reliability & innovation

APP Risk Assessment Using Mobile Data Collection

February 7-8, 2017Albuquerque, NM

Rick Harness| 970-204-4001 |rharness@edmlink.com 2017 EDM International, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

UTILITY & ENGINEERING SERVICES ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES POWER OPTIMIZATION PRODUCTS

Overcoming utility infrastructure challenges by merging excellence in engineering, science and technology with a

passion for client satisfaction.

EDM International, Inc.4001 Automation Way | Fort Collins CO 80525 U.S.A.P: 970.204.4001 | F: 970.204.4007RHarness@edmlink.com | www.edmlink.com

Over 100 Avian Protection Plans Developed

ArgentinaDom. Rep.CanadaCosta RicaHungaryIndiaIsraelMexicoMongoliaNamibiaSouth AfricaUA Emirates

NEW MEXICO:

TriState G&T

WSMRXcel Energy NM

Springer EC

EOG Resources

White Sands Missile RangeFort Bliss

El Paso ElectricHolloman Electric

Sierra ElectricSocorro Electric

AVIAN PROTECTION PLANS

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and Avian Power Line Interaction Committee (APLIC) published Final APP guidelines April 2005

Avian Protection PlansElectrocutions and Collisions

Corporate Policy Permit/Regulatory Compliance Management Guidelines

o Nestingo Mortalityo Injured Wildlife

Mortality Reduction Measures Reporting and Record Keeping Quality Control Training Public Awareness Avian Enhancement Key Resources

Avian Protection PlansElectrocutions and Collisions

Standardso Retrofitting o New Construction

Risk Assessmento Bird High Use Areaso High Risk Configurationso Specify Retrofittingo Prioritize Retrofittingo Create an Approved

Material Listo Lay Out a Retrofitting

Budget and Time Line

Avian Protection PlansElectrocutions and Collisions

COLORADO RURAL ELECTRICASSOCIATION (CREA) APPS

2002-2003

• Collaborative :– 21 CREA Co-operatives– 2 municipal utilities– 1 military base– 1 mine– PSCO(Xcel Energy)

• Consistent/Defensible Approach

• Manage costs• Maximize efficiencies• State-wide coverage

FIRST “TAILORED” APP2002-2003

Data Collection:– Digital Maps– Field Survey– Pole attributes (paper form)– Retrofit recs (paper form)– Risk level (paper form) – Image (digital)

DATA COLLECTION

RESULTSSPREADSHEET WITH RETROFITTING RECOMMENDATIONS

CHALLENGES:

Finding the poles on paper maps Writing legible notes on paper maps Making sure data was collected

consistently (thus all the photos) Recording all photo numbers correctly Making sure each pole’s retrofitting

priority was applied consistently Transcribing field notes from paper to

digital was VERY time consuming QA/QC

2014-2015UTAH ASSOCIATED MUNICIPAL POWER SYSTEMS

(UAMPS) APPS

SECOND “TAILORED” APPS2014-2015

• Collaborative :– 19 municipal utilities

• Multi-State Project– UT, ID, NV, CA

• Manage costs• Maximize efficiencies• Consistent Approach• Must include APLIC/USFWS

content (Defensible)

How to assign risk?

33

14

6 4 4

0

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

Deadend/Tap Trans. Banks Tangent Other Equip NarrowTangent

Others

Rap

tor M

orta

lity

No.

Pol

e U

nits

Primary Units

Structure Types and Mortality Units Mortality

Moon Lake Electric AssociationRangely Oil Field Survey - 1999

Problem Statement

Previous models have been prohibitively complex:• Schomburg, J.W. 2003. Development and evaluation of predictive models for managing Golden

Eagle electrocutions.

• Model: Pole design being TRANS or JW/being NOXARM, 3PHASE, or 2PHASEAmount of FOREST cover is < 5% for 1000m quadrant surrounding power polePole design 3PHASETopographical placement of power pole is on hill/ridge topPower pole nearest distance to active golden eagle nest <9624.5 meters100m quadrat surrounding power pole contains < 77.5% grassSum of pole height differences between power pole in question and it’s adjacent poles > 2.29 meters 1000m quadrat surrounding power pole contains < 2.5% FOREST100m quadrat surrounding power pole contains > 77.5% sagePower pole nearest distance to active golden eagle nest > 3164.5 meters1000m quadrat surrounding power pole contains > 22.5% GRASS.

• BioResource Consultants. 2008. Identifying electric distribution poles for priority retrofitting to reduce bird mortality. Final Report (January 2008) to California Energy Commission – Public Interest Energy Research Program, Contract Nos. P500-04-052 and 500-01-019.

• Model: X = ‐4.13 + .41(slighter) + 0.05(pellets) +0.27(prey_1) + 0.09(hard1sum) + 0.81(Veg_gr_wet) ‐ 0.1(perchopt) ‐5.34(Guy_uninsul) +0.7(Aspect_corner) +0.09(sfusecut) ‐0.68(effheigh) ‐1.78(use_public) ‐0.27(vegstruc) ‐0.34(sswitch) +0.56(Aspect_dead) +0.56(Guy_insul) ‐0.19(stranso) ‐ 0.004(armorien) ‐ 0.06(arms) + 0.27(Metal_arm) + 0.23(Phase_tangent) ‐0.03(sjumper) + 0.14(Metal_armbrace)

Problem Statement

ELECTROCUTION MODELINGModels K ΔAICc Weightv1 + v2 + v4 + v5 + v6 + v7 + v8 + v10 9 0.000 0.067v1 + v2 + v6 + v7 + v8 + v10 7 0.459 0.054v1 + v2 + v3 + v4 + v5 + v6 + v7 + v8 + v10 10 0.511 0.052v1 + v2 + v3 + v6 + v7 + v8 + v10 8 0.597 0.050v1 + v2 + v5 + v6 + v7 + v8 + v10 8 0.799 0.045v1 + v2 + v3 + v5 + v6 + v7 + v8 + v10 9 1.051 0.040v1 + v2 + v4 + v5 + v6 + v7 + v8 8 1.601 0.030v1 + v2 + v4 + v5 + v6 + v8 + v10 8 1.899 0.026v1 + v2 + v4 + v6 + v7 + v8 + v10 8 1.910 0.026v1 + v2 + v6 + v7 + v8 6 1.991 0.025v1 + v2 + v4 + v5 + v6 + v7 + v8 + v9 + v10 10 2.041 0.024v1 + v2 + v3 + v4 + v6 + v7 + v8 + v10 9 2.129 0.023v1 + v2 + v5 + v6 + v7 + v8 7 2.155 0.023v1 + v2 + v6 + v8 + v10 6 2.324 0.021v1 + v2 + v6 + v7 + v8 + v9 + v10 8 2.397 0.020v1 + v2 + v3 + v6 + v7 + v8 + v9 + v10 9 2.406 0.020v1 + v2 + v3 + v4 + v5 + v6 + v7 + v8 + v9 + v10 11 2.476 0.020v1 + v2 + v5 + v6 + v8 + v10 7 2.565 0.019v1 + v2 + v3 + v4 + v5 + v6 + v7 + v8 9 2.566 0.019

v2 + v3 + v6 + v7 + v8 + v10 7 2.647 0.018v1 + v2 + v3 + v4 + v5 + v6 + v8 + v10 9 2.721 0.017v1 + v2 + v3 + v6 + v8 + v10 7 2.808 0.017v1 + v2 + v5 + v6 + v7 + v8 + v9 + v10 9 2.849 0.016v1 + v2 + v3 + v5 + v6 + v7 + v8 8 2.900 0.016

• 1024 models• Top 24

shown:

• v1: jumpers• v2: phases• v3: canopies• v4: deadend• v5: phases up• v6: grounding• v7: view• v8: habitat• v9: public• V10: prey/use

CONCLUSIONS - PUBLICATIONS

RISK FORMULA (Dwyer et al. 2013)

Formula variable definitions:

1. Habitat: The presence of high quality habitat (value = 0) or low quality habitat (value = 1) as the dominant land cover within ¼ mile of the pole, where habitat quality reflects habitat use by the species of concern.

2. Number of Primary Conductors: The number of energized phase wires on a pole. Primary conductors are the wires spanning between poles across a landscape.

3. Number of Jumpers: The total number of non-insulated energized jumpers on a pole. Jumpers are the short wires connecting primary conductors to one another or to pole mounted equipment.

4. Grounding: The presence (value = 1) or absence (value = 0) of a path to ground present above the lowest energized primary conductor or jumper.

Data Collection

DATA COLLECTION: FORM

Jumpers only get counted when they are:1. Bare2. Partially Covered3. Fully Covered but an equipment cap is still missing/loose

DATA COLLECTION: FORM

• Runs on laptop/tablet/handheld• Data entry: keypad, stylus, touch screen• GIS integrated• GPS enabled• Highly customizable forms• Multiple utility modules available:

– OH Inventory and Patrol– UG Inventory and Patrol– Substation Inspection– Ground Line Inspection– Lands, Roads, and Vegetation Inspection

DATA COLLECTIONUAMPS: CARTOPAC MOBILE

http://www.cartopac.com/

Bald Eagle

DATA COLLECTIONUAMPS: CARTOPAC MOBILE

√

DATA COLLECTION: FORMUAMPS: CARTOPAC MOBILE

2

DATA COLLECTION: FORMUAMPS: CARTOPAC MOBILE

00.10.20.30.40.50.60.70.80.9

1

1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19

Prob

abilit

y of E

lectro

cutio

n

Number of jumpers (phases = 3)

Ground Yes, Habitat ClosedGround No, Habitat ClosedGround Yes, Habitat OpenGround No, Habitat Open

0

.41

RESULTS

Ground Yes, Habitat GoodGround No, Habitat GoodGround Yes, Habitat AverageGround No, Habitat Average

RESULTS

00.10.20.30.40.50.60.70.80.9

1

1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19

Prob

abilit

y of E

lectro

cutio

n

Number of jumpers (phases = 3)

Ground Yes, Habitat ClosedGround No, Habitat ClosedGround Yes, Habitat OpenGround No, Habitat Open

Ground Yes, Habitat GoodGround No, Habitat GoodGround Yes, Habitat AverageGround No, Habitat Average

15

.81

RESULTSPRIORITY RANKING

A

B A

B

AB

P = .55

P = .7

RESULTSFREQUENCY HISTOGRAM

B

A

B

P = .30P = .70

• GIS files include all pole data and retrofit recs

• Google Earth KMZ file also includes photo

• Organized by Priority-Map Color Coded

DATA DELIVERABLESENHANCED DIGITAL FORMATS

RESULTSMATERIAL LIST BROKEN OUT BY PRIORITY

Arrester CapInsulation

Cutout Cover

Conductor Cover Arrester CapCutout Cover

Bushing Cover

• Risk Assessment using mobile data collection with risk model provides consistent results across multiple service territories.

• Allows additional engineering field data to be collected, such as code violations.

• Allows neighboring utilities to have shared solutions.

• Efficient due to the shared effort ($14K per utility)

CARTOPAC RISK ASSESSMENT RECAP

ACKNOWLEDGMENTSParticular thanks and recognition to the following organizations and individuals who made the project a success and this presentation possible:

• Colorado Rural Electric Association (CREA)• Utah Assoc. of Municipal Power Systems

– Mason Baker, UAMPS– Heather Bringard, UAMPS

• CartoPac Mobile Software• Southern California Edison (SCE)• California Energy Commission (CEC)• New Mexico Avian Protection (NMAP)

QUESTIONS?

© EDM International, Inc. 2017