Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
Prepared for:
Prepared by:
InfraSource Technology
Contact:
Executive Summary
The Asset Management and System Reliability Group (AMSR) of Southern California Edison (SCE) has requested an independent review of its objectives, methodologies, and resources. InfraSource has accomplished this through a review of data provided
by SCE and a series of on-site interviews. The InfraSource assessment focuses on reliability assessment, aging infrastructure
assessment, infrastructure replacement planning, and credibility of results with respect to internal budgeting and general rate case
funding requests.
AMSR has oversight responsibilities in three categories of spending: the replacement of subsurface switches, worst circuit rehabilitation, and proactive cable replacement. In each of these areas, AMSR is making appropriate spending recommendations as
benchmarked against the requirements of asset management, the overall objectives of Southern California Edison, and the approaches of other large investor-owned utilities in the United States. This finding is based on an assessment of organization, data,
reliability management, and aging cable models.
Organization. The AMSR group is situation organizationally within SCE in a manner suitable for its stated mission and goals.
AMSR is slightly understaffed, and will increasingly require higher levels of staffing as the amount of proactive equipment replacement activity increases.
Data. The data available to AMSR for making proactive equipment replacement decisions is better than at most large utilities.
This is especially true for equipment population age data. The present outage management system has only been active since the
beginning of 2006, and data from this system must currently be supplemented from an old system (the data is not as complete in
the old system). This limitation is being well-managed, and data from the old system will eventually not be needed by AMSR.
Reliability Management. AMSR is appropriately considering all capital aspects of potential reliability improvement projects for
both overhead and underground. In addition, AMSR is properly coordinating with other groups within SCE to ensure that the
most appropriate projects are identified. AMSR does not presently recommend inspection or maintenance projects. However, it is
the plan of AMSR to include inspection and maintenance work in its work scope for 2009 and beyond, which will increase its
ability to address the reliability in a cost effective manner.
Aging Cable Models. AMSR has advanced cable failure rate models and aging system reliability models when compared to the
industry as a whole. The resulting predictions have the opportunity to become more specific over time with better data and better
analytical models, but the current predictions for escalating cable failures and the corresponding impact to system reliability are
able to identify appropriate levels of cable replacement and appropriate replacement projects. SCE will have to significantly increase the amount of proactive cable replacement in the near future to avoid significant worsening of system reliability. For
higher levels of cable replacement that will be seen in five years and beyond, it will become increasingly desirable to use more
detail data and more detailed models.
The data and methodologies used by AMSR are appropriate and have resulted in credible reliability predictions with regards to
increasing cable failures, the impact of increasing cable failures on system reliability, and the impact of proactive cable replacement on future reliability. The approach of AMSR for proactive equipment replacement is more sophisticated and produces results with higher confidence when compared to most other large utilities. Spending requests by AMSR are reasonable, higher
spending request levels could be justified at this time, and higher levels of spending on proactive equipment replacement will be
required in the future.
FINAL REPORT
Page 2 of 28
Table of Contents
INTRODUCTION ..............................................................................................................................................4
ORGANIZATION ..............................................................................................................................................5
RELIABILITY MANAGEMENT...................................................................................................................12
FINAL REPORT
Page 3 of 28
1 Introduction
The Asset Management and System Reliability Group (AMSR) of Southern California Edison (SCE) has
requested an independent review of its objectives, resources, methodologies, and resources. InfraSource
has accomplished this through a review of data provided by SCE and a series of on-site interviews conducted by Richard Brown at the Santa Ana SCE site. This report is presents the results of Dr. Browns
findings.
The AMSR Group of Southern California Edison (SCE) has the following mission:
AMSR Mission
Asset Management & System Reliability will enhance distribution reliability by ensuring timely, sufficient, and cost-effective replacements of aging infrastructure, by impelling cost-effective improvements in system design, maintenance, and operation, by providing data and analysis to organizations
whose activities impact system reliability.
Specific objectives of the Asset Management and System Reliability Group are the following:
AMSR Objectives
With a quantitative measure of uncertainty and employing auditable analyses, predict reliability
over the next 25 years at the system and circuit level, with and without various levels of preemptive infrastructure replacement and/or automation.
Utilize the above analyses to (1) enable informed decision-making at the senior and executive
management levels regarding resource expenditures, and (2) support, with empirical evidence,
SCEs request for capital funding of infrastructure replacement in the 2009 General Rate Case.
Considering the above mission and objectives, the InfraSource assessment focuses on reliability assessment, aging infrastructure assessment, aging infrastructure planning, and credibility of results with respect
to internal budgeting and general rate case funding requests. As such, this report first describes the AMSR
group in terms of the greater SCE organization. It then discusses data, modeling, and reliability management. Last, it discusses the AMSR approach to proactive reliability management in general and proactive
cable replacement in detail.
FINAL REPORT
Page 4 of 28
2 Organization
Southern California Edison (SCE) is one of the largest investor-owned electric utilities in the United
States. It serves more than 13 million people in a 50,000 square-mile area of central, coastal and Southern
California, excluding the City of Los Angeles and certain other cities. SCE has consolidated assets of approximately $25.3 billion, and employs about 15,000 people.
When examining a relatively small group like AMSR, it is critical to examine its place within the greater
corporate organization. In this case, AMSR falls within the SCE Transmission and Distribution business
unit within the Engineering and Technical Services division. The SCE organizational chart showing
AMSR is shown in Figure 2-1.
FINAL REPORT
Page 5 of 28
As shown in Figure 2-1, AMSR is located under both planning and engineering, but excludes both field
engineering and transmission planning. Therefore, the AMSR group is organizationally suitable for addressing issues related to distribution planning, reliability, and proactive infrastructure replacement. This
organizational structure supports the AMSR mission and goals as stated in Section 1.
Not visible on the organizational chart is the fact that AMSR is only responsible for examining issues impacting capital budgets (as opposed to inspection, maintenance, and/or operational budgets). This is typical industry practice. There are potential benefits for an asset management group being responsible for
both capital and expense budgets, but this is not common industry practice at the present time. AMSR is
presently in the process of proposing the addition of some expense dollars to the worst circuit rehabilitation program.
Because AMSR is only responsible for examining issues impacting capital budgets, the remainder of this
report will focus primarily on projects and issues that impact capital budgets.
Within AMSR, there is a manager and eight additional people. Of these eight people, two are focused on
asset model development, three are focused on reliability data collection and reporting, and three are focused on project identification and scoping. Together, this group is responsible for identifying and justifying about $30 million in project work for 2006, ramping up to roughly $90 million in project work for
2009. AMSR is slightly understaffed for the present activity level of $90M in infrastructure replacement.
As the activity level increases, the need for a higher level of staffing will increase. There is no obvious
way to automate present job tasks. In fact, the current AMSR plan to utilize predictive reliability modeling in its processes will further increase staffing needs (see Section 4).
FINAL REPORT
Page 6 of 28
FINAL REPORT
Page 7 of 28
30
Weather
25
UG Equip.
20
OH Equip.
3rd Party
15
Animal
10
Vegetation
Operation
Other
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
Creating multiple lists identifies a group of feeders that (1) have a high impact to overall reliability,
and/or (2) are likely to result in customer complaints. AMSR coordinates with field engineers (who have
local knowledge of concerning circuits) to select the specific circuits to target for reliability improvement.
This is a robust process and helps to ensure that WCR work is done on circuits that are truly problematic
from a system, customer, and/or field operations perspectives.
FINAL REPORT
Page 8 of 28
FINAL REPORT
Page 9 of 28
A screen shot from a DPI work order is shown in Figure 3-2. This work order contains a material code, a
location, an associated ledger account, and other useful information. Presently, there is not an easy way to
access summary information from the DPI work orders, but AMSR should consider investigating this
possibility.
DPI work orders are reconciled to property record ledger accounts in the CARS system (Corporate Accounting Records System) via CPR (Continuing Property Records). There are underground cable accounts for each year, and each cable removal project results in the amount of removal being subtracted
from the associated account. Neither cable locations nor removal reasons are recorded in CARS. CARS is
also not able to segregate cable by voltage class (e.g., 4 kV, 12 kV, 16 kV) nor is it able to distinguish
primary from secondary cable. However, this information is potentially accessible from DPI work order
records.
CARS contains data sufficient to calculate how much cable was installed in any given year, and how
much of the cable installed in that year was removed in every subsequent year. Based on samples performed, SCEs primary cable system is estimated to comprise 50% of the total distribution cable inventory (except PILC) with the remainder being the secondary cable system. Therefore, present calculations
assume that half of each CARS account reflects primary cable and the other half reflects secondary cable.
Because SCE (for the most part) has only purchased a single type of cable insulation in any given year, it
can infer cable insulation type for each year. These cable types are PILC (paper insulated lead covered),
HMW (high molecular weight), XLPE (cross-linked polyethylene), and TR-XLPE (tree retardant crosslinked polyethylene). From the data in CARS, SCE is able to produce a histogram of its current inventory
of installed cable by year of installation (and therefore type). It is also able to estimate average cable failure rates as a function of age. A chart showing cable age distribution based on accounting records is
shown in Figure 3-4.
The level of accuracy achieved by AMSR for population data is better than that achieved by many utilities. Most utilities are able to identify the amount of cable purchased each year from accounting records,
but most do not reduce these accounts based on specific cable removal work orders. Instead, removal
quantities are typically allocated across accounts using techniques such as Iowa curves.
The cable population data presently available to AMSR is sufficient for most asset management functions. In addition, there is the potential to extract additional useful data from DPI.
FINAL REPORT
Page 10 of 28
2000
1800
1600
In conductor-miles
PILC = 4,495
HMW = 1,451
XLPE = 29,589
TR-XLPE = 10,769
Total = 46,304
Conductor-miles
1400
1200
TR-XLPE
XLPE
1000
HMW
PILC
800
600
400
200
2005
2003
2001
1999
1997
1995
1993
1991
1989
1987
1985
1983
1981
1979
1977
1975
1973
1971
1969
1967
1965
1963
1961
1959
1957
Year of Installation
FINAL REPORT
Page 11 of 28
4 Reliability Management
Although electric utilities presently address asset management in many different ways, the best approaches to asset management all contain several elements. These include the following: (1) decisions are
data-driven; (2) decisions consider cost, performance, and risk; and (3) processes are in place to ensure
that decisions are efficient.
The present mandate of AMSR is to recommend capital projects that efficiently address reliability and
risk concerns on the distribution system. Therefore, an appropriate working definition of asset management for AMSR is the following:
Working Definition of Asset Management for the SCE AMSR Group
Asset management is a data-driven business approach that strives to identify appropriate levels of
infrastructure replacement that maximize reliability and risk benefits subject to financial and human
resource constraints.
AMSR makes certain spending recommendation based on risk. For example, AMSR recommends subsurface switch replacements due to operational safety concerns. A specific category of oil-filled switches
have been identified as vulnerable to catastrophic failure when operated. AMSR has prioritized these
switches for replacement.
AMSR is concerned with two aspects of reliability. First, it is interested in system reliability as measured
by the reliability indices SAIFI, SAIDI, and MAIFI. Second, it is interested in worst circuit reliability.
AMSR expects reliability indices to become worse over time due to aging infrastructure, and is developing scenarios to address this problem (see Section 5). Worst circuits are a potential source of customer
dissatisfaction, and are addressed through the previously-mentioned WCR program.
Although AMSR is only concerned with capital budgets, it is useful from a benchmarking perspective to
look at reliability holistically. The activities of AMSR can then be examined from this broader perspective. This approach is now taken by (1) considering the reliability of overhead distribution, and (2) separately considering the reliability of underground distribution.
The reliability of overhead distribution for SCE is driven by weather, overhead equipment failures, thirdparty-related failures, and trees. The major maintenance activities performed by SCE that can affect these
areas are vegetation management and pole inspections (these help to reduce failures associated with
weather, overhead equipment, and trees, but not third-party issues such as vehicular accidents). SCE is
required by the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) to perform vegetation management in a
specific manner. In addition, SCE is required by the CPUC to perform wood pole inspections in a specific
manner. Given these factors, SCE has a limited influence on the reliability overhead circuits through
changes in maintenance practices.
As the overhead distribution equipment at SCE ages, reliability will generally not go down. Certain types
of overhead equipment wear out over time (e.g., steel-core wire), but these types of failures generally only
contribute a small amount to reliability indices. Similarly, aging pole-mounted transformers may begin to
fail more often, but these failures only impact a small number of customers. Also, SCE has a transformer
load management program that identifies heavily loaded distribution transformers that are likely to fail
due to overloading. Aging wood poles in principal could begin to fail more often, but SCE is required (as
previously mentioned) by the CPUC to periodically test and treat its wood poles. Aging infrastructure is
FINAL REPORT
Page 12 of 28
simply not a major issue for overhead SCE distribution circuits with regards to its impact on SAIFI,
SAIDI, and MAIFI.
Overhead reliability can be improved through capital projects such as lateral fusing, the addition of new
manual switches, the addition of new automated switches, and the addition of new circuits. Typically the
most cost effective capital approaches are lateral fusing, the addition of new manual switches, and automation. With regards to these options, the following observations are made:
Potential Capital Project to Improve Overhead Reliability
- More fuses. It is estimated that about half of all radial taps are fused. Fusing radial taps is presently being done through the WCR program. Fusing radial taps on feeders not addressed by the
WCR program is an opportunity for SCE.
- More switches. An interview with a system operator with 6 years of experience indicates that the
number of manual switches on overhead circuits is sufficient for fault isolation and system restoration.
- More automation. SCE has a separate group in charge of the deployment of automated distribution switches (for both overhead and underground). Presently SCE has about 2500 automated distribution switches and an additional 1000 automated reclosers. Of the 4300 SCE distribution circuits, this represents about 1300 circuits with automated switching devices. At this point, most of
the overhead circuits that would benefit significantly from automation are already automated, and
the program is primarily focused on underground circuits.
For AMSR, there is a limited ability to address the reliability of overhead circuits. When a primarily
overhead circuit is addressed in the WCR process, typical recommendations for reliability improvement
include lateral fusing, FCIs, automation, and automatic reclosers. It is the plan of AMSR to include inspection and maintenance work in its work scope for 2009 and beyond, which will increase its ability to
address the reliability of overhead circuits.
The reliability of underground circuits for SCE is primarily a function of equipment failures, especially
cable failures. In addition, cable failure will increase as cables age, causing reliability to gradually become worse over time. SCE does not have specific CPUC requirements with regards to cable inspection
and replacement, and therefore has a large amount of control with respect to cost and reliability for its
underground distribution circuits.
It is more difficult to improve the reliability of underground systems due to logistical factors such as the
difficulty of obtaining new locations for new equipment. Therefore, capital reliability improvement options are generally limited to cable replacement and the automation of existing switches. With regards to
these options, the following observations are made:
Potential Capital Project to Improve Underground Reliability
- More automation. As mentioned previously, SCE has a separate group in charge of the deployment of automated distribution switches. This group coordinates switch placement with the
AMSR group. In addition, WCR recommendations may include automation, which are coordinated with the SCE automation function.
- Proactive cable replacement. SCE has a large amount of old distribution cable in service, and
this cable will start to fail with increasing frequency. This will lead to worsening reliability indices and increased operational costs. Proactive cable replacement can help with this situation, but
should only be done if the right cable is replaced and the right amount of cable is replaced. This
issued is discussed in detail in Section 5.
FINAL REPORT
Page 13 of 28
AMSR has three primary spending categories: proactive cable replacement, sub-surface switch replacement, and WCR. Each of these three categories is now discussed briefly:
Switch Replacement
The present sub-surface switch replacement program is justifiable based on risk and safety considerations.
FINAL REPORT
Page 14 of 28
FINAL REPORT
Page 15 of 28
1.00
PILC
0.90
XLPE
0.80
TR-XLPE
HMW
Unreliability
0.70
0.60
0.50
0.40
0.30
0.20
0.10
0.00
0
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
Cable Age
11 data points
3 data points
28 data points
8 data points
There are enough data points to create useful failure rate functions for both PILC and XLPE, which are
the primary sources of cable failures on the SCE distribution system.
HMW only has three data points, which is fewer than desirable when developing a failure rate model.
However, there is only a small amount of installed HMW cable on the SCE system and the failure rate of
HMW cable is relatively low. Therefore, it is not imperative to have high confidence in the HMW failure
rate model.
TR-XLPE has eight data points, but these only correspond to cables less than eight years in age. Therefore, it is not possible to project end-of-failure life from these historical data points and assumptions are
required. In addition, failures of new TR-XLPE are dominated by a combination of infant mortality
(where very new equipment tend to fail more often that slightly older equipment) and non-age-related
failure such as dig-ins. This type of situation is true for all new classes of equipment and is unavoidable.
However, this limitation will not impact short-term system reliability predictions since these predictions
FINAL REPORT
Page 16 of 28
are dominated by failures of other types of equipment. Predictions past 15 or 20 years in the future have a
high percentage of TR-XLPE and will be highly dependent on the assumptions made for TR-XLPE endof-life failure characteristics.
System modeling requires age-versus-failure rate models. To do this, it is necessary to convert the unreliability models of Figure 5-1 to failure rate models. The CARS database can directly compute the total
amount of replaced cable per year. The ODRM database contains the total number of cable failures per
year, allowing the average number of replacement miles per failure to be computed. Presently, there is
only slightly more than one year of ODRM data available. Therefore, AMSR is supplementing this data
with four years of data from DTOM. Since DTOM does not capture area outages, AMSR is scaling up the
DTOM outages based on the ratio of circuit to area outages as computed by ODRM. AMSR will eventually shift to the exclusive use of ODRM data.
The AMSR age versus failure rate models have been compared to models developed by Pacific Gas &
Electric as shown in Chapter 18 of their 2007 General Rate Case filing (Electric Distribution Aging Infrastructure). The exhibit of this chapter describes the development of failure rate models for both PILC and
XLPE cable based on age-specific cable data. These models are generally similar to the models developed
by AMSR.
AMSR has projected the contribution of cable failure to system reliability for a range of proactive cable
replacement scenarios. This model sequentially simulates years by determining the number of cable failures of each vintage and replacing failed cable sections with new TR-XLPE cable. In addition, proactive
cable replacement is performed by always replacing the cable with the highest failure rate first. Scenarios
have been examined for proactive cable replacement levels ranging from no proactive replacement to 800
miles per year. Results for the contribution of cable failures to SAIDI (in minutes) are shown in Figure 52, with each simulation starting in 2006 and ending in 2031.
80
75
0 mi/yr
70
100 mi/yr
65
200 mi/yr
60
300 mi/yr
55
50
SAIDI
45
600 mi/yr
40
800 mi/yr
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
2006
2011
2016
2021
2026
2031
2036
FINAL REPORT
Page 17 of 28
The top line Figure 5-2 shows the projected increase in SAIDI with no proactive cable replacement. Compared to 2006 levels, cable failures will approximately double by 2013, triple by 2018, and quadruple by
2031. Although this may seem high, it is lower than the projections estimated by PG&E in its 2007 General Rate Case Filing.
The 2006 SAIDI for SCE was 116 minutes (excluding major events), with cable failures (due to bad cable) contributing about 18 minutes to this total. In absolute terms, reliability will increase from about 116
minutes in 2006 to about 170 minutes in 2031 if no proactive cable replacement is performed. This assessment assumes 3% annual system growth while all other reliability factors over this time period remain
unchanged.
A SAIDI increase of 47% over the next 25 years due to increasing cable failures is not an acceptable scenario. Even extensive automation deployment on an additional 2000 circuits would only improve SAIDI
by about 10%. Clearly the proactive cable replacement activities of AMSR are needed by SCE.
SCE has about 46,000 conductor miles of cable. Assuming that the expected life of cable is about 35
years (a conservative assumption), this means that eventually SCE will have to replace about 1300 miles
of cable per year (total, including reactive replacement). SCE is has only been proactively replacing about
30 miles per year in recent years, and plans to increase this amount to the following:
Table 5-1. Projected Levels of Proactive Cable Replacement
Year
Miles
2006
30 (actual)
2007
50
2008
100
2009
250
The short-term SAIDI benefits of modest proactive replacement are small when compared to no proactive
replacement. Consider the difference in the top two lines in Figure 5-2, which represent the difference
between no proactive replacement and 100 miles per year. In 2011, 100 miles per year of proactive replacement will improve SAIDI by about 2 minutes, which is not noticeable considering natural variations
in SAIDI from year to year. Even aggressive replacement of 800 miles per year will only result in about a
7 minute SAIDI improvement in 2011.
However, managing a large system of aging cable over its useful life requires looking out more than five
years. In the case of SCE, cable failure rates start to increase to modest levels in 2011 and aggressively
begin to increase beyond this point. As mentioned previously, SCE will eventually have to be replacing
about 1300 conductor miles of cable per year. Presently, about 300 miles per year is being replaced due to
cable failures, and about an additional 50-250 miles per year is planned for proactive replacement over
the next few years. This amount is appropriate in the short-term, but will need to be significantly increased over time.
AMSR estimates that they able to identify over 3000 miles of specific proactive cable replacement projects that can be justified by the current data and analyses. This is done though a combination of the WCR
program and by locating older cable sections through FIMs (with the possibility of being aided by vault
age data from Passport and automatic data extraction). Since the levels of proposed proactive replacement
FINAL REPORT
Page 18 of 28
is well below this number, the proactive cable projects identified by AMSR for at least the next five years
can be considered valid.
As the most obvious proactive cable replacement projects become completed over time and as the level of
proactive cable replacement increases, AMSR will benefit from the ability to be more detailed in both its
cable failure rate models and in its identified proactive cable replacement projects. The processes are
more than acceptable today, but suggestions for the future include:
1. When computing replacement miles, remove all projects not associated with age-related failures.
For example, any cable removed as part of a circuit upgrade or relocation should not be included
when computing replacement miles. Similarly, cable replaced due to a dig-in should not be included.
2. Attempt to identify the specific percentage of primary and secondary cable in each CARS account.
3. Be more precise when converting replacement miles to failures. For example, typical PILC failures may results in a different amount of replacement miles than XLPE failures. If AMSR can be
more precise when performing these calculations, higher confidence can be given to the failure
rate models.
4. Include additional features in cable failure models. For example, there may be differences in cable of different voltage classes or insulation thickness. There may be differences in main trunk
versus lateral characteristics. There may be different failure characteristics for different geographic areas. If AMSR can develop more detailed models, more targeted replacements programs
can be designed.
It is possible that the above four suggestions could be implemented by using data mined from the DPI
database.
AMSR has advanced cable failure rate models and aging system reliability models when compared to the
industry as a whole. The resulting predictions have the opportunity to become more specific over time
with better data and better analytical models, but the current predictions for escalating cable failures and
the corresponding impact to system reliability are able to identify appropriate levels of cable replacement
and appropriate replacement projects.
FINAL REPORT
Page 19 of 28
FINAL REPORT
Page 20 of 28
Institution
University of North Carolina
University of Washington
University of Washington
University of Washington
Professional Experience
Title
Vice President of Distribution
Senior Principal Consultant
Director of Technology
Principal Engineer
Senior Engineer
Research/Teaching Assistant
Electrical Engineer III
Electrical Engineer II
Location
Chapel Hill, NC
Seattle, WA
Seattle, WA
Seattle, WA
Institution
InfraSource Services, Inc.
KEMA Inc.
ABB Consulting
ABB Power Distribution Solutions
ABB Corporate Research
University of Washington
Jacobs Engineering
Jacobs Engineering
Year
2003
1996
1993
1991
Dates
7/2006
5/2003
5/2001
2/1999
7/1996
1/1994
1/1993
4/1991
-
present
6/2006
4/2003
4/2001
1/1999
6/1996
12/1993
12/1992
FINAL REPORT
Page 21 of 28
Professional Experience
7/06 present
5/03 6/06
7/96 4/03
ABB
5/01 4/03
FINAL REPORT
Page 22 of 28
business of ABB, its scope was to provide global support for the entire $500 million Utility Partners business area, with a budget responsibility of $2.5 million.
2/99 4/01
7/96 - 1/99
1/94 - 6/96
FINAL REPORT
Page 23 of 28
4/91 12/93
3. R. E. Brown, author of chapter Power System Reliability in Electric Power Engineering Handbook, L. L.
Grigsby (EIC), CRC Press LLC, 2001, pp. 13-51 through 13-65.
4. R. E. Brown, Reliability Assessment and Design Optimization for Electric Power Distribution Systems, Ph.D.
Dissertation, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, 1996.
5. R. E. Brown, An Intelligent Overload Relay for Extruded Dielectric Transmission Cable, Masters Thesis, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, 1993.
R. E. Brown, M. V. Engel, and J. H. Spare, Making Sense of Worst Performing Feeders, IEEE Transactions
on Power Systems, Vol. 20, No. 2, May 2005, pp. 1173-1178.
R. E. Brown, G. Frimpong, and H. L. Willis, Failure Rate Modeling Using Equipment Inspection Data, IEEE
Transactions on Power Systems, Vol. 19, No. 2, May 2004, pp. 782-787.
S. S. Venkata, A. Pahwa, R. E. Brown, and R. D. Christie, What Future Distribution Engineers Need to
Learn, IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, Vol. 19, No. 1, Feb. 2004, pp. 17-23.
F. Li and R. E. Brown, A Cost-Effective Approach of Prioritizing Distribution Maintenance Based on System
Reliability, IEEE Transactions on Power Delivery, Vol. 19, No. 1 , Jan. 2004, pp. 439-441.
F. Li, R. E. Brown, and L. A. A. Freeman, A Linear Contribution Factor Model of Distribution Reliability
Indices and its Applications in Monte Carlo Simulation and Sensitivity Analysis, IEEE Transactions on Power
Systems, Vol. 18, No. 3, Aug. 2003, pp. 1213-1215.
FINAL REPORT
Page 24 of 28
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
R. E. Brown and A. P. Hanson, Impact of Two Stage Service Restoration on Distribution Reliability, IEEE
Transactions on Power Systems, Vol. 16, No. 4, Nov. 2001, pp. 624-629.
R. E. Brown and J. J. Burke, Managing the Risk of Performance Based Rates, IEEE Transactions on Power
Systems, Vol. 15, No. 2, May 2000, pp. 893-898.
R. E. Brown and M. M. Marshall, Budget Constrained Planning to Optimize Power System Reliability, IEEE
Transactions on Power Systems, Vol. 15, No. 2, May 2000, pp. 887-892.
R. E. Brown, The Impact of Heuristic Initialization on Distribution System Reliability Optimization, International Journal of Engineering Intelligent Systems for Electrical Engineering and Communications, Vol. 8, No.
1, March 2000, pp. 45-52.
R. E. Brown and J. R. Ochoa, Impact of Sub-Cycle Transfer Switches on Distribution System Reliability,
IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, Vol. 15, No. 1, Feb. 2000, pp. 442-447.
R. E. Brown, T. M. Taylor, Modeling the Impact of Substations on Distribution Reliability, IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, Vol. 14, No. 1, Feb. 1999, pp. 349-354.
R. E. Brown and J. R. Ochoa, Distribution System Reliability: Default Data and Model Validation, IEEE
Transactions on Power Systems, Vol. 13, No. 2, May 1998, pp. 704-709.
R. E. Brown, S. Gupta, R. D. Christie, S. S. Venkata, and R. D. Fletcher, Distribution System Reliability:
Momentary Interruptions and Storms, IEEE Transactions on Power Delivery, Vol. 12, No. 4, October 1997,
pp. 1569-1575.
R. E. Brown, S. Gupta, R. D. Christie, S. S. Venkata, and R. D. Fletcher, Automated Primary Distribution
System Design: Reliability and Cost Optimization, IEEE Transactions on Power Delivery, Vol. 12, No. 2,
April 1997, pp. 1017-1022.
R. E. Brown, S. Gupta, R. D. Christie, S. S. Venkata, and R. D. Fletcher, Distribution System Reliability
Analysis Using Hierarchical Markov Modeling, IEEE Transactions on Power Delivery, Vol. 11, No. 4, Oct.
1996, pp. 1929-1934.
V. N. Chuvychin, N. S. Gurov, S. S. Venkata, and R. E. Brown, An Adaptive Approach to Load Shedding and
Spinning Reserve Control During Underfrequency Conditions, IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, Vol. 11,
No. 4, Nov. 1996, pp. 1805-1810.
R. E. Brown, Reliability Benefits of Distributed Generation on Heavily Loaded Feeders, IEEE PES 2007
General Meeting, Tampa, FL, June 2007.
2. R. E. Brown, Pole Hardening Following Hurricane Wilma, 2007 Southeastern Utility Pole Conference, Tunica, MS, Feb. 2007.
3. B. Ramanathan, D. Hennessy and R. E. Brown, Decision-making and Policy Implications of Performancebased Regulation, IEEE Power Systems Conference and Exhibition, Atlanta, GA, Oct. 2006.
4. R. E. Brown, The Regulatory Usefulness of Reliability Reporting, 2006 IEEE Rural Electric Power Conference, Albuquerque, NM, April 2006.
5. M. Butts, H. H. Spare and R. E. Brown, Practical and Verifiable Reliability Improvement at the Baltimore Gas
and Electric Company, DistribuTECH Conference and Exhibition, Tampa Bay, FL, Feb. 2006.
6. R. E. Brown, Project Selection with Multiple Performance Objectives, 2005 IEEE/PES Transmission and
Distribution Conference and Exposition, New Orleans, LA, Sept. 2005.
7. R. E. Brown and J. H. Spare, The Effects of System Design on Reliability and Risk, 2005 IEEE/PES Transmission and Distribution Conference and Exposition, New Orleans, LA, Sept. 2005.
8. R. E. Brown and J. H. Spare A Survey of U.S. Reliability Reporting Processes, 2005 IEEE/PES Transmission and Distribution Conference and Exposition, New Orleans, LA, Sept. 2005.
9. Y. Zhou and R. E. Brown, A Practical Method for Cable Failure Rate Modeling, 2005 IEEE/PES Transmission and Distribution Conference and Exposition, New Orleans, LA, Sept. 2005.
10. R. E. Brown and J. H. Spare, Asset Management and Financial Risk, DistribuTECH Conference and Exhibition, San Diego, CA, Jan. 2005.
11. R. E. Brown and J. H. Spare, Asset Management, Risk, and Distribution System Planning, IEEE Power Systems Conference and Exhibition, New York, NY, Oct. 2004.
FINAL REPORT
Page 25 of 28
12. R. E. Brown, Identifying Worst Performing Feeders, Probabilistic Methods Applied to Power Systems,
PMAPS 2004, Ames, IA, September 2004.
13. H. L. Willis, M. V. Engel and R. E. Brown, Equipment Demographics Failure Analysis of Aging T&D Infrastructures, 2004 Canada Power Conference, Toronto, Canada, September 2004.
14. R. E. Brown, Failure Rate Modeling Using Equipment Inspection Data, IEEE PES 2004 General Meeting,
Denver, CO, June 2004.
15. R. E. Brown, Coming to Grips with Distribution Asset Management, 2003 Real World Conference: Its All
About Cost and Reliability, Transmission and Distribution World, Ft. Lauderdale, FL, Oct. 2003.
16. R. E. Brown, Reliability Standards and Customer Satisfaction, 2003 IEEE/PES Transmission and Distribution Conference and Exposition, Dallas, TX, Sept. 2003.
17. A. Pahwa, S. Gupta, Y. Zhou, R. E. Brown, and S. Das, Data Selection To Train A Fuzzy Model For Overhead Distribution Feeders Failure Rates," International Conference on Intelligent Systems Applications to
Power Systems, Lemnos, Greece, Sept. 2003.
18. R. E. Brown, Network Reconfiguration for Improving Reliability in Distribution Systems, IEEE PES 2003
General Meeting, Toronto, Canada, July 2003.
19. R. E. Brown, , J. Pan, Y. Liao, and X. Feng, An Application of Genetic Algorithms to Integrated System Expansion Optimization, IEEE PES 2003 General Meeting, Toronto, Canada, July 2003.
20. R. E. Brown and L. A. A. Freeman, A Cost/Benefit Comparison of Reliability Improvement Strategies, DistribuTECH Conference and Exhibition, Las Vegas, NV, Feb. 2003.
21. S. Gupta, A. Pahwa, R. E. Brown and S. Das, A Fuzzy Model for Overhead Distribution Feeders Failure
Rates, NAPS 2002: 34th Annual North American Power Symposium, Tempe, AZ, Oct. 2002.
22. R. E. Brown, Web-Based Distribution System Planning, IEEE PES Summer Power Meeting, Chicago, IL,
July 2002.
23. R. E. Brown, System Reliability and Power Quality: Performance-Based Rates and Guarantees, IEEE PES
Summer Power Meeting, Chicago, IL, July 2002.
24. R. E. Brown, Modeling the Reliability Impact of Distributed Generation, IEEE PES Summer Power Meeting,
Chicago, IL, July 2002.
25. S. Gupta, A. Pahwa, R. E. Brown, Data Needs for Reliability Assessment of Distribution Systems, IEEE PES
Summer Power Meeting, Chicago, IL, July 2002.
26. R. E. Brown, Meeting Reliability Targets for Least Cost, DistribuTECH Conference and Exhibition, Miami,
FL, Feb. 2002.
27. S. Gupta, A. Pahwa and R. E. Brown, Predicting the Failure Rates of Overhead Distribution Lines Using an
Adaptive-Fuzzy Technique, NAPS 2001: 33rd Annual North American Power Symposium, College Station, TX,
Oct. 2001.
28. P. R. Jones and R. E. Brown, Advanced Modeling Techniques to Identify and Minimize the Risk of Aging
Assets on Network Performance, Utilities Asset Management 2001, London, UK, July 2001.
29. R. E. Brown, Distribution Reliability Modeling at Commonwealth Edison, 2001 IEEE/PES Transmission
and Distribution Conference and Exposition, Atlanta, GA, Oct. 2001.
30. R. E. Brown, Distribution Reliability Assessment and Reconfiguration Optimization, 2001 IEEE/PES
Transmission and Distribution Conference and Exposition, Atlanta, GA, Oct. 2001.
31. R. E. Brown, J. Pan, X. Feng and K. Koutlev, Siting Distributed Generation to Defer T&D Expansion, 2001
IEEE/PES Transmission and Distribution Conference and Exposition, Atlanta, GA, Oct. 2001.
32. D. Ross, L. Freeman and R. E. Brown, Overcoming Data Problems in Predictive Distribution Reliability
Modeling, 2001 IEEE/PES Transmission and Distribution Conference and Exposition, Atlanta, GA, Oct. 2001.
33. R. E. Brown and L. A. A. Freeman, Analyzing the Reliability Impact of Distributed Generation, IEEE PES
Summer Power Meeting, Vancouver, BC, Canada, July 2001.
34. R. E. Brown and M. Marshall, Microeconomic Examination of Distribution Reliability Targets, IEEE PES
Winter Power Meeting, Columbus, OH, Jan. 2001, Vol. 1, pp. 58-65.
35. P. R. Jones and R. E. Brown, Investment Planning of Networks Using Advanced Modeling Techniques,
Utilities Asset Management 2001, London, UK, Jan. 2001.
36. R. E. Brown, Probabilistic Reliability and Risk Assessment of Electric Power Distribution Systems, DistribuTECH Conference and Exhibition, San Diego, CA, Feb. 2001.
37. C. LaPlace, D. Hart, R. E. Brown, W. Mangum, M. Tellarini, J. E. Saleeby, Intelligent Feeder Monitoring to
Minimize Outages, Power Quality 2000 Conference, Boston, MA, Oct. 2000.
FINAL REPORT
Page 26 of 28
38. R. E. Brown, H. Nguyen, J. J. Burke, A Systematic and Cost Effecting Method to Improve Distribution Reliability, IEEE PES Summer Meeting, Edmonton, AB, July 1999. Vol. 2, pp. 1037-1042.
39. R. E. Brown, T. M. Taylor, Modeling the Impact of Substations on Distribution Reliability, IEEE PES Winter Meeting, New York, NY, Feb 1999, pp. 349-354.
40. R. E. Brown, A.P. Hanson, M.M Marshall, H.L. Willis, B. Newton, Reliability and Capacity: A Spatial Load
Forecasting Method for a Performance Based Regulatory Environment, 1999 Power Industry Computer Applications Conference, Dayton, OH, February 1999, pp. 139-144.
41. R. E. Brown, A. P. Hanson, D. Hagan, Long Range Spatial Load Forecasting Using Non-Uniform Areas,
1998 IEEE/PES Transmission and Distribution Conference, New Orleans, LA, April 1999, Vol. 1, pp. 369-373.
42. R. E. Brown, W. S. Zimmermann, P. P. Bambao Jr., and L. P. Simpao, Basic Planning for a New Fast Growing Area in Manila with a Total Electrical Load of 650 MVA, 12th Annual Conference of the Electric Power
Supply Industry, Pattaya, Tailand, November 1998.
43. X. Y. Chao, R. E. Brown, D. Slump, and C. Strong, Reliability Benefits of Distributed Resources, Power
Delivery International 97 Conference, Dallas, TX, December 1997.
44. R. E. Brown, Competitive Distribution Systems: A Reliability Perspective, American Power Conference,
Vol. 59-II, Chicago, IL, April 1997, pp. 1115-1120.
45. R. E. Brown, S. S. Venkata, and R. D. Christie, Hybrid Reliability Optimization Methods for Electric Power
Distribution Systems, International Conference on Intelligent Systems Applications to Power Systems, Seoul,
Korea, IEEE, July 1997.
46. R. E. Brown, S. Gupta, R. D. Christie, S. S. Venkata, and R. D. Fletcher, Automated Primary Distribution
System Design: Reliability and Cost Optimization, 1996 IEEE/PES Transmission and Distribution Conference, Los Angeles, CA, Sept., 1996, pp. 1-6.
47. R. E. Brown, S. S. Gupta, R. D. Christie, and S. S. Venkata, A Genetic Algorithm for Reliable Distribution
System Design, International Conference on Intelligent Systems Applications to Power Systems, Orlando, FL,
January 1996, pp. 29-33.
Technical Articles
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
R. E. Brown, Increased Performance Expectations for Major Storms, Electric Perspectives, EEI (to be published in 2007)
E. Phillips, R. E. Brown, M. V. Engel, N. Bingel, Transmission Pole Failures During High Winds, Transmission and Distribution World, (to be published in May 2007)
R. E. Brown and D. J. Morrow, The Challenge of Effective Transmission Planning, IEEE Power and Energy
Magazine, (to be published in 2007).
R. E. Brown and H. L. Willis, The Economics of Aging Infrastructure, IEEE Power and Energy Magazine,
Vol. 4, No. 3, May/June 2006, pp. 36-43.
R. E. Brown and B. G. Humphrey, Asset Management for Transmission and Distribution, IEEE Power and
Energy Magazine, Vol. 3, No. 3, May/June 2005, pp. 39-45.
R. E. Brown, Asset Management: Balancing Performance, Cost, and Risk, EnergyPulse Special Issue on
Asset Management, www.energycentral.com, Feb. 2005.
P. Musser, R. E. Brown, T. Eyford, and C. Warren, Too Many Routes of Reliability, Transmission and Distribution World, June 2004, pp. 17-22.
T. M. Taylor, R. E. Brown, M. L. Chan, R. H. Fletcher, S. Larson, T. McDermott, and A. Pahwa, Planning for
Effective Distribution, IEEE Power and Energy Magazine, Vol. 1, No. 5, September/October 2003, pp. 54-62.
R. E. Brown and L. A. A. Freeman, A Cost/Benefit Comparison of Reliability Improvement Strategies, Electric Power and Light, May 2003.
R. E. Brown, H. Kazemzadeh, B. R. Williams and C. B. Mansfield, Engineering Tools Move into Cyberspace, Transmission and Distribution World, March 2003, pp. 27-36.
F. Li, L. A. A. Freeman and R. E. Brown, Web-Enabling Applications for Outsourced Computing, IEEE
Power and Energy Magazine, Vol. 1, No. 1, January/February 2003, pp. 53-57.
P. Perani and R. E. Brown, Maintaining Reliable Power For Semiconductor Manufacture, Whats New in
Electronics, March 2002.
P. Perani and R. E. Brown, Rock Steady: The Importance of Reliable Power Distribution in Microprocessor
Manufacturing Plants, ABB Review, No. 3, 2002, pp. 29-33.
FINAL REPORT
Page 27 of 28
14. H. L. Willis and R. E. Brown, Is DG Ready for the Last Mile? Power Quality (cover story), March 2002. pp.
16-21.
15. R. E. Brown and M. W. Marshall, The Cost of Reliability, Transmission and Distribution World (cover
story), Dec. 2001, pp. 13-20.
16. R. E. Brown, P. R. Jones and S. Trotter, Planning for Reliability, Trans-Power Europe, Vol. 1, No. 1. March
2001, pp. 10-12.
17. R. E. Brown, A. P. Hanson, H. L. Willis, F. A. Luedtke, M. F. Born, Assessing the Reliability of Distribution
Systems, IEEE Computer Applications in Power, Vol. 14, No. 1, Jan. 2001, pp. 44-49.
18. R. E. Brown and B. Howe, Optimal Deployment of Reliability Investments, E-Source, Power Quality Series:
PQ-6, March 2000.
FINAL REPORT
Page 28 of 28