Whatever tool a utility buys or builds to automate this process must be something that looks similar to the interfaces employees use for daily operations. It simply streamlines the steps in the damage assessment process, speeds up collection and transfers the data via a wireless network. Technology like this, which would tie to some kind of GIS, will not change a utility’s damage assessment process. The assessor or crew submits the damage assessment report, which the network delivers to the storm center to view all completed jobs and a summary of collected damage (by circuit, station, area, etc.), while automatically generating a work packet and integrating with the OMS and WMS for field assignment. As they note damage from, say, a drop-down menu of choices, technology captures every assessor’s notes the same way. In a closed-loop, automated process, assessors with a tablet or mobile device get real-time maps with circuits and equipment. If a utility automates its assessment process it can close the loops and collect damage consistently. With a closed-loop assessment, utilities can better manage data collection, resources and how they position crews and respond in the field.
#Power utility certainty equivalent manual
For instance, when damage evaluators complete their assessment, the manual process of collecting, summarizing their findings and issuing work packets can slow down the prioritization and issuing of work to field resources. Here’s what I mean by open loop: There are points in the process where responding, restoring and reporting are not always linked. In an open-loop process (i.e., manual or semi-manual), damage assessment can take hours (or even days) longer than a closed-loop (i.e., fully automated) approach. Most utilities (I would argue the vast majority) operate with an open-loop damage assessment process. This delays the right resources getting to the right place, which slows productivity, increases costs and stretches out restoration. There are always difficulties and delays interpreting handwritten assessments, especially when evaluators are non-engineers who can’t distinguish between a transformer and a recloser.Įach piece of missing information, request for clarification and search for broken equipment drags out the assessment process. There are multiple handoffs of maps and information between storm coordinators, damage evaluators and field crews. Also important is communication for keeping customers, local officials and utility leadership updated about restoration.Īnyone who’s ever managed this process knows the problem. If a utility knows with certainty it has, for example, 4,500 broken poles, then it can accurately allocate crews, equipment and resources.
First is information, which comes from damage assessment second is mobilizing the correct number and kind of resources and third is having the material to restore service. “Even the best manual processes have room for gaining efficiency, especially through technology,” he added.īefore I mention the three major components of restoration, I want to stress the need for a well-established, documented and tested restoration process. He highlighted the cumbersome process at his office where teams would wait to receive, then transcribe handwritten notes on the location of broken poles, transformers and more. He explained how no two assessors record damage the same way. The presenter was an engineer, and he filled the role of damage assessor on many occasions. utility began his remarks by saying the open-loop, manual damage assessment approach at his company had delayed restoration. At a recent conference, a speaker from a southeastern U.S.
0 kommentar(er)
