AMS-OMS Integration: From an Operations Point of View

1. AMS-OMS Integration:From an Operations Point of View Chris Darby Distribution Operation Center Manager

2. Oncor: Who We Are • Our 3,800 employees serve approximately 10 million Texans – about one-third of the state of Texas. • Completed 3.2 million meter deployments in 2012. • Texas' largest regulated transmission and distribution utility– 6th largest in the U.S. • More than 118,000 miles of transmission & distribution lines

3. AMS and OMS Started as Independent Projects Advanced Metering System (AMS) Outage Management System (OMS) Foundation conceptually built to integrate

4. Pre-IntegrationUsage of AMS Information Operations Point of View: • Provide distribution Operators single ping function • After large storms, use push-reads to validate power-on • OncorPointofView: • Develop team to begin integrating AMS and OMS

5. Operator-Initiated Outage Verification • Single Meter Pings (Pre & Post Integration) • Check meter power status for one meter at a time • Deploy on internal web portal to be used by various functional groups at Oncor • Mass Meter Pings (Post Integration) • Check power status for a group of meters, selected by • Outage event ID • Network device • Manually selected meters • Deployed within InService OMS to be used by the Operator • AMS leverages on-demand read function to check power status

6. Basic Integration Design

7. AMS-OMS Integration Basic Design Concept Power Quality 1 Meter 2 Meters on a XFMR Create Event Meter Events Meter Events Meter Data Management (MDM) Enterprise Service Bus (ESB) Power Status Check Power Status Check RF Meter Restoration Verification (Automatic) Mass Ping (Manual) Feeder Level Notification (Automatic) Head End (Command Center) Outage Management System

8. Meter Data Management Intelligent Filtering Logic • Limit notifications from AMS sent to OMS • Send only “Sustained Outages” (<80% Nominal Voltage for >= 40 seconds) • Filter outage events when a restoration event is received within 165 seconds • Filter ALL AMS notifications on feeder level outage events • Notify OMS of outages at transformer level or higher only • Inferencing logic • State-based transformer inferencing • Event-based transformer inferencing • AMS to send two endpoints per transformer • Focus on minimizing false alarms • Do not create outage event on single premise “last gasp” • Empower OMS operators to “control the pipe” • Provide “Kill Switch” to disable AMS integration as necessary • Automatic (volumetric) system-wide suppression • Manual (system-wide and district) switch initiated by DOC Supervisors

9. AMS-OMS Integration – Power Outage Timing and Initial Filtering Create Event 40 secs 205 secs 325 secs Total Time Enterprise Service Bus (ESB) MDM’s Enhanced Outage Management 40 sec 165 sec 120 sec Lights out Momentary outage filter (MOF); waiting to see if power restore message is received Delay waiting for additional last gasp messages behind same transformer Passes Create Call messages to OMS for two meter messages and blocks one meter message Last gasp sent When 165 sec. MOF expires, if last gasp exists for another meter on same transformer, message is sent to ESB for two meters to OMS Message is sent to ESB for two meters if received, or for one meter at the end of 120 sec.

10. Results

11. From an Operations Point of View: Where the Mark was Hit • Around-the-clock outage notification • Oncor often responds before customers are aware of the outage • Levels out work during non-storm periods • Mass ping functionality reduces potential for nested outages

12. AMS Generated Outage Events: Surprising Results! Interestingly, 25% of the outages were resolved without a customer calling.

13. From an Operations Point of View: Where the Mark was Hit • Around-the-clock outage notification • Oncor often responds before customers are aware of the outage • Levels out work during non-storm periods • Mass ping functionality reduces potential for nested outages • Outages almost immediately rollup to the correct device

14. Customer Calls vs. Meter Notifications6-Month Sample • Call Distribution without Meter Notifications • IVR – 58.5% • Call Center Agent – 39.0% • Text Message or Web – 2.5% • 410,197 Calls • Call Distribution with Meter Notifications • IVR – 43.3% • Call Center Agent – 28.9% • Meter Notification – 26.0% • Text Message or Web – 2.5% • 554,237 Calls and Notifications 85% were confirmed outages 85 % were confirmed outages

15. From an Operations Point of View: Where the Mark was Hit • Around-the-clock outage notification • Oncor often responds before customers are aware of the outage • Levels out work during non-storm periods • Mass ping functionality reduces potential for nested outages • Outages almost immediately rollup to the correct device • Individual ping on separate customer calls reduces unnecessary truck rolls

16. Operator’s use AMS to Validate Customer Reported Outages & Reduce Unnecessary Truck Rolls

17. From an Operations Point of View: Where the Mark was Hit • Around-the-clock outage notification • Oncor often responds before customers are aware of the outage • Levels out work during non-storm periods • Mass ping functionality reduces potential for nested outages • Outages almost immediately rollup to the correct device • Individual ping on separate customer calls reduces unnecessary truck rolls • Identify issues before they become outages

18. Power Quality Investigations on Single Premise Last Gasp Note: Results of 868 premises inspections Tampering Service issues that would soon be interruptions No Issue identified. YET!

19. From an Operations Point of View: Where the Mark was Hit • Around-the-clock outage notification • Oncor often responds before customers are aware of the outage • Levels out work during non-storm periods • Mass ping functionality reduces potential for nested outages • Outages almost immediately rollup to the correct device • Individual ping on separate customer calls reduces unnecessary truck rolls • Identifies issues before they become outages • Improved accuracy in outage restoration time

20. Projects Still in the Works Automatic restoration verification function not yet incorporated into work functions Data model must be improved first Automatic outage notification on single premise outages not enabled Must change work processes, especially with independent contract electricians

21. Next Steps in the Performance Evolution • Tuning the system parameters for optimum performance • Improving and maintaining the connectivity data model • Training the workforce to effectively identify power quality issues • Developing higher order analytics to detect issues prior to having customer impacts • Modifying the system to enable full usage during major Storms • Changing processes to enable single premise outage notification

22. Additional Functionality Being Enabled or Investigated • End point voltage monitoring • Transformer load management • Distribution planning data • Unsolicited customer outage notification

23. Questions? Chris Darby christopher.darby@oncor.com