1. Spring 2016 ICC Meeting – Subcommittee F Estimating the Value / Benefit of Diagnostics 1 of 3 – Perhaps? Josh Perkel and Nigel Hampton NEETRAC

2. Spring 2016 ICC Meeting – Subcommittee F 2 The information contained herein is, to our knowledge, accurate and reliable at the date of publication. Neither GTRC nor The Georgia Institute of Technology nor NEETRAC shall be responsible for any injury to or death of persons or damage to or destruction of property or for any other loss, damage or injury of any kind whatsoever resulting from the use of the project results and/or data. GTRC, GIT and NEETRAC disclaim any and all warranties, both express and implied, with respect to analysis or research or results contained in this report. It is the user's responsibility to conduct the necessary assessments in order to satisfy themselves as to the suitability of the products or recommendations for the user's particular purpose. No statement herein shall be construed as an endorsement of any product, process or provider. NEETRAC Notice

3. Spring 2016 ICC Meeting – Subcommittee F DOE Disclaimer DOE Disclaimer: This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United States Government. Neither the United States Government nor any agency thereof, nor any of their employees, makes any warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any information, apparatus, product, or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the United States Government or any agency thereof. The views and opinions of authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the United States Government or any agency thereof. DOE Acknowledgement: This material is based upon work supported by the Department of Energy under Award Number DE-OE0000188. 3

4. Spring 2016 ICC Meeting – Subcommittee F Outline Three broad groupings  Commissioning – HV / EHV  Health – MV – utility  Health – MV – provider Approach –Inputs –Calculation –What next 4

5. Spring 2016 ICC Meeting – Subcommittee F Utility practices suggest there is Value? 5

6. Spring 2016 ICC Meeting – Subcommittee F Cost Chain – cable system 6| 6| Maintenance Repair Lost powe r End Of Life Commissioning Health Accessories Cable Installation 6

7. Spring 2016 ICC Meeting – Subcommittee F Assess the Value / Benefit (1/3) Components to the assessment –Price of Diagnostic –Cost of Support –Consequence of Diagnosis –Cost of Inaction  Cost Elements Time Requires model of the “Do Nothing Case” Depends upon “What you find” “Where you go” 7

8. Spring 2016 ICC Meeting – Subcommittee F Need a Scenario on which to base estimates The scenario is –30 year cable system serving 1,000 customers (98% residential) –100 segments of average length 400 ft –SAIDI = 120 min and SAIFI =1.2 –VLF Withstand Diagnostics conducted by a Utility –Withstand Diagnostics applied at year 0 and year 2 –Repair FOT by replacing the cable segment with new cable –Repair FIS by replacing the cable segment with new cable –Assessment made to end of year 4 8

9. Spring 2016 ICC Meeting – Subcommittee F Choice of Costs Cost ElementDescription Reasonable Cost Emergency Switching (assuming looped system) Cost of identifying failed cable run and switching loop from normal condition to abnormal condition so that service is restored. $400 per event Replacement Cost Install new run of cable $15 per ft (single phase) Diagnostic Testing Cost Diagnostic testing by utility $400 per segment 9

10. Spring 2016 ICC Meeting – Subcommittee F Modeling 10 Estimates of likely Failures on Test

11. Spring 2016 ICC Meeting – Subcommittee F Modeling 11 Estimates of likely Failures in Service

12. Spring 2016 ICC Meeting – Subcommittee F Survival of Segments ***** WITHOUT DIAGNOSTICS Test 2 Test 1 Year 1 & 2 Year 3 & 4 Year 1 & 2 Year 3 & 4 WITH DIAGNOSTICS 12

13. Spring 2016 ICC Meeting – Subcommittee F Follow the Survivors 13

14. Spring 2016 ICC Meeting – Subcommittee F Estimate Costs – WITH – simple 9 Outages, 9 Outage Repairs and 23 Test Repairs 14

15. Spring 2016 ICC Meeting – Subcommittee F Estimate Costs – WITHOUT – simple 19 Outages, 19 Outage Repairs and 0 Test Repairs Appears no financial benefit “Do Nothing” “Run to Failure” are lowest dollar costs 15

16. Spring 2016 ICC Meeting – Subcommittee F Recall utilities use diagnostics ?? 16

17. Spring 2016 ICC Meeting – Subcommittee F Assess the Value / Benefit (1/3) Components to the assessment –Cost of Diagnostic –Cost of Support –Consequence of Diagnosis –Cost of Inaction  Cost Elements Time 17

18. Spring 2016 ICC Meeting – Subcommittee F More sophisticated assessment of Value / Benefit (2/3) Components to the assessment –Cost of Diagnostic –Cost of Support –Consequence of Diagnosis –Cost of Inaction  Cost Elements o The repair o The inability to supply Time 18

19. Spring 2016 ICC Meeting – Subcommittee F Difficult to Assess or Articulate the Value / Benefit (2/3) Components to the assessment –Cost of Diagnostic –Cost of Support –Consequence of Diagnosis –Cost of Inaction  Cost Elements o The repair o The inability to supply Time Benefits we cannot precisely value System is less stressed due to fewer in service failures Avoided problems due to “visits” When things “happen” 19

20. Spring 2016 ICC Meeting – Subcommittee F What is the Cost of an Outage ICC in Colorado Springs 1 showed that we can get a good starting estimate from the DoE ICE Calculator 20 1 D. Johnson, “Risk-based Approach to Justifying Cable Intervention”, Presented at the Fall 2014 ICC Meeting in Colorado Springs, CO, in Subcommittee C: Cable Systems, Oct 7, 2014.

21. Spring 2016 ICC Meeting – Subcommittee F ICE Values are Location (state) Specific 21

22. Spring 2016 ICC Meeting – Subcommittee F Estimate the Costs - WITH 9 Outages, 9 Outage Repairs and 23 Test Repairs 22

23. Spring 2016 ICC Meeting – Subcommittee F Estimate the Costs - WITHOUT 19 Outages, 19 Outage Repairs and 0 Test Repairs 23

24. Spring 2016 ICC Meeting – Subcommittee F Choice of Costs – are these values correct Cost ElementDescription Reasonable Costs Emergency Switching (assuming looped system) Cost of identifying failed cable run and switching loop from normal condition to abnormal condition so that service is restored. $400 per event Replacement Cost Install new run of cable $15 per ft (single phase) Diagnostic Testing Cost Diagnostic testing by utility $400 per segment 24

25. Spring 2016 ICC Meeting – Subcommittee F Easier to define Range of Costs Cost ElementDescriptionCost Range Emergency Switching (assuming looped system) Cost of identifying failed cable run and switching loop from normal condition to abnormal condition so that service is restored. $400 - $800 per event Replacement Cost Install new run of cable $15 - $25 per ft (single phase) Diagnostic Testing Cost Diagnostic testing by utility $400 – 650 per segment Embrace the uncertainty by using the cost ranges in Monte Carlo calculations, for the scenario 25

26. Spring 2016 ICC Meeting – Subcommittee F Method of Calculation 26 Complete calculation of 100 segments of 400ft Using a single replacement cost Chosen at random from the range 15 – 25$/ft Repeat 20,000 times

27. Spring 2016 ICC Meeting – Subcommittee F Cost of the Run to Failure Option Outage Repair 27

28. Spring 2016 ICC Meeting – Subcommittee F Cost of the Testing Option 28 TEST FOT

29. Spring 2016 ICC Meeting – Subcommittee F Cost of the Testing Option 29

30. Spring 2016 ICC Meeting – Subcommittee F Comparing the Costs 30

31. Spring 2016 ICC Meeting – Subcommittee F Benefits (difference in costs wrt Run to Failure) 31

32. Spring 2016 ICC Meeting – Subcommittee F Conclusions A cable system incurs costs from the day it is installed to the day it is replaced. –Installation, maintenance & repair Outages are costly to utilities and so proactive actions can have a benefit if their costs are appropriate for the situation Diagnostic program costs and potential benefits can be estimated using probabilistic approaches –Uncertainty in future performance –Uncertainty in individual cost elements (especially the outage cost) Benefits are not guaranteed but at least we can estimate their likelihood of happening 32