20221215Service Quality Report 2022.pdf

Y ROCKY MOUNTAIN
BP,:IY,E#.,,
f {':cIlvrD
lil,i lilr; i 5 Ptl 12: 02
"t! r- ! !/a
' .r il[:i'jiiisslc]i
1407 West North Temple, Suite 330
Salt Lake City, Utah 84116
Re
December 15,2022
VA ELECTRONIC DELIYERY
Ms. Jan Noriyuki
Commission Secretary
Idaho Public Utilities Commission
11331 W. Chinden Blvd.
Building 8 Suite 20lA
Boise,lD 83714
PAC-E-12-02 - Service Quality & Customer Guarantee Report for the period
January I through June 30, 2022.
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, 2022.This report is provided
pursuant to a merger commitment made during the PacifiCorp and ScottishPowerl merger and
later affirmed by the Commission in order 32583. 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 Mark Alder at
[phone].
W,&
Joelle Steward
Senior Vice President, Regulation & Customer Solutions
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 L- June 30, 2022
Report
ROCKY MOUNTAIN
EglyEs*,
IDAHO
Service Quality Review
January - )une 2022
Table of Contents
Executive Summary.........3
1 ReliabilityPerformance........4
l.l System Average Intemrption Duration Index (SAIDI).................... .....-.-.....4
1.2 System Average Intemrption Frequency Index (SAIFI).................... ...........5
1.4 Restore Service to 80o/o of Customers within 3 Hours............ ......................6
2 Reliability History.. ...................7
2.2 Controllable, Non-Controllable and Underlying Performance Review
7
8
9
ll
L2
l2
t2
4 Customer Response... ............13
3 ReliabilitylmprovementProcess..
4.1 Telephone Service and Response to Commission Complaints
5 Service Standards/Program Summary...
5.1 Service Standards Program
5.1.1 Rocky Mountain Power Customer Guarantees.........5.1.2 Rocky Mountain Power Performance Standards
5.2 Cause Code Analysis
l3
l3
L4
t4
l4
l5
l6
Page 2 of 19
\
ROCKY MOI..INTAIN
POTVER
IDAHO
Service Quality Review
January - June 2022
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 customer service 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. fu part of
the Company's Performance Standards Program, it annually evaluates individualelectrical 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 June2O22, results of network performance as measured by System Average lnterruption
Duration lndex (SAlDl) and System Average lnterruption Frequency lndex (SAtFl) in tdaho is favorable 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 midyear 2022 performance serving the customers of ldaho.
Page 3 of 19
\
ROCKY
FCNA'ER
MOUNTAlN
IDAHO
Service Quality Review
January - June 2022
L 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 (SAIFI) in ldaho. Results for ldaho underlying
performance can be seen in subsections 1.1 and 1.2 below. During the reporting period there were no major
events and one significant event day. 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. These outages have a greater tendency to reach the established Major Event thresholds and
make up most 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.
1.1 System Average lnterruption Duration lndex (SAlDl)
Below is the Company's underlying interruption duration performance through lune 2022
2022 IDAHO SA|D!
(excludes Prearranged and Customer Requested)
7l22 2122 sl22 4122 S/22 6122
-
f,3lsn(3r Underlying Actual
-
Q3lgnd3r Controllable Actual
r r o r r Calendar Total lncluding Major Events, EFR
-
undsrlying pl3n
o
E
=a
80
60
40
20
0
Actual
(reoortinc period)
Plan
(year-end)
Total (major events Included)46 74.765
46 74.765Underlyi ng (major events excluded)
Controllable 7.OL
Page 4 of 19
\
ROCKY MOUNTAIN
FOUTIER
!DAHO
Service Quality Review
1..2
January - June 2022
System Average lnterruption Frequency lndex (SAIFll
Below are the Company's underlying interruption frequency performance results through lune2022
2022 ldaho SAIFI
(excludes Prearranged and Customer Requested)
1.4
1..2
1.0
Eg 0.8lirtr3 0.6
0.4
o.2
0.0Ll22 2122 3122 4122 sl22 6122
-
(3lsn{3r Underlying Actu3l
-
Calendar Controllable Actual
o o o r r t3lg1(3r Total lncluding Major Eventt EtR
-
Underlying Plan
1.3 Major and Significant Events
Major Event General Descriptions
There were no major events during the reporting period met the Company's ldaho major event threshold levell
for exclusion from underlying performance results.
1 A Major Event (ME) is defined as a 24-hour period where SAIDI exceeds a statistically derived threshold value (Reliability Standard IEEE 136G2012) 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 Lost7/t-t2l3tl2122 86,628 t4.844 L,285,887
Actual
(reporting period)
Plan
(vear-end)
Total (ma1or events included)0.461
Underlying (major events included)0.451 1.007
Controllable o.67
Ilate Gause SAIDI
N/A N/A N/A
Tota!0.0
Page 5 of 19
\
ROCKY MOUNTAIN
Pol'YER
IDAHO
Service Quality Review
January - )une 2022
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 one significant event day2 was recorded, which
accounted for 3.05 SAIDI minutes, about 6.5 percent of the reporting period's underlying 46 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 within 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%.
Causs General Descriptlon Undedylng
SAIDI
Underlylng
SAIFIDate
xof Tffil
Underlylng
sArDr ({6}
t6OtTotal
Undcrlylng
sNH (0J51)
Vehicle Accident; Loss of SubstationAptll256,2022 3.0s 0.o24 6.6%5.2%
3.05 0.024TOTAT 6.6%5.2%
January February March April May June
8t%95%64%83%88%92%
2 On a trial basis, the Company established a variable of 1.75 times the standard deviation of its natural log SAIDI results.
Page 6 of 19
\
ROCKY
PO,T'ER
MOUNTAIN
IDAHO
Service Quality Review
January - lune2022
2 Reliability History
Depicted below is the history of reliability in ldaho. ln2OO2, 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
programs when specific feeders have significantly impacted reliability performance.
2.L ldaho Reliability Historical Performance
ldaho Rcllablllry Hlstory - lncludlry Mafor Ercnts
ISAIDI ICAIDI ."'*SAF]
3
6(x)
500
tmO
300
200
100
o
20tl 2014 2015 2016 20t7 20t8 2019 20,J 20ZL 20Zt
ldaho Rcllabllity Hlstory - Ercluding Mafor Events
ISAID! ICAIDI "-+*.SAlFl
3 600
500
/l{}0
300
2(x)
100
00
4
5go
ll|2
6u
.l
=
1
0
o,co
tr!
2
1
ot
=
E
rtNhcol6
Or"!l6 dlr{l't \a thG{I
ahNFao-m
ID
(nd?Nr{&
OcnO^r OtN
d{s o 01ID oo
{n ort lO rAN(n rONaa cn \O€oaN.a Or o('l cn(n6 o
2013 ZOL4 2015 20,;6 2017 20lr 201!' 202{' zo,Zt 20X2
Page 7 of 19
\
ROCKY MOIJ]VTAIN
HglyEs*
IDAHO
Service Quali$ Review
January - lune 2022
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. To provide insight into the response and history for those 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 general improving trends for all charts.
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 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 appendix to its Service Quality Review reports, information regarding non-controllable outages, includin& 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 filing, within 90 days, consisting of a process for measuring performance and improvements for the non-
controllable events.
Page 8 of 19
1
0.9
0.8
0.7
a^0.5 Eo
o.s E
o.o
=
lh
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
100
90
80
^70tnoE60
.E
=s0640avt 30
20
10
0
ldaho 355-Day Rolling Controllable History as
Reported
mstress Period
-SAlDl -SAlFl -llns31(SAlDll
F\ O Ol O Fl (\,1 (n sl 1rl tO F @ Ol O r-t NO O O Fl rl F{ Fl Fl Fl r{ Fl r-l Fl N N NooooooooooooooooNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNtrtttttttttttrllccccccccccEEEcccI!(E'O(E(E.grE.Et!(!lE.!l!(!I!.E-------
YROCKY MOUNTAIN
HSIYHL"
January - lune 2022
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.
0.00 0.000
IDAHO
Service Quality Review
SAIFIDircctCause
Customer
Mlnutes Lost for
lncldent
Guatomers ln
lncldent
Sustalned
Sustalned
lncldent
Gount
SAIDI
ANIMALS 17.185 198 o.20 o.oo2
BIRD MORTALITY (NON-PROTECTED
SPECtES)581
60
7 0.000
BIRD MORTALITY (PROTECTED
SPECIES) GMTS)10,292
7
645 6
0.01
0.12 0.007
B|RD NEST (BMTS)4,203 41 2 0.05 0.000
BIRD SUSPECTED, NO MORTALIW 30,464 420 0.35 0.005
ANI]f,ALS 62,725 1311
14
89 0.72 0.015
B/O EQUIPMENT 128,987 1,3't 1 88 1.49 0.015
DETERIORATION OR ROTTING 3%,309 2,758 4.55 0.032
POLE FIRE 472,593 2,468
248
21 5.46 0.028
I1.50 0.075EQUIPIf,EI{T FAILURE 995,890 6537 357
DtG-lN (NON-PAC|F|CORP PERSONNEL)161,292 1,319 't4 1.86 0.015
OTHER INTERFERING OBJECT 21,5',t7 7 0.004
OTHER UTILITY/CONTRACTOR 1,750
316
17
0.25
0.02 0.000
VEHICLE ACCIDENT 0.029
II{TERFEREilCE
282,426
466,9E6
2,530
1182
2
15
38
3.26
5.39 0.0.18
LOSS OF FEED FROM SUPPLIER I 't.o2 o.o1287,957 1,01'1
LOSS OF SUBSTATION 18 0.037
LOSS OF TRANSMISSION LINE
594,699
350,873 6,189
3,242
't4
6.86
4.05 0.071
LOSS OF SUPPLY
FAULTY INSTALL
INCORRECT RECORDS
r,033,529
qr
2't3
1l
8
1
I t.93
0.01
0.00
o.121
0.000
0.000
INTERNAL CONTRACTOR
OPERANONAL
0.23
o-21
0.007
0.007
OTHER, KNOIAN CAUSE
20,789
19,970
276,867 3.20
1.96
5.16
0.023
0.017
0.0,f0
UNKNO\^N
OTHER
CONSTRUCTION 225
1691998
446,765
104/.2
I
574
3
1
565
1,999
1,417
3476
0.00 0.000
11
2
78
3
148
226
CUSTOMER NOTICE GIVEN '11.23
CUSTOMER REQUESTED
6,528
4 0.00
0.075
0.000
EMERGENCY DAMAGE REPAIR 119,208
972,505
391
62'l 11
92
4
1.38 0.007
PI.ANNED NOTICE EXEMPT
PLANNED
537,967
1,630,296
3,758
109t4 {60
50 6.21
{8.82 o.126
0.043
TREE - NON-PREVENTABLE 72,730 1,283 15 0.84 0.015
1TREE - TRIMMABLE 84
Page 9 of 19
IDAHO
SGn [ccEtnltfynarlew
lJ,80{6t I 0.la 0.0m
2r,u ,t6 5 0.@ 0.000
0$.n2 4ttr 19 0.68'oxm
111g}1 vw t6 1.3:t 0.0G
580"388 7A,ill 166 610 0,fi8
2o22
Paa€ 10of 19'
ROCKY MOI,MTAIN
PON'ERAffiCM
January - June2022
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, SAIFI and lncidents by all cause categories. Total excludes major events and
prearranged outages within the Plonned cause category.
Cilse AmHs - Orstorncr Mlnuhc toct (SAlt)ll
tctta!ilr ! Oihtt r lq..
IDAHO
Service Quality Review
I LUJ! (JI
SiJr,ftr l5'?
. txflt aB.dlrt
torllur.tr
r rLrtr ut
ll,FPt-l 161.
I
'I.ITIIDITr ttttSzt
r atlralsa*
r &utruttlllutt r!fi
cause Anelrl.ffiIT'ffi
3tlons
(sAtFtf
r tttttt*
I rtlrtlffi
r anrerher
! f,rutttfftltx
Gause Aneffis - Sustalned lnddents
r utatxltrtx
l arxAlr!r
tQurstntrumtar
I trQI'}'HTI
rallt lt taIr Af,IAI.3'T
r ltl[3rt*
r 'lltEll
a fir! ttrcat
a trrttttlttrfr
. tIE2r a crlH{t lrt
It
Page 11 of 19
\
ROCKYPolTER MOUNTAIN
!DAHO
Service Quality Review
January - )une2022
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 Circuit" 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 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. Daily 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 geospatia! 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 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 will begin. 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 actualversus
forecast results are assessed to determine whether targets were met or if additional work may be required.
Page 12 of 19
\
ROCKY
FOWER
MOUNTAlN
IDAHO
Service Quality Review
Amcm
January - June 2022
4 Customer Response
4.L Telephone Service and Response to Commission Complaints
The Company achieved most of its goals related to providing a timely response to customers concerns and
commission complaints, except for the PS5 commitment, which was due to a staffing shortage. The Company is
recruiting and training additional customer service representatives and expects the PS5 performance to
improve during 2023 as these new employees are placed in their new roles.
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.
CustOmefg[afanfeeS Januaryto June 2022
ldaho
cGr
cgz
cG3
CG,t
cG5
cG6
cG7
ntn
[Irrr3 ttrocalaEY. 13 Pd
,ott
EU.rB PS
R€$rirg Sr.?pry
$poirmens
Swlclltg m Power
Estinatcs
Respond ro BIIU h.iaies
Respord b ilctcr ProDlcrns
Itlfficalin d Ptrnad hierndit rs
43.698
396
1n
190
106
40
6 528
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
1m*
100*
'1009(
98.95t5
r00*
r00ta
l00tL
t0
t0
gt
3r00
l0
t0
t0
135,15i1
6f9N
272
367
67
4207
r00fi
100!6
r00r
t@i
tmlr
r00t6
to0|r
t0
s0
t0
t{,
t0$
30
5r.196 2 00.00% tt00 I'l{9G6 0 l0O% 30
Gcnoral Cormrtt$ Otr d guriltce perhnnarco remahs aboB 99i6 demn$rning Rocky iiomt..n Pora/s cominued corilr*fiEnt to custom.r rn'drction,
PS5 Answer calls within 30 seconds 80%63%
PS6a Respond to commission complaints within 3 days 9s%LOO%
PS6b Respond to commission complaints regarding service disconnects
within 4 hours 95%L00,%
PSGc Resolve commission complaints within 30 days t00%100%
Page 13 of 19
Y ROCKY MOUNTAIN
HSHYEA"
IDAHO
Service Quality Review
January - )une 2022
5 Service Standard slProgram Summary.
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 Guarontee Program.
a On June 29,2Ot2, 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 14 of 19
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
nonpavment, subterfuge or theft/diversion ofservice 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 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
PolA'ER
IDAHO
Service Quality Review
January - lune 2022
5,L.2 Rocky Mountain Power Performance Standards
Note: Performonce Stondords 7, 2 ond 4 ore for underlying performonce doys and exclude those clossified as Mojor
Events.
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 will also report
rolling twelve-month performance for Controllable, Non-
Controllable and Underlvine 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 LlYo 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 Reporting Program.
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
Company's eQuality monitoring system.
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% ol disconnect
Commission complaints within four working hours and will
c) resolve 95% of informal Commission complaints within
30 davs.
Page 15 of 19
Y ROCKY MOUNTAINPOI'ER
January - lune 2022
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.
Dlrect €ause
Catergory Ca@ory Etlinltlon & Example/D,hect Cause
Animals Any problem nest that requires removal, relocation, trimming, etc.; any birds, squirrels, or other animals,
whether or not remains found.
o Animal (Animals)
o Bird Mortality (Non-protected species)r Bird Mortalitv (Protected soeciesl (BMTS)
r Bird Nesto Bird or Nest
o Bird Susoected. No Mortalitv
Envlronment 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. Contamination
o Fire/Smoke (not due to faults)
o Floodinc
o Major Storm or Disasterr Nearby Fault
o 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
nearbv eouipment (e.g., broken conductor hits another line).
o B/O Equipmentr Overload
. Deterioration or Rottingr Substation. Relavs
lnterference Willful damage, interference, or theft (e.g., 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). Other lnterfering Object
o Vandalism or Theft
Loss of
Supply
Failure of supply from Generator or Transmission system; failure of distribution substation equipment.
r Failure on other line orstation
o Loss of Feed from Supplierr Loss ofGenerator
o Loss ofSubstationr Loss of Transmission Line. 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; faulW installation or construction; operational or safeW restriction.
o lnternal Tree Contractor
o Switching Errorr Testing,/Startup Error
o Unsafe Situation
. Contact by PacifiCorp. Faulty lnstall
o lmproper Protective Coordination
. lncorrect Records
o lnternal Contractor
Other Cause Unknown; use comments field if there are some possible reasons.
r lnvalid Code
o Other, Known Cause
r 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.
. Constructiono Customer Notice Given
. Energy Emergency lnterruptionr lntentional to Clear Trouble
. Emergency Damage Repair. Customer Requestedr Planned Notice Exempt
o Transmission Reouested
Tree Growing or falling trees
r Tree-Non-preventabler 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 & Frostr Wind
r Lightningr Rain
o Snow. Sleet. lce and Blizzard
IDAHO
Service Quality Review
Page 16 of 19
3 ROCKY MOUNTAIN
PCN,YERArcCm
January - lune2022
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 Tvpes
Below are the definitions for interruption events. For further details, refer to IEEE 1366-200312OL2s Standard for
Reliability lndices.
Sustained Outoge
A sustained outage is defined as an outage greater than 5 minutes in duration.
Momentary Outoge Event
A momentary outage event is defined as an outage equalto 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 Contro! and Data Acquisition)
exists and calculates consistent with IEEE t366-20O312012. Where no substation breaker SCADA exists, fault
counts at substation breakers are to be used.
Reliabilitu 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 each 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 othenvise, this value can be assumed to be for a one-year period.
DailySAlDl
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'stotal 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
SAIDI results.
SAIFI
SAIFI (system average interruption frequency index) is an industry-defined term that attempts to identify the
frequenry 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 average customer.
While the Company did not originally specify this metric under the umbrella of the Performance Standards
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).
MAlFle
5 IEEE 136G2003 was adopted by the IEEE on December 23, 2003. lt was subsequently modified in IEEE L36G2OL2, but all definitions used in this document
are consistent between these two versions. The definitions and methodology detailed therein are now industry standards.
Page 17 of 19
IDAHO
Service Quality Review
\
ROCKY MOUNTAIN
PiOWER
IDAHO
Service Qualiry Review
January - lune 2022
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
timeframe. lt is calculated by counting all momentary interruptions which occur within a S-minute period, if the
interruption event did not result in a device experiencing a sustained interruption.
CEM'
CEMI is an acronym for Customers Experiencing Multiple (Sustained and Momentary) Interruptions. 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.
cPt99
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)+(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
MAIFI: Weighting Factor 0.20, Normalizing Factor 0.70
Lockouts: Weighting Factor 0.20, Normalizing Factor 2.00
Therefore,10.il5*((3-yearSAlDl*0.30*0.029)+(3-yearSAlFl*0.30*2.439)+(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 identify
underperforming circuits. Unlike CPl99 it includes Major Event and Loss of Supply or Transmission outages. The
calculation of CPt05 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.
Page 18 of 19
\
ROCKY MOUNTAIN
POWER
^rcc@ January - lune 2022
Performance Tvpes & Commitments
Rocky Mountain Power recognizes severalcategories 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.
Mojor Events
A Major Event (ME) is defined as a 24-hour period where SAtDI 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
L/r-L213112022 86,528 t4.U4 L,285,887
Significant 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 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.
Controllable Distribution (CD) Evenu
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. (lt should be noted that
Controllable Events is a subset of Underlying Events. The Couse Code Anolysrs 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.
IDAHO
Service Quality Review
Page 19 of 19