Slide 1: Hydro One Vegetation Management Study 2016
HYDRO ONE VEGETATION MANAGEMENT STUDY 2016 CN UTILITY CONSULTING WILLIAM PORTER October 2016
Slide 2: Purpose and Objectives
HYDRO ONE VEGETATION MANAGEMENT STUDY 2016 – PURPOSE AND OBJECTIVES The Ontario Energy Board (OEB) directed Hydro One to perform: • A comprehensive trend analysis of the vegetation management program showing year over year comparisons in unit costs • A best practices study . . . for vegetation manag
Slide 3: Hydro One's Utility Vegetation Management (UVM) Setting
Hydro One’s Utility Vegetation Management (UVM) Setting Important UVM Setting Considerations: WORKLOAD: 7.7 million trees KILOMETRES OF OVERHEAD LINES: 102,000 km CUSTOMER BASE: 1.3 million customers FOREST VARIATIONS: Three main forestry regions CUSTOMER DENSITY: Mostly rural and remote
Slide 4: UVM Industry Objectives
UVM Industry Objectives • Reliability • Safety • Compliance • Cost‐effective • Customer Service • Fire Prevention • Sustainable Environmental Quality
Slide 5: UVM Best Management Practices (BMP)
UVM Best Management Practices (BMP) Best Management Practice for Sustainable UVM Perform consistent, compliant, and cost‐effective ROW corridor management to ensure reliable electric service, environmental quality, customer satisfaction, and safety for workers and the public Industry UVM BMP Strateg
Slide 6: Peer Selection
Peer Selection • Peer Selection Criteria in Order of Importance Peer participant in 2009 study Geographic location and proximity to Hydro One’s territory Tree density and managed tree characteristics Customer density determined by: • Comparators 36 industry comparators 27 utilities chosen as
Slide 7: Key Findings: Hydro One Strengths
Key Findings Hydro One Strengths Identified in the 2009 UVM Study continue in 2011‐2015 • Superior productivity over a majority of peer utilities • Higher level of worker experience and length of tenure • Worker turnover rates are one of the lowest in UVM industry • Clears 100% of ROW
Slide 8: Hydro One is on Track to Improve Performance
Key Findings Hydro One is on Track to Improve Performance • UVM Unit Costs • System reliability as measured by IEEE‐reliability metrics • Vegetation Management of M‐Class Feeders
Slide 9: Hydro One's Progress is Complicated by Challenging Factors
Key Findings Hydro One’s Progress is Complicated by Challenging Factors • Long cycle lengths • Low customer density and high tree density • Fixed costs relative to union agreements and in‐house personnel and administration • Increasing public resistance to vegetation management practices • Higher ex
Slide 10: Labour Hours per Tree Treated
Key Work Efficiency Findings Productivity Work efficiency is best measured by labour hours per work unit, trees treated and managed kilometre Hydro One expends fewer hours per tree treated than the peers Labour Hours per Tree Treated for 2011‐2015 2 1.8 Labour Hours per Tree Treated Hydro One Centra
Slide 11: Labour Hours/km
Key Work Efficiency Findings Productivity In 2015 Hydro One’s progress improved over 2011 In 2015 Hydro One expended fewer hours per managed kilometre than the majority of peers Annual Labour Hours Expended per Managed Kilometres for Routine UVM 2011‐2015 200 HO Central 180 HO East Labour Hours/km 1
Slide 12: Calculated Cycle Length, Labour Hours/km and Trees/km
Key Work Efficiency Findings Productivity Hydro One has maintained a level of efficiency over the past decade at or above its peers. In spite of increasing tree densities and long cycle lengths. Hydro One’s tree crews have been able to stay close to the peer average of labour hours per managed kilom
Slide 13: Percent Increase in Costs
Key Unit Cost Findings Managed Unit Cost • Hydro One has the highest cost per managed km in the peer group (per managed km) • Hydro One’s managed unit costs have increased at a slower rate than the peers for 2006‐2015 Change in Average Cost per Unit between 2006‐2008 Study and 2011‐2015 Study 97% 10
Slide 14: Tree-Related Outages per km
Key Performance Indicators Reliability Tree‐related outages per system kilometre is the most complete reliability measure for UVM program performance Five‐Year Annual Average Tree‐Related Outages per System Pole Kilometre for 2011 – 2015 for Non‐Major Event Day (Non‐MED), MED, and Total Outages 0.45
Slide 15: Key Performance Indicators: Safety
Key Performance Indicators Safety • No fatalities, only 4 lost time incidents in three years • Incident severity rate 7.9 (lost days/100 FTE) compared to 28.47 peer average • Employee turnover rate 5% (peer average is 32%) • Good correlation between incident severity rate and employee turnover in th
Slide 16: Recommendations for Improvements
Recommendations for Improvements 1. Continue to innovate the vegetation management with mechanization and automation 2. Develop a vegetation management outage investigation protocol and modeling program 3. Improve, consolidate, and synchronize the annual asset inspections with work planning 4. Impro
Slide 17: Recommendations for Best Management Practices
Recommendations for Best Management Practices 1. Continue to clear the full width of the ROW and achieve vegetation conversion in the ROW 2. Establish and effectively communicate appropriate safety awareness for anyone who enters a ROW 3. Establish performance expectations for achieving and maintain
Slide 18: Conclusion and Q&A
Conclusion and Q&A In spite of extreme challenges, Hydro One: Has improved performance and work efficiency and has maintained a higher efficiency than their peers for a decade. Has a significantly better reliability performance than the peers when measured as number of outages per system kilom