Rep: OEB Doc: 12J44 Rev: 0 ONTARIO ENERGY BOARD Volume: 10 21 JUNE 2002 BEFORE: S. HALLADAY PRESIDING MEMBER R. BETTS MEMBER A. SPOEL MEMBER 1 RP-2001-0032 TRANSCRIPT VOLUME #10 2 IN THE MATTER OF the Ontario Energy Board Act, 1998; AND IN THE MATTER OF an application by The Consumers Gas Company Ltd., carrying on business as Enbridge Consumers Gas, for an order or orders approving or fixing rates for the sale, distribution, transmission and storage of gas for its 2002 fiscal year. 3 RP-2001-0032 TRANSCRIPT VOLUME #10 4 21 JUNE 2002 5 HEARING HELD AT TORONTO, ONTARIO 6 APPEARANCES 7 PAT MORAN Board Counsel COLIN SCHUCH Board Staff JERRY FARRELL Enbridge Consumers Gas MARIKA HARE Enbridge Consumers Gas RICHARD LANNI Enbridge Consumers Gas HELEN NEWLAND Enbridge Consumers Gas TOM MOUTSATSOS CME MALCOLM ROWAN CME PAT MCMAHON Union Gas DAVID POCH GEC THOMAS BRETT OASBO IAN MONDROW HVAC Coalition TIBOR HAYNAL TransCanada PipeLines ROBERT WARREN CAC MICHAEL JANIGAN VECC JOYCE POON VECC SUSAN LOTT VECC GEORGE VEGH CEED ELISABETH DEMARCO CEED MURRAY KLIPPENSTEIN Pollution Probe JACK GIBBONS Pollution Probe PETER THOMPSON IGUA 8 TABLE OF CONTENTS 9 PRELIMINARY MATTERS: [18] ENBRIDGE CONSUMERS GAS - UNDERTAKINGS PANEL; RESUMED [55] CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. BRETT: [60] CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. THOMPSON: [515] CONTINUED CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. BRETT: [1062] CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. MORAN: [1162] QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD: [1267] RE-EXAMINATION BY MR. FARRELL: [1288] 10 EXHIBITS 11 EXHIBIT NO. J.8.2: RESPONSE TO UNDERTAKING J.8.2 [24] EXHIBIT NO. K.10.1: DOCUMENT ENTITLED "CONFIDENTIAL DATA PROTOCOL" [27] 12 UNDERTAKINGS 13 UNDERTAKING NO. J.5.1 TO PROVIDE UNREDACTED COPY OF UNDERTAKING [224] UNDERTAKING NO. J.10.1: TO PROVIDE CLARIFICATION ON THE OWNERSHIP OF ECG'S DESKTOP EQUIPMENT [425] UNDERTAKING NO. J.10.2: TO PROVIDE EOS IMPLEMENTATION PLAN FOR MOVING GAS CONTROL FUNCTION TO EDMONTON [655] UNDERTAKING NO. J.10.3: REPLACEMENT UNDERTAKING FOR J.3.10 [1262] 14 --- Upon commencing at 9:37 a.m. 15 MS. HALLADAY: Please be seated. 16 Good morning. Before we begin, are there any preliminary matters? 17 MR. FARRELL: Yes, I have a couple, Madam Chair. 18 PRELIMINARY MATTERS: 19 MR. FARRELL: I have some filings. The first document, I've given copies to Board counsel for the Panel and for the public file, as well as staff. It's a document called Exhibit K.2.5 revised, and this is a timeline. It's now three pages, and instead of a tree down the center, what we've done is try to include the events, if I can call them that, that arose during Mr. Moran's cross-examination. 20 And because there have been some references to Northern Border, we went back and found the dates for the -- I think it's the first four items are new to the timeline and then they are interwoven. And we also thought we were giving you dates with the TransCanada filed application, dates that the NEB made decisions on those applications. 21 It occurred to us last night that we probably should include the date that Alliance filed with the NEB, that Alliance filed with the FERC, the date that those decisions were made; similarly with Vector. So this now has 50 items on it. But that's the explanation, it's the additional information and it's all in sequence chronologically. 22 MS. HALLADAY: Thank you, Mr. Farrell. 23 MR. FARRELL: The second filing I have is a response to Undertaking J.8.2. This was an undertaking given by Mr. McGill to Mr. Vegh. This was prepared yesterday and I faxed a copy to Mr. Vegh somewhere around late morning or noon. So this would be Exhibit J.8.2 24 EXHIBIT NO. J.8.2: RESPONSE TO UNDERTAKING J.8.2 25 MR. FARRELL: The third document is a confidential data protocol, and I'd like Mr. McGill to explain -- well, first of all, I guess we should give it a number. 26 MR. MORAN: Madam Chair, that would be Exhibit K.10.1, document entitled "Confidential Data Protocol." 27 EXHIBIT NO. K.10.1: DOCUMENT ENTITLED "CONFIDENTIAL DATA PROTOCOL" 28 MR. FARRELL: Perhaps Mr. McGill could explain this document. 29 MR. MCGILL: I had intended to include a copy of this document in my response to J.5.1 which was the copies of the service schedules between ECG and Customer Works Limited Partnership. And through an oversight, I neglected to do that last week, so I've brought this document forward as -- to go along with the rest of that material. 30 MR. FARRELL: We'll make sure that Mr. Vegh gets a copy of this as well. 31 MS. HALLADAY: Thank you. 32 MR. FARRELL: Just while we're talking about paper, I have prepared, not for filing, but lists of the J items and the K items, and it's up to date, or was up to date until Mr. McGill identified K.10.1. 33 So what I propose to do when the hearing is over, Madam Chair, is have these completed. For example, for J it gives each undertaking, a brief description of the undertaking, and then where the response can be found either in the exhibit, the transcript or both. And I will make copies of that available to the panel as well as all the parties to the hearing. It may be a useful guide in terms of evidentiary references when we get into the argument phase. 34 MS. HALLADAY: Yes, that would be helpful. Thank you. 35 MR. FARRELL: There are a couple of clarifications that arise -- that the witnesses would like to make that arise from the transcript of June 19th, which is volume 9. 36 But before I ask you to do that, I should indicate that the Board staff have given me a one-page document that deals with the response to Undertaking J.3.10, that was the cost consequences of the individual decisions. So I will make copies of this available to the witness panel, and maybe before we reach Board staff, depending on what time it is, we can take a break, so maybe an early or whatever mid-morning break so that they can read this before those questions are dealt with. 37 So, Mr. Brennan, you had a couple of confirm items for Mr. Vegh. 38 MR. BRENNAN: Yes, I do. 39 If you go to transcript day 9, at paragraph, I believe it is, 914. Here I had a discussion with Mr. Vegh as to what was included on, what was then known as the SMS report, under some of the columns. Some of that information was whited out and he had wanted just, sort of, confirmation as to what was actually being whited out. And under one of those items -- one of those headings was the BGA -- EGA report company name, and he said: "I suspect that would be ECG." And he asked: "Can you please confirm that for me?" 40 In fact, it is not the company name. What it is -- it's not ECG, it's the nominating party for that particular customer. Typically, it would be the supplier. 41 And I believe a little later on, I was asked to check to see if there was a report, or at least if the final report that was filed had to do with failure to supply. And I guess he was asking whether or not that document went to EI. But I think if you read further on in the transcript, I actually do confirm that that information in terms of failure of -- to supply, EI would know that because they would have to go out and replace the gas. So I think if you read further on in the transcript, I do actually confirm that or straighten that out. 42 MR. FARRELL: That, for the record, is volume 9, Mr. Vegh's question is: "Could you just confirm that?" It appears at paragraph 986, so the few paragraphs before that one led up to the question. And then if you read down the page, I think Mr. Brennan was saying in subsequent paragraphs that the answer was there, so I'm just reconfirming the confirmation that was there yesterday so the record is clear. 43 Ms. Holder, I understand that you wish to make a clarification. 44 MS. HOLDER: Yes. Again, on day 9, I was having a discussion with Mr. Vegh and I -- in reading the transcript yesterday, -- I'm not sure that -- I may have misunderstood the question he was asking me so I thought I should explain my answer. He had asked me the question -- 45 MR. FARRELL: Excuse me. Can you get a little closer to the microphone. Mr. Thompson is having a hard time. So at paragraph 1025, okay. 46 MS. HOLDER: I will begin again. In the transcript for day 9, I think I may have misunderstood what I was being asked so I wanted to be -- clarify my response so that there was no misunderstanding here. 47 At paragraph 1025 the question was: "There's no concern here that EI is being left out of this, that EI is watching this profitable opportunity go by." 48 My concern -- or my answer related to the exchange that we were having previous to that around our concern that the marketers were having access to the storage and therefore access to the storage premium, and I therefore answered the question in that context. I assumed the question was whether the concern actually was related to EI not having access to the profit. So when -- in the reference that Mr. Vegh was referring to, it says: "Unbundling of rates puts storage in the hands of marketers." That is the concern. The concern is not around profitability, it is the concern that the marketers will -- could have an opportunity to gain profit from that storage over and above the cost-based rates that are embedded in rates by the distributor today, as well as that there's no guarantee that the marketer will use that storage for in-franchise customers. 49 However, if I read his question in isolation, I would have to say yes, that EI does have a concern about the profitability, and I think I said that earlier and as well later in the transcript. 50 MR. FARRELL: Thank you, Ms. Holder. 51 I have nothing further, Madam Chair. 52 MS. HALLADAY: Thank you, Mr. Farrell. 53 Mr. Brett. Good morning. 54 MR. BRETT: Good morning, Madam Chair and panel, panels. 55 ENBRIDGE CONSUMERS GAS - UNDERTAKINGS PANEL; RESUMED 56 J.HOLDER; Previously sworn. 57 F.BRENNAN; Previously sworn. 58 S.McGILL; Previously sworn. 59 A.PLECKAITIS; Previously sworn. 60 CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. BRETT: 61 MR. BRETT: I want to start, if I may, with K.6.2 which is the letter that you folks wrote, or Mr. Riedl wrote, to Mr. Laughren on the 17th of April, 2001, with respect to the gas supply and transactional services. Have you got that letter? 62 MS. HOLDER: No, I don't, sorry. 63 MR. BRETT: There were two letters. This is the one that was -- that was written -- the re is "Gas supply and transactional services," and the date is the 17th of the 4th of 2001. This is the one that I think was never replied to; I think the other letter was replied to. 64 And I just -- just to get into this, the first paragraph of this letter says: 65 "I would like to advise you of our recent decision to move 12 positions responsible for gas supply and transactional services from Toronto to Calgary. All 12 employees have been offered a position at Enbridge Inc.'s offices in Calgary but will remain as employees of Enbridge Consumers Gas." 66 Now, I think that that's not what happened ultimately, that the employees -- that the people that moved to Calgary did not remain employees of Enbridge Consumers Gas but are now employees of Enbridge Inc.? 67 MS. HOLDER: Yes. That was always the intent; it's just when they initially transferred, the intent was that they would remain employees of Enbridge Consumers Gas. And I think if you read on, it refers to -- 68 MR. BRETT: Sorry, I didn't quite get what you said. You you were saying that it was always the intent that they remain employees of Consumers Gas or that they switch to Enbridge? 69 MS. HOLDER: That they would eventually switch to Enbridge. But when they initially were asked to transfer, they would remain employees of Enbridge Consumers Gas and then change at a later date, which I believe is not very explicit here. But it is -- 70 MR. BRETT: Where does it say in your letter that they will later become employees of Enbridge Inc.? 71 MS. HOLDER: I think it's the third paragraph. I agree it's not explicit that they were eventually going to become employees of Enbridge Inc., but the third paragraph says: 72 "Although this change is not expected to have impact on 2001 test year rates, I am sharing this information for you and the intervenors to ensure there is no perception that Enbridge Consumers Gas is failing to disclose information of interest prior to the hearing." 73 And then -- sorry, that's not what I was looking for. It references -- sorry, flip over the page or the -- it says: 74 "This move is expected to take place in July and August 2001 and be completed by the beginning of September. We are in the process of reviewing our organizational structure and will keep you informed of future changes which might have an impact on the 2002 test year rate case." 75 So that is the reference to the future organizational changes. 76 MR. BRETT: All right. But there's no specific -- you will agree with me that there's no specific reference in this letter to the fact that these employees are going to end up as employees of Enbridge Inc.. 77 MS. HOLDER: That's correct. 78 MR. BRETT: And to your knowledge, was there any other letter sent by Mr. Riedl to Mr. Laughren subsequent to this letter that explained that the plan had changed somewhat, that the people now were going to be employees of Enbridge Inc. and that there was going to be an out-sourcing contract with Enbridge Inc. to conduct this gas supply and gas acquisition and transactional services for the next period of years? 79 I mean, are you aware of any specific letter that went to Mr. Laughren to advise him of this, subsequent to this letter? 80 MS. HOLDER: There was no other letter that I'm aware of, but -- I don't believe there was another letter, but we did provide this information as part of our 2003 rate case. 81 MR. BRETT: Would you be in a position to know whether or not -- I mean, I take it you would be, broadly speaking, in a position to know whether Mr. Riedl sent a subsequent letter. 82 MS. HOLDER: And I don't believe he did because what I think we did is we provided that information in the 2002 rate case. 83 MR. BRETT: Was there any communication with Mr. Laughren, any oral communication as far as you know with respect to this particular item, with respect to this change in plan to have these people employees of Enbridge Inc.? 84 MS. HOLDER: I'm not aware of the specific discussions, but I know Mr. Riedl does -- or had met with Mr. Laughren on occasion. 85 MR. BRETT: Okay. The -- 86 MS. HOLDER: Sorry, I need to correct myself. Sorry, I misspoke myself. It was actually filed as part of the 2001 rate case. I've got my years mixed up. 87 MR. BRETT: What was filed as part of the 2001 rate case? 88 MR. BRENNAN: Well, maybe just to explain, the letter that was dated April 17th, 2001, was filed around the time that we were going into ADR for the 2001 rate case, as I understood it. 89 MR. BRETT: That would have been when, approximately? 90 MR. BRENNAN: Around the same time, April of 2001. 91 MR. BRETT: So -- 92 MR. BRENNAN: So it was discussed -- 93 MR. BRETT: It was discussed in a settlement conference, I believe. 94 MR. BRENNAN: Yes, that's correct. 95 MR. BRETT: Or it was at least -- it wasn't -- I don't know whether it was discussed, but I guess we're not here to talk about detailed discussions of settlement conferences. But I seem to recall the letter surfacing in the settlement conference. 96 MR. BRENNAN: That's correct. 97 MR. BRETT: Is that a proper way to put it? 98 MR. BRENNAN: It was around that time frame. 99 MR. BRETT: But we didn't debate that issue, that wasn't an issue that was being discussed at the time. 100 MR. BRENNAN: That's correct. 101 MR. BRETT: So you don't really know, then -- you're not really in a position to say what Mr. Laughren's reaction would have been had you written him a letter which conveyed what was actually going to happen with respect to the gas services, gas acquisition transactional services. I mean, a letter that set out in considerable detail what you plan to do, the out-sourcing contract, the people becoming part of Enbridge Inc., the term of the out-sourcing contract. 102 MS. HOLDER: My -- I'll go back. As far as I know, I do not -- I don't know what Mr. Riedl might have discussed with Mr. Laughren, obviously. I do know that this letter was sent in April of 2001 and then we filed evidence on this matter, I believe, in September of 2001, September 25th, 2001. So -- 103 MR. BRETT: That was evidence in respect of -- what evidence was that, exactly? Was it the copy of the contract? Was it a copy of the letter? Did you file the letter in that case? 104 MR. BRENNAN: No, what we filed in September 25th, 2001, is our evidence for this rate case at Exhibit A, tab 14, schedule 3. 105 MR. BRETT: This is the stuff we're talking about here. 106 MR. BRENNAN: Gas and operational services, correct. 107 MR. BRETT: Okay. By that time, you had started your service, you had made these changes. This service started, as I recall, August 1st of 2001. You were reporting on what had you done, in other words. 108 MR. BRENNAN: The commencement date was August 1st. 109 MR. BRETT: Correct. Okay. You didn't really answer my question. My question was a simple one, I guess, it was just that you don't really know, do you, what Mr. Laughren's reaction would have been to a different sort of letter, if you had written a letter saying this is what we plan to do and laid out what we now see in this case. 110 MS. HOLDER: Well, in that our evidence was filed in September explaining that these were EI employees and we didn't hear from Mr. Laughren, maybe he didn't read it, I don't know. 111 MR. BRETT: All right. Okay. 112 Well, maybe with that, I'll move on to the -- I have a few questions for you on the Customer Works Limited Partnership, the package of information that you filed on that the other day. And the contract itself is Exhibit I, tab 1, schedule 39. This is the contract between Consumers Gas Company and Customer Works Limited Partnership, dated January 1st of 2000, which was filed with the original evidence -- or with the interrogatory response. And then the package that I'm referring to, the undertaking is J.5.1, and that's the package of this -- that was the package of schedules which are really the, if you like, substantive items under the contract, the pieces of work that were going to be done under this master contract, and that's J.5.1. 113 Mr. McGill, these are probably mostly for you, but needless to say, I welcome comments from anyone else. These contracts, as I understand it, Mr. McGill, are the contracts that -- I call them contracts, this contract and these schedules. And there are four schedules, just to orient people; there's a schedule that has to do with call centre service, a schedule to do with credit and collection, a schedule to do with metre reading services, a schedule to do with billing support, and a schedule, a kind of a catch-all schedule which is consulting and professional services. And those are all schedules to the contract that I described. 114 Just as an aside, these schedules, Mr. McGill, are numbered 1, 2, 3, 4, and 6, and there's no schedule 5; is there any reason for that? 115 MR. MCGILL: The only reason would be an oversight. 116 MR. BRETT: Is there something missing, perhaps? 117 MR. MCGILL: Well, I'm just going through here now. 118 MR. BRETT: It may just be a misnumbering or something. I don't want to hold us up, particularly. 119 MR. FARRELL: Which one was missing? 120 MR. BRETT: I thought five was missing. 121 MR. MCGILL: They are out of sequence. 122 MR. BRETT: I could be mistaken. 123 MR. MCGILL: I agree that I don't have a schedule in here numbered schedule 5, but I can't recall what service that might pertain to. 124 MR. BRETT: Okay. So this is the complete list of schedules. 125 MR. MCGILL: As far as I am aware. The services that we acquire are meter reading, billing, credit collection, call centre, and the professional services, or the catch-all, as you referred to it. 126 MR. BRETT: Okay. Now, these are the contracts that were originally signed with -- these services were originally provided, as I understand it, by Enbridge Commercial Services under the original contract dated January 1, 2002, and then this list that we just discussed were assigned over to Customer Works January 1st, 2002; right? I may have said 2002 the first time; I meant to say 2000. The original basket of contracts were signed with Enbridge Commercial Services, I understand, in January 1st of 2000. These ones, together with some others that still remain with Enbridge Commercial Services, this group were transferred over to Customer Works January 1st, 2002. 127 MR. MCGILL: Well, "transferred over," I'm not sure if that's the best way to describe it. The arrangements with ECS were terminated as of January 1, 2002, and a new contract was entered into between ECG and the Customer Works Limited Partnership effective January 1st, 2002. 128 So it's really more a replacement of one with the other as opposed to a transfer or an assignment. 129 MR. BRETT: Okay. Now, Mr. McGill, does the -- does ECG provide any start-up services to Customer Works in connection with the operation of these contracts? 130 MR. MCGILL: I'm not sure what you mean by "start-up." 131 MR. BRETT: Well, I mean any kind of assistance, any sort of aid to them by way of personnel or information or equipment to get them underway? 132 MR. MCGILL: No. The only services provided by ECG to Customer Works that I'm aware of are the facilities services that are covered over -- covered off by the lease arrangement between ECG and Customer Works, and they pertain to some ECG facilities. 133 My understanding is that the rate base value of those facilities has been eliminated from the calculation of the company's rate base for the test year. But beyond that, there are no services that I'm aware of that ECG provides to Customer Works. 134 MR. BRETT: In Mr. Louth's report to the B.C. Utility Commission, that's K.9.6, he is the consultant retained by them to analyze the arrangement between B.C. Gas utility and Customer Works. Page 10 of that report. 135 MR. MCGILL: Page 10? 136 MR. BRETT: Yes. 137 MR. MCGILL: Just a technicality, I think. I'm not sure that this document has been introduced into the record. 138 MR. BRETT: I think it's an exhibit, actually. 139 MR. MCGILL: Oh, it has, K.9.4. 140 MR. FARRELL: K.9.6, actually. 141 MR. BRETT: I'll take you to page 10 of that, Mr. McGill. 142 MR. FARRELL: I just want to be make this clear that this has been given an identification number for identification purposes but it's not a piece of evidence, and won't be, until a witness agrees with something within the document. 143 MR. BRETT: I understand. I'm just using it for the purposes of cross-examination. 144 At page 10, Mr. McGill, if you look under the first paragraph, under title 3.5, Mr. Louth states that: "B.C. Gas utilities and Enbridge Consumers Gas Company have both been asked by Customer Works to provide a number of services to the new company during the start-up period." 145 And he goes on. Is he wrong in that assertion? 146 MR. MCGILL: Well, I think he may be -- yes, I think he's incorrect in that it was probably a more apt description of the arrangement at the time that ECS was put into place back in January of 2002. We had different arrangements in place with respect to the shared assets at that point in time, but I believe it was for our 2001 test year we had changed the way we were handling the facilities items. 147 With respect to services beyond the facility arrangements, again, I'm not aware of any services that ECG was providing ECS back at that point in time. When ECS was formed, all but approximately -- it was either seven or eight people that were in -- directly involved in the customer care activities of ECG were transferred to ECS at the time. So ECG wasn't even really in a position where it could have provided any significant services to either ECS or Customer Works with respect to provision of customer care services. We just didn't have the staff to do it. 148 MR. BRETT: Okay. 149 MR. FARRELL: Just while Mr. Brett's reading his notes, Mr. McGill said ECS, and then he said January 1, 2002, which seems to be a different date than he talked about ECS -- 150 MR. BRETT: I assume you were talking about Customer Works, the second reference. 151 MR. MCGILL: Yes, with respect to ECS, we had a different facilities sharing arrangement in place for 2000, and that was with respect to ECS. 152 MR. BRETT: All right. 153 MR. MCGILL: And then going forward from January 2002, the facilities arrangement is between ECG and Customer Works. 154 MR. BRETT: So essentially you're saying you did have some -- you did provide ECS with some start-up assistance in 2000, but that was factored into your non-utility elimination. 155 MR. MCGILL: Maybe I can just clarify what you are saying in terms of start-up assistance. I wouldn't coin it that way. 156 The difference is that the way we were charging them for the use of facilities was different than what it was for 2001, and then again what it is in 2002 with respect to Customer Works. In terms of assistance, we weren't providing them with any professional services that I'm aware of, anything of that nature. 157 MR. BRETT: Okay. Now, if I could ask you to turn up the -- the simplest way to do this is to look at pages 1 and 2 of the agreement itself, Consumers Gas and Customer Works, which is Exhibit 1, tab 1, schedule 39. I'll get into the schedules in a moment, but I just want to take you to the top of page 2, the bottom of page 1. 158 Do you see the little "i" at the bottom of page 1? It refers to these schedules that are attached here as interim schedules, interim in nature. They are going to be good until June 30th of 2002, after which time, as I read it, they're going to replaced by two documents: a service catalogue and a management framework. Those two documents, it states, this is at the top of page 2, those two documents are going to replace the six schedules that we have in here; is that right? 159 MR. MCGILL: That's correct. 160 MR. BRETT: Now, have those documents been -- have they been drafted? Are they prepared? 161 MR. MCGILL: We are in the process of trying to finalize those arrangements right now, and we are working very hard at the moment to try and get that completed by the end of June, as stipulated in this agreement. 162 MR. BRETT: And are they identical to these interim schedules that we're looking at? 163 MR. MCGILL: In effect, they are the same. But in terms of how they are structured, they are much different. The service catalogue is in the form of a very long table, and it -- and service by service, it breaks down the elements of each service in quite a low degree of detail, and it lays out what party is responsible for what aspect of each of those elements of the service, and what fees are applicable to that element of the service and whatever service levels are applicable to that specific element of the service. 164 MR. BRETT: And the performance standards, targets, that sort of thing? 165 MR. MCGILL: That's correct. 166 The management framework is a mechanism for how you manage under the contract going forward. So it speaks to things like operating committees, it talks to how the process for planning for forecast levels of activity will be managed on a go-forward basis, things of that nature; how we deal with amendments to the agreement to deal with required changes in the services or the nature of the services. 167 MR. BRETT: So it sounds like, as you say, it's, in substance, similar to these; covers the same areas but it covers them perhaps in a bit more detail -- in some more detail? 168 MR. MCGILL: Yes, I think that's fair. 169 MR. BRETT: And when will you have these completed? Do you intend to have it completed by the 30th of June? 170 MR. MCGILL: I think it will be substantially completed by June 30th. There still may be some outstanding items that we are in the process of negotiating with Customer Works. 171 MR. BRETT: Would you have any problem filing those when they're completed? 172 MR. MCGILL: I expect that we'll be filing the catalogue as part of our 2003 evidence. 173 MR. BRETT: The management framework? 174 MR. MCGILL: As well, yes. 175 MR. BRETT: What about this case? Can you not file them in this case? 176 MR. MCGILL: Well, I would be reluctant to file them as they are not yet complete and they are still subject to negotiation with Customer Works. 177 MR. BRETT: Okay. Well, I think, then, with that, we should turn to the schedules themselves. And let's, if I may, start with schedule -- what you call "Call Centre Services," that's page 1 of J.5.1. 178 MR. MCGILL: Yes, I've got that. 179 MR. BRETT: And I guess you've been an enthusiastic redactor, Mr. McGill. If you turn to page 4 of that, you can see page 4 is -- this is the section dealing with performance levels and penalties. 180 Now, under the table "Performance Level and Target Success Factor," you've pretty well taken out everything there on pages 4 and 5. Why did you do that, Mr. McGill? 181 MR. MCGILL: I think, as we indicated earlier, that the fees and the cost stemming from these arrangements are not at issue in this proceeding. 182 MR. BRETT: Well, the fees, Mr. McGill, the fees, as I understand it, if you turn over to page 7, appendix A, you see the fees laid out there; price and estimated annual volume. Well, I guess estimated annual volume you've taken out. We'll come back to that in a moment. But price you've taken out. That's the fee, as I understand it. But back -- what I'm talking about is something different. It's the performance level, and it's the target success factor. 183 In other words, what are you striving to reach in each of these -- in dealing with each of these kinds of inquiry from customers? And I don't understand. I mean, how does one make any sense out of this agreement, leaving aside cost for the moment, which we have agreed is something you will be filing later in another proceeding. How do you make sense of this agreement without statements about performance objectives and target success factors? Those aren't costs, are they? First of all, they're not costs. 184 MR. MCGILL: Well, two points. One is that the service level is associated with cost; that's one point. And the other point is that the only service level that is relevant with respect to the current PBR arrangement the company has is the 75 percent of calls answered in 30 seconds which is part of the current PBR. 185 So I didn't feel that it was necessary to get into the details of the specific performance levels under this agreement in this proceeding. 186 MR. BRETT: But you do agree with me that in order for the Board to understand and for people to understand what this agreement is all about, what you're trying to accomplish on behalf of how this will work with respect to ratepayers, you need to see this material. I mean, it's very difficult to know what -- this agreement is very incomplete without this material. I mean, this is the first time this material has been put on the public record, isn't it? 187 MR. MCGILL: