MoraeSpend Intelligence
Energy edition

Explain the variance before cutting rates

Group outside-counsel budget, FY28 planning · model matter commitments before requesting more budget
Scenario · not an approved planSave scenario for GC review
$420.0M
Approved budget
$431.3M
Current expected annual cost · 3,080 matters × $140K expected cost
—
modeled
—
Unresolved gap after modeled actions
Why the plan changed
Variance decomposed from matter-level data; volume forecast from TeamConnect
DriverContributionImpact
Original plan · 2,800 matters × $150,000
$420.0M
Regulatory matter volume · 38 extra permit and enforcement matters × $130K
Methane and air rules; outside anyone's control in legal
+$4.9M
Hearing scheduled · ARB-2026-0019 and one more
Two hearings in FY28 vs none planned
+$3.2M
Rates and FX · 3,080 × $750
Rate increases 6.1%; GBP/EUR local counsel
+$2.3M
Staffing and pass-through · 3,080 × $300
Partner share drift at Firm X; local-counsel markups
+$0.9M
Expected annual cost$431.3M
Management implication. Volume and hearing scheduling explain $8.1M of $11.3M and are operational facts. Rates, staffing and pass-through explain $3.2M, which is where covenants and the at-cost protocol work. Fund the hearings, enforce the protocol, and route permit work by value.
Model available actions
Overlaps removed before totals · tick to test
$2.6M
$2.1M
$1.3M
$1.8M
Selected actions—Overlapping benefit removed—Net modeled reduction—Unresolved gap to fund or accept—
These are assumptions to test. Provider capacity, matter quality and exceptions can change the result; each action becomes a decision record with an owner, a baseline and a follow-up date once saved.
Forecast range before actions: $409M–$452M (p10–p90 from matter-arrival and hearing-schedule simulation; not a point estimate)
Inspect comparable firmsOpen phase comparisonsRegulatory portfolio