GAZIFÈRE INC.
TOTAL FACTOR PRODUCTIVITY
2011 RATE CASE – PHASE I
Overview
The purpose of this evidence is to provide an update to Gazifère’s (the
“Company”) Productivity Factor. This estimated factor is to be considered in the
Company’s next rate-setting period, 2011-2015. In order to remain consistent
with the previous productivity factor estimate from R-3587-2005, Exhibit GI-9,
document 2, the same procedure employed by Darryl J. Seal Consulting was
used henceforth.
After careful review of the updated productivity factor results, the
Company is requesting that the productivity factor be determined using the 20042008 timeframe which yields a productivity factor of 0.3% compared to the
previously decided 0.2%1.
This new five year period by which the productivity
factor was estimated is considered to be the best because the resulting factor is
reasonable and the five year timeframe was also deemed acceptable by the
Régie in its decision D-2006-158.
Background
Under the Company’s current revenue cap per customer rate-setting
mechanism three key elements are explicitly taken into account when
determining its revenue requirement: general inflationary increases, customer
growth and productivity improvements. Both inflation and customer growth work
1
Decision D-2006-158, p. 17.
Original : 2010-03-04
GI-2
Document 2
Page 1 de 23
Requête 3724-2010
GAZIFÈRE INC.
TOTAL FACTOR PRODUCTIVITY
2011 RATE CASE – PHASE I
to elevate the Company’s revenue requirement while productivity improvements
work to offset the increases of the other two factors.
Similarly to R-3587-2005, the subsequent productivity estimate to be used in
the 2011-2015 term rate-setting mechanism should aim to imitate the overall
productivity of the Company with respect to its ability to deliver its services safely
and reliably. Since the Company uses both capital and labour in the delivery of
its distribution services, the productivity of both of these inputs must be reflected
in the productivity element of the rate-setting mechanism.
Prior to the revenue cap per customer rate-setting mechanism, the Company
had adopted an O&M mechanism in which productivity of labour and materials
was accounted for in the formula.
The current mechanism considers the
productivity of capital as its productivity directly impacts revenue requirement.
Total Factor Productivity
As was the case during R-3587-2005, overall productivity is measured using
Total Factor Productivity (“TFP”). TFP measures the time-dependent relationship
between outputs of a producer relative to the production inputs. For the specific
case of Gazifère, TFP measures the change over time of the relationship
between an output measure (i.e. customers or volumes) and the inputs to
providing gas distribution services (i.e. labour, materials and capital).
Figure 1 presents the TFP formula:
Original : 2010-03-04
GI-2
Document 2
Page 2 de 23
Requête 3724-2010
GAZIFÈRE INC.
TOTAL FACTOR PRODUCTIVITY
2011 RATE CASE – PHASE I
Figure 1
TFP Formula
i x
TFP  
i
Q
 X je j
j
Q =
Output Measure
Xj =
Input Measures
ej =
input weights
TFP is measured as the change in this index over the period i to i+x.
Where applicable, the preferred method to measuring outputs and inputs is to
measure each in physical units. Using physical units to measure TFP removes
the need for inflation considerations which are present when measuring in
dollars. However, it is important to understand that measuring in physical units is
not without its own issues. For example, measuring labour input by number of
employees might not account for the difference in effort used by different
employees. However, whenever it is an option, measuring using physical units is
preferred.
Estimating TFP for Gazifère
Estimating the historical TFP for Gazifère requires the collection of detailed
records on outputs and inputs for all factors of production.
Original : 2010-03-04
GI-2
Document 2
Page 3 de 23
Requête 3724-2010
GAZIFÈRE INC.
TOTAL FACTOR PRODUCTIVITY
2011 RATE CASE – PHASE I
One of the essential determinations in constructing TFP estimates involves
choosing the appropriate time period over which to measure productivity. The
time period needs to be adequately long to remove short-term fluctuations in the
data to avoid the productivity estimates from being skewed. For example, a large
capital project in one year may lead to a decrease in estimated productivity in the
year it is recognized, but is not reflective of the overall company experience.
However, the chosen time period must also be short enough that it does not
incorporate productivity from the distant past. Since an essential objective of this
study is to use productivity estimates in a forward-looking framework, productivity
gains or losses which may have occurred multiple decades in the past may not
provide much information for the productivity expectations in the near future.
In the historical analysis of Gazifère’s productivity, the period of analysis
covers the fiscal years 1987 through 2008.
This sample of data provides a
sufficiently long and relevant history from which to estimate the Company’s
productivity trends.
Multiple sub-periods within the 22 year time period are
analyzed in addition to the full sample of data.
Output Measures
Two methods can be used when measuring the Company’s output: volumes or
customers.
Original : 2010-03-04
GI-2
Document 2
Page 4 de 23
Requête 3724-2010
GAZIFÈRE INC.
TOTAL FACTOR PRODUCTIVITY
2011 RATE CASE – PHASE I
Gazifère provides distribution services to residential, commercial and
industrial markets. Historical volumes to these customers are shown in Table-1
(not weather normalized) and Table-2 (weather normalized).
Table-1
3
3
Gazifère Volumes - Not Weather Normalized (10 m )
Col. 1
Col. 2
Col. 3
Col. 4
Col. 5
Fiscal Year
Residential
Commercial
Industrial
Total
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
24,884
26,536
27,809
28,616
27,698
34,647
36,853
42,187
38,905
45,723
45,870
43,458
44,709
49,280
50,771
47,584
57,592
57,518
57,984
54,440
59,791
60,023
35,090
36,828
38,460
40,490
40,046
44,606
45,466
51,399
46,081
53,131
54,565
50,990
52,118
54,594
58,267
55,579
65,200
62,964
62,737
57,941
62,123
62,127
61,895
117,048
163,473
176,502
145,575
143,754
53,880
35,131
53,740
80,222
89,059
111,453
96,789
126,915
55,361
60,060
43,227
37,162
29,493
48,399
45,769
55,553
121,869
180,412
229,742
245,608
213,319
223,007
136,199
128,717
138,726
179,076
189,494
205,901
193,616
230,789
164,399
163,223
166,019
157,644
150,214
160,780
167,683
177,703
Original : 2010-03-04
Col. 6
Annual
Growth
48.0%
27.3%
6.9%
-13.1%
4.5%
-38.9%
-5.5%
7.8%
29.1%
5.8%
8.7%
-6.0%
19.2%
-28.8%
-0.7%
1.7%
-5.0%
-4.7%
7.0%
4.3%
6.0%
GI-2
Document 2
Page 5 de 23
Requête 3724-2010
GAZIFÈRE INC.
TOTAL FACTOR PRODUCTIVITY
2011 RATE CASE – PHASE I
Table-2
3
3
Gazifère Volumes - Weather Normalized (10 m )
Col. 1
Col. 2
Col. 3
Col. 4
Col. 5
Fiscal Year
Residential
Commercial
Industrial
Total
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
26,072
26,786
27,184
27,892
29,275
33,702
35,931
39,058
41,132
43,843
45,679
46,538
48,106
53,102
50,493
51,971
53,275
56,491
56,748
57,562
58,686
59,263
36,513
37,115
37,691
39,570
41,993
43,493
44,558
47,813
48,542
51,125
54,429
54,295
55,946
58,477
58,019
60,426
60,630
61,939
61,386
61,064
60,979
61,405
61,948
117,063
163,462
176,493
145,621
143,718
53,864
35,114
53,807
80,162
89,072
111,503
96,977
127,031
55,352
60,165
43,112
37,109
29,460
48,523
45,672
55,555
124,533
180,964
228,337
243,955
216,889
220,913
134,353
121,985
143,481
175,130
189,180
212,336
201,029
238,610
163,864
172,562
157,017
155,539
147,594
167,149
165,337
176,223
Col. 6
Annual
Growth
45.3%
26.2%
6.8%
-11.1%
1.9%
-39.2%
-9.2%
17.6%
22.1%
8.0%
12.2%
-5.3%
18.7%
-31.3%
5.3%
-9.0%
-0.9%
-5.1%
13.2%
-1.1%
6.6%
After reviewing Table-1 and Table-2, it is clear that volumetric growth in
Gazifère’s distribution franchise has been inconsistent over the 1987-2008 time
period. One of the main explanatory factors to why volumetric growth has been
so volatile is the impact that weather fluctuations, as measured by degree days,
have each year on heat sensitive demand. Furthermore, Gazifère’s industrial
demand has changed noticeably from year-to-year as volumes have declined in
concert with falling industrial output.
Original : 2010-03-04
GI-2
Document 2
Page 6 de 23
Requête 3724-2010
GAZIFÈRE INC.
TOTAL FACTOR PRODUCTIVITY
2011 RATE CASE – PHASE I
The second output measure which will be considered in this TFP study is
customers. Table-3 outlines the historical number of customers for Gazifère (by
customer class).
Table-3
Gazifère Customers
Col. 1
Col. 2
Col. 3
Col. 4
Col. 5
Fiscal Year
Residential
Commercial
Industrial
Total
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
9,080
9,192
9,333
9,507
10,092
11,591
12,918
14,368
15,643
16,453
17,413
18,579
19,748
20,834
21,797
22,633
23,934
25,509
26,951
28,438
29,676
30,974
1,366
1,461
1,551
1,621
1,679
1,735
1,862
1,964
2,042
2,100
2,196
2,293
2,359
2,447
2,533
2,562
2,614
2,681
2,731
2,818
2,874
2,904
16
15
14
12
12
12
12
11
11
11
12
13
14
14
13
14
14
13
13
13
12
11
10,462
10,668
10,898
11,140
11,783
13,338
14,792
16,343
17,696
18,564
19,621
20,885
22,121
23,295
24,343
25,209
26,562
28,203
29,695
31,269
32,562
33,889
Col. 6
Annual
Growth
2.0%
2.2%
2.2%
5.8%
13.2%
10.9%
10.5%
8.3%
4.9%
5.7%
6.4%
5.9%
5.3%
4.5%
3.6%
5.4%
6.2%
5.3%
5.3%
4.1%
4.1%
As compared to volumetric growth, customer growth has been much more
stable for Gazifère from 1987-2008, although the time-series still fluctuates from
year-to-year.
Original : 2010-03-04
GI-2
Document 2
Page 7 de 23
Requête 3724-2010
GAZIFÈRE INC.
TOTAL FACTOR PRODUCTIVITY
2011 RATE CASE – PHASE I
Since customer growth exhibits a more consistent short-run growth rate and
the fact that a lot of Gazifère’s incremental resources are related to customer
growth, using customers as a gauge of the Company’s output measure for this
TFP analysis is preferred.
Input Measures
The specific inputs to be considered in Gazifère’s TFP analysis, as described
earlier, consist of labour, materials and capital.
Labour for Gazifère will be measured by using the number of employees in
each year. Employees were split into supervisory and non-supervisory classes
and weighted by labour costs (i.e. salaries plus benefits) to determine the labour
input index.
Materials for the Company include all non-capital and non-labour costs.
These costs are estimated as the difference between total O&M costs and the
labour component.
Materials costs are originally provided in nominal dollar
terms, but will be transformed into real dollars using the Québec Consumer Price
Index.
Capital is the most difficult input to construct for the TFP estimates. For the
purposes of this TFP analysis, two different approaches were applied.
Method 1 uses accounting data for each asset class together with
accumulated and annual depreciation, price escalation estimates, and cost of
Original : 2010-03-04
GI-2
Document 2
Page 8 de 23
Requête 3724-2010
GAZIFÈRE INC.
TOTAL FACTOR PRODUCTIVITY
2011 RATE CASE – PHASE I
capital to develop a financial measure of capital employed. Method 2 uses a
physical count of assets commissioned in each year.
Data on asset values for the following categories were employed for the
accounting measurement: Land, Right-of-Way, Structures & Improvements,
Services, House Regulators, Mains, Stations, Meters, Leasehold Improvement,
Equipment and Furniture, Transportation Equipment, Heavy Work Equipment,
Tools & Work Equipment, Communication Equipment, Computer Equipment, and
Other Capital.
For each asset category, an opening balance for 1987 was determined from
records for the net book value. For each following year, assets were increased
by additions, decreased for retirements, and adjusted for annual depreciation.
These asset values were converted to real dollars using estimates of price
inflation for each category2. Each asset class was then weighted by a cost share
comprised of data on taxes, depreciation and weighted average cost of capital to
determine the capital input index. Please refer to the Data Appendix, page 15,
for the detailed data used.
An alternative method to using the accounting data for capital measure would
be to use physical plant data.
For Gazifère, physical plant data is readily
available for services, mains and meters. These three assets account for more
than 90% of the total assets employed by the Company.
2
Price deflators used were Canadian Gross Domestic Product Price Index, Industrial Product Price Indices
specific to certain asset categories, and price indices constructed based on the company’s own cost data.
Original : 2010-03-04
GI-2
Document 2
Page 9 de 23
Requête 3724-2010
GAZIFÈRE INC.
TOTAL FACTOR PRODUCTIVITY
2011 RATE CASE – PHASE I
The physical measure uses a similar approach to that of the accounting
estimate of capital. Using a base of installed services, mains and meters in
1987, annual adjustments are made for additions and retirements. Weighting of
these asset classes is based on the costs associated with each class, similar to
the financial capital index.
It is important to acknowledge that the accounting data for the various asset
categories contained some anomalous values, such as negative depreciation
values and negative retirement values. For this reason, the TFP results which
draw on the accounting data for the capital input are deemed less reliable than
those obtained using the physical plant data.
Creation of Output and Input Indices
In order to calculate the TFP measure, inputs and outputs need to be grouped
into indices for each.
The output index used for Gazifère’s TFP calculation will either be customers
or volumes. The data for each customer class will be weighted by a two year
moving average of customers in the class to smooth the annual changes.
Annual growth is calculated as the difference in natural logarithms for each year 3.
From this growth rate, the index is constructed with the base year of 1987 equal
to 100.
3
Ex. Annual Growth in Output (t)= ln(customers(t)) – ln(customers(t-1))
Original : 2010-03-04
GI-2
Document 2
Page 10 de 23
Requête 3724-2010
GAZIFÈRE INC.
TOTAL FACTOR PRODUCTIVITY
2011 RATE CASE – PHASE I
The calculated output indices using customers is shown in Data Appendix 1.
The calculated output indices using volumes – both not weather normalized and
weather normalized are shown in Data Appendix 2 and Data Appendix 3,
respectively.
The input index is constructed using the indices for labour, materials and
capital. As indicated above, the labour index is created from employment data of
full time and part time staff. The employee numbers are weighted by total costs
of employment – salaries plus benefits – for each category of employment, then
the categories are summed and a resulting growth rate is calculated. Refer to
Data Appendix 4 for the labour data calculations.
The material index, described above, is defined as total O&M less labour
costs. Data Appendix 5 shows the materials cost index.
Construction of the capital index was completed using both the accounting
data and the physical data. Data Appendix 6 shows the calculation using the
accounting data, while Data Appendix 7 shows the calculation using the physical
data.
Finally, the input index is assembled by combining the three input indices.
The indices are each weighted by their respective cost contribution. Refer to
Data Appendix 8 for the calculations.
Original : 2010-03-04
GI-2
Document 2
Page 11 de 23
Requête 3724-2010
GAZIFÈRE INC.
TOTAL FACTOR PRODUCTIVITY
2011 RATE CASE – PHASE I
Summary of Results
Table-4 summarizes the results of the TFP study for Gazifère covering the
timeframe of 1987 to 2008. The table displays the annual productivity change
and averages for various sub-periods, first using Customers as the output index
and then using Volumes (both normalized and non weather normalized) as the
output index. Finally, the results are also shown using both the accounting data
and the physical data for the capital index.
Table - 4
Total Factor Productivity Indices
Col. 1
Fiscal Year
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
Averages
2004-2008
1999-2008
1994-2008
1989-2008
1988-2008
Col. 2
Accouting
Capital
100.0
99.9
105.6
112.4
121.0
106.0
109.8
110.9
115.9
115.8
117.3
118.7
131.6
149.9
132.7
134.7
137.9
140.4
151.1
140.3
143.1
145.7
Col. 3
Col. 4
Output Index: Customers
Physical
Capital
100.0
-0.1%
98.7
5.5%
101.7
6.3%
99.9
7.3%
98.0
-13.2%
102.5
3.6%
105.7
0.9%
108.2
4.5%
113.6
-0.1%
114.2
1.2%
116.8
1.2%
116.2
10.3%
123.1
13.1%
123.2
-12.2%
124.2
1.5%
122.7
2.3%
121.9
1.8%
124.7
7.3%
124.6
-7.4%
124.6
2.0%
124.7
1.8%
124.0
1.1%
2.0%
1.9%
1.9%
1.8%
Original::2010-03-04
2010-03-04
Original
Révisé : 2010-05-04
Col. 5
-1.3%
3.0%
-1.8%
-1.9%
4.5%
3.0%
2.4%
4.8%
0.6%
2.2%
-0.5%
5.8%
0.0%
0.8%
-1.2%
-0.7%
2.3%
-0.1%
0.0%
0.1%
-0.6%
0.3%
0.6%
1.1%
1.1%
1.0%
Col. 6
Col. 7
Col. 8
Col. 9
Output Index: Non-Normalized Volumes
Accounting
Physical
Capital
Capital
100.0
100.0
146.2
37.9%
144.3
36.7%
192.6
27.6%
185.5
25.1%
214.6
10.8%
190.6
2.7%
189.6
-12.4%
153.5
-21.6%
153.4
-21.2%
148.3
-3.5%
85.0
-59.1%
81.7
-59.6%
73.2
-15.0%
71.4
-13.5%
76.3
4.2%
74.7
4.5%
93.9
20.8%
92.6
21.4%
95.2
1.4%
94.8
2.4%
98.4
3.3%
96.3
1.6%
96.8
-1.6%
90.6
-6.1%
124.9
25.5%
102.6
12.5%
74.1
-52.3%
69.3
-39.2%
72.1
-2.7%
65.7
-5.5%
71.2
-1.2%
62.9
-4.2%
64.9
-9.3%
57.6
-8.9%
63.1
-2.7%
52.0
-10.1%
59.7
-5.5%
53.0
1.9%
61.0
2.1%
53.2
0.2%
63.3
3.6%
53.8
1.3%
-2.4%
-4.4%
-2.0%
-4.2%
-2.2%
-3.1%
-5.8%
-2.8%
-4.9%
-2.9%
Col. 10
Col. 11
Col. 12
Output Index: Normalized Volumes
Accounting
Physical
Capital
Capital
100.0
100.0
143.5
36.1%
141.7
187.5
26.7%
180.6
208.7
10.7%
185.3
188.7
-10.1%
152.9
148.8
-23.8%
143.9
82.0
-59.5%
78.9
67.9
-19.0%
66.3
77.2
12.9%
75.6
89.9
15.2%
88.7
93.0
3.4%
92.7
99.3
6.5%
97.2
98.4
-0.9%
92.1
126.4
25.1%
103.9
72.4
-55.8%
67.8
74.7
3.2%
68.1
66.0
-12.4%
58.3
62.7
-5.1%
55.7
60.8
-3.1%
50.1
60.8
0.1%
54.0
59.0
-3.2%
51.4
61.5
4.2%
52.3
-1.4%
-4.8%
-1.9%
-4.2%
-2.3%
Col. 13
-
34.9%
24.2%
2.6%
-19.3%
-6.1%
-60.0%
-17.5%
13.3%
15.9%
4.4%
4.8%
-5.4%
12.0%
-42.7%
0.4%
-15.4%
-4.7%
-10.5%
7.5%
-5.1%
1.8%
-2.2%
-6.2%
-2.7%
-5.0%
-3.1%
GI-2
Document 2
Page 12 de 23
Requête 3724-2010
GAZIFÈRE INC.
TOTAL FACTOR PRODUCTIVITY
2011 RATE CASE – PHASE I
Based on the results in Table-4 it is clear that the TFP estimates using
volumes as the output index are weak.
As mentioned above, the impact of
weather changes and variations in industrial volumes can cause the annual
estimates to vary significantly resulting in less robust estimates. In addition, the
estimates over the majority of the time frames suggest a significantly negative
productivity factor.
The estimates which use customers as the output index are more acceptable.
Depending on the capital index considered, the range of TFP estimates using
customers range from a low of 0.3% to a high of 2.0%. As described earlier, due
to the nature of some of the data used for the construction of the accounting
estimate of the capital index, the productivity values produced using this method
are somewhat less reliable than the physical capital methodology.
Interpretation of TFP Estimates
The TFP estimates in Table-4 provide a rough estimate of the true
productivity changes Gazifère has experienced from 1987 to 2008.
When
determining which factor to use in the Company’s subsequent incentive
mechanism, careful consideration must be taken to ensure the factor applied will
best represent the expected productivity experience Gazifère will see during its
next rate-setting horizon.
With the understanding that a similar incentive mechanism will be used during
the next rate-setting period, when deciding on an updated productivity factor it is
Original : 2010-03-04
GI-2
Document 2
Page 13 de 23
Requête 3724-2010
GAZIFÈRE INC.
TOTAL FACTOR PRODUCTIVITY
2011 RATE CASE – PHASE I
logical to consider Gazifère’s five most recent years under the similar incentive
mechanism. In other words, the time frame of 2004 to 2008 should provide a
reasonable estimate of the Company’s productivity factor moving forward with its
next incentive mechanism. Furthermore, in keeping with D-2006-158, pp. 15-17,
section 3.3.6 “Facteur de productivité”, the productivity factor should continue to
be based on the number of customers and the value of the Company’s physical
capital.
Basing the productivity factor using volumes and accounting capital
introduce additional complications not present in the customer and physical
capital scenario.
Overall, since Gazifère intends to operate under a similar incentive
mechanism over the 2011-2015 period, and considering the more reliable
estimates provided by basing the productivity factor off of customers and the
physical capital index measure, the Company suggests using the 2004-2008
estimate of 0.3% as its productivity factor.
Original : 2010-03-04
GI-2
Document 2
Page 14 de 23
Requête 3724-2010
GAZIFÈRE INC.
TOTAL FACTOR PRODUCTIVITY
2011 RATE CASE – PHASE I
Data Appendix
Data Appendix 1:
Customer Index
Data Appendix 2:
Volumes Index – Not Weather Normalized
Data Appendix 3:
Volumes Index – Weather Normalized
Data Appendix 4:
Labour Index
Data Appendix 5:
Materials Index
Data Appendix 6:
Capital Index (Accounting Data)
Data Appendix 7:
Capital Index (Physical Data)
Data Appendix 8:
Combined Input Index
Original : 2010-03-04
GI-2
Document 2
Page 15 de 23
Requête 3724-2010
GAZIFÈRE INC.
TOTAL FACTOR PRODUCTIVITY
2011 RATE CASE – PHASE I
Data Appendix 1
Customer Index
Col. 1
Col. 2
Col. 3
Col. 4
Col. 5
Col. 6
Col. 7
Col. 8
Weights1
Customers
Fiscal Year
Residential (#)
Commercial (#)
Industrial (#)
Residential (#)
Commercial (#)
Industrial (#)
Weighted
Growth2
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
9,080
9,192
9,333
9,507
10,092
11,591
12,918
14,368
15,643
16,453
17,413
18,579
19,748
20,834
21,797
22,633
23,934
25,509
26,951
28,438
29,676
30,974
1,366
1,461
1,551
1,621
1,679
1,735
1,862
1,964
2,042
2,100
2,196
2,293
2,359
2,447
2,533
2,562
2,614
2,681
2,731
2,818
2,874
2,904
16
15
14
12
12
12
12
11
11
11
12
13
14
14
13
14
14
13
13
13
12
11
86.5%
85.9%
85.5%
85.5%
86.3%
87.1%
87.6%
88.2%
88.5%
88.7%
88.9%
89.1%
89.4%
89.5%
89.7%
89.9%
90.3%
90.6%
90.9%
91.0%
91.3%
13.4%
14.0%
14.4%
14.4%
13.6%
12.8%
12.3%
11.8%
11.4%
11.3%
11.1%
10.8%
10.6%
10.5%
10.3%
10.0%
9.7%
9.3%
9.1%
8.9%
8.7%
0.1%
0.1%
0.1%
0.1%
0.1%
0.1%
0.1%
0.1%
0.1%
0.1%
0.1%
0.1%
0.1%
0.1%
0.1%
0.1%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
2.0%
2.1%
2.2%
5.6%
12.4%
10.3%
10.0%
8.0%
4.8%
5.5%
6.2%
5.7%
5.2%
4.4%
3.5%
5.2%
6.0%
5.2%
5.2%
4.1%
4.0%
Notes:
1. Weights are calculated as a moving two year average for each class.
2. Weighted growth is calculated as the log difference of the weighted customers.
Original : 2010-03-04
Col. 9
GI-2
Document 2
Page 16 de 23
Requête 3724-2010
Customers
Index
(1987=100)
100.0
102.0
104.2
106.5
112.6
127.5
141.4
156.3
169.2
177.5
187.7
199.8
211.6
222.8
232.8
241.1
254.0
269.7
284.0
299.1
311.4
324.1
GAZIFÈRE INC.
TOTAL FACTOR PRODUCTIVITY
2011 RATE CASE – PHASE I
Data Appendix 2
Volumes Index - Not Weather Normalized
Col. 1
Col. 2
Col. 3
Col. 4
3
Col. 5
Col. 6
3
Volumes (10 m )
Col. 7
Weights
Col. 8
Col. 9
Fiscal Year
Residential
Commercial
Industrial
Total
Residential
Commercial
Industrial
Weighted
Growth2
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
24,884
26,536
27,809
28,616
27,698
34,647
36,853
42,187
38,905
45,723
45,870
43,458
44,709
49,280
50,771
47,584
57,592
57,518
57,984
54,440
59,791
60,023
35,090
36,828
38,460
40,490
40,046
44,606
45,466
51,399
46,081
53,131
54,565
50,990
52,118
54,594
58,267
55,579
65,200
62,964
62,737
57,941
62,123
62,127
61,895
117,048
163,473
176,502
145,575
143,754
53,880
35,131
53,740
80,222
89,059
111,453
96,789
126,915
55,361
60,060
43,227
37,162
29,493
48,399
45,769
55,553
121,869
180,412
229,742
245,608
213,319
223,007
136,199
128,717
138,726
179,076
189,494
205,901
193,616
230,789
164,399
163,223
166,019
157,644
150,214
160,780
167,683
177,703
17.0%
13.2%
11.9%
12.3%
14.3%
19.9%
29.8%
30.3%
26.6%
24.9%
22.6%
22.1%
22.1%
25.3%
30.0%
31.9%
35.6%
37.5%
36.1%
34.8%
34.7%
23.8%
18.4%
16.6%
17.5%
19.4%
25.1%
36.6%
36.4%
31.2%
29.2%
26.7%
25.8%
25.1%
28.6%
34.7%
36.7%
39.6%
40.8%
38.8%
36.6%
36.0%
59.2%
68.4%
71.5%
70.2%
66.3%
55.0%
33.6%
33.2%
42.2%
45.9%
50.7%
52.1%
52.7%
46.1%
35.2%
31.4%
24.8%
21.7%
25.0%
28.7%
29.3%
40.0%
24.3%
6.7%
-14.1%
4.5%
-52.3%
-5.9%
7.7%
25.6%
5.7%
8.3%
-6.2%
17.6%
-35.7%
-0.7%
1.6%
-5.2%
-4.8%
7.0%
4.2%
5.8%
Notes:
1. Weights are calculated as a moving two year average for each class.
2. Weighted growth is calculated as the log difference of the weighted volumes.
Original: :2010-03-04
2010-03-04
Original
Révisé : 2010-05-04
Col. 10
1
GI-2
Document 2
Page 17 de 23
Requête 3724-2010
Non-Normalized
Volumes Index
(1987=100)
100.0
149.1
190.1
203.2
176.5
184.5
109.4
103.2
111.4
144.0
152.3
165.6
155.7
185.7
130.0
129.1
131.2
124.6
118.7
127.3
132.8
140.7
GAZIFÈRE INC.
TOTAL FACTOR PRODUCTIVITY
2011 RATE CASE – PHASE I
Data Appendix 3
Volumes Index - Weather Normalized
Col. 1
Col. 2
Col. 3
Col. 4
3
Col. 5
Col. 6
3
Volumes (10 m )
Col. 7
Weights
Col. 8
Col. 9
Fiscal Year
Residential
Commercial
Industrial
Total
Residential
Commercial
Industrial
Weighted
Growth2
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
26,072
26,786
27,184
27,892
29,275
33,702
35,931
39,058
41,132
43,843
45,679
46,538
48,106
53,102
50,493
51,971
53,275
56,491
56,748
57,562
58,686
59,263
36,513
37,115
37,691
39,570
41,993
43,493
44,558
47,813
48,542
51,125
54,429
54,295
55,946
58,477
58,019
60,426
60,630
61,939
61,386
61,064
60,979
61,405
61,948
117,063
163,462
176,493
145,621
143,718
53,864
35,114
53,807
80,162
89,072
111,503
96,977
127,031
55,352
60,165
43,112
37,109
29,460
48,523
45,672
55,555
124,533
180,964
228,337
243,955
216,889
220,913
134,353
121,985
143,481
175,130
189,180
212,336
201,029
238,610
163,864
172,562
157,017
155,539
147,594
167,149
165,337
176,223
17.3%
13.2%
11.7%
12.4%
14.4%
19.6%
29.3%
30.2%
26.7%
24.6%
23.0%
22.9%
23.0%
25.7%
30.5%
31.9%
35.1%
37.4%
36.3%
35.0%
34.5%
24.1%
18.3%
16.4%
17.7%
19.5%
24.8%
36.0%
36.3%
31.3%
29.0%
27.1%
26.7%
26.0%
28.9%
35.2%
36.7%
39.2%
40.7%
38.9%
36.7%
35.8%
58.6%
68.5%
72.0%
69.9%
66.1%
55.6%
34.7%
33.5%
42.0%
46.5%
50.0%
50.4%
51.0%
45.3%
34.3%
31.3%
25.7%
22.0%
24.8%
28.3%
29.6%
38.2%
23.4%
6.6%
-11.8%
1.8%
-52.7%
-9.9%
16.4%
20.1%
7.7%
11.6%
-5.5%
17.2%
-39.2%
5.2%
-9.5%
-1.0%
-5.3%
12.7%
-1.1%
6.4%
Notes:
1. Weights are calculated as a moving two year average for each class.
2. Weighted growth is calculated as the log difference of the weighted volumes.
Original: :2010-03-04
2010-03-04
Original
Révisé : 2010-05-04
Col. 10
1
GI-2
Document 2
Page 18 de 23
Requête 3724-2010
Normalized
Volumes Index
(1987=100)
100.0
146.5
185.0
197.6
175.7
178.9
105.6
95.7
112.7
137.8
148.9
167.2
158.2
187.9
127.0
133.8
121.6
120.4
114.3
129.7
128.3
136.8
GAZIFÈRE INC.
TOTAL FACTOR PRODUCTIVITY
2011 RATE CASE – PHASE I
Data Appendix 4
Labour Index
Col. 1
Col. 2
Col. 3
Col. 4
Col. 5
Col. 6
Col. 7
Col. 8
Col. 9
Weights1
Fiscal Year
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
Total
Supervisory
Empolyees
(FTE's)
11.0
11.0
11.0
13.0
14.0
14.0
14.5
14.3
15.5
16.0
16.0
15.0
15.0
14.0
11.9
12.9
13.8
14.1
16.0
16.1
17.5
18.4
Total nonSupervisory
Employees
(FTE's)
23.7
22.9
22.0
23.0
23.5
26.1
25.7
29.0
28.2
27.8
26.8
26.9
19.9
19.9
21.8
21.8
23.4
23.9
27.1
27.6
29.5
29.7
Supervisory
Costs ($)
NonSupervisory
Costs ($)
Supervisory
NonSupervisory
Weighted
Growth2
Labour Index
(1987=100)
485,234
491,573
526,440
664,967
722,189
795,449
928,397
883,682
969,051
997,283
1,097,111
1,062,026
1,146,099
1,020,379
837,504
923,217
1,045,569
1,093,255
1,311,294
1,397,666
1,575,741
1,657,151
708,504
719,414
722,512
783,575
834,970
1,001,732
1,039,952
1,210,717
1,201,000
1,192,536
1,182,261
1,212,563
928,701
971,914
1,102,011
1,214,796
1,375,791
1,438,537
1,725,438
1,839,089
2,073,407
2,180,527
40.6%
41.4%
44.2%
46.2%
45.2%
45.8%
44.6%
43.4%
45.1%
46.9%
47.4%
50.8%
53.3%
47.3%
43.2%
43.2%
43.2%
43.2%
43.2%
43.2%
43.2%
59.4%
58.6%
55.8%
53.8%
54.8%
54.2%
55.4%
56.6%
54.9%
53.1%
52.6%
49.2%
46.7%
52.7%
56.8%
56.8%
56.8%
56.8%
56.8%
56.8%
56.8%
-2.0%
-2.4%
9.9%
4.6%
5.7%
0.8%
6.1%
1.9%
0.6%
-1.9%
-2.9%
-14.8%
-3.7%
-2.9%
3.5%
7.0%
2.1%
12.6%
1.3%
7.4%
2.5%
100.0
98.0
95.7
105.6
110.6
117.1
118.0
125.4
127.8
128.7
126.2
122.6
105.7
101.9
99.0
102.5
109.9
112.3
127.3
129.0
138.9
142.5
Notes:
1. Weights are calculated as a moving two year average for each class.
2. Weighted growth is calculated as the log difference of the weighted employees.
Original
Original: :2010-03-04
2010-03-04
Révisé : 2010-05-04
GI-2
Document 2
Page 19 de 23
Requête 3724-2010
GAZIFÈRE INC.
TOTAL FACTOR PRODUCTIVITY
2011 RATE CASE – PHASE I
Data Appendix 5
Materials Index
Col. 1
Fiscal Year
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
Col. 2
Total
Regulated
O&M Costs
($)
1,952,049
2,136,466
2,140,681
2,393,690
2,652,169
3,004,889
3,400,625
3,723,477
3,825,572
3,958,925
4,199,598
4,383,845
4,279,951
4,359,265
4,631,494
5,150,624
5,726,563
5,862,944
6,599,235
7,344,431
7,935,429
8,534,843
Original : 2010-03-04
Col. 3
Col. 4
Col. 5
Col. 6
Col. 7
Col. 8
Total Labour
Costs ($)
Total
Materials
Cost
Quebec CPI
Total Real
Materials
Cost ($2002)
Growth
Materials
Index
(1987=100)
1,193,738
1,210,987
1,248,952
1,448,542
1,557,159
1,797,181
1,968,349
2,094,399
2,170,051
2,189,819
2,279,372
2,274,589
2,074,800
1,992,293
1,939,515
2,138,013
2,421,360
2,531,791
3,036,732
3,236,755
3,649,148
3,837,678
758,311
925,479
891,729
945,148
1,095,010
1,207,708
1,432,276
1,629,078
1,655,521
1,769,106
1,920,226
2,109,256
2,205,151
2,366,972
2,691,979
3,012,611
3,305,203
3,331,153
3,562,503
4,107,676
4,286,281
4,697,165
69.5
72.2
75.1
78.2
83.8
86.2
87.5
86.9
87.7
89.1
90.6
91.8
93.0
95.2
97.7
99.2
102.2
103.8
106.3
108.7
110.4
112.7
1,091,226
1,281,975
1,186,730
1,208,372
1,306,565
1,401,867
1,636,264
1,874,299
1,888,427
1,985,529
2,120,235
2,298,290
2,371,343
2,487,622
2,754,647
3,037,672
3,234,317
3,208,945
3,350,579
3,778,621
3,882,501
4,166,308
16.1%
-7.7%
1.8%
7.8%
7.0%
15.5%
13.6%
0.8%
5.0%
6.6%
8.1%
3.1%
4.8%
10.2%
9.8%
6.3%
-0.8%
4.3%
12.0%
2.7%
7.1%
100.0
117.5
108.8
110.7
119.7
128.5
149.9
171.8
173.1
182.0
194.3
210.6
217.3
228.0
252.4
278.4
296.4
294.1
307.0
346.3
355.8
381.8
GI-2
Document 2
Page 20 de 23
Requête 3724-2010
GAZIFÈRE INC.
TOTAL FACTOR PRODUCTIVITY
2011 RATE CASE – PHASE I
Data Appendix 6
Capital Index (Accounting Data): Real Capital Plant (after deprecitation)
Col. 1
Col. 2
Col. 3
Col. 4
Land, Right-ofOther Gas Inst. Way & Structure
Services
& Improvement
Real Capital Plant (after depreciation)
Col. 5
Col. 6
Col. 7
Col. 8
House
Regulators
Mains
Station Ind.
Meters
Col. 9
Col. 10
Equipment and
Leasehold Imp.
Furniture
Col. 11
Col. 12
Col. 13
Transportation
Equip.
Heavy Work
Equip.
Tools & Work
Equip.
Col. 14
Communication
& Computer
Equip.
Fiscal Year
401
470, 471 & 472
473
474
475
477
478
482
483
484
485
486
488 & 490
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
111,744
102,092
92,817
85,274
78,232
72,853
67,503
62,579
57,214
52,188
47,422
43,480
39,224
36,209
31,570
27,960
23,359
19,215
15,253
11,460
7,952
4,609
13,747
12,991
12,243
7,542
7,305
7,205
7,095
7,019
6,878
6,759
6,657
6,662
25,227
24,295
23,672
23,755
22,894
22,249
21,575
20,825
20,203
19,455
4,914,938
4,969,985
5,071,578
5,287,269
5,948,467
6,752,249
7,552,552
8,332,305
8,602,949
8,829,502
9,118,946
9,460,235
9,665,843
9,946,094
10,006,019
10,139,750
10,397,363
10,874,651
10,961,116
11,007,031
11,035,099
11,141,143
43,935
93,545
166,046
275,676
431,814
674,736
861,854
1,081,781
1,197,308
1,304,687
1,436,381
1,632,097
1,781,289
2,024,460
2,141,771
2,208,434
2,128,333
2,068,415
2,005,779
1,936,048
1,878,236
1,808,687
5,811,787
5,971,829
6,176,005
6,372,725
7,037,552
7,681,822
8,224,886
8,604,466
8,997,822
9,904,077
10,179,635
11,446,977
11,457,597
12,289,593
12,339,995
12,323,770
12,829,375
13,307,623
13,334,750
13,516,440
13,573,852
13,816,180
364,022
378,661
404,649
450,153
535,529
561,509
581,405
601,834
565,328
849,964
881,171
1,003,376
1,033,395
1,041,096
1,044,278
1,004,486
971,173
900,969
833,817
771,702
713,530
641,531
754,954
805,082
876,149
926,037
1,046,396
1,176,487
1,315,687
1,456,581
1,502,955
1,510,707
1,596,655
1,688,809
1,724,315
1,754,224
1,800,622
1,840,416
1,916,513
1,961,638
1,971,248
2,003,083
2,122,054
2,247,899
23,722
12,977
3,158
58
1
2,912
1,594
3,613
12,719
9,506
20,469
11,439
1,699
1
11,389
8,872
4,956
18,694
16,065
200,608
196,635
208,077
50,250
43,764
101,385
110,748
115,773
106,849
97,773
88,297
78,229
67,848
95,528
92,406
81,936
88,611
75,967
81,945
92,839
84,879
70,189
305,248
305,032
293,490
17,124
13,216
8,708
4,051
48,110
40,261
31,438
24,848
17,626
10,697
67,719
102,849
80,874
64,983
50,049
36,013
24,169
11,076
0
47,089
264,532
409,668
0
0
0
0
22,584
28,150
26,707
25,003
21,563
18,808
18,257
15,460
13,053
40,498
34,557
24,602
21,250
17,611
13,510
14,275
38,775
33,574
14,853
13,084
12,982
28,147
15,761
12,395
30,463
45,505
48,165
40,800
37,152
37,470
60,029
56,361
53,580
39,844
40,044
42,239
33,713
41,924
43,888
38,715
62,128
67,347
81,236
104,742
96,147
89,076
118,586
200,037
187,871
189,939
435,427
409,984
381,547
368,613
325,118
285,240
238,493
194,317
229,560
613,139
476,865
311,730
Capital Index (Accounting Data): Capital Weights
Col. 1
Col. 2
Col. 3
Land, Right-ofOther Gas Inst. Way & Structure
& Improvement
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
Capital Weights
401
470, 471 & 472
-
Col. 4
Col. 5
Services
House
Regulators
Col. 6
Col. 7
Col. 8
Col. 9
Mains
Station Ind.
Meters
473
-
474
-
475
-
477
-
478
-
482
-
Col. 10
Col. 11
Col. 12
Col. 13
Col. 14
Transportation
Equip.
Heavy Work
Equip.
Tools & Work
Equip.
Communication
& Computer
Equip.
483
-
484
-
485
-
486
-
488 & 490
-
Equipment and
Leasehold Imp.
Furniture
0.013
0.013
0.336
0.003
0.482
0.029
0.062
0.044
0.006
0.003
0.001
0.002
0.008
0.012
0.012
0.339
0.006
0.484
0.029
0.056
0.042
0.005
0.002
0.001
0.002
0.008
0.012
0.011
0.332
0.011
0.486
0.032
0.059
0.041
0.008
0.002
0.000
0.002
0.007
0.010
0.009
0.317
0.016
0.485
0.038
0.062
0.041
0.011
0.000
0.000
0.002
0.009
0.009
0.007
0.317
0.023
0.478
0.037
0.065
0.038
0.010
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.012
0.008
0.005
0.321
0.029
0.478
0.037
0.071
0.029
0.009
0.003
0.002
0.000
0.008
0.007
0.003
0.321
0.035
0.483
0.039
0.069
0.018
0.009
0.003
0.000
0.002
0.013
0.006
0.002
0.345
0.037
0.467
0.032
0.065
0.015
0.007
0.003
0.000
0.003
0.018
0.005
0.002
0.350
0.036
0.481
0.030
0.061
0.016
0.004
0.002
0.001
0.003
0.008
0.004
0.003
0.331
0.034
0.508
0.032
0.054
0.022
0.004
0.002
0.001
0.002
0.003
0.004
0.003
0.316
0.032
0.518
0.032
0.047
0.030
0.005
0.001
0.001
0.002
0.009
0.003
0.004
0.308
0.031
0.527
0.032
0.045
0.029
0.005
0.002
0.001
0.002
0.011
0.003
0.007
0.314
0.032
0.527
0.032
0.044
0.022
0.004
0.005
0.001
0.002
0.006
0.003
0.008
0.321
0.034
0.517
0.032
0.043
0.023
0.004
0.004
0.001
0.002
0.006
0.003
0.009
0.321
0.034
0.514
0.032
0.044
0.027
0.004
0.004
0.001
0.002
0.007
0.002
0.008
0.329
0.033
0.510
0.031
0.041
0.026
0.004
0.004
0.001
0.002
0.008
0.002
0.008
0.340
0.031
0.503
0.030
0.037
0.028
0.004
0.003
0.001
0.001
0.011
0.002
0.008
0.345
0.029
0.499
0.029
0.038
0.032
0.004
0.003
0.001
0.000
0.009
0.002
0.007
0.350
0.027
0.500
0.028
0.037
0.031
0.005
0.002
0.001
0.001
0.009
Original : 2010-03-04
0.002
0.005
0.348
0.025
0.497
0.026
0.035
0.002
0.003
0.350
0.024
0.489
0.025
0.034
GI-2
Document 2
Page 21 de 23
Requête 3724-2010
0.035
0.006
0.003
0.001
0.002
0.017
0.040
0.006
0.002
0.001
0.002
0.021
Col. 15
Weighted
Change in
Capital Index
-0.5%
-2.4%
-12.5%
-8.1%
40.9%
6.8%
8.9%
5.1%
6.3%
5.6%
6.5%
-3.8%
-12.1%
22.4%
-0.6%
1.0%
6.2%
-8.0%
16.0%
0.2%
0.3%
Col. 16
Capital Index
100.0
99.5
97.1
85.7
79.1
119.1
127.4
139.3
146.5
156.1
165.1
176.2
169.6
150.3
188.1
187.0
188.8
200.9
185.4
217.5
217.9
218.6
GAZIFÈRE INC.
TOTAL FACTOR PRODUCTIVITY
2011 RATE CASE – PHASE I
Data Appedix 7
Capital Index (Physical Data)
Col. 1
Col. 2
Fiscal Year
Services (#)
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
9,164
9,381
9,622
9,979
11,087
12,580
13,942
15,274
16,223
17,090
18,232
19,411
20,424
21,669
22,600
23,701
25,141
26,933
28,398
29,609
30,834
32,351
Col. 3
Total Mains
(meters)
331,086
334,886
340,166
342,148
369,568
394,364
416,676
433,002
448,210
474,821
485,640
543,358
551,951
600,339
615,171
632,686
667,822
700,393
718,788
745,178
766,916
796,222
Col. 4
Col. 5
Col. 6
Capital Cost
Col. 7
Col. 8
Col. 9
Weights1
Col. 10
Meters (#)
Services ($)
Mains ($)
Meters ($)
Services
Mains
Meters
10,766
11,010
11,202
11,642
12,720
14,388
16,049
17,523
18,125
18,452
19,729
20,843
21,549
22,150
22,880
23,691
24,708
25,498
26,075
26,929
28,431
30,232
861,499
992,552
966,196
956,817
962,107
1,311,633
1,222,759
1,415,264
2,034,860
2,230,934
2,615,284
2,585,309
2,655,134
2,952,477
3,076,607
3,318,122
3,471,644
3,640,082
3,792,305
3,838,411
3,933,115
4,368,557
1,248,775
1,410,540
1,387,407
1,428,723
1,512,086
1,915,606
1,861,801
2,109,025
2,556,751
3,310,040
4,129,373
4,389,287
4,560,454
4,836,592
4,883,720
5,360,911
5,174,345
5,357,844
5,389,090
5,506,617
5,583,443
6,013,457
158,695
182,034
143,048
197,906
176,566
291,174
268,275
295,521
352,389
386,867
396,401
382,284
387,295
406,227
405,872
472,716
381,233
401,437
408,022
400,589
370,442
434,450
38.2%
38.5%
37.9%
36.7%
36.9%
36.9%
36.8%
39.4%
39.2%
37.1%
35.9%
35.0%
35.5%
36.4%
36.5%
37.3%
38.6%
39.1%
39.5%
39.6%
40.1%
54.8%
55.1%
55.4%
56.2%
55.6%
55.0%
55.4%
53.2%
54.0%
56.9%
58.8%
59.8%
59.5%
58.7%
58.5%
58.0%
57.2%
56.6%
56.4%
56.5%
56.0%
7.0%
6.4%
6.7%
7.2%
7.6%
8.1%
7.9%
7.4%
6.8%
6.0%
5.4%
5.1%
5.0%
4.9%
5.0%
4.7%
4.2%
4.3%
4.2%
3.9%
3.9%
Notes:
1. Weights are calculated as a moving two year average for each class.
2. Weighted growth is calculated as the log difference of the weighted capital costs.
Original : 2010-03-04
GI-2
Document 2
Page 22 de 23
Requête 3724-2010
Col. 11
Col. 12
Weighted
Growth2
1.7%
1.9%
2.0%
8.8%
9.2%
7.7%
6.2%
4.5%
5.3%
4.1%
9.1%
2.9%
7.2%
3.1%
3.6%
5.5%
5.5%
3.6%
3.8%
3.4%
4.3%
Capital Index
(1987=100)
100.0
101.7
103.7
105.7
115.5
126.6
136.8
145.5
152.1
160.4
167.0
183.0
188.4
202.5
209.0
216.5
228.8
241.8
250.8
260.5
269.6
281.4
n
MPE 

t 1
Forecast t  Actual t
Actual t
n
GAZIFÈRE INC.
TOTAL FACTOR PRODUCTIVITY
2011 RATE CASE – PHASE I
Data Appedix 8
Combined Input Index
Col. 1
Col. 2
Col. 3
Col. 4
Col. 5
Col. 6
Input Indices
Fiscal Year
Labour
Materials
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
100.0
98.0
95.7
105.6
110.6
117.1
118.0
125.4
127.8
128.7
126.2
122.6
105.7
101.9
99.0
102.5
109.9
112.3
127.3
129.0
138.9
142.5
100.0
117.5
108.8
110.7
119.7
128.5
149.9
171.8
173.1
182.0
194.3
210.6
217.3
228.0
252.4
278.4
296.4
294.1
307.0
346.3
355.8
381.8
Original : 2010-03-04
Capital
Capital
(Accounting
(Physical Data)
Data)
100.0
100.0
99.5
101.7
97.1
103.7
85.7
105.7
79.1
115.5
119.1
126.6
127.4
136.8
139.3
145.5
146.5
152.1
156.1
160.4
165.1
167.0
176.2
183.0
169.6
188.4
150.3
202.5
188.1
209.0
187.0
216.5
188.8
228.8
200.9
241.8
185.4
250.8
217.5
260.5
217.9
269.6
218.6
281.4
Col. 7
Col. 8
Input Weights
Col. 9
Col. 10
Weighted Input Index
(Capital Accounting Data)
Col. 11
Col. 12
Weighted Input Index
(Capital Physical Data)
Labour
Materials
Capital
Weighted
Input Growth
Weighted
Input Index
Weighted
Input Growth
Weighted
Input Index
25.0%
24.5%
26.1%
27.1%
26.2%
26.3%
26.5%
24.3%
21.8%
19.6%
18.2%
16.9%
15.4%
14.2%
13.7%
14.5%
15.2%
16.4%
17.6%
18.3%
18.6%
17.5%
18.1%
17.8%
18.4%
18.0%
18.5%
19.9%
18.7%
17.1%
16.2%
16.1%
16.8%
17.3%
18.2%
19.2%
20.0%
20.4%
20.3%
21.5%
22.3%
22.4%
57.5%
57.5%
56.1%
54.6%
55.9%
55.2%
53.6%
56.9%
61.0%
64.2%
65.7%
66.2%
67.4%
67.6%
67.1%
65.5%
64.4%
63.3%
61.0%
59.4%
59.0%
2.0%
-3.3%
-4.1%
-1.7%
25.6%
6.8%
9.1%
3.5%
4.9%
4.3%
5.0%
-4.5%
-7.9%
16.6%
2.0%
2.9%
4.1%
-2.1%
12.6%
2.1%
2.2%
100.0
102.0
98.7
94.7
93.1
120.3
128.7
141.0
146.0
153.3
160.0
168.3
160.8
148.6
175.5
179.0
184.3
192.1
188.0
213.2
217.6
222.5
3.3%
-0.8%
4.0%
7.5%
7.9%
7.3%
7.6%
3.1%
4.2%
3.3%
6.8%
-0.1%
5.1%
3.6%
4.7%
5.9%
3.7%
5.2%
5.1%
4.0%
4.6%
100.0
103.3
102.5
106.6
114.9
124.4
133.8
144.4
149.0
155.5
160.7
172.0
171.8
180.9
187.5
196.6
208.5
216.4
228.0
240.0
249.8
261.5
GI-2
Document 2
Page 23 de 23
Requête 3724-2010