sce asset depreciation study 6&( 9roxph i-,9 %rrn $ …...workpaper – southern california...

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



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



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



4

Table I-33 Summary of SCE’s Request for Book Depreciation

Generation Plant


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



5

Table I-44 Summary of SCE’s Request for Book Depreciation

General and Intangible Plant


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



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



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



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.


13 Id.

14 DEPRECIATION SYSTEMS, p. 74 (emphasis added).

8



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.


18 Id.


9



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



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



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%.


12



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


27 STANDARD PRACTICE U-4, pp. 9-10.

28 Id.

13



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



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



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).


16



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



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.


18



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



19



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



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



47 STANDARD PRACTICE U-4, pp. 37-40.

48 DEPRECIATION SYSTEMS, pp. 53-68.

21



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



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


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



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.


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



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


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


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



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



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 % $ $

$ $


$ $


$ $

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



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



29

Figure III-6 Escalation Rate in Historical Net Salvage Rates


$ $

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



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



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



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


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



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



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.


2009-2018 $337.0 ($73.0) -22%2009-2013 $185.8 ($25.0) -13%2014-2018 $151.2 ($48.0) -32%

33



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


34



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



36



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


2009-2018 $89.1 ($169.6) -190%2009-2013 $20.9 ($33.4) -160%2014-2018 $68.2 ($136.2) -200%

36



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



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


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


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



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



40



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


2009-2018 $19.6 ($49.8) -254%2009-2013 $5.8 ($21.9) -375%2014-2018 $13.8 ($27.8) -202%

40



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


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




= ($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



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


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



43



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


2009-2018 $20.9 ($7.3) -35%2014-2018 $14.0 ($5.7) -41%

43



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


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



45



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


2009-2018 $52.5 ($21.2) -40%2009-2013 $20.0 ($5.2) -26%2014-2018 $32.4 ($16.0) -49%

45



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



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



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



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


2009-2018 $162.8 ($826.4) -508%2016-2018 $94.5 ($378.4) -401%

47



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


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


= (2,996)$ = -401%$748

= ($378,387,974) 126,296 $94,450,369 126,296

48



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


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


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



50



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


2009-2018 $144.6 ($350.3) -242%2014-2018 $106.7 ($230.8) -216%

50



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


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




= ($230,813,957) 52,694,494 $106,720,924 52,694,494

= ($4.38) = -216%$2.03

51



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



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


2009-2018 $51.6 ($115.0) -223%2014-2018 $35.2 ($90.5) -257%2016-2018 $26.2 ($57.2) -218%

52



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



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



55



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



56

Figure III-13 Recorded Net Salvage Rate Per UG Conductor Asset


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


= ($672,559,789) 53,060,289 $404,878,465 53,060,289

= ($12.68) = -166%$7.63

56



57

Figure III-14 Net Salvage Rate Per UG Conductor Asset – Current Retirement


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



58

Figure III-15 Net Salvage Rate Per UG Conductor Asset – Future Retirement


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



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



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.


2009-2018 $528.2 ($442.4) -84%2014-2018 $303.6 ($315.2) -104%

59



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



61



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.


2009-2018 $22.4 ($105.9) -474%2009-2013 $8.1 ($43.3) -537%2014-2018 $14.3 ($62.6) -438%

61



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



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



64


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



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


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


2009-2018 $100.3 ($23.5) -23%2009-2013 $42.6 ($10.2) -24%2014-2018 $57.7 ($13.3) -23%

65



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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


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



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



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).


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



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



82

Table V-31 Small Hydro Decommissioning Accruals


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



83

E. Pebbly Beach 1


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


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



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


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).


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



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


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


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



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


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


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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



SCE-07, Volume. 03, Results of Operations Depreciation Study

Witness: David Gunn

Rate Determination Schedule

1



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


uipment

218,569

(13.8%

)(30,06

9)

69,850

178,78

8

License

28.7

5,536

2.53

%

335


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


uipmen

t25,183

5.1 %

1,27

8

6,61

6

17,289

Life Span

25

27.9

684

346


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






For Estimated

Year 2021


reciation Exp


FERC

Gross


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


78,370

(0.7%)

(517

)

31,219

47

,668

Life Span

35

21.9

2,179

345


uipmen

t87,383

(0.6%)

(481

)

32,946

54

,918

Life Span

35

21.8

2,524

346


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


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


26,872

(1.8%)

(496

)

4,90

5

22,463

Life Span

35

23.9

941

345


uipmen

t63,463

(1.8%)

(1,173

)

24,168

40

,467

Life Span

35

23.9

1,695

346


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






For Estimated

Year 2021


reciation Exp


FERC

Gross


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


uipmen

t‐

0.0 %

‐‐

‐ Life Span

10

5.0

‐

346


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


uipmen

t5,845

0.0 %

‐86

4

4,98

1Life Span

20

21

346


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






For Estimated

Year 2021


reciation Exp


FERC

Gross


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




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


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


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




Rate Determ

ination Schedule | Hyd

ro

In Dollars

As of :12/31/2018


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


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


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




Rate Determ

ination Schedule | Other Production ‐ Pebbly Beach Generating Station

In Dollars

As of :

12/31/2018


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


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


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


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




Rate Determ

ination Schedule | Other Production ‐ M

ountainview

In Dollars

As of :12/31/2018


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


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


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


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


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




Rate Determ

ination Schedule | Other Production ‐ Peakers

In Dollars

As of :

12/31/2018


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


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


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


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


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




Rate Determ

ination Schedule | Other Production ‐ Solar PV

In Dollars

As of :

12/31/2018


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


‐ ‐

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


uipmen

t17,341,476

5,117,029

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

12.7

‐

‐ 12.7

12,224,447

965,596

346


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


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




Rate Determ

ination Schedule | Other Production ‐ Fuel C

ell

In Dollars

As of :

12/31/2018


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


‐

‐

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


uipmen

t‐

‐

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

5.0

‐

‐

5.0

‐

‐

346


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


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




Rate Determ

ination Schedule | Other Production ‐ Energy Storage

In Dollars

As of :

12/31/2018


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


‐

‐

‐

‐

20.0

5.00%

‐ ‐

343

Prime Movers

‐

‐

‐

‐

20.0

5.00%

‐ ‐

344

Gen

erators

‐

‐

‐

‐

20.0

5.00%

‐ ‐

345


uipmen

t5,845,406

864,457

‐

864,457

20.0

5.00%

4,980,949

20,754

346


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




Witness: David Gunn

Depreciation Proposal Impacts

14



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



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



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




Witness: David Gunn

Escalation Factors

18



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



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



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



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




Chapter III: T&D Net Salvage Witness: David Gunn

Summary of T&D Net Salvage Proposals

23



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





Account 352: Transmission Substation Structures and Improvements

25



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



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



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





Account 353: Transmission Substation Equipment

29



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



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



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



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



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



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



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




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




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





Account 354: Transmission Towers

39



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



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



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





Account 355: Transmission Poles

43



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



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



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



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





Account 356: Transmission Overhead Conductor and Devices

48



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



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



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



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



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





Account 357: Transmission Underground Conduit

54



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



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



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





Account 358: Transmission Underground Conductor and Devices

58



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



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



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




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





Account 359: Transmission Roads and Trails

63



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





Account 361: Distribution Substation Structures and Improvements

65



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



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



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



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



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



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





Account 362: Distribution Substation Equipment

72



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



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



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



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



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





Account 364: Distribution Poles

78



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



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





Account 365: Distribution Overhead Conductor and Devices

81



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



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



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



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 -$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



Net Salvage Rate Per Foot of OH Conductor - Future RetirementPlant Balance (Future Retirement):Net Salvage $/ Foot - FutureOriginal Plant $/ Foot


Net Salvage $/ Foot - Future -$10.80Original Plant $/ Foot $2.33= = -464%


= -$4.38 X (1.0286)^32 years$2.33

= = -216%

=

= = -188%

-216%

= = -216%

=

= =

85



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





Account 366: Distribution Underground Conduit

87



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



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



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



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



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 Rate Per Foot of Conduit - Future RetirementPlant Balance (Future Retirement):Net Salvage $/ Foot - FutureOriginal Plant $/ Foot


Net Salvage $/ Foot - Future -$6.94Original Plant $/ Foot $5.24= = -133%


= -$2.45 X (1.0286)^37 years$5.24

-104%

= = -104%

=

= = -47%

= = -104%

=

= =

92



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 (1.0286)^32 years$17,335

= = -227%

= = -766%

=

= = -766%

= = -766%

=

93





Account 367: Distribution Underground Conductors and Devices

94



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



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



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



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 ($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



Net Salvage Rate Per Foot of UG Conductor - Future RetirementPlant Balance (Future Retirement):Net Salvage $/ Foot - FutureOriginal Plant $/ Foot



Net Salvage Rate Per Foot of UG Conductor - Future RetirementPlant Balance (Future Retirement):Net Salvage $/ Foot - FutureOriginal Plant $/ Foot



-166%

= = -166%

=

= =

= = -166%

=

= = -108%


= -$12.68 X (1.0286)^12 years$11.79

= = -151%


= -$12.68 X (1.0286)^35 years$11.79

= = -288%

98





Account 368: Distribution Line Transformers

99



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



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



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



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 (1.0286)^19 years$3,862

103



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





Account 369: Services

105



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



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



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





Account 370: Meters

109



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



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



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





Account 373: Streetlighting and Signal Systems

113



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



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



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



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





Account 390: General Buildings

118



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



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



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



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



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




Witness: David Gunn

Standard Practice U-4

124



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



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



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



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



129



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



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



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



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



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



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




Witness: David Gunn

Public Utility Depreciation Practices NARUC, 1996

136



137



138



139



140



141



142



143



144



145



146



147




Witness: David Gunn

Wolf, Frank K. and William Chester Fitch Depreciation Systems

Iowa State Univ. Press, 1994

148



149



150



151



152



153



154



155



156



157



158



159



160



161



162



163



164



165




Chapter V: Generation Plant Witness: David Gunn

Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station (PVNGS)

166





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




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





PVNGS Interim Retirement Rate

in Dollars

Account 323




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




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




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





Hydro Generation

169





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




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




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






in Dollars

Account 333




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




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




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






in Dollars

Account 336




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



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





Mountainview

174



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



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




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




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




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




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



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






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%



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






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%




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%


183






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





Peakers

185



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





Solar Photovoltaic

187



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





Fuel Cell

189



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



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



Southern California Edison2021 GRC Depreciation StudyUC Santa Barbara Fuel Cell Removal Estimatein Dollars

PROJECT NAME (auto populates)





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




Chapter VI: General and Intangible Witness: David Gunn

G&I Rate Determination Schedule

192




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





Account 391.4: Power Management System

194



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



(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





Telecommunications Engineering Survey

197



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



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




Chapter IV: T&D Service Life Witness: Dr. Ronald E. White

T&D Engineering Survey

200



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



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



Account 354 Towers and Fixtures


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.


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



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



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



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



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



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



(Six foot protection zone = 2 feet above groundline + 4 feet below groundline)

Sources: Transmission & Distribution Pole Program Organization

209



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.


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.





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




Kyle Ferree

Advisor, RPPM/Compliance, Transmission Organization

211



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



Account 357 Transmission Underground Conduit


and safety?

Transmission underground conduit is inspected prior to installation to ensure integrity and safety

before utilizing in service.


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.


Kyle Ferree

Advisor, RPPM/Compliance, Transmission Organization

213



Account 358 Transmission Underground Conductor


The major factors affecting retirements include deterioration, failure, relocations, upgrades, and

accidental dig-ins.


and safety?

SCE performs regular maintenance and inspections on all transmission underground systems

including cable and performs subsequent maintenance when identified from those inspections.






Please see attachment “Transmission Underground Cable Table.”


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




Kyle Ferree Advisor, RPPM/Compliance, Transmission Organization

215



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



INSULATED CABLES

ApprovalEffective Date


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



INSULATED CABLES

Approval Effective Date


SCE Internal

TUG–500

500–16

Table 500–5: 33 kV Cable Ratings in Amperes

218



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



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



Account 365 Distribution Conductors & Devices


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.


From SCE’s Distribution Overhead Construction Standards, SCE uses the following:

221




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



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



Account 366 Distribution Underground Conduit


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.


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



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



that care is taken to ensure stability, such as use of expansion joints to allow ductwork to adjust

horizontally as bridges expand and contract.


226



Account 367 Distribution Underground Conductor


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.


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




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.


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



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.


229



Account 368 Distribution Line Transformers


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).


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



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.


231



Account 369 Distribution Services


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.


232



Account 373 Streetlights


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.


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.


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

sce asset depreciation study 6&( 9roxph i-,9 %rrn $ …...workpaper – southern california...

Documents