Application No.: A.19-08-13
Exhibit No.: SCE-07V03 WP BkA
Witnesses: D. Gunn
(U 338-E)
SCE Asset Depreciation Study
SCE-07 Volume 03, Chapter I-IV, Book A
Before the
Public Utilities Commission of the State of California
Rosemead, California
Workpaper – Southern California Edison / 2021 General Rate Case
Exhibit No. SCE-07 Vol.03 Ch I-VI Bk A Witness: D. Gunn
1
I. 1
INTRODUCTION 2
A. Purpose and Scope 3
This volume of the Results of Operations discusses depreciation concepts, assumptions, and 4
estimation procedures, and judgment SCE applied to determine depreciation rates. Those proposed 5
depreciation rates were used to develop the depreciation expense and accumulated depreciation amounts 6
shown in Exhibit SCE-07, Volume 2, Chapter II for 2021 through 2023. The estimated depreciation 7
rates presented in this volume are consistent with Commission and industry-accepted depreciation 8
practices. The proposed depreciation rates are reasonable and should be adopted. 9
The most significant depreciation-related issue SCE is asking the Commission to address in this 10
proceeding is setting appropriate accruals to recover future cost of removal (i.e., the most significant 11
component of negative net salvage). In each of the five rate cases over the past 20 years, SCE has 12
requested that the Commission authorize increases to the cost of removal accruals. Although some 13
progress has been made, the gap between authorized and recorded net salvage rates continue to increase. 14
SCE’s proposals are designed to narrow this gap. 15
B. Organization of Testimony 16
The remainder of this chapter summarizes the results of SCE’s depreciation study. Chapter II 17
offers an overview of foundational depreciation concepts and discusses how SCE’s analyses adhere to 18
the Commission’s STANDARD PRACTICE U-4, Determination of Straight-Line Remaining Life 19
Depreciation Accruals (STANDARD PRACTICE U-4 or SP U-4). Chapter III presents the Transmission and 20
Distribution (T&D) net salvage study results on an account-by-account basis. As a part of this 21
discussion, SCE addresses some aspects impacting the level of historical removal costs and the role 22
expert judgment plays in the analysis. Chapter IV, sponsored by Dr. Ronald E. White, presents the 23
results of the T&D actuarial life analysis. Chapter V presents the results of SCE’s Generation study and, 24
new to this case, a request to begin including accruals for decommissioning small hydro assets. Finally, 25
Chapter VI concludes with SCE’s depreciation study for General and Intangible (G&I) assets. 26
C. SCE’s Depreciation Proposals 27
As shown in Table I-1, below, SCE’s total proposed depreciation expense resulting from the 28
study’s revised parameters is $226 million higher than 2018 GRC authorized depreciation expense based 29
on year-end 2018 CPUC plant balances. 30
1
Workpaper – Southern California Edison / 2021 General Rate Case
Exhibit No. SCE-07 Vol.03 Ch I-VI Bk A Witness: D. Gunn
2
Table I-11 Impact of Proposed Depreciation Rates by Class of Plant
(Based on Year-End 2018 CPUC-Jurisdictional Plant Balances, $M)
D. 2018 GRC Compliance Requirement 1
D.19-05-020 required SCE to “present a workshop, including a question and answer session, to 2
the Energy Division and any interested parties of its depreciation testimony in the next GRC.” After 3
filing the GRC application, SCE will schedule a workshop with the Energy Division and interested 4
parties to present the results of this depreciation study. Should stakeholders see benefit to more than one 5
workshop, or to having the assigned Administrative Law Judge(s) in attendance, SCE will work with 6
interested parties to develop agenda items. 7
E. Summary Tables 8
Table I-1, Table I-3, and Table I-4, below, summarize the life and net salvage parameters 9
resulting from the analyses described in the following chapters. 10
1 Refer to WP SCE-07 Vol. 03, Book A pp. 14-17 (Depreciation Proposal Impacts).
2018 GRC 2021 GRCCPUC Basis Authorized Net Salvage Life Total Proposed
A B C D E=C+D F=B+ETransmission & Distribution $1,072 $199 ($15) $183 $1,256Generation 118 6 (4) 2 120 Hydro Decommissioning - 30 - 30 30 General & Intangible 413 - 12 12 425 Total 1,604 234 (8) 226 1,830
Impact due to
2
Workpaper – Southern California Edison / 2021 General Rate Case
Exhibit No. SCE-07 Vol.03 Ch I-VI Bk A Witness: D. Gunn
3
Tab
le I
-2
Su
mm
ary
of S
CE
’s P
ropo
sed
Dep
reci
atio
n P
aram
eter
s T
ran
smis
sion
, Dis
trib
uti
on, a
nd
Gen
eral
Bu
ildi
ngs
2
2 Refer to WP SCE-07 Vol. 03, Book A p. 15 (Depreciation Proposal Impacts).
FERC
Net S
alvag
e Rat
esCu
rves a
nd Li
ves
Depr
eciat
ion R
ates
Acct
Desc
riptio
nAu
thor
ized
Prop
osed
Chan
geAu
thor
ized
Prop
osed
Chan
geAu
thor
ized
Prop
osed
Chan
geA
BC
DE=
D-C
FG
H=G-
FI
JK=
J-ITr
ansm
ission
Plan
t35
2St
ructu
res a
nd Im
prov
emen
ts-3
5%-3
5%L 1
.0 - 5
5L 1
.0 - 5
52.4
1%2.4
2%0.0
1%35
3St
atio
n Equ
ipm
ent
-15%
-15%
R 0.5
- 45
L 0.5
- 45
2.58%
2.59%
0.01%
354
Towe
rs an
d Fix
ture
s-6
0%-8
0%-2
0%R
5.0 -
65R
5.0 -
652.4
6%2.8
9%0.4
3%35
5Po
les an
d Fix
ture
s-7
2%-9
0%-1
8%SC
- 65
SC -
652.5
4%2.9
6%0.4
2%35
6Ov
erhe
ad C
ondu
ctors
& De
vices
-80%
-100
%-2
0%R
3.0 -
61R
3.0 -
612.8
3%3.3
1%0.4
8%35
7Un
derg
roun
d Co
nduit
0%0%
R 3.0
- 55
R 3.0
- 55
1.73%
1.82%
0.09%
358
Unde
rgro
und
Cond
ucto
rs &
Devic
es-1
5%-3
0%-1
5%S 1
.0 - 4
5S 1
.0 - 4
52.3
0%2.8
8%0.5
8%35
9Ro
ads a
nd Tr
ails
0%0%
R 5.0
- 60
R 5.0
- 60
1.65%
1.65%
0.00%
Distr
ibutio
n Pla
nt36
1St
ructu
res a
nd Im
prov
emen
ts-2
5%-4
0%-1
5%L 0
.5 - 5
0L 0
.5 - 5
55
2.27%
2.38%
0.11%
362
Stat
ion E
quip
men
t-2
5%-4
0%-1
5%L 0
.5 - 6
5S -
0.5 -
651.9
0%2.1
5%0.2
5%36
4Po
les, T
ower
s and
Fixtu
res
-210
%-2
10%
R 1.0
- 55
R 1.0
- 55
5.96%
5.99%
0.03%
365
Over
head
Con
ducto
rs &
Devic
es-1
15%
-190
%-7
5%R
0.5 -
55R
0.5 -
553.8
5%5.6
4%1.7
9%36
6Un
derg
roun
d Co
nduit
-30%
-80%
-50%
R 3.0
- 59
R 3.0
- 59
2.27%
3.42%
1.15%
367
Unde
rgro
und
Cond
ucto
rs &
Devic
es-6
0%-1
00%
-40%
R 1.5
- 43
L 1.0
- 47
43.5
1%4.3
0%0.7
9%36
8Lin
e Tra
nsfo
rmer
s-2
0%-5
0%-3
0%S 1
.5 - 3
3S 1
.5 - 3
34.3
5%5.6
6%1.3
1%36
9Se
rvice
s-1
00%
-100
%R
1.5 -
55R
1.5 -
553.2
7%3.3
2%0.0
5%37
0M
eter
s-5
%-5
%R
3.0 -
20R
3.0 -
205.9
9%5.8
1%-0
.18%
371
Insta
llatio
ns o
n Cus
tom
er Pr
emise
s-1
00%
-100
%R
1.5 -
55R
1.5 -
554.4
4%3.6
1%-0
.83%
373
Stre
et Li
ghtin
g &
Signa
l Sys
tem
s-3
0%-5
0%-2
0%L 1
.0 - 4
8L 0
.5 - 5
02
2.79%
3.15%
0.36%
Gene
ral B
uildin
gs39
0St
ructu
res a
nd Im
prov
emen
ts-1
0%-1
0%R
0.5 -
45SC
- 50
52.0
8%1.8
2%-0
.26%
3
Workpaper – Southern California Edison / 2021 General Rate Case
Exhibit No. SCE-07 Vol.03 Ch I-VI Bk A Witness: D. Gunn
4
Table I-33 Summary of SCE’s Request for Book Depreciation
Generation Plant
3 Refer to WP SCE-07 Vol. 03, Book A p. 16 (Depreciation Proposal Impacts).
Generation Facility Authorized Proposed ∆ Authorized Proposed ∆
A B C D=C-B E F G=F-EPalo Verde 23 23 0 42 66 24Hydro Production 34 31 (3) 119 125 5Hydro Decommissioning 0 15 15 0 446 446Mountainview Units 3&4 20 20 (0) 9 27 19Pebbly Beach 11 26 15 0 2 2Peakers 23 22 (1) 11 22 11Solar Photovoltaic 11 11 (0) 62 81 19Fuel Cell 2 3 1 0 3 3Energy Storage 10 20 10 0 0 0
Remaining LifeAs of Jan 1, 2021 (Years) Removal Cost ($M)
4
Workpaper – Southern California Edison / 2021 General Rate Case
Exhibit No. SCE-07 Vol.03 Ch I-VI Bk A Witness: D. Gunn
5
Table I-44 Summary of SCE’s Request for Book Depreciation
General and Intangible Plant
4 Refer to WP SCE-07 Vol. 03, Book A p. 17 (Depreciation Proposal Impacts).
FERCAccount Description Authorized Proposed Authorized Proposed
A B C D E FGeneral Plant
389.2 Easements 60 60 1.67% 1.67%391 Office Furniture 20 20 5.00% 5.00%391 Office Equipment 5 5 20.00% 20.00%391 Computers 5 5 20.00% 20.00%391 Security Monitoring System 8.5 10 14.33% 10.00%392 Transportation Equipment 7 7 14.29% 14.29%393 Stores Equipment 20 20 5.00% 5.00%394 Garage, Shop, & Tools Equipment 10 10 10.00% 10.00%395 Laboratory Equipment 15 15 6.67% 6.67%396 Power Operated Equipment 15 15 6.67% 6.67%397 Telecommunication Equipment Various Various 9.66% 9.66%398 Miscellaneous Equipment 20 20 5.00% 5.00%
Intangible Plant302 Hydro Relicensing Various Various 1.95% 2.06%302 Miscellaneous Intangibles 20 20 5.00% 5.00%303 Radio Frequency 40 40 2.50% 2.50%303 Capitalized Software
5-Year 5 5 20.00% 20.00%7-Year 7 7 14.29% 14.29%10-Year 10 10 10.00% 10.00%15-Year 15 15 6.67% 6.67%
Lives Depreciation Rates
5
Workpaper – Southern California Edison / 2021 General Rate Case
Exhibit No. SCE-07 Vol.03 Ch I-VI Bk A Witness: D. Gunn
6
II. 1
DEPRECIATION CONCEPTS 2
A. Purpose of Depreciation 3
To provide service to its customers, SCE incurs both operations and maintenance (O&M) 4
expenses and capital expenditures. Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP) and regulatory 5
principles (i.e., the Matching Principle5 and Intergenerational Equity) govern whether a cost is 6
capitalized or expensed. While the return on SCE’s capital assets is made by applying an authorized rate 7
of return to its net investment, the return of investors’ capital is made through depreciation expense. 8
Depreciation is a major expense representing the recovery of the original cost of fixed capital less 9
estimated net salvage over an asset’s useful life. The depreciation rates proposed in this exhibit are 10
designed to accomplish that objective. 11
The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) defines depreciation as follows: 12
Depreciation, as applied to depreciable electric plant, means the loss in service value not 13 restored by current maintenance, incurred in connection with the consumption or prospective 14 retirement of electric plant in the course of service from causes which are known to be in 15 current operation and against which the utility is not protected by insurance. Among the 16 causes to be given consideration are wear and tear, decay, action of the elements, inadequacy, 17 obsolescence, changes in the art, changes in demand, and requirements of public authorities.6 18
The National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners (NARUC) defines depreciation 19
essentially the same as FERC, except that it refers to “utility plant” instead of “electric plant.”7 20
An important aspect of this definition is the concept of “loss in service value.” The difference represents 21
the service value loss to be allocated and recorded as depreciation expense over an asset’s life. 22
The Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) emphasizes the cost allocation aspect in its 23
definition of depreciation accounting: 24
This procedure is known as depreciation accounting, a system of accounting which aims to 25 distribute the cost or other basic value of tangible capital assets, less salvage (if any), over the 26 estimated useful life of the unit (which may be a group of assets) in a systematic and rational 27 manner. It is a process of allocation, not valuation.8 28
5 The Matching Principle requires that each expense item related to revenue earned must be recorded in the
same accounting period as the revenue it helped to earn.
6 18 CFR, Part 101.
7 PUBLIC UTILITY DEPRECIATION PRACTICES, NARUC, 1996, p. 13.
8 ASC 360-10-35-4.
6
Workpaper – Southern California Edison / 2021 General Rate Case
Exhibit No. SCE-07 Vol.03 Ch I-VI Bk A Witness: D. Gunn
7
The FASB’s definition makes two important points: (1) depreciation should allocate capital costs 1
and net salvage over the useful life of the asset (or group of assets); and (2) the allocation should be 2
systematic and rational. 3
Depreciation accounting is intended to systematically and rationally allocate the service value 4
over the life of the asset, in a manner ensuring that SCE’s customers pay for the portion of the assets’ 5
cost (including future net salvage) from which they receive benefit. A reasonable allocation of service 6
value requires an estimate of the assets’ useful lives and future costs to retire. Otherwise, current 7
ratepayers could pay less (or more) than their fair share, thereby causing future ratepayers to pay too 8
much (or too little). 9
SCE conducted a thorough analysis of its accounting records, and drew on the observations and 10
expertise of field personnel with many years of operational experience to develop the depreciation rates 11
presented in this exhibit. The resulting depreciation proposals are reasonable, are consistent with 12
longstanding depreciation concepts and practices, reflect SCE’s costs to provide service, and are 13
designed to advance the goal of intergenerational equity. 14
B. Depreciation Systems 15
A depreciation system describes the dynamic process through which capital is recovered through 16
depreciation expense accruals. Estimates of service life and net salvage, along with recorded plant, are 17
the basic inputs to the depreciation system. The accumulated depreciation provides “a measure of the 18
state of the system at any time.”9 For example, if the depreciation rate has been insufficient, the recorded 19
accumulated depreciation will be lower than the proper level given the account’s age. The appropriate 20
specification of the depreciation system will depend on the purpose of the system – e.g., book 21
(financial), tax, or valuation. 22
The depreciation system SCE follows is based on the Commission’s STANDARD PRACTICE U-4, 23
DETERMINATION OF STRAIGHT-LINE REMAINING LIFE DEPRECIATION ACCRUALS. SP U-4 sets forth “the 24
determination of depreciation accruals and describes methods of calculating these accruals” with the 25
purpose of assisting “the Commission staff … in determining proper depreciation expenses.”10 Although 26
over 55 years old, SP U-4 represents conventional utility depreciation practices and the CPUC continues 27
9 DEPRECIATION SYSTEMS; Frank K Wolf and W. Chester Fitch, Iowa State University Press, pp. 69-70. Herein
after, DEPRECIATION SYSTEMS.
10 STANDARD PRACTICE U-4, p. 5.
7
Workpaper – Southern California Edison / 2021 General Rate Case
Exhibit No. SCE-07 Vol.03 Ch I-VI Bk A Witness: D. Gunn
8
to adhere to this standard. The depreciation system is rational and systematic, and is in harmony with 1
industry accounting and regulatory practice in California and the United States.11 2
The three basic dimensions commonly used to define a book depreciation system are designated 3
as: (1) method; (2) procedure; and, (3) technique. SCE’s determination of depreciation expense accruals 4
follows a depreciation system consisting of (1) the straight-line method; (2) the broad group, average life 5
procedure; and, (3) the remaining life technique. The specification of these dimensions is important as 6
they can significantly affect the level of depreciation expense and accumulated depreciation. 7
In establishing its systematic approach, STANDARD PRACTICE U-4 stated the Commission’s intent to 8
meet the “basic depreciation objective … of recovering the original cost of fixed capital (less estimated 9
net salvage) over the useful life of the property by means of an equitable plan of charges to operating 10
expenses.”12 SP U-4 states that “the straight-line remaining life method presented [in SP U-4] and used 11
as standard procedure by the staff meets this objective.”13 12
Because of their importance to SP U-4’s depreciation system, the method, procedure, and 13
technique will each be discussed in turn. 14
1. Depreciation Methods 15
As discussed earlier, cost allocation is the foundational concept for book depreciation; the 16
depreciation method specifies the rate of allocation over an asset’s service life. There are three 17
categories of depreciation methods: (1) Straight-Line; (2) Accelerated; and, (3) Decelerated. As the 18
authors of DEPRECIATION SYSTEMS state: 19
The straight line method of allocation is the method of allocation most often used 20
when calculating book depreciation. Accelerated methods of allocation are 21
commonly used for tax purposes. Decelerated methods of allocation are not in 22
common use for book or tax purposes, but they are of historical interest and are 23
used in valuation problems.14 24
11 Although the Commission STANDARD PRACTICE U-4 was last revised in 1961, the principles it established
still apply and the document is cited by depreciation experts (e.g., DEPRECIATION SYSTEMS pp. 86-88, 149-150). The Commission has continued to maintain its applicability in determining depreciation expense.
12 STANDARD PRACTICE U-4, p. 5.
13 Id.
14 DEPRECIATION SYSTEMS, p. 74 (emphasis added).
8
Workpaper – Southern California Edison / 2021 General Rate Case
Exhibit No. SCE-07 Vol.03 Ch I-VI Bk A Witness: D. Gunn
9
a) Straight-Line Depreciation Methods (e.g., Book Depreciation Methods) 1
Consistent with the CPUC’s longstanding practice, SCE applies the straight-line 2
depreciation method. This method distributes the depreciation expense in equal proportions over an 3
asset’s service life. As such, it follows generally accepted accounting principles and is recognized as 4
providing intergenerational equity for determining utility rates. As NARUC observes, “[t]he straight-line 5
method is almost universally used in the utility rate making process.”15 6
b) Accelerated Depreciation Methods (e.g., Tax Depreciation Methods) 7
Accelerated methods, including “Declining Balances” methods and the “Sum-of-8
the-Years-Digits” method, are mathematical approaches that allocate more depreciation to the earlier 9
years. These have been used for income tax purposes, but are not generally accepted methods for book 10
depreciation. 11
c) Decelerated Depreciation Methods (e.g., Interest-Based Valuation Methods) 12
Decelerated (or deferred) methods allocate a greater amount of depreciation to the 13
later years of an asset’s life. A “Sinking Fund,” (or “Present Worth”) method is a decelerated method. 14
When used, it is generally in connection with economic valuation of capital investments, not book 15
depreciation.16 NARUC points out that, for regulatory purposes, “[i]nterest methods, such as the sinking 16
fund method, are no longer in general use.”17 Among some of the reasons cited are the “problems of 17
annuity mathematics; and difficulties of proper accruals near the end of a property’s life.”18 18
d) Expense Accounting and Retirement Accounting 19
The accelerated and decelerated methods include two extreme allocations; 20
(1) expensing the total cost at the time of installation (“expense” accounting), and (2) charging the total 21
cost at the time of retirement (“retirement” accounting).19 As NARUC points out, these are inappropriate 22
for both accounting and regulatory purposes: 23
15 PUBLIC UTILITY DEPRECIATION PRACTICES, NARUC, 1996, p. 61 (emphasis added).
16 DEPRECIATION SYSTEMS, p. 80.
17 PUBLIC UTILITY DEPRECIATION PRACTICES, NARUC, 1996, p. 61.
18 Id.
19 PUBLIC UTILITY DEPRECIATION PRACTICES, NARUC, 1996, p. 17.
9
Workpaper – Southern California Edison / 2021 General Rate Case
Exhibit No. SCE-07 Vol.03 Ch I-VI Bk A Witness: D. Gunn
10
The expense and retirement accounting methods fail to achieve the goal of 1
distributing costs to the accounting periods during the property’s life. 2
Therefore, they would not properly match revenues and costs, and the 3
accounting representation of net income would be distorted. Furthermore, 4
the appropriate customer would not pay a fair share of the cost, assuming 5
depreciation expense is included in the cost of service. Generally accepted 6
accounting principles require expenses, such as depreciation, to be 7
allocated by systematic and rational procedures to the periods during 8
which the related assets are expected to provide benefits.20 9
2. Depreciation Procedures 10
Depreciation procedures refer to how property is grouped together for purposes of 11
calculating depreciation. While some assets, such as a generating station, are sufficiently unique as to 12
allow them to be separately identified for depreciation purposes, other assets, such as distribution poles, 13
are not. Instead of depreciating “mass” assets individually, they are usually combined into groups. 14
Property groups can experience a wide range of service lives and retirement characteristics whereas an 15
individual property unit will have a single service life of a specific number of years. For example, a 16
group of distribution poles will face different combinations of factors affecting their retirements, 17
including deterioration, being hit by cars, and relocation or undergrounding of distribution lines. 18
Because of the range of lives and retirement characteristics, the selected grouping of assets will affect 19
the level of depreciation accruals and accumulated depreciation. The following procedures represent the 20
most commonly recognized groupings. 21
a) Individual Unit 22
The Individual Unit depreciation procedure depreciates each property or 23
retirement unit separately. With the exception of large and uniquely identifiable assets, such as a 24
generating station, this method is seldom used in the utility industry. 25
b) Broad Group 26
The Broad Group procedure groups certain categories of plant, usually of a 27
specific plant account or subaccount, and depreciates them as a single group. Because of the averaging 28
across the broad group, this method results in reasonably stable depreciation accruals over time. The 29
Broad Group depreciation procedure is what SCE uses to determine depreciation, and is the most widely 30
used in the electric utility industry. 31
20 Id.
10
Workpaper – Southern California Edison / 2021 General Rate Case
Exhibit No. SCE-07 Vol.03 Ch I-VI Bk A Witness: D. Gunn
11
c) Vintage Group 1
The Vintage Group procedure groups assets within a category by vintage (i.e., all 2
of the account assets placed into service in the same year). Under this procedure the depreciation 3
characteristics for each vintage are analyzed separately and subsequently combined for a single 4
depreciation rate. For example, the depreciation expense for all poles installed in 1980 would be 5
determined separately from those poles installed in other vintage years. The results for each vintage 6
group would individually contribute to the determination of the total depreciation for the entire group of 7
poles. 8
d) Equal Life Group 9
The Equal Life Group procedure groups plant assets that have the same service 10
lives and depreciates them over the group’s life. The ELG procedure provides full depreciation recovery 11
of the shorter-lived units while they are in service. This is similar to the vintage group procedure except 12
that instead of grouping the assets by vintage year, the assets are grouped by expected service lives. For 13
example, all poles expected to live 10 years are grouped together, those expected to live 11 years are 14
grouped together, and so forth. The depreciation expense for these equal life groups is calculated 15
individually before being combined to determine the total depreciation for the entire group. Since the 16
expected lives of individual poles are generally indeterminate, the equal life grouping is made using 17
survivor curve determinations of what percentage of the assets will retire at each age. 18
3. Depreciation Techniques 19
The two common depreciation techniques are “Whole Life” and “Remaining Life.” These 20
techniques represent different approaches to handling imbalances in the accumulated depreciation. To 21
the degree a past depreciation rate has been either too high or too low, the proper balance of the recorded 22
accumulated depreciation will be wrong. In the event that past authorized depreciation rates have been 23
too low, the recorded accumulated depreciation will be insufficient and the going forward depreciation 24
expense will need to recover the past accumulated depreciation deficit, as well as the going-forward 25
costs. The depreciation techniques handle the past imbalances in two different ways: (a) Whole Life; 26
and, (b) Remaining Life. Each of these approaches is discussed below. 27
a) Whole Life 28
The whole life technique does not incorporate an adjustment for prior over- or 29
under-accruals into the depreciation rate. Instead, the whole-life depreciation rate calculation is equal to 30
(100% - Average Net Salvage%) / Average Service Life. For example, in the case of SCE’s line 31
11
Workpaper – Southern California Edison / 2021 General Rate Case
Exhibit No. SCE-07 Vol.03 Ch I-VI Bk A Witness: D. Gunn
12
transformers, applying the authorized net salvage and life parameters, the whole-life depreciation rate is 1
3.64%.21 However, this whole life depreciation rate is not sufficient to recover prior depreciation under-2
collections. SCE’s accumulated depreciation for distribution line transformers is $708 million behind the 3
level it ought to be at the end of 2018.22 This shortfall occurs largely because prior depreciation rates 4
were authorized between 0% and -20% net salvage even though the account has been experiencing 5
a -84%23 net salvage. 6
In the case of the whole-life technique, the recovery of a deficit or surplus in 7
accumulated depreciation is made as an amortization amount separate from the account depreciation 8
rate. In the case of the line transformer account, the depreciation rate would be set at 3.64% and would 9
require a separate amortization of the $708 million deficiency over some established period (e.g., 5 or 10 10
years). 11
b) Remaining Life 12
The most widely used depreciation technique in the industry is the remaining life 13
technique. It is designed to recover the undepreciated plant amount less future net salvage over the 14
remaining life of the surviving plant balance. In this manner, any over- or under-accrued depreciation in 15
the accumulated depreciation is adjusted over the remaining life of the group. For example, in the case 16
of distribution line transformers discussed above, the normal depreciation rate of 3.64% would be 17
increased to 4.35%24 to incorporate the recovery of the $708 million past accumulated depreciation 18
deficit into the depreciation rate. 19
SP U-4 favors the remaining life technique because “remaining life straight-line 20
depreciation method is designed to ratably recover the cost of plant, less net salvage and less 21
depreciation reserve, over the remaining life of plant.”25 NARUC also points out that “[t]he desirability 22
of using the remaining life technique is that any necessary adjustments of depreciation reserves [i.e., 23
21 Based on a 33 year average service life and a -20% net salvage rate, the formula is
(100%-(-20%))/33years=3.64%.
22 The $708 million deficiency is based on the current authorized net salvage rate of -20%. Updating to SCE’s proposed net salvage rate of -50% indicates an under-collection of $1,089 million.
23 Based on recorded retirement experience between 2009 and 2018. See Account 368 Net Salvage discussion in Chapter III.E.2.g, below.
24 The 4.35% is based on the current authorized net salvage rate of -20%. The depreciation rate based on SCE’s proposed service life and -50% net salvage rate is 5.66%.
25 STANDARD PRACTICE U-4, p. 8.
12
Workpaper – Southern California Edison / 2021 General Rate Case
Exhibit No. SCE-07 Vol.03 Ch I-VI Bk A Witness: D. Gunn
13
accumulated depreciation], because of changes to the estimates of life [or] net salvage, are accrued 1
automatically over the remaining life of the property.”26 2
4. Depreciation System 3
As the full title of SP U-4 indicates, the commission has specified certain aspects of the 4
depreciation system – namely the straight-line method and the remaining life technique. Although SP 5
U-4 does not apply the more contemporary terms for depreciation group procedures, it does address 6
“unit accounting” and “group accounting,” and refers to groupings as including “all units of an account” 7
(i.e., Broad Group), “Age Groups” (also referred to as “Vintage” Groups by SP U-4), as well as other 8
potential groupings to account for plant with similar life and retirement characteristics.27 SP U-4 states 9
that “[b]ecause of greater simplicity in maintaining records, the group basis is more feasible for most 10
classes of utility property where large numbers of units are involved.”28 The specific examples set forth 11
by SP U-4 demonstrating the straight-line, remaining life technique apply the broad group method using 12
plant accounts as the group. 13
5. Depreciation Calculation 14
The STANDARD PRACTICE U-4’s remaining life method for calculating depreciation accrual 15
can be represented by the following formulas: 16
26 PUBLIC UTILITY DEPRECIATION PRACTICES, NARUC, 1996, p. 65.
27 STANDARD PRACTICE U-4, pp. 9-10.
28 Id.
13
Workpaper – Southern California Edison / 2021 General Rate Case
Exhibit No. SCE-07 Vol.03 Ch I-VI Bk A Witness: D. Gunn
14
Figure II-1 Depreciation Rate and Accrual Calculations
The above formulas provide the basic parameters required for the determination 1
of a depreciation rate: (1) Plant; (2) Accumulated Depreciation (sometimes referred to as “Depreciation 2
Reserve” or simply “Reserve”); (3) Future Net Salvage (equal to future gross salvage minus future cost 3
of removal); and (4) Remaining Life. The first two parameters, plant and accumulated depreciation, 4
come from accounting records. The other two parameters, remaining life and future net salvage, are 5
estimates and, as such, the focus of much of this depreciation study. For T&D, the life analysis portion 6
of the depreciation study, presented by Dr. Ronald E. White in Chapter IV, determines an account’s 7
average service life, retirement characteristics, and remaining life. The net salvage analysis portion of 8
the depreciation study (Chapter III) summarizes SCE’s proposal for each net salvage rate.9
14
Workpaper – Southern California Edison / 2021 General Rate Case
Exhibit No. SCE-07 Vol.03 Ch I-VI Bk A Witness: D. Gunn
15
III. 1
DEPRECIATION STUDY FOR T&D NET SALVAGE 2
A. Summary of Results 3
Table III-5 Summary of Net Salvage Proposals and Impact
(based on Year-End 2018 CPUC Jurisdictional Plant ($M))
B. Net Salvage Concepts 4
Net Salvage is a key element in determining depreciation expense and rates. STANDARD PRACTICE 5
U-4 states that: 6
FERC Net Salvage Rates ImpactAcct Description Auth. Prop. Change ($M)
A B C D E=D-C FTransmission Plant352 Structures and Improvements -35% -35%353 Station Equipment -15% -15%354 Towers and Fixtures -60% -80% -20% $0.3355 Poles and Fixtures -72% -90% -18% $3.3356 Overhead Conductors & Devices -80% -100% -20% $1.4357 Underground Conduit 0% 0%358 Underground Conductors & Devices -15% -30% -15% $1.3359 Roads and Trails 0% 0%
Distribution Plant361 Structures and Improvements -25% -40% -15% $2.2362 Station Equipment -25% -40% -15% $7.4364 Poles, Towers and Fixtures -210% -210%365 Overhead Conductors & Devices -115% -190% -75% $29.8366 Underground Conduit -30% -80% -50% $25.8367 Underground Conductors & Devices -60% -100% -40% $68.1368 Line Transformers -20% -50% -30% $54.8369 Services -100% -100%370 Meters -5% -5%371 Installations on Customer Premises -100% -100%373 Street Lighting & Signal Systems -30% -50% -20% $4.2
General Buildings390 Structures and Improvements -10% -10%
Total $198.8
15
Workpaper – Southern California Edison / 2021 General Rate Case
Exhibit No. SCE-07 Vol.03 Ch I-VI Bk A Witness: D. Gunn
16
Future net salvage as included in the accrual equation represents an estimate of the dollars 1 which will be realized from the future retirement of all units now in service. Net salvage is 2 gross salvage realized from resale, re-use or scrap disposal of the retired units less cost of 3 removal. It is customary to arrive at the net salvage in dollars by applying an estimated 4 percentage to gross plant.29 5
The important points are that 1) the net salvage included in SP U-4 is the future amount expected 6
to be realized from all assets currently in service (i.e., not simply those expected to retire in the near-7
term) and 2) is equal to the gross salvage minus the removal cost associated with a plant retirement. Cost 8
of removal at the end of a T&D asset’s life generally far exceeds any salvage value and the future net 9
salvage is commonly negative. Net salvage can be expressed either as a dollar amount or as a percent of 10
the original plant cost (the net salvage rate). In the case of mass plant, the net salvage rate is typically 11
multiplied by the surviving plant to estimate the dollar amount of future net salvage.30 The standard 12
industry practice for net salvage follows the same approach set forth in the Commission’s STANDARD 13
PRACTICE U-4.31 14
To illustrate, when a transformer is placed into service, the company includes in depreciation 15
expense an estimate of the future gross salvage value minus its removal cost expected at the end of its 16
service life. Recognition of both an asset’s original cost and its net salvage in depreciation expense 17
allocates the asset’s total capital cost (i.e., its service value) over its expected life. Because removal costs 18
for a T&D asset often exceed its gross salvage value,32 the total costs to allocate are greater than the 19
original cost of the asset. DEPRECIATION SYSTEMS instructs: 20
The original cost less net salvage is called the depreciable base. It represents the capital 21 consumed during the life of the unit and the amount to be recovered through depreciation. If 22 the net salvage is positive, then the capital consumed is less than the original cost. If the net 23 salvage is negative, the capital is greater than the original cost.33 24
NARUC states that “most regulatory commissions have required that both gross salvage and cost 25
of removal be reflected in depreciation rates.”34 NARUC points out that there are sound principles for 26
29 STANDARD PRACTICE U-4, pp. 12, emphasis added.
30 When net salvage is shown as a percent of the original plant cost, it is commonly referred to as the “Net Salvage Rate” or “NSR.”
31 STANDARD PRACTICE U-4, pp. 8, 12.
32 See the discussion on age and forces of net salvage in Section III.C.4.a, below.
33 DEPRECIATION SYSTEMS, p. 51 (emphasis added).
34 PUBLIC UTILITY DEPRECIATION PRACTICES, NARUC, 1996, p. 157.
16
Workpaper – Southern California Edison / 2021 General Rate Case
Exhibit No. SCE-07 Vol.03 Ch I-VI Bk A Witness: D. Gunn
17
the requirement “that the estimated cost of removal of plant be recovered over its life.”35 Those 1
principles include “the accounting principle that revenues be matched with costs and the regulatory 2
principle that utility customers who benefit from the consumption of plant pay for the cost of that plant, 3
no more, no less.”36 4
1. Accounting for Net Salvage 5
SCE’s accounting for net salvage follows the requirements of the FERC Uniform System 6
of Accounts (USoA), which states that “depreciation, as applied to depreciable electric plant, means the 7
loss in service value.”37 The USoA includes in its definition of service value the original cost of plant 8
and its net salvage. Because the USoA provides accruals for both the plant investment and the future net 9
salvage, when a retirement occurs, FERC requires that the net salvage be recorded to Accumulated 10
Depreciation along with the plant cost. The USoA declares that Account 108 – Accumulated 11
Depreciation shall “be charged with the book cost of the property retired and the cost of removal and 12
shall be credited with the salvage value.”38 Account 108 - Accumulated Depreciation is designated as the 13
appropriate account to record net salvage regardless of whether or not a retirement unit is being 14
replaced: 15
When a retirement unit is retired from electric plant, with or without replacement, 16
the book cost thereof shall be credited to the electric plant account in which it is 17
included…. If the retirement unit is of a depreciable class, the book cost of the 18
unit retired and credited to electric plant shall be charged to the accumulated 19
provision for depreciation applicable to such property. The cost of removal and 20
the salvage shall be charged [i.e., debited] or credited, as appropriate, to such 21
depreciation account.39 22
2. Definition of Net Salvage 23
a) Removal Cost 24
The FERC Uniform System of Accounts (FERC USoA) defines removal cost as 25
“the cost of demolishing, dismantling, tearing down or otherwise removing electric plant, including the 26
35 Id.
36 Id.
37 18 CFR, Part 101.
38 Id.
39 18 CFR, Part 101 (emphasis added).
17
Workpaper – Southern California Edison / 2021 General Rate Case
Exhibit No. SCE-07 Vol.03 Ch I-VI Bk A Witness: D. Gunn
18
cost of transportation and handling incidental thereto.”40 Removal cost generally consists of labor, but 1
also includes other items such as associated equipment charges, transportation costs, and disposal costs. 2
The labor and equipment elements that make up removal costs for the mass property accounts are 3
similar to the non-material costs capitalized with the new plant additions. For example, the replacement 4
of a distribution pole requires the same crew of linemen to expend some of its time removing the 5
existing pole and some of its time installing the replacement pole. As such, the non-material replacement 6
costs are assignable to removal cost or plant-in-service according to the relative time spent removing an 7
existing pole or installing a replacement pole. 8
b) Gross Salvage 9
The FERC USoA defines gross salvage as “the amount received for property 10
retired, less any expenses incurred in connection with the sale or in preparing the property for sale; or if 11
retained, the amount at which the material recoverable is chargeable to materials and supplies, or other 12
appropriate account.”41 The salvage value of used equipment (e.g., power operated equipment, meters, 13
etc.) and the scrap value from retired equipment (e.g., copper conductor) are the most readily 14
recognizable types of salvage along with other salvage values including third-party reimbursements 15
(i.e., joint pole credits, damages claims, etc.). 16
C. Mass Property Net Salvage Estimation 17
SP U-4 provides a framework and tools for the traditional depreciation estimation, but is not 18
prescriptive in the analytical approach or method required and does not provide a step-by-step approach 19
to arriving at a future net salvage estimate. The following describes factors and considerations used in 20
SCE’s study. 21
1. STANDARD PRACTICE U-4 Form D-6: Analysis Of Net Salvage Rates 22
SP U-4 sets forth that in determining the future net salvage “[i]t is customary to arrive at 23
the net salvage in dollars by applying an estimated percentage to gross plant.”42 That is, the future net 24
salvage, gross salvage, and removal cost rates are determined as percentages of the associated future 25
retirement dollars for the gross plant currently in service. 26
40 Id.
41 Id.
42 STANDARD PRACTICE U-4, p. 12.
18
Workpaper – Southern California Edison / 2021 General Rate Case
Exhibit No. SCE-07 Vol.03 Ch I-VI Bk A Witness: D. Gunn
19
It is helpful to understand the underlying calculations, when evaluating future net salvage 1
rates. A net salvage rate is composed of a numerator with gross salvage and removal cost dollars as 2
recorded on the books in the year the expenditures were incurred (generally, the “retirement year”). The 3
denominator is the plant retirements, which are the original recorded plant costs when the assets were 4
first put into service. See Figure III-2, below. 5
Figure III-2 Formulation of Net Salvage Rates
To determine reasonable future net salvage rates applicable to existing plant, STANDARD 6
PRACTICE U-4 provides “detailed procedures … applicable to larger utilities or larger accounts where 7
they may be used as an aid in arriving at estimates of proper future net salvage.”43 SP U-4 establishes 8
that analyzing historical recorded retirement and net salvage information is a reasonable starting point 9
for estimating future net salvage rates. 10
Where records are available recorded [net] salvage for each account may be 11
determined by analyzing the credits and debits to the reserve. To do this, total the 12
retirements for each year and determine the corresponding totals of gross salvage 13
and cost of removal. Dividing each of the latter by the retirements gives the 14
percent gross salvage and percent cost of removal realized for each year. This 15
calculation for a series of years is illustrated in the upper portion of the … 16
standard form D-6. In using this information for determining estimates it is often 17
helpful to plot a graph of successive values each year.”44 18
The SP U-4’s Standard Form D-6 arranges the historical retirement experience for the 19
recorded retirements, gross salvage, removal cost, and the resulting net salvage amounts by retirement 20
year. The associated salvage, removal and net salvage rates associated with those plant retirements are 21
also calculated. An example is shown for Account 367 in Table III-6, below. 22
43 STANDARD PRACTICE U-4, p. 37.
44 STANDARD PRACTICE U-4, p. 37.
19
Workpaper – Southern California Edison / 2021 General Rate Case
Exhibit No. SCE-07 Vol.03 Ch I-VI Bk A Witness: D. Gunn
20
Table III-6 Form D-6: Net Salvage History for Account 367 – U.G. Conductor
(in millions of dollars)
The above example shows that, based on the $405 million of retirements (column B) over 1
the past ten years, the average cost to remove the plant at the time of retirement was 173% (column D) 2
more than the original installed plant cost when initially placed into service decades ago. The average 3
salvage dollars (column E) are significantly smaller, about seven percent (column F) of the original plant 4
cost. Before making any additional judgments or evaluations, the last ten years of retirement history lead 5
to a reasonable conclusion that the future net salvage rate (column H) for Underground Conductor could 6
be about -165%. To estimate future net salvage rates, experts often consider analysis in addition to these 7
historical rates summarized in Form D-6. 8
2. Mass Property Accounts Reflect a Significant Quantity and Variety of Retirement 9
Circumstances 10
T&D plant accounts are designated as “mass property” because of the volume of assets. 11
T&D assets are accounted for in 19 separate accounts representing various functions that have a vast 12
number of discrete assets, component types, technical specifications, configurations, locations, and ages. 13
Each of these factors has an impact on each asset’s overall cost to remove. For example, replacing a pole 14
on a rural road set in dirt with no hardscape will cost less than replacing a pole set in concrete in a busy 15
urban area. It is even more difficult and costly to replace a pole in a backyard that has no vehicle access 16
and requires the use of special equipment. 17
20
Workpaper – Southern California Edison / 2021 General Rate Case
Exhibit No. SCE-07 Vol.03 Ch I-VI Bk A Witness: D. Gunn
21
Despite the quantity and diversity of SCE’s T&D plant assets, the depreciation system 1
requires a single average future net salvage rate for each account’s depreciation rate. However, given the 2
differences in retirement units and the large number of retirement work orders processed annually, it 3
would not be possible to specifically analyze all of the tens of thousands of work orders and individual 4
factors affecting net salvage. Fortunately, the large volume of retirement transactions makes that level of 5
effort largely unnecessary. 6
Between 2009 and 2018, T&D assets experienced a significant level of retirements 7
totaling $2.1 billion, representing millions of assets. In 2018 alone there were more than 46,000 8
retirement work orders processed totaling $324 million of T&D retirements under a variety of 9
circumstances. Some are performed on an over-time versus normal-time basis; some are scheduled while 10
other activity is performed in an emergency. Some plant components require careful testing and 11
handling because of chemical contents or because special disposal is required. Some assets retire early in 12
their service life and some retire at significantly more advanced ages. SCE’s retirement history reflects a 13
wide variety of conditions and provides a reasonable sample from which to draw conclusions about 14
future net salvage rates. By considering the numerous retirements over a ten-year period, the practice of 15
analyzing historical net salvage rates provides a reasonable basis for estimating future net salvage costs. 16
Regarding the numerous removal cost factors, NARUC states that “making detailed 17
forecasts are usually not justified by the results.” Instead, “it is believed that an analyst, cognizant of the 18
factors that may cause future cost of removal experience to differ from that of the past, is able to 19
adequately estimate the future cost of removal as a percent of retirements.”45 Furthermore, regarding 20
gross salvage, NARUC suggests that the result of analyzing individual salvage prices “does not justify 21
the time and effort involved.”46 In addition to NARUC, other authorities acknowledge the 22
reasonableness of using historical net salvage rates as the basis for estimating net salvage. The CPUC’s 23
STANDARD PRACTICE U-4 adopts this approach,47 as does the text DEPRECIATION SYSTEMS.48 24
45 PUBLIC UTILITY DEPRECIATION PRACTICES, NARUC, 1996, p. 161.
46 PUBLIC UTILITY DEPRECIATION PRACTICES, NARUC, 1996, p. 160.
47 STANDARD PRACTICE U-4, pp. 37-40.
48 DEPRECIATION SYSTEMS, pp. 53-68.
21
Workpaper – Southern California Edison / 2021 General Rate Case
Exhibit No. SCE-07 Vol.03 Ch I-VI Bk A Witness: D. Gunn
22
3. Basic Judgment Factors in Analyzing Net Salvage Rates 1
On the surface, the net salvage rates appear as a simple calculation of net salvage 2
occurring at retirement divided by the original plant balance associated with that retirement. A deeper 3
look reveals a number of factors affecting the net salvage rates. While every individual plant retirement 4
has its own unique set of circumstances affecting its specific net salvage rate, there are common factors 5
that should be considered when making judgments how representative historical retirements are of the 6
future. Rather than simply relying on the historical average net salvage rates, STANDARD PRACTICE U-4 7
references a number of judgment factors that should be considered when evaluating historical versus 8
future net salvage. Some considerations include assumptions about the future, age-related impacts, 9
changes in costs over time, asset composition, differences in asset characteristics, and the otherwise 10
representative nature of the historical experience versus future expectations. Along these lines, for the 11
larger accounts, the Commission has previously indicated its desire for quantitative (not just qualitative) 12
support with respect to historical and anticipated future cost of removal using quantities, the 13
implications associated with the historical and anticipated future retirement mix (i.e., retirements among 14
different asset classes), and implication of the service life (i.e., average age at retirement) to the original 15
cost of plant assets being retired in relationship to cost of removal on both a historical and anticipated 16
future basis.49 17
a) Retirement Age Impact on Future Net Salvage 18
Retirement age and the associated cost escalation over time has the most 19
significant impact on net salvage rates. The reason is that the costs in the numerator and denominator of 20
the net salvage rate reflect costs from different periods depending on the length of the service life of the 21
retiring asset. That is, the rate represents the net salvage costs of an asset being replaced (numerator) 22
divided by the original installed plant costs of the very same asset (denominator). For example, an asset 23
placed into service in 1970 and retired in 2018 will have the original installed costs as incurred back in 24
1970 in the denominator, and the net salvage dollars reflecting the removal costs incurred in 2018 when 25
the plant was retired from service in the numerator. 26
49 D.15-11-021, pp. 554-555.
22
Workpaper – Southern California Edison / 2021 General Rate Case
Exhibit No. SCE-07 Vol.03 Ch I-VI Bk A Witness: D. Gunn
23
Whereas the original plant cost remains fixed at the cost recorded in the 1
installation year (or vintage year), as the number of years between installation and retirement increase, 2
the removal costs will increase, as demonstrated in the following equations:50 3
Figure III-3 Embedded Cost Escalation in Net Salvage Rates
Other factors being equal, older-lived plant retirements will exhibit a greater 4
percentage of removal cost to original plant cost than younger retirements because of the cost escalation 5
between the time of original installation and the time of removal. As a plant account matures and the 6
average composition of retirements is older, the account’s removal cost rates will increase. To 7
demonstrate the impact of cost escalation on removal cost rates, assume, for example, that seven 8
distribution assets were placed into service in 1955 at a cost of $500 per asset. Furthermore, assume that 9
the first asset retires during the first year and is removed at a cost of about $250. Assume that an 10
additional asset retires each tenth year thereafter. Assuming a reasonable average cost increase of 3 11
percent annually, the removal cost (i.e., net salvage) rates for these six assets would increase with age as 12
shown in Table III-7, below: 13
50 DEPRECIATION SYSTEMS, pp. 53-55.
1. Net Salvage % Net Salvage $ Retirement Year $
Plant Retirement $ Vintage Year $
2. Net Salvage % Net Salvage $ Vintage Year $ ∗ 1 Escalation Rate Retirement Age
Plant Retirement $ Vintage Year $
23
Workpaper – Southern California Edison / 2021 General Rate Case
Exhibit No. SCE-07 Vol.03 Ch I-VI Bk A Witness: D. Gunn
24
Table III-7 Plant Retirement and Removal Cost
As the hypothetical example above shows, cost escalation and service life 1
increases will impact recorded net salvage rates and their impacts should be considered, as the 2
Commission has expressed.51 The text DEPRECIATION SYSTEMS, also indicates the impact of increasing 3
retirement age and cost escalation on net salvage.52 4
Whereas removal cost rates increase with the age of the plant retirements, gross 5
salvage rates generally decrease with age. The decline in the functionality and advances in technology as 6
an asset ages is one cause for salvage rates to decrease. Fitch and Wolf discuss this decline in salvage 7
value: 8
Gross salvage of early retirement will be high if the property is in good 9
condition and the technology is current, because the property will be 10
valuable for sale or reuse. Older retirements would be less valuable 11
because, besides their added wear, they would be competing for use with 12
property that has a more current technology.53 13
Where there has been an increasing trend in plant balances, retirement dispersion 14
curves demonstrate that, on average, past retirements will be younger than the future retirement of 15
existing plant.54 16
51 See Ordering Paragraph 9.i of D.15-11-021.
52 DEPRECIATION SYSTEMS, pp. 51-68.
53 DEPRECIATION SYSTEMS, p. 52.
54 This is borne out by comparing the recent average age of retirement compared to the average service life of the T&D accounts.
Age Plant Removal Removal Year (years) Retirement Cost Cost Ratio1955 0 $500 $250 50%1965 10 $500 $336 67%1975 20 $500 $452 90%1985 30 $500 $607 121%1995 40 $500 $816 163%2005 50 $500 $1,096 219%2015 60 $500 $1,473 295%
24
Workpaper – Southern California Edison / 2021 General Rate Case
Exhibit No. SCE-07 Vol.03 Ch I-VI Bk A Witness: D. Gunn
25
b) Asset Retirement Mix Impact on Future Net Salvage Estimate 1
As previously discussed, although T&D plant is grouped in 19 FERC accounts, 2
the assets recorded in each account are not identical. When evaluating the mix of assets in the historical 3
net salvage rates it is important to consider whether the composition of historical retirements is 4
reasonably representative of the composition of anticipated future retirements (i.e., existing plant). 5
For example, the plant balance for Account 373 generally consists of three major 6
components – poles (45%), cable and conduit (33%), and light fixtures (20%). Although light fixtures 7
make up about 20% of the anticipated future retirements (i.e., plant investment), they represent 63% of 8
the account’s historical retirements. Moreover, the light fixtures have a -50% net salvage, which is a less 9
negative net salvage than the other streetlight assets, which collectively have a -273% net salvage rate. It 10
is reasonable that the retirement history reflects a higher level of retirements for light fixtures because 11
the luminaires have a shorter service life than the other equipment. It is also reasonable that the negative 12
net salvage is lower given that the younger retirement age for light fixtures. 13
Table III-8 Account 373 Net Salvage Analysis Results 2009-2018
(in millions of dollars)
Relying solely on retirement history in Form D-6, without considering the true 14
composition of the plant balance, underweights the net salvage experience related to the streetlight 15
assets that make up the vast majority (80 percent) of the account balance. STANDARD PRACTICE U-4 16
specifically addresses how to avoid this. Recognizing that future retirements can be “materially different 17
from past experience” because of a “difference in characteristics,” SP U-4 suggests weighting net 18
salvage estimates for different classes of property using the plant balances to determine a composite 19
estimate:55 20
55 STANDARD PRACTICE U-4, p. 13.
Major Retirement Mix Plant MixComponent Retirements Percent Balance Percent $ Percent Ret. Wtd. Plant Wtd.
A B C D E F G=F/B H=C*G I=E*GOther Streetlight Assets1 $36 37% $680 80% ($100) -290% -101% -233%Fixtures $62 63% $168 20% ($31) -50% -31% -10%Total $98 $848 ($130) -133% -243%
Net Salvage Weighted NSR
25
Workpaper – Southern California Edison / 2021 General Rate Case
Exhibit No. SCE-07 Vol.03 Ch I-VI Bk A Witness: D. Gunn
26
When separate estimates are developed for different classes of property or 1
different age groups, the composite estimate for the account should be 2
determined by direct weighting. That is, by multiplying each percent 3
estimate times its related dollars of plant, totaling these products and 4
dividing by the total plant dollars. This gives the composite net salvage 5
expressed as a ratio or a percent. 6
Differences between historical and future net salvage rates can be significant 7
depending on the level of difference in the asset mix of plant balances compared to the asset mix of 8
retirements. In the streetlight example above, reweighting the historical retirement experience using the 9
anticipated future retirement mix for this plant account results in a more negative average net salvage 10
rate of -243%, instead of the -133% reflected in the unadjusted historical results. 11
c) Other Impacts on Future Net Salvage Estimate 12
As previously discussed, there are enumerable factors affecting the life of millions 13
of utility assets. Most of these will be captured in the significant, ongoing retirement experience. The 14
above factors of service life and retirement age, cost escalation, and historical asset retirement mix 15
represent impacts that can have the most significant effect when evaluating historical versus future 16
anticipated net salvage rates. Of course, there can be other considerations. For example, if the retirement 17
experience in a particular account is too thin, the historical results may need to be augmented with 18
additional information regarding the expected net salvage. Also, emergent changes affecting the 19
circumstances surrounding future retirement activity can be considered: change in average service lives, 20
plant removal practices, disposal practices, environmental requirements, extraordinary events, and so 21
forth. Most of these would more likely tend toward a more negative net salvage. However, given the 22
relative gap between proposed net salvage rates and the levels recently experienced, there are no 23
fundamental changes in retirement practice expected that would require a change in the proposed 24
estimates. 25
d) Property Units in Relation to Form D-6 Net Salvage Rates 26
Units of Property (or retirement units) are an integral part of mass plant 27
accounting. The plant unitization is prescribed by FERC USoA and provides necessary cost information 28
when recording additions and retirements to the plant and depreciation ledgers. Plant costs and 29
associated quantities are recorded to specific retirement units within a plant account for each installation 30
year. Dividing the plant dollars by the unit quantity provides the amount to be removed from the plant 31
ledger when a plant asset is retired. Retirement units are also involved when recording removal costs 32
26
Workpaper – Southern California Edison / 2021 General Rate Case
Exhibit No. SCE-07 Vol.03 Ch I-VI Bk A Witness: D. Gunn
27
associated with mass property, which can be important when evaluating the impact of the retirement mix 1
on anticipated future net salvage. 2
Understanding the relationship between historical net salvage rates at a retirement 3
unit level is helpful when evaluating the reasonableness of net salvage rates, which can otherwise be 4
difficult to interpret. As the following equations show, analyzing net salvage rates at a unit level is 5
equivalent to analyzing recorded net salvage rates in Form D-6. 6
Figure III-4 Formulation of Historical Net Salvage Rates on a Quantity Basis
1. Net Salvage % $ $
$ $
2. Net Salvage % $ $
$ $
3. Net Salvage % $ $
$ $
For example, the five-year net salvage rate for Distribution Overhead Conductor 7
is -216%, calculated by dividing the recorded net salvage dollars of $231 million by the plant retirement 8
dollars of $107 million. Interpreting the historical -216% can be challenging without deconstructing the 9
elements underlying the net salvage ratio. Determining the unit-level amounts for the net salvage 10
(numerator) and retirements (denominator) results in the same net salvage rate of -216% as Form D-6, 11
but is easier to understand. 12
27
Workpaper – Southern California Edison / 2021 General Rate Case
Exhibit No. SCE-07 Vol.03 Ch I-VI Bk A Witness: D. Gunn
28
Figure III-5 Account 365 Net Salvage Rate per Foot of Conductor Retired
The above calculation shows that the original installation of 52.7 million feet of 1
overhead conductor distribution assets recently retired between 2014 and 2018 cost about $2.03 per foot 2
of conductor when placed into service about 37 years ago (i.e., the average age when retired). Over 3
nearly four decades, the level of net removal cost escalated to $4.38 per foot of conductor by the time of 4
retirement (216% of the original plant cost). 5
The five-year average net salvage rate of -216% reflects the average 37-year life 6
of the recent retirements and as such represents a historical basis. As the Commission has recognized, it 7
is important to evaluate the “life of assets and original cost of assets being retired, in relation to the 8
COR,” not only on a historical basis, but on an “anticipated future basis.”56 Whereas the historical net 9
salvage rate reflects original costs of $2.03 per conductor-foot and a service life of 37 years, the 10
anticipated future basis for the current plant balance reflects original costs of $2.33 per foot of conductor 11
and an average life expectancy of about 68 years (i.e., a remaining life of 36 years, based on an average 12
age of 32 years and an R0.5 retirement curve with a 55-year average service life). As will be 13
demonstrated below, with the underlying difference in life expectancies, the anticipated future negative 14
net salvage rate for the distribution overhead conductor account will be significantly higher than the 15
historical rate. That is, better estimates of the future removal cost obligation can be made given that (1) 16
the unit costs in the denominator are fixed based on the original (vintage year) recorded amounts in the 17
plant ledger, and (2) the current unit-level removal costs in the numerator will continue to escalate 18
throughout the asset’s remaining life (retirement year). As demonstrated in the bottom equation of the 19
figure below, taking the recent unit net salvage amounts and considering the potential cost escalation 20
over the plant’s remaining life estimates the future net salvage rate. 21
56 D.15-11-021.
Net Salvage $ / Feet Retired /Retirement $ / Feet Retired /
Net Salvage $ / Feet RetiredRetirement $ / Feet Retired
($230,813,957) 52,694,494 $106,720,924 52,694,494
= ($4.38) = -216%$2.03
=
28
Workpaper – Southern California Edison / 2021 General Rate Case
Exhibit No. SCE-07 Vol.03 Ch I-VI Bk A Witness: D. Gunn
29
Figure III-6 Escalation Rate in Historical Net Salvage Rates
1. Net Salvage % $ $
$ $
2. Net Salvage % $ $ ∗
$ $
Continuing with our example, applying this equation to Account 365 yields an 1
anticipated future net salvage rate of -464%: 2
Figure III-7 Formulation of Future Net Salvage Rate for Account 365
Net Salvage % – $4.38 ∗ 1 Escalation Rate
$2.33
Net Salvage % – $4.38 ∗ 1 2.86%
$2.33
Net Salvage % – $10.80
$2.33 – 464%
Although the basic Form D-6 provides a historic net salvage rate of -216% for the 3
past five years, the differences between historic and future age and life expectancies yields an 4
anticipated future negative net salvage rate of -464%. Moreover, while using the property unit level 5
information does not change the results of STANDARD PRACTICE U-4’s Form D-6 analysis, it does provide 6
greater visibility into some of the factors affecting the historic and anticipated future net salvage rates. 7
D. Analysis of Historical Net Salvage Rates for Mass Property 8
SCE uses average net salvage rates as a basis for analyzing future net salvage and incorporating 9
the net salvage into the calculation of the depreciation rate. The net salvage rate approach analyzes the 10
change in net salvage component amounts as a percent of original plant costs. As NARUC states, “the 11
process should start by analyzing past salvage and cost of removal data and by using the results of this 12
29
Workpaper – Southern California Edison / 2021 General Rate Case
Exhibit No. SCE-07 Vol.03 Ch I-VI Bk A Witness: D. Gunn
30
analysis to project future gross salvage and cost of removal.”57 In the case of mass property, the 1
historical net salvage elements are analyzed in relationship to retirements. SCE analyzes these rates for 2
bands of years in order to smooth out the year-to-year fluctuations inherent in retirement accounting data 3
and provide an indication of trends. For the depreciation study, five- and ten-year historical averages 4
were considered along with three-year rolling bands. Where there were significant fluctuations in the 5
data or relatively fewer retirements, SCE generally considered longer year bands. Where there were 6
general trends in the data, the shorter five-year averages were considered along with the rolling bands. 7
Moreover, SCE’s judgment also included an evaluation of the historical results versus future 8
expectations with respect to retirement age, changes in cost levels, the asset composition, and other 9
variations. Lastly, when practical, SCE determined the average underlying removal cost dollars by major 10
component for T&D line accounts when evaluating the net salvage rates. The recorded component cost 11
information provides a straightforward way to understand the removal costs included in SCE’s proposed 12
net salvage rates. 13
E. Account-by-Account Discussion 14
Table III-9, below, compares the authorized and proposed net salvage rates to the recorded 15
levels. An overall comparison demonstrates that SCE’s net salvage cost recovery has been substantially 16
less than the recorded levels of net salvage over the past ten years across the majority of T&D accounts. 17
The weighted average authorized net salvage rate for the transmission and distribution accounts is -57% 18
which compares to a -148% average net salvage experienced over the past ten years. The account-by-19
account analysis in this section of the chapter further substantiates this conclusion. Note that the plant 20
balances presented in the account-by-account analysis presented below differ from the plant balances 21
presented in the rate determination schedule (RDS) for two reasons. The first reason for the difference is 22
that the RDS includes a reduction in plant balances associated with write-offs required by the 2018 GRC 23
decision. The second reason is that during the data-gathering phase of the depreciation study, SCE 24
identified pro-forma adjustments that resulted in transfers of small amounts (less than $4 million) 25
between FERC accounts. 26
57 PUBLIC UTILITY DEPRECIATION PRACTICES, NARUC, 1996, pp. 157-158.
30
Workpaper – Southern California Edison / 2021 General Rate Case
Exhibit No. SCE-07 Vol.03 Ch I-VI Bk A Witness: D. Gunn
31
Table III-9 Comparison of T&D Net Salvage Rates
1. Transmission Plant Net Salvage 1
a) Account 352: Transmission Substation Structures and Improvements 2
(Authorized -35%, Proposed -35%) 3
The currently authorized net salvage rate for transmission substation structures 4
is -35%. While a more negative net salvage rate is warranted based on the historical results SCE is 5
proposing to maintain the authorized -35% net salvage rate at this time. 6
This account consists of $984 million58 in structures and improvements at more 7
than 180 transmission substations. During the last ten years, SCE has retired $13 million of plant from 8
this account, representing approximately 2% of the average plant balance over this time. The realized 9
net salvage rate from these retirements over the past ten years averages -77%. The composition of assets 10
being retired in this ten-year net salvage rate reasonably matches the plant balance. Reweighting the 11
58 $340 million on a CPUC jurisdictional basis.
Transmission: 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 Total*Recorded
10-yr Average -77% -22% NM** -190% -254% -203% -35% NM** -72%5-yr Average -80% -32% NM** -200% -202% NM** -41% NM** -97%
Proposed vs. AuthorizedSCE Proposed -35% -15% -80% -90% -100% 0% -30% 0% -47%Authorized -35% -15% -60% -72% -80% 0% -15% 0% -38%
Distribution: 361 362 364 365 366 367 368 369 370 373 Total*Recorded
10-yr Average -40% -69% -508% -242% -223% -166% -84% -474% -3% -133% -172%5-yr Average -49% -77% -469% -216% -257% -164% -104% -438% -3% -161% -185%
Proposed vs. AuthorizedSCE Proposed -40% -40% -210% -190% -80% -100% -50% -100% -5% -50% -97%Authorized -25% -25% -210% -115% -30% -60% -20% -100% -5% -30% -68%
* Recorded history weighted based on retirements; Proposed/Authorized weighted based on plant balance** Retirement data unrepresentative or insufficient, not meaningful (NM)
31
Workpaper – Southern California Edison / 2021 General Rate Case
Exhibit No. SCE-07 Vol.03 Ch I-VI Bk A Witness: D. Gunn
32
historical net salvage rates consistent with the asset mix indicates that the net salvage rate experienced is 1
the same at -77%. The retirements and net salvage are shown in Table III-10, below. 2
Table III-10 Account 352 Recorded Net Salvage Rates
(in millions of dollars)
Given the limited level of retirements and likely synchronization issues related to 3
the timing of removal cost and retirement transactions, the year-to-year net salvage rates fluctuate 4
significantly, ranging from -22% to -158%. The fluctuations support examining three-year rolling 5
averages and the longer-term average. Three-year rolling averages range from -61% to -113% and the 6
ten-year average is -77%. While the historical results support a more negative net salvage rate, given the 7
limited retirement history, SCE proposes maintaining the currently authorized -35% net salvage rate. 8
b) Account 353: Transmission Substation Equipment (Authorized -15%, 9
Proposed -15%) 10
The currently authorized net salvage rate for transmission substation equipment 11
is -15%. Although historical net salvage experience supports a more negative rate, SCE proposes 12
retaining the authorized net salvage rate of -15% at this time. 13
Plant Net SalvageYear Retired Amount % of Ret. 3-yr Avg % 2009 $0.9 ($0.2) -22%2010 $0.3 ($0.3) -93%2011 $1.1 ($0.9) -82% -61%2012 $0.2 ($0.2) -100% -87%2013 $0.2 ($0.1) -68% -83%2014 $0.9 ($1.1) -117% -108%2015 $2.3 ($2.1) -91% -97%2016 $1.0 ($1.6) -158% -113%2017 $2.7 ($1.5) -56% -87%2018 $3.8 ($2.3) -60% -72%
2009-2018 $13.3 ($10.2) -77%2014-2018 $10.7 ($8.5) -80%
32
Workpaper – Southern California Edison / 2021 General Rate Case
Exhibit No. SCE-07 Vol.03 Ch I-VI Bk A Witness: D. Gunn
33
This account consists of $6,071 million59 in station equipment at more than 180 1
transmission substations. Transmission substations convert high voltage loads to lower voltages to be 2
distributed to distribution circuits. To do so, substations include a variety of assets such as circuit 3
breakers, transformers, steel racks and structures, switches and switch gear, cables, and other devices 4
recorded in nearly 200 retirement units. Over the past ten years, SCE has retired $337 million of plant 5
(7% of the average plant balance) at a net removal cost of $73 million for an overall net salvage rate 6
of -22% as reflected in the Form D-6 and as summarized in Table III-11, below. 7
Table III-11 Account 353 Recorded Net Salvage Rates
(in millions of dollars)
The annual realized net salvage rates from these retirements have ranged 8
from -4% to -48% and the three-year rolling average rates ranged from -10% to -34%. The overall 9
average net salvage rate for the ten-year period is -22%. The composition of the historical retirements 10
are reasonably representative of the mix of surviving plant. Re-weighting the historical net salvage 11
results to more accurately reflect the composition of the account balance results in a slightly more 12
59 $2,612 million on a CPUC jurisdictional basis.
Plant Net SalvageYear Retired Amount % of Ret. 3-yr Avg % 2009 $17.9 ($4.9) -28%2010 $34.7 ($6.6) -19%2011 $31.5 ($1.2) -4% -15%2012 $67.1 ($8.5) -13% -12%2013 $34.6 ($3.8) -11% -10%2014 $14.2 ($6.8) -48% -16%2015 $43.3 ($9.6) -22% -22%2016 $15.5 ($6.3) -41% -31%2017 $33.0 ($10.2) -31% -28%2018 $45.2 ($15.0) -33% -34%
2009-2018 $337.0 ($73.0) -22%2009-2013 $185.8 ($25.0) -13%2014-2018 $151.2 ($48.0) -32%
33
Workpaper – Southern California Edison / 2021 General Rate Case
Exhibit No. SCE-07 Vol.03 Ch I-VI Bk A Witness: D. Gunn
34
negative net salvage rate, changing from -22% to -24%. Net salvage rates increased from an average 1
of -13% for 2009 to 2013, compared to -32% for the most recent five years. Although the average net 2
salvage rates have increased, the most recent five years are supported by fewer retirements and point to 3
relying on the longer 10-year average. A significant portion of the retirements during the past ten years 4
relate to investment in large renewable and reliability-related transmission projects such as Tehachapi 5
Renewable Transmission Project (TRTP). However, the overall net salvage rate for these renewable and 6
reliability-related projects was not significantly different than for other projects having an overall net 7
salvage rate of -19%. Given the ten-year average, the transmission project experience, and currently 8
authorized net salvage rate, SCE proposes to retain the authorized -15% at this time. 9
c) Account 354: Transmission Towers (Authorized -60%, Proposed -80%) 10
The currently authorized net salvage rate for transmission towers and fixtures 11
is -60%. This level of net salvage has been unchanged since the 1995 GRC and is currently allocating 12
future net salvage at levels below the cost SCE incurs for present-day removal activities. SCE proposes 13
a net salvage rate of -80%. As part of transmission, 97% of the account’s costs are allocated to FERC 14
rates, limiting the rate impact of SCE’s proposed increase to $0.3 million on a CPUC-jurisdictional 15
basis. 16
This account consists of $2,356 million60 in over 31,000 transmission towers. 17
During the last ten years, SCE retired $4 million of plant from this account, representing less than 1% of 18
the average plant balance over this time. Although this is a very low level of retirement on a percentage 19
basis, it is not unexpected given the long lifespans of these assets. Despite limited retirement history the 20
cost to remove each tower can be reasonably estimated because of the similarity of the investment in the 21
account. The historical negative net salvage rates exhibit extreme fluctuations with a low of -167% and 22
highs many times more negative, making the historical analysis more challenging. The aggregate 23
average net salvage over the ten-year historical period is -868%, with an average retirement age of 61 24
years. Given the very long lives of these assets, along with the general cost increases that have been 25
experienced, very negative net salvage rates are reasonable. 26
Over the past ten years, SCE retired 1,242 towers and structures with the vast 27
majority (976 or 79%) being retired in the last five years. This quantity of retirements collectively 28
provides a reasonable basis for estimating future net salvage costs. These tower retirements occurred 29
60 $71 million on a CPUC jurisdictional basis.
34
Workpaper – Southern California Edison / 2021 General Rate Case
Exhibit No. SCE-07 Vol.03 Ch I-VI Bk A Witness: D. Gunn
35
over a variety of removal and replacement circumstances and can be considered representative of the 1
types of costs that SCE will experience in the future. However, 380 of these retirements include activity 2
driven by large transmission construction projects integrating renewable generation, such as the TRTP. 3
Because some of these towers are in mountainous terrain and were completed under tight timelines, their 4
costs to retire generally exceeded the average costs experienced under more “normal” circumstances. 5
Although these kinds of situations will be encountered in the future, the full level of net salvage 6
experienced in the recent past may not be reflective of the level expected in the future and, as such, were 7
removed from the analysis. After removing these transactions, the remaining 862 towers yield an 8
average recorded cost to retire of approximately $42,000 per tower between 2009 and 2018.61 The 9
authorized net salvage rate of -60% yields only approximately $37,000 per tower. SCE’s proposed net 10
salvage rate of -80% is below future expectations but sets the net salvage rate at a level that avoids 11
collecting below recently experienced costs and represents a conservative step toward the expected level 12
for future retirements. 13
d) Account 355: Transmission Poles (Authorized -72%, Proposed -90%) 14
The currently authorized net salvage rate for transmission poles is -72%. SCE 15
proposes a -90% net salvage rate supported by recent retirement experience and SCE’s analysis of 16
historical data. As part of transmission, 26% of the account’s costs are allocated to FERC rates, limiting 17
the impact of SCE’s proposed increase in this case to $3.3 million on a CPUC-jurisdictional basis. 18
This account consists of $1,500 million62 of transmission poles. Major 19
components of the account include wood poles and tubular steel poles. Between 2009 and 2018, SCE 20
retired more than 30,000 transmission poles, or $89 million in plant (10% of the average plant balance). 21
More than 70% of these retirements took place between 2014 to 2018. The 2009 to 2013 net salvage 22
rates exhibited greater variability ranging from -83% to -298%, and averaging -160%. More recent net 23
salvage rates recorded between the years 2014 and 2018 demonstrated less variability averaging -200%, 24
and were consistently more negative than -170%, as shown in Table III-12, below. 25
61 The $42,000 average cost to retire each tower will increase with escalation over the 18-year average
remaining life.
62 $1,114 million on a CPUC-jurisdictional basis.
35
Workpaper – Southern California Edison / 2021 General Rate Case
Exhibit No. SCE-07 Vol.03 Ch I-VI Bk A Witness: D. Gunn
36
Table III-12 Account 355 Recorded Net Salvage Rates
(in millions of dollars)
Deconstructing the experienced net salvage rates on a per-pole basis aids in 1
understanding the historical results of the analysis. Analyzing per pole costs allows costs to be compared 2
against recent experience, engineering estimates, and future expectations. Dividing both the numerator 3
(Net Salvage $) and the denominator (Retirement $) for the 2014-2018 recorded net salvage rate by the 4
number of poles retired during the period restates the -200% net salvage rate on a per-pole basis (see 5
Figure III-8 below). 6
Plant Net SalvageYear Retired Amount % of Ret. 3-yr Avg % 2009 $3.1 ($3.3) -104%2010 $3.5 ($2.9) -83%2011 $6.0 ($7.0) -118% -105%2012 $4.9 ($10.2) -207% -140%2013 $3.4 ($10.0) -298% -191%2014 $7.4 ($13.7) -186% -216%2015 $9.5 ($19.1) -201% -211%2016 $12.4 ($35.2) -284% -232%2017 $20.5 ($36.3) -177% -214%2018 $18.5 ($32.0) -173% -201%
2009-2018 $89.1 ($169.6) -190%2009-2013 $20.9 ($33.4) -160%2014-2018 $68.2 ($136.2) -200%
36
Workpaper – Southern California Edison / 2021 General Rate Case
Exhibit No. SCE-07 Vol.03 Ch I-VI Bk A Witness: D. Gunn
37
Figure III-8 Recorded Net Salvage Rate Per Transmission Pole
(2014-2018 in dollars)
As shown in Figure III-8, the average recorded costs to retire and dispose 1
transmission poles were $6,140 per pole, which is two times the $3,075 average recorded plant cost per 2
transmission pole when placed into service about 50 years earlier. The $6,140 cost for transmission 3
poles is also about twice as high as the recorded average retirement cost for the distribution poles (see 4
Account 364 discussion). This incremental cost is reasonable because transmission projects are greater 5
in scale than distribution. The larger pole size and numerous internal and external stakeholders 6
associated with transmission poles increase costs at every stage in the replacement process. For example, 7
transmission projects require more planning and coordination related to permitting and outage 8
schedules. During replacement efforts, a transmission pole requires a larger crew and equipment 9
(frequently requiring cranes and larger boom trucks). Most often transmission lines must be de-10
energized and due to the effects on outages, the work must be completed during non-peak load hours 11
(premium time). Disposal costs are charged by weight, and transmission poles, which range from 65 to 12
125 feet, are significantly heavier than the average 45-foot distribution pole. Finally, due to the longer 13
span between transmission poles, there are fewer joint owners on the transmission system sharing the 14
cost to retire, resulting in lower gross salvage. 15
Although the account investment is split almost evenly between wood and steel 16
poles, the recorded -200% net salvage rate is most heavily driven by the wood poles, which make up the 17
largest portion of recorded retirements (both quantity and dollars). Steel poles, despite being nearly three 18
times as costly as wood poles to remove and dispose of, experienced a less negative net salvage rate 19
(i.e., -77% for steel versus -218% for wood) because of their higher average original cost. The lower net 20
salvage rate for steel poles results from two factors affecting the denominator: the higher original plant 21
Net Salvage $ ($136,176,544)Retirement $ $68,195,119
Net Salvage $/ Pole Retired ($136,176,544) / 22,180 Retirement $/ Pole Retired $68,195,119 / 22,180
Net Salvage $/ Pole Retired -$6,140Retirement $/ Pole Retired $3,075 -200%
= = -200%
=
= =
37
Workpaper – Southern California Edison / 2021 General Rate Case
Exhibit No. SCE-07 Vol.03 Ch I-VI Bk A Witness: D. Gunn
38
cost and the younger retirement age. First, other factors being equal, the net salvage rate for steel poles 1
has a higher cost to install the original poles due to higher material and labor costs. Additionally, the 2
steel pole population is less mature than wood poles as reflected in the average age of retirements (27 3
years for steel poles vs. 52 years for wood poles). As a result, the denominator is higher, resulting in a 4
less negative net salvage rate. 5
Table III-13 Net Salvage by Type of Pole
(2014-2018 in dollars)
Because the net salvage rates for recorded retirements represent an over-6
weighting of wood poles, it is reasonable to adjust the weighted average net salvage rates to reflect the 7
current mix of surviving steel and wood pole plant investment. Re-weighting results in a less 8
negative -144% as shown in Table III-14, below. 9
Table III-14 Re-Weighted Net Salvage by Type of Pole
(2014-2018 in dollars)
SCE’s experienced net salvage rates are a conservative indicator of future net 10
salvage costs because net salvage rates for both steel and wood poles will be more negative in the future 11
Major Percent of Net Salvage WeightedComponent Investment Rate (NSR) NSR
Wood, Fiberglass, & Composite Poles 48% -218% -104%Steel & Concrete Poles 52% -77% -40%Total -144%
38
Workpaper – Southern California Edison / 2021 General Rate Case
Exhibit No. SCE-07 Vol.03 Ch I-VI Bk A Witness: D. Gunn
39
as the costs in the numerator (net salvage $) continue to escalate with age.63 Although recorded history 1
supports a more negative net salvage rate of at least -144%, SCE conservatively proposes a net salvage 2
rate of -90%. 3
e) Account 356: Transmission Overhead Conductor and Devices (-80% 4
Authorized, -100% Proposed) 5
The currently authorized net salvage rate for transmission overhead conductor 6
is -80%. SCE proposes a -100% net salvage rate supported by recent retirement experience and SCE’s 7
analysis of historical data. As part of transmission, 80% of the account’s costs are allocated to FERC 8
rates, limiting the impact of SCE’s proposed increase to $1.4 million on a CPUC-jurisdictional basis. 9
This account consists of $1,653 million64 of transmission overhead conductors and 10
devices. Most of the account consists of overhead conductor and the remainder of the account consists 11
of ground wire/other and switches. A significant portion of this account’s retirement activity is related to 12
the TRTP. The large retirement activity associated with TRTP was removed because the size and scope 13
of the project is atypical of expected retirement activities. 14
63 The expected average service life of the transmission poles account is 65 years, the average retirement age for
the current plant balance will be older than the recent retirement experience (averaging about 50 years).
64 $342 million on a CPUC-jurisdictional basis.
39
Workpaper – Southern California Edison / 2021 General Rate Case
Exhibit No. SCE-07 Vol.03 Ch I-VI Bk A Witness: D. Gunn
40
Table III-15 Account 356 Recorded Net Salvage Rates
(in millions of dollars)
Over the past ten years, SCE retired $20 million of plant from this account, 1
experiencing an overall net salvage rate of -254%. The composition of retired assets underlying the ten-2
year net salvage rate is over-weighted by switches. That is, the switches represented 30% of plant 3
retirements although they only represent 3% of the plant balance. Since overhead conductor has higher 4
negative net salvage rates, reweighting the historical net salvage rates consistent with the asset mix for 5
the account plant balance would change the net salvage rate from -254% to -308%. The average net 6
salvage rate from 2009 to 2013 was -375%, but in the most recent five years has become less negative 7
at -202%. Seventy percent of the account’s retirements occurred during this most recent five-year 8
period. Part of the reason for the less negative rate is an increase in planned retirement work, which 9
resulted in a lower cost to retire each asset. 10
Deconstructing the experienced net salvage rates on a conductor-foot basis aids in 11
interpreting the net salvage experience for this account. Overhead conductor comprises over 97% of the 12
account and, between 2014 and 2018, experienced an average net salvage cost of -$6.37 for each foot of 13
conductor. Dividing both the numerator (Net Salvage $) and the denominator (Retirement $) for the 14
Plant Net SalvageYear Retired Amount % of Ret. 3-yr Avg % 2009 $1.1 ($3.3) -302%2010 $0.2 ($1.3) -640%2011 $2.7 ($7.8) -290% -311%2012 $1.3 ($4.6) -360% -329%2013 $0.6 ($4.9) -860% -381%2014 $1.1 ($4.7) -441% -487%2015 $1.2 ($3.1) -262% -451%2016 $1.4 ($0.8) -57% -237%2017 $5.6 ($9.1) -163% -160%2018 $4.6 ($10.2) -223% -174%
2009-2018 $19.6 ($49.8) -254%2009-2013 $5.8 ($21.9) -375%2014-2018 $13.8 ($27.8) -202%
40
Workpaper – Southern California Edison / 2021 General Rate Case
Exhibit No. SCE-07 Vol.03 Ch I-VI Bk A Witness: D. Gunn
41
2014-2018 recorded net salvage rate by the feet of conductor retired during the period allows the -202% 1
net salvage rate to be restated on a per-foot basis. 2
Figure III-9 Recorded Net Salvage Rate Per Foot of Transmission OH Conductor
(2014-2018 in dollars)
As shown in Figure III-9, above, the average recorded costs to retire and dispose 3
the overhead conductor assets were $6.37 per conductor-foot, which is 202% higher than the $3.15 4
average recorded plant cost per conductor-foot when placed into service about 45 years earlier. Given 5
the 21 years average remaining life of overhead conductor, the average cost to remove in the future 6
could be expected to increase from -$6.37 to about -$15.71 supporting a net salvage rate of -246%. 7
However, SCE proposes the less negative -100% which is equivalent to the recent five-year average 8
removal cost per conductor-foot. 9
f) Account 357: Transmission Underground Conduit (0% Authorized, 0% 10
Proposed) 11
The currently authorized net salvage rate for Transmission Underground (UG) 12
Conduit is 0%. SCE proposes to retain the authorized level of net salvage at this time. 13
This account consists of $273 million65 of conduit, trenches, and manholes/vaults. 14
In 2016, the Chino Hills Underground (CHUG) project went into service increasing the account 15
investment by nearly $200 million. Over the past ten years, this account has retired only $0.4 million, 16
representing less than 1% of the average plant balance. The limited retirement history makes it difficult 17
to draw conclusions about the overall net salvage rate expected in this account. 18
65 $81 million on a CPUC jurisdictional basis.
Net Salvage $ / Feet Retired /Retirement $ / Feet Retired /
Net Salvage $ / Feet RetiredRetirement $ / Feet Retired
= ($27,843,526) 4,368,946 $13,763,802 4,368,946
= ($6.37) = -202%$3.15
Net Salvage $ = ($27,843,526) = -202%Retirement $ $13,763,802
41
Workpaper – Southern California Edison / 2021 General Rate Case
Exhibit No. SCE-07 Vol.03 Ch I-VI Bk A Witness: D. Gunn
42
Assets installed in this account for CHUG include 200,000 linear feet of UG 1
conduit, 42 vaults, and similar equipment. While some portion of this investment may be abandoned 2
underground, SCE expects it will be necessary to remove and replace the underground vaults to continue 3
safe and reliable service of the line in the future. However, due to limited retirement history, SCE 4
proposes a 0% net salvage rate until more information on the cost to retire CHUG becomes available. 5
g) Account 358: Transmission Underground Conductor and Devices (-15% 6
Authorized, -30% Proposed) 7
The currently authorized net salvage rate for Transmission Underground (UG) 8
Conductor and Devices is -15%. Analysis of the historical data supports a more negative net salvage rate 9
and SCE proposes the net salvage rate of -30% at this time. As part of transmission, 21% of the 10
account’s costs are allocated to FERC rates, limiting the impact of SCE’s proposed increase to $1.3 11
million on a CPUC-jurisdictional basis. 12
This account consists of $398 million66 of UG conductor, lightning arresters & 13
potheads, and cathodic protection & other. The average plant balance between 2009-2015 was $212 14
million. The balance in this account increased dramatically in 2016, primarily due to the CHUG project 15
for the construction of four miles of 500 kV underground transmission lines. Between 2009 and 2018, 16
SCE retired $21 million of plant from this account (8% of the average plant balance), 67% of which has 17
occurred in the past five years. The realized net salvage rate from these retirements ranged from -3% 18
to -70% with an overall ten-year average of -35% as shown in the Table III-16, below. 19
66 $315 on a CPUC-jurisdictional basis.
42
Workpaper – Southern California Edison / 2021 General Rate Case
Exhibit No. SCE-07 Vol.03 Ch I-VI Bk A Witness: D. Gunn
43
Table III-16 Account 358 Recorded Net Salvage Rates
(in millions of dollars)
The asset composition for the historical net salvage rate has been over-weighted 1
for lightning arrestors & potheads retirements compared to the asset composition of surviving plant 2
balance. These assets which had a higher negative net salvage rate represented 52% of the plant 3
retirements occurring in the past ten years, but only represent 20% of the current plant balance. Re-4
weighting the historical net salvage results to more accurately reflect the composition of the plant 5
balance results in a slightly less negative net salvage rate of -33%. 6
Net salvage rates in the last five years show fluctuations, and there has been a 7
general trend towards more negative net salvage rates as demonstrated by the three-year rolling averages 8
and the recent five-year average of -41%. During this period, this account had significant programmatic 9
infrastructure replacement activity, which experiences a lower average cost of removal rate than 10
unplanned and breakdown related removal activities. In addition, the conservative ten-year average 11
supports a more negative net salvage rate. In light of recent retirement history, SCE proposes a net 12
salvage rate of -30% at this time. 13
Plant Net SalvageYear Retired Amount % of Ret. 3-yr Avg % 2009 $0.9 ($0.1) -10%2010 $1.9 ($0.5) -26%2011 $2.4 ($0.1) -3% -13%2012 $1.1 ($0.5) -49% -20%2013 $0.6 ($0.4) -70% -25%2014 $1.6 ($0.2) -12% -35%2015 $2.2 ($0.7) -30% -29%2016 $2.4 ($0.7) -28% -24%2017 $6.1 ($3.6) -60% -47%2018 $1.7 ($0.5) -30% -47%
2009-2018 $20.9 ($7.3) -35%2014-2018 $14.0 ($5.7) -41%
43
Workpaper – Southern California Edison / 2021 General Rate Case
Exhibit No. SCE-07 Vol.03 Ch I-VI Bk A Witness: D. Gunn
44
h) Account 359: Transmission Roads and Trails (0% Authorized, 0% 1
Proposed) 2
The $195 million67 in this account primarily consists of roads and trails, with a 3
small portion consisting of bridges and trestles and culverts. Retirements have been few and sporadic 4
resulting in limited net salvage experience. As such, SCE proposes retaining the currently authorized 0% 5
net salvage rate for this account. 6
2. Distribution Plant Net Salvage 7
a) Account 361: Distribution Substation Structures and Improvements (-25% 8
Authorized, -40% Proposed) 9
The currently authorized net salvage rate for Distribution Substation Structures 10
and Improvements is -25%. SCE proposes a net salvage rate of -40%. The impact of SCE’s net salvage 11
proposal is an increase in depreciation expense of $2.2 million. 12
This account contains the buildings, foundations, and other structures located at 13
over 750 distribution substation locations across SCE’s territory. The $697 million of investment in this 14
account is broadly distributed amongst these components. Retirement history is similarly distributed 15
across the broad array of assets. During the last ten years, SCE has retired $52 million of plant from this 16
account, representing 10% of the average plant balance over this time. Historical net salvage rates from 17
2009 to 2018 range from -15% to -64%, with a ten-year average of -40% as shown in Table III-17, 18
below. 19
67 $22 million on a CPUC-jurisdictional basis.
44
Workpaper – Southern California Edison / 2021 General Rate Case
Exhibit No. SCE-07 Vol.03 Ch I-VI Bk A Witness: D. Gunn
45
Table III-17 Account 361 Recorded Net Salvage Rates
(in millions of dollars)
As demonstrated by the three-year rolling averages above, the historical 1
retirements have experienced more negative trends in the realized net salvage rates. The five-year 2
average for 2009 to 2013 of -26% increased to -49% for the most recent five years. These more negative 3
net salvage rates are driven in part by the advancing retirement age of infrastructure moving from an 4
average of 29 years to 35 years. The last five years are also more negative because of an increased share 5
of substation-related retirements (compared to service center related locations) which made up 6
approximately 30% of the total cost of removal during the period. These activities are also more 7
representative of the surviving plant balances, which have approximately 36% of the investment in 8
substations with the remainder in service center locations. Additionally, the composition of assets 9
reflected in the ten-year net salvage rate (-40%) is different than for the plant balance. Reweighting the 10
historical net salvage rates consistent with the asset mix for the plant balance would increase the net 11
salvage rate from -40% to -83%. Even though the most recent five-year retirement experience supports a 12
net salvage rate of about -50% based on the level of retirements, the increased retirement ages, and the 13
Plant Net SalvageYear Retired Amount % of Ret. 3-yr Avg % 2009 $1.5 ($0.6) -42%2010 $6.4 ($1.3) -20%2011 $6.3 ($2.3) -36% -29%2012 $4.4 ($0.7) -15% -24%2013 $1.4 ($0.4) -28% -27%2014 $11.4 ($3.5) -30% -26%2015 $6.9 ($4.4) -64% -42%2016 $3.5 ($2.2) -63% -46%2017 $4.8 ($2.5) -53% -60%2018 $5.9 ($3.4) -57% -57%
2009-2018 $52.5 ($21.2) -40%2009-2013 $20.0 ($5.2) -26%2014-2018 $32.4 ($16.0) -49%
45
Workpaper – Southern California Edison / 2021 General Rate Case
Exhibit No. SCE-07 Vol.03 Ch I-VI Bk A Witness: D. Gunn
46
asset composition of the surviving plant balances, SCE proposes a more conservative -40% based on the 1
10-year average net salvage rates realized for this account. 2
b) Account 362: Distribution Substation Equipment (-25% Authorized, -40% 3
Proposed) 4
The currently authorized net salvage rate for distribution substation equipment 5
is -25%. SCE proposes a net salvage rate of -40%. The impact of SCE’s net salvage proposal is an 6
increase in depreciation expense of $7.4 million. 7
This account consists of $2,728 million in station equipment at distribution 8
substations. The majority of the account is split between transformers, circuit breakers, monitoring 9
devices, and various substation equipment. During the last ten years, SCE has retired $131 million of 10
plant from this account, representing approximately 7% of the average plant balance over this time. 11
Table III-18 Account 362 Recorded Net Salvage Rates
(in millions of dollars)
Generally the mix of retirements experienced over the past ten years is similar to 12
the mix of assets in SCE’s current plant balance. As such, reweighting the historical net salvage rates 13
consistent with the asset mix for the plant account increases the negative net salvage only slightly 14
from -69% to -75%. The three-year rolling average is frequently more negative than -40%. As such, 15
SCE proposes a conservative net salvage rate of -40% at this time. 16
46
Workpaper – Southern California Edison / 2021 General Rate Case
Exhibit No. SCE-07 Vol.03 Ch I-VI Bk A Witness: D. Gunn
47
c) Account 364: Distribution Poles (-210% Authorized, -210% Proposed) 1
The currently authorized net salvage rate for Distribution Poles is -210%. While 2
historical net salvage rates support an increase, SCE proposes retaining the authorized net salvage rate 3
of -210%. 4
This account consists of $3,148 million invested in 1.48 million distribution poles. 5
Between 2009 and 2018 SCE retired more than 292,000 distribution poles with an original cost of $163 6
million (8% of the average plant balance), with a significant portion of them occurring in the last three 7
years. Over the past ten years the annual realized net salvage rates from these retirements ranged 8
from -275% to -752% with an overall 10-year average of -508% as summarized in Table III-19, below. 9
Table III-19 Account 364 Recorded Net Salvage Rates
(in millions of dollars)
Compared to the ten-year band, the net salvage rates in the last three years 10
(averaging -401%) were less negative than in prior years, but still substantially more negative than the 11
current authorized net salvage. The lower negative net salvage is partly attributed to increased gross 12
salvage from higher levels of third party joint pole credits recorded during that period. This increase was 13
due to a catch-up in joint pole billings related to the increase in pole removal volume starting in 2015. 14
Relying solely on the historical retirements and the net salvage rates the future net 15
salvage rate could reasonably be -400%. However, deconstructing the experienced net salvage rates on a 16
Plant Net SalvageYear Retired Amount % of Ret. 3-yr Avg % 2009 $4.7 ($21.2) -456%2010 $6.4 ($35.0) -551%2011 $7.4 ($55.8) -752% -608%2012 $7.9 ($53.3) -676% -666%2013 $7.8 ($57.8) -740% -722%2014 $15.9 ($91.0) -572% -640%2015 $18.3 ($133.9) -733% -673%2016 $24.6 ($128.6) -522% -601%2017 $33.3 ($149.2) -448% -541%2018 $36.5 ($100.5) -275% -401%
2009-2018 $162.8 ($826.4) -508%2016-2018 $94.5 ($378.4) -401%
47
Workpaper – Southern California Edison / 2021 General Rate Case
Exhibit No. SCE-07 Vol.03 Ch I-VI Bk A Witness: D. Gunn
48
per pole basis aids in interpreting and applying judgment to the results when comparing between past 1
and future retirements related to retirement age and cost escalation. Dividing both the numerator (Net 2
Salvage $) and the denominator (Retirement $) for the 2016-2018 recorded net salvage rate by the 3
number of poles retired during the period allows the -401% net salvage rate to be restated on a per-pole 4
basis (see Figure III-10 below). 5
Figure III-10 Recorded Net Salvage Rate Per Distribution Pole
(2016-2018 in dollars)
GRA
The average net cost to remove, dispose and salvage each pole retired between 6
2016 and 2018 was $2,996 per pole (including joint pole credit offsets). Divided by the $748 average 7
original cost of each pole retired, reflecting SCE’s average cost to install a pole approximately 40 years 8
ago, yields the -401% net salvage derived from the Form D-6 9
In contrast to the historical retirements, the current plant balance has a greater 10
proportion of recent vintages and averages about 24 years old with an average original cost per pole of 11
$2,125. Adjusting the above net salvage rate by replacing the denominator with the $2,125 original plant 12
cost associated with the current plant balance results in a net salvage rate of -141% that would be 13
appropriate if the current plant balance were to retire today at an average age of 24 years. 14
With an average remaining life of about 27 years the current cost to remove can 15
be expected to increase from $2,996 to an average net removal cost of $6,415 at the time of plant 16
retirement Dividing this by the average cost of future retirements per pole ($2,125)68 results in an 17
68 $3,148M plant divided by 1.48M poles ≈ $2,125.
Net Salvage $ / Poles Retired /Retirement $ / Poles Retired /
Net Salvage $ / Poles RetiredRetirement $ / Poles Retired
Net Salvage $ = ($378,387,974) = -401%Retirement $ $94,450,369
= (2,996)$ = -401%$748
= ($378,387,974) 126,296 $94,450,369 126,296
48
Workpaper – Southern California Edison / 2021 General Rate Case
Exhibit No. SCE-07 Vol.03 Ch I-VI Bk A Witness: D. Gunn
49
estimated future net salvage rate of -302%, which is less than the historical results without the 1
judgments about the differences between recent retirements and the current plant balance. 2
Figure III-11 Net Salvage Rate Per Distribution Pole – Future Retirement
(2016-2018 in dollars)
While SCE’s Form D-6 analysis and judgment supports a net salvage rate for 3
distribution poles of -300% or more negative, given the need in this rate case for the Commission to 4
address depreciation accruals in more accounts with wider gaps between the authorized level and SCE’s 5
currently experienced costs, SCE is proposing to retain the authorized rate of -210%. 6
d) Account 365: Distribution Overhead Conductor and Devices (-115% 7
Authorized, -190% Proposed) 8
The currently authorized net salvage rate for Distribution Overhead (OH) 9
Conductor and Devices is -115%. SCE proposes a -190% net salvage rate supported by recent retirement 10
experience and SCE’s analysis of historical data. The impact of SCE’s proposal is an increase in 11
depreciation expense of $29.8 million per year. 12
This account consists of $1,843 million of distribution OH conductor and devices. 13
The major components of this account are OH conductor (68%) and switches and devices (32%). 14
Between 2009 and 2018, SCE retired nearly 82 million linear feet of conductor and thousands of 15
switches and devices resulting in retirements of $145 million of plant (11% of the average plant 16
balance). More than 70 percent of this retirement activity took place between 2014 and 2018, largely due 17
to failure-based replacements and SCE’s OH Conductor Program and 4-kV Cutover Program. 18
Plant Balance (Future Retirement):
Net Salvage $ / Pole - Future X (1 + Escal Rate) ^(Rem'g Life)Original Plant $ / Pole
Net Salvage $ / Pole - Future X (1.0286) ^Original Plant $ / Pole
Net Salvage $ / Pole - FutureOriginal Plant $ / Pole
-$2,996
= -$6,415 = -302%$2,125
27 years$2,125
= -$2,996$2,125
=
49
Workpaper – Southern California Edison / 2021 General Rate Case
Exhibit No. SCE-07 Vol.03 Ch I-VI Bk A Witness: D. Gunn
50
Table III-20 Account 365 Recorded Net Salvage Rates
(in millions of dollars)
Between 2009 and 2018, annual net salvage rates ranged from -206% to -341% 1
with an overall average of -242%. In aggregate, these experienced rates have fluctuated and are 2
becoming less negative, likely reflecting economies of scale realized from SCE’s OH Conductor 3
Program and 4-kV Cutover Program. However, the rates have remained more negative than -200% for 4
the entire ten-year period. A majority of the retirement activity has occurred in the last five years, 5
largely due to the aforementioned programs. The average net salvage rate experienced between 2014 6
and 2018 was -216% which is well above the authorized -115%. 7
The asset composition of the retirement history is not representative of the plant 8
balance. Retirements over-weight Switches and Other Devices and under-weight the OH conductor, 9
which has more negative net salvage rates. While Switches & Other Devices represent only 32% of the 10
plant balance at year-end 2018, these units represent double that level in the retirement history (64% 11
between 2009 and 2018). Switches & Devices had an average net salvage rate of -89% between 2009 12
and 2018, which is significantly less negative than the overall account average of -216%. On the other 13
hand, OH Conductor is under-represented in the retirement history, making up just 37% of the 14
retirements despite comprising 68% of the plant balance at year-end 2018. Re-weighting the historical 15
net salvage rates consistent with the asset mix for the account plant balance would make the ten-year net 16
Plant Net SalvageYear Retired Amount % of Ret. 3-yr Avg % 2009 $5.0 ($13.0) -259%2010 $6.6 ($22.4) -341%2011 $9.6 ($31.1) -325% -314%2012 $8.9 ($30.2) -338% -334%2013 $7.8 ($22.7) -291% -319%2014 $10.6 ($23.6) -221% -279%2015 $11.3 ($31.8) -280% -262%2016 $16.8 ($35.3) -210% -234%2017 $36.1 ($74.2) -206% -220%2018 $31.9 ($66.0) -207% -207%
2009-2018 $144.6 ($350.3) -242%2014-2018 $106.7 ($230.8) -216%
50
Workpaper – Southern California Edison / 2021 General Rate Case
Exhibit No. SCE-07 Vol.03 Ch I-VI Bk A Witness: D. Gunn
51
salvage rate more negative (moving from -242% to -383%) because overhead conductor has more 1
negative net salvage rates. 2
Deconstructing the experienced net salvage rates on a conductor-foot basis aids in 3
interpreting the net salvage experience for this account. Between 2014 and 2018 OH Conductor 4
experienced an average net salvage cost of -$4.38 for each foot of conductor. Dividing both the 5
numerator (Net Salvage $) and the denominator (Retirement $) for the 2014-2018 recorded net salvage 6
rate by the feet of conductor retired during the period allows the -216% net salvage rate to be restated on 7
a per-foot basis. 8
Figure III-12 Recorded Net Salvage Rate Per Foot of Distribution OH Conductor
(2014-2018 in dollars)
As shown in Figure III-12, above, the average recorded costs to retire and dispose 9
the overhead conductor assets were $4.38 per conductor-foot, which is 216% higher than the $2.03 10
average recorded plant cost per conductor-foot when placed into service about 37 years earlier. The 11
average original cost of each foot of conductor retired is similar to the original cost of each conductor 12
foot still in service today, at $2.03 per conductor foot retired compared to $2.33 per conductor foot still 13
in service. If all conductor assets were to retire today, the realized net salvage rate would be -188%. 14
However, given the 32-year average remaining life of OH conductor, the average cost to retire in the 15
future is expected to increase from -$4.38 to -$10.80 supporting a much more negative net salvage rate 16
of -464%. 17
Weighting the net salvage results by major component (as per SP U-4), would 18
result in significantly more negative net salvage rates than the recently experienced -216% in this 19
account. Although recent retirements understate the expected future net salvage rate for this account due 20
to the under-weighting of the OH Conductor, SCE is proposing a more conservative -190% at this time. 21
Net Salvage $ / Feet Retired /Retirement $ / Feet Retired /
Net Salvage $ / Feet RetiredRetirement $ / Feet Retired
Net Salvage $ = ($230,813,957) = -216%Retirement $ $106,720,924
= ($230,813,957) 52,694,494 $106,720,924 52,694,494
= ($4.38) = -216%$2.03
51
Workpaper – Southern California Edison / 2021 General Rate Case
Exhibit No. SCE-07 Vol.03 Ch I-VI Bk A Witness: D. Gunn
52
e) Account 366: Distribution Underground Conduit (-30% Authorized, -80% 1
Proposed) 2
The currently authorized net salvage rate for Distribution Underground (UG) 3
Conduit is -30%. SCE proposes a -80% net salvage rate supported by recent retirement experience and 4
SCE’s analysis of historical data. The impact of SCE’s proposal is an increase in depreciation expense 5
of $25.8 million per year. 6
This account consists of $2,391 million of Conduit (47%), Vaults (22%), and 7
above ground structures (31%). Between 2009 and 2018, SCE retired more than 900,000 feet of conduit, 8
1,100 vaults, and more than 80,000 above ground structures, amounting to $52 million in plant (3% of 9
the average plant balance). Approximately half of these retirements took place between the years 2016 10
to 2018. 11
Table III-21 Account 366 Recorded Net Salvage Rates
(in millions of dollars)
The realized net salvage rates have ranged from -80% to -555% with an overall 12
average of -223%, and all rates are more negative than -190% from 2012 forward. The major 13
components of this account exhibit varying levels of negative net salvage rates with UG conduit being 14
the least negative net salvage rates and vaults being the most negative. The more negative net salvage 15
Plant Net SalvageYear Retired Amount % of Ret. 3-yr Avg % 2009 $1.3 ($1.7) -132%2010 $3.4 ($3.1) -89%2011 $6.1 ($4.9) -80% -89%2012 $2.6 ($7.5) -285% -127%2013 $2.8 ($7.2) -254% -169%2014 $4.9 ($10.8) -219% -245%2015 $4.1 ($22.5) -555% -343%2016 $4.5 ($13.6) -305% -349%2017 $9.5 ($18.0) -190% -300%2018 $12.2 ($25.5) -209% -218%
2009-2018 $51.6 ($115.0) -223%2014-2018 $35.2 ($90.5) -257%2016-2018 $26.2 ($57.2) -218%
52
Workpaper – Southern California Edison / 2021 General Rate Case
Exhibit No. SCE-07 Vol.03 Ch I-VI Bk A Witness: D. Gunn
53
rate for this account is driven by a greater volume of costly underground vault retirements. Even though 1
2015 produces the most negative net salvage rate of the ten-year history, isolating the study to the more 2
recent 3-year period (2016-2018) still produces a negative net salvage rate of -218%. 3
Conduit is used to house underground cables and has the most significant 4
investment in this account (47%), but is least represented in the retirement experience at just 2% of the 5
total account over the last three years. Sometimes retired underground conduit will be removed and in 6
other instances may be abandoned in place. Even when abandoned, costs to retire can still be incurred, 7
such as instances where it is necessary to dig down and cap the duct before it enters an underground 8
structure to keep debris from flowing into the structure. Even though the conduit retirement experience 9
is limited, the recorded experience shows the average net salvage rate between 2016 and 2018 10
was -104%. SCE retired 270,458 feet of conduit at a cost of $661,470 resulting in an average cost to 11
retire per foot of -$2.45. Dividing this by the average cost of each foot of conduit remaining on SCE’s 12
books ($5.24) results in a net salvage rate of -47% for the three-year period. 13
The majority of the retirements between 2016 and 2018 (89%) in this account 14
come from above-ground structures such as pull boxes and risers despite the fact that this group 15
represents only 31% of the plant investment. Over that three-year period, SCE retired 36,415 structures 16
at a cost of $38.6 million, resulting in an average cost per structure of $1,059. Dividing by the average 17
cost of each structure remaining on SCE’s books ($1,402) results in a net salvage rate of -76%. Future 18
negative net salvage rates are expected to be more negative due to inflation, increasing the future cost to 19
retire each structure. 20
Underground vaults are concrete structures used to house energized equipment 21
and represent 22% of the plant balance and 9% of retirements experienced. Vaults are very costly to 22
remove and there has been an increasing trend in the retirements of vaults due to age, deterioration and 23
the need to address safety concerns, as identified in the T&D infrastructure replacement program.69 Over 24
450 vaults were retired between 2016 and 2018 at an average cost of -$39,299. Nearly 30,000 vaults are 25
still in service as of year-end 2018 with an average surviving cost of $17,335. Dividing the cost to retire 26
(-$39,299) by the average surviving cost ($17,335) results in a net salvage rate of -227%. Future 27
negative net salvage rates are expected to be more negative due to cost escalation over the 32-year 28
remaining life, increasing the future cost to retire the vaults. Using the net salvage estimates for the asset 29
69 Refer to T&D testimony in Exhibit SCE-02, Vol. 01, for more information on underground structures.
53
Workpaper – Southern California Edison / 2021 General Rate Case
Exhibit No. SCE-07 Vol.03 Ch I-VI Bk A Witness: D. Gunn
54
components discussed above and weighting them based on the plant balance composition in accordance 1
with the STANDARD PRACTICE U-4 produces an aggregate net salvage estimate of -95%, as shown below: 2
Table III-22 Account 366 Composite Net Salvage Rate
(2016-2018)
Historical experience indicates a more negative net salvage rate is warranted for 3
this account. On an aggregate level, the most recent three-year average is 218%. A component re-4
weighted average also supports a more negative rate to at least as negative as 95% as shown in Table III-5
27, above. However, SCE is proposing a more conservative net salvage rate of -80% at this time. 6
f) Account 367: Distribution Underground Conductors and Devices 7
(Authorized -60%, Proposed -100%) 8
The currently authorized net salvage rate for Distribution Underground Conductor 9
and Devices is -60%. SCE proposes a net salvage rate of -100% supported by recent retirement 10
experience and SCE’s analysis of historical data. The impact of SCE’s net salvage proposal is an 11
increase in depreciation expense of $68.1 million per year. 12
This account consists of $6,487 million of Distribution Underground Conductors 13
and Devices. The majority of the account consists of Underground Conductor (83%) and the remainder 14
consists of Other Devices (17%). During the last ten years, SCE retired 53 million linear feet of 15
conductor from this account, or $405 million (8% of the average plant balance). The asset composition 16
of the retirement history and surviving plant is largely underground conductor.70 SCE incurred $673 17
million of net salvage costs to retire the $405 million of plant, resulting in a ten year average net salvage 18
rate of -166% as shown in Table III-23, below. 19
70 Retirements of underground conductor made up 71% of the total retirements in this account. Underground
conductor makes of 83% of the plant balance of this account.
Major Percent of Net Salvage Weighted Component Investment Rate (NSR) NSR
Above Ground Structures 31% -76% -24%Conduit 47% -47% -22%Vaults 22% -227% -50%Total -95%
54
Workpaper – Southern California Edison / 2021 General Rate Case
Exhibit No. SCE-07 Vol.03 Ch I-VI Bk A Witness: D. Gunn
55
Table III-23 Account 367 Recorded Net Salvage Rates
(in millions of dollars)
The five-year rolling averages of net salvage rates over the recent retirement 1
history produce consistent estimates. The five-year averages shown above are all within the range 2
between -164% and -180%. The major driver of these net salvage rates is the average cost to remove UG 3
Conductor. SCE engineers state that under ideal conditions (e.g., there is easy access to the structure and 4
the ducts are not impaired by cable or underground apparatus) it takes a four-man crew between 8 and 5
16 hours to remove a 200 foot length of cable (i.e., a typical field assignment) depending upon the 6
conductor gauge. More difficult jobs can increase this work substantially resulting in higher removal 7
costs. For example, vaults that have filled with water will require draining. If the water appears to be 8
contaminated, a separate environmental crew is called to the site to drain the vault before work can 9
begin. In this case, contaminated or discolored water must be loaded into a tanker truck and disposed of, 10
rather than pumped into the street. This can take a crew of 2-3 men up to several hours to complete. 11
Relying solely on past experience, future net salvage rates could reasonably be 12
similar to the 10-year average of -166%. Deconstructing the experienced net salvage rates on a per asset 13
basis aids in interpreting the results of historical data. Dividing both the numerator (Net Salvage $) and 14
the denominator (Retirement $) for the net salvage rate by the number of assets retired during the period 15
allows the -166% net salvage rate to be restated on a per-asset basis (see Figure III-13, below). 16
Plant Net SalvageYear Retired Amount % of Ret. 3-yr Avg % 5-yr Avg % 2009 $24.4 ($36.5) -150%2010 $25.3 ($47.1) -186%2011 $36.5 ($63.1) -173% -170%2012 $38.7 ($66.5) -172% -176%2013 $34.8 ($58.0) -167% -170% -170%2014 $38.2 ($66.4) -174% -171% -173%2015 $49.1 ($101.3) -206% -185% -180%2016 $49.0 ($74.7) -152% -178% -175%2017 $60.5 ($104.7) -173% -177% -175%2018 $48.3 ($54.3) -112% -148% -164%
2009-2018 $404.9 ($672.6) -166%2014-2018 $245.2 ($401.4) -164%
55
Workpaper – Southern California Edison / 2021 General Rate Case
Exhibit No. SCE-07 Vol.03 Ch I-VI Bk A Witness: D. Gunn
56
Figure III-13 Recorded Net Salvage Rate Per UG Conductor Asset
(2009-2018 in dollars)
The average net cost to retire each asset between 2009 and 2018 was $12.68 per 1
asset (e.g., conductor-feet). Given that the average age of the retirements was about 28 years, the 2
average plant amount retired from the books was $7.63 per asset. The recent net salvage of -$12.68 per 3
asset divided by the original plant amount of $7.63 per asset for these retirements results in the -166% 4
net salvage derived from Form D-6. This -166% net salvage reflects the cost escalation between the 5
original costs of the plant when originally installed (denominator) and the net removal costs (numerator) 6
when retired 28 years later. Applying the Form D-6-derived rate (e.g., -166%) to the current plant 7
balance to determine the net salvage included in the depreciation rate calculation assumes the 8
relationships in that rate will apply to future retirements. That is, it assumes that the following will 9
remain constant in the future: the net removal cost relationship to plant, the average retirement age, the 10
cost escalation rate, etc. If the fact pattern for the future is expected to be significantly different, then 11
some judgment is necessary to modify the historical results. 12
First, beginning with the denominator, the average original plant cost from the 13
retirements is $7.63 per asset, when placed into service on average about 28 years ago. The current plant 14
balance, on the other hand, averages about 18 years of age. Consequently, the average original plant cost 15
per asset for the current plant balance is much higher, at about $11.79. Adjusting the above net salvage 16
rate by replacing the denominator with the $11.79 original plant cost associated with the current plant 17
balance results in a net salvage rate of -108%. That is the rate that would be appropriate if the current 18
plant balance were to retire today at an average age of 18 years. 19
Net Salvage $ / Qty Retired /Retirement $ / Qty Retired /
Net Salvage $ / Qty RetiredRetirement $ / Qty Retired
Net Salvage $ = ($672,559,789) = -166%Retirement $ $404,878,465
= ($672,559,789) 53,060,289 $404,878,465 53,060,289
= ($12.68) = -166%$7.63
56
Workpaper – Southern California Edison / 2021 General Rate Case
Exhibit No. SCE-07 Vol.03 Ch I-VI Bk A Witness: D. Gunn
57
Figure III-14 Net Salvage Rate Per UG Conductor Asset – Current Retirement
(2009-2018 in dollars)
However, the current plant balance will not be retired today and evaluating the 1
denominator alone goes only part way. It would take an additional 12 years for the current plant balance 2
to just reach the average age of the recent retirements. Moreover, the current plant has an average 3
remaining life of about 35 years. Therefore the numerator should be updated to reflect the retirement age 4
and cost escalation expected for the future retirements. The average net cost to retire each asset in the 5
future can be evaluated by taking the -$12.68 current cost and escalating it over the remaining life of the 6
account. As shown in the table below, applying a 2.86% annual escalation rate over the 35-year 7
remaining life would result in a future net removal cost of about $34 per asset retirement. Dividing this 8
by the average original asset cost of $11.79 results in an estimated future net salvage rate of -288%. 9
Recent Retirements:
Net Salvage $ / Qty - CurrentOriginal Plant $ / Qty
Plant Balance (If Retired Today):
Net Salvage $ / Qty - CurrentOriginal Plant $ / Qty
= -$12.68 = -166%$7.63
$11.79= -$12.68 = -108%
57
Workpaper – Southern California Edison / 2021 General Rate Case
Exhibit No. SCE-07 Vol.03 Ch I-VI Bk A Witness: D. Gunn
58
Figure III-15 Net Salvage Rate Per UG Conductor Asset – Future Retirement
(2009-2018 in dollars)
The STANDARD PRACTICE U-4 Form D-6 approach supports a net salvage rate 1
estimate in excess of -160%. Deconstructing the net salvage rate demonstrates that (1) SCE’s recent 2
costs equate to a rate of about -110% before considering the cost escalation with asset aging, and 3
(2) based on the life expectancy of the assets, net salvage rates would increase to levels higher than 4
recent experience. SCE’s analysis supports net salvage rates much higher than the -60% currently 5
authorized, and although the analysis of this account justifies a larger increase, SCE proposes a 6
conservative net salvage rate of -100% at this time. 7
g) Account 368: Distribution Line Transformers (Authorized -20%, 8
Proposed -50%) 9
The currently authorized net salvage rate for Distribution Line Transformers 10
is -20%. Like many of the transmission and distribution accounts, the accumulated depreciation for this 11
account is currently under-accrued relative to the level it ought to be as a result of insufficient 12
depreciation accruals for negative net salvage. Unlike other accounts however, the degree of under-13
accrual is so excessive that SCE has incurred $150 million more in removal costs to retire assets than 14
has been authorized for net salvage in depreciation rates over the life of the account. That is, the 15
account’s accumulated depreciation balance for future removal cost is not only below the theoretical 16
levels, but has a negative balance. As previously discussed, the STANDARD PRACTICE U-4 provides for 17
recovery of accumulated depreciation imbalances over the remaining life. In this instance, the recovery 18
Plant Balance (Future Retirement):
Net Salvage $ / Qty - Future X (1 + Escal Rate) ^(Rem'g Life)Original Plant $ / Qty
Net Salvage $ / Qty - Future X (1.0286) ^Original Plant $ / Qty
Net Salvage $ / Qty - FutureOriginal Plant $ / Qty
35 years$11.79
= -$34.01 = -288%$11.79
= -$12.68$11.79
= -$12.68
58
Workpaper – Southern California Edison / 2021 General Rate Case
Exhibit No. SCE-07 Vol.03 Ch I-VI Bk A Witness: D. Gunn
59
of past under-accruals adds $31 million of annual accruals.71 To avoid adding to the deficit in the future, 1
the negative net salvage included in the depreciation rate should be addressed. SCE is requesting a net 2
salvage rate of -50% which would increase depreciation expense by $54.8 million per year. 3
This account consists of $4,218 million of Distribution Line Transformers. The 4
account consists of transformers (68%) and fuseholders and other devices (32%). Over the last ten years, 5
SCE retired 288,000 transformers and 451,000 fuseholders and devices, or $528 million (16% of the 6
average plant balance). SCE incurred $442 million of net salvage costs to retire the $528 million of 7
plant, resulting in a ten-year average net salvage rate of -84% as shown in Table III-24, below. 8
Table III-24 Account 368 Recorded Net Salvage Rates
(in millions of dollars)
The retirement history demonstrates a fluctuating but increasingly negative annual 9
net salvage rate. The five-year averages move from -57% for the period 2009-2013 to -104% for the 10
most recent five-year period. The composition of the historical asset retirements reasonably represents 11
the composition of the surviving plant balance, with transformers making up 72% of the retirements and 12
71 Based on SCE’s currently authorized -20% net salvage rate.
Plant Net SalvageYear Retired Amount % of Ret. 3-yr Avg % 2009 $39.8 ($7.9) -20%2010 $30.4 ($16.7) -55%2011 $73.0 ($24.2) -33% -34%2012 $40.8 ($37.7) -93% -55%2013 $40.5 ($40.7) -100% -67%2014 $49.1 ($34.9) -71% -87%2015 $50.4 ($59.5) -118% -96%2016 $62.4 ($56.5) -90% -93%2017 $78.1 ($62.2) -80% -93%2018 $63.6 ($102.1) -160% -108%
2009-2018 $528.2 ($442.4) -84%2014-2018 $303.6 ($315.2) -104%
59
Workpaper – Southern California Edison / 2021 General Rate Case
Exhibit No. SCE-07 Vol.03 Ch I-VI Bk A Witness: D. Gunn
60
68% of the plant balance. Moreover, the net salvage rates experienced over the ten-year period are not 1
significantly different for the transformers (-83%) compared to the fuseholders (-84%). 2
If equipment is re-used, activities associated with making it ready for re-3
installation are charged to O&M. Prior to 2012, initial transformer removal costs were accounted for in 4
this way due to an assumption that the majority of the transformers would be refurbished. An estimated 5
amount was transferred from expense to cost of removal to account for the number of final retirements. 6
This estimate was found to be understated and in 2012 an accounting change was made to more 7
accurately reflect the costs to retire the transformers. SCE is focusing on the period of 2012 through 8
2018 as the starting point in evaluating the future net salvage. Between 2012 and 2018 the recorded cost 9
of removal per transformer has averaged about $1,600 per transformer. Dividing this cost by the average 10
cost of each transformer still in service of $3,862 supports a net salvage rate of at least -42%. Given the 11
19 year remaining life of transformers, the net salvage cost in the numerator is expected to increase to 12
$2,750 per transformer which results in a reasonable expectation of the future net salvage rate of -71% 13
Although this is lower than the average net salvage rate experienced since 2012 of -111% it is still much 14
more negative than the currently authorized net salvage rate of -20%. Although the analysis of this 15
account justifies a larger increase, SCE proposes a conservative net salvage rate of -50% at this time. 16
h) Account 369: Services (Authorized -100%, Proposed -100%) 17
The currently authorized net salvage rate Services is –100%. SCE proposes to 18
retain this currently authorized net salvage rate. 19
This account contains $1,494 million of overhead (OH) and underground (UG) 20
services and supporting infrastructure. Between 2009 and 2018 SCE retired $22 million of plant 21
representing 2% of the average plant balance. The realized net salvage rate over these ten years 22
was -474% as shown in Table III-25, below. 23
60
Workpaper – Southern California Edison / 2021 General Rate Case
Exhibit No. SCE-07 Vol.03 Ch I-VI Bk A Witness: D. Gunn
61
Table III-25 Account 369 Recorded Net Salvage Rates
(in millions of dollars)
The net salvage rates in the most recent five years have decreased from an 1
average of -537% between 2009 and 2013, to -438% in the most recent five years. Net salvage rates over 2
the ten-year history tend to be more negative in years with more retirements from OH services. This is 3
because unlike UG services, OH services cannot be abandoned in place. 4
As discussed in the 2018 GRC,72 SCE believes that some of the retirement history 5
in this account may be impacted by quantity issues created in SCE’s accounting system. Prior asset 6
generations in this account required accounting for multiple phase service conductor as separate units of 7
property because the bare-wire services could be removed and replaced individually. SCE continued this 8
accounting practice after the bare-wire services were replaced with triplex and quadplex services which 9
could not be replaced on a phase-by-phase basis. While the overall quantity of assets on SCE’s books is 10
reasonable73 the inputs necessary to ensure that all three phases of a service are retired may have resulted 11
72 See SCE-25, Vol. 04 from SCE’s 2018 GRC (A.16-09-001).
73 The quantity of services on SCE’s books approaches 15 million for SCE’s 5 million customer accounts. This is reasonable assuming the majority of the services investment is in triplex with three phases.
Plant Net SalvageYear Retired Amount % of Ret. 3-yr Avg % 2009 $1.3 ($5.7) -457%2010 $1.4 ($7.3) -521%2011 $1.8 ($8.4) -462% -479%2012 $1.9 ($10.5) -543% -508%2013 $1.6 ($11.3) -691% -560%2014 $1.4 ($7.7) -565% -598%2015 $1.6 ($6.3) -394% -550%2016 $5.8 ($11.2) -192% -286%2017 $3.3 ($14.8) -442% -300%2018 $2.1 ($22.6) -1051% -429%
2009-2018 $22.4 ($105.9) -474%2009-2013 $8.1 ($43.3) -537%2014-2018 $14.3 ($62.6) -438%
61
Workpaper – Southern California Edison / 2021 General Rate Case
Exhibit No. SCE-07 Vol.03 Ch I-VI Bk A Witness: D. Gunn
62
in under-retirements in the recorded history.74 Given how negative SCE’s recorded net salvage rates are, 1
even a tripling of the retirements (i.e., reducing the associated net salvage rates to one-third their levels) 2
would support net salvage rates more negative than SCE’s currently authorized -100%. At this time, 3
SCE proposes to retain the existing authorized net salvage rate of -100% while any potential data 4
inconsistencies, which are isolated to this account, are addressed. 5
i) Account 370: Meters (Authorized -5%, Proposed -5%) 6
The currently authorized net salvage rate for Meters is -5%. SCE is proposing to 7
retain the currently authorized net salvage rate of -5% at this time. 8
The $917 million investment in this account is almost entirely composed of 9
meters installed during SCE’s Smart Connect program implementation.75 The meters in this account are 10
relatively young in age, as this program was implemented between 2010 and 2012. Due to the young age 11
of the assets, limited retirement history76 is available from which to draw conclusions about the future 12
net salvage rate. Until more retirement history becomes available, SCE believes that it is reasonable to 13
apply the -5% net salvage rate that was authorized for SCE’s prior generation of meters. Since the 14
current average plant costs is $164 per meter, the -5% net salvage is equivalent to about $8 to remove 15
and dispose of the old meter when making a replacement. As such, SCE proposes to retain the currently 16
authorized net salvage rate of -5% at this time. 17
j) Account 371: Infrastructure Installed on Customer Premises 18
This account consists of $12 million of infrastructure installed to support SCE’s 19
Charge Ready program. Infrastructure installed in this account includes panels, conduit, trenching, and 20
conductor necessary to provide electric service to “make-ready” stubs that support electric vehicle 21
charging. The Commission Decision in SCE’s Charge Ready Application77 adopted revenue 22
requirements for beyond the meter infrastructure based in part on depreciation rates consistent with 23
SCE’s Services Account 369 due to the similarity of the infrastructure. The first installations in this 24
74 Because retirements have equal and offsetting impacts on plant and accumulated depreciation, there is no
direct impact to rate base as a result of any potential under-retirements.
75 This net salvage analysis focused on the retirement units associated with the ongoing investment in Smart Meters. The $95 million difference from the RDS is attributable to legacy meter retirement units, the costs of which were allocated to customers over six years between 2012 and 2018 per D.12-11-051.
76 Retirements of $8.4 million over the last ten years comprise roughly 1.1% of average plant balances.
77 A.14-10-014.
62
Workpaper – Southern California Edison / 2021 General Rate Case
Exhibit No. SCE-07 Vol.03 Ch I-VI Bk A Witness: D. Gunn
63
account were placed in service at the end of 2018 and as such, SCE does not have sufficient retirement 1
experience to recommend a change at this time. 2
k) Account 373: Streetlighting and Signal Systems (Authorized -30%, 3
Proposed -50%) 4
The currently authorized net salvage rate for Street Lighting & Signal Systems 5
is -30%. SCE proposes a net salvage rate of -50% supported by recent retirement experience and SCE’s 6
analysis of historical data. The impact of SCE’s net salvage proposal is an increase in depreciation 7
expense of $4.2 million per year. 8
This account consists of $864 million of Street Lighting and Signal Systems. The 9
majority of the account consists of poles, fixtures, and cable and conduit. During the last ten years, SCE 10
retired $98 million,78 which is 12% of the average plant balance. In 2017 and 2018 there was a large 11
increase in retirements due to the sale of streetlight assets to cities and local governments. Although 12
these sales are expected to continue through 2020, SCE will retain significant portions of its investment 13
in this account that is likely to have net salvage characteristics similar to what is shown in Table III-26, 14
below. 15
78 The analysis excludes retirements related to the sale of streetlight assets.
63
Workpaper – Southern California Edison / 2021 General Rate Case
Exhibit No. SCE-07 Vol.03 Ch I-VI Bk A Witness: D. Gunn
64
Table III-26 Account 373 Recorded Net Salvage Rates
SCE incurred $130 million of net salvage costs to retire the $98 million of plant, 1
resulting in a ten-year average net salvage rate of -133%. A significant portion of the historical net 2
salvage results are driven by retirements of shorter-lived fixtures (luminaires). Due to the shorter lives of 3
these assets, the net salvage rate is less negative than other assets in the account such as electroliers, 4
conduit, etc. Weighting the net salvage results by the percent of investment results in a more negative 5
net salvage rate of -243%. Although a more negative net salvage rate is justified, SCE proposes a 6
conservative net salvage rate of -50% at this time. 7
3. General Plant Net Salvage 8
a) Account 390: General Buildings 9
The currently authorized net salvage rate for General Buildings is -10%. SCE 10
proposes to retain the authorized net salvage rate at this time. 11
This account consists of $1,080 million of buildings at SCE’s general offices, 12
operations centers, garages, and similar structures. During the last ten years, SCE had $100 million of 13
retirements (12% of the average plant balance). Most of the retirements in this account are related to the 14
interim removal of supporting systems such as HVAC, lease-hold improvements, water systems, etc. 15
64
Workpaper – Southern California Edison / 2021 General Rate Case
Exhibit No. SCE-07 Vol.03 Ch I-VI Bk A Witness: D. Gunn
65
SCE incurred $24 million of net salvage costs to retire the $100 million of plant, resulting in a ten-year 1
average net salvage rate of -23% as shown in Table III-27, below. 2
Table III-27 Account 390 Recorded Net Salvage Rates
Over the ten-year period, average net salvage rates have remained consistent with 3
a five-year average between 2009 and 2013 of -24% and -23% over the last five years. Although the 4
consistency of the historical data supports a more negative net salvage rate, SCE is proposing to retain 5
the authorized net salvage rate of -10% at this time. 6
Plant Net SalvageYear Retired Amount % of Ret. 3-yr Avg % 2009 $0.4 ($0.1) -20%2010 $5.3 ($2.6) -50%2011 $9.0 ($2.0) -23% -32%2012 $23.0 ($2.7) -12% -20%2013 $4.9 ($2.7) -56% -20%2014 $11.7 ($2.7) -23% -21%2015 $11.3 ($3.7) -33% -33%2016 $8.2 ($2.7) -33% -29%2017 $8.6 ($1.5) -17% -28%2018 $17.9 ($2.7) -15% -20%
2009-2018 $100.3 ($23.5) -23%2009-2013 $42.6 ($10.2) -24%2014-2018 $57.7 ($13.3) -23%
65
Workpaper – Southern California Edison / 2021 General Rate Case
Exhibit No. SCE-07 Vol.03 Ch I-VI Bk A Witness: D. Gunn
66
IV. 1
DEPRECIATION STUDY FOR T&D SERVICE LIFE 2
This chapter presents the actuarial life analysis for T&D assets performed by external consultant, 3
Ronald E. White Ph.D. of Foster Associates Consultants, LLC. Dr. White provided SCE with life 4
parameters that SCE then used to support the calculation of the proposed depreciation rates. 5
A. Development of T&D Service Lives 6
Q. PLEASE EXPLAIN WHY DEPRECIATION STUDIES ARE NEEDED FOR 7
ACCOUNTING AND RATEMAKING PURPOSES. 8
A. The goal of depreciation accounting is to charge to operations a reasonable estimate of the cost 9
of the service potential of an asset (or group of assets) consumed during an accounting interval.79 10
A number of depreciation systems have been developed to achieve this objective, most of which 11
employ time as the apportionment base. 12
Implementation of a time-based (or age-life) system of depreciation accounting requires the 13
estimation of several parameters or statistics related to a plant account. The average service life 14
of a vintage, for example, is a statistic that will not be known with certainty until all units from 15
the original placement have been retired from service. A vintage average service life, therefore, 16
must be estimated initially and periodically revised as indications of the eventual average service 17
life become more certain. Future net salvage rates and projection curves, which describe the 18
expected distribution of retirements over time, are also estimated parameters of a depreciation 19
system that are subject to future revisions. Depreciation studies should be conducted periodically 20
to assess the continuing reasonableness of parameters and accrual rates derived from prior 21
estimates. 22
The need for periodic depreciation studies is also a derivative of the ratemaking process, 23
which establishes prices for utility services based on costs. Absent regulation, deficient or 24
excessive depreciation rates will produce no adverse consequence other than a systematic over or 25
understatement of the accounting measurement of earnings. While a continuance of such 26
practices may not comport with the goals of depreciation accounting, the achievement of capital 27
79 The service potential of an asset is the present value of future net revenue (i.e., revenue less expenses
exclusive of depreciation and other non–cash expenses) or cash inflows attributable to the use of that asset alone.
66
Workpaper – Southern California Edison / 2021 General Rate Case
Exhibit No. SCE-07 Vol.03 Ch I-VI Bk A Witness: D. Gunn
67
recovery is not dependent upon either the amount or the timing of depreciation expense for an 1
unregulated firm. In the case of a regulated utility, however, recovery of investor-supplied capital 2
is dependent upon allowed revenues, which are in turn dependent upon approved levels of 3
depreciation expense. Periodic reviews of depreciation rates are, therefore, essential to the 4
achievement of timely capital recovery for a regulated utility. 5
It is also important to recognize that revenue associated with depreciation is a significant 6
source of internally generated funds used to finance plant replacements and new capacity 7
additions. This is not to suggest that internal cash generation should be substituted for the goals 8
of depreciation accounting. However, the potential for realizing a reduction in the marginal cost 9
of external financing provides an added incentive for conducting periodic depreciation studies 10
and adopting proper depreciation rates. 11
Q. PLEASE DESCRIBE THE PRINCIPAL STEPS INVOLVED IN 12
ESTIMATING SERVICE LIVES. 13
A. The first step in estimating service lives is the collection of plant accounting data needed to 14
conduct a statistical analysis of past retirement experience. The data collection phase should 15
include a verification of the accuracy of the plant accounting records and a reconciliation of the 16
assembled data to the official plant records of the company. 17
The next step is the estimation of service life statistics from an analysis of past retirement 18
experience. The term life analysis is used to describe the activities undertaken in this step to 19
obtain a mathematical description of the forces of retirement acting upon a plant category. The 20
mathematical expressions used to describe these forces are known as survival functions or 21
survivor curves. 22
Life indications obtained from an analysis of past retirement experience are blended with 23
expectations about the future to obtain an appropriate projection life curve. This step, called life 24
estimation, is concerned with predicting the expected remaining life of property units still 25
exposed to the forces of retirement. The amount of weight given to the analysis of historical data 26
will depend upon the extent to which past retirement experience is considered descriptive of the 27
future. 28
67
Workpaper – Southern California Edison / 2021 General Rate Case
Exhibit No. SCE-07 Vol.03 Ch I-VI Bk A Witness: D. Gunn
68
B. 2019 Service-Life Study 1
Q. DID SCE PROVIDE FOSTER ASSOCIATES PLANT ACCOUNTING DATA 2
FOR ESTIMATING SERVICE LIFE PARAMETERS? 3
A. Yes. Service life statistics estimated in the 2019 study were derived from plant accounting 4
transactions recorded over the period 2002 through 2018. Detailed accounting transactions were 5
extracted from the Continuing Property Record (CPR) system and assigned transaction codes 6
which describe the nature of the accounting activity. Transaction codes for plant additions, for 7
example, were used to distinguish normal additions from acquisitions, purchases, 8
reimbursements and adjustments. Similar transaction codes were used to distinguish normal 9
retirements from sales, reimbursements, abnormal retirements and adjustments. 10
The accuracy and completeness of the assembled database was verified by SCE personnel 11
for activity years 2002 through 2018. Age distributions of surviving plant at December 31, 2018 12
were reconciled to the CPR. 13
Life statistics estimated in the 2019 service life study are dollar-weighted averages of the 14
unit-years of service derived from the age of aggregated retired property units. Retirement 15
vintages are assigned by SCE’s property accounting system using approved retirement frequency 16
distributions. The reported dollar amounts of units retired from service are obtained by 17
multiplying units retired by the average per-unit cost of associated vintage additions. This 18
approach eliminates issues related to tracking the original vintages of thousands of property units 19
and provides that the estimated “projection lives” in the 2019 study are based on retirements and 20
plant investment reflected in SCE’s plant ledger. 21
Q. HOW WERE SERVICE LIFE ESTIMATES DERIVED FOR SCE PLANT 22
AND EQUIPMENT? 23
A. As noted above, the first step in estimating service lives is called life analysis. All transmission, 24
distribution and general depreciable plant accounts were analyzed using a technique in which 25
first, second and third degree polynomials were fitted to a set of observed retirement ratios. The 26
resulting function was expressed as a survivorship function, which was numerically integrated to 27
obtain an estimate of the population projection life (i.e., mean of the parent population from 28
which observed retirements are viewed as a random sample). The observed proportions surviving 29
were then fitted by a weighted least-squares procedure to the Iowa curve family using the 30
68
Workpaper – Southern California Edison / 2021 General Rate Case
Exhibit No. SCE-07 Vol.03 Ch I-VI Bk A Witness: D. Gunn
69
estimated projection lives to obtain a mathematical description or classification of the dispersion 1
characteristics of the data. Service life indications derived from the statistical analyses were 2
blended with expectations about the future to obtain an appropriate projection life curve for each 3
plant category. The analysis of each plant account is contained in Appendix A. 4
Q. IS A PROJECTION LIFE THE SAME AS AN AVERAGE SERVICE LIFE? 5
A. No. A projection life is an estimate of the mean service life of the population from which 6
retirements are a random sample. The average service life of a plant category is a function of the 7
age distribution of surviving plant (i.e., plant currently in service by vintage year of installation) 8
and a selected level of asset grouping such as broad group, vintage group or equal life group. If 9
retirements are distributed over varying ages, the broad group procedure (which assumes that 10
each vintage has the same average service life) is the only grouping of assets that will produce an 11
average service life equal to the projection life estimated for a plant category. As noted above, 12
the projection life also reflects the plant investment retirements as recorded in the property 13
accounting system. 14
Q. PLEASE EXPLAIN IN GREATER DETAIL HOW LIFE ANALYSES WERE 15
CONDUCTED IN THE 2019 STUDY. 16
A. The fundamental probability distribution of interest in estimating the service life of industrial 17
property is called a hazard function. This function, which is also used in reliability theory, is an 18
equation that describes the conditional probability of retirement (called a hazard rate) during an 19
age interval given survival to the beginning of the interval. So, for example, the probability that 20
plant that has been in service, say for 5 years, will be retired during the 6th year is a conditional 21
probability of retirement. In other words, the probability is conditioned upon having achieved an 22
age of 5 years. 23
Graduating or smoothing observed hazard rates is an application of inferential statistics 24
which draws inferences and predictions about a population based on samples of data taken from 25
the population of interest. Projection lives and projection curves are population parameters 26
“inferred” from a statistical analysis of the underlying forces of retirement described by 27
probability distributions. 28
The object of a statistical analysis of plant retirements is to find the form of an equation that 29
best describes the conditional probabilities of retirement, where the form of the equation is 30
69
Workpaper – Southern California Edison / 2021 General Rate Case
Exhibit No. SCE-07 Vol.03 Ch I-VI Bk A Witness: D. Gunn
70
driven by the underlying forces of retirement. Any number of equations can be considered as 1
candidates for selection. The so-called Iowa curves are a family of distributions most often used 2
in conducting depreciation studies. 3
Each Iowa curve has a unique hazard function derived from the ratio of its retirement 4
frequency distribution to its survivor distribution. Unfortunately, however, Iowa hazard functions 5
cannot be written as parametric equations. It is for this reason that polynomials of the form 6
2 3y a bx cx dx are used to estimate hazard functions. The variable y is the hazard rate and 7
x is the age interval of the rate.80 Observed proportions surviving are plotted and fitted to Iowa 8
curves (using the estimated projections lives) to visually observe the mortality characteristics 9
expressed as an Iowa curve. 10
The problem, therefore, is to estimate the coefficients (i.e., a, b, c and d) of the polynomial 11
from an estimate of hazard rates derived from a sampling of historical retirements recorded for a 12
plant category. Different estimators of the hazard rate can be used depending upon the desired 13
statistical properties of the estimator. The ratio of retirements to exposures is most often used for 14
depreciation studies. 15
Coefficients were estimated in the 2019 study using Orthogonal Polynomials. An 16
orthogonal polynomial is not a special form of a polynomial. It is a procedure developed by 17
Tchebysheff to estimate the coefficients of a polynomial (using regression) without rewriting the 18
normal equations for each successive power of the polynomial. The coefficients of a second 19
degree equation, for example, can be derived from a first degree equation without rewriting the 20
equations used in a normal least-squares regression. 21
Coefficients and polynomials were estimated for numerous trials or samples of retirements 22
recorded over various bands of activity years. An activity year is the calendar year in which 23
retirements were recorded. Retirements from vintages of like ages are combined to increase the 24
size of the samples from which hazard rates are estimated. The motivation for examining various 25
bands of activity years is to observe service life trends to the extent they may be detectable. 26
Each polynomial was transformed or converted to a survivor function (or survivor curve 27
when plotted) from which an estimate of the projection life was derived. The polynomial form of 28
80 The reason polynomials are limited to a third-degree term (i.e., a polynomial having an 3x term) is that some
low modal Iowa curves exhibit two inflection points in a plot of the hazard function.
70
Workpaper – Southern California Edison / 2021 General Rate Case
Exhibit No. SCE-07 Vol.03 Ch I-VI Bk A Witness: D. Gunn
71
the hazard functions were also plotted and visually inspected as an aid to better understanding 1
the forces of retirement acting upon a plant category. 2
Observed proportions surviving were then fitted to Iowa-type curves with projection lives 3
set equal to those derived from the polynomials. The purpose of fitting to Iowa curves is to 4
obtain service life descriptors more familiar to users of Iowa curves. It would be more obscure 5
and less informative to describe survivor curves by the coefficients of a polynomial. 6
Q. WERE FACTORS OTHER THAN SERVICE LIFE INDICATIONS DERIVED 7
FROM THE STATISTICAL STUDIES CONSIDERED IN ESTIMATING 8
SERVICE LIVES FOR SCE? 9
A. Yes. As discussed above, estimating service lives is a two-step procedure. The second step (life 10
estimation) is concerned with predicting the expected remaining life of property units still 11
exposed to forces of retirement and the service life of future plant additions. It is a process of 12
blending the results of a life analysis with information (mostly qualitative) and informed 13
judgment to obtain an appropriate service life and curve descriptive of future expectations. The 14
amount of weight given to a life analysis will depend upon the extent to which the age of past 15
retirements is considered descriptive of the future. Both life analysis and life estimation require 16
an understanding of the limitations of statistical studies and the need for informed judgment. 17
A consideration in estimating service lives is the nature and meaning of the life statistic 18
estimated based on the ageing of retirements by the accounting system. The statistic is essentially 19
a dollar-weighted average of the unit-years of service derived from the age of aggregated retired 20
property units calculated by the property accounting system. The estimated service-life statistic 21
is descriptive of the accounting retirement data, not directly from the physical asset age of the 22
underlying retirement units.. 23
Q. ARE FACTORS YOU CONSIDERED IN LIFE ESTIMATION DESCRIBED 24
IN THE 2019 STUDY? 25
A. Yes. Appendix A contains a narrative explanation of both quantifiable factors (life analyses) and 26
non-quantifiable factors (largely life estimation) considered by Foster Associates in 27
recommending adjusted service lives and curves for SCE. 28
71
Workpaper – Southern California Edison / 2021 General Rate Case
Exhibit No. SCE-07 Vol.03 Ch I-VI Bk A Witness: D. Gunn
72
Q. PLEASE SUMMARIZE THE FINDINGS OF YOUR SERVICE–LIFE STUDY. 1
A. Current and recommended service lives and retirement frequency distributions (i.e., dispersions) 2
are summarized in Table 1 below. 3
4
Q. DOES THIS CONCLUDE YOUR DIRECT TESTIMONY? 5
A. Yes, it does.6
Current RecommendedAccount Description P-Life Dispersion P-Life Dispersion
A B C D E
Transmission Plant 352.00 Structures and Improvements 55.00 L1 55.00 L1353.00 Station Equipment 45.00 R0.5 45.00 L0.5354.00 Towers and Fixtures 65.00 R5 65.00 R5355.00 Poles and Fixtures 65.00 SC 65.00 SC356.00 Overhead Conductors and Devices 61.00 R3 61.00 R3357.00 Underground Conduit 55.00 R3 55.00 R3358.00 Underground Conductors and Devices 45.00 S1 45.00 S1359.00 Roads and Trails 60.00 R5 60.00 R5
Distribution Plant 361.00 Structures and Improvements 50.00 L0.5 55.00 L0.5362.00 Station Equipment 65.00 L0.5 65.00 S-.5364.00 Poles, Towers and Fixtures 55.00 R1 55.00 R1365.00 Overhead Conductors and Devices 55.00 R0.5 55.00 R0.5366.00 Underground Conduit 59.00 R3 59.00 R3367.00 Underground Conductors and Devices 43.00 R1.5 47.00 L1368.00 Line Transformers 33.00 S1.5 33.00 S1.5369.00 Services 55.00 R1.5 55.00 R1.5370.00 Meters 20.00 R3 20.00 R3373.00 Street Lighting and Signal Systems 48.00 L1 50.00 L0.5
General Plant390.00 Structures and Improvements 45.00 R0.5 50.00 SC
Table 1. Service-Life Statistics
72
Workpaper – Southern California Edison / 2021 General Rate Case
Exhibit No. SCE-07 Vol.03 Ch I-VI Bk A Witness: D. Gunn
73
V. 1
DEPRECIATION STUDY FOR GENERATION PLANT 2
SCE has a mix of generating facilities. Some of these, such as Palo Verde Nuclear Generating 3
Station and Mountainview, are large generating plants with a separately identified accumulated 4
depreciation that are expected to retire at a single point in time. Others, such as Solar PV and Hydro, are 5
a group of separate generating facilities that share a common accumulated depreciation. At all of these 6
facilities, smaller components are expected to retire earlier during the service life of the plant (called 7
“interim retirements”). Like T&D assets, the depreciation expense for generation facilities includes both 8
the original cost to install and the future cost to retire. This chapter presents the results of SCE’s 9
depreciation study for generation assets. SCE’s depreciation proposals for generation plant is shown in 10
Table V-28, below. 11
Table V-28 Generation Plant Depreciation Study Results
A. Average Service Lives 12
The life span for a generating facility (or group of facilities) depends on the factors affecting the 13
final shutdown, including: operating licenses, fuel and resource availability, contractual obligations, the 14
relative efficiency of the generating units, and so forth. The “total” life span is determined largely as an 15
engineering judgment based on these factors. In contrast, the “average” life span of the facility 16
recognizes that not all of the originally installed assets of the facility (or group of facilities, i.e., hydro) 17
Generation Facility Authorized Proposed ∆ Authorized Proposed ∆
A B C D=C-B E F G=F-EPalo Verde 23 23 0 42 66 24Hydro Production 34 31 (3) 119 125 5Hydro Decommissioning 0 15 0 446 446Mountainview Units 3&4 20 20 (0) 9 27 19Pebbly Beach 11 26 15 0 2 2Peakers 23 22 (1) 11 22 11Solar Photovoltaic 11 11 (0) 62 81 19Fuel Cell 2 3 1 0 3 3Energy Storage 10 20 10 0 0
Remaining LifeAs of Jan 1, 2021 (Years) Removal Cost ($M)
73
Workpaper – Southern California Edison / 2021 General Rate Case
Exhibit No. SCE-07 Vol.03 Ch I-VI Bk A Witness: D. Gunn
74
will remain in service over the total life span. To address this, SCE adjusts the life span downward to 1
take into account the shorter-lived interim retirements. 2
Interim retirements consist of such items as pumps, motors, and other individual components that 3
retire depending on the factors specifically affecting them—wear and tear, reliability, obsolescence, and 4
so forth. For generating facilities that have similar life characteristics and share a common accumulated 5
depreciation (i.e., Peaker plants, Solar PV, etc.), the interim retirement may result from the retirement of 6
one or more of the individual generating stations that are part of the group. The impacts of the life span 7
and the interim retirements on the overall average service life of the plant asset are determined 8
separately. SCE considered the interim retirement adjustment first by estimating the future level of 9
annual interim retirements as a percent of the plant balance (i.e., an interim retirement rate or IR rate). 10
An average IR rate is estimated by analyzing the historical levels of interim retirements and evaluating 11
anticipated retirements. Just as with mass plant, the expected interim retirement rate increases with the 12
age of the plant. Consequently, the historical levels understate the anticipated future IR rates. The 13
estimated annual IR rate is applied to the current plant balance over the remaining life span of the 14
generating plant and affects the overall remaining life of the generating station. For example, if a 15
generating plant has a 10-year remaining life span and an IR rate of 1.4 percent per year, then about 16
14 percent of the current plant balance would retire as interim retirements (10 years times 1.4 percent 17
year) and the remaining 86 percent would retire as a final retirement. The interim retirements have a 18
shorter remaining life than the final retirements occurring at the end of the life span. The resulting 19
survivor curve is shown in Figure V-16.81 20
81 The IR adjustment is equal to the area of the of the Survivor Curve, or ½ of the interim retirements. One-half
of 14% x the 10-year service life is 0.7 years.
74
Workpaper – Southern California Edison / 2021 General Rate Case
Exhibit No. SCE-07 Vol.03 Ch I-VI Bk A Witness: D. Gunn
75
Figure V-16 Life Span Survivor Curve*
* Remaining Life Span = 10 years; IR Rate = 1.4%.
B. Generation Net Salvage 1
1. Analysis of Net Salvage for Generation Property 2
Generation properties experience two types of net salvage costs, interim retirement net 3
salvage and final decommissioning, that are included in the depreciation study. The first, interim 4
retirement net salvage, is experienced as smaller components are retired and replaced over the life span 5
of each specific generating facility. As these smaller components experience wear-and-tear, reliability 6
issues, or obsolescence they will require replacement to keep the plant operational. The removal costs 7
experienced during replacement is referred to as interim retirement net salvage and is recovered over the 8
remaining life span of the units. The second net salvage cost, final decommissioning, is the expected 9
cost to dismantle and remove the plant from operations. The final retirement net salvage is based on 10
engineering estimates of the cost to remove and dispose of the plant and equipment that is existing at the 11
time of the station’s final shutdown. 12
The future net salvage estimates for generating stations will differ significantly 13
depending on a variety of factors. Although the net salvage consists of both interim retirement net 14
salvage and final decommissioning costs, the scale of decommissioning costs will generally drive the 15
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10Years
Avg. Life = Rem. Life ‐ IR Adjustment
9.3 yrs = 10 yrs ‐ 0.7 yrs
% Surviving
IR Adjustment
75
Workpaper – Southern California Edison / 2021 General Rate Case
Exhibit No. SCE-07 Vol.03 Ch I-VI Bk A Witness: D. Gunn
76
overall net salvage levels required. In the case of Palo Verde, only interim retirement net salvage is 1
included in the current filing.82 2
2. Future Decommissioning Estimates 3
In SCE’s 2018 GRC, the company estimated decommissioning costs at the cost level 4
expected to be incurred at the time of the retirement, which is consistent with STANDARD PRACTICE U-4. 5
The 2018 GRC Decision adopted the decommissioning estimates underlying SCE’s proposed net 6
salvage estimates but did not include future cost escalation beyond 2020, the end of the 2018 GRC 7
period. Stating decommissioning costs at a value less than their cost in nominal dollars fails to achieve a 8
standard straight-line allocation as outlined in SP U-4, and results in deferring a portion of the cost 9
recovery to future customers in contravention of SP U-4. The Commission has previously underscored 10
its intent that the SP-U4 method use future net salvage costs (i.e., nominal retirement year dollars). The 11
Commission stated: 12
Under this [SP-U4] method, the undepreciated asset amount (original cost less 13
accumulated depreciation plus the estimated net salvage) is depreciated over the 14
remaining life of the asset. The net salvage includes the cost of removal of the 15
asset at the end of its useful life as well as any salvage value the asset may have at 16
that time. The original cost of the asset and the net salvage are expressed in 17
nominal dollars. For example, if the end of an asset’s useful life is 2010, the net 18
salvage would be expressed in nominal 2010 dollars.83 19
Using the current value of the final decommissioning costs, and deferring recovery of 20
cost escalation to future rate cases, is a “deferred” allocation method and does not fit into the 21
Commission’s SP-U4 straight-line remaining life method.84 A deferred approach results in charging 22
customers a higher cost of service over the life of the asset. In affirming its SP-U4 approach to include 23
future cost escalation in the decommissioning estimate, the Commission indicated a number of 24
82 The Commission addresses the final decommissioning costs of Palo Verde in the Nuclear Decommissioning
Cost Triennial Proceedings.
83 D.09-03-025, pp. 175-176 (emphasis added).
84 In PG&E’s 2007 GRC decision, D. 07-06-044, the Commission rejected a TURN argument that SP U-4 did not intend to include inflation stating, “We find that TURN’s interpretation of SP U-4 is not supported by the tables in SP U-4 which illustrate what was intended.”
76
Workpaper – Southern California Edison / 2021 General Rate Case
Exhibit No. SCE-07 Vol.03 Ch I-VI Bk A Witness: D. Gunn
77
intergenerational equity concerns that arise from deferring inflation, including the impact on rate base 1
and future rates.85 2
In light of the above concerns, SCE is continuing to propose accruing for future 3
decommissioning using costs stated in the year of the final retirement, which avoids excessive deferral 4
to future customers and is consistent with SP U-4. 5
For example, for Mountainview Generating Station, SCE is proposing to allocate the $14 6
million86 of unrecovered future decommissioning costs straight-line ($0.7 million per year) over the 7
20-year remaining life consistent with STANDARD PRACTICE U-4. Limiting the future cost escalation to 8
2023 (the end of this rate case cycle) would reduce annual accruals from $0.7 million to $0.4 million in 9
this rate case, but would require deferring accrual increases in each future GRC to make up for the 10
unrecovered amount. The required increases using this approach are not linear. Instead, as the escalation 11
costs are deferred and the remaining life of the facility is shortened, net salvage accruals must increase 12
faster than inflation and future customers bear increasingly larger portions of the deferred cost over 13
increasingly shorter periods. To prevent this inequitable distribution of service value, the 14
decommissioning proposals in the following sections adhere to the SP U-4 approach of valuing the 15
estimated future net salvage costs at the time of retirement and amortizing them straight-line over the 16
remaining life. 17
C. Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station (PVNGS) 18
1. Average Service Life 19
The Nuclear Regulatory Committee (NRC) licenses for PVNGS Units 1, 2, and 3 end 20
June 1, 2045, April 24, 2046, and November 25, 2047, respectively, resulting in an average 27.5-year 21
remaining life span for the station as of December 31, 2018. In addition, recent retirement activity 22
indicates a required adjustment to the average remaining life of 2.1 years to 25.3 years to account for the 23
shorter-lived interim retirements. 24
2. Interim Retirement Net Salvage and Decommissioning 25
As discussed above, in the case of PVNGS, only interim retirement net salvage is 26
addressed in this filing. As can be expected of the increased plant age, recent retirement experience 27
85 D.09-03-025, p. 177.
86 Consisting of $18.6 million of anticipated future decommissioning costs (inclusive of inflation) less $4.6 million of decommissioning recovery as of year-end 2020.
77
Workpaper – Southern California Edison / 2021 General Rate Case
Exhibit No. SCE-07 Vol.03 Ch I-VI Bk A Witness: D. Gunn
78
indicates an increase in the interim retirement net salvage rates. Based on the recent 10-year average 1
retirements and net salvage experience, SCE is proposing to include the interim retirement net salvage 2
rates as shown in Table V-29, below. 3
Table V-29 Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station
Interim Retirement Rate and Net Salvage
D. Hydro Generation 4
SCE’s Hydroelectric (Hydro) generating assets include powerhouses and generating units with a 5
total generation capacity of 1,176 MW. These assets include the large 1,015 MW Big Creek system in 6
the western Sierras, and several smaller systems with a total capacity of 161 MW located in the eastern 7
Sierras, the south-western Sierras and the San Gabriel/San Bernardino Mountains (collectively referred 8
to as small hydro). These systems can be divided into two types: (1) reservoir storage, and (2) stream 9
flow or “run-of the-river.”87 Hydro facilities with reservoir storage can hold back water during the spring 10
and early summer to allow increased utilization of the water during the hottest months (and highest 11
electricity demand) in late summer and early fall. Storing water in reservoirs extends the window of 12
opportunity for generation beyond the spring snow-melt runoff period and allows greater control and 13
utilization of the water. 14
1. Average Service Life 15
Nearly all of SCE’s hydro facilities (99 percent) are covered by FERC licenses. 16
The licenses have a variety of termination dates—from currently expired (i.e., either in the process of 17
87 A run-of-the-river project does not have control of a storage reservoir as part of the project. Although these
projects generally have dams that divert water from the river into the Hydro project water conveyance facility, the dam impoundment does not store significant amounts of water.
FERC Interim Net Salvage Net SalvageAccount Description Retirement % % of Ret. % of Plant
321 Structures and Improvements 0.30% -30.0% -2.5%322 Reactor Plant Equipment 0.60% -20.0% -3.3%323 Turbogenerator Units 1.30% -20.0% -7.2%324 Accessory Electric Equipment 0.15% -20.0% -0.8%325 Misc. Power Plant Equipment 0.50% -25.0% -3.4%
78
Workpaper – Southern California Edison / 2021 General Rate Case
Exhibit No. SCE-07 Vol.03 Ch I-VI Bk A Witness: D. Gunn
79
being relicensed or decommissioned) to year 2046. The total life span of SCE’s current remaining 1
license periods for those plants without expired licenses range between 5 and 30 years. For licenses 2
being renewed, FERC has recently issued licenses with periods averaging about 40 years. 3
Prior license renewal does not guarantee that a generating plant will last indefinitely. For 4
example, FERC may not grant the company licenses, generating units may become uneconomic, or 5
environmental concerns will weigh in favor of discontinuing operations. Moreover, the individual 6
components in a generating station will continue to wear out, become obsolete, damaged, or otherwise 7
need to be retired and replaced. 8
Consequently, SCE continues to propose that the hydro generation plant be depreciated 9
over the remaining life spans associated with each plant’s individual FERC license, and adjusted for 10
interim retirements expected during the period.88 For generating stations with already expired licenses, 11
or with licenses that are within 5.5 years of termination, SCE extends the life spans of the generating 12
stations by the estimated license life extension resulting from re-licensing.89 13
2. Interim Retirements and Net Salvage 14
Interim retirement rates and associated net salvage rates are calculated by analyzing the 15
recent retirement history for the level of net salvage incurred apart from final retirements. The ratio of 16
net salvage (gross salvage less cost of removal) divided by the retirement values is used to arrive at the 17
interim net salvage rates shown in Table V-30, below. 18
88 In the case of the 1 percent of hydro plant not covered by a FERC license, SCE applies the average life
determined for the plant that is covered by FERC license.
89 The average application license period is 40 years. The exception to this life span extension is the amortization period for the hydro relicensing costs. These relicensing costs are only amortized over the associated license period for which they were spent.
79
Workpaper – Southern California Edison / 2021 General Rate Case
Exhibit No. SCE-07 Vol.03 Ch I-VI Bk A Witness: D. Gunn
80
Table V-3090 Hydro Interim Retirement and Net Salvage
3. Hydro Decommissioning 1
In SCE-05, Volume 1, SCE describes why decommissioning small hydro plants has 2
become more likely in the coming years. To ensure adequate cost recovery, SCE proposes to include a 3
probability-adjusted annual accrual of $29.6 million for decommissioning in this rate case. 4
The Commission has authorized SCE to accrue funds over the useful lives of its nuclear, 5
fossil, and solar photovoltaic generation assets to provide equitable recovery for the cost to 6
decommission generation assets when they are retired from service. Until now, hydro assets have been 7
considered as potentially perpetual facilities with recovery of the ongoing asset investments and interim 8
retirements only; ultimate decommissioning has generally not been assumed. Now, as a result of aging 9
infrastructure, changes in the California energy market, and increasing costs to license and operate the 10
facilities, it is increasingly apparent that many of SCE’s small hydro powerhouses may indeed be retired 11
and removed from service. To address intergenerational equity, the decommissioning costs associated 12
with an asset should be recovered from the customers who benefit from the asset. Consequently, it is 13
appropriate to begin accruing for the decommissioning of hydro assets beginning in 2021. 14
It is challenging to predict which plants will be decommissioned due to the complexity of 15
issues such as licensing costs, environmental compliance-related costs, water rights, recreational use, 16
flood control, and other considerations involving affected stakeholders. The smaller hydro generation 17
facilities (i.e., below 30 MWs) face a greater likelihood of decommissioning than the larger scale hydro 18
facilities (e.g., Big Creek and Kern River 1 & 3). As described in SCE-05, Volume 1, SCE assembled a 19
probability-adjusted decommissioning cost estimate for each small hydro plant. The estimates include 20
90 Refer to WP SCE-07 Vol. 03, Book A pp. 170-172 (Hydro Generation).
FERC Interim Net Salvage Net SalvageAccount Description Retirement % % of Ret. % of Plant
331 Structures and Improvements 0.25% -140.0% -11.4%332 Reservoirs, Dams, and Waterways 0.35% -65.0% -7.9%333 Water wheels, Turbines and Generators 0.65% -40.0% -7.9%334 Accessory Electric Equipment 0.35% -120.0% -12.6%335 Miscellaneous Power Plant Equipment 0.40% -55.0% -6.7%336 Roads, Railroads and Bridges 0.20% -200.0% -14.1%
80
Workpaper – Southern California Edison / 2021 General Rate Case
Exhibit No. SCE-07 Vol.03 Ch I-VI Bk A Witness: D. Gunn
81
the costs of physical decommissioning as well as related engineering and permitting costs. SCE has one 1
plant, San Gorgonio, that is currently being decommissioned. For the remainder of the small hydro fleet, 2
SCE assigned probabilities for decommissioning using five probability levels together with an 3
assumption about when decommissioning for particular plants might start. 4
The annual accrual was developed by dividing the probability-adjusted future 5
decommissioning cost (e.g., including inflation) by the years to decommissioning. That is, each facility’s 6
decommissioning cost was first multiplied by its probability of decommissioning to adjust the aggregate 7
$905 million estimate (for the group) to $326 million. Then, the estimate was escalated to the average 8
year decommissioning activities are expected to take place ($446 million), consistent with SP U-4. 9
Finally, this future estimate was divided by the estimated remaining time to decommission. Because of 10
the complexity of the decommissioning activities, SCE added 10 years to the retirement year to estimate 11
the length of time that decommissioning activities are expected to take place resulting in an average 12
remaining life in 2021 of 15 years. The resulting annual accrual is $30 million as summarized in the 13
table below. 14
81
Workpaper – Southern California Edison / 2021 General Rate Case
Exhibit No. SCE-07 Vol.03 Ch I-VI Bk A Witness: D. Gunn
82
Table V-31 Small Hydro Decommissioning Accruals
(in millions of dollars)
SCE will continue to use the broad group depreciation procedure for the removal cost 1
recovery so that the accumulated depreciation would be shared across the portfolio of hydro generation. 2
Decommissioning cost estimates will be refined as scope and requirements become more clear through 3
the FERC relicensing process. Customers will be held indifferent because under-recovery for one plant 4
can be made up by collections on other properties.91 Commencing cost recovery for small Hydro 5
decommissioning as part of this 2021 GRC rate cycle is reasonable and appropriate because assuming 6
indefinite longevity of these plants no longer realistic. Additional details regarding Hydro 7
decommissioning are provided in SCE-05, Volume 1– Generation. 8
91 As depreciation expense is recorded to the reserve, any under- and over-accruals are amortized over the
remaining life of the asset group. This ensures that customers do not over- or under-pay for the final costs of decommissioning.
Plant
Decom. Estimate (2018 $)
Decom. Prob.(1%, 10%, 50%,
90%, 99%)
Approx. Year Decom. Would
Begin
Probability-Adjusted
Decom. EstimateFuture Dollars
Life Extension
Remaining Life
Annual Accrual
A B C D E=B*C F1 G H=D-2021+G
I=F/H
Borel $117.1 99% 2025 $116.0 $154.0 10 14 $11.0Rush Creek (Agnew, Rush M.) $46.3 90% 2027 $41.7 $58.0 10 16 $3.6Rush Creek (Gem) $167.1 50% 2027 $83.6 $116.3 10 16 $7.3Lower Tule River $21.9 50% 2033 $11.0 $17.6 10 22 $0.8Kaweah 1-2 $88.8 10% 2021 $8.9 $10.7 10 10 $1.1Kaweah 3 $45.8 50% 2026 $22.9 $31.1 10 15 $2.1Lundy (Mill Creek) $17.7 10% 2029 $1.8 $2.6 10 18 $0.1Bishop Creek 2-6 $214.2 10% 2024 $21.4 $27.8 10 13 $2.1Poole (Lee Vining Creek) $82.4 10% 2027 $8.2 $11.5 10 16 $0.7Fontana $11.3 10% 2033 $1.1 $1.8 10 22 $0.1Lytle Creek $15.8 10% 2033 $1.6 $2.5 10 22 $0.1Mill Creek No. 1 $7.1 10% 2033 $0.7 $1.1 10 22 $0.1Mill Creek No. 3 $24.2 10% 2033 $2.4 $3.9 10 22 $0.2Ontario No. 1 $10.9 10% 2033 $1.1 $1.8 10 22 $0.1Ontario No. 2 $5.3 10% 2033 $0.5 $0.9 10 22 $0.0Santa Ana 1 & 3 $24.2 10% 2033 $2.4 $3.9 10 22 $0.2Sierra $5.1 10% 2033 $0.5 $0.8 10 22 $0.0Total $905.2 $325.7 $446.2 15 $29.61/ F=E*1.0239^(D-2018+5)
82
Workpaper – Southern California Edison / 2021 General Rate Case
Exhibit No. SCE-07 Vol.03 Ch I-VI Bk A Witness: D. Gunn
83
E. Pebbly Beach 1
1. Average Service Life 2
SCE is proposing to retain the currently authorized 25-year average service life for 3
Pebbly Beach Generating Station based on the anticipated operating time between zero-time overhauls.92 4
Although the proposed 25-year service life of the plant is the same as in the prior GRC, SCE is including 5
a significant extension to the remaining life of the station (from 14 years to 29 years) based on the 6
proposed replacement of the diesel generators at the site.93 There have been few interim retirements in 7
the recent past from which to draw conclusions about the future. However, the replacement of the diesel 8
generators and other work at the facility will result in significant interim retirements warranting an 9
adjustment to the remaining life. SCE proposes to adjust the remaining life of the facility equipment 10
based on an SC-200 retirement curve as a conservative estimate94 of future interim retirements. The 11
shorter life of interim retirements adjusts the average remaining life by 1.1 years to 27.9 years. 12
2. Net Salvage 13
There is limited recent retirement history at Pebbly Beach available to estimate an interim 14
retirement net salvage rate. However, there is an expectation that capital expenditures will be required to 15
replace smaller components expected to retire before the end of the average service life. These expected 16
future interim retirements require an estimate of a net salvage rate. The average net salvage rate 17
experienced for interim retirements at Mountainview Generating Station between 2014 and 2018 18
was -33%. The additional transportation costs to and from the island will likely result in more negative 19
net salvage rate than what SCE has experienced at Mountainview. However, SCE proposes a 20
conservative -30% interim retirement net salvage rate at this time. 21
F. Mountainview 22
1. Average Service Life 23
SCE proposes to retain Mountainview’s currently authorized 35-year average service 24
with a 22-year remaining life span as of year-end 2018 (Mountainview Units 3&4 originally went in 25
service in 2005). The shorter life of interim retirements adjusts the average remaining life by 0.4 years 26
to 21.6 years. 27
92 A “zero-time overhaul” restores operations of the unit to like-new operating conditions.
93 See SCE-05, Volume 1.
94 An SC-200 curve results in a 0.25% of the original plant retiring each year.
83
Workpaper – Southern California Edison / 2021 General Rate Case
Exhibit No. SCE-07 Vol.03 Ch I-VI Bk A Witness: D. Gunn
84
Table V-32 Mountainview Generating Station Interim Retirement Rates
2. Net Salvage and Decommissioning 1
SCE is proposing to retain the currently authorized decommissioning estimate for 2
Mountainview Generating Station with updates to include the cost increase expected through the year of 3
retirement. The 2018 GRC Decision authorized SCE to recover the cost to decommission Mountainview 4
at 2020 levels of cost, or $8.6 million. The decommissioning cost increases to $18.6 million through the 5
retirement year,95 resulting in a $0.5 million increase in annual depreciation expense.96 6
While SCE did not request recovery of interim retirement net salvage in its prior rate 7
cases, recent retirement activity supports a modest increase. As such, SCE is proposing to include the 8
interim retirement net salvage rates as shown in Table V-32, above. 9
G. Peakers 10
1. Average Service Life 11
SCE is proposing to retain the currently authorized 35-year average service life for 12
Peakers. Although there is limited retirement history, it is reasonable to expect that components of the 13
plant will experience additional wear and tear requiring replacement sometime over the 24.6 year 14
average remaining life of the units. There have been insufficient interim retirements available on which 15
to rely for an estimate of the IR rate for this plant, so SCE proposes a conservative IR rate of 0.25% 16
95 This increase reflects the results of two adjustments. The first, accounting for $2.8 million of the increase,
corrects a modeling issue not previously identified in SCE’s 2018 GRC decision. The balance of the impact is from SCE’s proposal to include inflation through the final year of retirement so that recovery is consistent with straight-line depreciation as authorized in the 2009, 2012, and 2015 General Rate Cases.
96 Refer to WP SCE-07, Vol. 03, Book A p. 175 (Mountainview).
FERC Interim Net Salvage Net SalvageAccount Description Retirement % % of Ret. % of Plant
341 Structures and Improvements 0.15% -150.0% -5.0%342 Fuel Holders, Producers, and Accessories 0.00% 0.0% 0.0%343 Prime Movers 0.20% -20.0% -0.9%344 Generators 0.05% -60.0% -0.7%345 Accessory Electric Equipment 0.10% -25.0% -0.6%346 Misc. Power Plant Equipment 0.00% 0.0% 0.0%
84
Workpaper – Southern California Edison / 2021 General Rate Case
Exhibit No. SCE-07 Vol.03 Ch I-VI Bk A Witness: D. Gunn
85
based on an SC-200 curve to estimate an IR rate for this plant. The shorter remaining life of the interim 1
retirements adjusts the average remaining life by 0.7 years, to 23.9 years, for these plants. 2
2. Net Salvage and Decommissioning 3
SCE is proposing to retain the currently authorized decommissioning estimate for 4
Peakers units97 with updates to include the cost increase expected through the year of retirement. The 5
2018 GRC Decision authorized SCE to recover the cost to decommission Peakers at 2020 levels of cost, 6
or $11.5 million. The decommissioning cost increases to $14.8 million through the retirement year, 7
resulting in a $0.1 million increase in annual depreciation expense.98 Available retirement history is too 8
limited to draw conclusions about the interim retirement net salvage rate; consequently SCE proposes to 9
use the average net salvage rate experienced at Mountainview between 2014 and 2018 of -30%. 10
H. Solar Photovoltaic 11
1. Average Service Life (Authorized 20 years, Proposed 20 years) 12
SCE is proposing to retain the currently authorized 20-year average service life for Solar 13
Photovoltaic (PV) equipment. The current 20-year life estimate is based largely on the lease terms for 14
the rooftops, which grant SCE rights to use the rooftop facilities for the same period as the lease. Given 15
the uncertainty of lease renewal and short expectations about the life of the equipment once it is 16
removed or relocated, a 20-year average service life proposal is reasonable for this account. The 17
remaining life and average remaining life are both 12.7 years. 18
2. Net Salvage and Decommissioning 19
SCE is proposing to retain the currently authorized decommissioning estimate for all but 20
one of its Solar PV units99 with updates to include the cost increase expected through the year of 21
retirement. The 2018 GRC Decision authorized SCE to recover the cost to decommission the Solar PV 22
facilities at 2020 levels of cost, or $62.0 million. The estimated decommissioning cost increases to $81.4 23
million through the retirement year, resulting in a $1.5 million increase in depreciation expense.100 24
97 SCE’s authorized decommissioning costs are based on a 2007 study performed by Arcadis estimating the cost
to retire each of SCE’s five Peaker units.
98 Refer to WP SCE-07 Vol. 03, Book A p. 186 (Peakers).
99 The decommissioning estimate for SPVP044-Perris is being updated to reflect an amount equal to SCE’s capital expenditures in this rate case. See Section V.H.3, below.
100 Refer to WP SCE-07 Vol. 03, Book A p. 188 (Solar Photovoltaic).
85
Workpaper – Southern California Edison / 2021 General Rate Case
Exhibit No. SCE-07 Vol.03 Ch I-VI Bk A Witness: D. Gunn
86
Because of limited retirement history, SCE is not proposing recovery of interim retirement net salvage at 1
this time. 2
Table V-33 Solar Decommissioning Costs by Panel Type
(in millions of dollars)
3. SPVP044 - Perris Solar Retirement 3
As discussed in SCE-05, Vol. 1, in May 2019, SCE received notice that the SPVP044 – 4
Perris site requires roof repairs, which necessitates removal and retirement of the investment after seven 5
years of service. SCE has invested $371 million at 25 Solar PV rooftop sites. The retirement of this 6
single asset, SPVP044 – Perris, is expected to result in a portion ($39.8 million) of this total investment 7
being retired prior to having reached the end of the average service life of the broad group of solar 8
assets. SP U-4 offers guidance on how unrecovered costs should be treated when assets retire earlier 9
than expected for the broader group. Specifically: 10
In group accounting all units having like mortality characteristics or all units of an 11
account are considered together. Accruals for the group are based on composite or 12
weighted average values of … service life expectancy. …. A deficiency due to 13
early retirement of a unit is made up through greater accruals on a unit which 14
outlives the average.101 15
This is in contrast to unit accounting, which requires a specific record and depreciation 16
reserve for each individual item of property. Because of the specificity required in unit accounting, SP 17
U-4 acknowledges that “the group basis is more feasible for most classes of utility property where large 18
numbers of units are involved.”102 With 25 different Solar PV sites, representing various installation 19
circumstances, equipment types, and rooftop versus ground-mounted installations, SCE’s Solar PV 20
101 STANDARD PRACTICE U-4, p. 10.
102 Id.
Cost/MW to MW Authorized SCE ProposedSolar Type Ret. (2011$) Installed 2020$ Ret. Yr. $Rooftop - Floating $521 53.5 $37 $47Rooftop - Anchored $547 31.1 $22 $31Ground Mount $300 6.8 $3 $4Total $62 $81
86
Workpaper – Southern California Edison / 2021 General Rate Case
Exhibit No. SCE-07 Vol.03 Ch I-VI Bk A Witness: D. Gunn
87
assets meet the criteria described in U-4 regarding group accounting. The early retirement of the Perris 1
site leaves the vast majority (nearly 90%) of the solar assets in-service and does not violate group 2
depreciation principles established by the Commission. That is, there is a large portion of the solar 3
installation in service over which to allocate the unrecovered costs. As such, consistent with the average 4
life, broad group depreciation concepts in STANDARD PRACTICE U-4, the unrecovered cost of the retired 5
assets will be amortized over the remaining life of the surviving solar photovoltaic asset group. 6
I. Fuel Cells 7
SCE owns and operates two fuel cell demonstration facilities that were installed in connection 8
with a Commission-approved program in 2012 and 2013.103 The plants are located at California State 9
University, San Bernardino (CSUSB) and University of California Santa Barbara (UCSB). SCE 10
proposes to retain the currently authorized 10-year average service life. This proposal is consistent with 11
the facilities’ 10-year lease. 12
As explained in Exhibit SCE-05, Volume 1, SCE has not previously sought recovery of the 13
future costs of removal for the Fuel Cells because of a prior expectation that SCE would ultimately 14
transfer ownership to site hosts at the end of the facilities’ 10-year life. The current estimate of the cost 15
to remove these facilities is $3.0 million. SCE proposes to amortize this amount through the end of the 16
expected life of the facilities, or 2023, necessitating recovery of $1.0 million per year in 17
decommissioning expense. This is reasonable because, pursuant to the terms of the contract executed by 18
SCE and the counterparty campuses, SCE will be obligated to remove the assets if the site owners so 19
request at the end of the lease terms in 2022 and 2023. Any unspent removal costs (owing to a potential 20
transfer of the assets to the campuses, for example) would be returned to customers. 21
J. Energy Storage 22
Since the last rate case, three energy storage facilities have been deployed in SCE’s service 23
territory. Each facility contains new infrastructure for battery enclosures, battery modules, and 24
supporting equipment and traditional infrastructure such as power inverters, transformers, and switch-25
gear. The currently authorized life of this equipment is 10 years based on the risk of technological 26
obsolescence associated with deployment of new technologies. To partly mitigate this risk, SCE has 27
entered service agreements and performance agreements to ensure operations will meet standards for 20 28
years past the installation date. SCE proposes to extend the currently authorized life of the units from 10 29
103 D.12-04-011.
87
Workpaper – Southern California Edison / 2021 General Rate Case
Exhibit No. SCE-07 Vol.03 Ch I-VI Bk A Witness: D. Gunn
88
years to 20 years because the majority of the investment (83%) in this account is covered by 20-year 1
service and performance guarantees. Although it is reasonable to assume some costs to retire these assets 2
in the future (e.g., for labor and disposal fees), SCE is not proposing to include removal costs for energy 3
storage assets at this time because of manufacturer guarantees covering the costs of replacements in the 4
near term. 5
88
Workpaper – Southern California Edison / 2021 General Rate Case
Exhibit No. SCE-07 Vol.03 Ch I-VI Bk A Witness: D. Gunn
89
VI. 1
DEPRECIATION STUDY FOR GENERAL AND INTANGIBLE PLANT 2
Some categories of plant do not lend themselves to statistical analysis, but do not belong in the 3
life span category. These plant assets include most general plant (i.e., FERC Accounts 391-397), 4
intangible plant (e.g., software, radio frequencies, etc.), and easements. SCE determined average service 5
lives through conducting discussions with SCE engineers familiar with the assets, considering prior 6
company procedure, and relying on knowledge of (or research into) industry practice. 7
Table VI-34, below, shows the forecast depreciation service lives for general and intangible plant 8
accounts. The table compares SCE’s proposed depreciation rates to authorized service lives from 9
D.19-05-020 (the 2018 GRC Decision). SCE is proposing to retain the currently authorized average 10
service lives for all general and intangible accounts included in this section with the exception of 11
Account 391.4 (DDSMS - Power Management System). As described below, SCE is proposing a life 12
extension for this account from an average of 8.5 years to 10 years. 13
89
Workpaper – Southern California Edison / 2021 General Rate Case
Exhibit No. SCE-07 Vol.03 Ch I-VI Bk A Witness: D. Gunn
90
Table VI-34104 General and Intangible Plant Service Life Proposals
A. General Plant 1
Most general and intangible plant accounts contain many low-value, relatively short-lived 2
individual items. Following FERC guidelines, non-structural items in these accounts are amortized by 3
vintage group over the specified service life and retired at the end of the life span.105 For example, 4
personal computers are amortized over a 5-year period (i.e., a 20 percent annual depreciation rate) and 5
104 Refer to WP SCE-07 Vol. 03, Book A p. 193 (G&I Rate Determination Schedule).
105 FERC Accounting Release Number AR15 provided for the vintage year accounting method allowing companies to amortize vintage groups of assets over their designated service life and subsequently retire them. See https://www.ferc.gov/enforcement/acct-matts/docs/ar-15.asp.
FERC 2018-2020 2021-2023Account Description Authorized Proposed
General Plant391.1 Office Furniture 20 20391.2-3 Personal and Mainframe Computers 5 5391.4 DDSMS - Power Management System 8.5 10391.5-6 Office Equipment 5 5393 Stores Equipment 20 20394 Tools & Work Equipment 10 10395 Laboratory Equipment 15 15397 Telecommunication Equipment 17.9 17.9398 Miscellaneous Equipment 20 20
Intangibles302.020 Hydro Relicensing Various Various303.640 Radio Frequency 40 40302.050 Miscellaneous Intangibles 20 20303.105 Capitalized Software - 5-year 5 5303.707 Capitalized Software - 7-year 7 7303.210 Capitalized Software - 10-year 10 10303.315 Capitalized Software - 15-year 15 15
Easements350 Transmission Easements 60 60360 Distribution Easements 60 60389 General Easements 60 60
90
Workpaper – Southern California Edison / 2021 General Rate Case
Exhibit No. SCE-07 Vol.03 Ch I-VI Bk A Witness: D. Gunn
91
when a vintage group reaches five years of age, the vintage group of computers will be retired off the 1
books. Following this approach eliminates costly plant record-keeping and continuous physical tracking 2
of the equipment. Over time, imbalances in the accumulated depreciation can occur if, for example, 3
there are depreciation life or rate changes and if net salvage is recorded to the books but not reflected in 4
the depreciation rate. These accumulated depreciation surpluses (deficits) are amortized over the GRC 5
cycle (2021-2023). 6
1. Account 391.1 – Office Furniture 7
Account 391.1 contains all costs incurred to acquire office furniture. It includes such 8
items as modular furniture, desks, and cabinets used for general utility service that are not permanently 9
attached to buildings. SCE proposes retaining the currently authorized 20-year average service life for 10
this account. 11
2. Account 391.2 And 391.3 – Computer Equipment 12
The assets in Account 391.2 can include mostly personal computers and associated 13
components (e.g., monitors, printers, etc.) when purchased as a bundled unit, or when any of these items 14
are purchased individually and meet the capitalization threshold. Account 391.3 is where SCE records 15
all investment related to mainframe computer and file server equipment. SCE proposes retaining the 16
currently authorized 5-year average service life for this account. 17
3. Account 391.4 – Power Management System 18
This account represents a $89.2 million net investment in Supervisory Control and Data 19
Acquisition (SCADA) equipment for controlling and monitoring the SCE electrical system. Contained 20
within this account are the components making up the Power Management System, specifically 21
computer and data gathering equipment, man-machine interface, analog and digital telemetry devices, 22
and data center facility infrastructure. Although this account consists of components with varying levels 23
of technical sophistication and other factors affecting retirements, 95% of the SCADA investment have 24
current authorized service lives of 7 years (44%) and 10 years (51%), or a combined 8.5 years (on a 25
dollar weighted basis). SCE’s power management personnel have assessed this equipment and indicate 26
that the currently authorized lives are still reflective of current expectations. Given that about 95% of the 27
account’s investment is consolidated in these two similar life groups, SCE proposes to simplify the 28
service life applied to these assets and use the more conservative 10-year average service life for this 29
account. This depreciation service life results in a $2.4 million annual expense reduction (i.e., based on 30
year-end 2018 plant). 31
91
Workpaper – Southern California Edison / 2021 General Rate Case
Exhibit No. SCE-07 Vol.03 Ch I-VI Bk A Witness: D. Gunn
92
4. Account 391.5 and 391.6 – Office Equipment 1
These accounts represent an $18.7 million net investment in miscellaneous office 2
equipment such as video projection equipment, public address equipment, duplicating equipment, and so 3
forth. SCE proposes retaining the currently authorized 5-year average service life for this account. 4
5. Account 393 – Stores Equipment 5
Account 393 represents a $6.3 million net investment in equipment used for the 6
receiving, shipping, handling, and storing materials and supplies for warehouses. It includes electric 7
pallet jacks, lifting tables, stretch wrapping machine, transformer trays, lockers, warehouse heaters, 8
cable cutting machines, and so forth. SCE proposes retaining the currently authorized 20-year average 9
service life for this account. 10
6. Account 394 – Tools & Work Equipment 11
Account 394 represents a $37.4 million net investment in tools and equipment for 12
construction, repair, maintenance, general shop, and garage, but not specifically includable in other 13
accounts. SCE proposes retaining the currently authorized 10-year average service life for this account. 14
7. Account 395 – Laboratory Equipment 15
Account 395 represents a $67.8 million net investment in laboratory and field test 16
equipment. The account has a wide variety of equipment. It includes, for example, calibrators, furnaces, 17
gauge calibrators, insulation testers, gas leak detectors, phase meters, power system analyzers, sound 18
meters, metrology standards, and volt meters. The expected average service life of lab and test 19
equipment is impacted by two major retirement factors: technological obsolescence and normal “wear 20
and tear” from usage in both the field and lab environments. SCE proposes retaining the currently 21
authorized 15-year average service life for this account. 22
8. Account 397 – Telecommunication Equipment 23
Account 397 represents SCE’s investment in communication equipment for the 24
company’s system. Contained within this account are the electronic and computer-based equipment 25
(such as transmission equipment, dynamic network multiplexers, data network interconnection system, 26
and radio equipment), as well as communication infrastructure (such as the copper and fiber optic cable, 27
conduit, microwave equipment, and the electrical power generator system). SCE telecommunication 28
engineers have assessed this equipment as having service lives of 5, 7, 10, 15, 25, or 40 years depending 29
92
Workpaper – Southern California Edison / 2021 General Rate Case
Exhibit No. SCE-07 Vol.03 Ch I-VI Bk A Witness: D. Gunn
93
on the type of equipment.106 In general, state-of-the-art modern and sophisticated equipment has been 1
authorized shorter average service lives while infrastructure (poles, cable, conduit, etc.) has been 2
authorized longer service lives. SCE is proposing to retain the same service lives the Commission 3
authorized in the 2018 GRC. 4
9. Account 398 – Miscellaneous 5
Account 398 represents a $34.4 million net investment in miscellaneous utility equipment 6
that does not fit other plant accounts. Examples can include such diverse items as kitchen and infirmary 7
equipment. SCE proposes to retain the currently authorized service life of 20 years for this account. 8
B. Intangibles 9
SCE has investments in several intangible assets, including hydro relicensing, radio frequencies, 10
long-term franchise fees, capitalized software, and land easements and rights-of-way. As previously 11
discussed, the hydro relicensing costs are amortized over the remaining life of the FERC project license 12
period. SCE proposes to continue amortizing the radio frequency investments over the 40-year service 13
life, and land easements and rights-of-way over the 60-year service life determined in prior rate case 14
proceedings. The other categories are discussed below. 15
1. Miscellaneous Intangibles 16
The year-end 2018 net investment for miscellaneous intangibles is approximately 17
$339,000, which is largely made up of long-term franchise costs. SCE proposes to retain the currently 18
authorized life of 20 years for these costs. 19
2. Capitalized Software 20
Software requires ongoing investment to upgrade and optimize its usefulness. The 21
estimated life of capitalized software reflects the time between its initial deployment and/or upgrade, to 22
the time it is required to be replaced or overhauled because of technology, vendor, or business 23
obsolescence. SCE proposes to continue the four existing average service life categories of five, seven, 24
ten, and 15 years authorized in prior proceedings. Given rapid technological change, the trend has been 25
towards shorter service lives. As of year-end 2018, 82% of SCE’s capitalized software has a five-year 26
amortization and about 17% has a seven-year amortization. The remaining software has ten-year or 27
fifteen-year amortization periods. 28
106 Refer to WP SCE-07 Vol. 03, Book A pp. 197-199 (Telecomm. Engineering Survey).
93
Workpaper – Southern California Edison / 2021 General Rate Case
Exhibit No. SCE-07 Vol.03 Ch I-VI Bk A Witness: D. Gunn
94
Amortization periods of five- and seven-year lives are not uncommon in the utility 1
industry for capitalized software. Based on benchmarking with other utilities and reviews of industry 2
practice, SCE has found that five years is the most frequently applied amortization for typical capitalized 3
software for utilities. Longer service lives of seven years or more are generally used for the initial 4
implementation of complex backbone systems such as an Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) system or 5
billing systems. While initial ERP system implementations might be amortized over longer periods, 6
subsequent upgrades are generally amortized over a shorter period equivalent to the amortization period 7
for typical capitalized software. 8
When considering capitalized software lives, there are similarities and dissimilarities with 9
tangible plant assets. Most utility plant assets have identifiable component parts that can be discretely 10
retired and replaced when they are no longer useful. For example, a substation as a whole will provide 11
service for a longer period than the individual units of property required to keep it operating. Similarly, 12
enterprise-wide software has ongoing additions, replacements, and/or deletions of programming code 13
through various enhancement revisions, upgrades, and platform revamps over its lifecycle. These can 14
result from ongoing technological advances, security enhancements, incremental and extensive changes 15
to industry, regulatory and operational requirements, obsolescence, system upgrades, and so forth. 16
The effect of technical advances has become increasingly impactful on software lives. 17
For example, SAP has released multiple version upgrades to its software since SCE’s initial installation 18
in 2008. In addition, there have been implementations and upgrades to numerous SAP add-on software 19
such as PowerPlan and Ariba that have required ongoing revisions to SAP interface programming. An 20
example of emerging technological impacts is cloud computing. The approach of installing on-premises 21
software is being replaced as software providers are moving away from supporting on-site solutions. 22
Moreover, the Financial Accounting Standards Board recently issued accounting guidance regarding 23
cloud computing arrangements that will result in shorter-lived capitalized software costs.107 Beginning 24
in 2020, the associated capitalized costs amounts will need to be expensed over the period of the hosting 25
agreements, which generally is expected to be in the range of three to five years. These kinds of 26
technological disruptors will continue to affect and generally reduce software lives. 27
107 FASB Accounting Standards Update (ASU) 2018-15, Customer’s Accounting for Implementation Costs
Incurred in a Cloud Computing Arrangement That Is a Service Contract. Under this ASU, beginning in 2020, the associated capitalized costs amounts will need to be amortized over the period of the hosting agreements, which generally are expected to be in the range of three to five years.
94
Workpaper – Southern California Edison / 2021 General Rate Case
Exhibit No. SCE-07 Vol.03 Ch I-VI Bk A Witness: D. Gunn
95
When portions of the software programming code are revised/replaced, it is not practical 1
to identify discrete retirement amounts. Consequently, there is no statistical manner to reasonably 2
evaluate capitalized software service lives. Instead, there is a need to apply judgement in establishing an 3
average amortization period to reasonably reflect the software’s service value. Although the 4
amortization period of a particular software is set at seven years, there is a recognition that that 5
represents an average service life of the programming code, with some portions being replaced/revised 6
earlier than seven years and other portions having value beyond seven years. Taken together, the service 7
life should be reasonable on average, given the expected on-going change to the software. Based on the 8
current technological trends and consistency with industry software amortization lives, SCE proposes to 9
continue applying the currently authorized set of capitalized software lives. 10
3. Easements 11
SCE proposes to retain the authorized amortization period of 60 years for its easements 12
and rights-of-way. 13
95
2021 General Rate Case Index of Workpapers
SCE-07, Vol. 03, Ch. I-VI, Book A
DOCUMENT PAGE(S) Depreciation Study Rate Determination Schedule 1 - 13 Depreciation Proposal Impacts 14 - 17 Escalation Factors 18 - 22
T&D Net Salvage Summary of T&D Net Salvage Proposals 23 - 24 Account 352: Transmission Substation Structures and Improvements 25 - 28 Account 353: Transmission Substation Equipment 29 - 38 Account 354: Transmission Towers 39 - 42 Account 355: Transmission Poles 43 - 47 Account 356: Transmission Overhead Conductor and Devices 48 - 53 Account 357: Transmission Underground Conduit 54 - 57 Account 358: Transmission Underground Conductor and Devices 58 - 62 Account 359: Transmission Roads and Trails 63 - 64 Account 361: Distribution Substation Structures and Improvements 65 - 71 Account 362: Distribution Substation Equipment 72 - 77 Account 364: Distribution Poles 78 - 80 Account 365: Distribution Overhead Conductor and Devices 81 - 86 Account 366: Distribution Underground Conduit 87 - 93 Account 367: Distribution Underground Conductor and Devices 94 - 98 Account 368: Distribution Line Transformers 99 - 104 Account 369: Services 105 - 108 Account 370: Meters 109 - 112 Account 373: Streetlighting and Signal Systems 113 - 117 Account 390: General Buildings 118 - 123
Depreciation Literature Standard Practice U-4 124 - 135 Public Utility Depreciation Practices, NARUC 136 - 147 Depreciation Systems 148 - 165
Generation Plant Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station (PVNGS) 166 - 168 Hydro Generation 169 - 173 Mountainview 174 - 184 Peakers 185 - 186 Solar Photovoltaic 187 - 188 Fuel Cell 189 - 191
General and Intangible G&I Rate Determination Schedule 192 - 193 Account 391.4: Power Management System 194 - 196 Telecommunications Engineering Study 197 - 199
2021 General Rate Case Index of Workpapers
SCE-07, Vol. 03, Ch. I-VI, Book A
DOCUMENT PAGE(S) Depreciation Study for T&D Service Life (Dr. Ronald E. White) T&D Engineering Survey 200-233
Workpaper – Southern California Edison / 2021 General Rate Case
Exhibit No. SCE-07 Vol.03 Ch I-VI Bk A Witness: D. Gunn
SCE-07, Volume. 03, Results of Operations Depreciation Study
Witness: David Gunn
Rate Determination Schedule
1
Workpaper – Southern California Edison / 2021 General Rate Case
Exhibit No. SCE-07 Vol.03 Ch I-VI Bk A Witness: D. Gunn
Southern California Edison
Annual Accrual Rate Determination
in Thousands of Dollars
For Estimated
Year 2021
Calculation of Annual Dep
reciation Exp
ense Rates and Lives (in Thousands of Dollars)
FERC
Gross
Est. Future Net Salvage
Depr.
Depr.
Average
Rem.
Annual
Depr.
Annual
Account
Description
Plant
%Amount
Reserve
Balan
ceCurve
Serv. Life
Life
Depr.
Rate
Res. Adj.
AB
CD
E=C x D
FG=C
‐E‐F
HI
JK=G
/JL=K/C
Nuclea
r Production ‐ Palo Verde
320.2
Easements
‐ 0.0 %
‐‐
‐ License
27.5
‐
321
Structures & Im
provements
638,687
(2.5%)
(15,83
3)
444,56
1
209,95
9
License
26.4
7,951
322
Reactor Plant Eq
uipment
742,011
(3.3%)
(24,52
5)
626,07
8
140,45
8
License
25.3
5,559
323
Turbogenerator Units
276,201
(7.2%)
(19,78
0)
212,99
8
82,983
License
22.6
3,670
324
Accessory Electric Eq
uipment
193,770
(0.8%)
(1,601
)
172,37
9
22,992
License
27.0
852
325
Misc. Power Plant Eq
uipment
134,439
(3.4%)
(4,629
)
95,521
43,546
License
25.6
1,698
32X
Decommissioning
‐‐
‐ License
27.5
‐
Total P
alo Verde Production
1,985,108
(3.3%)
(66,36
7)
1,55
1,53
7
499,93
8
25.3
19,730
182
Design
Basis Doc. And Def. Debits
7,773
0.0 %
‐5,90
0
1,87
2License
27.5
68
Hyd
ro 302
Relicensing
155,973
0.0 %
‐46
,535
109,43
8
License
34.1
3,208
2.06
%
330.2
Easements
3,216
0.0 %
‐1,10
3
2,11
3License
33.5
63
1.96
%
331
Structures an
d Im
provements
228,022
(12.8%
)(29,28
8)
71,117
186,19
3
License
36.7
4,276
1.88
%
332
Reservoirs, Dam
s an
d W
aterw
ays
597,247
(7.4%)
(44,23
6)
281,09
6
360,38
7
License
31.0
13,269
2.22
%
333
Water Wheels, Turbines & Generators
196,176
(9.0%)
(17,59
9)
69,940
143,83
5
License
32.2
4,815
2.45
%
334
Accessory Electric Eq
uipment
218,569
(13.8%
)(30,06
9)
69,850
178,78
8
License
28.7
5,536
2.53
%
335
Misc. Power Plant Eq
uipment
13,161
(8.5%)
(1,112
)
7,35
5
6,91
8License
35.7
231
1.75
%
336
Road
s, Railroad
s & Bridges
20,585
(11.0%
)(2,255
)
7,33
3
15,508
License
25.4
546
2.65
%
Hyd
ro Production
1,273,761
(9.8%)
(124
,560
)
506,69
2
891,63
0
31.1
28,673
2.25
%
33x
Hyd
ro Decommissioning
(446,169)
446,16
9
15.1
29,591
Other Production
Peb
bly Bea
ch
340
Land Rights
‐ 0.0 %
‐‐
‐ Life Span
25
29.0
‐
341
Structures an
d Im
provements
9,525
5.1 %
483
1,38
7
7,65
5Life Span
25
27.9
299
342
Fuel H
olders, P
rdcrs & Accssrs
1,601
5.1 %
81
58
3
936
Life Span
25
27.9
38
343
Prime M
overs
23,283
5.1 %
1,18
2
13,204
8,89
7Life Span
25
27.9
379
344
Generators
22,314
5.1 %
1,13
2
9,11
3
12,069
Life Span
25
27.9
490
345
Accessory Electric Eq
uipmen
t25,183
5.1 %
1,27
8
6,61
6
17,289
Life Span
25
27.9
684
346
Misc. Power Plant Eq
uipment
599
5.1 %
30
27
5
294
Life Span
25
27.9
12
34x
Decommissioning
‐1,25
9
(1,259
)
Life Span
25
29.0
(43)
Peb
bly Bea
ch Production
82,504
5.1 %
4,18
7
32,436
45,881
24.7
1,85
7
2
Workpaper – Southern California Edison / 2021 General Rate Case
Exhibit No. SCE-07 Vol.03 Ch I-VI Bk A Witness: D. Gunn
Southern California Edison
Annual Accrual Rate Determination
in Thousands of Dollars
For Estimated
Year 2021
Calculation of Annual Dep
reciation Exp
ense Rates and Lives (in Thousands of Dollars)
FERC
Gross
Est. Future Net Salvage
Depr.
Depr.
Average
Rem.
Annual
Depr.
Annual
Account
Description
Plant
%Amount
Reserve
Balan
ceCurve
Serv. Life
Life
Depr.
Rate
Res. Adj.
AB
CD
E=C x D
FG=C
‐E‐F
HI
JK=G
/JL=K/C
Mountainview
340
Land and Lan
d Rights
‐ 0.0 %
‐‐
‐ Life Span
35
22.0
‐
341
Structures an
d Im
provements
57,345
(5.0%)
(2,839
)
18,850
41,334
Life Span
35
21.6
1,910
342
Boiler Plant Eq
uipment
7,404
0.0 %
‐3,02
8
4,37
6Life Span
35
22.0
199
343
Prime M
overs
536,234
(0.9%)
(4,719
)
183,81
6
357,13
7
Life Span
35
21.5
16,598
344
Turbogenerator Units
78,370
(0.7%)
(517
)
31,219
47
,668
Life Span
35
21.9
2,179
345
Accessory Electric Eq
uipmen
t87,383
(0.6%)
(481
)
32,946
54
,918
Life Span
35
21.8
2,524
346
Misc. Power Plant Eq
uipment
55,563
0.0 %
‐8,07
7
47,486
Life Span
35
22.0
2,158
34x
Mountainview Decommissioning 3&4
(18,626)
4,25
8
14,368
Life Span
35
22.0
653
Mountainview
Production
822,299
(3.3%)
(27,18
2)
282,19
4
567,28
7
21.6
26,221
301
Organ
ization
2,797
0.0 %
‐1,20
3
1,59
4Life Span
35
22.0
72
303
Miscellaneous Intangibles
41,853
0.0 %
‐19
,046
22,808
Life Span
35
22.0
1,037
Mountainview
Intangibles
44,650
0.0 %
‐20
,248
24,402
22.0
1,10
9
Solar Photovo
ltaic
340
Land and Lan
d Rights
‐ 0.0 %
‐‐
‐ Life Span
20
12.7
‐
341
Structures an
d Im
provements
13,821
0.0 %
‐4,68
3
9,13
8Life Span
20
12.7
722
342
Boiler Plant Eq
uipment
‐ 0.0 %
‐‐
‐ Life Span
20
12.7
‐
343
Prime M
overs
338,904
0.0 %
‐11
9,73
2
219,17
2
Life Span
20
12.7
17, 312
344
Turboge
nerator Units
‐ 0.0 %
‐‐
‐ Life Span
20
12.7
‐
345
Accessory Electric Eq
uipmen
t17,341
0.0 %
‐5,11
7
12,224
Life Span
20
12.7
966
346
Miscellaneous Power Plant Eq
uipment
740
0.0 %
‐15
3
587
Life Span
20
12.7
46
34X
Decommissioning
(81,376)
22,293
59,083
Life Span
20
12.7
4,667
Solar Photovo
ltaic
370,806
(21.9%
)(81,37
6)
151,97
8
300,20
4
12.7
23,713
Peak
ers
340
Land and Lan
d Rights
527
0.0 %
‐16
5
362
Life Span
35
24.6
15
341
Structures an
d Im
provements
15,579
(1.8%)
(288
)
4,32
0
11,547
Life Span
35
23.9
484
342
Boiler Plant Eq
uipment
7,533
(1.8%)
(139
)
1,52
6
6,14
6Life Span
35
23.9
257
343
Prime M
overs
297,620
(1.8%)
(5,499
)
99,134
20
3,98
5
Life Span
35
23.9
8,544
344
Turbogenerator Units
26,872
(1.8%)
(496
)
4,90
5
22,463
Life Span
35
23.9
941
345
Accessory Electric Eq
uipmen
t63,463
(1.8%)
(1,173
)
24,168
40
,467
Life Span
35
23.9
1,695
346
Miscellaneous Power Plant Eq
uipment
4,37
1
(1.8%)
(81)
1,22
7
3,22
4Life Span
35
24.6
135
34X
Decommissioning
(14,787)
3,29
6
11,490
Life Span
35
23.9
466
Peak
ers
415,438
(5.4%)
(22,46
2)
138,57
7
299,32
3
23.9
12,522
3
Workpaper – Southern California Edison / 2021 General Rate Case
Exhibit No. SCE-07 Vol.03 Ch I-VI Bk A Witness: D. Gunn
Southern California Edison
Annual Accrual Rate Determination
in Thousands of Dollars
For Estimated
Year 2021
Calculation of Annual Dep
reciation Exp
ense Rates and Lives (in Thousands of Dollars)
FERC
Gross
Est. Future Net Salvage
Depr.
Depr.
Average
Rem.
Annual
Depr.
Annual
Account
Description
Plant
%Amount
Reserve
Balan
ceCurve
Serv. Life
Life
Depr.
Rate
Res. Adj.
AB
CD
E=C x D
FG=C
‐E‐F
HI
JK=G
/JL=K/C
Fuel Cell
340
Land and Lan
d Rights
‐ 0.0 %
‐‐
‐ Life Span
10
5.0
‐
341
Structures an
d Im
provements
‐ 0.0 %
‐‐
‐ Life Span
10
5.0
‐
342
Boiler Plant Eq
uipment
‐ 0.0 %
‐‐
‐ Life Span
10
5.0
‐
343
Prime M
overs
13,422
0.0 %
‐7,66
4
5,75
8Life Span
10
5.0
1,152
344
Turboge
nerator Units
‐ 0.0 %
‐‐
‐ Life Span
10
5.0
‐
345
Accessory Electric Eq
uipmen
t‐
0.0 %
‐‐
‐ Life Span
10
5.0
‐
346
Miscellaneous Power Plant Eq
uipment
‐ 0.0 %
‐‐
‐ Life Span
10
5.0
‐
34X
Decommissioning
(3,000)
‐
3,00
0Life Span
10
5.0
600
Fuel Cell
13,422
(22.4%
)(3,000
)
7,66
4
8,75
85.0
1,75
2
13.05%
Energy Storage
340
Land and Lan
d Rights
‐ 0.0 %
‐‐
‐ Life Span
20
‐
341
Structures an
d Im
provements
5,294
0.0 %
‐87
3
4,42
2Life Span
20
18
342
Fuel H
olders, P
roducers, and Accessorie
‐ 0.0 %
‐‐
‐ Life Span
20
‐
343
Prime M
overs
‐ 0.0 %
‐‐
‐ Life Span
20
‐
344
Gen
erators
‐ 0.0 %
‐‐
‐ Life Span
20
‐
345
Accessory Electric Eq
uipmen
t5,845
0.0 %
‐86
4
4,98
1Life Span
20
21
346
Misc. Power Plant Eq
uipment
‐ 0.0 %
‐‐
‐ Life Span
20
‐
348
Energy Storage Equipment
54,141
0.0 %
‐10
,056
44,084
Life Span
20
184
Energy Storage
65,280
0.0 %
‐11
,794
53,487
223
5.00
%
Transm
ission and Distribution
Transm
ission
350.2
Easements
211,617
0.0 %
‐32
,423
179,19
4
60
3,527
1.67
%
352
Structures an
d Im
provements
983,751
(35.0%)
(344,313)
176,34
7
1,15
1,71
6
L 1.0
55
48
23,803
2.42
%
353
Station Equipment
6,071,410
(15.0%)
(910,712)
1,06
4,91
2
5,91
7,21
0
L 0.5
45
38
157,359
2.59
%
Transm
ission Substations
7,055,161
(17.8%
)(1,255
,024
)
1,24
1,25
9
7,06
8,92
6
4639
181,16
2
2.57
%
354
Towers and Fixtures
2,355,779
(80.0%)
(1,884,623)
610,55
3
3,62
9,84
9
R 5.0
6553
68,094
2.89
%
355
Poles an
d Fixtures
1,500,196
(90.0%)
(1,350,176)
161,02
8
2,68
9,34
5
SC65
61
44,409
2.96
%
356
Overhead
Conductors & Devices
1,653,093
(100.0%)
(1,653,093)
689,15
8
2,61
7,02
9
R 3.0
6148
54,720
3.31
%
357
Underground Conduit
271,487
0.0 %
‐28
,188
243,29
9
R 3.0
5549
4,932
1.82
%
358
Underground Conductors & Devices
399,340
(30.0%)
(119,802)
104,27
8
414,86
4
S 1.0
45
36
11,492
2.88
%
359
Road
s an
d Trails
195,497
0.0 %
‐27
,090
168,40
7
R 5.0
6052
3,219
1.65
%
Transm
ission Lines
6,375,392
(78.5%
)(5,007
,695
)
1,62
0,29
4
9,76
2,79
3
6252
186,86
6
2.93
%
4
Workpaper – Southern California Edison / 2021 General Rate Case
Exhibit No. SCE-07 Vol.03 Ch I-VI Bk A Witness: D. Gunn
Southern California Edison
Annual Accrual Rate Determination
in Thousands of Dollars
For Estimated
Year 2021
Calculation of Annual Dep
reciation Exp
ense Rates and Lives (in Thousands of Dollars)
FERC
Gross
Est. Future Net Salvage
Depr.
Depr.
Average
Rem.
Annual
Depr.
Annual
Account
Description
Plant
%Amount
Reserve
Balan
ceCurve
Serv. Life
Life
Depr.
Rate
Res. Adj.
AB
CD
E=C x D
FG=C
‐E‐F
HI
JK=G
/JL=K/C
Distribution
360.2
Easements
59,756
0.0 %
‐12
,106
47,650
60
996
1.67
%
361
Structures an
d Im
provements
696,488
(40.0%)
(278,595)
208,34
6
766,73
7
L 0.5
55
46
16,597
2.38
%
362
Station Equipment
2,726,408
(40.0%)
(1,090,563)
500,80
5
3,31
6,16
6
S ‐0.5
65
57
58,501
2.15
%
Distribution Substations
3,422,896
(40.0%
)(1,369
,158
)
709,15
1
4,08
2,90
3
6354
75,098
2.19
%
364
Poles, Towers and Fixtures
3,147,642
(210.0%)
(6,610,048)
801,44
4
8,95
6,24
5
R 1.0
5547
188,694
5.99
%
365
Overhead
Conductors & Devices
1,842,492
(190.0%)
(3,500,735)
540,69
8
4,80
2,52
9
R 0.5
5546
103,901
5.64
%
366
Underground Conduit
2,389,265
(80.0%)
(1,911,412)
530,37
2
3,77
0,30
6
R 3.0
5946
81,800
3.42
%
367
Underground Conductors & Devices
6,486,079
(100.0%)
(6,486,079)
2,33
9,53
2
10,632
,627
L 1.0
47
38
278,890
4.30
%
368
Line Transform
ers
4,218,947
(50.0%)
(2,109,474)
815,45
3
5,51
2,96
8
S 1.5
33
23
238,901
5.66
%
369
Services
1,494,348
(100.0%)
(1,494,348)
928,31
2
2,06
0,38
5
R 1.5
5542
49,623
3.32
%
Distribution Lines
19,578,775
(112
.9%)
(22,11
2,09
7)
5,95
5,81
1
35,735
,061
4838
941,80
9
4.81
%
370
Meters
1,011,251
(5.0%)
(50,563)
419,89
0
641,92
4
R 3.0
2011
58,728
5.81
%
371
Installations on Customer Premises
12,373
(100.0%)
(12,373)
151
24
,594
R 1.5
5555
447
3.61
%
373
Street Ligh
ting & Signal Systems
862,112
(50.0%)
(431,056)
195,89
9
1,09
7,26
8
L 0.5
50
40
27,183
3.15
%
Gen
eral Plant
389.2
Easements
3,282
0.0 %
‐70
7
2,57
560
55
1.67
%
390
Structures an
d Im
provements
1,079,844
(10.0%)
(107,984)
341,26
4
846,56
4
SC50
43
19,616
1.82
%
391.x
Furniture & Equipment
255,110
0.0 %
‐10
1,86
4
153,24
6
Judgm
ent
1517,235
6.76
%18
,419
391.x
Computers
378,185
0.0 %
‐18
9,94
2
188,24
3
Judgm
ent
575,637
20.00%
76,386
391.4
Security M
onitoring (DDSM
S)140,068
0.0 %
‐49
,205
90,863
Judgm
ent
1014,007
10.00%
15,508
391.x
Stores/Lab/M
iscellaneous
163,793
0.0 %
‐63
,060
100,73
3
Judgm
ent
1610,165
6.21
%10
,304
397
Telecommunications
909,989
0.0 %
‐29
4,34
6
615,64
3
Judgm
ent
1181,877
9.00
%95
,156
39x
General O
ther
106,761
0.0 %
‐58
,741
48,020
Judgm
ent
1010,991
10.30%
11,618
Intangibles
303
Rad
io Frequency
18,723
0.0 %
‐11
,093
7,63
0Judgm
ent
40468
2.50
%
301
Miscellaneous Intangibles
611
0.0 %
‐27
2
339
Judgm
ent
2031
5.00
%
303.105
Cap
Soft 5yr
817,201
0.0 %
‐37
2,41
7
444,78
3
Judgm
ent
5163,440
20.00%
165,91
4
303.707
Cap
Soft 7yr
171,751
0.0 %
‐94
,244
77,507
Judgm
ent
724,536
14.29%
26,417
303.210
Cap
Soft 10yr
1,915
0.0 %
‐(1,017
)
2,93
2Judgm
ent
10192
10.00%
1,48
6
303.315
Cap
Soft 15yr
920
0.0 %
‐20
8
712
Judgm
ent
1561
6.67
%18
5
5
Workpaper – Southern California Edison / 2021 General Rate Case
Exhibit No. SCE-07 Vol.03 Ch I-VI Bk A Witness: D. Gunn
Southern California Edison
Rate Determ
ination Schedule | Nuclear Production ‐ Palo Verde
In Dollars
As of :
12/31/2018
Depreciation Rate Calculation (SC
E Proposed)
FERC
Gross
Total
Interim Retirem
ent
Rem
.Interim
Interim
Final Net
IR Adj.
Dep
reciab
leAnnual
Account
Description
Plant
Reserve
Salvage %
COR %
Rate
Life
Retirmen
tsNet Salvage
Decomm
Rem
. Life
Basis
Accrual
AB
CD
EF
GH
I=C*G
*HJ=I*(E‐F)
KL
M=C
‐D‐J‐K
N=M
/L
320
Land and Lan
d Rights
‐ ‐
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
27.5
‐ ‐
27.5
‐ ‐
321
Structures an
d Im
provemen
ts638,687,392
444,560,701
0.00%
30.00%
0.30%
27.5
52,775,426
(15,832,628)
26.4
209,959,318
7,951,285
322
Rea
ctor Plant Eq
uipmen
t742,010,806
626,077,823
0.00%
20.00%
0.60%
27.5
122,626,301
(24,525,260)
25.3
140,458,243
5,558,800
323
Turbogenerator Units
276,201,481
212,998,228
0.00%
20.00%
1.30%
27.5
98,898,909
(19,779,782)
22.6
82,983,036
3,669,797
324
Accessory Electric Eq
uipmen
t193,769,550
172,379,052
0.00%
20.00%
0.15%
27.5
8,005,693
(1,601,139)
27.0
22,991,637
852,341
325
Miscellaneo
us Power Plant Eq
uipmen
t 134,438,546
95,521,019
0.00%
25.00%
0.50%
27.5
18,514,669
(4,628,667)
25.6
43,546,194
1,697,902
32X
Decommissioning
‐ 0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
27.5
‐ ‐
27.5
‐ ‐
182
Design Basis Documen
tation and Deferred Deb
its
7,772,588
5,900,226
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
27.5
‐ ‐
27.5
1,872,362
67,978
Total
1,992,880,364
1,557,437,050
(66,367,476)
‐
25.3
501,810,790
19,798,103
Remaining Life Calculation
License Exp.
Rem
aining
Weigh
ted
Unit
Description
Date
Weigh
tLife
Rem
. Life
AB
CD
EF=D*E
1PVNGS Unit 1
06/01/45
33.33%
26.4
8.8
2PVNGS Unit 2
04/24/46
33.33%
27.3
9.1
3PVNGS Unit 3
11/25/47
33.33%
28.9
9.6
Combined
27.5
6
Workpaper – Southern California Edison / 2021 General Rate Case
Exhibit No. SCE-07 Vol.03 Ch I-VI Bk A Witness: D. Gunn
Southern California Edison
Rate Determ
ination Schedule | Hyd
ro
In Dollars
As of :12/31/2018
Depreciation Rate Calculation (SC
E Proposed)
Line
FERC
Gross
Total
Interim Retirem
ent
Rem
.Interim
IR Adj.
Dep
reciab
leAnnual
% of Gross
COR
No.
Account
Description
Plant
Reserve
Salvage %
COR %
Rate
Life
Net Salvage
Rem
. Life
Basis
Accrual
Plant
Rate
AB
CD
EF
GH
IJ
KL
MN
O
1.
302
Hyd
ro Relicen
sing
155,972,608
46,534,982
0.0%
0.0%
0.00%
34.1
‐
34.1
109,437,626
3,207,626
2.06%
0.00%
2.
330.2
Easemen
ts3,215,956
1,103,053
0.0%
0.0%
0.00%
33.5
‐
33.5
2,112,903
63,094
1.96%
0.00%
3.
331
Structures an
d Im
provemen
ts228,022,453
71,117,308
0.0%
140.0%
0.25%
36.7
(29,288,057)
36.7
186,193,201
4,275,553
1.88%
0.34%
4.
332
Reservo
irs, Dam
s an
d W
aterways
597,246,640
281,095,859
0.0%
65.0%
0.35%
32.6
(44,236,005)
31.0
360,386,786
13,269,143
2.22%
0.22%
5.
333
Water W
hee
ls, Turbines & Gen
erators
196,176,172
69,940,446
0.0%
40.0%
0.65%
34.5
(17,599,252)
32.2
143,834,977
4,815,025
2.45%
0.46%
6.
334
Accessory Electric Eq
uipmen
t218,569,336
69,850,346
0.0%
120.0%
0.35%
32.8
(30,069,398)
28.7
178,788,388
5,536,110
2.53%
0.55%
7.
335
Misc. Power Plant Eq
uipmen
t13,161,363
7,355,364
10.0%
65.0%
0.40%
38.4
(1,112,474)
35.7
6,918,473
230,532
1.75%
0.21%
8.
336
Road
s, Railroad
s & Bridges
20,585,495
7,332,608
0.0%
200.0%
0.20%
27.4
(2,254,840)
25.4
15,507,727
546,304
2.65%
0.29%
9.
Total ‐ Hyd
ro Production
1,432,950,023
554,329,966
31.4
(124,560,024)
31.4
1,003,180,082
31,943,386
2.23%
0.30%
10.
33x
Hyd
ro Decommissioning
‐
‐
(446,168,669)
15.1
446,168,669
29,591,413
Hyd
ro Remaining Life Calculation
Gross Plant
Line
FERC
License
Est. Lic.
Est. Lic.
Total
No.
License
Description
Term
Extension
Grant Date
Rem
. Life
302
330.2
331
332
333
334
335
336
1.
2175
Big Creek Nos. 1‐2
Feb‐09
40.0
Feb‐20
41.1
38,165,128
‐
85,466,052
24,095,773
25,449,583
40,410,702
1,312,360
4,360,455
2.
67
Big Creek Nos. 2A&8 and Eastw
ood
Feb‐09
40.0
Feb‐20
41.1
42,632,649
1,844,587
74,951,064
255,677,214
52,295,656
37,631,147
7,542,094
3,490,412
3.
120
Big Creek No. 3
Feb‐09
40.0
Feb‐20
41.1
13,514,994
3,838
8,767,526
20,521,655
34,402,304
25,520,968
604,934
1,745,414
4.
2017
Big Creek No. 4
Nov‐39
20.9
8,142,630
101,602
2,783,117
16,202,201
11,433,053
8,376,474
256,620
136,631
5.
1930
Kern No. 1
May‐28
May‐28
9.4
5,472,674
118,429
6,994,099
38,355,668
8,915,049
9,708,320
225,519
1,532,742
6.
2290
Kern No. 3
Nov‐26
Nov‐26
7.9
8,947,007
265,567
2,285,930
36,076,653
9,096,196
8,836,365
342,223
4,806,302
7.
2085
Mam
moth Pool
Nov‐07
40.0
Feb‐20
41.1
8,411,400
162,731
2,590,669
41,466,717
20,767,804
4,537,755
552,369
666,627
8.
2086
Vermillion
Aug‐03
40.0
Feb‐20
41.1
3,725,111
46,940
644,378
11,557,314
62,000
291,981
74,610
28,112
9.
2174
Portal
Mar‐05
40.0
Feb‐20
41.1
4,109,696
34,761
2,497,247
3,475,173
3,104,679
6,306,342
58,582
278,037
10.
1394
Bishop Creek Nos. 2‐6
Jun‐24
40.0
Feb‐20
41.1
5,309,141
136,104
17,369,498
33,597,772
11,936,209
26,815,017
1,685,206
213,479
11.
1390
Lundy (M
ill Creek)
Feb‐29
Feb‐29
10.2
1,778,053
31,742
374,428
5,271,245
1,600,011
3,403,322
21,744
149
12.
1388
Poole (Lee Vining Creek)
Jan‐27
Jan‐27
8.1
1,984,850
75,235
10,028,326
5,462,517
5,662,199
11,487,923
20,858
‐
13.
1389
Rush Creek and Agn
ewJan‐27
Jan‐27
8.1
2,349,604
72,285
4,750,015
15,036,314
3,934,442
10,385,300
48,661
623,636
14.
N/A
Fontana
33.7
Dec‐18
33.7
‐
7,863
113,220
349,441
63,515
238,490
6,046
‐
15.
1932
Lytle Creek
May‐33
May‐33
14.4
2,035,827
3,759
9,127
895,949
170,667
231,860
86,232
800
16.
N/A
Mill Creek No. 1
33.7
Dec‐18
33.7
‐
14,253
13,918
560,746
494,019
1,121,339
35,999
‐
17.
1934
Mill Creek Nos. 2‐3
Jun‐33
Jun‐33
14.5
498,870
19,899
86,405
675,443
1,905,819
684,692
19,871
1,961
18.
N/A
Ontario Nos. 1‐2
33.7
Dec‐18
33.7
‐
189,692
1,423,564
1,596,004
1,639,534
2,456,319
1,592
‐
19.
1933
Santa Ana Nos. 1‐3
Jun‐33
Jun‐33
14.5
4,896,803
47,665
4,771,094
24,418,283
1,175,706
728,586
190,330
1,798,133
20.
N/A
Sierra
33.7
Dec‐18
33.7
‐
1,639
25,308
91,114
464,876
216,264
407
‐
21.
298
Kaw
eah Nos. 1‐3
Dec‐21
40.0
Feb‐20
41.1
1,764,016
17,510
1,806,004
30,143,369
1,434,913
13,250,542
65,768
789,353
22.
372
Lower Tule River
Aug‐34
15.7
2,234,157
19,855
271,463
31,711,258
167,937
5,929,626
9,339
113,252
23.
382
Borel
Apr‐46
27.3
‐
‐
‐
‐
‐
‐
‐
‐
24.
344
San Gorgonio No. 2
Apr‐03
5.0
Dec‐18
5.0
‐
‐
‐
8,817
‐
‐
‐
‐
Total
155,972,608
3,215,956
228,022,453
597,246,640
196,176,172
218,569,336
13,161,363
20,585,495
Weighted Ave
rage
Remaining Life
34.1
33.5
36.7
32.6
34.5
32.8
38.4
27.4
7
Workpaper – Southern California Edison / 2021 General Rate Case
Exhibit No. SCE-07 Vol.03 Ch I-VI Bk A Witness: D. Gunn
Southern California Edison
Rate Determ
ination Schedule | Other Production ‐ Pebbly Beach Generating Station
In Dollars
As of :
12/31/2018
Depreciation Rate Calculation (SC
E Proposed)
FERC
Gross
Total
Interim Retirem
ent
Rem
.Interim
Interim
Final Net
IR Adj.
Dep
reciab
leAnnual
AccountDescription
Plant
Reserve
Salvage %
COR %
Rate
Life
Retirmen
tsNet Salvage
Decomm
Rem
. Life
Basis
Accrual
AB
CD
EF
GH
I=C*G
*HJ=I*(E‐F)
KL
M=C
‐D‐J‐K
N=M
/L
340
Land and Lan
d Rights
‐ ‐
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
29.0
‐ ‐
29.0
‐ ‐
341
Structures an
d Im
provemen
ts9,525,062
1,387,031
0.00%
30.00%
0.25%
29.0
690,567
(207,170)
27.9
8,345,201
298,589
342
Fuel Holders, Producers, and Accessories
1,600,513
583,198
0.00%
30.00%
0.25%
29.0
116,037
(34,811)
27.9
1,052,126
37,645
343
Prime Movers
23,282,744
13,203,747
0.00%
30.00%
0.25%
29.0
1,687,999
(506,400)
27.9
10,585,396
378,743
344
Gen
erators
22,314,054
9,113,109
0.00%
30.00%
0.25%
29.0
1,617,769
(485,331)
27.9
13,686,276
489,692
345
Accessory Electric Eq
uipmen
t25,183,390
6,615,977
0.00%
30.00%
0.25%
29.0
1,825,796
(547,739)
27.9
19,115,152
683,936
346
Misc. Power Plant Eq
uipmen
t598,521
274,641
0.00%
30.00%
0.25%
29.0
43,393
(13,018)
27.9
336,898
12,054
34X
Decommissioning
‐ 1,258,603
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
29.0
‐ ‐
‐
29.0
(1,258,603)
(43,400)
Total
82,504,284
32,436,307
(1,794,468)
‐
27.9
51,862,446
1,857,259
Remaining Life Calculation
Year of last
Average
Expected
Rem
aining
Weigh
ted
Unit
Description
Overhau
lServ. Life
Retirem
ent Yr
Life
Weigh
tRem
. Life
7Unit 7 ‐ Diesel
2021
25
2046
28.0
16.7%
4.7
8Unit 8 ‐ Diesel
2022
25
2047
29.0
16.7%
4.8
10
Unit 10 ‐ Diesel
2023
25
2048
30.0
16.7%
5.0
12
Unit 12 ‐ Diesel
2023
25
2048
30.0
16.7%
5.0
14
Unit 14 ‐ Diesel
2021
25
2046
28.0
16.7%
4.7
15
Unit 15 ‐ Diesel
2022
25
2047
29.0
16.7%
4.8
Combined
29.0
8
Workpaper – Southern California Edison / 2021 General Rate Case
Exhibit No. SCE-07 Vol.03 Ch I-VI Bk A Witness: D. Gunn
Southern California Edison
Rate Determ
ination Schedule | Other Production ‐ M
ountainview
In Dollars
As of :12/31/2018
Depreciation Rate Calculation (SC
E Proposed)
FERC
Gross
Total
Interim Retirem
ent
Rem
.Interim
Interim
Final Net
IR Adj.
Dep
reciab
leAnnual
AccountD
escription
Plant
Reserve
Salvage %
COR %
Rate
Life
Retirmen
tsNet Salvage
Decomm
Rem
. Life
Basis
Accrual
AB
CD
EF
GH
I=C*G
*HJ=I*(E‐F)
KL
M=C
‐D‐J‐K
N=M
/L
340
Land and Lan
d Rights
‐ ‐
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
22.0
‐ ‐
22.0
‐ ‐
341
Structures an
d Im
provemen
ts57,344,869
18,849,801
0.00%
150.00%
0.15%
22.0
1,892,498
(2,838,748)
21.6
41,333,816
1,910,213
342
Fuel Holders, Producers, and Accessories
7,403,713
3,028,041
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
22.0
‐ ‐
22.0
4,375,672
198,882
343
Prime Movers
536,234,340
183,816,152
0.00%
20.00%
0.20%
22.0
23,595,779
(4,719,156)
21.5
357,137,344
16,597,677
344
Gen
erators
78,370,448
31,219,428
0.00%
60.00%
0.05%
22.0
862,129
(517,277)
21.9
47,668,298
2,178,589
345
Accessory Electric Eq
uipmen
t87,383,001
32,945,866
0.00%
25.00%
0.10%
22.0
1,922,546
(480,636)
21.8
54,917,771
2,523,871
346
Misc. Power Plant Eq
uipmen
t55,562,731
8,076,691
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
22.0
‐ ‐
22.0
47,486,040
2,158,322
34X
Decommissioning
‐ 4,258,223
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
22.0
‐ ‐
(18,626,259)
22.0
14,368,036
653,052
Total ‐ M
ountainview Production
822,299,102
282,194,202
(8,555,817)
(18,626,259)
21.6
567,286,976
26,220,607
301
Organ
ization
2,796,617
1,202,573
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
22.0
‐ ‐
22.0
1,594,044
72,452
303
Miscellaneo
us Intangibles
41,853,200
19,045,572
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
22.0
‐ ‐
22.0
22,807,629
1,036,646
Total ‐ M
ountainview In
tangibles
44,649,817
20,248,144
‐
‐ 22.0
24,401,673
1,109,098
Total M
ountainview
866,948,919
302,442,346
(8,555,817)
(18,626,259)
21.7
591,688,649
27,329,705
Remaining Life Calculation
Original In
Average
Expected
Rem
aining
Weigh
ted
Unit
Description
Service Date
Serv. Life
Retire Date
Life
Weigh
tRem
. Life
3Mt View Unit 3
12/31/05
35
12/31/40
22.0
50%
11.0
4Mt View Unit 4
12/31/05
35
12/31/40
22.0
50%
11.0
Combined
22.0
9
Workpaper – Southern California Edison / 2021 General Rate Case
Exhibit No. SCE-07 Vol.03 Ch I-VI Bk A Witness: D. Gunn
Southern California Edison
Rate Determ
ination Schedule | Other Production ‐ Peakers
In Dollars
As of :
12/31/2018
Depreciation Rate Calculation (SC
E Proposed)
FERC
Gross
Total
Interim Retirem
ent
Rem
.Interim
Interim
Final Net
IR Adj.
Dep
reciab
leAnnual
AccountDescription
Plant
Reserve
Salvage %
COR %
Rate
Life
Retirmen
tsNet Salvage
Decomm
Rem
. Life
Basis
Accrual
AB
CD
EF
GH
I=C*G
*HJ=I*(E‐F)
KL
M=C
‐D‐J‐ K
N=M
/L
340
Land and Lan
d Rights
526,947
165,000
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
24.6
‐
‐ 24.6
361,947
14,693
341
Structures an
d Im
provemen
ts15,578,887
4,319,751
0.00%
30.00%
0.25%
24.6
959,424
(287,827)
23.9
11,546,962
483,634
342
Fuel Holders, Producers, and Accessories
7,533,246
1,526,200
0.00%
30.00%
0.25%
24.6
463,934
(139,180)
23.9
6,146,226
257,429
343
Prime Movers
297,620,058
99,133,860
0.00%
30.00%
0.25%
24.6
18,328,894
(5,498,668)
23.9
203,984,866
8,543,722
344
Gen
erators
26,871,978
4,905,338
0.00%
30.00%
0.25%
24.6
1,654,907
(496,472)
23.9
22,463,112
940,847
345
Accessory Electric Eq
uipmen
t63,462,845
24,168,039
0.00%
30.00%
0.25%
24.6
3,908,351
(1,172,505)
23.9
40,467,311
1,694,937
346
Misc. Power Plant Eq
uipmen
t4,370,939
1,227,273
0.00%
30.00%
0.25%
24.6
269,184
(80,755)
23.9
3,224,421
135,052
34X
Decommissioning
3,296,230
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
24.6
‐
‐ (14,786,568)
24.6
11,490,338
466,443
Total
415,964,900
138,741,693
(7,675,408)
(14,786,568)
23.9
299,685,183
12,536,757
Remaining Life Calculation
Date of
Average
Expected
Rem
aining
Weigh
ted
Unit
Description
Firm
Operation
Serv. Life
Retirem
ent Yr
Life
Weigh
tRem
. Life
1Pea
kers
8/1/2007
35
7/31/2042
23.6
20%
4.717
2Pea
kers
8/1/2007
35
7/31/2042
23.6
20%
4.717
3Pea
kers
8/1/2007
35
7/31/2042
23.6
20%
4.717
4Pea
kers
8/1/2007
35
7/31/2042
23.6
20%
4.717
5Pea
kers
11/1/2012
35
11/1/2047
28.8
20%
5.767
Combined
24.634
10
Workpaper – Southern California Edison / 2021 General Rate Case
Exhibit No. SCE-07 Vol.03 Ch I-VI Bk A Witness: D. Gunn
Southern California Edison
Rate Determ
ination Schedule | Other Production ‐ Solar PV
In Dollars
As of :
12/31/2018
Depreciation Rate Calculation (SC
E Proposed)
FERC
Gross
Total
Interim Retirem
ent
Rem
.Interim
Interim
Final Net
IR Adj.
Dep
reciab
leAnnual
AccountDescription
Plant
Reserve
Salvage %
COR %
Rate
Life
Retirmen
tsNet Salvage
Decomm
Rem
. Life
Basis
Accrual
AB
CD
EF
GH
I=C*G
*HJ=I*(E‐F)
KL
M=C
‐D‐J‐ K
N=M
/L
340
Land and Lan
d Rights
‐ ‐
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
12.7
‐
‐ 12.7
‐ ‐
341
Structures an
d Im
provemen
ts13,820,649
4,683,098
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
12.7
‐
‐ 12.7
9,137,551
721,765
342
Fuel Holders, Producers, and Accessories
‐ ‐
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
12.7
‐
‐ 12.7
‐ ‐
343
Prime Movers
338,904,125
119,732,209
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
12.7
‐
‐ 12.7
219,171,916
17,312,150
344
Gen
erators
‐ ‐
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
12.7
‐
‐ 12.7
‐ ‐
345
Accessory Electric Eq
uipmen
t17,341,476
5,117,029
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
12.7
‐
‐ 12.7
12,224,447
965,596
346
Misc. Power Plant Eq
uipmen
t739,852
152,777
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
12.7
‐
‐ 12.7
587,075
46,372
34X
Decommissioning
22,293,288
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
12.7
‐
‐ (81,376,343)
12.7
59,083,055
4,666,906
Total ‐ Solar Production
370,806,102
151,978,401
‐ (81,376,343)
12.7
300,204,044
23,712,789
Remaining Life Calculation
Project
Date of
Average
Expected
Rem
aining
Weigh
ted
Unit
Description
Cost
Firm
Operation
Serv. Life
Retirem
ent Yr
Life
Weigh
tRem
. Life
SPVP002Chino
11,595,352
Sep‐09
20
Sep‐29
10.73
3.27%
0.4
SPVP003Rialto
13,485,465
Jul‐10
20
Jul‐30
11.55
3.80%
0.4
SPVP005Red
lands
13,526,350
Dec‐10
20
Dec‐30
11.99
3.81%
0.5
SPVP006Ontario
9,824,365
Jan‐11
20
Jan‐31
12.03
2.77%
0.3
SPVP007Red
lands
13,117,352
Dec‐10
20
Dec‐30
11.99
3.70%
0.4
SPVP008Ontario
11,227,707
Dec‐10
20
Dec‐30
12.00
3.17%
0.4
SPVP009Ontario
5,738,483
Jan‐11
20
Jan‐31
12.03
1.62%
0.2
SPVP010Fo
ntana
8,921,290
May‐11
20
May‐31
12.38
2.52%
0.3
SPVP011Red
lands
20,050,945
Nov‐11
20
Nov‐31
12.86
5.65%
0.7
SPVP012Ontario
3,087,405
Dec‐10
20
Dec‐30
11.99
0.87%
0.1
SPVP013Red
lands
19,115,538
Sep‐11
20
Sep‐31
12.71
5.39%
0.7
SPVP015Fo
ntana
9,205,409
Dec‐11
20
Dec‐31
12.97
2.60%
0.3
SPVP016Red
lands
7,354,102
May‐11
20
May‐31
12.38
2.07%
0.3
SPVP017Fo
ntana
18,067,168
Dec‐11
20
Dec‐31
12.95
5.09%
0.7
SPVP018Fo
ntana
8,092,554
May‐11
20
May‐31
12.39
2.28%
0.3
SPVP022Red
lands
11,552,517
Nov‐10
20
Nov‐30
11.87
3.26%
0.4
SPVP023Fo
ntana
15,109,926
May‐11
20
May‐31
12.36
4.26%
0.5
SPVP026Rialto
34,315,591
Aug‐11
20
Aug‐31
12.65
9.68%
1.2
SPVP027Rialto
8,343,392
Nov‐12
20
Nov‐32
13.91
2.35%
0.3
SPVP028San Bernardino
19,356,916
Dec‐11
20
Dec‐31
12.97
5.46%
0.7
SPVP032Ontario
6,543,079
Dec‐11
20
Dec‐31
12.97
1.84%
0.2
SPVP033Ontario
5,658,953
Dec‐11
20
Dec‐31
12.95
1.60%
0.2
SPVP042Porterville
23,579,728
Dec‐10
20
Dec‐30
11.99
6.65%
0.8
SPVP044Perris
39,799,250
Sep‐12
20
Sep‐32
13.71
11.22%
1.5
SPVP048Red
lands
18,010,238
Sep‐13
20
Sep‐33
14.67
5.08%
0.7
Combined
12.7
11
Workpaper – Southern California Edison / 2021 General Rate Case
Exhibit No. SCE-07 Vol.03 Ch I-VI Bk A Witness: D. Gunn
Southern California Edison
Rate Determ
ination Schedule | Other Production ‐ Fuel C
ell
In Dollars
As of :
12/31/2018
Depreciation Rate Calculation (SC
E Proposed)
FERC
Gross
Total
Interim Retirem
ent
Rem
.Interim
Interim
Final Net
IR Adj.
Dep
reciab
leAnnual
AccountDescription
Plant
Reserve
Salvage %
COR %
Rate
Life
Retirmen
tsNet Salvage
Decomm
Rem
. Life
Basis
Accrual
AB
CD
EF
GH
I=C*G
*HJ=I*(E‐F)
KL
M=C
‐D‐J‐K
N=M
/L
340
Land and Lan
d Rights
‐
‐
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
5.0
‐
‐
5.0
‐
‐
341
Structures an
d Im
provemen
ts‐
‐
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
5.0
‐
‐
5.0
‐
‐
342
Fuel Holders, Producers, and Accessories
‐
‐
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
5.0
‐
‐
5.0
‐
‐
343
Prime Movers
13,421,876
7,663,570
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
5.0
‐
‐
5.0
5,758,307
1,151,819
344
Gen
erators
‐
‐
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
5.0
‐
‐
5.0
‐
‐
345
Accessory Electric Eq
uipmen
t‐
‐
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
5.0
‐
‐
5.0
‐
‐
346
Misc. Power Plant Eq
uipmen
t‐
‐
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
5.0
‐
‐
5.0
‐
‐
34X
Decommissioning
‐
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
5.0
‐
‐
(3,000,000)
5.0
3,000,000
600,082
Total ‐ Fuel C
ell
13,421,876
7,663,570
‐
(3,000,000)
5.0
8,758,307
1,751,901
Remaining Life Calculation
Project
Date of
Average
Expected
Rem
aining
Weigh
ted
Unit
Description
Cost
Firm
Operation
Serv. Life
Retirem
ent Y r
Life
Weigh
tRem
. Life
1CSU
San
Bernardino
3,126,969
Jan‐13
10
Dec‐23
5.00
23.29%
1.2
2UC San
ta Barbara
10,297,054
Jul‐13
10
Dec‐23
5.00
76.71%
3.8
Combined
5.0
12
Workpaper – Southern California Edison / 2021 General Rate Case
Exhibit No. SCE-07 Vol.03 Ch I-VI Bk A Witness: D. Gunn
Southern California Edison
Rate Determ
ination Schedule | Other Production ‐ Energy Storage
In Dollars
As of :
12/31/2018
Depreciation Rate Calculation (SC
E Proposed)
FERC
Gross
Plant an
dCOR
Total
Avg.
Dep
r.Dep
reciab
leAnnual
Account
Description
Plant
GS Reserve
Reserve
Reserve
Service Life
Rate
Basis
Accrual
AB
CD
EF=D+E
GH=1
/GI=C‐D
J=H*I/12
340
Land and Lan
d Rights
‐
‐
‐
‐
20.0
5.00%
‐ ‐
341
Structures an
d Im
provemen
ts5,294,370
872,779
‐
872,779
20.0
5.00%
4,421,591
18,423
342
Fuel Holders, Producers, and Accessories
‐
‐
‐
‐
20.0
5.00%
‐ ‐
343
Prime Movers
‐
‐
‐
‐
20.0
5.00%
‐ ‐
344
Gen
erators
‐
‐
‐
‐
20.0
5.00%
‐ ‐
345
Accessory Electric Eq
uipmen
t5,845,406
864,457
‐
864,457
20.0
5.00%
4,980,949
20,754
346
Misc. Power Plant Eq
uipmen
t‐
‐
‐
‐
20.0
5.00%
‐ ‐
348
Energy Storage Equipmen
t54,140,674
10,056,415
‐
10,056,415
20.0
5.00%
44,084,258
183,684
Total ‐ Energy Storage
65,280,450
11,793,651
‐
11,793,651
222,862
13
Workpaper – Southern California Edison / 2021 General Rate Case
Exhibit No. SCE-07 Vol.03 Ch I-VI Bk A Witness: D. Gunn
SCE-07, Volume. 03, Results of Operations Depreciation Study
Witness: David Gunn
Depreciation Proposal Impacts
14
Workpaper – Southern California Edison / 2021 General Rate Case
Exhibit No. SCE-07 Vol.03 Ch I-VI Bk A Witness: D. Gunn
Sout
hern
Cali
forn
ia Ed
ison
2021
GRC
Dep
recia
tion S
tudy
Com
paris
on o
f Tra
nsm
ission
and
Distr
ibutio
n Dep
recia
tion R
ates
in Do
llars
2018
GRC
Aut
horiz
ed20
18 G
RC A
uth.
NSR
2021
GRC
Prop
osed
Impa
ctIm
pact
Total
Incre
ase
FERC
CPUC
Plan
t(Li
ves a
nd N
SRs)
2021
GRC
Prop
. Life
(Live
s and
NSR
s)du
e to
due t
o(D
ecre
ase)
Acct
Desc
riptio
nJa
n 1, 2
019
Rate
Expe
nse
Rate
Expe
nse
Rate
Expe
nse
Life P
ropo
sals1
NSR
Prop
osals
in Ac
crual
AB
CD
E=C*
DF
G=C*
FH
I=C*
HJ=
G-E
K=I-G
L=J+
KTr
ansm
issio
n Pl
ant
352
Stru
cture
s and
Impr
ovem
ents
340,0
75,76
3
2.41%
$8,19
5,826
2.42%
$8,22
9,833
2.42%
$8,22
9,833
$34,0
08$0
$34,0
0835
3St
ation
Equip
men
t2,6
12,06
0,862
2.58%
67,39
1,170
2.59%
67,65
2,376
2.59%
67,65
2,376
261,2
06
-
261,2
06
354
Towe
rs an
d Fix
ture
s71
,069,2
07
2.46%
1,748
,302
2.52%
1,790
,944
2.89%
2,053
,900
42,64
2
26
2,956
305,5
98
355
Poles
and
Fixtu
res
1,113
,653,5
89
2.5
4%28
,286,8
01
2.6
6%29
,623,1
85
2.9
6%32
,964,1
46
1,3
36,38
4
3,340
,961
4,6
77,34
5
356
Over
head
Con
ducto
rs &
Devic
es34
1,584
,044
2.8
3%9,6
66,82
8
2.8
9%9,8
71,77
9
3.3
1%11
,306,4
32
20
4,950
1,434
,653
1,6
39,60
3
357
Unde
rgro
und
Cond
uit80
,595,8
37
1.73%
1,394
,308
1.82%
1,466
,844
1.82%
1,466
,844
72,53
6
-
72,53
6
358
Unde
rgro
und
Cond
ucto
rs &
Devic
es31
5,350
,326
2.3
0%7,2
53,05
7
2.4
6%7,7
57,61
8
2.8
8%9,0
82,08
9
50
4,561
1,324
,471
1,8
29,03
2
359
Road
s and
Trail
s21
,713,4
55
1.65%
358,2
72
1.65%
358,2
72
1.65%
358,2
72
- -
- Di
strib
utio
n Pl
ant
361
Stru
cture
s and
Impr
ovem
ents
696,4
87,87
4
2.27%
15,81
0,275
2.06%
14,34
7,650
2.38%
16,57
6,411
(1,46
2,625
)
2,228
,761
76
6,137
36
2St
ation
Equip
men
t2,7
26,40
8,043
1.90%
51,80
1,753
1.88%
51,25
6,471
2.15%
58,61
7,773
(545,2
82)
7,361
,302
6,8
16,02
0
364
Poles
, Tow
ers a
nd Fi
xture
s3,1
47,64
1,758
5.96%
187,5
99,44
9
5.99%
188,5
43,74
1
5.99%
188,5
43,74
1
944,2
93
-
944,2
93
365
Over
head
Con
ducto
rs &
Devic
es1,8
42,49
2,281
3.85%
70,93
5,953
4.02%
74,06
8,190
5.64%
103,9
16,56
5
3,132
,237
29
,848,3
75
32,98
0,612
36
6Un
derg
roun
d Co
nduit
2,389
,265,4
72
2.2
7%54
,236,3
26
2.3
4%55
,908,8
12
3.4
2%81
,712,8
79
1,6
72,48
6
25,80
4,067
27
,476,5
53
367
Unde
rgro
und
Cond
ucto
rs &
Devic
es6,4
86,07
9,350
3.51%
227,6
61,38
5
3.25%
210,7
97,57
9
4.30%
278,9
01,41
2
(16,86
3,806
)
68,10
3,833
51
,240,0
27
368
Line T
rans
form
ers
4,218
,947,4
48
4.3
5%18
3,524
,214
4.3
6%18
3,946
,109
5.6
6%23
8,792
,426
42
1,895
54,84
6,317
55
,268,2
12
369
Servi
ces
1,494
,348,4
68
3.2
7%48
,865,1
95
3.3
2%49
,612,3
69
3.3
2%49
,612,3
69
74
7,174
- 74
7,174
37
0M
eter
s1,0
11,25
1,062
5.99%
60,57
3,939
5.81%
58,75
3,687
5.81%
58,75
3,687
(1,82
0,252
)
- (1,
820,2
52)
37
1Ins
tallat
ions o
n Cus
tom
er Pr
emise
s12
,372,7
31
4.44%
549,3
49
3.61%
446,6
56
3.61%
446,6
56
(102,6
94)
- (10
2,694
)
373
Stre
et Li
ghtin
g &
Signa
l Sys
tem
s86
2,111
,578
2.7
9%24
,052,9
13
2.6
6%22
,932,1
68
3.1
5%27
,156,5
15
(1,
120,7
45)
4,2
24,34
7
3,103
,602
Ge
nera
l Bui
ldin
gs39
0St
ructu
res a
nd Im
prov
emen
ts1,0
79,84
4,132
2.08%
22,46
0,758
1.82%
19,65
3,163
1.82%
19,65
3,163
(2,80
7,595
)
- (2,
807,5
95)
To
tal
30,86
3,353
,278
3.4
7%1,0
72,36
6,074
3.42%
1,057
,017,4
47
4.0
7%1,2
55,79
7,490
(15,3
48,62
7)
19
8,780
,043
183,4
31,41
6
/1 In
clude
s im
pact
from
app
lying
aut
horiz
ed p
aram
eter
s to
upda
ted
reco
rded
bal
ance
s (i.e
., pas
sage
of t
ime)
15
Workpaper – Southern California Edison / 2021 General Rate Case
Exhibit No. SCE-07 Vol.03 Ch I-VI Bk A Witness: D. Gunn
Sout
hern
Cali
forn
ia Ed
ison
2021
GRC
Dep
recia
tion S
tud y
Com
paris
on o
f Pro
ducti
on Pl
ant D
epre
ciatio
n Exp
ense
sin
Dolla
rs
Prop
erty
Dep
recia
ted
Over
Rem
ainin
g Lif
eLin
eNe
t Boo
k Valu
e20
18 G
RC A
utho
rized
2021
GRC
Prop
osed
Inrea
se/
Impa
ct du
eIm
pact
due
No.
Plant
Jan 1
, 202
1Ne
t Salv
age
Rem
aining
Life
Expe
nse
Net S
alvag
eRe
main
ing Li
feEx
pens
e(D
ecre
ase)
to Li
feto
Net
Salva
geA
BC
DE
F=(C
-D)/E
GH
I=(C
-G)/H
J=I-F
K=(C
-D)/H
-FL=
J- K1.
Palo
Verd
e Nuc
lear G
ener
ating
Stati
on39
7,256
,852
(42,14
6,376
)23
.019
,093,2
31
(66,36
7,476
)23
.319
,858,4
87
76
5,256
(27
2,210
)
1,037
,466
2.
Hydr
o De
com
miss
ioning
00
0.0-
(446,1
68,66
9)15
.129
,591,4
13
29
,591,4
13
-
29,59
1,413
3.
Mou
ntain
view
Units
3&4
512,4
01,93
9(8,
644,4
05)
20.0
26,05
2,317
(27
,182,0
76)
19.7
27,45
9,718
1,407
,401
46
4,009
94
3,392
4.
Pebb
ly Be
ach
42,05
7,101
010
.54,0
05,43
8
(1,79
4,468
)25
.91,6
91,53
1
(2,31
3,907
)
(2,
383,1
27)
69,22
0
5.
Peak
ers
253,7
86,90
0(11
,449,2
12)
22.6
11,71
8,153
(22
,461,9
76)
21.9
12,61
1,500
893,3
47
390,5
85
502,7
62
6.
Solar
Phot
ovolt
aic17
4,644
,257
(61,96
4,509
)10
.722
,091,7
22
(81,37
6,343
)10
.724
,016,9
29
1,9
25,20
7
104,2
10
1,820
,997
7.
Fuel
Cell
3,131
,887
02.4
1,313
,210
(3,
000,0
00)
3.02,0
44,42
9
731,2
19
(269,0
09)
1,0
00,22
8
8.Su
btot
al - R
emain
ing
Life P
rodu
ctio
n1,3
83,27
8,93 7
(124
,204,5
02)
84,27
4,071
(648
,351,0
08)
117,2
74,00
732
,999,9
36(1
,965,5
42)
34,96
5,478
Prop
erty
Dep
recia
ted
Usin
g De
prec
iatio
n Ra
t eLin
eGr
oss
2018
GRC
Aut
horiz
ed20
21 G
RC Pr
opos
edInr
ease
/Im
pact
due
Impa
ct du
eNo
.Pla
ntPla
ntNe
t Salv
age
Depr
. Rat e
Expe
nse
Net S
alvag
eDe
pr. R
ateEx
pens
e(D
ecre
ase)
to Li
feto
Net
Salva
geA
BC
DE
F=C*
EG
HI=
C*H
J=I-F
KL=
J-K9.
Hydr
o Pr
oduc
tion
1,276
,977,4
15(11
9,470
,223)
2.13%
27,19
9,619
(12
4,560
,024)
2.25%
28,73
1,992
1,532
,373
1,3
77,31
7
15
5,056
10.E
nerg
y Sto
rage
65,28
0,450
010
.00%
6,528
,045
0
5.00%
3,264
,022
(3,
264,0
22)
(3,26
4,022
)
-
Subt
otal
- Rem
ainin
g Lif
e Pro
duct
ion
1,342
,257,8
65(1
19,47
0,223
)33
,727,6
6 4(1
24,56
0,024
)31
,996,0
14(1
,731,6
50)
(1,88
6,705
)15
5,056
Tota
l Pro
duct
ion
Plan
t2,7
25,53
6,802
(243
,674,7
25)
118,0
01,73
5(7
72,91
1,032
)14
9,270
,022
31,26
8,28 6
(3,85
2,247
)35
,120,5
34
16
Workpaper – Southern California Edison / 2021 General Rate Case
Exhibit No. SCE-07 Vol.03 Ch I-VI Bk A Witness: D. Gunn
Sout
hern
Cali
forn
ia Ed
ison
2021
GRC
Dep
recia
tion S
tudy
Com
paris
on o
f Gen
eral
and
Intan
gible
Depr
eciat
ion R
ates
in Do
llars
Line
FERC
CPUC
Plan
t20
18 G
RC A
utho
rized
2021
GRC
Prop
osed
Inrea
se/
No.
Acct
Desc
riptio
nJa
n 1, 2
019
Rate
Expe
nse
Rate
Expe
nse
(Dec
reas
e)A
BC
DE
F=D*
EG
H=D*
GI=
H-F
1.Ge
nera
l Plan
t2.
389.2
Ease
men
ts3,2
82,26
8
1.67%
54,70
4
1.67%
54,70
4
- 3.
391.x
Furn
iture
& Eq
uipm
ent
255,1
09,89
6
7.2
2%18
,418,9
27
7.47%
19,05
5,576
63
6,649
4.39
1.xCo
mpu
ters
378,1
84,95
7
20
.20%
76,38
5,957
19
.07%
72,12
4,486
(4,
261,4
71)
5.
391.4
Secu
rity M
onito
ring
(DDS
MS)
140,0
68,26
4
11
.07%
15,50
7,971
11
.36%
15,91
5,710
40
7,739
6.39
xSt
ores
/Lab
/Misc
ellan
eous
163,7
92,59
9
6.2
9%10
,303,8
47
6.59%
10,78
7,149
48
3,301
7.39
7.xTe
lecom
mun
icatio
ns90
9,989
,172
10.46
%95
,156,4
21
11.33
%10
3,064
,783
7,9
08,36
1
8.39
xGe
nera
l Oth
er1
106,7
60,79
2
10
.88%
11,61
7,528
11
.50%
12,28
1,879
66
4,352
9.To
tal G
ener
al Pla
nt1,9
57,18
7,948
11
.62%
227,4
45,35
6
11.92
%23
3,284
,288
5,8
38,93
2
10.
11.
Inta
ngib
le Pl
ant
12.
Hydr
o Re
licen
sing
155,9
72,60
8
1.9
5%3,0
41,46
6
2.06%
3,213
,036
171,5
70
13
.Ra
dio Fr
eque
ncy
18,72
3,340
2.50%
468,0
84
2.5
0%46
8,084
- 14
.Ot
her I
ntan
gibles
611,1
41
5.00%
30,55
7
5.00%
30,55
7
- 15
.Ca
p So
ft - 5
yr81
7,200
,829
20.30
%16
5,914
,269
21
.48%
175,5
32,02
2
9,617
,754
16
.Ca
p So
ft - 7
yr17
1,750
,858
15.38
%26
,417,4
06
14.29
%24
,535,8
37
(1,88
1,569
)
17.
Cap
Soft
- 10y
r1,9
15,26
1
77.58
%1,4
85,85
8
10.00
%19
1,526
(1,29
4,332
)
18.
Cap
Soft
- 15y
r91
9,963
20
.07%
184,6
53
6.6
7%61
,331
(12
3,322
)
19.
Total
Intan
gible
Plant
1,167
,094,0
00
16.93
%19
7,542
,292
17
.48%
204,0
32,39
3
6,490
,100
20
.To
tal G
ener
al an
d In
tang
ible
3,124
,281,9
48
42
4,987
,648
437,3
16,68
0
12
,329,0
32
/1 D
epre
ciatio
n exp
ense
for g
ener
al ot
her i
s allo
cate
d to
pro
jects
and
O&M
as in
curre
d.
17
Workpaper – Southern California Edison / 2021 General Rate Case
Exhibit No. SCE-07 Vol.03 Ch I-VI Bk A Witness: D. Gunn
SCE-07, Volume. 03, Results of Operations Depreciation Study
Witness: David Gunn
Escalation Factors
18
Workpaper – Southern California Edison / 2021 General Rate Case
Exhibit No. SCE-07 Vol.03 Ch I-VI Bk A Witness: D. Gunn
Sout
hern
Cali
forn
ia Ed
ison
2021
GRC
Dep
recia
tion S
tudy
Com
posit
e T&D
Esca
lation
Facto
rSo
urce
: IHS M
arkit
, Pac
ific R
egio
n
Weig
ht*
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
Tran
smiss
ion Pl
ant -
Pacif
ic, U
nits:
(1973
=100
)35
.1%2.7
3%2.7
6%2.1
4%1.9
1%2.2
9%2.3
4%2.2
5%2.2
4%2.3
2%2.3
2%To
tal D
istrib
ution
Plan
t - Pa
cific,
Unit
s: (19
73=1
00)
64.9%
3.86%
3.87%
3.18%
2.89%
2.88%
2.80%
2.90%
2.97%
3.00%
3.03%
100.0
%
Blend
ed A
nnua
l Rate
3.46%
3.48%
2.82%
2.55%
2.67%
2.64%
2.68%
2.72%
2.76%
2.78%
Esca
lation
Facto
r1
1.035
1.071
1.101
1.129
1.159
1.19
1.221
1.255
1.289
1.325
Weig
hted
Ave
rage
Esca
lation
Rate
2019
- 20
282.8
6%
*W
eight
ing
base
d on
Yea
r-End
201
8 Pl
ant B
alan
ces
19
Workpaper – Southern California Edison / 2021 General Rate Case
Exhibit No. SCE-07 Vol.03 Ch I-VI Bk A Witness: D. Gunn
Sout
hern
Cali
forn
ia Ed
ison
2021
GRC
Dep
recia
tion S
tudy
Hydr
o Es
calat
ion Fa
ctor
Sour
ce: IH
S Mar
kit, P
acifi
c Reg
ion
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
Cost
Index
(201
9$)
0.97
1.00
1.0
2
1.04
1.0
7
1.09
1.1
2
1.14
1.1
7
1.20
1.2
3
%
Chan
ge2.8
6%2.3
5%2.0
8%2.1
3%2.3
0%2.3
6%2.4
1%2.4
5%2.4
9%2.5
1%10
-Yea
r Ave
rage
2.39%
20
Workpaper – Southern California Edison / 2021 General Rate Case
Exhibit No. SCE-07 Vol.03 Ch I-VI Bk A Witness: D. Gunn
Southern California Edison2021 GRC Depreciation StudyOther Production Escalation FactorSource: IHS Markit, Pacific Region
YearEscalation
Index2000 0.4432 2001 0.4365 2002 0.4461 2003 0.4544 2004 0.4576 2005 0.4669 2006 0.4980 2007 0.5621 2008 0.6237 2009 0.6676 2010 0.7003 2011 0.7254 2012 0.7791 2013 0.8018 2014 0.8305 2015 0.8555 2016 0.8883 2017 0.9266 2018 0.9711 2019 1.0000 2020 1.0355 2021 1.0656 2022 1.0912 2023 1.1145 2024 1.1371 2025 1.1598 2026 1.1829 2027 1.2066 2028 1.2306 2029 1.2546 20301 1.2795
21
Workpaper – Southern California Edison / 2021 General Rate Case
Exhibit No. SCE-07 Vol.03 Ch I-VI Bk A Witness: D. Gunn
Southern California Edison2021 GRC Depreciation StudyOther Production Escalation FactorSource: IHS Markit, Pacific Region
YearEscalation
Index2031 1.3049 2032 1.3308 2033 1.3572 2034 1.3842 2035 1.4117 2036 1.4397 2037 1.4683 2038 1.4975 2039 1.5272 2040 1.5575 2041 1.5884 2042 1.6200 2043 1.6522 2044 1.6850 2045 1.7184 2046 1.7525 2047 1.7873 2048 1.8228 2049 1.8590 2050 1.8959 1/ 2030 and forward is based on the average anticipated growth rate from 2024 to 2029
22
Workpaper – Southern California Edison / 2021 General Rate Case
Exhibit No. SCE-07 Vol.03 Ch I-VI Bk A Witness: D. Gunn
SCE-07, Volume. 03, Results of Operations Depreciation Study
Chapter III: T&D Net Salvage Witness: David Gunn
Summary of T&D Net Salvage Proposals
23
Workpaper – Southern California Edison / 2021 General Rate Case
Exhibit No. SCE-07 Vol.03 Ch I-VI Bk A Witness: D. Gunn
Sout
hern
Cali
forn
ia Ed
ison
2021
GRC
Dep
recia
tion S
tudy
T&D
Net S
alvag
e Pro
posa
lsIn
Dolla
rs
2009
-201
8 Acti
vity
2014
-201
8 Acti
vity
YE 20
18Au
thor
ized
Prop
osed
Acco
unt
Retir
emen
tsNe
t Salv
age
NSR
Retir
emen
tsNe
t Salv
age
NSR
Plant
NSR
NSR
Tran
smiss
ion
352
$13,3
43,81
9($1
0,234
,232)
-77%
$10,7
23,20
5($8
,541,5
41)
-80%
$983
,751,0
73-3
5%-3
5%35
3$3
36,99
8,134
($72,9
70,74
5)-2
2%$1
51,23
4,978
($47,9
61,49
4)-3
2%$6
,072,1
37,16
7-1
5%-1
5%35
4$4
,149,4
64($3
6,018
,555)
-868
%$2
,236,1
39($2
5,408
,420)
-113
6%$2
,355,7
79,00
1-6
0%-8
0%35
5$8
9,065
,549
($169
,560,0
68)
-190
%$6
8,195
,119
($136
,176,5
44)
-200
%$1
,499,6
28,98
3-7
2%-9
0%35
6$1
9,604
,212
($49,7
70,70
3)-2
54%
$13,7
63,80
2($2
7,843
,526)
-202
%$1
,653,0
78,27
9-8
0%-1
00%
357
$350
,901
($711
,362)
-203
%$3
6,097
($442
,405)
-122
6%$2
73,06
5,006
0%0%
358
$20,9
07,50
9($7
,301,8
23)
-35%
$14,0
15,27
7($5
,682,9
34)
-41%
$398
,343,6
29-1
5%-3
0%35
9$1
55,30
3($6
10,51
7)-3
93%
$68,6
28($5
78,01
4)-8
42%
$195
,497,0
580%
0%To
tal$4
84,57
4,890
($347
,178,0
04)
-72%
$260
,273,2
44($2
52,63
4,879
)-9
7%$1
3,431
,280,1
95-3
8%-4
7%
Distr
ibut
ion
361
$52,4
54,96
7($2
1,175
,219)
-40%
$32,4
27,52
4($1
5,971
,513)
-49%
$696
,502,2
62-2
5%-4
0%36
2$1
30,54
1,021
($89,9
10,95
2)-6
9%$7
9,369
,996
($61,1
92,34
6)-7
7%$2
,727,8
19,40
2-2
5%-4
0%36
4$1
62,75
6,810
($826
,444,0
40)
-508
%$1
28,63
7,564
($603
,335,1
33)
-469
%$3
,147,6
97,32
9-2
10%
-210
%36
5$1
44,64
9,507
($350
,273,7
48)
-242
%$1
06,72
0,924
($230
,813,9
57)
-216
%$1
,842,8
56,32
4-1
15%
-190
%36
6$5
1,582
,052
($115
,032,5
69)
-223
%$3
5,194
,647
($90,5
40,17
2)-2
57%
$2,39
0,670
,614
-30%
-80%
367
$404
,878,4
65($6
72,55
9,789
)-1
66%
$245
,176,5
07($4
01,37
2,637
)-1
64%
$6,48
6,609
,397
-60%
-100
%36
8$5
28,21
8,016
($442
,368,6
97)
-84%
$303
,622,3
15($3
15,16
1,241
)-1
04%
$4,21
7,954
,834
-20%
-50%
369
$22,3
62,20
2($1
05,90
7,594
)-4
74%
$14,3
06,66
9($6
2,631
,568)
-438
%$1
,494,3
50,42
3-1
00%
-100
%37
0$8
,388,9
70($2
38,28
9)-3
%$8
,081,1
15($2
07,21
0)-3
%$9
16,70
9,487
-5%
-5%
373
$98,2
27,12
2($1
30,47
6,130
)-1
33%
$62,3
96,53
0($1
00,65
6,630
)-1
61%
$864
,203,5
06-3
0%-5
0%To
tal$1
,604,0
59,13
2($2
,754,3
87,02
9)-1
72%
$1,01
5,933
,791
($1,88
1,882
,407)
-185
%$2
4,785
,373,5
78-6
8%-9
7%
Total
T&D
$2,08
8,634
,022
($3,10
1,565
,033)
-148
%$1
,276,2
07,03
5($2
,134,5
17,28
6)-1
67%
$38,2
16,65
3,774
-57%
-79%
24
Workpaper – Southern California Edison / 2021 General Rate Case
Exhibit No. SCE-07 Vol.03 Ch I-VI Bk A Witness: D. Gunn
SCE-07, Volume. 03, Results of Operations Depreciation Study
Chapter III: T&D Net Salvage Witness: David Gunn
Account 352: Transmission Substation Structures and Improvements
25
Workpaper – Southern California Edison / 2021 General Rate Case
Exhibit No. SCE-07 Vol.03 Ch I-VI Bk A Witness: D. Gunn
Sout
hern
Cali
forn
ia Ed
ison
2021
GRC
Dep
recia
tion S
tud y
Acco
unt 3
52: T
rans
miss
ion Su
bstat
ion St
ructu
res a
nd Im
prov
emen
tsas
of:
1/1/
2019
Aggr
egat
e Res
ults
Origi
nal C
ost
Cost
o fCo
st of
Gros
sGr
oss
Net
Net
Units
Age o
fHi
storic
alPla
ntAg
e of
Year
Retir
emen
tsRe
mov
alRe
mov
al %
Salva
geSa
lvage
%Sa
lvage
Salva
ge %
Retir
edRe
tirem
ents
Inflat
ionBa
lance
Surv.
Plan
tA
BC
D=C/
BE
F=E/
BG=
E-C
H=G/
BI
JK
LM
2009
$851
,385
$245
,786
28.9%
$55,0
516.5
%($1
90,73
5)-2
2.4%
2,118
18
.83.4
%$2
65,81
5,112
32.0
2010
$272
,200
$254
,051
93.3%
$872
0.3%
($253
,178)
-93.0
%27
28.0
3.4%
$294
,200,3
2231
.620
11$1
,111,9
76$9
52,06
485
.6%$3
6,701
3.3%
($915
,362)
-82.3
%40
48.5
3.7%
$330
,796,7
1930
.820
12$2
22,57
2$2
71,50
412
2.0%
$48,3
4121
.7%($2
23,16
3)-1
00.3%
13
36
.73.6
%$3
74,54
5,668
30.0
2013
$162
,483
$127
,713
78.6%
$17,4
6010
.7%($1
10,25
2)-6
7.9%
8
38
.93.3
%$5
64,33
7,780
25.1
2014
$933
,773
$1,15
8,760
124.1
%$6
9,300
7.4%
($1,08
9,460
)-1
16.7%
239
37
.33.3
%$6
28,95
8,105
24.5
2015
$2,27
0,625
$2,11
6,519
93.2%
$42,9
921.9
%($2
,073,5
28)
-91.3
%43
8
34.1
3.0%
$686
,827,4
0424
.220
16$1
,010,9
53$1
,593,8
6415
7.7%
$00.0
%($1
,593,8
64)
-157
.7%2,0
70
47.8
3.5%
$825
,778,5
0822
.420
17$2
,689,0
35$1
,508,6
1556
.1%$0
0.0%
($1,50
8,615
)-5
6.1%
13,17
0
40
.12.7
%$8
79,62
1,910
22.4
2018
$3,81
8,819
$2,30
3,250
60.3%
$27,1
760.7
%($2
,276,0
74)
-59.6
%30
,659
35.4
2.7%
$983
,751,0
7321
.720
09-2
018
$13,3
43,81
9$1
0,532
,126
78.9%
$297
,894
2.2%
($10,2
34,23
2)-7
6.7%
48,78
2
3.3
%21
.7
Subp
opul
atio
n A:
Bui
ldin
gsOr
igina
l Cos
tCo
st o f
Cost
ofGr
oss
Gros
sNe
tNe
tUn
itsAg
e of
Histo
rical
Plant
Age o
fYe
arRe
tirem
ents
Rem
oval
Rem
oval
%Sa
lvage
Salva
ge %
Salva
geSa
lvage
%Re
tired
Retir
emen
tsInf
lation
Balan
ceSu
rv. Pl
ant
AB
CD=
C/B
EF=
E/B
G=E-
CH=
G/B
IJ
KL
M20
09$2
92,49
3$2
37,22
081
.1%$5
5,051
18.8%
($182
,169)
-62.3
%15
26.3
3.0%
$139
,163,2
6238
.420
10$2
12,57
3$1
58,77
174
.7%$8
180.4
%($1
57,95
3)-7
4.3%
19
27
.73.4
%$1
46,58
7,242
38.8
2011
$818
,691
$720
,285
88.0%
$36,8
584.5
%($6
83,42
7)-8
3.5%
29
44
.53.3
%$1
78,94
6,696
37.1
2012
$171
,439
$126
,946
74.0%
$48,3
4128
.2%($7
8,605
)-4
5.8%
11
33
.53.3
%$2
13,11
1,406
35.7
2013
$146
,632
$67,7
4946
.2%$1
7,460
11.9%
($50,2
89)
-34.3
%7
40.1
3.3%
$271
,113,4
3433
.220
14$5
68,13
7$6
58,17
611
5.8%
$69,3
0012
.2%($5
88,87
6)-1
03.7%
232
38
.43.2
%$3
54,49
2,927
30.2
2015
$1,54
8,148
$1,29
9,661
83.9%
$28,1
331.8
%($1
,271,5
28)
-82.1
%67
35.7
3.1%
$386
,365,7
6529
.820
16$8
81,29
6$1
,219,0
5613
8.3%
$00.0
%($1
,219,0
56)
-138
.3%53
45.5
3.3%
$436
,934,9
5828
.920
17$1
,214,3
29$8
37,20
268
.9%$0
0.0%
($837
,202)
-68.9
%41
46.0
2.9%
$474
,246,7
5028
.520
18$2
,055,1
33$1
,206,7
5358
.7%$0
0.0%
($1,20
6,753
)-5
8.7%
36
38
.22.9
%$5
41,10
4,816
27.4
2009
-201
8$7
,908,8
71$6
,531,8
2082
.6%$2
55,96
23.2
%($6
,275,8
58)
-79.4
%51
0
27.4
26
Workpaper – Southern California Edison / 2021 General Rate Case
Exhibit No. SCE-07 Vol.03 Ch I-VI Bk A Witness: D. Gunn
Sout
hern
Cali
forn
ia Ed
ison
2021
GRC
Dep
recia
tion S
tud y
Acco
unt 3
52: T
rans
miss
ion Su
bstat
ion St
ructu
res a
nd Im
prov
emen
tsas
of:
1/1/
2019
Subp
opul
atio
n B:
Foun
datio
ns &
Oth
er St
ructu
res
Origi
nal C
ost
Cost
o fCo
st of
Gros
sGr
oss
Net
Net
Units
Age o
fHi
storic
alPla
ntAg
e of
Year
Retir
emen
tsRe
mov
alRe
mov
al %
Salva
geSa
lvage
%Sa
lvage
Salva
ge %
Retir
edRe
tirem
ents
Inflat
ionBa
lance
Surv.
Plan
tA
BC
D=C/
BE
F=E/
BG=
E-C
H=G/
BI
JK
LM
2009
$558
,892
$8,56
61.5
%$0
0.0%
($8,56
6)-1
.5%2,1
03
13.7
4.0%
$55,5
24,49
328
.220
10$5
9,627
$95,2
7915
9.8%
$54
0.1%
($95,2
25)
-159
.7%8
28.9
3.3%
$58,8
76,23
128
.520
11$2
93,28
5$2
31,77
879
.0%($1
57)
-0.1%
($231
,935)
-79.1
%11
53.1
4.4%
$73,6
38,88
926
.320
12$5
1,132
$144
,558
282.7
%$0
0.0%
($144
,558)
-282
.7%2
42.1
4.4%
$98,7
49,53
623
.620
13$1
5,851
$59,9
6437
8.3%
$00.0
%($5
9,964
)-3
78.3%
1
8.5
3.7%
$117
,801,1
6322
.420
14$3
65,63
6$5
00,58
413
6.9%
$00.0
%($5
00,58
4)-1
36.9%
7
35
.43.4
%$1
52,13
0,147
20.2
2015
$722
,476
$816
,859
113.1
%$1
4,858
2.1%
($802
,000)
-111
.0%37
1
29.6
2.9%
$179
,849,9
9919
.120
16$1
29,65
7$3
74,80
828
9.1%
$00.0
%($3
74,80
8)-2
89.1%
2,017
55
.04.2
%$1
92,37
0,829
19.2
2017
$1,47
4,706
$671
,413
45.5%
$00.0
%($6
71,41
3)-4
5.5%
13,12
9
32
.22.6
%$2
01,85
2,141
19.4
2018
$1,76
3,686
$1,09
6,497
62.2%
$27,1
761.5
%($1
,069,3
21)
-60.6
%30
,623
31.0
2.6%
$247
,665,8
8717
.820
09-2
018
$5,43
4,948
$4,00
0,305
73.6%
$41,9
320.8
%($3
,958,3
74)
-72.8
%48
,272
17.8
27
Workpaper – Southern California Edison / 2021 General Rate Case
Exhibit No. SCE-07 Vol.03 Ch I-VI Bk A Witness: D. Gunn
Sout
hern
Cali
forn
ia Ed
ison
2021
GRC
Dep
recia
tion S
tudy
Acco
unt 3
52: T
rans
miss
ion Su
bstat
ion St
ructu
res a
nd Im
prov
emen
tsW
eight
ed N
et Sa
lvage
Rate
(2009
-201
8)
Majo
rRe
tirem
ent M
ixPla
nt M
ixNe
t Salv
age
Weig
hted
NSR
Com
pone
ntRe
tirem
ents
% of
Total
Balan
ce%
of To
talRa
te (N
SR)
Ret. W
td.
Plant
Wtd
.A
BC
DE
FG=
C*F
H=E*
FBu
ilding
s$7
,908,8
7159
%$5
41,10
4,816
69%
-79%
-47%
-54%
Foun
datio
ns &
Oth
er St
ructu
res
$5,43
4,948
41%
$247
,665,8
8731
%-7
3%-3
0%-2
3%To
tal
-77%
-77%
28
Workpaper – Southern California Edison / 2021 General Rate Case
Exhibit No. SCE-07 Vol.03 Ch I-VI Bk A Witness: D. Gunn
SCE-07, Volume. 03, Results of Operations Depreciation Study
Chapter III: T&D Net Salvage Witness: David Gunn
Account 353: Transmission Substation Equipment
29
Workpaper – Southern California Edison / 2021 General Rate Case
Exhibit No. SCE-07 Vol.03 Ch I-VI Bk A Witness: D. Gunn
Sout
hern
Cali
forn
ia Ed
ison
2021
GRC
Dep
recia
tion S
tud y
Acco
unt 3
53: T
rans
miss
ion Su
bstat
ion Eq
uipm
ent
as o
f:1/
1/20
19
Aggr
egat
e Res
ults
Origi
nal C
ost
Cost
o fCo
st of
Gros
sGr
oss
Net
Net
Units
Age o
fHi
storic
alPla
ntAg
e of
Year
Retir
emen
tsRe
mov
alRe
mov
al %
Salva
geSa
lvage
%Sa
lvage
Salva
ge %
Retir
edRe
tirem
ents
Inflat
ionBa
lance
Surv.
Plan
tA
BC
D=C/
BE
F=E/
BG=
E-C
H=G/
BI
JK
LM
2009
$17,8
55,97
2$8
,904,4
4749
.9%$3
,989,7
9422
.3%($4
,914,6
53)
-27.5
%20
0,374
34.4
3.9%
$2,94
4,695
,697
21.9
2010
$34,7
02,40
8$1
1,222
,562
32.3%
$4,58
7,431
13.2%
($6,63
5,131
)-1
9.1%
255,5
30
31
.44.0
%$3
,160,6
95,16
521
.820
11$3
1,530
,203
$11,5
93,86
536
.8%$1
0,379
,676
32.9%
($1,21
4,188
)-3
.9%19
9,612
28.8
3.4%
$3,36
7,505
,031
22.0
2012
$67,1
18,46
4$1
4,463
,807
21.5%
$6,00
4,462
8.9%
($8,45
9,345
)-1
2.6%
488,4
62
25
.73.9
%$3
,965,2
44,16
520
.920
13$3
4,556
,109
$10,3
22,12
029
.9%$6
,536,1
8618
.9%($3
,785,9
34)
-11.0
%13
9,567
36.3
3.2%
$4,63
9,419
,682
19.9
2014
$14,2
14,56
0$8
,801,6
7061
.9%$1
,956,4
7313
.8%($6
,845,1
97)
-48.2
%25
1,974
35.8
3.2%
$4,99
6,027
,822
19.9
2015
$43,3
40,29
3$1
7,291
,043
39.9%
$7,65
6,274
17.7%
($9,63
4,769
)-2
2.2%
462,5
16
31
.63.2
%$5
,247,7
11,80
720
.520
16$1
5,457
,375
$6,34
6,798
41.1%
$16,7
250.1
%($6
,330,0
73)
-41.0
%37
8,849
33.1
3.1%
$5,58
6,246
,880
21.1
2017
$33,0
00,19
4$1
1,051
,315
33.5%
$864
,728
2.6%
($10,1
86,58
7)-3
0.9%
251,7
79
30
.73.0
%$5
,902,9
49,22
821
.320
18$4
5,222
,557
$18,9
36,80
041
.9%$3
,971,9
328.8
%($1
4,964
,868)
-33.1
%78
4,608
38.5
2.9%
$6,07
2,137
,167
21.6
2009
-201
8$3
36,99
8,134
$118
,934,4
2635
.3%$4
5,963
,681
13.6%
($72,9
70,74
5)-2
1.7%
3,413
,271
3.4
%21
.620
14-2
018
-31.7
%20
09-2
013
-13.5
%
Subp
opul
atio
n A:
Circ
uit B
reak
ers
Orig i
nal C
ost
Cost
o fCo
st of
Gros
sGr
oss
Net
Net
Units
Age o
fHi
storic
alPla
ntAg
e of
Year
Retir
emen
tsRe
mov
alRe
mov
al %
Salva
geSa
lvage
%Sa
lvage
Salva
ge %
Retir
edRe
tirem
ents
Inflat
ionBa
lance
Surv.
Plan
tA
BC
D=C/
BE
F=E/
BG=
E-C
H=G/
BI
JK
LM
2009
$4,22
5,125
$1,50
6,565
35.7%
($1,15
2)0.0
%($1
,507,7
17)
-35.7
%81
39.9
4.2%
$341
,175,9
4118
.220
10$3
,827,2
60$1
,452,2
3137
.9%$1
5,727
0.4%
($1,43
6,504
)-3
7.5%
76
37
.14.2
%$3
79,12
6,390
17.6
2011
$2,50
7,209
$1,35
2,228
53.9%
($88)
0.0%
($1,35
2,316
)-5
3.9%
54
36
.54.1
%$4
06,44
3,924
17.7
2012
$8,05
1,859
$1,47
1,261
18.3%
$127
,340
1.6%
($1,34
3,922
)-1
6.7%
62
20
.53.9
%$4
55,66
4,286
17.4
2013
$7,38
7,046
$1,14
3,746
15.5%
$41,0
200.6
%($1
,102,7
25)
-14.9
%11
0
26.5
3.6%
$515
,323,5
1117
.020
14$5
,281,7
16$1
,146,0
9221
.7%$0
0.0%
($1,14
6,092
)-2
1.7%
60
25
.13.3
%$5
87,53
8,139
16.6
2015
$9,26
0,465
$1,38
8,277
15.0%
$405
,797
4.4%
($982
,480)
-10.6
%46
9
27.4
3.3%
$631
,804,4
8816
.620
16$1
,193,4
67$9
32,48
778
.1%$0
0.0%
($932
,487)
-78.1
%33
37.9
3.2%
$702
,521,0
0116
.520
17$4
,838,7
59$2
,559,2
7852
.9%$3
6,292
0.8%
($2,52
2,985
)-5
2.1%
62
27
.33.1
%$7
38,13
4,087
16.9
2018
$4,99
5,018
$1,97
1,345
39.5%
$192
,693
3.9%
($1,77
8,652
)-3
5.6%
68
25
.13.5
%$7
71,33
1,833
17.4
2009
-201
8$5
1,567
,924
$14,9
23,50
928
.9%$8
17,63
01.6
%($1
4,105
,879)
-27.4
%1,0
75
17.4
30
Workpaper – Southern California Edison / 2021 General Rate Case
Exhibit No. SCE-07 Vol.03 Ch I-VI Bk A Witness: D. Gunn
Sout
hern
Cali
forn
ia Ed
ison
2021
GRC
Dep
recia
tion S
tud y
Acco
unt 3
53: T
rans
miss
ion Su
bstat
ion Eq
uipm
ent
as o
f:1/
1/20
19
Subp
opul
atio
n B:
Tran
sform
ers
Origi
nal C
ost
Cost
o fCo
st of
Gros
sGr
oss
Net
Net
Units
Age o
fHi
storic
alPla
ntAg
e of
Year
Retir
emen
tsRe
mov
alRe
mov
al %
Salva
geSa
lvage
%Sa
lvage
Salva
ge %
Retir
edRe
tirem
ents
Inflat
ionBa
lance
Surv.
Plan
tA
BC
D=C/
BE
F=E/
BG=
E-C
H=G/
BI
JK
LM
2009
$1,89
4,764
$871
,571
46.0%
$484
,368
25.6%
($387
,203)
-20.4
%68
41.0
4.9%
$451
,570,0
9525
.520
10$2
,511,0
61$1
,178,5
3546
.9%$5
74,53
622
.9%($6
03,99
9)-2
4.1%
70
36
.24.6
%$4
83,71
4,153
25.6
2011
$6,87
6,362
$1,76
6,177
25.7%
$1,04
3,546
15.2%
($722
,630)
-10.5
%57
19.5
3.8%
$569
,135,9
5824
.820
12$4
,600,9
79$3
,824,4
7383
.1%$4
42,62
69.6
%($3
,381,8
46)
-73.5
%51
38.5
4.3%
$664
,296,5
3223
.820
13$1
5,983
,064
$2,40
9,704
15.1%
$1,25
3,470
7.8%
($1,15
6,234
)-7
.2%15
3
35.6
2.9%
$753
,549,4
8322
.820
14$8
31,94
0$1
,059,2
0212
7.3%
$00.0
%($1
,059,2
02)
-127
.3%60
51.5
4.6%
$886
,969,8
8021
.920
15$1
3,092
,713
$2,35
4,880
18.0%
$2,64
1,738
20.2%
$286
,858
2.2%
90
37
.53.3
%$9
53,93
6,755
21.5
2016
$2,33
9,465
$1,76
4,549
75.4%
$00.0
%($1
,764,5
49)
-75.4
%46
42.6
3.2%
$1,01
0,586
,710
21.9
2017
$11,6
20,62
4$2
,181,6
6618
.8%$4
61,13
54.0
%($1
,720,5
31)
-14.8
%48
36.4
3.2%
$1,03
4,966
,945
22.2
2018
$10,4
04,57
5$3
,868,6
0137
.2%$7
68,79
07.4
%($3
,099,8
11)
-29.8
%10
4
34.3
3.3%
$1,09
1,583
,314
22.3
2009
-201
8$7
0,155
,546
$21,2
79,35
730
.3%$7
,670,2
1010
.9%($1
3,609
,147)
-19.4
%74
7
22.3
Subp
opul
atio
n C:
Mon
itorin
g De
vices
Origi
nal C
ost
Cost
o fCo
st of
Gros
sGr
oss
Net
Net
Units
Age o
fHi
storic
alPla
ntAg
e of
Year
Retir
emen
tsRe
mov
alRe
mov
al %
Salva
geSa
lvage
%Sa
lvage
Salva
ge %
Retir
edRe
tirem
ents
Inflat
ionBa
lance
Surv.
Plan
tA
BC
D=C/
BE
F=E/
BG=
E-C
H=G/
BI
JK
LM
2009
$1,92
9,151
$596
,576
30.9%
($13,2
60)
-0.7%
($609
,836)
-31.6
%50
25.5
3.9%
$279
,812,6
6622
.620
10$5
,723,8
26$1
,721,5
0630
.1%$9
040.0
%($1
,720,6
02)
-30.1
%14
2
30.3
3.7%
$299
,667,7
0822
.520
11$2
,751,3
18$1
,407,7
0051
.2%($4
,759)
-0.2%
($1,41
2,459
)-5
1.3%
74
45
.53.3
%$3
46,44
0,832
21.4
2012
$2,11
7,833
$866
,330
40.9%
$4,68
90.2
%($8
61,64
1)-4
0.7%
53
25
.53.4
%$3
82,70
7,466
21.3
2013
$1,87
9,184
$909
,117
48.4%
$11,6
640.6
%($8
97,45
2)-4
7.8%
53
50
.93.2
%$4
06,32
7,424
21.3
2014
$1,98
0,216
$1,35
0,316
68.2%
$00.0
%($1
,350,3
16)
-68.2
%52
24.4
3.3%
$434
,297,9
5521
.520
15$4
,191,9
71$1
,345,9
0932
.1%$7
,169
0.2%
($1,33
8,740
)-3
1.9%
139
22
.23.3
%$4
78,20
4,337
21.3
2016
$4,71
8,688
$225
,517
4.8%
$00.0
%($2
25,51
7)-4
.8%62
5
17.5
3.0%
$498
,677,1
6621
.820
17$1
,788,8
14$8
25,14
046
.1%$2
16,74
112
.1%($6
08,39
9)-3
4.0%
53
33
.22.8
%$5
18,49
2,779
22.3
2018
$6,42
3,431
$2,78
0,230
43.3%
$429
,144
6.7%
($2,35
1,086
)-3
6.6%
128
40
.92.5
%$5
90,90
5,070
21.4
2009
-201
8$3
3,504
,433
$12,0
28,34
035
.9%$6
52,29
31.9
%($1
1,376
,047)
-34.0
%1,3
69
21.4
31
Workpaper – Southern California Edison / 2021 General Rate Case
Exhibit No. SCE-07 Vol.03 Ch I-VI Bk A Witness: D. Gunn
Sout
hern
Cali
forn
ia Ed
ison
2021
GRC
Dep
recia
tion S
tud y
Acco
unt 3
53: T
rans
miss
ion Su
bstat
ion Eq
uipm
ent
as o
f:1/
1/20
19
Subp
opul
atio
n D:
Bus
Supp
ort S
tructu
res
Origi
nal C
ost
Cost
o fCo
st of
Gros
sGr
oss
Net
Net
Units
Age o
fHi
storic
alPla
ntAg
e of
Year
Retir
emen
tsRe
mov
alRe
mov
al %
Salva
geSa
lvage
%Sa
lvage
Salva
ge %
Retir
edRe
tirem
ents
Inflat
ionBa
lance
Surv.
Plan
tA
BC
D=C/
BE
F=E/
BG=
E-C
H=G/
BI
JK
LM
2009
$713
,546
$242
,754
34.0%
($612
)-0
.1%($2
43,36
6)-3
4.1%
39
26
.13.4
%$1
56,76
7,729
23.4
2010
$1,61
1,718
$808
,608
50.2%
$20,5
881.3
%($7
88,02
0)-4
8.9%
352
20
.73.9
%$1
68,23
4,804
23.6
2011
$961
,343
$438
,120
45.6%
$383
0.0%
($437
,738)
-45.5
%77
31.9
3.4%
$194
,170,6
8423
.020
12$1
,836,1
74$7
51,28
140
.9%$1
85,33
510
.1%($5
65,94
6)-3
0.8%
2,192
26
.23.5
%$2
28,27
0,608
22.2
2013
$228
,885
$1,22
7,358
536.2
%$1
72,77
475
.5%($1
,054,5
84)
-460
.7%30
41.5
3.4%
$289
,145,4
8020
.620
14$8
65,92
9$1
56,95
718
.1%$0
0.0%
($156
,957)
-18.1
%12
17.8
2.7%
$396
,695,3
0818
.220
15$4
,427,0
13$1
,537,4
6834
.7%$2
20,64
95.0
%($1
,316,8
19)
-29.7
%93
14.9
3.0%
$439
,776,3
8218
.120
16$5
54,50
6$7
89,29
314
2.3%
$00.0
%($7
89,29
3)-1
42.3%
25
29
.33.4
%$4
83,52
2,696
18.1
2017
$876
,958
$470
,576
53.7%
$15,8
061.8
%($4
54,77
0)-5
1.9%
28
20
.02.5
%$4
96,28
0,706
18.8
2018
$3,65
5,029
$983
,556
26.9%
$631
,145
17.3%
($352
,411)
-9.6%
1,924
28
.03.1
%$5
22,35
6,267
19.1
2009
-201
8$1
5,731
,100
$7,40
5,973
47.1%
$1,24
6,069
7.9%
($6,15
9,904
)-3
9.2%
4,772
19
.1
Subp
opul
atio
n E:
Switc
hes &
Switc
h Ge
arOr
igina
l Cos
tCo
st o f
Cost
ofGr
oss
Gros
sNe
tNe
tUn
itsAg
e of
Histo
rical
Plant
Age o
fYe
arRe
tirem
ents
Rem
oval
Rem
oval
%Sa
lvage
Salva
ge %
Salva
geSa
lvage
%Re
tired
Retir
emen
tsInf
lation
Balan
ceSu
rv. Pl
ant
AB
CD=
C/B
EF=
E/B
G=E-
CH=
G/B
IJ
KL
M20
09$2
,016,1
25$6
56,01
632
.5%($4
)0.0
%($6
56,02
0)-3
2.5%
162
37
.03.8
%$3
10,10
9,484
20.2
2010
$2,89
7,552
$1,71
4,144
59.2%
$8,65
70.3
%($1
,705,4
87)
-58.9
%24
2
32.7
3.8%
$327
,451,7
9820
.420
11$1
,504,8
03$1
,130,8
5875
.1%($5
9)0.0
%($1
,130,9
16)
-75.2
%17
3
32.0
3.6%
$429
,889,2
7918
.720
12$3
4,030
,301
$997
,608
2.9%
$45,0
170.1
%($9
52,59
2)-2
.8%22
9
22.9
4.0%
$427
,874,7
8018
.620
13$1
,679,3
56$2
,428,9
4814
4.6%
$267
,244
15.9%
($2,16
1,704
)-1
28.7%
264
39
.13.5
%$4
61,98
7,752
18.7
2014
$758
,911
$516
,383
68.0%
($313
)0.0
%($5
16,69
6)-6
8.1%
109
37
.13.6
%$4
92,79
9,061
19.0
2015
$2,34
1,775
$1,09
5,275
46.8%
$238
,578
10.2%
($856
,697)
-36.6
%33
0
28.9
3.0%
$520
,013,6
6122
.820
16$1
,194,6
91$6
28,67
652
.6%$0
0.0%
($628
,676)
-52.6
%25
8
44.0
3.7%
$545
,338,4
2823
.220
17$2
,432,9
78$1
,186,4
4348
.8%$5
0,021
2.1%
($1,13
6,422
)-4
6.7%
296
31
.73.2
%$5
71,46
9,706
23.5
2018
$5,79
2,942
$2,54
2,185
43.9%
$90,1
881.6
%($2
,451,9
97)
-42.3
%65
2
32.9
2.9%
$593
,841,4
8323
.820
09-2
018
$54,6
49,43
4$1
2,896
,536
23.6%
$699
,329
1.3%
($12,1
97,20
7)-2
2.3%
2,715
23
.8
32
Workpaper – Southern California Edison / 2021 General Rate Case
Exhibit No. SCE-07 Vol.03 Ch I-VI Bk A Witness: D. Gunn
Sout
hern
Cali
forn
ia Ed
ison
2021
GRC
Dep
recia
tion S
tud y
Acco
unt 3
53: T
rans
miss
ion Su
bstat
ion Eq
uipm
ent
as o
f:1/
1/20
19
Subp
opul
atio
n F:
Powe
r Con
trol C
able
Origi
nal C
ost
Cost
o fCo
st of
Gros
sGr
oss
Net
Net
Units
Age o
fHi
storic
alPla
ntAg
e of
Year
Retir
emen
tsRe
mov
alRe
mov
al %
Salva
geSa
lvage
%Sa
lvage
Salva
ge %
Retir
edRe
tirem
ents
Inflat
ionBa
lance
Surv.
Plan
tA
BC
D=C/
BE
F=E/
BG=
E-C
H=G/
BI
JK
LM
2009
$1,80
6,644
$655
,045
36.3%
($1,46
3)-0
.1%($6
56,50
8)-3
6.3%
191,8
46
9.9
4.6%
$107
,944,1
3117
.820
10$1
,229,5
99$5
39,41
243
.9%$3
9,328
3.2%
($500
,084)
-40.7
%23
2,845
27.6
3.8%
$118
,797,8
2917
.720
11$1
,629,6
86$8
69,43
453
.3%$2
220.0
%($8
69,21
2)-5
3.3%
167,0
47
25
.73.4
%$1
40,81
7,849
16.9
2012
$3,95
1,426
$1,32
2,290
33.5%
$159
,312
4.0%
($1,16
2,979
)-2
9.4%
466,5
08
16
.84.2
%$1
66,21
6,180
16.2
2013
$604
,191
$271
,862
45.0%
$19,2
803.2
%($2
52,58
2)-4
1.8%
133,2
34
34
.03.1
%$1
91,82
1,839
15.7
2014
$1,36
5,272
$2,18
5,330
160.1
%$0
0.0%
($2,18
5,330
)-1
60.1%
234,8
11
20
.93.3
%$2
22,36
8,523
15.3
2015
$2,92
8,511
$2,16
5,135
73.9%
$234
,272
8.0%
($1,93
0,863
)-6
5.9%
420,9
45
20
.43.3
%$2
67,34
0,154
14.5
2016
$1,23
7,117
$799
,673
64.6%
$00.0
%($7
99,67
3)-6
4.6%
304,0
89
27
.83.2
%$3
04,24
1,517
14.4
2017
$1,33
1,692
$1,45
3,303
109.1
%$1
7,105
1.3%
($1,43
6,198
)-1
07.8%
229,3
60
13
.83.2
%$3
22,27
0,522
14.9
2018
$5,82
6,495
$4,51
2,382
77.4%
$1,13
1,622
19.4%
($3,38
0,760
)-5
8.0%
766,5
19
15
.63.3
%$3
62,01
4,697
14.7
2009
-201
8$2
1,910
,634
$14,7
73,86
867
.4%$1
,599,6
787.3
%($1
3,174
,189)
-60.1
%3,1
47,20
4
14.7
Subp
opul
atio
n G:
Capa
citor
sOr
igina
l Cos
tCo
st o f
Cost
ofGr
oss
Gros
sNe
tNe
tUn
itsAg
e of
Histo
rical
Plant
Age o
fYe
arRe
tirem
ents
Rem
oval
Rem
oval
%Sa
lvage
Salva
ge %
Salva
geSa
lvage
%Re
tired
Retir
emen
tsInf
lation
Balan
ceSu
rv. Pl
ant
AB
CD=
C/B
EF=
E/B
G=E-
CH=
G/B
IJ
KL
M20
09$6
89,66
1$1
00,25
714
.5%$0
0.0%
($100
,257)
-14.5
%13
30.7
4.2%
$197
,245,1
1514
.820
10$6
56,86
7$4
75,29
672
.4%$0
0.0%
($475
,296)
-72.4
%16
,030
21.9
4.0%
$212
,544,8
6515
.220
11$1
,322,0
04$2
34,57
717
.7%($4
92)
0.0%
($235
,069)
-17.8
%20
,016
16.2
4.2%
$220
,724,3
1115
.920
12$4
,051,3
66$1
,056,2
3326
.1%$0
0.0%
($1,05
6,233
)-2
6.1%
31
33
.54.1
%$2
62,46
4,584
14.7
2013
$59,1
36$3
8,778
65.6%
$00.0
%($3
8,778
)-6
5.6%
29
14
.73.9
%$2
83,93
5,629
15.1
2014
$332
,717
$77,9
0923
.4%($3
,668)
-1.1%
($81,5
78)
-24.5
%18
33.5
3.9%
$303
,387,7
3915
.520
15$1
,485,2
87$6
74,27
245
.4%$0
0.0%
($674
,272)
-45.4
%27
,857
17.3
4.3%
$309
,258,9
1216
.320
16$3
54,02
2$3
3,461
9.5%
$00.0
%($3
3,461
)-9
.5%18
12.0
3.6%
$327
,274,5
8316
.820
17$3
,437,8
59$4
26,17
112
.4%$0
0.0%
($426
,171)
-12.4
%14
,005
21.0
3.8%
$364
,450,7
3816
.820
18$1
,034,5
76$1
98,09
619
.1%$9
390.1
%($1
97,15
7)-1
9.1%
69
30
.93.3
%$3
81,82
7,523
17.3
2009
-201
8$1
3,423
,495
$3,31
5,051
24.7%
($3,22
1)0.0
%($3
,318,2
72)
-24.7
%78
,086
17.3
33
Workpaper – Southern California Edison / 2021 General Rate Case
Exhibit No. SCE-07 Vol.03 Ch I-VI Bk A Witness: D. Gunn
Sout
hern
Cali
forn
ia Ed
ison
2021
GRC
Dep
recia
tion S
tud y
Acco
unt 3
53: T
rans
miss
ion Su
bstat
ion Eq
uipm
ent
as o
f:1/
1/20
19
Subp
opul
atio
n H:
Foun
datio
ns &
Oth
er St
ructu
res
Origi
nal C
ost
Cost
o fCo
st of
Gros
sGr
oss
Net
Net
Units
Age o
fHi
storic
alPla
ntAg
e of
Year
Retir
emen
tsRe
mov
alRe
mov
al %
Salva
geSa
lvage
%Sa
lvage
Salva
ge %
Retir
edRe
tirem
ents
Inflat
ionBa
lance
Surv.
Plan
tA
BC
D=C/
BE
F=E/
BG=
E-C
H=G/
BI
JK
LM
2009
$4,58
0,955
$4,27
5,663
93.3%
$3,52
1,918
76.9%
($753
,745)
-16.5
%8,1
15
26.7
3.7%
$541
,561,8
7630
.920
10$1
6,244
,525
$3,33
2,829
20.5%
$3,92
7,690
24.2%
$594
,861
3.7%
5,773
29
.84.0
%$5
46,00
6,414
31.6
2011
$13,9
77,47
7$4
,394,7
7031
.4%$9
,340,9
2266
.8%$4
,946,1
5235
.4%12
,114
24.4
3.3%
$630
,372,5
6530
.720
12$8
,478,5
25$4
,174,3
3049
.2%$5
,040,1
4359
.4%$8
65,81
310
.2%19
,336
24.6
3.6%
$679
,124,4
9830
.820
13$6
,735,2
47$1
,892,6
0728
.1%$4
,770,7
3470
.8%$2
,878,1
2642
.7%5,6
94
38.8
3.7%
$718
,177,2
7930
.920
14$2
,797,8
58$2
,309,4
8082
.5%$1
,960,4
5470
.1%($3
49,02
6)-1
2.5%
16,85
2
44
.93.2
%$7
88,37
3,476
30.7
2015
$5,61
2,557
$6,72
9,827
119.9
%$3
,908,0
7069
.6%($2
,821,7
57)
-50.3
%12
,593
38.2
3.7%
$856
,618,2
7030
.620
16$3
,865,4
20$1
,173,1
4330
.3%$1
6,725
0.4%
($1,15
6,418
)-2
9.9%
73,75
5
32
.13.4
%$9
19,87
9,775
31.8
2017
$6,67
2,512
$1,94
8,738
29.2%
$67,6
271.0
%($1
,881,1
11)
-28.2
%7,9
27
25.9
2.7%
$952
,988,9
2232
.320
18$7
,090,4
91$2
,080,4
0529
.3%$7
27,41
110
.3%($1
,352,9
94)
-19.1
%15
,144
55.5
3.1%
$953
,805,6
1732
.820
09-2
018
$76,0
55,56
8$3
2,311
,792
42.5%
$33,2
81,69
343
.8%$9
69,90
11.3
%17
7,303
32.8
34
Workpaper – Southern California Edison / 2021 General Rate Case
Exhibit No. SCE-07 Vol.03 Ch I-VI Bk A Witness: D. Gunn
Sout
hern
Cali
forn
ia Ed
ison
2021
GRC
Dep
recia
tion S
tudy
Acco
unt 3
53: T
rans
miss
ion Su
bstat
ion Eq
uipm
ent
Weig
hted
Net
Salva
ge R
ate(20
09-2
018)
Majo
rRe
tirem
ent M
ixPla
nt M
ixNe
t Salv
age
Weig
hted
NSR
Com
pone
ntRe
tirem
ents
% of
Total
Balan
ce%
of To
talRa
te (N
SR)
Ret. W
td.
Plant
Wtd
.A
BC
DE
FG=
C*F
H=E*
FCi
rcuit
Brea
kers
$51,5
67,92
415
%$7
71,33
1,833
15%
-27%
-4%
-4%
Tran
sform
ers
$70,1
55,54
621
%$1
,091,5
83,31
421
%-1
9%-4
%-4
%M
onito
ring
Devic
es$3
3,504
,433
10%
$590
,905,0
7011
%-3
4%-3
%-4
%Bu
s Sup
port
Stru
cture
s$1
5,731
,100
5%$5
22,35
6,267
10%
-39%
-2%
-4%
Switc
hes &
Switc
h Gea
r$5
4,649
,434
16%
$593
,841,4
8311
%-2
2%-4
%-3
%Po
wer C
ontro
l Cab
le$2
1,910
,634
7%$3
62,01
4,697
7%-6
0%-4
%-4
%Ca
pacit
ors
$13,4
23,49
54%
$381
,827,5
237%
-25%
-1%
-2%
Foun
datio
ns &
Oth
er St
ructu
res
$76,0
55,56
823
%$9
53,80
5,617
18%
1%0%
0%To
tal
-22%
-24%
35
Workpaper – Southern California Edison / 2021 General Rate Case
Exhibit No. SCE-07 Vol.03 Ch I-VI Bk A Witness: D. Gunn
Southern California Edison2021 GRC Depreciation StudyAccount 353: Transmission Substation EquipmentMajor Reliability and Renewable Related Projects
Work Order Number Work Order Description Retirement Gross Salvage Cost of Removal800062461 2211-5009--BIG CREEK #1: INSTALL NE ($124,958) ($4,521) ($11,454)800062463 2211-5012--BIG CREEK #1: INSTALL A (1,177) - (1,093) 800062470 2230-5014--BIG CREEK #3: INSTALL NE (2,760) - (14,699) 800062473 CFF~2230-5017--BIG CREEK #3: INSTAL (375,599) - (125,433) 800062477 2238-5005--MAMMOTH POOL: INSTALL RE - - 24 800062479 2239-5001--EASTWOOD POWERHOUSE: INS - - (142) 800062627 5031-5026--MAGUNDEN: INSTALL RELAYS - - (6,584) 800062629 5031-5029--MAGUNDEN: INSTALL 2-N60 (222,274) - (344) 800062633 5033-5010--RECTOR: INSTALL RELAYS & (198,740) - (18,431) 800062646 CFF~5033-5068--RECTOR: EQUIP TWO LI (1,338,014) - (471,011) 800062655 5034-5017--SPRINGVILLE: INSTALL REL - - (207) 800062657 CFF~5034-5019--SPRINGVILLE: INSTALL (101,543) - (36,612) 800062680 5035-5031--VESTAL SUB: INSTALL RELA (152,315) - (14,326) 800062712 I: TRTP 1: Pardee SS Work : Equip 2 (153,376) - (70,617) 800062721 5051-5054--SAUGUS SUB: INSTALL THE (58,346) - (69,509) 800062729 I: TRTP 1: Antelope SS Work - Add 3 (249,747) - (7,119) 800062733 5052-5062--ANTELOPE SUB: PROVIDE AN (667,162) - (220,479) 800062736 cI: TRTP 3A: Antelope SS Work PIN # (82,066) - (209,593) 800062738 5052-5067--ANTELOPE: INSTALL 6-N60 - - (14) 800062751 I: TRTP 1: Vincent SS Work : Replac (280,955) - (55,284) 800062754 I: TRTP 2: Vincent SS Work : Add1-2 (95,915) - (34,128) 800062756 VINCENT: INSTALL 500 KV DOUBLE BREA (1,211,548) - (278,020) 800062786 5060-5064--PADUA SUB: INSTALL PROTE (105,652) - (7,421) 800062798 5061-5092--LUGO SUB: REPLACE SERIES - - 185 800062844 5067-5004--DEVERS: ADDITION OF NEW (1,683,466) - (345,280) 800062876 5069-5024--MIRA LOMA SUB: MODIFY 50 (106,951) - (15,077) 800062878 5069-5064--MIRA LOMA SUB: INSTALL P (165,841) - (16,929) 800062962 5080-5044--SERRANO SUB: INSTALL PRO (27,256) - (42,899) 800063024 5089-5019--LEWIS SUB: INSTALL RELAY (25,988) - (14,889) 800063026 5090-5052--ELDORADO SUB: SERIES CAP - (183,249) (19,524) 800063032 5090-5067--ELDORADO: REPLACE 4 SETS (740,367) - (45,923) 800063034 5093-5003--DEVERS-PALO VERDE #1 (CA (5,078,149) - (394,516) 800063035 5094-5004--DEVERS-PALO VERDE #1 (AZ (5,137,275) - (498,330) 800063046 5096-5062--ETIWANDA SUB: EQUIP 220K (331,697) - (393,877) 800063049 5096-5065--ETIWANDA SUB: INSTALL PR (1,821,442) - (614,995) 800063216 5564-5025--PALMDALE SUB: PROVIDE AN (13,939) - (570) 800063505 8012-5024--Mirage: Equip 230kV swit (56,838) - (90,947) 800063602 AL-8046-5045--KRAMER: INSTALL A DIR (1,621) - (7,866) 800116886 Eldorado Sub: Install new generator (8,153) - (16,383) 800121937 Devers Sub: Upgrade protection as r (210,680) - (277,617) 800182452 Eldorado: Upgrade the 500kV protect (35,722) - (297,449) 800182455 Lugo: Upgrade the 500kV protection (454,193) - (84,036) 800194054 CFF~Vestal Sub: Install necessary p (224,581) - (104,190) 800218070 I: TRTP 9: PARDEE SUB: UPGRADE PROT (867) - (43,305) 800218703 I: TRTP 9: CHINO: ADD/CHANGE & EQUI (248,475) - (1,497) 800219704 FIP-TRTP 9:GOULD:ADD CB'S ON TRANSF (87,511) - (137,225) 800228295 Apple Valley: Upgrade protection on (24,166) - (7,021) 800228297 Aqueduct: Upgrade protection on 115 (21,581) - (6,633) 800228298 Roadway: Upgrade protection on 115K (3,275) - (7,779)
36
Workpaper – Southern California Edison / 2021 General Rate Case
Exhibit No. SCE-07 Vol.03 Ch I-VI Bk A Witness: D. Gunn
Southern California Edison2021 GRC Depreciation StudyAccount 353: Transmission Substation EquipmentMajor Reliability and Renewable Related Projects
Work Order Number Work Order Description Retirement Gross Salvage Cost of Removal800228400 Phelan: Upgrade protection on 115KV (111,807) - (20,534)800228402 Hesperia: Upgrade protection on 115 (221,491) - (38,730)800228404 Savage: Upgrade protection on 115KV (834) - (12,790)800237657 Kramer Sub: Replace line protective (5,228) - (28,218)800262505 Barre: Upgrade terminal equipment a (140,552) - (97,009)800262509 Ellis: Upgrade terminal equipment a (111,546) - (171,740)800263805 Devers: Replace (10) 115kV Circuit (429,023) - (297,005)800269742 Kramer: Replace (11) 115kV Circuit (1,032,861) - (415,948)800273854 Del Amo: Install Double Breaker Con (610,535) - (69,701)800273855 Antelope: Replace (34) 66kV Circuit (2,213,267) 258,192 (339,177)800284571 Santiago: Install seven (7) 230kV C (173,236) - (206,098)800308935 CFF~Rector 230kV Switchrack: Instal (89,914) - (23,820)800432248 Devers: Upgrade three (3) 115-kV Ci (270,755) - (70,807)800473005 ALH -R: TRTP 9: VINCENT SUBSTATION (1,376,677) - (741,425)800477068 CFF~Antelope Sub: Upgrade protectio (15,649) - (64,523)800477147 CFF~Rosamond: Upgrade protection as - - (1,760)800502240 BIG CREEK #4: INSTALL NECESSARY PRO (4,769) - 3,573800502456 R: Victor: Reconstruct 115KV switch (448,110) 43,321 (997,025)800508253 R: Valley: Remove the existing 500k (34,126,434) - (1,655,907) 900289799 Big Creek #3: Install (2) N60 relay (330) - (2,083) 900290702 Sylmar Sub: 220kV Replace and upgra (14,521) - (66,328)900304932 Rector: Install relay racks equippe - - (22,218)900316934 FIP-I: Eldorado SS Upgrades, EITP - 42,374 - 900382131 R: Lugo: Install new Lugo 500kV ser (5,979,839) - (2,422,507) 900387632 CFF~R: TRTP 9: VINCENT SUBSTATION - (4,703,188) - (526,619)900389798 FIP-Vincent: Replace existing F35 r (88,099) - (10,647)900391770 CFF~R: TRTP 9: MIRA LOMA: ADD/CHANG (2,322,117) - -900439260 Eldorado: Expand 200 kV switchrack (322,987) - (251,272)900475787 CoolWater Sub: Upgrade the Line Pro - - (18,136)900501851 TRTP Segment 4 Antelope-Windhub Cro (1,227) - - 900512641 CFF~Devers Substation: The Mirage N (199,734) - (111,314)900512642 CFF~Mirage: Replace two (2) 2000A 2 (559,307) - (105,549)900516432 CFF~FIP-TRTP 9 Lugo: Replace relays (20,430) - (48,212)900526943 Devers: Replace 7-220kV CBs. (These (3,970,603) - (187,929)900566042 CFF~Devers: PHASE 1 Install relays, (9,933) - (8,284)900566043 CFF~Mirage: Phase 1 Install relays, (10,775) - (1,311)900566589 R: 8049-5066--VICTOR: INSTALL (2) N (372) - (8,332)900573117 Mountain Pass: Remove the No.1 Tran (44,373) - (29,342)900580508 Tortilla: Install two (2) 115 kV 1 (82,348) - (25,076)900591832 Barre Sub: Line Positions with Brea (7,747) - (104,905)900591833 Ellis Sub: Upgrade terminal equipme (22,511) - (147,175)900642378 Antelope: Replace/Upgrade 10 CBs (1,433,396) - (446,660)900645440 CFF~Villa Park: Equip the existing (1,072,268) - (115,560)900651062 2015 NEB Complete (3,823) - (193) 900692988 FIP-Magunden:Install protective rel (76,335) - (17,976)900713963 CFF~Kramer: Equip 1A & 2A with CBs (26,722) - (12,175)900713965 CFF~Padua: Equip 2A & 3A with CBs (582,176) - (487,951)900775062 Viejo Sub:Install one 79.2 MVAR Cap (27,081) - (4,726)900775064 Johanna: Install one 79.2 MVAR Cap (3,997) - (2,330)
37
Workpaper – Southern California Edison / 2021 General Rate Case
Exhibit No. SCE-07 Vol.03 Ch I-VI Bk A Witness: D. Gunn
Southern California Edison2021 GRC Depreciation StudyAccount 353: Transmission Substation EquipmentMajor Reliability and Renewable Related Projects
Work Order Number Work Order Description Retirement Gross Salvage Cost of Removal900775669 Ellis Sub:Extend 220kV buses 2 posi (2,849) - (4,431)900775670 Barre Sub:Equip (2) 220 kV position (133,436) - (173,316)900802371 CFF~Devers-PV Series Caps CA: Remov (137,947) - (190,834)900950822 Santa Clara: Remove RAS (137,326) - (72,207)900950829 CFF~Magunden Substation: Removal of (13,282) - (96,774)900950835 Vincent: Remove RAS (14,072) - (9,350)900951376 Lancaster: Remove RAS - - (29,590)900951377 Palmdale:Remove RAS (136,447) - (23,809)900951378 Shuttle: Remove RAS (ISO) Location: (126,234) - (25,199)900955360 Antelope: Remove RAS (254,847) - (6,335)901015230 CFF~RE~Big Creek 4 Sub: Remove 2 N6 - - (71,341)901107339 Pardee Sub -Removal of all Antelope (277,771) - (30,707)901192347 CFF~Serrano Sub: Two N60 relays & s (37,424) - (5,005)901227597 CFF~Ivanpah:replace relay on loopin (14,517) - (8,332)901237882 CFF~Gene : Install/Connect fiber Op - - (3,063)901238250 CFF~Serrano Sub: Upgrade line prote (35,269) - (51,559)901238660 CFF~San Onofre 220kV Switchyard Seg (3,879) - (319,746)901285184 CFF~Vincent Sub- SECTIONALIZING BRE (7,662,360) - (132,568)901310138 CFF~Ellis:Remve OC Under Vltg Load (188,733) - (62,721)901310319 CFF~Johanna:Remve OC Undr Vltg Lod (109,996) - -901310320 CFF~Santiago Sub: Remove all elemen (114,829) - -901330664 CFF~Pastoria Substation: Replace re (65,449) - (80,366)901355205 CFF~Antelope(NU)Equip one (1) 220 k (78,526) - (22,479)901456682 CFF~Serrano: Remove VDLT RAS (9,350) - -901456683 CFF~Valley: Remove VDLT RAS (159,899) - (67,412)901464530 CFF~Santiago Substation: Removal of (298,211) - (223,718)901509574 San Onofre 220 kV Switchyard (Phase - - (55,459)901580758 CFF~Kramer Substation: Install two (5,254) - (46,958)901833498 CFF~San Onofre 220 kV Switchyard (P - - (139,505)Total (94,919,011) 156,116 (17,523,306)
Net Salvate Rate -18.6%
38
Workpaper – Southern California Edison / 2021 General Rate Case
Exhibit No. SCE-07 Vol.03 Ch I-VI Bk A Witness: D. Gunn
SCE-07, Volume. 03, Results of Operations Depreciation Study
Chapter III: T&D Net Salvage Witness: David Gunn
Account 354: Transmission Towers
39
Workpaper – Southern California Edison / 2021 General Rate Case
Exhibit No. SCE-07 Vol.03 Ch I-VI Bk A Witness: D. Gunn
Sout
hern
Cali
forn
ia Ed
ison
2021
GRC
Dep
recia
tion S
tudy
Acco
unt 3
54: T
ransm
ission
Towe
rs an
d Fix
ture
sas
of:
1/1/
2019
Aggr
egat
e Res
ults
Origi
nal C
ost
Cost
o fCo
st of
Gros
sGr
oss
Net
Net
Units
Age o
fHi
storic
alPla
ntAg
e of
Survi
ving
Year
Retir
emen
tsRe
mov
alRe
mov
al %
Salva
geSa
lvage
%Sa
lvage
Salva
ge %
Retir
edRe
tirem
ent s
Inflat
ionBa
lance
Surv.
Plan
tUn
itsA
BC
D=C/
BE
F=E/
BG=
E-C
H=G/
BI
JK
LM
N20
09$1
97,44
9$3
31,42
016
7.9%
$1,83
50.9
%($3
29,58
5)-1
66.9%
80
62
.14.6
%$6
48,13
0,597
42.3
30,19
5
20
10$5
,196
$73,1
7414
08.2%
$6,13
311
8.0%
($67,0
41)
-129
0.2%
5
61
.84.5
%$6
75,24
0,064
42.8
30,26
8
20
11$1
,506,2
76$6
,071,8
2640
3.1%
$58,3
343.9
%($6
,013,4
92)
-399
.2%66
42.3
4.5%
$601
,728,0
4845
.130
,520
2012
$125
,956
$2,35
7,003
1871
.3%$6
,053
4.8%
($2,35
0,949
)-1
866.5
%44
65.5
3.5%
$772
,203,6
6643
.230
,686
2013
$78,4
49$1
,857,7
9823
68.2%
$8,73
011
.1%($1
,849,0
68)
-235
7.0%
72
65
.54.4
%$1
,521,1
72,51
434
.930
,957
2014
$320
,783
$1,73
7,788
541.7
%$7
2,072
22.5%
($1,66
5,716
)-5
19.3%
16
44
.83.2
%$1
,883,5
02,32
532
.431
,511
2015
$398
,483
$2,88
4,727
723.9
%$2
7,157
6.8%
($2,85
7,570
)-7
17.1%
395
92
.33.7
%$2
,259,9
72,82
630
.731
,162
2016
$849
,363
$7,70
4,046
907.0
%$0
0.0%
($7,70
4,046
)-9
07.0%
73
57
.02.8
%$2
,305,4
98,22
631
.331
,450
2017
$555
,187
$7,83
7,819
1411
.7%$1
8,595
3.3%
($7,81
9,224
)-1
408.4
%84
56.9
3.7%
$2,34
3,145
,352
32.1
31,82
5
20
18$1
12,32
3$5
,361,8
6547
73. 6%
$00.0
%($5
,361,8
65)
-477
3.6%
27
62
.44.1
%$2
,355,7
79,00
133
.431
,896
2009
-201
8$4
,149,4
64$3
6,217
,463
872.8
%$1
98,90
84.8
%($3
6,018
,555)
-868
.0%86
2
3.9%
33.4
2014
-201
8-1
136.3
%
Subp
opul
atio
n A:
Tow
ers
Origi
nal C
ost
Cost
o fCo
st of
Gros
sGr
oss
Net
Net
Units
Age o
fHi
storic
alPla
ntAg
e of
Survi
ving
Year
Retir
emen
tsRe
mov
alRe
mov
al %
Salva
geSa
lvage
%Sa
lvage
Salva
ge %
Retir
edRe
tirem
ent s
Inflat
ionBa
lance
Surv.
Plan
tUn
itsA
BC
D=C/
BE
F=E/
BG=
E-C
H=G/
BI
JK
LM
N20
09$1
97,44
9$3
31,42
016
7.9%
$1,83
50.9
%($3
29,58
5)-1
66.9%
80
62
.14.6
%$4
34,02
0,493
46.3
30,15
7
20
10$5
,196
$73,1
7414
08.2%
$6,13
311
8.0%
($67,0
41)
-129
0.2%
5
61
.84.5
%$4
35,14
7,765
47.3
30,15
3
20
11$1
,506,2
76$6
,071,8
2640
3.1%
$58,3
343.9
%($6
,013,4
92)
-399
.2%66
42.3
4.5%
$576
,777,7
3345
.530
,343
2012
$125
,956
$2,35
7,003
1871
.3%$6
,053
4.8%
($2,35
0,949
)-1
866.5
%44
65.5
3.5%
$654
,207,1
2145
.130
,498
2013
$78,4
49$1
,857,7
9823
68.2%
$8,73
011
.1%($1
,849,0
68)
-235
7.0%
72
65
.54.4
%$7
54,00
0,292
44.5
30,58
0
20
14$3
20,78
3$1
,737,7
8854
1.7%
$72,0
7222
.5%($1
,665,7
16)
-519
.3%16
44.8
3.2%
$1,22
3,166
,703
38.9
31,12
6
20
15$3
98,48
3$2
,884,7
2772
3.9%
$27,1
576.8
%($2
,857,5
70)
-717
.1%39
5
92.3
3.7%
$1,24
1,074
,761
39.7
30,65
7
20
16$8
49,36
3$7
,704,0
4690
7.0%
$00.0
%($7
,704,0
46)
-907
.0%73
57.0
2.8%
$1,71
5,626
,224
35.9
30,87
9
20
17$5
55,18
7$7
,837,8
1914
11.7%
$18,5
953.3
%($7
,819,2
24)
-140
8.4%
84
56
.93.7
%$1
,901,6
71,64
735
.331
,396
2018
$112
,323
$5,36
1,865
4773
. 6%$0
0.0%
($5,36
1,865
)-4
773.6
%27
62.4
4.1%
$1,93
5,696
,473
36.5
31,49
9
20
09-2
018
$4,14
9,464
$36,2
17,46
387
2.8%
$198
,908
4.8%
($36,0
18,55
5)-8
68.0%
862
36
.5
40
Workpaper – Southern California Edison / 2021 General Rate Case
Exhibit No. SCE-07 Vol.03 Ch I-VI Bk A Witness: D. Gunn
Southern California Edison2021 GRC Depreciation StudyAccount 354: Transmission Towers and FixturesTransmission Tower Unit Cost
Authorized Net Salvage Rate -60%2018 Surviving Plant $1,935,696,473Future Net Salvage ($1,161,417,884)Surviving Units 31,499Authorized Net Salvage $/Unit ($36,872)
Average Cost to Retire 2009-2018Experienced Net Salvage ($36,018,555)Units Retired 862Experienced Net Salvage $/Unit ($41,784.87)
41
Workpaper – Southern California Edison / 2021 General Rate Case
Exhibit No. SCE-07 Vol.03 Ch I-VI Bk A Witness: D. Gunn
Sout
hern
Cali
forn
ia Ed
ison
2021
GRC
Dep
recia
tion S
tudy
Acco
unt 3
54: T
rans
miss
ion To
wers
and
Fixtu
res
Teha
chap
i Ren
ewab
le Tr
ansm
ission
Proje
ct (TR
TP) A
djustm
ent
Wor
k Ord
er
Num
ber
Desc
riptio
nAc
tivity
Ye
arRe
tirem
ent
Quan
tity
Retir
emen
t Am
ount
Net S
alvag
eNe
t Salv
age
Rate
8002
1721
8R:
TRTP
5-1:
ANTE
LOPE
-VIN
CENT
& A
NT20
14(15
5)
($697
,131)
$080
0217
218
R: TR
TP 5-
1: AN
TELO
PE-V
INCE
NT &
ANT
2015
- -
(5,06
7,875
)
8002
1721
8R:
TRTP
5-1:
ANTE
LOPE
-VIN
CENT
& A
NT20
16-
-(17
1,604
)
80
0217
309
R: TR
TP 6-
1: AN
TELO
PE-M
ESA
220K
V: R
2015
(113)
(37
2,699
)
(14,27
9,517
)
80
0217
309
R: TR
TP 6-
1: AN
TELO
PE-M
ESA
220K
V: R
2016
-
- 92
,761
8002
1737
4SC
JS R
: TRT
P 11-
3: Ea
gle R
ock-
Pard
2017
(50)
(30
0,992
)
(5,09
5,553
)
8002
1812
1R:
TRTP
7-1:
ANTE
LOPE
-MES
A 22
0KV:
R20
17(38
)
(405,2
14)
(11
,662,3
67)
8002
1812
1R:
TRTP
7-1:
ANTE
LOPE
-MES
A 22
0KV:
R20
18-
-(23
)
8002
1812
1R:
TRTP
7-1:
ANTE
LOPE
-MES
A 22
0KV:
R20
19-
-(3)
8002
1850
7R:
TRTP
8-1:
ET-0
0689
MES
A-W
ALNU
T &20
17-
-(6,
477,6
38)
80
0218
586
R: TR
TP 8-
6: CH
INO-
MIR
A LO
MA
#1, #
220
17-
-(14
,602,6
92)
8002
1860
0R:
TRTP
8-5:
CHIN
O-M
ESA
220K
V: RE
MO
2017
(24)
(66
7,368
)
(7,62
6,633
)
Tota
l(3
80)
(2
,443,4
04)
(6
4,891
,145)
2656
%
42
Workpaper – Southern California Edison / 2021 General Rate Case
Exhibit No. SCE-07 Vol.03 Ch I-VI Bk A Witness: D. Gunn
SCE-07, Volume. 03, Results of Operations Depreciation Study
Chapter III: T&D Net Salvage Witness: David Gunn
Account 355: Transmission Poles
43
Workpaper – Southern California Edison / 2021 General Rate Case
Exhibit No. SCE-07 Vol.03 Ch I-VI Bk A Witness: D. Gunn
Sout
hern
Cali
forn
ia Ed
ison
2021
GRC
Dep
recia
tion S
tudy
Acco
unt 3
55: T
rans
miss
ion Po
les an
d Fixt
ures
as of
:1/
1/20
19
Aggr
egat
e Res
ults
Origi
nal C
ost
Cost
ofCo
st of
Gros
sGr
oss
Net
Net
Units
Age o
fHi
storic
alPla
ntAg
e of
Survi
ving
Year
Retir
emen
tsRe
mov
alRe
mov
al %
Salva
geSa
lvage
%Sa
lvage
Salva
ge %
Retir
edRe
tirem
ents
Inflat
ionBa
lance
Surv.
Plan
tUn
itsA
BC
D=C/
BE
F=E/
BG=
E-C
H=G/
BI
JK
LM
N20
09$3
,132,1
43$4
,007,2
5912
7.9%
$738
,346
23.6%
($3,26
8,913
)-1
04.4%
1,755
55
.63.4
%$4
69,62
5,318
38.8
120,9
11
2010
$3,50
5,243
$3,02
7,370
86.4%
$105
,781
3.0%
($2,92
1,589
)-8
3.3%
1,076
40
.12.7
%$5
17,95
3,902
38.4
121,4
40
2011
$5,96
1,191
$7,39
2,044
124.0
%$3
83,44
96.4
%($7
,008,5
95)
-117
.6%1,7
59
40.4
2.5%
$545
,742,6
4238
.512
1,673
20
12$4
,911,3
60$1
0,510
,680
214.0
%$3
40,24
66.9
%($1
0,170
,434)
-207
.1%2,1
72
56.9
3.1%
$603
,692,2
5437
.612
1,610
20
13$3
,360,4
93$1
0,353
,567
308.1
%$3
39,57
510
.1%($1
0,013
,992)
-298
.0%1,7
49
51.9
2.9%
$699
,098,4
4336
.212
2,818
20
14$7
,380,3
35$1
4,507
,538
196.6
%$8
13,23
511
.0%($1
3,694
,302)
-185
.6%2,8
18
54.9
2.8%
$838
,670,0
9833
.712
3,366
20
15$9
,485,0
39$2
0,784
,708
219.1
%$1
,730,4
3218
.2%($1
9,054
,276)
-200
.9%3,3
67
48.7
2.6%
$1,00
8,567
,359
31.3
125,0
45
2016
$12,3
69,15
2$3
5,572
,723
287.6
%$4
03,37
83.3
%($3
5,169
,345)
-284
.3%5,9
22
51.1
2.8%
$1,15
8,164
,968
29.4
125,7
11
2017
$20,4
89,65
5$3
7,059
,921
180.9
%$7
98,35
03.9
%($3
6,261
,571)
-177
.0%5,1
87
43.1
2.2%
$1,29
2,702
,467
28.0
125,7
14
2018
$18,4
70,93
8$3
3,794
,190
183.0
%$1
,797,1
419.7
%($3
1,997
,049)
-173
. 2%4,8
86
50.4
2.3%
$1,49
9,628
,983
25.8
125,4
98
2009
-201
8$8
9,065
,549
$177
,010,0
0019
8.7%
$7,44
9,932
8.4%
($169
,560,0
68)
-190
.4%30
,691
2.7%
25.8
2014
-201
8-1
99.7%
2009
-201
3-1
60.0%
Subp
opul
atio
n A:
Woo
d, Fi
berg
lass,
& Co
mpo
site P
oles
Origi
nal C
ost
Cost
ofCo
st of
Gros
sGr
oss
Net
Net
Units
Age o
fHi
storic
alPla
ntAg
e of
Survi
ving
Year
Retir
emen
tsRe
mov
alRe
mov
al %
Salva
geSa
lvage
%Sa
lvage
Salva
ge %
Retir
edRe
tirem
ents
Inflat
ionBa
lance
Surv.
Plan
tUn
itsA
BC
D=C/
BE
F=E/
BG=
E-C
H=G/
BI
JK
LM
N20
09$2
,405,8
08$3
,736,4
7415
5.3%
$738
,037
30.7%
($2,99
8,437
)-1
24.6%
1,696
58
.43.6
%$2
55,94
6,984
46.2
111,6
03
2010
$1,79
4,584
$2,85
7,862
159.2
%$1
02,89
65.7
%($2
,754,9
66)
-153
.5%1,0
40
48.5
3.1%
$261
,371,5
9046
.911
1,271
20
11$4
,837,3
91$6
,873,2
0114
2.1%
$383
,224
7.9%
($6,48
9,977
)-1
34.2%
1,712
42
.92.5
%$2
71,88
4,083
47.3
110,7
32
2012
$3,74
9,145
$9,61
2,635
256.4
%$9
8,843
2.6%
($9,51
3,792
)-2
53.8%
2,098
60
.03.2
%$2
88,87
0,972
47.1
109,9
55
2013
$2,91
3,790
$9,54
2,113
327.5
%$3
480.0
%($9
,541,7
65)
-327
.5%1,7
22
53.4
3.0%
$310
,005,5
7446
.910
9,583
20
14$6
,827,7
44$1
3,575
,014
198.8
%$2
91,69
24.3
%($1
3,283
,322)
-194
.5%2,7
92
55.9
2.8%
$330
,333,7
3846
.510
8,728
20
15$8
,363,8
97$2
0,577
,878
246.0
%$2
14,78
32.6
%($2
0,363
,096)
-243
.5%3,3
17
50.2
2.6%
$375
,781,5
6045
.210
8,687
20
16$9
,014,5
94$3
4,076
,901
378.0
%$3
52,85
53.9
%($3
3,724
,046)
-374
.1%5,7
58
54.5
2.9%
$461
,795,6
3842
.210
7,643
20
17$1
8,394
,349
$34,6
49,87
218
8.4%
$791
,779
4.3%
($33,8
58,09
3)-1
84.1%
5,091
44
.22.2
%$5
35,59
4,472
40.0
107,2
90
2018
$16,8
72,63
7$3
0,025
,846
178.0
%$1
,796,2
7710
.6%($2
8,229
,569)
-167
. 3%4,8
03
51.7
2.3%
$604
,178,2
2337
.910
7,042
20
09-2
018
$75,1
73,94
0$1
65,52
7,796
220.2
%$4
,770,7
336.3
%($1
60,75
7,063
)-2
13.8%
30,02
9
37
.920
14-2
018
-217
.7%
44
Workpaper – Southern California Edison / 2021 General Rate Case
Exhibit No. SCE-07 Vol.03 Ch I-VI Bk A Witness: D. Gunn
Sout
hern
Cali
forn
ia Ed
ison
2021
GRC
Dep
recia
tion S
tudy
Acco
unt 3
55: T
rans
miss
ion Po
les an
d Fixt
ures
as of
:1/
1/20
19
Subp
opul
atio
n B:
Stee
l & C
oncr
ete P
oles
Origi
nal C
ost
Cost
ofCo
st of
Gros
sGr
oss
Net
Net
Units
Age o
fHi
storic
alPla
ntAg
e of
Survi
ving
Year
Retir
emen
tsRe
mov
alRe
mov
al %
Salva
geSa
lvage
%Sa
lvage
Salva
ge %
Retir
edRe
tirem
ents
Inflat
ionBa
lance
Surv.
Plan
tUn
itsA
BC
D=C/
BE
F=E/
BG=
E-C
H=G/
BI
JK
LM
N20
09$7
26,33
5$2
70,78
537
.3%$3
100.0
%($2
70,47
5)-3
7.2%
59
27
.63.6
%$1
75,55
6,644
19.7
8,249
2010
$1,71
0,659
$169
,508
9.9%
$2,88
40.2
%($1
66,62
4)-9
.7%36
12.0
2.6%
$184
,173,6
6020
.28,8
43
20
11$1
,123,7
99$5
18,84
346
.2%$2
250.0
%($5
18,61
8)-4
6.1%
47
27
.03.1
%$2
44,73
8,628
18.1
9,584
2012
$1,16
2,216
$898
,045
77.3%
$241
,403
20.8%
($656
,642)
-56.5
%74
29.2
3.0%
$278
,266,7
0817
.710
,453
2013
$446
,702
$811
,454
181.7
%$3
39,22
875
.9%($4
72,22
7)-1
05.7%
27
27
.02.6
%$3
14,60
2,153
17.3
11,55
4
20
14$5
52,59
1$9
32,52
316
8.8%
$521
,543
94.4%
($410
,980)
-74.4
%26
24.6
2.6%
$392
,894,7
8215
.912
,486
2015
$1,12
1,142
$206
,830
18.4%
$1,51
5,649
135.2
%$1
,308,8
1911
6.7%
50
28
.02.5
%$4
20,31
1,160
16.1
13,29
5
20
16$3
,354,5
58$1
,495,8
2244
.6%$5
0,523
1.5%
($1,44
5,299
)-4
3.1%
164
30
.22.6
%$4
81,62
2,988
15.5
14,13
1
20
17$2
,095,3
06$2
,410,0
4911
5.0%
$6,57
10.3
%($2
,403,4
79)
-114
.7%96
31.1
2.6%
$623
,249,8
1813
.915
,132
2018
$1,59
8,301
$3,76
8,344
235.8
%$8
640.1
%($3
,767,4
80)
-235
.7%83
31. 7
2.5%
$656
,324,3
4014
.315
,735
2009
-201
8$1
3,891
,608
$11,4
82,20
482
.7%$2
,679,2
0019
.3%($8
,803,0
05)
-63.4
%66
2
14.3
2014
-201
8-7
7.0%
45
Workpaper – Southern California Edison / 2021 General Rate Case
Exhibit No. SCE-07 Vol.03 Ch I-VI Bk A Witness: D. Gunn
Sout
hern
Cali
forn
ia Ed
ison
2021
GRC
Dep
recia
tion S
tudy
Acco
unt 3
55: T
rans
miss
ion Po
les an
d Fix
ture
sW
eight
ed N
et Sa
lvage
Rate
(2014
-201
8)
Majo
rRe
tirem
ent M
ixPla
nt M
ixNe
t Salv
age
Weig
hted
NSR
Com
pone
ntRe
tirem
ents
% of
Total
Balan
ce%
of To
talRa
te (N
SR)
Ret. W
td.
Plant
Wtd
.A
BC
DE
FG=
C*F
H=E*
FW
ood,
Fiber
glass,
& C
ompo
site P
oles
$75,1
73,94
084
%$6
04,17
8,223
48%
-218
%-1
84%
-104
%St
eel &
Con
crete
Poles
$13,8
91,60
816
%$6
56,32
4,340
52%
-77%
-12%
-40%
Tota
l-1
96%
-144
%
46
Workpaper – Southern California Edison / 2021 General Rate Case
Exhibit No. SCE-07 Vol.03 Ch I-VI Bk A Witness: D. Gunn
Southern California Edison2021 GRC Depreciation StudyAccount 355: Transmission Poles and FixturesWeighted Net Salvage Rate(2014-2018)
Recorded Net Salvage Rate Per Transmission PoleNet Salvage $ ($136,176,544)Retirement $ $68,195,119
Net Salvage $/ Pole Retired ($136,176,544) / 22,180 Retirement $/ Pole Retired $68,195,119 / 22,180
Net Salvage $/ Pole Retired -$6,140Retirement $/ Pole Retired $3,075
Net Salvage Rate by Type of PoleSteel PolesNet Salvage $/ Pole Retired ($6,718,419) / 419 ($16,034)Retirement $/ Pole Retired $8,721,897 / 419 $20,816
Wood PolesNet Salvage $/ Pole Retired ($129,458,126) / 21,761 ($5,949)Retirement $/ Pole Retired $59,473,222 / 21,761 $2,733
-200%
=
= = -200%
=
= =
= = -77%
= = = -218%
47
Workpaper – Southern California Edison / 2021 General Rate Case
Exhibit No. SCE-07 Vol.03 Ch I-VI Bk A Witness: D. Gunn
SCE-07, Volume. 03, Results of Operations Depreciation Study
Chapter III: T&D Net Salvage Witness: David Gunn
Account 356: Transmission Overhead Conductor and Devices
48
Workpaper – Southern California Edison / 2021 General Rate Case
Exhibit No. SCE-07 Vol.03 Ch I-VI Bk A Witness: D. Gunn
Sout
hern
Cali
forn
ia Ed
ison
2021
GRC
Dep
recia
tion S
tudy
Acco
unt 3
56: T
rans
miss
ion O
H Co
nduc
tors
& De
vices
as of
:1/
1/20
19
Aggr
egat
e Res
ults
Origi
nal C
ost
Cost
ofCo
st of
Gros
sGr
oss
Net
Net
Units
Age o
fHi
storic
alPla
ntAg
e of
Survi
ving
Year
Retir
emen
tsRe
mov
alRe
mov
al %
Salva
geSa
lvage
%Sa
lvage
Salva
ge %
Retir
edRe
tirem
ents
Inflat
ionBa
lance
Surv.
Plan
tUn
itsA
BC
D=C/
BE
F=E/
BG=
E-C
H=G/
BI
JK
LM
N20
09$1
,102,1
85$3
,491,4
4031
6.8%
$159
,408
14.5%
($3,33
2,031
)-3
02.3%
458,4
22
45
.13.0
%$5
78,23
0,435
44.4
238,5
73,91
8
20
10$2
01,18
8$1
,294,3
5464
3.4%
$6,20
13.1
%($1
,288,1
53)
-640
.3%14
8,854
60.2
4.0%
$614
,853,4
1644
.823
8,902
,194
2011
$2,67
7,044
$7,88
0,086
294.4
%$1
10,68
44.1
%($7
,769,4
03)
-290
.2%1,0
78,99
1
49.7
3.2%
$617
,979,7
1945
.724
1,406
,701
2012
$1,29
1,319
$4,71
1,216
364.8
%$6
5,890
5.1%
($4,64
5,326
)-3
59.7%
581,9
57
58
.13.3
%$7
06,02
0,711
45.2
242,4
57,70
9
20
13$5
68,67
4$4
,952,7
6287
0.9%
$60,4
9910
.6%($4
,892,2
63)
-860
.3%52
5,190
58.5
3.8%
$986
,734,4
7642
.224
4,263
,979
2014
$1,05
8,469
$4,76
0,866
449.8
%$9
7,020
9.2%
($4,66
3,846
)-4
40.6%
1,038
,675
50
.73.9
%$1
,275,4
27,82
939
.625
2,753
,908
2015
$1,16
8,780
$3,13
9,256
268.6
%$7
9,001
6.8%
($3,06
0,255
)-2
61.8%
142,7
63
42
.52.6
%$1
,482,1
07,62
438
.325
2,200
,313
2016
$1,36
6,762
$1,20
6,369
88.3%
$421
,855
30.9%
($784
,515)
-57.4
%36
5,309
45.1
2.9%
$1,50
0,611
,244
38.8
255,6
28,47
2
20
17$5
,575,9
39$9
,123,2
5216
3.6%
$13,5
970.2
%($9
,109,6
54)
-163
.4%63
2,848
28.4
2.2%
$1,52
4,531
,167
39.5
259,0
80,64
4
20
18$4
,593,8
51$1
0,226
,120
222.6
%$8
640.0
%($1
0,225
,256)
-222
. 6%2,1
89,77
9
54.5
2.8%
$1,65
3,078
,279
39.2
259,1
36,08
5
20
09-2
018
$19,6
04,21
2$5
0,785
,722
259.1
%$1
,015,0
195.2
%($4
9,770
,703)
-253
.9%7,1
62,78
8
3.2%
39.2
2014
-201
8-2
02.3%
2009
-201
3-3
75.4%
Subp
opul
atio
n A:
OH
Cond
ucto
r and
Gro
und
Wire
Origi
nal C
ost
Cost
ofCo
st of
Gros
sGr
oss
Net
Net
Units
Age o
fHi
storic
alPla
ntAg
e of
Survi
ving
Year
Retir
emen
tsRe
mov
alRe
mov
al %
Salva
geSa
lvage
%Sa
lvage
Salva
ge %
Retir
edRe
tirem
ents
Inflat
ionBa
lance
Surv.
Plan
tUn
itsA
BC
D=C/
BE
F=E/
BG=
E-C
H=G/
BI
JK
LM
N20
09$9
83,90
4$3
,388,0
1034
4.3%
$159
,408
16.2%
($3,22
8,602
)-3
28.1%
458,4
03
46
.23.0
%$4
97,18
0,279
45.8
238,5
72,31
2
20
10$1
53,72
9$1
,253,6
2681
5.5%
$6,20
14.0
%($1
,247,4
24)
-811
.4%14
8,839
62.7
4.1%
$501
,825,0
2946
.723
8,900
,505
2011
$2,59
4,937
$6,78
2,891
261.4
%$1
10,48
24.3
%($6
,672,4
08)
-257
.1%1,0
78,96
9
49.9
3.2%
$559
,000,1
1246
.724
1,404
,929
2012
$1,03
4,505
$4,49
6,999
434.7
%$6
5,890
6.4%
($4,43
1,109
)-4
28.3%
581,9
22
59
.83.5
%$5
96,26
0,568
47.0
242,4
55,92
0
20
13$4
05,92
2$4
,802,2
1611
83.0%
$60,4
9914
.9%($4
,741,7
18)
-116
8.1%
525,1
62
60
.84.1
%$6
62,03
3,497
46.9
244,2
61,94
7
20
14$7
44,20
8$4
,066,1
9354
6.4%
$97,0
2013
.0%($3
,969,1
72)
-533
.3%1,0
38,61
9
51.5
4.2%
$1,04
2,359
,882
42.4
252,7
51,88
8
20
15$2
01,63
8$2
,221,2
0211
01.6%
$79,0
0139
.2%($2
,142,2
01)
-106
2.4%
142,6
68
58
.63.4
%$1
,054,9
35,56
143
.025
2,198
,080
2016
$594
,409
$458
,681
77.2%
$421
,855
71.0%
($36,8
27)
-6.2%
365,2
15
52
.23.3
%$1
,164,9
56,25
642
.425
5,626
,090
2017
$4,25
7,100
$7,76
6,650
182.4
%$1
3,591
0.3%
($7,75
3,059
)-1
82.1%
632,7
44
29
.12.2
%$1
,282,8
19,91
742
.025
9,078
,318
2018
$2,74
3,127
$8,95
6,022
326.5
%$8
640.0
%($8
,955,1
59)
-326
. 5%2,1
89,70
0
60.0
3.2%
$1,30
9,320
,655
42.6
259,1
33,70
3
20
09-2
018
$13,7
13,47
8$4
4,192
,489
322.3
%$1
,014,8
117.4
%($4
3,177
,678)
-314
.9%7,1
62,24
1
42.6
2014
-201
8-2
67.6%
49
Workpaper – Southern California Edison / 2021 General Rate Case
Exhibit No. SCE-07 Vol.03 Ch I-VI Bk A Witness: D. Gunn
Sout
hern
Cali
forn
ia Ed
ison
2021
GRC
Dep
recia
tion S
tudy
Acco
unt 3
56: T
rans
miss
ion O
H Co
nduc
tors
& De
vices
as of
:1/
1/20
19
Subp
opul
atio
n B:
Switc
hes
Origi
nal C
ost
Cost
ofCo
st of
Gros
sGr
oss
Net
Net
Units
Age o
fHi
storic
alPla
ntAg
e of
Survi
ving
Year
Retir
emen
tsRe
mov
alRe
mov
al %
Salva
geSa
lvage
%Sa
lvage
Salva
ge %
Retir
edRe
tirem
ents
Inflat
ionBa
lance
Surv.
Plan
tUn
itsA
BC
D=C/
BE
F=E/
BG=
E-C
H=G/
BI
JK
LM
N20
09$1
18,28
1$1
03,43
087
.4%$0
0.0%
($103
,430)
-87.4
%19
32.1
3.1%
$14,4
80,15
120
.21,4
34
20
10$4
7,459
$40,7
2985
.8%$0
0.0%
($40,7
29)
-85.8
%15
39.6
4.1%
$14,7
63,40
920
.81,4
34
20
11$8
2,107
$1,09
7,196
1336
.3%$2
020.2
%($1
,096,9
94)
-133
6.1%
22
42
.03.6
%$1
6,120
,020
20.5
1,456
2012
$256
,814
$214
,218
83.4%
$00.0
%($2
14,21
8)-8
3.4%
35
35
.92.6
%$1
7,261
,462
20.3
1,453
2013
$162
,752
$150
,545
92.5%
$00.0
%($1
50,54
5)-9
2.5%
28
36
.33.0
%$1
9,056
,414
19.8
1,462
2014
$314
,261
$694
,673
221.0
%$0
0.0%
($694
,673)
-221
.0%56
45.3
2.6%
$23,0
58,61
517
.71,4
89
20
15$9
67,14
2$9
18,05
494
.9%$0
0.0%
($918
,054)
-94.9
%95
31.2
2.4%
$27,7
61,81
715
.51,5
33
20
16$7
72,35
4$7
47,68
896
.8%$0
0.0%
($747
,688)
-96.8
%94
32.8
2.7%
$32,6
00,78
614
.01,5
42
20
17$1
,318,8
39$1
,356,6
0210
2.9%
$60.0
%($1
,356,5
95)
-102
.9%10
4
26
.22.5
%$3
9,180
,043
12.4
1,573
2018
$1,85
0,725
$1,27
0,097
68.6%
$00.0
%($1
,270,0
97)
-68. 6
%79
18.5
2.1%
$43,1
35,04
811
.81,6
00
20
09-2
018
$5,89
0,733
$6,59
3,232
111.9
%$2
080.0
%($6
,593,0
24)
-111
.9%54
7
11
.820
14-2
018
-95.5
%
50
Workpaper – Southern California Edison / 2021 General Rate Case
Exhibit No. SCE-07 Vol.03 Ch I-VI Bk A Witness: D. Gunn
Sout
hern
Cali
forn
ia Ed
ison
2021
GRC
Dep
recia
tion S
tudy
Acco
unt 3
56: T
rans
miss
ion O
H Co
nduc
tors
& De
vices
Weig
hted
Net
Salva
ge R
ate(20
09-2
018)
Majo
rRe
tirem
ent M
ixPla
nt M
ixNe
t Salv
age
Weig
hted
NSR
Com
pone
ntRe
tirem
ents
% of
Total
Balan
ce%
of To
talRa
te (N
SR)
Ret. W
td.
Plant
Wtd
.A
BC
DE
FG=
C*F
H=E*
FOH
Con
ducto
r & G
roun
d W
ire$1
3,713
,478
70%
$1,30
9,320
,655
97%
-315
%-2
20%
-305
%Sw
itche
s$5
,890,7
3330
%$4
3,135
,048
3%-1
12%
-34%
-4%
Tota
l-2
54%
-308
%
51
Workpaper – Southern California Edison / 2021 General Rate Case
Exhibit No. SCE-07 Vol.03 Ch I-VI Bk A Witness: D. Gunn
Southern California Edison2021 GRC Depreciation StudyAccount 356: Transmission OH Conductors & DevicesNet Salvage Rate Per Foot of OH Conductor(2014-2018)
Recorded Net Salvage Rate Per Foot of OH ConductorNet Salvage $ ($27,843,526)Retirement $ $13,763,802
Net Salvage $/ Feet Retired ($27,843,526) / 4,368,946 Retirement $/ Feet Retired $13,763,802 / 4,368,946
Net Salvage $/ Feet Retired ($6.37)Retirement $/ Feet Retired $3.15
Net Salvage Rate Per Foot of OH Conductor - Current RetirementRecent Retirements: Net Salvage $/ Foot - Current -$6.37Original Plant $/ Foot $3.15
Plant Balance (If Reitred Today):Net Salvage $/ Foot - Current ($27,843,526) / 4,368,946 Original Plant $/ Foot $1,653,078,279 / 259,133,703
Net Salvage $/ Foot - Current -$6.37Original Plant $/ Foot $6.38
Net Salvage Rate Per Foot of OH Conductor - Future RetirementPlant Balance (Future Retirement):Net Salvage $/ Foot - FutureOriginal Plant $/ Foot
Net Salvage $/ Foot - FutureOriginal Plant $/ Foot
Net Salvage $/ Foot - Future -$15.71Original Plant $/ Foot $6.38
= = -202%
= -202%
=
=
= = -202%
=
= = -100%
= = -246%
= -$6.37 X (1 + Escalation Rate)^Remaining Life$6.38
= -$6.37 X (1.0286)^32 years$6.38
52
Workpaper – Southern California Edison / 2021 General Rate Case
Exhibit No. SCE-07 Vol.03 Ch I-VI Bk A Witness: D. Gunn
Sout
hern
Cali
forn
ia Ed
ison
2021
GRC
Dep
recia
tion S
tud y
Acco
unt 3
56: T
rans
miss
ion O
H Co
nduc
tors
& De
vices
Majo
r Ren
ewab
le Tr
ansm
ission
Proje
cts
Wor
k Ord
er N
umbe
rDe
scrip
tion
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
Gran
d To
tal80
0217
218
R: TR
TP 5-
1: AN
TELO
PE-V
INCE
NT &
ANT
$0$0
(1,56
4,741
)$
(52,98
5)$
$0
$0(1,
617,7
25)
$
80
0217
309
R: TR
TP 6-
1: AN
TELO
PE-M
ESA
220K
V: R
(3,70
7,851
)
24,08
7
(3,68
3,764
)
8002
1732
3R:
TRTP
6-3:
RIO
HOND
O-VI
NCEN
T #2 2
- (14
,114,5
97)
(14
,114,5
97)
80
0217
374
SC JS
R: T
RTP 1
1-3:
Eagle
Roc
k-Pa
rd(2,
053,0
99)
(2,
053,0
99)
80
0218
121
R: TR
TP 7-
1: AN
TELO
PE-M
ESA
220K
V: R
(1,47
7,068
)
(1) (1,
477,0
69)
8002
1850
7R:
TRTP
8-1:
ET-0
0689
MES
A-W
ALNU
T &(3,
309,1
81)
(3,
309,1
81)
8002
1853
7R:
TRTP
8-3:
CENT
ER-O
LINDA
<(>
&<)>
(1,
383,5
53)
(1,
383,5
53)
8002
1858
6R:
TRTP
8-6:
CHIN
O-M
IRA
LOM
A #1
, #2
(1,82
2,850
)
(1,82
2,850
)80
0218
600
R: TR
TP 8-
5: CH
INO-
MES
A 22
0KV:
REM
O(1,
202,4
94)
(1,
202,4
94)
8003
0757
7CO
TRTP
8 Ins
tall 1
9 L.W
.S.P's
and
(122,5
21)
6,850
(11
5,671
)
8003
0757
8CO
Nav
a: TR
TP In
stall n
ew 66
kv co
nd(16
7,703
)
(16
7,703
)
8003
0757
9CO
TRTP
8 Pr
oject-
4305
-599
4 - In
st(13
1,171
)
(13
1,171
)
8003
0827
4CO
TRTP
8Ins
tall U
.G. 4
305-
5995
. Sy
(102,6
66)
(102,6
66)
80
0308
275
CO TR
TP Se
g 8 4
305-
5996
Insta
ll U.G
(60,04
0)
(60,04
0)
80
0308
276
CO TR
TP 8
Instal
l U.G
. 430
5-59
97. I
(62,51
5)
(62,51
5)
80
0308
277
CO TR
TP 8
Instal
l U.G
. 430
5-59
12B.
(114,0
81)
(114,0
81)
80
0308
278
CO TR
TP 8
Instal
l U.G
. 430
5-59
99. I
- -
8005
0482
6R:
TRTP
7-2:
VINC
ENT-
RIO
HOND
O #2
: (25
,994)
(25
,994)
8005
0483
1CO
- R:
TRTP
8-8:
MIR
A LO
MA-
VINC
ENT
(27,79
0)
(27,79
0)
80
0504
835
R: DC
R: De
vers-
Valle
y #1 5
00kV
T/L
(108,0
29)
(10
8,029
)
8005
0483
7R:
DCR:
Loop
-in D
PV#1
500k
V T/
L int
(128,8
95)
(12
8,895
)
9004
0733
7Sa
n Joa
quin
Cros
s Vall
ey Lo
op (S
JXV
- (5,
230,1
25)
(5,
230,1
25)
90
0501
851
TRTP
Segm
ent 4
Ant
elope
-Wind
hub
Cro
(32,62
4)
(32,62
4)
To
tal-
(1,50
6,073
)
(5,27
2,591
)
(5,95
0,763
)
(24,24
2,207
)
(1) (3
6,971
,636)
53
Workpaper – Southern California Edison / 2021 General Rate Case
Exhibit No. SCE-07 Vol.03 Ch I-VI Bk A Witness: D. Gunn
SCE-07, Volume. 03, Results of Operations Depreciation Study
Chapter III: T&D Net Salvage Witness: David Gunn
Account 357: Transmission Underground Conduit
54
Workpaper – Southern California Edison / 2021 General Rate Case
Exhibit No. SCE-07 Vol.03 Ch I-VI Bk A Witness: D. Gunn
Sout
hern
Cali
forn
ia Ed
ison
2021
GRC
Dep
recia
tion S
tud y
Acco
unt 3
57: T
rans
miss
ion U
G Co
nduit
as o
f:1/
1/20
19
Aggr
egat
e Res
ults
Origi
nal C
ost
Cost
o fCo
st of
Gros
sGr
oss
Net
Net
Units
Age o
fHi
storic
alPla
ntAg
e of
Year
Retir
emen
tsRe
mov
alRe
mov
al %
Salva
geSa
lvage
%Sa
lvage
Salva
ge %
Retir
edRe
tirem
ents
Inflat
ionBa
lance
Surv.
Plan
tA
BC
D=C/
BE
F=E/
BG=
E-C
H=G/
BI
JK
LM
2009
$83,8
10$7
340.9
%$1
,835
2.2%
$1,10
11.3
%94
39.5
4.3%
$40,2
30,41
922
.320
10$0
$153
,757
0.0%
$2,60
30.0
%($1
51,15
4)0.0
%-
$4
2,767
,669
22.7
2011
$223
,127
$624
0.3%
$8,94
34.0
%$8
,319
3.7%
20,88
9
33
.83.6
%$4
6,153
,375
22.7
2012
$0$0
0.0%
$00.0
%$0
0.0%
-
$48,5
17,03
323
.120
13$7
,867
$126
,992
1614
.3%($2
31)
-2.9%
($127
,223)
-161
7.2%
1
27
.53.1
%$5
4,837
,628
22.8
2014
$0$0
0.0%
$00.0
%$0
0.0%
-
$56,3
04,66
623
.520
15$2
3,257
$00.0
%$0
0.0%
$00.0
%3
31.6
3.4%
$61,0
87,06
223
.520
16$0
$76,9
970.0
%$0
0.0%
($76,9
97)
0.0%
-
$253
,220,2
909.8
2017
$12,8
40$3
65,40
828
46.0%
$00.0
%($3
65,40
8)-2
846.0
%50
5
42.8
3.4%
$256
,348,0
2110
.720
18$0
$00.0
%$0
0.0%
$00.0
%-
$2
73,06
5,006
11.2
2009
-201
8$3
50,90
1$7
24,51
220
6.5%
$13,1
503.7
%($7
11,36
2)-2
02.7%
21,49
2
3.6
%11
.2
Subp
opul
atio
n A:
Con
duit
Origi
nal C
ost
Cost
o fCo
st of
Gros
sGr
oss
Net
Net
Units
Age o
fHi
storic
alPla
ntAg
e of
Year
Retir
emen
tsRe
mov
alRe
mov
al %
Salva
geSa
lvage
%Sa
lvage
Salva
ge %
Retir
edRe
tirem
ents
Inflat
ionBa
lance
Surv.
Plan
tA
BC
D=C/
BE
F=E/
BG=
E-C
H=G/
BI
JK
LM
2009
$635
$734
115.6
%$1
,835
288.8
%$1
,101
173.2
%90
36.9
4.1%
$25,2
39,99
225
.020
10$0
$668
0.0%
$2,60
30.0
%$1
,935
0.0%
-
$27,8
76,51
924
.920
11$1
32,80
8$6
240.5
%$8
,943
6.7%
$8,31
96.3
%20
,882
37.7
3.9%
$28,3
40,08
325
.620
12$0
$00.0
%$0
0.0%
$00.0
%-
$3
0,055
,052
25.9
2013
$0$2
9,079
0.0%
$00.0
%($2
9,079
)0.0
%-
$3
3,229
,734
25.8
2014
$0$0
0.0%
$00.0
%$0
0.0%
-
$35,0
39,85
326
.220
15$0
$00.0
%$0
0.0%
$00.0
%-
$3
4,334
,761
27.5
2016
$0$0
0.0%
$00.0
%$0
0.0%
-
$37,5
65,18
827
.420
17$3
,344
$88,4
7526
45.7%
$00.0
%($8
8,475
)-2
645.7
%50
1
45.0
3.8%
$39,6
05,12
227
.820
18$0
$00.0
%$0
0.0%
$00.0
%-
$4
5,023
,926
27.1
2009
-201
8$1
36,78
7$1
19,58
287
.4%$1
3,381
9.8%
($106
,200)
-77.6
%21
,473
27.1
55
Workpaper – Southern California Edison / 2021 General Rate Case
Exhibit No. SCE-07 Vol.03 Ch I-VI Bk A Witness: D. Gunn
Sout
hern
Cali
forn
ia Ed
ison
2021
GRC
Dep
recia
tion S
tud y
Acco
unt 3
57: T
rans
miss
ion U
G Co
nduit
as o
f:1/
1/20
19
Subp
opul
atio
n B:
Tren
chOr
igina
l Cos
tCo
st o f
Cost
ofGr
oss
Gros
sNe
tNe
tUn
itsAg
e of
Histo
rical
Plant
Age o
fYe
arRe
tirem
ents
Rem
oval
Rem
oval
%Sa
lvage
Salva
ge %
Salva
geSa
lvage
%Re
tired
Retir
emen
tsInf
lation
Balan
ceSu
rv. Pl
ant
AB
CD=
C/B
EF=
E/B
G=E-
CH=
G/B
IJ
KL
M20
09$0
$00.0
%$0
0.0%
$00.0
%-
$1
,951,4
0417
.120
10$0
$00.0
%$0
0.0%
$00.0
%-
$1
,960,8
5218
.120
11$0
$00.0
%$0
0.0%
$00.0
%-
$1
,960,8
5219
.120
12$0
$00.0
%$0
0.0%
$00.0
%-
$1
,960,8
5220
.120
13$0
$00.0
%$0
0.0%
$00.0
%-
$1
,960,8
5221
.120
14$0
$00.0
%$0
0.0%
$00.0
%-
$1
,975,0
2422
.020
15$0
$00.0
%$0
0.0%
$00.0
%-
$2
,063,0
7922
.620
16$0
$00.0
%$0
0.0%
$00.0
%-
$2
,063,0
7923
.620
17$0
$00.0
%$0
0.0%
$00.0
%-
$2
,599,2
2022
.020
18$0
$00.0
%$0
0.0%
$00.0
%-
$3
,200,3
5020
.620
09-2
018
$0$0
0.0%
$00.0
%$0
0.0%
-
20.6
Subp
opul
atio
n C:
Man
holes
/Vau
ltsOr
igina
l Cos
tCo
st o f
Cost
ofGr
oss
Gros
sNe
tNe
tUn
itsAg
e of
Histo
rical
Plant
Age o
fYe
arRe
tirem
ents
Rem
oval
Rem
oval
%Sa
lvage
Salva
ge %
Salva
geSa
lvage
%Re
tired
Retir
emen
tsInf
lation
Balan
ceSu
rv. Pl
ant
AB
CD=
C/B
EF=
E/B
G=E-
CH=
G/B
IJ
KL
M20
09$8
3,175
$00.0
%$0
0.0%
$00.0
%4
39.5
4.3%
$10,4
21,39
118
.020
10$0
$153
,089
0.0%
$00.0
%($1
53,08
9)0.0
%-
$1
1,514
,408
18.1
2011
$90,3
19$0
0.0%
$00.0
%$0
0.0%
7
21
.63.3
%$1
2,116
,713
18.5
2012
$0$0
0.0%
$00.0
%$0
0.0%
-
$13,0
25,78
918
.720
13$7
,867
$97,9
1212
44.6%
($231
)-2
.9%($9
8,144
)-1
247.6
%1
27.5
3.1%
$15,6
93,05
817
.920
14$0
$00.0
%$0
0.0%
$00.0
%-
$1
6,696
,457
18.3
2015
$23,2
57$0
0.0%
$00.0
%$0
0.0%
3
31
.63.4
%$1
7,279
,004
18.9
2016
$0$7
6,997
0.0%
$00.0
%($7
6,997
)0.0
%-
$2
2,801
,909
17.1
2017
$9,49
5$2
76,93
329
16.5%
$00.0
%($2
76,93
3)-2
916.5
%4
41.8
3.3%
$22,5
83,18
918
.220
18$0
$00.0
%$0
0.0%
$00.0
%-
$3
0,053
,012
16.3
2009
-201
8$2
14,11
4$6
04,93
128
2.5%
($231
)-0
.1%($6
05,16
2)-2
82.6%
19
16
.3
56
Workpaper – Southern California Edison / 2021 General Rate Case
Exhibit No. SCE-07 Vol.03 Ch I-VI Bk A Witness: D. Gunn
Sout
hern
Cali
forn
ia Ed
ison
2021
GRC
Dep
recia
tion S
tudy
Acco
unt 3
57: T
rans
miss
ion U
G Co
nduit
Weig
hted
Net
Salva
ge R
ate(20
09-2
018)
Majo
rRe
tirem
ent M
ixPla
nt M
ixNe
t Salv
age
Weig
hted
NSR
Com
pone
ntRe
tirem
ents
% of
Total
Balan
ce%
of To
talRa
te (N
SR)
Ret. W
td.
Plant
Wtd
.A
BC
DE
FG=
C*F
H=E*
FCo
nduit
$136
,787
39%
$45,0
23,92
658
%-7
8%-3
0%-1
7%Tr
ench
$00%
$3,20
0,350
4%0%
0%0%
Man
holes
/Vau
lts$2
14,11
461
%$3
0,053
,012
38%
-283
%-1
72%
-66%
Tota
l-2
03%
-84%
57
Workpaper – Southern California Edison / 2021 General Rate Case
Exhibit No. SCE-07 Vol.03 Ch I-VI Bk A Witness: D. Gunn
SCE-07, Volume. 03, Results of Operations Depreciation Study
Chapter III: T&D Net Salvage Witness: David Gunn
Account 358: Transmission Underground Conductor and Devices
58
Workpaper – Southern California Edison / 2021 General Rate Case
Exhibit No. SCE-07 Vol.03 Ch I-VI Bk A Witness: D. Gunn
Sout
hern
Cali
forn
ia Ed
ison
2021
GRC
Dep
recia
tion S
tud y
Acco
unt 3
58: T
rans
miss
ion U
G Co
nduc
tors
& De
vices
as o
f:1/
1/20
19
Aggr
egat
e Res
ults
Origi
nal C
ost
Cost
o fCo
st of
Gros
sGr
oss
Net
Net
Units
Age o
fHi
storic
alPla
ntAg
e of
Year
Retir
emen
tsRe
mov
alRe
mov
al %
Salva
geSa
lvage
%Sa
lvage
Salva
ge %
Retir
edRe
tirem
ents
Inflat
ionBa
lance
Surv.
Plan
tA
BC
D=C/
BE
F=E/
BG=
E-C
H=G/
BI
JK
LM
2009
$870
,788
$154
,174
17.7%
$65,4
037.5
%($8
8,772
)-1
0.2%
28,79
0
27
.94.6
%$1
73,46
9,488
15.5
2010
$1,90
8,905
$516
,924
27.1%
$27,0
461.4
%($4
89,87
8)-2
5.7%
7,782
12
.02.9
%$1
74,33
4,852
16.5
2011
$2,41
5,697
$212
,109
8.8%
$128
,561
5.3%
($83,5
48)
-3.5%
57,44
7
25
.14.4
%$1
83,44
2,134
16.8
2012
$1,07
4,467
$578
,307
53.8%
$57,1
785.3
%($5
21,12
9)-4
8.5%
27,37
5
28
.54.5
%$2
08,16
7,367
16.6
2013
$622
,376
$487
,544
78.3%
$51,9
828.4
%($4
35,56
2)-7
0.0%
16,00
7
29
.24.5
%$2
26,94
7,418
16.8
2014
$1,63
9,257
$310
,827
19.0%
$115
,038
7.0%
($195
,788)
-11.9
%1,0
27
22.7
4.4%
$248
,470,0
8617
.020
15$2
,164,6
88$7
25,91
333
.5%$7
5,492
3.5%
($650
,422)
-30.0
%23
,599
26.8
4.3%
$268
,612,3
2317
.120
16$2
,412,9
77$6
75,58
428
.0%$0
0.0%
($675
,584)
-28.0
%12
,933
29.9
4.2%
$368
,734,3
2915
.120
17$6
,078,4
26$3
,666,7
7160
.3%$2
2,983
0.4%
($3,64
3,789
)-5
9.9%
96,03
8
28
.74.0
%$3
76,71
0,004
15.4
2018
$1,71
9,929
$517
,351
30.1%
$00.0
%($5
17,35
1)-3
0.1%
2,876
22
.94.2
%$3
98,34
3,629
15.8
2009
-201
8$2
0,907
,509
$7,84
5,505
37.5%
$543
,683
2.6%
($7,30
1,823
)-3
4.9%
273,8
74
4.2
%15
.820
14-2
018
-40.5
%
Subp
opul
atio
n A:
UG
Cond
ucto
rOr
igina
l Cos
tCo
st o f
Cost
ofGr
oss
Gros
sNe
tNe
tUn
itsAg
e of
Histo
rical
Plant
Age o
fYe
arRe
tirem
ents
Rem
oval
Rem
oval
%Sa
lvage
Salva
ge %
Salva
geSa
lvage
%Re
tired
Retir
emen
tsInf
lation
Balan
ceSu
rv. Pl
ant
AB
CD=
C/B
EF=
E/B
G=E-
CH=
G/B
IJ
KL
M20
09$7
81,81
2$1
38,80
117
.8%$6
5,403
8.4%
($73,3
98)
-9.4%
28,75
8
28
.54.7
%$1
19,39
1,905
17.3
2010
$211
,945
$97,8
3946
.2%$2
7,046
12.8%
($70,7
93)
-33.4
%7,7
58
29.6
4.6%
$126
,516,9
1317
.820
11$1
,817,0
09$1
30,11
27.2
%$1
28,56
17.1
%($1
,550)
-0.1%
57,34
7
26
.64.4
%$1
33,71
9,252
18.1
2012
$743
,893
$265
,499
35.7%
$4,02
20.5
%($2
61,47
7)-3
5.1%
27,28
5
30
.84.6
%$1
45,47
1,040
18.2
2013
$434
,710
$219
,423
50.5%
($2,95
7)-0
.7%($2
22,38
0)-5
1.2%
15,94
2
31
.54.5
%$1
58,57
7,200
18.4
2014
$18,6
52$6
,614
35.5%
$00.0
%($6
,614)
-35.5
%70
0
32.0
4.5%
$164
,398,8
1119
.120
15$6
36,12
0$6
3,494
10.0%
$00.0
%($6
3,494
)-1
0.0%
23,23
9
33
.44.4
%$1
63,95
5,728
20.0
2016
$689
,840
$104
,564
15.2%
$00.0
%($1
04,56
4)-1
5.2%
12,63
1
38
.24.5
%$2
10,83
3,655
18.6
2017
$3,03
5,947
$1,78
7,867
58.9%
$22,9
830.8
%($1
,764,8
85)
-58.1
%95
,521
33.0
4.1%
$224
,914,3
5118
.520
18$6
9,654
$120
,156
172.5
%$0
0.0%
($120
,156)
-172
.5%2,5
68
33.0
4.1%
$239
,799,2
8818
.920
09-2
018
$8,43
9,583
$2,93
4,369
34.8%
$245
,057
2.9%
($2,68
9,311
)-3
1.9%
271,7
49
18
.9
59
Workpaper – Southern California Edison / 2021 General Rate Case
Exhibit No. SCE-07 Vol.03 Ch I-VI Bk A Witness: D. Gunn
Sout
hern
Cali
forn
ia Ed
ison
2021
GRC
Dep
recia
tion S
tud y
Acco
unt 3
58: T
rans
miss
ion U
G Co
nduc
tors
& De
vices
as o
f:1/
1/20
19
Subp
opul
atio
n B:
Ligh
tnin
g Ar
reste
rs &
Poth
eads
Origi
nal C
ost
Cost
o fCo
st of
Gros
sGr
oss
Net
Net
Units
Age o
fHi
storic
alPla
ntAg
e of
Year
Retir
emen
tsRe
mov
alRe
mov
al %
Salva
geSa
lvage
%Sa
lvage
Salva
ge %
Retir
edRe
tirem
ents
Inflat
ionBa
lance
Surv.
Plan
tA
BC
D=C/
BE
F=E/
BG=
E-C
H=G/
BI
JK
LM
2009
$88,9
76$1
5,373
17.3%
$00.0
%($1
5,373
)-1
7.3%
32
18
.94.6
%$3
7,217
,625
12.2
2010
$70,2
22$5
8,020
82.6%
$00.0
%($5
8,020
)-8
2.6%
22
23
.14.5
%$3
9,486
,786
12.8
2011
$592
,561
$81,9
9713
.8%$0
0.0%
($81,9
97)
-13.8
%99
17.0
4.5%
$40,2
50,45
813
.520
12$3
30,57
3$3
08,04
993
.2%$3
,218
1.0%
($304
,832)
-92.2
%90
20.6
4.5%
$42,3
85,68
714
.020
13$1
87,66
6$2
65,67
114
1.6%
($1,18
3)-0
.6%($2
66,85
4)-1
42.2%
65
20
.64.5
%$4
4,357
,126
14.7
2014
$1,62
0,605
$297
,347
18.3%
$00.0
%($2
97,34
7)-1
8.3%
327
22
.54.4
%$4
5,590
,151
14.8
2015
$1,52
8,568
$658
,489
43.1%
$605
0.0%
($657
,884)
-43.0
%36
0
22.4
4.3%
$47,4
14,07
915
.020
16$1
,723,1
37$5
71,02
033
.1%$0
0.0%
($571
,020)
-33.1
%30
2
23.0
4.3%
$54,2
61,74
614
.420
17$3
,042,4
79$1
,878,9
0461
.8%$0
0.0%
($1,87
8,904
)-6
1.8%
517
22
.04.2
%$6
0,877
,545
13.6
2018
$1,65
0,275
$397
,195
24.1%
$00.0
%($3
97,19
5)-2
4.1%
308
22
.34.2
%$6
3,990
,992
13.7
2009
-201
8$1
0,835
,062
$4,53
2,067
41.8%
$2,64
00.0
%($4
,529,4
27)
-41.8
%2,1
22
13.7
Subp
opul
atio
n C:
Cat
hodi
c Pro
tecti
on &
Oth
erOr
igina
l Cos
tCo
st o f
Cost
ofGr
oss
Gros
sNe
tNe
tUn
itsAg
e of
Histo
rical
Plant
Age o
fYe
arRe
tirem
ents
Rem
oval
Rem
oval
%Sa
lvage
Salva
ge %
Salva
geSa
lvage
%Re
tired
Retir
emen
tsInf
lation
Balan
ceSu
rv. Pl
ant
AB
CD=
C/B
EF=
E/B
G=E-
CH=
G/B
IJ
KL
M20
09$0
$00.0
%$0
0.0%
$00.0
%-
$4
16,84
531
.620
10$1
,626,7
38$3
61,06
622
.2%$0
0.0%
($361
,066)
-22.2
%2
2.51.8
%$4
16,84
532
.620
11$6
,126
$00.0
%$0
0.0%
$00.0
%1
44.5
5.7%
$1,06
9,352
23.6
2012
$0$4
,759
0.0%
$49,9
380.0
%$4
5,180
0.0%
-
$1,06
9,352
24.6
2013
$0$2
,450
0.0%
$56,1
220.0
%$5
3,672
0.0%
-
$1,06
9,352
25.6
2014
$0$6
,865
0.0%
$115
,038
0.0%
$108
,173
0.0%
-
$12,0
86,83
97.4
2015
$0$3
,930
0.0%
$74,8
860.0
%$7
0,956
0.0%
-
$12,0
86,83
98.4
2016
$0$0
0.0%
$00.0
%$0
0.0%
-
$16,1
66,30
28.3
2017
$0$0
0.0%
$00.0
%$0
0.0%
-
$17,3
73,80
09.0
2018
$0$0
0.0%
$00.0
%$0
0.0%
-
$16,1
15,93
810
.320
09-2
018
$1,63
2,864
$379
,070
23.2%
$295
,985
18.1%
($83,0
84)
-5.1%
3
10
.3
60
Workpaper – Southern California Edison / 2021 General Rate Case
Exhibit No. SCE-07 Vol.03 Ch I-VI Bk A Witness: D. Gunn
Sout
hern
Cali
forn
ia Ed
ison
2021
GRC
Dep
recia
tion S
tudy
Acco
unt 3
58: T
rans
miss
ion U
G Co
nduc
tors
& De
vices
Weig
hted
Net
Salva
ge R
ate(20
09-2
018)
Majo
rRe
tirem
ent M
ixPla
nt M
ixNe
t Salv
age
Weig
hted
NSR
Com
pone
ntRe
tirem
ents
% of
Total
Balan
ce%
of To
talRa
te (N
SR)
Ret. W
td.
Plant
Wtd
.A
BC
DE
FG=
C*F
H=E*
FUG
Con
ducto
r$8
,439,5
8340
%$2
39,79
9,288
75%
-32%
-13%
-24%
52%
$63,9
90,99
220
%-4
2%-2
2%-8
%Lig
htnin
g Ar
reste
rs &
Poth
eads
$1
0,835
,062
Cath
odic
Prot
ectio
n & O
ther
$1,63
2,864
8%$1
6,115
,938
5%-5
%0%
0%To
tal
-35%
-33%
61
Workpaper – Southern California Edison / 2021 General Rate Case
Exhibit No. SCE-07 Vol.03 Ch I-VI Bk A Witness: D. Gunn
Southern California Edison
2021 GRC Depreciation Study
Account 358: Transmission UG Conductors & Devices
Programmatic Replacement Activity (2014‐2018)
Maintenance Acivity Type (MAT) Retirements Cost of Removal
Planned Programs
101 Cable UG REPL (1,909,222)$ (1,452,637)$
108 Equipment UG REPL (2,082,640)$ (588,641)$
116 Line/Equip Misc UG REPL (5,452,773)$ (1,418,008)$
13P TPM Sub Trans projects (794,890)$ (298,952)$
17P TSP Sub Trans Projects (1,148,178)$ (768,981)$
128 Switch OH Install (70,824)$ (78,477)$
12P DSP Capital Program (300,998)$ (159,240)$
14F Pole Deteriorated OH IR REPL (38,511)$ (3,763)$
15P Substation IR Switch‐rack Repl (77,053)$ (32,257)$
Subtotal (11,875,089)$ (4,800,956)$
Customer‐Driven
11Q Added Facilities Cust Funded (123,572)$ 38,198$
1Q2 Relocation UG (516,363)$ (180,116)$
1QD WDAT/TO/Gen‐Tie SCE (44,875)$ (73,322)$
Subtotal (684,810)$ (215,240)$
Breakdown/Unplanned
11B Cable UG Breakdown REPL (226,500)$ (150,430)$
15B Equipment UG Breakdown REPL (143,063)$ (73,982)$
16X Storm REPL (136,367)$ (183,982)$
1B3 Pole OH Breakdown REPL (103,753)$ (42,682)$
1B9 Switch OH Breakdown REPL ‐$ (186)$
1BB Tower OH Breakdown REPL ‐$ (2,092)$
1CM Claim (591,359)$ (140,352)$
2B2 Cndctr Primary OH BD REPL (43,886)$ (17,142)$
2CO Claim OH ‐$ (30)$
InternalOrder ‐$ (10,795)$
Subtotal (1,244,927)$ (621,673)$
Grand Total (13,804,826)$ (5,637,869)$
62
Workpaper – Southern California Edison / 2021 General Rate Case
Exhibit No. SCE-07 Vol.03 Ch I-VI Bk A Witness: D. Gunn
SCE-07, Volume. 03, Results of Operations Depreciation Study
Chapter III: T&D Net Salvage Witness: David Gunn
Account 359: Transmission Roads and Trails
63
Workpaper – Southern California Edison / 2021 General Rate Case
Exhibit No. SCE-07 Vol.03 Ch I-VI Bk A Witness: D. Gunn
Sout
hern
Cali
forn
ia Ed
ison
2021
GRC
Dep
recia
tion S
tudy
Acco
unt 3
59: T
rans
miss
ion R
oads
and
Trail
sas
of:
1/1/
2019
Aggr
egat
e Res
ults
Origi
nal C
ost
Cost
ofCo
st of
Gros
sGr
oss
Net
Net
Units
Age o
fHi
storic
alPla
ntAg
e of
Year
Retir
emen
tsRe
mov
alRe
mov
al %
Salva
geSa
lvage
%Sa
lvage
Salva
ge %
Retir
edRe
tirem
ents
Inflat
ionBa
lance
Surv.
Plan
tA
BC
D=C/
BE
F=E/
BG=
E-C
H=G/
BI
JK
LM
2009
$0$0
0.0%
$00.0
%$0
0.0%
-
$30,9
91,60
932
.320
10$0
$00.0
%$0
0.0%
$00.0
%-
$3
1,912
,655
33.0
2011
$0$0
0.0%
$00.0
%$0
0.0%
-
$113
,892,8
3320
.120
12$2
7,288
$6,41
523
.5%$0
0.0%
($6,41
5)-2
3.5%
-
20.5
3.6%
$43,0
38,58
331
.820
13$5
9,387
$31,0
7652
.3%$4
,989
8.4%
($26,0
88)
-43.9
%-
45
.13.8
%$7
6,476
,358
25.9
2014
$7,66
8$2
,583
33.7%
$00.0
%($2
,583)
-33.7
%-
8.5
2.9%
$86,6
95,55
025
.220
15$6
0,171
$450
,229
748.2
%$0
0.0%
($450
,229)
-748
.2%-
49
.44.8
%$1
94,01
8,041
16.3
2016
$789
$125
,202
1587
7.2%
$00.0
%($1
25,20
2)-1
5877
.2%-
63
.54.3
%$2
00,53
5,234
16.9
2017
$0$0
0.0%
$00.0
%$0
0.0%
-
$193
,773,4
1118
.220
18$0
$00.0
%$0
0.0%
$00.0
%-
$1
95,49
7,058
19.1
2009
-201
8$1
55,30
3$6
15,50
639
6.3%
$4,98
93.2
%($6
10,51
7)-3
93.1%
-
3.9%
19.1
Subp
opul
atio
n A:
Roa
ds &
Tra
ilsOr
igina
l Cos
tCo
st of
Cost
ofGr
oss
Gros
sNe
tNe
tUn
itsAg
e of
Histo
rical
Plant
Age o
fYe
arRe
tirem
ents
Rem
oval
Rem
oval
%Sa
lvage
Salva
ge %
Salva
geSa
lvage
%Re
tired
Retir
emen
tsInf
lation
Balan
ceSu
rv. Pl
ant
AB
CD=
C/B
EF=
E/B
G=E-
CH=
G/B
IJ
KL
M20
09$0
$00.0
%$0
0.0%
$00.0
%-
$2
4,300
,833
34.5
2010
$0$0
0.0%
$00.0
%$0
0.0%
-
$24,3
00,83
335
.520
11$0
$00.0
%$0
0.0%
$00.0
%-
$1
13,68
6,581
20.1
2012
$27,2
88$6
,415
23.5%
$00.0
%($6
,415)
-23.5
%-
20
.53.6
%$2
7,133
,620
36.5
2013
$59,3
87$3
1,076
52.3%
$4,98
98.4
%($2
6,088
)-4
3.9%
-
45.1
3.8%
$29,7
63,07
436
.620
14$7
,668
$2,58
333
.7%$0
0.0%
($2,58
3)-3
3.7%
-
8.52.9
%$3
3,940
,999
36.3
2015
$60,1
71$4
50,22
974
8.2%
$00.0
%($4
50,22
9)-7
48.2%
-
49.4
4.8%
$35,4
00,45
036
.820
16$7
89$1
25,20
215
877.2
%$0
0.0%
($125
,202)
-158
77.2%
-
63.5
4.3%
$48,7
85,03
434
.220
17$0
$00.0
%$0
0.0%
$00.0
%-
$1
56,21
7,879
20.6
2018
$0$0
0.0%
$00.0
%$0
0.0%
-
$157
,481,4
5521
.520
09-2
018
$155
,303
$615
,506
396.3
%$4
,989
3.2%
($610
,517)
-393
.1%-
21
.5
64
Workpaper – Southern California Edison / 2021 General Rate Case
Exhibit No. SCE-07 Vol.03 Ch I-VI Bk A Witness: D. Gunn
SCE-07, Volume. 03, Results of Operations Depreciation Study
Chapter III: T&D Net Salvage Witness: David Gunn
Account 361: Distribution Substation Structures and Improvements
65
Workpaper – Southern California Edison / 2021 General Rate Case
Exhibit No. SCE-07 Vol.03 Ch I-VI Bk A Witness: D. Gunn
Sout
hern
Cali
forn
ia Ed
ison
2021
GRC
Dep
recia
tion S
tudy
Acco
unt 3
61: D
istrib
ution
Subs
tatio
n Stru
cture
s and
Impr
ovem
ents
as o
f:1/
1/20
19
Aggr
egat
e Res
ults
Origi
nal C
ost
Cost
ofCo
st of
Gros
sGr
oss
Net
Net
Units
Age o
fHi
storic
alPla
ntAg
e of
Year
Retir
emen
tsRe
mov
alRe
mov
al %
Salva
geSa
lvage
%Sa
lvage
Salva
ge %
Retir
edRe
tirem
ents
Inflat
ionBa
lance
Surv.
Plan
tA
BC
D=C/
BE
F=E/
BG=
E-C
H=G/
BI
JK
LM
2009
$1,46
5,400
$1,04
2,510
71.1%
$429
,397
29.3%
($613
,112)
-41.8
%5
30.7
3.7%
$388
,978,9
8826
.820
10$6
,375,3
49$1
,317,9
7320
.7%$4
5,514
0.7%
($1,27
2,459
)-2
0.0%
15
32
.73.5
%$3
99,41
1,401
27.3
2011
$6,34
9,672
$2,50
3,426
39.4%
$235
,882
3.7%
($2,26
7,545
)-3
5.7%
15
27
.83.6
%$4
31,35
0,910
27.2
2012
$4,40
8,208
$847
,472
19.2%
$196
,887
4.5%
($650
,585)
-14.8
%24
20.0
4.1%
$436
,830,7
4928
.020
13$1
,428,8
14$5
35,94
737
.5%$1
35,94
09.5
%($4
00,00
6)-2
8.0%
18
33
.63.3
%$4
79,84
8,347
27.9
2014
$11,3
93,59
5$4
,259,0
8337
.4%$8
06,79
47.1
%($3
,452,2
89)
-30.3
%18
31.9
3.7%
$523
,812,7
3227
.520
15$6
,886,5
58$4
,668,4
2767
.8%$2
30,43
13.3
%($4
,437,9
96)
-64.4
%1,1
66
36.3
3.5%
$576
,705,9
7927
.020
16$3
,481,4
92$2
,344,1
0467
.3%$1
55,01
84.5
%($2
,189,0
85)
-62.9
%25
36.9
3.3%
$611
,762,5
5827
.220
17$4
,812,8
61$2
,666,6
0855
.4%$1
26,15
52.6
%($2
,540,4
53)
-52.8
%30
9
34.5
3.1%
$644
,469,7
2027
.420
18$5
,853,0
18$3
,515,7
0760
.1%$1
64,01
82.8
%($3
,351,6
89)
-57.3
%14
,277
35.4
3.2%
$696
,502,2
6227
.220
09-2
018
$52,4
54,96
7$2
3,701
,256
45.2%
$2,52
6,037
4.8%
($21,1
75,21
9)-4
0.4%
15,87
2
3.5
%27
.2
Subp
opul
atio
n A:
Bui
ldin
gsOr
igina
l Cos
tCo
st of
Cost
ofGr
oss
Gros
sNe
tNe
tUn
itsAg
e of
Histo
rical
Plant
Age o
fYe
arRe
tirem
ents
Rem
oval
Rem
oval
%Sa
lvage
Salva
ge %
Salva
geSa
lvage
%Re
tired
Retir
emen
tsInf
lation
Balan
ceSu
rv. Pl
ant
AB
CD=
C/B
EF=
E/B
G=E-
CH=
G/B
IJ
KL
M20
09$1
16,29
8$1
0,797
9.3%
$00.0
%($1
0,797
)-9
.3%1
10.6
5.3%
$43,6
60,10
911
.020
10$0
$181
,007
0.0%
$00.0
%($1
81,00
7)0.0
%-
$6
3,827
,717
9.720
11$3
76,28
6$2
35,78
062
.7%$2
35,88
262
.7%$1
020.0
%-
13
.44.4
%$7
0,106
,222
10.1
2012
$2,88
5,129
$82,1
822.8
%$0
0.0%
($82,1
82)
-2.8%
-
13.4
5.1%
$75,2
70,98
310
.320
13$3
2,726
$129
,918
397.0
%$0
0.0%
($129
,918)
-397
.0%-
17
.93.6
%$7
9,812
,553
10.9
2014
$1,09
3,535
$387
,116
35.4%
$00.0
%($3
87,11
6)-3
5.4%
3
17
.34.3
%$9
6,775
,667
10.5
2015
$790
,965
$466
,379
59.0%
$00.0
%($4
66,37
9)-5
9.0%
1,144
20
.14.1
%$1
10,38
0,071
10.4
2016
$847
,788
$255
,772
30.2%
$00.0
%($2
55,77
2)-3
0.2%
1
15
.03.2
%$1
20,42
1,495
10.8
2017
$1,30
7,828
$341
,522
26.1%
$00.0
%($3
41,52
2)-2
6.1%
9
9.5
2.7%
$129
,835,0
2011
.220
18$1
,076,8
21$4
26,54
439
.6%($1
2)0.0
%($4
26,55
6)-3
9.6%
3,118
19
.33.9
%$1
49,41
7,330
11.2
2009
-201
8$8
,527,3
76$2
,517,0
1729
.5%$2
35,87
02.8
%($2
,281,1
48)
-26.8
%4,2
76
11.2
66
Workpaper – Southern California Edison / 2021 General Rate Case
Exhibit No. SCE-07 Vol.03 Ch I-VI Bk A Witness: D. Gunn
Sout
hern
Cali
forn
ia Ed
ison
2021
GRC
Dep
recia
tion S
tudy
Acco
unt 3
61: D
istrib
ution
Subs
tatio
n Stru
cture
s and
Impr
ovem
ents
as o
f:1/
1/20
19
Subp
opul
atio
n B:
Pow
er &
Ligh
tnin
g Sy
stem
Origi
nal C
ost
Cost
ofCo
st of
Gros
sGr
oss
Net
Net
Units
Age o
fHi
storic
alPla
ntAg
e of
Year
Retir
emen
tsRe
mov
alRe
mov
al %
Salva
geSa
lvage
%Sa
lvage
Salva
ge %
Retir
edRe
tirem
ents
Inflat
ionBa
lance
Surv.
Plan
tA
BC
D=C/
BE
F=E/
BG=
E-C
H=G/
BI
JK
LM
2009
$0$0
0.0%
$00.0
%$0
0.0%
-
$15,2
79,73
412
.620
10$0
$38,5
880.0
%$0
0.0%
($38,5
88)
0.0%
-
$21,7
92,42
511
.220
11$8
,058
$21,7
2426
9.6%
$00.0
%($2
1,724
)-2
69.6%
-
9.55.9
%$2
5,915
,202
11.1
2012
$0$2
7,786
0.0%
$00.0
%($2
7,786
)0.0
%-
$2
9,307
,666
11.3
2013
$47,3
18$2
7,641
58.4%
$00.0
%($2
7,641
)-5
8.4%
1
17
.34.3
%$2
9,941
,575
12.1
2014
$86,8
17$5
3,298
61.4%
$00.0
%($5
3,298
)-6
1.4%
-
16.8
4.2%
$35,8
07,38
311
.820
15$2
18,12
7$2
63,10
212
0.6%
$00.0
%($2
63,10
2)-1
20.6%
2
20
.13.9
%$4
5,421
,111
11.0
2016
$361
,835
$106
,335
29.4%
$00.0
%($1
06,33
5)-2
9.4%
3
20
.04.1
%$4
9,181
,993
11.3
2017
$427
,228
$348
,587
81.6%
$00.0
%($3
48,58
7)-8
1.6%
4
22
.43.9
%$5
3,880
,267
11.4
2018
$607
,566
$258
,288
42.5%
$00.0
%($2
58,28
8)-4
2.5%
5
21
.83.5
%$5
8,804
,270
11.6
2009
-201
8$1
,756,9
49$1
,145,3
4865
.2%$0
0.0%
($1,14
5,348
)-6
5.2%
15
11
.6
Subp
opul
atio
n C:
HVA
COr
igina
l Cos
tCo
st of
Cost
ofGr
oss
Gros
sNe
tNe
tUn
itsAg
e of
Histo
rical
Plant
Age o
fYe
arRe
tirem
ents
Rem
oval
Rem
oval
%Sa
lvage
Salva
ge %
Salva
geSa
lvage
%Re
tired
Retir
emen
tsInf
lation
Balan
ceSu
rv. Pl
ant
AB
CD=
C/B
EF=
E/B
G=E-
CH=
G/B
IJ
KL
M20
09$1
0,060
$14,5
2114
4.3%
$00.0
%($1
4,521
)-1
44.3%
1
16
.34.1
%$1
8,376
,658
10.4
2010
$194
,783
$86,4
0544
.4%$0
0.0%
($86,4
05)
-44.4
%10
11.8
5.1%
$22,8
14,16
310
.120
11$7
1,540
$75,9
1710
6.1%
$00.0
%($7
5,917
)-1
06.1%
4
12
.35.0
%$2
4,537
,157
10.6
2012
$108
,382
$32,0
0929
.5%$0
0.0%
($32,0
09)
-29.5
%6
14.4
4.7%
$26,6
32,13
111
.120
13$1
23,10
4$9
,448
7.7%
$00.0
%($9
,448)
-7.7%
6
11
.95.2
%$2
7,513
,153
11.9
2014
$415
,830
$104
,155
25.0%
$00.0
%($1
04,15
5)-2
5.0%
6
19
.54.0
%$3
0,316
,791
12.0
2015
$346
,626
$156
,241
45.1%
$00.0
%($1
56,24
1)-4
5.1%
5
15
.94.5
%$3
3,804
,236
12.1
2016
$168
,169
$51,2
9830
.5%$0
0.0%
($51,2
98)
-30.5
%16
18.5
3.8%
$35,7
59,73
612
.720
17$2
09,93
5$1
56,37
574
.5%$0
0.0%
($156
,375)
-74.5
%15
19.8
3.7%
$37,4
60,90
813
.320
18$6
17,02
7$2
03,59
033
.0%$0
0.0%
($203
,590)
-33.0
%60
4
21.5
3.9%
$40,2
99,49
313
.420
09-2
018
$2,26
5,455
$889
,958
39.3%
$00.0
%($8
89,95
8)-3
9.3%
673
13
.4
67
Workpaper – Southern California Edison / 2021 General Rate Case
Exhibit No. SCE-07 Vol.03 Ch I-VI Bk A Witness: D. Gunn
Sout
hern
Cali
forn
ia Ed
ison
2021
GRC
Dep
recia
tion S
tudy
Acco
unt 3
61: D
istrib
ution
Subs
tatio
n Stru
cture
s and
Impr
ovem
ents
as o
f:1/
1/20
19
Subp
opul
atio
n D:
Wat
er Su
pply
Syste
ms
Origi
nal C
ost
Cost
ofCo
st of
Gros
sGr
oss
Net
Net
Units
Age o
fHi
storic
alPla
ntAg
e of
Year
Retir
emen
tsRe
mov
alRe
mov
al %
Salva
geSa
lvage
%Sa
lvage
Salva
ge %
Retir
edRe
tirem
ents
Inflat
ionBa
lance
Surv.
Plan
tA
BC
D=C/
BE
F=E/
BG=
E-C
H=G/
BI
JK
LM
2009
$7,00
4$1
1,820
168.8
%$0
0.0%
($11,8
20)
-168
.8%1
9.55.7
%$1
7,162
,452
9.820
10$1
9,422
$498
,394
2566
.2%$0
0.0%
($498
,394)
-256
6.2%
3
10
.35.6
%$2
4,945
,465
8.820
11$1
84,43
0$4
32,97
823
4.8%
$00.0
%($4
32,97
8)-2
34.8%
7
23
.23.8
%$3
0,891
,573
8.520
12$1
51,32
1$1
67,78
211
0.9%
$00.0
%($1
67,78
2)-1
10.9%
16
11
.65.4
%$3
4,386
,742
8.920
13$1
06,19
6$8
0,739
76.0%
$00.0
%($8
0,739
)-7
6.0%
9
11
.54.9
%$3
6,649
,595
9.520
14$8
8,674
$114
,655
129.3
%$7
,269
8.2%
($107
,386)
-121
.1%5
13.7
4.2%
$42,7
78,96
29.6
2015
$266
,504
$586
,672
220.1
%$0
0.0%
($586
,672)
-220
.1%9
14.1
4.1%
$50,9
08,79
09.4
2016
$59,8
55$5
17,61
086
4.8%
$00.0
%($5
17,61
0)-8
64.8%
4
16
.14.4
%$5
4,683
,746
10.0
2017
$66,0
66$4
09,02
961
9.1%
$00.0
%($4
09,02
9)-6
19.1%
6
21
.23.6
%$5
9,459
,359
10.4
2018
$241
,331
$643
,879
266.8
%$0
0.0%
($643
,879)
-266
.8%19
16.8
3.8%
$65,4
94,33
610
.720
09-2
018
$1,19
0,802
$3,46
3,558
290.9
%$7
,269
0.6%
($3,45
6,288
)-2
90.2%
79
10
.7
Subp
opul
atio
n E:
Foun
datio
ns &
Oth
er St
ruct
ures
Origi
nal C
ost
Cost
ofCo
st of
Gros
sGr
oss
Net
Net
Units
Age o
fHi
storic
alPla
ntAg
e of
Year
Retir
emen
tsRe
mov
alRe
mov
al %
Salva
geSa
lvage
%Sa
lvage
Salva
ge %
Retir
edRe
tirem
ents
Inflat
ionBa
lance
Surv.
Plan
tA
BC
D=C/
BE
F=E/
BG=
E-C
H=G/
BI
JK
LM
2009
$36,1
74$5
26,33
114
55.0%
$00.0
%($5
26,33
1)-1
455.0
%1
12.7
4.7%
$34,2
33,39
911
.020
10$8
3,995
$143
,589
170.9
%$0
0.0%
($143
,589)
-170
.9%2
18.8
3.9%
$46,3
93,68
710
.120
11$1
26,38
5$4
79,34
837
9.3%
$00.0
%($4
79,34
8)-3
79.3%
2
11
.55.1
%$6
4,022
,745
9.220
12$4
4,437
$149
,406
336.2
%$1
610.4
%($1
49,24
4)-3
35.9%
1
21
.33.9
%$7
2,475
,076
9.520
13$1
35,99
6$1
01,82
674
.9%$0
0.0%
($101
,826)
-74.9
%2
10.1
4.2%
$80,1
54,41
09.9
2014
$823
,232
$457
,159
55.5%
$00.0
%($4
57,15
9)-5
5.5%
1
23
.13.7
%$1
01,37
3,368
9.220
15$4
29,53
5$1
05,42
124
.5%$0
0.0%
($105
,421)
-24.5
%3
23.0
3.8%
$112
,919,4
519.4
2016
$122
,872
$321
,528
261.7
%$0
0.0%
($321
,528)
-261
.7%1
23.4
3.6%
$123
,791,4
909.8
2017
$771
,974
$1,38
1,648
179.0
%$0
0.0%
($1,38
1,648
)-1
79.0%
275
21
.33.8
%$1
38,78
1,114
9.920
18$1
,318,0
43$1
,516,7
2711
5.1%
$00.0
%($1
,516,7
27)
-115
.1%10
,529
18.6
3.5%
$156
,634,6
0910
.020
09-2
018
$3,89
2,643
$5,18
2,983
133.1
%$1
610.0
%($5
,182,8
21)
-133
.1%10
,817
10.0
68
Workpaper – Southern California Edison / 2021 General Rate Case
Exhibit No. SCE-07 Vol.03 Ch I-VI Bk A Witness: D. Gunn
Sout
hern
Cali
forn
ia Ed
ison
2021
GRC
Dep
recia
tion S
tudy
Acco
unt 3
61: D
istrib
ution
Subs
tatio
n Stru
cture
s and
Impr
ovem
ents
as o
f:1/
1/20
19
Subp
opul
atio
n F:
Mon
itorin
g De
vices
Origi
nal C
ost
Cost
ofCo
st of
Gros
sGr
oss
Net
Net
Units
Age o
fHi
storic
alPla
ntAg
e of
Year
Retir
emen
tsRe
mov
alRe
mov
al %
Salva
geSa
lvage
%Sa
lvage
Salva
ge %
Retir
edRe
tirem
ents
Inflat
ionBa
lance
Surv.
Plan
tA
BC
D=C/
BE
F=E/
BG=
E-C
H=G/
BI
JK
LM
2009
$0$0
0.0%
$00.0
%$0
0.0%
-
$6,79
4,088
9.320
10$9
73$1
3,805
1418
.2%$0
0.0%
($13,8
05)
-141
8.2%
-
19.5
3.9%
$8,83
0,322
9.020
11$9
3,901
$23,5
0825
.0%$0
0.0%
($23,5
08)
-25.0
%2
20.3
3.9%
$10,8
65,87
48.6
2012
$0$8
,340
0.0%
$00.0
%($8
,340)
0.0%
-
$11,9
14,18
49.1
2013
$13,9
37$2
,308
16.6%
$00.0
%($2
,308)
-16.6
%-
4.5
3.4%
$12,7
54,13
49.7
2014
$39,1
44$6
,501
16.6%
$00.0
%($6
,501)
-16.6
%1
13.7
4.9%
$14,4
53,38
29.9
2015
$107
,374
$8,11
57.6
%$0
0.0%
($8,11
5)-7
.6%3
15.0
3.9%
$16,5
57,22
99.9
2016
$0$6
3,084
0.0%
$00.0
%($6
3,084
)0.0
%-
$1
8,038
,614
10.4
2017
$14,2
12$5
00.4
%$0
0.0%
($50)
-0.4%
-
3.51.9
%$1
9,293
,425
10.9
2018
$60,9
09$6
4,266
105.5
%$7
,056
11.6%
($57,2
10)
-93.9
%2
8.12.8
%$2
4,355
,501
10.4
2009
-201
8$3
30,44
9$1
89,97
757
.5%$7
,056
2.1%
($182
,921)
-55.4
%8
10.4
Subp
opul
atio
n O:
Com
mon
& O
ther
Origi
nal C
ost
Cost
ofCo
st of
Gros
sGr
oss
Net
Net
Units
Age o
fHi
storic
alPla
ntAg
e of
Year
Retir
emen
tsRe
mov
alRe
mov
al %
Salva
geSa
lvage
%Sa
lvage
Salva
ge %
Retir
edRe
tirem
ents
Inflat
ionBa
lance
Surv.
Plan
tA
BC
D=C/
BE
F=E/
BG=
E-C
H=G/
BI
JK
LM
2009
$1,29
5,863
$479
,041
37.0%
$429
,397
33.1%
($49,6
44)
-3.8%
1
32
.03.8
%$1
74,74
4,490
36.0
2010
$6,07
6,176
$356
,185
5.9%
$45,5
140.7
%($3
10,67
0)-5
.1%-
33
.33.5
%$1
70,12
7,606
37.0
2011
$5,48
9,072
$1,23
4,172
22.5%
$00.0
%($1
,234,1
72)
-22.5
%-
29
.13.6
%$1
65,83
4,750
38.2
2012
$1,21
8,939
$379
,967
31.2%
$196
,726
16.1%
($183
,241)
-15.0
%1
30.9
3.7%
$167
,520,0
2839
.120
13$9
69,53
8$1
84,06
719
.0%$1
35,94
014
.0%($4
8,126
)-5
.0%-
38
.43.4
%$1
66,56
1,352
40.1
2014
$8,84
6,364
$3,13
6,200
35.5%
$799
,525
9.0%
($2,33
6,675
)-2
6.4%
2
34
.23.7
%$1
60,04
8,471
41.2
2015
$4,72
7,428
$3,08
2,497
65.2%
$230
,431
4.9%
($2,85
2,066
)-6
0.3%
-
40.3
3.6%
$166
,851,3
9841
.620
16$1
,920,9
73$1
,028,4
7853
.5%$1
55,01
88.1
%($8
73,46
0)-4
5.5%
-
43.2
3.6%
$165
,536,4
7142
.720
17$2
,015,6
17$2
9,396
1.5%
$126
,155
6.3%
$96,7
584.8
%-
44
.13.4
%$1
63,67
1,035
43.8
2018
$1,93
1,321
$402
,413
20.8%
$156
,974
8.1%
($245
,439)
-12.7
%-
48
.43.4
%$1
61,77
2,713
44.7
2009
-201
8$3
4,491
,292
$10,3
12,41
529
.9%$2
,275,6
806.6
%($8
,036,7
34)
-23.3
%4
44.7
69
Workpaper – Southern California Edison / 2021 General Rate Case
Exhibit No. SCE-07 Vol.03 Ch I-VI Bk A Witness: D. Gunn
Sout
hern
Cali
forn
ia Ed
ison
2021
GRC
Dep
recia
tion S
tudy
Acco
unt 3
61: D
istrib
ution
Subs
tation
Stru
cture
s and
Impr
ovem
ents
Weig
hted
NSR
(2009
-201
8)
Majo
rRe
tirem
ent M
ixPla
nt M
ixNe
t Salv
age
Weig
hted
NSR
Com
pone
ntRe
tirem
ents
% of
Total
Balan
ce%
of To
talRa
te (N
SR)
Ret. W
td.
Plant
Wtd
.A
BC
DE
FG=
C*F
H=E*
FBu
ilding
s$8
,527,3
7616
%$1
49,41
7,330
23%
-27%
-4%
-6%
Powe
r & Li
ghtin
g Sy
stem
$1,75
6,949
3%$5
8,804
,270
9%-6
5%-2
%-6
%HV
AC$2
,265,4
554%
$40,2
99,49
36%
-39%
-2%
-2%
Wate
r Sup
ply Sy
stem
s$1
,190,8
022%
$65,4
94,33
610
%-2
90%
-7%
-29%
Foun
datio
ns &
Oth
er St
ructu
res
$3,89
2,643
7%$1
56,63
4,609
24%
-133
%-1
0%-3
2%M
onito
ring
Devic
es$3
30,44
91%
$24,3
55,50
14%
-55%
0%-2
%Co
mm
on &
Oth
er$3
4,491
,292
66%
$161
,772,7
1325
%-2
3%-1
5%-6
%To
tal
-40%
-83%
70
Workpaper – Southern California Edison / 2021 General Rate Case
Exhibit No. SCE-07 Vol.03 Ch I-VI Bk A Witness: D. Gunn
Sout
hern
Cali
forn
ia Ed
ison
2021
GRC
Dep
recia
tion S
tudy
Acco
unt 3
61: D
istrib
ution
Subs
tation
Stru
cture
s and
Impr
ovem
ents
Subs
tation
Acti
vity
(2014
-201
8)Co
st of
% of
Total
% of
Total
Acco
unt 3
61Pla
ntRe
mov
alPla
ntCo
st of
Rem
oval
Subs
tation
s$2
47,87
1,415
($5,27
3,546
)36
%30
%Se
rvice
Cen
ter
$448
,630,8
46($1
2,180
,383)
64%
70%
Total
$696
,502,2
62($1
7,453
,928)
71
Workpaper – Southern California Edison / 2021 General Rate Case
Exhibit No. SCE-07 Vol.03 Ch I-VI Bk A Witness: D. Gunn
SCE-07, Volume. 03, Results of Operations Depreciation Study
Chapter III: T&D Net Salvage Witness: David Gunn
Account 362: Distribution Substation Equipment
72
Workpaper – Southern California Edison / 2021 General Rate Case
Exhibit No. SCE-07 Vol.03 Ch I-VI Bk A Witness: D. Gunn
Sout
hern
Cali
forn
ia Ed
ison
2021
GRC
Dep
recia
tion S
tudy
Acco
unt 3
62: D
istrib
ution
Subs
tation
Equip
men
tas
of:
1/1/
2019
Aggr
egat
e Res
ults
Origi
nal C
ost
Cost
ofCo
st of
Gros
sGr
oss
Net
Net
Units
Age o
fHi
storic
alPla
ntAg
e of
Year
Retir
emen
tsRe
mov
alRe
mov
al %
Salva
geSa
lvage
%Sa
lvage
Salva
ge %
Retir
edRe
tirem
ents
Inflat
ionBa
lance
Surv.
Plan
tA
BC
D=C/
BE
F=E/
BG=
E-C
H=G/
BI
JK
LM
2009
$5,51
3,263
$4,75
0,757
86.2%
$1,31
7,551
23.9%
($3,43
3,206
)-6
2.3%
20,05
6
38
.23.3
%$1
,363,5
44,93
427
.320
10$8
,430,0
01$7
,494,8
2088
.9%$4
94,90
45.9
%($6
,999,9
15)
-83.0
%94
,838
43.6
3.6%
$1,45
7,055
,947
27.3
2011
$9,46
8,083
$7,55
5,520
79.8%
$471
,334
5.0%
($7,08
4,185
)-7
4.8%
89,83
6
38
.23.5
%$1
,609,9
73,20
227
.020
12$1
0,518
,014
$5,55
0,475
52.8%
$535
,575
5.1%
($5,01
4,900
)-4
7.7%
43,77
3
38
.73.3
%$1
,761,0
37,88
326
.820
13$1
7,241
,664
$7,79
1,494
45.2%
$1,60
5,095
9.3%
($6,18
6,399
)-3
5.9%
78,74
2
34
.93.2
%$1
,894,7
25,39
726
.720
14$1
1,826
,779
$9,77
1,590
82.6%
$1,64
5,158
13.9%
($8,12
6,432
)-6
8.7%
63,05
1
35
.43.0
%$2
,063,6
10,30
926
.520
15$1
1,534
,474
$8,96
6,616
77.7%
$462
,974
4.0%
($8,50
3,642
)-7
3.7%
64,41
0
39
.53.2
%$2
,244,2
70,52
926
.320
16$8
,311,9
35$6
,167,3
5974
.2%$3
,804,2
0945
.8%($2
,363,1
50)
-28.4
%66
,948
40.4
3.0%
$2,39
7,308
,356
26.3
2017
$13,4
19,11
9$1
3,814
,338
102.9
%$3
84,18
82.9
%($1
3,430
,151)
-100
.1%11
8,223
31.5
2.8%
$2,53
9,477
,720
26.5
2018
$34,2
77,69
0$2
9,771
,505
86.9%
$1,00
2,533
2.9%
($28,7
68,97
2)-8
3.9%
465,2
22
29
.42.9
%$2
,727,8
19,40
226
.320
09-2
018
$130
,541,0
21$1
01,63
4,472
77.9%
$11,7
23,52
19.0
%($8
9,910
,952)
-68.9
%1,1
05,09
9
3.2%
26.3
2014
-201
8-7
7.1%
Subp
opul
atio
n A:
Circ
uit B
reak
ers
Origi
nal C
ost
Cost
ofCo
st of
Gros
sGr
oss
Net
Net
Units
Age o
fHi
storic
alPla
ntAg
e of
Year
Retir
emen
tsRe
mov
alRe
mov
al %
Salva
geSa
lvage
%Sa
lvage
Salva
ge %
Retir
edRe
tirem
ents
Inflat
ionBa
lance
Surv.
Plan
tA
BC
D=C/
BE
F=E/
BG=
E-C
H=G/
BI
JK
LM
2009
$565
,190
$245
,514
43.4%
$00.0
%($2
45,51
4)-4
3.4%
7
15
.13.9
%$1
41,22
1,270
9.520
10$4
68,61
4$6
84,99
014
6.2%
($10,3
55)
-2.2%
($695
,345)
-148
.4%11
17.4
3.9%
$169
,872,7
859.4
2011
$548
,884
$923
,841
168.3
%($1
8,820
)-3
.4%($9
42,66
1)-1
71.7%
7
13
.14.4
%$1
90,60
3,149
9.820
12$8
86,26
4$9
90,40
911
1.8%
$4,39
30.5
%($9
86,01
7)-1
11.3%
14
13
.84.2
%$2
07,23
4,656
10.3
2013
$1,53
8,830
$1,54
4,695
100.4
%$0
0.0%
($1,54
4,695
)-1
00.4%
41
15
.34.0
%$2
31,76
1,152
10.5
2014
$996
,315
$691
,136
69.4%
$00.0
%($6
91,13
6)-6
9.4%
12
13
.53.5
%$2
54,53
1,404
10.9
2015
$1,05
6,406
$887
,366
84.0%
$18,2
921.7
%($8
69,07
4)-8
2.3%
23
16
.63.5
%$2
70,10
7,330
11.5
2016
$1,05
4,829
$923
,722
87.6%
$00.0
%($9
23,72
2)-8
7.6%
9
11
.32.7
%$2
84,66
1,407
12.1
2017
$1,63
4,766
$2,64
9,337
162.1
%$1
60.0
%($2
,649,3
21)
-162
.1%35
14.3
3.1%
$312
,296,8
8512
.420
18$4
,965,3
41$5
,097,1
4410
2.7%
$00.0
%($5
,097,1
44)
-102
.7%12
3
18.1
3.0%
$366
,490,7
4412
.120
09-2
018
$13,7
15,44
0$1
4,638
,155
106.7
%($6
,474)
0.0%
($14,6
44,62
9)-1
06.8%
282
12
.120
14-2
018
-105
.4%
73
Workpaper – Southern California Edison / 2021 General Rate Case
Exhibit No. SCE-07 Vol.03 Ch I-VI Bk A Witness: D. Gunn
Sout
hern
Cali
forn
ia Ed
ison
2021
GRC
Dep
recia
tion S
tudy
Acco
unt 3
62: D
istrib
ution
Subs
tation
Equip
men
tas
of:
1/1/
2019
Subp
opul
atio
n B:
Tran
sform
ers
Origi
nal C
ost
Cost
ofCo
st of
Gros
sGr
oss
Net
Net
Units
Age o
fHi
storic
alPla
ntAg
e of
Year
Retir
emen
tsRe
mov
alRe
mov
al %
Salva
geSa
lvage
%Sa
lvage
Salva
ge %
Retir
edRe
tirem
ents
Inflat
ionBa
lance
Surv.
Plan
tA
BC
D=C/
BE
F=E/
BG=
E-C
H=G/
BI
JK
LM
2009
$395
,441
$304
,257
76.9%
$569
0.1%
($303
,688)
-76.8
%26
17.6
3.7%
$177
,744,0
7311
.020
10$2
57,16
9$5
80,35
022
5.7%
($10,3
55)
-4.0%
($590
,705)
-229
.7%22
15.7
4.2%
$197
,559,1
8911
.320
11$4
89,47
0$8
34,84
517
0.6%
$124
,904
25.5%
($709
,940)
-145
.0%34
16.7
3.9%
$234
,784,0
2511
.220
12$1
,839,3
08$1
,538,5
4383
.6%($1
,026)
-0.1%
($1,53
9,569
)-8
3.7%
39
10
.73.6
%$2
67,04
9,718
11.4
2013
$4,20
0,141
$1,34
0,157
31.9%
$00.0
%($1
,340,1
57)
-31.9
%52
12.6
3.6%
$302
,886,2
3211
.420
14$2
,074,6
87$9
86,74
847
.6%$1
0,406
0.5%
($976
,342)
-47.1
%20
20.4
3.6%
$339
,232,6
3811
.520
15$1
,503,5
31$1
,210,9
6680
.5%$3
74,48
624
.9%($8
36,48
0)-5
5.6%
74
15
.93.2
%$3
59,81
4,116
12.1
2016
$797
,422
$803
,201
100.7
%$0
0.0%
($803
,201)
-100
.7%36
13.3
3.2%
$374
,535,8
9112
.820
17$1
,074,7
61$3
,652,7
1533
9.9%
$00.0
%($3
,652,7
15)
-339
.9%44
21.9
3.3%
$399
,699,9
9713
.220
18$4
,571,8
62$7
,697,9
6816
8.4%
$8,87
60.2
%($7
,689,0
93)
-168
.2%11
8
22.5
3.4%
$440
,054,6
7813
.320
09-2
018
$17,2
03,79
0$1
8,949
,750
110.1
%$5
07,86
03.0
%($1
8,441
,890)
-107
.2%46
5
13.3
2014
-201
8-1
39.3%
Subp
opul
atio
n C:
Mon
itorin
g De
vices
Origi
nal C
ost
Cost
ofCo
st of
Gros
sGr
oss
Net
Net
Units
Age o
fHi
storic
alPla
ntAg
e of
Year
Retir
emen
tsRe
mov
alRe
mov
al %
Salva
geSa
lvage
%Sa
lvage
Salva
ge %
Retir
edRe
tirem
ents
Inflat
ionBa
lance
Surv.
Plan
tA
BC
D=C/
BE
F=E/
BG=
E-C
H=G/
BI
JK
LM
2009
$1,50
5,090
$107
,413
7.1%
$00.0
%($1
07,41
3)-7
.1%23
11.0
4.8%
$192
,370,7
0610
.720
10$1
,334,3
76$7
39,86
655
.4%($1
0,355
)-0
.8%($7
50,22
1)-5
6.2%
45
12
.04.7
%$2
05,12
1,860
11.2
2011
$1,51
4,192
$834
,999
55.1%
$14,8
651.0
%($8
20,13
3)-5
4.2%
61
13
.94.4
%$2
23,83
8,163
11.6
2012
$2,34
2,784
$412
,979
17.6%
$00.0
%($4
12,97
9)-1
7.6%
60
14
.14.3
%$2
34,65
1,743
12.2
2013
$2,04
4,584
$536
,216
26.2%
$00.0
%($5
36,21
6)-2
6.2%
81
14
.94.1
%$2
47,13
1,783
12.8
2014
$2,92
4,743
$962
,555
32.9%
$205
,564
7.0%
($756
,991)
-25.9
%76
17.5
3.9%
$266
,234,9
4213
.220
15$1
,785,6
02$7
18,89
440
.3%$3
5,730
2.0%
($683
,164)
-38.3
%80
17.9
3.8%
$275
,879,0
8113
.820
16$1
,643,9
88$9
84,52
159
.9%$6
,823
0.4%
($977
,698)
-59.5
%11
5
13.1
3.6%
$286
,233,4
0814
.520
17$3
,578,7
72$1
,318,6
9936
.8%$2
2,217
0.6%
($1,29
6,483
)-3
6.2%
123
16
.33.1
%$3
11,66
9,176
14.7
2018
$5,72
1,256
$2,54
6,288
44.5%
$47,5
850.8
%($2
,498,7
03)
-43.7
%24
5
18.1
3.1%
$345
,290,6
6614
.720
09-2
018
$24,3
95,38
7$9
,162,4
3037
.6%$3
22,42
91.3
%($8
,840,0
01)
-36.2
%90
9
14.7
2014
-201
8-3
9.7%
74
Workpaper – Southern California Edison / 2021 General Rate Case
Exhibit No. SCE-07 Vol.03 Ch I-VI Bk A Witness: D. Gunn
Sout
hern
Cali
forn
ia Ed
ison
2021
GRC
Dep
recia
tion S
tudy
Acco
unt 3
62: D
istrib
ution
Subs
tation
Equip
men
tas
of:
1/1/
2019
Subp
opul
atio
n D:
Bus
Supp
ort S
truct
ures
Origi
nal C
ost
Cost
ofCo
st of
Gros
sGr
oss
Net
Net
Units
Age o
fHi
storic
alPla
ntAg
e of
Year
Retir
emen
tsRe
mov
alRe
mov
al %
Salva
geSa
lvage
%Sa
lvage
Salva
ge %
Retir
edRe
tirem
ents
Inflat
ionBa
lance
Surv.
Plan
tA
BC
D=C/
BE
F=E/
BG=
E-C
H=G/
BI
JK
LM
2009
$396
,905
$29,0
017.3
%$0
0.0%
($29,0
01)
-7.3%
21
13
.14.3
%$9
8,189
,134
10.2
2010
$424
,455
$764
,063
180.0
%($2
0,710
)-4
.9%($7
84,77
3)-1
84.9%
15
11
.24.5
%$1
13,66
9,689
10.4
2011
$454
,006
$516
,409
113.7
%$0
0.0%
($516
,409)
-113
.7%2,2
02
10.3
4.0%
$127
,943,3
6710
.720
12$5
66,11
0$6
68,35
311
8.1%
$00.0
%($6
68,35
3)-1
18.1%
28
9.8
4.2%
$142
,400,1
9811
.020
13$6
61,50
2$8
64,42
213
0.7%
$00.0
%($8
64,42
2)-1
30.7%
40
12
.63.8
%$1
59,79
4,412
11.3
2014
$166
,830
$440
,023
263.8
%$7
4,899
44.9%
($365
,124)
-218
.9%16
9.73.8
%$1
76,19
6,856
11.6
2015
$529
,347
$435
,545
82.3%
$00.0
%($4
35,54
5)-8
2.3%
31
19
.13.6
%$1
82,42
3,638
12.3
2016
$162
,561
$79,5
0148
.9%$0
0.0%
($79,5
01)
-48.9
%8
5.41.8
%$1
88,33
1,644
13.1
2017
$755
,464
$246
,016
32.6%
$00.0
%($2
46,01
6)-3
2.6%
31
17
.22.6
%$1
95,84
4,408
13.8
2018
$3,60
8,307
$1,22
7,848
34.0%
$00.0
%($1
,227,8
48)
-34.0
%15
8
16.9
3.2%
$212
,803,5
9914
.020
09-2
018
$7,72
5,488
$5,27
1,182
68.2%
$54,1
890.7
%($5
,216,9
93)
-67.5
%2,5
50
14.0
2014
-201
8-4
5.1%
Subp
opul
atio
n E:
Switc
hes
Origi
nal C
ost
Cost
ofCo
st of
Gros
sGr
oss
Net
Net
Units
Age o
fHi
storic
alPla
ntAg
e of
Year
Retir
emen
tsRe
mov
alRe
mov
al %
Salva
geSa
lvage
%Sa
lvage
Salva
ge %
Retir
edRe
tirem
ents
Inflat
ionBa
lance
Surv.
Plan
tA
BC
D=C/
BE
F=E/
BG=
E-C
H=G/
BI
JK
LM
2009
$231
,326
$106
,474
46.0%
$00.0
%($1
06,47
4)-4
6.0%
67
11
.94.7
%$4
4,792
,633
10.3
2010
$157
,291
$278
,935
177.3
%($5
,416)
-3.4%
($284
,352)
-180
.8%83
8.64.8
%$6
0,319
,522
9.520
11$5
09,73
5$3
01,72
659
.2%$0
0.0%
($301
,726)
-59.2
%20
8
15.0
3.8%
$68,3
84,18
89.7
2012
$387
,260
$319
,976
82.6%
$00.0
%($3
19,97
6)-8
2.6%
58
10
.04.4
%$7
4,297
,633
10.3
2013
$651
,689
$293
,216
45.0%
$00.0
%($2
93,21
6)-4
5.0%
186
12
.43.8
%$8
3,105
,900
10.5
2014
$377
,038
$253
,397
67.2%
$00.0
%($2
53,39
7)-6
7.2%
52
10
.43.1
%$9
0,494
,258
10.9
2015
$676
,880
$310
,201
45.8%
$00.0
%($3
10,20
1)-4
5.8%
302
18
.43.6
%$9
5,098
,077
11.5
2016
$807
,351
$328
,639
40.7%
$00.0
%($3
28,63
9)-4
0.7%
271
14
.22.7
%$9
9,771
,120
12.1
2017
$1,40
1,732
$750
,261
53.5%
$00.0
%($7
50,26
1)-5
3.5%
340
11
.72.6
%$1
06,33
3,463
12.6
2018
$2,07
6,462
$1,42
2,780
68.5%
$00.0
%($1
,422,7
80)
-68.5
%64
6
16.8
3.1%
$123
,013,2
3912
.320
09-2
018
$7,27
6,763
$4,36
5,606
60.0%
($5,41
6)-0
.1%($4
,371,0
23)
-60.1
%2,2
13
12.3
2014
-201
8-5
7.4%
75
Workpaper – Southern California Edison / 2021 General Rate Case
Exhibit No. SCE-07 Vol.03 Ch I-VI Bk A Witness: D. Gunn
Sout
hern
Cali
forn
ia Ed
ison
2021
GRC
Dep
recia
tion S
tudy
Acco
unt 3
62: D
istrib
ution
Subs
tation
Equip
men
tas
of:
1/1/
2019
Subp
opul
atio
n F:
Powe
r Con
trol C
able
Origi
nal C
ost
Cost
ofCo
st of
Gros
sGr
oss
Net
Net
Units
Age o
fHi
storic
alPla
ntAg
e of
Year
Retir
emen
tsRe
mov
alRe
mov
al %
Salva
geSa
lvage
%Sa
lvage
Salva
ge %
Retir
edRe
tirem
ents
Inflat
ionBa
lance
Surv.
Plan
tA
BC
D=C/
BE
F=E/
BG=
E-C
H=G/
BI
JK
LM
2009
$179
,668
$113
,288
63.1%
$00.0
%($1
13,28
8)-6
3.1%
15,15
5
14
.44.1
%$6
0,603
,574
9.320
10$8
48,55
9$5
40,07
863
.6%($2
0,710
)-2
.4%($5
60,78
7)-6
6.1%
87,72
9
12
.04.8
%$6
6,464
,771
9.720
11$7
90,66
9$4
32,77
554
.7%$0
0.0%
($432
,775)
-54.7
%86
,826
12.6
4.0%
$72,5
05,20
910
.120
12$5
17,43
7$2
68,72
551
.9%($7
,005)
-1.4%
($275
,731)
-53.3
%41
,249
12.4
4.5%
$78,8
49,04
610
.620
13$9
71,90
7$5
40,49
255
.6%$0
0.0%
($540
,492)
-55.6
%61
,083
15.5
4.2%
$89,4
89,43
010
.720
14$1
,093,8
19$1
,192,5
6210
9.0%
$39,3
913.6
%($1
,153,1
72)
-105
.4%60
,868
12.2
3.6%
$104
,388,8
7610
.720
15$6
70,62
7$9
74,01
814
5.2%
$00.0
%($9
74,01
8)-1
45.2%
55,46
1
16
.63.8
%$1
15,53
9,624
11.0
2016
$714
,952
$654
,050
91.5%
$00.0
%($6
54,05
0)-9
1.5%
57,47
1
16
.63.4
%$1
22,63
6,300
11.5
2017
$1,69
4,898
$2,37
5,784
140.2
%$0
0.0%
($2,37
5,784
)-1
40.2%
105,7
86
15
.33.2
%$1
41,22
8,261
11.5
2018
$5,27
1,856
$4,88
0,528
92.6%
$69,7
981.3
%($4
,810,7
30)
-91.3
%43
3,123
16.6
3.1%
$169
,521,0
5610
.920
09-2
018
$12,7
54,39
4$1
1,972
,299
93.9%
$81,4
740.6
%($1
1,890
,826)
-93.2
%1,0
04,75
1
10.9
2014
-201
8-1
05.5%
Subp
opul
atio
n O:
Com
mon
& O
ther
Origi
nal C
ost
Cost
ofCo
st of
Gros
sGr
oss
Net
Net
Units
Age o
fHi
storic
alPla
ntAg
e of
Year
Retir
emen
tsRe
mov
alRe
mov
al %
Salva
geSa
lvage
%Sa
lvage
Salva
ge %
Retir
edRe
tirem
ents
Inflat
ionBa
lance
Surv.
Plan
tA
BC
D=C/
BE
F=E/
BG=
E-C
H=G/
BI
JK
LM
2009
$2,23
9,643
$3,84
4,811
171.7
%$1
,316,9
8258
.8%($2
,527,8
29)
-112
.9%4,7
57
48.7
3.7%
$485
,364,3
2738
.920
10$4
,939,5
38$3
,906,5
3879
.1%$5
72,80
511
.6%($3
,333,7
33)
-67.5
%6,9
33
49.3
4.0%
$492
,799,0
4339
.520
11$5
,161,1
27$3
,710,9
2671
.9%$3
50,38
56.8
%($3
,360,5
41)
-65.1
%49
8
44.7
3.9%
$500
,578,2
3540
.220
12$3
,978,8
50$1
,351,4
8934
.0%$5
39,21
313
.6%($8
12,27
5)-2
0.4%
2,325
49
.53.9
%$5
09,68
1,345
40.9
2013
$7,06
9,336
$2,67
2,296
37.8%
$1,60
5,095
22.7%
($1,06
7,201
)-1
5.1%
17,27
5
45
.13.6
%$5
25,71
0,042
41.4
2014
$4,19
3,346
$5,24
5,169
125.1
%$1
,314,8
9831
.4%($3
,930,2
70)
-93.7
%2,0
07
48.4
3.3%
$545
,293,0
7541
.920
15$5
,312,0
81$4
,429,6
2683
.4%$3
4,465
0.6%
($4,39
5,161
)-8
2.7%
8,439
48
.43.5
%$5
50,85
5,523
42.7
2016
$3,13
0,833
$2,39
3,723
76.5%
$3,79
7,386
121.3
%$1
,403,6
6344
.8%9,0
38
51.3
3.6%
$558
,583,2
9643
.420
17$3
,278,7
25$2
,821,5
2586
.1%$3
61,95
511
.0%($2
,459,5
70)
-75.0
%11
,864
47.8
3.3%
$588
,970,4
2243
.920
18$8
,062,6
05$6
,898,9
4885
.6%$8
76,27
410
.9%($6
,022,6
74)
-74.7
%30
,809
44.8
3.2%
$620
,379,0
0344
.120
09-2
018
$47,3
66,08
4$3
7,275
,050
78.7%
$10,7
69,45
922
.7%($2
6,505
,591)
-56.0
%93
,945
44.1
2014
-201
8-6
4.2%
76
Workpaper – Southern California Edison / 2021 General Rate Case
Exhibit No. SCE-07 Vol.03 Ch I-VI Bk A Witness: D. Gunn
Sout
hern
Cali
forn
ia Ed
ison
2021
GRC
Dep
recia
tion S
tudy
Acco
unt 3
62: D
istrib
ution
Subs
tation
Equip
men
tW
eight
ed N
SR(20
09-2
018) Majo
rRe
tirem
ent M
ixPla
nt M
ixNe
t Salv
age
Weig
hted
NSR
Com
pone
ntRe
tirem
ents
% of
Total
Balan
ce%
of To
talRa
te (N
SR)
Ret. W
td.
Plant
Wtd
.A
BC
DE
FG=
C*F
H=E*
FCi
rcuit
Brea
kers
$13,7
15,44
011
%$3
66,49
0,744
16%
-107
%-1
1%-1
7%Tr
ansfo
rmer
s$1
7,203
,790
13%
$440
,054,6
7819
%-1
07%
-14%
-21%
Mon
itorin
g De
vices
$24,3
95,38
719
%$3
45,29
0,666
15%
-36%
-7%
-5%
Bus S
uppo
rt St
ructu
res
$7,72
5,488
6%$2
12,80
3,599
9%-6
8%-4
%-6
%Sw
itche
s$7
,276,7
636%
$123
,013,2
395%
-60%
-3%
-3%
Powe
r Con
trol C
able
$12,7
54,39
410
%$1
69,52
1,056
7%-9
3%-9
%-7
%Co
mm
on &
Oth
er$4
7,366
,084
36%
$620
,379,0
0327
%-5
6%-2
0%-1
5%To
tal
-69%
-75%
77
Workpaper – Southern California Edison / 2021 General Rate Case
Exhibit No. SCE-07 Vol.03 Ch I-VI Bk A Witness: D. Gunn
SCE-07, Volume. 03, Results of Operations Depreciation Study
Chapter III: T&D Net Salvage Witness: David Gunn
Account 364: Distribution Poles
78
Workpaper – Southern California Edison / 2021 General Rate Case
Exhibit No. SCE-07 Vol.03 Ch I-VI Bk A Witness: D. Gunn
Sout
hern
Cali
forn
ia Ed
ison
2021
GRC
Dep
recia
tion S
tudy
Acco
unt 3
64: D
istrib
ution
Poles
, Tow
ers,
and F
ixtur
esas
of:
1/1/
2019
Aggr
egat
e Res
ults
Origi
nal C
ost
Cost
ofCo
st of
Gros
sGr
oss
Net
Net
Units
Age o
fHi
storic
alPla
ntAg
e of
Survi
ving
Year
Retir
emen
tsRe
mov
alRe
mov
al %
Salva
geSa
lvage
%Sa
lvage
Salva
ge %
Retir
edRe
tirem
ents
Inflat
ionBa
lance
Surv.
Plan
tUn
itsA
BC
D=C/
BE
F=E/
BG=
E-C
H=G/
BI
JK
LM
N20
09$4
,655,5
08$2
3,522
,105
505.3
%$2
,304,5
6149
.5%($2
1,217
,544)
-455
.8%13
,425
43.4
4.1%
$1,38
6,109
,995
29.5
1,510
,339
20
10$6
,351,6
33$3
5,948
,995
566.0
%$9
27,41
714
.6%($3
5,021
,577)
-551
.4%17
,426
44.1
4.0%
$1,53
8,473
,625
29.1
1,524
,918
20
11$7
,421,8
71$5
7,512
,181
774.9
%$1
,707,6
0523
.0%($5
5,804
,576)
-751
.9%19
,475
44.6
3.9%
$1,57
5,556
,412
29.5
1,507
,384
20
12$7
,875,5
93$5
6,972
,569
723.4
%$3
,717,1
5047
.2%($5
3,255
,419)
-676
.2%20
,867
45.7
3.9%
$1,65
5,027
,118
29.6
1,498
,181
20
13$7
,814,6
41$6
2,903
,120
804.9
%$5
,093,3
2965
.2%($5
7,809
,791)
-739
.8%19
,992
46.4
3.8%
$1,77
7,254
,815
29.4
1,490
,408
20
14$1
5,909
,986
$97,3
26,56
861
1.7%
$6,30
2,422
39.6%
($91,0
24,14
6)-5
72.1%
36,23
3
45
.83.6
%$2
,050,9
31,74
328
.11,4
83,99
0
2015
$18,2
77,20
9$1
40,85
9,881
770.7
%$6
,936,8
6938
.0%($1
33,92
3,012
)-7
32.7%
38,54
8
45
.83.5
%$2
,463,3
86,35
626
.01,4
86,55
1
2016
$24,6
21,77
0$1
41,91
8,440
576.4
%$1
3,299
,038
54.0%
($128
,619,4
02)
-522
.4%39
,838
43.7
3.2%
$2,79
9,944
,618
24.8
1,494
,279
20
17$3
3,283
,706
$168
,907,5
7850
7.5%
$19,6
69,72
659
.1%($1
49,23
7,852
)-4
48.4%
46,42
9
43
.13.0
%$2
,971,6
57,09
524
.31,4
85,74
5
2018
$36,5
44,89
4$1
30,24
2,216
356.4
%$2
9,711
,496
81.3%
($100
,530,7
20)
-275
.1%40
,029
40.0
2.7%
$3,14
7,697
,329
24.0
1,481
,433
20
09-2
018
$162
,756,8
10$9
16,11
3,653
562.9
%$8
9,669
,613
55.1%
($826
,444,0
40)
-507
.8%29
2,262
3.6%
24.0
2016
-201
8-4
00.6%
Subp
opul
atio
n A:
Pol
esOr
igina
l Cos
tCo
st of
Cost
ofGr
oss
Gros
sNe
tNe
tUn
itsAg
e of
Histo
rical
Plant
Age o
fSu
rvivin
gYe
arRe
tirem
ents
Rem
oval
Rem
oval
%Sa
lvage
Salva
ge %
Salva
geSa
lvage
%Re
tired
Retir
emen
tsInf
lation
Balan
ceSu
rv. Pl
ant
Units
AB
CD=
C/B
EF=
E/B
G=E-
CH=
G/B
IJ
KL
MN
2009
$4,65
5,508
$23,5
22,10
550
5.3%
$2,30
4,561
49.5%
($21,2
17,54
4)-4
55.8%
13,42
5
43
.44.1
%$1
,223,9
68,48
031
.01,4
68,95
1
2010
$6,35
1,633
$35,9
48,99
556
6.0%
$927
,417
14.6%
($35,0
21,57
7)-5
51.4%
17,42
6
44
.14.0
%$1
,304,5
34,44
031
.01,4
66,51
1
2011
$7,42
1,871
$57,5
12,18
177
4.9%
$1,70
7,605
23.0%
($55,8
04,57
6)-7
51.9%
19,47
5
44
.63.9
%$1
,437,3
14,46
930
.61,4
68,92
4
2012
$7,87
5,593
$56,9
72,56
972
3.4%
$3,71
7,150
47.2%
($53,2
55,41
9)-6
76.2%
20,86
7
45
.73.9
%$1
,560,4
23,33
030
.41,4
68,62
0
2013
$7,81
4,641
$62,9
03,12
080
4.9%
$5,09
3,329
65.2%
($57,8
09,79
1)-7
39.8%
19,99
2
46
.43.8
%$1
,694,6
33,67
330
.11,4
66,77
3
2014
$15,9
09,98
6$9
7,326
,568
611.7
%$6
,302,4
2239
.6%($9
1,024
,146)
-572
.1%36
,233
45.8
3.6%
$1,91
8,095
,667
29.0
1,461
,924
20
15$1
8,277
,209
$140
,859,8
8177
0.7%
$6,93
6,869
38.0%
($133
,923,0
12)
-732
.7%38
,548
45.8
3.5%
$2,19
1,572
,261
27.6
1,463
,837
20
16$2
4,621
,770
$141
,918,4
4057
6.4%
$13,2
99,03
854
.0%($1
28,61
9,402
)-5
22.4%
39,83
8
43
.73.2
%$2
,448,9
43,85
726
.61,4
61,88
2
2017
$33,2
83,70
6$1
68,90
7,578
507.5
%$1
9,669
,726
59.1%
($149
,237,8
52)
-448
.4%46
,429
43.1
3.0%
$2,75
9,626
,752
25.4
1,462
,443
20
18$3
6,544
,894
$130
,242,2
1635
6.4%
$29,7
11,49
681
.3%($1
00,53
0,720
)-2
75.1%
40,02
9
40
.02.7
%$2
,951,7
43,12
224
.91,4
61,20
6
2009
-201
8$1
62,75
6,810
$916
,113,6
5356
2.9%
$89,6
69,61
355
.1%($8
26,44
4,040
)-5
07.8%
292,2
62
24
.920
16-2
018
-400
.6%
79
Workpaper – Southern California Edison / 2021 General Rate Case
Exhibit No. SCE-07 Vol.03 Ch I-VI Bk A Witness: D. Gunn
Southern California Edison2021 GRC Depreciation StudyAccount 364: Distribution Poles, Towers, and FixturesNet Salvage Rate Per Pole(2016-2018)
Recorded Net Salvage Rate Per Distribution PoleNet Salvage $ ($378,387,974)Retirement $ $94,450,369
Net Salvage $/ Poles Retired ($378,387,974) / 126,296 Retirement $/ Poles Retired $94,450,369 / 126,296
Net Salvage $/ Poles Retired -$2,996Retirement $/ Poles Retired $748
Net Salvage Rate Per Distribution Pole - Current RetirementRecent Retirements: Net Salvage $/ Pole - Current -$2,996Original Plant $/ Pole $748
Plant Balance (If Reitred Today):Net Salvage $/ Pole - Current ($378,387,974) / 126,296 Original Plant $/ Pole $3,147,697,329 / 1,481,433
Net Salvage $/ Pole - Current -$2,996Original Plant $/ Pole $2,125
Net Salvage Rate Per Distribution Pole - Future RetirementPlant Balance (Future Retirement):Net Salvage $/ Pole - FutureOriginal Plant $/ Pole
Net Salvage $/ Pole - FutureOriginal Plant $/ Pole
Net Salvage $/ Pole - Future -$6,415Original Plant $/ Pole $2,125
= = -401%
=
= -401%
= = -401%
= -141%=
=
=
-302%
=
=
=
-$2,966 X (1 + Escalation Rate)^Remaining Life$2,125
-$2,966 X (1.0286)^27 years$2,125
=
80
Workpaper – Southern California Edison / 2021 General Rate Case
Exhibit No. SCE-07 Vol.03 Ch I-VI Bk A Witness: D. Gunn
SCE-07, Volume. 03, Results of Operations Depreciation Study
Chapter III: T&D Net Salvage Witness: David Gunn
Account 365: Distribution Overhead Conductor and Devices
81
Workpaper – Southern California Edison / 2021 General Rate Case
Exhibit No. SCE-07 Vol.03 Ch I-VI Bk A Witness: D. Gunn
Sout
hern
Cali
forn
ia Ed
ison
2021
GRC
Dep
recia
tion S
tudy
Acco
unt 3
65: D
istrib
ution
OH
Cond
ucto
rs &
Devic
esas
of:
1/1/
2019
Aggr
egat
e Res
ults
Origi
nal C
ost
Cost
ofCo
st of
Gros
sGr
oss
Net
Net
Units
Age o
fHi
storic
alPla
ntAg
e of
Survi
ving
Year
Retir
emen
tsRe
mov
alRe
mov
al %
Salva
geSa
lvage
%Sa
lvage
Salva
ge %
Retir
edRe
tirem
ents
Inflat
ionBa
lance
Surv.
Plan
tUn
itsA
BC
D=C/
BE
F=E/
BG=
E-C
H=G/
BI
JK
LM
N20
09$5
,023,3
93$1
4,704
,263
292.7
%$1
,690,2
0933
.6%($1
3,014
,054)
-259
.1%5,2
89,32
7
36
.74.1
%$9
83,22
7,539
31.8
802,9
99,37
0
20
10$6
,587,1
78$2
2,640
,539
343.7
%$1
96,22
23.0
%($2
2,444
,317)
-340
.7%6,4
58,89
1
37
.44.1
%$1
,049,6
89,93
932
.180
1,550
,874
2011
$9,58
1,042
$31,4
47,85
932
8.2%
$338
,411
3.5%
($31,1
09,44
8)-3
24.7%
6,923
,977
36.4
3.9%
$1,13
5,495
,047
32.2
801,2
36,28
6
20
12$8
,933,9
75$3
0,691
,887
343.5
%$5
24,91
05.9
%($3
0,166
,977)
-337
.7%5,8
45,85
9
36
.33.8
%$1
,195,6
53,26
232
.580
1,259
,559
2013
$7,80
2,995
$23,5
57,34
630
1.9%
$832
,351
10.7%
($22,7
24,99
5)-2
91.2%
4,647
,030
36.5
3.7%
$1,26
7,581
,195
32.8
800,6
50,49
3
20
14$1
0,646
,131
$24,4
23,52
222
9.4%
$862
,544
8.1%
($23,5
60,97
8)-2
21.3%
5,632
,348
36.2
3.6%
$1,33
7,389
,947
33.1
799,6
56,26
7
20
15$1
1,342
,664
$32,2
36,61
928
4.2%
$474
,275
4.2%
($31,7
62,34
4)-2
80.0%
6,335
,951
38.0
3.7%
$1,43
2,987
,310
33.2
798,8
39,50
7
20
16$1
6,769
,336
$36,1
28,03
321
5.4%
$853
,117
5.1%
($35,2
74,91
5)-2
10.4%
7,244
,823
38.2
3.6%
$1,54
1,882
,995
33.3
798,2
60,73
8
20
17$3
6,056
,310
$75,5
90,95
920
9.6%
$1,36
9,101
3.8%
($74,2
21,85
8)-2
05.8%
17,83
1,614
36
.63.2
%$1
,673,8
58,96
532
.979
4,784
,478
2018
$31,9
06,48
3$6
7,024
,228
210.1
%$1
,030,3
663.2
%($6
5,993
, 862)
-206
.8%15
,679,5
39
38.1
3.1%
$1,84
2,856
,324
32.4
792,2
31,11
0
20
09-2
018
$144
,649,5
07$3
58,44
5,257
247.8
%$8
,171,5
085.6
%($3
50,27
3,748
)-2
42.2%
81,88
9,359
3.7
%32
.420
14-2
018
-216
.3%
Subp
opul
atio
n A:
OH
Cond
ucto
rOr
igina
l Cos
tCo
st of
Cost
ofGr
oss
Gros
sNe
tNe
tUn
itsAg
e of
Histo
rical
Plant
Age o
fSu
rvivin
gYe
arRe
tirem
ents
Rem
oval
Rem
oval
%Sa
lvage
Salva
ge %
Salva
geSa
lvage
%Re
tired
Retir
emen
tsInf
lation
Balan
ceSu
rv. Pl
ant
Units
AB
CD=
C/B
EF=
E/B
G=E-
CH=
G/B
IJ
KL
MN
2009
$2,74
5,539
$11,4
01,83
741
5.3%
$1,58
9,344
57.9%
($9,81
2,494
)-3
57.4%
5,287
,951
39.3
4.3%
$717
,137,4
5634
.080
2,899
,255
2010
$3,30
7,625
$18,7
16,48
056
5.9%
$37,0
951.1
%($1
8,679
,385)
-564
.7%6,4
56,82
7
40
.54.3
%$7
53,34
2,515
34.5
801,4
46,83
7
20
11$4
,106,0
12$2
4,919
,750
606.9
%$3
39,21
78.3
%($2
4,580
,533)
-598
.6%6,9
20,96
6
40
.44.2
%$7
96,97
3,942
34.9
801,1
26,73
1
20
12$3
,479,1
34$2
2,779
,328
654.7
%$6
5,161
1.9%
($22,7
14,16
7)-6
52.9%
5,842
,908
41.6
4.1%
$839
,204,7
9235
.380
1,151
,153
2013
$2,79
3,549
$17,5
51,59
762
8.3%
$22,3
480.8
%($1
7,529
,248)
-627
.5%4,6
44,56
0
42
.44.1
%$8
75,97
7,505
35.8
800,5
41,84
5
20
14$3
,470,9
78$1
7,150
,920
494.1
%$5
7,827
1.7%
($17,0
93,09
3)-4
92.5%
5,628
,671
43.1
4.1%
$908
,007,3
3336
.479
9,543
,086
2015
$3,97
7,948
$22,5
18,42
756
6.1%
$43,9
841.1
%($2
2,474
,442)
-565
.0%6,3
32,04
0
44
.14.0
%$9
46,69
6,334
36.9
798,7
23,33
7
20
16$5
,070,6
36$2
7,426
,839
540.9
%$6
0,517
1.2%
($27,3
66,32
2)-5
39.7%
7,240
,870
45.9
4.2%
$995
,499,1
1437
.379
8,138
,986
2017
$13,4
05,67
8$6
3,143
,752
471.0
%$3
0,811
0.2%
($63,1
12,94
1)-4
70.8%
17,82
0,829
44
.43.8
%$1
,103,8
21,27
436
.979
4,655
,529
2018
$10,4
66,16
7$4
4,838
,704
428.4
%$3
2,420
0.3%
($44,8
06,28
4)-4
28.1%
15,67
2,084
46
.43.8
%$1
,174,8
09,82
237
.079
2,094
,858
2009
-201
8$5
2,823
,265
$270
,447,6
3451
2.0%
$2,27
8,725
4.3%
($268
,168,9
08)
-507
.7%81
,847,7
06
37.0
2014
-201
8-4
80.5%
82
Workpaper – Southern California Edison / 2021 General Rate Case
Exhibit No. SCE-07 Vol.03 Ch I-VI Bk A Witness: D. Gunn
Sout
hern
Cali
forn
ia Ed
ison
2021
GRC
Dep
recia
tion S
tudy
Acco
unt 3
65: D
istrib
ution
OH
Cond
ucto
rs &
Devic
esas
of:
1/1/
2019
Subp
opul
atio
n B:
Switc
hes
Origi
nal C
ost
Cost
ofCo
st of
Gros
sGr
oss
Net
Net
Units
Age o
fHi
storic
alPla
ntAg
e of
Survi
ving
Year
Retir
emen
tsRe
mov
alRe
mov
al %
Salva
geSa
lvage
%Sa
lvage
Salva
ge %
Retir
edRe
tirem
ents
Inflat
ionBa
lance
Surv.
Plan
tUn
itsA
BC
D=C/
BE
F=E/
BG=
E-C
H=G/
BI
JK
LM
N20
09$1
,407,1
72$2
,311,2
2916
4.2%
$11,2
720.8
%($2
,299,9
57)
-163
.4%93
6
36
.14.2
%$1
79,51
6,563
25.0
61,57
4
20
10$1
,979,9
09$3
,257,1
9016
4.5%
$4,44
80.2
%($3
,252,7
42)
-164
.3%1,3
58
37.0
4.2%
$193
,961,4
8624
.861
,493
2011
$3,13
4,154
$5,72
7,784
182.8
%($3
29)
0.0%
($5,72
8,113
)-1
82.8%
1,998
36
.84.1
%$2
27,05
3,300
23.6
61,98
1
20
12$2
,639,1
57$6
,970,5
2026
4.1%
$27,7
901.1
%($6
,942,7
29)
-263
.1%1,6
06
36.6
4.0%
$255
,718,7
3922
.962
,607
2013
$2,37
6,040
$5,33
8,965
224.7
%$2
8,765
1.2%
($5,31
0,200
)-2
23.5%
1,488
37
.24.0
%$2
81,74
1,832
22.5
63,76
5
20
14$3
,509,3
06$6
,513,7
5818
5.6%
$26,8
830.8
%($6
,486,8
74)
-184
.8%1,8
24
36.4
3.8%
$311
,587,0
9321
.964
,381
2015
$4,18
8,887
$9,00
0,300
214.9
%$2
4,714
0.6%
($8,97
5,586
)-2
14.3%
2,314
37
.33.8
%$3
47,10
4,388
21.1
65,28
8
20
16$5
,923,5
22$7
,937,6
8013
4.0%
$40,4
490.7
%($7
,897,2
31)
-133
.3%2,5
68
36.6
3.4%
$372
,924,6
0920
.665
,259
2017
$9,53
7,125
$11,3
16,59
611
8.7%
$24,5
790.3
%($1
1,292
,017)
-118
.4%3,0
34
34.3
3.1%
$398
,108,1
8619
.066
,148
2018
$15,5
11,18
6$1
9,688
,243
126.9
%$3
2,445
0.2%
($19,6
55,79
8)-1
26.7%
4,017
31
.12.9
%$4
33,83
7,475
18.0
65,76
3
20
09-2
018
$50,2
06,45
8$7
8,062
,265
155.5
%$2
21,01
70.4
%($7
7,841
,248)
-155
.0%21
,143
18
.020
14-2
018
-140
.4%
Subp
opul
atio
n C:
Dev
ices &
Oth
erOr
igina
l Cos
tCo
st of
Cost
ofGr
oss
Gros
sNe
tNe
tUn
itsAg
e of
Histo
rical
Plant
Age o
fSu
rvivin
gYe
arRe
tirem
ents
Rem
oval
Rem
oval
%Sa
lvage
Salva
ge %
Salva
geSa
lvage
%Re
tired
Retir
emen
tsInf
lation
Balan
ceSu
rv. Pl
ant
Units
AB
CD=
C/B
EF=
E/B
G=E-
CH=
G/B
IJ
KL
MN
2009
$870
,682
$991
,196
113.8
%$8
9,593
10.3%
($901
,603)
-103
.6%44
0
9.2
4.1%
$52,3
31,96
98.7
31,23
6
20
10$1
,299,6
44$6
66,86
951
.3%$1
54,67
811
.9%($5
12,19
1)-3
9.4%
706
9.93.9
%$5
5,181
,756
9.831
,746
2011
$2,34
0,877
$800
,325
34.2%
($476
)0.0
%($8
00,80
1)-3
4.2%
1,013
9.8
3.8%
$60,4
63,63
910
.332
,689
2012
$2,81
5,684
$942
,039
33.5%
$431
,959
15.3%
($510
,080)
-18.1
%1,3
45
12.7
3.5%
$64,8
94,86
410
.534
,937
2013
$2,63
3,406
$666
,785
25.3%
$781
,237
29.7%
$114
,453
4.3%
982
12.4
3.6%
$71,5
07,42
010
.636
,881
2014
$3,66
5,847
$758
,845
20.7%
$777
,834
21.2%
$18,9
890.5
%1,8
53
12.6
3.6%
$77,5
59,98
510
.740
,301
2015
$3,17
5,828
$717
,892
22.6%
$405
,577
12.8%
($312
,316)
-9.8%
1,597
12
.13.7
%$8
7,013
,183
10.6
44,29
4
20
16$5
,775,1
78$7
63,51
413
.2%$7
52,15
213
.0%($1
1,363
)-0
.2%1,3
85
15.7
3.6%
$91,3
41,40
111
.146
,759
2017
$13,1
13,50
8$1
,130,6
118.6
%$1
,313,7
1110
.0%$1
83,10
01.4
%7,7
51
10.9
3.1%
$102
,206,5
3510
.853
,758
2018
$5,92
9,130
$2,49
7,281
42.1%
$965
,502
16.3%
($1,53
1,779
)-2
5.8%
3,438
8.1
2.9%
$129
,392,4
5210
.062
,761
2009
-201
8$4
1,619
,784
$9,93
5,358
23.9%
$5,67
1,766
13.6%
($4,26
3,592
)-1
0.2%
20,51
0
10.0
2014
-201
8-5
.2%
83
Workpaper – Southern California Edison / 2021 General Rate Case
Exhibit No. SCE-07 Vol.03 Ch I-VI Bk A Witness: D. Gunn
Sout
hern
Cali
forn
ia Ed
ison
2021
GRC
Dep
recia
tion S
tudy
Acco
unt 3
65: D
istrib
ution
OH
Cond
ucto
rs &
Devic
esW
eight
ed N
SR(20
09-2
018)
Majo
rRe
tirem
ent M
ixPla
nt M
ixNe
t Salv
age
Weig
hted
NSR
Com
pone
ntRe
tirem
ents
% of
Total
Balan
ce%
of To
talRa
te (N
SR)
Ret. W
td.
Plant
Wtd
.A
BC
DE
FG=
C*F
H=E*
FOH
Con
ducto
r$5
2,823
,265
37%
$1,17
4,809
,822
68%
-508
%-1
85%
-343
%Sw
itche
s$5
0,206
,458
35%
$433
,837,4
7525
%-1
55%
-54%
-39%
Devic
es &
Oth
er$4
1,619
,784
29%
$129
,392,4
527%
-10%
-3%
-1%
Tota
l-2
42%
-383
%
84
Workpaper – Southern California Edison / 2021 General Rate Case
Exhibit No. SCE-07 Vol.03 Ch I-VI Bk A Witness: D. Gunn
Southern California Edison2021 GRC Depreciation StudyAccount 365: Distribution OH Conductors & DevicesNet Salvage Rate Per Foot of OH Conductor(2014-2018)
Recorded Net Salvage Rate Per Foot of OH ConductorNet Salvage $ ($230,813,957)Retirement $ $106,720,924
Net Salvage $/ Feet Retired ($230,813,957) / 52,694,494 Retirement $/ Feet Retired $106,720,924 / 52,694,494
Net Salvage $/ Feet Retired -$4.38Retirement $/ Feet Retired $2.03
Net Salvage Rate Per Foot of OH Conductor - Current RetirementRecent Retirements: Net Salvage $/ Foot - Current -$4.38Original Plant $/ Foot $2.03
Plant Balance (If Reitred Today):Net Salvage $/ Foot - Current ($230,813,957) / 52,694,494 Original Plant $/ Foot $1,842,856,324 / 792,094,858
Net Salvage $/ Foot - Current -$4.38Original Plant $/ Foot $2.33
Net Salvage Rate Per Foot of OH Conductor - Future RetirementPlant Balance (Future Retirement):Net Salvage $/ Foot - FutureOriginal Plant $/ Foot
Net Salvage $/ Foot - FutureOriginal Plant $/ Foot
Net Salvage $/ Foot - Future -$10.80Original Plant $/ Foot $2.33= = -464%
= -$4.38 X (1 + Escalation Rate)^Remaining Life$2.33
= -$4.38 X (1.0286)^32 years$2.33
= = -216%
=
= = -188%
-216%
= = -216%
=
= =
85
Workpaper – Southern California Edison / 2021 General Rate Case
Exhibit No. SCE-07 Vol.03 Ch I-VI Bk A Witness: D. Gunn
Sout
hern
Cali
forn
ia Ed
ison
2021
GRC
Dep
recia
tion S
tud y
Acco
unt 3
65: D
istrib
ution
OH
Cond
ucto
rs &
Devic
es20
14-2
018 R
etire
men
t Acti
vity b
y Pro
gram
Desc
riptio
nRe
tirem
ent
Units
Ret
ired
Gros
s Salv
age
Cost
of R
emov
alNe
t Salv
age
Net S
alvag
e Rate
Brea
kdow
n Rep
lacem
ent
(16,52
5,773
)$
(2,
590,4
47)
143,1
16$
(19,10
6,909
)$
(18,96
3,794
)$
11
5%4 k
V CU
TOVE
RS(13
,646,6
58)
(13
,225,9
18)
14,28
1
(52
,790,1
09)
(52
,775,8
28)
38
7%Ov
erhe
ad C
ondu
ctor P
rogr
am(12
,503,7
20)
(12
,330,2
41)
9,897
(45,84
0,730
)
(45,83
0,833
)
367%
Distr
Pole
Repla
cmen
ts(9,
926,6
02)
(1,
934,9
53)
2,263
(20,35
2,816
)
(20,35
0,553
)
205%
Electi
ve Pr
ev M
tce(7,
721,1
43)
(2,
340,2
74)
33,04
2
(8,
219,7
50)
(8,18
6,708
)
106%
Insp
Drvn
Prev
Mtce
(7,15
8,166
)
(1,60
8,311
)
33
,340
(9,57
3,866
)
(9,
540,5
25)
13
3%Po
le Re
med
iation
Dist
(IR)
(6,46
3,403
)
(309,3
64)
3,1
95
(6,
225,5
88)
(6,22
2,394
)
96%
Auto
Rec
losur
e Rep
l(3,
977,7
68)
(16
,379)
17,14
4
(1,
482,3
24)
(1,46
5,180
)
37%
Plant
Bette
rmen
t(2,
960,2
92)
(2,
063,9
82)
5,634
(10,47
1,673
)
(10,46
6,039
)
354%
Rem
ove I
dle Fa
c(2,
856,1
77)
(3,
321,7
74)
44,34
2
(6,
456,1
34)
(6,41
1,792
)
224%
Distr
ibutio
n Relo
(2,71
9,835
)
(2,50
7,487
)
54
,612
(3,68
8,811
)
(3,
634,1
99)
13
4%W
orst
Circu
it Re
hab
(2,38
9,698
)
(499,8
46)
12
,126
(5,60
8,957
)
(5,
596,8
31)
23
4%Gr
id M
oder
nizati
on(2,
295,3
54)
(12
2,101
)
10,37
7
(86
3,666
)
(85
3,288
)
37%
BI 35
3 PIFs
(Non
New
Circ
uit W
ork)
(2,14
9,266
)
(1,36
3,443
)
30
,860
(7,32
4,534
)
(7,
293,6
74)
33
9%Di
stribu
tion -
Stor
m(2,
088,3
13)
(1,
561,9
96)
20,79
3
(14
,595,9
81)
(14
,575,1
87)
69
8%Di
stribu
tion -
Clai
m(1,
906,7
76)
(1,
270,4
51)
72,01
2
(2,
786,2
06)
(2,71
4,193
)
142%
Circu
it Au
tom
ation
(1,66
5,331
)
(6,75
7)
-
(1,74
8,122
)(1,
748,1
22)
10
5%DS
P Circ
uits (
353)
(1,29
3,828
)
(986,5
41)
47
,551
(4,32
8,002
)(4,
280,4
51)
33
1%Di
str O
H Co
nv 20
B(1,
112,4
92)
(1,
114,0
03)
3,006
(2,64
4,488
)(2,
641,4
82)
23
7%Di
str O
H Co
nv 20
C(75
9,439
)
(662,3
06)
1,8
47
(13
1,160
)
(12
9,313
)
17%
Rule
20A
(703,0
71)
(54
6,058
)
(847)
(3,
743,8
46)
(3,74
4,693
)
533%
All O
ther
Prog
ram
s(3,
708,6
38)
(2,
341,8
22)
4,030
,814
(7,
419,6
91)
(3,38
8,877
)
91%
Total
(106,5
31,74
2)
(52,72
4,454
)
4,5
89,40
4
(235,4
03,36
2)
(230,8
13,95
7)
217%
86
Workpaper – Southern California Edison / 2021 General Rate Case
Exhibit No. SCE-07 Vol.03 Ch I-VI Bk A Witness: D. Gunn
SCE-07, Volume. 03, Results of Operations Depreciation Study
Chapter III: T&D Net Salvage Witness: David Gunn
Account 366: Distribution Underground Conduit
87
Workpaper – Southern California Edison / 2021 General Rate Case
Exhibit No. SCE-07 Vol.03 Ch I-VI Bk A Witness: D. Gunn
Sout
hern
Cali
forn
ia Ed
ison
2021
GRC
Dep
recia
tion S
tudy
Acco
unt 3
66: D
istrib
ution
UG
Cond
uitas
of:
1/1/
2019
Aggr
egat
e Res
ults
Origi
nal C
ost
Cost
ofCo
st of
Gros
sGr
oss
Net
Net
Units
Age o
fHi
storic
alPla
ntAg
e of
Survi
ving
Year
Retir
emen
tsRe
mov
alRe
mov
al %
Salva
geSa
lvage
%Sa
lvage
Salva
ge %
Retir
edRe
tirem
ents
Inflat
ionBa
lance
Surv.
Plan
tUn
itsA
BC
D=C/
BE
F=E/
BG=
E-C
H=G/
BI
JK
LM
N20
09$1
,317,7
77$1
,970,8
9214
9.6%
$233
,511
17.7%
($1,73
7,381
)-1
31.8%
60,98
0
33
.23.8
%$1
,206,7
71,24
722
.117
6,168
,581
2010
$3,44
3,834
$3,09
8,170
90.0%
$45,0
481.3
%($3
,053,1
22)
-88.7
%54
,747
31.9
3.5%
$1,30
1,069
,376
22.2
177,2
53,13
3
20
11$6
,137,8
47$5
,148,7
7783
.9%$2
13,67
23.5
%($4
,935,1
06)
-80.4
%76
,145
31.7
3.4%
$1,32
0,538
,266
22.9
179,2
51,66
9
20
12$2
,647,1
01$7
,717,1
3529
1.5%
$179
,414
6.8%
($7,53
7,721
)-2
84.8%
130,9
85
37
.33.7
%$1
,389,5
63,20
023
.218
3,080
,086
2013
$2,84
0,847
$7,47
8,267
263.2
%$2
49,19
98.8
%($7
,229,0
67)
-254
.5%86
,409
37.2
3.6%
$1,47
3,832
,526
23.4
186,0
63,80
3
20
14$4
,945,7
09$1
1,219
,901
226.9
%$3
75,69
97.6
%($1
0,844
,202)
-219
.3%11
7,216
38.3
3.5%
$1,62
9,943
,643
23.1
189,1
77,10
9
20
15$4
,058,1
83$2
2,789
,800
561.6
%$2
85,17
67.0
%($2
2,504
,624)
-554
.5%15
5,100
40.8
3.6%
$1,81
1,860
,607
22.9
192,4
36,52
7
20
16$4
,469,7
56$1
3,893
,168
310.8
%$2
47,54
75.5
%($1
3,645
,622)
-305
.3%10
5,304
39.1
3.2%
$1,96
9,302
,745
23.8
196,6
75,14
6
20
17$9
,491,3
08$1
8,368
,338
193.5
%$3
72,22
73.9
%($1
7,996
,112)
-189
.6%10
0,677
41.8
3.2%
$2,16
2,291
,863
24.2
201,3
78,41
2
20
18$1
2,229
,690
$26,0
75, 39
121
3.2%
$525
,778
4.3%
($25,5
49,61
3)-2
08.9%
101,3
51
36
.73.0
%$2
,390,6
70,61
424
.620
5,761
,640
2009
-201
8$5
1,582
,052
$117
,759,8
4122
8.3%
$2,72
7,271
5.3%
($115
,032,5
69)
-223
.0%98
8,914
3.4%
24.6
2016
-201
8-2
18.4%
Subp
opul
atio
n A:
Abo
ve G
roun
d St
ruct
ures
Origi
nal C
ost
Cost
ofCo
st of
Gros
sGr
oss
Net
Net
Units
Age o
fHi
storic
alPla
ntAg
e of
Survi
ving
Year
Retir
emen
tsRe
mov
alRe
mov
al %
Salva
geSa
lvage
%Sa
lvage
Salva
ge %
Retir
edRe
tirem
ents
Inflat
ionBa
lance
Surv.
Plan
tUn
itsA
BC
D=C/
BE
F=E/
BG=
E-C
H=G/
BI
JK
LM
N20
09$1
,155,3
54$1
,842,4
8115
9.5%
$53,6
784.6
%($1
,788,8
03)
-154
.8%2,9
03
31.7
3.7%
$418
,441,0
5219
.846
5,164
2010
$3,30
2,844
$2,97
2,834
90.0%
$4,11
60.1
%($2
,968,7
18)
-89.9
%8,5
88
31.1
3.5%
$433
,163,7
0220
.246
5,179
2011
$5,83
4,186
$4,82
0,488
82.6%
$213
,609
3.7%
($4,60
6,879
)-7
9.0%
9,805
30
.43.3
%$4
61,46
5,597
20.2
469,2
04
20
12$2
,154,8
98$7
,113,9
9733
0.1%
$174
,444
8.1%
($6,93
9,553
)-3
22.0%
5,846
35
.13.7
%$4
98,01
2,838
20.2
478,1
44
20
13$2
,424,7
54$6
,716,6
9427
7.0%
$244
,322
10.1%
($6,47
2,372
)-2
66.9%
5,547
34
.93.5
%$5
26,64
2,043
20.4
491,4
93
20
14$4
,030,9
50$6
,919,1
4817
1.7%
$354
,708
8.8%
($6,56
4,441
)-1
62.9%
7,191
34
.23.3
%$5
54,32
0,553
20.5
495,8
91
20
15$2
,952,0
12$1
1,622
,866
393.7
%$1
43,83
24.9
%($1
1,479
,034)
-388
.9%6,9
45
35.7
3.3%
$600
,740,1
9220
.453
5,578
2016
$3,75
2,409
$8,97
0,918
239.1
%$2
28,59
46.1
%($8
,742,3
24)
-233
.0%6,7
26
35.2
3.1%
$638
,788,5
5020
.551
4,144
2017
$8,51
4,892
$10,9
70,03
712
8.8%
$320
,406
3.8%
($10,6
49,63
1)-1
25.1%
12,80
2
40
.13.1
%$6
79,80
6,327
20.1
517,5
45
20
18$1
0,931
,447
$19,5
92, 81
717
9.2%
$416
,732
3.8%
($19,1
76,08
6)-1
75.4%
16,88
7
34
.62.9
%$7
23,47
7,103
19.8
516,0
96
20
09-2
018
$45,0
53,74
6$8
1,542
,281
181.0
%$2
,154,4
414.8
%($7
9,387
,841)
-176
.2%83
,240
19.8
2016
-201
8-1
66.3%
88
Workpaper – Southern California Edison / 2021 General Rate Case
Exhibit No. SCE-07 Vol.03 Ch I-VI Bk A Witness: D. Gunn
Sout
hern
Cali
forn
ia Ed
ison
2021
GRC
Dep
recia
tion S
tudy
Acco
unt 3
66: D
istrib
ution
UG
Cond
uitas
of:
1/1/
2019
Subp
opul
atio
n B:
Con
duit
Origi
nal C
ost
Cost
ofCo
st of
Gros
sGr
oss
Net
Net
Units
Age o
fHi
storic
alPla
ntAg
e of
Survi
ving
Year
Retir
emen
tsRe
mov
alRe
mov
al %
Salva
geSa
lvage
%Sa
lvage
Salva
ge %
Retir
edRe
tirem
ents
Inflat
ionBa
lance
Surv.
Plan
tUn
itsA
BC
D=C/
BE
F=E/
BG=
E-C
H=G/
BI
JK
LM
N20
09$1
18,19
4$1
23,98
410
4.9%
$179
,833
152.2
%$5
5,849
47.3%
58,06
1
38
.43.9
%$4
29,39
9,281
25.7
175,6
54,93
9
20
10$9
4,071
$64,2
2168
.3%$4
0,932
43.5%
($23,2
90)
-24.8
%46
,141
39.9
3.8%
$458
,551,1
5426
.017
6,731
,149
2011
$138
,022
$48,8
7935
.4%$4
70.0
%($4
8,832
)-3
5.4%
66,29
5
40
.73.8
%$5
25,92
7,443
25.4
178,7
33,77
9
20
12$2
65,62
1$1
36,71
051
.5%$2
810.1
%($1
36,42
9)-5
1.4%
125,0
67
41
.43.7
%$5
90,70
3,156
25.0
182,5
56,12
0
20
13$1
74,99
2$1
69,26
396
.7%$2
,316
1.3%
($166
,947)
-95.4
%80
,782
42.2
3.6%
$654
,218,6
7624
.818
5,529
,919
2014
$239
,553
$248
,185
103.6
%$9
,783
4.1%
($238
,402)
-99.5
%10
9,837
43.1
3.6%
$728
,431,5
0124
.418
8,637
,020
2015
$320
,161
$425
,945
133.0
%$1
32,99
841
.5%($2
92,94
7)-9
1.5%
147,8
74
44
.23.6
%$8
10,83
9,507
23.9
191,8
58,54
3
20
16$1
63,89
4$1
24,19
275
.8%$6
,715
4.1%
($117
,477)
-71.7
%98
,411
43.9
3.5%
$886
,617,3
5425
.519
6,114
,842
2017
$275
,242
$103
,828
37.7%
$187
0.1%
($103
,641)
-37.7
%87
,689
48.5
3.5%
$966
,307,4
5925
.420
0,817
,334
2018
$196
,966
$442
,265
224.5
%$1
, 912
1.0%
($440
,353)
-223
.6%84
,358
48.7
3.5%
$1,07
4,288
,362
24.9
205,2
00,09
4
20
09-2
018
$1,98
6,716
$1,88
7,473
95.0%
$375
,004
18.9%
($1,51
2,469
)-7
6.1%
904,5
15
24
.920
16-2
018
-104
.0%
Subp
opul
atio
n C:
Vau
ltsOr
igina
l Cos
tCo
st of
Cost
ofGr
oss
Gros
sNe
tNe
tUn
itsAg
e of
Histo
rical
Plant
Age o
fSu
rvivin
gYe
arRe
tirem
ents
Rem
oval
Rem
oval
%Sa
lvage
Salva
ge %
Salva
geSa
lvage
%Re
tired
Retir
emen
tsInf
lation
Balan
ceSu
rv. Pl
ant
Units
AB
CD=
C/B
EF=
E/B
G=E-
CH=
G/B
IJ
KL
MN
2009
$44,2
28$4
,427
10.0%
$00.0
%($4
,427)
-10.0
%16
42.6
4.8%
$191
,367,7
0626
.423
,873
2010
$46,9
18$6
1,115
130.3
%$0
0.0%
($61,1
15)
-130
.3%18
43.3
4.7%
$197
,801,3
2227
.024
,144
2011
$165
,640
$279
,410
168.7
%$1
60.0
%($2
79,39
4)-1
68.7%
45
44
.14.6
%$2
07,87
8,504
27.4
24,62
7
20
12$2
26,58
2$4
66,42
820
5.9%
$4,68
92.1
%($4
61,73
9)-2
03.8%
72
44
.54.5
%$2
25,41
3,308
27.4
25,26
7
20
13$2
41,10
1$5
92,31
024
5.7%
$2,56
21.1
%($5
89,74
8)-2
44.6%
80
45
.64.5
%$2
35,53
1,076
27.8
25,74
0
20
14$6
75,20
6$4
,052,5
6860
0.2%
$11,2
091.7
%($4
,041,3
59)
-598
.5%18
8
46.8
4.4%
$264
,591,2
6727
.226
,353
2015
$786
,011
$10,7
40,98
913
66.5%
$8,34
71.1
%($1
0,732
,643)
-136
5.5%
281
47
.94.4
%$3
24,65
1,530
27.0
26,90
4
20
16$4
98,84
1$4
,693,3
3894
0.8%
$12,2
372.5
%($4
,681,1
01)
-938
.4%16
7
49.9
4.0%
$361
,261,0
7827
.527
,629
2017
$755
,786
$7,29
4,473
965.2
%$5
1,633
6.8%
($7,24
2,840
)-9
58.3%
186
50
.53.8
%$4
28,58
2,399
29.4
28,46
4
20
18$1
,101,2
77$6
,221, 2
1556
4.9%
$107
,134
9.7%
($6,11
4,081
)-5
55.2%
106
46
.13.4
%$5
06,53
6,527
30.9
29,22
0
20
09-2
018
$4,54
1,589
$34,4
06,27
375
7.6%
$197
,827
4.4%
($34,2
08,44
7)-7
53.2%
1,159
30
.920
16-2
018
-765
.7%
89
Workpaper – Southern California Edison / 2021 General Rate Case
Exhibit No. SCE-07 Vol.03 Ch I-VI Bk A Witness: D. Gunn
Sout
hern
Cali
forn
ia Ed
ison
2021
GRC
Dep
recia
tion S
tudy
Acco
unt 3
66: D
istrib
ution
UG
Cond
ui tW
eight
ed N
et Sa
lvage
Rate
(2016
-201
8) Majo
rRe
tirem
ent M
ix (20
09-2
018)
Retir
emen
t Mix
(2016
-201
8)Pla
nt M
ixNe
t Salv
age
Weig
hted
NSR
Com
pone
ntRe
tirem
ents
% of
Total
Retir
emen
ts%
of To
talBa
lance
% of
Total
Rate
(NSR
)Re
t. Wtd
.Pla
nt W
td.
AB
CD
EF
GH
I=C*
HJ=
G*H
Abov
e Gro
und
Stru
cture
s$4
5,053
,746
87%
$23,1
98,74
889
%$7
23,47
7,103
31%
-76%
-66%
-24%
Cond
uit$1
,986,7
164%
$636
,103
2%$1
,074,2
88,36
247
%-4
7%-2
%-2
2%Va
ults
$4,54
1,589
9%$2
,355,9
049%
$506
,536,5
2722
%-2
27%
-20%
-50%
Tota
l-8
8%-9
5%
90
Workpaper – Southern California Edison / 2021 General Rate Case
Exhibit No. SCE-07 Vol.03 Ch I-VI Bk A Witness: D. Gunn
Southern California Edison2021 GRC Depreciation StudyAccount 366: Distribution UG ConduitNet Salvage Rate Per Above Ground Structure(2016-2018)
Recorded Net Salvage Rate Per Above Ground StructureNet Salvage $ ($38,568,041)Retirement $ $23,198,748
Net Salvage $/ Qty Retired ($38,568,041) / 36,415 Retirement $/ Qty Retired $23,198,748 / 36,415
Net Salvage $/ Qty Retired ($1,059)Retirement $/ Qty Retired $637
Net Salvage Rate Per Above Ground Structure - Current RetirementRecent Retirements: Net Salvage $/ Qty - Current -$1,059Original Plant $/ Qty $637
Plant Balance (If Reitred Today):Net Salvage $/ Qty - Current ($38,568,041) / 36,415 Original Plant $/ Qty $723,477,103 / 516,096
Net Salvage $/ Qty - Current -$1,059Original Plant $/ Qty $1,402
Net Salvage Rate Per Above Ground Structure - Future RetirementPlant Balance (Future Retirement):Net Salvage $/ Qty - FutureOriginal Plant $/ Qty
Net Salvage $/ Qty - FutureOriginal Plant $/ Qty
Net Salvage $/ Qty - Future -$3,366Original Plant $/ Qty $1,402= = -240%
= -$1,059 X (1 + Escalation Rate)^Remaining Life$1,402
= -$1,059 X (1.0286)^41 years$1,402
= = -76%
= = -166%
=
= = -166%
= = -166%
=
91
Workpaper – Southern California Edison / 2021 General Rate Case
Exhibit No. SCE-07 Vol.03 Ch I-VI Bk A Witness: D. Gunn
Southern California Edison2021 GRC Depreciation StudyAccount 366: Distribution UG ConduitNet Salvage Rate Per Foot of Conduit(2016-2018)
Recorded Net Salvage Rate Per Foot of ConduitNet Salvage $ ($661,470)Retirement $ $636,103
Net Salvage $/ Foot Retired ($661,470) / 270,458 Retirement $/ Foot Retired $636,103 / 270,458
Net Salvage $/ Foot Retired ($2.45)Retirement $/ Foot Retired $2.35
Net Salvage Rate Per Foot of Conduit - Current RetirementRecent Retirements: Net Salvage $/ Foot - Current -$2.45Original Plant $/ Foot $2.35
Plant Balance (If Reitred Today):Net Salvage $/ Foot - Current ($661,470) / 270,458 Original Plant $/ Foot $1,074,288,362 / 205,200,094
Net Salvage $/ Foot - Current -$2.45Original Plant $/ Foot $5.24
Net Salvage Rate Per Foot of Conduit - Future RetirementPlant Balance (Future Retirement):Net Salvage $/ Foot - FutureOriginal Plant $/ Foot
Net Salvage $/ Foot - FutureOriginal Plant $/ Foot
Net Salvage $/ Foot - Future -$6.94Original Plant $/ Foot $5.24= = -133%
= -$2.45 X (1 + Escalation Rate)^Remaining Life$5.24
= -$2.45 X (1.0286)^37 years$5.24
-104%
= = -104%
=
= = -47%
= = -104%
=
= =
92
Workpaper – Southern California Edison / 2021 General Rate Case
Exhibit No. SCE-07 Vol.03 Ch I-VI Bk A Witness: D. Gunn
Southern California Edison2021 GRC Depreciation StudyAccount 366: Distribution UG ConduitNet Salvage Rate Per Vault(2016-2018)
Recorded Net Salvage Rate Per VaultNet Salvage $ ($18,038,022)Retirement $ $2,355,904
Net Salvage $/ Vault Retired ($18,038,022) / 459 Retirement $/ Vault Retired $2,355,904 / 459
Net Salvage $/ Vault Retired ($39,299)Retirement $/ Vault Retired $5,133
Net Salvage Rate Per Vault - Current RetirementRecent Retirements: Net Salvage $/ Vault - Current -$39,299Original Plant $/ Vault $5,133
Plant Balance (If Reitred Today):Net Salvage $/ Vault - Current ($18,038,022) / 459 Original Plant $/ Vault $506,536,527 / 29,220
Net Salvage $/ Vault - Current -$39,299Original Plant $/ Vault $17,335
Net Salvage Rate Per Vault - Future RetirementPlant Balance (Future Retirement):Net Salvage $/ Vault - FutureOriginal Plant $/ Vault
Net Salvage $/ Vault - FutureOriginal Plant $/ Vault
Net Salvage $/ Vault - Future -$96,887Original Plant $/ Vault $17,335= = -559%
= -$39,299 X (1 + Escalation Rate)^Remaining Life$17,335
= -$39,299 X (1.0286)^32 years$17,335
= = -227%
= = -766%
=
= = -766%
= = -766%
=
93
Workpaper – Southern California Edison / 2021 General Rate Case
Exhibit No. SCE-07 Vol.03 Ch I-VI Bk A Witness: D. Gunn
SCE-07, Volume. 03, Results of Operations Depreciation Study
Chapter III: T&D Net Salvage Witness: David Gunn
Account 367: Distribution Underground Conductors and Devices
94
Workpaper – Southern California Edison / 2021 General Rate Case
Exhibit No. SCE-07 Vol.03 Ch I-VI Bk A Witness: D. Gunn
Sout
hern
Cali
forn
ia Ed
ison
2021
GRC
Dep
recia
tion S
tudy
Acco
unt 3
67: D
istrib
ution
UG
Cond
ucto
rs &
Devic
esas
of:
1/1/
2019
Aggr
egat
e Res
ults
Origi
nal C
ost
Cost
ofCo
st of
Gros
sGr
oss
Net
Net
Units
Age o
fHi
storic
alPla
ntAg
e of
Survi
ving
Year
Retir
emen
tsRe
mov
alRe
mov
al %
Salva
geSa
lvage
%Sa
lvage
Salva
ge %
Retir
edRe
tirem
ents
Inflat
ionBa
lance
Surv.
Plan
tUn
itsA
BC
D=C/
BE
F=E/
BG=
E-C
H=G/
BI
JK
LM
N20
09$2
4,394
,111
$41,3
83,28
616
9.6%
$4,85
9,226
19.9%
($36,5
24,06
0)-1
49.7%
3,730
,418
26.9
4.1%
$3,48
7,893
,544
15.4
495,0
43,10
9
2010
$25,2
63,95
1$4
7,932
,764
189.7
%$8
55,43
23.4
%($4
7,077
,332)
-186
.3%3,7
41,90
2
27
.53.9
%$3
,764,6
79,68
915
.649
9,096
,127
20
11$3
6,548
,942
$64,6
33,15
817
6.8%
$1,54
2,617
4.2%
($63,0
90,54
1)-1
72.6%
4,629
,207
26.8
4.0%
$4,11
8,132
,931
15.7
507,5
51,98
4
2012
$38,6
85,44
8$6
8,818
,618
177.9
%$2
,359,8
556.1
%($6
6,458
,763)
-171
.8%5,4
87,54
4
27
.24.1
%$4
,402,0
43,70
715
.951
4,025
,472
20
13$3
4,809
,505
$61,6
50,71
117
7.1%
$3,61
4,254
10.4%
($58,0
36,45
7)-1
66.7%
4,606
,081
27.4
4.1%
$4,74
8,032
,436
16.1
518,8
79,39
2
2014
$38,2
15,47
9$6
9,405
,098
181.6
%$3
,038,1
107.9
%($6
6,366
,989)
-173
.7%5,4
49,26
0
28
.83.9
%$5
,140,8
91,51
516
.252
3,935
,841
20
15$4
9,133
,726
$103
,727,3
0321
1.1%
$2,41
4,060
4.9%
($101
,313,2
43)
-206
.2%6,9
56,23
3
29
.33.8
%$5
,548,4
04,32
816
.452
9,392
,615
20
16$4
9,004
,008
$77,4
18,20
115
8.0%
$2,74
2,043
5.6%
($74,6
76,15
8)-1
52.4%
6,335
,769
29.4
3.6%
$5,91
3,146
,831
16.9
535,4
36,58
9
2017
$60,5
17,32
9$1
07,88
2,219
178.3
%$3
,133,9
245.2
%($1
04,74
8,295
)-1
73.1%
6,914
,035
28.8
3.4%
$6,28
6,753
,801
17.0
543,8
68,11
9
2018
$48,3
05,96
6$5
7,896
,180
119.9
%$3
,628,2
277.5
%($5
4,267
, 953)
-112
.3%5,2
32,42
2
28
.43.3
%$6
,486,6
09,39
717
.955
0,304
,849
20
09-2
018
$404
,878,4
65$7
00,74
7,538
173.1
%$2
8,187
,749
7.0%
($672
,559,7
89)
-166
.1%53
,082,8
71
3.8%
17.9
2014
-201
8-1
63.7%
Subp
opul
atio
n A:
UG
Cond
ucto
rOr
igina
l Cos
tCo
st of
Cost
ofGr
oss
Gros
sNe
tNe
tUn
itsAg
e of
Histo
rical
Plant
Age o
fSu
rvivin
gYe
arRe
tirem
ents
Rem
oval
Rem
oval
%Sa
lvage
Salva
ge %
Salva
geSa
lvage
%Re
tired
Retir
emen
tsInf
lation
Balan
ceSu
rv. Pl
ant
Units
AB
CD=
C/B
EF=
E/B
G=E-
CH=
G/B
IJ
KL
MN
2009
$14,2
40,16
9$3
0,887
,370
216.9
%$4
,280,8
3630
.1%($2
6,606
,533)
-186
.8%3,7
28,67
2
30
.84.1
%$2
,942,8
97,46
716
.149
4,986
,146
20
10$1
4,987
,690
$37,9
54,09
825
3.2%
$74,4
860.5
%($3
7,879
,612)
-252
.7%3,7
40,10
4
31
.23.9
%$3
,124,8
11,44
916
.549
9,035
,078
20
11$2
0,088
,313
$49,5
93,22
124
6.9%
$154
,816
0.8%
($49,4
38,40
5)-2
46.1%
4,626
,249
31.1
3.9%
$3,42
6,512
,297
16.5
507,4
89,39
8
2012
$24,3
31,34
0$5
4,041
,671
222.1
%$3
00,25
61.2
%($5
3,741
,415)
-220
.9%5,4
84,78
6
31
.24.0
%$3
,675,1
31,97
816
.751
3,964
,300
20
13$2
3,369
,545
$48,3
19,41
620
6.8%
$202
,433
0.9%
($48,1
16,98
3)-2
05.9%
4,603
,815
30.8
4.0%
$3,89
7,621
,525
17.1
518,8
18,78
5
2014
$29,0
71,98
1$5
6,759
,326
195.2
%$2
08,68
20.7
%($5
6,550
,644)
-194
.5%5,4
46,86
4
31
.13.9
%$4
,158,9
62,01
317
.352
3,871
,340
20
15$4
0,503
,443
$87,0
39,95
921
4.9%
$278
,910
0.7%
($86,7
61,04
9)-2
14.2%
6,953
,860
30.7
3.8%
$4,44
9,667
,772
17.6
529,3
28,87
1
2016
$39,5
51,20
5$6
6,897
,182
169.1
%$3
35,61
10.8
%($6
6,561
,571)
-168
.3%6,3
33,81
5
30
.43.6
%$4
,706,2
80,78
818
.253
5,366
,893
20
17$4
5,948
,967
$93,6
89,65
320
3.9%
$632
,241
1.4%
($93,0
57,41
2)-2
02.5%
6,911
,688
30.4
3.5%
$5,07
6,850
,934
18.2
543,7
98,75
0
2018
$37,0
44,87
0$4
0,931
,827
110.5
%$4
67,15
31.3
%($4
0,464
,674)
-109
.2%5,2
30,43
6
29
.93.4
%$5
,296,5
89,69
818
.755
0,234
,638
20
09-2
018
$289
,137,5
22$5
66,11
3,724
195.8
%$6
,935,4
252.4
%($5
59,17
8,299
)-1
93.4%
53,06
0,289
18
.7
95
Workpaper – Southern California Edison / 2021 General Rate Case
Exhibit No. SCE-07 Vol.03 Ch I-VI Bk A Witness: D. Gunn
Sout
hern
Cali
forn
ia Ed
ison
2021
GRC
Dep
recia
tion S
tudy
Acco
unt 3
67: D
istrib
ution
UG
Cond
ucto
rs &
Devic
esas
of:
1/1/
2019
Subp
opul
atio
n B:
Dev
ices &
Oth
erOr
igina
l Cos
tCo
st of
Cost
ofGr
oss
Gros
sNe
tNe
tUn
itsAg
e of
Histo
rical
Plant
Age o
fSu
rvivin
gYe
arRe
tirem
ents
Rem
oval
Rem
oval
%Sa
lvage
Salva
ge %
Salva
geSa
lvage
%Re
tired
Retir
emen
tsInf
lation
Balan
ceSu
rv. Pl
ant
Units
AB
CD=
C/B
EF=
E/B
G=E-
CH=
G/B
IJ
KL
MN
2009
$10,1
53,94
2$1
0,495
,916
103.4
%$5
78,38
95.7
%($9
,917,5
27)
-97.7
%1,7
46
18
.94.5
%$4
28,77
9,439
12.3
48,43
4
20
10$1
0,276
,260
$9,97
8,666
97.1%
$780
,946
7.6%
($9,19
7,720
)-8
9.5%
1,798
19.3
4.2%
$468
,949,3
4012
.349
,368
2011
$16,4
60,63
0$1
5,039
,937
91.4%
$1,38
7,801
8.4%
($13,6
52,13
6)-8
2.9%
2,958
19.2
4.4%
$542
,541,7
4011
.950
,868
2012
$14,3
54,10
9$1
4,776
,947
102.9
%$2
,059,5
9914
.3%($1
2,717
,348)
-88.6
%2,7
58
17
.34.9
%$6
10,99
9,649
11.7
53,17
5
20
13$1
1,439
,960
$13,3
31,29
411
6.5%
$3,41
1,821
29.8%
($9,91
9,473
)-8
6.7%
2,266
17.5
4.9%
$671
,327,6
0511
.854
,511
2014
$9,14
3,498
$12,6
45,77
213
8.3%
$2,82
9,427
30.9%
($9,81
6,345
)-1
07.4%
2,396
18.6
4.6%
$732
,083,9
0612
.055
,609
2015
$8,63
0,283
$16,6
87,34
419
3.4%
$2,13
5,150
24.7%
($14,5
52,19
4)-1
68.6%
2,373
20.4
4.2%
$809
,879,9
0812
.056
,817
2016
$9,45
2,803
$10,5
21,01
911
1.3%
$2,40
6,432
25.5%
($8,11
4,587
)-8
5.8%
1,954
24.4
3.7%
$869
,697,9
5112
.160
,710
2017
$14,5
68,36
2$1
4,192
,566
97.4%
$2,50
1,683
17.2%
($11,6
90,88
3)-8
0.2%
2,347
21.5
3.1%
$953
,368,5
1912
.162
,511
2018
$11,2
61,09
6$1
6,964
,353
150.6
%$3
,161,0
7428
.1%($1
3,803
, 279)
-122
.6%1,9
86
21
.83.2
%$1
,052,2
19,84
414
.565
,074
2009
-201
8$1
15,74
0,943
$134
,633,8
1411
6.3%
$21,2
52,32
418
.4%($1
13,38
1,491
)-9
8.0%
22,58
2
14.5
96
Workpaper – Southern California Edison / 2021 General Rate Case
Exhibit No. SCE-07 Vol.03 Ch I-VI Bk A Witness: D. Gunn
Sout
hern
Cali
forn
ia Ed
ison
2021
GRC
Dep
recia
tion S
tudy
Acco
unt 3
67: D
istrib
ution
UG
Cond
ucto
rs &
Devic
esW
eight
ed N
et Sa
lvage
Rate
(2009
-201
8)
Majo
rRe
tirem
ent M
ixPla
nt M
ixNe
t Salv
age
Com
pone
ntRe
tirem
ents
% of
Total
Balan
ce%
of To
talRa
te (N
SR)
Ret. W
td.
Plant
Wtd
.A
BC
DE
FG=
C*F
H=E*
FUG
Con
ducto
r$2
89,13
7,522
71%
$5,29
6,589
,698
83%
-193
%-1
38%
-161
%De
vices
& O
ther
$115
,740,9
4329
%$1
,052,2
19,84
417
%-9
8%-2
8%-1
6%To
tal
-166
%-1
78%
Weig
hted
NSR
97
Workpaper – Southern California Edison / 2021 General Rate Case
Exhibit No. SCE-07 Vol.03 Ch I-VI Bk A Witness: D. Gunn
Southern California Edison2021 GRC Depreciation StudyAccount 367: Distribution UG Conductors & Devices Net Salvage Rate Per Foot of UG Conductor(2009-2018)
Recorded Net Salvage Rate Per Foot of UG ConductorNet Salvage $ ($672,559,789)Retirement $ $404,878,465
Net Salvage $/ Feet Retired ($672,559,789) / 53,060,289 Retirement $/ Feet Retired $404,878,465 / 53,060,289
Net Salvage $/ Feet Retired ($12.68)Retirement $/ Feet Retired $7.63
Net Salvage Rate Per Foot of UG Conductor - Current RetirementRecent Retirements: Net Salvage $/ Foot - Current -$12.68Original Plant $/ Foot $7.63
Plant Balance (If Reitred Today):Net Salvage $/ Foot - Current ($672,559,789) / 53,060,289 Original Plant $/ Foot $6,486,609,397 / 550,234,638
Net Salvage $/ Foot - Current -$12.68Original Plant $/ Foot $11.79
Net Salvage Rate Per Foot of UG Conductor - Future RetirementPlant Balance (Future Retirement):Net Salvage $/ Foot - FutureOriginal Plant $/ Foot
Net Salvage $/ Foot - FutureOriginal Plant $/ Foot
Net Salvage $/ Foot - Future -$17.78Original Plant $/ Foot $11.79
Net Salvage Rate Per Foot of UG Conductor - Future RetirementPlant Balance (Future Retirement):Net Salvage $/ Foot - FutureOriginal Plant $/ Foot
Net Salvage $/ Foot - FutureOriginal Plant $/ Foot
Net Salvage $/ Foot - Future -$34.01Original Plant $/ Foot $11.79
-166%
= = -166%
=
= =
= = -166%
=
= = -108%
= -$12.68 X (1 + Escalation Rate)^Remaining Life$11.79
= -$12.68 X (1.0286)^12 years$11.79
= = -151%
= -$12.68 X (1 + Escalation Rate)^Remaining Life$11.79
= -$12.68 X (1.0286)^35 years$11.79
= = -288%
98
Workpaper – Southern California Edison / 2021 General Rate Case
Exhibit No. SCE-07 Vol.03 Ch I-VI Bk A Witness: D. Gunn
SCE-07, Volume. 03, Results of Operations Depreciation Study
Chapter III: T&D Net Salvage Witness: David Gunn
Account 368: Distribution Line Transformers
99
Workpaper – Southern California Edison / 2021 General Rate Case
Exhibit No. SCE-07 Vol.03 Ch I-VI Bk A Witness: D. Gunn
Sout
hern
Cali
forn
ia Ed
ison
2021
GRC
Dep
recia
tion S
tudy
Acco
unt 3
68: L
ine Tr
ansfo
rmer
sas
of:
1/1/
2019
Aggr
egat
e Res
ults
Origi
nal C
ost
Cost
ofCo
st of
Gros
sGr
oss
Net
Net
Units
Age o
fHi
storic
alPla
ntAg
e of
Survi
ving
Year
Retir
emen
tsRe
mov
alRe
mov
al %
Salva
geSa
lvage
%Sa
lvage
Salva
ge %
Retir
edRe
tirem
ents
Inflat
ionBa
lance
Surv.
Plan
tUn
itsA
BC
D=C/
BE
F=E/
BG=
E-C
H=G/
BI
JK
LM
N20
09$3
9,840
,178
$13,9
90,54
435
.1%$6
,135,9
5115
.4%($7
,854,5
93)
-19.7
%65
,919
43.9
3.5%
$2,47
6,361
,897
18.6
2,175
,947
2010
$30,4
48,59
9$2
3,339
,403
76.7%
$6,64
4,152
21.8%
($16,6
95,25
1)-5
4.8%
76,79
1
42
.23.7
%$2
,701,3
01,41
418
.32,2
12,03
6
20
11$7
2,988
,084
$31,1
16,34
842
.6%$6
,872,7
699.4
%($2
4,243
,578)
-33.2
%99
,376
41.2
3.8%
$2,86
4,157
,988
17.5
2,207
,409
2012
$40,7
92,51
3$4
2,506
,603
104.2
%$4
,771,3
8811
.7%($3
7,735
,215)
-92.5
%59
,785
36.6
4.0%
$3,02
2,095
,507
17.6
2,201
,976
2013
$40,5
26,32
8$4
7,249
,935
116.6
%$6
,571,1
1616
.2%($4
0,678
,819)
-100
.4%52
,879
37.9
4.1%
$3,15
0,166
,811
17.7
2,201
,645
2014
$49,1
15,57
3$4
5,856
,382
93.4%
$10,9
72,44
422
.3%($3
4,883
,939)
-71.0
%65
,307
39.2
4.2%
$3,31
7,285
,999
17.6
2,216
,514
2015
$50,3
83,88
0$6
6,907
,210
132.8
%$7
,374,7
9714
.6%($5
9,532
,413)
-118
.2%71
,019
39.0
4.2%
$3,50
8,639
,297
19.7
2,229
,827
2016
$62,4
37,38
8$6
0,439
,743
96.8%
$3,93
9,043
6.3%
($56,5
00,70
0)-9
0.5%
76,86
3
35
.44.4
%$3
,691,2
90,86
220
.32,2
47,97
3
20
17$7
8,076
,128
$68,0
00,09
987
.1%$5
,827,9
187.5
%($6
2,172
,181)
-79.6
%85
,704
31.1
4.4%
$3,88
3,963
,319
17.7
2,249
,010
2018
$63,6
09,34
7$1
10,33
1,328
173.5
%$8
,259,3
1913
.0%($1
02,07
2,009
)-1
60.5%
84,73
1
40
.54.8
%$4
,217,9
54,83
417
.02,2
84,04
9
20
09-2
018
$528
,218,0
16$5
09,73
7,595
96.5%
$67,3
68,89
812
.8%($4
42,36
8,697
)-8
3.7%
738,3
74
4.1
%17
.020
14-2
018
-103
.8%20
09-2
013
-56.6
%
Subp
opul
atio
n A:
Tran
sform
ers
Origi
nal C
ost
Cost
ofCo
st of
Gros
sGr
oss
Net
Net
Units
Age o
fHi
storic
alPla
ntAg
e of
Survi
ving
Year
Retir
emen
tsRe
mov
alRe
mov
al %
Salva
geSa
lvage
%Sa
lvage
Salva
ge %
Retir
edRe
tirem
ents
Inflat
ionBa
lance
Surv.
Plan
tUn
itsA
BC
D=C/
BE
F=E/
BG=
E-C
H=G/
BI
JK
LM
N20
09$3
4,388
,821
$8,69
8,096
25.3%
$5,89
4,151
17.1%
($2,80
3,945
)-8
.2%31
,873
45.3
3.5%
$1,70
1,995
,609
20.1
726,2
03
20
10$2
1,183
,926
$13,5
92,34
164
.2%$6
,620,1
8631
.3%($6
,972,1
55)
-32.9
%20
,927
45.7
3.6%
$1,84
9,378
,413
19.7
757,2
36
20
11$5
8,522
,906
$19,3
40,03
633
.0%$6
,845,1
0911
.7%($1
2,494
,927)
-21.4
%51
,228
43.4
3.7%
$1,95
1,968
,357
18.6
725,9
46
20
12$2
5,951
,691
$31,4
45,95
512
1.2%
$4,74
2,848
18.3%
($26,7
03,10
7)-1
02.9%
18,00
5
40
.14.0
%$2
,078,2
35,00
118
.572
8,603
2013
$28,5
98,05
0$3
8,097
,194
133.2
%$6
,557,3
2822
.9%($3
1,539
,866)
-110
.3%20
,158
40.6
4.1%
$2,15
9,685
,524
18.5
723,2
08
20
14$3
5,328
,839
$36,1
12,08
010
2.2%
$7,46
7,914
21.1%
($28,6
44,16
6)-8
1.1%
26,70
7
41
.84.2
%$2
,263,7
98,60
718
.371
7,504
2015
$34,7
73,19
3$5
5,783
,672
160.4
%$5
,550,6
5216
.0%($5
0,233
,019)
-144
.5%26
,849
42.0
4.2%
$2,38
3,104
,095
21.0
718,4
29
20
16$4
8,885
,987
$49,1
11,75
710
0.5%
$2,80
3,218
5.7%
($46,3
08,53
9)-9
4.7%
30,08
4
36
.64.3
%$2
,495,7
71,09
621
.771
7,424
2017
$53,6
32,53
6$5
4,130
,344
100.9
%$3
,336,8
826.2
%($5
0,793
,461)
-94.7
%28
,995
32.7
4.3%
$2,59
6,577
,202
18.0
710,1
65
20
18$3
9,805
,433
$67,4
14,75
616
9.4%
$5,74
1,063
14.4%
($61,6
73,69
4)-1
54.9%
33,04
6
44
.24.9
%$2
,783,7
59,96
117
.272
0,768
2009
-201
8$3
81,07
1,383
$373
,726,2
3198
.1%$5
5,559
,352
14.6%
($318
,166,8
79)
-83.5
%28
7,872
17.2
100
Workpaper – Southern California Edison / 2021 General Rate Case
Exhibit No. SCE-07 Vol.03 Ch I-VI Bk A Witness: D. Gunn
Sout
hern
Cali
forn
ia Ed
ison
2021
GRC
Dep
recia
tion S
tudy
Acco
unt 3
68: L
ine Tr
ansfo
rmer
sas
of:
1/1/
2019
Subp
opul
atio
n B:
Fuse
hold
ers &
Oth
er D
evice
sOr
igina
l Cos
tCo
st of
Cost
ofGr
oss
Gros
sNe
tNe
tUn
itsAg
e of
Histo
rical
Plant
Age o
fSu
rvivin
gYe
arRe
tirem
ents
Rem
oval
Rem
oval
%Sa
lvage
Salva
ge %
Salva
geSa
lvage
%Re
tired
Retir
emen
tsInf
lation
Balan
ceSu
rv. Pl
ant
Units
AB
CD=
C/B
EF=
E/B
G=E-
CH=
G/B
IJ
KL
MN
2009
$5,45
1,356
$5,29
2,448
97.1%
$241
,800
4.4%
($5,05
0,648
)-9
2.6%
34,04
6
30
.73.9
%$7
06,03
5,081
15.4
1,428
,208
2010
$9,26
4,672
$9,74
7,062
105.2
%$2
3,966
0.3%
($9,72
3,096
)-1
04.9%
55,86
4
30
.34.1
%$7
54,92
1,078
15.6
1,423
,437
2011
$14,4
65,17
7$1
1,776
,312
81.4%
$27,6
610.2
%($1
1,748
,651)
-81.2
%48
,148
26.8
4.2%
$832
,342,7
5515
.61,4
54,00
4
20
12$1
4,840
,822
$11,0
60,64
874
.5%$2
8,540
0.2%
($11,0
32,10
8)-7
4.3%
41,78
0
27
.34.2
%$8
97,17
3,632
15.7
1,453
,467
2013
$11,9
28,27
8$9
,152,7
4176
.7%$1
3,788
0.1%
($9,13
8,953
)-7
6.6%
32,72
1
27
.44.4
%$9
49,28
6,713
16.1
1,463
,400
2014
$13,7
86,73
4$9
,744,3
0270
.7%$3
,504,5
3025
.4%($6
,239,7
72)
-45.3
%38
,600
28.6
4.5%
$1,00
6,743
,402
16.4
1,479
,295
2015
$15,6
10,68
7$1
1,123
,538
71.3%
$1,82
4,144
11.7%
($9,29
9,394
)-5
9.6%
44,17
0
28
.24.6
%$1
,067,7
66,18
917
.21,4
92,99
9
20
16$1
3,551
,401
$11,3
27,98
683
.6%$1
,135,8
258.4
%($1
0,192
,161)
-75.2
%46
,779
29.9
4.7%
$1,13
1,401
,153
17.4
1,505
,025
2017
$24,4
43,59
1$1
3,869
,755
56.7%
$2,49
1,036
10.2%
($11,3
78,71
9)-4
6.6%
56,70
9
27
.24.8
%$1
,207,7
38,71
617
.61,5
20,50
4
20
18$2
3,803
,915
$42,9
16,57
218
0.3%
$2,51
8,256
10.6%
($40,3
98,31
5)-1
69.7%
51,68
5
27
.45.0
%$1
,313,3
50,63
917
.11,5
44,59
5
20
09-2
018
$147
,146,6
33$1
36,01
1,364
92.4%
$11,8
09,54
68.0
%($1
24,20
1,818
)-8
4.4%
450,5
02
17
.1
101
Workpaper – Southern California Edison / 2021 General Rate Case
Exhibit No. SCE-07 Vol.03 Ch I-VI Bk A Witness: D. Gunn
Sout
hern
Cali
forn
ia Ed
ison
2021
GRC
Dep
recia
tion S
tudy
Acco
unt 3
68: L
ine Tr
ansfo
rmer
sW
eight
ed N
et Sa
lvage
Rate
(2009
-201
8)
Majo
rRe
tirem
ent M
ixPla
nt M
ixNe
t Salv
age
Weig
hted
NSR
Com
pone
ntRe
tirem
ents
% of
Total
Balan
ce%
of To
talRa
te (N
SR)
Ret. W
td.
Plant
Wtd
.A
BC
DE
FG=
C*F
H=E*
FTr
ansfo
rmer
s$3
81,07
1,383
72%
$2,78
3,759
,961
68%
-83%
-60%
-57%
Fuse
holde
rs &
Othe
r Dev
ices
$147
,146,6
3328
%$1
,313,3
50,63
932
%-8
4%-2
4%-2
7%To
tal
-84%
-84%
102
Workpaper – Southern California Edison / 2021 General Rate Case
Exhibit No. SCE-07 Vol.03 Ch I-VI Bk A Witness: D. Gunn
Southern California Edison2021 GRC Depreciation StudyAccount 368: Line TransformersNet Salvage Rate Per Transformer(2012-2018)
Recorded Net Salvage Rate Per TransformerNet Salvage $ ($295,895,852)Retirement $ $266,975,729
Net Salvage $/ Qty Retired ($295,895,852) / 183,844 Retirement $/ Qty Retired $266,975,729 / 183,844
Net Salvage $/ Qty Retired ($1,609)Retirement $/ Qty Retired $1,452
Net Salvage Rate Per Transformer - Current RetirementRecent Retirements: Net Salvage $/ Qty - Current -$1,609Original Plant $/ Qty $1,452
Plant Balance (If Reitred Today):Net Salvage $/ Qty - Current ($295,895,852) / 183,844 Original Plant $/ Qty $2,783,759,961 / 720,768
Net Salvage $/ Qty - Current -$1,609Original Plant $/ Qty $3,862
Net Salvage Rate Per Transformer - Future RetirementPlant Balance (Future Retirement):Net Salvage $/ Qty - FutureOriginal Plant $/ Qty
Net Salvage $/ Qty - FutureOriginal Plant $/ Qty
Net Salvage $/ Qty - Future -$2,750Original Plant $/ Qty $3,862
= = -42%
= = -111%
=
= = -111%
= = -111%
=
= = -71%
= -$1,609 X (1 + Escalation Rate)^Remaining Life$3,862
= -$1,609 X (1.0286)^19 years$3,862
103
Workpaper – Southern California Edison / 2021 General Rate Case
Exhibit No. SCE-07 Vol.03 Ch I-VI Bk A Witness: D. Gunn
Southern California Edison2021 GRC Depreciation StudyAccount 368: Line TransformersReserve Imbalance
Reserve Imbalance (Authorized Net Salvage Rates)Plant and Gross
Salvage (GS) Cost of Removal TotalTheoretical Reserve 1,206,263,648 317,437,802 1,523,701,450 Actual Reserve 965,942,960 (150,489,973) 815,452,987 Surplus/(Deficit) (240,320,688) (467,927,775) (708,248,462)
Gross Plant Reserve Authorized NSR Future NS Depr. Basis Rem. Life AccrualA B C D=A*C E=A-B-D F G=E/F
Excluding ImbalancePlant and GS 4,218,947,447 1,206,263,648 5% 210,947,372 2,801,736,427 23.1 121,411,350 Cost of Removal 317,437,802 -25% (1,054,736,862) 737,299,060 23.1 31,950,355 Total 4,218,947,447 1,523,701,450 -20% (843,789,489) 3,539,035,487 23.1 153,361,705
Reserve Imbalance (Surplus/Deficit)Plant and GS (240,320,688) 240,320,688 23.1 10,414,134 Cost of Removal (467,927,775) 467,927,775 23.1 20,277,333 Total (708,248,462) 708,248,462 23.1 30,691,467
Combined (Actual Reserve)Plant and GS 4,218,947,447 965,942,960 5% 210,947,372 3,042,057,115 23.1 131,825,484 Cost of Removal (150,489,973) -25% (1,054,736,862) 1,205,226,835 23.1 52,227,688 Total 4,218,947,447 815,452,987 -20% (843,789,489) 4,247,283,949 23.1 184,053,173
Reserve Imbalance (Proposed Net Salvage Rates)Plant and Gross
Salvage (GS) Cost of Removal TotalTheoretical Reserve 1,206,263,648 698,363,164 1,904,626,812 Actual Reserve 965,942,960 (150,489,973) 815,452,987 Surplus/(Deficit) (240,320,688) (848,853,137) (1,089,173,825)
Gross Plant Reserve Proposed NSR Future NS Depr. Basis Rem. Life AccrualA B C D=A*C E=A-B-D F G=E/F
Excluding ImbalancePlant and GS 4,218,947,447 1,206,263,648 5% 210,947,372 2,801,736,427 23.1 121,411,350 Cost of Removal 698,363,164 -55% (2,320,421,096) 1,622,057,932 23.1 70,290,782 Total 4,218,947,447 1,904,626,812 -50% (2,109,473,724) 4,423,794,359 23.1 191,702,132
Reserve Imbalance (Surplus/Deficit)Plant and GS (240,320,688) 240,320,688 23.1 10,414,134 Cost of Removal (848,853,137) 848,853,137 23.1 36,784,476 Total (1,089,173,825) 1,089,173,825 23.1 47,198,610
Combined (Actual Reserve)Plant and GS 4,218,947,447 965,942,960 5% 210,947,372 3,042,057,115 23.1 131,825,484 Cost of Removal (150,489,973) -55% (2,320,421,096) 2,470,911,069 23.1 107,075,257 Total 4,218,947,447 815,452,987 -50% (2,109,473,724) 5,512,968,183 23.1 238,900,741
104
Workpaper – Southern California Edison / 2021 General Rate Case
Exhibit No. SCE-07 Vol.03 Ch I-VI Bk A Witness: D. Gunn
SCE-07, Volume. 03, Results of Operations Depreciation Study
Chapter III: T&D Net Salvage Witness: David Gunn
Account 369: Services
105
Workpaper – Southern California Edison / 2021 General Rate Case
Exhibit No. SCE-07 Vol.03 Ch I-VI Bk A Witness: D. Gunn
Sout
hern
Cali
forn
ia Ed
ison
2021
GRC
Dep
recia
tion S
tud y
Acco
unt 3
69: S
ervic
esas
of:
1/1/
2019
Aggr
egat
e Res
ults
Origi
nal C
ost
Cost
o fCo
st of
Gros
sGr
oss
Net
Net
Units
Age o
fHi
storic
alPla
ntAg
e of
Year
Retir
emen
tsRe
mov
alRe
mov
al %
Salva
geSa
lvage
%Sa
lvage
Salva
ge %
Retir
edRe
tirem
ents
Inflat
ionBa
lance
Surv.
Plan
tA
BC
D=C/
BE
F=E/
BG=
E-C
H=G/
BI
JK
LM
2009
$1,25
6,716
$6,46
1,356
514.1
%$7
20,43
857
.3%($5
,740,9
18)
-456
.8%51
,335
32.5
3.3%
$1,05
1,459
,026
20.1
2010
$1,40
7,040
$7,37
4,588
524.1
%$4
8,878
3.5%
($7,32
5,709
)-5
20.6%
52,23
7
33
.53.4
%$1
,089,1
81,13
020
.620
11$1
,828,6
08$8
,505,4
8746
5.1%
$65,5
303.6
%($8
,439,9
56)
-461
.6%66
,319
34.3
3.6%
$1,13
1,303
,151
21.1
2012
$1,92
9,936
$10,5
95,80
154
9.0%
$113
,185
5.9%
($10,4
82,61
6)-5
43.2%
82,46
9
35
.33.6
%$1
,172,0
62,08
721
.720
13$1
,633,2
33$1
1,436
,094
700.2
%$1
49,26
79.1
%($1
1,286
,827)
-691
.1%61
,887
35.6
3.5%
$1,21
2,236
,708
22.3
2014
$1,36
4,889
$7,81
9,044
572.9
%$1
11,51
58.2
%($7
,707,5
29)
-564
.7%58
,730
36.9
3.4%
$1,25
4,929
,719
22.8
2015
$1,59
9,083
$9,48
6,783
593.3
%$3
,192,6
5919
9.7%
($6,29
4,124
)-3
93.6%
61,91
1
37
.73.4
%$1
,301,4
07,40
623
.320
16$5
,844,2
55$1
1,843
,082
202.6
%$6
25,86
810
.7%($1
1,217
,214)
-191
.9%10
2,023
28.3
2.9%
$1,34
5,958
,120
24.2
2017
$3,34
8,993
$14,9
33,63
844
5.9%
$116
,180
3.5%
($14,8
17,45
8)-4
42.4%
110,8
37
37
.73.1
%$1
,406,8
63,41
324
.520
18$2
,149,4
48$2
2,668
,048
1054
.6%$7
2,805
3.4%
($22,5
95,24
2)-1
051.2
%70
,037
38.6
3.0%
$1,49
4,350
,423
24.7
2009
-201
8$2
2,362
,202
$111
,123,9
2049
6.9%
$5,21
6,326
23.3%
($105
,907,5
94)
-473
.6%71
7,785
3.3%
24.7
2014
-201
8-4
37.8%
2009
-201
3-5
37.2%
Subp
opul
atio
n A:
UG
Cond
ucto
rOr
ig ina
l Cos
tCo
st o f
Cost
ofGr
oss
Gros
sNe
tNe
tUn
itsAg
e of
Histo
rical
Plant
Age o
fYe
arRe
tirem
ents
Rem
oval
Rem
oval
%Sa
lvage
Salva
ge %
Salva
geSa
lvage
%Re
tired
Retir
emen
tsInf
lation
Balan
ceSu
rv. Pl
ant
AB
CD=
C/B
EF=
E/B
G=E-
CH=
G/B
IJ
KL
M20
09$7
53,74
8$2
,453,1
6232
5.5%
$24,3
983.2
%($2
,428,7
64)
-322
.2%11
,142
31.5
3.3%
$686
,446,7
2219
.520
10$7
46,36
2$2
,421,6
0932
4.5%
$4,62
90.6
%($2
,416,9
80)
-323
.8%9,6
78
32.8
3.4%
$700
,932,3
4220
.220
11$8
95,07
3$3
,443,3
1438
4.7%
($17,1
77)
-1.9%
($3,46
0,491
)-3
86.6%
11,09
7
34
.13.6
%$7
31,44
3,139
20.7
2012
$996
,725
$3,73
7,798
375.0
%$2
0,199
2.0%
($3,71
7,599
)-3
73.0%
14,42
3
34
.23.5
%$7
58,68
3,670
21.3
2013
$824
,457
$3,64
7,036
442.4
%($1
1,540
)-1
.4%($3
,658,5
75)
-443
.8%12
,113
35.1
3.5%
$787
,959,7
2721
.820
14$7
23,88
4$2
,693,0
4537
2.0%
$17,7
952.5
%($2
,675,2
49)
-369
.6%10
,077
35.8
3.4%
$817
,912,6
1522
.420
15$8
65,21
5$3
,300,9
9438
1.5%
$19,8
642.3
%($3
,281,1
30)
-379
.2%12
,230
36.8
3.3%
$843
,380,4
3822
.920
16$1
,312,2
92$3
,743,2
8828
5.2%
$2,73
00.2
%($3
,740,5
58)
-285
.0%19
,016
36.2
3.1%
$869
,204,7
6923
.520
17$1
,455,6
53$4
,676,2
5932
1.2%
$27,0
021.9
%($4
,649,2
57)
-319
.4%19
,709
36.8
3.0%
$903
,163,2
5623
.920
18$9
65,78
5$3
,949,9
7740
9.0%
$12,6
541.3
%($3
,937,3
24)
-407
.7%12
,953
38.0
3.0%
$939
,824,7
9524
.420
09-2
018
$9,53
9,196
$34,0
66,48
335
7.1%
$100
,555
1.1%
($33,9
65,92
7)-3
56.1%
132,4
38
24
.4
106
Workpaper – Southern California Edison / 2021 General Rate Case
Exhibit No. SCE-07 Vol.03 Ch I-VI Bk A Witness: D. Gunn
Sout
hern
Cali
forn
ia Ed
ison
2021
GRC
Dep
recia
tion S
tud y
Acco
unt 3
69: S
ervic
esas
of:
1/1/
2019
Subp
opul
atio
n B:
OH
Cond
ucto
rOr
igina
l Cos
tCo
st o f
Cost
ofGr
oss
Gros
sNe
tNe
tUn
itsAg
e of
Histo
rical
Plant
Age o
fYe
arRe
tirem
ents
Rem
oval
Rem
oval
%Sa
lvage
Salva
ge %
Salva
geSa
lvage
%Re
tired
Retir
emen
tsInf
lation
Balan
ceSu
rv. Pl
ant
AB
CD=
C/B
EF=
E/B
G=E-
CH=
G/B
IJ
KL
M20
09$4
84,47
2$2
,983,6
9761
5.9%
$98,6
1620
.4%($2
,885,0
80)
-595
.5%28
,840
33.3
3.4%
$320
,392,0
0621
.020
10$6
48,53
3$4
,841,5
7674
6.5%
$4,93
00.8
%($4
,836,6
46)
-745
.8%37
,695
34.1
3.5%
$328
,767,8
1421
.620
11$9
20,40
9$5
,109,6
9755
5.2%
$17,8
681.9
%($5
,091,8
29)
-553
.2%50
,885
34.5
3.6%
$340
,964,5
4022
.120
12$9
20,26
5$6
,735,3
2173
1.9%
$2,94
50.3
%($6
,732,3
76)
-731
.6%60
,374
36.2
3.7%
$354
,546,3
5522
.620
13$7
36,65
3$7
,758,7
6210
53.2%
$460
0.1%
($7,75
8,302
)-1
053.2
%47
,274
37.0
3.6%
$368
,006,8
1623
.120
14$6
29,33
5$5
,097,1
2180
9.9%
($1,83
3)-0
.3%($5
,098,9
54)
-810
.2%42
,283
37.9
3.5%
$377
,240,7
0323
.720
15$7
23,52
8$5
,964,5
6382
4.4%
$4,44
00.6
%($5
,960,1
23)
-823
.8%45
,294
38.6
3.5%
$387
,390,9
7224
.420
16$4
,504,7
62$8
,031,8
1717
8.3%
$451
0.0%
($8,03
1,366
)-1
78.3%
63,18
0
24
.62.8
%$3
99,04
4,262
24.9
2017
$1,88
6,720
$10,2
07,55
154
1.0%
$2,20
10.1
%($1
0,205
,350)
-540
.9%85
,843
38.5
3.2%
$416
,808,6
7525
.220
18$1
,164,1
68$1
8,655
,910
1602
.5%$8
080.1
%($1
8,655
,102)
-160
2.4%
51,70
1
39
.23.1
%$4
47,64
8,175
25.1
2009
-201
8$1
2,618
,845
$75,3
86,01
459
7.4%
$130
,886
1.0%
($75,2
55,12
8)-5
96.4%
513,3
69
25
.1
Subp
opul
atio
n C:
Con
duit
& Ot
her
Origi
nal C
ost
Cost
o fCo
st of
Gros
sGr
oss
Net
Net
Units
Age o
fHi
storic
alPla
ntAg
e of
Year
Retir
emen
tsRe
mov
alRe
mov
al %
Salva
geSa
lvage
%Sa
lvage
Salva
ge %
Retir
edRe
tirem
ents
Inflat
ionBa
lance
Surv.
Plan
tA
BC
D=C/
BE
F=E/
BG=
E-C
H=G/
BI
JK
LM
2009
$18,4
96$1
,024,4
9755
39.2%
$597
,424
3230
.1%($4
27,07
3)-2
309.1
%11
,353
42.6
3.9%
$25,4
42,91
828
.520
10$1
2,144
$111
,403
917.3
%$3
9,319
323.8
%($7
2,083
)-5
93.6%
4,864
39
.33.5
%$2
7,155
,953
28.7
2011
$13,1
25($4
7,523
)-3
62.1%
$64,8
4049
4.0%
$112
,363
856.1
%4,3
37
38.0
3.4%
$30,9
82,95
828
.120
12$1
2,946
$122
,682
947.6
%$9
0,041
695.5
%($3
2,641
)-2
52.1%
7,672
45
.04.0
%$3
7,327
,522
26.9
2013
$72,1
24$3
0,296
42.0%
$160
,347
222.3
%$1
30,05
118
0.3%
2,500
13
.63.1
%$4
0,239
,220
27.0
2014
$11,6
70$2
8,878
247.5
%$9
5,552
818.8
%$6
6,674
571.3
%6,3
70
45.5
3.7%
$44,1
84,90
126
.820
15$1
0,340
$221
,225
2139
.4%$3
,168,3
5430
640.3
%$2
,947,1
3028
500.9
%4,3
87
45.0
3.4%
$49,5
23,23
927
.220
16$2
7,201
$67,9
7724
9.9%
$622
,687
2289
.2%$5
54,71
020
39.3%
19,82
7
42
.93.7
%$5
9,314
,178
32.2
2017
$6,62
1$4
9,828
752.6
%$8
6,976
1313
.7%$3
7,149
561.1
%5,2
85
109.5
$70,1
44,35
030
.820
18$1
9,495
$62,1
6131
8.9%
$59,3
4430
4.4%
($2,81
7)-1
4.5%
5,383
31
.32.6
%$8
2,101
,774
29.5
2009
-201
8$2
04,16
1$1
,671,4
2381
8.7%
$4,98
4,884
2441
.6%$3
,313,4
6116
23.0%
71,97
8
29
.5
107
Workpaper – Southern California Edison / 2021 General Rate Case
Exhibit No. SCE-07 Vol.03 Ch I-VI Bk A Witness: D. Gunn
Sout
hern
Cali
forn
ia Ed
ison
2021
GRC
Dep
recia
tion S
tudy
Acco
unt 3
69: S
ervic
esW
eight
ed N
et Sa
lvage
Rate
(2009
-201
8)
Majo
rRe
tirem
ent M
ixPla
nt M
ixNe
t Salv
age
Weig
hted
NSR
Com
pone
ntRe
tirem
ents
% of
Total
Balan
ce%
of To
talRa
te (N
SR)
Ret. W
td.
Plant
Wtd
.A
BC
DE
FG=
C*F
H=E*
FUG
Con
ducto
r$9
,539,1
9643
%$9
39,82
4,795
64%
-356
%-1
52%
-228
%OH
Con
ducto
r$1
2,618
,845
56%
$447
,648,1
7530
%-5
96%
-337
%-1
82%
Cond
uit &
Oth
er$2
04,16
11%
$82,1
01,77
46%
1623
%15
%91
%To
tal
-474
%-3
19%
108
Workpaper – Southern California Edison / 2021 General Rate Case
Exhibit No. SCE-07 Vol.03 Ch I-VI Bk A Witness: D. Gunn
SCE-07, Volume. 03, Results of Operations Depreciation Study
Chapter III: T&D Net Salvage Witness: David Gunn
Account 370: Meters
109
Workpaper – Southern California Edison / 2021 General Rate Case
Exhibit No. SCE-07 Vol.03 Ch I-VI Bk A Witness: D. Gunn
Sout
hern
Cali
forn
ia Ed
ison
2021
GRC
Dep
recia
tion S
tudy
Acco
unt 3
70: M
eter
sas
of:
1/1/
2019
Aggr
egat
e Res
ults
Origi
nal C
ost
Cost
o fCo
st of
Gros
sGr
oss
Net
Net
Units
Age o
fHi
storic
alPla
ntAg
e of
Survi
ving
Year
Retir
emen
tsRe
mov
alRe
mov
al %
Salva
geSa
lvage
%Sa
lvage
Salva
ge %
Retir
edRe
tirem
ent s
Inflat
ionBa
lance
Surv.
Plan
tUn
itsA
BC
D=C/
BE
F=E/
BG=
E-C
H=G/
BI
JK
LM
N20
09$0
$00.0
%$0
0.0%
$00.0
%-
$3
0,182
,804
0.62,8
46
20
10$0
$00.0
%$0
0.0%
$00.0
%-
$4
25,89
5,861
5.92,3
46,27
8
2011
$28,9
10$2
8,215
97.6%
$00.0
%($2
8,215
)-9
7.6%
18
18
.02.6
%$6
80,14
1,995
5.34,0
96,20
9
2012
$213
,147
$413
0.2%
$00.0
%($4
13)
-0.2%
1,421
3.4
0.3%
$874
,825,9
355.7
5,277
,959
20
13$6
5,799
$3,25
54.9
%$8
031.2
%($2
,452)
-3.7%
59
1.5
1.6%
$880
,580,8
866.6
5,294
,869
20
14$3
0,637
$7,16
823
.4%$5
,015
16.4%
($2,15
3)-7
.0%30
3.51.7
%$8
88,93
5,618
7.65,3
07,32
0
2015
$1,04
3,554
$2,79
30.3
%$3
,141
0.3%
$347
0.0%
6,109
6.6
1.1%
$895
,411,9
238.5
5,468
,119
20
16$1
,420,2
69$1
9,274
1.4%
$259
0.0%
($19,0
15)
-1.3%
8,312
6.9
0.9%
$905
,180,2
349.4
5,504
,048
20
17$2
,684,5
77$5
,341
0.2%
$266
0.0%
($5,07
4)-0
.2%16
,813
8.10.9
%$9
10,30
4,055
10.3
5,485
,628
20
18$2
,902,0
77$1
81,31
46.2
%$0
0.0%
($181
,314)
-6.2%
18,47
0
9.2
0.9%
$916
,709,4
8711
.25,5
99,95
0
2009
-201
8$8
,388,9
70$2
47,77
43.0
%$9
,484
0.1%
($238
,289)
-2.8%
51,23
2
1.3
%11
.2
Subp
opul
atio
n A:
Met
ers
Origi
nal C
ost
Cost
o fCo
st of
Gros
sGr
oss
Net
Net
Units
Age o
fHi
storic
alPla
ntAg
e of
Survi
ving
Year
Retir
emen
tsRe
mov
alRe
mov
al %
Salva
geSa
lvage
%Sa
lvage
Salva
ge %
Retir
edRe
tirem
ent s
Inflat
ionBa
lance
Surv.
Plan
tUn
itsA
BC
D=C/
BE
F=E/
BG=
E-C
H=G/
BI
JK
LM
N20
09$0
$00.0
%$0
0.0%
$00.0
%-
$2
,117,8
311.5
2,680
2010
$0$0
0.0%
$00.0
%$0
0.0%
-
$326
,168,0
791.3
2,024
,796
20
11$0
$00.0
%$0
0.0%
$00.0
%-
$5
68,23
7,381
2.23,7
69,75
8
2012
$213
,147
$413
0.2%
$00.0
%($4
13)
-0.2%
1,421
3.4
0.3%
$759
,776,0
273.2
4,951
,202
20
13$6
5,799
$3,25
54.9
%$8
031.2
%($2
,452)
-3.7%
59
1.5
1.6%
$770
,903,3
654.2
4,968
,186
20
14$2
9,862
$4,13
413
.8%$5
,015
16.8%
$882
3.0%
20
2.4
1.9%
$780
,453,3
965.1
4,980
,732
20
15$1
,027,7
20$2
,577
0.3%
$3,14
10.3
%$5
630.1
%6,1
02
6.71.1
%$7
87,37
4,425
6.15,1
41,55
4
2016
$1,34
4,573
$9,02
30.7
%$2
590.0
%($8
,764)
-0.7%
8,301
7.1
0.9%
$797
,407,8
007.0
5,177
,435
20
17$2
,680,6
92$5
,341
0.2%
$266
0.0%
($5,07
4)-0
.2%16
,810
8.10.9
%$7
88,41
5,569
8.05,1
59,04
4
2018
$2,86
4,162
$173
,685
6.1%
$00.0
%($1
73,68
5)-6
.1%18
,464
9.20.9
%$8
08, 73
9,406
8.85,2
73,39
2
2009
-201
8$8
,225,9
55$1
98,42
92.4
%$9
,484
0.1%
($188
,944)
-2.3%
51,17
7
8.8
110
Workpaper – Southern California Edison / 2021 General Rate Case
Exhibit No. SCE-07 Vol.03 Ch I-VI Bk A Witness: D. Gunn
Sout
hern
Cali
forn
ia Ed
ison
2021
GRC
Dep
recia
tion S
tudy
Acco
unt 3
70: M
eter
sas
of:
1/1/
2019
Subp
opul
atio
n B:
Oth
erOr
igina
l Cos
tCo
st o f
Cost
ofGr
oss
Gros
sNe
tNe
tUn
itsAg
e of
Histo
rical
Plant
Age o
fSu
rvivin
gYe
arRe
tirem
ents
Rem
oval
Rem
oval
%Sa
lvage
Salva
ge %
Salva
geSa
lvage
%Re
tired
Retir
emen
t sInf
lation
Balan
ceSu
rv. Pl
ant
Units
AB
CD=
C/B
EF=
E/B
G=E-
CH=
G/B
IJ
KL
MN
2009
$0$0
0.0%
$00.0
%$0
0.0%
-
$020
10$0
$00.0
%$0
0.0%
$00.0
%-
$9
6,793
,520
16.1
321,4
28
2011
$28,9
10$2
8,215
97.6%
$00.0
%($2
8,215
)-9
7.6%
18
18
.02.6
%$1
07,09
5,941
16.7
326,3
80
2012
$0$0
0.0%
$00.0
%$0
0.0%
-
$107
,095,9
4117
.732
6,380
20
13$0
$00.0
%$0
0.0%
$00.0
%-
$1
07,09
5,941
18.7
326,3
80
2014
$775
$3,03
439
1.4%
$00.0
%($3
,034)
-391
.4%10
30.5
1.8%
$107
,177,0
2119
.732
6,382
20
15$1
5,833
$216
1.4%
$00.0
%($2
16)
-1.4%
7
2.6
0.8%
$107
,136,7
0220
.732
6,406
20
16$7
5,697
$10,2
5113
.5%$0
0.0%
($10,2
51)
-13.5
%11
3.30.7
%$1
07,18
8,783
21.7
326,4
31
2017
$3,88
5$0
0.0%
$00.0
%$0
0.0%
3
2.4
0.2%
$107
,233,1
8522
.732
6,449
20
18$3
7,915
$7,62
920
.1%$0
0.0%
($7,62
9)-2
0.1%
6
6.1
0.6%
$107
,252,7
5723
.632
6,473
20
09-2
018
$163
,015
$49,3
4530
.3%$0
0.0%
($49,3
45)
- 30.3
%55
23.6
111
Workpaper – Southern California Edison / 2021 General Rate Case
Exhibit No. SCE-07 Vol.03 Ch I-VI Bk A Witness: D. Gunn
Sout
hern
Cali
forn
ia Ed
ison
2021
GRC
Dep
recia
tion S
tudy
Acco
unt 3
70: M
eter
sW
eight
ed N
et Sa
lvage
Rate
(2009
-201
8)
Majo
rRe
tirem
ent M
ixPla
nt M
ixNe
t Salv
age
Weig
hted
NSR
Com
pone
ntRe
tirem
ents
% of
Total
Balan
ce%
of To
talRa
te (N
SR)
Ret. W
td.
Plant
Wtd
.A
BC
DE
FG=
C*F
H=E*
FM
eter
s$8
,225,9
5598
%$8
08,73
9,406
88%
-2%
-2%
-2%
Othe
r$1
63,01
52%
$107
,252,7
5712
%-3
0%-1
%-4
%To
tal
-3%
-6%
112
Workpaper – Southern California Edison / 2021 General Rate Case
Exhibit No. SCE-07 Vol.03 Ch I-VI Bk A Witness: D. Gunn
SCE-07, Volume. 03, Results of Operations Depreciation Study
Chapter III: T&D Net Salvage Witness: David Gunn
Account 373: Streetlighting and Signal Systems
113
Workpaper – Southern California Edison / 2021 General Rate Case
Exhibit No. SCE-07 Vol.03 Ch I-VI Bk A Witness: D. Gunn
Sout
hern
Cali
forn
ia Ed
ison
2021
GRC
Dep
recia
tion S
tudy
Acco
unt 3
73: S
treet
Ligh
ting
& Sig
nal S
yste
ms
as o
f:1/
1/20
19
Aggr
egat
e Res
ults
Origi
nal C
ost
Cost
ofCo
st of
Gros
sGr
oss
Net
Net
Units
Age o
fHi
storic
alPla
ntAg
e of
Year
Retir
emen
tsRe
mov
alRe
mov
al %
Salva
geSa
lvage
%Sa
lvage
Salva
ge %
Retir
edRe
tirem
ents
Inflat
ionBa
lance
Surv.
Plan
tA
BC
D=C/
BE
F=E/
BG=
E-C
H=G/
BI
JK
LM
2009
$5,93
9,579
$4,28
0,794
72.1%
$673
,906
11.3%
($3,60
6,888
)-6
0.7%
898,7
34
27
.04.3
%$6
87,16
7,543
23.2
2010
$5,21
6,396
$5,05
2,321
96.9%
$188
,016
3.6%
($4,86
4,305
)-9
3.3%
883,7
26
28
.74.1
%$7
08,42
4,639
23.8
2011
$7,14
1,772
$6,29
9,300
88.2%
$276
,759
3.9%
($6,02
2,542
)-8
4.3%
1,058
,026
28.5
4.0%
$732
,030,3
0324
.420
12$7
,467,5
17$8
,453,1
9911
3.2%
$350
,099
4.7%
($8,10
3,100
)-1
08.5%
1,096
,779
28.7
4.0%
$753
,720,5
3824
.920
13$1
0,065
,328
$8,12
1,286
80.7%
$898
,620
8.9%
($7,22
2,666
)-7
1.8%
1,089
,826
30.3
3.8%
$782
,877,5
6625
.320
14$1
4,070
,875
$16,3
60,03
111
6.3%
$990
,346
7.0%
($15,3
69,68
5)-1
09.2%
2,669
,188
33.4
3.6%
$835
,020,5
5625
.220
15$1
7,146
,243
$40,7
73,15
423
7.8%
$567
,036
3.3%
($40,2
06,11
7)-2
34.5%
3,094
,028
33.3
3.5%
$872
,083,6
2125
.320
16$8
,039,2
63$1
5,205
,765
189.1
%$5
74,63
07.1
%($1
4,631
,135)
-182
.0%1,3
44,82
4
32
.63.3
%$8
95,95
4,435
25.3
2017
$11,3
50,82
7$1
3,022
,170
114.7
%$7
49,98
96.6
%($1
2,272
,180)
-108
.1%1,6
43,11
3
32
.63.1
%$9
04,15
5,468
25.6
2018
$11,7
89,32
2$2
0,582
,127
174.6
%$2
,404,6
1520
.4%($1
8,177
,512)
-154
.2%1,2
80,34
6
31
.52.9
%$8
64,20
3,506
25.4
2009
-201
8$9
8,227
,122
$138
,150,1
4714
0.6%
$7,67
4,016
7.8%
($130
,476,1
30)
-132
.8%15
,058,5
90
3.7%
25.4
2014
-201
8-1
61.3%
Subp
opul
atio
n A:
Pol
esOr
igina
l Cos
tCo
st of
Cost
ofGr
oss
Gros
sNe
tNe
tUn
itsAg
e of
Histo
rical
Plant
Age o
fYe
arRe
tirem
ents
Rem
oval
Rem
oval
%Sa
lvage
Salva
ge %
Salva
geSa
lvage
%Re
tired
Retir
emen
tsInf
lation
Balan
ceSu
rv. Pl
ant
AB
CD=
C/B
EF=
E/B
G=E-
CH=
G/B
IJ
KL
M20
09$9
73,44
9$1
,039,7
5410
6.8%
$286
0.0%
($1,03
9,468
)-1
06.8%
2,496
33
.84.6
%$3
01,61
1,662
26.7
2010
$1,36
9,876
$2,18
4,271
159.5
%$1
,847
0.1%
($2,18
2,424
)-1
59.3%
3,258
34
.74.3
%$3
07,68
2,346
27.5
2011
$1,26
6,556
$2,61
5,767
206.5
%$2
,268
0.2%
($2,61
3,499
)-2
06.3%
2,840
34
.74.2
%$3
17,52
0,199
28.1
2012
$1,40
0,762
$3,10
7,008
221.8
%$1
,017
0.1%
($3,10
5,991
)-2
21.7%
3,163
35
.64.2
%$3
27,77
1,768
28.7
2013
$2,22
7,738
$3,80
5,501
170.8
%$4
40.0
%($3
,805,4
56)
-170
.8%4,8
62
37.2
4.0%
$339
,112,3
9229
.220
14$5
,531,9
55$9
,700,7
8117
5.4%
($5,05
5)-0
.1%($9
,705,8
36)
-175
.5%11
,742
38
.43.8
%$3
53,84
9,530
29.4
2015
$5,43
4,586
$27,4
10,74
250
4.4%
$233
0.0%
($27,4
10,50
9)-5
04.4%
11,34
0
39.2
3.7%
$391
,558,5
5428
.820
16$2
,465,3
13$8
,587,1
5434
8.3%
$359
0.0%
($8,58
6,796
)-3
48.3%
4,801
39
.13.5
%$4
10,38
9,580
29.1
2017
$2,20
6,463
$6,85
5,796
310.7
%$1
660.0
%($6
,855,6
31)
-310
.7%4,7
36
42.9
3.6%
$412
,970,6
0029
.420
18$2
,739,7
40$9
,501,4
5534
6.8%
$482
0.0%
($9,50
0,973
)-3
46.8%
5,355
41
.43.4
%$3
78,14
9,747
28.4
2009
-201
8$2
5,616
,438
$74,8
08,22
929
2.0%
$1,64
70.0
%($7
4,806
,582)
-292
.0%54
,593
28
.4
114
Workpaper – Southern California Edison / 2021 General Rate Case
Exhibit No. SCE-07 Vol.03 Ch I-VI Bk A Witness: D. Gunn
Sout
hern
Cali
forn
ia Ed
ison
2021
GRC
Dep
recia
tion S
tudy
Acco
unt 3
73: S
treet
Ligh
ting
& Sig
nal S
yste
ms
as o
f:1/
1/20
19
Subp
opul
atio
n B:
Fixt
ures
Origi
nal C
ost
Cost
ofCo
st of
Gros
sGr
oss
Net
Net
Units
Age o
fHi
storic
alPla
ntAg
e of
Year
Retir
emen
tsRe
mov
alRe
mov
al %
Salva
geSa
lvage
%Sa
lvage
Salva
ge %
Retir
edRe
tirem
ents
Inflat
ionBa
lance
Surv.
Plan
tA
BC
D=C/
BE
F=E/
BG=
E-C
H=G/
BI
JK
LM
2009
$4,21
2,084
$1,75
3,995
41.6%
$11,6
580.3
%($1
,742,3
37)
-41.4
%24
,316
24
.94.3
%$1
51,72
4,193
18.4
2010
$3,06
9,146
$1,33
3,530
43.4%
$2,22
10.1
%($1
,331,3
09)
-43.4
%17
,563
25
.44.1
%$1
53,62
3,727
19.0
2011
$4,89
3,488
$2,01
0,496
41.1%
$3,54
40.1
%($2
,006,9
52)
-41.0
%26
,815
25
.34.0
%$1
55,81
9,253
19.4
2012
$5,07
9,981
$2,23
5,761
44.0%
$5,38
20.1
%($2
,230,3
79)
-43.9
%27
,598
26
.04.0
%$1
60,23
1,133
19.6
2013
$6,96
8,978
$2,22
4,474
31.9%
$3,63
50.1
%($2
,220,8
39)
-31.9
%37
,820
27
.03.8
%$1
61,92
0,697
19.6
2014
$7,24
1,141
$3,41
7,856
47.2%
$9,24
60.1
%($3
,408,6
10)
-47.1
%38
,785
27
.63.5
%$1
67,17
0,907
19.4
2015
$9,85
9,217
$6,47
1,827
65.6%
$2,29
60.0
%($6
,469,5
30)
-65.6
%51
,960
28
.13.5
%$1
77,27
0,403
18.5
2016
$4,55
3,053
$3,55
7,265
78.1%
$911
0.0%
($3,55
6,355
)-7
8.1%
22,83
8
27.4
3.2%
$184
,713,0
4518
.520
17$7
,794,3
52$2
,885,6
5637
.0%$7
650.0
%($2
,884,8
91)
-37.0
%37
,471
26
.23.0
%$1
82,52
6,727
18.1
2018
$8,13
3,909
$5,02
6,768
61.8%
$2,97
80.0
%($5
,023,7
89)
-61.8
%37
,782
24
.52.7
%$1
68,13
9,206
15.3
2009
-201
8$6
1,805
,350
$30,9
17,62
850
.0%$4
2,637
0.1%
($30,8
74,99
1)-5
0.0%
322,9
48
15
.3
Subp
opul
atio
n C:
Cab
le &
Cond
uit
Origi
nal C
ost
Cost
ofCo
st of
Gros
sGr
oss
Net
Net
Units
Age o
fHi
storic
alPla
ntAg
e of
Year
Retir
emen
tsRe
mov
alRe
mov
al %
Salva
geSa
lvage
%Sa
lvage
Salva
ge %
Retir
edRe
tirem
ents
Inflat
ionBa
lance
Surv.
Plan
tA
BC
D=C/
BE
F=E/
BG=
E-C
H=G/
BI
JK
LM
2009
$632
,134
$1,18
7,111
187.8
%$6
47,76
910
2.5%
($539
,343)
-85.3
%87
1,406
24.3
4.3%
$201
,562,3
1820
.220
10$6
27,14
6$1
,319,4
9121
0.4%
$1,39
50.2
%($1
,318,0
97)
-210
.2%86
2,865
25.2
4.0%
$208
,639,1
6820
.820
11$7
27,69
3$1
,574,4
3121
6.4%
$3,65
60.5
%($1
,570,7
76)
-215
.9%1,0
23,65
8
25
.93.9
%$2
17,87
9,860
21.4
2012
$784
,508
$2,88
3,572
367.6
%$5
,934
0.8%
($2,87
7,639
)-3
66.8%
1,065
,754
26.9
3.9%
$228
,031,0
4121
.920
13$7
57,85
8$1
,885,3
1724
8.8%
$446
0.1%
($1,88
4,871
)-2
48.7%
1,046
,400
28.1
3.7%
$237
,134,6
9922
.520
14$1
,234,5
33$3
,115,8
9725
2.4%
($681
)-0
.1%($3
,116,5
79)
-252
.5%2,6
18,63
0
32
.63.6
%$2
46,02
4,037
23.0
2015
$1,61
9,878
$6,76
0,979
417.4
%$3
,391
0.2%
($6,75
7,587
)-4
17.2%
3,028
,274
32.5
3.5%
$260
,964,2
0323
.520
16$8
17,13
3$3
,034,2
1137
1.3%
$3,17
70.4
%($3
,031,0
34)
-370
.9%1,3
17,13
6
32
.33.3
%$2
65,94
6,942
22.2
2017
$1,08
4,784
$3,08
2,374
284.1
%$4
,286
0.4%
($3,07
8,089
)-2
83.8%
1,597
,940
32.1
3.1%
$273
,724,1
2722
.820
18$7
66,73
7$5
,790,4
2575
5.2%
$2,50
10.3
%($5
,787,9
24)
-754
.9%1,2
37,02
8
34
.53.1
%$2
81,07
4,503
25.3
2009
-201
8$9
,052,4
04$3
0,633
,810
338.4
%$6
71,87
37.4
%($2
9,961
,937)
-331
.0%14
,669,0
91
25.3
115
Workpaper – Southern California Edison / 2021 General Rate Case
Exhibit No. SCE-07 Vol.03 Ch I-VI Bk A Witness: D. Gunn
Sout
hern
Cali
forn
ia Ed
ison
2021
GRC
Dep
recia
tion S
tudy
Acco
unt 3
73: S
treet
Ligh
ting
& Sig
nal S
yste
ms
as o
f:1/
1/20
19
Subp
opul
atio
n D:
Tre
nch
Origi
nal C
ost
Cost
ofCo
st of
Gros
sGr
oss
Net
Net
Units
Age o
fHi
storic
alPla
ntAg
e of
Year
Retir
emen
tsRe
mov
alRe
mov
al %
Salva
geSa
lvage
%Sa
lvage
Salva
ge %
Retir
edRe
tirem
ents
Inflat
ionBa
lance
Surv.
Plan
tA
BC
D=C/
BE
F=E/
BG=
E-C
H=G/
BI
JK
LM
2009
$0$0
0.0%
$00.0
%$0
0.0%
-
$7
02,53
815
.620
10$0
$00.0
%$0
0.0%
$00.0
%-
$702
,538
16.6
2011
$0$0
0.0%
$00.0
%$0
0.0%
-
$7
02,53
817
.620
12$0
$00.0
%$0
0.0%
$00.0
%-
$709
,879
18.5
2013
$0$0
0.0%
$00.0
%$0
0.0%
-
$7
10,51
719
.520
14$0
$00.0
%$0
0.0%
$00.0
%-
$710
,517
20.5
2015
$0$0
0.0%
$00.0
%$0
0.0%
-
$7
10,51
721
.520
16$0
$00.0
%$0
0.0%
$00.0
%-
$710
,517
22.5
2017
$0$0
0.0%
$00.0
%$0
0.0%
1
26.5
3.6%
$710
,517
23.5
2018
$0$0
0.0%
$00.0
%$0
0.0%
-
$7
10,51
724
.520
09-2
018
$0$0
0.0%
$00.0
%$0
0.0%
1
24.5
Subp
opul
atio
n E:
Tran
sform
ers &
Oth
erOr
igina
l Cos
tCo
st of
Cost
ofGr
oss
Gros
sNe
tNe
tUn
itsAg
e of
Histo
rical
Plant
Age o
fYe
arRe
tirem
ents
Rem
oval
Rem
oval
%Sa
lvage
Salva
ge %
Salva
geSa
lvage
%Re
tired
Retir
emen
tsInf
lation
Balan
ceSu
rv. Pl
ant
AB
CD=
C/B
EF=
E/B
G=E-
CH=
G/B
IJ
KL
M20
09$1
21,91
2$2
99,93
424
6.0%
$14,1
9311
.6%($2
85,74
1)-2
34.4%
516
25.3
4.5%
$17,0
36,18
927
.120
10$1
50,22
7$2
15,02
814
3.1%
$182
,553
121.5
%($3
2,475
)-2
1.6%
40
19.7
3.8%
$17,3
68,37
827
.920
11$2
54,03
5$9
8,606
38.8%
$267
,292
105.2
%$1
68,68
566
.4%4,7
13
38.4
4.5%
$17,5
59,26
528
.320
12$2
02,26
6$2
26,85
811
2.2%
$337
,766
167.0
%$1
10,90
854
.8%26
4
26
.74.0
%$1
7,988
,833
28.9
2013
$110
,754
$205
,994
186.0
%$8
94,49
580
7.6%
$688
,501
621.6
%74
4
31
.73.4
%$1
8,337
,143
29.7
2014
$63,2
45$1
25,49
619
8.4%
$986
,836
1560
.3%$8
61,34
013
61.9%
31
23.0
3.1%
$18,6
29,30
630
.520
15$2
32,56
2$1
29,60
755
.7%$5
61,11
624
1.3%
$431
,509
185.5
%2,4
54
36.9
3.5%
$19,0
37,53
831
.020
16$2
03,76
5$2
7,134
13.3%
$570
,183
279.8
%$5
43,04
926
6.5%
49
22.2
2.9%
$18,7
56,56
932
.220
17$2
65,22
8$1
98,34
374
.8%$7
44,77
328
0.8%
$546
,431
206.0
%2,9
65
40.5
3.5%
$19,4
57,40
132
.420
18$1
48,93
6$2
63,47
917
6.9%
$2,39
8,653
1610
.5%$2
,135,1
7414
33.6%
181
17.0
3.3%
$20,1
06,55
333
.020
09-2
018
$1,75
2,930
$1,79
0,479
102.1
%$6
,957,8
6039
6.9%
$5,16
7,381
294.8
%11
,957
33
.0
116
Workpaper – Southern California Edison / 2021 General Rate Case
Exhibit No. SCE-07 Vol.03 Ch I-VI Bk A Witness: D. Gunn
Sout
hern
Cali
forn
ia Ed
ison
2021
GRC
Dep
recia
tion S
tudy
Acco
unt 3
73: S
treet
Ligh
ting
& Sig
nal S
yste
ms
Weig
hted
Net
Salva
ge R
ate(20
09-2
018) Majo
rRe
tirem
ent M
ixPla
nt M
ixNe
t Salv
age
Com
pone
ntRe
tirem
ents
% of
Total
Balan
ce%
of To
talRa
te (N
SR)
Ret. W
td.
Plant
Wtd
.A
BC
DE
FG=
C*F
H=E*
FPo
les$2
5,616
,438
26%
$378
,149,7
4745
%-2
92%
-76%
-130
%Fix
ture
s$6
1,805
,350
63%
$168
,139,2
0620
%-5
0%-3
1%-1
0%Ca
ble &
Con
duit
$9,05
2,404
9%$2
81,07
4,503
33%
-331
%-3
1%-1
10%
Tren
ch$0
0%$7
10,51
70%
0%0%
0%Tr
ansfo
rmer
s & O
ther
$1,75
2,930
2%$2
0,106
,553
2%29
5%5%
7%To
tal
-133
%-2
43%
Majo
rRe
tirem
ent M
ixPla
nt M
ixCo
mpo
nent
Retir
emen
tsPe
rcent
Balan
cePe
rcent
$Pe
rcent
Ret. W
td.
Plant
Wtd
.B
CD
EF
GH=
C*(F/B)
I=E*
G$3
637
%$6
8080
%($1
00)
-290
%-1
01%
-233
%A
Othe
r Stre
etlig
ht A
ssets1
Fixtu
res
$62
63%
$168
20%
($31)
-50%
-31%
-10%
Total
$98
$848
($130
)-1
33%
-243
%
Net S
alvag
eW
eight
ed N
SR
Weig
hted
NSR
1/ N
et Sa
lvage
rate
in co
lumn G
is fir
st tu
rned
into
a pla
nt w
eight
ed co
mpo
site,
cons
isten
t with
it's
appli
catio
n in t
he fo
rmula
.
117
Workpaper – Southern California Edison / 2021 General Rate Case
Exhibit No. SCE-07 Vol.03 Ch I-VI Bk A Witness: D. Gunn
SCE-07, Volume. 03, Results of Operations Depreciation Study
Chapter III: T&D Net Salvage Witness: David Gunn
Account 390: General Buildings
118
Workpaper – Southern California Edison / 2021 General Rate Case
Exhibit No. SCE-07 Vol.03 Ch I-VI Bk A Witness: D. Gunn
Sout
hern
Cali
forn
ia Ed
ison
2021
GRC
Dep
recia
tion S
tud y
Acco
unt 3
90: G
ener
al Bu
ilding
sas
of:
1/1/
2019
Aggr
egat
e Res
ults
Origi
nal C
ost
Cost
o fCo
st of
Gros
sGr
oss
Net
Net
Units
Age o
fHi
storic
alPla
ntAg
e of
Year
Retir
emen
tsRe
mov
alRe
mov
al %
Salva
geSa
lvage
%Sa
lvage
Salva
ge %
Retir
edRe
tirem
ents
Inflat
ionBa
lance
Surv.
Plan
tA
BC
D=C/
BE
F=E/
BG=
E-C
H=G/
BI
JK
LM
2009
$446
,444
$87,7
4419
.7%$0
0.0%
($87,7
44)
-19.7
%2
20.8
3.3%
$501
,777,4
6720
.220
10$5
,258,9
25$2
,620,2
4349
.8%$0
0.0%
($2,62
0,243
)-4
9.8%
1,771
26
.83.2
%$6
04,60
4,868
19.0
2011
$8,99
3,517
$2,04
8,472
22.8%
$00.0
%($2
,048,4
72)
-22.8
%1,1
61
24.1
1.8%
$746
,617,3
2516
.720
12$2
3,039
,873
$2,73
2,872
11.9%
$00.0
%($2
,732,8
72)
-11.9
%89
,036
13.4
2.8%
$843
,196,8
7216
.420
13$4
,854,1
18$2
,700,4
5455
.6%$0
0.0%
($2,70
0,454
)-5
5.6%
415
34
.53.3
%$8
60,10
9,489
17.0
2014
$11,7
48,65
2$2
,747,0
8823
.4%$0
0.0%
($2,74
7,088
)-2
3.4%
951
24
.32.7
%$9
11,77
2,754
17.1
2015
$11,2
58,61
2$5
,392,4
5747
.9%$1
,668,5
1614
.8%($3
,723,9
42)
-33.1
%11
,432
23.7
2.8%
$947
,112,1
4917
.820
16$8
,187,7
44$2
,705,9
6133
.0%$0
0.0%
($2,70
5,961
)-3
3.0%
100
17
.13.1
%$1
,005,6
93,12
618
.120
17$8
,603,3
77$1
,457,8
1016
.9%$0
0.0%
($1,45
7,810
)-1
6.9%
489
10
.63.3
%$1
,059,6
61,77
918
.520
18$1
7,862
,017
$2,69
1,729
15.1%
$00.0
%($2
,691,7
29)
-15.1
%52
,064
13.1
3.0%
$1,07
9,844
,132
19.2
2009
-201
8$1
00,25
3,279
$25,1
84,83
025
.1%$1
,668,5
161.7
%($2
3,516
,315)
-23.5
%15
7,421
2.9%
19.2
Subp
opul
atio
n A:
Bui
ldin
gsOr
igina
l Cos
tCo
st o f
Cost
ofGr
oss
Gros
sNe
tNe
tUn
itsAg
e of
Histo
rical
Plant
Age o
fYe
arRe
tirem
ents
Rem
oval
Rem
oval
%Sa
lvage
Salva
ge %
Salva
geSa
lvage
%Re
tired
Retir
emen
tsInf
lation
Balan
ceSu
rv. Pl
ant
AB
CD=
C/B
EF=
E/B
G=E-
CH=
G/B
IJ
KL
M20
09$5
,615
$537
9.6%
$00.0
%($5
37)
-9.6%
- 9.5
3.6%
$88,0
27,08
611
.820
10$4
62,75
1$7
77,27
616
8.0%
$00.0
%($7
77,27
6)-1
68.0%
1,744
13
.03.2
%$1
27,46
0,968
10.0
2011
$618
,852
$372
,038
60.1%
$00.0
%($3
72,03
8)-6
0.1%
1,155
7.5
-1.6%
$147
,720,5
2610
.120
12$7
,768,0
28$1
,468,4
9218
.9%$0
0.0%
($1,46
8,492
)-1
8.9%
33,83
7
8.2
2.9%
$199
,309,2
608.5
2013
$650
,582
$256
,033
39.4%
$00.0
%($2
56,03
3)-3
9.4%
401
13
.23.0
%$2
27,46
0,116
8.720
14$5
,647,5
07$3
89,54
06.9
%$0
0.0%
($389
,540)
-6.9%
946
9.1
2.0%
$231
,903,0
939.4
2015
$2,35
8,708
$1,34
5,300
57.0%
$00.0
%($1
,345,3
00)
-57.0
%10
,473
14.6
2.7%
$253
,213,8
059.7
2016
$6,03
6,571
$1,75
3,093
29.0%
$00.0
%($1
,753,0
93)
-29.0
%7
8.64.1
%$2
60,19
1,593
10.5
2017
$3,85
5,154
$782
,539
20.3%
$00.0
%($7
82,53
9)-2
0.3%
10
6.8
5.0%
$262
,895,2
1611
.420
18$2
,160,5
74$2
79,77
012
.9%$0
0.0%
($279
,770)
-12.9
%48
,491
12.8
3.2%
$294
,432,1
4411
.520
09-2
018
$29,5
64,34
2$7
,424,6
1825
.1%$0
0.0%
($7,42
4,618
)-2
5.1%
97,06
4
11
.5
119
Workpaper – Southern California Edison / 2021 General Rate Case
Exhibit No. SCE-07 Vol.03 Ch I-VI Bk A Witness: D. Gunn
Sout
hern
Cali
forn
ia Ed
ison
2021
GRC
Dep
recia
tion S
tud y
Acco
unt 3
90: G
ener
al Bu
ilding
sas
of:
1/1/
2019
Subp
opul
atio
n B:
Pow
er &
Ligh
ting
Syste
m
Origi
nal C
ost
Cost
o fCo
st of
Gros
sGr
oss
Net
Net
Units
Age o
fHi
storic
alPla
ntAg
e of
Year
Retir
emen
tsRe
mov
alRe
mov
al %
Salva
geSa
lvage
%Sa
lvage
Salva
ge %
Retir
edRe
tirem
ents
Inflat
ionBa
lance
Surv.
Plan
tA
BC
D=C/
BE
F=E/
BG=
E-C
H=G/
BI
JK
LM
2009
$52,1
25$4
,664
8.9%
$00.0
%($4
,664)
-8.9%
-
7.53.8
%$4
5,697
,057
13.0
2010
$115
,121
$146
,434
127.2
%$0
0.0%
($146
,434)
-127
.2%-
11
.33.3
%$6
1,960
,419
11.7
2011
$1,15
8,476
$202
,492
17.5%
$00.0
%($2
02,49
2)-1
7.5%
1
18
.21.4
%$6
6,664
,748
11.8
2012
$3,56
3,755
$494
,569
13.9%
$00.0
%($4
94,56
9)-1
3.9%
16
5.7
3.1%
$93,1
24,02
79.6
2013
$609
,128
$926
,505
152.1
%$0
0.0%
($926
,505)
-152
.1%3
6.42.4
%$1
60,02
1,231
7.620
14$1
,274,9
67$1
18,86
89.3
%$0
0.0%
($118
,868)
-9.3%
-
11.5
3.0%
$164
,055,9
798.4
2015
$1,02
0,478
$211
,527
20.7%
$00.0
%($2
11,52
7)-2
0.7%
10
15
.02.7
%$1
70,30
6,642
9.120
16$3
48,85
8$1
87,41
853
.7%$0
0.0%
($187
,418)
-53.7
%1
13.2
2.5%
$174
,746,7
599.9
2017
$1,38
2,751
$236
,725
17.1%
$00.0
%($2
36,72
5)-1
7.1%
4
9.9
2.7%
$177
,837,3
5810
.720
18$5
,985,3
01$7
66,39
312
.8%$0
0.0%
($766
,393)
-12.8
%19
11.0
3.2%
$191
,421,6
0610
.920
09-2
018
$15,5
10,96
0$3
,295,5
9521
.2%$0
0.0%
($3,29
5,595
)-2
1.2%
54
10
.9
Subp
opul
atio
n C:
HVA
COr
igina
l Cos
tCo
st o f
Cost
ofGr
oss
Gros
sNe
tNe
tUn
itsAg
e of
Histo
rical
Plant
Age o
fYe
arRe
tirem
ents
Rem
oval
Rem
oval
%Sa
lvage
Salva
ge %
Salva
geSa
lvage
%Re
tired
Retir
emen
tsInf
lation
Balan
ceSu
rv. Pl
ant
AB
CD=
C/B
EF=
E/B
G=E-
CH=
G/B
IJ
KL
M20
09$7
4,571
$5,89
47.9
%$0
0.0%
($5,89
4)-7
.9%2
9.63.5
%$2
8,564
,166
13.1
2010
$47,5
65$2
2,664
47.6%
$00.0
%($2
2,664
)-4
7.6%
27
8.3
2.9%
$45,8
62,45
810
.520
11$7
75,13
0$4
10,83
553
.0%$0
0.0%
($410
,835)
-53.0
%3
21.6
1.6%
$53,2
06,79
910
.120
12$4
,141,5
83$2
33,88
25.6
%$0
0.0%
($233
,882)
-5.6%
54,89
7
4.5
3.0%
$67,9
41,15
78.8
2013
$196
,876
$279
,359
141.9
%$0
0.0%
($279
,359)
-141
.9%7
13.1
2.7%
$82,5
75,83
68.6
2014
$646
,347
$57,4
228.9
%$0
0.0%
($57,4
22)
-8.9%
3
13
.22.7
%$8
8,016
,185
9.220
15$2
,825,7
69$6
67,06
123
.6%$0
0.0%
($667
,061)
-23.6
%94
5
20.4
2.9%
$99,9
18,83
78.8
2016
$85,9
97$2
2,596
26.3%
$00.0
%($2
2,596
)-2
6.3%
92
14
.62.8
%$1
04,27
0,397
9.520
17$1
,729,1
54$1
37,72
18.0
%$0
0.0%
($137
,721)
-8.0%
462
7.3
2.8%
$105
,738,1
6110
.420
18$5
,016,2
02$5
16,84
910
.3%$0
0.0%
($516
,849)
-10.3
%3,5
44
8.43.3
%$1
14,06
9,632
10.6
2009
-201
8$1
5,539
,192
$2,35
4,282
15.2%
$00.0
%($2
,354,2
82)
-15.2
%59
,982
10.6
120
Workpaper – Southern California Edison / 2021 General Rate Case
Exhibit No. SCE-07 Vol.03 Ch I-VI Bk A Witness: D. Gunn
Sout
hern
Cali
forn
ia Ed
ison
2021
GRC
Dep
recia
tion S
tud y
Acco
unt 3
90: G
ener
al Bu
ilding
sas
of:
1/1/
2019
Subp
opul
atio
n D:
Wat
er Su
pply
Syste
ms
Origi
nal C
ost
Cost
o fCo
st of
Gros
sGr
oss
Net
Net
Units
Age o
fHi
storic
alPla
ntAg
e of
Year
Retir
emen
tsRe
mov
alRe
mov
al %
Salva
geSa
lvage
%Sa
lvage
Salva
ge %
Retir
edRe
tirem
ents
Inflat
ionBa
lance
Surv.
Plan
tA
BC
D=C/
BE
F=E/
BG=
E-C
H=G/
BI
JK
LM
2009
$0$0
0.0%
$00.0
%$0
0.0%
-
$6,26
9,779
13.8
2010
$6,78
6$2
,072
30.5%
$00.0
%($2
,072)
-30.5
%-
12
.53.3
%$1
0,186
,675
10.9
2011
$23,0
89$1
5,590
67.5%
$00.0
%($1
5,590
)-6
7.5%
-
12.5
0.6%
$10,6
04,33
211
.520
12$5
81,46
7$1
5,788
2.7%
$00.0
%($1
5,788
)-2
.7%4
3.82.6
%$1
7,045
,832
8.420
13$8
,625
$42,3
1249
0.6%
$00.0
%($4
2,312
)-4
90.6%
-
3.52.0
%$2
1,826
,074
8.120
14$4
,414
$617
,460
1398
8.6%
$00.0
%($6
17,46
0)-1
3988
.6%-
14
.53.0
%$2
3,147
,967
8.820
15$3
65,91
7$8
0,033
21.9%
$00.0
%($8
0,033
)-2
1.9%
2
14
.02.8
%$2
6,092
,291
8.920
16$5
,768
$79,3
0013
74.9%
$00.0
%($7
9,300
)-1
374.9
%-
25
.53.1
%$2
6,561
,548
9.820
17$1
44,89
7$5
4,704
37.8%
$00.0
%($5
4,704
)-3
7.8%
3
13
.22.7
%$2
7,237
,061
10.5
2018
$248
,877
$72,1
9829
.0%$0
0.0%
($72,1
98)
-29.0
%3
14.2
3.9%
$29,8
36,27
210
.820
09-2
018
$1,38
9,839
$979
,457
70.5%
$00.0
%($9
79,45
7)-7
0.5%
12
10
.8
Subp
opul
atio
n E:
Foun
datio
ns &
Oth
er St
ructu
res
Origi
nal C
ost
Cost
o fCo
st of
Gros
sGr
oss
Net
Net
Units
Age o
fHi
storic
alPla
ntAg
e of
Year
Retir
emen
tsRe
mov
alRe
mov
al %
Salva
geSa
lvage
%Sa
lvage
Salva
ge %
Retir
edRe
tirem
ents
Inflat
ionBa
lance
Surv.
Plan
tA
BC
D=C/
BE
F=E/
BG=
E-C
H=G/
BI
JK
LM
2009
$0$7
6,632
0.0%
$00.0
%($7
6,632
)0.0
%-
$1
5,945
,553
10.2
2010
$0$1
,418,8
770.0
%$0
0.0%
($1,41
8,877
)0.0
%-
$3
2,797
,307
6.920
11$9
3,304
$212
,410
227.7
%$0
0.0%
($212
,410)
-227
.7%1
13.6
1.1%
$41,7
16,72
96.5
2012
$8,10
1$2
03,66
825
14.2%
$00.0
%($2
03,66
8)-2
514.2
%-
10
.53.3
%$5
2,148
,660
6.220
13$8
,927
$180
,400
2020
.8%$0
0.0%
($180
,400)
-202
0.8%
-
3.52.0
%$5
5,549
,405
7.020
14$2
75,79
1$1
96,32
371
.2%$0
0.0%
($196
,323)
-71.2
%-
24
.33.0
%$6
2,458
,056
7.220
15$4
26,37
9$6
63,10
915
5.5%
$00.0
%($6
63,10
9)-1
55.5%
-
9.21.9
%$7
2,814
,169
7.320
16$0
$63,9
180.0
%$0
0.0%
($63,9
18)
0.0%
-
$74,0
99,04
18.2
2017
$213
,301
$139
,168
65.2%
$00.0
%($1
39,16
8)-6
5.2%
3
6.3
2.3%
$77,1
63,24
19.0
2018
$1,46
4,915
$540
,629
36.9%
$00.0
%($5
40,62
9)-3
6.9%
4
7.9
3.4%
$82,5
03,25
09.5
2009
-201
8$2
,490,7
18$3
,695,1
3614
8.4%
$00.0
%($3
,695,1
36)
-148
.4%8
9.5
121
Workpaper – Southern California Edison / 2021 General Rate Case
Exhibit No. SCE-07 Vol.03 Ch I-VI Bk A Witness: D. Gunn
Sout
hern
Cali
forn
ia Ed
ison
2021
GRC
Dep
recia
tion S
tud y
Acco
unt 3
90: G
ener
al Bu
ilding
sas
of:
1/1/
2019
Subp
opul
atio
n F:
Mon
itorin
g De
vices
Origi
nal C
ost
Cost
o fCo
st of
Gros
sGr
oss
Net
Net
Units
Age o
fHi
storic
alPla
ntAg
e of
Year
Retir
emen
tsRe
mov
alRe
mov
al %
Salva
geSa
lvage
%Sa
lvage
Salva
ge %
Retir
edRe
tirem
ents
Inflat
ionBa
lance
Surv.
Plan
tA
BC
D=C/
BE
F=E/
BG=
E-C
H=G/
BI
JK
LM
2009
$0$0
0.0%
$00.0
%$0
0.0%
-
$18,0
50,91
311
.820
10$6
,697
$3,98
559
.5%$0
0.0%
($3,98
5)-5
9.5%
- 12
.53.3
%$2
6,701
,344
10.0
2011
$337
,090
$112
,200
33.3%
$00.0
%($1
12,20
0)-3
3.3%
1
11
.00.3
%$3
0,406
,135
10.0
2012
$2,82
8,693
$279
,851
9.9%
$00.0
%($2
79,85
1)-9
.9%28
2
15.5
3.3%
$44,6
41,94
67.2
2013
$127
,924
$80,4
0662
.9%$0
0.0%
($80,4
06)
-62.9
%-
2.514
.1%$5
3,585
,485
7.320
14$3
66,63
2$8
9,398
24.4%
$00.0
%($8
9,398
)-2
4.4%
2
8.2
2.5%
$56,0
33,94
68.0
2015
$2,28
2,386
$321
,903
14.1%
$00.0
%($3
21,90
3)-1
4.1%
2
18
.92.9
%$6
5,852
,212
7.420
16$1
7,497
$5,10
429
.2%$0
0.0%
($5,10
4)-2
9.2%
- 5.5
6.9%
$69,8
99,02
98.1
2017
$630
,144
$95,8
1415
.2%$0
0.0%
($95,8
14)
-15.2
%7
8.22.8
%$7
3,692
,087
8.720
18$1
,614,7
60$3
41,56
521
.2%$0
0.0%
($341
,565)
-21.2
%3
9.23.4
%$1
02,37
4,310
8.020
09-2
018
$8,21
1,822
$1,33
0,224
16.2%
$00.0
%($1
,330,2
24)
-16.2
%29
7
8.0
Subp
opul
atio
n O:
Com
mon
& O
ther
Origi
nal C
ost
Cost
o fCo
st of
Gros
sGr
oss
Net
Net
Units
Age o
fHi
storic
alPla
ntAg
e of
Year
Retir
emen
tsRe
mov
alRe
mov
al %
Salva
geSa
lvage
%Sa
lvage
Salva
ge %
Retir
edRe
tirem
ents
Inflat
ionBa
lance
Surv.
Plan
tA
BC
D=C/
BE
F=E/
BG=
E-C
H=G/
BI
JK
LM
2009
$314
,133
$18
0.0%
$00.0
%($1
8)0.0
%-
23.9
3.4%
$247
,746,3
1626
.120
10$4
,620,0
05$2
48,93
65.4
%$0
0.0%
($248
,936)
-5.4%
- 28
.03.3
%$2
43,78
7,982
27.1
2011
$5,98
7,577
$722
,907
12.1%
$00.0
%($7
22,90
7)-1
2.1%
- 26
.72.0
%$2
39,91
1,457
28.0
2012
$4,14
8,247
$36,6
220.9
%$0
0.0%
($36,6
22)
-0.9%
- 26
.83.0
%$2
36,42
9,486
29.0
2013
$3,19
6,599
$935
,439
29.3%
$00.0
%($9
35,43
9)-2
9.3%
- 38
.83.6
%$2
33,23
2,966
29.8
2014
$3,53
2,994
$1,27
8,076
36.2%
$00.0
%($1
,278,0
76)
-36.2
%-
36.4
3.4%
$229
,038,5
5130
.720
15$1
,978,9
75$2
,103,5
2610
6.3%
$1,66
8,516
84.3%
($435
,010)
-22.0
%-
37.4
3.3%
$231
,537,9
8231
.920
16$1
,693,0
54$5
94,53
235
.1%$0
0.0%
($594
,532)
-35.1
%-
33.4
3.0%
$229
,844,9
2832
.920
17$6
47,97
5$1
1,139
1.7%
$00.0
%($1
1,139
)-1
.7%-
30.3
3.0%
$229
,196,9
5333
.920
18$1
,371,3
89$1
74,32
512
.7%$0
0.0%
($174
,325)
-12.7
%-
31.7
3.1%
$227
,917,8
6734
.920
09-2
018
$27,4
90,94
9$6
,105,5
1922
.2%$1
,668,5
166.1
%($4
,437,0
03)
-16.1
%-
34
.9
122
Workpaper – Southern California Edison / 2021 General Rate Case
Exhibit No. SCE-07 Vol.03 Ch I-VI Bk A Witness: D. Gunn
Sout
hern
Cali
forn
ia Ed
ison
2021
GRC
Dep
recia
tion S
tudy
Acco
unt 3
90: G
ener
al Bu
ilding
sW
eight
ed N
et Sa
lvage
Rate
(2009
-201
8)
Majo
rRe
tirem
ent M
ixPla
nt M
ixNe
t Salv
age
Weig
hted
NSR
Com
pone
ntRe
tirem
ents
% of
Total
Balan
ce%
of To
talRa
te (N
SR)
Ret. W
td.
Plant
Wtd
.A
BC
DE
FG=
C*F
H=E*
FBu
ilding
s$2
9,564
,342
30%
$294
,432,1
4428
%-2
5%-7
%-7
%Po
wer &
Ligh
ting
Syste
m$1
5,510
,960
15%
$191
,421,6
0618
%-2
1%-3
%-4
%HV
AC$1
5,539
,192
16%
$114
,069,6
3211
%-1
5%-2
%-2
%W
ater S
upply
Syste
ms
$1,38
9,839
1%$2
9,836
,272
3%-7
0%-1
%-2
%Fo
unda
tions
& O
ther
Stru
cture
s$2
,490,7
182%
$82,5
03,25
08%
-148
%-4
%-1
2%M
onito
ring
Devic
es$8
,211,8
228%
$102
,374,3
1010
%-1
6%-1
%-2
%Co
mm
on &
Oth
er$2
7,490
,949
27%
$227
,917,8
6722
%-1
6%-4
%-4
%To
tal
-23%
-32%
123
Workpaper – Southern California Edison / 2021 General Rate Case
Exhibit No. SCE-07 Vol.03 Ch I-VI Bk A Witness: D. Gunn
SCE-07, Volume. 03, Results of Operations Depreciation Study
Witness: David Gunn
Standard Practice U-4
124
Workpaper – Southern California Edison / 2021 General Rate Case
Exhibit No. SCE-07 Vol.03 Ch I-VI Bk A Witness: D. Gunn
CHAPTER 1
SCOPE OF PUBLIC UTILITY DEPRECIATION
Purpose of This Practice 1. This standard practice sets forth various factors influencing 1l1e determination of depreciation accruals and
describes methods of calculating these accruals. Its purpose is to assist the Commission staff and others in analyzing utility depreciation practices, and in determining proper depreciation expenses when preparing results of operation reports of utilities for rate-making purposes. Particul1,r attention is called to Chapters 3, 4, 5, and 8. These cover the details of the procedures which a staff engineer should be familiar with before undertaking a review of depreciation practices of a utility. Also Chapter 9 discusses general considerations and presents a suggested check list for the engineer.
Basic Depreciation Objectives 2. In the continuing duties of the California Public Utilities Commission in the fixing of rates and the super
vision of accounts of utilities under its jurisdiction, a ba.sic depreciation objective is that of recovering the original cost of fixed capital (less estiniated net salva,ge) over the useful life of the property by nieans of an equitable plan of charges to operating expenses or clearing accounts. The straight-line remaining life method presented herein and used as standard procedure by the staff meets this objective. Other depreciation objectives which come before the Commission include determination of a proper deduction for depreciation in the rate base and determination of depreciation values for condemnation proceedings. Since the latter involves specialized considerations this aspect is not further considered in this practice. The matter of deduction for depreciation in the rate base is discussed briefly in Chapter 9.
Concepts of Depreciation 3. In its broad sense the term depreciation as applied to physical property may refer to one or more of the
following concepts: a. Depreciation in its physical concept represents the consumption of property in terms of its physical ability ;,<
to render service. b. Depreciation in its value concept represents the Joss in market value of p1·operty as compared with either
its original cost new or the reproduction cost new of equivalent property. c. Depreciation in its cost concept represents the amounts set aside under a predetermined plan of accounting y
to recover the cost of property due to its consumption or prospective retirement. As indicated in the basic objective given above, the cost concept is the one applicable to utility dep1·eciation expenses for rate fu:ing purposes. This is the concept of depreciation assumed throughout this practice.
Accounting Transactions Relating to Depreciation 4. For complete details of the accounting transactions relating to depreciation reference should be made to the
appropriate uniform system of accounts for the utility nnder study. As a reference in using this practice, the following tabulation presents in a broad way the essential transactions:
Transaction Fm· De'bit E,ntry Made Tp 01·erUt Entry Made To
Original cost on placing plant Plant account (asset account). Cash, materials and supplies,
in service. or accounts payable.
Depreciation accruals. Operating expenses, clearing Depreciation reserve account.
.. accounts, contributed plant .
Historical cost on retiremellt Depreciation reserve_ account. Plant account (reduces the from s~rvice. asset balance).
Cost of removal on retirement Depreciation reserve a~count. Cash, or accounts payable. from service.
Gross salvage on retirement Cash, materials and supplies, Depreciation-reserve account. from service. or accounts receivable.
5
125
Workpaper – Southern California Edison / 2021 General Rate Case
Exhibit No. SCE-07 Vol.03 Ch I-VI Bk A Witness: D. Gunn
Total Life Theory Inadequate 9. Thus the reappraisals indicate that unless the original estimate of total life proves entirely accurate the
total life concept fails to accomplish the solution of the basic pr0blem of charging the cost of fixed· capital (less estimated net salvage) to expense over its useful life, and deficits or excesses can arise by reason of changes in service life characteristicS or changes in causes of retirenient.
The Remaining Life Equation for Depreciation Rate 10. The remaining life straight-line depreciation method is designed to ratably recover the cost of plant, less
net salvage and less depreciation reserve, over the remaining lifo of plant. The formula for this procedure is:
(1 - c') - u' d' = E
where d' = remaining life straight-line depreciation rate c' = average· net salvage ratio for ·remaining plant units u' = ratio of depreciation reserve to original cost E = future life expectancy of unit or average expectancy of group of units.
11. In the reappraisal in the case of the shorter (15-year) life, the rate becomes
d' - 1 - .10 - .45 - 0 9 901 ~ 5 -.or10
thus accumulating $45,000 in the remaining five years, or a total of the desired $90,000.
12. For the longer (30-year) life, the rate becomes
d' = 1 - ·10 - .45 = .0225 or 2.25% 20
and again the accumulation of $45,000 in the remaining 20 years, or a total of the desired $90,000.
13. These conditions are illustrated in the following chart:
B A C TOTAL
trn5,ooo LIFE ACCRUAL 100,000 EST. NET SALVAGE $10 000 EXCESS
90,000 ao,ooo TOTAL LIFE ~( 75,000 ACCRUAL DEFICIENCY
60,000
45,000 40,000
20,000
a 5 10 15 20 25 ;JO
Reserve on Remaining Life Acc-runl Basis ___ Reserve on Total Life Accrual Basis
A. Originnl estimate proves correct. B. Reappraisal indicates shorter life expectancy. C. Reappraisal indicates longer life expectancy.
8
(' ·,,,
V I
126
Workpaper – Southern California Edison / 2021 General Rate Case
Exhibit No. SCE-07 Vol.03 Ch I-VI Bk A Witness: D. Gunn
CHAPTER 3
FACTORS INFLUENCING DEPRECIATION ACCRUALS General
1. Several factors influencing deprecjation accruals will be revievi1ed before considering the actual depreciation accrual. These factors are pertinent to a complete review of depreciation practices of a utility and should be considered by the staff engineer in preparing a report.
Accounting for Plant Additions and Retirements 2. The depreciation c01~1putations are normally based on the cost of property recorded on the company's books.
Proper accounting records of plant are therefore important. The following points should be checked: a. Are proper accounti11g entries, including charges to the depreciation reserve, made when plant is taken
out of service i b. When replacements of units of property are made, is the old unit retired and the new unit recorded
as an addition to capital! c. Have past service lives and salvage estimates been adjusted for changed conditions as new experience
has been developed i d. If old equipment has been continued in service beyond its normal retirement dat_e as a temporary expe
dient to meet grmving service demands, have adjustments to the depreciation rates been applied 1
3. Application of the remaining life principle consistently applied over a period of years in connection with a depreciated rate base will normally tend to produce equitable results in rate proceedings even if these points have been incorrectly determined. Nevertheless, it is desfrable to stress the maintenance of pxoper basic plant records.
4. Where feasible, it is desirable that the utility record the dollars in major accounts by year of placement, and relate reti1·ements _to the year of placement., This information is necessary where actuarial studies are contemplated in determining estimates of service lives. Such studies are desirable for large groups of property or where the total investment in an account is large. This information will also afford an age distribution of the dollars of plant by year of placement which data permits more aecmate determination of remaining lives. These items are discussed in more detail in Chapter 5.
Retirement Pricing and Unit Prices 5. In large group accounts where it is impractical to deter1nine actual costs of each item retired, average unit
costs are often used. Determination of unit costs is facilitated if age distribution data are available. Inaccuracies in estimating unit costs or inaccuracies from other causes in pricing retirements, result in distortion of the gross plant and depreciation reserve accounts. While the remaining life method will tend to correct. these inaccuracies, it is nevertheless important to obtain reasonable accuracy in the unit retirement costs applied to group accounts. ·
Unit and Group Bases for Accounting 6. The manner in which the depreciable plant is divided to form the bases on which the accruals are computed
is an important factor in the depreciation computation. Where individual property units comprise the base the method is spoken of as unit accounting. Where groups of property, such as an entire account, comprise the base, the method is spoken of as group accounting. The accrual computation presented in Chapter 4 may be used with either base, provided appropriate unit or composite group values for salvage and remaining life are selected. The differences between the two bases may be summarized as follows:
9
127
Workpaper – Southern California Edison / 2021 General Rate Case
Exhibit No. SCE-07 Vol.03 Ch I-VI Bk A Witness: D. Gunn
a. Unit accounting (sometimes called item accounting) requires a specific record, usually a card, for each individual item of property. A service life .ajl.d s)llvage estimate are applied and an individual accrual for the m,iit is_ determined. The accruals are accumulated ~ach year on the unit record and reappraisals using: the remaining life principle may· be made. If the unit is retired ahead of its expectancy, the deficiency in accruals is charged to depreciation expense that year. If the unit outlives its expectancy, the accruals are stopped when the accuml}lations equal the full original cost installed Jess estimated net salvage, and no further accruals are made for that unit.
b. In group accounting all units having like mortality characteristics or all units of an account are considered together. Accruals for the group· are based on composite or weighted average values of salvage and service life expectancy. The resulting values are applied to the surviving plant balances each year or each accounting period. A deficiency due to early retirement of a particular unit is made up through greater accruals on a unit which outlives the average. As discussed in Chapter 8, periodic reappraisals of the life expectap.cy and salvage. estimates are required with group accounting. Because of greater simplicity in maintaining records, the group basis is more feasible for most classes 0£ utility property where large numbers of units are involved. It is the more generally used base among electric, gas, telephone and water utilities.
Subaccounts af Plant, Classes of Property and Age Groups 7. To facilitate service life estimates in group accounting or to distinguish between certain recognized parts
of a large account, subsidiary data showing subdivisions of an account are often maintained. These include the following :
10
a. Subaccounts are generally used to separate geographic portions, or where an account is large, to separate certain classes of prdperty. For example, a telephone utility may separate Ac. 264, V chicle and Other Work Equipment, into Ac. 264-1, Vehicles, and Ac. 264-2, Work Equipment. Where subaccounts have been established they are usually carried separately on the company's books and are thus treated as separate acconnts in computing depreciation expenses and in recording reserves.
b. Classes of property are portions of an account having different physical or mortality characteristics. For example, a water utility may maintain data to show the portion under Ac. 343 Transmission and Distribution Mains, consisting of asbestos-cement mains, cast-iron mains and steel mains. To the ;separate classes of property, different service life and salvage estimates may be applied and a composite value for the account may then be derived as discussed in Chapter 5. Separation by classes of property also facilitates determination of average unit costs. The classes of property considered separately are often varied from year to year. Extensive use of classes of property within accounts tends to nulli£y the advantages of group accounting. The presence of distinct mortality characteristics and the dollar values of plant are criteria which should be considered in deciding whether to maintain separate data for particular classes of property. As a general guide, accounts of less than $25,000 of plant for Class B and C utilities and accounts of less than $100,000 of plant for Class A utilities, need rarely be subdivided by classes of property merely for group depreciation calculations. Above these amounts the presence of distinct mortality characteristics or other factors should govern, where separation into classes of property is contemplated.
c. Age groups (also called generations or vintages) represent the survivors of all units of an account or a class of property installed during the same year or span of years. Maintenance of age group or age distribution data permits more accurate determination of service lives and aids in applying unit retirement costs. For most types of mortality studies age group data are essential. Where large growth in an account has occurred and an initial subdivision is proposed, subdivision by age groups is usually preferred over subdivision by classes of property. Class A utilities may find both subdivisions desirable for major accounts.
128
Workpaper – Southern California Edison / 2021 General Rate Case
Exhibit No. SCE-07 Vol.03 Ch I-VI Bk A Witness: D. Gunn
129
Workpaper – Southern California Edison / 2021 General Rate Case
Exhibit No. SCE-07 Vol.03 Ch I-VI Bk A Witness: D. Gunn
CHAPTER 4
THE REMAINING LIFE DEPRECIATION ACCRUAL DETERMINATION Gene-ra/
1. This chapter presents the basic steps in determining the straight-line remaining life accrual as of a given date, usually the first of the year, and discusses the source of each element in the accrual equation. Detailed information pertaining to methods of obtaining the element of remaining life expectancy is presented in Chapter 5. Procedures for advancing the determination through the year to cover additions and retirements and for applying the determination in succeeding years are presented in Chapter 8.
The Accrual Equation 2. The basic equation for the straight-line remaining life accrual is:
B - C' - U' D' = E
where: D' = the annual accrual in dollars B = the beginning-of-year plant balance C' = the estimated future net salvage in dollars U' = the beginning-of-year book depreciation reserve fir E = the estimated remaining life expectancy of the plant in years as of the beginning of the year.
It will be noted that the element B and U' are normally obtainable from the utility's books while the element C' and E require estimates of future conditions. These estimates should be reviewed periodically as discussed in Chapter 8.
The .Standard Form for the Accrual Determination 3. The standard form for the accrual determination is illustrated in Tables 4-A. to 4-E which show the complete
aeterminations for typicaJ. utilities. This form is available with ruled lines (Form D-1) for work sheet purposes or in the plain style (Form D-2) for finished typing. The form is designated as an annual determination since the results represent an annual accrual or rate.
4. The numbered columns on the form show the elements B, C', and U' of the basic accrual equation in Columns 1, 2, and 3. Column· 4 headed "Net Balance" shows the numerator of the equation, Column 5 shows the remaining life expectancy E. The accrual is then computed and shown in Column 6. The lettered c,olumns on the form give supporting information sometimes used in developing the estimated values. Under group accounting a separate line .is used fot each account or subaccount. Under unit accounting a separate line is used for each unit or group of similar units. Ordinarily the accuracy of estimates in the accrual determination is such that the entries may be rounded to the nearest dollar.
Plant in Service 5. 'The dollars of all depreciable plant in service at the beginning of the year as taken from the utilities'
'books are used in the accrual determination and entered under the heading '' gross plant'' in Column 1 of -the standard form.
Future Net Salvage 6. Future net salvage as included in the accrual equation represents an estimate of the dollars which will
be realized from the future retirement of all units now in service. Net salvage is gross salvage realized from resale, re-use or scrap disposal of the retired units less cost of removal. It is customary to arrive at the net salvage in dollars by applying an estimated percentage to gross plant. Column A. of the standard form provides space for entering the estimated per cent. The amount in dollars in Column 2 is then the product of the percent in Column A. times the plant in Column 1.
7. In estimating the percent net salvage, past experience, when available from the accounting records, should be determined before arriving at a final estimate. However, future conditions often change materially from the past experience because of reduced salvage value of older units or changed conditions in the salvage market or in costs of removal. Also, the past retirement experience of most utility plant is based on but a small portion of today's existing plant. For estimating purposes it is often desirable to consider gross salvage and cost of removal separately. As a rule, gross salvage fluctuates with changes in material costs,
12
130
Workpaper – Southern California Edison / 2021 General Rate Case
Exhibit No. SCE-07 Vol.03 Ch I-VI Bk A Witness: D. Gunn
whereas cost of removal fluctuates with changes in labor expense. "\Vhere cost of removal is high, it may be economical, if practicable, to merely abandon plant, which consideration should be reflected in the estimates. It is the usual practice to develop one estimated pereent net salvage value for all like units of property. If, hovrnver, there is a difference in characteristics or different market demand for units of different ages, the possibility of separate salvage estimates for different age groups should also be considered; When separate estimates are developed for different classes of property or different age groups, the composite estimate for the account should be detennined by direct weighting. That is, by multiplying each percent esti111ate times its related dollars of plant, totaling these products and dividing by the total plant dollars. This gives the composite net salvage expressed as a ratio or a percent. Fmther detail on procedures used to assist in making salvage estimates is presented in Chaj,ter 7.
Book Depreciation Reserve 8. The dollar balance in the depreciation reserve at the beginning of the year as taken from the company's
records should, except in unusual cases, be entered in Column 3 of the standard form and be med in theaccrual deter111ination. This book reserve should be retained and carried· forward each year by accountson the remaining life basis. For companies having generally more than $100,000 of gross plant, where thereserve has not been maintained by accounts, the initial application of the remaining life method willrequire an allocation of the reserve by primary accounts. Companies with less than $100,000 of plant may,as an alternative, compute an over-all composite accrual as desm·ibed in Paragraph 12 below.
9. An allocation of the reserve by accounts if required should be based on prorating the book reserve accordingto the reserve requirement or upon a historical reconstruction of the reserve for each account where recordsare available. If the reserve has previously been kept by groups of accounts or by departments, the allocation to accounts should be made within the group or department without disturbing these subtotals. It willbe noted that a reserve requirement study is not required once the .remaining life method is started andcarried forward. Reserve requirement studies will not be made by the staff, except for the initial allocationto primary accounts, or except in s1,ecial cases recommended by the Branch Engineer and approved by theDirector or Assistant Director of the Utilities Division. Details of procedure when a requirement stndy isto be made should be reviewed with the Staff Advisory Seetion.
Remaining Life Expectancy 10. The remaining life in years to be entered in Column 5 of the standard form represents the composite
remaining life expectancy .for all units, age groups, and classes of prope1·ty of the account at the beginning
of the year. A determination of this value may be made by any one of several methods. The choice of methoddepends on a number of factors, particularly upon the data available from accounting and engineeringrecords and upon the practical aspects of time and work economy. Details of the various methods andtheir applicability are discussed in the next chapter. ·where the remaining life is determined directly,no entries need be made in Columns B, C or D on the standard form. Vlhere the remaining life is detern1inedfrom estimates of other serviee elements the latter should be entered in the appropriate column.
Depreciation Accruals 11. Having completed entries in Columns 1, 2, and 3 and 5 of the ·standard form, the annual aecrual for con
ditions as of the flnt of the year may be computed as indicated on tl1e form. It may be used directly as thetotal accrual for the year or may be adjusted for plant additions as diseussed in Chapter 8.
Alternate Accrual Determination for Small Utilities 12. Utilities having generally less than $100,000 of total plant, wl10 elect not to separate the reserve by accounts
as discussed in Paragraph 8 above, will have but one total entry in Column 3. Under these conditions, it isappropriate to develop a composite value for remaining life for the entire plant. The total accrual is thenobtainable by completing the determination across the totals line only on the standard form. The two alternateexamples of Tables 4-D and 4-E illustrate the solution.
13. To develop a composite value of the remaining life from separate estimates by accounts, reciprocal weighting may be used as an approximation as follows:a. For each account divide the plant in Column 1 by the remaining life in Column 5.b. Total these quotients for all accounts and divide into the total of Column 1. This is the weighted composite
remaining life.
14. Further simplification for utilities having generally less than $25,000 of plant may be made by omittingestimates for each account and developing by direct judgment a remaining life estimate for the entire plant.
13
131
Workpaper – Southern California Edison / 2021 General Rate Case
Exhibit No. SCE-07 Vol.03 Ch I-VI Bk A Witness: D. Gunn
CHAPTER 7
DETERMINATION OF GROSS SALVAGE AND COST OF REMOVAL-
1. The detailed procedures presented below are applicable to larger utilities or larger accouuts where they may be used as au aid in arriving at estimates of proper future net salvage. This material supplements Paragraphs 6 and 7 of Chapter 4 which present the basic consideration. Net salvage is defined as gross salvage realized from resale, re-use or scrap disposal of the retired units less cost of removal.
Determining Recorded Salvage Experience 2. Where records are available recorded salvage experience for each account may be determined by analyzing
the credits and debits to the reserve. To do this, total the 1·etirements for each year and determine the corresponding totals of gross salvage and cost of removal. Dividing each of the latter by the retirements gives the percent gross salvage and percent cost of removal realized for each year. This calculation for a series of years is illustrated in the upper portion of the examples shown in Tables 7-A and 7-B using standard form D-6. In using this information for determining estimates it is often helpful to plot a graph of successive values each year. Where records do not show the recorded experience for each account, it may be desirable to make a determination for all accounts as a whole to test the over-all reasonableness of the various estimates.
Future Gross Salvage 3. In most classes of property the percent gross salvage realized on retirement varies with the age of the unit.
Generally the older units yield lower values. Past experience is usually based on but a few retirements, probably of shorter-lived units; therefore, future gross salvage will usually be less than the recorded experience. For very accurate determinations predicted salvage values by ages should be weighted with predicted retirements by ages. !,.s an approximation, however, reasonable results may be obtained by assuming a straight-line diminution from realized gross salvage of early retirements to the predicted ultimate gross
· salvage of oldest-lived units. The sample calculation shown in part 2 of Table 7-A illustrates an application of this assumption, The past experience. for a recent span of years is noted. Anticipated ultimate gross salvage of the oldest surviving units is then estimated and an average of these two values is selected as the anticipated future gross salvage applicable to today's plant, In predicting ultimate gross salvage of olderlived. units for certain classes of property such as cable, wire, buildings, motor vehicles and similar items, market conditions in the future may influence the results more than any other factor. The engineer should use reasonable market predictions for the immediate future as though applicable throughout the property life. Corrections for long-term changes in the market may be made, if necessary, at the time of periodic reviPws under the remaining life plan.
37
132
Workpaper – Southern California Edison / 2021 General Rate Case
Exhibit No. SCE-07 Vol.03 Ch I-VI Bk A Witness: D. Gunn
FORM 0-6 Alpha Water Company UTILITY ___________ _
Northern Area Table 7-A' AREA/DEPT' __________ _
324 Pumping Equipment Ac_ ___ _
1. RECORDED EXPERIENCE (For a recent span of years) .
GROSS SALVAGE . YEA.R PLANT
RETIRED % OF AMOUNT RETlREME.NT
19 59 $50 $12 24.0% .
58 100 22 22.0
57 70 11 15.7
56 40 5 12.5
55 30 7 23.3
19 54 30 5 16.7
53 50 2 4.0
19
TOTALS 370 64 17.2
DETERMINATION OF SALVAGE VALUES 60
AS OF 1/11---~----
ESTlMATED BY _______ _
COST OF REMOVAL NET SALVAGE
% OF AMOUNT % OF AMOUNT RETIREMENT RETIREMENT
$3 6.0% $ %
7 7.0
5 7.1
4 10.0
5 16. 7
2 6.7
7 14.0
.
.
·.
33 8.9 31 8.4
PLANT 1/1/~ ~-2
_2 _,o_2_8~-,,t.
RETIREMENTS AS % OF PLANT __ l_. 6_8_%
2. SELECTED VALUES (In per cent)
A. Gross Salvage Past Retirements . . . .
B. Gross Salvage Last Survivors (Scrap Value) .
C. Gross Salvage Future Average=(A+B)/2=
D. Cost of Removal Past Retirements .
E. Cost of Removal Future Retirements
F. Future Net Salvage=C-E= . .
3. WEIGHTED VALUES: (Not required this solution)
G. Average Net Salvage of Total Original Plant: % PLANT
(1) % NET SALV.
121 WEIGHT
{31=11)Xl2)
(Use this space PAST RET1 _________________ _
17.2 (From 1. above) 5.0 (Selected by judgment)
.• 11.1
8.9 (From 1. above) 9.0 (Selected by judgment) 2.1
H. Future Net Salvage (Weighted by Classes of Plant):
CLASS AMT. 7iJ
% NET SALV. (2)
WEIGHT {31=11lX{2)
(Use this space when weighting
100.0 to get average salvage separate results for FUT, RET. ____ .:.c.cc.c... ___________ ..c;; -----,-"--~-~---~---~~-
TOTALS/AVG. for total life rate) separate classes of property)
TOTALS/ AVG.
4. CONCLUSION: FUTURE NET SALVAGE FOR THIS ACCOUNT (ROUNDED VALUE) __ ...::2:..:·--=0 ___ %
38
• ·-1,._ I
' ,,
133
Workpaper – Southern California Edison / 2021 General Rate Case
Exhibit No. SCE-07 Vol.03 Ch I-VI Bk A Witness: D. Gunn
FoAM 0 ·•,n ha Water Company
UTILITY l' TABLE 7-B
Northern Area AREA/DEPT __________ _
311 Structures & Improvements Ac_ __ _
1. RECORDED EXPERIENCE (For a recent span of years)
GROSS SALVAGE YEAR PLANT
1!.ETIRED AMOUtH % OF TI.ETJREME.NT
19 59 :ii;238 $115 48.3%
58 451 200 44.3
57 162 48 29.6 '
56 195 44 22.6
55 162 37 22.8
19 54 124 32 25.8
53 124 32 25.8
19
TOTALS 1,456 508 34.9%
PLANT 1/1/~ .,_19_•_5_4_0 ___ _
2. SELECTED VALUES (In per cent)
A. Gross Salvage Past Retirements
B. Gross Salvage Last Survivors (Scrap Value) •
C. Gross Salvage Future Average=(A+B)/2=
D. Cost of Removal Past Retirements .
E, Cost of Removal Future Retirements
F. Future Net Salvage=C-E=
3. WEIGHTED VALUES:
G. Average Net Salvage of Total Original Plant:
PASf RET
FUT. RET.
TOTALS/ AVG.
% PLAls!T (1)
7.5
100.0 107.5
% NET SALV, (2)
26.2
5.1
6.6%
WEIGHT (3)=1l)X(2)
197
510
707
DETERMll'1ATlO1'1 OF SALVAGE VALUES
AS OF 1/1/_5_0 ______ _
ESTIMATED BY ______ _
COST OF TI.EMOVAL NET SALVAGE
' AMOUNT % OF AMOUNT % OF RETIREMENT RETIREMENT
$34 14.3%
47 10.4
23 14,2
12 6.2
11 6.8
- -- -
J>t
127 8,7% 381 26.2%
7.45 RETIREMENTS AS % OF PLANT ____ %
Interim Final Retirements Retirements
34.9
25.0
29. 9
8.7
14.3 15.6
6.5
3.0 3.5
H. Future l'let Salvage (Weighted by Classes of Plan!):
~ AMT. -(-1)-
Fut. Int. 13%
Fut. Final 87
TOTALS/ AVG. 100
% NET SALV. (2)
15.6
3.5
5.1%
WEIGHT (3)-(1) X (2)
203
304
507
4. CONCLUSION: FUTURE 1'1ET SALVAGE FOR THIS ACCOUNT (ROUNDED VALUE) ___ 5
_• o ___ %
134
Workpaper – Southern California Edison / 2021 General Rate Case
Exhibit No. SCE-07 Vol.03 Ch I-VI Bk A Witness: D. Gunn
Future Cost of Removal
4. As pointed ont in Chapter 4, cost of removal is essentially a labor cost. Predicted future cost of removal should be based on a reasonable projection of recent experience reflecting anticipated changes in labor cost for the immediate future. Possible abandonments of plant, or changes in cost of removal when resale of a plant item is not planned, are further factors to consider.
Accounts With High Turnover and Re-use of Plant 5. In certain accounts, notably the station apparatus account of telephone utilities, the placement and retire
ment of property tmits may be recorded on a location basis while the actual unit is retained and used successively at several locations during its "fi.··rnd capital" or physical life. Under _these conditions the net salvage is a composite of the value for retirements where re-use occurs and the value at final retirement. The composite estimate of future net salvage may be arrived at by weighting separate service life and salvage estimates as illustrated in the following example:
a. Values selected by estimate: Average Service Life (fixed capital) _____________________ _ Average Service Life (location) ________ _ Average Net Salvage Re-use Retirement_______ _ _______________________ _
18.0 years 4.6 years 94%
Average Net Salvage Final Retirement ________________________________________ _ 8%
b. Derived Data: Average Recorded Net Salvage for past year or 1·ecent years ___________ _ Portion which today's surviving plant represents of the original plant from
which it was placed (location basis)_ --- -------------(This may be derived from the selected sur\·h'or curve applied to nge distribution data or to recorded gross additions.)
c. Solution: Average number retirements during capital life= 18/4.6 = 3.9 Average number- re-use retirements== 3.9 - l __________ == 2.9 Average net salvage during total life of original group,
(2.9) (94) + (1.0) (8) = 71.9% 3.9
Peraent of Orig. Group
Whence: (1) Past Retirements ----------------------------- 47.3 Present Surviving Plant ---------------------- 52.7
Total Plant
and future Net Salvage =
Net Salvage Estimates
100.0
C' = 7190 - 3987 = 60 8o/c 52.7 . o
Net Salvage
(2) 84.3
C'
71.9
84.3%
52.7%
Di.Teat Weight
(3) = (1) X (2) 3987
C' X 52.7
7190
6. Where future gross salvage and future costs of removal have been estimated separately, the future net salvage applicable to the straight-line remaining life accrual determination is the difference between these valnes. Wben cost of removal is high the ~ salvage may be a red value. Where an average net salvage for all plant retired and surviving is desired, it may·be obtained by weighting the past experience with the future net salvage. Where remaining life estimates are made by forecast method, salvage values may be considered separately and weighted for interim retirements and final retirements. These various considerations are illustrated in the sample calculation shown in Table 7-B.
40
I
135
Workpaper – Southern California Edison / 2021 General Rate Case
Exhibit No. SCE-07 Vol.03 Ch I-VI Bk A Witness: D. Gunn
SCE-07, Volume. 03, Results of Operations Depreciation Study
Witness: David Gunn
Public Utility Depreciation Practices NARUC, 1996
136
Workpaper – Southern California Edison / 2021 General Rate Case
Exhibit No. SCE-07 Vol.03 Ch I-VI Bk A Witness: D. Gunn
137
Workpaper – Southern California Edison / 2021 General Rate Case
Exhibit No. SCE-07 Vol.03 Ch I-VI Bk A Witness: D. Gunn
138
Workpaper – Southern California Edison / 2021 General Rate Case
Exhibit No. SCE-07 Vol.03 Ch I-VI Bk A Witness: D. Gunn
139
Workpaper – Southern California Edison / 2021 General Rate Case
Exhibit No. SCE-07 Vol.03 Ch I-VI Bk A Witness: D. Gunn
140
Workpaper – Southern California Edison / 2021 General Rate Case
Exhibit No. SCE-07 Vol.03 Ch I-VI Bk A Witness: D. Gunn
141
Workpaper – Southern California Edison / 2021 General Rate Case
Exhibit No. SCE-07 Vol.03 Ch I-VI Bk A Witness: D. Gunn
142
Workpaper – Southern California Edison / 2021 General Rate Case
Exhibit No. SCE-07 Vol.03 Ch I-VI Bk A Witness: D. Gunn
143
Workpaper – Southern California Edison / 2021 General Rate Case
Exhibit No. SCE-07 Vol.03 Ch I-VI Bk A Witness: D. Gunn
144
Workpaper – Southern California Edison / 2021 General Rate Case
Exhibit No. SCE-07 Vol.03 Ch I-VI Bk A Witness: D. Gunn
145
Workpaper – Southern California Edison / 2021 General Rate Case
Exhibit No. SCE-07 Vol.03 Ch I-VI Bk A Witness: D. Gunn
146
Workpaper – Southern California Edison / 2021 General Rate Case
Exhibit No. SCE-07 Vol.03 Ch I-VI Bk A Witness: D. Gunn
147
Workpaper – Southern California Edison / 2021 General Rate Case
Exhibit No. SCE-07 Vol.03 Ch I-VI Bk A Witness: D. Gunn
SCE-07, Volume. 03, Results of Operations Depreciation Study
Witness: David Gunn
Wolf, Frank K. and William Chester Fitch Depreciation Systems
Iowa State Univ. Press, 1994
148
Workpaper – Southern California Edison / 2021 General Rate Case
Exhibit No. SCE-07 Vol.03 Ch I-VI Bk A Witness: D. Gunn
149
Workpaper – Southern California Edison / 2021 General Rate Case
Exhibit No. SCE-07 Vol.03 Ch I-VI Bk A Witness: D. Gunn
150
Workpaper – Southern California Edison / 2021 General Rate Case
Exhibit No. SCE-07 Vol.03 Ch I-VI Bk A Witness: D. Gunn
151
Workpaper – Southern California Edison / 2021 General Rate Case
Exhibit No. SCE-07 Vol.03 Ch I-VI Bk A Witness: D. Gunn
152
Workpaper – Southern California Edison / 2021 General Rate Case
Exhibit No. SCE-07 Vol.03 Ch I-VI Bk A Witness: D. Gunn
153
Workpaper – Southern California Edison / 2021 General Rate Case
Exhibit No. SCE-07 Vol.03 Ch I-VI Bk A Witness: D. Gunn
154
Workpaper – Southern California Edison / 2021 General Rate Case
Exhibit No. SCE-07 Vol.03 Ch I-VI Bk A Witness: D. Gunn
155
Workpaper – Southern California Edison / 2021 General Rate Case
Exhibit No. SCE-07 Vol.03 Ch I-VI Bk A Witness: D. Gunn
156
Workpaper – Southern California Edison / 2021 General Rate Case
Exhibit No. SCE-07 Vol.03 Ch I-VI Bk A Witness: D. Gunn
157
Workpaper – Southern California Edison / 2021 General Rate Case
Exhibit No. SCE-07 Vol.03 Ch I-VI Bk A Witness: D. Gunn
158
Workpaper – Southern California Edison / 2021 General Rate Case
Exhibit No. SCE-07 Vol.03 Ch I-VI Bk A Witness: D. Gunn
159
Workpaper – Southern California Edison / 2021 General Rate Case
Exhibit No. SCE-07 Vol.03 Ch I-VI Bk A Witness: D. Gunn
160
Workpaper – Southern California Edison / 2021 General Rate Case
Exhibit No. SCE-07 Vol.03 Ch I-VI Bk A Witness: D. Gunn
161
Workpaper – Southern California Edison / 2021 General Rate Case
Exhibit No. SCE-07 Vol.03 Ch I-VI Bk A Witness: D. Gunn
162
Workpaper – Southern California Edison / 2021 General Rate Case
Exhibit No. SCE-07 Vol.03 Ch I-VI Bk A Witness: D. Gunn
163
Workpaper – Southern California Edison / 2021 General Rate Case
Exhibit No. SCE-07 Vol.03 Ch I-VI Bk A Witness: D. Gunn
164
Workpaper – Southern California Edison / 2021 General Rate Case
Exhibit No. SCE-07 Vol.03 Ch I-VI Bk A Witness: D. Gunn
165
Workpaper – Southern California Edison / 2021 General Rate Case
Exhibit No. SCE-07 Vol.03 Ch I-VI Bk A Witness: D. Gunn
SCE-07, Volume. 03, Results of Operations Depreciation Study
Chapter V: Generation Plant Witness: David Gunn
Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station (PVNGS)
166
Workpaper – Southern California Edison / 2021 General Rate Case
Exhibit No. SCE-07 Vol.03 Ch I-VI Bk A Witness: D. Gunn
Southern California Edison
2021 GRC Depreciation Study
PVNGS Interim Retirement Rate
in Dollars
Summary of Proposals
FERC Interim % Gross % Cost of
Account Retirement % Salvage Removal
321 0.30% 0% 30%
322 0.60% 0% 20%
323 1.30% 0% 20%
324 0.15% 0% 20%
325 0.50% 0% 25%
Account 321
Activity Beginning of % of Plant Gross % Gross Cost of % Cost of
Year Year Plant Retirements Retired Salvage Salvage Removal Removal
A B C D=C/B E F=E/C G H=G/C
2009 433,652,426 ‐ 0.00% ‐ 0.0% ‐ 0.0%
2010 442,427,257 ‐ 0.00% ‐ 0.0% ‐ 0.0%
2011 535,615,455 7,251,146 1.35% ‐ 0.0% 1,283,264 17.7%
2012 543,695,218 4,321,367 0.79% ‐ 0.0% 281,964 6.5%
2013 567,923,819 ‐ 0.00% ‐ 0.0% 247,170 0.0%
2014 583,820,316 4,059,631 0.70% ‐ 0.0% 654,451 16.1%
2015 599,061,867 62,289 0.01% ‐ 0.0% 23,315 37.4%
2016 600,349,963 689,926 0.11% ‐ 0.0% 1,171,080 169.7%
2017 609,413,089 177,450 0.03% ‐ 0.0% 577,462 325.4%
2018 638,687,392 786,113 0.12% ‐ 0.0% 810,212 103.1%
10‐yr avg 5,554,646,802 17,347,922 0.31% ‐ 0.0% 5,048,918 29.1%
5‐yr avg 3,031,332,626 5,775,409 0.19% ‐ 0.0% 3,236,520 56.0%
Proposed 0.30% 0.0% 30.0%
Account 322
Activity Beginning of % of Plant Gross % Gross Cost of % Cost of
Year Year Plant Retirements Retired Salvage Salvage Removal Removal
A B C D=C/B E F=E/C G H=G/C
2009 741,861,980 ‐ 0.00% ‐ 0.0% ‐ 0.0%
2010 774,991,571 ‐ 0.00% ‐ 0.0% ‐ 0.0%
2011 696,916,740 40,171,619 5.76% ‐ 0.0% 8,186,678 20.4%
2012 706,926,523 1,971,228 0.28% ‐ 0.0% 186,201 9.4%
2013 699,047,654 14,678 0.00% ‐ 0.0% 60,298 410.8%
2014 703,583,013 1,103,658 0.16% ‐ 0.0% 310,163 28.1%
2015 718,598,172 746,352 0.10% ‐ 0.0% 328,283 44.0%
2016 723,380,143 1,391,198 0.19% ‐ 0.0% 430,909 31.0%
2017 739,331,504 162,890 0.02% ‐ 0.0% 755,225 463.6%
2018 742,010,806 8,368 0.00% ‐ 0.0% 204,338 2441.8%
10‐yr avg 7,246,648,105 45,569,991 0.63% ‐ 0.0% 10,462,095 23.0%
5‐yr avg 3,626,903,638 3,412,467 0.09% ‐ 0.0% 2,028,918 59.5%
Proposed 0.60% 0.0% 20.0%
167
Workpaper – Southern California Edison / 2021 General Rate Case
Exhibit No. SCE-07 Vol.03 Ch I-VI Bk A Witness: D. Gunn
Southern California Edison
2021 GRC Depreciation Study
PVNGS Interim Retirement Rate
in Dollars
Account 323
Activity Beginning of % of Plant Gross % Gross Cost of % Cost of
Year Year Plant Retirements Retired Salvage Salvage Removal Removal
A B C D=C/B E F=E/C G H=G/C
2009 290,570,846 ‐ 0.00% ‐ 0.0% ‐ 0.0%
2010 306,051,605 ‐ 0.00% ‐ 0.0% ‐ 0.0%
2011 251,083,577 27,348,265 10.89% ‐ 0.0% 3,388,271 12.4%
2012 254,867,598 2,725,846 1.07% ‐ 0.0% 543,545 19.9%
2013 249,023,569 52,925 0.02% ‐ 0.0% 45,489 86.0%
2014 251,254,745 925,689 0.37% ‐ 0.0% 1,138,304 123.0%
2015 253,738,089 2,370,752 0.93% ‐ 0.0% 488,024 20.6%
2016 271,693,532 473,154 0.17% ‐ 0.0% 282,679 59.7%
2017 277,802,667 429,592 0.15% ‐ 0.0% 171,912 40.0%
2018 276,201,481 204,331 0.07% ‐ 0.0% 989,969 484.5%
10‐yr avg 2,682,287,711 34,530,553 1.29% ‐ 0.0% 7,048,193 20.4%
5‐yr avg 1,330,690,515 4,403,517 0.33% ‐ 0.0% 3,070,888 69.7%
Proposed 1.30% 0.0% 20.0%
Account 324
Activity Beginning of % of Plant Gross % Gross Cost of % Cost of
Year Year Plant Retirements Retired Salvage Salvage Removal Removal
A B C D=C/B E F=E/C G H=G/C
2009 177,223,613 ‐ 0.00% ‐ 0.0% ‐ 0.0%
2010 178,305,251 ‐ 0.00% ‐ 0.0% ‐ 0.0%
2011 182,724,400 1,786,662 0.98% ‐ 0.0% 167,168 9.4%
2012 181,783,854 671,803 0.37% ‐ 0.0% 40,676 6.1%
2013 182,204,946 ‐ 0.00% ‐ 0.0% 9,569 0.0%
2014 182,845,720 181,952 0.10% ‐ 0.0% 46,306 25.4%
2015 203,312,928 8,582 0.00% ‐ 0.0% 84,972 990.1%
2016 206,697,698 411,483 0.20% ‐ 0.0% 185,001 45.0%
2017 209,587,819 36,409 0.02% ‐ 0.0% 158,269 434.7%
2018 193,769,550 7,117 0.00% ‐ 0.0% 2,624 36.9%
10‐yr avg 1,898,455,780 3,104,007 0.16% ‐ 0.0% 694,586 22.4%
5‐yr avg 996,213,716 645,543 0.06% ‐ 0.0% 477,173 73.9%
Proposed 0.15% 0.0% 20.0%
Account 325
Activity Beginning of % of Plant Gross % Gross Cost of % Cost of
Year Year Plant Retirements Retired Salvage Salvage Removal Removal
A B C D=C/B E F=E/C G H=G/C
2009 122,130,272 ‐ 0.00% ‐ 0.0% ‐ 0.0%
2010 126,182,007 ‐ 0.00% ‐ 0.0% ‐ 0.0%
2011 103,571,735 4,214,084 4.07% ‐ 0.0% 608,695 14.4%
2012 97,957,025 555,142 0.57% ‐ 0.0% 43,342 7.8%
2013 108,962,724 58,519 0.05% ‐ 0.0% 70,311 120.2%
2014 110,425,692 1,315 0.00% ‐ 0.0% 96,725 7358.0%
2015 109,907,708 25,676 0.02% ‐ 0.0% 2,838 11.1%
2016 117,874,241 429,240 0.36% ‐ 0.0% 542,728 126.4%
2017 124,462,769 35,594 0.03% ‐ 0.0% 90,940 255.5%
2018 134,438,546 734,784 0.55% ‐ 0.0% 113,970 15.5%
10‐yr avg 1,155,912,719 6,054,353 0.52% ‐ 0.0% 1,569,550 25.9%
5‐yr avg 597,108,956 1,226,608 0.21% ‐ 0.0% 847,202 69.1%
Proposed 0.50% 0.0% 25.0%
168
Workpaper – Southern California Edison / 2021 General Rate Case
Exhibit No. SCE-07 Vol.03 Ch I-VI Bk A Witness: D. Gunn
SCE-07, Volume. 03, Results of Operations Depreciation Study
Chapter V: Generation Plant Witness: David Gunn
Hydro Generation
169
Workpaper – Southern California Edison / 2021 General Rate Case
Exhibit No. SCE-07 Vol.03 Ch I-VI Bk A Witness: D. Gunn
Southern California Edison
2021 GRC Depreciation Study
Hydro Generation Interim Retirement Rate
in Dollars
Summary of Proposals
FERC Interim % Gross % Cost of
Account Retirement % Salvage Removal
331 0.25% 0% 140%
332 0.35% 0% 65%
333 0.65% 0% 40%
334 0.35% 0% 120%
335 0.40% 10% 65%
336 0.20% 0% 200%
Account 331
Activity Beginning of % of Plant Gross % Gross Cost of % Cost of
Year Year Plant Retirements Retired Salvage Salvage Removal Removal
A B C D=C/B E F=E/C G H=G/C
2009 113,635,278 24,047 0.02% ‐ 0.0% 59,282 246.5%
2010 125,841,338 203,636 0.16% ‐ 0.0% 237,660 116.7%
2011 150,447,855 490,436 0.33% ‐ 0.0% 897,176 182.9%
2012 157,619,113 1,053,623 0.67% ‐ 0.0% 56,351 5.3%
2013 198,081,697 967,196 0.49% ‐ 0.0% 1,677,908 173.5%
2014 205,566,319 509,877 0.25% ‐ 0.0% 1,607,689 315.3%
2015 206,948,621 92,247 0.04% (812) ‐0.9% 657,744 713.0%
2016 212,134,365 167,902 0.08% ‐ 0.0% 488,085 290.7%
2017 225,821,731 665,700 0.29% ‐ 0.0% 393,820 59.2%
2018 228,022,453 420,993 0.18% ‐ 0.0% 535,643 127.2%
10‐yr avg 1,824,118,771 4,595,656 0.25% (812) 0.0% 6,611,359 143.9%
5‐yr avg 1,078,493,489 1,856,719 0.17% (812) 0.0% 3,682,981 198.4%
Proposed 0.25% 0.0% 140.0%
Account 332
Activity Beginning of % of Plant Gross % Gross Cost of % Cost of
Year Year Plant Retirements Retired Salvage Salvage Removal Removal
A B C D=C/B E F=E/C G H=G/C
2009 442,149,230 208,582 0.05% ‐ 0.0% 1,133,426 543.4%
2010 452,806,563 437,766 0.10% (12,601) ‐2.9% 521,790 119.2%
2011 476,609,189 260,520 0.05% ‐ 0.0% 467,583 179.5%
2012 513,022,666 782,986 0.15% ‐ 0.0% 1,994,097 254.7%
2013 531,235,242 149,047 0.03% ‐ 0.0% 604,497 405.6%
2014 566,127,054 150,019 0.03% ‐ 0.0% 822,411 548.2%
2015 570,341,748 173,116 0.03% ‐ 0.0% 5,004,926 2891.1%
2016 576,435,700 21,481 0.00% ‐ 0.0% 65,219 303.6%
2017 562,573,681 15,561,583 2.77% ‐ 0.0% 632,984 4.1%
2018 597,246,640 25,866 0.00% ‐ 0.0% 230,165 889.8%
10‐yr avg 5,288,547,713 17,770,967 0.34% (12,601) ‐0.1% 11,477,097 64.6%
5‐yr avg 2,872,724,824 15,932,066 0.55% ‐ 0.0% 6,755,705 42.4%
Proposed 0.35% 0.0% 65.0%
170
Workpaper – Southern California Edison / 2021 General Rate Case
Exhibit No. SCE-07 Vol.03 Ch I-VI Bk A Witness: D. Gunn
Southern California Edison
2021 GRC Depreciation Study
Hydro Generation Interim Retirement Rate
in Dollars
Account 333
Activity Beginning of % of Plant Gross % Gross Cost of % Cost of
Year Year Plant Retirements Retired Salvage Salvage Removal Removal
A B C D=C/B E F=E/C G H=G/C
2009 125,219,207 406,213 0.32% ‐ 0.0% 331,516 81.6%
2010 129,896,447 152,489 0.12% (1,433) ‐0.9% 421,381 276.3%
2011 143,118,336 1,178,818 0.82% ‐ 0.0% 1,002,264 85.0%
2012 149,323,725 149,757 0.10% ‐ 0.0% 271,407 181.2%
2013 160,822,395 1,097,108 0.68% ‐ 0.0% 803,224 73.2%
2014 173,651,478 849,262 0.49% ‐ 0.0% 12,632 1.5%
2015 173,024,991 3,578,454 2.07% 87,590 2.4% 463,183 12.9%
2016 182,156,181 699,662 0.38% ‐ 0.0% 344,895 49.3%
2017 184,379,149 2,459,832 1.33% ‐ 0.0% 437,562 17.8%
2018 196,176,172 27,933 0.01% ‐ 0.0% 159,203 569.9%
10‐yr avg 1,617,768,079 10,599,528 0.66% 86,157 0.8% 4,247,268 40.1%
5‐yr avg 909,387,970 7,615,142 0.84% 87,590 1.2% 1,417,475 18.6%
Proposed 0.65% 0.0% 40.0%
Account 334
Activity Beginning of % of Plant Gross % Gross Cost of % Cost of
Year Year Plant Retirements Retired Salvage Salvage Removal Removal
A B C D=C/B E F=E/C G H=G/C
2009 116,168,201 155,751 0.13% ‐ 0.0% 540,100 346.8%
2010 134,319,581 484,721 0.36% ‐ 0.0% 1,037,923 214.1%
2011 151,726,982 1,524,001 1.00% 26,000 1.7% 1,571,620 103.1%
2012 178,935,508 338,887 0.19% ‐ 0.0% 982,573 289.9%
2013 196,408,098 103,811 0.05% ‐ 0.0% 1,006,971 970.0%
2014 205,593,040 120,553 0.06% ‐ 0.0% 1,211,070 1004.6%
2015 208,370,465 171,507 0.08% ‐ 0.0% 460,565 268.5%
2016 215,171,285 2,239 0.00% ‐ 0.0% 4,131 184.5%
2017 218,120,356 3,552,744 1.63% ‐ 0.0% 521,313 14.7%
2018 218,569,336 298,419 0.14% ‐ 0.0% 902,869 302.6%
10‐yr avg 1,843,382,854 6,752,633 0.37% 26,000 0.4% 8,239,136 122.0%
5‐yr avg 1,065,824,484 4,145,462 0.39% ‐ 0.0% 3,099,949 74.8%
Proposed 0.35% 0.0% 120.0%
Account 335
Activity Beginning of % of Plant Gross % Gross Cost of % Cost of
Year Year Plant Retirements Retired Salvage Salvage Removal Removal
A B C D=C/B E F=E/C G H=G/C
2009 11,254,613 32,204 0.29% ‐ 0.0% 1,145 3.6%
2010 11,365,666 ‐ 0.00% ‐ 0.0% ‐ 0.0%
2011 12,433,413 44,184 0.36% ‐ 0.0% 40,097 90.7%
2012 12,389,392 86,088 0.69% ‐ 0.0% 9,797 11.4%
2013 12,095,776 116,691 0.96% ‐ 0.0% 1,060 0.9%
2014 12,115,831 26,556 0.22% ‐ 0.0% 1,532 5.8%
2015 12,485,484 2,129 0.02% ‐ 0.0% 279,855 13147.2%
2016 12,548,654 ‐ 0.00% 41,708 0.0% ‐ 0.0%
2017 12,359,922 188,731 1.53% ‐ 0.0% ‐ 0.0%
2018 13,161,363 ‐ 0.00% ‐ 0.0% ‐ 0.0%
10‐yr avg 122,210,113 496,584 0.41% 41,708 8.4% 333,485 67.2%
5‐yr avg 62,671,253 217,416 0.35% 41,708 19.2% 281,387 129.4%
Proposed 0.40% 10.0% 65.0%
171
Workpaper – Southern California Edison / 2021 General Rate Case
Exhibit No. SCE-07 Vol.03 Ch I-VI Bk A Witness: D. Gunn
Southern California Edison
2021 GRC Depreciation Study
Hydro Generation Interim Retirement Rate
in Dollars
Account 336
Activity Beginning of % of Plant Gross % Gross Cost of % Cost of
Year Year Plant Retirements Retired Salvage Salvage Removal Removal
A B C D=C/B E F=E/C G H=G/C
2009 10,246,966 41,488 0.40% ‐ 0.0% 126,945 306.0%
2010 10,470,237 ‐ 0.00% ‐ 0.0% 43,408 0.0%
2011 10,451,256 169,226 1.62% ‐ 0.0% 29,153 17.2%
2012 11,946,663 17,627 0.15% ‐ 0.0% 73,520 417.1%
2013 17,406,536 71,327 0.41% ‐ 0.0% 324,687 455.2%
2014 19,081,132 31,421 0.16% ‐ 0.0% 0.0%
2015 19,172,902 ‐ 0.00% ‐ 0.0% 2 0.0%
2016 19,210,182 ‐ 0.00% ‐ 0.0% ‐ 0.0%
2017 19,286,163 25,609 0.13% ‐ 0.0% 8,883 34.7%
2018 20,585,495 ‐ 0.00% ‐ 0.0% 141,792 0.0%
10‐yr avg 157,857,532 356,697 0.23% ‐ 0.0% 748,390 209.8%
5‐yr avg 97,335,874 57,030 0.06% ‐ 0.0% 150,677 264.2%
Proposed 0.20% 0.0% 200.0%
172
Workpaper – Southern California Edison / 2021 General Rate Case
Exhibit No. SCE-07 Vol.03 Ch I-VI Bk A Witness: D. Gunn
Sout
hern
Cali
forn
ia Ed
ison
2021
GRC
Dep
recia
tion S
tudy
Hydr
o De
com
miss
ioning
Ann
ual A
ccru
alin
Milli
ons o
f Doll
ars
Plant
Nam
eplat
e Ca
pacit
y (M
W)
Licen
se
Expir
ation
Deco
m.
Estim
ate
(2018
$)
Deco
m. P
rob.
(1%, 1
0%, 5
0%,
90%,
99%)
Appr
ox. Y
ear
Deco
m. W
ould
Begin
Prob
abilit
y-Ad
juste
d De
com
. Es
timate
Futu
re
Dolla
rsLif
e Ex
tens
ionRe
main
ing
Life
Annu
al Ac
crual
AB
CD
EF
G=D*
EH1
IJ=
F-20
21+I
K=H/
J
Bore
l12
.0
20
46$1
17.1
99%
2025
$116
.0$1
54.0
1014
$11.0
Rush
Cre
ek (A
gnew
, Rus
h M.)
- 20
27$4
6.390
%20
27$4
1.7$5
8.010
16$3
.6Ru
sh C
reek
(Gem
)13
.0
20
27$1
67.1
50%
2027
$83.6
$116
.310
16$7
.3Lo
wer T
ule R
iver
2.5
2033
$21.9
50%
2033
$11.0
$17.6
1022
$0.8
Kawe
ah 1-
24.1
20
21$8
8.810
%20
21$8
.9$1
0.710
10$1
.1Ka
weah
34.8
20
21$4
5.850
%20
26$2
2.9$3
1.110
15$2
.1Lu
ndy (
Mill
Cree
k)3.0
20
29$1
7.710
%20
29$1
.8$2
.610
18$0
.1Bis
hop
Cree
k 2-6
29.3
2024
$214
.210
%20
24$2
1.4$2
7.810
13$2
.1Po
ole (L
ee V
ining
Cre
ek)
11.3
2027
$82.4
10%
2027
$8.2
$11.5
1016
$0.7
Font
ana
1.9
N/A
$11.3
10%
2033
$1.1
$1.8
1022
$0.1
Lytle
Cre
ek0.5
20
33$1
5.810
%20
33$1
.6$2
.510
22$0
.1M
ill Cr
eek N
o. 1
0.8
N/A
$7.1
10%
2033
$0.7
$1.1
1022
$0.1
Mill
Cree
k No.
33.0
20
33$2
4.210
%20
33$2
.4$3
.910
22$0
.2On
tario
No. 1
0.6
N/A
$10.9
10%
2033
$1.1
$1.8
1022
$0.1
Ontar
io No
. 20.3
N/
A$5
.310
%20
33$0
.5$0
.910
22$0
.0Sa
nta A
na 1
& 3
6.3
2033
$24.2
10%
2033
$2.4
$3.9
1022
$0.2
Sierra
0.5
N/A
$5.1
10%
2033
$0.5
$0.8
1022
$0.0
Tota
l93
.9
$9
05.2
$325
.7$4
46.2
15$2
9.61/
H=G
*1.02
39^(
F-20
18+5
)
173
Workpaper – Southern California Edison / 2021 General Rate Case
Exhibit No. SCE-07 Vol.03 Ch I-VI Bk A Witness: D. Gunn
SCE-07, Volume. 03, Results of Operations Depreciation Study
Chapter V: Generation Plant Witness: David Gunn
Mountainview
174
Workpaper – Southern California Edison / 2021 General Rate Case
Exhibit No. SCE-07 Vol.03 Ch I-VI Bk A Witness: D. Gunn
Sout
hern
Cali
forn
ia Ed
ison
2021
GRC
Dep
recia
tion S
tudy
Mou
ntain
view
Deco
mm
ission
ing Es
timate
in Do
llars
Prop
osed
Dec
omm
issio
ning
Estim
ate
Line
FERC
FERC
Acc
tDe
com
mEs
calat
ionDe
com
mIn-
Servi
cePr
opos
edRe
tirem
ent
Esca
lation
Deco
mm
No.
Acco
unt
Desc
riptio
nEs
t. (20
03$)
Facto
rEs
t. (20
18$)
Year
Avg.
Life
Year
Facto
rEs
t. (20
40$)
AB
CD
EF=
D*E
GH
I=G+
HJ
K=F*
J1.
311
Stru
cture
s and
Impr
ovem
ents
617,0
49
2.1
371
1,318
,695
20
0535
2040
1.603
92,1
15,09
1
2.31
2Bo
iler P
lant E
quipm
ent
3,659
,459
2.1
371
7,820
,623
20
0535
2040
1.603
912
,543,7
09
3.31
4Tu
rbog
ener
ator U
nits
576,9
58
2.1
371
1,233
,015
20
0535
2040
1.603
91,9
77,66
6
4.31
5Ac
cesso
ry Ele
ctric
Equip
men
t26
4,223
2.137
156
4,670
2005
3520
401.6
039
905,6
89
5.
316
Misc
. Pow
er Pl
ant E
quipm
ent
63,95
9
2.137
113
6,686
2005
3520
401.6
039
219,2
34
6.
353
Stati
on Eq
uipm
ent
252,3
14
2.1
371
539,2
21
20
0535
2040
1.603
986
4,871
7.To
tal
5,433
,961
11
,612,9
09
18
,626,2
59
Prop
osal
Impa
ctLin
eDe
com
mDe
com
mUn
reco
vere
dRe
main
ingAn
nual
No.
Scen
ario
Estim
ateRe
serve
(YE '
18)
Cost
(YE '
20)
Life
Expe
nse
AB
CD
E=C-
DF=
2040
-201
8G=
E/F
1.20
18 G
RC A
utho
rized
(202
0 $ Es
t.)8,6
44,40
5
4,656
,967
3,987
,438
20
19
9,358
2a.
2018
GRC
Aut
horiz
ed (2
020 $
Est. C
orre
ct)11
,449,2
12
4,656
,967
6,792
,245
20
33
9,589
2b.
2018
GRC
Aut
horiz
ed (2
023 $
Est.)
13,32
7,816
4,6
56,96
7
8,6
70,84
9
20
433,5
13
3.
2021
GRC
Prop
osed
18,62
6,259
4,6
56,96
7
13
,969,2
92
20
698,4
17
Impa
ct fro
m C
orre
cting
auth
orize
d GR
C (Li
ne 2a
- Lin
e 1)
140,2
31
Im
pact
from
addin
g inc
rem
ental
infla
tion (
Line 2
b - L
ine 2a
)93
,924
Impa
ct fro
m p
ropo
sing
deco
mm
ission
ing in
retir
emen
t yea
r doll
ars (
Line 3
- Lin
e 2b)
264,9
04
To
tal I
mpa
ct49
9,059
175
Workpaper – Southern California Edison / 2021 General Rate Case
Exhibit No. SCE-07 Vol.03 Ch I-VI Bk A Witness: D. Gunn
Southern California Edison2021 GRC Depreciation StudyMountainview Decommissioning Estimatein Dollars
FERC Item Decomm. Account Description Cost (2003$)Structures and Improvements
311 SUMP PUMPS-LOT 15 PUMPS 768311 SUMP PUMP MOTORS 360311 UNDERGROUND PIPING 50,034311 S.W. STORAGE TANKS 7,500311 S.W. DEMO DIKE 3,800311 EVAP. POND NO. 1 SLUDGE 3,500311 EVAP. POND NO. 1 LINER 3,600311 EVAP. POND NO. 1 DIKES 5,600311 POWER BLOCK FENCING 9,829311 PAVED ROADS 149,318311 MAIN BLDG. SUBSTRUCTURE 79,114311 MAIN BLDG. SUPERSTRUCTURE 18,577311 MAIN BLDG. CONCRETE.. 7,473311 STAIRS, PLATFORMS… 19,431311 ABOVEGROUND PIPING 3,402311 LIGHTING 8,414311 ADMIN BLDG. STEEL 845311 ADMIN BLDG. CONCRETE 5,208311 NEW BLDGS. STEEL 6,204311 NEW BLDGS. CONCRETE 6,899311 MISC. EQUIPMENT 9,306311 SITE SECURITY 172,866311 MAINTENANCE BUILDING - SUB 21,636311 MAINTENANCE BUILDING - SUP 23,363311 Subtotal 617,049
176
Workpaper – Southern California Edison / 2021 General Rate Case
Exhibit No. SCE-07 Vol.03 Ch I-VI Bk A Witness: D. Gunn
Southern California Edison2021 GRC Depreciation StudyMountainview Decommissioning Estimatein Dollars
FERC Item Decomm. Account Description Cost (2003$)Boiler Plant Equipment
312 BOILER ECONOMIZER 462,569312 SUPERHEATER & REHEATER 270,023312 BOILER INSULATION 912,304312 GAS TURBINE 250,000312 GAS TURBINE - Gen 200,000312 GAS TURBINE - Aux Eqpts 150,000312 GAS TURBINE - Foundation 75,000312 GAS TURBINE - Misc Elect 50,000312 GAS TURBINE - SCR 40,000312 GAS TURBINE - Ammonia Tank 25,000312 GAS TURBINE - Vaporizer System 30,000312 BOILER CIRCULATING PUMP 1,739312 BOILER STEEL, STAIRS, 82,832312 STACK FOUNDATIN 18,120312 STACK 100' HIGH STEEL 42,311312 AH & DUCT INSULATION 54,123312 DEAERATOR 3RD POINT 9,835312 FW HEATER 1ST POINT 22,292312 FW HEATER 2ND POINT 7,431312 BOILER FEED PUMPS 3,278312 18850HP BFP TURBINES 3,541312 BOILER FEED BOOSTR. PUMP 3,278312 1750HP BFBP MOTOR 5,573312 FUEL GAS IGNITION PIPING 28,580312 MAIN STEAM PIPING 31,253312 REHEAT PIPING 64,637312 BOILER FEED PIPING 28,467312 EXTRACTION STEAM PIPING 21,364312 MISC. PIPING 89,973312 PIPING INSULATION 451,053312 PIPING INSULATION 117,729312 MISC. STEEL 107,154312 Subtotal 3,659,459
177
Workpaper – Southern California Edison / 2021 General Rate Case
Exhibit No. SCE-07 Vol.03 Ch I-VI Bk A Witness: D. Gunn
Southern California Edison2021 GRC Depreciation StudyMountainview Decommissioning Estimatein Dollars
FERC Item Decomm. Account Description Cost (2003$)Turbogenerator Units
314 HP TURBINE-GENERATOR GE 74,036314 LP TURBINE - GENERATOR GE 106,932314 LUBE OIL TANKS 6,557314 CLEAN LUBE OIL TANKS 30,869314 CONSENSER SHELL 28,630314 CONDENSATE PUMPS 3,629314 1250HP COND. PUMP MOTORS 1,557314 PLUG CIRC. WATER DUCTS 18,458314 CT BASINS & SUBSTRUCTURE 53,645314 COOLING TOWERS 32,572314 CIRCULATING WATER PUMPS 2,419314 3000 HP CW PUMP MOTORS 1,354314 WELL WATER PUMPS 3,931314 800 HP WW PUMP MOTORS 1,490314 500 HP M-U W PUMP MOTORS 542314 Seal WATER WELL 2,250314 ABOVE GROUND PIPING 32,209314 TURBINE PEDESTALS & MISC 79,547314 TURBINE INSULATION TOP 4,088314 TURBINE INSULATION BOT 62,646314 DIRTY OIL TANKS 1,210314 BULK LUB OIL TANKS 1,134314 MISC. EQUIPMENT 27,254314 Subtotal 576,958
178
Workpaper – Southern California Edison / 2021 General Rate Case
Exhibit No. SCE-07 Vol.03 Ch I-VI Bk A Witness: D. Gunn
Southern California Edison2021 GRC Depreciation StudyMountainview Decommissioning Estimatein Dollars
FERC Item Decomm. Account Description Cost (2003$)Accessory Electric Equipment
315 SWITCHBOARD PANELS 1,329315 PROTECTIVE RELAY BOARDS 8,962315 4160V STATION SWITCHGEAR 25,606315 480V SWITCH GEAR INDOOR 5,121315 480V SWITCH GEAR OUTDOOR 25,606315 13,800V SWITCH GEAR 12,291315 LIGHTING TRANSFORMERS 6,145315 STATION BATTERIES 5,633315 480V MCCS 11,778315 START-UP TRANSFORMER 45,939315 GROUNDING TRANSFORMER 1,958315 AUXILIARY TRANSFORMER 19,576315 4160/480 X'FORMERS 1250A 9,535315 13,800/480 TRANSFORMER 2,319315 13,800/4160 TRANSFORMER 27,233315 500 KW DIESEL GENERATOR 680315 CONDUIT TRAY 31,367315 ACSR CABLE 1,692315 ANNUNCIATOR CABINETS 1,595315 MISC. EQUIPMENT 6,647315 EQUIPMENT FOUNDATION 13,210315 Subtotal 264,223
Misc. Power Plant Equipment316 AIR COMPRESSORS 4,480316 3000HP AIR COMP. MOTOR 1,151316 AIR PIPING STEEL 4,839316 GASOLINE TANKS 1,210316 TANK EXCAVATION 1,258316 STATION CRANES 16,829316 GAS COMPRESSOR 26,882316 HP GAS COMPRESSOR MOTOR 7,310316 Subtotal 63,959
179
Workpaper – Southern California Edison / 2021 General Rate Case
Exhibit No. SCE-07 Vol.03 Ch I-VI Bk A Witness: D. Gunn
Southern California Edison2021 GRC Depreciation StudyMountainview Decommissioning Estimatein Dollars
FERC Item Decomm. Account Description Cost (2003$)Station Equipment
353 FOUNDATIONS 22,428353 STEEL STRUCTURES, TOWERS 44,039353 MAIN POWER TRANSFORMER 95,560353 66KV Circuit Breakers 5,901353 Disconnect Swtch 3000A 4,839353 66KV Capacitors 3,266353 ACSR Cable 2156MCM 17,481353 Foundations 8,053353 STEEL STRUCTURES, 7 SUPP 9,835353 Disconnect Swtches 2000A 302353 Disconnect Swtches 3000A 1,361353 ACSR Cable 2156MCM 3,571353 SHUT REACTORS 33 MVA 12,458353 CAPACITOR ASSY 282 MVAR 3,278353 Misc Equipments 19,942353 Subtotal 252,314
GRAND TOTAL (In 2003 $) 5,433,961
2003 Escalation Index 0.45442018 Escalation Index 0.9711Inflation Factor 2.1371
Grand Total (in 2018 $) 11,612,909
180
Workpaper – Southern California Edison / 2021 General Rate Case
Exhibit No. SCE-07 Vol.03 Ch I-VI Bk A Witness: D. Gunn
Southern California Edison2021 GRC Depreciation StudyMountainview Interim Retirement Ratein Dollars
Summary of ProposalsInterim % Gross % Cost of
FERC Retirement % Salvage RemovalAccount Description (% of Plant) (% of Ret.) (% of Ret.)
341 Structures and Improvements 0.15% 0.00% 150.00%342 Boiler Plant Equipment 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%343 Prime Movers 0.20% 0.00% 20.00%344 Turbogenerator Units 0.05% 0.00% 60.00%345 Accessory Electric Equipment 0.10% 0.00% 25.00%346 Miscellaneous Power Plant Eqm 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
Account 341Activity Beginning of % of Plant Gross % Gross Cost of % Cost of
Year Year Plant Retirements Retired Salvage Salvage Removal RemovalA B C D=C/B E F=E/C G H=G/C
2009 41,847,234 - 0.00% 0.00%2010 45,361,141 - 0.00% - 0.00%2011 45,361,273 - 0.00% - 0.00%2012 45,397,387 - 0.00% - 0.00%2013 49,782,382 - 0.00% - 0.00%2014 49,782,959 - 0.00% - 0.00%2015 50,119,008 - 0.00%
0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 411,803 0.00%
2016 57,058,950 110,286 0.19% - 0.00% 147,993 134.19%2017 57,014,729 278,862 0.49% - 0.00% 23,682 8.49%2018 57,344,869 23,274 0.04% - 0.00% 60,806 261.26%
10-yr avg 499,069,933 412,421 0.08% - 0.00% 644,283 156.22%5-yr avg 271,320,515 412,421 0.15% - 0.00% 644,283 156.22%Proposed 0.15% 0.00% 150%
181
Workpaper – Southern California Edison / 2021 General Rate Case
Exhibit No. SCE-07 Vol.03 Ch I-VI Bk A Witness: D. Gunn
Southern California Edison2021 GRC Depreciation StudyMountainview Interim Retirement Ratein Dollars
Account 342Activity Beginning of % of Plant Gross % Gross Cost of % Cost of
Year Year Plant Retirements Retired Salvage Salvage Removal RemovalA B C D=C/B E F=E/C G H=G/C
2009 7,403,713 - 0.00% - 0.00% - 0.00%2010 7,403,713 - 0.00% - 0.00% - 0.00%2011 7,403,713 - 0.00% - 0.00% - 0.00%2012 7,403,713 - 0.00% - 0.00% - 0.00%2013 7,403,713 - 0.00% - 0.00% - 0.00%2014 7,403,713 - 0.00% - 0.00% - 0.00%2015 7,403,713 - 0.00% - 0.00% - 0.00%2016 7,403,713 - 0.00% - 0.00% - 0.00%2017 7,403,713 - 0.00% - 0.00% - 0.00%2018 7,403,713 - 0.00% - 0.00% - 0.00%
10-yr avg 74,037,131 - 0.00% - 0.00% - 0.00%5-yr avg 37,018,565 - 0.00% - 0.00% - 0.00%Proposed 0.00% 0.00% 0%
Account 343Activity Beginning of % of Plant Gross % Gross Cost of % Cost of
Year Year Plant Retirements Retired Salvage Salvage Removal RemovalA B C D=C/B E F=E/C G H=G/C
2009 434,295,673 - 0.00% - 0.00% - 0.00%2010 435,088,988 - 0.00% - 0.00% - 0.00%2011 435,088,988 - 0.00% - 0.00% - 0.00%2012 435,100,878 - 0.00% - 0.00% - 0.00%2013 442,198,144 399,353 0.09% - 0.00% - 0.00%2014 449,822,569 - 0.00% - 0.00% 109,365 0.00%2015 450,939,265 1,159,888 0.26% - 0.00% 309,437 26.68%2016 514,399,820 - 0.00% - 0.00% - 0.00%2017 525,935,280 2,188,279 0.42% - 0.00% 288,627 13.19%2018 536,234,340 1,242,721 0.23% - 0.00% 253,763 20.42%
10-yr avg 4,659,103,944 4,990,240 0.11% - 0.00% 961,193 19.26%5-yr avg 2,477,331,274 4,590,888 0.19% - 0.00% 961,193 20.94%Proposed 0.20% 0.00% 20%
182
Workpaper – Southern California Edison / 2021 General Rate Case
Exhibit No. SCE-07 Vol.03 Ch I-VI Bk A Witness: D. Gunn
Southern California Edison2021 GRC Depreciation StudyMountainview Interim Retirement Ratein Dollars
Account 344Activity Beginning of % of Plant Gross % Gross Cost of % Cost of
Year Year Plant Retirements Retired Salvage Salvage Removal RemovalA B C D=C/B E F=E/C G H=G/C
2009 76,605,926 - 0.00% - 0.00% - 0.00%2010 76,883,852 - 0.00% - 0.00% - 0.00%2011 76,883,852 - 0.00% - 0.00% - 0.00%2012 76,883,025 - 0.00% - 0.00% - 0.00%2013 76,883,025 - 0.00% - 0.00% - 0.00%2014 76,883,025 - 0.00% - 0.00% - 0.00%2015 77,423,129 - 0.00% - 0.00% - 0.00%2016 77,423,129 - 0.00% - 0.00% - 0.00%2017 77,423,129 - 0.00% - 0.00% - 0.00%2018 78,370,448 242,969 0.31% - 0.00% 149,106 61.37%
10-yr avg 771,662,540 242,969 0.03% - 0.00% 149,106 61.37%5-yr avg 387,522,860 242,969 0.06% - 0.00% 149,106 61.37%Proposed 0.05% 0.00% 60%
Account 345Activity Beginning of % of Plant Gross % Gross Cost of % Cost of
Year Year Plant Retirements Retired Salvage Salvage Removal RemovalA B C D=C/B E F=E/C G H=G/C
2009 74,861,722 - 0.00% - 0.00% - 0.00%2010 85,113,293 - 0.00% - 0.00% - 0.00%2011 85,106,863 - 0.00% - 0.00% - 0.00%2012 85,106,863 - 0.00% - 0.00% - 0.00%2013 85,106,863 - 0.00% - 0.00% - 0.00%2014 85,106,863 - 0.00% - 0.00% - 0.00%2015 85,185,187 - 0.00% - 0.00% - 0.00%2016 85,184,070 - 0.00% - 0.00% - 0.00%2017 85,692,252 179,337 0.21% - 0.00% 54,181 30.21%2018 87,383,001 324,214 0.37% - 0.00% 76,558 23.61%
10-yr avg 843,846,976 503,552 0.06% - 0.00% 130,739 25.96%5-yr avg 428,551,372 503,552 0.12% - 0.00% 130,739 25.96%Proposed 0.10% 0.00% 25%
183
Workpaper – Southern California Edison / 2021 General Rate Case
Exhibit No. SCE-07 Vol.03 Ch I-VI Bk A Witness: D. Gunn
Southern California Edison2021 GRC Depreciation StudyMountainview Interim Retirement Ratein Dollars
Account 346Activity Beginning of % of Plant Gross % Gross Cost of % Cost of
Year Year Plant Retirements Retired Salvage Salvage Removal RemovalA B C D=C/B E F=E/C G H=G/C
2009 1,507,408 - 0.00% - 0.00% - 0.00%2010 2,085,197 - 0.00% - 0.00% - 0.00%2011 2,635,698 - 0.00% - 0.00% - 0.00%2012 3,731,530 - 0.00% - 0.00% - 0.00%2013 4,373,201 - 0.00% - 0.00% - 0.00%2014 4,990,347 - 0.00% - 0.00% - 0.00%2015 79,671,823 - 0.00% - 0.00% - 0.00%2016 55,660,250 - 0.00% - 0.00% - 0.00%2017 55,562,661 - 0.00% - 0.00% - 0.00%2018 55,562,731 - 0.00% - 0.00% - 0.00%
10-yr avg 265,780,845 - 0.00% - 0.00% - 0.00%5-yr avg 251,447,812 - 0.00% - 0.00% - 0.00%Proposed 0.00% 0.00% 0%
184
Workpaper – Southern California Edison / 2021 General Rate Case
Exhibit No. SCE-07 Vol.03 Ch I-VI Bk A Witness: D. Gunn
SCE-07, Volume. 03, Results of Operations Depreciation Study
Chapter V: Generation Plant Witness: David Gunn
Peakers
185
Workpaper – Southern California Edison / 2021 General Rate Case
Exhibit No. SCE-07 Vol.03 Ch I-VI Bk A Witness: D. Gunn
Sout
hern
Cali
forn
ia Ed
ison
2021
GRC
Dep
recia
tion S
tud y
Peak
ers D
ecom
miss
ioning
Estim
atein
Dolla
rs
Prop
osed
Dec
omm
issio
ning
Estim
ate
Line
Deco
mm
Esca
lation
Over
head
Deco
mm
In-Se
rvice
Prop
osed
Retir
emen
tEs
calat
ionDe
com
mNo
.Pe
aker
Unit
Est. (
2007
$)Fa
ctor
Facto
rEs
t. (20
18$)
Year
Avg.
Life
Year
Facto
rEs
t. (Re
t. Yr $
)A
BD
EF
G=D*
E*F
HI
J=H+
IK
L=G*
K1.
Barre
773,0
00
1.7
274
1.200
01,6
02,35
3
20
0735
2042
1.668
32,6
73,13
9
2.Ce
nter
766,0
00
1.7
274
1.200
01,5
87,84
3
20
0735
2042
1.668
32,6
48,93
2
3.Gr
apela
nd86
4,000
1.727
41.2
000
1,790
,987
2007
3520
421.6
683
2,987
,830
4.
McG
rath
913,0
00
1.7
274
1.200
01,8
92,56
0
20
0735
2042
1.668
33,1
57,27
8
5.M
iraLo
ma
870,0
00
1.7
274
1.200
01,8
03,42
5
20
1235
2047
1.840
63,3
19,38
9
7.To
tal
4,186
,000
8,6
77,16
8
14
,786,5
68
Prop
osal
Impa
ctLin
eDe
com
mDe
com
mUn
reco
vere
dRe
main
ingAn
nual
No.
Scen
ario
Estim
ateRe
serve
(YE '
18)C
ost (
YE '2
0)Lif
eEx
pens
eA
BC
DE=
C-D
FG=
E/F
1.20
18 G
RC A
utho
rized
(202
0 $ Es
t.)11
,449,2
12
3,333
,480
8,115
,732
25
329,4
53
2a
.20
18 G
RC A
utho
rized
(202
0 $ Es
t. Cor
rect)
8,644
,405
3,3
33,48
0
5,3
10,92
5
25
21
5,594
2b
.20
18 G
RC A
utho
rized
(202
3 $ Es
t.)9,9
58,54
6
3,333
,480
6,625
,066
25
268,9
40
3.20
21 G
RC Pr
opos
ed14
,786,5
68
3,333
,480
11,45
3,088
25
46
4,931
Impa
ct fro
m C
orre
cting
auth
orize
d GR
C (Li
ne 2a
- Lin
e 1)
(113,8
59)
Impa
ct fro
m ad
ding
incre
men
tal in
flatio
n (Lin
e 2b
- Line
2a)
53,34
7
Im
pact
from
pro
posin
g de
com
miss
ioning
in re
tirem
ent y
ear d
ollar
s (Lin
e 3 -
Line 2
b)19
5,991
To
tal I
mpa
ct13
5,478
186
Workpaper – Southern California Edison / 2021 General Rate Case
Exhibit No. SCE-07 Vol.03 Ch I-VI Bk A Witness: D. Gunn
SCE-07, Volume. 03, Results of Operations Depreciation Study
Chapter V: Generation Plant Witness: David Gunn
Solar Photovoltaic
187
Workpaper – Southern California Edison / 2021 General Rate Case
Exhibit No. SCE-07 Vol.03 Ch I-VI Bk A Witness: D. Gunn
Sout
hern
Cali
forn
ia Ed
ison
2021
GRC
Dep
recia
tion S
tudy
Solar
PV D
ecom
miss
ioning
Estim
atein
Dolla
rsAs
of:
12/3
1/20
18
Site
MW
In-Se
rvice
Aver
age
Antic
ipate
dCo
st Pe
r De
com
miss
ioning
Esca
lation
Deco
mm
ission
ingNo
.Lo
catio
nDC
Solar
Type
Year
Life
Ret. Y
ear
MW
DC
2011
$Fa
ctor
Ret Y
r. $A
BC
DE
FG=
E+F
HI=
C*H
JK=
I*J2
Chino
1.22
Roof
top
- Floa
ting
2009
2020
2952
1,000
635,6
20
1.729
6
1,099
,362
3Ria
lto1.2
2Ro
ofto
p - F
loatin
g20
1020
2030
521,0
00
63
5,620
1.7
639
1,1
21,19
2
5
Redla
nds
3.4Ro
ofto
p - F
loatin
g20
1020
2030
521,0
00
1,7
71,40
0
1.7
639
3,1
24,63
5
6
Ontar
io2.5
5Ro
ofto
p - A
ncho
red
2011
2020
3154
7,000
1,394
,850
1.799
0
2,509
,282
7Re
dland
s3.2
Roof
top
- Floa
ting
2010
2020
3052
1,000
1,667
,200
1.763
9
2,940
,833
8On
tario
2.85
Roof
top
- Anc
hore
d20
1020
2030
547,0
00
1,5
58,95
0
1.7
639
2,7
49,88
7
9
Ontar
io1.4
1Ro
ofto
p - A
ncho
red
2011
2020
3154
7,000
771,2
70
1.799
0
1,387
,485
10Fo
ntan
a2.2
5Ro
ofto
p - A
ncho
red
2011
2020
3154
7,000
1,230
,750
1.799
0
2,214
,072
11Re
dland
s5.0
2Ro
ofto
p - F
loatin
g20
1120
2031
521,0
00
2,6
15,42
0
1.7
990
4,7
05,04
1
12
Ontar
io0.7
7Ro
ofto
p - A
ncho
red
2010
2020
3054
7,000
421,1
90
1.763
9
742,9
52
13Re
dland
s4.9
3Ro
ofto
p - F
loatin
g20
1120
2031
521,0
00
2,5
68,53
0
1.7
990
4,6
20,68
8
15
Font
ana
4.69
Roof
top
- Floa
ting
2011
2020
3152
1,000
2,443
,490
1.799
0
4,395
,745
16Re
dland
s1.7
5Ro
ofto
p - F
loatin
g20
1120
2031
521,0
00
91
1,750
1.7
990
1,6
40,20
3
17
Font
ana
4.5Ro
ofto
p - F
loatin
g20
1120
2031
521,0
00
2,3
44,50
0
1.7
990
4,2
17,66
6
18
Font
ana
1.94
Roof
top
- Anc
hore
d20
1120
2031
547,0
00
1,0
61,18
0
1.7
990
1,9
09,02
2
22
Redla
nds
3.09
Roof
top
- Anc
hore
d20
1020
2030
547,0
00
1,6
90,23
0
1.7
639
2,9
81,45
6
23
Font
ana
3.86
Roof
top
- Anc
hore
d20
1120
2031
547,0
00
2,1
11,42
0
1.7
990
3,7
98,36
4
26
Rialto
8.6Ro
ofto
p - F
loatin
g20
1120
2031
521,0
00
4,4
80,60
0
1.7
990
8,0
60,42
9
27
Rialto
2.62
Roof
top
- Anc
hore
d20
1220
2032
547,0
00
1,4
33,14
0
1.8
347
2,6
29,35
9
28
San B
erna
rdino
4.86
Roof
top
- Floa
ting
2011
2020
3152
1,000
2,532
,060
1.799
0
4,555
,079
32On
tario
1.74
Roof
top
- Anc
hore
d20
1120
2031
547,0
00
95
1,780
1.7
990
1,7
12,21
6
33
Ontar
io1.2
7Ro
ofto
p - A
ncho
red
2011
2020
3154
7,000
694,6
90
1.799
0
1,249
,721
42Po
rtervi
lle6.7
7Gr
ound
Mou
nt20
1020
2030
300,0
00
2,0
31,00
0
1.7
639
3,5
82,55
2
44
Perri
s110
.15Ro
ofto
p - F
loatin
g20
127
2019
521,0
00
5,2
88,15
0
1.3
786
6,5
00,00
0
48
Redla
nds
6.77
Roof
top
- Anc
hore
d20
1320
2033
547,0
00
3,7
03,19
0
1.8
711
6,9
29,09
7
No
t Spe
cified
2011
2020
3191
.4381
,376,3
40
1/ Pr
opos
ed re
mov
al co
sts eq
ual t
o fo
reca
st ca
pital
expe
nditu
res t
o re
flect
retir
emen
t of a
ssets
in 20
19.
188
Workpaper – Southern California Edison / 2021 General Rate Case
Exhibit No. SCE-07 Vol.03 Ch I-VI Bk A Witness: D. Gunn
SCE-07, Volume. 03, Results of Operations Depreciation Study
Chapter V: Generation Plant Witness: David Gunn
Fuel Cell
189
Workpaper – Southern California Edison / 2021 General Rate Case
Exhibit No. SCE-07 Vol.03 Ch I-VI Bk A Witness: D. Gunn
Southern California Edison2021 GRC Depreciation StudyCal State San Bernardino Fuel Cell Removal Estimatein Dollars
PROJECT NAME (auto populates)
Hourly Rate Estimated Hrs AmountNormal Time 60.00 0.00 $0.00
Over Time 90.00 0.00 $0.00Double Time 120.00 0.00 $0.00
Hourly Rate Estimated Hrs AmountNormal Time 60.00 0.00 $0.00
Over Time 90.00 0.00 $0.00Double Time 120.00 0.00 $0.00
AMOUNT TOTALDescription: $0
MATERIAL TOTAL $0
AMOUNT TOTAL$0
ContractInstallation$0
$25,000$20,000
Crane (25 Days) $157,500 ContractConstruction Site Rep $45,000 Removal50 Days Labor to Remove Equipment $100,000 $2,281,183Trucks to Haul Equipment & Disposal $720,000Concrete Demo/Removal/Haul $280,000Disconnect Utilities/Remove Conduit $140,000Earthwork $199,680Contingency $594,003
CONTRACTOR TOTAL $2,281,183
OTHER Amount AMOUNT TOTALMeals & Lodging $6,000
Equipment Rental
OTHER TOTAL $6,000
IMMs: AMOUNT TOTALHelicopter : ($550.00 per hour) Hours: 0 $0.00 $0IMM - Material Transport & Sourcing $0IMM - Contract $22,840IMM-Drawing Reprographics 0 $0
$0$0
IMM TOTAL $22,840
TOTAL ESTIMATE (based on above entries) LABOR $89,978MATERIAL $0CONTRACT $2,281,183 NEED TO BREAK DOWN BY CPR INSTALL/REMOVAL BELOWOTHER $6,000IMM'S $22,840
$2,400,000
$89,978
PART 1 - COST BREAKDOWN WORKSHEET Fill out blue fields only - yellow fields contain formulas and/or auto-fill
BUDGET YEARS (auto populates) 2023-2024San Bernardino Fell Cell Removal
SCE INSTALL LABOR SCE INSTALL LABOR $0
SCE REMOVAL LABOR $75,000
SCE REMOVAL LABORSCE LABOR - GRAND TOTAL
CONTRACT SERVICES Install
(Includes Paid Absence)
MATERIAL
Removal PermittingMobilization
GRAND TOTAL
1
190
Workpaper – Southern California Edison / 2021 General Rate Case
Exhibit No. SCE-07 Vol.03 Ch I-VI Bk A Witness: D. Gunn
Southern California Edison2021 GRC Depreciation StudyUC Santa Barbara Fuel Cell Removal Estimatein Dollars
PROJECT NAME (auto populates)
Hourly Rate Estimated Hrs AmountNormal Time 60.00 0.00 $0.00
Over Time 90.00 0.00 $0.00Double Time 120.00 0.00 $0.00
Hourly Rate Estimated Hrs AmountNormal Time 60.00 0.00 $0.00
Over Time 90.00 0.00 $0.00Double Time 120.00 0.00 $0.00
AMOUNT TOTALDescription: $0
MATERIAL TOTAL $0
AMOUNT TOTAL$0
ContractInstallation$0
$25,000$20,000
Crane (5 Days) $35,000 ContractConstruction Site Rep $15,000 Removal10 Days Labor to Remove Equipment $20,000 $531,670Trucks to Haul Equipment & Disposal $120,000Concrete Demo/Removal/Haul $70,000Disconnect Utilities/Remove Conduit $70,000Earthwork $49,920Contingency $106,750
CONTRACTOR TOTAL $531,670
OTHER Amount AMOUNT TOTALMeals & Lodging $3,000
Equipment Rental
OTHER TOTAL $3,000
IMMs: AMOUNT TOTALHelicopter : ($550.00 per hour) Hours: 0 $0.00 $0IMM - Material Transport & Sourcing $0IMM - Contract $5,345IMM-Drawing Reprographics 0 $0
$0$0
IMM TOTAL $5,345
TOTAL ESTIMATE (based on above entries) LABOR $59,985MATERIAL $0CONTRACT $531,670 NEED TO BREAK DOWN BY CPR INSTALL/REMOVAL BELOWOTHER $3,000IMM'S $5,345
$600,000GRAND TOTAL
Removal PermittingMobilization
CONTRACT SERVICES Install
$59,985(Includes Paid Absence)
MATERIAL
$45,000
SCE REMOVAL LABOR $5,000
SCE REMOVAL LABORSCE LABOR - GRAND TOTAL
SCE INSTALL LABOR SCE INSTALL LABOR
PART 1 - COST BREAKDOWN WORKSHEET Fill out blue fields only - yellow fields contain formulas and/or auto-fill
BUDGET YEARS (auto populates) 2022-2023Santa Barbara Fell Cell Removal
1
191
Workpaper – Southern California Edison / 2021 General Rate Case
Exhibit No. SCE-07 Vol.03 Ch I-VI Bk A Witness: D. Gunn
SCE-07, Volume. 03, Results of Operations Depreciation Study
Chapter VI: General and Intangible Witness: David Gunn
G&I Rate Determination Schedule
192
Workpaper – Southern California Edison / 2021 General Rate Case
Exhibit No. SCE-07 Vol.03 Ch I-VI Bk A Witness: D. Gunn
Southern California Edison
Rate Determ
ination Schedule | General and In
tangible Plant
in Dollars
As of :
12/31/2018
Ave
rage
Service Life
Remaining Life
Adjustment for Reserve Deficit/(Surplus)
Depreciation Rate Summary
Line
FERC
Gross
Accumulated
Prior GRC
Curren
tPrior GRC
Curren
tTh
eoretical
Reserve
Authorized
Forecast
Prop.
Authorized
Proposed
No.
Account
Description
Plant
Dep
reciation
Authorized
GRC Prop.
Authorized
GRC Prop.
Reserve
Imbalan
ceRes. A
dj.
TY Res. Imb.
Ann. A
dj.
Rate
Adj.
Total A
cc.
Rate
Adj.
Total A
cc.
AB
CD
EF
GH
I=H‐E
JK=I‐J*2
L=K/3
M=1
/FN=J
O=D
*M+N
P=1
/GQ=L
R=D
*P+Q
General P
lant
1.
389.2
Easemen
ts3,282,268
60
60
1.67
%‐
54,704
1.
67%
‐ 54,704
2.
General ‐ Lan
d Rights
3,282,268
707,317
60
.060
.01.67%
‐ 54,704
1.67%
‐ 54,704
3.
391.FRN
Office Fu
rniture
224,705,808
20
20
5.00
%‐
11,235,290
5.00
%‐
11,235,290
4.
391.EQP
Office Eq
uipmen
t29,999,168
5
520
.00%
‐ 5,999,834
20
.00%
‐ 5,999,834
5.
391.CMN
Furniture and Equipmen
t not Classified
404,920
10.2
14.8
9.80
%‐
39,698
6.
76%
‐ 27,356
6.
Furniture & Equipment
255,109,896
101,863,699
14.8
14.8
109,
613,
264
7,74
9,56
5
1,144,105
5,46
1,35
6
1,82
0,45
2
6.77%
1,144,105
18,418,927
6.76%
1,820,452
19,055,576
7.
391.CMP
PC's, M
ainfram
es, and PC Software
378,184,957
55
20.0
0%‐
75,636,991
20.0
0%‐
75,636,991
8.
Computers
378,184,957
189,941,799
5.0
5.0
180,
902,
212
(9,0
39,5
87)
748,965
(10,
537,
517)
(3,5
12,5
06)
20.00%
748,965
76,385,957
20.00%
(3,512,506)
72,124,486
9.
SM ‐ 5yr
DDSM
S ‐ Five Yea
r533,814
5
10
20.0
0%‐
106,763
10
.00%
‐ 53,381
10.
SM ‐ 7yr
DDSM
S ‐ CPU & Processing
61,972,983
7
10
14.2
9%‐
8,853,283
10
.00%
‐ 6,197,298
11.
SM ‐ 10yr
DDSM
S ‐ Controllers, R
eceivers, C
omm.
70,768,147
10
10
10.0
0%‐
7,076,815
10
.00%
‐ 7,076,815
12.
SM ‐ 15yr
DDSM
S ‐ Te
lemetering & System
609,803
15
10
6.67
%‐
40,654
10
.00%
‐ 60,980
13.
SM ‐ 20yr
DDSM
S ‐ Miscellaneo
us
6,183,517
20
10
5.00
%‐
309,176
10
.00%
‐ 618,352
14.
Security M
onitoring (DDSM
S)140,068,264
49,205,471
8.5
10.0
53,1
74,6
85
3,96
9,21
5
(878,719)
5,72
6,65
2
1,90
8,88
4
11.70%
(878,719)
15,507,971
10.00%
1,908,884
15,915,710
15.
393
Stores Eq
uipmen
t10,857,965
20
20
5.00
%‐
542,898
5.
00%
‐ 542,898
16.
395
Laboratory Equipmen
t118,526,064
15
15
6.67
%‐
7,901,738
6.
67%
‐ 7,901,738
17.
398
Miscellaneo
us PowerPlant Eq
uipmen
t34,408,570
20
20
5.00
%‐
1,720,428
5.
00%
‐ 1,720,428
18.
Stores/Lab/M
iscella
neous
163,792,599
63,059,568
16.1
16.1
65,2
03,3
88
2,14
3,82
0
138,783
1,86
6,25
4
622,
085
6.21%
138,783
10,303,847
6.21%
622,085
10,787,149
19.
397.005
Data Network Systems
155,870,194
55
55
20.0
0%‐
31,174,039
20.0
0%‐
31,174,039
20.
397.007
Telecomm System Equipmen
t13,093,919
7
77
714
.29%
‐ 1,870,560
14
.29%
‐ 1,870,560
21.
397.010
Netcomm Rad
io Assem
bly
337,308,742
10
10
1010
10.0
0%‐
33,730,874
10.0
0%‐
33,730,874
22.
397.015
Microwave & Antenna Assem
bly
35,195,897
15
15
1515
6.67
%‐
2,346,393
6.
67%
‐ 2,346,393
23.
397.020
Telecomm Power Systems
26,380,478
20
20
2020
5.00
%‐
1,319,024
5.
00%
‐ 1,319,024
24.
397.025
Fiber Optic Comm Cab
les
145,677,807
25
25
25
25
4.00
%‐
5,827,112
4.
00%
‐ 5,827,112
25.
397.040
Telecom In
frastructure
173,847,660
40
40
40
40
2.50
%‐
4,346,191
2.
50%
‐ 4,346,191
26.
397.CMN
Telecomm Equipmen
t not Classified
22,614,475
5.9
17.9
5.9
17.9
16.9
5%‐
3,832,962
5.
58%
‐ 1,262,465
27.
Telecommunications
909,989,172
294,346,123
10.8
11.1
10.8
11.1
379,
329,
027
84,9
82,9
04
10,709,266
63,5
64,3
72
21
,188
,124
9.28%
10,709,266
95,156,421
9.00%
21,188,124
103,064,783
28.
392
Tran
sportation Equipmen
t7,973,065
877,650
7
714
.29%
‐ 1,139,009
14
.29%
‐ 1,139,009
29.
394
Garage, Shop, and Tools Equipmen
t97,999,237
60,588,988
10
10
10.0
0%‐
9,799,924
10
.00%
‐ 9,799,924
30.
396
Power Operated
Equipmen
t788,491
359775.2
15
15
6.67
%‐
52,566
6.
67%
‐ 52,566
31.
General O
ther
106,760,792
58,740,943
9.7
9.7
63,8
64,1
42
5,12
3,19
9
626,029
3,87
1,14
1
1,29
0,38
0
10.30%
626,029
11,617,528
10.30%
1,290,380
12,281,879
Intangible Plant
32.
303.RF
Rad
io Frequency
18,723,340
11,093,024
40
40
‐ 2.
50%
‐ 468,084
2.
50%
‐ 468,084
33.
301.M
IMiscella
neous Intangibles
611,141
272,134
20
20
‐ 5.
00%
‐ 30,557
5.
00%
‐ 30,557
34.
Cap
Soft 5yr
Cap
Soft 5yr
817,200,829
372,417,367
55
413,
641,
142
41,2
23,7
76
2,474,103
36,2
75,5
70
12
,091
,857
20.0
0%2,474,103
165,914,269
20.0
0%12,091,857
175,532,022
35.
Cap
Soft 7yr
Cap
Soft 7yr
171,750,858
94,243,891
7
798
,007
,030
3,
763,
139
1,881,569
0 0
14.2
9%1,881,569
26,417,406
14.2
9%0
24,535,837
36.
Cap
Soft 10yr
Cap
Soft 10yr
1,915,261
(1,016,800)
10
10
1,57
1,86
4
2,58
8,66
4
1,294,332
- -
10.0
0%1,294,332
1,485,858
10
.00%
‐ 191,526
37.
Cap
Soft 15yr
Cap
Soft 15yr
919,963
208,226
15
15
454,
871
246,
644
123,322
0 0
6.67
%123,322
184,653
6.
67%
0 61,331
Catalina Common
94,243,891.48
390.CAT
Catalina Common
600,300
339,228
45
45
‐ 410,328,655
421,821,765
11,493,110
2,97
2,19
1,90
9
193
Workpaper – Southern California Edison / 2021 General Rate Case
Exhibit No. SCE-07 Vol.03 Ch I-VI Bk A Witness: D. Gunn
SCE-07, Volume. 03, Results of Operations Depreciation Study
Chapter VI: General and Intangible Witness: David Gunn
Account 391.4: Power Management System
194
Workpaper – Southern California Edison / 2021 General Rate Case
Exhibit No. SCE-07 Vol.03 Ch I-VI Bk A Witness: D. Gunn
2021 GRC Depreciation Lives
IT – Leon Machado, Steven Renteria;
Account 391.4 – Power Management System
Account 391.4 contains Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition (SCADA) equipment for controlling and
monitoring the SCE electrical system. Contained within this account are the components making up the
Power Management System specifically, computer and data gathering equipment, man‐machine interface,
analog and digital telemetry devices, and data center facility infrastructure. The account consists of
components with very different lives depending upon the technical sophistication and other retirement
factors affecting the equipment. SCE’s power management personnel have assessed this equipment as
having service lives in categories of 5, 7, 10, 15, or 20 years. A dollar weighting of these equipment lives
yields a combined average service life of about 10 years. Each of these equipment life categories are
addressed in the following discussions.
Table III‐13
CPR Account Description
2015‐2017 Authorized
2018‐2020 Proposed
Five‐Year Power Management System Equipment 391.417 Firewall 7 5 391.422 TACACS/Sniffer 10 5 391.405 EMS Web Servers 20 5 391.406 EMS Workstation 20 5 391.430 External Tape Drive 20 5
Seven‐Year Power Management System Equipment 391.401 Bulk Storage 7 7 391.416 USAT Hub 7 7
Ten‐Year Power Management System Equipment 391.402 Communications Network Processor 10 10 391.404 Server Cabinet 10 10 391.411 Large Screen Display System 10 10 391.419 Dynamic Map Board 25 10 391.420 Data Acquisition Controller 10 10 391.429 Digital Wall Chart Recorded 10 10 391.435 Dial‐Up Remote Terminal Unit 10 10
Fifteen‐Year Power Management System Equipment
391.436 Uninterruptible Power Supply 15 15 391.438 Battery System 15 15
Twenty‐Year Power Management System Equipment 391.421 Remote Terminal Unit (RTU) 20 20
195
Workpaper – Southern California Edison / 2021 General Rate Case
Exhibit No. SCE-07 Vol.03 Ch I-VI Bk A Witness: D. Gunn
(1) Five‐Year Power Management System Equipment
Equipment in the 5‐year category is typically modern, digital electronic computer and
microprocessor‐based equipment which is subject to discontinued support by the manufacturer or replaced
with newer equipment within a short period of time. Due to these changing needs, the hardware asset
portfolio will become obsolete if not actively refreshed, which can significantly effect on operations.
Furthermore, these devices contain components like processors, memory, and rotating disk that become
obsolete and/or worn out after five years of continuous use.
(2) Seven‐Year Power Management System Equipment
Equipment in the 7‐year category is typically modern, digital electronic computer and
microprocessor‐based equipment which is subject to discontinued support by the manufacturer or replaced
with newer equipment within a short period of time. Furthermore, these devices contain rotating disk,
printers and CRTs that become obsolete and/or worn out after seven years of continuous use.
(3) Ten‐Year Power Management System Equipment
SCE’s power management personnel indicate that the ten‐year lived equipment is less sophisticated
than the typical 7‐year items. They contain digital electronics as well as some electromechanical devices.
Most of this equipment is specialized, proprietary and generally supported by the vendor for 10 years. Past
experience indicates this equipment will be replaced after about 10 years.
(4) Fifteen‐Year Power Management System Equipment
Telemetry equipment is analog devices with mostly user repairable parts. They do not contain a
high degree of sophistication and with proper maintenance, these devices should last approximately 15
years. The Uninterruptible Power System is an electromechanical device with a rated life of about 15 years.
Beyond 15 years both of these devices require high levels of maintenance due to passive component
failures and electromechanical malfunction
(5) Twenty‐Year Power Management System Equipment
Twenty‐year power management system equipment contains hardened substation field equipment
used for data gathering. The equipment is highly fault‐tolerant and is typically supported by the vendor for
approximately 20 years. Also included here are Wall Strip Chart Recorders and Backup Control Systems.
These are robust analog devices containing some passive electronics typically rated for 20 years of service.
196
Workpaper – Southern California Edison / 2021 General Rate Case
Exhibit No. SCE-07 Vol.03 Ch I-VI Bk A Witness: D. Gunn
SCE-07, Volume. 03, Results of Operations Depreciation Study
Chapter VI: General and Intangible Witness: David Gunn
Telecommunications Engineering Survey
197
Workpaper – Southern California Edison / 2021 General Rate Case
Exhibit No. SCE-07 Vol.03 Ch I-VI Bk A Witness: D. Gunn
Sout
hern
Cali
forn
ia Ed
ison
Com
pany
2021
GRC
Dep
recia
tion S
tudy
Telec
omm
unica
tions
Engin
eerin
g Su
rvey
in Th
ousa
nds o
f Doll
ars
Ret.
Aver
age S
ervic
e Life
Unit
Desc
riptio
nCa
uses
of R
etire
men
tYE
2018
Plan
tAu
thor
ized
Prop
osed
Chan
ge5-
Year
Telec
omm
Equi
pmen
t55
0Da
ta Ne
twor
k Sys
tem
No lo
nger
supp
orte
d by
vend
or; e
quipm
ent f
ailur
e; fac
ility r
eloca
tion o
r dec
omm
ission
; insta
lled
syste
m d
oesn
't hav
e su
fficie
nt ca
pacit
y to
mee
t net
work
requ
irem
ents.
$155
,254
55
0
7-Ye
ar Te
lecom
m Eq
uipm
ent
137
RF Ex
tend
er fo
r SC
$8,14
57
70
545
Data
Netw
ork I
nter
conn
ect S
yste
m$4
47
70
559
Vide
ocon
feren
cing
Syste
mNo
long
er su
ppor
ted
by ve
ndor
; equ
ipmen
t fail
ure;
facilit
y relo
catio
n or d
ecom
miss
ion; in
stalle
d sy
stem
doe
sn't h
ave
suffi
cient
capa
city t
o m
eet n
etwo
rk re
quire
men
ts.$4
,023
77
0
10-Y
ear T
eleco
mm
Equi
pmen
t09
8iD
irect
Rem
ote S
atCom
Stati
ons (
VSAT
)No
long
er su
ppor
ted
by ve
ndor
; equ
ipmen
t fail
ure;
facilit
y relo
catio
n or d
ecom
miss
ion; in
stalle
d sy
stem
doe
sn't h
ave
suffi
cient
capa
city t
o m
eet n
etwo
rk re
quire
men
ts.$1
0,625
1010
0
110
Radio
Base
Stati
on C
ontro
l Sys
tem
No lo
nger
supp
orte
d by
vend
or; e
quipm
ent f
ailur
e; fac
ility r
eloca
tion o
r dec
omm
ission
; con
solde
no lo
nger
need
ed b
y us
er.
$45,1
6110
100
130
Telep
hone
Syste
mNo
long
er su
ppor
ted
by ve
ndor
; equ
ipmen
t fail
ure;
facilit
y relo
catio
n or d
ecom
miss
ion; in
stalle
d sy
stem
doe
sn't h
ave
suffi
cient
capa
city t
o m
eet s
ite p
hone
requ
irem
ents.
$3,57
710
100
135
Circu
it Tre
atmen
tEq
uipm
ent f
ailur
e; fac
ility r
eloca
tion o
r dec
omm
ission
; rem
oval
or re
place
men
t of c
ircuit
s.$4
2410
100
145
Tran
smiss
ion Eq
uipm
ent
No lo
nger
supp
orte
d by
vend
or; e
quipm
ent f
ailur
e; fac
ility r
eloca
tion o
r dec
omm
ission
; insta
lled
syste
m d
oesn
't hav
e su
fficie
nt ca
pacit
y to
mee
t net
work
requ
irem
ents.
$171
1010
0
151
Light
wave
Tran
smiss
ion Eq
uipm
ent
No lo
nger
supp
orte
d by
vend
or; e
quipm
ent f
ailur
e; fac
ility r
eloca
tion o
r dec
omm
ission
; insta
lled
syste
m d
oesn
't hav
e su
fficie
nt ca
pacit
y to
mee
t net
work
requ
irem
ents.
$91,9
8010
100
153
Sync
Equip
men
tNo
long
er su
ppor
ted
by ve
ndor
; equ
ipmen
t fail
ure;
facilit
y relo
catio
n or d
ecom
miss
ion; in
stalle
d sy
stem
doe
sn't h
ave
suffi
cient
capa
city t
o m
eet n
etwo
rk re
quire
men
ts.$3
,962
1010
0
154
Micr
owav
e Tra
nsm
ission
Equip
men
tNo
long
er su
ppor
ted
by ve
ndor
; equ
ipmen
t fail
ure;
facilit
y relo
catio
n or d
ecom
miss
ion; in
stalle
d sy
stem
doe
sn't h
ave
suffi
cient
capa
city t
o m
eet n
etwo
rk re
quire
men
ts.$2
5,910
1010
0
155
Chan
nel E
quipm
ent A
ssem
blyNo
long
er su
ppor
ted
by ve
ndor
; equ
ipmen
t fail
ure;
facilit
y relo
catio
n or d
ecom
miss
ion; in
stalle
d sy
stem
doe
sn't h
ave
suffi
cient
capa
city t
o m
eet n
etwo
rk re
quire
men
ts.$5
0,786
1010
0
160
Com
mun
icatio
ns A
larm
/Con
trol S
yste
mNo
long
er su
ppor
ted
by ve
ndor
; equ
ipmen
t fail
ure;
facilit
y relo
catio
n or d
ecom
miss
ion; in
stalle
d sy
stem
doe
sn't h
ave
suffi
cient
capa
city t
o m
eet n
etwo
rk re
quire
men
ts.$2
9,505
1010
0
540
Mob
ile/P
ortab
le Un
itNo
long
er su
ppor
ted
by ve
ndor
; equ
ipmen
t fail
ure;
facilit
y relo
catio
n or d
ecom
miss
ion; ra
dio no
long
er ne
eded
by
user
.$1
1,059
1010
0
561
NetC
omm
Rad
io As
sem
blyEq
uipm
ent f
ailur
e; re
mov
al or
repla
cem
ent o
f ser
vices
utiliz
ing ra
dios.
$55,7
7410
100
562
NetC
omm
Con
trol &
Mon
itorin
g Sy
stem
No lo
nger
supp
orte
d by
vend
or; e
quipm
ent f
ailur
e; fac
ility r
eloca
tion o
r dec
omm
ission
; insta
lled
syste
m d
oesn
't hav
e su
fficie
nt ca
pacit
y to
mee
t net
work
requ
irem
ents.
$4,46
710
100
990
Spar
e Par
tsEq
uipm
ent f
ailur
e; sp
are p
arts
no lo
nger
requ
ired
due t
o re
tirem
ent o
f sys
tem
s.$1
0910
100
15-Y
ear T
eleco
mm
Equi
pmen
t09
9Pu
blic A
ddre
ss Sy
stem
(PA)
Equip
men
t fail
ure;
facilit
y relo
catio
n or d
ecom
miss
ion; in
stalle
d sy
stem
doe
sn't h
ave s
uffic
ient c
apac
ity to
mee
t re
quire
men
ts.$1
0015
150
136
Com
mun
icatio
n Equ
ipmen
t – M
icrow
ave
$306
1515
014
0iD
irect
SatC
om H
ubNo
long
er su
ppor
ted
by ve
ndor
; equ
ipmen
t fail
ure;
facilit
y relo
catio
n or d
ecom
miss
ion; in
stalle
d sy
stem
doe
sn't h
ave
suffi
cient
capa
city t
o m
eet n
etwo
rk re
quire
men
ts.$5
9515
150
152
Cable
Prot
ectio
nEq
uipm
ent f
ailur
e; re
mov
al or
repla
cem
ent o
f cab
les.
$127
1515
025
5An
tenn
a Ass
embly
Equip
men
t fail
ure;
facilit
y relo
catio
n or d
ecom
miss
ion; re
mov
al or
repla
cem
ent o
f sys
tem
s usin
g an
tenn
as.
$19,2
7615
150
300
Radio
Tran
smiss
ion Eq
uipm
ent
No lo
nger
supp
orte
d by
vend
or; e
quipm
ent f
ailur
e; fac
ility r
eloca
tion o
r dec
omm
ission
; insta
lled
syste
m d
oesn
't hav
e su
fficie
nt ca
pacit
y to
mee
t net
work
requ
irem
ents.
$14,7
6915
150
198
Workpaper – Southern California Edison / 2021 General Rate Case
Exhibit No. SCE-07 Vol.03 Ch I-VI Bk A Witness: D. Gunn
Sout
hern
Cali
forn
ia Ed
ison
Com
pany
2021
GRC
Dep
recia
tion S
tudy
Telec
omm
unica
tions
Engin
eerin
g Su
rvey
in Th
ousa
nds o
f Doll
ars
Ret.
Aver
age S
ervic
e Life
Unit
Desc
riptio
nCa
uses
of R
etire
men
tYE
2018
Plan
tAu
thor
ized
Prop
osed
Chan
ge20
-Yea
r Tele
com
m Eq
uipm
ent
240
D.C.
Powe
r Sys
tem
Equip
men
t fail
ure;
facilit
y relo
catio
n or d
ecom
miss
ion; in
stalle
d sy
stem
doe
sn't h
ave s
uffic
ient c
apac
ity to
mee
t pow
er
requ
irem
ents.
$24,7
6420
200
245
Electr
ical P
ower
Gen
erati
on Sy
stem
Equip
men
t fail
ure;
facilit
y relo
catio
n or d
ecom
miss
ion; in
stalle
d sy
stem
doe
sn't h
ave s
uffic
ient c
apac
ity to
mee
t pow
er
requ
irem
ents.
$1,51
820
200
25-Y
ear T
eleco
mm
Equi
pmen
t80
2Co
mm
unica
tion C
able,
Ove
rhea
d, Fib
er O
ptic
Equip
men
t fail
ure o
r dam
age b
y wea
ther
and
othe
r fac
tors;
rem
oval
or re
place
men
t of c
omm
unica
tions
cable
s to
mee
t inc
reas
ed ca
pacit
y nee
ds.
$98,4
4025
250
806
Com
mun
icatio
n Cab
le, U
nder
grou
nd, F
iber O
ptic
Equip
men
t fail
ure o
r dam
age b
y wea
ther
and
othe
r fac
tors;
rem
oval
or re
place
men
t of c
omm
unica
tions
cable
s to
mee
t inc
reas
ed ca
pacit
y nee
ds.
$48,0
1625
250
40-Y
ear T
eleco
mm
Equi
pmen
t00
0Co
mm
unica
tion E
quipm
ent -
Telep
hone
$1,60
040
400
055
Man
hole,
Vau
lt, Pu
llbox
Stru
cture
failu
re o
r dam
age b
y wea
ther
and
othe
r fac
tors;
rem
oval
or re
place
men
t of c
omm
unica
tions
cable
s; str
uctu
ral
activ
ity ar
ound
the v
ault.
$9,08
140
400
065
Cros
sarm
Com
mun
icatio
n (wo
od)
$1,01
640
400
070
Cros
sarm
Com
mun
icatio
n (ste
el)$1
240
400
100
Com
mun
icatio
n Equ
ipmen
t - Te
lepho
ne$5
,689
4040
025
0Cr
ossa
rm C
omm
unica
tion (
wood
)$5
4040
033
0Po
le, W
ood
- Edis
on So
lely O
wned
Equip
men
t fail
ure o
r dam
age b
y wea
ther
and
othe
r fac
tors;
rem
oval
or re
place
men
t of c
omm
unica
tions
cable
s.$1
,938
4040
043
0Sw
itch,
Disc
onne
ctEq
uipm
ent f
ailur
e or d
amag
e by w
eath
er an
d ot
her f
acto
rs; re
mov
al or
repla
cem
ent o
f com
mun
icatio
ns ca
bles.
$101
4040
060
0Po
le, W
ood
- Join
t For
eign S
etEq
uipm
ent f
ailur
e or d
amag
e by w
eath
er an
d ot
her f
acto
rs; re
mov
al or
repla
cem
ent o
f com
mun
icatio
ns ca
bles.
$145
4040
079
0Co
nduc
tor, O
pen W
ire C
omm
unica
tion
Equip
men
t fail
ure o
r dam
age b
y wea
ther
and
othe
r fac
tors;
rem
oval
or re
place
men
t of c
omm
unica
tions
cable
s.$2
,252
4040
080
1Co
mm
unica
tion C
able,
Ove
rhea
d, Co
pper
Jack
eted
Equip
men
t fail
ure o
r dam
age b
y wea
ther
and
othe
r fac
tors;
rem
oval
or re
place
men
t of c
omm
unica
tions
cable
s to
mee
t inc
reas
ed ca
pacit
y nee
ds.
$17,8
7740
400
805
Com
mun
icatio
n Cab
le, U
nder
grou
nd, C
oppe
r Jac
kete
dEq
uipm
ent f
ailur
e or d
amag
e by w
eath
er an
d ot
her f
acto
rs; re
mov
al or
repla
cem
ent o
f com
mun
icatio
ns ca
bles t
o m
eet
incre
ased
capa
city n
eeds
.$1
3,364
4040
0
821
Com
mun
icatio
n Rise
rEq
uipm
ent f
ailur
e or d
amag
e by w
eath
er an
d ot
her f
acto
rs; re
mov
al or
repla
cem
ent o
f com
mun
icatio
ns ca
bles.
$3,84
240
400
825
Ante
nna S
uppo
rt St
ructu
reEq
uipm
ent f
ailur
e or d
amag
e by w
eath
er an
d ot
her f
acto
rs; fa
cility
reloc
ation
or d
ecom
miss
ion; re
mov
al, re
place
men
t, or
addit
ions o
f sys
tem
s usin
g an
tenn
as.
$31,1
8440
400
865
Com
mun
icatio
n Con
duit S
yste
mEq
uipm
ent f
ailur
e or d
amag
e by w
eath
er an
d ot
her f
acto
rs; re
mov
al or
repla
cem
ent o
f com
mun
icatio
ns ca
bles.
$68,9
0940
400
899
Grou
nd El
ectro
de an
d Co
nnec
ting
$12
4040
0
199
Workpaper – Southern California Edison / 2021 General Rate Case
Exhibit No. SCE-07 Vol.03 Ch I-VI Bk A Witness: D. Gunn
SCE-07, Volume. 03, Results of Operations Depreciation Study
Chapter IV: T&D Service Life Witness: Dr. Ronald E. White
T&D Engineering Survey
200
Workpaper – Southern California Edison / 2021 General Rate Case
Exhibit No. SCE-07 Vol.03 Ch I-VI Bk A Witness: D. Gunn
Account 353 Station Equipment
1. What are the major forces of retirement?
Major factors affecting retirements—equipment failure and obsolescence—increase with age.
Regarding internal equipment failure, the engineers state that the thermal, mechanical, and
electrical aging factors are cumulative and will cause retirements to increase as the equipment
gets older. The engineers further state that beginning around 30 years of age station equipment
experience insulation degradation, increased in-service failures, and increased maintenance
requirements. Increased maintenance costs and low utilization factors can tip the scales in favor
replacing the older equipment. When parts wear out at this advanced age, the replacements are
more difficult to obtain or simply unavailable for various reasons including the fact that it may
be uneconomic for the manufacturers to maintain inventory for the older substation equipment or
the manufacturer has gone out of business. Additionally, engineers have indicated that increases
in load may necessitate early replacement of current assets to accommodate for load
requirements. Although we have not made adjustments in our analysis to reflect this, it will
likely result in a decrease to the service life of existing assets. Such factors will be considered
again in future depreciation studies.
2. What approaches are utilized by the company to enhance service lives, integrity,
and safety?
Southern California Edison’s (SCE) maintenance program meets or exceeds industry standards.
SCE takes a Condition Based Maintenance (CBM) approach to manage all our transformer and
circuit breaker assets and has been in place for over ten years. This approach combines
assessment based on results from our transformer and circuit breaker oil analysis program, any
off-line diagnostic test results--as well as visual inspections and functional checks. This
information is used to determine if repairs of components or replacement is required. The
purpose of our routine maintenance and inspection program is to assess overall condition of for
transformers and circuit breakers. In general, a thorough external visual inspection and testing
program can identify incipient electrical or mechanical anomalies.
201
Workpaper – Southern California Edison / 2021 General Rate Case
Exhibit No. SCE-07 Vol.03 Ch I-VI Bk A Witness: D. Gunn
However, even with the best maintenance practices, transformer and circuit breaker end-of-life
condition is still eminent. Transformer and circuit breaker insulation integrity or mechanical
components degrades over time to a point that any electrical or mechanical disturbance can cause
an unplanned event to occur. This requires a more in-depth approach for assessing end-of-life.
SCE proactively tries to mitigate unplanned events by the utilization of our health index tool.
This tool allows us to track the health of these critical assets throughout its entire life and make
informed and comprehensive decisions of our entire transformer fleet by the analysis of
additional key data (age, design, moisture, loading, exposure to faults, obsolete parts, and other
criteria). This tool allows us to ranks our transformer circuit breaker fleet, based on the health
index, and identifies which assets are at most risk for potential failure or an unplanned event. In
addition, this information also allows us to extend life since the health is known or plan for
replacement through our infrastructure replacement program.
Sources: John Mount Manager, Field Operations, Substation Construction & Maintenance
Joel Karzen Manager, Regulatory Compliance, Substation Construction & Maintenance
202
Workpaper – Southern California Edison / 2021 General Rate Case
Exhibit No. SCE-07 Vol.03 Ch I-VI Bk A Witness: D. Gunn
Account 354 Towers and Fixtures
1. What are the major forces of retirement?
The retirement factors that affect towers can include line upgrades, corrosion, relocations (i.e., in
case of lower voltage structures), and failures resulting from wind storms, ice, or floods. Line
upgrades will generally not be expected to impact newer towers. In the case of corrosive
deterioration, the impacts would be expected to be cumulative. That is, the resulting retirements
would not be equally distributed across the entire life span of the assets but would increase as the
towers reach an advanced age. Although storm damage can generally be expected to impact
retirements at any age, in combination with deterioration, the probability of failure is cumulative.
Although very difficult to estimate given retirement experience, SCE engineers suggest that,
unaffected by upgrades and relocations, some of the structures could reach and possibly exceed
100 years of age.
2. What approaches are utilized by the company to enhance service lives, integrity,
and safety?
SCE performs regular maintenance and annual inspections on all transmission towers and
performs subsequent maintenance identified from those inspections.
3. What are the main sources of gross salvage and cost of removal?
Gross salvage is generally scrap value received for recycling, selling, or reusing equipment that
has been retired. Cost of removal is mostly labor cost but can also include the cost of equipment
used to help remove assets (e.g., cranes).
Sources: Ed McCann Manager, RPPM/Compliance, Transmission Organization
Kyle Ferree Advisor, RPPM/Compliance, Transmission Organization
203
Workpaper – Southern California Edison / 2021 General Rate Case
Exhibit No. SCE-07 Vol.03 Ch I-VI Bk A Witness: D. Gunn
Account 355 Transmission Poles
General Information: Transmission Poles Transmission wood poles are normally categorized in sizes ranging from 65 to 125 feet in length. The two predominant species of wood poles used in the Edison system are Douglas-fir and Western red cedar. The majority of these poles were treated with the wood preservative creosote. Currently, all wood poles utilized in the Edison system are Douglas-fir poles, which are treated with pentachlorophenol in-oil. All wood poles come from the Pacific Northwest, specifically Oregon, Washington, and British Columbia, B.C., Canada. Treatment Processes Butt Treatment Process Transmission pole make-up consisted of basically two treatment process; butt treat and full length treatment. In the early days (from 1900 to 1970’s) Edison transmission department utilized predominately butt treated western red cedar poles. These poles were “thermal” treated, using a hot –cold treatment process. Poles were placed in an open-tank for 12 hours.
Butt Treatment Open Tank Butt Treated – Western red cedar poles Butt treated poles provided limited protection, since only the butt area of the structure is treated with a wood preservative for protection and roughly two-thirds of the rest of the pole is unprotected. This could allow the wood pole to become vulnerable to be attacked by insects or decay fungi. This will reduce the service of the wood pole.
204
Workpaper – Southern California Edison / 2021 General Rate Case
Exhibit No. SCE-07 Vol.03 Ch I-VI Bk A Witness: D. Gunn
Full Length Treatment Process The full length treatment process is the preferred way of protecting our wood structures today. This process has been utilized since the early fifties. Wood poles are pressured treated in long cylinders. A typical treatment cycle consist of the following; conditioning of material, heating of preservative, vacuum, pressure, expansion bath, vacuum excess preservative, and then final stream. The total time to treat a charge of untreated wood poles ranges from 15 to in excess of 60 hours.
The above picture shows untreated poles on a tram. A typical cylinder is approximately 100 to 140 foot long.
The above picture shows a typical cylinder which poles were pressure treated with a wood preservative
The above picture shows a freshly treated tram of poles. All of the surface area is protected with a wood preservative of choice.
205
Workpaper – Southern California Edison / 2021 General Rate Case
Exhibit No. SCE-07 Vol.03 Ch I-VI Bk A Witness: D. Gunn
Full length treated poles protects the wood structure from decay and insect attack. Currently, all of our wood poles are treated with pentachlorophenol and are full length treated.
** Edison is currently purchasing all its transmission poles which are treated with a new process called “Through-Boring.” This process minimizes the attack from decay and insects at the groundline zones. This process basically protects 100 percent of the total cross section of the wood pole. Historically, poles were treated in a manner which only gave protection to the outer ¾” to 2” portion of the cross section of the pole, leaving the internal portion of the pole untreated and therefore, unprotected. This left the unprotected area of the wood pole subject to attack from decay or insects. *** Composite poles are a new product and do not have the actual in-service life as a wood pole.
Old Treatment Process New “Through-Boring” Treatment Process
Maintenance Items That Extent Service Life Since the early eighties, Edison has implemented a program to intrusively inspect all in-service wood poles. As part of the process of inspecting each wood structure, all poles that pass the intrusive inspection are given a protection boost by applying internal fumigants and insecticides to extent and protect the pole from future attack from decay and insects. This process extents the service life by approximately 10 to 15 years.
206
Workpaper – Southern California Edison / 2021 General Rate Case
Exhibit No. SCE-07 Vol.03 Ch I-VI Bk A Witness: D. Gunn
The above picture shows an in-service wood structure being intrusively inspected. Statistically, 94 percent of the time a transmission wood structure passes the intrusive inspection.
All Other Maintenance Repairs Transmission utilizes only one method of repair to extent the service life of there wood structures. The reinforcement repair system extents a minimum of 10 years of service life. These two repair systems are currently being used in our system. Steel Stub Repair System Fiberglass Wrap Repair System (Distribution and Transmission Used) (Distribution Use Only)
Major Causes of Wood Pole Failures (Retirements)
o Deterioration – external, internal, top rot, split tops, etc.
o Vehicle damage o Wind damage o Storm damage o Farm equipment damage o Fire damage o Woodpecker damage o Removal – Rule 20A ; underground projects
What influence does age have on wood pole failures (retirements)?
The influence of age on any wood structure, which has failed is largely due to geographic location and environmental conditions, as well as climactic episodes. Edison’s wood pole plant is located in agriculture, desert, rural, and metropolitan communities. As a result of the different types of communities, the rejection rate from the intrusive inspection program has varied from year to year. The performance of the poles is tracked by conducting an annual intrusive inspection, as defined by General Order 165.
207
Workpaper – Southern California Edison / 2021 General Rate Case
Exhibit No. SCE-07 Vol.03 Ch I-VI Bk A Witness: D. Gunn
Expected Wear-Out Life of Edison’s Wood Poles: The expected wear-out life of an Edison transmission wood pole based on today’s population (different treatment types) should last approximately 40 to 50 years. Edison’s territory is basically a desert community with pockets of agriculture lands mixed in. The American Wood Preservers’ Association, Decay Zone Map shows California as a low decay zone based on low rejection rates of wood structures. In average, Edison does not experience a large number of poles that just go over. In most cases, less than a handful of structures fail and go over.
What does the future hold for transmission poles? Has the total number of poles in the system remained stable, increased, or decreased, in the past few years? There should be an increase of non-wood products used (Light Weight Steel Poles and Steel Trussing) in the Edison system and with the use of the new “Through-Boring” process; there should be an increase in average service life.
Light Duty Steel Poles
208
Workpaper – Southern California Edison / 2021 General Rate Case
Exhibit No. SCE-07 Vol.03 Ch I-VI Bk A Witness: D. Gunn
(Six foot protection zone = 2 feet above groundline + 4 feet below groundline)
Sources: Transmission & Distribution Pole Program Organization
209
Workpaper – Southern California Edison / 2021 General Rate Case
Exhibit No. SCE-07 Vol.03 Ch I-VI Bk A Witness: D. Gunn
Account 356 Transmission Overhead Conductor 1. What are the major forces of retirement?
The factors affecting the transmission conductor retirements include replacement for loading
concerns, deterioration resulting from atmospheric corrosion, fatigue failure due to conductor
vibration, storm damage, failure of splices or dead-ends, relocation (e.g., highway widening, dam
site construction, etc.), Rule 20 conversion of overhead facilities to underground, circuit
upgrades, system re-configuration, and retirement of idle facilities (e.g., closure of generation
facilities, loss of large customer). Together these factors mean a low level of retirements in the
early years. The impacts of corrosion and vibration fatigue accumulate over time and will affect
retirements at an advanced age. Retirements driven by circuit upgrades are not expected to occur
at an early age. However, some sub-transmission conductors may be relocated or converted to
underground, the likelihood of this occurring on higher transmission voltages is remote.
2. What approaches are utilized by the company to enhance service lives, integrity,
and safety?
SCE performs regular maintenance and performs annual inspections on all transmission
overhead conductor, splices and connectors and performs subsequent maintenance identified
from those inspections.
3. What are the main sources of gross salvage and cost of removal?
Gross salvage is generally scrap value received for recycling, selling, or reusing equipment that
has been retired. Cost of removal is mostly labor cost but can also include the cost of equipment
used to help remove assets (e.g., cranes).
4. What are the main types and sizes of conductor?
Please see attachment “Transmission Overhead Conductor Table.”
5. Have there been any concerns about certain types of conductor on the system?
All transmission conductor currently in use meets current standards. Transmission conductors are
regularly inspected by field and/or engineering personnel. New products and emerging
technologies are studied and approved or rejected by engineering.
210
Workpaper – Southern California Edison / 2021 General Rate Case
Exhibit No. SCE-07 Vol.03 Ch I-VI Bk A Witness: D. Gunn
Sources: Ed McCann Manager, RPPM/Compliance, Transmission Organization
Kyle Ferree
Advisor, RPPM/Compliance, Transmission Organization
211
Workpaper – Southern California Edison / 2021 General Rate Case
Exhibit No. SCE-07 Vol.03 Ch I-VI Bk A Witness: D. Gunn
Conductor Table
SCE Internal
Approved by:
TOH
Transmission Overhead Construction Standards
Effective Date: Sheet 1 of 1
06-29-2012
TO 505 Conductor Table
Table 505–1: Conductor Table
Size StrandDiameter
(in)
Weight (lb/ft)Current
Capacity (Amp)
NominalLength/
Reel(ft)
ConductorCodeDry Greased
2/0Bare
Copper7 0.419 0.411 — 405 4,900 —
4/0Bare
Copper7 0.522 0.654 — 540 3,000 —
4/0ACSR 6X1 0.563 0.291 0.294 415 6,080 Penguin
336,400ACSR 18X1 0.684 0.365 0.381 605 11,390 Merlin
336,400ACSR 30X7 0.741 0.527 0.551 615 9,430 Oriole
605,000ACSR 24X7 0.953 0.779 0.815 885 8,410 Peacock
605,000ACSR 30X19 0.994 0.940 0.984 895 10,490 Teal
605,000ACSR 54X7 0.953 0.779 — 885 — Duck
653,900ACSR 18X3 0.953 0.677 0.709 920 8,500 Edison Bird
954,000SAC 37 1.124 0.896 0.939 1,090 6,400 Magnolia
954,000ACSR 45X7 1.165 1.076 1.147 1,100 13,000 Rail
1,033,500ACSR 54X7 1.246 1.331 1.405 1,240 8,870 Curlew
1,590,000ACSR 45X7 1.502 1.792 1.850 1,615 6,000 Lapwing
2,156,000ACSR 84X19 1.762 2.512 2.600 1,975 4,700 Bluebird
TO 505What’s Changed? Revised conductor diameter and dry weight values for 4/0 bare copper.
212
Workpaper – Southern California Edison / 2021 General Rate Case
Exhibit No. SCE-07 Vol.03 Ch I-VI Bk A Witness: D. Gunn
Account 357 Transmission Underground Conduit
1. What approaches are utilized by the company to enhance service lives, integrity,
and safety?
Transmission underground conduit is inspected prior to installation to ensure integrity and safety
before utilizing in service.
2. What are the main sources of gross salvage and cost of removal?
Underground conduit and substructure are made up of concrete and PVC pipe and has no salvage
value upon removal. Cost of removal includes permits, labor, equipment, and materials to return
the street or property involved to its former state.
3. Do we ever retire conduit in place and not remove it?
Yes, conduit and adjoining substructure is abandoned in field when permitted by governing
authorities/agencies.
4. Do we ever pull cable out of conduit and re-cable using the same conduit?
Yes, this is a common practice utilized by SCE when available and practical.
5. What conditions dictate the use of underground conduit, manholes, and vaults?
Underground conduit, manholes, and vaults are necessary when overhead electrical lines are
converted to underground. Reasons driving the use of underground cable include third party
request, overhead congestion, local aesthetics, environmental concerns, and zoning requirements.
Sources: Ed McCann Manager, RPPM/Compliance, Transmission Organization
Kyle Ferree
Advisor, RPPM/Compliance, Transmission Organization
213
Workpaper – Southern California Edison / 2021 General Rate Case
Exhibit No. SCE-07 Vol.03 Ch I-VI Bk A Witness: D. Gunn
Account 358 Transmission Underground Conductor
1. What are the major forces of retirement?
The major factors affecting retirements include deterioration, failure, relocations, upgrades, and
accidental dig-ins.
2. What approaches are utilized by the company to enhance service lives, integrity,
and safety?
SCE performs regular maintenance and inspections on all transmission underground systems
including cable and performs subsequent maintenance when identified from those inspections.
3. What are the main sources of gross salvage and cost of removal?
Gross salvage is generally scrap value received for recycling, selling, or reusing equipment that
has been retired. Cost of removal is mostly labor cost but can also include the cost of equipment
used to help remove assets (e.g., cranes).
4. What are the main types and sizes of conductor?
Please see attachment “Transmission Underground Cable Table.”
5. Have there been any concerns about certain types of conductor on the system?
In order to keep up with system upgrades of OH conductors, UG cable sizes have increased and
have become and cumbersome and more difficult to work with, causing changes in tools and
work methods.
6. What conditions dictate use of underground conductors and devices?
Conversion of existing overhead conductors to underground is driven by a number of factors
including third party request, Rule 20A conversion and/or zoning requirements, accidental dig
ins, deterioration and relocation are most common.
214
Workpaper – Southern California Edison / 2021 General Rate Case
Exhibit No. SCE-07 Vol.03 Ch I-VI Bk A Witness: D. Gunn
Sources: Ed McCann Manager, RPPM/Compliance, Transmission Organization
Kyle Ferree Advisor, RPPM/Compliance, Transmission Organization
215
Workpaper – Southern California Edison / 2021 General Rate Case
Exhibit No. SCE-07 Vol.03 Ch I-VI Bk A Witness: D. Gunn
INSULATED CABLES
Approval Effective Date
09-25-2015Transmission Underground Construction Standards
SCE Internal
TUG–500
500–14
7.0 Cable AmpacitiesTable 500–3: 115 kV Cable Ratings in Amperes
Revis
ion 4
7
/25/2
015
Sing
le C
ircui
tLo
ad F
acto
rSh
ield
Con
duct
or D
escr
iptio
nC
onfig
urat
ion
1750 C
om
pre
ssed A
lum
inum
Short
ed /
Open
639
835
607
795
574
756
530
702
803
1012
870
1050
863
1038
851
1023
945
1136
2000 C
om
pact C
u. (1
000 M
M S
Q)
Short
ed / O
pen
729
1067
689
1013
655
964
603
895
948
1326
1088
1376
1064
1356
1028
1324
1141
1470
2000 C
om
pre
ssed C
u (
650 m
il X
LP
E)
Short
ed / O
pen
719
1086
680
1032
647
979
594
907
1027
1371
1015
1355
1005
1335
1116
1482
3000 C
om
pre
ssed C
u (
650 m
il X
LP
E)
Short
ed / O
pen
797
1257
752
1190
710
1127
654
1040
1190
1625
1179
1607
1165
1584
1293
1758
3000 C
om
pact S
egm
enta
l A
l (6
50 m
il X
LP
E)
Short
ed / O
pen
771
1123
730
1096
686
1001
629
920
1187
1541
1161
1530
1124
1515
1248
1682
Dou
ble
Circ
uit
Load
Fac
tor
Shie
ldC
ondu
ctor
Des
crip
tion
Con
figur
atio
n
1750 C
om
pre
ssed A
lum
inum
Short
ed /
Open
490
712
455
665
425
621
383
566
714
844
770
982
763
971
752
956
835
1061
2000 C
om
pact C
u. (1
000 M
M S
Q)
Short
ed / O
pen
544
907
505
848
470
792
425
719
863
1101
972
1297
945
1275
905
1239
1005
1375
2000 C
om
pre
ssed C
u (
650 m
il X
LP
E)
Short
ed / O
pen
537
921
499
860
465
804
420
729
900
1276
887
1261
880
1242
977
1379
3000 C
om
pre
ssed C
u (
650 m
il X
LP
E)
Short
ed / O
pen
581
1059
538
981
500
914
451
828
1028
1512
1022
1495
1018
1474
1130
1636
3000 C
om
pact S
egm
enta
l A
l (6
50 m
il X
LP
E)
Short
ed / O
pen
523
1009
487
932
454
869
411
777
872
1407
838
1397
826
1375
917
1526
The
abov
e am
paci
ties
are
calc
ulat
ed w
ith th
e fo
llow
ing
varia
ble
valu
es:
Insula
tion R
HO
400
Insula
tion D
iele
ctr
ic C
onsta
nt (S
IC)
2.5
Eart
h R
HO
120
Dis
sip
ation F
acto
r (D
iele
ctr
ic p
ow
er
facto
r)0.0
01
Backfill
RH
O60
Burial D
epth
36 inches
Jacket R
HO
600
Soil
am
bie
nt
35
0C
The
Load
Fac
tor v
aria
bles
are
des
crib
ed b
elow
:65%
LF
The 6
5 %
load f
acto
r is
pro
vid
ed f
or
his
torical re
fere
nce o
nly
.
75%
LF
Th
is is
the
load
fact
or c
urre
ntly
use
d fo
r rat
ing
subt
rans
mis
sion
line
s.85%
LF
This
is the load f
acto
r used to r
ate
subtr
ansm
issio
n s
yte
ms identified a
s h
eavy industr
ial (i.e
. H
inson, La F
resa, S
anta
Cla
ra, E
l N
ido, Laguna B
ell,
and S
pringvill
e).
100%
LF
T
his
load f
acto
r is
used to r
ate
circuits f
rom
a g
enera
tion s
ourc
e (
I.e. A
pgen).
1 H
our
Max r
ating is 1
10%
of
4 H
our
rating.
Fo
r R
efe
ren
ce
Only
Load
Fac
tor
Load
Fac
tor
65%
LF75
%LF
85%
LF10
0 %
LF75
%LF
75%
LF85
%LF
100
%LF
100
%LF
Nor
mal
Rat
ing
@ 9
00 C
Emer
genc
y R
atin
g130°C
(72 H
ours
)105°C
(4 H
ours
Max)
105°C
(1 H
our
Max)
100
%LF
100
%LF
Fo
r R
efe
ren
ce
Only
Load
Fac
tor
Load
Fac
tor
65%
LF75
%LF
85%
LF10
0 %
LF75
%LF
75%
LF85
%LF
115
kV C
able
Rat
ings
in A
mpe
res
Nor
mal
Rat
ing
@ 9
00 C
Emer
genc
y R
atin
g130°C
(72 H
ours
)105°C
(4 H
ours
Max)
105°C
(1 H
our
Max)
216
Workpaper – Southern California Edison / 2021 General Rate Case
Exhibit No. SCE-07 Vol.03 Ch I-VI Bk A Witness: D. Gunn
INSULATED CABLES
ApprovalEffective Date
09-25-2015Transmission Underground Construction Standards
SCE Internal
TUG–500
500–15
Table 500–4: 69 kV Cable Ratings in Amperes
Revis
ion 7
7/2
4/2
015
Sing
le C
ircui
tLo
ad F
acto
rSh
ield
Con
duct
or D
escr
iptio
nC
onfig
urat
ion
1250 C
om
pre
ssed A
lum
.S
hort
ed / O
pen
603
766
577
733
550
700
745
903
772
926
764
915
1500 C
om
pre
ssed A
lum
.S
hort
ed / O
pen
646
845
616
807
588
771
545
719
800
995
842
1028
832
1016
821
1001
911
1111
1750 C
om
pre
ssed A
lum
.S
hort
ed / O
pen
679
912
646
870
617
830
571
774
838
1082
898
1114
887
1102
876
1085
972
1204
2000 C
om
pact A
lum
. (1
000 M
M S
Q)
Sho
rted /
Open
701
967
667
923
638
881
590
821
868
1154
938
1185
927
1172
916
1154
1017
1281
2000 C
om
pre
ssed C
u.
Short
ed / O
pen
777
1173
738
1118
701
1066
653
993
976
1409
1092
1458
1082
1442
1065
1420
1182
1576
2000 C
om
pact S
egm
enta
l C
u.
Short
ed / O
pen
789
1278
748
1218
711
1161
662
1080
1014
1515
1134
1587
1124
1570
1111
1547
1233
1717
3000 C
om
pre
ssed C
u.
Short
ed / O
pen
862
1360
817
1293
775
1229
717
1140
1050
1596
1267
1732
1256
1713
1242
1688
1379
1874
3000 C
om
pact S
egm
enta
l A
lum
.S
hort
ed / O
pen
814
1250
772
1152
733
1131
682
1050
1136
1629
1268
1683
1222
1626
1168
1570
1296
1743
Dou
ble
Circ
uit
Nor
mal
Rat
ing
@ 9
00 C
Load
Fac
tor
Shie
ldC
ondu
ctor
Des
crip
tion
Con
figur
atio
n
1250 C
om
pre
ssed A
lum
.S
hort
ed / O
pen
481
667
450
625
422
588
650
770
689
870
681
859
1500 C
om
pre
ssed A
lum
.S
hort
ed / O
pen
509
732
476
686
446
644
406
588
699
846
747
966
739
954
729
939
809
1042
1750 C
om
pre
ssed A
lum
.S
hort
ed / O
pen
529
788
495
738
463
692
421
633
759
916
793
1047
785
1034
775
1017
860
1129
2000 C
om
pact A
lum
. (1
000 M
M S
Q)
Sho
rted /
Open
544
836
509
783
476
735
433
672
775
974
828
1112
819
1099
810
1081
899
1200
2000 C
om
pre
ssed C
u.
Short
ed / O
pen
583
1010
545
947
510
886
463
808
903
1187
951
1368
943
1352
933
1332
1036
1479
2000 C
om
pact S
egm
enta
l C
u.
Short
ed / O
pen
601
1100
557
1030
521
964
472
880
944
1277
998
1490
990
1474
983
1451
1091
1611
3000 C
om
pre
ssed C
u.
Short
ed / O
pen
638
1161
595
1090
555
1015
502
920
950
1470
1102
1623
1095
1604
1085
1583
1204
1757
3000 C
om
pact S
egm
enta
l A
lum
.S
hort
ed / O
pen
599
1075
559
982
524
939
475
856
876
1460
1090
1542
1063
1521
1022
1514
1134
1681
The
abov
e am
paci
ties
are
calc
ulat
ed w
ith th
e fo
llow
ing
varia
ble
valu
es:
Insula
tion R
HO
400
Insula
tion D
iele
ctr
ic C
onsta
nt (S
IC)
2.5
Eart
h R
HO
100
Dis
sip
ation F
acto
r (D
iele
ctr
ic p
ow
er
facto
r)0.0
01
Backfill
RH
O60
Burial D
epth
36 inches
Jacket R
HO
600
Soil
am
bie
nt
30
0C
The
Load
Fac
tor v
aria
bles
are
des
crib
ed b
elow
:65%
LF
The 6
5 %
load f
acto
r is
pro
vid
ed f
or
his
torical re
fere
nce o
nly
.
75%
LF
Th
is is
the
load
fact
or c
urre
ntly
use
d fo
r rat
ing
subt
rans
mis
sion
line
s.85%
LF
This
is the load f
acto
r used to r
ate
subtr
ansm
issio
n s
yte
ms identified a
s h
eavy industr
ial (i.e
. H
inson, La F
resa, S
anta
Cla
ra, E
l N
ido, Laguna B
ell,
and S
pringvill
e).
100%
LF
T
his
load f
acto
r is
used to r
ate
circuits f
rom
a g
enera
tion s
ourc
e (
I.e. A
pgen).
1 H
our
Max r
ating is 1
10%
of
4 H
our
rating.
100
%LF
100
%LF
Fo
r R
efe
ren
ce
Only
Load
Fac
tor
Load
Fac
tor
85%
LF65
%LF
75%
LF85
%LF
100
%LF
75%
LF75
%LF
100
%LF
100
%LF
Emer
genc
y R
atin
g130°C
(72 H
ours
)105°C
(4 H
ours
Max)
105°C
(1 H
our
Max)
Fo
r R
efe
ren
ce
Only
Load
Fac
tor
Load
Fac
tor
65%
LF75
%LF
85%
LF10
0 %
LF75
%LF
75%
LF85
%LF
69 k
V C
able
Rat
ings
in A
mpe
res
Nor
mal
Rat
ing
@ 9
00 C
Emer
genc
y R
atin
g130°C
(72 H
ours
)105°C
(4 H
ours
Max)
105°C
(1 H
our
Max)
217
Workpaper – Southern California Edison / 2021 General Rate Case
Exhibit No. SCE-07 Vol.03 Ch I-VI Bk A Witness: D. Gunn
INSULATED CABLES
Approval Effective Date
09-25-2015Transmission Underground Construction Standards
SCE Internal
TUG–500
500–16
Table 500–5: 33 kV Cable Ratings in Amperes
218
Workpaper – Southern California Edison / 2021 General Rate Case
Exhibit No. SCE-07 Vol.03 Ch I-VI Bk A Witness: D. Gunn
Account 364 Distribution Poles
General Information: Distribution Poles Distribution wood poles are normally categorized in sizes ranging from 25 to 60 feet in length. The two predominant species of wood poles used in the Edison system are Douglas-fir and Western red cedar. The majority of these poles were treated with the wood preservative creosote. Currently, all wood poles utilized in the Edison system are Douglas-fir poles, which are treated with pentachlorophenol in-oil. All wood poles come from the Pacific Northwest, specifically Oregon and Washington.
** Edison is currently purchasing all its distribution poles which are treated with a new process called “Through-Boring.” This process minimizes the attack from decay and insects at the groundline zones. This process basically protects 100 percent of the total cross section of the wood pole. Historically, poles were treated in a manner which only gave protection to the outer ¾” to 2” portion of the cross section of the pole, leaving the internal portion of the pole untreated and therefore, unprotected. This left the unprotected area of the wood pole subject to attack from decay or insects. *** Composite & Light Weight Steel poles are a new product and do not have the actual in-service life as a wood pole.
Old Treatment Process New “Through-Boring” Treatment Process
Major Causes of Wood Pole Failures (Retirements)
o Deterioration – external, internal, top rot, split tops, etc. o Vehicle damage o Wind damage o Storm damage o Farm equipment damage o Fire damage o Woodpecker damage o Removal – Rule 20A ; underground projects
What influence does age have on wood pole failures (retirements)? The influence of age on any wood structure, which has failed is largely due to geographic location and environmental conditions, as well as climactic episodes. Edison’s wood pole plant is located in
219
Workpaper – Southern California Edison / 2021 General Rate Case
Exhibit No. SCE-07 Vol.03 Ch I-VI Bk A Witness: D. Gunn
agriculture, desert, rural, and metropolitan communities. As a result of the different types of communities, the rejection rate from the intrusive inspection program has varied from year to year. The performance of the poles is tracked by conducting an annual intrusive inspection, as defined by General Order 165. Expected Wear-Out Life of Edison’s Wood Poles: The expected wear-out life of an Edison distribution wood pole based on today’s population (different treatment types) should last approximately 50 to 60 years. Edison’s territory is basically a desert community with pockets of agriculture lands mixed in. The American Wood Preservers’ Association, Decay Zone Map shows California as a low decay zone based on low rejection rates of wood structures. In average, Edison does not experience a large number of poles that just go over. In most cases, less than a handful of structures fail and go over.
Light Weight Steel Poles Composite Pole
(Six foot protection zone = 2 feet above groundline + 4 feet below groundline)
Sources: Transmission & Distribution Pole Program Management
220
Workpaper – Southern California Edison / 2021 General Rate Case
Exhibit No. SCE-07 Vol.03 Ch I-VI Bk A Witness: D. Gunn
Account 365 Distribution Conductors & Devices
1. What are the major forces of retirement?
The factors affecting the distribution conductor retirements include deterioration resulting from atmospheric
corrosion, fatigue failure due to conductor vibration, circuit upgrades, fire damage, storm damage, damage due
to fault currents, splice failure, relocation, Rule 20 under-grounding, idle facilities, and proactive replacement
with covered conductor in high fire risk area. The impacts of corrosion and vibration fatigue accumulate over
time and will effect retirements at an advanced age. Generally, retirements caused by circuit upgrades would
not be expected at an early age. Distribution lines are more prone to under-grounding and relocations than
transmission conductors.
2. What are the main types and sizes of conductor?
From SCE’s Distribution Overhead Construction Standards, SCE uses the following:
221
Workpaper – Southern California Edison / 2021 General Rate Case
Exhibit No. SCE-07 Vol.03 Ch I-VI Bk A Witness: D. Gunn
3. Have there been any concerns about certain types of conductor on the system?
There have concerns about the use of unfused #6 copper and #4 aluminum overhead wire on distribution
primary circuits due to short circuit duty/conductor damage concerns. The Overhead Conductor Program (OCP)
has been created to address these concerns by reconductoring small overhead wire and/or installing branch line
fusing to help protect the wire from damage during fault conditions. Additionally, there are concerns with
currently installed small bare conductor in high fire risk areas.
4. Is covered conductor expected to have a different life expectancy than bare wire conductor?
SCE has determined a reasonable expected service life for the covered conductor is 45 years, which is
equivalent to bare conductor. This conclusion is based on the following considerations: manufacturer
feedback, required qualification test of the covered conductor, prudent installation and design of covered
conductor, and historical operating history of previous generation tree wire. Note that bare conductor and
covered conductor can operate and perform as designed past the 45-year mark.
222
Workpaper – Southern California Edison / 2021 General Rate Case
Exhibit No. SCE-07 Vol.03 Ch I-VI Bk A Witness: D. Gunn
5. Are the forces of retirement for covered conductor any different than bare wire conductor (e.g.,
degradation of the covering, etc.)?
Beyond its 45 year service life, SCE believes that the covering on the covered conductor will continue to
provide partial protection. Therefore, like with bare conductor, replacement of covered conductor will be
determined on a case-by-case basis.
Sources: Robert Tucker Senior Engineer, MPR Strategy, Transmission & Distribution
223
Workpaper – Southern California Edison / 2021 General Rate Case
Exhibit No. SCE-07 Vol.03 Ch I-VI Bk A Witness: D. Gunn
Account 366 Distribution Underground Conduit
1. What are the major forces of retirement?
SCE engineers indicate that the service lives of distribution structures are influenced by such
things as the size of the structure, the materials used in manufacturing the structure (i.e.,
concrete, polymer concrete, plastic, and fiberglass), service duty (i.e., from heavy vehicle traffic
to landscape areas), to the geographic area (i.e., areas with high water tables, corrosive or hot
soils, extreme weather changes, etc.). The larger vaults and manholes are designed for an
average design service life of fifty years. The smaller splice boxes and pull boxes experience
lives around twenty years. The retirement factors affecting these structures include deterioration
(e.g., wear, soil loading), mechanical damage, relocations, and idle facilities. The engineers
indicate that the expected life of the conduit ranges between 45 and 60 years, based upon
deterioration-related factors. Other factors will reduce that expected life such as mechanical
damage coming from excavating or drilling crews inadvertently digging into the duct or as a
result of conductor failures. Conduit can also be retired as a result of relocations.
The retirement factors are largely related to deterioration related factors that will result in a
relatively lower level of retirements in the earlier ages.
2. For distribution underground duct, is it generally retired in place or do we
physically remove it?
It is generally not removed as it is buried in the ground.
3. What approaches are utilized by the company to enhance service lives, integrity,
and safety?
The standard design of underground conduit is intended to enhance cable and duct service lives,
integrity, and safety. Installation depths follow the requirements in G.O. 128, and case-by-case
circumstances may dictate particular encasement or installation requirements. One additional
item discussed in SCE underground standards is the consideration of changes in grade after
installation of a distribution conduit system. At initial installation, proposed final grades are
investigated when considering the depth and installation requirements for distribution conduit
systems. However, since grade changes can take place years after initial installation, district
224
Workpaper – Southern California Edison / 2021 General Rate Case
Exhibit No. SCE-07 Vol.03 Ch I-VI Bk A Witness: D. Gunn
personnel are directed in standards to report any known construction activities in the vicinity of
our underground facilities. In the circumstances where changes in grade have reduced the cover
of underground facilities below allowable minimums, the Claims Department is immediately
notified and corrective action is taken to prevent further damage to underground facilities and to
provide safety precautions as necessary.
There is a particular subset of conduit used for SCE’s URD cable population called
Cable-in-Conduit (CIC). In the late 1960s, SCE began installing a type of underground cable
known as “cable-in-conduit,” or CIC. CIC is distinguished not by cable insulation material (its
insulation is either HMW or XLPE), but by its construction. While cable in the mainline
sections of circuits is typically installed in rigid PVC duct, CIC is installed in relatively thin-
walled polypropylene tubing. It was installed primarily in radial branches of circuits serving
residential customers. CIC was very attractive at the time because of: (1) its ease of installation
which shortened the construction time of residential developments; (2) its lower cost relative to
cable installed in rigid duct; and (3) its greater durability over that of direct buried cable.
However, decades later we have found that CIC is very difficult to replace. While cable
installed in rigid PVC duct can be removed relatively easily, CIC cable resists being pulled out
from its polypropylene tubing. One way to mitigate this problem has been SCE’s use of new CIC
cable replacement techniques since 2012. In many cases, new cable pulling techniques and a
smaller-diameter replacement cable for CIC installations have helped enable SCE to re-utilize
existing CIC conduit when replacing aged URD cable, as opposed to the much more expensive
and impactful trenching/rigid conduit approach of replacement.
4. What scenarios dictate the use of underground conduit?
a. Some companies report use of underground conduit for road crossings, in
older subdivisions, and in the waterways where underground cable cannot be
directly buried.
Current standard for underground facility are constructed using conduit encased with concrete.
Installation depths follow the requirements of G.O. 128. Special conditions may require
different duct bank configurations such as local ordinances or joint construction with other
utilities. In certain special cases, conduits may be attached to the exterior of bridges provided
225
Workpaper – Southern California Edison / 2021 General Rate Case
Exhibit No. SCE-07 Vol.03 Ch I-VI Bk A Witness: D. Gunn
that care is taken to ensure stability, such as use of expansion joints to allow ductwork to adjust
horizontally as bridges expand and contract.
Sources: Robert Tucker Senior Engineer, MPR Strategy, Transmission & Distribution
226
Workpaper – Southern California Edison / 2021 General Rate Case
Exhibit No. SCE-07 Vol.03 Ch I-VI Bk A Witness: D. Gunn
Account 367 Distribution Underground Conductor
1. What are the major forces of retirement?
The major factors affecting retirements include deterioration, failure, relocations, upgrades, and
accidental dig-ins. Deterioration has a cumulative effect and generally will not cause early
retirements. Failures can occur at any time, but will generally increase with age and
deterioration. Relocations and upgrades generally will not occur at an early age. Accidental
dig-ins will generally occur independent of age.
2. What approaches are utilized by the company to enhance service lives, integrity,
and safety?
SCE began its “Cable Life Extension” (CLE) program in the 2012 timeframe, focusing on radial
cables installed in Cable-in-Conduit (CIC) which represents approximately ¼ of SCE’s total
primary cable inventory. The first activity in the CLE Program is a partial discharge testing
activity (“cable testing”) that provides life extension benefits by identifying those cable segments
that are at greatest risk for imminent failure. Cable segments which test “good” are those cable
segments that are shown to be partial discharge-free at expected operating voltage levels and
therefore expected to have minimal risk of imminent failure. Cable segments which test “bad”
are those that are found to exhibit partial discharge activity that would continue to compromise
the cable insulation in normal operation and indicate higher likelihood of imminent failure.
These segments are scheduled for replacement.
The second activity in the CLE Program is a cable rejuvenation activity (“cable
injection”) that provides life extension benefits by improving the insulation characteristics of
aged cable. Cable injection involves the physical injection of a silicone-based fluid into the
strands of aging underground primary distribution cable. This fluid is designed to migrate into
the conductor insulation, modifying its chemistry and improving its dielectric strength. The
activity of cable injection does not distinguish between cable that is presently in “good”
condition versus “bad” condition, but provides aggregate life extension benefit for all injected
cable regardless of present insulation condition.
227
Workpaper – Southern California Edison / 2021 General Rate Case
Exhibit No. SCE-07 Vol.03 Ch I-VI Bk A Witness: D. Gunn
3. What are the main types and sizes of conductor?
The distribution underground construction standards identify the size and conductor types for
legacy (i.e. PILC) and modern (i.e. JCN, EPR) cables in the SCE system. See below.
4. Have there been any concerns about certain types of conductor on the system?
Lead-covered cable such as LCC or PILC cable, while relatively long-lived and resistant to
voltage spikes, has many disadvantages. First, it cannot be moved once installed and therefore
cannot be used with today’s removable “elbow connectors” for which all modern switches,
228
Workpaper – Southern California Edison / 2021 General Rate Case
Exhibit No. SCE-07 Vol.03 Ch I-VI Bk A Witness: D. Gunn
transformers, and junction bars are designed. Secondly, when PILC cable or LCC fails, it
presents a significant repair challenge. Performing repairs in PILC cable or LCC is very time-
consuming, can only be done by a small number of specially trained Cable Splicers, and often
results in splices which are prone to subsequent failure.
There are also concerns related to certain XLPE (CLP) cables installed in non-rigid
polypropylene tubes (CIC) in legacy URD applications. This concern is less of a function of the
type of cable and more a function of the installation details. While cable installed in rigid PVC
duct can be removed relatively easily, CIC cable resists being pulled out from its polypropylene
tubing. One way to mitigate this problem has been SCE’s use of new CIC cable replacement
techniques since 2012, which includes a new flat-strap jacketed TR-XLPE cable which has a
slightly smaller diameter than the legacy unjacketed XLPE cable originally installed in CIC
applications.
Sources: Robert Tucker Senior Engineer, MPR Strategy, Transmission & Distribution
229
Workpaper – Southern California Edison / 2021 General Rate Case
Exhibit No. SCE-07 Vol.03 Ch I-VI Bk A Witness: D. Gunn
Account 368 Distribution Line Transformers
1. What are the major forces of retirement?
The primary retirement causes of transformers include deterioration, upgrades/relocations, and
failures. Deterioration and failure are directly related to the age of the assets, in particular:
corrosion, which increases as a function of age. Upgraded and relocated transformers can be
retired or re-used depending upon age, rating, damage, or obsolete design. If the transformer still
has a sufficient useful remaining life, it is not likely to be retired but will be refurbished and
placed back in inventory. Since the retirement factors are generally age-related, it would
generally tend toward higher modes. However, the significant difference in the average lives of
the equipment in this account will have a tendency of causing a somewhat wider retirement
dispersion. Transformers are also replaced when they are discovered or suspected to contain
regulated levels of PCBs (see below).
2. What are the main sources of gross salvage and cost of removal?
a. Some companies attribute high costs of removal to environmental concerns
and mandated procedures for checking and disposing of oils.
Most distribution transformers require analytical testing to determine if they contain regulated
levels of PCBs, and the EPA has a very stringent set of assumption standards [761.2 “PCB
concentration assumptions for use”] when PCB levels are unknown. In sum, with few
exceptions, all distribution transformers owned by SCE that were manufactured prior to July 2,
1979 and whose PCB concentration are unknown must be assumed to contain regulated levels of
PCBs (i.e., 50-499 parts per million). The EPA regulates spills and even minor leaks from
transformers containing PCBs 50 parts per million or greater as “improper disposal” of PCBs
[761.60].
In light of this, SCE has instituted a PCB-contaminated Transformer replacement
program which has, thus far, been highly effective at identifying transformers containing PCB.
Each distribution transformer removed from service (most removals are through our G.O. 165
inspection program) is analyzed for PCB concentration. The PCB concentration is recorded in
conjunction with the serial number. Because serial numbers are assigned sequentially during the
manufacturing process, transformers whose serial numbers are numerically close are likely to
230
Workpaper – Southern California Edison / 2021 General Rate Case
Exhibit No. SCE-07 Vol.03 Ch I-VI Bk A Witness: D. Gunn
have been filled with the same transformer oil. Operating transformers whose serial numbers are
close to those of removed transformers found to be contaminated are then targeted for removal
by the PCB-contaminated Transformer Removal program.
Sources: Robert Tucker Senior Engineer, MPR Strategy, Transmission & Distribution
231
Workpaper – Southern California Edison / 2021 General Rate Case
Exhibit No. SCE-07 Vol.03 Ch I-VI Bk A Witness: D. Gunn
Account 369 Distribution Services
1. What are the major forces of retirement?
The major factors of retirement include change-outs for remodeling and service panel upgrades
primarily to meet increased load demands and failures caused by corrosion and environmental
contaminants. Since the 1980s, SCE has made a concentrated effort to replace copper open-wire
services with aluminum triplex. This replacement will have had an impact of shortening the life
of the copper conductor. However, this prior life-shortening effect on the copper services should
not have a life lengthening effect on the account going forward. This is because the aluminum
triplex that is replacing the copper services has a substantially shorter life.
Sources: Robert Tucker Senior Engineer, MPR Strategy, Transmission & Distribution
232
Workpaper – Southern California Edison / 2021 General Rate Case
Exhibit No. SCE-07 Vol.03 Ch I-VI Bk A Witness: D. Gunn
Account 373 Streetlights
1. What are the major forces of retirement?
The major reasons for retirements of electroliers have been car-hit pole, deterioration, idle
facilities, relocation, and upgrade. This is still a true statement. However, the majority of the
deteriorated facilities that have been replaced have been the old steel electroliers. There have
been a negligible amount of concrete electroliers replaced due to degradation. However, they
were covered under the manufacturer’s warranty.
2. What approaches are utilized by the company to enhance service lives, integrity,
and safety?
Frequent interactions and product reviews with the respective Manufacturer’s. Implementing the
recommended lifecycle enhancement options, such as adding Chlorine Ion Intrusion Inhibitors
into the concrete mix, using high quality attachment hardware with enhanced galvanic coatings.
Visual inspections of the facilities during annual Compliance Patrolling activities can identify
potential safety issues early on. Also included is destructive testing reviews conducted at
manufacturer’s facilities to confirmed product quality and compliance to Engineering Design
Standards.
3. What are the main sources of gross salvage and cost of removal?
The major reasons for gross salvage of electroliers are car-hit poles, deterioration, idle facilities,
relocations, and upgrades. Cost of Removals may increase when the party (or parties) causing
damage to the facilities is not identified and therefore the reimbursement for the associated costs
are uncollected and written off.
Sources: Bob Binns Manager, Streetlight Program Management, Transmission & Distribution
233