UNITED STATES OF AMERICA BEFORE THE
FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION
Southern California Edison Company
)))
Dkt. No.
ER09-1534-001
PREPARED REBUTTAL TESTIMONY OF
DR. PAUL T. HUNT ON BEHALF OF
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY
(EXHIBIT SCE-49)
OCTOBER 2010
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA BEFORE THE
FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION
Southern California Edison Company
)))
Dkt. No.
ER09-1534-001
SUMMARY OF THE PREPARED REBUTTAL TESTIMONY OF
DR. PAUL T. HUNT (EXHIBIT SCE-49)
In his testimony, Dr. Hunt discusses issues related to SCE’s cost of capital and
estimates of cost escalation.
With respect to cost of capital, Dr. Hunt’s rebuttal testimony shows that there
are serious flaws in the analyses and recommendations of FERC Staff witness Keyton
(pp. 10-34), CPUC witness Cosman (pp. 45-63), M-S-R witness Lesser (pp. 63-73),
and SWP witnesses Malloy (pp. 74-76) and David Marcus (pp. 73-74). The
recommendations of these witnesses should not be adopted in this proceeding. With
respect to the recommendations of Six Cities witness Solomon, his methodology is
nearly identical to Dr. Hunt’s updated estimates (pp. 34-45) of return on equity and
would produce nearly identical results if applied to the data that Dr. Hunt used for his
update. Contrary to the suggestions of these witnesses, Dr. Hunt’s updated estimates
are consistent with FERC precedent and in particular, consistent with the recent
Commission order in another SCE docket related to the determination of return on
equity. (pp. 5-9, 77-78).
With respect to cost escalation, Dr. Hunt shows that FERC Staff witness Kerri
H. Miller’s calculation of SCE’s average salaries is incorrect, and that SCE’s
projected increases in its average salaries are consistent with the historical record. (pp.
78-91). He also shows that the criticisms of Six Cities witness Terry M. Myers, M-S-
R/LADWP witness David B. Cohen, and FERC Staff witness Craig E. Deters
regarding SCE’s use of labor escalation rates to escalate the indirect portion of non-
labor costs should rejected. Contrary to these witnesses’ arguments, the non-labor
escalation rate must be adjusted to reflect indirect labor costs included in the non-
labor expense in order to correctly calculate the non-labor escalation rates. (pp. 91-
112).
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA BEFORE THE
FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION
Southern California Edison Company )))
Dkt. No.
ER09-1534-001
TABLE OF CONTENTS OF THE PREPARED REBUTTAL TESTIMONY OF
DR. PAUL T. HUNT (EXHIBIT SCE-49)
I. PURPOSE OF REBUTTAL TESTIMONY....................................................... 3
II. RESPONSE REGARDING ISSUES RAISED BY MULTIPLE INTERVENORS................................................................................................. 5
III. RESPONSE TO TESTIMONY OF FERC STAFF REGARDING COST OF CAPITAL.......................................................................................................... 10
A. Return on Equity ........................................................................................... 10
B. Capital Structure............................................................................................ 30
C. Costs of Long-Term Debt and Preferred Equity ........................................... 33
IV. RESPONSE TO SIX CITIES TESTIMONY REGARDING COST OF CAPITAL.......................................................................................................... 34
A. Response to Mr. Solomon’s Analysis of SCE’s Cost of Capital .................. 34
B. Response to Mr. Solomon’s Comments on my Analysis.............................. 45
V. RESPONSE TO CPUC (COSMAN) TESTIMONY REGARDING COST OF CAPITAL.......................................................................................................... 45
A. Response to CPUC DCF Analysis ................................................................ 46
B. Response to Other Aspects of CPUC Affidavit and Exhibits....................... 54
VI. RESPONSE TO M-S-R (LESSER) TESTIMONY REGARDING COST OF CAPITAL.......................................................................................................... 63
A. Response to Dr. Lesser’s Analysis of SCE’s Return on Equity ................... 63
B. Response to Dr. Lesser’s Comments Regarding My Testimony.................. 71
VII. RESPONSE TO STATE WATER PROJECT TESTIMONY REGARDING COST OF CAPITAL ........................................................................................ 73
A. Response to Mr. Marcus’s Analysis of SCE’s Cost of Capital..................... 73
B. Response to Dr. Malloy’s Commentary........................................................ 74
VIII. UPDATED ESTIMATES OF COST OF CAPITAL ....................................... 77
A. Return on Equity ........................................................................................... 77
IX. RESPONSE TO OTHER PARTIES’ TESTIMONY REGARDING COST ESCALATION ................................................................................................. 78
A. Labor Escalation............................................................................................ 78
B. Non-Labor Escalation and Indirect Labor..................................................... 91
Dkt. No. ER09-1534-001 Exhibit SCE-49
Page 1 of 113
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA BEFORE THE
FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION
Southern California Edison Company
)))
Dkt. No.
ER09-1534-001
PREPARED REBUTTAL TESTIMONY OF DR. PAUL T. HUNT
ON BEHALF OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY
Q. Please state your name and business address for the record.
A. My name is Dr. Paul T. Hunt, and my business address is 2244 Walnut Grove
Avenue, Rosemead, California 91770-3714.
Q. Have you submitted prior testimony in this proceeding?
A. Yes, I submitted direct testimony in Exhibits SCE-17 through SCE-21 on July
31, 2009.
Q. Are you adopting the direct testimony of Ms. Schiminske, Exhibit SCE-16,
as your own testimony in this proceeding?
A. Yes. I am adopting Ms. Schiminske’s testimony as my own. I assisted in the
drafting of that testimony and am able to attest that it is true and correct to the
best of my knowledge and belief.
Dkt. No. ER09-1534-001 Exhibit SCE-49
Page 2 of 113
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
Q. Have you submitted testimony to the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission since July 31, 2009?
A. Yes. I have submitted testimony in Docket No. ER10-160-000. I also
submitted affidavits in Docket Nos. EL10-1-000, EL10-81-000, ER08-375-
004, and ER09-187-002/ER10-160-000. This testimony and affidavits have
generally concerned issues related to cost of capital.
Q. Are there any changes to your professional qualifications since July 31,
2009?
A. Yes. In September 2010, I was promoted to Director of Regulatory Finance
and Economics at SCE.
Q. Have you written any publications on cost of capital since July 31, 2009 in
addition to the testimony and affidavits described above?
A. Yes. In late 2009, I was invited to write, with a co-author, a book chapter on
cost of capital in regulated industries. The book chapter is titled "Cost of
Capital in Regulated Industries," and it will appear in Cost of Capital in
Litigation: Applications and Examples,1 to be published by John Wiley &
Sons, Inc., later this year.
1 ISBN: 978-0-470-88094-4.
Dkt. No. ER09-1534-001 Exhibit SCE-49
Page 3 of 113
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
I. PURPOSE OF REBUTTAL TESTIMONY 1
Q. What is the purpose of your rebuttal testimony in this proceeding?
A. The purpose of my testimony is to rebut the testimony of FERC Staff witness
Robert J. Keyton, CPUC witness R. Mihai Cosman, M-S-R witness Dr.
Jonathan A. Lesser, Six Cities witness J. Bertram Solomon, and SWP
witnesses Dr. Michael P. Malloy and David Marcus (collectively, “intervenor
ROE witnesses”) on rate of return on equity (“ROE”) and other issues related
to Southern California Edison Company’s (SCE’s) cost of capital. I also rebut
the testimony of Six Cities witness Terry M. Myers, M-S-R/LADWP witness
David B. Cohen, and FERC Staff witnesses Kerri H. Miller and Craig E.
Deters on issues related to cost escalation. Finally, I update my estimates of
Southern California Edison Company’s (“SCE’s”) cost of equity capital
presented in my direct testimony.
Q. Please provide a summary of your findings regarding the intervenor and
FERC Staff ROE witnesses’ recommendations regarding cost of capital.
A. I show that there are serious flaws in the analyses and recommendations of
FERC Staff witness Keyton, CPUC witness Cosman, M-S-R witness Lesser,
and SWP witnesses Malloy and David Marcus. The recommendations of these
witnesses should not be adopted in this proceeding. With respect to the
recommendations of Six Cities witness Solomon, I show that his methodology
is nearly identical to mine and that it would produce nearly identical DCF ROE
Dkt. No. ER09-1534-001 Exhibit SCE-49
Page 4 of 113
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
estimates if applied to the data that I used for my updated DCF estimates,
which are based on the most recent data available. Contrary to the suggestions
of these witnesses my updated estimates are consistent with FERC precedent
and in particular, consistent with the recent Commission order in another SCE
docket related to the determination of return on equity.
Q. Please provide a summary of your findings regarding the intervenor and
FERC Staff witnesses’ recommendations regarding cost escalation.
A. I demonstrate that FERC Staff witness Kerri H. Miller’s calculation of SCE’s
average salaries is incorrect. I show that when the correct calculations are
performed, SCE’s average salaries have increased in the past, and that SCE’s
projected increases in its average salaries is consistent with the historical
record. I also show that the criticisms of Six Cities witness Terry M. Myers,
M-S-R/LADWP witness David B. Cohen, and FERC Staff witness Craig E.
Deters regarding SCE’s use of labor escalation rates to escalate the indirect
portion of non-labor costs should re rejected. I demonstrate that, contrary to
these witnesses’ arguments, the non-labor escalation rate must be adjusted to
reflect indirect labor costs included in the non-labor expense in order to
correctly calculate the non-labor escalation rates.
Dkt. No. ER09-1534-001 Exhibit SCE-49
Page 5 of 113
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
II. RESPONSE REGARDING ISSUES RAISED BY MULTIPLE 1
INTERVENORS
Q. Are you familiar with the Bluefield and Hope decisions discussed by
several of the intervenor ROE witnesses?
A. Yes, I am familiar with Bluefield2 and Hope,3 as I discuss them in my own
testimony. Exhibit SCE-17, pp. 5-6. My concern is that the opposing
witnesses have overstepped reasonable bounds in their effort to seek a lower
authorized cost of capital for SCE. Mr. Cosman, for example states the
following: “Rates have to be just and reasonable even if they produce a
meager return on rate base.” Exhibit PUC-1, p. 37. I submit that Mr. Cosman
has it exactly backward. If the authorized rate of return on rate base is meager,
then that authorized rate of return is unreasonable.4
In my view, all of the intervenor ROE witnesses have presented ROE
recommendations that are inadequate. They are lower than SCE’s authorized
return on equity in its retail jurisdiction and they are lower than the ROE that
would be authorized if SCE were an RTO member, filing as an RTO member.
2 Bluefield Waterworks v. Public Svc. Comm., 262 U.S. 679 (1923). 3 FPC v. Hope Natural Gas, 320 U.S. 591 (1944). 4 The dictionary definition of meager is “[d]efficient in quantity, fullness, or extent;
scanty.” (See http://education.yahoo.com/reference/dictionary/entry/meager.) “Deficient in quantity” does not comport with the standards of Bluefield and Hope.
Dkt. No. ER09-1534-001 Exhibit SCE-49
Page 6 of 113
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
Q. Several of the intervenor ROE witnesses have criticized your use of
midpoint estimates in this docket. How do you respond to their
criticisms?
A. Witnesses Keyton, Cosman, Lesser, Marcus and Solomon incorrectly criticize
my original DCF estimates in this docket because they are based on midpoint
estimates and not median estimates. Three points are important. The most
important point is that the FERC order cited by these witnesses was not issued
until April 15, 2010, over eight months after I submitted my direct testimony in
this case. Incidentally, my direct testimony contained median estimates.
Exhibit SCE-18, pp. 1-2, 8-9. I did not base my recommendation on those
median estimates for the reasons presented in my direct testimony. Exhibit
SCE-17, pp. 32-37. Another important point is that the midpoint/median
policy established in the recent CWIP order5 (“April 15 Order”) has been
challenged by SCE in an application for rehearing6 and is also potentially
subject to judicial review. So the issue is not settled.
5 Southern California Edison Company, 131 FERC ¶ 61,020 (2010). 6 Docket No. ER08-375-004, Application for Rehearing of Southern California Edison
Company (Acc. No. 20100517-5117), May 17, 2010.
Dkt. No. ER09-1534-001 Exhibit SCE-49
Page 7 of 113
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
hese 8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
As I explained in my direct testimony, in the standard FERC DCF
procedure, before either the midpoint or median estimate is calculated,
unreasonable results from the bottom or the top of the range are excluded.
Exhibit SCE-17, pp. 28-30. All of the remaining individual company estimates
are therefore reasonable, and this extends to the individual estimates before any
averaging takes place.7 Therefore, given that the entire range of estimates
from which the midpoint is calculated is reasonable, the midpoint estimate
itself must be reasonable. As I explained in my direct testimony, “once t
unreasonable results are excluded, setting the ROE at the midpoint of the range
considers the full breadth of the reasonable results that comprise the range.”
Exhibit SCE-17, p. 32, ll. 10-12.
The Commission itself distinguishes between the use of the median
estimate and the midpoint estimate based on the industry structure and whether
the applicants make individual or joint ROE filings. However, when the proxy
group distribution is positively skewed (most commonly, when the “tail”
extends farther to the right), as it is in virtually all of the DCF estimates
7 For example, in the Atlantic Path 15 case, the Commission found that the reasonable
range of returns extended from 7.63% to 13.67%. Atlantic Path 15, LLC, 122 FERC ¶ 61,135, P 20 (2008). Inspection of Exhibit ATL-7 from that docket reveals that the range is based on the individual low and high DCF estimates for each company. Docket No. ER08-374-000, Exhibit ATL-7 (Acc. No. 20071227-0154), p. 2.
Dkt. No. ER09-1534-001 Exhibit SCE-49
Page 8 of 113
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
presented in this case, (Exhibit SCE-51) the use of the median estimate
unfairly discriminates against the individual applicant, such as SCE, when
compared to a group of applicants, such as members of an RTO, who submit a
joint filing to the Commission.
This is not just an academic point. SCE competes for capital against
other utilities. If SCE is forced to accept a median-estimate-based ROE when
a midpoint-estimate-based ROE is awarded to other electric utilities, SCE will
be handicapped in its efforts to attract capital to finance the expansion of its
system, to the ultimate detriment of its customers. Basically, the Commission
has set up a system for calculating ROEs that discriminates in favor of RTO
member utilities that file jointly and against RTO member utilities that file
individually. There is no economic reason to believe that one of these groups
has a higher or lower cost of equity capital than the other and yet the joint filers
get a much higher ROE. The Federal Power Act prohibits discrimination in
setting rates, and I believe this should apply to the rules that the Commission
uses to set rates as well as the rate proposals of public utilities themselves.
Q. Mr. Cosman of the CPUC says that you failed to cite any academic journal
or scholarly publication that states that the midpoint is a better estimator
of central tendency of a population compared to the median. How do you
respond to this comment?
A. As a first comment, the issue at hand is not the estimation of the appropriate
Dkt. No. ER09-1534-001 Exhibit SCE-49
Page 9 of 113
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
authorized return on equity for a population of electric utilities, but the
estimation of the appropriate authorized return on equity for Southern
California Edison Company.
However, in response to Mr. Cosman’s comment, I have done some
research on this issue. From a purely statistical perspective, the superiority of
the median estimate versus the midpoint estimate is not clearcut, as it depends
on the underlying probability distribution of the data. For example, if the
underlying distribution is uniform but the endpoints are unknown, then the
midpoint estimate is superior to the median estimate.8 When the underlying
distribution is symmetric but with a finite range, “the midrange [or midpoint] is
then an excellent location estimator.”9 Since the Commission’s DCF
procedure includes exclusion of low-end and high-end estimates, the
distribution must be finite.
8 Frederick James, Statistical Methods in Experimental Physics, (Singapore: World
Scientific Publishing Co. Pfc. Ltd., 2006), p. 209. 9 Id. Here, “location” refers to the center of the probability distribution.
Dkt. No. ER09-1534-001 Exhibit SCE-49 Page 10 of 113
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
III. RESPONSE TO TESTIMONY OF FERC STAFF REGARDING COST 1
OF CAPITAL
A. Return on Equity
Q. What is your overall response to Mr. Keyton’s return on equity
recommendation?
A. My response is that Mr. Keyton’s recommendation is far too low. The reason
his result is so low is that he has chosen to define his proxy group using
artificial and overlapping criteria that are different from those employed by the
Commission. As I will discuss in more detail below, Mr. Keyton has
engineered his proxy group selection so that his ROE estimate is unreasonably
low. His proxy group selection criteria are inconsistent with FERC precedent
and produce an unsound result.
Q. Mr. Keyton claims that Commission precedent supports a small proxy
group. How do you respond to his claim?
A. I disagree. Most of the recent Commission decisions have used large proxy
groups. It is noteworthy that the most recent decision cited by Mr. Keyton,
Allegheny Power, was issued six and one-half years ago.10 More recent
Commission decisions, particularly the recent decision for SCE in its 2008
10 Allegheny Power, 106 FERC ¶ 61,241 (March 9, 2004).
Dkt. No. ER09-1534-001 Exhibit SCE-49 Page 11 of 113
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
CWIP case, the April 15 Order,11 have been based on larger proxy groups. In
the April 15 Order, the Commission approved a DCF analysis based on a proxy
group of fifteen companies.12 The initial proxy group size was 23 companies;
the Commission excluded eight companies because certain DCF estimates for
those companies were too high or too low. Either way the number of
companies in the proxy group is counted, the Commission based its most
recent ROE order on a proxy group that is more than twice as large as the one
that Mr. Keyton proposes. Moreover, the Commission has consistently used
large proxy groups in setting ROEs for members of RTOs in recent years. It
has rejected using the members of the same RTO as the proxy group in favor
of much larger proxy groups consisting of the members of multiple RTOs. For
example, in Docket No. ER04-157, involving the ROE for the New England
transmission owners, the Commission rejected use of a proxy group consisting
only of the New England utilities in favor of a much larger proxy group
consisting of members of three RTOs. In addition, Mr. Keyton is the only
witness in this proceeding who has used a small proxy group. The other
witnesses hew closely to the Commission’s precedent.
11 Southern California Edison Company, 131 FERC ¶ 61,020 (2010). Mr. Keyton cites this
order at Exhibit S-7, pp. 4, 16, 21, 23, 29. 12 Id. at PP 24, 57-58.
Dkt. No. ER09-1534-001 Exhibit SCE-49 Page 12 of 113
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
In addition, it is well established in the statistical literature that larger
samples produce more reliable statistical estimates. This is known as the Law
of Large Numbers.13 There is a solid statistical basis for choosing a large
proxy group over a smaller one.
Q. Mr. Keyton states: “The fact that most publicly-traded electric utility
companies have the same business and financial risk that I used in my
screening criteria indicates that companies in the electric utility industry
generally have a similar level of overall business and financial risk.” How
do you respond to this comment?
A. This answer is inconsistent with his entire proxy group selection process. His
process uses a long list of screening criteria, several never used by the
Commission before, to eliminate a large number of electric utility companies
from the proxy group. If his statement above is true, then there is no reason to
exclude as many companies as Mr. Keyton does in his uniquely complex and
stringent proxy group selection process. It is only appropriate to eliminate
companies from the proxy group if there is a wide disparity in risk between
different groups of electric utilities and the target company. But if there is not
a wide disparity of risk, as Mr. Keyton concedes, then the accuracy of the final
13 D. A. S. Fraser, Statistics—An Introduction, (New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.,
1958), p. 119.
Dkt. No. ER09-1534-001 Exhibit SCE-49 Page 13 of 113
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
ROE estimate is increased as the number of companies is larger. This is why
his approach of layering criterion upon criterion is exactly the wrong approach.
Because he has excluded so many companies from his proxy group, he has
dramatically increased the probability that his estimate will be distorted by the
estimates of just a few companies. This is the standard small-sample problem.
In a different context, it is the reason why professional opinion surveys are not
based on just a handful of responses, but many hundreds. If opinion surveys
were based on just a handful of responses, the chances of a large error would
be unacceptably large. The same sampling issue applies here.
Q. Did Mr. Keyton provide an explanation of why he deviated from the proxy
group that the Commission used in setting SCE’s ROE in its most recent
decision?
A. No. Mr. Keyton claims throughout his testimony that he is relying on
Commission precedent, but in this one instance he has ignored precedent and
developed a small proxy group using his own criteria that skews the result
downward by approximately a full percentage point. I can think of no good
reason why Mr. Keyton chose to ignore a Commission decision on proxy
group selection for SCE that was issued just a few months before he submitted
his testimony.
Dkt. No. ER09-1534-001 Exhibit SCE-49 Page 14 of 113
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
Q. Which of Mr. Keyton’s proxy group selection criteria do you disagree
with?
A. At pages 13-14 of Exhibit S-7, Mr. Keyton lists eleven selection criteria. I
disagree with his use of the following criteria (numbered as in his testimony):
(1) operation in the continental United States and Standard & Poor’s (“S&P”)
classification as an electric utility; (3) Value Line safety rank of 3, (5) S&P
utility business risk profile of excellent or strong, (6) S&P utility financial risk
profile of intermediate, significant, or aggressive, and (7) dividend. Several of
these criteria have not been used before, and the Commission has never used
this particular combination of criteria in any previous case. Mr. Keyton has
not explained why he deviated from precedent in order to establish his own
unique set of redundant criteria in this case.
Q. Why do you disagree with Mr. Keyton’s use of these criteria?
A. I disagree with Mr. Keyton’s use of these criteria because they unreasonably
reduce the size of his proxy group by eliminating companies that are
appropriate comparisons for purposes of setting the ROE for SCE. These
criteria eliminate companies that the Commission has not eliminated in prior
cases and that the Commission has used to set ROEs for other electric utilities.
Before I discuss his criteria in more detail, I do want to clarify that of his
eleven criteria, the first nine are criteria that restrict the proxy group based on
characteristics of the company that is a candidate for inclusion. The last two
Dkt. No. ER09-1534-001 Exhibit SCE-49 Page 15 of 113
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
are criteria that are based on the resulting DCF estimates for each company.
Criterion (10) excludes a company based on the relationship between the low-
end DCF estimate and the Moody’s bond yield index, and criterion (11)
excludes a company based on whether either of the DCF growth rates exceeds
a level that the Commission has found in the past to be unreasonably high. I
believe that it is helpful to distinguish between these two groups of criteria and
I will do so in the discussion that follows.
Turning back to the first nine criteria, I will address each in turn:
(1)(a) Operations in continental United States. There is no basis for
this criterion, as Hawaiian Electric Industries (“HEI”) competes for capital in
the same markets that SCE does. The capital markets do not care that HEI is
separated from the U.S. mainland. With respect to risk differences, the S&P
corporate credit rating shows an insufficient difference to exclude HEI from
the proxy group: its corporate credit rating is BBB, versus SCE’s BBB+. In
addition, HEI would have been included in the proxy group adopted by the
Commission in the April 15 Order, but for the fact that its low-end DCF
estimate was too low at the time.14 This criterion is arbitrary as it is not based
on any grounds related to the cost of equity capital. I am not aware that the
14 Southern California Edison Company, 131 FERC ¶ 61,020 (2010), at PP 24, 57-58.
Dkt. No. ER09-1534-001 Exhibit SCE-49 Page 16 of 113
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
Commission has applied it in the past.
(1)(b) S&P classification as an electric utility. This is not a criterion
that the Commission employed in the April 15 Order, and I do not believe that
the Commission has ever employed it previously.15 If one starts with the 54
Value Line electric companies (as the Commission did in the prior SCE case),
then according to Mr. Keyton’s analysis, the use of the additional S&P
criterion excludes ten of those companies: Central Vermont Public Service,
CH Energy Group, Constellation Energy, Exelon Corporation, MGE Energy,
PPL Corporation, Public Service Enterprise Group, Sempra Energy, Unisource
Energy, and Vectren Corporation.16 There is no economic basis for excluding
these companies on the basis of the S&P classification.17 Several of these
companies have have been included in electric proxy groups in the recent past.
Constellation Energy, Exelon Corporation, PPL Corporation, Public Service
Enterprise Group and Sempra Energy were included in the national proxy
15 In a data request, SCE asked Mr. Keyton to provide a specific citation to a Commission
decision which adopted criterion (1)(b). Mr. Keyton could not provide such a citation. Exhibit SCE-50, p. 1.
16 At page 14 of Exhibit S-7, Mr. Keyton refers to page 63 of Exhibit S-9 as containing the companies that satisfy both the Value Line and S&P criteria. There are 44 companies in this list. I obtained the missing ten companies by comparing a list of all the Value Line electric utilities with Mr. Keyton’s list on page 63.
17 Some of these companies are reasonably excluded for other reasons.
Dkt. No. ER09-1534-001 Exhibit SCE-49 Page 17 of 113
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
group that formed the basis for the Commission’s DCF ROE estimate in the
April 15 Order. Although the estimates for four of these companies were later
removed because of growth rate considerations consistent with Commission
precedent, they were and are appropriate candidates for proxy group inclusion.
No other witness in this case has proposed using this criterion to limit the
proxy group.
In addition, I must point out that Mr. Keyton’s definition of an S&P
electric utility is inaccurate. At pages 8 through 15 of Exhibit S-9, Mr. Keyton
reproduces an S&P report that lists U.S. regulated electric utilities. However,
there are companies that S&P classifies as electric utilities that are not included
in Mr. Keyton’s list. For example, S&P’s RatingsDirect service (available by
subscription) contains a list of electric utilities in the United States. SCE has
reproduced this list in Exhibit SCE-52.18 This list includes Central Vermont
Public Service, Constellation Energy, Exelon Corporation, and PPL
Corporation.
(2) S&P corporate credit rating ranging from “BBB” to “A-.” This is a
standard Commission criterion and I employ the same criterion.
(3) Value Line safety rank of 3. The use of this criterion is
18 SCE has removed the credit rating information in the list, as this is S&P’s proprietary
information.
Dkt. No. ER09-1534-001 Exhibit SCE-49 Page 18 of 113
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
unreasonable. The Commission specifically rejected this criterion in the April
15 Order.19 In addition, this selection criterion should not be used because the
Value Line Safety Rank is not observed for SCE, and there is no reason to
believe that SCE’s Value Line Safety Rank would be the same as the Value
Line Safety Rank for its parent company, Edison International, if it did exist.
For example, while the Standard & Poor’s issuer credit rating for SCE is
BBB+, the Standard & Poor’s issuer credit rating for Edison International is
only BBB- at the present time.
I have examined Mr. Keyton’s safety rank data that he presents on page
63 of Exhibit S-9. This is a list of 44 companies which are classified as
electric utilities by Value Line and Standard & Poor’s, according to Mr.
Keyton. Taking the list of 44 companies, the S&P corporate credit ratings, and
the Value Line safety rankings, I am able to produce the following table that
relates the S&P corporate credit ratings to the Value Line safety rankings:
19 Southern California Edison Company, 131 FERC ¶ 61,020 (2010), at PP 38, 51-52.
Dkt. No. ER09-1534-001 Exhibit SCE-49 Page 19 of 113
1 S&P Corporate Credit Ratings and Value Line Safety Rankings S&P Corporate Credit
Rating Value Line Safety
Ranking Number of Companies
in Category 1 1 2 0 A+
3 0 1 1 2 0 A
3 0 1 1 2 4 A-
3 1 1 0 2 7 BBB+
3 2 1 0 2 4 BBB
3 11 1 0 2 3 BBB-
3 7 1 0 2 0 BB+
3 0 1 0 2 0 BB
3 1 2
3
4
5
Focusing on the rows for S&P corporate credit ratings A-, BBB+, and
BBB, what the table shows is that applying a requirement that companies have
a Value Line safety rank of 3 would exclude five A- companies, seven BBB+
Dkt. No. ER09-1534-001 Exhibit SCE-49 Page 20 of 113
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
companies, and four BBB companies. (These companies are indicated by the
shaded areas in the table.) Of the 30 companies that have these three S&P
corporate credit ratings, application of Mr. Keyton’s Value Line safety rank
criterion excludes 16 of them, more than half. This amounts to discarding an
enormous amount of useful information directly relevant to SCE’s cost of
equity capital based on an arbitrary criterion that the Commission has already
rejected. Application of this criterion is unreasonable.
(4) One billion dollars in annual revenues. This is a standard
Commission criterion and I employ the same criterion, with the qualification
that I (and the Commission) apply the criterion to electric revenues, not total
revenues. As my proxy group was adopted in many respects in the April 15
Order, 20 use of electric revenues is correct. In other words, Mr. Keyton does
not explain why the criterion that the Commission already approved is no
longer appropriate for use in this case and should be replaced by his own.
20 Southern California Edison Company, 131 FERC ¶ 61,020 (2010), at PP 38, 51-52.
Paragraph 38, in particular, references annual electric revenues.
Dkt. No. ER09-1534-001 Exhibit SCE-49 Page 21 of 113
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
(5) S&P utility business risk profile of excellent or strong and (6) S&P
utility financial risk profile of intermediate, significant, or aggressive. Use of
these criteria is inappropriate and inconsistent with precedent. The
Commission’s April 15 Order does not recognize these criteria and Mr. Keyton
does not explain why he deviated from the Commission’s decision here.
There is good reason why the Commission would not have used these
additional criteria. The S&P business risk profile and the S&P financial risk
profile are integral parts of the methodology that S&P uses to come up with
corporate credit ratings, as can be seen by inspection of the S&P criteria
methodology article included in Mr. Keyton’s testimony in this docket.
Exhibit S-9, pp. 57-62. As such, the information represented by these two
criteria is already accounted for by criterion (2), the range of the S&P
corporate credit rating. The only function of using these two additional criteria
is to exclude companies that should be included by virtue of their credit rating,
but that may have some factor not captured by the business risk profile and
financial risk profile. This is inappropriate. The S&P article points out this
very problem: in the section titled “How To Use The Matrix—And Its
Limitations,” the article states: “The rating matrix indicative outcomes are
what we typically observe—but are not meant to be precise indications or
guarantees of future rating opinions. Positive and negative nuances in our
analysis may lead to a notch higher or lower than the outcomes indicated in the
Dkt. No. ER09-1534-001 Exhibit SCE-49 Page 22 of 113
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
various cells of the matrix.” Id., p. 60. Accordingly, to the extent that these
criteria have an effect, it is to unreasonably limit the members of the proxy
group.
(7) Dividend. Mr. Keyton employs a three-prong dividend criterion.
This criterion is too stringent, as it excludes companies that have reduced their
dividend level within the past three years. The April 15 Order only recognizes
“electric utilities that paid dividends” as a criterion.21 Excluding companies
that have reduced their dividend level within the past three years is not
reasonable, because the DCF calculation does not use dividend payments
before the beginning of the DCF calculation period (the first six months of
2010 for Mr. Keyton’s analysis). Mr. Keyton’s dividend criterion should be
revised so that it is consistent with the Commission’s April 15 Order and not
more restrictive.
(8) No announced or pending merger or spinoff activity during the DCF
period. I employ this criterion, but with the qualification that the merger or
spinoff activity be significant. My criterion for significance is that the merger
or spinoff involve more than five percent of the company’s assets. I revisit this
topic in particular instances below.
21 Southern California Edison Company, 131 FERC ¶ 61,020 (2010), at P 52.
Dkt. No. ER09-1534-001 Exhibit SCE-49 Page 23 of 113
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
(9) Five-year earnings growth estimate listed on Yahoo! Finance. I
have no objection to this criterion; I believe that it is effectively the same as a
similar criterion that I use in my modeling, that a five-year IBES earnings
growth estimate from Thomson Reuters be available.
Q. What is your view of Mr. Keyton’s criterion (10), which relates to the low-
end DCF result?
A. I believe that the use of this criterion is consistent with the Commission’s April
15 Order. However, because of Mr. Keyton’s small proxy group and the fact
that he uses the median to calculate his proposed ROE, there is a perverse
interaction between his screening of the low-end DCF result and his overall
DCF ROE estimate that makes his recommendation unreasonable. The reason
for the low-end DCF screen is to ensure that DCF estimates that are too low do
not contaminate the overall result. When this approach was adopted in the
2000 Southern California Edison opinion,22 it made sense because in that case,
SCE’s ROE was set at the midpoint of the upper end of the zone of
reasonableness.23 Since the zone of reasonableness was defined by the lowest
and highest DCF estimates for the sample group (and where each company
22 Southern California Edison Company, 92 FERC ¶ 61,070 (2000), at 61,266. 23 Southern California Edison Company, 92 FERC ¶ 61,020 (2010), at 61,266-61,267.
Dkt. No. ER09-1534-001 Exhibit SCE-49 Page 24 of 113
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
provided two candidate estimates for inclusion), the midpoint estimate was
used as the basis for SCE’s ROE.24
However, Mr. Keyton removed any company for which the low-end
DCF estimate was below 7.16% (100 basis points above the Moody’s Baa
bond yield).25 This causes him to exclude Integrys Energy Group from his
proxy group.26 However, if he had lowered his low-end DCF exclusion
threshold to 6.97% (81 basis points above the Moody’s Baa bond yield), the
Integrys Energy Group average DCF estimate of 11.46% would have entered
the median calculation, increasing the median estimate from 9.27% to 9.63%.
So reducing the threshold used in the DCF estimate by 19 basis points causes
an increase in the overall DCF median estimate that is nearly double that
amount. This unstable and perverse result obtains because of the small size of
Mr. Keyton’s proxy group and represents an additional reason why his study,
with its very small proxy group, should not be used.
24 Southern California Edison Company, 92 FERC ¶ 61,070 (2000), at 61,265-61.267. 25 Exhibit S-7, p. 20, ll. 19-21. Exhibit S-8, Schedule No. 3, p. 3. A basis point is 1/100th
of one percent. 26 Exhibit S-8, Schedule No. 6, p. 6. The Integrys Energy Group low-end DCF estimate is
highlighted.
Dkt. No. ER09-1534-001 Exhibit SCE-49 Page 25 of 113
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Q. What is your view of Mr. Keyton’s criterion (11), regarding the DCF
model growth rate?
A. Mr. Keyton states that he “rejected DCF model growth rates that were higher
than those rejected by the Commission in the past as being unsustainably
high.” Exhibit S-7, pp. 22-23. This portion of the screen is consistent with
Commission precedent as Mr. Keyton cites it. However, he then utilizes a
second criterion, not found in the Commission’s April 15 order, based on
comparing the growth rate (g) with the proxy group’s median DCF result. This
second criterion, which compares g to k in the DCF equation, is flawed and
unreasonable as Mr. Keyton has applied it.
For reference, the DCF equation is the following:
g
PDk
(1) 12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
Mr. Keyton points out that in this equation, k must exceed g. (Otherwise for
the equality to hold, the dividend D or price P must be negative.) However,
this is only true for each individual company DCF ROE calculation, because it
a purely mathematical condition pertaining to each individual company
estimate. Mr. Keyton tries to apply this to the relationship between individual
company growth rates and the overall median DCF ROE estimate from the
entire proxy group, which is completely wrong, as the k = D/P + g relationship
does not apply to the median estimate for the group as a whole. (There is no
D/P or g for the group as a whole and the group k is derived through the
Dkt. No. ER09-1534-001 Exhibit SCE-49 Page 26 of 113
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
median calculation, not the k = D/P + g relationship.) The only reason for
excluding DPL Inc. is the relationship of its growth rate to 13.3%, not to the
median proxy group estimate. (To take the particular estimate that Mr. Keyton
uses to disqualify DPL Inc., it has the following characteristics: k = 19.28%,
D/P = 5.16%, and g = 14.11%. Except for rounding, these values satisfy the k
= D/P + g relationship. The fact that g = 14.11% for DPL Inc. and is higher
than the median k = 9.63% is meaningless because the k = D/P + g relationship
does not apply to the median k.) Mr. Keyton’s mistake demonstrates a
fundamental misunderstanding of the FERC DCF method.
Q. Mr. Keyton explains that “[a] few of the criteria didn’t eliminate any
companies. Nevertheless, for consistency purposes, I believe that it’s
important to show all the criteria I would normally use even if a particular
criterion does not eliminate any companies.”27 How do you respond to
these statements?
A. Based on Mr. Keyton’s filed testimony, these statements do not make sense.
According to his testimony, he has filed cost of capital testimony in two prior
proceedings before the Commission, RP08-306-000 and RP09-487-000.
Exhibit S-7, p. 3. In neither docket does his testimony reference criteria (1)(a),
27 Exhibit S-7, p. 14.
Dkt. No. ER09-1534-001 Exhibit SCE-49 Page 27 of 113
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
(1)(b), (5), or (6) as selection criteria for his proxy groups in those dockets.28
(Mr. Keyton does reference the S&P business risk profile in each docket, but
only in the context of determining whether the target company deserves a
return on equity that differs from the median estimate.29) It is not possible to
reconcile his statement that he normally uses these criteria with what he
actually did in the two prior dockets in which he filed testimony.
Q. At page 29 of his testimony, Mr. Keyton claims “slightly more overall risk
for the proxy group relative to SCE.” How do you respond to this
assertion?
A. This assertion is misleading. It is true that the BBB rating of all of Mr.
Keyton’s proxy group members is lower (credit quality) than SCE’s BBB+
rating. However, as I showed earlier, Mr. Keyton selected his proxy group in
such a way (primarily by using the Value Line safety ranking) that he excluded
all of the A- and BBB+-rated companies that should be in the proxy group. In
other words, he is eliminating many companies that have very similar risk
profiles as SCE with the result that he comes up with a very low ROE estimate,
and then turns around and claims he is comparing SCE with a riskier proxy
28 See RP08-306-000, Exhibit S-12; RP09-487-000, Exhibit S-12. 29 RP08-306-000, Exhibit S-12, pp. 30-32, Exhibit S-13, Schedule 8; RP09-487-000,
Exhibit S-12, pp. 31-33, Exhibit S-13, Schedule 8.
Dkt. No. ER09-1534-001 Exhibit SCE-49 Page 28 of 113
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
group. If he had used a proxy group with a risk profile closer to that of SCE,
he would have calculated a higher ROE estimate.
In addition, it is important to remember that the DCF model is only
indirectly related to risk; it is primarily related to growth. (Unlike the Capital
Asset Pricing Model, which directly incorporates the risk measure beta, the
DCF model does not directly incorporate any risk measure.) Mr. Keyton’s
proxy group screening excludes the high DCF companies in the A-
/BBB+/BBB space. I believe that it is only coincidental that the remaining
companies, which have lower DCF estimates, are all BBB-rated companies.
Q. At page 33 of his testimony, Mr. Keyton states that “my [his] proxy group
was developed using a more comprehensive risk-based screen than that of
Dr. Hunt …” What is your view of this statement?
A. Mr. Keyton’s screening methodology is more “comprehensive” only in the
sense that he applies more screens, many of which are wrong. My analysis
above demonstrates that Mr. Keyton has “over-selected” his proxy group by
using inappropriate screening criteria. By applying more selection criteria than
I do (and the Commission does), he has arbitrarily eliminated companies with
comparable risk characteristics to SCE and reduced the proxy group to a
number that is much smaller than it should be. The result is that he has
produced a ROE estimate that is distorted and unreasonable.
Dkt. No. ER09-1534-001 Exhibit SCE-49 Page 29 of 113
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
Q. At page 34 of his testimony, referring to your discussion of risks faced by
SCE, Mr. Keyton says “to whatever extent these risks exist, they
automatically compensated for in the DCF results.” What is your
response to this statement?
A. This statement is incorrect and indicates that Mr. Keyton does not understand
the DCF analysis. As I mentioned above, the DCF model does not contain a
direct measure of risk. It is easy to come up with a hypothetical
counterexample that disproves Mr. Keyton’s statement: a company facing
imminent bankruptcy. Such a company will have a zero dividend yield and in
all likelihood, a zero growth rate. The DCF estimate for that company will
thus be close to zero. Surely Mr. Keyton would not contend that the required
return for an investor to invest in a company facing imminent bankruptcy is
close to zero.
One of the weaknesses of DCF is that it is not explicitly based on a risk
measure. Dr. Roger Morin, a well-known cost of capital expert, wrote this:
“[T]he DCF model ignores the capital market evidence and financial theory
formalized in the CAPM and other risk premium models.”30
30 Roger A. Morin, New Regulatory Finance, (Arlington, Virginia: Public Utilities Reports,
Inc., 2006), pp. 431.
Dkt. No. ER09-1534-001 Exhibit SCE-49 Page 30 of 113
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
B. Capital Structure
Q. Do you agree with Mr. Keyton’s calculation of SCE’s capital structure?
A. No, I do not. There are two main issues that Mr. Keyton’s calculation ignores:
(1) SCE has long-term debt that does not finance rate base; and (2) one must
take account of unamortized expenses, discounts/premiums, and losses on
reacquired debt to correctly calculate the amount of debt in the capital
structure.
Q. What SCE long-term debt does not finance rate base?
A. SCE’s Series 2009B bonds were issued for the purpose of financing SCE’s fuel
inventories.31 SCE’s fuel inventories are not part of SCE’s rate base in this
proceeding, and SCE is not permitted to use the proceeds from these bonds to
finance operating expenses or capital additions. Therefore, the Series 2009B
bonds should be excluded from any capital structure calculation in this docket.
31 The Series 2009B bonds were issued pursuant to authority granted by the CPUC in D.03-
11-018. This decision permits SCE to issue one or more series of debt securities and states in part: “SCE shall apply the proceeds of the indebtedness authorized to finance its fuel oil inventory, nuclear fuel inventories, natural gas fuel inventories, and coal inventory (collectively Fuels) as specified in the Application and shall not use the funds for operating expenses, capital additions or payment of dividends.” D.03-11-018, Ordering Paragraphs 1-2. A copy of D.03-11-018 can be obtained on the Internet at http://docs.cpuc.ca.gov/PUBLISHED/FINAL_DECISION/32033.htm.
Dkt. No. ER09-1534-001 Exhibit SCE-49 Page 31 of 113
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
Q. Why must one take account of unamortized expenses,
discounts/premiums, and losses on reacquired debt to correctly calculate
the amount of debt in the capital structure?
A. If one does not take account of these items, as Mr. Keyton does not, then the
utility, SCE in this case, will not recover its full cost of capital. I provide an
example in Exhibit SCE-53 that substantiates this point. Exhibit SCE-53
shows that calculating the capital structure in the manner that Mr. Keyton
advocates will cause SCE to under-recover its capital-related costs, particularly
the returns that must be paid to shareholders and bondholders.
Q. So your basic argument is that without consideration of these adjustments,
SCE will under-recover its cost of capital. Could there ever be a situation
where consideration of these adjustments could cause SCE to over-recover
its cost of capital?
A. It is extremely unlikely. A situation of over-recovery could only arise if SCE
consistently issued long-term debt at a premium to its face value. This
situation almost never arises nowadays. The process of issuing long-term debt
normally involves setting a coupon rate that is evenly divisible by five basis
points (such as 6.05% in the case of SCE’s 2009A Series bonds) for
administrative convenience. This rate is typically below the interest rate that
investors will demand for the issue, so the inclusion of a discount when the
issue is actually priced for offer raises the interest rate that investors will earn
Dkt. No. ER09-1534-001 Exhibit SCE-49 Page 32 of 113
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
above the coupon rate. We simply don’t observe premiums associated with
debt issues, but only discounts. All of SCE’s currently outstanding long-term
debt issues were issued at a discount or at par (face value).
Q. Doesn’t the “cost of money” calculation that is used in calculating the
embedded cost of long-term debt account for this?
A. The “cost of money” calculation only accounts for it in the context of the cost
of each particular debt issue. It does not fully correct for the fact that SCE can
only finance rate base with the net proceeds of its debt issues, because the
discounts represent funds that are not received at the time of issue. Thus, the
face value of bonds issued exceeds the amount of funds that can actually be
invested in rate base assets. This difference between the face value of bonds
issued and the actual funds received causes the debt ratio to be too high and the
equity ratio to be too low in the capital structure calculation.
Q. How should Mr. Keyton’s capital structure calculation be adjusted?
A. Mr. Keyton’s capital structure calculation should be adjusted to recognize the
adjustments that I have described. The data request response that Mr. Keyton
reproduces at Exhibit S-9, pages 1-7 contains these adjustments. For
comparison with Mr. Keyton’s proposed capital structure at Exhibit S-8,
Schedule 1, page 1, the correct ratios should be as shown in the far right-hand
column of Exhibit S-9, page 7:
Dkt. No. ER09-1534-001 Exhibit SCE-49 Page 33 of 113
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
Long-term debt: 42.94% Preferred equity: 5.92% Common equity: 51.14%
C. Costs of Long-Term Debt and Preferred Equity
Q. Do you agree with Mr. Keyton’s update of SCE’s projected costs of long-
term debt and preferred equity?
A. No, I do not. Mr. Keyton is assuming that SCE’s recorded costs of long-term
debt and preferred stock on a single date in 2010 is an accurate projection of
the average cost for the entire year. On the contrary, correct updated costs
would be 6.06% for long-term debt and 5.99% for preferred equity, not 6.07%
and 5.63% as Mr. Keyton recommends. These updated costs estimate the
average cost of long-term debt and preferred equity for the entire year, and are
not merely snapshot values, such as Mr. Keyton uses.32 The correct updated
costs are supported by Exhibits SCE-54 and SCE-55.
Q. Your updated cost of long-term debt is very close to Mr. Keyton’s
recommendation, but your updated cost of preferred equity is not. Why is
this?
32 Mr. Keyton uses only the June 2010 values for these embedded costs, not even the
quarterly average for the second quarter of 2010, which he requested and which SCE provided. Exhibit S-9, pp. 1, 3, 5. It should be noted that all of the monthly values shown on these pages are as of the end of the month. That is why four values are shown in computing the quarterly average.
Dkt. No. ER09-1534-001 Exhibit SCE-49 Page 34 of 113
1
2
3
4
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
A. This result occurs because SCE is projecting that it will issue preferred equity
during the fourth quarter of 2010. Because Mr. Keyton’s recommended cost of
preferred equity is based only on data from the first half of 2010, it cannot
properly account for this.
IV. RESPONSE TO SIX CITIES TESTIMONY REGARDING COST OF 5
CAPITAL
Q. What areas of Mr. Solomon’s testimony are you addressing?
A. Mr. Solomon’s testimony contains his analysis of SCE’s cost of equity capital
and comments on my direct testimony regarding cost of capital. I will address
Mr. Solomon’s analysis first.
A. Response to Mr. Solomon’s Analysis of SCE’s Cost of Capital
Q. Overall, is Mr. Solomon’s DCF analysis very different from the one you
are presenting as an update in this rebuttal testimony?
A. No. There are minor differences between Mr. Solomon’s proxy group and my
proxy group, and in Mr. Solomon’s calculation of the fundamental growth rate
versus mine, but overall he applies the FERC methodology consistent with the
April 15 Order. The differences between his numerical recommendations and
mine are based on two major factors. First, he disagrees with my use of the
midpoint rather than the median to set the ROE. Second, his data have a
different vintage than mine. If he were to update his analysis to use the most
recent data, as I have in this testimony, his analysis would produce median and
midpoint ROE estimates that are within a few basis points of my estimates.
Dkt. No. ER09-1534-001 Exhibit SCE-49 Page 35 of 113
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
Q. What time period did Mr. Solomon use for his DCF analysis?
A. Mr. Solomon used the six-month period ending with May 2010. Exhibit SC-1,
p. 8, ll. 10-12.
Q. Did Mr. Solomon use the same proxy group selection criteria that you
did?
A. Implicitly, he did. He states in his testimony: “[A]s shown on Exhibit No. SC-
2, my twenty-three company group is the same as Dr. Hunt's, except that my
group does not include [three companies].” Exhibit SC-1, pp. 7-8. Dr.
Solomon excluded three companies on the basis of annual revenues and merger
activity.
Q. Do you and Mr. Solomon differ on the application of the revenue
criterion?
A. No, I believe not. Mr. Solomon excludes Cleco Corporation from his proxy
group on the basis of its annual revenues. Exhibit SC-1, p. 8, ll. 2-3. Were I
performing my analysis for the same period (the six-month period ending with
May 2010), I would apply the same exclusion. With regard to Vectren
Corporation, which I exclude because its electric revenues are too low, Mr.
Solomon does not include it in his proxy group either. Exhibit SC-2, p. 1.
Q. How do you differ in the application of the merger or acquisition activity
criterion?
Dkt. No. ER09-1534-001 Exhibit SCE-49 Page 36 of 113
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
A. Mr. Solomon excludes FirstEnergy and PPL Corporation on the basis of M&A
activity, but does not appear to exclude Integrys Energy or Pepco Holdings on
this basis. Exhibit SC-1, p. 8, ll. 4-8. Integrys Energy sold its wholesale
electric marketing and trading business during Mr. Solomon’s DCF analysis
period and Pepco Holdings sold Conectiv generating assets during this period.
The transactions are sufficiently large that these companies should have been
excluded from Mr. Solomon’s proxy group. For example, the Integrys Energy
transaction involved a sale of approximately 16 percent of its assets,33 while
the Pepco Holdings transaction involved a sale of approximately 10 percent of
its assets.34
Q. Are there any companies that Mr. Solomon incorrectly excluded?
A. Yes. Mr. Solomon should have included Exelon Corporation in his proxy
group. To my knowledge, Exelon Corporation meets all of the criteria that Mr.
Solomon used. (Exelon meets each of his six criteria: (1) covered by Value
Line; (2) has an S&P corporate credit rating of BBB; (3) has annual electric
33 Integrys Energy’s wholesale electric marketing and trading business had assets of $1.849
billion as of December 31, 2009, compared to Integrys Energy’s total assets of $11.848 billion on the same date. Integrys Energy, Form 10-K, dated February 25, 2010, pp. 28, 95.
34 The purchase price of the Conectiv generation assets is $1.65 billion. Pepco Holdings, Form 8-K, dated April 20, 2010, Item 1.01, p. 2. On March 31, 2010, Pepco Holdings had total assets of $15.832 billion. Pepco Holdings, Form 10-Q, dated May 7, 2010, p. 4.
Dkt. No. ER09-1534-001 Exhibit SCE-49 Page 37 of 113
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
revenues of approximately $16.6 billion; (4) was not engaged in merger or
significant acquisition activity after July 2009; (5) paid dividends during the
analysis period and is expected to continue to pay dividends; and (6) is covered
by approximately 20 analysts.) It is possible that Mr. Solomon started with my
proxy group and did not realize that Exelon Corporation withdrew its offer for
NRG Energy on July 22, 2009,35 and is no longer excluded on the basis of the
M&A criterion.
According to my data, Mr. Solomon also should have included
IDACORP in his proxy group. To my knowledge, IDACORP meets all of the
criteria that Mr. Solomon used. (IDACORP meets each of his six criteria: (1)
covered by Value Line; (2) has an S&P corporate credit rating of BBB; (3) has
annual electric revenues of approximately $1.1 billion; (4) was not engaged in
merger or significant acquisition activity during the analysis period; (5) paid
dividends during the analysis period and is expected to continue to pay
dividends; and (6) is covered by approximately four analysts.) I do not know
why he did not do this.
35 Mr. Solomon writes: “my twenty-three company group is the same as Dr. Hunt’s, except
that my proxy group does not include Cleco Corporation …, FirstEnergy Corporation …, or PPL Corporation. Exhibit SC-1, p. 7, l. 23 through p. 8, l. 3.
Dkt. No. ER09-1534-001 Exhibit SCE-49 Page 38 of 113
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
Q. In discussing his proxy group selection criteria, Mr. Solomon states that
“[e]xcept for the sixth criterion, SCE witness Hunt applied the same
criteria to develop his … national proxy group.”36 Is Mr. Solomon
correct?
A. Yes, he is correct with respect to my original DCF analysis found in Exhibit
SCE-18. However, in my updated estimates, presented later in this rebuttal
testimony, I do include a criterion related to the number of analysts who cover
a particular company, which corresponds to Mr. Solomon’s sixth criterion.
Q. You say that the differences between Mr. Solomon’s estimates and yours
are only a few basis points. Can you provide more specific details?
A. Yes. Exhibit SCE-56 provides a comparison of my May 2010 DCF estimates
with Mr. Solomon’s estimates.37 While there are a few variations between us
in dividend yields and I/B/E/S growth rates, the only consistent differences are
found in the calculation of the v component of the fundamental growth rate.
Q. How do these differences arise?
A. These differences primarily result from the calculation of the v component of
the fundamental growth rate. v is calculated as one minus the inverse of the
36 Exhibit SC-1, p. 7, ll. 22-23. 37 Mr. Solomon’s data are taken from a data request response that Six Cities provided to
SCE. These data can also be found in Exhibit SC-2.
Dkt. No. ER09-1534-001 Exhibit SCE-49 Page 39 of 113
1
2
market-to-book ratio38 (or the price-to-book ratio, as Mr. Solomon describes
it), according to the following equation:
BVMV
v 11 (2)
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
where MV is the company’s market value per share (stock price) and BV is the
company’s book value per share.39
Inspection of the spreadsheet formula that underlies Mr. Solomon’s
calculation of v at Exhibit SC-2, page 6 reveals that he calculates v according
to equation (2) above. However, there is a difference between us regarding the
calculation of the book value.
Both of us calculate the stock price, or MV in the v calculation, as the
average over the six-month period used to calculate the dividend yield for the
DCF ROE calculation. To be comparable, the book value needs to be
calculated as an average over the same period. I do this,40 but Mr. Solomon
38 Exhibit SCE-17, p. 27, ll. 13-15. 39 I describe this calculation in text at Exhibit SCE-17, p. 27, ll. 13-15. The formula is
presented in Mr. Keyton’s Exhibit S-9, pp. 84, 86, 88, 90, 92, 94, 96, 98, 100, 102, 104, 106. Mr. Keyton uses P to denote the market price and B to denote the book value. M-S-R witness Dr. Lesser calculates v differently, but he also calculates s differently as well, so that his calculation of the product sv is the same as mine.
40 For the book value calculation, I use an average of the end-of-month values over a seven-month period, which is equivalent to a six-month average of average monthly values, matching the calculation of the stock price over a six-month period.
Dkt. No. ER09-1534-001 Exhibit SCE-49 Page 40 of 113
1
2
3
4
5
6
does not. Instead, Mr. Solomon uses an estimate of the book value one month
beyond the end of the period over which he calculates the average stock
price.41
Because book value increases over time,42 this causes Mr. Solomon to
overstate the book value and understate v. This is easier to see if equation (2)
is rewritten as
MVBVv 1
(3) 7
8
9
10
11
12
13
Higher BV lowers v.
Q. Do the differences in the calculation of BV and v result in a large
difference in your DCF estimates, compared to Mr. Solomon’s?
A. No. For individual companies, the difference in our fundamental (br+sv)
growth rates ranges from minus two to nine basis points, averaging about two
basis points. Exhibit SCE-56, p. 3.
41 Mr. Solomon’s average stock price is calculated over the period from December 2009
through May 2010. Exhibit SC-2, pp. 2-5. His book value is calculated as of the end of June 2010. This can be seen by inspection of Exhibit SC-2, p. 6. In the lower block of the table, the book value (“Jun-10 BV”) is calculated as the average of the end-of-year values for 2009 and 2010.
42 For every company in Mr. Solomon’s proxy group except Pepco Holdings (which should not be in Mr. Solomon’s proxy group in the first place), the book value for 2010 is greater than the book value for 2009. Exhibit SC-2, p. 6, columns “2009 BV” and “2010 BV.”
Dkt. No. ER09-1534-001 Exhibit SCE-49 Page 41 of 113
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
Q. What is your response to Mr. Solomon’s comments regarding the price-to-
book or market-to-book ratio?
A. Mr. Solomon’s argument is incorrect. He cites a Commission decision as
stating that “"when the price-to-book ratio is greater than one, the rate of return
investors expect [the company] to earn on common equity is greater than the
rate of return investors require from their investment in [the company's]
common stock.” Exhibit SC-1, p. 12, ll. 1-4. This statement can only be true,
however, if the investment was purchased when the market value of an
investment in the company’s common stock was equal to the book value of
that investment.
The DCF model, because it uses a market price in the denominator of
the dividend yield calculation, produces a market return on equity. If the
market-to-book ratio of a stock is greater than one, then a new investor who is
seeking to earn the market return on equity will not purchase the stock until the
stock price has fallen to equal book value, unless the book return on equity is
set higher than the market return on equity. Expressed somewhat differently,
the investment made by a new investor is measured at the market price he or
she pays and the return that investor will require is the DCF return applied to
that market-valued investment. If the book value rate base to which the DCF
return is applied is less than the market-valued investment, the investor will not
earn his or her required return.
Dkt. No. ER09-1534-001 Exhibit SCE-49 Page 42 of 113
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
Commenting on the DCF model, Dr. Roger Morin, a well-known cost of
capital expert, wrote:
The third and perhaps most third and perhaps most important reason for caution and skepticism [regarding DCF estimates of ROE for utilities] is that application of the DCF model produces estimates of common equity cost that are consistent with investors’ expected return only when stock price and book value are reasonably similar, that is, when M/B is close to unity. As shown below, application of the standard DCF model to utility stocks understates the investor’s expected return when the market-to-book (M/B) ratio of a given stock exceeds unity. … The converse is also true, that is, the DCF model overstates the investor’s return when the stock’s M/B ratio is less than unity. The reason for the distortion is that the DCF market return is applied to a book value rate base by the regulator, that is, a utility’s earnings are limited to earnings on a book value rate base. 43
Since the market-to-book (or price-to-book) ratio of Mr. Solomon’s
proxy group companies substantially exceeds one, it follows that his DCF ROE
estimate substantially undercompensates investors when it is applied to a book
value rate base.
Q. Can you provide an estimate of the magnitude of this problem?
A. Yes. In his book,44 Dr. Roger Morin starts with the standard DCF formula for
price as a function of dividend, required return on equity, and growth. He then
develops a formula that expresses the DCF cost of equity (K) as a function of
43 Roger A. Morin, New Regulatory Finance, (Arlington, Virginia: Public Utilities Reports,
Inc., 2006), pp. 434. 44 Roger A. Morin, New Regulatory Finance, (Arlington, Virginia: Public Utilities Reports,
Inc., 2006), p. 360.
Dkt. No. ER09-1534-001 Exhibit SCE-49 Page 43 of 113
1
2
3
the book return on equity (r), the market-to-book ratio (M/B), and the retention
ratio (b).45 His formula can be rearranged to produce the following
relationship:
11
BMb
KBM
r (4) 4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
Given the DCF estimated return on equity, the retention ratio and the market-
to-book ratio, equation (4) can be solved for r.
Mr. Solomon derives a DCF ROE estimate of 9.94%,46 which as I show
below, would be 10.30% if updated to the latest information. He cited a 1.37
price-to-book ratio (M/B) for his adjusted proxy group in his testimony.47
From the same table that shows the 1.37 price-to-book ratio, the average value
of the retention ratio b can be derived from the “2010-14 Avg b” column. It is
equal to 0.3729.
So for this example, K = 9.94% = 0.0994, M/B = 1.37, and b = 0.3729.
Inserting these values into equation (4) and solving for r, we find that r equals
11.96%. This is the return on equity that must be applied to the book value
45 The retention ratio is the fraction of earnings not paid out as dividends. 46 Exhibit SC-1, p. 10, ll. 6, 14. 47 Exhibit SC-1, p. 12, ll. 22-23. Exhibit SC-3, p. 28, bottom row.
Dkt. No. ER09-1534-001 Exhibit SCE-49 Page 44 of 113
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
rate base to produce a market return of 9.94% for investors.
Q. It seems as though you are just reinforcing Mr. Solomon’s findings, since
his two average expected earned ROEs are 10.77% and 11.38%.48 What is
the difference?
A. Mr. Solomon turns the reader’s attention away from the critical finding. He
says that his expected earned ROEs are “an indication that the investors’
required ROE is substantially lower than the companies’ average expected
earned ROE.” Exhibit SC-1, p. 12, ll. 10-11. This is true as a numeric
comparison. However, he fails to make clear the critical distinction between
the required ROE on a market-valued asset and the expected ROE on a book-
valued asset. Investors can only realize the required ROE on a market-valued
asset (their shares in the company) if the company achieves the expected ROE
on the book-valued asset (rate base). But the Commission’s standard
ratemaking practice is to apply the required ROE on the market-valued asset
(the DCF estimate) directly to the book-valued asset (rate base) without any
adjustment. Investors are short-changed, since the utility is put at a
disadvantage in trying to achieve the expected ROEs calculated by Mr.
Solomon.
48 Exhibit SC-1, p. 12, ll. 19, 23.
Dkt. No. ER09-1534-001 Exhibit SCE-49 Page 45 of 113
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
B. Response to Mr. Solomon’s Comments on my Analysis
Q. Mr. Solomon argues that your original analysis violated several aspects of
the April 15 Order. What is your response?
A. I produced my original analysis before the April 15 Order was issued. My
original analysis is updated in this testimony. The updated estimates follow
the procedures established in the April 15 Order.
Q. Are there any significant differences between the way that you now
estimate the DCF ROE and how Mr. Solomon estimates the DCF ROE?
A. No, except for the difference in calculating the v component of the
fundamental growth rate, which I have already discussed.
V. RESPONSE TO CPUC (COSMAN) TESTIMONY REGARDING COST 11
OF CAPITAL
Q. What is your overall response to Mr. Cosman’s return on equity
recommendation?
A. Mr. Cosman’s analysis is inconsistent with the methodology approved by the
Commission in several respects and his resulting recommendation is too low.
In examining Mr. Cosman’s estimates in detail, I found numerous errors and
inconsistencies with FERC precedents regarding DCF calculations. In
addition, Mr. Cosman’s general commentary contains substantial errors. Here
is a summary list of the deficiencies that I have identified in Mr. Cosman’s
exhibits:
Mr. Cosman incorrectly selected the proxy group for his analysis.
Dkt. No. ER09-1534-001 Exhibit SCE-49 Page 46 of 113
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
Mr. Cosman’s fundamental growth calculation is wrong.
Regarding the DCF growth rate, Mr. Cosman incorrectly uses Zack’s
growth rate data, not I/B/E/S growth rate data.
His dividend yield calculation is not consistent with the Commission-
approved method.
Mr. Cosman’s exhibit incorrectly calculates the DCF zone of
reasonableness.
Because of these flaws, Mr. Cosman’s estimates should not be used by
the Commission in this docket. In addition to his DCF modeling errors, Mr.
Cosman presents other analysis that is misleading or incorrect, as I explain
below.
A. Response to CPUC DCF Analysis
Q. You claim that Mr. Cosman incorrectly selected his proxy group. What
evidence supports your claim?
A. I do not have the data that Mr. Cosman used to select his proxy group, as he
did not provide it in workpapers, and he did not provide it in response to a data
request. SCE-CPUC-L002 Q 1 (Exhibit SCE-50, p. 2). I have used my own data
to reproduce Mr. Cosman’s proxy group criteria as closely as I can. Based on
his own methodology (Exhibit PUC-1, p. 56, ll. 2-12), Mr. Cosman should have
included the following companies in his proxy group: CenterPoint Energy,
Dominion Resources, Duke Energy, Exelon Corporation, Great Plains Energy,
Dkt. No. ER09-1534-001 Exhibit SCE-49 Page 47 of 113
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
IDACORP, NextEra Energy, Northeast Utilities, OGE Energy, Portland
General, Public Service Enterprise Group, TECO Energy, Westar Energy, and
Xcel Energy. Mr. Cosman does not provide an explanation as to why these
companies were not included in his proxy group. Also based on his own
methodology, Mr. Cosman should have excluded the following companies
from his proxy group: FirstEnergy (pending merger with Allegheny Energy),
Integrys Energy (substantial sale of assets), Pepco Holdings (substantial sale of
assets), and Vectren Corporation (insufficient electric revenues). Again, Mr.
Cosman does not provide an explanation of why these companies were not
excluded.
Q. What is your conclusion regarding Mr. Cosman’s proxy group?
A. It appears to be arbitrarily selected and inconsistent with the methodology he
claims to have employed. This fact alone should be sufficient to disregard his
conclusions.
Q. Mr. Cosman says that he used “revenue above $1 billion” as a proxy
group criterion. Vectren Corporation has annual revenues that exceed $1
billion. Why should it be excluded from Mr. Cosman’s proxy group?
A. Vectren Corporation should be excluded from the proxy group because its
electric revenues do not exceed $1 billion. The Commission’s April 15 Order
largely adopted SCE’s proxy group, but for changes having to do with the
growth rate and low-end DCF estimates. SCE’s proxy group in that docket
Dkt. No. ER09-1534-001 Exhibit SCE-49 Page 48 of 113
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
was screened on electric revenues49 and Vectren Corporation was not a
member of the proxy group.50
Q. Are Mr. Cosman’s fundamental growth rates calculated correctly?
A. No, they are not. In his testimony, Mr. Cosman writes: “The growth rates I
utilized came from Value Line Investment Survey and Zack’s Investment
Survey.” Exhibit PUC-1, p. 57, ll. 5-6. Turning to his actual calculations, page
10 of Exhibit PUC-2 contains Mr. Cosman’s DCF ROE estimates. One of the
columns is labeled “Sustainable Growth/Value Line.” This is Mr. Cosman’s
name for the fundamental growth rate. It turns out that the numbers in this
column are not even growth rates--they are Value Line earnings per share
estimates for the companies for the 2013-15 period. They are not even
expressed in the same units (they are expressed as dollars per share, not
percentages per year). The first clue that these are earnings estimates and not
growth rates is that all of the numbers end with either zero or five--Value Line
rounds earnings per share estimates to the nearest nickel. To verify that they
are earnings estimates, all one needs to do is to inspect the Value Line data
49 Docket No. ER08-375-000, Exhibit SCE-7 (Acc. No. 20071228-0069), p. 19, December
21, 2007. Southern California Edison Company, 131 FERC ¶ 61,020 (2010), at PP 38, 51-52. Paragraph 38, in particular, references annual electric revenues.
50 Docket No. ER08-375-000, Exhibit SCE-7 (Acc. No. 20071228-0069), p. 19, December 21, 2007.
Dkt. No. ER09-1534-001 Exhibit SCE-49 Page 49 of 113
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
provided by Mr. Solomon, Six Cities’ ROE witness at Exhibit SC-2, page 6.
Many of the purported growth rates in the Sustainable Growth column in Mr.
Cosman’s DCF results also appear in Mr. Solomon’s table in the top block
under the heading “2014 EPS.” The footnote explains that these data are “the
average for the period 2013-15.” Mr. Solomon also provides the supporting
Value Line pages in Exhibit SC-3, plus some Value Line pages for a few
companies that Mr. Solomon did not retain in his proxy group. In the Value
Line pages, there is a large table containing various financial data. The 2013-
15 earnings per share estimate appears on the right-hand side, under the
heading “2013-15” and on the line labeled “Earnings per share A.” Although
not in Mr. Solomon’s table on page 6 in Exhibit SC-2, the relevant estimates
for FirstEnergy Corporation and PPL Corporation can be found in Mr.
Solomon’s supporting Value Line pages. Exhibit SC-3, pp. 9, 18. Again, these
pages show that Mr. Cosman’s growth rates are really earnings per share
estimates and not growth rates at all. Mr. Solomon’s supporting Value Line
page for Wisconsin Energy shows an earnings per share estimate of $4.75 per
share and not an earnings per share estimate of $5.00, which would match the
growth rate in Mr. Cosman’s table, but a Value Line page dated June 25, 2010,
which Mr. Cosman could have used, shows an earnings per share estimate of
$5.00 for Wisconsin Energy, which matches Mr. Cosman’s growth rate. See
Exhibit SCE-57. This leaves only Entergy Corporation and Vectren
Dkt. No. ER09-1534-001 Exhibit SCE-49 Page 50 of 113
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
Corporation. I have provided the relevant Value Line pages in Exhibit SCE-
57, and they show 2013-15 earnings per share estimates that match Mr.
Cosman’s purported growth rates for these companies.
In a data request, SCE asked the CPUC to provide “the precise
mathematical formulae used to calculate the b, r, s, and v terms discussed at
Exhibit PUC-1, page 57, lines 11-17.” The CPUC responded that “Mr. Cosman
did not calculate the b, r, s, and v terms.” SCE-CPUC-L002 Q 2 (Exhibit 50,
pp. 2-3). Compare this response with the exhibits provided by all of the other
ROE witnesses in this docket, which provide detailed data and calculations
regarding these variables.
Q. What is your conclusion from the above analysis?
A. Mr. Cosman has confused the fundamental growth rate with earnings per share.
These are entirely different measures, and use of earnings per share in the DCF
analysis as a substitute for the fundamental growth rate is inappropriate.
Q. Mr. Cosman says that he uses the Zack’s growth rate in place of the
I/B/E/S growth rate. Do you have any comment on this substitution?
A. The Commission requires use of I/B/E/S growth rates. Mr. Cosman claims that
I/B/E/S growth rate data are not publicly available and the CPUC does not
have access to them. As a first matter, I/B/E/S growth rate data can be
purchased. In addition, Mr. Cosman’s testimony indicates that he relied on
data from Yahoo! Finance. Exhibit PUC-1, pp. 55-56. Yahoo! Finance provides
Dkt. No. ER09-1534-001 Exhibit SCE-49 Page 51 of 113
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
analyst estimates at http://finance.yahoo.com/q/ae?s=XXX, where “XXX” is
the ticker symbol for the company of interest. The long-term earnings growth
estimate is found three rows up from the bottom on this Yahoo! page, with the
row heading “Next 5 Years (per annum).” My experience is that this estimate
is very close to, if not identical to, the I/B/E/S estimate.
My affidavit submitted to the Commission on June 21, 2010 in Dockets
ER09-187/ER10-160, which responded in part to an affidavit submitted earlier
by Mr. Cosman, and which was available to Mr. Cosman before he filed his
testimony in this proceeding, discussed these same facts.51 Given these facts,
Mr. Cosman does not explain adequately why he did not use I/B/E/S growth
rates in order to comply with Commission precedent. In short, I/B/E/S growth
rates were available to use even if the CPUC chose not to acquire them directly
for purposes of this case.
Q. Does Mr. Cosman’s dividend yield calculation comply with the
Commission-approved method?
A. No. Mr. Cosman indicates that his dividend yield is calculated “by dividing
the annual dividend by the stock price.” Exhibit PUC-1, p. 56, l. 21. He then
goes on to explain that he estimates a high dividend yield by dividing the
51 Docket Nos. ER09-187-000/ER10-160-000, Affidavit of Paul T. Hunt for Southern
California Edison Company (Acc. No. 20100621-5106), P 23, dated June 21, 2010.
Dkt. No. ER09-1534-001 Exhibit SCE-49 Page 52 of 113
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
average annual dividend by the average low price and a low dividend yield by
dividing the annual dividend by the average high stock price. Exhibit PUC-1,
p. 56, ll. 21-24.
This does not conform to FERC practice. The FERC-approved
methodology is set forth in prior cases.52 The Commission-approved approach
is to calculate a high and low dividend yield for each of the six months, then
average the low dividend yields across the six months to get the low dividend
yield for the DCF calculation, then to perform a similar averaging across the
high dividend yields to get the high dividend yield for the DCF calculation.53
This is the methodology that SCE used in its original DCF analysis in this
proceeding, and the Commission did not alter it in its April 15 Order. For
comparison purposes, FERC Staff witness Mr. Keyton and Six Cities’ witness
52 Virginia Electric and Power Company, 123 FERC ¶ 61,098. (“VEPCO Order”) Footnote
58 in this order, at paragraph 67, references Golden Spread Electric Cooperative, Inc. v. Southwestern Public Service Co., 115 FERC ¶ 63,043 at P 100 and Exhibit S-1, Schedule No. 10 (submitted in Docket Nos. EL05-19-002/ER05-168-001, Acc. No. 20060525-0189; this schedule may actually be in Exhibit S-2).
53 Exhibit S-1 in the Golden Spread docket (submitted in Docket Nos. EL05-19-002/ER05-168-001, Acc. No. 20060525-0189) refers to the “Commission-preferred, most recent six-month average low and high dividend yields.” (Exhibit S-1, p. 24.) The calculations are illustrated at Workpapers 1, 5, 9, and 13, found at pages 1, 5, 9, and 13 of Exhibit S-3 in Docket Nos. EL05-19-002/ER05-168-001 (Acc. No. 20060525-0191). The average low and high dividend yields calculated on these pages are the same as the low and high unadjusted dividend yields found in Exhibit S-1 (or S-2), Schedule No. 10 referenced in footnote 12.
Dkt. No. ER09-1534-001 Exhibit SCE-49 Page 53 of 113
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
Mr. Solomon appear to have calculated the dividend yields correctly.
Q. On page 10 of Exhibit PUC-2, Mr. Cosman presents details of his DCF
estimates. Are the “ZONE MAX” (13.22%) and “ZONE MIN” (8.11%)
numbers at the bottom of the page correct?
A. Assuming that these numbers are intended to show the maximum and
minimum values of the zone of reasonableness, they are not correct, as they are
calculated from the company-average DCF estimates, not the individual low
and high DCF estimates for each company, as is standard FERC practice.54 By
way of comparison, FERC Staff witness Mr. Keyton and Six Cities witness
Mr. Solomon show the correct way to perform this calculation.55
It appears that Mr. Cosman understands the correct way to do this
calculation, but for unexplained reasons did not do it correctly in his testimony.
SCE requested that the CPUC provide electronic copies of all workpapers,
including computer spreadsheets, that Mr. Cosman used to develop his
54 For example, in Atlantic Path 15, LLC, 122 FERC ¶ 61,135, P 20 (2008), the
Commission found a zone of reasonableness ranging from 7.63% to 13.67%. Inspection of Exhibit ATL-7 from that docket reveals that the range is based on individual low and high DCF estimates for each company. Docket No. ER08-374-000, Exhibit ATL-7 (Acc. No. 20071227-0154), p. 2. This is standard FERC practice for calculating the range of reasonableness that other witnesses in this case have correctly employed.
55 Exhibit S-8, Schedule No. 7, p. 8, “Absolute low” and “Absolute high” correctly display the zone of reasonableness for Mr. Keyton’s proxy group. Exhibit SC-2, p. 1, l. 27 correctly displays the zone of reasonableness for the Mr. Solomon’s proxy group.
Dkt. No. ER09-1534-001 Exhibit SCE-49 Page 54 of 113
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
testimony. One of the spreadsheets that the CPUC provided was a copy of
Appendix C of Exhibit PUC-2, which contains page 10. Interestingly, the
spreadsheet contains the correct calculation of “ZONE MAX” and “ZONE
MIN,” which take the values 7.53% and 16.57%. Exhibit SCE-50, p. 7. Since
Mr. Cosman appears to have done the calculation correctly in his workpapers,
it is unclear why incorrect values were included in Mr. Cosman’s testimony.
B. Response to Other Aspects of CPUC Affidavit and Exhibits
Q. Mr. Cosman claims that “SCE’s assertion about uncertain regulatory risk
in California directly contradicts its neighboring IOU to the north…”
How do you respond to his comment?
A. Mr. Cosman quoted from PG&E Corporation’s 2008 Annual Report. SCE is
not Pacific Gas & Electric Company, nor PG&E Corporation, its parent.
Statements by PG&E Corporation do not reflect SCE’s situation. In addition, I
think that the Standard & Poor’s rating report on SCE, which is found in
Exhibit S-9 at pages 25-34, is instructive. Under the heading of “Weaknesses,”
this report includes the following: “California energy policy is complex and
dynamic and has shown itself capable of introducing rapid change that could
upend what currently is a stable environment for regulated electric utilities;
aggressive renewable and carbon policies are introducing changes to electricity
regulation and markets that are unprecedented, as compared with most other
regions of the U.S.”
Dkt. No. ER09-1534-001 Exhibit SCE-49 Page 55 of 113
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
Q. How do you respond to Mr. Cosman’s comments regarding procurement
risk?
A. Mr. Cosman claims that SCE faces no risk concerning procurement of energy.
This is incorrect. All of SCE’s procurement activities are subject to review by
the CPUC and there is an annual proceeding, which commences on April 1 of
each year, that reviews SCE’s energy procurement for the prior calendar year.
Q. Mr. Cosman claims that SCE has no competitors. Is that correct?
A. Certainly not. SCE has existing franchise competition from municipal utilities,
community choice aggregation and spot municipalization.
Q. Mr. Cosman comments: “SCE operates in a rate base rate of return cost
of service industry. The latter term, cost of service, means that SCE get to
recover all of its prudently incurred costs. … The risk of bankruptcy is
virtually zero …” Is he correct?
A. Except for the first sentence, these statements are incorrect and indicate that
Mr. Cosman does not understand cost of service ratemaking as it is practiced in
California. California practices cost of service ratemaking with a forecast test
year, which means that with respect to base costs, which include depreciation,
return, capital-related taxes, and operation and maintenance expense, once the
forecast level (the “base rate revenue requirement”) is set, SCE is fully at risk
for its cost performance. Cost recovery for base rate costs only occurs on a
forecast basis, as there is no “true-up” after the fact.
Dkt. No. ER09-1534-001 Exhibit SCE-49 Page 56 of 113
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
Mr. Cosman’s statements also fail to reflect the real risks inherent in
operating in a cost-of-service environment. As demonstrated by PG&E’s
bankruptcy during the California energy crisis, a bankruptcy can occur even
when the utility is supposedly allowed to recover prudently-occurred costs.
That is because bankruptcy is also a function of liquidity and cash flow. If cost
recovery does not occur in a timely manner, bankruptcy is still possible. In
fact, SCE avoided bankruptcy during this time only because it reached an
agreement with the CPUC shortly before it ran out of cash.
Q. How do you response to Mr. Cosman’s comments regarding virtual
bidding?
A. Mr. Cosman’s comments do not tell the full story. The second through sixth
pages of Mr. Cosman’s Attachment F (Exhibit PUC-2, pp. 28-32) list several
features that SCE advocated to mitigate risk in Virtual Bidding: (1) only allow
bids at the LAP levels, (2) do not allow virtual bids on the interties, (3) do not
allow virtual bids on the generator nodes, and (4) do not allow virtual bids at
the trading hubs. In contrast, the design submitted to the Commission by the
CAISO does not adopt these features.
In addition, SCE supported specific cost allocation mechanisms for the
uplifts created by Virtual Bids. The CAISO rejected this approach in their
filing at the Commission and has proposed a methodology SCE continues to
object to.
Dkt. No. ER09-1534-001 Exhibit SCE-49 Page 57 of 113
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
In summary, the CAISO has filed with the Commission to implement a
much more aggressive approach than SCE advocated for (in Attachment F),
and SCE’s concerns over risk have not been fully mitigated base in the filed
design.
Q. Mr. Cosman says that about 55% of SCE’s revenue requirement is
“protected by balancing account recovery,” and implies that SCE has no
risk on this recovery. Is that true?
A. No. The 55% number is roughly correct, but the implication that SCE has no
risk on this recovery is false. These funds are dominated by SCE’s power
procurement costs, which as I explained above, are subject to annual
reasonableness review by the CPUC. The CPUC has the power to disallow
cost recovery in connection with this review. In addition, SCE’s transmission
costs are subject to this Commission’s exclusive jurisdiction.
Q. How do you respond to Mr. Cosman’s other comments regarding
balancing accounts?
A. Mr. Cosman generally decries the existence of balancing accounts and
legislation related to procurement and transmission construction. These exist
for a reason. SCE is much more exposed to the associated risks than other
utilities. SCE has a much higher percentage of purchased power, especially
from renewable generation, than the typical utility in the United States.
Similarly, SCE’s fossil generation and fossil purchased power are dominated
Dkt. No. ER09-1534-001 Exhibit SCE-49 Page 58 of 113
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
by natural gas, not coal, as in most other states. SCE is engaged in one of the
largest transmission investment programs of any utility in the country.
Balancing accounts and legislation exist primarily to bring SCE’s risk profile
into line with the rest of the industry, but they do not eliminate risk for SCE’s
investors. If they did, SCE would have a AAA credit rating, not a BBB+ credit
rating.
Q. How do you respond to Mr. Cosman’s comments on SCE’s Commission-
approved transmission incentives?
A. Mr. Cosman appears determined to wipe out their constructive impact as much
as possible. His proposed ROE of 10.74% (Exhibit PUC-1, p. 61, l. 5), which
includes the positive effect of the FERC-approved incentives, is well below the
current CPUC-authorized ROE for SCE in its retail jurisdiction. Should his
recommendation stand, or the Commission adopt a lower ROE, it will be much
more difficult for SCE management to choose transmission investments over
investments in other parts of SCE’s business.
Q. How do you respond to Mr. Cosman’s comments regarding energy
efficiency incentives?
A. Mr. Cosman does not appear to understand the reason why the CPUC adopted
its energy efficiency (“EE”) incentive program. In the very first CPUC
decision decried by Mr. Cosman, the CPUC wrote: “There is an inherent
utility bias towards supply-side procurement under cost-of-service regulation,
Dkt. No. ER09-1534-001 Exhibit SCE-49 Page 59 of 113
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
namely, that investor-owned utilities can generate earnings for shareholders
when they invest in ‘steel-in-the-ground’ supply-side resources, but not when
the utilities are successful in procuring cost-effective energy efficiency.”56 The
CPUC also stated in the same decision: “By aligning shareholder and
consumer interests through today’s adopted incentive mechanism, we create a
‘win-win’ regulatory framework for energy efficiency—one that provides both
a meaningful level of shareholder earnings and an estimated return of over
100% on ratepayers’ investment in energy efficiency as the utilities reach
towards and exceed our 2006-2008 energy savings goals. This return
represents the substantial cost savings created by displacing more expensive
supply-side alternatives with energy efficiency, resulting in lower utility
revenue requirements and lower customer bills.” (Emphasis in original;
footnote omitted.)57 The purpose of the EE mechanism is clear: to induce the
utilities to consider energy efficiency as a resource for meeting energy needs
by providing an incentive which is comparable to supply-side investments. In
its current Rulemaking, the CPUC is reviewing the energy efficiency incentive
mechanism in place for 2006-2008 for future use. The Rulemaking is intended
56 CPUC Decision No. 07-09-043, mimeo, pp. 3-4. 57 CPUC Decision No. 07-09-043, mimeo, pp. 2-3.
Dkt. No. ER09-1534-001 Exhibit SCE-49 Page 60 of 113
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
to “consider a more transparent, more streamlined and less controversial RRIM
program”58 for energy efficiency in the future. As such, while the policy for an
energy efficiency incentive mechanism remains, the specific attributes of the
previous mechanism may be modified for the future.
Q. Is Mr. Cosman’s characterization of D.08-01-042 accurate?
A. No. D.08-01-042 focused on the question of how uncertainty caused by after-
the-fact adjustments to energy efficiency savings estimates would impact the
treatment of the energy efficiency incentive mechanism as a workable
mechanism for California. Because of accounting rules, this uncertainty
directly and adversely affected the ability of the utilities to record earnings
under the CPUC’s EE mechanism. While this might appear one-sided, if
utilities cannot record earnings because of uncertainty over the final outcome
of the mechanism, the incentive properties of the mechanism are greatly
reduced. As the CPUC itself stated: “[T]he effectiveness of the incentive
mechanism we adopted in D.07-09-043 will be seriously undermined unless
we take steps to ensure that the utilities are able to book any interim earnings
that we may authorize for portfolio performance.”59
58 CPUC Rulemaking No. 09-01-019, mimeo, p. 4. 59 CPUC Decision No. 08-01-042, mimeo, Finding of Fact 3, p. 19.
Dkt. No. ER09-1534-001 Exhibit SCE-49 Page 61 of 113
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
Q. Mr. Cosman references the fact that the State of California has one of the
lowest credit ratings among the 50 states. What is your response to his
commentary on this point?
A. California’s low credit rating is indeed unfortunate for the state, as well as for
SCE. Standard & Poor’s said this in January of this year: “we believe
structural issues facing the state could ultimately lead to California becoming a
less desirable place to live. The state's array of challenges includes a fractured,
partisan legislature, a gubernatorial election this fall, and, significantly, a
daunting state budget deficit that is forecast to persist.” Exhibit S-9, p. 28.
This is not a credit positive situation for SCE. Indeed, it is possible that the
state’s budget problems could adversely affect the ability of the CPUC to
perform its functions.
Q. Does SCE’s capital investment program have a positive effect on
California employment?
A. Yes. In its last two CPUC retail general rate cases (for test years 2006 and
2009), SCE has commissioned a study of the economic effect of its capital
investment program, including transmission investment. In each case, the
studies found that the overall employment effect was positive.
Q. What is your response to Mr. Cosman’s comments about the “CPUC
range of reasonableness”?
Dkt. No. ER09-1534-001 Exhibit SCE-49 Page 62 of 113
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
A. Mr. Cosman cites the so-called range of reasonableness when it benefits his
position and dismisses it when it does not. In particular, Mr. Cosman fails to
distinguish between a base ROE and incentives that are additional to that base
ROE. Incentives on top of the base ROE are intended to promote specific
behavior on the part of the utility.
The 10.20% to 11.50% CPUC range of reasonableness cited by Mr.
Cosman is equivalent to a base ROE, as there is no mention in CPUC Decision
07-12-049 of incentives to promote specific investments. Instead, the ROE
authorized by the CPUC was intended to apply broadly to all of SCE’s retail
jurisdictional assets.
Q. How do you respond to Mr. Cosman’s claim that SCE voluntarily chose to
forgo an ROE increase for 2010?
A. Mr. Cosman presents a distorted view of the facts, as he fails to provide
important information regarding why SCE decided to make that offer: the
terms of the agreement prevented SCE from having to submit a new cost of
capital to the CPUC in 2010; instead that submittal is deferred to 2012 for a
new CPUC-authorized cost of capital beginning in 2013.60 In the meantime,
SCE’s CPUC-authorized cost of capital will be governed by the behavior of
60 CPUC Decision No. 09-10-016, Ordering Paragraph 1.
Dkt. No. ER09-1534-001 Exhibit SCE-49 Page 63 of 113
1
2
3
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
Moody’s Baa long-term public utility bond yield. SCE agreed to forgo a
higher ROE for 2010 in return for insulation from CPUC regulatory risk with
respect to cost of capital for two years.
VI. RESPONSE TO M-S-R (LESSER) TESTIMONY REGARDING COST 4
OF CAPITAL
Q. What areas of Dr. Lesser’s testimony are you addressing?
A. Dr. Lesser’s testimony contains a critique of my earlier analysis, and he then
presents his own analysis (which he styles as an “independent analysis”) of
what SCE’s authorized return on equity should be. I address his analysis first,
and then respond to his comments on my testimony.
A. Response to Dr. Lesser’s Analysis of SCE’s Return on Equity
Q. What deficiencies have you identified in Dr. Lesser’s return on equity
analysis?
A. Here is a summary list of the deficiencies that I have identified in Dr. Lesser’s
analysis:
Dr. Lesser has incorrectly selected his proxy group.
His dividend yield calculation is incorrect, because he uses dividends
declared during 2009 as his measure of the current dividend rate.
His calculation of the fundamental rate of growth is not consistent with
the Commission-approved method because of the way he calculates the
rate of growth in shares, s.
Dkt. No. ER09-1534-001 Exhibit SCE-49 Page 64 of 113
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
His calculation of the br component of the fundamental rate of growth is
not consistent with the Commission-approved method because of the
time period over which he calculates it.
Dr. Lesser’s DCF analysis uses a dividend yield calculation from one
period and a growth rate calculation from another period.
Because of these flaws, Dr. Lesser’s estimates should not be used by the
Commission in this docket.
Q. You claim that Dr. Lesser incorrectly selected his proxy group. What
evidence supports your claim?
A. Dr. Lesser’s DCF analysis spans the period from December 2009 through May
2010. Exhibit MSR-1, p. 32, ll. 5-6; Exhibit MSR-6. In his main testimony,
Dr. Lesser identified two companies that he claims were engaged in M&A
activity during this period, Dominion Resources and Entergy Corporation.
Exhibit MSR-1, p. 32, ll. 3-11. Regarding Dominion Resources, Dr. Lesser is
incorrect, and it should not be excluded from Dr. Lesser’s proxy group.
Dominion Resources announced the sale of its Peoples Gas subsidiary in July
2008 and completed the transaction in February 2010.61 Exclusion on the basis
61 Exhibit MSR-1, p. 32, ll. 5-8. Dominion Resources, Form 10-Q, dated July 31, 2008, p.
13. Exhibit SCE-60, p. 2. Dominion Resources, Form 10-Q, dated April 29, 2010, p. 14. Exhibit SCE-60, p. 3.
Dkt. No. ER09-1534-001 Exhibit SCE-49 Page 65 of 113
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
of this transaction is erroneous because this transaction involved a very small
portion of Dominion Resources’s overall business. In Dominion’s Form 10-Q
for the second quarter of 2008, which announced the transaction, Dominion’s
total assets were reported as $42.0 billion at June 30, 2008. Peoples Gas’
assets subject to the sale were reported as $1.3 billion, or only 3.1 percent of
Dominion’s total assets.62 This transaction is not large enough to justify
exclusion of Dominion Resources from the proxy group. Under the April 15
Order, a company is excluded from the proxy group if it has announced a
merger, not an asset sale of this relatively minor nature.63
Just as Dr. Lesser should not have excluded Dominion Resources from
his proxy group, he should not have included PPL Corporation in his proxy
group. On April 29, 2010, PPL Corporation announced that it was purchasing
E.ON-US utility assets in Kentucky, in a $7.2 billion transaction.64 The E.ON
transaction will increase PPL Corporation’s asset base by approximately 29
percent,65 so the transaction is of a sufficient size that it should have been
(Continued)
62 Dominion Resources, Form 10-Q, dated July 31, 2008, p. 6. Exhibit SCE-60, p. 1. 63 The wording in the Order is “electric utilities that did not announce a merger …”
(Emphasis added.) Southern California Edison Company, 131 FERC ¶ 61,020 (2010), at P 52.
64 PPL Corporation, Form 8-K, dated April 29, 2010, Exhibit 99.1. Exhibit SCE-61, p. 1. 65 PPL Corporation’s total assets at the end of the first quarter of 2009 were about $24.9
Dkt. No. ER09-1534-001 Exhibit SCE-49 Page 66 of 113
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
accounted for, and PPL Corporation excluded from Dr. Lesser’s proxy group.
For a different reason, Dr. Lesser should not have included Vectren
Corporation in his proxy group. Dr. Lesser claims that Vectren Corporation
should be included because of its total revenues. Exhibit MSR-1, pp. 13-14. I
disagree. As I explained above in my rebuttal to CPUC witness Mr. Cosman,
Vectren Corporation should be excluded from the proxy group because its
electric revenues do not exceed $1 billion. The Commission’s April 15 Order
largely adopted SCE’s proxy group, and SCE’s proxy group in that docket was
screened on electric revenues.66 Vectren Corporation was not a member of that
proxy group.67
Q. Dr. Lesser excluded three firms from his proxy group because they cut
their dividends in 2009. Do you agree with this exclusion?
A. I do not agree. Except for the very end of 2009, what happened in 2009 is
outside the period of Dr. Lesser’s DCF period and is outside the period of my
Continued from the previous page
billion. PPL Corporation, Form 8-K, dated May 6, 2010, Exhibit 99.1. Exhibit SCE-61, p. 2-3.
66 Docket No. ER08-375-000, Exhibit SCE-7 (Acc. No. 20071228-0069), p. 19, December 21, 2007. Southern California Edison Company, 131 FERC ¶ 61,020 (2010), at PP 38, 51-52. Paragraph 38, in particular, references annual electric revenues.
67 Docket No. ER08-375-000, Exhibit SCE-7 (Acc. No. 20071228-0069), p. 19, December 21, 2007.
Dkt. No. ER09-1534-001 Exhibit SCE-49 Page 67 of 113
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
DCF update. Since Great Plains Energy cut its dividend in March 2009, there
has been plenty of time for investors to reform their expectations about the
company and it should be included in the proxy group. (Ameren and
Constellation Energy do not pass the bond rating criterion, so they should be
excluded on that basis.)
Q. Dr. Lesser excludes OGE Energy because, according to his data, it has
only one I/B/E/S analyst. Do you agree with this exclusion?
A. No, I do not. My data show that at the end of May 2010, five analysts were
following OGE Energy. I base my count on the number of analysts providing
earnings estimates for the current year since it is the best measure of the total
number of analysts who follow the company.
Q. Dr. Lesser excludes Westar Energy because, according to his data, its
bond rating is BBB-. Do you agree with the exclusion of Westar from the
proxy group?
A. Not entirely. My information is that Westar Energy was upgraded to BBB on
April 27, 2010. For Dr. Lesser’s DCF analysis period, Westar Energy was
rated outside the A-/BBB+/BBB category for the majority of the time, so it
would be appropriate to exclude it from his proxy group. However, for my
update, it would be appropriate to include it, because the BBB rating was in
place for the majority of my updated DCF analysis period.
Dkt. No. ER09-1534-001 Exhibit SCE-49 Page 68 of 113
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
Q. Would NextEra Energy merit similar treatment?
A. Yes, as its corporate credit rating was reduced from A to A- on March 11,
2010. It is now appropriate to include NextEra Energy in the proxy group.
Q. Does Dr. Lesser calculate the dividend yield correctly in his DCF analysis?
A. No. Inspection of Dr. Lesser’s workpapers, provided in a response to an SCE
data request, reveals that he uses total dividends declared during 2009, as
calculated by Value Line, as his measure of the current dividend rate in the
DCF calculation.68 (See his testimony at Exhibit MSR-1, page 33, line 13,
through page 34, line 1, which indicates that the current stock dividend should
be used in the DCF calculation.) As dividends paid by electric utilities
generally increase over time, Dr. Lesser’s use of dividends declared during
2009 as a measure of the current stock dividend during 2010 will cause the
dividend yield to be underestimated.69 Thus his dividend yield calculation is
incorrect. He is the only witness to make this error, and I do not know of any
case where the Commission has accepted this practice.
68 See Exhibit SCE-58, which provides verification of this. 69 Dr. Lesser’s dividend yield calculation spans the period from December 2009 through
May 2010. Even the December 2009 dividend yield calculation is likely to be understated for any company that has increased its stock dividend during 2009.
Dkt. No. ER09-1534-001 Exhibit SCE-49 Page 69 of 113
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Q. You claim that Dr. Lesser calculated the fundamental rate of growth
incorrectly because of how he calculates the rate of growth in shares, s.
How do you know this?
A. Dr. Lesser’s workpapers, provided in a data request response to SCE, show
that he calculated the rate of growth of new shares s using data for 2008 and
2011. Exhibit SCE-50, pp. 9-10. He also states this in his testimony, where he
states that he determined the projected growth rate in shares over the 2008-
2011 period. Exhibit MSR-1, p. 36, ll. 9-14. This is inconsistent with the
Commission’s approved methodology, which uses a five-year period, as
demonstrated in the Golden Spread and VEPCO cases.70 In these cases, s was
calculated over a five-year period, not a three-year period.71 The
Commission’s April 15 Order accepted this five-year method.
70 These cases should be reviewed in reverse order. The VEPCO (Virginia Electric and
Power Company) case was Docket Nos. ER08-92-000/ER08-92-001/ER08-92-002/ER08-92-003, decided by the Commission in Virginia Electric and Power Company, 123 FERC ¶ 61,098. (“VEPCO Order”) Footnote 58 in this order, at paragraph 67, references Golden Spread Electric Cooperative, Inc. v. Southwestern Public Service Co., 115 FERC ¶ 63,043 at P 100 and Exhibit S-1, Schedule No. 10 (submitted in Docket Nos. EL05-19-002/ER05-168-001, Acc. No. 20060525-0189; this schedule may actually be in Exhibit S-2).
71 This calculation is found at Workpapers 1, 5, 9, and 13, found at pages 1, 5, 9, and 13 of Exhibit S-3 in Docket Nos. EL05-19-002/ER05-168-001 (Golden Spread case, Acc. No. 20060525-0191). These workpapers demonstrate that in the Golden Spread case, s was calculated over a five-year period from 2004 to 2009.
Dkt. No. ER09-1534-001 Exhibit SCE-49 Page 70 of 113
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
Q. You say that Dr. Lesser’s calculation of the br component of the
fundamental rate of growth is not consistent with the Commission-
approved method because of the time period over which he calculates it.
Please explain the inconsistency.
A. Dr. Lesser calculated the br component using data from 2008 through 2011.
Exhibit MSR-1, p. 36, ll. 9-13 and Exhibit MSR-5, pp. 1-2. However, again
referring to the Golden Spread and VEPCO cases, we can see that this is not
the correct time period to use for this calculation.72 The April 15 Order
accepted the Golden Spread/VEPCO method.
Q. What time period did Dr. Lesser use for his DCF analysis?
A. Dr. Lesser did not use a consistent time period. For his dividend yield
calculation, he used the six-month period ending with May 2010. Exhibit
MSR-7, pp. 3-5. However, for his I/B/E/S growth rate, his corrected
workpapers indicate that he extracted data on June 15, 2010.73 It is incorrect to
(Continued)
72 These cases should be reviewed in reverse order. The VEPCO (Virginia Electric and Power Company) case was Docket Nos. ER08-92-000/ER08-92-001/ER08-92-002/ER08-92-003, decided by the Commission in Virginia Electric and Power Company, 123 FERC ¶ 61,098. (“VEPCO Order”) Footnote 58 in this order, at paragraph 67, references Golden Spread Electric Cooperative, Inc. v. Southwestern Public Service Co., 115 FERC ¶ 63,043 at P 100 and Exhibit S-1, Schedule No. 10 (submitted in Docket Nos. EL05-19-002/ER05-168-001, Acc. No. 20060525-0189; this schedule may actually be in Exhibit S-2).
73 Exhibit MSR-7, p. 2, bottom of page. Since Dr. Lesser’s testimony was submitted on
Dkt. No. ER09-1534-001 Exhibit SCE-49 Page 71 of 113
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
calculate a DCF estimate using a dividend yield from one period and a growth
rate from a later period. Since the time difference between the end of Dr.
Lesser’s DCF calculation period and the date of his I/B/E/S growth rates is not
large, there probably is not a large impact on his estimates.
B. Response to Dr. Lesser’s Comments Regarding My Testimony
Q. Dr. Lesser criticizes you for including Dominion Resources in your proxy
group. What is your response?
A. I explained above that the sale of Peoples Gas is insufficiently large, when
compared with Dominion’s total assets, to justify exclusion from the proxy
group. Dr. Lesser’s criticism is without merit.
Q. Similarly, Dr. Lesser criticizes you for excluding Vectren Corporation
from your proxy group. What is your response?
A. As I explain elsewhere in this testimony, the correct proxy group screening
criterion is annual electric revenues, not annual revenues. Unless the criterion
is based on electric revenues, it would be possible to include very large
Continued from the previous page
June 30, 2010, it is impossible that he could have extracted his growth rates on July 14, 2010, as suggested on Exhibit MSR-7, p. 1, nor on July 1, 2010, as suggested at the top of Exhibit MSR-7, p. 2. However, since rates extracted on June 15, 2010 are outside the period of his DCF yield calculation by a couple of weeks, they are incorrect rates to use with Dr. Lesser’s dividend yield calculation.
Dkt. No. ER09-1534-001 Exhibit SCE-49 Page 72 of 113
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
companies that have very small electric businesses in the proxy group, which
would be improper. My exclusion of Vectren Corporation is correct and Dr.
Lesser is incorrect.
Q. Dr. Lesser argues that your original analysis violated several aspects of the
April 15 Order. What is your response?
A. As I explain elsewhere, I produced my original analysis before the April 15
Order was issued. My original analysis is updated in this testimony. The
updated estimates follow the procedures established in the April 15 Order.
Q. Dr. Lesser argues that you used an incorrect risk-free rate in estimating
the Fama-French model. What is your response?
A. Dr. Lesser is incorrect. I use the one-month Treasury bill rate in my analysis.
This is the same risk-free rate that Fama and French use, which can be verified
by inspection at Kenneth French’s Internet site.74
Q. Dr. Lesser claims that the business and financial risks that you identify
are irrelevant to setting SCE’s base ROE. Do you agree?
A. No. As I have explained previously, investors in SCE must take account of all
of SCE’s risks because their investment is subject to all of SCE’s risks—SCE
does not issue financial instruments that are specific to generation assets,
74 See http://mba.tuck.dartmouth.edu/pages/faculty/ken.french/Data_Library/f-
f_factors.html. On this page, Rf is the risk-free rate.
Dkt. No. ER09-1534-001 Exhibit SCE-49 Page 73 of 113
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
transmission assets, or distribution assets. Risks associated with generation
and power procurement, transmission investments and distribution investments
must all be accounted for if an investor wishes to accurately assess the risk of
an investment in SCE.
Q. What about the other risk issues discussed in Dr. Lesser’s testimony?
A. I respond to these issues in my rebuttal to other witnesses, so there is no need
to repeat that discussion here.
VII. RESPONSE TO STATE WATER PROJECT TESTIMONY 8
REGARDING COST OF CAPITAL
A. Response to Mr. Marcus’s Analysis of SCE’s Cost of Capital
Q. What is your reaction to Mr. Marcus’s analysis of SCE’s cost of capital?
A. Mr. Marcus based his analysis on DCF estimates that I produced previously for
the six month period ending in February 2010. Exhibit SWP-6, p. 12, ll. 1-4.
However, it is inconsistent with Commission precedent to base an ROE
determination on an analysis that precedes the effective date of rates, especially
when the rates are not locked in and when the case is being litigated, as this
one is. The Commission normally expects DCF analyses to be updated to a
date close to the commencement of hearing. There also is no reason to rely on
stale data when there is an opportunity to update the DCF analysis. In fact, Mr.
Marcus’s data are older than the data used by all of the other Staff and
intervenor witnesses in the case, and their data is also somewhat stale at this
point.
Dkt. No. ER09-1534-001 Exhibit SCE-49 Page 74 of 113
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
Q. How do you respond to Mr. Marcus’s comments on the DCF analysis
contained in your original filed testimony?
A. As I read Mr. Marcus’s comments on my original DCF analysis, they appear to
be entirely based on the relationship between my original analysis and the
April 15 Order. As I noted above, the midpoint-versus-median issue is subject
to an application for rehearing that is still pending, hence that issue has not
been finally resolved. Regarding Mr. Marcus’s other criticisms, I have
acknowledged that my initial testimony was filed before the Commission’s
April 15 Order. Because my revised and updated analysis submitted with this
rebuttal testimony is consistent with the April 15 Order, it is not necessary for
me to respond all of the allegations found in Mr. Marcus’s testimony that no
longer apply.
B. Response to Dr. Malloy’s Commentary
Q. Dr. Malloy writes: “Southern California Edison’s submissions suggest a
degree of precision and rigidity in its application of DCF that is simply not
inherent in the methodology.”
A. My testimony attaches no more or less precision and rigidity to the DCF
analysis than is required by Commission precedent. The simple fact is that the
Commission uses the DCF model to set the authorized ROE and has done so
for many years.
Dkt. No. ER09-1534-001 Exhibit SCE-49 Page 75 of 113
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
Q. What overall conclusion should the Commission draw from Dr. Malloy’s
testimony?
A. The conclusion that the Commission should draw is that events in the financial
sector during the last three years have dramatically restricted the availability of
capital and access to capital.
Dr. Malloy references the following situations in his testimony:
“[A] dramatic systemic failure of capital markets worldwide …”
(Exhibit SWP-46, p. 14, ll. 8-9);
“[M]ajor institutional investors have been confronted with significant
liquidity problems …” (Exhibit SWP-46, p. 15, ll. 2-3);
“The current state of the capital markets is fundamentally affected by
the ongoing systemic crisis …” (Exhibit SWP-46, p. 15, ll. 13-14);
“The contraction of credit that resulted from the meltdown is of material
significance to investors …” (Exhibit SWP-46, p. 17, ll. 2-3);
“Overall, it is clear that the financial services system is under critical
stress.” (Exhibit SWP-46, p. 18, ll. 18-19);
“U.S. and European banks face growing funding requirements,
particularly for long-term liabilities.” (Exhibit SWP-46, p. 19, ll. 12-14);
“However, to date little has been done to address any structural
problems in the regulatory system.” (Exhibit SWP-46, p. 21, ll. 3-4);
and
Dkt. No. ER09-1534-001 Exhibit SCE-49 Page 76 of 113
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
“To begin with, almost two years into the financial crisis, Congress has
yet to enact regulatory reform … legislation, and the delay involves
costs to the market – serious liquidity, funding constraints, higher
transaction costs, and higher compliance costs.” Exhibit SWP-46, p. 24,
ll. 14-17
The common theme here is reduced availability of credit and greater
difficulty in attracting capital. To overcome these difficulties for utilities such
as SCE, who need to attract and retain equity capital on a continual basis, the
proper policy prescription is to increase authorized returns on equity, not
reduce them. Dr. Malloy fails to recognize the import of his own testimony.
Q. Concerning your DCF analysis of SCE’s required ROE, Dr. Malloy states:
“nothing in the analysis or the resulting recommendations adequately
takes into account the impact of the direct and indirect costs of the
meltdown …” How do you respond to this comment?
A. Dr. Malloy’s testimony in this docket shows that the easy availability of credit
that characterized financial markets prior to 2008 is gone. If the DCF
methodology does not take adequate account of more restrictive credit
requirements and decreased availability of capital, then the DCF ROE
estimates are too low and should be adjusted upward to accurate gauge SCE’s
required return on equity.
Dkt. No. ER09-1534-001 Exhibit SCE-49 Page 77 of 113
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
VIII. UPDATED ESTIMATES OF COST OF CAPITAL 1
A. Return on Equity
Q. Have you updated your estimates of SCE’s return on equity?
A. Yes, I have updated my DCF analysis based on the most recent vintage data
available and using the methodology approved in the April 15 Order, although
as I explain above I do not agree with FERC used of the median to set the
ROE. My revised analysis results are shown in the following table. The DCF
estimates are calculated using data ending in September 2010. The median
estimate based on company averages is 10.30%.
Updated DCF Cost of Equity Estimates (Updating Table at Exhibit SCE-17, Page 16)
Model Low Midpoint Average High DCF 6.99% 11.33% 10.35% 15.67%
Q. Where can the details of your estimates be found?
A. They are contained in Exhibit SCE-59.
Q. Regarding the selection of your proxy group, have you followed the
screening procedure established in the Commission’s April 15 Order?
A. Yes.
Q. What are the companies in your proxy group?
A. They are Alliant Energy, American Electric Power, Centerpoint Energy,
Consolidated Edison, Dominion Resources, DPL, DTE Energy, Duke Energy,
Exelon, Great Plains Energy, Hawaiian Electric Industries, IDACORP,
Dkt. No. ER09-1534-001 Exhibit SCE-49 Page 78 of 113
1
2
3
4
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
Integrys Energy, NextEra Energy, Northeast Utilities, OGE Energy, PG&E
Corporation, Portland General Electric, Progress Energy, Public Service
Enterprise Group, SCANA, Sempra Energy, TECO Energy, Westar Energy,
Wisconsin Energy, and Xcel Energy.
IX. RESPONSE TO OTHER PARTIES’ TESTIMONY REGARDING COST 5
ESCALATION
Q. What is the purpose of this portion of your rebuttal testimony in this
proceeding?
A. The primary purpose of this portion of my rebuttal testimony is to address the
criticisms of Six Cities witness Terry M. Myers, M-S-R/LADWP witness
David B. Cohen, and Staff witnesses Kerri H. Miller and Craig E. Deters
regarding SCE’s labor and non-labor escalation rates. My rebuttal testimony
and exhibits show that SCE uses the correct methodology to calculate and
forecast labor and non-labor escalation rates. I will first demonstrate that Ms.
Miller’s average salary calculations and labor escalation conclusions are
flawed. Next, I will address the criticisms of Mr. Myers, Mr. Cohen, and Mr.
Deters regarding the use of labor escalation rates to escalate the indirect labor
portion of non-labor escalation.
A. Labor Escalation
Q. What is the purpose of your rebuttal testimony on labor escalation?
A. I am addressing the direct testimony of FERC Staff Witness Kerri H. Miller
regarding SCE’s labor escalation rates as testified in Exhibit S-14, pp. 6-11.
Dkt. No. ER09-1534-001 Exhibit SCE-49 Page 79 of 113
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
Q. What do you mean by “labor escalation rates,” and how are they used in
SCE’s filing?
A. When SCE’s witnesses forecast their Period II costs, they do so in year 2008
dollars. Those 2008 dollars are separated into “labor” (this is the direct labor
discussed in the testimony of SCE rebuttal witness Ms. Argandona, Exhibit
SCE-34) and “non-labor” components. Those 2008 dollars are then escalated
to year 2010 dollars by SCE witness Mr. Allstun in cost-of-service
calculations. I provided both the labor escalation rates and non-labor
escalation rates that Mr. Allstun used for this purpose.
Q. Have you reviewed the testimony of Ms. Miller regarding the
Transmission and Distribution Business Unit’s (TDBU) wages and
salaries?
A. Yes, I have. Ms. Miller testified that the Period II ISO transmission wages and
salaries should be escalated from 2008 to 2010 using a zero percent escalation
rate. Exhibit S-14, p. 11, ll. 6-9. Her recommendation is based on her
assessment of projected changes in TDBU wages and salaries, of which Period
II ISO transmission wages and salaries comprise one quarter of that total.
Q. Do you agree with Ms. Miller’s analysis of TDBU wages and salaries in
Exhibit S-14, Page 8?
A. No, I do not agree with Ms. Miller’s analysis. In Exhibit S-14, on page 8, lines
12-16, Ms. Miller claims “In SCE’s data response to MSR/LADWP-SCE-
Dkt. No. ER09-1534-001 Exhibit SCE-49 Page 80 of 113
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
64(f), Exhibit S-17, page 4, SCE provides data which show that the average
wages and salaries of a Transmission Distribution Business Unit (TDBU)
worker have remained relatively unchanged since 2007.” Ms. Miller
repeatedly cites the “average wages and salaries of a Transmission Distribution
Business Unit (TDBU) worker” within her testimony, although the SCE
response to MSR/LADWP-SCE-64(f), did not contain an average wage or
salary of a Transmission and Distribution employee.
Q. In MSR/LADWP-SCE-64(f), Exhibit No. S-17, page 4 did SCE provide
Ms. Miller with average wages and salaries of TDBU employees?
A. No, in data request MSR/LADWP-SCE-64(f) SCE was not asked, nor did we
provide, data on average wages and salaries for TDBU employees.
Q. Did Ms. Miller request this information in a different data request?
A. No.
Q. Did Ms. Miller attempt to calculate a TDBU average salary on her own?
A. Yes, she did.
Q. Did Ms. Miller correctly calculate an average salary based upon the data
provided in MSR/LADWP-SCE-64(f)?
A. No, she did not. The response to data request MSR/LADWP-SCE-64 provided
two data sets: total wages and salaries and end of year head count. Ms. Miller
did not request “the average salary of a TDBU employee” or, more
appropriately, “the average hourly earnings of a TDBU employee.” Ms. Miller
Dkt. No. ER09-1534-001 Exhibit SCE-49 Page 81 of 113
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
incorrectly imputed an average salary from the two data sets by dividing
salaries by end of year headcount.
Q. Why do you state that Ms. Miller’s calculation of average salary escalation
is incorrect?
A. The two sets of data – total wages and salaries and end of year headcount – are
not directly linked and do not represent data sets that can be combined and
compared on a period to period basis without first “normalizing” the data. One
represents costs during the course of an entire year, while the other represents
the headcount at a particular time of year. The end of year headcount figure
cannot be used to represent a unit of work because it counts all employees
equally, even though not all employees included in the headcount worked a full
year. In order to use the data together, the data must be “normalized” so that it
is reflective of conditions throughout the year.
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
Q. Can you provide a simple example showing this, and in that process show
what “normalization” is?
A. Yes. Assume that you are trying to determine the average salary that a
company paid its employees during 2007 and 2008, and you used the method
Ms. Miller used. Now assume that in 2007, the company had four employees
as of January 1, all of whom worked the whole year, and thus had a total of
four employees at the end of the year. Assume that each employee was paid
$100,000 per year. Using Ms. Miller’s method, you would sum the salaries
Dkt. No. ER09-1534-001 Exhibit SCE-49 Page 82 of 113
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
paid to the four employees during the year ($100,000 times 4), and divide the
total ($400,000) by 4. You would determine that the company’s average salary
in 2007 was $100,000.
Now let’s turn to 2008. In 2008, assume that the company has four
employees as of the start of the year, and hired one new employee on July 1,
2008. The company paid each employee an annual salary of $104,000, and
thus had five employees as of the end of 2008. Using Ms. Miller’s method,
you would sum the salaries paid to the five employees during the year
($104,000 times 4, plus $52,000 for the employee hired on July 1), and divide
the total ($468,000) by 5. You would determine that the company’s average
salary in 2008 was $93,600, even though in fact it was $104,000.
Q. What happened?
A. I didn’t normalize the headcount data to make it reflective of conditions
throughout the year. This is exactly the same error that Ms. Miller made, and
why she arrived at the wrong conclusion.
Q. What happens when you normalize the headcount data in the above
example?
A. You get a headcount of 4.5. Dividing $468,000 by 4.5 yields an average salary
of $104,000, the correct answer.
Dkt. No. ER09-1534-001 Exhibit SCE-49 Page 83 of 113
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
Q. Can you elaborate on why end of year headcount and total salaries should
not be used in an average salary calculation?
A. Yes. The example above illustrates the problem, but let me provide additional
detail. End of year headcount does not include employees that have terminated
or changed jobs, but does include employees that have been in their position
for less than a year. Both of these skew the calculation. Total salaries and
wages also is not a normalized data set. It includes all employees’ salaries and
wages associated with TDBU accumulated through the year, whether the
employee worked a full year or partial year. The non-normalized salaries may
include partial year salaries, and include overtime and double time, which
fluctuate from period to period and ultimately skew period-to-period
comparisons.
Q. Are you stating that the average salary calculated by Ms. Miller for TDBU
employees as referenced in Exhibit No. S-17 is inaccurate?
A. Yes. In addition, comparing non-normalized data sets from period to period
will produce skewed results, so her conclusions on labor cost escalation are
incorrect as well. (I will address that later). This data needs to be normalized
to make period to period comparisons.
Q. Does SCE calculate historical wage escalation?
A. Yes. Historical average hourly earnings (“AHE”) are calculated during the
labor escalation process and represent the basis for SCE’s historical labor wage
Dkt. No. ER09-1534-001 Exhibit SCE-49 Page 84 of 113
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
escalation through 2008.
Q. Are there external experts that calculate labor escalation rates?
A. Yes, IHS Global Insight calculates labor escalation.
Q. Who is IHS Global Insight?
A. IHS Global Insight is a reliable, independent, and accurate source for labor
escalation and O&M cost forecasting. Utilities have used IHS Global Insight
projections in numerous proceedings before the Commission.
Q. Does IHS Global Insight calculate wage escalation at the salary level?
A. No, IHS Global Insight uses AHE, a normalized data asset, to calculate and
escalate labor wages for the data sets used in SCE’s labor wage escalation
calculations.
Q. What are the basic requirements for calculating historical labor cost
escalation?
A. Proper mathematical escalation of labor requires a normalized data set of
wages into a unit of work. A normalized data set should be a homogenous unit
of work, such as an average hourly wage. Only normalized data can be used to
calculate inflation or escalation on a year to year basis.
Q. Can you provide an example of how a normalized wage, or normalized
unit of work (that can be used to calculate period to period changes), is
calculated?
Dkt. No. ER09-1534-001 Exhibit SCE-49 Page 85 of 113
1
2
3
4
A. Yes. If we assume that all employees were paid their standard wages, without
overtime or double time, then the weighted average hourly wage is a
normalized homogenous unit of work data set. This can be mathematically
represented as:
Total Wages 5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Total Hours
With the introduction of overtime and double time wages, the hourly wage data
should be normalized to properly represent the normal wage paid per hour. In
order to normalize the double and overtime wages, a mathematical adjustment
is made to the overtime (wages/1.5) and double time (wages/2) wages to de-
escalate the wage to an accurate normal time wage. This can be expressed
mathematically as:
Normal Time Wages + (Overtime Wages / 1.5) + (Double Time Wages/ 2) 13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
Total Hours
Once the data set is normalized, dividing the total adjusted wages by the total
hours will achieve a normalized hourly wage that can be properly compared on
a period to period basis.
Q. Is the use of non-normalized data in a labor wage escalation process a
proper method to use when comparing year to year wage data?
A. No. By not performing a process to normalize the data, you introduce
statistical anomalies that will skew the results of the data and produce
inaccurate results.
Dkt. No. ER09-1534-001 Exhibit SCE-49 Page 86 of 113
1
2
3
Q. Is the use of total salaries divided by end of year headcount, as referenced
by Exhibit No. S-14, on Page 8, lines 12-16, which is mathematically
represented as,
Total wages and salaries 4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
End of year headcount
a proper method for calculating historical wage escalation?
A. No, the data set is not normalized and does not represent a homogenous unit of
work that can be compared over multiple periods. If all workers included in
the headcount worked a full year’s work and the headcount directly
represented the total salaries of the headcount workers, and there was no
overtime or double time – then yes. This was the case for 2007 in the example
I provided above. If one were to attempt to use SCE TDBU total wages and
salaries and end of year headcount to calculate a year to year labor escalation
rate, however, one would be required to perform numerous adjustments to
normalize the data. For instance, in order to normalize the data you would
have to make the following adjustments to the data including, but not limited
to:
Wage adjustments: 18
19
20
21
22
• Adjust wages for overtime wages
• Adjust wages for double time wages
• Adjust for wages paid to employees not included in headcount
• Employees that shift departments must be properly allocated across
Dkt. No. ER09-1534-001 Exhibit SCE-49 Page 87 of 113
1 departments
Period/Hour Adjustments: 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
• Adjust each employee that did not work a full year
• Adjust new hires during the year since they are over-weighted
• Adjust for employees that left prior to end of year since they are not
included and in data are underweighted
• Employees that shift departments must be properly allocated to the
particular departments
By not performing the adjustments to normalize the data, you introduce
statistical anomalies that may skew the results of the data. For instance, if an
employee were hired on December 31, they are still counted as one FTE in the
year end headcount, although they should be properly weighted as 0.3846%
(8/2080 hours) of an FTE.
Q. Did the Transmission Unit experience inflation in its historical wage
escalation from 2006 - through 2008?
A. Yes. SCE’s Transmission average hourly earnings for 2006 through 2008 were
$37.24, $38.46, and $40.54 which represent a 3.3% and 5.4% increase for 2007
and 2008 respectively. The 2008 wage escalation was previously reported in
Ms. Schiminske’s workpapers WP-AH/AI- 6 of 10.
Dkt. No. ER09-1534-001 Exhibit SCE-49 Page 88 of 113
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
Q. In order to avoid confusion, did the Distribution Unit also experience
inflation in its historical wage escalation from 2006 through 2008?
A. Yes, SCE’s Distribution average hourly earnings for 2006 through 2008 were
$33.63, $34.70 and $36.41, which represent a 3.16% and 4.9% increase for
2007 and 2008 respectively.
Q. In Exhibit S-14, does Ms. Miller admit that there is inflation in the labor
and material markets?
A. Yes, she does. In Exhibit S-14, page 8, lines 8-9 Ms. Miller admits: “there is
inflation in the markets.”
Q. Does Ms. Miller acknowledge that there are contractual obligations for
labor rate increases for represented employees?
A. Yes. In Exhibit No. S-14, page 8, lines 8-9, she states so.
Q. Yet based upon Ms. Miller’s “average salary calculations” she claims that
on page 8, lines 16-17, “for 2008 and 2009 SCE has had nearly 0%
inflation to its average wages and salaries.” Do you agree?
A. No. Ms. Miller incorrectly imputed an “average salary” and then made a
comparison of two incorrectly calculated, non-normalized numbers and
ultimately provided incorrect conclusions on inflation to average wages. SCE
definitely experienced wage escalation in 2006-2008 as referenced above and
this is further supported by contractual obligations, and actual historical
inflation in labor markets.
Dkt. No. ER09-1534-001 Exhibit SCE-49 Page 89 of 113
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
Q. What is the basis for Ms. Miller’s adjustments?
A. She appears to contend that SCE’s estimates were not reasonable when made,
although she does not state this explicitly. If that is her argument, then her
focus should have been on the data that were available to SCE when it filed its
rate case, which would not include the 2009 data upon which she relies. My
testimony above shows that Ms. Miller’s calculation of SCE’s escalation rates
for 2007 and 2008 was in error (she does not rely upon the 2007 escalation
rate, since her own data show a 5.5 percent increase). Exhibit S-17, p. 2, l. 11.
These are the data that were available to SCE when it filed its rate case, and
they demonstrate that SCE’s projections of its estimated escalation rates were
reasonable when made. These escalation rates were above SCE’s projections.
While Ms. Miller also refers to 2009 data, those data were not available
at the time of SCE’s filing, and are thus irrelevant unless FERC Staff
demonstrates that SCE’s projections would yield unreasonable results. Ms.
Miller’s calculations do not show that SCE’s projections yield unreasonable
results, as all of her calculations are flawed and cannot be relied upon for any
purpose. I showed this by explaining the error of her method and by
comparing her results to actual 2007 and 2008 results. Specifically, Ms. Miller
calculates SCE’s 2008 escalation rate at -1.2% (Exhibit S-17, p. 2, l. 11), when
it fact it was 5.4% (transmission) and 4.9% (distribution). Because of the
change in SCE’s accounting system, I am not aware of the same data as I
Dkt. No. ER09-1534-001 Exhibit SCE-49 Page 90 of 113
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
provided for 2007 and 2008 being available for 2009. In either event, the point
is moot, as such data were not available when SCE prepared its projections,
and no one has demonstrated that SCE’s projections yield unreasonable results.
Q. Are there any other incorrect statements in Ms. Miller’s testimony on this
issue?
A. Yes. On page 8, line 3, of her testimony, Ms. Miller states that SCE has
consistently over-forecasted its labor escalation rates. As I explain above, her
data are improperly calculated, and cannot be used for any purpose. However,
even using her own data, her assertions are incorrect. Her data show that on
average, SCE’s wages and salaries rose 2.85% over these years, close to the
2.71% rate SCE estimates for 2010. Exhibit S-17, p. 2 ll. 8-13. Thus, even her
own data provide no basis for reducing SCE’s wages and salaries escalation
rate to 0%. And, if her calculation of the 2008 rate is replaced by the actual
rate of about 5%, her average rate rises to 3.89% per year, which is higher than
SCE’s estimates for each of 2009 (3.62%) and 2010 (2.71%). While I do not
believe that would be a correct calculation for any year other than 2008, it
shows that Ms. Miller’s own data, with just one year corrected, support SCE’s
escalation.
Ms. Miller also suggests that, based on her analysis, SCE should
examine why its forecasts are “so inaccurate.” Exhibit S-14, p. 9, l. 5. It is not
SCE’s forecasts that are inaccurate, but rather Ms. Miller’s incorrect
Dkt. No. ER09-1534-001 Exhibit SCE-49 Page 91 of 113
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
calculation of SCE’s historical cost escalation. For example, Ms. Miller’s
flawed methodology led her to conclude that SCE’s 2008 transmission and
distribution wages declined by 1.2 percent (Exhibit S-17, p. 2, l. 12) when in
fact they rose by 5.4 and 4.9 percent, respectively.
Having incorrectly determined that SCE’s wages are not rising, Ms.
Miller then speculates regarding a possible reason for the zero growth (which
in fact was real growth). She appears to suggest that lower paid employees are
replacing higher paid employees, and that is holding SCE’s wages flat. Exhibit
S-14 at 9-10. There are two problems with this. First, of course, the data show
that SCE’s wages are increasing in line with its projections, contrary to Ms.
Miller’s assertion. Second, Ms. Miller provides no evidence to support her
employee turnover theory. It is pure speculation on her part. In either event,
the issue is moot, as wages did rise in line with SCE’s projections. Her
adjustment should be rejected.
B. Non-Labor Escalation and Indirect Labor
Q. What is the purpose of your rebuttal testimony on non-labor escalation?
A. I am addressing the direct testimony of Six Cities witness Terry M. Myers, M-
S-R/LADWP witness David B. Cohen, and Staff witness Craig E. Deters
regarding SCE’s non-labor escalation calculations and the process of escalating
indirect labor expenses with a labor escalation rate.
Dkt. No. ER09-1534-001 Exhibit SCE-49 Page 92 of 113
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
Q. In your first answer and in the title to this section, you state that you are
addressing “indirect labor,” whereas Mr. Deters and Mr. Myers refer to
non-labor expense that is actually labor. Please explain the difference, if
any, between these two terms.
A. They refer to the same thing. In our direct testimony, we referred to the
indirect labor expense that is included within labor expense as “non-labor
labor”. To be consistent with Ms. Argandona’s testimony, I refer to this labor
as “indirect labor.” “Indirect labor” and “non-labor Labor” mean the same
thing.
Q. Can you address Mr. Deters’ criticism in Exhibit No. S-1, page 16, lines
18-19 that states SCE’s annual percentages of non-labor expense that are
actually labor expense are completely unsupported, Mr. Myers’ criticisms
in Exhibit SC-4, page 23, lines 8-10 and on page 23, line 13 that claim
SCE’s provides no evidence or support for adjustments for indirect labor
in non-labor, and Mr. Cohen’s criticism in Exhibit ML-1, page 67, lines
11-13, that SCE has not adequately explained or justified its adjustments
for the indirect labor costs in non-labor?
A. Yes. I will demonstrate that these adjustments to non-labor are accurate,
reasonable and completely supported. First, Ms. Argandona’s testimony
addresses the definition and use of indirect labor, and how the SCE accounting
system books indirect labor as part of non-labor expense. In Ms. Argandona’s
Dkt. No. ER09-1534-001 Exhibit SCE-49 Page 93 of 113
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
testimony we have demonstrated how the SCE accounting system reasonably
books indirect labor charges into the non-labor category by way of labor
allocations and chargebacks. Lastly, Ms. Argandona addresses how all labor
costs are identified, and, more specifically, how indirect labor is identified –
via the True Labor study.
Q. What is the True Labor study?
A. Ms. Argandona’s testimony addresses this issue. Briefly, the True Labor study
is an annual SCE study that identifies and separates direct and indirect labor.
In other words, it extracts the indirect labor expense from non-labor expense.
The indirect labor expense, plus the direct labor expense, shown in the True
Labor study is referred to as “True Labor,” because it represents the actual
amount of labor expense included in SCE’s books and records.
Q. What do you mean by “FERC Labor” and “FERC Non-labor”?
A. These are terms used by SCE witness Ms. Schiminske in her workpapers
(which I have adopted). “FERC Labor” is the same as the direct labor
described by Ms. Argandona. “FERC Non-labor” includes both non-labor and
indirect labor expenses. The sum of FERC Labor and FERC Non-labor ties to
the FERC Form 1 Electric Operation and Maintenance Expenses at page 320-
323 which reflects total company O&M expenses.
Q. Does FERC Labor expense differ from True Labor expense?
Dkt. No. ER09-1534-001 Exhibit SCE-49 Page 94 of 113
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
A. Yes. As I explained above, FERC Labor expense does not include indirect
labor expense. Indirect labor expense is included in FERC Non-labor expense.
True Labor, in contrast, moves the indirect labor expense from FERC Non-
labor to True Labor. Ms. Argandona explains this in more detail in her rebuttal
testimony. The important point is that there are two separate calculations of
labor expense: FERC Labor, which does not include indirect labor; and True
Labor, which does include indirect labor expense. The purpose of this exercise
is to extract the indirect labor from the FERC Non-labor expense, and include
it as part of True-Labor. True Labor is reported in SCE’s FERC Form 1 on
pages 354-55 (wages and salaries). To make sure the terminology I use is
clear: Although True Labor is reported in the FERC Form 1, True Labor is
different from what I refer to as “FERC Labor,” for the reasons given in this
answer.
Q. Now that you have addressed that indirect labor expenses is included in
FERC Non-labor, and have explained what True Labor and FERC Labor
are, can you explain how to identify any indirect labor expense that is
included within FERC Non-labor?
A. Yes. I’d like to start with providing further detail on how to mathematically
calculate indirect labor in non-labor. A guiding principle in this calculation is
that when True Labor costs, or total labor costs, are greater than FERC Labor
costs, then the positive difference represents indirect labor that is embedded
Dkt. No. ER09-1534-001 Exhibit SCE-49 Page 95 of 113
1
2
3
within FERC Non-labor.
First, we first start with identifying the relevant FERC accounts for
FERC Labor and FERC Non-labor:
FunctionSteam 500 to 514Nuclear 517 to 532Hydro 535 to 545Other 546 to 554Transmission 560 to 573Distribution 580 to 598Customer Accounts 901 to 905CS&I 907 to 910
FERC Accounts
4
5
6
Next, we adjust for removing FERC Non-labor accounts for fuel (FERC
account 501, 518 and 547):
Items to Exclude: Acct. ReasonSteam 501 FuelNuclear 518 FuelOther 547 Fuel 7
8
9
By summing the FERC Labor and Non-labor accounts and adjusting for
fuel we have the following FERC Labor and Non-labor charges:
FERC Nonlabor 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008Steam 34,631,520 31,923,360 34,497,523 32,307,849 24,163,701 31,239,724 50,374,656Nuclear 132,220,354 119,131,832 163,254,437 98,963,910 169,278,876 144,320,043 181,563,572Hydro 18,018,077 17,037,923 19,129,858 17,844,989 20,861,428 23,442,470 17,049,316Other 20,329,287 13,695,827 13,971,255 13,119,368 11,864,547 8,659,799 15,957,662Transmission 95,290,054 106,469,596 191,357,994 280,577,363 253,327,019 175,880,391 231,308,992Distribution 164,356,476 177,521,560 300,986,490 215,202,740 246,507,859 247,021,750 163,719,036Customer Accounts 96,138,354 129,578,937 102,497,218 90,755,050 87,928,812 98,059,369 100,192,662CS&I 95,296,550 149,108,865 169,333,629 265,134,743 280,687,582 415,574,952 458,970,792 10
Dkt. No. ER09-1534-001 Exhibit SCE-49 Page 96 of 113
FERC Labor 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008Steam 27,183,958 28,573,164 27,060,099 26,399,103 17,326,360 6,294,387 3,630,984Nuclear 135,520,447 138,573,755 168,579,324 156,250,092 185,189,798 187,133,147 208,244,965Hydro 11,345,263 12,394,274 13,053,172 13,487,843 15,516,632 16,696,414 19,648,952Other 898,328 999,757 1,182,834 1,449,894 1,919,315 8,020,557 5,673,331Transmission 31,936,912 34,275,292 37,623,031 39,773,025 45,706,098 52,439,628 54,268,508Distribution 86,851,775 95,240,213 112,773,525 113,267,301 123,820,180 133,070,719 171,164,970Customer Accounts 90,224,295 92,929,184 95,114,059 97,195,495 98,566,141 102,626,213 107,200,921CS&I 28,792,534 32,337,393 36,009,165 38,607,044 43,768,160 53,346,635 72,097,386 1
2 Next we identify True Labor:
True Labor 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008Steam 29,995,520 30,910,523 29,673,438 27,969,921 17,941,880 6,660,008 3,760,659Nuclear 154,188,385 151,125,151 181,608,874 172,230,054 201,938,933 198,497,015 210,915,217Hydro 13,825,288 15,203,301 15,796,223 17,483,717 18,428,153 20,574,701 22,709,228Other 948,236 1,068,260 1,263,713 1,662,075 6,589,513 8,383,528 11,161,204Transmission 49,599,318 52,890,926 53,661,327 61,161,859 70,523,753 79,522,253 65,014,731Distribution 122,418,351 137,140,734 149,046,796 160,185,863 171,359,133 187,863,612 185,038,528Customer Accounts 109,138,674 112,206,068 116,311,420 115,462,920 117,081,377 117,724,084 111,880,219CS&I 31,177,841 35,572,403 38,903,635 44,110,102 48,594,427 60,076,147 74,849,808 3
4
5
6
To identify the indirect labor in FERC Non-labor, simply calculate the
difference between True Labor and FERC labor. Subtract FERC Labor from
True Labor:
True Labor Minus FERC Labor = Indirect Labor In NonlaborLabor in Nonlabor 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008Steam 2,811,563 2,337,359 2,613,339 1,570,818 615,520 365,621 129,675 Nuclear 18,667,938 12,551,396 13,029,550 15,979,961 16,749,136 11,363,869 2,670,252 Hydro 2,480,025 2,809,026 2,743,051 3,995,875 2,911,521 3,878,287 3,060,275 Other 49,908 68,504 80,879 212,181 4,670,198 362,972 5,487,873 Transmission 17,662,406 18,615,635 16,038,295 21,388,834 24,817,655 27,082,625 10,746,223 Distribution 35,566,576 41,900,521 36,273,271 46,918,562 47,538,954 54,792,893 13,873,557 Customer Accounts 18,914,380 19,276,884 21,197,361 18,267,425 18,515,236 15,097,871 4,679,298 CS&I 2,385,307 3,235,011 2,894,470 5,503,057 4,826,268 6,729,512 2,752,422 7
8
9
10
11
This amount represents the indirect labor that is charged to the FERC
Non-labor function.
For example, assume FERC Labor for transmission is $70, and True
Labor for transmission is $80. The $10 difference between these two amounts
Dkt. No. ER09-1534-001 Exhibit SCE-49 Page 97 of 113
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
represents the amount of indirect labor that has been recorded in the FERC
Non-labor function.
Q. Where do the above numbers come from?
A. Like the numbers below, they come from SCE’s books and records.
Q. Now that we have identified the indirect labor expense embedded in non-
labor expense, how do we calculate the ratio of indirect labor embedded
within non-labor?
A. To calculate the ratio of indirect labor embedded within non-labor, simply
divide the identified indirect labor (True Labor – FERC Labor) by total FERC
Non-labor. This can be mathematically represented as:
Indirect Labor embedded within Non-labor 11
12
13
FERC Non-labor Or
(True Labor – FERC Labor) 14
15
16
17
18
19
FERC Non-labor
Q. Can you demonstrate this calculation?
A. Yes, in the preceding pages we identified indirect labor that is charged to the
FERC Non-labor function:
True Labor Minus FERC Labor = Indirect Labor In NonlaborLabor in Nonlabor 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008Steam 2,811,563 2,337,359 2,613,339 1,570,818 615,520 365,621 129,675 Nuclear 18,667,938 12,551,396 13,029,550 15,979,961 16,749,136 11,363,869 2,670,252 Hydro 2,480,025 2,809,026 2,743,051 3,995,875 2,911,521 3,878,287 3,060,275 Other 49,908 68,504 80,879 212,181 4,670,198 362,972 5,487,873 Transmission 17,662,406 18,615,635 16,038,295 21,388,834 24,817,655 27,082,625 10,746,223 Distribution 35,566,576 41,900,521 36,273,271 46,918,562 47,538,954 54,792,893 13,873,557 Customer Accounts 18,914,380 19,276,884 21,197,361 18,267,425 18,515,236 15,097,871 4,679,298 CS&I 2,385,307 3,235,011 2,894,470 5,503,057 4,826,268 6,729,512 2,752,422 20
21 Then identify FERC Non-labor:
Dkt. No. ER09-1534-001 Exhibit SCE-49 Page 98 of 113
FERC Nonlabor 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008Steam 34,631,520 31,923,360 34,497,523 32,307,849 24,163,701 31,239,724 50,374,656Nuclear 132,220,354 119,131,832 163,254,437 98,963,910 169,278,876 144,320,043 181,563,572Hydro 18,018,077 17,037,923 19,129,858 17,844,989 20,861,428 23,442,470 17,049,316Other 20,329,287 13,695,827 13,971,255 13,119,368 11,864,547 8,659,799 15,957,662Transmission 95,290,054 106,469,596 191,357,994 280,577,363 253,327,019 175,880,391 231,308,992Distribution 164,356,476 177,521,560 300,986,490 215,202,740 246,507,859 247,021,750 163,719,036Customer Accounts 96,138,354 129,578,937 102,497,218 90,755,050 87,928,812 98,059,369 100,192,662CS&I 95,296,550 149,108,865 169,333,629 265,134,743 280,687,582 415,574,952 458,970,792 1
2
3
4
Next, divide Indirect Labor in non-labor by FERC Non-labor to
determine the ratio of indirect labor embedded within non-labor and calculate
the average by function:
Ratio of Indirect Labor Embedded within FERC Non-labor2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 Average
Steam 8.12% 7.32% 7.58% 4.86% 2.55% 1.17% 0.26% 4.55%Nuclear 14.12% 10.54% 7.98% 16.15% 9.89% 7.87% 1.47% 9.72%Hydro 13.76% 16.49% 14.34% 22.39% 13.96% 16.54% 17.95% 16.49%Other 0.25% 0.50% 0.58% 1.62% 39.36% 4.19% 34.39% 11.56%Transmission 18.54% 17.48% 8.38% 7.62% 9.80% 15.40% 4.65% 11.70%Distribution 21.64% 23.60% 12.05% 21.80% 19.28% 22.18% 8.47% 18.43%Customer Accounts 19.67% 14.88% 20.68% 20.13% 21.06% 15.40% 4.67% 16.64%CS&I 2.50% 2.17% 1.71% 2.08% 1.72% 1.62% 0.60% 1.77% 5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Q. Why do you calculate this ratio, and what is it used for?
A. As I explain below, the ratio is used to calculate the escalation rates for non-
labor expense. I will explain how it used mathematically, and provide an
example.
Q. Is this ratio calculated based on the prior year’s data?
A. No. We calculate this ratio based on the average of several years’ data; here,
2002 to 2008.
Dkt. No. ER09-1534-001 Exhibit SCE-49 Page 99 of 113
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
Q. Can you please address why SCE used a multi-year average of indirect
labor in non-labor to calculate escalation rates?
A. Yes. As noted by Mr. Deters in Exhibit S-1, page 16, line 21, “these
percentages have widely varied from year to year.” In SCE’s response to
FERC STAFF-SCE-L001 Q 17, the data indicate that the amount of indirect
labor in non-labor can vary, up or down, from year to year. Exhibit SCE-50,
pp. 12-17. When faced with a data set that varies up and down from year to
year it is both reasonable and appropriate to use an historical average to
estimate future values, if those historical averages are appropriate for use in
estimating those future values.
Q. Can you address how SCE uses this indirect labor in non-labor rates?
A. Yes. SCE uses the ratio of indirect labor embedded within non-labor to weight
the labor portion of FERC non-labor escalation calculation.
Q. Can you summarize the escalation process and identify how the ratio of
indirect labor embedded within non-labor is used?
A. Yes. In order to accurately calculate escalation rates, you must first identify
the source of your costs that are being escalated. In the case of FERC Non-
labor, you have a non-labor component and an (indirect) labor component.
The next step is to identify and calculate escalation rates. The non-labor
escalation rates are forecast by IHS Global Insight, by functional category
(steam, hydro, transmission, etc.). The labor escalation rates are calculated
Dkt. No. ER09-1534-001 Exhibit SCE-49 Page 100 of 113
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
using a weighted average of known contractual obligations and IHS Global
Insight forecast labor rates, by functional category (steam, hydro, transmission,
etc.).
The ratio of indirect labor embedded within non-labor (or “indirect
labor ratio”) is used to weight the indirect labor embedded within non-labor.
The ratios and escalation rates are calculated by function. Using this ratio for
weighting labor and non-labor, the non-labor escalation rate can be
mathematically represented as:
Non-labor Escalation rate = (Non-labor Escalation rate) * (1-Indirect Labor in Non-labor
Ratio) + (Labor Escalation rate) * (Indirect Labor in Non-labor Ratio)
Q. What do you mean by the non-labor escalation rate and labor escalation
rate?
A. I am referring to the labor and non-labor escalation rates as described in the
prior answer, for a particular function (e.g., transmission).
Q. Can you provide an example of these calculations?
A. Yes. Assume that the non-labor escalation rate for transmission is 2%, and that
the labor escalation rate for transmission is more than double that, or 5%. Note
that if do not make the adjustment that we are about to perform, the non-labor
escalation rate would remain at 2%, and would not reflect the fact that some of
the costs being escalated using the non-labor escalation rate are labor costs,
and rising at an annual rate of 5%. If we do not reflect these higher labor
escalation rates in the non-labor escalation rate, we will underestimate the
Dkt. No. ER09-1534-001 Exhibit SCE-49 Page 101 of 113
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
amount of escalation in non-labor expense.
Continuing with the example, assume that the indirect labor ratio is as
calculated in the above example (.33). Under these assumptions, the non-labor
escalation rate would be equal to (2% * .67) + (5% * .33). Solving this
equation yields a non-labor escalation rate of 3%.
Q. Why is the non-labor escalation rate now higher than the 2% rate you
began with?
A. Because the non-labor escalation rate is now the weighted average of the non-
labor and labor components. It is the same mathematics as are involved in
calculating a weighted cost of capital. The non-labor escalation rate must
reflect the fact that one third of the transmission non-labor expense is actually
labor costs (indirect labor), which are rising at a 5% annual rate rather than a
2% rate. A blended 3% rate captures this.
Q. Did SCE revise its 2008 FERC Form 1 to correct some errors in January
of 2010?
A. Yes.
Q. Does your analysis contained in this rebuttal testimony reflect these
changes?
A. Yes, my indirect labor analysis above reflects the revised 2008 FERC Form 1
data.
Dkt. No. ER09-1534-001 Exhibit SCE-49 Page 102 of 113
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
Function Original Revised DifferenceSteam Generation 4.55% 4.55% 0.000%Nuclear Generation 9.72% 9.72% 0.000%Hydro Generation 16.51% 16.49% -0.020%Other Generation 11.56% 11.56% 0.000%Transmission 11.73% 11.70% -0.035%Distribution 18.38% 18.43% 0.049%Customer Accounts 16.64% 16.64% 0.000%CS&I 1.77% 1.77% 0.000%
2008 FERC Form 1 Revision SummaryIndirect Labor in Nonlabor Rate Comparison
Q. Did the 2008 FERC Form 1 revision change the indirect labor in non-
labor ratios provided by Ms. Schiminske in the response to FERC Staff
settlement data request, question 59?
A. Yes. In the response to this data request, Ms. Schiminske corrected some
errors in filed workpapers and Table 4 in her testimony. However, that
response did not reflect the revision to the FERC Form 1. FERC Form 1
revision caused a slight change in the labor in non-labor rates provided by Ms.
Schiminske in FERC Staff settlement data request, question 59, Exhibit SCE-
50, pp. 18-20. The analysis of the difference is provided here:
Q. Did the change in the indirect labor in non-labor rates affect non-labor
escalation?
A. No. The revision did not change the forecast non-labor escalation rates.
Q. How does the change to the 2010 Distribution non-labor escalation rate
impact your TRR?
A. According to the impact analysis performed by Mr. Allstun, it would reduce
the requested TRR by $12,000.
Dkt. No. ER09-1534-001 Exhibit SCE-49 Page 103 of 113
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
Q. Did you read Mr. Deters’ testimony provided in Exhibit S-1?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. What part of Mr. Deters’ testimony will you be addressing?
A. I will be addressing his testimony regarding Exhibit S-1, pages 15-17
regarding his testimony on “Non-labor Expense that is Actually Labor.”
Q. Do you agree with Mr. Deters’ recommendation in Exhibit S-1 Page 17,
line 14-16, “Given that SCE has not supported its calculation or use of
non-labor labor, the appropriate cost treatment is to remove the non-labor
labor from SCE’s labor ratio?”
A. No. In the above example, ignoring the adjustment that I have discussed
would result in a non-labor escalation rate of 2% rather than 3%. That would
escalate our non-labor costs (which include indirect labor) at the wrong rate.
To simply ignore the costs of indirect labor, which have been fully explained
and supported by our testimony and exhibits, would be irresponsible.
Otherwise, a misallocation will occur, and customers will be under-charged or
over-charged, neither of which is desirable.
Q. Did you read the testimony provided by Mr. David B. Cohen in Exhibit
ML-1?
A. Yes, I did.
Dkt. No. ER09-1534-001 Exhibit SCE-49 Page 104 of 113
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
Q. Regarding Mr. Cohen’s testimony in Exhibit ML-1 on page 49-50
regarding non-labor O&M expenses, do you agree with Mr. Cohen’s
testimony concerning SCE’s non-labor O&M expenses?
A. No, for same reasons as I discuss regarding Mr. Deters’ testimony.
Q. Do you agree with Mr. Cohen’s definition of non-labor expenses in Exhibit
ML-1 on page 49 lines 12-14?
A. No. I do not agree with his simple definition. Mr. Cohen defined non-labor
O&M expenses as “expenses that are not related to the wages SCE pays or to
its salary costs.” This is incorrect. As presented in Ms. Argandona’s
testimony, labor allocations or interdepartmental chargebacks of indirect labor
expenses represent are also part of non-labor costs. However, Mr. Cohen does
provide some good examples of O&M non-labor expenses, such as helicopter
expenses, the cost of insulator trucks and material costs. All of these non-labor
expenses have indirect labor expenses included within them, as Ms.
Argandona’s explains.
Q. Can you elaborate on how Mr. Cohen’s examples of non-labor expenses
include an indirect labor component?
A. As described in SCE accounting systems testimony by Ms. Argandona, many
non-labor activities do in fact contain portions of indirect labor. That is the
way SCE’s accounting system was designed. The helicopter and insulator
truck expenses that Mr. Cohen cites as a non-labor O&M expenses are good
Dkt. No. ER09-1534-001 Exhibit SCE-49 Page 105 of 113
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
examples. The maintenance charges for the helicopter and insulator truck
include the portion of labor attributable to maintaining the vehicles. In
addition, the costs of fleet management are examples of labor allocated to the
cost of these non-labor items. This practice is reasonable, supported, and
accepted by both Federal and State regulatory agencies. The wages and
salaries that SCE pays to the mechanic who maintains the helicopter are just as
much labor expenses as are the wages and salaries that SCE pays the pilot who
flies the helicopter. Both need to be taken into in calculating the escalation
ratios, as the above example shows. My calculations do that; Mr. Deters’, Mr.
Cohen’s, and Mr. Myers’ don’t.
Q. Does Mr. Cohen acknowledge that there are labor expenses booked to
non-labor O&M?
A. Yes. In Exhibit ML-1, on page 49, line 23 of his testimony he states “SCE
classifies certain labor costs as non-labor expenses.”
Q. How does Mr. Cohen propose to deal with these indirect labor expenses
booked to non-labor expenses?
A. Mr. Cohen simply wants to treat the indirect labor as a non-labor expense. In
other words, Mr. Cohen recommends escalating labor costs under the non-
labor escalation rate. Expressed differently, he would hold the non-labor
escalation rate at 2% in the above example, rather than setting it at 3%, which
is correct.
Dkt. No. ER09-1534-001 Exhibit SCE-49 Page 106 of 113
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
Q. Is Mr. Cohen’s suggested methodology, to escalate indirect labor costs
with a non-labor escalation rate, an accurate methodology to predict
future labor costs?
A. No. He is incorrectly suggesting calculating an escalation rate for labor based
upon a non-labor escalation rate. A more appropriate methodology would be
to escalate the non-labor costs using IHS Global Insight’s non-labor
projections and to escalate the labor costs using SCE’s proposed labor
escalation rates, which are the weighted average of SCE contractual
obligations and IHS Global Insights forecast of labor costs, and which more
accurately represent the future labor costs SCE will incur. That is what SCE
does.
Q. Do you agree with Mr. Cohen’s recommendation on page 52?
A. No. SCE does not agree with Mr. Cohen’s recommendation that we should
escalate our indirect labor costs with non-labor escalation rates.
Q. Did you read the testimony provided by Mr. Myers in Exhibit SC-4?
A. Yes, I did.
Dkt. No. ER09-1534-001 Exhibit SCE-49 Page 107 of 113
1
2
3
4
5
Q. Regarding Mr. Myers’ rebuttal testimony in Exhibit SC-4 on page 24,
lines 16-19, Mr. Myers claims “If Ms. Schiminske's argument that Labor
expense is mistakenly recorded in Non-labor Accounts in 2008 is valid,
then the sum of her FERC Labor and FERC Non-labor expenses in 2008
for each function should still equal and tie to the SCE 2008 FERC Form
1.” Do the costs reported in the unrevised 2008 FERC Form 1 (pages 322-
323) tie to the numbers provided within Ms. Schiminske’s response to
FERC Staff settlement data request, question 59?
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
A. Yes. Mr. Myers is correct in his thinking; however, Ms. Schiminske
discovered an error in her filed workpapers and testimony. She corrected this
error in response to a FERC Staff data request. Consequently, the unrevised
2008 FERC Form 1 data on page 322-323 and the FERC Labor and Non-labor
data in FERC Staff settlement data request, question 59 (Exhibit SCE-50, pp.
18-20) do in fact match.
Q. Are you saying that Mr. Myers used the wrong data in his comparison in
Exhibit SC-11, page 2?
A. Yes, if Mr. Myers had used the data provided in the response to FERC Staff
settlement data request question 59 (Exhibit SCE-50, pp. 18-20) and compared
it to the unrevised 2008 FERC Form 1 data, which Ms. Schiminske’s data
request response was based upon, he would find that they do match.
19
20
Dkt. No. ER09-1534-001 Exhibit SCE-49 Page 108 of 113
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
Q. Why did you use the “unrevised” 2008 FERC Form 1 for comparison?
A. The revised FERC Form 1 was issued after the completion of data request
FERC Staff settlement data request question 59. (Exhibit SCE-50, pp. 18-20.)
The unrevised 2008 FERC Form 1 was the basis for the calculation of data
request FERC Staff settlement data request, question 59.
Q. Can you prove that the 2008 unrevised FERC Form 1 and Ms.
Schiminske’s FERC Labor, Non-labor and total numbers from the
response to FERC Staff settlement data request, question 59, match?
A. Yes. I will provide Ms. Schiminske’s FERC Labor, Non-labor and total
numbers from FERC Staff settlement data request question 59 (Exhibit SCE-
50, pp. 18-20) highlight the exclusions for fuel, and replicate my calculations.
Next, I will add back in the exclusions to bring the number back up to the
FERC Form 1 data and demonstrate how Ms. Schiminske’s FERC Labor and
Non-labor data and the unrevised 2008 FERC Form 1 match. Next, I will pull
the totals directly from the 2008 unrevised FERC Form 1 and demonstrate how
they match.
I provide the analysis here:
Dkt. No. ER09-1534-001 Exhibit SCE-49 Page 109 of 113
From Indirect Labor in Nonlabor Calculation - Data Request set FERC STAFF-SCE-003
2008 2008 2008 2008Function Low High Acct. Exclude Amount Labor Nonlabor Total Total w/ ExclusionsSteam 500 514 501 96,040,624$ 3,630,869$ 50,374,771$ 54,005,640$ 150,046,264$ Nuclear 517 532 518 87,961,827$ 208,244,965$ 181,563,572$ 389,808,536$ 477,770,364$ Hydro 535 545 19,620,521$ 17,077,748$ 36,698,269$ 36,698,269$ Other 546 554 547 10,136,606$ 5,673,331$ 15,957,662$ 21,630,992$ 31,767,599$ Transmission 560 573 54,268,790$ 219,626,986$ 273,895,777$ 273,895,777$ Distribution 580 598 170,799,389$ 175,181,894$ 345,981,283$ 345,981,283$ Customer Accts. 901 905 107,200,921$ 100,192,662$ 207,393,584$ 207,393,584$ CS&I 907 910 72,097,386$ 458,970,792$ 531,068,178$ 531,068,178$ Total 2,054,621,317$ 2008 FERC FORM 1 (UNREVISED) 2008 UnrevisedPAGE 322-323 FERC FROM 1 FERC FORM 121 TOTAL Power Production Expenses-Steam Power (Entr Tot lines 13 & 20) 150,046,264$ 41 TOTAL Power Production Expenses-Nuc. Power (Entr tot lines 33 & 40) 477,770,364$ 59 TOTAL Power Production Expenses-Hydraulic Power (tot of lines 50 & 58) 36,698,269$ 74 TOTAL Power Production Expenses-Other Power (Enter Tot of 67 & 73) 31,767,599$ 112 TOTAL Transmission Expenses (Total of lines 99 and 111) 273,895,777$ 156 TOTAL Distribution Expenses (Total of lines 144 and 155) 345,981,286$ 164 TOTAL Customer Accounts Expenses (Total of lines 159 thru 163) 207,393,584$ 171 TOTAL Customer Service and Information Expenses (Total 167 thru 170) 531,068,178$ Total 2,054,621,321$
Ferc Accounts Non Labor Fuel Accts
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Q. Are you saying that the unrevised FERC Form 1 and the FERC data in
FERC Staff settlement data request, question 59 match?
A. Essentially. Due to rounding, Distribution differs by only $3 and the total by
only $4.
Q. So, in summary, what are the implications of your analysis above on Mr.
Myers’ statement in Exhibit SC-4 on page 24, lines 16-19, “If Ms.
Schiminske's argument that Labor expense is mistakenly recorded in Non-
labor Accounts in 2008 is valid, then the sum of her FERC Labor and
FERC Non-labor expenses in 2008 for each function should still equal and
tie to the SCE 2008 FERC Form 1.”?
Dkt. No. ER09-1534-001 Exhibit SCE-49 Page 110 of 113
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
A. I have shown that Ms. Schiminske’s corrected numbers do indeed match, and
therefore Mr. Myers cannot summarily dismiss SCE’s analysis on the grounds
that it is calculated inaccurately.
Q. Just to close the loop, above you provided testimony on the revised 2008
FERC Form 1 and calculate the impacts to the indirect labor in non-labor
ratios and non-labor escalation rates. Do the revised 2008 FERC Form 1
data match your new FERC labor and non-labor numbers used for
calculation of labor and non-labor escalation rates?
A. Yes, they match, without exception.
Q. Can you prove that your FERC numbers tie to the 2008 revised FERC
Form 1?
A. Yes. I will provide my FERC labor, non-labor and total numbers, highlight the
exclusions for fuel, and replicate my calculations. Next, I will add back in the
exclusions to bring the number back up to the FERC Form 1 data and
demonstrate how my FERC data and the 2008 revised FERC Form 1 match to
the dollar in every instance. Next I will pull the totals directly from the FERC
Form 1 and demonstrate how they match to the dollar.
I provide this analysis here:
Dkt. No. ER09-1534-001 Exhibit SCE-49 Page 111 of 113
From Indirect Labor in Nonlabor Calculation (revised 2008 FERC form 1)
2008 2008 2008 2008Function Low High Acct. Exclude Amount Labor Nonlabor Total Total w/ ExclusionsSteam 500 514 501 96,040,624$ 3,630,984$ 50,374,656$ 54,005,640$ 150,046,264$ Nuclear 517 532 518 87,961,827$ 208,244,965$ 181,563,572$ 389,808,536$ 477,770,364$ Hydro 535 545 19,648,952$ 17,049,316$ 36,698,269$ 36,698,269$ Other 546 554 547 10,136,606$ 5,673,331$ 15,957,662$ 21,630,992$ 31,767,599$ Transmission 560 573 54,268,508$ 231,308,992$ 285,577,500$ 285,577,500$ Distribution 580 598 171,164,970$ 163,719,036$ 334,884,006$ 334,884,006$ Customer Accts. 901 905 107,200,921$ 100,192,662$ 207,393,584$ 207,393,584$ CS&I 907 910 72,097,386$ 458,970,792$ 531,068,178$ 531,068,178$
2008 FERC FORM 1 (revised) 2008PAGE 322-323 FERC FROM 1 FERC FORM 121 TOTAL Power Production Expenses-Steam Power (Entr Tot lines 13 & 20) 150,046,264$ 41 TOTAL Power Production Expenses-Nuc. Power (Entr tot lines 33 & 40) 477,770,364$ 59 TOTAL Power Production Expenses-Hydraulic Power (tot of lines 50 & 58) 36,698,269$ 74 TOTAL Power Production Expenses-Other Power (Enter Tot of 67 & 73) 31,767,599$ 112 TOTAL Transmission Expenses (Total of lines 99 and 111) 285,577,500$ 156 TOTAL Distribution Expenses (Total of lines 144 and 155) 334,884,006$ 164 TOTAL Customer Accounts Expenses (Total of lines 159 thru 163) 207,393,584$ 171 TOTAL Customer Service and Information Expenses (Total 167 thru 170) 531,068,178$
Non Labor Fuel AcctsFerc Accounts
1
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Q. In Exhibit SC-4, does Mr. Myers compare the testimony O&M numbers 2
with the FERC Form 1 numbers?
A. Yes.
Q. What does Mr. Myers state about this comparison?
A. Mr. Myers states in Exhibit SC-4, page 24, lines 10-13 “The 2008 labor and
non-labor expenses supported by these three witnesses serve as the foundation
for the development of Period II O&M and A&G costs, and they all
substantially tie to the total costs (labor and non-labor) included in the 2008
SCE FERC Form 1.”
Dkt. No. ER09-1534-001 Exhibit SCE-49 Page 112 of 113
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
Q. Given your testimony above on the consistency of SCE’s calculations, is 1
there any basis for Mr. Myers’ statements that “These discrepancies in
labor costs among witnesses and with the Form 1 are unexplained and
render the adjustment proposed by Witness Schiminske unsupported and
unreliable”?
A. No. As stated above, Mr. Myers used the incorrect data in his analysis in
Exhibit SC-11, page 2 and, therefore, there is no basis for this statement or
conclusions. There are no discrepancies. All of Ms. Schiminske’s corrected
numbers match the 2008 unrevised FERC Form 1.
Q. In summary of your non-labor testimony, do you agree with witness
Myers’, Deters’, and Cohen’s conclusions that the labor in non-labor
adjustment is unsupported and should be removed from TRR?
A. No, I do not agree with removing indirect labor escalation. Now that we have
demonstrated that the indirect labor in non-labor is reasonable, supported,
calculated correctly, and matches FERC Form 1 data, SCE has proven the
validity and appropriateness of its indirect adjustment. In essence, the
witnesses recommend escalating indirect labor with a non-labor escalation rate.
It is essential that the utility’s labor expenses be correctly calculated,
otherwise, a misallocation will occur and ISO transmission customers will be
under-charged or over-charged, neither of which is desirable.
Dkt. No. ER09-1534-001 Exhibit SCE-49 Page 113 of 113
1
2
Q. Does this conclude your testimony?
A. Yes, it does.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA BEFORE THE
FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION
Southern California Edison Company
)))
Dkt. No.
ER09-1534-001
DATA REQUEST RESPONSES IN SOUTHERN
CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY’S TO5 PROCEEDING (ER09-1534-001) CITED IN
WITNESS DR. PAUL T. HUNT’S PREPARED REBUTTAL TESTIMONY
(EXHIBIT SCE-50)
OCTOBER 2010
Prepared by: Robert Keyton Date: 9/21/10 Rule 403(c) Statement: I hereby certify that the above response is true and accurate to the best of my knowledge, information and belief formed after reasonable inquiry.
SCE-FERC Staff-29: At pages 13 and 14 of Exhibit No. S-7, Mr. Keyton
provides a list of 11 screening criteria that he used in forming his proxy group.
Please explain how each of these screening criteria is consistent with Commission
precedent, including specific citations to Commission decisions that adopt such
criteria.
Response: Subject to Staff’s objections and related discovery conferences with
SCE, Staff provides the following response. Screening criteria 1 (in part), 2, 4, 7
(in part), 8, 10, and 11 are based on Southern California Edison Company, 131
FERC ¶ 61,020 (2010) at PP 52, 56 and 58. Screening criteria 3 and 5 are based
on Golden Spread Electric Cooperative, Inc., 123 FERC ¶ 61,047 at P 64. The
rest of the criteria 1 (in part), 6, 7 (in part), and 9 have not been explicitly adopted
by the Commission but Staff believes that these criteria still closely follow the
Commission’s guidelines.
Dkt. No. ER09-1534-001 Exhibit SCE-50 Page 1 of 19
Southern California Edison
2010 Transmission Rate Case ER09-1534-000
DATA REQUEST SET SCE-CPUC-L002
To: SCE Prepared by: R. Mihai Cosman
Title: Senior Public Utilities Regulatory Analyst Dated: 10/08/2010
Question 001
Regarding the seven proxy group selection criteria listed on page 56 of Mr. Cosman's Exhibit
PUC-1, please provide the following information:
a. Please provide, in hardcopy and electronic form, all data used to apply the proxy
group screening criteria discussed at lines 2-12 of page 56 of Exhibit PUC-1.
b. If not included in the response to part a of this question, please provide the data
requested in part a for all Value Line Electric Utilities.
c. If not included in the responses to parts a and b of this question, please provide a copy
of all spreadsheets and computer models used to apply these screens, in printed and
electronic form. Please ensure that any computer spreadsheets provided preserve all
original data, with formulas available and cells unlocked. Please provide all computer
spreadsheets in Excel format.
Response to Question 001
a) All the data that Mr. Cosman used in his DCF calculation has already been provided
in Mr. Cosman’s testimony at CPUC Exhibit Nr. 2, Appendix C and in response to
SCE-CPUC-L001 Q1. The attached DCF spreadsheet in SCE-CPUC-L001 Q1 along
with Mr. Cosman’s previously submitted testimony contains all the data Mr. Cosman
used in his DCF calculation.
b) Please see response to part a.
c) Please see response to part a. No other spreadsheets or computer models were used.
Dkt. No. ER09-1534-001 Exhibit SCE-50 Page 2 of 19
2
Question 002
Regarding Mr. Cosman's testimony at Exhibit PUC-1, page 57, lines 4-21, please provide the
following information:
a. Zack's Investment Survey growth rates for Mr. Cosman's proxy group and all Value Line
Electric Utilities.
b. All Value Line Investment Survey data used to calculate the "sustainable growth term"
discussed at Exhibit PUC-1, page 57, lines 11-17.
c. If not included in the response to part b of this question, please provide the data requested
in part b for all Value Line Electric Utilities.
d. Please provide the precise mathematical formulae used to calculate the b, r, s, and v terms
discussed at Exhibit PUC-1, page 57, lines 11-17.
e. Also regarding the b, r, s, and v terms, please provide a copy of all spreadsheets and
computer models used to produce these calculations, in printed and electronic form.
Please ensure that any computer spreadsheets provided preserve all original data, with
formulas available and cells unlocked. Please provide all computer spreadsheets in Excel
format.
f. Regarding Mr. Cosman's Zack's Investment Survey growth rates, please provide all
details regarding how Mr. Cosman obtained these data, including information regarding
intermediate data source or sources, if any, subscriptions required, etc.
Response to Question 002
a) The information requested has already been provided. Please see Mr. Cosman’s
testimony at CPUC Exhibit Nr. 2, Appendix C. Additionally, the DCF attachment to
SCE-CPUC-L001 Q1 contains a spreadsheet that includes the larger unsorted sample
before all screening criteria was applied. This is the extent of all the data that Mr.
Cosman used in preparing his DCF calculation, and it contains the information requested.
b) Please see answer to part a.
c) Please see answer to part b.
d) Mr. Cosman did not calculate the b, r, s, and v terms.
e) Please see answer to part d.
Dkt. No. ER09-1534-001 Exhibit SCE-50 Page 3 of 19
3
f) The Energy Division of the California Public Utilities Commission does not have a
subscription to Zack’s Investment Survey, if one is available. The Zack’s growth rates
Mr. Cosman utilized in his DCF calculation are readily available on Zack’s website1
without a subscription. Mr. Cosman, on June 28, 2010, retrieved the growth rates for
each utility in the proxy group from Zack’s website.
1 www.zacks.com
Dkt. No. ER09-1534-001 Exhibit SCE-50 Page 4 of 19
Southern California Edison
2010 Transmission Rate Case ER09-1534-000
DATA REQUEST SET SCE-CPUC-L001
To: SCE
Dated: 09/03/2010
Question 001:
Please provide all workpapers Mr. Cosman used to develop his testimony and the responses to these data requests. Please provide these workpapers in hardcopy format and as working electronic files that can be manipulated (i.e., in Excel spreadsheet format), with all formulas in place, and indexed so that the reviewer can trace the calculation from the data inputs through to the final result.
Response to Question 001:
All workpapers used by Mr. Cosman are attached to his testimony already submitted. For a
hardcopy, please see Exhibit No. PUC-2 of Mr. Cosman’s testimony. Electronic files of the
workpapers Mr. Cosman used to develop his testimony are attached:
• CPUC Capital Additions Adjustment – Appendix A
• CPUC Operations and Maintenance Expense Adjustment – Appendix B
• CPUC DCF Analysis – Appendix C
• PG&E 2008 Annual Report – Appendix E
In the process of compiling the electronic versions of Mr. Cosman’s workpapers, an error
pertaining to Mr. Cosman’s analysis on SCE’s Blanket and Blanket Specific projects was
identified. Mr. Cosman deducted $14,922,660 pertaining to Blanket and Blanket Specific
projects when in fact the entire $23,680,000 should have been deducted. Mr. Cosman should
have made an additional adjustment of $8,757,340. The error occurred in Exhibit CPUC-1 page
13, line 13 – 20 and page 14, line 1 – 19. Additionally, the error occurred in Exhibit CPUC-2
Dkt. No. ER09-1534-001 Exhibit SCE-50 Page 5 of 19
page 2, Appendix A – Section 1.
The attached electronic CPUC Capital Additions Adjustment workpaper contains the corrected workpaper with the full adjustment that Mr. Cosman should have incorporated.
SCE-CPUC-L001 Q.001_A1_CPUC Capital Additions Worksheet_Appendix A.xls
SCE-CPUC-L001 Q.001_A2_CPUC O&M Adjustment_Attach B.xls
SCE-CPUC-L001 Q.001_A3_CPUC DCF_Appendix C.xls
SCE-CPUC-L001 Q.001_A4_PGE 2008 AnnualReport.pdf SCE-CPUC-L001 Q.001_A4_PGE 2008 AnnualReport.pdf
Dkt. No. ER09-1534-001 Exhibit SCE-50 Page 6 of 19
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 10 11 12 13
Avg High
Stk Price
Avg Low
Stk Price
Avg
Annual
Dividend
Low
Dividend
Yield
High
Dividend
Yield
Low
Expected
Dividend
Yield
High
Expected
Dividend
Yield
Zacks
Growth
Rates
Sustainable
Growth
Weighted
Avg
Growth
Rate
Low DCF
ROE
High DCF
ROE
Midpoint
DCF ROE
Alliant Energy BBB+ LNT 33.92 31.63 1.58 4.66% 5.00% 4.74% 5.12% 5.00% 3.60% 4.30% 8.34% 10.12% 9.23%
Amer. Elect. Power BBB AEP 34.83 32.85 1.64 4.71% 4.99% 4.79% 5.09% 4.00% 3.50% 3.75% 8.29% 9.09% 8.69%
Consolidated Edison A- ED 45.21 42.95 2.38 5.26% 5.54% 5.36% 5.65% 3.69% 3.85% 3.77% 9.05% 9.50% 9.27%
DTE Energy BBB DTE 46.59 43.70 2.12 4.55% 4.85% 4.65% 4.97% 5.00% 4.25% 4.63% 8.90% 9.97% 9.43%
Entergy Corp. BBB ETR 81.11 75.96 3.32 4.09% 4.37% 4.17% 4.54% 3.60% 7.75% 5.68% 7.77% 12.29% 10.03%
FirstEnergy Corp. BBB FE 40.91 37.82 2.2 5.38% 5.82% 5.47% 5.95% 3.50% 4.50% 4.00% 8.97% 10.45% 9.71%
Hawaiian Elec. BBB HE 22.66 20.83 1.24 5.47% 5.95% 5.53% 6.23% 9.33% 2.00% 5.67% 7.53% 15.56% 11.54%
Integrys Energy BBB+ TEG 47.25 43.67 2.72 5.76% 6.23% 5.87% 6.54% 10.03% 4.00% 7.02% 9.87% 16.57% 13.22%
Pepco Holdings BBB POM 16.90 16.04 1.06 6.27% 6.61% 6.32% 6.79% 5.33% 1.55% 3.44% 7.87% 12.12% 9.99%
PG&E BBB+ PCG 43.87 41.69 1.82 4.15% 4.37% 4.24% 4.52% 7.25% 4.50% 5.88% 8.74% 11.77% 10.26%
PPL Corp. BBB PPL 28.75 26.64 1.4 4.87% 5.26% 4.94% 5.33% 2.94% 3.00% 2.97% 7.88% 8.33% 8.11%
Progress Energy BBB+ PGN 40.23 38.17 2.48 6.16% 6.50% 6.27% 6.63% 4.00% 3.55% 3.78% 9.82% 10.63% 10.23%
SCANA Corp. BBB+ SCG 38.19 35.98 1.9 4.98% 5.28% 5.06% 5.39% 4.29% 3.50% 3.90% 8.56% 9.68% 9.12%
Sempra Energy BBB+ SRE 51.65 48.04 1.56 3.02% 3.25% 3.11% 3.36% 7.00% 5.75% 6.38% 8.86% 10.36% 9.61%
Vectren Corp. A- VVC 24.75 23.16 1.36 5.50% 5.87% 5.56% 6.02% 5.00% 2.25% 3.63% 7.81% 11.02% 9.41%
Wisconsin Energy BBB+ WEC 51.60 48.68 1.6 3.10% 3.29% 3.18% 3.44% 9.50% 5.00% 7.25% 8.18% 12.94% 10.56%
ZONE MAX 16.57%
ZONE MIN 7.53%
ZONE MEDIAN 9.66%
Dkt. No. ER09-1534-001 Exhibit SCE-50 Page 7 of 19
Southern California Edison Company, Docket No. ER09-1534 TO-5 Transmission Rate Case
Responses!of!the!M"S"R!Public!Power!Agency!and!!
the!Los!Angeles!Department!of!Water!and!Power!!
to!the!First!Set!of!SCE!Data!Requests!!
Prepared!by!Jonathan!Lesser,!PhD!
September!17,!2010!
SCE!M!S!R/LADWP!86:""Please!provide!all!workpapers!Dr.!Lesser!used!to!
develop!his!testimony.!!!Please!provide!these!workpapers!in!hardcopy!
format!and!as!working!electronic!files!that!can!be!manipulated!(i.e.,!in!
Excel!spreadsheet!format),!with!all!formulas!in!place,!and!indexed!so!that!
the!reviewer!can!trace!the!calculation!from!the!data!inputs!through!to!the!
final!result.!
"
"
SCE!M!S!R/LADWP!86"Response:"""
"
The!files!attached!to!this!response!include!all!of!the!workpapers!I!used!to!
develop!my!testimony.!!They!are!provided!in!Excel!spreadsheet!formula!with!all!
formulas!intact.!!I!understand!that!the!M"S"R!attorneys!are!sending!a!hard!copy!
to!you!by!mail.!!!
!
!
Dkt. No. ER09-1534-001 Exhibit SCE-50 Page 8 of 19
CALCULATION OF "BR+SV" EARNINGS GROWTH RATES
AND SUPPORTING DATA
Docket No. ER09-1534-000Exhibit MSR-5
Page 1 of 2
FERC COMPARABLE GROUP
Company SymbolEarnings Per
Share (EPS)
Dividend Per
Share (DPS)
Book Value
Per Share
(BV)
Internal
Growth (br)
Average
Market Price
Per Share
(MV)
MV/BV 2008 20112008-2011
Growth
External
Growth (sv)br+sv
[2] [3] [4] [6] [7] [8]
1 Alliant Energy LNT 2.41$ 1.52$ 26.11$ 3.27% 31.79$ 1.22 110.45 112.00 0.47% 0.10% 3.37%
2 Amer.Elec. Power AEP 3.02$ 1.65$ 28.04$ 4.91% 33.57$ 1.20 406.07 488.00 6.32% 1.24% 6.15%
3 Centerpoint Energy CNP 1.17$ 0.76$ 6.78$ 5.96% 13.89$ 2.05 346.09 400.00 4.94% 5.19% 11.15%
4 Consol. Edison ED 3.34$ 2.37$ 36.41$ 2.66% 43.49$ 1.19 273.70 281.00 0.88% 0.17% 2.83%
5 DPL Inc. DPL 2.23$ 1.17$ 9.17$ 11.43% 26.94$ 2.94 115.96 122.00 1.71% 3.31% 14.73%
6 DTE Energy DTE 3.22$ 2.16$ 38.75$ 2.66% 44.25$ 1.14 163.02 172.00 1.80% 0.26% 2.92%
7 Duke Energy DUK 1.16$ 0.92$ 16.87$ 1.42% 16.34$ 0.97 1272.00 1335.00 1.62% -0.05% 1.37%
8 Exelon Corp. EXC 4.13$ 2.08$ 19.55$ 10.64% 44.58$ 2.28 658.00 664.00 0.30% 0.39% 11.02%
9 Hawaiian Electric HE 1.23$ 1.24$ 15.84$ -0.64% 21.06$ 1.33 90.52 96.50 2.16% 0.71% 0.07%
10 IDACORP, Inc. IDA 2.57$ 1.20$ 29.69$ 4.55% 33.08$ 1.11 46.92 49.00 1.46% 0.17% 4.72%
11 Northeast Utilities NU 1.90$ 0.96$ 20.59$ 4.60% 25.97$ 1.26 155.83 176.00 4.14% 1.08% 5.68%
12 Pepco Holdings POM 1.43$ 1.08$ 19.48$ 1.30% 16.35$ 0.84 218.91 235.00 2.39% -0.38% 0.92%
13 PG&E Corp. PCG 3.30$ 1.73$ 28.58$ 5.49% 42.77$ 1.50 361.06 390.00 2.60% 1.29% 6.78%
14 Portland General POR 1.47$ 1.02$ 21.13$ 2.09% 19.40$ 0.92 62.58 90.00 12.88% -1.05% 1.03%
15 PPL Corp. PPL 2.51$ 1.47$ 15.32$ 4.89% 28.20$ 1.84 374.58 379.00 0.39% 0.33% 5.22%
16 Progress Energy PGN 3.05$ 2.49$ 34.28$ 1.63% 38.89$ 1.13 264.00 284.00 2.46% 0.33% 1.96%
17 PSEG PEG 3.09$ 1.33$ 17.84$ 9.97% 31.30$ 1.75 506.02 506.00 0.00% 0.00% 9.97%
18 SCANA Corp SCG 2.95$ 1.88$ 27.87$ 3.85% 36.42$ 1.31 118.00 138.00 5.36% 1.64% 5.49%
19 Sempra Energy SRE 4.54$ 1.54$ 37.31$ 8.13% 50.75$ 1.36 243.32 250.00 0.91% 0.33% 8.46%
20 TECO Energy TE 1.04$ 0.81$ 9.96$ 1.91% 15.66$ 1.57 212.90 216.00 0.48% 0.28% 2.19%
21 Vectren Corp. VVC 1.83$ 1.35$ 17.30$ 2.77% 23.65$ 1.37 81.03 82.00 0.40% 0.15% 2.92%
22 Wisconsin Energy WEC 3.41$ 1.41$ 31.17$ 6.44% 49.34$ 1.58 116.92 117.00 0.02% 0.01% 6.45%
23 Xcel Energy XEL 1.55$ 0.98$ 16.22$ 3.50% 20.98$ 1.29 453.79 484.00 2.17% 0.64% 4.13%
Notes:
[1] Source: Value Line Investment Survey (Arithmetic Average of 2008, 2009, and 2011 Forecast Values)
[2] Equals (EPS-DPS)/BV
[3] Equals arithmetic average of 6-month monthly high and low stock prices ending May 28, 2010.
[4] Equals MV/BV
[5] Source: Value Line Investment Survey (Common Shares Outstanding in Millions Adjusted for Split)
[6] Equals annual growth of common shares outstanding in [5]
[7] Equals ([4]-1)*[6]
[8] Equals [2]+[7]
Earnings Growth Rates (br+sv)
[1] [5]
Common Shares Outstanding (in millions)
Dkt. No. ER09-1534-001 Exhibit SCE-50 Page 9 of 19
CALCULATION OF "BR+SV" EARNINGS GROWTH RATES
AND SUPPORTING DATA
Docket No. ER09-1534-000Exhibit MSR-5
Page 2 of 2
FERC Comparables Group Note: Declared dividends per share, per VL 2008 2009 2011 2008 2009 2011 Average Average
EPS 08 EPS 09 EPS 11 DPS 08 DPS 09 DPS 11 BVS 08 BVS 09 BVS 11 b b b r r r b r br
1 Alliant Energy $2.54 $1.89 $2.80 $1.40 $1.50 $1.65 $25.56 $25.07 $27.70 44.9% 20.6% 41.1% 10% 7.5% 10.1% 35.5% 9.2% 3.27%
2 Amer.Elec. Power $2.99 $2.97 $3.10 $1.64 $1.64 $1.66 $26.33 $27.49 $30.30 45.2% 44.8% 46.5% 11% 10.8% 10.2% 45.5% 10.8% 4.91%
3 Centerpoint Energy $1.30 $1.01 $1.20 $0.73 $0.76 $0.80 $5.89 $6.74 $7.70 43.8% 24.8% 33.3% 22% 15.0% 15.6% 34.0% 17.5% 5.96%
4 Consol. Edison $3.36 $3.16 $3.50 $2.34 $2.36 $2.40 $35.43 $36.10 $37.70 30.4% 25.3% 31.4% 9% 8.8% 9.3% 29.0% 9.2% 2.66%
5 DPL Inc. $2.12 $2.01 $2.55 $1.10 $1.14 $1.28 $8.41 $9.25 $9.85 48.1% 43.3% 49.8% 25% 21.7% 25.9% 47.1% 24.3% 11.43%
6 DTE Energy $2.73 $3.24 $3.70 $2.12 $2.12 $2.24 $36.77 $38.19 $41.30 22.3% 34.6% 39.5% 7% 8.5% 9.0% 32.1% 8.3% 2.66%
7 Duke Energy $1.01 $1.13 $1.35 $0.86 $0.90 $0.99 $16.50 $16.70 $17.40 14.9% 20.4% 26.7% 6% 6.8% 7.8% 20.6% 6.9% 1.42%
8 Exelon Corp. $4.10 $4.29 $4.00 $2.05 $2.10 $2.10 $16.79 $19.15 $22.70 50.0% 51.0% 47.5% 24% 22.4% 17.6% 49.5% 21.5% 10.64%
9 Hawaiian Electric $1.07 $0.91 $1.70 $1.24 $1.24 $1.24 $15.35 $15.58 $16.60 -15.9% -36.3% 27.1% 7% 5.8% 10.2% -8.4% 7.7% -0.64%
10 IDACORP, Inc. $2.18 $2.64 $2.90 $1.20 $1.20 $1.20 $27.76 $29.17 $32.15 45.0% 54.5% 58.6% 8% 9.1% 9.0% 52.7% 8.6% 4.55%
11 Northeast Utilities $1.86 $1.85 $2.00 $0.83 $0.95 $1.10 $19.38 $20.30 $22.10 55.4% 48.6% 45.0% 10% 9.1% 9.0% 49.7% 9.3% 4.60%
12 Pepco Holdings $1.93 $0.95 $1.40 $1.08 $1.08 $1.08 $19.14 $19.50 $19.80 44.0% -13.7% 22.9% 10% 4.9% 7.1% 17.7% 7.3% 1.30%
13 PG&E Corp. $3.22 $3.03 $3.65 $1.56 $1.68 $1.96 $25.97 $27.88 $31.90 51.6% 44.6% 46.3% 12% 10.9% 11.4% 47.5% 11.6% 5.49%
14 Portland General $1.39 $1.31 $1.70 $0.97 $1.01 $1.07 $21.64 $20.50 $21.25 30.2% 22.9% 37.1% 6% 6.4% 8.0% 30.1% 6.9% 2.09%
15 PPL Corp. $1.19 $3.25 $3.10 $1.34 $1.38 $1.68 $13.55 $14.60 $17.80 -12.6% 57.5% 45.8% 9% 22.3% 17.4% 30.2% 16.2% 4.89%
16 Progress Energy $2.96 $3.03 $3.15 $2.46 $2.48 $2.52 $32.55 $34.30 $36.00 16.9% 18.2% 20.0% 9% 8.8% 8.8% 18.3% 8.9% 1.63%
17 PSEG $2.90 $3.08 $3.30 $1.29 $1.33 $1.37 $15.36 $17.15 $21.00 55.5% 56.8% 58.5% 19% 18.0% 15.7% 56.9% 17.5% 9.97%
18 SCANA Corp $2.95 $2.85 $3.05 $1.84 $1.88 $1.92 $25.81 $27.50 $30.30 37.6% 34.0% 37.0% 11% 10.4% 10.1% 36.2% 10.6% 3.85%
19 Sempra Energy $4.43 $4.78 $4.40 $1.37 $1.56 $1.68 $32.75 $36.54 $42.65 69.1% 67.4% 61.8% 14% 13.1% 10.3% 66.1% 12.3% 8.13%
20 TECO Energy $0.77 $1.00 $1.35 $0.80 $0.80 $0.82 $9.43 $9.75 $10.70 -3.9% 20.0% 39.3% 8% 10.3% 12.6% 18.5% 10.3% 1.91%
21 Vectren Corp. $1.79 $1.80 $1.90 $1.31 $1.35 $1.39 $16.68 $17.23 $18.00 26.8% 25.0% 26.8% 11% 10.4% 10.6% 26.2% 10.6% 2.77%
22 Wisconsin Energy $3.03 $3.20 $4.00 $1.08 $1.35 $1.80 $28.54 $30.51 $34.45 64.4% 57.8% 55.0% 11% 10.5% 11.6% 59.1% 10.9% 6.44%
23 Xcel Energy $1.46 $1.49 $1.70 $0.94 $0.97 $1.03 $15.35 $15.92 $17.40 35.6% 34.9% 39.4% 10% 9.4% 9.8% 36.6% 9.5% 3.50%
Dkt. No. ER09-1534-001 Exhibit SCE-50 Page 10 of 19
Southern California Edison
2010 Transmission Rate Case ER09-1534-000
DATA REQUEST SET FERC STAFF-SCE-L001
To: FERC STAFF
Prepared by: Paul T. Hunt
Title: Manager of Regulatory Finance and Economics
Dated: 06/14/2010
Received Date: 06/14/2010
Question 017:
With respect to the Direct Testimony of Yelena Schiminske, Exhibit SCE-16, page 7, line 8, through page 8, line 4:
a) Please explain, in detail, why SCE’s accounting system books certain labor costs in non-labor expense.
b) Please list and describe each criterion used to determine which labor costs and amounts are booked as non-labor expense?
c) Please provide and explain the derivation of the percentages of non-labor expense that is actually labor expense presented in Table 4. Include all supporting workpapers with your response.
d) Please list and describe what specific labor is represented by these percentages.
e) Please explain, in detail, why the wages and salaries identified by FERC account in Statement AI do not reflect these “non-labor” labor amounts.
Response to Question 017:
a) SCE’s accounting systems were designed for the dual purposes of accurate financial/regulatory reporting and useful management reporting. When planning for the situation of costs incurred in one area or activity and transferred, charged back or allocated to another area, SCE was faced with a choice as to how to characterize these charges. One option would be to retain the original designations of Labor, Materials, etc. The negative to this option is that managers responsible for budgeting and managing costs would not be able to distinguish charges that they incur directly from charges transferred to them. As such, for example, managers trying to monitor their labor budget would see charges for employees other than their own. The alternative to this is to recast the transferred charge with a
Dkt. No. ER09-1534-001 Exhibit SCE-50 Page 11 of 19
designation describing the nature of the transfer, i.e., Automotive, Supply Expense, Division Overhead, etc.
SCE’s accounting system does re-cast certain costs using the nature of the transfer, but the internal record is marked with the labor component. This is what allows Edison to make adjustments to account for the labor that gets booked and reported as Non-Labor.
As an example, Tool Expense includes the purchase costs of tools as well as the labor for the staff of the tool rooms in each service center. Tool Expense is accumulated in a clearing account as Labor, Materials, etc. It is then allocated to the cost objects consuming the tools with the designation “Tool Expense” which is defined as Non-Labor. This allows managers to monitor their tool expense as an activity. The company can still do studies using the internal record to determine the labor component of these transferred or allocated charges.
SCE is providing two examples, one example shows how division overhead (including the applicable labor expenses) is allocated. This example uses SCE's retired accounting system "CARS". The second example shows how tool expense (including the labor expenses) is allocated. This example is based on SCE's new SAP accounting system. These examples are contained in the spreadsheets that are attached to this response.
b) During January-June 2008, SCE’s system of record was “CARS” and during July-December 2008, SCE’s system of records was SAP. The answer to this question will be split according to the two systems.
Under CARS, all labor charged directly to a business unit function maintains its classification as labor. All labor charged to an activity that is either transferred or allocated to a business unit function is summarized with the non-labor component and recorded as non-labor. This would include Divisional Overheads, Automotive, Internal Chargebacks (IMM), Job Orders, Supply Expense and Tool Expense. In the case of capitalized A&G, the credit to O&M is all recorded as non-labor.
Within SAP, the instances of labor being booked as non-labor are affected by the structure of the software cost flow processing. SAP utilizes a special module for reporting costs for regulatory reporting, known as the FERC module. Within the initial processing of charges within SAP used for management reporting, a similar concept to CARS reporting is employed where most transferred labor is designated as non-labor. This is done for the reasons outlined in part a) above. However, for regulatory reporting, in most cases, the FERC module unwinds the transfer designation and re-instates the classification of labor. The situation where labor is still reported as non-labor relates to certain instances of Divisional Overheads and other allocations for TDBU. The reason they are not recorded as non-labor is not due to application of criterion, but rather because of the FERC module treatment of TDBU’s cost flows.
c) As explained in the response to part a) above, in the recorded data there is a portion of labor that is recorded as non-labor. In order to account for this in the escalation rate calculations,
Dkt. No. ER09-1534-001 Exhibit SCE-50 Page 12 of 19
we develop “weights” that represent the portion of labor numbers within non-labor data.
Each year, SCE calculates true labor cost data by reallocating these labor costs to the appropriate accounts. These true labor cost data are aggregated by three-digit FERC accounts. We subtract FERC account labor data from the true labor data in order to get the labor component that is booked in non-labor expense. Finally, we divide this labor- in-non-labor component by total FERC non-labor amount. These percentages represent the portion of labor expense within non-labor expense. We use these as weights to adjust Global Insight non-labor escalation rates to be consistent with how labor costs are recorded in our FERC expense data.
A copy of Period II Statement AH/AI workpapers, Volume 9, Schiminske, WP-AH/AI-8 thru 10 of 10 is attached.
d) See the response to part b) above.
e) As stated in part a) above, these “non-labor” labor amounts are not booked to labor accounts, thus they would not be reflected in the Statement AI wage and salary amounts.
Dkt. No. ER09-1534-001 Exhibit SCE-50 Page 13 of 19
EST
IMA
TIO
N O
F PE
RC
EN
TA
GE
OF
NO
N-L
AB
OR
EX
PEN
SE T
HA
T IS
AC
TU
AL
LY
LA
BO
R E
XPE
NSE
Low
Hig
hFE
RC
FER
C L
abor
Acc
ount
Acc
ount
Row
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
Col
umn=
>2
46
810
1214
Stea
m50
051
413
27,1
83,9
5828
,573
,164
27,0
60,0
9926
,399
,103
17,3
26,3
606,
294,
387
3,47
4,83
3N
ucle
ar51
753
225
135,
520,
447
138,
573,
755
168,
579,
324
156,
250,
092
185,
189,
798
187,
133,
147
194,
957,
753
Hyd
ro53
554
536
11,3
45,2
6312
,394
,274
13,0
53,1
7213
,487
,843
15,5
16,6
3216
,696
,414
18,1
49,1
93O
ther
546
554
4589
8,32
899
9,75
71,
182,
834
1,44
9,89
41,
919,
315
8,02
0,55
79,
798,
705
Tran
smis
sion
560
573
6231
,936
,912
34,2
75,2
9237
,623
,031
39,7
73,0
2545
,706
,098
52,4
39,6
2854
,054
,893
Dis
tribu
tion
580
598
8186
,851
,775
95,2
40,2
1311
2,77
3,52
511
3,26
7,30
112
3,82
0,18
013
3,07
0,71
914
3,03
5,91
7C
usto
mer
Acc
ount
s90
190
586
90,2
24,2
9592
,929
,184
95,1
14,0
5997
,195
,495
98,5
66,1
4110
2,62
6,21
310
8,41
9,59
7C
S&I
907
910
9028
,792
,534
32,3
37,3
9336
,009
,165
38,6
07,0
4443
,768
,160
53,3
46,6
3565
,438
,939
A&
G92
093
510
622
6,90
8,34
023
1,92
4,32
230
1,56
6,32
433
1,46
0,48
035
2,40
6,07
623
3,15
5,67
525
6,49
0,02
7
Low
Hig
hFE
RC
True
Lab
orA
ccou
ntA
ccou
ntR
ow20
0220
0320
0420
0520
0620
0720
083
57
911
1315
Stea
m50
051
413
29,9
95,5
2030
,910
,523
29,6
73,4
3827
,969
,921
17,9
41,8
806,
660,
008
3,76
0,65
9N
ucle
ar51
753
225
154,
188,
385
151,
125,
151
181,
608,
874
172,
230,
054
201,
938,
933
198,
497,
015
210,
915,
217
Hyd
ro53
554
536
13,8
25,2
8815
,203
,301
15,7
96,2
2317
,483
,717
18,4
28,1
5320
,574
,701
22,7
09,2
28O
ther
546
554
4594
8,23
61,
068,
260
1,26
3,71
31,
662,
075
6,58
9,51
38,
383,
528
11,1
61,2
04Tr
ansm
issi
on56
057
362
49,5
99,3
1852
,890
,926
53,6
61,3
2761
,161
,859
70,5
23,7
5379
,522
,253
65,0
14,7
31D
istri
butio
n58
059
881
122,
418,
351
137,
140,
734
149,
046,
796
160,
185,
863
171,
359,
133
187,
863,
612
185,
038,
528
Cus
tom
er A
ccou
nts
901
905
8610
9,13
8,67
411
2,20
6,06
811
6,31
1,42
011
5,46
2,92
011
7,08
1,37
711
7,72
4,08
411
1,88
0,21
9C
S&I
907
910
9031
,177
,841
35,5
72,4
0338
,903
,635
44,1
10,1
0248
,594
,427
60,0
76,1
4774
,849
,808
A&
G92
093
510
617
8,32
9,59
914
1,11
0,80
415
7,27
8,03
917
4,03
0,55
418
7,33
2,85
119
4,48
2,07
524
2,91
6,05
3
WP-AH/AI- 8 of 10 SCHIMINSKE
Dkt. No. ER09-1534-001 Exhibit SCE-50 Page 14 of 19
EST
IMA
TIO
N O
F PE
RC
EN
TA
GE
OF
NO
N-L
AB
OR
EX
PEN
SE T
HA
T IS
AC
TU
AL
LY
LA
BO
R E
XPE
NSE
Stea
mN
ucle
arH
ydro
Oth
erTr
ansm
issi
onD
istri
butio
nC
usto
mer
Acc
ount
sC
S&I
A&
G
Stea
mN
ucle
arH
ydro
Oth
erTr
ansm
issi
onD
istri
butio
nC
usto
mer
Acc
ount
sC
S&I
A&
G
FER
C N
onla
bor 20
0220
0320
0420
0520
0620
0720
083
57
911
1315
34,6
31,5
2031
,923
,360
34,4
97,5
2332
,307
,849
24,1
63,7
0131
,239
,724
52,2
73,2
6413
2,22
0,35
411
9,13
1,83
216
3,25
4,43
798
,963
,910
169,
278,
876
144,
320,
043
292,
329,
613
18,0
18,0
7717
,037
,923
19,1
29,8
5817
,844
,989
20,8
61,4
2823
,442
,470
27,6
23,6
7320
,329
,287
13,6
95,8
2713
,971
,255
13,1
19,3
6811
,864
,547
8,65
9,79
916
,731
,641
95,2
90,0
5410
6,46
9,59
619
1,35
7,99
428
0,57
7,36
325
3,32
7,01
917
5,88
0,39
119
1,84
6,77
416
4,35
6,47
617
7,52
1,56
030
0,98
6,49
021
5,20
2,74
024
6,50
7,85
924
7,02
1,75
027
4,46
3,32
896
,138
,354
129,
578,
937
102,
497,
218
90,7
55,0
5087
,928
,812
98,0
59,3
6915
3,18
3,78
595
,296
,550
149,
108,
865
169,
333,
629
265,
134,
743
280,
687,
582
415,
574,
952
498,
348,
708
421,
045,
274
490,
804,
063
448,
542,
861
488,
016,
375
504,
261,
671
703,
587,
873
874,
118,
673
True
Lab
or M
inus
FER
C L
abor
(So
in N
onla
bor)
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2,81
1,56
32,
337,
359
2,61
3,33
91,
570,
818
615,
520
365,
621
285,
826
18,6
67,9
3812
,551
,396
13,0
29,5
5015
,979
,961
16,7
49,1
3611
,363
,869
15,9
57,4
632,
480,
025
2,80
9,02
62,
743,
051
3,99
5,87
52,
911,
521
3,87
8,28
74,
560,
035
49,9
0868
,504
80,8
7921
2,18
14,
670,
198
362,
972
1,36
2,49
917
,662
,406
18,6
15,6
3516
,038
,295
21,3
88,8
3424
,817
,655
27,0
82,6
2510
,959
,839
35,5
66,5
7641
,900
,521
36,2
73,2
7146
,918
,562
47,5
38,9
5454
,792
,893
42,0
02,6
1118
,914
,380
19,2
76,8
8421
,197
,361
18,2
67,4
2518
,515
,236
15,0
97,8
713,
460,
622
2,38
5,30
73,
235,
011
2,89
4,47
05,
503,
057
4,82
6,26
86,
729,
512
9,41
0,86
9-4
8,57
8,74
1-9
0,81
3,51
8-1
44,2
88,2
85-1
57,4
29,9
25-1
65,0
73,2
25-3
8,67
3,60
1-1
3,57
3,97
5
WP-AH/AI- 9 of 10 SCHIMINSKE
Dkt. No. ER09-1534-001 Exhibit SCE-50 Page 15 of 19
EST
IMA
TIO
N O
F PE
RC
EN
TA
GE
OF
NO
N-L
AB
OR
EX
PEN
SE T
HA
T IS
AC
TU
AL
LY
LA
BO
R E
XPE
NSE
Stea
mN
ucle
arH
ydro
Oth
erTr
ansm
issi
onD
istri
butio
nC
usto
mer
Acc
ount
sC
S&I
A&
G
Stea
mN
ucle
arH
ydro
Oth
erTr
ansm
issi
onD
istri
butio
nC
usto
mer
Acc
ount
sC
S&I
A&
G
Labo
r Per
cent
age
of N
onla
bor
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
Ave
rage
Com
men
t
8.12
%7.
32%
7.58
%4.
86%
2.55
%1.
17%
0.55
%4.
59%
14.1
2%10
.54%
7.98
%16
.15%
9.89
%7.
87%
5.46
%10
.29%
13.7
6%16
.49%
14.3
4%22
.39%
13.9
6%16
.54%
16.5
1%16
.28%
0.25
%0.
50%
0.58
%1.
62%
39.3
6%4.
19%
8.14
%7.
81%
18.5
4%17
.48%
8.38
%7.
62%
9.80
%15
.40%
5.71
%11
.85%
21.6
4%23
.60%
12.0
5%21
.80%
19.2
8%22
.18%
15.3
0%19
.41%
19.6
7%14
.88%
20.6
8%20
.13%
21.0
6%15
.40%
2.26
%16
.30%
2.50
%2.
17%
1.71
%2.
08%
1.72
%1.
62%
1.89
%1.
95%
#N/A
#N/A
#N/A
#N/A
#N/A
#N/A
#N/A
#N/A
Set t
o ze
ro; n
o no
n-ne
gativ
e va
lues
WP-AH/AI- 10 of 10 SCHIMINSKE
Dkt. No. ER09-1534-001 Exhibit SCE-50 Page 16 of 19
Dkt. No. ER09-1534-001 Exhibit SCE-50 Page 17 of 19
Dkt. No. ER09-1534-001 Exhibit SCE-50 Page 18 of 19
Dkt. No. ER09-1534-001 Exhibit SCE-50 Page 19 of 19
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
BEFORE THE
FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION
Southern California Edison Company
)
)
)
Dkt. No.
ER09-1534-001
SKEWNESS OF DCF ESTIMATES
(EXHIBIT SCE-51)
OCTOBER 2010
Avg Low High Avg
American Electric Power AEP 9.27% Alliant Energy LNT 8.00% 15.10% 11.55%
Amer.Elec. Power AEP 8.85% 11.34% 10.09%
CenterPoint Energy CNP 12.99% Centerpoint Energy CNP 10.67% 17.15% 13.91%
Consol. Edison ED 8.22% 10.80% 9.51%
DTE Energy Company DTE 9.27% DPL Inc. DPL
DTE Energy DTE 7.63% 9.99% 8.81%
IDACORP, Inc. IDA 8.58% Duke Energy DUK 6.81% 10.18% 8.49%
Exelon Corp. EXC
Northeast Utilities NU 9.99% Hawaiian Electric HE
IDACORP, Inc. IDA 8.07% 8.61% 8.34%
Portland General Electric Co. POR 8.78% Northeast Utilities NU 9.33% 11.45% 10.39%
Pepco Holdings POM 7.33% 14.60% 10.97%
TECO Energy, Inc. TE 11.74% PG&E Corp. PCG 10.74% 11.08% 10.91%
Portland General POR
Skewness 1.14 PPL Corp. PPL 7.75% 10.47% 9.11%
Progress Energy PGN 8.25% 10.56% 9.41%
PSEG PEG
SCANA Corp SCG 9.25% 10.98% 10.11%
Sempra Energy SRE
TECO Energy TE
Vectren Corp. VVC 8.53% 10.91% 9.72%
Wisconsin Energy WEC 9.20% 12.48% 10.84%
Xcel Energy XEL 8.74% 11.25% 9.99%
Skewness 1.24 1.31
Keyton Lesser
Dkt. No. ER09-1534-001 Exhibit SCE-51 Page 1 of 3
Low High Avg Low High Avg
Alliant Energy 9.19% 13.80% 11.49% Alliant Energy 8.34% 10.12% 9.23%
Amer. Elec. Power 8.73% 10.21% 9.47% Amer. Elect. Power 8.29% 9.09% 8.69%
CenterPoint Energy 10.64% 13.77% 12.21% Consolidated Edison 9.05% 9.50% 9.27%
Consol. Edison 8.38% 10.79% 9.59% DTE Energy 8.90% 9.97% 9.43%
Dominion Resources 9.19% 10.16% 9.68% Entergy Corp. 7.77% 12.29% 10.03%
DPL Inc. FirstEnergy Corp. 8.97% 10.45% 9.71%
DTE Energy 8.43% 10.02% 9.22% Hawaiian Elec. 7.53% 15.56% 11.54%
Duke Energy 7.74% 10.51% 9.13% Integrys Energy 9.87% 16.57% 13.22%
G't Plains Energy Pepco Holdings 7.87% 12.12% 9.99%
Hawaiian Elec. 8.83% 13.99% 11.41% PG&E 8.74% 11.77% 10.26%
Integrys Energy 7.81% 16.12% 11.97% PPL Corp. 7.88% 8.33% 8.11%
Northeast Utilities 8.30% 11.58% 9.94% Progress Energy 9.82% 10.63% 10.23%
OGE Energy 7.74% 11.93% 9.84% SCANA Corp. 8.56% 9.68% 9.12%
Pepco Holdings Sempra Energy 8.86% 10.36% 9.61%
PG&E Corp. 10.34% 11.32% 10.83% Vectren Corp. 7.81% 11.02% 9.41%
Portland General 7.45% 10.60% 9.03% Wisconsin Energy 8.18% 12.94% 10.56%
Progress Energy 8.15% 10.54% 9.35%
Public Serv. Enterprise Skewness 1.61 1.49
SCANA Corp. 9.29% 10.60% 9.95%
Sempra Energy
TECO Energy 9.94% 11.76% 10.85%
Wisconsin Energy 9.58% 12.87% 11.23%
Xcel Energy Inc. 9.01% 11.31% 10.16%
Skewness 0.92 0.55
CosmanSolomon
Dkt. No. ER09-1534-001 Exhibit SCE-51 Page 2 of 3
Low High Avg
Alliant Energy 9.46% 15.06% 12.26%
Amer. Elec. Power 9.17% 9.76% 9.46%
CenterPoint Energy 11.10% 14.24% 12.67%
Consol. Edison 8.33% 10.02% 9.18%
Dominion Resources 7.79% 10.18% 8.99%
DPL Inc.
DTE Energy 8.67% 9.93% 9.30%
Duke Energy 7.85% 10.12% 8.99%
Exelon Corp.
G't Plains Energy
Hawaiian Elec. 8.14% 13.25% 10.70%
IDACORP, Inc. 7.35% 9.15% 8.25%
Integrys Energy 7.33% 15.67% 11.50%
NextEra Energy 10.67% 11.86% 11.27%
Northeast Utilities 8.74% 11.54% 10.14%
OGE Energy 8.64% 12.17% 10.40%
PG&E Corp. 10.37% 11.52% 10.95%
Portland General 7.49% 11.06% 9.27%
Progress Energy 8.36% 10.05% 9.20%
Public Serv. Enterprise
SCANA Corp. 9.79% 10.56% 10.18%
Sempra Energy
TECO Energy 9.88% 12.15% 11.02%
Westar Energy 8.12% 15.16% 11.64%
Wisconsin Energy 10.00% 12.85% 11.43%
Xcel Energy Inc. 9.01% 11.60% 10.30%
Skewness 0.83 0.20
Hunt (Updated September)
Dkt. No. ER09-1534-001 Exhibit SCE-51 Page 3 of 3
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
BEFORE THE
FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION
Southern California Edison Company
)
)
)
Dkt. No.
ER09-1534-001
LIST OF ELECTRIC UTILITIES FROM
STANDARD & POOR’S RATINGSDIRECT
(EXHIBIT SCE-52)
OCTOBER 2010
Ratings Summary: Electric
Last Updated: 20-Sep-2010 18:11:51 EST
Description Long-TermRating CreditWatch/Outlook MDS Score Date
AES Corp. (The)
Alabama Power Co.
Allegheny Energy Supply Co. LLC
American Electric Power Co. Inc.
Cinergy Corp.
Constellation Energy Group Inc.
DPL Inc.
Duke Energy Carolinas LLC
Dynegy Holdings Inc.
Edison Mission Energy
Energy Future Holdings Corp.
Entergy Corp.
Exelon Corp.
Exelon Generation Co. LLC
FirstEnergy Corp.
FPL Group Capital Inc.
KCP&L Greater Missouri Operations Co.
Mirant North America LLC
NextEra Energy Inc.
Northeast Utilities
NRG Energy Inc.
Pacific Gas & Electric Co.
PEPCO Holdings Inc.
PPL Energy Supply LLC
Progress Energy Inc.
PSEG Power LLC
RRI Energy Inc.
Southern California Edison Co.
Southern Co.
Texas Competitive Electric Holdings Co. LLC
AEP Resources Inc.
AEP Texas Central Co
AEP Texas North Co
Alabama Power Capital Trust I
Allegheny Energy Inc.
Allegheny Generating Co.
ALLETE Inc.
AmerenEnergy Generating Co.
American Transmission Co.
American Transmission Systems, Inc.
Appalachian Power Co.
Aquila Merchant Services Inc
Arizona Public Service Co.
Arnold Fuel Inc.
Atlantic City Electric Co.
Baltimore Gas & Electric Co.
Bangor Hydro-Electric Co.
Black Hills Power & Light Co.
Black Hills Power Inc.
California Indpt Sys Operator Corp
Calpine CCFC Holdings LLC
Calpine Construction Finance Co. L.P.
Calpine Corp.
Calpine Generating Co. LLC
Cambridge Electric Light Co.
Canal Electric Co.
Carolina Power & Light Co. d/b/a Progress Energy Carolinas Inc.
CenterPoint Energy Houston Electric LLC
Central and South West Corp.
Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corp.
Central Illinois Light Co.
Central Illinois Public Service Co.
Central Maine Power Co.
S&P Issuer Credit Ratings S&P Market Derived Signals**
Standard and Poor's | RatingsDirect on the Global Credit Portal
© Standard and Poor's. All rights reserved. See Terms of Use/Disclaimer on the last tab. 1 of 4
Dkt. No. ER09-1534-001 Exhibit SCE-52 Page 1 of 4
Central Vermont Public Service Corp.
CILCORP Inc.
CL&P Capital L.P.
Cleco Corp.
Cleco Power LLC
Cleveland Electric Illuminating Co.
Cobb Elec Membership Corp
Cogentrix Energy Inc.
Columbia Fuels Inc.
Columbus & Southern Ohio Electric Co.
Columbus Southern Power Co.
ComEd Financing I
Commonwealth Edison Co.
Connecticut Light & Power Co.
Connecticut Yankee Atomic Power Co.
Consumers Energy Co.
Coral Energy LLC
Covanta ARC LLC
Covanta Energy Corp.
CTC Mansfield Funding Corp.
Dayton Power & Light Co.
Dayton Ventures Inc.
Delmarva Power Financing I
Detroit Edison Co.
DQU II Funding Corp.
Duke Energy Corp.
Duke Energy Indiana Inc.
Duke Energy Kentucky Inc.
Duke Energy Ohio Inc.
Duquesne Capital L.P.
Duquesne Light Co.
Duquesne Light Holdings Inc.
Dynegy Inc.
E.ON U.S. LLC
Edison International
Edison Mission Energy Funding Corp.
Edison Mission Marketing and Trading
El Paso Electric Co.
Empire District Electric Co.
Empire District Electric Trust II
Energy Future Competitive Holdings Co.
Energy Future Intermediate Holding Company LLC
Enron Corp.
Entergy Arkansas Inc.
Entergy Gulf States Inc.
Entergy Gulf States Louisiana LLC
Entergy Louisiana Capital I
Entergy Louisiana Holdings Inc.
Entergy Louisiana LLC
Entergy Mississippi Inc.
Entergy New Orleans Inc.
Entergy Texas Inc.
error correction
First Choice Power
First PV Funding Corp.
FirstEnergy Solutions Corp.
Florida Power & Light Co.
Florida Power Corp. d/b/a Progress Energy Florida Inc.
Florida Progress Corp.
GenOn Energy Inc.
GenOn Escrow Corp.
Georgia Power Capital, L.P.
Georgia Power Co.
GG1A Funding Corp.
GPU Inc.
Great Plains Energy Inc.
Green Mountain Power Corp.
Gulf Power Co.
Hartford Electric Light Co.
Hawaii Electric Light Company, Inc.
Hawaiian Electric Co. Inc.
Hawaiian Electric Industries Inc.
Iberdrola Renewables Holdings Inc.
IDACORP Inc.
Idaho Power Co.
Standard and Poor's | RatingsDirect on the Global Credit Portal
© Standard and Poor's. All rights reserved. See Terms of Use/Disclaimer on the last tab. 2 of 4
Dkt. No. ER09-1534-001 Exhibit SCE-52 Page 2 of 4
Illinois Power Co.
Illinois Power Financing I
Illinois Power Fuel Co.
Illinova Corp.
Indiana Michigan Power Co.
Indianapolis Power & Light Co.
International Transmission Co.
Interstate Power & Light Co.
Interstate Power Co.
Iowa Power Inc.
Iowa Southern Utilities Co.
Iowa-Illinois Gas & Electric Co.
IPALCO Enterprises Inc.
ITC Holdings Corp.
ITC Midwest LLC
JC P&L Capital, L.P.
Jersey Central Power & Light Co.
Kansas City Power & Light Co.
Kansas Gas & Electric Co.
Kentucky Power Co.
Kentucky Utilities Co.
KeySpan Generation LLC
Long Island Lighting Co.
Louisville Gas & Electric Co.
Maine Yankee Atomic Power Co.
Marlin Water Trust II
Massachusetts Electric Co.
Maui Electric Company, Ltd.
Met-Ed Capital L.P.
Metropolitan Edison Co.
Michigan Electric Transmission Co
MidAmerican Energy Co.
Midwest Generation LLC
Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator Inc.
Mirant Americas Energy Marketing L.P.
Mirant Americas Generating LLC
Mirant Corp.
Mississippi Power Co.
Missouri Power & Light Co.
Monongahela Power Co.
Narragansett Electric Co.
National Energy & Gas Transmission Inc.
National Grid USA
Nevada Power Co.
New Century Energies Inc.
New England Power Co.
NewEnergy Inc.
Niagara Mohawk Power Corp.
North Atlantic Energy Corp.
Northern Indiana Public Service Co.
Northern States Power Co.
Northern States Power Wisconsin
Northwestern Energy Montana
NSTAR Electric Co.
NV Energy Inc.
OES Fuel Inc.
Ohio Edison Co.
Ohio Edison Financing Trust
Ohio Edison Financing Trust II
Ohio Power Co.
Ohio Valley Electric Corp.
Oklahoma Gas & Electric Co.
Oncor Electric Delivery Co. LLC
Orange and Rockland Utilities Inc.
Orion Power Holdings Inc.
Otter Tail Corp.
Otter Tail Power Company
Oyster Creek Fuel Corp.
PacifiCorp
PacifiCorp Capital I
PacifiCorp Delaware LP
PacifiCorp Group Holdings Co.
PacifiCorp Holdings Inc.
PECO Energy Capital L.P.
PECO Energy Co.
Standard and Poor's | RatingsDirect on the Global Credit Portal
© Standard and Poor's. All rights reserved. See Terms of Use/Disclaimer on the last tab. 3 of 4
Dkt. No. ER09-1534-001 Exhibit SCE-52 Page 3 of 4
Penelec Capital
Penn Fuel Corp.
Pennsylvania Electric Co.
Pennsylvania Power & Light Energy Trust
Pennsylvania Power Co.
PG&E Capital I, II, III, IV
Pinnacle West Capital Corp.
Pinnacle West Energy Corp.
PNG Companies LLC
PNM Resources Inc.
PNPP II Funding Corp.
Portland General Electric Co.
Potomac Capital Investment Corp.
Potomac Edison Co.
Potomac Electric Power Co.
PPL Corp.
PPL Electric Utilities Corp.
Public Service Co. of Colorado
Public Service Co. of New Hampshire
Public Service Co. of New Mexico
Public Service Co. of Oklahoma
Public Service Electric & Gas Co.
PVNGS Funding Corp. Inc.
PVNGS II Funding Corp. Inc.
Reliant Energy HL&P
Reliant Energy Mid-Atlantic Power Holdings LLC
Rochester Gas & Electric Corp.
Rockland Electric Co.
San Miguel Electric Cooperative Inc.
Savannah Electric & Power Co.
Scottish Power Finance U.S.
Sierra Pacific Power Capital I
Sierra Pacific Power Co.
South Carolina Electric & Gas Co.
Southern Co. Services Inc.
Southern Company Funding Corp.
Southern Electric Generating Co.
Southern Indiana Gas & Electric Co.
Southern Power Co.
Southwestern Electric Power Co.
Southwestern Public Service Co.
St. Joseph Light & Power Co.
System Energy Resources Inc.
Tampa Electric Co.
Texas Genco LLC
Texas-New Mexico Power Co.
Thermal North America Inc.
Toledo Edison Co.
Trans-Allegheny Interstate Line Company
TU Electric Capital I
TU Electric Capital II
TU Electric Capital III
Tucson Electric Power Co.
UIL Holdings Corp.
Unicom Corp.
Union Electric Co. d/b/a AmerenUE
United Capital Funding Partnership L.P.
United Illuminating Co. (The)
USGen New England, Inc.
Utah Power & Light Co.
Vectren Capital Corp.
Virginia Electric & Power Co.
Virginia Power Capital Trust I
West Penn Power Co.
Westar Energy Inc.
Western Massachusetts Electric Co.
Western Resources Capital II
Wisconsin Electric Fuel Trust
Wisconsin Electric Power Co.
Wisconsin Power & Light Co.
Wisconsin Public Service Corp.
WPS Resources Capital Corp.
Standard and Poor's | RatingsDirect on the Global Credit Portal
© Standard and Poor's. All rights reserved. See Terms of Use/Disclaimer on the last tab. 4 of 4
Dkt. No. ER09-1534-001 Exhibit SCE-52 Page 4 of 4
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
BEFORE THE
FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION
Southern California Edison Company
)
)
)
Dkt. No.
ER09-1534-001
CAPITAL COST UNDER-RECOVERY FROM
FERC STAFF CAPITAL STRUCTURE PROPOSAL
(EXHIBIT SCE-53)
OCTOBER 2010
SINGLE ISSUE EMBEDDED COST CALCULATION
Assumptions:
Issuance (Face Value): 100,000,000
Maturity (in Years) 30
Coupon 7.00%
Issuance Costs
Discount 0.05% 50,000
Expense 0.09% 90,000
Total Issuance Cost 140,000
Net Proceeds from Issuance 99,860,000
Recovery of Debt Cost (FERC Method) Debt Cost
"Cost of Money" 7.0113%
(FERC Regulations, Statement AV, 18 CFR )
Year Cost of Debt Rate Base
Revenue
Requirement Cost
Under-/Over-
Recovery
Present Value
(At Cost of
Debt) Total
Interest
Expense
Amortization
(Issuance Costs
/Maturity)
Net Proceeds
(Mid-Year)
Annual Cost/
Net Proceeds
0 99,860,000
1 7.0113% 99,862,333 7,001,643 7,004,667 -3,024 -2,826 7,004,667 7,000,000 4,667 99,862,333 7.0143%
2 7.0113% 99,867,000 7,001,970 7,004,667 -2,697 -2,355 7,004,667 7,000,000 4,667 99,867,000 7.0140%
3 7.0113% 99,871,667 7,002,297 7,004,667 -2,370 -1,934 7,004,667 7,000,000 4,667 99,871,667 7.0137%
4 7.0113% 99,876,333 7,002,624 7,004,667 -2,042 -1,557 7,004,667 7,000,000 4,667 99,876,333 7.0133%
5 7.0113% 99,881,000 7,002,951 7,004,667 -1,715 -1,222 7,004,667 7,000,000 4,667 99,881,000 7.0130%
6 7.0113% 99,885,667 7,003,279 7,004,667 -1,388 -924 7,004,667 7,000,000 4,667 99,885,667 7.0127%
7 7.0113% 99,890,333 7,003,606 7,004,667 -1,061 -660 7,004,667 7,000,000 4,667 99,890,333 7.0124%
8 7.0113% 99,895,000 7,003,933 7,004,667 -734 -427 7,004,667 7,000,000 4,667 99,895,000 7.0120%
9 7.0113% 99,899,667 7,004,260 7,004,667 -406 -221 7,004,667 7,000,000 4,667 99,899,667 7.0117%
10 7.0113% 99,904,333 7,004,587 7,004,667 -79 -40 7,004,667 7,000,000 4,667 99,904,333 7.0114%
11 7.0113% 99,909,000 7,004,915 7,004,667 248 118 7,004,667 7,000,000 4,667 99,909,000 7.0110%
12 7.0113% 99,913,667 7,005,242 7,004,667 575 255 7,004,667 7,000,000 4,667 99,913,667 7.0107%
13 7.0113% 99,918,333 7,005,569 7,004,667 902 374 7,004,667 7,000,000 4,667 99,918,333 7.0104%
14 7.0113% 99,923,000 7,005,896 7,004,667 1,230 476 7,004,667 7,000,000 4,667 99,923,000 7.0101%
15 7.0113% 99,927,667 7,006,223 7,004,667 1,557 563 7,004,667 7,000,000 4,667 99,927,667 7.0097%
16 7.0113% 99,932,333 7,006,551 7,004,667 1,884 637 7,004,667 7,000,000 4,667 99,932,333 7.0094%
17 7.0113% 99,937,000 7,006,878 7,004,667 2,211 699 7,004,667 7,000,000 4,667 99,937,000 7.0091%
18 7.0113% 99,941,667 7,007,205 7,004,667 2,538 750 7,004,667 7,000,000 4,667 99,941,667 7.0088%
19 7.0113% 99,946,333 7,007,532 7,004,667 2,866 791 7,004,667 7,000,000 4,667 99,946,333 7.0084%
20 7.0113% 99,951,000 7,007,859 7,004,667 3,193 823 7,004,667 7,000,000 4,667 99,951,000 7.0081%
21 7.0113% 99,955,667 7,008,187 7,004,667 3,520 848 7,004,667 7,000,000 4,667 99,955,667 7.0078%
22 7.0113% 99,960,333 7,008,514 7,004,667 3,847 866 7,004,667 7,000,000 4,667 99,960,333 7.0074%
23 7.0113% 99,965,000 7,008,841 7,004,667 4,174 878 7,004,667 7,000,000 4,667 99,965,000 7.0071%
24 7.0113% 99,969,667 7,009,168 7,004,667 4,501 885 7,004,667 7,000,000 4,667 99,969,667 7.0068%
25 7.0113% 99,974,333 7,009,495 7,004,667 4,829 887 7,004,667 7,000,000 4,667 99,974,333 7.0065%
26 7.0113% 99,979,000 7,009,823 7,004,667 5,156 885 7,004,667 7,000,000 4,667 99,979,000 7.0061%
27 7.0113% 99,983,667 7,010,150 7,004,667 5,483 880 7,004,667 7,000,000 4,667 99,983,667 7.0058%
28 7.0113% 99,988,333 7,010,477 7,004,667 5,810 871 7,004,667 7,000,000 4,667 99,988,333 7.0055%
29 7.0113% 99,993,000 7,010,804 7,004,667 6,137 860 7,004,667 7,000,000 4,667 99,993,000 7.0052%
30 7.0113% 99,997,667 7,011,131 7,004,667 6,465 847 7,004,667 7,000,000 4,667 99,997,667 7.0048%
Total 51,610 2,028
Dkt. No. ER09-1534-001 Exhibit SCE-53 Page 1 of 2
Year
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
Total
CAPITAL STRUCTURE AND WEIGHTED AVERAGE COST OF CAPITAL
Assumptions:
Common Equity Outstanding (Book Value) 100,000,000
Long-Term Debt Outstanding (Face Value) 100,000,000
Total Capital Cost Recovery of Capital Cost (FERC Staff Capital Structure)
Cost of Equity 12.25%
Equity Ratio (Book Value/Face Value) 50.00%
Weighted Average Cost of Capital 9.63065%
Total Equity
Cost Total Debt Cost
Total Cost of
Capital Rate Base Return
Under-/Over-
Recovery
Present Value
(At Weighted
Average Cost
of Capital)
12,250,000 7,004,667 19,254,667 199,862,333 19,248,037 -6,630 -6,048
12,250,000 7,004,667 19,254,667 199,867,000 19,248,486 -6,181 -5,142
12,250,000 7,004,667 19,254,667 199,871,667 19,248,936 -5,731 -4,350
12,250,000 7,004,667 19,254,667 199,876,333 19,249,385 -5,282 -3,656
12,250,000 7,004,667 19,254,667 199,881,000 19,249,834 -4,832 -3,051
12,250,000 7,004,667 19,254,667 199,885,667 19,250,284 -4,383 -2,524
12,250,000 7,004,667 19,254,667 199,890,333 19,250,733 -3,933 -2,067
12,250,000 7,004,667 19,254,667 199,895,000 19,251,183 -3,484 -1,670
12,250,000 7,004,667 19,254,667 199,899,667 19,251,632 -3,035 -1,326
12,250,000 7,004,667 19,254,667 199,904,333 19,252,082 -2,585 -1,031
12,250,000 7,004,667 19,254,667 199,909,000 19,252,531 -2,136 -777
12,250,000 7,004,667 19,254,667 199,913,667 19,252,980 -1,686 -559
12,250,000 7,004,667 19,254,667 199,918,333 19,253,430 -1,237 -374
12,250,000 7,004,667 19,254,667 199,923,000 19,253,879 -787 -217
12,250,000 7,004,667 19,254,667 199,927,667 19,254,329 -338 -85
12,250,000 7,004,667 19,254,667 199,932,333 19,254,778 111 26
12,250,000 7,004,667 19,254,667 199,937,000 19,255,228 561 118
12,250,000 7,004,667 19,254,667 199,941,667 19,255,677 1,010 193
12,250,000 7,004,667 19,254,667 199,946,333 19,256,126 1,460 254
12,250,000 7,004,667 19,254,667 199,951,000 19,256,576 1,909 304
12,250,000 7,004,667 19,254,667 199,955,667 19,257,025 2,359 342
12,250,000 7,004,667 19,254,667 199,960,333 19,257,475 2,808 371
12,250,000 7,004,667 19,254,667 199,965,000 19,257,924 3,258 393
12,250,000 7,004,667 19,254,667 199,969,667 19,258,374 3,707 408
12,250,000 7,004,667 19,254,667 199,974,333 19,258,823 4,156 417
12,250,000 7,004,667 19,254,667 199,979,000 19,259,272 4,606 422
12,250,000 7,004,667 19,254,667 199,983,667 19,259,722 5,055 422
12,250,000 7,004,667 19,254,667 199,988,333 19,260,171 5,505 419
12,250,000 7,004,667 19,254,667 199,993,000 19,260,621 5,954 414
12,250,000 7,004,667 19,254,667 199,997,667 19,261,070 6,404 406
-3,397 -27,969
Dkt. No. ER09-1534-001 Exhibit SCE-53 Page 2 of 2
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
BEFORE THE
FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION
Southern California Edison Company
)
)
)
Dkt. No.
ER09-1534-001
UPDATED SCE EMBEDDED COST OF
LONG-TERM DEBT
(EXHIBIT SCE-54)
OCTOBER 2010
Projected Embedded Cost of Debt
FERC Method
2010
LT Debt
As of: Rate
12/31/09 6.11%12/31/10 6.02%
Average 6.06%
Dkt. No. ER09-1534-001 Exhibit SCE-54 Page 1 of 5
Line
No. Series
Date of
Offering
Maturity
Date
Coupon
Rate Face Value
Net Premium or
Discount Net Proceeds
Cost of
Money
Principal
Amount Outstanding Interest Annual Cost
1 6.65% NOTES 4/99 4/29 6.650% 300,000$ (4,976)$ 295,024$ 6.780% 300,000$ 19,950$ 20,340$
2 2004A 1/04 1/14 5.000% 300,000 (16,039)$ 283,961$ 5.709% 300,000 15,000 17,127 3 2004B 1/04 1/34 6.000% 525,000 (35,914)$ 489,086$ 6.522% 525,000 31,500 34,242
4 2004F 3/04 3/15 4.650% 300,000 (4,688)$ 295,312$ 4.835% 300,000 13,950 14,505 5 2004G 3/04 3/35 5.750% 350,000 (5,658)$ 344,342$ 5.864% 350,000 20,125 20,523
6 Ft. Irwin Acquisition Debt 9/03 8/53 5.060% 6,989 -$ 6,989$ 5.060% 6,989 354 354 7 2005A 1/05 1/16 5.000% 400,000 (2,727)$ 397,273$ 5.082% 400,000 20,000 20,327
8 2005B 1/05 1/36 5.550% 250,000 (64,103)$ 185,897$ 7.744% 250,000 13,875 19,359 9 2005E 6/05 7/35 5.350% 350,000 (26,772)$ 323,228$ 5.897% 350,000 18,725 20,638
10 2005ABC (SONGS) 8/05 8/35 2.940% 248,585 (9,321)$ 239,264$ 3.134% 248,585 7,308 7,790 11 2006A 1/06 2/36 5.625% 350,000 (4,288)$ 345,713$ 5.711% 350,000 19,688 19,988
12 2006E 12/06 1/37 5.550% 400,000 (14,982)$ 385,018$ 5.815% 400,000 22,200 23,261
13 2008A 1/08 2/38 5.950% 600,000 (30,483)$ 569,517$ 6.330% 600,000 35,700 37,981
14 2005 ABC (SONGS) Repurchased 8/05 8/35 2.940% (248,585) -$ (248,585)$ 2.940% (248,585) (7,308) (7,308)
15 4CORNERS 99A 4/99 4/29 5.125% 55,540 (14,304)$ 41,236$ 7.240% 55,540 2,846 4,021
16 SONGS 99 A-B 9/99 9/29 5.450% 100,000 (22,045)$ 77,955$ 7.265% 100,000 5,450 7,265
17 SONGS 99 C 9/99 9/31 5.550% 30,000 (500)$ 29,500$ 5.663% 30,000 1,665 1,699
18 SONGS 99 D 9/99 9/15 5.200% 8,300 (138)$ 8,162$ 5.356% 8,300 432 445
19 2005A&B (FARMINGTON) 4/10 4/29 3.550% 203,460 (5,067)$ 198,393$ 3.734% 203,460 7,223 7,598
20 2006A&B 4/06 4/28 4.100% 196,000 (9,261)$ 186,739$ 4.439% 196,000 8,036 8,700
21 2006C&D 4/06 11/33 4.250% 135,000 (2,042)$ 132,958$ 4.344% 135,000 5,738 5,864
22 2008B 8/08 8/18 5.500% 400,000 (16,932)$ 383,068$ 6.071% 400,000 22,000 24,284
23 2008C 10/08 3/14 5.750% 500,000 (6,340)$ 493,660$ 6.048% 500,000 28,750 30,238
24 2009A 3/09 3/39 6.050% 500,000 (8,470)$ 491,530$ 6.175% 500,000 30,250 30,874
25 85-A 1,102
26 85-C 766
27 86-B 649
28 86-C 1,263
29 86-K 1,123
30 89-A 0
31 90-B 255
32 90-D 157
33 91-B 562
34 91-C 546
35 91-SER-A 251
36 92-E CPC 1,098 37 93-C 567 38 93-D-(PC) 203 39 93-G 508 40 93-I 555
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY
December 31, 2009
(Thousands of Dollars)
Embedded Cost of Debt
Dkt. No. ER09-1534-001 Exhibit SCE-54 Page 2 of 5
Line
No. Series
Date of
Offering
Maturity
Date
Coupon
Rate Face Value
Net Premium or
Discount Net Proceeds
Cost of
Money
Principal
Amount Outstanding Interest Annual Cost
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY
December 31, 2009
(Thousands of Dollars)
Embedded Cost of Debt
41 MOHAVE-88-A-20M 82
42 PV-85-ABCD 4
43 RR 249
44 TT 55
45 ZZ 2,248
46 Hedge Interest -
47 Interest Rate Lock Economic Hedge -
48 Interest Rate Hedge Expense -
49 Transferred to 2008A -
50 Transferred to 2008B -
51 Placeholder
52 TOTAL 6,260,289$ (305,049)$ 5,955,240$ 6.11% 6,260,289$ 343,455$ 382,357$
Dkt. No. ER09-1534-001 Exhibit SCE-54 Page 3 of 5
Line
No. Series
Date of
Offering
Maturity
Date
Coupon
Rate Face Value
Net Premium or
Discount Net Proceeds
Cost of
Money
Principal
Amount Outstanding Interest Annual Cost
1 6.65% NOTES 4/99 4/29 6.650% 300,000$ (4,976)$ 295,024$ 6.780% 300,000$ 19,950$ 20,340$
2 2004A 1/04 1/14 5.000% 300,000 (16,039)$ 283,961$ 5.709% 300,000 15,000 17,127 3 2004B 1/04 1/34 6.000% 525,000 (35,914)$ 489,086$ 6.522% 525,000 31,500 34,242
4 2004F 3/04 3/15 4.650% 300,000 (4,688)$ 295,312$ 4.835% 300,000 13,950 14,505 5 2004G 3/04 3/35 5.750% 350,000 (5,658)$ 344,342$ 5.864% 350,000 20,125 20,523
6 Ft. Irwin Acquisition Debt 9/03 8/53 5.060% 6,944 -$ 6,944$ 5.060% 6,944 351 351 7 2005A 1/05 1/16 5.000% 400,000 (2,727)$ 397,273$ 5.082% 400,000 20,000 20,327
8 2005B 1/05 1/36 5.550% 250,000 (64,103)$ 185,897$ 7.744% 250,000 13,875 19,359 9 2005E 6/05 7/35 5.350% 350,000 (26,772)$ 323,228$ 5.897% 350,000 18,725 20,638
10 2005ABC (SONGS) 8/05 8/35 2.940% 248,585 (9,321)$ 239,264$ 3.134% 248,585 7,308 7,790 11 2006A 1/06 2/36 5.625% 350,000 (4,288)$ 345,713$ 5.711% 350,000 19,688 19,988
12 2006E 12/06 1/37 5.550% 400,000 (14,982)$ 385,018$ 5.815% 400,000 22,200 23,261
13 2008A 1/08 2/38 5.950% 600,000 (30,483)$ 569,517$ 6.330% 600,000 35,700 37,981
14 2005 ABC (SONGS) Repurchased 8/05 8/35 2.940% (248,585) -$ (248,585)$ 2.940% (248,585) (7,308) (7,308)
15 4CORNERS 99A 4/99 4/29 5.125% 55,540 (14,304)$ 41,236$ 7.240% 55,540 2,846 4,021
16 SONGS 99 A-B 9/99 9/29 5.450% 100,000 (22,045)$ 77,955$ 7.265% 100,000 5,450 7,265
17 SONGS 99 C 9/99 9/31 5.550% 30,000 (500)$ 29,500$ 5.663% 30,000 1,665 1,699
18 SONGS 99 D 9/99 9/15 5.200% 8,300 (138)$ 8,162$ 5.356% 8,300 432 445
19 2005A&B (FARMINGTON) 4/10 4/29 2.880% 203,460 (5,067)$ 198,393$ 3.054% 203,460 5,860 6,213
20 2006A&B 4/06 4/28 4.100% 196,000 (9,261)$ 186,739$ 4.439% 196,000 8,036 8,700
21 2006C&D 4/06 11/33 4.250% 135,000 (2,042)$ 132,958$ 4.344% 135,000 5,738 5,864
22 2008B 8/08 8/18 5.500% 400,000 (16,932)$ 383,068$ 6.071% 400,000 22,000 24,284
23 2008C 10/08 3/14 5.750% 500,000 (6,340)$ 493,660$ 6.048% 500,000 28,750 30,238
24 2009A 3/09 3/39 6.050% 500,000 (8,470)$ 491,530$ 6.175% 500,000 30,250 30,874
25 2010A 3/10 3/40 5.500% 500,000 (11,365)$ 488,635$ 5.658% 500,000 27,500 28,291
26 2010B 8/10 9/40 4.500% 500,000 (8,505)$ 491,495$ 4.605% 500,000 22,500 23,026
27 2010C 9/10 9/29 4.500% 100,000 (2,512)$ 97,488$ 4.701% 100,000 4,500 4,701
28 2010Q4 Projected Issue 11/10 11/40 6.000% 200,000 (2,000)$ 198,000$ 6.073% 200,000 12,000 12,146
29 85-A (4,634) 1,102
30 85-C (3,660) 766
31 86-B (4,680) 649
32 86-C (10,465) 1,263
33 86-K (7,767) 1,123
34 89-A (1) 0
35 90-B (2,667) 255 36 90-D (1,870) 157 37 91-B (6,926) 562 38 91-C (7,321) 546 39 91-SER-A (2,573) 251 40 92-E CPC (15,282) 1,098
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY
December 31, 2010
(Thousands of Dollars)
Embedded Cost of Debt
Dkt. No. ER09-1534-001 Exhibit SCE-54 Page 4 of 5
Line
No. Series
Date of
Offering
Maturity
Date
Coupon
Rate Face Value
Net Premium or
Discount Net Proceeds
Cost of
Money
Principal
Amount Outstanding Interest Annual Cost
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY
December 31, 2010
(Thousands of Dollars)
Embedded Cost of Debt
41 93-C (8,606) 567
42 93-D-(PC) (2,535) 203
43 93-G (7,379) 508 44 93-I (4,299) 555
45 MOHAVE-88-A-20M (0) -
46 PV-85-ABCD 0 -
47 RR (228) 249
48 TT (69) 55 49 ZZ (8,806) 2,248
50 Hedge Interest (7,212) 243
51 Interest Rate Lock Economic Hedge (25,214) 850
52 Interest Rate Hedge Expense 7 (0)
53 Transferred to 2008A 21,135 (712)
54 Transferred to 2008B 11,284 (380)
55 Remarketed 2000AB (526) 18
56 Placeholder
57 TOTAL 7,560,244$ (329,431)$ 7,230,813$ 6.02% 7,459,950$ 408,590$ 449,066$
Dkt. No. ER09-1534-001 Exhibit SCE-54 Page 5 of 5
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
BEFORE THE
FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION
Southern California Edison Company
)
)
)
Dkt. No.
ER09-1534-001
UPDATED SCE EMBEDDED COST OF
PREFERRED EQUITY
(EXHIBIT SCE-55)
OCTOBER 2010
Projected Embedded Cost of Preferred Equity
FERC Method
2010
Preferred Equity
As of: Rate
12/31/09 5.77%12/31/10 6.21%
2010 Average 5.99%
Dkt. No. ER09-1534-001 Exhibit SCE-55 Page 1 of 3
Preferred EquityTerms Net Percent Stated
Line Date of Call Of Dividend Face Proceeds at Of Face Cost Amount AnnualizedNo. Title Offering/Call Price Conversion Rate Value Issuance Value Of Money Outstanding Cost
1 4.320% May-47 28.75 4.320% $41,336 $42,099 101.8% 4.24% $41,336 $1,7532 4.080% May-50 25.50 4.080% $25,000 $25,040 100.2% 4.07% $16,250 $6623 4.240% Feb-56 25.58 4.240% $30,000 $30,084 100.3% 4.23% $30,000 $1,2684 4.780% Feb-58 25.25 4.780% $32,419 $32,469 100.2% 4.77% $32,419 $1,5475 5.349% Apr-05 5.349% $400,000 $394,440 98.6% 5.67% $400,000 $22,6816 6.125% Sep-05 6.125% $200,000 $196,500 98.3% 6.25% $200,000 $12,509
7 6.000% Jan-06 6.000% $200,000 $196,100 98.1% 6.14% $200,000 $12,2858 8.540% Nov-85 $91 ($8)9 12.000% Feb-86 ($2,037) $184
10 12.000% Feb-86 ($334) $3011 6.050% May-05 ($370) $012 7.230% May-05 ($493) $0
13 Total $928,755 $916,732 5.77% $916,862 $52,912
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANYPREFERRED AND PREFERENCE EQUITY EMBEDDED COST
(In Thousands)
December 31, 2009
Dkt. No. ER09-1534-001 Exhibit SCE-55 Page 2 of 3
Preferred EquityTerms Net Percent Stated
Line Date of Call Of Dividend Face Proceeds at Of Face Cost Amount AnnualizedNo. Title Offering/Call Price Conversion Rate Value Issuance Value Of Money Outstanding Cost
1 4.320% May-47 28.75 4.320% $41,336 $42,099 101.8% 4.24% $41,336 $1,7532 4.080% May-50 25.50 4.080% $25,000 $25,040 100.2% 4.07% $16,250 $6623 4.240% Feb-56 25.58 4.240% $30,000 $30,084 100.3% 4.23% $30,000 $1,2684 4.780% Feb-58 25.25 4.780% $32,419 $32,469 100.2% 4.77% $32,419 $1,5475 5.349% Apr-05 5.349% $400,000 $394,440 98.6% 5.67% $400,000 $22,6816 6.125% Sep-05 6.125% $200,000 $196,500 98.3% 6.25% $200,000 $12,5097 6.000% Jan-06 6.000% $200,000 $196,100 98.1% 6.14% $200,000 $12,2858 2010A Aug-10 7.000% $125,000 $122,500 98.0% 7.16% $125,000 $8,9539 2010B Nov-10 7.000% $300,000 $294,000 98.0% 7.16% $300,000 $21,488
10 8.540% Nov-85 $91 ($8)11 12.000% Feb-86 ($2,037) $18412 12.000% Feb-86 ($334) $3013 6.050% May-05 ($370) $014 7.230% May-05 ($493) $0
15 Total $1,353,755 $1,333,232 6.21% $1,341,862 $83,353
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANYPREFERRED AND PREFERENCE EQUITY EMBEDDED COST
(In Thousands)
December 31, 2010
Dkt. No. ER09-1534-001 Exhibit SCE-55 Page 3 of 3
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA BEFORE THE
FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION
Southern California Edison Company
)))
Dkt. No.
ER09-1534-001
DCF ESTIMATE COMPARISON FOR
MAY 2010, SCE AND SIX CITIES
(EXHIBIT SCE-56)
OCTOBER 2010
Low High br + sv b r s v IBES Low High Average
LNT Alliant Energy 4.65% 5.18% 4.49% 0.41 0.10 0.01 0.21 8.45% 9.24% 13.85% 11.55%
AEP Amer. Elec. Power 4.64% 5.11% 5.00% 0.46 0.10 0.01 0.18 4.00% 8.73% 10.23% 9.48%
CNP CenterPoint Energy 5.25% 6.04% 6.62% 0.34 0.16 0.02 0.51 5.25% 10.64% 12.86% 11.75%
ED Consol. Edison 5.21% 5.55% 3.09% 0.32 0.09 0.01 0.17 5.10% 8.38% 10.79% 9.59%
D Dominion Resources 4.42% 4.78% 5.27% 0.38 0.15 -0.01 0.51 4.70% 9.22% 10.17% 9.70%
DPL DPL Inc. 4.20% 4.54% 15.15% 0.49 0.27 0.03 0.66 5.85% 10.17% 20.03% 15.10%
DTE DTE Energy 4.58% 4.99% 3.79% 0.39 0.09 0.02 0.13 4.90% 8.45% 10.02% 9.24%
DUK Duke Energy 5.60% 5.95% 2.08% 0.26 0.08 0.00 0.00 4.43% 7.74% 10.51% 9.13%
EXC Exelon Corp. 4.46% 6.05% 7.74% 0.47 0.18 -0.01 0.55 1.52% 6.01% 14.02% 10.02%
FPL FPL Group 3.76% 4.10% 7.58% 0.54 0.13 0.02 0.37 6.65% 10.54% 11.83% 11.18%
GXP G't Plains Energy 4.27% 4.71% 2.26% 0.36 0.07 0.03 -0.12 13.00% 6.58% 18.02% 12.30%
HE Hawaiian Elec. 5.50% 6.15% 3.26% 0.26 0.10 0.02 0.27 7.60% 8.85% 13.99% 11.42%
IDA IDACORP, Inc. 3.44% 3.80% 5.37% 0.57 0.09 0.02 0.12 4.67% 8.19% 9.28% 8.73%
TEG Integrys Energy 5.81% 6.42% 1.95% 0.21 0.09 0.01 0.16 9.40% 7.81% 16.12% 11.97%
NU Northeast Utilities 3.66% 3.96% 4.63% 0.45 0.09 0.02 0.22 7.52% 8.37% 11.63% 10.00%
OGE OGE Energy 3.67% 4.09% 7.73% 0.52 0.13 0.02 0.43 4.00% 7.74% 11.98% 9.86%
PCG PG&E Corp. 3.93% 4.32% 6.39% 0.46 0.12 0.02 0.34 6.90% 10.44% 11.38% 10.91%
POR Portland General 5.00% 5.47% 2.41% 0.34 0.08 0.03 -0.05 5.00% 7.47% 10.60% 9.04%
PPL PPL Corp. 4.65% 5.12% 7.52% 0.49 0.17 -0.02 0.48 2.95% 7.67% 12.83% 10.25%
PGN Progress Energy 6.09% 6.52% 2.01% 0.22 0.09 0.01 0.15 3.57% 8.16% 10.20% 9.18%
PEG Public Serv. Enterprise 4.13% 4.54% 8.43% 0.55 0.15 0.00 0.43 1.54% 5.70% 13.16% 9.43%
SCG SCANA Corp. 4.91% 5.31% 5.24% 0.39 0.10 0.05 0.25 4.40% 9.42% 10.68% 10.05%
SRE Sempra Energy 2.94% 3.23% 8.09% 0.66 0.12 0.00 0.27 3.50% 6.49% 11.45% 8.97%
TE TECO Energy 4.82% 5.34% 5.00% 0.37 0.13 0.01 0.38 6.25% 9.95% 11.76% 10.85%
WR Westar Energy 5.31% 5.76% 2.78% 0.32 0.09 0.01 0.06 9.28% 8.17% 15.31% 11.74%
WEC Wisconsin Energy 2.94% 3.19% 6.55% 0.54 0.12 0.00 0.38 9.53% 9.58% 12.87% 11.22%
XEL Xcel Energy Inc. 4.50% 4.81% 4.44% 0.40 0.10 0.02 0.24 6.35% 9.03% 11.31% 10.17%
Average
Average Div Yield Growth Rates
SCE #s
Estimated ROE
Dkt. No. ER09-1534-001 Exhibit SCE-56 Page 1 of 3
LNT Alliant Energy
AEP Amer. Elec. Power
CNP CenterPoint Energy
ED Consol. Edison
D Dominion Resources
DPL DPL Inc.
DTE DTE Energy
DUK Duke Energy
EXC Exelon Corp.
FPL FPL Group
GXP G't Plains Energy
HE Hawaiian Elec.
IDA IDACORP, Inc.
TEG Integrys Energy
NU Northeast Utilities
OGE OGE Energy
PCG PG&E Corp.
POR Portland General
PPL PPL Corp.
PGN Progress Energy
PEG Public Serv. Enterprise
SCG SCANA Corp.
SRE Sempra Energy
TE TECO Energy
WR Westar Energy
WEC Wisconsin Energy
XEL Xcel Energy Inc.
Average
Low High br + sv b r s v IBES Low High Average
4.61% 5.14% 4.47% 0.41 0.10 0.01 0.20 8.45% 9.19% 13.80% 11.49%
4.64% 5.10% 4.98% 0.46 0.10 0.01 0.17 4.00% 8.73% 10.21% 9.47%
5.25% 7.01% 6.53% 0.34 0.16 0.02 0.49 5.25% 10.64% 13.77% 12.21%
5.21% 5.55% 3.09% 0.32 0.09 0.00 0.17 5.10% 8.38% 10.79% 9.59%
4.39% 4.75% 5.29% 0.38 0.15 -0.01 0.49 4.70% 9.19% 10.16% 9.68%
4.21% 4.54% 15.12% 0.49 0.27 0.03 0.66 5.85% 10.18% 20.00% 15.09%
4.58% 4.99% 3.77% 0.39 0.09 0.02 0.12 4.90% 8.43% 10.02% 9.22%
5.60% 5.95% 2.08% 0.26 0.08 0.00 -0.01 4.43% 7.74% 10.51% 9.13%
4.28% 4.73% 2.25% 0.36 0.07 0.03 -0.12 13.00% 6.58% 18.03% 12.31%
5.50% 6.15% 3.25% 0.26 0.10 0.02 0.26 7.60% 8.83% 13.99% 11.41%
5.81% 6.42% 1.94% 0.21 0.09 0.01 0.15 9.40% 7.81% 16.12% 11.97%
3.61% 3.92% 4.61% 0.45 0.09 0.02 0.21 7.52% 8.30% 11.58% 9.94%
3.67% 4.10% 7.68% 0.52 0.13 0.02 0.42 4.00% 7.74% 11.93% 9.84%
3.88% 4.27% 6.34% 0.46 0.12 0.02 0.33 6.90% 10.34% 11.32% 10.83%
5.00% 5.47% 2.39% 0.34 0.08 0.03 -0.06 5.00% 7.45% 10.60% 9.03%
6.09% 6.52% 2.00% 0.22 0.09 0.01 0.13 3.90% 8.15% 10.54% 9.35%
4.32% 4.39% 8.43% 0.55 0.15 0.00 0.42 1.54% 5.89% 13.01% 9.45%
4.91% 5.31% 5.16% 0.39 0.10 0.05 0.23 4.28% 9.29% 10.60% 9.95%
2.94% 3.23% 8.08% 0.66 0.12 0.00 0.26 3.50% 6.49% 11.44% 8.97%
4.82% 5.34% 4.99% 0.37 0.13 0.01 0.37 6.25% 9.94% 11.76% 10.85%
2.94% 3.19% 6.55% 0.54 0.12 0.00 0.37 9.53% 9.58% 12.87% 11.23%
4.50% 4.81% 4.41% 0.40 0.10 0.02 0.23 6.35% 9.01% 11.31% 10.16%
Solomon #s
Average Div Yield Growth Rates Estimated ROE
Dkt. No. ER09-1534-001 Exhibit SCE-56 Page 2 of 3
LNT Alliant Energy
AEP Amer. Elec. Power
CNP CenterPoint Energy
ED Consol. Edison
D Dominion Resources
DPL DPL Inc.
DTE DTE Energy
DUK Duke Energy
EXC Exelon Corp.
FPL FPL Group
GXP G't Plains Energy
HE Hawaiian Elec.
IDA IDACORP, Inc.
TEG Integrys Energy
NU Northeast Utilities
OGE OGE Energy
PCG PG&E Corp.
POR Portland General
PPL PPL Corp.
PGN Progress Energy
PEG Public Serv. Enterprise
SCG SCANA Corp.
SRE Sempra Energy
TE TECO Energy
WR Westar Energy
WEC Wisconsin Energy
XEL Xcel Energy Inc.
Average
Low High br + sv b r s v IBES Low High Average
0.04% 0.04% 0.02% 0.00 0.00 0.0002 0.0107 0.00% 0.06% 0.05% 0.05%
0.00% 0.00% 0.02% 0.00 0.00 0.0002 0.0131 0.00% 0.00% 0.02% 0.01%
0.00% -0.98% 0.09% 0.00 0.00 0.0009 0.0232 0.00% 0.00% -0.91% -0.46%
0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00 0.00 0.0000 0.0060 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
0.03% 0.03% -0.02% 0.00 0.00 -0.0002 0.0199 0.00% 0.03% 0.01% 0.02%
0.00% -0.01% 0.03% 0.00 0.00 0.0003 0.0033 0.00% 0.00% 0.02% 0.01%
0.00% 0.00% 0.02% 0.00 0.00 0.0002 0.0113 0.00% 0.02% 0.00% 0.01%
0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00 0.00 0.0000 0.0055 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
-0.01% -0.01% 0.01% 0.00 0.00 0.0001 0.0052 0.00% 0.00% -0.01% 0.00%
0.00% 0.00% 0.02% 0.00 0.00 0.0002 0.0064 0.00% 0.02% 0.00% 0.01%
0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00 0.00 0.0000 0.0035 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
0.04% 0.05% 0.02% 0.00 0.00 0.0002 0.0106 0.00% 0.07% 0.05% 0.06%
0.00% 0.00% 0.05% 0.00 0.00 0.0005 0.0132 0.00% 0.00% 0.05% 0.02%
0.05% 0.06% 0.05% 0.00 0.00 0.0005 0.0139 0.00% 0.10% 0.06% 0.08%
0.00% 0.00% 0.02% 0.00 0.00 0.0002 0.0051 0.00% 0.02% 0.00% 0.01%
0.00% 0.00% 0.01% 0.00 0.00 0.0001 0.0157 -0.33% 0.01% -0.34% -0.17%
-0.18% 0.15% 0.00% 0.00 0.00 0.0000 0.0181 0.00% -0.19% 0.15% -0.02%
0.00% 0.00% 0.08% 0.00 0.00 0.0008 0.0131 0.12% 0.12% 0.08% 0.10%
0.00% 0.00% 0.01% 0.00 0.00 0.0001 0.0164 0.00% 0.00% 0.01% 0.00%
0.00% 0.00% 0.01% 0.00 0.00 0.0001 0.0083 0.00% 0.01% 0.00% 0.01%
0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00 0.00 0.0000 0.0130 0.00% 0.00% -0.01% 0.00%
0.00% 0.00% 0.03% 0.00 0.00 0.0003 0.0099 0.00% 0.03% 0.00% 0.01%
0.02% 0.0112
Difference
Average Div Yield Growth Rates Estimated ROE
Dkt. No. ER09-1534-001 Exhibit SCE-56 Page 3 of 3
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
BEFORE THE
FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION
Southern California Edison Company
)
)
)
Dkt. No.
ER09-1534-001
VALUE LINE PAGES FOR
SELECTED COMPANIES
(EXHIBIT SCE-57)
OCTOBER 2010
200160
1008060504030
20
Percentsharestraded
15105
Target Price Range2013 2014 2015
ENTERGY CORP. NYSE-ETR 76.79 12.8 12.314.0 0.79 4.4%
TIMELINESS 4 Lowered 5/7/10
SAFETY 2 New 12/26/08
TECHNICAL 3 Lowered 6/18/10BETA .70 (1.00 = Market)
2013-15 PROJECTIONSAnn’l Total
Price Gain ReturnHigh 125 (+65%) 16%Low 95 (+25%) 10%Insider Decisions
A S O N D J F M Ato Buy 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Options 6 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0to Sell 6 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0Institutional Decisions
3Q2009 4Q2009 1Q2010to Buy 199 191 203to Sell 228 208 201Hld’s(000) 150775 148575 147730
High: 33.5 43.9 44.7 46.8 57.2 68.7 79.2 94.0 125.0 127.5 86.6 84.3Low: 23.7 15.9 32.6 32.1 42.3 50.6 64.5 66.8 89.6 61.9 59.9 71.3
% TOT. RETURN 5/10THIS VL ARITH.
STOCK INDEX1 yr. 4.7 41.63 yr. -26.2 -2.65 yr. 22.4 37.2
CAPITAL STRUCTURE as of 3/31/10Total Debt $12152 mill. Due in 5 Yrs $5231.7 mill.LT Debt $11173 mill. LT Interest $575.0 mill.Incl. $36.6 mill. capitalized leases.(LT interest earned: 4.1x)Leases, Uncapitalized Annual rentals $95.4 mill.Pension Assets-12/09 $2.61 bill.
Oblig. $3.84 bill.Pfd Stock $310.7 mill. Pfd Div’d $20.0 mill.6,115,105 shs. $4.20 to $7.88, $100 par; 1,000,000shs. 11.50%, all without sinking fund.Common Stock 189,303,044 shs.as of 4/30/10MARKET CAP: $15 billion (Large Cap)
ELECTRIC OPERATING STATISTICS2007 2008 2009
% Change Retail Sales (KWH) +5.5 -1.4 -1.5Avg. Indust. Use (MWH) 920 898 NAAvg. Indust. Revs. per KWH(¢) 6.53 7.75 5.60Capacity at Peak (Mw) 23996 24844 NAPeak Load, Summer (Mw) 22001 21241 21009Annual Load Factor (%) 59.0 59.0 NA% Change Customers (yr-end) +2.8 +.8 +1.1
Fixed Charge Cov. (%) 288 339 355ANNUAL RATES Past Past Est’d ’07-’09of change (per sh) 10 Yrs. 5 Yrs. to ’13-’15Revenues 4.5% 8.5% 5.0%‘‘Cash Flow’’ 8.0% 10.0% 7.0%Earnings 10.5% 10.0% 4.5%Dividends 6.5% 12.0% 6.5%Book Value 4.0% 3.0% 5.5%
Cal- Fullendar Year
QUARTERLY REVENUES ($ mill.)Mar.31 Jun.30 Sep.30 Dec.31
2007 2600 2769 3289 2826 114842008 2865 3264 3964 3001 130942009 2789 2521 2937 2499 107462010 2759 2900 3200 2741 116002011 2900 3050 3350 2900 12200Cal- Full
endar YearEARNINGS PER SHARE A
Mar.31 Jun.30 Sep.30 Dec.312007 1.03 1.32 2.30 .96 5.602008 1.56 1.37 2.41 .89 6.202009 1.20 1.14 2.32 1.64 6.302010 1.12 .98 2.65 1.25 6.002011 1.50 1.35 2.70 1.40 6.95Cal- Full
endar YearQUARTERLY DIVIDENDS PAID B ■ †
Mar.31 Jun.30 Sep.30 Dec.312006 .54 .54 .54 .54 2.162007 .54 .54 .75 .75 2.582008 .75 .75 .75 .75 3.002009 .75 .75 .75 .75 3.002010 .75 .83
1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 200726.22 27.55 30.75 38.89 46.57 35.51 45.61 43.59 37.34 40.17 46.69 46.61 53.94 59.47
4.49 5.16 5.84 6.20 6.11 5.06 6.49 6.41 7.62 7.43 8.33 8.18 10.69 11.731.58 2.13 2.48 2.25 2.22 2.25 2.97 3.08 3.68 3.69 3.93 4.40 5.36 5.601.80 1.80 1.80 1.80 1.50 1.20 1.22 1.28 1.34 1.60 1.89 2.16 2.16 2.582.97 2.72 2.45 3.45 4.63 4.84 6.80 6.25 6.88 6.85 6.51 6.72 9.44 10.29
27.93 28.41 28.51 27.23 28.79 28.81 31.89 33.78 35.24 38.02 38.26 35.71 40.45 40.71227.41 227.77 232.96 245.84 246.83 247.08 219.60 220.73 222.42 228.90 216.83 216.83 202.67 193.12
17.5 11.5 11.1 11.6 12.9 13.2 10.1 12.5 11.5 13.8 15.1 16.3 14.3 19.31.15 .77 .70 .67 .67 .75 .66 .64 .63 .79 .80 .87 .77 1.02
6.5% 7.4% 6.5% 6.9% 5.2% 4.1% 4.1% 3.3% 3.2% 3.1% 3.2% 3.0% 2.8% 2.4%
10016 9621.0 8305.0 9195.0 10124 10106 10932 11484710.9 716.8 878.4 874.2 933.1 943.1 1160.9 1160.0
40.3% 38.9% 25.1% 35.9% 28.2% 37.2% 27.6% 30.7%7.9% 6.6% 6.4% 8.7% 7.0% 8.0% 5.5% 5.8%
50.4% 47.7% 45.7% 44.8% 44.7% 51.9% 51.2% 54.3%45.6% 48.6% 50.6% 53.2% 52.9% 45.5% 46.7% 43.9%15351 15353 15499 16361 15696 17013 17539 1790216497 17264 17195 18299 18696 19197 19438 209746.2% 6.4% 7.3% 6.8% 7.4% 6.8% 8.0% 7.9%9.3% 8.9% 10.4% 9.7% 10.8% 11.5% 13.6% 14.2%9.7% 9.3% 10.9% 9.8% 11.0% 11.9% 13.8% 14.4%5.8% 5.7% 7.1% 5.6% 5.8% 6.0% 8.3% 8.0%43% 41% 37% 44% 48% 51% 41% 46%
2008 2009 2010 2011 © VALUE LINE PUB., INC. 13-1569.15 56.82 64.45 67.80 Revenues per sh 82.2512.89 13.29 14.55 15.95 ‘‘Cash Flow’’ per sh 19.00
6.20 6.30 6.00 6.95 Earnings per sh A 7.753.00 3.00 3.24 3.53 Div’d Decl’d per sh B ■ † 4.15
13.92 12.99 13.05 15.80 Cap’l Spending per sh 14.7542.07 45.54 46.60 50.10 Book Value per sh C 59.50
189.36 189.12 180.00 180.00 Common Shs Outst’g D 170.0016.6 12.0 Bold figures are
Value Lineestimates
Avg Ann’l P/E Ratio 14.01.00 .80 Relative P/E Ratio .95
2.9% 4.0% Avg Ann’l Div’d Yield 3.8%
13094 10746 11600 12200 Revenues ($mill) 140001240.5 1251.1 1140 1295 Net Profit ($mill) 137032.7% 33.6% 36.0% 36.0% Income Tax Rate 36.0%
5.6% 7.4% 9.0% 8.0% AFUDC % to Net Profit 7.0%58.2% 55.3% 57.0% 56.5% Long-Term Debt Ratio 58.0%40.2% 43.1% 41.5% 42.0% Common Equity Ratio 40.5%19795 19985 20250 21500 Total Capital ($mill) 2500022429 23389 24300 25600 Net Plant ($mill) 274007.5% 7.6% 7.0% 7.5% Return on Total Cap’l 7.0%
15.0% 14.0% 13.0% 14.0% Return on Shr. Equity 13.0%15.3% 14.3% 13.5% 14.0% Return on Com Equity E 13.5%
8.1% 7.6% 6.0% 7.0% Retained to Com Eq 6.5%48% 48% 54% 51% All Div’ds to Net Prof 53%
Company’s Financial Strength AStock’s Price Stability 100Price Growth Persistence 85Earnings Predictability 90
(A) Diluted EPS. Excl. nonrecur. gains (losses):’97, ($1.22); ’98, 78¢; ’01, 15¢; ’02, ($1.04);’03, 33¢ net; ’05, (21¢). ’07 EPS don’t add dueto rounding, ’08 due to change in shares. Next
earnings report due late July. (B) Div’ds histori-cally paid in early Mar., June, Sept., and Dec. ■
Div’d reinvestment plan available. † Sharehold-er investment plan available. (C) Incl. deferred
charges. In ’09: $25.47/sh. (D) In mill. (E) Ratebase: net original cost. Rates allowed on com.eq.: 9.45%-14.42%; earned on avg. com. eq.,’09: 14.8%. Regulatory Climate: Average.
BUSINESS: Entergy Corporation supplies electricity to 2.7 millioncustomers through subsidiaries in Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi,Texas, and New Orleans. Distributes gas to 188,000 customers inLouisiana. Merged with Gulf States Utilities 12/93. Has a nonutilitynuclear subsidiary that owns six units. Electric revenue breakdown,’09: residential, 38%; commercial, 28%; industrial, 25%; other, 9%.
Generating sources, ’09: nuclear, 34%; gas, 19%; coal, 12%; pur-chased, 35%. Fuel costs: 34% of revenues. ’09 reported deprecia-tion rate: 2.7%. Has 15,200 employees. Chairman & CEO: J.Wayne Leonard. President & COO: Richard J. Smith. Inc.: Dela-ware. Address: 639 Loyola Avenue, P.O. Box 61000, New Orleans,Louisiana 70161. Tel.: 504-576-4000. Internet: www.entergy.com.
Entergy has canceled its plan to spinoff the nonregulated nuclear unitsinto a separate company. The NewYork commission rejected the company’sproposal, and Entergy decided to unwindthe infrastructure that it created in prepa-ration for the corporate separation. Thismatter has been dragging on since Enter-gy announced its plan in the fourth quar-ter of 2007. The company has been incur-ring expenses each quarter in connectionwith the proposed spinoff, and expects totake a charge of $0.40-$0.45 a share (mostof it in the second quarter) to write offsome other related costs. We are includingthese items in our earnings presentation.Entergy hasn’t ruled out some other kindof restructuring of its business.The board of directors raised the divi-dend by $0.08 a share (10.7%) in thesecond quarter. The directors had es-chewed a dividend hike while the spinoff(and the surrounding uncertainty) waspending. We project that healthy dividendgrowth will continue over the next 3 to 5years, thanks to Entergy’s low payoutratio and sound finances.Entergy plans to buy back some stock.
In the fourth quarter of 2009, the boardauthorized a $750 million repurchase pro-gram, which the company intends to com-plete this year.We have cut our earnings estimatesfor 2010 and 2011. This year, first-periodprofits were well below our estimate, andEntergy will incur the aforementionedcharge for unwinding the planned spinoff.Low power prices are affecting the profita-bility of the company’s nonregulated oper-ations, too.Entergy received a rate order inArkansas. The utility was granted a tariffincrease of $46.5 million, based on a 10.2%return on equity. Entergy had sought a$168 million raise, based on a 10.65%ROE. New rates will take effect in July.A rate case is pending in Texas. Enter-gy is seeking a rate hike of $198.7 million,based on an 11.5% ROE. An order isscheduled for November and will be retro-active to mid-September.The dividend yield is comparable withthe industry average, as is total re-turn potential to 2013-2015. But thestock is untimely.Paul E. Debbas, CFA June 25, 2010
LEGENDS1.28 x Dividends p shdivided by Interest Rate. . . . Relative Price Strength
Options: YesShaded area: prior recession
Latest recession began 12/07
© 2010, Value Line Publishing, Inc. All rights reserved. Factual material is obtained from sources believed to be reliable and is provided without warranties of any kind.THE PUBLISHER IS NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR ANY ERRORS OR OMISSIONS HEREIN. This publication is strictly for subscriber’s own, non-commercial, internal use. No partof it may be reproduced, resold, stored or transmitted in any printed, electronic or other form, or used for generating or marketing any printed or electronic publication, service or product.
To subscribe call 1-800-833-0046.
RECENTPRICE
P/ERATIO
RELATIVEP/E RATIO
DIV’DYLD( )Trailing:
Median:VALUELINE
Dkt. No. ER09-1534-001 Exhibit SCE-57 Page 1 of 3
6448403224201612
86
Percentsharestraded
642
Target Price Range2013 2014 2015
VECTREN CORP. NYSE-VVC 23.87 14.0 14.316.0 0.86 5.7%
TIMELINESS 4 Lowered 5/21/10
SAFETY 2 Lowered 1/5/01
TECHNICAL 3 Lowered 6/25/10BETA .70 (1.00 = Market)
2013-15 PROJECTIONSAnn’l Total
Price Gain ReturnHigh 40 (+70%) 17%Low 30 (+25%) 10%Insider Decisions
A S O N D J F M Ato Buy 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Options 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0to Sell 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Institutional Decisions
3Q2009 4Q2009 1Q2010to Buy 73 101 87to Sell 92 76 78Hld’s(000) 41650 43738 42304
High: 26.5 24.4 26.1 26.1 27.1 29.5 29.3 30.5 32.2 26.9 25.6Low: 15.8 19.8 18.0 19.7 22.9 25.0 25.2 24.8 19.5 18.1 21.7
% TOT. RETURN 5/10THIS VL ARITH.
STOCK INDEX1 yr. 7.4 41.63 yr. -6.8 -2.65 yr. 8.1 37.2
Vectren was formed on March 31, 2000through the merger of Indiana Energy andSIGCORP. The merger was consummatedwith a tax-free exchange of shares and hasbeen accounted for as a pooling of interests.Indiana Energy common stockholdersreceived one Vectren common share foreach share held. SIGCORP stockholdersexchanged each common share for 1.333common shares of Vectren. Data prior to themerger are pro forma.CAPITAL STRUCTURE as of 3/31/10Total Debt $1803.5 mill. Due in 5 Yrs $698.6 mill.LT Debt $1549.9 mill. LT Interest $90.0 mill.(LT interest earned: 2.8x)
Pension Assets-12/09 $211.1 mill.Oblig. $271.5 mill.
Pfd Stock None
Common Stock 81,192,348 shs.as of 4/30/10
MARKET CAP: $1.9 billion (Mid Cap)
ELECTRIC OPERATING STATISTICS2007 2008 2009
% Change Retail Sales (KWH) +3.5 -14.4 -5.3Avg. Indust. Use (MWH) NA NA NAAvg. Indust. Revs. per KWH (¢) NA NA NACapacity at Peak (Mw) 1487 1492 1493Peak Load, Summer (Mw) 1341 1242 1143Annual Load Factor (%) 60.6 55.1 56.2% Change Customers (yr-end) +.9 -.1 -.2
Fixed Charge Cov. (%) 254 269 280ANNUAL RATES Past Past Est’d ’07-’09of change (per sh) 10 Yrs. 5 Yrs. to ’13-’15Revenues - - 2.0% 3.5%‘‘Cash Flow’’ - - 4.5% 5.5%Earnings - - 2.5% 4.5%Dividends - - 3.5% 2.5%Book Value - - 4.0% 3.5%
Cal- Fullendar Year
QUARTERLY REVENUES ($ mill.)Mar.31 Jun. 30 Sep. 30 Dec. 31
2007 834.0 421.7 381.4 644.8 2281.92008 902.1 463.9 411.4 707.3 2484.72009 795.2 375.5 349.6 568.6 2088.92010 740.3 410 425 684.7 22602011 780 460 470 740 2450Cal- Full
endar YearEARNINGS PER SHARE A
Mar.31 Jun. 30 Sep. 30 Dec. 312007 .88 .21 .22 .52 1.832008 .84 .06 .27 .46 1.632009 .90 .07 .15 .67 1.792010 .78 .10 .25 .57 1.702011 .90 .15 .25 .60 1.90Cal- Full
endar YearQUARTERLY DIVIDENDS PAID B■ †
Mar.31 Jun.30 Sep.30 Dec.312006 .305 .305 .305 .315 1.232007 .315 .315 .315 .325 1.272008 .325 .325 .325 .335 1.312009 .335 .335 .335 .340 1.352010 .340 .340
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 200726.84 32.05 26.53 21.00 22.26 26.62 26.83 29.88
2.88 2.89 3.43 3.17 3.27 3.87 3.69 4.291.17 1.08 1.68 1.56 1.42 1.81 1.44 1.83
.98 1.03 1.07 1.11 1.15 1.19 1.23 1.272.67 3.48 3.22 3.12 3.66 3.04 3.70 4.38
11.91 12.53 12.79 14.18 14.42 15.01 15.43 16.1661.42 67.70 68.01 75.60 75.90 76.19 76.10 76.36
17.4 20.3 14.2 14.8 17.6 15.1 18.9 15.31.13 1.04 .78 .84 .93 .80 1.02 .81
4.8% 4.7% 4.5% 4.8% 4.6% 4.4% 4.5% 4.5%
1648.7 2170.0 1804.3 1587.6 1689.8 2028.0 2041.6 2281.972.0 73.1 114.0 111.2 108.0 136.8 108.8 143.1
32.2% 20.3% 25.4% 25.3% 26.5% 24.4% 21.8% 34.7%- - 7.7% 4.6% 4.5% 3.0% 1.4% 3.8% 2.8%
45.8% 54.4% 52.3% 50.0% 48.1% 51.2% 50.7% 50.2%53.0% 45.5% 47.7% 50.0% 51.8% 48.8% 49.3% 49.8%1380.6 1863.1 1824.4 2144.7 2111.5 2341.3 2382.2 2479.11555.8 1595.0 1648.1 2003.7 2156.2 2251.9 2385.5 2539.7
6.1% 5.5% 7.7% 6.6% 6.4% 7.2% 6.0% 7.2%9.6% 8.6% 13.1% 10.4% 9.9% 12.0% 9.3% 11.6%9.7% 8.5% 13.1% 10.4% 9.9% 12.0% 9.3% 11.6%1.5% .3% 4.8% 3.0% 1.9% 4.0% 1.3% 3.8%85% 96% 63% 71% 81% 66% 86% 67%
2008 2009 2010 2011 © VALUE LINE PUB., INC. 13-1530.67 25.75 27.75 29.90 Revenues per sh 35.703.97 4.40 4.40 4.80 ‘‘Cash Flow’’ per sh 5.851.63 1.79 1.70 1.90 Earnings per sh A 2.251.31 1.35 1.37 1.39 Div’d Decl’d per sh B■† 1.504.83 5.33 3.70 4.90 Cap’l Spending per sh 6.55
16.68 17.23 18.40 19.50 Book Value per sh C 22.0081.03 81.10 81.50 82.00 Common Shs Outst’g D 84.00
16.8 12.9 Bold figures areValue Lineestimates
Avg Ann’l P/E Ratio 15.01.01 .85 Relative P/E Ratio 1.00
4.8% 5.9% Avg Ann’l Div’d Yield 4.4%
2484.7 2088.9 2260 2450 Revenues ($mill) 3000129.0 145.0 140 155 Net Profit ($mill) 190
37.1% 32.5% 35.0% 35.0% Income Tax Rate 35.0%2.9% 3.0% 3.0% 3.0% AFUDC % to Net Profit 3.0%
48.0% 52.5% 51.0% 50.0% Long-Term Debt Ratio 49.5%52.0% 47.5% 49.0% 50.0% Common Equity Ratio 50.5%2599.5 2938.0 3050 3200 Total Capital ($mill) 36502720.3 2878.8 2925 3000 Net Plant ($mill) 3300
6.5% 6.3% 6.0% 6.5% Return on Total Cap’l 6.5%9.5% 10.0% 9.0% 9.5% Return on Shr. Equity 10.0%9.5% 10.5% 9.5% 9.5% Return on Com Equity E 10.5%2.0% 2.5% 2.0% 2.5% Retained to Com Eq 3.5%80% 76% 80% 74% All Div’ds to Net Prof 66%
Company’s Financial Strength AStock’s Price Stability 100Price Growth Persistence 55Earnings Predictability 90
(A) Diluted EPS. Excl. nonrecur. gain (loss):’00, 8¢; ’01, (13¢); ’03, (6¢); ’09, 15¢; incl.charges for merger costs: ’00, 60¢; ’01, 17¢.Next earnings report due late July/early Au-
gust. (B) Div’ds historically paid in early March,June, September, and December. ■Div’d rein-vest. plan avail. † Shareholder invest. planavail. (C) Incl. intang. In ’09, $5.30/sh. (D) In
millions. (E) Electric rate base determination:fair value. Rate allowed on elect. commonequity in ’07: 10.4%. Regulatory Climate:Above Average.
BUSINESS: Vectren is a holding company formed through themerger of Indiana Energy and SIGCORP. Supplies electricity andgas to an area nearly two-thirds of the state of Indiana. Owns gasdistribution assets in Ohio. Has a customer base of 1,125,000.2009 Electricity revenues: residential, 37%; commercial, 28%; in-dustrial, 33%; other, 2%. 2009 Gas revenues: residential, 68%;
commercial, 26%; other, 6%. Also provides energy-related productsand services and has an investment subsidiary. Est’d plant age:electric, 8 years. ’09 deprec. rate: 4.6%. Has 3,700 employees.Chairman & CEO: Niel C. Ellerbrook. President: Carl Chapman. In-corporated: IN. Address: One Vectren Square, Evansville, Indiana47708. Telephone: 812-491-4000. Internet: www.vectren.com.
Vectren reported lower revenues andshare earnings for the first quarter.Earnings for the utility business almostequaled the prior-year tally. However, re-sults in the company’s nonutility opera-tions declined somewhat, due to unfavor-able weather in the Mid-Atlantic andNortheast regions, which limited MillerPipeline’s construction activities.ProLiance’s operating earnings decreased,reflecting lower margins for its transporta-tion and storage portfolio.The company will probably continueto face headwinds in the comingquarters. Some economic softness shouldcontinue to result in lower demand forelectricity, coal, and natural gas, comparedto historical trends. Nevertheless, per-formance ought to remain solid at the util-ity businesses, and we expect that earn-ings in the second and third quarters willcompare favorably with the prior-year pe-riods. Overall, though, we expect a modestbottom-line decline for the current year,due to weakness in the recent interim andassuming a bottom-line shortfall in thefourth quarter. The company’s operatingenvironment ought to improve, over time.
Share earnings may well rebound in 2011,assuming higher revenues and greatercost control.Vectren is seeking higher rates in In-diana. The company has filed an electricrate case with the Indiana Utility Regu-latory Commission, requesting an increasefor its utility, which is located in thesouthwestern part of the state. Vectren isalso seeking improved rate design. Thecompany cited investments in infrastruc-ture of roughly $325 million over the pastthree years, along with a slight increase inoperating and maintenance expenses.This stock is ranked to trail thebroader market averages over thecoming six to 12 months. Looking fur-ther out, we anticipate higher revenuesand share earnings by 2013-2015. Fromthe present quotation, this issue hashealthy total return potential for the com-ing 3 to 5 years, aided by its solid dividendyield. Moreover, Vectren earns favorablemarks for Safety, Price Stability, andEarnings Predictability. As a result, thestock may appeal to conservative, income-oriented accounts.Michael Napoli, CFA June 25, 2010
LEGENDS1.10 x Dividends p shdivided by Interest Rate. . . . Relative Price Strength
Options: YesShaded area: prior recession
Latest recession began 12/07
© 2010, Value Line Publishing, Inc. All rights reserved. Factual material is obtained from sources believed to be reliable and is provided without warranties of any kind.THE PUBLISHER IS NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR ANY ERRORS OR OMISSIONS HEREIN. This publication is strictly for subscriber’s own, non-commercial, internal use. No partof it may be reproduced, resold, stored or transmitted in any printed, electronic or other form, or used for generating or marketing any printed or electronic publication, service or product.
To subscribe call 1-800-833-0046.
RECENTPRICE
P/ERATIO
RELATIVEP/E RATIO
DIV’DYLD( )Trailing:
Median:VALUELINE
Dkt. No. ER09-1534-001 Exhibit SCE-57 Page 2 of 3
12896806448403224
1612
Percentsharestraded
1284
Target Price Range2013 2014 2015
WISCONSIN ENERGY NYSE-WEC 50.61 13.7 16.315.0 0.85 3.2%
TIMELINESS 3 Lowered 4/23/10
SAFETY 2 Lowered 7/11/97
TECHNICAL 3 Lowered 4/9/10BETA .65 (1.00 = Market)
2013-15 PROJECTIONSAnn’l Total
Price Gain ReturnHigh 80 (+60%) 15%Low 60 (+20%) 8%Insider Decisions
A S O N D J F M Ato Buy 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Options 2 0 0 3 0 0 5 1 1to Sell 2 0 0 3 0 0 3 1 1Institutional Decisions
3Q2009 4Q2009 1Q2010to Buy 110 139 121to Sell 159 149 158Hld’s(000) 80851 81517 80579
High: 31.6 23.6 24.6 26.5 33.7 34.6 40.8 48.7 50.5 49.6 50.6 53.8Low: 19.1 16.8 19.1 20.2 22.6 29.5 33.3 38.2 41.1 34.9 36.3 46.8
% TOT. RETURN 5/10THIS VL ARITH.
STOCK INDEX1 yr. 28.1 41.63 yr. 9.9 -2.65 yr. 53.2 37.2
CAPITAL STRUCTURE as of 3/31/10Total Debt $4916.8 mill. Due in 5 Yrs $1706.5 mill.LT Debt $4396.1 mill. LT Interest $248.4 mill.Incl. $141.9 mill. capitalized leases.(LT interest earned: 3.3x)Leases, Uncapitalized Annual rentals $21.3 mill.Pension Assets-12/09 $1.03 bill.
Oblig. $1.16 bill.Pfd Stock $30.4 mill. Pfd Div’d $1.2 mill.260,000 shs. 3.60%, $100 par, callable at $101;44,498 shs. 6%, $100 par.Common Stock 116,900,740 shs.
MARKET CAP: $5.9 billion (Large Cap)
ELECTRIC OPERATING STATISTICS2007 2008 2009
% Change Retail Sales (KWH) +2.2 -2.2 -8.1Avg. Indust. Use (MWH) NA NA NAAvg. Indust. Revs. per KWH (¢) 6.02 6.05 6.57Capacity at Peak (Mw) NA NA NAPeak Load, Summer (Mw) 6166 5740 5812Annual Load Factor (%) NA NA NA% Change Customers (yr-end) +.2 +.5 +.2
Fixed Charge Cov. (%) 258 270 281ANNUAL RATES Past Past Est’d ’07-’09of change (per sh) 10 Yrs. 5 Yrs. to ’13-’15Revenues 7.5% 2.5% 3.0%‘‘Cash Flow’’ 4.5% 2.0% 7.0%Earnings 8.5% 7.0% 9.0%Dividends -3.0% 7.0% 13.0%Book Value 5.5% 7.5% 6.0%
Cal- Fullendar Year
QUARTERLY REVENUES ($ mill.)Mar.31 Jun.30 Sep.30 Dec.31
2007 1301.1 906.5 881.5 1148.7 4237.82008 1431.8 946.1 852.5 1200.6 4431.02009 1396.2 842.5 821.9 1067.3 4127.92010 1255.9 900 850 1144.1 41502011 1350 950 900 1200 4400Cal- Full
endar YearEARNINGS PER SHARE A
Mar.31 Jun.30 Sep.30 Dec.312007 .85 .49 .70 .80 2.842008 1.04 .49 .65 .85 3.032009 1.20 .54 .50 .96 3.202010 1.10 .65 .95 1.00 3.702011 1.25 .70 1.00 1.05 4.00Cal- Full
endar YearQUARTERLY DIVIDENDS PAID B ■ †
Mar.31 Jun.30 Sep.30 Dec.312006 .23 .23 .23 .23 .922007 .25 .25 .25 .25 1.002008 .27 .27 .27 .27 1.082009 .3375 .3375 .3375 .3375 1.352010 .40 .40
1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 200715.99 15.98 15.88 15.86 17.13 19.11 28.28 34.04 32.20 34.24 29.33 32.62 34.17 36.24
3.81 4.28 4.25 2.96 4.13 4.53 4.48 5.44 5.68 5.71 5.16 5.78 5.80 5.971.67 2.13 1.97 .54 1.65 1.88 1.08 1.84 2.32 2.26 1.85 2.56 2.64 2.841.40 1.46 1.51 1.54 1.56 1.56 1.37 .80 .80 .80 .83 .88 .92 1.002.76 2.50 3.53 3.13 3.52 4.44 5.29 6.03 5.07 5.89 5.70 6.79 8.35 10.56
16.01 16.89 17.42 16.51 16.46 16.89 17.00 17.81 18.44 19.92 21.31 22.91 24.70 26.50108.94 110.82 111.68 112.87 115.61 118.90 118.65 115.42 116.03 118.43 116.99 116.98 116.97 116.94
15.2 13.1 14.3 47.3 18.0 13.3 18.7 12.1 10.5 12.4 17.5 14.5 16.0 16.51.00 .88 .90 2.73 .94 .76 1.22 .62 .57 .71 .92 .77 .86 .88
5.5% 5.2% 5.4% 6.0% 5.2% 6.3% 6.8% 3.6% 3.3% 2.8% 2.6% 2.4% 2.2% 2.1%
3354.7 3928.5 3736.2 4054.3 3431.1 3815.5 3996.4 4237.8132.0 218.8 270.8 269.2 221.2 304.8 313.7 337.7
43.7% 40.9% 37.4% 35.5% 37.5% 32.9% 35.8% 39.1%12.3% 6.9% 4.1% 6.9% 10.0% 12.5% 19.0% 23.8%58.9% 62.2% 59.8% 59.9% 56.2% 52.8% 51.3% 50.3%40.5% 37.2% 39.6% 39.6% 43.3% 46.7% 48.2% 49.2%4979.9 5523.8 5400.3 5963.3 5762.3 5741.5 5992.8 6302.14152.4 4188.0 4398.8 5926.1 5903.1 6362.9 7052.5 7681.2
4.7% 5.8% 7.1% 6.3% 5.6% 7.0% 6.6% 7.0%6.4% 10.5% 12.5% 11.3% 8.8% 11.2% 10.7% 10.8%6.5% 10.6% 12.6% 11.4% 8.8% 11.3% 10.8% 10.9%NMF 6.0% 8.3% 7.4% 4.9% 7.5% 7.1% 7.1%NMF 43% 35% 35% 45% 34% 35% 35%
2008 2009 2010 2011 © VALUE LINE PUB., INC. 13-1537.90 35.31 35.50 37.65 Revenues per sh 44.00
5.91 6.22 6.35 6.85 ‘‘Cash Flow’’ per sh 9.003.03 3.20 3.70 4.00 Earnings per sh A 5.001.08 1.35 1.60 1.80 Div’d Decl’d per sh B ■ † 2.409.73 6.99 8.15 8.70 Cap’l Spending per sh 6.50
28.54 30.51 32.45 34.45 Book Value per sh C 40.75116.92 116.91 116.90 116.90 Common Shs Outst’g D 116.90
14.8 13.3 Bold figures areValue Lineestimates
Avg Ann’l P/E Ratio 14.0.89 .88 Relative P/E Ratio .95
2.4% 3.2% Avg Ann’l Div’d Yield 3.4%
4431.0 4127.9 4150 4400 Revenues ($mill) 5150359.8 378.4 435 475 Net Profit ($mill) 595
37.6% 36.5% 35.5% 35.5% Income Tax Rate 34.5%27.2% 25.0% 16.0% 15.0% AFUDC % to Net Profit 10.0%54.8% 51.9% 55.0% 54.0% Long-Term Debt Ratio 51.5%44.8% 47.7% 44.5% 45.5% Common Equity Ratio 48.5%7442.0 7473.1 8500 8835 Total Capital ($mill) 98758517.0 9070.5 9660 10350 Net Plant ($mill) 11525
6.3% 6.4% 6.5% 7.0% Return on Total Cap’l 7.5%10.7% 10.5% 11.5% 11.5% Return on Shr. Equity 12.5%10.7% 10.6% 11.5% 11.5% Return on Com Equity E 12.5%
7.0% 6.2% 6.5% 6.5% Retained to Com Eq 6.5%35% 42% 43% 45% All Div’ds to Net Prof 48%
Company’s Financial Strength B++Stock’s Price Stability 100Price Growth Persistence 95Earnings Predictability 90
(A) Diluted EPS. Excl. nonrec. gains (losses):’99, (9¢); ’00, 19¢ net; ’01, 1¢ net; ’02, (88¢);’03, (20¢) net; ’04, (81¢); gains on discont.ops.: ’04, $1.54; ’05, 4¢; ’06, 4¢; ’09, 4¢. Next
earnings report due early Aug. (B) Div’ds his-torically paid in early Mar., June, Sept. & Dec.■ Div’d reinvestment plan avail. † Shareholderinvestment plan avail. (C) Incl. intang. In ’09:
$13.98/sh. (D) In mill. (E) Rate base: Net orig.cost. Rates allowed on com. eq. in ’10: 10.4%-10.5%; earned on avg. com. eq., ’09: 10.8%.Regulatory Climate: Above Average.
BUSINESS: Wisconsin Energy Corporation is a holding companyfor We Energies, which provides electric, gas & steam service inWisconsin. Customers: 1.1 mill. elec., 1 mill. gas. Acq’d EdisonSault Electric 5/98 & sold it 5/10; acq’d WICOR 4/00. Discontinuedpump-manufacturing ops. in ’04. Sold Point Beach nuclear plant in’07. Electric rev. breakdown, ’09: residential, 37%; small comm’l &
ind’l, 32%; large comm’l & ind’l, 23%; other, 8%. Generatingsources, ’09: coal, 52%; gas, 8%; hydro, 1%; wind, 1%; purchased,38%. Fuel costs: 48% of revs. ’09 reported depr. rate (utility): 3.7%.Has 4,700 empls. Chairman, Pres. & CEO: Gale E. Klappa. Inc.:WI. Address: 231 W. Michigan St., P.O. Box 1331, Milwaukee, WI53201. Tel.: 414-221-2345. Internet: www.wisconsinenergy.com.
Construction of generating plants un-der Wisconsin Energy’s ‘‘Power theFuture’’ program is concluding thisyear. The program called for the additionof two gas-fired and two coal-fired unitsthat are owned by a nonutility subsidiaryand leased to Wisconsin Electric underlong-term agreements that provide for anattractive return on equity of 12.7%. Thegas-fired units provided 1,150 megawattsof capacity at a cost of $664 million andwent on line in 2005 and 2008. One of thecoal-fired facilities began commercial oper-ation earlier this year, and the othershould be completed by August. The twounits will provide 1,030 mw of capacity atan expected cost of $2 billion. Thanks tothe income provided by the new coal plant,corporate profits should rise nicely in 2010and 2011.The utility is building morerenewable-energy projects. This isnecessary in order to meet renewable re-quirements in the state. Wisconsin Elec-tric already has a 145-mw wind projectthat was completed in 2008, at a cost of$295 million, and plans to add 160 mw ofwind capacity in 2011, at a cost of $367
million. The company is also requestingcommission approval to build a 50-mwbiomass facility, at a cost of $255 million,with an in-service date of 2013. It shouldget a decision by yearend. Finally, the util-ity intends to build 12.5 mw of solarprojects, at a cost of $85 million-$90 mil-lion, with the initial projects in service in2013.Wisconsin Energy sold its electricutility operation in the upper penin-sula of Michigan. The company soldEdison Sault Electric for $61.5 million,slightly above book value. The utilitywasn’t strategically important for Wiscon-sin Energy.This stock has a low yield (by utilitystandards), but offers excellent divi-dend growth potential to 2013-2015.The yield is about one and a half percent-age points below the industry mean. Wis-consin Energy is targeting a payout ratioof 40%-45% through 2011 and 45%-50%subsequently. As the dividend is raised toachieve these targets, this should producea 3- to 5-year total return that is near theutility average.Paul E. Debbas, CFA June 25, 2010
LEGENDS1.34 x Dividends p shdivided by Interest Rate. . . . Relative Price Strength
Options: YesShaded area: prior recession
Latest recession began 12/07
© 2010, Value Line Publishing, Inc. All rights reserved. Factual material is obtained from sources believed to be reliable and is provided without warranties of any kind.THE PUBLISHER IS NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR ANY ERRORS OR OMISSIONS HEREIN. This publication is strictly for subscriber’s own, non-commercial, internal use. No partof it may be reproduced, resold, stored or transmitted in any printed, electronic or other form, or used for generating or marketing any printed or electronic publication, service or product.
To subscribe call 1-800-833-0046.
RECENTPRICE
P/ERATIO
RELATIVEP/E RATIO
DIV’DYLD( )Trailing:
Median:VALUELINE
Dkt. No. ER09-1534-001 Exhibit SCE-57 Page 3 of 3
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
BEFORE THE
FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION
Southern California Edison Company
)
)
)
Dkt. No.
ER09-1534-001
VERIFICATION OF 2009 VALUE LINE DIVIDEND
DATA
(EXHIBIT SCE-58)
OCTOBER 2010
Calculations to verify that
dividend data are Value Line
data for 2009
VL DPS 09
from Ex. MSR-5
Company Stock Price Dec-09 Jan-10 Feb-10 Mar-10 Apr-10 May-10 Page 2 Same?
1 Alliant Energy High $30.45 $32.37 $32.06 $33.40 $35.32 $34.53
Low $27.22 $29.63 $30.25 $31.84 $33.22 $31.14
(High+Low)/2 $28.84 $31.00 $31.16 $32.62 $34.27 $32.84 $31.79
Annual Dividend $1.50 $1.50 $1.50 $1.50 $1.50 $1.50 $1.50 TRUE
Dividend Yield (Low) 4.93% 4.63% 4.68% 4.49% 4.25% 4.34% 4.55%
Dividend Yield (High) 5.51% 5.06% 4.96% 4.71% 4.52% 4.82% 4.93%
Dividend Yield (Average) 5.20% 4.84% 4.81% 4.60% 4.38% 4.57% 4.73%
2 Amer.Elec. Power High $34.70 $35.62 $34.20 $34.38 $34.06 $34.13
Low $32.23 $33.69 $32.41 $33.47 $32.92 $30.97
(High+Low)/2 $33.47 $34.66 $33.31 $33.93 $33.49 $32.55 $33.57
Annual Dividend $1.64 $1.64 $1.64 $1.64 $1.64 $1.64 $1.64 TRUE
Dividend Yield (Low) 4.73% 4.60% 4.80% 4.77% 4.82% 4.81% 4.75%
Dividend Yield (High) 5.09% 4.87% 5.06% 4.90% 4.98% 5.30% 5.03%
Dividend Yield (Average) 4.90% 4.73% 4.92% 4.83% 4.90% 5.04% 4.89%
3 Centerpoint Energy High $14.40 $14.45 $14.33 $14.27 $14.54 $14.37
Low $13.10 $13.56 $13.20 $13.41 $13.99 $13.06
(High+Low)/2 $13.75 $14.01 $13.77 $13.84 $14.27 $13.72 $13.89
Annual Dividend $0.76 $0.76 $0.76 $0.76 $0.76 $0.76 $0.76 TRUE
Dividend Yield (Low) 5.28% 5.26% 5.30% 5.33% 5.23% 5.29% 5.28%
Dividend Yield (High) 5.80% 5.60% 5.76% 5.67% 5.43% 5.82% 5.68%
Dividend Yield (Average) 5.53% 5.43% 5.52% 5.49% 5.33% 5.54% 5.47%
4 Consol. Edison High $44.88 $45.16 $42.95 $44.08 $44.80 $45.12
Low $42.14 $42.33 $41.65 $42.61 $43.91 $42.27
(High+Low)/2 $43.51 $43.75 $42.30 $43.35 $44.36 $43.70 $43.49
Annual Dividend $2.36 $2.36 $2.36 $2.36 $2.36 $2.36 $2.36 TRUE
Dividend Yield (Low) 5.26% 5.23% 5.49% 5.35% 5.27% 5.23% 5.31%
Dividend Yield (High) 5.60% 5.58% 5.67% 5.54% 5.37% 5.58% 5.56%
Dividend Yield (Average) 5.42% 5.39% 5.58% 5.44% 5.32% 5.40% 5.43%
5 DPL Inc. High $28.04 $27.84 $27.09 $27.43 $27.87 $27.79
Low $26.93 $26.24 $25.92 $26.68 $26.91 $24.52
(High+Low)/2 $27.49 $27.04 $26.51 $27.06 $27.39 $26.16 $26.94
Annual Dividend $1.14 $1.14 $1.14 $1.14 $1.14 $1.14 $1.14 TRUE
Dividend Yield (Low) 4.07% 4.09% 4.21% 4.16% 4.09% 4.10% 4.12%
Dividend Yield (High) 4.23% 4.34% 4.40% 4.27% 4.24% 4.65% 4.36%
Dividend Yield (Average) 4.15% 4.22% 4.30% 4.21% 4.16% 4.36% 4.23%
6 DTE Energy High $44.12 $43.82 $44.10 $45.38 $48.29 $48.91
Low $40.04 $41.55 $41.02 $43.80 $45.38 $44.54
(High+Low)/2 $42.08 $42.69 $42.56 $44.59 $46.84 $46.73 $44.25
Annual Dividend $2.12 $2.12 $2.12 $2.12 $2.12 $2.12 $2.12 TRUE
Dividend Yield (Low) 4.81% 4.84% 4.81% 4.67% 4.39% 4.33% 4.64%
Dividend Yield (High) 5.29% 5.10% 5.17% 4.84% 4.67% 4.76% 4.97%
Dividend Yield (Average) 5.04% 4.97% 4.98% 4.75% 4.53% 4.54% 4.80%
7 Duke Energy High $17.30 $16.60 $16.37 $16.38 $16.54 $16.74Low $16.62 $16.06 $15.86 $16.07 $15.78 $15.71(High+Low)/2 $16.96 $16.33 $16.12 $16.23 $16.16 $16.23 $16.34
Annual Dividend $0.90 $0.90 $0.90 $0.90 $0.90 $0.90 $0.90 TRUE
Dividend Yield (Low) 5.20% 5.42% 5.50% 5.49% 5.44% 5.38% 5.41%
Dividend Yield (High) 5.42% 5.60% 5.67% 5.60% 5.70% 5.73% 5.62%
Dividend Yield (Average) 5.31% 5.51% 5.58% 5.55% 5.57% 5.55% 5.51%
8 Exelon Corp. High $50.37 $48.47 $45.03 $44.94 $44.53 $43.59Low $47.70 $44.52 $42.71 $42.66 $42.32 $38.06(High+Low)/2 $49.04 $46.50 $43.87 $43.80 $43.43 $40.83 $44.58
Annual Dividend $2.10 $2.10 $2.10 $2.10 $2.10 $2.10 $2.10 TRUE
Dividend Yield (Low) 4.17% 4.33% 4.66% 4.67% 4.72% 4.82% 4.56%
Dividend Yield (High) 4.40% 4.72% 4.92% 4.92% 4.96% 5.52% 4.91%
Dividend Yield (Average) 4.28% 4.52% 4.79% 4.79% 4.84% 5.14% 4.73%
9 Hawaiian Electric High $20.74 $21.11 $20.90 $22.30 $23.58 $23.40Low $19.14 $19.22 $18.25 $20.23 $22.33 $21.51(High+Low)/2 $19.94 $20.17 $19.58 $21.27 $22.96 $22.46 $21.06
Annual Dividend $1.24 $1.24 $1.24 $1.24 $1.24 $1.24 $1.24 TRUE
Dividend Yield (Low) 5.98% 5.87% 5.93% 5.56% 5.26% 5.30% 5.65%
Dividend Yield (High) 6.48% 6.45% 6.79% 6.13% 5.55% 5.76% 6.20%
Dividend Yield (Average) 6.22% 6.15% 6.33% 5.83% 5.40% 5.52% 5.91%
10 OGE Energy High $32.05 $32.63 $33.66 $35.19 $36.29 $36.81Low $29.55 $30.79 $30.19 $33.19 $34.70 $31.88(High+Low)/2 $30.80 $31.71 $31.93 $34.19 $35.50 $34.35 $33.08
Annual Dividend $1.20 $1.20 $1.20 $1.20 $1.20 $1.20 #N/A #N/A
Dividend Yield (Low) 3.74% 3.68% 3.57% 3.41% 3.31% 3.26% 3.49%
Dividend Yield (High) 4.06% 3.90% 3.97% 3.62% 3.46% 3.76% 3.80%
Dividend Yield (Average) 3.90% 3.78% 3.76% 3.51% 3.38% 3.49% 3.64%
11 Northeast Utilities High $25.81 $25.89 $26.16 $27.55 $27.92 $27.47Low $23.87 $24.82 $24.29 $25.85 $26.75 $25.27(High+Low)/2 $24.84 $25.36 $25.23 $26.70 $27.34 $26.37 $25.97
Annual Dividend $0.95 $0.95 $0.95 $0.95 $0.95 $0.95 $0.95 TRUE
Dividend Yield (Low) 3.68% 3.67% 3.63% 3.45% 3.40% 3.46% 3.55%
Dividend Yield (High) 3.98% 3.83% 3.91% 3.68% 3.55% 3.76% 3.78%
Dividend Yield (Average) 3.82% 3.75% 3.77% 3.56% 3.48% 3.60% 3.66%
12 Pepco Holdings High $16.83 $16.99 $16.56 $17.03 $17.36 $16.74Low $15.94 $15.84 $15.39 $16.19 $15.97 $15.40(High+Low)/2 $16.39 $16.42 $15.98 $16.61 $16.67 $16.07 $16.35
Annual Dividend $1.08 $1.08 $1.08 $1.08 $1.08 $1.08 $1.08 TRUE
Dividend Yield (Low) 6.42% 6.36% 6.52% 6.34% 6.22% 6.45% 6.39%
Dividend Yield (High) 6.78% 6.82% 7.02% 6.67% 6.76% 7.01% 6.84%
Dividend Yield (Average) 6.59% 6.58% 6.76% 6.50% 6.48% 6.72% 6.61%
Average Prices Based on Previous Number of Days' Trades
Closing Date: May 28, 2010
DR. LESSER'S DATA FROM DATA REQUEST SCE-M-S-R/LADWP-86
Dkt. No. ER09-1534-001 Exhibit SCE-58 Page 1 of 2
Calculations to verify that
dividend data are Value Line
data for 2009
VL DPS 09
from Ex. MSR-5
Company Stock Price Dec-09 Jan-10 Feb-10 Mar-10 Apr-10 May-10 Page 2 Same?
Average Prices Based on Previous Number of Days' Trades
Closing Date: May 28, 2010
DR. LESSER'S DATA FROM DATA REQUEST SCE-M-S-R/LADWP-86
13 PG&E Corp. High $44.99 $45.11 $42.16 $42.86 $43.96 $44.48Low $42.04 $41.79 $40.59 $41.59 $42.47 $41.21(High+Low)/2 $43.52 $43.45 $41.38 $42.23 $43.22 $42.85 $42.77
Annual Dividend $1.68 $1.68 $1.68 $1.68 $1.68 $1.68 $1.68 TRUE
Dividend Yield (Low) 3.73% 3.72% 3.98% 3.92% 3.82% 3.78% 3.83%
Dividend Yield (High) 4.00% 4.02% 4.14% 4.04% 3.96% 4.08% 4.04%
Dividend Yield (Average) 3.86% 3.87% 4.06% 3.98% 3.89% 3.92% 3.93%
14 Portland General High $20.68 $20.23 $19.49 $19.42 $20.15 $20.40Low $19.41 $19.24 $17.75 $17.97 $19.44 $18.61(High+Low)/2 $20.05 $19.74 $18.62 $18.70 $19.80 $19.51 $19.40
Annual Dividend $1.01 $1.01 $1.01 $1.01 $1.01 $1.01 $1.01 TRUE
Dividend Yield (Low) 4.88% 4.99% 5.18% 5.20% 5.01% 4.95% 5.04%
Dividend Yield (High) 5.20% 5.25% 5.69% 5.62% 5.20% 5.43% 5.40%
Dividend Yield (Average) 5.04% 5.12% 5.42% 5.40% 5.10% 5.18% 5.21%
15 PPL Corp. High $32.14 $31.78 $29.10 $28.78 $28.25 $25.81Low $30.10 $28.74 $27.75 $27.20 $24.42 $24.33(High+Low)/2 $31.12 $30.26 $28.43 $27.99 $26.34 $25.07 $28.20
Annual Dividend $1.38 $1.38 $1.38 $1.38 $1.38 $1.38 $1.38 TRUE
Dividend Yield (Low) 4.29% 4.34% 4.74% 4.79% 4.88% 5.35% 4.73%
Dividend Yield (High) 4.58% 4.80% 4.97% 5.07% 5.65% 5.67% 5.13%
Dividend Yield (Average) 4.43% 4.56% 4.85% 4.93% 5.24% 5.50% 4.92%
16 Progress Energy High $40.70 $39.68 $38.88 $39.27 $39.92 $40.53Low $38.39 $37.93 $36.73 $38.05 $38.66 $37.98(High+Low)/2 $39.55 $38.81 $37.81 $38.66 $39.29 $39.26 $38.89
Annual Dividend $2.48 $2.48 $2.48 $2.48 $2.48 $2.48 $2.48 TRUE
Dividend Yield (Low) 6.09% 6.25% 6.38% 6.32% 6.21% 6.12% 6.23%
Dividend Yield (High) 6.46% 6.54% 6.75% 6.52% 6.41% 6.53% 6.54%
Dividend Yield (Average) 6.27% 6.39% 6.56% 6.41% 6.31% 6.32% 6.38%
17 PSEG High $33.78 $33.63 $31.18 $31.20 $32.13 $32.77Low $31.68 $30.57 $29.48 $29.11 $30.12 $29.89(High+Low)/2 $32.73 $32.10 $30.33 $30.16 $31.13 $31.33 $31.30
Annual Dividend $1.33 $1.33 $1.33 $1.33 $1.33 $1.33 $1.33 TRUE
Dividend Yield (Low) 3.94% 3.95% 4.27% 4.26% 4.14% 4.06% 4.10%
Dividend Yield (High) 4.20% 4.35% 4.51% 4.57% 4.42% 4.45% 4.42%
Dividend Yield (Average) 4.06% 4.14% 4.39% 4.41% 4.27% 4.25% 4.25%
18 SCANA Corp High $37.45 $36.80 $35.49 $37.52 $38.95 $39.40Low $34.44 $34.69 $33.66 $35.82 $37.50 $35.30(High+Low)/2 $35.95 $35.75 $34.58 $36.67 $38.23 $37.35 $36.42
Annual Dividend $1.88 $1.88 $1.88 $1.88 $1.88 $1.88 $1.88 TRUE
Dividend Yield (Low) 5.02% 5.11% 5.30% 5.01% 4.83% 4.77% 5.01%
Dividend Yield (High) 5.46% 5.42% 5.59% 5.25% 5.01% 5.33% 5.34%
Dividend Yield (Average) 5.23% 5.26% 5.44% 5.13% 4.92% 5.03% 5.17%
19 Sempra Energy High $56.44 $55.47 $51.09 $50.75 $51.36 $50.37Low $53.03 $50.36 $47.76 $48.41 $49.02 $44.96(High+Low)/2 $54.74 $52.92 $49.43 $49.58 $50.19 $47.67 $50.75
Annual Dividend $1.56 $1.56 $1.56 $1.56 $1.56 $1.56 $1.56 TRUE
Dividend Yield (Low) 2.76% 2.81% 3.05% 3.07% 3.04% 3.10% 2.97%
Dividend Yield (High) 2.94% 3.10% 3.27% 3.22% 3.18% 3.47% 3.20%
Dividend Yield (Average) 2.85% 2.95% 3.16% 3.15% 3.11% 3.27% 3.08%
20 TECO Energy High $16.18 $16.06 $15.58 $15.97 $16.84 $17.05Low $14.70 $15.17 $14.37 $15.22 $15.95 $14.85(High+Low)/2 $15.44 $15.62 $14.98 $15.60 $16.40 $15.95 $15.66
Annual Dividend $0.80 $0.80 $0.80 $0.80 $0.80 $0.80 $0.80 TRUE
Dividend Yield (Low) 4.94% 4.98% 5.13% 5.01% 4.75% 4.69% 4.92%
Dividend Yield (High) 5.44% 5.27% 5.57% 5.26% 5.02% 5.39% 5.32%
Dividend Yield (Average) 5.18% 5.12% 5.34% 5.13% 4.88% 5.02% 5.11%
21 Vectren Corp. High $24.55 $24.16 $23.15 $24.56 $25.24 $25.00Low $23.12 $22.61 $22.01 $22.93 $24.02 $22.41(High+Low)/2 $23.84 $23.39 $22.58 $23.75 $24.63 $23.71 $23.65
Annual Dividend $1.35 $1.35 $1.35 $1.35 $1.35 $1.35 $1.35 TRUE
Dividend Yield (Low) 5.50% 5.59% 5.83% 5.50% 5.35% 5.40% 5.53%
Dividend Yield (High) 5.84% 5.97% 6.13% 5.89% 5.62% 6.02% 5.91%
Dividend Yield (Average) 5.66% 5.77% 5.98% 5.69% 5.48% 5.70% 5.71%
22 Wisconsin Energy High $49.62 $49.90 $49.42 $50.80 $52.11 $53.03Low $45.07 $48.12 $47.33 $48.93 $49.53 $48.21(High+Low)/2 $47.35 $49.01 $48.38 $49.87 $50.82 $50.62 $49.34
Annual Dividend $1.35 $1.35 $1.35 $1.35 $1.35 $1.35 $1.35 TRUE
Dividend Yield (Low) 2.72% 2.71% 2.73% 2.66% 2.59% 2.55% 2.66%
Dividend Yield (High) 3.00% 2.81% 2.85% 2.76% 2.73% 2.80% 2.82%
Dividend Yield (Average) 2.85% 2.75% 2.79% 2.71% 2.66% 2.67% 2.74%
23 Xcel Energy High $21.35 $21.36 $20.93 $21.33 $21.94 $22.10Low $20.09 $20.54 $19.81 $20.78 $21.23 $20.27(High+Low)/2 $20.72 $20.95 $20.37 $21.06 $21.59 $21.19 $20.98
Annual Dividend $0.97 $0.97 $0.97 $0.97 $0.97 $0.97 $0.97 TRUE
Dividend Yield (Low) 4.54% 4.54% 4.63% 4.55% 4.42% 4.39% 4.51%
Dividend Yield (High) 4.83% 4.72% 4.90% 4.67% 4.57% 4.79% 4.74%
Dividend Yield (Average) 4.68% 4.63% 4.76% 4.61% 4.49% 4.58% 4.63%
Dkt. No. ER09-1534-001 Exhibit SCE-58 Page 2 of 2
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
BEFORE THE
FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION
Southern California Edison Company
)
)
)
Dkt. No.
ER09-1534-001
UPDATED DCF ESTIMATES, SEPTEMBER 2010
(EXHIBIT SCE-59)
OCTOBER 2010
Discounted Cash Flow (DCF) Analysis
National Proxy Group
Line
No. Company Low High Low High br + sv I/B/E/S Low High Average
1. LNT Alliant Energy 4.43% 4.92% 4.54% 5.16% 4.92% 9.90% 9.46% - 15.06% 12.26%
2. AEP Amer. Elec. Power 4.69% 5.20% 4.79% 5.31% 4.45% 4.38% 9.17% - 9.76% 9.46%
3. CNP CenterPoint Energy 5.25% 6.04% 5.40% 6.28% 7.96% 5.70% 11.10% - 14.24% 12.67%
4. ED Consol. Edison 5.08% 5.43% 5.16% 5.55% 3.17% 4.47% 8.33% - 10.02% 9.18%
5. D Dominion Resources 4.22% 4.57% 4.29% 4.69% 5.49% 3.50% 7.79% - 10.18% 8.99%
6. DPL DPL Inc. 4.49% 4.90% 4.62% 5.26% 14.75% 5.90% 10.52% - 20.01% 15.26%
7. DTE DTE Energy 4.40% 4.81% 4.49% 4.93% 4.18% 5.00% 8.67% - 9.93% 9.30%
8. DUK Duke Energy 5.57% 6.00% 5.64% 6.12% 2.22% 4.00% 7.85% - 10.12% 8.99%
9. EXC Exelon Corp. 4.85% 5.37% 4.87% 5.55% 6.95% 0.97% 5.84% - 12.50% 9.17%
10. GXP G't Plains Energy 4.38% 4.75% 4.44% 5.06% 2.55% 13.00% 6.99% - 18.06% 12.52%
11. HE Hawaiian Elec. 5.10% 5.62% 5.18% 5.83% 2.96% 7.43% 8.14% - 13.25% 10.70%
12. IDA IDACORP, Inc. 3.28% 3.63% 3.35% 3.73% 5.43% 4.00% 7.35% - 9.15% 8.25%
13. TEG Integrys Energy 5.42% 5.99% 5.47% 6.27% 1.86% 9.40% 7.33% - 15.67% 11.50%
14. NEE NextEra Energy 3.71% 4.04% 3.83% 4.19% 7.67% 6.83% 10.67% - 11.86% 11.27%
15. NU Northeast Utilities 3.58% 3.88% 3.67% 4.02% 5.07% 7.51% 8.74% - 11.54% 10.14%
16. OGE OGE Energy 3.55% 3.98% 3.64% 4.14% 8.03% 5.00% 8.64% - 12.17% 10.40%
17. PCG PG&E Corp. 3.98% 4.48% 4.11% 4.64% 6.27% 6.88% 10.37% - 11.52% 10.95%
18. POR Portland General 5.11% 5.51% 5.17% 5.66% 2.32% 5.40% 7.49% - 11.06% 9.27%
19. PGN Progress Energy 5.89% 6.30% 5.96% 6.42% 2.39% 3.63% 8.36% - 10.05% 9.20%
20. PEG Public Serv. Enterprise 4.08% 4.52% 4.12% 4.70% 8.15% 2.00% 6.12% - 12.85% 9.49%
21. SCG SCANA Corp. 4.78% 5.20% 4.89% 5.33% 5.23% 4.90% 9.79% - 10.56% 10.18%
22. SRE Sempra Energy 3.01% 3.32% 3.06% 3.42% 6.09% 3.50% 6.56% - 9.52% 8.04%
23. TE TECO Energy 4.75% 5.29% 4.87% 5.47% 5.01% 6.68% 9.88% - 12.15% 11.02%
24. WR Westar Energy 5.15% 5.62% 5.22% 5.88% 2.90% 9.28% 8.12% - 15.16% 11.64%
25. WEC Wisconsin Energy 2.91% 3.18% 3.01% 3.33% 6.99% 9.53% 10.00% - 12.85% 11.43%
26. XEL Xcel Energy Inc. 4.45% 4.80% 4.55% 4.96% 4.46% 6.64% 9.01% - 11.60% 10.30%
27. Range 5.84% 20.01%
28. Midpoint of Range 12.92%
29. Average of Range 10.44%
30. Median of Range 10.01%
31. Median of Company Averages 10.24%
32. Number of Company Averages 26
33. Number of Individual Estimates 52
34. Adjusted Range
35. Midpoint of Adjusted Range
36. Average of Adjusted Range
37. Median of Adjusted Range
38. Median of Company Averages, Adjusted Range
39. Number of Company Averages, Adjusted Range
40. Number of Individual Estimates, Adjusted Range
Adj Average Div YieldAverage Div Yield Estimated ROEGrowth Rates
Dkt. No. ER09-1534-001 Exhibit SCE-59 Page 1 of 14
Discounted Cash Flow (DCF) Analysis
National Proxy Group
Line
No. Company
1. LNT Alliant Energy
2. AEP Amer. Elec. Power
3. CNP CenterPoint Energy
4. ED Consol. Edison
5. D Dominion Resources
6. DPL DPL Inc.
7. DTE DTE Energy
8. DUK Duke Energy
9. EXC Exelon Corp.
10. GXP G't Plains Energy
11. HE Hawaiian Elec.
12. IDA IDACORP, Inc.
13. TEG Integrys Energy
14. NEE NextEra Energy
15. NU Northeast Utilities
16. OGE OGE Energy
17. PCG PG&E Corp.
18. POR Portland General
19. PGN Progress Energy
20. PEG Public Serv. Enterprise
21. SCG SCANA Corp.
22. SRE Sempra Energy
23. TE TECO Energy
24. WR Westar Energy
25. WEC Wisconsin Energy
26. XEL Xcel Energy Inc.
27. Range
28. Midpoint of Range
29. Average of Range
30. Median of Range
31. Median of Company Averages
32. Number of Company Averages
33. Number of Individual Estimates
34. Adjusted Range
35. Midpoint of Adjusted Range
36. Average of Adjusted Range
37. Median of Adjusted Range
38. Median of Company Averages, Adjusted Range
39. Number of Company Averages, Adjusted Range
40. Number of Individual Estimates, Adjusted Range
Low
Est.
Above
Bond
Yield
+100
High
Est.
Below
17.7%;
g Below
13.3%
S&P
Issuer
Credit
Rating
Bond Yield
Threshold
(Moody's Rate
plus 100 Basis
Points)
Low High Average
9.46% 15.06% 12.26% TRUE TRUE BBB+ 6.90%
9.17% 9.76% 9.46% TRUE TRUE BBB 6.90%
11.10% 14.24% 12.67% TRUE TRUE BBB 6.90%
8.33% 10.02% 9.18% TRUE TRUE A- 6.34%
7.79% 10.18% 8.99% TRUE TRUE A- 6.34%
10.52% TRUE FALSE A- 6.34%
8.67% 9.93% 9.30% TRUE TRUE BBB 6.90%
7.85% 10.12% 8.99% TRUE TRUE A- 6.34%
12.50% FALSE TRUE BBB 6.90%
6.99% TRUE FALSE BBB 6.90%
8.14% 13.25% 10.70% TRUE TRUE BBB 6.90%
7.35% 9.15% 8.25% TRUE TRUE BBB 6.90%
7.33% 15.67% 11.50% TRUE TRUE BBB+ 6.90%
10.67% 11.86% 11.27% TRUE TRUE A- 6.34%
8.74% 11.54% 10.14% TRUE TRUE BBB 6.90%
8.64% 12.17% 10.40% TRUE TRUE BBB+ 6.90%
10.37% 11.52% 10.95% TRUE TRUE BBB+ 6.90%
7.49% 11.06% 9.27% TRUE TRUE BBB 6.90%
8.36% 10.05% 9.20% TRUE TRUE BBB+ 6.90%
12.85% FALSE TRUE BBB 6.90%
9.79% 10.56% 10.18% TRUE TRUE BBB+ 6.90%
9.52% FALSE TRUE BBB+ 6.90%
9.88% 12.15% 11.02% TRUE TRUE BBB 6.90%
8.12% 15.16% 11.64% TRUE TRUE BBB 6.90%
10.00% 12.85% 11.43% TRUE TRUE BBB+ 6.90%
9.01% 11.60% 10.30% TRUE TRUE A- 6.34%
6.99% 15.67%
11.33%
10.35%
10.02%
10.30%
21
47
Estimated ROE,
Adjusted Range
Dkt. No. ER09-1534-001 Exhibit SCE-59 Page 2 of 14
Discounted Cash Flow (DCF) Analysis
National SCE Proxy Group
Line 2010 2011 2013-15 AverageNo. Name 2010 2011 2013-15
1. LNT Alliant Energy 0.392 0.431 0.467 0.430
2. AEP Amer. Elec. Power 0.345 0.460 0.457 0.421
3. CNP CenterPoint Energy 0.257 0.333 0.400 0.330
4. ED Consol. Edison 0.300 0.314 0.361 0.325
5. D Dominion Resources 0.369 0.406 0.400 0.392
6. DPL DPL Inc. 0.506 0.517 0.500 0.508
7. DTE DTE Energy 0.426 0.403 0.365 0.398
8. DUK Duke Energy 0.254 0.267 0.300 0.274
9. EXC Exelon Corp. 0.447 0.475 0.400 0.441
10. GXP G't Plains Energy 0.447 0.420 0.343 0.403
11. HE Hawaiian Elec. 0.114 0.225 0.350 0.230
12. IDA IDACORP, Inc. 0.564 0.586 0.548 0.566
13. TEG Integrys Energy 0.078 0.176 0.320 0.191
14. NEE NextEra Energy 0.583 0.512 0.520 0.538
15. NU Northeast Utilities 0.472 0.488 0.480 0.480
16. OGE OGE Energy 0.488 0.511 0.543 0.514
17. PCG PG&E Corp. 0.448 0.463 0.467 0.459
18. POR Portland General 0.230 0.371 0.400 0.333
19. PGN Progress Energy 0.173 0.200 0.273 0.216
20. PEG Public Serv. Enterprise 0.543 0.552 0.508 0.534
21. SCG SCANA Corp. 0.367 0.370 0.429 0.389
22. SRE Sempra Energy 0.567 0.635 0.590 0.597
23. TE TECO Energy 0.317 0.378 0.406 0.367
24. WR Westar Energy 0.291 0.308 0.378 0.326
25. WEC Wisconsin Energy 0.568 0.561 0.543 0.557
26. XEL Xcel Energy Inc. 0.375 0.394 0.425 0.398
b
Dkt. No. ER09-1534-001 Exhibit SCE-59 Page 3 of 14
Discounted Cash Flow (DCF) Analysis
National SCE Proxy Group
LineNo. Name
1. LNT Alliant Energy
2. AEP Amer. Elec. Power
3. CNP CenterPoint Energy
4. ED Consol. Edison
5. D Dominion Resources
6. DPL DPL Inc.
7. DTE DTE Energy
8. DUK Duke Energy
9. EXC Exelon Corp.
10. GXP G't Plains Energy
11. HE Hawaiian Elec.
12. IDA IDACORP, Inc.
13. TEG Integrys Energy
14. NEE NextEra Energy
15. NU Northeast Utilities
16. OGE OGE Energy
17. PCG PG&E Corp.
18. POR Portland General
19. PGN Progress Energy
20. PEG Public Serv. Enterprise
21. SCG SCANA Corp.
22. SRE Sempra Energy
23. TE TECO Energy
24. WR Westar Energy
25. WEC Wisconsin Energy
26. XEL Xcel Energy Inc.
2010 2011 2013-15 Average Adjusted2010 2011 2013-15
0.095 0.105 0.115 0.105 0.108
0.090 0.105 0.100 0.098 0.101
0.135 0.150 0.145 0.143 0.151
0.090 0.095 0.095 0.093 0.095
0.140 0.145 0.145 0.143 0.149
0.245 0.250 0.255 0.250 0.258
0.095 0.095 0.095 0.095 0.098
0.080 0.080 0.080 0.080 0.081
0.185 0.175 0.145 0.168 0.172
0.070 0.070 0.075 0.072 0.073
0.090 0.095 0.110 0.098 0.101
0.090 0.090 0.085 0.088 0.091
0.080 0.085 0.095 0.087 0.088
0.140 0.120 0.115 0.125 0.130
0.090 0.095 0.095 0.093 0.096
0.130 0.120 0.115 0.122 0.128
0.110 0.115 0.120 0.115 0.119
0.065 0.070 0.085 0.073 0.076
0.095 0.095 0.100 0.097 0.099
0.160 0.150 0.130 0.147 0.152
0.100 0.095 0.100 0.098 0.102
0.095 0.115 0.105 0.105 0.108
0.120 0.125 0.130 0.125 0.128
0.085 0.080 0.085 0.083 0.086
0.115 0.120 0.130 0.122 0.125
0.095 0.095 0.100 0.097 0.100
r
Dkt. No. ER09-1534-001 Exhibit SCE-59 Page 4 of 14
Discounted Cash Flow (DCF) Analysis
National SCE Proxy Group
LineNo. Name
1. LNT Alliant Energy
2. AEP Amer. Elec. Power
3. CNP CenterPoint Energy
4. ED Consol. Edison
5. D Dominion Resources
6. DPL DPL Inc.
7. DTE DTE Energy
8. DUK Duke Energy
9. EXC Exelon Corp.
10. GXP G't Plains Energy
11. HE Hawaiian Elec.
12. IDA IDACORP, Inc.
13. TEG Integrys Energy
14. NEE NextEra Energy
15. NU Northeast Utilities
16. OGE OGE Energy
17. PCG PG&E Corp.
18. POR Portland General
19. PGN Progress Energy
20. PEG Public Serv. Enterprise
21. SCG SCANA Corp.
22. SRE Sempra Energy
23. TE TECO Energy
24. WR Westar Energy
25. WEC Wisconsin Energy
26. XEL Xcel Energy Inc.
I/B/E/S
Estimated
Long-Term
s v g = br + sv Growth
0.012 0.233 4.92% 9.90%
0.011 0.180 4.45% 4.38%
0.060 0.494 7.96% 5.70%
0.005 0.187 3.17% 4.47%
-0.006 0.525 5.49% 3.50%
0.027 0.626 14.75% 5.90%
0.018 0.166 4.18% 5.00%
0.004 0.012 2.22% 4.00%
-0.013 0.515 6.95% 0.97%
0.029 -0.144 2.55% 13.00%
0.020 0.321 2.96% 7.43%
0.019 0.142 5.43% 4.00%
0.008 0.213 1.86% 9.40%
0.018 0.366 7.67% 6.83%
0.018 0.246 5.07% 7.51%
0.034 0.439 8.03% 5.00%
0.023 0.336 6.27% 6.88%
0.035 -0.059 2.32% 5.40%
0.016 0.169 2.39% 3.63%
0.000 0.431 8.15% 2.00%
0.049 0.256 5.23% 4.90%
-0.014 0.245 6.09% 3.50%
0.008 0.391 5.01% 6.68%
0.012 0.093 2.90% 9.28%
0.000 0.404 6.99% 9.53%
0.020 0.249 4.46% 6.64%
Dkt. No. ER09-1534-001 Exhibit SCE-59 Page 5 of 14
Ticker Company
Proxy
Group
Tickers
Proxy
Group
Names
Include in
Proxy
Group
Electric
Utility
Credit
Rating
Screen
Revenue
Screen
AYE Allegheny Energy FALSE TRUE FALSE TRUE
ALE ALLETE FALSE TRUE TRUE FALSE
LNT Alliant Energy LNT Alliant Energy TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE
AEP Amer. Elec. Power AEP Amer. Elec. Power TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE
AEE Ameren Corp. FALSE TRUE FALSE TRUE
AVA Avista Corp. FALSE TRUE FALSE TRUE
BKH Black Hills FALSE TRUE FALSE FALSE
CV Cen. Vermont Pub. Serv. FALSE TRUE FALSE FALSE
CNP CenterPoint Energy CNP CenterPoint Energy TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE
CHG CH Energy Group FALSE TRUE FALSE FALSE
CNL Cleco Corp. FALSE TRUE TRUE FALSE
CMS CMS Energy Corp. FALSE TRUE FALSE TRUE
ED Consol. Edison ED Consol. Edison TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE
CEG Constellation Energy FALSE TRUE FALSE TRUE
D Dominion Resources D Dominion Resources TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE
DPL DPL Inc. DPL DPL Inc. TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE
DTE DTE Energy DTE DTE Energy TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE
DUK Duke Energy DUK Duke Energy TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE
EIX Edison Int'l FALSE TRUE FALSE TRUE
EE El Paso Electric FALSE TRUE TRUE FALSE
EDE Empire Dist. Elec. FALSE TRUE FALSE FALSE
ETR Entergy Corp. FALSE TRUE TRUE TRUE
EXC Exelon Corp. EXC Exelon Corp. TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE
FE FirstEnergy Corp. FALSE TRUE FALSE TRUE
GXP G't Plains Energy GXP G't Plains Energy TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE
HE Hawaiian Elec. HE Hawaiian Elec. TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE
IDA IDACORP, Inc. IDA IDACORP, Inc. TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE
TEG Integrys Energy TEG Integrys Energy TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE
ITC ITC Holdings FALSE TRUE TRUE FALSE
MGEE MGE Energy FALSE TRUE FALSE TRUE
NEE NextEra Energy NEE NextEra Energy TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE
NU Northeast Utilities NU Northeast Utilities TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE
NST NSTAR FALSE TRUE FALSE TRUE
NVE NV Energy Inc. FALSE TRUE FALSE TRUE
OGE OGE Energy OGE OGE Energy TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE
OTTR Otter Tail Corp. FALSE TRUE FALSE FALSE
POM Pepco Holdings FALSE TRUE TRUE TRUE
PCG PG&E Corp. PCG PG&E Corp. TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE
PNW Pinnacle West Capital FALSE TRUE FALSE TRUE
PNM PNM Resources FALSE TRUE FALSE TRUE
POR Portland General POR Portland General TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE
PPL PPL Corp. FALSE TRUE TRUE TRUE
PGN Progress Energy PGN Progress Energy TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE
PEG Public Serv. Enterprise PEG Public Serv. Enterprise TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE
SCG SCANA Corp. SCG SCANA Corp. TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE
SRE Sempra Energy SRE Sempra Energy TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE
SO Southern Co. FALSE TRUE FALSE TRUE
TE TECO Energy TE TECO Energy TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE
UIL UIL Holdings FALSE TRUE TRUE FALSE
UNS UniSource Energy FALSE TRUE FALSE TRUE
VVC Vectren Corp. FALSE TRUE TRUE FALSE
WR Westar Energy WR Westar Energy TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE
WEC Wisconsin Energy WEC Wisconsin Energy TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE
XEL Xcel Energy Inc. XEL Xcel Energy Inc. TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE
Information to Screen Companies for
National Proxy Group
Dkt. No. ER09-1534-001 Exhibit SCE-59 Page 6 of 14
Ticker Company
AYE Allegheny Energy
ALE ALLETE
LNT Alliant Energy
AEP Amer. Elec. Power
AEE Ameren Corp.
AVA Avista Corp.
BKH Black Hills
CV Cen. Vermont Pub. Serv.
CNP CenterPoint Energy
CHG CH Energy Group
CNL Cleco Corp.
CMS CMS Energy Corp.
ED Consol. Edison
CEG Constellation Energy
D Dominion Resources
DPL DPL Inc.
DTE DTE Energy
DUK Duke Energy
EIX Edison Int'l
EE El Paso Electric
EDE Empire Dist. Elec.
ETR Entergy Corp.
EXC Exelon Corp.
FE FirstEnergy Corp.
GXP G't Plains Energy
HE Hawaiian Elec.
IDA IDACORP, Inc.
TEG Integrys Energy
ITC ITC Holdings
MGEE MGE Energy
NEE NextEra Energy
NU Northeast Utilities
NST NSTAR
NVE NV Energy Inc.
OGE OGE Energy
OTTR Otter Tail Corp.
POM Pepco Holdings
PCG PG&E Corp.
PNW Pinnacle West Capital
PNM PNM Resources
POR Portland General
PPL PPL Corp.
PGN Progress Energy
PEG Public Serv. Enterprise
SCG SCANA Corp.
SRE Sempra Energy
SO Southern Co.
TE TECO Energy
UIL UIL Holdings
UNS UniSource Energy
VVC Vectren Corp.
WR Westar Energy
WEC Wisconsin Energy
XEL Xcel Energy Inc.
Information to Screen Companies for
National Proxy Group
3 4
Dividend
Screen
Apr 2010
Sep 2010
Merger
Screen
Apr 2010
Sep 2010
Analyst
Screen
IBES
Growth
Rate
Issuer
Credit
Rating
Annual
Electric
Revenues
4/1/2010 9/30/2010
TRUE FALSE TRUE TRUE BBB- 3649.4
TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE BBB+ 820.9
TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE BBB+ 2532.2
TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE BBB 13023
TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE BBB- 5972
TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE BBB- 1426.726
TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE BBB- 779.507
TRUE TRUE TRUE FALSE NR 339.688
TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE BBB 2124
TRUE TRUE TRUE FALSE #N/A 541.878
TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE BBB 924.029
TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE BBB- 3558
TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE A- 8707
TRUE FALSE TRUE TRUE BBB- 2760.6
TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE A- 10079
TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE A- 1709.4
TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE BBB 4845
TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE A- 10256
TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE BBB- 9903
FALSE TRUE TRUE FALSE BBB 780.734
TRUE TRUE TRUE FALSE BBB- 443.97
TRUE FALSE TRUE TRUE BBB 8155.693
TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE BBB 16626
TRUE FALSE TRUE TRUE BBB- 10244
TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE BBB 2124.2
TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE BBB 2255.001
TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE BBB 1068.699
TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE BBB+ 3814.9
TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE BBB 0
TRUE TRUE FALSE TRUE #N/A 131429.147
TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE A- 10962
TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE BBB 3989.7
TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE A+ 2432.37
TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE BB 3281.448
TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE BBB+ 1946
TRUE TRUE FALSE TRUE BBB- 322.693
TRUE FALSE TRUE TRUE BBB+ 5000
TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE BBB+ 10302
TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE BBB- 3144.94
TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE BB- 1649.86
TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE BBB 1794
TRUE FALSE TRUE TRUE BBB 3901
TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE BBB+ 10038
TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE BBB 5224
TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE BBB+ 2238
TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE BBB+ 2481
TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE A 16466.453
TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE BBB 2201.2
TRUE FALSE TRUE TRUE BBB 887.637
TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE #N/A 1172.453
TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE A- 566.8
TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE BBB 1923.663
TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE BBB+ 2780.5
TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE A- 8119.059
Dkt. No. ER09-1534-001 Exhibit SCE-59 Page 7 of 14
Ticker Company
AYE Allegheny Energy
ALE ALLETE
LNT Alliant Energy
AEP Amer. Elec. Power
AEE Ameren Corp.
AVA Avista Corp.
BKH Black Hills
CV Cen. Vermont Pub. Serv.
CNP CenterPoint Energy
CHG CH Energy Group
CNL Cleco Corp.
CMS CMS Energy Corp.
ED Consol. Edison
CEG Constellation Energy
D Dominion Resources
DPL DPL Inc.
DTE DTE Energy
DUK Duke Energy
EIX Edison Int'l
EE El Paso Electric
EDE Empire Dist. Elec.
ETR Entergy Corp.
EXC Exelon Corp.
FE FirstEnergy Corp.
GXP G't Plains Energy
HE Hawaiian Elec.
IDA IDACORP, Inc.
TEG Integrys Energy
ITC ITC Holdings
MGEE MGE Energy
NEE NextEra Energy
NU Northeast Utilities
NST NSTAR
NVE NV Energy Inc.
OGE OGE Energy
OTTR Otter Tail Corp.
POM Pepco Holdings
PCG PG&E Corp.
PNW Pinnacle West Capital
PNM PNM Resources
POR Portland General
PPL PPL Corp.
PGN Progress Energy
PEG Public Serv. Enterprise
SCG SCANA Corp.
SRE Sempra Energy
SO Southern Co.
TE TECO Energy
UIL UIL Holdings
UNS UniSource Energy
VVC Vectren Corp.
WR Westar Energy
WEC Wisconsin Energy
XEL Xcel Energy Inc.
Information to Screen Companies for
National Proxy Group 6
10 11 12 13 14 14 9 29
Quarterly
Electric
Revenues
Number of
Analysts
IBES
Growth
Rate Dividend Data
9/30/2010
793.7 861.1 1048.9 945.7 0 12 1 0.15
160.1 216 233.6 211.2 0 2 6.5 0.44
725.3 574.7 604.9 627.3 0 9 9.9 0.395
3364 3067 3406 3186 0 19 4.375 0.42
1679 1320 1440 1533 0 9 -5.95 0.385
290.74 376.578 428.686 330.722 0 5 4 0.25
191.857 302.576 148.809 136.265 0 4 6 0.36
81.791 86.953 91.007 79.937 0 2 -- 0.23
608 472 482 562 0 12 5.7 0.195
138.685 132.135 145.962 125.096 0 3 -- 0.54
228.952 181.178 252.798 261.101 0 6 3 0.25
1000 745 838 975 0 14 6 0.15
2604 1958 1889 2256 0 16 4.46666667 0.595
788.3 569.9 751.3 651.1 0 9 9.9 0.24
2904 1985 2662 2528 0 19 3.5 0.4575
407.3 405.4 451.2 445.5 0 7 5.9 0.3025
1300 1191 1146 1208 0 12 5 0.56
2784 2316 2625 2531 0 23 4 0.245
3065 2433 2159 2246 0 18 2.22 0.315
240.898 124.271 204.168 211.397 0 5 -- 0
121.487 102.634 113.6 106.249 0 4 -- 0.32
2195.461 1739.193 2006.931 2214.108 0 19 5.14 0.83
4277 3905 4135 4309 0 20 0.96666667 0.525
2940 2388 2543 2373 0 15 2 0.55
587.7 477.6 506.9 552 0 8 13 0.2075
548.44 574.355 548.111 584.095 0 6 7.425 0.31
323.128 252.321 252.46 240.79 0 5 4 0.3
332.3 2541.7 330.1 610.8 0 6 9.4 0.68
#N/A N/A 0 0 0 0 8 16.5266667 0.335
106.878 131056 158.541 107.728 0 1 5 0.3751
3301 2753 2328 2580 0 21 6.83333333 0.5
1082 1023.2 1000 884.5 0 15 7.514 0.25625
699.162 571.615 579.777 581.816 0 13 5.775 0.4
1199.254 700.303 636.941 744.95 0 13 12.37 0.11
577.9 411.3 444 512.8 0 7 5 0.3625
73.506 81.868 91.086 76.233 0 1 20 0.2975
1400 1284 1167 1149 0 8 7 0.27
2630 2647 2510 2515 0 16 6.884 0.455
1083.75 650.349 611.425 799.416 0 11 6.5 0.525
477.665 382.982 383.396 405.817 0 11 13.3675 0.125
445 485 449 415 0 11 5.4 0.26
989 1001 1118 793 0 9 5.6 0.35
2824 2307 2535 2372 0 17 3.63333333 0.62
1685 1121 1225 1193 0 17 2 0.3425
615 508 540 575 0 5 4.9 0.475
693 460 742 586 0 8 3.5 0.39
4656.65 3487 4135.942 4186.861 0 20 5.07428571 0.455
620.9 502.4 525.1 552.8 0 17 6.68333333 0.205
255 205.248 220.276 207.113 0 7 3.875 0.432
377.723 266.725 240.891 287.114 0 6 5 0.39
143 127.9 144.9 151 0 6 4.85 0.34
528.534 440.118 459.83 495.181 0 10 9.275 0.31
689.1 678.6 711.1 701.7 0 14 9.525 0.4
2128.955 1953.81 1995.592 2040.702 0 14 6.6375 0.2525
Dkt. No. ER09-1534-001 Exhibit SCE-59 Page 8 of 14
Ticker Company
AYE Allegheny Energy
ALE ALLETE
LNT Alliant Energy
AEP Amer. Elec. Power
AEE Ameren Corp.
AVA Avista Corp.
BKH Black Hills
CV Cen. Vermont Pub. Serv.
CNP CenterPoint Energy
CHG CH Energy Group
CNL Cleco Corp.
CMS CMS Energy Corp.
ED Consol. Edison
CEG Constellation Energy
D Dominion Resources
DPL DPL Inc.
DTE DTE Energy
DUK Duke Energy
EIX Edison Int'l
EE El Paso Electric
EDE Empire Dist. Elec.
ETR Entergy Corp.
EXC Exelon Corp.
FE FirstEnergy Corp.
GXP G't Plains Energy
HE Hawaiian Elec.
IDA IDACORP, Inc.
TEG Integrys Energy
ITC ITC Holdings
MGEE MGE Energy
NEE NextEra Energy
NU Northeast Utilities
NST NSTAR
NVE NV Energy Inc.
OGE OGE Energy
OTTR Otter Tail Corp.
POM Pepco Holdings
PCG PG&E Corp.
PNW Pinnacle West Capital
PNM PNM Resources
POR Portland General
PPL PPL Corp.
PGN Progress Energy
PEG Public Serv. Enterprise
SCG SCANA Corp.
SRE Sempra Energy
SO Southern Co.
TE TECO Energy
UIL UIL Holdings
UNS UniSource Energy
VVC Vectren Corp.
WR Westar Energy
WEC Wisconsin Energy
XEL Xcel Energy Inc.
Information to Screen Companies for
National Proxy Group
28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21
Dividend Data
8/31/2010 7/31/2010 6/30/2010 5/31/2010 4/30/2010 3/31/2010 2/28/2010 1/31/2010
0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15
0.44 0.44 0.44 0.44 0.44 0.44 0.44 0.44
0.395 0.395 0.395 0.395 0.395 0.395 0.395 0.395
0.42 0.42 0.42 0.42 0.41 0.41 0.41 0.41
0.385 0.385 0.385 0.385 0.385 0.385 0.385 0.385
0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.21
0.36 0.36 0.36 0.36 0.36 0.36 0.36 0.355
0.23 0.23 0.23 0.23 0.23 0.23 0.23 0.23
0.195 0.195 0.195 0.195 0.195 0.195 0.195 0.19
0.54 0.54 0.54 0.54 0.54 0.54 0.54 0.54
0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.225 0.225 0.225 0.225
0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.125
0.595 0.595 0.595 0.595 0.595 0.595 0.595 0.59
0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24
0.4575 0.4575 0.4575 0.4575 0.4575 0.4575 0.4575 0.4375
0.3025 0.3025 0.3025 0.3025 0.3025 0.3025 0.3025 0.285
0.53 0.53 0.53 0.53 0.53 0.53 0.53 0.53
0.245 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24
0.315 0.315 0.315 0.315 0.315 0.315 0.315 0.315
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0.32 0.32 0.32 0.32 0.32 0.32 0.32 0.32
0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75
0.525 0.525 0.525 0.525 0.525 0.525 0.525 0.525
0.55 0.55 0.55 0.55 0.55 0.55 0.55 0.55
0.2075 0.2075 0.2075 0.2075 0.2075 0.2075 0.2075 0.2075
0.31 0.31 0.31 0.31 0.31 0.31 0.31 0.31
0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3
0.68 0.68 0.68 0.68 0.68 0.68 0.68 0.68
0.335 0.32 0.32 0.32 0.32 0.32 0.32 0.32
0.3751 0.3684 0.3684 0.3684 0.3684 0.3684 0.3684 0.3684
0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.4725
0.25625 0.25625 0.25625 0.25625 0.25625 0.25625 0.25625 0.2375
0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4
0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11
0.3625 0.3625 0.3625 0.3625 0.3625 0.3625 0.3625 0.3625
0.2975 0.2975 0.2975 0.2975 0.2975 0.2975 0.2975 0.2975
0.27 0.27 0.27 0.27 0.27 0.27 0.27 0.27
0.455 0.455 0.455 0.455 0.455 0.455 0.42 0.42
0.525 0.525 0.525 0.525 0.525 0.525 0.525 0.525
0.125 0.125 0.125 0.125 0.125 0.125 0.125 0.125
0.26 0.26 0.26 0.255 0.255 0.255 0.255 0.255
0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.345 0.345
0.62 0.62 0.62 0.62 0.62 0.62 0.62 0.62
0.3425 0.3425 0.3425 0.3425 0.3425 0.3425 0.3325 0.3325
0.475 0.475 0.475 0.475 0.475 0.475 0.47 0.47
0.39 0.39 0.39 0.39 0.39 0.39 0.39 0.39
0.455 0.455 0.455 0.455 0.455 0.4375 0.4375 0.4375
0.205 0.205 0.205 0.205 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2
0.432 0.432 0.432 0.432 0.432 0.432 0.432 0.432
0.39 0.39 0.39 0.39 0.39 0.39 0.39 0.29
0.34 0.34 0.34 0.34 0.34 0.34 0.34 0.34
0.31 0.31 0.31 0.31 0.31 0.31 0.3 0.3
0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.3375
0.2525 0.2525 0.2525 0.245 0.245 0.245 0.245 0.245
Dkt. No. ER09-1534-001 Exhibit SCE-59 Page 9 of 14
Ticker Company
AYE Allegheny Energy
ALE ALLETE
LNT Alliant Energy
AEP Amer. Elec. Power
AEE Ameren Corp.
AVA Avista Corp.
BKH Black Hills
CV Cen. Vermont Pub. Serv.
CNP CenterPoint Energy
CHG CH Energy Group
CNL Cleco Corp.
CMS CMS Energy Corp.
ED Consol. Edison
CEG Constellation Energy
D Dominion Resources
DPL DPL Inc.
DTE DTE Energy
DUK Duke Energy
EIX Edison Int'l
EE El Paso Electric
EDE Empire Dist. Elec.
ETR Entergy Corp.
EXC Exelon Corp.
FE FirstEnergy Corp.
GXP G't Plains Energy
HE Hawaiian Elec.
IDA IDACORP, Inc.
TEG Integrys Energy
ITC ITC Holdings
MGEE MGE Energy
NEE NextEra Energy
NU Northeast Utilities
NST NSTAR
NVE NV Energy Inc.
OGE OGE Energy
OTTR Otter Tail Corp.
POM Pepco Holdings
PCG PG&E Corp.
PNW Pinnacle West Capital
PNM PNM Resources
POR Portland General
PPL PPL Corp.
PGN Progress Energy
PEG Public Serv. Enterprise
SCG SCANA Corp.
SRE Sempra Energy
SO Southern Co.
TE TECO Energy
UIL UIL Holdings
UNS UniSource Energy
VVC Vectren Corp.
WR Westar Energy
WEC Wisconsin Energy
XEL Xcel Energy Inc.
Information to Screen Companies for
National Proxy Group
20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13
12/31/2009 11/30/2009 10/31/2009 9/30/2009 8/31/2009 7/31/2009 6/30/2009 5/31/2009
0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15
0.44 0.44 0.44 0.44 0.44 0.44 0.44 0.44
0.375 0.375 0.375 0.375 0.375 0.375 0.375 0.375
0.41 0.41 0.41 0.41 0.41 0.41 0.41 0.41
0.385 0.385 0.385 0.385 0.385 0.385 0.385 0.385
0.21 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.21
0.355 0.355 0.355 0.355 0.355 0.355 0.355 0.355
0.23 0.23 0.23 0.23 0.23 0.23 0.23 0.23
0.19 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.19
0.54 0.54 0.54 0.54 0.54 0.54 0.54 0.54
0.225 0.225 0.225 0.225 0.225 0.225 0.225 0.225
0.125 0.125 0.125 0.125 0.125 0.125 0.125 0.125
0.59 0.59 0.59 0.59 0.59 0.59 0.59 0.59
0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24
0.4375 0.4375 0.4375 0.4375 0.4375 0.4375 0.4375 0.4375
0.285 0.285 0.285 0.285 0.285 0.285 0.285 0.285
0.53 0.53 0.53 0.53 0.53 0.53 0.53 0.53
0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.23 0.23 0.23
0.315 0.31 0.31 0.31 0.31 0.31 0.31 0.31
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0.32 0.32 0.32 0.32 0.32 0.32 0.32 0.32
0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75
0.525 0.525 0.525 0.525 0.525 0.525 0.525 0.525
0.55 0.55 0.55 0.55 0.55 0.55 0.55 0.55
0.2075 0.2075 0.2075 0.2075 0.2075 0.2075 0.2075 0.2075
0.31 0.31 0.31 0.31 0.31 0.31 0.31 0.31
0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3
0.68 0.68 0.68 0.68 0.68 0.68 0.68 0.68
0.32 0.32 0.32 0.32 0.32 0.305 0.305 0.305
0.3684 0.3684 0.3684 0.3684 0.3684 0.3617 0.3617 0.3617
0.4725 0.4725 0.4725 0.4725 0.4725 0.4725 0.4725 0.4725
0.2375 0.2375 0.2375 0.2375 0.2375 0.2375 0.2375 0.2375
0.375 0.375 0.375 0.375 0.375 0.375 0.375 0.375
0.11 0.11 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1
0.355 0.355 0.355 0.355 0.355 0.355 0.355 0.355
0.2975 0.2975 0.2975 0.2975 0.2975 0.2975 0.2975 0.2975
0.27 0.27 0.27 0.27 0.27 0.27 0.27 0.27
0.42 0.42 0.42 0.42 0.42 0.42 0.42 0.42
0.525 0.525 0.525 0.525 0.525 0.525 0.525 0.525
0.125 0.125 0.125 0.125 0.125 0.125 0.125 0.125
0.255 0.255 0.255 0.255 0.255 0.255 0.255 0.245
0.345 0.345 0.345 0.345 0.345 0.345 0.345 0.345
0.62 0.62 0.62 0.62 0.62 0.62 0.62 0.62
0.3325 0.3325 0.3325 0.3325 0.3325 0.3325 0.3325 0.3325
0.47 0.47 0.47 0.47 0.47 0.47 0.47 0.47
0.39 0.39 0.39 0.39 0.39 0.39 0.39 0.39
0.4375 0.4375 0.4375 0.4375 0.4375 0.4375 0.4375 0.4375
0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2
0.432 0.432 0.432 0.432 0.432 0.432 0.432 0.432
0.29 0 0.29 0.29 0.29 0.29 0.29 0.29
0.34 0.34 0.335 0.335 0.335 0.335 0.335 0.335
0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3
0.3375 0.3375 0.3375 0.3375 0.3375 0.3375 0.3375 0.3375
0.245 0.245 0.245 0.245 0.245 0.245 0.245 0.2375
Dkt. No. ER09-1534-001 Exhibit SCE-59 Page 10 of 14
Ticker Company
AYE Allegheny Energy
ALE ALLETE
LNT Alliant Energy
AEP Amer. Elec. Power
AEE Ameren Corp.
AVA Avista Corp.
BKH Black Hills
CV Cen. Vermont Pub. Serv.
CNP CenterPoint Energy
CHG CH Energy Group
CNL Cleco Corp.
CMS CMS Energy Corp.
ED Consol. Edison
CEG Constellation Energy
D Dominion Resources
DPL DPL Inc.
DTE DTE Energy
DUK Duke Energy
EIX Edison Int'l
EE El Paso Electric
EDE Empire Dist. Elec.
ETR Entergy Corp.
EXC Exelon Corp.
FE FirstEnergy Corp.
GXP G't Plains Energy
HE Hawaiian Elec.
IDA IDACORP, Inc.
TEG Integrys Energy
ITC ITC Holdings
MGEE MGE Energy
NEE NextEra Energy
NU Northeast Utilities
NST NSTAR
NVE NV Energy Inc.
OGE OGE Energy
OTTR Otter Tail Corp.
POM Pepco Holdings
PCG PG&E Corp.
PNW Pinnacle West Capital
PNM PNM Resources
POR Portland General
PPL PPL Corp.
PGN Progress Energy
PEG Public Serv. Enterprise
SCG SCANA Corp.
SRE Sempra Energy
SO Southern Co.
TE TECO Energy
UIL UIL Holdings
UNS UniSource Energy
VVC Vectren Corp.
WR Westar Energy
WEC Wisconsin Energy
XEL Xcel Energy Inc.
Information to Screen Companies for
National Proxy Group
12 11 10 9 8 7 6
4/30/2009 3/31/2009 2/28/2009 1/31/2009 12/31/2008 11/30/2008 10/31/2008
0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15
0.44 0.44 0.44 0.43 0.43 0.43 0.43
0.375 0.375 0.375 0.375 0.35 0.35 0.35
0.41 0.41 0.41 0.41 0.41 0.41 0.41
0.385 0.385 0.635 0.635 0.635 0.635 0.635
0.18 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.18
0.355 0.355 0.355 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35
0.23 0.23 0.23 0.23 0.23 0.23 0.23
0.19 0.19 0.19 0.1825 0.1825 0.1825 0.1825
0.54 0.54 0.54 0.54 0.54 0.54 0.54
0.225 0.225 0.225 0.225 0.225 0.225 0.225
0.125 0.125 0.125 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.09
0.59 0.59 0.59 0.585 0.585 0.585 0.585
0.24 0.24 0.4775 0.4775 0.4775 0.4775 0.4775
0.4375 0.4375 0.4375 0.395 0.395 0.395 0.395
0.285 0.285 0.285 0.275 0.275 0.275 0.275
0.53 0.53 0.53 0.53 0.53 0.53 0.53
0.23 0.23 0.23 0.23 0.23 0.23 0.23
0.31 0.31 0.31 0.31 0.31 0.305 0.305
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0.32 0.32 0.32 0.32 0.32 0.32 0.32
0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75
0.525 0.525 0.525 0.525 0.525 0.525 0.5
0.55 0.55 0.55 0.55 0.55 0.55 0.55
0.2075 0.2075 0.2075 0.415 0.415 0.415 0.415
0.31 0.31 0.31 0.31 0.31 0.31 0.31
0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3
0.68 0.68 0.68 0.67 0.67 0.67 0.67
0.305 0.305 0.305 0.305 0.305 0.305 0.305
0.3617 0.3617 0.3617 0.3617 0.3617 0.3617 0.3617
0.4725 0.4725 0.4725 0.445 0.445 0.445 0.445
0.2375 0.2375 0.2375 0.2125 0.2125 0.2125 0.2125
0.375 0.375 0.375 0.375 0.35 0.35 0.35
0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.08
0.355 0.355 0.355 0.355 0.3475 0.3475 0.3475
0.2975 0.2975 0.2975 0.2975 0.2975 0.2975 0.2975
0.27 0.27 0.27 0.27 0.27 0.27 0.27
0.42 0.42 0.39 0.39 0.39 0.39 0.39
0.525 0.525 0.525 0.525 0.525 0.525 0.525
0.125 0.125 0.125 0.125 0.125 0.125 0.125
0.245 0.245 0.245 0.245 0.245 0.245 0.245
0.345 0.345 0.335 0.335 0.335 0.335 0.335
0.62 0.62 0.62 0.62 0.615 0.615 0.615
0.3325 0.3325 0.3225 0.3225 0.3225 0.3225 0.3225
0.47 0.47 0.46 0.46 0.46 0.46 0.46
0.39 0.39 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35
0.4375 0.42 0.42 0.42 0.42 0.42 0.42
0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2
0.432 0.432 0.432 0.432 0.432 0.432 0.432
0.29 0.29 0.29 0.24 0.24 0 0.24
0.335 0.335 0.335 0.335 0.335 0.335 0.325
0.3 0.3 0.29 0.29 0.29 0.29 0.29
0.3375 0.3375 0.3375 0.27 0.27 0.27 0.27
0.2375 0.2375 0.2375 0.2375 0.2375 0.2375 0.2375
Dkt. No. ER09-1534-001 Exhibit SCE-59 Page 11 of 14
Moody's Long-Term Utility Bond Yields
Month Aa Rate (%) Month A Rate (%)
October 2008 6.95 October 2008 7.56
November 2008 6.83 November 2008 7.6
December 2008 5.92 December 2008 6.52
January 2009 6.01 January 2009 6.39
February 2009 6.11 February 2009 6.3
March 2009 6.14 March 2009 6.42
April 2009 6.2 April 2009 6.48
May 2009 6.23 May 2009 6.49
June 2009 6.13 June 2009 6.2
July 2009 5.63 July 2009 5.97
August 2009 5.33 August 2009 5.71
September 2009 5.15 September 2009 5.53
October 2009 5.23 October 2009 5.55
November 2009 5.32 November 2009 5.63
December 2009 5.52 December 2009 5.79
January 2010 5.55 January 2010 5.77
February 2010 5.69 February 2010 5.87
March 2010 5.64 March 2010 5.84
April 2010 5.62 April 2010 5.81
May 2010 5.29 May 2010 5.5
June 2010 5.22 June 2010 5.46
July 2010 4.99 July 2010 5.26
August 2010 4.75 August 2010 5.01
September 2010 4.74 September 2010 5.01
6-Month Historical Period
Average 5.10% 5.34%
Threshold Rate 6.10% 6.34%
Dkt. No. ER09-1534-001 Exhibit SCE-59 Page 12 of 14
Month Baa Rate (%)
October 2008 8.58
November 2008 8.98
December 2008 8.11
January 2009 7.9
February 2009 7.74
March 2009 8
April 2009 8.03
May 2009 7.76
June 2009 7.3
July 2009 6.87
August 2009 6.36
September 2009 6.12
October 2009 6.14
November 2009 6.17
December 2009 6.26
January 2010 6.16
February 2010 6.25
March 2010 6.22
April 2010 6.19
May 2010 5.97
June 2010 6.18
July 2010 5.98
August 2010 5.55
September 2010 5.53
5.90%
6.90%
Dkt. No. ER09-1534-001 Exhibit SCE-59 Page 13 of 14
Merger
Ticker Company NameM&A Activity
Beginning Date
Ending Date Comments
AYE Allegheny Energy TRUE 2/11/2010 12/31/2099First Energy and Allegheny Energy announced a merger February 11, 2010. AYE shareholders will receive 0.667 FE shares for one AYE share.
ALE ALLETE FALSE 1/1/1900 1/1/1900LNT Alliant Energy FALSE 1/1/1900 1/1/1900AEP Amer. Elec. Power FALSE 1/1/1900 1/1/1900AEE Ameren Corp. FALSE 1/1/1900 1/1/1900AVA Avista Corp. FALSE 1/1/1900 1/1/1900BKH Black Hills FALSE 1/1/1900 1/1/1900CV Cen. Vermont Pub. Serv. FALSE 1/1/1900 1/1/1900CNP CenterPoint Energy FALSE 1/1/1900 1/1/1900CHG CH Energy Group FALSE 1/1/1900 1/1/1900CNL Cleco Corp. FALSE 1/1/1900 1/1/1900CMS CMS Energy Corp. FALSE 1/1/1900 1/1/1900ED Consol. Edison FALSE 1/1/1900 1/1/1900
CEG Constellation Energy TRUE 8/7/2010 12/31/2099
On August 7, 2010, Constellation Energy announced the potential purchase of natural gas-fired plants in New England for approximately $1.1 billion. At June 30, 2010, Constellation's assets were approximately $21.7 billion, so the acquisition is approximately 5.1% of CEG assets.
CEG1 Constellation Energy TRUE 9/18/2008 11/6/2009
Mid-American Energy Holdings acquisition of Constellation Energy announced September 18, 2008. That agreement terminated upon acceptance of a competing agreement with EDF. The EDF agreement included a sale of a 49.99% share of Constellation's nuclear assets to EDF. That sale closed on or about November 6, 2009.
CEG2 Constellation Energy TRUE 8/7/2010 12/31/2099
On August 7, 2010, Constellation Energy announced the potential purchase of natural gas-fired plants in New England for approximately $1.1 billion. At June 30, 2010, Constellation's assets were approximately $21.7 billion, so the acquisition is approximately 5.1% of CEG assets.
D Dominion Resources FALSE 1/1/1900 1/1/1900DPL DPL Inc. FALSE 1/1/1900 1/1/1900DTE DTE Energy FALSE 1/1/1900 1/1/1900DUK Duke Energy FALSE 1/1/1900 1/1/1900EIX Edison Int'l FALSE 1/1/1900 1/1/1900EE El Paso Electric FALSE 1/1/1900 1/1/1900EDE Empire Dist. Elec. FALSE 1/1/1900 1/1/1900
ETR Entergy Corp. TRUE 8/7/2008 4/5/2010
Spinoff of nuclear units targeted for 2008 Q4 (ETR 10-Q, 8/7/2008). Existing shareholders receive all shares in spinoff. Value Line suspended projecting ETR data after Hurricane Ike (Value Line 9/26/2008 sheet for ETR.) ETR announced unwinding of spinoff on April 5, 2010.
EXC Exelon Corp. TRUE 10/20/2008 7/22/2009 Exelon made offer for NRG on October 20, 2008; withdrew offer on July 22, 2009.
FE FirstEnergy Corp. TRUE 2/11/2010 12/31/2099First Energy and Allegheny Energy announced a merger February 11, 2010. AYE shareholders will receive 0.667 FE shares for one AYE share.
FPL FPL Group FALSE 1/1/1900 1/1/1900GXP G't Plains Energy TRUE 2/1/2007 7/31/2008 Great Plains Energy acquired Aquila, Inc. in July 2008. Transaction was announced in February 2007.HE Hawaiian Elec. FALSE 1/1/1900 1/1/1900IDA IDACORP, Inc. FALSE 1/1/1900 1/1/1900
TEG Integrys Energy TRUE 12/23/2009 3/31/2010
Purchase and sale agreement with Macquarie Cook Power to sell commodity contracts comprising wholesale electric marketing and trading business. Assets involved in sale are approximately $1.85 billion, about 15 percent of Integrys Energy's assets. The sale closed on March 31, 2010.
ITC ITC Holdings FALSE 1/1/1900 1/1/1900MGEE MGE Energy FALSE 1/1/1900 1/1/1900NEE NextEra Energy FALSE 1/1/1900 1/1/1900NU Northeast Utilities FALSE 1/1/1900 1/1/1900NST NSTAR FALSE 1/1/1900 1/1/1900NVE NV Energy Inc. FALSE 1/1/1900 1/1/1900OGE OGE Energy FALSE 1/1/1900 1/1/1900OTTR Otter Tail Corp. FALSE 1/1/1900 1/1/1900
POM Pepco Holdings TRUE 4/20/2010 7/1/2010 Pepco Holdings announced sale of Conectiv generating assets to Calpine, April 20, 2010. The sale was completed on July 1, 2010.PCG PG&E Corp. FALSE 1/1/1900 1/1/1900PNW Pinnacle West Capital FALSE 1/1/1900 1/1/1900PNM PNM Resources FALSE 1/1/1900 1/1/1900POR Portland General FALSE 1/1/1900 1/1/1900
PPL PPL Corp. TRUE 4/29/2010 10/31/2010PPL announced purchase of E.ON-US utility assets in Kentucky on April 29, 2010. On September 16, 2010, PPL announced that it anticipated closing the transaction by October 31, 2010.
PGN Progress Energy FALSE 1/1/1900 1/1/1900PEG Public Serv. Enterprise FALSE 1/1/1900 1/1/1900SCG SCANA Corp. FALSE 1/1/1900 1/1/1900SRE Sempra Energy FALSE 1/1/1900 1/1/1900 Acquisition of EnergySouth announced 7/28/2008. ENSI assets are approximately 2.9% of SRE assets.SO Southern Co. FALSE 1/1/1900 1/1/1900TE TECO Energy FALSE 1/1/1900 1/1/1900
UIL UIL Holdings TRUE 5/25/2010 12/31/2099UIL Holdings entered into a purchase agreement to acquire Connecticut Energy Corporation, Connecticut Natural Gas Corporation and The Berkshire Gas Company from Iberdrola USA, Inc. for $1.3 billion on May 25, 2010.
UNS UniSource Energy FALSE 1/1/1900 1/1/1900VVC Vectren Corp. FALSE 1/1/1900 1/1/1900WR Westar Energy FALSE 1/1/1900 1/1/1900WEC Wisconsin Energy FALSE 1/1/1900 1/1/1900XEL Xcel Energy Inc. FALSE 1/1/1900 1/1/1900AGL AGL Resources FALSE 1/1/1900 1/1/1900ATO Atmos Energy FALSE 1/1/1900 1/1/1900LG Laclede Group FALSE 1/1/1900 1/1/1900NJR New Jersey Resources FALSE 1/1/1900 1/1/1900GAS Nicor Inc. FALSE 1/1/1900 1/1/1900NI NiSource Inc. FALSE 1/1/1900 1/1/1900NWN Northwest Nat. Gas FALSE 1/1/1900 1/1/1900PNY Piedmont Natural Gas FALSE 1/1/1900 1/1/1900SJI South Jersey Inds. FALSE 1/1/1900 1/1/1900SWX Southwest Gas FALSE 1/1/1900 1/1/1900UGI UGI Corp. FALSE 1/1/1900 1/1/1900WGL WGL Holdings Inc. FALSE 1/1/1900 1/1/1900ALSK Alaska Communic. FALSE 1/1/1900 1/1/1900BCE BCE Inc. FALSE 1/1/1900 1/1/1900BT BT Group ADR FALSE 1/1/1900 1/1/1900CTL CenturyLink Inc. FALSE 1/1/1900 1/1/1900CBB Cincinnati Bell FALSE 1/1/1900 1/1/1900CNSL Consol. Communic. FALSE 1/1/1900 1/1/1900FTR Frontier Communic. FALSE 1/1/1900 1/1/1900TEF Telefonica SA ADR FALSE 1/1/1900 1/1/1900TMX Telefonos de Mexico ADR FALSE 1/1/1900 1/1/1900TWTC tw telecom FALSE 1/1/1900 1/1/1900WIN Windstream Corp. FALSE 1/1/1900 1/1/1900AWR Amer. States Water FALSE 1/1/1900 1/1/1900AWK Amer. Water Works FALSE 1/1/1900 1/1/1900WTR Aqua America FALSE 1/1/1900 1/1/1900CWT California Water FALSE 1 1SWWC Southwest Water FALSE 1 1
Dkt. No. ER09-1534-001 Exhibit SCE-59 Page 14 of 14
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
BEFORE THE
FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION
Southern California Edison Company
)
)
)
Dkt. No.
ER09-1534-001
EXCERPTS FROM DOMINION RESOURCES
FORM 10-Q FILINGS
(EXHIBIT SCE-60)
OCTOBER 2010
�������������������
�����������������������������������������������
�����������������������
�
����������
�
����������
� ���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������
��������������������������������������������
��
�
� ����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������
�����������������������������������������������������������
��������������������������������
��
������������������������������������������������������������������������������
��
�
�������� � ����������������������������������������������������������������������� �
�����������������������������������
�
������������������������������������� � �����
���������������������������������������� � ����������
���������������������������������������������
��
�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������
�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������
�
����������������������� � � �� ����������������� � �
��������������������� � ����������������������������������������������� �� ������������������������� � �
�����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������
��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������
�������������������������������������������������������� ������������������������������������������
Dkt. No. ER09-1534-001 Exhibit SCE-60 Page 1 of 7
�����������������
���������������������������������������������������
�����������
�
� ����������
���� � �������������
������� �
���������� �� � � � � �
������ �� �
�������������� �� �
������������������������� �� � ��� � � ������������������������������������������������������������������������������ �� � ������ � � ���������������������������������������������������������������������������� �� � ���� � � ��������������� �� � ������ � � ����������������������� �� � ������ � � ������������������������ �� � ������ � � ��������������������������� �� � ���� � � �������������� �� � ���� � � ������������������������� �� � ���� � � ��������� �� � ���� � � ����
�� � ��
� � ��
�������������������� �� � ������ � � �������� � �
�� � �
�
����������� �� �
����������������������������������� �� � ������ � � ����������� �� � ���� � � ����
�� � ��
� � ��
����������������� �� � ������ � � �������� � �
�� � �
�
����������������������������� �� �
����������������������������� �� � ������� � � ����������������������������������������������������������� �� � �������� � � ��������
�� � ��
� � ��
���������������������������������������� �� � ������� � � ��������� � �
�� � �
�
��������������������������������� �� �
�������� �� � ������ � � ����������������������������������������������������� �� � ������ � � ����������������������� �� � ������ � � ��������� �� � ������ � � ������
�� � ��
� � ��
��������������������������������������� �� � ������ � � �������� � �
�� � �
�
������������ �� � ������� � � ��������� � �
�
� � �
�
�
��� �������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������
��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������
������
�������������������������������������������������������� ������������������������������������������
Dkt. No. ER09-1534-001 Exhibit SCE-60 Page 2 of 7
�����������������
��������������������
���������������������������������������������������������������������
�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������
��������������������������������������
���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������
������������������������������
�����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������
�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������
�������������������������������������������������������
�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������
�����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������
�������
�������������������������������������������������������� ������������������������������������������
Dkt. No. ER09-1534-001 Exhibit SCE-60 Page 3 of 7
�����������������
����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������
�
� ����������
���� � �������������
���� �
���������� �� � � � � �
������ �� �
�������������� �� �
�������������������� �� � ���� � � ��������� �� � ���� � � ����
�� � ��
� � ��
�������������������� �� � ���� � � ������ � �
�� � �
�
����������������������������� �� �
����������������������������� �� � ������ � � ���������������������������������������������������������� �� � ����� � � �����
�� � ��
� � ��
���������������������������������������� �� � ���� � � ������ � �
�� � �
�
��������������������������������� �� �
����������������� �� � ���� � � ��������� �� � ���� � � ��
�� � ��
� � ��
��������������������������������������� �� � ���� � � ������ � �
�� � �
�
�������������������� �� � ������ � � ������
����������� �� �
������������������� �� � ���� � � ������������������������������������������ �� �
������������������������
�� � ���� � � ��������� �� � ��� � � ���
�� � ��
� � ��
�������������������������������������������� �� � ���� � � ������ � �
�� � �
�
������������������������� �� � ���� � � �����
��� ����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������
����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������
�
� ��������������������
�������� ������������������
��������
� �� ���� �� ���� �� ���� �� ����
���������� �� � �� � �� � �� �
����������������� �� � ����� � ����� � ����� � �����������������������������
����� � ���� � ��� � ����� � ��
�
��� ����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������
�������������������������
������������������������������������������������
�
� ��������������������
�������� ������������������
��������
� �� ���� �� ���� �� ���� �� ����
���������� �� � �� � �� � �� �
����������������� �� �� �� ��
��������������� �� �� �� ��
��������� �� � ������� � ������� � ������� � ����������������� �� � ����� � ����� � ������� � �����
���������� �� �� �� ��
��������� �� � ����� � ����� � ����� � ��������������� �� � ����� � ����� � ������� � �����
������������������������������������ �� � ���� � ����� � ����� � ��������������������������������� �� � ����� � ����� � ����� � �������� �� � ���� � ���� � ���� � ���
�� � � �� � � �� � � �� � �
����������������������� �� � ������� � ������� � ������� � ������� � � �� � � �� � � �� � �
�
�������
�������������������������������������������������������� ������������������������������������������
Dkt. No. ER09-1534-001 Exhibit SCE-60 Page 4 of 7
Table of Contents
UNITED STATESSECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
Washington, D.C. 20549
FORM 10−Q
(Mark one)⌧ QUARTERLY REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF
1934
For the quarterly period ended March 31, 2010
or
� TRANSITION REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF1934
For the transition period from to
Commission FileNumber
Exact name of registrants as specified in their charters, address ofprincipal executive offices and registrants’ telephone number
I.R.S. EmployerIdentification Number
001−08489 DOMINION RESOURCES, INC. 54−1229715001−02255 VIRGINIA ELECTRIC AND POWER COMPANY 54−0418825
120 Tredegar StreetRichmond, Virginia 23219
(804) 819−2000
State or other jurisdiction of incorporation or organization of the Companies: Virginia
Indicate by check mark whether the registrant (1) has filed all reports required to be filed by Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to file such reports), and (2) has been subject to such filingrequirements for the past 90 days.
Dominion Resources, Inc. Yes ⌧ No � Virginia Electric and Power Company Yes ⌧ No �
Indicate by check mark whether the registrant has submitted electronically and posted on its corporate Web site, if any, every Interactive Data File requiredto be submitted and posted pursuant to Rule 405 of Regulation S−T (§232.405 of this chapter) during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter periodthat the registrant was required to submit and post such files).
Dominion Resources, Inc. Yes ⌧ No � Virginia Electric and Power Company Yes � No �
Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a large accelerated filer, an accelerated filer, a non−accelerated filer or a smaller reporting company. Seethe definitions of “large accelerated filer,” “accelerated filer” and “smaller reporting company” in Rule 12b−2 of the Exchange Act.
Dominion Resources, Inc.Large accelerated filer ⌧ Accelerated filer �Non−accelerated filer � (Do not check if a smaller reporting company) Smaller reporting company �
Virginia Electric and Power CompanyLarge accelerated filer � Accelerated filer �Non−accelerated filer ⌧ (Do not check if a smaller reporting company) Smaller reporting company �
Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a shell company (as defined in Rule 12b−2 of the Exchange Act).
Dominion Resources, Inc. Yes � No ⌧ Virginia Electric and Power Company Yes � No ⌧
At March 31, 2010, the latest practicable date for determination, Dominion had 596,053,590 shares of common stock outstanding and Virginia Power had256,310 shares of common stock outstanding. Dominion is the sole holder of Virginia Electric and Power Company’s common stock.
This combined Form 10−Q represents separate filings by Dominion Resources, Inc. and Virginia Electric and Power Company. Information containedherein relating to an individual registrant is filed by that registrant on its own behalf. Virginia Power makes no representations as to the information relatingto Dominion’s other operations.
Dkt. No. ER09-1534-001 Exhibit SCE-60 Page 5 of 7
Table of ContentsDOMINION RESOURCES, INC.
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS(Unaudited)
(millions)March 31,
2010
December
31,2009(1)
ASSETSCurrent AssetsCash and cash equivalents $ 85 $ 48Customer receivables (less allowance for doubtful accounts of $31 at both dates) 1,955 2,050Other receivables (less allowance for doubtful accounts of $14 at both dates) 105 130Inventories 984 1,185Derivative assets 1,638 1,128Assets held for sale — 1,018Prepayments 147 405Other 1,119 853
Total current assets 6,033 6,817
InvestmentsNuclear decommissioning trust funds 2,735 2,625Investment in equity method affiliates 601 595Other 276 272
Total investments 3,612 3,492
Property, Plant and EquipmentProperty, plant and equipment 39,729 39,036Accumulated depreciation, depletion and amortization (13,691) (13,444)
Total property, plant and equipment, net 26,038 25,592
Deferred Charges and Other AssetsGoodwill 3,275 3,354Regulatory assets 1,240 1,390Other 1,965 1,909
Total deferred charges and other assets 6,480 6,653
Total assets $ 42,163 $ 42,554
(1) Dominion’s Consolidated Balance Sheet at December 31, 2009 has been derived from the audited Consolidated Financial Statements at that date.
The accompanying notes are an integral part of Dominion’s Consolidated Financial Statements.
PAGE 6
Dkt. No. ER09-1534-001 Exhibit SCE-60 Page 6 of 7
Table of ContentsThe results of operations for Dominion’s Appalachian E&P business are not reported as discontinued operations in the Consolidated Statements of Incomesince Dominion did not sell its entire U.S. cost pool, which includes the retained Appalachian assets located on or near its natural gas storage fields.
Due to the announced sale, hedge accounting was discontinued for certain cash flow hedges since it became probable that the forecasted sales of gas wouldnot occur. In connection with the discontinuance of hedge accounting for these contracts, Dominion recognized a $42 million ($25 million after−tax)benefit, recorded in operating revenue in its Consolidated Statement of Income, reflecting the reclassification of gains from AOCI to earnings for thesecontracts in the three months ended March 31, 2010.
Sale of Peoples
In February 2010, Dominion completed the sale of Peoples to PNG Companies LLC and netted after−tax proceeds of approximately $542 million. The saleresulted in an after−tax loss of approximately $134 million, which included a $79 million write−off of goodwill. The sale also resulted in after−tax expensesof approximately $27 million, including transaction and benefit−related costs. In addition, Peoples had income from operations of $12 million after−tax forthe three months ended March 31, 2010.
Dominion did not previously report Peoples as discontinued operations since it expected to have significant continuing cash flows related primarily to thesale to Peoples of natural gas production from its Appalachian E&P business. Due to the pending sale of its Appalachian E&P business, Dominion no longerexpects to have significant continuing cash flows with Peoples; therefore, the results of Peoples were reclassified to discontinued operations in theConsolidated Statements of Income for all periods presented.
The carrying amounts of the major classes of assets and liabilities classified as held for sale in Dominion’s Consolidated Balance Sheet were as follows:
December 31,2009
(millions)ASSETSCurrent AssetsCustomer receivables $ 87Other 56
Total current assets 143
Property, Plant and EquipmentProperty, plant and equipment 985Accumulated depreciation, depletion and amortization (284)
Total property, plant and equipment, net 701
Deferred Charges and Other AssetsRegulatory assets 125Other 49
Total deferred charges and other assets 174
Assets held for sale $ 1,018
LIABILITIESCurrent Liabilities $ 133Deferred Credits and Other LiabilitiesDeferred income taxes and investment tax credits 238Other 57
Total deferred credits and other liabilities 295
Liabilities held for sale $ 428
PAGE 14
Dkt. No. ER09-1534-001 Exhibit SCE-60 Page 7 of 7
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA BEFORE THE
FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION
Southern California Edison Company
)))
Dkt. No.
ER09-1534-001
EXCERPTS FROM PPL CORPORATION FORM 8-
K FILINGS
(EXHIBIT SCE-61)
OCTOBER 2010
Exhibit 99.1
PPL Corporation to acquire Kentucky’s two major utilities Transaction expands footprint and improves business mix
ALLENTOWN, Pa. ( April 28, 2010) -- PPL Corporation (NYSE: PPL) and E.ON AG today announced a definitive
agreement under which PPL will acquire E.ON U.S. LLC, the parent company of Kentucky’s two major utilities, Louisville Gas & Electric Company and Kentucky Utilities Company. These high-performing utilities serve 1.2 million customers, principally in Kentucky.
PPL is acquiring E.ON U.S. for $7.625 billion and will receive tax benefits with a present value of about $450 million as part of the transaction. Taking into account the tax benefits, the effective purchase price is $7.175 billion.
The acquisition will transform PPL into a more geographically diverse utility holding company with combined annual revenues of about $10 billion, serving nearly 5 million electricity customers in the United States and the United Kingdom, and owning or controlling about 20,000 megawatts of U.S. electricity generating capacity.
“This is a transformational, value-rich transaction, which will immediately improve PPL’s business mix by adding high-performing regulated utility operations to our already strong combination of excellent regulated businesses and our high-value competitive generation fleet,” said James H. Miller, PPL’s chairman, president and chief executive officer.
“We are adding scale, creating a much stronger and more diversified enterprise while providing additional opportunities for regulated-business growth and, importantly, retaining the upside benefits of our competitive fleet when wholesale power market prices improve,” said Miller. “Clearly, for PPL shareowners, this is the right deal at the right time.”
The transaction, Miller said, takes advantage of “a rare opportunity to add to PPL the experience, talent and values of an organization with a proven track record of cost-effective operations, a strong focus on customer service and constructive regulatory relationships.”
Miller said PPL intends to operate the company as a wholly owned subsidiary of PPL Corporation, retaining the headquarters in Louisville, as has been the case with E.ON AG ownership. Customers will continue to be served by LG&E and KU, with operational headquarters in Louisville and Lexington, respectively.
“We are very pleased to join the excellent management team and employees of PPL, who operate one of the most effective and customer-friendly utilities in the United States and the U.K.,” said Vic Staffieri, chairman, chief executive officer and president of E.ON U.S.
PPL, Miller said, is committed to providing the highest quality service to Kentucky customers and does not anticipate any change in Kentucky employment levels as a result of this transaction.
PPL will pay for the transaction with $6.7 billion of cash and through the assumption of $925 million of tax-exempt debt. PPL has committed bridge financing in place from Bank of America Merrill Lynch and Credit Suisse. Miller said the permanent financing plan will include a combination of common equity, first mortgage bonds, corporate debt, high-equity-content securities and cash on hand. Proceeds from the sale of PPL non-core assets may be explored as a potential to fund a portion of the transaction.
Miller said the transaction is anticipated to be modestly dilutive in the first full year and accretive to earnings by 2013.
“Adding the proven operations of LG&E and KU in the constructive Kentucky regulatory framework will enhance the overall business risk profile of PPL, which we believe will lead to improved access to capital, a stronger credit profile and solid, investment-grade credit ratings in each of our businesses,” said Miller.
Miller also said that the company expects to announce next week (May 6) reported earnings of $0.66 per share for the first quarter of 2010 compared with $0.64 per share for the first quarter of 2009, and earnings from ongoing operations of $0.94 per share for the first quarter of 2010 compared with $0.60 per share for the first quarter of 2009.
At that time, he said, the company also will reaffirm its 2010 forecast of earnings from ongoing operations of $3.10 to $3.50 per share and for reported earnings of $2.82 to $3.22 per share (reflecting special items recorded through March 31, 2010). These forecasts do not reflect any impact of this transaction or the related financings.
The transaction is expected to close by the end of this year. It requires approvals by state regulators in Kentucky, Virginia and Tennessee and by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission as well as the expiration of the waiting period under the Hart-Scott-Rodino Antitrust Improvements Act. No shareowner approvals are necessary for the transaction. Credit Suisse and Bank of America Merrill Lynch served as PPL’s financial advisers. Simpson Thacher & Bartlett, LLP, served as legal adviser.
E.ON U.S., through LG&E and KU, provides electricity service to 941,000 customers, mostly in the state of Kentucky, with some customers in Virginia and Tennessee. LG&E also provides natural gas delivery service to 321,000 customers in Kentucky. E.ON U.S. has about 3,100 employees and owns and operates about 8,000 megawatts of regulated electric generation capacity.
Contact: Media Contacts: PPL: Daniel J. McCarthy, 610-774-5758 Investor Contacts: PPL: Joseph P. Bergstein, 610-774-5609
Page 2 of 6PPL CORP - 8-K - 20100429 - EXHIBIT_99
10/12/2010http://yahoo.brand.edgar-online.com/EFX_dll/EDGARpro.dll?FetchFilingHtmlSection1?...
Dkt. No. ER09-1534-001 Exhibit SCE-61 Page 1 of 3
PPL Corporation, headquartered in Allentown, Pa., owns or controls nearly 12,000 megawatts of generating capacity in the United States, sells energy in key U.S. markets and delivers electricity to about 4 million customers in Pennsylvania and the United Kingdom. The company has about 10,000 employees. See the electronic version of this news release at www.pplweb.com for a fact sheet for the combined companies.
# # #
Page 3 of 6PPL CORP - 8-K - 20100429 - EXHIBIT_99
10/12/2010http://yahoo.brand.edgar-online.com/EFX_dll/EDGARpro.dll?FetchFilingHtmlSection1?...
Dkt. No. ER09-1534-001 Exhibit SCE-61 Page 2 of 3
PPL CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES
CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL INFORMATION (a)
Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheet (Unaudited) (Millions of Dollars)
March 31, December 31, 2010 2009 Assets Cash and cash equivalents $ 1,724 $ 801 Price risk management assets - current 3,348 2,157 Assets held for sale 127 Other current assets 2,149 1,667 Investments 638 613 Property, plant and equipment Electric plant 21,089 21,151 Gas and oil plant 68 68 Other property 157 166 Property, plant and equipment, gross 21,314 21,385 Less: accumulated depreciation 8,256 8,211 Property, plant and equipment, net 13,058 13,174 Regulatory assets 529 531 Goodwill and other intangibles 1,362 1,421 Price risk management assets - noncurrent 1,713 1,274 Other noncurrent assets 414 400 Total assets $ 24,935 $ 22,165 Liabilities and Equity Short-term debt (including current portion of long-term debt) $ 589 $ 639 Price risk management liabilities - current 2,391 1,502 Other current liabilities 2,812 2,041 Long-term debt (less current portion) 7,652 7,143 Deferred income taxes and investment tax credits 2,313 2,153 Price risk management liabilities - noncurrent 853 582 Accrued pension obligations 1,104 1,283 Other noncurrent liabilities 1,010 1,007 Common stock and capital in excess of par value 2,314 2,284 Earnings reinvested 3,866 3,749 Accumulated other comprehensive loss (288 ) (537 ) Noncontrolling interests 319 319 Total liabilities and equity $ 24,935 $ 22,165
(a) The Financial Statements in this news release have been condensed and summarized for purposes of this presentation. Please refer to PPL Corporation's periodic filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission for full financial statements, including note disclosure.
Page 8 of 13PPL CORP - 8-K - 20100506 - EXHIBIT_99
10/12/2010http://yahoo.brand.edgar-online.com/EFX_dll/EDGARpro.dll?FetchFilingHtmlSection1?...
Dkt. No. ER09-1534-001 Exhibit SCE-61 Page 3 of 3
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
BEFORE THE
FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION
Southern California Edison Company
)
)
)
Dkt. No.
ER09-1534-001
EXCERPTS FROM INTEGRYS ENERGY
FORM 10-K FILING
(EXHIBIT SCE-62)
OCTOBER 2010
UNITED STATES SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
Washington, D. C. 20549
FORM 10-K (Mark One) [X] ANNUAL REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE
ACT OF 1934
For the fiscal year ended December 31, 2009
OR [ ] TRANSITION REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES
EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934
For the transition period from ________________ to ___________________ Commission File Number
Registrant; State of Incorporation; Address; and Telephone Number
IRS Employer Identification No.
1-11337 INTEGRYS ENERGY GROUP, INC.
(A Wisconsin Corporation) 130 East Randolph Drive
Chicago, IL 60601 (312) 228-5400
39-1775292
Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(b) of the Act:
Title of each class
Name of each exchange on which registered
Common Stock, $1 par value New York Stock Exchange
Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(g) of the Act: None Indicate by check mark if the Registrant is a well-known seasoned issuer, as defined in Rule 405 of the Securities Act.
Yes [X] No [ ] Indicate by check mark if the Registrant is not required to file reports pursuant to Section 13 or Section 15(d) of the Exchange Act.
Yes [ ] No [X] Indicate by check mark whether the Registrant (1) has filed all reports required to be filed by Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the Registrant was required to file such reports), and (2) has been subject to such filing requirements for the past 90 days.
Yes [X] No [ ]
Dkt. No. ER09-1534-001 Exhibit SCE-62 Page 1 of 3
ITEM 6. SELECTED FINANCIAL DATA
As of or for Year Ended December 31
(Millions, except per share amounts, stock price, return on average equity
and number of shareholders and employees) 2009 2008 2007 (1) 2006 (2) 2005
Total revenues $7,499.8 $14,047.8 $10,292.4 $6,890.7 $6,825.5
Net income (loss) from continuing operations (71.6) 124.7 181.0 147.8 146.1
Net income (loss) attributed to common shareholders (70.9) 126.4 251.3 155.8 157.4
Total assets 11,847.9 14,272.5 11,234.4 6,861.7 5,462.5
Preferred stock of subsidiary 51.1 51.1 51.1 51.1 51.1
Long-term debt (excluding current portion) 2,394.7 2,285.7 2,265.1 1,287.2 867.1
Shares of common stock (less treasury stock and shares in deferred
compensation trust)
Outstanding 76.0 76.0 76.0 43.1 39.8
Average 76.8 76.7 71.6 42.3 38.3
Earnings (loss) per common share (basic)
Net income (loss) from continuing operations ($0.96) $1.59 $2.49 $3.51 $3.85
Earnings (loss) per common share (0.92) 1.65 3.51 3.68 4.11
Earnings (loss) per common share (diluted)
Net income (loss) from continuing operations (0.96) 1.58 2.48 3.50 3.81
Earnings (loss) per common share (0.92) 1.64 3.50 3.67 4.07
Dividends per common share declared 2.72 2.68 2.56 2.28 2.24
Stock price at year-end $41.99 $42.98 $51.69 $54.03 $55.31
Book value per share $37.62 $40.78 $42.58 $35.61 $32.76
Return on average equity (2.5)% 3.7% 8.5% 10.6% 13.6%
Number of common stock shareholders 32,755 34,016 35,212 19,837 20,701
Number of employees 5,025 5,191 5,231 3,326 2,945
(1) Includes the impact of the PEC merger on February 21, 2007.(2) Includes the impact of the acquisition of natural gas distribution operations from Aquila by MGU on April 1, 2006 and MERC on July 1, 2006.
INTEGRYS ENERGY GROUP, INC.COMPARATIVE FINANCIAL DATA AND
OTHER STATISTICS (2005 TO 2009)
-28-
Dkt. No. ER09-1534-001 Exhibit SCE-62 Page 2 of 3
-95-
(Millions) 2009 Employee-related costs $10.1 Legal and consulting 9.2 Software write-offs and accelerated depreciation 5.9 Miscellaneous 0.3 Total restructuring expense $25.5
All of the above costs were related to the Integrys Energy Services segment and were included in the restructuring expense line item on the Consolidated Statements of Income. The following table summarizes the activity related to employee-related restructuring expense: (Millions) 2009 Accrued employee-related costs at beginning of period $ - Employee-related costs expensed 10.1 Cash payments 1.9 Accrued employee-related costs at end of period $ 8.2
Integrys Energy Group expects to incur total employee-related restructuring expense of approximately $12 million related to the Integrys Energy Services strategy change by the end of 2010, including the $10.1 million expensed as of December 31, 2009. NOTE 4--DISPOSITIONS Integrys Energy Services Strategy Change As part of Integrys Energy Group's decision to significantly reduce the size of its nonregulated energy services business segment with significantly reduced credit and collateral support requirements, it entered into the following sale agreements during 2009. Proposed Sale of United States Wholesale Electric Marketing and Trading Business In December 2009, Integrys Energy Services entered into a definitive agreement to sell substantially all of its United States wholesale electric marketing and trading business. The closing of this sale is contingent upon obtaining certain customary contractual consents and necessary regulatory approvals. Effective February 1, 2010, Integrys Energy Services transferred substantially all of the market risk associated with this business by entering into trades with the buyer that mirror Integrys Energy Services' underlying wholesale electric contracts. Integrys Energy Services expects to transfer title to the underlying contracts and close the transaction by the end of the second quarter of 2010, at which time these mirror transactions will terminate. The carrying values of the major classes of assets and liabilities included in the sale agreement were as follows at December 31, 2009: (Millions) Current assets from risk management activities $1,219.7 Long-term assets from risk management activities 629.4 Total assets $1,849.1
Current liabilities from risk management activities $1,229.8 Long-term liabilities from risk management activities 602.2 Total liabilities $1,832.0
Dkt. No. ER09-1534-001 Exhibit SCE-62 Page 3 of 3
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
BEFORE THE
FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION
Southern California Edison Company
)
)
)
Dkt. No.
ER09-1534-001
EXCERPTS FROM PEPCO HOLDINGS
FORM 8-K AND 10-Q FILINGS
(EXHIBIT SCE-63)
OCTOBER 2010
UNITED STATES
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
Washington, D.C. 20549
FORM 8-K
CURRENT REPORT
Pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d) of The Securities Exchange Act of 1934
Date of Report (Date of earliest event reported): April 20, 2010
PEPCO HOLDINGS, INC. (Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)
Delaware 001-31403 52-2297449 (State or other jurisdiction
of incorporation) (Commission
File Number) (IRS Employer
Identification No.)
701 Ninth Street, N.W., Washington, DC 20068 (Address of principal executive offices) (Zip Code)
Registrant's telephone number, including area code (202) 872-3526
Not Applicable
(Former name or former address, if changed since last report.) Check the appropriate box below if the Form 8-K filing is intended to simultaneously satisfy the filing obligation of the registrant under any of the following provisions:
� Written communications pursuant to Rule 425 under the Securities Act (17 CFR 230.425)
� Soliciting material pursuant to Rule 14a-12 under the Exchange Act (17 CFR 240.14a-12)
� Pre-commencement communications pursuant to Rule 14d-2(b) under the Exchange Act (17 CFR 240.14d-2(b))
� Pre-commencement communications pursuant to Rule 13e-4(c) under the Exchange Act (17 CFR 240.13e-4(c))
Dkt. No. ER09-1534-001 Exhibit SCE-63 Page 1 of 4
Pepco Holdings, Inc. Form 8-K
2
Item 1.01 Entry into a Material Definitive Agreement. Sale of Conectiv Wholesale Power Generation Business On April 20, 2010, Pepco Holdings, Inc. (“PHI”) entered into an agreement to sell its Conectiv Energy wholesale power generation assets to New Development Holding, LLC (the “Purchaser”), a wholly owned subsidiary of Calpine Corporation (“Calpine Corporation”). Under the terms of the purchase agreement (the “Purchase Agreement”), the Purchaser will purchase Conectiv Energy Holding Company (“CEHC”), an indirect wholly owned subsidiary of PHI, for a purchase price of $1.65 billion, plus the market value of the fuel oil inventory at closing, and subject to adjustments for (i) the level of working capital and non-fuel oil inventory at closing and (ii) actual capital expenditures relative to budgeted capital expenditures through the closing date. All of CEHC’s generation facilities and assets, which have an aggregate generating capacity of 3,860 megawatts, are included in the sale. The assets are located in the eastern PJM region and consist of:
� the Deepwater steam plant in New Jersey, with a generating capacity of 158 megawatts;
� the Edge Moor steam plant in Delaware, with a generating capacity of 710 megawatts;
� 2 combined cycle plants, one in each of Pennsylvania and Delaware, which have aggregate generating capacity of 2,260 megawatts;
� 30 peaking units – 20 combustion turbines and 10 diesels, located in Delaware (5), New Jersey (14),
Virginia (7) and Maryland (4), which have an aggregate generating capacity of 728 megawatts; and
� the 4 megawatt Vineland, New Jersey solar photovoltaic facility. CEHC also is constructing a 565 megawatt combined cycle generating plant located in southern Pennsylvania referred to as the Delta Project. Both the Delta Project and the six-year tolling agreement associated with the Delta Project are included in the sale. The sale does not include the balance of PHI’s Conectiv Energy segment, which includes Conectiv Energy’s load service supply contracts, energy hedging portfolio, certain tolling agreements, and other non-core assets. PHI’s Board of Directors has approved a plan to liquidate these contracts and other assets within the next 12 months. The estimated after-tax proceeds of the sale of the Conectiv Energy wholesale power generation assets and the liquidation of the other assets and contracts, combined with the return of collateral posted under the contracts, are expected to be approximately $1.75 billion. PHI expects to use the proceeds primarily to retire its existing debt. Taxes on the sale and liquidation of the assets are currently estimated to be approximately $300 million. Completion of the transaction will require the approval of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission and satisfaction of the requirements of the Hart-Scott-Rodino Antitrust Improvements Act of 1976, as amended. Each party’s obligation to complete the sale also is contingent on other customary closing conditions, including the material accuracy of the other party’s representations and warranties and the compliance by the other party with its covenants. The obligation of the Purchaser to complete the purchase also is contingent on no event, condition or developments occurring after the date of the Purchase
Dkt. No. ER09-1534-001 Exhibit SCE-63 Page 2 of 4
UNITED STATES SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
Washington, D.C. 20549
FORM 10-Q
QUARTERLY REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 or 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934
For the quarter ended March 31, 2010
Indicate by check mark whether each registrant (1) has filed all reports required to be filed by Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during the preceding 12 months and (2) has been subject to such filing requirements for the past 90 days.
Indicate by check mark whether the registrant has submitted electronically and posted on its corporate Web site, if any, every Interactive Data File required to be submitted and posted pursuant to Rule 405 of Regulation S-T during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to submit and post such files).
Commission File Number
Name of Registrant, State of Incorporation,
Address of Principal Executive Offices, and Telephone Number
I.R.S. Employer
Identification
Number
001-31403
PEPCO HOLDINGS, INC. (Pepco Holdings or PHI), a Delaware corporation 701 Ninth Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20068 Telephone: (202)872-2000
52-2297449
001-01072
POTOMAC ELECTRIC POWER COMPANY(Pepco), a District of Columbia and Virginia corporation 701 Ninth Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20068 Telephone: (202)872-2000
53-0127880
001-01405
DELMARVA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY(DPL), a Delaware and Virginia corporation 800 King Street, P.O. Box 231 Wilmington, Delaware 19899 Telephone: (202)872-2000
51-0084283
001-03559
ATLANTIC CITY ELECTRIC COMPANY(ACE), a New Jersey corporation 800 King Street, P.O. Box 231 Wilmington, Delaware 19899 Telephone: (202)872-2000
21-0398280
Pepco Holdings Yes � No � Pepco Yes � No �
DPL Yes � No � ACE Yes � No �
Pepco Holdings Yes � No � Pepco Yes � No �
DPL Yes � No � ACE Yes � No �
Dkt. No. ER09-1534-001 Exhibit SCE-63 Page 3 of 4
PEPCO HOLDINGS
PEPCO HOLDINGS, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS
(Unaudited)
The accompanying Notes are an integral part of these Consolidated Financial Statements.
4
March 31,
2010
December 31,
2009 (millions of dollars)
ASSETS
CURRENT ASSETS
Cash and cash equivalents $ 38 $ 46 Restricted cash equivalents 10 11Accounts receivable, less allowance for uncollectible accounts of $47 million and $45 million,
respectively 1,205 1,213Inventories 226 252Derivative assets 70 43Prepayments of income taxes 163 167Deferred income tax assets, net 110 126 Prepaid expenses and other 52 68
Total Current Assets 1,874 1,926
INVESTMENTS AND OTHER ASSETS
Goodwill 1,407 1,407Regulatory assets 1,792 1,801Investment in finance leases held in trust 1,382 1,386Income taxes receivable 135 141Restricted cash equivalents 3 4Assets and accrued interest related to uncertain tax positions 12 12 Derivative assets 64 43Other 198 196
Total Investments and Other Assets 4,993 4,990
PROPERTY, PLANT AND EQUIPMENT
Property, plant and equipment 13,883 13,717Accumulated depreciation (4,918) (4,854)
Net Property, Plant and Equipment 8,965 8,863
TOTAL ASSETS $15,832 $ 15,779
Dkt. No. ER09-1534-001 Exhibit SCE-63 Page 4 of 4