Idea Transcript
[PLATTE-CLAY ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE] May 18, 2012
Section 1: Introduction Platte-Clay Electric Cooperative (PCEC) is a member-owned electric cooperative serving customers in a six-county area north of metropolitan Kansas City. Platte-Clay is a member of Touchstone Energy, a national alliance of local, member-owned electric cooperatives. PCEC began operating in 1938 and is one of the fastest growing cooperatives in Missouri. The cooperative has approximately 2,000 miles of distribution line and serves 20,000 customers in Buchanan, Caldwell, Clay, Clinton, DeKalb, Platte and Ray counties. The cooperative is governed by a nine-member board of directors. Platte-Clay Electric Cooperative’s mission is to provide quality electric service beyond members’ and customers’ expectations while maintaining a sound financial structure providing the most competitive rates possible. Affiliated businesses of the cooperative are Propane Pardners, a propane fuel business; Platte-Clay Fuels LLC, which operates fuel stations in Platte City and Kearney; and Platte-Clay Properties, which provides sewer service. This mitigation plan will include only the electric cooperative functions of the business. Figure 1 depicts the geographic boundaries of the cooperative in relation to USGS local quadrangles within the state of Missouri. (Map Source: www.usgs.gov, Association of Missouri Electric Cooperatives, Platte-Clay Electric Cooperative.) PCEC serves a growing region north of the Kansas City metropolitan area. The office is located in Kearney, Mo. The cooperative employs about 70 workers and serves approximately 20,000 members. Residential customers account for 94% of memberships (18,800 members) while business customers make up the remaining 6% (1,200 members). Table 1.1 provides the summary of metered customers by county.
|
36-1
May 18, 2012 [PLATTE-CLAY ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE]
Table 1.1
Platte-Clay Meters by County County Number of Meters Buchanan 440 Caldwell 302 Clay 9724 Clinton 4431 DeKalb 1 Platte 6459 Ray 2758 Total 24,115 Source: PCEC Internal Records
The average daily customer usage of PCEC is 47 kilowatt hours (kwh). Annual total usage of all customers in 2010 was 677,916,459 kWh of service. Population density for the cooperative service area is depicted in Figure 2. (Map Source: U.S. Census 2010.)
36-2 |
[PLATTE-CLAY ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE] May 18, 2012
Section 2: Planning Process Through a partnership between the Association of Missouri Electric Cooperatives (AMEC) and the Missouri Association of Councils of Government, Mo-Kan Regional Council was contracted to facilitate a hazard mitigation planning process for PCEC. The initial meeting between the two entities was held January 26, 2011, at NW Electric Power as part of a regional meeting introducing the planning process. This informational meeting provided the basic responsibilities for each agency and allowed for initial discussion concerning project timelines, data collection and other pertinent topics. Two additional meetings were held in February and September of 2011 at the Platte-Clay office in Kearney. A summary of those in attendance and topics of discussion is included in Table 1.2. Meeting minutes are included in the chapter appendix. Additional follow-up on issues was conducted via telephone and email. Table 1.2 PCEC Planning Meeting Synopsis Meeting Date Attendees, Title, Organization Feb. 17, 2011 Jared Wolters, Engineering Manager, PCEC Julie Morrison, GIS Coordinator, PCEC Matt Buchanan, Community Planner, Mo-Kan Susan Mires, Ag Preparedness, Mo-Kan Matt Schoenfelder, GIS Specialist, Mo-Kan Sept. 8, 2011 Jared Wolters, Engineering Manager, PCEC Julie Morrison, GIS Coordinator, PCEC Patricia Legg, Head of Dispatch, PCEC Susan Mires, Ag Preparedness, Mo-Kan Matt Schoenfelder, GIS Specialist,Mo-Kan
Topics of Discussion Basis of Hazard Mitigation Cooperative Structure Asset Inventory Hazards of Concern Asset Inventory Critical Facilities Ongoing Mitigation Activities Potential Mitigation Activities
Public Involvement As with all hazard mitigation plans, public involvement was encouraged through a variety of methods. PCEC posted their chapter on their company website, inviting both cooperative members and the general public to provide comment. Print copies of the chapter were also made available upon request through the local office. Comments from neighboring jurisdictions were also solicited using the standardized AMEC letter, which was mailed to the appropriate contacts, including:
Buchanan County Commissioners, Caldwell County Commissioners, Clay County Commissioners, Clinton County Commissioners, DeKalb County Commissioners, Platte County Commissioners, Ray County Commissioners, and Local Red Cross Chapter.
|
36-3
May 18, 2012 [PLATTE-CLAY ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE] Platte-Clay provides electric service to five (5) school buildings, one (1) fire station, and numerous emergency warning sirens. Additionally, Platte-Clay’s mitigation plan was included in the public comment period for the combined AMEC plan.
36-4 |
[PLATTE-CLAY ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE] May 18, 2012
Section 3: Asset Inventory PCEC has a variety of assets by type. Real estate owned by the company includes office buildings, garages and outbuildings throughout the service territory. As a distribution cooperative, PCEC does not own any electric generation or transmission infrastructure, but does own and maintain approximately 2,000 miles of distribution lines. Table 1.3 provides information on total asset valuation. Table 1.3
Platte-Clay Asset Inventory Valuation Summary Total Asset Replacement Cost breakdown Cost Total PCEC Assets $281,140,426 Buildings, Vehicles, other – $17,175,000 Overhead assets – $196,094,431 Underground assets - $71,245,995 Distribution Lines $99,406,841 OH OH Single-phase lines – $55,178,328 $60,229,395 UG UG Single-phase lines – $49,523,673 OH Two-phase lines – $1,154,128 UG Two-phase lines – $171,452 OH Three-phase lines – $43,071,640 UG Three-phase lines – $10,534,270 Supporting $96,687,590 OH Meters – $5,064,150 Infrastructure $11,016,600 UG Poles – $71,973,000 OH Transformers (all phases) – $11,993,800 UG Transformers (all phases) – $11,016,600 Air Break – $24,000 Disconnect – $900 Electric Recloser – $2,327,500 Fault interrupt – $370,000 Fuse – $725,940 Knife Blade – $462,700 Recloser – $1,081,500 Capacitors – $210,000 Regulators – $1,080,000 Protective device (UG): VFI – $77,400 Protective device (UG): S&C – $331,500 Protective device (UG): NX – $965,200 Office Buildings $10,000,000 Platte County – 1 building Clay County – 1 building Vehicles $3,800,000 Communications/Equip. $2,500,000 IT $875,000 Source: Internal Platte-Clay Accounting and Insurance records, 2011
Delivering electricity to customers requires extensive infrastructure. Platte-Clay maintains not only distribution lines, but also the supporting infrastructure as well. Table 1.4 includes a list of asset types, emergency replacement cost per unit or mile, the asset inventory by county and total infrastructure numbers.
|
36-5
May 18, 2012 [PLATTE-CLAY ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE] Table 1.4 Asset
Meter Pole SP*** Secondary line 2P**** secondary line TP***** secondary line SP primary line 2P primary line TP primary line Transformers (TP OH, SP OH, TP UG, SP UG)
Air Break Bypass Disconnect Elec. Recloser Fault Interrup Fuse Knife Blade Recloser Capacitors Regulators Protective device: VFI Protective device: S&C Protective device: NX Total Replacement Value by county *OH = Overhead
36-6 |
Platte-Clay Asset Inventory by service county Emergency # of units or # of units or Replacement miles: CLAY miles: Cost per unit or CLINTON mile $210/unit 9,724 4,431 $3000/unit 5,572 6,909 $15,576/mi OH 31.82 OH 26.35OH $18,216/mi UG 231.85UG 92 UG $20,328/mi OH .07 OH .04 OH 0 UG 0 UG 0 UG $20,328/mi OH .17 OH .008 OH $32,208/mi UG 1.32 UG .22 UG $54,965/mi OH 10.74 OH 355.67OH $69,960/mi UG 274.2 UG 116.9 UG $69,696/mi OH 2.74 OH 2.94 OH $86,592/mi UG 1.37 UG .12 UG $90,024/mi OH 153.55OH 129.61OH $120,120/mi UG 36.56 UG 10.74 UG $3,500/unit TP 3 0 OH $1,400/unit SP OH 2,336 2,156 $5,900/unit TP UG $1,600/unit SP UG 99 11
# of units or miles: CALDWELL
# of units or miles: BUCHANAN
# of units or miles: DEKALB
# of units or miles: PLATTE
# of units or miles: RAY
Total # of units or miles:
302 686 2.85 OH 3.49 UG 0 OH 0 UG 0 OH 0 UG 43.11 OH 3.37 UG 0 OH 0 UG 5.56 OH 0 UG 0
440 1297 5.6 OH 3.96 UG 0 OH 0 UG 0 OH 0 UG 84.12 OH 4.23 UG .033 OH 0 UG 7.68 OH 0 UG 0
1 5 0 OH 0 UG 0 OH 0 UG 0 OH 0 UG 0 OH 0 UG 0 OH 0 UG .325 OH 0 UG 0
6,459 6,053 27.64 OH 99.9 UG 0 OH 0 UG .038 OH 96.07 UG 291.48 OH 140.7 UG 10.55 OH .49 UG 126.83 OH 12.375 UG 1
2758 3469 22.76 OH 42.48 UG .015 OH 0 UG .055 OH .002 UG 185.6 OH 45.15 UG .26 OH 0 UG 54.83 OH 1.85 UG 0
24,115 23,991 117.02 OH 473.68 UG .125 OH 0 UG .271 OH 97.61 UG 970.72 OH 584.55 UG 16.523 OH 1.98 UG 478.39 OH 61.53 UG 4 TP OH
217
366
0
2,032
1,450
8,557 SP OH
0
0
0
18
2
130 TP UG
$2,400/unit $600/unit $300/unit $24,500/unit $18,500/unit $180/unit $700/unit $2,100/unit $2,500/unit $12,000/unit $25,800/unit
3,106 2 0 0 47 17 1,422 363 134 23 26 3
1,138 0 0 0 13 0 1,011 118 147 16 25 0
35 0 0 0 0 0 61 3 13 4 3 0
32 0 0 0 3 0 66 10 23 6 4 0
0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1,647 8 0 0 25 2 1,032 114 124 23 24 0
448 0 0 3 6 1 441 53 74 12 8 0
6,406 SP UG 10 0 3 95 20 4,033 661 515 84 90 3
$19,500/unit
13
2
0
0
0
2
0
17
$12,700/unit
45
18
0
0
0
9
4
76
$52,662,678 $19,027,688
$29,145,578 $4,883,396
$196,094,431OH $71,245,995UG
$40,678,083 OH $33,512,844 UG **UG = Underground
58,009,012 OH $5,426,066 OH $10,104,046 OH $68,968 $13,047,4622 $355,339 UG $419,266 UG OH UG $0 UG ***SP = Single phase ****2P= two-phase *****TP = three-phase Source: Internal Platte-Clay Accounting and Maintenance records
[PLATTE-CLAY ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE] May 18, 2012
Section 4: Identified Hazards and Risk Assessment Methodology Natural hazards in Missouri vary widely in regard to intensity, frequency and the scope of impact. Because of the large area Platte-Clay Electric serves and the extent of its assets in varying types of terrain and environments, the cooperative is exposed to many hazards. Some hazards, such as earthquakes, arrive with little to no warning and do not provide any opportunity to prepare for the threat. Others hazards, such as flooding or severe winter weather, provide a period of warning which allows for public preparation prior to their occurrence. Regardless, hazard mitigation planning can lessen the negative impact regardless of onset time. The following natural hazards have been identified as potential threats for the service region of NW Electric: The following natural hazards have been identified as potential threats for the service region of Platte-Clay Electric:
Tornadoes Thunderstorms, Hail and High Winds Floods and Levee Failure Severe Winter Weather Earthquakes Dam Failures Wildfires
A number of hazards may be eliminated from consideration in the local plan due to Missouri’s geographic location and because of PCEC’s location within the state. The following hazards have been eliminated for Platte-Clay’s plan:
Drought Heat Wave Land Subsidence Landslide
Drought can impact Missouri, but water availability does not have a direct impact on delivering electricity or other services for PCEC. Heat wave has also been eliminated from consideration because although heat can increase electric usage and potentially tax the system, it does not directly damage the cooperative’s assets. The effect of heat wave on equipment should be considered a cascading event rather than damage caused by the hazard itself. Land subsidence and landslide have also been eliminated based on local soil structure categorization by USGS. Limestone, carbonate rock, salt beds and other naturally dissolving rock which are most susceptible to forming sinkholes and landslides do not form the basis of soil through Platte-Clay’s service region. For the purpose of this risk assessment, the identified hazards for Platte-Clay Electric’s service area have been divided into two categories: historical and non-historical hazards.
|
36-7
May 18, 2012 [PLATTE-CLAY ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE] Historical Hazards are those hazards with a measurable previous impact upon the service area. Damage costs per event and a chronology of occurrences are available. The associated vulnerability assessments utilize the number of events and cost of each event to establish an average cost per incident. For PCEC, hazards with historical data are tornado, thunderstorm/high wind/hail, flood and levee failure, severe winter weather, and wildfire. Non-historical Hazards are hazards with no previous record of impact upon the local service area. The associated vulnerability assessments for each of these hazards will have an occurrence probability of less than 1% in any given year, but the extent of damage will vary considerably. Hazards without historical data for Platte-Clay are earthquakes and dam failure. Probability of Occurrence A simple formula was used to determine the potential frequency of occurrences. For historical hazards, the number of recorded events for the service area was divided by the number of years of record. This number was then multiplied by 100 to provide a percentage. This formula was used to determine future probability for each hazard. For non-historical hazards, a probability of less than 1% was automatically assigned because the hazard cannot be excluded from the possibility of occurrence. Likewise, when discussing the probable risk of each hazard based upon historical occurrences, the following scale was utilized:
Less than 1% chance of an event occurring in any given year. 1-10% chance of an event occurring in any given year. 10-99% chance of an event occurring in any given year. Near 100% chance of an event occurring in any given year.
The number of occurrences was further refined to focus on damage-causing events. Those occasions which had reported damages were divided by the total number of recorded events to obtain a percentage of total events which result in infrastructure damage. (Formula: Number of damage-causing events / total number of events = percentage of occurrences which cause damage.) Platte-Clay Electric has facilities in seven counties; however, as Table 1.1 indicates, the territory served in DeKalb County is a very small portion with only one meter in the southeast corner of the county. For purposes of assessing probability, DeKalb County was not included. Potential Extent of Damage Vulnerability assessment matrices for each hazard are included on the following pages. These worksheets detail loss estimates for each hazard affecting the cooperative’s service area. Loss estimates were calculated using the asset summary created by internal PCEC records. Each hazard has a unique impact upon the service area, requiring each hazard to 36-8 |
[PLATTE-CLAY ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE] May 18, 2012 utilize a different valuation amount depending upon the level of impact. Non-historical hazards assume damage to all general assets. For historical hazards, assets were divided into two groups based upon historical impact which were utilized in the hazard damage analysis:
Overhead infrastructure assets and buildings o Used for tornado damage assessments o Valued at $206,094,431 Overhead infrastructure assets only o Used for: Severe Thunderstorm/High Wind/Hail Flood Severe Winter Weather o Valued at $196,094,431
In addition historical hazards with recorded damages were used to identify an average cost per event. (Formula: Total cost of damages / total number of events = Average damage cost per event.) In the case when exact figures were not available, estimates were made using available data. When discussing the extent of potential damages for all hazards, the following scale was utilized:
Less than 10% potential damages to total cooperative infrastructure 10-25% potential damages to total cooperative infrastructure 25-50% potential damages to total cooperative infrastructure More than 50% potential damages to total cooperative infrastructure
Regardless of hazard categorization, the following matrix (Table 1.5) will be utilized to identify the potential damage extent and likelihood of occurrence for each natural hazard type. Probability of Hazard Occurrence
Sample Platte-Clay Electric Cooperative Infrastructure Vulnerability Assessment Matrix Hazard: SAMPLE
Less than 1% in any given year
Potential Extent of Damage
Table 1.5
1-10% chance in any given year
10- 99% chance in any given year
Near 100% probability in any given year
Less than 10% of damage to system 10-25% damage of system 26-50% damage of system More than 50% damage of system
|
36-9
May 18, 2012 [PLATTE-CLAY ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE] Natural hazard events can occur without causing significant damage to the cooperative’s infrastructure in many instances. The more significant impact of natural hazard episodes comes in the form of reported customer outages. The infrastructure may not be significantly harmed by an ice storm, but may result in prolonged and widespread outages in the cooperative’s service area. In considering the potential impact of a hazard, loss of function provides a concise picture for comparison of events and geographic regions of the state. In addition to system damage, each hazard will be evaluated on the average number of reported or estimated outages per event occurrence. (Formula: Average number of outages reported / Total number of customers = Average percentage of outages reported per event) Table 1.6
Potential Extent of Impact
Sample Platte-Clay Electric Cooperative Service Interruption Vulnerability Assessment Matrix Hazard: SAMPLE Less than 10% of customers report outages
Probability of Damage-Causing Hazard Occurrence Less than 1-10% chance 10- 99% > Near 100% 1% in any in any given chance in any probability in given year year given year any given year
10-25% of customers report outages 26-50% of customers report outages More than 50% of customers report outages
Outage Information Platte-Clay Electric keeps thorough information for outages from 2006 to 2010. This information will be used as the basis for forming the risk assessment as it is the most complete information available to measure outage causes and expected outages for future events. In cases where exact outage information is not available, estimates will be used to supplement existing data. Platte-Clay logs the cause of each outage. The categories are suited to the cooperatives needs, but do not necessarily align to the hazard categories as outlined in this hazard mitigation plan. For instance, trees are a leading cause of unplanned outages; however, the cooperative does not record if the tree fell as the result of a thunderstorm, tornado or ice storm because the tree is the direct cause of the outage. Table 1.7 shows all causes of outages in 2010.
36-10 |
[PLATTE-CLAY ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE] May 18, 2012
Table 1.7 Causes of Outages for Platte-Clay in 2010 Cause Number of Outages Maintenance – Routine 782 Lightning 300 Unknown 200 Tree in Right-of-Way 120 Animal 119 Public 69 Overhead Primary Assembly 58 Secondary 44 Transformer 42 Underground Primary Cable 38 Wind 26 Jumper 25 Power Supply 25 Maintenance – Unplanned 23 Members’ Side 21 Other 18 Line Down 9 Pole 8 Reclosure 6 Tree Out of Right-of-Way 5 Underground Primary Assembly 3 Total 1,941 Source: PCEC Internal Records
Platte-Clay experienced five major storm events in 2010, with the system average interruption duration index (SAIDI), the measure of average outage duration for each customer served, of 224.7 minutes for all events and 79 minutes for major storm events. A graph representing all outages by percentage from 2006 to 2010 is included in the appendix.
|
36-11
May 18, 2012 [PLATTE-CLAY ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE]
Section 5: Risk Assessment Historical Hazards Tornadoes Throughout Platte-Clay Electric’s service territory, in the last 60 years there have been 121 tornadoes. Since 2000, there have been 23 distinct tornadoes in the six-county area. Figure 3 provides a pictorial representation of recorded tornado touchdown sites and paths since 2000. (Data for map collected from NOAA, www.tornadohistoryproject.com and www.tornadopaths.org.) The National Climatic Data Centers provides information on a county basis, with specific locations identified when possible. From 2000 to 2010, PCEC’s service area in Missouri experienced 23 tornadic events. Using the methodology described in Section 4, the probability of a tornadic event in PlatteClay Electric’s service area is near 100% (23 events / 10 years = 230%). According to cooperative records, none of the 23 events resulted in damage to cooperative assets, resulting in a less than 1% probability that any given tornadic occurrence will produce damage. Based on the last 10 years of historical event records, the average tornado in the PCEC service area was an EF1 rating. Detailed information on how much damage was caused by individual storms is not available. No cooperative records indicate that a tornado caused considerable damage, therefore the average damage cost is $0. ($0 / 23 events = $0). This averaged amount accounts for less than 1 % of PCEC’s total overhead assets and building valuation. ($0 / $206,094,431 = 0%) Table 1.8 demonstrates the probability in conjunction with the potential extent of damage.
36-12 |
[PLATTE-CLAY ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE] May 18, 2012
Probability of Hazard Occurrence
Platte-Clay Electric Cooperative Infrastructure Vulnerability Assessment Matrix Hazard: TORNADO
Less than 1% in any given year
Potential Extent of Damage
Table 1.8
1-10% chance in any given year
10- 99% chance in any given year
Near 100% probability in any given year
Less than 10% of damage to system 10-25% damage of system 26-50% damage of system More than 50% damage of system
An average of 0 customers reported outages during recorded tornadoes since 2000. When compared with the total number of customers served, it can be projected that less than 1% of all customers may report outages during any given tornadic event. Wind was responsible for 26 outages in 2010; however, cooperative records do not separate damage caused by tornadoes and straight-line winds. Table 1.9 demonstrates the probability of occurrence with the potential impact on customers. Probability of Damage-Causing Hazard Occurrence
Platte-Clay Electric Cooperative Service Interruption Vulnerability Assessment Matrix Hazard: TORNADO Less than 10% of customers report outages
Less than 1% in any given year
Potential Extent of Impact
Table 1.9
1-10% chance in any given year
10- 99% chance in any given year
> Near 100% probability in any given year
10-25% of customers report outages 26-50% of customers report outages More than 50% of customers report outages
|
36-13
May 18, 2012 [PLATTE-CLAY ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE] Severe Thunderstorms, High Winds and Hail From 2000 to 2010, Platte-Clay’s serve area within the state of Missouri experienced a total of 536 hail events and 333 thunderstorm/high wind events. Therefore, the probability of a hail event in the Platte-Clay service area in any given year is near 100 percent (536 events / 10 years = 5,360 %) while the probability of a thunderstorm/high wind event is near 100 % (333 events / 10 years = 3,330 %). There were no hail events that are recorded as causing damage, resulting in a less than 1% probability that any given hail event will produce damage. This figure is less than 1% of PCEC’s overhead assets. ($0 / $196,094,431 = $0). Table 1.10 provides a summary of those thunderstorm/high winds events which caused damage to cooperative infrastructure by date and cost estimate of damage. One storm out of 333 occurrences caused damage to Table 1.10 cooperative assets, resulting in a less than PCED Thunderstorm Event Damage Summary Total Damages 1% probability that any given Event Date May 2, 2008 $165,000 thunderstorm/high wind event will Source: PCEC Internal Records produce damage (1 / 333 = .3003%). Based upon historical records, the average thunderstorm/high wind event to affect the cooperative will cause an average damage cost of $165,000 ($165,000 / 1 event = $165,000). This averaged amount accounts for less than 1% of PCEC’s total overhead asset valuation. ($165,000 / $196,094,431 = .0841). Table 1.11 demonstrates the probability of occurrence in conjunction with the potential extent of damage for both hail and thunderstorm/high wind events. Probability of Hazard Occurrence
Platte-Clay Electric Cooperative Infrastructure Vulnerability Assessment Matrix Hazard: THUNDERSTORM/ HIGH WIND/HAIL Less than 10% of damage to system
Less than 1% in any given year
Potential Extent of Damage
Table 1.11
1-10% chance in any given year
10- 99% chance in any given year
Near 100% probability in any given year
10-25% damage of system 26-50% damage of system More than 50% damage of system
High winds caused 26 outages in 2010 and on average, are responsible for 3% to 5% of all outages in the year. In 2010, lightning caused 300 outages. In addition, figures from 2006 36-14 |
[PLATTE-CLAY ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE] May 18, 2012 to 2010 showed that lightning caused 12% to 20% of all outages. Combined, high winds and lightning caused 15% to 25% of all outages. Table 1.12 demonstrates the probability of occurrence with the potential impact on customers. Table 1.12
Probability of Damage-Causing Hazard Occurrence
Platte-Clay Electric Cooperative Infrastructure Vulnerability Assessment Matrix Hazard: THUNDERSTORM
Less than 1% in any given year
1-10% chance in any given year
10- 99% chance in any given year
Near 100% probability in any given year
Potential Extent of Impact
Less than 10% of customers report outages 10-25% of customers report outages 26-50% of customers report outages More than 50% customers report outages
Flood and Levee Failure Flooding is a natural hazard that presents a recurring threat to Platte-Clay’s infrastructure. Although limited to locations near rivers, flooding presents a danger when power lines cross rivers. Workers are not able to access poles or lines that are damaged or need servicing. Workers are also in danger by working in the floodwater. The largest river in the Platte-Clay service area is the Missouri River, which borders Buchanan, Platte, Clay and Ray counties. The cooperative’s service territory touches the Missouri River in portions of each of these four counties, which have federal and nonfederal levees. During the recent Missouri River flooding in 2011, Platte-Clay had approximately 15 miles of line which were taken out of service in Platte County. The areas of primary concern are in extreme southwest Buchanan County, western Platte County and southeast Ray County. Figure 4 depicts the 100-year floodplain in relation to the cooperative’s boundaries. (Map Source: FEMA HAZUS-MH, Q3, DFIRM from the FEMA Map Service Center. ) Currently, inundation data for levee failure is not available due to issues surrounding mapping, appropriate models, and its close association with flooding events. Figure 5 provides the location of known state and federal levees within the cooperative’s boundaries. (Map Source: U.S. Department of Agriculture, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Missouri Spatial Data Information Service.) From 2000 to 2010, Platte-Clay’s service area experienced 193 separate flood events. Using the methodology described in Section 4, the probability of a flood in Platte-Clay’s service area is 100 %. (193 events / 10 years = 1,930 %) No records are available to |
36-15
May 18, 2012 [PLATTE-CLAY ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE] indicate damages caused by flooding at Platte-Clay, resulting in a less than 1% probability that any given flood occurrence will produce damage. This figure is less than 1% of PCEC’s overhead assets. ($0 / $196,094,431 = $0). Table 1.13 demonstrates the probability of occurrence in conjunction with the potential extent of damage. Probability of Hazard Occurrence
Platte-Clay Electric Cooperative Infrastructure Vulnerability Assessment Matrix Hazard: FLOOD
Less than 1% in any given year
Potential Extent of Damage
Table 1.13
1-10% chance in any given year
10- 99% chance in any given year
Near 100% probability in any given year
Less than 10% of damage to system 10-25% damage of system 26-50% damage of system More than 50% damage of system
No customer outages were reported associated with flooding. When compared with the total number of customers served by PCEC, it can be projected that less than 10% of all customers may report outages during any given flooding event. Table 1.14 demonstrates the probability of occurrence in conjunction with the potential extent of impact upon local customers. Probability of Damage-Causing Hazard Occurrence
Platte-Clay Electric Cooperative Service Interruption Vulnerability Assessment Matrix Hazard: FLOOD Less than 10% of customers report outages
Less than 1% in any given year
Potential Extent of Impact
Table 1.14
10-25% of customers report outages 26-50% of customers report outages More than 50% of customers report outages
36-16 |
1-10% chance in any given year
10- 99% chance in any given year
> Near 100% probability in any given year
[PLATTE-CLAY ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE] May 18, 2012
Severe Winter Weather From 2000 to 2010, the service area for Platte-Clay Electric experienced 136 severe winter weather events. These include significant snowfall events, ice storms and blizzards. The probability for severe winter weather in the cooperative’s region is near 100 %. (136 events / 10 years = 1,360 %). 1 of the 136 occurrences caused damage to cooperative assets, resulting in a less than 1% probability that any given severe winter weather occurrence will produce damage (1 / 136 = 0.7353%). Table 1.15 provides a summary of event dates and associated damage estimates. Based on historical records, the average severe winter weather event to affect the cooperative will cause an average damage cost of $450,000 ($450,000 / 1 events = PCED Severe Winter $450,000). This averaged amount Table 1.15 Weather Event Damage accounts for less than 1% of PlatteSummary Clay’s total overhead asset valuation Event Date Total Damages ($450,000 / $196,094,431 = .2295 %). Dec. 10-12, 2007 $450,000 Table 1.16 demonstrates the probability Source: PCEC Internal Records of occurrence in conjunction with the potential extent of damage.
|
36-17
May 18, 2012 [PLATTE-CLAY ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE]
Probability of Hazard Occurrence
Platte-Clay Electric Cooperative Infrastructure Vulnerability Assessment Matrix Hazard: SEVERE WINTER
Less than 1% in any given year
Potential Extent of Damage
Table 1.16
1-10% chance in any given year
10- 99% chance in any given year
Near 100% probability in any given year
Less than 10% of damage to system 10-25% damage of system 26-50% damage of system More than 50% damage of system
In 2007, ice was responsible for 5% of PCEC’s outages. In the same year, trees were cited as the cause of nearly 20% of outages, compared to about 7% for other years. As noted previously, many of the outages that listed trees as the cause were likely the result of ice that damaged trees. Using these figures, it can be determined that severe winter weather could cause 26% to 50% of customers to lose power. Probability of Damage-Causing Hazard Occurrence
Platte-Clay Electric Cooperative Service Interruption Vulnerability Assessment Matrix Hazard: SEVERE WINTER Less than 10% of customers report outages
Less than 1% in any given year
Potential Extent of Impact
Table 1.17
10-25% of customers report outages 26-50% of customers report outages More than 50% of customers report outages
36-18 |
1-10% chance in any given year
10- 99% chance in any given year
> Near 100% probability in any given year
[PLATTE-CLAY ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE] May 18, 2012 Wildfire The region served by Platte-Clay includes rural and developed areas. It does not contain any large forests, although there are areas of heavy trees. Rural areas are a combination of pasture and grasslands and row crops. In 2010, there were 94 wildfires that affected 174 acres in the six-county region, according to the Missouri Department of Conservation. Information for the period from 2004 to 2008 is available from the Missouri Department of Conservation through the Missouri State Hazard Mitigation Plan. Table 1.18 lists the incidences of wildfire for the six counties. Table 1.18 County
Wildfire Summary by County Wildfires Average 2004-2008 Annual # of Wildfires
Buchanan 177 35 Caldwell 59 12 Clay 10 2 Clinton 127 25 Platte 25 5 Ray 109 22 Platte-Clay Area 507 101 Source: Missouri State Hazard Mitigation Plan
Acres Burned (20042008) 1,102 1,565 12 998 59 973 4,709
Average Annual Acres Burned 220 313 2 200 12 195 942
Total Buildings Damaged 3 2 0 0 0 0 5
In the four-year period from 2004 to 2008, there were 507 wildfires. This means the probability of wildfire is nearly 100 % (507 events / 4 years = 12,675 %). The potential extent of damage caused by wildfire is difficult to determine. Like earthquakes and dam failure, wildfires have had no measurable impact upon the PCEC service area. In the four-year period from 2004 to 2008, 507 fires have burned a total of 4,709 acres, for an average of 9.28 acres affected per event. (4,709 acres/ 507 fires = 9.28 acres). PCEC sustained no damage related to wildfires in its service area during this time period. Cooperative assets are located throughout the service area rather than being located at a single central site. With an average of less than 10 acres per fire in the service area, it is unlikely that infrastructure damage would exceed 5% based upon asset location and unlikeliness of an uncontrollable wildfire. This initial assessment assumes a limited impact upon electric distribution infrastructure of less than 10% (Table 1.19). Further study will be required to create a model for damage assessments related to wildfire.
|
36-19
May 18, 2012 [PLATTE-CLAY ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE]
Probability of Hazard Occurrence
Platte-Clay Electric Cooperative Infrastructure Vulnerability Assessment Matrix Hazard: WILDFIRE
Less than 1% in any given year
Potential Extent of Damage
Table 1.19
1-10% chance in any given year
10- 99% chance in any given year
Near 100% probability in any given year
Less than 10% of damage to system 10-25% damage of system 26-50% damage of system More than 50% damage of system
No customers have reported outages in connection with wildfires between 2004 and 2008. When considering the total number of customers served by Platte-Clay, it can be projected that 1%, or 200 customers, may experience outages during any given wildfire event. Table 1.20 shows the probability in conjunction with the potential extent of impact on customers. Probability of Damage-Causing Hazard Occurrence
Platte-Clay Electric Cooperative Service Interruption Vulnerability Assessment Matrix Hazard: WILDFIRE Less than 10% of customers report outages
Less than 1% in any given year
Potential Extent of Impact
Table 1.20
10-25% of customers report outages 26-50% of customers report outages More than 50% of customers report outages
36-20 |
1-10% chance in any given year
10- 99% chance in any given year
> Near 100% probability in any given year
[PLATTE-CLAY ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE] May 18, 2012 B. Non-historical Hazards Earthquakes The closest source of earthquake risk to Platte-Clay Electric is the Nemaha Fault, which runs roughly from Oklahoma City, Okla., north to Lincoln, Neb. In 1993, the Nemaha fault produced a discernable earthquake that was felt in the region, with magnitude of 2.9 on the Richter Scale of Earthquake Intensity. Additional quakes took place February 11, 1995 (3.1 magnitude); July 16, 2004 (3.5 magnitude); March 23, 2003 (3.1 magnitude). More recently, an earthquake of magnitude 3.6 was recorded on December 17, 2009. The region is also subject to effects of the New Madrid Fault, located in extreme southeast Missouri, which has, according to many experts, the potential to produce the largest earthquakes in North America. This fault has the potential to affect the entire Platte-Clay service area. In addition, there have been several small, virtually undetectable earth movements in the region in recent history, which may or may not be attributed to these fault lines or other, very small faults located nearby. The New Madrid fault has the potential to cause damage throughout the state of Missouri and the Kansas City metro area served by Platte-Clay. Scientists from the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) and the Center for Earthquake Research and Information (CERI) at the University of Memphis have estimated the probability of a magnitude 6.0 or greater earthquake from the New Madrid Fault is 25-40 % through the year 2053. The projected earthquake intensity ratings for the cooperative’s region change based upon the Modified Mercalli Scale. Given a New Madrid earthquake with a 6.7 magnitude, the region would experience Level V intensity characteristics. In the event of an earthquake with a 7.6 magnitude, the region would experiences Level VI intensity characteristics while an earthquake with an 8.6 magnitude would most likely cause Level VII intensity characteristics. In the event of an earthquake with a 7.6 magnitude, the region served by Platte-Clay area could be expected to experience minor building damage as well as damage to the electrical distribution system. Damage, however, would likely be relatively minimal and localized when compared with the southeast corner of the state. Distribution lines overhead and underground could become disconnected or severed, and transformers could be damaged. Though the probability of occurrence is very small, the potential extent of damage could significantly impact both the cooperative and its customers as demonstrated in Table 1.21.
|
36-21
May 18, 2012 [PLATTE-CLAY ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE]
Table 1.21
Probability of Hazard Occurrence
Potential Extent of Damage
Platte-Clay Electric Cooperative Infrastructure Vulnerability Assessment Matrix Hazard: EARTHQUAKE
Less than 1% in any given year
1-10% chance in any given year
10- 99% chance in any given year
Near 100% probability in any given year
Less than 10% of damage to system 10-25% damage of system 26-50% damage of system More than 50% damage of system
Based upon information from CERI, FEMA and SEMA, it may be estimated that up to 2,000 customers could report outages related to an earthquake event. When compared with the total number of customers served by Platte-Clay, it can be projected that up to 10% of all customers may report outages during any given seismic event. Table 1.22 represents the probability of occurrence in conjunction with the potential extent of impact upon local customers. Probability of Damage-Causing Hazard Occurrence
Platte-Clay Electric Cooperative Service Interruption Vulnerability Assessment Matrix Hazard: EARTHQUAKE Less than 10% of customers report outages
Less than 1% in any given year
Potential Extent of Impact
Table 1.22
10-25% of report outages
customers
26-50% of report outages
customers
More than 50% of customers report outages
36-22 |
1-10% chance in any given year
10- 99% chance in any given year
> Near 100% probability in any given year
[PLATTE-CLAY ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE] May 18, 2012 Dam Failure Like earthquakes, dam failures have had no measurable impact upon the Platte-Clay service area to date. According to Missouri DNR’s Dam Safety Division, 272 dams currently exist within the cooperative boundaries: 32 in Buchanan County, 25 in Caldwell County, 41 in Clay County, 26 in Clinton County, 70 in DeKalb County, 29 in Platte County and 49 in Ray County. Of these dams, four in Buchanan County, one in Caldwell County, five in Clay County, four in Clinton County, 10 in DeKalb County, five in Platte County and five in Ray County are regulated by the state due to the fact that they are nonagricultural, non-federal dams which exceed 35 feet in height. Figure 6 shows the locations of all known dams located within Platte-Clay’s service area. (Map sources: www.msdis.missouri.edu; www.dnr.mo.gov/env/wrc.) The most significant dam in the region is Smithville Lake, constructed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in 1979. The dam is located in Clay County and Smithville Lake covers 7,190 acres and has a storage area of 102,200 acre feet. The lake drains 213 acres. Platte-Clay provides electric power to the dam, including the flood gates. Twenty-six dam failures have occurred within the state of Missouri over the past 100 years. However, no such event has occurred within or near the cooperative’s boundaries. However, for the purposes of this assessment, dam failure and its associated impacts cannot be eliminated from the realm of possibility. In order to allow for a risk assessment, the probability of this event has been included as less than 1%.
|
36-23
May 18, 2012 [PLATTE-CLAY ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE]
Table 1.23
Potential Extent of Damage
Platte-Clay Electric Cooperative Infrastructure Vulnerability Assessment Matrix Hazard: DAM FAILURE
Probability of Hazard Occurrence Less than 1% in any given year
1-10% chance in any given year
10- 99% chance in any given year
Near 100% probability in any given year
Less than 10% of damage to system 10-25% damage of system 26-50% damage of system More than 50% damage of system
Determining the potential impact of dam failure is not currently possible due to a lack of data concerning inundation zones. Further study concerning existing dams and their impact is required to make a more comprehensive assessment of potential damages. This initial assessment assumes a limited impact upon downstream electric distribution infrastructure of less than 10 % for both infrastructure damage and service disruption. (Tables 1.23 and 1.24)
Table 1.24
Potential Extent of Impact
Platte-Clay Electric Cooperative Service Interruption Vulnerability Assessment Matrix Hazard: DAM FAILURE Less than 10% of customers report outages 10-25% of customers report outages 26-50% of customers report outages More than 50% of customers report outages
36-24 |
Probability of Damage-Causing Hazard Occurrence Less than 1-10% chance 10- 99% > Near 100% 1% in any in any given chance in any probability in given year year given year any given year
[PLATTE-CLAY ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE] May 18, 2012
Section 6: Mitigation Strategies Previous efforts at mitigation For Platte-Clay Electric, mitigation is incorporated in daily business operations. In order to ensure the delivery of a quality product and minimize the service interruptions, a number of mitigation strategies are continually utilized. The cooperative seeks to minimize power outages as much as possible, while maintaining reasonable rates for customers. Platte-Clay Electric emphasizes mitigation efforts as the most efficient way to deliver a quality project and minimize service interruptions. Routine maintenance and upgrades to existing equipment is completed as part of daily tasks. Vegetation management, for instance, is a priority for the cooperative. Trees are inspected and trimmed over a cycle of six to eight years, depending on growth patterns. Safety and reporting information are disseminated to the public through various types of media, including newsletter, web site and social media. Mutual aid agreements and partnerships create relationships which provide for future support in the event of a natural disaster. Platte-Clay has undertaken the process of replacing aging overhead facilities. Portions of line are old and brittle and more likely to break in case of storm. The cooperative is replacing these sections with newer line as funding allows. Additionally, mitigation is considered prior to any expansion of service into special hazard areas. Before any service is built, it is “staked out” in coordination with local builders and property owners. This process identifies and addresses foreseeable hazards and safety issues before any new service lines are constructed. USDA-RUS specifications regarding operation and safety are utilized throughout the process. Steps are taken to minimize the exposure of equipment to loss due to foreseeable hazards, such as flooding. Existing and potential resources As stated above, mitigation is a key component of good business practices. Platte-Clay Electric includes mitigation strategies as part of regular work activities to ensure service with minimal interruptions. Funding for these activities is provided through the cooperative’s normal budgetary process for maintenance. In order to expand mitigation efforts beyond normal maintenance, it is likely that PlatteClay Electric will need to seek outside funding sources. These may include private, state or federal programs which provide grant and loan funding. Upon passage of this plan, PCEC will be eligible for funding through FEMA in the following categories:
Hazard Mitigation Grant Program Flood Mitigation Assistance Program Pre-Disaster Mitigation Program 406 Stafford Act
|
36-25
May 18, 2012 [PLATTE-CLAY ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE] Development of goals, objectives, and actions Establishing mitigation goals, objectives and action items for a business entity requires a slightly different approach than public agencies. Certainly, a number of similarities exist; both entities must consider which hazards most commonly occur and have the greatest potential for causing disruption to members or residents. They must also consider which types of actions will maximize benefits and minimize costs, how mitigation strategies will be implemented, who will enforce implementation and how the overall plan will be maintained and updated. Platte-Clay’s mitigation planning committee, with assistance from Mo-Kan staff, worked to identify goals, objectives and actions which addressed hazard mitigation issues. The committee first identified ongoing mitigation strategies as well as potential strategies which seek to improve service and limit disruptions resulting from natural hazards. Action items were then analyzed for common characteristics and summarized to create nine objectives. These nine objectives were grouped into similar categories and used as the basis for the four overarching goals. Table 1.25 provides a synopsis of the goals and objectives before prioritization. Table 1.25
Platte-Clay Electric Goals and Objectives
Identified Goals
Identified Objectives
Goal 1: Protect the health and safety of the community.
Objective 1: Prevent injury, loss of life, and damage to property. Objective 2: Reduce outage time to critical facilities.
Goal 2: Reduce future losses due to natural hazard events.
Objective 1: infrastructure.
Protect
and
maintain
existing
Objective 2: Research and develop plans for future infrastructure improvements, seeking implementation where feasible. Objective 3: Research and develop plans for future communication and data collection improvements where feasible. Goal 3: Improve emergency management capabilities and enhance local partnerships.
Objective 1: Improve assessment of outages and reduce response time.
Goal 4: Continue to promote public awareness and education.
Objective 1: Utilize media resources to promote public education.
Objective 2: Create or maintain partnerships with outside agencies.
Objective 2: Continue interaction with local schools and civic groups.
36-26 |
[PLATTE-CLAY ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE] May 18, 2012 Traditionally, the STAPLEE (Social, Technical, Administrative, Political, Legal, Environmental, and Economic) method is used to prioritize mitigation actions. These categories, however, do not necessarily align with the private sector in the same way they are applicable to governmental agencies. A number of action items could be included with multiple goals and objectives, for example. As a result, the committee chose to use a different method to prioritize their mitigation strategy. After identifying ongoing and potential action items, the committee created three priority tiers:
First tier actions focus on physical infrastructure protection and improvements which ensure continued, quality service and seek to reduce power outages. These types of actions are the highest priority of Platte-Clay Electric. Second tier actions create and maintain working relationships to reduce and prevent the impact of power outages. These include improvements to safety and reporting information, mutual aid agreements and other efforts which seek to expand and improve both customer service and disaster planning. Third tier actions identify potential projects for other system improvements. These include mapping efforts, technological improvements, and research related to the expansion of mitigation efforts.
Actions within each tier may be funded through regular budgetary methods or identified outside sources. Tables 1.26, 1.27 and 1.28 provide lists of action items by tier as well as the goals and objectives identified with each item.
|
36-27
May 18, 2012 [PLATTE-CLAY ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE]
Table 1.26 Prioritized Mitigation Actions for Platte-Clay Electric Cooperative
Tier 1 Action item:
Goal/Objective
Perform routine maintenance and utilize upgraded equipment where possible to ensure quality of system. Identified work includes, but is not limited to: Addition of system protection components (arrestors, reclosures) and wires, cables and guying. Replace/repair and/or upgrade of any electrical components such as poles, wires, crossarms, guys, anchors, transformers, cables switches Upgrade complex structures with concrete or steel poles.
Goal 1 / Objective 1 Goal 1/ Objective 2 Goal 2 / Objective 1
Relocate electric facilities from flood prone areas. Replace aging electric facilities to prevent damage due to weather hazards.
Goal 1 / Objective 1 Goal 1/ Objective 2 Goal 2 / Objective 1 Goal 2/ Objective 1 Goal 1 / Objective 1 Goal 1/ Objective 2
Timeframe for completion Ongoing effort
Cost-benefit score
Ongoing effort
Low cost Medium benefit Score: 6
Ongoing effort, dependent on funding Ongoing effort, dependent on funding
High cost High benefit Score: 7 Medium cost High benefit Score: 8
Ongoing
Low cost High benefit Score: 9 Low cost High benefit Score: 9 Medium cost High benefit Score: 8
Use vegetation management to prevent interference with power delivery.
Goal 1 / Objective 1 Goal 1/ Objective 2 Goal 2 / Objective 1 Goal 2/ Objective 1 Goal 1 / Objective 1 Goal 2 / Objective 1
Complete annual inspections of lines and poles.
Goal 1 / Objective 1 Goal 2 / Objective 1
Completed annually
Add alternate source wiring to eliminate or reduce outage times.
Goal 1 / Objective 1 Goal 1 / Objective 2 Goal 2 / Objective 2
Ongoing effort, completed as funding allows.
36-28 |
Medium cost High benefit Score: 8
[PLATTE-CLAY ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE] May 18, 2012
Table 1.27 Prioritized Mitigation Actions for Platte-Clay Electric Cooperative – Tier 2
Tier 2 Timeframe for completion Ongoing effort
Cost-benefit Score
Goal 1 / Objective 1 Goal 1 / Objective 2 Goal 2 / Objective 2 Goal 3 / Objective 2
Dependent upon additional funding
Goal 1 / Objective 1 Goal 1 / Objective 2 Goal 3 / Objective 2
Ongoing effort
Medium cost High benefit Score: 4 Low cost Low benefit Score: 3 Low cost High benefit Score: 1
Goal 1 / Objective 1 Goal 3 / Objective 2
Ongoing effort
Action item:
Goal/Objective
Provide safety and reporting information to the general public company website, social media sites, local newspapers, presentations, other publications.
Goal 1 / Objective 1 Goal 4 / Objective 1
Increase number of generators owned for use in critical asset outages. Maintain mutual aid agreements with other rural electric cooperatives. Partner with county emergency management agencies to ensure power for local shelters, fuel stations, and public safety. Cooperate with local law enforcement and government officials to reduce the impact of power outages and protect the public’s safety.
Low cost Medium benefit Score: 6
Ongoing effort
Low cost High benefit Score: 1
Table 1.28 Prioritized Mitigation Actions for Platte-Clay Electric Cooperative – Tier 3
Tier 3 Action item:
Goal/Objective
Complete GPS data collection for all infrastructure.
Goal 2 / Objective 1 Goal 2 / Objective 3 Goal 3 / Objective 1 Goal 1 / Objective 1 Goal 2 / Objective 2 Goal 2/ Objective 3 Goal 3/ Objective 1 Goal 1 / Objective 2 Goal 3 / Objective 1
Implement Mobile Work Force to improve response time and communication with public and county agencies. Replace existing automated voice response to improve outage reporting. Monitor developments in data availability concerning the impact of dam failure and wildfire upon the PCEC service area through local, state, and federal agencies.
Goal 1 / Objective 1 Goal 2 / Objective 1
Timeframe for completion Dependent upon additional funding Dependent upon additional funding Dependent upon additional funding Ongoing effort
Cost-benefit High cost High benefit Score: 7 High cost Medium benefit Score: 4 High cost Medium benefit Score: 4 Low cost Low benefit Score: 3
|
36-29
May 18, 2012 [PLATTE-CLAY ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE]
Section 7: Plan Implementation and Maintenance Plan incorporation The goals, objectives, and actions of the previous section identify both ongoing efforts at mitigation and potential methods for expanding efforts. The plan has been reviewed and adopted by the Board of Directors as part of the company’s operations policy. This mitigation plan necessitates involvement from every Platte-Clay Electric employment level as the organization strives to ensure quality service to their customers. Other Local Planning Mechanisms Some internal planning mechanisms do exist at Platte-Clay. The Hazard Mitigation Plan can be considered and/or incorporated into regular budgetary planning and the four-year work plan. Beyond the Platte-Clay Electric plan, some planning mechanisms exist at the local level. The Missouri counties of Buchanan, Caldwell, Clay, Clinton, DeKalb, Platte and Ray each have a FEMA-approved Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan in place or are in the process of adopting a plan. The counties of Buchanan, Caldwell, Clay, Clinton, Platte and Ray have planning and zoning regulations. DeKalb County is a third class county that does not have planning and zoning, but townships have planning and zoning regulations. County emergency management directors have Local Emergency Operations Plans which seek to mitigate the same hazards for residents. These same counties are also included in the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) as well as a Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy (CEDS). Platte-Clay Electric’s plan can be incorporated into these local plans and allow for coordination across agencies in the event of an emergency. Plan Maintenance Platte-Clay Electric will conform to the requirements established by the Association of Missouri Electric Cooperatives (AMEC) for monitoring, evaluating, and updating the plan. Continued Public Involvement Opportunities Platte-Clay Electric will conform to the requirements established by the Association of Missouri Electric Cooperatives (AMEC) for continued public involvement. Opportunities for public comment will continue to be offered through various media outlets, the cooperative’s website, and the physical office of PCEC.
36-30 |
[PLATTE-CLAY ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE] May 18, 2012
Chapter Appendix: Documentation of Participation
|
36-31
May 18, 2012 [PLATTE-CLAY ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE]
Platte-Clay Electric Hazard Mitigation l Appendix Hazard Mitigation Meeting #1 Sign in Sheet Hazard Mitigation Meeting #1 Agenda Hazard Mitigation Meeting #1 Minutes Hazard Mitigation Meeting #2 Sign in Sheet Hazard Mitigation Meeting #2 Agenda Hazard Mitigation Meeting #2 Minutes PCEC Goals Considered PCEC Goals and Action Items Considered By Tier Press Release Participation Letter Sample
36-32 |
i
[PLATTE-CLAY ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE] May 18, 2012
|
36-33
May 18, 2012 [PLATTE-CLAY ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE]
Hazard Mitigation Planning Platte Clay Electric, Kearney, 10 a.m. Feb. 17,
I. II.
III.
IV.
V.
Review of Hazard Mitigation Overview of Cooperative a. Business structure, service territory b. Asset Inventory c. GIS Hazards a. Hazards that affect cooperative operations b. Hazards that may be potential threats but not common c. Hazards not considered potential threats Mitigation activities a. Ongoing activities b. Potential activities Planning Process a. In-kind match b. Next meeting date
36-34 |
[PLATTE-CLAY ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE] May 18, 2012
Platte-Clay Electric Hazard Mitigation Planning Meeting 10 a.m. Feb. 17, Platte-Clay Electric, Kearney, In attendance: Jared Wolters, Platte Clay Engineering Manager; Julie Morrison, Platte-Clay GIS Coordinator; Susan Mires, Mo-Kan; Matt Schoenfelder, Mo-Kan; Matt Buchanan, Mo-Kan. I.
Review of Hazard Mitigation Question of how the plan might be used and potential use of mitigation funding for cooperative projects.
II.
Overview of Cooperative a. PCEC operates in seven counties with 20,000 customers and 2,000 miles of line. b. All power purchased from NW. NW owns the substations and Platte-Clay owns the protective equipment, distributes from the substation to the end user. c. Affiliated businesses – PC Sewer, PC Properties, PC Pardners, PC Fuels d. Discussion of GIS data and collection process e. Special equipment – protective devices, transformers, meters. Other – capacitors, regulators.
III.
Hazards a. Most significant threats - Tornado, Ice, Wind, Floods, Thunderstorm. Missouri River flooding. Mitigation activities a. Rebuilding primary overhead facilities. Rebuilding approximately 60 miles per year of facilities. b. Tree trimming, targeting heavily timbered areas. c. Replacing older underground cable. Most underground is in new construction, about 40 miles per year.
IV.
V.
Planning Process a. Discussion of in-kind match contribution and documentation b. Mo-Kan will be in touch with the next steps as more information is made available on a statewide basis.
|
36-35
May 18, 2012 [PLATTE-CLAY ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE]
36-36 |
[PLATTE-CLAY ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE] May 18, 2012
Hazard Mitigation Planning Platte Clay Electric, Kearney, 9:30 a.m. Sept. 8,
I.
II.
Review hazard mitigation planning, update on plan a. In-kind match documentation b. Questions so far Asset inventory (see worksheet) a. Asset by county b. Replacement value of assets
III.
Damage estimates by hazard event a. Dates of largest storms b. Outages/damage associated with each event
IV.
Ongoing mitigation actions
V.
Potential mitigation actions
VI. VII.
Grouping and analyzing of potential mitigation actions Set date of next meeting
|
36-37
May 18, 2012 [PLATTE-CLAY ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE]
Platte-Clay Electric Hazard Mitigation Planning 9:30 a.m. Sept. 8, Platte-Clay Electric, Kearney, In attendance: Jared Wolters, Platte Clay Engineering Manager; Julie Morrison, Platte-Clay GIS Coordinator; Patricia Legg, Head of Dispatch; Susan Mires, Mo-Kan; Matt Schoenfelder, MoKan. I.
Review of Hazard Mitigation Question of how the plan might be used and potential use of mitigation funding for cooperative projects.
II.
Damage Estimates By Hazard Event a. General discussion of hazards affecting the cooperative, including the Missouri River flooding now under way. b. Discussion of information available to document damages. Extensive records are available from 2005 forward, with 2006 to 2010 being the most complete. Patricia Legg provided detailed reports of outages on a per year basis. The outages identified a cause, but were not necessarily linked to a particular hazard event. For instance, if high winds caused a tree to fall and disrupted power, the cause of the outage would be attributed to a tree. Platte-Clay will evaluate its outage reports and provide more information about outages related to specific hazards.
III.
Asset Inventory a. Julie Morrison provided detailed printouts of Platte-Clay’s asset inventory. The information has been sorted by county. b. There was a discussion about whether the emergency replacement value could be accurately used to determine the cooperative’s asset inventory. c. Julie Morrison and Matt Schoenfelder examined available GIS information and determined the cooperative service territory information and census block was accurate. d. Critical facilities served by Platte-Clay include five schools, one fire station and numerous warning sirens. In addition, Smithville Lake and the flood gates are served by Platte-Clay.
IV.
Ongoing Mitigation Action a. Review of actions NW Electric undertakes on an ongoing basis to mitigate hazards. These include storm structures on poles, vegetation trimming and upgrading equipment.
36-38 |
[PLATTE-CLAY ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE] May 18, 2012
V.
Potential Mitigation Actions a. The goals outlined in the model chapter were reviewed and it was determined that Platte-Clay would likely incorporate some of these goals and action items and include others specific to the cooperative. b. Discussion of how to determine the cost and benefit rating for mitigation actions.
VI.
Other topics a. Review of in-kind match provided by NW Electric staff. b. Discussed ways to open for public comment. Mo-Kan will mail letters to County Commissions of each of the counties.
|
36-39
May 18, 2012 [PLATTE-CLAY ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE]
Platte-Clay Electric Hazard Mitigation Discussion of Goals and Prioritization Current mitigation activities: Vegetation management/tree trimming. Completed on a six to eight year cycle, as needed and affected by tree growth. Costs of about $1 million per year. Replacing aging overhead facilities – wire, conductors, etc. Approximately 60 miles per year. Replacing older underground cable. Approximately 40 miles per year. Replacing poles. GPS data for all infrastructure. Currently started but not complete, for each pole and piece of equipment. Provide safety and reporting information to the public through a variety of formats. Have a web site, social media and newsletter. Mutual aid agreements with other rural electric cooperatives. Working with local law enforcement and emergency management in case of power outage to protect the public safety. Potential mitigation activities: Continue current activities Replace and upgrade equipment. Upgrade poles to concrete and steel structures Relocate facilities located in floodplains to other locations. Add alternate source wiring to eliminate or reduce outage times. Research methods for waterproofing meters in flood-prone areas. Collect GPS data for all existing infrastructure. Complete data collection all infrastructure. Utilize GIS technology to reduce site identification and response time. Implement a mobile work force to improve response time. This would allow a truck in the field to be dispatched quickly to the site of an outage or reported problem. They could complete the work and document it from the field. Most of the hardware would be in the truck and mobile units, but would require software and support from the office, as well. Replace/upgrade existing automated voice response to improve outage reporting and response time. Monitor developments in data availability concerning the impact of dam failure and wildfire upon the cooperative’s service area through local, state and federal agencies. 36-40 |
[PLATTE-CLAY ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE] May 18, 2012
|
36-41
May 18, 2012 [PLATTE-CLAY ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE]
36-42 |