Clean up exploded assets and rate base tags

[e-belfer]

Based on a first round of feedback, let's address some outstanding issues with the exploded assets and rate tags.

#2894:

• Remove rate base tag from allowances factoid in income_statement_ferc1
• And add it to allowance_inventory_and_withheld ?
• Add dbf2020 information to depreciation_amortization_summary_ferc1
• less_derivative_instrument_assets_hedges_long_term should be connected to row 66
• less_derivative_instrument_assets_long_term should be connected to row 64
• less_noncurrent_portion_of_allowances should be connected to row 53
• less_long_term_portion_of_derivative_instrument_liabilities should be connected to row 51
• less_long_term_portion_of_derivative_instrument_liabilities_hedges should be connected to row 53
• other_miscellaneous_operating_revenues needs a DBF 2020 row (25?)
• check that special_funds_all = special_funds + other_special_funds calc in balance_sheet_assets_ferc1 is not dropped, or add if missing
• check that preliminary_natural_gas_and_other_survey_and_investigation_charges = preliminary_natural_gas_survey_and_investigation_charges + other_preliminary_survey_and_investigation_charges (+ maybe preliminary_survey_and_investigation_charges) calc in balance_sheet_assets_ferc1 is not dropped, or add if missing
• check that nuclear_fuel calc (see rows 7-13) in balance_sheet_assets_ferc1 is not dropped, or add if missing
• check that accumulated_deferred_income_taxes = accumulated_deferred_income_taxes_accelerated_amortization_property + accumulated_deferred_income_taxes_other_property + accumulated_deferred_income_taxes_other calc in balance_sheet_liabilities_ferc1 is not dropped, or add if missing
• plant_in_service_ferc1 should generally be plant_status = in_service, except for electric_plant_purchased and electric_plant_sold
• balance_sheet_assets_ferc1 table doesn’t have utility_type labeled
• Fix plant_function in out_ferc1__explosion_tags
• Add utility_type to balance sheet liabilities and retained earnings tables
• Fix tags to remove partial conflicting tags and tag at the plant_status level for accumulated_depreciation and accumulated_provision_for_depreciation_amortization_and_depletion_of_plant_utility children
• Add plant_status tags to all tables missing (utility_plant_summary_ferc1) and set up tagging infrastructure to handle >1 csv

#2916

• label plant_in_service_ferc1 plant_function
• label electric_operating_expenses_ferc1 plant_function

#2918

• Add dbf2020 information to electric_plant_depreciation_functional_ferc1

Still to do:

• electric_plant_sold and electric_plant_purchased are getting marked with utility_type in_service
• Plant function tags not propagating as expected in forest as table

Out of scope

• Clean up the new cruft from Run 2021 FERC 1 data through new, more complete extractor #2810

[e-belfer]

The four missing calcs can be explained by DBF-only factoids used up through 2003, which were later replaced by multiple more detailed factoids. See #2700 for more detail.

[cmgosnell]

hey @jrea-rmi ! one hopefully simple question... for the utility_plant_summary_ferc1 labeling of the plant_status-es, they should be labeled within the headers that are in the taxonomy/form itself? As in the field labeled "Leased to Others" in the "In Service" section should be labeled in_service not leased, right?

update!

i was looking at the taxonomy incorrectly! the "Leased to Others" is not nested under "In Service" so I think it is more clear than I originally thought. But secondary question: how should construction work in progress be labeled?/ how do you want these guys to be labeled:

I'm assuming utility_plant_net & accumulated_provision_for_depreciation_amortization_and_depletion_of_plant_utility should be "plant_status"=="total" bc they are the big sums.

[cmgosnell]

also i was a little too hopelessly optimistic yesterday about adding the `plant_status's into the core db tables when they are not a part of the natural pk! The sticking point here is that when we check the calculations, we use the dimension columns as merge keys, which effectively means dimensions on the parent and child side of a calculation need to be either the same value or be null. (i believe!)

which means we add em as tags!

[jrea-rmi]

phew, I was confused by "Leased to Others" within "In Service." Generally, the plant_status coming from this table has been maybe the most confusing thing to me in all of FERC data.

I think utility_plant_net = utility_plant_and_construction_work_in_progress - accumulated_provision_for_depreciation_amortization_and_depletion_of_plant_utility . And that it'd make sense for all of those to be labeled as "plant_status"=="total".

I think construction_work_in_progress should get the same plant_status label of construction_work_in_progress. Do you have any alternative ideas?

[e-belfer]

I think construction_work_in_progress should get the same plant_status label of construction_work_in_progress. Do you have any alternative ideas?

Assuming you mean utility_plant_and_construction_work_in_progress and construction_work_in_progress should both get the same label? I agree. The other total labellings suggested all make sense to me @jrea-rmi and I can update them.

[jrea-rmi]

I think construction_work_in_progress should get the same plant_status label of construction_work_in_progress. Do you have any alternative ideas?

Assuming you mean utility_plant_and_construction_work_in_progress and construction_work_in_progress should both get the same label? I agree. The other total labellings suggested all make sense to me @jrea-rmi and I can update them.

I'm thinking utility_plant_and_construction_work_in_progress with plant_status=="total" and construction_work_in_progress with plant_status=="construction_work_in_progress"

[cmgosnell]

I think this one is fully closable but @e-belfer if you have an objections to that plz just reopen