Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

Wednesday 4b-isberg


Published on

Trees And Utilities National Conference 2017

Published in: Environment
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

Wednesday 4b-isberg

  1. 1. Leveraging Data and GIS to Optimize Hazard Tree Investment Duncan Isberg BC Hydro Asset Management Vegetation Strategy & Standards
  2. 2. BC Hydro Hazard Tree Rating System • BCH developed a hazard tree rating system approximately 25 years ago • Based on three components –  Species  Hazard Indicators (defect)  Target (class of line) • Using this process each tree receives a ranking score
  3. 3. Spatial Asset Management (SAM)
  4. 4. Managing Vegetation Work SAM
  5. 5. How we manage reliability in our Vegetation Program • Two approaches – proactive and reactive • Proactive deals with dead, dying & leaning off corridor trees during routine corridor maintenance • Reactive uses outage data to identify circuits that meet the “poor performer” criteria
  6. 6. Proactive Work • Done at the same time as the routine maintenance corridor work (cycle work) • Hazard tree inventory is included with these projects. – Typically anything rated 28 and higher. – This is an effort to keep circuits off the reliability worst performing list.
  7. 7. Reactive Process/ Data Identification • We “mine” the outage data • Queries are run using the following tree related outage cause codes – • Tree Fallen • Tree Branch • Tree Grow In
  8. 8. What Else Do We Look At? Reliability • SAIFI – System Average Interruption Frequency Index • CAIDI – Customer Average Interruption Duration Index • Circuit Criticality (Customer Count, Customer Type, Loading) • A 3 year view into reliability performance. This is seen as a reasonable time frame for averaging environmental conditions (excluding major events) Based on the results, circuits receive a ranking We typically deal with the worst 50 circuits
  9. 9. How do we use this data? Historically • We produce detailed hazard tree inventories on circuits that have demonstrated poor reliability from tree related outages • Start at the substation with 3ph feeder as the priority, then primary taps from the far end of the circuit to best affect restoration times.
  10. 10. The next level • Improvements to the Distribution Trouble Outage Reports, to get better front end data. – The ability to tag the trouble location with lat./ long. • Developed a query that looks at circuit isolation points/ isolation zones with tree caused interruptions and customer counts. • What you end up with looks like this…….
  11. 11. The circuit laid out electrically to see its Isolation Zones and Its Outages… Circuit Reliability – Isolation Zones Isolation Zones: - outage data available - pinpoint optimal recloser locations Isolation Zones: - outage data available - pinpoint optimal recloser locations Isolation Zones: - outage & customer data available - pinpoint areas for hazard tree surveys Sub station R Fuse Transformer Fuse Customers Tree Caused Trouble
  12. 12. The IZ Tree • The circuit is expressed in a way that uniquely identifies each Isolation Zone (IZ) on the circuit • Tree related outages are mapped against these zones • Downstream customer counts are tallied to show where to focus tree related assessments and subsequent inventories
  13. 13. 1. 1.1 1.1.1 1.1.2 1.2 1.2.1 1.2.2 Isolation Zone Naming
  14. 14. Worst Performers Sorted BY: Tree Branch Caused Cust. Interrupts – On this IZ You now know: the exact asset location, inside the circuit, for Veg. Maintenance
  15. 15. Leveraging the GIS • Nothing tops being able to “visualize” the circuit and being able to see the IZs requiring focus. • Data Table analytic results, by IZ, summarizing all downstream tree customer interruptions: the worst IZs float to the top of the list • Each IZ device has an Asset ID to take the user directly to the IZ in the GIS. • This information can be reviewed in context with schedule corridor maintenance and decisions can be made regarding scheduling Worst Performing Circuit (WPC) projects or coordinating with scheduled work
  16. 16. Challenges • How do you determine the return on investment on investing in off-corridor hazard trees? • Financially, we can determine what the avoided costs are. • More difficult to determine what the reliability improvement is based on the dollars invested • Currently its as simple as let’s try to get it off the list
  17. 17. Challenges – cont’d Of course we all know that there’s always more than one slide of challenges • When have you invested enough money • What is the expected performance metric for a given circuit (see return on investment challenge) • Consent to remove from tree owners
  18. 18. Finally – “Feeder Peers” • How good is good enough? – set targets per feeder peer group • Circuits with similar characteristics are placed in groups of “Feeder Peer Groups” • Criteria for Feeder Peer Groups • Two separate categories for determining Peers group – Field Driven and Data Driven
  19. 19. Feeder Peers - Field Driven Parameters • Configuration • Protection • Restoration • Environmental • Vegetation Scores of 1-5 with the result determining which peer group the feeder is assigned to
  20. 20. Feeder Peers - Data Driven Parameters • Circuit Criticality (Customer Count, Customer Type, Loading) • SAIFI – System Average Interruption Frequency Index • CAIDI– Customer Average Interruption Duration Index
  21. 21. Questions