BEFORE THE CORPORATION COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA 1 R

IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION FOR AGENERAL CHANGE OR MODIFICATION INTHE RATES, CHARGES AND TARIFFS OFARKLA , A DIVISION OF NORAM ENERGYCORPORATION

CAUSE NO . PUD 940000354

F I L ED

NtlV ° 7 M4COURT c LOK's n FF ice - oKc

CD RPOO~TpKLAHDMpIS51aN

rPLrrFrrFn TESTIlVIONY

OF

STEVE WILT

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

1 1

12

13

14

1 5

16

1 7

1 8

19

20

21

Prefiled Testimony

of

Steve Wilt

Q . P lease state your name and b usiness address .

A . My name is Steve Wilt, and my business address is the Jim Thorpe O ffice

Building, Room 500 , O klahoma City, O k lahoma .

Q . By whom are you employed and in what capacity ?

A . I am employed by the O klahoma Corporation Commission (Commission o r

o CC) as a Public Ut ility Services Coordinator in the Engineering, P lanning ,

and Operations Department of the Pub lic Utility Division (PUD ) .

Q . P lease give a brief resume of your educational background .

A . I graduated in January, 1971, from Oklahoma State University with a

Bachelor of Science d egree in E lectrical Engineering .

Q . A re you a Registered Professional Engineer?

A . Yes . I am registered in the State of Texas and my registra t ion number i s

39935 .

0 . Are you a member of any p rofessional organizations or committees 7

A. Yes . I am a member o f the Society of Depreciation Professionals an d a

member of the NARUC Subcommittee on De p reciation .

Q. Have you previously appeared as a w itness before any state or federa l

agency?

1

1 A .

2

3

4

5 Q .

Yes . I have testified on seve ral occasions before the Public Utility

Commission of Texas and the O CC concerning certification issues ,

depreciation, cost study methodolo gy, service quality, and various

miscellaneous issues concerning regulated utilities .

Have your credentials as an expert witness been accepted by the O CC 7

6 A . Yes .

7 Q .

8

9

1 0

11 A

1 2

13

1 4

15

1 6

1 7

1 8

19

20

2 1

22

P lease give a history of your employment in the capacity of a n engineer ,

including whom you worked for, the nature of your occupation, the numbe r

of years in that capacity, and a description of your job responsibilit ies in that

capacity .

Upon graduatio n from Ok lahoma State University, I began employment with

General Telephone Company of the Southwest ( GTE ) as an Associa te

Engineer, and subse quently was promoted to the position o f E ng ineer in the

Central Office Equipment Engineering and Construction Department . I

worked for GTE for approximately six and one-half y ears, with numerou s

responsibilities concerning the engineering of equipment into central offices .

In July of 1977, I began employment with the Public Utility Commission of

Texas as a Staff Engineer . I worked there for approximately four years ,

with numerous responsibilities . I was responsible for all engineering aspects

concernin g rad io common carrier utilities, includ ing service quality ,

d epreciation, rate design, an d certifica t ion issues . In add it ion, I performed

quality of service investigations and analysis of telephone utilities . I also

2

1 aide d in the analysis of various telephone utility docketed issu es, includin g

2 depreciation, cost studies, and certi fication issues .

3 In October of 1981, I began employment with the OCC as Chief Engineer i n

4 the Public U tility D ivision, Telecommunications Department . I wa s

5 responsible for engineering aspects concerning radio common carrie r

6 utilities, Including service q uality, d epreciation, and certificat i o n issues . I n

7 addition, I pe rfo rmed qual ity of service investigations and analysis of

8 telephone utilities . I also aided in the analysis of various tele p hone utility

9 causes filed with this Commission, including deprecia t ion, cost studies, an d

10 certification issues .

1 1 In July of 1982, I transferred into the newly-formed Engineering Department

12 as a Public Utility E ngineer . My job responsibilities were expanded to

13 include not only the duties as described previously, but also depreciation ,

1 4 some service quality, and certification issues relative to electric, gas, and

15 water ut ilities .

16 Q . P lease discuss what efforts ypu have made since graduating in 1971 , to

17 continue and update your education in the field if engineering .

18 A . I attended several company-sponsored schools pertaining to central offic e

19 equipment engineer ing while work in g for GTE.

3

1 While working for the Public Utility Commission of Texas, I attende d the

2 following :

3 ■ NARUC Regulatory Studies Program-August of 19 77

4 ■ XY Central Office Maintenance School-Texas A&M U niversity-

5 September and October of 1 9 77

6 ■ Seminar concernin g antenna systems and radio freq uency inte rference

7 conducted by F loyd D . Shipley, P . E ., during May of 1979 .

8 D uring my employment with the o CC, I have attended various presentations

9 covering numerous technical topics as presented by utili t ies and consultants

1 0 w ithin the industry , along w ith having attended the follow in g :

11 ■ REA Telecommunications Symposia- Dallas-March of 1982

12 ■ Depreciation Programs, Inc., o f Kalamazoo, M ichigan

13 Depreciation Program II-Octo6er 1 0- 1 5, 1982

14 Depreciation Program III- August 22-26, 198 3

15 D e p reciation Program B -August 15-18, 1 994

1 6 ■ U STA Capital Recovery Seminar

1 7 San Francisco, California-September of 198 4

18 Arlington, Virginia-September of 1987

19 San Diego, California-October o f 1988

20 Scottsdale, Arizona-October of 1 98 9

21 ■ NARUC E ngineering Conf e rence

22 Colorado Springs, Colorado-June of 1984

4

1 W ilmington, North Carolina-J une o f 1 98 5

2 Hot Springs, A rkansas-June of 198 7

3 Indianapolis, Indiana-June of 1988

4 Oklahoma City, Oklahoma-June of 198 9

5 St. Louis, Missouri-June of 1994

6 I have also taken several business-related courses at Central S tate

7 University (now University of Central Oklahoma) over the past few years t o

8 broaden my understanding of the business, f inancial, an d accounting

9 aspects of work within the Public Utility D ivision .

10 Q. What is the purpose of your testimony in this proceeding, ARKLA (the

11 Company) Cause N o . PUD 940000354 7

12 A . The purpose of m y testimony is to assess 1) the proper depreciation rat e s

13 and 2 ) the proper amortization meth odology and related e xpenses to be

1 4 utilized by ARKLA , a Division of NorAm Energ y Corp ., for test yea r

15 calcu lations, and make comments and recommendations t hereto.

16 Q . Please elaborate on your review of these issues .

17 A . I started my review by obtaining test year end (TYE) 4 -30 -94 plant balance s

18 and reserve balances from the Application of ARKLA , Plant balances wer e

19 provided , by account, in Sect ion C of ARKLA's Application, for "Oklahom a

20 + Allocated General" . Reserve balances were provided, by account , in

21 Section D for "Oklahoma + A llocated G eneral" . Current and ARKLA

22 Proposed depreciation rates, a lo n g with a mortization expenses for severa l

0

1

2

3

4

5

6 Q .

7 A .

8

9

10 Q .

1 1

12 A .

1 3

14

15 Q.

1 6

17 A .

1 8

19

20

21

22

accounts, were provided in Section I of AR KLA's Application . I also

obtained a copy of the p refiled d irect testimony of Pamela K . Price, M anager

of Plant & Depreciation Account ing for ARKLA , as she is provi d in g

testimony relative to the recommende d d epreciation rates and amorti zation

methodology and associated expenses for the various accounts .

D id you perform a depr eciation study for use in this r ate proceeding ?

No . T he PUD Staff d id not perform a depreciation stu dy, but we d id re quest

a copy of the study ARKLA had per formed and relied upon, and made a

detailed review based upon that information .

Did A RKLA perform, or have performed, a depreciation study for us e in this

specific rate proceeding ?

No . AR KLA is proposing to utilize the currently approved depreciation rate s

and the currently approved amortizat ion methodo logy , as stipulated to and

supp o rted in Cause N o. PUD 0 1 31 7 , in this rate proceeding .

Would you pleas e discuss the stipulation which was adopte d by this

Commission in Cause No . PUD 01317, as it relates to depreciation ?

ARKLA had proposed in it's PUD 01317 Application various d epreciation

rate changes for existing accounts, new deprec iation accounts and

associated depreciation rates, amortization methodology and associated

expenses for various accounts, and a change from the average life grou p

(ALG) procedure to the Equal L ife Group (ELG) procedure . Staff was in

general agreement with many o f the requests of ARKLA , b ut made seve ra l

6

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

1 5

16

17

18

19

20

Q .

A

recommendations of its own. In the final analysis, all of the requests and

recommendations o f both ARKLA and Staff were reduced to the following,

as taken from the final O rder No . 37 5227 , Joint Stipulation, page 3 , item

11 :

Company an d Staff withdraw their recommendation for

ELG depreciation rates . A ll parties agree to use Average

L ife Group depreciation rates as per Exhib it PKP -4,

including amortization o f reserves . Parties also agree to

the General P lant Amortization methodology as proposed

by ALG .

A re all of the depreciation rates and the amortization expenses being

proposed in the present rate case re f lective of existing accounts a t the time

of the proceeding in PUD 013 17 and the resulting stipulation ?

No . There are eight new accounts being proposed by ARKLA , as listed

below:

Ok lahoma Specific Accounts

303 .004 Miscellaneous Intangible Plant (Pipeline Interconnects)

303 .005 M isCellaneaus Intangible P lant ( E lectron ic Flow Meters)

3 82 .002 Large meter Installation s

387 .00 9 Other Equipment (CNG Refueling E quipment )

7

1 General Accounts

2 303 .006 Intangible Software (Miscellaneous)

3 303.007 Intangible Software (Order 636 Costs )

4 387 .009 Other Equipment (C NG R efueling Equipment )

5 387 . 0 1 1 O ther Equipment (636 Hardware)

6 Q . Would you please explain how ARKLA arrived at the depreciation rates o r

7 amortization expenses for these new accounts ?

8 A . The following information was generally obtained from the direct prefiled

9 testimony of Pam Price .

10 A ccount 303 _004 Mlsca llaneous Intangihle Plant (Pipeline Interconnects)

11 This account represents payments to NorAm Gas Transmission (NGT) for

1 2 facilities to connect ARKLA or its customers to the NGT facilit ies . ARKLA

13 does not own this equipment, but capitalizes and amortizes the amount pai d

14 over the estimated useful life of the asset . This account is being amortize d

1 5 using the same rate as is being used for account 379 .001 Measuring an d

16 Regulating Station Equipment-City Gate/ Main L ine, as the facilities booked

17 to the new account are similar to the measuring and regulating stations i n

18 account 379 .001, which is 3 .1292% .

19 Accmi nt 303 _ 005 Miscellaneous Intan9ihle Plant (Electranic F1mnrUle tArs )

20 This account represents payments to NorAm Gas Transmission ( NGT) to

21 install electronic f low equipment needed to more accurately measure recei pt

22 of gas at the points of interconnect with NGT facilities . ARKLA does not

8

1 own this equipment, but capitalizes and amorti zes the amount paid over the

2 estimated useful li fe of the asset . T his equipment represents relatively new

3 technology and ARKLA has estimated a useful life of 10 years, resulting in a

4 10% amo r tizat ion rate .

5 Arcount 382002 Larga Meter Insta ll ation s

6 During Cause No . PU D 01317, ARKLA requested an d was gra n ted authority

7 to analyze and separate out the small meter installations from th e large

8 installations . For now, ARKLA proposes utilizing the same depreci ation rate

9 for the large meter installations as is currently being utilized for the smal l

10 meter installations, due to the fact that very little history exists withi n

11 ARKLA for these accounts separately .

12 Account 387_009 Other Enuinmant (CNG Rafua l in g Equipment )

13 This account includes the Compressed Natural Gas (C NG) cylinders an d

1 4 conversion k its used to convert vehicles to natural gas in Oklahoma .

15 AR KLA has chosen to use a d epreciation rate of 1 0% for this account, du e

1 6 to this being new technology, and the fact that real experienc e and history

17 is not available on this account at this time .

18 lntsng ihle Software (M isca llanaous )

19 This account includes software developed or purchased for mainfram e

20 application use (this account does not include the Order 636 soft ware) .

21 These asse ts were previously included in account 3 87 .008 . ARKLA

22 believes that a change of account is a ppropriate, but they are still using the

9

1 amortization rate and methodology previously established for account

2 387 .008, with continued use of a 20 % rate .

3 Account 303 . 007 Intangihla Software (Order 636 Costs )

4 This account contains the systems d evelo ped to comply wi th FERC O rder

5 636. Typically, software is amortized over a 3-5 year period . ARKLA is

6 utilizing a five year write-off period ( 20% amortization rate) to minimize th e

7 impact on the ratepayers . At TYE, no assets existed in this account, but

8 substantial assets are budgeted in the near term .

9 Arrou nt 387 _ 011 )

10 This account includes hardware purchased for use in the develop ment of the

11 Order 63 6 software systems . These assets are similar to existing assets in

12 Account 3$7.007 Data Processing Equipment . There fore, the same

1 3 depreciation rate (10 .2179%) is being utilized until such time as histor y

14 indicates that a different rate is more appropriate .

15 Q. What is your position or opinion relative to the information provided above

16 on the eight new accounts ?

1 7 A . I have reviewed this information, and it appears reasonable and ap propriate .

18 Therefore, I am accepting it for use in this rate proceeding ,

19 Q . Would you please discuss the amortization methodology for the acco unts

20 shown below ?

21 386.00 1 Other Property on Customer P remises (School Ranges in

22 Oklahoma)

10

1

2

3 A .

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12 Q .

13

1 4 A .

1 5

16

1 7

18

19

20

21

22

387 .001 Other Equipment- F urniture and F ixtures

38 7 . 002 Other Equipment-Tool s

Per the stipulation in the PUD 01317 proceeding, ARKLA is utiliz ing a

vintage accounting methodology for retirement of these assets . The

amortization period for both account 38 7.002 Other Equipment-Tools an d

387 .00 1 Other E quipment- F urniture & F ixtures is 1 0 years (1 0%

amortization rate) . For account 386 .00 1 Other Property on Customer

Premises (school ranges), ARKLA is utiliz ing a n a mortization period of 5

years (20% amorti zation rate) . Each year's additions constitute a vintag e

group per account . At the end of the group 's amortization period, the entire

vintage group is automatically retired from the books .

How is ARKLA proposing to calculate t he amortization expense in this rat e

proceeding ?

ARKLA 's explanation relative to this rate proceeding is shown in Pam P rice's

Exhibit PKP-1 2 . F irst, the theoretical or required reserve based upon th e

various plant vintages is calculated, as of 12-31-93 . This theoretical level is

then compared to the actual book reserve as of 12-31-93 . The di fference (i f

actual exceeds theoretical) is the amount flowed back to the ratepayers over

a 5 year flowback period .

Second, the expense necessary to cover a 12 month annualized test yea r

d epreciation period for the various Oklahoma p lant vintages is calcul a ted .

ARKLA chose to calculate this expense based upon 12-31-93 vintage p lant

11

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12 Q

13

14 A

1 5

1 6

17

18

19

20

21

2 2

balances . ARKLA further calculated the additional depreciation expens e

associated with post test year Oklahoma plant additions through 10-31-94.

Third, the expense necessary to cover a 1 2 month annualized test yea r

d epreciation period for the various allocated general plant vintages i s

calculated . A gain, ARKLA chose to calculate this expens e based upon 12-

31-93 vintage plant balances . ARKLA further calculated the additiona l

depreciation expense associated with post test year general plant addition s

through 10-31-94 .

These three components are added together to give a test year and tes t

year p lus pro forma period amortization expense for each accoun t being

d iscussed .

Are you comfortable with using calculations based upon 12-31-93 instead

of 4-30-94?

Since all of my depreciation rate and amortization expense recommen dations

are normally based upon TYE (4-30- 94 in this rate proceed i ng) calculations ,

I contacted Pam Price concerning recalculation of the amor t izatio n

expenses. She indicated that this could be done, but suggested that th e

12-31-93 calculations be used, as they would be quite close to any

recalculation based upon 4-30-94 balances, and would li kely be on the

lower side, thereby not subjecting ratepayers to any possi b le harm . Based

upon our d iscussion, I have chosen to utilize t he 12-31-93 calculations i n

my review and recommendations in these areas .

1 2

1 Q . Are the fundamentals o f t he amortiza tion methodology pro posed in this rate

2 proceeding, and discusse d above, the same as that utili zed and approved i n

3 the last A RKLA rate proceeding ?

4 A. Yes .

5 Q . Would you please discuss your reserve ratio analysis and the calculations

6 you performed based u pon available p l ant balance and reserve balanc e

7 information ?

8 A . The reserve ratio, for accounts wh ich are not dying or are not at the e nd or

9 its average service life, should be substantially belo w 80% . I reviewed the

10 "O klahoma + A llocated General" TYE reserve ratio for each account, whic h

11 is the " O klaho ma + A llocated General" TYE reserve balance d ivided by the

1 2 "Oklahoma + A llocated General" TYE plant balance . I also reviewed

13 information, workpapers, and schedules prepared by me for the previous

14 Cause (Cause No . PUD 01317) relative to reserve ratios . I loo ked at the

15 relative level of the current reserve ra t io when compared to the previous

16 ARKLA rate proceeding, and to other gas utility industry information . I

17 fou nd no major areas of concern nor accounts that appeared to be

18 substantially over, or under, accrued, excep t for 1) those previously

19 a ddressed (amorti zation flowback issue), 2 ) those which are re latively new,

20 and 3) account 392 .009 AUTO-ALG, OKLAHOMA .

2 1 Q . Would you please discuss the reserve ratio for account 39 2 .009 AUTO-

22 ALG, OKLAHOMA?

1 3

1 A .

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

1 0

11 Q .

1 2

1 3

14 A .

1 5

16 Q .

17 A

1 8

19

20

2 1

This account does not have a plant balance at TYE , but information

provided with the Applica t ion of ARKLA indicated that a negative reserve of

$7,355 exists . Based upon information provided in the previous rate case ,

PUD 013 17 , and this rate proceeding, it would appear that a lot o f activity

has occurred over the past few years relative to this account . Due to this

negative reserve value being relatively small and not having a significan t

impact on the total depreciation issue, it was not investiga ted in the present

rate proceeding . It is recommended that prior to the time of the next rat e

proceeding, ARKLA should review this account and it's expected futur e

activity, and make ap propriate reserve transfers or adjust ments, as required .

Based upon your review and analysis, what is your recommendatio n

concerning the proper depreciation rates to be utili zed for ARKLA for test

year calculations of d epreciation expenses ?

I am recommending that the utility proposed d epreciation rates for the

existing accounts and the eight new accounts be utili zed .

What is th e basis for your recommendation ?

After reviewing what was esta b lished in the previous rate proceeding, the

current reserve ratios for existing accounts, the explanation and rationale fo r

the depreciation rates on the eight new accounts, along with reviewing an d

ana lyz ing industry and gas utility depreciation information re lative to these

accounts, I feel that these rates as proposed by ARKLA are reasonable and

14

1 appropriate and sh ould be used in this rate proc e eding for calculation of

2 depreciation expenses .

3 Q. What is your recommendation concerning the prpper amortizatio n

4 methodology and associated expenses to be utilized for ARKLA for test yea r

5 calculations of expenses on the amorti zed accounts?

6 A . I am recommending that t he utility proposed amortization methodolog y

7 (which is the same as the existing methodology) continue to be utilized, an d

8 that the resulting expenses as shown in Pam P r ice's Exhibit PKP-12 b e

9 utilized, as they are reasonable and appropriate .

10 Q . What is the basis for your recommendation ?

11 A. I reviewed the methodology in the previous rate proceeding and found it

12 acceptable . After my review in this rate proceeding, I continue to find it

1 3 acceptable . I also feel that the calculations based upon this methodology i s

14 proper, as shown in Exhibit PKP-12 .

1 5 Q. What did you do with the results of your review?

16 A . I forwarded my recommendations to the PUD Accounting and Financia l

17 Analysis Department (AFA) , in the form of a copy of my Exhibit SSW - 1 .

18 The results of my analysis and my recommendations are integrated into the

19 PUD Staff Accounting Exhib it, Section I . It should be noted that values i n

20 several columns of Exhibit 55W-1 and/or my workpapers were taken directl y

21 from the Application of ARKLA or from ARKLA records and are for

22 engineering evaluation only . These expenses do not necessarily reflect t he

15

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8 Q.

9 A .

1 0

1 1

12

1 3

1 4

15

16

1 7

1 8

19

20 Q .

21 A .

specific depreciation or amorti zation expense recommendations of th e

Accounting and Financial Analysis Department . It should also be noted that

these depreciation rates are utilized only in determining the depreciatio n

expense . The utility is advised to book these depreciation rates, but th e

actual rates are not what is being approved by this Commission in this r ate

proceeding ; rather it is the depreciation expenses associat ed with each plant

account .

Would you please summarize your recommendations in th is case ?

Yes. Concerning the proper depreciation rates to be utilized for A RKLA fo r

test year calculations, I recommend that the utility proposed depreciatio n

rates for the existing accounts and the eight new accounts be utilized .

Concerning the amorti zation methodology and associated expenses, I

recommend continued use of the methodology establishe d in Cause N o .

PUD 01317, wi th the associated expenses calculated as shown on Pam

Price's Exhibit PKP- 12 . I am also recommending that, prior to the time of

the next rate proceedin g , ARKLA should review acc oun t 39 2 .009 AUTO-

ALG , O KLAHO MA and it's expected future activity, and make appropriate

reserve transfers or adjustments, as required . My recommended

depreciation rates and amortization expenses are shown on Exhibit SSW- 1 .

Does this conclude your testimony ?

Yes, it does .

16

Pag e Numb e r 1

ARKLA - OKLAHOMADEPRECL4T70N REVIEW

CAUS E NUMBER PU Q 940000654TYE 43o-94

C :IWO R IffILEhEXFiI B ff51940354tiDEP F .WK4

ACCOUNT

OKLA440MA i .p p ry p

INTANGIBLE PLANT

11709 J94

Exh ibit SSW - 1

RATE I EXPENSE OEPREC UITI O N INFORMATIO NTYE TYE T Y E

PLANT ACCUMU L ATEfl RESERVE ARKLA PROPOSED STAFF PROPOSED ACCRUA LBALANCE DEPRECIATION RATIO RATE AM OVNT RATE AMOUNT DIFFERENC E

302 .002 LIMITED TEltMS FRANCHI5E8CON5ENT $300,706 999,863 33.27% AMORT $10,930 A MORT $70,930 $0303 .004 MISC INT PLANT-PIPELINE INTERCOPFNECT $9,530 3704 7 .05% AMORT $311 AMORT S311 i0303 .005 MISC. INT. PLANT - ELECTRONIC FLOW M ET ERS ; 114,397 $1,584 1 .38% AM O RT $ 77 .439 A M O RT $11,439 $0303.006 INTANGIBLE 90 FNlARE- M ISC E LL ANEOl 1S $57,701 574,1393 24. 42 % AMORT S 1 7 .97 7 AMORT $11,917 $O3Q3 .007 INTANGIBLE SOFTWARE-ORDER 536 SOFTWA RE $0 $0 O.OOS6 AMORT $6 AMORT SO $0

TOTAL INTAN G IBLE PLANT S482,726 5115,644 $34 .597 534,597 $0

DISTRIBUTION P L AN T

37 4 .00137< .062

374 .003

374 .004

374.006

374.099375.0 01

37 5.002

375.003

375 .004

376 .001376 .099

378 .00 1

379 .001

380 .001

3 80 .0893si .ooi381 .002

LAFFGC f TY GATE AND MAIN IN D MIREGLAND-GENERAL DISTRIBUTIONLAND RIGHTS-SURFACE LEASE S-OTY GAT ELAND RIGHTS-SURFACE LEASE S-GE N DISTLAND RIGHTS- RIGH TS O F WAYG EN DISTAID IN CA N STRl I CT1 0N-L AN 0IRI WC f TYGAT FlMWEN LINED M A25T RUCTi1R E 5MEAS & D I STRICT REG STA STR UCT URESOTF f ER STR VCTU R ES-91 5T RIB U110NOTF i ER STRUCTURES-DIST IM PRYE M E NTSM AI N S EXCLUO ING CAST IftONAi4 1N CO N S TRUC41 0N-M A I NSM EASlR E G STA EQUIP-GENERA LMIR S TA EQUIP- CITY G ATEI M A IN LINESERVIC E SA ID IN CO NSTR UCTIO N SEfiVICESMETERS-DOMESTICMETERS-INDUSTRIAL

$482,728

$9,9925250,483

S31T$3,384

$45 7.6 49

($ 3.048)$24,015$3 7,473

$ 7 ,524, 46 1$901,234

546.[1 85, &58($913,010)

$ 1 ,8 40, &44$138,11 1

$77,ff77 ,42 1{y 6,875}

$5,457 , 4 10$757,047

5115,fi44

$0$0$0$0$0$0

$7,134aos,azs

$374 , 4 50$282 .220

$1$ 4S'9,678(E1G :t,s29)i40G,839X37,8273

f4 ,196 .765

fS7 ,aa2J$2 .294 ,5 49

$104 .316

o.oo9c0.009i0. 0 09io.o0x0. 0 09i0. 009G

29.71%41 .17%24.56%3t37 9627.04%17.92%22.10%2739%24.50%15.16%42.04%13.78%

WAWAWAWAWAWA

2.5678%3.3407963.081 9%3.091 9%4 .0965564 .0465%4.1396%3.1292%6 .49069 G6.4505%a.oooox4 .0000%

$0$0$0$0$0$0

$6 17

$1,252$47,1 35$27 .865

i1,86 4 ,a5s(i36R4s)i76 ,209$4,322

$1,101,192f3aa31

$218 .296$30 . 282

WAWAWANIAWANIA

2 .5678%3.3407%3.0919%3. 0919%4.OdE5964.04669 i

4.1398%3.12829G

6.4505%6.4505%4.0000%4.0000%

$0$0

$0$877

$1,252$47,135$27,86.5

$1,864,856i536,e451$76,209E4, 322

b1 , 101 , t92(s4 aa)

$218,296i30,282

Page Number 2

A R KLA - OKLA H OMAO EPREC I ATIO N REVIEW

CAUSE Nl1MBER PI 1Q9 90OO0Ci54NE 4-30-9 4

C :IWORKfIL E +EKH IBITSL9C03541flEP_ F. W K4

ACOOUHT

11 1Qdh?4

Exhibi t SSW - 1

RATf I EXPENS E D EPR ECIATIO T! IN FO R M ATION

TYE TYE TYEPL ANT ACCUMULATED RESERVE ARK L A PROPOSED STAFF PROPOS E D ACCRUA L

BALANCE DEPRECIATION RATIO R ATE AMOUNT RATE AM Oi1 N7 DIFF ERE N C E

382.001 METE R INSTALLATION-CUSTOMERS382.0D2 ME T ERIN3TRLLATIO N -LARG E382.06 9 AID IN CONSTRU C1lON - ME3' ER € N S TL383. 001 HOUSE R EGl1LATORS -DOMESTI C383.002 HOUSE R EGI IL ATORS •IN DI I53REAL383 . D99 AID IN CONSTR l1CT 10N - REGULATORS385 . 001 INU l15TRIRL AI EAS ANO R EG STA EQUIP386 . 001 OTHER PROPE RTY ON CVSTOMER S' PRMS387 .001 OTHER EQ UI PMENT-F URFFfT VR F1RKfUR ES367,002 OTHER E4UI PM ENT-TODLS367, 003 OTHER E4 UI PMENT-0THER E4UI PM £ NT36 7 . 004 OTHER E4 111 PMENT-0 DOR 3ZING EQUIP387 .005 OTHER EQ EII PMENT-CAMM E Ql11 P38 7 .006 OIIiER EQl11 PM EN7-CIS38 7 . 007 DATAPROCES SIiJGEQ UI PME NF - ALG38 7 .009 OTHER EQU I PM ENT-CNG R EF UELEaUIP38 7 .07 1 OTl1ER EQU V PMENT - 636 FEA R DWAR E

TOTA L ENSTR I BUT I ON PL ANT

TRANSPORTATION AND MWE EQUI P

392 .005 A11T0- ALG, CORP392 .003 AUTO-ALG, OKLAHOMA392 .031 TRUCKS-ALG,CORPORATE392 .035 TRucxs-nLc,oKLAhoInn392 .061 TRA ILERS-AIG, CORPO RATE392 .085 TR RILERS-A LG, OKL AHOM A396 .006 M4VE - A LG ,COR PO i2ATE396A 09 MWE - ALG,DKiAHOM A396A¢8 EOR]#!G EQUIPMEN T

TOTAL TRANSPORTATION AND MWE EQl]1 P

TOTAL - OKLAHOMA + ALLOC GE N ERAL

E 2,740 ,806 i 1,482,814

31,946.211 5286,228

fs25.594l (S4,94e)S1,8e9 .836 S5o5,5153

E81$,280 S 124, 498($406) ($141)

f25 , 387 $12,005s16,13.4 s81,8e6

f285, 360 $300,30251, 013,769 $558,499

$38,954 is20.8e4l

S 754, 476 $s,szsjBBB,OQ9 $206, 5 1 2$115,518 $3,454$742 ,775 5473,654

$48,787 $1 ,62 5

$0 so$84,270.820 $23. 979, 877

as,zse s2,234$0 ff7 . `a+67

$0 $0i is.sas $0

$0 $0$0 $0

52, 572 $0$44,349 $D$ 15,687 $0$95, 789 (SS ,122 )

9958437 S240901

54. 1 09 614.71%

19.25%27.04%15 .25%34 .73%47 .29%

SU7 .6D%1 05 .249 G55 .09%

-53 .05%6.42%

23 .53%2 .99%

55,89 %3 .33%0 .0 09 6

5 .6745965 .61 4 57 65 .8745Sb3 .3333%3 .3333%3 .3333%

77 .1 942 %AMOR TAMORTAMO RT

3 .4fi£i59L3 .0229%5.8949%

10 .4550%10 .2179%10 .00009G1 02179%

35 .4 7% 10.750096

a.oasso.aoss io.zsaowo.ross0 .00960 .00% 5 . 0300%0 .00% 5.03 00 9 i0 .00% 5. O3009 L

$ 7 55,527$ 77 0,43 6

($1,458)$62,327$27,209

($14)$ 2 ,64 2

{513,697)($12,728)E85,144$1 .350$4,670

W,231$12,077j75 ,89 6$4,879

so$3,901,330

$en$0$ 0

$1,815~~

$129$2, 231

$78945, 641

S3. 9d1 .988

5 .8745965 .87 4 5%56745%3.3333%3.3333'b3 .333356

11 .1942%AMO RTAMORTAM OR7

3.4655%3.0229%5.8949%

10 .4550%1 02179%10 .000 0%1 0 .2179%

$155,527 $0$110,438 iU

(57 ,45s] ia$82 ,327 SO$27 . 209 $0

($14) $0$ 2 , 642 $0

($13,697) mSO($12,728)

$85,144 $0$1,350 $0$4,670 $0$52,231 $0siz,on $0$75,896 $0$4,879 $0$0 $0

$3,901 .330 $0

10 .750056 $677 $0

$0 $13

$0 $010.750ox s1,815 $0

$0 $0$0 $0

5.0300% $129 $05.03009 G $2,231 $05.0300% $789 $0

$ .5. 647 $0

~ S4 t ~ 10