PART C: Reconciling differences between models and the ACTEW’s final decision ICRC’s The Panel has identified a number of differences between the values prima facie in the models accompanying Statement of Facts and Contentions, and ACTEW’s those adopted in the final decision model. In some cases, the differences ICRC’s cannot be directly attributed to the claims set out in the Statement of Facts of Contentions. An example is the opening value of the water and sewerage Regulatory Asset Base contained in roll forward model (Attachment ACTEW’s A3), which are, respectively, $30.5 million and $4.7 million lower than the opening values adopted by the ICRC in its final decision. The Panel would like to give ACTEW an opportunity to review its models and to: identify any differences between the values used in its model and those adopted in the final decision pricing model; and ICRC’s in those cases where the difference cannot be directly attributed to the claims set out in the Statement of Facts and Contentions, clearly explain why there is a difference. Where explanations are not provided, the Panel intends to revert back to the final decision, subject to any submission ACTEW makes on this issue. ICRC’s
PART C: Reconciling differences between ACTEW’s models and the ICRC’s final decision The Panel has identified a number of prima facie differences between the values in the models accompanying ACTEW’s Statement of Facts and Contentions, and those adopted in the ICRC’s final decision model. In some cases, the differences cannot be directly attributed to the claims set out in the Statement of Facts of Contentions. An example is the opening value of the water and sewerage Regulatory Asset Base contained in ACTEW’s roll forward model (Attachment A3), which are, respectively, $30.5 million and $4.7 million lower than the opening values adopted by the ICRC in its final decision. The Panel would like to give ACTEW an opportunity to review its models and to: identify any differences between the values used in its model and those adopted in the ICRC’s final decision pricing model; and in those cases where the difference cannot be directly attributed to the claims set out in the Statement of Facts and Contentions, clearly explain why there is a difference. Where explanations are not provided, the Panel intends to revert back to the ICRC’s final decision, subject to any submission ACTEW makes on this issue.