Wednesday, February 17, 2010

Deep Snow and Howling Winds Make Hardening of Electrical Distribution Systems a Priority

The hundreds of thousands of people who lost power in the recent storms leads me to question the cost to benefit analysis that always seem to leave our electrical distribution systems so vulnerable to weather. Power failure is by far the major cause of hardship and suffering by customers in severe weather. Because of this billions are continually spent on emergency restoration of power.

The electric companies work endlessly to restore power. Their literature is filled with advice to homeowners who lose power. But discussions to the public on programs to reduce the magnitude of the emergencies in the first place are rare. Each severe weather event seems to come with a list of thousands to hundreds of thousands of customers who have lost power. The same old story is told of how the electrical companies are working day and night to restore it.

The techniques available for hardening are well known. They include moving especially vulnerable lines underground, strengthening of lines and poles to support additional ice and wind loads, better connectors, and more attention to tree trimming to provide isolation from tree branches.

Electrical distribution systems are complex and expensive. The payback of hardening is in reduced costs to restore damaged systems on an emergency basis and the tremendous benefits to the customers who are spared days of powerless living. After studying a few of the upgrade proposals which are public and online I find that in true capitalist fashion the value of hardening is often understated when subject to cost analysis. It is hard to place a dollar value on the benefits to the customers even though they are substantial. Reduction in emergency repair costs alone does not seem to pay for an extensive upgrade in most cases.

Here as an example of the give and take which occurs is the presentation made by Oklahoma Gas and Electric to the Utility Board asking for a rate increase to pay for their hardening plan. Notice the importance and expense of vegetation management.

Because the number of failed power events is dependent upon both the hardening and the applied stress simple comparisons between utilities are not always appropriate but could serve as a starting point. Statistics on the long term performance of hardened versus standard systems do not appear to readily available.

This is just one of many examples where the needs of the people are not given adequate consideration. There is work to be done and people who want to do the work. Why can’t our system put the two together?

No comments: