Application No.:
Exhibit No.:
Witnesses:
A.13-11-003
SCE-16
M. Marelli
(U 338-E)
2015 General Rate Case
Telecom Items - Supplemental Testimony
Before the
Public Utilities Commission of the State of California
Rosemead, California
July 2014
SCE-16: Telecom Items-Supplemental Testimony
Table Of Contents
Section
Page
I. INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................1
II. BACKGROUND ...............................................................................................2 III. SCE ACTIVITY TO ADDRESS OVERSIGHT ...............................................4 IV. ERRATA............................................................................................................6 Appendix A ERRATA ..................................................................................................... Appendix B TELECOM DATA REQUESTS ................................................................. Appendix C EMAIL to ALJs DARLING and DUDNEY ............................................... -i-
Witness
M. Marelli SCE-16: Telecom Items-Supplemental Testimony
List Of Tables
Table
Page
Table II-1 Telecom Line Items ....................................................................................................................2 Table IV-2 Telecom Line Items with Testimony Reference .......................................................................6 -ii-
1
I.
2
INTRODUCTION
SCE is providing this limited and discrete supplemental testimony to its Application,
3
4
pursuant to the guidance and direction provided by Assigned Administrative Law Judges (ALJs)
5
Dudney and Darling in the Status Conference on July 18, 2014 and the email ruling issued by the
6
ALJs on July 21, 2014. This Exhibit provides a complete discussion of the process that has been
7
undertaken to clarify certain costs, through the discovery process, for 12 Information Technology
8
(IT) telecommunication (telecom) line items. Forecast spending for each of these items was
9
included in the Results of Operations (RO) model, and prepared testimony supported the projects
10
which the items are associated with; however, the telecom portion of the project costs was
11
inadvertently not referenced in the various prepared testimony Exhibits and supporting workpapers.1
12
The inadvertent omission of referencing the telecom portion of the project costs in testimony
13
for these discrete projects came to light during the data request process a few months after SCE had
14
submitted its GRC Application. As described below, SCE identified this omission several months
15
ago to the parties, and provided corrected total costs for the projects and the material supporting the
16
specific telecom costs through data request responses.2 SCE apologizes for any inconvenience. To
17
provide a complete record, SCE is including errata3 to the impacted exhibits.4 In addition, SCE is
18
including the data request responses that SCE has served concerning these telecom line items.
1
As discussed in further detail below, one project identified, CIT-00-OP-NS-000154 – CRE Projects, did not have
supporting testimony and that supplemental testimony was submitted in Exhibit SCE-14 on April 7, 2014.
2
See Appendix B for a copy of these data request responses.
3
Please note that the errata included in Appendix A are limited to the 12 telecom line items at issue. For some
Exhibits, there are additional errata, which will be submitted with Rebuttal testimony.
4
Please note that Mike Marelli is the witness for this supplemental testimony. Individual Operating Unit (OU)
witnesses, as identified in each of those Exhibits, are sponsoring the errata to their testimony, as shown in Appendix
A.
1
1
II.
2
BACKGROUND
On February 24, 2014, SCE received a data request (DRA-189-JOH, Q.3.b.) requesting that
3
4
SCE provide the citations in testimony and workpapers for 12 telecom projects included in SCE’s
5
GRC Results of Operation (RO) Model. In the process of responding to this data request,5 SCE
6
determined it had made a mistake in the GRC Application. SCE discovered it had inadvertently left
7
out referencing the telecom portion of project costs in various exhibits, and had not included the
8
material necessary to support the missing costs in workpapers. The telecom line items in question
9
consist of the following:
Table II-1
Telecom Line Items
WBS
CIT-00-OP-NS-000013
CIT-00-OP-NS-000014
CIT-00-OP-NS-000015
CIT-00-OP-NS-000016
CIT-00-OP-NS-000017
CIT-00-OP-NS-000024
CIT-00-OP-NS-000025
CIT-00-OP-NS-000026
CIT-00-OP-NS-000154
CIT-00-OP-NS-000206
CIT-00-OP-NS-000377
CIT-00-OP-NS-000381
Line Item Name
Automation Replacement
DCMS Distribution Control (DSEEP)
TDBU Requested Misc. Programs - Core
Relay Replacement Program
DFR (Digital Fault Recorders)
Mobility Tools Infrastructure
Bulk Power 500kV Relay Replacement Program
Telecom Infra for TDBU Facilities Upgrade
CRE Projects
Misc. Client Requested Capital Work
NERC CIP v5 Physical Security - Telecom
Upgrade PSIM to Local Monitoring Station
SCE has followed up to investigate the oversight and to identify the most reasonable course
10
11
of action to fully address this inadvertent error in our Application. Each of the telecom line items
12
represents the telecommunications6 portion of a larger project. In each case, these forecast costs can
13
be considered one part of a larger project and are required to help ensure successful project
14
implementation.
5
SCE provided a response to DRA-JOH-189, Q.3.b. on April, 2, 2014, and a Supplemental response on April 10,
2014 which updated a few projects and added in the reference to updating the CRE Projects testimony in Exhibit
SCE-14.
6
Telecommunications requirements vary by project and could include fiber installation, relays, router core,
radio/cellular systems, communication closets, etc.
2
Historically, SCE has included the support for project-related telecom as part of the project
1
2
testimony in our GRC Application. Our IT OU presents a consolidated forecast for
3
telecommunications and other IT-related services for the Company – even when the actual projects
4
are sponsored by other OU witnesses and are found in non-IT volumes. There are many hand-offs
5
and check-points between OUs and IT in the process of developing this part of SCE’s general rate
6
case. For the 2015 GRC, SCE validated that all of the forecast costs for these 12 telecom line items
7
were included in both the overall IT telecom request totals and the RO model; unfortunately, we did
8
not fully capture references to these telecom line items in the OU testimony describing the overall
9
projects.7
10
There were a total of 92 telecom line items comprising the overall project-related telecom
11
request in SCE’s GRC Application. Of these 92 line items, it turned out that 12 lacked testimony
12
references in the Application. However, the actual projects that these line items are associated with
13
are supported with prepared testimony.8
7
As discussed below, TURN raised questions about whether, and how, SCE checks to confirm that the items included
in the RO model are supported appropriately in our testimony and workpapers. SCE provided a comprehensive
response to TURN. Unfortunately, in this instance, our system of checks and balances missed those line items.
8
See data request DRA-Verbal-026 Supplemental 03, Q.2. in Appendix B for the complete list of projects.
3
1
III.
2
SCE ACTIVITY TO ADDRESS OVERSIGHT
SCE revisited each of the 12 line items to: 1) decide whether the telecom costs still belonged
3
4
in the GRC forecast, 2) double-check and validate the forecast dollars, and 3) determine the best way
5
to correct the omission of the costs in testimony and support the costs. This resulted in a decision to
6
drop our request for three of the telecom line items (TDBU Requested Misc. Programs Core,
7
Mobility Tools Infrastructure, and Telecom Infra for TDBU Facilities Upgrade). For some of the
8
remaining items, we have updated the forecast, resulting in a lower request. The resulting telecom
9
forecast is more than $20 million lower than what was submitted in our Application.9
For the telecom line items we have kept in the case, we felt that providing supplemental
10
11
testimony fully explaining what happened and how SCE has addressed the oversight, along with
12
errata exhibits showing the proposed changes, would be an appropriate way to address this item with
13
the other parties (in addition to the data request responses we have already served).10 The one
14
exception to this approach was the use of separate supplemental testimony to support the request for
15
CRE Projects (CIT-00-OP-NS-000154). SCE provided testimony on this project in Exhibit SCE-14,
16
served on April 7, 2014. Given the size of the CRE Projects request, SCE felt it was more prudent to
17
support this project with incremental testimony that is beyond the typical scope of errata.
18
SCE has been actively engaged in discussion with parties in the GRC regarding these
19
telecom line items and our plan to provide support for them. In addition, we have completed
20
numerous data requests – some at the behest of parties; others to supplement data request responses
21
once we were aware of our error.11 On April 15, 2014, SCE submitted DRA-Verbal-049, Q.1. which
22
provided workpapers describing how SCE determined the forecast IT costs for NERC-CIP v5
23
Physical Security Telecom and Upgrade PSIM to Local Monitoring Station Telecom. On April 21,
24
2014, SCE submitted DRA-Verbal-047, Q.1. which provided workpapers describing how SCE
25
determined the forecast IT costs for Circuit Automation. On May 1, 2014, SCE responded to four
9
Please note that all updates to the telecom forecast will be reflected in the RO Model when updated at the rebuttal
submission.
10
SCE is providing errata for projects along with related data request responses in Appendix A. In addition,
Appendix B contains all telecom data request responses for the 12 line items, including those that are more general
in nature or covering all telecom line items in question. Please refer to Section IV of this supplemental testimony,
found below.
11
See Appendix B for the telecom-related data requests.
4
1
ORA data request questions (DRA-292-KMC, Q.1a., 2a., 3a., and 3b.) on telecom-related line items
2
in support of Corporate Security and Business Resiliency.
In response to DRA-189-JOH, Q.3.b., The Utility Reform Network (TURN) filed a Motion
3
4
Seeking Further Clarification on Supplemental Testimony, Errata Testimony, and RO Modeling
5
Issues (TURN Motion).12 SCE and TURN conferred via teleconference on April 27, 2014 to discuss
6
the motion and the information required by TURN in order to resolve the motion. SCE agreed to
7
update the data provided in response to DRA-189-JOH, Q.3.b. to: 1) include the dollars associated
8
with each line item, and 2) further detail the status of testimony associated with each line item.13 In
9
addition, SCE agreed to provide a reconciliation of all testimony and workpapers.
On May 19, 2014, SCE provided a verbal data request response (TURN-Verbal-006, Q.1.)
10
11
which provided the information requested by TURN. (SCE also provided a reconciliation of the RO
12
Model to the testimony and workpapers in Q.2. and 3. of this set.) In TURN-Verbal-006, Q.1., SCE
13
updated the attachment provided in response to DRA-189-JOH, Q.3.b. to provide forecast dollars
14
associated with each of the telecom items. In addition, SCE provided draft errata that is identical to
15
the errata included in the current exhibit (albeit cleaned up using a PDF tool for markup). SCE also
16
noted that testimony was provided in SCE-14 for CRE Projects (CIT-00-OP-NS-000154).
In sum, over the past few months, SCE has continued to provide all telecom line item
17
18
information requested by parties in the case.
12
See TURN Motion, filed on April 25, 2014.
13
See Appendix C – Email to ALJs Darling and Dudney, May 1, 2014.
5
1
IV.
2
ERRATA
In Appendix A, SCE includes errata for the projects that were affected by the omission of
3
4
relevant telecom cost references as noted in the table below, along with related data request
5
responses. Errata are provided by Application volume. Appendix B includes all of the data request
6
responses – those that are specific to an individual item and those which cover all of the telecom line
7
items.
Table IV-2
Telecom Line Items with Testimony Reference
WBS
CIT-00-OP-NS-000013
CIT-00-OP-NS-000014
CIT-00-OP-NS-000015
CIT-00-OP-NS-000016
CIT-00-OP-NS-000017
CIT-00-OP-NS-000024
CIT-00-OP-NS-000025
CIT-00-OP-NS-000026
CIT-00-OP-NS-000154
CIT-00-OP-NS-000206
CIT-00-OP-NS-000377
CIT-00-OP-NS-000381
Line Item Name
Automation Replacement
DCMS Distribution Control (DSEEP)
TDBU Requested Misc. Programs - Core
Relay Replacement Program
DFR (Digital Fault Recorders)
Mobility Tools Infrastructure
Bulk Power 500kV Relay Replacement Program
Telecom Infra for TDBU Facilities Upgrade
CRE Projects
Misc. Client Requested Capital Work
NERC CIP v5 Physical Security - Telecom
Upgrade PSIM to Local Monitoring Station
6
Errata to
SCE-03, Vol.03
SCE-05, Vol.01
Deleted
SCE-03, Vol.08
SCE-03, Vol.02
Deleted
SCE-03, Vol.08
Deleted
Updated in SCE-14
<$1 million
SCE-07, Vol.04
SCE-07, Vol.04
Appendix A
ERRATA
A-1
75
Ulohm^mbo+ QlrqebokA^ifclokf^Cafplk-0./3 EPA +?NNJGA?RGML
7TR`]P::#(&
5 TRT_LW7L`W_APNZ]OPO%@SL^Z]= ZYT_Z]TYR DYT_
4L[T_LW6c[PYOT_`]P^
F3B6WPXPY_^4:C#??#?@#>BLYO46C#6C#82#6= APNZ]OPO(&&.#(&'(%7Z]PNL^_(&')#(&'-
"G]bOZ7][^O\g7]\abO\b*()*O\RB][W\OZ(((#
Nominal $
Constant 2012 $
/
0
%0&
5,617 5,872 6,542 6,867 7,462
5,528 5,651 6,133 6,333 6,719
=_q\i^`_Lc\njm@\o\=i\gtod^n
R eb? a s ^k `ba N e ^pl oB ^q^? k^ivqf`pt fiimolsfab QACbum^k a ba
1
`^m^_fifqfbpqlj lkfqloqeb_ r ih qo^kpj fppfl k pvpqbj _vm ol s fa fk d m l pq+bs bk q^k^ivpfp`^m ^_ fifqfbp^ka
2
bpq^_ifpefkd^co^j bt lohcl ocrqrob ^rqlj ^qflkl c Q A C äpqo^kpj fppflkpvpqbj ,/02 R ebmol gb`qt fii^ipl
3
absbilmqeb ^k^ivqf``^m^_fifqfbp^k a ^mmif`^qflkpt bk bba qlcriivrqfifwbqeba^q^qe ^ qm e^plop`liib`q,
4
R efpm ol gb`qt fii^iplv fbia fj molsbafkcloj ^qflkcl odofalmbo^qlop, U bk bba qebpb ^as^k`bparbqlqeb
5
i^odb fk`ob^pb fks^of^_ib dbkbo^qflk, R ebmol gb`qt fiimolsfab^pfdkfcf`^kqivj lob do^kri^osfbt l c qeb
/02 Qmb`fcf`^iiv*?as^k`baB^q^?k^ivqf`pfpkb`bpp^ovclofjmibjbkqfkdlcQACäpUfab?ob^KlkfqlofkdNolqb`qflk^ka
Alkqolimoldo^j,
75
Cuef_fqLl, QAC+.1-Ro^kpjfppflk$Bfpqof_rqflk-Tli,
.0
A-2
Ufqkbppbp8 R,@lr`ebo*B, Ifj* ^kaI, N^vkb
A-3
A-4
A-5
A-6
A-7
A-8
A-9
A-10
A-11
A-12
A-13
A-14
A-15
A-16
A-17
A-18
A-19
A-20
A-21
A-22
A-23
A-24
A-25
A-26
A-27
A-28
A-29
A-30
A-31
A-32
A-33
A-34
A-35
A-36
A-37
A-38
A-39
Appendix B
TELECOM DATA REQUESTS
Telecom Projects – Data Requests WBS Project Name Errata to Data Requests CIT‐00‐OP‐NS‐000013 Automation Replacement SCE‐03, Vol.03 CIT‐00‐OP‐NS‐000014 DCMS Distribution Control (DSEEP) SCE‐05, Vol.01 CIT‐00‐OP‐NS‐000016 Relay Replacement Program SCE‐03, Vol.08 CIT‐00‐OP‐NS‐000017 DFR (Digital Fault Recorders) SCE‐03, Vol.02 CIT‐00‐OP‐NS‐000025 Bulk Power 500kV Relay Replacement Program SCE‐03, Vol.08 CIT‐00‐OP‐NS‐000377 NERC CIP v5 Physical Security Telecom SCE‐07, Vol.04 CIT‐00‐OP‐NS‐000381 Upgrade PSIM to Local Monitoring Station SCE‐07, Vol.04 DRA‐189‐JOH, Q.3.b. DRA‐189‐JOH, Q.3.b. Supplemental DRA‐Verbal‐026, Q.2 Supplemental 3 DRA‐Verbal‐047, Q.1. TURN‐Vebal‐006, Q.1. TURN‐Verbal‐007, Q.1.13 TURN‐SCE‐060, Q.6. DRA‐092‐JOH, Q.7.k. Supplemental DRA‐189‐JOH, Q.3.b. DRA‐189‐JOH, Q.3.b. Supplemental DRA‐Verbal‐026, Q.2 Supplemental 3 TURN‐Verbal‐006, Q.1. TURN‐Verbal‐007, Q.1.13 TURN‐SCE‐060, Q.6. DRA‐102‐MKB, Q.1.a. Supplemental DRA‐189‐JOH, Q.3.b. DRA‐189‐JOH, Q.3.b. Supplemental DRA‐Verbal‐026, Q.2 Supplemental 3 TURN‐Verbal‐006, Q.1. TURN‐Verbal‐007, Q.1.04 TURN‐Verbal‐007, Q.1.13 TURN‐SCE‐060, Q.6. DRA‐189‐JOH, Q.3.b. DRA‐189‐JOH, Q.3.b. Supplemental DRA‐Verbal‐026, Q.2 Supplemental 3 TURN‐Verbal‐006, Q.1. TURN‐Verbal‐007, Q.1.05 TURN‐Verbal‐007, Q.1.13 DRA‐102‐MKB, Q.1.a. Supplemental DRA‐189‐JOH, Q.3.b. DRA‐189‐JOH, Q.3.b. Supplemental DRA‐Verbal‐026, Q.2 Supplemental 3 TURN‐Verbal‐006, Q.1. TURN‐Verbal‐007, Q.1.04 TURN‐Verbal‐007, Q.1.13 TURN‐SCE‐060, Q.6. DRA‐189‐JOH, Q.3.b. DRA‐189‐JOH, Q.3.b. Supplemental DRA‐Verbal‐026, Q.2 Supplemental 3 DRA‐Verbal‐049, Q.1. DRA‐292‐KMC, Q.1.a. DRA‐292‐KMC‐Q.3.a. TURN‐Verbal‐006, Q.1. TURN‐Verbal‐007, Q.1.10 TURN‐SCE‐060, Q.6. DRA‐189‐JOH, Q.3.b. DRA‐189‐JOH, Q.3.b. Supplemental DRA‐Verbal‐026, Q.2 Supplemental 3 DRA‐Verbal‐049, Q.1 DRA‐292‐KMC, Q.1.a. DRA‐292‐KMC, Q.2.a DRA‐292‐KMC, Q.3.a. DRA‐292‐KMC, Q.3.b. TURN‐Verbal‐006, Q.1. TURN‐Verbal‐007, Q.1.11 TURN‐SCE‐060, Q.6. B-1
B-2
B-3
B-4
B-5
B-6
B-7
B-8
B-9
B-10
B-11
B-12
B-13
Southern California Edison
2015 GRC A.13-11-003
DATA REQUEST SET DRA-Verbal-049
To: DRA
Prepared by: Aaron Fishman
Title: Manager
Dated: 04/09/2014
Received Date: 04/09/2014
Question 01:
Originator: Katherine McNabb
Based on SCE's response to DRA-189-JOH, q.3.b, Please provide workpapers describing how
SCE determined the forecast IT costs for NERC CIP v5 Physical Security Telecom, and
Upgrade PSIM to Local Monitoring Stations be included in SCE-07, Volume 4.
Response to Question 01:
Please see the documents attached to this response for workpapers describing how SCE
determined the forecast IT costs for NERC CIP v5 Physical Security Telecom, and Upgrade
PSIM to Local Monitoring Stations. SCE will make the appropriate corrections to SCE-07,
Volume 4 via an errata filing.
B-14
Corp Security Video Surveillance NERC CIP v.5 Compliance Project
Telecom Cost Estimate for Phase 1 (High, Medium with ERC and Medium without ERC Sites), and Low Impact Sites
Requirements
Path A
Facility Type
Control Centers and
Switching Centers (High)
Medium Subs with ERC
# of
# of Sites
Buildings
in Scope
in Scope
17
39
Op Date
7/1/2015
Network
Availability
99.95%
Bandwidth
24mbps
Path B
Alarm
Secondary
Monitoring
Common
Comm
Diversely monitoring
of access
Security
Video
from iSTAR
Bandwidth
Routed
of access
control
Alarm
alarm
from Path A
control
systems
Functions
system
systems
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
200kbps
Yes
Alarm
Comm
from
iSTAR
alarm
system
Yes
Yes
Common
Security
Alarm
Functions
Yes
Total Telecom
Capital Cost
Estimate
(in 000s)
$
2,043
Labor
(Engineering,
Technician)
(in 000s)
$
534
Material
(Routers,
Contract
Switches,
Division /
(Antenna
Transport
Telecom OH
Installations)
Equipment,
(in 000s)
(in 000s)
etc.)
(in 000s)
$
1,225
$
20
$
264
Notes
Out of 17 sites;
-14 sites will have 24mbps bandwidth
-3 sites will have 800kbps bandwidth
-Path B at XXXXX substation and XXXXX will be on VSAT.
19
38
7/1/2015
99.95%
12mbps
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
200kbps
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
$
2,061
$
580
$
1,195
$
20
$
266
-All sites have a 90% estimate confidence level
Out of 19 sites;
-14 will have 24mbps bandwidth
-3 will have 12mbps bandwidth
-2 will have 800kbps bandwidth
-Path B at XXXXXX and XXXXXX will be on VSAT.
-All 19 sites have a 90% estimate confidence level
Out of 22 sites;
-12 will have 24mbps bandwidth
-6 will have 12mbps bandwidth
-4 will have 800kbps bandwidth
-1 will have 100kbps bandwidth
6mbps if fiber is
available
Medium Subs without ERC
22
22
7/1/2015
99.85%
800kbps if microwave
is available
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
None
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
$
2,227
$
652
$
1,278
$
5
$
292
100kbps for sites
without fiber or
mircowave (satellite
only)
Estimated cost per site at one half cost per for Medium Subs without
ERC. Sites have not been engineered or designed yet, efforts to begin
early 2015
6mbps if fiber is
available
Low Impact Subs
84
84
7/1/2015
99.85%
800kbps if microwave
is available
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
None
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
$
4,251
$
1,245
$
2,440
$
9
$
557
$
10,582
$
3,011
$
6,139
$
54
$
1,378
100kbps for sites
without fiber or
mircowave (satellite
only)
Total (Highs and Mediums)
142
-All sites have a 90% estimate confidence level
183
Overall Assumptions:
1 Estimates are based on desktop engineering without the benefit of field engineering and/or job walks.
2 Any costs supporting NERC/CIP physical security are not included in the estimates and should be provided by the project.
3 Conduit(s) and/or trenches between main telecom room and other building(s) will be provided by the project.
B-15
Phase 1
PSIM Guard Station Estimate
Unit Cost of Guard Station
22" Monitor
Desktop - STD
Memory Upgrade
Video Card
PSIM Station License
Easy Lobby Readers
Head-set Connectors
PTZ Camera J-Stick
Total Stations
Sub-Total
Tax (8.75%)
Shipping (10%)
Total
Model
9010MT
8 Gb
Nvidia Quad Head
SW License (One-Time)
Various
Various
8-Way
$
$
$
$
Unit Cost
Req'd
$
160
3
$
724
1
$
200
1
$
382
1
$
2,500
1
$
299
1
$
149
3
$
937
1
Cost Per Station
97
578,993
50,662
57,899
629,655
B-16
Cost
$
480
$
724
$
200
$
382
$
2,500
$
299
$
447
$
937
$
5,969
Upgrade PSIM & Local Guard Stations
Sponsor: CC
Author(s): [ ]
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
(1 of 2)
PROJECT OVERVIEW_
PROJECT RATIONALE_
Buy or build:
Leverage current capabilities / Fit with existing roadmap:
Business needs
PV1 Estimated Cost: $.63M
Category: [ ]
Discussed: November 30th, 2012
 Local and regional monitoring stations will need to be upgraded
to use the NICE Situator (PSIM) product deployed in the SOC
project.
 The current incident reporting and response management tools
are manual procedures, developed over the last 30 years.
Incident tracking and response using the current manual
procedures will create inconsistencies in the process and a risk to
the NERC CIP-006 requirement for a 15 minute response time.
 Local and remote guard station will be able to benefit from the
automated tracking and response tool (PSIM)
Description
The Security Operation Center (SOC) project deploys a Physical
Security Information Management (PSIM) tool. The tool is
currently designated for the SOC only. To improve situational
awareness and visitor management at the local and regional guard
monitoring station, Corporate Security will deploy the PSIM at
these facilities. This requires multiple monitor, video cards and
memory enhancement to the guard station computers currently used
by Corporate Security.
Urgency
PSIM does not have a security officer field integration option. The
additional capability by NICE Situator will allow field guards to
maintain records of observation and response, aligned to the same
security event.
 Current manual process is adequate for security needs, as well as
inefficient in handling real-time monitoring needs for the new
electric facilities coming online
Status
The operational date is targeted at Q4 of 2015; the project started in
Q1 2015.
Ease of implementation
Easy: Minimal input from OUs; IT must make software and
hardware and perform transition
B-17
1. Assumes 10% discount rate; ignores taxes
PROJECT FINANCIALS_
Be ne fits / Costs Summary
Ye arly Impact
UnDeploy telecom infrastructure to support NERC CIP-006 v5
Quant. substation security system deployment
Savings O&M
Capital
PV1
PVRR1
targets
T otal
None
[]
[]
O&M
[]
[]
Costs
Capital
Quant.
[]
[]
T otal
Savings targets
[]
[]
O&M
Costs
0.6
[]
Net
Capital
Net benefits / (costs)
[]
[]
T otal
2013 Costs by Month and by Q uarte r
Jan
Fe b
Mar
1Q
O&M
[]
[]
[]
[]
Capital
[]
[]
[]
[]
Security Operations Center
Sponsor: CC
Author(s): [ ]
Apr
[]
[]
May
[]
[]
Jun
[]
[]
2Q
[]
[]
Jul
[]
[]
'13
'14
'15
'16
'17
'13-'17
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
0.6
0.6
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
13
13
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
Aug
[]
[]
Se p
[]
[]
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
(2 of 2)
3Q
[]
[]
O ct
[]
[]
Nov
[]
[]
De c
[]
[]
4Q
[]
[]
PV1 Estimated Cost: $.63M
Category: [ ]
Discussed: November 30th, 2012
ALTERNATIVES_
What are 3 to 5 lower-cost alternatives that also address the stated
business need(s)?
 Include the status quo (do-nothing alternative)
 Alternatives can be similar (e.g. scope reduction of the current
project) or radically different (e.g. invest in reduction of
application complexity instead of incremental servers)
B-18
1. Assumes 10% discount rate; ignores taxes
KEY BENEFITS _
Quantitative benefits
 Improve Management of Guard Activity
Qualitative benefits
 Improved security and safety
KEY ISSUES / RISKS _
What are the 3 to 5 key issues / risks of the project? How could the
project perform below expectations or fail?
What are the steps being taken that will help mitigate these risks?
Security Operations Center
B-19
1. Assumes 10% discount rate; ignores taxes
MEMORANDUM
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:
[]
Sub-CRT
November 30th, 2012
Security Operations Center
CONTENTS
Section
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
Comments
Requested Decision / Feedback
Project Overview
Implementation Overview
Project Rationale
Key Benefits
Key Issues / Risks
Alternatives
Savings Targets
Financial Models
A. Requested Committee Decision / Feedback
Decision
requested
What is the requested committee decision / feedback?
B. Project Overview
[Subsection
title ]
What is the project?
How does it work?
What are the sub-projects / sub-elements, if any?
What are layman explanations of technical aspects?
What are the interdependencies of the project with others, if any?
C. Implementation Overview
[Subsection
title]
What is the timing of the project? (key milestones)
D. Project Rationale
[Subsection
title]
What are the key business needs addressed by the project?
(the problem)
2
B-20
How does the project address these key business needs?
(the solution)
What is the urgency of each of the business needs?
E. Key Benefits
[Subsection
title]
What are the 3 to 5 key benefits of the project? (incremental vs. status quo)
F. Key Issues / Risks
[Subsection
title]
What are the 3 to 5 key issues / risks of the project? How could the project perform below
expectations or fail?
G. Alternatives
[Subsection
title]
What are 3 to 5 lower-cost alternatives that also address the stated business need(s)?
Describe the status quo (do-nothing alternative)
H. Savings Targets
[Subsection
title]
What are the specific savings targets being signed up for?
I. Financial Models
Key
assumptions
What are the key assumptions underlying the quantitative models?
Financial
models
See appendix
3
B-21
B-22
B-23
B-24
B-25
B-26
B-27
B-28
B-29
B-30
B-31
B-32
B-33
B-34
B-35
B-36
B-37
B-38
B-39
B-40
B-41
B-42
B-43
B-44
B-45
B-46
B-47
B-48
B-49
B-50
B-51
B-52
B-53
B-54
B-55
B-56
B-57
B-58
B-59
B-60
B-61
B-62
B-63
B-64
B-65
Appendix C
EMAIL to ALJs DARLING and DUDNEY
C-1