Post on 08-Aug-2020
Company: Southern California Gas Company (U904G) Proceeding: 2016 General Rate Case Application: A.14-11-004 Exhibit: SCG-218
SOCALGAS
REBUTTAL TESTIMONY OF CHRISTOPHER R. OLMSTED
(INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY)
June 2015
BEFORE THE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Doc#297684
TABLE OF CONTENTS I. SUMMARY OF DIFFERENCES .......................................................................................1 II. INTRODUCTION.................................................................................................................1 III. REBUTTAL TO PARTIES’ O&M PROPOSALS ............................................................2
A. Flawed Analysis Used in ORA’s O&M Proposals .......................................................2 1. ORA used inconsistent forecast methodologies throughout its
testimony ....................................................................................................................2 2. ORA lacks any basis for rejecting SoCalGas’ consistent base year plus
adjustments forecast methodology ..........................................................................4 B. O&M Labor Forecast .....................................................................................................5
1. SoCalGas provides sufficient detail and analysis in support of SoCalGas’ request of incremental TY 2016 labor expenses of $3.3 million.........................................................................................................................5
2. SoCalGas’ use of “professional judgement” and “management experience” is valid and supported .........................................................................6
C. O&M Non-Labor Forecasts ...........................................................................................8 1. Undisputed Costs – O&M Non-Labor ....................................................................8
IV. REBUTTAL TO PARTIES’ CAPITAL PROPOSALS ....................................................8 A. ORA did not challenge the merits or implementation timing of any IT
capital projects proposed by SoCalGas ........................................................................8 B. Disputed Costs - 2015 Capital Expenditures ................................................................9 C. Undisputed Costs - 2016 Capital Expenditures..........................................................13
V. INFORMATION SECURITY ...........................................................................................13 A. Labor O&M ...................................................................................................................13 B. Tracking of Cybersecurity and Risk Management expenditures.............................13
VI. CONCLUSION ...................................................................................................................14 Appendix A. SoCalGas Shared Services Workpaper 2200-2418.000 – Director – SCG Applications Services Appendix B. SoCalGas Response to Data Request ORA-SCG-DR-048-PM1, Question 11 Appendix C. SoCalGas Response to ORA Master Data Request Chapter 11 – Information Technology, Question 24.B. Appendix D. SoCalGas Response to Data Request ORA-SCG-DR-029-PM1, Question 5
CRO-i Doc#297684
SOCALGAS REBUTTAL TESTIMONY OF CHRISTOPHER R. OLMSTED 1
(INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY) 2
I. SUMMARY OF DIFFERENCES 3
Only the Office of Ratepayer Advocates (“ORA”) submitted testimony regarding 4
SoCalGas’ Information Technology (“IT”) requested funding in this proceeding. 5
ORA submitted testimony regarding SoCalGas’ IT operations and maintenance (“O&M”) 6
funding in this proceeding. Table CRO-1 depicts the difference between SoCalGas’ total Test 7
Year (“TY”) 2016 O&M forecast and ORA’s recommended amount. 8
Table CRO-1 9 Total O&M (Non-Shared & Shared) 10
TOTAL O&M - Constant 2013 ($000)
Base Year
2013 Test Year
2016 Change
SoCalGas 18,936 23,6241 4,688 ORA 18,936 20,438 1,502
ORA also submitted testimony regarding SoCalGas’ IT requested capital funding in this 11
proceeding. Table CRO-2 depicts the difference between SoCalGas’ 2014-2016 capital forecast 12
and ORA’s recommended amount. 13
Table CRO-2 14 Total Capital 15
TOTAL CAPITAL - Constant 2013 ($000) 2014 2015 2016 SoCalGas 103,739 119,916 104,796 ORA 79,709 99,824 104,796
II. INTRODUCTION 16
ORA issued its report on SoCalGas IT on April 24, 2015.2 The following is a summary 17
of ORA’s positions: 18
19
1 See Revised Direct Testimony, Ex. SCG-18-R (C. Olmsted), at CRO-iv (Summary Table). ORA cites to data response SCG-DR-082 Q3- Attachment in support of a slightly smaller number ($23,619k). The difference between the two numbers is due to rounding. 2 Exhibit (“Ex.”) ORA-15, Report on the Results of Operations for San Diego Gas & Electric Company and Southern California Gas Company, Test Year 2016 General Rate Case – Information Technology, ORA Witness P. Morse, April 24, 2015.
CRO-1 Doc#297684
• ORA recommends $16.8 million for SoCalGas’ O&M labor expenses, which is $3.2 1 million, or 68%, less than SoCalGas’ TY 2016 incremental request;3 2
• ORA accepts SoCalGas’ TY 2016 non-labor expense forecast of $3.6 million;4 3
• ORA recommends as part of SoCalGas’ next GRC filling to track O&M expenses and 4 capital expenditures for Cybersecurity and Risk Management in the four areas 5 presented in this TY 2016 GRC: Governance and Compliance, Awareness and 6 Outreach, Security Engineering and Security Operations;5 7
• ORA recommends utilizing actual recorded 2014 capital expenditures of $79.7 8 million, which is $24.1 million, or 23%, lower than SoCalGas’ forecast of $103.8 9 million;6 10
• ORA recommends $48.6 million for 2015 Information Technology sponsored capital 11 expenditures, which is the highest recorded spending from 2009-2014. ORA’s 12 recommendation is $20.1 million, or 29%, lower than SoCalGas’ forecast of $68.7 13 million. ORA’s recommendation results in a total IT capital forecast for 2015 of 14 $99.8 million compared to SoCalGas’ forecast $119.9 million;7 and 15
• ORA accepts SoCalGas’ 2016 capital expenditure forecast of $104.8 million.8 16
III. REBUTTAL TO PARTIES’ O&M PROPOSALS 17
A. Flawed Analysis Used in ORA’s O&M Proposals 18
There are several fundamental flaws in how ORA has analyzed SoCalGas’ O&M labor 19
request for TY 2016 IT funding. The following sections identify these flaws in ORA’s analysis 20
and describe why SoCalGas believes the California Public Utilities Commission (“Commission”) 21
should reject ORA’s recommendations and instead adopt SoCalGas’ position. 22
1. ORA used inconsistent forecast methodologies throughout its testimony 23
As described in my Revised Direct Testimony, in order to reflect the fact that IT is a 24
shared services organization with cost centers that provide services to both utilities, SoCalGas 25
and SDG&E use base year 2013 adjusted recorded cost plus incremental activity adjustments to 26
forecast TY 2016 costs for every IT cost category.9 This forecast methodology is consistently 27
3 Ex. ORA-15 at 3, lines 9-10. 4 Ex. ORA-15 at 4, lines 1-2. 5 Ex. ORA-15 at 31, line 22 through 32, line 1. 6 Ex. ORA-15 at 4, lines 10-12. 7 Ex. ORA-15 at 4, lines 13-18. 8 Ex. ORA-15 at 4, line 19. 9 Ex. SCG-18-R (C. Olmsted) at CRO-2, line 4 through CRO-3, line 8.
CRO-2 Doc#297684
used across all workgroups and was similarly used by IT in the prior rate case (TY 2012) for 1
both SoCalGas and SDG&E.10 2
Unlike SoCalGas, ORA used a variety of forecasting methodologies when developing its 3
final recommendations across SoCalGas and SDG&E IT cost categories. For example, ORA 4
used inconsistent approaches for similar incremental labor cost forecasts for the two utilities and 5
three different approaches for non-labor cost forecasts. Table CRO-3 depicts the varying 6
forecast methodologies used by ORA in contrast to the base year plus incremental activities 7
adjustments methodology consistently applied for all cost categories by SoCalGas and SDG&E. 8
Table CRO-3 9 Comparison of 10
SoCalGas, SDG&E and ORA Forecasting Methodologies – O&M 11 SoCalGas / SDG&E
Forecast Basis ORA
Forecast Basis SoCalGas IT Labor Base year plus adjustments Highest recorded, 2009-1411 Labor - Information Security Base year plus adjustments Accepts SoCalGas proposal12 Non-Labor Base year plus adjustments Accepts SoCalGas proposal13
SDG&E IT Labor Base year plus adjustments Six-year average, 2009-1414 Labor - Information Security
Base year plus adjustments Accepts SDG&E proposal15
Non-Labor Base year plus adjustments Five-year average16 Non-Labor – Contracts Base year plus adjustments Five-year trend17 Non-Labor - Information
Security Base year plus adjustments Accepts SDG&E proposal18
12
10 D.13-05-010 at (issued May 14, 2013); see Direct Testimony of Jeffery C. Nichols, A.10-12-006, Ex. SCG-12R, at JCN-23, line 19 through JCN-34, line 21. 11 Ex. ORA-15 at 26, lines 7-10. 12 Ex. ORA-15 at 31, lines 12-14. 13 Ex. ORA-15 at 31, lines 2-4. 14 Ex. ORA-15 at 10, lines 7-8. 15 Ex. ORA-15 at 18, lines 10-12. 16 Ex. ORA-15 at 14, lines 7-10. 17 Ex. ORA-15 at 14, lines 6-7. 18 Ex. ORA-15 at 18, lines 10-12.
CRO-3 Doc#297684
ORA’s inconsistent approach ignores the fact that IT is a shared services organization 1
with cost centers that provide services to SoCalGas and SDG&E.19 As a shared service, IT is 2
performing a consistent set of activities and services for SoCalGas and SDG&E and thereby has 3
similar cost structures for providing such services. A consistent forecast methodology should be 4
used. 5
ORA’s use of multiple forecast methodologies is arbitrary and inconsistently applied 6
among the cost categories. In addition, ORA’s inconsistent methodology approach across the 7
complex IT organization is questionable. In contrast, SoCalGas uses a single forecasting method 8
that is applied consistently across all IT cost categories. 9
2. ORA lacks any basis for rejecting SoCalGas’ consistent base year plus 10 adjustments forecast methodology 11
Not only did ORA arbitrarily use a variety of different forecast methodologies, but it also 12
failed to provide any basis for rejecting SoCalGas’ consistent use of base year plus adjustments. 13
SoCalGas adopted and consistently uses the same forecast methodology for all O&M 14
labor forecasts.20 As I explain in my Revised Direct Testimony, the use of base year 2013 15
adjusted recorded O&M labor expenses plus adjustments for TY 2016 incremental resource 16
requirements is appropriate and justified due to the nature of IT-related costs.21 The consistent 17
use of base year 2013 adjusted recorded O&M labor expenses plus adjustments is reasonable for 18
SoCalGas because:22 19
• The pace of change in the technology industry continues to accelerate when compared 20 to prior years.23 21
• A rapidly changing security threat landscape drives our current cybersecurity risk 22 management activities.24 23
• Evolving regulatory requirements around customer data privacy are not fully reflected 24 in a historical average.25 25
• The level of support provided by the IT Division continues to grow as new IT capital 26 projects and technologies are implemented.26 27
19 Ex. SCG-18-R at CRO-4, lines 1-2. 20 Ex. SCG-18-R at CRO-2, line 4 through CRO-3, line 8. 21 Ex. SCG-18-R at CRO-2, line 4 through CRO-3, line 8. 22 Ex. SCG -18-R at CRO-2, line 4 through CRO-3, line 8. 23 Ex. SCG-18-R at CRO-2, lines 6-7. 24 Ex. SCG-18-R at CRO-2, lines 12-13. 25 Ex. SCG-18-R at CRO-2, lines 15-16. 26 Ex. SCG-18-R at CRO-2, lines 17-18.
CRO-4 Doc#297684
SoCalGas consistently applies this methodology across the entire forecast because these 1
themes do not change when considering the various IT cost categories. The same methodology 2
is also applied to SDG&E IT forecasts since much of IT is a shared service and provides similar 3
services to both utilities.27 4
ORA does not provide any support or rational basis for its request that the Commission 5
reject SoCalGas’ consistent application of base year plus adjustments forecasting methodology 6
in favor of inconsistent alternative methodologies. 7
B. O&M Labor Forecast 8
ORA recommends $16.8 million for SoCalGas’ O&M labor expenses, which is $3.2 9
million, or 68%, less than SoCalGas’ TY 2016 request.28 Table CRO-4 depicts the difference 10
between SoCalGas’ TY 2016 O&M labor forecast and those provided by ORA in this 11
proceeding. 12
Table CRO-4 13 Total O&M Labor (Non-Shared & Shared) 14
O&M - Constant 2013 ($000)
Base Year
2013 Test Year
2016 Change
SoCalGas 16,667 19,998 3,331 ORA 16,667 16,807 140
As explained in detail below, SoCalGas provides sufficient detail through its testimony, 15
workpapers and responses to data requests for ORA to analyze SoCalGas’ labor forecast. The 16
Commission should adopt SoCalGas’ TY 2016 incremental forecast of $3.3 million, for a total of 17
$20.0 million, as reasonable. 18
1. SoCalGas provides sufficient detail and analysis in support of SoCalGas’ 19 request of incremental TY 2016 labor expenses of $3.3 million. 20
ORA asserted that “SCG’s direct testimony provides little narrative for requested labor 21
increases, and no analytical support.”29 ORA does not question any particular incremental labor 22
expenses. Contrary to ORA’s assertion, SoCalGas’ direct testimony, O&M workpapers and 23
discovery responses provide sufficient narrative and analytical support for its incremental labor 24
27 See Ex. SDG&E-19-R-A (Direct Revised Testimony – Amended of SDG&E witness S. Mikovits at SJM-2, line 4 through SJM-3, line 8. 28 Ex. ORA-15 at 3, lines 9-10. 29 Ex. ORA-15 at 26, lines 12-13.
CRO-5 Doc#297684
expenses request.30 SoCalGas’ workpapers provide details of SoCalGas’ O&M labor expense 1
forecast as summarized in my Direct Revised Testimony. Forecasted costs are categorized by 2
shared and non-shared forecasts, and further into IT functional groupings (i.e., Applications, 3
Infrastructure, Information Security and IT Support). Workpapers include additional details, 4
such as include cost center and activity descriptions, forecast methodology explanations, 2009 5
through 2013 recorded costs (labor and non-labor), year-to-year (2014-2016) line item 6
incremental activities for 37 cost centers (shared and non-shared), and explanations for 7
incremental changes for each of the forecast years. 8
For example, a portion of SoCalGas’ overall labor forecast is tied to the increase in 9
application support responsibilities identified for SoCalGas Application Services (cost center 10
2200-2418) as a result of the implementation of capital projects.31 This forecast appears in my 11
Direct Revised Testimony as part of Shared Application costs and is also included in my O&M 12
workpapers.32 For the reader’s ease, Appendix A (attached) includes the set of workpapers for 13
cost center 2200-2418 as an example of the level of detailed data that SoCalGas has provided in 14
support of its labor forecast.33 15
SoCalGas also has provided additional analytical support for its requested labor increases 16
to ORA during discovery. In one response, (provided hereto as Appendix B), SoCalGas 17
provided ORA with additional information on its incremental labor forecast.34 This response 18
provides a comprehensive overview of SoCalGas’ entire incremental labor request (without 19
having to sift through all 272 pages of O&M workpapers) and documents all of SoCalGas’ 20
estimating assumptions and calculations that were utilized for its forecast. 21
In summary, SoCalGas provides sufficient detail and analysis in support of its request of 22
incremental TY 2016 labor expenses of $3.3 million. 23
2. SoCalGas’ use of “professional judgement” and “management 24 experience” is valid and supported 25
SoCalGas’ labor request was forecasted, in part, using the professional judgement of its 26
IT staff on a cost center by cost center basis.35 As with any forecast, judgement and experience 27
30 See Ex. SCG-18-WP. 31 See Ex. SCG-18-WP at page 36 through page 42. 32 Ex. SCG-18-R at CRO-16, lines 1 - 26. 33 See generally, Appendix A attached hereto. 34 SoCalGas Response to ORA-SCG-DR-048-PM1 question 11, provided hereto as Appendix B. 35 SoCalGas Response to ORA-SCG-DR-048-PM1 question 11, attached hereto as Appendix B.
CRO-6 Doc#297684
come into play when developing estimates. SoCalGas’ IT O&M forecast methodology is no 1
different. Identifying upward cost pressures (or downward relief in the form of cost savings) in 2
an IT organization is not always directly correlated to a simple business metric or key 3
performance indicator (“KPI”), such as meter count or customer growth. Furthermore, not all 4
IT costs can be linked to specific business transactions and/or activity levels or forecasted using 5
a simple arithmetic-based method. 6
Instead, IT forecasting and planning typically consists of experienced IT professionals 7
taking a wide variety of factors into consideration when developing an IT-related cost estimate, 8
such as an understanding of industry technology trends, hardware and software computing 9
capabilities, scope of specific operations, maintenance and support activities, evolving business 10
priorities, changing regulatory landscape, and/or workforce skillset needs. This is typically done 11
based on factors, such as the requirements of the project, staff’s experience with implementing 12
similar projects and discussions with impacted operating groups. This analysis is included as 13
part of SoCalGas IT’s project approval process and is taken into account when an assessment of 14
a project for approval is performed. 15
ORA asserts that “SCG’s reliance on ‘professional judgment’ and ‘management 16
experience’ to forecast incremental labor expenses provides the Commission no analytical basis 17
or data to evaluate or determine the reasonableness of SCG’s request.”36 Nowhere in its 18
testimony does ORA dispute that “professional judgment” and “management experience” are 19
tools when forecasting labor expenses. In fact, SoCalGas’ use of professional judgement and 20
management experience is an acceptable forecast methodology in a GRC, according to the 21
guidelines governing these proceedings.37 22
Contrary to ORA’s assertion, SoCalGas provides sufficient support describing how it 23
used its IT staff’s judgement and experience, to the extent applicable, when developing its 24
forecasted labor request. For example, in the workpapers for cost center 2200-2418, SoCalGas 25
explains how it used its staff’s judgement and experience when forecasting the need for 26
incremental full-time equivalents (“FTEs”) associated with a capital project implementation:38 27
36 Ex. ORA-15, at 28, lines 10-12. 37 Rate Case Plan, as updated by D.07-07-004, Appendix A, at A31 (stating that “Where judgment is involved in setting an estimate level” the applicant must “explain why that particular level was adopted”). 38 Ex. SCG-WP-18, attached hereto as Appendix A, at page 40 of 272.
CRO-7 Doc#297684
8.7 incremental FTEs related to capital project implementations in 2015 and in 1 2016. Assumes 96% O&C ratio and $100k average salary plus 10k per employee 2 in associated NL costs (9 employees). 3
Three assumptions from this statement contribute to the increased forecast – the number 4
of FTEs projected, the amount of time to be spent on operational activities and assumed average 5
salary. The O&C [Operating & Clearing] ratio and average salary figures are numbers that are 6
calculated based on data that was available from SoCalGas’ financial systems. Professional 7
judgement and management experience were used to project the number of required FTEs. In 8
this example, the FTE’s projected were developed by project managers who identified increased 9
IT support needs due to the implementation of their capital projects. The use of professional 10
judgement and management experience, as in this case, to forecast FTEs, is typically done based 11
on factors such as the requirements of the project, experience with implementing similar projects 12
and discussions with impacted operating groups. This analysis is included as part of SoCalGas 13
IT’s project approval process and is taken into account when an assessment of the project for 14
approval is performed. Controls and/or checkpoints of this type are methods implemented to 15
ensure that IT costs are effectively managed across the division. 16
In summary, SoCalGas provides a sufficient analytical basis and data to demonstrate the 17
reasonableness of SoCalGas’ use of “professional judgment” and “management experience” to 18
forecast labor expenses. 19
C. O&M Non-Labor Forecasts 20
1. Undisputed Costs – O&M Non-Labor 21
ORA agreed with SoCalGas’ forecast for Non-Labor O&M.39 The Commission should 22
adopt SoCalGas’ TY 2016 incremental forecast of $1.4 million, for a total of $3.6 million, as 23
reasonable. 24
IV. REBUTTAL TO PARTIES’ CAPITAL PROPOSALS 25
A. ORA did not challenge the merits or implementation timing of any IT capital 26 projects proposed by SoCalGas 27
ORA recommends reduced capital expenditures for SoCalGas in 2014 and 2015,40 but it 28
fails to provide any support for its recommendation based on the individual merits or details of 29
39 Ex. ORA-15 at 4, lines 1-2. 40 Ex. ORA-15 at 34, lines 10-12.
CRO-8 Doc#297684
any particular IT capital project proposed by SoCalGas.41 1
SoCalGas’ 2014-2016 IT capital request is sufficiently supported by project-by-project 2
information.42 SoCalGas has provided over 800 pages of detailed capital workpapers, 3
representing 146 capital projects. SoCalGas’ capital workpapers specifically identify the types 4
of investments needed for the forecast period.43 SoCalGas also included forecasted in-service 5
dates for each project listed in the SoCalGas IT 2014-2016 capital forecasts.44 In my Direct 6
Revised Testimony, I also provide individual narratives in support of the 24 largest SoCalGas 7
IT-sponsored individual capital projects.45 8
B. Disputed Costs - 2015 Capital Expenditures 9
ORA recommends 2015 capital expenditures of $99.8 million, which is $20.1 million less 10
than SoCalGas’ 2015 forecast of $119.9 million.46 ORA’s recommended reduction is specific to 11
SoCalGas IT-sponsored projects and does not dispute forecasts for business unit-sponsored 12
projects that utilize IT capital funding.47 ORA recommends funding of $48.6 million in IT 13
projects, equal to the highest recorded capital spending on IT projects from 2009-2014, as 14
opposed to $68.7 million requested by SoCalGas. 15
When making its recommendation, ORA does not question the merit of any individual IT 16
capital project, but rather arbitrarily recommends that the Commission adopt a level of funding 17
based on the highest year of historical capital expenditures. ORA does not offer any rationale for 18
this forecasting methodology other than “approving 2015 capital expenditures for twice the 19
amount of capital spent in 2014 appears unreasonable.”48 Much like O&M, capital spending 20
within IT does not always follow historical averages or linear trends, and instead is lumpy in 21
nature. Occasionally, there are significant investments required to replace or update large scale 22
systems or services. This is the case for the large increase in SoCalGas’ 2015 capital forecast 23
where two significant investments planned within the IT portfolio account for $33.9 million of 24
the $68.6 million requested by SoCalGas: 25
41 Ex. ORA-15 at 34, line 9 through page 36, line 19. 42 See also Ex. SCG-18-R at CRO-19, line 16 through CRO-34, line 13. 43 See generally, Ex. SCG-18-CWP-R. 44 SEU Master Data Request, Chapter 11 Q24B, provided hereto as Appendix C. 45 Ex. SCG-18-R at CRO-22, line 24 through CRO-34, line 13. 46 Ex. ORA-15 at 4, lines 13-18. 47 Ex. ORA-15 at 37, lines 1-3 (Table 15-17). 48 Ex. ORA-15 at 36, lines 5-6.
CRO-9 Doc#297684
SoCalGas Field Area Network ($17.8 million in 2015, $1.4 million 2016) 1
SoCalGas plans to build and place in service by TY 2016 the SoCalGas Field Area 2 Network. This is a suite of private communication infrastructures supporting field voice 3 communication for Customer Service Field, Distribution & Transmission and Storage. It 4 includes a Land-Mobile-Radio (“LMR”) network and voice dispatch console system. 5 The console systems are end-of-life and either already are, or will soon be, without 6 vendor support. The dispatch system is limited to a finite number of console positions 7 that no longer meet the needs of the business. The radio system also requires the use of 8 other legacy network infrastructure that needs to be retired from the environment. These 9 systems are critical to business operations, especially during emergencies, as the primary 10 voice channel during incident management, priority work orders and emergency 11 response. The call recording system used by dispatch is also end-of-life and incompatible 12 with newer dispatch console systems. Communication for fixed assets in the field, 13 including remote terminal units (“RTU”) on pipelines, currently served by AT&T 3002 14 circuits needs to be addressed due to aged infrastructure and lack of investment by 15 AT&T. A digital LMR and Internet Protocol (“IP”)-based console system has been 16 evaluated as the solution.49 17
Converged Computing Infrastructure ($16.1 million in 2015) 18
The requests and needs of business units are dynamic and often require computing 19 infrastructure to be delivered quickly. Current ‘just-in-time’ infrastructure purchasing is 20 not nimble enough to meet the needs of clients for small-to-medium sized projects or for 21 organic growth of existing computing environments as data volume increases. Existing 22 computing systems will continue to reach vendor end-of-life and end-of-support dates 23 and will need to be replaced or upgrade to provide reliable and available IT systems. 24 This Converged Computing Infrastructure project will provide on-demand and elastic 25 computing capacity to meet business needs without the delays associated with just-in-26 time infrastructure purchases. This project will increase the capacity and functionality of 27 the computing self-provisioning portal empowering clients to fulfill their computing 28 requests without involving the IT infrastructure department, resulting in a reduced 29 delivery time. Aging systems will be replaced or upgraded providing higher reliability 30 and performance for business applications as systems reach end-of-life or end-of-support. 31 As aging systems are replaced or upgraded, annual maintenance costs, required data 32 center floor space, and power consumption will all be reduced.50 33
A large portion of the projected costs for these two projects are hardware (“HW”) 34
purchases. It is reasonable for IT to achieve higher spending levels when these types of HW 35
projects are proposed. To illustrate, Table CRO-5 shows that the two highest years of capital 36
spending (2009 and 2013) included significant hardware investment as compared to the total 37
capital spending, 11% and 26% respectively: 38
49 Ex. SCG-18-R at CRO-28, lines 1 - 18. 50 Ex. SCG-18-R at CRO-29, lines 6 -22.
CRO-10 Doc#297684
Table CRO-5 1 Historical Project Hardware Costs as a % of Total Capital Project Spending 2
$2013 (in millions)51 3
2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
Hardware Cost
$6.3
$1.1
$1.3
$4.2
$15.6 All Direct Cost (incl. HW)
$55.7
$49.6
$45.1
$37.7
$59.9
HW % of All Cost 11% 2% 3% 11% 26%
Furthermore, ORA’s recommendation for SoCalGas’ 2015 Capital should not be adopted 4
because it does not reflect the fact that several of the capital projects SoCalGas had forecasted in 5
2014 have actually been moved into 2015 (or even 2016). Table CRO-6 lists those capital 6
projects, which had been included in SoCalGas’ forecasted 2014 capital projects but will now 7
require funding in SoCalGas’ 2015 capital plan instead. 8
// 9
// 10
// 11
51 Hardware costs related to IT capital projects were provided to ORA in SoCalGas’ Response to ORA-SCG-DR-029-PM1 question 5, attached hereto as Appendix D.
CRO-11 Doc#297684
Table CRO-6 1 2014 Capital Project Variance 2
WP # Project Name 2014 (2013$ 000s) Revised Explanation
GRC
Forecast Actuals52 Variance In-Service Date
772X Data Center Network Rebuild 4,661 679 (3,982) 12/31/2015
Postponed implementation due to business priorities and weather conditions.
770AE
Server Replacement -AIX Retirement 2,351 1,569 (782) 5/31/2015
Delayed due to dependencies on Data Center Network Rebuild project.
770AG
ROWS Refresh Out of Warranty Servers. 4,520 3,748 (772) 12/31/2015
Delayed due to dependencies on Data Center Network Rebuild project.
770C End Point Security 2,541 45 (2,496) 9/30/2015
Delay in vendor negotiations pushed equipment acquisition into 2015.
776B Business Planning Simulation (BPS) Replacement Project
1,860 631 (1,229) 9/30/2015 Delay in vendor selection and contract negotiations.
810B SCG CPD Enhancement Phase 1 11,479 8,783 (2,696) 3/31/2015
Ramping up vendor consulting services delayed 2014 deliverables.
780A Identity & Access Management, Phase 2 – 4
2,678 639 (2,039) 12/31/2016 Delay in phase approval.
772W
Private Network Expansion and Refresh 2,797 0 (2,797) 12/31/2015 Project started in
2015.
776D Click and SAP Disaster Recovery Tier Upgrade 1,053 0 (1,053) 06/01/2016 Project started in
2015.
770B Mobile Device Management Infrastructure
1,023 0 (1,023) 09/30/2015 Project started in 2015.
Totals 34,963 16,094 (18,869)
The IT capital program is managed as a portfolio. There will be shifts in scope, schedules and 3
budgets across the suite of projects being proposed in SoCalGas’ capital testimony. These 4
52 SoCalGas provided information about its 2014 capital recorded spending to ORA on March 13, 2015.
CRO-12 Doc#297684
adjustments are managed by the IT Project Management Office in accordance with guidelines 1
established by Central Business Planning. ORA’s recommendation to reduce SoCalGas’ 2
forecasts based on a one year view of recorded costs does not take into consideration the 3
adjustments made by SoCalGas’ capital committees to address changing priorities and individual 4
project deviations from plan. As shown in Table CRO-6, ORA’s recommendation to reduce 5
SoCalGas’ 2015 capital expenditure forecast by $20.1 million would severely hamper SoCalGas’ 6
ability to achieve its multi-year capital project plan, and it should be rejected. 7
C. Undisputed Costs - 2016 Capital Expenditures 8
ORA agreed with SoCalGas’ forecast for 2016 Capital expenditures.53 The Commission 9
should adopt SoCalGas’ forecast of $104.8 million as reasonable. 10
V. INFORMATION SECURITY 11
A. Labor O&M 12
ORA agreed with SoCalGas’ forecast for Information Security labor O&M.54 The 13
Commission should adopt SoCalGas’ TY 2016 incremental forecast of $140,000 for a total of 14
$761,000 as reasonable. 15
B. Tracking of Cybersecurity and Risk Management expenditures 16
SoCalGas respectfully recommends that the Commission decline ORA’s suggestion55 to 17
track and report expenses for Cybersecurity and Risk Management efforts in the next GRC. 18
Cybersecurity and Risk Management efforts in the information technologies area are varied and 19
address many different systems, applications, infrastructure components and network topology. 20
Additionally, many efforts that provide risk management benefits also provide companion 21
benefits, such as increased system reliability and robustness, which make the risk management 22
aspect of those efforts difficult to unwind. Tracking and reporting is both administratively 23
burdensome and imprecise, and may in and of itself be revelatory of the nature and types of 24
measures undertaken which may unintentionally compromise the Cybersecurity and Risk 25
Management measures employed. 26
Furthermore, the Risk Decision, D.14-12-025, adopts a Risk Spending Accountability 27
Report requirement, which will have the effect of tracking risk-related spending, including 28
spending on cybersecurity and risk management, in some fashion. SoCalGas anticipates that the 29
53 Ex. ORA-15 at 4, line 19. 54 Ex. ORA-15 at 31, lines 12-14 55 Ex. ORA-15 at 31, lines 22-24 through 32, line 1.
CRO-13 Doc#297684
Safety Model Assessment Proceeding (“SMAP”) and subsequent Risk Assessment Mitigation 1
Phase (“RAMP”) filings will help shape the content of the Risk Spending Accountability Report. 2
SoCalGas believes any discussions concerning the tracking of cybersecurity and risk 3
management costs are better suited to take place during the SMAP and RAMP proceedings, 4
instead of the GRC. 5
VI. CONCLUSION 6
SoCalGas has addressed the proposed recommendations presented by ORA and 7
demonstrated that ORA’s proposals are not warranted. In summary, SoCalGas has demonstrated 8
the following: 9
• SoCalGas’ TY 2016 O&M Labor forecast is reasonable; 10
• SoCalGas’ TY 2016 O&M Non-Labor forecast is reasonable; 11
• SoCalGas’ Capital Expenditure forecasts are reasonable; 12
• SoCalGas’ Information Security Labor O&M and Non-Labor forecasts are 13 reasonable; and 14
• Tracking of Cybersecurity and Risk Management expenditures should be addressed in 15 the upcoming SMAP filings. 16
Accordingly, SoCalGas’ forecast for TY 2016 IT O&M labor and non-labor expenses 17
and SoCalGas’ IT Capital Expenditure forecasts should be adopted by the Commission. 18
This concludes my prepared rebuttal testimony. 19
CRO-14 Doc#297684
APPENDIX
TO REBUTTAL TESTIMONY
OF CHRISTOPHER R. OLMSTED
ON BEHALF OF SOCALGAS
INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY
CRO-A-1
Appendix Attachments
A. SoCalGas Shared Services Workpaper
2200-2418.000 – Director – SCG Applications Services
B. SoCalGas Response to Data Request ORA-SCG-DR-048-PM1, Question 11
C. SoCalGas Response to ORA Master Data Request
Chapter 11 – Information Technology, Question 24.B.
D. SoCalGas Response to Data Request ORA-SCG-DR-029-PM1, Question 5
CRO-A-2
Appendix A
SoCalGas Shared Services Workpaper
2200-2418.000 – Director – SCG Applications Services
CRO-A-3
��������������� � ���������������������������������� !������"�����#����
Southern California Gas Company2016 GRC - APP
Shared Services Workpapers
SCG/INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY/Exh No:SCG-18-WP/Witness: C. OlmstedPage 36 of 272
CRO-A-4
����������
�������
� ���������
�� ��������������������� �!����"!���#��$%���&
''((�')*+#(((���,���������������--�������������.����
� ����� �#��""$�/ �����*#��""$�/ �����
�!���/����/��������0���!����""����0��!��������� ""$�/ �������� ��1 ����#��!������ �&��/���/����/����#
������������� ��� �
����������������
�!���%��!�&����%���� ""�"� �����/ �����!��� ����� �%���� //� ��$���"��������!��/������� ����0��!�����2�3" "��#��������/ $�/�����! 4��0$�/�� ��&����2����4 �����2�3���"�� �� ����$���0����!������� $��� ��1 ���� $�/! ����5�� ��0����0���"������$�����5����!�0������0�/����&�4���0�%����� � ��0��!�����&�" �%������� ���!�#
��������� �� ���� �
�� �����������������
�!���%��!�&����%���� ""�"� �����/ �����!��� ����� �%���� //� ��$���"��������!��/������� ����0��!�����2�3" "��#��������/ $�/�����! 4��0$�/�� ��&����2����4 �����2�3���"�� �� ����$���0����!������� $��� ��1 ���� $�/! ����5�� ��0����0���"������$�����5����!�0������0�/����&�4���0�%����� � ��0��!�����&�" �%������� ���!�#
��������������
�6�
����������������
� ���$%&�'���(�� ����)�*���)+��)��������)+��)�����))
���, ��$$ ��$���$� ��$% ��$- ��$.��� ��$/( ( *7*( *8( *8( 9')� �� *5(:;
( ( *9;( *+ *+ 97����� �� *(+
( ( (( ( ( (��� (
� � �,0� ��0 ��0 /012���� $3$/.(#( (#( (#+(#( *#' *#' :#9��� 8#8
������������� �����������������������������
Southern California Gas Company2016 GRC - APP
Shared Services Workpapers
SCG/INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY/Exh No:SCG-18-WP/Witness: C. OlmstedPage 37 of 272
CRO-A-5
����������
���
�������
���������
���������������������
�!����"!���#��$%���&
''((�')*+#(((���,��������������--�����������.���
�#��""$�/�������������*#��""$�/������
��������������� ���������������������
����������������� ���������������������������� � !� ���" #�" #� ������ � !� ���" #�" #�
$�����%���� ���� ( (+ +( (+ +(#(( (#((
$�����%����� ��� ( (( (( (( ((#(( (#((
!�#�&����'�����& *�( *�(*( *(( ('(( '((*#* *#*
��� �������� �(� �(��) �)� ���) ��)�&�* �&�*
'����� �����������& � #�(� � #�(�+ # �+ # ��� �#��� �#���**#���**#������- (#��� (#���'#�'�'#�'����� (#((� (#((�(#((�(#((�
���+������������� �����*������������� �������� � !� ���" #�" #� ������ � !� ���" #�" #�
$�����%���� ���� ( (+ +( (+ +(#(( (#((
$�����%����� ��� ( (( (( (( ((#(( (#((
!�#�&����'�����& �') *�( � *((( (��� *�* � # �#+
��� �������� +�� �,�*-+� ��)� �+)- �,�+**&** (&)*
'����� �����������& � #�(� � #�(�� #�(�� #�(��� �#��� �#����#����#������- (#��� (#���(#���(#������� (#((� (#((�(#((�(#((�
������������� �����������������������������
Southern California Gas Company2016 GRC - APP
Shared Services Workpapers
SCG/INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY/Exh No:SCG-18-WP/Witness: C. OlmstedPage 38 of 272
CRO-A-6
����������
���
�������
���������
���������������������
�!����"!���#��$%���&
''((�')*+#(((���,��������������--�����������.���
�#��""$�/�������������*#��""$�/������
��������������� �����.����� /��$�0��12��3�����/%�
��������������� �����.����� /��4�������!������!��&������������$$�,�"�#�/����/������!��&���/�/���$$�/���������������������$$�/����/�������&���!���������""$�/������&�"��%���#���!������!��&������������$$�,�"�#�/����/������!��&���/�/���$$�/���������$�/����!��$���$�����""���"���&�&������/!�����$���������!���/����/����#
��������������� �����.����� /��4�������!������!��&������������$$�,�"�#�/����/������!��&���/�/���$$�/���������������������$$�/����/�������&���!���������""$�/������&�"��%���#���!������!��&������������$$�,�"�#�/����/������!��&���/�/���$$�/���������$�/����!��$���$�����""���"���&�&������/!�����$���������!���/����/����#
��������������� �����.����� /��4�����*�!������!��&������������$$�,�"�#�/����/������!��&���/�/���$$�/���������������������$$�/����/�������&���!���������""$�/������&�"��%���#���!������!��&������������$$�,�"�#�/����/������!��&���/�/���$$�/���������$�/����!��$���$�����""���"���&�&������/!�����$���������!���/����/����#
��������������� �����.����� /��4�����+�!������!��&������������$$�,�"�#�/����/������!��&���/�/���$$�/���������������������$$�/����/�������&���!���������""$�/������&�"��%���#���!������!��&������������$$�,�"�#�/����/������!��&���/�/���$$�/���������$�/����!��$���$�����""���"���&�&������/!�����$���������!���/����/����#
������������� �����������������������������
Southern California Gas Company2016 GRC - APP
Shared Services Workpapers
SCG/INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY/Exh No:SCG-18-WP/Witness: C. OlmstedPage 39 of 272
CRO-A-7
����������
�����������
��
������
��������������������
�!����"!���#��$%���&
''((�')*+#(((���,��������������--������������.����
������� #�""$�/������
*#�""$�/������
���������������� ����������
���������� ������
��� ������������������������� �������������������������������� ��!���� ���" ���# ���$ ���" ���# ���$ ���" ���#���$
���� ����� ����/ * ( * ( ( )�) +�� * ( �') *5(��* (�������� ����� ����/ *+ *+ ( )� ( *+ �� *(+*+��� ����� ����/ ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ((
%���& ��' ��' � $() )"( ��' #'( �*�#"��'��� ����� ����/ *#' *#' (#( )#) +#� *#' �#� # *#'
!���+,-.&/ 0�1�� 201� 2�, %���& �%, ���3%�.�
������������ �������4���5&��
����$�%���& � � � �/�
)�)'(*� )� ( )� )#) *���&�&�&�
+#����/�%����$�������$���&����/�"���$�"���/���%"$�%��������������'(*����&����'(*�#�����%��� ��������������&��*((���<�������$���"$����*(��"���%"$������������/����&����/�����= ��%"$�����>#
�!���%"$�%����������?�/�"���$�"���/���/�����/$�&����@�?��/�����A?������A��<�/����!�����/������!����""����B���%���������""$�/��������""������%�#���!��������"������&�����!���$�������%�����!���//�%�$�������?���/�%����$����&���!���@���"���/��&����"����?�/��/�"��&�/�%������&A�����������/����&�<�$�"%���#
$�$���"�%���& $" � $() $/$
+��'(*� ( ( �� +#� *���&�&�&�
+#����/�%����$�������$���&����/�"���$�"���/���%"$�%��������������'(*����&����'(*�#�����%��� ��������������&��*((���<�������$���"$����*(��"���%"$������������/����&����/�����= ��%"$�����>#
�!���%"$�%����������?�/�"���$�"���/���/�����/$�&����@�?��/�����A?������A��<�/����!�����/������!����""����B���%���������""$�/��������""������%�#���!��������"������&�����!���$�������%�����!���//�%�$�������?���/�%����$����&���!���@���"���/��&����"����?�/��/�"��&�/�%������&A�����������/����&�<�$�"%���#
'#(���#�%���& )� � )"( '/(
������������� �����������������������������
Southern California Gas Company2016 GRC - APP
Shared Services Workpapers
SCG/INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY/Exh No:SCG-18-WP/Witness: C. OlmstedPage 40 of 272
CRO-A-8
����������
����������
���������
��������������������� �!����"!���#��$%���&
''((�')*+#(((���,��������������--�����������.���
������� �#��""$�/������
*#��""$�/������
�������������� ����� ����� � �������� ��������������������������������������������������������
��/�&�&����%���$����
���� ( ( ( **( *�������� ( ( ( *) *+��� ( ( ( ( (
��� � � � �!" �#���� (#( (#( (#( (# *#(
�&����%��������%���$������
���� ( ( ( ( (�������� ( ( ( ( (��� ( ( ( ( (
��� � � � � ���� (#( (#( (#( (#( (#(
��/�&�&��&�����&����%���$���
���� ( ( ( **( *�������� ( ( ( *) *+��� ( ( ( ( (
��� � � � �!" �#���� (#( (#( (#( (# *#(
.�/����������/�����%���$���
���� ( ( ( *+ ' �������� ( ( ( ( (��� ( ( ( ( (
��� � � � �# �!��� (#( (#( (#( (#* (#'
��/�$���������'(*�
���� ( ( ( (�������� ( ( ( ) (��� ( ( ( ( (
��� � � � $ ���� (#( (#( (#( (#( (#(
��/�&�&��&�����&�����������'(*��
���� ( ( ( ** *�(�������� ( ( ( * *+��� ( ( ( ( (
��� � � � ��# ��#��� (#( (#( (#( (#+ *#'
��������/�%"������&����/$������������������/����������������,����$�����&����%����������/�&�&��"�������$�������%��&����%����������������� �����������������������������
Southern California Gas Company2016 GRC - APP
Shared Services Workpapers
SCG/INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY/Exh No:SCG-18-WP/Witness: C. OlmstedPage 41 of 272
CRO-A-9
����������
����������
�����������
��������������������� �!����"!���#��$%���&
''((�')*+#(((���,���������������--�������������.����
������� �#��""$�/������
*#��""$�/������
�%� ������������� �������������
�����������������������������������
��������� ���� �� � �� �� � �� !
( ( ( ( (����
( ( ( ( (��������
( ( ( ( (���
� � � � �"����
(#( (#( (#( (#( (#(���
#���������������������������������
����$%&'�( )�*�� +)*� +�% ,"% ���-"�'� ��� #,��������
�����"���� � � � �(�
�� ��"���� � � � �(�
�� �"���� � � � �(�
�� ��"���� � � � �(�
�� !�"���� � � � �(�
������������� �����������������������������
Southern California Gas Company2016 GRC - APP
Shared Services Workpapers
SCG/INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY/Exh No:SCG-18-WP/Witness: C. OlmstedPage 42 of 272
CRO-A-10
Appendix B
SoCalGas Response to Data Request ORA-SCG-DR-048-PM1, Question 11
CRO-B-1
ORA DATA REQUEST
ORA-SCG-DR—048-PM1
SOCALGAS 2016 GRC – A.14-11-004
SOCALGAS RESPONSE
DATE RECEIVED: JANUARY 26, 2015
DATE RESPONDED: FEBRUARY 9, 2015
11. Regarding SCG’s response to SCG_Reponse_DEF-001-B, please update the Excel file to
include the following information:
a. O&M decreases, including explanations for decreases.
b. Accounts where forecast has no change from recorded 2013 to TY2016.
c. A column with TY2016 total by account.
SoCalGas Response 11:
Please see attachment ORA-SCG-DR-048-PM1 Q11 Attachment.xlsx.
CRO-B-2
Wo
rkgr
ou
p/
cost
ce
nte
rC
ate
gory
Co
st C
en
ter
Nam
eD
esc
rip
tio
n o
f A
dju
stm
en
t (i
f an
y)
20
13
Re
cord
ed
20
14
ad
j.2
01
5 a
dj.
20
16
adj.
20
16
To
tal
(Ite
m c
)A
ssu
mp
tio
ns
O&
M R
ed
uct
ion
s
(ite
m a
)
2IT
00
1.0
00
Ap
plic
atio
ns
IT A
pp
licat
ion
s N
SS
2
,85
3
-
-
-
2
,85
3
2IT
00
2.0
00
Infr
astr
uct
ure
IT In
fras
tru
ctu
re N
SSIn
crea
sed
Tel
eco
m M
ain
ten
ance
wo
rk t
o s
up
po
rt
agin
g in
fras
tru
ctu
re a
nd
imp
rove
d r
elia
bili
ty.
4,0
47
-
25
0
2
50
4
,29
7
Esti
mat
e b
ased
up
on
a c
om
bin
atio
n o
f m
icro
wav
e
rad
io r
epla
cem
ent
($3
k p
er u
nit
) an
d m
icro
wav
e to
wer
mai
nte
nan
ce (
app
roxi
mat
ely
$1
2k
per
mic
row
ave
tow
er).
Th
ere
are
app
roxi
mat
ely
60
mic
row
ave
site
s
and
24
0 m
icro
wav
e ra
dio
s w
ith
in t
he
SCG
ser
vice
terr
ito
ry.
2IT
00
2.0
00
Infr
astr
uct
ure
IT In
fras
tru
ctu
re N
SS2
an
alys
ts t
o s
up
po
rt C
I En
gin
eeri
ng
-
1
59
15
9
1
59
1
59
1
.4 in
crem
enta
l FTE
s to
su
pp
ort
CI E
ngi
nee
rin
g in
20
14
, co
nti
nu
ing
thro
ugh
20
16
. Ass
um
es 7
0%
O&
C
rati
o a
nd
$1
00
k av
erag
e sa
lary
plu
s $
10
k p
er e
mp
loye
e
(2 e
mp
loye
es)
in a
sso
ciat
ed N
L co
sts.
2IT
00
3.0
00
IT S
up
po
rtIT
Su
pp
ort
NSS
Ad
just
men
t fo
r C
PD
co
sts
to a
lign
wit
h 2
01
4
reo
rgan
izat
ion
al c
han
ges
41
2
90
29
0
2
90
3
31
.2
incr
emen
tal F
TEs
to s
up
po
rt C
PD
in 2
01
4, c
on
tin
uin
g
thro
ugh
20
16
. Ass
um
es 2
0%
O&
C r
atio
an
d $
10
0k
aver
age
sala
ry.
Ad
dit
ion
ally
, in
clu
des
CP
D
con
sult
ing/
trai
nin
g N
L co
sts
($2
50
k), b
ased
on
20
14
esti
mat
ed s
up
po
rt le
vels
, an
d a
co
nso
lidat
ion
of
CP
D-
rela
ted
co
st c
ente
rs.
6,9
41
4
49
69
9
6
99
7
,64
0
Wo
rkgr
ou
p/
cost
ce
nte
rC
ate
gory
Co
st C
en
ter
Nam
eD
esc
rip
tio
n o
f A
dju
stm
en
t (i
f an
y)
20
13
Re
cord
ed
20
14
ad
j.2
01
5 a
dj.
20
16
adj.
20
16
To
tal
(Ite
m c
)A
ssu
mp
tio
ns
O&
M R
ed
uct
ion
s
(ite
m a
)
22
00
-24
06
Infr
astr
uct
ure
DIR
ECTO
R -
CO
MP
UTI
NG
INFR
AST
RU
CTU
RE
Lab
or
& N
on
-lab
or
cost
s as
soci
ated
wit
h in
crem
enta
l
emp
loye
es t
hat
are
par
t o
f th
e o
rgan
ic IT
gro
wth
to
sup
po
rt e
xpan
din
g p
rogr
ams,
ap
plic
atio
ns,
&
infr
astr
uct
ure
.
2
79
-
36
6
7
32
1
,01
1
4 in
crem
enta
l FTE
s to
su
pp
ort
new
IT in
itia
tive
s ac
ross
the
com
pan
y in
20
15
an
d in
20
16
. A
ssu
mes
81
% O
&C
rati
o a
nd
$1
00
k av
erag
e sa
lary
plu
s $
10
k p
er e
mp
loye
e
in a
sso
ciat
ed N
L co
sts.
22
00
-24
06
Infr
astr
uct
ure
DIR
ECTO
R -
CO
MP
UTI
NG
INFR
AST
RU
CTU
RE
Net
wo
rk S
trat
egy
Dev
elo
pm
ent
- D
evel
op
a f
ive-
year
net
wo
rk s
trat
egy
and
mig
rati
on
pla
n t
o le
vera
ge
emer
gin
g te
chn
olo
gies
fo
r im
pro
ved
rel
iab
ility
an
d
per
form
ance
of
ou
r n
etw
ork
en
viro
nm
ent.
-
-
25
0
2
50
2
50
M
anag
emen
t es
tim
ate
for
aver
age
con
sult
ing
enga
gem
ent
(4-6
mo
nth
s) t
o a
nal
yze
net
wo
rkin
g
cap
abili
ties
acr
oss
16
0 m
ann
ed a
nd
un
man
ned
sit
es.
22
00
-24
18
Ap
plic
atio
ns
DIR
ECTO
R -
SC
G
AP
PLI
CA
TIO
NS
SER
VIC
ES
Incr
emen
tal l
abo
r re
late
d t
o c
apit
al p
roje
ct
imp
lem
enta
tio
ns
2
08
-
47
9
9
57
1
,16
5
8.7
incr
emen
tal F
TEs
rela
ted
to
cap
ital
pro
ject
imp
lem
enta
tio
ns
in 2
01
5 a
nd
in 2
01
6.
Ass
um
es 9
6%
O&
C r
atio
an
d $
10
0k
aver
age
sala
ry p
lus
$1
0k
per
emp
loye
e in
ass
oci
ated
NL
cost
s (9
em
plo
yees
).
22
00
-24
45
Ap
plic
atio
ns
SCG
WO
RK
MA
NA
GEM
ENT
SER
VIC
ES
3 r
epla
cem
ent
po
siti
on
s an
d 2
fo
r C
lick
8 a
nd
3
soft
war
e d
evel
op
ers
and
1 b
uild
lead
er
1,1
71
-
30
3
6
06
1
,77
7
5.5
FTE
s at
$1
00
k p
er e
mp
loye
e p
lus
$1
0k
per
emp
loye
e (6
em
plo
yees
) in
ass
oci
ated
NL
(sp
lit
bet
wee
n 2
01
5 a
nd
20
16
). A
ssu
mes
91
% O
&C
rat
io.
22
00
-24
45
Ap
plic
atio
ns
SCG
WO
RK
MA
NA
GEM
ENT
SER
VIC
ES
Org
anic
IT g
row
th t
o s
up
po
rt e
xpan
din
g p
rogr
ams
app
licat
ion
-
-
17
6
3
32
3
32
2
.2 in
crem
enta
l FTE
s to
su
pp
ort
new
IT in
itia
tive
s
acro
ss t
he
com
pan
y in
20
15
an
d in
20
16
. A
ssu
mes
72
% O
&C
rat
io a
nd
$1
00
k av
erag
e sa
lary
plu
s $
10
k p
er
emp
loye
e (2
em
plo
yees
) in
ass
oci
ated
NL
cost
s.
OR
A-S
CG
-DR
-04
8-P
M1
Q1
1
CR
O-B
-3
Wo
rkgr
ou
p/
cost
ce
nte
rC
ate
gory
Co
st C
en
ter
Nam
eD
esc
rip
tio
n o
f A
dju
stm
en
t (i
f an
y)
20
13
Re
cord
ed
20
14
ad
j.2
01
5 a
dj.
20
16
adj.
20
16
To
tal
(Ite
m c
)A
ssu
mp
tio
ns
O&
M R
ed
uct
ion
s
(ite
m a
)
22
00
-24
95
Infr
astr
uct
ure
IT P
OR
TFO
LIO
MA
NA
GEM
ENT
Dev
elo
p m
ult
i-ye
ar s
trat
egie
s fo
r m
ajo
r ap
plic
atio
n
fam
ilies
40
-
25
0
2
50
2
90
M
anag
emen
t es
tim
ate
for
vari
ou
s co
nsu
ltin
g
enga
gem
ents
(2
-6 m
on
ths)
to
an
alyz
e ap
plic
atio
n
road
map
op
tio
ns
for
po
ten
tial
cap
ital
inve
stm
ents
in
maj
or
app
licat
ion
s.
Thes
e en
gage
men
ts r
ange
fro
m
$3
0 t
o $
25
0k
each
.
22
00
-24
95
Infr
astr
uct
ure
IT P
OR
TFO
LIO
MA
NA
GEM
ENT
Org
anic
IT g
row
th t
o s
up
po
rt e
xpan
din
g p
rogr
ams
app
licat
ion
-
-
56
1
12
1
12
1
.1 in
crem
enta
l FTE
s to
su
pp
ort
new
IT in
itia
tive
s
acro
ss t
he
com
pan
y in
20
15
an
d in
20
16
. A
ssu
mes
42
% O
&C
rat
io a
nd
$1
00
k av
erag
e sa
lary
plu
s $
10
k p
er
emp
loye
e (1
em
plo
yee)
in a
sso
ciat
ed N
L co
sts.
22
00
-23
72
Infr
astr
uct
ure
DIR
ECTO
R IT
SO
CA
LGA
S
AP
PLI
CA
TIO
NS
Org
anic
IT g
row
th t
o s
up
po
rt e
xpan
din
g p
rogr
ams
app
licat
ion
2
16
-
18
1
3
62
5
78
1
.8 in
crem
enta
l FTE
s to
su
pp
ort
new
IT in
itia
tive
s
acro
ss t
he
com
pan
y in
20
15
an
d in
20
16
. A
ssu
mes
89
% O
&C
rat
io a
nd
$1
00
k av
erag
e sa
lary
plu
s $
10
k p
er
emp
loye
e (2
em
plo
yees
) in
ass
oci
ated
NL
cost
s.
22
00
-24
69
Info
rmat
ion
Secu
rity
IT IN
FOR
MA
TIO
N S
ECU
RIT
Y
SCG
Org
anic
IT g
row
th t
o s
up
po
rt e
xpan
din
g p
rogr
ams
app
licat
ion
6
28
-
80
1
60
7
88
1
.2 in
crem
enta
l FTE
s to
su
pp
ort
new
IT in
itia
tive
s
acro
ss t
he
com
pan
y in
20
15
an
d in
20
16
. A
ssu
mes
60
% O
&C
rat
io a
nd
$1
00
k av
erag
e sa
lary
plu
s $
10
k p
er
emp
loye
e (1
em
plo
yee)
in a
sso
ciat
ed N
L co
sts.
22
00
-24
96
IT S
up
po
rtSC
G IT
ASS
OC
IATE
PR
OG
RA
MN
ew IT
ass
oci
ate
pro
gram
an
d r
elat
ed n
on
-lab
or
exp
ense
s
4
-
72
1
43
1
47
2
new
ass
oci
ates
(6
1.5
k p
er p
erso
n)
plu
s $
10
k in
asso
ciat
ed N
L, o
ne
in 2
01
5, a
nd
an
oth
er in
20
16
22
00
-23
13
IT S
up
po
rtSV
P &
CIT
OB
usi
nes
s P
lan
nin
g A
nal
yst
to p
rovi
de
dir
ect
sup
po
rt
for
SCG
23
-
85
8
5
1
08
1
Bu
sin
ess
Pla
nn
ing
An
alys
t @
75
k +
10
k in
ass
oci
ated
NL
22
00
-20
47
Infr
astr
uct
ure
IT A
CC
OU
NT
MA
NA
GEM
EN
4
6
-
-
-
4
6
No
ch
ange
fro
m 2
01
3 r
eco
rded
(it
em b
)
22
00
-21
66
IT S
up
po
rtV
P IN
FOR
MA
TIO
N T
ECH
N
1
9
-
-
-
1
9
No
ch
ange
fro
m 2
01
3 r
eco
rded
(it
em b
)
22
00
-23
19
IT S
up
po
rtIT
OP
EX E
NTE
RP
RIS
E T
13
-
-
-
13
N
o c
han
ge f
rom
20
13
rec
ord
ed (
item
b)
22
00
-24
05
Ap
plic
atio
ns
SCG
AP
PS
CU
STO
MER
SE
8
50
-
-
-
85
0
No
ch
ange
fro
m 2
01
3 r
eco
rded
(it
em b
)
22
00
-24
44
Ap
plic
atio
ns
SCG
SU
PP
LY C
HA
IN S
ER
34
4
-
-
-
3
44
N
o c
han
ge f
rom
20
13
rec
ord
ed (
item
b)
22
00
-24
46
Ap
plic
atio
ns
SCG
GIS
& C
AD
SER
VIC
3
12
-
-
-
31
2
No
ch
ange
fro
m 2
01
3 r
eco
rded
(it
em b
)
22
00
-24
47
Ap
plic
atio
ns
SCG
SO
FTW
AR
E D
EV -
D
98
2
-
-
-
9
82
N
o c
han
ge f
rom
20
13
rec
ord
ed (
item
b)
22
00
-24
51
Ap
plic
atio
ns
SCG
AP
PS
MA
J M
RK
AP
P
1
,33
7
-
-
-
1
,33
7
No
ch
ange
fro
m 2
01
3 r
eco
rded
(it
em b
)
22
00
-24
52
Ap
plic
atio
ns
CO
LLA
BO
RA
TIO
N S
ERV
CS
4
81
-
-
-
48
1
No
ch
ange
fro
m 2
01
3 r
eco
rded
(it
em b
)
22
00
-24
53
Infr
astr
uct
ure
CLN
T TE
CH
& D
EPO
T SV
2
21
-
-
-
22
1
No
ch
ange
fro
m 2
01
3 r
eco
rded
(it
em b
)
22
00
-24
55
Infr
a str
uct
ure
IT B
USI
NES
S IN
SIG
HT
8
20
-
-
-
82
0
No
ch
ange
fro
m 2
01
3 r
eco
rded
(it
em b
)
22
00
-24
56
Infr
astr
uct
ure
ENTE
RP
RIS
E C
MM
D C
TR-
2
13
-
-
-
21
3
No
ch
ange
fro
m 2
01
3 r
eco
rded
(it
em b
)
22
00
-24
57
Infr
astr
uct
ure
SEM
PH
LP &
IT S
RV
C M
G
14
9
-
-
-
1
49
N
o c
han
ge f
rom
20
13
rec
ord
ed (
item
b)
22
00
-24
58
Infr
astr
uct
ure
BU
SIN
ESS
CO
MM
SER
VS-
1
11
-
-
-
11
1
No
ch
ange
fro
m 2
01
3 r
eco
rded
(it
em b
)
22
00
-24
59
Infr
astr
uct
ure
SCA
LAB
LE P
LATF
OR
M S
E
18
7
-
-
-
1
87
N
o c
han
ge f
rom
20
13
rec
ord
ed (
item
b)
22
00
-24
60
Infr
astr
uct
ure
VO
ICE
ENTE
RP
RIS
E SU
P
22
7
-
-
-
2
27
N
o c
han
ge f
rom
20
13
rec
ord
ed (
item
b)
22
00
-24
63
Infr
astr
uct
ure
CI O
PER
ATI
ON
S SE
RV
IC
80
4
-
-
-
8
04
N
o c
han
ge f
rom
20
13
rec
ord
ed (
item
b)
22
00
-24
64
Infr
astr
uct
ure
CI C
OM
PU
TE S
UP
PO
RT
S
73
4
-
-
-
7
34
N
o c
han
ge f
rom
20
13
rec
ord
ed (
item
b)
22
00
-24
66
Infr
astr
uct
ure
CI C
OM
PU
TE P
RO
VIS
ION
7
62
-
-
-
76
2
No
ch
ange
fro
m 2
01
3 r
eco
rded
(it
em b
)
22
00
-24
67
Infr
a str
uct
ure
CI S
TAN
DA
RD
S
13
4
-
-
-
1
34
N
o c
han
ge f
rom
20
13
rec
ord
ed (
item
b)
22
00
-24
68
Ap
plic
atio
ns
CU
STO
MER
EN
GA
GEM
ENT
17
-
-
-
17
N
o c
han
ge f
rom
20
13
rec
ord
ed (
item
b)
22
00
-24
70
Ap
plic
atio
ns
IT IN
FOR
MA
TIO
N M
AN
AG
6
61
-
-
-
66
1
No
ch
ange
fro
m 2
01
3 r
eco
rded
(it
em b
)
11
,99
3
-
2,2
98
3
,98
9
1
5,9
82
SCG
To
tal
18
,93
4
4
49
2,9
97
4
,68
8
2
3,6
22
CR
O-B
-4
Appendix C
SoCalGas Response to ORA Master Data Request
Chapter 11 – Information Technology, Question 24.B.
CRO-C-1
ORA MASTER DATA REQUEST
SOCALGAS 2016 GRC – A.14-11-XXX
SOCALGAS RESPONSE
DATE RECEIVED: AUGUST 8, 2014
DATE RESPONDED: AUGUST 8, 2014
24. List each capital project by name, department, direct, indirect, and job/budget and blanket
code.
a. Show the amount of the requested expenditure in each forecast year and 5 years of
historic capital data by job/budget and blanket code.
b. Provide a spreadsheet showing the date each project is schedule to become used
and useful.
SoCalGas Response:
Please refer to the Attachment folder for Chapter 19.
a. Please see SoCalGas MDR Ch. 11 Attachment to Q24A.
b. Please see SoCalGas MDR Ch. 11 Attachment to Q24B.
CRO-C-2
MD
R C
HA
PTE
R 1
1 Q
.24
.B. A
TTA
CH
MEN
T
Bu
dge
tB
ud
get
Co
de
C
om
ple
tio
nC
od
eD
esc
rip
tio
n2
01
42
01
52
01
6La
bo
rN
on
-Lab
or
Tota
lLa
bo
rN
on
-Lab
or
Tota
lLa
bo
rN
on
-Lab
or
Tota
lD
ate
00
75
0.0
PT8
14
20
M&
I Co
mp
lian
ce R
ep
ort
i8
01
0
0
11
96
82
80
10
0
0
0
0
0
7
/31
/20
14
80
10
0
1
19
68
28
01
00
00
0
0
00
75
1.0
PT8
13
80
SA
P S
UP
ER U
SER
PR
OV
ISI
17
0
0
17
0
17
0
0
0
0
0
0
3/3
1/2
01
4
17
0
0
17
01
70
00
0
0
0
00
75
4.0
PT8
14
21
Cal
ifo
rnia
Pro
du
cers
E6
58
0
0
24
74
11
65
80
0
0
0
0
0
1
2/3
1/2
01
4
Gas
an
d E
lect
ric
Har
mo
niz
atio
n0
1,2
53
0
0
0
0
3
91
86
21
,25
30
0
0
1
2/3
1/2
01
5
Low
OFO
an
d E
FO0
95
6
0
0
0
0
30
96
47
95
60
0
0
1
2/3
1/2
01
5
65
82
,20
9
0
24
74
11
65
87
00
1,5
09
2,2
09
0
0
0
00
75
6.0
PT8
14
34
20
16
GR
C R
esu
lts
of
Op
16
20
0
4
61
16
16
20
0
0
0
0
0
1
2/3
1/2
01
4
16
20
0
4
61
16
16
20
00
0
0
0
00
76
0.0
PT1
48
53
ITSM
To
ol O
pti
miz
atio
n6
89
47
7
0
17
95
10
68
91
77
30
04
77
0
0
0
3/3
1/2
01
5
PT1
58
24
SC
G D
esk
top
Har
dw
are
R0
0
7,0
72
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
32
6,6
40
7,0
72
PT1
58
68
SE
20
15
Mai
nfr
ame
Exp
a0
0
1,8
18
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
,81
81
,81
84
/30
/20
16
PT1
69
34
eG
RC
Infr
astr
uct
ure
Re
00
1
,99
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
19
01
,80
01
,99
01
2/3
1/2
01
6
PT1
69
35
Fo
ren
sics
Lab
Infr
ast
00
1
,82
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
12
21
,70
01
,82
21
2/3
1/2
01
6
PT8
14
40
Dat
a C
en
ter
Ne
two
rk C
o1
,13
30
0
2
80
85
31
,13
30
0
0
0
0
0
3
/31
/20
14
1,8
22
47
7
12
,70
2
45
91
,36
31
,82
21
77
30
04
77
74
4
11
,95
8
12
,70
2
00
76
2.0
PT1
48
72
SC
G 2
01
4 A
ctiv
e D
ire
ct0
86
5
0
0
0
0
13
97
26
86
50
0
0
1
2/3
1/2
01
5P
T81
35
5 S
CG
WA
N R
EBU
ILD
PH
IV7
78
0
0
26
15
17
77
80
0
0
0
0
0
3
/31
/20
14
PT8
14
42
SE
Ne
two
rk A
ttac
he
d S
t1
,14
80
0
1
28
1,0
20
1,1
48
0
0
0
0
0
0
3/3
1/2
01
4P
T81
44
3 S
Eu W
ire
less
/Se
mp
ra V
i6
62
0
0
26
93
93
66
20
0
0
0
0
0
3
/31
/20
14
2,5
88
86
5
0
65
81
,93
02
,58
81
39
72
68
65
0
0
0
00
76
4.0
PT1
48
43
Cu
sto
me
r D
ata
Co
ntr
ol
55
52
7
0
55
0
55
52
70
5
27
0
0
0
8/3
1/2
01
5P
T14
87
5 C
olle
ctio
ns
Op
tim
izat
i3
74
0
0
26
71
07
37
40
0
0
0
0
0
1
0/3
1/2
01
4P
T14
87
7 C
olle
ctio
ns
Op
tim
izat
i6
47
25
7
0
28
23
65
64
71
36
12
12
57
0
0
0
4/3
0/2
01
4P
T14
91
2 3
rd P
arty
Dat
a R
eq
ue
st0
69
3
0
0
0
0
28
24
11
69
30
0
0
9
/30
/20
15
PT1
49
14
Cu
sto
me
r O
rde
r C
om
mu
ni
24
19
13
0
1
31
11
02
41
57
03
43
91
30
0
0
8
/31
/20
15
PT1
58
78
Co
llect
ion
s O
pti
miz
ati
00
3
,36
7
0
0
0
0
0
0
1,0
67
2,3
00
3,3
67
12
/31
/20
16
PT1
59
25
Vo
ice
Re
cord
ing
and
QA
04
03
0
0
0
0
2
13
82
40
30
0
0
7
/31
/20
15
PT1
68
13
CIS
Fro
nte
nd
Arc
hit
ect
00
1
,54
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
1,0
44
50
01
,54
41
2/3
1/2
01
6P
T81
41
8 C
ust
om
er
Dat
a C
on
tro
ls1
,72
00
0
9
56
76
41
,72
00
0
0
0
0
0
1
2/3
1/2
01
43
,03
72
,79
3
4,9
11
1
,69
11
,34
63
,03
71
,53
61
,25
72
,79
32
,11
1
2,8
00
4
,91
1
00
76
6.0
PT1
48
69
NA
ESB
ED
IX U
pgr
ade
02
86
0
0
0
0
2
62
24
28
60
0
0
6
/30
/20
15
PT1
48
73
SA
P L
ogi
stic
s M
ob
ility
1,4
54
89
0
2
03
1,2
51
1,4
54
45
44
89
0
0
0
3/3
1/2
01
51
,45
43
75
0
2
03
1,2
51
1,4
54
30
76
83
75
0
0
0
00
76
8.0
PT1
48
54
SA
P E
CC
an
d B
I Arc
hiv
i8
02
0
0
29
45
08
80
20
0
0
0
0
0
1
2/3
1/2
01
4P
T14
85
5 B
usi
ne
ss O
bje
cts
Up
gra
06
48
0
0
0
0
3
48
30
06
48
0
0
0
12
/31
/20
15
PT1
58
04
Mic
roso
ft B
usi
ne
ss In
t0
0
46
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
26
12
00
46
11
2/3
1/2
01
68
02
64
8
46
1
29
45
08
80
23
48
30
06
48
26
1
20
0
46
1
Sum
mar
y2
01
42
01
52
01
6
CR
O-C
-3
MD
R C
HA
PTE
R 1
1 Q
.24
.B. A
TTA
CH
MEN
T
Bu
dge
tB
ud
get
Co
de
C
om
ple
tio
nC
od
eD
esc
rip
tio
n2
01
42
01
52
01
6La
bo
rN
on
-Lab
or
Tota
lLa
bo
rN
on
-Lab
or
Tota
lLa
bo
rN
on
-Lab
or
Tota
lD
ate
Sum
mar
y2
01
42
01
52
01
6
00
77
0.0
PT1
48
34
SEu
We
b-A
ud
io C
on
fere
n2
64
1,0
89
0
7
01
94
26
41
39
95
01
,08
90
0
0
1
2/3
1/2
01
5P
T15
93
2 W
eb
Ap
plic
atio
n D
atab
a0
0
3,1
29
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
51
2,6
78
3,1
29
12
/31
/20
16
PT8
13
16
WIN
DO
WS
7 P
LATF
OR
M R
EP1
,40
90
0
4
08
1,0
01
1,4
09
0
0
0
0
0
0
12
/31
/20
14
PT8
14
16
EN
TER
PR
ISE
MES
SAG
ING
I9
78
0
0
24
47
34
97
80
0
0
0
0
0
3
/31
/20
14
PT8
14
17
ED
IX E
nh
ance
me
nt
- P
ha
39
71
23
0
3
67
30
39
71
23
0
12
30
0
0
3
/31
/20
15
PT8
14
26
SER
VER
REP
LAC
EMEN
T-A
IX2
,35
15
47
0
5
02
1,8
49
2,3
51
22
73
20
54
70
0
0
3
/31
/20
14
PT8
14
33
En
terp
rise
Vo
ice
Sys
te2
14
0
0
11
99
52
14
0
0
0
0
0
0
3/3
1/2
01
4R
OW
S R
efr
esh
Ou
t o
f W
arra
nty
S4
,52
00
0
6
48
3,8
72
4,5
20
0
0
0
0
0
0
12
/31
/20
14
01
,79
4
0
0
0
0
71
01
,08
41
,79
40
0
0
1
2/3
1/2
01
50
0
69
5
0
0
0
0
0
0
29
54
00
69
51
2/3
1/2
01
6P
T20
14
10
SEu
Cal
l Re
cord
ing
Re
78
60
0
1
36
65
07
86
0
0
0
0
0
0
12
/31
/20
14
PT2
01
43
3 B
acku
p S
erv
ice
s En
han
84
90
0
9
97
50
84
90
0
0
0
0
0
1
2/3
1/2
01
4P
T14
83
5 M
ob
ile D
evi
ce M
anag
em
e1
,02
38
7
0
26
67
57
1,0
23
87
0
87
0
0
0
1/3
1/2
01
5P
T14
83
8 E
nd
Po
int
Secu
rity
Pro
2,5
41
53
2
0
19
12
,35
02
,54
12
32
30
05
32
0
0
0
3/3
1/2
01
5P
T14
83
9 L
ogg
ing
Infr
astr
uct
ure
02
,76
9
0
0
0
0
14
42
,62
52
,76
90
0
0
1
2/3
1/2
01
5P
T14
84
6 G
as S
CA
DA
Pe
rim
ete
r R
e8
29
0
0
10
47
25
82
90
0
0
0
0
0
1
2/3
1/2
01
4P
T14
86
5 In
form
atio
n S
ecu
rity
-3
50
35
0
35
0
0
35
03
50
0
35
03
50
0
35
03
50
PT1
48
67
EC
C 2
.0 P
roje
ct0
1,3
95
6
16
0
0
0
5
10
88
51
,39
51
16
50
06
16
12
/31
/20
16
PT1
48
89
SEu
En
terp
rise
Cal
l Re
34
10
0
7
32
68
34
10
0
0
0
0
0
8
/31
/20
14
PT5
18
09
SEu
CC
C A
vaya
Sys
tem
R0
0
75
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
15
36
00
75
31
2/3
1/2
01
6P
T15
84
4 W
eb
Ap
plic
atio
n F
ire
wa
00
1
,51
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
14
61
,36
51
,51
11
2/3
1/2
01
6P
T15
87
4 E
nte
rpri
se R
isk
and
Co
00
6
59
0
0
0
0
0
0
5
15
14
46
59
12
/31
/20
16
PT1
58
79
En
terp
rise
So
cial
Co
mp
00
5
90
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
62
42
85
90
6/3
0/2
01
6P
T15
88
0 IT
CS
- A
pp
-V a
nd
UE-
V0
60
8
0
0
0
0
34
82
60
60
80
0
0
1
2/3
1/2
01
50
0
1,2
96
0
0
0
0
0
0
6
96
60
01
,29
61
2/3
1/2
01
6P
T15
88
1 S
CG
Vid
eo
-en
able
d C
oll
03
94
0
0
0
0
1
08
28
63
94
0
0
0
6/3
0/2
01
5P
T15
88
2 S
Eu T
ele
Pre
sen
ce U
pgr
a0
1,0
97
0
0
0
0
1
07
99
01
,09
70
0
0
6
/30
/20
15
PT1
58
90
SC
G In
fras
tru
ctu
re R
oo
00
1
17
0
0
0
0
0
0
5
26
51
17
12
/31
/20
16
PT1
58
96
SE
SAN
Sto
rage
Exp
ansi
00
6
,05
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
52
6,0
00
6,0
52
12
/31
/20
16
PT1
58
99
SE
20
15
VM
war
e V
iew
Vi
01
,51
4
18
6
0
0
0
27
81
,23
61
,51
41
86
0
18
63
/31
/20
16
PT1
59
00
SC
G In
fras
tru
ctu
re R
oo
08
1
0
0
0
0
46
35
81
0
0
0
12
/31
/20
15
PT1
68
92
A S
E In
fras
tru
ctu
re E
na
00
8
06
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
8
06
80
61
2/3
1/2
01
6P
T16
89
2B
SE
SCO
M 2
01
2 U
pgr
ade
00
5
71
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
71
20
05
71
12
/31
/20
16
PT1
68
96
B S
E SA
N S
tora
ge E
xpan
s0
0
83
6
0
0
0
0
0
0
36
80
08
36
12
/31
/20
16
PT1
68
99
B S
E 2
01
6 V
Mw
are
Vie
w V
00
2
,63
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
23
22
,40
02
,63
21
2/3
1/2
01
6P
T15
93
0 IP
S R
efr
esh
00
2
,88
7
0
0
0
0
0
0
26
22
,62
52
,88
71
2/3
1/2
01
6P
T15
93
1 S
ou
rce
Co
de
Se
curi
ty0
0
90
9
0
0
0
0
0
0
20
97
00
90
91
2/3
1/2
01
61
6,8
52
12
,38
0
24
,59
5
3,2
27
13
,62
51
6,8
52
3,0
59
9,3
21
12
,38
03
,93
4
20
,66
1
24
,59
5
00
77
2.0
PT1
48
37
SC
G F
ield
Are
a N
etw
ork
07
,09
5
0
0
0
0
71
56
,38
07
,09
50
0
0
1
2/3
1/2
01
50
10
,77
9
1,4
29
0
0
0
1
,42
99
,35
01
0,7
79
1,4
29
0
1,4
29
12
/31
/20
16
PT1
48
49
SC
G C
I Sm
all C
ap5
00
50
0
50
0
0
50
05
00
0
50
05
00
0
50
05
00
PT1
48
50
SE
Syst
em
Man
age
me
nt
a0
2,1
40
1
,00
3
0
0
0
1,7
40
40
02
,14
06
03
40
01
,00
31
2/3
1/2
01
5P
T14
85
1 S
E Lo
cal A
rea
Ne
two
rk2
,47
83
,45
0
4,1
64
3
78
2,1
00
2,4
78
1,3
50
2,1
00
3,4
50
2,0
26
2,1
38
4,1
64
12
/31
/20
16
PT1
48
52
SE
Ente
rpri
se A
pp
licat
06
75
0
0
0
0
3
90
28
56
75
0
0
0
12
/31
/20
15
PT1
48
71
SC
G G
AS
SCA
DA
co
nve
rt0
0
1,4
99
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
47
1,1
52
1,4
99
12
/31
/20
16
PT1
58
83
SE
Co
nve
rge
d C
om
pu
tin
g0
8,5
36
0
0
0
0
3
68
,50
08
,53
60
0
0
1
2/3
1/2
01
50
7,5
36
0
0
0
0
3
67
,50
07
,53
60
0
0
1
2/3
1/2
01
6P
T15
88
4 S
E B
acku
p S
yste
ms
00
7
02
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
70
07
02
6/3
0/2
01
6
CR
O-C
-4
MD
R C
HA
PTE
R 1
1 Q
.24
.B. A
TTA
CH
MEN
T
Bu
dge
tB
ud
get
Co
de
C
om
ple
tio
nC
od
eD
esc
rip
tio
n2
01
42
01
52
01
6La
bo
rN
on
-Lab
or
Tota
lLa
bo
rN
on
-Lab
or
Tota
lLa
bo
rN
on
-Lab
or
Tota
lD
ate
Sum
mar
y2
01
42
01
52
01
6
PT1
58
91
SC
G C
om
mu
nic
atio
ns
She
02
44
0
0
0
0
1
04
14
02
44
0
0
0
9/3
0/2
01
5P
T15
89
1B
SE
EWE
Self
Se
rvic
e W
00
2
36
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
86
50
23
61
2/3
1/2
01
6P
T15
89
1C
SE
Thir
d D
ata
Ce
nte
r0
0
91
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
13
57
75
91
01
2/3
1/2
01
6P
T15
91
1 S
CG
Co
mm
un
icat
ion
s Sh
e0
38
3
0
0
0
0
83
75
38
30
0
0
9
/30
/20
16
PT1
68
84
SE
Bac
kup
Sys
tem
s0
0
35
6
0
0
0
0
0
0
36
32
03
56
12
/31
/20
16
PT1
68
91
20
16
SC
G C
om
mu
nic
atio
n0
0
82
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
21
80
08
21
12
/31
/20
16
PT1
58
93
A S
E W
ide
Are
a N
etw
ork
00
4
,46
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
46
44
,00
04
,46
41
2/3
1/2
01
6P
T16
89
3B
SC
G C
om
mu
nic
atio
n S
he
14
51
93
0
5
68
91
45
53
14
01
93
0
0
0
9/3
0/2
01
5P
T16
89
4A
SC
G P
riva
te N
etw
ork
E0
0
2,1
48
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
48
1,8
00
2,1
48
12
/31
/20
16
PT1
68
94
B S
CG
Co
mm
un
icat
ion
Sh
e1
45
23
2
0
56
89
14
55
31
79
23
20
0
0
9
/30
/20
15
PT1
68
95
A S
E R
em
ote
Acc
ess
Se
rv0
0
79
7
0
0
0
0
0
0
29
75
00
79
71
2/3
1/2
01
6P
T81
38
9 S
CG
BA
TTER
Y R
EPLA
CEM
EN1
49
0
0
86
63
14
90
0
0
0
0
0
3
/31
/20
14
PT8
14
14
CO
RE
NET
WO
RK
DES
IGN
53
60
0
2
01
33
55
36
0
0
0
0
0
0
3/3
1/2
01
4P
T81
43
2 P
RIV
ATE
NET
WO
RK
EX
PA
NS
2,7
97
0
0
44
72
,35
02
,79
70
0
0
0
0
0
1
2/3
1/2
01
40
1,6
61
0
0
0
0
2
61
1,4
00
1,6
61
0
0
0
12
/31
/20
15
Dat
a C
en
ter
Ne
two
rk R
eb
uild
4,6
61
0
0
24
54
,41
64
,66
10
0
0
0
0
0
1
2/3
1/2
01
41
1,4
11
43
,42
4
19
,02
9
1,4
69
9,9
42
11
,41
16
,17
53
7,2
49
43
,42
45
,89
4
13
,13
5
19
,02
9
00
77
3.0
PT8
14
03
TEL
ECO
MM
UN
ICA
TIO
NS
EXP
69
30
0
2
03
49
06
93
0
0
0
0
0
0
12
/31
/20
14
69
30
0
2
03
49
06
93
00
00
0
0
00
77
4.0
PT1
48
03
- E
nvo
y N
ext
Ge
ne
rati
o4
12
,04
8
1,6
64
4
10
4
13
48
1,7
00
2,0
48
46
41
,20
01
,66
41
2/3
1/2
01
6P
T14
82
5 -
Em
ail C
amp
aign
Man
ag0
20
0
0
0
0
0
0
20
02
00
0
0
0
6/3
0/2
01
41
12
87
6
0
24
88
11
21
43
73
38
76
0
0
0
6/3
0/2
01
5P
T14
82
9 -
so
calg
as.c
om
te
chn
ol
1,6
36
1,3
49
0
4
11
,59
51
,63
63
51
,31
41
,34
90
0
0
1
2/3
1/2
01
5P
T15
82
3 S
EU C
ust
om
er
Co
nta
ct C
00
6
01
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
52
34
96
01
12
/31
/20
16
PT
15
82
8 In
Ho
use
ED
I X1
2 S
erv
04
56
1
08
0
0
0
1
47
30
94
56
63
45
10
85
/31
/20
16
PT1
48
27
C&
I Ne
xt G
en
era
tio
n P
h3
36
2,4
53
0
7
32
63
33
62
01
2,2
52
2,4
53
0
0
0
12
/31
/20
16
PT1
58
02
C&
I Ne
xt G
en
era
tio
n P
h0
1,7
42
0
0
0
0
2
32
1,5
10
1,7
42
0
0
0
12
/31
/20
15
00
8
02
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
32
57
08
02
12
/31
/20
16
PT8
14
39
EN
VO
Y &
MC
S SY
BA
SE D
AT
1,7
61
0
0
65
11
,11
01
,76
10
0
0
0
0
0
1
2/3
1/2
01
40
93
7
0
0
0
0
23
77
00
93
70
0
0
1
2/3
1/2
01
5P
T81
43
8 E
NV
OY
MC
S D
ATA
CO
NTR
OL
06
17
1
2
0
0
0
21
74
00
61
71
20
1
21
/31
/20
16
52
50
0
3
77
14
85
25
0
0
0
0
0
0
12
/31
/20
14
PT8
14
35
My
Acc
ou
nt
Tech
Re
fre
s7
,87
40
0
1
,74
66
,12
87
,87
40
0
0
0
0
0
1
2/3
1/2
01
40
5,4
37
0
0
0
0
1
,66
23
,77
55
,43
70
0
0
1
2/3
1/2
01
50
74
6
29
5
0
0
0
0
74
67
46
29
50
2
95
3/3
1/2
01
6P
T81
42
3 M
y A
cco
un
t M
ob
ile 1
C1
,27
34
16
0
2
16
1,0
57
1,2
73
64
10
41
60
0
0
2
/28
/20
14
PT8
14
24
SC
G IV
R P
h 4
1,7
42
0
0
52
11
,22
11
,74
20
0
0
0
0
0
1
2/3
1/2
01
40
15
1
0
0
0
0
65
86
15
10
0
0
3
/31
/20
15
15
,30
01
7,4
28
3
,48
2
3,6
90
11
,61
01
5,3
00
3,2
93
14
,13
51
7,4
28
1,3
18
2
,16
4
3,4
82
00
77
5.0
SCG
Me
ter
Re
adin
g H
and
he
ld S
ys0
24
4
6,6
73
0
0
0
2
34
10
24
45
23
6,1
50
6,6
73
12
/31
/20
16
02
44
6
,67
3
00
02
34
10
24
45
23
6
,15
0
6,6
73
00
77
6.0
PT
- 1
48
07
Clic
k U
pgr
ade
07
13
0
0
0
0
0
7
13
71
30
0
0
1
/31
/20
15
25
00
0
0
2
50
25
00
0
0
0
0
0
6
/30
/20
14
2,9
96
5,6
55
1
,56
6
69
82
,29
82
,99
61
,39
24
,26
35
,65
51
,16
93
97
1,5
66
6/3
0/2
01
6P
T16
86
0 G
IS G
as E
nh
ance
me
nts
20
0
7,3
77
0
0
0
0
0
0
8
00
6,5
77
7,3
77
12
/31
/20
16
Ele
ctro
nic
Le
ak S
urv
ey
01
,54
8
0
0
0
0
34
81
,20
01
,54
80
0
0
1
2/3
1/2
01
5
CR
O-C
-5
MD
R C
HA
PTE
R 1
1 Q
.24
.B. A
TTA
CH
MEN
T
Bu
dge
tB
ud
get
Co
de
C
om
ple
tio
nC
od
eD
esc
rip
tio
n2
01
42
01
52
01
6La
bo
rN
on
-Lab
or
Tota
lLa
bo
rN
on
-Lab
or
Tota
lLa
bo
rN
on
-Lab
or
Tota
lD
ate
Sum
mar
y2
01
42
01
52
01
6
PT1
48
17
- B
usi
ne
ss P
lan
nin
g Si
1,4
25
0
0
0
1,4
25
1,4
25
0
0
0
0
0
0
12
/31
/20
14
43
58
59
0
2
44
19
14
35
40
64
53
85
90
0
0
1
2/3
1/2
01
5P
T14
87
6 S
ho
p T
rack
ing
Syst
em
98
0
0
0
98
98
0
0
0
0
0
0
7/3
1/2
01
46
06
78
5
26
9
35
22
54
60
65
09
27
67
85
25
41
52
69
7/3
1/2
01
6P
T14
91
9 C
lick
and
SA
P D
isas
ter
1,0
53
0
0
21
78
36
1,0
53
0
0
0
0
0
0
12
/31
/20
14
PT1
49
24
En
terp
rise
GIS
Up
lift
01
,29
5
41
3
0
0
0
14
31
,15
21
,29
54
33
70
41
31
2/3
1/2
01
6P
T15
81
9 C
PD
Re
po
rtin
g En
han
cem
01
,11
6
1,0
87
0
0
0
1
16
1,0
00
1,1
16
87
1,0
00
1,0
87
12
/31
/20
16
PT1
58
20
SC
G M
ain
ten
ance
an
d In
01
,18
6
1,1
86
0
0
0
1
86
1,0
00
1,1
86
18
61
,00
01
,18
61
2/3
1/2
01
6P
T15
82
1 F
ield
Fo
rce
Re
po
rtin
g0
0
1,1
43
0
0
0
0
0
0
9
31
,05
01
,14
31
2/3
1/2
01
6P
T15
85
6 S
AP
Bu
sin
ess
War
eh
ou
se0
49
7
0
0
0
0
28
82
09
49
70
0
0
1
2/3
1/2
01
5P
T14
92
5 E
mp
loye
e C
are
Se
rvic
es
00
1
,75
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
75
41
,00
01
,75
41
2/3
1/2
01
6P
T15
80
1 G
IS S
AP
Inte
grat
ion
01
,24
0
1,2
75
0
0
0
2
90
95
01
,24
02
30
1,0
45
1,2
75
12
/31
/20
16
PT1
68
02
Clic
k v8
Fu
nct
ion
al E
n0
0
3,3
84
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
,78
46
00
3,3
84
12
/31
/20
16
PT8
14
31
Clic
k M
&I M
&R
Sta
bili
z8
26
0
0
21
36
13
82
60
0
0
0
0
0
6
/30
/20
14
PT8
14
12
GA
S G
IS E
nh
ance
me
nts
21
,15
40
0
1
22
1,0
32
1,1
54
0
0
0
0
0
0
3/3
1/2
01
4P
T81
42
8 S
CG
M&
I Gu
iXT
Ph
ase
29
34
0
0
19
77
37
93
40
0
0
0
0
0
1
2/3
1/2
01
4P
T81
41
9 P
DA
Me
ter
Test
Lab
57
70
0
2
56
32
15
77
0
0
0
0
0
0
12
/31
/20
14
PT8
13
53
EC
M R
EPLA
CEM
ENT
56
70
0
1
04
46
35
67
0
0
0
0
0
0
2/2
8/2
01
4P
T81
44
8 D
ESIG
N E
NG
INEE
RIN
G S
W8
19
15
8
0
98
10
81
93
15
51
58
0
0
0
1/3
1/2
01
52
70
0
0
0
27
02
70
0
0
0
0
0
0
9/3
0/2
01
4P
T81
43
6 S
CG
CI M
y B
iz A
cco
un
t1
,95
80
0
1
21
1,8
37
1,9
58
0
0
0
0
0
0
12
/31
/20
14
02
,01
2
0
0
0
0
15
71
,85
52
,01
20
0
0
1
2/3
1/2
01
50
0
1,6
15
0
0
0
0
0
0
5
81
,55
71
,61
51
2/3
1/2
01
6P
T15
93
4 S
oC
alG
as C
ust
om
er
Serv
42
11
93
5
44
7
4
14
4
21
3
19
01
93
95
35
54
41
2/3
1/2
01
6P
T81
39
9 F
INA
NC
IAL
ASS
ET M
GM
T (
3,1
79
0
0
69
12
,48
83
,17
90
0
0
0
0
0
1
2/3
1/2
01
4P
T81
46
1 G
as G
IS P
roje
ct 2
01
45
00
23
3
0
40
01
00
50
01
33
10
02
33
0
0
0
3/3
1/2
01
5P
T15
85
9 G
IS G
as E
nh
ance
me
nts
20
3,1
11
1
,10
3
0
0
0
40
12
,71
03
,11
11
33
97
01
,10
33
/31
/20
16
18
,06
82
0,6
01
22
,71
63
,63
11
4,4
37
18
,06
84
,37
51
6,2
26
20
,60
16
,60
01
6,1
16
22
,71
6
00
77
7.0
PT1
49
18
Sm
all C
ap R
eq
ue
sts
(Ba
01
32
0
0
0
0
0
1
32
13
20
0
0
6
/30
/20
15
PT1
59
20
Sm
all C
ap R
eq
ue
sts
(Cu
01
0
10
0
0
0
0
1
01
00
1
01
06
/30
/20
16
PT8
13
96
PA
CER
MD
T R
EPLA
CEM
ENT
2,6
75
0
0
29
72
,37
82
,67
50
0
0
0
0
0
6
/30
/20
14
PT8
14
54
SC
G F
ield
MD
T U
pgr
ade
2,8
69
0
0
0
2,8
69
2,8
69
0
0
0
0
0
0
3/3
1/2
01
45
,54
41
42
1
0
29
75
,24
75
,54
40
14
21
42
0
10
1
0
00
77
8.0
PT1
48
32
Sh
are
Po
int
20
13
2,5
88
1,9
51
0
3
32
2,2
56
2,5
88
82
01
,13
11
,95
10
0
0
1
2/3
1/2
01
50
2,5
12
2
,51
2
0
0
0
36
22
,15
02
,51
23
62
2,1
50
2,5
12
12
/31
/20
16
PT1
48
33
Dat
a Lo
ss P
reve
nti
on
2,1
84
0
0
28
41
,90
02
,18
40
0
0
0
0
0
1
2/3
1/2
01
4P
T14
89
7 T
rave
l an
d E
xpe
nse
Mo
b0
2,3
82
0
0
0
0
2
32
2,1
50
2,3
82
0
0
0
7/3
1/2
01
5P
T15
92
6 S
AP
En
terp
rise
Mo
bili
t0
84
8
0
0
0
0
34
85
00
84
80
0
0
7
/31
/20
15
PT8
14
07
E-P
RO
CU
REM
ENT
IMP
LEM
EN9
99
77
1
0
22
57
74
99
93
99
37
27
71
0
0
0
9/3
0/2
01
55
,77
18
,46
4
2,5
12
8
41
4,9
30
5,7
71
2,1
61
6,3
03
8,4
64
36
2
2,1
50
2
,51
2
00
78
0.0
PT1
48
61
Ide
nti
ty &
Acc
ess
Man
a2
,22
02
,22
0
2,0
92
5
77
1,6
43
2,2
20
57
71
,64
32
,22
08
42
1,2
50
2,0
92
12
/31
/20
16
45
80
0
1
83
27
54
58
0
0
0
0
0
0
4/3
0/2
01
4P
T16
88
8 Id
en
tity
& A
cce
ss M
ana
00
1
,72
7
0
0
0
0
0
0
16
71
,56
01
,72
71
2/3
1/2
01
6P
T81
45
1 M
and
ian
t Ex
pan
sio
n4
53
0
0
74
46
45
30
0
0
0
0
0
2
/28
/20
14
3,1
31
2,2
20
3
,81
9
76
72
,36
43
,13
15
77
1,6
43
2,2
20
1,0
09
2
,81
0
3,8
19
00
78
2.0
PT1
58
98
SE
Ap
plic
atio
n P
latf
or
06
09
9
84
0
0
0
3
34
27
56
09
33
46
50
98
41
2/3
1/2
01
6
CR
O-C
-6
MD
R C
HA
PTE
R 1
1 Q
.24
.B. A
TTA
CH
MEN
T
Bu
dge
tB
ud
get
Co
de
C
om
ple
tio
nC
od
eD
esc
rip
tio
n2
01
42
01
52
01
6La
bo
rN
on
-Lab
or
Tota
lLa
bo
rN
on
-Lab
or
Tota
lLa
bo
rN
on
-Lab
or
Tota
lD
ate
Sum
mar
y2
01
42
01
52
01
6
06
09
9
84
0
00
33
42
75
60
93
34
6
50
9
84
00
78
4.0
PT1
48
26
- In
tegr
ate
d C
ust
om
er
1,4
35
3,0
80
3
26
2
41
1,1
94
1,4
35
57
22
,50
83
,08
07
31
93
26
3/3
1/2
01
6P
T81
41
5 C
red
it &
Co
llect
ion
s O
29
10
0
2
74
17
29
10
0
0
0
0
0
9
/30
/20
14
1,7
26
3,0
80
3
26
5
15
1,2
11
1,7
26
57
22
,50
83
,08
07
3
19
3
26
00
78
6.0
PT1
48
10
- G
as D
istr
ibu
tio
n A
na
2,2
38
18
0
5
24
1,7
14
2,2
38
17
11
80
0
0
1
/31
/20
15
PT1
48
62
Gre
en
ho
use
Gas
an
d E
nv
52
42
59
0
2
63
26
15
24
10
41
55
25
90
0
0
3
/31
/20
15
2,7
62
27
7
0
78
71
,97
52
,76
21
21
15
62
77
0
0
0
00
78
8.0
PT1
48
05
- E
nte
rpri
se B
I An
alyt
31
94
51
0
4
12
78
31
96
13
90
45
10
0
0
6
/30
/20
15
PT1
58
06
En
terp
rise
BI A
nal
ytic
00
7
69
0
0
0
0
0
0
9
76
72
76
91
2/3
1/2
01
6P
T15
81
1 E
nte
rpri
se A
nal
ytic
s S
00
4
52
0
0
0
0
0
0
5
24
00
45
21
2/3
1/2
01
6P
T16
81
6 E
nte
rpri
se A
nal
ytic
s S
00
4
70
0
0
0
0
0
0
7
04
00
47
01
2/3
1/2
01
6P
T16
92
7 E
nte
rpri
se B
I An
alyt
ic0
0
76
9
0
0
0
0
0
0
97
67
27
69
12
/31
/20
16
31
94
51
2
,46
0
41
27
83
19
61
39
04
51
31
6
2,1
44
2
,46
0
00
81
0.0
PTC
PD
SC
G C
PD
En
h P
has
e 2
04
,73
1
3,5
02
0
0
0
3
,41
11
,32
04
,73
11
,86
71
,63
53
,50
21
2/3
1/2
01
6P
T13
81
0 S
CG
CP
D E
nh
Ph
ase
11
1,4
79
1,0
85
0
2
,56
68
,91
31
1,4
79
35
1,0
50
1,0
85
0
0
0
3/3
1/2
01
51
1,4
79
5,8
16
3
,50
2
2,5
66
8,9
13
11
,47
93
,44
62
,37
05
,81
61
,86
7
1,6
35
3
,50
2
10
4,3
97
12
2,5
03
10
8,1
82
21
,76
88
2,6
29
10
4,3
97
27
,61
59
4,8
88
12
2,5
03
25
,28
08
2,9
02
10
8,1
82
CR
O-C
-7
Appendix D
SoCalGas Response to Data Request ORA-SCG-DR-029-PM1, Question 5
CRO-D-1
ORA DATA REQUEST
ORA-SCG-DR-029-PM1
SOCALGAS 2016 GRC – A.14-11-004
SOCALGAS PARTIAL RESPONSE
DATE RECEIVED: DECEMBER 16, 2014
DATE RESPONDED: DECEMBER 12, 2014
5. Please provide the yearly capitalized hardware costs 2009-2013 and forecast from 2014-2016
(in nominal 2013 and base year dollars) delineated by the “Categories of Management” listed
on Table CRO-13. Include an itemized list of the hardware replaced (2011-2013) and
forecast to be replaced (2014-2016) with number of units, cost per unit, installation cost and
any other cost associated with the hardware (if other costs are included explain why these
costs were incurred).
SoCalGas Response 05:
A list of itemized hardware that is being replaced is not available. Individual hardware
replacements are not currently tracked at the individual project level for GRC purposes.
Historical cost for capitalized hardware cost from 2009-2013 by the categories of management is
available in attachment ORA-SCG-029-PM1 Q5. The requested information for forecast costs
(years 2014-2016) are also attached on ORA-SCG-029-PM1 Q5. Please note that the forecasted
cost shown is cost related to proposed hardware project. All non-labor related cost is listed and
can include non-labor cost associated with the hardware purchase.
CRO-D-2
ORA-SCG-DR-029-PM1 Question 5 Attachment (Historical)
SCG-029-PM1 Q5
Categories of Management 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
CS - Field & SCG Mtr Reading (159,901) 545,342 286,810 1,887,949 6,455,617
CS - Information 27
CS - Office Operations 30 14,773 20,167 1,966,099 437,097
Engineering & ES 50,018
Gas Operations 680,460 974,253 206,317 3,068,866
Information Technology 6,456,450 (104,318) 6,726 75,730 5,588,265
Supply Management 24,027 651 18,335 36,527
So Cal Gas Total 6,320,606 1,136,908 1,306,319 4,172,621 15,599,863
Categories of Management 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
CS - Field & SCG Mtr Reading (130,191) 463,104 266,590 1,893,990 6,455,617
CS - Information 25
CS - Office Operations 24 12,545 18,745 1,972,390 437,097
Engineering & ES 50,018
Gas Operations 577,847 905,568 206,977 3,068,866
Information Technology 5,256,841 (88,587) 6,252 75,972 5,588,265
Supply Management 19,563 553 17,042 36,643
So Cal Gas Total 5,146,237 965,462 1,214,223 4,185,973 15,599,863
Fiscal year
Capital Hardware Purchases (2013 $)
Capital Hardware Purchases (Nominal Base Dollars)
Fiscal year
CRO-D-3
ORA-SCG-DR-029-PM1 Question 5 Attachment (Forecast)
SCG-029-PM1 Q5
Categories of Management 2014 2015 2016
CS - Field & SCG Mtr Reading 2,792 200 6,685
CS - Office Operations 432 946 833
CS- Information 40 75 -
Engineering & ES 100 100 -
Environmental - - -
Gas Distribution 3,993 819 130
Information Technology 24,688 28,104 40,999
Supply Management 949 200 -
So Cal Gas Total* 32,994 30,444 48,647
*Cost are hardware related estimates. May include other associated non-labor cost related to hardware
Fiscal year
CRO-D-4