Add FERC1 Depreciation Changes table (Schedule 332)

[cmgosnell]

Overview

Closes #5103 .

What problem does this address?

What did you change?

Documentation

Make sure to update relevant aspects of the documentation:

• Update the release notes: reference the PR and related issues.
• Update relevant Data Source jinja templates (see docs/data_sources/templates).
• Update relevant table or source description metadata (see src/metadata).
• Review and update any other aspects of the documentation that might be affected by this PR.

Testing

How did you make sure this worked? How can a reviewer verify this?

To-do list

• If updating analyses or data processing functions: make sure to update row count expectations in dbt tests.
• Run pixi run pre-commit-run to run linters and static code analysis checks.
• Run pixi run pytest-ci locally to ensure that the merge queue will accept your PR.
• Review the PR yourself and call out any questions or issues you have.
• For PRs that change the PUDL outputs significantly, run the full ETL locally and then run the data validations using dbt. If you can't run the ETL locally then run the build-deploy-pudl GitHub Action manually and ensure that it succeeds.

[cmgosnell]

i lightly wanna rename the 219 to accumulated depreciation bc well thats what ferc calls it. but bc we have the sched### at the end we could have two changes without renaming tables willy nilly ( which ya know no one really likes )

[krivard]

oh noooooo

so we called sched 219 "yearly depreciation changes"

but now we want to add sched 336 which is actually called "depreciation changes" by ferc?

so the choices are

• have two tables with "depreciation changes", one for sched 219 and one for sched 336
• rename the old table so the names are less confusing for new users, but existing users have to change their code
• leave 219 alone and call 336 something else

i think you're right that the third one is definitely bad

but i would actually go with option 2 here? we can mea culpa the old bad naming decision in the release notes, and then we'd hew more closely to ferc terminology, which is something that comes up occasionally in the ecosystem survey as something we should fix anyway

[cmgosnell]

totally agree.. In an ideal world we would have a deprecation warning for core_ferc1__yearly_depreciation_changes_sched219 and change this to core_ferc1__yearly_accumulated_depreciation_sched219 (bc the table is called: ACCUMULATED PROVISION FOR DEPRECIATION OF ELECTRIC UTILITY PLANT (Account 108))