nreca reliability online study -...

NRECA Reliability Online Study

Survey Results

June, 2006

Methodology/Response Rate

262 respondents participated in the 2006 reliability study (compared to 231 in 2005 and 299 in 2004).

As in the past years, the study was conducted online. For reporting purposes, percentages are based on total responding to that question.

Notification was placed on Cooperative.com alerting CEOs and key staff that the study was being conducted.

Overall response rate was 38.9%. (28% in 2005 and 36% in 2004). A total of 743 distribution cooperatives’ key Engineering and Operations staff names were included in the initial sample (based on NRECA’s database).

-- 70 email messages were returned undeliverable, making 673 the total number of respondents receiving an email invitation to participate.

-- Three reminder notifications were emailed to respondents asking for their participation.

Outages --Tracking

Interruption Types Tracked by Cooperative

20%

80%

23%

1%

76%

23%

75%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Both Momentary &Sustained

Only Momentary

Only Sustained

2004

2005

2006

Information Recorded When Tracking Outages (Multiple Responses Possible) Top 8 Graphed

69%

83%

90%

92%

93%

95%

96%

96%

68%

88%

94%

97%

97%

99%

98%

99%

67%

86%

88%

96%

97%

99%

98%

99%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Affected protectivedevice

Affected substation

Time of totalrestoration of power

# of customers affected

Time interruption began(from call from

member)

Date of interruption

Length of interruption

Cause of interruption

2004

2005

2006

Information Recorded When Tracking Outages(Multiple Responses Possible) Bottom 8 Graphed

25%

26%

32%

42%

46%

52%

54%

68%

26%

30%

29%

38%

54%

53%

58%

71%

34%

14%

28%

59%

54%

56%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Affected pole

Time interruption began(from SCADA)

Key accounts affected

# of Customer callsreceived

Resolved/needsadditional work

Weather conditions

Partial restoration ofpower

Phase identification

2004

2005

2006

If Use OMS: Method by Which Interruptions Are Entered Into

System(Multiple Responses Possible)

6%

9%

30%

33%

40%

47%

72%

8%

12%

44%

57%

73%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Down LineDistribution

Devices

SCADA

Manually - ThirdParty (during

outage)

Manually (afteroutage)

Call Center

Telephone orComputerBased IVR

Manually by Co-op (duringoutage)

2005

2006

Primary Method of Receiving Outage

Information

2%

18%

33%

44%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%

SCADAsystem

Telephonecall to AVR

system

Tel. call tolive person-

dataentered

Tel. call tolive person-

paperoutagereport

Interruption Tracking Method Used

3%

30%

67%

4%

30%

66%

8%

33%

59%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%

Other/Combination

System Wide

Feeder/Circuit

2004

2005

2006

Co-op Publicizes Its Reliability Reports

4%

73%

23%

7%

68%

25%

4%

74%

22%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80%

Don't Generate AReport

No

Yes

2004

2005

2006

Outages --Sustained

Co-op's Definition of Sustained Interruption in Terms of Time

2%

5%

4%

33%

13%

43%

1%

3%

5%

27%

16%

43%

2%

2%

4%

31%

12%

41%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%

Not Defined

When Member Calls In

When Crew/Action IsNeeded

> 5 Minutes

> 3 Minutes

> 1 Minute

2004

2005

2006

How Co-op Defines Major Storm or Major Event

14%

19%

5%

6%

8%

9%

12%

28%

15%

23%

5%

8%

2%

13%

9%

25%

16%

28%

1%

9%

12%

34%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40%

Co-op Does Not DefineMajor Storm/Event

Co-op Uses OtherMeans

IEEE 1366 Definition

# of Customers Out ofPower

Exceeds SystemDesign Limits**

% of Customers Out ofPower

Power Out for Over 24Hours**

RUS Definition

2004

2005

2006

Other Means:Management decision, declared storm, # of substations affected,

combination of methods

** Not a choice in 2004

Indices Used To Track Co-op Statistics(Multiple Responses Possible)

5%

10%

47%

49%

82%

15%

17%

53%

54%

85%

6%

5%

43%

40%

81%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

CTAIDI (CustomerTotal Avg Interruption

Duration Index)

CAIFI (Customer AvgInterruption Frequency

Index)

CAIDI (Customer AvgInterruption Duration

Index)

SAIFI (System AverageInterruption Frequency

Index)

SAIDI (SystemAverage InterruptionDuration Index) - RUS

Method

20042005

2006

Index Responses

SAIDI (System Average Interruption Duration Index – RUS Method)

2006 2005 2004

# Reporting An Amount 160 156 176

Average # Minutes Reported 106.9 125.3 130.8

Breakout of Responses:

50 minutes or less 45% 35% 15%

51 – 120 minutes 20% 30% 36%

121 – 180 minutes 16% 17% 22%

Over 180 minutes 19% 18% 15%

25th Percentile 2.7 minutes

Median 68.9 minutes


Index Responses

CAIDI (Customer Average Interruption Duration Index)

2006 2005 2004




30 minutes or less 34% 26% 12%

31 – 60 minutes 6% 15% 12%

61 – 90 minutes 21% 17% 31%

91 - 120 minutes 18% 19% 18%

Over 120 minutes 20% 24% 17%


Median 72.5 minutes


Index Responses

SAIFI (System Average Interruption Frequency Index)

2006 2005 2004


Avg # Interruptions/Customer 6.96 15.00 6.66


.10 interruptions or less 15% 15% 18%

.11 - 1.00 interruptions 25% 20% 26%

1.01 – 1.50 interruptions 18% 22% 22%

1.51 – 2.50 interruptions 26% 20% 17%

Over 2.50 interruptions 17% 23% 16%

25th Percentile 0.69 interruptions

Median 1.26 interruptions


Index Responses

CTAIDI (Customer Total Average Interruption Duration Index)

2006 2005 2004




10.0 minutes or less 48% 39% 24%

10.01 – 75.00 minutes 4% 4% 6%

75.01 – 125.0 minutes 24% 25% 20%

Over 125.0 minutes 24% 32% 24%


Median 61.60 minutes


Index Responses

CAIFI (Customer Average Interruption Frequency Index)

2006 2005 2004


Average # Interruptions 0.80 5.18 0.46


1.00 interruptions or less 61% 64% 80%

Over 1.00 interruptions 39% 36% 20%


Median 0.07 interruptions


Report Interruptions in Minutes or Hours

2005

Minutes36%

Hours62%

2006

Minutes39%

Hours61%

Outages --Momentary

Co-op Track Momentary Interruptions

18%

24%

13%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

Yes2004 2005 2006

Co-op's Definition of Momentary Interruption in Terms of Time

14%

14%

7%

64%

10%

14%

2%

75%

18%

18%

4%

60%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80%

Other

< 5 Minutes

< 3 Minutes

< 1 Minute

2004(n=50)

2005(n=54)

2006(n=28)

Co-op's Method of Capturing Momentary Events(Multiple Responses Possible)

7%

32%

36%

46%

61%

9%

31%

41%

54%

46%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%

Other

AMR system

Customer call-In

Individual trip andreclose events

Trip and reclosesequence with no

lockout

2005(n=54)

2006(n=28)

Asked of those who track momentary events

Power Quality

Co-op Records Voltage Deviations At Substation Bus

46%

37%

43%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

Yes2004 2005 2006

Indexing Methods Used(Multiple Responses Possible)

3%

6%

69%

2%

7%

78%

1%

8%

78%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

SARFI (System AvgRMS Variation Freq

Index)

ITIC (Formerly CBEMA)

No Index Used

2004

2005

2006

IF YES: Where?(Multiple Responses Possible)

8%

13%

28%

34%

52%

3%

12%

36%

36%

51%

6%

20%

49%

69%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80%

Other

DistributionTransformer

Revenue Meter

Substation

Where ProblemSuspected

2004(n=35)

2005(n=69)

2006(n=64)

Regularly Record Total Harmonic Distortion (THD)

Levels Anywhere on System

70%

21%

9%

68%

23%

9%

87%

13%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

No

Yes, OnlyWhereSuspect

Problems

Yes

2004

2005

2006

Not asked in 2004

Not an option in 2004

PowerRestoration

After an Interruption

Cooperative Has a Written Emergency Interruption Restoration Plan

86%81%

86%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Yes2004 2005 2006

Wording in 2004 – Co-op has major storm, event or catastrophe outage

restoration plan

Co-op Has Written Mutual Assistance Agreement(Multiple Responses Possible)

2%

18%

21%

58%

2%

16%

20%

62%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%

Contractors

Statewide Association

Neighboring Utilities

NeighboringCooperatives

2005

2006

In 2004, 81% of responding systems reported having a written mutual assistance

agreement

Cooperative Have a SCADA System

51%53% 54%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

Yes2004 2005 2006

Cooperative Implemented An Automated Monitoring System Beyond Typical SCADA to Review Momentary/Sustained Interruptions

11% 11%

12%

0%

5%

10%

15%

Yes2004 2005 2006

Cooperative Provides 24-Hour Interruption Dispatch

42%

5%

41%

35%

22%

3%

39%

34%

23%

3%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

Yes - At the Co-op Yes - 3rd Party Spec.In Utilities

Yes - 3rd PartyAnswering Service

No

2004 2005 2006

** 2004

53% used 3rd Party Service (not broken out)

Prevention

Interruption Prevention Plans Cooperative Has Implemented

(Multiple Responses Possible)

25%

45%

50%

50%

71%

73%

74%

82%

29%

48%

58%

60%

81%

81%

83%

91%

29%

51%

86%

84%

85%

93%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Converted overhead tounderground

Covered jumper wires

Consumer education

Grounding improvement

Line patrol

Animal/squirrel guards

Lightning arresters

Tree trimming

2004

2005

2006

Causes of Interruptions(Average Percentage Reported)

16%

7%

4%

4%

4%

7%

11%

13%

33%

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35%

Other

Unknown

Maintenance

Planned

Public

Animals

Equipment

Power Supply

Weather

What is Classified As A Power Supply Interruption For Majority of System


7%

14%

51%

51%

7%

19%

51%

64%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%

None of These

Distribution/Low Sideof dist. substations

Transmission/High Sideportion of substations

Transmission Lines

2005

2006

Co-op's Primary Motivation for Improving Its Reliability System

1%

2%

3%

4%

91%

1%

1%

3%

2%

6%

86%

1%

1%

3%

3%

7%

85%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Other

Regulatory organization

Avoidance of negative PR

Department performancegoals

Board est. minimums forperformance index

Customer satisfaction

2004

2005

2006

Percentage of Annual Budget for Interruption Prevention For Tree Trimming

Means: 2004 = 32.6% 2005 = 35.9% 2006 = 36.1%

15%

15%

21%

27%

23%

15%

14%

23%

21%

27%

17%

10%

19%

28%

26%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40%

Over 75%

50.1% - 75.0%

25.1% - 50.0%

5.1% - 25.0%

5% or less

2004

2005

2006

No Response

2004 – 22%

2005 – 35%

2006 – 41%

Percentages graphed are based on those responding.

Type(s) of Maintenance Program Cooperative Applies To Its System


24%

36%

41%

78%

28%

38%

41%

87%

28%

40%

47%

90%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Proactive Maintenance

Predictive Maintenance

Reactive Maintenance

Preventive Maintenance

2004

2005

2006

System Operation

Cooperative Utilizes Flicker Standards for Residential Designs

38%40% 41%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

Yes2004 2005 2006

Have Regular Visual Inspection Plan for System

82% 83%79%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Yes2004 2005 2006

IF YES: Over What Period of Time?

13%

12%

16%

19%

41%

12%

11%

14%

20%

44%

14%

13%

16%

13%

42%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%

Over 60Months

37 - 60Months

25 - 36Months

13 - 24Months

12 Monthsor Less

2004(n=227)

2005(n=176)

2006(n=170)

Sample Profile

Subject to Regulation by State/Public Service Commission

28%30%

26%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

Yes

2004

2005

2006

Report Power Outages to State/Public Service

Commission

23%

26%

22%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

Yes

Co-op Subject To Regulation by State/PUC

26%

22%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

I II III IV V VI VII VIII IX X TOTAL

Regulated by State/PUC Report Outages To State/PUC

Cooperative Coincident Peak LoadMean: 2004=15,176 MW 2005=13,225 MW 2006=17,653 MW

19%

17%

18%

46%

15%

17%

23%

45%

15%

19%

22%

44%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%

Over 500 MW

151 - 500 MW

76 - 150 MW

75 MW or Less

2004

2005

2006

No Response

2004 – 10%

2005 – 12%

2006 – 24%


Number of Customers Per Mile of Distribution Line

18%

28%

28%

17%

26%

29%

25%

20%

25%

25%

30%

20%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40%

Over 9.0

6.1 - 9.0

3.0 - 6.0

Under 3.0 2004

2005

2006

No Response

2004 – 10%

2005 – 12%

2006 – 23%


Load Breakout

79%

15%

6%

80%

13%

6%

80%

20%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Rural

Suburban

Urban

2004

2005

2006

In 2004, Suburban was not asked as a category

No Response:2004 – 10%2005 – 14% 2006 – 24%


Percentage of Line that Is Overhead Means: 2004 - 83% 2005 - 81% 2006 - 82%

40%

30%

30%

39%

29%

32%

44%

30%

27%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%

Over 90%

76% - 90%

75% or Less

2004

2005

2006

No Response

2004 – 9%

2005 – 10%

2006 – 21%


Survey Respondent Composition as Compared To National NRECA Region Breakout

0%

5%

10%

15%

I II III IV V VI VII VIII IX X

Reliability Study Nationwide Population

Survey Respondent Composition as Compared To National NRECA Breakout

-- Number of Consumers Served --

11%

18%

27%

23%

20%

16%

22%

22%

24%

16%

15%

23%

23%

22%

17%

11%

25%

23%

23%

18%

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30%

Over 40,000

20,001 - 40,000

10,001 - 20,000

5,001 - 10,000

5,000 or Less

2004Study

2005Study

2006Study

NationalSample

Survey Respondent Composition as Compared To National NRECA Breakout

-- Three Year Growth Rate --

16%

17%

38%

29%

20%

21%

34%

26%

23%

19%

32%

26%

23%

26%

29%

22%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40%

Over 3.00%

2.01% - 3.00%

1.01% - 2.00%

1.00% Or Less

2004Study2005Study2006StudyNationalSample

nreca reliability online study -...

Documents