Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the It And Implementation Costs topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Eversource details IT work, regression testing and cost uncertainty for proposed gas discount rate
Summary
Eversource told PURA that rolling out a Connecticut gas discount-rate product will require back-end additions to shared customer-information programs and regression testing across other operating-company modules because several reference tables and programs are common across instances.
Eversource staff described the information-technology and development work required to implement a Connecticut gas discount-rate product and explained why changes in one operating-company instance of the customer information system can trigger regression testing in other jurisdictions.
Scope of IT work: Eversource witnesses said approximately 30% of implementation effort is expected on the back-end system, requiring additions to reference tables, program logic, billing integrations and bill-print templates so that gas-specific units (e.g., CCFs) and algorithms can be applied. David Coco (director, IT business solutions) and other witnesses said the company will reuse common code where possible but must add separate operating-company functionality for Connecticut gas because the product’s business rules (tiers, usage cap, discount algorithms) differ by company.
Regression testing and cross-jurisdiction impact: Witnesses explained that Eversource uses a shared customer information system (CIS) across multiple operating companies, with common reference tables and programs. Changes for the Connecticut gas product may require regression testing in Connecticut electric and New Hampshire modules to ensure no shared-code impacts arise. If a change originates in one operating company, the originating company generally bears the regression-testing cost; where changes touch common modules, costs are allocated to the operating company that caused the change.
Cost estimates and timing: The company provided a conceptual cost range for the initiative and said it used experience from the Connecticut electric discount-rate project as a baseline. Eversource said it gave a broad range while reserving a contingency for unknowns; one witness described the usage-cap incremental cost as modest and likely to be absorbed within the higher-level estimate. The company told PURA it can provide more technical detail in a written supplement and that the vendor procurement process and final scoping will determine the final price and schedule.
Why this matters: The IT design choices — building up-front capacity versus staging features later — affect project cost, complexity and the effort needed to change discount levels or usage caps after deployment. Parties asked whether the company should build more flexibility up front (e.g., multiple tiers) to avoid higher incremental costs later.
Follow-ups: The company agreed to provide a technical supplement and an additional read-in describing tables and reference codes that are shared across operating companies, and to explain how those common tables might cause cross-company regression testing requirements.
