20210611Service Quality Report 2020.pdf

ROCKY MOUNTAIN
BP,XySF.",,1407 West North Temple, Suite 330
Saft Lake City, Utah 84116
Re:
June ll,202l
VIA ELECTRONIC DELIVERY
Ms. Jan Noriyuki
Commission Secretary
Idaho Public Utilities Commission
ll33l W. Chinden Blvd.
Building 8 Suite 20lA
Boise,ID 83714
P xc- e- bs-o9, (*<-' L' t2--oL
PAC'E-04-07 - Seryice Quality & Customer Guarantee Report for the period
January I through l)ecember 31,2020.
Dear Ms. Noriyuki:
Rocky Mountain Power, a division of PacifiCorp, hereby provides a copy of the Service Quality& Customer Guarantee report covering January I through December 31,2020. This report is
provided pursuant to a merger commitment made during the PacifiCorp and ScottishPowerl
merger. The Company committed to implement a five-year Service Standards and Customer
Guarantees program. The purposes behind these programs were to improve service to customers
and to emphasize to employees that customer service is a top priority. Towards the end of the five-
year merger commitment the Company filed an applicationz with the Commission requesting
authorization to extend these progftrms.
If there are any additional questions regarding this report please contact Ted Weston at (801) 220-
2963.
Sincerely,
Vice President,gulation
Enclosurescc: Terri Carlock
I Case No. PAC-E-99-01
2 Case No. PAC-E-04-07
"^,.D
ROCKY MOUNTAIN
POWER
A DIVISION OF PACIFICORP
IDAHO
SERVICE AUALITY
REVIEW
January 1- December 3L,2O2O
Report
Y ROCKY
POvt,ER
MOUNTA!N !DAHO
Service Quality Reviewa wrsld o, P&rrGP
January - December 2020
Table of Contents
Executive Sum ma ry.........
1 ReliabilityPerformance...........3
1.1 System Average lnterruption Duration lndex (SAlDl)4
t.2 System Average lnterruption Frequency lndex (SAlFl) ...............5
1,3 Major and Significant Events 5
L.4 Restore Service to 80% of Customers within 3 Hours........... ...........................8
2.2 Controllable, Non-Controllable and Underlying Performance Review......... ......................10
2.3 Underlying Cause Analysis Table
2.4 Cause Category Analysis Charts.
3 ReliabilitylmprovementProcess......
3.1 Reliability Work Plans
4 Customer Response
4.7 Telephone Service and Response to Commission Complaints
4.2 Customer Guarantees Program Status
5 Service Standards/Program Summary.. .......18
5.1 Service Standards Program
3
72
L4
15
15
15
L7
L7
L7
5.1.1 Rocky Mountain Power Customer Guarantees..5.t.2 Rocky Mountain Power Performance Standards
5.3 ReliabilityDefinitions
18
18
19
20
2t
Page 2 of 23
Y ROCKY MOUNTAINPolA'ER IDAHO
Service Quality Review
January - December 2020
Executive Summary
Rocky Mountain Power developed its Customer Service Standards and Service Quality Measures in 1999. The
Company developed the program by benchmarking its performance against relevant industry reliability and
customer service standards. ln some cases, Rocky Mountain Power has expanded upon these Standards. ln other
cases (largely where the industry has no established standard) Rocky Mountain Power developed its own metrics,
targets and reporting methods. The Standards guide and reaffirm the importance of customerservice both external
and internally.
The Company distinguishes between non-controllable outages (e.g. lightning; vehicle collisions) and controllable
outages (e.g. animal interference; equipment failure) and takes cost-effective steps to minimize both. As part of
the Company's Performance Standards Program, it annually evaluates individual electrical circuits to focus on those
that have the most frequent interruptions. These are targeted for improvement, which is generally completed
within two years.
For the period January to December 2O20, results of network performance as measured by System Average
lnterruption Duration lndex (SAlDl) and System Average lnterruption Frequency lndex (SAlFl) in ldaho is
unfavorable to the Company's plan. The Company's goal continues to be supplying safe, reliable power to ldaho.
Rocky Mountain Power is dedicated to learning from our past service experiences and continuing to make
improvements to our operations and customer service to ensure ldaho's needs are met.
Below is a summary of our year-end 2020 performance serving the customers of ldaho.
Page 3 of 23
\
IDAHO
Service Quality Review
January - December 2020
1 Reliability Performance
Rocky Mountain Power strives to deliver reliable service to its customers in ldaho. For the reporting period, the
Company's network performance was unfavorable as measured by System Average lnterruption Duration lndex
(SAlDl) and System Average lnterruption Frequency lndex (SAlFl) in ldaho. Results for ldaho underlying
performance can be seen in subsections 1.1 and 1.2 below. During the reporting period there were four major
events and 17 significant event days. Details rqarding these events are found in section 1.3. Section 1.4 show
Company outage response performance. Transmission outages continue to cause a significant impact to the
customers in ldaho, especially for SAlFl. These outages have a greater tendency to reach the established Major
Event thresholds and make up a majority of significant event days. The Company is outlining a resiliency plan
focused heavily addressing transmission and substation issues impacting its customers. This plan will outline short-
and long-term projects to provide resiliency to the system and limit the impact of these outages. ln 2020, the
outline for the plan was established and in 2021 projects are being scoped and vetted for feasibility and appropriate
solutions prior to inclusion in the capital plan. This is in addition to previously identified multi-year projects already
scoped and under construction.
7..1 System Average lnterruption Duration lndex (SAlDll
The Company's underlying interruption duration performance year-end 2020 is unfavorable to plan.
ROCKY MOUNTAIN
B*HN*
Actual
(reportins period)
Plan
(vear-end)
Total (major events included)422
155 132Underlying (maJor events orduded)
Controllable 27
TDAHO 2020 SAtDt
(excludes Prearra nged and Customer Requested)
0o5
=cl
ta
450
4m
3so
3@
250
2@
150
1m
50
0 1/t 2lt 3lt 4lL sl]- 6lr
...... Total lncluding Major Events
-
Un6lgrlying Actual
711 817 elt Lolt Lat tuL
-
fgnlJsllable Actual
-
Underlying Plan
aaaa"""""t""tot'
"""'
aatttt'
Page 4 of 23
\
ROCKY MOUNTAN
BS#ES*
IDAHO
Service Quality Review
January - December 2020
t.2 System Average lnterruption Frequency lndex (SAIFU
The Company's underlying interruption frequency performance results for the year are favorable to plan.
Actual
(reoortinc oeriod)
Plan
(vear-end)
Total (malor events inc{uded)3.545
U nderlying (major events included)2.365 1.335
Controllable 0.246
aaaato""
-roo'o
.aaa""""t""t'
a
a
TDAHO 2020 SAtFt
(excl udes Prea rra nged a nd Customer Requested)
0Itro
lr!
lraa,h
4.0
3.5
3.0
2.5
2.O
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
tlt 2lt 3lt 411 sl7 6lr
o o o o o r fsf3l lncluding lvlajor Events
-lpdgllying
Actual
7lr slL eh Lolt tat 141
-f6pfp6llable
Actual
-
[Jndgrlying Plan
Page 5 of 23
Y IDAHO
Service Quality Review
January - December 2020
1.3 Major and Significant Events
Major Event General Descriptions
Four events during the reporting period met the Company's ldaho major event threshold levell for exclusion
from underlying performance results.
a January 23,2O2O
Rocky Mountain Power customers in Rigby and Rexburg, ldaho, experienced a loss of substation event. At
10:44 PM, a circuit breaker at Rigby Substation had an internal phase-to-phase fault and locked out the
59kV bus at the Rigby Substation. The event affected 15 substations and 30,356 customers. A major event
report was submitted to the Commission on February L8,2020.
a lune22.2O2O
On the morning of June 22,2020, Rocky Mountain Power customers in Shelley, ldaho experienced a loss
of transmission line event. At 9:03 AM, a circuit breaker at Sugarmill Substation opened due to a line fault
approximately 0.5 miles past Sandcreek Substation. During recloser and sectionalizing operation, switch
75A at Sandcreek Substation flashed over causing the circuit breaker at Sugarmill Substation to lock out.
This outage de'energized the transmission line serving Sandcreek and Ammon Substations. This outage
impacted 15,185 customers in the Shelley area. This line has been in a non-standard configuration as the
route from Goshen to Ammon is being rebuilt to 161 kV construction which limits restoration capability
until Goshen projects are completed. A major event report was submitted to the Commission on August
28,2020.
September 7-10. 2020
On the afternoon of September7,2O2O, a surge of cold air from Canada unleashed damaging winds in
southeastern ldaho. The temperature at 3:00 p.m. in Rexburg was 81 degrees, by 7:00 p.m. the
temperature had fallen to 40 degrees. Wind gusts topped 70 mph and caused trees to fall, lines to tangle
and equipment to fail. The event impacted 42,080 customers in the Rexburg, Shelley, Lava Hot Springs and
Preston areas and outages lasted multiple days due to widespread damage caused by the winds. A major
event report was submitted to the Commission on May 26,2021.
1 A Malor Event (ME) is defined as a 24-hour period where SAIDI exceeds a statistically derived threshold value (Reliability Standard IEEE 1366-2012) based
on the 2.5 beta methodology. The values used for the reporting period are shown below:
Effective Date Customer Count ME Threshold SAIDI ME Customer Minutes Lost
Llt-t2l3tl202o 83,/t00 t3.23 1,102,990
ROCKY MOUNTAIN
BSHYES*"
a
Date Cause SAIDI
Loss of Substation 38.9January 23,2020
lune22,2O2O Loss of Transmission Line L4.3
188.8September 7-1:O,2O2O Weather - Windstorm
November 7-8,2020 Loss of Transmission Line L4.3
Total 256.3
Page 5 of 23
Y ROCKY MOUNTAIN
PIOA'ER IDAHO
Service Quality Review
January - December 2020
o November 7-8,2020
On the evening of November 7 ,2020, two pole fires on a transmission line in the Rigby, ldaho area
caused a circuit breaker at the Jefferson Substation to lock out. The following morning, November 8,
2020, a 138 kV instrument transformer failed at the Franklin Substation causing a loss of supply event to
all customers in Franklin County served by the 46 kV transmission line served from the substation. The
two events impacted L0,3L7 customers with outage durations ranging from 40 manutes to 24 hours 13
minutes. A major event report was submitted to the Commission on April 20,2O2L.
Significant Events
Significant event days add substantially to year-on-year cumulative performance results; fewer significant event
days generally result in better reliability for the reporting period, while more significant event days generally
means poorer reliability results. During the reporting period seventeen significant event daysz were recorded,
which account for 89.4 SAIDI minutes, about 54 percent of the reporting period's underlying 166 SAIDI minutes.
The Company has recognized that these significant days have caused a negative impact to performance and that
they have been generally attributable to events within the transmission system. The Company has recognized
transmission system reliability risks previously and continues on-going improvement plans.
Date Cause: General Descrlptlon Underlying
SAIDI
Underlying
SAIFI
%of Total
Underlylng
sArD! (811
% ofTotal
Underlylng
SAIFI (1.2t171
April 11,2020 Loss of Transmission Line 3.5 0.043 43%3.5o.4
April2O 2020 Vehicle Accident and Loss of
Substation 3.5 0.025 4,30/6 2.L%
May4,2020 Loss of Transmission Line - Failed
Transformer Arrestor 4.7 0.013 5.8%7.eA
May 6,2020 Weather - Strong Winds 4.7 0,030 5.8%2.4%
May 28, 2020 Loss of Transmission - Switching
Error 12.0 0.555 74.8o/o 53.4o/"
June 6 2020 Weather - Strong Winds 1.8 0.014 2.2%1.L%
lune27,2O2O Weather - Wind and Lightning 4.9 0.023 5.to/o 1.8016
luly2,2O2O Loss of Transmission Line 5.83 0.00 4o/o Oo/o
luly29,2O2O Loss of Transmission Line 77.47 0.18 7%8o/o
August 15,2020 Pole Fire 3.43 0.01 2%loa
September 19,2O2O Loss of Transmission Line 4.94 0.04 3o/o 2o.4
October l1.,2O2O Loss of Transmission Line 3.00 0.04 2o/o 2o/o
October 12,2O2O Loss of Substation - Contractor Dig-
in 4.82 0.10 3%4%
2 On a trial basis, the Company established a rariable of 1.75 times the standard deviation of its natural log SAIDI results
Page 7 of 23
x ROCKY MOI,MTANP(il'ER IDAHO
Service Quality Review
lloyember t ,min Weather - Wind/Snow 3.18 0.02 204 t%
November U,2O2O Weather - Wind/Snow 5.59 0.0s 3%2%
Nowmber3Q2020 Loss of Transmission Line 4.9s o.o7 3%3%
December28,20fr Vehicle Accident 2.9s 0.03 2%7%
TOTAL 8.4 1.361 il%s896
Janua - December 2020
1.4 Restore Service to 80% of Customers within 3 Hourc
Overall, the Company restored power outages due to loss of supply or damage to the distribution system
within three hours to 96% of customers, achieving the goa! of greater than 80%.
January February March April May June
89%t;0(J'7o twr6 9s%98%98%
July August September October November December
99%76%6t%tm96 l0[],y'o 88%
Page 8 of 23
x IDAHO
Service Quality Review
January - December 2020
2 Reliability History
Depicted below is the history of reliability in ldaho. ln 2@2, the Company implemented an automated outage
management system which provided the background information from which to engineer solutions for improved
performance. Since the development of this foundational information, the Company has been in a position to
improve performance, both in underlying and in extreme weather conditions. These improvements have included:
the application of geospatial tools to analyze reliability, development of web-based notifications when devices
operate more than optimal, focus on operational responses via CAIDI metric analysis, and feeder hardening
progmms when specific feeders have significantly impacted reliability performance.
2.1 ldaho Reliability Historical Performance
ldaho Reliability History - lncluding Major Events
ISAID! ICAIDI +SAIFI
3.O
6m
5m
/tm
3m
2@
1q)
2
0
2011 2012 20L3 2014 2015 2015 2017 2018 2019 2020
ldaho Reliability History - Excluding Major Events
rSADI ICAIDI +SAIFI
2.4
3m
250
2m
150
1m
50
0
2.2
1.5
ROCKY MOI.INTAINFOWER
4
3
oco,ul 1.5
.io.P3c
=
L
0
3
2 0oP
=E
=
UIco
ut
1
0
6lNs
CO OtON?n cD<t f'.dN
ChdNrOAN
OrNNOIF{ fn
fY]\OdN
@qqt.dN
qNNCOHrn
Ln rJ.)6l roH l'\
rn fndN qNH(O fnod<i lo !r)t\I 6l (!Nrn o)ro ro:<O\ol\:F{ 16 Fl Ol rn orcn co
2011 2012 20L3 2014 2015 20L6 2017 2018 2019 2020
Page 9 of 23
\
IDAHO
Seruice QualiU Review
January - December 2020
2.2 Controllable, Non-Controllable and Underlying Performance Review
ln 2008, the Company introduced a further categorization of outage causes, which it subsequently used to
develop improvement programs as developed by engineering resources. This categorization was titled
Controllable Distribution Outages and recognized that certain types of outages can be cost-effectively avoided.
As an example, animal-caused or equipment failure interruptions have a less random nature than lightning
caused interruptions; other causes have also been determined and are specified in Section 2.3. Engineers can
develop plans to mitigate against controllable distribution outages and provide better future reliability at the
lowest possible cost. At that time, there was concern that the Company would lose focus on non-controllable
outages3. ln order to provide insight into the response and history for those outages, the charts below distinguish
amongst the outage groupings.
The graphic history demonstrates contro!lable, non-controllable, and underlying performance on a ro!ling 355-
day basis. Analysis of the trends displayed in the charts below shows a general improving trend for allcharts. ln
order to also focus on non-controllable outages, the Company has continued to improve its resilience to eltreme
weather using such programs as its visual assurance program to evaluate facility condition. lt also has undertaken
efforts to establish impacts of loss of supply events on its customers and deliver appropriate improvements when
identified. lt uses its web-based notification tool for alerting field engineering and operational resources when
devices have exceeded performance thresholds in order to react as quickly as possible to trends in declining
reliability. These notifications are conducted regardless of whether the outage cause was controllable or not.
3 3. The Company shall provide, as an appendh to its Service Quality Review reports, information regarding non-conrollable outages, including when
applicable, descriptions of efforts made by the Company to improve service quality and reliability for causes the Company has identified as not controllable.
4. The Company shall provide a supplemental filin& within 90 days, consbting of a process for measuring performance and improvements for the non-
controllable events.
Page 10 of23
ROCKY MOUNTAINPolTER
tdaho 365-Day Rolllng Controllable Hlstoryas Reported
**d "os ,rd ,rs ,.p* ,und
"ns "d 'rf 'r$ .-" ..tr' ,rs ,.pd --o*
n.* strerc pcriod
-s/llol -sAlFt -unear
{sAlDl}
1m
90
80
70
660gIE
=sooa.n 10
!t0
20
10
0
1
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
E
0.5 Er
o.4
0.3
o,2
0.t
0
x R(XKY
FOU'ER
iIIOUNTAlN !DAHO
Seruice Quality Review
:m
?sto
2(p
150
lm
50
ldaho 36$Day Rolling NonGontrollable Hlstoryas Reported
-d -tr -d C -C -d'rd'rn -tr -d d C C C "drste.lP.|lod
-iNDN -s/lln -1fr!..?6/UD0
3
2,5
2.
o:
E
clt
1
0.5
0 0
"rE
;
- December 2020
ldaho 36$Day Rolllng Underlylng Hlstoryas Reported
3(n
250
2q,
3
2.5
x
tr*
E
6
1fl)
E
ffiE
;
I
50 o.5
0
,C "C
d C C "d''d -d,/ -r'" -C _d rd C -f
rstr6rPcrlod
-3llDN -gUFt -tft3sFApf
Page 11 of23
Y IDAHO
Service Quality Review
January - December 2020
2.3 Underlying Cause Analysis Table
The table and charts below show the total customer minutes lost by cause and the total sustained interruptions
by cause. The Underlying cause analysis table excludes major events and includes prearranged outages
lCustomer Requested, Customer Notice Given, and Plonned Notice Exempt line items) with subtotals for their
inclusion, while the grand totals in the table exclude these prearranged outages so that grand totals align with
reported SAIDI and SAIFI metrics for the period.
3t7,t74
ROCKY MOUNTAIN
POVI'ER
u8,2s9
116
274,2L7
1,419,701
27,747
31:999
49,??9
40t,822
sl2,89t
61,906
L47,t09
2,287,847
2,897
5,286
t,922
10,106
1
95
313
t
22
3.80
10.77
0.00
3.29
0.03s,i
o.oe a I-l0.000 r
0.023 ,
431 17.26 0.121
zzs
152
124
4,04t
1
2
1
L
I
l
l
I
i
l
i
I
I
I
i
L
5
6
7
13
3
28
0.33
0.41
0.59
4.82
0.003
0.002
0.001
0.048
0.054
0.009
0.066
o.772
781
5,509
64,375
4,ilz
t,736
1,74
51 6.15
o.74
24 1.76
726 27.43
2,496,82 70,fis tg 29.94
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.36
o.847
0.000
0.000
0:000
0.021
0.021
0.000
o.o42
0.042
0.000
0.068
INCORRECT RECORDS
OTHER, KNOWN CAUSE
311
92
30,293
in,752
2,633
24o,e!:7
241,614
5 0.37
0.03
2.89
2.92
0.02
21
3,4U
3,505
282,0:0
994,039
Dlrect Cause
ANIMAIS
Br RO MORTALTTY (NON-PROTECTED SPECTES)
BIRD MORTALITY (PROTECTED SPECIES} (BMTS)
BrRD NESr (BMTSI
BIRD SUSPECTED, NO MORTALTTY
A]{tMAtS
Sustalned
lncldent Crunt
9
I
22
l(B
54
15
SAIDI
o.21
0.29
0.06
0.0s
0.58
1.19
SATFI
0.001
0.000
0.009
0.014
0.003
0.001
CONTAMINATION
FIRE/SMOKE (NOT DUE TO FAULTS}
Gstomer Mlnutes
Lost for lncldent
t7,903
5,053
24,294
4,OL3
48,337
99,601
254
501
?
2
0.00
0.01
0.000
0.000
EITIVIROITMENT 795
Qrstomcrs ln lncldent
Sustalned
7t8
l,lu
7
63
4
3
235
93
4 0.01 0.m0
B/O EqUIPMENI
DETERIORATION OR ROTTI NG
OVERLOAD
POI.T FIRE
EQUIPMET{T FAIIURE
DrG-r N (NON-PACr FTCORP PERSONNEL)
OTHER INTERFERING OUECT
oTHER UTtL|VCONTRACTOR
VEHICIT ACODENT
LOSS OF FEED FROM SUPPLIER
I]ITERFEREilCE
LOSS OF SUBSTATION
LOSS OF TRANSMISSION LINE
IOSS OF SUPPTY
FAULTY INSTALL
I MPROPER PROTECTIVE COORDI NATION
PACIF'CORP EMPLOYEE . FIELD
UNKNOWN
coNsrRUcfloN
OPERATIONAT
OTHER
CUSTOMER NOTICE GIVEN 5,770
L7
11.92
Page L2 of 23
xROCKYtrowER TI/PUNTA!N IDAHO
Service Quality Revlew
0.00 0.000clrsloMcinEapEB,rED 92 3 3
.Elrr.Fq!flg.tuts$-i !i 277,388 3,439 65 3.33 0.041
ur$rpnrrcesAntrcu$r 91,575 691 7 1.10 0.008
f!d[$.tED!f oJraEoEiiPT 9,236 161 3 0.11 0.m2
?t4...xrD rllraar,ri!#P.u*t&
i*fr.fit$-s|@sf:399,500 2,386 58 4.79 0.029
@it'nl[{!t*t$tt 6,7@ 43 8 0.08 0.001
rrc:t {IFilo;LilB tr
EE 6,086 56 7 0.07 0.001
tq,rt!fiE,200,665 t,56 30 2.41 0.019
r$ {[,8rqrqreeietfb 27,U?156 2t 0.33 0.002
10.65 0.ot7888,397 3,954 88
llEirrur grangr $rt*lslr 'qgs.
Note: Direct Causes are not listed if there were no outages classified within the cause durhg the repordng period.
Jan - December 2020
Page 13 of 23
ROCKY MOUNTANPOWEI
January - December 2020
2.4 Cause Category Analysis Charts
Certain cause categories impact more customers for a given event while others impact few customers but may
take longer to restore. The charts and graphs below show customer minutes lost (SAlDl) and sustained
interruptions (SAlFl) by cause category. Customer minutes lost is directly related to SAIDI (the average outage
duration for a customer), customer interruptions directly relate to SAIFI (the average outage frequency for a
customer) while sustained interruptions depict the total number of outages by their causes. Certain types of
outages typically result in a large amount of customer minutes lost, though they occur infrequently, such as Loss
of Supply outages. Others tend to be more frequent but result in few customer minutes lost. The pie charts
below show the percentage of SAlDl, SAlFl and lncidents by all cause categories. Tota! excludes major events and
prearranged outages within the Planned cause category.
Cause Analysls - Customer Mlnutes lost (SA|D[
I WEATHER lTT
I EqJIPME'{IFATURE2I"
T Ii{IEEFENE{CI E 6
I OIHER4'6
. PTATINfDSX
I TREES 696
I A}iIMASIT5 OPERAIIOI{AIOtr
Y E'{VIRONMEMTO5
r rossoFsuPPrY3Tx
Cause Analysls - Customer lntemrptlons (SAlFll
I EQUIPMEI{T FATURE 1096
I LOSSOFSUPpTY6St6
I WEATHER6'6
T fiIERFENENCE
1%
I orHtR 396
I PTANNET"'6
I NEES2'6ANIMASlT
T OPERATIOI{AL2'6
lr ENVIRONMENTOft
Cause Analysls - Sustslned lncldents
r LOSSOFSUPPIY a EqutruEI{I
FALURE 37'6v
I OPERATIONALO96
a At{tMAts996
T TREIs 5%
WEATHER 1396r put{NED7X
I OIHER l1X II{IERFERENCE 4T
Page 14of23
IDAHO
Seruice Quality Review
IDAHO
Service Quality Review
January - December 2020
3 Reliability lmprovement Process
Over the past decade the Company has developed approaches, including tools, automated and manual processes
and methods to improve reliability. As it has done so, the Company's ability to diagnose portions of the system
requiring improvement has improved, which yields its legacy "Worst Performing Carcuit" program obsolete. As a
result, it devised a more contemporary approach to identifying improvement plans, determining the value of those
plans, and monitoring to ensure that results delivered meet or exceed expected targets. This program was named
Open Reliability Reporting (ORR).
The ORR process shifts the Company's reliability program from a circuit-based view reliant on blended reliability
metrics (using circuit SAlDl, SAIFI and MAIFI)to a more strategic and targeted approach based upon recent trends
in performance of the localarea, as measured by customer minutes interrupted (from which SAIDI is derived). The
decision to fund one performance improvement project versus another is based on cost effectiveness as measured
by the cost per avoided annual customer minute interrupted. However, the cost effectiveness measure will not
!imit funding of improvement projects in areas of low customer density where cost effectiveness per customer may
not be as high as projects in more densely populated areas.
3.1 Reliability Work Plans
The Company has worked to improve reliability through Reliability Work Plans. To assist in identification of
problem areas, Area lmprovement Teams (AlT) meetings and Frequent lnterrupters Requiring Evaluation (FIRE)
reports have been established. On a daily basis the Company systems alert operations and engineering team
members regarding outages experienced at interrupting devices (circuit breakers, line reclosers and fuses).
When repetition occurs, it is an indicator that system improvements may be needed. On a routine basis, local
operations and engineering team members revlew the performance of the network using geospatial and tabular
tools to look for opportunities to improve reliability. As system improvement projects are identified, cost
estimates of reliability improvement and costs to deliver that improvement are prepared. tf the project's cost
effectiveness metrics are favorable, i.e. low cost and high avoidance of future customer minutes interrupted, the
project is approved for funding and the forecast customer minutes interrupted are recorded for subsequent
comparison. This process allows individual districts to take ownership and identify the greatest impact to their
customers. Rather than focusing on a large area at high costs, districts can focus on problem areas or devices.
3,2 Project Approvals by District
The identification of projects is an ongoing process throughout the year. An approval team reviews projects
weekly and once approved, design and construction begins. Upon completion of the construction, the project is
identified for follow up review of effectiveness. One year after completion, routine assessments of performance
are prepared. This comparison is summarized for all projects for each yea/s plans, and actual versus forecast
results are assessed to determine whether targets were met or if additional work may be required. The table
below is provided to demonstrate the measures the Company believes represents cost/effectiveness measures
that are important in determining the success of the projects that have been completed.
ROCKY MOUNTAIN
RSFS-,
Page 15 of 23
-/,RO(,KY
MOUNTAINYporren\ rtrcqomc
IDAHO
Service Quality Review
*Metrics cove r RWP's a pprove d betwee n Ll L/ 2OL8 and LU 3A 2020
Janua - December 2020
EfrlctrrcnG.i ilctrlc3 lnPlfirteo
Plar ilccdry
Goals (>1 year
slncc prcrect
cqnplcdonl
Erdmaed
Avoldedamurl
cltil.
Actnl Auoldcd
.nnual CML
lu*cold
G6t per
amrnl
ruolded Cttll
A.tEl c6t
pcramual
avolded
ot,tl
Phns IIot
t{ccdrA
Go.ls Inot
lmluded ln
metlcsl
Plarwal0lg
hrldmnedotr
ilbntoefler s0.56 02 0 0 So.oo So.oo 0 2
Preston 4 s1.55 I 45,838 729,L90 s0.81 s0.00 0 3
ht6ur:3 S0.82 1 94,834 270,953 So.4s s0.17 0 2
Shellev 4 52.97 1 t02,t97 255,493 s1.03 So.oo 0 3
Iotrl t3 s2rr 3 2a2t69 755,636 so.76 s0J5 0 10
2018-2020 Di strict Projects*
Page 15 of 23
\
IDAHO
Seruice Quality Review
January - December 2020
4 Customer Response
4.7. Telephone Seruice and Response to Commission Complaints
The Company achieved its goals related to providing a timely response to customers concerns and commission
complaints.
4.2 Customer Guarantees Program Status
Overall Customer Guarantee performance remains above 99 percent, demonstrating the Compant's continued
commitment to customer satisfaction. Major Events are excluded from the Customer Guarantees program.
customerguaranrees January to December 2020
ROCKY MOI.INTAINPolA'ER
P55 Answer calls within 30 seconds &0PA 85%
PS6a Respond to commission complaints within 3 days 95o/o Loo%
PS6b Respond to commission complaints regarding service disconnects
within 4 hours 950,4 to096
PSGc Resolve commission complaints within 30 days 9504 L0o96
?oia
ffi F-n *l}ro- lU
2Ue
E-ilr F-r. *ire E
Becbtlrp Sqpty
Appdntnens
$ritci*qon Porer
Erfrnotes
Rcpond lo Bilhrg hCiiiee
Rergond to ltew Prcbaerns
It{odficauon ol Flenned lntenupdonc
r07,328
1W
318
t(lg
$2
fit
1t,350
0
0
0
I
0
0
0
r(x).(xr%
r00.(x)v.
100.qv.
s9.z%
100.09"
100.00%
100.00%
l0
to
t0
s80
$0
l0
80
78,69a
I,t&l
961
a%
@8
131
10205
100.q)%
1m.m%
lm.(xl%
90.7896
rm.q,%
tm.m%
100.m%
g)
s0
l0
$50
to
t0
ct
211.366 t oo.eo% sso et.687 I o0.0e96 350
cGl
cG2
cG8@l
cG5
cG6cG
'tm@vDr@.
ldaho
PageLT ot23
Y ROCKY MOUNTAIN
BgflF^n"",
IDAHO
Service Quality Review
January - December 2020
5 Service Standards/Program Summaryo
5.1 Service Standards Program
As referenced in Rule 25
5.1.1 Rocky Mountain Power Customer Guarantees
Note: See Rules for a complete description of terms ond conditions for the Customer Guorontee Program.
{ On June 29,20L2, in Docket PAC-E-12-02 and Order 32583, the Commission ordered that Rocky Mountain Power had delivered upon commitments it made
in pursuant to the MidAmerican transaction in PAC-E-05-08 and Order 29998. The Commission also ordered the acceptance of modifications to the Service
Standards Program proposed by Rocky Mountain Power, as shown on Page 4 of 15.
Page 18 of 23
Customer Guarantee 1:
Restoring Supply After an Outage
The Company will restore supply after an outage within 24 hours of
notification with certain exceptions as described in Rule 25.
Customer Guarantee 2:
Appointments
The Company will keep mutually agreed upon appointments, which
will be scheduled within a two-hour time window.
Customer Guarantee 3:
Switching on Power
The Company will switch on power within 24 hours of the customer
or applicant's request, provided no construction is required, all
government inspections are met and communicated to the
Company and required payments are made. Disconnections for
nonpayment, subterfuge or theft/diversion of service are excluded.
Customer Guarantee 4:
Estimates For New Supply
The Company will provide an estimate for new supply to the
applicant or customer within 15 working days after the initial
meeting and all necessary information is provided to the Companv
Customer Guarantee 5:
Respond To Billing lnquiries
The Company will respond to most billing inquiries at the time of the
initial contact. For those that require further investigation, the
Company will investigate and respond to the Customer within 10
workins davs.
Customer Guarantee 6:
Resolving Meter Problems
The Company will investigate and respond to reported problems
with a meter or conduct a meter test and report results to the
customer within 10 working days.
Customer Guarantee 7:
Notification of Planned lnterruptions
The Company will provide the customer with at least two days'
notice prior to turning off power for planned interruptions
consistent will Rule 25 and relevant exemptions.
Y ROCKY MOUNTAIN
B*YEN-,
IDAHO
Service Quality Review
January - December 2020
5.1,.2 Rocky Mountain Power Performance Standards
Network Performance Standard 1:
Report System Average lnterruption Duration lndex
(sArDr)
The Company will report Total, Underlying, and
Controllable SAIDI and identify annual Underlying baseline
performance targets for the reporting period. For actual
performance variations from baseline, explanations of
performance will be provided. The Company will also
report rolling twelve month performance for Controllable,
Non-Controllable and Underlying distribution events.
Network Performance Standard 2:
Report System Average lnterruption Frequency
lndex (SAlFl)
The Company will report Total, Underlying, and
Controllable SAIFI and identify annual Underlying baseline
performance targets for the reporting period. For actual
performance variations from baseline, explanations of
performance will be provided. The Company willalso
report rolling twelve month performance for Controllable,
Non-Controllable and Underlying distribution events.
Network Performance Standard 3:
lmprove Under-Performing Areas
Annually, the Company will target specific circuits or
portions of circuits to improve performance by a forecast
amount, using either its legacy worst performing circuit
program (to reduce bV lro%the reliability performance
indicator (RPl) on at least one area on an annual basis
within five years after selection) or by application of its
Open ReliabiliW Reportine Program.
Network Performance Standard 4:
Suppfu Restoration
The Company will restore power outages due to loss of
supply or damage to the distribution system within three
hours to 80% of customers on averape.
Customer Service Performance Standard 5:
Telephone Service Level
The Company willanswer 80% of telephone calls within 30
seconds. The Company will monitor customer satisfaction
with the Company's Customer Service Associates and
quality of response received by customers through the
Companv's eQualitv monitorins svstem.
Customer Service Performance Standard 5:
Commission Complaint Response / Resolution
The Company willa) respond to at least 95% of non-
disconnect Commission complaints within three working
days and will b) respond to at least 95% of disconnect
Commission complaints within four working hours, and will
c) resolve 95% of informal Commission complaints within
30 davs.
Note: Performonce Stondords 7, 2 ond 4 ore for underlying performonce days ond exclude those clossified os Major Events.
Page 19 of23
Y IDAHO
Service Quality Review
January - December 2020
5.2 Cause Code Analysis
The Company classifies outages based upon the cause categories and causes; causes are a further delineation
within cause categories. lt applies the definitions below to determine the outage cause categories. These
categories and their causes can help support reliability analysis and improvement efforts.
DlrectCause
Category Category Deflnltlon & Example/Dhect Cause
Animals Any problem nest that requires removal, relocation, trimminB, etc.; any birds, squirrels or other animals,
whether or not remains found.
o Animal (Animals). Bird Mortality (Non-protected species)
o Bird Mortalitv (Protected speciesXBMTSl
o Bird Nest
o Bird or Nestr Bird Suspected, No Mortality
Envirtnment Contamination or Airborne Deposit (i.e. salt, trona ash, other chemical dust, sawdust, etc.); corrosive
environment; flooding due to rivers, broken water main, etc.; fire/smoke related to forest, brush or building
fires (not including fires due to faults or lightning).
r Condensation/Moisture. Contaminationr Fire/Smoke (not due to faults)
o Floodins
r Major Storm or Disaster
o Nearby Fault
o Pole Fire
Equipment
Failure
Structural deterioration due to age (incl. pole rot); electrical load above limits; failure for no apparent reason;
conditions resulting in a pole/cross arm fire due to reduced insulation qualities; equipment affected by fault on
nearby equipment (e.9., broken conductor hits another line).
. B/o Equipment
o Overload
. Deterioration or Rotting
o Substation, Relavs
lnterference Willful damage, interference or theft; such as gun shots, rock throwing, etc.; customer, contractor or other
utility dig-in; contact by outside utility, contractor or other third-party individual; vehicle accident, including
car, truck, tractor, aircraft, manned balloon; other interfering object such as straw, shoes, string, balloon.
o Other Utility/Contractor
o Vehicle Accident
o Dig-in (Non-PacifiCorp Personnel)
o Other lnterfering Objectr Vandalism orTheft
Loss of
Supply
Failure of supply from Generator or Transmission system; failure of distribution substation equipment.
o Failure on other line or station
o Loss of Feed from Supplier
o Loss ofGenerator
o Loss ofSubstation
o Loss of Transmission Line
o Svstem Protection
Operatlonal Accidental Contact by PacifiCorp or PacifiCorp's Contractors (including live-line work); switching error; testing
or commissioning error; relay setting error, including wrong fuse size, equipment by-passed; incorrect circuit
records or identification; faulty installation or construction; operational or safety restriction.. lnternal Tree Contractor
o Switching Error. Testing/Startup Error
o Unsafe Situation
. Contact by PacifiCorpr Faulty lnstall. lmproper Protective Coordination. lncorrect Recordsr lnternal Contractor
Other Cause Unknown; use comments field if there are some possible reasons
o lnvalid Code
o Other, Known Cause
o Unknown
Planned Transmission requested, affects distribution sub and distribution circuits; Company outage taken to make
repairs after storm damage, car hit pole, etc.; construction work, regardless if notice is given; rolling blackouts
o Construction
o Customer Notice Given. Energy Emergency lnterruption. lntentional to Clear Trouble
. Emergency Damage Repair
o Customer Requested
o Planned Notice Exempt
o Transmission Requested
Tree
a
Growing or falling trees
. Tree-Non-preventableo Tree-Trimmable
Tree-Tree felled by Logger
Weather Wind (excluding windborne material); snow, sleet or blizzard, ice, freezing fog, frost lightning.
. Extreme Cold/Heatr Freezing Fog & Frost
o Wind
o Lightning
o Rain. Snow, Sleet, lce and Blizzard
ROCKY MOUNTAIN
POvt'ER
Page 20 of 23
Y ROCKY MOUNTAIN
HSIYEA,
IDAHO
Service Quality Review
January - December 2020
5.3 Reliability Definitions
This section will define the various terms used when referring to interruption types, performance metrics and
the internal measures developed to meet its performance plans.
lnterruption Types
Below are the definitions for interruption events. For further details, refer to IEEE 1356-2AO3l20L2s Standard for
Reliability lndices.
Sustained Outage
A sustained outage is defined as an outage greater than 5 minutes in duration.
Momentory Outoge Event
A momentary outage event is defined as an outage equal to or less than 5 minutes in duration, and comprises all
operations of the device during the momentary duration; if a breaker goes to lockout (it is unable to clear the
faulted condition after the equipment's prescribed number of operations) the momentary operations are part
of the ensuing sustained interruption. This sequence of events typically occurs when the system is trying to re-
establish energy flow after a faulted condition, and is associated with circuit breakers or other automatic
reclosing devices. Rocky Mountain Power uses the locations where SCADA (Supervisory Control and Data
Acquisition) exists and calculates consistent with IEEE 1366-200312012. Where no substation breaker SCADA
exists, fault counts at substation breakers are to be used.
Reliabiliw lndices
SAIDI
SAIDI (system average interruption duration index) is an industry-defined term to define the average duration
summed for all sustained outages a customer experiences in a given period. lt is calculated by summing all
customer minutes Iost for sustained outages (those exceeding 5 minutes) and dividing by all customers served
within the study area. When not explicitly stated othenrise, this value can be assumed to be for a one-year
period.
Doily illDl
ln order to evaluate trends during a year and to establish Major Event Thresholds, a daily SAIDI value is often
used as a measure. This concept is contained IEEE Standard L366-2OL2. This is the day's tota! customer minutes
out of service divided by the static customer count for the year. lt is the total average outage duration customers
experienced for that given day. When these daily values are accumulated through the year, it yields the year/s
SAlDlresults.
SA'FI
SAIFI (system average interruption frequency index) is an industry-defined term that attempts to identifo the
frequency of all sustained outages that the average customer experiences during a given period. lt is calculated
by summing all customer interruptions for sustained outages (those exceeding 5 minutes in duration) and
dividing by all customers served within the study area.
CAIDI
CAIDI (customer average interruption duration index) is an industry standard index that is the result of dividing
the duration of the average customer's sustained outages by frequency of outages for that average customer.
While the Company did not originally specify this metric under the umbrella of the Performance Standards
slEEE1366-2003wasadoptedbythe|EEEonDecember23,2OO3, ltwassubsequentlymodifiedinlEEEL366-2OL2,butalldefinitionsusedinthisdocument
are consistent between these two versions. The definitions and methodology detailed therein are now ind ustry standards.
Page 2l ot 23
IDAHO
Service Quality Review
January - December 2020
Program within the context of the Service Standards Commitments, it has since been determined to be valuable
for reporting purposes. lt is derived by dividing PS1 (SAlDl) by PS2 (SAlFl).
MAIFIE
MAIFIE (momentary average interruption event frequency index) is an industry standard index that quantifies
the frequency of all momentary interruption events that the average customer erperiences during a given time-
frame. lt is calculated by counting all momentary interruptions which occur within a 5-minute time period, as
long as the interruption event did not result in a device experiencing a sustained interruption.
CEMI
CEMI is an acronym for Customers Experiencing Multiple (Sustained and Momentary) lnterruptions. This index
depicts repetition of outages across the period being reported and can be an indicator of recent portions of the
system that have experienced reliability challenges. This metric is used to evaluate customer-specific reliability.
ORR
ORR is an acronym for Open Reliability Reporting, which shifts the Company's reliability program from a circuit-
based metric (RPl) to a targeted approach reviewing performance in a local area, measured by customer minutes
lost. Project funding is based on cost effectiveness as measured by the cost per avoided annual customer minute
interrupted.
cPt99
CP!99 is an acronym for Circuit Performance lndicator, which uses key reliability metrics of the circuit to identify
underperforming circuits. lt excludes Major Event and Loss of Supply or Transmission outages. The variables and
equation for calculating CPI are:
CPI=lndex'i((SAlDl*WF*NF)+(SAlFl *WF*NF)+(MAlFl *WF*NF)+(Lockouts*WF*NF))
lndex: 10.645
SAIDI: Weighting Factor 0.30, Normalizing Factor 0.029
SAIFI: Weighting Factor 0.30, Normalizing Factor 2.439
MAIFl: Weighting Factor 0.20, Normalizing Factor 0.70
Lockouts: Weighting Factor0.20, Normalizing Factor 2.00
Therefore,10.645*((3-yearSAlDl*0.30't0.029)+(3-yearSAlFl*0.30+2.439l.+(3-yearMAlFl*0.20*0.70)
+ (3-year breaker lockouts * 0.20 * 2.00)) = CPI Score
cPt05
CPl05 is an acronym for Circuit Performance lndicator, which uses key reliability metrics of the circuit to identifo
underperforming circuits. Unlike CPl99 it includes Major Event and Loss of Supply or Transmission outages. The
calculation of CPl05 uses the same weighting and normalizing factors as CPl99.
RPI
RPI is an acronym for Reliability Performance lndicator, which measures reliability performance on a specific
segment of a circuit to identifo underperforming circuit segments rather than measuring performance of the
whole circuit. This is the Company's refinement to its historic CPl, more granular.
ROCKY MOUNTAIN
POUI'ER
Page22 of 23
Y IDAHO
Service Quality Review
January - December 2020
Performance Tvpes & Commitments
Rocky Mountain Power recognizes several categories of performance; major events and underlying performance.
Underlying performance days may be significant event days. Outages recorded during any day may be classified
as "controllable" events.
Major Events
A Major Event (ME) is defined as a 24-hour period where SAIDI exceeds a statistically derived threshold value
(Reliability Standard IEEE 1366-2012) based on the 2.5 beta methodology. The values used for the reporting
period and the prospective period are shown below.
Effective Date Customer Count ME Threshold SAIDI ME Customer Minutes Lost
LIL-LZ|3L|aOaO 83,400 L3.23 L,L02,99O
Signilicant Events
The Company has evaluated its year-to-year performance and as part of an industry weather normalization task
force, sponsored by the IEEE Distribution Reliability Working Group, determined that when the Company
recorded a day in excess of L.75 beta (or 1.75 times the natural log standard deviation beyond the natural log
daily average for the day's SAIDI) that generally these dayd events are generally associated with weather events
and serve as an indicator of a day which accrues substantial reliability metrics, adding to the cumulative reliability
results for the period. As a result, the Company individually identifies these days so that year-on-year
comparisons are informed by the quantity and their combined impact to the reporting period results.
Underlying Events
Within the industry, there has been a great need to develop methodologies to evaluate year-on-year
performance. This has led to the development of methods for segregating outlier days, via the approaches
described above. Those days which fal! below the statistically derived threshold represent "underlying"
performance, and are valid. lf any changes have occurred in outage reporting processes, those impacts need to
be considered when making comparisons. Underlying events include all sustained interruptions, whether of a
controllable or non-controllable cause, exclusive of major events, prearranged (which can include short notice
emergency prearranged outages), customer requested interruptions and forced outages mandated by public
authority typically regarding safety in an emergency situation.
Controllable Distribution (@) Events
ln 2008, the Company identified the benefit of separating its tracking of outage causes into those that can be
classified as "controllable" (and thereby reduced through preventive work) from those that are "non-
controllable" (and thus cannot be mitigated through engineering programs); they will generally be referred to in
subsequent text as controllable distribution (CD). For example, outages caused by deteriorated equipment or
animal interference are classified as controllable distribution since the Company can take preventive measures
with a high probability to avoid future recurrences; while vehicle interference or weather events are largely out
of the Company's control and generally not avoidable through engineering programs. (lt should be noted that
Controllable Events is a subset of Underlying Events. The Cause Code Analysis section of this report contains two
tables for Controllable Distribution and Non-controllable Distribution, which list the Company's performance by
direct cause under each classification.) At the time that the Company established the determination of
controllable and non-controllable distribution it undertook significant root cause analysis of each cause type and
its proper categorization (either controllable or non-controllable). Thus, when outages are completed and
evaluated, and if the outage cause designation is improperly identified as non-controllable, then it would result
in correction to the outage's cause to preserve the association between controllable and non-controllable based
on the outage cause code. The Company distinguishes the performance delivered using this differentiation for
comparing year to date performance against underlying and total performance metrics.
ROCKY MOUNTAIN
P|olA'ER
Page 23 of 23