STAFF REVIEW OF ANNUAL ELECTRIC
RELIABILITY REPORTS
Kevin Zhong, TEAM LEAD
Felicia Shelton
DeAndre Wilson
August 9, 2016
OUTLINE
 Background and History
 System Wide Reliability Standards
 Additional Reliability Standards
 Service Interruption Standard
 Downed Wire Response Standard
 Customer Communications Standards
 Vegetation Management Requirements
 Outage Types and Causes
 Multiple Device Activation Standard
 Poorest Performing Feeder Standard
 Conclusions
 Recommendations
2
BACKGROUND AND HISTORY
 On Jan. 12, 2011, PSC initiated an Administrative Docket, RM 43, to
consider revisions to COMAR 20.50
 On May 28, 2012, PSC enacted new benchmark COMAR 20.50.12 for
Reliability and Service Quality Standards
 On July 25, 2012, then Governor Martin O’Malley signed Executive Order
01.01.2012.15 directing his Energy Advisor, in collaboration with identified
agencies, to solicit input and recommendations from experts on how to
improve the resiliency and reliability of the Maryland electric distribution
system.
 2012 partial year report from July to December 2012
 2013, 2014, and 2015 full year summary reports
3
DEFINITION OF RELIABILITY INDICES
SAIFI – System Average
Interruption Frequency Index
SAIDI – System Average
Interruption Duration Index
CAIDI – Customer Average
Interruption Duration Index
CEMI – Customers Experiencing
Multiple Interruptions
A reliability indicator, usually measured in interruptions or events per customer,
used by electric companies to represent how often a customer may experience
an interruption in a given year.
A reliability indicator, usually measured in minutes or hours, used by electric
companies to represent how much total time a customer may not have service in
a given year.
A reliability indicator, usually measured in minutes or hours, used by electric
companies to represent the average outage duration that any given customer
would experience in a given year.
A reliability indicator used by electric companies which represents the number of
interruptions that a customer would experience in a given year.
CEMI2 stands for customers experiencing > 2 interruptions, CEMI4 > 4, ...
A Major Outage Event is defined by COMAR as:
• More than 10 percent or 100,000, whichever is less, of the electric utility's
Maryland customers experience a sustained interruption of electric service; and
• restoration of electric service to any of these customers takes more than 24
hours; or
o the federal, State, or local government declares an official state of emergency in the
utility's service territory and the emergency involves interruption of electric service.
8/9/2016
4
2015 SYSTEM-WIDE RELIABILITY
STANDARDS (COMAR 20.50.12.02)
Utility
SAIFI (Interruptions)
SAIDI (Minutes)
CAIDI (Minutes)
COMAR
Reported
COMAR
Reported
Reported
BGE
1.39
0.92
206.4
100.8
109.2
CHOPTANK
1.39
1.29
154.8
121.8
94.2
DELMARVA
1.46
1.19
157.2
110.0
92.4
P.E.
1.08
0.89
167.4
123.5
138.6
PEPCO
1.49
1.13
143.4
117.0
103.8
SMECO
1.36
1.37
139.2
218.4
159.4





SAIFI, SAIDI & CAIDI are reported with the exception of MOE
COMAR standards are with the exception of MOE
Five companies met system-wide SAIFI and SAIDI requirements
SMECO missed SAIFI (narrowly) and SAIDI
SMECO has submitted a Corrective Action Plan
5
2013-2015 SYSTEM-WIDE
RELIABILITY STANDARDS
SAIFI (All Interruptions Minus MOE)
Utility
SAIDI (Hours Minus MOE)
2013
2014
2015
Actual 3-Yr
Average
2013
2014
2015
Actual 3-Yr
Average
BGE
0.93
0.91
0.92
0.92
1.67
1.96
1.68
1.77
CHOPTANK
1.33
0.78
1.29
1.13
1.58
1.16
2.03
1.59
DELMARVA
1.95
1.89
1.19
1.68
3.54
2.68
1.84
2.69
P.E.
1.01
1.12
0.89
1.01
2.38
2.88
2.06
2.44
PEPCO
1.49
1.27
1.13
1.30
2.46
2.11
1.95
2.17
SMECO
0.93
0.88
1.37
1.08
1.36
1.36
3.64
2.16
 2013 to 2015 are the first three years, when full year indices are available
 The SAIFI table shows that four of the six Electric Companies performed better in
2015 than their three year averages
 The SAIDI table shows the same pattern as that of SAIFI, where four Electric
Companies performed better than their three year averages
 Choptank & SMECO performed below their respective three year averages in 2015
6
2012 – JUNE, 2016 SMECO MONTHLY CUMULATIVE SAIDI
4.00
SMECO SAIDI YTD (Excluding COMAR Major Events)
2012
2013
3.50
2014
2015
3.00
PSC 2016
GOAL
2016
Hours
2.50
2.00
1.50
1.00
0.50
0.00
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
NOV
DEC
7
JUNE 2015 SMECO WEATHER EVENTS
4.00
6/27 severe thunderstorms
and two confirmed EF-1
tornados affected 6,600
customers. Crew worked
overnight to restore all
outages by 8 AM, 6/28,
within 24 hours. SAIDI
impact = 0.079
SMECO SAIDI YTD (Excluding COMAR Major Events)
3.50
3.00
6/23 severe thunderstorms
affected 11,000 customers.
Crew worked overnight to
restore all outages by 630 PM,
6/24, within 24 hours. SAIDI
impact = 0.320
6/20 severe thunderstorms
affected 28,000 customers.
Crew worked overnight to
restore all outages by 4PM,
6/21, within 24 hours.
SAIDI impact = 0.671
Hours
2.50
2.00
1.50
2015
1.00
PSC
2016
GOAL
0.50
2016
0.00
SMECO customers ~= 151,000
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
NOV
DEC
8
CORRECTIVE ACTION PLAN (SMECO)
 System Planning
 Completion of the final phase of a 69kV Line Differential Project in
February 2016 which consisted of installation of new equipment and
protective relaying upgrades at multiple stations
 Construction of three new distribution substations and rebuild of one
distribution substation
 Proactive system inspections, maintenance, and operations
 Implementation of an asset management system to identify aging
infrastructure
 Continue a program to proactively replace aging copper distribution
lines with new aluminum cable or steel reinforced aluminum conductor
lines. Fifty miles of aging copper conductor are planned to be replaced
in 2016
 Utilization of modern technology
 Replace all old hydraulic distribution line reclosers with new electronic
line reclosers over a six year period
 Continued advancement of the Cooperative's AMI initiative
9
2012 – 2015 COMPOSITE SAIFI/SAIDI
SAIDI (Minutes)
180.0
1.20
160.0
156.2
1.18
140.0
1.16
1.16
120.0
115.7
1.14
100.0
1.12
80.0
1.10
SAIFI
60.0
SAIDI (All Interruption Minutes minus MOE)
1.08
40.0
SAIFI (All Interruptions Minus MOE)
1.06
20.0
1.04
1.02
0.0
2012
2013
2014
1.02
2015
 The composite SAIFI and SAIDI are weighted averages based on the number of
customers each Electric Company serves:






BGE - 1,240,000
Pepco - 531,000
P.E. - 252,000
Delmarva - 199,000
SMECO - 151,000
Choptank - 52,000
 From 2012 to 2015, SAIFI improvement was 12%; SAIDI improvement was 26%
10
2016-2019 PROJECTED SAIFI BY COMPANY
1.5
1.4
BGE
1.3
CHOPTANK
SAIFI
1.2
1.1
Delmarva
P.E.
SMECO
1
Pepco
0.9
0.8
2015A
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
 2015 figures depict actual performance
 Pepco and Delmarva indices reflect Exelon merger commitments
 Four Companies would have met 2016-2018 SAIFI targets
8/9/2016
11
2016-2019 PROJECTED SAIDI BY COMPANY
240.0
210.0
SAIDI (Minutes)
BGE
CHOPTANK
180.0
Delmarva
P.E.
150.0
SMECO
Pepco
120.0
90.0
2015A




8/9/2016
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2015 figures depict actual performance
Pepco and Delmarva indices reflect Exelon merger commitments
Four Companies would have met 2016-2018 SAIDI targets
Three Companies would have met both SAIFI/SAIDI targets for 2019
12
2013-2015 RM 43 PERFORMANCE
BY ELECTRIC COMPANIES
COMAR
Standards
SAIFI
SAIDI
Interruptions
restored
within 8
hours
MOE
restored
within 50
hours
Downed % Call
Wire
Answered
Response within 30s
%
% Annual
Vegetation
Abandoned
Managemt.
Calls
performed
Repeat
Multiple
Poorest
Device
Performing
Activation
Feeder
2013
BGE
CHOPTANK
DELMAR
VA
PE
PEPCO
SMECO
2014
2015
2013
2014
2015
2013
2014
2015
2013
2014
2015
2013
2014
2015
2013
2014
2015
Legend
Non-compliance
Compliance
N/A
13
2012-2015 ADDITIONAL RELIABILITY
INDICES (COMAR 20.50.12.05)
100.00%
31.16%
10.00%
13.43%
10.64%
CEMI2
3.14%
3.00%
CEMI4
CEMI6
1.00%
CEMI8
0.95%
0.79%
0.23%
0.10%
2012
2013
2014
2015
 State-wide, combined performance indices under all conditions
 CEMI2 showed the most steady improvement (57% between 2012 and 2015)
 The rest of indices showed more improvement (72% and 75%, respectively)
14
2015 SERVICE INTERRUPTION RESTORATION &
DOWNED WIRE RESPONSE (COMAR 20.50.12.06, 07)
MOE
Normal Conditions
Utility
All Conditions
Government
% of
% of
Emergency
> 92% Interruptions > 95%
> 90%
Interruptions
COMAR
Restored
COMAR Responder Guarded
COMAR
Restored
Standard within 50 Standard downed wires within Standard
within 8 Hours
4 Hours
Hours
BGE
97.00%
Yes
N/A
N/A
97.90%
Yes
CHOPTANK
99.30%
Yes
N/A
N/A
100.00%
Yes
DELMARVA
99.53%
Yes
100%
Yes
100.00%
Yes
P.E.
96.70%
Yes
N/A
N/A
99.66%
Yes
PEPCO
97.94%
Yes
N/A
N/A
100.00%
Yes
SMECO
96.21%
Yes
N/A
N/A
100.00%
Yes
 All Electric Companies met the Service Interruption Restoration Standard under
normal conditions
 Delmarva met the Service Interruption Restoration Standard during MOE
 All Electric Companies met the Government Emergency Responder Guarded Downed
Wires Standard
15
2013 – 2015 CUSTOMER COMMUNICATIONS
STANDARD (COMAR 20.50.12.08)
Utility
% of Calls Answered
within 30 seconds
Met COMAR
Standard ≥75%
% Annual
Abandoned Calls
Met COMAR
Standard ≤ 5%
2013
2014
2015
2013 2014 2015 2013 2014 2015 2013 2014 2015
BGE
84.6
87.0
86.3
Yes
Yes
Yes
2.11
1.65
1.93
Yes
Yes
Yes
CHOPTANK
95.9
93.9
89
Yes
Yes
Yes
0.79
0.94
1.5
Yes
Yes
Yes
DELMARVA
83.1
84.2
81.9
Yes
Yes
Yes
0.4
0.29
0.51
Yes
Yes
Yes
P.E.
80.34
80.35
77
Yes
Yes
Yes
3.19
3.61
4.29
Yes
Yes
Yes
PEPCO
78.55
80.5
73.9
Yes
Yes
No
4.31
4.55
8.26
Yes
Yes
No
SMECO
88.98
88.52
84.73
Yes
Yes
Yes
1.07
1.03
1.77
Yes
Yes
Yes
 In 2015 five Electric Companies met the standards for calls answered within 30
seconds and the annual abandoned call rate
 Pepco attributes the non-conformance to a new Customer Relationship
Management and Billing System, which went live on 1/5/2015
 Pepco has submitted a Corrective Action Plan
16
2014 – 2015 AVERAGE TIME TO ANSWER CALLS
WITH IVR (IN SECONDS)
250
2014
2015
200
150
100
50
0
BGE




CHOPTANK
DELMARVA
P.E.
PEPCO
SMECO
Average speed to answer customer calls in seconds
IVR stands for Interactive Voice Response
Across the board decline despite five companies meeting COMAR requirements
Staff recommends close monitoring of performance in this area going forward 17
2014-2015 AVERAGE TIME TO ANSWER CALLS
WITHOUT IVR (IN SECONDS)
250
2014 without IVR
200
2015 without IVR
150
100
50
0
BGE
CHOPTANK
DELMARVA
P.E.
PEPCO
SMECO
Staff DR #2 (7/22/2016) pending complete response: “please provide data for Average
Speed to Answer a Call (seconds) without the use of technology, i.e. automated call
answering systems such as IVR, Call Over Flow, etc., for 2013, 2014, and 2015.”
18
CORRECTIVE ACTION PLAN (PEPCO)
Pepco’s communication CAP includes
 Additional training and coaching to improve customer service
representative proficiency
 Working with technical teams to make prudent enhancements or
modifications to the system or screens that will improve call centers
transaction efficiency
 Analyzing how work flows and resources that do that work with an eye on
process improvements
 Taking aggressive steps to back fill for the attrition
Trends of 4th quarter 2015
 8% improvement of service levels
 15% reduction in average handle time
Trends of first six months into 2016 indicate continued
improvement
19
VEGETATION MANAGEMENT
(COMAR 20.50.12.09)
Utility
Overhead Circuit
Miles as of 2015
Cumulative % of Total COMAR Minimum
System Trimmed to Required Trimming
Standard
(%)
BGE
9,404
76%
70%
CHOPTANK
1,985
97%
75%
DELMARVA
3,493
87%
70%
P.E.
6,059
62%
56%
PEPCO
3,949
77%
70%
SMECO
3,375
84%
70%
 All Companies are currently in their first trim cycles
 COMAR minimum required trimming varies on year in trim cycle
 Whether on a four-year or a five-year cycle, all met the COMAR minimum required
trimming percentages for the given year
20
2013 – 2015 OUTAGE TYPES AND CAUSES
14,000
2013 Total
12,000
2014 Total
10,000
2015 Total
8,000
6,000
4,000
2,000
0
Vegetation Equipment
Failure
Weather
(not
lightning)
Lightning Equipment
Strike
Hit
Animals
Overload
Other*
Unknown




Chart represent sum of all outages reported by Electric Companies
2015 total outages among all Electric Companies are 37,197, a three year low
Two leading causes are Equipment Failure and Vegetation
Other* may represent contamination, line failure, corrosion, member own, and
loose connection
 All companies achieved in reducing reporting under “Other”
21
MULTIPLE DEVICE ACTIVATION
STANDARD (COMAR 20.50.12.04)
Protective Device Type
Utility
BGE
Line or
Recloser
Tap Fuse
Circuit
Breaker
Transformer
Sum of Device
activated 5 or
more times
# of
Total # of
Repeat Activation
devices
Events
16
2
1
0
19
0
86
Choptank
0
0
0
0
N/A
N/A
N/A
Delmarva
0
0
1
0
1
0
7
P.E.
5
1
0
0
6
0
39
PEPCO
5
0
7
1
13
0
65
SMECO
2
0
0
0
2
0
Total
28
3
9
1
41
0
10
207
 The 2015 sum of device of 41 is a vast improvement over any previous year, be it
a stormy year (2012, 2014) or relatively storm free 2013.
 For reference: 2013 registered 91 devices experiencing multiple activations
 Zero repeat devices were found, another achievement by all Electric Companies
22
POOREST PERFORMING FEEDER
STANDARD (COMAR 20.50.12.03)
 A feeder is an electric circuit that emanates from a substation, serves
customers, and is normally electrically isolated at all endpoints
 In 2015, the electric companies in Maryland had a total of 2,873 feeders
 The 3% PPF affect approximately 4.5% of all customers in Maryland
 Delmarva exceeds the 3% threshold by selecting and addressing 10 feeders
Utility
BGE
CHOPTANK
DELMARVA
P.E.
PEPCO
SMECO
Total # of
Feeders in
Maryland
1,300
115
183
346
704
225
SUMMARY
2,873
Percentage Average #
Average # of
of customers
of
# of 2015 Customers
# of 2015 affected by Customers Repeat per Repeat
PPF
PPF
per PPF
PPF
PPF
39
3.1%
987
7
947
4
3.9%
512
0
N/A
10
9.1%
1,803
3
2,402
10
4.8%
1,218
3
1,382
21
6.0%
1,514
2
1,653
7
3.9%
838
3
946
91
4.5%
1,145
18
1,466
23
PPF RANKING METHODOLOGY
1. Ranking based methodologies:
BGE
PE
Select and rank feeder with
less than or equal to 100
customers
Select and rank feeder
with more than 100
customers
For each feeder calculate a circuit
SAIFI using only distributioncaused outages; Select the worst
20% of feeders based on the
highest circuit SAIFI
Rank the selected feeders based
on SAIDI using only distributioncaused customer minutes
Rank by SAIFI, using all
interruption data excluding
major outage event
interruption data, planned
outage data, and substation
event data.
The poorest performing 4%
of feeders based on the
SAIFI rankings, would then
be ranked by SAIDI.
Rank by SAIFI, using all
interruption data excluding
major outage event
interruption data, planned
outage data, and
substation event data.
The poorest performing
Select the required number of
4% of feeders based on the feeders based on the highest
SAIFI rankings, would then customer minutes.
be ranked by SAIDI.
The top 3% of the final rankings were selected, combined These feeders are then identified
and sorted by SAIFI as the poorest performing feeders.
as the poorest performing.
Choptank
A ranking number was
assigned
to
each
feeder using the SAIDI
index for each feeder;
A ranking number
was assigned to each
feeder using the SAIFI
index for each
feeder;
Both ranking
numbers are added
together for each
feeder to determine
the Total Rank
The top 3% feeders
with the highest Total
Rank were chosen
2. Formula based methodologies:
SMECO: Feeder Index Value = [(0.50 X SAIFI) + (0.50 X SAIDI)]
Pepco/Delmarva: Feeder Composite Index = [(75% X SAIFI) + (25% X SAIDI)]
24
2015 POOREST PERFORMING FEEDERS
Utility
# of PPF
Interruption Data (Minus MOE)
Average PPF
Average PPF
SAIFI
SAIDI
(Interruptions)
(Minutes)
% Above System % Above System
Average
Average
SAIFI
SAIDI
39
2.79
319.2
203%
217%
CHOPTANK
4
3.32
316.3
157%
160%
DELMARVA
10
4.02
344.7
237%
176%
P.E.
10
2.93
743.4
229%
502%
PEPCO
21
3.92
455.7
247%
289%
SMECO
7
5.72
1203.0
318%
451%
91
3.45
463.6
227%
276%
BGE
Summary
 91 were identified as poorest performing feeders, same as in 2013 and in 2014
 Their SAIFI and SAIDI performance is 2-3 times above the Maryland average
25
REPEAT POOREST PERFORMING FEEDER
 Repeat Poorest Performing Feeder defined by COMAR 20.50.12.03(A)(5):
No feeder ranked in the poorest performing 3 percent of feeders shall perform in the poorest
performing 3 percent of feeders during either of the two subsequent 12-month reporting
periods, after allowing one 12-month reporting period for the utility to implement
remediation measures, unless the utility has undertaken reasonable remediation measure to
improve the performance of the feeder.
in year 4
Under Remediation
8/9/2016
26
2015 REPEAT POOREST PERFORMING FEEDERS
Utility
# of
Repeat
PPF
2015 Interruption Data (Minus
MOE)
% Above System Average
Average PPF
SAIFI (Interruptions)
Average PPF
SAIDI
(Minutes)
SAIFI
SAIDI
BGE
CHOPTANK
DELMARVA
PE
PEPCO
SMECO
7
0
3
3
2
3
2.46
N/A
3.13
1.80
3.50
6.54
240.1
N/A
320.3
538.8
836.8
1194.7
168%
N/A
163%
85%
210%
377%
138%
N/A
190%
336%
615%
477%
Summary
18
3.23
528.6
193%
284%
 2015 is the second year, where repeat PPF’s are tallied
 As in 2014, five out of six Electric Companies reported repeat PPF’s
 As in 2014, there were 16 repeating from two years ago. Two more were
from 2012.
27
2012 – 2015 PPF, REPEAT PPF VS.
COMPOSITE SAIFI/SAIDI COMPARISON
1000
4.5
900
4
800
3.5
700
SAIFI
3
Average
PPF SAIFI
2.5
Repeat PPF
SAIFI
2
Composite
SAIFI
1.5
SAIDI ((Minutes)
5
600
500
400
300
1
200
0.5
100
0
2012
2013
2014
2015
Average PPF
SAIDI
Repeat PPF
SAIDI
Composite
SAIDI
0
2012
2013
2014
2015
 No significant difference between PPF and repeat PPF performances
28
POOREST PERFORMANCE FEEDER REMEDIAL PLANS
2015 Repeat PPF SAIFI/SAIDI
 Widely varying
SAIFI/SAIDI among
repeat PPFs
 Work plans tailored for
individual feeders
35
30
25
SAIFI (Interuptions)
SAIDI (hours)
20
15
10
5
0





BGE reported seven repeat PPF’s (first seven to the left). Action Plan included Corrective Maintenance as well
as invoking the RPI program as a long-term solution. The work plan for one feeder includes a new underground
loop segment, a new OH DA, and a new feeder to divert approximately 800 customers.
Delmarva reported three repeat PPF’s. Delmarva is addressing this by employing sectionalization schemes to
limit the number of customers affected by each outage to between 400 and 500. In addition, all three were
placed on Delmarva’s 2016 Priority Feeder’s list, as part of the Feeder Reliability Improvement Work Plan.
P.E. reported three repeat PPF’s. The SAIDI of one feeder, which suffered a localized wind event on 6/23/2015,
was particularly high. Another feeder landed on this list due to an accident, when farm machinery snagged the
guy wire, breaking two poles. Circuit hardening and additional sectionalizing are the two major approaches.
Pepco reported two repeat PPF’s. Both feeders showed SAIDI’s well in excess of ten hours, which were almost
six-fold of the system average performance. Both feeders were placed on Pepco’s 2016 Priority Feeder’s list, as
part of the Feeder Reliability Improvement Work Plan.
SMECO reported three repeat PPF’s. It is conducting expansive upgrades on Mason Springs feeders. Convert
~2.0 miles of OH old copper to UG. Upgrade of existing Cedarville substation and its three main feeders.
Coordinate with neighboring Pepco to increase capacity at interconnection locations.
29
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Conclusions
1. Five Electric Companies met system-wide SAIFI and SAIDI requirements
2. State-wide composite SAIFI, SAIDI and CEMI have improved between 2012 and
2015
3. All Electric Companies met the Multiple Device Activation Standard
4. All Electric Companies met the Service Interruption Restoration Standard
5. All Electric Companies met the Downed Wire Response Standard
6. Five Electric Companies met Customer Communications Standard
7. All Electric Companies have fully integrated Vegetation Management
requirements, and are ahead of the minimum tree trimming requirement
Recommendations
1. Staff to continue monitoring of customer communications performance
2. To establish a Working Group to review and provide recommended
improvements to the existing Poorest Performing Feeder and Repeat Poorest
Performing Standards & Processes
30
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR PPF WORKING GROUP
 Working Group Leader: Staff Member from the PSC Engineering Division.
 Team Members: Representatives from each of the state's investor owned
electric distribution companies as well as cooperatively-owned utilities;
OPC and other interested parties
 Suggested near-term actions:
1. Perform research to determine what other state regulatory commissions are doing with
respect to PPF and repeat PPF. This would include conducting a NARUC Benchmark Survey.
2. Gain alignment and implement a consistent definition for the identification of PPFs
3. Establish a common toolkit of corrective actions that can be performed to improve the
reliability of PPF's. The goal would be to establish a common approach to analyzing fault
causes and developing corrective action plans. Plans should indicate projected SAIFI and SAIDI
improvements
4. Take a fresh look at the existing COMAR Standard for identifying and developing corrective
action plans for repeat PPFs. Possible considerations:
- Establish an absolute threshold for:
---- PPF's identification
---- Repeat PPF's
- Possibilities:
---- 3.0 SAIFI or some other value
---- 300% of the overall system average or some other value
8/9/2016
31
THANK YOU!