Hurricane Hardening Hurricane Hardening Research Research - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

▶
hurricane hardening hurricane hardening research research
SMART_READER_LITE
LIVE PREVIEW

Hurricane Hardening Hurricane Hardening Research Research - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Oct 10, 2022 37 likes •492 views

Hurricane Hardening Hurricane Hardening Research Research Presentation to the Louisiana Public Service Commission May 4, 2007 Mark A. Jamison, PURC Director Leadership in Infrastructure Policy Leadership in Infrastructure Policy

slide-1
SLIDE 1

“ “Leadership in Infrastructure Policy Leadership in Infrastructure Policy” ” www.purc.ufl.edu www.purc.ufl.edu

Mark A. Jamison, PURC Director

Hurricane Hardening Hurricane Hardening Research Research

Presentation to the Louisiana Public Service Commission

May 4, 2007

slide-2
SLIDE 2

2 “ “Leadership in Infrastructure Policy Leadership in Infrastructure Policy” ” www.purc.ufl.edu www.purc.ufl.edu

Overview

  • Background on PURC
  • Impetus for Hurricane Hardening

Research Coordination

  • Research Projects
slide-3
SLIDE 3

3 “ “Leadership in Infrastructure Policy Leadership in Infrastructure Policy” ” www.purc.ufl.edu www.purc.ufl.edu

PURC Background

  • Founded in 1972
  • Located in the Economics Department,

Warrington College of Business Administration

  • Purpose: Enhance executives',

regulators', academics', and students' knowledge of issues confronting public utilities and regulatory agencies

  • Support: Utilities and FPSC, programs,

and research

slide-4
SLIDE 4

4 “ “Leadership in Infrastructure Policy Leadership in Infrastructure Policy” ” www.purc.ufl.edu www.purc.ufl.edu

PURC Research, 2002-2006

4 4 2 2 2 2 Case Studies Case Studies 49 49 20 20 20 20 9 9 Working Papers Working Papers 17 17 13 13 2 2 2 2 Book Chapters Book Chapters 1 1 1 1 Books Books 34 34 19 19 10 10 5 5 Academic Journals Academic Journals 23 23 8 8 6 6 9 9 Applied Journals Applied Journals Total Either

Domestic

Intl.

Number Type

slide-5
SLIDE 5

5 “ “Leadership in Infrastructure Policy Leadership in Infrastructure Policy” ” www.purc.ufl.edu www.purc.ufl.edu

PURC Recent and Ongoing Research Topics

General General

  • Service Quality

Service Quality

  • Leadership

Leadership

  • Body of Knowledge

Body of Knowledge

  • Regulatory Associations

Regulatory Associations

  • Stability of Regulatory

Stability of Regulatory Institutions Institutions

  • Regulatory Risk

Regulatory Risk Energy Energy

  • Distributed Generation

Distributed Generation

  • Pricing and Rate Design

Pricing and Rate Design

  • NOx

NOx, SO2, and Climate , SO2, and Climate Change Policy Change Policy

  • Fuel Diversity and Policy

Fuel Diversity and Policy Uncertainty Uncertainty Telecoms Telecoms

  • Telecom Competition

Telecom Competition

  • Ownership of Utility

Ownership of Utility Services Services

  • Universal Service

Universal Service Programs Programs

  • Net Neutrality

Net Neutrality Water Water

  • Benchmarking Water

Benchmarking Water Utilities in Central America Utilities in Central America

slide-6
SLIDE 6

“ “Leadership in Infrastructure Policy Leadership in Infrastructure Policy” ” www.purc.ufl.edu www.purc.ufl.edu

Body of Knowledge on Utility Regulation Body of Knowledge on Utility Regulation visit visit www.regulationbodyofknowledge.org www.regulationbodyofknowledge.org

slide-7
SLIDE 7

7 “ “Leadership in Infrastructure Policy Leadership in Infrastructure Policy” ” www.purc.ufl.edu www.purc.ufl.edu

PURC Programs

Domestic Domestic

  • PURC Annual Conference

PURC Annual Conference

  • Leadership workshops

Leadership workshops

  • Roundtables

Roundtables

  • Bar Association Conf.

Bar Association Conf. International International

  • PURC/World Bank

PURC/World Bank International Training International Training Program Program

  • > 1700 people; 131

> 1700 people; 131 countries countries

  • PURC/OOCUR Advanced

PURC/OOCUR Advanced Training Program Training Program International (Cont.) International (Cont.)

  • Standing Cooperative

Standing Cooperative Programs Programs – – University of University of Cape Town, IIS Cape Town, IIS-

  • Zambia

Zambia

  • Recent Custom Training

Recent Custom Training Programs and Other Programs and Other Outreach Outreach

  • Telecoms

Telecoms – – Thailand, Thailand, Trinidad & Tobago, Trinidad & Tobago, Nigeria, Uganda Nigeria, Uganda

  • Energy

Energy – – Cambodia, Cambodia, Peru, South Africa, Brazil, Peru, South Africa, Brazil, Mexico, Namibia Mexico, Namibia

  • Water

Water – – Uganda, China Uganda, China

slide-8
SLIDE 8

“ “Leadership in Infrastructure Policy Leadership in Infrastructure Policy” ” www.purc.ufl.edu www.purc.ufl.edu

Impetus for Hurricane Hardening Research

slide-9
SLIDE 9

9 “ “Leadership in Infrastructure Policy Leadership in Infrastructure Policy” ” www.purc.ufl.edu www.purc.ufl.edu

slide-10
SLIDE 10

10 “ “Leadership in Infrastructure Policy Leadership in Infrastructure Policy” ” www.purc.ufl.edu www.purc.ufl.edu

Destruction to overhead lines, Pensacola Beach

Source: Gulf Power

slide-11
SLIDE 11

11 “ “Leadership in Infrastructure Policy Leadership in Infrastructure Policy” ” www.purc.ufl.edu www.purc.ufl.edu

Source: Progress Energy

2004 Hurricane Season

slide-12
SLIDE 12

12 “ “Leadership in Infrastructure Policy Leadership in Infrastructure Policy” ” www.purc.ufl.edu www.purc.ufl.edu

2004 Storm Season Impacts Progress Energy Florida Summary

45 Days, 4 Hurricanes… 23 Days of Restoration Activity

Charley Frances Ivan Jeanne

Date of landfall

  • Aug. 13
  • Sept. 5
  • Sept. 16
  • Sept. 26

Category at peak

Cat 4 Cat 2 Cat 3 Cat 3

Peak number of customers out

502,000 832,898 10,000 722,000

Substations out

83 105 3 86

Days of storm restoration

10 Days 7 Days 1 Day 5 Days

Source: Progress Energy

slide-13
SLIDE 13

13 “ “Leadership in Infrastructure Policy Leadership in Infrastructure Policy” ” www.purc.ufl.edu www.purc.ufl.edu

2004 System Impact, TECO

42 21 17 Transmission Out 70 46 23 Distribution Out

Substations

151 34 74 Wire Down (spans) 42 21 17 Circuits Out

Transmission

6,600 5,780 2,540 Wire Down (spans) 639 2519 353 Lights Out 252 223 68 Circuits Out

Distribution

Jeanne Frances Charley

Source: TECO

slide-14
SLIDE 14

14 “ “Leadership in Infrastructure Policy Leadership in Infrastructure Policy” ” www.purc.ufl.edu www.purc.ufl.edu

2 140,000 Rita 3 508,800 Dennis 18 3,241,437 Wilma 8 1,453,000 Katrina 8 1,737,400 Jeanne 12 2,786,300 Frances 13 874,000 Charley Days to Restore 100% Affected Customers Event

Tropical storm force winds Hurricane force winds

Storm Season 2004-2005, FPL

7 Storms / 15 Months

2004 Season 2005 Season

Source: FPL

slide-15
SLIDE 15

15 “ “Leadership in Infrastructure Policy Leadership in Infrastructure Policy” ” www.purc.ufl.edu www.purc.ufl.edu

FPL 2005 - Distribution and Transmission Repair

  • Distribution

12,632 poles (FPL & non-FPL) 930 miles of OH conductor 570 miles of OH service conductor 1.1 million OH splices 30 miles of UG cable 100 miles of UG service cable

  • Transmission / Substation

100 structures 7 miles of conductor 1 substation transformers 7 regulators 16 breakers

Source: FPL

slide-16
SLIDE 16

16 “ “Leadership in Infrastructure Policy Leadership in Infrastructure Policy” ” www.purc.ufl.edu www.purc.ufl.edu

FPSC Response

  • Workshops with utilities, consultants,

and academics on how best to prepare Florida’s electric infrastructure for hurricanes

  • New standards
  • Ongoing monitoring and reporting

http://www.psc.state.fl.us/utilities/electricgas/eiproject/

slide-17
SLIDE 17

17 “ “Leadership in Infrastructure Policy Leadership in Infrastructure Policy” ” www.purc.ufl.edu www.purc.ufl.edu

FPSC 9-Point Preparedness Plans

  • 3-year vegetation management cycles
  • Trans. and distribution geographic info system
  • Upgrade wooden structures
  • Data gathering, retention, and forensic analysis
  • Audit joint-use pole attachment agreements
  • 6-year transmission inspection program
  • Track outage data for overhead vs. underground
  • More utility coordination with local government
  • Collaborative research coordination
slide-18
SLIDE 18

18 “ “Leadership in Infrastructure Policy Leadership in Infrastructure Policy” ” www.purc.ufl.edu www.purc.ufl.edu

Why Research Coordination?

  • Concerned that utilities were

generally unaware of each other’s research efforts

  • Desire to increase focus on

hardening research

  • Interest in making research results

generally available

slide-19
SLIDE 19

“ “Leadership in Infrastructure Policy Leadership in Infrastructure Policy” ” www.purc.ufl.edu www.purc.ufl.edu

Research Approach

slide-20
SLIDE 20

20 “ “Leadership in Infrastructure Policy Leadership in Infrastructure Policy” ” www.purc.ufl.edu www.purc.ufl.edu

Research Coordination Effort

  • Sponsored by all electric utilities in the

state and governed by Steering Committee

IOUs: FPL, Progress, Gulf Power, TECO, FPU Municipal Association Coop Association Lee County Electric Cooperative

  • PURC coordination

Manage process; review research plans and products for academic standards

slide-21
SLIDE 21

21 “ “Leadership in Infrastructure Policy Leadership in Infrastructure Policy” ” www.purc.ufl.edu www.purc.ufl.edu

Workshop, June 9, 2006

  • Utility managers

Review of hurricane experiences and key knowledge gaps

  • Researchers

Research experiences and capabilities

  • UF, FSU, USF, Texas A&M, Cornell,

Davies Consulting, Applied Research Associates

slide-22
SLIDE 22

22 “ “Leadership in Infrastructure Policy Leadership in Infrastructure Policy” ” www.purc.ufl.edu www.purc.ufl.edu

Workshop Conclusions

Practical research needed on

Wind measurement and testing Improved materials Forensic analysis Cost-effectiveness of approaches

  • Overhead vs. underground
  • Vegetation management
  • Wind standards

Joint use loads

slide-23
SLIDE 23

23 “ “Leadership in Infrastructure Policy Leadership in Infrastructure Policy” ” www.purc.ufl.edu www.purc.ufl.edu

Research Agenda

  • Economics of Undergrounding Existing

Overhead Facilities

Addresses cost-effectiveness issue

  • Granular Wind Analysis

Addresses wind measurement and testing, forensic analysis, and standards

  • Vegetation Management best practices

http://bear.cba.ufl.edu/centers/purc/energy/hurricane.htm

slide-24
SLIDE 24

24 “ “Leadership in Infrastructure Policy Leadership in Infrastructure Policy” ” www.purc.ufl.edu www.purc.ufl.edu

Undergrounding Research

  • Launched in Fall 2006
  • Consultant: InfraSource (Richard Brown)
  • Phases

I – Meta-analysis of existing literature to see what is already known (completed) II – Case studies on what might be unique about Florida (underway) III – Computer model to project costs/benefits of specific undergrounding requests (starts in June)

slide-25
SLIDE 25

25 “ “Leadership in Infrastructure Policy Leadership in Infrastructure Policy” ” www.purc.ufl.edu www.purc.ufl.edu

Undergrounding and Storm Surge Pensacola Beach: Single Phase cabinet washed off pad and cables pulled out of terminations.

Source: Gulf Power

slide-26
SLIDE 26

26 “ “Leadership in Infrastructure Policy Leadership in Infrastructure Policy” ” www.purc.ufl.edu www.purc.ufl.edu

  • Examined 61

documents

  • Consultant Reports
  • State Regulatory Reports
  • Municipal Reports
  • International Reports
  • System Reliability

Modeling

  • Failure Rate Modeling
  • Property Value
  • Primary Issues
  • Cost
  • Benefits
  • Disadvantages
  • Funding

Source: InfraSource

Meta-Analysis

slide-27
SLIDE 27

27 “ “Leadership in Infrastructure Policy Leadership in Infrastructure Policy” ” www.purc.ufl.edu www.purc.ufl.edu

Meta-Analysis Executive Summary

Existing Studies show:

  • Undergrounding has both

benefits and disadvantages

  • Quantifiable benefits

cannot justify undergrounding

  • Undergrounding is

expensive

About $1 million per mile (initial cost) Customer service work costs extra Cost can vary widely Broad implementation requires rates to about double

  • Undergrounding requires

additional costs

Third-party attachments (add 25% to initial cost) Customer equipment ($1,500 to $7,000 per customer) Funding additional costs is a critical element

  • Funding in general is a

critical element

Source: InfraSource

slide-28
SLIDE 28

28 “ “Leadership in Infrastructure Policy Leadership in Infrastructure Policy” ” www.purc.ufl.edu www.purc.ufl.edu

Other Findings

  • No state requires undergrounding of existing facilities
  • Ex post analyses on actual UG projects have not been done
  • Few studies address negative impacts
  • Few studies consider strengthening existing overhead systems
  • Storm reliability models are almost non-existent
  • Equipment failure rates as a function of hurricane strength are

almost non-existent

  • Existing research on mitigating the impacts of major storms on

electric distribution is not sufficient for use in a detailed study

Source: InfraSource

slide-29
SLIDE 29

29 “ “Leadership in Infrastructure Policy Leadership in Infrastructure Policy” ” www.purc.ufl.edu www.purc.ufl.edu

Florida 2005 FPSC Study

  • Conversion Cost

Estimates (IOUs)

Residential subdivision: $2,475 per customer affected Residential feeders: $11,288 per customer affected Mainline urban commercial: $36,737 per customer affected

  • Costs do not include

Customer service equipment Third-party attachments

  • Rate impact

81% increase if spread

  • ver all customers

141% increase if spread over residential customers only

Source: InfraSource

slide-30
SLIDE 30

30 “ “Leadership in Infrastructure Policy Leadership in Infrastructure Policy” ” www.purc.ufl.edu www.purc.ufl.edu

Florida Studies

Source: InfraSource

  • Palm Beach
  • Total UG cost would be

$60 million

  • MUUC Report
  • Difference of UG vs.

hardened OH is $835,000 per mile

  • Davis Island
  • $3,200 per customer for a

3000 customer project

  • Fort Pierce
  • Broad conversion is not

justifiable

  • Overhead hardening may

be preferable

  • Jacksonville
  • $3,000 to $7,000 per

customer

  • Tallahassee
  • High environmental

impact in sensitive areas

slide-31
SLIDE 31

31 “ “Leadership in Infrastructure Policy Leadership in Infrastructure Policy” ” www.purc.ufl.edu www.purc.ufl.edu

Conclusions Regarding Insights for Modeling

Assessment of Proposed Projects

  • Construction cost models are adequate
  • Maintenance cost models are adequate
  • Storm reliability models are inadequate

Equipment hurricane failure rates are not well known The effects of mitigation tactics are not well known Detailed hurricane simulation planning models do not exist

Source: InfraSource

slide-32
SLIDE 32

32 “ “Leadership in Infrastructure Policy Leadership in Infrastructure Policy” ” www.purc.ufl.edu www.purc.ufl.edu

Timeline

  • Case studies

August 6, 2007 – Final Report

  • Computer model development

October 1, 2007 – Final Report on methodology March 30, 2008 – Model and testing completed

slide-33
SLIDE 33

33 “ “Leadership in Infrastructure Policy Leadership in Infrastructure Policy” ” www.purc.ufl.edu www.purc.ufl.edu

Wind Research

  • Coordinated effort of UF Civil

Engineering, WeatherFlow, Utility Sponsors, and PURC

  • Purpose: Measure hurricane winds

at granular level and map to infrastructure damage

Forensic Analysis Test using hurricane simulator

slide-34
SLIDE 34

34 “ “Leadership in Infrastructure Policy Leadership in Infrastructure Policy” ” www.purc.ufl.edu www.purc.ufl.edu

Anemometers @ 10 m Gill & Vane Anemometers @ 5 m Gill Environmental Sensors @ 3 m Temperature, Humidity Rainfall, Barometric Pressure

Real time data transmission

FCMP TOWERS

Source: Gurley

slide-35
SLIDE 35

35 “ “Leadership in Infrastructure Policy Leadership in Infrastructure Policy” ” www.purc.ufl.edu www.purc.ufl.edu

Motivation for Portable Towers

  • Winds overland differ from winds over the
  • cean (over water is the basis for SS-

scale)

  • Mean speed is lower and turbulent gusts

are more severe in winds overland

  • Can’t fix a problem without understanding

the cause

  • Evaluation of infrastructure vulnerability

(and hardening solutions) must start by filling this knowledge gap via direct wind measurements

slide-36
SLIDE 36

36 “ “Leadership in Infrastructure Policy Leadership in Infrastructure Policy” ” www.purc.ufl.edu www.purc.ufl.edu

Questions to Address

  • How do we know what winds have

really caused damage?

  • How do we know what winds the

infrastructure has actually withstood?

slide-37
SLIDE 37

37 “ “Leadership in Infrastructure Policy Leadership in Infrastructure Policy” ” www.purc.ufl.edu www.purc.ufl.edu

Existing Portable Weather Stations

  • Stiff 10-m Steel Lattice Tower
  • Remain stable in 200 mph winds
  • Self-powered
  • Instruments collect wind speed and environmental data
  • Quick setup to hasten retreat from approaching storm

Source: Gurley

slide-38
SLIDE 38

38 “ “Leadership in Infrastructure Policy Leadership in Infrastructure Policy” ” www.purc.ufl.edu www.purc.ufl.edu

New Fixed Weather Stations

  • Developed, placed, and

managed by WeatherFlow http://www.weatherflow.com/index.php

Tested and upgraded by UF Civil Engineering, Kurt Gurley

  • Currently 12 stations

Anticipating 40

slide-39
SLIDE 39

39 “ “Leadership in Infrastructure Policy Leadership in Infrastructure Policy” ” www.purc.ufl.edu www.purc.ufl.edu

Wind Station Uses

  • Monitor wind, barometric pressure,

temperature 24/7/365

  • Data to

sponsors, UF, PURC, NOAA on proprietary basis

Forensic analysis and NOAA maps

Source: Gurley

slide-40
SLIDE 40

40 “ “Leadership in Infrastructure Policy Leadership in Infrastructure Policy” ” www.purc.ufl.edu www.purc.ufl.edu

NOAA Hurricane Research Division Maximum Sustained Wind Swath

Hurricane Jeanne (2004)

Tower data is one of the sources of ground data input to H*WIND contour model of wind speeds

Source: Gurley

slide-41
SLIDE 41

41 “ “Leadership in Infrastructure Policy Leadership in Infrastructure Policy” ” www.purc.ufl.edu www.purc.ufl.edu

  • Housing infrastructure can be tested

under applied controlled loads to evaluate failure strength

  • Same concept can be applied to

power distribution infrastructure

Capacity testing without a hurricane

Source: Gurley

slide-42
SLIDE 42

42 “ “Leadership in Infrastructure Policy Leadership in Infrastructure Policy” ” www.purc.ufl.edu www.purc.ufl.edu

FIELD TESTING – ROOF CONNECTIONS

  • Test as-build capacity
  • Install retrofit
  • Test retrofit capacity
  • Relate forces to

winds

  • Evaluate

effectiveness

Source: Gurley

slide-43
SLIDE 43

43 “ “Leadership in Infrastructure Policy Leadership in Infrastructure Policy” ” www.purc.ufl.edu www.purc.ufl.edu

FIELD TESTING - SHEATHING CAPACITY

  • Cut out sheathing

and trusses

  • Apply suction

load until failure

  • As-nailed
  • Re-nailed

Source: Gurley

slide-44
SLIDE 44

44 “ “Leadership in Infrastructure Policy Leadership in Infrastructure Policy” ” www.purc.ufl.edu www.purc.ufl.edu

Vegetation Management

  • Best Practices workshop, March 5-6,

2007

Report available online

http://bear.cba.ufl.edu/centers/purc/energy/hurricane.htm

Selected key conclusions

  • Laws needed for utility access
  • Better communications are needed
  • Not directly relevant to hurricanes
slide-45
SLIDE 45

45 “ “Leadership in Infrastructure Policy Leadership in Infrastructure Policy” ” www.purc.ufl.edu www.purc.ufl.edu

Conclusions

  • Collaborative research has been a

success thus far

Good projects initiated and sound results Utilities working together and supportive of effort is critical Many of the research questions are applied, so academic research is needed only in selected areas