20150916AVU to Staff 129.doc

AVISTA CORPORATION
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR INFORMATION

JURISDICTION: IDAHO DATE PREPARED: 09/11/2015
CASE NO.: AVU-E-15-05/AVU-G-15-01 WITNESS: Jim Kensok
REQUESTER: IPUC RESPONDER: Larry La Bolle
TYPE: Production Request DEPARTMENT: State & Federal Regulation
REQUEST NO.: Staff – 129 TELEPHONE: [phone]

REQUEST:

Avista’s Project Compass Revised Timeline and Budget forecasts Idaho’s costs for the revised Project Compass implementation plan as $17.927 million. See Exhibit No. 10, Schedule 2, pp. 11-12. Please provide a detailed description of actual Idaho costs associated with the revised Project Compass implementation plan.

RESPONSE:

Given that the functionality of Project Compass provides support to operations for all services in each of the Company’s jurisdictions, the portion of the Project Compass implementation costs allocated to Idaho is based upon the common service, common jurisdiction (CD AA) allocation factor. The current Idaho-share of the CD AA allocation factor in effect at the filing of this case is 22.967% for Idaho Electric and 5.776% for Idaho Natural Gas. Accordingly, the Idaho costs of the overall implementation budget, including the subject budget revisions, are determined on this allocation basis.

The implementation activities that were associated with the Project timeline and budget revisions (description of the costs) are described in Exhibit No. 10 Schedule 2 (e.g. coding, configuration, testing, defect management, data conversion, etc.). More detailed information pertaining to the activities of each of the contract companies supporting the Project, which includes the period of the subject timeline and budget revisions, is provided in Avista’s response to Staff_PR_096C. Since Avista labor was not tracked by the individual activity accomplished, we are providing, as Staff_PR_129 Attachment A, a list of the key implementation activities that were undertaken by Company employees through the course of the Project, which includes the subject timeline and budget revisions. In many instances, such as the development of integrations, for example, Avista employees were assigned tasks that were integrated with, and complimentary to, the assigned activities of the contract companies who also had responsibility for deliverables supporting the same objective. In addition to key activities, this list also includes the principal phases of implementation for each application, CC&B and Maximo.

Page 1 of 1