Untapped Opportunity in the Joint use Challenge Michael Dolan Director of Operations Development LineSoft Corporation 12310 East Mirabeau Parkway Spokane, WA 99216 Bill McCoy Joint Use Administrator American Electric Power 850 Tech Center Drive Gahanna, OH 43230 Abstract Demand for Joint Use attachment is a pressing challenge for today’s electric utilities. From cable to telecommunications to municipal, everyone is vying for space on the utility pole. The stakes are very high for all parties, and time is of the essence. Attachees face a steadily shrinking window of financial opportunity. Utilities must respond promptly or incur substantial consequences for non-compliance. Most important, attachments could weaken the electric utility infrastructure, causing a breakdown in energy delivery to customers and resulting in high liability costs. American Electric Power, working with LineSoft Corporation, confronted and overcame the Joint Use challenge of several third party communication companies’ desire to attach to their existing poles. The company employed a new approach that allowed them to respond within legislated timeframes with an unarguable engineering analysis of each structure. This solution addressed issues of code compliance and facilitated equitable cost sharing with third parties to execute the work needed to safely attach. Beyond supporting the attachment process, utilities are learning that data that is collected through this attachment process and is required for evaluating and permitting joint use attachments represents a substantial untapped opportunity to update GIS records. However, to obtain the data, utilities must overcome legal, technical, and budgetary issues. This paper discusses the issues regarding access to this data and lists several options that can be employed for obtaining it. Background Conditions The Telecommunications Act of 1996 requires pole owners to provide non-discriminatory access to their poles and lines. As a result, multiple telecommunication companies sought access to American Electric Power Company’s poles in the Columbus, Ohio Region. Prior to this new era, shared facilities typically consisted of one electric utility, one telephone company line, and one cable TV line. Pole materials and standard construction practices used prior to this new era were not originally designed to meet the clearance or structural strength requirements that these additional wires impose upon them. AEP chose to establish new processes requiring a careful evaluation to determine if these existing lines could meet structural strength and clearance requirements. The Telecommunications Act empowers a pole owner to ensure that installations of additional wires and cables do not cause degradation of the existing lines, and it allows the owner to recover the cost associated with making such an evaluation. In addition, it allows for the recovery of the costs associated with improving these lines to the point necessary to safely accommodate these additional wires. By 1998, however, the sheer number of telecommunication companies, along with the magnitude of their expansion, had over-taxed the clerical and engineering resources of AEP Columbus Region so that timely completion of such evaluations and make-ready work orders was becoming increasingly difficult. AEP made efforts to solve this problem by hiring additional resources to keep up with both the clerical and the engineering work required. This work focused primarily on solving clearance issues and the creation of work orders associated with the make-ready requests. Even so, by November of 1998 AEP was having difficulty complying with the 45-day response requirements (as set forth in the Telecom Act), and a significant backlog of attachment requests was developing. Solution AEP sought a solution to address the backlog of attachment requests and to maintain the 45-day response requirement for new attachment requests. AEP also sought to develop a consistent, comprehensive engineering process to ensure the integrity of the pole asset infrastructure. AEP took the existing make-ready engineering process one step further by requiring that a structural analysis be performed on all poles for which an attachment request was made. In order to perform structural analysis on all poles in a request, and to do so within 45 days, AEP needed to purchase or develop an engineering automation tool. AEP researched the market and found no tools that could perform the level of engineering they were seeking. AEP approached LineSoft Corporation, Spokane Washington to develop Joint Use pole analysis software through a joint development venture. AEP selected LineSoft because of its past history with LineSoft in a recent co-development project for distribution line design software. As the Project Scope was developed, it became apparent that the majority of data required to perform an accurate structural analysis of a pole would have to be collected in the field. An evaluation of the data available from AEP’s existing GIS (FRAMME) showed that AEP had adequate conductor and pole information, but that the available information regarding existing telecom attachments and their associated clearance data lacked the details required to properly model the structure loads and clearances. After analysis of the available data it was determined that the existing GIS data could only be augmented through a thorough field data collection. Additionally, the backlog of attachment requests was approaching such a high level that AEP determined they would require additional manpower to alleviate the backlog. AEP again approached LineSoft to provide the services necessary to perform the engineering and processing of the make-ready requests. From this teamwork approach to solving these complex problems a final, three-part solution strategy was derived. Short Term Solution
Short Term Solution Policies, Standards and Procedures Processes for the many aspects of workflow were diagramed, documented, prototyped, and modified as the pole data was collected and analyzed. Whenever technical questions arose regarding code interpretation and AEP standards, LineSoft would perform the background work, collate the information, and present the options to AEP in a clear and concise manner. This resolution process enabled AEP to streamline decision-making by minimizing the resources required to perform background research. Additionally, time constraints were a key factor in all decision-making throughout the project, as the clock was continually ticking on the 45-day response period. As LineSoft and AEP continued to document and develop their approach, this decisionmaking process would become an important tool in providing fast, well-informed answers not only for technical questions, but also for policy, billing, and procedural questions. The key factors in implementing this streamlined decision-making process were:
Turnkey Services Hiring and training of technicians and engineers began in late November of 1998, and first production of attachment requests began on January 11, 1999, using an Excel spreadsheet to calculate the pole loading. Clearances were evaluated using sag charts derived from AEP standards and the Alcoa Sag10 program. Initially, the workforce compromised a project manager, project engineer, and five technicians. This workforce would triple by the time full production was to be achieved. Joint Use Analysis Software Development During the first year, the LineSoft/AEP software development team was busy specifying, coding and testing the software. Some major issues surfaced in the specification phase regarding data acquisition methods. The basic engineering approach to performing the pole, guy and anchor calculations was to attempt to model all of the loads that are applied to the structure. This meant that information had to be obtained regarding the pole load points (attachment locations), size/type of equipment and wires, wire tensions and sags, and the pole physical attributes. From these informational requirements, the loads could be applied and the structure calculations performed using discrete-element analysis software. By November of 1999, the alpha version of the software was being completed. The software was a map-based product that uses an Access database with Visual Basic Code for calculating and manipulating the data. The alpha version did not support GIS interface capabilities, however, the applicable maps and data from AEP’s GIS were translated and converted for use within the software. Data Classification, Measurement and Collection Protocols for Heights and Bearings Initially, the identification, sizing and classification of existing telecommunications cables and/or cable bundles proved a difficult problem to solve. The major challenge in determining the cable bundle size is that there is little or no archival information upon which to base a determination. Over the years, many of these telecom facilities have changed hands through mergers and acquisitions, and the records of cable size and type have been lost. Equally as important, it was found that even where records existed, many companies could only provide information on their active plant, and not on the abandoned plant that was still encompassed in the bundle configuration. To address this problem, the AEP/LineSoft team developed a standard cable sizing and classification system using the Bellcore standards manual and Fiber Optic product design catalogs. Technicians were trained to assess the existing bundle sizes according to messenger size and bundle diameter, and to use the classification system for modeling the telecom sags and loading. Standards for data acquisition in the field included development of methods for measuring cable heights, line bearing, and orientation of the tap and service wires. Obtaining a complete inventory of these measurements using survey equipment and survey crews proved cost prohibitive and time intensive. So other methods of collection were studied. Initially, all heights were measured using a laser rangefinder mounted on a tripod. Accuracy measurements of the laser method revealed a deviation of ± six inches when compared with actual surveyed heights. Although this deviation was found to be unacceptable for clearance purposes, an evaluation of the sensitivity of height deviation to loading revealed a standard loading deviation of less than two percent—a value that was well within reasonable tolerances for the load studies when compared with other mitigating factors affecting the calculations. The method that was eventually developed and employed required the heights of all cables and conductors on the pole and at mid-span to be measured with a Hastings measuring stick up to the first electrical conductor (usually a neutral or secondary). Above those levels, only crossarm and equipment mounting bolts were to be measured, where possible. If the pole was too tall for the 50 foot measuring stick, then the technician used a laser rangefinder to shoot the additional attachment heights. As far as the clearance problems exhibited by the laser measurement deviation, no case has yet been found where the deviation was significant enough to require a more accurate method of measurement, especially since the primary wires are well above the clearance requirements of the NESC and remained within that clearance envelope. Besides, measurement checks on primary or other utility wires that are not specifically needed to perform the evaluation required for new attachments were prohibited. Significant problems appeared in determining the orientation and/or bearings associated with the line angle, taps, and services. AEP chose to use the map grid coordinates for the pole locations in their system rather than to use GPS locating of the poles and making later adjustments to their base maps. Since the coordinates were not accurate enough to perform calculations, the line was to be modeled using relative data acquired in the field. The internal compass provided with the laser rangefinder was typically used to determine the bearing and distance of the span. However, in many back lot situations, or in heavy parking areas, the magnetic influence of ferrous metals (cars, chain-link fencing) in close proximity to the compass yielded erroneous bearing measurements. In order to mitigate this problem, offset methods, triangulation and in some cases, estimates of the take-off angles were sometimes required. Sensitivity studies of pole loading comparing the various alternative methods showed that the bearings were mainly critical to the line angle and tap take-off angle influences to the pole loading calculations, and not to the services. Thus, field estimation of the line and tap bearings was not allowed—an alternate measurement method was always required. However, in instances where compass measurements or alternative methods could not be reasonably employed, estimates of the take-off angles and/or bearings were allowed for recording services off of poles. Intermediate Solution In January 1999, the beta version of the joint use analysis software was delivered to AEP and LineSoft engineers and technicians for testing and evaluation. Several enhancements were subsequently made in the data entry categories and the joint use reporting functionality within the program. Initial production was phased in to the Turnkey Operation beginning in March of 2000, and the joint use analysis software has been in full-scale use since then. To date, three versions and seven upgrades of the software have been released. AEP engineers and programmers have worked on providing a “front end loader” program to keyenter data without requiring a copy of the executable. This allows for remote data collection and for downloading data directly into the software. In August of 2000, AEP instituted a program to allow the new attachment requester to gather the data and supply it in electronic format. This should eliminate some of the time-consuming data collection by a technician and should allow for a credit back to the requestor for the data collection portion of the Joint Use process. The response time should be substantially shortened since the data collection is a majority of the time involved with response and it will have been completed prior to the submittal of the attachment request. Success to Date To date, the Turnkey Operation has processed more than 2,500 proposals representing data collection, clearance evaluation, and analysis on more than 60,000 poles. More than 1,250 Work Orders have been generated. The process is flowing smoothly and permitting is a routine operation within the AEP Columbus area. The 4,600-pole backlog that was inherited by LineSoft on January 11th was eliminated by August of 1999 at the same time that more than 6,000 additional poles were processed. The 45-day compliance on all proposals was reached in September 1999. Under its new system, AEP has continued to meet the 45-day response period mandated by the FCC and PUCO, or where it has not, the proper documentation has been maintained to comply with requirements. Status and progress are continually monitored and reported to third parties and to AEP. Additionally, more than 9,000 existing code and standards violations have been noted and remedied to date. AEP is actively seeking recovery where those violations have required AEP construction, and LineSoft provides the supporting technical information needed for AEP to prove accountability and to determine cost responsibility. AEP has obtained 30 copies of the joint use analysis software, and is currently implementing a system-wide process that will provide standard procedures and training to those employees devoted to Joint Use responsibilities. Ongoing enhancements to the software are being developed for automating field data collection and further automating the remediation and Work Order interfaces, including a wireless transfer of field collected data. These enhancements should increase the new request production rate and lower costs through increased efficiency. The completed, system-wide rollout of AEP’s Joint Use program will result in a consistent, measurable, manageable engineering process for all new attachment requests within the AEP system. System integrity will be protected by utilization of the joint use analysis software, liability will be reduced, standard processing will be employed, costs will be recovered, and additional rental revenues will be generated as a result of this program. However, AEP sees this as only the beginning of the opportunities and benefits that will be derived from this program. Untapped Opportunity To date, more than 10 million data attributes have been collected through this process on approximately 60,000 poles. An untapped opportunity to enhance AEP’s GIS data is also brought about through the Joint Use program. A wealth of valuable data is available to AEP if only that data can be accessed. Unfortunately, AEP must resolve a number of legal, technical, and budgetary barriers in order to gain access to the data. Legal Issues The FCC and the PUCO allow AEP to recover only non-recurring costs from new attachees. As a result, it is difficult to obtain data for other enterprise uses when the data was originally collected in order to process the attachment request, and the data collection was in effect, paid for solely by the new attachee. Since the inception of this program, AEP has interpreted the commission requirements to mean that the attachee controls their ability to access the data pursuant to the FCC regulations. AEP may access the data only if it pays for the data collection or has an agreement in place with the attachee that allows AEP to use the data for other enterprise applications. Most telecommunications companies won’t agree to the use of the data by AEP without monetary compensation, but AEP is considering several options in order to access the data:
Access to the field data collected for analysis and evaluation within the software simply requires performing queries on the project data. There are several data issues to consider in managing the queried data and in evaluating data integrity. As mentioned earlier, millions of attributes have been collected on approximately 60,000 poles. However, some of these poles have been visited two to three times. Therefore, the data must be analyzed once it is extracted from the project data.
It is estimated that the cost to AEP for obtaining this data without leveraging the Joint Use program windfalls would be well into the millions of dollars. Even if AEP were to obtain access to the Joint Use data by addressing the legal and technical issues, costs are still associated with developing software, processes, and procedures to obtain and maintain the Joint Use data. However, other cost alternatives to obtain this same data far outweigh the costs of obtaining access to the Joint Use data and managing it. AEP's GIS department is in a good position to justify spending in order to obtain the Joint Use data:
As of this writing, AEP is in the final phases of its GIS implementation, and has already targeted many areas in which it hopes to leverage its new GIS. The enterprise opportunities which have evolved from the AEP/LineSoft Joint Use Solution provide yet another area in which AEP hopes to capitalize. LineSoft is investigating off-the-shelf OCX software that would allow for modifications to the joint use analysis software that would enable integration of the software data with AEP’s GIS functionality. AEP continues to develop its Joint Use program on a system-wide level. AEP is contemplating its alternatives for accessing the Joint Use data and for instituting the necessary software and processes with which to manage and maintain that data, while at the same time, looking for ways to not only control costs, but also to increase revenue through proper management of AEP’s pole assets. FRAMME™ is a trademark of Intergraph Corporation. LD-Field™ is a trademark and LineSoft® is a registered trademark of LineSoft Corporation. Microsoft® Access® and Visual Basic® are registered trademarks of Microsoft Corporation. Sag10® is a registered trademark of Alcoa Fujikura, Ltd. | ||
|
|