20211018Service Quality Report 2021.pdf

ROCKY MOUNTAIN
Bgg,E*"*.*,
October 18,2021
rr'aa
r'.L-..-iLrlrLY
:l: i i-i; iB Pti 12: 5o
l .r ..-:,t
r l'i-li:i':i'': - ".i'',i'ri J3l(lli
1407 West North Temple, Suite 330
Salt Lake City, Utah &4116
VIA ELECTRONIC DELIWRY
Ms. Jan Noriyuki
Commission Secretary
Idaho Public Utilities Commission
I l33l W. Chinden Blvd.
Building 8 Suite 20lA
Boise,lD 83714
PH-e -os--o8, P Rc-- E- tz'oLRe: PAC-E-04-07 - Service Quality & Customer Guarantee Report for the period
January I through June 30, 2021.
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 June 30, 2021. 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 application2 with the Commission requesting
authorization to extend these programs.
If there are any additional questions regarding this report please contact Ted Weston at (801) 220-
2963.
Sincerely,
Vice President,
Enclosurescc: Terri Carlock
I Case No. PAC-E-99-01
2 Case No. PAC-E-04-07
ROCKY MOUNTAIN
POWER
A DIVISION OF PACIFICORP
IDAHO
SERVICE AUATITY
REVIEW
January I - June 30, 2O2L
Report
\
ROCKY MOUNTAINffi*IDAHO
Service Quality Review
January - June 2021
Table of Contents
Executive Summary..
1.1 System Average lnterruption Duration lndex (SAlDl)
t.2 System Average Interruption Frequency lndex (SAlFl)
2.4 Cause Category Analysis Charts
3 Reliability lmprovement Process........
3
4
5
5
7
8
8
9
1.4 Restore Service to 80% of Customers within 3 Hours
2 ReliabilityHistory..........
2.2 Controllable, Non-Controllable and Underlying Performance Review..........
2.3 Underlying Cause Analysis Table
L4
11
13
t4
t4
4 Customer Response...
4.1 Telephone Service and Response to Commission Complaints
5 ServiceStandards/ProgramSummary..
5.1 Service Standards Program5.1.1 Rocky Mountain Power Customer Guarantees5.1.2 Rocky Mountain Power Performance Standards
16
16
16
L7
5.2
5.3
L7
t7
18
Page? ol 22
3 IDAHO
Service Quality Review
January - June 2021
Executive Summarv
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.9. 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 Ju ne 202L, results of network performance as measured by System Average lnterruption
Duration lndex (SAID!) and System Average Interruption Frequency lndex (SAlFl) in ldaho is unfavorable to the
Company's plan. The Company's goal continues to be supplying safe, reliable power to tdaho. 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 midyear 2021 performance serving the customers of ldaho.
ROCKY MOI,NTANm,
Page 3 of 22
\
IDAHO
Service Quality Review
January - June 2021
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 two major
events and six significant event days. Details regarding 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' the majority of significant event days. The Company is outlining a resiliency plan
focused heavily on addressing transmission and substation issues. 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.
1.1 System Average lnterruption Duration lndex (SAlDll
Below is the Company's underlying interruption duration performance through June 2021.
2021IDAHO SAtDt
(excludes Preananged and Customer Requested)
uzt uzL y2r 4ltL 5l2t 612L lzt 8l2t el2L $nt flnt tznL
-C.l.nd.rUndrdyl4Actuel
--.--* Cr[tdrrControlfubfiAcu|.l
o o o o o (jlfllrTobl lndrdh13 ilhlor Evurt
-
Und.{yl4 P|1n
ROCKY MOUNTA|N
FOVI'ERAffiqffit
180
160
tq
120
100
c)
60
tlo
n
0
a!
E
.E-
oil6
Actual
(reporting period)
Plan
(year-end)
Total (maior events lncluded)165
Underlying (maJor events excluded)92 131
L4.4Controllable
aaa
.tt'ol
at'a
.atl'aa
at t'
aaaoaa
aaa
lol
PaEe 4 ol 22
x ROCKY MOI'NTAIN
PC'WERrms@
IDAHO
Service Quality Review
Ianuary - June 2021
L,2 System Average lnterruption Frequency lndex (SAlFll
Below is the Company's underlying interruption frequency performance results through June 2021.
2021ldaho SAIFI
(exdudes Preananged and Customer Requested)
t
3IE
6
L8
L6
L4
L2
LO
o8
q6
o4
a2
oouzt uLt 3t2t 4l2t slzt 6l2L 7l2t azl slzL Lont ,rlzt pnL
-OlonfurUndrdylrtAchnl
:- Ohdrrcontnolhbh^.tu.l
..... CdondrrlAlhdrdhtlhlorhr.it
-Undf{t[|tPhn
Actual
(reporting period)
Plan
(vear-end)
Total (malor events lncluded)t.629
Underlying (major events tncluded!L.254 1.552
Controllable 0.204
aa "!'
ata
aaa
lt
at'!a
aaaa
ao I r'!
aoa
ooo
PageS ol 22
\
ROCKY MOUNTAIN
FOVT'ER
IDAHO
Service QualiU Review
January - June 2021
1.3 Major and Significant Events
Major Event General Descriptions
Two events during the reporting period met the Company's ldaho major event threshold levell for exclusion from
underlying performance results.
a Februarv 3
During the early morning hours of February 3,2021, a cold front passed through southeastern ldaho. The
storm brought a burst of moderate snow and gusty south by southwest winds to the area. Snow
accumulations in the upper Snake River Plain were approximately 2 to 3 inches with peak wind gusts
between 35 and 45 mph. The event impacted 14,930 customers in the Rexburg and Shelley areas. A major
event report was submitted to the Commission on May 24,202L.
a March 29
On March 29,202L, a fast-moving cold front brought unusually strong wind gusts to the Upper Snake River
Plain and surrounding areas, including 51 mph at ldaho Falls and 55 mph at Rexburg. These wind speeds
are in the top 1% of all wind gusts measured for these locations. Gusty winds decreased significantly behind
the front later that morning, though breezy northwesterly winds continued through the afternoon. During
this period of extreme weather, a loss of substation event occurred and impacted 17,O77 customers in the
Shelley area. A major event report was submitted to the Commission on August L9,2O2L.
1 A Major Event (MEl 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
tl7-721311202L 85,383 14.03s r,L98,472
Cause SAIDIDate
Weather - wind and snow 25.7February 3
Weather - toss of Substation 47.7March 29
7?.4Total
Page 5 of 22
\
!DAHO
Service Quality Review
January - June 2021
Signiftcant 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 six significant event days2 were recorded, which
account for 51.6 SAIDI minutes, about 55 percent of the reporting period's underlying 92 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 risk previously and continues on-going improvement plans.
L.4 Restore Service to 80% of Customers w:thin 3 Hours
Overall, the Company restored power outages due to loss of supply or damage to the distribution system
within three hours to 95% of customers, achieving the goal of greater than 80%.
ROCKY MOI,,NTAIN
POYYER
Date Cause: General Descrlptlon Underlylng
SAIDI
UnderlylrU
SAIFI
f ofTotal
Underlylry
sAtDr (92)
f ofTotel
Underlylng
sAtFr (1.25{}
January 24 2021 Loss of transmission line 11.3 0.L42 t23%Lt.3%
February27,2O2l Car hit pole 3.4 0.012 3.7%t.0%
Aprll8,2021 Windstorm 4,7 0.071 4.5%5.7%
Aprll 1O 2021 Windstorm 8.1 0.0s9 8.8%4.7%
May 11,2021 Snow storm - loss of transmission line 3.8 0.059 4-L%5.5%
lunet2,2o2l Loss of transmission line 20.9 0.302 22.7%24.L%
TOTAT 51.6 0.655 56%52%
January February March June
99%86%96%82%98%96%
2 On a trial basis, the Company established a variable of 1.75 times the standard deviation of its natural log SAIDI results
PageT of22
\
IDAHO
Service Quality Review
January - June 2021
2 Reliability History
Depicted below is the history of reliability in ldaho. ln200.2, 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 weatherconditions. 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
programs when specific feeders have significantly impacted reliability performance.
2.L ldaho Reliability Historical Performance
ldaho Reliabill{ History- lncluding Major Events
ISAIDI ICAIDI +-SAIFI
2
5m
5(I)
/[(D
3m
2(I)
1U)
o
2OL2 2013 2OL4 2015 2016 2OL7 zOLg 2OL9 2O2O Jun-21
ROCKY MOUNTAIN
PCN,YER
4
3
5
eo
ut
rto
IE
=
1
0
crq<l 6 ar! fndt rO orNl\.01 oD d11 \O Ootc)N OrN
d<t
t,) rnN@ €r\,\@ Irt co<tN !^ID
I
3
ldaho Reliability History- Excluding Major Events
TSAIDI ICAIDI +sAtFt
.no
fE
=
2
1
0
5
Eotul
6m
5m
4m
3@
2m
1m
0
2.4
2.22.1
\
- 1.3b
1.5'.+==-,
dr rON iO tt(,t Or NN l\amr{ C)
(D \D \D\o(l r..d(o o<t
N
rn
Or lr! ot(hco Ol
2ol2 2013 2Ol4 2015 2016 2OL7 2018 2OL9 2O2O Jun-21
Page 8 of 22
\
ROCKY MOUNTAIN
POU\IER IDAHO
Seruice Quality Review
January - June 2021
2.2 Controllable, Non-Controllable and Underlying Performance Review
!n 2008, the Company introduced a further categorization of outage causes, which it subsequently used to
develop improvement proBrams 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 orderto provide insight into the response and historyforthose outages, the charts below distinguish
amongst the outage groupings.
The graphic history demonstrates controllable, non-controllable, and underlying performance on a rolling 355-
day basis. Analysis of the trends displayed in the charts below shows a long-term general improving trend for all
charts, reflecting in the recent period, however, the declining performance noted in this report. ln order to also
focus on non-controllable outages, the Company has continued to improve its resilience to extreme 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 providg as an appendix to its Service Quality Review reportt informatlon regarding non-controllable outaget includin& when
applicable, descriptions of efforts made by the Company to improve seruice quality and reliabillty for causes the Company has identified as not controllable.
4. The Company shall provide a supplemental filin& within 90 dayt consisting of a process for measuring performance and improvements for the non-
controllable events.
Page9 of22
ldaho 365-Day Rolllng Controllable Hlstoryas Reported
*rd ,*s *.s C ,**.,rs d ,rn ,t' *s rd 'rs *d -rP" '*s
".!. Stlss Perlod
-SAlDl -gllFl -Unc.r
(SAlDl)
1oo
90
8t)
70
a60oIc-so
a-6ao
30
20
10
0
I
0.9
0.E
o.7
0.6
Eo
o.s &rI
0.4
0.3
0.2
o.1
x ROCKY MOI.INTAINrroulER IDAHO
Servlce Quallty Review
January - June2O2L
ldaho 365-Day Rolllng NonGontrollable Hlstory as Reported
4n 3
250 2.5
20 2
aaE*3a
6
lq,
50
EtrI
;il
o.s
0 0
-d "d'rf n*n d C d *rd.,.f,*n d J'" d *.o nP
rSorcrPitod -S/llDl -3UF!
otln..rF^lD0
ldaho 355-Day Rolllng Underlylng Hlstory as Reported
:m
25(,
2(I)
3
2.5
2
eE rsot
E
ct
-to
t
,-, $
1
50 o5
0
,d "tr d'**
"0u'
*d d rC,f -d d d d -f -f
rsbcroprlod
-gUDt -gUFl -lhcrrFAtDD
o
Page 10 of 22
Y !DAHO
Service Quality Review
January - June 2021
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
(Customer 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.
ROCKY MOUNTAIN
POvt/ER
DNrcct Canse C$tomer Mlnuto3
lostfor lnddcnt
custonrcrs ln
lnddcntsust incd
Sustaincd
lndd.nt Gount SAIDI SAIFI
ANIMALS 75,146 200 67 0.18 0.002
BIRD MORTALITY (NON.PROTECTED SPECIES}1,535 15 10 0.02 0.000
0.000BrRD MORTAUTY (PROTECTED SPECTES) (BMTS)2,009 77 3
BIRD NESr (BMTS)138,704 514 6
0.02
7.62 0.006
BIRD SUSPECTED, NO MORTALITY 0.33 0.005
ANIi'IALS
28,779
185,572
453
1,209
23
1G'2.t7 0.014
coNDENSATtON / MOTSTURE 133 1 1 0.00 0.000
CONTAMINATION 1 1 0.00 0.000
FIRE/SMOKE (NOT DUE TO FAULTS)
63
142 2 3 0.00 0.000
ENVIRONMENT 3:t8 4 5 0.00 o.000
B/O EQUIPMENT 766,777 1,706 111 1.95 0.020
0.064DETERIORATION OR ROTTING
NEARBY FAULT 797,222
697,894 5,489
4,403
249 8.17
2.31 0.052
OVERLOAO L,247 5 0.01 0.001
POLE FIRE 297,949
56
t,576 20 3.49 0.018
STRUCTURES, INSULATORS, CONDUCTOR 754 3 9 0.00 0_000
EQUIPMENT FA]IURE 1,360,643 13,233 396 15.9t0 0.155
DrG-rN (NON-PACTFTCORP PERSONNEL)28,525 299 9 0.33 0.004
OTHER INTERFERING OUECT 47,348 437 6 0.55 0_00s
oTHER UTt LIW/CONTRACTOR 109 1 3 0.00 0.000
VANDALISM OR THEFT 319 1 1 0.00
VEHICLE ACCIDENT 779,409 7,4r9 34 9.13
0.000
0.087
ITTIERFERET{CE 855,710 53 10.02 o.olr6
LOSS OF SUBSTATION 9 2.69
LOSS OF TRANSMISSION LINE 34.9757
66 t7,@
0.032
0.559
0.691LOSS OF SUPPLY
s6,252
59,022
8,157
2,760
IMPROPER PROTECTIVE COORDINATION 7 o.o7 0.002
INCORRECT RECORDS 0.000
INTERNAL CONTRACTOR
199
1
4,692
1
2
0.00
0.46 0.055
OPERATIONAT
229,655
2,980,894
3,210,S49
6,33s
55
39,284
45,684 4,892 4 0.s4 0.057
OTHER, KNOWN CAUSE 40 0.045
UNKNOWN
118,806
272,389
3,830
2,38s 747
1.39
3.19 0.028
OTHER 391,196 6,219 181 4.58 0.073
coNsrRUcnoN 2,902 2A 5
CUSTOMER NOTICE GIVEN 84
0.03
11.15
0.000
0.096
CUSTOMER REQUESTED
957,724
44,956
8,207
47 4 0.s3 0.001
EMERGENCY DAMAGE REPAIR 773,725 2,132 39 2.06 0.025
INTENTIONAL TO CLEAR TROUBLE 191,898 703 3 2.25 0.008
PLANNED NOTICE EXEMPT 193,993 I,046 5 2.27 0.012
PIANNED 1,56L199 14163 1tto 18.28 0.ltl2
Page lL of 22
xROCKYFOreR itounrrAlN !DAHO
Service Quallty Review
TREEJ NON+RE\IEIIfASf 46,9,964 3,752 27 5.50 0.044
TniEI-fihtitA8rr 83,458 1,259 5 0.98 0.015
ri4/ul $orr tt 6rt GGgri[r3
KiE 9,959 138 5 0.12 0.002
104033 N4 29 !.22 0.0o5UGHTTFI6
St{Wrr, 5|,EET AilD BUzzARq 20s,22L 2,432 33 2.4 0.028
s62,437 3,485 182 5.s9 0.041wlr{o
ffiAItlET tarr8o rrsl ut t3a3 006
- June 2021
PageL?of22
ROCKY MOUNTA|N
PIOWER
January-June 2021
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 !ost. The pie charts
below show the percentage of SAlDl, SAIFI and lncidents by all cause categories. Total excludes major events and
prearranged outages within the Plonned cause category.
Cause Analysls- Customer Mlnutes Lost (SAlDll
r OPERATIONAT196
E OII{ER 596
r tossoF r PLANNEDs%
SUPPT s rEEES 796
Y WEATHER 11*
I ANIMATS2S
I INTERFERENCE I ENVIRONMENTO'6
! EqU|PMENT FATLURE 1796
Guse Analysls - Orstomer lnterruptlons (SAlFll
I OPEMNONAT4%
r lossoF
SUPPTY
55%
ANIMATS 1X
r OTHER 696
5 PI.ANNED3X
E TREES 596
T INIERFERINCE 8X
I WEATHER 596
! ENVIRONMENTO96
! EQUIPMENT FAITURE 12X
Cause Analysls - Sustained lncidents
I ENVIRONMENTO96
r ANIMALSEtr
Y WEATHER
r TREES3%
I EQUIPMENT
FAIIURE 35X
INTERFERENCE
4x
I.OSSOF SUPPLY 596
I OPERATIONAI-096
T PIAI{NED4%r OIHER 1696
Page 13 of 22
IDAHO
Service Quality Review
\
IDAHO
Sewice Quality Review
January - June 2021
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 legary "Worst Performing Circuit" protram obsolete. As a
result, it devised a more contemporary approach to identifoing improvement plans, determining the value of those
plans, and monitoring to ensure that results delivered meet or exceed expected tartets. This program was named
Open Reliability Reportine (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 local area, 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
limit 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 review 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. lf the project's cost
effectiveness metrics are favorable, i.e. low cost and high avoidance of future customer minutes interrupted, the
p@ect is approved for funding and the forecast customer minutes interrupted are recorded for subsequent
comparison. This process allows individual districts to take ownership and identifo 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 year'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 MOI'NTAIN
EglyE*.
Page 74 of 22
Y ROCKY
FOUI'ER
MOUNTAIN !DAHO
Service QualiW ReviewAo|@d,ffi6'
Effecttveness MgHcs ln Prqrecs
Actual
Cost pel
annual
avoided
cMr
Plans Not
Meetlng
Goals (not
included in
metrics)
Plrns
wahlngfor
lnformdon
Plans
Meeting
Goals (>1
year since
project
completion)
Estimated
Avolded
annual
cMt
Astual
AYoided
annual
clMt
Budgeted
Cost per
ennual
avoided
cMt
So.oo 0 2Mmpdler2S0.66 0 0 0 So.oo
Pr$ton 4 Sr.ss 0 0 0 So.oo So.oo I 3
Rel6urg 2 So.zo 1 94,834 270,953 So.4s S0.17 0 I
ShGllcy 3 S3.e7 1 LO2,t97 255,493 S1.03 s0.00 0 2
1 8Totel1192A22197,031 t26A45 $o.rs 9o.oe
201,8-2021, District Projects *
*Metrics cover RWP's approved between T lLlzOLg and 6l3Ol2O2L
January - June 2021
Page 15 of 22
3 MOI'NTAIN IDAHO
Service Quality Review
January - June 2021
4 Customer Response
4.L Telephone Service and Response to Commission Complaints
The Company achieved its goals related to providing a timely response to customers concerns and commission
complaints.
4.2 Customer Guarantees Program Status
Overall Customer Guarantee performance remains above 99 percent, demonstrating the Company's continued
commitment to customer satisfaction. Major Events are excluded from the Customer Guarantees program.
customerguaranrees January to June 2021
ROCKYFOI,VERAffiCmt
86%PS5 Answer calls within 30 seconds 80%
95%LOO%PSSa Respond to commission complaints within 3 days
95%100%PS6b Respond to commission complaints regarding service disconnects
within 4 hours
95%L@%PS6c Resolve commission complaints within 30 days
cGl
cG2
cG3
cG4
cG5
cG6
cG7
Ef,rii P.H
NN
Fd.m3 9a$H.rErranLP.ld
24i21
Frhrnr cf, slEcara
to Billing lrquiries
to Meler Problems
supdy
on Porsr
l3!i,l5,t
6.fg
2g
22
367
67
8.m7
1(x)%
r0096
10096
10096
'r0o%
100c6
1(x)%
$o
$o
s0
$o
$o
$o
to
199,931
585
110
299
317
ut
5,710
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
l0(l.|6
10096
100%
'to0i6
to(rr
10096
1q)%
lo
$o
$o
0o
$o
0o
0o
1'14.966 0 lflXf g,206.010 0 ee.ee96 30
ldaho
Paget6ol22
\
ROCKY MOUNIAIN
POYT'ER IDAHO
Service Quality Review
January - June 2021
5 Service Standard slProgram Summarf
5.1 Seruice Standards Program
As referenced in Rule 25
5.1.1 Rocky Mountain Power Customer Guarantees
Note; See Rules for o complete description of terms ond conditions for the Customer Guorontee Program.
a On June 29,2012, 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-E45{8 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.
?age 17 ol 22
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
tovernment 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 Company
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
working days.
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 workinc davs.
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.
\
ROCKY MCXJNTAN
ESTEL,
!DAHO
Service Quality Review
January - June 2021
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 rollint twelve month performance for Controllable,
Non-Controllable and Underlvins distribution events.
Network Performance Standard 2:
Report System Average Interruption 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 will also
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 by 10% 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 ReliabiliU Reportinc Prosram.
Network Performance Standard 4:
Supply 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 average.
Customer Service Performance Standard 5:
Telephone Service Level
The Company will answer 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
Compant's eQualitv monitorins svstem.
Customer Service Performance Standard 5:
Commission Complaint Response / Resolution
The Company will a) 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 performance doys and exclude those clossified os Major Events.
Page 18 of 22
Y IDAHO
Service Quality Review
January - June 2021
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.
Direct Ceuse
Caterorv Catagory Definirbn & Example/Dkec Cause
Anlmals Any problem nest that requires removal, relocation, trimming, etc.; any birds, squirrels or other animals,
whether or not remains found.
o Animal (Animals)r Bird Mortality (Non-protected species). Bird Mortalitv {Protected soecies)(BMTSI
o Bird Nest
o Bird or Nest
o Bird Susoected. No Mortalitv
Environment Contamination or Airborne Deposit (i.e. salt trona ash, other chemical dust, sawdust, etc.); corrosive
environmen! 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).
o Condensation/Moisture. Contaminationr Fire/Smoke (not due to faults)r Floodins
o Major Storm or Disaster
o Nearby Faultr Pole Fire
Equlpment
Fallure
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.8., broken conductor hits another line).
o B/O Equipment
o Overload
. Deterioration or Rotting
o Substation. Relavs
lnterference Willful damage, interference or theft; such as gun shots, rock throwin& 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 interferin8 object such as straw, shoes, string, balloon.
o Other Utility/Contractoro 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 stationr Loss of Feed from Supplier
o Loss ofGenerator
o Loss ofSubstationr Loss of Transmission Line. Svstem Protection
Operational 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.
o lnternal Tree Contractor
o Switching Error. Testin&/Startup Error
o Unsafe Situation
. Contact by PacifiCorp
o Faulty lnstallr lmproper Protective Coordination. lncorrect Records
o lnternal Contractor
Other Cause Unknown; use comments field if there are some possible reasons.
r lnvalid Coder Other. Known Cause
o Unknown
Planned Transmission requested, affects distribution sub and distribution circuits; Company outage taken to make
reoairs after storm damase. car hit oole. etc.: construction work. recardless if notice is siven: rolling blackouts,
o Construction. Customer Notice Given. Energy Emergency lnterruptionr lntentional to ClearTrouble
. Emergency Damage Repair
o Customer Requestedr Planned Notice Exempt. Transmission Reouested
Tree Growing or falling trees
. Tree-Non-preventableo Tree-Trimmable
Tree-Tree felled by Loggera
Weather Wind (excluding windborne material); snow, sleet or blizzard, ice, freezing fog, frost, lightning.
o Extreme Cold/Heatr Freezing Fog & Frostr Wind
. Lightning
o Rain
o Snou Sleet, lce and Blizzard
ROCKY MOUNTAIN
POYI'ER
Page t9 ol 22
\
IDAHO
Seruice Quality Review
January - lune 2021
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.
lnterruotion Tvpes
Below are the definitions for interruption events. For further details, refer to IEEE 1366-2OO3|2OL23 Standard for
Reliability lndices.
Sustoined Outage
A sustained outage is defined as an outage greater than 5 minutes in duration.
Momentory Outage Event
A momentary outage event is defined as an outage equalto or Iess 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 L366-2@312012. 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 lost 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.
DoilySAlDl
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 total customer minutes
out of service divided by the static customer count for the year. lt is the total average outaBe duration customers
experienced for that given day. When these daily values are accumulated through the year, it yields the yea/s
SAIDI results.
SAIFI
SAIFI (system average interruption frequency index) is an industry-defined term that attempts to identify 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 custome/s sustained outages by frequency of outages for that averate customer.
While the Company did not originally specify this metric under the umbrella of the Performance Standards
5 IEEE 136G2003 was adopted by the IEEE on December 23, 2003. lt was subsequently modified in IEEE 1366-2012, but all definitions used in this document
are consistent between these two versions. The definitions and methodology detailed therein are now lndustry standards.
Pagel0 ol 22
ROCKY MOUNTANPOI'I'ER
\
IDAHO
Service Quality Review
January - June 2027
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 PSI (SAlDl) by PS2 (SAlFl).
MAlFle
MAlFlr (momentary average interruption event frequency index) is an industry standard index that quantifies
the frequency of all momentary interruption events that the average customer experiences during a given time-
frame. lt is calculated by counting all momentary interruptions which occur within a S-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 localarea, measured by customer minutes
lost. Project funding is based on cost effectiveness as measured by the cost per avoided annual customer minute
interrupted.
cPtltg
CPl99 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*((SAlDl*WF*NF)+(SAlFlrWF*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
MAIFI: Weighting Factor 0.20, Normalizing Factor 0.70
Lockouts: Weighting Factor 0.20, Normalizing Factor 2.00
Therefore,10.645*((3-yearSAlDl*0.30*0.029)+(3-yearSAlFl*0.30*2.439)+(3-yearMAIFl*0.20*0.70)
+ (3-year breaker lockouts * 0.20 * 2.001) = 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 identify underperforming circuit segments rather than measuring performance of the
whole circuit. This is the Company's refinement to its historic CPl, more granular.
ROCKY M(ruNTAIN
EgyEs*
Page2lol22
\
IDAHO
Service QualiU Review
January - June 2021
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 1356-2012) 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 Losttlt-L2/3tlzozl 85,383 L4.04 L,L98,4L2
Signiffcont 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 days' 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 fall below the statistically derived threshold represent "underlying"
performance, and are valid. lf any changes have occurred in outage reportint 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 (CD) 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 willgenerally 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. (tt should be noted that
Controllable Events is a subset of Underlying Events. The Couse Code Anolysrb 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 topreserve 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
ESFA.
Page22 ot 22