20230201Kensok Exhibit 11 Schedule 1.pdf

Business Case Name Page Numbe
Enterprise Technology
1 High Voltage Protection (HVP) Refresh 2
2 Technology Failed Assets 11
3 Technology Refresh to Sustain Business Process 20
4 Basic Workplace Technology Delivery 25
5 Control and Safety Network Infrastructure 35
6 Data Center Compute and Storage Systems 46
7 Digital Grid Network 56
8 Endpoint Compute and Productivity Systems 67
9 Enterprise & Control Network Infrastructure 77
10 Enterprise Communication Systems 86
11 Enterprise Network Infrastructure 97
12 Environmental Control & Monitoring Systems 108
13 ET Modernization & Operational Efficiency - Technology 120
14 Fiber Network Lease Service Replacement 132
15 Land Mobile Radio & Real Time Communication Systems 141
16 Network Backbone 152
17 Atlas 163
18 Outage Management System & Advanced Distribution Management
System (OMS & ADMS)173
19 Energy Delivery Modernization & Operational Efficiency 192
20 Energy Resources Modernization & Operational Efficiency 206
21 Financial & Accounting Technology 217
22 Human Resources Technology 228
23 Legal & Compliance Technology 241
24 CIP v5 Transition - Cyber Asset Electronic Access 252
25 Identity and Access Governance 258
26 Security Compliance 266
27 Enterprise Business Continuity 272
28 Enterprise Security 278
29 Facilities and Storage Location Security 285
30 Generation, Substation & Gas Location Security 291
31 Telecommunication & Network Distribution location Security 298
Exhibit No. 11, Schedule 1
Capital Investment Business Case Justification Narratives Index
Exhibit No. 11 Case Nos. AVU-E-23-01/AVU-G-23-01 J. Kensok, Avista
Schedule 1, Page 1 of 304
High Voltage Protection
Business Case Justification Narrative Page 1 of 9
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Under Lumen (formerly known as Century Link), Avista is required to provide high voltage
protection for leased communication circuits in high voltage areas newer than September
12, 1994. If Avista does not meet the tariff requirements, telecommunication companies
can turn off communication circuits to substations until Avista electrically isolates the
copper wire coming into a substation, thereby affecting phone, modem, SCADA
(Substation Control and Data Acquisition), and other metering and monitoring systems at
substations. This infrastructure is core to utility operations, thus demanding safe and
reliable networks. This business case will meet the needs of this tariff and ensure
investments are made to minimize risk regarding personal safety for all workers in and
around these high voltage areas.

This business case is requesting $1,500,00 over five years to remove copper wire and
install fiber optic cable to the identified substations. The cost of each solution has
historically proven symmetrical across substations, and we have been able to leverage
that data to estimate costs based on the number of sites outstanding. The risk of not
approving this business case and its funding request will result in an inability to support
the safety of personnel near high voltage equipment where unprotected communication
circuits exist. Additionally, termination of services by the telecommunications circuit
provider could occur if their HVP requirements are not met. This would impact Avista’s
ability to control and monitor our substation and transmission facilities safely and reliably.

VERSION HISTORY
Version Author Description Date Notes
1.0 Jim Ogle Initial BCJN Draft 6/2017
2.0 Shawna Kiesbuy Revision of BCJN to new template 7/2020
3.0 Shawna Kiesbuy BCJN Revision 6/2021
4.0 Shawna Kiesbuy BCJN Revision 7/2022

DocuSign Envelope ID: 09E326FD-D840-4A54-9BCD-C5C298BF3832
Exhibit No. 11 Case Nos. AVU-E-23-01/AVU-G-23-01 J. Kensok, Avista
Schedule 1, Page 2 of 304
High Voltage Protection
Business Case Justification Narrative Page 2 of 9
GENERAL INFORMATION

1. BUSINESS PROBLEM
1.1 What is the current or potential problem that is being addressed?
Under Lumen (formerly known as Century Link), Tariff FCC (Federal
Communications Commission) Number 1, Section 13.7, Avista is required to
provide high voltage protection for leased communication circuits in high voltage
areas newer than September 12, 1994. If Avista does not meet the tariff
requirements, telecommunication companies can turn off communication
circuits to substations until Avista electrically isolates the copper wire coming
into a substation, thereby affecting phone, modem, SCADA (Substation Control
and Data Acquisition), and other metering and monitoring systems at
substations. This infrastructure is core to utility operations, thus demanding safe
and reliable networks. This business case will meet the needs of this tariff and
ensure investments are made to minimize risk regarding personal safety for all
workers in and around these high voltage areas. The cost of each solution has
historically proven symmetrical across substations, and we have been able to
leverage that data to estimate costs based on the number of sites outstanding.
1.2 Discuss the major drivers of the business case (Customer Requested, Customer
Service Quality & Reliability, Mandatory & Compliance, Performance & Capacity, Asset
Condition, or Failed Plant & Operations) and the benefits to the customer.
The main driver for this business case is Mandatory and Compliance. The
technology improvements invested under this business case will provide
protection for communication circuits in high voltage areas in support of
employee and public safety, system reliability, and business productivity
throughout our service territory. Avista and its customers will experience the
benefits through ongoing attention to safety and system reliability.

Requested Spend Amount $1,500,000
Requested Spend Time Period 5 years
Requesting Organization/Department Enterprise Technology
Business Case Owner | Sponsor Shawna Kiesbuy | Jim Corder
Sponsor Organization/Department Enterprise Technology
Phase Execution
Category Mandatory
Driver Mandatory & Compliance
DocuSign Envelope ID: 09E326FD-D840-4A54-9BCD-C5C298BF3832
Exhibit No. 11 Case Nos. AVU-E-23-01/AVU-G-23-01 J. Kensok, Avista
Schedule 1, Page 3 of 304
High Voltage Protection
Business Case Justification Narrative Page 3 of 9
1.3 Identify why this work is needed now and what risks there are if not
approved or is deferred.
Avista facilities providing service to electric power generating, switching, or
distribution stations might require the use of special High Voltage Protection
(HVP) apparatuses such as isolation or neutralization devices. These devices
are to protect against the effects of Ground Potential Rise (GPR) and induction
caused by faults in a customer’s electric power system. The special protection
precautions are intended to minimize electrical hazards to personnel and
prevent electrical damage to telecommunications equipment and facilities. This
work is ongoing until all sites have been neutralized for this hazard.

The risk of not approving this business case and its funding request will result
in an inability to support the safety of personnel near high voltage equipment
where unprotected communication circuits exist. Additionally, termination of
services by the telecommunications circuit provider could occur if their HVP
requirements are not met. This would impact Avista’s ability to control and
monitor our substation and transmission facilities safely and reliably.
1.4 Identify any measures that can be used to determine whether the
investment would successfully deliver on the objectives and address the
need listed above.
The investment and work involved in implementing the projects contained in this
business case have been produced and proved successful in previous projects.
As the design standards are such that repeatable success can be achieved,
there is minimal risk of not meeting the desired protection objectives with
appropriate funding allocations and a professionally trained and skilled
workforce.
1.5 Supplemental Information
1.5.1 Please reference and summarize any studies that support the problem
Lumen (formerly known as CenturyLink), Tariff FCC Number 1, Section
13.
1.5.2 For asset replacement, include graphical or narrative representation of metrics
associated with the current condition of the asset that is proposed for
replacement.
Not applicable. This business case is aligned with Mandatory &
Compliance.

Option Capital Cost Start Complete
Recommended Solution – Replace copper
communication equipment with fiber for protection
of equipment and personnel by 2032.
$1,500,000 01/2023 12/2027
Alternative 1 – A reduction of funding which reduces
the number of projects completed to replace copper
communication equipment with fiber for protection of
$1,200,000 01/2023 12/2027
DocuSign Envelope ID: 09E326FD-D840-4A54-9BCD-C5C298BF3832
Exhibit No. 11 Case Nos. AVU-E-23-01/AVU-G-23-01 J. Kensok, Avista
Schedule 1, Page 4 of 304
High Voltage Protection
Business Case Justification Narrative Page 4 of 9
equipment and personnel by 2032.
Alternative 2 – Do not fund the program $0 01/2023 12/2027
2.1 Describe what metrics, data, analysis, or information were considered
when preparing this capital request.
Under Lumen (formerly known as CenturyLink), Tariff FCC Number 1, Section
13.7, Avista is required to provide high voltage protection for leased
communication circuits in high voltage areas newer than September 12, 1994.
At this time, 23 locations do not have the current HVP standard package
installed.
2.2 Discuss how the requested capital cost amount will be spent in the current
year (or future years if a multi-year or ongoing initiative). (i.e., what are the
expected functions, processes or deliverables that will result from the capital spend?). Include
any known or estimated reductions to O&M because of this investment.
This business case contains multi-year projects which address the business
needs listed above. Each year, with management oversight from the Program
Steering Committee, projects are sequenced to capitalize on substation
availability, outage windows, resources, and funding allocations.

No Direct or Indirect Savings - This business case has NO identifiable direct
or indirect cost savings for customers. Under Lumen (formerly known as
CenturyLink), Tariff FCC Number 1, Section 13.7, Avista is required to provide
high voltage protection for leased communication circuits in high voltage areas
newer than September 12, 1994. If Avista does not meet tariff requirements,
telecommunication companies can turn off communication circuits to
substations until Avista electrically isolates the copper wire coming into a
substation, thereby affecting phone, modem, SCADA, and other metering &
monitoring systems at substations. If we lose communications to substations,
SCADA has zero visibility to the devices at this location and cannot perform
system monitoring and performance analysis on the devices at the said location.
Additionally, any personnel working at a substation that does not have high
voltage protection runs the risk of being in harm's way during a high voltage
event that produces an electrical surge or an arc flash.

[Offsets to projects will be more strongly scrutinized in general rate cases going forward (ref. WUTC Docket No. U-190531 Policy Statement), therefore it is critical that these impacts are thought through to support rate recovery.]
2.3 Outline any business functions and processes that may be impacted (and
how) by the business case for it to be successfully implemented.

The projects in this program are standalone projects within the High Voltage
Protection business case but are dependent on length of construction season
and other geographically similar but unrelated work being performed at
impacted substations. Through those projects, business functions and
processes might be impacted but the technology upgrades being made at the
DocuSign Envelope ID: 09E326FD-D840-4A54-9BCD-C5C298BF3832
Exhibit No. 11 Case Nos. AVU-E-23-01/AVU-G-23-01 J. Kensok, Avista
Schedule 1, Page 5 of 304
High Voltage Protection
Business Case Justification Narrative Page 5 of 9
varied locations throughout Avista’s service territory should strive to increase
performance and capacity for employees in their daily work life.

2.4 Discuss the alternatives that were considered and any tangible risks and
mitigation strategies for each alternative.
The requested funding levels have been established based on the number of
sites currently identified as needed or upgrades to existing High Voltage
Protection (HVP) packages. At this time, 23 locations do not have the current
HVP standard package installed. This business case intends to complete
approximately four sites per year at $75,000 per site.

Two alternative funding options were reviewed:
Alternative 1: Fund the business case at an amount which is less than the
original request
Funding this business case at an amount less than the full request each year
will result in ad-hoc funding requests to the CPG (Capital Planning Group) for
work approved outside of the 5-year capital planning process. Safety risks
related to the High Voltage Protection work would be mitigated at a much slower
pace than if the program were funded as requested.
Alternative 2: Do not fund the business case
High Voltage Protection projects would not be funded. Personnel and equipment
safety risks would remain at unprotected substation locations and
telecommunication carriers would be able to deny service at the same
unprotected locations.
2.5 Include a timeline of when this work will be started and completed.
Describe when the investments become used and useful to the customer.
spend, and transfers to plant by year.
The High Voltage Protection business case is managed as a program of projects
planned yearly. All individual projects are managed through the Project
Management Office (PMO), which follows the Project Management Institute
(PMI) standards. Throughout the year, the business case’s projects are Initiated,
Planned, Executed, and then Completed with a Transfer to Plant for the scope
requests which over the course of a calendar year equates to the funded budget
allocation.
2.6 Discuss how the proposed investment aligns with strategic vision, goals,
objectives, and mission statement of the organization.
The High Voltage Protection initiative aligns with Avista’s commitment to invest
in its infrastructure to achieve optimal lifecycle performance – safety, reliability,
and at a fair price. Data communications that monitor and control Avista
substations are critical in the support of bulk electric system. The
implementation of HVP technology will continue to enable and support these
DocuSign Envelope ID: 09E326FD-D840-4A54-9BCD-C5C298BF3832
Exhibit No. 11 Case Nos. AVU-E-23-01/AVU-G-23-01 J. Kensok, Avista
Schedule 1, Page 6 of 304
High Voltage Protection
Business Case Justification Narrative Page 6 of 9
critical communications in a manner that is much safer to all workers in and
around the substation locations.

2.7 Include why the requested amount above is considered a prudent
investment, providing, or attaching any supporting documentation. In
addition, please explain how the investment prudency will be reviewed
and re-evaluated throughout the project

Avista’s mission is to improve our customers’ lives through innovative energy
solutions in a safe, responsible, and affordable manner. The funding amount
and project portfolio have been determined to maintain a velocity that allows for
the completion of 4 projects each year. With project priorities tied to enterprise
strategies and risk objectives, the funding is reviewed monthly allowing for
adjustments to be made to the portfolio as demands change across Avista’s
control and safety environments. If project priorities do change, a request is then
made to the program steering committee to evaluate and determine if the
change is prudent to accomplishing the goals and objectives established for the
current funding year.

2.8 Supplemental Information

Identify customers and stakeholders that interface with the business case
Within the High Voltage Protection business case, the discrete projects interface
with various internal Avista groups such as ET (Enterprise Technology)
engineering, Substation engineering, GPSS (Generation Production and
Substation Support), and the Telecommunications Shop.

The ET Business Case Owner works in conjunction with the PMO, the assigned
Program Manager, and subsequent Project Managers.

The ET Business Case Owner is accountable and responsible for all Business
Case related activities and assignments.

2.8.1 Identify any related Business Cases
There are no related business cases.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 09E326FD-D840-4A54-9BCD-C5C298BF3832
Exhibit No. 11 Case Nos. AVU-E-23-01/AVU-G-23-01 J. Kensok, Avista
Schedule 1, Page 7 of 304
High Voltage Protection
Business Case Justification Narrative Page 7 of 9

3.1 Steering Committee or Advisory Group Information
Steering Committee members are invaluable to the project and will provide
approval on scope, schedule, and budget related changes. Additionally, they will
provide approval on issues and risks pertaining to project deliverables outlined
in this document, which also typically have an impact on the scope, schedule,
or budget of a project. Steering Committee members will also provide approval
on Change Requests, Go-Live, and the Approval to Close documents. For the
High Voltage Protection business case, the Steering Committee will consist of
the Directors and Managers within ET, Energy Delivery, GPSS and the Business
Case Owner.
3.2 Provide and discuss the governance processes and people that will
provide oversight
The High Voltage Protection Business Case has two levels of governance: The
Program Steering Committee and the Project Steering Committee.

Program Steering Committee
This business case is a program of related projects. The Program Steering
Committee consists of members in management positions that are identified
and responsible for prioritizing the projects within this program. The Steering
Committee is also held accountable for the financial performance of this
program. The Program Steering Committee will have regular meetings to review
the progress of the program and to make decisions on the following topics:

 Project prioritization and risk
 Approving business case funding requests
 New project initiation and sequencing

The Program will be facilitated and administrated by an assigned Program
Manager within the PMO. The project queue will be reviewed periodically to plan
and sequence work to the levels of funding allocation received.

Project Steering Committee
Project Steering Committees act as the governing body over each individual
project within the program and will consist of key members in management
positions that are identified as responsible for the successful completion of the
scope of work identified in the Charter document for the Project. The Project
Steering Committee is responsible for providing guidance and making decisions
on key issues that affect the following topics:

DocuSign Envelope ID: 09E326FD-D840-4A54-9BCD-C5C298BF3832
Exhibit No. 11 Case Nos. AVU-E-23-01/AVU-G-23-01 J. Kensok, Avista
Schedule 1, Page 8 of 304
High Voltage Protection
Business Case Justification Narrative Page 8 of 9
 Scope
 Schedule
 Budget
 Project Issues
 Project Risks

The Project Steering Committee will meet at the defined intervals documented
in the Charter of the project and will be facilitated by an assigned Project
Manager from within the PMO.

3.3 How will decision-making, prioritization, and change requests be
documented and monitored
Project prioritization is evaluated by the management team monthly. Each
program and project steering committee meet regularly and oversee scope,
schedule and budget within their respective programs and projects and inform
the Business Case owner of any changes needing escalation to the Technology
Planning Group (TPG) or Capital Planning Group (CPG) for decision-making
around resource or funding constraints.

Any changes in funding or scope are documented at the Business Case level,
via a Change Request document that is presented to the CPG monthly and
evaluated by the CPG for approval.

Changes in scope, schedule, or budget are also documented through a ‘Change
Request’ at the project level and reviewed and approved through a formal
workflow process. All ET projects in this business case are managed through
the PMO, which follows the Project Management Institute (PMI) standards.
Projects initiate with a ‘Charter’ to begin the planning process. When planning
is complete, a ‘Project Management Plan (PMP)’ is created and approved as
the project baseline for scope, schedule, and budget. At the end of execution,
an ‘Approval to Go Live’ is submitted and approved prior to implementation
(Transfer to Plant). After the technology is in service and out of the warranty
period, the Project Manager will hold a Lessons Learned, and subsequently
submit an ‘Approval to Close’ prior to finishing the project. All Monitor and
Control documentation and Change Requests are documented and stored to
ensure a comprehensive audit trail.

The undersigned acknowledge they have reviewed the High Voltage Protection
business case and agree with the approach it presents. Significant changes to this
will be coordinated with and approved by the undersigned or their designated
representatives.

DocuSign Envelope ID: 09E326FD-D840-4A54-9BCD-C5C298BF3832
Exhibit No. 11 Case Nos. AVU-E-23-01/AVU-G-23-01 J. Kensok, Avista
Schedule 1, Page 9 of 304
High Voltage Protection
Business Case Justification Narrative Page 9 of 9
Signature: Date:
Print Name: Shawna Kiesbuy
Title: Sr. Manager, Network Engineering
Role: Business Case Owner

Signature: Date:
Print Name: Jim Corder
Title: IT Director
Role: Business Case Sponsor

DocuSign Envelope ID: 09E326FD-D840-4A54-9BCD-C5C298BF3832
Sep-02-2022 | 3:07 PM PDT
Sep-02-2022 | 4:41 PM PDT
Exhibit No. 11 Case Nos. AVU-E-23-01/AVU-G-23-01 J. Kensok, Avista
Schedule 1, Page 10 of 304
Technology Failed Assets
Business Case Justification Narrative Page 1 of 9
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Technology assets enable automated business processes. These technology assets range from
computers to hand-held radios carried by our field staff to printers in remote offices to networking
equipment. Sometimes these technology assets fail prior to being refreshed as part of a lifecycle
management program. These failures can be caused by manufacture defects, human error,
natural disasters, malicious actors, or age/runtime of equipment. In those cases, the failed asset
can cause downtime for an employee or system resulting in significant disruption to daily
operations across our service territory depending on where and to what asset the failure occurred.

To support these types of unplanned failures, the Technology Failed Assets business case was
established and consists of in-portfolio technology assets for rapid replacement of assets as they
fail and when repairs are not feasible. A technology inventory is maintained to quickly restore
business automation. They can include, but not be limited to laptops, mobile phone and tablets,
printers, field area network (FAN) equipment, monitors, audio-visual equipment, routers,
switches, servers, and fiber cable. The cost of each technology solution will vary depending on
the type of asset, scope of failure, required lead time, and location. However, funding for this
business case has been calculated based on predictable technology asset failure rates over the
last three years and is requested at $556,200 per year. For unpredictable failed assets, additional
funding requests will be made to replace the failed asset. Since technology asset failures will
happen across Avista’s territory, having budget allocation available to quickly replace a failed
asset is critical to the daily operations of the Company. If the Technology Failed Assets business
case funding is not approved, replacement of failed assets will result in individual requests for
funding each time an asset fails potentially extending the downtime of a system until the funding
is approved and the asset is replaced.

VERSION HISTORY
Version Author Description Date Notes
1.0 Mike Beil BCJN 1.0 Created 7/2019
2.0 Mike Beil BCJN 2.0 Revised 7/2020
3.0 Kaitlyn Richardson BCJN 3.0 Revised 7/2022

DocuSign Envelope ID: 0940117F-9E00-4032-93E3-1BC80B977245
Exhibit No. 11 Case Nos. AVU-E-23-01/AVU-G-23-01 J. Kensok, Avista
Schedule 1, Page 11 of 304
Technology Failed Assets
Business Case Justification Narrative Page 2 of 9
GENERAL INFORMATION

1. BUSINESS PROBLEM

1.1 What is the current or potential problem that is being addressed?
Technology assets enable automated business processes. These technology assets
range from computers and mobile devices to radio systems and pole-mounted network
devices. Sometimes these technology assets fail prior to being refreshed as part of a
lifecycle management program. These failures can be caused by manufacture defects,
human error, natural disasters, malicious actors, or age/runtime of equipment. In those
cases, the failed asset can cause downtime and loss of performance for an employee or
system resulting in significant disruption to daily operations across our service territory
depending on where and to what asset the failure occurred.
1.2 Discuss the major drivers of the business case (Customer Requested, Customer
Service Quality & Reliability, Mandatory & Compliance, Performance & Capacity, Asset
Condition, or Failed Plant & Operations) and the benefits to the customer
The main driver for this program is Failed Plant & Operations which is also related to asset
management strategies being driven by technology lifecycles and technology
obsolescence. As outlined in section 1.1 of this Business Case Justification Narrative, at
times technology may unexpectedly fail. This program provides a technology inventory to
quickly restore business automation and reduce the downtime caused by the failure.
1.3 Identify why this work is needed now and what risks there are if not
approved or is deferred
Since technology asset failures will happen across Avista’s territory, having budget
allocation available to quickly replace a failed asset is critical to the daily operations of the
company. If the Technology Failed Assets business case funding is not approved,
replacement of failed assets will result in individual requests for funding each time an asset
fails potentially extending the downtime of a system until the funding is approved and the
asset is replaced.

Requested Spend Amount $2,781,000
Requested Spend Time Period 5 years
Requesting Organization/Department Enterprise Technology
Business Case Owner | Sponsor Kaitlyn Richardson | Jim Corder
Sponsor Organization/Department Enterprise Technology
Phase Execution
Category Program
Driver Failed Plant & Operations
DocuSign Envelope ID: 0940117F-9E00-4032-93E3-1BC80B977245
Exhibit No. 11 Case Nos. AVU-E-23-01/AVU-G-23-01 J. Kensok, Avista
Schedule 1, Page 12 of 304
Technology Failed Assets
Business Case Justification Narrative Page 3 of 9
1.4 Identify any measures that can be used to determine whether the
investment would successfully deliver on the objectives and address the
need listed above.
Since the main driver behind this program is Failed Plant & Operations, the success of
this program can be measured by the timely replacement of failed technology assets
and restoration of automated business processes and overall productivity.

1.5 Supplemental Information
1.5.1 Please reference and summarize any studies that support the problem
See below for supporting details
1.5.2 For asset replacement, include graphical or narrative representation of metrics
associated with the current condition of the asset that is proposed for
replacement.
Funding requests are made based on average failure rates across the categories listed
below. As it’s not possible to completely predict when an asset will fail, funding
requirements could change and may result in an increase or decrease to annual funding
amounts. The table below represents the annual amount proposed for 2022 based on
2021 failures.

Option Capital Cost Start Complete
Funding based on previous 3-year failure rates
(Recommended)
$ 2,781,000 01 2023 12 2027
Request funding when needed $0 01 2023 12 2027
Funding based on 5% failure rates of all technology
assets
$6,225,000 01 2023 12 2027
DocuSign Envelope ID: 0940117F-9E00-4032-93E3-1BC80B977245
Exhibit No. 11 Case Nos. AVU-E-23-01/AVU-G-23-01 J. Kensok, Avista
Schedule 1, Page 13 of 304
Technology Failed Assets
Business Case Justification Narrative Page 4 of 9
2.1 Describe what metrics, data, analysis or information was considered when
preparing this capital request.

To support these types of unplanned failures, the Technology Failed Assets business
case was established and consists of in-portfolio technology assets for rapid
replacement of assets as they fail and when repairs are not feasible. A technology
inventory is maintained to quickly restore business automation. They can include, but
not be limited to laptops, mobile phone and tablets, printers, field area network (FAN)
equipment, monitors, audio-visual equipment, routers, switches, servers, and fiber
cable. The cost of each technology solution will vary depending on the type of asset,
scope of failure, required lead time, and location. However, funding for this business
case has been calculated based on predictable technology asset failure rates over the
last three years. For unpredictable failed assets, additional funding requests will be
made to replace the failed asset.

2.2 Discuss how the requested capital cost amount will be spent in the current
year (or future years if a multi-year or ongoing initiative). (i.e. what are the
expected functions, processes or deliverables that will result from the capital spend?). Include
any known or estimated reductions to O&M as a result of this investment.

The requested capital cost amount per year has been calculated to replace failed
assets based on a three-year failure history. This level of funding is critical to maintain
an inventory of in-portfolio assets to be available for rapid replacement during failures
or unplanned outages (i.e. laptops, mobile phones, field area network equipment, etc.).
The funding amounts within this program undergo regular review to balance the asset
failure forecast within the predetermined budget allocations. Since technology asset
failures will happen across Avista’s territory, having budget allocation available to
quickly replace a failed asset is critical to the daily operations of the Company.

An example of some assets that Avista needs to replace these technology assets for
cost avoidance related to significant risk downtime related to failures:
 Printers
 Monitors
 Mobile phones
 Personal computers
 Field Area network devices
 Other devices
Investments in these technology asset replacements provide indirect savings to our
customers by cost avoidance related to downtime issues and loss of productivity due
to potentially implementing manual business processes. Without spare inventory on
hand, this would increase the amount of time to resolve these breakdown issues,
thereby reducing the efficiency of employees as well as our infrastructure systems. The
amount of indirect savings would depend on the site and associated business process
systems impacted by failure. Current trends indicate that the Company is running
assets longer than recommended.

Indirect savings related to operating expenses could range from $100k - $10M a
year representing at least 1 full-time employee up to 100 full-time
employees needed to implement manual processes. This is also assuming we would
DocuSign Envelope ID: 0940117F-9E00-4032-93E3-1BC80B977245
Exhibit No. 11 Case Nos. AVU-E-23-01/AVU-G-23-01 J. Kensok, Avista
Schedule 1, Page 14 of 304
Technology Failed Assets
Business Case Justification Narrative Page 5 of 9
not replace these assets when failed. This is a high-level estimate that the Company
does not have a way to track.

Quantified indirect savings:
2022 2023 Lifetime
$100k-$10M $100k-
$10M
$100k-
$10M/year
[Offsets to projects will be more strongly scrutinized in general rate cases going forward (ref. WUTC Docket No. U-190531 Policy
Statement), therefore it is critical that these impacts are thought through in order to support rate recovery.]

2.3 Outline any business functions and processes that may be impacted (and
how) by the business case for it to be successfully implemented.
Since technology asset failures will happen across Avista’s territory, having budget
allocation available to quickly replace a failed asset is critical to the daily operations of
the Company. Each time an asset fails, Avista employees and customers can be
affected by the downtime related to the automated process not performing. Rapid
replacement of the asset is critical to maintain safety and performance.
2.4 Discuss the alternatives that were considered and any tangible risks and
mitigation strategies for each alternative.

Alternative 1: Request Funding when Needed
Funding will only be requested once an asset fails beyond repair. The risk with this
alternative is additional down time of our automation systems due to the time needed
to request/approve funding to replace the failed asset.

Alternative 2: Funding based on 5% failure rates of all technology assets
Funding would be based on an assumed 5% failure rate of all technology assets. Each
assets lifecycle is managed under a different business case. This option assumes a 5%
funding level of the sum of all technology business cases which manage technology
asset lifecycles.

2.5 Include a timeline of when this work will be started and completed.
Describe when the investments become used and useful to the customer.
spend, and transfers to plant by year.
The Technology Failed Assets business case is managed as a program of blanket
projects which manage the replacement of failed assets tracking their used and
usefulness on a monthly cadence. All individual projects set up for unplanned asset
failures are managed through the PMO, which follows the Project Management Institute
(PMI) standards. These projects are Initiated, Planned, Executed, and then Completed
with a Transfer to Plant for the installed assets. Over the course of a calendar year, the
blanket projects, along with the individual projects, equate to the funded budget.

DocuSign Envelope ID: 0940117F-9E00-4032-93E3-1BC80B977245
Exhibit No. 11 Case Nos. AVU-E-23-01/AVU-G-23-01 J. Kensok, Avista
Schedule 1, Page 15 of 304
Technology Failed Assets
Business Case Justification Narrative Page 6 of 9
2.6 Discuss how the proposed investment aligns with strategic vision, goals,
objectives and mission statement of the organization.
This is a program with discrete projects that align with Avista’s vision, mission and
strategic objectives:
 To provide Better Energy for Life, you need systems that perform at an optimal level
to deliver electricity and gas in a safe and reliable manner. The team supporting
asset failures are highly skilled and responsive to the needs of these systems so
critical business services continue to be delivered without interruption. The
Technology Failed Assets Business Case aligns with Avista’s “Perform” Strategic
Focus Area.

2.7 Include why the requested amount above is considered a prudent
investment, providing or attaching any supporting documentation. In
addition, please explain how the investment prudency will be reviewed
and re-evaluated throughout the project

Based on the individual asset data listed above, the requested funding amount will allow
for an inventory of in-portfolio technology assets for rapid replacement of assets as they
fail and when repairs are not feasible. Since the projects within the business case are
evaluated monthly for used and usefulness, the forecasted failures and subsequent
planned costs are also adjusted monthly based on failure rates. If there are trends
appearing in the failure rates resulting in a higher velocity of spend in one asset area
versus another, forecasted costs will be adjusted to make sure dollars are available
across all projects.

2.8 Supplemental Information

2.8.1 Identify customers and stakeholders that interface with the business case
Within the Technology Failed Assets business case, the projects interface with various
internal Avista groups such as ET Engineering, the Telecommunications Shop, various
operations teams, and procurement to name a few.

Steering Committee members include Business Case Sponsors, Directors and
Managers within the Enterprise Technology group long with the Business Case Owner.

The ET Business Case Owner works in conjunction with the Project Management Office
(PMO), and assigned Program Manager, and subsequent Project Managers.

The ET Business Case Owner is accountable and responsible for all Business Case
related activities and assignments.

2.8.2 Identify any related Business Cases
There are no related business cases currently.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 0940117F-9E00-4032-93E3-1BC80B977245
Exhibit No. 11 Case Nos. AVU-E-23-01/AVU-G-23-01 J. Kensok, Avista
Schedule 1, Page 16 of 304
Technology Failed Assets
Business Case Justification Narrative Page 7 of 9

3.1 Steering Committee or Advisory Group Information
Steering Committee members are invaluable to the project and will provide approval on
scope, schedule, and budget related changes. For the Technology Failed Assets business
case, the Steering Committee will consist of the Directors and Managers within ET and the
Business Case Owner.
3.2 Provide and discuss the governance processes and people that will
provide oversight
The Technology Failed Assets Business Case has two levels of governance; The Program
Steering Committee and the Project Steering Committee.

Program Steering Committee
This business case is a program of related projects. The Program Steering Committee
consists of members in management positions that are identified and responsible for
prioritizing the projects within this program. The Steering Committee is also held
accountable for the financial performance of this program. The Program Steering Committee
will have regular meetings to review the progress of the program and to make decisions on
the following topics:

 Project prioritization and risk
 Approving business case funding requests
 New project initiation and sequencing

The Program will be facilitated and administrated by an assigned Program Manager within
the Enterprise Technology (ET) Project Management Office (PMO) Department.

Product roadmaps identify investment demand that is generally not fully funded. Product
investments are prioritized in this manner:
1) Safety Systems
2) Control Systems
3) Customer Facing Systems
4) Back Office Systems

Project Steering Committee
Project Steering Committees act as the governing body over each individual project within
the program and will consist of key members in management positions that are identified as
responsible for the successful completion of the scope of work identified in the Charter
document for the Project. The Project Steering Committee is responsible to provide
guidance and make decisions on key issues that affect the following topics:

 Scope
 Schedule
 Budget
DocuSign Envelope ID: 0940117F-9E00-4032-93E3-1BC80B977245
Exhibit No. 11 Case Nos. AVU-E-23-01/AVU-G-23-01 J. Kensok, Avista
Schedule 1, Page 17 of 304
Technology Failed Assets
Business Case Justification Narrative Page 8 of 9
 Project Issues
 Project Risks

The Project Steering Committee will meet at the defined intervals documented in the Charter
of the project and will be facilitated by an assigned Project Manager from within the ET PMO
Department.
3.3 How will decision-making, prioritization, and change requests be
documented and monitored
Project prioritization is evaluated by the management team on a monthly basis. Each
program and project steering committee meet regularly and oversees scope, schedule and
budget within their respective programs and projects and inform the Business Case owner
of any changes needing escalation to the TPG or CPG for decision-making around resource
or funding constraints.

Any changes in funding or scope are documented at the Business Case level, via Change
Request document that is presented to the CPG on a monthly basis and evaluated by the
CPG for approval.

Changes in scope, schedule, or budget are also documented through a ‘Change Request’
at the project level and reviewed and approved through a formal workflow process. All
Enterprise technology projects in this business case are managed through the PMO, which
follows the Project Management Institute (PMI) standards. Projects initiate with a ‘Charter’
to begin the planning process. When planning is complete, a ‘Project Management Plan
(PMP)’ is created and approved as the projects baseline for scope, schedule and budget.
At the end of execution, an ‘Approval to Go Live’ is submitted and approved prior to
implementation (Transfer to Plant). After the technology is in service and out of the warranty
period, the Project Manager will hold a Lessons Learned, and subsequently submit an
‘Approval to Close’ prior to finishing the project. All Monitor and Control documentation and
Change Requests are documented and stored to ensure a comprehensive audit trail.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 0940117F-9E00-4032-93E3-1BC80B977245
Exhibit No. 11 Case Nos. AVU-E-23-01/AVU-G-23-01 J. Kensok, Avista
Schedule 1, Page 18 of 304
Technology Failed Assets
Business Case Justification Narrative Page 9 of 9
The undersigned acknowledge they have reviewed the Technology Failed Assets
and agree with the approach it presents. Significant changes to this will be
coordinated with and approved by the undersigned or their designated
representatives.

Signature: Date:
Print Name: Kaitlyn Richardson
Title: Mgr., IT Operations Engineering
Role: Business Case Owner

Signature: Date:
Print Name: Jim Corder
Title: IT Director
Role: Business Case Sponsor

Template Version: 05/28/2020
DocuSign Envelope ID: 0940117F-9E00-4032-93E3-1BC80B977245
Sep-02-2022 | 2:14 PM PDT
Sep-02-2022 | 8:48 AM PDT
Exhibit No. 11 Case Nos. AVU-E-23-01/AVU-G-23-01 J. Kensok, Avista
Schedule 1, Page 19 of 304
Technology Refresh to Sustain Business Process
Business Case Justification Narrative Page 1 of 5
1 GENERAL INFORMATION

1.1 Steering Committee or Advisory Group Information
The Enterprise Technology Department serves as a shared service business unit
that supports technology infrastructure and information systems for the enterprise.
The Technology Refresh to Sustain Business Processes Business Case has
three levels of governance: The Executive Technology Steering Committee (ETSC);
Technology Planning Group (TPG) of Directors; and Program/Project Steering
Committees. Applicable stakeholders and disciplines meet regularly to govern the
business case and subsequent programs and projects (i.e. software delivery,
electrical engineering, accounting, energy delivery, technology, etc.)

The TPG sets priority across the
technology investment portfolio,
balancing: strategic alignment,
business value, and customer
benefits, as driven by the strategic
initiatives established by the
ETSC. The Capital Planning
Group (CPG), an independent
body, establishes funding
allocations for each Business
Case across the enterprise.

The Business Case is largely
limited by the funding allocation
and resource capacity (staff) to
meet its goals. The funding is
generally established at the
Business Case level by the CPG. The resource capacity constraint is generally
managed by the TPG and the Business Case owner. Once the two constrains are
established, the Business Case owner will work with steering committee(s) to set
project priority and sequence over a five year planning period.

Each program and project steering committee meet regularly to review the backlog
of demand to that align with Avista’s strategies. They oversee scope, schedule and
Requested Spend Amount $17,917,613
Requesting Organization/Department IS/IT
Business Case Owner Andy Leija
Business Case Sponsor Jim Corder/Hossein Nikdel
Sponsor Organization/Department IS/IT
Category Program
Driver Asset Condition
Exhibit No. 11 Case Nos. AVU-E-23-01/AVU-G-23-01 J. Kensok, Avista
Schedule 1, Page 20 of 304
Technology Refresh úo Susúain Business Process
budget within their respective programs and projects and inform the Business Case
owner of any changes needing escalation to the TPG or CPG for decision-making
around resource or funding constraints.
During an annual planning cycle (July - September), the Business Case owner
surfaces the project demand for the upcoming five years to the TPG and ETSC. After
review for resource capacity, strategic alignment, and risk, the investment plan is
submitted to the CPG for funding consideration across all other Business Cases.
The CPG then provides a revised funding allocation to each Business Case. The
revised allocation then requires the TPG to review and revise the investment plan to
fit within the new funding allocation. This establishes the annual investment plan
under this Business Case. Steering committees prioritize technology asset risk
within the two constraints (resource capacity and funding) for each year. Technology
asset refresh funding is generally assigned priority in this sequence: Safety, Energy
Control, Customer Facing, and Back Office.
2 BUSINESS PROBLEM
The Technology Refresh to Sustain Business Processes program is in place to
provide for replacement of existing technology in alignment with the manufacturer
product roadmaps for application and technology lifecycles. Not only is the asset
condition of technology subject to the traditional mortality rate or lifecycle, but it is
compounded by planned obsolescence, also known as technology obsolescencel.
That is whereby the technology asset although within its functional lifespan is
technologically flawed or no longer meets the need of users or customers, as
expectations increase due to newer and more powerful technology is available in
the market. Reliance on obsolete technology for automated business process
presents significant risk that may only be solved with the reinstatement of manual
process. Sustaining business process by replacing automation with workforce would
increase labor expense.
Additionally, with the rapid pace of technological change, technology vendors
require continuous upgrades to maintain system maintenance and support, which
can include security patching, bug fixes, version upgrades, interoperability, and
compatibility with other technologies. These upgrades can in turn drive subsequent
system replacements, creating a cascading event of change. Therefore, vendor
roadmaps and technology asset lifecycles are data points that inform Avista on how
best to plan replacements, while meeting business value and strategic alignment,
within the constraints of resource capacity and funding, which in turn can result in
deferred replacement introducing the risk of technology failure.
Below is a graph that illustrates the technology replacement demand across the six
technology domains (Networks, Communications, Distributed, Central,
1 Barreca, Stephen L. (1995-2000). Technolog,t Lifecycles ønd Technologt Obsolescence. Retrieved from
http : i/bcri.com/products/publications. htm
Business Case Justification Narrative Page 2 of 5
Exhibit No. 11 Case Nos. AVU-E-23-01/AVU-G-23-01 J. Kensok, Avista
Schedule 1, Page 21 of 304
Technology Refresh úo Susfa in Business Process
Environmental and Applications) under this Business Case. As you can see, the
greatest increase is in Networks and Applications.
Technology Refresh Spend by Year
I Network I Cornmúnicât¡ons s Distr¡buted rCentral rEnvironmental rApplications
s3s,000,000
s3O,o00,ooo
s2s,00o,m0
s20,000,000
s1s,000,mo
51O,0m,000
s1000,000
s-
2074 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2o21
The Annual lnvestment Plan reviewed by the TPG and ETSC monitors the risks of
deferred replacements or upgrades to maintain a stable and reliable application and
computing platform that allows for the safe and reliable operation of our electric and
natural gas infrastructures, as well as deliver on customer demands.
3 PROPOSAL AND RECOMMENDED SOLUTION
The monetized value of "no funding" alternative is $1.9 million per year
The basis for measuring the business impact of not funding the Technology Refresh
to Sustain Automated Business Process Business Case program is realizing the loss
of business process automation. As technology products reach manufacturer
planned or real obsolescence, they then cease product maintenance and product
support, the automation value is jeopardized and business risk is increased. This
condition would drive action. The "no funding" alternative would lead to a mitigation
plan of having to remove the automation.
Funding at current level analysis
According to Avista's technology asset management system of record, which stores
over 10,000 assets, 25% of the in-service assets are beyond manufacturer lifecycle.
The Business Case owner analyzed project demand, resource capacity, and pace
Option Capltal Coet Start Gomplete
Do nothing (No funding)$1.9 MM 01 2017 122017
Fund at current level Approx. $18 MM 01 2017 122017
Fund at lower level < $18 MM 01 2017 122017
Business Case Justification Narrative Page 3 of 5
Exhibit No. 11 Case Nos. AVU-E-23-01/AVU-G-23-01 J. Kensok, Avista
Schedule 1, Page 22 of 304
Technology Refresh fo Susúa in Business Process
of change, and determined that the 2016 funding level is adequate to maintain a
balance among the constraints (demand, capacity, funding). The results of the
analysis were presented to the ETSC and TPG, with the recommendation and
requested an annual analysis to validate the investment portfolio, while managing
the risk of deferring technology upgrades and replacements.
Technology Refresh 2016 eSpend
. produrtr
¡ tËru ica
. ¿mploy¡c
' rtrtt ¡q6
sam0.000
17.e0,000
9qü0.000
l1æ0.000
$4@0.s00
É3,æ0,000
s¿ùo,ooo
s1æ0,ooo II5-
Funding at a Iower level
As described above, funding the Technology Refresh to Sustain Automated
Business Process Business Case at a lower level would increase the number of
technology assets that would need to be deferred, thereby increasing risk of
technology obsolescence, losing maintenance and support, and reducing
automation efficiencies. Annual investment planning efforts will inform ETSC and
TPG of the risks associated with continuous deferrals.
The Business Case aligns directly with the Asset Condition driver and Avista's
strategic initiatives of providing a Safe and Reliable Infrastructure and delivering
more value to more customers and strengthen engagement. As a shared service, a
majority of the lS/lT Business Case supports automated business functions, which
many departments depend on to manage costs and maintain staff efficiencies.
Concomitantly, many of the technology solutions (devices, systems, applications,
etc.) provide direct support to all Avista customers, while the remaining provide
indirect benefit through operational efficiencies, field mobility, and safer conditions.
Technology Refresh $18 millron
\ÅJorkforr-e 54% $tl 7 rrlll¡on
Workforce: 7 2 FT E $67lhour
Business Case Justification Narrative Page 4 of 5
Exhibit No. 11 Case Nos. AVU-E-23-01/AVU-G-23-01 J. Kensok, Avista
Schedule 1, Page 23 of 304
Technology Refresh úo Susúa in Business Process
4 APPROVAL AND AUTHORIZATION
The undersigned acknowledge they have reviewed the Technology Refresh to
Sustain Automated Business Process Business Case and agree with the
approach it presents and that it has been approved by the steering committee or
other governance body identified in Section 1.1. The undersigned also acknowledge
that significant changes to this will be coordinated with and approved by the
undersigned or their designated representatives.
Signature:
Print Name
Title:
Role:
Date 04t2017
Andy Leija
lT Delivery Manager
Business Case Owner
Signature:
Print Name
Title:
Role:
Signature:
Print Name
Title:
Role
tn kdel
Business Case Sponsor
Application System Planning Director
Date 04t2017
Date 04t2017
Template Version: 03107 12017
Jim Corder
lnfrastructure Technology and Security
Director
Business Case Sponsor
5 VERSION HISTORY
Vorsion lmplemented
By
Revlelon
Date
Approved
By
Approval
Date
Reason
1.0 Andy Leija 04t12t17 ET Directors 04t14t17 lnitialversion
Business Case Justification Narrative Page 5 of 5
Exhibit No. 11 Case Nos. AVU-E-23-01/AVU-G-23-01 J. Kensok, Avista
Schedule 1, Page 24 of 304
Basic Workplace Technology
Business Case Justification Narrative Page 1 of 10
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The nature of basic workplace technology requests can vary, be either planned or
unplanned and generally have short turnaround cycles. The short turnaround nature of
the requests can cause chaos in the procurement processing of basic workplace
technology, as the lag time from when a request is submitted to when it is fulfilled can
exceed expected timeframes. Additionally, ad-hoc requests, impact business value by
un-batching technology orders, as well as reduce employee productivity and experience
by submitting individual orders to meet requests.

The Basic Workplace Technology business case responds to five essential functions that
equip our staff to optimize our business and be responsive to our customers. The five
essential functions include: Employee Onboard; Contractor Onboard; Job Function
Change; Off Cycle Exchange; and General Additions. This requires a need to keep a
small amount of inventory to meet business value timeframes.

The primary driver for this program is performance and capacity, whereby the Company
balances the need to meet job function requirements and technology availability. To do
so, it requires historical trend analyses, technology inventory management, and cost per
unit control measures. The costs associated with each solution can vary by the type of
solution and number deployed.

Therefore, regular review of inventory levels, historical trends, and planned requests help
determine the overall performance and capacity standards under the established budget
allocations. These reviews can result in calling for additional investment under this
program from time to time for technology procurement trending behind planned requests.
Not funding this program can result in delays in hiring, onboarding, job function changes,
automation opportunities, etc.

VERSION HISTORY
Version Author Description Date Notes
1.0 Walter Roys Initial BCJN Draft 7/2019
2.0 Walter Roys Revision of BCJN to new template 7/2020
3.0 Dave Husted Revision of BCJN 7/2022

DocuSign Envelope ID: 7C5AB345-41B6-42D2-BC8E-0D17CD0536FB
Exhibit No. 11 Case Nos. AVU-E-23-01/AVU-G-23-01 J. Kensok, Avista
Schedule 1, Page 25 of 304
Basic Workplace Technology
Business Case Justification Narrative Page 2 of 10
GENERAL INFORMATION
1. BUSINESS PROBLEM

1.1 What is the current or potential problem that is being addressed?

Basic workplace technology required by Avista’s workforce to perform office,
call center, or field day-to-day job functions is a requirement, which either
automates or enables business processes to provide gas and electric service to
our customers. Regular job changes can occur in our workforce throughout our
service territory as new employees or contractors are hired, leave, or retire,
while others can change in job role or responsibilities. These changes at times
result in technology requests that can vary, and generally have short turnaround
cycles of (2) two weeks or less to fulfill them, at times planned and at other times
unplanned. This could range from a new hiring of a cohort of customer service
center staff needing a computer and monitors with call center applications,
headsets, and communication equipment to a change in job function for an
existing employee moving from the office out to the field and requiring a rugged
computer or tablet with a different application portfolio, and hand radio.

The short turnaround nature of the requests can cause challenges in processing
procurement requests, which can result in lag time from when a request is
submitted to when it is fulfilled and put worker productivity at risk of not having
the technology to perform their new job assignment. Additionally, the ad-hoc
nature of requests, can impact business value by un-batching technology
orders, as well as reduce employee productivity and experience by submitting
individual orders to meet requests.

Requested Spend Amount $7,200,000
Requested Spend Time Period 5 years
Requesting Organization/Department Enterprise Technology
Business Case Owner | Sponsor Dave Husted | Jim Corder
Sponsor Organization/Department Enterprise Technology
Phase Monitor/Control
Category Program
Driver Performance & Capacity
DocuSign Envelope ID: 7C5AB345-41B6-42D2-BC8E-0D17CD0536FB
Exhibit No. 11 Case Nos. AVU-E-23-01/AVU-G-23-01 J. Kensok, Avista
Schedule 1, Page 26 of 304
Basic Workplace Technology
Business Case Justification Narrative Page 3 of 10
1.2 Discuss the major drivers of the business case (Customer Requested, Customer
Service Quality & Reliability, Mandatory & Compliance, Performance & Capacity, Asset
Condition, or Failed Plant & Operations) and the benefits to the customer
The Basic Workplace Technology Business case is to respond to technology
requests that allow workers to meet performance in their respective job functions
within the capacity of in-portfolio technology at Avista. Therefore, the major
driver for this business case is Performance & Capacity. The business requests
generally fit within these major categories:

 Employee Onboard
 Contractor Onboard
 Job Function Change
 Off Cycle Exchange
 General Additions
1.3 Identify why this work is needed now and what risks there are if not
approved or is deferred
Assuring that each technology request is met within the expected timeframe for
job additions or changes, allows for Avista’s workforce to continue to provide
gas and electric service to our customers across all our service territory. Job
role additions, and changes are not new and will not stop, as the utility workforce
continues to evolve with many retiring from older roles, and new roles created
to meet the changing nature of our industry. The risk of not approving this
program will result in delay of technology fulfillment to Avista’s workers who are
requiring new technology due to a new job or change in job function.

1.4 Identify any measures that can be used to determine whether the
investment would successfully deliver on the objectives and address the
need listed above.
Tracking of each request is done to determine if each technology request is
fulfilled within the (2) two-week timfeframe, as the objective of this business case
is to meet in-portfolio technology requests for employee and contractor
onboarding, job function changes, off-cycle exchanges, and general additions.

1.5 Supplemental Information
1.5.1 Please reference and summarize any studies that support the problem
There are no specific studies to point to on the need for basic workplace
technology, since it is now an expected norm. Generally, all job functions require
some form of basic technology equipment to perform day-to-day job
assignments. From a computer with the right set of applications to a mobile radio
that keeps field workers safe in remote and hard to reach locations. This
program was designed to deliver on each of those requests based on the criteria
mentioned above.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 7C5AB345-41B6-42D2-BC8E-0D17CD0536FB
Exhibit No. 11 Case Nos. AVU-E-23-01/AVU-G-23-01 J. Kensok, Avista
Schedule 1, Page 27 of 304
Basic Workplace Technology
Business Case Justification Narrative Page 4 of 10

1.5.2 For asset replacement, include graphical or narrative representation of metrics
associated with the current condition of the asset that is proposed for
replacement.
Not applicable, as the investment under this program business case is to
respond to technology requests that allow workers to meet performance in their
respective job functions within the capacity of in-portfolio technology at Avista.

The basic workplace technology requests may generally include personal
computers, tablets, print/copy/scan systems, television displays, monitors,
telephones, etc., and the basic software productivity tools. They generally fall within
these major categories, and are therefore tracked accordingly:

 Employee Onboard: A request from leadership to deliver workspace
technology for a new employee.
 Contractor Onboard: A request from leadership to deliver workplace
technology for a new contractor.
 Job Function Change: A request from leadership to add or change
workplace technology to enable a job function change for an existing
employee or contractor.
 Off-Cycle Exchange: A requests from leadership to exchange in service
workplace technology, in a timeframe that does not align with a technology
refresh cycle.
 General Additions: General requests from leadership for additional
workplace technology.

The technology solutions fall within the capacity of in-portfolio technology at Avista,
and therefore the recommended solution is a funding level commensurate with
historical technology requests for employee and contractor onboardig, job function
changes, off-cycle exchanges, and general additions. This business case does not
include planned technology refresh investments based on technology
obsolescence.

The recommended solution allows the business case program to proactively plan
for procurement intervals to maintain small-batches of technology inventory in-
house to meet the short-turnaround requests over the course of the year.

Option Capital Cost Start Complete
Recommended Solution $7,200,000 01/2023 12/2027
[Alternative #1] – 80% Funding Level $5,760,000 01/2023 12/2027
[Alternative #2] – 70% Funding Level $5,040,000 01/2023 12/2027
DocuSign Envelope ID: 7C5AB345-41B6-42D2-BC8E-0D17CD0536FB
Exhibit No. 11 Case Nos. AVU-E-23-01/AVU-G-23-01 J. Kensok, Avista
Schedule 1, Page 28 of 304
Basic Workplace Technology
Business Case Justification Narrative Page 5 of 10

2.1 Describe what metrics, data, analysis or information was considered when
preparing this capital request.
Due to the nature of unpredictability of job role additions or changes, in 2019, a
historical trend analyses provided the estimate required to fulfill these orders
based on year to date requests fulfilled and those forecasted.

2.2 Discuss how the requested capital cost amount will be spent in the current
year (or future years if a multi-year or ongoing initiative). (i.e. what are the
expected functions, processes or deliverables that will result from the capital spend?). Include
any known or estimated reductions to O&M as a result of this investment.
[Offsets to projects will be more strongly scrutinized in general rate cases going forward (ref. WUTC Docket No. U-190531 Policy
Statement), therefore it is critical that these impacts are thought through in order to support rate recovery.]

The funding requested under the Basic Workplace Technology business case
will be invested in technology to fulfill business requests in the areas of
employee and contractor onboarding, job function changes, off-cycle
exchanges, and general additions. Generally basic workplace technology
includes personal computers, tablets, print/copy/scan systems, television
displays, monitors, telephones, etc., and the basic software productivity tools.

New inventory levels are maintained to ensure that recipients are provided with
technology equipment in a timely fashion. When an employee leaves their role
a technology review and assessment is performed. Used technology that has
not exceeded its useful lifespan is retained as spare inventory. Sparing levels
are maintained and used primarily for like-replacement in break/fix scenarios. If
spare inventory levels exceed our thresholds, they will be issued to new
DocuSign Envelope ID: 7C5AB345-41B6-42D2-BC8E-0D17CD0536FB
Exhibit No. 11 Case Nos. AVU-E-23-01/AVU-G-23-01 J. Kensok, Avista
Schedule 1, Page 29 of 304
Basic Workplace Technology
Business Case Justification Narrative Page 6 of 10
employees rather than purchasing new equipment. Used equipment that no
longer has useful value is taken out of circulation and decommissioned.
Issuing equipment beyond its useful lifespan introduces the risk of productivity
reduction by using inferior devices that are more prone to breakdown. The
stability and reliability gained from the issuance of new equipment is realized as
both indirect savings and productivity gain.
Roughly 1,500 people leverage BWT in their day-to-day job duties. Without
proper technological equipment, productivity would be severely impacted and
staffing levels would need to significantly increase. The Company does not
have a method to quantify such a broad indirect saving.
Investment in these technologies can result in added O&M expenses from an
increase in licenses from time to time. There are no O&M reductions or offsets
resulting from these investments, as this technology enables the Avista
workforce to perform their day-to-day job functions in delivering gas and electric
service to our customers.

2.3 Outline any business functions and processes that may be impacted (and
how) by the business case for it to be successfully implemented.

All Avista business functions requesting basic workplace technology due to a
job addition or change, off-cycle exchange, or general addition is affected by
this business case, as it enables everyday work activities and automated
business processes.

2.4 Discuss the alternatives that were considered and any tangible risks and
mitigation strategies for each alternative.

Several options were considered and proposed. However, the ‘Do Nothing’
alternative was removed as an option, as it is not realistic. Below are the
alternatives discussed in detail:

 A ‘Do Nothing’ option would not fund the basic technology items and
become a blocking factor of productivity; job functions are extremely difficult
to perform without digital productivity tools. For example, a new worker would
not be able to adequately meet job function performance requirements in a
customer call center without a personal computer and telephone.

 Alternative #1 is to fund at 80% of the recommended solution and seek
alternative ways to reduce deployment costs to deliver basic workplace
technology and return during the year for additional funds to meet business
demand, if not successful.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 7C5AB345-41B6-42D2-BC8E-0D17CD0536FB
Exhibit No. 11 Case Nos. AVU-E-23-01/AVU-G-23-01 J. Kensok, Avista
Schedule 1, Page 30 of 304
Basic Workplace Technology
Business Case Justification Narrative Page 7 of 10

 Alternative #2 is to fund at 70% of the recommended solution and seek
alternative ways to reduce deployment costs to deliver basic workplace
technology and return during the year for additional funds to meet business
demand, if not successful.

2.5 Include a timeline of when this work will be started and completed.
Describe when the investments become used and useful to the customer.
spend, and transfers to plant by year.

This business case is a program of blanket technology projects that transfers to
plant monthly. Quarterly forecasts capture changes in transfers to plant based
on trends of fulfillment requests.

2.6 Discuss how the proposed investment aligns with strategic vision, goals,
objectives and mission statement of the organization.

The technology investments under this business case program align with
Avista’s vision to deliver ‘better energy for life’ to our customers and in the area
of ‘Perform’, which calls for “our focus on performance today to serving our
customers well and unlocking pathways to growth.”

Each investment under this business case program allows Avista to deliver
electric and gas services to our customers.

2.7 Include why the requested amount above is considered a prudent
investment, providing or attaching any supporting documentation. In
addition, please explain how the investment prudency will be reviewed
and re-evaluated throughout the project

The reason that the technology investment under the Basic Workplace
Technology program business case is prudent is because the Avista workforce
requires this technology every day to deliver gas and electric service to our
customers either in an office, customer service center, or in the field.

Basic workplace technology deployments that fall under this business case are
often in short notice, and minimum inventory quantities are maintained to meet
business value time frames. The business case is structured in such a way to
handle both planned or unplanned short-cycle business demand to deliver basic
technology items to all job functions and office areas.

Alternative funding levels are considered, yet not investing in it is not an option
as basic workplace technology is a minimum requirement to perform day-to-day
DocuSign Envelope ID: 7C5AB345-41B6-42D2-BC8E-0D17CD0536FB
Exhibit No. 11 Case Nos. AVU-E-23-01/AVU-G-23-01 J. Kensok, Avista
Schedule 1, Page 31 of 304
Basic Workplace Technology
Business Case Justification Narrative Page 8 of 10
job functions to deliver gas and electric service to our customers, respond to
compliance requirements, and conduct business operations and reporting.

Additionally, the existing governance structure overseeing this business case
program meets regularly to oversee and make decisions on the ongoing needs,
benefits, costs, and risks associated with basic workplace technology fulfillment
requests.

2.8 Supplemental Information

2.8.1 Identify customers and stakeholders that interface with the business case
Nearly all Avista’s workforce interface with basic workplace technology business
case, either as a leader requesting technology changes or a worker responding
to job role and responsibility changes.

2.8.2 Identify any related Business Cases
The technology deployed under this business case is in the existing technology
portfolio, which is driven by engineering teams who are responsible for
managing technology obsolescence and asset lifecycles.

3.1 Steering Committee or Advisory Group Information

The Basic Workplace Technology Delivery governance team will act as the
governance committee that oversees investment under this business case. The
governance team consists of the Business Case Owner, Business Case
Sponsor, and may include other key leadership stakeholders.

3.2 Provide and discuss the governance processes and people that will
provide oversight

The governance team is accountable for the financial performance of this
business case. The governance team will have regular monthly meetings to
review the progress of the program and make decisions on the following topics:

 Prioritization of Business Drivers
 Funding Constraints
 Long-term Planning
 Scope of Workplace Technology
 Monitoring Workplace Technology Productivity

DocuSign Envelope ID: 7C5AB345-41B6-42D2-BC8E-0D17CD0536FB
Exhibit No. 11 Case Nos. AVU-E-23-01/AVU-G-23-01 J. Kensok, Avista
Schedule 1, Page 32 of 304
Basic Workplace Technology
Business Case Justification Narrative Page 9 of 10
3.3 How will decision-making, prioritization, and change requests be
documented and monitored

The governance structure under this business case program is responsible for
decision-making, prioritization, and change requests. Through the regular
Program Steering Committee Meetings, the team reviews and balances planned
work versus unplanned work to determine prioritization, as well as pending
project change requests. Any change request requiring either an increase or
decrease of funds is reviewed at the upcoming Technology Planning Group
meeting before it is submitted to the Capital Planning Group for consideration.

DocuSign Envelope ID: 7C5AB345-41B6-42D2-BC8E-0D17CD0536FB
Exhibit No. 11 Case Nos. AVU-E-23-01/AVU-G-23-01 J. Kensok, Avista
Schedule 1, Page 33 of 304
Basic Workplace Technology
Business Case Justification Narrative Page 10 of 10
The undersigned acknowledge they have reviewed the Basic Workplace
Technology Business Case and agree with the approach it presents. Significant
changes to this will be coordinated with and approved by the undersigned or their
designated representatives.

Signature: Date:
Print Name: Dave Husted
Title: Manager Technical Services
Role: Business Case Owner

Signature: Date:
Print Name: Jim Corder
Title: IT Director
Role: Business Case Sponsor

Template Version: 05/28/2020
DocuSign Envelope ID: 7C5AB345-41B6-42D2-BC8E-0D17CD0536FB
Sep-02-2022 | 9:03 AM PDT
Sep-02-2022 | 2:13 PM PDT
Exhibit No. 11 Case Nos. AVU-E-23-01/AVU-G-23-01 J. Kensok, Avista
Schedule 1, Page 34 of 304
Control and Safety Network Infrastructure
Business Case Justification Narrative Page 1 of 11
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This business case administers multiple projects specifically scoped for the provisioning
and expansion of network communications for Avista’s generation, transmission, and
distribution assets which support the safe and reliable energy delivery to Avista
customers. The Control and Safety Network Infrastructure enables the ability to remotely
monitor, control, and operate critical business and safety systems. If this business case
did not exist or receive funding, the network communications assets could fail, become
vulnerable to cyber-attacks from bad actors or the technology becomes obsolete which
would result in a lack of communication paths for field crews, a lack of visibility into
generation, transmission, and distribution status, or even a lack of control of field assets
for safety events. In addition, as Avista’s service area and business functions expand,
needed communication network assets could not be placed if this business case is not
sufficiently funded.

For this business case, funding is being requested for $12,106,538 over five years to
upgrade or replace 476 network communication systems within the control and safety
environments. Collectively these systems are tracked by lifecycle, manufacturer warranty,
maintenance, and support (contract) status, licensing, capacity, and replacement cost.
Manufacturer lifecycles drive a considerable portion of the required work within this
request. Concurrently, a sizable portion of work is also driven by the ongoing
modernization and digitization of energy delivery infrastructure.

VERSION HISTORY
Version Author Description Date Notes
1.0 Shawna Kiesbuy Initial BCJN Draft 6/2021
2.0 Shawna Kiesbuy BCJN Revision 7/2022

DocuSign Envelope ID: 663A64BE-41F6-4B89-AFCD-8F08772EFD40
Exhibit No. 11 Case Nos. AVU-E-23-01/AVU-G-23-01 J. Kensok, Avista
Schedule 1, Page 35 of 304
Control and Safety Network Infrastructure
Business Case Justification Narrative Page 2 of 11
GENERAL INFORMATION

1. BUSINESS PROBLEM
1.1 What is the current or potential problem that is being addressed?
This business case administers multiple projects specifically scoped for the
provisioning and expansion of network communications for Avista’s generation,
transmission, and distribution assets which support the safe and reliable energy
delivery to Avista customers. The Control and Safety Network Infrastructure enables
the ability to remotely monitor, control, and operate critical business and safety
systems. These systems include those connecting users in an emergency or safety
situation, controlling generation assets, maintaining, and expanding push-to-talk
radio connectivity for field crews and other personnel, communication networks for
protective relays, and supervisory control by providing data and control of
transmission and distribution assets in the field. These network system examples,
and many others, must be maintained based on a periodic upgrade schedule. If this
business case did not exist or receive funding, the network communications assets
could fail, become vulnerable to cyber-attacks from bad actors or the technology
becomes obsolete which would result in a lack of communication paths for field
crews, a lack of visibility into generation, transmission, and distribution status, or
even a lack of control of field assets for safety events. In addition, as Avista’s service
area and business functions expand, needed communication network assets could
not be placed if this business case is not sufficiently funded.
1.2 Discuss the major drivers of the business case (Customer Requested, Customer
Service Quality & Reliability, Mandatory & Compliance, Performance & Capacity, Asset
Condition, or Failed Plant & Operations) and the benefits to the customer
The main driver for this business case is Performance and Capacity. The
network communications infrastructure is tied to command-and-control
applications within Avista’s critical business and safety systems. Creating and
managing this business case is crucial to supporting the safe and reliable
delivery of gas and electric services to our customers. Specifically, the Controls
and Safety Network Infrastructure facilitates the ability to control electric
generation, transmission, and distribution assets in addition to carrying voice
Requested Spend Amount $12,106,538
Requested Spend Time Period 5 years
Requesting Organization/Department Enterprise Technology
Business Case Owner | Sponsor Shawna Kiesbuy | Jim Corder
Sponsor Organization/Department Enterprise Technology
Phase Execution
Category Program
Driver Performance & Capacity
DocuSign Envelope ID: 663A64BE-41F6-4B89-AFCD-8F08772EFD40
Exhibit No. 11 Case Nos. AVU-E-23-01/AVU-G-23-01 J. Kensok, Avista
Schedule 1, Page 36 of 304
Control and Safety Network Infrastructure
Business Case Justification Narrative Page 3 of 11
communications to field and line crews working on outage events. With
Performance and Capacity, the network communication assets are managed in
alignment with technology lifecycles that are based on manufacturer product
roadmaps and planned obsolesces to proactively reduce the risk of failing
assets affecting critical operations systems, processes, and infrastructure
reliability.
1.3 Identify why this work is needed now and what risks there are if not
approved or is deferred.
The network project work captured in this business case enables the ability to
control and operate core services at our generation, transmission, and
distribution facilities. With Avista’s vision of delivering better energy for life, this
business case is key to enabling the gas and electric service delivery to our
customers in a safe and reliable manner. The work is needed daily and is
ongoing with a direct tie to our core operations.
The risks of not approving this business case at the level to which it can maintain
the balance of meeting its asset management strategy and scale for future
technology could result in unplanned failures and outages to our communication
network system. The result is tied to the following risks: an increase in
employee, contractor and/or public safety risks due to the inability to see and
remotely operate the electric and gas systems. This risk has the potential to
increase labor and non-labor costs tied to unplanned system scope changes,
where delays to procurement can be realized to replace the failed asset, as well
as downtime to the critical systems supported. This would also lead to additional
exposure of outdated or unsupported devices to external cyber vulnerabilities.

1.4 Identify any measures that can be used to determine whether the
investment would successfully deliver on the objectives and address the
need listed above.
Executing and completing planned projects within this business case should
refresh assets or install new instances of technology to enhance and increase
performance and capacity needs. If the fail rate associated with the network
systems in the business case remains low, then the project work is adding value
by proactively reducing the risk of failing assets affecting critical operations
systems, processes, and infrastructure reliability. In addition, expanding network
assets in advance of Avista adding services ensures business operations are
not delayed and the system impacted with increased capacity.
1.5 Supplemental Information
1.5.1 Please reference and summarize any studies that support the problem
The Software Engineering Institute at Carnegie Mellon University in 2018
updated a collection of 2011 studies which establish the base structure of
the “Smart Grid Maturity Model”, and the sub architectures thereof.
Several challenges are identified and discussed in the studies specifically
DocuSign Envelope ID: 663A64BE-41F6-4B89-AFCD-8F08772EFD40
Exhibit No. 11 Case Nos. AVU-E-23-01/AVU-G-23-01 J. Kensok, Avista
Schedule 1, Page 37 of 304
Control and Safety Network Infrastructure
Business Case Justification Narrative Page 4 of 11
around the interconnection and intersection of critical operational controls
systems and modern communications technologies. Avista network
systems architects also engage in industry events hosted by, for example,
the Utilities Technologies Council
1.5.2 For asset replacement, include graphical or narrative representation of metrics
associated with the current condition of the asset that is proposed for
replacement.
Not applicable. This business case is aligned with Performance &
Capacity, not Asset Condition.

Option Capital Cost Start Complete
Recommended Solution – Asset upgrade or
expansion for optimized performance and capacity. $12,106,538

01/2023 12/2027
Alternative 1 – A reduction of funding which reduces
expansion to meet control and safety system needs
and does not allow for the necessary number of
devices to be refreshed increasing risk of failure or
cyber vulnerability to unauthorized access by bad
actors.
$9,685,231 01/2023 12/2027
Alternative 2 – Do not fund the program $0 01/2023 12/2027
2.1 Describe what metrics, data, analysis, or information were considered
when preparing this capital request.
Each individual network infrastructure asset is tracked throughout its active
presence using several systems. Collectively these systems track lifecycle,
manufacturer warranty, maintenance, and support (contract) status, licensing,
capacity, and replacement cost. Manufacturer lifecycles drive a considerable
portion of the required work within this request. Concurrently, a sizable portion
of work is driven by the ongoing modernization and digitization of energy
delivery infrastructure. Subject Matter Experts in Energy Delivery are regularly
consulted with in technical cadences so that a real-world, collaborative
approach is taken to evaluate each asset’s risk of failure, as well as the impact
of a given failure. Capacity and performance planning activities occur in the
same forum, the result of which is a robust controls and safety communications
network that will enable the reliable and safe delivery of energy.

Gross
Total
Assets
EoS
<2023
EoS
2023-27
EOL
2023-27
Total
Scope
of
Request
689 102 26* 348 476
DocuSign Envelope ID: 663A64BE-41F6-4B89-AFCD-8F08772EFD40
Exhibit No. 11 Case Nos. AVU-E-23-01/AVU-G-23-01 J. Kensok, Avista
Schedule 1, Page 38 of 304
Control and Safety Network Infrastructure
Business Case Justification Narrative Page 5 of 11
*Accurate as of this writing and subject to change based on future manufacturer
notifications
EoS= End of manufacturer software and/or hardware support
Devices that cannot be patched or updated are considered vulnerable to
cyber threats and must be refreshed.
EoL= End of planned asset lifecycle
Communication Network Assets within the Controls and Safety Network
Infrastructure solution portfolio are selected for a planned lifecycle of 10
years, with some exceptions.
2.2 DISCUSS HOW THE REQUESTED CAPITAL COST AMOUNT WILL BE
SPENT IN THE CURRENT YEAR (OR FUTURE YEARS IF A MULTI-YEAR
OR ONGOING INITIATIVE). (I.E., WHAT ARE THE EXPECTED FUNCTIONS,
PROCESSES OR DELIVERABLES THAT WILL RESULT FROM THE CAPITAL SPEND?).
INCLUDE ANY KNOWN OR ESTIMATED REDUCTIONS TO O&M
BECAUSE OF THIS INVESTMENT.
In the current year, the project focus will be on network router and switch
refreshes tied to push-to-talk radio connectivity for field crews and other
personnel, refresh and expansion of routing and switching equipment
at critical generation facilities, and refresh of network assets to alleviate cyber
security threats on devices deemed obsolete by vendor lifecycles. Historical
costs and timelines related to similar project work provide support for the
requested allocations above.
Direct Savings – There are no direct savings related to this business case.
Indirect Savings –The network infrastructure investments in this business case
are necessary to sustain our business by using technology to automate
business processes. This business case specifically addresses network
infrastructure requirements for energy control systems and systems necessary
for the safety of our workforce and public. The business case considers
business impact vs. likelihood/probability when sequencing and prioritizing
resource allocations and responds to vendor-manufactured product
obsolescence risks as well as cyber security risks.

This business case catalog of use cases includes the network infrastructure
requirements for Substation-to-Substation Communication, Substation SCADA
(Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition), SCADA/EMS Control, Generation
Control, and Land Mobile Radio. The key performance indicator for network
availability and reliability is 99.9%, 24x7. Our investment sequencing is based
on three drivers, 1) Compliance, 2) Initiatives, 3) Reliability. The Compliance
driver should be regulation, Initiatives are executive sponsored (current example
is a cybersecurity vulnerability risk on out-of-support assets), and the Reliability
driver is often the highest volume of work.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 663A64BE-41F6-4B89-AFCD-8F08772EFD40
Exhibit No. 11 Case Nos. AVU-E-23-01/AVU-G-23-01 J. Kensok, Avista
Schedule 1, Page 39 of 304
Control and Safety Network Infrastructure
Business Case Justification Narrative Page 6 of 11

The sequencing of the Reliability projects is driven first by the network asset
end-of-support date for cybersecurity patching, then the performance and
capacity to meet the business requirement, and lastly product obsolescence
date.

Investment percentage for the cybersecurity Initiative is 44% in 2022, Reliability
projects are 56%. In 2023, Reliability projects are 100% of the investment.

Quantified indirect savings:
2022 2023 Lifetime *
$0.00 $0.00 $10mm-$20mm

*According to the Company Enterprise Risk Register, under the “Loss of
Communication or Network Technologies” and the “Cyber Intrusion” risks the
probability of this failure has an income statement score of 3, which equates to
a $10-$20 million avoided cost over a period of 2-3 years.

[Offsets to projects will be more strongly scrutinized in general rate cases going forward (ref. WUTC Docket No. U-190531 Policy
Statement), therefore it is critical that these impacts are thought through to support rate recovery.]
2.3 Outline any business functions and processes that may be impacted (and
how) by the business case for it to be successfully implemented.

The project work in this business case enables network communications within
generation, substation, transmission, and distribution sites and Avista service
territories in general for LMR (Land Mobile Radio). Planning for these projects
is done in partnership with other Avista departments to ensure an alignment of
technical needs is accounted for in this business case, including the
requirements, risks, and effects of the project work. Many times, this work will
be aligned with a previously scheduled outage window to gain efficiency and
reduce the amount of downtime experienced by operators at the sites. Specific
business functions and processes affected are determined project by project.

2.4 Discuss the alternatives that were considered and any tangible risks and
mitigation strategies for each alternative.

The requested funding amount allows the network communication systems tied
to this business case to be maintained and expanded based on a periodic
upgrade schedule. If this business case did not exist or receive funding, the
network communications assets could fail, or the technology becomes obsolete
which would result in a lack of communication paths for field crews, a lack of
DocuSign Envelope ID: 663A64BE-41F6-4B89-AFCD-8F08772EFD40
Exhibit No. 11 Case Nos. AVU-E-23-01/AVU-G-23-01 J. Kensok, Avista
Schedule 1, Page 40 of 304
Control and Safety Network Infrastructure
Business Case Justification Narrative Page 7 of 11
visibility into generation, transmission, and distribution status, or even a lack of
control of field assets for safety and control events.
Two alternative funding options were reviewed:
Alternative 1: Fund the business case at an amount which is less than the
original request
Funding of this business case at an amount less than the full request will reduce
expansion of network communication systems to meet business needs in
multiple control and safety areas of the business. This reduction in projects will
also lessen the necessary number of devices to be refreshed which increases
the risk of failure or cyber security vulnerability because assets will no longer be
supported by their manufacturers.
Alternative 2: Do not fund the business case
Removing all funding for this business case would be catastrophic for Avista
since this business case provides network communications to generation,
substation, transmission, and distribution sites to support safe and reliable
energy delivery. The network enables the ability to control and operate core
services. If the projects in this business case cease to exist, there will be no
network communications at new substations, on transmission or distribution
poles, or the network systems that age beyond their vendor lifecycles will fail.
These failures translate to a lack of visibility and control into critical systems that
deliver gas and electric services.

2.5 Include a timeline of when this work will be started and completed.
Describe when the investments become used and useful to the customer.
The Control and Safety Network Infrastructure business case is managed as a
program of projects planned yearly. Throughout the year, the business case’s
multiple projects are Initiated, Planned, Executed, and then Completed with a
Transfer to Plant for the individual projects in this business case. Therefore,
investments become used and useful on a project-by-project basis and happen
frequently throughout the year.

2.6 Discuss how the proposed investment aligns with strategic vision, goals,
objectives and mission statement of the organization.
The network enables the ability to control and operate core services. These
services include connecting users in an emergency or safety situation,
controlling generation assets, maintaining, and expanding push-to-talk radio
connectivity for field crews and other personnel, and supervisory control by
providing data and control of distribution assets in the field. These network
system examples, and many others, move and present data that drive
operational decisions and controls, tying back to all four strategic goals affecting
our customers, people, performance, and invention.

DocuSign Envelope ID: 663A64BE-41F6-4B89-AFCD-8F08772EFD40
Exhibit No. 11 Case Nos. AVU-E-23-01/AVU-G-23-01 J. Kensok, Avista
Schedule 1, Page 41 of 304
Control and Safety Network Infrastructure
Business Case Justification Narrative Page 8 of 11
2.7 Include why the requested amount above is considered a prudent
investment, providing or attaching any supporting documentation. In
addition, please explain how the investment prudency will be reviewed
and re-evaluated throughout the project
Avista’s mission is to improve our customers’ lives through innovative energy
solutions in a safe, responsible, and affordable manner. This business case is
tasked with enhancing and maintaining network communication systems in
control and safety areas of Avista’s infrastructure. The funding amount and
project portfolio has been determined to maintain current performance and
capacity while also scaling for customer growth. With project priorities tied to
enterprise strategies and risk objectives, the funding is reviewed monthly
allowing for adjustments to be made to the portfolio as demands change across
Avista’s control and safety environments. If project priorities do change, a
request is then made to the business case governance team to evaluate and
determine if the change is prudent to accomplishing the goals and objectives
established for the current funding year.

2.8 Supplemental Information

Identify customers and stakeholders that interface with the business case
Within the Control and Safety Network Infrastructure business case, the discrete
projects interface with various internal Avista groups such as ET (Enterprise
Technology) engineering, Substation engineering, GPSS (Generation
Production and Substation Support) and Generation Plants, the
Telecommunications Shop, along with our internal business partners at various
office and remote facilities.

The ET Business Case Owner works in conjunction with the PMO (Project
Management Office), the assigned Program Manager, and subsequent Project
Managers.

The ET Business Case Owner is accountable and responsible for all Business
Case related activities and assignments.

2.8.1 Identify any related Business Cases
The investments included in this business case were previously included in the
Enterprise & Control Network Infrastructure business case. For better visibility,
and stronger investment driver alignment, we have split the single Enterprise &
Control Network Infrastructure business case into three separate business
cases beginning with the 2022 calendar year: Enterprise Network
Infrastructure, Control and Safety Network Infrastructure, and Network
Backbone Infrastructure.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 663A64BE-41F6-4B89-AFCD-8F08772EFD40
Exhibit No. 11 Case Nos. AVU-E-23-01/AVU-G-23-01 J. Kensok, Avista
Schedule 1, Page 42 of 304
Control and Safety Network Infrastructure
Business Case Justification Narrative Page 9 of 11
3.1 Steering Committee or Advisory Group Information
Steering Committee members are invaluable to the project and will provide
approval on scope, schedule, and budget related changes. Additionally, they will
provide approval on issues and risks pertaining to project deliverables outlined
in this document, which also typically have an impact on the scope, schedule,
or budget of a project. Steering Committee members will also provide approval
on Change Requests, Go-Live, and the Approval to Close documents. For the
Control and Safety Network Infrastructure business case, the Steering
Committee will consist of the Directors and Managers within ET, Energy
Delivery, GPSS and the Business Case Owner.
3.2 Provide and discuss the governance processes and people that will
provide oversight
The Control and Safety Network Infrastructure Business Case has two levels of
governance: The Program Steering Committee and the Project Steering
Committee.

Program Steering Committee
This business case is a program of related projects. The Program Steering
Committee consists of members in management positions that are identified
and responsible for prioritizing the projects within this program. The Steering
Committee is also held accountable for the financial performance of this
program. The Program Steering Committee will have regular meetings to review
the progress of the program and to make decisions on the following topics:

 Project prioritization and risk
 Approving business case funding requests
 New project initiation and sequencing

The Program will be facilitated and administrated by an assigned Program
Manager within the PMO. The project queue will be reviewed periodically to plan
and sequence work to the levels of funding allocation received.

Project Steering Committee
Project Steering Committees act as the governing body over each individual
project within the program and will consist of key members in management
positions that are identified as responsible for the successful completion of the
scope of work identified in the Charter document for the Project. The Project
Steering Committee is responsible for providing guidance and making decisions
on key issues that affect the following topics:

 Scope
 Schedule
DocuSign Envelope ID: 663A64BE-41F6-4B89-AFCD-8F08772EFD40
Exhibit No. 11 Case Nos. AVU-E-23-01/AVU-G-23-01 J. Kensok, Avista
Schedule 1, Page 43 of 304
Control and Safety Network Infrastructure
Business Case Justification Narrative Page 10 of 11
 Budget
 Project Issues
 Project Risks

The Project Steering Committee will meet at the defined intervals documented
in the Charter of the project and will be facilitated by an assigned Project
Manager from within the PMO.
3.3 How will decision-making, prioritization, and change requests be
documented and monitored?
Project prioritization is evaluated by the management team monthly. Each
program and project steering committee meet regularly and oversee scope,
schedule and budget within their respective programs and projects and inform
the Business Case owner of any changes needing escalation to the Technology
Planning Group (TPG) or Capital Planning Group (CPG) for decision-making
around resource or funding constraints.

Any changes in funding or scope are documented at the Business Case level,
via a Change Request document that is presented to the CPG monthly and
evaluated by the CPG for approval.

Changes in scope, schedule, or budget are also documented through a ‘Change
Request’ at the project level and reviewed and approved through a formal
workflow process. All ET projects in this business case are managed through
the PMO, which follows the Project Management Institute (PMI) standards.
Projects initiate with a ‘Charter’ to begin the planning process. When planning
is complete, a ‘Project Management Plan (PMP)’ is created and approved as
the project baseline for scope, schedule, and budget. At the end of execution,
an ‘Approval to Go Live’ is submitted and approved prior to implementation
(Transfer to Plant). After the technology is in service and out of the warranty
period, the Project Manager will hold a Lessons Learned, and subsequently
submit an ‘Approval to Close’ prior to finishing the project. All Monitor and
Control documentation and Change Requests are documented and stored to
ensure a comprehensive audit trail.

The undersigned acknowledge they have reviewed the Control and Safety Network
Infrastructure business case and agree with the approach it presents. Significant
changes to this will be coordinated with and approved by the undersigned or their
designated representatives.

Signature: Date:
Print Name: Shawna Kiesbuy
Title: Sr. Manager, Network Engineering
DocuSign Envelope ID: 663A64BE-41F6-4B89-AFCD-8F08772EFD40
Sep-02-2022 | 3:06 PM PDT
Exhibit No. 11 Case Nos. AVU-E-23-01/AVU-G-23-01 J. Kensok, Avista
Schedule 1, Page 44 of 304
Control and Safety Network Infrastructure
Business Case Justification Narrative Page 11 of 11
Role: Business Case Owner

Signature: Date:
Print Name: Jim Corder
Title: IT Director
Role: Business Case Sponsor

DocuSign Envelope ID: 663A64BE-41F6-4B89-AFCD-8F08772EFD40
Sep-02-2022 | 4:43 PM PDT
Exhibit No. 11 Case Nos. AVU-E-23-01/AVU-G-23-01 J. Kensok, Avista
Schedule 1, Page 45 of 304
Data Center Compute and Storage Systems
Business Case Justification Narrative Page 1 of 10
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Business processes require automated technology solutions to meet the overwhelming
need for data and information to make decisions. All industries are reliant on the ability to
produce, transmit, analyze, and store information to meet various business requirements.
This digitalization is resulting in an ever-growing need for data processing and storage
for on-demand requests and decision-making. Avista is no different. The Company
produces, transmits, analyzes, and stores meter data, telemetry data, asset data,
customer billing data, geographic information systems data, etc. Data processing and
storage requires high reliability no different than our electric and gas grids supplying
customers with power and gas. The Data Center Compute and Storage Systems
business case is a program of investments in server technology required to process and
store massive amounts of data to automate and enable business processes that support
our gas and electric customers across our service territory.

The technology solutions to meet performance standards and reliability requirements can
vary from hardware and software upgrades in an on-premise data center, offsite storage,
or service provider (cloud) facility, or in operating technology to optimize compute and
storage capacity. Solution costs can also vary depending on the magnitude of the
technology footprint or vendor licensing model(s). As enabling technology, data center
processing and storage investment benefits all Avista customers, as it optimizes cost and
productivity by not reverting to manual business processing, which would result in
increased labor costs, human error, and overall processing delays. Because technology
is evolving so quickly, this program undergoes regular review of the levels of investment
and utilization to meet performance and capacity standards, and reliability requirements,
while balancing against pre-established budget allocations. These reviews can result in
calling for additional investment under this program for technology at risk of poor
application system performance,system unavailability and risk of cyber attack.

VERSION HISTORY
Version Author Description Date Notes
1.0 Walter Roys Initial BCJN Draft 6/2017
2.0 Walter Roys Revision of BCJN to new template 7/2020
3.0 Walter Roys Revision of BCJN 8/2022

DocuSign Envelope ID: 3DB6CD1F-E542-4C43-9109-A28EE4791A81
Exhibit No. 11 Case Nos. AVU-E-23-01/AVU-G-23-01 J. Kensok, Avista
Schedule 1, Page 46 of 304
Data Center Compute and Storage Systems
Business Case Justification Narrative Page 2 of 10
GENERAL INFORMATION

1. BUSINESS PROBLEM
1.1 What is the current or potential problem that is being addressed?
Technology is not only subject to the traditional mortality rate or lifecycle, but it
is compounded by planned obsolescence, also known as technology
obsolescence.1 That is, whereby, the technology asset although within its
functional lifespan is technologically flawed or no longer meets the need of users
or customers, as expectations increase due to newer and more powerful
technology that is available in the market. Data center compute and storage
technology is no different.

Additionally, with the rapid pace of technological change, technology vendors
require continuous upgrades to maintain system maintenance and support,
which can include security patching, bug fixes, version upgrades,
interoperability, and compatibility with other technologies. Additionally, the
endpoint compute and productivity technology is necessary to enable the
capabilities that align with our strategic goals of putting our customers at the
center.

1.2 Discuss the major drivers of the business case (Customer Requested, Customer
Service Quality & Reliability, Mandatory & Compliance, Performance & Capacity, Asset
Condition, or Failed Plant & Operations) and the benefits to the customer
The Data Center Compute and Storage Systems Business Case is driven by
managing technology replacement according to manufacturer product
roadmaps or changes in business requirements with an objective to maintain
infrastructure performance and align infrastructure assets with business
demand for capacity. Therefore, it falls under the Performance and Capactiy
investment driver.

1 Barreca, Stephen L. (1998-2000). Technology Lifecycles and Technology Obsolescence. Retrieved from
http://bcri.com/products/publications.htm
Requested Spend Amount $12,828,007
Requested Spend Time Period 5 years.
Requesting Organization/Department Enterprise Technology
Business Case Owner | Sponsor Walter Roys | Jim Corder
Sponsor Organization/Department Enterprise Technology
Phase Monitor/Control
Category Program
Driver Performance & Capacity
DocuSign Envelope ID: 3DB6CD1F-E542-4C43-9109-A28EE4791A81
Exhibit No. 11 Case Nos. AVU-E-23-01/AVU-G-23-01 J. Kensok, Avista
Schedule 1, Page 47 of 304
Data Center Compute and Storage Systems
Business Case Justification Narrative Page 3 of 10

All Avista customers benefit from maintaining data center compute and storage
systems, as this technology enables the Avista workforce to perform their day-
to-day job functions in delivering gas and electric service to our customers.
Additionally, assets that fail due to not being replaced within their technology
lifecycle are replaced by the Technology Failed Asset business case, which
tracks technology asset failures, and is also used as a data point to inform the
technology lifecycles under this business case.

1.3 Identify why this work is needed now and what risks there are if not
approved or is deferred
Avista’s office, call center, and field staff require on-demand information to meet
customer expectations when providing gas and electric service to customers
across our service territory. The information can be critical to prevent, reduce,
affect, or optimize an outcome that benefits our customers.

Reliance on obsolete technology that stores and computes many of our on-
premise business applications to automate business processes presents
significant risk that may only be solved with the reinstatement of manual
process. Sustaining automated business process by replacing automation with
workforce would increase labor expense, and delay response times to meet
customer needs.

1.4 Identify any measures that can be used to determine whether the
investment would successfully deliver on the objectives and address the
need listed above.
Vendor roadmaps and technology asset lifecycles are data points that inform on
how best to plan replacements, while meeting business value and strategic
alignment, within the constraints of resource capacity and funding, which in turn
can result in deferred replacement introducing the risk of technology failure.
Ongoing reviews of vendor roadmap and technology asset lifecycle alignment
provide necessary information to track how much of our investment in
technology is lagging behind the vendor roadmap, and thereby introducing risk.

1.5 Supplemental Information
1.5.1 Please reference and summarize any studies that support the problem
The Enterprise Technology team references various technology vendor and
third-party resources to stay informed and recommend decisions on the various
technology investments. A few sample sources are included below:
Barreca, Stephen L. (1998-2000). Technology Lifecycles and Technology
Obsolescence. Retrieved from http://bcri.com/products/publications.htm
DocuSign Envelope ID: 3DB6CD1F-E542-4C43-9109-A28EE4791A81
Exhibit No. 11 Case Nos. AVU-E-23-01/AVU-G-23-01 J. Kensok, Avista
Schedule 1, Page 48 of 304
Data Center Compute and Storage Systems
Business Case Justification Narrative Page 4 of 10
Directions on Roadmaps, Independent IT Planning Information and Advisory
Service focused exclusively on Microsoft enterprise software and services.
Retrieved from https://www.directionsonmicrosoft.com/
Gartner Industry Research and Reference Material. Retrieved from
https://www.gartner.com/en/information-technology

1.5.2 For asset replacement, include graphical or narrative representation of metrics
associated with the current condition of the asset that is proposed for
replacement.

Investments under this business case are to maintain performance and capacity
standards in each respective data center compute and storage technology. For example,
when the product manufacturer terminates maintenance and support for specific devices
or solutions, an asset therefore becomes incompatible with other advancing technologies.
This introduces the risk of cyber attack and this business case will change or upgrade the
asset.

The data center compute and storage technology systems provide the infrastructure
foundation for basically all automated business process.

The recommended solution is to Address 100% of obsolete products and
capacity constraints
This is the optimal solution. This option fully addresses and minimizes the
likelihood of technology impact to automated business process.

Option Capital Cost Start Complete
Alternative #1: Retire assets and remove
automation
$1,338,700 01 2023 12 2027
Alternative #2: Address 100% obsolete products
and capacity constraints (recommended)
$17,104,010 01 2023 12 2027
Alternative #3: Address 75% obsolete products and
capacity constraints
$12,828,007 01 2023 12 2027
Alternative #4 Address 40% obsolete products and
capacity constraints
$9,841,604 01 2023 12 2027
2.1 Describe what metrics, data, analysis or information was considered when
preparing this capital request.

The funds request was based on a calculation of the performance and capacity
associated with each technology asset, the scope of the technology footprint
across our service territory, and historical project costs for technologies
previously refreshed under this business case. Through regular reviews, the
program balances the need to meet system performance and reliability
standards for the various technologies under this program within annual budget
allocations.These reviews can result in calling for additional investment under
DocuSign Envelope ID: 3DB6CD1F-E542-4C43-9109-A28EE4791A81
Exhibit No. 11 Case Nos. AVU-E-23-01/AVU-G-23-01 J. Kensok, Avista
Schedule 1, Page 49 of 304
Data Center Compute and Storage Systems
Business Case Justification Narrative Page 5 of 10
this program from time to time for technology either falling behind technology
lifecycles or predetermined performance and reliability standards.

The Business Case Governance group, consisting of Technology Domain
Architects and ET Management and Project Management Office, maintains
technology roadmaps to inform the Business Case of investement demand.
Investment demand is assessed against funding constraints each year and
prioritized based on risk of technology impact to the business. Various data
points inform the team’s decisions and recommendations, which include, but are
not limited to vendor-driven obsolescence, compute capacity and storage,
historical project costs for similar type projects, etc.

2.2 Discuss how the requested capital cost amount will be spent in the current
year (or future years if a multi-year or ongoing initiative). (i.e. what are the
expected functions, processes or deliverables that will result from the capital spend?). Include
any known or estimated reductions to O&M as a result of this investment.
[Offsets to projects will be more strongly scrutinized in general rate cases going forward (ref. WUTC Docket No. U-190531 Policy
Statement), therefore it is critical that these impacts are thought through in order to support rate recovery.]

The funding requested under the Data Center Compute and Storage Business
Case will be invested in technology, such as:

• Data center compute technology, which includes both on premise servers
and cloud services
• Remote office compute and storage
• Application systems to manage compute and storage technology
• Server operating systems (OS)
• Data storage systems
• Data center racks and power distribution units (PDU)
• Backup and recovery systems

Investment in these technologies can increase or decrease O&M expenses.
These can include licensing increases from time to time, or decreases in
workload for O&M resources. However, not funding this business case may
result in removing automated business functions, which will either cause delay
in meeting business and customer demands or completely change whether we
can even respond to business and customer demands. There are no O&M
reductions or direct offsets resulting from these investments, as this technology
enables the Avista workforce to perform their day-to-day job functions in
delivering gas and electric service to our customers.

Reliance on obsolete technology for automated business process presents
significant risk that may only be solved with the reinstatement of manual
process. Sustaining automated business process by replacing automation with
workforce would increase labor expense.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 3DB6CD1F-E542-4C43-9109-A28EE4791A81
Exhibit No. 11 Case Nos. AVU-E-23-01/AVU-G-23-01 J. Kensok, Avista
Schedule 1, Page 50 of 304
Data Center Compute and Storage Systems
Business Case Justification Narrative Page 6 of 10
In addition, when endpoint devices break down it can result in the inability of
an employee to access essential technology systems such as our meter data,
customer billing and our mapping data. This can result in a productivity
reduction across all areas of the business. Savings related to avoiding these
down time issues could range from $100k -$10M a year representing at least 1
full time employee up to 100 full time employees needed to implement manual
processes.

Additionally, with the rapid pace of technological change, technology vendors
require continuous upgrades to maintain system maintenance and support,
which can include security patching, bug fixes, version upgrades,
interoperability, and compatibility with other technologies. These upgrades can
in turn drive subsequent system replacements, creating a cascading event of
change. Therefore, vendor roadmaps and technology asset lifecycles are data
points that inform on how best to plan replacements, while meeting business
value and strategic alignment, within the constraints of resource capacity and
funding, which in turn can result in deferred replacement introducing the risk of
technology failure.
2.3 Outline any business functions and processes that may be impacted (and
how) by the business case for it to be successfully implemented.

All Avista business functions are affected by this business case, as it enables
all day-to-day work activities and automated business processes. From service
center to call center to field work, every worker requires endpoint technology to
perform their business function and deliver gas and electric service to our
customers.

2.4 Discuss the alternatives that were considered and any tangible risks and
mitigation strategies for each alternative.

Retire assets and remove automation
This option assumes the assets would not be replaced upon end of life and be
removed from service due to product incompatibility, business risk or safety risk.

The basis for measuring the business impact of not funding this business case
is realizing the loss of business process automation. As products reach the
manufacturer-defined planned obsolescence, business process automation is
jeopardized, and business risk is increased as manufacturers cease product
maintenance and support. This condition would drive action. The alternative
could lead to a mitigation plan of having to re-instate manual business process,
which would likely require increased staffing in many departments for creation
and maintance of resources such as maps, meter reading, customer billing, etc.

This option bears the cost of asset retirement for failed assets. The retirement
cost is estimated at 10% of the cost to replace the asset.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 3DB6CD1F-E542-4C43-9109-A28EE4791A81
Exhibit No. 11 Case Nos. AVU-E-23-01/AVU-G-23-01 J. Kensok, Avista
Schedule 1, Page 51 of 304
Data Center Compute and Storage Systems
Business Case Justification Narrative Page 7 of 10
Address 75% of obsolete products and capacity constraints (Recommended).
This will introduce risk associated with technology systems reliability, interoperability
and capacity. The investment required to address obsolete technology products is
deferred to subsequent years. The likelihood of technology impact to business is
increased. To minimize the impact of this risk, the Program Steering Committee will
manage project sequence according to the investment priority documented in section
3.2.

Address 40% of obsolete products and capacity constraints
This will introduce risk associated with technology systems reliability,
interoperability and capacity. The investment required to address obsolete
technology products is deferred to subsequent years. The likelihood of
technology impact to business is increased. Interoperability constraints may
force unplanned funding requests. Multi-year, complex projects are at risk of
completion prior to product obsolescence. This option impacts the workforce.

2.5 Include a timeline of when this work will be started and completed.
Describe when the investments become used and useful to the customer.
spend, and transfers to plant by year.

This business case is a program that transfers to plant the total cost of each
sub-project at the completion of every project, which can straddle calendar
years. Quarterly forecasts capture changes in transfers to plant based on project
status.

2.6 Discuss how the proposed investment aligns with strategic vision, goals,
objectives and mission statement of the organization.

The technology investments under this business case program align with
Avista’s vision to deliver ‘better energy for life’ to our customers and in the area
of ‘Perform’, which calls for “our focus on performance today to serving our
customers well and unlocking pathways to growth.”

Each investment under this business case program allows Avista to deliver
electric and gas services to our customers.

2.7 Include why the requested amount above is considered a prudent
investment, providing or attaching any supporting documentation. In
addition, please explain how the investment prudency will be reviewed
and re-evaluated throughout the project

The reason that the technology investment under this program business case is
prudent is because the Avista workforce requires this technology every day to
DocuSign Envelope ID: 3DB6CD1F-E542-4C43-9109-A28EE4791A81
Exhibit No. 11 Case Nos. AVU-E-23-01/AVU-G-23-01 J. Kensok, Avista
Schedule 1, Page 52 of 304
Data Center Compute and Storage Systems
Business Case Justification Narrative Page 8 of 10
deliver gas and electric service to our customers either in an office, customer
service center or in the field. Alternatives to each technology are considered,
yet not investing in it is not an option as automated business process would
either stop or be removed, thereby crippling our workforce’s ability to deliver gas
and electric service to our customers, respond to compliance requirements, and
conduct business operations and reporting. Additionally, a two-tiered
governance structure overseeing this business case program meets regularly to
oversee and make decisions on the needs, benefits, costs, and risks of each
investment.

2.8 Supplemental Information

2.8.1 Identify customers and stakeholders that interface with the business case
Nearly all Avista’s workforce as well as customers interface with the technology
investments under this business case, depending on the application systems
being used to perform any given business or consumer function.

2.8.2 Identify any related Business Cases
The technology investment under this business case allows for upgrade and
refresh of the compute and storage from investments in other business cases,
such as all business application systems, security systems, operations tools,
etc. Basically, almost every software application used by Avista to conduct
business functions is either processed or stored in servers refreshed under this
business case.

3.1 Steering Committee or Advisory Group Information

The Data Center Compute & Storage Systems Business Case has two levels
of governance; The Program Steering Committee and the Project Steering
Committee.

3.2 Provide and discuss the governance processes and people that will
provide oversight
Program Steering Committee
This business case is a program of related projects. The Program Steering
Committee consists of members in management positions that are identified
and responsible for prioritizing the projects within this program. The Steering
Committee is also held accountable for the financial performance of this
program. The Program Steering Committee will have regular meetings to review
the progress of the program and to make decisions on the following topics:

 Project prioritization and risk
DocuSign Envelope ID: 3DB6CD1F-E542-4C43-9109-A28EE4791A81
Exhibit No. 11 Case Nos. AVU-E-23-01/AVU-G-23-01 J. Kensok, Avista
Schedule 1, Page 53 of 304
Data Center Compute and Storage Systems
Business Case Justification Narrative Page 9 of 10
 Approving business case funding requests
 New project initiation and sequencing

The Program will be facilitated and administrated by an assigned Program
Manager within the Enterprise Technology (ET) Project Management Office
(PMO) Department. The project queue will be reviewed periodically and will
consist of projects needed to maintain the reliability and performance of all Data
Center Compute & Storage Systems.

Technology product roadmaps identify investment demand that is generally not
fully funded. Technology product investments are prioritized in this manner:
1) Safety Systems
2) Control Systems
3) Customer Facing Systems
4) Back Office Systems

Project Steering Committee
Project Steering Committees act as the governing body over each individual
project within the program and will consist of key members in management
positions that are identified as responsible for the successful completion of the
scope of work identified in the Charter document for the Project. The Project
Steering Committee is responsible to provide guidance and make decisions on
key issues that affect the following topics:

 Scope
 Schedule
 Budget
 Project Issues
 Project Risks

The Project Steering Committee will meet at the defined intervals documented
in the Charter of the project and will be facilitated by an assigned Project
Manager from within the ET PMO Department.

3.3 How will decision-making, prioritization, and change requests be
documented and monitored

The governance structure under this business case program is responsible for
decision-making, prioritization, and change requests. Through the regular
Program Steering Committee Meetings, the team reviews and balances planned
work versus unplanned work to determine prioritization, as well as pending
project change requests. Any change request requiring either an increase or
decrease of funds is reviewed at the upcoming Technology Planning Group
meeting before it is submitted to the Capital Planning Group for consideration.

DocuSign Envelope ID: 3DB6CD1F-E542-4C43-9109-A28EE4791A81
Exhibit No. 11 Case Nos. AVU-E-23-01/AVU-G-23-01 J. Kensok, Avista
Schedule 1, Page 54 of 304
Data Center Compute and Storage Systems
Business Case Justification Narrative Page 10 of 10
The undersigned acknowledge they have reviewed the Data Center Compute and
Storage Systems Business Case and agree with the approach it presents.
Significant changes to this will be coordinated with and approved by the undersigned
or their designated representatives.

Signature: Date:
Print Name: Walter Roys
Title: System Engineering Manager
Role: Business Case Owner

Signature: Date:
Print Name: Jim Corder
Title: IT Director
Role: Business Case Sponsor

Signature: Date:
Print Name: Elisabeth Sibulsky
Title: IT Program Manager
Role: Steering/Advisory Committee Review

Signature: Date:
Print Name: Karen Schuh
Title: ET PMO Manager
Role: Steering/Advisory Committee Review

Template Version: 05/28/2020
DocuSign Envelope ID: 3DB6CD1F-E542-4C43-9109-A28EE4791A81
Sep-01-2022 | 8:29 AM PDT
Sep-02-2022 | 2:04 PM PDT
Exhibit No. 11 Case Nos. AVU-E-23-01/AVU-G-23-01 J. Kensok, Avista
Schedule 1, Page 55 of 304
Digital Grid Networks
Business Case Justification Narrative Page 1 of 11
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This business case includes network communications technology that establishes a more
reliable, secure, and supportable mix of private and third-party solutions that compose
the FAN (Field Area Network), including mesh devices using unlicensed wireless bands
installed throughout the service territory and devices that leverage commercial LTE
communications systems. With increased utility use cases such as Wildfire prevention,
ADMS (Advanced Distribution Management System), and EV (Electric Vehicle) charging,
having a multi-tiered field area network solution allows for better support of the utility
demand across the entire geographic service territory. The current mix of private and
third-party wide area wireless services relies too heavily on leased external services
which can result in degraded security, performance, and overall reliability because the
assigned TTR (time to restoration) is outside of Avista’s control. Overreiliance on these
commercial systems presents a risk to the stability of critical core services, therefore
Avista’s control and safety communication networks are being moved to utility-grade
leased or private services.

For this business case, funding is being requested for $11,481,900 over five years to
upgrade or replace approximately 800 network communication systems within the field
area network. For assets connected to 3rd party wireless services, such as commercial
LTE, tracking of carrier orientation, usage, and cost are also maintained for each
individual asset. Analysis of current traffic profiles and future use-cases is reconciled to
reliability metrics and supportability requirements in order to generate the desired mix of
private and leased services to support the Field Area Networks. The risks of not approving
this business case at the level to which it can maintain the balance of meeting its asset
management strategy and scale for future technology could result in unplanned failures
and unplanned outages across the field area network communication system.

VERSION HISTORY
Version Author Description Date Notes
1.0 Jim Ogle Initial BCJN Draft 6/2017
2.0 Shawna Kiesbuy Revision of BCJN to new template 7/2020
3.0 Shawna Kiesbuy Annual Revision 6/2021
4.0 Shawna Kiesbuy Revision to BCJN 8/2022

DocuSign Envelope ID: 37B7D3B5-D8B4-4299-B607-28BA27CAA767
Exhibit No. 11 Case Nos. AVU-E-23-01/AVU-G-23-01 J. Kensok, Avista
Schedule 1, Page 56 of 304
Digital Grid Networks
Business Case Justification Narrative Page 2 of 11
GENERAL INFORMATION

1. BUSINESS PROBLEM
1.1 What is the current or potential problem that is being addressed?
This business case includes network communications technology that
establishes a more reliable, secure, and supportable mix of private and third-
party solutions that compose the FAN (Field Area Network), including mesh
devices using unlicensed wireless bands installed throughout the service
territory and devices that leverage commercial LTE communications systems.
With increased utility use cases such as Wildfire prevention, ADMS (Advanced
Distribution Management System), and EV (Electric Vehicle) charging, having a
multi-tiered field area network solution allows for better support of the utility
demand across the entire geographic service territory.
The current mix of private and third-party wide area wireless services relies too
heavily on leased external services which can result in degraded security,
performance, and overall reliability because the assigned TTR (time to
restoration) is outside of Avista’s control. Overreiliance on these commercial
systems presents a risk to the stability of critical core services, therefore Avista’s
control and safety communication networks are being moved to utility-grade
leased or private services.
1.2 Discuss the major drivers of the business case (Customer Requested, Customer
Service Quality & Reliability, Mandatory & Compliance, Performance & Capacity, Asset
Condition, or Failed Plant & Operations) and the benefits to the customer.
The main driver for this business case is Performance and Capacity. Since the
wireless transport systems support both back office and critical infrastructure,
creating and managing the business case is crucial to building a wireless
transport architecture that protects and provides the performance and capacity
needed by all end users. Specifically, allowing for the monitoring and protection
of utility assets in high wildfire prone areas, supporting the build out of an EV
communications network across the service territory, and supporting ADMS
functions including the automation of outage restoration and optimizing the
Requested Spend Amount $11,481,900
Requested Spend Time Period 5 years
Requesting Organization/Department Enterprise Technology
Business Case Owner | Sponsor Shawna Kiesbuy | Jim Corder
Sponsor Organization/Department Enterprise Technology
Phase Execution
Category Program
Driver Performance & Capacity
DocuSign Envelope ID: 37B7D3B5-D8B4-4299-B607-28BA27CAA767
Exhibit No. 11 Case Nos. AVU-E-23-01/AVU-G-23-01 J. Kensok, Avista
Schedule 1, Page 57 of 304
Digital Grid Networks
Business Case Justification Narrative Page 3 of 11
performance of the distribution grid and in some cases, AMI (Advanced Metering
Infrastructure) data. With Performance and Capacity, the network
communication assets are managed in alignment with technology lifecycles that
are based on manufacturer product roadmaps and planned obsolesces to
proactively reduce the risk of failing assets affecting critical operations systems,
back-office processes, and infrastructure reliability.
1.3 Identify why this work is needed now and what risks there are if not
approved or is deferred.
The network project work captured in this business case establishes a more
reliable, secure, and supportable mix of private and third-party solutions for
wireless transport systems. With Avista’s vision of delivering better energy for
life, this business case is key to enabling the gas and electric service delivery to
our customers in a safe and reliable manner. The work is needed daily and is
ongoing with a direct tie to our core operations.
The risks of not approving this business case at the level to which it can maintain
the balance of meeting its asset management strategy and scale for future
technology could result in unplanned failures and unplanned outages across the
field area network communication system. The result is tied to the following
risks: an increase in employee, contractor and/or public safety risks due to the
inability to see and remotely operate the electric and gas systems. This has the
potential to increase labor and non-labor costs tied to unplanned system scope
changes, where delays to procurement can be realized in order to replace the
failed asset, as well as downtime to the critical systems supported. This would
also lead to additional exposure of outdated or unsupported devices to external
cyber vulnerabilities.

1.4 Identify any measures that can be used to determine whether the
investment would successfully deliver on the objectives and address the
need listed above.
Executing and completing planned projects within this business case should
refresh assets or install new instances of technology to enhance and increase
performance and capacity needs. If the fail rate associated with the network
systems in the business case remains low, then the project work is adding value
by proactively reducing the risk of failing assets affecting critical operations
systems, processes, and infrastructure reliability. In addition, expanding network
assets in advance of Avista adding services ensures business operations are
not delayed and the system impacted with increased capacity.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 37B7D3B5-D8B4-4299-B607-28BA27CAA767
Exhibit No. 11 Case Nos. AVU-E-23-01/AVU-G-23-01 J. Kensok, Avista
Schedule 1, Page 58 of 304
Digital Grid Networks
Business Case Justification Narrative Page 4 of 11
1.5 Supplemental Information
1.5.1 Please reference and summarize any studies that support the problem
Reference materials that support the needed changes in Network
technology are maintained by Technology Domain Architects within each
respective technology area.
1.5.2 For asset replacement, include graphical or narrative representation of metrics
associated with the current condition of the asset that is proposed for
replacement.
Not applicable. This business case is aligned with Performance &
Capacity.

Option Capital Cost Start Complete
Recommended Solution – Upgrade of assets
identified with cyber vulnerabilities and optimization
or expansion for performance and capacity.
$11,481,900 01/2023 12/2027
Alternative 1 – A reduction of funding which reduces
expansion to meet wireless transport needs and
does not allow for the necessary number of devices
to be refreshed increasing risk of failure or cyber
vulnerability to unauthorized access by bad actors.
$9,185,520 01/2023 12/2027
Alternative 2 – Do not fund the program. $0 01/2023 12/2027
2.1 Describe what metrics, data, analysis, or information were considered
when preparing this capital request.
Each individual network infrastructure asset is tracked throughout its active
presence using several systems. Collectively these systems track lifecycle,
manufacturer warranty, maintenance, and support (contract) status, licensing,
capacity, and replacement cost. For assets connected to 3rd party wireless
services, such as commercial LTE, tracking of carrier orientation, usage, and
cost are also maintained for each individual asset. Analysis of current traffic
profiles and future use-cases is reconciled to reliability metrics and
supportability requirements in order to generate the desired mix of private and
leased services to support the Field Area Networks. Capacity and performance
planning is conducted based on industry trends, distruptors, and expected
customer growth, the result of which is a robust, converged, field area network
that will enable Avista to efficiently and effectively deliver timely information and
services to customers.

Gross Total
Assets 3rd Party
Service Private
Service
Forecasted
Growth
2023-2027
Total Scope of
Request
599 59x 0 ~300* ~800

*Approximate only and subject to change

DocuSign Envelope ID: 37B7D3B5-D8B4-4299-B607-28BA27CAA767
Exhibit No. 11 Case Nos. AVU-E-23-01/AVU-G-23-01 J. Kensok, Avista
Schedule 1, Page 59 of 304
Digital Grid Networks
Business Case Justification Narrative Page 5 of 11
EoS= End of manufacturer software and/or hardware support, includes devices
that cannot be patched or updated are considered vulnerable to cyber threats
and must be refreshed.

EoL= End of planned asset lifecycle, communication network assets within the
Enterprise Network Infrastructure solution portfolio are selected for a planned
lifecycle of 7 years, with some exceptions.

2.2 Discuss how the requested capital cost amount will be spent in the current
year (or future years if a multi-year or ongoing initiative). (i.e., what are the
expected functions, processes or deliverables that will result from the capital spend?). Include
any known or estimated reductions to O&M because of this investment.
In the current year, the project focus will be on expansion of 700 MHz
implementation and the replacement of the Tropos network technology with
expanded wireless communications systems to increase performance and
capability and alleviate cyber security threats on devices deemed obsolete by
vendor lifecycles. Historical costs and timelines related to similar project work
provide support for the requested allocations above.
Direct Savings - No direct savings from this business case.
Indirect Savings - The network infrastructure investments in this business case
sustain our business by using technology to automate business processes. This
business case specifically addresses network infrastructure required for our
distribution digital grid. The business case considers business impact vs.
likelihood/probability when sequencing work and allocating resources and
responds to vendor-manufactured product obsolescence risk as well as cyber
security risks.
This business case catalog of use cases includes the network infrastructure
requirements for distribution automation, automatic meter reading, advanced
metering infrastructure, and other field area network applications. The key
performance indicator for network availability and reliability is 99.9%, 24x7. Our
investment sequencing is based on three drivers, 1) Compliance, 2) Initiatives,
3) Reliability. The Compliance driver should be regulation, Initiatives are
executive sponsored (current example is a cybersecurity vulnerability risk on
out-of-support assets), and the Reliability driver is often the highest volume of
work.
The sequencing of the Reliability projects is driven first by the network asset
end-of-support date for cybersecurity patching, then the performance and
capacity to meet the business requirement, and lastly product obsolescence
date.
Investment percentage for the cybersecurity Initiative is 80% in 2022, Reliability
projects are 20%. In 2023, the cybersecurity Initiative is 70% and Reliability
projects are 30% of the investment.
Quantified indirect savings:
DocuSign Envelope ID: 37B7D3B5-D8B4-4299-B607-28BA27CAA767
Exhibit No. 11 Case Nos. AVU-E-23-01/AVU-G-23-01 J. Kensok, Avista
Schedule 1, Page 60 of 304
Digital Grid Networks
Business Case Justification Narrative Page 6 of 11
2022 2023 Lifetime *
$0.00 $0.00 $10mm-$20mm

*According to the Company Enterprise Risk Register, under the “Loss of
Communication or Network Technologies” and the “Cyber Intrusion” risks the
probability of this failure has an income statement score of 3, which equates to
a $10-$20 million avoided cost over a period of 2-3 years.

[Offsets to projects will be more strongly scrutinized in general rate cases going forward (ref. WUTC Docket No. U-190531 Policy
Statement), therefore it is critical that these impacts are thought through to support rate recovery.]

2.3 Outline any business functions and processes that may be impacted (and
how) by the business case for it to be successfully implemented.
The projects in this business case establish a more reliable, secure, and
supportable mix of private and third-party solutions for wireless transport
systems. The projects are dependent on length of construction season and other
geographically similar but unrelated work being performed at impacted
substations. Planning for these projects is done in partnership with other Avista
departments to ensure an alignment of technical needs is accounted for in this
business case, including the requirements, risks, and effects of the project work.
Many times, this work will be aligned with a previously scheduled outage window
to gain efficiency and reduce the amount of downtime experienced by operators
at the sites. Specific business functions and processes affected are determined
project by project. Through those projects, business functions and processes
might be impacted but the technology upgrades being made at the varied
locations throughout Avista’s service territory should strive to increase
performance and capacity for employees in their daily work life.

2.4 Discuss the alternatives that were considered and any tangible risks and
mitigation strategies for each alternative.
The requested funding amount allows the wireless network communication
systems tied to this business case to be maintained and expanded based on a
periodic upgrade schedule. If this business case did not exist or receive funding,
the network communications assets could fail, or the technology becomes
obsolete which would result in a lack of communication paths for Wildfire
prevention, ADMS (Advanced Distribution Management System), and EV
(Electric Vehicle) charging systems.
Two alternative funding options were reviewed:
Alternative 1: Fund the business case at an amount which is less than the
original request
Funding of this business case at an amount less than the full request will reduce
expansion of network wireless communication systems to meet business needs
DocuSign Envelope ID: 37B7D3B5-D8B4-4299-B607-28BA27CAA767
Exhibit No. 11 Case Nos. AVU-E-23-01/AVU-G-23-01 J. Kensok, Avista
Schedule 1, Page 61 of 304
Digital Grid Networks
Business Case Justification Narrative Page 7 of 11
in multiple areas of the business. This reduction in projects will also lessen the
necessary number of devices to be refreshed which increases the risk of failure
or cyber security vulnerability because assets will no longer be supported by
their manufacturers.
Alternative 2: Do not fund the business case
Removing all funding for this business case would result in a lack of wireless
network access for our field locations. A lack of access and/or a lack of
optimization and capacity management, minimizing network capacity reducing
the ability to communicate with field assets and members of our workforce at
field area locations across our geographic territory. Manual interventions and
field visits would be required, increasing expense costs and degrading trust
between teams regarding real time data that used to be available when device
communications were present.

2.5 Include a timeline of when this work will be started and completed.
Describe when the investments become used and useful to the customer.
spend, and transfers to plant by year.
The Digital Grid Network business case is managed as a program of projects
planned yearly. All individual projects are managed through the Project
Management Office (PMO), which follows the Project Management Institute
(PMI) standards. Throughout the year, the business case’s projects are Initiated,
Planned, Executed, and then Completed with a Transfer to Plant for the scope
requests which over the course of a calendar year equates to the funded budget
allocation.

2.6 Discuss how the proposed investment aligns with strategic vision, goals,
objectives and mission statement of the organization.
The Digital Grid Network business case investments align with Avista’s
commitment to invest in its infrastructure to achieve optimal lifecycle
performance – safety, reliability, and at a fair price. Network technologies that
allow for communication with field area assets and workforce in the field are
critical in support of the bulk electric system. The implementation of these
network technologies will continue to enable and support these critical
communications in a manner that is much safer for all workers and at all
locations across Avista.

2.7 Include why the requested amount above is considered a prudent
investment, providing or attaching any supporting documentation. In
addition, please explain how the investment prudency will be reviewed
and re-evaluated throughout the project

Avista’s mission is to improve our customers’ lives through innovative energy
solutions in a safe, responsible, and affordable manner. This business case is
DocuSign Envelope ID: 37B7D3B5-D8B4-4299-B607-28BA27CAA767
Exhibit No. 11 Case Nos. AVU-E-23-01/AVU-G-23-01 J. Kensok, Avista
Schedule 1, Page 62 of 304
Digital Grid Networks
Business Case Justification Narrative Page 8 of 11
tasked with enhancing and maintaining wireless network communication
systems. The funding amount and project portfolio has been determined to
maintain current performance and capacity while also scaling for customer
growth. With project priorities tied to enterprise strategies and risk objectives,
the funding is reviewed monthly allowing for adjustments to be made to the
portfolio as demands change across Avista’s environments. If project priorities
do change, a request is then made to the business case governance team to
evaluate and determine if the change is prudent to accomplishing the goals and
objectives established for the current funding year.

2.8 Supplemental Information

Identify customers and stakeholders that interface with the business case
Within the Digital Grid Network business case, the discrete projects interface
with various internal Avista groups such as ET (Enterprise Technology)
engineering, Substation engineering, GPSS (Generation Production and
Substation Support) and Generation Plants, the Telecommunications Shop,
along with our internal business partners at various office and remote facilities.

The ET Business Case Owner works in conjunction with the PMO, the assigned
Program Manager, and subsequent Project Managers.

The ET Business Case Owner is accountable and responsible for all Business
Case related activities and assignments.

2.8.1 Identify any related Business Cases
There are no related business cases.

3.1 Steering Committee or Advisory Group Information
Steering Committee members are invaluable to the project and will provide
approval on scope, schedule, and budget related changes. Additionally, they will
provide approval on issues and risks pertaining to project deliverables outlined
in this document, which also typically have an impact on the scope, schedule,
or budget of a project. Steering Committee members will also provide approval
on Change Requests, Go-Live, and the Approval to Close documents. For the
Digital Grid Network business case, the Steering Committee will consist of the
Directors and Managers within ET, Energy Delivery, GPSS and the Business
Case Owner.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 37B7D3B5-D8B4-4299-B607-28BA27CAA767
Exhibit No. 11 Case Nos. AVU-E-23-01/AVU-G-23-01 J. Kensok, Avista
Schedule 1, Page 63 of 304
Digital Grid Networks
Business Case Justification Narrative Page 9 of 11
3.2 Provide and discuss the governance processes and people that will
provide oversight
The Digital Grid Network Business Case has two levels of governance: the
Program Steering Committee and the Project Steering Committee.

Program Steering Committee
This business case is a program of related projects. The Program Steering
Committee consists of members in management positions that are identified
and responsible for prioritizing the projects within this program. The Steering
Committee is also held accountable for the financial performance of this
program. The Program Steering Committee will have regular meetings to review
the progress of the program and to make decisions on the following topics:

 Project prioritization and risk
 Approving business case funding requests
 New project initiation and sequencing

The Program will be facilitated and administrated by an assigned Program
Manager within the PMO. The project queue will be reviewed periodically to plan
and sequence work to the levels of funding allocation received.

Project Steering Committee
Project Steering Committees act as the governing body over each individual
project within the program and will consist of key members in management
positions that are identified as responsible for the successful completion of the
scope of work identified in the Charter document for the Project. The Project
Steering Committee is responsible for providing guidance and making decisions
on key issues that affect the following topics:

 Scope
 Schedule
 Budget
 Project Issues
 Project Risks

The Project Steering Committee will meet at the defined intervals documented
in the Charter of the project and will be facilitated by an assigned Project
Manager from within the PMO.

DocuSign Envelope ID: 37B7D3B5-D8B4-4299-B607-28BA27CAA767
Exhibit No. 11 Case Nos. AVU-E-23-01/AVU-G-23-01 J. Kensok, Avista
Schedule 1, Page 64 of 304
Digital Grid Networks
Business Case Justification Narrative Page 10 of 11
3.3 How will decision-making, prioritization, and change requests be
documented and monitored
Project prioritization is evaluated by the management team monthly. Each
program and project steering committee meet regularly and oversee scope,
schedule and budget within their respective programs and projects and inform
the Business Case owner of any changes needing escalation to the Technology
Planning Group (TPG) or Capital Planning Group (CPG) for decision-making
around resource or funding constraints.

Any changes in funding or scope are documented at the Business Case level,
via a Change Request document that is presented to the CPG monthly and
evaluated by the CPG for approval.

Changes in scope, schedule, or budget are also documented through a ‘Change
Request’ at the project level and reviewed and approved through a formal
workflow process. All ET projects in this business case are managed through
the PMO, which follows the Project Management Institute (PMI) standards.
Projects initiate with a ‘Charter’ to begin the planning process. When planning
is complete, a ‘Project Management Plan (PMP)’ is created and approved as
the project baseline for scope, schedule, and budget. At the end of execution,
an ‘Approval to Go Live’ is submitted and approved prior to implementation
(Transfer to Plant). After the technology is in service and out of the warranty
period, the Project Manager will hold a Lessons Learned, and subsequently
submit an ‘Approval to Close’ prior to finishing the project. All Monitor and
Control documentation and Change Requests are documented and stored to
ensure a comprehensive audit trail.

The undersigned acknowledge they have reviewed the Digital Grid Network
business case and agree with the approach it presents. Significant changes to this
will be coordinated with and approved by the undersigned or their designated
representatives.

Signature: Date:
Print Name: Shawna Kiesbuy
Title: Sr. Manager, Network Engineering
Role: Business Case Owner

Signature: Date:
Print Name: Jim Corder
Title: IT Director
DocuSign Envelope ID: 37B7D3B5-D8B4-4299-B607-28BA27CAA767
Sep-02-2022 | 3:05 PM PDT
Sep-02-2022 | 4:42 PM PDT
Exhibit No. 11 Case Nos. AVU-E-23-01/AVU-G-23-01 J. Kensok, Avista
Schedule 1, Page 65 of 304
Digital Grid Networks
Business Case Justification Narrative Page 11 of 11
Role: Business Case Sponsor

DocuSign Envelope ID: 37B7D3B5-D8B4-4299-B607-28BA27CAA767
Exhibit No. 11 Case Nos. AVU-E-23-01/AVU-G-23-01 J. Kensok, Avista
Schedule 1, Page 66 of 304
Endpoint Compute and Productivity Systems
Business Case Justification Narrative Page 1 of 10
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Business processes require automated technology solutions to meet the overwhelming
need for data and information to make decisions. All industries, including the utility
industry, are reliant on the ability to produce, transmit, analyze, and store information to
meet various business requirements. Avista’s office, call center, and field staff require on-
demand information to meet customer expectations when providing gas and electric
service to customers across our service territory. The information can be critical to
prevent, reduce, affect, or optimize an outcome that benefits our customers. Technology
investments under the Endpoint Compute and Productivity Systems business case
enable our staff with information to optimize our business and be responsive to our
customers.

The primary driver of this business case is performance and capacity, whereby the
Company balances the need to meet performance standards and system reliability for the
various technologies under this program with annual budget allocations, and their
respective technology lifecycles. This is a true balancing act that requires historical trend
analyses, technology road-mapping, and cost-control measures.

Technology solutions under this program include, but are not limited to, technology
required day-to-day to automate and enable business processes, such as Personal
Computer (PC) hardware and their operating systems, various handheld devices,
printers, configuration and management systems for all endpoints, productivity tools (e.g.
Office 365), etc. The costs associated with each solution can vary by the scale of the
solution deployed, as well as vendor licensing models. Therefore, each technology under
this program undergoes regular review of the levels of utilization and performance to
determine if it is meeting the expected performance standards and capacity requirements
to maintain system reliability under the established budget constraints. These reviews
can result in calling for additional investment under this program from time to time for
technology either falling behind technology lifecycles or predetermined performance
standards, which can pose cyber attack risk, and risk to computing system reliability that
may only be resolved with the reinstatement of manual processes replacing automation
with workforce, thereby increase labor costs, human error, and overall processing delays.

VERSION HISTORY
Version Author Description Date Notes
1.0 Walter Roys Initial BCJN Draft 6/2017
1.1 Walter Roys Update Investment Driver 7/2019
2.0 Walter Roys Revision of BCJN to new template 7/2020
3.0 Walter Roys Revision of BCJN 8/2022

GENERAL INFORMATION
Requested Spend Amount $22,400,000
Requested Spend Time Period 5 years
DocuSign Envelope ID: 42FAB5F3-AA6B-4DE6-9303-AC364CF2603E
Exhibit No. 11 Case Nos. AVU-E-23-01/AVU-G-23-01 J. Kensok, Avista
Schedule 1, Page 67 of 304
Endpoint Compute and Productivity Systems
Business Case Justification Narrative Page 2 of 10
1. BUSINESS PROBLEM
1.1 What is the current or potential problem that is being addressed?
Endpoint compute and productivity technology is not only subject to the
traditional mortality rate or lifecycle, but it is compounded by planned
obsolescence, also known as technology obsolescence.1 That is, whereby, the
technology asset although within its functional lifespan is technologically flawed
or no longer meets the need of users or customers, as expectations increase
due to newer and more powerful technology (with greater performance and
capacity) that is available in the market.
Additionally, with the rapid pace of technological change, technology vendors
require continuous upgrades to maintain system maintenance and support,
which can include security patching, bug fixes, version upgrades,
interoperability, and compatibility with other technologies.
1.2 Discuss the major drivers of the business case (Customer Requested, Customer
Service Quality & Reliability, Mandatory & Compliance, Performance & Capacity, Asset
Condition, or Failed Plant & Operations) and the benefits to the customer
The Endpoint Compute and Productivity Systems Business Case is driven by
managing technology replacement according to manufacturer product
roadmaps or changes in business requirements with an objective to maintain
infrastructure performance and align infrastructure assets with business
demand for capacity. Therefore, the major driver for this business case is
Performance & Capacity.
All Avista customers benefit from maintaining endpoint compute and productivity
systems, as this technology enables the Avista workforce to perform their day-
to-day job functions in delivering gas and electric service to our customers.

1.3 Identify why this work is needed now and what risks there are if not
approved or is deferred
Avista’s office, call center, and field staff require on-demand information to meet
customer expectations when providing gas and electric service to customers

1 Barreca, Stephen L. (1998-2000). Technology Lifecycles and Technology Obsolescence. Retrieved from
http://bcri.com/products/publications.htm
Requesting Organization/Department Enterprise Technology
Business Case Owner | Sponsor Walter Roys | Jim Corder
Sponsor Organization/Department Enterprise Technology
Phase Monitor/Control
Category Program
Driver Performance & Capacity
DocuSign Envelope ID: 42FAB5F3-AA6B-4DE6-9303-AC364CF2603E
Exhibit No. 11 Case Nos. AVU-E-23-01/AVU-G-23-01 J. Kensok, Avista
Schedule 1, Page 68 of 304
Endpoint Compute and Productivity Systems
Business Case Justification Narrative Page 3 of 10
across our service territory. The information can be critical to prevent, reduce,
affect, or optimize an outcome that benefits our customers. Additionally, the
endpoint compute and productivity technology is necessary to enable the
capabilities that align with our strategic goals of putting our customers at the
center.

Reliance on obsolete technology for automated business process presents
significant risk that may only be solved with the reinstatement of manual
process. Sustaining automated business process by replacing automation with
workforce would increase labor expense, and delay response times to meet
customer needs.

1.4 Identify any measures that can be used to determine whether the
investment would successfully deliver on the objectives and address the
need listed above.

Vendor roadmaps and technology asset lifecycles are data points that inform on
how best to plan replacements, while meeting business value and strategic
alignment, within the constraints of resource capacity and funding, which in turn
can result in deferred replacement introducing the risk of technology failure.
Ongoing reviews of vendor roadmap and technology asset lifecycle alignment
provide necessary information to track how much of our investment in
technology is lagging behind the vendor roadmap, and thereby introducing risk.
Additionally, assets that fail due to not being replaced within their technology
lifecycle are replaced by the Technology Failed Asset business case, which
tracks technology asset failures, and is also used as a data point to inform the
technology lifecycles under this business case.

1.5 Supplemental Information
1.5.1 Please reference and summarize any studies that support the problem
The Enterprise Technology team references various technology vendor and
third-party resources to stay informed and recommend decisions on the various
technology investments. A few sample sources are included below:

Barreca, Stephen L. (1998-2000). Technology Lifecycles and Technology
Obsolescence. Retrieved from http://bcri.com/products/publications.htm
Directions on Roadmaps, Independent IT Planning Information and Advisory
Service focused exclusively on Microsoft enterprise software and services.
Retrieved from https://www.directionsonmicrosoft.com/
Gartner Industry Research and Reference Material. Retrieved from
https://www.gartner.com/en/information-technology

DocuSign Envelope ID: 42FAB5F3-AA6B-4DE6-9303-AC364CF2603E
Exhibit No. 11 Case Nos. AVU-E-23-01/AVU-G-23-01 J. Kensok, Avista
Schedule 1, Page 69 of 304
Endpoint Compute and Productivity Systems
Business Case Justification Narrative Page 4 of 10
1.5.2 For asset replacement, include graphical or narrative representation of metrics
associated with the current condition of the asset that is proposed for
replacement.
Investments under this business case are to maintain performance and
capacity standards in each respective endpoint compute and productivity
technology. For example, when the product manufacturer terminates
maintenance and support for specific devices or solutions, an asset therefore
becomes incompatible with other advancing technologies. This introduces the
risk of cyber attack and this business case will change or upgrade the asset.

This program will manage technology replacement according to manufacturer
product roadmaps with an objective to maintain infrastructure performance and align
infrastructure assets with business demand for capacity.
Address 100% of obsolete products and capacity constraints
This is the optimal solution. This option fully addresses and minimizes the
likelihood of technology impact to automated business process.

Option Capital Cost Start Complete
Recommended Solution - Address 100% of obsolete
products and capacity constraints (recommended)
$30.0 M 01 2023 12 2027
Alternative #1 – Address 75% obsolete products and
capacity constraints
$22.5 M 01 2023 12 2027
Alternative #2 - Address 50% obsolete products and
capacity constraints
$15.0 M 01 2023 12 2027
2.1 Describe what metrics, data, analysis or information was considered when
preparing this capital request.

The funds request was based on a calculation of the performance and
capacityassociated with each technology asset, the scope of the technology
footprint across our service territory, and historical project costs for technologies
previously refreshed under this business case. Through regular reviews, the
program balances the need to meet system performance and reliability
standards for the various technologies under this program within annual budget
allocations. These reviews can result in calling for additional investment under
this program from time to time for technology either falling behind technology
lifecycles or predetermined performance and reliability standards.

The Business Case Governance group, consisting of Technology Domain
Architects and ET Management and Project Management Office, maintains
technology roadmaps to inform the Business Case of investement demand.
Investment demand is assessed against funding constraints each year and
prioritized based on risk of technology impact to the business. Various data
DocuSign Envelope ID: 42FAB5F3-AA6B-4DE6-9303-AC364CF2603E
Exhibit No. 11 Case Nos. AVU-E-23-01/AVU-G-23-01 J. Kensok, Avista
Schedule 1, Page 70 of 304
Endpoint Compute and Productivity Systems
Business Case Justification Narrative Page 5 of 10
points inform the team’s decisions and recommendations, which include, but are
not limited to vendor-driven obsolescence, compute capacity and storage,
historical project costs for similar type projects, etc.

2.2 Discuss how the requested capital cost amount will be spent in the current
year (or future years if a multi-year or ongoing initiative). (i.e. what are the
expected functions, processes or deliverables that will result from the capital spend?). Include
any known or estimated reductions to O&M as a result of this investment.
[Offsets to projects will be more strongly scrutinized in general rate cases going forward (ref. WUTC Docket No. U-190531 Policy
Statement), therefore it is critical that these impacts are thought through in order to support rate recovery.]

The funding requested under the Endpoint Compute and Productivity Business
Case will be invested in, but not limited to, technology, such as:
o Personal Computer (PC) systems
o Vehicle PC mounting systems
o Tablets
o Print, Scan, & Fax systems
o Global Positioning Systems (GPS)
o Digital scale systems
o Uninterruptable Power Supplies (UPS)
o Other endpoint computer systems
o PC Operating Systems (OS)
o Virtual PC Systems
o Virtualized application systems
o End user PC productivity tools
o Remote PC management systems
o Configuration management systems
o Mobile computing systems
o Battery management systems

Investment in these technologies can increase or decrease O&M expenses.
These can included licensing increases from time to time, or decreases in
workload for O&M resources. However, not funding this business case may
result in removing automated business functions, which will either cause delay
in meeting business and customer demands or completely change whether we
can even respond to business and customer demands. There are no O&M
reductions or direct offsets resulting from these investments, as this technology
enables the Avista workforce to perform their day-to-day job functions in
delivering gas and electric service to our customers.

Reliance on obsolete technology for automated business process presents
significant risk that may only be solved with the reinstatement of manual
process. Sustaining automated business process by replacing automation with
workforce would increase labor expense.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 42FAB5F3-AA6B-4DE6-9303-AC364CF2603E
Exhibit No. 11 Case Nos. AVU-E-23-01/AVU-G-23-01 J. Kensok, Avista
Schedule 1, Page 71 of 304
Endpoint Compute and Productivity Systems
Business Case Justification Narrative Page 6 of 10
In addition, when endpoint devices break down it can result in the inability of
an employee to access essential technology systems such as our meter data,
customer billing and our mapping data. This can result in a productivity
reduction across all areas of the business. Savings related to avoiding these
down time issues could range from $100k -$10M a year representing at least 1
full time employee up to 100 full time employees needed to implement manual
processes.
Additionally, with the rapid pace of technological change, technology vendors
require continuous upgrades to maintain system maintenance and support,
which can include security patching, bug fixes, version upgrades,
interoperability, and compatibility with other technologies. These upgrades can
in turn drive subsequent system replacements, creating a cascading event of
change. Therefore, vendor roadmaps and technology asset lifecycles are data
points that inform on how best to plan replacements, while meeting business
value and strategic alignment, within the constraints of resource capacity and
funding, which in turn can result in deferred replacement introducing the risk of
technology failure.

2.3 Outline any business functions and processes that may be impacted (and
how) by the business case for it to be successfully implemented.

All Avista business functions are affected by this business case, as it enables
all day-to-day work activities and automated business processes. From service
center to call center to field work, every worker requires endpoint technology to
perform their business function and deliver gas and electric service to our
customers.

2.4 Discuss the alternatives that were considered and any tangible risks and
mitigation strategies for each alternative.

Address 75% of obsolete products and capacity constraints
This will introduce risk associated with technology systems reliability,
interoperability and capacity. The investment required to address obsolete
technology products is deferred to subsequent years. The likelihood of
technology impact to business is increased. To minimize the impact of this risk,
the Program Steering Committee will manage project sequence according to the
investment priority documented in Section 3.2.

Address 50% of obsolete products and capacity constraints
This will introduce risk associated with technology systems reliability,
interoperability and capacity. The investment required to address obsolete
technology products is deferred to subsequent years. The likelihood of
DocuSign Envelope ID: 42FAB5F3-AA6B-4DE6-9303-AC364CF2603E
Exhibit No. 11 Case Nos. AVU-E-23-01/AVU-G-23-01 J. Kensok, Avista
Schedule 1, Page 72 of 304
Endpoint Compute and Productivity Systems
Business Case Justification Narrative Page 7 of 10
technology impact to business is increased. Interoperability constraints may
force unplanned funding requests. Multi-year, complex projects are at risk of
completion prior to product obsolescence. This option impacts the workforce.

2.5 Include a timeline of when this work will be started and completed.
Describe when the investments become used and useful to the customer.
spend, and transfers to plant by year.

This business case is a program that transfers to plant the total cost of each
project at the completion of every project, which can straddle calendar years.
Quarterly forecasts capture changes in transfers to plant based on project
status.

2.6 Discuss how the proposed investment aligns with strategic vision, goals,
objectives and mission statement of the organization.

The technology investments under this business case program align with
Avista’s vision to deliver ‘better energy for life’ to our customers and in the area
of ‘Perform’, which calls for “our focus on performance today to serving our
customers well and unlocking pathways to growth.”

Each investment under this business case program allows Avista to deliver
electric and gas services to our customers.
2.7 Include why the requested amount above is considered a prudent
investment, providing or attaching any supporting documentation. In
addition, please explain how the investment prudency will be reviewed
and re-evaluated throughout the project

The reason that the technology investment under this program business case is
prudent is because the Avista workforce requires this technology every day to
deliver gas and electric service to our customers either in an office, customer
service center or in the field. Alternatives to each technology are considered,
yet not investing in it is not an option as automated business process would
either stop or be removed, thereby crippling our workforce’s ability to deliver gas
and electric service to our customers, respond to compliance requirements, and
conduct business operations and reporting. Additionally, a two-tiered
governance structure overseeing this business case program meets regularly to
oversee and make decisions on the needs, benefits, costs, and risks of each
investment.

2.8 Supplemental Information

DocuSign Envelope ID: 42FAB5F3-AA6B-4DE6-9303-AC364CF2603E
Exhibit No. 11 Case Nos. AVU-E-23-01/AVU-G-23-01 J. Kensok, Avista
Schedule 1, Page 73 of 304
Endpoint Compute and Productivity Systems
Business Case Justification Narrative Page 8 of 10
2.8.1 Identify customers and stakeholders that interface with the business case
Nearly all Avista’s workforce interface with the technology investments under
this business case. Selected leaders in organizational business units, known as
technology stakeholders, work closely with the technology teams to help with
business roadmaps, use case definition, gather non-functional requirements,
test design and deployment approaches to inform technology investments.

2.8.2 Identify any related Business Cases
The technology investment under this business case allows for the deployment
and use of outputs from other business cases, such as application access and
delivery on personal computers and servers, connecting to a virtual private
network or cloud service, managing data storage and compute, security updates
and patching, etc.

3.1 Steering Committee or Advisory Group Information

The Endpoint Compute & Productivity Systems Business Case has two levels
of governance: The Program Steering Committee and the Project Steering
Committee.

3.2 Provide and discuss the governance processes and people that will
provide oversight
Program Steering Committee
This business case is a program of related projects. The Program Steering
Committee consists of members in management positions that are identified
and responsible for prioritizing the projects within this program. The Steering
Committee is also held accountable for the financial performance of this
program. The Program Steering Committee will have regular meetings to review
the progress of the program and to make decisions on the following topics:

 Project prioritization and risk
 Approving business case funding requests
 New project initiation and sequencing

The Program will be facilitated and administrated by an assigned Program
Manager within the Enterprise Technology (ET) Project Management Office
(PMO) Department. The project queue will be reviewed periodically and will
consist of projects needed to maintain the reliability and performance of all
endpoint compute & productivity systems.

Technology product roadmaps identify investment demand that is generally not
fully funded. Technology product investments are prioritized in this manner:
DocuSign Envelope ID: 42FAB5F3-AA6B-4DE6-9303-AC364CF2603E
Exhibit No. 11 Case Nos. AVU-E-23-01/AVU-G-23-01 J. Kensok, Avista
Schedule 1, Page 74 of 304
Endpoint Compute and Productivity Systems
Business Case Justification Narrative Page 9 of 10

1) Safety Systems
2) Control Systems
3) Customer Facing Systems
4) Back Office Systems

Project Steering Committee
Project Steering Committees act as the governing body over each individual
project within the program and will consist of key members in management
positions that are identified as responsible for the successful completion of the
scope of work identified in the Charter document for the Project. The Project
Steering Committee is responsible to provide guidance and make decisions on
key issues that affect the following topics:

 Scope
 Schedule
 Budget
 Project Issues
 Project Risks

The Project Steering Committee will meet at the defined intervals documented
in the Charter of the project and will be facilitated by an assigned Project
Manager from within the ET PMO Department.

3.3 How will decision-making, prioritization, and change requests be
documented and monitored
The governance structure under this business case program is responsible for
decision-making, prioritization, and change requests. Through the regular
Program Steering Committee Meetings, the team reviews and balances planned
work versus unplanned work to determine prioritization, as well as pending
project change requests. Any change request requiring either an increase or
decrease of funds is reviewed at the upcoming Technology Planning Group
meeting before it is submitted to the Capital Planning Group for consideration.

DocuSign Envelope ID: 42FAB5F3-AA6B-4DE6-9303-AC364CF2603E
Exhibit No. 11 Case Nos. AVU-E-23-01/AVU-G-23-01 J. Kensok, Avista
Schedule 1, Page 75 of 304
Endpoint Compute and Productivity Systems
Business Case Justification Narrative Page 10 of 10
The undersigned acknowledge they have reviewed the Endpoint Compute &
Productivity Systems Business Case and agree with the approach it presents.
Significant changes to this will be coordinated with and approved by the undersigned
or their designated representatives.

Signature: Date:
Print Name: Walter Roys
Title: System Engineering Manager
Role: Business Case Owner

Signature: Date:
Print Name: Jim Corder
Title: IT Director
Role: Business Case Sponsor

Signature: Date:
Print Name: Karen Schuh
Title: IT Program Manager
Role: Steering/Advisory Committee Review

Signature: Date:
Print Name: Andy Leija
Title: ET PMO Manager
Role: Steering/Advisory Committee Review
Template Version: 05/28/2020
DocuSign Envelope ID: 42FAB5F3-AA6B-4DE6-9303-AC364CF2603E
Sep-01-2022 | 8:29 AM PDT
Sep-02-2022 | 2:05 PM PDT
Exhibit No. 11 Case Nos. AVU-E-23-01/AVU-G-23-01 J. Kensok, Avista
Schedule 1, Page 76 of 304


 
  
  

   !"# $ %&'&( )'*+,-./0 1 ,/2 3 ,-4 5 ++. -678796:7 .7 -;.9 . -,<9 5 9 =6 5 >6 ;,9 . 5 /7 9 =,9 7 6 ;?6 5 @ ;0 ,7 ,/2 6 < 6 -9 ;. --@ 7 9 5 :6 ;7 A B 9 .7 +5 @ /2./:,/8 2 . ++6 ;6 /9 6 /?.;5 /:6 /9 7 +;5 :5 ++. -6 < 5 -,9 . 5 /7 9 5 :5 @ /9 ,./9 5 >7 .9 6 7 9 5 0 6 /6 ;,9 . 5 />< ,/9 7 ,-;5 7 7 5 @ ;7 6 ;?. -6 9 6 ;;.9 5 ;8 A C ,/,0 ./0 5 @ ;/6 9 D 5 ;4 9 6 -=/5 < 5 0 . 6 7 9 5 5 >9 .:. E 6-5 ::@ /. -,9 . 5 /7 ,/2 5 >6 ;,9 . 5 /7 5 +9 =6 6 /9 6 ;>;.7 6 ,/2 -5 /9 ;5 <7 8 7 9 6 :7 ./9 =6 7 6 < 5 -,9 . 5 /7.7 6 F 9 ;6 :6 <8 .:>5 ;9 ,/9 A G 6 -=/5 < 5 0 8 ./?6 7 9 :6 /9 7 @ /2 6 ;9 =6 H /9 6 ;>;.7 6 ,/2 I 5 /9 ;5 <J 6 9 D 5 ;4 B /+;,7 9 ;@ -9 @ ;6 3 @ 7 ./6 7 7 -,7 6 ,;6 /6 6 2 6 2 9 5 6 F >,/2 ,/2 :,./9 ,./9 =6 7 6 /6 9 D 5 ;4,7 7 6 9 7 ./7 @ >>5 ;9 5 +7 8 7 9 6 :;6 <. ,3 .<.9 8 ,/2 3 @ 7 ./6 7 7 >;5 2 @ -9 . ?.9 8 9 =;5 @ 0 =5 @ 9 5 @ ;7 6 ;?. -696;;.9 5 ;8 1 6 /7 @ ;./0 5 @ ;,3 .<.9 8 9 5 ,>>;5 >;. ,9 6 <8 ;6 7 >5 /2 9 5 9 =6 /6 6 2 7 5 +5 @ ;-@ 7 9 5 :6 ;7 AG=6 9 6 -=/5 < 5 0 8 7 5 <@ 9 . 5 /7 @ /2 6 ;9 =6 H /9 6 ;>;.7 6 ,/2 I 5 /9 ;5 <J 6 9 D 5 ;4 B /+;,7 9 ;@ -9 @ ;63@7./6 7 7 -,7 6 D .<<?,;8 3 8 7 .9 6 < 5 -,9 . 5 /,/2 9 =6 7 8 7 9 6 :7 7 @ >>5 ;9 6 2 ./6 ,-=+,-.<.9 8 5 ;6 /?.;5 /:6 /9 A G =6 8 D .<<./-<@ 2 6 2 1 3 @ 9 ,;6 /5 9 <.:.9 6 2 9 5 1 6 :6 ;0 6 /-8 ,/2 7 ,[phone] :7 1-5 /9 ;5 <7 8 7 9 6 :7 1 -@ 7 9 5 :6 ;7 8 7 9 6 :7 1 ,/2 6 /9 6 ;>;.7 6 3 ,-4 5 ++. -6 >;5 2 @ -9 . ?.9 8 7 8 7 9 6 :7 A G =.7./+;,7 9 ;@ -9 @ ;6 .7 -5 ;6 9 5 @ 9 .<.9 8 5 >6 ;,9 . 5 /7 1 9 =@ 7 2 6 :,/2 ./0 ;6 <. ,3 < 6 /6 9 D 5 ;4 7 @ 9 .<. E ./0-5 ::6 ;-. ,<-,;;. 6 ;7 6 ;?. -6 7 ,/2 >;. ?,9 6 /6 9 D 5 ;4 7 5 <@ 9 . 5 /7 A G =6 -5 7 9 5 +6 ,-=7 5 <@ 9 . 5 /D .<<?,;8 D .9 =9 =6 9 8 >6 5 +7 5 <@ 9 . 5 /. 2 6 /9 . +. 6 2 +5 ;9 =6 ,>>;5 >;. ,9 6 < 6 ?6 <5 +/6 9 D 5 ;4 ,--6 7 7 ,9 6 ,-=7 .9 6 A K ?.7 9 ,,/2 .9 7 -@ 7 9 5 :6 ;7 D .<<6 F >6 ;. 6 /-6 9 =6 3 6 /6 +.9 7 9 =;5 @ 0 =5 /0 5 ./0 7 8 7 9 6 :;6 <. ,3 .<.9 8 AG=6 :,./2 ;. ?6 ;3 6 =./2 9 =.7 >;5 0 ;,:.7 ,7 7 6 9 >6 ;+5 ;:,/-6 ,/2 -,>,-.9 8 ./,<. 0 /:6 /9 D .9 =,7 7 6 9 :,/,0 6 :6 /9 7 9 ;,9 6 0 . 6 7 2 ;. ?6 /3 8 9 6 -=/5 < 5 0 8 <. +6 -8 -< 6 7 9 =,9 ,;6 3 ,7 6 2 5 /:,/@ +,-9 @ ;6 ;>;5 2 @ -9 ;5 ,2 :,>7 ,/2 >< ,//6 2 5 3 7 5 < 6 7 -6 7 A G =6 9 6 -=/5 < 5 0 8 7 5 <@ 9 . 5 /7D.9 =./9 =.7 >;5 0 ;,:@ /2 6 ;0 5 ;6 0 @ < ,;;6 ?. 6 D 9 5 3 ,< ,/-6 9 =6 ,7 7 6 9 :,/,0 6 :6 /9 7 9 ;,9 6 0 8D.9 =./9 =6 >;6 2 6 9 6 ;:./6 2 3 @ 2 0 6 9 ,<< 5 -,9 . 5 /7 A G =6 ;.7 4 7 5 +/5 9 ,>>;5 ?./0 9 =.7 3 @ 7 ./6 7 7 -,7 6,9 9 =6 < 6 ?6 <9 5 D =. -=.9 -,/:,./9 ,./9 =6 3 ,< ,/-6 5 +:6 6 9 ./0 .9 7 ,7 7 6 9 :,/,0 6 :6 /9 7 9 ;,9 6 0 8-,/;6 7 @ <9 ./@ />< ,//6 2 +,.<@ ;6 7 1 D =. -=;6 7 @ <9 ./@ />< ,//6 2 < ,3 5 ;,/2 /5 /*< ,3 5 ;-5 7 9 7 1 ;.7 45+2 6 < ,8 9 5 >;5 -@ ;6 ,/2 ;6 >< ,-6 9 =6 +,.< 6 2 ,7 7 6 9 1 ./-;6 ,7 6 2 7 ,+6 9 8 ;.7 4 7 ./7 6 /2 ./0 +. 6 < 279,++./6 F 9 ;6 :6 D 6 ,9 =6 ;-5 /2 .9 . 5 /7 9 5 ;6 :5 9 6 < 5 -,9 . 5 /7 1 ,7 D 6 <<,7 2 5 D /9 .:6 9 5 9 =6 -;.9 . -,<5 >6 ;,9 . 5 /7 ,/2 7 ,[phone] :7 7 @ >>5 ;9 6 2 A J 6 D ./?6 7 9 :6 /9 7 D .<<3 6 ;6 L @ .;6 2 D =6 /6 F .7 9 ./0,7 7 6 9 7 2 5 /5 9 >;5 ?. 2 6 ,2 6 L @ ,9 6 -,>,-.9 8 1 >6 ;+5 ;:,/-6 1 ,/2 +@ /-9 . 5 /,<.9 8 AMNOPQRSTUVWROXNPYOQZVQRSX[V N \R V N P1.0 Jim Ogle Initial BCJN Draft 6/2017
2.0 Shawna Kiesbuy Revision of BCJN to new template 7/2020








 
Exhibit No. 11 Case Nos. AVU-E-23-01/AVU-G-23-01 J. Kensok, Avista
Schedule 1, Page 77 of 304


 
  
  ]

   !"# $ %&'&( )'*+,-./0 1 ,/23,-4 5 ++. -6 7 8 7 9 6 :7 .7 -;.9 . -,<9 5 9 =6 5 >6 ;,9 . 5 /7 9 =,9 7 6 ;?6 5 @ ;0 ,7 ,/2 6 < 6 -9 ;. --@ 7 9 5 :6 ;7 A B 9 .7 +5 @ /2 ./:,/8 2 . ++6 ;6 /9 6 /?.;5 /:6 /9 7 +;5 :5 ++. -6 < 5 -,9 . 5 /7 9 5:5 @ /9 ,./9 5 >7 .9 6 7 9 5 0 6 /6 ;,9 . 5 />< ,/9 7 ,-;5 7 7 5 @ ;7 6 ;?. -6 9 6 ;;.9 5 ;8 A C ,/,0 ./05@;/6 9 D 5 ;4 9 6 -=/5 < 5 0 . 6 7 9 5 5 >9 .:. E 6 -5 ::@ /. -,9 . 5 /7 ,/2 5 >6 ;,9 . 5 /7 5 +9 =66/9 6 ;>;.7 6 ,/2 -5 /9 ;5 <7 8 7 9 6 :7 ./9 =6 7 6 < 5 -,9 . 5 /7 .7 6 F 9 ;6 :6 <8 .:>5 ;9 ,/9 AG6-=/5 < 5 0 8 ./?6 7 9 :6 /9 7 @ /2 6 ;9 =6 H /9 6 ;>;.7 6 ,/2 I 5 /9 ;5 <J 6 9 D 5 ;4B/+;,7 9 ;@ -9 @ ;6 3 @ 7 ./6 7 7 -,7 6 ,;6 /6 6 2 6 2 9 5 6 F >,/2 ,/2 :,./9 ,./9 =6 7 6 /6 9 D 5 ;4,7 7 6 9 7 ./7 @ >>5 ;9 5 +7 8 7 9 6 :;6 <. ,3 .<.9 8 ,/2 3 @ 7 ./6 7 7 >;5 2 @ -9 . ?.9 8 9 =;5 @ 0 =5 @ 9 5 @ ;7 6 ;?. -6 9 6 ;;.9 5 ;8 1 6 /7 @ ;./0 5 @ ;,3 .<.9 8 9 5 ,>>;5 >;. ,9 6 <8 ;6 7 >5 /2 9 5 9 =6 /6 6 2 7 5 +5 @ ;-@ 7 9 5 :6 ;7 A ^_`a b c d e f g e h `e a b e i j _`a b c d e fkeflmneo`p q m b r s g e q m p t m q m b r j u p v i p b c f r s _c d w q m p v n e j x e f y c f d p v n e s _p w p n m b r j z a a e b_c v i m b m c v j c f {p m q e i x q p v b s |w e f p b m c v a }G =6 :,./2 ;. ?6 ;3 6 =./2 9 =.7 >;5 0 ;,:.7 ,7 7 6 9 >6 ;+5 ;:,/-6 ,/2 -,>,-.9 8 ./,<. 0 /:6 /9 D .9 =,7 7 6 9 :,/,0 6 :6 /9 7 9 ;,9 6 0 . 6 7 2 ;. ?6 /3 8 9 6 -=/5 < 5 0 8 <. +6 -8 -< 6 79=,9 ,;6 3 ,7 6 2 5 /:,/@ +,-9 @ ;6 ;>;5 2 @ -9 ;5 ,2 :,>7 ,/2 >< ,//6 2 5 3 7 5 < 6 7 -6 /-6 AG=6 9 6 -=/5 < 5 0 8 7 5 <@ 9 . 5 /7 D .9 =./9 =.7 >;5 0 ;,:@ /2 6 ;0 5 ;6 0 @ < ,;;6 ?. 6 D 9 5 3 ,< ,/-69=6 ,7 7 6 9 :,/,0 6 :6 /9 7 9 ;,9 6 0 8 D .9 =./9 =6 >;6 2 6 9 6 ;:./6 2 3 @ 2 0 6 9 ,<< 5 -,9 . 5 /7 AG=6 ;.7 4 7 5 +/5 9 ,>>;5 ?./0 9 =.7 3 @ 7 ./6 7 7 -,7 6 ,9 9 =6 < 6 ?6 <9 5 D =. -=.9 -,/:,./9 ,./9 =6 3 ,< ,/-6 5 +:6 6 9 ./0 .9 7 ,7 7 6 9 :,/,0 6 :6 /9 7 9 ;,9 6 0 8 -,/;6 7 @ <9 ./@ />< ,//6 2+,.<@ ;6 7 1 D =. -=;6 7 @ <9 ./@ />< ,//6 2 < ,3 5 ;,/2 /5 /*< ,3 5 ;-5 7 9 7 1 ;.7 4 5 +2 6 < ,8 9 5







 
Exhibit No. 11 Case Nos. AVU-E-23-01/AVU-G-23-01 J. Kensok, Avista
Schedule 1, Page 78 of 304


 
  
  µ

>;5 -@ ;6 ,/2 ;6 >< ,-6 9 =6 +,.< 6 2 ,7 7 6 9 1 ./-;6 ,7 6 2 7 ,+6 9 8 ;.7 4 7 ./7 6 /2 ./0 +. 6 < 2 7 9 ,++./6 F 9 ;6 :6 D 6 ,9 =6 ;-5 /2 .9 . 5 /7 9 5 ;6 :5 9 6 < 5 -,9 . 5 /7 1 ,7 D 6 <<,7 2 5 D /9 .:6 9 5 9 =6-;.9 . -,<5 >6 ;,9 . 5 /7 ,/2 7 ,[phone] :7 7 @ >>5 ;9 6 2 A J 6 D ./?6 7 9 :6 /9 7 D .<<3 6;6 L @ .;6 2 D =6 /6 F .7 9 ./0 ,7 7 6 9 7 2 5 /5 9 >;5 ?. 2 6 ,2 6 L @ ,9 6 -,>,-.9 8 1 >6 ;+5 ;:,/-6 1,/2 +@ /-9 . 5 /,<.9 8 AHF6-@ 9 ./0 >< ,//6 2 >;5 ¶6 -9 7 D .<<;6 +;6 7 =,7 7 6 9 7 >;. 5 ;9 5 9 =6 $ 5 3 7 5 < 6 7 -6 /-6 ,/2 ./9 =.7 D ,8 1 9 =6 3 @ 7 ./6 7 7 -,7 6 7 =5 @ < 2 3 6 ,3 < 6 9 57@>>5 ;9 9 =6 ,7 7 6 9 <. +6 -8 -< 6 7 ,/2 ;6 2 @ -6 9 =6 ;.7 4 5 ++,.<./0 ,7 7 6 9 7 ,++6 -9 ./0 -;.9 . -,<3 @ 7 ./6 7 7 7 8 7 9 6 :7 1 >;5 -6 7 7 6 7 ,/2 ./+;,7 9 ;@ -9 @ ;6 ;6 <. ,3 .<.9 8 A·¸¹¸·”º™‚•»•‡¼™‡„‚ ‰‰™•“ š ™‡°‚ƒ „“‚ƒ®™ƒ‚ ††Š •ƒƒ®†•Š ½º‰¾6 +6 ;6 /-6 :,9 6 ;. ,<7 9 =,9 7 @ >>5 ;9 9 =6 /6 6 2 6 2 -=,/0 6 7 ./J 6 9 D 5 ;496-=/5 < 5 0 8 ,;6 :,./9 ,./6 2 3 8 G 6 -=/5 < 5 0 8 ¿5 :,./K ;-=.9 6 -9 7 D .9 =./6 ,-=;6 7 >6 -9 . ?6 9 6 -=/5 < 5 0 8 ,;6 ,A·¸¹¸ À Á Š •™‚‚ƒ•†º™¼‰‡ƒÂ “‡¼º „—•™†®“¼™ºŠ •‡™••™ƒ“ ²•†•‚‡ƒ™ƒ“Š ‡Š »‰ƒ•“¼‚™‚‚Š ¼“™ƒ„£“ ƒ®ƒ®¼ ••‡ƒ¼Š ‡„“ ƒ“Š ‡Š »ƒ®™‚‚ƒƒ®™ƒ“ ‚†•Š †Š ‚„»Š ••†º™¼‰‡ƒ¸G =.7 3 @ 7 ./6 7 7 -,7 6 .7 ,<. 0 /6 2 D .9 =à 6 ;+5 ;:,/-6 Ä I ,>,-.9 8 Å /5 9 K 7 7 6 9C,/,0 6 :6 /9 A







 
Exhibit No. 11 Case Nos. AVU-E-23-01/AVU-G-23-01 J. Kensok, Avista
Schedule 1, Page 79 of 304


 
  
  Ë 

(i.e. what are the
expected functions, processes or deliverables that will result from the capital spend?)
G =.7 3 @ 7 ./6 7 7 -,7 6 ./-<@ 2 6 7 /6 9 D 5 ;4 7 5 <@ 9 . 5 /7 +5 ;3 5 9 =6 F >,/7 . 5 /;6 L @ .;6 :6 /9 7,/2 7 8 7 9 6 :,9 . -;6 +;6 7 =5 +6 F .7 9 ./0 2 6 ?. -6 7 9 =,9 >;5 ?. 2 6 ,--6 7 7 9 5 5 @ ;6 /9 6 ;>;.7 6,/2 -5 /9 ;5 </6 9 D 5 ;4 7 A Ì . +6 -8 -< 6 7 -=6 2 @ < 6 7 ,<< 5 D +5 ;,4 /5 D //@ :3 6 ;5 +,7 7 6 9 7 13898>6 1 9 5 3 6 ;6 +;6 7 =6 2 3 ,7 6 2 5 /.:>,-9 ,/2 <.4 6 <.=5 5 2 5 +;6 ,<. E 6 2 ;.7 4 9 5 9 =66/?.;5 /:6 /9 A Í .7 9 5 ;. -,<-5 7 9 7 ,/2 9 .:6 <./6 7 >;5 ?. 2 6 ./2 . -,9 5 ;7 ./7 @ >>5 ;9 5 +9 =6;6 L @ 6 7 9 6 2 ,<< 5 -,9 . 5 /7 ,3 5 ?6 AG=;5 @ 0 =;5 ,2 :,>>./0 ,-9 . ?.9 . 6 7 ,/2 4 /5 D />;6 7 7 @ ;6 7 5 /6 F .7 9 ./0 /6 9 D 5 ;4-,>,-.9 8 1 6 F >,/7 . 5 /D 5 ;4 =,7 3 6 6 /. 2 6 /9 . +. 6 2 +5 ;6 ,-=8 6 ,;A K 0 ,./1 @ 7 ./0=.7 9 5 ;. -,<2 ,9 ,,< 5 /0 D .9 =-@ ;;6 /9 >;5 2 @ -9 -5 7 9 6 7 9 .:,9 6 7 1 9 =6 9 6 ,:2 6 ?6 < 5 >6 2 ,-5 7 9 >< ,/+5 ;D 5 ;4 3 8 8 6 ,;A I 5 :3 ./6 2 D .9 =9 =6 ;6 +;6 7 =D 5 ;4 -5 7 9 6 7 9 .:,9 6 7 1 9 =65?6 ;,<<3 @ 7 ./6 7 7 -,7 6 ;6 L @ 6 7 9 ,:5 @ /9 .7 2 6 9 6 ;:./6 2 A[Offsets to projects will be more strongly scrutinized in general rate cases going forward (ref. WUTC Docket No. U-190531 Policy
Statement), therefore it is critical that these impacts are thought through in order to support rate recovery.]

G =6 >;5 ¶6 -9 7 ./9 =.7 >;5 0 ;,:,;6 7 9 ,/2 ,< 5 /6 >;5 ¶6 -9 7 D .9 =./9 =6 H /9 6 ;>;.7 6 ,/2I5/9 ;5 <J 6 9 D 5 ;4 B /+;,7 9 ;@ -9 @ ;6 3 @ 7 ./6 7 7 -,7 6 3 @ 9 ,;6 2 6 >6 /2 6 /9 5 /< 6 /0 9 =5 +-5 /7 9 ;@ -9 . 5 /7 6 ,7 5 /,/2 5 9 =6 ;0 6 5 0 ;,>=. -,<<8 7 .:.< ,;3 @ 9 @ /;6 < ,9 6 2 D 5 ;4 3 6 ./0>6 ;+5 ;:6 2 ,9 .:>,-9 6 2 7 @ 3 7 9 ,9 . 5 /7 A G =;5 @ 0 =9 =5 7 6 >;5 ¶6 -9 7 1 3 @ 7 ./6 7 7 +@ /-9 . 5 /7,/2 >;5 -6 7 7 6 7 :. 0 =9 3 6 .:>,-9 6 2 3 @ 9 9 =6 9 6 -=/5 < 5 0 8 @ >0 ;,2 6 7 3 6 ./0 :,2 6 ,9"'# É  #  '((!"# $ '"# ''# ' ( É '# "./-;6 ,7 6 >6 ;+5 ;:,/-6 ,/2 -,>,-.9 8 +5 ;6 :>< 5 8 6 6 7 ./9 =6 .;2 ,.<8 D 5 ;4 <. +6 AÎ@/2 ./0 9 =6 H /9 6 ;>;.7 6 ,/2 I 5 /9 ;5 <J 6 9 D 5 ;4 B /+;,7 9 ;@ -9 @ ;6 3 @ 7 ./6 7 7 -,7 6:./.:,<<8 6 ,-=8 6 ,;3 ,7 6 2 5 /,;6 2 @ -6 2 -,>.9 ,<>< ,/,/2 ;6 L @ 6 7 9 ./-;6 :6 /9 ,<./-;6 ,7 6 7 ,7 >;5 ¶6 -9 7 ,;6 -5 :>< 6 9 6 2 A G =.7 D 5 @ < 2 ;6 7 @ <9 ./,2 *=5 -+@ /2 ./0;6 L @ 6 7 9 7 9 5 9 =6 I ,>.9 ,<Ã < ,//./0 Ï ;5 @ >+5 ;D 5 ;4 ,>>;5 ?6 2 5 @ 9 7 .2 6 5 +9 =6 Ð *8 6 ,;-,>.9 ,<>< ,//./0 >;5 -6 7 7 A







 
Exhibit No. 11 Case Nos. AVU-E-23-01/AVU-G-23-01 J. Kensok, Avista
Schedule 1, Page 80 of 304


 
  
  Ñ 

H /9 6 ;>;.7 6 ,/2 I 5 /9 ;5 <J 6 9 D 5 ;4 B /+;,7 9 ;@ -9 @ ;6 >;5 ¶6 -9 7 D 5 @ < 2 /5 9 3 6 +@ /2 6 2 AH/9 6 ;>;.7 6 /6 9 D 5 ;4 ,--6 7 7 1 5 >9 .:. E ,9 . 5 /,/2 Ò 5 ;@ /+@ /2 6 2 -,>,-.9 8 :,/,0 6 :6 /9-5 @ < 2 ;6 7 @ <9 ./:./.:. E 6 2 /6 9 D 5 ;4 -,>,-.9 8 ;6 2 @ -./0 9 =6 ,3 .<.9 8 9 5 >6 ;+5 ;:5 ;2 ./,;8 ,/2 /6 -6 7 7 ,;8 2 ,.<8 3 @ 7 ./6 7 7 5 >6 ;,9 . 5 /7 A I 5 /9 ;5 </6 9 D 5 ;4 ,--6 7 7 15>9 .:. E ,9 . 5 /,/2 Ò 5 ;@ /+@ /2 6 2 -,>,-.9 8 :,/,0 6 :6 /9 -5 @ < 2 ;6 7 @ <9 ./:./.:. E 6 2-5 /9 ;5 </6 9 D 5 ;4 -,>,-.9 8 ;6 2 @ -./0 9 =6 ,3 .<.9 8 9 5 :,/,0 6 ,/2 -5 /9 ;5 <5 @ ;0 6 /6 ;,9 . 5 /,/2 -5 /9 ;5 <7 8 7 9 6 :,7 7 6 9 7 AG=6 H /9 6 ;>;.7 6 ,/2 I 5 /9 ;5 <J 6 9 D 5 ;4 B /+;,7 9 ;@ -9 @ ;6 3 @ 7 ./6 7 7 -,7 6 .7 :,/,0 6 2,7 ,>;5 0 ;,:5 +>;5 ¶6 -9 7 >< ,//6 2 8 6 ,;<8 A K <<./2 . ?. 2 @ ,<>;5 ¶6 -9 7 ,;6 :,/,0 6 29=;5 @ 0 =9 =6 Ã C Ó 1 D =. -=+5 << 5 D 7 9 =6 Ã ;5 ¶6 -9 C ,/,0 6 :6 /9 B /7 9 .9 @ 9 6 Ô Ã C B Õ É 'É Ö '(('&( #  $ Ê '×  'Ø # # É &Ã < ,//6 2 1 H F 6 -@ 9 6 2 1 ,/2 9 =6 /I 5 :>< 6 9 6 2 D .9 =,G ;,/7 +6 ;9 5 Ã < ,/9 +5 ;9 =6 7 -5 >6;6 L @ 6 7 9 7 D =. -=5 ?6 ;9 =6 -5 @ ;7 6 5 +,-,< 6 /2 ,;8 6 ,;6 L @ ,9 6 7 9 5 9 =6 +@ /2 6 2 3 @ 2 0 6 9,<< 5 -,9 . 5 /A
G =.7 .7 ,>;5 0 ;,:D .9 =2 .7 -;6 9 6 >;5 ¶6 -9 7 9 =,9 ,<. 0 /D .9 =K ?# $ "# # &)# # ,/2 7 9 ;,9 6 0 . -5 3 ¶6 -9 . ?6 7 Ù·G =6 H /9 6 ;>;.7 6 ,/2 I 5 /9 ;5 <J 6 9 D 5 ;4 B /+;,7 9 ;@ -9 @ ;6 3 @ 7 ./6 7 7 -,7 6./?6 7 9 :6 /9 7 # Ú # !"# $ ))# )9 5 ./?6 7 9 ./.9 7 ./+;,7 9 ;@ -9 @ ;6 9 5,-=. 6 ?6 5 >9 .:,<<. +6 -8 -< 6 >6 ;+5 ;:,/-6 Û 7 ,+6 9 8 1 ;6 <. ,3 .<.9 8 1 ,/2 ,9 ,+,.;>;. -6 AJ69D5;4 -5 ::@ /. -,9 . 5 /7 9 =,9 :5 /.9 5 ;,/2 -5 /9 ;5 <K ?.7 9 ,6 /9 6 ;>;.7 6/6 9 D 5 ;4 7 ,/2 -5 /9 ;5 </6 9 D 5 ;4 7 ,;6 -;.9 . -,<./7 @ >>5 ;9 5 +9 =6 3 @ <4 6 < 6 -9 ;. -7 8 7 9 6 :A G =6 .:>< 6 :6 /9 ,9 . 5 /5 +9 =6 7 6 /6 9 D 5 ;4 9 6 -=/5 < 5 0 . 6 7 D .<<-5 /9 ./@ 6 9 56/,3 < 6 ,/2 7 @ >>5 ;9 9 =6 7 6 -;.9 . -,<-5 ::@ /. -,9 . 5 /7 ./,:,//6 ;9 =,9 .7 :@ -=7 ,+6 ;9 5 ,<<D 5 ;4 6 ;7 ,/2 ,9 ,<<< 5 -,9 . 5 /7 ,-;5 7 7 K ?.7 9 ,A







 
Exhibit No. 11 Case Nos. AVU-E-23-01/AVU-G-23-01 J. Kensok, Avista
Schedule 1, Page 81 of 304


 
  
  Ü 

G =;5 @ 0 =5 @ 9 9 =6 -5 @ ;7 6 5 +,8 6 ,;1 ,<<>;5 ¶6 -9 ;6 L @ 6 7 9 7 ,;6 ?6 9 9 6 2 3 6 +5 ;6 9 =6Ý966;./0 I 5 ::.9 9 6 6 9 5 ?,<. 2 ,9 6 9 =6 ;6 L @ 6 7 9 ,0 ,./7 9 9 =6 3 @ 7 ./6 7 7 -,7 6 >@ ;>5 7 6,/2 :,4 ./0 7 @ ;6 9 =6 ;6 L @ 6 7 9 -,/3 6 2 6 <. ?6 ;6 2 D .9 =./9 =6 ,>>;5 ?6 2 +@ /2 ./0,<< 5 -,9 . 5 /AÞßàáâãäåæç è â é ê à ë è ì á ß è â ì í à î é ï ß à ë è â î ì â ã á â à ë ä ì æ à ð ã â î â î à ñ ç è ã á à è è æ ì è àò.9 =./9 =6 H /9 6 ;>;.7 6 ,/2 I 5 /9 ;5 <J 6 9 D 5 ;4 B /+;,7 9 ;@ -9 @ ;6 3 @ 7 ./6 7 7 -,7 6 1 9 =62.7 -;6 9 6 >;5 ¶6 -9 7 ./9 6 ;+,-6 D .9 =?,;. 5 @ 7 ./9 6 ;/,<K ?.7 9 ,0 ;5 @ >7 7 @ -=,7 H G6/0 ./6 6 ;./0 1 Ý @ 3 7 9 ,9 . 5 /6 /0 ./6 6 ;./0 1 Ï Ã Ý Ý ,/2 Ï 6 /6 ;,9 . 5 /Ã < ,/9 7 1 9 =6G6< 6 -5 ::@ /. -,9 . 5 /7 Ý =5 >1 ,< 5 /0 D .9 =5 @ ;./9 6 ;/,<3 @ 7 ./6 7 7 >,;9 /6 ;7 ,9 ?,;. 5 @ 75++. -6 ,/2 ;6 :5 9 6 +,-.<.9 . 6 7 AÝ966;./0 I 5 ::.9 9 6 6 :6 :3 6 ;7 ./-<@ 2 6 ó @ 7 ./6 7 7 I ,7 6 Ý >5 /7 5 ;7 1 ¿.;6 -9 5 ;7 ,/2C,/,0 6 ;7 D .9 =./9 =6 H /9 6 ;>;.7 6 G 6 -=/5 < 5 0 8 0 ;5 @ >,< 5 /0 D .9 =9 =6 ó @ 7 ./6 7 7 I ,7 6ÓD/6 ;AG=6 H G ó @ 7 ./6 7 7 I ,7 6 Ó D /6 ;D 5 ;4 7 ./-5 /¶@ /-9 . 5 /D .9 =9 =6 Ã ;5 ¶6 -9C,/,0 6 :6 /9 Ó ++. -6 Ô Ã C Ó Õ 1 9 =6 ,7 7 . 0 /6 2 Ã ;5 0 ;,:C ,/,0 6 ;1 ,/2 7 @ 3 7 6 L @ 6 /9Ã;5 ¶6 -9 C ,/,0 6 ;7 AG=6 H G ó @ 7 ./6 7 7 I ,7 6 Ó D /6 ;.7 ,--5 @ /9 ,3 < 6 ,/2 ;6 7 >5 /7 .3 < 6 +5 ;,<<ó @ 7 ./6 7 7I,7 6 ;6 < ,9 6 2 ,-9 . ?.9 . 6 7 ,/2 ,7 7 . 0 /:6 /9 7 Aôõöõ÷ÞßàáâãäåìáåëàïìâàßøçèãáàèèùìèàèG=6 ;6 ,;6 /5 ;6 < ,9 6 2 3 @ 7 ./6 7 7 -,7 6 7 A







 
Exhibit No. 11 Case Nos. AVU-E-23-01/AVU-G-23-01 J. Kensok, Avista
Schedule 1, Page 82 of 304


 
  
  ú 

Ý 9 6 6 ;./0 I 5 ::.9 9 6 6 :6 :3 6 ;7 ,;6 ./?,<@ ,3 < 6 9 5 9 =6 >;5 ¶6 -9 ,/2 D .<<>;5 ?. 2 6,>>;5 ?,<5 /7 -5 >6 1 7 -=6 2 @ < 6 1 ,/2 3 @ 2 0 6 9 ;6 < ,9 6 2 -=,/0 6 7 A K 2 2 .9 . 5 /,<<8 1 9 =6 8 D .<<>;5 ?. 2 6 ,>>;5 ?,<5 /.7 7 @ 6 7 ,/2 ;.7 4 7 >6 ;9 ,././0 9 5 >;5 ¶6 -9 2 6 <. ?6 ;,3 < 6 7 5 @ 9 <./6 2./9 =.7 2 5 -@ :6 /9 1 D =. -=,<7 5 9 8 >. -,<<8 =,?6 ,/.:>,-9 5 /9 =6 7 -5 >6 1 7 -=6 2 @ < 6 15;3 @ 2 0 6 9 5 +,>;5 ¶6 -9 A Ý 9 6 6 ;./0 I 5 ::.9 9 6 6 :6 :3 6 ;7 D .<<,<7 5 >;5 ?. 2 6 ,>>;5 ?,<5 /I =,/0 6 ¾6 L @ 6 7 9 7 1 Ï 5 *Ì . ?6 1 ,/2 9 =6 K >>;5 ?,<9 5 I < 5 7 6 2 5 -@ :6 /9 A Î 5 ;9 =6Í. 0 =û 5 <9 ,0 6 Ã ;5 9 6 -9 . 5 /3 @ 7 ./6 7 7 -,7 6 1 9 =6 Ý 9 6 6 ;./0 I 5 ::.9 9 6 6 D .<<-5 /7 .7 9 5 +9 =6 ¿.;6 -9 5 ;7 ,/2 C ,/,0 6 ;7 D .9 =./H G 1 H /6 ;0 8 ¿6 <. ?6 ;8 1 Ï Ã Ý Ý ,/2 9 =6 ó @ 7 ./6 7 7I,7 6 Ó D /6 ;A
G =6 H /9 6 ;>;.7 6 ,/2 I 5 /9 ;5 <J 6 9 D 5 ;4 B /+;,7 9 ;@ -9 @ ;6 ó @ 7 ./6 7 7 I ,7 6 =,7 9 D 5< 6 ?6 <7 5 +0 5 ?6 ;/,/-6 Å G =6 Ã ;5 0 ;,:Ý 9 6 6 ;./0 I 5 ::.9 9 6 6 ,/2 9 =6 Ã ;5 ¶6 -9Ý966;./0 I 5 ::.9 9 6 6 AG=.7 3 @ 7 ./6 7 7 -,7 6 .7 ,>;5 0 ;,:5 +;6 < ,9 6 2 >;5 ¶6 -9 7 A G =6 Ã ;5 0 ;,:Ý 9 6 6 ;./0I5::.9 9 6 6 -5 /7 .7 9 7 5 +:6 :3 6 ;7 ./:,/,0 6 :6 /9 >5 7 .9 . 5 /7 9 =,9 ,;6 . 2 6 /9 . +. 6 2,/2 ;6 7 >5 /7 .3 < 6 +5 ;>;. 5 ;.9 . E ./0 9 =6 >;5 ¶6 -9 7 D .9 =./9 =.7 >;5 0 ;,:A G =6 Ý 9 6 6 ;./0I5::.9 9 6 6 .7 ,<7 5 =6 < 2 ,--5 @ /9 ,3 < 6 +5 ;9 =6 +./,/-. ,<>6 ;+5 ;:,/-6 5 +9 =.7>;5 0 ;,:A G =6 Ã ;5 0 ;,:Ý 9 6 6 ;./0 I 5 ::.9 9 6 6 D .<<=,?6 ;6 0 @ < ,;:6 6 9 ./0 7 9 5 ;6 ?. 6 D9=6 >;5 0 ;6 7 7 5 +9 =6 >;5 0 ;,:,/2 9 5 :,4 6 2 6 -.7 . 5 /7 5 /9 =6 +5 << 5 D ./0 9 5 >. -7 Ù·Ã ;5 ¶6 -9 >;. 5 ;.9 . E ,9 . 5 /,/2 ;.7 4·K >>;5 ?./0 3 @ 7 ./6 7 7 -,7 6 +@ /2 ./0 ;6 L @ 6 7 9 7·J 6 D >;5 ¶6 -9 ./.9 . ,9 . 5 /,/2 7 6 L @ 6 /-./0G=6 Ã ;5 0 ;,:D .<<3 6 +,-.<.9 ,9 6 2 ,/2 ,2 :./.7 9 ;,9 6 2 3 8 ,/,7 7 . 0 /6 2 Ã ;5 0 ;,:C ,/,0 6 ;D .9 =./9 =6 H /9 6 ;>;.7 6 G 6 -=/5 < 5 0 8 Ô H G Õ Ã ;5 ¶6 -9 C ,/,0 6 :6 /9 Ó ++.-6ÔÃCÓÕ¿6 >,;9 :6 /9 A G =6 >;5 ¶6 -9 L @ 6 @ 6 D .<<3 6 ;6 ?. 6 D 6 2 >6 ;. 5 2 . -,<<8 ./5 ;2 6 ;9 5>< ,/,/2 7 6 L @ 6 /-6 D 5 ;4 9 5 9 =6 < 6 ?6 <7 5 ++@ /2 ./0 ,<< 5 -,9 . 5 /;6 -6 . ?6 2 AÃ;5 ¶6 -9 Ý 9 6 6 ;./0 I 5 ::.9 9 6 6 7 ,-9 ,7 9 =6 0 5 ?6 ;/./0 3 5 2 8 5 ?6 ;6 ,-=./2 . ?. 2 @ ,<>;5 ¶6 -9 D .9 =./9 =6 >;5 0 ;,:,/2 D .<<-5 /7 .7 9 5 +4 6 8 :6 :3 6 ;7 ./:,/,0 6 :6 /9>5 7 .9 . 5 /7 9 =,9 ,;6 . 2 6 /9 . +. 6 2 ,7 ;6 7 >5 /7 .3 < 6 +5 ;9 =6 7 @ --6 7 7 +@ <-5 :>< 6 9 . 5 /5 +9 =67-5 >6 5 +D 5 ;4 . 2 6 /9 . +. 6 2 ./9 =6 I =,;9 6 ;2 5 -@ :6 /9 +5 ;9 =6 Ã ;5 ¶6 -9 A G =6 Ã ;5 ¶6 -9Ý966;./0 I 5 ::.9 9 6 6 .7 ;6 7 >5 /7 .3 < 6 9 5 >;5 ?. 2 6 0 @ . 2 ,/-6 ,/2 :,4 6 2 6 -.7 . 5 /7 5 /4 6 8 .7 7 @ 6 7 9 =,9 ,++6 -9 9 =6 +5 << 5 D ./0 9 5 >. -7 Ù·Ý -5 >6







 
Exhibit No. 11 Case Nos. AVU-E-23-01/AVU-G-23-01 J. Kensok, Avista
Schedule 1, Page 83 of 304


 
  
  ü 

·Ý -=6 2 @ < 6·ó @ 2 0 6 9·Ã ;5 ¶6 -9 B 7 7 @ 6 7·Ã ;5 ¶6 -9 ¾.7 4 7G=6 Ã ;5 ¶6 -9 Ý 9 6 6 ;./0 I 5 ::.9 9 6 6 D .<<:6 6 9 ,9 9 =6 2 6 +./6 2 ./9 6 ;?,<7 2 5 -@ :6 /9 6 2./9 =6 I =,;9 6 ;5 +9 =6 >;5 ¶6 -9 ,/2 D .<<3 6 +,-.<.9 ,9 6 2 3 8 ,/,7 7 . 0 /6 2 Ã ;5 ¶6 -9C,/,0 6 ;+;5 :D .9 =./9 =6 H G Ã C Ó ¿6 >,;9 :6 /9 AÃ;5 ¶6 -9 >;. 5 ;.9 . E ,9 . 5 /.7 6 ?,<@ ,9 6 2 3 8 9 =6 :,/,0 6 :6 /9 9 6 ,:5 /,:5 /9 =<8 3 ,7 .7 AH,-=>;5 0 ;,:,/2 >;5 ¶6 -9 7 9 6 6 ;./0 -5 ::.9 9 6 6 :6 6 9 ;6 0 @ < ,;<8 ,/2 5 ?6 ;7 6 6 77-5 >6 1 7 -=6 2 @ < 6 ,/2 3 @ 2 0 6 9 D .9 =./9 =6 .;;6 7 >6 -9 . ?6 >;5 0 ;,:7 ,/2 >;5 ¶6 -9 7 ,/2./+5 ;:9 =6 ó @ 7 ./6 7 7 I ,7 6 5 D /6 ;5 +,/8 -=,/0 6 7 /6 6 2 ./0 6 7 -,< ,9 . 5 /9 5 9 =6 G Ã Ï5;I Ã Ï +5 ;2 6 -.7 . 5 /*:,4 ./0 ,;5 @ /2 ;6 7 5 @ ;-6 5 ;+@ /2 ./0 -5 /7 9 ;,./9 7 AK/8 -=,/0 6 7 ./+@ /2 ./0 5 ;7 -5 >6 ,;6 2 5 -@ :6 /9 6 2 ,9 9 =6 ó @ 7 ./6 7 7 I ,7 6 < 6 ?6 <1?. ,I =,/0 6 ¾6 L @ 6 7 9 2 5 -@ :6 /9 9 =,9 .7 >;6 7 6 /9 6 2 9 5 9 =6 I Ã Ï 5 /,:5 /9 =<8 3 ,7 .7,/2 6 ?,<@ ,9 6 2 3 8 9 =6 I Ã Ï +5 ;,>>;5 ?,<Aý # Ê & É ( &'(É ' É ()É '(þ ý ÿ ( $Ê '×  "É '"# Ú É É Ê Ê '"É '(%')D 5 ;4 +< 5 D >;5 -6 7 7 A K <<H /9 6 ;>;.7 6 9 6 -=/5 < 5 0 8 >;5 ¶6 -9 7 ./9 =.7 3 @ 7 ./6 7 7 -,7 6 ,;6:,/,0 6 2 9 =;5 @ 0 =9 =6 Ã C Ó 1 D =. -=+5 << 5 D 7 9 =6 Ã ;5 ¶6 -9 C ,/,0 6 :6 /9 B /7 9 .9 @ 9 6
Ø  É 'É Ö '×  ## # Ú # þ ý ''$#Ê  #Ê ' ÖÊ  ## )Ê  &þ '× ) 
$# 'É ,/2,>>;5 ?6 2 ,7 9 =6 >;5 ¶6 -9 7 3 ,7 6 <./6 +5 ;7 -5 >6 1 7 -=6 2 @ < 6 ,/2 3 @ 2 0 6 9 A K 9 9 =6 6 /2%(# &þ !Ê Ê '"# "$# ()# É É Ê Ê '"É Ê '# '.:>< 6 :6 /9 ,9 . 5 /Ô G ;,/7 +6 ;9 5 Ã < ,/9 Õ A K +9 6 ;9 =6 9 6 -=/5 < 5 0 8 .7 ./7 6 ;?. -6 ,/2 5 @ 9 5 +9 =6 D ,;;,/9 8 >6 ;. 5 2 1 9 =6 Ã ;5 ¶6 -9 C ,/,0 6 ;D .<<=5 < 2 ,Ì 6 7 7 5 /7 Ì 6 ,;/6 2 1 ,/2 ( (  ()# þ !Ê Ê '"ý   $Ê '# '%## #Ê '× Ö !C 5 /.9 5 ;,/2 I 5 /9 ;5 <2 5 -@ :6 /9 ,9 . 5 /,/2 I =,/0 6 ¾6 L @ 6 7 9 7 ,;6 2 5 -@ :6 /9 6 2 ,/2795;6 2 9 5 6 /7 @ ;6 ,-5 :>;6 =6 /7 . ?6 ,@ 2 .9 9 ;,.<AG=6 @ /2 6 ;7 . 0 /6 2 ,-4 /5 D < 6 2 0 6 9 =6 8 =,?6 ;6 ?. 6 D 6 2 9 =6 Î ,-.<.9 . 6 7 ¿;. ?6 /G 6 -=/5 < 5 0 8B:>;5 ?6 :6 /9 7 3 @ 7 ./6 7 7 -,7 6 ,/2 ,0 ;6 6 D .9 =9 =6 ,>>;5 ,-=.9 >;6 7 6 /9 7 A Ý . 0 /. +. -,/9-=,/0 6 7 9 5 9 =.7 D .<<3 6 -5 5 ;2 ./,9 6 2 D .9 =,/2 ,>>;5 ?6 2 3 8 9 =6 @ /2 6 ;7 . 0 /6 2 5 ;9 =6 .;2 6 7 . 0 /,9 6 2 ;6 >;6 7 6 /9 ,9 . ?6 7 A . 6 7 3 @ 8







 


 


Exhibit No. 11 Case Nos. AVU-E-23-01/AVU-G-23-01 J. Kensok, Avista
Schedule 1, Page 84 of 304


 
  
  

¾5 < 6 Ù

Ý . 0 /,9 @ ;6 Ù ¿,9 6 ÙÃ;./9 J ,:6 Ù .:I 5 ;2 6 ;G .9 < 6 Ù B G ¿.;6 -9 5 ;¾5 < 6 Ù

Ý . 0 /,9 @ ;6 Ù ¿,9 6 ÙÃ;./9 J ,:6 ÙG.9 < 6 Ù¾5 < 6 Ù 


!








 



 



Exhibit No. 11 Case Nos. AVU-E-23-01/AVU-G-23-01 J. Kensok, Avista
Schedule 1, Page 85 of 304
Enterprise Communications
Business Case Justification Narrative Page 1 of 11
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Communication is at the very essence of human interaction, and thus a pillar of business
processes. Communication enables business processes across systems that
communicate and exchange data in near-real time, such as phone calls, chats, prescence
indicators, work location, contact information, meetings, video calls, organization
structure, job titles, and emails all accessible from any mobile device or location.

The primary driver for the Enterprise Communication Systems business case is
performance and capacity, whereby the Company balances the need to meet
performance standards and system reliability for the various technologies under this
program with annual budget allocations, and their respective technology lifecycles.

Being no different than most businesses, Avista requires continuous communication
among our staff and customers throughout our service territory. However, to do it
effectively, we require communication technology for greater agility, flexibility, and
scalability to enable many business processes, such as 24 x 7 x 365 communication with
our gas and electric customers by telephone, fax, or email. Additionally, email, instant
messaging, text and collaboration platforms support a digital workforce that has the ability
to work from any location.

The costs associated with each solution can vary by the scale of the solution deployed,
as well as vendor licensing models. Therefore, each technology under this program
undergoes regular review of the levels of utilization and performance to determine if it is
meeting the expected performance standards and capacity requirements to maintain
system reliability under the established budget allocations. These reviews can result in
calling for additional investment under this program from time to time for technology either
falling behind technology lifecycles or predetermined performance standards, which can
pose risk to communication system reliability and cyber attacksor degradation that may
delay communication channels and result overall processing delays.

VERSION HISTORY
Version Author Description Date Notes
1.0 Walter Roys Initial BCJN Draft 6/2017 1.0
1.1 Walter Roys Update Investment Driver 7/2019 1.1
2.0 Walter Roys Revision of BCJN to new template 7/2020 2.0
3.0 Walter Roys Revision of BCJN 7/2022 3.0

DocuSign Envelope ID: DD78345A-C06D-4DC3-B295-642B1186BA4A
Exhibit No. 11 Case Nos. AVU-E-23-01/AVU-G-23-01 J. Kensok, Avista
Schedule 1, Page 86 of 304
Enterprise Communications
Business Case Justification Narrative Page 2 of 11
GENERAL INFORMATION

1. BUSINESS PROBLEM
1.1 What is the current or potential problem that is being addressed?
Communication technology enables business processes beyond people
exchanging information, but across systems that communicate with one another
to exchange data in near-real time.

Communications technology is not only subject to the traditional mortality rate
or lifecycle, but it is compounded by planned obsolescence, also known as
technology obsolescence1. Technology obsolescence is defined as when the
technology asset, although within its functional lifespan, is technologically
flawed or no longer meets the need of users or customers, as expectations
increase due to newer and more powerful technology (with greater performance
or capacity) that is available in the market.

Additionally, with the rapid pace of technological change, technology vendors
require continuous upgrades to maintain system maintenance and support,
which can include security patching, bug fixes, version upgrades,
interoperability, and compatibility with other technologies.

1.2 Discuss the major drivers of the business case (Customer Requested, Customer
Service Quality & Reliability, Mandatory & Compliance, Performance & Capacity, Asset
Condition, or Failed Plant & Operations) and the benefits to the customer
The Enterprise Communications Systems Business Case is driven by managing
technology replacement according to manufacturer product roadmaps or
changes in business requirements with an objective to maintain infrastructure
performance and align infrastructure assets with business demand for capacity.
Therefore, the major driver for this business case is Performance & Capacity.

1 Barreca, Stephen L. (1998-2000). Technology Lifecycles and Technology Obsolescence. Retrieved from
http://bcri.com/products/publications.htm
Requested Spend Amount $10,838,608
Requested Spend Time Period 5 years
Requesting Organization/Department Enterprise Technology
Business Case Owner | Sponsor Walter Roys | Jim Corder
Sponsor Organization/Department Enterprise Technology
Phase Monitor/Control
Category Program
Driver Performance & Capacity
DocuSign Envelope ID: DD78345A-C06D-4DC3-B295-642B1186BA4A
Exhibit No. 11 Case Nos. AVU-E-23-01/AVU-G-23-01 J. Kensok, Avista
Schedule 1, Page 87 of 304
Enterprise Communications
Business Case Justification Narrative Page 3 of 11

All Avista customers benefit from maintaining communication systems, as this
technology enables the Avista workforce to perform their day-to-day job
functions in delivering gas and electric service to our customers.

1.3 Identify why this work is needed now and what risks there are if not
approved or is deferred
All Avista business functions are affected by this business case, as it enables
all day-to-day work activities and automated business processes around
communications. From service center to call center to field work, every worker
requires communications systems technology to perform their business function
and deliver gas and electric service to our customers. Communications
technology has been critical in keeping our workforce connected, while many of
our staff have the ability to work remotely or are in the field..

Reliance on obsolete communications technology for automated business
process presents significant risk that may only be solved with the reinstatement
of manual process, which can result in delay response times to meet business
demands and customer needs. Additionally, in some cases there is no manual
solution that can replace automated communication systems that provide near-
real time communication solutions.

1.4 Identify any measures that can be used to determine whether the
investment would successfully deliver on the objectives and address the
need listed above.
Vendor roadmaps and technology asset lifecycles are data points that inform on
how best to plan replacements, while meeting business value and strategic
alignment, within the constraints of resource capacity and funding, which in turn
can result in deferred replacement introducing the risk of technology failure.
Ongoing reviews of vendor roadmap and technology asset lifecycle alignment
provide necessary information to track how much of our investment in
technology is lagging behind the vendor roadmap, and thereby introducing risk.

1.5 Supplemental Information
1.5.1 Please reference and summarize any studies that support the problem
The Enterprise Technology team references various technology vendor and
third-party resources to stay informed and recommend decisions on the various
technology investments. A few sample sources are included below:

Barreca, Stephen L. (1998-2000). Technology Lifecycles and Technology
Obsolescence. Retrieved from http://bcri.com/products/publications.htm
DocuSign Envelope ID: DD78345A-C06D-4DC3-B295-642B1186BA4A
Exhibit No. 11 Case Nos. AVU-E-23-01/AVU-G-23-01 J. Kensok, Avista
Schedule 1, Page 88 of 304
Enterprise Communications
Business Case Justification Narrative Page 4 of 11
Directions on Roadmaps, Independent IT Planning Information and Advisory
Service focused exclusively on Microsoft enterprise software and
services. Retrieved from https://www.directionsonmicrosoft.com/
Gartner Industry Research and Reference Material. Retrieved
from https://www.gartner.com/en/information-technology

1.5.2 For asset replacement, include graphical or narrative representation of metrics
associated with the current condition of the asset that is proposed for
replacement.
Investments under this business case are to maintain performance and
capacity standards in each respective enterprise communications
technology. For example, when the product manufacturer terminates
maintenance and support for specific devices or solutions, an asset therefore
becomes incompatible with other advancing technologies. This introduces the
risk of cyber attack and this business case will change or upgrade the asset.

This program will manage technology replacement according to manufacturer product
roadmaps with an objective to maintain infrastructure performance and align
infrastructure assets with business demand for capacity.

The recommended solution is to address 100% of obsolete products and
capacity constraints
This is the optimal solution. This option fully addresses and minimizes the likelihood
of technology impact to automated business process

Option Capital Cost Start Complete
Recommended Solution - Address 100%
technology that no longer meets performance and
capacity requirements
$13,548,260 01/2023 12/2027
Alternative #1 – Address ~75% of technology that
no longer meets performance and capacity
requirements
$10,838,608 01/2023 12/2027
Alternative #2 - Address 50% of technology that no
longer meets performance and capacity
requirements
$6,774,130 01/2023 12/2027
2.1 Describe what metrics, data, analysis or information was considered when
preparing this capital request.

The funds request was based on a calculation of the performance and capacity
associated with each technology asset, the scope of the technology footprint
across our service territory, and historical project costs for technologies
previously refreshed under this business case. Through regular reviews, the
program balances the need to meet system performance and reliability
standards for the various technologies under this program within annual budget
allocations. These reviews can result in calling for additional investment under
DocuSign Envelope ID: DD78345A-C06D-4DC3-B295-642B1186BA4A
Exhibit No. 11 Case Nos. AVU-E-23-01/AVU-G-23-01 J. Kensok, Avista
Schedule 1, Page 89 of 304
Enterprise Communications
Business Case Justification Narrative Page 5 of 11
this program from time to time for technology either falling behind technology
lifecycles or predetermined performance and reliability standards.

The Business Case Governance group, consisting of Technology Domain
Architects and ET Management and Project Management Office, maintains
technology roadmaps to inform the Business Case of investement demand.
Investment demand is assessed against funding constraints each year and
prioritized based on risk of technology impact to the business. Various data
points inform the team’s decisions and recommendations, which include, but are
not limited to vendor-driven obsolescence, compute capacity and storage,
historical project costs for similar type projects, etc.

2.2 Discuss how the requested capital cost amount will be spent in the current
year (or future years if a multi-year or ongoing initiative). (i.e. what are the
expected functions, processes or deliverables that will result from the capital spend?). Include
any known or estimated reductions to O&M as a result of this investment.

The funding requested under the Enterprise Communication Systems Business
Case will be invested in, but not limited to, the following technologies:

 Instant messaging systems
 Contact Center automatic call distribution system
 Contact Center scheduling and QA systems
 Customer interactive voice response (IVR) system
 Voice recording systems
 Electronic mail and calendar system
 Voicemail system
 Telephone systems
 Teleconferencing systems
 Video conferencing systems
 Conference room technology
 Media Walls
 Enhanced 911 emergency services
 Electronic fax systems
 Paging systems
 Application systems to manage enterprise communication technology

Investment in these technologies can increase or decrease O&M expenses.
These can include licensing increases from time to time, or decreases in
workload for O&M resources. However, not funding this business case may
result in removing automated business functions, which will either cause delay
in meeting business and customer demands or completely change whether we
can even respond to business and customer demands. There are no
O&M reductions or direct offsets resulting from these investments, as this
DocuSign Envelope ID: DD78345A-C06D-4DC3-B295-642B1186BA4A
Exhibit No. 11 Case Nos. AVU-E-23-01/AVU-G-23-01 J. Kensok, Avista
Schedule 1, Page 90 of 304
Enterprise Communications
Business Case Justification Narrative Page 6 of 11
technology enables the Avista workforce to perform their day-to-day job
functions in delivering gas and electric service to our customers.

Reliance on obsolete technology for automated business process presents
significant risk that may only be solved with the reinstatement of manual
process. Sustaining automated business process by replacing automation with
workforce would increase labor expense.
In addition, when endpoint devices break down it can result in the inability of
an employee to access essential technology systems such as our meter data,
customer billing and our mapping data. This can result in a productivity
reduction across all areas of the business. Savings related to avoiding these
down time issues could range from $100k -$10M a year representing at least 1
full time employee up to 100 full time employees needed to implement manual
processes.

Additionally, with the rapid pace of technological change, technology vendors
require continuous upgrades to maintain system maintenance and support,
which can include security patching, bug fixes, version upgrades,
interoperability, and compatibility with other technologies. These upgrades can
in turn drive subsequent system replacements, creating a cascading event of
change. Therefore, vendor roadmaps and technology asset lifecycles are data
points that inform on how best to plan replacements, while meeting business
value and strategic alignment, within the constraints of resource capacity and
funding, which in turn can result in deferred replacement introducing the risk of
technology failure.

2.3 Outline any business functions and processes that may be impacted (and
how) by the business case for it to be successfully implemented.
All Avista business functions are affected by this business case, as it enables
all day-to-day work and communications activities and automated business
processes. From service center to call center to field work, every worker requires
enterprise communication technology to perform their business function and
deliver gas and electric service to our customers. This technology is even more
important in a work from home environment to keep employees and
departments connected while minimizing risk to essential employees.

2.4 Discuss the alternatives that were considered and any tangible risks and
mitigation strategies for each alternative.

Retire assets and remove automation
This option assumes the assets would not be replaced upon end of life and be
removed from service due to product incompatibility, business risk or safety risk.

The basis for measuring the business impact of not funding this business case
is realizing the loss of business process automation. As products reach the
DocuSign Envelope ID: DD78345A-C06D-4DC3-B295-642B1186BA4A
Exhibit No. 11 Case Nos. AVU-E-23-01/AVU-G-23-01 J. Kensok, Avista
Schedule 1, Page 91 of 304
Enterprise Communications
Business Case Justification Narrative Page 7 of 11
manufacturer-defined planned obsolescence, business process automation is
jeopardized, and business risk is increased as manufacturers cease product
maintenance and support. This condition would drive action. The alternative
could lead to a mitigation plan of having to re-instate manual business process
or eliminate the business process.
Address approximately 75% of obsolete products and capacity
constraints (Recommended). This will introduce risk associated with
technology systems reliability, interoperability and capacity. The investment
required to address obsolete technology products is deferred to subsequent
years. The likelihood of technology impact to business is increased. To
minimize the impact of this risk, the Program Steering Committee will manage
project sequence according to the investment priority documented in section
3.2.

.

Address 50% of obsolete products and capacity constraints
This will introduce risk associated with technology systems reliability,
interoperability and capacity. The investment required to address obsolete
technology products is deferred to subsequent years. The likelihood of
technology impact to business is increased. Interoperability constraints may
force unplanned funding requests. Multi-year, complex projects are at risk of
completion prior to product obsolescence. This option impacts the workforce.

2.5 Include a timeline of when this work will be started and completed.
Describe when the investments become used and useful to the customer.
spend, and transfers to plant by year.
This business case is a program that transfers to plant the total cost of each
project at the completion of every project, which can straddle calendar years.
Quarterly forecasts capture changes in transfers to plant based on project
status.

2.6 Discuss how the proposed investment aligns with strategic vision, goals,
objectives and mission statement of the organization.
The technology investments under this business case program align with
Avista’s vision to deliver ‘better energy for life’ to our customers and in the area
of ‘Perform’, which calls for “our focus on performance today to serving our
customers well and unlocking pathways to growth.”

Each investment under this business case program allows Avista to deliver
electric and gas services to our customers.

DocuSign Envelope ID: DD78345A-C06D-4DC3-B295-642B1186BA4A
Exhibit No. 11 Case Nos. AVU-E-23-01/AVU-G-23-01 J. Kensok, Avista
Schedule 1, Page 92 of 304
Enterprise Communications
Business Case Justification Narrative Page 8 of 11
2.7 Include why the requested amount above is considered a prudent
investment, providing or attaching any supporting documentation. In
addition, please explain how the investment prudency will be reviewed
and re-evaluated throughout the project

The reason that the technology investment under this program business case is
prudent is because communication is at the very essence of human interaction,
and thus a pillar of business processes. As such, the Avista workforce
requires this technology every to deliver gas and electric service to our
customers either in an office, customer service center or in the field. Alternatives
to each technology are considered, yet not investing in it is not an option as
automated business process would either stop or be removed, thereby crippling
our workforce’s ability to deliver gas and electric service to our customers,
respond to compliance requirements, and conduct business operations and
reporting. Additionally, a two-tiered governance structure overseeing this
business case program meets regularly to oversee and make decisions on the
needs, benefits, costs, and risks of each investment.

2.8 Supplemental Information

2.8.1 Identify customers and stakeholders that interface with the business case
Nearly all Avista’s workforce interface with the technology investments under
this business case. Selected leaders in organizational business units, known as
technology stakeholders, work closely with the technology teams to
help with business roadmaps, use case definition, gather non-functional
requirements, test design, and deployment approaches to inform technology
investments.

2.8.2 Identify any related Business Cases
The technology investment under this business case requires deployment and
use of outputs from other business cases, specifically delivery on personal
computers and servers, connecting to a virtual private network or cloud service,
security updates and patching, etc.

3.1 Steering Committee or Advisory Group Information
The Enterprise Communication Systems Business Case has two levels of
governance; The Program Steering Committee and the Project Steering Committee.

3.2 Provide and discuss the governance processes and people that will
provide oversight
Program Steering Committee
DocuSign Envelope ID: DD78345A-C06D-4DC3-B295-642B1186BA4A
Exhibit No. 11 Case Nos. AVU-E-23-01/AVU-G-23-01 J. Kensok, Avista
Schedule 1, Page 93 of 304
Enterprise Communications
Business Case Justification Narrative Page 9 of 11
This business case is a program of related projects. The Program Steering
Committee consists of members in management positions that are identified and
responsible for prioritizing the projects within this program. The Steering Committee
is also held accountable for the financial performance of this program. The Program
Steering Committee will have regular meetings to review the progress of the program
and to make decisions on the following topics:

 Project prioritization and risk
 Approving business case funding requests
 New project initiation and sequencing

The Program will be facilitated and administrated by an assigned Program Manager
within the Enterprise Technology (ET) Project Management Office (PMO)
Department. The project queue will be reviewed periodically and will consist of
projects needed to maintain the reliability and performance of all enterprise
communication systems.

Technology product roadmaps identify investment demand that is generally not fully
funded. Technology product investments are prioritized in this manner:
1) Safety Systems
2) Control Systems
3) Customer Facing Systems
4) Back Office Systems

Project Steering Committee
Project Steering Committees act as the governing body over each individual project
within the program and will consist of key members in management positions that
are identified as responsible for the successful completion of the scope of work
identified in the Charter document for the Project. The Project Steering Committee
is responsible to provide guidance and make decisions on key issues that affect the
following topics:

 Scope
 Schedule
 Budget
 Project Issues
 Project Risks

The Project Steering Committee will meet at the defined intervals documented in the
Charter of the project and will be facilitated by an assigned Project Manager from
within the ET PMO Department.
DocuSign Envelope ID: DD78345A-C06D-4DC3-B295-642B1186BA4A
Exhibit No. 11 Case Nos. AVU-E-23-01/AVU-G-23-01 J. Kensok, Avista
Schedule 1, Page 94 of 304
Enterprise Communications
Business Case Justification Narrative Page 10 of 11
3.3 How will decision-making, prioritization, and change requests be
documented and monitored
The governance structure under this business case program is responsible for
decision-making, prioritization, and change requests. Through the regular Program
Steering Committee Meetings, the team reviews and balances planned work versus
unplanned work to determine prioritization, as well as pending project change
requests. Any change request requiring either an increase or decrease of funds is
reviewed at the upcoming Technology Planning Group meeting before it is submitted
to the Capital Planning Group for consideration.

DocuSign Envelope ID: DD78345A-C06D-4DC3-B295-642B1186BA4A
Exhibit No. 11 Case Nos. AVU-E-23-01/AVU-G-23-01 J. Kensok, Avista
Schedule 1, Page 95 of 304
Enterprise Communications
Business Case Justification Narrative Page 11 of 11
The undersigned acknowledge they have reviewed the Enterprise Communications
Systems and agree with the approach it presents. Significant changes to this will be
coordinated with and approved by the undersigned or their designated
representatives.

Signature: Date:
Print Name: Walter Roys
Title: System Engineering Manager
Role: Business Case Owner

Signature: Date:
Print Name: Jim Corder
Title: IT Director
Role: Business Case Sponsor

Signature: Date:
Print Name: Karen Schuh
Title: IT Program Manager
Role: Steering/Advisory Committee Review

Signature: Date:
Print Name: Andy Leija
Title: ET PMO Manager
Role: Steering/Advisory Committee Review

Template Version: 05/28/2020

DocuSign Envelope ID: DD78345A-C06D-4DC3-B295-642B1186BA4A
Sep-01-2022 | 8:28 AM PDT
Sep-02-2022 | 2:06 PM PDT
Exhibit No. 11 Case Nos. AVU-E-23-01/AVU-G-23-01 J. Kensok, Avista
Schedule 1, Page 96 of 304
Enterprise Network Infrastructure
Business Case Justification Narrative Page 1 of 11
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This business case provides back office and customer-facing communication network
access and infrastructure investments for all enterprise-wide business productivity
applications and corporate systems. The network services in this technology area ensure
secure and reliable access to the systems needed daily to deliver electric and gas
services to customers. In the last few years, changes in technologies have shown us the
criticality of business continuity as we transform how and where we get work done. Secure
and reliable enterprise network access, along with management of network
communications capacity, is maintained through this business case and directly affects
business productivity. Without these investments, the employee and customer
experience would be negatively affected.

For this business case, funding is being requested for $7,982,000 over five years to
upgrade or replace 497 network communication systems within the enterprise
environment. Each individual network infrastructure asset is tracked throughout its active
presence using several systems. Collectively these systems track lifecycle, manufacturer
warranty, maintenance, and support (contract) status, licensing, capacity, and
replacement cost. Manufacturer lifecycles drive a considerable portion of the required
work within this request. Concurrently, a sizable portion of work is driven by the ongoing
technological advancement of business solutions and the need for resilient and reliable
access to the Internet.

VERSION HISTORY
Version Author Description Date Notes
1.0 Shawna Kiesbuy Initial BCJN Draft 6/2021
2.0 Shawna Kiesbuy BCJN Revision 7/2022

DocuSign Envelope ID: C4C710D7-E233-410F-8710-687B7FE8515D
Exhibit No. 11 Case Nos. AVU-E-23-01/AVU-G-23-01 J. Kensok, Avista
Schedule 1, Page 97 of 304
Enterprise Network Infrastructure
Business Case Justification Narrative Page 2 of 11
GENERAL INFORMATION

1. BUSINESS PROBLEM
1.1 What is the current or potential problem that is being addressed?
This business case provides back office and customer-facing communication
network access and infrastructure investments for all enterprise-wide business
productivity applications and corporate systems. These systems include
investments required to access and move data across email, Teams,
myavista.com, AFM (Avista Facilities Management), OMT (Outage
Management Tool), CC&B (Customer Care & Billing), Maximo, and EIM (Energy
Imbalance Market), to name a few, along with secure access to the Internet
wherever our people might be working. The network services in this technology
area ensure secure and reliable access to the systems needed daily to deliver
electric and gas services to customers.

In the last few years, changes in technologies have shown us the criticality of
business continuity as we transform how and where we get work done. Secure
and reliable enterprise network access, along with management of network
communications capacity, is maintained through this business case and directly
affects business productivity. Without these investments, the employee and
customer experience would be negatively affected.
1.2 Discuss the major drivers of the business case (Customer Requested, Customer
Service Quality & Reliability, Mandatory & Compliance, Performance & Capacity, Asset
Condition, or Failed Plant & Operations) and the benefits to the customer
The main driver for this business case is Performance and Capacity. Since the
enterprise network communication assets are tied to employee and customer
systems within Avista’s infrastructure, creating and managing this business
case is important to supporting the employee and customer experience.
Specifically, allowing for timely network communications between core business
productivity application systems and back-office functions, such as the data
center(s), cloud services, the internet, and remote service offices, along with
giving customers accurate and timely information about their utility services
Requested Spend Amount $7,982,000
Requested Spend Time Period 5 years
Requesting Organization/Department Enterprise Technology
Business Case Owner | Sponsor Shawna Kiesbuy | Jim Corder
Sponsor Organization/Department Enterprise Technology
Phase Execution
Category Program
Driver Performance & Capacity
DocuSign Envelope ID: C4C710D7-E233-410F-8710-687B7FE8515D
Exhibit No. 11 Case Nos. AVU-E-23-01/AVU-G-23-01 J. Kensok, Avista
Schedule 1, Page 98 of 304
Enterprise Network Infrastructure
Business Case Justification Narrative Page 3 of 11
including outage management. With Performance and Capacity, the network
communication assets are managed in alignment with technology lifecycles that
are based on manufacturer product roadmaps and planned obsolesces to
proactively reduce the risk of failing assets affecting enterprise systems,
processes, and infrastructure reliability.
1.3 Identify why this work is needed now and what risks there are if not
approved or is deferred.
The project work captured in this business case enables network
communications for all corporate systems. With Avista’s vision of delivering
better energy for life, this business case is key to supporting the gas and electric
service delivery to our customers in a safe and reliable manner by allowing
access to core customer and employee systems. The work is needed daily and
is ongoing with a direct tie to customer satisfaction.
The risks of not approving this business case could result in unplanned failures,
inability to expand services and cyber vulnerabilities. The result is tied to the
following risks: an increase in employee and customer system outages,
unplanned labor and non-labor costs tied to system scope changes not clearly
defined, risk of delay to procure and replace the failed asset as well as downtime
to the core enterprise systems and exposure of outdated or unsupported
devices to external cyber vulnerabilities.
1.4 Identify any measures that can be used to determine whether the
investment would successfully deliver on the objectives and address the
need listed above.
Executing and completing planned projects within this business case should
refresh assets or install new instances of technology to enhance and increase
performance and capacity needs. If the fail rate associated with the enterprise
network systems in the business case remains low, then the project work is
adding value by proactively reducing the risk of failing assets affecting critical
operations systems, employee and customer processes, and infrastructure
reliability. In addition, expanding enterprise network assets in advance of Avista
adding services ensures business operations are not delayed and the system
impacted with increased capacity.
1.5 Supplemental Information
1.5.1 Please reference and summarize any studies that support the problem
Gartner is an industry leader in Enterprise Technology providing valuable
insights, guidance, tools, and consulting opportunities that Avista’s
technical architects use regularly. OEMs (Original Equipment
Manufacturer) (Original Equipment Manufacturer) also provide valuable
information about industry trends and the evolution of technology. Avista
DocuSign Envelope ID: C4C710D7-E233-410F-8710-687B7FE8515D
Exhibit No. 11 Case Nos. AVU-E-23-01/AVU-G-23-01 J. Kensok, Avista
Schedule 1, Page 99 of 304
Enterprise Network Infrastructure
Business Case Justification Narrative Page 4 of 11
uses these tools to accurately project growth and develop strategies for
scaling new use cases.
1.5.2 For asset replacement, include graphical or narrative representation of metrics
associated with the current condition of the asset that is proposed for
replacement.
Not applicable. This business case is aligned with Performance and
Capacity, not Asset Condition.

Option Capital Cost Start Complete
Recommended Solution - Asset replacement or
expansion for optimized performance and capacity. $7,982,000 01/2023 12/2027
Alternative 1 – A reduction of funding which reduces
expansion to meet enterprise system needs and
does not allow for the necessary number of devices
to be refreshed increasing risk of failure or cyber
vulnerability to unauthorized access by bad actors.
$6,385,600 01/2023 12/2027
Alternative 2 – Do not fund the program $0 01/2023 12/2027
2.1 Describe what metrics, data, analysis, or information were considered
when preparing this capital request.
Each individual network infrastructure asset is tracked throughout its active
presence using several systems. Collectively these systems track lifecycle,
manufacturer warranty, maintenance, and support (contract) status, licensing,
capacity, and replacement cost. Manufacturer lifecycles drive a considerable
portion of the required work within this request. Concurrently, a sizable portion
of work is driven by the ongoing technological advancement of business
solutions and the need for resilient and reliable access to the Internet. Subject
Matter Experts in Enterprise Technology are regularly consulted with in
technical cadences so that a real-world, collaborative approach is taken to
evaluate each asset’s risk of failure, as well as the impact of a given failure.
Capacity and performance planning activities occur in the same forum, the result
of which is a robust enterprise communications network that will enable Avista
to efficiently and effectively deliver timely information and services to customers.
Gross
Total
Assets
EoS
<2023
EoS
2023-27
EOL
2023-27
Total
Scope
of
Request
832 106 221* 170 497
DocuSign Envelope ID: C4C710D7-E233-410F-8710-687B7FE8515D
Exhibit No. 11 Case Nos. AVU-E-23-01/AVU-G-23-01 J. Kensok, Avista
Schedule 1, Page 100 of 304
Enterprise Network Infrastructure
Business Case Justification Narrative Page 5 of 11
*Accurate as of this writing and subject to change based on future manufacturer
notifications
EoS= End of manufacturer software and/or hardware support, includes devices
that cannot be patched or updated are considered vulnerable to cyber threats and
must be refreshed.
EoL= End of planned asset lifecycle, communication network assets within the
Enterprise Network Infrastructure solution portfolio are selected for a planned
lifecycle of 7 years, with some exceptions.

2.2 Discuss how the requested capital cost amount will be spent in the current
year (or future years if a multi-year or ongoing initiative). (i.e. what are the
expected functions, processes or deliverables that will result from the capital spend?). Include
any known or estimated reductions to O&M because of this investment.
In the current year, the project focus will be on network switch refreshes tied to
enterprise employee connectivity for office locations and generating plants,
refresh, and expansion of enterprise switches for back-office data, and
expansion of network assets to increase performance and capacity and to
alleviate cyber security threats on devices deemed obsolete by vendor
lifecycles. Historical costs and timelines related to similar project work provide
support for the requested allocations above.
Direct Savings – There are no direct savings related to this business case.
Indirect Savings – The network infrastructure investments in this business
case are necessary to sustain our business by using technology to automate
business processes. This business case specifically addresses network
infrastructure requirements for the back office and customer channels. The
business case considers business impact vs. likelihood/probability when
sequencing and prioritizing resource allocations and responds to vendor-
manufactured product obsolescence risks as well as cyber security risks.
This business case catalog of use cases includes the network infrastructure
requirements for customer contact cs, customer mobile and web site contact,
all office functions, field workforce functions, fleet systems, dispatch operations,
EIM functions, and security systems. The key performance indicator for network
availability and reliability is 99.9%, 24x7. The investment sequencing is based
on three drivers, 1) Compliance, 2) Initiatives, 3) Reliability. The Compliance
driver should be regulation, Initiatives are executive sponsored (current
example is a cybersecurity vulnerability risk on out-of-support assets), and the
Reliability driver is often the highest volume of work.
The sequencing of the Reliability projects is driven first by the network asset
end-of-support date for cybersecurity patching, then the performance and
capacity to meet the business requirement, and lastly product obsolescence
date.
DocuSign Envelope ID: C4C710D7-E233-410F-8710-687B7FE8515D
Exhibit No. 11 Case Nos. AVU-E-23-01/AVU-G-23-01 J. Kensok, Avista
Schedule 1, Page 101 of 304
Enterprise Network Infrastructure
Business Case Justification Narrative Page 6 of 11
Investment percentage for the cybersecurity Initiative is 100% in 2022. In 2023,
the cybersecurity Initiative is 50% and Reliability projects are 50% of the
investment.
Quantified indirect savings:
2022 2023 Lifetime *
$0.00 $0.00 $10mm-$20mm

[Offsets to projects will be more strongly scrutinized in general rate cases going forward (ref. WUTC Docket No. U-190531 Policy
Statement), therefore it is critical that these impacts are thought through to support rate recovery.]
2.3 Outline any business functions and processes that may be impacted (and
how) by the business case for it to be successfully implemented.
The project work in this business case enables enterprise network
communications within office locations and generation plants. Planning for these
projects is done in partnership with other Avista departments to ensure an
alignment of technical needs is accounted for in this business case, including
the requirements, risks, and effects of the project work. Many times, this work
will be aligned with a previously scheduled outage window to gain efficiency and
reduce the amount of downtime experienced by employees and customers.
Specific business functions and processes affected are determined project by
project.

2.4 Discuss the alternatives that were considered and any tangible risks and
mitigation strategies for each alternative.
The requested funding amount allows the enterprise network communication
systems tied to this business case to be maintained and expanded based on a
periodic upgrade schedule. If this business case did not exist or receive funding,
the enterprise network communications assets could fail, or the technology
becomes obsolete which would result in a lack of enterprise communication
paths for offices, generation and substation locations, and customers.
Two alternative funding options were reviewed:
Alternative 1: Fund the business case at an amount which is less than the
original request
Funding of this business case at an amount less than the full request will reduce
expansion of enterprise network communication systems to meet business
needs in multiple offices, across generation and substation locations and for
customers. This reduction in projects will also lessen the necessary number of
devices to be refreshed which increases the risk of failure of critical customer
systems or cyber security vulnerability because assets will no longer be
supported by their manufacturers.
Alternative 2: Do not fund the business case
DocuSign Envelope ID: C4C710D7-E233-410F-8710-687B7FE8515D
Exhibit No. 11 Case Nos. AVU-E-23-01/AVU-G-23-01 J. Kensok, Avista
Schedule 1, Page 102 of 304
Enterprise Network Infrastructure
Business Case Justification Narrative Page 7 of 11
Removing all funding for this business case would be challenging for Avista
since this business case provides enterprise network communications to offices,
generation and substation locations, and customer systems. If the projects in
this business case cease to exist, there will be no enterprise network
communications at new offices, substation or generation locations, or the
enterprise network systems that age beyond their vendor lifecycles will fail.
These failures translate to a lack of access and support to back-office and
customer systems that support the delivery of gas and electric services.
2.5 Include a timeline of when this work will be started and completed.
Describe when the investments become used and useful to the customer.
spend, and transfers to plant by year.
The Enterprise Network Infrastructure business case is managed as a program
of projects planned yearly. Throughout the year, the business case’s multiple
projects are Initiated, Planned, Executed, and then Completed with a Transfer
to Plant for the individual projects in this business case. Therefore, investments
become used and useful on a project-by-project basis and happen frequently
throughout the year.
2.6 Discuss how the proposed investment aligns with strategic vision, goals,
objectives, and mission statement of the organization.
This business case provides network communications for all corporate systems.
These systems include email, Microsoft Teams, myavista.com, AFM (Avista
Facilities Management), OMT (Outage Management Tool), CC&B (Customer
Care & Billing), Maximo, and EIM (Energy Imbalance Market), to name a few,
along with secure access to the Internet wherever our people might be working.
These network system examples, and many others, move and present data that
drive operational decisions and support customer account management, tying
back to all four strategic goals affecting our customers, people, performance,
and invention with the customer being the most important.
2.7 Include why the requested amount above is considered a prudent
investment, providing, or attaching any supporting documentation. In
addition, please explain how the investment prudency will be reviewed
and re-evaluated throughout the project

This business case is tasked with enhancing and maintaining enterprise network
communication systems in employee and customer areas of Avista’s
infrastructure. The funding amount and project portfolio has been determined to
maintain current performance and capacity while also scaling for customer
growth. With project priorities tied to enterprise strategies and risk objectives,
the funding is reviewed monthly allowing for adjustments to be made to the
portfolio as demands change across Avista’s enterprise environments. If project
priorities do change, a request is then made to the business case governance
team to evaluate and determine if the change is prudent to accomplishing the
goals and objectives established for the current funding year.
DocuSign Envelope ID: C4C710D7-E233-410F-8710-687B7FE8515D
Exhibit No. 11 Case Nos. AVU-E-23-01/AVU-G-23-01 J. Kensok, Avista
Schedule 1, Page 103 of 304
Enterprise Network Infrastructure
Business Case Justification Narrative Page 8 of 11
2.8 Supplemental Information

Identify customers and stakeholders that interface with the business case
Within the Enterprise Network Infrastructure business case, the discrete
projects interface with various internal Avista groups such as ET (Enterprise
Technology) engineering, Customer Solutions, Substation engineering, GPSS
(Generation Production and Substation Support) and Generation Plants, the
Telecommunications Shop, along with our internal business partners at various
office and remote facilities.

The ET Business Case Owner works in conjunction with the PMO (Project
Management Office), the assigned Program Manager, and subsequent Project
Managers.

The ET Business Case Owner is accountable and responsible for all Business
Case related activities and assignments.

2.8.1 Identify any related Business Cases
The investments included in this business case were previously included in the
Enterprise & Control Network Infrastructure business case. For better visibility,
and stronger investment driver alignment, we have split the single Enterprise &
Control Network Infrastructure business case into three separate business
cases beginning with the 2022 calendar year: Enterprise Network
Infrastructure, Control and Safety Network Infrastructure, and Network
Backbone Infrastructure.
3.1 Steering Committee or Advisory Group Information
Steering Committee members are invaluable to the project and will provide
approval on scope, schedule, and budget related changes. Additionally, they will
provide approval on issues and risks pertaining to project deliverables outlined
in this document, which also typically have an impact on the scope, schedule,
or budget of a project. Steering Committee members will also provide approval
on Change Requests, Go-Live, and the Approval to Close documents. For the
Enterprise Network Infrastructure business case, the Steering Committee will
consist of the Directors and Managers within ET, Energy Delivery, GPSS,
Customer Solutions, and the Business Case Owner.
3.2 Provide and discuss the governance processes and people that will
provide oversight
The Enterprise Network Infrastructure Business Case has two levels of
governance: The Program Steering Committee and the Project Steering
Committee.

DocuSign Envelope ID: C4C710D7-E233-410F-8710-687B7FE8515D
Exhibit No. 11 Case Nos. AVU-E-23-01/AVU-G-23-01 J. Kensok, Avista
Schedule 1, Page 104 of 304
Enterprise Network Infrastructure
Business Case Justification Narrative Page 9 of 11
Program Steering Committee
This business case is a program of related projects. The Program Steering
Committee consists of members in management positions that are identified
and responsible for prioritizing the projects within this program. The Steering
Committee is also held accountable for the financial performance of this
program. The Program Steering Committee will have regular meetings to review
the progress of the program and to make decisions on the following topics:

 Project prioritization and risk
 Approving business case funding requests
 New project initiation and sequencing

The Program will be facilitated and administrated by an assigned Program
Manager within the PMO. The project queue will be reviewed periodically to plan
and sequence work to the levels of funding allocation received.

Project Steering Committee
Project Steering Committees act as the governing body over each individual
project within the program and will consist of key members in management
positions that are identified as responsible for the successful completion of the
scope of work identified in the Charter document for the Project. The Project
Steering Committee is responsible for providing guidance and making decisions
on key issues that affect the following topics:

 Scope
 Schedule
 Budget
 Project Issues
 Project Risks

The Project Steering Committee will meet at the defined intervals documented
in the Charter of the project and will be facilitated by an assigned Project
Manager from within the PMO.

3.3 How will decision-making, prioritization, and change requests be
documented and monitored
Project prioritization is evaluated by the management team monthly. Each
program and project steering committee meet regularly and oversee scope,
schedule and budget within their respective programs and projects and inform
the Business Case owner of any changes needing escalation to the Technology
DocuSign Envelope ID: C4C710D7-E233-410F-8710-687B7FE8515D
Exhibit No. 11 Case Nos. AVU-E-23-01/AVU-G-23-01 J. Kensok, Avista
Schedule 1, Page 105 of 304
Enterprise Network Infrastructure
Business Case Justification Narrative Page 10 of 11
Planning Group (TPG) or Capital Planning Group (CPG) for decision-making
around resource or funding constraints.

Any changes in funding or scope are documented at the Business Case level,
via a Change Request document that is presented to the CPG monthly and
evaluated by the CPG for approval.

Changes in scope, schedule, or budget are also documented through a ‘Change
Request’ at the project level and reviewed and approved through a formal
workflow process. All ET projects in this business case are managed through
the PMO, which follows the Project Management Institute (PMI) standards.
Projects initiate with a ‘Charter’ to begin the planning process. When planning
is complete, a ‘Project Management Plan (PMP)’ is created and approved as
the project baseline for scope, schedule, and budget. At the end of execution,
an ‘Approval to Go Live’ is submitted and approved prior to implementation
(Transfer to Plant). After the technology is in service and out of the warranty
period, the Project Manager will hold a Lessons Learned, and subsequently
submit an ‘Approval to Close’ prior to finishing the project. All Monitor and
Control documentation and Change Requests are documented and stored to
ensure a comprehensive audit trail.

The undersigned acknowledge they have reviewed the Enterprise Network
Infrastructure business case and agree with the approach it presents. Significant
changes to this will be coordinated with and approved by the undersigned or their
designated representatives.

Signature: Date:
Print Name: Shawna Kiesbuy
Title: Sr. Manager, Network Engineering
Role: Business Case Owner

Signature: Date:
Print Name: Jim Corder
Title: IT Director
Role: Business Case Sponsor

DocuSign Envelope ID: C4C710D7-E233-410F-8710-687B7FE8515D
Sep-02-2022 | 3:09 PM PDT
Sep-02-2022 | 4:29 PM PDT
Exhibit No. 11 Case Nos. AVU-E-23-01/AVU-G-23-01 J. Kensok, Avista
Schedule 1, Page 106 of 304
Enterprise Network Infrastructure
Business Case Justification Narrative Page 11 of 11

DocuSign Envelope ID: C4C710D7-E233-410F-8710-687B7FE8515D
Exhibit No. 11 Case Nos. AVU-E-23-01/AVU-G-23-01 J. Kensok, Avista
Schedule 1, Page 107 of 304
Environmental Control and Monitoring Systems
Business Case Justification Narrative Template Version: 04.21.2022 Page 1 of 12
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Technology that enables Avista’s safety, control, customer-facing, and backoffice systems is
critical to the operations that serve our gas and electric customers. It is found in many different
environments from office locations to mountaintop sites to call centers across our service area to
Substations and Generation Plants. Managing the facility and power environments to optimally
run the systems housed in these locations is extremely important, as environmental condition
changes can adversely affect them. The parameters monitored and controlled include but are not
limited to temperature, humidity, fire protection, and backup power supply systems. If these
parameters should fall outside of the device specification levels, it can cause damage to the
technology equipment impacting business automation processes.

The technology solutions under the Environmental Control & Monitoring Systems business case
will vary by site location and systems supported in each facility or environment. They may include
uninterrupted power sources to allow systems to continue operating while waiting for an auxiliary
power source to come online, such as an emergency generator. In fact, on a mountain top, heated
and cooled enclosures are critical to assuring technology housed in that facility is maintained at
the proper temperature despite changes in outside weather. The cost of each solution will vary
with the type of solution identified for each site. However, location can also affect cost based on
the remoteness and extreme conditions affecting that particular location. Avista and its customers
can experience the benefits through ongoing system reliability.

The main driver behind this program is asset condition aligned with asset management strategies
driven by technology lifecycles that are based on manufacturer product roadmaps, which can
compound planned obsolescence. The asset management strategy is critical to optimize the
overall lifecycle value of the product and reduce potential for failure or unplanned outages. The
technology solutions under this program undergo regular review to balance the asset
management strategy within the predetermined budget allocations. The risks of not approving this
business case at the level to which it can maintain the balance of meeting its asset management
strategy can result in unplanned failures, which result in unplanned labor and non-labor costs,
risk of delay to procure and replace the failed asset, increase safety risk to send field staff in
extreme weather conditions to remote locations, as well as downtime to the critical operations
and safety systems that it supports. The likely hood of these assets failing is expotentially more
likely when they are allowed to run pasted their life cycle. They contain components that wear out
and are not replaceable without replacing the entire asset. This program will plan to normalize
replacements by replacing an equal number of assets by asset type a year. This may increase
the risk of failures but provides a normalized annual funding level requirement. Engineering,
Technicians, and Management will annually review the portfolio of assets, and their current
condition, against this program to ensure optimization of funding and risk of failures. This program
will need a minimum funding level of $950k/year to maintain the business risk of these assests
failing and impacting safety and control systems our Operations personal rely on to support our
Customers.

DocuSign Envelope ID: EE59483C-65AA-4491-A5A1-4220CF692D56
Exhibit No. 11 Case Nos. AVU-E-23-01/AVU-G-23-01 J. Kensok, Avista
Schedule 1, Page 108 of 304
Environmental Control and Monitoring Systems
Business Case Justification Narrative Template Version: 04.21.2022 Page 2 of 12
VERSION HISTORY
Version Author Description Date Notes
1.0 Michael Busby Original business case request 7/2017
1.1 Michael Beil Updated investment driver 7/2019
2.0 Michael Busby Narrative added to new template 7/2020
3.0 Michael Busby Updated to new Templete requirements 5/2022

GENERAL INFORMATION

1. BUSINESS PROBLEM
1.1 What is the current or potential problem that is being addressed?
Technology that enables Avista’s safety, control, customer-facing, and back office
systems is critical to the operations that serve our gas and electric customers. It is found
in many different environments from office locations to mountaintop sites to call centers
across our service area. Managing the facility and power environments to optimally run
the systems housed in these locations is extremely important, as environmental
condition changes can adversely affect them. The parameters monitored and controlled
include but are not limited to temperature, humidity, fire protection, and backup power
supply systems. If these parameters should fall outside of the device specification
levels, it can cause damage to the technology equipment impacting business
automation processes.
1.2 Discuss the major drivers of the business case (Customer Requested, Customer
Service Quality & Reliability, Mandatory & Compliance, Performance & Capacity, Asset
Condition, or Failed Plant & Operations) and the benefits to the customer
The main driver behind this program is asset condition aligned with asset management
strategies driven by technology lifecycles that are based on manufacturer product
roadmaps, which can compound planned obsolescence. The asset management
strategy is critical to optimize the overall lifecycle value of the product and reduce
potential for failure or unplanned outages.

Requested Spend Amount $4,750,000
Requested Spend Time Period 5 years ($950k annually, perpetually)
Requesting Organization/Department Enterprise Technology
Business Case Owner | Sponsor Michael Busby | Jim Corder
Sponsor Organization/Department Enterprise Technology
Phase Execution
Category Program
Driver Asset Condition
DocuSign Envelope ID: EE59483C-65AA-4491-A5A1-4220CF692D56
Exhibit No. 11 Case Nos. AVU-E-23-01/AVU-G-23-01 J. Kensok, Avista
Schedule 1, Page 109 of 304
Environmental Control and Monitoring Systems
Business Case Justification Narrative Template Version: 04.21.2022 Page 3 of 12
1.3 Identify why this work is needed now and what risks there are if not
approved or is deferred
The technology solutions under this program undergo regular review to balance the
asset management strategy within the predetermined budget allocations. The risks of
not approving this business case at the level to which it can maintain the balance of
meeting its asset management strategy can result in unplanned failures, which result
in unplanned labor and non-labor costs, risk of delay to procure and replace the failed
asset, increase safety risk to send field staff in extreme weather conditions to remote
locations, as well as downtime to the critical operations and safety systems that it
supports.
1.4 Identify any measures that can be used to determine whether the
investment would successfully deliver on the objectives and address the
need listed above.
The main driver behind this program is asset condition aligned with asset management
strategies driven by technology lifecycles. Executing planned projects will refresh
assets prior to the asset’s obsolescence and in this way, the business case should be
able to support the asset lifecycles and reduce the risk of failing assets affecting critical
business systems and processes.

1.5 Supplemental Information
1.5.1 Please reference and summarize any studies that support the problem
See below for supporting details.
1.5.2 For asset replacement, include graphical or narrative representation of metrics
associated with the current condition of the asset that is proposed for
replacement.
EMERGENCY GENERATORS (EGEN)
Emergency Generator assets are located at facilities where critical technologies are
located. We currently have 24 generators in portfolio. They have a 30-year life cycle.
Average cost of replacement is estimated around $150k per generator system. This
estimate doesn’t take into account any unique environmental constraints some site may
have. We will plan to replace 1 per year, if the generator is having reliability issues or at
significant risk of failure.
Age Count
0-5 Yrs. 3
5-10 Yrs. 9
10-15 Yrs. 6
15-20 Yrs. 0
20-25 Yrs. 3
25-30 Yrs. 1
> 30 Yrs. 2
Total 24

DocuSign Envelope ID: EE59483C-65AA-4491-A5A1-4220CF692D56
Exhibit No. 11 Case Nos. AVU-E-23-01/AVU-G-23-01 J. Kensok, Avista
Schedule 1, Page 110 of 304
Environmental Control and Monitoring Systems
Business Case Justification Narrative Template Version: 04.21.2022 Page 4 of 12
We have 2 generators that are past their end of life and need to be refreshed. We have 1
generators that will reach their end of life over the next 5 years. As of 5/2022, over the next
5 years we are planning on replacing these 3 generators that will be past their end of life,
as well as 1 generator that is having reliability and maintenance issues.
UNINTERRUPTIBLE POWER SYSTEMS (UPS)
Uninterruptible power systems used to provide AC or DC power voltages to equipment
during the loss of utility power events and/or during emergency generator startup. We
currently have 60 UPS systems in portfolio. They have a 5-year life cycle. Average cost of
replacement is estimated around $25k per UPS system. This estimate doesn’t take into
account any unique environmental constraints some site may have. We will plan to replace
12 per year, if the UPS is having reliability issues or at significant risk of failure.
Age Count
0-1 Yrs. 0
1-2 Yrs. 8
2-3 Yrs. 7
3-4 Yrs. 11
4-5 Yrs. 6
> 5 Yrs. 28
Total 60
We have 28 UPS systems beyond their end of life. If we get funding to replace 12 a year
for the next 5 years, we can significant reduce the risk of UPS failures.
DC RECTIFIERS
DC Rectifier systems are used to convert AC power to DC power. Some of Avista’s
technology assets have DC power supply requirements. We have 78 DC Rectifiers in
portfolio. They have a 15-year life cycle. Average cost of replacement is estimated around
$70k per DC system. This estimate doesn’t take into account any unique environmental
constraints some site may have. We will plan to replace 5 per year, if the DC System is
having reliability issues or at significant risk of failure.
Age Count
0-3 Yrs. 7
3-6 Yrs. 10
6-9 Yrs. 9
9-12 Yrs. 28
12-15 Yrs. 1
> 15 Yrs. 23
Total 78

We have 23 DC Systems beyond their end of life. We will have 26 more DC Systems reach
their end of life within the next 5 years. If we get funding to replace 5 systems a year for the
next 15 years, we can significant reduce the risk of DC System failures.
DocuSign Envelope ID: EE59483C-65AA-4491-A5A1-4220CF692D56
Exhibit No. 11 Case Nos. AVU-E-23-01/AVU-G-23-01 J. Kensok, Avista
Schedule 1, Page 111 of 304
Environmental Control and Monitoring Systems
Business Case Justification Narrative Template Version: 04.21.2022 Page 5 of 12
DC BATTERIES
DC Batteries store electrical energy used to provide power to technology equipment during
loss of AC power event. We have 2 type of DC batteries in portfolio. A “Standard Life” and
a “Long Life” Valve Regulated Lead Acid (VRLA) battery. The Standard VRLA battery has
a 10-year life cycle. The “Long Life” VRLA battery has a 15-year life cycle and will be
replaced with the DC Plant replacement project. We currently have 11 “Long Life” DC
Battery systems and 66 “Standard Life” DC Battery systems. The “Standard Life” DC
Battery systems will be replaced if they fail performance testing during maintenance
activities. Average cost of replacement for “Standard Life” battery systems is estimated
around $7.5k per DC system. We will plan to replace 6 “Standard Life” DC battery systems
per year, if the system is having reliability issues or at significant risk of failure.
10 Year Lifespan
Age Count
0-2 Yrs. 29
2-4 Yrs. 14
4-6 Yrs. 9
6-8 Yrs. 8
8-10 Yrs. 1
> 10 Yrs. 5
Total 66
5 of the “Standard Life” DC Battery systems are beyond their end of life. We will replace the
DC Batteries when we replace the DC Rectifier system. If we see DC Batteries not passing
performance testing during maintenance activities we will plan on replacing the DC Battery
system before replacing the whole rectifier system.
HVAC SYSTEMS
HVAC Systems monitor and control the environments temperature and/or humidity.
Avista’s technology assets may experience physical damage if operated in temperatures
and/or humidifies outside of their specifications. We have 23 HVAC systems in portfolio.
They have a 20-year life cycle. Average cost of replacement is estimated around $55k per
HVAC system. This estimate doesn’t take into account any unique environmental
constraints some site may have. We will plan to replace 1 per year, if the HVAC System is
having reliability issues or at significant risk of failure.
Age Count
0-5 Yrs. 7
5-10 Yrs. 9
10-15 Yrs. 4
15-20 Yrs. 0
> 20 Yrs. 3
Total 23
We have 3 HVAC Systems beyond their end of life. If we get funding to replace 1 HVAC
system a year, we can manage and maintain the risk of HVAC system failures.

DocuSign Envelope ID: EE59483C-65AA-4491-A5A1-4220CF692D56
Exhibit No. 11 Case Nos. AVU-E-23-01/AVU-G-23-01 J. Kensok, Avista
Schedule 1, Page 112 of 304
Environmental Control and Monitoring Systems
Business Case Justification Narrative Template Version: 04.21.2022 Page 6 of 12
2. PROPOSAL AND RECOMMENDED SOLUTION
Option Capital Cost Start Complete
Optimized Asset Replacement $4,750,000 01 2023 01 2028
Asset Replacement when Obsolete $6,162,500 01 2023 01 2028
Asset Replacement upon Failure $4,621,875 01 2023 01 2028
2.1 Describe what metrics, data, analysis or information was considered when
preparing this capital request.
The main driver behind this program is asset condition aligned with asset management
strategies driven by technology lifecycles that are based on manufacturer product
roadmaps, which can compound planned obsolescence. The asset management
strategy is critical to optimize the overall lifecycle value of the product and reduce
potential for failure or unplanned outages. Tracking of the assets’ installation and
lifecycle durations are maintained to plan the program projects over the course of future
years driving the annual budget request to maintain the refresh roadmap.

2.2 Discuss how the requested capital cost amount will be spent in the current
year (or future years if a multi-year or ongoing initiative). (i.e. what are the
expected functions, processes or deliverables that will result from the capital spend?). Include
any known or estimated reductions to O&M as a result of this investment.

The Environmental Control and Monitoring systems business case will represent
projects that are driven by performance and capacity related issues on the following
assets:
 Emergency Generation systems at Telecom facilities
 DC power supply plants at Telecom facilities
 HVAC systems at Telecom facilities
 RTU technologies related to Telecom facilities
 Telecom Facility buildings and lighting
 Microwave towers at Telecom facilities
 UPS Systems support Telecom facilities
 Applications systems used to monitor and manage the environment

The Environmental Control and Monitoring systems ensure reliable operation of assets
that support safety, control, customer facing, and back office automated business
processes. Assets require specific operating environments to prevent physical damage,
such as temperature, humidity, and power supply voltages. Environmental Control and
Monitoring systems will monitor and control these environmental parameters and alert
operational personnel when they fall outside of optimal conditions. Environmental
condition alarms allow operational personnel to respond to issues that may cause
damage to other assets well in advance on any failure resulting in loss of business
automation processes.

The program will replace existing assets in alignment with the manufacturer's product
roadmaps. Not only is the asset condition subject to the traditional mortality rate or
DocuSign Envelope ID: EE59483C-65AA-4491-A5A1-4220CF692D56
Exhibit No. 11 Case Nos. AVU-E-23-01/AVU-G-23-01 J. Kensok, Avista
Schedule 1, Page 113 of 304
Environmental Control and Monitoring Systems
Business Case Justification Narrative Template Version: 04.21.2022 Page 7 of 12
lifecycle, but it is compounded by planned obsolescence. Reliance on obsolete
products for automated business processes presents significant risk that may only be
solved with the reinstatement of manual processes. Sustaining business processes by
replacing automation with workforce would increase labor expenses.

Should this business case not be funded sufficiently, and we run these assets past their
recommended life, we will experience increased downtime of our automated business
processes related to safety, control, customer facing, and back-office systems. The
technology assets that are managed in this business case also monitors and controls
some environmental variables that other technology assets require in order to prevent
damage. The risk and likelihood of failures with this asset grows exponentially when
they run past their expected life. Failures with these technology assets would increase
labor costs in other areas of the company by having to implement manual processes.
We would experience an increase in the cost of technology asset replacements
because other technology assets could experience damage if the environment, they
run in is not controlled within their manufacturer specifications.

Avista needs to replace these technology assets for cost avoidance related to
significant risk of failures:
 14 DC power supply battery banks a year at approx. $10k each
 6 DC Converters a year at approx. $65k each
 12 AC UPS systems a year at approx. $25k each
 2 HVAC systems a year at approx. $70k each
 1 Emergency Generator a year at approx. $150k each

Investments in these technology asset replacements provide indirect savings to our
customers by cost avoidance related to increase in operating expense due to
reinstating manual business processes. Avista Customers will also see cost avoidance
related to early replacement of other technology assets that experienced damage
because their environment was not controlled adequately. The amount of indirect
savings would depend on the site and associated business process systems impacted
by the failure.
Indirect savings related to operating expenses could range from $100k - $10M a year
representing at least 1 full-time employee up to 100 full-time employees needed to
implement manual process. This is also assuming we would not replace these assets
when failed.

Indirect savings related to early replacements of other technology assets could range
from $100k - $10M depending on the site that has environment control impacts. $100k
is a representation of a standard remote site with standard technology deployments.
The $10M represents our central Datacenter environment.

2.3 Outline any business functions and processes that may be impacted (and
how) by the business case for it to be successfully implemented.

Technology that enables Avista’s safety, control, customer-facing, and back office
systems is critical to the operations that serve our gas and electric customers. It is found
DocuSign Envelope ID: EE59483C-65AA-4491-A5A1-4220CF692D56
Exhibit No. 11 Case Nos. AVU-E-23-01/AVU-G-23-01 J. Kensok, Avista
Schedule 1, Page 114 of 304
Environmental Control and Monitoring Systems
Business Case Justification Narrative Template Version: 04.21.2022 Page 8 of 12
in many different environments from office locations to mountaintop sites to call centers
across our service area. Managing the facility and power environments to optimally run
the systems housed in these locations is extremely important, as environmental
condition changes can adversely affect them. The parameters monitored and controlled
include but are not limited to temperature, humidity, fire protection, and backup power
supply systems. If these parameters should fall outside of the device specification
levels, it can cause damage to the technology equipment impacting business
automation processes. Maintaining the environmental assets through this business
case allows for the refresh of the asset proactively in order to not affect the critical
business functions and processes housed at these locations.

2.4 Discuss the alternatives that were considered and any tangible risks and
mitigation strategies for each alternative.

Alternative 1: Asset Replacement When Obsolete
This alternative maintains all Environmental Control and Monitoring systems in
alignment with product lifecycles.

Alternative 2: Asset Replacement upon Failure
This alternative replaces equipment only upon failure. This option introduces high risk
to the company because failed assets will create significant loss of automated business
processes. Mitigating this loss will result in increased asset management costs to
maintain spare inventory. These costs are not accounted for in the estimate. This option
assumes;
 50% of all obsolete assets will fail or become incompatible.
 50% of the project costs is Labor
 Labor would be 200% more expensive due to the urgency to replace a failed
asset
These costs would be refected in the IT Failed Assets Business case. The IT Failed
Assets business case would not forecast these costs.

2.5 Include a timeline of when this work will be started and completed.
Describe when the investments become used and useful to the customer.

The Environmental Control and Monitoring Systems business case is managed as a
program of projects planned yearly which align with asset lifecycles that are based on
manufacturer product roadmaps. All individual projects are managed through the PMO,
which follows the Project Management Institute (PMI) standards. Throughout the year,
the business case’s projects are Initiated, Planned, Executed, and then Completed with
a Transfer to Plant for the installed assets which over the course of a calendar year
equates to the funded budget. Within this business case, there is one blanket project
for battery refreshes which Transfers to Plant on a monthly basis.

DocuSign Envelope ID: EE59483C-65AA-4491-A5A1-4220CF692D56
Exhibit No. 11 Case Nos. AVU-E-23-01/AVU-G-23-01 J. Kensok, Avista
Schedule 1, Page 115 of 304
Environmental Control and Monitoring Systems
Business Case Justification Narrative Template Version: 04.21.2022 Page 9 of 12
2.6 Discuss how the proposed investment aligns with strategic vision, goals,
objectives and mission statement of the organization.

This is a program with discrete projects that align with Avista’s vision, mission and
strategic objectives:
 To provide Better Energy for Life, you need systems that function at an optimal level
to deliver electricity and gas in a safe and reliable manner. The team supporting the
environmental control and monitoring systems is highly skilled and responsive to
the needs of these systems so critical business services continue to be delivered
without interruption.

2.7 Include why the requested amount above is considered a prudent
investment, providing or attaching any supporting documentation. In
addition, please explain how the investment prudency will be reviewed
and re-evaluated throughout the project

Based on the individual asset data listed above, the requested funding amount will allow
for a group of discrete projects each year which will strive to maintain a refresh cycle
ahead of the assets’ obsolescence reducing the risk of unplanned failures, which result
in unplanned labor and non-labor costs, risk of delay to procure and replace the failed
asset, increase safety risk to send field staff in extreme weather conditions to remote
locations, as well as downtime to the critical operations and safety systems that it
supports.

2.8 Supplemental Information

2.8.1 Identify customers and stakeholders that interface with the business case

Within the Environmental Control and Monitoring Systems business case, the projects
interface with various internal Avista groups such as ET engineering, the
Telecommunications Shop, real estate, contracting, and accounts payable to name a
few. While in the field, the teams also interface with landowners, local governments,
environmental groups, and others related to mountaintop sites, office locations, and
shared substations.

Steering Committee members include Business Case Sponsors, Directors and
Managers within the Enterprise Technology group long with the Business Case Owner.

The ET Business Case Owner works in conjunction with the Project Management Office
(PMO), and assigned Program Manager, and subsequent Project Managers.

The ET Business Case Owner is accountable and responsible for all Business Case
related activities and assignments.

DocuSign Envelope ID: EE59483C-65AA-4491-A5A1-4220CF692D56
Exhibit No. 11 Case Nos. AVU-E-23-01/AVU-G-23-01 J. Kensok, Avista
Schedule 1, Page 116 of 304
Environmental Control and Monitoring Systems
Business Case Justification Narrative Template Version: 04.21.2022 Page 10 of 12
2.8.2 Identify any related Business Cases
There are no related business cases currently.

3. MONITOR AND CONTROL
3.1 Steering Committee or Advisory Group Information
Steering Committee members are invaluable to the project and will provide approval on
scope, schedule, and budget related changes. Additionally, they will provide approval
on issues and risks pertaining to project deliverables outlined in this document, which
also typically have an impact on the scope, schedule, or budget of a project. Steering
Committee members will also provide approval on Change Requests, Go-Live, and the
Approval to Close document. For the Environmental Control and Monitoring business
case, the Steering Committee will consist of the Directors and Managers within ET and
the Business Case Owner.
3.2 Provide and discuss the governance processes and people that will
provide oversight
The Environmental Control and Monitoring systems Business Case has two levels of
governance; The Program Steering Committee and the Project Steering Committee.

Program Steering Committee
This business case is a program of related projects. The Program Steering Committee
consists of members in management positions that are identified and responsible for
prioritizing the projects within this program. The Steering Committee is also held
accountable for the financial performance of this program. The Program Steering
Committee will have regular meetings to review the progress of the program and to
make decisions on the following topics:

 Project prioritization and risk
 Approving business case funding requests
 New project initiation and sequencing

The Program will be facilitated and administrated by an assigned Program Manager
within the Enterprise Technology (ET) Project Management Office (PMO) Department.
The project queue will be reviewed periodically and will consist of projects needed to
maintain the reliability and performance of all Environmental Control and Monitoring
systems.

Product roadmaps identify investment demand that is generally not fully funded.
Product investments are prioritized in this manner:
1) Safety Systems
2) Control Systems
3) Customer Facing Systems
4) Back Office Systems

DocuSign Envelope ID: EE59483C-65AA-4491-A5A1-4220CF692D56
Exhibit No. 11 Case Nos. AVU-E-23-01/AVU-G-23-01 J. Kensok, Avista
Schedule 1, Page 117 of 304
Environmental Control and Monitoring Systems
Business Case Justification Narrative Template Version: 04.21.2022 Page 11 of 12
Project Steering Committee
Project Steering Committees act as the governing body over each individual project
within the program and will consist of key members in management positions that are
identified as responsible for the successful completion of the scope of work identified
in the Charter document for the Project. The Project Steering Committee is responsible
to provide guidance and make decisions on key issues that affect the following topics:

 Scope
 Schedule
 Budget
 Project Issues
 Project Risks

The Project Steering Committee will meet at the defined intervals documented in the
Charter of the project and will be facilitated by an assigned Project Manager from within
the ET PMO Department.

3.3 How will decision-making, prioritization, and change requests be
documented and monitored
Project prioritization is evaluated by the management team on a weekly basis. Each
program and project steering committee meet regularly and oversees scope, schedule
and budget within their respective programs and projects and inform the Business Case
owner of any changes needing escalation to the TPG or CPG for decision-making
around resource or funding constraints.

Any changes in funding or scope are documented at the Business Case level, via
Change Request document that is presented to the CPG on a monthly basis and
evaluated by the CPG for approval.

Changes in scope, schedule, or budget are also documented through a ‘Change
Request’ at the project level and reviewed and approved through a formal workflow
process. All Enterprise technology projects in this business case are managed through
the PMO, which follows the Project Management Institute (PMI) standards. Projects
initiate with a ‘Charter’ to begin the planning process. When planning is complete, a
‘Project Management Plan (PMP)’ is created and approved as the projects baseline for
scope, schedule and budget. At the end of execution, an ‘Approval to Go Live’ is
submitted and approved prior to implementation (Transfer to Plant). After the
technology is in service and out of the warranty period, the Project Manager will hold a
Lessons Learned, and subsequently submit an ‘Approval to Close’ prior to finishing the
project. All Monitor and Control documentation and Change Requests are documented
and stored to ensure a comprehensive audit trail.

DocuSign Envelope ID: EE59483C-65AA-4491-A5A1-4220CF692D56
Exhibit No. 11 Case Nos. AVU-E-23-01/AVU-G-23-01 J. Kensok, Avista
Schedule 1, Page 118 of 304
Environmental Control and Monitoring Systems
Business Case Justification Narrative Template Version: 04.21.2022 Page 12 of 12
4. APPROVAL AND AUTHORIZATION
The undersigned acknowledge they have reviewed the Environmental Control and
Monitoring Systems business case and agree with the approach it presents. Significant
changes to this will be coordinated with and approved by the undersigned or their designated
representatives.

Signature: Date:
Print Name: Michael Busby
Title: Manager of NOC and Comm Shop
Role: Business Case Owner

Signature: Date:
Print Name: Jim Corder
Title: IT Director
Role: Business Case Sponsor

DocuSign Envelope ID: EE59483C-65AA-4491-A5A1-4220CF692D56
Sep-02-2022 | 2:12 PM PDT
Sep-02-2022 | 8:17 AM PDT
Exhibit No. 11 Case Nos. AVU-E-23-01/AVU-G-23-01 J. Kensok, Avista
Schedule 1, Page 119 of 304
Enterprise Technology (ET) Modernization and Operational
Efficiency Technology
Business Case Justification Narrative Page 1 of 12
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The ET (Enterprise Technology) Modernization and Operational Efficiency (ETMOE) Business
Case sponsors the tools and systems used by the technology teams to support business
application implementation, development, operations, support, automation, and data to deliver
solutions to the rest of the organization. The Enterprise Technology (ET) business areas includes
the delivery and support of enterprise Information Systems (IS), Infrastructure Technology (IT),
Security Management, Shared Services, Project Management Office (PMO), Technology Service
Center, Digital Innovation, IT Finance, and Software Compliance. Avista’s Enterprise technology
systems are a necessity, as they provide essential functions to our employees and customers
throughout all service territories. These vital systems require systematic upgrades and
enhancements to maintain reliability, compatibility, and reduce security vulnerabilities.

In order to maintain these business processes and systems supported by this business case, the
recommended funding amount is $14,665,000 over the next five years (roughly $2M to $3.9M per
year). This funding level will provide the appropriate technology and development to meet the
periodic upgrades and enhancements prioritized by the ET Modernization Governance
Committee. This funding level also considers the development staff required to maintain these
core technology solutions.

As the utility industry undergoes transformation into digitalization, the growth of business
application technology continues to enable automation and manual business processes to
strengthen our ability to perform, which impacts our capacity to achieve stated financial objectives
through focused cost management, timely rate recovery, business transformation, and
unregulated business development. This growth in business application technology creates an
intricate tapestry that requires ancillary tools and systems to deliver and support company-wide
solutions. Essentially, business application technology requires shared platforms and
management tools to increase the quality, stability, and velocity to meet business goals and
customers' expectations.

The cost of these solutions varies by scale of footprint and vendor licensing models. The
technology under this program undergoes regular utilization and performance reviews to
determine expected standards and capacity requirements to maintain system reliability under the
established budget allocations and respective technology lifecycles. These reviews can result in
periodic additional investment demands as a result of technology lagging behind its lifecycle or
predetermined performance standards. The technology, tools, and systems under this program
benefit Avista customers, as they support company-wide business application systems.

Failure to approve the recommended funding would risk the reduction of skilled resources that
have institutional business process and technical knowledge. Our employees and customers
would also be impacted through the deferment of upgrades and enhancements, resulting in
unsupported applications, security liability, non-compliance, and significantly higher costs.

VERSION HISTORY
Version Author Description Date Notes
1.0 Leianne Raymond Draft for 2023-2027 submission 6.30.22

DocuSign Envelope ID: F1BFAD21-C875-4C15-9BD0-9555CA5F0540
Exhibit No. 11 Case Nos. AVU-E-23-01/AVU-G-23-01 J. Kensok, Avista
Schedule 1, Page 120 of 304
Enterprise Technology (ET) Modernization and Operational
Efficiency Technology
Business Case Justification Narrative Page 2 of 12
GENERAL INFORMATION

BUSINESS PROBLEM
1.1 What is the current or potential problem that is being addressed?
The growth in business application technology, as part of the digital transformation of
the utility industry, requires ancillary tools and systems to deliver and support company-
wide technology solutions. Essentially, business application technology requires
shared platforms and management tools to increase the quality, stability, and velocity
to meet business goals and expectations from our customers. These platforms and
tools fit into two categories, those shared across the entire Avista Organization and
those specific to the needs of the Enterprise Technology (ET) department as tools to
support business applications.

1.2 Discuss the major drivers of the business case and the benefits to the
customer
The Enterprise Technology Modernization and Operational Efficiency (ETMOE)
Business Case is primarily driven by Performance and Capacity to support business
application implementation, development, operations, support, delivery automation,
and data delivery. This business case focuses on the tools and systems used by the
technology teams to deliver solutions to the rest of the organization and is mainly
comprised of product licenses, hardware, upgrades, and enhancements. The
technology tools and systems under this program benefit all Avista customers, as they
support business application systems throughout the Company that produce indirect
savings and/or productivity gains.

Some examples of those components are as follows: The funding requested under the
ETMOE Business Case will be invested in technology, such as:

• Content and Workflow Platforms – Enhancement and upgrades for platforms
that allow for content storage and sharing, such as ECM (Enterprise Content
Management) and the Intranet, as well as organizational workflows.
• Non-production Environment & Data Management – Enhancements and new
system implementations required to support continuous integration, Quality
Assurance (QA) and other automations, data management, and new
Requested Spend Amount $14,665,000
Requested Spend Time Period 5 Years
Requesting Organization/Department Enterprise Technology
Business Case Owner | Sponsor Karen Schuh | Jim Kensok
Sponsor Organization/Department Enterprise Technology
Phase Execution
Category Program
Driver Performance & Capacity
DocuSign Envelope ID: F1BFAD21-C875-4C15-9BD0-9555CA5F0540
Exhibit No. 11 Case Nos. AVU-E-23-01/AVU-G-23-01 J. Kensok, Avista
Schedule 1, Page 121 of 304
Enterprise Technology (ET) Modernization and Operational
Efficiency Technology
Business Case Justification Narrative Page 3 of 12
development environments (which improves developer efficiency and overall
systems security).
• ET Portfolio Management – Ongoing enhancements to portfolio and project
management systems to support the evolving needs of technology investment
planning and delivery, while capturing contemporaneous project artifacts that
document governance.
• Application Lifecycle Management Tools – Ongoing enhancements to the
systems and platforms that support application development, delivery, and
integration for consistent deployment and delivery of changes and upgrades on
a multitude of business application systems that enable business processes
across the organization.
• Shared Systems and Tooling – Ongoing enhancements to and expansion of
automation and tracking tools (such as AppDynamics) that provide Operations
and Software Development teams with insight into application usage, issues,
network connectivity, and more. Also includes integration of systems across
Avista utilizing Microsoft Biztalk to assist in process and information sharing for
platforms supported by other business cases such as CC&B (Customer Care &
Billing) (Customer Care & Billing) and Maximo.
• Managed File Transfer – Ongoing enhancements to and expansion of Avista’s
managed file transfer system (GlobalScape), which allows for the secure
transfer of data from one location to another, both internally and externally. This
can include transactions with sensitive and highly sensitive information.

Reliance on obsolete technology for automated business processes presents
significant risk that may only be solved with the reinstatement of manual processes. In
some cases, reinstating manual processes is not even an option, as technology has
completely introduced system requirements in information storage, access, and
transactions among systems greater and faster than any human being is able to store,
access, or transact. Sustaining automated business processes by replacing automation
with workforce would increase labor expenses in the few areas where removing
business process automation is possible.

Additionally, with the rapid pace of technological change, technology vendors require
continuous upgrades to maintain system maintenance and support, which can include
security patching, bug fixes, version upgrades, interoperability, and compatibility with
other technologies. These upgrades can in turn drive subsequent system
replacements. Therefore, vendor roadmaps and technology asset lifecycles are data
points that inform on how best to plan replacements, while meeting business value and
strategic alignment, within the constraints of resource capacity and funding, which in
turn can result in deferred replacement introducing the risk of technology failure.
1.3 Identify why this work is needed now and what risks there are if not
approved or is deferred
If the technology investments under this business case are not approved, it would result
in technology platforms and tools falling behind their technology vendor required
upgrades, which in turn hinders any support needed for business applications or
information storage and workflow management used daily for investment planning and
delivery, managed file transfers, pre-production testing, and technology lifecycle
management. For example, this is very similar to not furnishing a mechanic with either
the tools or equipment necessary and required to fix a car when it breaks down or does
DocuSign Envelope ID: F1BFAD21-C875-4C15-9BD0-9555CA5F0540
Exhibit No. 11 Case Nos. AVU-E-23-01/AVU-G-23-01 J. Kensok, Avista
Schedule 1, Page 122 of 304
Enterprise Technology (ET) Modernization and Operational
Efficiency Technology
Business Case Justification Narrative Page 4 of 12
not perform as expected. The technology teams would be hindered in their ability to
assist or repair business applications and their respective information storage and
workflows when they become unresponsive or inoperable, especially for reoccurring
issues where root cause analysis is necessary to prevent future events or incidents.
Upgrading to the recommended or latest versions of software is important to maintain
the overall health of our business. There are many reasons that upgrades are
necessary, from enhanced securit, to increases in employee productivity (and lower
costs). Upgrading business software is an economical decision compared to the cost
of maintaining outdated software that suffer breakdowns and places a massive burden
on Operations (and the budget).
Upgrades exist to avoid common risks, such as:
• Security - Outdated or unpatched software increases the risk of vulnerabilities or
security exploits.
• Incompatibilities - Outdated software can disrupt workflow or fail to work with other
(duly updated) software.
• Degradation - Software can experience a slow deterioration of quality over time or
diminished responsiveness that could eventually become faulty or unusable, if not
upgraded.
• Deficiencies - No matter how well the software is tested, many times it is deployed
with defects that need to be remediated.
• Obsolescence - Software updates don’t always solely address security issues or
deficiencies. Sometimes they are there to add necessary functionality or optimize
existing features, such as new regulatory requirements or industry guidelines.
There is a heightened risk of losing vendor support from choosing not to install
software updates and the latest improvements.
Software enhancements are just as critical, as demands change so rapidly, we must
look for ways to extend functionality of our software investment rather than go through
full replacement cycles. The Software Development Life Cycle (SDLC) describes the
process of planning, analysis, design, build, test and implementation, but it does not
stop there. It has further steps into maintenance, enhancement, and progression.
Software enhancements help to improve system efficiency, anomalies, and better
cross-platform compatibility. There are also unavoidable governance and compliance
changes that may drive the need for software optimization, thus why continuous
delivery and continuous integration are common practices within the SDLC.

1.4 Identify any measures that can be used to determine whether the
investment would successfully deliver on the objectives and address the
need listed above.
Vendor roadmaps and technology asset lifecycles are data points that inform on how
best to plan replacements for existing technology under the ETMOE program, while
meeting business value and strategic alignment, within the constraints of resource
capacity and funding, which in turn can result in deferred replacement introducing the
risk of technology failure. Ongoing reviews of vendor roadmap and technology asset
lifecycle alignment provide necessary information to track how much of our investment
in technology is lagging behind the vendor roadmap, and thereby introducing risk to
DocuSign Envelope ID: F1BFAD21-C875-4C15-9BD0-9555CA5F0540
Exhibit No. 11 Case Nos. AVU-E-23-01/AVU-G-23-01 J. Kensok, Avista
Schedule 1, Page 123 of 304
Enterprise Technology (ET) Modernization and Operational
Efficiency Technology
Business Case Justification Narrative Page 5 of 12
supporting business application systems and their corresponding and respective
automated business processes.

These technology platforms and tools provide functional enhancements that address
ongoing changes in the workplace, provide increased employee efficiency through the
reduction of steps required to complete a task, and make better use of Avista resources.
They shift efforts from inefficient processes to more value-driven activities by leveraging
technology to meet both planned and unplanned business needs.

1.5 Supplemental Information
1.5.1 Please reference and summarize any studies that support the problem
ET Modernization and Operational Efficiency Monthly Stakeholder and Steering
Committee teams references various technology vendor and third-party resources to
stay informed and recommend decisions on the various technology investments. A few
sample sources are included below:
• Roadmaps for specific platforms and tools, such as Opentext (for Enterprise
Content Management) and Biztalk (for Enterprise Service Bus) are examples of
vendor roadmaps regularly referenced.
• Gartner Industry Research and Reference Material. Retrieved from
https://www.gartner.com/en/information-technology

1.5.2 For asset replacement, include graphical or narrative representation of metrics
associated with the current condition of the asset that is proposed for
replacement.
Not applicable, as the investment under this program business case is to maintain
performance and capacity standards in each respective technology that falls within it.

Option Capital Cost Start Complete
Recommended Solution – fund at requested
allocation
$14,665,000 01 2023 12 2027
Alternative #1 - Reduced funding by deferring
the IT Service Management (ITSM) project and
funding with productivity funds.
$10,850,000 01 2023 12 2027

2.1 Describe what metrics, data, analysis or information was considered when
preparing this capital request.
These estimates were derived from calculated employee and contract labor costs for
the primary teams working in this business case area, as well as historical trends,
product roadmaps and high-level industry estimates for technology products. High level
estimates are collected by the business level subject matter expert(s), technology
domain architect(s), and delivery management team(s).

Upstream investment in enhancements and upgrades to these platforms can result in
savings by not incurring downstream costs when applications break, or simply stated,
DocuSign Envelope ID: F1BFAD21-C875-4C15-9BD0-9555CA5F0540
Exhibit No. 11 Case Nos. AVU-E-23-01/AVU-G-23-01 J. Kensok, Avista
Schedule 1, Page 124 of 304
Enterprise Technology (ET) Modernization and Operational
Efficiency Technology
Business Case Justification Narrative Page 6 of 12
avoid costs associated with system inoperability that can hinder worker productivity.
Non-production systems (such as Azure DevOps) allows the organization to test
enhancements, upgrades, and new implementations prior to deployment in production.
This results in reduced errors in production systems, which could also affect employees
and customers negatively, from untested changes or upgrades.

2.2 Discuss how the requested capital cost amount will be spent in the current
year (or future years if a multi-year or ongoing initiative). Include any
known or estimated reductions to O&M as a result of this investment.

Impacts to O&M can occur and be both positive and negative as a result of multi-year,
pre-pay license agreements that are capitalized under this business case. However,
these changes can vary from year to year depending on the system or tool for license
renewal and the licensing model being offered by the technology vendor. This makes
forecasting product license renewal costs quite challenging. The following are
examples of indirect benefits based on projects that will transfer to plant in 2022:

• Data and Analytic Platform (DAAP) - The annual indirect labor offset is
estimated at $127,000. The Data and Analytic Platform is a data management
architecture for data processing and analytics that combines the strengths of
traditional repository warehouses with data virtualization and distributed
processing. The DAAP improves agility, increases multiuse and reduces risks
by creating a common data platform from which data can be governed,
accessed, leveraged, and used. The need to provide continuous improvements
and enhancements to this enterprise application is required to meet business
requirements that serve our customers. The primary areas for capturing
measurable business value from a Data and Analytics Platform include
improved infrastructure asset performance, efficiencies (i.e., cost optimization)
enterprise wide, providing customers with additional information that helps
inform them when making energy choices, and pursuing potential revenue
growth opportunities.

• MuleSoft API (Application Programming Interface) Licenses – The annual
indirect labor offset is estimated at $132,000. MuleSoft is our Application
Programming Interface (API) service provider. An API is a type of software
interface that allows communication between computers in a more simplified
fashion. It only exposes objects or actions the developer needs. An API would
provide the ability for a developer to use a function that copies a file from one
location to another without requiring the developer to understand the file system
operations occurring behind the scenes. It provides a much more efficient
process for creating an interface without having to fully migrate into the
ecosystem. Offsets or efficiencies gained would have been realized upon the
initial installation of the software.

• App Dynamics – The Company calculated the potential indirect offsets of the
upgrade to App Dynamics and represents an avoided cost should the system
be abandoned and go back to manual processes of approximately
$750,000. AppDynamics is a technology solution that provides system
monitoring, root cause analysis automation and provides end-to-end business
transaction-centric management of complex and distributed
DocuSign Envelope ID: F1BFAD21-C875-4C15-9BD0-9555CA5F0540
Exhibit No. 11 Case Nos. AVU-E-23-01/AVU-G-23-01 J. Kensok, Avista
Schedule 1, Page 125 of 304
Enterprise Technology (ET) Modernization and Operational
Efficiency Technology
Business Case Justification Narrative Page 7 of 12
applications. When AppDynamics was originally implemented, it was deemed
to allow the Operations team to maintain the current level of service to the
enterprise, and improve it, due to the ability to quickly isolate and resolve
production performance issues. In addition to tangible operations benefits, the
implementation of this software allows for an internal rate of return (IRR) range
of 23.22% to 143.17%, as well as significant Operation & Maintenance (O&M)
savings. These savings were realized upon the initial implementation of App
Dynamics and would not be realized again for this upgrade.

In summary, investments in these technology upgrades, enhancements and
licenses provide indirect savings by quantifying the efficiencies based on assumptions
on minutes of efficiency, percent of users, etc. noted in the above projects. The above
projects do not include all the projects included in this business case; these were
provided as a sample of indirect savings that represent the entire business case.
Therefore, these are high-level estimates, and the Company does not have a way to
track if these estimates will be realized.

2.3 Outline any business functions and processes that may be impacted (and
how) by the business case for it to be successfully implemented.

These technology platforms are used by all areas of the organization, or they furnish
tools for the technology team to support other business application systems. The
business function or processes that may be impacted include, but are not limited to:
;
• Workflow management - used daily for Accounts Payable invoice processing
and approvals.
• Investment planning and delivery for technology investments across the
organizations, including project management and artifact storage and approval
workflows:
• Near real time transaction of data from enterprise systems, such as our
customer care billing and asset management system.
• Managed file transfers for internal and external movement of information among
systems and third parties.
• Pre-production environment testing and quality assurance tools to minimize or
avoid errors in production systems from upgrades or changes to application
business systems.
• Root cause analysis is a tool to identify the cause for faster operational
remediation.
• Information storage for technology lifecycle management, and
• Workflow processes for technology incident management and change approval.

2.4 Discuss the alternatives that were considered and any tangible risks and
mitigation strategies for each alternative.

Alternative #1 – This business case could reduce funding by moving the IT Service
Management (ITSM) project out of this business case and into a productivity business
case or deferring the project all together. If the ITSM project is delayed or eliminated
from the funding, we would continue to aggravate the security and compliance risks
DocuSign Envelope ID: F1BFAD21-C875-4C15-9BD0-9555CA5F0540
Exhibit No. 11 Case Nos. AVU-E-23-01/AVU-G-23-01 J. Kensok, Avista
Schedule 1, Page 126 of 304
Enterprise Technology (ET) Modernization and Operational
Efficiency Technology
Business Case Justification Narrative Page 8 of 12
associated with this legacy tool. Avista’s current system has a high vulnerability due
to the inability to patch core code and Microsoft pre-requisites (e.g., Visual Basic). A
modern work management system (ITSM) is essential to maintain compliance. Our
current solution is also out of alignment with our COTS (Commercial off the Shelf)
strategy. The COTS ITSM system will reduce the time and cost of custom
development, configuration and maintenance, as well as improve reliability, quality,
and security issues related to incompatibilities.

If this work is deferred, we will continue to exacerbate the risks associated with custom
and antiquated technology and delay the efficiency gains expected of this investment.
We have deferred this project for many years already, and it has become evident that
we must address the business problems at this time.
2.5 Include a timeline of when this work will be started and completed.
Describe when the investments become used and useful to the customer.
spend, and transfers to plant by year.

This Business Case is a program with discrete projects and packages that typically run
annually and Transfer to Plant within that same year. There are times that a project
may start in Q3/Q4 of one year and Transfer to Plant the following year. Typically,
application projects will Transfer to Plant about 60 days prior to the project completion
date (due to the post implementation warranty period and to capture the trailing
charges). Quarterly forecasts capture changes in transfers to plant based on project
status.

The goal is to break out large/complex projects into smaller projects (phases) to avoid
scope creep, budget overages, and ensure the work can be properly prioritized. The
first phase of every project would be scoped at the Minimum Viable Product (MVP),
and subsequent phases would be scoped accordingly, based on the next highest
priority after MVP. This also allows for more accurate Transfer to Plant forecasts.

• See "Attachment 1 - 5 Year Project Roadmap"

2.6 Discuss how the proposed investment aligns with strategic vision, goals,
objectives and mission statement of the organization.
This is a program with discrete projects and packages that align with Avista’s vision,
mission and strategic objectives. An example of this is to improve our customers’ lives
through innovative energy solutions. To do this we need to have technology systems
and processes that ensure we are making decisions that focus on continuously
improving our delivery of safe, reliable, clean, and affordable electric and natural gas
service. In addition, achieving financial objectives through focused cost management,
timely rate recovery, business transformation, and unregulated business development
are also alignments of this business case.

DocuSign Envelope ID: F1BFAD21-C875-4C15-9BD0-9555CA5F0540
Exhibit No. 11 Case Nos. AVU-E-23-01/AVU-G-23-01 J. Kensok, Avista
Schedule 1, Page 127 of 304
Enterprise Technology (ET) Modernization and Operational
Efficiency Technology
Business Case Justification Narrative Page 9 of 12
2.7 Include why the requested amount above is considered a prudent
investment, providing or attaching any supporting documentation. In
addition, please explain how the investment prudency will be reviewed
and re-evaluated throughout the project

The platforms and tools under the ETMOE Business Case provide essential functions
to Avista’s workforce and customers throughout all service territories. These vital
systems require systematic upgrades and enhancements to maintain reliability,
interoperability, and reduce security vulnerabilities.

The reason that the technology investment under this program business case is prudent
is because the Avista workforce requires this technology every day to deliver gas and
electric service to our customers either in an office, customer service center or in the
field. Alternatives to each technology are considered, yet not investing in it is not an
option as automated business process would either stop or be removed, thereby
crippling our workforce’s ability to deliver gas and electric service to our customers,
respond to compliance requirements, and conduct business operations and reporting.
Additionally, a two-tiered governance structure overseeing this business case program
meets regularly to oversee and make decisions on the needs, benefits, costs, and risks
of each investment.

2.8 Supplemental Information

2.8.1 Identify customers and stakeholders that interface with the business case
Nearly all of Avista’s workforce interfaces with the technology investments under this
business case, depending on the application systems being used to perform any given
business function. In some cases, the technology investments are primarily interfacing
with the technology operations teams whose job is to support business application
systems.

The stakeholders that interface directly with the business case include, the ETMOE
Business Case Sponsors and Owner who work in conjunction with the assigned
Program Manager, and subsequent Project Managers. The Business Technology
Analyst (BTA) team is also engaged at all levels.

2.8.2 Identify any related Business Cases
The ET Modernization and Operational Efficiency Business Case works closes with all
other Enterprise Technology business cases to determine which platforms and tools
provide functionality to all areas of the business, as opposed to department specific
platforms and tools that respond to specific business unit needs.

3.1 Steering Committee or Advisory Group Information

The ETMOE Business Case consists of Program Steering Committees and the Project
Steering Committee for respective project investments.

DocuSign Envelope ID: F1BFAD21-C875-4C15-9BD0-9555CA5F0540
Exhibit No. 11 Case Nos. AVU-E-23-01/AVU-G-23-01 J. Kensok, Avista
Schedule 1, Page 128 of 304
Enterprise Technology (ET) Modernization and Operational
Efficiency Technology
Business Case Justification Narrative Page 10 of 12
The ET Modernization and Operational Efficiency Business Case has four levels of
governance: The Executive Technology Steering Committee (ETSC); Technology
Planning Group (TPG) of Directors; Integrated Oversight Committee (IOC), and
Program/Project Steering Committees. Applicable stakeholders and disciplines meet
regularly to govern the business case and subsequent programs and projects.

The IOC evaluates and compares all the application portfolio project priorities on a
weekly basis, utilizing risk, capacity, and other situational factors to ensure each
planned project is meeting critical milestones. The TPG sets priority across the
technology investment portfolio, balancing: strategic alignment, business value, and
customer benefits, as driven by the strategic initiatives established by the ETSC.

The Capital Planning Group (CPG), an independent body, establishes funding
allocations for each Business Case across the enterprise. The Business Case is largely
limited by the funding allocation and resource capacity (staff) to meet its goals. The
funding is generally established at the Business Case level by the CPG. The resource
capacity constraint is generally managed by the TPG and the Business Case owner.
Once the two constrains are established, the Business Case owner will work with
steering committee(s) to set project priority and sequence over a five-year planning
period, subject to additional funding changes as directed by the CPG.

3.2 How will decision-making, prioritization, and change requests be
documented and monitored
The governance structure under this business case program is responsible for
decision-making, prioritization, and change requests. Through the regular Program
Steering Committee Meetings, the team reviews and balances planned work versus
unplanned work to determine prioritization, as well as pending project change requests.
Any change request requiring either an increase or decrease of funds is reviewed at
the upcoming Technology Planning Group meeting before it is submitted to the Capital
Planning Group for consideration.

The undersigned acknowledge they have reviewed the Enterprise Technology
Modernization and Operational Efficiency and agree with the approach it presents.
Significant changes to this will be coordinated with and approved by the undersigned or
their designated representatives.

Signature: Date:
Print Name: Karen Schuh
Title: Manager, ET PMO
Role: Business Case Owner

Signature: Date:
Print Name: Jim Kensok
Title: VP Chief Info. & Security Officer
DocuSign Envelope ID: F1BFAD21-C875-4C15-9BD0-9555CA5F0540
Sep-01-2022 | 3:13 PM PDT
Sep-02-2022 | 6:10 AM PDT
Exhibit No. 11 Case Nos. AVU-E-23-01/AVU-G-23-01 J. Kensok, Avista
Schedule 1, Page 129 of 304
Enterprise Technology (ET) Modernization and Operational
Efficiency Technology
Business Case Justification Narrative Page 11 of 12
Role: Business Case Sponsor

Signature: Date:
Print Name: Hossein Nikdel
Title: Director, App and Sys Planning
Role: Business Case Governance

Signature: Date:
Print Name: Jim Corder
Title: Director, IT and Security
Role: Business Case Governance

Signature: Date:
Print Name: Clay Storey
Title: Director, Enterprise Security
Role: Business Case Governance

DocuSign Envelope ID: F1BFAD21-C875-4C15-9BD0-9555CA5F0540
Sep-01-2022 | 10:34 AM PDT
Sep-01-2022 | 10:18 AM PDT
Sep-02-2022 | 2:10 PM PDT
Exhibit No. 11 Case Nos. AVU-E-23-01/AVU-G-23-01 J. Kensok, Avista
Schedule 1, Page 130 of 304
Enterprise Technology (ET) Modernization and Operational
Efficiency Technology
Business Case Justification Narrative Page 12 of 12

ATTACHMENT #1 – ETMOE 5 YEAR PROJECT ROADMAP

2024 2025 2026 2027
IT Service Management
(ITSM) Implementation -
Phase 1 (2023)
IT Service Management
(ITSM) Implementation - IT Service Management
(ITSM) Expansion 2025
IT Service Management
(ITSM) Expansion 2026
IT Service Management
(ITSM) Expansion 2027 IT Service Management (ITSM) Implementation - Phase
3 (2024-2025)
BizTalk Upgrade 2023 / 2024 BizTalk Upgrade 2025 / 2026 BizTalk Upgrade 2027 / 2028
Enterprise Content Management (ECM) Application
Upgrade 2023 / 2024
Enterprise Content Management (ECM) Application
Upgrade 2025 / 2026
Enterprise Content
Management (ECM)
Application Upgrade
Enterprise Content
Management (ECM)
Features/Expansion 2023
Enterprise Content
Management (ECM)
Features/Expansion 2024
Enterprise Content
Management (ECM)
Features/Expansion
Enterprise Content
Management (ECM)
Features/Expansion 2026
Enterprise Content
Management (ECM)
Features/Expansion 2027
Globalscape Upgrade 2023 Globalscape Upgrade 2024 Globalscape Upgrade 2025 Globalscape Upgrade 2026 Globalscape Upgrade 2027
FME Application/Server FME Application Upgrade FME Application Upgrade FME Application Upgrade FME Application/Server
Cognos Upgrade 2023 Cognos Upgrade 2024 Cognos Upgrade 2025 Cognos Upgrade 2026 Cognos Upgrade 2027
Java AMC Upgrade 2023 Clarity Application Java AMC Upgrade 2025 Clarity Application Upgrade Java AMC Upgrade 2027
Data Analytic Platform Data Analytic Platform Data Analytic Platform Data Analytic Platform Data Analytic Platform
BI / ETL Expansion 2023 BI / ETL Expansion 2024 BI / ETL Expansion 2025 BI / ETL Expansion 2026 BI / ETL Expansion 2027
Intranet Intranet Intranet Intranet Features/Expansion Intranet Features/Expansion
App Dynamics Expansion App Dynamics Expansion App Dynamics Expansion App Dynamics Expansion App Dynamics Expansion
Alation Upgrade 2023 Alation Upgrade - 2024 Alation Upgrade - 2025 Alation Upgrade 2026 Alation Upgrade 2027
Tableau Creator Upgrade Tableau Creator Upgrade Tableau Creator Upgrade Tableau Creator Upgrade Tableau Creator Upgrade
Azure DevOps
Features/Expansion 2023
Azure DevOps
Azure DevOps
Features/Expansion 2025
Azure DevOps
Azure DevOps
Features/Expansion 2027 Azure DevOps Upgrade Azure DevOps Upgrade 2026
API Management API Management API Management API Management Expansion API Management Expansion
Vuetify Upgrades 2023 Vuetify Upgrades 2024 Vuetify Upgrades 2025 Vuetify Upgrades 2026 Vuetify Upgrades 2027
Minor Application
Purchases and Licenses -
Minor Application
Purchases and Licenses -
Minor Application
Purchases and Licenses -
Minor Application
Purchases and Licenses -
Minor Application
Purchases and Licenses -
Mulesoft/API License
Renewal 2023
Alation Licenses 2024 - 2
Year agreement
Tableau License Renewal
2025 - 3-year agreement
Mulesoft/API License
Renewal 2026
App Dynamics Licensing
2026
Software Composition
Analysis (SCA)
Devolutions: Remote
Desktop Manager
Enterprise (3-year
Alation Licenses 2026 -2
Year agreement
Non-Production
Development Environment
App Dynamics Licensing
DocuSign Envelope ID: F1BFAD21-C875-4C15-9BD0-9555CA5F0540
Exhibit No. 11 Case Nos. AVU-E-23-01/AVU-G-23-01 J. Kensok, Avista
Schedule 1, Page 131 of 304
Fiber Network Leased Service Replacement
Business Case Justification Narrative Page 1 of 9
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Avista utilizes leased fiber optic cable to transport primarily safety and control data
between offices, substations, and generation facilities. The leased fiber incurs an
operating expense with lease rates that were established during the sale of an Avista
Communication’s subsidiary. An Indefeasible Right to Use (IRU) was established to
benefit Avista Utilities with rates well below market value. The IRU expires in 2027 with
an option to renew for an additional five years, through 2032. For this business case, the
project work identified 47 segments and a total of approximately 98 miles of leased fiber
left to be replaced with Avista-owned private fiber. By owning the fiber, Avista will be able
to better maintain it since they will be the only ones using the strands versus joint-use of
the fiber through a leased-based contract. Since Avista is an Energy Utility, it is positioned
well to build a fiber network and leverage assets already owned like poles, panel houses,
and vaults so leasing a service should be the last resort. Owning fiber is also cheaper in
the long run and will ultimately keep Avista rates lower for our customers.

For this business case, funding is being requested for $6,500,000 over five years to
complete the installation of Avista fiber. Transitioning Avista’s safety and control network
data from leased network services to private network infrastructure aligns with the long-
term network strategy and will reduce risk to the company of having control and safety
data on a leased network along with O&M (Operating & Maintenance) costs to the utility.
When these services traverse a leased network, Avista is at risk of outages out of our
control, scheduled vendor maintenance affecting Avista operations, and significant
increases in monthly lease costs once the IRU expires.

VERSION HISTORY
Version Author Description Date Notes
1.0 Michael Busby Original business case request 7/2017
1.1 Michael Beil Updated investment driver 7/2019
2.0 Shawna Kiesbuy Narrative added to new template 7/2020
3.0 Shawna Kiesbuy Annual Update 6/2021
4.0 Shawna Kiesbuy Annual Update 8/2022

DocuSign Envelope ID: 41438CBF-604D-4C20-9C05-ED9FD6764B14
Exhibit No. 11 Case Nos. AVU-E-23-01/AVU-G-23-01 J. Kensok, Avista
Schedule 1, Page 132 of 304
Fiber Network Leased Service Replacement
Business Case Justification Narrative Page 2 of 9
GENERAL INFORMATION

1. BUSINESS PROBLEM
1.1 What is the current or potential problem that is being addressed?
Avista utilizes leased fiber optic cable to transport primarily safety and control
data between offices, substations, and generation facilities. The leased fiber
incurs an operating expense with lease rates that were established during the
sale of an Avista Communication’s subsidiary. An Indefeasible Right to Use
(IRU) was established to benefit Avista Utilities with rates well below market
value. The IRU expires in 2027 with an option to renew for an additional five
years, through 2032.

Transitioning Avista’s safety and control network data from leased network
services to private network infrastructure aligns with the long-term network
strategy and will reduce risk to the company of having control and safety data
on a leased network along with O&M (Operating & Maintenance) costs to the
utility. When these services traverse a leased network, Avista is at risk of
outages out of our control, scheduled vendor maintenance affecting Avista
operations, and significant increases in monthly lease costs once the IRU
expires.

For this business case, the project work started in 2018 and identified at least
51 segments and a total of approximately 115 miles of leased fiber to be
replaced with Avista-owned private fiber. To date, approximately 17 miles of
fiber has been replaced equating to 4 segments being transferred to Avista. The
anticipated complexity associated with right of ways, permitting, construction
and coordination with other parties such as city/county planning departments,
contractors and internal Avista departments, or to partner with complementary
projects, will influence the pace of work to complete the transition to private fiber
ahead of the 2027 deadline.
Requested Spend Amount $6,500,000
Requested Spend Time Period 5 years
Requesting Organization/Department Enterprise Technology
Business Case Owner | Sponsor Shawna Kiesbuy | Jim Corder
Sponsor Organization/Department Enterprise Technology
Phase Execution
Category Program
Driver Performance & Capacity
DocuSign Envelope ID: 41438CBF-604D-4C20-9C05-ED9FD6764B14
Exhibit No. 11 Case Nos. AVU-E-23-01/AVU-G-23-01 J. Kensok, Avista
Schedule 1, Page 133 of 304
Fiber Network Leased Service Replacement
Business Case Justification Narrative Page 3 of 9
1.2 Discuss the major drivers of the business case (Customer Requested, Customer
Service Quality & Reliability, Mandatory & Compliance, Performance & Capacity, Asset
Condition, or Failed Plant & Operations) and the benefits to the customer.
The main driver for this business case is Performance and Capacity. Investment
in private network transport and technology to service and support safety and
control communication systems is an established industry standard. The
technology improvements invested under this business case benefit all
customers across our service territory by investing in privately-owned fiber optic
cable segments thereby mitigating the potential of increased O&M costs for
leased fiber in the future. By owning the fiber, Avista will be able to better
maintain it since they will be the only ones using the strands versus joint-use of
the fiber through a leased-based contract. Since Avista is an Energy Utility, it is
positioned well to build a fiber network and leverage assets already owned like
poles, panel houses, and vaults so leasing a service should be the last resort.
Owning fiber is also cheaper in the long run and will ultimately keep Avista rates
lower for our customers.
1.3 Identify why this work is needed now and what risks there are if not
approved or is deferred.
The work to move from leased fiber to private fiber is timebound by the
expiration of lease agreements all of which are due to end by 2027. As noted
above, any delays in executing this work would risk the ability to finalize work
by 2027. A contract extension is available through 2032, but any extension
beyond 2032 would increase leased costs of this aging infrastructure. Also as
noted above, there is benefit to the company by having full control over fiber
segments for these critical communication paths. Full control allows Avista to
schedule maintenance and support activities in conjunction with other
maintenance activities across the organization, such as in GPSS, and System
Operations. With leased fiber assets, we are at the mercy of the provider's own
schedule of maintenance & support activities which may come at inopportune
times for Avista business process and the potential interruption of system
operations

While the current agreements may allow for extension of the lease terms, there
are increased O&M costs associated with any extensions. Avista is proactively
working to prevent any additional O&M costs by implementing privately owned
fiber prior to having to execute on any lease extensions.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 41438CBF-604D-4C20-9C05-ED9FD6764B14
Exhibit No. 11 Case Nos. AVU-E-23-01/AVU-G-23-01 J. Kensok, Avista
Schedule 1, Page 134 of 304
Fiber Network Leased Service Replacement
Business Case Justification Narrative Page 4 of 9
1.4 Identify any measures that can be used to determine whether the
investment would successfully deliver on the objectives and address the
need listed above.
Timely implementation and transfer to plant such that all segments are
completed prior to an IRU, or segment lease expiration will determine success.
The completion and transfer to plant will occur over time as each
segment/project is completed.
1.5 Supplemental Information
1.5.1 Please reference and summarize any studies that support the problem
The leased fiber terms detail costs associated with the expiration date.
1.5.2 For asset replacement, include graphical or narrative representation of metrics
associated with the current condition of the asset that is proposed for
replacement.
Not applicable. This business case is aligned with Performance &
Capacity.
Option Capital Cost Start Complete
Recommended Solution – Replace each identified
segment of leased fiber optic cable with Avista
owned/private fiber to meet the fiber lease
agreement deadline.
$6,500,000 01 2023 12 2027
Alternative 1 – A reduction of funding that increases
the risk of not meeting the fiber lease agreement
deadline in 2027, resulting in higher unplanned O&M
annual costs
$5,850,000 01 2023 12 2027
Alternative 2 – Do not fund the program $0 01 2023 12 2027
2.1 Describe what metrics, data, analysis, or information was considered
when preparing this capital request.
The requested amount of $6,500,000 reflects the total estimated cost of
implementing Avista privately owned fiber optic cable for all applicable IRU miles
through the year 2027. Yearly allocation and project prioritization are set based
on the output of annual budget planning activities. These activities consider
estimated completion dates of in-flight work, areas of elevated risk, and length
of the construction season. Adjustments are requested and approved by the
Steering Committee throughout each calendar year to accommodate any
changes to the plan.
2.2 Discuss how the requested capital cost amount will be spent in the current
year (or future years if a multi-year or ongoing initiative). (i.e., what are the
expected functions, processes or deliverables that will result from the capital spend?). Include
any known or estimated reductions to O&M because of this investment.
In the current year, the project focus will be on fiber replacement projects for
segments already in flight along with new projects which have the highest
priority to complete. With management oversight from the Program Steering
DocuSign Envelope ID: 41438CBF-604D-4C20-9C05-ED9FD6764B14
Exhibit No. 11 Case Nos. AVU-E-23-01/AVU-G-23-01 J. Kensok, Avista
Schedule 1, Page 135 of 304
Fiber Network Leased Service Replacement
Business Case Justification Narrative Page 5 of 9
Committee, projects initiated through the FNLSR business case will be reviewed
and sequenced in this business case on a per project basis spending the funded
capital up to the approved allocation. Historical costs and timelines related to
similar project work provide support for the requested allocations above.
Direct Savings - This program is currently scheduled to be completed in 2027.
By completing this program, we will avoid annual lease costs of $60,000
($5,000/month) through the life of the IRU (indefeasible rights of use
agreement), which can be renewed through 2032. If the work is not completed
in 2027, we will continue to delay the work and spend the $60,000 in annual IRU
lease payments. At the end of 2032, we do have an option to renew the contract,
with a large up-front cost estimated to be $3M as of a Zayo renegotiation
conversation in June of 2021. This $3M is for the existing, aging leased fiber
optic segments and does not include any new assets.
Quantified direct savings:
2022 2023 Lifetime
$0 $0 $60,000
annual until
completion

2.3 Outline any business functions and processes that may be impacted (and
how) by the business case for it to be successfully implemented.
The projects in this FNLSR business case are standalone projects and are
dependent on length of construction season and other geographically similar but
unrelated work being performed at impacted locations. Planning for these
projects is done in partnership with other Avista departments to ensure an
alignment of technical needs is accounted for in this business case, including
the requirements, risks, and effects of the project work. Many times, this work
will be aligned with a previously scheduled outage window to gain efficiency and
reduce the amount of downtime experienced by operators at the sites. Specific
business functions and processes affected are determined project by project.
Through those projects, business functions and processes might be impacted
but the technology upgrades being made at the varied locations throughout
Avista’s service territory should strive to increase performance and capacity for
employees in their daily work life.
2.4 Discuss the alternatives that were considered and any tangible risks and
mitigation strategies for each alternative.
The requested funding amount allows for the replacement of leased fiber
segments at a rate that can be accomplished each year and move towards the
goal of being off all leased fiber by 2027.
Two alternative funding options were reviewed:
Alternative 1: Fund the business case at an amount which is less than the
original request
DocuSign Envelope ID: 41438CBF-604D-4C20-9C05-ED9FD6764B14
Exhibit No. 11 Case Nos. AVU-E-23-01/AVU-G-23-01 J. Kensok, Avista
Schedule 1, Page 136 of 304
Fiber Network Leased Service Replacement
Business Case Justification Narrative Page 6 of 9
Funding the FNLSR business case minimally each year would result in ad-hoc
funding requests to the Capital Planning Group (CPG) for work approved
outside of the 5-year capital planning process. Risks related to the FNLSR work,
such as proactively working to reduce O&M costs and providing the private fiber
to carry safety and control communications, would be mitigated at a much
slower pace than if the program were funded as requested, and may result in
higher unplanned O&M annual costs if the 2027 deadline is missed.
Alternative 2: Do not fund the business case
Removing all funding for this business case would result in all projects being
halted and no new projects starting to move from leased fiber to privately owned
fiber. The impact would be an increase in O&M which equates to $60,000 in
annual IRU lease payments lease costs on those fiber segments.
2.5 Include a timeline of when this work will be started and completed.
Describe when the investments become used and useful to the customer.
spend, and transfers to plant by year.
The FNLSR business case is managed as a program of projects planned yearly.
This business case started in 2019 and is scheduled to sunset in 2027 when all
segments are complete. All individual projects are managed through the Project
Management Office (PMO), which follows the Project Management Institute
(PMI) standards. Throughout the year, the business case’s projects are Initiated,
Planned, Executed, and then Completed with a Transfer to Plant for the scope
requests which over the course of a calendar year equates to the funded budget
allocation.
2.6 Discuss how the proposed investment aligns with strategic vision, goals,
objectives, and mission statement of the organization.
The FNLSR business case investments align with Avista’s commitment to invest
in its infrastructure to achieve optimal lifecycle performance – safety, reliability,
and at a fair price. Data communications that monitor and control Avista systems
are critical in the support of energy delivery. The move from leased to privately
owned fiber will continue to enable and support critical communications in a
manner that increases reliability and manages costs. Network technologies that
allow for communication with field area assets and workforce in the field are
critical in support of the bulk electric system. The implementation of these
network technologies will continue to enable and support these critical
communications in a manner that is much safer for all workers and at all
locations across Avista.
2.7 Include why the requested amount above is considered a prudent
investment, providing, or attaching any supporting documentation. In
addition, please explain how the investment prudency will be reviewed
and re-evaluated throughout the project.
Avista’s mission is to improve our customers’ lives through innovative energy
solutions in a safe, responsible, and affordable manner. This business case is
tasked with replacing public leased fiber segments with Avista owned private
fiber segments. The funding amount and project portfolio has been determined
DocuSign Envelope ID: 41438CBF-604D-4C20-9C05-ED9FD6764B14
Exhibit No. 11 Case Nos. AVU-E-23-01/AVU-G-23-01 J. Kensok, Avista
Schedule 1, Page 137 of 304
Fiber Network Leased Service Replacement
Business Case Justification Narrative Page 7 of 9
to maintain the replacement schedule ahead of the 2027 IRU expiration date.
With project priorities tied to enterprise strategies and risk objectives, the
funding is reviewed monthly allowing for adjustments to be made to the portfolio
as demands change across Avista’s environments. If project priorities do
change, a request is then made to the business case governance team to
evaluate and determine if the change is prudent to accomplishing the goals and
objectives established for the current funding year.

2.8 Supplemental Information

Identify customers and stakeholders that interface with the business case
Within the FNSLR business case, the discrete projects interface with various
internal Avista groups such as ET (Enterprise Technology) engineering,
Transmission and Distribution, Real Estate, the Telecommunications Shop,
along with other internal business partners at various office and substation
facilities.

The ET Business Case Owner works in conjunction with the PMO, the assigned
Program Manager, and subsequent Project Managers.

The ET Business Case Owner is accountable and responsible for all Business
Case related activities and assignments.

2.8.1 Identify any related Business Cases
There are no related business cases.

3.1 Steering Committee or Advisory Group Information
Steering Committee members are invaluable to the project and will provide
approval on scope, schedule, and budget related changes. Additionally, they will
provide approval on issues and risks pertaining to project deliverables outlined
in this document, which also typically have an impact on the scope, schedule,
or budget of a project. Steering Committee members will also provide approval
on Change Requests, Go-Live, and the Approval to Close documents. For the
FNLSR business case, the Steering Committee will consist of the Directors and
Managers within ET, Energy Delivery, GPSS (Generation Production and
Substation Support) and the Business Case Owner.
3.2 Provide and discuss the governance processes and people that will
provide oversight
The FNLSR Business Case has two levels of governance: The Program
Steering Committee and the Project Steering Committee.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 41438CBF-604D-4C20-9C05-ED9FD6764B14
Exhibit No. 11 Case Nos. AVU-E-23-01/AVU-G-23-01 J. Kensok, Avista
Schedule 1, Page 138 of 304
Fiber Network Leased Service Replacement
Business Case Justification Narrative Page 8 of 9

Program Steering Committee
This business case is a program of related projects. The Program Steering
Committee consists of members in management positions that are identified
and responsible for prioritizing the projects within this program. The Steering
Committee is also held accountable for the financial performance of this
program. The Program Steering Committee will have regular meetings to review
the progress of the program and to make decisions on the following topics:

 Project prioritization and risk
 Approving business case funding requests
 New project initiation and sequencing

The Program will be facilitated and administrated by an assigned Program
Manager within the PMO. The project queue will be reviewed periodically to plan
and sequence work to the levels of funding allocation received.

Project Steering Committee
Project Steering Committees act as the governing body over each individual
project within the program and will consist of key members in management
positions that are identified as responsible for the successful completion of the
scope of work identified in the Charter document for the Project. The Project
Steering Committee is responsible for providing guidance and making decisions
on key issues that affect the following topics:

 Scope
 Schedule
 Budget
 Project Issues
 Project Risks

The Project Steering Committee will meet at the defined intervals documented
in the Charter of the project and will be facilitated by an assigned Project
Manager from within the PMO.

3.3 How will decision-making, prioritization, and change requests be
documented and monitored
Project prioritization is evaluated by the management team monthly. Each
program and project steering committee meet regularly and oversee scope,
schedule and budget within their respective programs and projects and inform
the Business Case owner of any changes needing escalation to the Technology
DocuSign Envelope ID: 41438CBF-604D-4C20-9C05-ED9FD6764B14
Exhibit No. 11 Case Nos. AVU-E-23-01/AVU-G-23-01 J. Kensok, Avista
Schedule 1, Page 139 of 304
Fiber Network Leased Service Replacement
Business Case Justification Narrative Page 9 of 9
Planning Group (TPG) or Capital Planning Group (CPG) for decision-making
around resource or funding constraints.

Any changes in funding or scope are documented at the Business Case level,
via a Change Request document that is presented to the CPG monthly and
evaluated by the CPG for approval.

Changes in scope, schedule, or budget are also documented through a ‘Change
Request’ at the project level and reviewed and approved through a formal
workflow process. All ET projects in this business case are managed through
the PMO, which follows the Project Management Institute (PMI) standards.
Projects initiate with a ‘Charter’ to begin the planning process. When planning
is complete, a ‘Project Management Plan (PMP)’ is created and approved as
the project baseline for scope, schedule, and budget. At the end of execution,
an ‘Approval to Go Live’ is submitted and approved prior to implementation
(Transfer to Plant). After the technology is in service and out of the warranty
period, the Project Manager will hold a Lessons Learned, and subsequently
submit an ‘Approval to Close’ prior to finishing the project. All Monitor and
Control documentation and Change Requests are documented and stored to
ensure a comprehensive audit trail.

The undersigned acknowledge they have reviewed the Fiber Network Leased
Service Replacement business case and agree with the approach it presents.
Significant changes to this will be coordinated with and approved by the undersigned
or their designated representatives.

Signature: Date:
Print Name: Shawna Kiesbuy
Title: Sr. Manager, Network Engineering
Role: Business Case Owner

Signature: Date:
Print Name: Jim Corder
Title: Director, Information Technology
Role: Business Case Sponsor

DocuSign Envelope ID: 41438CBF-604D-4C20-9C05-ED9FD6764B14
Sep-02-2022 | 3:08 PM PDT
Sep-02-2022 | 4:39 PM PDT
Exhibit No. 11 Case Nos. AVU-E-23-01/AVU-G-23-01 J. Kensok, Avista
Schedule 1, Page 140 of 304
Land Mobile Radio & Real Time Communication Systems
Business Case Justification Narrative Page 1 of 11
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Avista’s service territory consists of urban and rural environments with topologically difficult to
reach areas. The remoteness of some locations, along with the temperature variances through
the annual seasons can present additional challenges to field staff required to work under those
conditions. Additionally, commercial cellular or telecommunication services are not offered in
some of these locations, as they are not cost effective for commercial vendors to deploy. Finally,
during unplanned emergency events, commercial telecommunication services are overloaded
with the public reaching friends and family members affected by the event, thereby exacerbating
the need for a separate land mobile radio and real-time communication system, much like those
used by emergency service personnel.

As a Company that maintains critical infrastructure for gas and electric systems, we are required
to do it safely and reliably to provide essential services to our customers. This requires that our
staff communicate with one another in real time across our service territory to establish situational
awareness and reduce the risk of a safety incident. The Land Mobile Radio & Real Time
Communications System business case consists of mobile radio and communication technology
solutions that enable our staff to communicate with each other in the field and office in real time.
The investments under this program provide the communication technology that enables real time
24 x 7 x 365 communication with our gas and electric field staff in ever changing conditions. The
costs associated with each solution can vary by the solution deployed. However, due to the
remoteness and topology of our service territory, some of the technology investments in field radio
sites on mountain tops can be costly but provide a valuable service to our customers in unplanned
weather events, and most importantly bring safety to our field staff. Not investing in increasing
radio coverage across our service territory can result in ‘dead zones’ with no radio coverage that
may increase the safety risks of our field staff who rely on radio communication to perform their
jobs.

VERSION HISTORY
Version Author Description Date Notes
1.0 Walter Roys Initial BCJN Draft 6/2017
1.1 Walter Roys Updated Investment Driver 7/2019
2.0 Walter Roys Revision of BCJN to new template 7/2020
2.1 Walter Roys Error in calculation of Alt. #2 8/2020 Revised calculation
3.0 Walter Roys Updated BCJN 8/2022

DocuSign Envelope ID: 9EBE894C-32F1-49A6-A936-A6914F0E736E
Exhibit No. 11 Case Nos. AVU-E-23-01/AVU-G-23-01 J. Kensok, Avista
Schedule 1, Page 141 of 304
Land Mobile Radio & Real Time Communication Systems
Business Case Justification Narrative Page 2 of 11
GENERAL INFORMATION

1. BUSINESS PROBLEM

1.1 What is the current or potential problem that is being addressed?
Avista’s service territory is approximately 30,000 square miles across four
northwestern states with nearly 7,800 miles of natural gas distribution mains, 19,000
miles of electric distribution lines, and 2,750 miles of electric transmission lines.
Although many of these miles of gas and electric infrastructure run through urban
and suburban areas to heat and power homes and businesses, some infrastructure
travels across remote and hard to reach locations, such as steep canyons and
mountain tops. As a pacific northwest region with four seasons, some of these
remote locations can be even more difficult to reach in harsh weather conditions yet
must be maintained safely and reliably. To add to it, commercial cellular or
telecommunication services are not offered in these remote locations, thereby
leaving communication service gaps. In other words, if there were commercial
offerings, during an unplanned emergency event, the services could be overloaded
with customers trying to reach friends or family members affected by the event and
resulting in communication latency or unavailability.

The lack of radio communication coverage in these remote locations presents risk
to our field workers who are required to respond to events throughout the year and
must communicate with one another in real time across our service territory to
establish situational awareness and reduce the risk of a safety incident.
Requested Spend Amount $24,509,809
Requested Spend Time Period 5 years
Requesting Organization/Department Enterprise Technology
Business Case Owner | Sponsor Walter Roys | Jim Corder
Sponsor Organization/Department Enterprise Technology
Phase Monitor/Control
Category Program
Driver Performance & Capacity
DocuSign Envelope ID: 9EBE894C-32F1-49A6-A936-A6914F0E736E
Exhibit No. 11 Case Nos. AVU-E-23-01/AVU-G-23-01 J. Kensok, Avista
Schedule 1, Page 142 of 304
Land Mobile Radio & Real Time Communication Systems
Business Case Justification Narrative Page 3 of 11
1.2 Discuss the major drivers of the business case (Customer Requested, Customer
Service Quality & Reliability, Mandatory & Compliance, Performance & Capacity, Asset
Condition, or Failed Plant & Operations) and the benefits to the customer
The Land Mobile Radio & Real Time Communications Systems Business Case
is driven by managing technology replacement according to manufacturer
product roadmaps or changes in business requirements with an objective to
maintain infrastructure performance and align infrastructure assets with
business demand for capacity.
All Avista customers benefit from maintaining communication systems, as this
technology enables the Avista workforce to perform their day-to-day job
functions in delivering gas and electric service to our customers. Additionally,
assets that fail due to not being replaced within their technology lifecycle are
replaced by the Technology Failed Asset business case, which tracks
technology asset failures, and is also used as a data point to inform the
technology lifecycles under this business case.

1.3 Identify why this work is needed now and what risks there are if not
approved or is deferred
Mobile radio coverage is an essential safety requirement for field staff working
throughout our service territory to maintain a safe and reliable gas and electric
infrastructure, and even more so in remote and hard to reach locations. Every
day that goes by of lacking radio coverage can result in a safety incident,
whereby field staff requiring emergency assistance could not communicate with
either dispatch, a nearby co-worker, or emergency services. In some of these
hard to reach locations, small logging roads can be buried in deep snow a few
miles in from a paved road, thereby extensively prolonging any response should
an emergency incident occur. Deferring the investments under this program
puts field staff’s lives at risk by lacking radio coverage in high risk areas.

1.4 Identify any measures that can be used to determine whether the
investment would successfully deliver on the objectives and address the
need listed above.

Vendor roadmaps and technology asset lifecycles are data points that inform on
how best to plan replacements, while meeting business value and strategic
alignment, within the constraints of resource capacity and funding, which in turn
can result in deferred replacement introducing the risk of technology failure.
Ongoing reviews of vendor roadmap and technology asset lifecycle alignment
provide necessary information to track how much of our investment in
technology is lagging behind the vendor roadmap, and thereby introducing risk.

DocuSign Envelope ID: 9EBE894C-32F1-49A6-A936-A6914F0E736E
Exhibit No. 11 Case Nos. AVU-E-23-01/AVU-G-23-01 J. Kensok, Avista
Schedule 1, Page 143 of 304
Land Mobile Radio & Real Time Communication Systems
Business Case Justification Narrative Page 4 of 11
1.5 Supplemental Information
1.5.1 Please reference and summarize any studies that support the problem
The Enterprise Technology team references various technology vendor and
third-party resources to stay informed and recommend decisions on the various
technology investments. A few sample sources are included below:
Barreca, Stephen L. (1998-2000). Technology Lifecycles and Technology
Obsolescence. Retrieved from http://bcri.com/products/publications.htm
Gartner Industry Research and Reference Material. Retrieved from
https://www.gartner.com/en/information-technology

1.5.2 For asset replacement, include graphical or narrative representation of metrics
associated with the current condition of the asset that is proposed for
replacement.
Investments under this business case are to maintain performance and capacity
standards in each respective land mobile radio technology. For example, when the
product manufacturer terminates maintenance and support for specific devices or
solutions, an asset therefore becomes incompatible with other advancing technologies.
This introduces the risk of cyber attack and this business case will change or upgrade
the asset.

The Land Mobile Radio & Real Time Communications Systems business case will
represent projects that are driven by performance and capacity for the following
technology systems:

 Private 2-way Land Mobile Radio (LMR) System for field operations; and
 Radio Telephone Command and Control System (RTCCS) used by Dispatch
and System Operations to perform critical radio and telephone
communication to field personnel.

The Land Mobile Radio (LMR) system facilitates critical communication between field
personnel, dispatch, system operations, and other end users. This radio system is
used for normal day to day operation work, coordinating responses to outage events,
switching and tagging procedures, communication with external agencies including
Public Safety entities, and several other uses. It is a business-critical system used to
maintain day to day operations and respond to emergency situations.

This program is in place to provide reliable LMR functionality at all times throughout
Avista’s service territory. The system contributes to the health and safety of
employees, contractors, and the public.

Option Capital Cost Start Complete
Recommended Solution – Address 100% obsolete
products, unit growth, and expand radio coverage
$24,509,809 01 2023 12 2027
DocuSign Envelope ID: 9EBE894C-32F1-49A6-A936-A6914F0E736E
Exhibit No. 11 Case Nos. AVU-E-23-01/AVU-G-23-01 J. Kensok, Avista
Schedule 1, Page 144 of 304
Land Mobile Radio & Real Time Communication Systems
Business Case Justification Narrative Page 5 of 11
area at a reduced pace
Alternative #1 - Address 100% obsolete products,
unit growth, and radio coverage area
$40,037,939 01 2023 12 2027
Alternative #2 – Address 100% of obsolete products
and unit growth without expanding coverage
$18,000,000 01 2023 12 2027
Alternative #3 – Expand radio coverage area only $12,500,000 01 2023 12 2027
Alternative #4 – Retire assets and remove
automation
$1,900,000 01 2023 12 2027
2.1 Describe what metrics, data, analysis or information was considered when
preparing this capital request.

The funds request was based on a calculation of the performance and capacity
associated with each technology asset, the scope and scale of the technology,
and the project costs for technologies previously refreshed under this business
case. Additionally, funds requested include coverage expansion costs for
additional radio sites based on coverage analyses, and historical site acquisition
costs.
Through regular reviews, the program balances the need to provide radio
coverage across our service territory and maintain performance and reliability
standards for the various technologies under this program within annual budget
allocations, which can result in calling for additional investment under this
program from time to time for technology either falling behind technology
lifecycles or predetermined performance, coverage, and reliability standards.

2.2 Discuss how the requested capital cost amount will be spent in the current
year (or future years if a multi-year or ongoing initiative). (i.e. what are the
expected functions, processes or deliverables that will result from the capital spend?). Include
any known or estimated reductions to O&M as a result of this investment.
[Offsets to projects will be more strongly scrutinized in general rate cases going forward (ref. WUTC Docket No. U-190531 Policy Statement), therefore it is critical that these impacts are thought through in order to support rate recovery.]

The funding requested under the Land Mobile Radio & Real Time
Communications Systems business case will be invested in, but not limited to
technology, such as:

 Private 2-way Land Mobile Radio (LMR) System
 Radio Telephone Command and Control System (RTCCS)

Investment in these technologies can increase or decrease O&M expenses.
These can include licensing increases from time to time, or decreases in
workload for O&M resources. However, not funding this business case may
result in removing automated business functions, which will put field workers at
risk by not having radio communications across our service territory. There are
DocuSign Envelope ID: 9EBE894C-32F1-49A6-A936-A6914F0E736E
Exhibit No. 11 Case Nos. AVU-E-23-01/AVU-G-23-01 J. Kensok, Avista
Schedule 1, Page 145 of 304
Land Mobile Radio & Real Time Communication Systems
Business Case Justification Narrative Page 6 of 11
no O&M reductions or direct offsets resulting from these investments, as this
technology enables the Avista workforce to perform their day-to-day job
functions in delivering gas and electric service to our customers.

Reliance on obsolete technology for automated business process presents
significant risk, and in this case cannot be achieved manually. For example,
when land mobile radio devices break down it can result in the inability of an
employee to communicate with the dispatch and system operations teams. This
could potentially put crews and the public at risk. In addition, when endpoint
devices break down it can result in the inability of an employee to access
essential technology systems such as our meter data, customer billing and our
mapping data. This can result in a productivity reduction across all areas of the
business. Savings related to avoiding these down time issues could range from
$100k -$10M a year representing at least 1 full time employee up to 100 full time
employees needed to implement manual processes.

Additionally, with the rapid pace of technological change, technology vendors
require continuous upgrades to maintain system maintenance and support,
which can include security patching, bug fixes, version upgrades,
interoperability, and compatibility with other technologies. These upgrades can
in turn drive subsequent system replacements, creating a cascading event of
change. Therefore, vendor roadmaps and technology asset lifecycles are data
points that inform on how best to plan replacements, while meeting business
value and strategic alignment, within the constraints of resource capacity and
funding, which in turn can result in deferred replacement introducing the risk of
technology failure.

2.3 Outline any business functions and processes that may be impacted (and
how) by the business case for it to be successfully implemented.

All Avista field operations, dispatch, and system operations are affected by the
technology invested under this business case program, as it is a critical tool that
is heavily relied on for communication across our service territory.

2.4 Discuss the alternatives that were considered and any tangible risks and
mitigation strategies for each alternative.

Retire assets and remove automation
This option assumes the assets would not be replaced upon failure and be
removed from service due to product incompatibility or business or safety risk.

The basis for measuring the business impact of not funding this business case
is realizing the loss of business process automation. As products reach the
manufacturer-defined planned obsolescence, business process automation is
DocuSign Envelope ID: 9EBE894C-32F1-49A6-A936-A6914F0E736E
Exhibit No. 11 Case Nos. AVU-E-23-01/AVU-G-23-01 J. Kensok, Avista
Schedule 1, Page 146 of 304
Land Mobile Radio & Real Time Communication Systems
Business Case Justification Narrative Page 7 of 11
jeopardized, and business risk is increased as manufacturers cease product
maintenance and support. This condition would drive action. The alternative
would lead to a mitigation plan of having to re-instate manual business process
or eliminate the business process.

This option bears the cost of asset retirement for failed assets. Failed assets
are estimated to be 50% of obsolete products. The retirement cost is estimated
at 10% of the cost to replace the asset.

Address 100% obsolete products, unit growth, and radio coverage area
(recommended)
This is the optimal solution. This option fully addresses and minimizes the
likelihood of technology failure and impact to automated business process. It
also expands the radio coverage area, adding value for employees, contractors,
and the public by enabling safe and reliable radio communications in certain
areas of poor coverage.

Address 100% of obsolete products and unit growth
Addressing 100% of obsolete products and unit growth will minimize likelihood
of technology failure and impact to automated business process. However, this
option does not address expanding the radio coverage area. This introduces
risk to employees, contractors, and the public in areas where radio
communications are unavailable.

Expand radio coverage area
This option addresses expansion of the radio coverage area, adding value for
employees, contractors, and the public by enabling safe and reliable radio
communications in certain areas of poor coverage. However, this option does
not address obsolete products within the program and introduces risk
associated with technology systems reliability and interoperability. The
investment required to address obsolete technology products is deferred to
subsequent years. The likelihood of technology failure and impact to business
is increased.

2.5 Include a timeline of when this work will be started and completed.
Describe when the investments become used and useful to the customer.
spend, and transfers to plant by year.

This business case is a program that transfers to plant the total cost of each
project at the completion of every project, which can straddle calendar years.
Quarterly forecasts capture changes in transfers to plant based on project
status.

2.6 Discuss how the proposed investment aligns with strategic vision, goals,
objectives and mission statement of the organization.

DocuSign Envelope ID: 9EBE894C-32F1-49A6-A936-A6914F0E736E
Exhibit No. 11 Case Nos. AVU-E-23-01/AVU-G-23-01 J. Kensok, Avista
Schedule 1, Page 147 of 304
Land Mobile Radio & Real Time Communication Systems
Business Case Justification Narrative Page 8 of 11
The technology investments under this business case program align with
Avista’s vision to deliver ‘better energy for life’ to our customers and in the area
of ‘Perform’, which calls for “our focus on performance today to serving our
customers well and unlocking pathways to growth.”

Each investment under this business case program allows Avista to deliver
electric and gas services to our customers.

2.7 Include why the requested amount above is considered a prudent
investment, providing or attaching any supporting documentation. In
addition, please explain how the investment prudency will be reviewed
and re-evaluated throughout the project

The reason that the technology investment under this program business case is
prudent is because the Avista workforce requires this technology every day to
deliver gas and electric service to our customers either in dispatch and system
operations, and in the field. Alternatives to each technology are considered, yet
not investing in it is not an option as automated business process, such as radio
communication could not be replicated manually, thereby crippling our
workforce’s ability to deliver gas and electric service to our customers in a safe
and reliable way. Additionally, a two-tiered governance structure overseeing this
business case program meets regularly to oversee and make decisions on the
needs, benefits, costs, and risks of each investment.

2.8 Supplemental Information

2.8.1 Identify customers and stakeholders that interface with the business case
Nearly all operations and field staff interface with the Land Mobile Radio (LMR)
system, which facilitates critical communication between field personnel,
dispatch, system operations, and other end users.

2.8.2 Identify any related Business Cases
There are not related business cases associated with this business case
program.

3.1 Steering Committee or Advisory Group Information

The Land Mobile Radio (LMR) & Real Time Communication Systems
Business Case has two levels of governance; The Program Steering Committee
and the Project Steering Committee.

DocuSign Envelope ID: 9EBE894C-32F1-49A6-A936-A6914F0E736E
Exhibit No. 11 Case Nos. AVU-E-23-01/AVU-G-23-01 J. Kensok, Avista
Schedule 1, Page 148 of 304
Land Mobile Radio & Real Time Communication Systems
Business Case Justification Narrative Page 9 of 11
3.2 Provide and discuss the governance processes and people that will
provide oversight
Program Steering Committee
This business case is a program of related projects. The Program Steering
Committee consists of members in management positions that are identified
and responsible for prioritizing the projects within this program. The Steering
Committee is also held accountable for the financial performance of this
program. The Program Steering Committee will have regular meetings to review
the progress of the program and to make decisions on the following topics:

 Project prioritization and risk
 Approving business case funding requests
 New project initiation and sequencing

The Program will be facilitated and administrated by an assigned Program
Manager within the Enterprise Technology (ET) Project Management Office
(PMO) Department. The project queue will be reviewed periodically and will
consist of projects needed to maintain the reliability and performance of all LMR
and real time communication systems.

Project Steering Committee
Project Steering Committees act as the governing body over each individual
project within the program and will consist of key members in management
positions that are identified as responsible for the successful completion of the
scope of work identified in the Charter document for the Project. The Project
Steering Committee is responsible to provide guidance and make decisions on
key issues that affect the following topics:

 Scope
 Schedule
 Budget
 Project Issues
 Project Risks

The Project Steering Committee will meet at the defined intervals documented
in the Charter of the project and will be facilitated by an assigned Project
Manager from within the ET PMO Department.

3.3 How will decision-making, prioritization, and change requests be
documented and monitored
The governance structure under this business case program is responsible for
decision-making, prioritization, and change requests. Through the regular
Program Steering Committee Meetings, the team reviews and balances planned
DocuSign Envelope ID: 9EBE894C-32F1-49A6-A936-A6914F0E736E
Exhibit No. 11 Case Nos. AVU-E-23-01/AVU-G-23-01 J. Kensok, Avista
Schedule 1, Page 149 of 304
Land Mobile Radio & Real Time Communication Systems
Business Case Justification Narrative Page 10 of 11
work versus unplanned work to determine prioritization, as well as pending
project change requests. Any change request requiring either an increase or
decrease of funds is reviewed at the upcoming Technology Planning Group
meeting before it is submitted to the Capital Planning Group for consideration.

DocuSign Envelope ID: 9EBE894C-32F1-49A6-A936-A6914F0E736E
Exhibit No. 11 Case Nos. AVU-E-23-01/AVU-G-23-01 J. Kensok, Avista
Schedule 1, Page 150 of 304
Land Mobile Radio & Real Time Communication Systems
Business Case Justification Narrative Page 11 of 11
The undersigned acknowledge they have reviewed the Land Mobile Radio & Real
Time Communication Systems Business Case and agree with the approach it
presents. Significant changes to this will be coordinated with and approved by the
undersigned or their designated representatives.

Signature: Date:
Print Name: Walter Roys
Title: System Engineering Manager
Role: Business Case Owner

Signature: Date:
Print Name: Jim Corder
Title: IT Director
Role: Business Case Sponsor

Template Version: 05/28/20
DocuSign Envelope ID: 9EBE894C-32F1-49A6-A936-A6914F0E736E
Sep-01-2022 | 8:30 AM PDT
Sep-02-2022 | 2:03 PM PDT
Exhibit No. 11 Case Nos. AVU-E-23-01/AVU-G-23-01 J. Kensok, Avista
Schedule 1, Page 151 of 304
Network Backbone Infrastructure
Business Case Justification Narrative Page 1 of 11
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This business case includes investment in communication network infrastructure for
expansion requirements and periodic refresh of our mixed service transport backhaul
solutions. This work is comparable to a Transmission service but instead of electricity, we
are transporting communication network data. Systems in this technology area include
those designed to aggregate and transport substantial amounts of data across miles of
geography and locations, including substations, district offices, Mission headquarters,
and mountaintop communication sites. Each year, systems have been identified for
updating to take advantage of newer technologies by expanding the high-speed packet
core to improve performance and reliability further and increase the network's capacity.
The risks of not approving this business case at the level to which it can maintain the
balance of meeting its asset management strategy and scale for future technology could
result in unplanned failures and outages to our communication network system.
For this business case, funding is being requested for $19,383,973 over five years to
upgrade or replace 284 network communication systems within the network backbone
infrastructure. Collectively these systems track lifecycle, manufacturer warranty,
maintenance, and support (contract) status, licensing, capacity, and replacement cost.
Manufacturer lifecycles drive a considerable portion of the required work within this
request. Concurrently, a sizable portion of work is driven by the ongoing modernization
of energy delivery infrastructure and by the rapid technological advancements of business
applications and systems.

VERSION HISTORY
Version Author Description Date Notes
1.0 Shawna Kiesbuy Initial BCJN Draft 6/2021
2.0 Shawna Kiesbuy BCJN Revision 7/2022

DocuSign Envelope ID: 9462285E-FDFC-47DA-982D-6CDF6F0EF791
Exhibit No. 11 Case Nos. AVU-E-23-01/AVU-G-23-01 J. Kensok, Avista
Schedule 1, Page 152 of 304
Network Backbone Infrastructure
Business Case Justification Narrative Page 2 of 11
GENERAL INFORMATION

1. BUSINESS PROBLEM
1.1 What is the current or potential problem that is being addressed?
This business case includes investment in communication network
infrastructure for expansion requirements and periodic refresh of our mixed
service transport backhaul solutions. This work is comparable to a Transmission
service but instead of electricity, we are transporting communication network
data. Systems in this technology area include those designed to aggregate and
transport substantial amounts of data across miles of geography and locations,
including substations, district offices, Mission headquarters, and mountaintop
communication sites.

Over time, and with new business productivity application system requirements,
communication network loads and demand increase. For example,
communication requirements at substations are changing, including access
needs for enterprise services (email and phones), transmission and distribution
SCADA (Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition), and safety services such
as high-definition cameras and badge access.
1.2 Discuss the major drivers of the business case (Customer Requested, Customer
Service Quality & Reliability, Mandatory & Compliance, Performance & Capacity, Asset
Condition, or Failed Plant & Operations) and the benefits to the customer
The main driver for this business case is Performance and Capacity. Each year,
systems have been identified for updating to take advantage of newer
technologies by expanding the high-speed packet core to improve performance
and reliability further and increase the network's capacity. Specifically allowing
for communications in the field, the network backbone infrastructure facilitates
the ability to transport corporate traffic such as email and day-to-day business
productivity traffic, as well as generation, substation, transmission, and
distribution control data, plus carry safety communications to crews in outage
events and across hard-to-reach locations. With Performance and Capacity, the
network communication assets are managed in alignment with technology
Requested Spend Amount $19,383,973
Requested Spend Period 5 years
Requesting Organization/Department Enterprise Technology
Business Case Owner | Sponsor Shawna Kiesbuy | Jim Corder
Sponsor Organization/Department Enterprise Technology
Phase Execution
Category Program
Driver Performance & Capacity
DocuSign Envelope ID: 9462285E-FDFC-47DA-982D-6CDF6F0EF791
Exhibit No. 11 Case Nos. AVU-E-23-01/AVU-G-23-01 J. Kensok, Avista
Schedule 1, Page 153 of 304
Network Backbone Infrastructure
Business Case Justification Narrative Page 3 of 11
lifecycles that are based on manufacturer product roadmaps and planned
obsolesces to proactively reduce the risk of failing assets affecting critical
operations systems, processes, and infrastructure reliability.
1.3 Identify why this work is needed now and what risks there are if not
approved or is deferred
The communications network projects captured in this business case deliver on
expansion requirements and periodic refresh of our multi-service transport
backbone solutions. With Avista’s vision of delivering better energy for life, this
business case is key to enabling the gas and electric service delivery to our
customers in a safe and reliable manner. The work of transporting data across
the network backbone is critical to core systems and operations.
The risks of not approving this business case at the level to which it can maintain
the balance of meeting its asset management strategy and scale for future
technology could result in unplanned failures and outages to our communication
network system. The result is tied to the following risks: an increase in
employee, contractor and/or public safety risks due to the inability to see and
remotely operate the electric and gas systems. This has the potential to increase
labor and non-labor costs tied to unplanned system outages, where delays to
procurement can be realized to replace the failed asset, as well as downtime to
the critical systems supported. This could also lead to additional exposure of
outdated or unsupported devices to external cyber vulnerabilities.
1.4 Identify any measures that can be used to determine whether the
investment would successfully deliver on the objectives and address the
need listed above.
Executing and completing planned projects within this business case should
refresh or install new assets and/or functionality to enhance and increase
performance and capacity needs. If the fail rate associated with the network
systems in the business case remains low, then the project work is adding value
by proactively reducing the risk of failing assets affecting critical operations
systems, processes, and infrastructure reliability. In addition, expanding network
assets in advance of Avista adding services ensures business operations and
the delivery of safe, reliable, and affordable energy are not delayed or impacted
from the increased capacity.
1.5 Supplemental Information
1.5.1 Please reference and summarize any studies that support the problem
Reference materials that support the needed changes in Network
technology are maintained by Technology Domain Architects within each
respective technology area. These materials include Utility Cluster
DocuSign Envelope ID: 9462285E-FDFC-47DA-982D-6CDF6F0EF791
Exhibit No. 11 Case Nos. AVU-E-23-01/AVU-G-23-01 J. Kensok, Avista
Schedule 1, Page 154 of 304
Network Backbone Infrastructure
Business Case Justification Narrative Page 4 of 11
Studies, External Service Provider Memorandums, Electric Distribution
and Transmission Management Technology Roadmaps, etc..
1.5.2 For asset replacement, include graphical or narrative representation of metrics
associated with the current condition of the asset that is proposed for
replacement.
Not applicable. This business case is aligned with Performance &
Capacity, not Asset Condition.

Option Capital Cost Start Complete
Recommended Solution – Asset upgrade or
expansion for optimized performance and capacity.
$19,383,973 01/2023 12/2027
Alternative 1 – A reduction of funding which reduces
expansion to meet enterprise and control and safety
system needs and does not allow for the necessary
number of devices to be refreshed increasing risk of
failure or vulnerability to unauthorized access by bad
actors.
$14,596,665 01/2023 12/2027
Alternative 2 – Do not fund the program $0 01/2023 12/2027
2.1 Describe what metrics, data, analysis, or information were considered
when preparing this capital request.
Overall network backbone transport system reliability is reviewed bi-monthly
with key stakeholders in cyber security and energy delivery with the goal of
reducing single points of failure for critical infrastructure. A backlog of work is
generated with this key stakeholder group and a risk matrix is leveraged to score
and validate the order of projects so that we reduce the largest business risk
first.
Each individual transport network infrastructure asset is tracked throughout its
active presence using several systems. Collectively these systems track
lifecycle, manufacturer warranty, maintenance, and support (contract) status,
licensing, capacity, and replacement cost. Manufacturer lifecycles drive a
considerable portion of the required work within this request. Concurrently, a
sizable portion of work is driven by the ongoing modernization of energy delivery
infrastructure and by the rapid technological advancements of business
applications and systems. Subject Matter Experts in Utility Transport Network
Architecture are regularly consulted within technical cadences so that a real-
world, collaborative approach is taken to evaluate the resiliency and redundancy
requirements of the transport backbone network. Capacity and performance
planning activities occur in the same forum, the result of which is a scalable,
high-performing, and reliable transport communications network that will enable
the reliable and safe delivery of energy.
Gross
Total
Assets
EoS
<2023
EoS
2023-27
EoL
2023-27
Total
Scope of
Request
DocuSign Envelope ID: 9462285E-FDFC-47DA-982D-6CDF6F0EF791
Exhibit No. 11 Case Nos. AVU-E-23-01/AVU-G-23-01 J. Kensok, Avista
Schedule 1, Page 155 of 304
Network Backbone Infrastructure
Business Case Justification Narrative Page 5 of 11

*Accurate
as of this writing and subject to change based on future manufacturer
notifications
EoS= End of manufacturer software and/or hardware support, includes
devices that cannot be patched or updated are considered vulnerable to cyber
threats and must be refreshed.
EoL= End of planned asset lifecycle, communication network assets within
the Transport Backbone Network Infrastructure solution portfolio are selected
for a planned lifecycle of 10-15 years, with some exceptions.

2.2 Discuss how the requested capital cost amount will be spent in the current
year (or future years if a multi-year or ongoing initiative). (i.e., what are the
expected functions, processes or deliverables that will result from the capital spend?). Include
any known or estimated reductions to O&M because of this investment.
In the current year, the project focus will be on expansion of network microwave
technology and refresh of network assets to alleviate cyber security threats on
devices deemed obsolete (or nearing obsoletion) by vendor lifecycles. Historical
costs and timelines related to similar project work provide support for the
requested allocations above.
Direct Savings – There are no direct savings related to this business case.
Indirect Savings – The network infrastructure investments in this business
case are necessary to operate our critical business assets by using technology
to automate business processes and leverage communication networks for
remote visibility and operations. This business case specifically addresses
network infrastructure requirements for all company business requirements.
The business case considers business impact vs. likelihood/probability when
sequencing and prioritizing resource allocations and responds to vendor-
manufactured product obsolescence risks as well as cyber security risks.
This business case provides intentional funding for a network backbone
infrastructure for the geographical transmission of corporate and controls data.
The key performance indicator for network availability and reliability is 99.99%,
24x7. The investment sequencing is based on three drivers, 1) Compliance, 2)
Initiatives, 3) Reliability. The Compliance driver should be regulation, Initiatives
are executive sponsored (current example is a cybersecurity vulnerability risk
on out-of-support assets), and the Reliability driver is often the highest volume
of work enabling the reliable delivery of gas and electric services to our
customers.
The sequencing of the Reliability projects is driven first by the network asset
end-of-support date for cybersecurity patching, then the performance and
capacity to meet the business requirement, and lastly product obsolescence
date.
322 65 16* 203 284
DocuSign Envelope ID: 9462285E-FDFC-47DA-982D-6CDF6F0EF791
Exhibit No. 11 Case Nos. AVU-E-23-01/AVU-G-23-01 J. Kensok, Avista
Schedule 1, Page 156 of 304
Network Backbone Infrastructure
Business Case Justification Narrative Page 6 of 11
Investment percentage for the cybersecurity Initiative is 50% in 2022, Reliability
projects are 50%. In 2023, the cybersecurity Initiative is 60% and Reliability
projects are 40% of the investment.
Quantified indirect savings:
2022 2023 Lifetime *
$0.00 $0.00 $10M - $20M

*According to the Company Enterprise Risk Register, under the “Loss of
Communication or Network Technologies” and the “Cyber Intrusion” risks the
probability of this failure has an income statement score of 3, which equates to
a $10-$20 million avoided cost over a period of 2-3 years.

[Offsets to projects will be more strongly scrutinized in general rate cases going forward (ref. WUTC Docket No. U-190531 Policy
Statement), therefore it is critical that these impacts are thought through to support rate recovery.]
2.3 Outline any business functions and processes that may be impacted (and
how) by the business case for it to be successfully implemented.

The projects in this program are standalone projects within the Network
Backbone Infrastructure business case but are dependent on length of
construction season and other geographically similar but unrelated work being
performed at impacted telecommunication sites, such as substations and
generation plants. Planning for these projects is done in partnership with other
Avista departments to ensure an alignment of technical needs is accounted for
in this business case, including the requirements, risks, and effects of the project
work. Many times, this work will be aligned with a previously scheduled outage
window to gain efficiency and reduce the amount of downtime experienced by
operators at the sites. Specific business functions and processes affected are
determined project by project.
2.4 Discuss the alternatives that were considered and any tangible risks and
mitigation strategies for each alternative.
The requested funding amount allows the network backbone infrastructure
communication systems tied to this business case to be maintained and
expanded based on a periodic upgrade schedule. If this business case did not
exist or receive funding, the associated network communications assets could
fail, or the technology becomes obsolete which would result in a lack of
communication paths for field crews, a lack of visibility into generation,
transmission, and distribution status, or even a lack of control of field assets for
safety and control events.
Two alternative funding options were reviewed:
Alternative 1 – Fund the business case to an amount which is less than the
original request
DocuSign Envelope ID: 9462285E-FDFC-47DA-982D-6CDF6F0EF791
Exhibit No. 11 Case Nos. AVU-E-23-01/AVU-G-23-01 J. Kensok, Avista
Schedule 1, Page 157 of 304
Network Backbone Infrastructure
Business Case Justification Narrative Page 7 of 11
Funding of this business case at an amount less than the full request will reduce
expansion of network communication systems to meet business needs across
multiple areas of the business. This reduction in projects will also lessen the
necessary number of devices to be refreshed which increases the risk of failure
or cyber security vulnerability because assets will no longer be supported by
their manufacturers.
Alternative 2: Do not fund the business case
Removing all funding for this business case would be challenging for Avista
since this business case provides our mixed service transport backhaul
solutions. Systems in this technology area include those designed to aggregate
and transport substantial amounts of data across miles of geography and
locations, including substations, district offices, Mission headquarters, and
mountaintop communication sites. If the projects in this business case cease to
exist, there will be no network communications between substations, on
transmission or distribution poles, or the network systems that age beyond their
vendor lifecycles will fail. These failures translate to a lack of visibility and control
into critical systems that deliver gas and electric services. Additionally, the
company would be forced back to manual on site work and truck roles, instead
of leveraging remote visibility and control.
2.5 Include a timeline of when this work will be started and completed.
Describe when the investments become used and useful to the customer.
spend, and transfers to plant by year.
The Network Backbone Infrastructure business case is managed as a program
of projects planned yearly. Throughout the year, the business case’s multiple
projects are Initiated, Planned, Executed, and then Completed with a Transfer
to Plant for the individual projects in this business case. Therefore, investments
become used and useful on a project-by-project basis and happen frequently
throughout the year.
2.6 Discuss how the proposed investment aligns with strategic vision, goals,
objectives and mission statement of the organization.

In this business case, the network enables the aggregate and transport of
substantial amounts of data across miles of geography and locations, including
substations, district offices, Mission headquarters, and mountaintop
communication sites. These network system examples, and many others, move
and present data over long-distances that drive operational decisions and
controls, tying back to all four strategic goals affecting our customers, people,
performance, and invention.
2.7 Include why the requested amount above is considered a prudent
investment, providing or attaching any supporting documentation. In
addition, please explain how the investment prudency will be reviewed
and re-evaluated throughout the project

DocuSign Envelope ID: 9462285E-FDFC-47DA-982D-6CDF6F0EF791
Exhibit No. 11 Case Nos. AVU-E-23-01/AVU-G-23-01 J. Kensok, Avista
Schedule 1, Page 158 of 304
Network Backbone Infrastructure
Business Case Justification Narrative Page 8 of 11
Avista’s mission is to improve our customers’ lives through innovative energy
solutions in a safe, responsible, and affordable manner. This business case is
tasked with implementing network communications for expansion requirements
and periodic refresh of our mixed service transport backhaul solutions. The
funding amount and project portfolio has been determined to maintain current
performance and capacity while also scaling for customer growth. With project
priorities tied to enterprise strategies and risk objectives, the funding is reviewed
monthly allowing for adjustments to be made to the portfolio as demands change
across Avista’s backhaul environments. If project priorities do change, a request
is then made to the business case governance team to evaluate and determine
if the change is prudent to accomplishing the goals and objectives established
for the current funding year.

2.8 Supplemental Information

Identify customers and stakeholders that interface with the business case.
Within the Network Backbone Infrastructure business case, the discrete projects
interface with various internal Avista groups such as ET (Enterprise Technology)
engineering, Substation engineering, SCADA, System Operations, GPSS
(Generation Production and Substation Support) and Generation Plants, the
Telecommunications Shop, along with our internal business partners at various
office and remote facilities.

The ET Business Case Owner works in conjunction with the PMO (Project
Management Office), the assigned Program Manager, and subsequent Project
Managers.

The ET Business Case Owner is accountable and responsible for all Business
Case related activities and assignments.

2.8.1 Identify any related Business Cases
The investments included in this business case were previously included in the
Enterprise & Control Network Infrastructure business case. For better visibility,
and stronger investment driver alignment, we have split the single Enterprise &
Control Network Infrastructure business case into three separate business
cases beginning with the 2022 calendar year: Enterprise Network
Infrastructure, Control and Safety Network Infrastructure, and Network
Backbone Infrastructure.

DocuSign Envelope ID: 9462285E-FDFC-47DA-982D-6CDF6F0EF791
Exhibit No. 11 Case Nos. AVU-E-23-01/AVU-G-23-01 J. Kensok, Avista
Schedule 1, Page 159 of 304
Network Backbone Infrastructure
Business Case Justification Narrative Page 9 of 11
3.1 Steering Committee or Advisory Group Information
Steering Committee members are invaluable to the project and will provide
approval on scope, schedule, and budget related changes. Additionally, they will
provide approval on issues and risks pertaining to project deliverables outlined
in this document, which also typically have an impact on the scope, schedule,
or budget of a project. Steering Committee members will also provide approval
on Change Requests, Go-Live, and the Approval to Close documents. For the
Network Backbone Infrastructure business case, the Steering Committee will
consist of the Directors and Managers within ET, Energy Delivery, GPSS and
the Business Case Owner.
3.2 Provide and discuss the governance processes and people that will
provide oversight
The Network Backbone Infrastructure Business Case has two levels of
governance: The Program Steering Committee and the Project Steering
Committee.

Program Steering Committee
This business case is a program of related projects. The Program Steering
Committee consists of members in management positions that are identified
and responsible for prioritizing the projects within this program. The Steering
Committee is also held accountable for the financial performance of this
program. The Program Steering Committee will have regular meetings to review
the progress of the program and to make decisions on the following topics:

 Project prioritization and risk
 Approving business case funding requests
 New project initiation and sequencing

The Program will be facilitated and administrated by an assigned Program
Manager within the PMO. The project queue will be reviewed periodically to plan
and sequence work to the levels of funding allocation received.

Project Steering Committee
Project Steering Committees act as the governing body over each individual
project within the program and will consist of key members in management
positions that are identified as responsible for the successful completion of the
scope of work identified in the Charter document for the Project. The Project
Steering Committee is responsible for providing guidance and making decisions
on key issues that affect the following topics:

 Scope
DocuSign Envelope ID: 9462285E-FDFC-47DA-982D-6CDF6F0EF791
Exhibit No. 11 Case Nos. AVU-E-23-01/AVU-G-23-01 J. Kensok, Avista
Schedule 1, Page 160 of 304
Network Backbone Infrastructure
Business Case Justification Narrative Page 10 of 11
 Schedule
 Budget
 Project Issues
 Project Risks

The Project Steering Committee will meet at the defined intervals documented
in the Charter of the project and will be facilitated by an assigned Project
Manager from within the PMO.

3.3 How will decision-making, prioritization, and change requests be
documented and monitored
Project prioritization is evaluated by the management team monthly. Each
program and project steering committee meet regularly and oversee scope,
schedule and budget within their respective programs and projects and inform
the Business Case owner of any changes needing escalation to the Technology
Planning Group (TPG) or Capital Planning Group (CPG) for decision-making
around resource or funding constraints.

Any changes in funding or scope are documented at the Business Case level,
via a Change Request document that is presented to the CPG monthly and
evaluated by the CPG for approval.

Changes in scope, schedule, or budget are also documented through a ‘Change
Request’ at the project level and reviewed and approved through a formal
workflow process. All ET projects in this business case are managed through
the PMO, which follows the Project Management Institute (PMI) standards.
Projects initiate with a ‘Charter’ to begin the planning process. When planning
is complete, a ‘Project Management Plan (PMP)’ is created and approved as
the project baseline for scope, schedule, and budget. At the end of execution,
an ‘Approval to Go Live’ is submitted and approved prior to implementation
(Transfer to Plant). After the technology is in service and out of the warranty
period, the Project Manager will hold a Lessons Learned, and subsequently
submit an ‘Approval to Close’ prior to finishing the project. All Monitor and
Control documentation and Change Requests are documented and stored to
ensure a comprehensive audit trail.

The undersigned acknowledge they have reviewed the Network Backbone
Infrastructure business case and agree with the approach it presents. Significant
changes to this will be coordinated with and approved by the undersigned or their
designated representatives.

Signature: Date:
DocuSign Envelope ID: 9462285E-FDFC-47DA-982D-6CDF6F0EF791
Sep-02-2022 | 3:08 PM PDT
Exhibit No. 11 Case Nos. AVU-E-23-01/AVU-G-23-01 J. Kensok, Avista
Schedule 1, Page 161 of 304
Network Backbone Infrastructure
Business Case Justification Narrative Page 11 of 11
Print Name: Shawna Kiesbuy
Title: Sr. Manager, Network Engineering
Role: Business Case Owner

Signature: Date:
Print Name: Jim Corder
Title: IT Director
Role: Business Case Sponsor

DocuSign Envelope ID: 9462285E-FDFC-47DA-982D-6CDF6F0EF791
Sep-02-2022 | 4:40 PM PDT
Exhibit No. 11 Case Nos. AVU-E-23-01/AVU-G-23-01 J. Kensok, Avista
Schedule 1, Page 162 of 304
Atlas
Business Case Justification Narrative Template Version: 04.21.2022 Page 1 of 10
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Atlas is a multi-year year program to strategically replace the suite of custom Geographic
Information System (GIS) applications known as Avista Facility Management (AFM).
AFM is the system of record for spatial electric facilities in Washington and Idaho and gas
facility data in Washington, Idaho and Oregon and provides the connectivity model to
support GIS engineering and analysis applications. The AFM applications and data
model have been used for nearly two decades and have reached technology
obsolescence. The existing data model used by AFM is being replaced by a new industry
standard model called the Utility Network. The AFM is a cornerstone to Avista’s ability to
provide responsive service across its territory. If AFM is not replaced with a modern GIS
platform, which can utilize the Utility Network model, the ability of Avista to meet customer,
regulatory, compliance requirements will be at risk. Replacing AFM will enable Avista to
take advantage of commercial GIS applications that provide improved mobile and desktop
functionality, increased collaboration capabilities and increased reliability.
Improvement of customer experience is at the core of Atlas Program. The proposed
next generation applications will enable Avista workers, both office and field, to respond
to customer requests faster; provide information to customers that is more accurate,
timely and complete; and improve customer experience when they interact with Avista.
Avista benefits of replacing the AFM applications include improved worker productivity,
improved asset data integrity, and the opportunity to reengineer work processes and
methods, supporting a continual improvement program. New commercial solutions also
provide Avista with the ability to meet changing demands of customers, enable effective
operation of an increasingly complex and dynamic distribution grid, and provide the
opportunity to create new service offerings to customers.
The total program budget for the 12-year plan is estimated to be $30.0M dollars. The
funds in this business case will be utilized to fund the phases of the Atlas Program as
detailed in the supplemental information referenced in section 1.5 below. The years
2020-2027 will be primarily focused on the project timeline and deliverables detailed in
the Utility Network Advantage Program Report, while also supporting Mobility in the
Field initiative which configures and deploys mobile GIS mapping and data applications.

VERSION HISTORY
Version Author Description Date Notes
1.0 Mike Littrel Initial draft of business case 04/2017
2.0 Mike Littrel Updated business case format 07/2020
3.0 Mike Littrel Updated program details and timelines 07/2021
4.0 Mike Littrel Updated program details and timelines 07/2022

DocuSign Envelope ID: 5F45C080-26A0-485B-844D-A40F70A60104
Exhibit No. 11 Case Nos. AVU-E-23-01/AVU-G-23-01 J. Kensok, Avista
Schedule 1, Page 163 of 304
Atlas
Business Case Justification Narrative Template Version: 04.21.2022 Page 2 of 10
GENERAL INFORMATION
1. BUSINESS PROBLEM
1.1 What is the current or potential problem that is being addressed?
Avista’s AFM system has been used for nearly two decades and is approaching
technology obsolescence. The technology does not have the ability to utilize
the Utility Network data model and will not meet future business needs. The
software has already undergone two major conversions to extend the life to this
point. The first was a programing language conversion from Microsoft Visual
Basic to Microsoft .NET because Visual Basic was no longer a supported
language. The second was a geometric precision change to support the
requirements of the integration with Maximo. Both of these changes achieved
their goals; however, the code is now more fragile which increases the
complexity of supporting AFM. Additionally, the existing system is custom built
and requires continual maintenance and support by internal staff whose skillset
is becoming scarce, as the fundamental code and architecture is complex. In
parallel, most of the staff who were part of the original custom build of the AFM
system, have long since moved on. Certain AFM applications, such as electric
and gas edit and Outage Management Tool, do not have the full complement of
desired functionality and are unreliable at times due to the outdated architecture.
When a new configuration request is surfaced, the change cannot always be
implemented, as the custom code and architecture will not allow it. The existing
data model used by the AFM applications is being replaced by an industry
standard model called the Utility Network. It is important to begin the transition
to the next generation GIS technology while there is still staffing to support the
AFM system, and the current data model is still supported, because delaying
will increase the risk of customer impact caused by increasing system issues.

Requested Spend Amount $30,000,000
Requested Spend Time Period 06/2015 – 12/2027
Requesting Organization/Department Enterprise Technology
Business Case Owner | Sponsor Mike Littrel | Josh DiLuciano
Sponsor Organization/Department Energy Delivery Technology Projects
Phase Execution
Category Program
Driver Asset Condition
DocuSign Envelope ID: 5F45C080-26A0-485B-844D-A40F70A60104
Exhibit No. 11 Case Nos. AVU-E-23-01/AVU-G-23-01 J. Kensok, Avista
Schedule 1, Page 164 of 304
Atlas
Business Case Justification Narrative Template Version: 04.21.2022 Page 3 of 10
1.2 Discuss the major drivers of the business case (Customer Requested, Customer
Service Quality & Reliability, Mandatory & Compliance, Performance & Capacity, Asset
Condition, or Failed Plant & Operations) and the benefits to the customer
Improvement of electric and gas customer experience is at the core of the Atlas
Program. These new tools will enable Avista workers, office and field, to respond
to customer requests faster; provide information to customers that is more
accurate, timely and complete; and improve customer satisfaction when they
interact with Avista.
In addition to replacing traditional desktop GIS applications, additional mobile
tools will extend the value of Avista’s investment in the GIS system by providing
field staff with applications for near real-time editing and data collection. For
example, the Mobile Design Tool will enable functionality for a designer to
perform designs at a job site, providing an improved customer experience, and
will be fully compatible with the desktop design tool. In addition, the Mobile tools
will provide field personnel with powerful functionality to meet customer
responsiveness expectations; Global Positioning System (GPS) guided turn by
turn directions to work locations; electronic receipt sent to the customer’s
communication preference (email, text, etc.) at completion of work orders;
access to GIS data in the field; capture of as-built configuration, compliance data
and materials electronically by taking advantage of a variety of data sources,
including digital image data, keyed data, bar code scanned data, and GPS
location data.
New commercial solutions and industry standard data model also provide Avista
with the ability to more fully integrate with industry standard gas and electric
planning and analysis tools. This will lead to a better understanding of where
weakness in the infrastructure may exist and proactively reinforce those areas
improving reliability for the customers.
1.3 Identify why this work is needed now and what risks there are if not
approved or is deferred
The AFM system has been used for nearly two decades and is approaching
technology obsolescence. Continuing to utilize AFM would continue to create
Operating and Maintenance cost pressure while also creating risks and lost
opportunities. Additionally, any investment in the current system is a sunk cost,
as the system is limited in the functionality it can provide to our staff as they
serve both gas and electric customers. The current system is highly customized
and cannot leverage industry standard GIS platforms to share data sets that
provide field and office workers with more information about our assets and
those of other agencies, such as local, county and state governments. The
existing data model used by the AFM applications is being replaced with and
industry standard model. The GIS platform is a cornerstone to Avista’s ability
to provide responsive service across its territory, if it is not replaced with a
modern GIS platform that can utilize the Utility Network data model, the ability
of Avista to meet current and future customer, regulatory, and compliance
requirements will be at risk.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 5F45C080-26A0-485B-844D-A40F70A60104
Exhibit No. 11 Case Nos. AVU-E-23-01/AVU-G-23-01 J. Kensok, Avista
Schedule 1, Page 165 of 304
Atlas
Business Case Justification Narrative Template Version: 04.21.2022 Page 4 of 10

1.4 Identify any measures that can be used to determine whether the
investment would successfully deliver on the objectives and address the
need listed above.
Each project within the Atlas program will have a project charter which includes
project costs, schedule, deliverables and benefits. Each project will have a
steering committee assigned. Throughout the duration of each project the
steering committee will be provided status reports on a monthly basis. These
status reports will include updates on project scope, schedule and budget, as
well as any risks and/or issues that the project team is currently working on.
1.5 Supplemental Information
1.5.1 Please reference and summarize any studies that support the problem
Justification for system replacement is based on comprehensive
assessments of AFM technologies, processes and functions that were
performed in 2015 and 2019 by third-party consultants as part of the
project planning process. The details of the assessments are available in
the following supporting documents:
 Current State Report
 Future State Report
 Gap Analysis Report
 Industry Analysis Report
 Requirements Report
 Alternative Analysis Report
 Utility Network Advantage Program Report
 Atlas Roadmap

The Esri ArcGIS product and the Utility Network data model will continue
to be the foundational spatial data engine for next generation application
delivered through Atlas. Esri is the industry standard for GIS, so
continuing to use that platform provides the highest level of access to
commercial applications and standard integration to other enterprise
applications. The replacement will take place through a series of
targeted and incremental projects to maximize value and minimize risk.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 5F45C080-26A0-485B-844D-A40F70A60104
Exhibit No. 11 Case Nos. AVU-E-23-01/AVU-G-23-01 J. Kensok, Avista
Schedule 1, Page 166 of 304
Atlas
Business Case Justification Narrative Template Version: 04.21.2022 Page 5 of 10
1.5.2 For asset replacement, include graphical or narrative representation of metrics
associated with the current condition of the asset that is proposed for
replacement.

Esri GIS serves as the foundational data structure on which AFM
applications are built or rely on. AFM is the system of record for spatial
electric and gas facility data and provides the connectivity model to
support the AFM applications. The following is a brief description of AFM
tools.
 Electric and Gas Edit are tools inherent in the system used for data
edits prior to committing final data changes and additions.
 Outage Management Tool is an in-house developed application that
supports outage analysis and management.
 Engineering Analysis is a commercial tool used for engineering
analysis modeling.
 Distribution Management System is a commercial application used to
monitor and control the distribution grid. It relies on the GIS data from
AFM to determine the current operating state.

The AFM applications and data model have been used for nearly two decades and is
approaching technology obsolescence. Continuing to utilize AFM would continue to
create Operating and Maintenance cost pressure while also creating risks and lost
opportunities. Additionally, any investment in the current system is a sunk cost, as
the system is limited in the functionality it can provide to our staff as they serve both
gas and electric customers.
Option Capital Cost Start Complete
Recommended Solution - Replace the custom
AFM applications with Commercial Off The Shelf
Applications
$30.0M 06/2015 12/2027
Alternative - Continue to utilize the custom AFM
applications
$10.0M 06/2015 12/2027
DocuSign Envelope ID: 5F45C080-26A0-485B-844D-A40F70A60104
Exhibit No. 11 Case Nos. AVU-E-23-01/AVU-G-23-01 J. Kensok, Avista
Schedule 1, Page 167 of 304
Atlas
Business Case Justification Narrative Template Version: 04.21.2022 Page 6 of 10
2.1 Describe what metrics, data, analysis or information was considered when
preparing this capital request.
Detailed documentation from industry experts as listed in section 1.5 above.
Additionally, project costs from recent comparable projects at Avista were used
to determine the amount of the capital funds request and duration of the
business case.

2.2 Discuss how the requested capital cost amount will be spent in the current
year (or future years if a multi-year or ongoing initiative). (i.e. what are the
expected functions, processes or deliverables that will result from the capital spend?). Include
any known or estimated reductions to O&M as a result of this investment.
The funds in this business case will be utilized to fund the phases of the Atlas
Program as detailed in the supplemental information referenced in section 1.5
above. The years 2020-2027 will be primarily focused on the project timeline
and deliverables detailed in the Utility Network Advantage Program Report,
while also supporting Mobility in the Field initiative which configures and deploys
mobile GIS mapping and data applications.

The Atlas Program has been and will continue to be divided into discrete
projects that when possible have a duration of one calendar year. This will allow
the capital expenditure for a given year to be transferred to plant in that year.
Project /Spend
($1000) 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027
ESRI Utility Network $1,450

$1,000 $1,475 $1,850 $1,280
Mobility in the Field $1,240

$1,080 $875 $875 $875
Totals $2,690 $2,080 $2,350 $2,725 $2,155

Modernizing Avista’s GIS and deploying mobile GIS applications is anticipated
to provide the following indirect labor savings. The estimated savings are
based on a review a of current and previous GIS projects completed in the Atlas
Business case with a uniform efficiency value applied based on the types of
applications deployed. This method was used to forecast anticipated savings
for future projects because specific projects for 2023 - 2027 have not yet been
approved.

DocuSign Envelope ID: 5F45C080-26A0-485B-844D-A40F70A60104
Exhibit No. 11 Case Nos. AVU-E-23-01/AVU-G-23-01 J. Kensok, Avista
Schedule 1, Page 168 of 304
Atlas
Business Case Justification Narrative Template Version: 04.21.2022 Page 7 of 10
Atlas Indirect Savings Estimates

GIS Mobile Applications Annual Indirect Offset Potential
Estimated Number of Users 75
Estimated Efficiency per User 15 minutes per day
Estimated Usage Days per year 200
Standard Hourly Labor Rate $85.00
Estimated Percent of Users in WA 75%
Estimated Annual Indirect Labor Offset $239,063

GIS Modernization Annual Indirect Offset Potential
Estimated Number of Users 200
Estimated Efficiency per User 10 minutes per day
Estimated Usage Days per year 200
Standard Hourly Labor Rate $85.00
Estimated Percent of Users in WA 75%
Estimated Annual Indirect Labor Offset $425,000

Total Annual Indirect Labor Offset $664,063

2.3 Outline any business functions and processes that may be impacted (and
how) by the business case for it to be successfully implemented.
Each project within the Atlas Program will include a business process and
stakeholder analysis to determine the organization change management and
training needs. This analysis will then be used to deliver communication to the
stakeholders throughout the project and develop end user training.

2.4 Discuss the alternatives that were considered and any tangible risks and
mitigation strategies for each alternative.
The current suite of AFM solutions has a recent history of performance
challenges which may only be mitigated with considerable investment or
replacement. Continuing to invest in a custom system with no vendor support is
not a sustainable long-term solution. There are network management
functionality limitations and performance related issues with the current data
model that are addressed in Esri’s new Utility Network data model and platform.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 5F45C080-26A0-485B-844D-A40F70A60104
Exhibit No. 11 Case Nos. AVU-E-23-01/AVU-G-23-01 J. Kensok, Avista
Schedule 1, Page 169 of 304
Atlas
Business Case Justification Narrative Template Version: 04.21.2022 Page 8 of 10
2.5 Include a timeline of when this work will be started and completed.
Describe when the investments become used and useful to the customer.
spend, and transfers to plant by year.
The work was started in 2015 and is scheduled to complete in December 2026.
The Atlas Program has been and will continue to be divided into discrete
projects than when possible have a duration of one calendar year or less. This
will allow the capital expenditure for a given year to be transferred to plant in
that year.

2.6 Discuss how the proposed investment aligns with strategic vision, goals,
objectives and mission statement of the organization.
Having a modern GIS will enable Avista to meet the changing needs in energy
delivery such as Distributed Generation and Smart Grids with Grid Edge
Intelligence. It will also enable the ability to model complex network and
equipment such as electric substations and gas regulator stations to provide a
more accurate view of the assets in the field. The increased accuracy and
currency of the data along with modern mobile applications will provide field
personnel with powerful functionality to meet customer responsiveness
expectations. Finally, the advanced modelling will enable improved analysis
and reporting capabilities.

2.7 Include why the requested amount above is considered a prudent
investment, providing or attaching any supporting documentation. In
addition, please explain how the investment prudency will be reviewed
and re-evaluated throughout the project.
The AFM applications and data model have been used for nearly two decades
are approaching technology obsolescence. Continuing to utilize AFM would
continue to create Operating and Maintenance cost pressure while also creating
risks and lost opportunities. Additionally, any investment in the current system
is a sunk cost, as the system is limited in the functionality it can provide to our
staff as they serve both gas and electric customers. Replacing AFM will enable
Avista to take advantage of commercial GIS applications and an industry
standard data model that will provide improved mobile and desktop functionality,
increased collaboration capabilities and increased reliability far beyond the what
can be achieved with AFM.

2.8 Supplemental Information

2.8.1 Identify customers and stakeholders that interface with the business case
Customers will interface with the technology in this business case both
through their interactions with Avista personnel who will be using the
DocuSign Envelope ID: 5F45C080-26A0-485B-844D-A40F70A60104
Exhibit No. 11 Case Nos. AVU-E-23-01/AVU-G-23-01 J. Kensok, Avista
Schedule 1, Page 170 of 304
Atlas
Business Case Justification Narrative Template Version: 04.21.2022 Page 9 of 10
technology and through map-based information that they will have
access to through online methods such as the Avista website.

2.8.2 Identify any related Business Cases
The work in the business case closely is related to the work in the Outage
Management System and Advanced Distribution Management System
business case.

3.1 Steering Committee or Advisory Group Information
The Atlas Business Case has two levels of governance: The Executive
Technology Steering Committee (ETSC), and Project Steering Committees.
The committees review monthly project status reports, which identify project
scope, schedule and budget, as well as any risks and/or issues that the project
team is currently working on. The Atlas Program Team reports progress
monthly to the steering committees and other stakeholder groups.

3.2 Provide and discuss the governance processes and people that will
provide oversight
The Steering Committee for each project in the Atlas Program will be made up
of stakeholders from across the functional business units and Enterprise
Technology.
3.3 How will decision-making, prioritization, and change requests be
documented and monitored
Status reports to the steering committees will be used as the official review and
approval process for prioritization and change requests. Risks, issues and
change requests will be documented in project logs and kept as artifacts of each
project within Enterprise Technology’s project management software system.

DocuSign Envelope ID: 5F45C080-26A0-485B-844D-A40F70A60104
Exhibit No. 11 Case Nos. AVU-E-23-01/AVU-G-23-01 J. Kensok, Avista
Schedule 1, Page 171 of 304
Atlas
Business Case Justification Narrative Template Version: 04.21.2022 Page 10 of 10
The undersigned acknowledge they have reviewed the Atlas Business Case and
agree with the approach it presents. Significant changes to this will be coordinated
with and approved by the undersigned or their designated representatives.

Signature: Date:
Print Name: Mike Littrel
Title: Manager of Energy Delivery
Technology Projects

Role: Business Case Owner

Signature: Date:
Print Name: Josh DiLuciano
Title: Director of Electric Engineering
Role: Business Case Sponsor

Signature: Date:
Print Name: Hossein Nikdel
Title: Director of Applications and
Systems Planning

Role: Steering/Advisory Committee Review

DocuSign Envelope ID: 5F45C080-26A0-485B-844D-A40F70A60104
Sep-02-2022 | 9:49 AM PDT
Sep-06-2022 | 11:01 AM PDT
Sep-02-2022 | 9:24 AM PDT
Exhibit No. 11 Case Nos. AVU-E-23-01/AVU-G-23-01 J. Kensok, Avista
Schedule 1, Page 172 of 304
Outage Management System and Advanced Distribution
Management System (OMS/ADMS)
Business Case Justification Narrative Template Version: 04.21.2022 Page 1 of 19
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Avista’s Outage Management Tool (OMT) is an in-house developed custom application
that supports electric outage analysis, management, and restoration. OMT is a mission
critical system which provides the functionality to manage the electric distribution grid and
the overall life cycle of electric outages and restoration processes for the Washington and
Idaho service territories. The OMT application and data model were developed by Avista
at a time when commercial outage management software was not available and have
been used for nearly two decades and are approaching technology obsolescence. The
existing operating platform used by OMT is scheduled for end of life in 2025 and is
recommended for replacement in the Atlas business case. The application is showing
increasing signs of fatigue and the loss of OMT would mean significant risks, increased
costs, and customer benefit impacts which are detailed in the narrative below. The loss
of OMT is rated 6th on Avista’s corporate risk register, which means replacing it with a
modern application is a top priority.

OMT works in synchronization with Avista’s Distribution Management System (DMS), in
order to monitor and control Avista’s electric distribution network efficiently and reliably.
The DMS is a commercial application used to monitor and control the portion of the
distribution grid that is equipped with “smart grid” technology that enables remote monitor
and control. It relies on Geographic Information System (GIS) data to determine the
current operating state of the distribution system, which is provided via an outdated,
custom-built OMT integration. Frequent integration failures result in the two systems
being out of synch with each other, requiring a significant amount of manual intervention
to resolve each week. The DMS marginally meets the current business needs, but will not
meet future needs for additional distribution grid automation and Distributed Energy
Resources requirements to meet customer choice and Clean Energy Transformation Act
requirements.

Avista foresees a future utility architecture that bridges use cases across Customer, Grid,
Operations, and Utility Enterprise domains. This future will require a technology platform
that enables the integration of these domains. The industry standard for this platform is
an Advanced Distribution Management System (ADMS). Replacing Avista’s OMT and
DMS with a single ADMS will achieve improved operational awareness and grid
management capabilities, enable real-time automated outage restoration, enable real-
time grid optimization and performance, improve field and office worker productivity, and
provide the ability to reengineer work processes and methods to support the continuous
improvement of Avista’s Distribution System Operator program. An ADMS solution also
provides Avista with the ability to respond to more stringent and detailed regulatory
compliance reporting requirements, such as those for Wildfire Resiliency and the Clean
Energy Transformation Act. A modern ADMS also enables the ability to deliver more
geographically specific Estimated Restoration Time (ERT) information to electric
customers during outages. The improved ERT accuracy and restoration status for
customers will improve customer confidence in the information which will reduce the
number of calls received by our customer service representatives, as well as call
durations.
DocuSign Envelope ID: E10A7933-A085-4167-B527-69BCCD788BB5
Exhibit No. 11 Case Nos. AVU-E-23-01/AVU-G-23-01 J. Kensok, Avista
Schedule 1, Page 173 of 304
Outage Management System and Advanced Distribution
Management System (OMS/ADMS)
Business Case Justification Narrative Template Version: 04.21.2022 Page 2 of 19

The estimated project cost is $45.5M over a four-year planned project duration. Because
of the importance of this project, and the fact the that the primary reason ADMS projects
fail or run over time and over budget is due to the inability to create and maintain an
accurate distribution grid data model, initial development work on the data model was
started in 2022. The bulk of the ADMS implementation effort is scheduled to start in 2022,
with a Phase 0 effort focused on validating the data model. The Phase 0 effort will enable
the project to proceed efficiently so that the implementation can be completed while the
current operating platform used by OMT is still supported by the vendor.

Since this is a mutli-year project, the work needs to start as scheduled in order to have
the ADMS fully operational before the OMT operating platform is no longer supported and
meet increasing customer and regulatory expectations which cannot be achieved with the
legacy OMT and DSM applications. Avista needs to proceed with the work now in order
to be ready for the future, in a similar way to how planning is done for future power needs;
i.e., we don’t wait until we run out of power to build new generation. It would not be prudent
to wait until after our current system completely fails to meet our needs to start an ADMS
project.

VERSION HISTORY
Version Author Description Date Notes
1.0 Mike Littrel Initial draft of business case 04/2017
2.0 Mike Littrel Updated business case format 07/2020
3.0 Mike Littrel Updated program details and budget 07/2021
4.0 Mike Littrel Updated program details and budget 08/2022

DocuSign Envelope ID: E10A7933-A085-4167-B527-69BCCD788BB5
Exhibit No. 11 Case Nos. AVU-E-23-01/AVU-G-23-01 J. Kensok, Avista
Schedule 1, Page 174 of 304
Outage Management System and Advanced Distribution
Management System (OMS/ADMS)
Business Case Justification Narrative Template Version: 04.21.2022 Page 3 of 19
GENERAL INFORMATION
Requested Spend Amount $45,550,000
Requested Spend Time Period 4 Years (mid 2022-mid 2026)
Requesting Organization/Department Enterprise Technology
Business Case Owner | Sponsor Mike Littrel | Josh DiLuciano, Hossein Nikdel
Sponsor Organization/Department Energy Delivery Technology Projects
Phase Initiation
Category Project
Driver Asset Condition
DocuSign Envelope ID: E10A7933-A085-4167-B527-69BCCD788BB5
Exhibit No. 11 Case Nos. AVU-E-23-01/AVU-G-23-01 J. Kensok, Avista
Schedule 1, Page 175 of 304
Outage Management System and Advanced Distribution
Management System (OMS/ADMS)
Business Case Justification Narrative Template Version: 04.21.2022 Page 4 of 19
1. BUSINESS PROBLEM
1.1 What is the current or potential problem that is being addressed?
Avista’s Outage Management Tool (OMT) has been used for nearly two
decades and is approaching obsolescence. The technology is becoming more
and more difficult to configure to meet the changing business needs and has
exceeded its useful life. The software has already undergone two major
conversions to extend the life to this point. Both changes achieved their goals;
however, the code is now more fragile which has increased the complexity of
supporting OMT.

Additionally, the existing system is custom built and requires continual
maintenance and support by internal staff whose skillset is becoming scarce, as
the fundamental code and architecture is complex and outdated. OMT does not
have the full complement of functionality required to meet current and future
needs of the Distribution System Operators as they respond to an increasingly
complex and dynamic electric distribution grid. Outage incident processing
performance can be slow during high-volume outage conditions (storms),
particularly in field division offices, impacting the ability to restore outages
quickly. When a new configuration request is surfaced, the change cannot
always be implemented, as the custom code and architecture may not allow it.
The existing operating platform used by OMT is scheduled for end of life in 2025.

The existing OMT workflow does not include a fully digital workflow for the field
personnel who are responding to outage scenarios. This lack of a digital
workflow creates gaps in situational awareness for both the field personnel and
the Distribution Operators who are planning and coordinating the restoration
effort. These gaps can lead to potential safety hazards and inefficiencies in the
restoration process. It also creates gaps in the level of detail collected during
the damage assessment and restoration activities. These details are becoming
increasing important to be able to report on for programs such as Wildfire
Resiliency. Modern ADMS platforms include a fully digital workflow which
enable both field and office personnel to have access to the same information
and receive near real-time status updates during an outage event, improving
safety and efficiency. A digital workflow also ensures that the damage and
repair information is captured accurately and completely through the use a rule
driven forms.
DocuSign Envelope ID: E10A7933-A085-4167-B527-69BCCD788BB5
Exhibit No. 11 Case Nos. AVU-E-23-01/AVU-G-23-01 J. Kensok, Avista
Schedule 1, Page 176 of 304
Outage Management System and Advanced Distribution
Management System (OMS/ADMS)
Business Case Justification Narrative Template Version: 04.21.2022 Page 5 of 19
Switching (the process to de-energize a section of the electric grid for
construction, maintenance or repair) is another area for significant improvement
in both effectiveness and safety. Currently switching plans are developed in a
Word document through conversations with the people involved (Area Engineer,
Foreman, Distribution Operators, etc.) and the plan steps are executed
manually on the day of the planned switching activity. An ADMS provides a fully
digital and integrated process for switch plan development, study mode, and
execution of the switching activity. This fully digital process ensures that the
switching meets all electric grid and safety requirements by monitoring each
step of the plan against the actions taken and alerting the personnel if a step is
missed, a step is invalid, or an error is made during the switching process. The
switch plans are also stored in an online library for quick reference in order to
have a highly reproducible process for future switch plans.
In addition, the Distribution Management System (DMS) has several challenges
which the ADMS will address. First, the DMS relies on GIS data to determine
the current operating state of the distribution system which is provided via an
outdated, custom-built OMT integration. Frequent integration failures result in
the two systems being out of synch with each other, requiring a significant
amount of manual intervention to resolve each week. The DMS marginally
meets the current business needs but will not meet future needs for additional
distribution grid automation and Distributed Energy Resources requirements to
meet customer choice, Clean Energy Transformation Act requirements.
1.2 Discuss the major drivers of the business case (Customer Requested, Customer
Service Quality & Reliability, Mandatory & Compliance, Performance & Capacity, Asset
Condition, or Failed Plant & Operations) and the benefits to the customer
Avista can gain significant operations and business advantages by replacing
OMT and DMS with an ADMS. A modern ADMS can address many of the issues
currently faced by Distribution System Operators and field personnel. Fully
integrated with other enterprise systems along with optimized business
processes, the benefits to be realized include improved outage analysis and
restoration capabilities, improved safety, improved status information to
customer facing systems, and improved system reliability and dependability.
Avista responds to multiple major storm events per year. An ADMS with a fully
digital workflow has the potential to reduce the labor costs of these major events
by at least 10%. Based on actual storm costs for 2017-2021 that’s an average
savings of $340,379 per year split 75% capital and 25% O&M.
DocuSign Envelope ID: E10A7933-A085-4167-B527-69BCCD788BB5
Exhibit No. 11 Case Nos. AVU-E-23-01/AVU-G-23-01 J. Kensok, Avista
Schedule 1, Page 177 of 304
Outage Management System and Advanced Distribution
Management System (OMS/ADMS)
Business Case Justification Narrative Template Version: 04.21.2022 Page 6 of 19

A fully integrated ADMS provides capabilities that include: (1) a platform that
integrates numerous utility systems to achieve improved operational awareness
and grid management capabilities, (2) expanded real-time automated outage
restoration, and (3) enables real-time optimization of electric distribution grid
performance.

While improved customer experience is difficult to quantify, it is perhaps the
most important business reason for justifying a new ADMS. During major outage
event situations, the ability to communicate timely, accurate and consistent
status of outages and estimated restoration time is of paramount importance to
customers. Whether the customer hears directly from the utility, the media or a
public agency, the information about the outage needs to be consistent. An
ADMS is that vehicle to provide this timely, accurate and consistent information
to customers.
DocuSign Envelope ID: E10A7933-A085-4167-B527-69BCCD788BB5
Exhibit No. 11 Case Nos. AVU-E-23-01/AVU-G-23-01 J. Kensok, Avista
Schedule 1, Page 178 of 304
Outage Management System and Advanced Distribution
Management System (OMS/ADMS)
Business Case Justification Narrative Template Version: 04.21.2022 Page 7 of 19
Significant customer value from other corporate initiatives will be ask risk if the
Avista lost the OMT and/or DMS capabilities and did not have an ADMS in place.
This value is at risk if the ADMS project does not occur (or is delayed until
OMT/DMS failure) because the AMI meters simply provide near real-time data,
they do not perform the analytics or initiate the optimization functions that
produce the customer benefit. That work is currently accomplished by custom
functionality within OMT and DMS, which would become native functionality
within an ADMS. Some examples of these customer values from the August
2020 Avista Utilities Advanced Metering Infrastructure (AMI) Project Report
include:
Benefit Average Annual Customer Value
Early Outage Notification $4,005,827
More Rapid Restoration $2,269,968
Avoided Single Lights Out $289,723
Reduced Major Storms Cost $327,566
Conservation Voltage Reduction $2,108,817

DocuSign Envelope ID: E10A7933-A085-4167-B527-69BCCD788BB5
Exhibit No. 11 Case Nos. AVU-E-23-01/AVU-G-23-01 J. Kensok, Avista
Schedule 1, Page 179 of 304
Outage Management System and Advanced Distribution
Management System (OMS/ADMS)
Business Case Justification Narrative Template Version: 04.21.2022 Page 8 of 19
1.3 Identify why this work is needed now and what risks there are if not
approved or is deferred
The OMT application and data model have been used for nearly two decades
and are approaching technology obsolescence. Continuing to utilize OMT
would continue to create Operating and Maintenance cost pressure while also
creating risks of system failure during times of high demand (storms).
Additionally, any investment in the current system is a sunk cost, as the system
is limited in the functionality it can provide to our staff as they respond to electric
customer outages on an increasingly complex distribution system. The current
system is highly customized making it very difficult to integrate with newer
enterprise applications. OMT is a cornerstone to Avista’s ability to manage the
overall cycle of the electric outage and restoration processes for the Washington
and Idaho service territories. If it is not replaced prior to system failure, it would
likely double the amount time and effort required to complete the restoration
efforts, while also increase public safety risks and lowering customer
satisfaction. Based on actual storm costs for 2017-2021 that’s an addition cost
of $3,403,795 per year split 75% capital and 25% O&M. The costs and risks
would continue to accumulate after the storm as daily operations would be
impacted for the duration of an OMT system failure. The Avista Risk register
has the impact range of an OMT system failure set at $1.0M - $10.0M.

DocuSign Envelope ID: E10A7933-A085-4167-B527-69BCCD788BB5
Exhibit No. 11 Case Nos. AVU-E-23-01/AVU-G-23-01 J. Kensok, Avista
Schedule 1, Page 180 of 304
Outage Management System and Advanced Distribution
Management System (OMS/ADMS)
Business Case Justification Narrative Template Version: 04.21.2022 Page 9 of 19
Since this is a mutli-year project, the work needs to start as scheduled in order
to have the ADMS fully operational before the OMT operating platform is no
longer supported, and to meet increasing customer and regulatory expectations
which cannot be achieved with the legacy OMT and DSM applications. Avista
needs to proceed with the work now in order to be ready for the future, in a
similar way to how planning is done for future power needs; i.e., we don’t wait
until we run out of power to build new generation. Implementing an ADMS a
long-term project, so we don’t want to wait until after our current system
completely fails to meet our needs to start an ADMS project. If OMT is not
replaced with a modern ADMS, the ability of Avista to meet current and future
customer, regulatory, and compliance requirements will be at risk.

1.4 Identify any measures that can be used to determine whether the
investment would successfully deliver on the objectives and address the
need listed above.
Avista tracks a large number of electric system reliability statistics (SAIDI, SAIFI,
CAIDI, etc.) that can and will be used to benchmark and measure success of
the project. The project team will work with key stakeholders to determine which
reliability statistics would be directly or indirectly influenced by the increased
capabilities and functionality of an ADMS and use those as one measure of the
success for the project.

As mentioned in Section 1.2 there are a series of high customer value items
enabled by the data provided to OMT/DMS from the AMI meters. Those metrics
will be monitored to ensure the values are maintained and where possible
improved with the integrated ADMS capabilities.

Wildfire Resiliency is a key focus area for Avista. The ADMS project team will
coordinate closely with the Wildfire Resiliency team to determine key metrics
they are tracking to ensure the fully digital damage assessment and restoration
workflow accurately captures the necessary data.

Program details for the Clean Energy Implementation Plan (CEIP) and metrics
are still being developed, however, it’s clear that the plan will include the need
for additional grid automation, new Distributed Energy Resources, and new non-
wires alternatives for customers such as time of use rates and energy efficiency.
Many of these potential alternatives of being explored in the Connected
Communities project which is planned to start in 2022 and run for five years.
Results of the project will be used to determine which alternatives will move out
to the larger customer base.

In order to achieve these goals a future utility architecture that bridges use cases
across Customer, Grid, Operations, and Utility Enterprise domains is required.
This future will require a technology platform that enables the integration of
DocuSign Envelope ID: E10A7933-A085-4167-B527-69BCCD788BB5
Exhibit No. 11 Case Nos. AVU-E-23-01/AVU-G-23-01 J. Kensok, Avista
Schedule 1, Page 181 of 304
Outage Management System and Advanced Distribution
Management System (OMS/ADMS)
Business Case Justification Narrative Template Version: 04.21.2022 Page 10 of 19
these domains. The industry standard for this platform is an Advanced
Distribution Management System (ADMS). As details of the CEIP and others
become more well defined in the coming years, the ADMS team will work
collaboratively with these teams to determine specific metrics that will be
achieved via the capabilities of the ADMS.

1.5 Supplemental Information
1.5.1 Please reference and summarize any studies that support the problem
Justification for system replacement is based on comprehensive
assessments of technologies, processes and functions that were
performed in 2015 by third-party consultants as part of an enterprise
project planning process. The details of the assessments are available in
the following supporting documents:
 Business Case
 Current State Report
 Future State Report
 Gap Analysis Report
 Industry Analysis Report
 Requirements Report
 Alternative Analysis Report

The Gap Analysis report includes a list of more than 30 gaps in the current state
OMT/DMS applications that would be resolved/corrected with the implementation
of an ADMS. The conclusion from the third-part consultant is:

Avista can gain significant operations and business advantages by
replacing OMT with a commercial OMS(ADMS). A new OMS(ADMS) can
address many of the issues currently faced by dispatch and field
personnel. Properly integrated with other systems with optimized
processes, benefits to be realized include improved outage analysis and
restoration capabilities, improved status information to customer facing
systems, and improved system reliability and dependability. A new
OMS(ADMS) will improve Avista’s ability to respond to storm condition
outages and restoration processes.

DocuSign Envelope ID: E10A7933-A085-4167-B527-69BCCD788BB5
Exhibit No. 11 Case Nos. AVU-E-23-01/AVU-G-23-01 J. Kensok, Avista
Schedule 1, Page 182 of 304
Outage Management System and Advanced Distribution
Management System (OMS/ADMS)
Business Case Justification Narrative Template Version: 04.21.2022 Page 11 of 19
1.5.2 For asset replacement, include graphical or narrative representation of metrics
associated with the current condition of the asset that is proposed for
replacement.

Esri Geographic Information System (GIS) serves as the foundational
data structure on which Avista Facility Management (AFM) applications,
including OMT, are built or rely on. AFM is the system of record for spatial
electric and gas facility data and provides the connectivity model to
support OMT. The following is a brief description of AFM tools.
 Electric and Gas Edit are tools inherent in the system used for data
edits prior to committing final data changes and additions.
 Outage Management Tool is an in-house developed application that
supports outage analysis and management.
 Engineering Analysis is a commercial tool used for engineering
analysis modeling.
 Distribution Management System is a commercial application used to
monitor and control the portion of the distribution grid that is enabled
with “smart grid” technology. It relies on the GIS data from OMT to
determine the current operating state.

2. PROPOSAL AND RECOMMENDED SOLUTION
Avista foresees a future utility architecture that bridges use cases across Customer,
Grid, Operations, and Utility Enterprise domains. This future will require a technology
platform that enables the integration of these domains. The industry standard for this
platform is an Advanced Distribution Management System (ADMS). Replacing
Avista’s OMT and DMS with a single ADMS will achieve improved operational
awareness and grid management capabilities, enable real-time automated outage
restoration, enable real-time grid optimization and performance, improve field and
office worker productivity, and provide the ability to reengineer work processes and
methods to support the continuous improvement of Avista’s Distribution System
Operator program. An ADMS solution also provides Avista with the ability to respond
to more stringent and detailed regulatory compliance reporting requirements, such as
those for Wildfire Resiliency and the Clean Energy Transformation Act. A modern
DocuSign Envelope ID: E10A7933-A085-4167-B527-69BCCD788BB5
Exhibit No. 11 Case Nos. AVU-E-23-01/AVU-G-23-01 J. Kensok, Avista
Schedule 1, Page 183 of 304
Outage Management System and Advanced Distribution
Management System (OMS/ADMS)
Business Case Justification Narrative Template Version: 04.21.2022 Page 12 of 19
ADMS also enables the ability to deliver more geographically specific Estimated
Restoration Time (ERT) information to electric customers during outages. The
improved ERT accuracy and restoration status for customers will improve customer
confidence in the information which will reduce the number of calls received by our
customer service representatives, as well as call durations.
Option Capital Cost Start Complete
Recommended Solution - Replace the custom
OMT and DMS applications with an ADMS
$45.5M 06/2022 12/2026
Alternative 1 – Rewrite Custom OMT and keep
DMS
Not Available 01/2023 06/2026
Alternative 2 - Continue to utilize the custom OMT
and DMS applications until OMT runs out of support
in 2025
$1.0M 06/2022 12/2025

2.1 Describe what metrics, data, analysis or information was considered when
preparing this capital request.
Detailed documentation from industry experts as listed in section 1.5 above,
along with project costs from recent comparable projects at other utilities were
used to determine the amount of the capital funds request and duration of the
business case.

Avista will release a Request for Proposal (RFP) in Q3-2022 to qualified ADMS
software vendors and implementors. The responses will be evaluated and
scored in order to determine the best ADMS solution. The RFP results will be
provided to the project governance group for review and approval to proceed.
Any differences from the current estimates and the RFP results will be used to
refine the project’s scope schedule and budget as needed before work
proceeds.

2.2 Discuss how the requested capital cost amount will be spent in the current
year (or future years if a multi-year or ongoing initiative). (i.e. what are the
expected functions, processes or deliverables that will result from the capital spend?). Include
any known or estimated reductions to O&M as a result of this investment.
The funds in this business case will be utilized to fund the replacement of OMT
and DMS with an ADMS. The project is estimated to have a four-year duration.
Upon completion, the ADMS will fully replace both the existing Outage
Management Tool and the Distribution Management System. The project is
scheduled to start in mid-2022 and is currently planned to ramp up during that
year, then have a levelized spend for multiple years over the duration of the
project.

DocuSign Envelope ID: E10A7933-A085-4167-B527-69BCCD788BB5
Exhibit No. 11 Case Nos. AVU-E-23-01/AVU-G-23-01 J. Kensok, Avista
Schedule 1, Page 184 of 304
Outage Management System and Advanced Distribution
Management System (OMS/ADMS)
Business Case Justification Narrative Template Version: 04.21.2022 Page 13 of 19
Modernizing Avista’s outage management software of business processes is
anticipated to provide the following indirect labor savings. These high-level
estimated savings are based on a review of current and previous projects
completed at Avista with a uniform efficiency value applied based on the types
of applications deployed. The following are high-level estimates, and the
Company does not currently have a way to track if these benefits will be realized.

OMS/ADMS Indirect Savings Estimates

Field Personnel Annual Indirect Offset Potential
Estimated Number of Users 85
Estimated Efficiency per User 15 minutes per incident
Estimated Usage Incidents per year 60
Standard Hourly Labor Rate $85.00
Estimated Percent of Users in WA 75%
Estimated Annual Indirect Labor Offset $81,281

Distribution Operations Annual Indirect Offset Potential
Estimated Number of Users 10
Estimated Efficiency per User 10 minutes per day
Estimated Usage Days per year 365
Standard Hourly Labor Rate $85.00
Estimated Percent of Users in WA 75%
Estimated Annual Indirect Labor Offset $38,781

Total Annual Indirect Labor Offset $120,063

5-Year estimated savings $1,006,719

2.3 Outline any business functions and processes that may be impacted (and
how) by the business case for it to be successfully implemented.
In addition to the business functions and processes already documented in the
reports referenced in section 1.5, the project will include a stakeholder analysis
to determine the organization change management and training needs. This
analysis will then be used to deliver communication to the stakeholders
throughout the project, develop end user training and determine the ongoing
support structure.
DocuSign Envelope ID: E10A7933-A085-4167-B527-69BCCD788BB5
Exhibit No. 11 Case Nos. AVU-E-23-01/AVU-G-23-01 J. Kensok, Avista
Schedule 1, Page 185 of 304
Outage Management System and Advanced Distribution
Management System (OMS/ADMS)
Business Case Justification Narrative Template Version: 04.21.2022 Page 14 of 19
2.4 Discuss the alternatives that were considered and any tangible risks and
mitigation strategies for each alternative.
Alternative 1 – Avista could endeavor to rewrite the current OMT application to
function on the new Esri operating platform and data model. An initial effort
estimate on this alternative indicates that it would have a lower first cost that
implementing an ADMS however this alternative has several areas of high risk
that would likely overshadow the initial costs savings. Examples include:
 Avista has made a corporate decision that it is not a software
development company and will instead purchase and configure industry
standard applications to reduce the risks and costs of owning and
maintaining custom applications.
 OMT is a mission critical system. At the time it was originally developed
by Avista there were no commercially available outage management
applications that met Avista’s requirements. That is no longer the
situation.
 No other utility has written a custom OMT application using the new Esri
operating platform. This first of its kind development effort has many
unknowns that Avista would discover along the way likely increasing
timelines, costs and risks. Avista would also carry the sole responsibility
for resolving performance/accuracy/reliability issues that will inevitably
crop up in production with a first-generation application.
 Keeping OMT in the GIS environment, rather than moving it to a separate
ADMS platform, keeps the outage system closely coupled to the GIS data
model. This will introduce new risks and complexities as Avista
transitions to Esri’s new data model in the next 3-5 years. Having a
separate ADMS platform will isolate the ADMS from future Esri data
model changes.
 A rewrite of the existing functionality would not provide the improved
safety, performance and data accuracy features that a fully digital
workflow through and ADMS would provide.
 Rewriting OMT is estimated to take about the same number of years as
implementing an ADMS but does nothing to address the current
shortcomings of the existing DMS or its inability to fulfill future needs of
Distributed Energy Resources requirements to meet customer choice
and Clean Energy Transformation Act requirements. These
shortcomings would need to be addressed in a future project, extending
the timing for when Avista would be able to meet those requirements.

Alternate 2 -The current OMT has a recent history of performance challenges
which may only be mitigated with considerable investment or replacement.
Continuing to invest in a custom system with no vendor support is not a
sustainable long-term solution. There are network management functionality
limitations and performance related issues with the current data model that are
addressed a modern ADMS. The support by Esri for the current software
solution will be ending in January 2025. Continuing to use OMT beyond that
DocuSign Envelope ID: E10A7933-A085-4167-B527-69BCCD788BB5
Exhibit No. 11 Case Nos. AVU-E-23-01/AVU-G-23-01 J. Kensok, Avista
Schedule 1, Page 186 of 304
Outage Management System and Advanced Distribution
Management System (OMS/ADMS)
Business Case Justification Narrative Template Version: 04.21.2022 Page 15 of 19
date would become increasingly costly and risky without an investment in an
upgrade. Staying on the current platform version includes risks, such as:
 As the version goes out of support from Esri, Avista will not be able to
receive patching from Esri to respond to cyber security vulnerabilities.
 Performance challenges and instabilities of OMT during major storm
events will continue to exist.
 Continued integration failures between OMT and the DMS resulting in the
two systems being out of synch with each other, requiring a significant
amount of manual intervention to resolve each week.
 The DMS marginally meets the current business needs but will not meet
future needs for additional distribution grid automation and Distributed
Energy Resources requirements to meet customer choice Clean Energy
Transformation Act requirements. A future DMS replacement project
would be required to address these shortcomings.
 Delaying the start of a project to replace OMT and the DMS with a
modern ADMS increases the risk that the existing systems will fail before
an ADMS project can be completed. Avista needs to proceed with the
work now in order to be ready for the future, in a similar way to how
planning is done for future power needs; i.e., we don’t wait until we run
out of power to build new generation.

DocuSign Envelope ID: E10A7933-A085-4167-B527-69BCCD788BB5
Exhibit No. 11 Case Nos. AVU-E-23-01/AVU-G-23-01 J. Kensok, Avista
Schedule 1, Page 187 of 304
Outage Management System and Advanced Distribution
Management System (OMS/ADMS)
Business Case Justification Narrative Template Version: 04.21.2022 Page 16 of 19
2.5 Include a timeline of when this work will be started and completed.
Describe when the investments become used and useful to the customer.
spend, and transfers to plant by year.
The ADMS project is scheduled to start in mid-2022 and estimated to have a
four-year duration. Upon completion, the ADMS will fully replace both the
existing Outage Management Tool and the Distribution Management System
and provide additional Distributed Energy Resource Management (DERM)
functionality in support of the CEIP and Connected Communities project. The
investment is planned to be deployed in two phases. First phase is planned to
be used and useful in early 2025 and the second phase in late 2026. The project
costs related to each phase would transfer to plant in those years.

2.6 Discuss how the proposed investment aligns with strategic vision, goals,
objectives and mission statement of the organization.
Having a modern ADMS will improve field and office worker productivity, provide
more accurate data, and provide the ability to reengineer work processes and
methods to support the continuous improvement of Avista’s outage
management and restoration program. It will also provide Avista with the ability
to respond to more stringent and detailed regulatory compliance reporting
requirements, enable effective operation of an increasingly complex and
dynamic electric distribution grid, and deliver more accurate Estimated
Restoration Time (ERT) information to electric customers during outages. The
improved ERT accuracy and restoration status for customers will improve
customer confidence in the information which will reduce the number of calls
received by our customer service representatives, as well as call durations. The
additional Distributed Energy Resource Management (DERM) functionality will
support the long term goals of the CEIP and Connected Communities project.

DocuSign Envelope ID: E10A7933-A085-4167-B527-69BCCD788BB5
Exhibit No. 11 Case Nos. AVU-E-23-01/AVU-G-23-01 J. Kensok, Avista
Schedule 1, Page 188 of 304
Outage Management System and Advanced Distribution
Management System (OMS/ADMS)
Business Case Justification Narrative Template Version: 04.21.2022 Page 17 of 19
2.7 Include why the requested amount above is considered a prudent
investment, providing or attaching any supporting documentation. In
addition, please explain how the investment prudency will be reviewed
and re-evaluated throughout the project
The OMT application and data model have been used for nearly two decades
and are approaching technology obsolescence. Continuing to utilize OMT
would continue to create Operating and Maintenance cost pressure while also
creating risks and lost opportunities. Additionally, any investment in the current
system is a sunk cost, as the system is limited in the functionality it can provide
to our staff as they respond to electric customer outages on an increasing
complex distribution system. The current system is highly customized making it
very difficult to integrate with newer enterprise applications. The existing
application platform used by the OMT is scheduled for end of support in 2025.
OMT is a cornerstone to Avista’s ability to manage the overall cycle of the
electric outage and restoration processes for the Washington and Idaho service
territories. If it is not replaced with a modern ADMS, the ability of Avista to meet
current and future customer, regulatory, and compliance requirements will be at
risk.

2.8 Supplemental Information

2.8.1 Identify customers and stakeholders that interface with the business case
Customers will interface with the technology in this business case both
through their interactions with Avista personnel who will be using the
technology, and through map-based outage information that they will
have access to through online methods such as the Avista website and
the Avista mobile application.

2.8.2 Identify any related Business Cases
The work in this business case is related to and dependent on portions of
the work in the Atlas business case, because this work was originally
included on the Overall Atlas scope. Overtime the Atlas business case
has remained focused on the GIS modernization components of the
original scope while the modernization of OMT/DMS was moved to this
business case. The work in this business case also supports the ongoing
customer value in business cases such as Wildfire Mitigation, WA AMI,
CEIP, etc.

DocuSign Envelope ID: E10A7933-A085-4167-B527-69BCCD788BB5
Exhibit No. 11 Case Nos. AVU-E-23-01/AVU-G-23-01 J. Kensok, Avista
Schedule 1, Page 189 of 304
Outage Management System and Advanced Distribution
Management System (OMS/ADMS)
Business Case Justification Narrative Template Version: 04.21.2022 Page 18 of 19
3. MONITOR AND CONTROL
3.1 Steering Committee or Advisory Group Information
This business case will have two levels of governance: The Executive
Technology Steering Committee (ETSC), and Project Steering Committee that
will be formed as part of the project initiation. The committees will review
monthly project status reports, which identify project scope, schedule and
budget, as well as any risks and/or issues that the project team has identified.
3.2 Provide and discuss the governance processes and people that will
provide oversight
The Steering Committee for the project will be made up of stakeholders from
across the functional business units and Enterprise Technology.

3.3 How will decision-making, prioritization, and change requests be
documented and monitored
Status reports to the steering committees will be used as the official review and
approval process for prioritization and change requests. Risks, issues and
change requests will be documented in project logs and kept as artifacts of each
project within Enterprise Technology’s project management software system.

DocuSign Envelope ID: E10A7933-A085-4167-B527-69BCCD788BB5
Exhibit No. 11 Case Nos. AVU-E-23-01/AVU-G-23-01 J. Kensok, Avista
Schedule 1, Page 190 of 304
Outage Management System and Advanced Distribution
Management System (OMS/ADMS)
Business Case Justification Narrative Template Version: 04.21.2022 Page 19 of 19
4. APPROVAL AND AUTHORIZATION
The undersigned acknowledge they have reviewed the Outage Management
System and Advanced Distribution Management System and agree with the
approach it presents. Significant changes to this will be coordinated with and
approved by the undersigned or their designated representatives.

Signature: Date:
Print Name: Mike Littrel
Title: Manager of Energy Delivery
Technology Projects

Role: Business Case Owner

Signature: Date:
Print Name: Josh DiLuciano
Title: Director of Electric Engineering
Role: Business Case Sponsor

Signature: Date:
Print Name: Hossein Nikdel
Title: Director of Applications and
Systems Planning

Role: Steering/Advisory Committee Review

DocuSign Envelope ID: E10A7933-A085-4167-B527-69BCCD788BB5
Aug-31-2022 | 10:58 AM PDT
Aug-31-2022 | 10:58 AM PDT
Sep-01-2022 | 8:09 AM PDT
Exhibit No. 11 Case Nos. AVU-E-23-01/AVU-G-23-01 J. Kensok, Avista
Schedule 1, Page 191 of 304
Energy Delivery Modernization and Operational Efficiency
Business Case Justification Narrative Page 1 of 14

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Energy Delivery Modernization and Operational Efficiency (EDMOE) as a business case
supports both existing and new technologies leveraged by the Energy Delivery business
areas including Gas Engineering & Operations, Electric Engineering & Operations, Asset
Management & Supply Chain, Facilities, Fleet Operations & Metering. These
technologies are used to automate and augment business solutions bringing efficiencies
and capabilities to support the delivery of energy to our customers. This support includes
the following: 1) improving the performance and capacity of business resources by
implementing new functionality in existing technologies. 2) improving the performance
and capacity of business resources by implementing overall new technologies. 3)
modernizing existing technologies in accordance with product lifecycles and technical
roadmaps, typically through product or system upgrades. Due to an increase in vendor-
driven planned obsolescence, if these systems are not refreshed on a regular cadence,
the ability of Avista to meet customer, regulatory and compliance requirements will be at
risk. Although these are the primary purposes of this business case, other benefits include
cost savings, safety, regulatory compliance and innovative customer-focused products
and services.
The total program budget over the next five years is estimated to be $22.7M dollars. The
funds in this business case will be utilized to fund the EDMOE Program as detailed in the
supplemental information referenced in section 2.0 below. Though not exhaustive, the list
of supported technologies includes the following major systems: Metering solutions
including Openway Riva our predominant Automated Metering solution, GIS our
Geospatial Information System, Maximo our Enterprise Work and Asset Management
System, DIMP our Distribution Integrity Management Plan tool, ECM our Enterprise
Content Management solution where this solution is used in support of energy delivery
activities, PI our plant information system where this system is used to support our energy
delivery activities, and Service Suite our mobile workforce management system. Beyond
these major systems, there are other miscellaneous applications that are leveraged that
also require periodic updates and enhancements. The years 2023-2027 will be focused
on the systems and capabilities detailed below.

VERSION HISTORY
Version Implemented
By
Revision
Date
Approved
By
Approval
Date
Reason
1.0 Michael
Mudge
07/21/2018 Initial version
2.0 Michael
Mudge
06/29/2020 Updated Template
3.0 Michael
Mudge
06/30/2021 Updated Information
DocuSign Envelope ID: E2EF41A3-C2DE-4D1F-8843-DB1FB2F5C557
Exhibit No. 11 Case Nos. AVU-E-23-01/AVU-G-23-01 J. Kensok, Avista
Schedule 1, Page 192 of 304
Energy Delivery Modernization and Operational Efficiency
Business Case Justification Narrative Page 2 of 14
4.0 Michael
Mudge
7/7/2023 Updated Information
for 2023-2027
timeline

GENERAL INFORMATION

1. BUSINESS PROBLEM
1.1 What is the current or potential problem that is being addressed?
The Energy Delivery and Shared Services (Fleet, Flight, Facilities, Supply
Chain) business area utilizes a suite of technologies and applications in order
to better and more efficiently execute ongoing business processes. As these
business processes change, or new opportunities for better or more efficient
business processes emerge, these technologies need to change as well. These
changes often can be met through leveraging the capabilities of existing
systems with minor modifications or configuration changes. We call these types
of changes enhancements and set up minor programs to support these
activities. Examples of this type of activity includes the GIS and Maximo
enhancement packages. Sometimes these changes are larger and require a
project of their own, but still leverage existing in portfolio products. Examples
include the Centralized Planning and Scheduling project which leverages our
Maximo and ABB/Service Suite systems. Other times these changes may
require new systems altogether with new or different capabilities. Regardless,
these changes require technology resources (people) that are versed both in
the changing business processes and the systems being leveraged in order to
make the changes.

Additionally, this suite of technologies, whether the applications themselves or
the technologies supporting them (databases, operating systems, etc.) often
require upgrades to keep them current with vendor lifecycle roadmaps. The
performance of these upgrades often leverages the same resources as
identified above, technology experts who understand both the capabilities of the
systems themselves as well as strong familiarity with the business processes
they support.
Requested Spend Amount $22,655,000
Requested Spend Time Period 01/2023-12/2027
Requesting Organization/Department Energy Delivery
Business Case Owner | Sponsor Michael Mudge | Hossein Nikdel
Sponsor Organization/Department Enterprise Technology
Phase Execution
Category Program
Driver Performance & Capacity
DocuSign Envelope ID: E2EF41A3-C2DE-4D1F-8843-DB1FB2F5C557
Exhibit No. 11 Case Nos. AVU-E-23-01/AVU-G-23-01 J. Kensok, Avista
Schedule 1, Page 193 of 304
Energy Delivery Modernization and Operational Efficiency
Business Case Justification Narrative Page 3 of 14

Under this business case, we are referring to the technologies and applications
leveraged by the Energy Delivery business areas including Gas Engineering &
Operations, Electric Engineering & Operations, Asset Management & Supply
Chain, Facilities, Fleet Operations & Metering. These technologies are used to
automate and augment business solutions bringing efficiencies and capabilities
to support the delivery of energy to our customers. This support includes the
following: 1) improving the performance and capacity of business resources by
implementing new functionality in existing technologies. 2) improving the
performance and capacity of business resources by implementing overall new
technologies. 3) modernizing existing technologies in accordance with product
lifecycles and technical roadmaps, typically through product or system
upgrades. Although these are the primary purposes of this business case, other
benefits include cost savings, safety, regulatory compliance and innovative
customer-focused products and services.

The current major applications included in the Energy Delivery Program portfolio
include:
 Geospatial platform environment - ArcGIS solution(s) - Esri
 Enterprise Asset Management system – Maximo solution(s) - IBM
 Time Series Operational Data - Plant Intelligence (PI) solution(s) – OSIsoft
 Mobile Workforce Management – Mobile Dispatch solution(s) – ABB/Service
Suite
 Distribution Integrity Management Plan (DIMP) – JANA DIMP
 Fleet Asset & Work Order Management – FASuite solution(s) – Asset Works
 Crew Planning & Scheduling - Crew Manager solution(s) - Arcos
 System Operations Outage Management– CROW – Equinox
 Metering solution(s)
o OpenWay Riva
o MV90
o Field Collection System (FCS)
o Fixed Network
o TWACS
DocuSign Envelope ID: E2EF41A3-C2DE-4D1F-8843-DB1FB2F5C557
Exhibit No. 11 Case Nos. AVU-E-23-01/AVU-G-23-01 J. Kensok, Avista
Schedule 1, Page 194 of 304
Energy Delivery Modernization and Operational Efficiency
Business Case Justification Narrative Page 4 of 14
1.2 Discuss the major drivers of the business case (Customer Requested, Customer
Service Quality & Reliability, Mandatory & Compliance, Performance & Capacity, Asset
Condition, or Failed Plant & Operations) and the benefits to the customer
At the core of the EDMOE business case is the ongoing support and
development of the technologies that enable the Energy Delivery business
areas including Gas Engineering & Operations, Electric Engineering &
Operations, Asset Management & Supply Chain, Facilities, Fleet Operations &
Metering. These technologies enable the workers in these various teams to
respond to customer requests faster; provide information to customers that is
more accurate, timely and complete; and improves customer satisfaction when
they interact with Avista. Other benefits for the company and our customers
include cost savings, safety, regulatory compliance and innovative customer-
focused products and services. This business case supports the ongoing
changes necessary to improve the performance and capacity of these business
areas. Although performance and capacity are the key driver, this business case
where necessary also supports the other major drivers listed.
1.3 Identify why this work is needed now and what risks there are if not
approved or if the work is deferred
The suite of technologies managed under this business case and the business
processes they enable in many cases are core to Avista’s ability to deliver
energy safely and reliably to our customers. These technologies and the
business processes they support change on a continual basis based on both
internal and external drivers. These drivers include continuous improvements in
business process, continuous improvements in safety, changing compliance
requirements, changing regulatory requirements, vendor driven change, product
obsolescence, changes in customer expectations, as well as changes in system
reliability.
Additionally, as these changes are ongoing in nature, they require a minimum
level of staff capability to support these necessary changes. If the work is
deferred or delayed, the technologies will not be in alignment with changing
business processes, the technologies will not support improvements in safety,
regulatory, or compliance, and the technologies will not be aligned with vendor
driven change. Further, if deferred or delayed (meaning the labor required to do
the work is made unavailable) when the work is funded the staff required to
implement these changes will not be readily available or will likely be more
expensive to hire.
1.4 Identify any measures that can be used to determine whether the
investment would successfully deliver on the objectives and address the
need listed above.
Each project within the EDMOE business case has a project charter which
includes project costs, schedule, deliverables and benefits. Each project will
have a steering committee assigned. Throughout the duration of each project
the steering committee will be provided status reports on a monthly basis.
These status reports will include updates on project scope, schedule and
DocuSign Envelope ID: E2EF41A3-C2DE-4D1F-8843-DB1FB2F5C557
Exhibit No. 11 Case Nos. AVU-E-23-01/AVU-G-23-01 J. Kensok, Avista
Schedule 1, Page 195 of 304
Energy Delivery Modernization and Operational Efficiency
Business Case Justification Narrative Page 5 of 14
budget, as well as any risks and/or issues that the project team is currently
working on.

Each program within the EDMOE business case has a steering committee that
prioritizes a backlog of required enhancements and changes in support of
changing business process, cost savings, new safety, regulatory or compliance
work, and customer driven requirements. These often result from technology
demand related to transformations in the utility industry and continual changes
required to meet expanding customer needs, as well as the drive to achieve
operational efficiencies. Recent trends in the area of mobility, scalability, and
the move towards Commercial off the Shelf (COTS) solutions that enhance
and/or improve conventional business practices and processes also influence
these efforts.
The technologies and applications improved upon and delivered under this business
case automate and enable key business processes used today to deliver safe and
reliable energy to our customers. These technologies and applications require
ongoing enhancements and sometimes replacement to keep them in line with
changing business processes and with changing vendor roadmaps. Technical
resources with specialized skills who are familiar with these supported business areas
are required to make the ongoing changes. This business case supports the required
changes, along with the technical resources, for technologies and applications that
support the Energy Delivery business areas including Gas Engineering & Operations,
Electric Engineering & Operations, Asset Management & Supply Chain, Facilities,
Fleet Operations & Metering.

Option Capital Cost Start Complete
Recommended Solution $22.7 Million 01 2023 12 2027
Alternative 1 – Run solutions to end of life (no
upgrades)
$13.6 Million 01 2023 12 2027
Alternative 2 – Perform only work necessary to
keep solutions on supported versions (upgrades
only, no operational efficiency work).
$15 - $20 Million 01 2023 12 2027

2.1 Describe what metrics, data, analysis or information was considered when
preparing this capital request.
A thorough review of the list of technologies and applications currently
providing automation to Energy Delivery business processes was performed.
Based on this cataloging, two types of activities were identified, projects and
programs. Projects are typically used to support one-time major efforts such as
software or platform upgrades, technology replacement or technology
implementation. Programs are typically used to enhance existing technologies,
keeping the technology in line with existing and evolving business process or
to facilitate implementation of additional digitization of business process using
DocuSign Envelope ID: E2EF41A3-C2DE-4D1F-8843-DB1FB2F5C557
Exhibit No. 11 Case Nos. AVU-E-23-01/AVU-G-23-01 J. Kensok, Avista
Schedule 1, Page 196 of 304
Energy Delivery Modernization and Operational Efficiency
Business Case Justification Narrative Page 6 of 14
existing technologies. For projects, estimates were developed based on
identified staffing requirements, software and hardware requirements (license
and product costs), and professional service requirements. These were based
on current scope and schedule estimates. For Programs providing ongoing
enhancements or new functionality to support changing or developing business
process the costs were estimated based on staffing, license, professional
service, and product costs identified through historical trends.

2.2 Discuss how the requested capital cost amount will be spent in the current
year (or future years if a multi-year or ongoing initiative). (i.e. what are the
expected functions, processes or deliverables that will result from the capital spend?). Include
any known or estimated reductions to O&M as a result of this investment.
The costs incurred under this business case across the next five years will be
spent on product licenses, hardware, professional services and labor in support
of the technical systems in place across the Energy Delivery business area.
Significant costs include the cost of ESRI term licenses, Designer term licenses,
the cost to license and implement the new DIMP solution, labor to continue
enhancements to our GIS system in support of business process, labor to
upgrade our GIS solution in line with vendor product lifecycles, labor to continue
enhancements our Maximo solution in support of business process, labor to
upgrade our Maximo solution in line with vendor product lifecycles, labor to
support enhancements to our Plant Information (PI) system in support of
business process, Labor and hardware updates necessary to support
enhancements and upgrades of our AMI head end platform in support of
business process and vendor product lifecycles, Labor in support of upgrading
MV90 in line with vendor product lifecycles, Labor and professional services to
support upgrading Mobile Dispatch in line with vendor lifecycles. Labor and
professional services for smaller applications in line with vendor product
lifecycles. The timelines for this work have been developed with the best
information available today and represent ideal scenarios. It is subject to change
based on priorities, availability of shared labor, and our ability to find appropriate
professional services.

EDMOE Direct Savings - The Maximo Upgrade project is being performed in part to
avoid Extended Support costs. The Extended Support costs are approximately
$100K/year.

EDMOE Indirect Savings - EDMOE as a business case supports both existing and new
technologies leveraged by the Energy Delivery business areas including Gas
Engineering & Operations, Electric Engineering & Operations, Asset Management &
Supply Chain, Facilities, Fleet Operations & Metering. These technologies are used to
automate and augment business solutions bringing efficiencies and capabilities to
support the delivery of energy to our customers. The costs incurred under this business
case across the next five years will be spent on product licenses, hardware, professional
services, and labor in support of the technical systems in place across the Energy
Delivery business area. Significant costs include the cost to license and implement a
DocuSign Envelope ID: E2EF41A3-C2DE-4D1F-8843-DB1FB2F5C557
Exhibit No. 11 Case Nos. AVU-E-23-01/AVU-G-23-01 J. Kensok, Avista
Schedule 1, Page 197 of 304
Energy Delivery Modernization and Operational Efficiency
Business Case Justification Narrative Page 7 of 14
new Distribution Integrity Management Plan-(DIMP) solution, labor to continue
enhancements to our GIS system in support of business process, labor to continue
enhancements to our Maximo solution in support of business process, labor to upgrade
our Maximo solution in line with vendor product lifecycles, labor and hardware updates
necessary to support enhancements and upgrades of our AMI head end platform in
support of business process and vendor product lifecycles, labor in support of upgrading
MV90 and TWACS in line with vendor product lifecycles, labor and professional
services for smaller applications in line with vendor product lifecycles. The timelines
for this work have been developed with the best information available today and
represent ideal scenarios. It is subject to change based on priorities, availability of shared
labor, and our ability to find appropriate professional services.

The new DIMP solution provides the following benefits:

 Additional transparency/clarity to Avista’s gas integrity investment decision
making process.
 Adds probabilistic modeling into the gas system and addresses whether the right
amount of capital is being employed in the business unit and helps identify the
higher risk, more immediate maintenance targets.
 Promotes capital efficiency in terms of obtaining the most stakeholder value for
each dollar spent by the company.
 Createslanguage commonality, that can be used across business units,
incorporating a riskbased approach, to better help understand and determine
investment priorities.
 Improves line of sight between business units and strategic objectives.

Currently, the implementation of DIMP is expected to result in a $200K annual
reduction in risk profile beginning in 2023.

Enhancements to Avista’s GIS applications is anticipated to provide the following
indirect labor savings (This is separate and unique from those benefits achieved under
the Atlas Program):

GIS Enhancements Annual Indirect Offset Potential
Estimated Number of Users 200
Estimated Efficiency per User 5 minutes per day
Estimated Usage Days per year 200
Standard Hourly Labor Rate $85.00
Estimated Percent of Users in WA 75%
Estimated Annual Indirect Labor Offset $212,500

Maximo Enhancements Annual Indirect Offset Potential
Estimated Number of Users 400
DocuSign Envelope ID: E2EF41A3-C2DE-4D1F-8843-DB1FB2F5C557
Exhibit No. 11 Case Nos. AVU-E-23-01/AVU-G-23-01 J. Kensok, Avista
Schedule 1, Page 198 of 304
Energy Delivery Modernization and Operational Efficiency
Business Case Justification Narrative Page 8 of 14
Estimated Efficiency per User 5 minutes per day
Estimated Usage Days per year 200
Standard Hourly Labor Rate $85.00
Estimated Percent of Users in WA 75%
Estimated Annual Indirect Labor Offset $425,000

AMI Enhancements Annual Indirect Offset Potential
Estimated Number of Users 60
Estimated Efficiency per User 15 minutes per day
Estimated Usage Days per year 150
Standard Hourly Labor Rate $85.00
Estimated Percent of Users in WA 75%
Estimated Annual Indirect Labor Offset $143,437

AMI, FCS and MV90 Upgrades. These are meter head end solutions meaning they collect
the reads from all the meters and distribute them to the billing solution. From time to time
these solutions require updates to keep them in-line with vendor roadmaps and to keep them
secure and stable (operational) on newer technologies (Database, Operating Systems,
Hardware). Instability of these systems can take days to resolve and require resources from
multiple disciplines including business analysts, technical analysts, DBA’s and Central
Systems engineers.

Meter Head End Upgrades Annual Indirect Offset Potential
Estimated Number of Users 5
Estimated Efficiency per User 480 minutes per day
Estimated Usage Days per year 9 3 faults per system
Standard Hourly Labor Rate $85.00
Estimated Percent of Users in WA 75%
Estimated Annual Indirect Labor Offset $22,950

Further, If these solutions were to become unavailable for longer periods, billing tasks would
require extensive manual intervention and put at risk the timely billing of customers and
result at minimum in substantial estimated billing. The AMI Riva solution supports over
400,000 customers and process over $2M billed daily. The MV90 solution, for our
commercial customers, supports 208 customers with over $2.3M billed daily. The FCS
solution currently supports approx. 158,000 customers and processes $490K daily.

Total Annual Indirect Labor Offset: $1,003,887

5 Year Estimated Direct and Indirect Savings: $5,019,435

DocuSign Envelope ID: E2EF41A3-C2DE-4D1F-8843-DB1FB2F5C557
Exhibit No. 11 Case Nos. AVU-E-23-01/AVU-G-23-01 J. Kensok, Avista
Schedule 1, Page 199 of 304
Energy Delivery Modernization and Operational Efficiency
Business Case Justification Narrative Page 9 of 14

2.3 Outline any business functions and processes that may be impacted (and
how) by the business case for it to be successfully implemented.
Each project and program within the EDMOE business case includes a business
process and stakeholder analysis to determine the organization change
management and training needs where necessary. This analysis is then used
to deliver communication to the stakeholders throughout the project or program
and where required is used to develop end user training.

2.4 Discuss the alternatives that were considered and any tangible risks and
mitigation strategies for each alternative.
Alternative 1 – Avista could choose to stop upgrading the solutions and run
them to the end of life of the current version. This would reduce the funding
needs to $13.6M dollars. The risk of this approach is that the vendors typically
require upgrades a minimum of every three years to keep them current with their
roadmaps. Running beyond three years would mean running on an unsupported
solution. This is true for application support from the vendors and is often in line
with the underlying technologies (operating systems, databases, switches,
security appliances, etc…). Running on unsupported vesions means Avista will
not be able to receive patching from the application vendors. Following this
approach would create both operational risk as well as cybersecurity risk for
each of the unsupported technogies. As Avista relies on these technologies to
support Energy Delivery operations, (both gas and electric), these operations
would be at high risk of moving to manual operations

Alternative 2 – Avista could choose to no longer support additional operational
efficiency work on the applications that support Energy Delivery operations.
These modern Commercial off the shelf (COTS) applications are highly
configurable to support the operational challenges of delivering energy to our
customers. Avista employs and/or contracts with developers to configure these
solutions to meet these challenges. An alternative to this approach would be to
no longer make these changes, locking in the solutions to a status quo. One risk
with this approach is Avista no longer has the ability to leverage the high initial
investment made in these solutions to find new efficiencies. Attempts to
leverage the solutions to ‘do more with less’ will not be possible. Another risk is
requests to modify the solutions to meet regulatory or compliance needs will
also go unanswered and will need to be solutioned outside the applications. A
third risk is that it is these same employees and/or contractors that perform the
upgrades and thus would not be available for that work. This risk is why the cost
of the this alternative is $15-$20M instead of only $9M as alternative resources,
(likely professional service contractors unfamiliar with our implemented
solutions), would need to be leveraged to perform timely upgrades for the
solutions.

DocuSign Envelope ID: E2EF41A3-C2DE-4D1F-8843-DB1FB2F5C557
Exhibit No. 11 Case Nos. AVU-E-23-01/AVU-G-23-01 J. Kensok, Avista
Schedule 1, Page 200 of 304
Energy Delivery Modernization and Operational Efficiency
Business Case Justification Narrative Page 10 of 14
2.5 Include a timeline of when this work will be started and completed.
Describe when the investments become used and useful to the customer.
spend, and transfers to plant by year.
The timelines shown in the table below for this work has been developed with
the best information available today and represent ideal scenarios. It is subject
to change based on priorities, availability of shared labor, our ability to find
appropriate professional services and current estimates of scope.

Projects/Progr
ams/Licenses 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027
ESRI ELA
(Licenses) Q1/2025
Schneider ELA
(Licenses) Q1/2025
ESRI Upgrade
Q1/2023-
Q4/2023
GIS
Enhancements
Q1/2023-
Q4/2023
Q1/2024-
Q4/2024
Q1/2025-
Q4/2025
Q1/2026-
Q4/2025
Q1/2027-
Q4/2027
Maximo
Enhancements
/Upgrade
Q1/2023-
Q4/2023
Q1/2024-
Q4/2024
Q1/2025-
Q4/2025
Q1/2026-
Q4/2026
Q1/2027-
Q4/2027
PI
Enhancements
/Upgrade

Q1/2023-
Q4/2023
Q1/2024-
Q4/2024
Q1/2025-
Q4/2025
Q1/2026-
Q4/2026
Q1/2027-
Q4/2027
AMI
Enhancements
/Upgrade
Q1/2023-
Q4/2023
Q1/2024-
Q4/2024
Q1/2025-
Q4/2025
Q1/2026-
Q4/2026
Q1/2027-
Q4/2027
MV90
Upgrade
Q1/2025-
Q4/2025
TWACS
Upgrade Q3/2026- Q2/2027
Service Suite
Upgrade

Q1/2023-
Q4/2023
Q1/2026-
Q4/2026
Q1/2027-
Q4/2027
Misc.
Upgrades
Q1/2023-
Q4/2023
Q1/2024-
Q4/2024
Q1/2025-
Q4/2025
Q1/2026-
Q4/2026
Q1/2027-
Q4/2027

DocuSign Envelope ID: E2EF41A3-C2DE-4D1F-8843-DB1FB2F5C557
Exhibit No. 11 Case Nos. AVU-E-23-01/AVU-G-23-01 J. Kensok, Avista
Schedule 1, Page 201 of 304
Energy Delivery Modernization and Operational Efficiency
Business Case Justification Narrative Page 11 of 14
2.6 Discuss how the proposed investment aligns with strategic vision, goals,
objectives and mission statement of the organization.

Avista has as its mission, to improve our customers lives through innovative
energy solutions: Safely, Reliably, Affordably. Avista has as its Focus Areas:
Our Customers, Our People, Perform, and Invent. This business case supports
the Technologies in the Energy Delivery Business area. Half of all our customer
contacts happen in the field as we work to service and deliver energy to meet
our customer needs. Every interaction is an opportunity to better our customers
lives through informed field workers who have the necessary information and
workflows to do their job. That being said, the strategy this work most aligns with
is Perform.

The systems that support these activities and are supported under this business
case include Maximo our Work and Asset Management system, GIS our
Geospatial Information System, and Mobile Dispatch/Service Suite our Mobile
Work Management system. These systems are highly leveraged to enable the
work our Field Workers perform for our customers and supports them doing so
safely, reliably and affordably.

This business case also supports our Metering systems – MV90, TWACS, Fixed
Network, and Itron RIVA. These systems are critical to obtaining our customers
meter reads for proper billing. PI is our Engineering Analytics platform that
collects sensor data from various distribution sensors including our Itron Riva
Meters, this data is used to analyze the performance of our distribution system
and to support making changes to improve efficiencies and identify anomalies
requiring correction.

In 2023, the new Distribution Integrity Management Plan (DIMP) tool is
scheduled to be completed. This plan is currently maintained by Avista’s Gas
Department and is a homegrown risk analysis tool used to address pipeline
integrity risk on its gas distribution system. The current tool lacks the capability
of being probabilistic in its risk assessment, a measure that increases
transparency and effectiveness in terms of addressing critical system needs.
Added to the business case for the year 2022 was the replacement of the
Current homegrown DIMP tool with a SaaS solution.

The new solution will provide probabilistic risk measures to the Gas Department
that are not currently available with the current DIMP risk model. It will promote
decision transparency and better ensure that dollars are being targeted towards
higher risk areas of the Gas business. Also, the Risk Model complements
existing efforts in Avista’s Asset Management to enhance the overall decision-
making process by promoting capital efficiency in the overall thought process.

DocuSign Envelope ID: E2EF41A3-C2DE-4D1F-8843-DB1FB2F5C557
Exhibit No. 11 Case Nos. AVU-E-23-01/AVU-G-23-01 J. Kensok, Avista
Schedule 1, Page 202 of 304
Energy Delivery Modernization and Operational Efficiency
Business Case Justification Narrative Page 12 of 14
2.7 Include why the requested amount above is considered a prudent
investment, providing or attaching any supporting documentation. In
addition, please explain how the investment prudency will be reviewed
and re-evaluated throughout the project.
Avista’s Energy Delivery and Shared Services technology systems are a
necessity, as they provide essential functions to our employees and customers
throughout all service territories. These vital systems require systematic
upgrades and enhancements in order to maintain reliability, compatibility, and
reduce security vulnerabilities.
This funding level will provide the appropriate technology and development to
meet the periodic upgrades and enhancements prioritized by the Energy
Delivery and Shared Services (ED) governance committee. This funding is
necessary to mitigate the risk of unsupported applications, security liability, and
significantly higher costs as a result of the deferment of upgrades and
enhancements, etc.
Investment prudency is reviewed by the Steering Committee(s) to ensure
alignment of initiatives through judiciously selected and implemented projects.
The funding requested as part of this program generally fits these initiatives and
are assigned to specific projects (with Steering Committee oversight) as they
are identified. Also, the Business Case owner will work with Steering
Committee(s) to set project priority and sequence over a five-year planning
period, subject to any additional funding changes as directed by the Capital
Planning Group (CPG). Each program and project steering committee meet
regularly to review the demand to ensure that it aligns with Avista’s strategies.
The Steering Committee oversees scope, schedule and budget within their
respective programs and projects and inform the Business Case owner of any
changes needing escalation to the Technology Planning Group (TPG) or CPG
for decision-making around resource or funding constraints.

2.8 Supplemental Information

2.8.1 Identify customers and stakeholders that interface with the business case
Customers will interface with the technology in this business case both
through their interactions with Avista personnel who will be using the
technologies and through map-based information that they will have
access to through online methods such as the Avista website.

2.8.2 Identify any related Business Cases
Atlas, ADMS
3.1 Steering Committee or Advisory Group Information
The EDMOE Business Case has three levels of governance: The Executive
Technology Steering Committee (ETSC), an Energy Delivery Director
Governance group and Project Steering Committees. The committees review
DocuSign Envelope ID: E2EF41A3-C2DE-4D1F-8843-DB1FB2F5C557
Exhibit No. 11 Case Nos. AVU-E-23-01/AVU-G-23-01 J. Kensok, Avista
Schedule 1, Page 203 of 304
Energy Delivery Modernization and Operational Efficiency
Business Case Justification Narrative Page 13 of 14
monthly project status reports, which identify project scope, schedule and
budget, as well as any risks and/or issues that the project team is currently
working on. The Energy Delivery Director Governance group reviews
roadmaps and funding levels.The EDMOE Program Team reports progress
monthly to the steering committees and other stakeholder groups.

3.2 Provide and discuss the governance processes and people that will
provide oversight
The Steering Committee for each project in the EDMOE business case will be
made up of stakeholders from across the functional business units affected and
Enterprise Technology.
3.3 How will decision-making, prioritization, and change requests be
documented and monitored
Monthly status reports to the steering committees will be used as the official
review and approval process for prioritization and changes request. Risks,
issues and changes requests will be documented in project logs and kept as
artifacts of each project within Enterprise Technology’s project management
software system.

The undersigned acknowledge they have reviewed the EDMOE Business Case and
agree with the approach it presents. Significant changes to this will be coordinated
with and approved by the undersigned or their designated representatives.

Signature: Date:
Print Name: Michael Mudge
Title: Manager of Application Delivery
Role: Business Case Owner

Signature: Date:
Print Name: Hossein Nikdel
Title: Director of Applications and
Systems Planning

Role: Business Case Sponsor

DocuSign Envelope ID: E2EF41A3-C2DE-4D1F-8843-DB1FB2F5C557
Sep-01-2022 | 4:40 PM PDT
Sep-01-2022 | 2:12 PM PDT
Exhibit No. 11 Case Nos. AVU-E-23-01/AVU-G-23-01 J. Kensok, Avista
Schedule 1, Page 204 of 304
Energy Delivery Modernization and Operational Efficiency
Business Case Justification Narrative Page 14 of 14
Signature: Date:
Print Name: Josh DiLuciano
Title: Director of Electric Engineering
Role: Steering Committee Review

Signature: Date:
Print Name: Heather Rosentrater
Title: Sr. VP Energy Delivery
Role: Business Case Sponsor

Template Version: 05/28/2020

DocuSign Envelope ID: E2EF41A3-C2DE-4D1F-8843-DB1FB2F5C557
Sep-02-2022 | 8:15 AM PDT
Sep-01-2022 | 3:16 PM PDT
Exhibit No. 11 Case Nos. AVU-E-23-01/AVU-G-23-01 J. Kensok, Avista
Schedule 1, Page 205 of 304
Energy Resources Modernization & Operational Efficiency
(ERMOE) Technology
Business Case Justification Narrative Template Version: 04.21.2022 Page 1 of 11

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Energy Resources Modernization and Operational Efficiency Technology Business Case
sponsors the technology related applications that support the Energy Resources business areas
operational and strategic initiatives. The Energy Resources business area includes applications
associated primarily with Power Supply, Gas Supply, Generation Production Substation Support
(GPSS), and Environmental. Avista’s Energy Resources technology systems are a necessity, as
they provide essential functions to our customers throughout all service territories. These vital
systems require systematic upgrades and enhancements in order to maintain reliability,
compatibility, and reduce security vulnerabilities.

This business case is necessary to fund the portfolio of components that maintain the applications
and licenses necessary to meet internal and external business processes and objectives, as well
as strategic focus areas. In order to maintain these business processes and systems supported
by this business case, the recommended funding amount is $15,492,400 over the next five years
(roughly $2.9M to $3.3M per year). This funding level will provide the appropriate technology and
development to meet the periodic upgrades and enhancements prioritized by the Energy
Resources governance committee. This funding level also considers the development staff
required to maintain these core technology solutions.

The technology systems and processes funded within this business case strengthens our ability
to perform, which impacts our capacity to continuously improve the generation and delivery of
safe, reliable, clean, affordable electric and natural gas services to our customers. If this business
case is not funded at the recommended level, it will risk the reduction of skilled resources that
have institutional business process and technical knowledge, as well as our employees,
customers, and compliance through the deferment of upgrades and enhancements, resulting in
unsupported applications, security liability, and significantly higher costs.

This Business Case plan was created by the Business Case Owner, Domain Architect, Product
Owner, Business Technology Analyst, and the ET Project Management Office, and approved by
the Energy Resources Governance Team (includes Business Sponsor, Director and Managers
within Energy Resources).

VERSION HISTORY
Version Author Description Date Notes
Draft Leianne Raymond Initial draft of original business case 06/23/22 Added new info per BCAT

DocuSign Envelope ID: 06D927E7-E328-45B3-BE31-B361D1079C8F
Exhibit No. 11 Case Nos. AVU-E-23-01/AVU-G-23-01 J. Kensok, Avista
Schedule 1, Page 206 of 304
Energy Resources Modernization & Operational Efficiency
(ERMOE) Technology
Business Case Justification Narrative Template Version: 04.21.2022 Page 2 of 11
GENERAL INFORMATION

1. BUSINESS PROBLEM
1.1 What is the current or potential problem that is being addressed?
This program is required to support the application-related technology initiatives for all
areas within Energy Resources. These areas include Power Supply, Gas Supply,
Generation Production Substation Support (GPSS), and Environmental.
Application refresh projects are necessary due to the continuous requirement to provide
updates, upgrades and/or replacements on existing Energy Resources applications, as
they are required to respond to changing business needs and/or technical
obsolescence. Application refreshes/upgrades are essential in order to remain current,
maintain compatibility, reliability, and address security vulnerabilities.
Application expansion projects result from demand related to transformations in the
utility and continuous technology progression required to achieve operational
efficiencies and strategic objectives. Recent trends in the areas of mobility, scalability,
and employee experience, require technological expansion of conventional business
practices and processes.
1.2 Discuss the major drivers of the business case and the benefits to the
customer
The primary investment driver for the Energy Resources Business Program is
Performance and Capacity.
Many of the applications and respective projects in this Business Case provide direct
support to Avista customers, while the remaining provide many indirect benefits.

Some benefits to upgrades and enhancements to these systems include:
• Promoting Risk Management
• Utilizing technology to make more informed decisions
• Sharing generation resources to provide a more efficient use of renewable
energy at the lowest available cost
• Advancing the ‘Innovation and Performance’ focus
• Increasing productivity and efficiency
• Maintaining compliance with all FERC, NERC, and FCC rules
Requested Spend Amount $15,492,000
Requested Spend Time Period 5 years
Requesting Organization/Department Energy Resources
Business Case Owner | Sponsor Brian Hoerner | Scott Kinney
Sponsor Organization/Department Enterprise Technology
Phase Execution
Category Program
Driver Performance & Capacity
DocuSign Envelope ID: 06D927E7-E328-45B3-BE31-B361D1079C8F
Exhibit No. 11 Case Nos. AVU-E-23-01/AVU-G-23-01 J. Kensok, Avista
Schedule 1, Page 207 of 304
Energy Resources Modernization & Operational Efficiency
(ERMOE) Technology
Business Case Justification Narrative Template Version: 04.21.2022 Page 3 of 11
1.3 Identify why this work is needed now and what risks there are if not
approved or is deferred
The projects and initiatives listed above position Avista to adapt and respond to the
increasing complex and technical industry behaviors and trends. They also provide
functional enhancements that address ongoing changes in the workplace, provide
increased employee efficiency through the reduction of steps required to complete a
task, and make better use of Avista resources. They shift costs from inefficient
processes to more value-driven activities.
The primary alternative to these projects is to use existing systems as-is and to not put
new systems in place. This perpetuates inefficiencies as employees are less efficient
and effective.
Working through these projects as suggested, reduces Avista’s overall risk exposure
by ensuring Avista is using funds in the most cost-efficient manner and by maintaining
a culture of performance and innovation, which has a positive impact on our employees
and customers.

1.4 Identify any measures that can be used to determine whether the
investment would successfully deliver on the objectives and address the
need listed above.
The Energy Resources business team utilizes technology as a critical component to
meeting their strategic objectives. Some success measurements would include risk
avoidance, system reporting, and better forecasting results.
Constraints and risks are possible and would hinder the delivery of the outlined
objectives. In these circumstances, the Business Case owner would work with Steering
Committee(s) to set project priority and sequence, subject to any additional funding
changes as directed by the Capital Planning Group (CPG). Each program and project
Steering Committee meets regularly to review the demand to ensure that it aligns with
Avista’s strategies. The Steering Committee oversees scope, schedule and budget
within their respective programs and projects and inform the Business Case owner of
any changes needing escalation to the Technology Planning Group (TPG) or CPG for
decision-making around resource or funding constraints.

1.5 Supplemental Information
1.5.1 Please reference and summarize any studies that support the problem
NA
1.5.2 For asset replacement, include graphical or narrative representation of metrics
associated with the current condition of the asset that is proposed for
replacement.
NA
2. PROPOSAL AND RECOMMENDED SOLUTION
Option Capital Cost Start Complete
Recommended Solution $15,492,000 01 2023 12 2027
DocuSign Envelope ID: 06D927E7-E328-45B3-BE31-B361D1079C8F
Exhibit No. 11 Case Nos. AVU-E-23-01/AVU-G-23-01 J. Kensok, Avista
Schedule 1, Page 208 of 304
Energy Resources Modernization & Operational Efficiency
(ERMOE) Technology
Business Case Justification Narrative Template Version: 04.21.2022 Page 4 of 11
Alternative #1 – Reduce OPC Expansion $14,300,000 01 2023 12 2027
The recommended solution to ensure that Energy Resources can meet these initiatives and
respective timelines over the next five years, is to follow the recommended application refresh
and expansion requirements for Energy Resources applications. The requested allocation is
based primarily on compatibility, reliability, security, adaptability, and safety. Additional
criteria considers maintaining operational efficiencies and aligning with strategic objectives.
Conventional business practices and processes must be scalable, provide mobility, and focus
on the employee and customer experience.
The project roadmap for the next five years includes refreshing and/or expansion initiatives
made possible by these core Energy Resources systems
• Energy Risk Management and Energy Trading – Managing Avista’s collection of
energy assets, asset position, and relationships within the various energy markets.
Supported applications include:
o Avista Decision Support System (ADSS) – Forecasting and decision support
for Energy Traders and Planners, developed and maintained by Avista.
(NOTE: The ADSS development is funded via its own business case through
2022. Only enhancements and updates in 2022 and beyond are included
here.)
o Nucleus – An energy risk management and energy trading tool enhanced and
maintained by Avista, captures all wholesale energy transactions, including
significant metering data and forward pricing curves, provides data for tracking
energy positions, credit monitoring, compliance reporting, financial reporting,
accounting, and market drivers..
• Gas Forecasting – Understanding the supply, demand, and market influences on
natural gas volume and prices. Supported applications include:
o Nostradamus – An off-the-shelf industry solution used in gas forecasting.
• Work Management / Project Management – Asset management, preventative/
unplanned work management, and construction project/portfolio management for
Generation Production and Substation Support (GPSS). Supported applications
include:
o Maximo for GPSS – Work and Asset Management utilizing modules of
Maximo, an off-the-shelf industry solution provided by IBM and used in various
Avista business units.
o Oracle Primavera (P6) – Enterprise Project and Portfolio Management tool
used for project portfolio management, scheduling, risk analysis, and
collaboration., provided by Oracle.
• Generation Plant and Substation Operations – Control and monitoring of
operations at all plants and substations from a single location. Supported applications
include:
o Ignition (replacing Wonderware) – An off-the-shelf industry solution under the
Human Machine Interface (HMI) called Ignition that handles control and
monitoring of most Avista generation and substation locations.
o Stackvision - Software that is used for monitoring the stack emissions at the
Rathdrum Combustion Turbine.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 06D927E7-E328-45B3-BE31-B361D1079C8F
Exhibit No. 11 Case Nos. AVU-E-23-01/AVU-G-23-01 J. Kensok, Avista
Schedule 1, Page 209 of 304
Energy Resources Modernization & Operational Efficiency
(ERMOE) Technology
Business Case Justification Narrative Template Version: 04.21.2022 Page 5 of 11
• Fuel Inventory Management – Management of Avista’s biomass fuel (in the form of
logging and mill wood waste) at its Kettle Falls thermal plant. Supported applications
include:
o WeighWiz – Part of an off-the-shelf Log Inventory and Management
System (LIMS) dedicated to timber and wood products procurement and
management
• Licensing / Cross-Functional / Other – Not every project fits nicely into one of the
initiatives above. Some are cross-functional, and some are simply good ideas that
continue to improve upon Avista’s workplace (OATI / Gurobi).
Upcoming technology-related initiatives for the Energy Resources business area include the
continuous improvements to work management processes via the Maximo Anywhere
application, HMI (Ignition) enhancements to optimize the generation and substation
monitoring, and the utilization and optimization of the Oracle Primavera Cloud Project and
Portfolio Management Unifier tool, and Plexos (ABB Sendout System Replacement)
implemented in 2021. This business case will support these initiatives along with required
refresh projects.
These projects are within industry norms for like-sized Energy Resources departments within
like-sized utilities and are accepted and widely adopted approaches used within the energy
industry.
Capturing every detail of every project over the course of the next five years is not possible.
This is part of why the Steering Committee exists – to help propel Avista forward in its
initiatives through intelligently selected and implemented projects. The funding requested as
part of this program generally fits these initiatives and will be assigned to specific projects
(with Steering Committee oversight) as they are identified.

2.1 Describe what metrics, data, analysis or information was considered when
preparing this capital request.
As part of the 5-year planning process, Enterprise Technology and the Energy
Resources department leaders meet to review the technology demand that is derived
from maintaining the current ‘core’ systems currently in place, as well as enhancements
or new technology that enables the business to meet their strategic initiatives.
These estimates were developed based on the historical trends for enhancement work
(Nucleus, Maximo & ADSS), and the product roadmaps for upgrades and licensing
renewals, as well as high-level estimates for new product technologies. High level
estimates are collected by the business level subject matter expert(s), technology
domain architect(s), and delivery management team(s). The schedule was developed
with the most recently available information and is subject to change pending risks,
competing priorities, dependencies, etc.

2.2 Discuss how the requested capital cost amount will be spent in the current
year (or future years if a multi-year or ongoing initiative). Include any
known or estimated reductions to O&M as a result of this investment.
Due to budget constraints within ET Applications and the Energy Resources Business
Case over the past couple of years, the majority of 2023 will be focused on ensuring
we are as current as we need to be to maintain support, compatibility, reliability, and
DocuSign Envelope ID: 06D927E7-E328-45B3-BE31-B361D1079C8F
Exhibit No. 11 Case Nos. AVU-E-23-01/AVU-G-23-01 J. Kensok, Avista
Schedule 1, Page 210 of 304
Energy Resources Modernization & Operational Efficiency
(ERMOE) Technology
Business Case Justification Narrative Template Version: 04.21.2022 Page 6 of 11
security. After 2023, the goal is to maintain that standard, while moving toward more
strategic objectives and potentially replacing some outdated systems to create
efficiencies and cost savings. Many of the enhancements planned will create significant
value quantitatively and qualitatively, such as the 5 Year unlimited Gurobi licenses that
reduce O&M in future years, as well as the need to purchase additional licenses (only
the renewal).
There are some direct savings through the Avista Decision Support System (ADSS),
although direct savings are difficult to explicitly define for applications like
ADSS. Academic and industry estimates are for between a 2% and 10% gain derived
from more efficient (productive) utilization of existing generation assets. Estimates
such as this one, and anecdotal internal analyses using ADSS technology in other ways
(e.g., portfolio maintenance planning, accurate price bidding in Energy Imbalance
Market (EIM), more informed decisions when acquiring new resources), indicate the
likely potential to save more annually than has or will be spent over the life of the
technology. Therefore, we cannot reasonably quantify exact direct savings, however
most of the benefits associated with ADSS are already incorporated into the power
supply baseline expense determination by including resource optimization revenue,
EIM benefits and California optimization revenue in the baseline calculation per the
agreed upon stakeholder methodology. The strategy for and ability to achieve benefits
associated with resource optimization, California day ahead trading, and EIM resource
bidding is contingent upon ADSS optimization solutions. Since these offsets are
already included as offsets in power supply expense, they are not additive, but the
potential savings are provided below as potential indirect savings.

There are several categories of indirect savings that could arise from the Avista Decision
Support System (ADSS), such as the following:
• Commodity Energy Savings - The value of the commodity energy supplying Avista’s
retail load for the 12 months ending September 2021, at Mid-C wholesale market
prices, was over $400 million. The savings then, using the 2% to 10% metric shared
above, ranges between $8 and $40 million per year by being more efficient.
• Maintenance Planning and Scheduling - Avista for decades has worked to bring more
analytics to maintenance planning for its generation portfolio. Although additional
ADSS enhancements are necessary before the full-fledged analytical ADSS
Maintenance Planner module can be deployed, early beta tests have shown savings
between $0.5-$4.0 million per year, depending on the complexity and number of
maintenance projects being completed in a given year. The original business case
justification for the Maintenance Planner module (expected to be completed in 2022-
2023) was based on annual estimated savings of $1.5 million.
• EIM Bidding - Bidding into the Western EIM program entails an entirely new level of
interaction in wholesale markets. Avista decided to enter the EIM because our other
trading partners were doing increasingly more of their intra-day business in the EIM,
starving the NW hourly market of liquidity we have relied upon for decades to meet
our load obligations reliably. Greatly less and falling NW real-time liquidity also
compromises our ability to maximize the value of our portfolio. Besides having to work
with EIM 5-minute market windows where in the past the market time step was hourly,
the Company never needed to create detailed price curves for all of its assets for every
bidding period. Although no specific estimates have been developed for ADSS’
contribution in the EIM effort to date, its base schedule creation and Bidding module
provide more accuracy and less staff effort than a manual process. The mid-point
DocuSign Envelope ID: 06D927E7-E328-45B3-BE31-B361D1079C8F
Exhibit No. 11 Case Nos. AVU-E-23-01/AVU-G-23-01 J. Kensok, Avista
Schedule 1, Page 211 of 304
Energy Resources Modernization & Operational Efficiency
(ERMOE) Technology
Business Case Justification Narrative Template Version: 04.21.2022 Page 7 of 11
range of overall EIM savings included in our 2020 Washington GRC was nearly $6
million annually and was included in the power supply expense baseline calculation.
• Planning Studies - ADSS has a unique ability to support resource planning in that it
can re-optimize system operations when system conditions change. This enables
robust scenario analysis. For example, ADSS allows Avista to model an historical year
of operations but change inflows to our reservoirs, add new units or create entirely
new power plants to see their detailed impacts on system costs and reliability. We can
perform variable energy resource integration cost studies, and model how our system
value changes when we have changing data or an opportunity/obligation to upgrade a
facility. Further, with its detailed representations, the value of ancillary services can
be valued differently among resources and the entirety of the portfolio.

Quantified indirect savings (total estimate) is $85 - $410 million, assuming a 10-year
software life
2.3 Outline any business functions and processes that may be impacted (and
how) by the business case for it to be successfully implemented.
The function of Energy Resources and associated technology is critical to Avista’s
ability to function. Although there is not a direct touchpoint within every area of the
company, the ability for this business area and job functions to succeed, is dependent
on the understanding and support of Avista’s employees and contractors.
This Business Case intends to grow significantly with many of the major initiatives and
new technologies that will be supported under Energy Resources. (ADSS, HMI).

2.4 Discuss the alternatives that were considered and any tangible risks and
mitigation strategies for each alternative.
Alternative #1 – Reduce Oracle Primavera Cloud (OPC) Expansion

Reducing funding for OPC would hinder the performance and capacity needed to
sustain automated business processes and efficiencies gains. This tool is critical
for managing Avista’s complex construction projects that the Generation and
Substation teams manage. Without the expanded features of the unified toolset, the
ability to get to the level of resource allocation, planning, and optimization needed
to better forecast, improve cost management, and stakeholder value is at risk.
Inconsistency and inefficiencies would continue to surface, as well as conflicting
project and prioritization efforts.

2.5 Include a timeline of when this work will be started and completed.
Describe when the investments become used and useful to the customer.
This is a program with discrete projects and packages that typically run annually and
Transfer to Plant within that same year. There are times that a project may start in
Q3/Q4 of one year and Transfer to Plant the following year. Typically, application
projects will Transfer to Plant about 60 days prior to the project completion date (due
to the post implementation warranty period and to capture the trailing charges).
The goal is to break out large/complex projects into smaller projects (phases) to avoid
scope creep, budget overages, and ensure the work can be properly prioritized. The
first phase of every project would be scoped at the Minimum Viable Product (MVP),
DocuSign Envelope ID: 06D927E7-E328-45B3-BE31-B361D1079C8F
Exhibit No. 11 Case Nos. AVU-E-23-01/AVU-G-23-01 J. Kensok, Avista
Schedule 1, Page 212 of 304
Energy Resources Modernization & Operational Efficiency
(ERMOE) Technology
Business Case Justification Narrative Template Version: 04.21.2022 Page 8 of 11
and subsequent phases would be scoped accordingly, based on the next highest
priority after MVP. This also allows for more accurate Transfer to Plant forecasts.
2.6 Discuss how the proposed investment aligns with strategic vision, goals,
objectives and mission statement of the organization.
This is a program with discrete projects and packages that align with Avista’s vision,
mission and strategic objectives:
• To provide Better Energy for Life, you need Power and Gas Supply and Generation.
The Energy Resources team is dedicated to the safe and reliable systems that are
necessary to meet Avista’s vision.
• To improve our customers’ lives through innovative energy solutions, we also need
to have technology systems and processes that ensure we are making good
decisions, and consistently improving our ability to provide power utilizing
innovative technology that enables safety, reliability, and is cost effective.
2.7 Include why the requested amount above is considered a prudent
investment, providing or attaching any supporting documentation. In
addition, please explain how the investment prudency will be reviewed
and re-evaluated throughout the project
Avista’s Energy Resources technology systems are a necessity, as they provide
essential functions to Avista. These vital systems require systematic upgrades and
enhancements in order to maintain reliability, compatibility, and reduce security
vulnerabilities.
This funding level will provide the appropriate technology and development to meet the
periodic upgrades and enhancements prioritized by the Energy Resources and
Enterprise Technology (ET) governance committee. This funding is necessary to
mitigate the risk of unsupported applications, security liability, and significantly higher
costs as a result of the deferment of upgrades and enhancements.
Investment prudency is reviewed by the Steering Committee to ensure alignment of
initiatives through judiciously selected and implemented projects. The funding
requested as part of this program generally fits these initiatives and are assigned to
specific projects (with Steering Committee oversight) as they are identified. Also, the
Business Case owner will work with Steering Committee(s) to set project priority and
sequence over a five-year planning period, subject to any additional funding changes
as directed by the Capital Planning Group (CPG). Each program and project steering
committee meets regularly to review the demand to ensure that it aligns with Avista’s
strategies. The Steering Committee oversees scope, schedule and budget within their
respective programs and projects and inform the Business Case owner of any changes
needing escalation to the Technology Planning Group (TPG) or CPG for decision-
making around resource or funding constraints.
2.8 Supplemental Information

2.8.1 Identify customers and stakeholders that interface with the business case
The Energy Resources Steering Committee members include Business Case
Sponsors, Directors and Managers within Energy Resources, Finance, and the
Enterprise Technology (ET) Business Case Owner.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 06D927E7-E328-45B3-BE31-B361D1079C8F
Exhibit No. 11 Case Nos. AVU-E-23-01/AVU-G-23-01 J. Kensok, Avista
Schedule 1, Page 213 of 304
Energy Resources Modernization & Operational Efficiency
(ERMOE) Technology
Business Case Justification Narrative Template Version: 04.21.2022 Page 9 of 11
The ET Business Case Owner works in conjunction with the Product Owners,
Project Management Office (PMO), assigned Program Manager, and subsequent
Project Managers. The Business Technology Analyst (BTA) is also engaged at all
levels and serves as a liaison between ET and Energy Resources.
The ET Business Case Owner is accountable and responsible for all Business
Case related activities and assignments, but the Energy Resources team is
regularly consulted, informed as this directly impacts Energy Resources
stakeholders. This model is conducive to a strong partnership, which is key to
managing all of the dynamic intricacies throughout the course of the budget year.

2.8.2 Identify any related Business Cases
This Business Case is a program that has been functioning for the last 6 years
(prior to 2017, the majority of these projects were in the Technology Refresh and
Technology Expansion Business Cases).

3. MONITOR AND CONTROL
3.1 Steering Committee or Advisory Group Information
The Energy Resources Steering Committee members include Business Case
Sponsors, Directors and Managers within Energy Resources, and the Business Case
Owner.
3.2 Provide and discuss the governance processes and people that will
provide oversight
The Energy Resources Business Case has four levels of governance: The Executive
Technology Steering Committee (ETSC); Technology Planning Group (TPG) of
Directors; Integrated Oversight Committee (IOC), and Program/Project Steering
Committees. Applicable stakeholders and disciplines meet regularly to govern the
business case and subsequent programs and projects.
The IOC evaluates and compares all of the application portfolio project priorities on a
weekly basis, utilizing risk, capacity, and other situational factors to ensure each
planned project is meeting critical milestones. The TPG sets priority across the
technology investment portfolio, balancing: strategic alignment, business value, and
customer benefits, as driven by the strategic initiatives established by the ETSC. The
Capital Planning Group (CPG), an independent body, establishes funding allocations
for each Business Case across the enterprise.
The Business Case is largely limited by the funding allocation and resource capacity
(staff) to meet its goals. The funding is generally established at the Business Case level
by the CPG. The resource capacity constraint is generally managed by the TPG and
the Business Case owner. Once the two constraints are established, the Business
Case owner will work with steering committee(s) to set project priority and sequence
over a five-year planning period, subject to additional funding changes as directed by
the CPG.

DocuSign Envelope ID: 06D927E7-E328-45B3-BE31-B361D1079C8F
Exhibit No. 11 Case Nos. AVU-E-23-01/AVU-G-23-01 J. Kensok, Avista
Schedule 1, Page 214 of 304
Energy Resources Modernization & Operational Efficiency
(ERMOE) Technology
Business Case Justification Narrative Template Version: 04.21.2022 Page 10 of 11
3.3 How will decision-making, prioritization, and change requests be
documented and monitored
Project prioritization is evaluated by the management team on a weekly basis through
the IOC. Each program and project steering committee meets regularly and oversees
scope, schedule and budget within their respective programs and projects and inform
the Business Case owner of any changes needing escalation to the TPG or CPG for
decision-making around resource or funding constraints.
Any changes in funding or scope are documented at the Business Case level, via
Change Request document that is presented to the CPG on a monthly basis and
evaluated by the CPG for approval.
Changes in scope, schedule, or budget are also documented through a ‘Change
Request’ at the project level and reviewed and approved through a formal workflow
process. All Enterprise technology projects in this business case are managed through
the PMO, which follows the Project Management Institute (PMI) standards. Projects
initiate with a ‘Charter’ to begin the planning process. When planning is complete, a
‘Project Management Plan (PMP)’ is created and approved as the projects baseline for
scope, schedule and budget. At the end of execution, an ‘Approval to Go Live’ is
submitted and approved prior to implementation (Transfer to Plant). After the
technology is in service and out of the warranty period, the Project Manager will hold a
Lessons Learned, and subsequently submit an ‘Approval to Close’ prior to finishing the
project. All Monitor and Control documentation and Change Requests are documented
and stored to ensure a comprehensive audit trail.

4. APPROVAL AND AUTHORIZATION
The undersigned acknowledge they have reviewed the Energy Resources Modernization
and Operational Efficiency Business Case and agree with the approach it presents.
Significant changes to this will be coordinated with and approved by the undersigned or
their designated representatives.

Signature: Date:
Print Name: Brian Hoerner
Title: Manager, Application Delivery
Role: Business Case Owner

Signature: Date:
Print Name: Scott Kinney
Title: VP, Energy Resources
Role: Business Case Sponsor
DocuSign Envelope ID: 06D927E7-E328-45B3-BE31-B361D1079C8F
Sep-01-2022 | 2:54 PM PDT
Sep-01-2022 | 4:24 PM PDT
Exhibit No. 11 Case Nos. AVU-E-23-01/AVU-G-23-01 J. Kensok, Avista
Schedule 1, Page 215 of 304
Energy Resources Modernization & Operational Efficiency
(ERMOE) Technology
Business Case Justification Narrative Template Version: 04.21.2022 Page 11 of 11

Signature: Date:
Print Name: Alexis Alexander
Title: Director, Gen. Prod. Sub. Support
Role: Business Case Governance

Signature: Date:
Print Name: Hossein Nikdel
Title: Director, Applications & System Planning
Role: Business Case Governance

DocuSign Envelope ID: 06D927E7-E328-45B3-BE31-B361D1079C8F
Sep-01-2022 | 4:42 PM PDT
Exhibit No. 11 Case Nos. AVU-E-23-01/AVU-G-23-01 J. Kensok, Avista
Schedule 1, Page 216 of 304
Finance and Accounting (FAT) Technology
Business Case Justification Narrative Template Version: 04.21.2022 Page 1 of 11

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Finance and Accounting Technology Business Case sponsors the financial applications that
are critical to Avista’s financial health, regulatory compliance, and supports the business areas
operational and strategic initiatives.

The Finance and Accounting business areas include Financial Planning & Analysis, Corporate
Accounting, Utility Accounting, Revenue-Financial Systems, Accounts Payable, Remittance,
Resource Accounting, EIM Settlements, Risk Management, Treasury, and Tax Services. Avista’s
Finance and Accounting technology systems are a necessity as they provide essential functions
to our employees and customers throughout all service territories. These vital systems require
systematic upgrades and enhancements in order to maintain reliability, compatibility, and reduce
security vulnerabilities.

This business case is necessary to fund the portfolio of components that maintain the applications
and licenses necessary to meet internal and external business processes and objectives, as well
as strategic focus areas. In order to maintain these business processes and systems supported
by this business case, the recommended funding amount is $14,365,000 over the next five years
(roughly $2.6M to $3.6M per year). This funding level will provide the appropriate technology and
development resources to meet the periodic upgrades and enhancements prioritized by the
Finance and Accounting governance committee. This funding level also considers the
development staff required to maintain these core technology solutions.

The technology systems and processes funded within this business case strengthens our ability
to perform, which impacts our capacity to achieve stated financial objectives through focused cost
management, timely rate recovery, business transformation, and unregulated business
development. If this business case if not funded at the recommended level, it will risk the reduction
of skilled resources that have institutional business process and technical knowledge, as well as
our employees, customers, and compliance through the deferment of upgrades and
enhancements, resulting in unsupported applications, security liability, and significantly higher
costs.

This Business Case plan was created by the Business Case Owner, Domain Architect, Product
Owner, Business Technology Analyst, and the ET Project Management Office and approved by
the Finance and accounting Governance Team (includes Business Sponsor, Director and
Managers within Finance and accounting).

VERSION HISTORY
Version Author Description Date Notes
Draft Leianne Raymond Initial draft of original business case 06/27/22 Added new info per BCAT

DocuSign Envelope ID: 66FD890B-C3AC-4D1D-AAE8-72D611BA2995
Exhibit No. 11 Case Nos. AVU-E-23-01/AVU-G-23-01 J. Kensok, Avista
Schedule 1, Page 217 of 304
Finance and Accounting (FAT) Technology
Business Case Justification Narrative Template Version: 04.21.2022 Page 2 of 11
GENERAL INFORMATION

1. BUSINESS PROBLEM
1.1 What is the current or potential problem that is being addressed?
This program is required to support the application-related technology initiatives for all
areas within Finance and Accounting. These areas include Financial Planning &
Analysis, Corporate Accounting, Utility Accounting, Revenue-Financial Systems,
Accounts Payable, Remittance, Resource Accounting, EIM Settlements, Risk
Management, Treasury, and Tax Services.
Application refresh projects are necessary due to the continuous requirement to provide
updates, upgrades and/or replacements on existing Finance and Accounting
applications, as they are required to respond to changing business needs and/or
technical obsolescence. Application refreshes/upgrades are essential in order to remain
current, maintain compatibility, reliability, and address security vulnerabilities.
Application expansion projects result from demand related to transformations in the
utility and continuous technology progression required to achieve operational
efficiencies and strategic objectives. Recent trends in the areas of mobility, scalability,
and employee experience, require technological expansion of conventional business
practices and processes.

1.2 Discuss the major drivers of the business case and the benefits to the
customer
The primary investment driver for the Finance and Accounting Business Program is
Performance and Capacity. A secondary investment driver, nearly as important as the
first, is Asset Condition.
Many of the applications and respective component projects in this Business Case
provide indirect support to Avista customers. The lifecycle management of the
applications are also critical to maintain supportability and performance. These
lifecycles are largely dictated by the technology solutions that we use. All of this work is
being done to enable efficiencies, reduce risk and allow Avista to best serve our internal
and external customers. Without properly managed business processes or lifecycles of
these applications, our customers would potentially see difficulty in our ability to report
Requested Spend Amount $14,365,000
Requested Spend Time Period 5 years
Requesting Organization/Department Finance and Accounting
Business Case Owner | Sponsor Graham Smith | Ryan Krasselt
Sponsor Organization/Department Enterprise Technology
Phase Execution
Category Program
Driver Performance & Capacity
DocuSign Envelope ID: 66FD890B-C3AC-4D1D-AAE8-72D611BA2995
Exhibit No. 11 Case Nos. AVU-E-23-01/AVU-G-23-01 J. Kensok, Avista
Schedule 1, Page 218 of 304
Finance and Accounting (FAT) Technology
Business Case Justification Narrative Template Version: 04.21.2022 Page 3 of 11
company financials, which could jeopardize our ability to access capital markets and
impair customers’ ability to trust our integrity, and the reliability of services that we
provide.

1.3 Identify why this work is needed now and what risks there are if not
approved or is deferred
The projects and initiatives listed above provide functional enhancements that address
ongoing changes in the workplace, provide increased employee efficiency through the
reduction of steps required to complete a task, and make better use of Avista resources.
They shift costs from inefficient processes to more value-driven activities.
The primary alternative to these projects is to use existing systems as-is and to not
upgrade systems that are in place. This perpetuates inefficiencies as employees are
not able to take advantage of advancements in the solution and lack relevant tools to
make effective business decisions.
Working through these projects as suggested, reduces Avista’s overall risk exposure
by ensuring Avista is using funds in the most cost-efficient manner and by maintaining
a culture of performance and innovation, which has a positive impact on our employees
and customers.

1.4 Identify any measures that can be used to determine whether the
investment would successfully deliver on the objectives and address the
need listed above.
The Finance and Accounting Business team utilizes technology as a critical component
to meeting their strategic objectives. Some success measurements would include
financial forecasting, cost management, rate recovery and labor efficiencies. In these
circumstances, the Business Case owner would work with Steering Committee(s) to
set project priority and sequence, subject to any additional funding changes as directed
by the Capital Planning Group (CPG). Each program and project Steering Committee
meets regularly to review the demand to ensure that it aligns with Avista’s strategies.
The Steering Committee oversees scope, schedule and budget within their respective
programs and projects and inform the Business Case owner of any changes needing
escalation to the Technology Planning Group (TPG) or CPG for decision-making
around resource or funding constraints.

1.5 Supplemental Information
1.5.1 Please reference and summarize any studies that support the problem
NA
DocuSign Envelope ID: 66FD890B-C3AC-4D1D-AAE8-72D611BA2995
Exhibit No. 11 Case Nos. AVU-E-23-01/AVU-G-23-01 J. Kensok, Avista
Schedule 1, Page 219 of 304
Finance and Accounting (FAT) Technology
Business Case Justification Narrative Template Version: 04.21.2022 Page 4 of 11
1.5.2 For asset replacement, include graphical or narrative representation of metrics
associated with the current condition of the asset that is proposed for
replacement.
NA

2. PROPOSAL AND RECOMMENDED SOLUTION
Option Capital Cost Start Complete
Recommended Solution $15,492,000 01 2023 12 2027
• Alternative #1 – funding at lower amount $12,500,000 01 2023 12 2027
The recommended solution to ensure that Finance and Accounting can meet these initiatives
and respective timelines over the next five years, is to follow the recommended application
refresh and expansion requirements for their business applications. The requested allocation
is based primarily on compatibility, reliability, security, and safety. Additional criteria
considers maintaining operational efficiencies and aligning with strategic objectives.
Conventional business practices and processes must be scalable, provide mobility, and focus
on the employee and customer experience.
The project roadmap for the next five years includes refreshing and/or expansion initiatives
made possible by these core Finance and Accounting systems:
2023 2024 2025 2026 2027
PowerPlan Tax & FA
Upgrade
Debt Database
Replacement
PowerPlan Tax & FA
(SaaS)
PowerPlan Tax & FA
(SaaS) cont.
PowerPlan Core
Accounting (SaaS)
Revenue Modeling &
Forecasting Ph. 1
Revenue Modeling &
Forecasting Ph. 2
Revenue Modeling &
Forecasting Enh.
Robotics Process
Automation
Oracle EBS to SaaS
APx Evaluation APx Replacement Robotics Process
Automation
EPBCS Upgrade /
Expansion
Robotics Process
Automation
EPBCS Upgrade /
Expansion
Oracle EBS Upgrade Oracle EBS Upgrade
cont.
UI Planner Replace EPBCS Upgrade /
Expansion
EBS/PP Expansion EBS/PP Expansion EBS/PP Expansion EBS/PP Expansion EBS/PP Expansion
UI Planner Upgrade Extract DB
Replacement
UI Planner Upgrade
Extract DB
Replacement cont.
.

These upcoming technology-related initiatives for the Finance and Accounting business area
include the continuous improvements to Oracle EBS and PowerPlan, including upgrading to
a Software as a Service (SaaS) model within the 5-year roadmap. There is also the demand
to upgrade the budgeting system (EPBCS) and replace the current Debt and Extract
Databases, as the existing processes are manual and inefficient. There are also plans for
mechanization that will enable technology to manage processes that can be automated and
save labor costs.
These projects are within industry norms for like-sized Finance and Accounting departments
within like-sized utilities and are accepted and widely adopted approaches used within the
energy industry. This is part of why the Steering Committee exists – to help propel Avista
DocuSign Envelope ID: 66FD890B-C3AC-4D1D-AAE8-72D611BA2995
Exhibit No. 11 Case Nos. AVU-E-23-01/AVU-G-23-01 J. Kensok, Avista
Schedule 1, Page 220 of 304
Finance and Accounting (FAT) Technology
Business Case Justification Narrative Template Version: 04.21.2022 Page 5 of 11
forward in its initiatives through intelligently selected and implemented projects. The funding
requested as part of this program generally fits these initiatives and will be assigned to
specific projects (with Steering Committee oversight) as they are identified.

2.1 Describe what metrics, data, analysis or information was considered when
preparing this capital request.
As part of the 5-year planning process, Enterprise Technology and the Finance and
Accounting department leaders meet to review the technology demand that is derived
from maintaining the current ‘core’ systems currently in place, as well as enhancements
or new technology that enables the business to meet their strategic initiatives.
Upgrading to the recommended or latest versions of software is important to maintain
the overall health of our business. There are many reasons that upgrades are
necessary, from enhanced security, to increases in employee productivity (and lower
costs). Upgrading business software is an economical decision compared to the cost
of maintaining outdated software that suffer breakdowns and increases the cost to
maintain. Upgrades exist to avoid common risk such as:
• Security - Outdated or unpatched software increases the risk of a vulnerabilities or
known exploits.
• Incompatibilities - Outdated software can disrupt workflow or fail to work with other
enterprise software systems.
• Degradation - The business process implemented when the solution was installed
is subject to change and requires enhancements to the systems to maintain the
value.
• Obsolescence - Software updates don’t always solely address security issues or
deficiencies. Sometimes they are there to add necessary functionality or optimize
existing features, such as new regulatory requirements or industry guidelines.
• Supportability - There is a heightened risk of losing vendor support from choosing
not to install software updates and the latest patches.
Software enhancements are critical, as demands change so rapidly, we must look for
ways to extend functionality of our software investment rather than go through full
replacement process. The Software Development Life Cycle (SDLC) describes the
process of planning, analysis, design, build, test and implementation, but it does not
stop there. It has further steps into maintenance, enhancement, and progression.
Software enhancements help to improve system efficiency, anomalies, and better
cross-platform compatibility. There are also unavoidable governance and compliance
changes that may drive the need for software optimization, thus why Continuous
Delivery and Continuous Integration are common practice within the SDLC.
These estimates were developed based on the historical trends for enhancement work
and the product roadmaps for upgrades and licensing renewals, as well as high-level
estimates for new product technologies. High level estimates are collected by the
business level subject matter experts, technology domain architects, and delivery
management teams. The schedule was developed with the most recently available
information and is subject to change via the governance processes mentioned above.

DocuSign Envelope ID: 66FD890B-C3AC-4D1D-AAE8-72D611BA2995
Exhibit No. 11 Case Nos. AVU-E-23-01/AVU-G-23-01 J. Kensok, Avista
Schedule 1, Page 221 of 304
Finance and Accounting (FAT) Technology
Business Case Justification Narrative Template Version: 04.21.2022 Page 6 of 11
2.2 Discuss how the requested capital cost amount will be spent in the current
year (or future years if a multi-year or ongoing initiative). (i.e. what are the
expected functions, processes or deliverables that will result from the capital spend?). Include
any known or estimated reductions to O&M as a result of this investment.

This business case is in place to reduce the risk to the back-office business operations,
specifically related to finance and accounting area. There are no explicit direct
reductions to O&M investments by this capital investment, however not investing in this
program on a year over year basis will result in increased expense to address
application defects as a result of a non-supported platform. Additionally, not keeping
the systems in line with current business processes will also result in inefficiency in
work process, which creates increasing O&M pressure. Some examples of project
investments planned within this Business Case and the associated benefits are:
o PowerPlan Upgrade - This project will upgrade our fixed assets software to the
current supported version. We are currently utilizing an outdated version of the
software that is only supported on a best effort basis. By moving the most
current version of the software we reduce the risk of having an error in this
system that would prevent the closure of the financial books on a monthly,
quarterly, or annual basis. Failure to properly close the books on a quarterly or
annual period could result in a material deficiency resulting in significant risk to
the financial stability of the company.
o Financial System Enhancements - In order to ensure that Avista maximizes the
benefits for the investments made in our enterprise applications we use an
‘Enhancement Program” to provide incremental enhancements to the enterprise
systems to maintain alignment between the business processes and system
processes. The enhancements can be small improvements in the systems such
as enabling electronic ordering delivery with our key suppliers. This
improvement will improve the accuracy and timeliness of orders for key
materials. An added example is to create a workflow to automate the process
of approving new project numbers. This is currently a very manual process.
The annual indirect offset potential is $95,000/year.
o Reconciliation Automation – Avista is deploying a month end close automation
solution to increase the efficiency of our reconciliation and month end close
processes. This will be a new cost to the company but the indirect benefit of
reducing the time it will take employees to complete the routine monthly
reconciliation and close processes. This will enable employees to work on
higher value tasks. We also believe the enhancements will improve internal
control over financial reporting and decrease the risk for control deficiencies and
financial statement misstatements. The indirect savings are estimated to be
$41,000 in 2022 and 2023.

2.3 Outline any business functions and processes that may be impacted (and
how) by the business case for it to be successfully implemented.
Finance and Accounting’s technology is critical to Avista’s ability to function. The
business process supported by this business case impacts all of the financial
transactions for the company. A few examples include the creation of a new accounting
project, a new customer construction request, or the payment of an invoice.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 66FD890B-C3AC-4D1D-AAE8-72D611BA2995
Exhibit No. 11 Case Nos. AVU-E-23-01/AVU-G-23-01 J. Kensok, Avista
Schedule 1, Page 222 of 304
Finance and Accounting (FAT) Technology
Business Case Justification Narrative Template Version: 04.21.2022 Page 7 of 11
The ability for this business area and job functions to succeed, is dependent on the
understanding and support of Avista’s employees and contractors. Failure to support
these systems may cause numerous near term and downstream impacts.

2.4 Discuss the alternatives that were considered and any tangible risks and
mitigation strategies for each alternative.

 Alternative #1 – Funding at a lower amount
Funding at a lower amount would impose risks of systems to fall out of support based
on technology vendor-driven lifecycles, as well as degrade appropriate levels of
performance and capacity needed to sustain existing automated or technology-
supported business processes or to keep automated solutions in line with changing
business processes. Estimates include labor and non-labor forecasts based on
historical trends and anticipated expenses, which support the skillset, product, and
licensing entitlements required to keep the systems current. This alternative has a
number of factors working against it. It would result in the need to run the projects at a
slower pace or defer existing system enhancements. This alternative would cause a
decline in the number of enhancements implemented and efficiencies gained each
year. While the work would likely get pushed to future years, the ability to meet planned
strategic objectives would be delayed even further. In short, while feasible, funding at
a lower level reduces the timing of efficiency gains, adds risk that Avista would have to
take extra measures to retain functions and could impact Avista’s ability to run the
business. It would increase the number of software application assets that would need
to be deferred, thereby increasing risk of obsolescence, losing maintenance and
support, and reducing automation efficiencies.

2.5 Include a timeline of when this work will be started and completed.
Describe when the investments become used and useful to the customer.
This is a program with discrete projects and packages that typically run annually and
Transfer to Plant within that same year. There are times that a project may start in
Q3/Q4 of one year and Transfer to Plant the following year. Typically, application
projects will Transfer to Plant about 60 days prior to the project completion date (due
to the post implementation warranty period and to capture the trailing charges).
The goal is to break out large/complex projects into smaller projects (phases) to avoid
scope creep, budget overages, and ensure the work can be properly prioritized. The
first phase of every project would be scoped at the Minimum Viable Product (MVP),
and subsequent phases would be scoped accordingly, based on the next highest
priority after MVP. This also allows for more accurate Transfer to Plant forecasts.

2.6 Discuss how the proposed investment aligns with strategic vision, goals,
objectives and mission statement of the organization.
This is a program with discrete projects and packages that strategically align with
Avista’s primary focus areas of:
DocuSign Envelope ID: 66FD890B-C3AC-4D1D-AAE8-72D611BA2995
Exhibit No. 11 Case Nos. AVU-E-23-01/AVU-G-23-01 J. Kensok, Avista
Schedule 1, Page 223 of 304
Finance and Accounting (FAT) Technology
Business Case Justification Narrative Template Version: 04.21.2022 Page 8 of 11
 Performance – by achieving stated financial objectives through focused cost
management, timely rate recovery, business transformation, & unregulated
business development. In addition, these internal business technologies enable
other business areas to generate and deliver safe, reliable, clean, affordable
electric & natural gas services.
 Invent – the finance and accounting department includes the strategic business
development function that solely focuses on cultivating innovation skills and
interests to support transformation and growth. The other business areas within
the team are utilizing technology systems and processes that ensure we are
making good decisions, and consistently improving our ability to advance our
electric and natural gas strategy and optimization of the grid.
 Our Customers – the systems utilized are necessary to pursue evolving customer
needs by offering products, services, and energy efficiency solutions.

2.7 Include why the requested amount above is considered a prudent
investment, providing or attaching any supporting documentation. In
addition, please explain how the investment prudency will be reviewed
and re-evaluated throughout the project
Avista’s Finance and Accounting technology systems are a necessity, as they provide
essential functions to Avista. This funding level will provide the appropriate technology
and development to meet the periodic upgrades and enhancements prioritized by the
Finance and Accounting and Enterprise Technology (ET) governance committee. This
funding is necessary to mitigate the risk of unsupported applications, security liability,
and significantly higher costs as a result of the deferment of upgrades and
enhancements.
Investment prudency is reviewed by the Steering Committee to ensure alignment of
initiatives through judiciously selected and implemented projects. The funding
requested as part of this program generally fits these initiatives and are assigned to
specific projects (with Steering Committee oversight) as they are identified. Also, the
Business Case owner will work with Steering Committee(s) to set project priority and
sequence over a five-year planning period, subject to any additional funding changes
as directed by the Capital Planning Group (CPG). Each program and project steering
committee meets regularly to review the demand to ensure that it aligns with Avista’s
strategies. The Steering Committee oversees scope, schedule and budget within their
respective programs and projects and inform the Business Case owner of any changes
needing escalation to the Technology Planning Group (TPG) or CPG for decision-
making around resource or funding constraints.

2.8 Supplemental Information

2.8.1 Identify customers and stakeholders that interface with the business case
The Finance and accounting Steering Committee members include Business Case
Sponsors, Directors and Managers within Finance and accounting, Finance, and
the Enterprise Technology (ET) Business Case Owner.
The ET Business Case Owner works in conjunction with the Product Owners,
Project Management Office (PMO), assigned Program Manager, and subsequent
DocuSign Envelope ID: 66FD890B-C3AC-4D1D-AAE8-72D611BA2995
Exhibit No. 11 Case Nos. AVU-E-23-01/AVU-G-23-01 J. Kensok, Avista
Schedule 1, Page 224 of 304
Finance and Accounting (FAT) Technology
Business Case Justification Narrative Template Version: 04.21.2022 Page 9 of 11
Project Managers. The Business Technology Analyst (BTA) is also engaged at all
levels and serves as a liaison between ET and Finance and accounting.
The ET Business Case Owner is accountable and responsible for all Business
Case related activities and assignments, but the Finance and accounting team is
regularly consulted, informed as this directly impacts Finance and accounting
stakeholders. This model is conducive to a strong partnership, which is key to
managing all of the dynamic intricacies throughout the course of the budget year.

2.8.2 Identify any related Business Cases
This Business Case is a program that has been functioning for the last 6 years
(prior to 2017, the majority of these projects were in the Technology Refresh and
Technology Expansion Business Cases).

3. MONITOR AND CONTROL
3.1 Steering Committee or Advisory Group Information
The Finance and accounting Steering Committee members include Business Case
Sponsors, Directors and Managers within Finance and accounting, and the Business
Case Owner.

3.2 Provide and discuss the governance processes and people that will
provide oversight

The Finance and accounting Business Case has four levels of governance: The
Executive Technology Steering Committee (ETSC); Technology Planning Group (TPG)
of Directors; Integrated Oversight Committee (IOC), and Program/Project Steering
Committees. Applicable stakeholders and disciplines meet regularly to govern the
business case and subsequent programs and projects.
The IOC evaluates and compares all of the application portfolio project priorities on a
bi-weekly basis, utilizing risk, capacity, and other situational factors to ensure each
planned project is meeting critical milestones. The TPG sets priority across the
technology investment portfolio, balancing: strategic alignment, business value, and
customer benefits, as driven by the strategic initiatives established by the ETSC. The
Capital Planning Group (CPG), an independent body, establishes funding allocations
for each Business Case across the enterprise.
The Business Case is largely limited by the funding allocation and resource capacity
(staff) to meet its goals. The funding is generally established at the Business Case level
by the CPG. The resource capacity constraint is generally managed by the TPG and
the Business Case owner. Once the two constrains are established, the Business Case
owner will work with steering committee(s) to set project priority and sequence over a
five-year planning period, subject to additional funding changes as directed by the CPG.

DocuSign Envelope ID: 66FD890B-C3AC-4D1D-AAE8-72D611BA2995
Exhibit No. 11 Case Nos. AVU-E-23-01/AVU-G-23-01 J. Kensok, Avista
Schedule 1, Page 225 of 304
Finance and Accounting (FAT) Technology
Business Case Justification Narrative Template Version: 04.21.2022 Page 10 of 11
3.3 How will decision-making, prioritization, and change requests be
documented and monitored?
Project prioritization is evaluated by the management team on a weekly basis through
the IOC. Each program and project steering committee meets regularly and oversees
scope, schedule and budget within their respective programs and projects and inform
the Business Case owner of any changes needing escalation to the TPG or CPG for
decision-making around resource or funding constraints.
Any changes in funding or scope are documented at the Business Case level, via
Change Request document that is presented to the CPG on a monthly basis and
evaluated by the CPG for approval.
Changes in scope, schedule, or budget are also documented through a ‘Change
Request’ at the project level and reviewed and approved through a formal workflow
process. All Enterprise technology projects in this business case are managed through
the PMO, which follows the Project Management Institute (PMI) standards. Projects
initiate with a ‘Charter’ to begin the planning process. When planning is complete, a
‘Project Management Plan (PMP)’ is created and approved as the projects baseline for
scope, schedule and budget. At the end of execution, an ‘Approval to Go Live’ is
submitted and approved prior to implementation (Transfer to Plant). After the
technology is in service and out of the warranty period, the Project Manager will hold a
Lessons Learned, and subsequently submit an ‘Approval to Close’ prior to finishing the
project. All Monitor and Control documentation and Change Requests are documented
and stored to ensure a comprehensive audit trail.

4. APPROVAL AND AUTHORIZATION
The undersigned acknowledge they have reviewed the Finance and Accounting Technology
Business Case and agree with the approach it presents. Significant changes to this will be
coordinated with and approved by the undersigned or their designated representatives.

Signature: Date:
Print Name: Graham Smith
Title: Manager, Application Delivery
Role: Business Case Owner

Signature: Date:
Print Name: Ryan Krasselt
Title: VP and Controller
Role: Business Case Sponsor

DocuSign Envelope ID: 66FD890B-C3AC-4D1D-AAE8-72D611BA2995
Aug-31-2022 | 11:07 AM PDT
Sep-01-2022 | 9:17 AM PDT
Exhibit No. 11 Case Nos. AVU-E-23-01/AVU-G-23-01 J. Kensok, Avista
Schedule 1, Page 226 of 304
Finance and Accounting (FAT) Technology
Business Case Justification Narrative Template Version: 04.21.2022 Page 11 of 11
Signature: Date:
Print Name: John Wilcox
Title: Director, Accounting
Business Case Governance

Signature: Date:
Print Name: Hossein Nikdel
Title: Director, Applications & System Planning
Business Case Governance

DocuSign Envelope ID: 66FD890B-C3AC-4D1D-AAE8-72D611BA2995
Aug-31-2022 | 10:56 AM PDT
Sep-01-2022 | 10:59 AM PDT
Exhibit No. 11 Case Nos. AVU-E-23-01/AVU-G-23-01 J. Kensok, Avista
Schedule 1, Page 227 of 304
Human Resources Technology
Business Case Justification Narrative Page 1 of 13
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The Human Resources Technology (HRT) Business Case sponsors the technology related
applications that support the Human Resources (HR) business areas strategic initiatives. The HR
business area includes Benefits, Occupational Health, Avista First Care Clinic, HRIS/Payroll,
Employee Relations, Leadership and Organizational Development, Corporate Training &
Development, HR Shared Services, Recruiting, Equity-Inclusion-Diversity, HR Analytics &
Compliance, Craft & Technical Training, Apprenticeships & Safety.

Avista’s Human Resources technology systems are a necessity, as they provide essential
functions to all our employees and customers throughout all service territories, such as hiring,
payroll, benefits, safety, personnel development, and labor compliance. These vital systems
require systematic upgrades and enhancements in order to maintain reliability, compatibility, and
reduce security vulnerabilities. This business case is intended to fund the portfolio of components
that maintain the technology and licenses necessary to meet HR’s internal and external business
processes and strategic objectives.

In order to maintain these business processes and systems supported by this business case, the
recommended funding is $2,580,000 over the next five years (roughly 500k - 525k per year). This
funding level will provide the appropriate technology and development to meet the periodic
upgrades and enhancements prioritized by the HR and Enterprise Technology (ET) Governance
Committee. This funding level considers the development staff required to maintain the
technology solutions.

If this business case is not funded at the recommended level, it will impact our performance
objectives tied to focused cost management, timely rate recovery, business transformation, and
unregulated business development. It will also impact our ability to mature our safety systems
that promote learning and reduce risk, as well as the development, resiliency, and well-being of
our people. Reduced funding can also result in a reduction of skilled resources, which greatly
impacts the institutional business process and technical knowledge, as well as our employees,
customers, and compliance efforts. Additionally, a lower funding amount will increase risk to the
company through the deferment of upgrades and enhancements, resulting in unsupported
applications, security vulnerabilities, system degradation, and increased costs.

VERSION HISTORY
Version Author Description Date Notes
1.0 Leianne Raymond Draft 2023-2027 07/15/22 Draft for review

DocuSign Envelope ID: 89EB4AC8-EC6F-459D-9CF8-13B905025E8E
Exhibit No. 11 Case Nos. AVU-E-23-01/AVU-G-23-01 J. Kensok, Avista
Schedule 1, Page 228 of 304
Human Resources Technology
Business Case Justification Narrative Page 2 of 13
GENERAL INFORMATION

BUSINESS PROBLEM

1.1 What is the current or potential problem that is being addressed?
This program is required to support the application-related technology initiatives for all
areas within Human Resources (HR). Those areas include Payroll & Timekeeping,
Benefits & Compensation, Leadership & Organizational Development, Labor &
Employee Relations, Occupational Health, and Safety & Craft Training.
Application refresh projects are necessary due to the ongoing requirements to provide
updates, upgrades and/or replacements on existing HR applications, as they are
required to respond to changing business needs and/or technical obsolescence.
Application refreshes/upgrades are essential in order to remain current, maintain
compatibility, reliability, and address security vulnerabilities.
Application expansion projects result from demand related to transformations in the
utility and continuous technology progression required to achieve operational
efficiencies and strategic objectives. Recent trends in the areas of mobility, scalability,
and employee experience, require technological expansion of conventional business
practices and processes.

1.2 Discuss the major drivers of the business case and the benefits to the
customer
The primary investment driver for the Human Resources Business Program is
Performance and Capacity. A secondary investment driver is Mandatory & Compliance.
Many of the applications and respective projects in this Business Case provide direct
support to Avista customers, while the remaining provide many indirect benefits. Some
benefits to upgrades and enhancements to these systems include:
• Advancing the ‘Customer Experience’ focus
• Improving the ‘Employee Experience’ and engagement
• Attracting and retaining diverse resources
Requested Spend Amount $2,580,000
Requested Spend Time Period 5 years
Requesting Organization/Department Human Resources
Business Case Owner | Sponsor Brian Hoerner | Bryan Cox
Sponsor Organization/Department Enterprise Technology
Phase Execution
Category Program
Driver Performance & Capacity
DocuSign Envelope ID: 89EB4AC8-EC6F-459D-9CF8-13B905025E8E
Exhibit No. 11 Case Nos. AVU-E-23-01/AVU-G-23-01 J. Kensok, Avista
Schedule 1, Page 229 of 304
Human Resources Technology
Business Case Justification Narrative Page 3 of 13
• Fostering ‘Equity, Inclusion and Diversity’ and a culture of belonging
• Promoting safety and health / reducing risks
• Increasing employee productivity
• Encouraging and facilitating learning and skill development
• Refining talent management
• Fostering collaboration and communication
• Investing in our people supporting their development, resiliency and well-being
• Maintaining compliance with relevant local, state, and federal regulations
1.3 Identify why this work is needed now and what risks there are if not
approved or is deferred
Growing needs and expectations in the areas of mobility access, scalability and
providing an effective and attractive employee digital experience require expansion of
conventional business practices and processes. These needs are growing, given the
accelerated migration to a hybrid/virtual/digital work environment.
The projects and initiatives in this business case provide functional enhancements that
address ongoing changes in the workplace, provide increased employee efficiency
through the reduction of steps required to complete a task, and make better use of
Avista resources. They shift costs from inefficient processes to more value-driven
activities.
The primary alternative to these projects is to use existing systems as-is and to not put
new systems in place. This would put Avista at a disadvantage through attrition and
perpetuates inefficiencies as employees search to find the information they need.
Upgrading to the recommended or latest versions of software is important to maintain
the overall health of our business. Upgrades reduce security, compatibility, and
deficiency risks, and naturally provide increased productivity, user experience, and cost
savings.
Software enhancements are just as critical, as demands change so rapidly, we must
look for ways to extend functionality of our software investment rather than go through
full replacement cycles. Software enhancements help to improve system efficiency,
anomalies, and better cross-platform compatibility. There are also unavoidable
governance and compliance changes that may drive the need for software optimization,
thus why continuous delivery and continuous integration are common practice within
business applications.
Another alternative to taking on these projects as suggested, is to take them on at a
slower pace. While feasible, it reduces the timing of efficiency gains, continues to risk
attrition through employee dissatisfaction, and is harder to attract new talent as current
talent retires.
Working through these projects as suggested reduces Avista’s overall risk exposure by
confirming our employees are fully compliant with all FERC, NERC, and FCC rules (via
training and talent management), ensuring Avista is using funds in the most cost-
efficient manner (via improved employee tools that increase overall efficiency and keep
employees focused), limiting costly employee turnover, and by keeping employees
educated in the latest safety and health trends and requirements.

DocuSign Envelope ID: 89EB4AC8-EC6F-459D-9CF8-13B905025E8E
Exhibit No. 11 Case Nos. AVU-E-23-01/AVU-G-23-01 J. Kensok, Avista
Schedule 1, Page 230 of 304
Human Resources Technology
Business Case Justification Narrative Page 4 of 13
1.4 Identify any measures that can be used to determine whether the
investment would successfully deliver on the objectives and address the
need listed above.
The HR business team utilizes technology as a critical component to meet their
strategic objectives. Some tools used to measure success would include surveys,
reporting (compliance, training, payroll), collaboration tools (Yammer, Avenue, Teams)
and other various forms of employee input.
Constraints and risks are possible to hinder the delivery of the outlined objectives. In
these circumstances, the Business Case owner and Program Manager will work with
Steering Committee(s) to set project priority and sequencing, subject to any additional
funding changes as directed by the Capital Planning Group (CPG). Each program and
project Steering Committee meets regularly to review the demand to ensure that it
aligns with Avista’s strategies. The Steering Committee oversees scope, schedule and
budget within their respective programs and projects and inform the Business Case
owner of any changes needing escalation to the Technology Planning Group (TPG) or
CPG for decision-making around resource or funding constraints. In addition, the
Enterprise Technology Project Management Office (PMO) performs a Project
Performance Report (PPR) which is the integrated measurement of the success of the
technology to align with Avista’s corporate strategy and Focus Areas. This report
produces a score associated to cost, schedule, and scope management, as well as the
value-add (via survey to the business stakeholders and Steering Committee).

1.5 Supplemental Information
Please reference and summarize any studies that support the problem
These articles outline the overall priorities of HR functions, and also reinforces the need
to gain momentum in the Digital Employee Experience space. The articles also provide
information that is relative to the issues, gaps, and obstacles Avista faces with HR
centric technology.

DocuSign Envelope ID: 89EB4AC8-EC6F-459D-9CF8-13B905025E8E
Exhibit No. 11 Case Nos. AVU-E-23-01/AVU-G-23-01 J. Kensok, Avista
Schedule 1, Page 231 of 304
Human Resources Technology
Business Case Justification Narrative Page 5 of 13
Gartner:

The evolution of HR Technology Needs: HR Technology 2021 Guide Josh Bersin

DocuSign Envelope ID: 89EB4AC8-EC6F-459D-9CF8-13B905025E8E
Exhibit No. 11 Case Nos. AVU-E-23-01/AVU-G-23-01 J. Kensok, Avista
Schedule 1, Page 232 of 304
Human Resources Technology
Business Case Justification Narrative Page 6 of 13
Hackett Group:

2020-Q2-state-of-di

For asset replacement, include graphical or narrative representation of metrics
associated with the current condition of the asset that is proposed for
replacement. NA

The recommended solution to ensure that HR can meet these initiatives and their timelines
over the next five years, is to follow the recommended application refresh and expansion
requirements for HR applications. The requested allocation is based primarily on
compatibility, reliability, security, and safety. Additional criteria considers maintaining
operational efficiencies and aligning with strategic objectives. Conventional business
practices and processes must be scalable, provide mobility, and focus on the employee and
customer experience.
The project roadmap for the next 5 years includes refreshing and/or expansion of the core
HR systems that support these initiatives:
• Analytics / Compliance – Compliance is an important part of Avista’s regulated
business. This includes compliance with finance laws, safety laws, and more.
Ensuring compliance requires a great deal of data discovery and analysis.
Additionally, growing Operator Qualification Compliance for gas workers and
contractors creates increased requirements for learning systems. This is one of the
DocuSign Envelope ID: 89EB4AC8-EC6F-459D-9CF8-13B905025E8E
Exhibit No. 11 Case Nos. AVU-E-23-01/AVU-G-23-01 J. Kensok, Avista
Schedule 1, Page 233 of 304
Human Resources Technology
Business Case Justification Narrative Page 7 of 13
drivers behind reviewing Avista’s current LMS (Learning Management System), a
potential shift to other systems, and emerging needs for additional applications.
• Employee Engagement and Belonging – Study after study shows that an engaged
workforce is a healthier workforce. Engaged employees have higher job satisfaction,
lower attrition rates, and higher productivity. Some of that engagement comes in the
form of Avista’s LMS work mentioned above; some comes in the form of surveys and
other forms of employee input. HR personnel are considering products and product
suites that target employee sentiment and suggest new areas of employee
engagement. Employee engagement also comes from having the people systems
and tools that support ease of productivity, collaboration, communication, belonging,
equity and fairness. Providing a modern and effective Digital Employee Experience is
also important factor in attracting and retaining employee talent key to supporting our
customers
• HR Information Systems (HRIS) – HR Information Systems (HRIS) are those that
process and manage employee records and transactions. Examples include systems
responsible for timekeeping (UltiPro), change of status (Resource Hub), performance
management, employee perceptions, benefits enrollment, and more.
• HR Management (HRM) – HR Management (HRM) systems support the day-to-day
management of employees from across the employee life cycle from recruiting to
onboarding to exit interviews.
• Learning and Ongoing Training – Providing up-to-date training keeps the Avista
workforce safe (through ongoing safety training), productive and customer-focused (by
learning the latest approaches and techniques), and compliant (through ongoing
FERC/NERC/Other training by Avista contractors and employees). Avista does this by
accelerating the development of new leaders through guided talent management,
building a skilled workforce, and providing central talent to Avista leaders through
learning platforms (Avista Learning Network and other learning systems such as
Articulate 360 learning design tools and Mandarin Learning Center software).
• Safety and Health – Safety and Health are key elements of Avista’s culture.
Promoting a culture of safety and health falls to Avista’s HR team. (Enterprise Health
and Safety System- Intelex, PrognoCIS EMR)
• Cross-Functional / Other – Not every project fits nicely into one of the initiatives
above. Some are cross-functional, and some are simply good ideas that continue to
improve upon Avista’s workplace
These projects are within industry norms for like-sized HR departments within like-sized
utilities. None of the proposed projects are on the leading edge of technological innovation;
they are accepted and widely adopted approaches used within the energy industry.
Capturing every detail of every project over the course of the next five years is not possible.
This is part of why the Steering Committee exists – to help propel Avista forward in its
initiatives through intelligently selected and implemented projects, while maintaining the
DocuSign Envelope ID: 89EB4AC8-EC6F-459D-9CF8-13B905025E8E
Exhibit No. 11 Case Nos. AVU-E-23-01/AVU-G-23-01 J. Kensok, Avista
Schedule 1, Page 234 of 304
Human Resources Technology
Business Case Justification Narrative Page 8 of 13
ability to be agile. The funding requested as part of this program generally fits these initiatives
and will be assigned to specific projects (with Steering Committee oversight) as they are
identified.

Option Capital Cost Start Complete
Recommended Solution $2,580,000 01 2023 12 2027
 Alternative #1 – accelerate the Digital Employee
Experience initiative. (see section 2.4)
$4,720,000 01 2023 12 2027

2.1 Describe what metrics, data, analysis or information was considered when
preparing this capital request.
As part of the ongoing planning and roadmap process, Enterprise Technology and the
HR department leaders meet to review the technology demand that is derived from
maintaining the current ‘core’ systems currently in place, as well as enhancements or
new technology that enables the business to meet their strategic initiatives.
These estimates were developed based on the historical trends for enhancement work
(Resource Hub, UltiPro, Learning Management System, etc.), the product roadmaps
for upgrades and licensing renewals, as well as high-level estimates for new product
technologies. High level estimates are collected by the business level subject matter
expert(s), technology domain architect(s), and delivery management team(s). The
schedule was developed with the most recently available information and is subject to
change pending risks, competing priorities, dependencies, etc.

2.2 Discuss how the requested capital cost amount will be spent in the current
year (or future years if a multi-year or ongoing initiative). (i.e. what are the
expected functions, processes or deliverables that will result from the capital spend?). Include
any known or estimated reductions to O&M as a result of this investment.

There are direct savings or off-sets in this business case, primarily from reducing
printing costs, copier maintenance and filing of paper documents. Some examples
include:
o UKG - $15,000 annually resulting from implementing a file and content
management module in 2022. Reduced costs by eliminating printing of paper
o Sum Total - $1,300 annually resulting from implementing a mobile solution, so
that workers do not have to print out their weekly report of qualifications; and
so that worker skill evaluations can be moved from paper to electronic and
completed in the field.

The majority of offsets are realized through indirect savings, such as increased
efficiency, productivity, and accessibility, so that employees can re-direct their efforts
toward more core and value-added work and reduce administrative burden. Other
offsets are realized through maturing safety systems and avoiding risk of injury. Some
examples include:
DocuSign Envelope ID: 89EB4AC8-EC6F-459D-9CF8-13B905025E8E
Exhibit No. 11 Case Nos. AVU-E-23-01/AVU-G-23-01 J. Kensok, Avista
Schedule 1, Page 235 of 304
Human Resources Technology
Business Case Justification Narrative Page 9 of 13
o UKG - $67,000 annually resulting from implementing a file and content
management module in 2022 via electronic accessibility of needed records.
Will also provide enhanced security and more efficient retrieval of information
for internal and external stakeholders, auditors and regulators
o UKG - $45,000 annually resulting from improving manual processes by
implementing electronic data transfer interfaces with other key systems that
rely on HRIS data
o Sum Total - $125,000 annually resulting from implementing a mobile solution
so that employees can access training and required certifications via any
electronic device from any location. And so that we can improve the employee
digital experience with improved ease of access. External learning systems
industry and vendor benchmarks provide conservative estimates of a 3%
productivity gain upon implementation of a mobile solution for employee
learning and training. We used the three-year average time in system of 19
hours per year per user to calculate a 3% productivity gain to determine
productivity gain estimate
o Sum Total - $103,000 annually from implementing a mobile skill evaluation
process, eliminating a manual paper process and duplicate data entry. The
ability for Avista Skill Evaluators to evaluate our gas workers in the field and
certify or de-certify a user in a skill via the Avista Learning Network (ALN)
mobile app, will provide real-time updates to the workforce and eliminate
redundant data entry. Estimate 5-minute savings per task along with annual
task volume to determine productivity gain estimate.
o Intelex- $60,000 annually. From avoided from hearing loss and soft tissue
injuries by implementing an Industrial Hygiene module. This module will better
enable us to target where hearing protection is needed, better identify and
reduce potential injuries related to ergonomic factors and also enable us to
better zero in on areas and trends where we can mitigate hazard risks.

There are numerous other smaller technology systems needed to operate HR in this
complex environment that contribute to the goals of the HR Technology Business case.

2.3 Outline any business functions and processes that may be impacted (and
how) by the business case for it to be successfully implemented.
Human Resources impacts every area of the business. From pre-employment
(recruiting), to post employment (retirement), and the many years in between, HR plays
a critical role in every employee’s tenure at Avista, which must include the technology
to manage effectively.
Any deficiency in the technology is a direct and visible impact to Avista employees and
contractors. Any shortfalls that employees experience, can have multiple downstream
impacts, such as increased costs (inefficiencies / attrition, etc.), and an objectionable
customer experience.

DocuSign Envelope ID: 89EB4AC8-EC6F-459D-9CF8-13B905025E8E
Exhibit No. 11 Case Nos. AVU-E-23-01/AVU-G-23-01 J. Kensok, Avista
Schedule 1, Page 236 of 304
Human Resources Technology
Business Case Justification Narrative Page 10 of 13
2.4 Discuss the alternatives that were considered and any tangible risks and
mitigation strategies for each alternative.
Alternative #1 - Funding at a Higher Level to accelerate the Digital Employee
Experience initiative.
The employee digital experience is becoming more and more relevant to business
growth and employee development. Employees want technology that improves
productivity, helps with business process, and ultimately improves Avista’s ability to
keep pace with the digital transformation revolution. Investing more in the Digital
Employee Experience would require more resources and time to plan and execute,
but the output over time is significant. See supplemental information in section 1.5 for
more detailed information.

2.5 Include a timeline of when this work will be started and completed.
Describe when the investments become used and useful to the customer.
spend, and transfers to plant by year.
This is a program with discrete projects and packages that typically run annually and
Transfer to Plant within that same year. There are times that a project may start in
Q3/Q4 of one year and Transfer to Plant the following year.
Typically, application projects will Transfer to Plant about 60 days prior to the project
completion date (due to the post implementation warranty period and to capture the
trailing charges).
The Tableau Dashboard reports below are provide the visual roadmap (timeline), as
well as Transfer to Plant forecasts (that includes rate case submissions).
HR 5 Year Roadmap
HR Transfer to Plant Forecast

2.6 Discuss how the proposed investment aligns with strategic vision, goals,
objectives and mission statement of the organization.
This is a program with discrete projects and packages that align with Avista’s vision,
mission and strategic objectives:
The continued expansion of our Intelex technology investment and associated projects
will mature our safety systems to promote learning and reduce risks. This should result
in the reduction of serious injury occurrences and lost time injury rates.

Technology investments such as UltiPro (UKG), the Avista Learning Network (ALN),
and Resource Hub allow the capability to invest in our people, supporting their
development, resiliency and well-being. This will help attract and retain very skilled
workforce with diverse experiences.

HR technology systems are also leveraged to strengthen equity, inclusion and diversity
within systems, practices and behaviors. These systems and processes can range
from education and training in the LMS, to student craft worker pilots and compensation
modifications.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 89EB4AC8-EC6F-459D-9CF8-13B905025E8E
Exhibit No. 11 Case Nos. AVU-E-23-01/AVU-G-23-01 J. Kensok, Avista
Schedule 1, Page 237 of 304
Human Resources Technology
Business Case Justification Narrative Page 11 of 13
2.7 Include why the requested amount above is considered a prudent
investment, providing or attaching any supporting documentation. In
addition, please explain how the investment prudency will be reviewed
and re-evaluated throughout the project
Avista’s Human Resources technology systems are a necessity, as they provide
essential functions to all of our employees and customers throughout all service
territories. These vital systems require systematic upgrades and enhancements in
order to maintain reliability, compatibility, and reduce security vulnerabilities.
This funding level will provide the appropriate technology and development to meet the
periodic upgrades and enhancements prioritized by the HR and Enterprise Technology
(ET) governance committee. This funding is necessary to mitigate the risk of
unsupported applications, security liability, and significantly higher costs as a result of
the deferment of upgrades and enhancements, etc.
Investment prudency is reviewed by the Steering Committee to ensure alignment of
initiatives through judiciously selected and implemented projects. The funding
requested as part of this program generally fits these initiatives and are assigned to
specific projects (with Steering Committee oversight) as they are identified. Also, the
Business Case owner will work with Steering Committee(s) to set project priority and
sequence over a five-year planning period, subject to any additional funding changes
as directed by the Capital Planning Group (CPG). Each program and project steering
committee meets regularly to review the demand to ensure that it aligns with Avista’s
strategies. The Steering Committee oversees scope, schedule and budget within their
respective programs and projects and inform the Business Case owner of any changes
needing escalation to the Technology Planning Group (TPG) or CPG for decision-
making around resource or funding constraints.

2.8 Supplemental Information

Identify customers and stakeholders that interface with the business case
The Human Resources Steering Committee members include Business Case
Sponsors, Directors and Managers within Human Resources, and the Enterprise
Technology (ET) Business Case Owner.
The ET Business Case Owner works in conjunction with the Project Management
Office (PMO), and assigned Program Manager, and subsequent Project
Managers. The Business Technology Analyst (BTA) is also engaged at all levels,
and serves as a liaison between ET and HR.
The ET Business Case Owner is accountable and responsible for all Business
Case related activities and assignments, but the HR team is regularly consulted,
informed as this directly impacts HR stakeholders. This model is conducive to a
strong partnership, which is key to managing all of the dynamic intricacies
throughout the course of the budget year.

Identify any related Business Cases
This Business Case is a program that has been functioning for the last 5 years
(prior to 2017, these projects were in the Technology Refresh and Technology
DocuSign Envelope ID: 89EB4AC8-EC6F-459D-9CF8-13B905025E8E
Exhibit No. 11 Case Nos. AVU-E-23-01/AVU-G-23-01 J. Kensok, Avista
Schedule 1, Page 238 of 304
Human Resources Technology
Business Case Justification Narrative Page 12 of 13
Expansion Business Cases). There are some applications that HR is responsible
for that are used ‘Enterprise wide’ and receive technology requests outside of the
HR department. Those requests typically fall under the Enterprise Technology
Modernization and Operational Efficiency (ETMOE) Business Case.

3.1 Steering Committee or Advisory Group Information
The Human Resources Steering Committee members include Business Case
Sponsors, Directors and Managers within Human Resources, and the Business Case
Owner.
3.2 Provide and discuss the governance processes and people that will
provide oversight
The Human Resources Business Case has four levels of governance: The Executive
Technology Steering Committee (ETSC); Technology Planning Group (TPG) of
Directors; Integrated Oversight Committee (IOC), and Program/Project Steering
Committees. Applicable stakeholders and disciplines meet regularly to govern the
business case and subsequent programs and projects.
The IOC evaluates and compares all of the application portfolio project priorities on a
weekly basis, utilizing risk, capacity, and other situational factors to ensure each
planned project is meeting critical milestones. The TPG sets priority across the
technology investment portfolio, balancing: strategic alignment, business value, and
customer benefits, as driven by the strategic initiatives established by the ETSC. The
Capital Planning Group (CPG), an independent body, establishes funding allocations
for each Business Case across the enterprise.
The Business Case is largely limited by the funding allocation and resource capacity
(staff) to meet its goals. The funding is generally established at the Business Case level
by the CPG. The resource capacity constraint is generally managed by the TPG and
the Business Case owner. Once the two constrains are established, the Business Case
owner will work with steering committee(s) to set project priority and sequence over a
five-year planning period, subject to additional funding changes as directed by the CPG.

3.3 How will decision-making, prioritization, and change requests be
documented and monitored
Project prioritization is evaluated by the management team on a weekly basis by the
IOC. Each program and project steering committee meets regularly and oversees
scope, schedule and budget within their respective programs and projects and inform
the Business Case owner of any changes needing escalation to the TPG or CPG for
decision-making around resource or funding constraints.
Any changes in funding or scope are documented at the Business Case level, via
Change Request document that is presented to the CPG on a monthly basis and
evaluated by the CPG for approval.
Changes in scope, schedule, or budget are also documented through a ‘Change
Request’ at the project level and reviewed and approved through a formal workflow
process. All Enterprise technology projects in this business case are managed through
the PMO, which follows the Project Management Institute (PMI) standards. Projects
DocuSign Envelope ID: 89EB4AC8-EC6F-459D-9CF8-13B905025E8E
Exhibit No. 11 Case Nos. AVU-E-23-01/AVU-G-23-01 J. Kensok, Avista
Schedule 1, Page 239 of 304
Human Resources Technology
Business Case Justification Narrative Page 13 of 13
initiate with a ‘Charter’ to begin the planning process. When planning is complete, a
‘Project Management Plan (PMP)’ is created and approved as the projects baseline for
scope, schedule and budget. At the end of execution, an ‘Approval to Go Live’ is
submitted and approved prior to implementation (Transfer to Plant). After the
technology is in service and out of the warranty period, the Project Manager will hold a
Lessons Learned, and subsequently submit an ‘Approval to Close’ prior to finishing the
project. All Monitor and Control documentation and Change Requests are documented
and stored to ensure a comprehensive audit trail.

The undersigned acknowledge they have reviewed the Human Resources Technology Business
Case Narrative and agree with the approach it presents. Significant changes to this will be
coordinated with and approved by the undersigned or their designated representatives.

Signature: Date:
Print Name: Brian Hoerner
Title: Manager, Application Delivery
Role: Business Case Owner

Signature: Date:
Print Name: Bryan Cox
Title: VP Safety & Human Resources
Role: Business Case Sponsor

Signature: Date:
Print Name: Diane Quincy
Title: Director, Leadership & Org. Development
Role: Business Case Governance

Signature: Date:
Print Name: Hossein Nikdel
Title: Director, Application Delivery
Role: Business Case Governance

DocuSign Envelope ID: 89EB4AC8-EC6F-459D-9CF8-13B905025E8E
Aug-31-2022 | 10:55 AM PDT
Sep-01-2022 | 9:48 AM PDT
Aug-31-2022 | 2:55 PM PDT
Aug-31-2022 | 10:49 AM PDT
Exhibit No. 11 Case Nos. AVU-E-23-01/AVU-G-23-01 J. Kensok, Avista
Schedule 1, Page 240 of 304
Legal and Compliance Technology Business Case
Business Case Justification Narrative Page 1 of 10
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The Legal and Compliance Technology Business Case sponsors applications critical to Avista’s
legal, compliance, and regulatory initiatives and objectives that enable Avista to perform and
ultimately provide ‘Better Energy for Life’ for our customers.
The Legal and Compliance business areas include Claims, Legal (Labor Relations, Data Privacy),
and Compliance (Ethics, Environmental, FERC, NERC, ESG). Avista’s Legal and Compliance
technology systems are a necessity, as they provide essential functions to our employees and
customers throughout all service territories. These vital systems require systematic upgrades and
enhancements in order to maintain reliability, compatibility, and reduce security vulnerabilities.

This Business Case is necessary to fund the portfolio of components that maintain the
applications and licenses necessary to meet internal and external business processes and
objectives, as well as strategic focus areas. In order to maintain these business processes and
systems supported by this business case, the recommended funding amount is $2,150,500 over
the next five years (roughly $400,000 to $465,000 per year). This funding level will provide the
appropriate technology and development to meet the periodic upgrades and enhancements
prioritized by the Legal and Compliance Governance team. This funding level also considers the
development staff required to maintain these core technology solutions.

If this business case if not funded at the recommended level, it will risk the reduction of skilled
resources that have institutional business process and technical knowledge, as well as our
employees, customers, and compliance through the deferment of upgrades and enhancements,
resulting in unsupported applications, security vulnerabilities, and significantly higher costs.

This Business Case was created with input by the Business Case Owner, Domain Architect,
Product Owner, Business Technology Analyst, ET Project Management Office and approved by
the Legal and Compliance Governance Team (includes Business Sponsor, Director and
Managers within the Legal and Compliance organization).

VERSION HISTORY
Version Author Description Date Notes
1.0 Leianne Raymond 2023- 2027 Business case 08/19/22 Draft

DocuSign Envelope ID: 9065A316-FB6F-425D-A6F5-4EBAFA8E27E9

Exhibit No. 11 Case Nos. AVU-E-23-01/AVU-G-23-01 J. Kensok, Avista
Schedule 1, Page 241 of 304
Legal and Compliance Technology Business Case
Business Case Justification Narrative Page 2 of 10
GENERAL INFORMATION

1. BUSINESS PROBLEM
1.1 What is the current or potential problem that is being addressed?
This program is required to support the application-related technology initiatives for all
areas within Legal and Compliance. These areas include Claims, Legal (Labor
Relations, Data Privacy), and Compliance (Ethics, Environmental, FERC, NERC, ESG).
Application refresh projects are necessary due to the continuous need to provide
updates and upgrades to existing Legal and Compliance applications, as they are
required to respond to changing business needs and/or technical obsolescence.
Application refreshes/upgrades are essential in order to remain current, maintain
compatibility, reliability, and address security vulnerabilities.
Application expansion projects result from demand related to transformations in the
utility and continuous technology progression required to achieve operational
efficiencies and strategic objectives. Recent trends in the areas of mobility, scalability,
and employee experience, require technological expansion of conventional business
practices and processes.

1.2 Discuss the major drivers of the business case and the benefits to the
customer
The primary driver for this business case is “Performance and Capacity” with
“Mandatory and Compliance” as secondary. Avista customers benefit by having
efficient systems in place to manage legal and compliance matters effectively and avoid
penalties or legal complications related to non-compliance. These fines range from
$1,000/day to $1,000,000/day.

1.3 Identify why this work is needed now and what risks there are if not
approved or is deferred
This funding supports a program to manage the on-going changes to legal and
compliance business processes. Not funding this work increases the potential for costs
and associated fines related to non-compliance with federal, state, or other regulations.
Requested Spend Amount $2,150,500
Requested Spend Time Period 5 years
Requesting Organization/Department Legal and Compliance
Business Case Owner | Sponsor Graham Smith | Greg Hesler
Sponsor Organization/Department Enterprise Technology
Phase Execution
Category Program
Driver Performance & Capacity
DocuSign Envelope ID: 9065A316-FB6F-425D-A6F5-4EBAFA8E27E9
Exhibit No. 11 Case Nos. AVU-E-23-01/AVU-G-23-01 J. Kensok, Avista
Schedule 1, Page 242 of 304
Legal and Compliance Technology Business Case
Business Case Justification Narrative Page 3 of 10
The projects and initiatives listed above provide functional enhancements that address
ongoing changes in the workplace, provide increased employee efficiency through the
reduction of steps required to complete a task, and make better use of Avista resources.
They shift costs from inefficient processes to more value-driven activities.
The primary alternative to these projects is to use existing systems as-is and to not
upgrade systems that are in place. This perpetuates inefficiencies as employees are
less productive and lack relevant tools to make effective business decisions.
Working through these projects as suggested, reduces Avista’s overall risk exposure
by ensuring Avista is using funds in the most cost-efficient manner and by maintaining
a culture of performance and innovation, which has a positive impact on our employees
and customers.

1.4 Identify any measures that can be used to determine whether the
investment would successfully deliver on the objectives and address the
need listed above.
The Legal and Compliance Business teams utilizes technology as a critical component
to meeting their strategic objectives. Some success measurements would include risk
avoidance, system reporting, and better forecasting results.
Constraints are possible and risks hinder the delivery of the outlined objectives. In these
circumstances, the Business Case owner will work with Steering Committee(s) to set
project priority and sequence over a five-year planning period, subject to any additional
funding changes as directed by the Capital Planning Group (CPG). Each program and
project Steering Committee meets regularly to review the demand to ensure that it
aligns with Avista’s strategies. The Steering Committee oversees scope, schedule and
budget within their respective programs and projects and inform the Business Case
owner of any changes needing escalation to the Technology Planning Group (TPG) or
CPG for decision-making around resource or funding constraints.

1.5 Supplemental Information
1.5.1 Please reference and summarize any studies that support the problem
NA
1.5.2 For asset replacement, include graphical or narrative representation of metrics
associated with the current condition of the asset that is proposed for
replacement.
NA

Option Capital Cost Start Complete
Recommended Solution $2,150,500 01 2023 12 2027
 Alternative #1 – Waterline (see section 2.4) $2,000,000 01 2023 12 2027
DocuSign Envelope ID: 9065A316-FB6F-425D-A6F5-4EBAFA8E27E9
Exhibit No. 11 Case Nos. AVU-E-23-01/AVU-G-23-01 J. Kensok, Avista
Schedule 1, Page 243 of 304
Legal and Compliance Technology Business Case
Business Case Justification Narrative Page 4 of 10
2.1 Describe what metrics, data, analysis or information was considered when
preparing this capital request.
As part of the 5-year planning process, Enterprise Technology and the Legal and
Compliance department leaders review the technology demand that is derived from
maintaining the current ‘core’ systems currently in place, as well as enhancements or
new technology that enables the business to meet their strategic initiatives.
Upgrading to the recommended or latest versions of software is important to maintain
the overall health of our business. There are many reasons that upgrades are
necessary, from enhanced security to increases in employee productivity (and lower
costs). Upgrading business software is an economical decision compared to the cost
of maintaining outdated software that suffer breakdowns and places a burden on
Operations (and the budget). Upgrades exist to avoid common risk such as:
• Security - Outdated or unpatched software increases the risk of a vulnerabilities or
security exploits.
• Incompatibilities - Outdated software can disrupt workflow or fail to work with other
(duly updated) software.
• Degradation - Software can experience a slow deterioration of quality over time or
diminished responsiveness that could eventually become faulty or unusable, if not
upgraded.
• Deficiencies - No matter how well the software is tested, many times it is deployed
with defects that need to be remediated.
• Obsolescence - Software updates don’t always solely address security issues or
deficiencies. Sometimes they are there to add necessary functionality or optimize
existing features, such as new regulatory requirements or industry guidelines.
There is heightened risk of losing vendor support from choosing not to install
software updates and the latest improvements.
Software enhancements are just as critical, as demands change so rapidly, we must
look for ways to extend functionality of our software investment rather than go through
full replacement cycles. The Software Development Life Cycle (SDLC) describes the
process of planning, analysis, design, build, test and implementation, but it does not
stop there. It has further steps into maintenance, enhancement, and progression.
Software enhancements help to improve system efficiency, anomalies, and better
cross-platform compatibility. There are also unavoidable governance and compliance
changes that may drive the need for software optimization, thus why continuous
delivery and integration are common practice within the SDLC.
These estimates were developed based on the historical trends for enhancement work
and the product roadmaps for upgrades and licensing renewals, as well as high-level
estimates for new product technologies. High level estimates are collected by the
business level subject matter expert(s), technology domain architect(s), and delivery
management team(s). The schedule was developed with the most recently available
information and is subject to change pending risks, competing priorities, dependencies,
etc.

DocuSign Envelope ID: 9065A316-FB6F-425D-A6F5-4EBAFA8E27E9
Exhibit No. 11 Case Nos. AVU-E-23-01/AVU-G-23-01 J. Kensok, Avista
Schedule 1, Page 244 of 304
Legal and Compliance Technology Business Case
Business Case Justification Narrative Page 5 of 10
2.2 Discuss how the requested capital cost amount will be spent in the current
year (or future years if a multi-year or ongoing initiative). (i.e. what are the
expected functions, processes or deliverables that will result from the capital spend?). Include
any known or estimated reductions to O&M as a result of this investment.
This program is set up to maintain and enhance the technology that supports the Legal
and Compliance business processes. By keeping the technology current with industry
standards and aligned with business processes this program reduces the risks that may
incur additional O&M expense.
Much of 2021/2022 was focused on ensuring we are as current as we need to be to
maintain support, compatibility, reliability, and security. The goal is to maintain that
standard, while moving toward more strategic objectives, such as Contract Workflow
Management and Tribal Service Agreements.
In order to ensure that Avista maximizes the benefits for the investments made in our
enterprise applications, we use an ‘Enhancement Program” to provide incremental
improvements and optimization to the enterprise systems to maintain alignment
between the business and system processes. The work under this business case
enables improvements in the processes thus creating indirect labor efficiencies of at
least $45,000 a year. Additionally, enhancement work in this business case aids
Avista’s compliance capabilities, thus avoiding the risk of fines from the regulatory
agencies that govern our business.
2.3 Outline any business functions and processes that may be impacted (and
how) by the business case for it to be successfully implemented.
Both the Legal and Compliance areas operate in a dynamic and everchanging world.
This program provides these business areas the resources to react to the changes. For
example, a change in a state law in one of the states that we serve, requires additional
quarterly reporting requirements. This information can be entered into the reporting
system and then provide the necessary tracking information and corresponding
reminders for that specific compliance requirement.

2.4 Discuss the alternatives that were considered and any tangible risks and
mitigation strategies for each alternative.
 Alternative #1 - Funding at a Lower Level (or the Waterline)
The Waterline is bottom-up estimate for technology that is required to enable and
sustain automated business processes of existing Enterprise Applications to essentially
‘run the business’. These investments allow the company to continue to extract value
from the initial technology investment that supports essential functions and delivers
efficiency at the appropriate level of quality and performance. Without this investment,
systems can fall out of support based on technology vendor-driven lifecycles, as well
as degrade appropriate levels of performance and capacity needed to sustain existing
automated or technology-supported business processes or to keep automated
solutions in line with changing business processes. Estimates include labor and non-
labor forecasts based on historical trends and anticipated expenses, which support the
skillset, product, and licensing entitlements required to keep the systems current.
Waterlines can be fluid for various reasons and therefore are calibrated annually. This
alternative has a number of factors working against it.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 9065A316-FB6F-425D-A6F5-4EBAFA8E27E9
Exhibit No. 11 Case Nos. AVU-E-23-01/AVU-G-23-01 J. Kensok, Avista
Schedule 1, Page 245 of 304
Legal and Compliance Technology Business Case
Business Case Justification Narrative Page 6 of 10
If this Business Case was funded at the waterline, it would result in the need to run the
projects at a slower pace or defer existing system enhancements. This alternative
would cause a decline in the number of enhancements implemented and efficiencies
gained each year. While the work would likely get pushed to future years, the ability to
meet planned strategic objectives would be delayed even further. This action will also
increase reporting and compliance risks. The scale of increased risk is dependent upon
many factors such as, regulatory environment, license renewals and other factors
outside of our direct control.
In short, while feasible, funding at a lower level reduces the timing of efficiency gains,
adds risk that Avista would have to increase the number of software application assets
that would need to be deferred, thereby increasing risk of obsolescence, losing
maintenance and support, and reducing automation efficiencies.

2.5 Include a timeline of when this work will be started and completed.
Describe when the investments become used and useful to the customer.
spend, and transfers to plant by year.
This is a program with discrete projects and packages that typically run annually and
Transfer to Plant within that same year. There are times that a project may start in
Q3/Q4 of one year and Transfer to Plant the following year. Typically, application
projects will Transfer to Plant about 60 days prior to the project completion date (due
to the post implementation warranty period and to capture the trailing charges).
The goal is to break out large/complex projects into smaller projects (phases) to avoid
scope creep, budget overages, and ensure the work can be properly prioritized. The
first phase of every project would be scoped at the Minimum Viable Product (MVP),
and subsequent phases would be scoped accordingly, based on the next highest
priority after MVP. This also allows for more accurate Transfer to Plant forecasts.

2.6 Discuss how the proposed investment aligns with strategic vision, goals,
objectives and mission statement of the organization.
This is a program with discrete projects and packages that align with Avista’s vision,
mission and strategic objectives:
To improve our customers’ lives through innovative energy solutions, we also need to
have technology systems and processes that ensure we are making decisions that
focus on continuously improving our generation and delivery of safe, reliable, clean,
and affordable electric and natural gas service, as well as achieving financial objectives
through focused cost management, timely rate recovery, business transformation, and
unregulated business development.

2.7 Include why the requested amount above is considered a prudent
investment, providing or attaching any supporting documentation. In
addition, please explain how the investment prudency will be reviewed
and re-evaluated throughout the project
Avista’s Legal and Compliance technology systems are a necessity, as they provide
essential functions to all of our employees and customers throughout all service
DocuSign Envelope ID: 9065A316-FB6F-425D-A6F5-4EBAFA8E27E9
Exhibit No. 11 Case Nos. AVU-E-23-01/AVU-G-23-01 J. Kensok, Avista
Schedule 1, Page 246 of 304
Legal and Compliance Technology Business Case
Business Case Justification Narrative Page 7 of 10
territories. These vital systems require systematic upgrades and enhancements in
order to maintain reliability, compatibility, and reduce security vulnerabilities.
This funding level will provide the appropriate technology and development to meet the
periodic upgrades and enhancements prioritized by the LCT and Enterprise
Technology (ET) governance committee. This funding is necessary to mitigate the risk
of unsupported applications, security liability, and significantly higher costs as a result
of the deferment of upgrades and enhancements, etc.
Investment prudency is reviewed by the Steering Committee to ensure alignment of
initiatives through judiciously selected and implemented projects. The funding
requested as part of this program generally fits these initiatives and are assigned to
specific projects (with Steering Committee oversight) as they are identified. Also, the
Business Case owner will work with Steering Committee(s) to set project priority and
sequence over a five-year planning period, subject to any additional funding changes
as directed by the Capital Planning Group (CPG). Each program and project steering
committee meets regularly to review the demand to ensure that it aligns with Avista’s
strategies. The Steering Committee oversees scope, schedule and budget within their
respective programs and projects and inform the Business Case owner of any changes
needing escalation to the Technology Planning Group (TPG) or CPG for decision-
making around resource or funding constraints.

2.8 Supplemental Information

2.8.1 Identify customers and stakeholders that interface with the business case
The Legal and Compliance Technology Steering Committee members include
Business Case Sponsors, Directors and Managers within Legal and Compliance,
and the Enterprise Technology (ET) Business Case Owner.
The ET Business Case Owner works in conjunction with the Project Management
Office (PMO), and assigned Program Manager, and subsequent Project
Managers. The Business Technology Analyst (BTA) is also engaged at all levels
and serves as a liaison between ET and LCT.
The ET Business Case Owner is accountable and responsible for all Business
Case related activities and assignments, but the LCT team is regularly consulted,
and informed as this directly impacts LCT stakeholders. This model is conducive
to a strong partnership, which is key to managing all of the dynamic intricacies
throughout the course of the budget year.

2.8.2 Identify any related Business Cases
This Business Case is a program that has been functioning for the last 6 years
(prior to 2017, these projects were in the Technology Refresh and Technology
Expansion Business Cases).

DocuSign Envelope ID: 9065A316-FB6F-425D-A6F5-4EBAFA8E27E9
Exhibit No. 11 Case Nos. AVU-E-23-01/AVU-G-23-01 J. Kensok, Avista
Schedule 1, Page 247 of 304
Legal and Compliance Technology Business Case
Business Case Justification Narrative Page 8 of 10
3.1 Steering Committee or Advisory Group Information
This business case is governed by a steering committee made up of the principal
managers of the legal and compliance domains, and typically facilitated by the
Application Delivery Manager.
The roles include but are not limited to:
Director of Environmental Affairs, VP General Counsel Chief Compliance
Officer, Manager Reliability Compliance, Manager Claims, Manager FERC
Compliance, and Ethics and Compliance Manager.

3.2 Provide and discuss the governance processes and people that will
provide oversight
The Legal and Compliance Technology Business Case has four levels of governance:
The Executive Technology Steering Committee (ETSC); Technology Planning Group
(TPG) of Directors; Integrated Oversight Committee (IOC), and Program/Project
Steering Committees. Applicable stakeholders and disciplines meet regularly to govern
the business case and subsequent programs and projects.
The IOC evaluates and compares all of the application portfolio project priorities on a
weekly basis, utilizing risk, capacity, and other situational factors to ensure each
planned project is meeting critical milestones. The TPG sets priority across the
technology investment portfolio, balancing: strategic alignment, business value, and
customer benefits, as driven by the strategic initiatives established by the ETSC. The
Capital Planning Group (CPG), an independent body, establishes funding allocations
for each Business Case across the enterprise.
The Business Case is largely limited by the funding allocation and resource capacity
(staff) to meet its goals. The funding is generally established at the Business Case level
by the CPG. The resource capacity constraint is generally managed by the TPG and
the Business Case owner. Once the two constrains are established, the Business Case
owner will work with steering committee(s) to set project priority and sequence over a
five-year planning period, subject to additional funding changes as directed by the CPG.

3.3 How will decision-making, prioritization, and change requests be
documented and monitored
Project prioritization is evaluated by the management team on a weekly basis by the
IOC. Each program and project steering committee meets regularly and oversees
scope, schedule and budget within their respective programs and projects and inform
the Business Case owner of any changes needing escalation to the TPG or CPG for
decision-making around resource or funding constraints.
Any changes in funding or scope are documented at the Business Case level, via
Change Request document that is presented to the CPG on a monthly basis and
evaluated by the CPG for approval.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 9065A316-FB6F-425D-A6F5-4EBAFA8E27E9
Exhibit No. 11 Case Nos. AVU-E-23-01/AVU-G-23-01 J. Kensok, Avista
Schedule 1, Page 248 of 304
Legal and Compliance Technology Business Case
Business Case Justification Narrative Page 9 of 10
Changes in scope, schedule, or budget are also documented through a ‘Change
Request’ at the project level and reviewed and approved through a formal workflow
process. All Enterprise technology projects in this business case are managed through
the PMO, which follows the Project Management Institute (PMI) standards. Projects
initiate with a ‘Charter’ to begin the planning process. When planning is complete, a
‘Project Management Plan (PMP)’ is created and approved as the projects baseline for
scope, schedule and budget. At the end of execution, an ‘Approval to Go Live’ is
submitted and approved prior to implementation (Transfer to Plant). After the
technology is in service and out of the warranty period, the Project Manager will hold a
Lessons Learned, and subsequently submit an ‘Approval to Close’ prior to finishing the
project. All Monitor and Control documentation and Change Requests are documented
and stored to ensure a comprehensive audit trail.

The undersigned acknowledge they have reviewed the Legal and Compliance
Technology Business Case and agree with the approach it presents. Significant
changes to this will be coordinated with and approved by the undersigned or their
designated representatives.

Signature: Date:
Print Name: Graham Smith
Title: Application Delivery Manager
Role: Business Case Owner

Signature: Date:
Print Name: Greg Hesler
Title: VP General Counsel & Chief Compliance
Officer

Role: Business Case Sponsor

Signature: Date:
Print Name: Kathy Nitteberg
Title: Manager, Ethics & Compliance
Role: Business Case Governance

Signature: Date:
Print Name: Bruce Howard
DocuSign Envelope ID: 9065A316-FB6F-425D-A6F5-4EBAFA8E27E9
Sep-01-2022 | 9:14 AM PDT
Sep-01-2022 | 9:24 AM PDT
Sep-02-2022 | 5:38 AM PDT
Sep-01-2022 | 9:17 AM PDT
Exhibit No. 11 Case Nos. AVU-E-23-01/AVU-G-23-01 J. Kensok, Avista
Schedule 1, Page 249 of 304
Legal and Compliance Technology Business Case
Business Case Justification Narrative Page 10 of 10
Title: Sr. Director, Environmental Affairs
Role: Business Case Governance

Signature: Date:
Print Name: Hossein Nikdel
Title: Director, Application Development
Role: Business Case Governance

DocuSign Envelope ID: 9065A316-FB6F-425D-A6F5-4EBAFA8E27E9
Sep-01-2022 | 10:16 AM PDT
Exhibit No. 11 Case Nos. AVU-E-23-01/AVU-G-23-01 J. Kensok, Avista
Schedule 1, Page 250 of 304
Legal and Compliance Technology Business Case
Business Case Justification Narrative Page 1 of 1

Signature: Date:
Print Name: Erin McClatchey
Title: Manager, Reliability Compliance
Role: Business Case Governance

Signature: Date:
Print Name: Lisa Hairston
Title: Manager, FERC Compliance
Role: Business Case Governance

DocuSign Envelope ID: 9065A316-FB6F-425D-A6F5-4EBAFA8E27E9
Sep-01-2022 | 10:25 AM PDT
Sep-06-2022 | 7:37 AM PDT
Exhibit No. 11 Case Nos. AVU-E-23-01/AVU-G-23-01 J. Kensok, Avista
Schedule 1, Page 251 of 304
CIPv5 Transition
Business Case Justification Narrative Page 1 of 6
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Avista, as a regulated utility, is required to meet North American Electric Reliability
Corporation (“NERC”) Critical Infrastructure Protection (“CIP”) Reliability Standards
(“Standards”). Specifically, Avista must comply with the CIP Version 5 Standards (CIPv5).
Our current cyber transient asset solution for substation engineers and relay technicians
does currently meet the minimum compliance standard. However, the current process
and technical solution is not viable long term as technology advances and the compliance
standard changes in accordance with those advances. The requested amount is based
off of 2022 planning efforts to identify a compliant and robust transient cyber asset
technical solution.

Being compliant with industry standards and government agency mandates benefits
customers by reducing the risk of electric and gas service interruptions associated with
cyber or physical attacks. The requested funding amount is intended to achieve and
maintain compliance with the effective dates defined by the governing entity. Not being
compliant and accepting fines is not considered a viable alternative, as it puts Avista’s
cyber and physical security posture at risk and increases costs due to penalties. The
recommended solution is to implement the controls necessary to achieve compliance.

VERSION HISTORY
Version Author Description Date Notes
Draft Andru Miller Updated 5-year funding request 8/09/2022

DocuSign Envelope ID: FC22DF2E-C63B-478A-AF6E-45562F8D0BBF
Exhibit No. 11 Case Nos. AVU-E-23-01/AVU-G-23-01 J. Kensok, Avista
Schedule 1, Page 252 of 304
CIPv5 Transition
Business Case Justification Narrative Page 2 of 6
GENERAL INFORMATION

1. BUSINESS PROBLEM
Meeting compliance standards for both cyber and physical security measures is a
requirement for Avista and can result from regulatory and non-regulatory changes,
mandates, and executive orders from various agencies and industry groups. As
security threats become more and more sophisticated, security measures are also
adjusted in response. In addition to protecting gas and electric services, meeting
compliance standards by the specified timeframe will save Avista money from fines
associated with the violation of a standard.
1.1 What is the current or potential problem that is being addressed?
The Security Compliance business case addresses the following problems:
- Physical security: theft, vandalism, safety, service interruptions, fines
- Cyber security: customer accounts, payment transactions, identity theft,
intellectual property, safety, service interruptions, fines
1.2 Discuss the major drivers of the business case and the benefits to the
customer
Customer Requested, Customer Service Quality & Reliability, Mandatory &
Compliance, Performance & Capacity, Asset Condition, and Failed Plant &
Operations are all the major drivers in the Security Compliance business case.
Each driver has its own security elements necessary to mitigate the risk to
customers and the services they expect.
1.3 Identify why this work is needed now and what risks there are if not
approved or is deferred
Compliance standards for physical and cyber security measures are an absolute
necessity and will be for the foreseeable future. Avista must remain compliant
to ensure service reliability and avoid fines.
Requested Spend Amount $250,000
Requested Spend Time Period 1 year
Requesting Organization/Department C09 / Enterprise Security
Business Case Owner | Sponsor Andy Leija | Clay Storey
Sponsor Organization/Department Enterprise Technology
Phase Execution
Category Program
Driver Mandatory & Compliance
DocuSign Envelope ID: FC22DF2E-C63B-478A-AF6E-45562F8D0BBF
Exhibit No. 11 Case Nos. AVU-E-23-01/AVU-G-23-01 J. Kensok, Avista
Schedule 1, Page 253 of 304
CIPv5 Transition
Business Case Justification Narrative Page 3 of 6
1.4 Identify any measures that can be used to determine whether the
investment would successfully deliver on the objectives and address the
need listed above.
Avista conducts internal audits to evaluate its ability to meeting compliance
standards. These audits, along with utility industry forums, counsels, and
organizations provide Avista with a strong baseline from which to measure its
compliance and thus channel the appropriate level of investment to meet a new
standard.
1.5 Supplemental Information
1.5.1 Please reference and summarize any studies that support the problem
- N/A
1.5.2 For asset replacement, include graphical or narrative representation of metrics
associated with the current condition of the asset that is proposed for
replacement.
- N/A

The Security Compliance business case provides funding for cyber and physical
security related projects and supports Avista’s safe and reliable infrastructure
strategy. The projects funded by this business case are driven by security
compliance standards.

Option Capital Cost Start Complete
Address compliance standards as they are
applicable (Recommended)
$250,000 01 2023 12 2023
2.1 Describe what metrics, data, analysis or information was considered when
preparing this capital request.
The capital dollar request was derived from the historical annual spend
implementing physical and cyber security measures across the Avista service
territory to reasonably mitigate risks based on input from the programs
governing body. It also takes into account estimates of in-flight projects and a
1% per year increase for inflation for future projects.

2.2 Discuss how the requested capital cost amount will be spent in the current
year (or future years if a multi-year or ongoing initiative). (i.e. what are the
expected functions, processes or deliverables that will result from the capital spend?). Include
any known or estimated reductions to O&M as a result of this investment.
Meeting industry compliance requirements is important to Avista. Improving the
patching of operating systems and applications residing on the transient cyber
assets (laptops) that directly connect to highly sensitive operational technology
at generation and substation sites will significantly improve the cyber security
posture of Avista and its networks. Additionally, FERC Critical Infrastructure
Protection requirements continue to be updated to address emerging threats
DocuSign Envelope ID: FC22DF2E-C63B-478A-AF6E-45562F8D0BBF
Exhibit No. 11 Case Nos. AVU-E-23-01/AVU-G-23-01 J. Kensok, Avista
Schedule 1, Page 254 of 304
CIPv5 Transition
Business Case Justification Narrative Page 4 of 6
from around the globe. This business case expects to continue to deliver
physical and cyber tools contributing to compliance standards. Each project
within the business case evaluates the potential impact to O&M costs and
staffing.
[Offsets to projects will be more strongly scrutinized in general rate cases going forward (ref. WUTC Docket No. U-190531 Policy
Statement), therefore it is critical that these impacts are thought through in order to support rate recovery.]

2.3 Outline any business functions and processes that may be impacted (and
how) by the business case for it to be successfully implemented.
Both physical and cyber security systems, processes, and procedures can have
an impact on business functions. As a business case with multiple projects,
Avista’s project management office (PMO) tools and processes will be
leveraged to coordinate and collaborate through standardized change
management any changes to business functions.

2.4 Discuss the alternatives that were considered and any tangible risks and
mitigation strategies for each alternative.
No alternative funding strategy is proposed. Compliance requirements will be
identified, and corresponding projects will be sequenced to mitigate those risks
based on the approved funding level.

2.5 Include a timeline of when this work will be started and completed.
Describe when the investments become used and useful to the customer.
spend, and transfers to plant by year.
Since this business case is comprised of projects running concurrently over
multiple years, each one designates its own completion date and transfer-to-
plant.

2.6 Discuss how the proposed investment aligns with strategic vision, goals,
objectives and mission statement of the organization.
This business case is a compilation of discrete projects. The projects funded
by this business case protect Avista’s people, assets and information and will
ensure compliance with the required standards.

2.7 Include why the requested amount above is considered a prudent
investment, providing or attaching any supporting documentation. In
addition, please explain how the investment prudency will be reviewed
and re-evaluated throughout the project
Security measures to protect critical infrastructure is not only prudent but
required. Reasonable and appropriate security measures are an expectation
DocuSign Envelope ID: FC22DF2E-C63B-478A-AF6E-45562F8D0BBF
Exhibit No. 11 Case Nos. AVU-E-23-01/AVU-G-23-01 J. Kensok, Avista
Schedule 1, Page 255 of 304
CIPv5 Transition
Business Case Justification Narrative Page 5 of 6
from Avista’s customers. The prudency of the program’s investments will be
evaluated by its governing body every month and adjusted as necessary.

2.8 Supplemental Information

2.8.1 Identify customers and stakeholders that interface with the business case
The Security Compliance business case significantly impacts all of Avista’s staff
and its customers. Each project within the business case must carefully consider
stakeholders and effected customers during the chartering process.

2.8.2 Identify any related Business Cases
The Compliance business case may interact with other security business cases
as it invests in new compliance requirements. Other corresponding business
cases may include investments in refresh or upgrades of these assets as part
of their asset lifecycle through resulting from the Asset Condition driver.

3.1 Steering Committee or Advisory Group Information
The Reliability Compliance Advisory Committee will provide quarterly
recommendations and guidance based on the required compliance standards.

3.2 Provide and discuss the governance processes and people that will
provide oversight
The Reliability Compliance Advisory Committee acts as the guiding body for
compliance related work. This group meets quarterly and is composed of senior
leaders and directors from most of the lines of business. In addition, each project
funded by the Security Compliance business case has project level steering
committees.

3.3 How will decision-making, prioritization, and change requests be
documented and monitored
Project Steering Committees act as the governing body over each individual
project within the program and will consist of key members in management
positions that are identified as responsible for the successful completion of the
scope of work identified in the Charter document for the Project. The Project
Steering Committee is responsible to provide guidance and make decisions on
key issues that affect the following topics: scope, schedule, budget, project
issues, and project risks.

DocuSign Envelope ID: FC22DF2E-C63B-478A-AF6E-45562F8D0BBF
Exhibit No. 11 Case Nos. AVU-E-23-01/AVU-G-23-01 J. Kensok, Avista
Schedule 1, Page 256 of 304
CIPv5 Transition
Business Case Justification Narrative Page 6 of 6
The Project Steering Committee will meet at the defined intervals documented
in the Charter of the project and will be facilitated by an assigned Project
Manager from within the PMO Department.

The undersigned acknowledge they have reviewed the Security Compliance
business case and agree with the approach it presents. Significant changes to this
will be coordinated with and approved by the undersigned or their designated
representatives.

Signature: Date:
Print Name: Andy Leija
Title: Manager, Security Delivery
Role: Business Case Owner

Signature: Date:
Print Name: Clay Storey
Title: Director of Security, IT & Security
Management

Role: Business Case Sponsor

DocuSign Envelope ID: FC22DF2E-C63B-478A-AF6E-45562F8D0BBF
Sep-02-2022 | 9:47 AM PDT
Sep-02-2022 | 9:12 AM PDT
Exhibit No. 11 Case Nos. AVU-E-23-01/AVU-G-23-01 J. Kensok, Avista
Schedule 1, Page 257 of 304
Identity and Access Governance (IAG) Program
Business Case Justification Narrative Template Version: 08/04/2020 Page 1 of 8
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Avista’s current Identity and Access Governance (IAG) program is highly manual, time
consuming, cumbersome and prone to human error. This has led to consistent failures of
related controls around access to systems or facilities for individuals who have either
changed roles in the Company or left the Company and should no longer have previous
role access. The external audit scrutiny over the continued failures of these controls has
also increased. The recommended solution will implement an IAG program that includes
a technical solution, as well as revise and improve processes for validating, auditing, and
reporting system privileges for individuals across the Company. The IAG program will
create role-based profiles, define system privileges, automate access management, and
facilitate regular user access review and validation. The initial cost of the solution will
begin at approximately $1.7M, which will include software licenses, integration with
Avista’s Sarbanes-Oxley (SOX) applications, and certification of individuals requiring
access to them. As a program, additional investment over subsequent years will be
required to integrate all Company systems and validate system access and privileges.

This solution will benefit Avista and its customers by adhering to the security principle of
‘least privilege’, whereby individuals are limited access only to information and resources
necessary to perform their current and intended job functions. It also reduces the risk
associated with individuals having broad access to systems or to facilities their roles no
longer require. The timeline associated with initiating the IAG program is critical, as
security threats continue to get more and more sophisticated, such as ransomware
attacks and cybersecurity breaches, which can result in catastrophic consequences, such
as forced system outages, financial losses, ransomware payments, and reactive
investments. In addition, not approving this initiative will also lead to the continued
challenge of staying compliant with evolving compliance requirements related to
controlling identity and access.

VERSION HISTORY
Version Author Description Date Notes
1.0 Andy Leija Initial draft of original business case 7/6/2021
2.0 Andru Miller Updated 5-year funding request 8/09/2022

DocuSign Envelope ID: D68C1BA1-8339-4670-83B6-76D0E927818C
Exhibit No. 11 Case Nos. AVU-E-23-01/AVU-G-23-01 J. Kensok, Avista
Schedule 1, Page 258 of 304
Identity and Access Governance (IAG) Program
Business Case Justification Narrative Template Version: 08/04/2020 Page 2 of 8
GENERAL INFORMATION

1. BUSINESS PROBLEM
1.1 What is the current or potential problem that is being addressed?
Avista’s existing Identity and Access Governance (IAG) program is highly
manual, time consuming, cumbersome and prone to human error. This has led
to consistent failures of related controls around access to systems or facilities
for individuals who have either changed roles in the Company or left the
Company and should no longer have previous role access. The external audit
scrutiny over the continued failures of these controls has also increased.
1.2 Discuss the major drivers of the business case (Customer Requested, Customer
Service Quality & Reliability, Mandatory & Compliance, Performance & Capacity, Asset
Condition, or Failed Plant & Operations) and the benefits to the customer
Mandatory & Compliance is the main driver behind the IAG program.
Specifically, the IAG program responds to Sarbanes-Oxley (SOX) compliance
requirements, in ensuring that Avista has the internal controls to limit access to
individuals only to information and resources necessary to perform their current
and intended job functions. An additional investment driver includes Customer
Service Quality and Reliability, whereby reducing broad system access benefit
Avista and its customers by adhering to the security principle of ‘least privilege’
and segregation of duties, whereby individuals are limited access only to
information and resources necessary to perform their current and intended job
functions. It reduces the risk associated with individuals having broad access to
systems or to facilities their roles no longer require.
1.3 Identify why this work is needed now and what risks there are if not
approved or is deferred
The timeline associated with initiating the IAG program is critical, as security
threats continue to get more and more sophisticated, such as ransomware
attacks and cybersecurity breaches, which can result in catastrophic
consequences, such as forced system outages, financial losses, ransomware
payments, and reactive investments. In addition, not approving this initiative will
Requested Spend Amount $2,738,902
Requested Spend Time Period 5 years
Requesting Organization/Department C09/Enterprise Security
Business Case Owner | Sponsor Andy Leija | Clay Storey
Sponsor Organization/Department Enterprise Security / Accounting
Phase Execution
Category Program
Driver Mandatory & Compliance
DocuSign Envelope ID: D68C1BA1-8339-4670-83B6-76D0E927818C
Exhibit No. 11 Case Nos. AVU-E-23-01/AVU-G-23-01 J. Kensok, Avista
Schedule 1, Page 259 of 304
Identity and Access Governance (IAG) Program
Business Case Justification Narrative Template Version: 08/04/2020 Page 3 of 8
also lead to the continued challenge of staying compliant with evolving
compliance requirements related to controlling identity and access.
1.4 Identify any measures that can be used to determine whether the
investment would successfully deliver on the objectives and address the
need listed above.
Simple measures that can be used to determine the investment successfully
delivered on the desired objectives would include: 1) a review and certification
of Avista’s SOX applications and users; 2) annual validation and reporting in
preparation for external audit requirements; 3) review and certification of
additional applications.
1.5 Supplemental Information
1.5.1 Please reference and summarize any studies that support the problem
Bailey, T, Maruyama, A., and Wallance, D. (2020). The energy-sector threat:
How to address cybersecurity vulnerabilities. McKinsey & Company, Risk
Practice. Page 5. https://www.mckinsey.com/business-functions/risk/our-
insights/the-energy-sector-threat-how-to-address-cybersecurity-vulnerabilities

1.5.2 For asset replacement, include graphical or narrative representation of metrics
associated with the current condition of the asset that is proposed for
replacement.
Not applicable. No asset currently in place to manage role base access control.
2. PROPOSAL AND RECOMMENDED SOLUTION
Automating the existing IAG business process is critical to meeting compliance
requirements and securing the Company’s systems. The solution will require a
centralized tool for provisioning user accounts to Company systems, as well as revise
and introduce new processes for identified efficiencies. This may include pre-
approved role base profiles, automated workflows, email notifications/alerting, and
regular privilege verifications by system owners. This will ensure that user identities
and system access is always current.
The current highly manual IAG business process consists of approximately 2-3 FTE,
lacks a centralized system, is bogged down with approval delays, and cannot scale
to meet compliance requirements or enhanced business practices (e.g. rapid growth
in BYOD or system light apps, cloud computing, etc.) Although it seems that the
solution has a high cost to adopt, the primary implementation costs include 3-year
licensing and the labor associated to certify the Company’s SOX applications and its
users. As systems come online into the centralized solution, the cost will continue to
drop to a point where the investment will only support license renewals and system
enhancements and improvements.
Once the solution is in place with automation of existing IAG business processes.
Option Capital Cost Start Complete
DocuSign Envelope ID: D68C1BA1-8339-4670-83B6-76D0E927818C
Exhibit No. 11 Case Nos. AVU-E-23-01/AVU-G-23-01 J. Kensok, Avista
Schedule 1, Page 260 of 304
Identity and Access Governance (IAG) Program
Business Case Justification Narrative Template Version: 08/04/2020 Page 4 of 8
Recommended – IAG Program (Beginning ASAP)
with Org. Change Management
$2.74M 09 2021 12 2025
Alternative #1 – IAG Program (Beg. 2022) without
Org. Change Management
$2.42M 01 2022 12 2026
Alternative #2 – IAG Program (Beg. 2022) without
Org. Change Management and ONLY SOX systems
Not a desirable alternative, as staff will need to
utilize two systems for provisioning user identity and
access.
$1.37M 01 2022 12 2026
2.1 Describe what metrics, data, analysis or information was considered when
preparing this capital request.
There are various data points that were considered in preparing this capital
investment request. However, the primary drivers for the request is to invest in
a technology solution or platform that reduces the Company’s risk exposure,
strengthens security, improves compliance and audit performance, and delivers
fast and efficient access to all business users. Anticipated operational costs
savings due to automated efficiencies may stay neutral due to new software
license costs.
2.2 Discuss how the requested capital cost amount will be spent in the current
year (or future years if a multi-year or ongoing initiative). (i.e. what are the
expected functions, processes or deliverables that will result from the capital spend?). Include
any known or estimated reductions to O&M as a result of this investment.
[Offsets to projects will be more strongly scrutinized in general rate cases going forward (ref. WUTC Docket No. U-190531 Policy
Statement), therefore it is critical that these impacts are thought through in order to support rate recovery.]
This business case provides assurance that Avista staff are provided with the
appropriate access to systems and revoked when no longer needed in a timely
manner. In addition, this system will ensure that Avista staff only have access
to the systems they need to do their job. It also ensures we meet compliance
and investor expectations to be compliant. Investment in 2022 and 2023 will
include a Commercial Off The Shelf (COTS) solution to deploy role-based
access control for employees and contractors of Avista. This will improve
efficiency when granting user privileges to employees and contractors,
narrowing access only to the systems associated with their current job role or
function, and removing access to any system no longer needed in a timely
manner.
Our current process for granting user privileges is all manual, whereby building
a user profile for a new employee or contractor can take 15 minutes to create
and 10-40 hours of waiting time for approvals from system or business unit
managers. The new solution will enable pre-approved profile creations for roles
across Avista. Pre-approved profiles will allow automation for system
permissions, which will reduce the wait time for these requests. Although it may
appear that 15 minutes is not much time, when you multiply it times the number
of daily requests for system privileges, change of status, and removal of access,
the number grows to 12-16k requests per year or approximately 4k hours/year.
This is approximately 60% of our current 3-member team’s workload, not
DocuSign Envelope ID: D68C1BA1-8339-4670-83B6-76D0E927818C
Exhibit No. 11 Case Nos. AVU-E-23-01/AVU-G-23-01 J. Kensok, Avista
Schedule 1, Page 261 of 304
Identity and Access Governance (IAG) Program
Business Case Justification Narrative Template Version: 08/04/2020 Page 5 of 8
allowing them to get to routine maintenance and process improvements in other
areas of Identity Access Management. The team focuses primarily on new
permission requests and removal of access, followed by change of status when
a user’s role changes. Based on this prioritization, users can find themselves
with extended permissions when they change roles. The current process does
not allow for periodic audits to catch overly permissive permissions and
challenges our ability to consistently meet compliance requirements.
A significant efficiency that will be gained from this investment is in the wait time
for each request, resulting from approval delays by system or business unit
managers. The shortened or eliminated lifecycle of each request will be due to
automation of pre-approved role-based access. This efficiency will allow
requesters to receive system privileges more quickly. This may not have indirect
savings, as requesters are likely not just sitting waiting and rather working on
other assignments. Therefore, as it stands, we are not able to quantify the
indirect savings from this investment.

2.3 Outline any business functions and processes that may be impacted (and
how) by the business case for it to be successfully implemented.
The IAG program will affect all business units of the Company that own business
systems, such as Accounting, Finance, Customer Service, Asset Management,
Human Resources, Fleet, Energy Delivery, Energy Resources, Enterprise
Technology, etc.) as employees, contractors, and temporary workers require
access to Avista systems. Therefore, project sponsorship and organizational
change management will be critical so that business unit leaders support the
transition to a centralized solution. Business system owners will be required to
create role base profiles, review and certify users for each of their systems, and
begin regular reviews and attestations of their user base.
2.4 Discuss the alternatives that were considered and any tangible risks and
mitigation strategies for each alternative.
The alternatives are limited to on-prem vs. cloud implementations, as well as
whether organizational change management is included or not. A cloud
assessment is underway and will recommend the best implementation
approach. Based on the results of the cloud assessment and available funding,
management will determine when best to start the initiative. Tangible risks
considered is that without proper sponsorship and change management the
initiative will take longer than anticipated and the provisioning team will be stuck
using two systems and processes.
2.5 Include a timeline of when this work will be started and completed.
Describe when the investments become used and useful to the customer.
The initial implementation of an IAG program solution will include all SOX
applications. It is anticipated that this can take 12-18 months, mostly due to
business unit review, profile creations, and user certifications. Following the
SOX applications, all other Company systems will begin their journey onto the
DocuSign Envelope ID: D68C1BA1-8339-4670-83B6-76D0E927818C
Exhibit No. 11 Case Nos. AVU-E-23-01/AVU-G-23-01 J. Kensok, Avista
Schedule 1, Page 262 of 304
Identity and Access Governance (IAG) Program
Business Case Justification Narrative Template Version: 08/04/2020 Page 6 of 8
new platform. The solution will become used and useful at the time each system
and its users are certified. This means that full implementation may have
multiple transfer to plant dates as more and more systems come online.
2.6 Discuss how the proposed investment aligns with strategic vision, goals,
objectives and mission statement of the organization.
Investment in the Company’s IAG program aligns with Avista’s customer-centric
vision by reducing the Company’s risk exposure, strengthening security,
improving compliance and audit performance, and delivering fast and efficient
access to all business users. Maintaining a culture of compliance and a strong
security allows our employees to focus on delivering value to our customers and
the communities we serve.
2.7 Include why the requested amount above is considered a prudent
investment, providing or attaching any supporting documentation. In
addition, please explain how the investment prudency will be reviewed
and re-evaluated throughout the project.
Transitioning the Company’s IAG program into a centralized solution reduces
risk, strengthens security, improves compliance and audit performance, and
delivers results efficiently through automation. Doing nothing is not an option,
as audit failures will continue, systems are more complex, security threats are
more sophisticated, and manual processes continue to result in human error.
Transitioning only some applications will result in two systems of record with two
processes that may create confusion, frustration, and lead to fractured results
in provisioning user identity and access, as well as information for auditors.
Although minor process improvements continue to be made, the executive team
has deemed this investment critical to the Company’s approach to managing
identity and access for its systems as part of the Company’s remediation plan
resulting from the Evaluation of User Provisioning Control Deficiencies
Interoffice Memorandum, October 2020.
2.8 Supplemental Information

2.8.1 Identify customers and stakeholders that interface with the business case
All Avista employees, contractors, and temporary workers who have access to
a Company’s system via a username and password will be provisioned identity
and access to their respective systems using this solution. However, only the
system owners will be required to create role base profiles, define system
access privileges, and review and validate system users.

2.8.2 Identify any related Business Cases
This is a new business case based on a compliance need for managing controls
regarding segregation of duty, removal of access when individuals no longer
need access, process efficiency, and reporting requirements. Depending on the
scope of other compliance-driven business cases, it is possible that the IAG
DocuSign Envelope ID: D68C1BA1-8339-4670-83B6-76D0E927818C
Exhibit No. 11 Case Nos. AVU-E-23-01/AVU-G-23-01 J. Kensok, Avista
Schedule 1, Page 263 of 304
Identity and Access Governance (IAG) Program
Business Case Justification Narrative Template Version: 08/04/2020 Page 7 of 8
program business case may either interact with or have dependent deliverables
associated with corresponding compliance requirements.

3. MONITOR AND CONTROL
3.1 Steering Committee or Advisory Group Information
The IAG program business case will have two levels of governance: The
Executive Steering Committee and the Program/Project Steering Committee.

3.2 Provide and discuss the governance processes and people that will
provide oversight
Executive Steering Committee
The IAG business case is a program of related projects and require regular
report out to the Executive Sponsors. The Executive Sponsors consist of Jim
Kensok, Chief Information and Security Officer and Ryan Krasselt, Controller
and Principal Accounting Officer. They will be responsible for providing
guidance to the program/project teams on prioritization of efforts within this
program. The Executive Steering Committee is also accountable for the
financial performance of this program and provide recommendations on actions
needed from the program/project team. The Executive Steering Committee will
have regular meetings to review the progress of the program and to make
decisions on the following topics:

 Program/project prioritization and risk
 Approving business case funding requests
 New work effort initiation and sequencing

The Program will be facilitated and administrated by an assigned Program
Manager within the Enterprise Technology (ET) Project Management Office
(PMO) Department.

Program/Project Steering Committee
Program/Project Steering Committees act as the governing body over each
individual project within the program and will consist of key members in
management positions that are identified as responsible for the successful
completion of the scope of work identified in the Charter document for the
Project. The Project Steering Committee is responsible to provide guidance and
make decisions on key issues that affect the following topics:

 Scope
 Schedule
 Budget
 Project Issues
DocuSign Envelope ID: D68C1BA1-8339-4670-83B6-76D0E927818C
Exhibit No. 11 Case Nos. AVU-E-23-01/AVU-G-23-01 J. Kensok, Avista
Schedule 1, Page 264 of 304
Identity and Access Governance (IAG) Program
Business Case Justification Narrative Template Version: 08/04/2020 Page 8 of 8
 Project Risks

The Program/Project Steering Committee will meet at the defined intervals
documented in the Charter of the project and will be facilitated by an assigned
Project Manager from within the ET PMO Department.

3.3 How will decision-making, prioritization, and change requests be
documented and monitored
The governance structure under this business case program is responsible for
decision-making, prioritization, and change requests.
All change requests requiring either an increase or decrease of funds is
reviewed at the upcoming Technology Planning Group meeting before it is
submitted to the Capital Planning Group for review, discussion, and
consideration.
4. APPROVAL AND AUTHORIZATION
The undersigned acknowledge they have reviewed the Identity and Access
Governance Program and agree with the approach it presents. Significant changes
to this will be coordinated with and approved by the undersigned or their designated
representatives.

Signature: Date:
Print Name: Andy Leija
Title: Manager, Security Delivery
Role: Business Case Owner

Signature: Date:
Print Name: Clay Storey
Title: Director of Security
Role: Business Case Sponsor

DocuSign Envelope ID: D68C1BA1-8339-4670-83B6-76D0E927818C
Sep-02-2022 | 9:50 AM PDT
Sep-02-2022 | 9:13 AM PDT
Exhibit No. 11 Case Nos. AVU-E-23-01/AVU-G-23-01 J. Kensok, Avista
Schedule 1, Page 265 of 304
Security Compliance
Business Case Justification Narrative Page 1 of 6
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Avista, as a regulated utility, is required to meet many different compliance standards.
These standards continue to evolve to address emerging threats. To achieve and
maintain compliance with compliance standards, an estimated $250,000 annual
investment is necessary. This business case will fund cyber and physical security
improvements to achieve and maintain North American Electric Reliability Corporation
Critical Infrastructure Protection (NERC CIP), Western Electricity Coordinating Council
(WECC), Transportation Security Administration (TSA), Payment Card Industry (PCI),
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), and other emerging security
compliance-driven requirements.

Being compliant with industry standards and government agency mandates benefits
customers by reducing the risk of electric and gas service interruptions associated with
cyber or physical attacks. The requested funding amount is intended to achieve and
maintain compliance with the effective dates defined by the governing entity. Not being
compliant and accepting fines is not considered a viable alternative, as it puts Avista’s
cyber and physical security posture at risk and increases costs due to penalties. The
recommended solution is to implement the controls necessary to achieve compliance.

VERSION HISTORY
Version Author Description Date Notes
Draft Andru Miller Initial draft of original business case 6/29/2020
Updated Andru Miller Reduction of funds request in 2021 8/28/2020
Updated Andru Miller Changed focus from NERC to all
industry compliance standards 6/30/2021
1 Andru Miller Updated 5-year funding request 8/09/2022

DocuSign Envelope ID: B9FA534B-2D8B-412A-9F90-4B0D97A8FBE4
Exhibit No. 11 Case Nos. AVU-E-23-01/AVU-G-23-01 J. Kensok, Avista
Schedule 1, Page 266 of 304
Security Compliance
Business Case Justification Narrative Page 2 of 6
GENERAL INFORMATION

1. BUSINESS PROBLEM
Meeting compliance standards for both cyber and physical security measures is a
requirement for Avista and can result from regulatory and non-regulatory changes,
mandates, and executive orders from various agencies and industry groups. As
security threats become more and more sophisticated, security measures are also
adjusted in response. In addition to protecting gas and electric services, meeting
compliance standards by the specified timeframe will save Avista money from fines
associated with the violation of a standard.
1.1 What is the current or potential problem that is being addressed?
The Security Compliance business case addresses the following problems:
- Physical security: theft, vandalism, safety, service interruptions, fines
- Cyber security: customer accounts, payment transactions, identity theft,
intellectual property, safety, service interruptions, fines
1.2 Discuss the major drivers of the business case and the benefits to the
customer
Customer Requested, Customer Service Quality & Reliability, Mandatory &
Compliance, Performance & Capacity, Asset Condition, and Failed Plant &
Operations are all the major drivers in the Security Compliance business case.
Each driver has its own security elements necessary to mitigate the risk to
customers and the services they expect.
1.3 Identify why this work is needed now and what risks there are if not
approved or is deferred
Compliance standards for physical and cyber security measures are an absolute
necessity and will be for the foreseeable future. Avista must remain compliant
to ensure service reliability and avoid fines.
Requested Spend Amount $1,250,000
Requested Spend Time Period 5 years
Requesting Organization/Department C09 / Enterprise Security
Business Case Owner | Sponsor Andy Leija | Clay Storey
Sponsor Organization/Department
Phase Monitor/Control
Category Program
Driver Mandatory & Compliance
DocuSign Envelope ID: B9FA534B-2D8B-412A-9F90-4B0D97A8FBE4
Exhibit No. 11 Case Nos. AVU-E-23-01/AVU-G-23-01 J. Kensok, Avista
Schedule 1, Page 267 of 304
Security Compliance
Business Case Justification Narrative Page 3 of 6
1.4 Identify any measures that can be used to determine whether the
investment would successfully deliver on the objectives and address the
need listed above.
Avista conducts internal audits to evaluate its ability to meeting compliance
standards. These audits, along with utility industry forums, counsels, and
organizations provide Avista with a strong baseline from which to measure its
compliance and thus channel the appropriate level of investment to meet a new
standard.
1.5 Supplemental Information
1.5.1 Please reference and summarize any studies that support the problem
- N/A
1.5.2 For asset replacement, include graphical or narrative representation of metrics
associated with the current condition of the asset that is proposed for
replacement.
- N/A

The Security Compliance business case provides funding for cyber and physical
security related projects and supports Avista’s safe and reliable infrastructure
strategy. The projects funded by this business case are driven by security
compliance standards.

Option Capital Cost Start Complete
Address compliance standards as they are
applicable (Recommended)
$1,250,000 01 2023 12 2027
2.1 Describe what metrics, data, analysis or information was considered when
preparing this capital request.
The capital dollar request was derived from the historical annual spend
implementing physical and cyber security measures across the Avista service
territory to address compliance requirements and reasonably mitigate risks
based on input from the programs governing body. It also takes into account
estimates of in-flight projects and a 1% per year increase for inflation for future
projects.

2.2 Discuss how the requested capital cost amount will be spent in the current
year (or future years if a multi-year or ongoing initiative). (i.e. what are the
expected functions, processes or deliverables that will result from the capital spend?). Include
any known or estimated reductions to O&M as a result of this investment.
Maintaining compliance helps Avista reduce the likelihood of security breaches
while also avoiding financial penalties from regulatory bodies. Regulatory bodies
requiring increased security posture include the U.S. Department of Energy
(FERC/NERC CIP Requirements), U.S. Department of Homeland Security (TSA
SD1 and SD2), and potentially the U.S. Department of Defense (Cybersecurity
DocuSign Envelope ID: B9FA534B-2D8B-412A-9F90-4B0D97A8FBE4
Exhibit No. 11 Case Nos. AVU-E-23-01/AVU-G-23-01 J. Kensok, Avista
Schedule 1, Page 268 of 304
Security Compliance
Business Case Justification Narrative Page 4 of 6
Maturity Model Certification and Compliance). This business case responds to
new regulatory requirements to increase Avista’s security posture and meet new
compliance requirements. Future projects are forecasted based on regulatory
requirements; therefore, five-year forecasts are not available.
[Offsets to projects will be more strongly scrutinized in general rate cases going forward (ref. WUTC Docket No. U-190531 Policy
Statement), therefore it is critical that these impacts are thought through in order to support rate recovery.]

2.3 Outline any business functions and processes that may be impacted (and
how) by the business case for it to be successfully implemented.
Both physical and cyber security systems, processes, and procedures can have
an impact on business functions. As a business case with multiple projects,
Avista’s project management office (PMO) tools and processes will be
leveraged to coordinate and collaborate through standardized change
management any changes to business functions.

2.4 Discuss the alternatives that were considered and any tangible risks and
mitigation strategies for each alternative.
No alternative funding strategy is proposed. Compliance requirements will be
identified, and corresponding projects will be sequenced to mitigate those risks
based on the approved funding level.

2.5 Include a timeline of when this work will be started and completed.
Describe when the investments become used and useful to the customer.
spend, and transfers to plant by year.
Since this business case is comprised of projects running concurrently over
multiple years, each one designates its own completion date and transfer-to-
plant.

2.6 Discuss how the proposed investment aligns with strategic vision, goals,
objectives and mission statement of the organization.
This business case is a compilation of discrete projects. The projects funded
by this business case protect Avista’s people, assets and information and will
ensure compliance with the required standards.

2.7 Include why the requested amount above is considered a prudent
investment, providing or attaching any supporting documentation. In
addition, please explain how the investment prudency will be reviewed
and re-evaluated throughout the project
Security measures to protect critical infrastructure is not only prudent but
required. Reasonable and appropriate security measures are an expectation
DocuSign Envelope ID: B9FA534B-2D8B-412A-9F90-4B0D97A8FBE4
Exhibit No. 11 Case Nos. AVU-E-23-01/AVU-G-23-01 J. Kensok, Avista
Schedule 1, Page 269 of 304
Security Compliance
Business Case Justification Narrative Page 5 of 6
from Avista’s customers. The prudency of the program’s investments will be
evaluated by its governing body every month and adjusted as necessary.

2.8 Supplemental Information

2.8.1 Identify customers and stakeholders that interface with the business case
The Security Compliance business case significantly impacts all of Avista’s staff
and its customers. Each project within the business case must carefully consider
stakeholders and effected customers during the chartering process.

2.8.2 Identify any related Business Cases
The Compliance business case may interact with other security business cases
as it invests in new compliance requirements. Other corresponding business
cases may include investments in refresh or upgrades of these assets as part
of their asset lifecycle through resulting from the Asset Condition driver.

3.1 Steering Committee or Advisory Group Information
The Reliability Compliance Advisory Committee will provide quarterly
recommendations and guidance based on the required compliance standards.

3.2 Provide and discuss the governance processes and people that will
provide oversight
The Reliability Compliance Advisory Committee acts as the guiding body for
compliance related work. This group meets quarterly and is composed of senior
leaders and directors from most of the lines of business. In addition, each project
funded by the Security Compliance business case has project level steering
committees.

3.3 How will decision-making, prioritization, and change requests be
documented and monitored
Project Steering Committees act as the governing body over each individual
project within the program and will consist of key members in management
positions that are identified as responsible for the successful completion of the
scope of work identified in the Charter document for the Project. The Project
Steering Committee is responsible to provide guidance and make decisions on
key issues that affect the following topics: scope, schedule, budget, project
issues, and project risks.

DocuSign Envelope ID: B9FA534B-2D8B-412A-9F90-4B0D97A8FBE4
Exhibit No. 11 Case Nos. AVU-E-23-01/AVU-G-23-01 J. Kensok, Avista
Schedule 1, Page 270 of 304
Security Compliance
Business Case Justification Narrative Page 6 of 6
The Project Steering Committee will meet at the defined intervals documented
in the Charter of the project and will be facilitated by an assigned Project
Manager from within the PMO Department.

The undersigned acknowledge they have reviewed the Security Compliance
business case and agree with the approach it presents. Significant changes to this
will be coordinated with and approved by the undersigned or their designated
representatives.

Signature: Date:
Print Name: Andy Leija
Title: Manager, Security Delivery
Role: Business Case Owner

Signature: Date:
Print Name: Clay Storey
Title: Director of Security, IT & Security
Management

Role: Business Case Sponsor

DocuSign Envelope ID: B9FA534B-2D8B-412A-9F90-4B0D97A8FBE4
Sep-02-2022 | 9:31 AM PDT
Sep-02-2022 | 9:11 AM PDT
Exhibit No. 11 Case Nos. AVU-E-23-01/AVU-G-23-01 J. Kensok, Avista
Schedule 1, Page 271 of 304
Enterprise Business Continuity
Business Case Justification Narrative Page 1 of 6
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Avista has developed and maintains an Enterprise Business Continuity Program to
continually enhance and improve the Company’s emergency response, business
continuity, and disaster recovery capabilities to ensure the continuity of its critical
business process and systems under crisis conditions. The program includes the key
areas of technology recovery, alternate facilities, and overall business processes. The
effort of developing and continuously improving the program ensures the readiness of
systems, procedures, processes, and people required to support our customers and our
communities in the event of a disaster.

The capital budget request of $2,025,000 funds projects that benefit Avista customers by
mitigating service interruptions due to a disaster by continually enhancing and improving
emergency response, business continuity, and disaster recovery capabilities. Not
approving this business case or its recommended funding can pose risks to the business
processes and systems that support the delivery of safe and reliable energy.

VERSION HISTORY
Version Author Description Date Notes
Draft Andru Miller Initial draft of the original business case 6/30/2020
1 Andru Miller Updated 5-year funding request 8/9/2022

DocuSign Envelope ID: 039003DE-45CC-447E-96F2-40B2CC0C015B
Exhibit No. 11 Case Nos. AVU-E-23-01/AVU-G-23-01 J. Kensok, Avista
Schedule 1, Page 272 of 304
Enterprise Business Continuity
Business Case Justification Narrative Page 2 of 6
GENERAL INFORMATION
1. BUSINESS PROBLEM
1.1 What is the current or potential problem that is being addressed?
Severe storms, natural disasters, and significant security events are
unpredictable and, while they may have a low probability, they can have a high
consequence. These types of low frequency, high consequence events can
have an impact on the resources Avista depends on for its operations. Many of
Avista’s critical business processes are now more than ever dependent on data,
communication networks, and computer systems. Prolonged failure of any of
these resources could have a significant impact on Avista’s ability to sustain gas
and electric operations for its customers.
1.2 Discuss the major drivers of the business case and the benefits to the
customer
Performance & Capacity is the primary driver for the Enterprise Business
Continuity business case as the projects it funds generally enhance or address
performance or technology capacity constraints.
1.3 Identify why this work is needed now and what risks there are if not
approved or is deferred
The ability to maintain uninterrupted services and/or recover quickly in the event
of a disaster is critical to serving our customers. Technology investments are
needed annually to continue to enhance the resiliency of systems that support
critical business processes. Not approving or deferring investments in this
business case could limit Avista’s disaster recovery abilities.
1.4 Identify any measures that can be used to determine whether the
investment would successfully deliver on the objectives and address the
need listed above.
Avista conducts an annual disaster recovery exercise to evaluate the
effectiveness of its program. This exercise, along with utility industry forums,
counsels, and organizations provide Avista with a strong baseline from which to
Requested Spend Amount $2,025,000
Requested Spend Time Period 5 years
Requesting Organization/Department Security
Business Case Owner | Sponsor Andy Leija | Clay Storey
Sponsor Organization/Department Enterprise Security
Phase Execution
Category Program
Driver Performance & Capacity
DocuSign Envelope ID: 039003DE-45CC-447E-96F2-40B2CC0C015B
Exhibit No. 11 Case Nos. AVU-E-23-01/AVU-G-23-01 J. Kensok, Avista
Schedule 1, Page 273 of 304
Enterprise Business Continuity
Business Case Justification Narrative Page 3 of 6
measure its recovery capabilities and channel the appropriate level of
investment to address any identified issues or risks.

1.5 Supplemental Information
1.5.1 Please reference and summarize any studies that support the problem
N/A
1.5.2 For asset replacement, include graphical or narrative representation of metrics
associated with the current condition of the asset that is proposed for
replacement.

The requested funding level will address the highest risks that can’t wait until the next
technology refresh cycle. It is recommended that this level of funding continue rather
than potentially deferring the work 3-5 years since this program is meant to address
high-risk deficiencies in a shorter cycle than a typical refresh cycle.

Option Capital Cost Start Complete
Address business continuity gaps outside of
technology refresh or expansion projects
$2,025,000 01 2023 12 2027
2.1 Describe what metrics, data, analysis or information was considered when
preparing this capital request.
The historical spending trend has been $405,000 annually. The requested
funding level is derived from past projects and future estimates for projects to
maintain and enhance Avista’s ability to respond and continue operations in the
event of major disasters. Projects within this business case are derived from each
previous disaster recovery test event. Therefore, future projects are not included
in the five-year plan.

2.2 Discuss how the requested capital cost amount will be spent in the current
year (or future years if a multi-year or ongoing initiative). (i.e. what are the
expected functions, processes or deliverables that will result from the capital spend?). Include
any known or estimated reductions to O&M as a result of this investment.
Avista, like the rest of the energy sector, is highly dependent on technology and
its availability to deliver energy to our customers. The time to recover technology
due to an unplanned event is critical to business operations and can be costly.
The cost can include employee time while technology systems are down, the
time the employee needs to catch up from systems being down, and the cost of
the employees working the incident to recover the systems down. Not to
mention, depending on the severity or scale of the system outage, technology
replacement costs and shipping times may also play a factor. Lastly, and as
important but more difficult to calculate, our customer confidence and service
value may also be affected.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 039003DE-45CC-447E-96F2-40B2CC0C015B
Exhibit No. 11 Case Nos. AVU-E-23-01/AVU-G-23-01 J. Kensok, Avista
Schedule 1, Page 274 of 304
Enterprise Business Continuity
Business Case Justification Narrative Page 4 of 6
The projects in this business case support continued disaster recovery
investments to continue operating Avista’s critical system by ensuring we have
the right recovery capabilities to sustain operations in the event of a disaster.
Without investments in recovery capabilities, critical systems would not be
available in the event of a disaster and would cause operational inefficiencies
and in extreme cases the inability to sustain operations. According to a recent
article in Comparitech, the average cost of downtime for a medium-size
company, such as Avista, is approximately $74k per hour. This would include a
full inoperable data center, which could be a target of a ransomware attack. The
average downtime due to a ransomware attack is an average of 16.2 days.
Therefore, an average ransomware attack that makes Avista’s data center
inoperable for approximately 16.2 days or 194 hours (based on a 12-hour day)
can result in almost $14.4M of loss time. This does not even include the actual
ransomware payment, should paying it be an option. Although the probability of
a ransomware attack is low, the consequence or result is high. Therefore, Avista
continues to invest in disaster recovery efforts to reduce or control for this
pending risk. .
[Offsets to projects will be more strongly scrutinized in general rate cases going forward (ref. WUTC Docket No. U-190531 Policy
Statement), therefore it is critical that these impacts are thought through in order to support rate recovery.]

2.3 Outline any business functions and processes that may be impacted (and
how) by the business case for it to be successfully implemented.
Business continuity and disaster recovery solutions for business functions can
have an impact on how the function will be performed during a disaster. As a
business case with multiple projects, Avista’s project management office (PMO)
tools and processes will be leveraged to coordinate and collaborate through
standardized change management any changes to the business functions.

2.4 Discuss the alternatives that were considered and any tangible risks and
mitigation strategies for each alternative.
Not funding the program was considered. If the program was not funded, the
risk of not having adequate recovery capabilities would have to be tied to the
technology refresh cycles which is typically 3-5 years.

2.5 Include a timeline of when this work will be started and completed.
Describe when the investments become used and useful to the customer.
spend, and transfers to plant by year.
Since this business case is comprised of projects running concurrently over
multiple years, each project designates its completion and transfer-to-plant
timeline.

DocuSign Envelope ID: 039003DE-45CC-447E-96F2-40B2CC0C015B
Exhibit No. 11 Case Nos. AVU-E-23-01/AVU-G-23-01 J. Kensok, Avista
Schedule 1, Page 275 of 304
Enterprise Business Continuity
Business Case Justification Narrative Page 5 of 6
2.6 Discuss how the proposed investment aligns with strategic vision, goals,
objectives, and mission statement of the organization.
This business case best aligns with Avista’s focus area of Perform as having
reliable systems is essential to serving our customers.

2.7 Include why the requested amount above is considered a prudent
investment, providing or attaching any supporting documentation. In
addition, please explain how the investment prudency will be reviewed
and re-evaluated throughout the project.
The prudency of the program’s projects will be evaluated by its governing body
and adjusted as necessary.
2.8 Supplemental Information

2.8.1 Identify customers and stakeholders that interface with the business case
Each project within the business case will consider stakeholders during the
chartering process.

2.8.2 Identify any related Business Cases
- None

3.1 Steering Committee or Advisory Group Information
Each project will have steering committees to monitor scope, schedule, and
budget.

3.2 Provide and discuss the governance processes and people that will
provide oversight
Project Steering Committees act as the governing body over each project within
the program and will consist of key members in management positions that are
identified as responsible for the successful completion of the scope of work
identified in the Charter document for the Project.
3.3 How will decision-making, prioritization, and change requests be
documented and monitored
The Project Steering Committee is responsible to provide guidance and make
decisions on key issues that affect the following topics: scope, schedule, budget,
project issues, and project risks.

DocuSign Envelope ID: 039003DE-45CC-447E-96F2-40B2CC0C015B
Exhibit No. 11 Case Nos. AVU-E-23-01/AVU-G-23-01 J. Kensok, Avista
Schedule 1, Page 276 of 304
Enterprise Business Continuity
Business Case Justification Narrative Page 6 of 6
The undersigned acknowledge they have reviewed the Enterprise Business
Continuity business case and agree with the approach it presents. Significant
changes to this will be coordinated with and approved by the undersigned or their
designated representatives.

Signature: Date:
Print Name: Andy Leija
Title: Manager, Security Delivery
Role: Business Case Owner

Signature: Date:
Print Name: Clay Storey
Title: Director of Security, IT & Security
Management

Role: Business Case Sponsor

Template Version: 05/28/2020
DocuSign Envelope ID: 039003DE-45CC-447E-96F2-40B2CC0C015B
Sep-02-2022 | 9:44 AM PDT
Sep-02-2022 | 9:11 AM PDT
Exhibit No. 11 Case Nos. AVU-E-23-01/AVU-G-23-01 J. Kensok, Avista
Schedule 1, Page 277 of 304
Enterprise Security
Business Case Justification Narrative Page 1 of 7
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Cyber security measures along with physical security is an expectation of all companies
today by their customers. Especially companies that are considered critical infrastructure
that are required to meet specific compliance standards. Protecting vital electric and gas
services from cyber-attacks greatly benefits Avista’s customers. In addition to protecting
gas and electric services, cyber and physical security tools mitigate risks like theft and
vandalism on Avista properties and identity theft and payment transactions from online
attacks.
The capital budget request of $12,180,000 for Enterprise Security funds the technology,
tools, and systems that benefit all Avista customers as the funded projects maintain and
enhance Avista’s security posture to minimize the risks associated with cyber intrusions.
Not approving this business case or its recommended funding can pose risks to the
systems that Avista depends on to conduct business and deliver safe and reliable energy.

VERSION HISTORY
Version Author Description Date Notes
Draft Andru Miller Initial draft of original business case 7/01/2020
1 Andru Miller Updated 5-year funding request 8/09/2022

DocuSign Envelope ID: C1424A9A-16C4-472E-8786-D1681BC536CC
Exhibit No. 11 Case Nos. AVU-E-23-01/AVU-G-23-01 J. Kensok, Avista
Schedule 1, Page 278 of 304
Enterprise Security
Business Case Justification Narrative Page 2 of 7
GENERAL INFORMATION

1. BUSINESS PROBLEM
1.1 What is the current or potential problem that is being addressed?
The security of our electric and natural gas infrastructure is a significant priority at
a national and state level and is of critical importance to Avista. Threats from
cyberspace, including viruses, phishing, and spyware, continue to test our
industry’s capabilities. And while these malicious intentions are often unknown, it
is clear the methods are becoming more advanced and the attacks more
persistent. In addition to these threats, the vulnerabilities of hardware and software
systems continue to increase, especially with industrial control systems such as
those supporting the delivery of energy. For these reasons, Avista must continue
to advance its cybersecurity program and invest in security controls to prevent,
detect, and respond to these increasingly frequent and sophisticated attacks.
1.2 Discuss the major drivers of the business case and the benefits to the
customer
Performance & Capacity is the primary driver for the business case as the
projects it funds address security risks with the use of technology that keeps our
systems secure and reliable.
1.3 Identify why this work is needed now and what risks there are if not
approved or is deferred
Addressing security risks has been and will continue to be an ongoing issue. If
the funding is not approved or is deferred, this increases the likelihood of a
security event that could impact Avista’s operations.
1.4 Identify any measures that can be used to determine whether the
investment would successfully deliver on the objectives and address the
need listed above.
Avista utilizes third party assessments to evaluate the effectiveness of its
security posture. These assessments, along with utility industry forums,
counsels, and organizations provide Avista with a strong baseline from which to
Requested Spend Amount $12,180,000
Requested Spend Time Period 5 years
Requesting Organization/Department Security
Business Case Owner | Sponsor Andy Leija | Clay Storey
Sponsor Organization/Department Enterprise Technology
Phase Execution
Category Program
Driver Performance & Capacity
DocuSign Envelope ID: C1424A9A-16C4-472E-8786-D1681BC536CC
Exhibit No. 11 Case Nos. AVU-E-23-01/AVU-G-23-01 J. Kensok, Avista
Schedule 1, Page 279 of 304
Enterprise Security
Business Case Justification Narrative Page 3 of 7
measure its security capabilities and channel the appropriate level of investment
to mitigate identified risks.
1.5 Supplemental Information
1.5.1 Please reference and summarize any studies that support the problem
1. Gartner has forecasted businesses will spend $170.4 billion on security in 2022.
2. The average cost of a data breach jumped to $3.86 million in 2021, according to IBM
Security.
3. Ransomware payments rose to $111,605 in 2020, according to Fintech News.
4. Cybercrime damages cost the world $6 trillion in 2021.
1.5.2 For asset replacement, include graphical or narrative representation of metrics
associated with the current condition of the asset that is proposed for
replacement.
Security assets such as firewalls, intrusion prevention, anti-virus, and endpoint
protection systems must be regularly updated or replaced as they reach their
end of life, so they don’t become unreliable and become a security risk due to
not being able to be patched.

The Enterprise Security business case provides funding for cyber and physical
security-related projects and supports Avista’s safe and reliable infrastructure
strategy. The projects funded by this business case protect Avista’s people,
assets, and information. Without proper security protection the risk to Avista’s
people, assets, and information increases.

Option Capital Cost Start Complete
Address 80% of obsolete technology and emerging
risks (Recommended)
$12,180,000 01 2023 12 2027
Address 40% of obsolete technology and emerging
risks
$4,872,000 01 2023 12 2027
Address 100% of obsolete technology and emerging
risks
$22,500,000 01 2023 12 2027
2.1 Describe what metrics, data, analysis or information was considered when
preparing this capital request.
The capital dollar request was derived from the historical annual spend
implementing security measures to reasonably mitigate risks based on input
from the programs governing body. It also takes into account estimates of in-
flight projects and a 1% per year increase for inflation for future projects.

DocuSign Envelope ID: C1424A9A-16C4-472E-8786-D1681BC536CC
Exhibit No. 11 Case Nos. AVU-E-23-01/AVU-G-23-01 J. Kensok, Avista
Schedule 1, Page 280 of 304
Enterprise Security
Business Case Justification Narrative Page 4 of 7
2.2 Discuss how the requested capital cost amount will be spent in the current
year (or future years if a multi-year or ongoing initiative). (i.e. what are the
expected functions, processes or deliverables that will result from the capital spend?). Include
any known or estimated reductions to O&M as a result of this investment.
Investments in cyber security tools like firewalls, security incident and event
monitoring, intrusion prevention, and endpoint protection systems help identify,
detect, protect, respond, and recover from a cybersecurity incident. Without
these tools, cybersecurity attacks, such as ransomware, data breaches,
distributed denial of service, and other methods would significantly reduce
Avista’s operational capability and potentially expose sensitive information,
including customer data. Recent reports on ransomware threats show that an
average ransomware demand in 2020 was approximately $850k, not including
the average cost of the associated forensic engagement to mitigate the incident,
ranging from $40k - $208k or the average employee loss time due to the
downtime of the data center or systems.
In addition to ransomware threats, the number and cost of data breaches
continue to go up for the energy sector in the United States. According to a
recent IBM report, the energy sector is second, only to healthcare, in the
average total cost of a data breach by industry. Customer Personal Identifiable
Information (PII) was the type of data most often lost or stolen in a breach. Each
data breach incident, should it be realized, can cost an average of $6.39M per
event. Moreover, should any sensitive data be taken, additional costs could be
incurred in the form of penalties, lawsuits, credit protection insurance, etc.
Because the threat landscape continues to change and become more complex
daily, Avista’s continuous investment in cybersecurity tools is critical.
Therefore, should a data breach event occur, whereby customer data is stolen,
it can cost an average of $6.39M per event
Investments in these technology upgrades, enhancements, and licenses
provide indirect savings by quantifying the efficiencies based on assumptions
on minutes of loss time, percent of users, scale of attack, number of systems
affected, etc. noted in the above projects. Continuous investment in
cybersecurity reduces the likelihood of realizing the risk of a cybersecurity
incident and adheres to growing security compliance requirements, and industry
best practices. Depending on the type and reach of a cybersecurity incident, the
consequence can be high. Therefore, Avista continues to invest in disaster
recovery efforts to reduce or control for this pending risk.
2023 2024 2025 2026 2027
Firewall
Refresh
Endpoint
Security
Refresh
User Behavior
Analysis
Firewall refresh Endpoint
Security
Refresh
Security
Logging
Network
Device
Authentication
System
Intrusion
Detection
Hardware
Security
Modules
Cloud Security
Enhancements

DocuSign Envelope ID: C1424A9A-16C4-472E-8786-D1681BC536CC
Exhibit No. 11 Case Nos. AVU-E-23-01/AVU-G-23-01 J. Kensok, Avista
Schedule 1, Page 281 of 304
Enterprise Security
Business Case Justification Narrative Page 5 of 7

2.3 Outline any business functions and processes that may be impacted (and
how) by the business case for it to be successfully implemented.
Security systems, processes, and procedures can have an impact on business
functions. As a business case with multiple projects, Avista’s project
management office (PMO) tools and processes will be leveraged to coordinate
and collaborate through standardized change management any changes to
business functions.

2.4 Discuss the alternatives that were considered and any tangible risks and
mitigation strategies for each alternative.
The first alternative strategy would be to fund the business case at roughly half
the recommended budget amount (40%). This alternative significantly
increases the risk of using outdated security systems to provide safe and reliable
service to Avista’s customers.
The second alternative would fully fund the business case and allow Avista the
ability to implement new security systems as they become available and replace
existing systems well before the end of their serviceability.
2.5 Include a timeline of when this work will be started and completed.
Describe when the investments become used and useful to the customer.
spend, and transfers to plant by year.
Since this business case is comprised of projects running concurrently over
multiple years, each one designates its own completion date and transfer-to-
plant.

2.6 Discuss how the proposed investment aligns with strategic vision, goals,
objectives and mission statement of the organization.
The projects funded by this business case protect Avista’s people, assets and
information. Without proper security protection the risk to Avista’s people,
assets and information increases.

2.7 Include why the requested amount above is considered a prudent
investment, providing or attaching any supporting documentation. In
addition, please explain how the investment prudency will be reviewed
and re-evaluated throughout the project
Security measures to protect critical infrastructure are not only prudent but
required. Reasonable and appropriate security measures are an expectation of
Avista’s customers. The prudency of the program’s investments will be
evaluated by its governing body every month and adjusted as necessary.
2.8 Supplemental Information

DocuSign Envelope ID: C1424A9A-16C4-472E-8786-D1681BC536CC
Exhibit No. 11 Case Nos. AVU-E-23-01/AVU-G-23-01 J. Kensok, Avista
Schedule 1, Page 282 of 304
Enterprise Security
Business Case Justification Narrative Page 6 of 7
2.8.1 Identify customers and stakeholders that interface with the business case
The Enterprise Security business case significantly impacts all of Avista’s staff
and its customers. Each project within the business case must carefully
consider stakeholders and effected customers during the chartering process.

2.8.2 Identify any related Business Cases
This Enterprise Security business case replaced the following business cases:
- Enterprise Security Systems Refresh
- Enterprise Security Systems Expansion

3.1 Steering Committee or Advisory Group Information
The Enterprise Security Committee will provide monthly recommendations and
guidance based on security operations center updates, business case financial
updates, and industry recommendations.

3.2 Provide and discuss the governance processes and people that will
provide oversight
The Enterprise Security Committee acts as the custodian and governance body
of security resources and investments which includes the Enterprise Security
Business Case. This group meets monthly and is composed of directors and
managers from most of the lines of business. In addition, each project funded
by the Enterprise Security Business Case has project-level steering committees.

3.3 How will decision-making, prioritization, and change requests be
documented and monitored
Project Steering Committees act as the governing body over each project within
the program and will consist of key members in management positions that are
identified as responsible for the successful completion of the scope of work
identified in the Charter document for the Project. The Project Steering
Committee is responsible for providing guidance and making decisions on key
issues that affect the following topics: scope, schedule, budget, project issues,
and project risks.

The Project Steering Committee will meet at the defined intervals documented
in the Charter of the project and will be facilitated by an assigned Project
Manager from within the PMO Department.

The undersigned acknowledge they have reviewed the Enterprise Security business
case and agree with the approach it presents. Significant changes to this will be
DocuSign Envelope ID: C1424A9A-16C4-472E-8786-D1681BC536CC
Exhibit No. 11 Case Nos. AVU-E-23-01/AVU-G-23-01 J. Kensok, Avista
Schedule 1, Page 283 of 304
Enterprise Security
Business Case Justification Narrative Page 7 of 7
coordinated with and approved by the undersigned or their designated
representatives.

Signature: Date:
Print Name: Andy Leija
Title: Manager, Security Delivery
Role: Business Case Owner

Signature: Date:
Print Name: Clay Storey
Title: Director of Security, IT & Security
Management

Role: Business Case Sponsor

Template Version: 05/28/2020

DocuSign Envelope ID: C1424A9A-16C4-472E-8786-D1681BC536CC
Sep-02-2022 | 1:27 PM PDT
Sep-02-2022 | 11:12 AM PDT
Exhibit No. 11 Case Nos. AVU-E-23-01/AVU-G-23-01 J. Kensok, Avista
Schedule 1, Page 284 of 304
Facilities and Storage Location Security
Business Case Justification Narrative Page 1 of 6
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Security is an expectation of companies today by its customers. Especially companies
considered critical infrastructure. Protecting facility & storage locations benefits Avista’s
customers by protecting our people, equipment, and material that are critical to support
our day-to-day operations. The capital budget request of $1,900,000 funds the security
protections that benefit Avista customers as the enhancements maintain and enhance
Avista’s security posture to minimize the risks associated with attacks at facility & storage
locations within the Avista service territory. Not approving this business case or its
recommended funding can pose risks to the people and assets Avista depends on to
conduct business and delivery safe and reliable energy.

VERSION HISTORY
Version Author Description Date Notes
Draft Andru Miller Initial draft of original business case 7/01/2020
1 Andru Miller Updated 5-year funding request 8/09/2022

DocuSign Envelope ID: F0475CA0-0A7B-48FB-8693-F289B736EA3D
Exhibit No. 11 Case Nos. AVU-E-23-01/AVU-G-23-01 J. Kensok, Avista
Schedule 1, Page 285 of 304
Facilities and Storage Location Security
Business Case Justification Narrative Page 2 of 6
GENERAL INFORMATION

1. BUSINESS PROBLEM
1.1 What is the current or potential problem that is being addressed?
Security remains a concern at our facility & storage locations. These locations
contain people, equipment, and material that are critical to support our day-to-
day operations and, in turn, the delivery of safe and reliable gas and electricity.
A security incident at any of these locations may harm people, damage
equipment, or even restrict our ability to respond to our customers. Also, attacks
can give intruders access to critical cyber equipment, which can lead to a
cybersecurity event.
1.2 Discuss the major drivers of the business case and the benefits to the
customer
Performance & Capacity is the primary driver for the business case as the
projects it funds address security risks by protecting our people, equipment, and
material that are critical to support our day-to-day operations.
1.3 Identify why this work is needed now and what risks there are if not
approved or is deferred
Addressing security risks has been and will continue to be an ongoing issue. If
the funding is not approved or is deferred, this increases the likelihood of a
security event that could impact people, equipment, and materials that are
critical to support our day-to-day operations.
1.4 Identify any measures that can be used to determine whether the
investment would successfully deliver on the objectives and address the
need listed above.
Avista utilizes utility industry forums, counsels, organizations and knowledge
from past security incidents to provided Avista with a strong baseline from which
to measure its security capabilities and channel the appropriate level of
investment to mitigate the identified risks.
Requested Spend Amount $1,900,000
Requested Spend Time Period 5 years
Requesting Organization/Department Security
Business Case Owner | Sponsor Andy Leija | Clay Storey
Sponsor Organization/Department Enterprise Technology
Phase Execution
Category Program
Driver Performance & Capacity
DocuSign Envelope ID: F0475CA0-0A7B-48FB-8693-F289B736EA3D
Exhibit No. 11 Case Nos. AVU-E-23-01/AVU-G-23-01 J. Kensok, Avista
Schedule 1, Page 286 of 304
Facilities and Storage Location Security
Business Case Justification Narrative Page 3 of 6
1.5 Supplemental Information
1.5.1 Please reference and summarize any studies that support the problem
N/A
1.5.2 For asset replacement, include graphical or narrative representation of metrics
associated with the current condition of the asset that is proposed for
replacement.

Option Capital Cost Start Complete
Address security at facilities and storage locations
as funding allows (Recommended)
$1,900,000 01 2023 12 2027
Address security at facilities and storage locations in
7.5 years
$4,000,000 01 2023 06 2030
Address security at facilities and storage locations in
10 years
$6,000,000 01 2021 12 2033
2.1 Describe what metrics, data, analysis or information was considered when
preparing this capital request.
The capital dollar request was derived from the historical annual spend
implementing security measures across the Avista service territory to
reasonably mitigate risks based on input from the programs governing body. It
also takes into account estimates of in-flight projects and a 1% per year increase
for inflation of future projects.

2.2 Discuss how the requested capital cost amount will be spent in the current
year (or future years if a multi-year or ongoing initiative). (i.e. what are the
expected functions, processes or deliverables that will result from the capital spend?). Include
any known or estimated reductions to O&M as a result of this investment.
This business case is refreshing legacy access control systems that provide
security and safety to Avista staff and customers by reducing the use of physical
brass keys. Managing physical brass keys is extremely inefficient and insecure
because they can be lost, stolen, or not returned upon employee departure. The
cost to regularly replace keys or re-key each entry for all employees due to key
loss, theft, or unreturned keys across multi-state facilities whereby employees
come and go to and from various sites would be more costly over time than
refreshing the existing badged access control system.
In addition, this business case funds video surveillance refresh projects that
provide theft and vandalism deterrence and can aid law enforcement if those
events are to occur by having video evidence. Investments in both access
control systems and video surveillance help protect our tools, equipment,
vehicles, parts, facilities, employees, and customers. Depending on the type of
crime committed against our facilities or people, the cost can range from mere
DocuSign Envelope ID: F0475CA0-0A7B-48FB-8693-F289B736EA3D
Exhibit No. 11 Case Nos. AVU-E-23-01/AVU-G-23-01 J. Kensok, Avista
Schedule 1, Page 287 of 304
Facilities and Storage Location Security
Business Case Justification Narrative Page 4 of 6
vandalism or copper theft to endangering the lives of our employees and
customers.
Therefore, indirect savings associated with these investments in access control
systems and video surveillance are prudent versus returning to a manual
physical brass key management program, that would need to track incidents of
lost, stolen, or unreturned keys, and the needed replacement of keys or re-
keying locks, as well as the cost for any break-ins or theft incidents resulting
from lost, stolen, or unreturned keys. In addition, should a break-in result in loss
of life, the indirect savings are unquantifiable. Thus, continuous investment in
the security of our facilities is paramount for the safety of our people, both
customers and employees.
2023 2024 2025 2026 2027
Access Control
upgrades
Access Control
upgrades

Access Control
upgrades

Access Control
upgrades

Video
Surveillance
upgrades
Lone worker
security
upgrades
Video
Surveillance
upgrades
Video
Surveillance
upgrades

2.3 Outline any business functions and processes that may be impacted (and
how) by the business case for it to be successfully implemented.
Security systems, processes, and procedures can have an impact on business
functions. As a business case with multiple projects, Avista’s project
management office (PMO) tools and processes will be leveraged to coordinate
and collaborate through standardized change management any changes to
business functions.

2.4 Discuss the alternatives that were considered and any tangible risks and
mitigation strategies for each alternative.
The alternative strategy would be to fund the business case based on a set
schedule of 7.5 or 10 years rather than as funding allows. These options would
require more funding and resources but would be more likely to address security
needs in a timely manner rather than as needed.
2.5 Include a timeline of when this work will be started and completed.
Describe when the investments become used and useful to the customer.
Spend, and transfers to plant by year.
Since this business case is comprised of projects running concurrently over
multiple years, each one designates its completion date and transfer-to-plant.

DocuSign Envelope ID: F0475CA0-0A7B-48FB-8693-F289B736EA3D
Exhibit No. 11 Case Nos. AVU-E-23-01/AVU-G-23-01 J. Kensok, Avista
Schedule 1, Page 288 of 304
Facilities and Storage Location Security
Business Case Justification Narrative Page 5 of 6
2.6 Discuss how the proposed investment aligns with strategic vision, goals,
objectives and mission statement of the organization.
The projects funded by this business case protect Avista’s people, equipment,
and material. Without proper security protection, the risk to Avista’s people,
equipment, and material increase and could impact operations of the company
and mission to provide safe and reliable infrastructure.

2.7 Include why the requested amount above is considered a prudent
investment, providing or attaching any supporting documentation. In
addition, please explain how the investment prudency will be reviewed
and re-evaluated throughout the project
Security measures to protect critical infrastructure is not only prudent but
required in some cases because of compliance. Reasonable and appropriate
security measures are also an expectation of Avista’s customers. The
investments reduce the likelihood of a security event that could impact the
people, equipment, and materials that are critical to support our day-to-day
operations. The prudency of the program’s investments will be evaluated by its
governing body every month and adjusted as necessary.
2.8 Supplemental Information

2.8.1 Identify customers and stakeholders that interface with the business case
Each project within the business case must carefully consider stakeholders and
effected customers during the chartering process.

2.8.2 Identify any related Business Cases
- None

3.1 Steering Committee or Advisory Group Information
The Enterprise Security Committee will provide monthly recommendations and
guidance based on security operations center updates, business case financial
updates, and industry recommendations.

3.2 Provide and discuss the governance processes and people that will
provide oversight
The Enterprise Security Committee acts as the custodian and governance body
of security resources and investments which includes the Facilities and Storage
Location Security business case. This group meets monthly and is composed
of directors and managers from most of the lines of business. In addition, each
project funded by the Facilities and Storage Location Security business case
has project-level steering committees.
DocuSign Envelope ID: F0475CA0-0A7B-48FB-8693-F289B736EA3D
Exhibit No. 11 Case Nos. AVU-E-23-01/AVU-G-23-01 J. Kensok, Avista
Schedule 1, Page 289 of 304
Facilities and Storage Location Security
Business Case Justification Narrative Page 6 of 6

3.3 How will decision-making, prioritization, and change requests be
documented and monitored
Project Steering Committees act as the governing body over each project within
the program and will consist of key members in management positions that are
identified as responsible for the successful completion of the scope of work
identified in the Charter document for the Project. The Project Steering
Committee is responsible to provide guidance and make decisions on key
issues that affect the following topics: scope, schedule, budget, project issues,
and project risks.

The Project Steering Committee will meet at the defined intervals documented
in the Charter of the project and will be facilitated by an assigned Project
Manager from within the PMO Department.

The undersigned acknowledge they have reviewed the Facilities and Storage
Location Security business case and agree with the approach it presents. Significant
changes to this will be coordinated with and approved by the undersigned or their
designated representatives.

Signature: Date:
Print Name: Andy Leija
Title: Manager, Security Delivery
Role: Business Case Owner

Signature: Date:
Print Name: Clay Storey
Title: Director of Security, IT & Security
Management

Role: Business Case Sponsor

DocuSign Envelope ID: F0475CA0-0A7B-48FB-8693-F289B736EA3D
Sep-02-2022 | 9:51 AM PDT
Sep-02-2022 | 9:36 AM PDT
Exhibit No. 11 Case Nos. AVU-E-23-01/AVU-G-23-01 J. Kensok, Avista
Schedule 1, Page 290 of 304
Generation, Substation & Gas Location Security
Business Case Justification Narrative Page 1 of 7
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Security is an expectation of companies today by its customers. Especially companies
considered critical infrastructure. Protecting vital electric and gas services from attacks
benefits Avista’s customers by having safety and reliable energy. The capital budget
request of $2,700,000 funds the security protections that benefit Avista customers as the
enhancements maintain and enhance Avista’s security posture to minimize the risks
associated with physical attacks at Avista generation, substation & gas locations. Not
approving this business case or its recommended funding can pose risks to the assets
Avista depends on to conduct business and delivery safe and reliable energy.

VERSION HISTORY
Version Author Description Date Notes
Draft Andru Miller Initial draft of original business case 7/02/2020
1 Andru Miller Updated 5-year funding request 8/09/2022

DocuSign Envelope ID: 5E3F51F6-9525-439F-9C7C-5CCD7163CDD6
Exhibit No. 11 Case Nos. AVU-E-23-01/AVU-G-23-01 J. Kensok, Avista
Schedule 1, Page 291 of 304
Generation, Substation & Gas Location Security
Business Case Justification Narrative Page 2 of 7
GENERAL INFORMATION

1. BUSINESS PROBLEM
1.1 What is the current or potential problem that is being addressed?

Security remains a concern for our generation, substation & gas locations.
These locations contain equipment that is critical to the delivery of safe and
reliable gas and electricity. Many of these locations are remote, unmanned, and
vulnerable, which makes them difficult to protect. A security incident at any of
these locations could deny, degrade, or disrupt the delivery of energy. Also,
attacks can give intruders access to critical cyber equipment, which can lead to
cybersecurity events.

1.2 Discuss the major drivers of the business case and the benefits to the
customer
Performance & Capacity is the primary driver for the business case as the
projects it funds address security risks by protecting Avista’s generation,
substation & gas locations that are critical to supporting our customers.

1.3 Identify why this work is needed now and what risks there are if not
approved or is deferred
Addressing security risks has been and will continue to be an ongoing issue. If
the funding is not approved or is deferred, this increases the likelihood of a
security event that could impact Avista’s generation, substation & gas locations
that are critical to support our customers.

Requested Spend Amount $2,700,000
Requested Spend Time Period 5 years
Requesting Organization/Department Security
Business Case Owner | Sponsor Andy Leija | Clay Storey
Sponsor Organization/Department Enterprise Technology
Phase Execution
Category Program
Driver Performance & Capacity
DocuSign Envelope ID: 5E3F51F6-9525-439F-9C7C-5CCD7163CDD6
Exhibit No. 11 Case Nos. AVU-E-23-01/AVU-G-23-01 J. Kensok, Avista
Schedule 1, Page 292 of 304
Generation, Substation & Gas Location Security
Business Case Justification Narrative Page 3 of 7
1.4 Identify any measures that can be used to determine whether the
investment would successfully deliver on the objectives and address the
need listed above.
Avista utilizes utility industry forums, counsels, organizations, and knowledge
from past security incidents to provide Avista with a baseline from which to
measure its security capabilities and channel the appropriate level of investment
to mitigate the identified risks.
1.5 Supplemental Information
1.5.1 Please reference and summarize any studies that support the problem
N/A
1.5.2 For asset replacement, include graphical or narrative representation of metrics
associated with the current condition of the asset that is proposed for
replacement.
Option Capital Cost Start Complete
Address security at facilities and storage locations
as funding allows (Recommended)
$3,100,000 01 2023 12 2027
Address security at facilities and storage locations in
7.5 years
$5,000,000 01 2023 06 2030
Address security at facilities and storage locations in
10 years
$7,000,000 01 2021 12 2033
2.1 Describe what metrics, data, analysis or information was considered when
preparing this capital request.
The capital dollar request was derived from the historical annual spend
implementing security measures across the Avista service territory to
reasonably mitigate risks based on input from the programs governing body. It
also considers estimates of in-flight projects and a 1% per year increase for
inflation of future projects.

2020 2021 2022
$164,316 $2,864,559 $350,732

2.2 Discuss how the requested capital cost amount will be spent in the current
year (or future years if a multi-year or ongoing initiative). (i.e. what are the
expected functions, processes or deliverables that will result from the capital spend?). Include
any known or estimated reductions to O&M as a result of this investment.
This business case is refreshing legacy access control systems that provide
security and safety to Avista staff and customers by reducing the use of physical
brass keys. Managing physical brass keys is extremely inefficient and insecure
because they can be lost, stolen, or not returned upon employee departure. The
DocuSign Envelope ID: 5E3F51F6-9525-439F-9C7C-5CCD7163CDD6
Exhibit No. 11 Case Nos. AVU-E-23-01/AVU-G-23-01 J. Kensok, Avista
Schedule 1, Page 293 of 304
Generation, Substation & Gas Location Security
Business Case Justification Narrative Page 4 of 7
cost to regularly replace keys or re-key each entry for all employees due to key
loss, theft, or unreturned keys across multi-state facilities whereby employees
come and go to and from various sites would be more costly over time than
refreshing the existing badged access control system at generation plants and
smart key locks at substations.
In addition, this business case funds additional physical security hardening,
such as gates, fencing, and video surveillance projects that provide theft and
vandalism deterrence if a security event was to occur. Investments in access
control systems and the physical hardening of our power generation plants,
substations, and gas locations help protect our facilities, employees, and
customers. Depending on the type of crime committed against any of these
operational facilities or people, the cost can range from mere vandalism or
tampering, which could result in affecting overall system reliability, to
endangering the lives of our employees and customers. Examples of such
criminal activity include copper theft from existing substations, whereby the
copper cable acts as the ground cable. Once the ground cable is removed, the
facility poses a danger to our field staff working in that plant or substation.
Therefore, indirect savings associated with these investments in access control
systems and video surveillance are prudent versus returning to a manual
physical brass key management program, that would need to track incidents of
lost, stolen, or unreturned keys, and the needed replacement of keys or re-
keying locks, as well as the cost for any break-ins or theft incidents resulting
from lost, stolen, or unreturned keys. In addition, should a break-in result in loss
of life, the indirect savings are unquantifiable. Thus, continuous investment in
the security of our generation plants, substations, and gas facilities protects our
employees, and allows Avista the ability to provide safe, secure, and reliable
energy to our customers.

2.3 Outline any business functions and processes that may be impacted (and
how) by the business case for it to be successfully implemented.
Security systems, processes, and procedures can have an impact on business
functions. As a business case with multiple projects, Avista’s project
management office (PMO) tools and processes will be leveraged to coordinate
and collaborate through standardized change management any changes to
business functions.

2.4 Discuss the alternatives that were considered and any tangible risks and
mitigation strategies for each alternative.
The alternative strategy would be to fund the business case based on a set
schedule of 7.5 or 10 years rather than as funding allows. These options would
require more funding and resources but would be more likely to address security
needs in a timely manner rather than as needed.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 5E3F51F6-9525-439F-9C7C-5CCD7163CDD6
Exhibit No. 11 Case Nos. AVU-E-23-01/AVU-G-23-01 J. Kensok, Avista
Schedule 1, Page 294 of 304
Generation, Substation & Gas Location Security
Business Case Justification Narrative Page 5 of 7
2.5 Include a timeline of when this work will be started and completed.
Describe when the investments become used and useful to the customer.
spend, and transfers to plant by year.
Since this business case is comprised of projects running concurrently over
multiple years, each one designates its completion date and transfer-to-plant.

2.6 Discuss how the proposed investment aligns with strategic vision, goals,
objectives, and mission statement of the organization.
The Generation, Substation, and Gas Location Security business case provides
funding for security-related projects and supports Avista’s safe and reliable
infrastructure.
2.7 Include why the requested amount above is considered a prudent
investment, providing or attaching any supporting documentation. In
addition, please explain how the investment prudency will be reviewed
and re-evaluated throughout the project
Security measures to protect critical infrastructure is not only prudent but
required in some cases because of compliance. Reasonable and appropriate
security measures are also an expectation of Avista’s customers. The prudency
of the program’s investments will be evaluated by its governing body every
month and adjusted as necessary.
2.8 Supplemental Information

2.8.1 Identify customers and stakeholders that interface with the business case
Each project within the business case must carefully consider stakeholders and
effected customers during the chartering process.

2.8.2 Identify any related Business Cases
- None

3.1 Steering Committee or Advisory Group Information
The Enterprise Security Committee will provide monthly recommendations and
guidance based on security operations center updates, business case financial
updates, and industry recommendations.

3.2 Provide and discuss the governance processes and people that will
provide oversight
The Enterprise Security Committee acts as the custodian and governance body
of security resources and investments which includes the Generation,
Substation, and Gas Location Security business case. This group meets
DocuSign Envelope ID: 5E3F51F6-9525-439F-9C7C-5CCD7163CDD6
Exhibit No. 11 Case Nos. AVU-E-23-01/AVU-G-23-01 J. Kensok, Avista
Schedule 1, Page 295 of 304
Generation, Substation & Gas Location Security
Business Case Justification Narrative Page 6 of 7
monthly and is composed of directors and managers from most of the lines of
business. In addition, each project funded by the Generation, Substation, and
Gas Location Security business case has project-level steering committees.

3.3 How will decision-making, prioritization, and change requests be
documented and monitored
Project Steering Committees act as the governing body over each project within
the program and will consist of key members in management positions that are
identified as responsible for the successful completion of the scope of work
identified in the Charter document for the Project. The Project Steering
Committee is responsible to provide guidance and make decisions on key
issues that affect the following topics: scope, schedule, budget, project issues,
project risks

The Project Steering Committee will meet at the defined intervals documented
in the Charter of the project and will be facilitated by an assigned Project
Manager from within the PMO Department.

The undersigned acknowledge they have reviewed the Generation, Substation, and
Gas Location Security business case and agree with the approach it presents.
Significant changes to this will be coordinated with and approved by the undersigned
or their designated representatives.

Signature: Date:
Print Name: Andy Leija
Title: Manager, Security Delivery
Role: Business Case Owner

Signature: Date:
Print Name: Clay Storey
Title: Director of Security, IT & Security
Management

Role: Business Case Sponsor

DocuSign Envelope ID: 5E3F51F6-9525-439F-9C7C-5CCD7163CDD6
Sep-02-2022 | 9:48 AM PDT
Sep-02-2022 | 9:12 AM PDT
Exhibit No. 11 Case Nos. AVU-E-23-01/AVU-G-23-01 J. Kensok, Avista
Schedule 1, Page 296 of 304
Generation, Substation & Gas Location Security
Business Case Justification Narrative Page 7 of 7

DocuSign Envelope ID: 5E3F51F6-9525-439F-9C7C-5CCD7163CDD6
Exhibit No. 11 Case Nos. AVU-E-23-01/AVU-G-23-01 J. Kensok, Avista
Schedule 1, Page 297 of 304
Telecommunication & Network Distribution Security
Business Case Justification Narrative Page 1 of 7
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Security is an expectation of companies today by customers. Especially companies
considered critical infrastructure. Protecting communication infrastructure is vital as many
of Avista’s business processes depend on network communications and without them,
they could not function which could have an impact on our day-to-day operations that are
needed to support our customers. The capital budget request of $1,212,500 funds the
security protections that benefit Avista customers as the enhancements maintain and
enhance Avista’s security posture to minimize the risks associated with attacks at Avista
telecommunication & network distribution locations. Not approving this business case or
its recommended funding can pose risks to the assets Avista depends on to conduct
business and delivery safe and reliable energy.

VERSION HISTORY
Version Author Description Date Notes
Draft Andru Miller Initial draft of original business case 7/06/2020
1 Andru Miller Updated 5-year funding request 8/09/2022

DocuSign Envelope ID: CC1A8499-97D3-45DA-8559-09102FBEBFD3
Exhibit No. 11 Case Nos. AVU-E-23-01/AVU-G-23-01 J. Kensok, Avista
Schedule 1, Page 298 of 304
Telecommunication & Network Distribution Security
Business Case Justification Narrative Page 2 of 7
GENERAL INFORMATION

1. BUSINESS PROBLEM
1.1 What is the current or potential problem that is being addressed?
Physical security remains a concern at our telecommunication & network
distribution locations. These locations contain equipment that is critical to the
operation of safety, control, customer, and back-office networks. These
networks support the delivery of safe and reliable gas and electricity. Many of
these locations are remote, unmanned, and vulnerable, which makes them
difficult to protect. A physical security incident at any of these locations could
deny, degrade, or disrupt any of the networks and impact critical business
processes. Also, physical attacks can give intruders access to critical cyber
equipment, which can lead to a cybersecurity event.
1.2 Discuss the major drivers of the business case and the benefits to the
customer
Performance & Capacity is the primary driver for the business case as the
projects it funds address security risks by protecting our telecommunication &
network distribution locations that are critical to support our day-to-day
operations.
1.3 Identify why this work is needed now and what risks there are if not
approved or is deferred
Addressing security risks has been and will continue to be an ongoing issue. If
the funding is not approved or is deferred, this increases the likelihood of a
security event that could impact Avista’s telecommunication & network
communications.
1.4 Identify any measures that can be used to determine whether the
investment would successfully deliver on the objectives and address the
need listed above.
Avista utilizes utility industry forums, counsels, organizations, and knowledge
from past security incidents to provide Avista with a baseline from which to
Requested Spend Amount $1,212,500
Requested Spend Time Period 5 years
Requesting Organization/Department Security
Business Case Owner | Sponsor Andy Leija | Clay Storey
Sponsor Organization/Department Enterprise Technology
Phase Execution
Category Program
Driver Performance & Capacity
DocuSign Envelope ID: CC1A8499-97D3-45DA-8559-09102FBEBFD3
Exhibit No. 11 Case Nos. AVU-E-23-01/AVU-G-23-01 J. Kensok, Avista
Schedule 1, Page 299 of 304
Telecommunication & Network Distribution Security
Business Case Justification Narrative Page 3 of 7
measure its security capabilities and channel the appropriate level of investment
to mitigate the identified risks.
1.5 Supplemental Information
1.5.1 Please reference and summarize any studies that support the problem
N/A
1.5.2 For asset replacement, include graphical or narrative representation of metrics
associated with the current condition of the asset that is proposed for
replacement.

Option Capital Cost Start Complete
Address security at facilities and storage locations
as funding allows (Recommended)
$1,212,500 01 2023 12 2027
Address security at facilities and storage locations in
7.5 years
$1,462,500 01 2023 06 2030
Address security at facilities and storage locations in
10 years
$1,950,000 01 2023 12 2033

2.1 Describe what metrics, data, analysis or information was considered when
preparing this capital request.
The capital dollar request was derived from the historical annual spend
implementing physical security measures across the Avista service territory to
reasonably mitigate risks based on input from the programs governing body. It
also takes into account estimates of in-flight projects and a 1% per year increase
for inflation of future projects.

2.2 Discuss how the requested capital cost amount will be spent in the current
year (or future years if a multi-year or ongoing initiative). (i.e. what are the
expected functions, processes or deliverables that will result from the capital spend?). Include
any known or estimated reductions to O&M as a result of this investment.
This business case is refreshing legacy access control systems that provide
security and safety to Avista staff and customers by reducing the use of physical
keys in our telecommunication and network distribution sites. Managing physical
brass keys is extremely inefficient and insecure because they can be lost,
stolen, or not returned upon employee departure. The cost to regularly replace
keys or re-key each entry for all employees due to key loss, theft, or unreturned
keys across multi-state mountaintop facilities whereby employees come and go
to and from various sites would be more costly over time than refreshing the
existing badged access system. In addition, this business case funds video
surveillance projects that provide theft and vandalism deterrence, which can aid
law enforcement if those events are to occur by having video evidence, as well
DocuSign Envelope ID: CC1A8499-97D3-45DA-8559-09102FBEBFD3
Exhibit No. 11 Case Nos. AVU-E-23-01/AVU-G-23-01 J. Kensok, Avista
Schedule 1, Page 300 of 304
Telecommunication & Network Distribution Security
Business Case Justification Narrative Page 4 of 7
as provide operational awareness for our crews when weather conditions are
extreme and undesirable. Operational awareness can allow for better
preparation of tools, parts, vehicles, and crew required before rolling a vehicle
in response.
In addition, this business case funds additional physical security hardening,
such as gates and fencing to deter theft and vandalism at our telecommunication
sites. Investments in access control systems and physical hardening of our
telecommunication sites help protect the communication required to operate our
system, our facilities, and stay in communication with our employees and
customers.
Depending on the type of crime committed against any of these
telecommunication sites, the cost can range from mere vandalism or tampering,
which could result in damage to or negatively affecting the reliability of
communication paths across our gas and electric distribution system and
transmission system, to endangering the lives of our field employees relying on
radio communications when working on mountain tops of remote locations in
extreme weather conditions. Examples of such criminal activity include break-
ins and vandalism in difficult to reach locations.
Therefore, indirect savings associated with these investments in access control
systems and video surveillance are prudent versus returning to a manual
physical brass key management program, that would need to track incidents of
lost, stolen, or unreturned keys, and the needed replacement of keys or re-
keying locks, as well as the cost for any break-ins or theft incidents resulting
from lost, stolen, or unreturned keys. In addition, should a break-in result in loss
of life, the indirect savings are unquantifiable. Thus, continuous investment in
the security of our telecommunication and network distribution facilities protects
our employees, and allows Avista the ability to provide safe, secure, and reliable
energy to our customers.

2023 2024 2025 2026 2027
Devil’s Gap
Security
Micah Peak
Security
Steptoe Butte
Security
Kellogg Peak
Security
Monumental
Mountain
Security

2.3 Outline any business functions and processes that may be impacted (and
how) by the business case for it to be successfully implemented.
Security systems, processes, and procedures can have an impact on business
functions. As a business case with multiple projects, Avista’s project
management office (PMO) tools and processes will be leveraged to coordinate
and collaborate through standardized change management any changes to
business functions.

DocuSign Envelope ID: CC1A8499-97D3-45DA-8559-09102FBEBFD3
Exhibit No. 11 Case Nos. AVU-E-23-01/AVU-G-23-01 J. Kensok, Avista
Schedule 1, Page 301 of 304
Telecommunication & Network Distribution Security
Business Case Justification Narrative Page 5 of 7
2.4 Discuss the alternatives that were considered and any tangible risks and
mitigation strategies for each alternative.
The alternative strategy would be to fund the business case based on a set
schedule of 7.5 or 10 years rather than as funding allows. These options would
require more funding and resources but would be more likely to address security
needs in a timely manner rather than as needed.
2.5 Include a timeline of when this work will be started and completed.
Describe when the investments become used and useful to the customer.
Spend, and transfers to plant by year.
Since this business case is comprised of projects running concurrently over
multiple years, each one designates its completion date and transfer-to-plant.

2.6 Discuss how the proposed investment aligns with strategic vision, goals,
objectives and mission statement of the organization.
The telecommunication & network distribution locations business case provides
funding for security-related projects and supports Avista’s safe and reliable
infrastructure.

2.7 Include why the requested amount above is considered a prudent
investment, providing or attaching any supporting documentation. In
addition, please explain how the investment prudency will be reviewed
and re-evaluated throughout the project
Security measures to protect critical infrastructure is not only prudent but
required in some cases because of compliance. Reasonable and appropriate
security measures are also an expectation of Avista’s customers. The prudency
of the program’s investments will be evaluated by its governing body every
month and adjusted as necessary.
2.8 Supplemental Information

2.8.1 Identify customers and stakeholders that interface with the business case
Each project within the business case must carefully consider stakeholders and
effected customers during the chartering process.

2.8.2 Identify any related Business Cases
- None

3.1 Steering Committee or Advisory Group Information
The Enterprise Security Committee will provide monthly recommendations and
guidance based on security operations center updates, business case financial
updates, and industry recommendations.
DocuSign Envelope ID: CC1A8499-97D3-45DA-8559-09102FBEBFD3
Exhibit No. 11 Case Nos. AVU-E-23-01/AVU-G-23-01 J. Kensok, Avista
Schedule 1, Page 302 of 304
Telecommunication & Network Distribution Security
Business Case Justification Narrative Page 6 of 7

3.2 Provide and discuss the governance processes and people that will
provide oversight
The Enterprise Security Committee acts as the custodian and governance body
of security resources and investments which includes the Telecommunication &
Network Distribution Security business case. This group meets monthly and is
composed of directors and managers from most of the lines of business. In
addition each project funded by the Telecommunication & Network Distribution
Security business case has project-level steering committees.

3.3 How will decision-making, prioritization, and change requests be
documented and monitored
Project Steering Committees act as the governing body over each project within
the program and will consist of key members in management positions that are
identified as responsible for the successful completion of the scope of work
identified in the Charter document for the Project. The Project Steering
Committee is responsible to provide guidance and make decisions on key
issues that affect the following topics: scope, schedule, budget, project issues,
and project risks.

The Project Steering Committee will meet at the defined intervals documented
in the Charter of the project and will be facilitated by an assigned Project
Manager from within the PMO Department.

The undersigned acknowledge they have reviewed the Telecommunication &
Network Distribution Security business case and agree with the approach it
presents. Significant changes to this will be coordinated with and approved by the
undersigned or their designated representatives.

Signature: Date:
Print Name: Andy Leija
Title: Manager, Security Delivery
DocuSign Envelope ID: CC1A8499-97D3-45DA-8559-09102FBEBFD3
Sep-02-2022 | 9:50 AM PDT
Exhibit No. 11 Case Nos. AVU-E-23-01/AVU-G-23-01 J. Kensok, Avista
Schedule 1, Page 303 of 304
Telecommunication & Network Distribution Security
Business Case Justification Narrative Page 7 of 7
Role: Business Case Owner

Signature: Date:
Print Name: Clay Storey
Title: Director of Security, IT & Security
Management

Role: Business Case Sponsor

DocuSign Envelope ID: CC1A8499-97D3-45DA-8559-09102FBEBFD3
Sep-02-2022 | 10:21 AM PDT
Exhibit No. 11 Case Nos. AVU-E-23-01/AVU-G-23-01 J. Kensok, Avista
Schedule 1, Page 304 of 304