1 / 65

Storm Restoration

2014 Electric T&D Benchmarking. Storm Restoration. Community Insights Conference August 20-22, 2014 Vail, CO. Agenda – Storm Restoration. Overview Industry Perspective (SCQA) 1QC Community Key Success Factors Background on our Benchmarking Efforts Profiles & Trends

perrin
Télécharger la présentation

Storm Restoration

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. 2014 Electric T&D Benchmarking Storm Restoration Community Insights Conference August 20-22, 2014 Vail, CO

  2. Agenda – Storm Restoration • Overview • Industry Perspective (SCQA) • 1QC Community Key Success Factors • Background on our Benchmarking Efforts • Profiles & Trends • 2013 Benchmarking Results • Key Measures • Correlation Analysis Findings • Practice Information Highlights • Discuss “The Future of Storm Restoration Benchmarking”

  3. Overview Storm Restoration

  4. Storm Process Model We developed this high-level process model in 2012 to help organize our review of company storm restoration practices • Daily system Activities: • Design • Construction • Operations • Maintenance • Event • follow-up: • Rate treatment • System changes • Process Changes

  5. Where Are We: 1QCIndustry Perspective for Storm Restoration

  6. Ideas for Storm Process Metrics * • Short Term Preparations • 1. Make all staffing and work force notifications to ensure minimum staffing levels as defined by the pre-event classification • 2. Complete initial public awareness announcements • 3. Complete life support equip. customer notification process • 4. Complete Critical Customer notification process • Complete pre-event mutual aid conference calls • …. etc… • Restoration • Mobilize line crews, tree crews, wire-guards and other field support roles consistent with the event classification in each geographic area • Mobilize office and control center staff consistent with the event classification in each geographic area • Initiate wire-down assessment and make-safe process , including hourly management reporting of volumes reported ,number dispatched, made-safe, etc. • Complete preparations for the arrival of off-system crews……. etc…. • . • Damage Assessment • Mobilize required field resources consistent with the event classification in each geographic area • Complete and report results of high level damage assessment of targeted areas within 12 hours after the storm has passed • Develop and publish schedule and personnel assignments for detailed assessments in heavily damaged areas within 4 hours after the high-level assessment is complete … etc…. External Communications Develop and communicate initial global ERT estimate within 4 hours after high level damage assessment is complete; update on a 24 hour cycle thereafter Develop and communicate initial regional and community ERT estimates no later than 24 hours after the storm passes; update on a 24 hour cycle thereafter Issue Public Information updates in accordance with the Emergency Plan Schedule and complete municipal conference calls in accordance with the Emergency Plan etc. * Many of these ideas came from Stephen Prall, Section Manager at Orange and Rockland Utilities, in response to a question posted in LinkedIn

  7. 1QC Community Key Success FactorsStorm Restoration (Focusing on Electric T&D Organization Responsibilities) Leaders’ Interest Areas

  8. Background on our Benchmarking Efforts for Storms • The Storm Restoration section of the T&D survey was initiated in 2012 in conjunction with a Discussion Topic that reviewed storm restoration practices. The data collected in 2012 covered storm experience from 2007 to 2011, including detailed hourly restoration data on a small sample of the larger storms that our community experienced over that timeframe. • An analysis of the large storm data collected in 2012 was presented in an article published in the on-line edition of Public Utilities Fortnightly (“SPARK”). • Last year, we collected detailed data on additional larger storms that occurred from 2007 to 2012 and did a more complete analysis which was presented at the 2013 T&D Insights Conference • Including the data collected this year, we now have a database covering a total of 47 large storm events (storms interrupting 10% or more of a company’s total distribution customers) that we can use to calculate quartile values on key performance measures and produce correlation graphs that provide insights on storm restoration performance • This year we added 25 practice questions to the survey to enhance our understanding of the current storm restoration processes of the companies in our community

  9. Storm Classifications • We have found that it is helpful to group storms based on size. • Our reports and analyses use the following size classifications: • Significant Storms (>1-10% of customers interrupted) are relatively frequent, predictable and process driven. The utility’s normal staffing and systems are geared to handle these events. • Major Storms (>10-20% of customers interrupted) are infrequent and trigger a major emergency response from the utility, including the acquisition and deployment of mutual assistance resources from neighboring utilities. • Catastrophic Storms (>20% of customers interrupted) are more rare but extremely destructive, often resulting in major damage to transmission lines and substations as well as to distribution facilities. These storms strain the utility’s communications and logistics processes and often impact large areas of the country, resulting in constraints and competition for mutual assistance crews and other resources.

  10. Completeness of Our Storm Restoration Data A comparison of these two charts reveals that Companies 25, 28 and 34 very likely had Major and/or Catastrophic storms in 2013 that they did not report in the Storm Restoration section of the survey and Companies 33 and 40 also very likely had Significant or larger storms that they did not report Impact of IEEE Std 1366 “Major Event Days (MED)” on total 2013 SAIDI # of Reported Significant, Major and Catastrophic Storms in 2013 N = 15 N = 8 DR Report page 8 (question DR 30) RP Report Page 2 (question RP5)

  11. Profiles and Trends Storm Restoration

  12. Storm Activity Profiles The average reported 2013 storm counts per responding company were lower than the averages reported over the prior six years. There is no discernable trend in the average storm CAIDI values. * # of reporting companies that experienced storms in these size ranges

  13. Storm Severity Profiles – Major and Significant Storms (Combined) The various measures that we calculate on storm severity indicate that the group of major and catastrophic storms reported by our responding companies in 2013 were less severe than those reported over the prior six years * # of storm events for which the listed data was provided

  14. Storm Staffing Profiles – Major and Significant Storms (Combined) The average line staffing deployments on the reported 2013 major and catastrophic storms were a little higher than prior years, while average total field staffing was less than in 2012 but greater than the 2007-2011 average * # of storm events for which the listed data was provided

  15. Number of Storm Events By Size Classification – 2013 Storm experience varied widely across the community in 2013 Report page 2

  16. Average Storm CAIDI – 2013 As expected, the overall averages for Storm CAIDI increased with storm size. There were some rather wide variations in the average CAIDI values for 2013 Major Storms Report page 3

  17. Major and Catastrophic Storms – Percent of Poles Replaced Pole damage for four of the five 2013 storms was very uniform. Overall, the 2013 pole damage statistics fall at low end of the very wide range experienced in 2007 to 2012 Report page 8

  18. Major and Catastrophic Storms -Peak Line Staffing Per 1,000 Customers Out at Peak Peak line staffing levels for the five 2013 storms were fairly uniform when normalized by the number of customers out at peak. The average for the 2013 storms was about 10% higher than the average for the 2007 to 2012 storms Calculation Used: Storm 1: RP30.1A/RP20f.1A, RP30.2A/RP20f.1A Storm 2: RP30.1B/RP20f.1B, RP30.2B/RP20f.1B Report part 2, page 2

  19. Major and Catastrophic Storms - Peak Total Field Staffing Per 1,000 Customers Out at Peak Peak total field staffing per 1,000 customers out at peak for the 2013 storms ranged more widely, but all values fell within the range experienced on storms in 2007 to 2012. The average was slightly lower in 2013 Calculation Used: Storm 1: RP30.1A/RP20f.1A, RP30.2A/RP20f.1A, RP30.3A/RP20f.1A, RP30.4A/RP20f.1A, RP30.5A/ RP20f.1A, RP30.6A/RP20f.1A Storm 2: RP30.1B/RP20f.1B, RP30.2B/RP20f.1B, RP30.3B/RP20f.1B, RP30.4B/RP20f.1B, RP30.5B/ RP20f.1B, RP30.6B/RP20f.1B Report part 2, page 3

  20. Major and Catastrophic Storms – Restoration Rates(Customers Restored Per Hour Per Line Employee) Restoration rates were fairly uniform for four of the five 2013 storms. The highest 2013 value (Company 38) was nearly double the highest value reported by any company on any storm over the prior six years. Report page 9

  21. Major and Catastrophic Storms – Total Restoration Cost per Customer Restored (Capital + O&M) The cost per customer restored varied widely on the 2013 storms. The lowest 2013 value (Company 38) is slightly lower than the minimum value that was reported over the prior six years. The average for all 2013 storms is 33% lower than the 2007-2012 average Report page 10

  22. Restoration Curves for Major Storms (>10 to 20% of Customers Interrupted) One 2013 major storm was excluded from this analysis due to data irregularities. Performance on the other three 2013 major storms ranged from Q1 to Q4 Excludes Company 38 Feb. 2013 Wind Storm 10 of 22 total analyzed 2007-2013 major storms were fully restored within 3 days 20 of 22 were fully restored within 5 days Source: Question RP35

  23. Restoration Curves for Catastrophic Storms (>20% of Customers Interrupted) The single 2013 catastrophic storm tracked the median (Q2) line 10 of 18 total 2007-2013 catastrophic storms were fully restored within 6 days 15 of 18 were fully restored within 9 days Source: Question RP35

  24. Restoration Rates for Major Storms(Customers Restored Per Hour Per Peak Line Employee) One 2013 major storm was excluded from this analysis due to data irregularities. The rates for the other three 2013 major storms tracked in the Q2 to Q3 range by late in the second day of restoration Excludes Company 38 Feb. 2013 Wind Storm Source: Questions RP55 and RP30

  25. Restoration Rates for Catastrophic Storms(Customers Restored Per Hour Per Peak Line Employee) The single 2013 catastrophic storm tracked close to the median (Q2) line throughout its restoration period Source: Questions RP55 and RP30

  26. Cost Per Customer Restored – Major and Catastrophic Storms One of the 2013 major storms was excluded from this analysis due to data irregularities. The other three 2013 major storms and the single 2013 catastrophic storm had cost per customer restored values that fall in the Q2 to low Q3 ranges of the charts for their respective storm size group Excludes Company 38 Feb. 2013 Wind Storm Source: Question RP20

  27. Correlation Analysis Findings • Storm Restoration

  28. Correlation Analysis • More than 30 different correlation analyses were performed on the 2007 to 2013 storm data in an attempt to identify factors that explain the wide variations in performance that we have seen on our key storm restoration performance benchmark measures: • Average Storm CAIDI • Hours to Restore • Restoration Rates • Cost Per Customer Restored • We found that many of the most interesting and useful correlations were non-linear • The more interesting and useful correlation graphs are provided in Appendix A • The key findings from our analysis are summarized on the next two pages

  29. Correlation Analysis – Key Findings • The variance in the 2013 average Storm CAIDI values for Significant Storms are correlated somewhat to company distribution field staffing levels -- higher company staffing enables lower (better) average Storm CAIDI • Companies can consider the correlation graph on page 52 of Appendix A when determining what minimum staffing levels they should maintain to provide an “adequate” response to Significant Storms under worst-case scenarios when contractor and/or other off-site resources may not be available • The variance in the Hours to Restore results for 2017 to 2013 Major and Catastrophic Storms are strongly correlated to both the % of Customers Out at Peak and the % of Poles Replaced: • During storm events companies can use the correlation graphs on pages 54 and 55 ofAppendix A to “vector in” on a reasonable Hours to Restore goal based on the recorded customer outage peak and an initial high-level damage assessment that focuses on pole damage

  30. Correlation Analysis – Key Findings (Continued) • Restoration Rates (Customers Restored Per Hour Per Assigned Line Employee) for the 2007 to 2013 Major and Catastrophic Storms are strongly correlated to the % of Poles Replaced: • During storm events, companies can use detailed pole damage assessment data and the correlation graphs on pages 58 and 59 of Appendix A to determine the line staffing needed to achieve their established Hours to Restore goals • The Cost Per Customer Restored results for 2017 to 2013 Major and Catastrophic Storms are also strongly correlated to the% of • Poles Replaced : • After storm events, companies can use actual customer restoration and pole replacement data and the correlation graphs on pages 60 and 61 of Appendix A to predict and evaluate the total restoration costs for the event

  31. Storm Restoration Practice Information Highlights (Data Collected in the Distribution Reliability Section of Questionnaire)

  32. Storm Process Model This year we added 25 practice questions to our survey to enhance our understanding of how companies accomplish key parts of this process Emergency Preparedness Storm Restoration - Execution Short-Term Preparations Damage Assessment Restoration Wrap-Up and Demobilization Emergency Plan Emergency Organization Weather Tracking Communications/Alert System Prediction Models Planning Criteria Resource Planning/ Recruitment Pre-Event External Communications • Mobilization/Deployment • Ramp-down, cleanup • Post-storm critique, follow-up • Field Restoration • Progress Tracking Management, Support, & Logistics • Command Center Operations • Logistics • IT and Telecom. Systems • Safety Management Communications – with customers, outside stakeholders • Status reporting, conference calls • Customer Communications • EMA and Other Agencies

  33. Practice Highlights • Most Important Improvement Initiatives – Page DR85 • When asked what were their most important current initiatives to improve storm response, 5 of the 10 responding companies cited specific system or process changes that they were implementing. The responses of the other 5 companies focused on improved relationships with mutual assistance groups (2 companies), improving training and documentation of their ICS organization and protocols (2 companies), and improving employee call-out response (1 company) • Emergency Plan – pages DR86 and DR87 • 8 of 11 responding companies made significant changes to their storm plans in 2013, focusing on organization (3 companies), process changes (3 companies), resource plans (2 companies) and crew tracking systems (2 companies) [some companies had multiple responses] • 8 of 11 responding companies conducted storm plan exercises or drills in 2013. The objectives and scope of the drills varied • Emergency Organization– page DR88 • 11 of 12 responding companies now use the U.S. Department of Homeland Security’s Incident Command System (ICS) organization model during large storm events

  34. Practice Highlights (Continued) • Weather Tracking -- pages DR89 and DR90 • The 13 responding companies’ most frequently cited primary source of weather forecast information was contracted weather services (9 companies use), followed by T.V./radio station meteorologists (4 companies), company meteorologists (3 companies), direct communication with the National Weather Service (3 companies) and online doppler radar websites (1 company). [most companies had multiple responses] • Prediction Models -- pages DR92 and DR93 • Only 4 of the 13 responding companies have developed statistical models to aid them in planning for anticipated storm events and/or in managing their response to storm events after they occur: • 2 of the 4 company models use weather information and other data to predict customer outages. Only 1 of these two models attempt to predict pole damage • The other 2 models use actual customer outage data to predict labor resource requirements and global ERTs. The responses indicate that neither of these 2 models explicitly incorporates pole damage information/estimates into the forecasts of labor resource requirements and global ERTs.

  35. Practice Highlights (Continued) • Resource Planning and Recruitment -- pages DR94 and DR95 • All 12 responding companies belong to at least one utility mutual assistance group. 7 of the 12 belong to multiple mutual assistance groups • 4 of 12 responding companies reported that they have pre-established contracts with one or more off-system contactors that they may need to use during large events, while 2 said they do not [responses from the other 6 companies were vague]. • Damage Assessment – pages DR104 and DR105 • 3 of 12 responding companies always deploy field damage assessors during any significant storm, 2 deploy based on storm size criteria, 2 deploy based on other criteria and 3 leave the decision up to field operations management with no stated criteria [responses from the other 2 companies were vague] • All 11 responding companies indicated that damage assessment data is collected manually in the field on paper forms and/or maps. One of these companies is currently investigating the use of tablet computers for this part of the process. • 6 of 11 responding companies enter the damage assessment data into some type of automated system (e.g., OMS, SharePoint, in-house web application). [The other 5 either do not have or simply did not describe any form of automated support for tabulating and communicating the collected damage assessment information]

  36. Practice Highlights (Continued) • Managing and Supporting Off-System Crews -- pages DR96, DR99 and DR101 • The 12 responding companies’ most commonly used tool for tracking off-system crews (acquisition, travel, area assignments, work hours and eating/sleeping arrangements, etc.) was Excel spreadsheets (4 companies use) followed by specialized in-house databases (3 companies) and company Work Management Systems (3 companies). 2 companies reported that they do not have any formal tracking system • All 12 of the responding companies provide safety and system orientation training to off-system crews before they are put to work. 5 companies noted that crews are then assigned to “crew guides” (various titles) who assist the crew in obtaining needed material and equipment. Other items that companies said they provide to crews when they arrive are a mutual assistance guide booklet (1 company), pre-assembled storm material kits (1 company), maps (1 company) and construction standards drawings (1 company) • The types of work that are typically assigned to off-system crews varies : • Off-system crews are most commonly assigned OMS tickets for primary work (11 companies) and for transformer and secondary work (10 companies) • 2 of 13 responding companies only assign large “patrol/inspect/repair” projects to off-system crews, while 6 of 12 do not assign that type of work to off-system crews • Only 4 of 13 responding companies assign transmission system repairs to off-system crews

  37. Practice Highlights (Continued) • Managing and Supporting Off-System Crews (Continued) -- page DR103 • 5 of 10 responding companies use their crew guides to track and report the work completed and customers restored by off-system crews. 2 companies have the off-system crews call into an office to report completions and 1 uses mobile data terminals for off-system crew reporting [The responses from the 2 other companies were vague] • Work Dispatching – page DR97 • 4 of 13 responding companies dispatch all storm restoration work through individual outage events identified and tracked in their OMS • 9 companies dispatch work in very heavily damaged areas using a “patrol/inspect/repair” strategy. Under this strategy, crews working under one overall leader are assigned a large area, defined by the electrical boundaries of a distribution substation or individual primary circuit, and told to handle the repair and restoration of everything in that area autonomously and at their own discretion. • At least 5 of the 9 companies that use a patrol/inspect/repair dispatching strategy reported that they also dispatch work through their OMS during most large storm events (e.g., for work in less heavily damaged areas).

  38. Practice Highlights (Continued) • Wire-Down Response – page DR98 • The 13 companies that responded to the text question on this topic provided a great deal of detail on their processes. In their comments, 6 of the 13 companies mentioned their use of a Wire-Down Guard role during large storm events and 3 companies reported that fire and/or police agencies are provided a direct line to their DOC to report wire-down locations and receive updates, rather than handling those calls through their customer care call centers. • Resources Used for Residential Service Reconnections – page DR106 • 8 of the 11 responding companies use company personnel from non-line work groups (e.g., meter servicers, substation electricians and power plant electricians) to perform residential service reconnections during large storm events. 3 of these 8 may also use commercial electricians for this work if they experience an especially high volume of individual service outages • The other 3 responding companies do not use any supplemental labor resources for this work – all reconnection work is assigned to line personnel (line crews, troubleshooters or service crews)

  39. Practice Highlights (Continued) • Logistics – Crew Staging Sites and Base Camps – page DR100 • 5 of 12 responding companies have agreements in place with landowners for access to potential crew staging site or base camp locations • 4 companies have contracts for logistical support at staging and/or base camp sites • 3 companies indicated that they do not have any formal contracts or other pre-established external arrangements for staging sites or base camps • ERT Estimation and Communication -- pages DR107 through DR109 • Only 4 of 10 responding companies described the use of a formal analytical process to develop global ERT estimates for specific communities/areas of their system during large storm events. [The other 6 either do not have or simply did not describe their analytical process for producing ERT estimates] • 5 of 10 reporting companies indicated that they communicate their global community/area ERT estimates through their OMS and/or external outage websites as well as through their call centers, media outlets and personal contact with large customers and government officials • Only 4 of 12 responding companies provide individual, customer-specific ERTs during their larger storm events, At 3 of these companies, initial customer-specific ERTs are assigned based on pre-set default values and then updated manually as needed. The other company bases its initial individual customer ERTs on an overall restoration strategy that it develops after analyzing the total scope of damage

  40. Practice Highlights (Continued) • Emergency Government Agency Communications – page DR111 • 9 of 12 responding companies have people assigned as emergency government agency liaisons during large storm events. These liaisons will report to the county or state/province EOC if requested • 1 company provides a seat in its own EOC for a representative from their state emergency management department • 1 company routes all emergency government communication through its Public Affairs Department • [The response from the 1 remaining company did not clarify their responsibilities and protocols in this area] • Regulatory Communications – page DR112 • 3 of 11 responding companies have specific people assigned to function as the single point of contact with state PUCs during large storm events • 5 companies route and receive all regulatory communication through a specific company department such as Corporate Communications or Regulatory Affairs • [The responses from the 3 remaining companies did not clarify their responsibilities and protocols in this area]

  41. Practice Highlights (Continued) • Communications With Elected Officials – page DR113 • 3 of 11 responding companies have specific people assigned to function as the single point of contact with individual elected officials during large storm events • 5 companies route and receive all communication with elected officials through a company department such as Corporate Communications, Government Relations or Public Affairs. • [The responses from the 3 remaining companies did not clarify their responsibilities and protocols in this area]

  42. Storm Restoration Practice Conclusions • Storm restoration practices vary widely across our T&D community in the following areas: • Use of prediction models • Pre-established arrangements with off-system contractors • Damage assessment criteria • Automation of the damage assessment process • Automation of off-system crew tracking (re: acquisition, travel, area assignments, hours worked, food & lodging arrangements, etc.) • Types of work assigned to off-system crews • How the work performed by off-system crews is tracked and reported • Method of work dispatch for heavily damaged areas (i.e., do companies ever dispatch under a “patrol/inspect/repair” strategy) • Use of wire-down guards and direct telephone lines with fire and police in the wire down response process • Resources used for residential service reconnections • ERT estimation and communication processes for both global and individual customer ERTs • Processes for communicating with governmental stakeholders (EMAs, regulators and elected officials) • A program to develop standardized practices and related support systems may be beneficial to the community (and to the entire industry)

  43. The Future of Storm Restoration Benchmarking

  44. Current Situation • The number of companies responding to the Storm Restoration (RP) section of the survey has been declining: • 14 companies responded in 2012 • 12 companies responded in 2013 • 8 companies responded in 2014 • Through this section of the survey we have collected some useful detailed data on a total of 47 large storm events that occurred between 2007 and 2013 (storms affecting >10% of total utility customers). • Some of the responses that we received on those 47 large storms were incomplete. As a result, we have fewer than 47 data points for graphs and correlations that use the following data elements: • # of customers out at peak (simultaneous) 42 data points • # of customers interrupted (cumulative) 42 “ “ • Hours to restore (including curves) 41 “ “ • Field labor assigned to the restoration effort 32 “ “ • Total restoration cost 29 “ “ • Number of poles replaced 26 “ “

  45. Concerns • There appears to be waning interest in this topic after companies reacted initially to a spike of very large storms that affected North America in 2011-2012 • We aren’t growing our large storm database as quickly as we would like: • Ideally we should have a database of 80-100 events with complete data to be sure that our conclusions based on statistical correlations are valid. • We added only 5 events in 2013 and only 4 with complete data • At the rate that we are going, it will take us an additional 10 to 15 years to get there! • While we collected some interesting practice information this year through a new set of questions, we are not able to draw any conclusions yet about the relationship of practices to performance because we only have 4 good large storm performance data points to work with in our 2013 dataset.

  46. Future Vision/Opportunities • With a larger and more geographically disbursed database of storm data, we could perform a more refined analysis, segmenting based on storm weather types (e.g., the types used in Robert Broadwater’s analysis summarized in Appendix B of this presentation) • Today we just group and analyze based on “storm size” (% of customers out) • By cross referencing and correlating company storm practice information to their performance results on various types of storm events over several years, we may be able to gain some insights on what are the most effective practices for the types of large storms that are most likely to impact different regions of North America. • If we are successful on the above expanded benchmarking efforts, industry organizations such as EEI, EPRI and the IEEE might eventually join/help us advance this work into a set of measurement standards and best practice guidelines to benefit the entire electric utility industry.

  47. Possible Next Steps (Alternatives for 2015 Program) • Continue as we are for now, but make a more concerted effort to get responses from many more panel members on both the storm performance data and practice questions (How?) • Remove Storm Restoration from the regular T&D benchmarking program and start a separate Storm Restoration Benchmarking Program that would be marketed to interested companies within and outside of the current T&D panel (How?) • Leave Storm Restoration in the regular T&D benchmarking program and also start a separate, parallel Storm Restoration Benchmarking program that would be marketed only to companies outside of the current T&D panel (How?) What are your thoughts on this?

  48. Thank you for your Input and Participation! Your Presenters Ken BuckstaffKen.Buckstaff@1QConsulting.com310-922-0783 Dave Canon Dave.Canon@1qconsulting.com 817-980-7909 Dave Carter Dave.Carter@1qconsulting.com 414-881-8641 Debi McLain CookDebi.McLain@1QConsulting.com760-272-7277 Tim. SzybalskiTim.Szybalski@1QConsulting.com 301-535-0590 About 1QC 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 Satellite Offices Corporate Offices California 400 Continental Blvd. Suite 600El Segundo, CA 90245(310) 426-2790 Maryland 3 Bethesda Metro Center Suite 700Bethesda, MD 20814 New York | Texas | Wisconsin

  49. Appendix ACorrelation Analysis Graphs and Commentary

  50. 2013 Average Storm CAIDI versus Customer Density and Percent of Circuit Miles That are Underground The correlations of Significant Storm CAIDI to these two demographic measures are extremely weak The correlations for Major Storm CAIDI are very strong but this is based on just three data points Source: Questions RP15, ST5, ST30 and ST35

More Related