SONGS 2 & 3 High Pressure Turbine (HPT) Project - Southern ...

Application No.:Exhibit No.: SCE-02, Vol. 5Witnesses:D. BreigP. Pourmand(U 338-E)2009 General Rate CaseGenerationVolume 5 – SONGS 2 & 3 High Pressure Turbine(HPT) ProjectBefore thePublic Utilities Commission of the State of CaliforniaRosemead, CaliforniaNovember 2007

SUMMARYSCE-2, Volume 5, SONGS 2 & 3High Pressure Turbine (HPT) Project• Southern California Edison Company (SCE) plans to replace the San Onofre NuclearGenerating Station Unit 2 (SONGS 2) HPT Section of the SONGS 2 Steam Turbine in2011 at a capital cost of $41 million (Nominal, 100 percent share).• The HPT Project provides a net benefit of $7.9 million to customers. In addition, theHPT Project:o Provides additional energy that produces no green house gas emissions;o Reduces the amount of heat discharged to the ocean;o Increases SONGS 2 reliability;o Extends maintenance intervals which provides future cost savings; ando Provides spare energy parts.

SCE-02: GenerationVolume 5 - SONGS 2 & 3 HPT ProjectTable Of ContentsSection Page WitnessI. SONGS 2 HIGH PRESSURE TURBINE (HPT) PROJECT ............................1 D. BreigA. Description Of Project ...........................................................................11. Overview....................................................................................12. Background................................................................................13. SONGS 2 HPT...........................................................................34. Scope..........................................................................................4B. Summary Of Cost Effectiveness Results ...............................................8 P. PourmandC. Cost-Effectiveness Analysis ..................................................................91. Determination Of Energy Benefits ............................................92. Determination Of Firm Capacity Benefits...............................10D. Other Benefits To SCE Customers ......................................................101. Reduced GHG Emissions ........................................................102. Reduced Heat Discharged To The Pacific Ocean....................11 D. Breig3. Increased Reliability ................................................................114. Extended Inspection Frequency...............................................125. Spare Emergency HPT Rotor...................................................13E. Assumptions.........................................................................................131. Timing And Estimate Of Project Costs ...................................13a) Engineering..................................................................14b) Implementation ............................................................14c) Other Direct Costs........................................................14d) Contingency .................................................................15e) Common Allocation.....................................................15-i-

SCE-02: GenerationVolume 5 - SONGS 2 & 3 HPT ProjectTable Of Contents (continued)Section Page Witnessf) Corporate Overheads ...................................................15Appendix A Witness Qualifications ................................................................................Appendix B Net Avoided Cost Spreadsheet....................................................................Appendix C Project Estimate...........................................................................................VariousP. PourmandD. Breig-ii-

SCE-02: GenerationVolume 5 - SONGS 2 & 3 HPT ProjectList Of FiguresFigureFigure I-1 Simplified Schematic Of A Nuclear Power Plant.......................................................................2Figure I-2 HP And LP turbines....................................................................................................................3Figure I-3 SONGS HP Turbine....................................................................................................................4Page-iii-

SCE-02: GenerationVolume 5 - SONGS 2 & 3 HPT ProjectList Of TablesTableTable I-1 US Nuclear Plants With Replacement Or Retrofitted High Pressure TurbinesPage(HPTs)....................................................................................................................................................7Table I-2 Summary Of SONGS 2 HPT Project Benefit-Cost Analysis Present Value($million) ...............................................................................................................................................8Table I-3 HPT Outage Inspection Schedule And Cost – Existing Unit.....................................................12Table I-4 HPT Outage Inspection Schedule And Cost – Retrofit Unit......................................................13Table I-5 SONGS 2 HPT Project Estimate Summary ...............................................................................14-iv-

123456789101112131415161718192021I.SONGS 2 HIGH PRESSURE TURBINE (HPT) PROJECTA. Description Of Project1. OverviewSouthern California Edison Company (SCE) will replace the San Onofre NuclearGenerating Station Unit 2 (SONGS 2) High Pressure Turbine (HPT) section of the SONGS 2 SteamTurbine in 2011 at a capital cost of $41 million (Nominal, 100 percent share). 1 The HPT Project willprovide a net benefit of $7.9 million to customers.The new HPT will add approximately 24 megawatts (MW) of capacity to SONGS 2. TheSONGS 2 HPT project is cost effective because it provides positive net benefits to SCE’s ratepayers.These benefits include: (1) additional energy that is less expensive than an equivalent amount ofpurchased power, (2) additional capacity that is less expensive than purchased capacity, (3) additionalenergy that produces no green house gas (GHG) emissions, (4) reduction of the amount of heat that isdischarged to the ocean, (5) increased reliability of the SONGS 2 Turbine-Generator, 2 (6) future O&Mcost savings because it extends the schedule of required routine inspections, and (7) spare emergencyHPT parts. This testimony discusses each of these benefits below.2. BackgroundThe SONGS 2 Steam Turbine takes in high pressure, high temperature steam from theSONGS steam generators that has been transferred from the SONGS 2 reactor. Figure I-1 below depictsa simplified schematic of a nuclear plant, like SONGS 2, which shows the basic process of producingelectrical power.1 SONGS Unit 3 HPT will be replaced in 2012.2 The Turbine-Generator consists of a long steel shaft which includes the HPT, Low Pressure Turbine (LPT) and thegenerator.1

Figure I-1Simplified Schematic Of A Nuclear Power Plant12345678The SONGS 2 Steam Turbine consists of HPT, reheaters and moisture separators, and theLow Pressure Turbine (LPT) section. The steam enters the HPT, pushing against its blades and causingthe Steam Turbine to rotate. Steam leaves the HPT and enters the reheaters and moisture separatorswhere additional heat is added to the steam and moisture is removed, the steam then enters the LPT andpushes against the LPT blades before exiting the Steam Turbine. The turbine directly connects to thegenerator which also rotates. As the generator rotates, electrical power is transmitted to the electricalgrid for use by SCE’s customers.Figure I-2 shows the configuration of HP and LP turbines.2

Figure I-2HP And LP Turbines1234567891011The SONGS 2 Steam Turbine is about 24 years old. It was manufactured with 1970’sstate-of-the-art technology which was utilized in its design. SONGS 2 began commercial operation inNovember 1983. It has approximately 168,000 lifetime-accumulated operating hours as of April 2007.In the late 1990’s, SONGS replaced the original LPT, eliminating the risk of Stress Corrosion Cracking(SCC) 3 and improving overall LPT and HPT output by about 23 Megawatts electric (MWe) forSONGS 2. 43. SONGS 2 HPTAs discussed above, the HPT is the first section of the Steam Turbine. High pressure,high temperature stream enters the HPT first from the steam generators before moving through theremaining parts of the steam turbine. The Main Steam from the Steam Generators flows through sevenstages with each stage consisting of a set of moving blades attached to the turbine shaft and diaphragms3 Stress Corrosion Cracking (SCC) is the formation of cracks in some metals that are subject to both stress and a corrosiveenvironment. The SONGS 2 turbine is subjected to normal stress during operation and the presence of slightly corrosivechlorides in the steam flow. This makes it susceptible to SCC.4 SCE is also replacing the SONGS 2 & 3 Generator Rotors, with SONGS 2 replacement in 2008, and SONGS 3replacement in 2009. After the Generator Rotor replacement, the HPT will be the only critical rotatingTurbine-Generator component remaining from the original design.3

12345(fixed blades) which direct the flow of the steam to the next stage. The HPT shaft, with moving bladesattached, sits in the HPT inner casing which holds the diaphragms in their diaphragm carriers. The HPTouter casing then surrounds the inner casing and the shaft. The steam leaves the HPT through fourexhaust lines, two located at each end. Figure I-3 below shows the HPT shaft and moving blades beinglifted out of the inner casing containing the diaphragms in their diaphragm carriers.Figure I-3SONGS HP Turbine6784. ScopeSCE plans to replace the SONGS 2 HPT with a modern steam path consisting of newrotor, moving blades, diaphragms, 5 diaphragm carriers and miscellaneous parts. 6 SCE plans to retrofit5 The SONGS 2&3 Steam Generator Replacement Project (SGRP) cost estimate, adopted by the Commission inD.05-12-040, included funding to replace the SONGS 2 & 3 High Pressure Turbine diaphragms and perform otherturbine work. The HP Turbine Project in this case includes replacement of diaphragms on the High Pressure Turbine atSONGS 2. If the Commission approves the HP Turbine Project in this docket, SCE will petition to modify D.05-12-040to remove the cost of replacing the diaphragms on the High Pressure Turbine at SONGS 2 from the SONGS 2&3 SGRPcost estimate, within 30 days of the decision in this docket.6 SCE will reuse the outer casing, resulting in a significant cost savings.4

123456789101112131415161718192021the SONGS 2 HPT by changing the rotor and steam path (blading). This new rotor will utilize modernturbine steels, which are of much higher quality than the existing rotor.The replacement blading will use current state-of-the-art technology. This includes:(1) application of advanced aerodynamic three dimensional Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) 7 flowmodeling software to design the configuration and curvature of the blades for the most efficient use ofsteam to turn the turbines, and (2) more advanced manufacturing techniques by using ComputerNumerical Control (CNC) 8 machining and Coordinate Measurement Machines (CMM) 9 resulting inprecisely sized and shaped blading. When the existing HPTs were manufactured in the 1970’s, CNCand CMM technology was not as well developed. Design and testing of the blades was primarilyperformed using manual calculations and field testing.The current state-of-the-art technologies will result in three dimensional blade shapes,aerodynamically improved last stage exhaust features, improved shroud design and sealing features.This retrofit will provide an efficient HPT that increases the overall efficiency ofSONGS 2. 10 SONGS 2 HPT internal efficiency will increase by 2.5-3 percent because of:• Advanced computerized blading technology with reduced losses;• An improved distribution of the steam flow;• Improved design of the blade tip and diaphragm root sealing, resulting in lesssteam loss;• Blade design to reduce the moisture losses from improved steam path waterextraction features;• HPT design to match steam conditions of the new steam generators; and7 Computational fluid dynamics (CFD) is one of the branches of fluid mechanics that uses numerical methods andalgorithms to solve and analyze problems that involve fluid flows. Computers are used to perform the millions ofcalculations required to simulate the interaction of fluids and gases with the complex surfaces used in the developmentand manufacture of Steam Turbines.8 Computer Numerical Control (CNC) machining is an automated manufacturing process using programmed instructionsto drive a machine tool. This process produces components by the precise and selective removal of metal.9 Coordinate Measuring Machines (CMM) are devices for dimensional measuring. It is a computer operated systemdesigned to move a measuring probe to determine the coordinates of points on the surface of a workpiece.10 This retrofit also will take advantage of the increased steam pressure following replacement of the SONGS SteamGenerators. See D.05-12-040.5

123456789• Replacement of existing worn components with new equipment.Because 100 percent of this output increase is due to HPT efficiency gains, there will beno nuclear fuel impact. In summary, the new SONGS 2 HPT is likely to provide an overall outputincrease of approximately 24 MWe. Overall yearly electrical energy production will increase byapproximately 188,165 Megawatt-hours (MWh) based on an annual Capacity Factor (CF) of89.5 percent. 11Numerous nuclear power plants in the United States (U.S.) and abroad have alreadyupgraded their HPTs for a variety of reasons. Table I-1 shows several examples of U.S. nuclear powerplants that replaced or retrofitted their HPTs.11 Annual Capacity Factor is the amount of MWh generated in a year versus the amount of MWh that could be generated ifthe unit were to operate at rated capacity for the entire year. SONGS 2 annual Capacity Factor has averaged 89.5 percentfrom 2002 to 2006.6

Plant Name/Nominal OutputV.C. Summer/1020 MWeLimerick/~1200 MWeDuane Arnold~660 MWeThree-Mile Island-1/900 MWeVermont Yankee/650 MWeGinna/581 MWe NetTable I-1US Nuclear Plants With Replacement Or RetrofittedHigh Pressure Turbines (HPTs)Original turbineCommercial/OEMRetrofitDate/VendorReasons forRetrofit1983/GE 1998/GE Reliability,maintainability,performanceGained MWe8 MWe due toefficiency,37 MWe total1986-1989/GE 1998-1999/Siemens MWe gain 25-30 MWe(reported)1974/GE 2001/GE Run at upratedpower1972/GE 2001 EfficiencyimprovementNot reported30 MWe from HPTand LPT1972/GE 2004/GE Power uprate ~100 MWeWestinghouse Siemens MWe gain and17 percent powerupratePalisades/840 MWe 1972/Westinghouse 2001/Siemens MWe gain andagingWaterford 3/1175 MWeBeaver Valley 1/974 MWeEnrico Fermi 2/1110 MWeDresden 2&3 andQuad Cities 1&2/912 MWeSusquehanna 1&2/1200 MWeIndian PointU2 – 1070 MWeU3 – 1064 MWe84 MWe~10-12 MWe1985/Westinghouse 2005/Siemens Power uprate 75 MWe1977/Westinghouse 2003/Westinghouse 9.4 percent Poweruprate, reliability,increased inspectioninterval1973/GECA – verysimilar to SONGS2000/GETo pass rated steamflow at 100 percentRP. Reliability.1970-1973/GE 2000-2003/GE 17 percent Poweruprate, MWe gain1983-1985/GE 2003-2004/SWPC SCC and MWe gain.Total HPT and LPTreplacement1974-1976/WestinghouseNot reported6 MWe82 MWe50 MWe2004-2005/Siemens MWe gain 35 MWe U245 MWe U37

12345678B. Summary Of Cost Effectiveness ResultsUsing conservative capital cost assumptions 12 within a cost-effectiveness framework consistentwith prior projects and California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) filings, SCE’s analysis showsthe HPT Project is cost-effective with a positive net present value (NPV) of approximately $7.9 million(SCE share) 13 and a benefit-to-cost ratio of 1.22-to-1.Table I-2 below summarizes the present value of the total benefits (avoided procurement ofmarket energy and firm capacity), the present value of total costs (project costs), and the resulting NPVand benefit-to-cost ratio for the HPT Project.Table I-2Summary Of SONGS 2 HPT Project Benefit-Cost AnalysisPresent Value 14 ($million)Present Value of BenefitsAvoided Energy BenefitFirm Capacity ValueTOTALPresent Value of CostsProject CostsNet Present Value 15Benefit-to-Cost Ratio 1636.67.944.536.67.91.229101112This cost effectiveness analysis does not include the avoided value of greenhouse gas (GHG)production, even though the 188,165 MWh of incremental energy produced annually from the HPTProject will produce zero direct GHG emissions. The HPT Project also provides this added benefit, asdiscussed in more detail below.12 Discussed in section I.E.1, Timing and Estimate of Project Costs.13 All analyses discussed in this section assumes SCE’s ownership percentage of SONGS is 78.21 percent. The otherowners of SONGS 2 & 3 are Riverside (1.79 percent) and San Diego Gas & Electric Company (20.0 percent).14 2007 dollars at a 10 percent discount rate. For presentation purposes, results are rounded to the nearest one hundredthousand dollars.15 Net Present Value = (Present Value of Benefits) – (Present Value of Costs).16 Benefit-to-Cost Ratio = (Avoided Energy Benefit – Variable Operating Cost + Firm Capacity Value) / Fixed Costs.8

1234567891011121314151617181920212223C. Cost-Effectiveness AnalysisSCE evaluated the generation-related economics of the HPT Project consistent with itsevaluation of the costs and benefits of other supply- and demand-side resources. 17 Thecost-effectiveness analysis measures the total change in SCE’s portfolio costs (on behalf of its bundledservice customers) associated with operating SONGS 2 with the HPT Project versus replacing theproject portion (24 MW and 188,165 MWh annually) with energy and capacity that would otherwise beprocured from the market. 18 This method captures the economic value to SCE’s customers of theproject, replacing the project with an equivalent amount of energy and capacity from the market. Themarket is the appropriate measure for comparison because the market represents the marginal resourcealternative to SCE and its customers.The cost-effectiveness analysis assumes: (1) installation of the SONGS 2 HPT Project by 2011,(2) the lifecycle costs and benefits are through 2022, and (3) the project will not incrementally increasevariable operating costs. Upon completion, SCE assumes that the SONGS 2 HPT Project will addapproximately 24 MW of additional capacity to the SCE portfolio, or about 188,165 MWh per year ofadditional energy. This results in about a 2 percent increase in current SONGS 2 output. 19Throughout the cost-effectiveness framework, SCE uses standard fundamental financial theoryto discount future cash flows to their equivalent value at the present time.1. Determination Of Energy BenefitsAlmost all forecasted benefits resulting from the HPT Project are energy-related benefitsbecause the HPT Project increases low-cost baseload energy production at SONGS 2. The energybenefits represent the net value of avoided purchases of marginal market energy, which is the differencebetween the cost of additional energy produced by the HPT Project (~$0/MWh) and the replacementpower cost (approximately $60/MWh). SCE applied the difference in energy cost ($/MWh) to the17 Including, but not limited to, the Mountainview project, SONGS steam generator replacement, Renewable PortfolioStandard contract evaluations, Kern River Cogeneration Company contract evaluation, and various demand-sidemanagement applications.18 The “market” for SCE encompasses the prices and supply availability within the SP-26 geographic scope of theCalifornia Independent System Operator (CAISO) control area.19 Current SONGS 2 capacity is 1,070 MW (net) per the 2006 Dependable Capacity Resources Report.9

123456789101112131415161718192021additional energy produced by the HPT Project (approximately 188,165 MWh per year) to derive anannual energy benefit value, which is then calculated into a present value. SCE based the energybenefits on SCE’s avoided cost forecast as of May 2007. SCE developed this forecast using asimulation model 20 also used to develop SCE’s 2006 Long Term Procurement Plan (LTPP) filing. 212. Determination Of Firm Capacity BenefitsA second component of the total benefits resulting from the HPT Project is the forecast ofavoided capacity-related benefits. The HPT Project adds approximately 24 MW of dependable, 22 firmcapacity to SCE’s portfolio in addition to the energy benefits discussed above. SCE based the capacitybenefits on its September 2006 avoided cost forecast, in which firm capacity value is the deferral valueof a combustion turbine (CT) proxy. 23 SCE applied the firm capacity value ($/kW-yr) to the annualincremental capacity provided by the HPT Project (MW) to derive an annual capacity benefit value,which was calculated into a present value. Past regulatory applications 24 have established theapplication of the CT proxy as the value of firm capacity (approximately $80/kW-yr in 2007 dollars).SCE applies this proxy value consistently across all supply-side and demand-side resource evaluations.D. Other Benefits To SCE Customers1. Reduced GHG EmissionsThe cost-effectiveness analysis above does not include societal or economic benefits ofreduced GHG emissions. The energy produced from the HPT Project would displace the energy that anatural gas resource on the margin would produce. This reduces the system wide GHG output. At thepresent time, the value of reduced GHG emissions is an economic externality without an explicit valuethat can be used in a benefit-to-cost analysis. However, given the current legislative and regulatory20 SCE developed the LTPP and the marginal energy cost forecast using Global Energy Decisions’ (GED) MarketSymproduction simulation tool, otherwise known as ProSym. The Commission has previously required SCE to use thismodel for procurement planning and price forecasting analyses.21 R.06-02-013.22 Resource Adequacy Eligible.23 Note that the CT proxy value is net of any energy-related benefits to avoid the double-counting of energy benefits.24 Mountainview, SONGS SGR, GRC, RPS evaluations, Avoided Cost OIR, and various demand-side resourceapplications to the Commission.10

12345678910111213141516171819202122developments, 25 there is a strong policy preference for environmentally sensitive resources. The HPTProject will not only add needed energy and capacity on behalf of SCE’s customers, but will also helpmeet the State’s goals to reduce GHG by providing a zero-emissions resource option.Assuming $8 per ton escalating at 5 percent per year, 26 and assuming a market marginalemissions rate of approximately 0.5 tons per MWh, 27 the net present value of the GHG benefits of theHPT Project is approximately $6.5 million over the 11-year lifecycle of the project.2. Reduced Heat Discharged To The Pacific OceanThe typical thermal power plant produces heat to make steam which turns a steam turbineand generator. The total amount of heat produced can be expressed as a Thermal Megawatt (MWT).SONGS 2 produces 3,458 MWTs at 100 percent Reactor Power. Approximately 34 percent of thisthermal energy becomes electricity (1,180 MWe total). The remaining 66 percent of generated heat, orapproximately 2,318 MWT is absorbed by the main condenser which uses sea water to cool the turbineexhaust steam down and turns it back into water. Sea water then absorbs most of this heat and isdischarged to the Pacific Ocean with a small portion of the remaining heat dissipating to the atmospherethrough the piping and equipment insulation.Installation of a more efficient HPT increases the efficiency of SONGS 2 fromapproximately 34 percent to 34.7 percent electrical output while reducing heat discharged to the ocean.3. Increased ReliabilityThe HPT is subjected to SCC. SCC was not well understood until the 1990s. SCEstrengthened critical areas of the HPT rotor in 1996-97 to improve the material properties which reducedthe likelihood of SCC. Because of the age of the SONGS 2 turbine and its susceptibility to SCC, itrequires frequent and expensive inspections to identify SCC to prevent catastrophic failure. SCE25 For example, Assembly Bill (AB) 32, Senate Bill (SB) 1368, and the Commission’s ongoing GHG OIR.26 From E3’s Electric Avoided Cost methodology adopted in D.05-04-024 (Interim Opinion on E3 Avoided CostMethodology).27 Marginal CO2 emission rate for SP15 based on production simulations of the WECC, consistent with SCE’s 2006Long-Term Procurement Plan filing.11

1234567891011121314regularly monitors SCC conditions by performing HPT inspections at 50,000 hour intervals. 28 Eachinspection consists of (1) a full HPT disassembly, including removal of the rotor shaft, (2) performingcomplete Non Destructive Examination (NDE) of the rotor surface and (3) reassembling the HPT.With advancements in computer technology and new materials, new HPTs are moreefficient and less susceptible to SCC. The materials used in the HPT Project will provide betterresistance to SCC. Finite Element Analysis 29 methods, achieve stress reductions of 50 percent or greaterfor new HPT moving blade attachments, 30 which are the most critical components subjected to SCC.4. Extended Inspection FrequencyTable I-3 below provides the existing HPT inspection schedule for the 2008-2022timeframe. HPT inspection costs are approximately $2 million (2006$) per inspection. Table I-4 belowshows that installation of the new HPT will extend the interval of turbine inspections from the current6-year timeframe to 10 years. Replacement of the HPT will eliminate the need for a turbine inspectioncurrently scheduled for 2011 and push the next turbine inspection out to the year 2021 thus saving$2 million (2006$).Table I-3HPT Outage Inspection Schedule And Cost – Existing UnitYear 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022SONGS 2HPT0 0 0 $2M 0 0 0 0 0 $2M 0 0 0 0 028 Alstom, the SONGS HP Turbine manufacturer cited in an e-mail dated 4/01/05: “For units with operating hours of over150k and susceptible to stress corrosion cracking we would recommend inspection at 50k intervals.”29 Finite Element Analysis (FEA) is a computer simulation technique used in engineering analysis primarily for precisestress calcualtions.30 Blade attachments are the areas where moving turbine blades are attached to the turbine shaft.12

Table I-4HPT Outage Inspection Schedule And Cost – Retrofit UnitYear 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022SONGS 2HPT0 0 0 Retrofit 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 $2M 012345678910111213141516175. Spare Emergency HPT RotorA significant challenge for SONGS 2 long term reliability is that the original HPT has aunique design. No other similar HPTs are currently in operation. Other nuclear plants with morecommon components can borrow from other operating or closed plants. Because there are no similarlyconfigured plants as SONGS, most parts and all spare components for the HPT are custom made. SCEcould not readily procure HPT spare components in case of failure.This project provides for a spare HPT rotor and other original parts as strategic spareparts for future use.E. Assumptions1. Timing And Estimate Of Project CostsSCE estimates the cost of the project to be $41 million (nominal, 100 percent level). SCEplans to complete this project in 2011. SCE began preliminary engineering of a new HPT in 2007.Construction will occur at the vendor starting sometime in 2008 with delivery of the new SONGS 2HPT in early 2011. Installation of the new HPT will occur during the SONGS 2 refueling outage in thefall of 2011.As Table I-5 below shows, the following are the major categories of estimated projectcosts the cost effectiveness analysis.13

Table I-5SONGS 2 HPT Project Estimate Summary 31(Nominal $, 100 percent level)LineNo. Description Amount1. Engineering 376,0002. Implementation 26,246,0003. Other Direct Costs 22,8004. Contingency 10,659,0005. Common Allocation Costs 3,730,0006. Corporate Overheads 3,288,0007. Total Capital Cost $44,321,8001234567891011121314a) EngineeringEngineers prepare drawings, determine electrical calculations, mechanical stressand support calculations and seismic calculations for the new HPT. Design Engineers also interfacewith vendors during visits and walkdowns in preparation of vendor supplied engineering. The estimatedEngineering costs are $376,000 (nominal, 100 percent level).b) ImplementationImplementation includes SCE craft labor, contractor labor, and material costs ofthe HPT components such as the inner casing, diaphragms and blades. This constitutes the largest partof the estimated costs of the HPT. The estimated Implementation costs are $26,246,000 (nominal,100 percent level).c) Other Direct CostsOther Direct Costs include overall project management of the HPT installationincluding necessary travel to the vendor to oversee construction of the new HPT, office supplies andconsumables. The estimated Other Direct costs are $22,800 (nominal, 100 percent level).31 A more detailed estimate is included in Appendix B.14

12345678910111213141516171819d) ContingencySCE applies contingency to the estimate in the amount of $10,659,000 (nominal,100 percent level), which is 40 percent of the direct costs of the project. Contingency addressessignificant uncertainties associated with the level of scope definition which is preliminary andconceptual at this stage of the project (i.e., the more defined the scope, the less contingency is applied,but never as low as zero). Removing contingency from an estimate results in a cost figure that ismeaningless. Use of a 40 percent contingency recognizes that the scope is conceptual in nature and thatthere is a moderate risk of potential price increases. SCE adds contingency to every SONGS projectestimate based on the judgment of the project professionals and experienced gained in other SONGSprojects.e) Common AllocationSCE applies Common Allocation costs to all SONGS capital projects. Thesegeneral support costs include: payroll, accounting, facilities, and security that would be difficult,time-consuming, and costly to charge directly to each project. SCE applied $3,730,000 (nominal,100 percent level) for Common Allocation cost to the HPT project.f) Corporate OverheadsSCE applies Corporate Overhead costs to all SONGS capital projects to accountfor pensions and benefit costs, payroll taxes, and corporate support. SCE applied $3,288,000 (nominal,100 percent level) for corporate overhead costs to the HPT project.15

Appendix AWitness Qualifications

123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANYQUALIFICATIONS AND PREPARED TESTIMONYOF DANIEL P. BREIGQ. Please state your name and business address for the record.A. My name is Daniel P. Breig, and my business address is 5000 Pacific Coast Highway,San Clemente, CA 92672Q. Briefly describe your present responsibilities at the Southern California Edison Company.A. I am the Manager of Engineering Excellence.Q. Briefly describe your educational and professional background.A. I received a Bachelor of Science degree in Electrical Engineering from the University ofArizona; a Master of Science degree in Electrical Engineering from the University of SouthernCalifornia (USC); and a Master of Science degree in Mechanical Engineering from CaliforniaState University at Los Angeles. I am also a registered Profession Engineer in the Electrical,Mechanical, and Nuclear disciplines. Prior to being assigned duties as the Manager ofEngineering Excellence in June 2007, I held various positions at San Onofre including StationManager, Startup Manager, Project Manager, Assistant Manager of Nuclear Engineering andConstruction, Site Technical Services Manager, Station Technical Manager and MaintenanceEngineering Manager. I have 26 years of experience at San Onofre. I began my career withSouthern California Edison in 1974, and have held positions in Engineering, Construction,Startup, and Project Management at Fossil, Nuclear, and Geothermal power plants.Q. What is the purpose of your testimony in this proceeding?A. The purpose of my testimony in this proceeding is to sponsor the portions of Exhibit SCE-02,Volume 5 entitled Generation – SONGS HP Turbine Project as identified in the Tables ofContents thereto.Q. Was this material prepared by you or under your supervision?A. Yes, it was.Q. Insofar as this material is factual in nature, do you believe it to be correct?A-1

123456A. Yes, I do.Q. Insofar as this material is in the nature of opinion or judgment, does it represent your bestjudgment?A. Yes, it does.Q. Does this conclude your qualifications and prepared testimony?A. Yes, it does.A-2

123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANYQUALIFICATIONS AND PREPARED TESTIMONYOF PEDRAM POURMANDQ. Please state your name and business address for the record.A. My name is Pedram Pourmand, and my business address is 2244 Walnut Grove Avenue,Rosemead, California 91770.Q. Briefly describe your present responsibilities at the Southern California Edison Company.A. I am currently a Manger of Projects and Programs in the Market Strategy & Resource PlanningGroup in SCE’s Power Procurement Business Unit. I act as an internal consultant where myresponsibilities include analyzing strategic projects under a cost-benefit framework.Q. Briefly describe your educational and professional background.A. I received a Bachelor of Science in Mechanical Engineering from the University of California,Los Angeles in 2001. Upon graduation I took a position with the ExxonMobil Corporation at theTorrance Refinery in Southern California. At the Torrance Refinery I held several positionsincluding plant engineer, senior engineer, project manager and supervisor. In 2006 I received aMaster’s of Business Administration from the University of Southern California. In 2007 Iaccepted a position with Southern California Edison.Q. What is the purpose of your testimony in this proceeding?A. The purpose of my testimony in this proceeding is to sponsor the portions of Exhibit SCE-02,Volume 5 entitled Generation – SONGS HP Turbine Project as identified in the Tables ofContents thereto.Q. Was this material prepared by you or under your supervision?A. Yes, it was.Q. Insofar as this material is factual in nature, do you believe it to be correct?A. Yes, I do.Q. Insofar as this material is in the nature of opinion or judgment, does it represent your bestjudgment?A-3

123A. Yes, it does.Q. Does this conclude your qualifications and prepared testimony?A. Yes, it does.A-4

Appendix BNet Avoided Cost Spreadsheet

SONGS 2 HPT Turbine Net Avoided Cost SpreadsheetBase Case ($000) 100% shareNominalPVRRBenefits:Energy 118,130 46,929Operating Cost - -Capacity 25,272 10,137Total 143,402 57,065Project Cost 108,831 46,837Net Benefit 10,228B/C Ratio 1.22GHG Benefit 15,800 6,170Base Case ($000) SCE 78.21% shareNominalPVRRBenefits:Energy 92,389 36,703Operating Cost - -Capacity 19,765 7,928Total 112,155 44,631Project Cost 85,117 36,631Net Benefit 7,999B/C Ratio 1.22GHG Benefit 12,357 4,826B-1

Appendix CProject Estimate

BudgetaSONGSPROJECT ESTIMATE SUMMARYUnit 2 HP Turbine Replacement U2C17PHC Planning UNIT 1 Order of Magnitude XAR# 070200902-1 Capital X UNIT 2 XLine# 320 O&M UNIT 3 BudgetaryOnline X Decommissioning U2&3 CommonOutage X U1,2,3 Common Definitive(100% Level, Constant 2006 $)Total Total TotalO & M Capital Project Nominal $1.0 Engineering 0 347,000 347,0002.0 Implementation 0 24,220,000 (1) 24,220,0003.0 Other Directs 0 21,000 21,0004.0 Contingency 0 9,836,000 9,836,0005.0 Common Allocation 0 3,442,000 3,442,000S/T Work Order Level 0 37,866,000 37,866,000Rounded $37.9 M $41.0 M6.0 Corporate Overheads 0 3,034,000 3,034,000TOTAL PROJECT 0 40,900,000 (2) 40,900,000Rounded $40.9 M $44.3 MNotes:(1) Capital Implementation Costs include removal cost of capital assets, estimated at approximately $0K direct costs.(2) All costs are without "Allowance for Funds Used During Construction" (AFUDC).APPROVALS: Responsible Work Organization: MaintenanceEstimating/Project Controls/BP&FS: Project Sponsor:Engineering/Responsible Engr.: Project Manager:Implementing Organization Manager:Total Proj Sum~9097955.xls Page 1 of 9PRELIMINARY ESTIMATEEstimated:JAN 19, 2007 by L. W.Printed: 11/5/2007 : 11:09 AMC-1

SONGSCAPITAL ESTIMATE SUMMARYUnit 2 HP Turbine Replacement U2C17(100% Level, Constant 2006 $)SCE Contractor Material OtherLabor Labor Labor Special/Bulk Direct Costs TotalDescription Hours L $ C $ M $ O $ $1.0 Engineering 5,700 347,000 0 0 0 347,0002.0 Implementation 43,370 180,000 2,429,000 21,611,000 0 24,220,0003.0 Other Directs 13,000 5,000 1,000 2,000 21,0004.0 Contingency 216,000 974,000 8,645,000 1,000 9,836,0005.0 Common Allocation 1,893,000 0 0 1,549,000 3,442,000S/T Work Order Level 49,070 2,649,000 3,408,000 30,257,000 1,552,000 37,866,0006.0 Corporate Overhead 1,273,000 170,000 1,513,000 78,000 3,034,000Total Capital 49,070 3,922,000 3,578,000 31,770,000 1,630,000 40,900,000CPR Unit Breakdown of Capital CostsCapital EscalatedCPR Labor Est Implem Total TotalUnit Description Hours Code Costs Percent (2006 $) (Nominal $M)323.200 Turbogenerator Units - Main Turbine 4,533 2.1 1,934,000 9.2% 3,779,000 4.1323.200 Turbogenerator Units - Main Turbine 44,537 2.2 19,000,000 90.8% 37,121,000 40.2TOTAL 49,070 20,934,000 100.0% 40,900,000 44.3Cap Sum~9097955.xls Page 2 of 9PRELIMINARY ESTIMATEEstimated:JAN 19, 2007 by L. W.Printed: 11/5/2007 : 11:09 AMC-2

SONGSPROJECT ESTIMATE CASH FLOWUnit 2 HP Turbine Replacement U2C17(100% Level, Constant 2006 $ x 1,000)Constant $ Prior Yrs 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 5 Yr Total After Yrs TOTAL 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 After YrsCapital 0 0 88 879 7,028 22,843 30,838 7,028 37,866 7,028 0 0 0 0 7,028O & M (Incremental) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0O & M (Base) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0TOTAL ESTIMATED BUDGET COST 0 0 88 879 7,028 22,843 30,838 7,028 37,866 7,028 0 0 0 0 7,028Capital Corporate Overheads 0 0 7 70 563 1,830 2,471 563 3,034 563 0 0 0 0 563O & M Corporate Overheads 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0TOTAL EST. PROJECT COST 0 0 95 949 7,592 24,673 33,308 7,592 40,900 7,592 0 0 0 0 7,592Annual % Allocation---------> 0% 0% 0.2% 2.3% 18.6% 60.3% 18.6% 100.0% 18.6% 0.0% 0% 0% 0% 19%(1) O & M Escalation Rates 1.000 1.02692 1.05423 1.08227 1.11106 37,866 1.14061 1.17095 1.20210 1.23408 1.26690(2) Capital Escalation Rates 1.000 1.01290 1.03539 1.05930 1.08452 1.11206 1.14164 1.17281 1.20530 1.2391617,033,000 4,000,000 21,033,00043,215,000(100% Level, Nominal $ x 1,000)Nominal $ Prior Yrs 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 5 Yr Total After Yrs TOTAL 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 After YrsCapital 0 0 89 910 7,445 24,773 33,217 7,816 41,033 7,816 0 0 0 0 7,816O & M (Incremental) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0O & M (Base) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0TOTAL ESTIMATED BUDGET COST 0 0 89 910 7,445 24,773 33,217 7,816 41,033 7,816 0 0 0 0 7,816Capital Corporate Overheads 0 0 7 73 597 1,985 2,662 626 3,288 626 0 0 0 0 626O & M Corporate Overheads 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0TOTAL EST. PROJECT COST 0 0 96 983 8,042 26,758 35,879 8,442 44,321 8,442 0 0 0 8,442(1) O & M Escalation based on SCE's Composite per 2006 General Rate Case Profile using Nuclear "Labor & Non-Labor Price Indexes & Escal. Rates(Based on Global Insight UCIS 2005 Second Quarter Projection)" provided by Paul Hunt in Sept.2005 per R.H./R.K., dated 4/11/06 .(2) Capital Escalation based on Handy-Whitman Index (Pacific Region) for Nuclear "HWNUC" from "Nuclear Capital Escalation, Global Insight Projection,2005 Fourth Quarter" provided by Paul Hunt in Sept.2005 per R.H., dated 4/11/06.Cash Flow~9097955.xls Page 3 of 9PRELIMINARY ESTIMATEEstimated:JAN 19, 2007 by L. W.Printed: 11/5/2007 : 11:09 AMC-3

SONGSPROJECT ESTIMATE DETAILUnit 2 HP Turbine Replacement U2C17(100% Level, Constant 2006 $)Quantity Labor Hours Unit Costs Calculated CostsSCE Contractor Material OtherEst. CPR Unit Rate Labor Labor Material Other Labor Labor Special/Bulk Direct Costs TotalCode Unit Description Qty. Unit hrs/qty. Hours $/hr $/qty. $/qty. L $ C $ M $ O $ $1.0 ENGINEERING1.1 SCE EngineeringDesign Engineering Organization (DEO) lt 0 0 60.85 0 010 CFR50.59 Safety Evaluation Screening lt 0 0 60.85 0 0Prepare & issue ECNs ea 0 0 60.85 0 0Electrical Engr. Support (Calcs.) ea 0 0 60.85 0 0Mechanical Engr Support (Stress/Support Calcs.) lt 0 0 60.85 0 0Civil Engr Support (Seismic Calcs.) lt 0 0 60.85 0 0DEO's Support to NC&ES during implementation lt 0 0 60.85 0 0(incl. walkdowns, vendor visits, FAT, SAT, CPR's, etc.)10%,50% & 90% Review Mtgs. & resolution of comments ea 0 0 60.85 0 01 lt 5700 5,700 60.85 346,845 346,845System Engineering (SE) lt 0 61.00 0 0Maintenance Engineering (ME) lt 0 58.00 0 0Computer Engineering (CE) lt 0 60.00 0 0QA/QC Direct Support lt 0 60.00 0 0Subtotal (1.1) SCE Engineering 5,700 346,845 0 0 0 346,8451.2 Contractor/Consultant EngineeringNOT REQUIRED ea 100 0 120.00 0 0 0 0Subtotal (1.2) Contract/Consultant Engineering 0 0 0 0 0 01.3 Other Engineering Support CostsAdd'l SCE Engineering Support (if required) 1 lt 0 0 58.00 0 0Add'l Contractor Engineering Support (if required) 1 lt 0 0 73.00 0 0Telecom Support Service (Technicians) 44.00 0 0Telecom Support Service (Non-Manual Oversight) 62.00 0 0Subtotal (1.3) Other Engineering Support 0 0 0 0 0 0Allocation to Capital vs. O&M is based on Implementation % splitCapital 5,700 347,000 0 0 0 347,000O & M (Incremental) 0 0 0 0 0 0O & M (Base) 0 0 0 0 0 0(1.0) - Engineering Total 5,700 347,000 0 0 0 347,000Detail Est.~9097955.xls Page 4 of 9PRELIMINARY ESTIMATEEstimated:JAN 19, 2007 by L. W.Printed: 11/5/2007 : 11:09 AMC-4

SONGSPROJECT ESTIMATE DETAILUnit 2 HP Turbine Replacement U2C17(100% Level, Constant 2006 $)Quantity Labor Hours Unit Costs Calculated CostsSCE Contractor Material OtherEst. CPR Unit Rate Labor Labor Material Other Labor Labor Special/Bulk Direct Costs TotalCode Unit Description Qty. Unit hrs/qty. Hours $/hr $/qty. $/qty. L $ C $ M $ O $ $2.0 IMPLEMENTATION2.1 Work Accomplished During an Outage - U2C172.1.12.1.1.1 Unit 2 Installation2.1.1.2Millwrights 1 lt 8900 8,900 57.00 64,000 507,300 64,000 0 571,300Boilermakers 1 lt 3000 3,000 68.00 1,000 204,000 1,000 0 205,000Insulators 1 lt 7600 7,600 62.00 0 471,200 0 0 471,200Scaffold Crew 1 lt 12000 12,000 52.25 59,500 627,000 59,500 0 686,5002.1.10 Additional Requirements in Support of ModificationScaffolding Labor (See Above) lt 100 0 57.00 0 0 0Additional Field Materials & Material Handling Labor lt 100 0 57.00 0 0 0Additional Complexity per Estimate Review lt 0 57.00 0 0 02.1.11 Pre-job briefs, safety meetings, tool box meetings, etc.Subtotal of Craft Labor for the Above Tasks (for Ref.)----------> 31,500 hrs(Based on average 10hr. m-shifts for Outage Work)Pre-Job Briefs 3,150 m-shifts 0.25 800 57.00 45,600 45,600Safety Mtgs., Tool Box Mtgs., Drug Testing, etc. 3,150 m-shifts 0.5 1,600 57.00 91,200 91,200Admin., Bulk Mat'l Handling, Timesheets, etc. 3,150 m-shifts 0.25 800 57.00 45,600 45,600Craft Labor Subtotal 34,700 1,991,9002.1.12 Required Non-Manual Field Craft Support & any Additional Requirement for Construction EquipmentNon-Manual Field Craft Support (based on % of Craft Labor) 34,700 hrs 15% 5,200 84.00 436,800 436,800Add'l Required Construction Equip. 1 lt 0 0 0 0 0Non-Manual Labor Subtotal 5,200 436,800Tax & Freight @ 13% of above material 16,200 16,200Sales & Use Taxes on 10% of Other Direct @ 7.75% 0 0 0(2.1) - Outage Total 39,900 0 2,428,700 140,700 0 2,569,400Capital 1,934,000O&M 0Both 635,400Total 2,569,400Detail Est.~9097955.xls Page 5 of 9PRELIMINARY ESTIMATEEstimated:JAN 19, 2007 by L. W.Printed: 11/5/2007 : 11:09 AMC-5

SONGSPROJECT ESTIMATE DETAILUnit 2 HP Turbine Replacement U2C17(100% Level, Constant 2006 $)Quantity Labor Hours Unit Costs Calculated CostsSCE Contractor Material OtherEst. CPR Unit Rate Labor Labor Material Other Labor Labor Special/Bulk Direct Costs TotalCode Unit Description Qty. Unit hrs/qty. Hours $/hr $/qty. $/qty. L $ C $ M $ O $ $2.2 Work Accomplished Online2.2.1 Vendor Services and Engineered Equipment2.2.1.1 HP Turbine Components - Unit 2 (Includes): 1 lt 19,000,000 0 19,000,000 0 19,000,000New HP Turbine DiaphragmNew Inner CasingNew HP Turbine Blading2.2.10 Additional Requirements in Support of Modificationw/above Scaffolding Labor 0 52.25 0 0 0 0Additional Field Materials & Material Handling Labor 0 52.25 0 0 0 0Additional Complexity per Estimate Review 0 52.25 0 0 0 02.2.11 Pre-job briefs, safety meetings, tool box meetings, etc.Subtotal of Craft Labor for the Above Tasks (for Ref.)----------> 0 hrs(Based on average 8hr. m-shifts for Online Work)Pre-Job Briefs 0 m-shifts 0.25 0 52.25 0 0Safety Mtgs., Tool Box Mtgs., Drug Testing, etc. 0 m-shifts 0.5 0 52.25 0 0Admin., Bulk Mat'l Handling, Timesheets, etc. 0 m-shifts 0.25 0 52.25 0 0Craft Labor Subtotal 0 02.2.12 Required Non-Manual Field Craft Support & any Additional Requirement for Construction EquipmentNon-Manual Field Craft Support (based on % of Craft Labor) 0 hrs 15% 0 83.00 0 0Add'l Required Construction Equip. 0 lt 0 0 0 0 0Non-Manual Labor Subtotal 0 0Tax & Freight @ 13% of above material 2,470,000 2,470,000Sales & Use Taxes on 10% of Other Direct @ 7.75% 0 0(2.2) - Online Total 0 0 0 21,470,000 0 21,470,000Capital 19,000,000O&M 0Both 2,470,000Total 21,470,000Detail Est.~9097955.xls Page 6 of 9PRELIMINARY ESTIMATEEstimated:JAN 19, 2007 by L. W.Printed: 11/5/2007 : 11:09 AMC-6

SONGSPROJECT ESTIMATE DETAILUnit 2 HP Turbine Replacement U2C17(100% Level, Constant 2006 $)Quantity Labor Hours Unit Costs Calculated CostsSCE Contractor Material OtherEst. CPR Unit Rate Labor Labor Material Other Labor Labor Special/Bulk Direct Costs TotalCode Unit Description Qty. Unit hrs/qty. Hours $/hr $/qty. $/qty. L $ C $ M $ O $ $2.3 RESPONSIBLE WORK ORGANIZATION (RWO)2.3.1 Construction Management, Planning and Other RWO Support2.3.1.1 Construction, (NC&ES) Oversight/SupportSCE hours @ 10% of Engr'g hrs.for Design Support 0 hrs 0.0% 0 61.00 0 0SCE hours @ 7.5% of craft hours 34,700 hrs 0.0% 0 61.00 0 0Contractor hours @ 7.5% of craft hours 34,700 hrs 0.0% 0 68.00 0 0w/above Req.Support for ECP handling, turnover, close-out 1 lt 0 0 61.00 0 0not req. Additional Required Support per Review 1 lt 0 0 61.00 0 02.3.1.2 reduced Outage Ramp-up Costs (BCC) 0.0 ea 4,800 0 0Craft Outage Staffing Premium Costs (BCC) 0.0 ea 1,400 0 02.3.1.3 Allow. Testing and System Acceptance 0 lt 250 0 84.00 0 02.3.1.4 not req. Additional Security Posting during construction lt 0 47.00 0 02.3.2 Maintenance, Planning and Other RWO SupportMaintenance Oversight/Support (Based on % of craft hours) 34,700 hrs 10% 3,470 52.00 180,440 180,440w/above Req.Support for ECP handling, turnover, close-out 0 lt 0 0 52.00 0 0not req. Additional Required Support per Review 0 lt 02.3.3 Facilities, Planning and Other RWO SupportFacilities (Based on % of craft hours) 0 hrs 15% 0 57.00 0 0Additional Required Support lt 100 0 57.00 0 02.3.4 Other Required SupportMisc. Vendor and Sub-Contractor Costs 0 lt 100 0 68.00 1,000 0 0 0Telecom Support Service (Technicians) 0 lt 100 0 44.00 0 0Telecom Support Service (Non-Manual Oversight) 0 lt 20 0 62.00 0 0Tax & Freight @ 13% of above material 0 0Sales & Use Taxes on 10% of Other Direct @ 7.75% 0 0(2.3) - Responsible Work Organization Total 3,470 180,440 0 0 0 180,440Total Capital O&M Incr O&M Base Implementation Total - Capital vs. O&MManual (Craft) Hours 34,700 34,700 0 Capital 20,934,000 100.0% 24,219,840Non-Manual (Supervision) Hours 5,200 5,200 0 O&M 0 0.0% 0RWO Hours 3,470 3,470 0 0 0 0 0 0 0O & M (Base) 0 adjusted--> 0 0 0 0 0(2.0) - Implementation Total 43,370 180,000 2,429,000 21,611,000 0 24,220,000Detail Est.~9097955.xls Page 7 of 9PRELIMINARY ESTIMATEEstimated:JAN 19, 2007 by L. W.Printed: 11/5/2007 : 11:09 AMC-7

SONGSPROJECT ESTIMATE DETAILUnit 2 HP Turbine Replacement U2C17(100% Level, Constant 2006 $)Quantity Labor Hours Unit Costs Calculated CostsSCE Contractor Material OtherEst. CPR Unit Rate Labor Labor Material Other Labor Labor Special/Bulk Direct Costs TotalCode Unit Description Qty. Unit hrs/qty. Hours $/hr $/qty. $/qty. L $ C $ M $ O $ $3.0 OTHER DIRECTS3.1 Project Management SupportSCE PM's PHC, PHSC and other Support 1 lt 125 125 61.00 7,600 7,600Contractor/Consulting Support 1 lt 25 25 120.00 3,000 0 0 3,000Subtotal (3.1) Project Mgmt. 150 7,600 3,000 0 0 10,6003.2 Project Controls (BP&FS Assigned directly to the Project)Assigned Cost Control (SCE) 1 lt 100 100 58.00 5,800 5,800Assigned Scheduler (Contractor) 1 lt 25 25 73.00 1,800 0 0 1,800Subtotal (3.2) Project Controls (BP&FS) 125 5,800 1,800 0 0 7,6003.3 Support from Other Departmentsnot req. QA/QC 1 lt 0 0 58.00 0 0not req. Project Administration 1 lt 0 0 58.00 0 0not req. Contract Management 1 lt 0 0 58.00 0 0not req. Station Support - Operations 1 lt 0 0 58.00 0 0not req. Station Support - Chemistry & Health Physics 1 lt 0 0 58.00 0 0not req. Station Support - Work Control, etc. 1 lt 0 0 58.00 0 0Subtotal (3.3) Support from other Departments 0 0 0 0 0 03.4 Travel, Office Supplies & ConsumablesTravel Allowance 1 trip 0 2,000 0 0 2,000 2,000Office Supplies 1 lt 500 0 500 0 500Consumables 1 lt 500 0 500 0 500Subtotal (1.3) Other Engineering Support 0 0 0 1,000 2,000 3,000Other DirectsCapital 13,000 5,000 1,000 2,000 21,000O & M (Incremental) 0 0 0 0 0O & M (Base) 0 0 0 0 0(3.0) - Other Directs Total 13,000 5,000 1,000 2,000 21,000Detail Est.~9097955.xls Page 8 of 9PRELIMINARY ESTIMATEEstimated:JAN 19, 2007 by L. W.Printed: 11/5/2007 : 11:09 AMC-8

SONGSPROJECT ESTIMATE DETAILUnit 2 HP Turbine Replacement U2C17(100% Level, Constant 2006 $)Quantity Labor Hours Unit Costs Calculated CostsSCE Contractor Material OtherEst. CPR Unit Rate Labor Labor Material Other Labor Labor Special/Bulk Direct Costs TotalCode Unit Description Qty. Unit hrs/qty. Hours $/hr $/qty. $/qty. L $ C $ M $ O $ $TOTAL DIRECT COST 540,000 2,434,000 21,612,000 2,000 24,588,0004.0 Project Contingency 40% of the total of all above costsCapital 216,000 974,000 8,645,000 1,000 9,836,000O & M (Incremental) 0 0 0 0 0O & M (Base) 0 0 0 0 0(4.0) - Project Contingency Total 216,000 974,000 8,645,000 1,000 9,836,0005.0 Common Allocation 55% 45%Capital 10.0% of total direct costs & contingency 1,893,000 0 0 1,549,000 3,442,000O & M (Incremental) 0.0% of total direct costs & contingency 0 0 0 0 0O & M (Base) 0.0% of total direct costs & contingency 0 0 0 0 0(5.0) - Common Allocation Total 1,893,000 0 0 1,549,000 3,442,000TOTAL WORK ORDER LEVEL COST 2,649,000 3,408,000 30,257,000 1,552,000 37,866,0006.0 Corporate OverheadsPayroll Adders 41.0% of SCE Labor Costs (L$)Corporate A&G (Excl. AFUDC) 5.0% of Total Costs (applies to Capital Costs only)Capital 1,273,000 170,000 1,513,000 78,000 3,034,000O & M (Incremental) 0 0 0 0 0O & M (Base) 0 0 0 0 0(6.0) - Corporate Overheads Total 1,273,000 170,000 1,513,000 78,000 3,034,000TOTAL PROJECT COST (100% Level, Constant 2006 $) 3,922,000 3,578,000 31,770,000 1,630,000 40,900,000Detail Est.~9097955.xls Page 9 of 9PRELIMINARY ESTIMATEEstimated:JAN 19, 2007 by L. W.Printed: 11/5/2007 : 11:09 AMC-9