IEEE Benchmark Year 2018 Results for 2017 Data

2018 General Meeting

Distribution Reliability Working Group

Portland, Oregon

2

Background to IEEE DRWG Benchmark Study

1. Initiated in 2003, conducted annually

2. Participants are anonymous with key identifier to retain anonymity

3. Participation list is not revealed to anyone

4. Each participant can choose to share their results

5. No inference is made about good or bad reliability

6. Intended to provide information for users to assess their performance relative to peers

7. Called the 2018 Study (for 2017 Results)2

3

Benchmarking• Using annual key metrics (SAIDI, SAIFI and CAIDI) to assess

performance of a system may be useful, however, needs to be tempered

• DRWG Study attempts to identify various aspects that could cause a difference in reported metrics

• Data may not be directly comparable, since – Data collection & system differences exist

– Certain segmentation differences can occur, although we strive to have the differences minimized

• IEEE 1366-2003/2012 • addresses data issues by clearly defining the rules (i.e. what data should be

segmented)

• It DOES NOT address the data collection issues

• Companies may not report all forms of outages, due to data collection issues or other reasons

3

4

Region 0: Spans States or Unknown

Region 1: Northeast

Region 2: Mid-Atlantic

Region 3: Southeast

Region 4: Midwest

Region 5: Southwest

Region 6: South

Region 7: Northwest

Northwest: 10

Participants

Southwest: 12

Participants

Midwest: 18

Participants

South: 11

Participants Southeast : 4

Participants

Northeast: 11

Participants

Mid-Atlantic:

24 Participants

Regions represented by the participants

2018 Benchmark Study for 2017 Data

Spans States or Other: 3

4

5

Classification of Respondents-update

• 89,172,744 customers represented in North America

• 2018 Survey for 2017 Data– 7 Small (=< 100,000 customers)

– 55 Medium (>100,000 and <1,000,000 customers)

– 31 Large (>= 1M customers)

• Circuit Mileage Reported by all entrants– 2.22 million miles, for which 89 companies reported

on overhead (72%) versus underground (28%)

5

6

Respondents•About 250 companies have responded at some time

•2018 Survey: 93 entries recorded

SAIDI ALL SAIDI IEEE SAIDI WOF SAIDI WOP SAIFI ALL SAIFI IEEE SAIFI WOF SAIFI WOP CAIDI ALL CAIDI IEEE

0 MIN 41 32 1 1 0.35 0.33 0.01 0.01 52 46

1 Q1 134 78 74 66 1.03 0.82 0.73 0.67 118 94

2 MEDIAN 222 120 117 109 1.34 1.07 0.95 0.84 162 111

3 Q3 382 189 162 152 1.90 1.47 1.19 1.16 230 137

4 MAX 2493 442 408 369 4.53 2.44 2.10 1.95 1223 325

7

Respondents by Utility Size

Quartile Small 7 SAIDI ALL SAIDI IEEE SAIDI WOF SAIDI WOP SAIFI ALL SAIFI IEEE SAIFI WOF SAIFI WOP CAIDI ALL CAIDI IEEE

0 MIN 62 48 46 43 0.91 0.91 0.82 0.67 52 46

1 Q1 90 81 68 56 1.22 1.12 0.93 0.70 78 74

2 MEDIAN 183 92 96 81 1.41 1.21 1.04 0.88 84 78

3 Q3 336 192 154 118 3.32 1.85 1.14 0.98 127 92

4 MAX 728 226 161 151 4.53 2.44 1.38 1.11 185 135

Quartile Medium 55 SAIDI ALL SAIDI IEEE SAIDI WOF SAIDI WOP SAIFI ALL SAIFI IEEE SAIFI WOF SAIFI WOP CAIDI ALL CAIDI IEEE

0 MIN 41 32 32 31 0.35 0.33 0.31 0.31 71 63

1 Q1 134 91 78 76 1.05 0.85 0.73 0.69 124 96

2 MEDIAN 219 128 122 114 1.34 1.11 0.99 0.88 161 115

3 Q3 355 192 171 162 1.94 1.55 1.33 1.32 212 138

4 MAX 1741 406 386 339 3.41 2.33 2.10 1.95 674 325

Quartile Large 31 SAIDI ALL SAIDI IEEE SAIDI WOF SAIDI WOP SAIFI ALL SAIFI IEEE SAIFI WOF SAIFI WOP CAIDI ALL CAIDI IEEE

0 MIN 50 45 1 1 0.73 0.51 0.01 0.01 67 61

1 Q1 142 76 74 61 0.94 0.73 0.70 0.63 118 98

2 MEDIAN 253 113 107 90 1.37 0.96 0.88 0.82 188 111

3 Q3 422 179 158 139 1.54 1.26 1.15 0.95 300 141

4 MAX 2493 442 408 369 2.83 2.29 1.76 1.53 1223 231

8

Historic SAIDI-IEEE & Total

9

Historic SAIFI-IEEE & Total

10

Historic CAIDI-IEEE & Total

11

2018201720162015201420132012201120102009

600

500

400

300

200

100

0

year

iee

e_

sa

idi

Boxplot of ieee_saidi

12

2018 SAIDI for 2017 DataSorted by IEEE w/ME, Feed & Plan

13

2018 SAIFI for 2017 DataSorted by IEEE w/ME, Feed & Plan

14

Total (STD) SAIDI 2018 for 2017 Data

15

IEEE SAIDI 2018 for 2017 Data

16

Total (STD) SAIFI 2018 for 2017 Data

17

IEEE SAIFI 2018 for 2017 Data

18

Total (STD) CAIDI 2018 for 2017 Data

19

IEEE CAIDI 2018 for 2017 Data

Additional Study: Are 4th Quartile Companies Departing Study & Improving Statistics?

The attached file has 4 Charts that should tell all that is needed to know.- If a company stopped sending info and did not start sending data later on, it is a

“Permanent Dropout.”- If a Company stopped sending info but started sending data later on, it is a “Recovered

Dropout.”

Some companies stopped and started a number of times. Each of the stops with restarts were counted as “Recovered Dropouts.”If a company stopped, restarted and stopped permanently, it was counted as both a “Recovered and a Permanent Dropout.”

NOTE: There were no company dropouts between 2009 and 2010.It appears that companies in the first Quartile that stop sending data are more apt

to restart sending data in later years.The number of Permanent Dropouts each year appears to be dropping.

Hope this helps squash any error assumptions.

Additional Study: Dropouts Not Recovered

Additional Study: Dropouts Recovered

23

Additional Study: EIA Data Comparison

24

SAIDI and SAIFI w/ and w/o MEDs

Additional Study: EIA Data Comparison

Cause Code Survey Questions

Survey results just processed and summary is

underway.

Early review indicates information will be informative

for both 1366 and 1782 standard enhancements

Data analysis task force will be provided summary

information within next month and develop

interpretations

26

Questions

26