information technology (it) volume 2, part 2 – capitalized ... · volume 2, part 2 –...

Application No.: Exhibit No.: SCE-05, Vol. 02, Pt. 2 Witnesses: T. Boucher

(U 338-E)

2015 General Rate Case

Information Technology (IT) Volume 2, Part 2 – Capitalized Software

Before the

Public Utilities Commission of the State of California

Rosemead, CaliforniaNovember 2013

SCE-05: Information Technology (IT) Volume 2, Part 2 -T&D Capitalized Software

Table Of Contents

Section Page Witness

-i-

I. T&D CAPITALIZED SOFTWARE PROJECTS .............................................1 T. Boucher

A. Introduction ............................................................................................1

1. Capital Forecast Methodology ...................................................1

2. Forecast Capital Expenditures ...................................................2

3. Forecast O&M Expenses ...........................................................2

II. New T&D Capitalized Software Projects ..........................................................4

A. Storm and Grid Operations Management Projects ................................4

1. Storm Analytics .........................................................................5

a) Project Benefits ..............................................................6

b) Alternatives ....................................................................7

c) Schedule and Cost ..........................................................7

2. Storm Management Tool ...........................................................7

a) Project Benefits ..............................................................9

b) Alternatives ....................................................................9

c) Schedule and Cost ..........................................................9

3. Grid Visualization - Power System Display ............................10

a) Project Benefits ............................................................11

b) Alternatives ..................................................................11

c) Schedule and Cost ........................................................12

B. Compliance Management Projects ......................................................12

1. Vegetation Management ..........................................................12



Table Of Contents (Continued)


-ii-

b) Alternatives ..................................................................15


2. T&D Document Management ..................................................15


b) Alternatives ..................................................................17


3. Protection System Maintenance Program (PSMP) ..................18


b) Alternatives ..................................................................20


4. Pole Loading Application Replacement (PoLAR) ..................21


(1) Compliance ......................................................22

(2) Reliability .........................................................23

(3) Usability and Operational Expense Avoidance ........................................................23

b) Alternatives ..................................................................23


C. Geographical Information System Advanced Applications (GISAA) ...............................................................................................24

1. Project Benefits ........................................................................27

2. Alternatives ..............................................................................27

3. Schedule and Cost ....................................................................28

D. Work Flow Management Projects .......................................................28




-iii-

1. Integrated Portfolio Solution for Major Projects Organization (MPO) ................................................................29

a) Project Sub-Components .............................................29

(1) Financial Tools for Cost Management and Reporting .............................29

(2) Earned Value Management (EVM) .................30

(3) Standardized scheduling solution for large construction projects(s) ...........................30

(4) Contract Management & Change Control Management .......................................30

(5) Resource Management capabilities across all organizations ....................................31

(6) Integrated solution for Portfolio and Project Management ........................................31

b) Project Benefits ............................................................31

c) Alternatives ..................................................................32

d) Schedule and Cost ........................................................32

2. Work Management Dashboard ................................................33


b) Alternatives ..................................................................35


3. Electronic Work Order Package (EWOP) ...............................35


b) Alternatives ..................................................................37





-iv-

4. Graphical Design Tool (GDT) Engineering Capabilities ..............................................................................38


b) Alternatives ..................................................................40


5. Graphical Design Tool (GDT) for Tract Team Planners and Underground Drafting and Design Group (UGDDG) .....................................................................41


b) Alternatives ..................................................................43


III. EXISTING APPLICATION REFRESHES .....................................................44

A. Scheduling Refresh ..............................................................................45


2. Alternatives ..............................................................................47


B. Design Manager Refresh ......................................................................47


2. Alternatives ..............................................................................49


C. Graphical Design Tool (GDT) Refresh ................................................50


2. Alternatives ..............................................................................50





-v-

D. Outage Management System (OMS) Refresh ......................................51

1. Benefits ....................................................................................52

2. Alternatives ..............................................................................53


E. GE Smallworld Refresh .......................................................................53

1. Benefits ....................................................................................54

2. Alternatives ..............................................................................54


IV. T&D Capital Software Projects Approved in the 2012 GRC ..........................56

A. Consolidated Mobile Solution (CMS) .................................................56

1. Summary ..................................................................................56

2. Benefits ....................................................................................57

3. Capital Expenditure Forecast ...................................................58

B. Distribution Management System (DMS) ...........................................58

1. Summary ..................................................................................58

2. Benefits ....................................................................................59

3. Capital Costs ............................................................................60

Appendix A Witness Qualification ..................................................................................


List Of Tables

Table Page

-vi-

Table I-1 T&D IT Capitalized Software Capital Expenditure Forecast (Nominal $000) ...........................2

Table I-2 T&D Capitalized Software O&M Expenses Portion of FERC Account 588.260

(Constant 2012 $000) .............................................................................................................................3

Table II-3 New T&D Capitalized Software Projects Capital Expenditures Forecast

(Nominal $000) ......................................................................................................................................4

Table II-4 Storm Analytics Capital Forecast (Nominal $000) ....................................................................7

Table II-5 Storm Management Tool Capital Forecast (Nominal $000) ...................................................10

Table II-6 Grid Visualization Capital Forecast (Nominal $000) ..............................................................12

Table II-7 Vegetation Management Capital Forecast (Nominal $000) .....................................................15

Table II-8 T&D Document Management Capital Forecast (Nominal $000) .............................................18

Table II-9 PSMP Capital Forecast (Nominal $000) ..................................................................................21

Table II-10 PoLAR Capital Forecast (Nominal $000) .............................................................................24

Table II-11 GIS Advanced Application Capital Forecast (Nominal $000) ...............................................28

Table II-12 Integrated Portfolio Management for MPO Capital Forecast (Nominal $000) ......................33

Table II-13 Work Management Dashboard Capital Forecast (Nominal $000) .........................................35

Table II-14 Electronic Work Order Package Capital Forecast (Nominal $000) .......................................38

Table II-15 GDT Capital Forecast (Nominal $000) ..................................................................................41

Table II-16 GDT Tract Planners and UGDDG Capital Forecast (Nominal $000) ....................................43

Table III-17 Existing Application Refreshes Forecast of Capital Expenditures (Nominal

$000) ....................................................................................................................................................45

Table III-18 Scheduling Refresh Capital Forecast (Nominal $000) ..........................................................47

Table III-19 DM Capital Forecast (Nominal $000) ...................................................................................50

Table III-20 GDT Refresh Capital Forecast (Nominal $000) ....................................................................51

Table III-21 OMS Refresh Capital Forecast (Nominal $000) ...................................................................53

Table III-22 GE Smallworld Refresh Capital Forecast (Nominal $000) ...................................................55

Table IV-23 Projects Approved in 2012 GRC Forecast of Capital Expenditures (Nominal

$000) ....................................................................................................................................................56


List Of Tables (Continued)

Table Page

-vii-

Table IV-24 CMS O&M Benefit Forecast (Constant 2012 $000) .............................................................57

Table IV-25 CMS Capital Benefit Forecast (Nominal $000) ....................................................................57

Table IV-26 CMS Capital Forecast (Nominal $000) .................................................................................58

Table IV-27 Estimated DMS Avoided Purchase Power Benefits (Nominal $ Millions) ..........................60

Table IV-28 DMS Capital Forecast (Nominal $000) ................................................................................61

1

I. 1

T&D CAPITALIZED SOFTWARE PROJECTS 2

A. Introduction 3

This testimony describes the Capitalized Software projects required by the Transmission and 4

Distribution (T&D) Operating Unit to help perform various activities, including managing storm and 5

grid operations activities, managing compliance with rules and regulations, and better managing work 6

flow. The testimony is organized into three parts, which include (1) new projects that will be completed 7

during the 2015 GRC cycle, (2) refreshes of existing software applications, and (3) ongoing projects that 8

were approved in the 2012 GRC. 9

1. Capital Forecast Methodology 10

SCE used a standard methodology to forecast capitalized expenditures for most new 11

capital projects and refreshes of existing applications. The methodology forecasts costs in three broad 12

groups, which are (1) project team costs, (2) software and vendor costs, and (3) hardware costs. 13

Project team capital costs cover the labor associated with planning, designing, building, 14

testing, and deploying the project, including both T&D and IT employees from SCE, as well as outside 15

consultants. The software and vendor costs cover items such as software licenses, software 16

development, and any professional services provided by the vendor. The hardware costs are for the 17

expansion of SCE’s Information and Technology infrastructure, such as additional servers. 18

Our preliminary cost estimates were developed by a team of SCE employees who have 19

experience with previous capital technology projects. First, the team developed the preliminary scope 20

and schedule for the project. Second, the team estimated the project team needs based on our current 21

practice of staffing and managing in-flight capitalized software technology projects with T&D 22

employees, IT employees, and consultants. Third, the software and vendor estimates were based on 23

experience from similar projects that T&D and IT have successfully implemented. With certain 24

exceptions, competitive bidding and rigorous screening of the vendors and the products have been 25

conducted. The typical vendor selection process is described below. Fourth, the hardware costs were 26

developed by first determining if the project would require additional hardware, and if yes, then a factor 27

was applied to non-hardware costs. The hardware factor was based on experience with other technology 28

projects. Finally, contingency was added to all non-hardware capital costs. The workpapers included 29

with this exhibit describe the assumptions used, the basis for those assumptions, and the development of 30

the costs for each of our capital forecasts. 31

2

SCE uses a formal vendor selection process that typically involves the following 1

approach. First, based on independent research from industry consultants, we develop a list of vendors 2

that are recognized as industry leaders for providing solutions in the target business area. These industry 3

leaders are invited to respond to a request for information (RFI). Only vendors from the RFI process 4

that meet the basic requirements are invited to review and respond to a request for proposal (RFP) with 5

their ability to meet detailed requirements for the project. Following the evaluation of the RFP1, the top 6

vendors are invited to provide an on-site proof of concept (POC). After the POC evaluation, one of the 7

vendors is identified as the leading candidate and invited to perform a conference room pilot (CRP), 8

which confirms the vendor’s ability to meet SCE’s business requirements and project objectives. This 9

typically results in awarding a fixed priced contract with the leading vendor. The criteria used 10

throughout the vendor selection process includes the vendor’s ability to meet the business and technical 11

requirements for the project, SCE’s overall strategy to standardize information technology solutions, as 12

well as an evaluation of the total cost of ownership for the product, which includes initial contract costs 13

and on-going maintenance costs for both internal SCE IT support and any necessary vendor support. 14

2. Forecast Capital Expenditures 15

As summarized in Table I-1 below, SCE forecasts $137.028 million in T&D capital 16

expenditures through 2017 for capitalized software projects. 17

Table I-1 T&D IT Capitalized Software Capital Expenditure Forecast

(Nominal $000)

2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 TotalNew Capitalized Software Projects $7,611 $12,841 $21,000 $22,600 $13,200 $77,252Existing Application Refreshes $1,000 $10,000 $10,300 $9,300 $0 $30,600Projects Approved in 2012 GRC $17,300 $11,876 $0 $0 $0 $29,176 Total Capital Expenditures $25,911 $34,717 $31,300 $31,900 $13,200 $137,028

3. Forecast O&M Expenses 18

Capitalized software projects record O&M expenses to cover necessary project activities 19

that cannot be capitalized. These activities include preliminary project activities, organizational change 20

1 See workpaper entitled “RFP Evaluation Process.”

3

management consulting, travel costs for SCE employees, vendors, and consultants, meals, and external 1

meeting locations needed for large group sessions. 2

T&D capitalized software O&M expenses are recorded in FERC Account 588.260, and 3

the forecast 2015-2017 test year average O&M forecast of $1.381 million for the capitalized software 4

projects discussed in this Volume is summarized in Table I-2, below. The O&M forecasts and forecast 5

methodology are discussed in Mr. Boucher’s testimony in SCE-03, Volume 2. 6

Table I-2 T&D Capitalized Software O&M Expenses

Portion of FERC Account 588.260 (Constant 2012 $000)

2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 Total

Storm Analytics - - 176 146 - 322

Storm Management Tool - - 33 151 106 290

Grid Visualization: Power System Display - - 99 189 - 288

Vegetation Management - 51 220 259 - 530

T&D Document Management - - 33 129 238 401

PSMP 127 192 - - - 318

PoLAR 229 191 - - - 420

GISAA - - 39 221 328 588

Integrated Solution for MPO - 23 160 70 - 253

WM Dashboard - 107 94 - - 201

Electronic Work Order Package Project - 197 303 - - 500

GDT 69 - - - - 69

GDT-Tract & UGDDG - - - 54 26 80

Scheduling Refresh 29 349 138 - - 516

Design Manager Refresh 29 124 - - - 153

OMS Refresh - 90 281 167 - 538

GE Smallworld Refresh - - 72 135 - 207

GDT Refresh - - 77 200 - 277

CMS 558 1,152 - - - 1,710

DMS 44 - - - - 44

Total O&M 1,084 2,476 1,725 1,721 698 7,705

Test Year Average (2015 - 2017) 1,381

4

II. 1

New T&D Capitalized Software Projects 2

This section of testimony provides details for T&D capitalized software projects that will be 3

completed by 2017. The testimony is organized into four categories: (1) Storm and Grid Operations 4

Management projects, (2) Compliance Management projects, (3) GIS Advanced Applications, and (4) 5

Work Flow Management projects. Table II-3 below summarizes the capital expenditure forecast for the 6

new T&D capitalized software projects. 7

Table II-3 New T&D Capitalized Software Projects

Capital Expenditures Forecast (Nominal $000)

2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 TotalStorm and Grid Ops RelatedStorm Analytics $0 $0 $3,200 $2,700 $0 $5,900Storm Management Tool $0 $0 $600 $2,800 $2,000 $5,400Grid Visualization $0 $0 $1,800 $3,500 $0 $5,300 Total Storm and Grid Ops-Related $0 $0 $5,600 $9,000 $2,000 $16,600

Compliance-RelatedVegetation Management $0 $900 $4,000 $4,800 $0 $9,700T&D Document Management $0 $0 $600 $2,400 $4,500 $7,500Protection System Maintenance Program (PSMP) $2,200 $3,400 $0 $0 $0 $5,600Pole Loading Application Replacement (PoLAR) $4,327 $2,741 $0 $0 $0 $7,068 Total Compliance-Related $6,527 $7,041 $4,600 $7,200 $4,500 $29,868

GIS Advanced Applications (GISAA) $0 $0 $700 $4,100 $6,200 $11,000

Workflow-RelatedIntegrated Portfolio Solution for MPO $0 $400 $2,900 $1,300 $0 $4,600WM Dashboard/Project Tracking $0 $1,900 $1,700 $0 $0 $3,600Electronic Work Order Package $0 $3,500 $5,500 $0 $0 $9,000Graphical Design Tool $1,084 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,084Graphical Design Tool for Tract Team Planners/UG Draftin $0 $0 $0 $1,000 $500 $1,500 Total Workflow-Related $1,084 $5,800 $10,100 $2,300 $500 $19,784

Total New Capitalized Software $7,611 $12,841 $21,000 $22,600 $13,200 $77,252

A. Storm and Grid Operations Management Projects 8

After the significant outages caused by the severe windstorms in November 2011, SCE 9

conducted an extensive evaluation, using both internal and external parties, which concluded that 10

improvements needed to be undertaken to improve our performance in areas of storm operations, 11

5

management, and restoration. This evaluation, known as the Corporate Storm Process Improvement 1

Program (CSPIP), evaluated the following key areas: 2

Emergency Planning and Preparedness; 3

Resource Acquisition and Mutual Aid; 4

Crisis Communication and Estimated Restoration Times (ERTs); 5

Damage Assessment, Analysis, and Planning; 6

Restoration Execution; 7

Information Systems and Technology; 8

Logistics; and 9

Call Center Performance. 10

CSPIP identified several areas of focus that, if addressed, would help T&D more effectively and 11

efficiently respond to outages caused by storms or other emergencies. These areas of focus include 12

better predictive situational awareness and analytics, a more streamlined damage assessment and 13

information dissemination process, and enhanced outage information integrated with smart meters. 14

The ability to integrate important data from various systems, including weather forecast data and 15

GIS-enabled views of T&D assets, would strengthen SCE’s predictive capabilities and allow SCE to 16

better prepare and plan for major storm events before the damage even occurs. Streamlining damage 17

assessment information into a centrally assessed tool that includes all storm-related systems, dashboards, 18

and reporting tools, would allow SCE to perform more collaborative damage assessment and restoration 19

planning. Enhanced outage information in the Grid Control Center (GCC) would increase the efficiency 20

of the workflow and increase the responsiveness of the storm restoration workforce. 21

To help deliver these capabilities, SCE will implement the three projects described below: (1) the 22

Storm Analytics project, (2) the Storm Management Tool project, and (3) Grid Visualization – Power 23

System Display project. 24

1. Storm Analytics 25

The Storm Analytics project will develop more robust storm predictive analytics based on 26

improved modeling tools and integrated data across systems, including weather forecast data and 27

Comprehensive Geographical Information System (CGIS) data.2 The Storm Analytics team will 28

2 See Section II.C of this Volume for further discussion of CGIS.

6

evaluate the available Commercial-Off-The-Shelf (COTS) solutions to select the vendor that best meets 1

SCE’s requirements. Using weather forecast data, these enhanced analytics and modeling capabilities 2

will strengthen SCE’s predictive capabilities in the following areas: 3

Storm severity/category; 4

Scale and duration of customer outages; 5

Number of incidents; 6

Field resources required (e.g., Troublemen, Line Crews); 7

Equipment damaged (e.g., poles, transformers, wires); 8

Estimated restoration time; 9

Call volume and handling time; 10

Geographic location; and 11

Pre-staging of equipment and resources. 12

Another improvement this project will offer is the development of in-storm projections of 13

damage and other information based on the results of early damage assessment and trending analysis of 14

actual storm data. 15

The major issues that the Storm Analytics project will address include the following: 16

The lack of data and analytical ability regarding a storm’s impact and our restoration 17

plans; 18

The lack of ability to perform predictive analytics to better deploy resources in 19

advance of a storm event; and 20

Lack of ability to perform analytics during a storm event to adjust response plans. 21

a) Project Benefits 22

The Storm Analytics project will provide data, analytics, and modeling for better 23

awareness of both the storm impact and restoration plans by operating and support units. The 24

availability of better predictive analytics will allow SCE to better prepare and deploy resources for storm 25

events. Finally, SCE’s ability to update predictive analysis during the storm based on analysis of actual 26

storm data, and to make refinements to responses during a storm event, will be improved. 27

7

b) Alternatives 1

We evaluated three alternatives for this project. The first alternative is to do 2

nothing, which would not address any of the current issues or provide any of the benefits discussed 3

above. The second alternative is to continue to expand the functionality of limited tools3 being 4

developed and implemented in 2013. This approach would limit scalability and data integration, and is 5

dependent on other analytical solutions, such as the Phasor Analytics project4, which do not provide the 6

full functionally required. The third alternative would be to buy or build a storm analytics tools. 7

Regardless of whether we build or buy, the tool will integrate with SCE systems. Using the 8

methodology described above, SCE will determine the most cost-effective option to develop this 9

capability. 10

c) Schedule and Cost 11

This project will begin in January 2015 and will be completed in June 2016.5 The 12

capital forecast for this project includes $2.8 million in project team costs for SCE employees, 13

contingent workers, and consultants, $2.9 million in software and vendor costs, and $200,000 in 14

hardware costs. Our capital forecast for Storm Analytics is summarized in Table II-4 below.6, 7 15

Table II-4 Storm Analytics Capital Forecast

(Nominal $000)

Category 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 TotalProject Team - - 1,800 1,000 - 2,800 Software/Vendor - - 1,300 1,600 - 2,900 Hardware - - 100 100 - 200 Total - - 3,200 2,700 - 5,900

2. Storm Management Tool 16

The Storm Management Tool (SMT) will provide centralized access to all storm related 17

systems, dashboards, and reporting tools. Currently, our storm incident capturing and reporting process 18

3 For example, the OMS Dashboard Enhancement is a non-capital technology project being implemented in 2013.

4 See Phasor Analytics testimony in SCE-03, Vol. 2.

5 See workpaper entitled “Storm Analytics Schedule Detail.”

6 See workpaper entitled “Storm Analytics Capital Forecast.”

7 See workpaper entitled “Storm Analytics Investment Memo.”

8

is disjointed and manually intensive, with information8 located in multiple systems and locations, which 1

causes untimely and inconsistent reporting. 2

In terms of field resource management, the SMT will integrate the crew callout, 3

scheduling, and dispatching systems into the damage assessment and restoration activities. It will also 4

allow the Job Roster Application9 to leverage the existing crew callout and scheduling system data, 5

which will provide a better understanding of staffing and other resource requirements during a storm and 6

improve our ability to deploy and adjust resource needs. 7

The SMT will also improve the current storm management processes by streamlining 8

information stored in multiple locations and improving the reporting cycle. The implementation of SMT 9

will provide T&D management and storm response personnel with the most current and accurate 10

information possible. This information will be captured at the onset of a storm event and will be 11

continually updated throughout the event. Enhanced workflow for the SMT will also be accomplished 12

by leveraging the asset information from SAP and the reporting capabilities of SAP Business Objects. 13

Another key deliverable of this project will be an enhanced and integrated storm situational awareness 14

display with the Storm Analytics information described in Chapter II, Section A.1 of this Volume. This 15

will provide the storm response management and communication teams with a single detailed snapshot 16

of the storm event that is more robust and timely than what is currently used by SCE. This display is 17

different than the Power System Display used in the GCC and described in the Grid Visualization 18

testimony below in Chapter II, Section A.3 of this Volume. 19

The current issues that the Storm Management Tool will address include the following: 20

There is no comprehensive view of storm related information; 21

Data is currently in multiple systems that are not integrated; 22

Redundant data entry is required for multiple systems; 23

Reports must be generated from multiple systems, which impacts the timeliness and 24

accuracy of information; 25

Resource tracking is performed manually; and 26

Providing updated information to impacted customers is difficult. 27

8 Information includes outage information, weather data, assets information, crew locations and status, electrical network

connectivity, and customer information.

9 The Job Roster Application is a non-capital technology project being implemented in 2013.

9


The SMT will provide a comprehensive look at critical storm data by integrating 2

data from multiple systems and displaying the data in a more meaningful, useful way. The SMT will 3

eliminate duplication of data entry across T&D, resulting in improved and timelier data. The SMT will 4

report and trend storm performance data to help T&D identify areas of improvement for future storm 5

events. The SMT will integrate with T&D’s Scheduling tool and T&D’s Crew Call Out tool10 to 6

provide resource availability. The SMT will also provide automated tracking of work assignments, 7

which will replace the manual resource tracking currently done during storm events. Lastly, the SMT 8

will improve customer communications, resulting in improved customer satisfaction. 9

b) Alternatives 10

We evaluated three alternatives for this project. The first alternative is to do 11

nothing and continue using our current systems, which does not provide the full functionally required to 12

achieve the benefits discussed above. The second alternative is to enhance existing SCE systems to 13

provide this functionality, but this alternative would not allow us to implement the potential storm 14

response improvements identified by CSPIP or achieve the benefits described above. The third 15

alternative is to implement a new storm management tool. Regardless if we build or buy, the tool will 16

integrate with SCE systems and provide the benefits described previously. Using the methodology 17

described above, SCE will determine the most cost-effective option to develop this capability. 18


The SMT project will begin in September 2015 and be completed in February 20

2017.11 The capital forecast for this project includes $2.4 million in project team costs for SCE 21

employees, contingent workers, and consultants, $3.0 million in software and vendor costs. No 22

hardware costs are included for this project. Our capital forecast for the Storm Management Tool 23

project is summarized in Table II-5 below.12, 13 24

10 T&D’s Crew Call Out Tool is a vendor provided software application used to call employees during afterhours for

emergency work.

11 See workpaper entitled “Storm Management Tool Schedule Detail.”

12 See workpaper entitled “Storm Management Tool Capital Forecast.”

13 See workpaper entitled “Storm Management Tool Investment Memo.”

10

Table II-5 Storm Management Tool Capital Forecast

(Nominal $000)

Category 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 TotalProject Team - - 500 1,500 400 2,400 Software/Vendor - - 100 1,300 1,600 3,000 Hardware - - - - - - Total - - 600 2,800 2,000 5,400

3. Grid Visualization - Power System Display 1

The Grid Visualization project will update the Power System Display video walls in both 2

the Grid Control Center (GCC) and Alternative Grid Control Center (AGCC) with new technology. 3

This new technology fully integrates all of the information required to improve situational awareness 4

and provide power system operators with a comprehensive visual representation of our entire grid. This 5

new technology will also allow the operator to monitor real-time data from multiple systems, both 6

internal and external, to minimize any potential customer interruptions and to make timely decisions. 7

To further advance situational awareness in the control rooms, this project will provide a means of 8

integrating existing and new information in the video wall solution from Centralized Remedial Action 9

Schemes (CRAS), Phasor measurement data, Remedial Action Scheme (RAS) arming points, critical 10

line flows, voltage indicators, and system islanding identifiers. Without updating the Power System 11

Display, SCE will not be able to fully leverage the additional data from the Phasor project, which is 12

discussed in SCE-03, Volume 2. As evidenced in numerous historical and recent events involving the 13

power grid, wide area and detailed situational awareness is paramount for recognizing, remediating, and 14

recovering from large scale power system disturbances. 15

This new technology will replace the existing map board, which is an older style tile 16

board that only provides an overview for certain aspects of the power system. The current map board, 17

which was installed in 1999, has become outdated, difficult to maintain, and is approaching the end of 18

its useful life. For example, when a new station or line is added to the system, the existing map board 19

must be redesigned to incorporate the station and lines geographically and spatially, which first involves 20

manually rearranging the existing stations. This requires SCE to maintain an inventory of tiles and LED 21

lights for minor maintenance issues, and for major updates it requires the actual tiles to be custom-made 22

by the manufacturer. The current technology creates lag time between the time SCE’s electric system 23

changes and when the display wall is updated. 24

11

The existing map board requires the costly and time-intensive work arounds discussed 1

above. Advancements in technology have provided a means to optimize data into a more meaningful 2

and robust tool that provides further assurance of reliable power system operations. The CAISO has 3

implemented a similar solution. 4

In summary, the issues that the Grid Visualization project will address include the 5

following: 6

Old technology that does not fully integrate all information needed for full 7

comprehensive visual of the power gird status; 8

The lack of ability to leverage information from new projects such as CRAS and 9

Phasor; 10

Lag time between system changes and when the display board is updated; and 11

Requirement to maintain spare parts and to have some parts custom made. 12


This project will provide a seamless digital method to update the power system 14

display for both the GCC and AGCC. It will also enhance power system operator visualization with 15

pertinent information to provide better overall situational awareness. Using this newer technology, this 16

information can be easily supplemented with additional important power system indicators, including: 17

Enhanced, real-time view of the grid with a collaboration of data from various 18

systems to improve situational awareness; 19

Ease of maintenance in providing power system data, as the data can be 20

updated logically and in parallel with regular display updates; 21

Proactive correction activities through grid monitoring and visualization; 22

Greater reliability through a reduced number of physical points, wiring, and 23

discrete analog and digital display controllers; and 24

Backup system at the AGCC, which will reduce the likelihood of the loss of 25

power system situational awareness in the event of a primary system failure. 26

b) Alternatives 27

The only alternative to this project we have been able to identify is to maintain the 28

current outdated display system, which would not address any of the issues and problems described 29

above. Also, maintaining the current system would not allow us to make the most effective use the 30

12

critical information of the transmission system that is provided by the Phasor system. The project team 1

will evaluate the available COTS solutions to select the vendor that best meets SCE’s requirements. 2


This project is scheduled to begin in June 2015 and will be completed in 4

September 2016.14 The capital forecast for this project includes $1.3 million in project team costs for 5

SCE employees, contingent workers, and consultants, $3.8 million in software and vendor costs, and 6

$200,000 in hardware costs. Our capital forecast for Grid Visualization is summarized in Table II-6 7

below.15, 16 8

Table II-6 Grid Visualization Capital Forecast

(Nominal $000)

Category 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 TotalProject Team - - 600 700 - 1,300 Software/Vendor - - 1,200 2,600 - 3,800 Hardware - - - 200 - 200 Total - - 1,800 3,500 - 5,300

B. Compliance Management Projects 9

As a regulated utility, SCE must comply with various new regulatory requirements on a regular 10

basis. The projects discussed in this section help SCE better comply with specific regulations from 11

organizations such as the CPUC, NERC, FERC, and others. 12

1. Vegetation Management 13

The Vegetation Management (VM) project will implement new systems, tools, and 14

analytics that will be used to plan, perform, and analyze VM work processes such as tree trimming, tree 15

removal, and weed abatement. The VM project will replace the current, manual process, which is paper-16

intensive and outdated. The current process consists of manual entry of information from paper forms 17

into an Access database. The current Microsoft Access front end and the SQL database used for 18

Vegetation Management are antiquated and operating near peak capacity. The project will pursue the 19

14 See workpaper entitled “Grid Visualization Schedule Detail.”

15 See workpaper entitled “Grid Visualization Capital Forecast.”

16 See workpaper entitled “Grid Visualization Investment Memo.”

13

most cost-effective solution available in the market place. Since VM manages regulatory compliance of 1

1.5 million trees and 600,000 to 700,000 annual tree trim records, the current process has inherent 2

compliance risks, such as keeping data current without a large backlog of paperwork to process, and data 3

errors from manual data entry. 4

The VM project will provide a digitized, map-based view of SCE’s entire tree inventory, 5

our electrical assets from Comprehensive Geographical Information System (CGIS), along with other 6

data attributes such as fire patterns, storm patterns, climate, and water access. This combination of data 7

in one system will enable the VM group to better analyze data and make better business decisions in 8

areas such as the prioritization of tree trimming work. The project will evaluate COTS systems and 9

select the best and most cost-effective solution available in the market place to meet our needs. The 10

COTS will incorporate data from the CGIS project to provide a more comprehensive data set for our 11

VM activities. 12

This project will implement a system and process that will help the VM group to comply 13

with regulations including the following: 14

CPUC’s General Order 95, Rules 35 and 37;17 15

Public Resources Code (PRC) 4292 and 429318 for pole clearing requirements and 16

distribution vegetation-to-conductor distances; and 17

New NERC requirements19 for transmission vegetation-to-conductor distances. 18

In summary, the VM project will address the following issues: 19

Reliance on the current paper intensive process and a Microsoft Access Database tool 20

requires manual data entry that has the inherent risk of data errors and regulatory non-21

compliance; 22

Limited ability to track and report contractor performance; 23

Limited ability to analyze and prioritize work; and 24

Limited ability to proactively plan tree trimming activities. 25

17 See workpapers entitled “General Order 95 Rule 35” and “GO 95 Rule 37.”

18 See workpaper entitled “PRC 4292 and 4293.”

19 See workpaper entitled “FERC FAC-003-2,” which describes the new NERC requirements adopted on March 21, 2013 in Order 777.

14


By replacing the current paper intensive process with a digitized, map-based 2

system, and providing the data and tools to perform better analytics and work management, the VM 3

project will achieve the following: 4

Increase SCE’s ability to track and report on the quality of its contractors’ 5

performance; 6

Increase the ability to prioritize work, including the ability to prescribe work 7

proactively instead of reactively, which will help expedite the removal of 8

potentially dangerous trees; 9

Reduce the risk of non-compliance with requirements from federal, state, local 10

and environmental agencies20; 11

Streamline data reporting to external government agencies and increase 12

reliability by geographically associating the trees with electric circuitry; 13

Maintain employee and public safety by reducing the risks of overgrown 14

vegetation causing a downed power line; and 15

Maintain circuit reliability by clearing of trees in proximity to high voltage 16

lines. 17

Additionally, this project will leverage integration with CGIS to: 18

Enable monitoring of trees in areas with drought conditions; 19

Highlight recent fires of significant size and duration; 20

Associate trees with distribution and transmission facilities to correlate and 21

reduce fire hazards; 22

Assist in standardized risk identification and abatement; 23

Identify structural defects, such as cavities, wounds, dead branches, included 24

bark, insect infestation, co-dominant stems, weak branch attachments, injured 25

roots, and poor pruning history; and 26

Identify windstorm and snow loading potential risk. 27

20 Includes GO 95, Rules 35 and 37, and PRC 4292 and 4293.

15

b) Alternatives 1

We evaluated two alternatives for this project. The first alternative is to do 2

nothing and continue to use the current tools and processes. This would not address any of the current 3

issues or achieve the benefits described above. The second alternative would be to buy or build a 4

Vegetation Management tool. Regardless if we build or buy, the VM Tool will integrate with SCE 5

systems such as SAP and DM. Using the methodology described above, SCE will determine the cost-6

effective option to develop this capability. 7


This project will begin in September 2014 and will be completed in February 9


employees, contingent workers, and consultants, $6.7 million in software and vendor costs, and 11

$300,000 in hardware costs. Our capital forecast for the VM project is summarized in Table II-7 12

below.22, 23 13

Table II-7 Vegetation Management Capital Forecast

(Nominal $000)

Category 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 TotalProject Team - 500 1,800 400 - 2,700 Software/Vendor - 400 1,900 4,400 - 6,700 Hardware - - 300 - - 300 Total - 900 4,000 4,800 - 9,700

2. T&D Document Management 14

To fully utilize Electronic Documents Management and Records Management 15

(eDMRM),24 T&D needs to integrate it into existing workflow processes, stay in alignment with the 16

eDMRM effort, and address T&D specific needs that are not part of the corporate eDMRM effort. 17

These needs include creating an interface to link documents to SAP records, digitizing one-of-a-kind 18

21 See workpaper entitled “Vegetation Management Schedule Detail.”

22 See workpaper entitled “Vegetation Management Capital Forecast.”

23 See workpaper entitled “Vegetation Management Investment Memo.”

24 See SCE-05, Vol. 2, Chapter VI, Section D. 4, for further discussion of eDMRM.

16

hard copy documents and records on antiquated media, creating advanced workflow models for at-risk 1

processes, and providing subject matter expert support to scrub and migrate T&D documents to the 2

eDMRM system. T&D’s current document management system and processes do not meet these needs. 3

For T&D to be effective in using the functionality of the eDMRM, the following activities must be 4

undertaken. These activities are additive and not duplicative of the functionality provided by eDMRM. 5

Link to SAP 6

Drawings, maintenance activities, inspection photos, test readings, analysis results, and 7

diagnostics as supporting and critical documents need to be linked to the asset records and measurement 8

documents in SAP to track details for pole loading calculations, underground and overhead detailed 9

inspections (UDI/ODI), relay tests, and circuit breaker analysis activities in order to effectively comply 10

with CPUC requirements and support disaster recovery efforts. Full cradle-to-grave record keeping for 11

public safety documents and assets must be easily and readily accessible to satisfy tariffs, Rule 2125, and 12

other CPUC, FERC and CAISO requirements which dictate that supporting documentation must be 13

auditable and defensible. Contract communications and correspondence should be linked to the 14

associated SAP project record as required for regulatory filings to the FCC, California Board of 15

Equalization, and governing municipalities. 16

Digitizing 17

Historical work order jackets, historical soil tests, and other one-of-a-kind hard copy 18

documents with lengthy retention requirements need to be converted to electronic format to allow quick 19

and easy retrieval. Converting microfilm records from an obsolete medium to electronic format is 20

necessary to protect and maintain these records for long term access. 21

Workflow Models 22

Creation of workflow models are needed to assist in the development and update of as-23

built drawings, standards, specifications, and training documents. Creating these workflow models 24

within eDMRM ensures proper document security and governance is enforced. Additionally, the 25

development flow stays within process guidelines and allows for collaboration on, and control of, 26

documents in an effective and timely manner. 27

25 See workpaper entitled “Rule 21, Section D.”

17

Documentation Naming Conventions 1

Pre-migration scrubbing of documents eliminates multiple copies and reduces storage 2

costs, and minimizes errors from utilizing outdated information. Creating naming conventions and 3

appropriate metadata tags maximizes effective search results. Without the creation of naming 4

convention standards and document cleanup, the chance of an effective and successful eDMRM 5

implementation throughout T&D is unlikely. 6


By extending the eDMRM enterprise deployment to include T&D requirements, 8

SCE will be able to centralize and easily locate substantiating documentation and better comply with 9

regulatory requirements. This project will also improve T&D’s workflow regarding document review 10

and approval. The following are some of the specific benefits of the T&D Document Management 11

project. 12

Maintain reliability: 13

Improving the ability to identify missing or deficient maintenance and testing 14

documents by the equipment or circuit record in SAP allows for a clearer proactive review of system 15

stability and the identification of stressed assets. 16

Workflow improvements: 17

T&D’s specific workflows in eDMRM will eliminate the current confusion 18

caused by having multiple versions of the same document, which will reduce the possibility of planning 19

or building to wrong document versions. 20

b) Alternatives 21

The alternative to this project is to do nothing and continue with the current 22

system and processes, which would not provide any of the benefits described above. This project will 23

leverage the SCE eDMRM project for T&D specific needs. This approach will fully leverage the 24

eDMRM investment and avoid additional system integration work. 25


This project will start in August 2015 and be completed in December 2017.26 The 27


contingent workers, and consultants, $3.9 million in software and vendor costs. No hardware costs are 29

26 See workpaper entitled “T&D Document Management Schedule Detail.”

18

included for this project. Our capital forecast for the T&D Document Management project is 1

summarized in Table II-8 below.27, 28 2

Table II-8 T&D Document Management Capital Forecast

(Nominal $000)

Category 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 TotalProject Team - - 600 1,500 1,500 3,600 Software/Vendor - - - 900 3,000 3,900 Hardware - - - - - - Total - - 600 2,400 4,500 7,500

3. Protection System Maintenance Program (PSMP) 3

Protection Systems are established to isolate faults and restore the electric system to 4

normal operating conditions and to help maintain and operate the electric system with reliability and 5

safety. These protection systems within substations encompass a variety of equipment, such as circuit 6

breakers, relays, and measuring devices, and are designed to protect substation equipment from short 7

circuits, line faults, voltage transients, and cascading blackouts. 8

T&D’s Protection Setting Maintenance Program (PSMP) project will create and 9

implement a solution set to streamline existing data, processes, and systems to enable T&D to comply 10

with procedural guidelines and the NERC PRC-005-2 regulatory requirements.29 The solution set will 11

build on existing SCE information and computing systems and augment them with new functionalities 12

and systems, as needed, to bring SCE into compliance. 13

NERC is proposing a new standard, PRC-005-2, to establish a Protection System 14

Maintenance Program (the prevailing standard is PRC-005-1). Standard PRC 005-2 was recently 15

adopted by the NERC Governance Board, and is pending final approval by FERC. Once the standard is 16

approved by FERC, SCE will be required to be compliant. SCE needs to be prepared to meet the 17

reporting requirements of the current and upcoming Protection System Maintenance standards. 18

27 See workpaper entitled “T&D Document Management Capital Forecast.”

28 See workpaper entitled “T&D Document Management Investment Memo.”

29 See workpaper entitled “NERC PRC 005-2,” North American Electric Reliability Corporation, System Maintenance Supplementary Reference (Draft), July 2009.

19

Currently, data on protection systems is spread over several different systems. These 1

systems include SAP, Aspen30, and Protest31 One of the requirements of the PSMP project will be to 2

integrate these key systems to achieve seamless data transfer. In addition to becoming compliant with 3

regulatory requirements, this will also improve and expedite communications between technicians in the 4

field and engineers in the office. In addition, PSMP will address the following issues: 5

SCE asset data (e.g., relays) generally reside in SAP, while the relay test plans and 6

relay protection settings are scattered between systems like Protest and Aspen. These 7

systems are not interconnected, which results in inadequate reporting capabilities to 8

meet the new NERC requirements. 9

All the assets required to be included for NERC reporting are currently not included 10

in SAP asset databases. 11

A formal and consistent process for storing, accessing, and using protection setting 12

for relays is lacking. Several of the relay settings today are stored as scanned PDF 13

documents, making it difficult to search and obtain key information. 14

Test results are not automatically captured and audit trails of the test completion 15

dates, test results, and problem reporting and resolution are not readily available for 16

NERC auditing and reporting. 17

This project will have two phases. In the first phase of this project, we will focus on 18

developing robust internal and external reporting capabilities by integrating bulk electric relay 19

information from SAP, Aspen, and ProTest. In the second phase of the project, will evaluate vendor 20

solutions to enhance our data, process, and technology to include additional assets, such as 21

communication devices, measuring devices, and control circuitry. 22


The PSMP project will provide the following benefits: 24

Help to ensure that SCE will be in compliance with the proposed Standard 25

NERC PRC-005-2; 26

30 Aspen software is a repository of data on relays and related protection equipment for SCE. The relay data includes

overcurrent relays, distance relays, and differential relays. The software can also store multiple relay settings and parameters, including historical, emergency and pending values.

31 ProTest is the software test system currently being used by SCE to control and manage performance testing and assessment of protection and protection schemes.

20

Provide better traceability of assets, test settings, and test results; 1

Provide a single data repository that assists in accurate reporting for 2

regulatory auditing; and 3

Enhance system reliability through streamlined communication of engineering 4

requests to the field. 5

b) Alternatives 6

Three alternatives to this project were evaluated. The first alternative was to 7

continue with our current separate systems, but this would not address the regulatory requirements or 8

present inefficiencies. Second, we looked at only leveraging our SAP system, but this would not include 9

all the required data that we need to report on. The third alternative evaluated was to rely solely on 10

COTS solution to meet our needs. Based on our evaluation, none of these alternatives best meet our 11

requirements. 12


This project will begin in July 2013 and will be completed in December 2014.32 14

The project will begin by improving the overall work flow in substations by streamlining the processes, 15

data, and reporting capabilities within the existing systems. Preliminary integration of current SCE 16

applications will be accomplished to improve the reporting and compliance needs. Concurrently, the 17

project team will conduct an analysis to identify if any superior products exist in the market that can 18

meet all of the compliance requirements of SCE. Preliminary review indicates that no single product 19

can meet SCE needs. The end state solution set will be a combination of existing and new technologies 20

for compliance and reporting needs of various asset classes called for the in the NERC PRC standard. 21

The capital forecast for this project includes $2.6 million in project team costs for SCE employees, 22

contingent workers, and consultants, $2.8 million in software and vendor costs, and $200,000 in 23

hardware costs. Our capital forecast for PSMP is summarized in Table II-9 below.33, 34 24

32 See workpaper entitled Protection System Maintenance Program “PSMP Schedule Detail.”

33 See workpaper entitled Protection System Maintenance Program “PSMP Capital Forecast.”

34 See workpaper entitled Protection System Maintenance Program “PSMP Investment Memo.”

21

Table II-9 PSMP Capital Forecast

(Nominal $000)

Category 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 TotalProject Team 800 1,800 - - - 2,600 Software/Vendor 1,400 1,400 - - - 2,800 Hardware - 200 - - - 200 Total 2,200 3,400 - - - 5,600

4. Pole Loading Application Replacement (PoLAR) 1

General Order 95 (GO 95)35 sets forth rules for the design, construction, and maintenance 2

of overhead lines. These rules apply to all overhead electrical supply and communication facilities that 3

come within the jurisdiction of the Commission and are located outside of buildings, including facilities 4

that belong to non-electric utilities. GO 95 specifies that at the time of installation, a newly constructed 5

utility pole must be built with an acceptable safety factor. Once in service, GO 95 requires that Grade A 6

poles must be replaced before the safety factor is reduced below a certain level. Mr. Trainor’s testimony 7

in SCE-03, Volume 6, Part 2 described in more detail the safety factor requirements. 8

SCE developed a software tool to calculate safety factors as specified GO 95. This tool, 9

called Wind Load Estimator Application (WLEA), was implemented in 2000. In the years since 2000, 10

computing power and software capability has continued to mature, enabling more sophisticated and 11

complex calculations, and rendering WLEA obsolete. New software can calculate precise safety factors 12

along the entire length of a pole in a manner that cannot be calculated by hand or with WLEA. 13

The Pole Loading Application Replacement (PoLAR) project will deliver a 14

comprehensive long-term solution for T&D personnel to perform pole-loading analysis that meets safety 15

and regulatory requirements. The current application utilized for performing pole load calculations, the 16

WLEA, is antiquated and requires many manual processes to gather and share necessary information 17

with other organizations. The application performs limited engineering calculations and therefore 18

requires manual calculations to meet all of SCE’s pole loading scenarios, such as performing a 19

comprehensive analysis of an overhead structure made-up of two or three pole configurations. PoLAR 20

uses a Finite Element Analysis (FEA) model to calculate the loading experienced by a pole and the 21

35 See SCE-03, Vol. 6, Pt. 2 for additional pole loading details and General Order (GO) 95 requirements.

22

resulting safety factors along the entire length of the pole, resulting in a more accurate calculation than 1

the check performed by WLEA. FEA models are the standard methodology used today in all modern 2

pole loading software platforms. 3

In addition to meeting core regulatory compliance requirements such as General Order 4

9536 requirements for data retention or data sharing, the PoLAR project will also improve end-to-end 5

work order data processing. SCE will collaborate with the software vendor to develop, implement, and 6

train employees to use the PoLAR solution. The software applications, the pole load analysis engine, 7

and the server based database and administration tool will be integrated with several work management 8

software applications, such as SCE’s graphical design tool, SCE’s Design Manager (DM), and SAP data 9

warehouse, to optimize data transfer, pole load process controls, and reporting capabilities. This will 10

also allow us to share information with 3rd parties, such as the Joint Pole Organization (JPO). 11

A formal vendor selection process was utilized for the PoLAR solution. Five vendors 12

recognized in the industry for providing structural engineering software were invited to provide a 13

request for proposal (RFP). Following the initial written evaluation, three vendors were invited to 14

provide an on-site proof of concept (POC). After the POC evaluation, one of the vendors was identified 15

as the leading candidate and invited to perform a conference room pilot (CRP), which confirmed the 16

vendor’s ability to meet SCE’s business requirements and project objectives. This resulted in awarding 17

a fixed priced contract with the leading vendor. The criteria used throughout the vendor selection 18

process included the vendor’s ability to meet the business and technical requirements, as well as an 19

evaluation of the total cost of ownership for the product, including initial contract costs and on-going 20

maintenance from both internal SCE IT resources and the vendor. 21


(1) Compliance 23

The PoLAR project will support GO 95 requirements for data sharing 24

through electronic collaboration and the ability to share pole loading data with third parties. It will also 25

support GO 95 data retention requirements by better enabling SCE to supply the CPUC with necessary 26

reports. 27

36 See workpaper entitled “GO 95 Rules Related to PoLAR,” GO 95 Specifics: Data Retention - Section 1, Rule 18, pp. I-8

to page I-10.

23

(2) Reliability 1

New software applications allow for utilization of complex analysis 2

techniques that can evaluate the entire length of the pole to determine the actual weakest point and 3

provide the safety factor. The result is increased reliability of overhead electrical system infrastructure 4

through more precise calculation of pole loading and strength reduction/strength remaining, which 5

reduces the risk of pole failures. 6

(3) Usability and Operational Expense Avoidance 7

Improved integration eliminates the need for stand-alone tools such as 8

WLEA. The improved usability also allows for more consistency in applying SCE standards. The 9

updated technical platform of a COTS application also allowed for cancellation of an in-flight effort to 10

stabilize the current WLEA application ($300K one-time O&M expense avoidance).37 11

b) Alternatives 12

Two alternatives were evaluated before choosing to replace WLEA, which were 13

to upgrade WLEA or to build a new solution in the Graphical Design Tool (GDT). These options were 14

rejected because neither provided the functionality to fully integrate with other systems and perform all 15

the complex calculations required. Also, both options may not be capable of accommodating changes in 16

regulatory requirements. 17


The PoLAR project will be implemented in multiple phases. Phase 1 of the 19

PoLAR project will replace the current legacy WLEA with the chosen vendor COTS, consisting of the 20

calculation engine and an administration tool for data management. Phase 1 will also provide enhanced 21

analytical capabilities to account for different wind direction situations, and additional engineering 22

functions to allow for analysis of sidewalk anchor guys. Phase 1 is expected to be deployed in the 23

second quarter of 2013. 24

Subsequent phases of the PoLAR project will include development and 25

deployment of additional engineering functionality to cover more advanced scenarios, such as the ability 26

to analyze overhead structures made up of more than one pole (i.e., two or three pole configurations). 27

This additional engineering will also include additional ways to calculate vertical load stress on the pole. 28

37 The O&M project was budgeted in 2012 in T&D’s BPTI Non-capital project budget, which is described in SCE-03, Vol.

2. The PoLAR project allowed for the $300K project to be cancelled.

24

Sag and tension functionality will also be developed and deployed. The PoLAR project will also 1

integrate the vendor COTS with other SCE software applications and systems such as the graphical 2

design tool, ERP, and Design Manager (DM). 3

The phased approach will allow SCE to obtain immediate benefits of the COTS 4

software product concurrent with the development of subsequent phases. Within each phase, select 5

Super Users will be given the opportunity to “pilot” the solution prior to full release. This approach will 6

aid in validating the functionality of the solution, as well as preparing the Super Users to serve as change 7

advocates and facilitate adoption in their work locations. 8

The total PoLAR capital request of $8.155 million is summarized in Table II-10 9

below.38 Project team capital expenditures consist of SCE labor associated with development and 10

implementation, vendor contracts, and professional services, which total $4.992 million. Software 11

capital expenditures include software licenses, five years of prepaid maintenance, and professional 12

services support to configure the applications, conduct training, and develop additional functionality, 13

which totals $2.640 million.39 Capital of $523,000 is required to purchase additional hardware to 14

support the increased data capacity requirements. 15

Table II-10 PoLAR Capital Forecast

(Nominal $000)

Category 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 TotalProject Team - - 294 2,952 1,746 - 4,992 Software/Vendor - - 793 907 940 - 2,640 Hardware - - - 468 55 - 523

Total - - 1,087 4,327 2,741 - 8,155

C. Geographical Information System Advanced Applications (GISAA) 16

The Geographical Information System Advanced Applications (GISAA) project will first 17

incorporate additional data elements into T&D’s Comprehensive Geographic Information System 18

(CGIS), such as relevant smart meter data, weather, LIDAR, forestry, topography, and elevation data. 19

T&D has undertaken significant investments in developing its CGIS. The CGIS provides the 20

38 See workpaper entitled Pole Loading Application Replacement “PoLAR Capital Detail.”

39 See workpaper entitled Pole Loading Application Replacement “PoLAR Investment Memo.”

25

foundational GIS elements of landbase, consolidated electrical and structural asset connectivity data, and 1

spatial representation of all T&D assets.40 Through the GISAA project, the foundational GIS data will 2

be leveraged to achieve additional capabilities in the system planning and work flow management areas. 3

This project leverages existing technology and if additional software is needed, the project team will 4

evaluate the options to buy or build the software required. 5

Smart meters are collecting valuable load profile data. Collecting this data and providing it in 6

context with GIS data opens the opportunity for proactive identification of troubled assets and better 7

system planning. Additionally, enhanced load growth projections and impacts on the electric system can 8

be proactively managed through anticipated customer usage derived from smart meter data. Topography 9

and elevation data can help planners in accurate application of design and construction standards. 10

LIDAR and forestry data will help SCE to proactively manage the compliance requirements pertaining 11

to permitting and vegetation management described in Chapter II, Section B.1 of this testimony. 12

Once this additional data is integrated into CGIS, several engineering and technical functional 13

capabilities will be enabled. These capabilities will provide users with enhanced system planning tools 14

for network planning, reliability assessment, and load assessment. 15

This project will allow engineers and planners to evaluate capacity and infrastructure investment 16

needs over time through spatial analysis, which allows for better utilization of existing assets and more 17

effective planning of infrastructure replacement. Additionally, this project will enable the more efficient 18

creation of the circuit and substation buffers. Circuit Criteria Projected Load (CPL) and Substation CPL 19

Layers allow users to better visualize the utilization criteria of circuits and substation areas. According 20

to Resolution E-441441, the CPUC requires SCE to provide information about SCE's transmission, 21

subtransmission, and distribution systems that may be relevant to developers who want to interconnect 22

generation projects to SCE's system. The details that are provided as part of this mandate are voltages, 23

capacities, and peak load data among other data that are critical to the safe operation of the electrical 24

system. Presently, the SCE Generation Interconnection Maps are a set of downloadable map layers 25

available to the public at the following location, http://www.sce.com/ram. This downloadable file is 26

currently updated on a monthly basis, and through this proposed project, more frequent updates with 27

better data will be feasible. 28

40 See D.12.11.051, p. 269, where CGIS was approved by the Commission in SCE’s 2012 GRC decision.

41 See workpaper entitled “Resolution E-4414,” Appendix B, pp. 32-33, regarding Market Elements.

26

Enhanced power flow analytics can be performed by integrating the CGIS network with system 1

planning tools. The GISAA will allow real time conditions of the load profiles and changes to the 2

circuits to be shared with the system planning applications. Additionally, distribution and 3

subtransmission planners will be able to utilize the weather, elevation, and topography data for better 4

engineering and planning analysis of the assets being designed and installed through the graphical 5

design tools. 6

This project will address the current lack of a database for distribution underground (UG) 7

primary cable. The current unavailability of data (e.g., installation date, type, insulation, location, 8

conductor size, etc.) for each of SCE's roughly 400,000 cable segments limits SCE's ability to identify 9

the cable segments most at risk of in-service failure, which in turn limits preemptive cable replacements, 10

which may ultimately result in negative impacts to system reliability. SCE’s probabilistic reliability 11

studies indicate that increasing in-service failures of distribution underground primary cable could lead 12

to a significant decline in SCE’s distribution system reliability over the next twenty years42. Preemptive 13

replacement of unreliable cable segments can help alleviate this decline in reliability. Accurate 14

determination of cable segment unreliability would require cable material, location, and performance 15

data, which is currently unavailable. 16

The creation of a master duct plan that shows the location of underground cables and conduits 17

would help multiple design groups to share knowledge of proposed capital infrastructure improvements 18

in areas where there are future developments. It will also help to justify asking the developer to add 19

ducts to their proposed plans. This capability is designed to provide a view of the UG master duct plan 20

across SCE’s service territory. Availability of such a plan provides the opportunity for better-21

coordinated UG cable installation and proactive planning options, and helps SCE’s Distribution 22

Engineering organization in its planning efforts. 23

In summary, the GISAA project will address the following issues: 24

Lack of comprehensive asset information; 25

Limited integration between systems, which requires redundant data entry; 26

Limited UG cable data; 27

Limited ability to analyze data for proactive asset replacement plans; 28

42 See SCE-03, Vol. 4, for further discussion on infrastructure replacement.

27

Limited ability to identify and manage the utilization of existing systems; 1

Limited visualization of load blocks; and 2

Limited ability to meet requirements of CPUC Resolution E-4414. 3

1. Project Benefits 4

Benefits of the GISAA include the following: 5

Provides consistent, reliable, and comprehensive asset information for engineering 6

and system planning functions; 7

Reduces redundant data entry between systems; 8

Provides the data required for UG cable reliability analysis. UG cable analysis will 9

help improve system reliability by allowing cable replacements to be more effectively 10

prioritized; 11

Provides enhanced capabilities in asset loading calculations to determine proactive 12

replacement strategies for critical assets; 13

Provides a more comprehensive ability to identify and manage the utilization of 14

existing facilities, including substation, distribution, and transmission capacity 15

estimations, which could result in better prioritization of Infrastructure Replacement 16

(IR) spend; 17

Provides functionality to meet the requirements of CPUC Resolution E-4414 , which 18

requires system information for Generation Interconnection requests; 19

Visualization of load blocks will allow for better system planning as load served by 20

each circuit and substation is clearly identified and visualized; and 21

Visualization of load blocks should lead to better reliability in case of emergencies, as 22

operators will be better equipped to see where excess capacity might be available. 23

2. Alternatives 24

The alternative to this project is to do nothing and continue with the current processes, 25

which would not provide any of the benefits described above. This project leverages existing 26

technology and if additional software is needed, the project team will evaluate the options to buy or 27

build the software required. Regardless if we build or buy, the software will integrate with SCE 28

systems. Using the methodology described above, SCE will determine the most cost-effective option to 29

develop this capability. 30

28

3. Schedule and Cost 1

This project is scheduled to begin in October 2015 and will be completed in September 2



hardware costs are included for this project. Our capital forecast for GIS Advanced Applications is 5


Table II-11 GIS Advanced Application Capital Forecast

(Nominal $000)

Category 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 TotalProject Team - - 700 2,000 1,600 4,300 Software/Vendor - - - 2,100 4,600 6,700 Hardware - - - - - - Total - - 700 4,100 6,200 11,000

D. Work Flow Management Projects 7

SCE continues to evaluate and implement new applications to enhance our work flow 8

management (WM) capabilities across the IPSEC46 model for T&D. As SCE’s investment in large 9

transmission projects grows, there is an increasing demand for an integrated work management solution 10

that standardizes cost management and resource planning for the Major Projects Organization (MPO) in 11

T&D and supporting functional organizations and system planning functions (environmental, 12

Information Technology, etc.). SCE will pursue improvements in resource management capabilities, 13

cost reporting capabilities, contract management, and change control management. 14

T&D currently processes capital-related work orders via a series of manual paper-based handoffs 15

across the IPSEC model. The growing backlog of work orders will progressively affect T&D’s ability 16

to close an increasing volume of capital work in a timely manner. SCE proposes to leverage existing 17

43 See workpaper entitled “GIS Advanced Applications (GISAA) Schedule Detail.”

44 See workpaper entitled “GIS Advanced Applications (GISAA) Capital Forecast.”

45 See workpaper entitled “GIS Advanced Applications (GISAA) Investment Memo.”

46 Initiate, Plan, Schedule, Execute, and Close (IPSEC).

29

systems and interfaces that will work with a document management system specific to work order 1

packages to reduce or eliminate the number of paper documents included in a work order package. 2

Five new projects have been identified to improve T&D’s work flow management capabilities. 3

These projects are: (1) the Integrated Portfolio solution for MPO, (2) the Electronic Work Order 4

Package, (3) the Work Management Dashboard, (4) Graphical Design Tool (GDT) Engineering 5

Capabilities, and (5) the GDT Tract Planners/Underground Drafting Design Group (UGDDG) project. 6

1. Integrated Portfolio Solution for Major Projects Organization (MPO) 7

This project will develop an integrated project portfolio work management planning and 8

tracking solution. This solution will integrate scope, cost, schedule management, and resource planning 9

for the MPO, supporting functional organizations (Environmental Affairs division, Real Properties 10

division, IT Telecommunication organizational units, etc.), and system planning functions. 11

The project is a combination of several sub-components for improving MPO’s planning, 12

tracking, and execution of its major construction projects. The project will improve the resource 13

management capabilities, cost reporting capabilities, contract management and change control 14

management capabilities related to major transmission construction projects. 15

Currently, the lack of a standard set of tools requires SCE’s contractors to provide their 16

own software solution. The volume of projects related to SCE’s increased capital spend has resulted in 17

multiple tools being used instead of one consistent solution for MPO. This project will improve the 18

current siloed solutions provided by construction contractors. Dated and disparate software tools such 19

as Microsoft Access databases will be replaced with a unified set of integrated technologies for effective 20

work management. 21

This project is a combination of several sub-components that provide improvement in 22

work flow management for the MPO as described below. The project team will evaluate and implement 23

an appropriate tool or integrated suite of tools available in the marketplace that will provide the 24

following: 25

a) Project Sub-Components 26

(1) Financial Tools for Cost Management and Reporting 27

This project will integrate SAP and the Capital Asset Portfolio 28

Management and Reporting database (CAPMAR) to provide a more user friendly financial tool that has 29

both annual and multi-year capabilities. The financial tool will also provide FERC, Non-FERC, and 30

CPUC jurisdictional cost component splits, which will support cost recovery. The financial tool will 31

30

also automate cost management reporting that combines SAP data with schedule data for Earned Value 1

calculations, near real-time visibility to planned versus actual costs, and the ability to drill down by cost 2

components such as invoices, time sheet data, and material cost sheets. The solution will integrate with 3

the existing Scope & Cost Management Tool (SCMT) that standardizes the development of estimates 4

across all project components with portfolio tools to auto-generate project budgets. 5

(2) Earned Value Management (EVM) 6

As large projects are constructed, tasks associated with the projects are 7

subdivided based on functional needs and the work is managed by several groups including T&D’s 8

Engineering division and Transmission Construction division. As part of the project, SCE will develop 9

integrated EVM tools that will enable efficient cost management and scheduling across all 10

subcomponents of the project. 11

(3) Standardized scheduling solution for large construction projects(s) 12

To effectively manage the resources supporting the projects, MPO needs 13

to have standardized scheduling solutions that are sufficiently capable of managing large, complex 14

projects and their associated contracts, as well as smaller projects with less rigorous scheduling needs. 15

The scheduling solutions also need to integrate contractor schedules with internal MPO schedules. As a 16

part of this effort, solutions for cross-project data sharing will be developed that eliminate the current 17

manual process, which requires populating various spreadsheets associated with resource forecasting. 18

This will also help identify bottleneck activities and resources across the portfolio of major transmission 19

construction projects. 20

(4) Contract Management & Change Control Management 21

MPO will benefit by a unified contract management solution to manage 22

Requests for Information (RFI), Notices of Potential Changes (NOPC), Change Order Requests (CORs) 23

and Unit Adders47 to adjust fixed priced work along with project management and cost management 24

solutions. The contract management solution will provide appropriate alerts to ensure response 25

deadlines are met by project stakeholders. As a part of this effort, the project team will develop and 26

implement a change control repository with documentation that has useful descriptions of decision 27

rationale used to revise project costs, scope, and schedule. This repository will capture the decision-28

47 Unit Adders are additional costs, based on conditions found in the field, that are added to the standard unit price agreed

to with our contractors.

31

making workflows and provide robust tracking of significant project changes. The solution will also 1

facilitate exchange of large volumes of data files between SCE and external entities along with time 2

stamp capabilities for transmission and receipt of project information. 3

(5) Resource Management capabilities across all organizations 4

To optimally utilize all available resources, this project will develop 5

resource management capabilities across all organizations that support the large projects. This will also 6

provide views of demand for SCE and contractor resources (current and future), capacity (current and 7

future), gaps between resource capacity and demand, and capacity and staffing plans. 8

(6) Integrated solution for Portfolio and Project Management 9

The project team will develop and implement an integrated solution for 10

overall portfolio and project management, which provides project governance from project conception 11

through project estimation, project approvals, resource scheduling, and corresponding document 12

management capabilities. 13

b) Project Benefits 14

This project will provide benefits in the following areas: 15

Cost and Schedule Management 16

Reduces risk of application failure and process non-compliance by replacing 17

the Microsoft Access solution with an industry appropriate solution that our 18

IT department will support, as opposed to the current practice of MPO 19

creating and using Microsoft Access databases; 20

Replaces current manual process to review and classify costs with an 21

integrated automated system approach; 22

Reduces the risk of misclassification of costs and will improve data quality 23

and cost recovery; 24

Implements an integrated Earned Value Management tool; 25

Mitigates compliance issues by replacing the currently siloed unit estimate 26

process; and 27

Improves monthly tracking and reporting capabilities. 28

Contract Management 29

Provides ability to track changes and rationale to understand root causes and 30

responsibility for project delays or additional costs; and 31

32

Reduces cost exposure and risk of disputes and litigation. 1

Project and Resource Management 2

Improves the ability to plan resource impacts for projects across the company 3

and allow for level loading resources; 4

Improves the capability to track resource usage; and 5

Provides integrated reporting capabilities, which will improve Earned Value 6

reporting and tracking. 7

c) Alternatives 8

One alternative to this project is to do nothing and continue with the current 9

processes, which would not address any of the deficiencies or provide any of the benefits described 10

above. The second alternative is to leverage our SAP system to provide some of the functionality, but 11

this would not provide all the functionality required to achieve the benefit listed above. Regardless if we 12

build or buy, the software will integrate with SCE systems. Using the methodology described above, 13

SCE will determine the most cost-effective option to develop this capability. 14

d) Schedule and Cost 15

This project is scheduled to begin in October 2014 and will be completed in 16

March 2016.48 The capital forecast for this project includes $1.5 million in project team costs for SCE 17

employees, contingent workers, and consultants, $2.9 million in software and vendor costs, and 18

$200,000 in hardware costs. Our capital forecast for Integrated Portfolio Management for MPO is 19


48 See workpaper entitled “Integrated Portfolio Management for Major Projects (MPO) Schedule Detail.”

49 See workpaper entitled “Integrated Portfolio Management for Major Projects (MPO) Capital Forecast.”

50 See workpaper entitled “Integrated Portfolio Management for Major Projects (MPO) Investment Memo.”

33

Table II-12 Integrated Portfolio Management for MPO Capital Forecast

(Nominal $000)

Category 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 TotalProject Team - 200 1,000 300 - 1,500 Software/Vendor - 200 1,900 1,000 - 3,100 Hardware - - - - - - Total - 400 2,900 1,300 - 4,600

2. Work Management Dashboard 1

The Work Management (WM) Dashboard project will provide an integrated view of 2

work across applications, such as T&D’s scheduling tool and Design Manager (DM). This project will 3

replace approximately thirteen Project Tracker Access databases that provide basic project management 4

capabilities across all T&D disciplines such as planning, scheduling, construction, and work order 5

closure. These thirteen databases are used by planners, project managers, and Resource Planning and 6

Performance Management (RPPM) to track in-flight project status, including planner related tasks such 7

as permitting, date management (customer commitment and regulatory compliance dates), material 8

delivery dates, and crew scheduling status, among others. Although we have thirteen different trackers, 9

much of the same information is used in each tracker, but is tailored to the individual group’s specific 10

work. These non-IT supported tools are difficult to maintain and not integrated with our source systems, 11

such as SAP. 12

The current tools and processes have the following issues: 13

Data quality and accuracy issues caused by using systems that are not integrated and 14

automatically updated; 15

There is not a comprehensive view of T&D’s construction and maintenance work, 16

thus requiring multiple tools to gather and reconcile resource and work status; 17

Project trackers are not supported by SCE IT and are dependent on external vendor 18

support; 19

With thirteen independently developed Microsoft Access databases, it is difficult to 20

support enterprise wide efforts, such as Microsoft Windows and Office upgrades; 21

The current trackers have limited resource capacity and demand management 22

capabilities across T&D’s planning organization; and 23

34

The current independent trackers do not have any automated work flow management 1

capabilities and requires the user to manage work in multiple systems. 2

The first component of the WM Dashboard project is the development of a work 3

management dashboard that provides an integrated view of work across applications at a level of detail 4

that is not available today. Through this functionality, SCE will be able to report on department and 5

employee utilization, department and employee capacity, and work progress and volumes by status 6

(completed, in-flight, etc.), by department, and by work type. Currently, the tools developed and used, 7

such as Access databases and Excel spreadsheets, are not supported by IT. While IT provides support 8

for the core Microsoft product, IT does not support the tools built by end users. This puts the tools at 9

risk of failing and losing data, since IT does not provide automatic data back-up and system fixes for 10

tools developed on Microsoft products. 11

The second component will replace Project Tracker databases with a combination of IT 12

supported programs to enable project management capabilities across planning, scheduling, 13

construction, and work order closure. This will include further leveraging applications within the 14

existing software portfolio and evaluating various vendor solutions to select the vendor that best 15

addresses any remaining gaps to our needs, and integrating that solution into our portfolio. The third 16

component will provide integrated resource capacity and demand management capability for both SCE 17

and contractor planners and crews. 18


The WM Dashboard will provide the following benefits: 20

Provide an integrated system that will update automatically to address the 21

current data quality and accuracy issues; 22

Provide a comprehensive view of T&D’s construction and maintenance work 23

by replacing multiple tools with one integrated tool; 24

Provide an IT supported product that will improve the ability to support 25

enterprise wide efforts; and 26

Improve management of resource demand and capacity for SCE planners and 27

its contractors’ planners and provide near real-time access to data to allow 28

reporting of current data. 29

35

b) Alternatives 1

We evaluated two alternatives for this project. The first alternative is to do 2

nothing and continue to using the Microsoft Access and Excel tools to manage workflow. This would 3

not address any of the current issues or achieve the benefits described above. The second alternative 4

would be to buy or build a Work Management dashboard tool. Regardless if we build or buy, the 5

dashboard will integrate with SCE systems such as SAP and DM. Using the methodology described 6

above, SCE will determine the most cost-effective option to develop this capability. 7


This project is scheduled to begin in January 2014 and will be completed in June 9



hardware costs are included for this project. Our capital forecast for Work Management Dashboard is 12


Table II-13 Work Management Dashboard Capital Forecast

(Nominal $000)

Category 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 TotalProject Team - 1,000 500 - - 1,500 Software/Vendor - 900 1,200 - - 2,100 Hardware - - - - - - Total - 1,900 1,700 - - 3,600

3. Electronic Work Order Package (EWOP) 14

The Electronic Work Order Package (EWOP) project will implement an electronic work 15

flow that will allow users to create, edit, store (using SAP Business Intelligence (BI) or eDMRM), and 16

access information required to manage T&D capital and other related work orders electronically, 17

utilizing new and existing systems. The implementation of EWOP will leverage new and existing 18

51 See workpaper entitled “Work Management Dashboard Schedule Detail.”

52 See workpaper entitled “Work Management Dashboard Capital Forecast.”

53 See workpaper entitled “Work Management Dashboard Investment Memo.”

36

systems and interfaces in order to reduce or eliminate the number of paper documents transmitted as part 1

of a current capital work order package. 2

Currently, a capital work order package can include over 140 reports, forms, and 3

documents54, such as a Job Information Sheet (JIS), Circuit Maps, Facility Inventory Maps (FIM), Joint 4

Pole Authorization Form, Pole Loading Documents, and Environmental forms. T&D’s continued 5

practice of processing work orders via a series of manual paper-based handoffs across the T&D work 6

process will progressively affect our ability to design, construct, and close an increasing volume of 7

capital work. This project will increase accuracy, accessibility, and throughput of work orders, while 8

reducing the need for photocopying, mailing, filing, and storing documents and records that may already 9

exist in our systems of record by making all of these document electronic records. 10

This project that will address the following issues: 11

Risk of data integrity of T&D’s source systems caused by the lack of electronic 12

transfer and updates of key artifacts and attributes through systems with built-in 13

business logic and validations; 14

Lack of controlled data access and version control of central documents; 15

Lag time caused by sending and receiving hard copies to different locations that 16

impacts groups such as SCE’s contractors, T&D construction and maintenance crews, 17

field supervisors, Resource Planning and Performance Management organizational 18

(RPPM), Field Accounting Organization (FAO), T&D planning organizations, and 19

SCE financial organizations; 20

Need to enhance systems such as SCE’s Design Manager, SAP, CMS, scheduling, 21

and eDMRM to support large volumes of transactions and files sizes; 22

Slow response time for information requests (internal and external) due to having to 23

find a physical documents; and 24

Lack of ability to recover documents if there is an event on the physical location 25

storing the documents. 26

This project will integrate several key systems, including SCE’s Design Manager, SAP, 27

Scheduling, and the Consolidated Mobile Solution (CMS) for document creation, scheduling, viewing, 28

54 See workpaper entitled “WO Forms.”

37

and editing. The project will also leverage the Enterprise Document Management and Records 1

Management (eDMRM) project as a permanent storage and archiving solution. 2


The benefits of EWOP include the following: 4

Improve data integrity of source systems and enhanced version control; 5

Allow near real-time electronic data transfer of work order packages; 6

Reduce the manual handoffs and hard copy documents to mitigate lost or 7

destroyed work orders documents, which are required to reconcile material, 8

close work orders, and unitize assets; 9

Compliance related documents stored electronically and improve accessibility 10

to meet information requests; 11

Allows planning resources to spend more time performing value added work, 12

such as creating work orders to meet projected capital forecasts, instead of 13

photocopying work order packages for transport to user groups, such as 14

project management, scheduling, field accounting, contractors, and support 15

organizations.; and 16

Increase throughput across IPSEC as documents are received and updated 17

electronically. 18

b) Alternatives 19

The first alternative is to do nothing and continue to using paper work order 20

packages. This would not address any of the current issues or achieve the benefits described above. The 21

second alternative would be to buy or build a solution to convert the work order package to an electronic 22

format. Regardless if we build or buy, the dashboard will integrate with SCE systems such as SAP and 23

eDMRM. Using the methodology described above, SCE will determine the most cost-effective option 24

to develop this capability. 25


This project is scheduled to begin in April 2014 and will be completed in 27

September 2015.55 The capital forecast for this project includes $3.3 million in project team costs for 28

55 See workpaper entitled “Electronic Work Order Package (EWOP) Schedule Detail.”

38

SCE employees, contingent workers, and consultants, $5.4 million in software and vendor costs, and 1

$300,000 in hardware costs. Our capital forecast for Electronic Work Order Package is summarized in 2

Table II-14 below.56, 57 3

Table II-14 Electronic Work Order Package Capital Forecast

(Nominal $000)

Category 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 TotalProject Team - 1,700 1,600 - - 3,300 Software/Vendor - 1,800 3,600 - - 5,400 Hardware - - 300 - - 300 Total - 3,500 5,500 - - 9,000

4. Graphical Design Tool (GDT) Engineering Capabilities 4

The Graphical Design Tool (GDT) application was first implemented in 2009 for 5

distribution planners, and then in 2010 GDT was integrated with SAP and made available to 6

transmission estimators. For the 2015 GRC cycle, we have identified the need for three additional 7

projects to enhance and refresh GDT. The first is the GDT Engineering Capabilities project, which 8

began in 2012. The second is the GDT for Tract Team Planners and the Underground Drafting and 9

Design Group project, which is discussed below in Chapter II, Section D.5. The third is the GDT 10

Refresh project, which is discussed below in Chapter III, Section C. While all three of these projects 11

impact the GDT, they are separate efforts. 12

The Graphical Design Tool (GDT) is a COTS application used by distribution planners 13

and designers and transmission estimators. Prior to the completion of the GDT Engineering Capabilities 14

project, distribution planners and designers and transmission estimators had to rely on outside tools (e.g., 15

Excel spreadsheets) to perform engineering calculations that could have resulted in variations in work 16

order design and manual data entry, which increased the risk for errors. For example, maintaining 17

version control of the various Excel spreadsheets and other external tools was challenging, and in some 18

cases caused different engineering standards to be applied. 19

56 See workpaper entitled “Electronic Work Order Package (EWOP) Capital Forecast.”

57 See workpaper entitled “Electronic Work Order Package (EWOP) Investment Memo.”

39

The GDT Engineering Capabilities project customized the vendor’s core GDT product to 1

provide voltage drop and flicker, Multi-Planar Pulling Tension (MPPT), refined residential house corner 2

loading, and other improvements. By implementing this project in 2013, we addressed issues that 3

included (1) poor design reliability due to the use of stand-alone tools, (2) poor design accuracy due to 4

use of stand-alone tools and inconsistent methodology, (3) difficulty with compliance related audits, and 5

(4) sub-optimal usability due to the lack of engineering calculation tools. 6

SCE evaluated the option of implementing these improvements as a stand-alone project 7

in 2013 or waiting for the next scheduled refresh to add these improvements. Due to the current 8

limitations of integrating with other system and reliance on stand-alone tools, we determined that the 9

best approach was to implement these improvements as a stand-alone project. Since the vendor will 10

incorporate this functionality into its core product, our approach is also the least cost option58 compared 11

to the alternative of waiting for the next scheduled refresh. Future refresh costs are avoided through 12

vendor collaboration during this project as the vendor has included some of this functionality already in 13

its current version and plans to include additional functionality in future versions. By having the vendor 14

incorporate these functionalities into its core product, SCE’s future refresh will not require additional 15

enhancements in the areas addressed by this project, which will reduce the cost of the next refresh. 16

This project expanded on the ability of GDT to integrate complex engineering 17

calculations and automatically apply construction design standards. These integrated standards included 18

the design process to improve consistency, quality, and accuracy in the design and downstream 19

estimating, invoicing, and material ordering processes. 20


GDT Engineering Capabilities provides the following benefits: 22

Reliability: Provides improved multi-system integration and eliminates the 23

need for standalone tools; 24

Accuracy: Increases accuracy and consistency with automated material 25

ordering. Improves quality through design standardization and provides 26

consistency in engineering calculation methodology. Reduces the need to exit 27

58 See workpaper entitled “Graphical Design Tool (GDT) Approval Presentation” for least cost analysis and assumptions.

The GDT Approval Presentation was prepared in connection with the approval of the GDT User Interface, which was completed in 2012 and GDT Engineering Capabilities project discussed above.

40

the GDT to perform calculations on separate tools, which will reduce the 1

potential for errors; 2

Compliance: Improves ability to support design audits. Automates 3

compliance with design standards. Supports T&D’s established best practice 4

methods to produce and control work; 5

Usability: Provides more standardized and consistent designs. Improves 6

users’ ability to perform complex engineering calculations by replacing Excel 7

based calculators with an integrated tool. Improves the workflow by 8

integrating data input in GDT across other systems; and 9

Delays GDT Refresh by One Year: Defers the next refresh to the vendor’s 10

future version by one year and reduces the cost of the next refreshes. As 11

discussed above, this is the least cost option to provide this functionality. 12

b) Alternatives 13

The two alternatives to our approach were to do nothing and continue to use 14

stand-alone tools, or to wait for the next refresh of the vendor product and add enhancements at that 15

time. For the reasons discussed above, these alternatives were rejected. 16


The GDT Engineering Capabilities project completed in the second quarter of 18

2013. Total capital costs for the GDT Capabilities Engineering project are summarized in Table II-15 19

below.59 Recorded capital costs are $2.874 million in 2012, and forecast 2013 capital costs are $1.084 20

million. Project team capital expenditures consist of SCE labor associated with development and 21

implementation, vendor contracts, and professional services, which total $2.557 million. Software 22

capital expenditures include professional services support to configure the applications, conduct 23

training, and develop additional functionality, which totals $1.401 million. 24

59 See workpaper entitled “Graphical Design Tool (GDT) Engineering Capabilities Capital Detail.”

41

Table II-15 GDT Capital Forecast

(Nominal $000)

Category 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 TotalProject Team - - 1,836 721 - - 2,557 Software/Vendor - - 1,038 363 - - 1,401 Hardware - - - - - - -

Total - - 2,874 1,084 - - 3,958

5. Graphical Design Tool (GDT) for Tract Team Planners and Underground Drafting 1

and Design Group (UGDDG) 2

This project will complete the deployment of GDT to all design groups in the 3

Distribution Planning and Design organization. Implementation of GDT to the Planning Tract Team 4

and the UGDDG is intended to develop a common platform for all of distribution design and drafting 5

processes. It will result in a unified design process that can be used by all planning groups, and provide 6

usage reporting metrics to produce valid results. Having all design work done in a common tool will 7

also support the end-state vision of a CGIS enabled platform, and allow for full optimization of 8

integration with a geospatial database. This project will promote consistency of design standards across 9

workgroups within Distribution, Construction, and Maintenance (DC&M) and the Central Design 10

Division. By moving to a common platform, the local planning groups located in the districts will now 11

be able to utilize features that are currently only available to Underground Drafting System (UDS) 12

users.60 13

The Planning Tract Team and UGDDG currently use a different tool, UDS, to complete 14

their design work. This is a customized software application that is not supported by the vendor or 15

SCE’s IT Operating Unit. These tools are used by New Development Project Planning (NDPP) 16

organizational unit and Central Distribution Design (CDD) organizational unit to produce graphical 17

designs for their work. GDT is a “Developed COTS” application or DCOTS, which is a COTS 18

application that the vendor partnered with SCE to include new functionality, and is used by distribution 19

planners and designers and by transmission estimators. GDT was originally implemented as part of the 20

SAP implementation, but did not include the functionalities for the UGDDG or the Planning Tract 21

60 See workpaper entitled “Graphical Design Tool (GDT) Engineering Capabilities Investment Memo.”

42

Team. The GDT implementation for the UGDDG and the Planning Tract Team will decommission the 1

antiquated UDS product and unify the application set for the entire Distribution, Construction, and 2

Maintenance (DCM) and Central Design and Field Accounting (CD&FA) departments. 3

This project will be implemented after the GDT refresh described later in this testimony 4

in Chapter III, Section C. UDS will be decommissioned at the completion of the project. UDS is an 5

unsupported program and must be manually updated to adhere to SCE construction and design 6

standards. The vendor has discontinued support for the tool, which has since become heavily 7

customized. 8

In summary, this project will address the following issues with the use of UDS: 9

Stand-alone tools that are not IT supported are currently used by the UGDDG and the 10

Planning Tract Team; 11

Must also be maintained to support integration with changes to other applications; 12

Does not fully leverage our investment in GDT; 13

Impacts consistency and accuracy in designs; 14

Requires redundant data entry into multiple systems; 15

Difficult to troubleshoot design issues based on inputs from multiple systems; 16

Designs may require re-drafting to conform to standards in some cases; and 17

Engineering and construction standards are not linked to this design process. 18


This project will provide the following benefits: 20

Provide a common application for all design functions by SCE’s Distribution 21

Planning and Design Organizations; 22

Replace a tool that is not supported by the vendor or by SCE’s IT Operating 23

Unit with a supported application; 24

Leverage the application that is currently used and licensed for T&D users; 25

Enable material and crew efficiencies through standardized distribution work 26

order designs; 27

Reduce redundant data entry; 28

Simplify system integration by reducing the numbers of interfaces with other 29

applications; 30

Minimize re-designing efforts during work order reconciliation; and 31

43

Link engineering and construction standards to the design process, improving 1

consistency and accuracy in design. 2

b) Alternatives 3

The alternative to this option is to continue using the current tool, which would 4

not address any of the issues and would not deliver the benefits discussed above. 5


This project is scheduled to begin in June 2016 and will be completed in March 7

2017.61 The capital forecast for this project includes $600,000 in project team costs for SCE employees, 8

contingent workers, and consultants, $900,000 in software and vendor costs. No hardware costs are 9

included for this project. Our capital forecast for GDT Refresh is summarized in Table II-16 below.62, 63 10

Table II-16 GDT Tract Planners and UGDDG Capital Forecast

(Nominal $000)

Category 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 TotalProject Team - - - 400 200 600 Software/Vendor - - - 600 300 900 Hardware - - - - - - Total - - - 1,000 500 1,500

61 See workpaper entitled “Graphical Design Tool (GDT) for TractTeam Planners and UGDDG Schedule Detail.”

62 See workpaper entitled “Graphical Design Tool (GDT) for TractTeam Planners and UGDDG Capital Forecast.”

63 See workpaper entitled “Graphical Design Tool (GDT) for TractTeam Planners and UGDDG Investment Memo.”

44

III. 1

EXISTING APPLICATION REFRESHES 2

In addition to adding new software applications, T&D must also continue to maintain and refresh 3

our current portfolio of software applications. “Refresh” in the case of COTS applications means 4

updating to a current version of the application, and in the case of internally developed applications 5

means improving their usability and performance while keeping most of their existing functionality. 6

The overall goal of refreshing our software portfolio is to maintain system availability, usability, and 7

reliability required by our customers and business organizations. Without refreshing our software 8

applications we would (1) face increased security risks if vendors are no longer providing support and 9

security patches to our software version, (2) have difficulty supporting enterprise wide efforts, such as 10

Microsoft Windows and Office upgrades, (3) have an impaired ability to upgrade user hardware, which 11

impacts system performance, (4) face risk of obsolescence caused by the inability to interface with 12

upgraded and new systems, and (5) not take advantages of improvements in vendor software 13

applications. 14

Based on our use of the current software applications listed below, SCE has chosen to refresh the 15

current applications instead of replacing the applications with different solutions. Since refreshing the 16

current applications will continue to provide all necessary functionality, it is more cost effective to 17

refresh the application than to replace the current application with a different vendor’s solution. 18

Refreshing existing systems in such instances is typically the least-cost and least-risk option compared 19

to implementing a new system because new systems require new interfaces and new licenses to be 20

purchased. The five refresh projects described in the following testimony are (1) Scheduling Refresh, 21

(2) Design Managers Refresh, (3) Graphical Design Tool Refresh, (4) Outage Management System 22

Refresh, and (5) GE Smallworld Refresh. Table III-17 below summarizes the capital expenditure 23

forecast for existing application refreshes. 24

45

Table III-17 Existing Application Refreshes

Forecast of Capital Expenditures (Nominal $000)

2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 TotalScheduling $500 $6,200 $2,500 $0 $0 $9,200Design Manager $500 $2,200 $0 $0 $0 $2,700Graphical Design Tool $0 $0 $1,400 $3,700 $0 $5,100Outage Management System $0 $1,600 $5,100 $3,100 $0 $9,800GE Smallworld $0 $0 $1,300 $2,500 $0 $3,800 Total Refreshes $1,000 $10,000 $10,300 $9,300 $0 $30,600

A. Scheduling Refresh 1

The Scheduling application was initially deployed to T&D’s Distribution groups including 2

Resource Managers, Schedulers, and their support staff in 2007 as part of early deployment within the 3

ERP program. In 2010, as part of the ERP integrated effort, the user base was expanded to include the 4

Transmission, Substation, Grid Operations, and PWRD RPPM organizations. In addition T&D has 5

begun utilizing the Scheduling application vendor’s forecast and planning modules with SAP. 6

Prior to the Scheduling application, the majority of T&D’s field forces were being scheduled and 7

planned using either manual processes or stand-alone office tools and databases that would not readily 8

integrate with an ERP solution. Our Scheduling software vendor is an SAP certified partner and is 9

considered an industry leader in providing resource and work planning and scheduling solutions. The 10

Scheduling application provides the ability to integrate our systems, more readily identify work and 11

resources, and create efficiencies in the work and resource scheduling processes. 12

Our Scheduling application is two versions behind the current vendor version64 and requires a 13

refresh to leverage the latest market innovations brought by the vendor in the areas of improved outage 14

management tools and situational awareness capabilities. In addition, our contract with the vendor 15

requires that we stay within two major versions of the vendor’s most recent commercial release. If we 16

fail to stay within two major versions, our contract requires that we purchase new licenses if we decide 17

to refresh from more than two versions behind. Refreshing the Scheduling application will ensure that 18

we continue to have vendor support. The least cost option is to refresh per the contract requirements and 19

avoid re-licensing costs if we either refresh after being more than two versions behind or purchase a new 20

64 Our version is 7.5.7 and the current vendor version is 8.1.10.

46

COTS system. In addition, refreshing per our contract agreement ensures that any vendor maintained 1

add-ins we currently use will become part of the core product or refreshed at no additional cost. 2

In addition, the application’s functionality will be extended to allow it to be used by additional 3

T&D groups, including construction coordinators, damage assessment teams, and mutual assistance 4

crews. This increased functionality will require additional licensees and hardware, and related 5

configuration, testing, and workforce training. Additional integration of the scheduling application with 6

T&D’s Crew Call Out application will provide additional efficiencies in the deployment of critical 7

resources during callouts afterhours for emergency work and during storm events. Some of the 8

additional issues with the current version that will be addressed with this refresh include (1) the current 9

limited integration with CGIS and map data, (2) the limited ability to perform root cause analysis related 10

to system defect resolution, (3) the lack of integration with our Crew Call Out application, (4) the 11

limited ability to link to our Storm related initiatives described in Chapter II, Section A above, and (5) 12

the limitation to view Scheduling data on multiple device types such as tablets. 13


Upgrading to the current software version to receive vendor support will provide the 15

following benefits: 16

Allow us to continue to meet the terms of our contract; 17

Allow for continued vendor support without incurring additional costs to support 18

outdated versions; 19

Improve defect resolution and root cause analysis; 20

Improve integration with GIS and map data; 21

Provide the ability to link Scheduling with the Storm Tool, which will improve our 22

response to storms by identifying, allocating, and updating statuses of work and 23

resources across geographical and organizational boundaries in a more real time 24

manner; 25

Improve our storm recovery process by improving our ability to re-schedule planned 26

work that was deferred due to storms, which is also a result of linking scheduling with 27

the Storm Tool; 28

Provide the ability to view on multiple device types; 29

Provide integration with the Crew Call Out application; and 30

47

Provide a web-based version that will reduce strain on network and laptops, resulting 1

in better performance. 2

2. Alternatives 3

There are two alternatives to the Scheduling Refresh project. First, do not refresh and lose 4

vendor support without renegotiating support terms, which will require additional licensing costs per our 5

contract if we refresh in the future from more than two version behind the vendor’s current version. 6

Second, replace the current COTS product with another vendor’s COTS product. A new COTS system 7

would require the need to integrate and build new interfaces for the new application with our other 8

existing software applications. Neither of these options address the current issues described above in the 9

most cost-effective way. 10


This project is scheduled to begin in September 2013 and will be completed in February 12


employees, contingent workers, and consultants, and $7.1 million in software and vendor costs. No 14

hardware costs are included for this project. The capital forecast for the Scheduling Refresh project is 15

summarized in Table III-18 below.66, 67 16

Table III-18 Scheduling Refresh Capital Forecast

(Nominal $000)

Category 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 TotalProject Team 400 1,400 300 - - 2,100 Software/Vendor 100 4,800 2,200 - - 7,100 Hardware - - - - - - Total 500 6,200 2,500 - - 9,200

B. Design Manager Refresh 17

The T&D Design Manager (DM) application is an internally developed critical system used by 18

planners for distribution, transmission and substation work. DM acts as the intermediary between the 19

65 See workpaper entitled “Scheduling Refresh Schedule Detail.”

66 See workpaper entitled “Scheduling Refresh Capital Forecast.”

67 See workpaper entitled “Scheduling Refresh Investment Memo.”

48

GDT application (discussed in Chapter II, Sections D.4 and D.5 of this Volume) and SAP, and is used as 1

the pricing and estimating tool by SCE planners in both transmission and distribution, and by substation 2

engineers. DM is an eight-year old SCE-developed system. DM is currently used by planners in work 3

creation, reporting, compatible unit selection, and cost estimating. As the usage of this product has 4

grown, several shortcomings have been identified, which are described below. The current DM refresh 5

project will update the software and hardware infrastructure and will add functionality for better overall 6

reporting and usability. 7

The DM project will change the current application from a front-end application that is loaded on 8

employee computers to a web-enabled application, providing the ability to work from mobile devices, 9

such as tablets, and reducing contractor connectivity issues by freeing them to upgrade their hardware 10

and use more advanced processing. In addition, this project will improve the integration between DM 11

and GDT. 12

In addition to updating the DM application, the DM refresh project will replace the current 13

reporting functionality of DM with SAP Business Intelligence (BI) reporting to provide improved 14

reporting. This will give us the ability to provide employee performance reports, ad-hoc reports such as 15

Pole Loading information, weekly status reports, and work order aging reports. In summary, the DM 16

Refresh will address the issues with the current system that include (1) lack of mobility while using the 17

DM application described above, (2) system performance issues described above, (3) limited reporting 18

capabilities described above, (4) lack of ability to support other projects including WM Dashboard and 19

Electronic Work Order Package, (5) limited visibility of work management and tracking, (6) contractor 20

connectivity issues due to requirements to use older hardware and software platforms, (7) the 21

requirement for the user to create notifications for system issues by calling SCE’s help desk and 22

explaining the issue, and (8) limited ability to perform root cause analysis for system defects. 23


Upgrading DM will provide the following benefits: 25

Convert DM to a web-based application, which will provide planners with more 26

mobility; 27

Address graphical design tool-to-DM upload issues, locked drawings, slow response 28

time, and time outs; 29

Replace DSRW reporting with BI reporting, which supports more automated data 30

queries and consistent data reporting; 31

49

Optimize data & workflow in support of Electronic Work Order Package and WM 1

Dashboard; 2

Provide improved visibility to work management, and tracking, and improve the ease 3

of identifying and updating data for planning; 4

Improve root cause analysis through improved data availability; and 5

Allow for user reported issue notifications to be created in SAP with data being 6

automatically populated from DM to the SAP notification, without the user calling 7

the helpdesk to explain the issue. This will improve visibility to track issue resolution 8

by the user without having to check SAP. 9

2. Alternatives 10

Two alternatives to the DM refresh project were considered. First, continue with the 11

current version and perform small fixes to maintain current performance without addressing the issues 12

described above. Second, replace DM with a COTS application, which would require additional work to 13

rewrite all pricing modules, re-create all interfaces, and would include licensing and maintenance costs. 14

Neither of these options address the current issues described above in the most cost-effective way. 15


This project is scheduled to begin in August 2013 and will be completed in October 17



hardware costs are included for this project. The capital forecast for Design Manager Refresh is 20

summarized in Table III-19 below.69, 70 21

68 See workpaper entitled “Design Manager (DM) Refresh Schedule Detail.”

69 See workpaper entitled “Design Manager (DM) Refresh Capital Forecast.”

70 See workpaper entitled “Design Manager (DM) Refresh Investment Memo.”

50

Table III-19 DM Capital Forecast

(Nominal $000)

Category 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 TotalProject Team 500 800 - - - 1,300 Software/Vendor - 1,400 - - - 1,400 Hardware - - - - - - Total 500 2,200 - - - 2,700

C. Graphical Design Tool (GDT) Refresh 1

The T&D GDT application is a critical system used by distribution and sub-transmission 2

planners in T&D. GDT was originally implemented in conjunction with the Design Manager tabular 3

application to provide graphical design capability to planners. The vendor has significantly improved its 4

core product and moved it from a thick client to a thin client, which is more server-based as opposed to 5

PC-based, and implemented several cloud-based capabilities accessible via the internet. 6

This project is the next planned refresh for the GDT product described in Chapter II, Sections 7

D.4 and D.5, above. If we do not refresh the GDT software, we will have the following issues: (1) no 8

longer have vendor support for our version unless we incur additional costs above standard maintenance 9

fees, (2) continue without 3D modeling, (3) continue to have repetitive tasks, and (4) be unable to 10

leverage new systems, which would impact system availability and system performance. 11


Upgrading to the current software version will provide the following benefits: 13

Allow for continued vendor support without occurring additional costs above 14

standard maintenance fees to support outdated versions; 15

Provide 3D modeling, facilitate real world view, minimize repetitive tasks, and 16

accelerate the work flow, which will increase work throughput; 17

Leverage the new computing platform from the Alhambra Data Center (ADC), 18

resulting in increased availability and performance of the system ; and 19

Improve decision making by combining information that is currently housed in 20

disparate locations. 21

2. Alternatives 22

Two alternatives to this refresh project were considered. First, continue with the current 23

version and perform small fixes to maintain current performance without addressing the issues or 24

51

providing the benefits described above. Second, replace GDT with a COTS application, which would 1

require addition work to re-create all interfaces and would include licensing and maintenance costs. 2

Neither of these options address the current issues described above in the most cost-effective way. 3


This project is scheduled to begin in June 2015 and will be completed in November 5



hardware costs are included for this project. The capital forecast for GDT Refresh is summarized in 8

Table III-20 below.72, 73 9

Table III-20 GDT Refresh Capital Forecast

(Nominal $000)

Category 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 TotalProject Team - - 800 1,300 - 2,100 Software/Vendor - - 600 2,400 - 3,000 Hardware - - - - - - Total - - 1,400 3,700 - 5,100

D. Outage Management System (OMS) Refresh 10

The T&D Outage Management System (OMS) is a critical system used by the T&D Grid 11

Operations division to monitor, identify, and operate electrical network and associated assets during 12

electrical system outages on SCE’s distribution network. The system provides information for the 13

identification and restoration of electrical service outages. 14

The current Outage Management System (OMS), implemented in 2008, needs to be upgraded to 15

the current vendor-supported version. The new version will also help address some of the findings of 16

the Corporate Storm Improvement Program (CSIP), which is discussed in Chapter II, Section A of this 17

Volume. The following new functionality will be implemented as part of the OMS upgrade: 18

71 See workpaper entitled “Graphical Design Tool (GDT) Refresh Schedule Detail.”

72 See workpaper entitled “Graphical Design Tool (GDT) Refresh Capital Forecast.”

73 See workpaper entitled “Graphical Design Tool (GDT) Refresh Investment Memo.”

52

Damage Assessment: The capability for a user (planner) in the field to be able to take 1

pictures, describe damage, associate it with known outages or calls, write up a work order, 2

and send information back to the office remotely; 3

Data Historian: A more robust data capture solution from which to generate reports and 4

supply data to the Storm Management Tool, which is being proposed as a new project within 5

this rate case cycle; 6

Line Side Voltage (LSV) Check: Ability to check and report LSV on the meters before a 7

first responder is dispatched or assigned, which will reduce the number of false starts as first 8

responders are dispatched only after voltage check fails; 9

Integration with GIS data: Ability to directly extract and integrate asset, circuit, and landbase 10

data from SCE’s GIS repository; 11

Publish Real-Time Circuit Conditions: Ability to share real-time circuit conditions with SCE 12

users (T&D planners, first responders, Edison SmartConnect® Operations Center) who do 13

not have OMS access; and 14

Incident Priority Scoring: Calculating the 'score' of an outage for restoration prioritization 15

based on the number of customers impacted, the type of customers (essential, critical, etc.), 16

and how long the customer has been without power. 17

1. Benefits 18

Upgrading to the current software version will provide the following benefits: 19

Upgrade this mission critical software to the current supported vendor version; 20

Directly implement recommendations from the CSIP as described above; 21

Provide the ability to proactively respond to outages before a customer calls to report 22

an outage; 23

Provide better decision making during storm response and damage assessment 24

through information sharing; 25

Improve outage response time; and 26

Improve OMS system performance, which will allow for better utilization of 27

resources by reducing the wait time before dispatching work. 28

53

2. Alternatives 1

The only alternatives to this project would be to not perform the upgrade or replace this 2

existing COTS application with another application. Doing nothing would not provide the benefits 3

described above, and replacing the current COTS application is not the most cost-effective solution. 4


This project will begin in July 2014 and will be completed in June 2016.74 The capital 6

forecast for this project includes $3.7 million in project team costs for SCE employees, contingent 7

workers, and consultants, $5.2 million in software and vendor costs, and $900,000 in hardware costs. 8

The capital forecast for OMS Refresh is summarized in Table III-21 below.75, 76 9

Table III-21 OMS Refresh Capital Forecast

(Nominal $000)

Category 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 TotalProject Team - 1,000 1,800 900 - 3,700 Software/Vendor - 600 2,600 2,000 - 5,200 Hardware - - 700 200 - 900 Total - 1,600 5,100 3,100 - 9,800

E. GE Smallworld Refresh 10

The GE Smallworld application is a critical system used by the Grid Operations division to 11

maintain the electrical connectivity network of all SCE’s distribution systems. This electrical 12

connectivity network forms the backbone of distribution system operations and is used for all operations 13

in the OMS. As the OMS system is being refreshed, corresponding changes will need to be undertaken 14

in the GE Smallworld application. These changes are required for the seamless data exchange with the 15

OMS application. During the refresh, the GE Smallworld application will also be upgraded with the 16

latest vendor software. 17

The current version of GE Smallworld, implemented in 2003, is no longer supported by the 18

vendor. The new version will provide seamless operation with the OMS application. The data model 19

74 See workpaper entitled “Outage Management System (OMS) Refresh Schedule Detail.”

75 See workpaper entitled “Outage Management System (OMS) Refresh Capital Forecast.”

76 See workpaper entitled “Outage Management System (OMS) Refresh Investment Memo.”

54

associated with the current GE Smallworld application will also be enhanced to incorporate new 1

symbology and distributed generation supply sources. The new version will also be compatible with 2

Windows 7, which is being implemented throughout SCE. A set of modifications and enhancements to 3

incorporate long-term transaction management will also be implemented to support the current 4

Comprehensive Geographical Information System (CGIS) project, which is described in SCE-03, 5

Volume 2. The new GE Smallworld version will also provide advanced developer tools and a better 6

conflict manager to resolve simultaneous edits and updates. Lastly, the new version supports Google 7

Earth integration for seamless imagery viewing. 8

1. Benefits 9

The benefits of the GE Smallworld refresh include the following: 10

Upgrade of this mission critical software will keep our version current with the 11

vendor supported version; 12

Improved integration between GE Smallworld and the new OMS by implementing 13

data model changes to the underlying electrical connectivity network; 14

Enhanced functionality in GE Smallworld provides more flexibility during both 15

trouble and normal operations within OMS; 16

Reduction in overall GIS data maintenance complexity due to streamlined data 17

structures; 18

Integrated Google Earth view for imagery integration; 19

Enhanced conflict management and capability; 20

Enhanced developer tools for ease of maintenance; 21

Windows 7 compatibility; and 22

Version compliancy to run in virtual server environments. 23

2. Alternatives 24

The only alternatives to this would be to not perform the upgrade, or replace this existing 25

COTS application with another application. Doing nothing would not resolve the issues or provide the 26

benefits described above, and replacing the current COTS application is not the most cost-effective 27

solution. 28

55


This project will begin in June 2015 and will be completed in November 2016.77 The 2


contingent workers, and consultants, $2.0 million in software and vendor costs. No hardware costs are 4

included for this project. The capital forecast for GE Smallworld Refresh is summarized in Table III-22 5

below.78, 79 6

Table III-22 GE Smallworld Refresh Capital Forecast

(Nominal $000)

Category 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 TotalProject Team - - 600 1,200 - 1,800 Software/Vendor - - 700 1,300 - 2,000 Hardware - - - - - - Total - - 1,300 2,500 - 3,800

77 See workpaper entitled “GE Smallworld Refresh Schedule Detail.”

78 See workpaper entitled “GE Smallworld Refresh Capital Forecast.”

79 See workpaper entitled “GE Smallworld Refresh Investment Memo”.

56

IV. 1

T&D Capital Software Projects Approved in the 2012 GRC 2

This section of testimony includes two projects for which forecasts were adopted in the 2012 3

GRC decision and are scheduled to be completed by 2014. The two projects are Consolidated Mobile 4

Solution (CMS) and Distribution Management System (DMS). Table IV-23 summarizes the capital 5

expenditure forecast for these projects. 6

Table IV-23 Projects Approved in 2012 GRC

Forecast of Capital Expenditures (Nominal $000)

2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 TotalConsolidated Mobile Solution (CMS) 9,000 7,032 - - - 16,032 Distribution Management System (DMS) 8,300 4,844 - - - 13,144 Total 2012 GRC Projects 17,300 11,876 - - - 29,176

A. Consolidated Mobile Solution (CMS) 7

1. Summary 8

In D.12-11-051, the Commission adopted the 2010-2012 cost and benefits forecasts for 9

the Consolidated Mobile Solution (CMS) project.80 Briefly, CMS encompasses three components: (1) a 10

collection of field computing devices (Field Tools); (2) a mobile software application; and (3) required 11

infrastructure. The Field Tools consist of ruggedized portable laptop computers, ruggedized computers 12

and handheld devices, and automated vehicle locating devices, all incorporating a global positioning 13

system. The mobile software application, which will be installed on the Field Tools, will enable the 14

Field Tools to function as remote devices with real-time capabilities to access asset and map information 15

and provide edits for map updates to be processed by back-office personnel from SCE’s Enterprise 16

Resource Planning (ERP) system, Outage Management System (OMS), and the Comprehensive 17

Geographical Information System (CGIS) database. The infrastructure required for the project includes 18

telecommunications networks, servers, databases, and system interfaces that will be required to pass 19

information between the mobile application and supporting office systems such as the ERP system, 20

CGIS, and OMS. As described in our 2012 GRC, CMS enables field personnel, system operators, and 21

80 D.12.11.015, pp. 267-274.

57

office workers to work more effectively, resulting in productivity benefits, enhanced employee safety, 1

improved outage responsiveness, and improved ability to meet compliance obligations. 2

2. Benefits 3

CMS delivers benefits in three broad categories: (1) Qualitative Benefits – those that 4

enhance employee and public safety, improve outage responsiveness, and support regulatory 5

compliance; (2) Productivity Improvements – those that enable more work to be performed with the 6

existing work force; and (3) Foundational Benefits – those that prepare the field organization for 7

implementation of advanced smart grid technologies such as Edison SmartConnect®. The qualitative 8

and foundational benefits are further described in SCE’s 2012 GRC Application A. 10.11.015. The 9

productivity benefits are included in our 2015 GRC application as reductions to our O&M and Capital 10

requests. 11

The CPUC approved the CMS benefit forecast and ratepayer sharing in Decision 12

D.12.11.051. Table IV-24 below summarizes the revised O&M benefit forecast based on the current 13

schedule and deployment plan, which results in a $5.8 million (2012 dollars) test year O&M reduction. 14

These benefits are included in FERC Account 588.261 and discussed further in SCE-03, Volume 2. 15

Table IV-24 CMS O&M Benefit Forecast

(Constant 2012 $000)

2013 2014 2015 2016 2017277 3,558 5,796 5,834 5,834

Test Year 2015 Average (2015 - 2017) 5,821

The CPUC approved the CMS benefit forecast and ratepayer sharing in Decision 16

D.12.11.051. Table IV-25 below summarizes the revised capital benefit forecast based on the current 17

schedule and deployment plan. These benefits are discussed further in SCE-03, Volume 2. 18

Table IV-25 CMS Capital Benefit Forecast

(Nominal $000)

2013 2014 2015 2016 201759 1,874 5,313 5,522 5,671

58

3. Capital Expenditure Forecast 1

Our current forecast of CMS capital expenditures for 2010 to 2014 is $46.155 million.81, 2

82 Table IV-26 below summarizes our current forecast. The CMS project has recorded capital 3

expenditures of $30.1 million from 2010 to 2012. The work completed during this time includes (1) 4

completed vendor code review and deliverables for DCOTS functionality (a Developed COTS 5

application or DCOTS is a COTS application that the vendor has partnered with SCE to include new 6

functionality), (2) purchased and installed all test hardware, software, and licenses, (3) completed initial 7

performance testing, (4) refined final deployment approach based on preliminary findings and aligned 8

deployment with CGIS implementation schedule, and (5) purchased and installed Automatic Vehicle 9

Location (AVL) devices for 2,429 T&D vehicles. In 2013 and 2014 the CMS project will require $16.0 10

million to complete SCE configuration of the application, training development and delivery, and 11

implementation of CMS to the user groups. 12

Table IV-26 CMS Capital Forecast

(Nominal $000)

Category 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 TotalProject Team 2,069 4,734 9,416 6,239 4,782 - 27,239 Software/Vendor 1,037 3,414 5,663 2,734 2,250 - 15,098 Hardware 635 2,584 573 27 - - 3,818 Total 3,740 10,731 15,652 9,000 7,032 - 46,155

B. Distribution Management System (DMS) 13

1. Summary 14

In D.12-11-051, the Commission adopted SCE’s proposed DMS project. DMS is the 15

centralized computing system used by SCE to gather data from various distribution automation devices 16

and facilitate automated operation and control of the distribution system as a whole. DMS is an 17

essential system for operating our system and maintaining its reliability. More automated equipment 18

and devices with remote control capability are added to the distribution system every year to test current 19

conditions, isolate problems, and restore service more quickly. Deployment of an upgraded DMS is 20

81 See workpaper entitled “Consolidated Mobile Solution (CMS) Capital Detail.”

82 See workpaper entitled “Consolidated Mobile Solution (CMS) Investment Memo.”

59

critical to realizing the benefits of distribution automation programs that SCE will deploy in the coming 1

years, as well as avoiding the risks of obsolescence of our existing system. DMS is needed to help bring 2

the value of a smart grid to SCE’s customers and distribution system as a whole. 3

SCE must upgrade its existing DMS to address the obsolescence of elements of the 4

current system and allow for the integration of advanced field equipment. Our existing DMS installation 5

was a completely custom designed in-house package, because no commercially available systems 6

existed at the time. The new system will consist of a COTS software package that will address the 7

following problems with the current system: 8

Software obsolescence; 9

Insufficient data management capability; 10

Insufficient security; 11

Lack of operator training system; and 12

Lack of advanced distribution grid control and analysis. 13

2. Benefits 14

The proposed upgrade will address the obsolescence deficiencies as previously described 15

in the CPUC’s 2012 GRC decision D.12.11.051, pp. 120 – 120. The upgraded DMS system is expected 16

to provide the following benefits: 17

Phase 1 Benefits: 18

Switches from in-house-built to COTS system, which provides full vendor support for 19

defect resolution and future upgrades; 20

Handles new automated devices added to the distribution network to better analyze 21

circuits, which leads to better planning and remediation of system problems; and 22

Improves capabilities of meeting security requirements for authentication of user-23

command and control data. 24

Phase 2 Benefits: 25

Provides an operator training-simulation feature for all switching center operators, 26

which provides a realistic behind-the-wheel training experience that tests the 27

operator’s capabilities to perform under a real world stress situation; and 28

Provides advanced control and analysis capabilities allowing SCE to implement self-29

healing security, which provides automated responses to system problems. 30

60

In addition, the DMS project will deliver Advanced Voltage VAR Control (AVVC) 1

benefits that were not previously identified in the 2012 GRC. AVVC is a method of Conservation 2

Voltage Reduction (CVR) where automated field capacitors on distribution circuits optimize overall 3

customer voltage and reduce energy use. This advanced control allows SCE to provide the required 4

quality of service (i.e., voltage level) to its customers, but with less purchased power. This is a achieved 5

through reduced customer energy consumption due to CVR, which allows SCE to purchase one percent 6

less power for customers served by automated substations. AVVC can also help to increase 7

transmission line and substation capacity by improving system power factor. SCE currently has 306 8

automated substations that deliver approximately 49,000 gigawatt hours (gWhs). Based on analysis of 9

the Department of Energy and SCE, as well as other industry analysis, this results in avoided purchase 10

power of approximately one percent or 490 gWhs annually.83 11

Table IV-27 below summarizes the estimated avoided purchased power costs that the 12

DMS project will provide once fully implemented. 13

Table IV-27 Estimated DMS Avoided Purchase Power Benefits

(Nominal $ Millions)

2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 Total- 16.6 37.0 39.2 42.1 134.9

3. Capital Costs 14

Our current DMS forecast capital expenditures for 2010 to 2014 are $32.6 million. Table 15

IV-28 below summarizes our current forecast. 84 From 2010 to 2012 we recorded capital expenditures of 16

$19.5 million to complete the first phase of this project, which was to implement a COTS solution to 17

address the software obsolesce, limited data management capabilities, and security issues. From 2012 to 18

2014, we forecast to spend $13.1 million to complete the project, which will provide operator training 19

simulation capabilities, advanced control capabilities, and allow us to achieve the AVVC benefits.85 20

83 See workpaper entitled “Distribution Management System (DMS) Benefit Detail.”

84 See workpaper entitled “Distribution Management System (DMS) Capital Detail.”

85 See workpaper entitled “Distribution Management System (DMS) Investment Memo.”

61

Table IV-28 DMS Capital Forecast

(Nominal $000)

Category 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 TotalProject Team 1,146 3,560 2,281 2,484 338 - 9,809 Software/Vendor 4,518 2,110 3,210 5,717 4,506 - 20,061 Hardware 2,070 558 14 98 - - 2,740

Total 7,735 6,227 5,505 8,300 4,844 - 32,610

Appendix A

Witness Qualifications

A-1

SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY 1

QUALIFICATIONS AND PREPARED TESTIMONY 2

OF TIMOTHY JAMES BOUCHER 3

Q. Please state your name and business address for the record. 4

A. My name is Timothy James Boucher, and my business address is 2244 Walnut Grove Avenue, 5

Rosemead, California 91770. 6

Q. Briefly describe your present responsibilities at the Southern California Edison Company. 7

A. I am the Principal Manager of Business Process and Technology Integration (BPTI) in the 8

Transmission and Distribution Organizational Unit. BPTI is engaged in process and technology 9

efforts where T&D’s operating vision is translated into a set of technology and process 10

improvement initiatives. We develop the strategy for the Transmission and Distribution 11

capability roadmap. We also manage business application development, maintenance, and 12

enhancements. 13

Q. Briefly describe your educational and professional background. 14

A. I hold a Master of Business Administration degree from Loyola Marymount University – Los 15

Angeles and a Bachelor of Science degree in Operations Management from California 16

Polytechnic University – Pomona. Prior to this assignment, I was a Principal Manager of Major 17

Projects in BPTI where I managed process and technology project teams including 18

implementation of Smart Grid Technology initiatives and major utility business process 19

improvement initiatives such as Phasor Measurement, Centralized Remedial Action Schemes, 20

Distribution Management System, and Geographic Information System. Prior to that I held 21

senior management positions in Business Planning and Benchmarking, Transmission and 22

Distribution Regulatory, and I joined SCE in 1997 in the Procurement and Material Management 23

department working on Strategic Sourcing Initiatives. Prior to joining SCE, I worked in the 24

aerospace industry as a senior manager in the Procurement organization where I managed large, 25

technically complex contracts with vendors. 26

Q. What is the purpose of your testimony in this proceeding? 27

A-2

A. The purpose of my testimony in this proceeding is to sponsor portions of Exhibit SCE-03, 1

Volume 2, entitled Engineering and Grid Technology as well as SCE-05, Volume 2, Part 2 2

entitled Information Technology Capitalized Software identified in the Table of Contents thereto. 3

Q. Was this material prepared by you or under your supervision? 4

A. Yes, it was. 5

Q. Insofar as this material is factual in nature, do you believe it to be correct? 6

A. Yes, I do. 7

Q. Insofar as this material is in the nature of opinion or judgment, does it represent your best 8

judgment? 9

A. Yes, it does. 10

Q. Does this conclude your qualifications and prepared testimony? 11

A. Yes, it does. 12