Development and Evolution of an Asset Management

Development and Evolution of an Asset
Management Organization
Art Kruppenbacher – Manager Asset Management
October 21, 2015
About the Iberdrola Group
Headquartered in Spain
109-year history
28,000 employees in 40 countries
Strategic focus on U.S., U.K., Spain and Latin America
Leading wind producer with 6% of world’s installed capacity
Iberdrola today
Iberdrola is one of the world’s five largest
utilities by market capitalization, with $47 Bn
Top Utilities by market cap ($Bn)
State-owned
63
63
54
52
47
GDF
Suez
EDF
Duke
Enel
IBE
43
41
40
NextEra Dominion Southern
First fully private European utility
As of 22 Sept. 2014. FX rate: 1.32 USD/Eur
3
About Iberdrola USA





Network Operating Companies
• Central Maine Power
• New York State Electric & Gas
• Rochester Gas & Electric
Customers served: 2.4 million
Service area (square miles): 34,000
Employees: 4,000
849 Substations
IUSA Operating Areas
Initiation of the IUSA AM Group
PAS 55 defines asset management as “…systematic and coordinated activities
and practices through which an organization optimally and sustainably
manages its assets and asset system, their associated performance, risks and
expenditures over their life cycle for the purpose of achieving its organizational
strategic plan.”
July 2010 – Goal assigned to create an asset management group

Start an asset management organization

Some guidance from Scottish Power
• OFGEM
• PAS 55
- IAM
- IAM self assessment tool
• Asset health scoring
- One dimensional

Staffed group (2 engineers / 2 analysts)

Asset Management Policy Statement

Initial training
• Reading
• Discussions with SP
• Training at Kinectrics

IAM materials

“Strategic Asset Management: The Quest for Utility Excellence” by Clive Deadman, 2010
From the IAM Draft Landscape Document 6/21/11
5
Initial Assessment Selections
First health assessments completed in 2011
 Breakers
• Only about 4,400 units / test data available / regular involvement
• Significant investment item in station
• Included an adjustment for criticality
- Early definition of criticality
- Used criticality as a multiplier against the health score
• Lessons learned
IUSA Circuit Breaker
Health Index by Age
200
IUSA Circuit Breaker Replacement Rating
180
160
10%
140
Replace
Consider for Replacement
24%
29%
Population
11%
120
100
80
Monitor
60
No Action Required
40
No Action Required
20
0
3
6
9
12
15
18
21
24
27
30
33
36
39
42
45
48
51
54
57
60
63
66
69
72
75
0
Age
26%
HI = 1
HI = 2
HI = 3
HI = 4
HI = 5
6
Initial Assessments
First health assessments completed in 2011
 Distribution poles – lots of them (~1.4mil) and little data other than age / some treatment or
species info
• Made some predictions of poles that would be found defective through inspection program
% Identified for replacement during 2008-2010 inspections
10.00%
9.00%
8.00%
7.00%
percent
6.00%
5.00%
% Replaced
4.00%
3.00%
2.00%
1.00%
0.00%
<=10
>10&
<=20
>20&
<=30
>30&
<=40
>40&
<=50
>50&
<=60
>60
Age of Poles
NYSEG Distribution Poles by Construction Year
25,000
20,000
15,000
10,000
5,000
19
00
19
05
19
12
19
16
19
20
19
24
19
28
19
32
19
36
19
40
19
44
19
48
19
52
19
56
19
60
19
64
19
68
19
72
19
76
19
80
19
84
19
88
19
92
19
96
20
00
20
04
20
08
0
Total Pole Count
7
Other Early Assessments
Next explored substation batteries and pad mounted switchgear
 Batteries
• Quick turnaround on replacements due to test results
• Run well up until indication of failures
• Move to nicad batteries / schedule driven by other considerations
 Pad mounted switchgear
• Most issues were corrosion related
• Some IR data but little other internal inspection data
• Maintainable for a period (painting) but not a high priority maintenance program
• Very few internal failures that impacted reliability
8
Substation Transformers
 This asset category chosen because S/S xfmrs are high dollar assets
 Decided to use a consultant to support our effort (Kinectrics)
• Helped with identification of parameters
• Set up data gathering and analysis algorithms
• Helped us understand assessment process
 Included an adjustment factor for risk
9
Transmission Assessments
NY Transmission Assessment
 First time working with a composite asset
• A breaker vs. a line composed of poles / conductors / static / insulators / steel & wood
construction types
 Sufficient understanding had been gained to scope and bid out the consultant work
 Data sources
• Inspections (foot, fast fly, CVI, IR)
• SME – visited every region in the state to get input from field staff
 Data issues
• Difficulty linking FLOCS to sections
• Breaking up sections into relatively homogeneous asset groups
• Difficulty linking data because of different identification mechanisms (line/pole vs. FLOC)
 Developed a listing of lines sorted by health and criticality that was reviewed with the SME’s.
They concurred with a very few exceptions.
• The exceptions provided feedback on items for next assessment
 Additional Steps
• SME’s were asked what interventions it would take to bring the line up to good or very good
condition
• An estimate of the dollars required to address the higher risk lines that had been identified.
10
Transmission
Parameters
Used
11
Transmission
Using in house resources, the CMP transmission system was assessed next
 Modeled closely after the NY transmission assessment
 Made a few minor adjustments to the structure of the assessment but tried to keep them as
close as possible
(operating company names removed)
12
UG Transmission
Worked on RG&E UG transmission
 Data issues were a significant challenge
 Very little recent data on lines / limited opportunity
for inspection
 Recent failures
Paper Lead Cable
13
General Comments
 Have tried to only include age as a minor parameter unless it merits more or is one of the only
pieces of data available
•
•
•
•
Age is easy
Level of correlation depends on asset type
Depreciation link
Regulators made it clear they are very sensitive to making condition assessments too age
based
 Have worked to try different means of visualize and communicate the results to make them
easily understandable
 Have updated the breaker and transformer assessments this year with more recent data
14
Substation Survey
 Mid level view
 “What shape is that substation in?”
 Reliability / Site Issues / Condition
 SME’s from Substation Operations and Maintenance Engineering
15
Defective Equipment Tracking
 Getting additional details from field crews
 Comparing against outages attributed to defective equipment (Reliability Reporting Group)
 Looking for trending
 Support for targeting of replacement activity
 Suspicion of additional defective or degraded equipment issues buried in tree or storm outage
cause codes. (strength vs. stress curve)
16
Risk Register
Identify and assess risks to the T&D assets
Associate risks with a risk “owner”
Determine what mitigation plans are in place to address the risk
Connect risk with investment planning
Encourage people to think in terms of what risk is being addressed in justifying projects
17
Asset Tallies
 Reporting for governmental requirements
 Internal reporting
 Tracking the assumptions and making the responses repeatable
• For example; simple question – how many substations?
- Has a xfmr / switching / H frame mounted / taps off subtransmission / fence
- Two yard stations
- Company equipment in customer subs
18
Rate Cases
 Central Maine Power
• S/S xfmrs, breakers
• UG XLP distribution cable
• Old overhead copper conductor
 New York
• General description of AM approach
• Incorporation of longer term, data based condition assessments into decision
making
19
Linkage to Investment Prioritization
 Health x Criticality  Risk
• Risk will evolve so it ties with resource commitments
 Pre and post investment risk profiles
 Cultural change needed to get people to think in terms of risks being mitigated by a given
proposed project
 Prioritization of condition based projects vs. project initiated due to other factors such as
planning constraints
20
Linkage to Investment Prioritization
 Challenging the organization to quantify how it sees criticality
• Scaling
• Weighting
21
Linkage to Investment Prioritization
Sample Data
22
Future Challenges
 Further integration of asset management concepts into the functional organizations
 Developing better understanding of organizational technical risk appetite and linkage
with programs and initiatives
 Calibration of health classifications so that the descriptions reflect the company’s
approach to management of the assets.
•
•
•
•
•
How degraded does something get to be considered in very poor condition?
What is acceptable?
How does this align with the stated maintenance policies?
How does this align with what maintenance is actually getting done?
What is being budgeted for?
 Adjustment of criticality matrix to align with company’s performance metrics.
• Ex. Reliability – what is a “big” outage vs. a “small” outage?
• How do we compare transmission impacts vs. distribution?
• Most transmission has redundancy so customers may see at most a momentary interruption
• How does the criticality matrix allow for non wires assets such as fleet and IT?
23
Future Challenges
 Working on how to characterize the health of a distribution circuit
• Lots of pieces (not a single asset like a breaker)
• Different constructions and quality of workmanship
• Not a homogenous set of components like a transmission line would be
• All different ages and conditions
• Various repairs and modifications
• Data






Line inspections
IR
Hammer tests
Outage record
Trimming records
Some age information
24
25