Out of Sight Out of Mind Revisited EEI Transmission, Distribution, & Metering Conference October 14, 2009 Ken Hall Hall Energy Consulting 1
Presentation Outline Customer Expectations Storms and Outages: The Impact The Reliability of Overhead and Underground Electrical Systems Utility Infrastructure Benefits and Challenges of Undergrounding Undergrounding Costs State Policies and Utility Approaches to Undergrounding State Undergrounding Studies 2
Customer Expectations Reliability Limited customer tolerance Safety Undergrounding Costs Limited willingness to pay Aesthetics Open views 3
Storms and Outages: The Impact Storm Studies Storm December Ice Storm January Ice Storm/ Hurricane Floyd Hurricane Isabel Hurricane Dennis Hurricane Katrina Hurricane Ophelia Hurricane Rita Hurricane Wilma December Ice Storm Hurricane Ike Year 2002 1999 2003 2005 2007 2008 Study 2003, November 21 North Carolina The Feasibility of Placing Electric Distribution Facilities Underground, Report of The Public Staff to The North Carolina Natural Disaster Preparedness Task Force 2003, December 30 - Maryland Task Force to Study Moving Overhead Utilities Lines Underground 2005, January 7 - Virginia Placement of Utility Distribution Lines Underground, Report to the State Corporate Commission 2007, February 28 - Florida Undergrounding Assessment Phase 1 Final Report: Literature Review and Analysis of Electric Distribution Overhead to Underground Conversion 2007, August 6 - Florida Undergrounding Assessment Phase 1 Report: Undergrounding Case Studies 2008, May 21 - Florida Undergrounding Assessment Phase 3 Report: Ex Ante Cost and Benefit Modeling 2008, June 30 - Oklahoma Oklahoma Corporation Commission s Inquiry into Undergrounding Electric Facilities in the State of Oklahoma 2009, April 21 Houston, Texas Electric Service Reliability in the Houston Region 4
Major Storm Data 2008 EEI Reliability Report: 67% of all outage minutes were weather related Lightening 6% Weather 31% Vegetation 30% U.S. Department of Energy Form OE-417 Electric Emergency Incident and Disturbance Report Major system incidents on electric power systems Investigations on significant interruptions Available data from 2002 to date Loss of electric service to more than 50,000 customers for 1 hour or more 5
Form OE-417 Data Date Utility/Power Pool (NERC Region) Time Area Affected Type of Disturbance Loss (megawatts) Number of Customers Affected Restoration Date/Time 6
EIA Data Storm Events 100 90 80 70 Storm Events 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 Years With Standard Deviation Range Designated 7
EIA Data Customers Affected Millions 25 20 Customers 15 10 5 0 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 Years With Standard Deviation Range Designated 8
EIA Data Hours of Interruptions Thousands 9 8 7 6 Hours 5 4 3 2 1 0 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 Years With Standard Deviation Range Designated 9
EIA Data Customers Affected per Storm and Hours per Storm Customers Affected per Storm Thousands 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 120 100 80 60 40 20 Hours per Storm 0 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 Years With Standard Deviation Range Designated 0 Customer per Storm Hours per Storm 10
EIA Data Types of Storms 95% of all the events Hurricane/Tropical Storm (79 [23]) Summer Storm (Lightning/High Winds) (209) Winter Storm (Ice/Snow) (54) 5% of all events Earthquake Flooding Heat Storm Wildfire 11
EIA Data Customers vs Hours Thousands 3,500 3,000 2,500 Customers 2,000 1,500 1,000 500 0 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 Hours of Interruption Winter Storm (Ice/Snow) Summer Storm (Lighting/High Winds) Hurricane/Tropical Storm 12
The Reliability of Overhead and Underground Electrical Systems EEI Undergrounding Survey to collect utility data for years 2004 to 2008 Reliability data gathered CAIDI SAIDI SAIFI 23 distribution utilities provided data to survey 13
Customer Average Interruption Duration Index 500 450 400 350 Minutes 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 OH T&D UG T&D OH D UG D 14
System Average Interruption Duration Index 700 600 500 Minutes 400 300 200 100 0 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 OH T&D UG T&D OH D UG D 15
System Average Interruption Frequency Index 1.6 Interruptions per Customer 1.4 1.2 1 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 OH T&D UG T&D OH D UG D 16
Utility Infrastructure Miles of Line Platts UDI Products Group FERC Form 1 Data Annual Industry Plant Expenditures FERC Form 1 Data 17
Miles of Transmission Miles-of-Line Thousands 800 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 1.20 1.00 0.80 0.60 0.40 0.20 Percentage 0 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 T-Total 630,741 696,028 709,326 717,209 729,262 737,944 756,639 T-UG 3,493 6,566 6,712 5,222 5,447 7,509 5,603 % 0.55 0.94 0.95 0.73 0.75 1.02 0.74 0.00 18
Miles of Distribution Line Miles-of-Line Millions 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 20 19 19 18 18 17 17 16 16 15 Percentage 0 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 D-Total 5,468,920 5,627,500 5,735,262 5,878,137 5,937,981 5,975,591 5,972,610 D-UG 977,586 1,073,092 1,059,515 941,883 961,144 1,021,898 1,071,017 % 18 19 18 16 16 17 18 15 19
Total Annual Transmission Plant Expenditures Billions 8 7 6 18.0% 16.0% 14.0% Dollars 5 4 3 2 1-1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 UG 120,843,595 159,463,369 114,088,614 134,621,559 186,834,106 179,616,661 201,776,090 715,963,152 459,780,051 1,317,465,568 OH 2,082,879,464 2,373,498,473 3,928,079,879 3,027,099,072 3,566,079,953 3,753,955,479 4,178,873,543 6,015,092,045 6,077,096,562 7,083,045,778 % UG 5.5% 6.3% 2.8% 4.3% 5.0% 4.6% 4.6% 10.6% 7.0% 15.7% UG OH % UG 12.0% 10.0% 8.0% 6.0% 4.0% 2.0% 0.0% 20
Total Annual Distribution Plant Expenditures Billions 14 12 30.0% 25.0% 10 20.0% Dollars 8 6 4 15.0% 10.0% 2 5.0% - 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 UG 2,730,619,792 2,851,792,350 3,083,200,483 3,030,348,970 3,395,201,700 3,583,589,963 3,692,967,631 4,300,663,150 4,265,929,876 4,560,356,356 OH 7,462,523,562 7,855,547,816 8,211,240,878 8,316,593,120 8,604,965,424 9,383,937,604 9,927,920,335 12,162,800,750 11,333,519,122 12,896,373,019 % UG 26.8% 26.6% 27.3% 26.7% 28.3% 27.6% 27.1% 26.1% 27.3% 26.1% UG OH % UG 0.0% 21
Benefits of Undergrounding Reliability The elimination of outages caused by trees, wind, and animals In very dense urban areas, overhead construction becomes impractical; therefore, the utility benefits by having the option of installing underground network systems in these areas where overhead can not realistically be installed. Aesthetics Visually pleasing to customers and the public Undergrounding helps create positive community relations by mitigating visual impact Other Increased customer acceptance for new projects Less resistance from local governments for project approvals Ability to maintain facilities at ground level Significant reduction in R/W maintenance costs Increased customer satisfaction 22
Challenges of Undergrounding Cost Higher facility replacement costs Increased material costs and longer installation timeframes vs. OH Design redundancy/significantly higher capital costs for installation Higher O&M costs offset corresponding reduction in R/W maintenance costs OH vs. UG Repair times for UG construction are substantially higher than for OH construction UG facilities are more difficult to upgrade capacity and add unplanned transformers, etc. Failure issues System longevity of UG on the order of 30 years, as opposed to 50 years for OH Older cables are more likely to fail and older tile or fiber duct systems are more likely to collapse when failed cable is pulled. Damage from dig-ins. Slower outage restoration and fault isolation 23
Undergrounding Costs The EEI survey collected cost per mile data regarding: new overhead construction new underground construction cost to convert from overhead to underground percentage breakdown of these costs between materials and labor Collected data based on load density Urban 150+ customers per square mile Suburban 51 to 149 customers per square mile Rural 50 or less customers per square mile This report has also compared its findings with economic data from other studies. 24
Cost Per Mile New Construction Transmission Millions 25 20 Dollars 15 10 5 0 Urban Suburban Rural Urban Suburban Rural T - OH T - OH T - OH T - UG T - UG T - UG Min Value 325,000 200,000 150,000 1,100,000 1,100,000 1,100,000 Average 2,190,500 1,613,333 1,216,364 10,464,286 7,528,819 6,350,000 Max Value 5,000,000 3,500,000 2,280,000 23,000,000 16,500,000 10,000,000 25
Cost Per Mile New Construction Distribution Thousands 2,500 2,000 Dollars 1,500 1,000 500 0 Urban Suburban Rural Urban Suburban Rural D - OH D - OH D - OH D - UG D - UG D - UG Min Value 67,892 63,000 53,000 117,000 80,000 63,000 Average 196,628 193,850 135,307 559,293 571,400 408,532 Max Value 386,000 368,000 351,000 2,074,000 1,375,000 1,100,000 26
Cost Per Mile Converting Overhead to Underground Distribution Thousands 2,500 2,000 1,500 Dollars 1,000 500 0 Urban Suburban Rural Min Value 93,202 120,000 80,000 Average 832,383 723,692 395,874 Max Value 2,130,000 2,138,400 1,100,000 27
State Reports Conversion Cost Comparison State and Year of Study Estimate / Actual Cost Project Information Cost per Mile EEI, 2009 Estimate Minimum Cost $80,000 North Carolina, 2003 Estimate Minimum Cost $151,000 Maryland, 1999 Estimate Minimum Cost $350,000 Florida, 2007 Actual Allison Island $414,802 Florida, 2007 Actual County Road 30A $883,470 Florida, 2007 Actual Sand Key $917,532 Virginia, 2005 Estimate Average Cost $1,195,000 Oklahoma, 2008 Estimate Average Cost $1,540,000 Florida, 2007 Actual Pensacola Beach $1,686,275 Maryland, 1999 Estimate Maximum Cost $2,000,000 EEI, 2009 Estimate Maximum Cost $2,130,000 North Carolina, 2003 Estimate Maximum Cost $3,000,000 28
Labor and Material Cost Labor costs for UG consumed a smaller part of the total project cost, as compared to OH UG projects cost 3 to 5 times more than OH projects 70 60 50 Percentage 40 30 20 10 0 T-UG T-OH D-UG D-OH Materal 45 40 43 32 Labor 55 60 58 68 29
State Policies and Utility Approaches to Undergrounding Company Policy for New Underground Construction Applicants for UG service shall make a non-refundable contribution in aid of construction to the Company in an amount equal to the estimated difference in cost between UG and equivalent OH Company Policy for Converting Existing Overhead Facilities to Underground Customer pays for the cost of converting OH facilities to UG Additional Policies Are there special rates for these types of conversions? Does your PUC have additional policies that you must comply with? No utility indicated that they had a special rate for conversions or that their PUC s had additional policies. 30
State Undergrounding Studies 2009 Louisiana 2009 Houston, Texas - Electric Service Reliability in the Houston Region 2008 Oklahoma - Oklahoma Corporation Commission s Inquiry into Undergrounding Electric Facilities in the State of Oklahoma 2008 Florida - Undergrounding Assessment Phase 3 Report: Ex Ante Cost and Benefit Modeling 2007 Florida - Undergrounding Assessment Phase 1 Report: Undergrounding case Studies 2007 Florida - Undergrounding Assessment Phase 1 Final Report: Literature Review and Analysis of Electric Distribution Overhead to Underground Conversion 2005 Virginia - Placement of Utility Distribution Lines Underground, Report to the State Corporate 2003 Maryland - Task Force to Study Moving Overhead Utilities Lines Underground 2003 North Carolina - The Feasibility of Placing Electric Distribution Facilities Underground 1999 Maryland - Undergrounding Electric Utility Lines in Maryland 1999 Hawaii - Undergrounding Public Utility Lines 31
Conclusion This study has discussed that for customers undergrounding means; Improved aesthetics Enhanced reliability This study has shown the significant impact that major weather events have on reliability metrics. Major events can have a major negative impact outage minutes This study has shown that utilities are investing in new UG; Spending 7% to15% of transmission dollars on UG Spending 26% of distribution dollars on UG This study has shown that undergrounding is expensive UG vs. OH cost can be up to 5 times greater for transmission UG vs. OH cost can be up to 3 times greater for distribution In conclusion undergrounding is not an issue that will be completely resolved, but will continue to be an active process where utilities and customers will work together to balance cost and the value derived from undergrounding. 32
Next Step Storm Hardening Study EEI is in the process of developing a paper on Storm hardening Survey on current utility practices has been sent out Paper to be completed in the 1 st quarter of 2010 33
Ken Hall Hall Energy Consulting KHall@HallEnergyConsulting.com 828-627-2135 34