20230503AVU to Staff 116-124.pdf

AVISTA CORPORATION RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR INFORMATION

JURISDICTION: IDAHO DATE PREPARED: 05/03/2023 CASE NO: AVU-E-23-01 / AVU-G-23-01 WITNESS: Josh DiLuciano REQUESTER: IPUC RESPONDER: Glenn Madden TYPE: Production Request DEPARTMENT: Electrical Engineering
REQUEST NO.: Staff-116 TELEPHONE: [phone] REQUEST:
Please provide the following documentation for the Substation - Station Rebuilds Program projects referenced by BCJN_24 of Diluciano's Exhibit No. 9, Schedule 3. If any of the information requested below cannot be provided or is not available, please explain why, and explain how the Company ensured the construction of these projects was completed at least cost.
a. Analysis of Need - a justification of need for the project and a cost/benefit analysis
comparing alternatives. b. Project Plan i. Initial project scope. ii. Proposed budget.
iii. Proposed schedule.
c. Requests for proposals ("RFP") i. Project requirements. ii. Specifications. iii. Short list bidder scorecard.
iv. RFP from winning bid. d. Project construction documentation including: i. Construction contract. ii. Organizational chart.
iii. Scope document.
iv. Work breakdown structure. v. Baseline Schedule. vi. Monthly project status report(s). vii. Action items list(s).
viii. Contractors change order request(s). e. Company project completion analysis: i. Lessons learned. ii. Budget-to-actual comparisons for overall project and by year. iii. Baseline schedule-to-actual schedule comparison.
iv. For any actual costs differing from the budget amount by plus or minus five percent during a particular year, please list and explain the reason(s) for the budget amount difference. RESPONSE:
a. – e. The attachments provided in this response are documents included to provide a sample of the project documentation developed by the project team to support this project’s decision making and oversight of the projects under this Business Case.
The Substation – Station Rebuild Program encompasses several projects which are all scoped with
the intention of maintaining safe and reliable operation of Avista’s transmission and distribution
RECEIVED
2023 May 3, 5:44PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION
system. The business case narrative provided in BCJN_24 of Diluciano’s Exhibit No. 9, Schedule 3 discusses the alternatives of reduced funding for the program. Replacing station apparatus and
equipment as needed due to asset condition and consideration of broader station rebuilds when
most assets in the impacted area of a station have been determined to have reached their end of life will mitigate the frequency and duration of outages due to substation equipment failure. Two of the largest and most representative projects of the Substation – Station Rebuilds Program
are the Sunset Substation Rebuild and the Metro Substation Rebuild. The Sunset Substation Project is in the last stages of construction, with final energization late Spring 2023. This project is a typical Avista substation consisting of two distribution transformers.
• The Sunset Substation Scoping document (PR116 Attachment A – Sunset Scoping Memo) provides a project overview, design work breakdown, and technical scope.
• The project charter (PR116 Attachment B – Sunset Project Charter) gives the overview of the project scope, schedule, and budget.
• The project budget (PR116 Attachment C – Sunset Sub Budget), change log (PR116 Attachment D – Sunset Sub Change Log), and schedule (PR116 Attachment E – Sunset Sub Schedule) are also included.
• Finally, two monthly project reports (PR116 Attachment F – Sunset Sub Monthly Reports)
and the project management plan (PR116 Attachment G – Sunset Sub PMP) are examples of how the project is governed. The Metro Substation project involves building a new substation a few blocks from the old station.
• This project is outlined in the scoping memo (PR116 Attachment F – Metro Sub Scoping Memo).
• The Metro Substation Project is currently in the beginning stages of construction. The Request for Proposal (PR116 Attachment G – Metro Sub Wall RFP Documents) for the
substation wall are currently out for bid and bids are due back in the next month.
• The documentation for the project also includes the project charter (PR116 Attachment H – Metro Sub Project Charter), project budget (PR116 Attachment I – Metro Sub Budget),
change log (PR116 Attachment J – Metro Sub Change Log), schedule (PR116 Attachment
K – Metro Sub Schedule).
• Examples of monthly reports are provided with PR116 Attachment L – Metro Sub Monthly Reports.
See also Avista’s response to Staff_PR_094.
AVISTA CORPORATION RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR INFORMATION

JURISDICTION: IDAHO DATE PREPARED: 05/03/2023 CASE NO: AVU-E-23-01 / AVU-G-23-01 WITNESS: Josh DiLuciano REQUESTER: IPUC RESPONDER: Ken Sweigart TYPE: Production Request DEPARTMENT: Transmission Design
REQUEST NO.: Staff-117 TELEPHONE: [phone] REQUEST 117: Please provide the following documentation for the Transmission - Minor Rebuild projects
referenced by BCJN_25 of DiLuciano's Exhibit No. 9, Schedule 3. If any of the information requested below cannot be provided or is not available, please explain why, and explain how the Company ensured the construction of these projects was completed at least cost. a. Analysis of Need - a justification of need for the project and a cost/benefit
analysis comparing alternatives.
b. Project Plan i. Initial project scope. ii. Proposed budget. iii. Proposed schedule.
c. Requests for proposals ("RFP")
i. Project requirements. ii. Specifications. iii. Short list bidder scorecard. iv. RFP from winning bid.
d. Project construction documentation including: i. Construction contract. ii. Organizational chart. iii. Scope document.
iv. Work breakdown structure.
v. Baseline Schedule. vi. Monthly project status report(s). vii. Action items list(s). viii. Contractors change order request(s).
e. Company project completion analysis i. Lessons learned. ii. Budget-to-actual comparisons for overall project and by year. iii. Baseline schedule-to-actual schedule comparison. iv. For any actual costs differing from the budget amount by plus or minus five
percent during a particular year, please list and explain the reason(s) for the budget amount difference. RESPONSE: Please see Avista's response Staff_PR_117C, which contains TRADE SECRET,
PROPRIETARY or CONFIDENTIAL information and exempt from public view and is separately filed under IDAPA 31.01.01, Rule 067 and 233, and Section 9-340D, Idaho Code. a. Please see the BCJN 25 for Transmission Minor Rebuilds in Company witness Mr.
DiLuciano’s Testimony, Exhibit No. 9, Schedule 3 for a full description of the need for this
work.
b. Project Plan:
i. The work done under Transmission Minor Rebuild is driven by maintaining
compliance with North American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC)
reliability standards. This business case covers corrective work to remedy system performance deficiencies found during annual inspection. Throughout the entire transmission system, minor rebuilds, or replacement of asset units need to be completed to maintain system reliability and safety in accordance with NERC
standards.
ii. The yearly start-of-year program budget (spend) amounts are shown below.
Electric Transmission Minor Rebuild Budgets
iii. This work is of an ongoing nature annually addressing deficiencies of assets on our transmission system through the completion of many smaller project.
Staff-PR-117 Attachments B1-B2 present a schedule of this work for the period of
2022 through March 2023.
c. Requests for Proposals (“RFP”):
Transmission Minor Rebuild work is typically performed by in house crews, as such RFP’s
are not normally performed for this type of work. In the 2022 Budget Year the
Beacon-Ninth & Central #1 Rebuild at SCAFCO was contracted due to in-house construction resources being unavailable for the available outage window. The RFP Bid documents requested in parts i through iv can be found under Staff-PR-117 Attachments C1-C2.
d. Project construction documentation:
As stated above, this work is typically performed by in-house crews. For in-house work, schedules are established according to available system outage windows. Because system outage windows are interdependent, these small size projects rarely are completed outside the pre-established schedule. Work documents are transferred to in-house crews via a Job
Packet. Job length is typically such that monthly status reports are not generated. Project
Engineers are in constant communication with crews to address any Action Items that may be identified. No Change Orders are generated. In the 2022 budget year the Beacon-Ninth & Central #1 Rebuild at SCAFCO was contracted due to in-house construction resources being unavailable for the available outage window. The construction documentation
requested in parts i through viii can be found under Staff-PR-117 Attachments D1-D4.
e. Company project completion analysis:
As this business case addresses jobs and repairs on our transmission system that are typically small and unplanned, an annual budget is set each year, however it is frequently increased throughout the year when the need occurs. Historical spend is used to assist with
determining the annual budgeted amount however it is typically set lower than historical spend. Costs for unplanned minor rebuild work have increased over the years due to assets on the transmission system are past their end-of-life cycle and contributing to this increase. Throughout the entire transmission system, minor rebuilds, or replacement of asset units need to be completed to maintain system reliability and safety. This budget is monitored
and discussed during a regularly scheduled monthly meeting with the Director.

Job estimates for the projects funded by this program are not tracked on an individual basis
as projects are typically small and unplanned. This budget is monitored via a monthly
Expected Spend reconciliation process. See attached Staff-PR-117 Attachments E1-E2 Transmission Expected Spend spreadsheets for 2022 through March 2023. Actual yearly program costs (spend) are shown below.
Electric Transmission Minor Rebuild Actuals

See also Avista’s response to Staff_PR_094.
AVISTA CORPORATION RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR INFORMATION

JURISDICTION: IDAHO DATE PREPARED: 04/25/2023 CASE NO: AVU-E-23-01 / AVU-G-23-01 WITNESS: Ken Sweigart REQUESTER: IPUC RESPONDER: Ken Sweigart TYPE: Production Request DEPARTMENT: Transmission Design
REQUEST NO.: Staff-118 TELEPHONE: [phone] REQUEST:
Please provide the following documentation for the Transmission Major Rebuild - Asset Condition projects referenced by BCJN 26 of DiLuciano's Exhibit No. 9, Schedule 3. If any of the information requested below cannot be provided or is not available, please explain why, and explain how the Company ensured the construction of these projects was completed at least cost.
a. Analysis of Need - a justification of need for the project and a cost/benefit analysis
comparing alternatives. b. Project Plan i. Initial project scope. ii. Proposed budget.
iii. Proposed schedule.
c. Requests for proposals ("RFP") i. Project requirements. ii. Specifications. iii. Short list bidder scorecard.
iv. RFP from winning bid. d. Project construction documentation including: i. Construction contract. ii. Organizational chart.
iii. Scope document.
iv. Work breakdown structure. v. Baseline Schedule. vi. Monthly project status report(s). vii. Action items list(s).
viii. Contractors change order request(s). e. Company project completion analysis i. Lessons learned. ii. Budget-to-actual comparisons for overall project and by year. iii. Baseline schedule-to-actual schedule comparison.
iv. For any actual costs differing from the budget amount by plus or minus five percent during a particular year, please list and explain the reason(s) for the budget amount difference. RESPONSE: Please see Avista's response Staff_PR_118C, which contains TRADE SECRET, PROPRIETARY or CONFIDENTIAL information and exempt from public view and is separately filed under IDAPA 31.01.01, Rule 067 and 233, and Section 9-340D, Idaho Code.

This Business Case represents a program which contains multiple projects. Two projects, Lolo-Oxbow 230kV Phase 1 and Hatwai-Moscow 230kV, have been selected to provide
representation of the type of documentation and oversight which occurs for the projects within this
program. Lolo-Oxbow 230kV Phase 1 a. Please see Staff-PR-118 Attachment 2596A for the project Design Scoping Document
which outlines the history, project overview, cost estimate and schedule. For the full program overview, please refer to the Transmission Major Rebuild - Asset Condition Business Case Justification Narrative provided in Mr. DiLuciano's Exhibit No. 9, Schedule 3.
b. Project Plan:
i. The work done under Transmission Major Rebuilds – Asset Condition is driven by rebuild existing transmission lines based on overall asset condition. “Condition” is measured by useful life or the number of condition-related outages. Factors such as operational issues, ease of access during outages, and need to add automation or communications equipment may be included in the type of spending in this
category. Replacing old and worn-out poles and cross-arms and other associated transmission equipment, help guard against increasing risk for more failures and outages. Transmission outages can have significant consequences, as they tend to impact a large number of customers and have the potential to start fires in dry areas.
In addition to reliability issues, failure to properly invest builds a bow-wave of
needed investments in the future, thus this program is crucial to maintaining operations. When facilities reach an age when it is close to or at the end of its useful life.
ii. The proposed budget for Phase 1 was $11,070,000 (see Staff-PR-118 Attachment
2596B2P1) for the 2020/2021-time frame.
The proposed budget for Phase 2 was $4,190,000 (see Staff-PR-118 Attachment 2596B2P2) for the 2021/2022-time frame.
iii. For the Phase 1 schedule see Staff-PR-118 Attachments B3A and B3B.
For the Phase 2 schedule see Staff-PR-118 Attachments B3B and B3C.
c. Requests for Proposals (“RFP”):
The Phase 1 RFP Bid documents requested in parts i through iv can be found under Staff-PR-118 Attachments 2596C1P1-2057C2P1.
The Phase 2 RFP Bid documents requested in parts i through iv can be found under
Staff-PR-1178 Attachments 2596C1P2-2596C2P2.
d. Project construction documentation including:
The Phase 1 construction documentation requested in parts i through viii can be found under Staff-PR-118 Attachments 2596D1P1-2596D4-P1.
The Phase 2 construction documentation requested in parts i through viii can be found
under Staff-PR-118 Attachments 2596D1P2-2596D3P2.
e. Company project completion analysis:
See attached Staff-PR-118 Attachments E1-E3 for 2020, 2021, and 2022 Transmission Expected Spend spreadsheets.
The Actual Spend for Phase 1 was $11,035,866.
The Actual Spend for Phase 2 was $3,677,781.

Hatwai-Moscow 230kV
a. Please see Staff-PR-118 Attachment 2629A for the project Design Scoping Document.
b. Project Plan:
i. The work done under Transmission Major Rebuilds – Asset Condition is driven by
rebuild existing transmission lines based on overall asset condition. “Condition” is measured by useful life or the number of condition-related outages. Factors such as operational issues, ease of access during outages, and need to add automation or communications equipment may be included in the type of spending in this category. Replacing old and worn-out poles and cross-arms and other associated
transmission equipment, help guard against increasing risk for more failures and outages. Transmission outages can have significant consequences, as they tend to impact a large number of customers and have the potential to start fires in dry areas. In addition to reliability issues, failure to properly invest builds a bow-wave of needed investments in the future, thus this program is crucial to maintaining
operations. When facilities reach an age when it is close to or at the end of its useful life.
ii. The proposed budget for HAT-M23 230kV was $9,714,929 (see Staff-PR-118 Attachment 2629B2).
iii. For the schedule see Staff-PR-118 Attachments B3C and B3D.
c. Requests for Proposals (“RFP”):
The RFP Bid documents requested in parts i through iv can be found under Staff-PR-118 Attachments 2629C1-2629C2.
d. Project construction documentation including:
The construction documentation requested in parts i through viii can be found under
Staff-PR-118 Attachments 2629D1-2629D7.
e. Company project completion analysis:
See attached Staff-PR-118 Attachments E3-E4 for 2022 and 2023 (through March) Transmission Expected Spend spreadsheets.
The Actual Spend for Hat-M23 was $9,719,775 through mid-April 2023. Some trailing
charges are expected to slightly increase this amount.

See also Avista’s response to Staff_PR_094.

AVISTA CORPORATION RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR INFORMATION

JURISDICTION: IDAHO DATE PREPARED: 05/03/2023 CASE NO: AVU-E-23-01 / AVU-G-23-01 WITNESS: David Howell REQUESTER: IPUC RESPONDER: David Howell TYPE: Production Request DEPARTMENT: Electric Operations
REQUEST NO.: Staff-119 TELEPHONE: [phone] REQUEST: Please provide the following documentation for the Electric Storm projects referenced by
BCJN_04 of Diluciano's Exhibit No. 9, Schedule 3. If any of the Information requested below cannot be provided or is not available, please explain why, and explain how the Company ensured the construction of these projects was completed at least cost.
a. Analysis of Need - a justification of need for the project and a cost/benefit
analysis comparing alternatives. b. Project Plan i. Initial project scope.
ii. Proposed budget.
iii. Proposed schedule. c. Requests for proposals ("RFP") i. Project requirements. ii. Specifications.
iii. Short list bidder scorecard. iv. RFP from winning bid. d. Project construction documentation including: i. Construction contract.
ii. Organizational chart.
iii. Scope document. e. Company project completion analysis i. Lessons learned. ii. Budget-to-actual comparisons for overall project and by year.
iii. Baseline schedule-to-actual schedule comparison. iv. For any actual costs differing from the budget amount by plus or minus five percent during a particular year, please list and explain the reason(s) for the budget amount difference.
RESPONSE: See also Avista’s response to Staff_DR_094. The Electric Storm Business Case was one of the business cases discussed while Commission Staff was on-site the week of April 24, 2023 through April 27, 2023.
a. Analysis of Need: The Electric Storm Business Case is focused on restoring Avista’s transmission, substation, and distribution systems (damaged plant) into serviceable condition during and immediately following a weather storm event or other natural disaster where assets are damaged. These storm events are random and often occur with short
notice. This Business Case is to fund a rapid response to unexpected damages and outages,
so customer outages are minimized. The Business Case provides funds for replacing poles,
cross arms, conductor, transformers, and all other defined retirement units damaged during weather storm events. The damage can be due to high winds, heavy ice and snow loads,
lightning strikes, flooding, or wildfires as an example. The importance of quickly replacing
damaged facilities is vital to providing reliable service to our customers. This impacts customers in both Washington and Idaho. b. Project Plan
i. Initial project scope.
 As noted in part a. above, the Electric Storm Business Case is focused on restoring Avista’s transmission, substation, and distribution systems (damaged plant) into serviceable condition during and immediately following a weather storm event or other natural disasters where assets are
damaged. These events are random and often occur with short notice. This business case funds a rapid response to unexpected damages, so customer outages are minimized. The business case provides funds for replacing poles, cross arms, conductor, transformers, and other defined retirement
units damaged during storm events. The damage can be due to high winds,
heavy ice and snow loads, lightning strikes, flooding, or wildfires. The importance of quickly replacing damaged facilities is vital to providing reliable service to our customers. ii. Proposed budget.
 The annual budget amount is determined based on the historical average
rate of capital restoration work including restoration activity related to Major Event Days (MED’s) of relativity minor restoration impact (assuming 2-3 MEDs). Request excludes costs related to very large major event days (MEDs). Illustration No. 1 below that provides actual spend and
the associated 3-year average for 2020-2022, relative to the 2022 budget. Illustration No. 2 shows MEDs for the period January 2018 through December 2022.
Illustration No. 1: Electric Storm 3-Year Average Spend vs Budget 2020-2022

Illustration No. 2: Major Event Days (MEDs) for 2018-2022

iii. Proposed schedule
 The work that gets completed under the Electric Storm Business Case is
reactionary, not planned. Due to the unpredictability of the work, it is not feasible to have a schedule in place. However, knowing that the majority of our storms happen in the colder months, we are able to be prepared for the potential of storms during those times.
c. Requests for proposals ("RFP"): The Company uses internal crews to responds to most storm related incidents. When external resources are required, we first utilize contractors with established pricing and bid sheets that have been historically bid and/or mutual assistance or resources; in which we utilize their negotiated contract labor wages. Mutual
aid is a contracted agreement through the Western Energy Alliance that manages WRMAG
(Western Region Mutual Assistance Group). d. This is not fully applicable. Avista completes restoration consistent with our engineering standards and material requirements. Response to major events is coordinated through an
Emergency Operating Plan (EOP) structure to ensure the timely response of all customers experiencing an outage during extreme weather events. e. The Company will supplement this portion of the response as soon as available.
AVISTA CORPORATION RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR INFORMATION

JURISDICTION: IDAHO DATE PREPARED: 05/03/2023 CASE NO: AVU-E-23-01 / AVU-G-23-01 WITNESS: Josh DiLuciano REQUESTER: IPUC RESPONDER: Robb Raymond TYPE: Production Request DEPARTMENT: Asset Maintenance
REQUEST NO.: Staff-120 TELEPHONE: [phone] REQUEST: Please provide the following documentation for the Distribution Grid Modernization projects referenced by BCJN_06 of Diluciano's Exhibit No. 9, Schedule 3. If any of the information
requested below cannot be provided or is not available, please explain why, and explain how the Company ensured the construction of these projects was completed at least cost. a. Analysis of Need – a justification of need for the project and a cost/benefit analysis comparing
alternatives.
b. Project Plan i. Initial project scope ii. Proposed budget iii. Proposed schedule.
c. Requests for proposals ("RFP")
i. Project requirements. ii. Specifications. iii. Short list bidder scorecard. iv. RFP from winning bid.
d. Project construction documentation including: i. Construction contract. ii. Organizational chart. iii. Scope document.
iv. Work breakdown structure.
v. Baseline Schedule. vi. Monthly project status report(s). e. Company project completion analysis i. Lessons learned.
ii. Budget-to-actual comparisons for overall project and by year. iii. Baseline schedule-to-actual schedule comparison. iv. For any actual costs differing from the budget amount by plus or minus five percent during a particular year, please list and explain the reason(s) for the budget amount difference.
RESPONSE:
Please see Avista’s response 120C, which contains TRADE SECRET, PROPRIETARY or CONFIDENTIAL information and are filed separately under IDAPA 31.01.01, Rule 067 and 233, and Section 9-340D, Idaho Code. See also Avista’s response to Staff_PR_094.
a. Analysis of Need - a justification of need for the project and a cost/benefit analysis comparing alternatives. Please see the Business Case Justification Narrative (BCJN) for Distribution Grid Modernization in Company witness Mr. Diluciano's Exhibit No. 9, Schedule 3 for a full description of the need for this work.
b. Project Plan The 2023 through 2026 plan addresses approximately 30 circuit miles on the following feeders:
Feeder Name State
Beacon BEA12F2 WA
Moscow M15 514 ID
Mission MIS431 ID
Spokane Industrial Park SIP12F4 WA
Orofino ORO1282 ID
Ross Park ROS12F4 WA
i. Initial project scope The Grid Modernization program assesses feeder improvements in a holistic fashion by
analyzing each feeder by key attributes in three categories:
• Performance: Thermal utilization, efficiency, voltage regulation, reliability performance (MAIFI, CAIDI), power factor, FDR imbalance.
• Health: Age, OH/UG ratio, pole rejection rate, reliability health (CEMI3, SAIFI).
• Criticality: Essential services, commercial account density, customer density, load density.

Using the information that the Feeder Status Report provides, each feeder is prioritized by a combined score assessing the three categories and selected to maintain a balance between work done in Washington and Idaho. This information is used to form the 5-year program level plan and resulting forecasted cost plan.

Once a feeder is selected based on prioritization at the program level, a project is created per feeder, which allows for an appropriate level of visibility and project management.

For each Grid Modernization feeder project, scoping begins by a distribution engineer performing an analysis on the entire circuit and drafting a Feeder Baseline Report. This report determines what work is needed to make the feeder most efficient and to bring the feeder up to current standards to improve operation, safety, and support future
loads. Once this work is identified, it is defined further during the design phase using
the Distribution Feeder Maintenance Plan (DFMP).
• The DFMP can be found in the Attachment:
DR-120 Attachment GM Section (b-i) DFMP System Wide October 2018.pdf

• The 2023-2027 Grid Modernization Program plan specifies modernizing two feeders in Idaho, which are Moscow (M15 514) and Orofino (ORO1282). The feeder scope analysis reports have been provided as attachments:
DR-120 Attachment GM Section (b-i) ORO1282 Scope Analysis Report.pdf
DR-120 Attachment GM Section (b-i) M15 514 Feeder Scope Analysis.pdf ii. Proposed budget
The Program’s Cost Baseline and Cost Management Plan, DR-120 Attachment GM
Section (b-iii) 04 Cost Baseline and Management Plan -Grid Mod 2023-2027.pdf, outlines the methods for establishing and managing the budget of the program. Table No. 1 below is the baseline 2023-2027 budget.
Table No. 1: Baseline 2023-2027 Budget
Feeder Miles to Modernize 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2023-2026 Total Funds
BEA12F2 Grid Modernization 10.41 $2,500,000 $2,500,000
M15 514 Grid Modernization 2.5 $500,000 $500,000
MIS431 Grid Modernization 5.2 $1,500,000 $1,500,000
SIP12F4 Grid Modernization 7.6 $2,800,000 $2,800,000
ORO1282 Grid Modernization 7.3 $2,100,000 $2,100,000
ROS12F4 Grid Modernization 6.1 $2,000,000 $2,000,000
39 $2,500,000 $2,000,000 $2,800,000 $2,100,000 $2,000,000 $11,400,000
iii. Proposed schedule.
The Schedule Baseline and Management plan that accompanies the BCJN for 2023-2027 has been provided in the document DR-120 Attachment GM Section (B-iii) 08 Schedule Baseline and Management Plan -Grid Mod 2023-2027.pdf. This document outlines the process for establishing and managing the Program’s
schedule each year based on the approved budget. Performance relative to baseline is also tracked in this document. c. Requests for proposals ("RFP")
i. Project requirements.
Project requirements are outlined in the Statements of Work (SOW), DR-120
Attachment GH Section (c-i) 2019 Grid Mod SOW_FINAL 2.18.19.pdf . Note, the SOW has been utilized for Grid Modernization work in 2021, 2022, and 2023
though it references specific feeders the year executed.
Requirements are also defined further in the job drawings that instruct crews in the field on the actions to take at each work location. Please note that the contract for 2019 was extended through 2023.
Examples of these drawings are provided in attachments:
 DR-120 Attachment GM Section (c-i) BEA12F2-1027186136-POLYGON 3.pdf
 DR-120 Attachment GM Section (c-i) BEA12F2-1027186136-POLYGON 3-SHEET 2 OF 2.pdf.
ii. Specifications. Specifications for the projects carried out by the program can be best described by the current overhead and underground construction standards, which evolve over time, and the DFMP which was referenced in subpart (b-i).
iii. Short list bidder scorecard. The construction unit bid prices for contract R-42602 can be found in the following documents:
 DR-120 Attachment GM Section (c-iii) 2019 Bid Matrix Price Sheet
CONFIDENTIAL.pdf
 DR-120 Attachment GM Section (c-iii) 2019 Bid Matrix -By Work Order -CONFIDENTIAL-.pdf
 DR-120 Attachment Section (c-iii) 2019 Bid Matrix -Common units
-CONFIDENTIAL-.pdf
Please note that the price information within this attachment is confidential and is not to be disclosed or shared.
iv. RFP from winning bid.
Two vendors were awarded Grid Modernization work for risk mitigation purposes. The following proposals are included:
 DR-120 Attachment GM Section (c-iv) ILB- 2019 Grid Mod Proposal.pdf
 DR-120 Attachment GM Section (c-iv) Wilson – Proposal.pdf
d. Project construction documentation including: i. Construction contract. The two construction contracts were implemented at the conclusion of an RFP and
bid scoring.

 DR-120 Attachment GM Section (d-i) ILB signed 2019 contract.pdf
 DR-120 Attachment GM Section (d-i) Wilson 2019 signed contract R-42612.pdf
To date, International Line Builders, Inc. (ILB) is the only contractor that has been performing construction on Grid Modernization. The following attachment is a log listing amendments that have been executed to date. DR-120 Attachment GM Section (d-i) Grid Mod ILB Contract Log.pdf
ii. Organizational chart. An organizational chart for the winning bid is not readily available due to personnel changes that the contractor makes. These changes are often communicated in advance.
iii. Scope document. Project scope relative to construction are referenced in the following documents.
 Construction Statement of Work (SOW) referenced in section (c-i) of this
document outlines responsibilities of the contractor and Avista. Note, the
SOW has been utilized for Grid Mod work in 2021, 2022, and 2023 though it references specific feeders the year executed.
 Feeder scope which summarizes the specific objectives is referenced in
Section (b-i) of this document. iv. Work breakdown structure. The work breakdown structure as it applies to the RFPs covering 2023 to 2027 can be
illustrated as actions to be taken on the different feeders being addressed by the program. Once individual feeders have been identified for work, they are divided into polygons which divide the work on a feeder into manageable chunks. The polygons include callouts directing crews on the work to be done and allow for Avista inspectors to verify that all work was completed according to the design. Polygon
design examples have been provided in section (c-i). v. Baseline Schedule. The baseline schedule is provided in Section (b-iii) above.
vi. Monthly project status report(s). Two status reports have been provided.
 DR-120 Attachment GM Section (d-vi) Grid Modernization Program Status
Report Q1 2023.pdf
 DR-120 Attachment GH Section (d-vi) Grid Modernization Program Steering Committee 2022 Year in Review.pdf

vii. Action items list(s). Three tools are utilized to Manage Grid Modernization.
 The Program Event Log is used to track major events affecting scope, schedule, budget, or safety.
 The Planner application in Microsoft TEAMS is used to manage program level
‘to-do’s.
 Microsoft Project is used to manage the construction workplan and major action items.
viii. Contractors change order request(s). The following contractor change order
requests have been provided:
 DR-120 Attachment GM Section (d-viii) Change Order 1-1 BEA12F2.pdf
 DR-120 Attachment GM Section (d-viii) Change Order 1-2 BEA12F2.pdf
 DR-120 Attachment GM Section (d-viii) Change order 1-3 BEA12F2.pdf
 DR-120 Attachment GM Section (d-viii) Change order 1-4 BEA12F2.pdf
 DR-120 Attachment GM Section (d-viii) Change order 5-1 BEA12F2.pdf e. Company project completion analysis
i. Lessons learned. Dating back to at least August of 2018, lessons learned have been shared throughout the program when a feeder’s construction has been completed. An example of this documentation can be seen in DR-120 Attachment GM Section (e-i) Lessons Learned.pdf.
For the 2023-2027 Business Case, a Lessons Learned has not been conducted yet as the Beacon feeder is not complete.
ii. Budget-to-actual comparisons for overall project and by year.
Budget-to-Actuals are recorded monthly based on the metrics used to calculate Earned Value.
2023 YTD Performance
2022 Performance
iii. Baseline schedule-to-actual schedule comparison.
Schedule performance is recorded monthly based on the metrics used to calculate Earned Value. Refer to the SPI and Schedule variance performance in Section (e-ii) above.
iv. For any actual costs differing from the budget amount by plus or minus five percent
during a particular year, please list and explain the reason(s) for the budget amount difference. -The program is within budget tolerances.
AVISTA CORPORATION RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR INFORMATION

JURISDICTION: IDAHO DATE PREPARED: 05/03/2023 CASE NO: AVU-E-23-01 / AVU-G-23-01 WITNESS: David Howell REQUESTER: IPUC RESPONDER: David Howell TYPE: Production Request DEPARTMENT: Electric Operations
REQUEST NO.: Staff-121 TELEPHONE: [phone] REQUEST: Please provide the following documentation for the Distribution Minor Rebuild projects
referenced by BCJN_07 of Diluciano's Exhibit No. 9, Schedule 3. If any of the information requested below cannot be provided or is not available, please explain why, and explain how the Company ensured the construction of these projects was completed at least cost.
a. Analysis of Need - a justification of need for the project and a cost/benefit
analysis comparing alternatives. b. Project Plan i. Initial project scope. ii. Proposed budget.
iii. Proposed schedule.
c. Requests for proposals ("RFP") i. Project requirements. ii. Specifications. iii. Short list bidder scorecard.
iv. RFP from winning bid. d. Project construction documentation including: i. Construction contract. ii. Organizational chart.
iii. Scope document.
iv. Work breakdown structure. v. Baseline Schedule. vi. Monthly project status report(s). vii. Action items list(s).
viii. Contractors change order request(s). e. Company project completion analysis i. Lessons learned. ii. Budget-to-actual comparisons for overall project and by year. iii. Baseline schedule-to-actual schedule comparison.
iv. For any actual costs differing from the budget amount by plus or minus five percent during a particular year, please list and explain the reason(s) for the budget amount difference. RESPONSE:
See also Avista’s response to Staff_DR_094. The Distribution Minor Rebuild Business Case was one of the business cases discussed while Commission Staff was on-site the week of April 24, 2023 through April 27, 2023.
a. Analysis of Need - a justification of need for the project and a cost/benefit analysis comparing alternatives.
 Distribution Minor Rebuild is an ongoing program that focuses on keeping the distribution system in a reliable and safe condition for customers and employees. It
ensures responsiveness to unplanned damages on distribution assets not related to
weather events, as well as small customer driven rebuilds. Throughout the entire distribution system, minor rebuilds or replacements of asset units are needed to maintain system reliability and safety. This work impacts customers in both Washington and Idaho. If not funded, it will impact various types of work that will
need to be absorbed into other funding due to the necessity of the work (i.e., the replacement of a car-hit pole in the alley, a broken cross-arm, a burned-up transformer, and a myriad of other safety related projects) and the ability to respond to customers’ needs for modifications to their electrical service.
 BCJN_07 of Mr. Josh Diluciano’s Exhibit No. 9, Schedule 3 has a full description
and alternatives considered. b. Project Plan i. Initial project scope.
 Distribution Minor Rebuild is an ongoing program that focuses on keeping
the distribution system in a safe and reliable condition for customers, ensuring responsiveness to unplanned damages on distribution assets such as car hit pole, broken crossarm, burned up transformer, etc. that are not related to weather events, as well as small customer driven rebuilds.
Throughout the entire distribution system, minor rebuilds or replacement of
asset units are required to be completed to maintain system reliability and safety. The work includes failed asset replacements, small mandatory or compliance driven work, smaller performance and capacity improvements, or unplanned customer requests. Occasionally, larger projects with an
identified need and short timeframe for implementation are constructed under the Distribution Minor Rebuild Business Case.
 The work that is completed under the Minor Rebuild case is tracked and divided into six unique categories:
 Customer Requested Rebuilds – Work is initiated by an existing
customer or property owner. The costs associated with the work are typically reimbursed by the requesting party. Examples include, but are not limited to: customer requested reroute, overhead to underground line conversion, or customer load increase.
 Trouble Related Rebuilds – Emergency work required to repair
damaged facilities caused by non-storm and non-fire related outages. Activities include a car hit pole, car-hit Padmount enclosure, copper theft, or unforeseen failed equipment that needs immediate response.
 NESC / Operating Standard Violations – Activities include, but
are not limited to, NESC violations (not related to Joint Use clearances), secondary/service-related voltage mitigation, fusing protection mitigation, aerial trespass, and undersized equipment (transformers, regulators, etc.).
 Asset Condition– Activities include, but are not limited to,
deteriorated wood poles, leaking transformers, condition related replacement (not outage related) of line devices and equipment.
 Facility Upgrades/Efficiency Improvements – Activities include, but are not limited to, small scale reconductors, small scale feeder
ties, installation of new switches or sectionalizing devices, feeder balancing, installation of new regulators, reclosers, or capacitor
banks, and removal of open wire secondary.
 Facility Route / Location Modifications – Activities include, but are not limited to, overhead to underground conversions, facility re-route, or relocation of midline devices to facilitate future maintenance and optimize sectionalization.
 Figure 1 shows the allocation of the spend from 2022 for the six general categories
above.
Figure 1 ii. Proposed budget.
 For 2023, the proposed budget is approximately $14 million. The budget
proposed is forecasted based on historical spend and expected inflation. Figure 2 shows the actual spend and the average spend over the last three years.
Figure 2
iii. Proposed schedule.
 Due to the nature of the work being mostly unplanned, there is no set
schedule. However, if/when the occasional, larger project with an identified
need and short timeframe for implementation are constructed under the Distribution Minor Rebuild, the schedule is determined based on need and crew availability. c. Requests for proposals ("RFP")
 Typically, no RFP’s are performed for this work, due to the need for immediate response, available Avista and contracted dock crews are utilized. During the 2018-present time period there is one exception, in response to the Cold Springs Fire during the summer of 2020, the transmission work on the Chelan-Stratford line required putting out an RFP
due to the large volume of work which needed completed. Please see Staff-PR-103 Attachment 2051A-F, some of which are confidential, for RFP and contract related documentation. d. Project construction documentation including:
i. Construction contract.
 If there is a very large contract, we would go out to bid. Most small projects we use internal crews or existing contractors who we have a relationship with who we already understand cost structure that has been built historically.
ii. Organizational chart.
 N/A iii. Scope document.
 N/A iv. Work breakdown structure.
 Work is broken down into the six categories that are explained above in section b. v. Baseline Schedule.
 The only jobs that have a schedule are the smaller projects that roll up into
minor rebuild. That schedule is set and monitored monthly in our work
planning meetings with the crews, project coordinators, and area engineers. vi. Monthly project status report(s).
 The status of smaller projects that roll up into minor rebuild is tracked in work planning meetings that are held monthly. As for the unplanned work
that needs immediate fixing to ensure we maintain safety and reliability of our distribution system, the status of those minor jobs are not monitored. vii. Action items list(s).
 N/A viii. Contractors change order request(s).
 Larger projects under minor rebuild get a unique project number and are charged to the overall Business Case. e. Company project completion analysis i. Lessons learned.
 Due to the nature of this Business Case where projects are typically small and unplanned for this ongoing program, a lesson learned is not conducted for individual projects. ii. Budget-to-actual comparisons for overall project and by year.
 Business Case actuals are tracked on a monthly basis during a regularly
scheduled meeting with the Electric Operations Director. The year-to-date
actuals are compared to the estimated spend forecast. Trends from previous years are taken into account.
 Figure 3 shows how year-to-date (YTD) spend is tracked against the annual
budget and previous years.
Figure 3 iii. Baseline schedule-to-actual schedule comparison.
 The Distribution Minor Rebuild addresses small scale projects (service orders/ jobs) in a response as a program which does not have a completion date. Furthermore, due to the unplanned nature of most jobs funded by this
program, there are not baseline-to-actual schedules to compare. However, YTD spend is tracked each month and compare spend progress to previous years at the same time. This allows for trends to be evaluated and determine if the program budget is above, below, or on track with what was spent at
that time in the past. See above graph. iv. For any actual costs differing from the budget amount by plus or minus five percent during a particular year, please list and explain the reason(s) for the budget amount difference.
 The overall Business Case budget is tracked on a monthly basis, where we
compare the year-to-date actuals with the spend budget. If there are any
differences, it is due to the fact that the majority of the work is unplanned and unpredictable, but must be addressed in a timely manner to ensure that we maintain the safety and reliability of our distribution systems for our
customers and employees.
 If there is a larger project that is being completed within the Distribution Minor Rebuild Business Case, a capital project request form must be completed and approved. Once that gets approved, it rolls up under the Business Case and the Project Manager is in charge of keeping track of
budget-to-actuals.

AVISTA CORPORATION RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR INFORMATION

JURISDICTION: IDAHO DATE PREPARED: 05/03/2023 CASE NO: AVU-E-23-01 / AVU-G-23-01 WITNESS: Josh DiLuciano REQUESTER: IPUC RESPONDER: Mark Gabert TYPE: Production Request DEPARTMENT: Asset Maintenance
REQUEST NO.: Staff-122 TELEPHONE: [phone]
REQUEST:
Please provide the following documentation for the Wood Pole Management projects referenced
by BCJN_09 of DiLuciano's Exhibit No. 9, Schedule 3. If any of the information requested below cannot be provided or is not available, please explain why, and explain how the Company ensured the construction of these projects was completed at least cost. a. Analysis of Need - a justification of need for the project and a cost/benefit analysis
comparing alternatives.
b. Project Plan i. Initial project scope. ii. Proposed budget. iii. Proposed schedule.
c. Requests for proposals ("RFP")
i. Project requirements. ii. Specifications. iii. Short list bidder scorecard. iv. RFP from winning bid.
d. Project construction documentation including:
i. Construction contract. ii. Organizational chart. iii. Scope document. iv. Work breakdown structure.
v. Baseline Schedule.
vi. Monthly project status report(s). vii. Action items list(s). viii. Contractors change order request(s). e. Company project completion analysis
i. Lessons learned.
ii. Budget-to-actual comparisons for overall project and by year. iii. Baseline schedule-to-actual schedule comparison. iv. For any actual costs differing from the budget amount by plus or minus five percent during a particular year, please list and explain the reason(s) for the budget
amount difference.
RESPONSE: See also Avista’s response to Staff_DR_094.
The Wood Pole Management Business Case was one of the business cases discussed while
Commission Staff was on-site the week of April 24, 2023 through April 27, 2023. The Company will supplement this response with additional information as soon as available.
1 | P a g e
AVISTA CORPORATION RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR INFORMATION

JURISDICTION: IDAHO DATE PREPARED: 05/03/2023 CASE NO: AVU-E-23-01 / AVU-G-23-01 WITNESS: Josh DiLuciano REQUESTER: IPUC RESPONDER: Cesar Godinez TYPE: Production Request DEPARTMENT: Distribution Engineering
REQUEST NO.: Staff-123 TELEPHONE: [phone] REQUEST:
Please provide the following documentation for the Distribution System Enhancement projects referenced by BCJN_10 of DiLuciano's Exhibit No. 9, Schedule 3. If any of the information requested below cannot be provided or is not available, please explain why, and explain how the Company ensured the construction of these projects was completed at least cost.

a. Analysis of Need - a justification of need for the project and a cost/benefit analysis comparing alternatives. b. Project Plan
i. Initial project scope.
ii. Proposed budget. iii. Proposed schedule. c. Requests for proposals ("RFP")
i. Project requirements. ii. Specifications. iii. Short list bidder scorecard. iv. RFP from winning bid.

d. Project construction documentation including: i. Construction contract. ii. Organizational chart. iii. Scope document.
iv. Work breakdown structure. v. Baseline Schedule. vi. Monthly project status report(s). vii. Action items list(s). viii. Contractors change order request(s).
e. Company project completion analysis i. Lessons learned. ii. Budget-to-actual comparisons for overall project and by year. iii. Baseline schedule-to-actual schedule comparison.
2 | P a g e
iv. For any actual costs differing from the budget amount by plus or minus five percent during a particular year, please list and explain the reason(s) for the budget amount
difference.
RESPONSE: See also Avista’s response to Staff_PR_094.
a. Analysis of Need This business case is driven by performance and capacity factors on our electric distribution system and not doing the worked funded through this business case would result in a failure on our part to serve load, maintain adequate reliability, or stay complaint with codes and regulations. Most of the projects completed through this business case have
been planned for several years and they’re identified by our Operations Engineers as they complete feeder analysis work that informs them of areas within the electric distribution system that are reaching capacity limits or are starting to experience other system performance issues. Other work completed through this business case is driven by observed system performance issues and lately these observed issues have come up during
extreme weather events. In these cases, our Operations Engineers will also follow up with feeder analysis work to understand the extent of the system performance issues. This helps them develop a mitigation plan, please refer to Appendix A below which is an example of one of these feeder analysis reports. In every case, our engineers develop the least costly
mitigation plan. However, these low-cost mitigation plans often only buy us time to plan
out the longer-term mitigation work needed to address system performance issues. b. Project Plan The yearly budget in this business case is allocated to each operations region according to
how many in-house crews are in that region, i.e., the more in-house crews in a region the more budget is allocated to that region. This method is used because the work in this business case is primarily completed with in-house crews as it serves to offset spend in other business cases such as our Minor Rebuild business case and our Wood Pole Management (WPM) business case. Projects are initially scoped with Project
Requirements Diagrams (PRDs) developed by our Operations Engineers. These PRDs are then provided to a designer who will create the needed job designs for the crews to complete the work. Please refer to Appendix B which is an example of a PRD. c. Request for proposal (“RFP”)
As mentioned above the work completed through this business case is primarily completed with in-house crews and thus this work rarely requires an RFP process. However, whenever there is a need to complete this work with the help of contractors, we follow the RFP process set by our Sourcing Professionals.

d. Project construction documentation The first piece of project construction documentation for the work completed in this business case is a PRD, as previously stated an example of a PRD can be found in Appendix B. These are then used to create job design packets for our crews which include
a materials list and job print. In addition, our Operations Engineers work closely with their
3 | P a g e
respective Operations Offices to incorporate this work into each offices work plan, please refer to Appendix C which contains a snapshot of one of these work plans. Once a project is
part of our planned work for the year these projects are reviewed every month in our
Distribution Engineering Expected Spend meeting. This meeting is designed to give the Distribution Engineering Manger and Operations Engineers a venue to discuss project status and project trends.
e. Company project completion analysis Projects are reviewed monthly at our expected spend meetings. There are two expected spend meetings that cover this business case, one is conducted between the Distribution Engineering Manager and the Operations Engineers, and the other is conducted between all the managers within the Electrical Engineering business unit. These monthly meetings
give us an opportunity to discuss project trends and adjust our expected spend for each project accordingly. Every month notes are provided that describe any adjustments that were made and why they were made. Lately the biggest drivers for differences in budget to actual cost have been because of increasing labor and material cost. Please refer to
Appendix D which contains a snapshot of the expected spend spreadsheet used to track our
projects in these expected spend meetings.
4 | P a g e
Appendix A
BLU321 & OGA611 – December 2022 Cold Spell
Supporting documentation for funds request.
Last Updated – 02/10/2023 by Marshall Law Summary of BLU321 System Issues Needing Immediate Follow-up BLU321 – Eliminate SOLID Doors
• There are 4 locations where we have UG/OH risers with SOLID door cutouts (for sectionalizing) that had
loading levels of about 340A, well in excess of their 300A rating. Previous to the cold snap, the highest
loading levels observed on these cutouts was 277 A (excluding those situations with cold load pickup causing
elevated short-term loading levels).
• This situation was presented to the distribution standards group, and their recommendation is to replace the cutouts at each of these locations with higher rated equipment. 600A JE3’s will be utilized at 3 of the locations, and In-line disconnects with hard jumpers will be used at the 4th location. BLU321 – Replace C952V regulator bank
• The existing 150 A voltage regulators at Neachen Bay were loaded up to 268A during the cold snap. The
winter rating with no bonus factor (these regulators were operating at boost positions greater than +8 during
the cold temperatures) is 218 A. Previous to the cold snap, the highest loading levels observed on these
regulators was 206 A (excluding those situation with cold load pickup causing elevated, short-term loading
levels).
• Replacing these regulators with 328 A regulators with communications will not only allow for the needed
capacity at this location, but also provide operational information at a key location on the BLU321, just
upstream of the Gozzer Ranch development.
Summary of OGA611 System Issues Needing Immediate Follow-up OGA611 – Replace C620V regulator bank
• The existing 150 A voltage regulators in Harrison were loaded up to about 127 A during the cold snap, which is within their amp rating. However, two of the 3 phases were operating at Boost 16 (full boost). The SynerGi model shows that areas of low voltage was being delivered to customers for portions of the feeder electrically upstream of these regulators.
• The existing location of these regulators is very congested and difficult to access. By replacing the regulator
bank, a better location can be chosen that is further electrically upstream, and will solve two issues at once (the poor access and unacceptable voltage).
• By replacing these with new 219 A regulators with communications, there will be sufficient capacity to accommodate growth on the feeder, as well as an ability to provide key operational information for this location on the OGA611 feeder, just upstream of the City of Harrison.
• Note also that the C-ph regulator has a counter read of over 633,000 steps, which would meet the criteria for replacement (as I understand it). Peak Loads Observed at various locations on BLU321 feeder BLU321 VCR 12/22/22 @ 7:31 AM A = 393 A B = 432 A C = 441 A AVE = 422 A
5 | P a g e
Midline Recloser ZC869R (Wolf Lodge Branch) 12/22/22 @ 7:31 AM A = 40 A B = 91 A C = 85 A AVE = 72 A P = 1711 kW, Q = -86 kVAR, S = 1713 kVA, PF = -99%
12/22/22 @ 6:20 PM (Actual peak time for this device) A = 38 A B = 95 A
C = 86 A AVE = 73 A
6 | P a g e
Midline Recloser ZC150R (Arrow Ranch) 12/22/22 @ 7:31 AM A = 287 A B = 338 A C = 331 A AVE = 318.7 A P = 7247 kW, Q = -135 kVAR, S = 7248 kVA, PF = -99% Midline Recloser ZC883R (Neachen Bay, near Gozzer) 12/22/22 @ 7:31 AM A = 251 A B = 251 A C = 244 A AVE = 249 A P = 6049 kW, Q = -165 kVAR, S = 6051 kVA, PF = -99% 12/22/22 @ 6:35 AM (Actual peak time for this device) A = 267 A B = 248 A C = 236 A AVE = 250 A Midline Regulator ZC953V (Turner Bay)
12/22/22 @ 7:31 AM A = 48 A
B = 41 A C = 77 A AVE = 55 A
P = 1427 kW, Q = -42 kVAR, S = 1427 kVAR, PF = 100% Overloaded fuses and cutouts
SOLID Doors at pole# 121820 near Higgens Point  Loaded to 342 A (114% of rating).

SOLID Doors at pole# 121824 near Beauty Bay  Loaded to 340 A (113% of rating).
7 | P a g e

SOLID Doors at Pole# 121821 near Moscow Bay  Loaded to 340 A (113% of rating).

8 | P a g e
SOLID Doors at Pole# 121804 near Moscow Bay  Loaded up to 340 A (113% of rating).
Other Overloaded Equipment C952V Regulators – Loaded to 268 A (123% of Rating)
These are 150A Regulators

9 | P a g e

OGA611 – Winter Peak Analysis
OGA611 Feeder Breaker (based on 1-11-2023 sub inspection)
IA = 140 A IB = 126 A
IC = 155 A
ZC613R Peak @ 12-22-22 @ 9:00 AM IA = 82 A
IB = 105 A IC = 149 A
ZC618R Peak @ 12-22-22 @ 9:00 AM
IA = 46 A IB = 35 A
IC = 67 A ZC616V Peak @ 12-22-22 @ 9:00 AM IA = 46 A
IB = 26 A IC = 40 A Harrison Regulators – The regulators appear to be within their amp rating, even when considering they are likely running at full boost during high loading periods. IA = 80 A IB = 104 A IC = 127 A Per model, step positions were: Aph  Boost 5 Bph  Boost 16 Cph  Boost 15
10 | P a g e

11 | P a g e
The midline inspection data taken after the cold snap confirms that B & C phases are going to full boost. This confirms the SynerGi model’s results that show unacceptable low voltage upstream of these regulators.

12 | P a g e
BLU321 Overview Map – Pertinent locations shown

13 | P a g e
OGA611 Overview Map – Pertinent location shown

BLU321 – Feeder Loading over last 3 years
Notes:
1) The 15 minute average amp values are shown.
2) The temperatures displayed are the maximum (or minimum) temperatures from Beacon on that day, not necessarily at the time the peak occurred.

* Indicates comm’s were lost on that day, so exact peak and time of peak are not known.

IC = 442A
12/22/202
IC = 304A
7/29/2022
IB= 349A *

IB = 287A
7/31/2021
IB= 326A
2/12/21
C

C

IA = 256A
7/31/2020
IC= 272A
3/14/2020
2
103
1

104
5

103
-8

15 | P a g e
Per Erik Lee, growth rate over last 3 years was 5.97%. If you look back over the last 5 years, it is 7.46%.

Appendix B

17 | P a g e
Appendix C

18 | P a g e
Appendix D

AVISTA CORPORATION RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR INFORMATION

JURISDICTION: IDAHO DATE PREPARED: 05/03/2023 CASE NO: AVU-E-23-01 / AVU-G-23-01 WITNESS: Josh DiLuciano REQUESTER: IPUC RESPONDER: Glenn Madden TYPE: Production Request DEPARTMENT: Electrical Engineering
REQUEST NO.: Staff-124 TELEPHONE: [phone] REQUEST:
Please provide the following documentation for the Substation - New Distribution Station Capacity Program projects referenced by BCJN_11 of Diluciano's Exhibit No. 9, Schedule 3. If any of the informationrequested below cannot be provided or is not available, please explain why, and explain how the Company ensured the construction of these projects was completed at least
cost.
a. Analysis of Need - a justification of need for the project and a cost/benefit analysis comparing alternatives. b. Project Plan i. Initial project scope.
ii. Proposed budget.
iii. Proposed schedule. c. Requests for proposals ("RFP") i. Project requirements. ii. Specifications.
iii. Short list bidder scorecard. iv. RFP from winning bid. d. Project construction documentation including: i. Construction contract.
ii. Organizational chart.
iii. Scope document. iv. Work breakdown structure. v. Baseline Schedule. vi. Monthly project status report(s).
vii. Action items list(s). viii. Contractors change order request(s). e. Company project completion analysis i. Lessons learned. ii. Budget-to-actual comparisons for overall project and by year.
iii. Baseline schedule-to-actual schedule comparison. iv. For any actual costs differing from the budget amount by plus or minus five percent during a particular year, please list and explain the reason(s) for the budget amount difference. RESPONSE: The Substation – New Distribution Station Capacity Program Business Case encompasses several projects which are all scoped with the intention of adding capacity to the system to accommodate increases in customer demands. A couple examples of projects included within the program are the
new Flint Road Substation and the Indian Trail Substation Capacity Expansion.

The first representative project in the Substation – New Distribution Station Capacity Program business case is the Flint Road New Substation Project, please refer to PR124 Attachment A for
detailed definition of the problem statement and discussion of project alternatives. This project is
in the final stages of construction and will be complete be end of Spring 2023. This project is to upgrade capacity in the area by installing two new distribution transformers, as outlined in the technical scope document (PR124 Attachment B – Flint Sub Scoping Memo). The project charter (PR124 Attachment C – Flint Sub Project Charter) outlines the project scope, schedule, and
budget. The Flint Substation Budget (PR124 Attachment D – Flint Sub Budget), monthly reports (PR124 Attachment E – Flint Sub Monthly Reports), change log (PR124 Attachment F – Flint Sub Change Log), full project schedule (PR124 Attachment G – Flint Sub Project Schedule), and the full project management plan (PR124 Attachment H – Flint Sub PMP) are included to provide a sample of the project documentation developed by the project team.
The second representative project in this program is the Indian Trail Substation Expansion. This project will add capacity to the Indian Trail Substation by installing a new distribution transformer. This project had three options to address the load growth in the area and the Indian Trail Substation
Expansion was selected as the best option, as outlined in the alternative analysis document (PR124
Attachment I – Indian Trail Substation Scoping Memo). This project is scheduled to begin in June 2024 and design will begin in earnest Summer of 2023.