transmission lines august 19-21, 2015 minneapolis, mn 2015 transmission & distribution...
TRANSCRIPT
Transmission Lines
August 19-21, 2015
Minneapolis, MN
2015 Transmission & Distribution BenchmarkingCommunity Insights Conference
2
Insights Overview – Transmission Lines
Cost◼ Capital Spending is up significantly from last year
Growth and expansion explains most of the increase Sustaining capital continued a 3-year increase
◼ O&M spending showed an increase over last year as well Increased vegetation management spending explains most of the O&M
increase
Practices◼ For a few utilities, new interconnections have had a significant impact◼ Major improvement initiatives are focused on delivery of capital projects
2014YE 2013YE
Min Mean Max # of Bars Min Mean Max # of
BarsService TerritoryWage Rate: Transmission Journey Level Line Worker $34.64 $41.02 $50.72 12 $35.30 $39.30 $42.15 9Trans Staffing: FTEs per $100M Trans Assets 3.67 11.46 27.07 10 3.49 13.18 24.69 11ROW Miles Managed per Structure Mile 0% 71% 138% 10 0% 72% 144% 14Line work done while the line is energized: Trans 0.0% 27.2% 100.0% 14 0.0% 21.9% 100.0% 14System - DemographicsTransmission Structure mile per Transmission Circuit 4.76 9.60 22.28 9 4.00 12.93 38.02 13Transmission Voltages on system by circuit
<69kV 0.0% 2.4% 38.2% 16 0.0% 5.4% 41.2% 1669kV 0.0% 27.9% 100.0% 16 0.0% 16.7% 79.4% 16100kV class 0.0% 46.7% 90.0% 16 8.2% 52.7% 93.8% 16200kV Class 0.0% 11.8% 54.9% 16 0.0% 14.4% 54.9% 16300kV Class 0.0% 8.3% 36.8% 16 0.0% 7.9% 37.0% 16400kV and above 0.0% 2.9% 9.6% 16 0.0% 2.9% 9.8% 16
Transmission structures on systemWood poles 0.00% 41.18% 86.95% 15 0.00% 48.12% 96.63% 15Steel poles 0.71% 27.95% 84.27% 15 0.30% 19.57% 84.27% 15Concrete poles 0.00% 1.20% 15.70% 15 0.00% 1.15% 14.82% 15Steel lattice towers 0.00% 29.67% 90.21% 15 0.07% 31.17% 90.21% 15
Financial - DemographicsTransmission Line Assets per Circuit Mile $172,949 $284,258 $490,264 13 $49,469 $243,600 $487,340 14
Transmission Line demographics
3
The group this year shows a higher % of steel poles vs wood poles, and a higher average asset/circuit mile average
Transmission Cost Profile
4
2014YE 2013YE
Mean Q1 Q2 Q3 Bars Mean Q1 Q2 Q3 Bars
O&M
Transmission line O&M Expense per Asset 4.27% 1.94% 2.44% 4.26% 13 3.37% 2.14% 2.96% 4.08% 13
Transmission Line O&M Expense per Circuit Mile $12,449 $5,001 $7,993 $12,109 14 $7,874 $3,768 $6,056 $9,414 14
Transmission Line O&M Expense per MWh transmitted $1.42 $0.53 $0.74 $0.98 12 $0.65 $0.38 $0.48 $0.82 12
Transmission Line O&M Expense ex Veg Mgmt per Assets [Activity-based] 2.29% 1.78% 1.97% 3.05% 13 2.56% 1.75% 2.04% 3.48% 13
Capital
Transmission Line Capital Additions per Asset [FERC] 10.8% 14.3% 8.3% 4.8% 12 6.4% 6.0% 4.9% 3.9% 12
Transmission Line Capital Spending less Serve New, Expand per Asset [Activity Based] 4.35% 5.32% 3.70% 1.88% 13 3.79% 3.96% 2.83% 1.61% 13
Capital investment is up substantially from last year. O&M spending also increased (slightly less). Increased Veg. Management spending explains most of the O&M increase.
Profile values and counts may differ from report values and counts due to the exclusion of companies who did not provide complete data sets.
5
TRANSMISSION LINE Total Spending (FERC)
Total spending for Transmission lines increased significantly from last year.
TF Page 4 – TF20 / ST120
Spending per Circuit Mile
TF Page 3 – TF20 / TF65
Spending per Asset
Mean 13.75 %
Quartile 1 7.01 %
Quartile 2: 9.99 %
Quartile 3: 19.26 %
Mean $36,228Quartile 1 $22,062Quartile 2: $34,212Quartile 3: $53,579
6
TRANSMISSION LINE CAPITAL Investment (FERC)
Total capital investment is significantly higher than last year
TF Page 6 – TF5 / TF65
Capital Additions per Asset
TF Page 7 – TF5 / ST120
Capital Additions per Circuit Mile
Mean 10.02 %
Quartile 1 12.61 %
Quartile 2: 6.73 %
Quartile 3: 2.90 %
Mean $25,933Quartile 1 $38,601Quartile 2: $20,306Quartile 3: $10,515
7
Transmission Lines Capital Investment (Activity)
Total capital investment increased, driven largely by growth capital. Sustaining capital investment also increased, but less.
Mean 11.78 %
Quartile 1 15.12 %
Quartile 2: 10.07 %
Quartile 3: 5.53 %
TF Page 12 – TF45 / TF65
Total Capital per Asset
Mean 4.11 %
Quartile 1 5.08 %
Quartile 2: 3.21 %
Quartile 3: 1.50 %
TF Page 14 – TF45 / TF65
Sustaining Capital per Asset
8
Sustaining Capital Investment is Growing
Mean 4.11 %
Quartile 1 5.08 %
Quartile 2: 3.21 %
Quartile 3: 1.50 %
TF Page 14 – TF45 / TF65
Sustaining capital investment has continued to grow since 2011’s low.
The rate of growth in sustaining capital investment suggests increased priority.
9
Sustaining the Transmission Lines
TF Page 43 – TF45 / TF55 / TF65
Inspection, Maintenance, and Sustaining Capital per Asset
TF Page 33 – TF55 / TF45 / ST120
Mean $637,146Quartile 1 $306,335Quartile 2: $463,138Quartile 3: $891,007
Inspection, Maintenance, and Sustaining Capital per 100 Circuit Miles
Mean 5.36 %
Quartile 1 3.07 %
Quartile 2: 4.99 %
Quartile 3: 5.90 %
This is our first year tracking the sustaining spending all together.Total investment appears robust on average, with a few low-spending companiesIn future years we can track changes in the spending patterns.
10
TRANSMISSION LINE O&M EXPENSE (FERC)
O&M spending is similar to last year.
TF Page 9 – TF20 / TF65
O&M per Asset
Mean 4.44 %
Quartile 1 2.01 %
Quartile 2: 2.87 %
Quartile 3: 5.20 %
Low-cost companies appear to be diverging from high-cost companies over several years.
11
TRANSMISSION LINE O&M EXPENSE (Activity-Based)
When reviewed on an activity basis, O&M costs increased slightly from last year.
Mean $7,070Quartile 1 $3,863Quartile 2: $5,597Quartile 3: $8,906
TF Page 22 – TF55 TF Page 23 – TF55 / ST120
Mean $8,594Quartile 1 $4,823Quartile 2: $7,124Quartile 3: $10,328
O&M less Veg. Mgt. per Circuit MileO&M per Circuit Mile
12
VEGETATION MANAGEMENT Expense (Activity)
Vegetation management spending accounts for much of the increase in O&M spending for the group since last year.
Mean $1,545Quartile 1 $827Quartile 2: $1,455Quartile 3: $2,314
TF Page 28 – TF55 TF Page 29 – TF55 / ST120
Mean $107Quartile 1 $56Quartile 2: $103Quartile 3: $142
O&M Per Acre Managed O&M Per Mile of ROW Managed
13
Transmission Practices
Develop System Strategy
Develop and Approve Asset Plans
Project/Portfolio Management
Expand System
A Process Model for Managing the T&D Business
14
Operate System
Sustain System
Indicates separate D, S, T components
Add New Customers
Respond to Emergencies
The Practice Modules that we will be discussing today fall within the processes for Add New Customers, Expand System and Sustain System
15
Scope of 2015 Questions – Transmission Practices
Add New Customers◼ Interconnections
Expand System◼ Planning, Engineering, and Design◼ Construction practices◼ Construction Contractor Management
Sustain System◼ Maintenance◼ ROW Management
Operate System◼ Transmission Operations Center
During 2015 we modified some of the practices under investigation, adding some on interconnections, and expanding a few others
16
Interconnections for Generators
38 Generator applies with ERCOT for transmission interconnection. Transmission utility performs study to identify system improvements and cost for interconnection. Utility and Generator enter interconnection agreement; Generator provides financial security & utility provides interconnection facilities at its cost.
32 OATT Tariff Process22 A facility interconnection study is completed at the generator's cost. An ISO standard generator interconnection
agreement is negotiated with the generator developer with provisions for securitization should the project cancel and each parties requirements/obligations.
33 We follow the ERCOT Planning Guide for interconnection of new generation and use the ERCOT Standard Generation Interconnection Agreement form.
27 We follow the Southwest Power Pool OATT Attachment V Generation Interconnection Procedure37 Primary responsibility for interconnection process is with SPP, as outlined in the SOO open access transmission tariff
(OATT) and criteria documjents. Interconnection customers are responsible for coordinating the design of their own generator stet-up electrical facility GI design documents are to be provided for review
31 We follow the Large/Small Generator Interconnection Process (Attachments I-3 and I-4 of our OATT).
18 We follow the PJM Interconnection queue process outlined in Manual 14A for the Interconnection of generation on to the transmission system. This involves the completion of Feasibility, Impact and Facilities Studies. At the conclusion, an Interconnection Services Agreement and Interconnection Construction Services Agreement are signed prior to commencing construction. A Project Manager is assigned and then PJM tracks the progress of the interconnection schedule.
25 Wholesale Distribution Owner Tariff, internal company rule and Independent System Operator's Interconnection Process (an appendix to the ISO Tariff)
17 Company abides by the processes indicated in PJM Manual-14A (http://pjm.com/~/media/documents/manuals/m14a.ashx). '
Trans. Practices Page 5 – TP5
Interconnection processes are largely defined by the ISO/Power Pool, and the utilities follow those guidelines.
17
Interconnection Maintenance Responsibilities
ID Utility Maintenance Responsibilities Generator or Trans. Customer Maintenance Responsibilities
38 Utility maintains utility facilities. Customer maintains Customer facilities. Generator maintains Generator
22 Each group is responsible for the maintenance of those faciities they own. TSP will own any facilities that provide through flow on the transmsission system.
32 Our tariff defines the responsibilities. Each entity is responsible for their own assets.
33 Maintenance is typically performed by the owner of the equipment. Ownership of equipment is typically defined within the Interconnection Agreement.
Maintenance is typically performed by the owner of the equipment. Ownership of equipment is typically defined within the Interconnection Agreement.
27 We maintain all equipment owned and operated by the company. Customers maintain all equipment owned by the customer
37 Utility shall maintain the transmission system and their interconnection facilities, which includes all facilities and equipment owned, controlled or operated by the utility from the point of change of wnership to the point of interconnection as identified in an appendix to the generator interconnection agreement
Interconnection customer shall maintain the generating facility and their interconnection facilities, which includes all facilities and equipment, as identified in an appendix to the generator interconnection agreement, that are located between the generating facility and the point of change of ownership
31 We pay for the cost of all maintenance for interconnection facilities. Customer pays for all interconnection costs.
18 The maintenance of interconnected facilities on the Transmission Owner side of the Point of Interconnection is the responsibility of the Transmission Owner.
Transfer Trip equipment installed at a utility regional substation exclusively for the Power Generator, then any maintenance or troubleshoot costs for that equipment is the responsibility of the Power Generator and they are invoiced for the work.
25 Our responsibilities are fully described in the applicable Interconnection Agreeement (which are attached proformas to the tariffs listed in TP15)
The responsibilities of the customer/generators are fully described in the applicable Interconnection Agreement (which are attached proformas to the tariffs listed in TP15)
17 Transmission interconnection maintenance is the responsibility of the owner of the equipment.
Maintenance is the responsibility of the owner of the equipment.
With few exceptions, the owner (either utility or generator/customer) has maintenance responsibility for interconnection equipment.
Trans. Practices Pages 11, 12 – TP30
18
Design -- Resource/Staffing Decisions
Response 17 18 25 27 31 32 33 37 38 Total
Yes ♦ ♦ 22%No ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ 78%
Trans. Practices Page 17 – TP55
Cost analyses performed to determine the optimal mix of internal vs. external transmission design resources?
The majority of companies determine use of internal vs. external design resources on the basis of internal staff availability, not on specific cost analyses.
19
Measuring Engineering Success
Primary focus is on meeting schedules and quality. Several also mentioned cost, and one mentioned safety.
Trans. Practices Page 22 – TP80
ID Response Schedule Cost Quality Others
40 Design packages issued to meet the required base line project schedule x
33 We measure due dates of certain deliverables. We also measure the actual cost against what is baselined before construction of the project begins.
x x
27 We track schedule task dates (scheduled vs actual), encourage feedback from construction, and take note of what redlines are returned. We also have a formal process to review any material failures to determine the root cause.
x x x
37 On time, on budget, number of correctable errors, project safety summary x x x x
31 Its reliability. x
18 Engineering Production Metric, Quality Metric and Field Engagement x x
25 Based on accuracy of work order estimate, constructability and x x
17 We use the project metrics and feedback from our key stakeholders and member systems.
x
32 We have metrics and KPIs x
38 No tracking system in place.
20
Improvement Initiatives – moving a Job from Planning to Completion
Trans. Practices Page 19 – TP65
Project Management Initiative
17 Company has implemented the Capital Management Process and more formal Project Management practices to help with this process.
40 Transmission Planning has been working with Project Management to improve processes of developing preliminary estimates
Broad Process Improvement Initiative 18 We documented our project workflow using Business Genetics software. Each process was defined
including inputs, outputs and responsible resources (RACI). The overall workflow is broken down into 'legs' of sub processes flows whcih include but not limited to planning, development, engineering, construction, etc.
32 Streamlined the work process
33 We are following a recently revised activity management process.
27 We started writing new processes and checklists; we improved the Microsoft Project schedule template; we set up regular meetings with other departments
31 Plan all steps better.
25 Currently refreshing processes and procedures and providing trainingImproved Interdepartmental Coordination
38 Transmission Planning utilizes a Project Status Report that is updated quarterly and then reviewed with other departments responsible for engineering, planning construction and constructing Transmission Planning projects. This insures constructibility and timing of projects is considered and coordinated.
No Major Current Initiative
37 none
23 Transmission has no specific initiative in this area.
Most of the companies have something significant ongoing to improve the completion of capital projects
21
Tracking Construction Contractor Performance
ID Cost Schedule Safety Quality
24 Accrual Accuracy Schedule Adherence OSHA recordable rate, LWDC rate, Operating Incident rate
Significant Quality events, As built Process ahherence
38 Cost stays within project estimate
Work is performed and completed within the project schedule
Contractor provides and manages a safety program while on the project
Work is completed according to specification with minimal returns
32 estimate vs. actual completed on time zero safety incidents to our standards
27 Completition vs Target Cost
Project Deadlines & Outage Durations
OSHA Recordable, OSHA DART Rates, PVA's, and Safety/System Operating Violations
Numerous KPIs
31 Estimate (bid) to actual Adherence to construction schedule
18 Budget In-Service, Contract Schedule Requirements
Track Contract Hours, ESE, Dart Rates, Osha, C-Safety
QA/QC Program
25 Fixed price, plus approved change orders
Planned vs Actual EMR, DART, OSHA Recordable, First aid, Close call
Built per specification, statistical sampling, visual inspection, 1 year warranty
Metrics in use are focused on outcomes. Basically within budget, on time, with few safety incidents, and meeting specs.
Trans. Practices Pages 33-36 – TP126
22
Measuring Maintenance Crew Productivity
Unit Costs or Est vs. Actual32 estimated vs. actual cost18 Hours per unit(s). Measured by operatiing region25 Scorecard/Throughput metric/Cost efficiency
Time Spent on the Job Site
31We measure the average weekly time crews are on the job site working based on self reporting. The data is accumualted via timesheets and interpolated into weekly average productivity percentages.
Schedule Adherence38 We create a schedule and monitor it using our work force management system.
None27 Not available at this time for transmission lines/maintenance
Trans. Practices Page 46 – TP151
Measurement of maintenance crews appears to be an area of opportunity.
23
Inspection Frequency
Inspection methods and frequency vary significantly
ID Wood Structures Steel Structures
Annual Inspections
37 Visual (12 months), aerial (12 months), walking (1-12 years), and climbing (12 years)
Visual (12 months), aerial (12 months), walking (1-12 years), and climbing (12 years)
25 Annually inspected with line patrol and on a 15 year intrusive cycle Annually inspected with line patrol
33 We have none Annually
31 Visual and hammer sound test inspection annual basis 138kV and above
Visual 5 year cycle, 10 year climb and shake inspection for high wind exposure areas
17 We do aerial patrols of our entire system once a year. We do visual inspections during foot patrols on 1/4 of our system yearly (above ground visual only). We also do ground line inspections 16 years after energization, and every 12 years thereafter
We do aerial patrols on the entire system once a year. We also do foot patrols on 1/4 of our system yearly.
3-5 year cycle
40 Three-Year Wood Pole & Select Steel Climbing Inspection Five-Year Steel Structure Climbing and Comprehensive Inspections
38 5 year inspection cycle plus 10 year GLT cycle. 5 year inspection cycle.
22 Semi-annual aerial & Groundline inspection and Treatment on average of 10 year interval
Semi-annual aerial - All Transmision Lines
5-10 year cycle or longer
21 5-10 yrs 0.00
27 Groundline inspection: 20 year (first cycle), 10 year cycle thereafter Groundline inspection: 30 year (first cycle), as needed thereafter
18 No regular wood pole inspections. Completed one-time program in 2012 with no definitive plans to repeat.
On-going steel corrosion inspection program. Began in 2011. Plan is to inspect all steel structures over 10-year period. No definitive plans to repeat.
Trans. Practices Pages 51-52 – TP175
24
Maintenance Improvement Initiatives
Trans. Practices Page 63 – TP195
Improved planning and scheduling and on-site practice modifications are the most-noted initiatives.
Job-Site Practice Modifications
37 job site show-up
31 Pursuing a live line/barehand program to eliminate xmsn outages; purchasing a Condor to access the taller CTE designed monopoles.
Inspection Changes
38 Development of a sub-grade corrosion inspection and mitigation program in cooperation with EPRI.
Metrics and Measures
25 The refinement and use of scorecard metrics.
18 A initiative os underway to utilize 'units' for the purposes of contractor bidding and utilizing best practices
Improved Planning and Scheduling
27 Prioritizing work in conjunction with future construction/rebuilding activities.
17 Implementation of a Planning & Scheduling Group and Work Order Process to streamline the maintenance work necessary.
22 GIS Mapping and Fault Location Reponsiveness
Employee Safety
33 Initiatives to improve employee safety practices
21 none
25
Work Management Systems
Trans. Practices Page 79 – TP240
Vendor Companies
SAP 38, 33, 25
Ventyx 18, 40
PeopleSoft 17
Maximo 31
In-House 32, 37
There is no consistency across the group for what work management system is used for Transmission work.
26
Impacts of Distributed Generation on Transmission Operating Centers
5 of 9 respondents have not been adversely impacted by distributed generation. 3 have seen positive impacts.
Trans. Practices Page 86, 87 – TP275
ID Favorable Impacts Unfavorable Impacts
38 Extra generating capacity The current Distribution System was not designed for multiple sources. As more Distributed Generators are being interconnected, a new Distribution Design criteria will have to be developed to accommodate several sources on a single distribution feeder safely.
32 Some distributed generation can run islanding and improve the reliability of the distribution feeders, when there is a source (transmission or station) outage.
Extra caution in isolating distribution feeder for work, because the IPP is now a second power source. (People are used to treat distribution as single power source system).
25 Little to no impact at transmission operations center level at this time.
Metering is not required at this time for small generating units which makes the monitoring of these types of generators more difficult. Overall system complexity has increased creating new challenges for adequate system monitoring
31 None known. Increased difficulty field switching.
33 Additional resource and reduces the load on the distribution bus
None
23 None None
37 no impacts seen no impacts seen
27 No measureable impacts to date No measureable impacts to date
18 none at this time due to insufficient penetration none at this time due to insufficient penetration
27
Solar and Wind Impacts on Transmission Operating Centers
Trans. Practices Page 88, 89 – TP280
ID Positive Impact Unfavorable Impacts
24 Provides diverse resource Can cause local constraints
32 same as other type of generations Cannot rely on the wind generator for Reliablity Must Run (RMR) to support the system - the MW generation is uncertain.
27 Dispatchable Variable Wind Resources (DVER) can be dispatched down by market systems to assist with relieving congestion.
Increased difficulty in performing day ahead (and beyond) transmission studies due to wind variability and limited ability (within load flow program) to adjust wind generation in load flow study cases.
25 Reduction of import limits. Large scale solar and wind have made it challenging to our BA in ensuring management of generation. In addition, we tend to second-guess whether enough generation is being procured. Standby generation must be purchased or acquired due to sudden loss of renewable generation resources.
33 Additional resource to utilize for the grid. In the ERCOT system there can be some constrains but we have not seen any affects here locally
37 no impacts seen generation
31 None known. Increased difficulty field switching.
23 None None
18 none at this time due to insufficient penetration none at this time due to insufficient penetration
5 of 9 have seen positive results, and 5 have also seen negative impacts.
28
areas of Focus and Opportunity
◼ Efficiency Opportunities Streamlined delivery of capital projects For the group of companies with rising O&M costs, the causes are
worth investigating◼ Practices
A concentration on new interconnections is in order for a few companies – both the interconnection process and the impacts on Transmission Operations.
Thank you for your Input and Participation!
29
Corporate Offices
California
400 Continental Blvd. Suite 600El Segundo, CA 90245(310) 426-2790
Maryland
3 Bethesda Metro Center Suite 700Bethesda, MD 20814
Ken Buckstaff [email protected]
Debi McLain [email protected]
New York | Texas | Wyoming | Wisconsin
Dave [email protected]
Dave [email protected]
Your Presenters
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
Dave [email protected]