September 30, Re: Formal Case No. 1116

Transcription

1 ^pepco A PHI Comparnj Andrea H. Harper Associate General Counsel EP Ninth Street, NW Suite *^ Floor Washington. DC Fax ahharper'</'pedcoholdines.com September 30, 2015 Ms. Brinda Westbrook-Sedgwick Commission Secretary Public Service Commission of the District of Columbia 1325 G Street, N.W. Suite 800 Washington, D.C Re: Formal Case No Dear Ms. Westbrook-Sedgwick: Enclosed please fmd the Annual Status Report on Electric Company Infrastructure Improvement Activity in the referenced proceeding. Please feel free to contact me ifyou have any questions regarding this matter. Sincerely, Andrea H. Harper AHH/mda Enclosures cc: All Parties ofrecord

2 BEFORE THE PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA IN THE MATTER OF APPLICATIONS FOR APPROVAL OF ) TRIENNIAL UNDERGROUND ) Formal Case No INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENT ) PROJECTS PLAN ) ANNUAL STATUS REPORT ON ELECTRIC COMPANY INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENT ACTIVITY Pursuant to (b) of the D.C. Official Code ( D.C. Code ), Order No , 1 and clarified in Order No , 2 issued by the Public Service Commission of the District of Columbia ( Commission ), and the Joint Stipulation of the Office of the People s Counsel ( OPC ), Potomac Electric Power Company ( Pepco ), and the District Department of Transportation ( DDOT ), 3 DDOT and Pepco (collectively, Joint Applicants ) hereby submit this Annual Status Report on Electric Company Infrastructure Improvement Activity ( Annual Report ) as part of the District of Columbia Power Line Undergrounding ( DC PLUG ) initiative. I. BACKGROUND The Electric Company Infrastructure Improvement Financing Act of 2014 ( Act ), effective, May 3, 2014, required that DDOT and Pepco file an Annual Report on construction 1 In the Matter of the Application for Approval of Triennial Underground Infrastructure Improvement Projects Plan, Formal Case No. 1116, Order No (Nov. 12, 2014) ( Order No ). 2 In the Matter of the Application for Approval of Triennial Underground Infrastructure Improvement Projects Plan, Formal Case No. 1116, Order No (Jan. 22, 2015) ( Order No ). 3 In the Matter of the Application for Approval of Triennial Underground Infrastructure Improvement Projects Plan, Formal Case No. 1116, Joint Stipulation of the Office of the People s Counsel, Potomac Electric Power Company and the District Department of Transportation (Sept. 15, 2014) ( Joint Stipulation ). 1

3 activities [n]o later than September 30 of each year in which an application for approval of a triennial Underground Infrastructure Improvements Project Plan is not filed. 4 DDOT and Pepco filed the first triennial Underground Infrastructure Improvements Project Plan ( Triennial Plan ) on June 16, 2014, stating that it would file its first Annual Report by September 30, On September 15, 2014 DDOT, Pepco and OPC filed a Joint Stipulation with the Commission in which the parties agreed to report on certain topics in the Annual Report. The Commission approved the Triennial Plan and the Joint Stipulation in Order No on November 12, As part of the Commission-approved Joint Stipulation, DDOT and Pepco are required to hold semi-annual meetings to review the progress of the DC PLUG initiative and discuss design alternatives as well as to file with the Commission a report summarizing each semi-annual meeting within thirty (30) days after the meeting is held. 5 On July 15, the Joint Applicants filed the Thirty-Day Report on the June 15, 2015 Semi Annual Meeting. 6 On August 14, OPC filed its Comments on the Thirty Day Report. The Joint Applicants address OPC s comments herein and will also address them in the upcoming semi-annual meeting, scheduled to take place on November 17, In compliance with D.C. Code (b) and Order Nos and and in accordance with the Joint Stipulation, Pepco files this Annual Report on behalf of the Joint Applicants D.C. Code (b). Joint Stipulation at 3. The first semi-annual meeting was held on June 15, 2015 ( June 15 Meeting ). 2

4 II. PROJECT DELAY As discussed during the semi-annual meeting held on June 15, activities on most of the DC PLUG initiative feeders have been delayed due to several factors, including the AOBA appeal before the DC Court of Appeals. 7 Despite the impact of these challenges on the timing of DC PLUG activities, the Joint Applicants are developing updated project schedules for each feeder in the Triennial Plan subject to the District bond issuance based on an anticipated issuance of District bonds on July 1, The updated project schedules will reflect additional time to incorporate utility comments in to the final civil designs and additional time for the procurement process. The Joint Applicants continue to work to identify ways to mitigate the impact of the appeal and other considerations on the DC PLUG project schedules and will file updated project schedules for all twenty-one feeders in the Triennial Plan in the Fourth Quarter of 2015 reflecting delay mitigation measures, the most current information regarding the AOBA appeal schedule and the lessons learned about schedule impacts. III. FEEDER 308 As stated in the Joint Applicants Notification regarding the Ninety-Day Supplement (filed June 19, 2015), DDOT will fund its portion of the construction of Feeder 308 through funds from its Capital Improvement Plan, which is not contingent upon the District s bond issuance. As a result, the Joint Applicants have developed an updated project schedule for Feeder 308 and have included that schedule in Attachment A to this filing. Attachment A includes the estimated start and projected end date for the construction of Feeder 308 as well as 7 The General Services Administration has asserted that the DDOT surcharge constitutes a tax on end users from which the federal government is immune, an assertion that is currently under review. It is unclear at this time what, if any, impact the assertion will have on the DC PLUG initiative. 3

5 an updated detailed project schedule for Feeder 308. The estimated start and projected end dates for construction and the updated detailed project schedules for Feeder 308 are contingent upon agreement and confirmation from the eventual awarded civil construction contractor. The Joint Applicants submitted the 60% civil engineering designs for Feeder 308 to the Commission for review on January 30, The Joint Applicants then met with Washington Gas and DC Water in February and March 2015 respectively, to review the 60% designs. The Joint Applicants submitted the 100% civil engineering design for Feeder 308 to the Commission for review on May 15, Since that submission, the Joint Applicants have updated the 100% design to facilitate DDOT s procurement of civil construction services for Feeder 308 and will submit the final civil engineering designs for Feeder 308 to the Commission in the near future. The Joint Applicants submitted the applications for construction permits for Feeder 308 through the Transportation Online Permit System ( TOPS ) on September 24, The review and approval process for the TOPS construction permits for Feeder 308 was completed on September 29, On September 4, 2015, the District of Columbia Office of Contracting and Procurement ( Office of Contracting and Procurement ) released an Invitation for Bids ( IFB ) for the civil construction of Feeder 308. As discussed in Section VII of this filing, the IFB was released as a set-aside for Certified Business Enterprise ( CBE ) bidders only. In accordance with DDOT s standard practice, the Office of Contracting and Procurement advertised the IFB in the Washington Times and on the Office of Contracting and Procurement s website. Additionally, the Joint Applicants notified the firms who attended the contractor supplier forum and networking event (held in March and December 2015, respectively) about the IFB via . DDOT held a pre-bid conference on September 17, 2015 at DDOT headquarters. As stated in 4

6 the IFB, DDOT is accepting bids until 2:00 PM on November 3, The Joint Applicants anticipate that DDOT will award a contract for the civil construction of Feeder 308 in May Concurrent with the DDOT s solicitation of civil construction services for Feeder 308, the Joint Applicants continue to work towards completion of the electrical engineering design. As of this filing, the Joint Applicants have completed the survey of the existing overhead wire, equipment and other facilities on Feeder 308 and are now using the information gathered during the overhead survey to finalize the detailed underground electrical designs as well as the plans for removal of overhead wire, equipment and other facilities for Feeder 308. The Joint Applicants anticipate that they will complete the electrical engineering designs by March IV. FEEDER The civil engineering design for Feeder is nearing completion. The civil engineering design contractor has delivered the 100% civil designs for Feeder The Joint Applicants are currently reviewing those designs to confirm that they meet DDOT and Pepco standards. Additionally, the Joint Applicants submitted permitting requests for Feeder through the Transportation Online Permit System ( TOPS ) on September 23, Once the Joint Applicants complete their review of the civil engineering design for Feeder 14261, they will submit the final designs to the Commission. V. PADMOUNTED TRANSFORMERS In the Joint Stipulation, the Joint Applicants agreed to consider opportunities to incorporate padmounted transformers into the feeder designs. 8 During the civil engineering 8 Joint Stipulation at

7 design phase of Feeder 308, the civil design contractor provided the Joint Applicants with a list of twenty-six proposed locations for padmounted transformers. The Joint Applicants further refined that list by identifying ten of those twenty-six locations that appeared to be free of logistical constraints for the safe, reliable use of padmounted transformers. The Joint Applicants then conducted a field visit to Feeder 308 to identify the best candidate sites for padmounted transformers. Following the field visit, the Joint Applicants identified four potential locations for padmounted transformers, all of which were located in the public parking area of the District of Columbia. On June 11, 2015, the Joint Applicants presented to residents at a regularlyscheduled monthly meeting of Advisory Neighborhood Commission 3E, in whose jurisdiction all four sites are located. The Joint Applicants also met with the property owners who would be impacted, explained what was contemplated, answered any questions that property owners had and informed them of the Public Space Committee hearing that would be held on the four applications. Approval from the Public Space Committee is necessary before the Joint Applicants can place a padmounted transformer in public space in the District of Columbia. Thus, the Joint Applicants filed four applications with the Public Space Committee in July In response to the application to the Public Space Committee, various residents and organizations speaking on their behalf filed objections with the Public Space Committee. The filed objections are included in Attachment B. On July 23, 2015, the Joint Applicants supported the applications for the four potential locations to the Public Space Committee during the Committee s monthly meeting. The Joint Applicants presentation to the Public Space Committee is included in Attachment C. All other testimony, presented by District of Columbia residents and a member of the Mayor s Task Force, opposed the use of padmounted transformers. On August 6, 2015, the Joint 6

8 Applicants received notification that the Public Space Committee denied all four potential locations for padmounted transformers, citing the following reasons for denial: 1. The cost savings of having padmounted transformers hasn t been shown by the applicant. 2. The location for this equipment is non-conforming with the District s standards for the public parking area; which is to retain a park-like setting with the landscaping and trees. 3. No adjacent property owner has supported this application with the proposed scope of work. 4. The ANC for this neighborhood objects to the proposed installation of the transformers. The denial is found in Attachment D. As a result of the Public Space Committee denial, the Joint Applicants will complete the electrical design of Feeder 308 without the use of any padmounted transformers. During the civil engineering design phase of Feeder 14261, the civil design contractor provided the Joint Applicants with a list of eighteen proposed locations for padmounted transformers. The Joint Applicants are currently working to further refine that list by identifying which of those eighteen locations are free of logistical constraints for the safe, reliable use of padmounted transformers. Once the Joint Applicants identify those sites, the Joint Applicants will conduct a field visit to Feeder to identify the best candidate sites for padmounted transformers. Following the field visit, the Joint Applicants will identify any potential locations for padmounted transformers to include in an application to the Public Space Committee. VI. DISTRIBUTION AUTOMATION In late 2014, Pepco initiated its Underground Technology Enhancement Program ( UTEP ) by releasing a request for proposals ( RFP ) to deploy distribution automation ( DA ) devices and equipment on Pepco s 13kV underground distribution system that comply with 7

9 Pepco s standards. Since the semi-annual meeting, the UTEP program has allowed Pepco to develop and refine its plan for deploying DA on underground feeders (including DC PLUG feeders). The next step is for Pepco to observe the performance of those devices in a limited application on the existing underground system and confirm and finalize the plans for deploying DA on DC PLUG feeders. As stated during the semi-annual meeting, once Pepco finalizes its strategy for DA for the DC PLUG initiative, it will file with the Commission a summary and description of its DA designs and equipment specific to DC PLUG. Pepco considered four responses to its UTEP RFP. All four responses provided different approaches for incorporating DA technology into Pepco s underground distribution system using vastly different equipment. From September 2014 through May 2015, Pepco evaluated the responses, met with the vendors, viewed vendor demonstrations of DA devices and equipment, and assessed the ability to integrate the proposed equipment into Pepco s underground electrical distribution system. As a result, Pepco has identified the best design concept for deploying DA on the underground distribution system. The design includes the installation of one interrupter and one automated tie switch on the main trunk of a given underground feeder. Pepco will use this design to deploy DA devices in a limited application on its existing underground system. The installation and deployment of those devices is currently underway. As stated above, Pepco will then closely monitor the performance of these devices, develop procedures for the safe operation of underground DA devices and develop a standard procedure for installing DA devices on underground feeders in the future. Once Pepco has had a chance to observe the operation of the devices on its system, it will confirm and finalize its plans for incorporating the deployment of DA devices into the DC PLUG initiative. Pepco s electrical distribution system presents a unique challenge for the deployment of DA on the underground system. Many of Pepco s distribution substations have available fault 8

10 currents that require devices rated for 40kA. Currently, the widely-used interrupting devices are typically rated at 25kA. As a result, several of the responses to Pepco s UTEP RFP included devices that were either not rated for a 40kA fault current or were expected to be rated for 40kA but were still under development. To address this issue, Pepco has used fault current analysis to identify the existing underground feeders (and locations thereon) on which it is safe to install interrupting devices that are rated at 25kA. In addition, Pepco will continue to work with the vendors to develop acceptable non-oil 40kA automated switches for tie points. As stated above, Pepco will observe the operation of DA devices in a limited application on its underground system. In this limited application, Pepco will install one interrupter and one automated tie switch on the main trunk of three existing underground feeders. Through this configuration, Pepco expects to yield an 11% reduction in SAIFI and a 6% reduction in SAIDI for the main trunk of the feeder at a total cost of approximately $750,000, which includes the cost of the DA devices and their installation. DA devices include automated switches which would take the place of non-automated switches that would normally be installed on the underground system. Thus, the cost of DA devices is not wholly incremental to the cost of the devices that would normally be installed. Other options Pepco considered in the UTEP program include deploying two interrupting devices and two automated tie switches on each feeder and deploying only one midline interrupter on each feeder. Pepco estimates that deploying two interrupters and two tie switches on the main trunk of a given feeder would provide a 13% reduction in SAIFI and a 7% reduction in SAIDI at a cost of over $1,000,000. Pepco further estimates that deploying only one midline interrupter on a given feeder would provide a 6% reduction in SAIFI and a 3% reduction in SAIDI at a cost of almost $500,000. Therefore, the chosen configuration for deploying DA on a 9

11 given underground feeder proved to provide the lowest cost per percentage improvement in SAIFI. Pepco aims to fully deploy the DA devices on the identified feeders by February Once these DA devices are deployed, Pepco will monitor both the performance of the DA devices and the reliability performance of the feeders on which they are deployed. The experience Pepco will gain from this innovative project will inform its strategy for deploying DA devices on DC PLUG initiative feeders. Pepco envisions that the installation of DA devices on DC PLUG initiative feeders will include the incorporation of those feeders in an Automated Sectionalizing and Restoration scheme to enhance resiliency and reliability and maximize Pepco s ability to restore power during outages. Pepco s civil engineering designs for the construction of Feeders 308 and allow Pepco to retrofit DA devices on DC PLUG feeders after they are placed underground. As stated above, once Pepco has had a chance to observe the operation of the devices on its system, it will confirm, finalize and file with the Commission its plans for incorporating the deployment of DA devices into the DC PLUG initiative. VII. DISTRICT BUSINESS OUTREACH AND ENGAGEMENT In accordance with (7) of the D.C. Code, the Joint Applicants goal is to ensure that 100% of the construction contracts are awarded to District businesses, where qualified to perform such work. To that end, DDOT designated the solicitation of civil construction for Feeder 308 as a set-aside for CBE bidders only, under the provisions of the Small and Certified Business Enterprise Development and Assistance Act of Thus, the 9 D.C. Code

12 Joint Applicants expect DDOT to award the contract for the civil construction for Feeder 308 to a District-based firm. Although it is not expressly required by (7) of the D.C. Code, the Joint Applicants are eager to comply with the spirit and intent of the Act by maximizing CBE participation in the professional services contracts associated with DC PLUG work. The Joint Applicants have awarded over $1.5M in contract value for the civil engineering work (including survey and design) for Feeders 308 and Approximately 75% of that amount was awarded to CBE firms. To date, more than $1.1M in contract value has been awarded to CBE firms for the civil engineering work on Feeders 308 and Throughout the DC PLUG initiative, the Joint Applicants continue to capitalize on opportunities to advance the spirit and intent of the Act by contracting with and hiring District-based businesses and residents. In 2014, the Joint Applicants hosted two Supplier Forums (March 25 and September 18) to introduce District-based businesses to the DC PLUG initiative, its potential opportunities and explain how to register as a vendor with Pepco. On December 17, 2014 Pepco hosted a DC PLUG Networking Event, intended to introduce District-based businesses to Pepco's existing vendors so that these companies could explore mutually beneficial partnerships to participate in DC PLUG projects. The Joint Applicants have scheduled a webinar for contractors interested in the DC PLUG initiative for October 14, During that event, representatives from DDOT and Pepco will provide an overview of the DC PLUG initiative, discuss DC PLUG contracting opportunities and timing thereof, address the current status of the related appeal before the DC Court of Appeals and its impact on the DC PLUG initiative schedule, and answer questions from the contracting community. The webinar format will allow for any and all firms who are interested to attend, and attendance will not be limited to the capacity of the venue. 11

13 To date, the Joint Applicants have conducted more than 60 one-on-one meetings with District based companies in the disciplines of professional services, construction management, project management, program management, communications and community outreach and others to understand their existing capability and discuss each firm s potential participation in the DC PLUG initiative. The Joint Applicants will continue to engage District firms through oneon-one meetings. In order to develop the pool of qualified District-based construction contractors, Pepco created a Capability & Capacity Building ( C&C ) Program. Pepco s C&C Program engages CBE firms by creating limited-scope, discrete work packages that contain the type of work that characterizes DC PLUG projects. The program provides opportunities for qualified CBEs to demonstrate their capability to perform DC PLUG initiative-related work safely and in accordance with Pepco standards. The program is designed to increase the number of CBEs qualified to work on Pepco s electric distribution system. There are currently five CBE firms working on Pepco s system as part of the C&C program. At the time of this filing, all five firms are progressing toward qualification to work on Pepco s distribution system. Pepco intends to expand the C&C program by releasing three additional RFPs for civil and electrical construction work by the end of the year. The RFPs will involve the installation of conduit and manholes, installation of electrical cable, and civil construction quality assurance and quality control. Pepco expects to contract with at least three firms to perform this work with the goal of becoming qualified to work on Pepco s system. Firms currently performing C&C work will be allowed to bid on the next round of C&C RFPs, provided that they bid on a new type of work. This approach will advance the Joint Applicants goal of expanding the pool of qualified District-based firms to perform DC PLUG initiative work. 12

14 VIII. DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION ALTERNATIVES In the Joint Stipulation, the Joint Applicants agreed to consider design alternatives recommended by OPC in its protest, filed August 15, 2014 in the final design phase. 10 Those design alternatives include the use of single phase cable (rather than three phase cable), directional boring (rather than trenching), and padmounted transformers (rather than submersible transformers). The Joint Applicants also agreed to provide specific information regarding the actual inclusion of design and construction alternatives identified by OPC and other parties, along with an explanation of the bases for inclusion or exclusion of various alternatives in the feeders for which final design has been completed, such that OPC and parties will have sufficient information to file comments setting forth their view of the Joint Applicants final design for the feeders in question. Those alternatives are discussed below for Feeder 308, as it is currently in the final design phase. A. Number of miles and location of single phase cable included in the final design As stated above, the Joint Applicants are working to finalize the final detailed electrical schematics for Feeder 308 and expects them to be completed in early The Joint Applicants anticipate that the final electrical schematics for Feeder 308 will call for approximately 1.5 miles of 600 Quad cable for the main trunk as well as 3.2 miles of #2 EPR three-phase cable and 2.7 miles of #2 EPR single phase cable for the laterals. The exact location of each type of cable will be provided in the final electrical schematics for Feeder 308. B. Number and location of padmounted transformers in the final design 10 Joint Stipulation at

15 As described above, the Joint Applicants presented applications to place padmounted transformers on four locations along Feeder 308. However, the Public Space Committee denied the Joint Applicants applications for all four sites. Therefore, the final civil and electrical designs for Feeder 308 will not include padmounted transformers. C. Locations where directional boring was sufficiently practical that it could be evaluated for feasibility The civil engineering design contractor for Feeder 308 informed the Joint Applicants that there were no feasible locations along Feeder 308 where it would be practical to employ directional boring. The contractor indicated that directional boring would require 24x7 operations when drilling a particular run of pipe. This would cause traffic and noise impacts to residential neighborhoods served by Feeder 308. The contractor also indicated that directional boring would be made more difficult in the area of Feeder 308 by the presence of house laterals for water, sewer and gas at unknown depths in the boring path. Avoiding those lines would require the contractor to dig many test pits, thus increasing cost and time to complete the work as well as defeating the general purpose of directional boring. Finally, the contractor indicated that directional boring is generally used for long, underground runs. Feeder 308 is characterized by many short runs ranging from 100 to 600 feet, which would require significant setup time to dig launching and receiving pits, further increasing the time and cost to complete the project. For these reasons, the Joint Applicants do not intend to further evaluate the feasibility of directional boring on Feeder 308. D. Locations where directional boring was employed 14

16 on Feeder 308. For reasons stated above, the Joint Applicants do not intend to employ directional boring E. Number and location of ties constructed Feeder 308. Please see Section X ( Feeder Tie Points ) below for a discussion of the tie points along IX. OPPORTUNITIES TO LEAVE LINES OVERHEAD, INCLUDING FEEDERS AND In accordance with OPC s recommendation that the Joint Applicants work to identify sections of feeders that are cost-effective and practical to leave overhead, the Joint Applicants have identified two sections of Feeder 308 to leave overhead. These overhead sections are reflected in the final civil engineering designs for Feeder 308. The first section is a 335-foot section along 44 th Street. The second section is a 750-foot section along River Road. The 44 th Street section, which serves only one customer, will remain overhead due to limited tree cover and service to only a single customer. The River Road section of Feeder 308 will remain overhead due to limited feasibility of placing of that section of the line underground. Multiple utilities have underground facilities in that section of River Road, including Pepco transmission lines. The Joint Applicants have also identified a 540-foot section of Feeder along Naylor Road as a candidate for leaving overhead. The Joint Applicants believe that it will be beneficial to leave this section overhead due to limited tree cover on that section of Feeder and limited space to place that portion of the line underground. 15

17 In the Joint Stipulation, the Joint Applicants agreed that the approximately one-mile section of Feeder along New York Avenue shall not be placed underground. 11 The Joint Applicants further agreed to consider other locations which would not benefit from undergrounding due to the absence of trees, historical performance and other relevant conditions and report their findings in the semi-annual meetings and the Annual Report. 12 Those locations are discussed above. With Feeder 308 in the final design phase, the Joint Applicants will continue to analyze Feeder and the remaining 19 feeders selected to be placed underground in the first Triennial Plan for opportunities to leave sections overhead. X. FEEDER TIE POINTS In the Joint Stipulation, Pepco agreed to analyze the need for each feeder tie point and share its findings in the semi-annual meetings and in the annual report. 13 Pepco is evaluating feeder ties on each of the DC PLUG feeders to make sure they conform to the Pepco standard that requires Pepco to be able to transfer the load off of a given feeder within four switching operations. Through its analysis, Pepco has concluded that the existing tie points for Feeders 308 and are appropriate. As stated in the Triennial Plan, Feeder 308 has two intertie feeders Feeders 310 and As part of Pepco s 4kV-to-13kV conversion program, load from Feeder 310 (4kV) was transferred to Feeder (13kV). Feeder 310 no longer exists as a 4kV feeder, and therefore, Joint Stipulation at 5. Joint Stipulation at 5. Joint Stipulation at 5. Formal Case No. 1116, Joint Application of Potomac Electric Power Company and the District Department of Transportation for Approval of Their Triennial Underground Infrastructure Improvement Projects Plan (Jun. 17, 2014) at Appendix C. 16

18 is not tied to Feeder 308. The tie between Feeders 144 and 308 will remain after Feeder 308 is placed underground to maintain operating flexibility and emergency backup for both feeders. Pepco does not intend to construct any additional ties to Feeder 308 as part of the DC PLUG initiative. Feeder has ties to three other feeders Feeders 14700, and These ties allow load to be transferred from Feeder to and from the three intertie feeders. These ties are needed to maintain operating flexibility and emergency backup for all four feeders. Before DDOT and Pepco begin construction, they will perform physical field surveys of each project site and further analyze each feeder to be placed underground and use the results of those surveys and analyses to inform the final electrical designs for Feeder XI. MATERIAL SCHEDULE DELAYS, CHANGE ORDERS AND BUDGET OVERRUNS In the Joint Stipulation, the Joint Applicants agreed to identify any material schedule delays, change orders and budget overruns, including those associated with DDOT s construction of ductline and manholes. 15 As construction has not yet begun on any feeder selected to be placed underground as part of the first Triennial Plan, the Joint Applicants have not identified any material schedule delays, change orders or budget overruns. The Joint Applicants will provide another update in the next semi-annual meeting. XII. ALTERNATIVE ROUTE FOR FEEDER Joint Stipulation at 5. 17

19 In the Joint Stipulation, the Joint Applicants agreed to provide an update on their decision-making process for an alternative route for the section of Feeder along Martin Luther King, Jr. Ave., SE. 16 The Joint Applicants intend that a portion of the statement of work for the civil engineering contract for Feeder will include evaluating the feasibility of reusing the existing conduit and manholes along this route or using an alternative route. As the civil engineering contract for Feeder has not yet been released, the Joint Applicants do not have a further update beyond the update provided during the semi-annual meeting on June 15, XIII. JOINT-USE CONTRACTS In the Joint Stipulation, Pepco agreed to provide an update of the status of its review of joint-use contracts in the Annual Report to determine whether there is an opportunity to increase fees charged to the communications companies who share Pepco poles. 17 Pepco has reviewed its joint-use contracts and determined that there are currently no opportunities to increase fees charged to the communications companies who share Pepco poles. If Pepco determines, in the future, that there is such an opportunity, it will address that opportunity in future Annual Reports Joint Stipulation at 6. Joint Stipulation at 6. 18

20 ATTACHMENT A: DETAILED PROJECT SCHEDULE FOR FEEDER 308

21 DC PLUG First Triennial Plan Projects Schedule District of Columbia Ward Feeder Estimated Start Date Projected End Date /29/16 3/20/17

22 Feeder Classic Schedule Layout 29-Sep-15 15:23 Activity ID Activity Name Activity Type Original Duration Feeder Calendar Predecessors Successors Remaining Duration Activity % Start Finish Total Complete Float W3F00308Feeder1000 Feeder Activities WBS Summary 1064 PLUG Calendar Days % 17-Jun-14 A 15-May May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Feeder Jun-14 A W3F00308Feeder1010 Feeder Activities Start Start Milestone 0 PLUG Calendar Days W3F00308PreSch % 17-Jun-14 A Feeder Activities Start W3F00308Feeder1020 Feeder Activities Complete Finish Milestone 0 PLUG Calendar Days W3F00308EECons1070, W3F00308EECons1080, W3F00308OHCons1060, W3F00308OHCons1070, W3F00308CECons1120 Preliminary Schematics 0 0% 15-May-17 0 W3F00308PreSch1000 Preliminary Schematics WBS Summary 113 PLUG Calendar Days 0 100% 17-Jun-14 A 23-Mar-15 A 17-Jun-14 A Preliminary Schematics W3F00308PreSch1010 Existing Overhead Schematic Task Dependent 0 PLUG 5 Day Workweek PLUGPlanning1000 W3F00308PreSch % 17-Jun-14 A 17-Jun-14 A W3F00308PreSch1020 Preliminary Electrical Schematic Task Dependent 0 PLUG 5 Day Workweek W3F00308Feeder1010, PLUGPlanning1000 W3F00308PreSch % 17-Jun-14 A 17-Jun-14 A W3F00308PreSch1030 Preliminary Civil Schematic Task Dependent 0 PLUG 5 Day Workweek PLUGPlanning1000 W3F00308PreSch % 17-Jun-14 A 17-Jun-14 A W3F00308PreSch1040 Proposed Underground Route of Feeder Task Dependent 0 PLUG 5 Day Workweek PLUGPlanning1000 W3F00308PreSch % 17-Jun-14 A 17-Jun-14 A W3F00308PreSch1050 Pepco Proposed Electrical Schematic Task Dependent 11 PLUG 5 Day Workweek W3F00308PreSch1010, W3F00308PreSch1020, W3F00308PreSch1030, W3F00308PreSch1040 W3F00308PreSch1060, W3F00308PreSch1070, W3F00308EEDPrc1010, W3F00308EEDesg % 17-Jun-14 A 17-Jun-14 A W3F00308PreSch1060 Pepco Proposed Civil Schematic Task Dependent 7 PLUG 5 Day Workweek W3F00308PreSch1050 W3F00308CEDPrc % 01-Aug-14 A 11-Aug-14 A W3F00308PreSch1070 Load Flow Analysis Task Dependent 30 PLUG 5 Day Workweek W3F00308PreSch1050 W3F00308PreSch1080, W3F00308EEDPrc1010, W3F00308EEDesg1010 W3F00308PreSch1080 Short Circuit Analysis Task Dependent 30 PLUG 5 Day Workweek W3F00308PreSch1070 W3F00308PreSch1090, W3F00308EEDesg1010, W3F00308EEDPrc1010 W3F00308PreSch1090 Civil Engineering Civil Design Procurement Provide Outside the District Storm Hardening Techniques, Load Flow Analysis and Short Circuit Analysis to DC PSC 0 100% 10-Dec-14 A 23-Jan-15 A 0 100% 26-Jan-15 A 09-Mar-15 A Task Dependent 1 PLUG 5 Day Workweek W3F00308PreSch1080 W3F00308EEDesg % 23-Mar-15 A 23-Mar-15 A W3F00308CEDPrc1000 Civil Design Procurement WBS Summary 86 PLUG Calendar Days 0 100% 15-Sep-14 A 03-Nov-14 A W3F00308CEDPrc1010 Prepare Civil Engineering RFP Task Dependent 9 PLUG 5 Day Workweek W3F00308PreSch1060 W3F00308CEDPrc % 15-Sep-14 A 25-Sep-14 A W3F00308CEDPrc1020 Release Civil Engineering RFP Task Dependent 16 PLUG 5 Day Workweek W3F00308CEDPrc1010 W3F00308CEDPrc % 26-Sep-14 A 20-Oct-14 A Existing Overhead Schematic Preliminary Electrical Schematic Preliminary Civil Schematic Proposed Underground Route of Feeder Pepco Proposed Electrical Schematic Pepco Proposed Civil Schematic 15-Sep-14 A Civil Design Procurement 15-Sep-14 A 03-Nov-14 A Civil Design Procurement Prepare Civil Engineering RFP Release Civil Engineering RFP Load Flow Analysis Civil Engineering W3F00308CEDPrc1030 Evaluate Civil Engineering RFP Responses Task Dependent 10 PLUG 5 Day Workweek W3F00308CEDPrc1020 W3F00308CEDPrc % 21-Oct-14 A 03-Nov-14 A W3F00308CEDPrc1040 Award Civil Engineering Contract Task Dependent 1 PLUG 5 Day Workweek W3F00308CEDPrc1030 W3F00308CEDesg % 03-Nov-14 A 03-Nov-14 A Civil Design W3F00308CEDesg1000 Civil Design WBS Summary 343 PLUG Calendar Days 0 100% 10-Nov-14 A 01-Sep-15 A 10-Nov-14 A Evaluate Civil Engineering RFP Responses Award Civil Engineering Contract W3F00308CEDesg1010 Civil Engineering Survey Task Dependent 20 PLUG 5 Day Workweek W3F00308CEDPrc1040 W3F00308CEDesg % 10-Nov-14 A 09-Dec-14 A Civil Engineering Survey W3F00308CEDesg1020 Civil Engineering Design (65%) Task Dependent 30 PLUG 5 Day Workweek W3F00308CEDesg1010 W3F00308CEDesg1040, W3F00308CEDesg1050, W3F00308CEDReg1010, W3F00308CEDesg % 26-Nov-14 A 09-Jan-15 A Civil Engineering Design (65%) W3F00308CEDesg1030 Traffic Control Plans (MOT-65%) Task Dependent 73 PLUG 5 Day Workweek W3F00308CEDesg1020 W3F00308CEDesg % 11-Dec-14 A 31-Mar-15 A W3F00308CEDesg1040 Pepco and DDOT review of Proposed Civil Design and Revisions (65%) Task Dependent 30 PLUG Calendar Days W3F00308CEDesg1020, W3F00308CEDesg1030 W3F00308CEDesg % 12-Jan-15 A 16-Jan-15 A Pepco and DDOT review of Proposed Civi W3F00308CEDesg1050 Utility Design Review (65%) Task Dependent 30 PLUG Calendar Days W3F00308CEDesg1020 W3F00308CEDesg % 20-Jan-15 A 18-Feb-15 A Actual Work Remaining Work Critical Remaining Work Milestone Summary Page 1 of 10 TASK filter: All Activities Oracle Corporation

23 Feeder Classic Schedule Layout 29-Sep-15 15: Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Feeder May-17 Feeder Activities Feeder Activities Complete 23-Mar-15 A Preliminary Schematics Load Flow Analysis Short Circuit Analysis Provide Outside the District Storm Hardening Techniques, Load Flow Analysis and Short Circuit Analysis to DC PSC Civil Engineering 29-Sep-15 A Civil Design 01-Sep-15 A Civil Design l Engineering Design (65%) Traffic Control Plans (MOT-65%) epco and DDOT review of Proposed Civil Design and Revisions (65%) Utility Design Review (65%) Actual Work Remaining Work Critical Remaining Work Milestone Summary Page 2 of 10 TASK filter: All Activities Oracle Corporation

24 Feeder Classic Schedule Layout 29-Sep-15 15:23 Activity ID Activity Name Activity Type Original Duration W3F00308CEDesg1060 W3F00308CEDesg1070 W3F00308CEDesg1080 Resolution of Review Comments (65%) Civil Engineering Design and MOT (100%) Pepco and DDOT review of Proposed Civil Design and Revisions (100%) Task Dependent 30 PLUG 5 Day Workweek W3F00308CEDesg1040, W3F00308CEDesg1050 Calendar Predecessors Successors Remaining Duration Task Dependent 52 PLUG 5 Day Workweek W3F00308CEDesg1060 W3F00308CEDesg1090, W3F00308CEDesg1080 Activity % Start Finish Total Complete Float W3F00308CEDesg % 20-Feb-15 A 19-Mar-15 A 0 100% 20-Feb-15 A 04-May-15 A Task Dependent 30 PLUG 5 Day Workweek W3F00308CEDesg1070 W3F00308CEDesg % 04-Mar-15 A 03-Apr-15 A May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb W3F00308CEDesg1090 Utility Design Review (100%) Task Dependent 30 PLUG Calendar Days W3F00308CEDesg1070 W3F00308CEDesg % 04-Mar-15 A 03-Apr-15 A W3F00308CEDesg1100 W3F00308CEDesg1110 Resolution of Review Comments (100%) Final Civil Engineering Design and MOT Review and Revision Task Dependent 30 PLUG 5 Day Workweek W3F00308CEDesg1090, W3F00308CEDesg1080 Task Dependent 10 PLUG 5 Day Workweek W3F00308CEDesg1100 W3F00308CEDesg1120, W3F00308CEDReg1030 W3F00308CEDReg1040 W3F00308ConPer1010, W3F00308CECPrc1010, W3F00308EEDPrc1010 W3F00308CEDesg % 04-Apr-15 A 04-May-15 A 0 100% 05-May-15 A 01-Sep-15 A W3F00308CEDesg1120 Materials Requisition - WMIS Task Dependent 1 PLUG 5 Day Workweek W3F00308CEDesg1110 W3F00308CEDReg1050 W3F00308CECPrc1020 Civil Design Regulatory Review 0 100% 01-Sep-15 A 01-Sep-15 A W3F00308CEDReg1000 Civil Design Regulatory Review WBS Summary 104 PLUG Calendar Days 0 100% 30-Jan-15 A 18-May-15 A 30-Jan-15 A Civil Design Regulatory Review W3F00308CEDReg1010 Provide Design and Construction Drawings of Utility Civil Facilities to DC PSC W3F00308CEDReg1020 DC PSC's Review of Civil Design and Construction Drawings Due Task Dependent 1 PLUG 5 Day Workweek W3F00308CEDesg1020 W3F00308CEDReg % 30-Jan-15 A 30-Jan-15 A Task Dependent 0 PLUG Calendar Days W3F00308CEDReg1010 W3F00308CECPrc % 28-Feb-15 A 28-Feb-15 A Provide Design and Construction Dr W3F00308CEDReg1030 Provide Project Management and Pepco's Acceptance of Work Plan to DC PSC W3F00308CEDReg1040 Provide Final Civil Design and Construction Drwngs for Utility Civil Facilities and Traffic Control Plan (MOT) to DC PSC Task Dependent 0 PLUG 5 Day Workweek W3F00308CEDesg1110 W3F00308CECPrc % 18-May-15 A 18-May-15 A Task Dependent 0 PLUG 5 Day Workweek W3F00308CEDesg1110 W3F00308CECPrc % 18-May-15 A 18-May-15 A W3F00308CEDReg1050 Provide Civil Bill of Materials to DC PSC Civil Construction Permitting Task Dependent 1 PLUG 5 Day Workweek W3F00308CEDesg1120 W3F00308CECPrc % 18-May-15 A 18-May-15 A W3F00308ConPer1000 Civil Construction Permitting WBS Summary 67 PLUG Calendar Days 0 100% 23-Sep-15 A 29-Sep-15 A W3F00308ConPer1010 TOPS Permit Application Task Dependent 1 PLUG 5 Day Workweek W3F00308CEDesg1110 W3F00308ConPer % 23-Sep-15 A 24-Sep-15 A W3F00308ConPer1020 TOPS Permit Review and Approval Task Dependent 40 PLUG 5 Day Workweek W3F00308ConPer1010 W3F00308CECons % 28-Sep-15 A 29-Sep-15 A Civil Construction Civil Construction Procurement W3F00308CECPrc1000 Civil Construction Procurement WBS Summary 206 PLUG Calendar Days % 06-Jul-15 A 07-Apr-16 0 W3F00308CECPrc1010 Prepare Civil Construction Bid Advertisement Package Task Dependent 32 PLUG 5 Day Workweek W3F00308CEDesg1110 W3F00308CECPrc % 06-Jul-15 A 03-Sep-15 A W3F00308CECPrc1020 Civil Construction Bid Solicitation Task Dependent 60 PLUG Calendar Days W3F00308CECPrc1010, W3F00308CEDesg1120 W3F00308CECPrc % 04-Sep-15 A 03-Nov-15 0 W3F00308CECPrc1030 Evaluate Civil Construction Bids Task Dependent 107 PLUG 5 Day Workweek W3F00308CECPrc1020 W3F00308CECPrc % 03-Nov Apr-16 0 W3F00308CECPrc1040 Award Civil Construction Contract Task Dependent 1 PLUG 5 Day Workweek W3F00308CEDReg1050, W3F00308CECons % 06-Apr Apr-16 0 W3F00308CEDReg1020, W3F00308CEDReg1030, W3F00308CEDReg1040, W3F00308CECPrc1030 Civil Construction W3F00308CECons1000 Civil Construction WBS Summary 400 PLUG Calendar Days 400 0% 07-Apr May-17 3 W3F00308CECons1010 Civil Construction Kickoff Meeting Task Dependent 1 PLUG 5 Day Workweek W3F00308ConPer1020, W3F00308CECPrc1040 W3F00308CECons % 07-Apr Apr-16 0 W3F00308CECons1020 Civil Construction Schedule Task Dependent 21 PLUG Calendar Days W3F00308CECons1010 W3F00308CECons % 09-Apr Apr-16 0 Actual Work Critical Remaining Work Summary Page 3 of 10 TASK filter: All Activities Remaining Work Milestone Oracle Corporation

25 Feeder Classic Schedule Layout 29-Sep-15 15: Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Resolution of Review Comments (65%) Civil Engineering Design and MOT (100%) Pepco and DDOT review of Proposed Civil Design and Revisions (100%) Utility Design Review (100%) Resolution of Review Comments (100%) Final Civil Engineering Design and MOT Review and Revision Materials Requisition - WMIS Civil Design Regulatory Review 18-May-15 A Civil Design Regulatory Review Provide Design and Construction Drawings of Utility Civil Facilities to DC PSC DC PSC's Review of Civil Design and Construction Drawings Due Provide Project Management and Pepco's Acceptance of Work Plan to DC PSC Provide Final Civil Design and Construction Drwngs for Utility Civil Facilities and Traffic Control Plan (MOT) to DC PSC Provide Civil Bill of Materials to DC PSC Civil Construction Permitting 23-Sep-15 A 29-Sep-15 A Civil Construction Permitting TOPS Permit Application TOPS Permit Review and Approval 06-Jul-15 A 06-Jul-15 A Civil Construction Procurement 07-Apr-16 Civil Construction Civil Construction Procurement 12-May-17 Prepare Civil Construction Bid Advertisement Package Civil Construction Bid Solicitation Evaluate Civil Construction Bids Award Civil Construction Contract 07-Apr-16 Civil Construction 12-May-17 Civil Construction Civil Construction Kickoff Meeting Civil Construction Schedule Actual Work Remaining Work Critical Remaining Work Milestone Summary Page 4 of 10 TASK filter: All Activities Oracle Corporation

26 Feeder Classic Schedule Layout 29-Sep-15 15:23 Activity ID Activity Name Activity Type Original Duration Calendar Predecessors Successors Remaining Duration W3F00308CECons1030 Civil Construction NTP Task Dependent 1 PLUG 5 Day Workweek W3F00308CECons1020 W3F00308CECons1040, W3F00308CECons1050, W3F00308CECons1060 W3F00308CECons1040 Civil Construction Task Dependent 201 PLUG 5 Day Workweek W3F00308CECons1030 W3F00308CECons1070, W3F00308CECons1100, W3F00308EECons1010, W3F00308CECons1080 Activity % Start Finish Total Complete Float 1 0% 29-Apr May % 29-Apr Feb-17 0 W3F00308CECons1050 Civil Construction Inspections Task Dependent 201 PLUG 5 Day Workweek W3F00308CECons1030 W3F00308CECons % 29-Apr Feb May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb W3F00308CECons1060 Civil Construction As-Built Drawings Task Dependent 201 PLUG 5 Day Workweek W3F00308CECons1030 W3F00308CECons % 29-Apr Feb W3F00308CECons1070 Permanent Resurfacing 1st Half (can only occur April - October) Task Dependent 10 PLUG Paving Days W3F00308CECons1040 W3F00308CECons % 10-Sep Sep W3F00308CECons1080 Permanent Resurfacing 2nd Half (can only occur April - October) Task Dependent 10 PLUG Paving Days W3F00308CECons1040, W3F00308CECons1070 W3F00308CECons % 01-Apr Apr-17 2 W3F00308CECons1090 W3F00308CECons1100 Civil Construction - Substantially Complete Close Out PEPCO Civil Construction Work Orders Finish Milestone 0 PLUG 5 Day Workweek W3F00308CECons1080, W3F00308CECons1050 W3F00308CECons % 12-Apr-17 2 Task Dependent 30 PLUG 5 Day Workweek W3F00308CECons1040 W3F00308CECons % 15-Feb Mar W3F00308CECons1110 Close Out Civil Construction Activities Task Dependent 30 PLUG Calendar Days W3F00308CECons1090 W3F00308CECons % 13-Apr May-17 3 W3F00308CECons1120 Civil Construction - Final Acceptance Finish Milestone 0 PLUG 5 Day Workweek W3F00308CECons1100, W3F00308CECons1110, W3F00308CECons1060 Electrical Engineering Electrical Design Procurement W3F00308Feeder % 12-May-17 1 W3F00308EEDPrc1000 Electrical Design Procurement WBS Summary 49 PLUG Calendar Days 49 0% 29-Sep Nov W3F00308EEDPrc1010 Prepare Electrical Engineering RFP Task Dependent 10 PLUG 5 Day Workweek W3F00308CEDesg1110, W3F00308PreSch1050, W3F00308PreSch1070, W3F00308PreSch1080 W3F00308EEDPrc % 29-Sep Oct W3F00308EEDPrc1020 Release Electrical Engineering RFP Task Dependent 15 PLUG 5 Day Workweek W3F00308EEDPrc1010 W3F00308EEDPrc % 13-Oct Nov W3F00308EEDPrc1030 Evaluate Electrical Engineering RFP Responses Task Dependent 10 PLUG 5 Day Workweek W3F00308EEDPrc1020 W3F00308EEDPrc % 03-Nov Nov W3F00308EEDPrc1040 Award Electrical Engineering Contract Finish Milestone 0 PLUG 5 Day Workweek W3F00308EEDPrc1030 W3F00308EEDesg % 16-Nov Electrical Design W3F00308EEDesg1000 Electrical Design WBS Summary 261 PLUG Calendar Days 261 0% 17-Nov Aug W3F00308EEDesg1010 Existing Overhead Survey Task Dependent 40 PLUG 5 Day Workweek W3F00308PreSch1080, W3F00308EEDPrc1040, W3F00308PreSch1050, W3F00308PreSch1070, W3F00308PreSch1090 W3F00308EEDesg % 17-Nov Jan W3F00308EEDesg1020 W3F00308EEDesg1030 Final Electrical and Overhead Removal Design (100%) Electrical and Overhead Removal Design Review and Revisions Task Dependent 60 PLUG 5 Day Workweek W3F00308EEDesg1010 W3F00308EEDesg % 18-Jan Apr Task Dependent 30 PLUG 5 Day Workweek W3F00308EEDesg1020 W3F00308EEDesg1050, W3F00308EEDesg % 25-Apr Jun W3F00308EEDesg1040 GIS/GWD QA/QC Analysis Task Dependent 20 PLUG 5 Day Workweek W3F00308EEDesg1030 W3F00308EEDesg % 07-Jun Jul W3F00308EEDesg1050 Final Electrical Construction and Overhead Removal Design Review and Revision Task Dependent 20 PLUG 5 Day Workweek W3F00308EEDesg1030, W3F00308EEDesg1040 W3F00308EEDesg1060, W3F00308EEDReg1010, W3F00308EECPrc1010, W3F00308OHRPrc1010 W3F00308EEDesg1060 Materials Requisition - WMIS Task Dependent 1 PLUG 5 Day Workweek W3F00308EEDesg1050 W3F00308EECPrc1020, W3F00308EEDReg1030, W3F00308OHRPrc1020 Electrical Design Regulatory Review 20 0% 06-Jul Aug % 03-Aug Aug W3F00308EEDReg1000 Electrical Design Regulatory Review WBS Summary 43 PLUG Calendar Days 43 0% 03-Aug Sep Actual Work Critical Remaining Work Summary Page 5 of 10 TASK filter: All Activities Remaining Work Milestone Oracle Corporation

27 Feeder Classic Schedule Layout 29-Sep-15 15: Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Civil Construction NTP Civil Construction Civil Construction Inspections Civil Construction As-Built Drawings Permanent Resurfacing 1st Half (can only occur April - October) Permanent Resurfacing 2nd Half (can only occur April - October) Civil Construction - Substantially Complete Close Out PEPCO Civil Construction Work Orders Close Out Civil Construction Activities Civil Construction - Final Acceptance 29-Sep-15 Electrical Design Procurement 29-Sep Nov-15 Electrical Design Procurement Electrical Engineering 15-Sep-16 Prepare Electrical Engineering RFP Release Electrical Engineering RFP Evaluate Electrical Engineering RFP Responses 17-Nov-15 Award Electrical Engineering Contract Electrical Design 03-Aug-16 Electrical Design Existing Overhead Survey Final Electrical and Overhead Removal Design (100%) Electrical and Overhead Removal Design Review and Revisions GIS/GWD QA/QC Analysis Final Electrical Construction and Overhead Removal Design Review and Revision Materials Requisition - WMIS Electrical Design Regulatory Review 03-Aug Sep-16 Electrical Design Regulatory Review Actual Work Remaining Work Critical Remaining Work Milestone Summary Page 6 of 10 TASK filter: All Activities Oracle Corporation

28 Feeder Classic Schedule Layout 29-Sep-15 15:23 Activity ID Activity Name Activity Type Original Duration W3F00308EEDReg1010 Provide Design and Construction Drawings of Electrical Facilities to DC PSC W3F00308EEDReg1020 DC PSC's Review of Electrical Design and Construction Drawings Due Calendar Predecessors Successors Remaining Duration Activity % Start Finish Total Complete Float Task Dependent 0 PLUG 5 Day Workweek W3F00308EEDesg1050 W3F00308EEDReg % 03-Aug Aug Task Dependent 0 PLUG Calendar Days W3F00308EEDReg1010 W3F00308EECPrc % 15-Sep Sep May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb W3F00308EEDReg1030 Provide Electrical Bill of Materials to DC PSC Electrical Construction Electrical Construction Procurement Task Dependent 0 PLUG 5 Day Workweek W3F00308EEDesg1060 W3F00308EECPrc % 04-Aug Aug W3F00308EECPrc1000 Electrical Construction Procurement WBS Summary 85 PLUG Calendar Days 85 0% 03-Aug Oct W3F00308EECPrc1010 Prepare Electrical Construction RFPs Task Dependent 20 PLUG 5 Day Workweek W3F00308EEDesg1050 W3F00308EECPrc % 03-Aug Aug W3F00308EECPrc1020 Release Electrical Construction RFPs Task Dependent 20 PLUG 5 Day Workweek W3F00308EEDesg1060, W3F00308EECPrc1010 W3F00308EECPrc % 31-Aug Sep W3F00308EECPrc1030 Evaluate Electrical Construction RFPs Task Dependent 15 PLUG 5 Day Workweek W3F00308EECPrc1020 W3F00308EECPrc % 29-Sep Oct W3F00308EECPrc1040 Award Electrical Construction Contract Task Dependent 5 PLUG 5 Day Workweek W3F00308EEDReg1020, W3F00308EECons % 20-Oct Oct W3F00308EEDReg1030, W3F00308EECPrc1030 Electrical Construction W3F00308EECons1000 Electrical Construction WBS Summary 159 PLUG Calendar Days 159 0% 23-Nov May W3F00308EECons1010 Electrical Construction Kickoff Meeting Task Dependent 2 PLUG 5 Day Workweek W3F00308EECPrc1040, W3F00308CECons1040 W3F00308EECons % 23-Nov Nov-16 0 W3F00308EECons1020 Electrical Construction Schedule Task Dependent 13 PLUG 5 Day Workweek W3F00308EECons1010 W3F00308EECons % 29-Nov Dec-16 0 W3F00308EECons1030 Electrical Construction Task Dependent 64 PLUG 5 Day Workweek W3F00308EECons1020 W3F00308EECons1060, W3F00308EECons1080, W3F00308EECons1040, W3F00308EECons % 16-Dec Mar-17 0 W3F00308EECons1040 Electrical Construction Inspections Task Dependent 64 PLUG 5 Day Workweek W3F00308EECons1030 W3F00308EECons % 16-Dec Mar W3F00308EECons1050 Outage Clearances Task Dependent 64 PLUG 5 Day Workweek W3F00308EECons1030 W3F00308EECons % 16-Dec Mar W3F00308EECons1060 Energize Underground Task Dependent 34 PLUG 5 Day Workweek W3F00308EECons1030 W3F00308EECons1070, W3F00308EECons1080, W3F00308OHCons % 31-Jan Mar-17 0 W3F00308EECons1070 W3F00308EECons1080 Overhead Removal Overhead Removal Procurement Electrical Construction As-Built Drawings Close Out Electrical Construction Work Orders Task Dependent 30 PLUG 5 Day Workweek W3F00308EECons1060 W3F00308Feeder % 20-Mar May Task Dependent 30 PLUG 5 Day Workweek W3F00308EECons1060, W3F00308EECons1030, W3F00308EECons1040, W3F00308EECons1050 W3F00308Feeder % 20-Mar May W3F00308OHRPrc1000 Overhead Removal Procurement WBS Summary 66 PLUG Calendar Days 66 0% 03-Aug Oct W3F00308OHRPrc1010 Prepare Overhead Removal RFP Task Dependent 20 PLUG 5 Day Workweek W3F00308EEDesg1050 W3F00308OHRPrc % 03-Aug Aug W3F00308OHRPrc1020 Release Overhead Removal RFP Task Dependent 15 PLUG 5 Day Workweek W3F00308EEDesg1060, W3F00308OHRPrc1010 W3F00308OHRPrc % 31-Aug Sep W3F00308OHRPrc1030 Evaluate Overhead Removal RFP Task Dependent 10 PLUG 5 Day Workweek W3F00308OHRPrc1020 W3F00308OHRPrc % 22-Sep Oct W3F00308OHRPrc1040 Award Overhead Removal Contract Task Dependent 2 PLUG 5 Day Workweek W3F00308OHRPrc1030 W3F00308OHCons % 06-Oct Oct Overhead Removal Construction W3F00308OHCons1000 Overhead Removal Construction WBS Summary 90 PLUG Calendar Days 90 0% 14-Feb May-17 0 W3F00308OHCons1010 Overhead Removal Kickoff Meeting Task Dependent 3 PLUG 5 Day Workweek W3F00308EECons1060, W3F00308OHRPrc1040 W3F00308OHCons % 14-Feb Feb-17 0 W3F00308OHCons1020 Overhead Removal Schedule Task Dependent 10 PLUG 5 Day Workweek W3F00308OHCons1010 W3F00308OHCons % 17-Feb Mar-17 0 W3F00308OHCons1030 Obtain Occupancy Permits Task Dependent 1 PLUG 5 Day Workweek W3F00308OHCons1020 W3F00308OHCons1040, W3F00308OHCons % 03-Mar Mar-17 0 Actual Work Critical Remaining Work Summary Page 7 of 10 TASK filter: All Activities Remaining Work Milestone Oracle Corporation

29 Feeder Classic Schedule Layout 29-Sep-15 15: Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Provide Design and Construction Drawings of Electrical Facilities to DC PSC DC PSC's Review of Electrical Design and Construction Drawings Due Provide Electrical Bill of Materials to DC PSC Electrical Construction 03-Aug-16 Electrical Construction Procurement 03-Aug Oct-16 Electrical Construction Procurement 01-May-17 Prepare Electrical Construction RFPs Release Electrical Construction RFPs Evaluate Electrical Construction RFPs Award Electrical Construction Contract 23-Nov-16 Electrical Construction 01-May-17 Electrical Construction Electrical Construction Kickoff Meeting Electrical Construction Schedule Electrical Construction Electrical Construction Inspections Outage Clearances Energize Underground Electrical Construction As-Built Drawings Close Out Electrical Construction Work Orders Overhead Removal 03-Aug-16 Overhead Removal Procurement 03-Aug Oct-16 Overhead Removal Procurement 15-May-17 Prepare Overhead Removal RFP Release Overhead Removal RFP Evaluate Overhead Removal RFP Award Overhead Removal Contract 14-Feb-17 Overhead Removal Construction 15-May-17 Overhead Removal Construction Overhead Removal Kickoff Meeting Overhead Removal Schedule Obtain Occupancy Permits Actual Work Remaining Work Critical Remaining Work Milestone Summary Page 8 of 10 TASK filter: All Activities Oracle Corporation

30 Feeder Classic Schedule Layout 29-Sep-15 15:23 Activity ID Activity Name Activity Type Original Duration Calendar Predecessors Successors Remaining Duration W3F00308OHCons1040 Overhead Removal Task Dependent 20 PLUG 5 Day Workweek W3F00308OHCons1030 W3F00308OHCons1060 W3F00308OHCons1070 Activity % Start Finish Total Complete Float 20 0% 06-Mar Apr-17 0 W3F00308OHCons1050 Overhead Removal Inspections Task Dependent 20 PLUG 5 Day Workweek W3F00308OHCons1030 W3F00308OHCons % 06-Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb W3F00308OHCons1060 Overhead Removal As-built drawings Task Dependent 30 PLUG 5 Day Workweek W3F00308OHCons1040 W3F00308Feeder % 03-Apr May-17 0 W3F00308OHCons1070 Close Out Overhead Removal Work Orders Task Dependent 30 PLUG 5 Day Workweek W3F00308OHCons1040, W3F00308OHCons1050 W3F00308Feeder % 03-Apr May-17 0 Actual Work Critical Remaining Work Summary Page 9 of 10 TASK filter: All Activities Remaining Work Milestone Oracle Corporation

31 Feeder Classic Schedule Layout 29-Sep-15 15: Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Overhead Removal Overhead Removal Inspections Overhead Removal As-built dr Close Out Overhead Remova Actual Work Remaining Work Critical Remaining Work Milestone Summary Page 10 of 10 TASK filter: All Activities Oracle Corporation

32 ATTACHMENT B: FILED OBJECTIONS TO THE JOINT APPLICANTS APPLICATION FOR PLACEMENT OF PADMOUNTED TRANSFORMERS ALONG FEEDER 308

33

34

35

36

37

38 July 12, 2015 Matthew Marcou Public Space Regulation Administration th St NW 3 rd Floor Room 360 Washington, DC Dear Mr. Marcou - My family was recently contacted by a representative from the Pepco Public Affairs office regarding the proposed placement of a new Padmount transformer in a location between my home at th St., NW and my next door neighbor s home at th St., NW. A Padmount transformer, if you re unaware, is a one of the options available to Pepco as a means of advancing the undergrounding of primary power lines that run throughout the district. The pole-mounted transformers selected for conversion will be removed from the top of the telephone poles and will either be located in an underground, or submersible transformer well, or, as proposed in this case, in an above-ground Padmount transformer configuration. A submersible transformer well is by definition located underground and is only discernable by a 36 diameter grated manhole well covering the opening. A Padmount transformer, by contrast, is a large green above-ground utility box mounted on a pad measuring 4 x 4 and measuring approximately 3 in width, 4 in length x 2 in height. In addition the area around it must be kept clear so as to provide easy access for any utility crew Pepco guidelines prevent any attempt to camouflage it s appearance by using shrubbery or fencing material, for instance. Representatives from Pepco s Public Affairs, Regulatory and Engineering teams were kind enough to visit us recently to discuss this proposal in person. In our discussions with them they told us that one of the primary motivators for Pepco preferring the Padmount option was cost a Padmount transformer installation is apparently $2,000 cheaper than the submersible installation. As you can imagine my family as well as my neighbor s family are greatly concerned about the detrimental impact we believe a Padmount transformer would have in the proposed location. Our concerns and observations include: Permanent Detriment to Property Value A Padmount transformer is not a small item. As you can see from the pictures below the installation of such a large device in the front yard of any home would undoubtedly decrease the home s curb appeal and associated property value. Placement of such a large item in front of the two bungalow style homes owned by myself and my neighbors would overwhelm the front yards and negate the care we ve taken over the years to maintain an aesthetically pleasing appearance. The following two pictures, provided by Pepco, show the actual location proposed for the transformer directly on the grass and gardens we ve planted between our two homes:

39 Minimal difference in cost As reported by Pepco s Public Affair s representative the cost difference between a submersible transformer and a Padmount transformer is $2,000. That dollar amount, when spread over the hundreds of thousands of individuals in Pepco s customer base, is insignificant - especially when the total cost of the undergrounding initiative has been established at $1 billion dollars. Pepco determined that 44 out of 48 proposed sites should be submersible In a communication by Pepco to the Advisory Neighborhood Commission (ANC) they stated that Public Service Commission (PSC) required that padmounted transformers be considered even though Pepco found that padmount transformers are inconsistent with DDOT planning criteria and in most cases would be impractical. Out of the 48 transformers earmarked for this effort only 4 were found to meet the technical/operational requirements for utility use of padmounted transformers. In the particular instance of the Padmount transformer planned for 48 th Street it is not even clear if Pepco s own guidelines would recommend it s use: The Pepco Commercial Developer Manual, available online, states that there must be at least forty-five (45) feet of unobstructed space above the transformer that is accessible to a crane boom for placement and removal. Our home, at th St NW, has secondary feeder power lines, cable and telephone lines all running from the telephone pole across the street nearly directly over the proposed location. Padmount transformers go against the DDOT s own guidelines The Mission Statement of the District Department of Transportation (DDOT) states that this area of resident s property, known as the Public Parking area, refers to the area of public space devoted to open space, greenery, or landscaping and that property owners are required to maintain the public space in front of their home or business in a clean and safe condition, and are encouraged to beautify and enhance this space. It does not seem correct that a government agency dedicated to enforcing an attractive Public Parking space would in any way support the installation of devices as unattractive as these transformers in this space. In conclusion we are asking for your assistance and support in reconsidering and ultimately rejecting the proposed installation of these Padmount transformers. Sincerely, David Joosten Mary Joosten th St NW Washington, DC (202)

40 James L. Burski John T. Guidas th Street, NW Washington, DC July 9, 2015 Matthew Marcou Public Space Regulation Administration th Street, SW 3 rd Floor, Room 360 Washington, DC Re: Proposed Padmount Transformer Location, Tracking No Dear Mr. Marcou: We are the resident-owners of a house located at th St., NW. We are writing you to put on the record our strenuous objections to the proposal location of a padmount transformer between the properties located at 4604 and th Street, NW. By way of background, Mr. Guidas purchased and began living at the property in Mr. Burski joined him as a co-owner in 1988 and has lived there since Thus, we are both long-time residents of the neighborhood. Numerous improvements have been made on the property since Mr. Guidas purchased it. In particular, because Mr. Guidas is an avid gardener, he has endeavored to make both the front and the back yards attractive and welcoming. Over the years, he has transformed the front yard by various plantings. Every bush and tree in the front yard was planted by him, including the over eight-foot high camellia on the side of the porch, and the rhododendrons, azaleas, and rose bushes clearly visible in the photos DC Plug has submitted. We have attached some of those photos to this letter. We would also note that since they moved in about twenty years ago, our neighbors, David and Mary Joosten, have been similarly active in improving and landscaping their property, as you can also see from the enclosed pictures. When we first heard of the proposal to place a padmount transformer on our properties we were naturally concerned. But it was only when we met with representatives of Pepco and DC Plug that we became aware of the full scope of what was envisioned. At the outset, we want to make it clear that the all of the individuals from Pepco and DC Plug who met with us (Chris Taylor of Pepco and Deepa Jonnagadia and Brian Doherty of DC Plug) were exceedingly polite and forthcoming. But no amount of politeness or expressions of sympathy could obscure the fact that placement of the proposed padmount transformer on our front lawns will not only have an obviously detrimental impact on the aesthetics of both of our

41 front yards (and, indeed, of the entire block) but will also significantly and irreparably diminish the value of both properties. We think it very likely that the officials who recommended placement of the padmount transformer on our properties did not fully apprehend how it would dominate the landscape. We have included herewith a photo of the proposed transformer to provide a visual guide to just how large and intrusive the proposed transformer would appear. But the picture, itself, is somewhat misleading since it shows a plant growing within a foot of the transformer. In point of fact, however, we were informed that no plantings would be allowed within 3 feet of any side of the transformer. In effect, placement of the transformer on our properties will appropriate 72 square feet of land in front of our two houses. Moreover, while the site on our properties where it is proposed that the padmount be located is primarily grass covered, placement of the transformer on that site will require a trench 2 to 2½ feet wide being dug under the sidewalk and the public space areas of our properties to the padmount site during the construction phase. This would almost certainly require trenching through and destroying a good part of the area that presently contains plantings between our two residences which were designed to enhance the aesthetics of our properties. As is obvious from the photos of our properties, our houses are located on a flat area of land which was, we were informed, one of the reasons the proposed location was chosen. But this very flatness makes it inevitable that this transformer will be readily visible to any individual who approaches either property. There can be no gainsaying that this transformer will provide a jarring focal point for any visitors or passersby as they approach either of our properties and totally undermine all the efforts and expense both of us have made over the years to improve the front of our properties. We understand that the transformer is part of the program to remove vulnerable overhead power lines and lessen the likelihood of power interruptions occasioned by weather events. Having gone through a number of these ourselves one of which lasted for four days we can understand the purpose animating the proposal. The placement of such an ugly visual intrusion on to the landscape might be justified if there was no other reasonable alternative. But, in point of fact, there is. The transformer being replaced could be moved underground and the surface disturbance could be limited to a total of 9 square feet and consist of a square grate located in between the road and the sidewalk. Since the grate would be level with the surrounding surfaces there would be virtually no visual impairment of either of our properties. The representatives of Pepco and DCPlug with whom we spoke readily agreed that this could be done without in any way adversely affecting electrical transmission. Indeed, they informed us that it was being done at the vast majority of sites on which they were working. Only four sites in residential areas only four sites in the entire city are presently slated to have an above-ground pad emplacement within the public space areas of the properties. It is obvious that there is no technical reason that the proposed pad could not be replaced by an underground transformer at the site between our house. Nor did the representatives of Pepco and DCPlug suggest otherwise. Rather, all agreed that the reason was that underground placement was more expensive it would cost an additional $2,000.

42 When we heard this figure, we were, quite frankly, stunned. It is almost inconceivable to us that we are being asked to accept such an ugly structure situated right in front of our houses which we will have to look at every day for as long as we own our properties simply to avoid having a one-billion-dollar project absorb an additional cost of $2,000, or.0002% of the expected costs. In other words, assuming a similar cost savings, elimination of all four above ground pads would increase the projected costs of the project by less than one one-thousanths of one percent. The Pepco representative informed us that Pepco had no objections to placing the transformer underground but that the Office of the People s Counsel had objected to this on the grounds that it would increase the amount of expenditures that the rate-payers would have to cover. We don t know how many rate-payers there are in the city, but the population is roughly 658,000. To cover the additional costs of placing the transformer underground at our site ($2,000) would require a one-time assessment of three-tenths of one cent per person; placing all four proposed sites underground would cost a little over a penny a person. Based on what we are presently paying in our monthly Pepco bills, we can assure you that the addition of two cents for a single month would not even be noticeable. But, even if it was, even if the costs were significantly higher, we would suggest that common fairness and equity requires that the costs be apportioned equally to all those who benefit from the project and not be foisted upon those eight property owners whose properties just happen to be in the vicinity of the present transformers and provide a flat enough surface for placement of an above-ground transformer. Why shouldn t all the rate-payers pay their fair share of the costs? Why should we be expected to absorb the costs that should properly be apportioned among all of Pepco s customers who will ultimately benefit from having the power transmission lines under-ground. And, make no mistake about it. The costs we will absorb are not merely aesthetic though that consideration alone should be enough, we would submit, to require rejection of the proposal but they are financial as well. The placement of the padmount transformer on our property will negatively impact the valuation of both of our properties. The site chosen is not in some obscure corner of a backyard. It is directly in front of both houses. The concept of curb appeal is frequently bandied about on HGTV shows such as House Hunters, but it is real. Prospective buyers are always affected in evaluating the desirability of purchasing a property, either positively or negatively, by how it looks from the outside. Both we and our neighbors, the Joostens, have expended considerable time and effort and money to make such a first impression a favorable one. There is no question that having the padmount transformer, as shown in the photo, sitting in our respective front yards, would effectively nullify all of those efforts and expenditures. It seems perfectly obvious that given two essentially similar properties offered at the same price only one of which has the padmount transformer in its front yard, virtually all prospective purchasers would choose the one without the transformer. To remain competitive, the property with the transformer would have to be offered at a discounted price. The amount of

43 the discount would constitute the price the owner of the property with the transformer is paying for having the transformer on his or her property. We have not, at the present time, deemed it advisable to contract with a real estate agent to obtain an estimate of the amount of depreciation our property would suffer by placement of the transformer in its front yard. In any event, it would be difficult to obtain comparables within the city since, as far as we have been able to ascertain, there are no other single home residential properties in the District that have a padmount transformer on their premises. But while the amount of the necessary discount may be speculative, the reality that one would be required seems self-evident. Even if it is assumed that it would amount to only $20,000 per property (an amount which would constitute less than 3 percent of the assessed valuation of the properties), the cost to us and the Josteens would be $40,000 or more than 20 times the cost of moving the transformer underground. It is difficult to comprehend what economic calculus could be used to justify the loss of $40,000 in value to avoid the expenditure of $2,000. Moreover, we would expect that, should the padmount transformer be located on our properties, the Office of the Assessor would promptly reassess our properties to reflect the diminution in value occasioned by the presence of the transformer. Even if the loss was limited to only $20,000 per property, the amount of taxes the two properties would be assessed would decline by $340 per annum. In just under six years, the taxes collected by the District would have declined by more than the $2,000 saved by not placing the transformer underground and this loss would continue to grow as long as the transformer remained on the properties. And it would be the District s other taxpayers, presumably a class very similar in composition to the electrical rate-payers, who would be required to make up the short-fall. So, in the long run, even the average rate-payer would end up paying more because of the decision not to install an underground transformer. It seems abundantly clear that the proposal to allow placement of a padmount transformer on our properties is both aesthetically disastrous and financially unjustified. We urge its rejection. Sincerely yours, James L. Burski John T. Guidas

44 cc: Honorable Muriel Bowser, Mayor, District of Columbia Honorable Phil Mendelson, Chairman, Council of the District of Columbia Honorable Anita Bonds, At- Large Council Member Honorable David Grosso, At-Large Council Member Honorable Vincent Orange, At-Large Council Member Honorable Elissa Silverman, At-Large Council Member Honorable Mary M. Cheh, Committee Chair, Committee on Transportation and Environment Ms. Amy Hall, ANC 3e02 Ms. Deepa Jonnagadia, DC PLUG Mr. Chris Taylor, PEPCO, Public Affairs Manager, District of Columbia

45 ATTACHMENT C: JOINT APPLICANTS PRESENTATION TO THE PUBLIC SPACE COMMITTEE FOR PLACEMENT OF PADMOUNT TRANSFORMERS ALONG FEEDER 308

46 Public Space Committee Meeting Potomac Electric Power Company (Pepco) and the District Department of Transportation (DDOT) July 23, 2015

47 DC PLUG Background Electric Company Infrastructure Improvement Financing Act of 2014 (Act) became law on May 3, Pepco and DDOT filed a joint Triennial Plan on June 17, 2014 covering the three-year period , approved by the PSC on 11/12/2014. The DC PLUG Triennial Plan, includes 21 overhead primary power lines to be placed underground, and calls for the District Department of Transportation (DDOT) and Pepco to construct the necessary underground infrastructure and install the electric distribution system to improve the reliability of these feeders. Pepco last fall began preliminary design work on the first two feeders that will be placed underground Feeder in northwest D.C. and Feeder in southeast D.C. Feeder is located in northwest D.C., bounded by Western Avenue and Brandywine, Harrison and 44th streets. OPC, Pepco, and DDOT filed a joint stipulation with the PSC in September of 2014 which included looking for opportunities to install padmount transformers on each feeder. The stipulation was approved by the Commission on November 12,

48 Padmount Transformer Pictures 3