IURC Digital Mapping Update Electric Utilities Task Force

1. IURC Digital Mapping UpdateElectric Utilities Task Force April 6, 2004

2. Motivating Factors to Change • Replace Mylars • Eliminate Use of Outdated Drafting Tools & Practices • Keep master data at IURC • Streamline Process • Maintain IURC Grid Numbering

3. Statewide GIS Initiative • Compile GIS data • Make Internet accessible • “Indiana Map” • Seeking state funding • Timing Uncertain due to Legislative • http://www.in.gov/ingisi

4. 3 Scenarios/Cases • Simple Electronic Drawings • Combine Utilities’ Existing Maps • Geographic Information System (GIS) Application

5. Option 1- Simple Electronic Drawings • Scan low-cost USGS base map grids • Inexpensive viewer • Digitize the territory lines as a layer • Individual grids emailed to utilities to edit & return to IURC • Scan Sub facets to view on a PC

6. Sample Electronic Drawing

7. Option 2 - Combine Utilities Maps • Use a common base map • Transfer existing digitally recorded territory lines from utilities • Utilities access data over the Internet • An editor will combine data submitted from various sources • Sub facets will be based on utilities' records

8. Sample of Combined Utilities’ Maps

9. Option 3 - GIS • Use a common base map to be maintained by other State agencies • Digitize territory lines from facet and sub-facet Mylars • Secure access to data with proposed changes over the Internet • Add public viewable access • An approved single entity/editor make changes in the master database

10. Mid Cost IURC would not be the editor of the data Conversion time about 3 – 4 months Can distribute through e-mail Changes will be in digital format Not statewide map Less accurate Base Map No public access to data Data sharing process will still be manual & not web -based Option 1 - Simple MapPROS CONS

11. Option 1 - Simple Map CONS (cont’d) • Independent of the Statewide GIS • Data will be simple lines & text with no intelligent attribution. • No GIS functionality for reporting or querying on the data. • Service territory boundaries cannot be seen graphically as a whole. • Sub-facets are separate & not graphically associated to the facet maps

12. Option 1 - Simple Map CONS (cont’d) • Raster data / Base-map are large files which require larger hard drives to house the data • Data is not transferable to other software packages • As base maps are updated by the USGS, the IURC must acquire/replace older raster images • Will require reconversion to be able to make it a GIS system

13. Internet authoring saves time Completed line work reduces conversion cost Could be used for public safety High potential for territory boundary disputes Major gaps & overlaps up 1/4 mile Many labor hours required to resolve gaps Option 2 - Combine Utilities MapPROS CONS

14. Option 2 –Combine Utilities CONS (cont’d) • Sub-facets need to be converted with required dimensioning. • Still need to host data with an editor • Still independent of Statewide GIS • All utilities don't have electronic data or the means to produce it

15. Use Statewide GIS platform One statewide map May be hosted by other state agency More accurate base map maintained by other state agencies Less disputes due to increased accuracy Implementation time expected 6-8 months Requires central operator to have maintenance software/hardware Higher implementation cost Option 3 - GISPROS CONS

16. Option 3 – GIS PROS (cont’d) • Common GIS "off the shelf" software • Software tools eliminate gaps and overlaps • "Smart" data - intelligent attribution on territory boundaries within database • “Zoomable” as the user gets closer to the data more detail appears

17. Option 3 – GIS PROS (cont’d) • Web access to review & maintain territory lines • Internet authoring reduces labor hours • Fully Functional GIS • Easily expanded to query & report data • Long-term solution

18. Brief Comparison

19. Group Feedback • Any questions about these options? • What is the long-term vision for IURC? • How can we work together from here?