distribution reliability june 26-28, 2013 savannah, ga 1 2013 transmission & distribution...
TRANSCRIPT
Distribution reliability
June 26-28, 2013
Savannah, GA
1
2013 Transmission & Distribution BenchmarkingData Review Conference
Agenda
◼ Introduction and Guidelines◼ Performance Profiles: Using them as a guide to the report and
subsequent analytics◼ Questionnaire and statistical report issues
2
Guidelines
3
Distribution Reliability
4
Statistics◼ IEEE Standard 1366 has become the major guide for definitions on
distribution reliability. Though not every utility follows it exactly, some of the key issues identified by this standard include: Outage duration to be considered an interruption Definition of a major event (2.5 Beta Method) IEEE 1366-2012 can be purchased for download at:
http://standards.ieee.org/findstds/standard/1366-2012.html ◼ There are still some reporting differences among utilities in terms of the
following: Step restoration reporting Level of reporting (are single services included) Accuracy of estimates
We will also calculate “mileage adjusted” SAIDI and SAIFI values, as well as CEMIx values (adjusted for each integer level)
Distribution Reliability (cont)
Worst Circuit Performance◼ Many jurisdictions have introduced “worst circuit performance” measures.
We have asked questions around typical measures (e.g.“bottom 10%”), but do not cover all the possible variations.
◼ We also ask a few questions to highlight some of the adjustments to these measures (in particular low customer counts might skew the measures).
Outage Management System◼ We ask about OMS systems and features, along with enhancements
utilities are investing in to improve the restoration processes
Reliability Improvement Initiatives◼ Please take the time to provide brief but complete answers to recent
improvement initiatives that you have undertaken
Estimated Restoration Times◼ Customer research shows ERT’s are very important and that most utilities
are providing them under normal circumstances; please provide information on your experience with ERTs, both under normal conditions and in storm situations.
5
Changes For This Year
• A new version of IEEE 1366 was issued in 2012. There were no changes to the “2.5 Beta” method for identifying major events, although there is an acknowledgement of the limitations of the method.
• Significant changes include:
• The definition of CEMIn was changed to include the percentage of customers experiencing “n or more interruptions”. The previous definition was percentage of customers experiencing “more than n interruptions”. We will publish charts based on existing questions.
• Definitions were added for CELID, “Customers Experiencing Long Interruption Durations”
• We added questions based on a proposed definition of ERT accuracy. We proposed a definition where a restoration was required to be within a window X minutes before or Y minutes after the Estimated Restoration Time to be Accurate. If you use such a definition, please respond.
6
Practices vs. Initiatives
For our purposes:◼ Practices are activities, programs or processes that have been around
for a while. For these, sufficient time has passed in which to assess their success or failure. We mostly ask about practices that have proven successful in accomplishing a specific goal.
◼ Initiatives are new activities, programs or processes that have been enacted recently with the goal of improvement. These are so recent (1 to 2 years) that insufficient time has passed in which to assess their success.
7
Performance Profile
8
2012 YE 2011YE
Mean Q1 Q2 Q3# of Bars
Mean Q1 Q2 Q3# of Bars
SAIFI (inc major events & planned interruptions)
1.41 0.84 1.32 1.57 14 1.84 1.20 1.63 2.14 23
SAIFI (ex major events 2.5 beta method)
0.87 0.64 0.80 1.09 14 1.16 0.87 1.01 1.34 19
CAIDI (inc major events & planned interruptions)
156.74 84.80 119.53 135.96 14 272.02 120.95 214.95 379.50 23
CAIDI (ex major events 2.5 beta method)
85.54 71.12 90.85 102.11 14 106.46 83.77 102.90 118.36 19
SAIDI (inc major events & planned interruptions)
224.44 102.44 112.12 206.87 14 536.48 166.33 358.00 755.64 23
SAIDI (ex major events 2.5 beta method)
80.94 59.75 70.39 100.95 14 122.19 74.90 115.00 157.50 19
Customer minutes interrupted per circuit miles [excluding major events]
3757 2304 3322 4763 15 5106 3206 4644 6409 20
Interruptions per 100 circuit miles [excluding major events]
3748 2303 3003 5028 15 4165 2999 3841 4771 20
% of customers with less than 3 interruptions
82.03% 92.70% 86.00% 81.30% 10 74.50% 87.52% 77.00% 73.78% 13
Distribution Line Reliability Profile
9
Statistical Report
10
SAIDI – Excluding Major Events (2.5 Beta)
Last Year This Year
11Report p6
SAIDI – Excluding Major Events
Last Year This Year
12
Report p 5
SAIFI – Excluding Major Events (2.5 Beta)
Last Year This Year
13Report p 10
SAIFI – Excluding Major Events
Last Year This Year
14Report p 9
SAIDI Percent Of Minutes By Cause
Last year, several companies had “Other” as more than 10% of customer minutes. After looking at what was included in “Other”, we added “Unknown” as a category. This year, only 1 is significantly over 10%.Meanings of “Other” are on the next page.
15
Report p 30
Meaning of “other” in outage cause tabulations
Other Pct
16
1%
10%
15%
11%
6%
1%
27%
0%
35%3%
Report p 29
Customer interruptions by duration
Numbers appear to be too small for two companies. The purpose of this question is to see the frequency distribution of outage durations rather than the absolute number.
Numbers are too small
17
Report p 48
Percent Of Customers By Number Of Interruptions
The total should be 100%. 23 shows slightly less than 100%, 30 shows more than 100%, 32 shows practically zero.
18
Calculation used:DR65.1 , DR65.2 , DR65.3 , DR65.4 , DR65.5
This chart is not in the report. It is similar to p45.
DATA VALIDATION CHARTS
19
DV| SAIDI/SAIFI/CAIDI
20
Value should be near 1.00. All are over 0.99 or less than 1.01 except #30, which is 0.981; probably OK, but check please.
Report p 16
DV: SAIDI (DR5) / SAIDI ALLOCATED (DR30) - EXCLUDING MAJOR EVENTS [V.13]
21
The sum of DR30, less the major events category, should be equal to the response to DR5.1B, giving a ratio for this chart of 1.0
Several companies are significantly over or under (>1, or <1). Please check your results.
#18’s responses to DR5 excluding major events values are all zero. If there were no major events, the responses to the excluding major events questions should be the same as the values including major events.
Report p 28
DV: SAIFI (DR5) / SAIFI ALLOCATED (DR40) [V.13]
22
The ratio should be very near 1.0 – All except #17 look OK; please check your data.
Report p 36
Issues Found: Distribution Reliability
23
Page # Q # Primary Issue Who
5,6,9,10,13,14, others
DR5 If there were no major events, answers to SAIDI, SAIFI, CAIDI excluding events should be the same as the values including major events.
18
29 DR31 #23 reported meanings for “Other”, but did not report any value for “Other” in the previous question
23
48 DR80 23 and 39 sum of values is considerably less than 100%, Check data, the sum should equal the sum of values from DR45
23, 39
None, see slide 18 of this presentation
DR65 The total should be 100%. 23 shows slightly less than 100%, 30 shows more than 100%, 32 shows practically zero.
23, 30, 32
16 DR5 For this data validation chart, the value should be near 1.00. All are over 0.99 or less than 1.01 except #30, which is 0.981; possibly OK, but check please.
30
28 DR5, DR30
Several companies are significantly over or under (>1, or <1). Please check your results.
23, 28, 30, 32, 34
36 DR5, DR40
The ratio should be very near 1.0 – All except #17 look OK; please check your data.
17
All SAIDI, SAIFI, CAIDI
DR5 If you use the 2.5Beta method as your standard way to exclude major events, put the same number in columns 2 and 3 of DR5. If you don’t, put your number in column 2, and the 2.5 Beta number in column 3, or leave it blank.
All
Thank you for your Input and Participation!
24
Corporate Offices
California
400 Continental Blvd. Suite 600El Segundo, CA 90245(310) 426-2790
Maryland
3 Bethesda Metro Center Suite 700Bethesda, MD 20814(301) 961-1505
New York | Texas | Washington | Wisconsin
First Quartile Consulting is a utility-focused consultancy providing a full range of consulting services including continuous process improvement, change management, benchmarking and more. You can count on a proven process that assesses and optimizes your resources, processes, leadership management and technology to align your business needs with your customer’s needs.
Visit us at www.1stquartileconsulting.com | Follow our updates on LinkedIn
About 1QC
Satellite Offices
Debi McLain [email protected]
Tim. [email protected]
Dave [email protected]
Dave [email protected]
Your Presenters
Ken Buckstaff [email protected]