An EDISON INTERNATIONAL Company (U 338-E) 2015 General Rate Case APPLICATION. Workpapers. Transmission & Distribution T&D Policy SCE-03 Volume 01

Transcription

1 An EDISON INTERNATIONAL Company (U 338-E) 2015 General Rate Case APPLICATION Workpapers Transmission & Distribution T&D Policy SCE-03 Volume 01 N ovem ber 2013

2 I. INTRODUCTION S C E s T ransm ission and D istribution (T& D ) is responsible for planning, engineering, constructing, operating, and m aintaining transm ission and distribution facilities required to safely and reliably deliver electricity to S C E s five m illion custom ers throughout our 50,000 square-m ile service territory. Figure I-1 below is a m ap o f our service territory. It is quite diverse, stretching from the cooler coast areas bordering the Pacific O cean to the hot and dry inland deserts; from the agricultural areas o f C alifornia s central valley to the densely populated urban areas o f Los A ngeles and O range counties. T& D is the stew ard o f a v ast infrastructure o f assets - about $19 billion w orth. Roughly $12 billion o f this am ount is for distribution assets, $5 billion for substation assets, and $2 billion for transm ission assets. Table I-1 SCE Key Physical Assets Owned And Operated by T&D Asset Type Count (as o f 1 2 /3 1 / ) T ra n sm issio n L in es 1 2,7 8 2 m ile s D istrib u tio n L in es 9 0,4 0 1 m ile s S u b statio n s 844 P o le s 1,4 3 3,3 3 6 S u b statio n T ra n sfo rm ers 2,9 5 9 D istrib u tio n T ra n sfo rm ers 7 2 0,8 0 0 U n d erg ro u n d S tru c tu res 4 1 3,2 2 0 U n d erg ro u n d D istrib u tio n C ables 5 0,1 7 9 m ile s S tre e tlig h ts 7 0 4, T able I-1 above sum m arizes som e o f the key assets that SCE ow ns and operates. The costs related to the bulk transm ission system are, for the m ost part, recovered through rates set by the Federal E nergy R egulatory C om m ission (FERC ). A ll other costs fall w ithin the jurisdiction o f this Com m ission. To operate and m aintain this large and com plex system, T& D em ploys alm ost 8,600 dedicated m en and w om en, including over 1,400 contract em ployees and 700 contract crew personnel, m aking it S C E s single largest operating unit. 1

3 2 Workpaper - Southern California Edison / 2015 GRC - APPLICATION Figure I-1 Southern California Edison Service Territory 2

4 A. Our Operations Are Driven By Three Fundamental Priorities I have w orked w ith T& D leadership team s to provide our w orkforce w ith clear and straightforw ard guidance regarding the priorities that m ust drive our w ork every day. W hile there are thousands o f com plex tasks to be perform ed for the benefit o f our custom ers, w e believe that they can all be captured w ithin three areas o f focus - safety, reliability, and affordability. W e layer onto these three areas o f focus the cornerstone values o f com pliance and operational excellence. These concepts represent the foundation for all o f the decisions w e m ake and actions w e take w ithin T&D. 1. SAFETY - Be Safe Safety is our first priority w hen w e m ake decisions on w hat to do and how to do it. O ur field forces build, operate, and m aintain high voltage equipm ent every day. O ften, they m ust w ork only inches from equipm ent or hazards that can cause serious injury or w orse. In fact, m uch o f the distribution w ork they do today uses high voltage rubber gloves, allow ing them to w ork directly w ith energized conductors. They heroically w ork through storm s, fires, and all m anner o f other challenges, som etim es around the clock. O ur goal every day is to send each em ployee back to his or her fam ily safe and sound. In the last several years w e have n o t m et this im portant objective nearly as w ell or consistently as w e should have. W e have had far too m any em ployee injuries in T& D, and m y senior leadership team and I consider this to be unacceptable perform ance. As a consequence, w e have increased our focus on doing everything w e can to im prove and sustain our safety record. W e have been able to achieve som e m odest im provem ents, as show n below in Figure I-2. F or exam ple, the change in the D A R T injury rate1 o f 4.46 in 2008 to 2.32 by A pril, 2013 represents alm ost a 50 percent im provem ent. This is a jo b that never ends, and no other goal ever takes priority over safety. M r. M cd onald discusses our safety program s in detail in E xhibit SCE-03, V olum e 9. 1 The Days Away, Restricted, or Transferred (DART) Rate is the incident rate explaining the frequency of occurrence of injuries or illnesses that result in days away, job restrictions, or transfers. This rate is intended to roughly provide the number of employees out of one hundred experiencing this type of injury. The mathematical expression for this ratio is: (# of DART Injuries X 200,000) / Actual Work Hours = DART Injury Rate. 3

5 Figure I-2 T&D Safety Metrics, OSHA Recordable Injury Rate ^ DART Injury Rate (Jan-Apr) This very sam e concern and rigor w e apply to em ployee safety are applied to public safety. M em bers o f the public, w hether our custom ers or not, rely each day on electricity to pow er critical needs in their lives and businesses. In a very real sense, reliability equates directly to safety, since it is the pow er w e deliver that keeps the traffic lights, police and fire stations, hospitals, and schools up and running safely. The public also relies on us to see that our facilities and w ork practices do not expose them to unreasonable risks. This m eans: M onitoring the system to avoid outages; R estoring pow er as efficiently as possible; P roactively and efficiently replacing failing equipm ent; Inspecting and m aintaining equipm ent in a safe condition; D esigning system com ponents so they are safer to w ork on in the first place; and M aintaining a focus on keeping the w ork area safe w hen w e are close to w here people live, play, learn, or drive. 4

6 F or exam ple, given the potential im pact o f dow ned w ires on the public, w e have started a program to evaluate splice, connector, and overhead conductor strength, and assess the im pact o f operational, environm ental and m echanical conditions on the integrity o f these critical com ponents. As w ith em ployees, public safety is, and m ust be, an overarching consideration in all w e do. S C E seeks to continuously im prove its existing safety program s and to add new program s to address em erging risks. T hose im provem ents often com e as a result o f discussions - both form al and inform al - w ith regulatory agencies that have jurisdiction over S C E s facilities and operations. For exam ple, SCE has im proved its pole loading processes and procedures, and has designed a program to inspect poles for com pliance to m inim um loading requirem ents and to perform rem ediation as necessary. These refinem ents w ere guided by the discussions arising out o f the Infrastructure Safety R ulem aking (R ). In 2009, based on field and engineering observations, SCE also increased its inspections o f underground structures to include those structures that do not appear to have equipm ent. W e have disclosed this to regulators in our GO 165 report and have had discussions w ith SED engineers. T hrough those inspections, w e identified a num ber o f structures in our territory that show ed various degrees o f deterioration. W e have designed a program to address the volum e o f structures in need o f replacem ent. B oth o f these program s are described further in the sections below. Im provem ents to the Rule 21 generator interconnection process also benefited greatly from the involvem ent o f dedicated C PU C staff w ith know ledge o f the FER C processes. O ther program changes and im provem ents have resulted from engagem ent w ith the C alifornia Independent System O perator (C A ISO ), C alfire, N orth A m erican E lectric R eliability C orporation (N ERC), and W estern E lectricity C oordinating C ouncil (W ECC), including changes and updates to our vegetation m anagem ent program. SCE values the expertise and dedication to safety that its regulators bring to these discussions. W e look forw ard to continuing our program im provem ents w ith input from the regulators w ho oversee our o perations. As m entioned above, I w ould like to highlight tw o program s that are directly driven by em ployee and public safety concerns. a) Underground Structures Inspection and Replacement In 2009, SCE undertook an U nderground Structure Inspection project to assess the condition o f vaults and m anholes that do not fall under the GO 165 inspection criteria. The vaults and m anholes did not com e under GO 165, prim arily because they did not house electrical equipm ent. 5

7 To date, w e have identified that over 400 o f these structures m ust be repaired or replaced due to deterioration o f the structure itself. The deterioration is caused prim arily by age and w ater intrusion resulting in exposed reinforcing bar, crum bling concrete, etc. The list o f vaults that require attention continues to grow as our inspection program s and detailed field investigations continue. In its T est Y ear 2012 G R C, S C E anticipated the need for increased structure replacem ents, and had requested 50 structure replacem ents per year. Since then, the num ber o f structures identified as requiring repairs or replacem ents has grow n significantly. The considerable lead tim es required to plan and obtain the necessary perm its for the repair and replacem ent w ork have necessarily delayed our ability to execute all o f the planned w ork in 2011 and W e have created a targeted program, com m encing in 2013, that has accelerated the rate o f repairing and replacing the structures, in order to reduce the backlog. W e are m indful o f the im pact on ratepayers if w e replace all deteriorated vaults w hen w e find them. B ut w e are also acutely aw are o f the reliability and safety im plications o f not m aking sufficient progress in addressing the deteriorated vaults. W e are prioritizing the w ork based on location, age and construction o f the structures, and w e propose replacing approxim ately 1,000 structures over the next five years. This w ill reduce the backlog to approxim ately 300 deteriorated structures. W e respectfully urge the Com m ission to authorize funding for this work. b) Pole Loading Assessment and Remediation SCE has m ore than 1.4 m illion poles in its transm ission and distribution system. The average service life o f these poles is 45 years.2 To m aintain a steady state replacem ent, w e should be replacing over 31,000 poles every year. Instead, w e replace approxim ately 14,000-18,000 poles each year as part o f various program s. A pproxim ately h a lf o f these poles replacem ents are based on G O 165- driven pole inspections. W e also replace poles as part o f routine m aintenance, such as w hen they are physically dam aged by vehicles, or w hen the pole has to support heavier equipm ent. In the last five years, w e have replaced approxim ately 8,000 poles per year (on average) as a part o f these program s. This is sim ply n o t enough. In the past, w e have restricted deteriorated pole assessm ents to the levels required to m eet GO 165 com pliance. This m odel cannot continue in the future. If it does, very soon w e w ill be facing the prospect o f having to replace very large num bers o f poles in a very short period o f tim e. 2 See Exhibit SCE-10, Volume 2. 6

8 In addition, recent events have highlighted the need to revisit how w ell the poles in our system m eet pole loading safety standards.3 Poles that do n o t m eet m inim um requirem ents m ay break or fail at w ind speeds that are below the ex pected for that geographic location. This results in an increased risk to reliability and public safety. W hen w e assessed a sam ple o f poles using m odern m ethods for calculating the safety factor, SCE found that a percentage o f in-service poles did not m eet the required GO 95 safety factors, even w hen deterioration is excluded from the calculation. O ver tim e, several factors have contributed to poles not m eeting the adequate safety factors - grow th in electric and telecom m unications infrastructure resulting in additions to pole attachm ents, unauthorized attachm ents, changes in pole-loading m ethodology and design standards, and new technology for pole loading assessm ents. SCE is com m itted to addressing this issue on b eh alf o f our custom ers and the public. Poles are found along streets, in front o f hom es, and close to public places. They support energized conductors, transform ers, and other equipm ent. A fallen pole can result in substantial safety and reliability risks. W e w ant to take reasonable actions to m inim ize those risks. The Com m ission has acknow ledged the pole loading issue.4 W e have undertaken a m ulti-year program to evaluate all SCE poles for pole loading factors by year 2020, and perform the necessary rem ediations by M r. T rainor discusses this program in greater detail in E xhibit SCE-03, V olum e 6, P art 2. The C om m ission should authorize the funding needed for this im portant program. The Com m ission has repeatedly recognized the im portance o f safety in the w ork w e do and the obligations w e have to serve. W e actively w ork w ith regulatory agencies to address safety challenges. D oing things safely is alw ays the right thing to do - b u t in som e instances, particularly in the short run, it m ay not be the cheapest thing to do. It not only requires com plying w ith safety regulations, training em ployees properly, fully analyzing incidents, and im plem enting safety procedures, but also inspecting, m aintaining, replacing and upgrading the infrastructure. T hroughout the volum es o f T & D s testim ony in this GRC, you w ill read num erous exam ples about how safety affects our operations and our costs. F or exam ple, in E xhibit SCE-03, V olum e 9, Mr. M cd onald discusses our 3 General Order 95 specifies that at the time of installation, a newly-constructed utility pole containing both electric and communications equipment (known as Grade A or a combination pole) must be built with a safety factor of 4.0. Once the pole is in-service, General Order 95 specifies that Grade A poles must be replaced before the safety factor falls below 2.67 as a result of pole deterioration or as a result of the addition of facilities or attachments to the pole. 4 D , pp

9 safety and training activities. M r. G rigaux discusses how our troublem en support public safety as first responders during tim es o f em ergency in E xhibit SCE-03, V olum e RELIABILITY - Keep The Lights On This is our core business. W e exist to provide the lifeblood that m odern society relies on - to pow er p eo p le s hom es, businesses, com m unity centers, hospitals, schools, streets, phones, com puters, and now their cars. W e have to m aintain, renew, and expand our system in reasonable fashion based on the needs o f our custom ers so that w e can provide them adequate service. W e have several rigorous program s aim ed at reducing the num ber o f unplanned outages through inspection and preventive m aintenance, predictive engineering analyses, and proactive grid upgrades. W e cannot prevent every equipm ent breakdow n (and the resulting outages) given the age o f our system and the im pact o f outside factors like w eather. W e w ork hard at restoring pow er as quickly as possible through m ore autom ation, greater ability to isolate equipm ent failures from the rest o f the system, and faster field response. a) SCE Needs to Operate and Maintain a Grid That is Simultaneously Expanding, Getting Older, Becoming More Complex, and Facing More Regulatory Requirements S C E s electrical equipm ent, and structures that house or support them, undergo regular inspection to detect degradation or potential m alfunction. W e perform preventive m aintenance based on the priority assigned to the results o f the inspections. A ll our field personnel are trained to notice potential problem s that can lead to safety or reliability issues, and repairs and replacem ents are som etim es driven by issues that crew s and supervisors discover in the field outside the inspection program s. D etails o f our inspection program s can be found in E xhibit SCE-03, V olum es 6 and 8. The cost o f inspections has increased as w e have m ore assets to inspect and m ore regulations to com ply with. A t the sam e tim e, repair expenses and replacem ent expenditures are increasing, as our system continues to deteriorate faster than w e can renew it. O ur greatest asset to m eet custom er expectations is our people. W e need system operators to m onitor the grid and detect problem s prior to or soon after an outage; w e need troublem en to respond to these situations, isolate the problem, and restore pow er if possible; and w e need crew s to inspect and m aintain the equipm ent and structure s. M aintaining an appropriately-sized and reasonably 8

10 w ell-trained w orkforce, one that can keep up w ith the size, health, and com plexity o f the grid, is essential to safe and reliable service. b) We Have an Obligation t o Serve Our Existing Customers as Their Electricity Usage Increases, Provide Services to New Communities, and Adapt Our Grid to Meet California s Policy Goals As new com m unities are built in our service territory, w e have to construct infrastructure to get the pow er to all parts o f the com m unity. This requires new lines to bring in pow er from the transm ission grid, substations to transfo rm it to appropriate voltages, and new circuits and distribution facilities to get the pow er to w here it is needed. As electricity needs increase in existing com m unities, w e have to upgrade and add to our facilities to m ake sure w e are ready to handle the increased load. This can be as discrete a jo b as replacing a sm all distribution transform er w ith a larger one, w hich w ill require a larger pole. O r it can be as big a jo b as increasing the transform er capacity o f an entire substation from 28M V A to 56M V A, or building a new substation. A dditionally, as C alifornia m arches tow ards renew able generation and R enew able Portfolio Standards, utilities have to invest in building new transm ission lines interconnecting the generation to the rest o f the grid, and update the flexibility o f the grid to detect issues, contain problem s, and allow for alternate paths fo r electrical flow during em ergent conditions. These needs are im m ediate, and these activities require funding. W e discuss this in greater detail in Mr. F erree s testim ony in E xhibit SCE-03, V olum e 5, and M r. W o o d s testim ony in E xhibit SCE-03, V olum e 3. c) SCE Is Committed to a Reasonable Program to Replace Distribution Infrastructure to Support Reliability and Reduce Overall Customer Costs The equipm ent and structures that m ake up our electric system continue to age every day. A ll infrastructure, no m atter how robust, has a finite life expectancy, and m ust be replaced eventually. A significant portion o f S C E s distribution infrastructure w as constructed in the years im m ediately follow ing W orld W ar II, w hen Southern C alifornia experienced unprecedented growth. This grow th drove the developm ent o f large and vibrant suburban com m unities in areas w hich w ere once farm land, orchards, or sim ply open space. In these new com m unities, SCE installed the essential electrical facilities needed to provide electrical service to fam ilies and businesses in the 1950s and 1960s. T hose facilities, how ever, have now reached or exceeded the ends o f their useful lives. Like m ost A m erican utilities, w e have m anaged our assets to get the m ost use out o f them before replacing them. F or equipm ent that has low er public or em ployee safety im plications, 9

11 getting the m ost out o f the equipm ent m eans run to failure. F or other equipm ent, w e m ust use standard m aintenance techniques to assess, test, and predict equipm ent failure as close to end o f life as w e can. In som e instances, it is easy to be som ew hat nearsighted, since the failure rate w ill not increase in the im m ediate future. P rior to 2009, our replacem ent rate w as curtailed due to lack o f funding, lack o f resources, em ergence o f shorter-term priority w ork (such as higher custom er grow th), or som e com bination o f all three factors. Eventually, how ever, the probability and incidence o f failures spiral upw ard. O n our system, the probability o f failure o f key assets over the next several years is increasing, and if w e do n o t continue to aggressively address proactive infrastructure replacem ent, it w ill be im possible for us to keep up w ith asset failures and breakdow ns in the future. The basic concept w e follow is fairly straightforw ard: accurately predicting failure o f com ponents allow s replacem ent before failure. R eplacem ent before failure im proves safety as the consequences o f failure can be dangerous either directly - as in a vault explosion - or indirectly, as in the case o f traffic signals that d o n t w ork. R eplacing equipm ent before failure also im proves custom er service. U nplanned outages usually last longer and are m ore disruptive to custom ers lives than planned outages. Finally, replacem ent before failure reduces total costs. It allow s us to optim ize scheduling and im plem ent longer-term fixes. This also helps elim inate consequential dam ages to nearby or connected com ponents that are in acceptable s hape. I w ould like to highlight one area that w e are particularly focusing on in our operations in the com ing years - underground cables. O ur distribution system has over 50,000 conductor-m iles5 o f underground prim ary cable. This cable is aging and an increasing volum e is reaching the end o f its service life each year. O ver 9,700 conductor-m iles o f cable are already older than their m ean tim e to failure, w ith approxim ately 700 m ore m iles on average being added to that each year. O f particular concern to us is a portion o f our cable population o f a type o f construction know n as cable-in-conduit, or CIC. This type o f cable, constituting about 25 percent o f our cable population, is especially difficult to replace. Failures o f CIC typically result in outages lasting over 20 hours. W ithout increased investm ent in the preem ptive replacem ent o f cable, in-service failures w ill resu lt in a significant decline in our system reliability. - The term conductor-miles refers to length of physical cable installed. A mile of conduit housing a three-phase underground cable will translate to three conductor-miles of cable. 10

12 From 2009 to 2012, w e asked this C om m ission for funding to replace nearly 1,000 m iles o f cable. The C om m ission authorized 440 m iles (w ith a relatively large increase in year 2012,6 w here the C om m ission recognized the issue and S C E s com m itm ent to solving it). SCE has replaced over 900 m iles o f cable betw een 2009 and 2012, despite the disallow ances in the 2009 GRC, because w e think this is im portant for m aintaining long-term service reliability. In the current GRC, we are requesting funding to replace over 2,000 m iles o f cable in total betw een years M r. Lee discusses this in further detail in E xhibit SCE-03, V olum e 4. W e view this as a difficult choice the C om m ission m ust m ake to protect the longterm health o f the system. W e are fully cognizant o f w hat our request m eans for ratepayers, and the challenge it poses for us to get the w ork done. B ut this w ork cannot be avoided. It can be perform ed in planned conditions at a controlled rate, or can be perform ed under em ergency conditions w ith unplanned outages and higher costs. 3. AFFORDABILITY - Spend O ur Customers Money Wisely W e have an obligation to spend the m oney w e collect in rates in an appropriate m anner. It is our responsibility to: Prioritize the w ork to m eet ratepayer requirem ents; Identify reasonable-cost options; Closely m onitor the expenditures, schedules, quality, safety and com pliance o f our actions; and C orrectly record and report our expenditures and expenses. W e have renew ed our focus on operational excellence - specifically as it relates to prioritizing w ork, and im proving productivity. W e recognize that our request is substantial. B ut through operational excellence, w e are proactively evaluating all aspects o f our operations to incorporate changes that can enable the w ork to be perform ed m ore effectively and efficiently, w ithin the im m ovable constraints o f safety and com pliance. W e continue to im pose additional rigor around w ork prioritization to facilitate the thoughtful use o f lim ited funding and labor resources. In addition, w e appraised each segm ent o f T& D w o rk s value miles of mainline cable replacement and 36 miles of CIC replacement were authorized in D , pages 151 and 153, respectively. 11

13 chain - system planning, design, execution, and w ork-order closing - to identify and im plem ent im provem ents up and dow n the chain. a) Management Has to Prioritize and Shift Funds to Meet Authorized Rate of Return and Maintain Adequate Service Levels In the norm al course o f business, unexpected costs arise in som e areas, w hile anticipated expenses do not m aterialize in other areas or m ust be postponed. W e have to m ake tough decisions about optim izing our labor and financial resources every day, as our system, custom er needs, and regulatory requirem ents are dynam ic and cannot be precisely predicted. A certain degree o f flexibility, founded upon analyses, experience, and expert judgm ent, w ill alw ays be a critical part o f our business - and o f our successes or failures. W e base our rate case request years in advance o f the actual w ork. D uring the interim period, circum stances can change, and m anagem ent has to reprioritize w ork to address these changes w hile continuing to provid e adequate service to our ratepayers in the short and long term. To cite ju s t one exam ple, in 2009 w e decided to spend m ore funds on our Infrastructure R eplacem ent program, and less on our Load G row th program, com pared to the levels the C om m ission had authorized in our 2009 GRC. This w as the right thing to do, because the actual load grow th w as low er than forecast, and spending m oney ju st to m eet authorized am ounts w ould not be a prudent use o f ratepayer funding. b) We Implemented Improved System Planning Methodologies to Minimize Capital Expenditures on Load Growth and Better Leverage Past Investments L oad grow th planning is the process o f forecasting o f electrical load grow th distribution across the service territory, and evaluating the ability o f existing assets to provide sufficient capacity to m eet the peak dem and o f our custom ers. W hen load grow th is expected to exceed the capabilities o f existing assets, w e propose capital expenditure projects to upgrade or add new assets. Since S C E s peak load happens during sum m er, load grow th planning is largely driven by the ability to evaluate the im pact o f tem perature on electrical dem and. In 2012, SCE m ade changes to the tools w e use to analyze area tem peratures w hen planning for peak loads. These changes are designed to im prove our ability to plan for load grow th using our planning criteria. In addition, SCE also m odified its planning processes and m ethodology to focus on increasing usage o f existing assets and upgrades w e have already m ade. In som e cases, this allow s us to m ake sm aller capital upgrades to balance electric pow er from highly loaded substations and circuits to less loaded substations and circuits 12

14 located in the sam e area. The results in a m ore uniform utilization o f our field assets. B ased on this new m ethodology, w e have been able to defer or canc el several large projects, and replace others w ith sm aller upgrades. This is discussed in m ore detail by M r. W oods in E xhibit SCE-03, V olum e 3. In addition SCE has also incorporated the effects o f distributed generation in our load fo recast by accounting fo r photovoltaic cells that can offset load growth. c) We Evaluated Our Processes for Executing Work to Improve Throughput and Quality G iven the increases in w ork w e anticipate in the future, w e have been gearing up our field organizations to get m ore w ork done w ith the sam e level o f resources and to m inim ize cost increases. W e evaluated the end-to-end value chain o f planning, scheduling, executing, and closing w ork in the field to identify potential areas o f im provem ent, develop tools that w ould facilitate achieving these im provem ents, and im plem ent the necessary changes. This w as a significant undertaking given the large num bers o f em ployees w orking out o f various w ork locations spread across our service territory, w ith each location having a certain degree o f unique attributes and challenges. In the future, w e w ill be bundling w ork that w ill be perform ed in the sam e location. F or exam ple, since w e w ill be assessing every pole in our system for pole loading, w e w ill assess the condition o f the overhead conductor spans betw een the poles and docum ent the num ber o f splices. If repairing or replacing the conductors is w arranted, w e w ill plan and execute the w ork at the sam e tim e as the pole repair or replacem ent. This w ill reduce the num ber o f tim es crew s have to go to the sam e area, w hich in turn w ill reduce costs and low er the im pact on custom ers. W e are also im proving w ork-flow am ong various organizations to aid efficiency. F or exam ple, w e have m odified the yard layouts and the w ay in w hich w e transport m aterial from storage to prepare the jo b kits and ultim ately deliver them the crew s or construction sites. This reduces the am ount o f tim e it takes crew s to get the m aterial they need before heading out to the jo b site. In addition, w e have updated w ork scheduling m odels to reduce driving tim e. Field supervision and construction coordination roles have also been re structured to reduce costs. Lastly, w e have rolled out perform ance m anagem ent tools that are m ore targeted, accessible, and visible, so that w e can better focu s on efficiency and quality w ithout com prom ising safety. For exam ple, D istribution C onstruction and M aintenance (D C & M ) has refined perform ance m etrics into a B alanced Scorecard, w hich m easures safety and com pliance as prerequisites, along w ith throughput, cost efficiency, custom er satisfaction, and quality. The D C & M scorecard serves as a 13

15 14 Workpaper - Southern California Edison / 2015 GRC - APPLICATION 1 foundation for perform ance m anagem ent by utilizing specific m etrics aligned w ith our annual and long 2 term goals. It provides a single overall m easure for district and region com parisons and the ability to 3 drive perform ance expectations to the next level. This has n o t only im proved throughput, b u t has 4 translated to higher quality or quicker error identification o f w ork com pleted by planners, crews, and 5 field accountants. This m eans few er jo b cancellations and re-w ork, w hich in turn reduces costs and 6 im pact on custom ers. 7 These productivity gains im pact num erous areas o f T & D s operations. The 8 specific cost benefits are discussed by Mr. Ferree in E xhibit SCE-03, V olum e Another example of significant productivity gains can be found in Mr. Boucher s testimony regarding the Consolidated Mobile Solution Project in Exhibit SCE-03, Volume 2. 14

16 II. ANALYSIS OF T&D O&M EXPENSES AND CAPITAL EXPENDITURES A. O&M Expenses Figure II-3 T&D O&M Expenses fo r Authorized versus Recorded (2012 constant $millions, CPUC andferc jurisdictional costs) $626 ($21) $16 I I $10 ($12) ($13) I ($21) I I ($17) I $ 570 I 2012 Eng/G rid D ist Const D ist M tce Grid Ops Sub/Trans Safety & Other 2012 A uthorized Tech Training Recorded Eng/Grid T ech Si Dist Const Dist Mtce Grid Ops B Sub/Trans - Safety & Training Other Diff from Auth Figure II-3 above show s the differences betw een the O & M expenses the C om m ission authorized in S C E s 2012 GRC, and w hat w e recorded in spending that year. In our 2012 GRC, T& D requested $676 m illion in 2012 constant dollars, and the C om m ission disallow ed $50 m illion o f that request. In 2012, the authorized expenses w ere not available till N ovem ber o f that test year. G iven the uncertainty in authorized am ounts, m anagem ent necessarily had to restrict spending until the Com m ission provided its guidance on w hat w e could spend. W e delayed m any o f our Sm art G rid-related projects until we received C om m ission guidance and approval. W hile m eeting our com pliance requirem ents, w e had to reduce substation and transm ission inspection and m aintenance. W e did this to the extent possible 15

17 w ithout creating back-logs or im pacting reliability, at least in the short term. In addition, w e restricted training for em ployees w ho are not front-line personnel. In exam ining our spending in 2012, it is also w orth noting that expenses related to storm s or w eather disturbances w ere significantly low er than the h istorical average. Figure II-4 below show s T & D s recorded O & M expenses for 2008 to 2012, and our forecasts from 2013 to Figure II-4 T&D O&M Expenses Recorded Adjusted/ Request (2012 Constant $million, includes FERC and CPUC jurisdictional costs) $700 $600 $500 $400 $300 $200 $100 $ 2012 Constant $ M O ur O & M expenses increased significantly from A significant portion o f this increase w as driven by increasing inspections and m aintenance on the system, along w ith expenses that are driven by capital work. F rom , w e spent $610 m illion each y ear on average. In 2009, expenses recorded at a slightly low er level, as the 2009 G RC D ecision w as published late first quarter o f that year. H ow ever, w e caught up in perform ing the w ork in O ur forecast for the cycle averages out to $608 m illion annually. As m entioned previously, 2012 expenses w ere low due to the tim ing o f the G RC decision. In 2013 and 2014, w e need 16

18 17 1 to perform additional inspection and m aintenance to avoid any backlogs or system im pact. T he increase 2 in 2015 is prim arily to address the pole loading a ssessm ents and repairs that I discussed previously. 3 Figure II-5 below show s T & D s 2015 T est Y ear O & M request by w ork category and 4 corresponding E xh ib it reference. Figure II T&D O&M Expense Request By Work Category (2012 Constant $millions) Pole Loading (V olume 6. Part 2) $39 6% Grid Operations (Volume 7) $112,18% Transmission & Substation Maintenance (Volume 8) $86 13% Distribution Maintenance (Volume 6, Part 1) $190 30% Safety, Training, and Environmental Programs (Volume 9) $68 11% Customer Driven Prog & Distr. Con. (Volume 5) $16 2% T&D Engineering and Grid Technology (Volume 2) $54 8% _T&D Other Costs and OOR (Volume 10) $76 12% 17

19 B. Capital Expenditures Figure II-6 T&D Capital Expenditures fo r Authorized versus Recorded ($millions, CPUC-Jurisdictional costs only) 2,000 1,800 1,600 1,400 1,200 1, Eng System Plan InfT Repl Cust Req Dist Const Dist M tce Grid Ops Sub/Trans 2012 A uthorized M tce Recorded Eng System Plan Infr Repl Cust Req 8SDist Const SfDist Mtce B Grid Ops Sub/Trans Mtce DDiff from Auth Figure II-6 above show s the differences betw een the capital spending the C om m ission authorized in S C E s 2012 G RC and w hat w e recorded that year. In our 2012 GRC, the C om m ission approved total T& D capital expenditures o f $1,592 m illion. W e recorded $1,500 m illion that year, or $92 m illion less than authorized. F igure II-6 above helps illustrate the prim ary contributors to that difference. First, SCE experienced relatively m ild storm s in 2012; storm -related expenditures in 2012 w ere approxim ately $15 m illion low er than the average o f the authorized am ounts in years M ore significantly, w e had to im pose con straints on our expenditures, because w e did n o t know w hat level w e w ere funded at for our activities until the Com m ission issued the 2012 GRC decision in N ovem ber W e had to reduce pre-em ptive infrastructure replacem ent that focuses on long term reliability, in order to preserve dollars for m ore im m ediate system needs. 18

20 O ur lead tim e for planned T& D w ork ranges from a few m onths to a year, because the w ork requires significant planning, perm itting, and scheduling. A ccordingly, it w as im possible to ram p up w ork to m eet authorized levels in the last few w e eks o f The challenge o f ram ping-up execution continues in 2013, but w e are confident that w e w ill be able to m eet authorized levels over the G RC period.8 Figure II-7 T&D Capital Expenditures Recorded and Forecast ($million, includes CPUC-Jurisdictional costs only) Figure II-7 above provides a historical perspective on our capital expenditures - w hat w e recorded during the period , and w hat w e forecast for years It show s the grow th in total T& D C P U C -jurisdictional capital expenditures from $1,164 m illion in 2008 to $1,512 m illion in M ost o f this increase has occurred to address aging and deteriorating infrastructure replacem ent, follow ed by m odest increases in load grow th and custom er requested (added facilities) projects. O ur 8 Mr. Litzinger discusses this in Exhibit SCE All capital expenditures shown in this exhibit represent gross expenditures, i.e. they are not net of customer contributions. The customer contribution credits are added in the Results of Operation model prior to calculating revenue requirements. 19

21 20 Workpaper - Southern California Edison / 2015 GRC - APPLICATION 1 forecast increase in 2015 is largely to address infrastructure replacem ent associated w ith com pliance, 2 reliability, and safety. Please refer to m y testim ony above for further discussion o f our needed spend in 3 these areas. Figure II-8 Total 2013 to 2017Capital Expenditure Forecast by Work Category $millions (includes CPUC-Jurisdictional forecasts) Customer Driven Prog & Distr. Con.(Volume 5). $3,158, 26% Infrastructure Replacement Programs (Volume 4) $2,032, 17% Distribution Maintenance (Volume 6, Part 1), $2,519, 21% Pole Loading (Volume 6, Part 2), $1,078, 9% Grid Operations (Volume 7), $511, 4% System Planning Capital Projects (Volume 3), $2,165 18% T&D Engineering and Grid Technology (Volume 2), $183, 1% Transmission & Substation Maintenance (Volume 8), $438, 4% 4 Figure II-8 above show s T & D s 2015 Test Y ear Capital E xpenditure request by w ork category 5 and corresponding E xhibit reference. T able II-2 below provides the capital expenditures by m ajor w ork 6 categories for 2008 to 2017 as requested by the C om m ission in O rdering P aragraph 7 in D

22 21 Table II-2 Capital Expenditure by Major Work Categories Recorded/2012 Authorized/ Forecast (Nominal $millions, CPUC-Jurisdictional only) Exhibit Reference Exhibit Name Witness Recorded Recorded Recorded Recorded Auth Recorded Forecast Forecast Forecast Forecast Forecast SCE-03, Vol. 2 Engineering & Grid T echnology K. Payne / D. Kim / T. Boucher SCE-03, Vol. 3 System Planning Capital Projects R. Woods SCE-03, Vol. 4 SCE-03, Vol. 5 Infrastructure Replacement Programs Customer Driven Programs and Distribution Construction R. Lee G. Ferree SCE-03, Distribution Vol. 6, Pt. 1 Maintenance M. Stark / K. Trainor SCE-03, Pole Loading Vol. 6, Pt. 2 Program K. Trainor SCE-03, Vol. 7 Grid Operations P. Grigaux SCE-03, Vol. 8 Transmission & Substation Maintenance T. Kedis TOTAL 1,152 1,316 1,440 1,492 1,592 1,500 2,021 2,295 2,667 2,633 2,473 21

23 22 Workpaper - Southern California Edison / 2015 GRC - APPLICATION C. T&D Testimony Organization Table II-3 Request by Testimony and Witness Includes CPUC and FERC Jurisdictional Costs Exhibit Re fe re nce Exhibit Name Witness SCE-03, Volume 2 SCE-03, Volume 3 SCE-03, Volume 4 Engineering & Grid Technology System Planning Capital Projects Infrastructure Replacement Programs K. Payne / D. Kim / T. Boucher 2015 O&M Forecast (2012 Constant $) Capital Expenditure Forecast ($ Millions) R. Woods 0 4,145 R. Lee 0 2,144 SCE-03, Volume 5 Customer-Driven Programs and Distribution Construction G. Ferree 16 3,158 SCE-03, Volume 6, Part 1 Distribution Maintenance M. Stark / K. Trainor 190 2,531 SCE-03, Volume 6, Part 2 Pole Loading Program K. Trainor 39 1,093 SCE-03, Volume 7 Grid Operations P. Grigaux SCE-03, Volume 8 Transmission & Substation Maintenance T. Kedis SCE-03, Volume 9 Safety, Trakining, and Environmental Programs G. McDonald 68 0 SCE-03, Volume 10 Other Costs & OOR T. Reeves 76 0 TOTAL ,672 22

24 III. REGULATORY MECHANISMS FOR RELIABILITY AND SAFETY PROGRAMS A. Reliability and Safety Investment Mechanism 1. Background In S C E s 2006, 2009, and 2012 G RCs, the C om m ission adopted the R eliability Investm ent Incentive M echanism (RIIM ). R IIM replaced previous reliability m echanism s that had focused on reliability m etrics that are largely bey ond the control o f the utility in the short run, and that did not provide incentives for long-term investm ent in the pow er system s health. R IIM com prised tw o com ponents: (1) C apital spending on reliability-related projects and activities; and (2) H iring o f field personnel direc tly w orking on reliability-related projects and program s. In the 2012 GRC, the C om m ission reauthorized RIIM, but directed that SCE m odify the m echanism to address som e specific areas: Choose w ork categories that im pact b oth safety and reliability, not ju st the latter. L im it the categories identified as R IIM eligible to focus attention on specific program s. Provide better m eans o f linkin g expenditure and im pact on long term reliability and safety. SCE shares the C om m ission s b elief in the im portance o f a m echanism such as R IIM,10 as it focuses the u tility s attention on long-term custom er benefit. W e also continue to believe that the b est w ay to im pact long-term benefits is investing in infrastructure and w ork-force, n o t in tracking lagging indicators like SA ID I/SA IFI.11 In the short term, these indicators exist largely outside the u tility s control. 10 See D , p. 699 ( We return to our conclusions in 2003 and 2006 to find the RIIM settlement reasonable: our priority concern for long-term reliability is amplified by SCE s aging infrastructure, and ratepayers benefit when SCE must spend funds for long-term reliability projects as authorized. Under cost-of-service ratemaking, without RIIM, SCE is otherwise able to redirect unspent funds freely, including to shareholder profits. ). 11 SAIDI/SAIFI refers to the System Average Interruption Frequency and the System Average Interruption Duration Index. 23

25 Proposal a) Infrastructure investment Table III-4 below sum m arizes the program s SCE proposes to include in 2015 RIIM, along w ith certain program attributes. In response to the C om m ission s request to include specific program s in RIIM, w e are proposing to include seven program s that are specifically designed to address long-term safety and reliability issues. W ork perform ed in these program s is identified by T& D after rigorous inspection, testing and analyses. U nder the m echanism, SCE proposes the follow ing: a. The 2015 to 2017 cum ulative capital additions authorized for the w ork categories show n below in Table III-4 and safety program s w ill serve as the R IIM capital target. If w e underspend in actual capital additions in these program s during the sam e period, the am ount u nderspent w ill be returned to ratepayers. The expenditures in these program s w ill n o t be tracked individually for RIIM, to provide m anagem ent reasonable flexibility to address em ergent need s and challenges. b. I f capital additions in high-priority program s that are outside the u tility s control (such as C ustom er G row th, Storm s, and C laim s) turn out to be higher or low er than authorized, the target w ill be adjusted dow n or up by the difference betw een the authorized and the actual capital additions. c. The targets for capital additions have to be appropriately adjusted based on the tim ing o f the final decision in the T est Y ear 2015 G RC, so that T& D has sufficient tim e to execute on authorized am ounts. d. SCE w ill provide a rep ort to the C om m ission that provides details o f w ork com pleted under each program, along w ith the specifics o f how we determ ined that this w ork w ould positively im pact long-term reliability and safety. E ach program has unique analyses underlying the w ork-scope developm ent, as indicated below in Table III-4. E xam ples o f these drivers are provided in w orkpapers.12 > See workpapers / pp See workpaper titled RIIM Work Identification Processes and Analyses. 24

26 25 Table III RIIM Categories and Capital Expenditure Forecasts PROGRAM Worst Circuit Rehabilitation Underground Cable Life CIC Replacement Underground Switch Underground Structure Replacement Circuit Breaker Replacements Substation Transformer Replacement PRIMARY DRIVER Reliability LEADING INDICATOR OF PROGRAM IMPACT AND EFFECTIVEN ESS Number of circuits improved Miles of cable replaced Historical reliability metrics for each circuit rehabilitated, along with work completed CAPITAL EXPENDITURE FORECASTS ($ million, CPUC Jurisdictional only) TESTIMONY REFERENCE 347 SCE-03, Vol 4 Reliability Miles of Cable Tested 83 SCE-03, Vol 4 Reliability Safety Safety Reliability Reliability Miles of cable replaced Results of cable testing for each segment replaced Number of switches replaced Age of switches replaced Number of structures replaced Inspection results for structures replaced Number of circuit breakers replaced Health index of asset (combination of age, performance history, and inspection results) Number of substation transformers replaced Health index of asset (combination of age, performance history, and inspection results) TOTAL 1, SCE-03, Vol 4 30 SCE-03, Vol SCE-03, Vol 6, Pt 1 96 SCE-03, Vol SCE-03, Vol 4 25

27 26 Workpaper - Southern California Edison / 2015 GRC - APPLICATION Table III RIIM High-Priority Categories and Capital Expenditure Forecasts PRO GRAM CAPITAL EXPENDITURE FO R ECA STS ($ million, CPU C Jurisdictional only) TESTIM O N Y REFEREN CE Customer Growth 1,211 SCE-03, V ol 5 Storms 143 SCE-03, V ol 7 Claims 81 SCE-03, V ol 5 TOTAL 1,434 1 b) Critical Workforce 2 SCE believes that no am ount o f investm ent in its electrical assets w ill be 3 successful w ithout investm ent in our w orkforce, especially those w ho respond to restore pow er, m itigate 4 dangers to public safety, and m aintain and construct our system. SCE proposes m aintaining a level o f 5 2,225 em ployees in the categories show n below in Table III-6. This is approxim ately equal to year-end count. I f SCE fails to m aintain this level, SCE agrees to refund to ratepayers $20,000 for each 7 headcount shortfall, up to shortfall o f 50 em ployees, and refund $80,000 for each headcount shortfall 8 thereafter. 26

28 27 Table III-6 RIIM Workforce Classifications Workforce Category 2008 Year End Count 2009 Year End Count 2010 Year End Count 2011 Year End Count 2012 Year End Count Distribution E-Crew Foreman Distribution Lineman Distribution Sr. Cable Splicer Distribution Apprentice Lineman Distribution Groundman A Distribution Groundman Transmission Lineman Transmission Groundman A Transmission Apprentice Lineman Sr. Patrolman Troubleman System Operator Substation Operator Electrician Substation Electrician Apprentice Substation Technician Test Technician Test Supervising TOTAL 2,008 2,133 2,238 2,239 2, Average 2,209 1 A pproxim ately a fifth o f the R IIM w orkforce is in apprentice classifications that 2 require extensive training. T herefore, any reductions in the request for training expenses w ill lim it our 3 ability to m aintain an appropriate SCE w orkforce. If authorized am ounts for em ployee training are less 27

29 than our request, SCE proposes reducing the target headcount by one-fifth o f the percentage reduction from requ est to authorized am ounts.13 It is also im portant to note that headcount in any w ork-group can change at short notice, and backfilling w ith qualified candidates takes a certain am ount o f tim e. F or exam ple, SCE determ ines apprentice groundm en hires based on anticipated linem en needs in the future and forecast linem en attrition. I f the actual attrition is higher than our forecasts tow ards the end o f 2017, SCE m ight be unable to put additional em ployees in the apprentice pipeline to m aintain overall em ployee levels, as it takes tim e to hire qualified em ployees, and build an optim um training class size.14 Therefore, if S C E s reliability w orkforce counts decline below 2,225 betw een Septem ber 1, 2017 and D ecem ber 31, 2017, SCE proposes that it have until M arch 31, 2018 to fully address the shortfall. B. Pole Loading Balancing Account A s discussed earlier, SCE has designed a Pole Loading P rogram that w ill assess each o f its poles over a seven-year period to identify and then rem ediate those poles that do n o t m eet the current pole loading safety standards. This program w ill be a significant driver o f pole inspection, m aintenance, and replacem ents, as detailed in E xhibit SCE-03, V olum e 6, P art 2. W e have developed these forecasts based on the system w ide sam pling plan m andated in D In addition, these forecasts m ight be m odified as we develop detailed operational plans for w ork execution strategy. I highlight below som e exam ples o f the factors that m ight im pact the costs, although this is not m eant to be an exhaustive list. P roportion o f poles that w ill need rem ediation - For purposes o f estim ating costs in , w e project that approxim ately 3 percent o f the poles w ill need repairs and approxim ately 19 percent w ill need replacem ents. The actual proportions m ay turn out to be over or under these estim ates. C ost o f assessm ent, planning, repair, or replacem ent - The cost estim ates are based on historical data or lim ited discussion w ith vendors. SCE w ill have to refine these estim ates as it refines and im proves its contracting strategy for this work. So, for example, if the authorized amounts for training is 10 percent lower than our request, the RIIM employee target will be 2 percent lower than 2,225, or 2, Training class sizes vary between 10 and 15 for most apprentice classes. Training in smaller numbers is inefficient and costly. 28

30 R em ediation M ethodology - O ur current estim ates assum e that w e w ill replace a pole that is not m eeting pole loading standards w ith another pole o f the appropriate strength. D epending on field evaluations and cost benefit analyses, it m ight be m ore prudent to underground sections o f lines, or rebuild segm ents to strengthen and fire-harden the distribution system. O verlap w ith other pole program s - W e perform pole replacem ents and repairs pursuant to other T& D program s such as deteriorated pole replacem ent, breakdow n, storm, preventive m aintenance, and line extensions. O ur current analysis does not account for the potential overlap betw een the Pole Loading program and these other program s. W e currently do not have sufficient data to precisely m ap out the boundaries o f the Pole Loading program versus the other program s. The actual rem ediation costs recorded in the Pole L oading Program w ill only include poles that require repair or replacem ent solely because the pole fails a pole loading assessm ent. F or instance, if a pole is identified for replacem ent based on intrusive pole inspection and pole loading assessm ent, it w ill not be included in the Pole L oading program. As a second exam ple, if a pole is identified for replacem ent under Pole Loading, but subsequently needs to be replaced because o f third-party dam age, SCE w ill perform appropriate pole loading calculations prior to replacing the pole, but w ill not charge it to the Pole Loading Program. R egardless o f the inherent forecasting error, SCE is com m itted to using authorized am ounts for the Pole Loading program to resolve the pole loading challenge. Therefore, in this GRC, SCE is proposing to establish a new tw o-w ay Pole Loading B alancing A ccount (PLBA ) effective on January 1, The PLB A w ill serve to record the difference betw een: R ecorded O & M incurred for Pole Loading Program assessm ents and repairs identified as necessary by pole loading assessm ents, and capital-related revenue requirem ents associated w ith replacing poles an d m aking necessary system upgrades specifically identified as part o f the Pole Loading program ; and The authorized Pole L oading revenue requirem ent adopted in this GRC. F or further details on the PLB A, please see Mr. S now s testim ony in E xhibit SCE-10, V olum e 1, P art 2. 29

31 IV. CONCLUSION I believe w e have presented the C om m iss ion w ith reasonably straightforw ard choices about the reliability and flexibility o f the grid today and in the future, the investm ent required to m eet C alifornia s unprecedented and im portant policy goals, the need fo r a w ell-trained and diverse w orkforce, and the system s and processes w e need to do all o f these things in a w ay that is safe, reasonable, and com pliant w ith all applicable law s and regulations. I firm ly believe that approving our request is in the best interests o f our custom ers and the com m unities w e serve. O ur T& D priorities are the right ones, and we have chosen a prudent path to safeguard the present and build for the future. I thank the C om m ission for their careful attention to the condition and needs o f our pow er system and the hard-w orking people that run it. 30

32 2015 General Rate Case - APPLICATION In d e x o f W o r k p a p e r s EXHIBIT SCE-03, Volume 01 DOCUM ENT PAGE(S) Capital Workpapers, Operating Unit Summary 1-2 RIIM Work Identification Processes and Analyses 3-71

33 1 Southern California Edison Company CAPITAL WORKPAPERS GRC OPERATING UNIT SUMMARY (Nominal $000) Operating Unit Summary: T&D (1) OPERATING UNIT FORECAST CAPITAL EXPENDITURES: 2015 GRC Item Testimony Description Forecast Capital Expenditures Total 1 CUSTOMER DRIVEN PROGRAMS AND DISTRIBU 458, , , , ,030 3,158,210 2 DISTRIBUTION MAINTENANCE 518, , , , ,093 2,531,343 3 ENGINEERING & GRID TECHNOLOGY 59,521 46,125 45,447 41,133 49, ,841 4 EXCLUDED FROM GRC 32,454 36, , , ,656 1,009,223 5 GRID OPERATIONS 113, ,631 99, , , ,721 6 INFRASTRUCTURE REPLACEMENT PROGRAMS 301, , , , ,827 2,143,788 7 OTHER ,270 8 POLE LOADING PROGRAM 0 40, , , ,352 1,092,543 9 Savings -2,549-1, , SYSTEM PLANNING CAPITAL PROJECTS 1,512, 753 1,110, , , ,102 4,145, TRANSMISSION & SUBSTATION MAINTENANCE 128, , , , , ,103 Total 3,122,477 3,026,544 3,206,877 3,181,093 3,142,882 15,679,873

34 2 Workpaper - Southern California Edison / 2015 GRC - APPLICATION Southern California Edison Company CAPITAL WORKPAPERS GRC OPERATING UNIT SUMMARY (Nominal $000) Operating Unit Summary: T&D (2) OPERATING UNIT RECORDED AND AUTHORIZED CAPITAL AND FORECAST EXPENDITURES: 2015 GRC Description Recorded and Authorized Capital Expen ditures Forecast Capital Expenditures Authorized Expenditures 2,235,888 2,898,482 Recorded & Forecast Expenditures 1,488,903 1,775,182 2,155,808 2,357,608 2,800,354 3,122,477 3,026,544 3,206,877 3,181,093 3,142,882 Total Expenditure 10,577,854 15,679,873 Recorded, Authorized and Forecast Expenditures Graph ,000, ,

35 3 RIIM Work Identification Processes And Analyses

36 4 Workpaper - Southern California Edison / 2015 GRC - APPLICATION Criteria For Worst Circuit Rehabilitation Program Details in Exhibit SCE-03, Volume 4 Witness: Roger Lee

37 5 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON TRANSMISSION AND DISTRIBUTION BUSINESS UNIT Data Analysis and Circuit Identification Asset Management & System Reliability This document is classified "Internal" per ACT policies >SCE Internal SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON TRANSMISSION AND DISTRIBUTION BUSINESS UNIT 2

38 6 Workpaper - Southern California Edison / 2015 GRC - APPLICATION Objective Review outage history and circuit contribution to reliability metrics. Determine region contribution to system reliability metrics and allocate funding based on this data. Identify circuits to be targeted using allocated funding. Outage Data Data set used - Most recent three years worth of outage history Outage Type - Sustained CB and Area-Outs Inclusions - All equipment caused failures (excluding splice failures) Indices SYSTEM SAIDI - Circuit's contribution to the total system SAIDI (where SAIDI is the amount of time the average SCE customer is without power due to outage lasting more than 5 minutes.) SYSTEM SAIFI - Circuit's contribution to the total system SAIFI (where SAIFI is the number of times the average SCE customer is interrupted by an outage lasting more than 5 minutes.) CIRCUIT SAIDI - Am ount of time the average customer on that circuit was without power due to outages lasting longer than 5 minutes. CIRCUIT SAIFI - Number of times the average customer on the circuit experienced an outage lasting more than 5 minutes. Frequency * Peak Load I # Of Customers - is the number of outages (AR or CB, sustained + momentary) multiplied by the peak load in the past year all divided by the number of customers. This metric identifies deteriorating performance on circuits with few but large usage customers. Calculating region contribution to System Reliability Each circuit s contribution to above mentioned indices is calculated using the W eighted Average Average (WAA) Methodology. W eighted Average Average Methodology explained - Calculate circuit contribution to an index for 3 years as [(y1+y2+y3)/3 + (y2+y3)/2 + y3]/3 thereby placing weightage on the most recent year. Circuit Name 2011 Avg Customers Device Level SAIDI (CM I) 2009 Device Level SAIDI (CMI) 2010 Device Level SAIDI (CMI) 2011 Device Level SAIDI WAA Circuit SAIDI 2009 Circuit SAIDI 2010 Circuit SAIDI 2011 Ckt SAIDI WAA ABACUS 2, , , , ABANA , ,417 9, ABBOT 1, ,159 3, , , ABERDEEN 1,039 65, ,412 29, ABIGAIL 1, , , , , Calculate the Weighted Average Average contribution and assign a rank for each index. 3

39 7 Circuit Name kv 2011 Avg Customers SAIFI Rank SAIFI % SAIDI Rank SAIDI % Ckt SAIFI Rank Ckt SAIFI % Ckt SAIDI Rank Ckt SAIDI % Freq* Load / # Cust Rank Freq* Load / # Cust Rank % ABACUS 12 2, , , , , ABANA , , , , ABBOT 12 1, ABERDEEN 12 1,039 1, , , , , ABIGAIL 12 1, Sum all circuits in region under the System SAIFI and SAIDI Indices to determine region contribution to the two system indices 4

40 8 Workpaper - Southern California Edison / 2015 GRC - APPLICATION Allocating dollars amongst regions A circuit would typically show up in more than one index CIRCUIT NAME KV WCR SAIFI RANK WCR SAIFI 3 YR WCR SAIFI % WCR SAIDI RANK WCR SAIDI 3 YR WCR SAIDI % ABACUS , ABANA 12 2, , ABBOT ABERDEEN 12 1, , ABIGAIL Retain circuit in the index with the lowest rank (i.e worst performance) between System SAIFI and System SAIDI CIRCUIT NAME KV WCR SAIFI RANK WCR SAIFI % WCR SAIDI RANK WCR SAIDI % ABACUS ABANA 12 2, ABBOT ABERDEEN 12 1, ABIGAIL Total contribution to system reliability per region is calculated taking 70% of region contribution to System SAIFI and 30% of region contribution to System SAIDI Regions ^ ^ Total Allocation of DIR Budget = Sum (70% of SysSAIFI+30% of SysSAIDI) for Region X * Total DIR Budget G uidelines for dollar allocation am ongst the 5 indices - SysSA IFI - 10% SysSA ID I - 20% C ktsa IFI - 40% C ktsa ID I - 20% Freq*Load - 10% 5

41 9 Selecting circuits to be worked A circuit w ould typically show under m ultiple indices as show n below Circuit Name kv 2011 Avg Customers SAIFI Rank SAIFI % SAIDI Rank SAIDI % Ckt SAIFI Rank Ckt SAIFI % Ckt SAIDI Rank Ckt SAIDI % Freq* Load /# Cust Rank Freq* Load / # Cust Rank % ABACUS 12 2, , , , , ABANA , , , , ABBOT 12 1, ABERDEEN 12 1,039 1, , , , , ABIGAIL 12 1, R etain circuit in the index w here it has the low est rank (i.e. w orst perform ance) Circuit Name 2011 Avg Customers SAIFI RANK SAIOI RANK CKT SAJFI RANK CKT SAIDI RANK Freq* Load / # cust Rank Abacus12kV 2,062 Abigail 12kV 1,828 Abana12kV 167 A bbot12kv 1,885 Aberdeen 12kV 1,039 6

42 10 Workpaper - Southern California Edison / 2015 GRC - APPLICATION W ith an estim ated spend o f approx $600K per circuit, circuits are identified to be w orked per region Ckt Region Name 2011 Avg Customers SAIFI RANK 2014 Crosson 16kV North Coast 4,409 3 Cottonmouth 16kV North Coast 3,022 9 Windjammer 16kV North Coast 5, Corsica 16kV North Coast 4, Ponderosa 16kV North Coast 4, Neargate 16kV North Coast 2, Byer16kV North Coast 1, Wiley 16kV North Coast 2, Diablo 16kV North Coast 4, Atmore 16kV North Coast 2, Carnegie 16kV North Coast 4, Hampshire 16kV North Coast 3, Nero 16kV North Coast 2, Toga 16kV North Coast 2, Appleton 16kV North Coast 2, Cienigitas 16kV North Coast 2, List of targeted circuits is reviewed with stakeholders (typically at an RGT meeting). Input is sought for circuits that may need to be added to the identified list of circuits or circuits that do not need to be addressed due to a previously implemented/identified solution. Information is sought from stakeholders pertaining to areas of specific concern on identified circuits and suggested solutions if any. Stakeholder feedback is reviewed and agreed upon changes incorporated. DIR group then analyzes each identified circuit for preemptive equipment replacement and/or reliability improvement per the steps laid out in the desk procedures. 7

43 11 Criteria For Replacing Tested CIC Cable Details in Exhibit SCE-03, Volume 4 Witness: Roger Lee

44 12 Workpaper - Southern California Edison / 2015 GRC - APPLICATION Criteria for Replacing Tested CIC Cable The need and urgency o f repair/replacem ent o f tested CIC cable is based on: 1) the condition o f the cable insulation as determ ined by the location and m agnitude o f detected partial discharge, and 2) the condition o f the concentric neutral w ires The replacem ent criteria are sum m arized below: AMSR Short Term Repair/Replacement AMSR Long Term Repair/Replacement * Insulation partial discharge at 1.0 times the normal line to ground operating voltage Termination partial discharge at 1,0 times the normal line to ground operating voltage Splice (joint) partial discharge at 1,0 times the normal line to ground operating voltage a Connector partial discharge at 1.0 times the normal line to ground operating voltage * Line to ground cable configuration neutral condition of: 4A. 4B. 4C. 3C. 2C. IC * Insulation partial discharge above 1.0 and below 4.0 times the normal line to ground operating voltage * Termination partial discharge above 1.0 and below 1,5 times the normal line to ground operating voltage * Splice (joint) partia! discharge above 1.0 and below 1,5 times the normal line to ground operating voltage * Connector partial discharge above 1,0 and below 1,3 times the normal line to ground operating voltage * Line to ground cable configuration neutral condition of: 3B. 3A, 2B. 2A. IB * Line to line cable configuration neutral condition of: 4A. 4B. 4C, 3C. 3B, 3A, 2C, 2B. 2A, I C, I B AMSR Short Term vs. Long Term Repair/Replacem ent

45 13 The condition o f the concentric neutral w ires is assigned based on both the H R TD R response and the B SIR response as follows: N eulral Corrosion Assessmenl D e fe c t Specific N eu tral C o rro sio n D iag n o stic (H R T D R ) Time Domain fie/tec tome ter HRTDR Lewd W ires Broken W ires Remaining SCE Priority HRTDR Response 1 0% to 25% 75% to 100% Good 2 25% to 50% 50% to 75% % to 75% 25% to 50% 2 <25% of the roundtrip reflection No significant mid-span irnped infled. 25% - 50% of round trip reflection Sm allerthan atypical splice reflection 50% -100% of the roundtrip reflection Largerthan a typical splice reflection 4 75% to 100% 0% to 25% 1 Largerthan the round trip reflection Reference: IEEE 1617 Table 1 Corrosion Categories D istrib u ted N eu tral C o rro sio n A ss e s s m e n t (BS IR ) BSIR Lewd General Neulral Condition SCE Priority BSIR Response A No recognizable distributed neutral corrosion Good Identifiable roundtrip of20pc or better (smaller) No significant signal attenuation Substantial distributed neutral B corrosion Severe distributed neutral corrosion Reference: IMCORP BSIR specification: Please consult IMCORP for more information. 2 Identifiable roundtrip between 50 and 500pC Substantial signal attenuation Identifiable roundtrip of 500pC or greater Nearly complete or complete signal attenuation The need and urgency o f repair/replacem ent o f tested CIC cable as a function o f the condition o f the concentric neutral w ires is determ ined as follow s: M atrix B a s e d on SC E D e te rio ra te d C o n cen tric N eutral D o c u m e n t - P h a se to G ro u n d HRTDR Result BSIR A Good Long Term Replacement Long Term Replacement ShortTerm Replacement B Long Term Replacement Long Term Replacement Long Term Replacement ShortTerm Replacement C Short Term Replacement Short Term Replacement Short Term Replacement ShortTerm Replacement M atrix B a s e d on SC E D e te rio ra te d C o n cen tric N eutral D o c u m e n t - P h a se to Ph ase HRTDR Result BSIR A Good Long Term Replacement Long Term Replacement Long Term Replacement B Long Term Replacement Long Term Replacement Long Term Replacement Long Term Replacement C Long Term Replacement Long Term Replacement Long Term Replacement Long Term Replacement

46 14 Workpaper - Southern California Edison / 2015 GRC - APPLICATION corp.com Cable System Factory GradeSMTest Report P ro je c t ID : _ _ N e w h a li_ C ro s s 1 6 K v _ X F R B _ X F R B P ro je ct F o r: SCE T e ste d O n: 4 /2 / Project Team : C.J.L. MQ.U: 15 O p. V o lta g e : 9.5 Test Voltage IkV) Test Voltage IkVI M.H. la A kv Neutral Sensitivity (pc) p C Pulse Speed 500 Component Location pc #/Cvcle TestkV Reconmend FE Termination NE Term ination 0.1 4A Defer Action C u s to m e r T ype: Utility o_o_o S u b s ta tio n : Newhall S e c tio n ID: Cross 16Kv F ro m : XFR B N ear E nd M fa /T vp e : Eiastimoid DF-Dead break el Ta; XFR B Far End Mfg /Type: Eiastimoid DF-Dead break el C able in fo rm a tio n : 1978 Phelps Dodge 15kV XLPE Unjacket Concentric Wire #2 S p lic e M fg /T yp e : Unknown in s ta lla tio n : Cable in Conduit (ClC)Flexibi ^ , r Repair i4.9 Overall Cable System Recommendation Based o Re iair A L o Imped Terminations 2.5 ' 2.0 i S) d A! i :10 i 0 5 LG m facturers Standards* Abbreviation Key A Phase NE: 1979 FE:1979 Customer declined to reterminate FE. Decontamination F Void Removal FE Replaced FE L e n g th A repair is recommended for the termination at the far end. A repair is recommended for the cable at 315,302, 326 ft. The impedance inflection at 22 ft is most likely due to a minor neutral interruption. Any repairs should be retested to assure they meet the Cable/Component MfgsT standards. Cable/Component Mfgs' Standard Thresholds 5D/6DHz only] IEEE 48 Terminations No PD > 5pCup to l.suo IEEE 404 Joints No PD>5pCup to l.suo IEEE 386 Separable Connectors No PD>3pCup tol.3uo ICEA S Metallic Shield MV Cable No PD > 5pCup to4uo* ICEA S Concentric Wire MV Cable No PD > SpCup to4uo* ICEA S-10S-720 HV/EHV Cable No PD>5pCup to2uo *200V/mil. field tests arelimited to the level of system overvoltage protection (2-2.5Uo). Results contingent on the measured sensitivity. Uo is the RivlS operating volt age line to ground.. a!=u a a it - SpCwun 'eported distances are based upon the estimated pulse speed noted. Actual distances can be determined through the pulse speed verific ation procedure prior to testing or by tte it ion matching procedure after a defect has been detected. Contact livlcorp for more information. SCE-4/2/2013- Newh al I -XFR B XFR B

47 15 Criteria For Underground Structure Replacement Program Details in Exhibit SCE-03, Volume 6, Part 1 Witness: Melvin Stark

48 16 Workpaper - Southern California Edison / 2015 GRC - APPLICATION DVMP REMEDIATION REVIEW The Deteriorated Vault and M anhole Program (DVMP) review process fo r rem ediation determ ination relies largely on the Engineering Evaluation and Repair Estimate Reports that result from the Field Investigation process. M any factors are also considered during this rigorous final rem ediation action selection process. The follow ing are the criteria considered fo r non-emergency replacements and repairs. Primary: The follow ing is the initial and prim ary criteria considered when determ ining and the original course o f remediation. REPAIR REPLACE Total estim ate o f w ork < $50K Total estim ate o f w ork > $50K Engineering (FI) estim ation o f w ork < $30K1 Engineering (FI) estim ation o f w ork > $30K1 Secondary: The follow ing is the secondary criteria considered when selecting the course o f remediation. Targeted as REPAIRABLE Low am ount (%) o f D eterioration M inor, non-structural corrosion and damage Concrete Type: Hard Rock Aggregate Concrete Structure Type: Tub Style Location: Light Loading / Parkways Targeted as REPLACEABLE High am ount (%) o f Deterioration Severe Ceiling and/or Wall (Buckling) Deterioration H20 Loading issues Concrete Type: Lightweight Concrete Structure Type: Tunnel Style Location: Non-Heavy Loading/Traffic Repair w ork exceeds 15 days Other Factors that Influence the Remediation Course (but are not limited to the following): - Street Paving M oratorium s - Circuit configuration: Substation getaways, - Design Standard Conformance - Environm ental: hillsides - Future Development - Outages needed (impacts to customers and businesses) - Engineering Recommendations 1 The engineering estimation (Field Investigation Repair Estimate) includes the labor and material costs only for the repair work performed by the contractor (Structural Group) and does not include 3rd party or internal SCE costs. Examples of these additional costs are: qualified electrical worker labor (QEW), traffic control, permitting, water removal, etc..

49 17 J EDISON INTERNATIONAL1 VAULT NUMBER V REPAIR DIMP RANKING HIGH COST ESTIMATE $62,550 SHORING REQUIRED 1. Internal Protecting Canopy 2. Wall Spalling Protecting Concept 3. Temporary Internal Wood Structural Shoring NOTE Please Review Report In Depth

50 18 Workpaper - Southern California Edison / 2015 GRC - APPLICATION November 14, 2011 J EDISON INTERNATIONAL Southern California Edison International Mr. Tom Valenzuela PIMP RANK: REPAIR- HIGH1 Re: Vault Structural Inspection Vault Number: V Vault Size Description: 22-0 x 8-0 x 9-4 Location: 114 Harbor Blvd., Fullerton Inspected by: Lambert Villanueva, PGA Engineers SCE (Southern California Edison International) observed the vault structural integrity at the subject site on November 14, The purpose of these services was to observe: That the exposed reinforcing steel, if any, is within the general conformance of the ASTM and ACI Standard Specifications and is repairable if damaged. That the concrete is within the general conformance of the ASTM and ACI Standard Specifications and is repairable if damaged. That the entire structural integrity of the vault is within the general conformance of the SCE Standard Specifications. Based upon our on-site observations, the vault structure appeared to be extremely damaged on the ceiling and around the necking and will need to be repaired. All other sections of the vault are still in general accordance with the above mentioned standards and approved plans except for the identified items. In addition, the structure shall be shored until all repairs are made. For shoring procedures, please refer to Appendices A and B. For repair procedures, please refer to Appendices C and D. The following are the attached documents that shall be followed: Repair Recommendations. SORS (Structural Observation Report Summary) SOSRR (Summary of Structural Repairs Recommendation) VIFCSS (Visual Inspection Form of Concrete Structure in Service) Appendix A (Internal Canopy and Wall Spalling Protection Systems) Appendix B (Temporary Shoring) Appendix C (Concrete Repair Application Procedures (RAP)) Appendix D (SCE Standards MS 860) Internal falling debris protection systems shall be provided as soon as possible. The contractor repairing the vault shall contact the SCE structural engineer to approve his repair plan prior to performing any work on the vault. Prepared by: Lambert Villanueva, PGA Engineers Copies to: Tom Valenzuela 1The DIMP rank criteria in the box above is an assessment that depends on both, cost estimate of concrete damages and the structural damages ranking of the underground structures. The following are the structural damages ranking criteria: High (Safety & Reliability Hazard): A vault needing repairs to the ceiling particularly around the access opening would be a 'High' due to the criticality of carrying the roof and traffic loadings. That vault may or may not have much damage to its wall structures. However, a structure in which the wall damage is extreme and significant rebar is exposed would also be labeled a 'high'. Recommended engineering repair time frame is 0-3 mos. Medium (No Immediate Safety or Reliability Hazard): A 'Medium' would be a structure having limited ceiling damage in non-critical areas and limited to moderate wall damage with limited areas of exposed rebar. Recommended engineering repair time frame is 3mos - 6 mos Low (No Safety or Reliability Hazard: Regular Repair): This would refer to cracking on either walls or ceiling or both, that are less than.062 inches in width and no displacement of the crack has occurred. Recommended engineering repair time frame is 6mos -12 mos

51 Materials: RECOMMENDATIONS FOR REPAIRING UNDERGROUND CONCRETE STRUCTURES Repair crack dam age using Edison approved epoxy injection techniques and materials as specified in the U G S M S 860 provided in this report or similar industry standard methods and m aterials shall be submitted and approved by Edison Apparatus Civil/Structural Engineering. Additional m aterials recom m ended for repair include the following: 1. Form and Pour Repair Materials, structural repair concrete with integral corrosion inhibitor a. Sika Corporation - Sikacrete 211 S C C Plus b. BASF - Em aco S 66 Cl c. Euclid Chem ical - Eucocrete 2. Structural Concrete Bonding Injection Resins for structurally rebonding cracked concrete sections, rebonding delam inated concrete surfaces and filling porous or honeycombed concrete or grout a. Sika Corporation - Sikadur 35 Hi Mod LV b. BASF - SCB Concresive 1380 c. Euclid - Eucopoxy Injection Resin or Duralcrete Epoxy System LV, M V, and Gel 3. Low Viscosity Epoxy Adhesive for use as a high strength binder for grouts and mortars, repairing slabs and walls, and injection of cracks from.002 to.25 inches in width a. Sika Corporation - Sikadur 52 b. BASF - Concresive Standard LVI c. Euclid - Eucopoxy Injection Resin 4. Rapid Setting or Normal Setting Paste Epoxy for surface sealing of cracks before injection and as a structural adhesive a. Sika Corporation - Sikadur 33 or Sikadur 31 Hi-M od Gel b. BASF - SCB Concresive 1446 or Concresive 1490 c. Euclid - Dural Fast Set or Duralcrete Epoxy System LV, MV, and Gel 5. Concrete bonding adhesive with long pot life to bond fresh concrete to existing concrete a. Sika Corporation - Sikadur 32 Hi-M od LPL b. BASF - Concresive Liquid LPL c. Euclid - Eucopoxy LPL 6. Anti-corrosion coating of existing reinforcement (single or multiple component) a. Sika Corporation - Sika Arm atec 110 b. BASF - Zinc Rich Primer c. Euclid - Dural Prep AC

52 20 Workpaper - Southern California Edison / 2015 GRC - APPLICATION 7. Rapid Setting repair mortar with extended working time for quick setting floor repair a. Sika Corporation - SikaQuick 1000 b. BASF - Em aco T 430 c. Euclid - Versaspeed LS 8. Polym er Modified C em ent Based M ortar for full depth repairs with integral corrosion inhibitor for spall repairs a. Sika Corporation - SikaTop 122 Plus/ SikaTop 111 Plus b. BASF - S D 2 Repair Mortar/Em aco R 310 Cl c. Euclid - Eucocrete 9. Non-Sag Concrete repair Mortar with integral corrosion inhibitor for vertical and overhead applications for wall and ceiling spall repair a. Sika Corporation - SikaTop 123 Plus b. BASF - Gel Patch c. Euclid - Speedcrete PM 10. Em bedded Galvanic Anodes for the protection of selected, critically important reinforcing steel a. Sika Corporation - Galvashield X P Plus b. BASF - Corr-stops Cl c. Euclid - Sentinel GL 11. Positive and Negative side, cem ent based slurry waterproofing coating system for all surfaces (horizontal, vertical, overhead) a. Sika Corporation - SikaTop Seal 107 b. BASF - Tegraproof c. Euclid - H ey Di K Hydrophilic Polyurethane Grout for the injection of cracks and joints with active leaks, with the objective of waterproofing the cracks and joints, i.e. a functional repair a. Sika Corporation - SikaFix HH LV b. BASF - Concresive 1230 IUG c. Euclid - Dural Aqua Fil 2.0 Methods of Application - General: 1. If any discoloration is apparent on the concrete surface due to the products of corrosion or any voids have been detected in the concrete, all repairs shall comply with the requirements of the Am erican Concrete Institute RAP 1, 4, 5 and 6 (S ee Appendix C). M ere epoxy injections without removal of the corrosion products are inadequate. 2. In the areas under repair, any products of corrosion on reinforcing steel shall be suitably rem oved and the rebar treated with approved materials before epoxy injection or concrete replacem ent processes are started. If corrosion of the rebar has resulted in a reduction in the rebar area of 2 0 % or more Edison Apparatus Civil/Structural Engineering shall be consulted for recomm endations. Note that random sampling for compressive strength tests

53 21 per A S T M C -109, and in situ bond pull off tests per ACI 503R, can be performed to verify the quality of the repairs. 3. For tunnel vaults constructions, loose bituminous materials in the joints shall be removed. The joints shall be sealed with approved materials. 4. Loose materials in the vault neck ring areas shall be rem oved. These areas shall be repaired with approved repair materials. 5. Replace corroded unistruts with non-em bedded supports. After removal of corroded unistruts inspect wall for dam age and repair concrete dam ages using approved materials and processes. 6. Repair w ater intrusion due to conditions such as vault structural dam age, installation misalignments, misplaced or absent conduit plug/caps on penetrations at end-walls, etc. 3.0 Shoring Recommendations: 3.1 Temporary Steel Traffic Plate A tem porary steel traffic plate shall be provided when required in the Engineering Recomm endations. The steel traffic plate shall be a minimum of one (1) inch thick. The width of the traffic plate shall extend, at a minimum, the width of the vault plus twelve (12) inches, extending a minimum of six (6) inches onto each of the supporting walls. Steel traffic plates shall be provided over all dam aged ceiling portions of the vault structure. Tem porary steel traffic plates shall not be used longer than twelve (12) months. If the repairs or the replacem ent of the vault has not been accomplished within that period of time, perm anent internal structural shoring, as specified below, shall be installed to replace the steel traffic plates. 3.2 Internal Canopy and Wall Spalling Protection Systems The Internal canopy and the wall spalling protection concept shall be provided when required in the Engineering Recom m endations to protect equipment and personnel from falling debris. A suggested canopy and the wall protecting concept configurations are provided in Appendix A and A 1. An alternate configuration developed by a professional carpenter is acceptable upon review and approval by engineering. Access to equipm ent must be considered in the design developm ent of the provided support systems. Canopy and wall protection materials shall be capable of resisting the effects of moisture exposure for duration of three (3) years minimum and replaced w henever deterioration from moisture exposure effects is detected Internal Protection Canopy C anopy shall be capable of supporting the impact of 100 lb of falling concrete debris. It is noted that an internal protection canopy is not to be considered as structural shoring. Structural shoring loading requirements are significant higher as specified in Section 3.0.

54 22 Workpaper - Southern California Edison / 2015 GRC - APPLICATION Wall Spalling Protection Concept W all spalling protection concept is not to be considered as structural shoring. Structural shoring loading requirements are significant higher as specified in Section 3.0, of this Specification. This concept is not a wall shoring. It is only for providing minimal protection for the equipment from falling spalls from the wall sections. Note: If the wall is buldging or out-of-plumb vertically, contact engineering immediatly. 3.3 Internal Structural Shoring Internal structural shoring shall be provided when required in the Engineering Recom m endations. The structural shoring must be capable of carrying H 20 loading and wheel points loads of sixteen thousand (16,0 00) lbs minimum anywhere on the vault structure Temporary Internal Wood Structural Shoring Tem porary wood internal structural shoring may be provided until replaced by perm anent structural shoring. Suggested wood shoring details are provided Appendix B. Tem porary wood structural shoring shall not be used longer than twenty six (26) months without replacem ent by perm anent structural shoring. W ood materials used shall be capable of resisting the effects of moisture exposure including inundation Permanent Internal Stmctural Shoring P erm anent structural shoring shall be provided of suitable approved m aterials capable of carrying prescribed loadings as specified above for duration of six (6) years minimum. Fiber Reinforced Plastic (F R P ) shoring materials shall be used w herever practicable for long-term, perm anent shoring. P erm anent structural shoring shall be provided by the responsible Contractor providing construction and related maintenance services for the vault structures (e.g. Arizona Pipeline, Parr, Tidwell, Irish, etc.) using shoring designs developed and certified by a licensed Civil Engineer in the State of California. Shoring designs including calculations and appropriate drawings shall be w et stam ped and signed by a licensed Civil Engineer and submitted to Engineering for record retention. Configurations of the perm anent structural shoring shall accommodate requirements for canopy protection and access to equipment as specified by the responsible representative of the district in charge of the vault structure.

55 23 STRUCTURAL OBSERVATION REPORT SUMMARY (SORS) Names of Structural Observers Date(s) Of Structural Observations Structural Engineering Observation Report Number Lambert Villanueva 11/14/ RECOMMENDATI ONS Internal Falling Debris Equipment Protection Canopy Shall Be Provided As Needed For All Cases CHECK REQUIRED ACTION REQUIRED NOTES X E M E R G E N C Y R E P L A C E M E N T Repair Repair / Provide Internal Shoring And/or Steel Traffic Plate External Shoring Until Repairs Are Completed R E P L A C E IM M E D IA T E L Y Reference Summary Of Structural Repairs Recommendations (SOSRR) For Repair Locations Reference Summary Of Structural Repairs Recommendations (SOSRR) For Repair Locations -Contact Engineering Regarding Details Replace Vault Replace Vault / Provide Internal Shoring And/Or Steel Traffic Plate External Shoring Until Replaced Contact Engineering Regarding Details APPROVED BY: Kazwan M. Elias PAX # DATE: 11/14/2011

56 24 Workpaper - Southern California Edison / 2015 GRC - APPLICATION SUMMARY 0 F STRUCTURAL REPAIRS RECOMMENDATION (SOSRR) Names of Structural Observers Date(s) Of Structural Observations Structural Engineering Observation Report Number Lambert Villanueva 11/14/ ASSUMPTIONS 1.10 Shoring Shall Be Designed To Carry H20 (AASHTO) Loadings W ith 16,000 lb Concentrated W heel Loads; 1.20 Concrete Repairs Shall Comply W ith The Requirements Of SCE UGS 860; 1.30 Recommendations Assume Concrete Material Is Sound and Has Not Deteriorated From Chemical Attack. IMMEDIATELY Advise Engineering If Field Conditions Indicate Otherwise RECOMMENDATIONS CHECK REQUIRED ACTION REQUIRED NOTES X Provide Ceiling Shoring As Indicated Until Repairs Are Completed Repair Ceiling Cracks, Spalls, Voids, and Joint Damage For Location of Shoring Points, See Attached Sheet No(s). For Identification & Location(s) of Repairs, See Attached Sheet No(s). 5 X X Repair Exposed/Corroded Rebar in the Ceiling Repair North Wall Cracks, Spalls, Voids, and Joint Damage Repair/Replace Corroded Embedded/Attached Items on the North Wall Repair Exposed/Corroded Rebar in the North Wall For Identification & Location(s) of Repairs, See Attached Sheet No(s). 5 For Identification & Location(s) of Repairs, See Attached Sheet No(s).7 For Identification & Location(s) of Repairs, See Attached Sheet No(s). For Identification & Location(s) of Repairs, See Attached Sheet No(s). X Repair South Wall Cracks, Spalls, Voids, and Joint Damage Repair/Replace Corroded Embedded/Attached Items on the South Wall Repair Exposed/Corroded Rebar in the South Wall For Identification & Location(s) of Repairs, See Attached Sheet No(s).7 For Identification & Location(s) of Repairs, See Attached Sheet No(s). For Identification & Location(s) of Repairs, See Attached Sheet No(s). X Repair East Wall Cracks, Spalls, Voids, and Joint Damage For Identification & Location(s) of Repairs, See Attached Sheet No(s).6 Repair/Replace Corroded Embedded/Attached Items on the East Wall For Identification & Location(s) of Repairs, See Attached Sheet No(s). X Repair Exposed/Corroded Rebar in the East Wall Repair W est Wall Cracks, Spalls, Voids, and Joint Damage For Identification & Location(s) of Repairs, See Attached Sheet No(s). For Identification & Location(s) of Repairs, See Attached Sheet No(s).6

57 25 X Repair/Replace Corroded Embedded/Attached Items on the W est Wall Repair Exposed/Corroded Rebar in the W est Wall Repair Floor Cracks, Spalls, Voids, and Joint Damage For Identification & Location(s) of Repairs, See Attached Sheet No(s). For Identification & Location(s) of Repairs, See Attached Sheet No(s). For Identification & Location(s) of Repairs, See Attached Sheet No(s). 7 Repair Exposed/Corroded Rebar in the Floor For Identification & Location(s) of Repairs, See Attached Sheet No(s). O T H E R APPROVED BY: Kazwan M. Elias PAX # DATE: 11/14/2011

58 26 Workpaper - Southern California Edison / 2015 GRC - APPLICATION m EDISON INTERNATIONAL Visual Inspection Form of Concrete Structure in Service GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF THE STRUCTURE MATERIALS USED (if known) Report number Purpose of inspection Inspector s name(s) Vault /Manhole number Inspection Date Requestor name Name Location Type Size Owner Vendor Date(s) of construction Photographs Schematic(s) Schematic notes of the structure condition Concrete To inspect the structural integrity of the concrete structure Lambert Villanueva V /14/2011 Torn Valenzuela Vault 114 Harbor Blvd. Fullerton 22'-0 x 8'-0 x 9'-4 Southern California Edison Unknown Unknown General outside view of Vault or manhole Detailed close-up of condition of area Refer to page 4 of this document Refer to page 5-7of this document Normal weight aggregate type Aggregate size Admixture type Mixture proportion Compressive strength Modulus of elasticity Refer to page 8 of this document Refer to pages 8-19 of this document Lightweight concrete per observation 3/8 per observation Per manufacturer Per manufacturer Per manufacturer Per manufacturer i

59 27 DISTRESS INDICATORS Cracking Staining Surface deposits and exudations Leaking Multiple cracks of various sizes throughout the entire vault (Refer to pages 5-19 for details) Apparent None Visible Leaking Overall Settlement Unknown apparent Deflection Unknown alignment of Expansion Unknown structure Contraction Unknown General condition: good, satisfactory, poor Poor condition, see pages 5-19 PRESENT CONDITION OF STRUCTURE Surface condition of concrete Formed and finished surfaces Cracking Smoothness Bugholes (surface air voids) Sand streaks Rough surfaces due to cracks and spalling (Refer to pgs. 5-19) Apparent None apparent Honeycomb None Soft areas/ Voids Unknown Cold joints None apparent Staining Apparent Many cracks were found in Location and the structure see frequency pages 5-19 for illustration. Crack map (See pgs. 5-19) Width and Varies (See pgs. pattern 5-19) Leaching, None apparent stalactites Working versus nonworking (dormant) Both Types Area, depth Apparent Scaling Type Apparent Spalls and popouts No., size, and depth Type Various sizes and depths (See pgs. 5-19) Various 2

60 28 Workpaper - Southern California Edison / 2015 GRC - APPLICATION Stains, efflorescence Unknown Exposed reinforcement: corrosion Apparent ( Refer to pgs. 5-19) Curling and warping Erosion Previous patching or other repair Surface coatings, protective systems, linings, toppings None Apparent Abrasion Cavitation Apparent Type and thickness Bond to Concrete Condition Type None Apparent None Apparent None Apparent None Apparent N/A Unknown Penetrating sealers Effectiveness Unknown Discoloration None apparent Note: This table followed the procedures of the American Concrete Institute Guide for Conducting a Visual Inspection of Concrete Structure in Sendee, reported by the ACI Committee in revision 201.1R-08. 3

61 29 Schematics of Tunnel Vault SCE/ Tunnel Vault 4 x 5 1 x 8 Plug U se F elt Between Plug & N ec k 2 Ton Sw iftlifts -2-EflT -Side - Wall* ^ -Identification -Spot - T ra ffic C over an d F ram e AFCO A o r Equal 4 x 5 ' x 12 " N eck Ring O p tional Risers A re Available and A re Positioned B etw een T he V a u lt and Th e N ec k Ring A ccess S ectio n 1 / 2 * P las tic Inserts Fo r C ab le R acks 1"0 Coil T h rea d Inserts In V a u lt Top F or H a n d lin g ' 7 / 8 " 0 Pull Irons 4 Ea. End Wall 8 Total In te rm e d ia te Section Varies 4 ' 0 " 4e 6-0 " Inside 2 " Square G utter T erm in ato rs 24 Ea. End Wall 4 8 T o ta l- A p proxim ate W eights End Section Lbs Access Section Lbs In term e d ia te S ectio n s 4 ' 0" Lbs 6-0 " Lbs O Oldcastle Precast lutl/tywlutr Southern California Fontana. San Diego, Santa Patfa Phone: Fax: 90* S C A L E :3 /1 6 " " EDISON 894Tunnel FILENAME 070UEE894TVEDS.DW G ISSUE date: J u n e O verall O u tside D im e n s io n s ^ 9 * - 8 W x 1 1 * / 4 H x Varies O verall Inside Dim ensions B -C T W x 9-4 " H x Varies M inim um E x cavatio n Is To Be 1 2 " L arg e r T han P ro d u c t On All Sides 8'-0" x 9'-4" x Length Varies Tunnel Vault Edison (UGS #410.1) Copyright <5>20Q7OH«oa«tta PfCMt, Ire. '

62 30 Workpaper - Southern California Edison / 2015 GRC - APPLICATION 5

63 31,. r-j- N ole: " 6

64 32 Workpaper - Southern California Edison / 2015 GRC - APPLICATION Note: 7

65 33 Photographs 8

66 34 Workpaper - Southern California Edison / 2015 GRC - APPLICATION Photographs * Fig. 12: Traffic lid w/ no visible damage. 9

67 35 Photographs 10

68 36 Workpaper - Southern California Edison / 2015 GRC - APPLICATION Photographs 11

69 37 Photographs 12

70 38 Workpaper - Southern California Edison / 2015 GRC - APPLICATION Photographs Fig.31: North wall bottom left pocket in good condition. Fig.32: North wall bottom right pocket in good condition. Fig.34: East wall bottom left area w/ no visible damage. 13

71 39 Photographs Fig.37: East wall top center area w/ no visible damage. Fig.38: East wall bottom area w/ no visible damage. Fig.39: East wall right top section w/ no visible damage. Fig.40: East wall right pocket overhead spall. *Sk Fig.41: East wall bottom right pocket spall. 14

72 40 Workpaper - Southern California Edison / 2015 GRC - APPLICATION Photographs 15

73 41 Photographs Fig.50: South wall bottom section w / no visible damage. Fig.51: South wall pocket spall w/ exposed corroded rebar. 16

74 42 Workpaper - Southern California Edison / 2015 GRC - APPLICATION Photographs i M Fig.49: West wall top left panel hollow section. L Fig.50: W est wall bottom left area w / no visible damage. Fig.54: West wall bottom left pocket in good condition 17

75 43 Photographs f. Fig.49: West wall top center section spall & map cracks. Fig.50: West wall top right section hollow. West wall bottom right area w/ no visible damage. Fig.53: West wall top left section w / no visible damage. 18

76 44 Workpaper - Southern California Edison / 2015 GRC - APPLICATION Photographs

77 45 Appendix A Canopy Shoring

78 O) Appendix A Canopy Shoring t 2 ft max it 4 ft t '...\...! 1 1/ 2 Plywood ' 1 > CANOPY CONCEPTS Using 6x6 posts, 6X beams, 2X struts and V2 Str. 1 Plywood, I 1 1 ' ' 1 ' I D = As required 30 max. I Equipment Envelope FOR VAULTS EXPOSED TO EXCESSIVE MOISTURE (>6 of water) (1) Wood shall be pressure treated or suitably coated to resist moisture exposure effects, decay or term ite attack. (2) Replace canopies for which extended periods of moisture exposure have resulted in excessive swelling of wood members and loosening of connections

79 -^i Appendix A1 Wall Spalling Protection (Not Wall Shoring) I X Nailer, Secure to undamaged Concrete with 3/8 in dia max. stainless steel drill anchors (DUG RS 100) n i-i i i 4X Strut (2min./p^r plywood panel), Fasten to 2X and any (, interior shoring columns with minimum o f 2-16d per connection -Provide As Required To Stabilize Plywood, At Various Horizontal Levels To Clear Equipment 2X Kickers as required Equipment Envelope Spalled Concrete Wall Surface, Max. Spall Thickness = 2 7 ^ / 2X Nailer Secure to Plyw00^ with 8d / / / % Str. 1 Plywood (Trim as required for installation clearances) FOR VAULTS (1) Wall Spalling Protection Concept 2X nailers, 4X struts and 1/ 2 Str. 1 Plywood (2) This concept is NOT wall shoring. It is only for providing minimal protection for the equipment from falling spalls from the wall sections. (3) NOTE: if wall is noticeably bulging or out-of-plumb vertically, contact Engineering immediately.

80 48 Workpaper - Southern California Edison / 2015 GRC - APPLICATION THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

81 49 Appendix B Temporary Shoring

82 50 Workpaper - Southern California Edison / 2015 GRC - APPLICATION Appendix B Temporary Shoring This structure has already lost the ability to carry its design loading requirements for potential traffic loading and must be shored. This Appendix contains shoring recommendations. Alternatively, the structure may be covered with traffic plates until the replacement is made. Plywood equipment protection canopy should be in place. It is recommended that the plywood area of coverage is adequate to protect against any new falling hazards that may have developed since the protection barrier was installed.

83 51 Appendix B Temporary Shoring THE FOLLOWING PAGES HAVE CEILING SHORING APPROACHES FOR MORE DISCUSSION AS REQUIRED

84 52 Workpaper - Southern California Edison / 2015 GRC - APPLICATION Appendix B Temporary Shoring Ceiling Shoring Using a Generic Vertical Shore Load from Wood. Steel or Concrete Structure SHOR 1 R9 O J /0 9 X - / I 3/4"Pl Y W OOD HALF-GUSSETS A T E A. E N D O F A I L IN T E R IO R P O S T S 1 S ID E M I N. a n d E A C H S ID E A T B O T T. ( e x c e p t if n o v ib r a t io n / s h o c k w II o c c u r ) 4 -B fl TO H FADFR/SCH F. 4-Rd TO POST 2 x 6 DIA G O N A L BRACES ON OPPOSITE SIDES OF POSTS. ( in X p a tte rn ) d E A C H E N D 6 A T E A C H M I D P O S T F U L L W I D T H W E D G E S. W / K E E P E R N A I L S ( p a i r o f w e d g e i n e e d t o b o f u ll o r o v e r d n v e n o r w o n 't b e a r t i g h t ) D 1 A C. B R A C E IS A L C N E D T O P R O V ID E N A I L I N U T O F O S I & S O L E C O V fc K W E D G E S A d d H a l f -G u s s e t o n o p p s id e o f d ia g. b r a c e e x c e p t lo r a h o r t -t e r m R e s c u e w h e n N v v ib r a t lo n Or s h o c k l o a d in g w i ll n o t o c c a ir *. -. ^ r e d u c e s o le r o l l. o v e r & w e d g e p o p. o u t ) Support from firm /sound slab.floor o rg ro und\_ Align posts w /structure or shoring below 4x4 POST SYSTEM - USE 4X 4 SOLE PLATE H E IG H T -H 8'-0" lo'-o" tt'o" DESIGN LOAD, EA POST LB * IB 3,500 LB 6 x 6 POST SYSTEM - USE 6x6 HEIGHT- H 12'-0* 14'-0" IfP-O" DESIGN LOAD, EA. POST 20,000 LB X LB 12,000 LB 18-0" 9,000 LB 20'-0" SPCCIAL NOTES: LB SOLE PLATE M ID POINT 8RACE is placed o r e side 'w h e n 4x4 post is > 8-0 " long and 6x6 post is > 12'-(T long HEADER SIZE Use 4x4 min. if place posts directly under floor beams or when supporting In tact/rig id concrete slab or beam. See Structure Specialist for other conditions HEADER SIZE Use 6x6 min. if place posts directly under floor beams or when supporting in tact/rig id concrete slab cr beam. See Structure Specialist for other conditions Lim ited by 660 psi Cross Grain Bearing on Wood Spacing of Posts may be closer than 4 ft in order to increase system capacity and/or align Posts under floor beams or jo is t. Header Size is HIGHLY dependent on ability of The Shored Structure to bridge between the Shoring Posts. If in doubt check w /Structure Spec. VALUES GIVEN FOR ALL W OO D SHORES IN THIS TEXT HAVE A N APPROXIM ATE FACTOR OF SAFETY OF 2 TO 1 IF NO. t DOUGLAS HR Ofl SOUTHERN PINE ARE USED. PIECES SHOULD BE SELECTED FOR G OO D G RAIN ( M IN O f 8 RINGS PER INCH. SLOPE OF G RAIN NOT GREATER TH A N 8 TO 1, A N D HAVING 1 1/2 INCH OR SMALLER TIGHT KNOTS / 3/4" M A X LOOSE KNOTS)

85 53 Appendix B Temporary Shoring VERTICAL SHORE (continued) HOW TO CONSTRUCT THE VERTICAL SHORE 1. Determine where to erect the vertical shore. a. After initial temporary shoring has been installed as needed, clear the area of debris down to the floor, removing thick carpeting if necessary. A clearance of three to four foot wide is usually adequate. b. If the vertical shore is to bear directly on soil, examine the ground for stability. If the earth is soft, additional supports should be installed under the sole plate to transfer the load over a wider area. (2x8, or 2x10 under sole, or if very soft. 3-2x6x18' placed perpendicular under sole at each post) 2. Lay the sole plate on the floor or ground directly under and in line where the header will be installed. The sole plate should be as level as possible. 3. M easure and cut the posts to the proper height. a. Place the header on top of the sole plate. b. W ith the end of the tape measure on top of header where the posts are to be installed, slide the tape up to the bottom of the structural element to be shored & measure in at least three places deducting the width of the wedges. 4. If possible, anchor the header to the area that is to be shored, square and in line with the sole plate. Secure it at the lowest point and shim the structural elements down to the header trying to keep it as level as possible.

86 54 Workpaper - Southern California Edison / 2015 GRC - APPLICATION Appendix B Temporary Shoring HOW TO CONSTRUCT THE VERTICAL SHORE (continued) 5. Install the posts between the header and sole plate under each structural element to be supported. 4x4 Posts should be spaced 4 feet on center maximum a The first tw o posts are installed 12" from ends of header b. Toe-nail each post to header and sole, and keep the posts in line & plumb with header and sole plate 6. Install a set of 2x4 wedges under each post, on top of Sole, and tap them together simultaneously until the posts are tight. Nail behind the wedges to secure them in place. 7. Attach the diagonal braces to each side of the vertical shore. a Mid-point brace, when needed, shouid be installed prior to the diagonal braces. b. The diagonal braces should be long enough to span its entire length and be attached to the sole plate and header and each post. c. If possible, diagonal braces should be installed in a ''X1' pattern on opposite sides o f the system. d. Vertical shoring systems which are very long may require several sets of diagonal braces to connect multi pie posts 8..Attach 6 x 12 half-gusset plates to at least one side of the header and posts and nail in place if not done previously. 9. Attach half-gussets to at least one side of the sole plate and posts and nail in place Half-gussets should be placed both sides to confine the wedges in all cases where any type of vibration or shock loading might occur

87 55 D AM AG ED FLOOR Appendix B Temporary Shoring h-1 [ TO IP ST V rj 13I CLASS 2 SHORE - PREFABRICATE A S MUCH AS POSSIBLE T H IS SHORE IS SA M E A S ONE SIDE OF LACED POST Position H e a d e r 3 Sole across f, oor & ceiling joists Position Posts in line w /jo is ts, NOT g re a te r th a n 5' o.c. H ead er and/ar Sole m ay SLOPE 6" in 10 f t = about 3 Deg. PLY H A LF GUSSET5 (Align w,1 post face to aieow for U re d P ost Ena b ra c in g in Future } -H A LF GUSSETS' EA SIDE IF HEADER IS TALLER THAN SHIMS (as req'd) 4 * 4 tfe A D tr w /12r,0. Hangs I 6 k 6 header at 6*6 p asts) 2 * 4 DIAGONAL 3RACES (2 K C to rea0 p o sts) 7' 6" M e *. L en gth H A L F GUSSETS 6 f * IS" i 3 /4 r PILV Mtch side pest. Align w / post face as abcve M A Y BE t-sipc IF NO CHANCE OF VIBRATION V Oi SHOCK LOAD * 2* WEDGES / C oalf behind yuedges) i< 2 *4, 3-16d ea end I '. 2 * d ea end. ^ 7, MID POINT BRACE (U se 2 p laced t t 1 /3 h e 'jjh t wsiart a v e r l i f t high) *- POSTS 4 x 4 or 6 * 6 ( 2 0 ' m an 6 * 6 ) I N D E S IG N L O A D is h n -e Height) 4 x 4 POST 6 * 6 POST C I b for E 't 1 0,0 0 0 lb for 1 0 ft 7, OOC lb for 1 2 ft, - 4 * lb for 12ft lb far 14ft lb for 16ft I N SN l h e a d e r m a y re e d to be Icrger far supporting bud y Cracked CDrcrAle (s e e S tru c tu re s Spec) M an 4 * 4 Shore Height is 12 ft unless buiit as part of Lacad Post

88 56 Workpaper - Southern California Edison / 2015 GRC - APPLICATION Appendix B Temporary Shoring HOW TO CONSTRUCT THE 2-POST VERTICAL SHORE 1. Determine where to erect the 2-Post vertical shore and the condition of the supporting structure and/or ground. a. If practical, this shore should be partially prefabricated, same as for the Laced Post b. If using 4x4 posts, space them 4 feet, max on center. 6x6 posts may be 5 feet max on center If access is limited, Post Spacing may be reduced to 3 feet o.c. c. The intent would be to support the damaged structure as quickly and safely as passible, but be able to iater convert F J two adjacent, single 2-post vertical shores into a Laced Post for better stability 2. Measure and cut the posts to the proper height (remember to deduct for header, sole & wedges when cutting posts) Also, cut the mid-brace and diagonals to proper lengths. a. Header shall have a 12 inch overhang each end b. Nail the header, posts, mid brace and upper diagonal together outside the damage zone, if practical. Use haifgussets at post to header and post to sole 3. Cut the sole and wedges. Sole is same length as header 4. Place 2-Post Shore in position, centered under the Load. 5. Slide sole plate under shore and tap wedges into position. 6. Check for straightness plus stability, then tighten wedges. 7. Install bottom cleats/gussets and nail properly. 8. Anchor the shore to floor above and sole to floor below, if practical.

89 57 Appendix B Temporary Shoring Tying Vertical Shoring Together To Form A Laced Post Shore CLASS 3 SHORE POSTS SAM E SPACING E A.W AY High capacity four post system th a t can be used to shore a damaged Concrete Floor or Heavily Loaded Wood Floor It is constructed similar to a pair of 2 - Post Vertical Shores but laced together LACED POST M A Y BE USED AS SAFE HAVEN HEADER w /12"O.H ang 4x4m in. w / 4 x 4 Posts 6 x 6 m in.w / 6 x 6 Posts HALF-GUSSET post to hdr one side min. at top ea side at bott and at top for Header talle r than width ( 4 & 4. 8d nailin g) to 5ft max for 6x 6 Posts M ax Ht - 4 x Out to Out Posts 2x4 DIAGONALS and HORIZONTAL STRUTS 3-16d each end and to HEADER and SOLE Use 2x6 DIAG & HORIZ W/S-16d ea end when 6x6 Posts are used 4 x 4 Posts x 16-3*' m ax. 6x 6 Posts x 2 0 '-0 H m ax. CRITICAL CONNECTION of DIAGONAL to SOLE 3-16d to POST and SOLE GUSSET ON OPP SIDE to reduce WEDGE pop-out and SOLE roll-over HALF-GUSSETS EACH SIDE SOLE, 4x4 min. (6 x 6 ) 2x4 WEDGES at each POST WHERE HEIGHT IS LESS THAN 6 FT ONLY NEED ONE DIAG EACH SIDE AS SHOW THUS: Vs SHORING PRINCIPLE HEADER M A Y NEED TO BE LARGER TO SUPPORT BADLY CRACKED CONC. SLABS/FLOORS (see Structures Specialist)

90 58 Workpaper - Southern California Edison / 2015 GRC - APPLICATION Appendix B Temporary Shoring H O W TO C O N S T R U C T A L A C E D P O S T S H O R E 1. S urvey area and d ete rm ine load d is p la c e m e n t, based on stru ctu ra lly unsta ble ele m e n ts & clean area to be shored a. Install tem pora ry, spot shores if required. 2. D e te rm in e the length o f the shore. a. C ut the header and sole plates 24 in ch es longer than length o f the shore to allow for 12 inch overhangs. 3. N aii posts to h eader w ith toenails and keep them square. a. C h e ck by m aking X m easurerm ents (outside top hght to o u ts id e bottom left, should be sam e as outside top left to o u ts id e bottom rig hit) b. If posts are not straight, set both w ith b o w -o u t c. N ail a h alf-gusset to one p o st/h e a d e r joint, then nail the m id p o in t brace in position. R e-check X m easurem ent. 4. M easure and install the top diagonal. 5. F a brica te the second section, using first as tem plate Q. H ave the h orizonta l tie-in braces precut fo r ease o f assem bly. 7. B ring both se ctio n s and the sole plates into position and place the p re fabricated units on top o f m e sole plates. 8. Install w edges under each post, and check post spacing. 9. N ail the h orizonta l braces to the tw o sections on both sides. 10. M easure for all the diagonals, and co nfig u re in K or parallel layout, as best w o rks for the situation. a. A v o id intersecting too m a n y d ia g o n a ls on a post a t a single location 11. A t the sole plate, m ake sure the bottom dia gonal extends past th e p o st and n ails in to the so le plate. a. P lace a h a lf-g u sse t plate onto the opposite side o f th is post and to each side of the o th e r posts at the base. 12. A n c h o r the s h o re to th e ceiling and floor, if practical. 13. M ake sure all w edges are snug and the p roper nail p atte rn s w ere used.

91 59 Appendix B Temporary Shoring Ceiling Shoring - Easy To Build Option When Future Access Is Not Critical DESIGN STRENGTH is BASED on CROSSGRAIN BEARING (V A R I E S F R O M PSI T O PS I D E F E N D I N G O N W O O D S P E O E S P S I IS U S E D H E R E E X A M P L E x 3 5 «3 5 x 4 > ) FOR 2 MEMBER x 2 MEMBER LAYOUT 4 x 4 CRIB DESIGN LOAD - 24,000 LBS <12 T O N S ) 6 x 6 CRIB DESIGN LOAD - 60,000 LBS (3 0 t o n s ) F O R 3 - M E M B E R ( 3 - M E M B E R C R I B, D E S IG N L O A D IS S,4 A S M U C H " * 3.5" * 9-55,000, 500 a 5 5* n 5 5 * 9-1*6.000 sorrow l a y e r s h o u l o b e s o l d t o s p r e a d t h e l o a d E S P E C I A L L Y OK S O IL O R A S P H A L T P A V I N G L I M I T H E I G H T T O 3 ^ I M E S W I D T H { S H O R T E S T W I D T H F O R N O N -S O U A R E C R IB S ) O V E R L A P C O R N E R S B Y 4 I N C H E S T O A S S U R E S L O W C R U S H T Y P E F A IL U R E if i n n n. i t. - i i ' u 2 x 2 J U LJ 3 x 3 i SHOR 4 4 ' X 4* CRIBBING WITH FOUR BEAR KGS r-.. i * FA C H CO NTACT E t h - o 9.CQQ LB. - LACM c o n t a c t M O S T S T A B L E M E T H O O { H E I G H T T O W D T H W A Y BE 3 T O 1 M A X. ) n r... F I i! > < « T " > 8,0 0 0 I B : EACH c o n t a c t V r " V X X > u L h L - J K E E P H E G H T T O W I D T H W T T H I N 1 1/2 T O 1 \U W i i f.c-oc LB E AC H CO NTACT J h! 1 J IT ki Q r v i s L J. p. u. w F n B O T H A R E N O T V E R Y S T A B i f. K E E P H E I G H T T O W I D T H W I T H I N 1 T O 1 K E E P H E I G H T T O 1 " k i U ~ W I D T H W I T H I N 1 T O T ~ E U

92 60 Workpaper - Southern California Edison / 2015 GRC - APPLICATION THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

93 61 Appendix C Concrete Repair Application Procedures (RAP) Note: Refer to the website below to free download all the required procedures Please look under ACI E 706: Repair Application Procedures title in the end of the web page for all the different RAP downloads.

94 62 Workpaper - Southern California Edison / 2015 GRC - APPLICATION Appendix D SCE Standards MS860

95 63 so^caurcjtopendix D (SCE Standards MS860) EDISON Underg/ound Structures Standards - An EDISON INTERNATIONAL Company MS 860 Inspection and Repair Procedures for Precast Vaults and Manholes Scope MS Inspection and Repair Procedures for Precast Vaults and Manholes 1.0 General This procedure covers the inspection and repairs of cracks and/or spalling in precast concrete vaults, manholes, and other similar structures. 2.0 Background A main source of strength in precast concrete structures is provided by the rebar (reinforcing steel). The principal component of the reinforcing steel is iron which has a persistent tendency to return to its natural state, generally iron oxide, or rust. W henever an excessive amount of heat or moisture is present, the rebar will rust at a rapid rate. The presence of admixtures, such as calcium chloride, and moisture increases the probability of rebar rusting. When the rebar rusts, it begins to lose strength, but more importantly the rust occupies a much greater volume than the iron from which it came. This rust exerts expansion pressures exceeding the ability of even the strongest concrete to resist. The result is cracking and, if corrosion continues, concrete will spall off. Such spalling is frequently accompanied by leaching of rust to the concrete surface, leaving unsightly stains. Remedial action must be taken so that progressive deterioration does not ultimately threaten the structure s adequacy. As stated above, structures that have high humidity and excessive heat are very likely to eventually start to crack or spall. A spall is a fragment of concrete, usually in the shape of a flake, detached from the larger mass by a blow, by action of weather, or by pressure or expansion within the large mass. In the case of vaults, it is frequently caused by expansion that accompanies the corrosion of reinforcing steel. 3.0 Inspection - Precast Vaults and Manholes Cracks less than.012" wide are not an immediate source of concern. Cracks.012" wide or greater, or spalling.375" deep or greater are of concern, especially in high moisture vaults or where excessive heat is present. These cracks and spalls should be repaired, especially if the damage is extensive or cracks are as wide as.062". If they are not repaired, they should be inspected periodically. Any cracks or spalling that make the reinforcing steel visible should be repaired immediately. If a crack is 1/8" (.125") wide or more, the Civil Engineering Section of the Engineering, Planning and Research Department should be called to determine if the entire structure or roof should be replaced, or to provide detailed procedures for major repairs. Generally, the precast supplier will look at the defect and give an opinion. Where insufficient concrete cover (see Gl 030) is found over the reinforcing steel, the supplier should be notified. It should be noted that any structure under one year old (covered by warranty) that has cracks or spalling, as described in Gl 031, should immediately be brought to the attention of the contractor and/or supplier. Vaults being inspected should be tested by hammering the walls. A hollow sound will indicate loose concrete. Note(s): 1. Before replacing any defective concrete, the supplier should be notified in order to determine if he/she is liable for any portion of the repair. Approved by: Effective Date: W hat s Changed? Inspection and Repair Procedures for Precast Vaults and Manholes MS 860 S h e e t 1 of4 l CJGS SCE Public 4

96 64 Workpaper - Southern California Edison / 2015 GRC - APPLICATION Appendix D (SCE Standards MS860) souiherncalifornia EDISON' Underground Structures Standards An EDISON INTERNATIONAL Company 4.0 Inspection - Vault Covers Any cracks are a concern when they appear in vault covers. When the cracks appear to be emanating from the ladder inserts, it could indicate corrosion of the inserts or rebar is taking place, demonstrating that a general weakening of the cover is occurring. This should be of great concern if the cover is in a heavy traffic area. The supplier and/or contractor and Civil Engineering should be contracted for advice on replacement. Cracks.062" wide or greater in a cover indicates a faulty cover and it should be replaced.

97 65 Criteria For Circuit Breaker Replacement Program Details in Exhibit SCE-03, Volume 4 Witness: Roger Lee

98 66 Workpaper - Southern California Edison / 2015 GRC - APPLICATION Circuit Breaker Replacement Program S C E s circuit breaker replacem ent program begins w ith an engineering analysis o f historic rem ovals and failures o f circuit breakers to determ ine the relationship betw een age and the probability o f in-service failure. T hat relationship for distribution circuit breakers is show n below as a W eibull curve. ReliaSoftWeibull 1^7-ww w JldiaScft.cain Distribution Circuit Breaker Failure Rate / / / / / t Data i Weibul -2P R.RX SRM K-M F=7/S=0 Fatur2 R12 Line / / / / / / / / / Time, (t) m i b=4 4COO p=i m en From this curve, the m ean tim e to w ear-out o f distribution circuit breakers w as determ ined to be 48 years. There are 10,822 distribution circuit breakers in S C E s system, o f w hich 3,826 breakers are either 115kV or 66kV and 6,996 breakers are 33kV through 2.4kV. The average age o f the population o f 115kV - 66kV circuit breakers is 18 years. The average age o f the population o f 33kV - 4kV circuit breakers is 32 years. The distribution o f the 115kV - 66kV circuit breakers by year o f installation is show n below:

99 67 The distribution o f the 33kV - 2.4kV circuit breakers by year o f installation is show n below: By m ultiplying the probability o f failure o f distribution circuit breakers o f a given age by the num ber o f transform ers in each age group, the num ber o f transform ers reaching the end o f their service lives in each future year, , can be determ ined. For 115kV - 66kV circuit breakers, the average num ber o f circuit breakers reaching the end o f their service lives each year over the next ten years is forecast below: Circuit Breaker Voltage kv

100 68 Workpaper - Southern California Edison / 2015 GRC - APPLICATION For 33kV - 2.4kV circuit breakers, the average number of circuit breakers reaching the end of their service lives each year over the next ten years is forecast below: Circuit Breaker Voltage kv Having determined the average number of circuit breakers that will need to be replaced each year, what remains is the selection of those circuit breakers whose replacement is most urgent. To accomplish this, SCE developed a process to assess each circuit breaker s physical condition or Health Index. This Health Index, (which is effectively the inverse of its probability of failure), is a function of a circuit breaker s age, number of operations, number of faults experienced, the type of mechanism, the number of corrective maintenance orders, and results of oil analysis if applicable. In addition to its Health Index, each circuit breaker is evaluated for its Criticality or consequences that would result from an in-service failure. The primary indicator of a circuit breaker s urgency for replacement is its Risk Ratio, which is a function of its Health Index and its Criticality. From this algoritlun-derived replacement prioritization, a five-year replacement schedules are drafted. Two adjustments are made to these draft schedules. The first is made by a team of technical experts (managers and supervisors responsible for maintaining these circuit breakers) to ensure that factors difficult to quantify are incorporated into the prioritization process such that high-risk circuit breakers are not overlooked. A second adjustment to the schedule is made to optimize the construction aspect of the replacements. Planning, work setup, and equipment tear-down at a substation are expensive. Therefore, every effort is made to combine multiple projects (involving transformer replacement, circuit breaker replacement, or some other major work activity) at a substation into a larger single project in order to avoid return visits to a substation within a five-year period. The names, locations, ages, and reasons for replacement of all Circuit Breakers to be replaced each year are provided in the workpapers to the Volume on Infrastructure Replacement, an excerpt from which is shown below: Equip. Type Oper. Date Substation M anufacturer Circuit Breaker Description * N O.5 BANKS CB 2015 S antiago ITE 66KV CB BORREGO CB 2015 S antiago ITE 66KV CB TIE NO.13 CB 2015 S antiago ITE 66KV CB MCGRAW N 0.3 A BANKS CB 2015 S antiago EDISON 66KV CB Type Voltage Level Age Effective Age Risk Ratio {Criticality * POF) OIL OIL OIL OIL Basis M a in te n a n c e M g r T e a m E xp e rts c o n firm e d h igh r is k f o r f a ilin g in s e rv ic e. See Risk R atio and N o n - s u p p o rtiv e m a n u fa c tu re r. M a in te n a n c e M g rt e a m E xperts c o n firm e d h igh r is k f o r f a ilin g in s e rv ic e. See Risk R atio and N o n - s u p p o rtiv e m a n u fa c tu re r. M a in te n a n c e M g rt e a m E xperts c o n firm e d h igh r is k f o r f a ilin g in s e rv ic e. See Risk R atio and N o n - s u p p o rtiv e m a n u fa c tu re r. M a in te n a n c e M g rt e a m E xperts c o n firm e d h igh r is k f o r f a ilin g in s e rv ic e. See Risk R atio and N o n - s u p p o rtiv e m a n u fa c tu re r.

101 69 Criteria For Substation Transformer Replacement Program Details in Exhibit SCE-03, Volume 4 Witness: Roger Lee

102 70 Workpaper - Southern California Edison / 2015 GRC - APPLICATION Substation B-Bank Transformer Replacement Program S C E s B-Bank transformer replacem ent program begins with an engineering analysis of historic removals and failures of substation transformers to determine the relationship between age and the probability of in-service failure. That relationship for B-Bank transformers is shown below as a W eibull curve. St --r. i* From this curve, the mean time to w ear-out of B-Bank transformers can be shown to be 57 years. There are 2,5 96 B-Bank transformers in S C E s system. The age distribution of these transformers is shown below. (memory of R rbv\*ar of Itntaltatlon (a«ol M-ar-rml 2012) l 40 I» > 10 0 X»»»»»» 1. &J 7 * 9 * 9 mil j? f 3 1 il I 11. i. 111 f i? s ' i f f I i i a 2 $$$ $$?, The average age of S C E s B-Bank transformers is 40 years. By multiplying the probability of failure by the num ber of transformers in each age group, the num ber of transformers reaching the end of their service lives in each future year, , can be determined. For B-Bank transformers, the average num ber of transformers reaching the end of their service lives each year over the next ten years is forecast below:

103 71 Voltage Class kV kV kV kV kV Total Having determined the average num ber of B-Bank transformers that will need to be replaced each year, w hat remains is the selection of those transformers whose replacem ent is most urgent. To accomplish this, S C E developed a process to assess each transform er s physical condition or Health Index. This Health Index, (which is effectively the inverse of its probability of failure), is a function of a transform er s age, loading, fault counts, m aintenance orders, oil quality, oil dissolved gas analysis results, and manufacturer. In addition to its Health Index, each transformer is evaluated for its Criticality or consequences that would result from an in-service failure. The primary indicator of a transform er s urgency for replacem ent is its Risk Ratio, which is the product of its Health Index and its Criticality. From this algorithm-derived replacem ent prioritization, a five-year replacem ent schedule is drafted. Two adjustments are m ade to this draft schedule. The first is m ade by a team of technical experts (m anagers and supervisors responsible for maintaining these transformers) to ensure that factors difficult to quantify are incorporated into the prioritization process such that high-risk transformers are not overlooked. A second adjustment to the schedule is m ade to optimize the construction aspects of the replacem ents. Planning, work setup, and equipment tear-down at a substation are expensive. Therefore, every effort is m ade to combine multiple projects (involving transformer replacem ent, circuit breaker replacem ent, or som e other major work activity) at a substation into a larger single project in order to avoid return visits to a substation within a five-year period. The nam es, locations, ages, and reasons for replacem ent of all B-Bank Transform ers to be replaced each year are provided in the workpapers to the volum e on Infrastructure Replacem ent, an excerpt from which is shown below: Equip. Type Oper. Date Substation Manufacturer Bank Phase Primary Voltage [kv] MVA Secondary Voltage [kv] Age Basis B 2015 BREWSTER GE 1N-C C M ain te n a n ce M grt e a m Experts c o n firm e d high risk fo r fa ilin g in -s e rv ic e. Actual is age is over85yrs old. B 2015 BREWSTER GE 1N-A A M ain te n a n ce M grt e a m Experts c o n firm e d high risk fo r fa ilin g in -s e rv ic e. Actual is age is over85yrs old. B 2015 BREWSTER GE 1N-B B M ain te n a n ce M grt e a m Experts c o n firm e d high risk fo r fa ilin g in -s e rv ic e. Actual is age is over85yrs old. B 2015 BREWSTER GE 1S-A A M ain te n a n ce M grt e a m Experts c o n firm e d high risk fo r fa ilin g in -s e rv ic e. Actual is age is over85yrs old.