Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc. Case 16-E-0060 Electric Rate Case. Demand Analysis and Cost of Service Panel s Rebuttal Exhibits INDEX

Transcription

1 Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc. Case 16-E-0060 Electric Rate Case Demand Analysis and Cost of Service Panel s Rebuttal Exhibits INDEX Item Cover Sheet/Index Exhibit (DAC-4) Exhibit (DAC-5) Exhibit (DAC-6) Page 1 of 25

2 Exhibit (DAC-4) Company Name: Con Edison Case Description: Con Edison Electric and Gas Rate Filings Case: 16-E-0060; 16-G-0061 Response to City of New York Interrogatories Set City-2 Date of Response: Responding Witness: Question No. : 44 Provide an executable electronic copy, with all formulas intact, showing the calculation of allocation Factor D08 for each rate class. a. With respect to the request in 44, provide a detailed explanation of the rationale for, and the methodology for making the special adjustment to the S.C. 17 class. RESPONSE: (do not edit or delete this line or anything above this) Please see the attached file 16E0060 Exhibit (DAC-1) Workpaper 3.xlsx. The D08 allocator is shown in column K (labeled as column 11). The D08 allocator is a weighted average of the low tension individual customer maximum demands ("ICMD") shown in column H (labeled as column 8) and the maximum four-hour non-coincident peak ("NCP") low tension demands shown in column J (labeled as column 10). For SC 1, a weighting of 25%/75%, respectively, is used to allow for the diversity of individual customer loads in multiple dwellings. All other classes use a 50%/50% weighting. SC 7 is no longer analyzed as a separate class from SC 1. The methodology and rationale were fully explained in testimony from the Demand Analysis and Cost of Service Panel - Electric in Case 13-E-0300, pages 19 through 24. As detailed in that testimony, the Company conducted a load diversity study to address the issue of cost-of-service allocation of low tension costs, specifically the allocation used for individually-metered residential customers. Historically, the Company has recognized that ICMDs should not play as much a part in determining the residential class's use of the low tension system because of the large portion of customers living in multi-family buildings. Therefore, the Company adopted an Page 2 of 25

3 Exhibit (DAC-4) allocation that assumed that the use of the ICMD is half as important for this class as it is for commercial classes. Thus, instead of the 50/50 split between ICMD and NCP used for commercial classes, the residential allocation is a blend of 75% NCP with 25% ICMD. Based on the findings of the load diversity study, the Company concluded that no change in the existing allocation methodology, i.e., 25% ICMD and 75% NCP, was warranted. Page 3 of 25

4 Exhibit (DAC-4) Company Name: Con Edison Case Description: Con Edison Electric and Gas Rate Filings Case: 16-E-0060; 16-G-0061 Response to UIU Interrogatories Set UIU Set 8 Date of Response: Responding Witness: Question No. : Please describe with specificity why any portion of overhead lines, or underground lines, are sized to meet the sum of customer maximum demands. RESPONSE: (do not edit or delete this line or anything above this) Similar to the Company s process for transformers, we do not size overhead and underground lines to meet the sum of customer demands. Each cable has a rated capacity, and the Company matches the cable capacity to the demand in a load area. Page 4 of 25

5 Exhibit (DAC-4) Company Name: Con Edison Case Description: Con Edison Electric and Gas Rate Filings Case: 16-E-0060; 16-G-0061 Question No. : 206 Response to UIU Interrogatories Set UIU-10 Date of Response: Responding Witness: Minimum System - Exhibit DAC-2 Schedule 1 (Confidential) - Assuming the method used in this case to calculate the customer component apparently comports with the method agreed to in Case 04-E-0572, if the minimum system calculation is considered again in this case, please explain why a minimum sized system would use any size greater than 1.00 or 2.00? RESPONSE: (do not edit or delete this line or anything above this) As explained in response to NYC d, the equipment which constitutes the minimum system is the result of a joint collaborative which stemmed from 04-E A Memorandum of Understanding agreed to and signed by the parties resulted in a minimum system methodology to be used in determining the customer component of low tension distribution plant. This MOU further determined that this minimum size will be calculated using the weighted average unit cost of installed wire sizes from 1 to 10. Page 5 of 25

6 Exhibit (DAC-4) Company Name: Con Edison Case Description: Con Edison Electric and Gas Rate Filings Case: 16-E-0060; 16-G-0061 Question No. : 205 Response to UIU Interrogatories Set UIU-10 Date of Response: Responding Witness: Minimum System - Exhibit DAC-2 Schedule 1 (Confidential) - The following questions refer to Exhibit DAC-2 Schedule 1, tab 2013 OH Cond Min Sys: a. Do the numbers 0.00 to 10,00 refer to the size of the conductor? If so, what is the meaning of each size from 0.00 to 10.00? If not, please explain in detail what each of these numbers mean. b. Please describe the characteristics of areas that are primarily served by overhead conductors. c. What is the minimum size overhead conductor currently being installed by ConEd? d. Is that minimum size larger than the smallest conductor in use in the system? If so, why is the minimum size currently being installed larger than the smallest conductor in use? e. Does Amount refer to a length measurement? If so, is this per foot or something else? Please describe in detail what Amount means for each conductor size. f. If these numbers refer to the size of conductor, please explain the apparent variation in cost per length (calculated by dividing total cost by Amount) between: Conductor Type Apparent Cost per unit 1.00 $ $ $ $ $.130 RESPONSE: (do not edit or delete this line or anything above this) Page 6 of 25

7 Exhibit (DAC-4) a. The meaning of each size from 0.00 to is as follows: Size Representing American wire gauge (AWG) 0.00 No size specified on the Company s books Awg Wire Awg Wire Awg Wire Awg Wire Awg Wire Awg Wire b. The characteristics of areas served by overhead conductors include services to residential or commercial dwellings that are fed via an overhead point of attachment (POA) instead of an underground point of entry (POE). The facilities that would provide service are fed via poles, overhead transformers and overhead primary and secondary conductors. The Company s radial or non-network feeders are typically of overhead construction, whereas the network is predominantly of underground construction (underground manholes and vaults and underground primary and secondary conductors. c. 4/0 Al on overhead d. #6 is the smallest size cable found in the overhead as a secondary wire. The Company has consolidated its sizes of cable used to minimize the number of conductors carried and associated stock, and for capacity concerns to minimize the number of times a section of cable is changed. The currently installed 4/0 Al is larger than the smallest size cable in use. The Company does not use a smaller wire size for new installations. e. The file represents the size of conductor (description), the footage installed (amount), and the total book cost (cost). f. The average cost per foot of conductor is calculated by taking total cost expended for type of cable over the total footage installed on the system. This is a cumulative cost that varies due to cable installed may be different than the size of conductor removed from year to year. Also, the cost of construction varies by district and by year. Page 7 of 25

8 Exhibit (DAC-4) Company Name: Con Edison Case Description: Con Edison Electric and Gas Rate Filings Case: 16-E-0060; 16-G-0061 Response to UIU Interrogatories Set UIU-10 Date of Response: Responding Witness: Question No. : 208 Minimum System - Exhibit DAC-2 Schedule 1 (Confidential) - The following questions refer to Exhibit DAC-2 Schedule 1, tab 2010 UG Cond Min Sys a. Please explain what the column headings mean and how they were calculated. b. What are the sizes of Under Ground conductor that are installed on the system? c. What is the minimum size Under Ground conductor currently being installed? d. What is the derivation of the $1.76 that is used to calculate the minimum system amount? RESPONSE: (do not edit or delete this line or anything above this) a) See response to City a. b) See the attachment provided in response to City d-ii. c) The minimum size cable is underground secondary cables measured at 500 MCM (thousands of circular mills). d) See response to City e. Page 8 of 25

9 Exhibit (DAC-4) Company Name: Con Edison Case Description: Con Edison Electric and Gas Rate Filings Case: 16-E-0060; 16-G-0061 Question No. : 205 Response to City of New York Interrogatories Set City-6 Date of Response: Responding Witness: Referring to the Electric Work Papers for Exhibit (DAC-2) Schedule 1.xlsx file, tab labeled 2013 OH Transformers (page 49), provide the following information: a. Identify and provide the source for the quantities of the equipment identified in Column C. b. Identify and provide the source for all of the cost data contained in Column D. c. Provide the rationale for selecting the subset of equipment contained in rows 9 through 45 of the Excel worksheet to represent the minimum size of the system. RESPONSE: (do not edit or delete this line or anything above this) a. The source for the quantities of the equipment identified in Column C is from the Company s Property Records Department responsible for maintaining the Company s assets on the books of account. Please see the attached document, NYC and 206 Attachment. The tab entitled, Raw Data was downloaded directly from our asset sub-ledger. b. Please see response to NYC a above. The quantity and cost data is from the same source. Page 9 of 25

10 Exhibit (DAC-4) c. The subset of equipment selected in the minimum system calculation for transformers was determined consistent with the selection of equipment for conductors. That is, the Panel selected a range of minimum sizes up to and including 25KVA transformers which represents the pre-dominant minimum size installed. Page 10 of 25

11 Exhibit (DAC-4) Company Name: Con Edison Case Description: Con Edison Electric and Gas Rate Filings Case: 16-E-0060; 16-G-0061 Response to UIU Interrogatories Set UIU Set 8 Date of Response: Responding Witness: Question No. : Please provide the portion of any Company technical electric distribution specifications that describe the sizing of transformers to meet residential loads. RESPONSE: (do not edit or delete this line or anything above this) The Company does not size transformers to meet residential loads. The Company rates transformers and matches the transformer capacity to the demand in a load area, including in residential areas. Factors included in the rating process include for both residential (radial) and residential/commercial (network) the following: Design Top Oil and Hot Spot limits (limits not to be exceeded). Transformers certified data (e.g., rated losses, thermal gradients and weights.) Vault conditions and design criteria. Daily load factor (shape of load curve). Modes of operation (normal or contingencies). Operating ambient temperature. The Company installs additional transformers or replaces transformers when an existing transformer s connected load exceeds its rating. Page 11 of 25

12 Exhibit (DAC-4) Company Name: Con Edison Case Description: Con Edison Electric and Gas Rate Filings Case: 16-E-0060; 16-G-0061 Response to UIU Interrogatories Set UIU-10 Date of Response: Responding Witness: Question No. : 207 Minimum System - Exhibit DAC-2 Schedule 1 (Confidential) - The following questions all refer to Overhead Transformers and data contained in Exhibit DAC-2 Schedule 1, tab 2013 OH Transformers: a. What is the minimum size Kva rating 2400 Volt transformer currently being installed for single phase service? b. What size load (in kw or kva) per residential customer does the Company assume in planning for transformer installation in areas that contain primarily single-family residences? c. What is the typical number of customers that is served by the minimum size transformer in areas that contain primarily single-family residences? d. Are transformer sizes normally chosen to meet the maximum demands of all customers to be served by the transformer or does the Company assume some load diversity? e. What is the reason for installing 7600 Volt transformers rather than 2400 Volt transformers? Why are these transformers included in the calculation of minimum size for the calculation of the customer component of transformer plant? Please describe the configurations in which the 7600 Volt transformers are installed. f. Do the 7600 Volt transformers serve higher loads or more customers than the 2400 volt transformers of the same Kva designation? If the answer is yes, please explain in detail. g. There appear to be more than 400 transformers from sizes 10 Kva to 15 Kva. When these transformers require replacement, what size transformer is installed and if the replacement is a different size, what is the reason for the change? Page 12 of 25

13 RESPONSE: (do not edit or delete this line or anything above this) a) Three phase 45kVA and single phase 50kVA. Exhibit (DAC-4) b) See response to UIU c) The typical number of customers served by the minimum size transformer is 6-10 customers on average. d) See response to UIU e) Transformer selection is based upon primary non-network primary feeder voltage. A 7,600V transformer is used on the 13kV auto loops. A 2,400V transformer is used on 4kV feeders. The Company s distribution system is comprised of non-network feeders of both voltages. The configurations for 7,600V transformers can be single or three phase units. These transformers are included in the minimum system calculation because they are included in the up to and including 25KVA selection criteria. The primary side voltage (7600-vs-2400) is irrelevant. f) The load a transformer can carry is based upon its size and not voltage of the primary side. g) The size of the transformer selected to replace a 10kVA or 15kVA transformer is based upon a number of factors including the sum of the current demand, load factor of that demand and any known new additional load (i.e. customer requested additional load). The Company uses a population of specific size transformers with 45kva 3 phase or 50kva single phase as the minimum size when a transformer is needed. Page 13 of 25

14 Exhibit (DAC-4) Company Name: Con Edison Case Description: Con Edison Electric and Gas Rate Filings Case: 16-E-0060; 16-G-0061 Response to City of New York Interrogatories Set City-2 Date of Response: Responding Witness: Question No. : According to page 19, lines of the Panel s pre-filed direct testimony, class revenue responsibility has been measured with respect to a +/-10% tolerance band around the total system rate of return. a. Provide all Con Edison rate cases in which this tolerance band has been used. b. Explain and provide all work papers, documentation and analyses relied upon by Con Edison to develop this 10% tolerance band. c. Identify whether Con Edison has performed any recent studies or analyses to determine whether the continued use of a 10% tolerance is reasonable. i. If the answer to (c) is yes, provide all such studies and analyses. ii. If the answer to (c) is no, explain why no such analyses and studies have been performed. RESPONSE: (do not edit or delete this line or anything above this) Page 14 of 25

15 Exhibit (DAC-4) a. During the last 20 years, the Commission has adopted the use of a tolerance band in all Con Edison electric rate cases as listed below. Case 96-E-0897 Case 04-E-0572 Case 07-E-0523 Case 08-E-0539 Case 09-E-0428 Case 13-E-0030 Case 15-E-0050 In all but one of these cases, a +/- 10% tolerance band was adopted by the Commission. However, in its Order Establishing Rates for Electric Service, issued and effective March 25, 2008, in Case 07-E-0523, the Commission stated, DPS Staff accepted the Company s embedded cost of service study results and proposed that a load diversity study be performed in the next rate case. Pending the results of the load diversity study, Staff has proposed that a broader tolerance band, (in this instance 15%) be used for determining the interclass revenue allocation in this case. The Company did submit a Load Diversity Study in Case 13-E In that case the Company filed an embedded cost-of-service study employing its traditional +/-10% tolerance band, which was accepted by the Commission. b. The Company does not have any specific work paper that it used to develop the +/- 10% tolerance band. However, the Company has presented its argument for the continued use of the +/-10% tolerance band in several of the cases stated in the response to a. above, which have been accepted and adopted by the Commission. Based on past practice, the Company has continued the use of +/-10% tolerance band. c. See the response to b. above. 15 of 25

16 Exhibit (DAC-4) Company Name: Con Edison Case Description: Con Edison Electric and Gas Rate Filings Case: 16-E-0060; 16-G-0061 Response to DPS Interrogatories Set DPS-3 Date of Response: Responding Witness: Question No. : 222 Subject: Electric Marginal Cost Analysis 1. Provide in electronic format, with all formulae intact, all work papers, including any final report as provided by National Economic Research Associates (NERA) to the Company, supporting the Company s direct DAC Panel testimony with respect to the marginal cost analysis and the NERA Marginal Cost of Service Study mentioned on page 31 and 32 of the Panel s testimony. Provide the most granular level of data as possible. 2. Provide in electronic format, with all formulae intact, all work papers supporting: a. DAC-3, Schedule 1 - System-Weighted Transmission, Distribution and Customer Marginal Costs per kw of System Peak; and b. DAC-3, Schedule 2 Con Ed Marginal Cost Analysis For Excelsior Job Programs. RESPONSE: (do not edit or delete this line or anything above this) 1. Attached, please see final NERA report and supporting workpapers. Note, however, that this methodology was fully vetted and amended in Case 13-E Please see the testimony and exhibits of PSC Staff Witness Gregory Stella for the final results, also attached. 2. Please see response to DPS 1-1 and DPS 1-2 which states in part, Work Papers have been loaded to the share point site in a folder called work papers. Within that folder the work papers specific to Exhibit (DAC-3) are called Workpapers for Exhibit (DAC-3). 16 of 25

17 Exhibit (DAC-4) Company Name: Con Edison Case Description: Con Edison Electric and Gas Rate Filings Case: 16-E-0060; 16-G-0061 Response to DPS Interrogatories Set DPS-39 Date of Response: Responding Witness: Question No. : 700 Subject: DPS-222 Follow up and Exhibit (DAC-3) Regarding the Company s response to IR DPS-222, containing the CECONY Marginal Cost Study and the worksheets NERA Workpapers - Area Stations and Sub-Transmission with Formulas and NERA Workpapers - Primary and Secondary with Formulas. Also regarding the Company s MCOS supporting workpapers as presented in Exhibit (DAC-3), provided in response to IR DPS-1 and DPS-2 for Case 16-E Finally, regarding the August 23, 2012 Marginal Cost of Electric Distribution Service Final Report prepared by NERA, and filed in Case 13-E-0030, which states at page 9, Once an area station is needed, we take a weighted average of the cost per-kw of load carrying capability for all projects including that new station from the need date through This unit cost is the marginal investment from the new station need date forward. It is phased in to reflect the Company s construction schedules. a. Explain why the Smoothed Marginal Investment calculations in the NERA workpapers for the study presented in Case 13-E-0030 often times differ from the calculations used to levelize the costs of those same investments in the workpapers in Exhibit (DAC-3). b. Explain more specifically how the Company calculates the Smoothed Marginal Investment, as calculated by NERA for Case 13-E-0030, specifically taking into account the length of cash flow, and why the Company chose that methodology along with NERA. c. Explain more specifically how the Company levelizes the costs it presented in the worksheet titled Project Cost Overview of Exhibit (DAC-3). In the explanation, be sure to specifically address any differences in methodology from those employed in Case 13-E-0030 and why the Company chose to deviate from that methodology. Also, be sure to include how this levelization accounts for the estimated cash flow, in years, and the percent recovered per year, as well as the service date. 17 of 25

18 Exhibit (DAC-4) d. Explain why the Company chose a shorter time horizon (10 years spanning ) for Case 16-E-0060, as opposed to the time horizon (20 years spanning 2011 to 2030) for Case 13-E Also, be sure to include how this affects which suite of projects are used in the study and how this affects the levelization of those projects. RESPONSE: (do not edit or delete this line or anything above this) a. Infrastucture investment is smoothed to reflect typical construction cash outlays. The investment presented in the NERA study submitted in 13-E-0030 was comprised primarily of traditional utility solutions and included significant expenditures in building a number of new substations. Under such construction activity, the Company typically spends 20% of the total project cost in the first year, 60% in the second year, and 20% in the last year. The investments presented in this rate filing reflect the postponement of most of these large new substation projects outside of the 10-year planning horizon. Current investments include smaller projects such as installing transformer cooling, replacing limiting cable and bus sections, and installing additional transformers. These projects are completed over a shorter period of time. Hence the construction schedule reflects two-year projects with cash outlays of 50% of project cost in each of the two years. b. See response to a. above. c. There is no difference in methodology. The levelization of capital construction investment is dependent on the types of projects and construction schedules which comprise that investment. d. The Company annually develops a ten-year Independent Load Forecast and corresponding construction budget based on that forecast. The NERA study went further out to 20 years, required significant effort from a number of Company departments, and was developed over a period of three years from start to finish. For the current filing the Company used data that was more readily available. 18 of 25

19 Exhibit (DAC-4) Company Name: Con Edison Case Description: Con Edison Electric and Gas Rate Filings Case: 16-E-0060; 16-G-0061 Response to DPS Interrogatories Set DPS-7 Date of Response: Responding Witness: Question No. : Provide the marginal customer cost for the Company s residential class. 5. Regarding the Company s response to DPS-222 containing the worksheet NERA Workpapers - Area Stations and Sub-Transmission with Formulas : a. From the tab titled: Demand Exp. as % of Reprdtn W15, describe the impetus for the 2007 Reproduction Cost Study noted in NOTES (B) FROM 2007 REPRODUCTION COST STUDY, including, but not limited to, any Commission action, internal planning or engineering processes, etc. b. Provide the full 2007 Reproduction Cost Study noted in part (a) of this question, including all associated workpapers in electronic format with all formulae intact. 6. Discuss to what extent the operation and maintenance (O&M) expenses included in the MCOS study are based upon the O&M expenses in the ECOS study. Discuss any adjustments made to embedded O&M expenses to make them sufficiently forward looking for marginal cost analysis. 7. Discuss the extent to which the Company relied upon price elasticities to allocate joint and common costs in its MCOS study. RESPONSE: (do not edit or delete this line or anything above this) 4. The marginal customer cost for the Company s residential class can be calculated as follows: 19 of 25

20 Exhibit (DAC-4) Amount Source 1 number of SC1 Residential Customers 2,898,748 Exhibit (DAC-2), Table 7, Page 2, Column 4, Line total customers 3,411,480 Exhibit (DAC-2), Table 7, Page 2, Column 1, Line percentage of residential customers % line 1 divided by line 2 4 Total System Annual Marginal Customer Costs $1,578,423,100 Exhibit (DAC-3), Schedule 2, Column 6 5 SC 1 Annual Marginal Customer Costs $1,341,192,328 line 3 times line 4 6 Number of SC1 Residential Customers 2,898,748 from line 1 above 7 annual per customer $ line 5 divided by line 6 5. a. The referenced worksheet calculates O&M expense as a percentage of capital investment. O&M expense is reflected on the Income Statement on an annual basis. This question pertains to annual 2007 expenses from the NERA study. Asset investment, on the other hand, is reflected on the Balance Sheet at historical book cost at point in time (December 31, 2007) and is therefore older than In order to determine comparable year annual O&M expense relative to comparable year capital investment, reproduction costs are used as a proxy. Reproduction costs escalates the historical book cost of plant forward to make a 2007 expense dollar comparable to a 2007 capital dollar. It is a long standing precedent used by the Company in the development of marginal cost studies over decades of regulatory proceedings in NYS and has been recognized by NERA as an appropriate approach. b. See attached. 6. The underlying O&M factors used in the marginal cost of service study were taken from the Company s 2013 ECOS study. No forward looking adjustments were made to embedded O&M expenses. 7. The Company does not consider price elasticity in allocating common costs in its marginal cost study. 20 of 25

21 Exhibit (DAC-5) Company Name: Con Edison Case Description: Con Edison Electric and Gas Rate Filings Case: 16-E-0060; 16-G-0061 Response to City of New York Interrogatories Set City-6 Date of Response: Responding Witness: Question No. : 203 Referring to the Electric Work Papers for Exhibit (DAC-2) Schedule 1.xlsx file, tab labeled 2013 OH Conduct Min Sys (page 47), provide the following information: a. Identify the specific OH distribution equipment associated with each element contained in Column A. b. Identify and provide the source for the quantities of the equipment identified in Column B. c. Identify and provide the source for all of the cost data contained in Column C. d. Provide the rationale for selecting the yellow highlighted subset of costs to represent the minimum size of the system. RESPONSE: (do not edit or delete this line or anything above this) a. Secondary Wire is the OH distribution equipment associated with the development of the minimum size wire. 21 of 25

22 Exhibit (DAC-5) b. The source for the quantities of the equipment identified in Column B is from the Company s Property Records Department responsible for maintaining the Company s assets on the books of account. Please see the attached document, NYC Attachment. The tab entitled raw data was downloaded directly from our asset subledger. c. Please see response to NYC b above. The quantity and cost data are from the same source. d. The equipment which constitutes the minimum system is the result of a joint collaborative which stemmed from 04-E A Memorandum of Understanding ( MOU ) agreed to and signed by the parties resulted in a minimum system methodology to be used in determining the customer component of low tension distribution plant. This MOU further determined that this minimum size will be calculated using the weighted average unit cost of installed wire sizes from 1 to of 25

23 Exhibit (DAC-5) Company Name: Con Edison Case Description: Con Edison Electric and Gas Rate Filings Case: 16-E-0060; 16-G-0061 Response to City of New York Interrogatories Set City-6 Date of Response: Responding Witness: Question No. : 204 Referring to the Electric Work Papers for Exhibit (DAC-2) Schedule 1.xlsx file, tab labeled "2010 UG Conductor Min Sys" (page 48), provide the following information: a. Identify the specific UG distribution equipment associated with each element contained in Column A. b. Identify and provide the source for the quantities of the equipment identified in Column B. c. Identify and provide the source for all of the cost data contained in Column C. d. With respect to the Minimum System Cost of $464.2 million contained in cell C25, provide the following: i. All calculations. ii. Identify the specific UG equipment, quantities, and costs that constitute the minimum system. iii. Rationale for selecting the equipment identified in (ii) above. e. With respect to the Minimum System Unit Cost of $1.76 contained in cell B25, provide the following: i. All calculations. 23 of 25

24 Exhibit (DAC-5) ii. Identify the specific UG equipment, quantities, and costs that constitute the minimum system. iii. Rationale for selecting the equipment identified in (ii) above. RESPONSE: (do not edit or delete this line or anything above this) a. The distribution equipment associated with the development of the customer component of underground conductors is as follows: 7001 Cable Secondary 110/240 Volt 7091 Cable Secondary 265/460 Volt 7092 Cable Secondary URD 7093 Cable Secondary Buried 7095 Cable Secondary in Duct Buried b. The source for the quantities of the equipment identified in Column B is from the Company s Property Records Department responsible for maintaining the Company s assets on the books of account. Please see the attached document, NYC Attachment. The tab entitled NYC6-204-b&c was downloaded directly from our asset sub-ledger. c. Please see response to NYC b above. The quantity and cost data is from the same source. d. With respect to the Minimum System Cost of $464.2 million contained in cell C25: i. Please see the attached document, NYC Attachment. The tab entitled NYC6-204-d-i provides the calculation supporting the $464.2 million. ii. Please see the attached document, NYC Attachment. The tab entitled NYC6-204-d-ii identifies the specific equipment, quantities, and costs that constitute the minimum system. iii. Please see the Company s response to NYC d which states that, The equipment which constitutes the minimum system is the result of a joint collaborative 24 of 25

25 Exhibit (DAC-5) which stemmed from 04-E A Memorandum of Understanding ( MOU ) agreed to and signed by the parties resulted in a minimum system methodology to be used in determining the customer component of low tension distribution plant. This MOU further determined that this minimum size will be calculated using the weighted average unit cost of installed wire sizes from 1 to 10. e. With respect to the Minimum Size Unit Cost of $1.76 contained in cell B25: i. Please see the response to NYC6-204-d-ii above. The same tab referenced above provides the calculation supporting the $1.76 weighted average unit cost of the minimum sized wire. ii. Please see the response to NYC6-204-d-ii above. The same tab referenced above identifies the specific equipment, quantities, and costs that constitute the minimum system. iii. Please see the response to NYC6-204-d-iii above. 25 of 25

26 CONSOLIDATED EDISON COMPANY OF NEW YORK, INC. ELECTRIC CLASS DEMAND STUDY DEVELOPMENT OF COST ALLOCATORS Exhibit (DAC-4) Interrogatory City2-44 attachment Exhibit (DAC-1) Schedule 1 Work Paper 3 D03 4-HR SYSTEM TRANSMISSION PEAK ALLOCATOR RESPONSE KW KW (summer (column 8 from value from Report 6) column 5) 4-HR ADJ AT GEN STA KW (column 7 from Report 6) D04 HIGH TENSION ALLOCATOR KW (max of summer/winter from column 5) TOTAL NON- COINCIDENT LT KW (column 7 on Report 6a) LOW TENSION ICMD (max of summer/winter from column 7) 4-HR NON- COINCIDENT KW LOW TENSION (column 5 from Report 8, "Tot Class" row) MAX OF 4-HR NON- COINCIDENT KW LOW TENSION (max of summer/winter from column 9) D08 LOW TENSION ALLOCATOR (weighted average of Low Tension ICMD (col 8) & Max 4-hr Non-Coinc LT (col 10), rounded) SERVICE CLASS SEASON (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) SC01 SUMMER2013 3,785,601 3,785,601 4,615,021 4,615,021 9,568,438 9,568,438 4,282,740 4,282,740 5,604,165 WINTER2013 2,218,962 2,426,684 7,438,150 2,251,962 SC02 SUMMER , , , ,900 1,194,562 1,194, , , ,059 WINTER , ,808 1,075, ,869 SC05 CONV SUMMER WINTER SC05 TODL SUMMER ,865 13,865 14,137 16,347 3,069 3,235 2,137 2,471 2,853 WINTER ,194 16,347 3,235 2,471 SC06 SUMMER ,006 2,006 1,862 1,862 1,862 1,862 1,862 WINTER2013 1,964 2,006 1,862 1,862 SC08 CONV SUMMER , , , , , , , , ,763 WINTER , , , ,601 SC08 TODL SUMMER ,866 31,866 35,206 35,206 31,894 31,894 32,671 32,671 32,283 WINTER ,162 18,573 18,596 17,236 SC09 CONV SUMMER2013 4,060,377 4,060,377 4,101,001 4,101,001 4,853,130 4,853,130 3,787,318 3,787,318 4,320,224 WINTER2013 2,633,059 2,861,825 3,800,950 2,642,926 SC09 TODL SUMMER2013 1,847,488 1,847,488 1,947,671 1,947,671 1,589,770 1,589,770 1,490,848 1,490,848 1,540,309 WINTER2013 1,242,529 1,411,691 1,217,446 1,080,581 SC12 CONV SUMMER ,508 23,508 27,865 44,483 23,898 45,286 25,859 41,280 43,283 WINTER ,922 44,483 45,286 41,280 SC12 TODL SUMMER ,113 33,113 37,214 58,075 33,541 58,333 34,535 53,894 56,114 WINTER ,074 58,075 58,333 53,894 SC13 TODL SUMMER , WINTER2013 5,746 5, CON ED SUBTOTAL SUMMER ,861,872 10,861,872 11,951,450 11,996,796 17,782,875 17,829,290 10,744,624 10,779,776 12,983,111 WINTER2013 6,854,222 7,531,694 13,947,090 6,728,845 GEN SMALL SUMMER2013 2,105 2,105 2,244 2,841 3,433 3,433 2,082 2,636 3,035 WINTER2013 2,713 2,841 3,373 2,636 TRACTION SUMMER , , , ,940 73,763 75,979 55,125 55,125 65,552 WINTER , ,961 75,979 54,085 WEST SL SUMMER ,322 15,322 14,219 14,219 14,219 14,219 14,219 WINTER ,985 15,322 14,219 14,219 MUL DWLCON SUMMER , , , , , , , , ,309 WINTER , , , ,876 MUL DWLTOD SUMMER ,581 27,581 30,051 30,051 26,537 26,537 27,887 27,887 27,212 WINTER ,071 16,360 16,348 15,182 GEN LG CON SUMMER , , , , , , , , ,102 WINTER , , , ,902 GEN LG TOD SUMMER , , , ,267 68,551 68,551 62,433 62,433 65,492 WINTER , ,165 57,288 50,037 NYC SL SUMMER2013 8,177 8,177 50,748 50,748 47,094 47,094 47,094 47,094 47,094 WINTER ,742 50,748 47,094 47,094 MUL DWL HT SUMMER2013 1,008 1,008 1,119 1, ,613 1,038 1,555 1,584 WINTER2013 1,629 1,676 1,613 1,555 TA SUBSTNS SUMMER , , , ,321 2,785 2,799 2,583 2,583 2,691 WINTER , ,713 2,799 2,451 NYC PUBCON SUMMER , , , , , , , , ,620 WINTER , , , ,586 NYC PUBTOD SUMMER , , , , , , , , ,516 WINTER , , , ,030 NYPA SUBTOTAL SUMMER2013 1,838,197 1,838,197 2,040,643 2,041,797 1,369,020 1,371,938 1,205,841 1,206,912 1,289,426 WINTER2013 1,484,823 1,606,548 1,112, ,653 TOTAL SYSTEM SUMMER ,700,069 12,700,069 13,992,093 14,038,593 19,151,895 19,201,228 11,950,465 11,986,688 14,272,537 WINTER2013 8,339,045 9,138,242 15,059,155 7,615,498 page 1

27 Exhibit (DAC-4) Interrogatory NYC and 206 attachment Account Row Labels Sum of Qty Sum of Cost Total Total Average ,311 $ 44,603, Quantity Cost Cost $ of Minimum of Minimum of Minimum $ 10, Size Size Size $ 103, $ 11, $ 142, $ 2,897, ,133 $ 21,907, $ 2,033, $ $ 144, $ 1,558, $ 156, $ 22, $ $ 1, $ 3,876, ,183 $ 8,008, ,360 $ 40,874, $ 12, $ 1,957, $ 10, $ 6, $ 16, $ 1, ,352 $ 44,534, $ 28, $ 2,188, ,784 $ 46,449, $ 1, $ 8,715, $ 11,324, $ $ 11, $ 12, $ 956, $ 14,628, $ 13,206, $ 164, $ 2,348, ,561 $ 1,009,891, ,676 $ 48,263, $ 10,086, ,454 $ 875,800, ,600 $ 49,292, $ 122, $ 26, ,258 $ 24,368, ,267 $ 109,839, ,636 $ 58,058, $ 33, $ 29,436, (blank) 2,094 $ 7,280, Grand Total 79,106 $ 2,454,540, Customer Portion Demand Portion $ 962,321, $ 1,492,218, % 60.79% page 1

28 Exhibit (DAC-4) Interrogatory NYC and 206 attachment Account Total Total Average Quantity Cost Cost Row Labels Sum of Qty Sum of Cost of Minimum of Minimum of Minimum $ 332, Size Size Size $ $ $ $ $ $ 2, $ $ 16, $ 13, $ 28, $ $ $ 199, $ 1, ,006 $ 6,386, ,650 $ 6,649,516 $ 2, $ $ 54, ,056 $ 24,300, ,958 $ 16,805, ,572 $ 62,529, $ ,841 $ 63,818, $ 102, ,206 $ 30,623, $ 1, ,664 $ 51,106, $ 3,191, $ 13, ,540 $ 15,771, ,371 $ 8,486, $ 3,823, $ 3,137, (blank) 3,648 $ 24,426, Grand Total 57,981 $ 315,178, Customer Portion Demand Portion $ 145,488, $ 169,689, % 53.84% page 2

29 Exhibit (DAC-4) Interrogatory NYC and 206 attachment Company Business Seg Account Property Unit Size Description Qty Cost Accessory Components, Mat, Entrance, Stainless Steel, Ea Auto Transformer,, 1.6 Kva Auto Transformer,, 10 Kva Auto Transformer,, 10 Kva Auto Transformer,, 15 Kva Auto Transformer,, 15 Kva Auto Transformer,, 15 Kva Auto Transformer,, 16.6 Kva Auto Transformer,, 175 Kva Auto Transformer,, 25 Kva Auto Transformer,, 25 Kva Auto Transformer,, 25 Kva Auto Transformer,, 250 Kva Auto Transformer,, 37.5 Kva Auto Transformer,, 5 Kva Auto Transformer,, 5 Kva Auto Transformer,, 50 Kva Auto Transformer,, 50 Kva Auto Transformer,, 50 Kva Auto Transformer,, 66.7 Kva Auto Transformer,, 7.5 Kva Auto Transformer,, 75 Kva Auto Transformer,, 8.3 Kva Auto Transformer,, 8.3 Kva Auto Transformer, 1 Phase, 1.7 Kva Auto Transformer, 1 Phase, 1.7 Kva Auto Transformer, 1 Phase, 1.7 Kva Auto Transformer, 1 Phase, 1.7 Kva Auto Transformer, 1 Phase, 1.7 Kva Auto Transformer, 1 Phase, 1.7 Kva Auto Transformer, 1 Phase, 1.7 Kva Auto Transformer, 1 Phase, 1.7 Kva Auto Transformer, 1 Phase, 1.7 Kva Auto Transformer, 1 Phase, 1.7 Kva Auto Transformer, 1 Phase, 15 Kva Auto Transformer, 1 Phase, 15 Kva Auto Transformer, 1 Phase, 16.7 Kva Auto Transformer, 1 Phase, 16.7 Kva Auto Transformer, 1 Phase, 25 Kva Auto Transformer, 1 Phase, 3 Kva Auto Transformer, 1 Phase, 3 Kva Auto Transformer, 1 Phase, 3 Kva Auto Transformer, 1 Phase, 3 Kva Auto Transformer, 1 Phase, 3 Kva Auto Transformer, 1 Phase, 3 Kva Auto Transformer, 1 Phase, 3.3 Kva Auto Transformer, 1 Phase, 3.3 Kva Auto Transformer, 1 Phase, 3.3 Kva Auto Transformer, 1 Phase, 3.3 Kva Auto Transformer, 1 Phase, 3.3 Kva Auto Transformer, 1 Phase, 3.3 Kva Auto Transformer, 1 Phase, 3.3 Kva Auto Transformer, 1 Phase, 3.3 Kva Auto Transformer, 1 Phase, 3.3 Kva Auto Transformer, 1 Phase, 3.3 Kva Auto Transformer, 1 Phase, 3.3 Kva Auto Transformer, 1 Phase, 3.3 Kva Auto Transformer, 1 Phase, 33.3 Kva Auto Transformer, 1 Phase, 5 Kva Auto Transformer, 1 Phase, 5 Kva Auto Transformer, 1 Phase, 5 Kva Auto Transformer, 1 Phase, 5 Kva Auto Transformer, 1 Phase, 5 Kva Auto Transformer, 1 Phase, 5 Kva Auto Transformer, 1 Phase, 5 Kva Auto Transformer, 1 Phase, 5 Kva Auto Transformer, 1 Phase, 5 Kva Auto Transformer, 1 Phase, 5 Kva Auto Transformer, 1 Phase, 8.3 Kva Auto Transformer, 1 Phase, 8.3 Kva page 3

30 Exhibit (DAC-4) Interrogatory NYC and 206 attachment Company Business Seg Account Property Unit Size Description Qty Cost Auto Transformer, 1 Phase, 8.3 Kva Auto Transformer, 1 Phase, 8.3 Kva Auto Transformer, 2400 Volt 1 Phase, 5 Kva Auto Transformer, 2400 Volt 1 Phase, 5 Kva Auto Transformer, 2400 Volt 3 Phase, 10 Kva Auto Transformer, 2400 Volt, 25 Kva Auto Transformer, Volt 1 Phase, 3.30 Kva Auto Transformer, Volt 1 Phase, 3.30 Kva Auto Transformer, Volt 1 Phase, 3.30 Kva Auto Transformer, Volt 1 Phase, 3.30 Kva Auto Transformer, Volt 1 Phase, 3.30 Kva Auto Transformer, Volt 1 Phase, 3.30 Kva Auto Transformer, Volt 1 Phase, 3.30 Kva Auto Transformer, Volt 1 Phase, 3.30 Kva Auto Transformer, Volt 1 Phase, 3.30 Kva Auto Transformer, Volt 1 Phase, 3.30 Kva Auto Transformer, Volt 1 Phase, 3.30 Kva Auto Transformer, Volt 1 Phase, 3.30 Kva Auto Transformer, Volt 1 Phase, 3.30 Kva Auto Transformer, Volt 1 Phase, 3.30 Kva Auto Transformer, 3 Phase, 10 Kva Auto Transformer, 3 Phase, 10 Kva Auto Transformer, 3 Phase, 10 Kva Auto Transformer, 3 Phase, 10 Kva Auto Transformer, 3 Phase, 10 Kva Auto Transformer, 3 Phase, 10 Kva Auto Transformer, 3 Phase, 10 Kva Auto Transformer, 3 Phase, 10 Kva Auto Transformer, 3 Phase, 10 Kva Auto Transformer, 3 Phase, 15 Kva Auto Transformer, 3 Phase, 15 Kva Auto Transformer, 3 Phase, 150 Kva Auto Transformer, 3 Phase, 25 Kva Auto Transformer, 3 Phase, 25 Kva Auto Transformer, 3 Phase, 25 Kva Auto Transformer, 3 Phase, 25 Kva Auto Transformer, 3 Phase, 25 Kva Auto Transformer, 3 Phase, 25 Kva Auto Transformer, 3 Phase, 25 Kva Auto Transformer, 3 Phase, 25 Kva Auto Transformer, 3 Phase, 250 Kva Auto Transformer, 3 Phase, 250 Kva Auto Transformer, 3 Phase, 37.5 Kva Auto Transformer, 3 Phase, 37.5 Kva Auto Transformer, 3 Phase, 37.5 Kva Auto Transformer, 3 Phase, 50 Kva Auto Transformer, 3 Phase, 50 Kva Auto Transformer, 3 Phase, 50 Kva Auto Transformer, 3 Phase, 500 Kva Auto Transformer, 3 Phase, 75 Kva Auto Transformer, 3 Phase, 75 Kva Auto Transformer, Volt 0 Phase, 500 Kva Auto Transformer, Volt 0 Phase, 500 Kva Auto Transformer, Volt 3 Phase, 1000 Kva Auto Transformer, Volt 3 Phase, 1000 Kva Auto Transformer, Volt 3 Phase, 1000 Kva Auto Transformer, Volt 3 Phase, 25 Kva Auto Transformer, Volt 3 Phase, 25 Kva Auto Transformer, Volt 3 Phase, 500 Kva Auto Transformer, Volt 3 Phase, 500 Kva Auto Transformer, Volt 3 Phase, 500 Kva Balancing Transformer,, 5 Kva Balancing Transformer,, 5 Kva Balancing Transformer, 1 Phase, 3 Kva Balancing Transformer, Volt, 3000 Kva Balancing Transformer, Volt, 3000 Kva Balancing Transformer, 7600 Volt 3 Phase, 3000 Kva Bus Frame,, No Kva, Bus Frame,, No Kva, Bus Frame,, No Kva, page 4

31 Exhibit (DAC-4) Interrogatory NYC and 206 attachment Company Business Seg Account Property Unit Size Description Qty Cost Bus Frame,, No Kva, Bus Frame,, No Kva, Bus Frame,, No Kva, Bus Frame,, No Kva, Bus Frame,, No Kva, Bus Frame,, No Kva, Capacitor-Primary,, No Kva, Capacitor-Primary,, No Kva, Capacitor-Primary,, No Kva, Capacitor-Primary, Volt 3 Phase, 100 Kva Capacitor-Primary, Volt 3 Phase, 100 Kva Capacitor-Primary, Volt 3 Phase, 200 Kva Capacitor-Primary, Volt 3 Phase, 300 Kva Capacitor-Primary, Volt 3 Phase, 300 Kva Capacitor-Primary, Volt 3 Phase, 450 Kva Capacitor-Primary, Volt 3 Phase, 450 Kva Capacitor-Primary, Volt 3 Phase, 450 Kva Capacitor-Primary, Volt 3 Phase, 450 Kva Capacitor-Primary, Volt 3 Phase, 450 Kva Capacitor-Primary, Volt 3 Phase, 450 Kva Capacitor-Primary, Volt 3 Phase, 900 Kva Capacitor-Primary, Volt 3 Phase, 900 Kva Capacitor-Primary, Volt 3 Phase, 900 Kva Capacitor-Primary, Volt 3 Phase, 900 Kva Capacitor-Primary, Volt 3 Phase, 900 Kva Capacitor-Primary, Volt 3 Phase, 900 Kva Capacitor-Primary, 2400 Volt 1 Phase, 15 Kva Capacitor-Primary, 2400 Volt 3 Phase, 300 Kva Capacitor-Primary, 2400 Volt 3 Phase, 300 Kva Capacitor-Primary, 4000 Volt 3 Ph, 100 Kva Capacitor-Primary, 4000 Volt 3 Ph, 100 Kva Capacitor-Primary, 4000 Volt 3 Ph, 100 Kva Capacitor-Primary, 4000 Volt 3 Ph, 100 Kva Capacitor-Primary, 4000 Volt 3 Ph, 100 Kva Capacitor-Primary, 4000 Volt 3 Ph, 100 Kva Capacitor-Primary, 4000 Volt 3 Ph, 100 Kva Capacitor-Primary, 4000 Volt 3 Ph, 300 Kva Capacitor-Primary, 4000 Volt 3 Ph, 300 Kva Capacitor-Primary, 4000 Volt 3 Ph, 300 Kva Capacitor-Primary, 4000 Volt 3 Ph, 300 Kva Capacitor-Primary, 4000 Volt 3 Ph, 300 Kva Capacitor-Primary, 4000 Volt 3 Ph, 300 Kva Capacitor-Primary, 4000 Volt 3 Ph, 300 Kva Capacitor-Primary, 4000 Volt 3 Ph, 300 Kva Capacitor-Primary, 4000 Volt 3 Ph, 900 Kva Capacitor-Primary, 4000 Volt 3 Ph, 900 Kva Capacitor-Primary, 4000 Volt 3 Ph, 900 Kva Capacitor-Primary, 4000 Volt 3 Phase, 450 Kva Capacitor-Primary, 4000 Volt 3 Phase, 450 Kva Capacitor-Primary, 4000 Volt 3 Phase, 450 Kva Capacitor-Primary, 4000 Volt 3 Phase, 450 Kva Capacitor-Primary, 4000 Volt No Phase, 300 Kva Capacitor-Primary, 4000 Volt No Phase, 300 Kva Capacitor-Primary, 4000 Volt No Phase, 300 Kva Capacitor-Primary, 4000 Volt No Phase, 300 Kva Capacitor-Primary, 4000 Volt No Phase, 300 Kva Capacitor-Primary,4000V 3 Ph,150 Kv Capacitor-Primary,4000V 3 Ph,150 Kv Capacitor-Primary,4000V 3 Ph,150 Kv Capacitor-Primary,4000V 3 Ph,150 Kv Capacitor-Primary,4000V 3 Ph,150 Kv Construction Unit,, No Kva, Construction Unit,, 1000 Kva Construction Unit,, 200 Kva Construction Unit,, 225 Kva Construction Unit,, 250 Kva Construction Unit,, 300 Kva Construction Unit,, 500 Kva Construction Unit,, 75 Kva Construction Unit,, 75 Kva 0 0 page 5