7,277,388
7,336,657
7,379,374
7,396,156
7,419,132
D=C-B
E = D/B
Difference
(Dth)
461,891
521,160
563,877
580,659
603,635
Calibration
(%)
6.78%
7.65%
8.27%
8.52%
8.86%
Design Day Planning Load

The Design Year daily EDD data includes the Design Day value of 79.8 EDD; for modeling
purposes, Design Day is assumed to occur on January 18, 2017. Therefore, the forecast of demand
on design day is included in the daily forecast of design year demand. As explained above, the design
year daily EDD values (which includes design day EDD on January 18) were applied to the daily
planning load model described in Appendix 9 to develop a design year Planning Load shape; that
shape includes design day Planning Load on January 18. For each year of the forecast period, each
day of the daily design year Planning Load shape was adjusted to ensure that the sum of the daily
design year planning loads equals the forecast design year Planning Load developed using the quarterly
Customer Segment Models, as shown in the table above. Applying the design year calibration
percentages to the January 18 value of the Design Year version of the daily Planning Load shape
produces the forecast of design day planning load, as shown in the table below:
Design Day Results

Planning Load - DESIGN YEAR
2016/17
Daily
Planning
DATE Load Shape
18-Jan
60,108
2017/18
2018/19
2019/20
2020/21
Calibrated to Customer Segment Model Results

64,182
64,705
A-56
65,081
65,229
65,432

Appendix 14
Page 1 of 51
APPENDIX 14. DETAILED STATISTICAL OUTPUT
14.1
Residential Non-Heating Customers
14.2
Residential Non-Heating Use Per Customer
14.3
Residential Heating Customers
14.4
Residential Heating Use Per Customer
14.5
C&I LLF Customers
14.6
C&I LLF Use Per Customer
14.7
C&I LLF Capacity Exempt Transport
14.8
C&I HLF Customers
14.9
C&I HLF Use Per Customer
14.10
C&I HLF Capacity Exempt Transport
14.11
Company Use
A-57

Appendix 14
Page 2 of 51
APPENDIX 14.1 RESIDENTIAL NON-HEATING CUSTOMERS (RRC)
a. Model Statistics RRC
Model Statistics
Model
RRC-Model_1
Number of
Predictors
3

Rsquared
RMSE
.998
16.414

RRC- Model_1
RRC
TRENDQ
Q1
D13Q1
Constant
Estimate
4,706.41
(77.15)
(34.76)
(40.74)
SE
9.591
1.105
10.910
19.181
t
490.73
-69.84
-3.19
-2.12
Sig.
.000
.000
.010
.060
Dummy
Variable
Support
Variable
Definition
Explanation
TRENDQ
Quarterly Trend
Q1
Binary variable equal to 1 for Quarter 1
C
D13Q1
Binary variable equal to 1 for 2013 Q1
2
A: To account for customer responsiveness to EDDs in the indicated quarter(s).
B: Starting at the specified date, the data indicated that relationship between the independent
variable and the dependent variable changed.
C: To account for seasonality.
1: Included to address a structural shift
2: Included to address an outlier
N
14
Adjusted R2
0.997
F
statistic
1,685.63
Stability Chow Test

Combined
1
2
14
7
7
k
4
4
4
SSR
2,694
456
1,191
Chow Stat:
Significance (p-value)
0.953
0.495
Heteroskedasticity - Whites Test

White Stat
1.140
0.566
A-58

Appendix 14
Page 3 of 51
b. Correlation Matrix RRC

Correlations
TRENDQ
TRENDQ
Q1
c.
Q1
.078
.078
ACF/PACF Graphs RRC
Residual ACF
Model
RRC-Model_1
ACF
SE
SEx2
Residual PACF
Model
RRC-Model_1
PACF
SE
SEx2
1
-0.024
0.267
0.535
2
0.156
0.267
0.535
3
-0.201
0.274
0.548
4
0.046
0.284
0.569
5
-0.417
0.285
0.570
6
-0.117
0.325
0.651
7
-0.100
0.328
0.657
8
0.025
0.331
0.661
1
-0.024
0.267
2
0.156
0.267
3
-0.200
0.267
4
0.021
0.267
5
-0.380
0.267
6
-0.191
0.267
7
-0.005
0.267
8
-0.117
0.267
0.535
0.535
0.535
0.535
0.535
0.535
0.535
0.535
A-59

Appendix 14
Page 4 of 51
d. Table of Actual, Fitted, and Residual Values RRC
YRQTR
2011Q4
2012Q1
2012Q2
2012Q3
2012Q4
2013Q1
2013Q2
2013Q3
2013Q4
2014Q1
2014Q2
2014Q3
2014Q4
2015Q11
Actual
4,642
4,507
4,474
4,420
4,319
4,168
4,154
4,097
3,987
3,886
3,843
3,791
3,704
3,616
Fitted
4,629
4,517
4,475
4,398
4,321
4,168
4,166
4,089
4,012
3,900
3,858
3,781
3,703
3,592
Residual
12.74
(10.35)
(0.95)
22.53
(1.98)
0.00
(12.35)
8.14
(24.71)
(13.80)
(14.40)
10.08
0.90
24.14
%
Variation
0.3%
-0.2%
0.0%
0.5%
0.0%
0.0%
-0.3%
0.2%
-0.6%
-0.4%
-0.4%
0.3%
0.0%
0.7%
Standardized
Residual
0.78
(0.63)
(0.06)
1.37
(0.12)
0.00
(0.75)
0.50
(1.51)
(0.84)
(0.88)
0.61
0.05
1.47
e. Ex Post RRC
Actual Results vs. Ex Post Forecast
2014Q2
2014Q3
2014Q4
2015Q1
Total
Actuals
3,843
3,791
3,704
3,616
3,739
Ex Post
Forecast
3,845
3,766
3,686
3,561
3,715
Difference
-1.88
24.89
17.98
54.44
23.86
% Difference
-0.05%
0.66%
0.49%
1.51%
0.64%
Comparison of Original and Ex Post Parameter Estimates
Constant
TRENDQ
Q1
D13Q1
Estimate
4706.410
-77.152
-34.759
-40.739
Ex Post
Estimate
4718.939
-79.430
-45.693
-28.667
Difference
-12.53
2.28
10.93
-12.07
% Difference
-0.27%
-2.95%
-31.46%
29.63%
Historical data used in customer count modeling ended in 2015Q1 due to the moratorium.
A-60

Appendix 14
Page 5 of 51
APPENDIX 14.2 RESIDENTIAL NON-HEATING USE PER CUSTOMER (RRUPC)
a. Model Statistics RRUPC
Model Statistics
Number of
Predictors
6
Model
RRUPC-Model_1
Rsquared
0.983804
RMSE
0.115128

RRUPC-Model_1
Variable
RREDD
Q1
Q2
D15Q1
D14Q1
I10Q3_AfterxRRNGP
RRUPC
RREDD
Q1
Q2
D15Q1
D14Q1
I10Q3_AfterxRRNGP
Constant
Estimate
3.420
.001
.371
.549
.690
.354
-.004
SE
.042
.000
.082
.044
.124
.123
.002
Definition
Residential Non-Heating Effective Degree Days
Binary Variable equal to 1 for Quarter 1
Rolling 4-quarter Residential Non-Heating Natural
Gas Price ($2014/Dth) for the period of 2010 Q3 and
after
t
82.166
18.431
4.533
12.408
5.582
2.866
-2.539
Sig.
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.007
.015
Explanation
Dummy
Variable
Support
C
C
2
2
B

N
45
Adjusted R2
0.981
A-61
F
statistic
384.699

Appendix 14
Page 6 of 51
Stability Chow Test

Combined
1
2
45
32
13
k
7
7
7
SSR
0.504
0.242
0.111
1.896
0.104
Chow Stat:

2.069
0.355
White Stat
b. Correlation Matrix RRUPC
Correlations
Q1
c.
Q2
RREDD
I10Q3_AfterxRRNGP
Q1
-.343
.856
-.017
Q2
-.343
-.163
-.064
RREDD
.856
-.163
-.038
I10Q3_AfterxRRNGP
-.017
-.064
-.038
ACF/PACF Graphs RRUPC
A-62

Appendix 14
Page 7 of 51
Residual ACF
Model
RRUPC-Model_1
ACF
SE
SEx2
Residual PACF
Model
RRUPC-Model_1
PACF
SE
SEx2
0.000
0.149
0.298
1
0.000
0.149
0.298
-0.207
0.149
0.298
2
-0.207
0.149
0.298
-0.077
0.155
0.311
3
-0.081
0.149
0.298
0.190
0.156
0.312
4
0.153
0.149
0.298
-0.053
0.161
0.323
5
-0.089
0.149
0.298
-0.273
0.162
0.323
6
-0.231
0.149
0.298
d. Table of Actual, Fitted, and Residual Values RRUPC
YRQTR
2005Q1
2005Q2
2005Q3
2005Q1
2005Q2
2005Q3
2005Q4
2006Q1
2006Q2
2006Q3
2006Q4
2007Q1
2007Q2
2007Q3
2007Q4
2008Q1
2008Q2
2008Q3
2008Q4
2009Q1
2009Q2
2009Q3
2009Q4
2010Q1
2010Q2
2010Q3
2010Q4
Actual
5.74
4.84
3.60
5.74
4.84
3.60
4.40
5.42
4.77
3.57
4.32
5.39
4.75
3.56
4.27
5.60
4.64
3.47
4.39
5.57
4.61
3.65
4.33
5.51
4.46
3.36
4.26
Fitted
5.67
4.76
3.45
5.67
4.76
3.45
4.37
5.51
4.70
3.47
4.29
5.60
4.74
3.47
4.33
5.58
4.68
3.46
4.43
5.69
4.67
3.48
4.38
5.59
4.56
3.37
4.33
Residual
0.08
0.08
0.15
0.08
0.08
0.15
0.03
(0.09)
0.07
0.10
0.03
(0.21)
0.01
0.10
(0.06)
0.02
(0.03)
0.01
(0.04)
(0.11)
(0.06)
0.17
(0.06)
(0.08)
(0.10)
(0.01)
(0.07)
A-63
%
Variation
1.3%
1.7%
4.3%
1.3%
1.7%
4.3%
0.8%
-1.6%
1.5%
2.8%
0.7%
-3.8%
0.2%
2.7%
-1.4%
0.3%
-0.7%
0.3%
-0.9%
-2.0%
-1.4%
4.7%
-1.3%
-1.5%
-2.2%
-0.2%
-1.5%
Standardized
Residual
0.67
0.72
1.34
0.67
0.72
1.34
0.30
(0.76)
0.61
0.88
0.25
(1.80)
0.10
0.83
(0.52)
0.16
(0.30)
0.10
(0.33)
(0.99)
(0.54)
1.48
(0.50)
(0.71)
(0.85)
(0.06)
(0.57)
-0.057
0.172
0.343
8
0.130
0.172
0.344
7
-0.063
0.149
0.298
8
0.007
0.149
0.298

Appendix 14
Page 8 of 51
YRQTR
2011Q1
2011Q2
2011Q3
2011Q4
2012Q1
2012Q2
2012Q3
2012Q4
2013Q1
2013Q2
2013Q3
2013Q4
2014Q1
2014Q2
2014Q3
2014Q4
2015Q1
2015Q2
2015Q3
2015Q4
2016Q1
Actual
5.61
4.67
3.40
4.21
5.43
4.34
3.26
4.33
5.43
4.55
3.11
4.33
6.08
4.72
3.28
4.47
6.44
4.62
3.21
4.00
5.44
Fitted
5.62
4.55
3.36
4.15
5.24
4.43
3.39
4.27
5.44
4.63
3.39
4.29
6.08
4.65
3.37
4.26
6.44
4.62
3.37
4.13
5.24
Residual
(0.00)
0.12
0.04
0.06
0.20
(0.08)
(0.13)
0.06
(0.01)
(0.08)
(0.28)
0.04
(0.00)
0.06
(0.09)
0.21
(0.00)
0.01
(0.16)
(0.13)
0.21
%
Variation
-0.1%
2.6%
1.3%
1.5%
3.6%
-1.9%
-4.1%
1.3%
-0.1%
-1.7%
-8.9%
0.01
(0.00)
0.01
(0.03)
0.05
(0.00)
0.00
(0.05)
(0.03)
0.04
Standardized
Residual
(0.04)
1.05
0.39
0.55
1.70
(0.73)
(1.15)
0.50
(0.05)
(0.65)
(2.41)
0.36
(0.00)
0.55
(0.78)
1.84
(0.00)
0.05
(1.39)
(1.11)
1.81
e. Ex Post RRUPC
Ex Post
Actuals
Forecast
Difference
4.62
4.62
0.01
3.21
3.38
-0.17
4.00
4.15
-0.14
5.44
5.21
0.23
17.28
17.36
-0.07
2015Q2
2015Q3
2015Q4
2016Q1
Total
% Difference
0.15%
-5.35%
-3.57%
4.29%
-0.43%
Constant
RREDD
Q1
Q2
D15Q1
D14Q1
I10Q3_AfterxRRNGP
Estimate
3.420
0.001
0.371
0.549
0.690
0.354
-0.004
Ex Post
Estimate
3.432
0.001
0.328
0.533
0.712
0.376
-0.004
A-64
Difference
-0.01
0.00
0.04
0.02
-0.02
-0.02
0.00
% Difference
-0.36%
-0.47%
11.76%
2.91%
-3.21%
-6.30%
-0.28%

Appendix 14
Page 9 of 51
APPENDIX 14.3 RESIDENTIAL HEATING CUSTOMERS (RHC)
a. Model Statistics RHC
Model
RHC-Model_1
Model Statistics
Number of
Predictors
7

Rsquared
RMSE
0.998
91.198

RHC-Model_1
RHC
CUMULATIVEHC
RHOIL_NG_SAVE
Q1
Q3
D10Q3_11Q3
D11Q4_13Q2
D14Q2_After
Constant
Estimate
22,768.05
0.10
0.70
274.91
(381.22)
(122.68)
(280.04)
215.31
SE
146.415
0.008
0.015
33.134
34.046
48.601
48.339
78.152
t
155.50
11.79
47.19
8.30
(11.20)
(2.52)
(5.79)
2.76
Sig.
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.016
0.000
0.009
Dummy
Variable
Support
Variable
CUMULATIVEHC
RHOIL_NG_SAVE
Definition
Explanation
Cumulative Housing Completions
Residential Heating Cumulative Savings from Fuel
Switching
Q1
C
Q3
C
D10Q3_11Q3
Binary variable equal to 1 for 2010 Q3 to 2011 Q3
D11Q4_13Q2
D14Q2_After
Binary variable equal to 1 for 2014 Q2 and after
N
45
Adjusted R2
0.998
F
statistic
2,711.68
2,711.68
A-65
1
1
1

Appendix 14
Page 10 of 51
Stability Chow Test
N
Combined
1
2
45
20
25
8
8
8
SSR
307,731
129,877
100,014
1.227
0.319
Chow Stat:

White Stat
b. Correlation Matrix RHC
Q1
Q1
Q3
RHOIL_NG_SAVE
CUMULATIVEHC
D10Q3_11Q3
D11Q4_13Q2
D12Q4_After
c.
1
-.343
0.050
-.021
-.053
0.018
0.040
Q3
-.343
1
-.027
0.008
0.128
-.101
-.055
RHOIL_NG_SAVE
0.050
-0.027
1
0.814
0.032
0.338
0.862
4.870
0.088
Correlations
CUMULATIVEHC
-0.021
0.008
0.814
1
0.219
0.373
0.565
ACF/PACF Graphs RHC
A-66
D10Q3_11Q3
-0.053
0.128
0.032
0.219
1
-0.152
-0.189
D11Q4_13Q2
0.018
-0.101
0.338
0.373
-0.152
1
0.213
D12Q4_After
0.040
-0.055
0.862
0.565
-0.189
0.213
1

Appendix 14
Page 11 of 51
Residual ACF
Model
RHC-Model_1
Residual PACF
Model
RHC-Model_1
ACF
SE
SEx2
PACF
SE
SEx2
1
0.220
0.149
2
-0.147
0.156
3
0.000
0.159
4
-0.130
0.159
5
-0.152
0.161
6
-0.043
0.165
7
0.214
0.165
8
0.082
0.171
0.298
0.312
0.318
0.318
0.323
0.329
0.330
0.342
1
0.220
0.149
2
-0.205
0.149
3
0.092
0.149
4
-0.203
0.149
5
-0.053
0.149
6
-0.057
0.149
7
0.244
0.149
8
-0.084
0.149
0.298
0.298
0.298
0.298
0.298
0.298
0.298
0.298
d. Table of Actual, Fitted, and Residual Values RHC

YRQTR
2004Q1
2004Q2
2004Q3
2004Q4
2005Q1
2005Q2
2005Q3
2005Q4
2006Q1
2006Q2
2006Q3
2006Q4
2007Q1
2007Q2
2007Q3
2007Q4
2008Q1
2008Q2
2008Q3
2008Q4
2009Q1
2009Q2
2009Q3
2009Q4
2010Q1
2010Q2
Actual
24,269
24,088
23,635
24,015
24,467
24,326
24,122
24,334
24,780
24,559
24,090
24,532
25,046
24,885
24,403
24,828
25,359
25,104
24,633
25,328
25,925
25,689
25,419
25,873
26,379
26,181
Fitted
24,317
24,080
23,742
24,166
24,484
24,260
23,926
24,355
24,678
24,461
24,130
24,571
24,942
24,732
24,393
24,860
25,327
25,166
24,833
25,339
25,876
25,721
25,386
25,889
26,403
26,227
Residual
(48.78)
7.37
(106.94)
(151.13)
(17.62)
65.97
196.15
(20.67)
102.03
97.90
(40.30)
(38.95)
103.27
153.40
9.41
(32.07)
32.00
(61.87)
(199.07)
(11.41)
49.46
(32.26)
33.32
(16.33)
(24.06)
(45.25)
A-67
%
Variation
-0.2%
0.0%
-0.5%
-0.6%
-0.1%
0.3%
0.8%
-0.1%
0.4%
0.4%
-0.2%
-0.2%
0.4%
0.6%
0.0%
-0.1%
0.1%
-0.2%
-0.8%
0.0%
0.2%
-0.1%
0.1%
-0.1%
-0.1%
-0.2%
Standardized
Residual
(0.53)
0.08
(1.17)
(1.66)
(0.19)
0.72
2.15
(0.23)
1.12
1.07
(0.44)
(0.43)
1.13
1.68
0.10
(0.35)
0.35
(0.68)
(2.18)
(0.13)
0.54
(0.35)
0.37
(0.18)
(0.26)
(0.50)

Appendix 14
Page 12 of 51
YRQTR
2010Q3
2010Q4
2011Q1
2011Q2
2011Q3
2011Q4
2012Q1
2012Q2
2012Q3
2012Q4
2013Q1
2013Q2
2013Q3
2013Q4
2014Q1
2014Q2
2014Q3
2014Q4
2015Q12
Actual
25,761
26,222
26,746
26,655
26,296
26,614
27,237
27,135
26,945
27,647
28,398
28,396
28,181
28,915
29,664
29,779
29,656
30,094
30,640
Fitted
25,759
26,238
26,765
26,626
26,292
26,674
27,338
27,256
26,936
27,540
28,338
28,291
28,254
28,860
29,649
29,809
29,490
30,078
30,792
Residual
1.54
(15.79)
(18.49)
28.68
4.06
(59.84)
(101.13)
(121.17)
9.18
107.43
60.43
105.11
(73.58)
54.58
15.42
(29.68)
166.23
15.98
(152.53)
%
Variation
0.0%
-0.1%
-0.1%
0.1%
0.0%
-0.2%
-0.4%
-0.4%
0.0%
0.4%
0.2%
0.4%
-0.3%
0.2%
0.1%
-0.1%
0.6%
0.1%
-0.5%
Standardized
Residual
0.02
(0.17)
(0.20)
0.31
0.04
(0.66)
(1.11)
(1.33)
0.10
1.18
0.66
1.15
(0.81)
0.60
0.17
(0.33)
1.82
0.18
(1.67)
A-68

Appendix 14
Page 13 of 51
e. Ex Post3 RHC
2014Q2
2014Q3
2014Q4
2015Q1
Total

Ex Post
Actuals
Forecast
Difference
29,779
29,602
176.54
29,656
29,266
390.43
30,094
29,872
221.61
30,640
30,600
39.35
30,042
29,835
206.98
% Difference
0.59%
1.32%
0.74%
0.13%
0.69%

Ex Post
Estimate
Estimate
Difference
% Difference
Constant
22768.048
22779.889
-11.84
-0.05%
CUMULATIVEHC
0.099
0.098
0.00
0.72%
RHOIL_NG_SAVE
0.698
0.700
0.00
-0.31%
Q1
274.914
287.430
-12.52
-4.55%
Q3
-381.224
-399.273
18.05
-4.73%
D10Q3_11Q3
-122.676
-119.224
-3.45
2.81%
D11Q4_13Q2
-280.042
-285.139
5.10
-1.82%
D14Q2_After
215.311
NA
NA
NA
There was a structural shift in this model near the ex post period. As discussed in Appendix 6, in the event of a
structural change near or during the ex post period, the results for the ex post analysis have limited meaning
and usefulness.
A-69

Appendix 14
Page 14 of 51
APPENDIX 14.4 RESIDENTIAL HEATING USE PER CUSTOMER (RHUPC)
a. Model Statistics RHUPC
Model
RHUPC-Model_1
Model Statistics
Number of
Predictors
8

Rsquared
RMSE
0.997
0.946

RHUPC-Model_1
Variable
MEDHHINC
RHNGP
RHUPC
MEDHHINC
RHNGP
Q1xRHEDD
Q2_Q4_RHEDD
I03Q1_05Q1xQ1xRHEDD
I03Q2x04Q2x05Q2xRHEDD
D14Q1_14Q2
D07Q2x08Q2
Constant
Estimate
-.704
.000
-.142
.012
.010
.001
.001
1.744
1.329
Definition
Median Household Income
Residential Non-Heating natural gas price ($2014/Dth)
SE
2.428
.000
.071
.000
.000
.000
.000
.706
.708
Sig.
.773
.006
.052
.000
.000
.000
.005
.017
.067
-.29
2.92
-2.00
112.03
48.76
5.29
2.94
2.47
1.88
Explanation
Dummy
Variable
Support
Q1xRHEDD
Q2_Q4_RHEDD
Residential Heating Effective Degree Days in Quarter 1

A
Residential Heating Effective Degree Days in Quarters
A
2 and 4
A
I03Q1_05Q1xQ1xRHEDD
Residential Heating Effective Degree Days in Q1 for the
period 2003 Q1 to 2005 Q1
A
I03Q2x04Q2x05Q2xRHEDD Residential Heating Effective Degree Days in Q2 for the
period 2003 Q2 to 2005 Q2
D14Q1_14Q2
D07Q2x08Q2
A-70
2
1

Appendix 14
Page 15 of 51
N
53
Adjusted R2
0.997
F statistic
2,105.794
Stability Chow Test

N
Combined
1
2
37
29
24
7
7
7
SSR
47.210
29.551
9.184
1.219
0.316
Chow Stat:

2.025
0.363
White Stat
b. Correlation Matrix RHUPC
Correlations
RHNGP
Q2_Q4_RHEDD
Q1xRHEDD
MEDHHINC
.042
-.041
.662
RHNGP
c.
Q2_Q4_RHEDD
.042
-.570
.018
Q1xRHEDD
-.041
-.570
.015
MEDHHINC
.662
.018
.015
ACF/PACF Graphs RHUPC
A-71

Appendix 14
Page 16 of 51
Residual ACF
Model
RHUPC-Model_1
Residual PACF
Model
RHUPC-Model_1
ACF
SE
SEx2
1
-0.120
0.143
0.286
2
0.024
0.145
0.290
3
0.112
0.145
0.290
4
0.052
0.147
0.293
5
-0.052
0.147
0.294
6
-0.201
0.147
0.295
7
0.067
0.153
0.306
8
0.200
0.154
0.307
PACF
SE
SEx2
1
-0.120
0.143
0.286
2
0.010
0.143
0.286
3
0.118
0.143
0.286
4
0.081
0.143
0.286
5
-0.042
0.143
0.286
6
-0.239
0.143
0.286
7
-0.002
0.143
0.286
8
0.259
0.143
0.286
d. Table of Actual, Fitted, and Residual Values RHUPC
YRQTR
2003Q1
2003Q2
2003Q3
2003Q4
2004Q1
2004Q2
2004Q3
2004Q4
2005Q1
2005Q2
2005Q3
2005Q4
2006Q1
2006Q2
2006Q3
2006Q4
2007Q1
2007Q2
2007Q3
2007Q4
2008Q1
2008Q2
2008Q3
2008Q4
2009Q1
2009Q2
2009Q3
Actual
60.24
22.93
6.63
27.09
57.35
21.53
6.69
25.07
54.31
21.92
6.14
24.80
46.39
19.77
6.21
21.62
49.08
21.81
6.27
24.25
47.75
19.90
5.85
24.14
51.79
18.64
6.15
Fitted
58.62
22.78
6.57
24.72
58.17
20.36
6.41
24.54
55.15
23.06
6.41
24.13
47.48
19.40
5.86
22.49
49.94
21.91
6.13
23.26
48.82
19.81
5.13
24.38
51.15
18.50
5.38
Residual
1.61
0.15
0.06
2.37
(0.83)
1.17
0.28
0.53
(0.84)
(1.14)
(0.28)
0.67
(1.09)
0.37
0.35
(0.87)
(0.87)
(0.09)
0.14
0.99
(1.07)
0.09
0.72
(0.24)
0.64
0.14
0.77
A-72
%
Variation
2.7%
0.7%
0.9%
8.7%
-1.4%
5.4%
4.1%
2.1%
-1.5%
-5.2%
-4.5%
2.7%
-2.4%
1.9%
5.6%
-4.0%
-1.8%
-0.4%
2.3%
4.1%
-2.2%
0.5%
12.3%
-1.0%
1.2%
0.8%
12.5%
Standardized
Residual
1.71
0.16
0.06
2.50
(0.88)
1.24
0.29
0.56
(0.89)
(1.21)
(0.29)
0.71
(1.15)
0.39
0.37
(0.92)
(0.91)
(0.10)
0.15
1.05
(1.13)
0.10
0.76
(0.26)
0.68
0.15
0.81

Appendix 14
Page 17 of 51
YRQTR
2009Q4
2010Q1
2010Q2
2010Q3
2010Q4
2011Q1
2011Q2
2011Q3
2011Q4
2012Q1
2012Q2
2012Q3
2012Q4
2013Q1
2013Q2
2013Q3
2013Q4
2014Q1
2014Q2
2014Q3
2014Q4
2015Q1
2015Q2
2015Q3
2015Q4
2016Q1
Actual
22.23
49.08
16.13
5.62
24.02
51.84
19.86
5.64
20.39
42.88
15.08
5.41
22.92
47.90
20.19
5.13
23.26
56.54
21.56
5.45
23.25
56.95
21.39
5.27
19.32
43.36
Fitted
23.66
48.85
16.26
5.33
24.37
51.78
17.99
5.46
21.11
42.65
15.90
5.86
23.73
47.83
19.71
5.80
23.86
56.26
21.85
5.90
23.61
55.63
19.78
6.32
21.46
43.44
Residual
(1.43)
0.23
(0.13)
0.29
(0.35)
0.05
1.87
0.18
(0.71)
0.23
(0.82)
(0.45)
(0.81)
0.07
0.48
(0.66)
(0.60)
0.28
(0.28)
(0.45)
(0.37)
1.32
1.61
(1.05)
(2.14)
(0.08)
A-73
%
Variation
-6.4%
0.5%
-0.8%
5.1%
-1.4%
0.1%
9.4%
3.2%
-3.5%
0.5%
-5.4%
-8.4%
-3.5%
0.2%
2.4%
-12.9%
-2.6%
0.5%
-1.3%
-8.2%
-1.6%
2.3%
7.5%
-19.9%
-11.1%
-0.2%
Standardized
Residual
(1.51)
0.25
(0.14)
0.31
(0.36)
0.06
1.98
0.19
(0.75)
0.24
(0.87)
(0.48)
(0.85)
0.08
0.50
(0.70)
(0.64)
0.30
(0.30)
(0.47)
(0.39)
1.39
1.70
(1.11)
(2.26)
(0.09)

Appendix 14
Page 18 of 51
e. Ex Post RHUPC
Ex Post
Actuals
Forecast
Difference
21.39
19.99
1.40
5.27
6.58
-1.31
19.32
21.72
-2.40
43.36
43.73
-0.37
89.33
92.02
-2.69
% Difference
6.53%
-24.86%
-12.43%
-0.86%
-3.01%

Ex Post
Estimate
Estimate
Difference
Constant
-0.704
-1.691
0.99
MEDHHINC
0.000
0.000
0.00
RHNGP
-0.142
-0.198
0.06
Q1xRHEDD
0.012
0.012
0.00
Q2_Q4_RHEDD
0.010
0.010
0.00
I03Q1_05Q1xQ1xRHEDD
0.001
0.001
0.00
I03Q2x04Q2x05Q2xRHEDD
0.001
0.001
0.00
D14Q1_14Q2
1.744
1.659
0.09
D07Q2x08Q2
1.329
1.350
-0.02
% Difference
-140.34%
-22.33%
-39.59%
0.11%
0.22%
4.36%
9.60%
4.88%
-1.58%
2015Q2
2015Q3
2015Q4
2016Q1
Total
A-74

Appendix 14
Page 19 of 51
APPENDIX 14.5 C&I LLF CUSTOMERS (LLFC)
a. Model Statistics LLFC
Model
LLFC-Model_1
Model Statistics
Number of
Predictors
7

Rsquared
RMSE
0.994
19.402
LLFC-Model_1
LLFC
Constant
AR1
NMANEMP
LLFOIL_NG_SAVE
Q1
Q2_Q4
D05Q1_06Q1
D14Q4_After
D08Q3_09Q4
Variable
NMANEMP
LLFOIL_NG_SAVE
Estimate
2593.104
.487
13.547
.010
108.151
64.461
49.876
-75.008
-77.427
SE
312.893
.159
5.433
.000
7.446
5.359
14.015
20.725
13.914
Definition
Employment, Non-manufacturing
C&I LLF Cumulative Savings from Fuel Switching
Sales and Transportation
t
8.29
3.06
2.49
37.77
14.52
12.03
3.56
-3.62
-5.56
Explanation
Sig.
.000
.004
.017
.000
.000
.000
.001
.001
.000
Dummy
Variable
Support
C
Q1
C
Q2_Q4
Binary variable equal to 1 for Quarters 2 and 4
D05Q1_06Q1
D14Q4_After
D08Q3_09Q4
A-75
1
1
1

Appendix 14
Page 20 of 51
N
49
F
statistic
893.081
Adjusted R2
0.993
Stability Chow Test
49
23
26
Combined
1
2
SSR
15,058
4,275
6,036
9
9
9
1.586
0.163
Chow Stat:

0.322
0.851
White Stat
b. Correlation Matrix LLFC
Q1
Q1
Q2_Q4
Correlations
LLFOIL_NG_SAVE
NMANEMP
D05Q1_06Q1
D08Q3_09Q4
D14Q4_After
-.589
.048
-.002
.103
-.083
.110
Q2_Q4
-.589
-.019
.057
-.061
.008
.004
LLFOIL_NG_SAVE
.048
-.019
.379
-.321
-.104
.449
NMANEMP
-.002
.057
.379
-.076
.019
.269
D05Q1_06Q1
.103
-.061
-.321
-.076
-.126
-.070
D08Q3_09Q4
-.083
.008
-.104
.019
-.126
-.077
D14Q4_After
.110
.004
.449
.269
-.070
-.077
c.
ACF/PACF Graphs LLFC
A-76

Appendix 14
Page 21 of 51
Residual ACF
Model
LLFC-Model_1
Residual PACF
Model
LLFC-Model_1
ACF
SE
SEx2
1
0.130
0.143
0.286
2
-0.123
0.145
0.291
3
-0.111
0.147
0.295
4
-0.252
0.149
0.298
5
-0.076
0.157
0.315
6
-0.033
0.158
0.316
7
0.130
0.158
0.317
8
0.121
0.161
0.321
PACF
SE
SEx2
1
0.130
0.143
0.286
2
-0.142
0.143
0.286
3
-0.077
0.143
0.286
4
-0.253
0.143
0.286
5
-0.041
0.143
0.286
6
-0.109
0.143
0.286
7
0.098
0.143
0.286
8
0.004
0.143
0.286
d. Table of Actual, Fitted, and Residual Values LLFC
YRQTR
2003Q1
2003Q2
2003Q3
2003Q4
2004Q1
2004Q2
2004Q3
2004Q4
2005Q1
2005Q2
2005Q3
2005Q4
2006Q1
2006Q2
2006Q3
2006Q4
2007Q1
2007Q2
2007Q3
2007Q4
2008Q1
2008Q2
2008Q3
2008Q4
2009Q1
2009Q2
2009Q3
Actual
3,539
3,485
3,439
3,474
3,539
3,515
3,440
3,517
3,625
3,582
3,540
3,562
3,634
3,574
3,508
3,585
3,657
3,619
3,522
3,598
3,672
3,584
3,468
3,581
3,671
3,641
3,550
Fitted
3,538
3,501
3,429
3,502
3,545
3,500
3,452
3,512
3,614
3,581
3,518
3,594
3,630
3,556
3,502
3,576
3,638
3,608
3,545
3,603
3,676
3,642
3,480
3,568
3,654
3,633
3,565
Residual
0.89
(15.83)
10.16
(27.49)
(5.94)
15.79
(12.45)
5.09
10.99
1.02
22.80
(31.92)
3.35
17.65
6.68
8.74
18.37
10.20
(23.38)
(5.44)
(3.63)
(57.96)
(12.48)
12.36
17.56
8.36
(14.75)
A-77
%
Variation
0.0%
-0.5%
0.3%
-0.8%
-0.2%
0.4%
-0.4%
0.1%
0.3%
0.0%
0.6%
-0.9%
0.1%
0.5%
0.2%
0.2%
0.5%
0.3%
-0.7%
-0.2%
-0.1%
-1.6%
-0.4%
0.3%
0.5%
0.2%
-0.4%
Standardized
Residual
0.05
(0.82)
0.52
(1.42)
(0.31)
0.81
(0.64)
0.26
0.57
0.05
1.17
(1.65)
0.17
0.91
0.34
0.45
0.95
0.53
(1.20)
(0.28)
(0.19)
(2.99)
(0.64)
0.64
0.90
0.43
(0.76)

Appendix 14
Page 22 of 51
YRQTR
2009Q4
2010Q1
2010Q2
2010Q3
2010Q4
2011Q1
2011Q2
2011Q3
2011Q4
2012Q1
2012Q2
2012Q3
2012Q4
2013Q1
2013Q2
2013Q3
2013Q4
2014Q1
2014Q2
2014Q3
2014Q4
2015Q14
Actual
3,633
3,795
3,792
3,714
3,792
3,897
3,854
3,781
3,869
3,965
3,958
3,898
4,003
4,095
4,066
3,970
4,075
4,184
4,193
4,168
4,192
4,247
Fitted
3,635
3,798
3,769
3,717
3,786
3,871
3,849
3,781
3,878
3,970
3,948
3,880
3,980
4,102
4,075
4,000
4,093
4,196
4,181
4,138
4,176
4,278
Residual
(1.62)
(2.42)
23.04
(3.74)
5.95
26.08
5.18
(0.59)
(8.83)
(4.69)
10.82
17.50
23.23
(7.39)
(8.70)
(29.93)
(18.04)
(11.50)
11.92
29.59
16.05
(31.07)
%
Variation
0.0%
-0.1%
0.6%
-0.1%
0.2%
0.7%
0.1%
0.0%
-0.2%
-0.1%
0.3%
0.4%
0.6%
-0.2%
-0.2%
-0.8%
-0.4%
-0.3%
0.3%
0.7%
0.4%
-0.7%
Standardized
Residual
(0.08)
(0.12)
1.19
(0.19)
0.31
1.34
0.27
(0.03)
(0.46)
(0.24)
0.56
0.90
1.20
(0.38)
(0.45)
(1.54)
(0.93)
(0.59)
0.61
1.52
0.83
(1.60)
A-78

Appendix 14
Page 23 of 51
e. Ex Post5 LLFC
2014Q2
2014Q3
2014Q4
2015Q1
Total

Ex Post
Actuals
Forecast
Difference
4,193
4,172
20.57
4,168
4,120
47.25
4,192
4,223
-30.63
4,247
4,329
-81.90
4,200
4,211
-11.18
% Difference
0.49%
1.13%
-0.73%
-1.93%
-0.27%

Ex Post
Estimate
Estimate
Difference
% Difference
Constant
2,593.104
2,632.603
-39.50
-1.52%
AR1
0.487
0.563
-0.08
-15.70%
NMANEMP
13.547
12.869
0.68
5.01%
LLFOIL_NG_SAVE
0.010
0.010
0.00
1.44%
Q1
108.151
113.611
-5.46
-5.05%
Q2_Q4
64.461
66.087
-1.63
-2.52%
D05Q1_06Q1
49.876
45.854
4.02
8.06%
D14Q4_After
(75.008)
NA
NA
NA
D08Q3_09Q4
(77.427)
(73.593)
-3.83
4.95%
and usefulness.
A-79

Appendix 14
Page 24 of 51
APPENDIX 14.6 C&I LLF USE PER CUSTOMER (LLFUPC)
a. Model Statistics LLFUPC
Model Statistics
Model
LLFUPC-Model_1
Number of
Predictors
7

Rsquared
RMSE
0.997
6.526
LLFUPC-Model_1
LLFUPC
LLFNGP
NMANEMP
Q1xLLFEDD
Q2xLLFEDD
Q4xLLFEDD
I11Q1_AfterxQ1_LLFEDD
I12Q1_AfterxQ3
Variable
LLFNGP
NMANEMP
Q1xLLFEDD
Q2xLLFEDD
Q4xLLFEDD
I12Q1_AfterxQ3
Constant
Estimate
-77.380
-2.853
2.485
.075
.056
.062
.008
-10.281
SE
36.569
.358
.654
.001
.002
.001
.001
4.089
Definition
C&I Low Load Factor natural gas price ($2014/Dth)
Non-manufacturing employment
C&I LLF Effective Degree Days in Q1
C&I LLF Effective Degree Days in Q1 for the period
2011 Q1 and after
Binary variable equal to 1 in Q3 for 2012 Q1 and
after
t
-2.12
-7.97
3.80
97.94
26.65
52.47
6.94
-2.51
Explanation
Sig.
.039
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.015
Dummy
Variable
Support
A
A
A
B

N
65
Adjusted R2
0.996
A-80
F statistic
2,411.148

Appendix 14
Page 25 of 51
Stability Chow Test

N
Combined
1
2
65
26
39
SSR
2,427.492
836.926
,427.492
1,238.991
8
8
8
1.037
0.422
Chow Stat:

3.102
0.212
White Stat
b. Correlation Matrix LLFUPC
NMANEMP
Correlations
NMANEMP
LLFNGP
Q1xLLFEDD
Q2xLLFEDD
Q4xLLFEDD
I12Q1_AfterxQ3
.082
.001
-.013
.001
.159
LLFNGP
.082
-.035
.034
.012
-.265
Q1xLLFEDD
.001
-.035
-.336
-.337
-.152
Q2xLLFEDD
-.013
.034
-.336
-.323
-.145
Q4xLLFEDD
.001
.012
-.337
-.323
-.146
I12Q1_AfterxQ3
.159
-.265
-.152
-.145
-.146
c.
ACF/PACF Graphs LLFUPC
A-81

Appendix 14
Page 26 of 51
Residual ACF
Model
LLFUPC-Model_1
ACF
SE
SEx2
1
0.215
0.124
0.248
2
0.111
0.130
0.259
3
0.013
0.131
0.262
4
-0.141
0.131
0.262
5
-0.125
0.133
0.267
6
-0.055
0.135
0.270
7
-0.086
0.136
0.271
8
-0.129
0.136
0.273
PACF
SE
SEx2
1
0.215
0.124
0.248
2
0.068
0.124
0.248
3
-0.025
0.124
0.248
4
-0.155
0.124
0.248
5
-0.071
0.124
0.248
6
0.012
0.124
0.248
7
-0.061
0.124
0.248
8
-0.126
0.124
0.248
Residual PACF
Model
LLFUPC-Model_1
d. Table of Actual, Fitted, and Residual Values LLFUPC
YRQTR
2000Q1
2000Q2
2000Q3
2000Q4
2001Q1
2001Q2
2001Q3
2001Q4
2002Q1
2002Q2
2002Q3
2002Q4
2003Q1
2003Q2
2003Q3
2003Q4
2004Q1
2004Q2
2004Q3
2004Q4
2005Q1
2005Q2
Actual
284.19
87.58
29.95
178.61
299.99
83.29
26.94
127.55
243.15
96.19
25.89
173.36
316.88
95.01
22.69
158.29
309.76
85.83
25.02
151.29
295.63
87.20
Fitted
282.64
90.86
26.09
169.03
287.03
88.22
19.30
138.38
257.31
99.91
29.41
172.38
316.51
97.30
24.49
156.62
310.59
82.20
21.39
156.22
294.64
94.05
Residual
1.55
(3.28)
3.85
9.58
12.96
(4.93)
7.64
(10.83)
(14.16)
(3.72)
(3.53)
0.99
0.37
(2.29)
(1.80)
1.67
(0.83)
3.63
3.63
(4.93)
0.99
(6.85)
A-82
%
Variation
0.5%
-3.7%
12.9%
5.4%
4.3%
-5.9%
28.4%
-8.5%
-5.8%
-3.9%
-13.6%
0.6%
0.1%
-2.4%
-7.9%
1.1%
-0.3%
4.2%
14.5%
-3.3%
0.3%
-7.9%
Standardized
Residual
0.24
(0.50)
0.59
1.47
1.99
(0.76)
1.17
(1.66)
(2.17)
(0.57)
(0.54)
0.15
0.06
(0.35)
(0.28)
0.26
(0.13)
0.56
0.56
(0.76)
0.15
(1.05)

Appendix 14
Page 27 of 51
YRQTR
2005Q3
2005Q4
2006Q1
2006Q2
2006Q3
2006Q4
2007Q1
2007Q2
2007Q3
2007Q4
2008Q1
2008Q2
2008Q3
2008Q4
2009Q1
2009Q2
2009Q3
2009Q4
2010Q1
2010Q2
2010Q3
2010Q4
2011Q1
2011Q2
2011Q3
2011Q4
2012Q1
2012Q2
2012Q3
2012Q4
2013Q1
2013Q2
2013Q3
2013Q4
2014Q1
2014Q2
2014Q3
2014Q4
2015Q1
2015Q2
Actual
22.86
154.59
259.78
81.56
23.41
123.21
276.66
95.95
23.36
156.68
289.04
92.54
23.46
167.47
303.00
86.10
25.64
154.35
294.11
76.36
25.19
173.30
337.84
102.44
27.16
151.68
271.55
83.12
26.34
168.35
312.86
106.82
26.57
172.28
374.15
117.72
29.15
175.21
382.17
116.89
Fitted
20.65
149.97
261.79
80.93
12.12
134.06
287.84
95.50
23.43
153.76
285.58
89.16
24.01
161.37
299.92
90.30
25.56
164.55
290.21
84.56
30.47
173.65
338.84
94.50
32.56
152.52
280.29
90.00
26.34
164.93
320.01
107.78
26.79
170.85
368.41
106.32
26.86
164.94
371.37
104.78
Residual
2.21
4.62
(2.01)
0.63
11.29
(10.85)
(11.18)
0.45
(0.07)
2.93
3.46
3.37
(0.55)
6.10
3.08
(4.20)
0.08
(10.20)
3.91
(8.20)
(5.28)
(0.35)
(1.00)
7.94
(5.39)
(0.84)
(8.75)
(6.88)
0.00
3.43
(7.15)
(0.97)
(0.22)
1.43
5.74
11.40
2.30
10.27
10.79
12.10
A-83
%
Variation
9.7%
3.0%
-0.8%
0.8%
48.2%
-8.8%
-4.0%
0.5%
-0.3%
1.9%
1.2%
3.6%
-2.3%
3.6%
1.0%
-4.9%
0.3%
-6.6%
1.3%
-10.7%
-21.0%
-0.2%
-0.3%
7.7%
-19.9%
-0.6%
-3.2%
-8.3%
0.0%
2.0%
-2.3%
-0.9%
-0.8%
0.8%
1.5%
9.7%
7.9%
5.9%
2.8%
10.4%
Standardized
Residual
0.34
0.71
(0.31)
0.10
1.73
(1.66)
(1.71)
0.07
(0.01)
0.45
0.53
0.52
(0.08)
0.93
0.47
(0.64)
0.01
(1.56)
0.60
(1.26)
(0.81)
(0.05)
(0.15)
1.22
(0.83)
(0.13)
(1.34)
(1.05)
0.00
0.52
(1.09)
(0.15)
(0.03)
0.22
0.88
1.75
0.35
1.57
1.65
1.85

Appendix 14
Page 28 of 51
YRQTR
2015Q3
2015Q4
2016Q1
Actual
28.22
141.53
290.94
Fitted
30.30
148.37
295.17
Residual
(2.08)
(6.84)
(4.23)
%
Variation
-7.4%
-4.8%
-1.5%
Standardized
Residual
(0.32)
(1.05)
(0.65)
e. Ex Post LLFUPC
2015Q2
2015Q3
2015Q4
2016Q1
Total

Ex Post
Actuals
Forecast
Difference
116.89
104.14
12.75
28.22
31.12
-2.90
141.53
148.96
-7.43
290.94
295.96
-5.02
577.58
580.17
-2.59
% Difference
10.91%
-10.27%
-5.25%
-1.72%
-0.45%

Ex Post
Estimate
Estimate
Difference
% Difference
-77.380
-82.430
5.05
-6.53%
CONSTANT
LLFNGP
-2.853
-2.869
0.02
-0.56%
NMANEMP
2.485
2.580
-0.09
-3.81%
Q1xLLFEDD
0.075
0.075
0.00
0.05%
Q2xLLFEDD
0.056
0.055
0.00
1.51%
Q4xLLFEDD
0.062
0.062
0.00
-0.13%
0.008
0.008
0.00
-1.91%
I12Q1_AfterxQ3
-10.281
-9.889
-0.39
3.81%
A-84

Appendix 14
Page 29 of 51
APPENDIX 14.7 C&I LLF CAPACITY EXEMPT TRANSPORT (LLFCE)
a. Model Statistics LLFCE
Model
LLFCE-Model_1
Model Statistics
Number of
Predictors
7

Rsquared
RMSE
0.987
7153.09
LLFCE-Model_1
LLFCE
AR2
Q1xCAL_EDD
Q2xCAL_EDD
Q4xCAL_EDD
D02Q1_06Q4
I11Q1_AfterxCAL_EDD
D07Q1_07Q2
D07Q4
Constant
Estimate
21,822.443
-.781
32.948
35.188
28.331
-28,869.468
16.825
-34,537.005
24,173.096
SE
4765.854
.095
2.756
8.307
2.939
1497.154
.828
4432.280
6155.543
t
4.58
-8.19
11.96
4.24
9.64
-19.28
20.32
-7.79
3.93
Sig.
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
Dummy
Variable
Support
Variable
Q1xCAL_EDD
Q2xCAL_EDD
Q4xCAL_EDD
D02Q1_06Q4
I11Q1_AfterxCAL_EDD
Definition
Explanation
Calendar Month Effective Degree Days in Quarter 1
A
A
A
B
Calendar Month Effective Degree Days for the period
2011 Q1 and after
D07Q1_07Q2
D07Q4
Binary variable equal to 1 for 2007 Quarter 4
A-85
2
2

Appendix 14
Page 30 of 51
N
57
F
statistic
456.022
Adjusted R2
0.985
Stability Chow Test
N
Combined
1
2
57
36
21
9
9
9
SSR
2,456,000,589
1,568,335,535
263,962,986
1.475
0.191
Chow Stat:

0.148
0.929
White Stat
b. Correlation Matrix LLFCE
Correlations
Q1xCAL_EDD
Q2xCAL_EDD
Q4xCAL_EDD
D02Q1_06Q4
Q1xCAL_EDD
-.337
-.337
-.018
I11Q1_AfterxCAL
_EDD
.379
Q2xCAL_EDD
-.337
-.322
.043
-.183
Q4xCAL_EDD
-.337
-.322
.018
.056
D02Q1_06Q4
-.018
.043
.018
-.406
I11Q1_AfterxCAL_EDD
.379
-.183
.056
-.406
c.
ACF/PACF Graphs LLFCE
A-86

Appendix 14
Page 31 of 51
Residual ACF
Model
LLFCE-Model_1
Residual PACF
Model
LLFCE-Model_1
ACF
SE
SEx2
1
-0.027
0.132
0.265
2
-0.013
0.133
0.265
3
0.183
0.133
0.265
4
-0.169
0.137
0.274
5
-0.143
0.141
0.281
6
-0.146
0.143
0.286
7
-0.168
0.146
0.291
8
0.034
0.149
0.298
PACF
SE
SEx2
1
-0.027
0.132
0.265
2
-0.013
0.132
0.265
3
0.182
0.132
0.265
4
-0.165
0.132
0.265
5
-0.152
0.132
0.265
6
-0.201
0.132
0.265
7
-0.136
0.132
0.265
8
0.051
0.132
0.265
d. Table of Actual, Fitted, and Residual Values LLFCE
YRQTR
2002Q1
2002Q2
2002Q3
2002Q4
2003Q1
2003Q2
2003Q3
2003Q4
2004Q1
2004Q2
2004Q3
2004Q4
2005Q1
2005Q2
2005Q3
2005Q4
2006Q1
2006Q2
2006Q3
2006Q4
2007Q1
2007Q2
2007Q3
2007Q4
2008Q1
2008Q2
Actual
78,226
31,983
12,959
67,697
98,772
31,216
12,588
58,624
93,226
27,801
13,485
60,280
91,853
28,739
12,159
58,140
80,557
27,470
14,085
50,192
90,255
32,366
14,941
109,439
152,703
45,062
Fitted
92,934
27,258
4,445
64,783
103,287
27,596
8,693
60,857
102,094
25,845
11,868
60,203
97,568
28,714
9,952
61,745
85,260
29,267
8,352
51,566
89,059
23,440
33,788
103,563
139,454
52,591
A-87
Residual
(14,708.00)
4,724.94
8,514.66
2,913.90
(4,514.93)
3,620.89
3,894.35
(2,232.54)
(8,868.45)
1,956.22
1,616.73
77.02
(5,714.60)
25.78
2,207.47
(3,605.53)
(4,702.62)
(1,796.34)
5,733.36
(1,373.88)
1,196.29
8,926.18
(18,846.60)
5,875.36
13,249.14
(7,528.87)
%
Variation
-18.8%
14.8%
65.7%
4.3%
-4.6%
11.6%
30.9%
-3.8%
-9.5%
7.0%
12.0%
0.1%
-6.2%
0.1%
18.2%
-6.2%
-5.8%
-6.5%
40.7%
-2.7%
1.3%
27.6%
-126.1%
5.4%
8.7%
-16.7%
Standardized
Residual
(2.06)
0.66
1.19
0.41
(0.63)
0.51
0.54
(0.31)
(1.24)
0.27
0.23
0.01
(0.80)
0.00
0.31
(0.50)
(0.66)
(0.25)
0.80
(0.19)
0.17
1.25
(2.63)
0.82
1.85
(1.05)

Appendix 14
Page 32 of 51
YRQTR
2008Q3
2008Q4
2009Q1
2009Q2
2009Q3
2009Q4
2010Q1
2010Q2
2010Q3
2010Q4
2011Q1
2011Q2
2011Q3
2011Q4
2012Q1
2012Q2
2012Q3
2012Q4
2013Q1
2013Q2
2013Q3
2013Q4
2014Q1
2014Q2
2014Q3
2014Q4
2015Q1
2015Q2
2015Q3
2015Q4
2016Q1
Actual
16,777
103,024
141,163
37,793
16,694
92,806
139,636
41,218
19,793
113,015
200,524
60,845
21,436
114,926
156,297
53,104
20,607
130,977
190,879
60,670
23,890
137,833
223,007
63,969
25,399
133,228
225,847
59,807
20,502
113,288
177,945
Fitted
7,270
99,011
144,082
45,052
21,023
104,150
134,625
46,878
14,777
101,932
201,795
51,355
23,159
120,152
165,214
61,821
30,768
130,246
193,888
63,489
25,394
141,196
212,644
62,291
15,465
129,099
222,397
57,824
21,112
112,194
175,026
A-88
Residual
9,506.66
4,012.83
(2,919.56)
(7,258.89)
(4,329.34)
(11,344.73)
5,010.99
(5,660.55)
5,016.37
11,082.28
(1,271.61)
9,490.31
(1,722.82)
(5,225.98)
(8,917.39)
(8,717.24)
(10,161.03)
730.88
(3,009.67)
(2,818.27)
(1,504.32)
(3,363.06)
10,362.62
1,678.73
9,933.12
4,128.89
3,450.02
1,982.84
(609.90)
1,093.84
2,919.39
%
Variation
56.7%
3.9%
-2.1%
-19.2%
-25.9%
-12.2%
3.6%
-13.7%
25.3%
9.8%
-0.6%
15.6%
-8.0%
-4.5%
-5.7%
-16.4%
-49.3%
0.6%
-1.6%
-4.6%
-6.3%
-2.4%
4.6%
2.6%
39.1%
3.1%
1.5%
3.3%
-3.0%
1.0%
1.6%
Standardized
Residual
1.33
0.56
(0.41)
(1.01)
(0.61)
(1.59)
0.70
(0.79)
0.70
1.55
(0.18)
1.33
(0.24)
(0.73)
(1.25)
(1.22)
(1.42)
0.10
(0.42)
(0.39)
(0.21)
(0.47)
1.45
0.23
1.39
0.58
0.48
0.28
(0.09)
0.15
0.41

Appendix 14
Page 33 of 51
e. Ex Post LLFCE
2015Q2
2015Q3
2015Q4
2016Q1
Total

Ex Post
Actuals
Forecast
Difference
59807
57444
2363
20502
20810
-308
113288
113671
-384
177945
174485
3460
371542
366411
5131
% Difference
3.95%
-1.50%
-0.34%
1.94%
1.38%

Ex Post
Estimate
Estimate
Difference
% Difference
Constant
21822.44
21410.13
412.32
1.89%
AR2
-0.78
-0.78
0.00
-0.47%
Q1xCAL_EDD
32.95
33.19
-0.24
-0.73%
Q2xCAL_EDD
35.19
35.48
-0.29
-0.82%
Q4xCAL_EDD
28.33
28.55
-0.22
-0.77%
D02Q1_06Q4
-28869.47
-28872.96
3.49
-0.01%
I11Q1_AfterxCAL_EDD
16.82
16.73
0.10
0.58%
D07Q1_07Q2
-34537.00
-34542.18
5.17
-0.01%
D07Q4
24173.10
24231.50
-58.41
-0.24%
A-89

Appendix 14
Page 34 of 51
APPENDIX 14.8 C&I HLF CUSTOMERS (HLFC)
a. Model Statistics HLFC
Model
HLFC-Model_1
Model Statistics
Number of
Predictors
6

Rsquared
RMSE
0.994
5.621

HLFC-Model_1
HLFC
MANEMP
D06Q4_08Q1
D08Q2MJ_10Q1J
D10Q3_12Q1
D12Q2_14Q1
D14Q2_After
Constant
Estimate
961.615
30.576
28.584
106.748
-24.280
-59.527
-44.654
SE
16.983
2.824
3.077
4.063
4.797
4.735
5.155
t
56.62
10.83
9.29
26.27
-5.06
-12.57
-8.66
Sig.
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
Dummy
Variable
Support
Variable
MANEMP
D06Q4_08Q1
D08Q2MJ_10Q1J
Definition
Explanation
Employment, Manufacturing
Binary variable equal to 0.667 for 2008 Q2, 1 for
2008 Q3 to 2009 Q4, and 0.333 for 2010 Q1
D10Q3_12Q1
D12Q2_14Q1
D14Q2_After
N
41
Adjusted R2
0.992
A-90
F
statistic
873.314
1
1
1
1
1

Appendix 14
Page 35 of 51
Stability Chow Test
N
Combined
1
2
41
19
22
7
7
7
SSR
1,898.605
622.260
660.485
1.852
0.118
Chow Stat:

0.484
0.785
White Stat
b. Correlation Matrix HLFC
Correlations
MANEMP
D08Q2MJ_10Q1J
D06Q4_08Q1
D10Q3_12Q1
D12Q2_14Q1
D14Q2_After
-.053
.372
-.369
-.400
-.272
D08Q2MJ_10Q1J
-.053
-.196
-.214
-.232
-.155
D06Q4_08Q1
.372
-.196
-.188
-.204
-.136
D10Q3_12Q1
-.369
-.214
-.188
-.223
-.149
D12Q2_14Q1
-.400
-.232
-.204
-.223
-.162
D14Q2_After
-.272
-.155
-.136
-.149
-.162
MANEMP
c.
ACF/PACF Graphs HLFC
Residual ACF
Model
HLFC-Model_1
ACF
SE
SEx2
1
0.293
0.156
0.312
2
-0.064
0.169
0.338
3
-0.293
0.170
0.339
A-91
4
-0.125
0.182
0.363
5
-0.008
0.184
0.367
6
-0.148
0.184
0.367
7
-0.083
0.187
0.373
8
-0.117
0.187
0.375

Appendix 14
Page 36 of 51
Residual PACF
Model
HLFC-Model_1
PACF
SE
SEx2
1
0.293
0.156
2
-0.164
0.156
3
-0.250
0.156
4
0.038
0.156
5
-0.024
0.156
6
-0.268
0.156
7
0.011
0.156
8
-0.135
0.156
0.312
0.312
0.312
0.312
0.312
0.312
0.312
0.312
d. Table of Actual, Fitted, and Residual Values HLFC
YRQTR
2005Q1
2005Q2
2005Q3
2005Q4
2006Q1
2006Q2
2006Q3
2006Q4
2007Q1
2007Q2
2007Q3
2007Q4
2008Q1
2008Q2
2008Q3
2008Q4
2009Q1
2009Q2
2009Q3
2009Q4
2010Q1
2010Q2
2010Q3
2010Q4
2011Q1
2011Q2
2011Q3
2011Q4
2012Q1
2012Q2
Actual
1,156
1,150
1,145
1,150
1,162
1,155
1,150
1,169
1,166
1,166
1,159
1,166
1,165
1,216
1,231
1,233
1,226
1,217
1,213
1,207
1,137
1,102
1,085
1,081
1,077
1,079
1,077
1,077
1,072
1,038
Fitted
1,157
1,153
1,155
1,154
1,150
1,151
1,148
1,172
1,169
1,166
1,161
1,162
1,161
1,200
1,234
1,232
1,225
1,217
1,214
1,214
1,139
1,105
1,082
1,083
1,079
1,079
1,072
1,077
1,078
1,044
Residual
(1.43)
(3.16)
(10.15)
(3.67)
11.71
4.32
1.99
(3.36)
(3.01)
(0.01)
(2.15)
4.36
4.17
16.40
(3.34)
0.23
0.69
0.08
(0.62)
(7.33)
(1.91)
(3.80)
2.85
(1.45)
(1.59)
(0.69)
5.45
0.69
(5.25)
(6.38)
A-92
%
Variation
-0.1%
-0.3%
-0.9%
-0.3%
1.0%
0.4%
0.2%
-0.3%
-0.3%
0.0%
-0.2%
0.4%
0.4%
1.3%
-0.3%
0.0%
0.1%
0.0%
-0.1%
-0.6%
-0.2%
-0.3%
0.3%
-0.1%
-0.1%
-0.1%
0.5%
0.1%
-0.5%
-0.6%
Standardized
Residual
(0.25)
(0.56)
(1.81)
(0.65)
2.08
0.77
0.35
(0.60)
(0.54)
(0.00)
(0.38)
0.78
0.74
2.92
(0.59)
0.04
0.12
0.02
(0.11)
(1.30)
(0.34)
(0.68)
0.51
(0.26)
(0.28)
(0.12)
0.97
0.12
(0.93)
(1.14)

Appendix 14
Page 37 of 51
YRQTR
2012Q3
2012Q4
2013Q1
2013Q2
2013Q3
2013Q4
2014Q1
2014Q2
2014Q3
2014Q4
2015Q16
Actual
1,039
1,044
1,045
1,045
1,041
1,043
1,050
1,059
1,062
1,055
1,055
Fitted
1,046
1,045
1,041
1,044
1,043
1,040
1,040
1,053
1,058
1,059
1,060
Residual
(7.09)
(1.14)
3.91
0.21
(2.16)
3.49
9.17
5.90
3.56
(4.50)
(4.96)
%
Variation
-0.7%
-0.1%
0.4%
0.0%
-0.2%
0.3%
0.9%
0.6%
0.3%
-0.4%
-0.5%
Standardized
Residual
(1.26)
(0.20)
0.70
0.04
(0.38)
0.62
1.63
1.05
0.63
(0.80)
(0.88)
e. Ex Post7 HLFC
2014Q2
2014Q3
2014Q4
2015Q1
Total

Ex Post
Actuals
Forecast
Difference
1,059
1,097
-38.20
1,062
1,103
-40.61
1,055
1,103
-48.67
1,055
1,104
-49.14
1,058
1,102
-44.15
% Difference
-3.61%
-3.82%
-4.61%
-4.66%
-4.17%

Ex Post
Estimate
Estimate
Difference
% Difference
Constant
961.615
959.432
2.18
0.23%
MANEMP
30.576
30.942
-0.37
-1.20%
D06Q4_08Q1
28.584
28.675
-0.09
-0.32%
D08Q2MJ_10Q1J
106.748
107.102
-0.35
-0.33%
D10Q3_12Q1
-24.280
-23.782
-0.50
2.05%
D12Q2_14Q1
-59.527
-59.030
-0.50
0.84%
D14Q2_After
-44.654
NA
NA
NA
6
7
and usefulness.
A-93

Appendix 14
Page 38 of 51
APPENDIX 14.9 C&I HLF USE PER CUSTOMER (HLFUPC)
a. Model Statistics HLFUPC
Model
HLFUPC-Model_1
Model Statistics
Number of
Predictors
7

Rsquared
RMSE
0.973
12.961
HLFUPC-Model_1
Variable
HLFNGP
Q1xHLFEDD
Q2_Q4xHLFEDD
D09Q1
D10Q3_12Q4
D13Q1_After
I11Q1_AfterxQ3
HLFUPC
HLFNGP
Q1xHLFEDD
Q2_Q4xHLFEDD
D09Q1
D10Q3_12Q4
D13Q1_After
I11Q1_AfterxQ3
Constant
Estimate
278.327
-6.393
.030
.027
53.150
58.857
88.179
21.407
SE
16.171
1.143
.002
.003
13.751
7.126
8.164
7.832
Definition
C&I High Load Factor natural gas price ($2012/Dth)
HLF Effective Degree Days in Quarter 1
HLF Effective Degree Days in Quarters 2 and 4
Binary variable equal to 1 in Quarter 3 for the period
2011 Q1 and after
t
17.21
-5.59
18.46
9.46
3.87
8.26
10.80
2.73
Explanation
Sig.
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.009
Dummy
Variable
Support
A
A

N
49
Adjusted R2
0.968
A-94
F
statistic
208.062
2
1
1
1

Appendix 14
Page 39 of 51
Stability Chow Test

N
Combined
1
2
49
22
27
8
8
8
SSR
6,887.7218
2,270.218
3,673.000
0.656
0.726
Chow Stat:

0.332
0.847
White Stat
b. Correlation Matrix HLFUPC
HLFNGP
Correlations
HLFNGP
Q1xHLFEDD
Q2_Q4xHLFEDD
D10Q3_12Q4
D13Q1_After
I11Q1_AfterxQ3
-.012
.020
-.323
-.655
-.322
Q1xHLFEDD
-.012
-.524
-.090
.068
-.201
Q2_Q4xHLFEDD
.020
-.524
.031
-.041
-.296
D10Q3_12Q4
-.323
-.090
.031
-.304
.164
D13Q1_After
-.655
.068
-.041
-.304
.256
I11Q1_AfterxQ3
-.322
-.201
-.296
.164
.256
c.
ACF/PACF Graphs HLFUPC
A-95

Appendix 14
Page 40 of 51
Residual ACF
Model
HLFUPC-Model_1
Residual PACF
Model
HLFUPC-Model_1
ACF
SE
SEx2
PACF
SE
SEx2
1
0.274
0.143
2
-0.076
0.153
3
0.091
0.154
4
0.140
0.155
5
-0.145
0.158
6
0.006
0.160
7
-0.050
0.160
8
-0.052
0.161
0.286
0.306
0.308
0.310
0.315
0.321
0.321
0.321
1
0.274
0.143
2
-0.163
0.143
3
0.177
0.143
4
0.049
0.143
5
-0.201
0.143
6
0.161
0.143
7
-0.211
0.143
8
0.089
0.143
0.286
0.286
0.286
0.286
0.286
0.286
0.286
0.286
d. Table of Actual, Fitted, and Residual Values HLFUPC
YRQTR
2004Q1
2004Q2
2004Q3
2004Q4
2005Q1
2005Q2
2005Q3
2005Q4
2006Q1
2006Q2
2006Q3
2006Q4
2007Q1
2007Q2
2007Q3
2007Q4
2008Q1
2008Q2
2008Q3
2008Q4
2009Q1
2009Q2
2009Q3
2009Q4
2010Q1
Actual
296.40
210.42
186.84
239.49
299.26
210.74
177.57
232.29
275.10
206.05
172.53
223.69
307.63
214.36
175.22
237.32
309.82
236.12
199.07
257.33
347.99
230.33
225.01
281.34
326.92
Fitted
309.11
224.30
197.20
255.29
303.13
224.55
188.99
239.41
273.95
203.64
169.92
227.68
287.75
217.39
189.13
249.90
296.89
218.52
182.50
242.66
347.99
224.11
211.16
279.17
322.80
Residual
(12.71)
(13.88)
(10.35)
(15.80)
(3.87)
(13.81)
(11.43)
(7.12)
1.15
2.41
2.61
(3.99)
19.87
(3.04)
(13.91)
(12.58)
12.93
17.60
16.57
14.68
(0.00)
6.22
13.85
2.17
4.12
A-96
%
Variation
-4.3%
-6.6%
-5.5%
-6.6%
-1.3%
-6.6%
-6.4%
-3.1%
0.4%
1.2%
1.5%
-1.8%
6.5%
-1.4%
-7.9%
-5.3%
4.2%
7.5%
8.3%
5.7%
0.0%
2.7%
6.2%
0.8%
1.3%
Standardized
Residual
(0.98)
(1.07)
(0.80)
(1.22)
(0.30)
(1.07)
(0.88)
(0.55)
0.09
0.19
0.20
(0.31)
1.53
(0.23)
(1.07)
(0.97)
1.00
1.36
1.28
1.13
(0.00)
0.48
1.07
0.17
0.32

Appendix 14
Page 41 of 51
YRQTR
2010Q2
2010Q3
2010Q4
2011Q1
2011Q2
2011Q3
2011Q4
2012Q1
2012Q2
2012Q3
2012Q4
2013Q1
2013Q2
2013Q3
2013Q4
2014Q1
2014Q2
2014Q3
2014Q4
2015Q1
2015Q2
2015Q3
2015Q4
2016Q1
Actual
250.00
252.57
335.86
385.69
299.95
286.74
331.24
378.78
327.08
300.24
355.44
421.12
335.84
323.54
385.36
429.46
344.62
349.96
376.17
426.59
369.07
361.20
354.72
396.66
Fitted
241.68
273.47
337.73
383.49
301.72
297.62
330.63
366.35
306.63
309.37
346.61
419.66
345.82
336.59
376.71
435.82
340.59
333.79
370.61
433.96
345.08
344.33
373.47
417.92
Residual
8.32
(20.90)
(1.87)
2.20
(1.76)
(10.88)
0.61
12.42
20.46
(9.12)
8.84
1.46
(9.98)
(13.05)
8.65
(6.35)
4.03
16.18
5.57
(7.37)
23.99
16.88
(18.75)
(21.26)
A-97
%
Variation
3.3%
-8.3%
-0.6%
0.6%
-0.6%
-3.8%
0.2%
3.3%
6.3%
-3.0%
2.5%
0.3%
-3.0%
-4.0%
2.2%
-1.5%
1.2%
4.6%
1.5%
-1.7%
6.5%
4.7%
-5.3%
-5.4%
Standardized
Residual
0.64
(1.61)
(0.14)
0.17
(0.14)
(0.84)
0.05
0.96
1.58
(0.70)
0.68
0.11
(0.77)
(1.01)
0.67
(0.49)
0.31
1.25
0.43
(0.57)
1.85
1.30
(1.45)
(1.64)

Appendix 14
Page 42 of 51
e. Ex Post HLFUPC
2015Q2
2015Q3
2015Q4
2016Q1
Total

Ex Post
Actuals
Forecast
Difference
369.07
345.47
23.60
361.20
340.30
20.90
354.72
374.55
-19.83
396.66
420.12
-23.46
1,481.66
1,480.45
1.22
% Difference
6.40%
5.79%
-5.59%
-5.91%
0.08%

Ex Post
Estimate
Estimate
Difference
% Difference
Constant
278.327
281.778
-3.45
-1.24%
HLFNGP
-6.393
-6.713
0.32
-5.01%
Q1xHLFEDD
0.030
0.030
0.00
-1.99%
Q2_Q4xHLFEDD
0.027
0.027
0.00
-1.71%
D09Q1
53.150
52.167
0.98
1.85%
D10Q3_12Q4
58.857
58.379
0.48
0.81%
D13Q1_After
88.179
87.064
1.12
1.27%
I11Q1_AfterxQ3
21.407
17.233
4.17
19.50%
A-98

Appendix 14
Page 43 of 51
APPENDIX 14.10 C&I HLF CAPACITY EXEMPT TRANSPORT (HLFCE)
a. Model Statistics HLFCE
Model Statistics
Model
HLFCE-Model_1
Number of
Predictors

Rsquared
RMSE
.974
9,998.193
HLFCEModel_1
HLFCE
HLFNGP
Q1_Q4xCAL_EDD
D04Q1_05Q3
D10Q4_12Q1
D12Q2_After
I13Q1_AfterxQ3
I14Q1_AfterxQ2
Constant
Estimate
119,219.68
(4,540.34)
4.13
(21,093.94)
73,222.40
75,455.37
24,922.90
24,192.20
SE
11,940.78
861.77
1.00
4,402.43
5,785.70
6,364.80
6,853.71
7,984.49
t
9.984
-5.269
4.126
-4.791
12.656
11.855
3.636
3.030
Sig.
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.001
.004
Dummy
Variable
Support
Variable
HLFNGP
Q1_Q4xCAL_EDD
Definition
Explanation
C&I High Load Factor natural gas price ($2014/Dth)
Calendar Month Effective Degree Days in Quarters 1
A
and 4
D04Q1_05Q3
D10Q4_12Q1
D12Q2_After
I13Q1_AfterxQ3
Binary variable equal to 1 in Quarter 3 for 2013 Q1
and after
I14Q1_AfterxQ2
Binary variable equal to 1 in Quarter 2 for 2014 Q1
and after
N
49
Adjusted R2
0.970
A-99
F
statistic
221.970
1
1
1
1
1

Appendix 14
Page 44 of 51
Stability Chow Test
N
Combined
1
2
49
21
28
8
8
8
SSR
4,098,518,215
997,257,968
2,419,640,444
0.823
0.588
Chow Stat:

1.535
0.464
White Stat
b. Correlation Matrix HLFCE
HLFNGP
Correlations
HLFNGP
Q1_Q4xCAL_EDD
D04Q1_05Q3
-.015
.270
D10Q4_12Q1
D12Q2_After
I13Q1_AfterxQ3
I14Q1_AfterxQ2
-.180
-.753
-.271
-.202
Q1_Q4xCAL_EDD
-.015
-.022
.089
-.021
-.250
-.202
D04Q1_05Q3
.270
-.022
-.152
-.284
-.104
-.084
D10Q4_12Q1
-.180
.089
-.152
-.260
-.095
-.077
D12Q2_After
-.753
-.021
-.284
-.260
.367
.296
I13Q1_AfterxQ3
-.271
-.250
-.104
-.095
.367
-.053
I14Q1_AfterxQ2
-.202
-.202
-.084
-.077
.296
-.053
c.
ACF/PACF Graphs HLFCE
A-100

Appendix 14
Page 45 of 51
Residual ACF
Model
HLFCE-Model_1
Residual PACF
Model
HLFCE-Model_1
ACF
SE
SEx2
1
.028
.143
.286
2
-.191
.143
.286
3
-.027
.148
.296
4
.146
.148
.296
5
-.179
.151
.302
6
-.039
.155
.311
7
.082
.156
.311
8
-.008
.156
.313
PACF
SE
SEx2
1
0.028
0.143
0.286
2
-0.192
0.143
0.286
3
-0.016
0.143
0.286
4
0.115
0.143
0.286
5
-0.206
0.143
0.286
6
0.026
0.143
0.286
7
0.026
0.143
0.286
8
-0.055
0.143
0.286
d. Table of Actual, Fitted, and Residual Values HLFCE

YRQTR
2004Q1
2004Q2
2004Q3
2004Q4
2005Q1
2005Q2
2005Q3
2005Q4
2006Q1
2006Q2
2006Q3
2006Q4
2007Q1
2007Q2
2007Q3
2007Q4
2008Q1
2008Q2
2008Q3
2008Q4
2009Q1
2009Q2
2009Q3
2009Q4
2010Q1
2010Q2
2010Q3
2010Q4
2011Q1
Actual
58,077
35,847
32,121
47,090
66,313
37,824
32,215
58,160
69,538
44,575
35,788
52,339
69,085
48,928
35,595
52,143
66,079
58,850
63,924
63,205
74,796
60,574
78,591
84,252
81,679
79,130
98,624
45,387
63,787
Fitted
54,126
39,896
40,505
49,843
53,590
36,846
34,680
60,008
59,160
44,357
42,226
55,224
65,218
52,687
55,873
69,070
73,368
56,251
51,165
61,124
68,176
60,578
71,520
87,205
92,090
76,592
73,966
157,209
162,424
Residual
3,950.50
(4,049.38)
(8,383.85)
(2,753.01)
12,722.51
977.94
(2,464.70)
(1,847.57)
10,378.10
218.54
(6,437.83)
(2,884.97)
3,867.06
(3,758.87)
(20,277.89)
(16,926.32)
(7,289.62)
2,598.87
12,759.20
2,081.41
6,620.57
(4.12)
7,071.50
(2,953.06)
(10,411.18)
2,538.15
24,658.03
(11,822.28)
1,362.63
A-101
%
Variation
6.8%
-11.3%
-26.1%
-5.8%
19.2%
2.6%
-7.7%
-3.2%
14.9%
0.5%
-18.0%
-5.5%
5.6%
-7.7%
-57.0%
-32.5%
-11.0%
4.4%
20.0%
3.3%
8.9%
0.0%
9.0%
-3.5%
-12.7%
3.2%
25.0%
-8.1%
0.8%
Standardized
Residual
0.40
(0.41)
(0.84)
(0.28)
1.27
0.10
(0.25)
(0.18)
1.04
0.02
(0.64)
(0.29)
0.39
(0.38)
(2.03)
(1.69)
(0.73)
0.26
1.28
0.21
0.66
(0.00)
0.71
(0.30)
(1.04)
0.25
2.47
(1.18)
0.14

Appendix 14
Page 46 of 51
YRQTR
2011Q2
2011Q3
2011Q4
2012Q1
2012Q2
2012Q3
2012Q4
2013Q1
2013Q2
2013Q3
2013Q4
2014Q1
2014Q2
2014Q3
2014Q4
2015Q1
2015Q2
2015Q3
2015Q4
2016Q1
Actual
43,287
47,641
67,054
72,709
71,748
48,963
71,050
82,392
57,082
179,520
182,776
173,436
179,660
178,031
182,103
159,830
185,181
195,398
167,717
159,381
Fitted
148,473
149,136
159,363
163,261
156,915
159,714
170,113
174,537
159,031
183,150
169,149
173,446
180,079
181,157
166,295
174,080
184,762
188,641
173,344
179,855
Residual
(5,185.06)
(1,495.05)
7,691.29
9,448.46
14,833.48
(10,751.67)
936.98
7,855.20
(1,948.62)
(3,630.19)
13,627.12
(9.33)
(419.36)
(3,125.88)
15,807.64
(14,250.15)
419.36
6,756.07
(5,627.02)
(20,473.63)
A-102
%
Variation
-3.6%
-1.0%
4.6%
5.5%
8.6%
-7.2%
0.5%
4.3%
-1.2%
-2.0%
7.5%
0.0%
-0.2%
-1.8%
8.7%
-8.9%
0.2%
3.5%
-3.4%
-12.8%
Standardized
Residual
(0.52)
(0.15)
0.77
0.95
1.48
(1.08)
0.09
0.79
(0.19)
(0.36)
1.36
(0.00)
(0.04)
(0.31)
1.58
(1.43)
0.04
0.68
(0.56)
(2.05)

Appendix 14
Page 47 of 51
e. Ex Post8 HLFCE
Ex Post
Actuals
Forecast
Difference
185,181
184,652
529
195,398
185,692
9,705
167,717
176,666
(8,949)
159,381
183,543
(24,162)
707,677
730,553
(22,876)
% Difference
0.29%
4.97%
-5.34%
-15.16%
-3.23%

Ex Post
Estimate
Estimate
Difference
119,219.68
122,974.50
-3754.83
CONSTANT
HLFNGP
(4,540.34)
(4,840.59)
300.24
Q1_Q4xCAL_EDD
4.13
4.34
-0.21
D04Q1_05Q3
(21,093.94)
(21,196.47)
102.54
D10Q4_12Q1
73,222.40
71,949.44
1272.96
D12Q2_After
75,455.37
76,553.68
-1098.31
I13Q1_AfterxQ3
24,922.90
19,167.87
5755.03
I14Q1_AfterxQ2
24,192.20
21,484.71
2707.49
% Difference
-3.15%
-6.61%
-5.13%
-0.49%
1.74%
-1.46%
23.09%
11.19%
2015Q2
2015Q3
2015Q4
2016Q1
Total
and usefulness.
A-103

Appendix 14
Page 48 of 51
APPENDIX 14.11 COMPANY USE (COUSE)
a. Model Statistics COUSE
Model
COUSE-Model_1
Model Statistics
Number of
Predictors
6

Rsquared
RMSE
0.989
272.994
COUSEModel_1
COUSE
Q1xCOUSEEDD
Q2_Q4xCOUSEEDD
D11Q1
I08Q1_13Q4xQ3
I14Q1_AfterxQ1_COUSEEDD
D15Q1_After
Variable
Q1xCOUSEEDD
Constant
Estimate
1,625.629
1.726
.921
1,121.034
-735.664
-.431
-1,078.882
SE
115.469
.045
.071
295.071
160.481
.058
150.391
t
14.08
38.26
12.97
3.80
-4.58
-7.40
-7.17
Definition
Company Use Billing Cycle Effective Degree Days in
Quarter 1
Sig.
.000
.000
.000
.001
.000
.000
.000
Explanation
A
Company Use Billing Cycle Effective Degree Days in

A
Quarters 2 and 4
D11Q1
Binary variable equal to 1 for 2011 Quarter 1
I08Q1_13Q4xQ3
Binary variable equal to 1 in Quarter 3 for 2008 Q1 to
2013 Q4
B
I14Q1_AfterxQ1_COUSEEDD Company Use Effective Degree Days in Quarter 1 for
2014 Q1 and after
D15Q1_After
Dummy
Variable
Support
Q2_Q4xCOUSEEDD
N
41
Adjusted R2
0.988
A-104
F
statistic
528.059
2
1

Appendix 14
Page 49 of 51
Stability Chow Test

N
Combined
1
2
41
20
21
7
7
7
SSR
2,533,870
897,235
852,089
1.730
0.144
Chow Stat:

2.249
0.325
White Stat
b. Correlation Matrix COUSE
Q1xCOUSEEDD
Q2_Q4xCOUSEEDD
Correlations
Q1xCOUSE
EDD
Q2_Q4xCOUSE
EDD
-.528
D15Q1_A
fter
.109
I08Q1_13Q4
xQ3
-.249
I14Q1_AfterxQ1_COU
SEEDD
.499
-.528
-.088
-.363
-.245
D15Q1_After
.109
-.088
-.154
.435
I08Q1_13Q4xQ3
-.249
-.363
-.154
-.115
I14Q1_AfterxQ1_COU
SEEDD
.499
-.245
.435
-.115
c.
ACF/PACF Graphs COUSE
A-105

Appendix 14
Page 50 of 51
Residual ACF
Model
COUSE-Model_1
Residual PACF
Model
COUSE-Model_1
ACF
SE
SEx2
PACF
SE
SEx2
1
0.120
0.156
2
-0.111
0.158
3
-0.206
0.160
4
0.085
0.167
5
0.106
0.168
6
-0.105
0.169
7
-0.187
0.171
8
0.139
0.176
0.312
0.317
0.321
0.333
0.335
0.339
0.342
0.352
1
0.120
0.156
2
-0.127
0.156
3
-0.181
0.156
4
0.126
0.156
5
0.043
0.156
6
-0.155
0.156
7
-0.111
0.156
8
0.202
0.156
0.312
0.312
0.312
0.312
0.312
0.312
0.312
0.312
d. Table of Actual, Fitted, and Residual Values COUSE

YRQTR
2006Q1
2006Q2
2006Q3
2006Q4
2007Q1
2007Q2
2007Q3
2007Q4
2008Q1
2008Q2
2008Q3
2008Q4
2009Q1
2009Q2
2009Q3
2009Q4
2010Q1
2010Q2
2010Q3
2010Q4
2011Q1
2011Q2
2011Q3
2011Q4
2012Q1
2012Q2
Actual
7,609
2,769
1,732
3,541
7,627
3,168
1,798
4,148
7,522
2,779
860
3,620
7,866
2,494
998
4,029
7,109
2,081
995
3,927
9,147
2,616
881
3,694
7,022
2,167
Fitted
7,420
2,681
1,626
3,472
7,868
2,740
1,626
3,636
7,660
2,613
890
3,781
8,008
2,597
890
3,761
7,548
2,475
890
3,957
9,147
2,589
890
3,486
6,682
2,421
Residual
188.53
87.66
106.37
68.75
(241.34)
428.02
172.37
512.14
(138.32)
166.11
(29.97)
(161.29)
(142.40)
(103.37)
108.03
267.53
(438.60)
(394.45)
105.03
(29.57)
(0.00)
26.99
(8.97)
208.34
340.24
(253.88)
A-106
%
Variation
2.5%
3.2%
6.1%
1.9%
-3.2%
13.5%
9.6%
12.3%
-1.8%
6.0%
-3.5%
-4.5%
-1.8%
-4.1%
10.8%
6.6%
-6.2%
-19.0%
10.6%
-0.8%
0.0%
1.0%
-1.0%
5.6%
4.8%
-11.7%
Standardized
Residual
0.69
0.32
0.39
0.25
(0.88)
1.57
0.63
1.88
(0.51)
0.61
(0.11)
(0.59)
(0.52)
(0.38)
0.40
0.98
(1.61)
(1.44)
0.38
(0.11)
(0.00)
0.10
(0.03)
0.76
1.25
(0.93)

Appendix 14
Page 51 of 51
YRQTR
2012Q3
2012Q4
2013Q1
2013Q2
2013Q3
2013Q4
2014Q1
2014Q2
2014Q3
2014Q4
2015Q1
2015Q2
2015Q3
2015Q4
2016Q1
Actual
626
3,411
8,033
2,668
980
3,746
6,932
2,808
1,199
2,877
5,642
1,814
675
1,827
4,531
Fitted
890
3,643
7,518
2,672
890
3,684
6,915
2,698
1,626
3,591
5,671
1,727
547
2,027
4,518
Residual
(263.95)
(231.74)
515.04
(3.41)
89.81
62.44
17.57
110.06
(426.19)
(713.58)
(28.59)
86.69
128.61
(200.20)
13.49
%
Variation
-42.2%
-6.8%
6.4%
-0.1%
9.2%
1.7%
0.3%
3.9%
-35.5%
-24.8%
-0.5%
4.8%
19.0%
-11.0%
0.3%
Standardized
Residual
(0.97)
(0.85)
1.89
(0.01)
0.33
0.23
0.06
0.40
(1.56)
(2.61)
(0.10)
0.32
0.47
(0.73)
0.05
e. Ex Post9 COUSE
Ex Post
Actuals
Forecast
Difference
1,814
1,679
134.53
675
476
199.20
1,827
1,985
-158.13
4,531
4,480
51.53
8,847
8,620
227.12
% Difference
7.42%
29.49%
-8.66%
1.14%
2.57%

Ex Post
Estimate
Estimate
Difference
CONSTANT
1,625.63
1,599.84
25.79
Q1xCOUSEEDD
1.73
1.73
-0.01
Q2_Q4xCOUSEEDD
0.92
0.94
-0.02
D11Q1
1,121.03
1,118.99
2.04
I08Q1_13Q4xQ3
(735.66)
(709.88)
-25.79
I14Q1_AfterxQ1_COUSEEDD
(0.43)
(0.43)
0.00
D15Q1_After
(1,078.88)
(1,123.68)
44.80
% Difference
1.59%
-0.43%
-1.93%
0.18%
3.51%
0.72%
-4.15%
2015Q2
2015Q3
2015Q4
2016Q1
Total
and usefulness.
A-107

Base - Normal - Draw 0
Ventyx
SENDOUT Version 14.3.0 REP 13
Nov-16
Forecast Demand
PlanningLoad
Total Demand
Forecast Rt Mrktr Imbalance
Total Imbal
Fuel Consumed
Transport
Injection
Withdrawal
Total Fuel
Storage Injections
FS-MA
GSS
Total Inj
Total Req
Sources of Supply
Niagara
Whately LNG
NH Wright
LP
TGP Z4 200
Total Take
Storage Withdrawals
FS-MA
GSS
Total With
Total Supply
Net Storage Inv. Adj.
FS-MA
GSS
Total Inv Adj
Start of Month Inventory
FS-MA
GSS
Total Inv
Unsupplied Demand
PlanningLoad
Total Unsupp
676.717
676.717
Dec-16
Jan-17
Natural Gas Supply VS. Requirements

Feb-17
Mar-17
Apr-17
May-17
964.666 1187.311 1023.725

964.666 1187.311 1023.725
Jun-17
Jul-17
Aug-17
Sep-17
Oct-17

D.P.U. 16-103
Tab B - Normal
Page 1 of 10
Page 1
22-Jun-16
Units: MDT
Total
859.043
859.043
518.936
518.936
242.802
242.802
171.129
171.129
153.432
153.432
154.95
154.95
188.476
188.476
400.755
400.755
6541.942
6541.942
5.518
0
0
5.518
8.174
0
0
8.174
9.253
0
0
9.253
8.291
0
0
8.291
7.344
0
0
7.344
4.876
1.225
0
6.101
2.959
2.45
0
5.409
2.322
2.45
0
4.773
2.165
2.45
0
4.616
2.179
2.45
0
4.629
2.476
2.45
0
4.927
3.953
1.225
0
5.178
59.51
14.702
0
74.212
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
73.623
10.184
83.808
147.247
20.369
167.615
147.247
20.369
167.615
147.247
20.369
167.615
147.247
20.369
167.615
147.247
20.369
167.615
73.623
10.184
83.808
883.48
122.213
1005.693
682.235
972.841 1196.564 1032.016
866.387
608.844
415.826
343.518
325.663
327.195
361.018
489.741
7621.847
23.343
34.472
78.007
0
535.853
671.676
29.805
10.398
134.24
0.01
572.313
746.766
32.017
74.905
134.24
27.361
586.442
854.964
29.805
0.168
121.249
28.162
529.689
709.072
30.338
0.057
103.143
4.467
584.389
722.394
26.611
0
33.68
0
545.885
606.176
0
0
0
0
415.826
415.826
0
0
0
0
343.518
343.518
0
0
0
0
325.663
325.663
0
0
0
0
327.195
327.195
0
0
0
0
361.018
361.018
2.129
0
1.381
0
486.231
489.741
174.047
120
605.94
60
5614.022
6574.009
8.233
2.326
10.559
199.645
26.43
226.075
294.916
37.882
332.798
258.26
34.008
292.268
122.426
21.567
143.993
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
883.48
122.213
1005.693
972.841 1187.762 1001.341
866.387
606.176
415.826
343.518
325.663
327.195
361.018
489.741
7579.702
682.235
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
987.419
136.591
979.186
134.265
779.541
107.835
484.625
69.953
226.365
35.945
103.939
14.378
177.562
24.562
324.809
44.931
472.055
65.3
619.302
85.669
766.549
106.038
913.795
126.407
987.419
136.591
1124.01 1113.451
887.376
554.578
262.31
118.317
202.125
369.74
537.355
704.971
872.586 1040.202
1124.01
8.802
30.675
2.668
42.145
8.802
30.675
2.668
42.145

Ventyx
Nov-17
Forecast Demand
PlanningLoad
Total Demand
Total Imbal
Fuel Consumed
Transport
Injection
Withdrawal
Total Fuel
Storage Injections
FS-MA
GSS
Total Inj
Total Req
Sources of Supply
Niagara
Whately LNG
NH Wright
LP
TGP Z4 200
Total Take
Storage Withdrawals
FS-MA
GSS
Total With
Total Supply
FS-MA
GSS
Total Inv Adj
FS-MA
GSS
Total Inv
Unsupplied Demand
PlanningLoad
Total Unsupp
681.936
681.936
Dec-17
Jan-18

Feb-18
Mar-18
Apr-18
May-18
972.106 1196.468 1031.621

972.106 1196.468 1031.621
Jun-18
Jul-18
Aug-18
Sep-18
Oct-18

D.P.U. 16-103
Tab B - Normal
Page 2 of 10
Page 1
22-Jun-16
Units: MDT
Total
865.668
865.668
522.938
522.938
244.674
244.674
172.449
172.449
154.615
154.615
156.145
156.145
189.929
189.929
403.846
403.846
6592.395
6592.395
5.547
0
0
5.547
8.164
0
0
8.164
9.138
0
0
9.138
8.361
0
0
8.361
7.402
0
0
7.402
4.891
1.225
0
6.116
2.916
2.45
0
5.366
2.278
2.45
0
4.728
2.124
2.45
0
4.574
2.135
2.45
0
4.586
2.489
2.45
0
4.94
3.98
1.225
0
5.205
59.425
14.702
0
74.127
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
73.623
10.184
83.808
147.247
20.369
167.615
147.247
20.369
167.615
147.247
20.369
167.615
147.247
20.369
167.615
147.247
20.369
167.615
73.623
10.184
83.808
883.48
122.213
1005.693
980.27 1205.606 1039.982
873.07
612.861
417.656
344.793
326.805
328.346
362.484
492.859
7672.216
687.483
23.418
36.194
78.959
0
536.776
675.348
29.805
18.986
134.24
0
572.742
755.772
32.197
64.596
134.24
28.355
586.442
845.829
29.805
0.168
121.249
27.329
529.689
708.24
30.487
0.057
104.314
4.316
584.665
723.839
31.86
0
36.814
0
540.942
609.615
32.812
0
0
0
384.844
417.656
30.861
0
0
0
313.932
344.793
28.533
0
0
0
298.272
326.805
29.729
0
0
0
298.617
328.346
0
0
0
0
362.484
362.484
2.129
0
1.7
0
489.03
492.859
301.635
120
611.515
60
5498.436
6591.586
10.841
1.294
12.135
197.037
27.462
224.498
280.55
39.009
319.56
266.874
33.395
300.269
128.178
21.052
149.231
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
883.48
122.213
1005.693
980.27 1165.389 1008.508
873.07
609.615
417.656
344.793
326.805
328.346
362.484
492.859
7597.279
687.483
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
987.419
136.591
976.578
135.297
779.541
107.835
498.991
68.826
232.117
35.43
103.939
14.378
177.562
24.562
324.809
44.931
472.055
65.3
619.302
85.669
766.549
106.038
913.795
126.407
987.419
136.591
1124.01 1111.874
887.376
567.816
267.548
118.317
202.125
369.74
537.355
704.971
872.586 1040.202
1124.01
40.217
31.473
3.246
74.936
40.217
31.473
3.246
74.936

Forecast Demand
PlanningLoad
Total Demand
Total Imbal
Fuel Consumed
Transport
Injection
Withdrawal
Total Fuel
Storage Injections
FS-MA
GSS
Total Inj
Total Req
Sources of Supply
Niagara
Whately LNG
NH Wright
LP
TGP Z4 200
Total Take
Storage Withdrawals
FS-MA
GSS
Total With
Total Supply
FS-MA
GSS
Total Inv Adj
FS-MA
GSS
Total Inv
Unsupplied Demand
PlanningLoad
Total Unsupp
Ventyx
Nov-18
Dec-18
Jan-19
685.288
685.288
976.885
976.885
5.565
0
0
5.565
8.152
0
0
8.152
0
0
0
0
0
0

Feb-19
Mar-19
Apr-19
May-19
Jul-19
Aug-19
Sep-19
Oct-19
869.923
869.923
525.509
525.509
245.877
245.877
173.297
173.297
155.375
155.375
156.913
156.913
190.863
190.863
405.831
405.831
6624.804
6624.804
9.391
0
0
9.391
8.101
0
0
8.101
7.415
0
0
7.415
4.906
1.225
0
6.131
2.926
2.45
0
5.376
2.284
2.45
0
4.734
2.123
2.45
0
4.573
2.136
2.45
0
4.587
2.498
2.45
0
4.948
3.941
1.225
0
5.166
59.437
14.702
0
74.14
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
73.623
10.184
83.808
147.247
20.369
167.615
147.247
20.369
167.615
147.247
20.369
167.615
147.247
20.369
167.615
147.247
20.369
167.615
73.623
10.184
83.808
883.48
122.213
1005.693
690.853
985.037 1211.741 1044.793
877.339
615.447
418.869
345.646
327.564
329.115
363.426
494.806
7704.636
23.418
37.429
79.489
0
537.369
677.705
32.998
24.495
134.24
0
569.818
761.551
32.998
57.851
134.24
31.984
585.755
842.828
29.805
0.168
121.249
26.981
529.689
707.892
30.583
0.057
105.066
1.035
584.843
721.583
31.934
0
38.71
0
541.071
611.714
32.998
0
0
0
385.871
418.869
31.934
0
0
0
313.713
345.646
32.998
0
0
0
294.566
327.564
32.998
0
0
0
296.117
329.115
0
0
0
0
363.426
363.426
32.998
0
1.904
0
459.903
494.806
345.661
120
614.898
60
5462.141
6602.699
11.86
1.288
13.148
196.018
27.468
223.486
311.816
36.574
348.39
235.439
35.316
270.755
128.346
21.567
149.913
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
883.48
122.213
1005.693
985.037 1191.219
978.647
871.497
611.714
418.869
345.646
327.564
329.115
363.426
494.806
7608.392
690.853
1202.35 1036.692
1202.35 1036.692
Jun-19

D.P.U. 16-103
Tab B - Normal
Page 3 of 10
Page 1
22-Jun-16
Units: MDT
Total
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
987.419
136.591
975.559
135.303
779.541
107.835
467.725
71.261
232.285
35.945
103.939
14.378
177.562
24.562
324.809
44.931
472.055
65.3
619.302
85.669
766.549
106.038
913.795
126.407
987.419
136.591
1124.01 1110.862
887.376
538.986
268.23
118.317
202.125
369.74
537.355
704.971
872.586 1040.202
1124.01
20.522
66.146
5.842
3.733
96.244
20.522
66.146
5.842
3.733
96.244

Ventyx
Nov-19
Forecast Demand
PlanningLoad
Total Demand
Total Imbal
Fuel Consumed
Transport
Injection
Withdrawal
Total Fuel
Storage Injections
FS-MA
GSS
Total Inj
Total Req
Sources of Supply
Niagara
Whately LNG
NH Wright
LP
TGP Z4 200
Total Take
Storage Withdrawals
FS-MA
GSS
Total With
Total Supply
FS-MA
GSS
Total Inv Adj
FS-MA
GSS
Total Inv
Unsupplied Demand
PlanningLoad
Total Unsupp
685.961
685.961
Dec-19
Jan-20
977.845 1203.531
977.845 1203.531

Feb-20
Mar-20
Apr-20
May-20
Jun-20
Jul-20
Aug-20
Sep-20
Oct-20

D.P.U. 16-103
Tab B - Normal
Page 4 of 10
Page 1
22-Jun-16
Units: MDT
Total
1037.71
1037.71
870.778
870.778
526.025
526.025
246.119
246.119
173.467
173.467
155.528
155.528
157.067
157.067
191.05
191.05
406.23
406.23
6631.311
6631.311
5.553
0
0
5.553
8.15
0
0
8.15
9.216
0
0
9.216
8.253
0
0
8.253
7.441
0
0
7.441
4.909
1.225
0
6.134
2.928
2.45
0
5.379
2.285
2.45
0
4.736
2.124
2.45
0
4.574
2.138
2.45
0
4.588
2.443
2.45
0
4.894
3.945
1.225
0
5.17
59.385
14.702
0
74.087
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
73.623
10.184
83.808
147.247
20.369
167.615
147.247
20.369
167.615
147.247
20.369
167.615
147.247
20.369
167.615
147.247
20.369
167.615
73.623
10.184
83.808
883.48
122.213
1005.693
691.514
985.995 1212.747 1045.963
878.219
615.966
419.113
345.818
327.718
329.27
363.56
495.208
7711.091
31.934
37.679
79.593
0
528.957
678.163
32.998
25.601
134.24
0
569.874
762.713
32.998
56.495
134.24
37.402
585.778
846.913
29.805
0.168
121.249
17.786
529.689
698.697
30.603
0.057
105.217
4.812
584.878
725.566
31.934
0
39.09
0
541.111
612.135
32.998
0
0
0
386.115
419.113
31.934
0
0
0
313.885
345.818
32.998
0
0
0
294.72
327.718
32.998
0
0
0
296.272
329.27
30.791
0
0
0
332.769
363.56
32.998
0
1.945
0
460.264
495.208
384.987
120
615.574
60
5424.312
6604.872
8.119
5.232
13.351
199.758
23.524
223.282
289.274
39.159
328.433
251.815
36.159
287.973
134.514
18.139
152.653
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
883.48
122.213
1005.693
985.995 1175.346
986.67
878.219
612.135
419.113
345.818
327.718
329.27
363.56
495.208
7610.565
691.514
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
987.419
136.591
979.299
131.359
779.541
107.835
490.267
68.676
238.453
32.517
103.939
14.378
177.562
24.562
324.809
44.931
472.055
65.3
619.302
85.669
766.549
106.038
913.795
126.407
987.419
136.591
1124.01 1110.658
887.376
558.943
270.969
118.317
202.125
369.74
537.355
704.971
872.586 1040.202
1124.01
37.401
59.293
3.832
100.526
37.401
59.293
3.832
100.526

Ventyx
Nov-20
Forecast Demand
PlanningLoad
Total Demand
Total Imbal
Fuel Consumed
Transport
Injection
Withdrawal
Total Fuel
Storage Injections
FS-MA
GSS
Total Inj
Total Req
Sources of Supply
Niagara
Whately LNG
NH Wright
LP
TGP Z4 200
Total Take
Storage Withdrawals
FS-MA
GSS
Total With
Total Supply
FS-MA
GSS
Total Inv Adj
FS-MA
GSS
Total Inv
Unsupplied Demand
PlanningLoad
Total Unsupp
687.339
687.339
Dec-20
Jan-21

Feb-21
Mar-21
Apr-21
May-21
979.808 1205.948 1039.794

979.808 1205.948 1039.794
Jun-21
Jul-21
Aug-21
Sep-21
Oct-21

D.P.U. 16-103
Tab B - Normal
Page 5 of 10
Page 1
22-Jun-16
Units: MDT
Total
872.527
872.527
527.081
527.081
246.613
246.613
173.815
173.815
155.84
155.84
157.382
157.382
191.434
191.434
407.046
407.046
6644.627
6644.627
5.56
0
0
5.56
8.148
0
0
8.148
9.208
0
0
9.208
8.251
0
0
8.251
7.45
0
0
7.45
4.915
1.225
0
6.14
2.933
2.45
0
5.383
2.288
2.45
0
4.739
2.127
2.45
0
4.577
2.14
2.45
0
4.591
2.447
2.45
0
4.897
3.952
1.225
0
5.177
59.418
14.702
0
74.12
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
73.623
10.184
83.808
147.247
20.369
167.615
147.247
20.369
167.615
147.247
20.369
167.615
147.247
20.369
167.615
147.247
20.369
167.615
73.623
10.184
83.808
883.48
122.213
1005.693
692.899
987.956 1215.156 1048.045
879.977
617.029
419.611
346.17
328.033
329.588
363.947
496.03
7724.44
31.934
38.192
79.805
0
529.2
679.132
32.998
27.865
134.24
0
569.987
765.09
32.998
53.718
134.24
36.609
585.825
843.39
29.805
0.168
121.249
18.409
529.689
699.32
32.998
0.057
105.526
4.981
582.591
726.153
31.934
0
39.868
0
541.195
612.996
32.998
0
0
0
386.613
419.611
31.934
0
0
0
314.236
346.17
32.998
0
0
0
295.035
328.033
32.998
0
0
0
296.59
329.588
30.819
0
0
0
333.128
363.947
32.998
0
2.029
0
461.003
496.03
387.41
120
616.957
60
5425.093
6609.46
11.041
2.727
13.767
196.837
26.029
222.866
288.286
39.211
327.496
252.838
34.901
287.739
134.479
19.345
153.823
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
883.48
122.213
1005.693
987.956 1170.887
987.059
879.977
612.996
419.611
346.17
328.033
329.588
363.947
496.03
7615.153
692.899
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
987.419
136.591
976.378
133.864
779.541
107.835
491.255
68.624
238.417
33.723
103.939
14.378
177.562
24.562
324.809
44.931
472.055
65.3
619.302
85.669
766.549
106.038
913.795
126.407
987.419
136.591
1124.01 1110.242
887.376
559.88
272.14
118.317
202.125
369.74
537.355
704.971
872.586 1040.202
1124.01
44.269
60.985
4.033
109.287
44.269
60.985
4.033
109.287

High - Normal - Draw 0
Ventyx
Nov-16
Forecast Demand
PlanningLoad
Total Demand
Total Imbal
Fuel Consumed
Transport
Injection
Withdrawal
Total Fuel
Storage Injections
FS-MA
GSS
Total Inj
Total Req
Sources of Supply
Niagara
Whately LNG
NH Wright
LP
TGP Z4 200
Total Take
Storage Withdrawals
FS-MA
GSS
Total With
Total Supply
FS-MA
GSS
Total Inv Adj
FS-MA
GSS
Total Inv
Unsupplied Demand
PlanningLoad
Total Unsupp
685.294
685.294
Dec-16

D.P.U. 16-103
Tab B - Normal
Page 6 of 10
Page 1
22-Jun-16
Units: MDT
Jan-17
Feb-17
Mar-17
Apr-17
May-17
Jun-17
Jul-17
Aug-17
Sep-17
Oct-17
Total
976.893 1202.359
976.893 1202.359
1036.7
1036.7
869.93
869.93
525.513
525.513
245.879
245.879
173.298
173.298
155.377
155.377
156.914
156.914
190.864
190.864
405.835
405.835
6624.855
6624.855
5.565
0
0
5.565
8.158
0
0
8.158
9.218
0
0
9.218
8.414
0
0
8.414
7.277
0
0
7.277
4.915
1.225
0
6.141
2.986
2.45
0
5.436
2.342
2.45
0
4.792
2.183
2.45
0
4.633
2.196
2.45
0
4.647
2.498
2.45
0
4.948
3.997
1.225
0
5.222
59.748
14.702
0
74.45
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
73.623
10.184
83.808
147.247
20.369
167.615
147.247
20.369
167.615
147.247
20.369
167.615
147.247
20.369
167.615
147.247
20.369
167.615
73.623
10.184
83.808
883.48
122.213
1005.693
985.05 1211.577 1045.114
877.207
615.461
418.931
345.706
327.625
329.176
363.428
494.865
7704.998
690.859
23.418
37.431
79.49
0
537.37
677.709
29.805
24.494
134.24
0.01
573.018
761.566
32.312
57.851
134.24
33.039
586.442
843.884
29.805
0.168
121.249
25.008
529.689
705.918
30.584
0.057
105.067
1.943
584.843
722.494
26.611
0
38.713
0
546.403
611.727
0
0
0
0
418.931
418.931
0
0
0
0
345.706
345.706
0
0
0
0
327.625
327.625
0
0
0
0
329.176
329.176
0
0
0
0
363.428
363.428
2.129
0
1.905
0
490.831
494.865
174.663
120
614.903
60
5633.461
6603.028
12.799
0.351
13.15
195.079
28.405
223.484
289.47
39.134
328.605
271.5
34.826
306.326
114.632
19.496
134.128
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
883.48
122.213
1005.693
985.05 1172.489 1012.244
856.622
611.727
418.931
345.706
327.625
329.176
363.428
494.865
7608.72
690.859
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
987.419
136.591
974.62
136.24
779.541
107.835
490.071
68.701
218.571
33.874
103.939
14.378
177.562
24.562
324.809
44.931
472.055
65.3
619.302
85.669
766.549
106.038
913.795
126.407
987.419
136.591
1124.01
1110.86
887.376
558.771
252.445
118.317
202.125
369.74
537.355
704.971
872.586 1040.202
1124.01
39.089
32.87
20.585
3.734
96.278
39.089
32.87
20.585
3.734
96.278

Ventyx
Nov-17
Forecast Demand
PlanningLoad
Total Demand
Total Imbal
Fuel Consumed
Transport
Injection
Withdrawal
Total Fuel
Storage Injections
FS-MA
GSS
Total Inj
Total Req
Sources of Supply
Niagara
Whately LNG
NH Wright
LP
TGP Z4 200
Total Take
Storage Withdrawals
FS-MA
GSS
Total With
Total Supply
FS-MA
GSS
Total Inv Adj
FS-MA
GSS
Total Inv
Unsupplied Demand
PlanningLoad
Total Unsupp
698.817
698.817
Dec-17
Jan-18

D.P.U. 16-103
Tab B - Normal
Page 7 of 10
Page 1
22-Jun-16
Units: MDT
Feb-18
Mar-18
Apr-18
May-18
Jun-18
Jul-18
Aug-18
Sep-18
Oct-18
Total
996.17 1226.086 1057.158

996.17 1226.086 1057.158
887.097
887.097
535.883
535.883
250.731
250.731
176.718
176.718
158.443
158.443
160.01
160.01
194.631
194.631
413.843
413.843
6755.587
6755.587
5.64
0
0
5.64
8.128
0
0
8.128
9.305
0
0
9.305
8.167
0
0
8.167
7.471
0
0
7.471
4.966
1.225
0
6.192
2.969
2.45
0
5.42
2.315
2.45
0
4.766
2.156
2.45
0
4.606
2.168
2.45
0
4.618
2.531
2.45
0
4.981
4.067
1.225
0
5.292
59.883
14.702
0
74.585
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
73.623
10.184
83.808
147.247
20.369
167.615
147.247
20.369
167.615
147.247
20.369
167.615
147.247
20.369
167.615
147.247
20.369
167.615
73.623
10.184
83.808
883.48
122.213
1005.693
704.456 1004.299 1235.391 1065.325
894.568
625.882
423.766
349.099
330.664
332.244
367.228
502.943
7835.866
23.418
42.123
81.574
0
539.761
686.877
29.805
46.359
134.24
0
574.13
784.533
32.778
31.293
134.24
41.151
586.442
825.903
29.805
0.168
121.249
15.837
529.689
696.747
30.869
0.057
108.204
3.012
585.558
727.7
31.934
0
46.35
0
541.888
620.171
32.933
0
0
0
390.833
423.766
31.24
0
0
0
317.859
349.099
29.809
0
0
0
300.855
330.664
30.657
0
0
0
301.587
332.244
0
0
0
0
367.228
367.228
2.129
0
2.729
0
498.085
502.943
305.376
120
628.586
60
5533.915
6647.877
12.426
5.154
17.58
195.452
23.602
219.054
298.867
39.24
338.107
241.552
36.624
278.176
135.183
17.593
152.776
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
883.48
122.213
1005.693
704.456 1003.587
1164.01
974.923
880.476
620.171
423.766
349.099
330.664
332.244
367.228
502.943
7653.57
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
987.419
136.591
974.993
131.437
779.541
107.835
480.674
68.595
239.122
31.971
103.939
14.378
177.562
24.562
324.809
44.931
472.055
65.3
619.302
85.669
766.549
106.038
913.795
126.407
987.419
136.591
1124.01
1106.43
887.376
549.269
271.093
118.317
202.125
369.74
537.355
704.971
872.586 1040.202
1124.01
0.711
71.381
90.401
14.092
5.711
182.296
0.711
71.381
90.401
14.092
5.711
182.296

Ventyx
Nov-18
Forecast Demand
PlanningLoad
Total Demand
Total Imbal
Fuel Consumed
Transport
Injection
Withdrawal
Total Fuel
Storage Injections
FS-MA
GSS
Total Inj
Total Req
Sources of Supply
Niagara
Whately LNG
NH Wright
LP
TGP Z4 200
Total Take
Storage Withdrawals
FS-MA
GSS
Total With
Total Supply
FS-MA
GSS
Total Inv Adj
FS-MA
GSS
Total Inv
Unsupplied Demand
PlanningLoad
Total Unsupp
Dec-18

D.P.U. 16-103
Tab B - Normal
Page 8 of 10
Page 1
22-Jun-16
Units: MDT
Jan-19
Feb-19
Mar-19
Apr-19
May-19
Jun-19
Jul-19
Aug-19
Sep-19
Oct-19
Total
709.302 1011.118 1244.483

709.302 1011.118 1244.483
1073.02
1073.02
900.408
900.408
543.924
543.924
254.493
254.493
179.37
179.37
160.82
160.82
162.411
162.411
197.551
197.551
420.053
420.053
6856.953
6856.953
5.703
0
0
5.703
8.092
0
0
8.092
9.167
0
0
9.167
8.239
0
0
8.239
7.561
0
0
7.561
5.013
1.225
0
6.238
3.003
2.45
0
5.453
2.338
2.45
0
4.788
2.171
2.45
0
4.621
2.185
2.45
0
4.635
2.557
2.45
0
5.007
4.065
1.225
0
5.29
60.093
14.702
0
74.795
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
73.623
10.184
83.808
147.247
20.369
167.615
147.247
20.369
167.615
147.247
20.369
167.615
147.247
20.369
167.615
147.247
20.369
167.615
73.623
10.184
83.808
883.48
122.213
1005.693
715.005
1019.21
1253.65
1081.26
907.969
633.969
427.562
351.773
333.057
334.662
370.174
509.15
7937.441
23.427
45.187
82.901
0
541.606
693.121
32.998
63.939
134.24
1.37
571.793
804.339
32.998
10.65
134.24
35.163
586.442
799.492
29.805
0.168
121.249
23.292
529.689
704.203
31.028
0.057
110.858
0.174
585.953
728.07
31.934
0
52.17
0
542.522
626.625
32.998
0
0
0
394.564
427.562
31.934
0
0
0
319.84
351.773
32.998
0
0
0
300.059
333.057
32.998
0
0
0
301.664
334.662
0
0
0
0
370.174
370.174
32.998
0
3.369
0
472.784
509.15
346.115
120
639.026
60
5517.089
6682.23
15.471
6.413
21.884
192.407
22.343
214.75
282.824
39.381
322.205
249.806
36.624
286.43
142.972
17.452
160.424
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
883.48
122.213
1005.693
715.005 1019.089 1121.697
990.633
888.494
626.625
427.562
351.773
333.057
334.662
370.174
509.15
7687.923
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
987.419
136.591
971.948
130.178
779.541
107.835
496.717
68.454
246.911
31.83
103.939
14.378
177.562
24.562
324.809
44.931
472.055
65.3
619.302
85.669
766.549
106.038
913.795
126.407
987.419
136.591
1124.01 1102.126
887.376
565.171
278.741
118.317
202.125
369.74
537.355
704.971
872.586 1040.202
1124.01
0.121
131.953
90.626
19.475
7.344
249.519
0.121
131.953
90.626
19.475
7.344
249.519

Ventyx
Nov-19
Forecast Demand
PlanningLoad
Total Demand
Total Imbal
Fuel Consumed
Transport
Injection
Withdrawal
Total Fuel
Storage Injections
FS-MA
GSS
Total Inj
Total Req
Sources of Supply
Niagara
Whately LNG
NH Wright
LP
TGP Z4 200
Total Take
Storage Withdrawals
FS-MA
GSS
Total With
Total Supply
FS-MA
GSS
Total Inv Adj
FS-MA
GSS
Total Inv
Unsupplied Demand
PlanningLoad
Total Unsupp
Dec-19
Jan-20

D.P.U. 16-103
Tab B - Normal
Page 9 of 10
Page 1
22-Jun-16
Units: MDT
Feb-20
Mar-20
Apr-20
May-20
Jun-20
Jul-20
Aug-20
Sep-20
Oct-20
Total
714.961 1019.184 1254.411 1081.581

714.961 1019.184 1254.411 1081.581
907.591
907.591
548.263
548.263
256.524
256.524
180.801
180.801
162.103
162.103
163.707
163.707
199.127
199.127
423.404
423.404
6911.656
6911.656
5.722
0
0
5.722
8.08
0
0
8.08
9.095
0
0
9.095
8.176
0
0
8.176
7.703
0
0
7.703
5.037
1.225
0
6.262
3.021
2.45
0
5.471
2.35
2.45
0
4.801
2.182
2.45
0
4.633
2.197
2.45
0
4.647
2.514
2.45
0
4.964
4.094
1.225
0
5.319
60.17
14.702
0
74.873
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
73.623
10.184
83.808
147.247
20.369
167.615
147.247
20.369
167.615
147.247
20.369
167.615
147.247
20.369
167.615
147.247
20.369
167.615
73.623
10.184
83.808
883.48
122.213
1005.693
720.683 1027.264 1263.506 1089.757
915.294
638.333
429.61
353.217
334.351
335.969
371.707
512.531
7992.221
31.934
46.819
83.577
0
534.085
696.415
32.998
72.722
134.24
0
572.258
812.218
32.998
0.234
134.24
42.884
586.442
796.798
29.805
0.168
121.249
17.116
529.689
698.026
31.18
0.057
112.117
0
586.1
729.454
31.934
0
55.171
0
542.863
629.968
32.998
0
0
0
396.612
429.61
31.934
0
0
0
321.283
353.217
32.998
0
0
0
301.353
334.351
32.998
0
0
0
302.971
335.969
31.388
0
0
0
340.319
371.707
32.998
0
3.714
0
475.819
512.531
386.162
120
644.308
60
5489.795
6700.264
18.188
6.08
24.268
189.69
23.164
212.854
277.063
36.96
314.023
242.631
36.624
279.255
155.908
19.384
175.292
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
883.48
122.213
1005.693
720.683 1025.072
1110.82
977.282
904.746
629.968
429.61
353.217
334.351
335.969
371.707
512.531
7705.957
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
987.419
136.591
969.231
130.511
779.541
107.346
502.478
70.386
259.847
33.762
103.939
14.378
177.562
24.562
324.809
44.931
472.055
65.3
619.302
85.669
766.549
106.038
913.795
126.407
987.419
136.591
1124.01 1099.741
886.887
572.864
293.609
118.317
202.125
369.74
537.355
704.971
872.586 1040.202
1124.01
2.191
152.686
112.475
10.548
8.364
286.264
2.191
152.686
112.475
10.548
8.364
286.264

Ventyx
Nov-20
Forecast Demand
PlanningLoad
Total Demand
Total Imbal
Fuel Consumed
Transport
Injection
Withdrawal
Total Fuel
Storage Injections
FS-MA
GSS
Total Inj
Total Req
Sources of Supply
Niagara
Whately LNG
NH Wright
LP
TGP Z4 200
Total Take
Storage Withdrawals
FS-MA
GSS
Total With
Total Supply
FS-MA
GSS
Total Inv Adj
FS-MA
GSS
Total Inv
Unsupplied Demand
PlanningLoad
Total Unsupp
Dec-20
Jan-21

D.P.U. 16-103
Tab B - Normal
Page 10 of 10
Page 1
22-Jun-16
Units: MDT
Feb-21
Mar-21
Apr-21
May-21
Jun-21
Jul-21
Aug-21
Sep-21
Oct-21
Total
719.373 1025.473 1262.152 1088.255

719.373 1025.473 1262.152 1088.255
913.191
913.191
551.646
551.646
258.107
258.107
181.916
181.916
163.103
163.103
164.717
164.717
200.356
200.356
426.017
426.017
6954.306
6954.306
5.749
0
0
5.749
8.118
0
0
8.118
9.077
0
0
9.077
8.15
0
0
8.15
7.701
0
0
7.701
5.055
1.225
0
6.281
3.035
2.45
0
5.485
2.36
2.45
0
4.811
2.191
2.45
0
4.642
2.206
2.45
0
4.656
2.525
2.45
0
4.975
4.117
1.225
0
5.342
60.283
14.702
0
74.986
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
73.623
10.184
83.808
147.247
20.369
167.615
147.247
20.369
167.615
147.247
20.369
167.615
147.247
20.369
167.615
147.247
20.369
167.615
73.623
10.184
83.808
883.48
122.213
1005.693
725.122 1033.591 1271.229 1096.405
920.892
641.735
431.207
354.342
335.36
336.988
372.947
515.166
8034.985
31.934
48.092
84.104
0
534.865
698.995
32.998
71.45
134.24
2.002
572.621
813.31
32.998
0.234
134.24
37.448
586.442
791.361
29.805
0.168
121.249
19.808
529.689
700.718
32.998
0.057
113.058
0.742
584.512
731.367
31.934
0
57.511
0
543.13
632.575
32.998
0
0
0
398.209
431.207
31.934
0
0
0
322.409
354.342
32.998
0
0
0
302.362
335.36
32.998
0
0
0
303.99
336.988
31.479
0
0
0
341.467
372.947
32.998
0
3.983
0
478.185
515.166
388.07
120
648.385
60
5497.882
6714.338
18.938
7.189
26.127
188.94
27.905
216.844
277.843
34.163
312.006
241.851
34.469
276.32
155.908
18.488
174.396
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
883.48
122.213
1005.693
725.122 1030.155 1103.367
977.038
905.763
632.575
431.207
354.342
335.36
336.988
372.947
515.166
7720.03
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
987.419
136.591
968.481
129.402
779.541
101.497
501.698
67.334
259.847
32.866
103.939
14.378
177.562
24.562
324.809
44.931
472.055
65.3
619.302
85.669
766.549
106.038
913.795
126.407
987.419
136.591
1124.01 1097.883
881.038
569.032
292.713
118.317
202.125
369.74
537.355
704.971
872.586 1040.202
1124.01
3.437
167.862
119.367
15.129
9.16
314.954
3.437
167.862
119.367
15.129
9.16
314.954

Base - Design - Draw 0
Nov-16
Forecast Demand
PlanningLoad
Total Demand
Total Imbal
Fuel Consumed
Transport
Injection
Withdrawal
Total Fuel
Storage Injections
FS-MA
GSS
Total Inj
Total Req
Sources of Supply
Niagara
Whately LNG
NH Wright
LP
TGP Z4 200
Total Take
Storage Withdrawals
FS-MA
GSS
Total With
Total Supply
FS-MA
GSS
Total Inv Adj
FS-MA
GSS
Total Inv
Unsupplied Demand
PlanningLoad
Total Unsupp
Dec-16

Jan-17
Feb-17
Mar-17
Apr-17
769.753 1142.759 1382.602 1178.652

769.753 1142.759 1382.602 1178.652
May-17
Jun-17

D.P.U. 16-103
Tab C - Design
Page 1 of 10
Ventyx
Page 1
22-Jun-16
Units: MDT
Jul-17
Aug-17
Sep-17
Oct-17 Total
1008.72
1008.72
512.151
512.151
237.471
237.471
167.372
167.372
150.063
150.063
151.548
151.548
184.338
184.338
391.957
391.957
7277.388
7277.388
6.077
0
0
6.077
8.408
0
0
8.408
9.066
0
0
9.066
8.258
0
0
8.258
7.391
0
0
7.391
4.832
1.225
0
6.057
2.911
2.45
0
5.362
2.289
2.45
0
4.739
2.135
2.45
0
4.586
2.149
2.45
0
4.599
2.44
2.45
0
4.89
3.877
1.225
0
5.102
59.833
14.702
0
74.535
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
73.623
10.184
83.808
147.247
20.369
167.615
147.247
20.369
167.615
147.247
20.369
167.615
147.247
20.369
167.615
147.247
20.369
167.615
73.623
10.184
83.808
883.48
122.213
1005.693
775.829 1151.168 1391.669 1186.911 1016.111
602.016
410.449
339.727
322.265
323.763
356.843
480.867
8357.616
25.253
61.228
90.656
0.001
553.554
730.692
32.998
57.846
134.24
5.308
586.442
816.834
32.998
0.445
134.24
25.01
586.442
779.135
29.805
0.319
121.249
9.406
529.689
690.468
32.998
0.161
127.848
20.275
586.442
767.724
26.611
0
28.56
0
544.987
600.158
0
0
0
0
410.449
410.449
0
0
0
0
339.727
339.727
0
0
0
0
322.265
322.265
0
0
0
0
323.763
323.763
0
0
0
0
356.843
356.843
2.018
0
0.586
0
478.263
480.867
182.681
120
637.378
60
5618.865
6618.924
38.064
6.719
44.783
206.78
29.226
236.006
274.85
35.945
310.795
259.847
28.756
288.603
103.939
21.567
125.506
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
883.48
122.213
1005.693
775.475 1052.839
1089.93
979.071
893.23
600.158
410.449
339.727
322.265
323.763
356.843
480.867
7624.617
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
987.419
136.591
949.355
129.872
742.575
100.646
467.725
64.701
207.878
35.945
103.939
14.378
177.562
24.562
324.809
44.931
472.055
65.3
619.302
85.669
766.549
106.038
913.795
126.407
987.419
136.591
1124.01 1079.227
843.221
532.426
243.823
118.317
202.125
369.74
537.355
704.971
872.586 1040.202
1124.01
0.354
98.328
301.739
207.84
122.881
1.857
732.999
0.354
98.328
301.739
207.84
122.881
1.857
732.999

Nov-17
Forecast Demand
PlanningLoad
Total Demand
Total Imbal
Fuel Consumed
Transport
Injection
Withdrawal
Total Fuel
Storage Injections
FS-MA
GSS
Total Inj
Total Req
Sources of Supply
Niagara
Whately LNG
NH Wright
LP
TGP Z4 200
Total Take
Storage Withdrawals
FS-MA
GSS
Total With
Total Supply
FS-MA
GSS
Total Inv Adj
FS-MA
GSS
Total Inv
Unsupplied Demand
PlanningLoad
Total Unsupp
Dec-17

Jan-18
Feb-18
Mar-18
Apr-18
776.022 1152.066 1393.863 1188.252 1016.935

776.022 1152.066 1393.863 1188.252 1016.935

D.P.U. 16-103
Tab C - Design
Page 2 of 10
Ventyx
Page 1
22-Jun-16
Units: MDT
Jul-18
Aug-18
Sep-18
Oct-18 Total
May-18
Jun-18
516.322
516.322
239.405
239.405
168.736
168.736
151.286
151.286
152.782
152.782
185.839
185.839
395.149
395.149
7336.657
7336.657
6.125
0
0
6.125
8.504
0
0
8.504
8.934
0
0
8.934
8.282
0
0
8.282
7.372
0
0
7.372
4.847
1.225
0
6.072
2.869
2.45
0
5.32
2.246
2.45
0
4.696
2.096
2.45
0
4.547
2.107
2.45
0
4.557
2.453
2.45
0
4.903
3.904
1.225
0
5.13
59.739
14.702
0
74.441
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
73.623
10.184
83.808
147.247
20.369
167.615
147.247
20.369
167.615
147.247
20.369
167.615
147.247
20.369
167.615
147.247
20.369
167.615
73.623
10.184
83.808
883.48
122.213
1005.693
782.147
1160.57 1402.797 1196.533 1024.306
606.202
412.34
341.047
323.448
324.955
358.358
484.087
8416.791
25.567
62.251
91.176
0
554.211
733.205
32.998
56.823
134.24
14.656
586.442
825.159
32.998
0.445
134.24
15.8
586.442
769.925
29.805
0.319
121.249
20.522
529.689
701.584
32.998
0.161
128.389
9.021
586.442
757.011
31.752
0
31.629
0
540.163
603.544
32.706
0
0
0
379.634
412.34
30.368
0
0
0
310.679
341.047
27.423
0
0
0
296.025
323.448
28.922
0
0
0
296.033
324.955
0
0
0
0
358.358
358.358
2.129
0
0.804
0
481.154
484.087
307.666
120
641.727
60
5505.272
6634.664
41.752
7.189
48.941
218.095
28.756
246.851
259.847
35.945
295.792
259.847
31.392
291.239
103.939
18.931
122.87
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
883.48
122.213
1005.693
782.147 1072.009 1065.717
992.823
879.881
603.544
412.34
341.047
323.448
324.955
358.358
484.087
7640.357
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
987.419
136.591
945.666
129.402
727.572
100.646
467.725
64.701
207.878
33.309
103.939
14.378
177.562
24.562
324.809
44.931
472.055
65.3
619.302
85.669
766.549
106.038
913.795
126.407
987.419
136.591
1124.01 1075.068
828.218
532.426
241.187
118.317
202.125
369.74
537.355
704.971
872.586 1040.202
1124.01
88.561
337.08
203.71
144.425
2.658
776.434
88.561
337.08
203.71
144.425
2.658
776.434

Nov-18
Forecast Demand
PlanningLoad
Total Demand
Total Imbal
Fuel Consumed
Transport
Injection
Withdrawal
Total Fuel
Storage Injections
FS-MA
GSS
Total Inj
Total Req
Sources of Supply
Niagara
Whately LNG
NH Wright
LP
TGP Z4 200
Total Take
Storage Withdrawals
FS-MA
GSS
Total With
Total Supply
FS-MA
GSS
Total Inv Adj
FS-MA
GSS
Total Inv
Unsupplied Demand
PlanningLoad
Total Unsupp
Dec-18

Jan-19
Feb-19
Mar-19
Apr-19
780.54 1158.774 1401.978

780.54 1158.774 1401.978
1195.17 1022.856
1195.17 1022.856

D.P.U. 16-103
Tab C - Design
Page 3 of 10
Ventyx
Page 1
22-Jun-16
Units: MDT
Jul-19
Aug-19
Sep-19
Oct-19 Total
May-19
Jun-19
519.328
519.328
240.799
240.799
169.718
169.718
152.166
152.166
153.672
153.672
186.921
186.921
397.45
397.45
7379.374
7379.374
6.152
0
0
6.152
8.214
0
0
8.214
9.205
0
0
9.205
8.322
0
0
8.322
7.334
0
0
7.334
4.864
1.225
0
6.089
2.881
2.45
0
5.331
2.252
2.45
0
4.702
2.094
2.45
0
4.545
2.107
2.45
0
4.558
2.463
2.45
0
4.913
3.868
1.225
0
5.094
59.757
14.702
0
74.459
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
73.623
10.184
83.808
147.247
20.369
167.615
147.247
20.369
167.615
147.247
20.369
167.615
147.247
20.369
167.615
147.247
20.369
167.615
73.623
10.184
83.808
883.48
122.213
1005.693
786.692 1166.988 1411.184 1203.492
1030.19
609.225
413.746
342.036
324.326
325.845
359.45
486.351
8459.525
25.793
62.864
91.551
0
554.684
734.892
32.998
56.211
134.24
21.413
586.442
831.303
32.998
0.445
134.24
18.876
586.442
773
29.805
0.319
121.249
5.11
529.689
686.171
32.998
0.161
128.779
14.602
586.442
762.982
31.934
0
33.841
0
540.216
605.991
32.998
0
0
0
380.748
413.746
31.934
0
0
0
310.102
342.036
32.998
0
0
0
291.328
324.326
32.998
0
0
0
292.847
325.845
0
0
0
0
359.45
359.45
32.998
0
1.041
0
452.312
486.351
350.451
120
644.941
60
5470.702
6646.094
43.867
7.189
51.056
185.171
28.756
213.927
290.656
35.945
326.601
259.847
35.945
295.792
103.939
14.378
118.317
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
883.48
122.213
1005.693
1045.23 1099.602
981.963
881.299
605.991
413.746
342.036
324.326
325.845
359.45
486.351
7651.787
785.948
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
987.419
136.591
943.552
129.402
758.381
100.646
467.725
64.701
207.878
28.756
103.939
14.378
177.562
24.562
324.809
44.931
472.055
65.3
619.302
85.669
766.549
106.038
913.795
126.407
987.419
136.591
1124.01 1072.954
859.027
532.426
236.634
118.317
202.125
369.74
537.355
704.971
872.586 1040.202
1124.01
0.744
121.758
311.582
221.528
148.891
3.235
807.738
0.744
121.758
311.582
221.528
148.891
3.235
807.738

Nov-19
Forecast Demand
PlanningLoad
Total Demand
Total Imbal
Fuel Consumed
Transport
Injection
Withdrawal
Total Fuel
Storage Injections
FS-MA
GSS
Total Inj
Total Req
Sources of Supply
Niagara
Whately LNG
NH Wright
LP
TGP Z4 200
Total Take
Storage Withdrawals
FS-MA
GSS
Total With
Total Supply
FS-MA
GSS
Total Inv Adj
FS-MA
GSS
Total Inv
Unsupplied Demand
PlanningLoad
Total Unsupp
Dec-19

Jan-20
Feb-20
Mar-20
Apr-20
782.315 1161.409 1405.167 1197.888 1025.182

782.315 1161.409 1405.167 1197.888 1025.182

D.P.U. 16-103
Tab C - Design
Page 4 of 10
Ventyx
Page 1
22-Jun-16
Units: MDT
Jul-20
Aug-20
Sep-20
Oct-20 Total
May-20
Jun-20
520.509
520.509
241.347
241.347
170.104
170.104
152.513
152.513
154.021
154.021
187.346
187.346
398.354
398.354
7396.156
7396.156
6.161
0
0
6.161
8.469
0
0
8.469
8.635
0
0
8.635
8.621
0
0
8.621
7.335
0
0
7.335
4.871
1.225
0
6.096
2.886
2.45
0
5.336
2.255
2.45
0
4.706
2.097
2.45
0
4.548
2.111
2.45
0
4.561
2.411
2.45
0
4.861
3.876
1.225
0
5.101
59.728
14.702
0
74.43
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
73.623
10.184
83.808
147.247
20.369
167.615
147.247
20.369
167.615
147.247
20.369
167.615
147.247
20.369
167.615
147.247
20.369
167.615
73.623
10.184
83.808
883.48
122.213
1005.693
788.476 1169.878 1413.801 1206.509 1032.517
610.413
414.299
342.425
324.676
326.198
359.823
487.263
8476.279
31.934
63.104
91.698
0
548.808
735.544
32.998
55.97
134.24
2.226
586.442
811.875
32.998
0.445
134.24
26.174
586.442
780.299
29.805
0.319
121.249
15.8
529.689
696.862
32.998
0.161
128.933
15.8
586.442
764.333
31.934
0
34.711
0
540.308
606.952
32.998
0
0
0
381.301
414.299
31.934
0
0
0
310.492
342.425
32.998
0
0
0
291.678
324.676
32.998
0
0
0
293.2
326.198
30.445
0
0
0
329.378
359.823
32.998
0
1.134
0
453.131
487.263
387.036
120
646.204
60
5437.309
6650.549
45.743
7.189
52.932
214.104
28.756
242.86
225.811
35.945
261.756
293.883
35.945
329.828
103.939
14.378
118.317
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
883.48
122.213
1005.693
788.476 1054.735 1042.056 1026.689
882.65
606.952
414.299
342.425
324.676
326.198
359.823
487.263
7656.241
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
987.419
136.591
941.676
129.402
727.572
100.646
501.76
64.701
207.878
28.756
103.939
14.378
177.562
24.562
324.809
44.931
472.055
65.3
619.302
85.669
766.549
106.038
913.795
126.407
987.419
136.591
1124.01 1071.078
828.218
566.461
236.634
118.317
202.125
369.74
537.355
704.971
872.586 1040.202
1124.01
115.142
371.746
179.82
149.867
3.461
820.037
115.142
371.746
179.82
149.867
3.461
820.037

Nov-20
Forecast Demand
PlanningLoad
Total Demand
Total Imbal
Fuel Consumed
Transport
Injection
Withdrawal
Total Fuel
Storage Injections
FS-MA
GSS
Total Inj
Total Req
Sources of Supply
Niagara
Whately LNG
NH Wright
LP
TGP Z4 200
Total Take
Storage Withdrawals
FS-MA
GSS
Total With
Total Supply
FS-MA
GSS
Total Inv Adj
FS-MA
GSS
Total Inv
Unsupplied Demand
PlanningLoad
Total Unsupp
Dec-20

Jan-21
Feb-21
Mar-21
Apr-21
784.745 1165.017 1409.532 1201.609 1028.367

784.745 1165.017 1409.532 1201.609 1028.367

D.P.U. 16-103
Tab C - Design
Page 5 of 10
Ventyx
Page 1
22-Jun-16
Units: MDT
Jul-21
Aug-21
Sep-21
Oct-21 Total
May-21
Jun-21
522.126
522.126
242.097
242.097
170.632
170.632
152.986
152.986
154.5
154.5
187.928
187.928
399.592
399.592
7419.132
7419.132
5.993
0
0
5.993
8.641
0
0
8.641
8.934
0
0
8.934
8.258
0
0
8.258
7.4
0
0
7.4
4.88
1.225
0
6.106
2.893
2.45
0
5.343
2.26
2.45
0
4.71
2.101
2.45
0
4.552
2.115
2.45
0
4.565
2.416
2.45
0
4.867
3.887
1.225
0
5.112
59.779
14.702
0
74.481
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
73.623
10.184
83.808
147.247
20.369
167.615
147.247
20.369
167.615
147.247
20.369
167.615
147.247
20.369
167.615
147.247
20.369
167.615
73.623
10.184
83.808
883.48
122.213
1005.693
790.738 1173.658 1418.466 1209.868 1035.767
612.04
415.055
342.958
325.154
326.681
360.41
488.511
8499.306
31.934
63.434
91.9
6.636
549.184
743.088
32.998
55.641
134.24
9.083
586.442
818.403
32.998
0.445
134.24
7.9
586.442
762.025
29.805
0.319
121.249
7.9
529.689
688.962
32.998
0.161
129.142
28.481
586.442
777.224
31.934
0
35.9
0
540.434
608.268
32.998
0
0
0
382.057
415.055
31.934
0
0
0
311.025
342.958
32.998
0
0
0
292.156
325.154
32.998
0
0
0
293.683
326.681
30.504
0
0
0
329.907
360.41
32.998
0
1.262
0
454.252
488.511
387.095
120
647.932
60
5441.711
6656.738
26.145
7.189
33.334
233.702
28.756
262.458
259.847
35.945
295.792
259.847
28.756
288.603
103.939
21.567
125.506
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
883.48
122.213
1005.693
776.421 1080.861 1057.817
977.565
902.729
608.268
415.055
342.958
325.154
326.681
360.41
488.511
7662.431
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
987.419
136.591
961.274
129.402
727.572
100.646
467.725
64.701
207.878
35.945
103.939
14.378
177.562
24.562
324.809
44.931
472.055
65.3
619.302
85.669
766.549
106.038
913.795
126.407
987.419
136.591
1124.01 1090.676
828.218
532.426
243.823
118.317
202.125
369.74
537.355
704.971
872.586 1040.202
1124.01
14.317
92.797
360.649
232.303
133.037
3.772
836.875
14.317
92.797
360.649
232.303
133.037
3.772
836.875

High - Design - Draw 0
Ventyx
Nov-16
Forecast Demand
PlanningLoad
Total Demand
Total Imbal
Fuel Consumed
Transport
Injection
Withdrawal
Total Fuel
Storage Injections
FS-MA
GSS
Total Inj
Total Req
Sources of Supply
Niagara
Whately LNG
NH Wright
LP
TGP Z4 200
Total Take
Storage Withdrawals
FS-MA
GSS
Total With
Total Supply
FS-MA
GSS
Total Inv Adj
FS-MA
GSS
Total Inv
Unsupplied Demand
PlanningLoad
Total Unsupp
Dec-16
Jan-17

Feb-17
Mar-17
Apr-17
May-17
778.574 1155.855 1398.446 1192.159 1020.279

778.574 1155.855 1398.446 1192.159 1020.279
Jun-17
Jul-17
Aug-17
Sep-17
Oct-17

D.P.U. 16-103
Tab C - Design
Page 6 of 10
Page 1
22-Jun-16
Units: MDT
Total
518.02
518.02
240.193
240.193
169.29
169.29
151.783
151.783
153.285
153.285
186.45
186.45
396.449
396.449
7360.783
7360.783
5.995
0
0
5.995
8.274
0
0
8.274
9.299
0
0
9.299
8.282
0
0
8.282
7.373
0
0
7.373
4.866
1.225
0
6.091
2.936
2.45
0
5.386
2.306
2.45
0
4.756
2.151
2.45
0
4.601
2.164
2.45
0
4.614
2.458
2.45
0
4.909
3.916
1.225
0
5.141
60.019
14.702
0
74.721
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
73.623
10.184
83.808
147.247
20.369
167.615
147.247
20.369
167.615
147.247
20.369
167.615
147.247
20.369
167.615
147.247
20.369
167.615
73.623
10.184
83.808
883.48
122.213
1005.693
784.568 1164.129 1407.745 1200.441 1027.652
607.919
413.194
341.662
324
325.515
358.975
485.398
8441.197
25.695
62.597
91.388
0.001
554.478
734.159
32.998
56.477
134.24
15.002
586.442
825.159
32.998
0.445
134.24
19.051
586.442
773.176
29.805
0.319
121.249
7.986
529.689
689.048
32.998
0.161
128.61
17.959
586.442
766.17
26.611
0
32.879
0
545.445
604.935
0
0
0
0
413.194
413.194
0
0
0
0
341.662
341.662
0
0
0
0
324
324
0
0
0
0
325.515
325.515
0
0
0
0
358.975
358.975
2.129
0
0.938
0
482.331
485.398
183.234
120
643.542
60
5634.614
6641.389
26.393
7.189
33.582
192.028
28.756
220.784
301.273
35.945
337.218
259.847
31.392
291.239
103.939
18.931
122.87
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
883.48
122.213
1005.693
767.741 1045.943 1110.394
980.287
889.039
604.935
413.194
341.662
324
325.515
358.975
485.398
7647.082
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
987.419
136.591
961.025
129.402
768.998
100.646
467.725
64.701
207.878
33.309
103.939
14.378
177.562
24.562
324.809
44.931
472.055
65.3
619.302
85.669
766.549
106.038
913.795
126.407
987.419
136.591
1124.01 1090.427
869.644
532.426
241.187
118.317
202.125
369.74
537.355
704.971
872.586 1040.202
1124.01
16.827
118.186
297.351
220.154
138.613
2.984
794.114
16.827
118.186
297.351
220.154
138.613
2.984
794.114

Ventyx
Nov-17
Forecast Demand
PlanningLoad
Total Demand
Total Imbal
Fuel Consumed
Transport
Injection
Withdrawal
Total Fuel
Storage Injections
FS-MA
GSS
Total Inj
Total Req
Sources of Supply
Niagara
Whately LNG
NH Wright
LP
TGP Z4 200
Total Take
Storage Withdrawals
FS-MA
GSS
Total With
Total Supply
FS-MA
GSS
Total Inv Adj
FS-MA
GSS
Total Inv
Unsupplied Demand
PlanningLoad
Total Unsupp
Dec-17
Jan-18

Feb-18
Mar-18
Apr-18
May-18
793.447 1177.936 1425.162 1214.934

793.447 1177.936 1425.162 1214.934
Jun-18
Jul-18
Aug-18
Sep-18
Oct-18

D.P.U. 16-103
Tab C - Design
Page 7 of 10
Page 1
22-Jun-16
Units: MDT
Total
1039.77
1039.77
527.916
527.916
244.781
244.781
172.524
172.524
154.683
154.683
156.213
156.213
190.012
190.012
404.023
404.023
7501.401
7501.401
6.161
0
0
6.161
8.5
0
0
8.5
8.934
0
0
8.934
8.322
0
0
8.322
7.342
0
0
7.342
4.914
1.225
0
6.139
2.917
2.45
0
5.367
2.279
2.45
0
4.729
2.125
2.45
0
4.575
2.136
2.45
0
4.586
2.49
2.45
0
4.94
3.982
1.225
0
5.207
60.1
14.702
0
74.803
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
73.623
10.184
83.808
147.247
20.369
167.615
147.247
20.369
167.615
147.247
20.369
167.615
147.247
20.369
167.615
147.247
20.369
167.615
73.623
10.184
83.808
883.48
122.213
1005.693
799.608 1186.436 1434.096 1223.255 1047.112
617.863
417.764
344.869
326.873
328.415
362.568
493.037
8581.896
26.413
64.56
92.764
0
555.92
739.658
32.998
54.514
134.24
16.499
586.442
824.692
32.998
0.445
134.24
8.249
586.442
762.374
29.805
0.319
121.249
20.196
529.689
701.258
32.998
0.161
129.893
15.056
586.442
764.55
31.862
0
40.153
0
540.958
612.973
32.814
0
0
0
384.95
417.764
30.869
0
0
0
314
344.869
28.556
0
0
0
298.317
326.873
29.745
0
0
0
298.669
328.415
0
0
0
0
362.568
362.568
2.129
0
1.718
0
489.19
493.037
311.187
120
654.256
60
5533.587
6679.03
44.716
4.65
49.366
215.131
31.295
246.426
259.847
35.945
295.792
259.847
35.945
295.792
103.939
14.378
118.317
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
883.48
122.213
1005.693
789.023 1071.119 1058.166
997.05
882.867
612.973
417.764
344.869
326.873
328.415
362.568
493.037
7684.723
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
987.419
136.591
942.703
131.941
727.572
100.646
467.725
64.701
207.878
28.756
103.939
14.378
177.562
24.562
324.809
44.931
472.055
65.3
619.302
85.669
766.549
106.038
913.795
126.407
987.419
136.591
1124.01 1074.644
828.218
532.426
236.634
118.317
202.125
369.74
537.355
704.971
872.586 1040.202
1124.01
10.585
115.317
375.93
226.206
164.245
4.891
897.173
10.585
115.317
375.93
226.206
164.245
4.891
897.173

Ventyx
Nov-18
Forecast Demand
PlanningLoad
Total Demand
Total Imbal
Fuel Consumed
Transport
Injection
Withdrawal
Total Fuel
Storage Injections
FS-MA
GSS
Total Inj
Total Req
Sources of Supply
Niagara
Whately LNG
NH Wright
LP
TGP Z4 200
Total Take
Storage Withdrawals
FS-MA
GSS
Total With
Total Supply
FS-MA
GSS
Total Inv Adj
FS-MA
GSS
Total Inv
Unsupplied Demand
PlanningLoad
Total Unsupp
Dec-18
Jan-19
805.402 1195.684 1446.635

805.402 1195.684 1446.635

Feb-19
Mar-19
Apr-19
May-19
1233.24 1055.437
1233.24 1055.437
Jun-19
Jul-19
Aug-19
Sep-19
Oct-19

D.P.U. 16-103
Tab C - Design
Page 8 of 10
Page 1
22-Jun-16
Units: MDT
Total
535.871
535.871
248.469
248.469
175.124
175.124
157.013
157.013
158.567
158.567
192.875
192.875
410.11
410.11
7614.429
7614.429
6.031
0
0
6.031
8.651
0
0
8.651
8.934
0
0
8.934
7.864
0
0
7.864
7.807
0
0
7.807
4.958
1.225
0
6.183
2.949
2.45
0
5.399
2.3
2.45
0
4.75
2.137
2.45
0
4.588
2.151
2.45
0
4.601
2.515
2.45
0
4.966
3.978
1.225
0
5.204
60.276
14.702
0
74.979
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
73.623
10.184
83.808
147.247
20.369
167.615
147.247
20.369
167.615
147.247
20.369
167.615
147.247
20.369
167.615
147.247
20.369
167.615
73.623
10.184
83.808
883.48
122.213
1005.693
811.434 1204.335
1455.57 1241.104 1063.243
625.861
421.484
347.49
329.216
330.784
365.457
499.121
8695.1
26.995
65.475
94.059
0
556.886
743.415
32.998
53.6
134.24
12.708
586.442
819.987
32.998
0.445
134.24
10.309
586.442
764.434
29.805
0.319
121.249
13.768
529.689
694.829
32.998
0.161
130.925
23.216
586.442
773.742
31.934
0
45.64
0
541.507
619.081
32.998
0
0
0
388.486
421.484
31.934
0
0
0
315.556
347.49
32.998
0
0
0
296.218
329.216
32.998
0
0
0
297.786
330.784
0
0
0
0
365.457
365.457
32.998
0
2.345
0
463.779
499.121
351.653
120
662.697
60
5514.689
6709.039
25.025
7.189
32.214
234.822
28.756
263.578
259.847
35.945
295.792
207.878
35.945
243.823
155.908
14.378
170.286
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
883.48
122.213
1005.693
775.629 1083.565 1060.226
938.652
944.028
619.081
421.484
347.49
329.216
330.784
365.457
499.121
7714.732
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
987.419
136.591
962.393
129.402
727.572
100.646
467.725
64.701
259.847
28.756
103.939
14.378
177.562
24.562
324.809
44.931
472.055
65.3
619.302
85.669
766.549
106.038
913.795
126.407
987.419
136.591
1124.01 1091.795
828.218
532.426
288.603
118.317
202.125
369.74
537.355
704.971
872.586 1040.202
1124.01
35.805
120.771
395.344
302.452
119.216
6.781
980.368
35.805
120.771
395.344
302.452
119.216
6.781
980.368

Ventyx
Nov-19
Forecast Demand
PlanningLoad
Total Demand
Total Imbal
Fuel Consumed
Transport
Injection
Withdrawal
Total Fuel
Storage Injections
FS-MA
GSS
Total Inj
Total Req
Sources of Supply
Niagara
Whately LNG
NH Wright
LP
TGP Z4 200
Total Take
Storage Withdrawals
FS-MA
GSS
Total With
Total Supply
FS-MA
GSS
Total Inv Adj
FS-MA
GSS
Total Inv
Unsupplied Demand
PlanningLoad
Total Unsupp
Dec-19
Jan-20

Feb-20
Mar-20
Apr-20
May-20
812.447 1206.142 1459.288 1244.026 1064.668

812.447 1206.142 1459.288 1244.026 1064.668
Jun-20
Jul-20
Aug-20
Sep-20
Oct-20

D.P.U. 16-103
Tab C - Design
Page 9 of 10
Page 1
22-Jun-16
Units: MDT
Total
540.557
540.557
250.643
250.643
176.656
176.656
158.387
158.387
159.954
159.954
194.562
194.562
413.697
413.697
7681.025
7681.025
6.082
0
0
6.082
8.604
0
0
8.604
8.888
0
0
8.888
8.305
0
0
8.305
7.416
0
0
7.416
4.984
1.225
0
6.209
2.968
2.45
0
5.419
2.313
2.45
0
4.764
2.149
2.45
0
4.6
2.163
2.45
0
4.614
2.474
2.45
0
4.924
4.01
1.225
0
5.235
60.357
14.702
0
75.059
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
73.623
10.184
83.808
147.247
20.369
167.615
147.247
20.369
167.615
147.247
20.369
167.615
147.247
20.369
167.615
147.247
20.369
167.615
73.623
10.184
83.808
883.48
122.213
1005.693
818.529 1214.746 1468.176
1252.33 1072.084
630.574
423.677
349.035
330.602
332.183
367.102
502.739
8761.777
31.934
65.703
94.979
4.059
552.694
749.367
32.998
53.372
134.24
22.603
586.442
829.654
32.998
0.445
134.24
0
586.442
754.125
29.805
0.319
121.249
19.642
529.689
700.703
32.998
0.161
131.404
13.696
586.442
764.701
31.934
0
48.873
0
541.873
622.68
32.998
0
0
0
390.679
423.677
31.934
0
0
0
317.101
349.035
32.998
0
0
0
297.604
330.602
32.998
0
0
0
299.185
332.183
31.05
0
0
0
336.052
367.102
32.998
0
2.714
0
467.027
502.739
387.642
120
667.698
60
5491.229
6726.569
30.32
7.169
37.489
229.527
28.776
258.303
259.847
30.693
290.54
259.847
34.008
293.855
103.939
21.567
125.506
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
883.48
122.213
1005.693
786.856 1087.958 1044.665
994.558
890.206
622.68
423.677
349.035
330.602
332.183
367.102
502.739
7732.261
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
987.419
136.591
957.099
129.422
727.572
100.646
467.725
69.953
207.878
35.945
103.939
14.378
177.562
24.562
324.809
44.931
472.055
65.3
619.302
85.669
766.549
106.038
913.795
126.407
987.419
136.591
1124.01 1086.521
828.218
537.678
243.823
118.317
202.125
369.74
537.355
704.971
872.586 1040.202
1124.01
31.672
126.789
423.511
257.772
181.877
7.894
1029.516
31.672
126.789
423.511
257.772
181.877
7.894
1029.516

Ventyx
Nov-20
Forecast Demand
PlanningLoad
Total Demand
Total Imbal
Fuel Consumed
Transport
Injection
Withdrawal
Total Fuel
Storage Injections
FS-MA
GSS
Total Inj
Total Req
Sources of Supply
Niagara
Whately LNG
NH Wright
LP
TGP Z4 200
Total Take
Storage Withdrawals
FS-MA
GSS
Total With
Total Supply
FS-MA
GSS
Total Inv Adj
FS-MA
GSS
Total Inv
Unsupplied Demand
PlanningLoad
Total Unsupp
Dec-20
Jan-21

Feb-21
Mar-21
Apr-21
May-21
818.195 1214.677 1469.614 1252.828 1072.201

818.195 1214.677 1469.614 1252.828 1072.201
Jun-21
Jul-21
Aug-21
Sep-21
Oct-21

D.P.U. 16-103
Tab C - Design
Page 10 of 10
Page 1
22-Jun-16
Units: MDT
Total
544.382
544.382
252.416
252.416
177.906
177.906
159.507
159.507
161.086
161.086
195.939
195.939
416.624
416.624
7735.376
7735.376
6.061
0
0
6.061
8.635
0
0
8.635
8.852
0
0
8.852
8.363
0
0
8.363
7.395
0
0
7.395
5.005
1.225
0
6.23
2.984
2.45
0
5.435
2.325
2.45
0
4.775
2.159
2.45
0
4.61
2.173
2.45
0
4.624
2.486
2.45
0
4.936
4.035
1.225
0
5.26
60.474
14.702
0
75.176
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
73.623
10.184
83.808
147.247
20.369
167.615
147.247
20.369
167.615
147.247
20.369
167.615
147.247
20.369
167.615
147.247
20.369
167.615
73.623
10.184
83.808
883.48
122.213
1005.693
824.256 1223.312 1478.466 1261.192 1079.596
634.42
425.466
350.296
331.733
333.325
368.491
505.692
8816.245
31.934
66.054
95.578
0
553.296
746.861
32.998
53.021
134.24
26.498
586.442
833.198
32.998
0.445
134.24
0
586.442
754.125
29.805
0.319
121.249
10.562
529.689
691.624
32.998
0.161
131.727
22.94
586.442
774.268
31.934
0
51.512
0
542.172
625.617
32.998
0
0
0
392.468
425.466
31.934
0
0
0
318.363
350.296
32.998
0
0
0
298.735
331.733
32.998
0
0
0
300.327
333.325
31.152
0
0
0
337.338
368.491
32.998
0
3.016
0
469.678
505.692
387.743
120
671.56
60
5501.391
6740.695
26.834
7.169
34.003
233.013
28.776
261.789
250.541
35.945
286.486
269.153
31.392
300.545
103.939
18.931
122.87
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
883.48
122.213
1005.693
780.864 1094.987 1040.611
992.169
897.138
625.617
425.466
350.296
331.733
333.325
368.491
505.692
7746.388
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
987.419
136.591
960.585
129.422
727.572
100.646
477.031
64.701
207.878
33.309
103.939
14.378
177.562
24.562
324.809
44.931
472.055
65.3
619.302
85.669
766.549
106.038
913.795
126.407
987.419
136.591
1124.01 1090.007
828.218
541.732
241.187
118.317
202.125
369.74
537.355
704.971
872.586 1040.202
1124.01
43.393
128.325
437.855
269.023
182.459
8.803
1069.858
43.393
128.325
437.855
269.023
182.459
8.803
1069.858

D.P.U. 16-103
Tab D - Cold Snap
Page 1 of 10
Base - Cold Snap - Draw 0
Ventyx
Nov-16
Forecast Demand
PlanningLoad
Total Demand
Total Imbal
Fuel Consumed
Transport
Injection
Withdrawal
Total Fuel
Storage Injections
FS-MA
GSS
Total Inj
Total Req
Sources of Supply
Niagara
Whately LNG
NH Wright
LP
TGP Z4 200
Total Take
Storage Withdrawals
FS-MA
GSS
Total With
Total Supply
FS-MA
GSS
Total Inv Adj
FS-MA
GSS
Total Inv
Unsupplied Demand
PlanningLoad
Total Unsupp
676.717
676.717
Dec-16
Jan-17
964.666 1187.311
964.666 1187.311

Feb-17
Mar-17
Apr-17
May-17
Jun-17
Jul-17
Aug-17
Sep-17
Oct-17
Page 1
22-Jun-16
Units: MDT
Total
1221.93
1221.93
859.043
859.043
518.936
518.936
242.802
242.802
171.129
171.129
153.432
153.432
154.95
154.95
188.476
188.476
400.755
400.755
6740.147
6740.147
5.518
0
0
5.518
8.174
0
0
8.174
8.976
0
0
8.976
8.589
0
0
8.589
7.322
0
0
7.322
4.876
1.225
0
6.101
2.959
2.45
0
5.409
2.322
2.45
0
4.773
2.165
2.45
0
4.616
2.179
2.45
0
4.629
2.476
2.45
0
4.927
3.953
1.225
0
5.178
59.51
14.702
0
74.212
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
73.623
10.184
83.808
147.247
20.369
167.615
147.247
20.369
167.615
147.247
20.369
167.615
147.247
20.369
167.615
147.247
20.369
167.615
73.623
10.184
83.808
883.48
122.213
1005.693
682.235
972.841 1196.288 1230.519
866.365
608.844
415.826
343.518
325.663
327.195
361.018
489.741
7820.052
23.343
34.472
78.007
0
535.853
671.676
29.805
10.398
134.24
0.01
572.313
746.766
32.017
74.715
134.24
15.22
586.442
842.633
29.805
0.358
121.249
39.862
529.689
720.962
30.338
0.057
103.143
4.908
584.389
722.835
26.611
0
33.68
0
545.885
606.176
0
0
0
0
415.826
415.826
0
0
0
0
343.518
343.518
0
0
0
0
325.663
325.663
0
0
0
0
327.195
327.195
0
0
0
0
361.018
361.018
2.129
0
1.381
0
486.231
489.741
174.047
120
605.94
60
5614.022
6574.009
3.826
6.733
10.559
204.052
22.023
226.075
265.289
36.07
301.359
290.362
35.82
326.182
119.951
21.567
141.518
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
883.48
122.213
1005.693
972.841 1143.992 1047.144
864.353
606.176
415.826
343.518
325.663
327.195
361.018
489.741
7579.702
682.235
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
987.419
136.591
983.593
129.858
779.541
107.835
514.252
71.765
223.89
35.945
103.939
14.378
177.562
24.562
324.809
44.931
472.055
65.3
619.302
85.669
766.549
106.038
913.795
126.407
987.419
136.591
1124.01 1113.451
887.376
586.017
259.835
118.317
202.125
369.74
537.355
704.971
872.586 1040.202
1124.01
52.296
183.375
2.012
2.668
240.35
52.296
183.375
2.012
2.668
240.35

D.P.U. 16-103
Tab D - Cold Snap
Page 2 of 10
Ventyx
Nov-17
Forecast Demand
PlanningLoad
Total Demand
Total Imbal
Fuel Consumed
Transport
Injection
Withdrawal
Total Fuel
Storage Injections
FS-MA
GSS
Total Inj
Total Req
Sources of Supply
Niagara
Whately LNG
NH Wright
LP
TGP Z4 200
Total Take
Storage Withdrawals
FS-MA
GSS
Total With
Total Supply
FS-MA
GSS
Total Inv Adj
FS-MA
GSS
Total Inv
Unsupplied Demand
PlanningLoad
Total Unsupp
681.936
681.936
Dec-17
Jan-18

Feb-18
Mar-18
Apr-18
May-18
972.106 1196.468 1231.354

972.106 1196.468 1231.354
Jun-18
Jul-18
Aug-18
Sep-18
Oct-18
Page 1
22-Jun-16
Units: MDT
Total
865.668
865.668
522.938
522.938
244.674
244.674
172.449
172.449
154.615
154.615
156.145
156.145
189.929
189.929
403.846
403.846
6792.129
6792.129
5.547
0
0
5.547
8.164
0
0
8.164
9.037
0
0
9.037
8.698
0
0
8.698
7.166
0
0
7.166
4.891
1.225
0
6.116
2.916
2.45
0
5.366
2.278
2.45
0
4.728
2.124
2.45
0
4.574
2.135
2.45
0
4.586
2.489
2.45
0
4.94
3.98
1.225
0
5.205
59.425
14.702
0
74.127
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
73.623
10.184
83.808
147.247
20.369
167.615
147.247
20.369
167.615
147.247
20.369
167.615
147.247
20.369
167.615
147.247
20.369
167.615
73.623
10.184
83.808
883.48
122.213
1005.693
980.27 1205.505 1240.052
872.833
612.861
417.656
344.793
326.805
328.346
362.484
492.859
7871.949
687.483
23.418
36.194
78.959
0
536.776
675.348
29.805
18.986
134.24
0
572.742
755.772
32.197
64.406
134.24
13.783
586.442
831.066
29.805
0.358
121.249
25.832
529.689
706.932
30.487
0.057
104.314
20.386
584.665
739.909
31.86
0
36.814
0
540.942
609.615
32.812
0
0
0
384.844
417.656
30.861
0
0
0
313.932
344.793
28.533
0
0
0
298.272
326.805
29.729
0
0
0
298.617
328.346
0
0
0
0
362.484
362.484
2.129
0
1.7
0
489.03
492.859
301.635
120
611.515
60
5498.436
6591.586
4.946
7.189
12.135
202.931
21.567
224.498
269.111
39.009
308.12
302.553
36.011
338.564
103.939
18.436
122.375
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
883.48
122.213
1005.693
980.27 1139.186 1045.496
862.284
609.615
417.656
344.793
326.805
328.346
362.484
492.859
7597.279
687.483
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
987.419
136.591
982.472
129.402
779.541
107.835
510.43
68.826
207.878
32.814
103.939
14.378
177.562
24.562
324.809
44.931
472.055
65.3
619.302
85.669
766.549
106.038
913.795
126.407
987.419
136.591
1124.01 1111.874
887.376
579.256
240.692
118.317
202.125
369.74
537.355
704.971
872.586 1040.202
1124.01
66.319
194.556
10.549
3.246
274.67
66.319
194.556
10.549
3.246
274.67

D.P.U. 16-103
Tab D - Cold Snap
Page 3 of 10
Forecast Demand
PlanningLoad
Total Demand
Total Imbal
Fuel Consumed
Transport
Injection
Withdrawal
Total Fuel
Storage Injections
FS-MA
GSS
Total Inj
Total Req
Sources of Supply
Niagara
Whately LNG
NH Wright
LP
TGP Z4 200
Total Take
Storage Withdrawals
FS-MA
GSS
Total With
Total Supply
FS-MA
GSS
Total Inv Adj
FS-MA
GSS
Total Inv
Unsupplied Demand
PlanningLoad
Total Unsupp
Ventyx
Nov-18
Dec-18
Jan-19
685.288
685.288
976.885
976.885
5.565
0
0
5.565
8.152
0
0
8.152
0
0
0
0
0
0

Feb-19
Mar-19
Apr-19
May-19
Jul-19
Aug-19
Sep-19
Oct-19
869.923
869.923
525.509
525.509
245.877
245.877
173.297
173.297
155.375
155.375
156.913
156.913
190.863
190.863
405.831
405.831
6825.519
6825.519
9.209
0
0
9.209
8.326
0
0
8.326
7.373
0
0
7.373
4.906
1.225
0
6.131
2.926
2.45
0
5.376
2.284
2.45
0
4.734
2.123
2.45
0
4.573
2.136
2.45
0
4.587
2.498
2.45
0
4.948
3.941
1.225
0
5.166
59.437
14.702
0
74.14
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
73.623
10.184
83.808
147.247
20.369
167.615
147.247
20.369
167.615
147.247
20.369
167.615
147.247
20.369
167.615
147.247
20.369
167.615
73.623
10.184
83.808
883.48
122.213
1005.693
690.853
985.037 1211.559 1245.733
877.296
615.447
418.869
345.646
327.564
329.115
363.426
494.806
7905.351
23.418
37.429
79.489
0
537.369
677.705
32.998
24.495
134.24
0
569.818
761.551
32.998
57.661
134.24
27.236
585.755
837.889
29.805
0.358
121.249
21.741
529.689
702.841
30.583
0.057
105.066
11.024
584.843
731.573
31.934
0
38.71
0
541.071
611.714
32.998
0
0
0
385.871
418.869
31.934
0
0
0
313.713
345.646
32.998
0
0
0
294.566
327.564
32.998
0
0
0
296.117
329.115
0
0
0
0
363.426
363.426
32.998
0
1.904
0
459.903
494.806
345.661
120
614.898
60
5462.141
6602.699
9.283
3.865
13.148
198.595
24.891
223.486
288.528
39.134
327.662
260.18
36.134
296.314
126.894
18.189
145.083
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
883.48
122.213
1005.693
985.037 1165.551
999.156
876.655
611.714
418.869
345.646
327.564
329.115
363.426
494.806
7608.392
690.853
1202.35 1237.407
1202.35 1237.407
Jun-19
Page 1
22-Jun-16
Units: MDT
Total
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
987.419
136.591
978.136
132.726
779.541
107.835
491.013
68.701
230.833
32.567
103.939
14.378
177.562
24.562
324.809
44.931
472.055
65.3
619.302
85.669
766.549
106.038
913.795
126.407
987.419
136.591
1124.01 1110.862
887.376
559.714
263.4
118.317
202.125
369.74
537.355
704.971
872.586 1040.202
1124.01
46.007
246.578
0.641
3.733
296.959
46.007
246.578
0.641
3.733
296.959

D.P.U. 16-103
Tab D - Cold Snap
Page 4 of 10
Ventyx
Nov-19
Forecast Demand
PlanningLoad
Total Demand
Total Imbal
Fuel Consumed
Transport
Injection
Withdrawal
Total Fuel
Storage Injections
FS-MA
GSS
Total Inj
Total Req
Sources of Supply
Niagara
Whately LNG
NH Wright
LP
TGP Z4 200
Total Take
Storage Withdrawals
FS-MA
GSS
Total With
Total Supply
FS-MA
GSS
Total Inv Adj
FS-MA
GSS
Total Inv
Unsupplied Demand
PlanningLoad
Total Unsupp
685.961
685.961
Dec-19
Jan-20

Feb-20
Mar-20
Apr-20
May-20
977.845 1203.531 1238.623

977.845 1203.531 1238.623
Jun-20
Jul-20
Aug-20
Sep-20
Page 1
22-Jun-16
Units: MDT
Oct-20 Total
870.778
870.778
526.025
526.025
246.119
246.119
173.467
173.467
155.528
155.528
157.067
157.067
191.05
191.05
406.23
406.23
6832.223
6832.223
5.553
0
0
5.553
8.15
0
0
8.15
9.161
0
0
9.161
8.404
0
0
8.404
7.344
0
0
7.344
4.909
1.225
0
6.134
2.928
2.45
0
5.379
2.285
2.45
0
4.736
2.124
2.45
0
4.574
2.138
2.45
0
4.588
2.443
2.45
0
4.894
3.945
1.225
0
5.17
59.385
14.702
0
74.087
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
73.623
10.184
83.808
147.247
20.369
167.615
147.247
20.369
167.615
147.247
20.369
167.615
147.247
20.369
167.615
147.247
20.369
167.615
73.623
10.184
83.808
883.48
122.213
1005.693
691.514
985.995 1212.692 1247.027
878.122
615.966
419.113
345.818
327.718
329.27
363.56
495.208
7912.003
31.934
37.679
79.593
0
528.957
678.163
32.998
25.601
134.24
0
569.874
762.713
32.998
56.305
134.24
21.059
585.778
830.379
29.805
0.358
121.249
23.188
529.689
704.288
30.603
0.057
105.217
15.753
584.878
736.508
31.934
0
39.09
0
541.111
612.135
32.998
0
0
0
386.115
419.113
31.934
0
0
0
313.885
345.818
32.998
0
0
0
294.72
327.718
32.998
0
0
0
296.272
329.27
30.791
0
0
0
332.769
363.56
32.998
0
1.945
0
460.264
495.208
384.987
120
615.574
60
5424.312
6604.872
7.683
5.669
13.351
200.195
23.087
223.282
283.881
38.36
322.241
269.045
36.159
305.204
122.676
18.938
141.614
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
883.48
122.213
1005.693
691.514
985.995
1152.62 1009.493
878.122
612.135
419.113
345.818
327.718
329.27
363.56
495.208
7610.565
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
987.419
136.591
979.736
130.922
779.541
107.835
495.66
69.475
226.614
33.316
103.939
14.378
177.562
24.562
324.809
44.931
472.055
65.3
619.302
85.669
766.549
106.038
913.795
126.407
987.419
136.591
1124.01 1110.658
887.376
565.135
259.93
118.317
202.125
369.74
537.355
704.971
872.586 1040.202
1124.01
60.072
237.534
3.832
301.438
60.072
237.534
3.832
301.438

D.P.U. 16-103
Tab D - Cold Snap
Page 5 of 10
Ventyx
Nov-20
Forecast Demand
PlanningLoad
Total Demand
Total Imbal
Fuel Consumed
Transport
Injection
Withdrawal
Total Fuel
Storage Injections
FS-MA
GSS
Total Inj
Total Req
Sources of Supply
Niagara
Whately LNG
NH Wright
LP
TGP Z4 200
Total Take
Storage Withdrawals
FS-MA
GSS
Total With
Total Supply
FS-MA
GSS
Total Inv Adj
FS-MA
GSS
Total Inv
Unsupplied Demand
PlanningLoad
Total Unsupp
687.339
687.339
Dec-20
Jan-21
979.808 1205.948
979.808 1205.948

Feb-21
Mar-21
Apr-21
May-21
Jun-21
Jul-21
Aug-21
Sep-21
Page 1
22-Jun-16
Units: MDT
Oct-21 Total
1241.11
1241.11
872.527
872.527
527.081
527.081
246.613
246.613
173.815
173.815
155.84
155.84
157.382
157.382
191.434
191.434
407.046
407.046
6845.943
6845.943
5.56
0
0
5.56
8.148
0
0
8.148
9.317
0
0
9.317
8.391
0
0
8.391
7.201
0
0
7.201
4.915
1.225
0
6.14
2.933
2.45
0
5.383
2.288
2.45
0
4.739
2.127
2.45
0
4.577
2.14
2.45
0
4.591
2.447
2.45
0
4.897
3.952
1.225
0
5.177
59.418
14.702
0
74.12
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
73.623
10.184
83.808
147.247
20.369
167.615
147.247
20.369
167.615
147.247
20.369
167.615
147.247
20.369
167.615
147.247
20.369
167.615
73.623
10.184
83.808
883.48
122.213
1005.693
692.899
987.956 1215.264 1249.501
879.727
617.029
419.611
346.17
328.033
329.588
363.947
496.03
7925.756
31.934
38.192
79.805
0
529.2
679.132
32.998
27.865
134.24
0
569.987
765.09
32.998
53.528
134.24
6.873
585.825
813.464
29.805
0.358
121.249
30.062
529.689
711.162
32.998
0.057
105.526
23.065
582.591
744.237
31.934
0
39.868
0
541.195
612.996
32.998
0
0
0
386.613
419.611
31.934
0
0
0
314.236
346.17
32.998
0
0
0
295.035
328.033
32.998
0
0
0
296.59
329.588
30.819
0
0
0
333.128
363.947
32.998
0
2.029
0
461.003
496.03
387.41
120
616.957
60
5425.093
6609.46
9.733
4.035
13.767
198.145
24.721
222.866
303.911
35.945
339.856
267.753
35.945
303.698
103.939
21.567
125.506
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
883.48
122.213
1005.693
692.899
987.956
1153.32
1014.86
869.743
612.996
419.611
346.17
328.033
329.588
363.947
496.03
7615.153
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
987.419
136.591
977.686
132.556
779.541
107.835
475.63
71.89
207.878
35.945
103.939
14.378
177.562
24.562
324.809
44.931
472.055
65.3
619.302
85.669
766.549
106.038
913.795
126.407
987.419
136.591
1124.01 1110.242
887.376
547.52
243.823
118.317
202.125
369.74
537.355
704.971
872.586 1040.202
1124.01
61.944
234.641
9.984
4.033
310.603
61.944
234.641
9.984
4.033
310.603

D.P.U. 16-103
Tab D - Cold Snap
Page 6 of 10
High - Cold Snap - Draw 0
Ventyx
Nov-16
Forecast Demand
PlanningLoad
Total Demand
Total Imbal
Fuel Consumed
Transport
Injection
Withdrawal
Total Fuel
Storage Injections
FS-MA
GSS
Total Inj
Total Req
Sources of Supply
Niagara
Whately LNG
NH Wright
LP
TGP Z4 200
Total Take
Storage Withdrawals
FS-MA
GSS
Total With
Total Supply
FS-MA
GSS
Total Inv Adj
FS-MA
GSS
Total Inv
Unsupplied Demand
PlanningLoad
Total Unsupp
685.294
685.294
Dec-16
Jan-17

Feb-17
Mar-17
Apr-17
May-17
976.893 1202.359 1237.417

976.893 1202.359 1237.417
Jun-17
Jul-17
Aug-17
Sep-17
Oct-17
Page 1
22-Jun-16
Units: MDT
Total
869.93
869.93
525.513
525.513
245.879
245.879
173.298
173.298
155.377
155.377
156.914
156.914
190.864
190.864
405.835
405.835
6825.572
6825.572
5.565
0
0
5.565
8.158
0
0
8.158
9.121
0
0
9.121
8.396
0
0
8.396
7.393
0
0
7.393
4.915
1.225
0
6.141
2.986
2.45
0
5.436
2.342
2.45
0
4.792
2.183
2.45
0
4.633
2.196
2.45
0
4.647
2.498
2.45
0
4.948
3.997
1.225
0
5.222
59.748
14.702
0
74.45
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
73.623
10.184
83.808
147.247
20.369
167.615
147.247
20.369
167.615
147.247
20.369
167.615
147.247
20.369
167.615
147.247
20.369
167.615
73.623
10.184
83.808
883.48
122.213
1005.693
690.859
985.05
1211.48 1245.813
877.323
615.461
418.931
345.706
327.625
329.176
363.428
494.865
7905.715
23.418
37.431
79.49
0
537.37
677.709
29.805
24.494
134.24
0.01
573.018
761.566
32.312
57.661
134.24
31.854
586.442
842.509
29.805
0.358
121.249
18.678
529.689
699.779
30.584
0.057
105.067
9.457
584.843
730.007
26.611
0
38.713
0
546.403
611.727
0
0
0
0
418.931
418.931
0
0
0
0
345.706
345.706
0
0
0
0
327.625
327.625
0
0
0
0
329.176
329.176
0
0
0
0
363.428
363.428
2.129
0
1.905
0
490.831
494.865
174.663
120
614.903
60
5633.461
6603.028
7.976
5.174
13.15
199.902
23.582
223.484
278.387
39.134
317.522
268.087
36.134
304.222
129.127
18.188
147.315
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
883.48
122.213
1005.693
985.05 1160.031 1004.001
877.323
611.727
418.931
345.706
327.625
329.176
363.428
494.865
7608.72
690.859
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
987.419
136.591
979.443
131.417
779.541
107.835
501.154
68.701
233.066
32.566
103.939
14.378
177.562
24.562
324.809
44.931
472.055
65.3
619.302
85.669
766.549
106.038
913.795
126.407
987.419
136.591
1124.01
1110.86
887.376
569.854
265.632
118.317
202.125
369.74
537.355
704.971
872.586 1040.202
1124.01
51.449
241.812
3.734
296.995
51.449
241.812
3.734
296.995

D.P.U. 16-103
Tab D - Cold Snap
Page 7 of 10
Ventyx
Nov-17
Forecast Demand
PlanningLoad
Total Demand
Total Imbal
Fuel Consumed
Transport
Injection
Withdrawal
Total Fuel
Storage Injections
FS-MA
GSS
Total Inj
Total Req
Sources of Supply
Niagara
Whately LNG
NH Wright
LP
TGP Z4 200
Total Take
Storage Withdrawals
FS-MA
GSS
Total With
Total Supply
FS-MA
GSS
Total Inv Adj
FS-MA
GSS
Total Inv
Unsupplied Demand
PlanningLoad
Total Unsupp
698.817
698.817
Dec-17
Jan-18

Feb-18
Mar-18
Apr-18
May-18
996.17 1226.086 1261.835

996.17 1226.086 1261.835
Jun-18
Jul-18
Aug-18
Sep-18
Oct-18
Page 1
22-Jun-16
Units: MDT
Total
887.097
887.097
535.883
535.883
250.731
250.731
176.718
176.718
158.443
158.443
160.01
160.01
194.631
194.631
413.843
413.843
6960.265
6960.265
5.64
0
0
5.64
8.128
0
0
8.128
9.177
0
0
9.177
8.505
0
0
8.505
7.26
0
0
7.26
4.966
1.225
0
6.192
2.969
2.45
0
5.42
2.315
2.45
0
4.766
2.156
2.45
0
4.606
2.168
2.45
0
4.618
2.531
2.45
0
4.981
4.067
1.225
0
5.292
59.883
14.702
0
74.585
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
73.623
10.184
83.808
147.247
20.369
167.615
147.247
20.369
167.615
147.247
20.369
167.615
147.247
20.369
167.615
147.247
20.369
167.615
73.623
10.184
83.808
883.48
122.213
1005.693
704.456 1004.299 1235.263 1270.341
894.357
625.882
423.766
349.099
330.664
332.244
367.228
502.943
8040.543
23.418
42.123
81.574
0
539.761
686.877
29.805
46.359
134.24
0
574.13
784.533
32.778
31.103
134.24
9.733
586.442
794.296
29.805
0.358
121.249
28.167
529.689
709.268
30.869
0.057
108.204
22.099
585.558
746.787
31.934
0
46.35
0
541.888
620.171
32.933
0
0
0
390.833
423.766
31.24
0
0
0
317.859
349.099
29.809
0
0
0
300.855
330.664
30.657
0
0
0
301.587
332.244
0
0
0
0
367.228
367.228
2.129
0
2.729
0
498.085
502.943
305.376
120
628.586
60
5533.915
6647.877
14.885
2.695
17.58
192.993
26.061
219.054
284.345
39.24
323.585
280.028
36.624
316.652
111.229
17.593
128.822
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
883.48
122.213
1005.693
704.456 1003.587 1117.881
1025.92
875.609
620.171
423.766
349.099
330.664
332.244
367.228
502.943
7653.57
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
987.419
136.591
972.534
133.896
779.541
107.835
495.196
68.595
215.168
31.971
103.939
14.378
177.562
24.562
324.809
44.931
472.055
65.3
619.302
85.669
766.549
106.038
913.795
126.407
987.419
136.591
1124.01
1106.43
887.376
563.791
247.139
118.317
202.125
369.74
537.355
704.971
872.586 1040.202
1124.01
0.711
117.383
244.421
18.748
5.711
386.973
0.711
117.383
244.421
18.748
5.711
386.973

D.P.U. 16-103
Tab D - Cold Snap
Page 8 of 10
Ventyx
Nov-18
Forecast Demand
PlanningLoad
Total Demand
Total Imbal
Fuel Consumed
Transport
Injection
Withdrawal
Total Fuel
Storage Injections
FS-MA
GSS
Total Inj
Total Req
Sources of Supply
Niagara
Whately LNG
NH Wright
LP
TGP Z4 200
Total Take
Storage Withdrawals
FS-MA
GSS
Total With
Total Supply
FS-MA
GSS
Total Inv Adj
FS-MA
GSS
Total Inv
Unsupplied Demand
PlanningLoad
Total Unsupp
Dec-18
Jan-19

Feb-19
Mar-19
Apr-19
May-19
709.302 1011.118 1244.483 1280.769

709.302 1011.118 1244.483 1280.769
Jun-19
Jul-19
Aug-19
Sep-19
Oct-19
Page 1
22-Jun-16
Units: MDT
Total
900.408
900.408
543.924
543.924
254.493
254.493
179.37
179.37
160.82
160.82
162.411
162.411
197.551
197.551
420.053
420.053
7064.702
7064.702
5.703
0
0
5.703
8.092
0
0
8.092
9.325
0
0
9.325
8.412
0
0
8.412
7.231
0
0
7.231
5.013
1.225
0
6.238
3.003
2.45
0
5.453
2.338
2.45
0
4.788
2.171
2.45
0
4.621
2.185
2.45
0
4.635
2.557
2.45
0
5.007
4.065
1.225
0
5.29
60.093
14.702
0
74.795
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
73.623
10.184
83.808
147.247
20.369
167.615
147.247
20.369
167.615
147.247
20.369
167.615
147.247
20.369
167.615
147.247
20.369
167.615
73.623
10.184
83.808
883.48
122.213
1005.693
715.005
1019.21 1253.808 1289.181
907.638
633.969
427.562
351.773
333.057
334.662
370.174
509.15
8145.19
23.427
45.187
82.901
0
541.606
693.121
32.998
63.939
134.24
1.491
571.793
804.46
32.998
10.46
134.24
29.078
586.442
793.217
29.805
0.358
121.249
7.9
529.689
689.001
31.028
0.057
110.858
21.532
585.953
749.427
31.934
0
52.17
0
542.522
626.625
32.998
0
0
0
394.564
427.562
31.934
0
0
0
319.84
351.773
32.998
0
0
0
300.059
333.057
32.998
0
0
0
301.664
334.662
0
0
0
0
370.174
370.174
32.998
0
3.369
0
472.784
509.15
346.115
120
639.026
60
5517.089
6682.23
15.967
5.917
21.884
191.911
22.839
214.75
302.223
37.932
340.155
269.44
36.624
306.064
103.939
18.901
122.84
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
883.48
122.213
1005.693
1019.21 1133.372
995.065
872.267
626.625
427.562
351.773
333.057
334.662
370.174
509.15
7687.923
715.005
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
987.419
136.591
971.452
130.674
779.541
107.835
477.318
69.903
207.878
33.279
103.939
14.378
177.562
24.562
324.809
44.931
472.055
65.3
619.302
85.669
766.549
106.038
913.795
126.407
987.419
136.591
1124.01 1102.126
887.376
547.221
241.157
118.317
202.125
369.74
537.355
704.971
872.586 1040.202
1124.01
120.436
294.116
35.371
7.344
457.267
120.436
294.116
35.371
7.344
457.267

D.P.U. 16-103
Tab D - Cold Snap
Page 9 of 10
Ventyx
Nov-19
Forecast Demand
PlanningLoad
Total Demand
Total Imbal
Fuel Consumed
Transport
Injection
Withdrawal
Total Fuel
Storage Injections
FS-MA
GSS
Total Inj
Total Req
Sources of Supply
Niagara
Whately LNG
NH Wright
LP
TGP Z4 200
Total Take
Storage Withdrawals
FS-MA
GSS
Total With
Total Supply
FS-MA
GSS
Total Inv Adj
FS-MA
GSS
Total Inv
Unsupplied Demand
PlanningLoad
Total Unsupp
Dec-19
Jan-20

Feb-20
Mar-20
Apr-20
May-20
714.961 1019.184 1254.411 1290.987

714.961 1019.184 1254.411 1290.987
Jun-20
Jul-20
Aug-20
Sep-20
Oct-20
Page 1
22-Jun-16
Units: MDT
Total
907.591
907.591
548.263
548.263
256.524
256.524
180.801
180.801
162.103
162.103
163.707
163.707
199.127
199.127
423.404
423.404
7121.062
7121.062
5.722
0
0
5.722
8.081
0
0
8.081
9.243
0
0
9.243
8.317
0
0
8.317
7.412
0
0
7.412
5.037
1.225
0
6.262
3.021
2.45
0
5.471
2.35
2.45
0
4.801
2.182
2.45
0
4.633
2.197
2.45
0
4.647
2.514
2.45
0
4.964
4.094
1.225
0
5.319
60.17
14.702
0
74.873
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
73.623
10.184
83.808
147.247
20.369
167.615
147.247
20.369
167.615
147.247
20.369
167.615
147.247
20.369
167.615
147.247
20.369
167.615
73.623
10.184
83.808
883.48
122.213
1005.693
720.683 1027.265 1263.654 1299.304
915.003
638.333
429.61
353.217
334.351
335.969
371.707
512.531
8201.627
31.934
46.819
83.577
0
534.085
696.415
32.998
72.532
134.24
1.725
572.258
813.753
32.998
0.234
134.24
7.624
586.442
761.538
29.805
0.358
121.249
15.8
529.689
696.901
31.18
0.057
112.117
34.85
586.1
764.304
31.934
0
55.171
0
542.863
629.968
32.998
0
0
0
396.612
429.61
31.934
0
0
0
321.283
353.217
32.998
0
0
0
301.353
334.351
32.998
0
0
0
302.971
335.969
31.388
0
0
0
340.319
371.707
32.998
0
3.714
0
475.819
512.531
386.162
120
644.308
60
5489.795
6700.264
17.079
7.189
24.268
190.798
22.247
213.046
292.57
38.268
330.838
258.685
36.624
295.309
124.347
17.884
142.231
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
883.48
122.213
1005.693
720.683 1026.799 1092.376
992.21
906.536
629.968
429.61
353.217
334.351
335.969
371.707
512.531
7705.957
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
987.419
136.591
970.339
129.402
779.541
107.155
486.971
68.886
228.286
32.262
103.939
14.378
177.562
24.562
324.809
44.931
472.055
65.3
619.302
85.669
766.549
106.038
913.795
126.407
987.419
136.591
1124.01 1099.741
886.696
555.857
260.548
118.317
202.125
369.74
537.355
704.971
872.586 1040.202
1124.01
0.466
171.278
307.094
8.468
8.364
495.67
0.466
171.278
307.094
8.468
8.364
495.67

D.P.U. 16-103
Tab D - Cold Snap
Page 10 of 10
Ventyx
Nov-20
Forecast Demand
PlanningLoad
Total Demand
Total Imbal
Fuel Consumed
Transport
Injection
Withdrawal
Total Fuel
Storage Injections
FS-MA
GSS
Total Inj
Total Req
Sources of Supply
Niagara
Whately LNG
NH Wright
LP
TGP Z4 200
Total Take
Storage Withdrawals
FS-MA
GSS
Total With
Total Supply
FS-MA
GSS
Total Inv Adj
FS-MA
GSS
Total Inv
Unsupplied Demand
PlanningLoad
Total Unsupp
Dec-20
Jan-21

Feb-21
Mar-21
Apr-21
May-21
719.373 1025.473 1262.152 1298.953

719.373 1025.473 1262.152 1298.953
Jun-21
Jul-21
Aug-21
Sep-21
Oct-21
Page 1
22-Jun-16
Units: MDT
Total
913.191
913.191
551.646
551.646
258.107
258.107
181.916
181.916
163.103
163.103
164.717
164.717
200.356
200.356
426.017
426.017
7165.005
7165.005
5.749
0
0
5.749
8.062
0
0
8.062
9.352
0
0
9.352
8.361
0
0
8.361
7.271
0
0
7.271
5.055
1.225
0
6.281
3.035
2.45
0
5.485
2.36
2.45
0
4.811
2.191
2.45
0
4.642
2.206
2.45
0
4.656
2.525
2.45
0
4.975
4.117
1.225
0
5.342
60.283
14.702
0
74.986
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
73.623
10.184
83.808
147.247
20.369
167.615
147.247
20.369
167.615
147.247
20.369
167.615
147.247
20.369
167.615
147.247
20.369
167.615
73.623
10.184
83.808
883.48
122.213
1005.693
725.122 1033.535 1271.504 1307.314
920.462
641.735
431.207
354.342
335.36
336.988
372.947
515.166
8245.683
31.934
48.092
84.104
0
534.865
698.995
32.998
71.26
134.24
0
572.621
811.118
32.998
0.234
134.24
25.422
586.442
779.336
29.805
0.358
121.249
0.675
529.689
681.775
32.998
0.057
113.058
33.903
584.512
764.528
31.934
0
57.511
0
543.13
632.575
32.998
0
0
0
398.209
431.207
31.934
0
0
0
322.409
354.342
32.998
0
0
0
302.362
335.36
32.998
0
0
0
303.99
336.988
31.479
0
0
0
341.467
372.947
32.998
0
3.983
0
478.185
515.166
388.07
120
648.385
60
5497.882
6714.338
18.938
7.189
26.127
188.94
21.567
210.507
304.064
39.19
343.254
267.599
32.7
300.299
103.939
21.567
125.506
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
883.48
122.213
1005.693
725.122 1021.625
1122.59
982.074
890.033
632.575
431.207
354.342
335.36
336.988
372.947
515.166
7720.03
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
987.419
136.591
968.481
129.402
779.541
107.835
475.477
68.645
207.878
35.945
103.939
14.378
177.562
24.562
324.809
44.931
472.055
65.3
619.302
85.669
766.549
106.038
913.795
126.407
987.419
136.591
1124.01 1097.883
887.376
544.122
243.823
118.317
202.125
369.74
537.355
704.971
872.586 1040.202
1124.01
11.911
148.914
325.24
30.429
9.16
525.653
11.911
148.914
325.24
30.429
9.16
525.653
PLANNED ENHANCEMENTS, NORTHEAST NATURAL GAS

PIPELINE SYSTEMS (as of 5-12-16)

D.P.U. 16-103
Tab E
Page 1 of 4
The Northeast Gas Association (NGA) has prepared this summary based on publicly-available information.
NGA will strive to keep the information as updated as possible and notes that this
information may change pending project developments. May not include all projects.
PROJECT
COMPANY
DESCRIPTION
EST.
IN-SERVICE
STATUS
Salem Lateral
Project
Algonquin Gas
Transmission / Spectra
Energy
Algonquin proposes to construct and operate a 1.2-milelong, 16-inch-diameter lateral pipeline (Salem Lateral
Pipeline) to provide 115,000 dekatherms (Dth) per day of
firm natural gas transportation service to Footprint Power
Salem Harbor Development, LPs (Footprint)
redeveloped Salem Harbor Station, a 630-megawatt
quick-start combined-cycle, natural gas-fired generation
facility, in Salem, MA.
Nov. 2016
Filed with FERC, July 2014. Approved

by FERC, May 2015.
New Market
Project
Dominion Pipeline
Nov. 2016
Filed with FERC, June 2014. FERC

issued environmental assessment,
October 2015. Approved by FERC, 416.
AIM
Algonquin Gas
Transmission / Spectra
Energy
Planned for customers in upstate NY (National Grid).

Will include the addition of 2 new compressor stations
along DTIs existing transmission pipeline; and increased
compression at an existing station. Capacity of 84
MMcf/d.
Providing 342 MMcf/d of additional capacity to move
Marcellus production to Algonquin City Gates. Shippers
are 6 gas utilities in New England. Approx. 38 miles of
new pipeline/lateral in NY, CT, MA as well as new
compression facilities.
2nd half 2016
Open season held, fall 2012. Filed

with FERC, 2-14. FERC issues draft
EIS, 8-14. FERC issues final EIS, 115. Approved by FERC, 3-15. Under
construction.
Prepared by Northeast Gas Association, May 2016. Based on publicly-available information; details may change.

PIPELINE SYSTEMS (as of 5-12-16), page 2
PROJECT
COMPANY
DESCRIPTION
EST.
IN-SERVICE
Connecticut
Expansion
Tennessee Gas
Pipeline/Kinder Morgan
Capacity of 72,100 Dth/d. Pipeline looping on TGP

200 and 300 lines. Customers are CT natural gas
utilities.
Nov. 2016
Garden State
Expansion
Project
Williams/Transco
Nov. 2016
(Phase 1) /
Aug. 2017
(Phase 2)
Constitution
Pipeline
Cabot/Williams
Wright
Interconnect
Project (WIP)
Iroquois Gas Transmission
Northern Access
National Fuel Gas Supply &

Empire Pipeline
Valley Lateral
Project
Millennium Pipeline
The project has been designed to provide up to

180,000 dekatherms per day of natural gas service in
two phases to a new delivery point with New Jersey
Natural Gas in Burlington County, N.J. The project
will include the installation of a new compressor
station, meter and regulating station on land located in
Burlington County, N.J. It will also require
modifications and the addition of compression at an
existing compressor station. No expansion of the
pipeline is required.
Approx. 124-mile Constitution Pipeline is being
designed to extend from Susquehanna County, PA, to
the Iroquois Gas Transmission and Tennessee Gas
Pipeline systems in Schoharie County, N.Y.
Proposed capacity of 650 MMCf/d. Cabot and
Southwestern are shippers.
WIP will enable delivery of up to 650,000 Dth/d of
natural gas from the terminus of the proposed
Constitution Pipeline in Schoharie County, NY into
both Iroquois and the Tennessee Gas Pipeline under a
15 year capacity lease agreement with Constitution.
Capacity of 350,000 Dth/day on Empire, 497,000 on
NFGSC. Deliveries to Chippawa, with new
interconnect at TGP 200 Line. 99 miles of 24
pipeline and 2 compressor stations.
The Project will connect Millenniums gas mainline
to CPVs energy center in Wawayanda, NY, and
provide access to natural gas for its new 650 MW
combined-cycle electric power generating facility.
2017
2017

D.P.U. 16-103
Tab E
Page 2 of 4
STATUS
Open Season held July 2013. Filed
with FERC, 7-14. FERC issued
environmental assessment, 10-15.
Approved by FERC, 3-16.
Filed with FERC, Feb. 2015.
Approved by FERC, 4-16.
Announced spring 2012. Filed with

FERC, 6-13. FERC issued final EIS,
10-14. Authorized by FERC, 12-2-14.
NY DEC denies water quality permit,
4-22-16; company affirms plans to
continue with project, 4-25-16.
Announced 1-13. Filed with FERC, 613. FERC issued final EIS, 10-14.
Authorized by FERC, 12-2-14.
Nov. 2017
Filed with FERC, March 2015;

amendment filed in November 2015.
Apr. 2017
Filed with FERC, Nov. 2015. Received

environmental assessment from FERC,
5-16.

PROJECT
COMPANY
Continent to
Coast (C2C)
Expansion
PNGTS
South-to-North
(SoNo) Project
Iroquois Gas Transmission
Atlantic Bridge
Spectra Energy
New York Bay

Expansion
Transco / Williams

D.P.U. 16-103
Tab E
Page 3 of 4
DESCRIPTION
EST.
IN-SERVICE
STATUS
C2C will access natural gas supplies from key North

American natural gas basins via TransCanada Pipeline.
Atlantic Canada markets can then transport on PNGTS to
an interconnect with Maritimes and Northeast Pipeline at
Westbrook, ME. Shippers interested in moving natural
gas further south into New England can transport on
PNGTS to interconnects with other NE natural gas
pipelines. Capacity of 107,000 Dth/d.
Reverse flow on Iroquois offering physical transport to
U.S./Canada border. The SoNo project would initially be
designed to transport from 150 to 300 MDth/day from
Iroquois existing interconnects with Dominion
Transmission in Canajoharie, NY and Algonquin Gas
Transmission in Brookfield, CT, as well as the proposed
Constitution Pipeline in Wright, NY.
Incremental expansion on Algonquin and Maritimes &
Northeast, to serve New England and Canadian
Maritimes. Proposed capacity of ~133,000 Dth/d.
Nov. 2017
Open season, April 1 to June 28, 2013.

Open season re-convened, Dec. 2013
Jan. 2014. Relaunch of open season,
Jan. Feb. 2015. Project is confirmed
to proceed.
Nov. 2017
Open season held, Dec. 2013 Jan.

2014. Relaunch of open season, Jan.
Feb. 2015.
2017
The New York Bay Expansion Project would provide

National Grid with an additional 115,000 dekatherms of
natural gas per day in time for the 2017/2018 winter
heating season. The project will include the installation
of additional horsepower at three existing Transco
compressor facilities, in addition to uprating Transcos
existing Lower New York Bay lateral and replacing 0.2
miles of 42-inch pipe in Middlesex County, N.J. The
project will also include modifications to existing
Transco meter & regulator stations in Middlesex County,
N.J., and Richmond County, N.Y.
2017
Announced, Feb. 2014. Open season

held, Feb.- March, 2014. In pre-filing
with FERC, Feb. 2015. Filed with
FERC, Oct. 2015. Received
environmental assessment from FERC,
5-16.
Filed with FERC, July 2015.

PROJECT

D.P.U. 16-103
Tab E
Page 4 of 4
COMPANY
DESCRIPTION
EST.
IN-SERVICE
STATUS
PennEast
Project
AGL Resources, NJR Pipeline

Company, South Jersey
Industries, UGI Energy
Services, Spectra Energy and
PSE&G Power LLC
2017/2018
Announced Aug. 2014. Open season

held August 2014. In FERC pre-filing
process, Oct. 2014. Filed with FERC,
Sept. 2015.
Access Northeast
Spectra Energy, Eversource

Energy, National Grid
Nov. 2018
Announced 9-14. Solicitation of

interest held, fall 2014. Open season
held first half of 2015. In FERC prefiling, Nov. 2015.
Empire North
Expansion
Empire Pipeline
2018 or later
Open season concluded, Nov. 2015.
Eastern System
Upgrade
Millennium Pipeline
Northeast
Supply
Enhancement
Williams / Transco
100-mile pipeline intended to bring lower cost natural

gas produced in the Marcellus Shale region to homes
and businesses in Pennsylvania and New Jersey.
Designed to provide natural gas service to the
equivalent of 4.7 million homes, up to 1 Bcf per day.
PennEast is investing nearly $1 billion to build the
pipeline with the costs split among the four entities.
Construction of the pipeline could begin in 2017
pending regulatory approvals.
The gas pipeline expansion project will enhance the
Algonquin and Maritimes pipeline systems and
market area storage assets in New England to deliver
up to one billion cubic feet of natural gas per day for
electric generation markets. Alliance with Iroquois
Gas Transmission announced, 12-14. Would provide
925 MMCf/d of capacity in NY, CT, RI and MA, incl.
6.8 Bcf of LNG at proposed facility in Acushnet, MA.
The proposed project size is 300,000-338,000 Dth/d.
Transportation paths: Jackson/Corning to
Chippawa/Hopewell. Open Season concluded Nov.
2015. 3 new compressor stations.
Proposal to upgrade and expand the eastern end of the
system. It includes an estimated 7.8 miles of mostly
30 looped pipeline, upgrades to existing Hancock
compressor station, new compression capabilities at a
facility in Sullivan County, and upgrades to existing
Ramapo meter and regulator station in Rockland Co.
The project would add natural gas pipeline
infrastructure in PA, NJ and NY. It is designed
to provide customers access to an additional 400
million cubic feet of natural gas per day (enough
natural gas to serve the daily needs of about 2.3
million homes). The Northeast Supply Enhancement
project will provide service to National Grid.
Fall 2018
2019
In pre-filing process with FERC, Feb.

2016.
In FERC pre-filing, May 2016.
D.P.U. 16-103
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that I have this day served the foregoing document upon all parties of
record in this proceeding in accordance with the requirements
of
220
CMR
(Department's Rules of Practice and Procedure).
Dated at Boston, Massachusetts this 8tn day of July, 2016.
Jarpes M. Avery, Esq.

Pierce Atwood LLP
100 Summer Street, Suite 2250
Boston, MA 02110
Phone: 617.488.8100
Fax: 617.824.2020
iavery@pierceatwood.com
Of Counsel for:
{W5623359.1}
1.05(1)

Berkshire Gas 2016 5-Year Forecast

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Berkshire Gas 2016 5-Year Forecast

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

PIERCE ATWOODd

100 Summer Street

HAND DELIVER and ELECTRONIC

Mark D. Marini, Secretary

The Berkshire Gas Company - D.P.U. 16-103

Dear Secretary Marini:

Petition of The Berkshire Gas Company for approval

parries M. Avery, Esq.

Dated: July 8, 2016

THE BERKSHIRE GAS COMPANY

Long Range Forecast and Supply Plan

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................................. 1

IV. RESOURCE PORTFOLIO AND FACILITIES ................................................................ 14

VI. REQUIRED TABLES ..................................................................................................... 31

The Berkshire Gas Company Demand Forecast and Supporting

Sendout Data Normal Weather 2016/17 through 2020/21

Sendout Data Design Weather 2016/17 through 2020/21

Sendout Data Cold Snap 2016/17 through 2020/21

Summary of Planned Enhancements, Northeast Natural Gas Pipeline Systems

THE BERKSHIRE GAS COMPANY

In response, the Company is

executing an updated and a comprehensive review of resource alternatives that would be

The Company is currently seeking to identify any and all

Consistent with established regulatory

Update on Corporate Structure

The population of the Companys service area is

Marketing and Development Opportunities

In addition, the necessary declaration of a moratorium in the Eastern Division in

Berkshire also continues to offer a Rental

Energy Efficiency Programs

Since the comprehensive framework for full unbundling in Massachusetts was

While this figure demonstrates that the competitive market has

In its 2015 order in D.P.U. 15-43, the Department acknowledged the

Berkshires econometric forecasts of Firm

(i) the Companys

Summary of Forecast Results

2016/17 through 2020/21 is projected to be approximately 0.1% under normal weather

Residential Non-Heating (R1/R2):

Residential Heating (R3/R4):

Berkshires forecast projects the number of Residential Heating customers to increase

C&I Low Load Factor (G-41/G-42/G-43):

C&I High Load Factor (G-51/G-52/G-53):

Comparison of 2014 Demand Forecasts

Planning Standards and Weather Analysis

The design year is 7,993 EDD based on a 1:30-year probability;

Normal Year Planning Standard

Design Day Planning Standard

Berkshire notes that its cost/benefit

Design Year Planning Standard

Cold Snap Planning Standard

In order to ensure that gas companies maintain adequate supplies, it is important to

Conclusion - Planning Standards

The derivation of the Companys planning standards

RESOURCE PORTFOLIO AND FACILITIES

Resource Planning Process

In addition, the Company has entered into

The Company has been a leader in terms of its load management

This strategy includes ensuring the availability of adequate peak

The pursuit of a "Least Cost Supply Strategy" allows

Portfolio Design Process

Transportation Contract Decisions

Subsequently, Berkshire and Tennessee

commenced "good faith negotiations," towards a possible amendment to determine whether

Gas Supply Contract Decisions