HomeMy WebLinkAbout20150916AVU to staff 136.docAVISTA 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 - 136 TELEPHONE: (509) 495-4710
REQUEST:
The Company’s response to Production Request No. 91 included the following statement: “A benefit of moving a project out in time is that it frees up resources to complete other projects that may have a greater priority or more rigid implementation constraints.” Please explain what resources and costs would be required to complete the AFM COTS migration in 2016. Please provide a cost benefit analysis of deferring the project until 2017.
RESPONSE:
The Company’s response to Staff_PR_091 described in principle the factors considered in scheduling the implementation of large enterprise technology systems, but inadvertently, did not directly address the implementation schedule for the AFM COTS migration. The description of the implementation schedule for the AFM COTS migration, as provided in Mr. Kensok’s testimony, reflects the project as planned. As such, the AFM COTS migration has not been deferred to 2017.
Page 1 of 1