2016
Scott Wheeler, Comcast, Co ‐ Chair Corey Cook, PacifiCorp, Incoming Co ‐ Chair Jerry Donovan, PGE, Outgoing Co ‐ Chair Terry Blanc, Tillamook PUD Bill Hamelman, Frontier Mark Rettmann, OPUC Sanjeev King, Springfield Utility Board Stuart Sloan, Consumers Power Tom Jorgenson, CenturyLink Mike Allen, Comcast Todd Gover, Bend Broadband Veronica Voelker, PGE (New) Laureal Williams, Staff
Four Key Deliverables 1. Matrix of Common Joint Use Violations ‐ Complete (Dropdowns for corrective actions and assignments) 2. PowerPoint of Common Joint Use Violations ‐ Complete (Descriptions, photos of scenarios with correction options) 3. Inspection/Correction Best Practices Manual ‐ Complete (Version 1: Training tool and field reference guide) 4. Guidelines for Measuring Success ‐ Developing (Measuring inspection/correction accuracy and effectiveness)
Sample ‐ Matrix of Common Joint Use Violations Pole # Alternate Pole # Deviation Equipment 1 Equipment 2 Action Assigned Party Comments Power Company permit for pole top PDRP ‐ Power Service COMM ‐ Comm extension attachment 1 CTL 1111 MidspanVertical_24_inches Drop Messenger Place California Top POWER1 on phone pole. CATV seek joint arm agreement with phone COML ‐ Comm Main company to clear 40" 2 CTL 2222 MidspanVertical_30_inches SEC ‐ Power Secondary Line Share Arm COMM1 PV and 30" MV. Light owner to cover SLT driploop and COML ‐ Comm Main ground/bond SLT 3 CTL 3333 PoleVertical_12_inches_3_SL Line PDLP ‐ Power Drip ‐ Loop Ground/Bond POWER1 bracket. CATV seek joint arm agreement with phone COML ‐ Comm Main company and other 4 CTL 4444 PoleVertical_40_inches Line SEC ‐ Power Secondary Lower CATV COMM1 Comm clear 40" PV. Relocate phone drop from power mast to structure for minimum PDRP ‐ Power Service 12" separation from 5 CTL 5555 MidspanVertical_12_inches Drop COMD ‐ Comm Drop Relocate/Move TELCOM1 power service drop. CATV to cut/splice strand and coax feeder COML ‐ Comm Main to opposite side of 6 CTL 6666 ClimbingSpace Line Other ‐ See Comments Relocate/Move COMM1 pole.
Violation Description: High Level Midspan Vertical 24” PowerPoint Conductor to Presentation – Conductor Getting Everyone on the Same Page NESC Rule 233C1, Table 233 ‐ 1 5
Sample PowerPoint Slide Violation: Supply to Comm clearance of different supporting structures OJUA Codes: MV,COML,PDRP Scenario #1: Less than 24” clearance between supply and comm crossing each other Options to Fix: Raise supply; Lower comm; Install span messenger and bridle supply; 6 Interset pole
Best Practices Manual 7
Best Practices Manual 8
Best Practices Manual 9
Best Practices Manual – Example: Discussion of Clearances Involving Street Light 10
Best Practices Manual – Photo(s) Showing a Clearance Issue Involving a Street Light 11
Best Practices Manual – The Applicable Rules are Cited and the Scenario is Explained with Assumptions and Facts, Before Suggested “Best Practice(s)” are Offered 12
PRACTICE STEPS: 1. Select a scenario from the Best Using the Practices. Tools – 2. Select the appropriate deviation (violation) from the dropdown options in the Matrix. How the Matrix 3. Select Equipment 1 and Equipment 2 and Best from the dropdown options. Practices Might be Used to 4. Select the best correction from the dropdown options. Develop a Joint Inspection 5. Assign the correction to the best Program entity who can safely perform the work. 13
NEXT STEPS: Determine what quantity and quality metrics are important to measure. Develop guidance for selecting samples and a sample size. Evaluate* concept of different quantity/quality targets for Rural, Suburban and Urban areas (based on # of poles, # of services per square mile, # of operators, height or age of poles, etc.). *Using Regression Analysis ‐ A statistical process for estimating the relationships among variables. G uidelines Terry Blanc, Tillamook PUD is leading this effort and working with a Willamette University professor. He has compiled and provided 5 years' worth of Detailed Inspection findings to Dr. Kawika Pierson. He is also including specific data from TPUD plant records, including pole height and class, age of the pole, presence of for a transformer, pole occupants, number of electric customers served from the pole and pole ‐ specific detailed inspection results. Measuring A Simple Example: Density of Poles in PGE Service Territory Success Is the density of poles a reliable “predictor” of the number of violations for a given area and therefore, should different quality targets be established based on number of poles per square mile? 2744 Sections in PGE Service Territory (one section = one mile square) 10 sections with at least 1000 poles per square mile 23 sections with 750 – 1000 poles 47 sections with 500 – 750 poles 105 sections with 250 – 500 poles 454 sections with 100 – 250 poles 2105 sections with less than 100 poles 14
Who? Joint What? Inspection When? Pilots? How? 15
2016 Joint Inspection Pilot Participants: ‐ Who ‐ • Comcast • CenturyLink • Frontier • PGE 16
Scope: Focused on approximately 25,000 “joint use” poles in PGE Service Territory ‐ What ‐ • All Poles w/ PGE Attachments • Includes CenturyLink and Frontier Poles w/ PGE Attachments • Comcast Attachments on Poles w/ PGE Attachments 17
‐ What ‐ PIE CHART SHOWING # POLES BY “Joint use” OWNER* (*FOCUS OF PILOT ON JOINT USE POLES = THOSE WITH POWER & AT Poles by LEAST ONE OTHER OPERATOR) Owner 19
‐ What ‐ BAR CHART # OF POLES ATTACHED (*INCLUDED IN PILOT) Poles Attached by Participating Operator 20
December 16, 2015 Invited Operators to ‐ When ‐ Participate February 15, 2016 Inspection Kicked off Inspection Training Pilot February 22, 2016 Milestone “Production” Inspection Dates Started December 1, 2016 Projected Inspection Complete 21
• Worked with Accent to incorporate OJUA Joint Inspection developments into PGE’s Varasset Program • Followed PGE inspection cycle (per map) • Limited scope to poles with PGE attached (“known data”) • Simplified cost sharing based on poles attached • Used OJUA Joint Inspection tools to train pole inspectors ‐ How ‐ on joint inspection concepts • Communication partners working on shared contractor • Modified Existing PGE Equipment & Processes: How we did it ‐ Full Inspection (Visual + Test/Treat) on PGE ‐ owned poles only ‐ Visual Only Inspection on Foreign ‐ owned ‐ PGE paying 100% of test/treat portion ‐ Violation Notifications = Assignments ‐ Merging corrections assigned to PGE into FITNES Repair Crew schedule 22
What are the cost components of a joint inspection? 23
Consider: Start at least 1 year ahead of planned inspection cycle Signed supplemental agreements to address cost sharing, scope, specifications, etc. Centralized program administration with input from stakeholders/participants Flexibility is needed for realignment of inspection cycles Keep inspection variables to a minimum: NESC inspection vs. full pole audit w/measurements, etc. Use same treatments Photos (yes/no, how many, when?) Use same materials ‐ guy markers, ground molding, etc. Other billable items ‐ clip tails, ground rods, ID tagging, etc. What are we Fixes, best practices for corrections (what is allowed): Pole top extensions? Learning? Adding Pupi arms? Sharing of existing communication cross arms? “Joint QC” early and often, adjust/retrain as needed Poles inspected per day will likely decrease (assume 20% decrease) Assume at least 5% for Start ‐ up Costs (training/non ‐ production time, preparations – processes, system readiness, equipment, etc.) Assume at least 5% Program Administration Costs (PM, admin support, analyst support, system maintenance, etc.) Consider invoicing at least monthly based on poles attached, including share of start ‐ up and program admin costs, with “true up” at end of year Merge assigned power corrections into repair crew cycle Share contractor for assigned communications corrections and pole transfers Run inspection as a project (Project Manager, Stakeholders, Control ‐ Scope/Cost/Schedule) Any others? 24
Recommend
More recommend
