METROPOLITAN EDISON COMPANY - Pennsylvania Public Utility ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Follow-up Finding and Conclusion No. VI-4 – The FE-PA Companies have hadcircuits that have been consistently showing up on the 5% worst performingcircuit list for two years or longer.The FE-PA Companies should be routinely identifying circuits that have been ontheir 5% worst performing circuits list for one year or in four out of six quarters and striveto reduce the number of circuits that consistently show up on the list. Moreover, inaccordance with 52 Pa Code § 57.195(e) (3), specific remedial efforts taken andplanned for the 5% worst performing circuits should be identified.Beginning in 2006, distribution circuits were ranked based on each circuit’scontribution to the EDC’s overall SAIDI. The FE-PA Companies use SAIDI as ameasure of circuit performance where SAIDI is a measure of the total customer minutesof distribution outages on the circuit. The FE-PA Companies discontinued the use ofCRI in determining their 5% worst performing circuits because the EDCs found thatranking worst performing circuits based on CRI did not necessarily align with the worstperforming circuits based on a SAIDI analysis.In the existing quarterly reports to the PUC, the FE-PA Companies provide a listof the top 5% of circuits based on a rolling 12-month period that have the highest SAIDI.The list includes the name of the substation that was affected, remedial action plannedor taken, status of remedial work, date remedial work was completed and the number ofquarters that the circuit has appeared on the list. Exhibit VI-7 provides a list of the topthree circuits in each FE-PA Company’s service territory that have shown up on the 5%worst performing circuits list and the number of quarters that they have been on the listin the past three and a half years (i.e., from January 2007 to June 2010).Exhibit VI-7FirstEnergy <strong>Pennsylvania</strong> CompaniesWorst Performing CircuitsJanuary 2007-June 2010Company Substation CircuitMet-EdPenelecPenn PowerSource: Data Request No. ER-13Number of ConsecutiveQuartersNorth Bangor 00826-3 14Shawnee 00895-3 14Walker 00865-3 8Warren South 00220-41 14Union City 00206-43 14Erie South 00259-31 14Hartstown W-126 12Mercer W-167 9Canal W-104 8- 42 -
All three FE-PA Companies have had circuits that have shown up on the 5%worst performing circuits list consistently. As evident from Exhibit VI-7, five circuits havebeen on the 5% worst performing circuits list for 14 consecutive quarters or three and ahalf years. The primary causes of these outages have been attributed to vehicleaccidents, line failures, non-preventable trees and equipment failures. For the mostpart, remedial work is performed on these circuits immediately to include fieldengineering reviews.The FE-PA Companies indicated that most of the circuits that show up on the 5%worst performing circuits list on a consistent basis have a lot of wire and are very ruraland not easily accessible which makes it difficult and takes longer to get to them.Moreover, some of these circuits don’t have a lot of ties with other neighboring circuitsmaking it difficult to restore outages in a short period of time leading to high customerminutes of interruption.Sectionalizing of a distribution system can have a significant impact on continuityof service and overall system reliability. Proper sectionalizing minimizes the number ofcustomers affected by service interruption reducing SAIFI and SAIDI. Radio controlledsectionalizing would modify the topology of the system especially the rural areas thatare not easily accessible. The lines can be energized through different paths throughinterconnections with other feeders and/or interconnection of lines belonging to thesame feeder.The Audit Staff understands that most of these circuits are rural and not easilyaccessible which is why we suggest that the Company consider installing radiocontrolled sectionalizing at some of these locations or some other devices to improvereliability. Reportedly the FE-PA Companies have looked into radio controlledsectionalizing but didn’t think that they would get the biggest “bang for the buck” (i.e.,the costs to install the devices would be much higher than the benefits derived such asa reduction in SAIDI). The Audit Staff is not suggesting that the FE-PA Companiesimmediately install radio controlled sectionalizing, but we believe that performing a costbenefit analysis for radio controlled or similar sectionalizing devices for prospectiveareas would be a step in the right direction.Staff’s Follow-up Recommendation – Take additional actions on circuits that stayon the 5% worst performing circuit for more than a year and develop solutions toimprove overall reliability on these circuits.Prior Recommendation – Conduct a more useful planning study.Prior Situation – In accordance with the 2004 Reliability Settlement Agreement,FirstEnergy conducted a line and substation workforce study pertaining to the FE-PACompanies. The study was a staffing analysis which examined each of the FE-PACompanies’ staffing levels and how they were expected to be affected by retirementand non-retirement attrition. The workload forecast was based on historical timesheetdata as well as contractor usage for the year 2004.- 43 -
Page 5: METROPOLITAN EDISON COMPANYPENNSYLV
Page 8 and 9: • Support Services• Human Resou
Page 10 and 11: • Developed and implemented forma
Page 12 and 13: FIRSTENERGY PENNSYLVANIA COMPANIESM
Page 24 and 25: III. AFFILIATE INTERESTSBackground
Page 26 and 27: In addition, subsidiary or related
Page 28 and 29: BWG recommended that a detailed, wr
Page 30 and 31: management. Other potential uses of
Page 32 and 33: IV. CORPORATE GOVERNANCEBackground
Page 34 and 35: V. FINANCIAL MANAGEMENTBackground -
Page 36 and 37: the internal audit was to determine
Page 38 and 39: Committee citing the internal contr
Page 40 and 41: VI. ELECTRIC RELIABILITYBackground
Page 42: Exhibit VI-1Metropolitan Edison Com
Page 45 and 46: provide additional details to the C
Page 47: Exhibit VI-6FirstEnergy Pennsylvani
Page 51 and 52: FirstEnergy is following the right
Page 53 and 54: Company, and The Toledo Edison Comp
Page 55 and 56: technicians. These strategies are u
Page 57 and 58: VIII. EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESSBackgro
Page 59 and 60: Routine periodic updating of the em
Page 61 and 62: Follow-up Finding and Conclusion No
Page 63 and 64: old excess inventory. Spare invento
Page 65 and 66: controls were automated. Moreover,
Page 67 and 68: Exhibit IX-6FE-PA CompaniesPercenta
Page 69 and 70: FE-PA Companies were unable to iden
Page 71 and 72: Staff’s Follow-up Recommendation
Page 73 and 74: Exhibit X-6Metropolitan Edison Comp
Page 75 and 76: Prior Recommendation - Develop a co
Page 77 and 78: Therefore, BWG suggested that First
Page 79 and 80: XI. CUSTOMER SERVICEBackground - Th
Page 81 and 82: Exhibit XI-2FE-PA CompaniesPercenta
Page 83 and 84: Exhibit XI-5FE-PA Companies Compare
Page 85 and 86: Exhibit XI-7FE-PA Companies Compare
Page 87 and 88: Follow-up Finding and Conclusion No
Page 89 and 90: uilding, in an effort to protect re
Page 91 and 92: Companies would submit a supplement
Page 93 and 94: 3. The "four-fifths" rule (underuti
Page 95 and 96: Met-Ed has female underutilization
Page 97 and 98: Exhibit XII-4Page 1 of 2FirstEnergy
Page 99 and 100:
The number of years that FirstEnerg
Page 101 and 102:
FE-PA Companies do track purchases
show all

METROPOLITAN EDISON COMPANY - Pennsylvania Public Utility ...

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?