RAILROAD COMMISSION OF TEXAS

Transcription

1 RAILROAD COMMISSION OF TEXAS STATEMENT OF INTENT TO CHANGE THE RATE CGS AND RATE PT OF ATMOS PIPELINE TEXAS GUD NO DIRECT TESTIMONY OF DAVID J. GARRETT ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF DALLAS MARCH 22, 2017

2 TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION... 4 II. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY... 5 III. LEGAL STANDARDS... 8 IV. ANALYTIC METHODS V. ACTUARIAL ANALYSIS A. Service Estimates B. Account 356 Structures and Improvements C. Account ROW City Gate VI. ALTERNATIVE EQUAL LIFE GROUP RECOMMENDATION VII. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION David J. Garrett 2/250

3 APPENDICES Appendix A: Appendix B: Appendix C: The Depreciation System Iowa Curves Actuarial Analysis LIST OF EXHIBITS Exhibit DJG-1 Exhibit DJG-2 Exhibit DJG-3 Exhibit DJG-4 Exhibit DJG-5 Exhibit DJG-6 Exhibit DJG-7 Exhibit DJG-8 Curriculum Vitae Summary Adjustment Detailed Adjustment Depreciation Rate Development Account 356 Detailed Curve Fitting Analysis Account Detailed Curve Fitting Analysis Actuarial Observed Tables and Iowa Curve Fitting Graphs Remaining Development (Average Procedure) Alternative Recommendation (ELG Accelerated Depreciation) Exhibit DJG-9 Exhibit DJG-10 Exhibit DJG-11 Exhibit DJG-12 Summary Adjustment (ELG Accelerated) Detailed Adjustment (ELG Accelerated) Depreciation Rate Development (ELG Accelerated) Remaining Development (ELG Accelerated) David J. Garrett 3/250

4 Q. State your name and occupation. I. INTRODUCTION A. My name is David J. Garrett. I am a consultant specializing in public utility regulation. I am the managing member of Resolve Utility Consulting, PLLC. I focus my practice on the primary capital recovery mechanisms for public utility companies: cost of capital and depreciation. Q. Summarize your educational background and professional experience A. I received a B.B.A., with a major in Finance, an M.B.A., and a Juris Doctor from the University of Oklahoma. I worked in private legal practice for several years before accepting a position as assistant general counsel at the Oklahoma Corporation Commission in At the Oklahoma Commission, I worked in the Office of General Counsel in regulatory proceedings. In 2012, I began working for the Public Utility Division as a regulatory analyst providing testimony in regulatory proceedings. After leaving the commission I formed Resolve Utility Consulting, PLLC, where I have represented various consumer groups and state agencies in utility regulatory proceedings, primarily in the areas of cost of capital and depreciation. I am a Certified Depreciation Professional through the Society of Depreciation Professionals. I am also a Certified Rate of Return Analyst through the Society of Utility and Regulatory Financial Analysts. I have testified in many regulatory proceedings on cost of capital, depreciation, and other issues. A more complete David J. Garrett 4/250

5 1 2 description of my qualifications and regulatory experience is included in my curriculum vitae. 1 Q. Describe the purpose and scope of your testimony in this proceeding A. I am testifying on behalf of the City of Dallas ( Dallas ) regarding the depreciation study and proposed depreciation expense of Atmos Pipeline Texas ( or the Company ). The depreciation study is sponsored by Company witness Mr. Dane A. Watson of the Alliance Consulting Group. II. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Q. Summarize the key points of your testimony A. In the context of utility ratemaking, depreciation refers to a cost allocation system designed to measure the rate by which a utility may recover its capital investments in a systematic and rational manner. I employed a well-established depreciation system and used actuarial analysis to statistically analyze the Company s depreciable assets in order to develop reasonable depreciation rates in this case. The table below compares the proposed depreciation accrual amounts by plant function. 2 1 Direct Exhibit DJG-1. 2 See also Exhibit DJG-2. The accrual amounts shown are calculated by applying the proposed depreciation rates to plant balances as of the study date. These depreciation rates must be applied to updated plant balances to determine the final expense adjustment. David J. Garrett 5/250

6 Figure 1: Summary Adjustment Plant Plant Company City of Dallas City of Dallas Function Balance Accrual Accrual Adjustment Underground Storage Plant $ 305,550,724 $ 10,035,700 $ 6,262,204 $ (3,773,496) Transmission Plant 2,070,119,871 65,722,116 36,657,225 (29,064,891) General Plant - Depreciated 10,892, , ,148 (142,595) General Plant - Amortized 27,647,361 2,085,808 2,085,808 - Total Plant Studied $ 2,414,210,850 $ 78,476,366 $ 45,495,384 $ (32,980,982) The City of Dallas s total adjustment would reduce the Company s proposed annual depreciation accrual by $33 million. I have also included an alternative recommendation that is discussed later in my testimony. Q. Summarize the primary factors driving your adjustment A. While I have proposed different average lives for several accounts based on Iowa curve fitting techniques, the primary driver of my adjustment is the proposal to calculate s depreciation rates in this case using the average life procedure instead of the equal life procedure as proposed by Mr. Watson. The differences between these two models will be discussed further below, but in short, the equal life procedure proposed by the Company imposes more costs on current ratepayers than future ratepayers. This statement is not an opinion, but rather a factual, mathematical byproduct of the equal life procedure. By unnecessarily imposing a greater depreciation expense on current customers, the Company has clearly failed to meet its burden of proof in this case to make a convincing showing that tis proposed rates are not excessive. The average life procedure I am proposing provides a more balanced, even application of depreciation rates across generations of ratepayers, which reduces intergenerational inequity and avoids accelerating depreciation David J. Garrett 6/250

7 1 2 expense for current customers. In addition, the average life procedure is more widely accepted across the country. Q. Describe why it is important not to overestimate depreciation rates A. Under the rate base rate of return model, the utility is allowed to recover the original cost of its prudent investments required to provide service. Depreciation systems are designed to allocate those costs in a systematic and rational manner specifically, over the service life of the utility s assets. If depreciation rates are overestimated (i.e., service lives are underestimated), it encourages economic inefficiency. Unlike competitive firms, regulated utility companies are not always incentivized by natural market forces to make the most economically efficient decisions. 3 If a utility is allowed to recover the cost of an asset before the end of its useful life, this could incentivize the utility to unnecessarily replace the asset in order to increase rate base, which results in economic waste. Thus, from a public policy perspective, it is preferable for regulators to ensure that assets are not depreciated before the end of their true useful lives. While underestimating the useful lives of depreciable assets could financially harm current ratepayers and encourage economic waste, unintentionally overestimating depreciable lives (i.e., underestimating depreciation rates) does not harm the Company. This is because if an asset s life is overestimated, there are a variety of measures that regulators can use to ensure the utility is not financially harmed. One such measure would be the use of a regulatory asset account. In that case, the Company s original cost investment in these assets would remain in the Company s 3 An obvious example of this fact can be seen in the very low debt ratios of regulated utilities. David J. Garrett 7/250

8 1 2 3 rate base until they are recovered. Thus, the process of depreciation strives for a perfect match between actual and estimated useful life. When these estimates are not exact, however, it is better that useful lives are overestimated rather than underestimated. III. LEGAL STANDARDS Q. Discuss the standard by which regulated utilities are allowed to recover depreciation expense A. In Lindheimer v. Illinois Bell Telephone Co., the U.S. Supreme Court stated that depreciation is the loss, not restored by current maintenance, which is due to all the factors causing the ultimate retirement of the property. These factors embrace wear and tear, decay, inadequacy, and obsolescence. 4 The Lindheimer Court also recognized that the original cost of plant assets, rather than present value or some other measure, is the proper basis for calculating depreciation expense. 5 Moreover, the Lindheimer Court found: [T]he company has the burden of making a convincing showing that the amounts it has charged to operating expenses for depreciation have not been excessive. That burden is not sustained by proof that its general accounting system has been correct. The calculations are mathematical, but the predictions underlying them are essentially matters of opinion. 6 4 Lindheimer v. Illinois Bell Tel. Co., 292 U.S. 151, 167 (1934). 5 Id. (Referring to the straight-line method, the Lindheimer Court stated that [a]ccording to the principle of this accounting practice, the loss is computed upon the actual cost of the property as entered upon the books, less the expected salvage, and the amount charged each year is one year's pro rata share of the total amount. ). The original cost standard was reaffirmed by the Court in Federal Power Commission v. Hope Natural Gas Co., 320 U.S. 591, 606 (1944). The Hope Court stated: Moreover, this Court recognized in [Lindheimer], supra, the propriety of basing annual depreciation on cost. By such a procedure the utility is made whole and the integrity of its investment maintained. No more is required. 6 Id. at 169. David J. Garrett 8/250

9 1 2 3 Thus, the Commission must ultimately determine if the Company has met its burden of proof by making a convincing showing that its proposed depreciation rates are not excessive. Q. Should depreciation represent an allocated cost of capital to operation, rather than a mechanism to determine loss of value? A. Yes. While the Lindheimer case and other early literature recognized depreciation as a necessary expense, the language indicated that depreciation was primarily a mechanism to determine loss of value. 7 Adoption of this value concept would require annual appraisals of extensive utility plant, and is thus not practical in this context. Rather, the cost allocation concept recognizes that depreciation is a cost of providing service, and that in addition to receiving a return on invested capital through the allowed rate of return, a utility should also receive a return of its invested capital in the form of recovered depreciation expense. The cost allocation concept also satisfies several fundamental accounting principles, including verifiability, neutrality, and the matching principle. 8 The definition of depreciation accounting published by the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants ( AICPA ) properly reflects the cost allocation concept: 7 See Frank K. Wolf & W. Chester Fitch, Depreciation Systems 71 (Iowa State University Press 1994). 8 National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners, Public Utility Depreciation Practices 12 (NARUC 1996). David J. Garrett 9/250

10 Depreciation accounting is a system of accounting that aims to distribute cost or other basic value of tangible capital assets, less salvage (if any), over the estimated useful life of the unit (which may be a group of assets) in a systematic and rational manner. It is a process of allocation, not of valuation Thus, the concept of depreciation as the allocation of cost has proven to be the most useful and most widely used concept. 10 IV. ANALYTIC METHODS Q. Discuss your approach to analyzing the Company s depreciable property in this case A. I obtained and reviewed all of the data that was used to conduct the Company s depreciation study. The depreciation rates proposed by Mr. Watson were developed based on depreciable property recorded as of September 30, Mr. Watson is also proposing rates for the Company s Shared Services Unit ( SSU ). I am not recommending changes to the proposed rates for the SSU. For the division, however, I am recommending adjustments to the Company s proposed rates, as discussed further below. Q. Discuss the definition and purpose of a depreciation system, as well as the depreciation system you employed for this project A. The legal standards set forth above do not mandate a specific procedure for conducting depreciation analysis. These standards, however, direct that analysts use a system for estimating depreciation rates that will result in the systematic and rational allocation of capital recovery for the utility. Over the years, analysts have developed depreciation 9 American Institute of Accountants, Accounting Terminology Bulletins Number 1: Review and Résumé 25 (American Institute of Accountants 1953). 10 Wolf supra n. 7, at 73. David J. Garrett 10/250

11 systems designed to analyze grouped property in accordance with this standard. A depreciation system may be defined by several primary parameters: 1) a method of allocation; 2) a procedure for applying the method of allocation; 3) a technique of applying the depreciation rate; and 4) a model for analyzing the characteristics of vintage property groups. 11 In this case, I used the straight line method, the average life procedure, the remaining life technique, and the broad group model to analyze the Company s actuarial data; this system would be denoted as an SL-AL-RL-BG system. This depreciation system conforms to the legal standards set forth above, and is commonly used by depreciation analysts in regulatory proceedings. I provide a more detailed discussion of depreciation system parameters, theories, and equations in Appendix A Q. Did Mr. Watson use the same depreciation system? A. No. While both Mr. Watson used the straight line allocation method and the remaining life application technique, we used different grouping procedures. Specifically, I used the average life grouping procedure and Mr. Watson used the equal life grouping procedure. 12 Q. What are the differences between the average life procedure and the equal life procedure? A. Essentially, in the average life procedure, a constant accrual rate based on the average life of all property in the group is applied to the surviving property. 13 In the equal life procedure, property is divided into subgroups that each have a common life. I will 11 See Wolf supra n. 7, at 70, See Dane A. Watson, p. 9: Wolf supra n. 7, at David J. Garrett 11/250

12 demonstrate and discuss below why the use of the equal life procedure is especially inappropriate in this case, as it results of millions of dollars of depreciation expense being unnecessarily imposed on current ratepayers for the sole benefit of Company shareholders. To the extent the Commission wants to avoid intergenerational inequity and accelerated depreciation rates for current customers, the Company s proposed rates should not be adopted. Q. Does use of the equal life procedure result in accelerated depreciation rates for current ratepayers? 7 8 A. Yes. Although Mr. Watson and I might disagree on several issues regarding depreciation analyses in this case, this point is not debatable. As noted by Wolf: When contrasted with the average life procedure, the equal life group procedure results in annual accruals that are higher during the early years and lower in the later years The NARUC Public Utility Depreciation Practices also makes the same conclusion about the equal life group ( ELG ) procedure: [T]he ELG procedure results in annual accruals that are higher during the early years of a vintage s life, thereby causing an increase in depreciation expense and revenue requirements during these years In contrast, use of the average life results in the same depreciation rate applied to each age interval. 14 Id. at NARUC supra n. 8 at 176. David J. Garrett 12/250

13 Q. Does use of the equal life procedure result in intergeneration inequity? A. Yes. The depreciation texts cited above clearly state that the equal life accelerated depreciation procedure charges current customers with higher depreciation expense than future customers. Thus, use of the equal life procedure necessarily contemplates intergenerational inequity on its face. In other words, a natural, mathematical byproduct of the equal life procedure is higher depreciation rates for current customers, and lower depreciation rates for future customers. This inequity is exacerbated by realities of ratemaking procedure. Under the equal life procedure, depreciation rates are supposed to go down each subsequent year of an asset s remaining life. This makes sense because current customers are charged higher rates than future customers under the equal life procedure. However, because we do not hold rate cases every year and true up the equal life depreciation rates, it results in current customers being charged with an even higher depreciation expense than what would otherwise be imposed by the equal life procedure. This is the reason why it is preferable to use depreciation systems that result in a consistent, straight -line allocation of costs among different generations of customers. Q. Does use of the average life procedure you have proposed apply the same depreciation through all generations of customers? A. Yes. Unlike the equal life group procedure proposed by Mr. Watson, the average life procedure avoids intergeneration inequity by applying the same average life through all age intervals. For this reason, use of the average life procedure promotes more fair and reasonable rates, instead of burdening current customers with unnecessarily high depreciation rates. David J. Garrett 13/250

14 Q. Provide a specific example from this case of the intergenerational inequity that necessarily results from using the equal life procedure A. I will use Account (Mains), to demonstrate the inequity that would be imposed on current ratepayers if the equal life procedure is adopted in this case. For this account, Mr. Watson and I used the same plant balance, the same reserve amount, the same net salvage percentage, the same Iowa curve, and the same average life estimate of 70 years. Since there is an original cost of $1.6 billion in this account, a basic, straight-line depreciation accrual would be calculated as follows: $1.6 billion / 70 years = $23 million. In other words, if we simply allocated the current balance in this account over 70 years it would result in an annual depreciation expense of $23 million to ratepayers. Mr. Watson, however, is proposing that the depreciation expense for current customers be based on a remaining life of only 34 years which is less than half of the service life for these assets. As a result, the annual accrual proposed by Mr. Watson is about twice as what we would expect, at $46 million per year. In other words, Mr. Watson is suggesting that current ratepayers should pay nearly twice the amount that would be required than if the account were simply allocated over the service life of 70 years that Mr. Watson himself has proposed, while future ratepayers pay only a fraction of the cost. Again, this is the very definition of intergenerational inequity, and especially given the substantial size of this account alone, the Company s proposal is entirely inappropriate. Furthermore, even if the Commission were to adopt the equal life procedure in this case, there is no practical way to correctly implement the procedure, as it would require a true up of the rates during each accounting period to reflect the rate decrease that is required under the equal life procedure. Therefore, what the Company is proposing in this case is not even an accurate reflection of David J. Garrett 14/250

15 1 2 the rates that would be charged by a correct application of the equal life procedure, but rather some kind of distorted accelerated depreciation model. Q. Do you have any other criticism of Mr. Watson s approach? A. Yes, although in light of the foregoing discussion, any other criticisms are minor by comparison. I have been involved in several cases with Mr. Watson, and he routinely attempts to discredit my proposals because of the fact that I do not reallocate the theoretical reserve (or Calculated Accumulated Depreciation or CAD ) based on my proposed depreciation parameters. The authoritative texts are clear that when using the remaining life technique (as both Mr. Watson and I do), no separate reallocation of the CAD is required or even necessary. According to Wolf: Users of remaining life depreciation often do not explicitly calculate the CAD. As previously discussed, calculation of the CAD is implicit in the use of the remaining life method of adjustment, because the variation between the CAD and the accumulated provision for depreciation is automatically amortized over the remaining life The NARUC manual also agrees that no separate reallocation of the theoretical reserve is required when using the remaining life technique: 16 Wolf supra n. 7, at 178 (emphasis added). David J. Garrett 15/250

16 The desirability of using the remaining life technique is that any necessary adjustments of depreciation reserves, because of changes to the estimates of life on net salvage, are accrued automatically over the remaining life of the property. 17 V. ACTUARIAL ANALYSIS Q. Describe the actuarial process you used to analyze the Company s depreciable property A. The study of retirement patterns of industrial property is derived from the actuarial process used to study human mortality. Just as actuarial analysts study historical human mortality data in order to predict how long a group of people will live, depreciation analysts study historical plant data in order to estimate the average lives of property groups. The most common actuarial method used by depreciation analysts is called the retirement rate method. In the retirement rate method, original property data, including additions, retirements, transfers, and other transactions, are organized by vintage and transaction year. 18 The retirement rate method is ultimately used to develop an observed life table, ( OLT ) which shows the percentage of property surviving at each age interval. This pattern of property retirement is described as a survivor curve. The survivor curve derived from the observed life table, however, must be fitted and smoothed with a complete curve in order to determine the ultimate average life of the group. 19 The most widely used survivor curves for this curve fitting process were developed at Iowa State University in 17 NARUC supra n. 8, at The vintage year refers to the year that a group of property was placed in service (aka placement year). The transaction year refers to the accounting year in which a property transaction occurred, such as an addition, retirement, or transfer (aka experience year). 19 See Appendix C for a more detailed discussion of the actuarial analysis used to determine the average lives of grouped industrial property. David J. Garrett 16/250

17 1 2 3 the early 1900s and are commonly known as the Iowa curves. 20 A more detailed explanation of how the Iowa curves are used in the actuarial analysis of depreciable property is set forth in Appendix C. A. Service Estimates Q. Generally describe your approach in estimating the service lives of mass property A. I used all of the Company s aged property data to create an observed life table ( OLT ) for each account. The data points on the OLT can be plotted to form a curve (the OLT curve ). The OLT curve is not a theoretical curve, rather, it is actual observed data from the Company s records that indicate the rate of retirement for each property group. An OLT curve by itself, however, is rarely a smooth curve, and is often not a complete curve (i.e., it does not end at zero percent surviving). In order to calculate average life (the area under a curve), a complete survivor curve is needed. The Iowa curves are empiricallyderived curves based on the extensive studies of the actual mortality patterns of many different types of industrial property. The curve-fitting process involves selecting the best Iowa curve to fit the OLT curve. This can be accomplished through a combination of visual and mathematical curve-fitting techniques, as well as professional judgment. The first step of my approach to curve-fitting involves visually inspecting the OLT curve for any irregularities. For example, if the tail end of the curve is erratic and shows a sharp decline over a short period of time, it may indicate that this portion of the data is less reliable, as further discussed below. After inspecting the OLT curve, I use a mathematical curve- 20 See Appendix B for a more detailed discussion of the Iowa curves. David J. Garrett 17/250

18 fitting technique which essentially involves measuring the distance between the OLT curve and the selected Iowa curve in order to get an objective, mathematical assessment of how well the curve fits. After selecting an Iowa curve, I observe the OLT curve along with the Iowa curve on the same graph to determine how well the curve fits. I may repeat this process several times for any given account to ensure that the most reasonable Iowa curve is selected. Q. Do you always select the mathematically best-fitting curve? A. Not necessarily. Mathematical fitting is an important part of the curve-fitting process because it promotes objective, unbiased results. While mathematical curve fitting is important, however, it may not always yield the optimum result; therefore, it should not necessarily be adopted without further analysis. Q. Should every portion of the OLT curve be given equal weight? A. Not necessarily. Many analysts have observed that the points comprising the tail end of the OLT curve may often have less analytical value than other portions of the curve. In fact, [p]oints at the end of the curve are often based on fewer exposures and may be given less weight than points based on larger samples. The weight placed on those points will depend on the size of the exposures. 21 In accordance with this standard, an analyst may decide to truncate the tail end of the OLT curve at a certain percent of initial exposures, such as one percent. Using this approach puts a greater emphasis on the most valuable portions of the curve. For my analysis in this case, I not only considered the entirety of the 21 Wolf supra n. 7, at 46. David J. Garrett 18/250

19 OLT curve, but also conducted further analyses that involved fitting Iowa curves to the most significant part of the OLT curve for certain accounts. In other words, to verify the accuracy of my curve selection, I narrowed the focus of my additional calculation to consider the top 99% of the exposures (i.e., dollars exposed to retirement) and to eliminate the tail end of the curve representing the bottom 1% of exposures. I will illustrate an example of this approach in the discussion below. Q. Describe your adjustments to the service lives and Iowa curves proposed by Mr. Watson A. I made adjustments to the Iowa curve and average lives proposed by Mr. Watson for the following five Underground Storage Plant accounts and two Transmission Plant accounts: 351, 353, 354, 355, 356, , and 370. The specific adjustments are provided in Exhibit DJG-3. As discussed above however, the dollar impact of my adjustment is primarily attributable to my reliance on the average life procedure, and less so on my Iowa curve recommendations. As a matter of principle, it is far more important for the Commission to adopt my proposed rates because they are based on the average life procedure. In addition, for most if not all of the accounts to which I made service life adjustments, my recommendations are based on better-fitting Iowa curves from an objective, mathematical perspective. The detailed calculations supporting all of my adjustments are included in my exhibits, but I will provide a few examples and detailed discussions of adjustments I made to Mr. Watson s proposals in the following sections. These examples will demonstrate that my service life recommendations are based on better and more accurate and reasonable statistical analyses. David J. Garrett 19/250

20 B. Account 356 Structures and Improvements Q. Describe your service life estimate for this account, and compare it with the Company s estimate A. While I often emphasize the importance of objective mathematical curve-fitting techniques in my testimony, Account 356 provides a good example of why it is important to simply perform mathematical curve fitting to the entire OLT curve without further analysis. Again, the OLT curve is generated from the Company s actual, historical plant data. In the following graphs, the OLT curve is shown by the black triangles. We the curve-fitting process to attempt to find the best fitting Iowa curve to the OLT curve. use Iowa curves to fit the OLT curve. The observed survivor curve for this account provides a good example of how the tail end of the observed survivor curve can be unreliable and statistically irrelevant. David J. Garrett 20/250

21 Figure 2: Account 390 Structures and Improvements Notice that from age zero to age 52, the OLT curve steadily declines from 100% surviving to about 80% surviving. At that point, the curve drops sharply to 67% surviving, then to 52% surviving over only five age intervals. Examination of the observed life table provides further explanation of this sudden change in the OLT curve. The figure below shows the pertinent portion of the observed life table for this account David J. Garrett 21/250

22 Figure 3: Account 356 Portion of Observed Table Retirement Percent Age Exposures Retirements Ratio Surviving 0 $ 53,539,516 $ % ,583,580 9, % ,560, , % ,666, % ,772,597 5, % ,035,087 32, % ,100,716 99, % ,751, % ,464, % ,498,486 4, % 9.5 9,728,006 4, % , % ,466 9, % , % ,870 76, % ,996 3, % ,239 78, % , % , % This life table shows the dollars exposed to retirement (or exposures ) at the beginning of each age interval and the dollars retired during each age interval. The retirement ratio is calculated by dividing the retirements by the exposures. The percent surviving at each age interval is shown in the far-right column. At age interval 51.5, we notice a substantial decrease in the percent surviving from 81.81% to 67.86%. This interval corresponds with the gap in the OLT curve shown in the previous graph. In an account with beginning exposures of $53.5 million, a mere $76,553 of retirements cause a David J. Garrett 22/250

23 substantial decrease in the OLT curve. This is why authoritative depreciation texts remind us that we should not give the same analytical weight to the remaining data points in the OLT curve after this point. This illustration demonstrates that when the tail end of the OLT curve contains far fewer exposures than other portions of the OLT curve, it can be erratic and very problematic from a statistical standpoint. Q. Did the Company s selected Iowa curve for this account appear to track the tail end of the OLT curve A. Yes. In fact, the Iowa curve chosen by Mr. Watson appears to cut straight through the tail end of the OLT curve. For this account, the Company selected the Iowa R curve and I selected the Iowa R2-69 curve. These two curves are shown along with the OLT curve in the graph below See also Exhibit DJG-6. David J. Garrett 23/250

24 Figure 4: Account 390 Structures and Improvements The vertical dotted line at age 49 shows the erratic drop in the OLT curve discussed above. The data points of the OLT curve to the right of this line should be ignored from a statistical standpoint. The Company s R curve, however, declines sharply below the actual OLT curve beginning at the age 35 and continues through the problematic tail of the OLT curve. Q. Is your selected Iowa curve a better mathematical fit to the relevant portion of the OLT curve? 6 7 A. Yes. Although it is visually clear that the R curve is a better fit to the relevant portion of the OLT curve, this fact can also be confirmed mathematically. Mathematical curve David J. Garrett 24/250

25 fitting essentially involves measuring the distance between the OLT curve and the selected Iowa curve. The best mathematically-fitted curve is the one that minimizes the distance between the OLT curve and the Iowa curve, thus providing the closest fit. The distance between the curves is calculated using the sum-of-squared differences ( SSD ) technique. In Account 356, the total SSD, or distance between the Company s curve and the relevant portion of the OLT curve is , while the total SSD between better-fitting R2-69 curve and the OLT curve is only Thus, the R2-69 curve is a better mathematical fit. 23 Applying the R2-69 curve to this account results in a remaining life of 61.6 years, a depreciation rate of 2.69%, and an annual accrual of $695, C. Account ROW City Gate Q. Describe your service life estimate for this account, and compare it with the Company s estimate A. Account highlights the importance of not only considering the average life inherent in an Iowa curve, but also the shape and mode of the curve. For this account, the Company is proposing an 85-year average life while I am proposing an 89-year average life a difference of only four years. However, the Company and I are proposing different curve shapes: R4 and R1 respectively. The graph below shows the OLT curve along with the two proposed curves. 23 See Exhibit DJG-5. Incidentally, the R2-69 curve I selected also provides a better mathematical fit to the entirety of the OLT curve as well. 24 See Exhibit DJG-4 for depreciation calculations on all accounts; see also Exhibit DJG-8 for detailed remaining life calculations. David J. Garrett 25/250

26 Figure 5: Account 390 Structures and Improvements The OLT curve shows a relatively flat, smooth decline throughout the entirety of the curve. We use Iowa curves to help us analyze historical retirement patters in order to make predictions about future retirement patters. When an OLT curve is relatively short, opposing witnesses may choose Iowa curves that both provide good fits to the OLT curve, but then take different directions based on differing opinions of future retirement patterns. With Account 390 however, Mr. Watson and I not only have different opinions regarding the future, but apparently regarding the past as well. According to Mr. Watson, there are about 90% of the assets surviving in this account at 60 years, but the historical retirement pattern indicates a very different result of only 75% surviving. On the lower end of the David J. Garrett 26/250

27 curve, Mr. Watson is suggesting that at the age interval of 100 years, there is only 20% surviving, while the data is telling a very different story. In short, it is visually clear that Mr. Watson s selected Iowa curve for this account provides a very poor fit to the observed data, and thus it results in a very poor service life and depreciation rate recommendation. Q. Is your selected Iowa curve a better mathematical fit to the relevant portion of the OLT curve? A. Yes. Although it is visually clear that the R1-89 curve I selected for this account provides a much better fit to the OLT curve, this result can be confirmed mathematically as well. Specifically, the SSD or distance between the Company s curve and the OLT curve is , while the total SSD between better-fitting R1-89 curve and the OLT curve is only Thus, the R1-89 curve is a better mathematical fit and results in a more reasonable depreciation rate. 25 VI. ALTERNATIVE EQUAL LIFE GROUP RECOMMENDATION Q. Summarize the problems resulting from the application of the equal life procedure A. As discussed above, the equal life procedure results in accelerated depreciation rates for current customers and intergenerational inequity. Moreover, under the equal life procedure, depreciation rates are supposed to decrease each year. This makes sense because if early customers are going to be charged higher than the average rate, then later customers must be charged lower than the average rate. However, because the Company is not going to file a rate case every year, this means that the higher-than-average rates 25 See Exhibit DJG-5. David J. Garrett 27/250

28 imposed under the equal life procedure will stay the same each year until the next rate case is filed. Thus, not only does the equal life procedure result in accelerated depreciation rates for current customers, but the lag between rate cases guarantees that customers over the next few years will be charged even higher rates than what would otherwise be imposed by the equal life procedure. This arrangement is inequitable on its face. Moreover, the Company has failed to meet its burden of proof as mandated by the Supreme Court in Lindheimer. Again, the Court said that the company has the burden of making a convincing showing that the amounts it has charged to operating expenses for depreciation have not been excessive. 26 In reality, the Company has done the exact opposite, by making a convincing showing that its proposed depreciation rates are excessive. Q. Discuss an alternative recommendation to your primary recommendation discussed above A. Clearly, it would be better for the Commission to adopt my proposed depreciation rates as determined under the average life procedure, which are presented in Exhibit DJG-3. However, to the extent the Commission is persuaded to adopt the equal life procedure, I have recalculated my depreciation rate proposals under the equal life procedure, and have presented them in Exhibit DJG-10. This adjustment is summarized in the following table. 26 Id. at 169. David J. Garrett 28/250

29 Figure 6: Summary Alternative Adjustment (Equal Accelerated Procedure) Plant Plant Company City of Dallas City of Dallas Function Balance Accrual Accrual Adjustment Underground Storage Plant $ 305,550,724 $ 10,035,700 $ 9,184,151 $ (851,549) Transmission Plant 2,070,119,871 65,722,116 64,289,981 (1,432,134) General Plant - Depreciated 10,892, , ,907 (34,836) General Plant - Amortized 27,647,361 2,085,808 2,085,808 - Total Plant Studied $ 2,414,210,850 $ 78,476,366 $ 76,157,847 $ (2,318,519) As shown in the table, when using the same Iowa curves, service lives, and net salvage rates as proposed above, the equal life accelerated procedure results in an adjustment of only $2.3 million, as opposed to the $33 million adjustment under the average life procedure. This means that the equal life accelerated procedure would impose an additional $30 million dollars on current customers. To be clear, this alternative recommendation should not be construed as an endorsement of the equal life grouping procedure. Rather, it presents the Commission with an alternative recommendation under the equal life procedure that results in more reasonable rates than those proposed under the Company s equal life procedure because such rates are based on more objective and reasonable Iowa curves and average life estimates, as discussed and illustrated above. The exhibits supporting the alternative recommendation under the equal life accelerated procedure are presented in Exhibits DJG-9, 10, 11, and 12. VII. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION Q. Summarize the key points of your testimony A. As discussed above, the primary difference between my recommendation and the Company s recommendation is the depreciation system used to analyze the depreciation rates in this case. The system used by the Company results in an unfair and unreasonable David J. Garrett 29/250

30 acceleration of depreciation rates and expense, whereby current customers are forced to pay higher rates than future customers. In other words, the depreciation system proposed by the Company results in intergenerational inequity. The inequity imposed by using the equal life procedure in this case is so extreme in fact, that when the Company proposed an average service life of 70 years for one account, it allocated the cost for account over 34 years only half of the service life, which effectively results in an accelerated depreciation expense to current customers of about $23 million. I also proposed better-fitting, more reasonable Iowa curves for several of the Company s accounts. Q. What is the City of Dallas s recommendation to the Commission regarding depreciation rates and expense? A. The City of Dallas recommends that the Commission adopt the proposed depreciation rates presented in Exhibit DJG-3. These rates should be applied to the Company s updated plant balances to determine the proper depreciation expense. Alternatively, to the extent the Commission is persuaded to adopt the equal life procedure, the City of Dallas recommends that the Commission adopt the proposed depreciation rates presented in Exhibit DJG-10, which are based on more objective and reasonable average estimates than those proposed by the Company. Q. Does this conclude your testimony? A. Yes, including any exhibits, appendices, and other items attached hereto. I reserve the right to supplement this testimony as needed with any additional information that has been requested from the Company but not yet provided. To the extent any testimony from the Company was not specifically addressed, it does not constitute an agreement with such testimony. David J. Garrett 30/250

31 Appendix A APPENDIX A: THE DEPRECIATION SYSTEM A depreciation accounting system may be thought of as a dynamic system in which estimates of life and salvage are inputs to the system, and the accumulated depreciation account is a measure of the state of the system at any given time. 27 The primary objective of the depreciation system is the timely recovery of capital. The process for calculating the annual accruals is determined by the factors required to define the system. A depreciation system should be defined by four primary factors: 1) a method of allocation; 2) a procedure for applying the method of allocation to a group of property; 3) a technique for applying the depreciation rate; and 4) a model for analyzing the characteristics of vintage groups comprising a continuous property group. 28 The figure below illustrates the basic concept of a depreciation system and includes some of the available parameters. 29 There are hundreds of potential combinations of methods, procedures, techniques, and models, but in practice, analysts use only a few combinations. Ultimately, the system selected must result in the systematic and rational allocation of capital recovery for the utility. Each of the four primary factors defining the parameters of a depreciation system is discussed further below. 27 Wolf supra n. 7, at Id. at 70, Edison Electric Institute, Introduction to Depreciation (inside cover) (EEI April 2013). Some definitions of the terms shown in this diagram are not consistent among depreciation practitioners and literature due to the fact that depreciation analysis is a relatively small and fragmented field. This diagram simply illustrates the some of the available parameters of a depreciation system. David J. Garrett 31/250

32 Appendix A Figure 7: The Depreciation System Cube 1. Allocation Methods The method refers to the pattern of depreciation in relation to the accounting periods. The method most commonly used in the regulatory context is the straight-line method a type of age-life method in which the depreciable cost of plant is charged in equal amounts to each accounting period over the service life of plant. 30 Because group depreciation rates and plant balances often change, the amount of the annual accrual rarely remains the same, even when the straight-line method is employed. 31 The basic formula for the straight-line method is as follows: NARUC supra n. 8, at Id. 32 Id. David J. Garrett 32/250

33 Appendix A AAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAA = Equation 1: Straight-Line Accrual GGGGGGGGGG PPAAAAAAPP NNNNNN SSAAAAAASSSSSSSS SSSSSSSSSSAANN LLLLLLLL Gross plant is a known amount from the utility s records, while both net salvage and service life must be estimated in order to calculate the annual accrual. The straight-line method differs from accelerated methods of recovery, such as the sum-of-the-years-digits method and the declining balance method. Accelerated methods are primarily used for tax purposes and are rarely used in the regulatory context for determining annual accruals. 33 In practice, the annual accrual is expressed as a rate which is applied to the original cost of plant in order to determine the annual accrual in dollars. The formula for determining the straight-line rate is as follows: 34 Equation 2: Straight-Line Rate DDDDppAANNAASSAAPPSSGGAA RRRRRRRR % = 100 NNNNNN SSSSSSSSSSSSSS % SSSSSSSSSSAANN LLLLLLLL 2. Grouping Procedures The procedure refers to the way the allocation method is applied through subdividing the total property into groups. 35 While single units may be analyzed for depreciation, a group plan of depreciation is particularly adaptable to utility property. Employing a grouping procedure allows for a composite application of depreciation rates to groups of similar property, rather than 33 Id. at Id. at Wolf supra n. 7, at David J. Garrett 33/250

34 Appendix A excessively conducting calculations for each unit. Whereas an individual unit of property has a single life, a group of property displays a dispersion of lives and the life characteristics of the group must be described statistically. 36 When analyzing mass property categories, it is important that each group contains homogenous units of plant that are used in the same general manner throughout the plant and operated under the same general conditions. 37 The average life and equal life grouping procedures are the two most common. In the average life procedure, a constant annual accrual rate based on the average life of all property in the group is applied to the surviving property. While property having shorter lives than the group average will not be fully depreciated, and likewise, property having longer lives than the group average will be over-depreciated, the ultimate result is that the group will be fully depreciated by the time of the final retirement. 38 Thus, the average life procedure treats each unit as though its life is equal to the average life of the group. In contrast, the equal life procedure treats each unit in the group as though its life was known. 39 Under the equal life procedure the property is divided into subgroups that each has a common life Application Techniques The third factor of a depreciation system is the technique for applying the depreciation rate. There are two commonly used techniques: whole life and remaining life. The whole life 36 Id. at NARUC supra n. 8, at See Wolf supra n. 7, at Id. at Id. David J. Garrett 34/250

35 Appendix A technique applies the depreciation rate on the estimated average service life of a group, while the remaining life technique seeks to recover undepreciated costs over the remaining life of the plant. 41 In choosing the application technique, consideration should be given to the proper level of the accumulated depreciation account. Depreciation accrual rates are calculated using estimates of service life and salvage. Periodically these estimates must be revised due to changing conditions, which cause the accumulated depreciation account to be higher or lower than necessary. Unless some corrective action is taken, the annual accruals will not equal the original cost of the plant at the time of final retirement. 42 Analysts can calculate the level of imbalance in the accumulated depreciation account by determining the calculated accumulated depreciation, (a.k.a. theoretical reserve and referred to in these appendices as CAD ). The CAD is the calculated balance that would be in the accumulated depreciation account at a point in time using current depreciation parameters. 43 An imbalance exists when the actual accumulated depreciation account does not equal the CAD. The choice of application technique will affect how the imbalance is dealt with. Use of the whole life technique requires that an adjustment be made to accumulated depreciation after calculation of the CAD. The adjustment can be made in a lump sum or over a period of time. With use of the remaining life technique, however, adjustments to accumulated depreciation are amortized over the remaining life of the property and are automatically included 41 NARUC supra n. 8, at Wolf supra n. 7, at NARUC supra n. 8, at 325. David J. Garrett 35/250