Follow That Truck!
Photo by Steve Kotchko
Posted 12/19/11
During the extended power outages that followed the freak October snowstorm, if you drove through town and saw a yellow CL&P utility truck in front of you, a warm feeling of hope welled up inside. That sighting could mean help was on the way and the lights would be back in your home soon.
Last week, officials of Connecticut Light and Power (CL&P) told Gov. Dannel Malloy’s Two Storm Investigation Panel (Tropical Storm Irene and the snowstorm), they have recommendations for improving the electricity delivery system in Connecticut that could minimize outages in the future.
It should be noted that the Panel, the legislature, the Governor, and the Public Utilities Regulatory Authority (PURA) are expected to issue their own recommendations for action. Those proposals may differ greatly from CL&P’s plan, but Panel officials seemed to appreciate the company’s effort.
CL&P’s recommendation would cost about $2.2 billion, and would be paid in part by gradual monthly rate increases for consumers over ten years. William Quinlan, senior vice president for emergency preparedness at CL&P, said customers would be asked to pay “about 1% a year for 10 years, starting at roughly a dollar (a month), and ultimately 13 dollars a month (increase) after 10 years.”
The upgrade strategy would include three key elements: more aggressive tree trimming, the use of stronger electric wires, and installation of stronger utility poles.
It may also include better “forensic” analysis of future outages. CL&P vice president Dana Louth said this would involve sending technical experts into the field “investigating in a CSI fashion” any damage to the power system to determine how it occurred and how it might be prevented or minimized in the future.
Company officials said they understand that for $2 billion in work and progressive rate hikes, their system protection strategy better produce noticeable improvements in service and reliability when storms threaten the system.
Quinlan said “day to day during the course of a year we expect about a 30% improvement in reliability of our infrastructure. Quinlan said “during a storm we estimate 30% to 40% improvement in the system performance.” That means fewer trouble spots and damage locations, according to CL&P.
Back-up paperwork tied to the company proposal indicates that if the recommended improvements are put in place, a storm such as the October snowstorm that cut power to more than 830,000 CL&P customers might cause no more than 590,000 outages. In a major storm event, the plan claims extended power outages could be reduced by two full days.
Touting the value of its recommendations, CL&P said it includes side benefits. Tree trimming and improving poles and wires will mandate the need for more line crews. When storms occur, that increased force of maintenance teams would be at the ready for repairs. The company also says an upgraded or “hardened” electric system would be a good marketing tool for state economic development. In other words, greater electric reliability could improve the jobs picture.
Tree trimming would be more aggressive with removal of overhanging branches and trees deemed “at risk” of falling into utility lines and would be done more frequently than current schedules. Though some tree lovers and homeowners may object to increased cutting, CL&P claims that enhanced tree trimming is “the most cost effective way of reducing storm impact on distribution systems.”
Wiring upgrades would involve cost-based strategies that would replace thin or so-called “bare” wire with “covered” tree resistant wire, especially in areas that are heavily treed—in other words—outages waiting to happen. Other tactics involve more protective devices on the lines called “spacers” and “fuse cutouts” than can limit how far an outage will spread out after tree damage to a particular line.
Improving the utility pole system could involve new composite poles or pole tops that may be stronger than the old wooden poles. The pole system is complicated because various utilities share the poles and their ownership. Municipal officials are urging the state to get control of the issue to prevent unnecessary delays in future outages.
Though many consumers and others want the electric companies to consider moving more power lines underground, CL&P clearly is not enamored of that strategy. The principal reason is cost. Their report to the Two Storm Panel claims it would cost $1 million to $3 million---per mile--to install underground lines.
However, municipal officials have asked the utilities to consider “undergrounding” in town centers so vital facilities such as government buildings, supermarkets, gas stations and medical centers could stay up and running in storms, or at least be put back in service quickly.
CL&P officials said they understand that desire, but suggested it would be cheaper to provide such facilities with generators, either permanently installed, or at standby locations, than to undertake the more costly “undergrounding” action.
|
Initial reaction to the CL&P recommendations was generally positive at the Two Storm Panel. It co-chair, Joseph McGee, said the improvement in minimizing the impact of future outages, reflected in the CL&P plan is “very significant.” As for the cost to consumers, McGee told CL&P officials their figures should spark “a very interesting” public debate. “Will the public, to have these types of improvements, be willing to pay 10% more (per month) 10 years from now?” he asked.
Follow Steve Kotchko on Twitter for news and insider tidbits on politics and government: @CRN_News