STEP 3. DEVELOPING THE PROGRAM PLAN 14 performance are applied. The benefits can potentially be measured in each of the previously discussed measurements and with particular focus on measures that are capturing improvement in outage frequency, duration, or scale. Example benefits include: Dominion Energy achieved a 99% improvement in both SAIDI (duration) and SAIFI (frequency) indices when they are calculated for the geographies targeted as part of the SUP. Ultimately, through modeling and test case projections, it is expected that when Dominion Energy completes its program objective of converting 4,000 tap line miles, it will reduce the TLR by 40-50%. This accomplishment will be achieved despite spending less than 3% of the cost of “undergrounding everything” (#240, #252). Dominion Energy also achieved significant societal benefit, as calculated by Dr. Richard Brown. The reduction in Virginia Gross Domestic Product (GDP) per outage hour of $35,458 was identified. The shortening of outage duration through the SUP yielded $1.76 in saved GDP versus each $1.00 expended in the targeted undergrounding program. (#33) Duke Energy has shown a potential 37% decrease in interruption minutes during recent hurricane activity in areas of the traditional Duke Energy service territory (#240). WEC Energy Group, as part of the Phase One (2014-2017) effort has achieved a 25% reliability improvement and substantial SAIDI improvements on the portions of their overhead system that have been replaced with underground cable; a 96% SAIDI improvement. Phase Two (2018-2021) of the program is targeted to achieve a 17% reliability improvement in the targeted geographies (#240). Geography, Line Segment, Equipment Selection As highlighted in the Cost Versus Benefit Assessment section, undergrounding the entire system is not necessary to achieve significant benefit. Therefore, detailed analysis is necessary to concentrate on geographies, line segments, and equipment that will yield the greatest benefits. In CASE STUDY II – SELECTION & TARGETING OF FACILITY TYPES, SDG&E used a collaborative approach with municipal authorities to identify and select line segments for undergrounding. Other examples of how to accomplish this selection process include: Dominion Energy – Discovered 60% of tap line outages occurred on 20% of the tap line mileage. After this was understood, the target was to concentrate on undergrounding the 20% when possible (#240). Duke Energy – Analyzed its worst-performing overhead circuits and discovered that particular segments incurred 5 to 10 times more events per mile than its best performing segments. Upon closer examination, it was determined that undergrounding radial taps would produce the most beneficial improvement, so these areas received the highest priority. In addition, outage history showed that the majority of outage events were due to trees outside of the right-of-way. The inability to address these trees provided additional motive to prioritize the undergrounding in these areas (#240). WEC Energy Group – Experienced excessive interruption durations for its customers in areas of heavy tree vegetation. When reviewed, the SAIDI performance relative to other regional utilities was below average with room for improvement (#240). Another nuance factor that should be incorporated is how to avoid any perception of bias associated with the selection of geographies, line segments, and equipment to upgrade, harden, underground, or replace. This approach may require balancing the greatest benefit for the investment with societal benefit. Selected neighborhoods, towns, and line segments should originate from customer regions with a mix of income levels so the extensive and pervasive societal benefits of increased property value, reduced vegetation management, avoided costs from vehicle accidents, reduced fire sparking risk, improved service reliability, and improved emergency ingress/egress routes among others are available to a wide range of customers. Part of the process to develop a resiliency program is deciding how to effectively measure its impact. As described previously, there are a host of measures available. The other part of how to effectively measure is to build or access the infrastructure to collect and prepare measurements. In many instances, a Program Management Office is established to serve as the “how” of effectively measuring impact.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjE3MDU=