Transcript TOP 3 Week 40

Assetmanagement
Gas & Electricity grids
Large impact incidents
Liander
Assetmanagement
May 26th, 2011
1
Liander
- Dutch DSO for gas and electricity networks
- Covering 1/3rd of the Netherlands
- 2.9 M customers E & 2.2 M customers G
- 80,000 km E-cable & 35,000 km G-pipelines
- 400 V, 3/6/10/20 kV, 50 kV and in-feeding transformers
- fully owned by some provinces and some municipalities
- independent from producers, traders, suppliers, costumers
- exclusive licence to operate networks in a region
2
Dutch DSO
•
3
AO-AM-SP model
- AO to optimize the stakeholders relationship
- AM to translate the stakeholder requirements
into an activity plan, short term and long term
- AM to optimize performance and risk position
within restrictions of limited resources
- AO to approve activity plans
- SP to optimize the execution of the plans
- AM to approve the execution of the plans
4
AM Priorization process
• Business values (from a stakeholder
perspective): safety, sustainability, reliability,
reputation, solvability, …
• KPI for the selected business values
• Risk appetite to incidents that embarrass
business values
• Prioritize risks to be mitigated
• Balance between efforts to mitigate and the
expected risk reduction
• Select the activities to be performed
5
Business values, KPI, consequences
Risk for Reliability as log(customer-minutes) interrupted by an incident
Risk for Satisfaction as area of complaining customers at an incident
Risk for Reputation as width and duration of negative press attention
Risk for Reputation as level of problem with an authority
Risk for Financial consequences at an incident in log (Euro)
Risk for Safety as level of injury
Risk for Sustainability as log (Euro) for costs clean-up or compensation
→ size of ecological footprint
6
Risk consequences
Effects
Catastrophic
Severe
Heavy
Moderate
Small
7
Risk as f(consequence, probability)
Companies Risk perception expressed as Very High, High, Medium,
Low and Negligible
Very High: immediate action, whatsoever, required
High: action according to normal procedures
Medium: action only when limited resources are required,
otherwise monitor/estimate risk evaluation
Low, negligible: no action
A calamity will be in the high effect/low probability area of the matrix
Log-Log scale for effects and for probability
8
Risk level (consequence, probability)
Risk appetite
Catastrophic
Severe
Heavy
Moderate
Small
9
Non-linear matrix
10
Non-linear matrix
• Low probability incidents with a high effect get a higher weighting
than high probability incidents with a low effect
• Corresponding to the societal perception of incidents
• Internally more difficult to deal with than a linear relationship
• An alternative is to apply a linear matrix with a by-pass procedure
for large effect incidents
• Calamities are weighted relatively heavier
11
QUESTION 1
In Liander Risk Matrix:
Risk = Effect * Frequency0.5 = Effect * √(Frequency)
Do you recognize such a perception of calamities?
Do you recognize such a weighting for calamities?
12
Emergency Plans
“Be prepared” is a mitigation that is acceptable in society for certain
calamities, that are regarded as an external cause:
• Terrorist attacks
• Criminal activities
• Plane crash
• Floods
• Bush fires
• Pandemy
• Explosion nearby
• Restricted mobility
Emergency equipment, emergency plans, training, communication
plans, learning curve, co-operation with other bodies, mutual
assistance, …
13
Incident with chopper
In November 2007, low temperature, high water level, an Apache
chopper cut all conductors of a 2-system 150 kV river crossing.
14
Calamity by external cause
• 40.000 consumers 48 hours without electricity, end of November
• clearly an external cause
• immediate actions, because of emergency equipment available,
emergency trainings performed, communication plans in place
• Seems to be acceptable to society
Haaksbergen, snowstorm, several conductors broken of 2-system
110 kV-line
• 25.000 consumers 40 hours without electricity, end of November
• external cause, but.. infrastructure has to cope with such
conditions (highways and railways to a certain extent; electricity,
gas, telecommunication fully)
• communication not smoothly
15
Question 2
Floods regarded as a calamity with an external cause
Some experience in developed countries with evacuation Western Betuwe,
recent floods in England, floods in Poland, Eastern Australia, Japan
What are the societal requirements for E- and G-grids in case of a flood?
Needed for restoration of the polders? Repair in pace of re-use of land? Full
reliability of supply also under wet conditions (to a certain level)?
16
How to deal with low probabilities?
• Be sure to cover common cause statistics
• Be sure to apply correct statistics
• Further develop stochastic techniques for low probability incidents
• How to assess mathematically correct figure?
• Compare with other low probability incidents, such as conditions of
war, terroristic attacks, floods, nuclear disasters, plane crashes
• Learn from low-probability incidents that occurred (for instance
Fukushima Daiichi): mathematics and societal perception
• Learn about communication between authorities and society, before
and after an incident (Fukushima is now a nuclear-based catastrophe
and not a tsunami-based catastrophe)
17
Question 3
What techniques are in place to estimate the frequency of low
probability incidents?
What knowhow is in place to asses the societal perception of the risk
involved?
What learning methods are used?
What about communication when such an incident may happen?
18