RMEL Electric Energy Issue 2 2011

electric spotlight on critical energy issues

Energized Technology LED

options

Advanced

generation

Compliance

with lidar

SRP’s Smart

Practices

plus: evolution of safety assessing utility assets ISSUE 2 / 2011

www.RMEL.org

the future of nuclear

powereng.com

TO BRING YOUR IDEAS TO REALITY, LOOK TO THE RAM. ENERGY

l

FA C I L I T I E S

l

C O M M U N I C AT I O N S

l

E N V I R O N M E N TA L

Power

Ames Construction, Inc.® 952-435-7106 www.amesconstruction.com

Commercial • Environmental • Mining • Power • Transportation Phoenix, AZ Denver, CO Burnsville, MN Salt Lake City, UT

contents

16 12

40

Features 8 PNM Resources’ Safety Culture – Journey to Zero

by John Haarlow, Director, Safety, PNM Resources

30 LiDAR Technology and Handheld Vegetation Management Device Aid Transmission Group at El Paso Electric

by Ryan Paulk, Transmission Engineer, El Paso Electric Company

34 Fukushima, Japan and the Impact on Nuclear Generation

by Cmdr. Don Reynerson, Consultant, The Phoenix Index, Inc and The Barrington Group; Dr. Ron Laughery, Former President and founder of Micro Analysis and Design, Inc. and member of the American Nuclear Society Public Policy Committee; Dr. Jeffrey King, Assistant Professor and Interim Program Director, Nuclear Science and Engineering Program, Colorado School of Mines; J.K. August, VP, Operations, CORE, Inc.

12 Longmont Power’s LED Lighting Experiences

by Jerry Darmafall, Electrical Engineer, Longmont Power & Communications

16 A Flexible Solution to Power Generation in an Uncertain and Changing Market

by Esko Polvi, VP, Operations, PFBC Environmental Energy Technology, Inc.

22 Separating Winners and Losers in Power Generation

by Anthony J. Carrino, Sr. Consultant, Power Generation, HSB Solomon Associates, LLC

4

elec tric energy | summer 2011

40 Getting Smart: SRP Ahead of the Smart Grid Curve

by Mark Estes, Senior Corporate Communications Strategist, SRP

Departments

6 2011 Fall Executive Leadership & Management Convention 46 RMEL Membership Listings 49 2011 Calendar of Events 50 Index to Advertisers

Fossil Air Quality Control Nuclear Geothermal Biomass

Shaping the Future of Power Generation

Solar Wind Transmission & Substations AMEC is a full-service supplier of high value project management, engineering, procurement, construction, and permitting services to the power industry. With more than 23,000 employees in 40 countries worldwide, AMEC delivers total solutions using EPC and EPCM execution for new plants and modifications to existing plants.

amec.com 770-810-9698 power2@amec.com

Atlanta | Chicago | Denver | Houston | Mesa | Minneapolis | Oakland | Portland Reno | Sacramento | Salt Lake City | San Diego | Seattle | Tacoma | Tempe | Tucson

fall convention

Fall Executive Leadership and Management Convention to Explore the Balance Between Reliability, Renewables and Affordability september 11-13 – Santa Ana PuEBlo, NM Join electric energy industry senior executives for RMEL’s 2011 Fall Executive Leadership and Management Convention Sept. 11-13 in Santa Ana Pueblo, NM. Electric energy industry leaders are trying to balance regulations, customer needs, politics, media and renewable implementation demands, all while trying to keep the grid reliable and electricity affordable. The theme of RMEL’s 2011 Fall Convention, The Balance: Reliability, Renewables and Affordability, reflects the event’s focus on strategies and approaches to help utilities through this challenging process.

The RMEL Fall Convention attracts over 300 seniorlevel utility managers and executives. Find chief executives, company officers, vice presidents, general managers,

6

elec tric energy | summer 2011

decision makers and senior management of energy companies at this event. Attendees represent the many utility ownerships including IOU, G&T, municipalities, cooperative and government agencies.

With the most recent election, there are a lot of issues that Washington politicians are discussing. How have the elections changed politics, and what’s happening to the industry? The Public Policy/Government Affairs Panel will cover the many different layers of the industry.

Mark Crisson, President & CEO, American Public Power Association, Duane Highley, Director, Power Production, Associated Electric Cooperative, Inc. and Michael Lennen, VP, Regulatory Affairs, Westar Energy, are among the

www.RMEL.org Published Spring 2011 Published For: RMEL 6855 S. Havana St, Ste 430 Centennial, CO 80112 T: (303) 865-5544 F: (303) 865-5548 www.RMEL.org

panelists who will discuss a way forward.

Robert Bryce, Author & Sr. Fellow, Manhattan Institute, will debunk many of the myths about “green” energy and he’ll explain why the fuels of the future can be summarized as N2N: natural gas to nuclear.

Mark Dudzinski, Chief Marketing Officer, GE Energy, will examine issues of uncertainty, coal plant retirements and grid reliability and will forecast how utilities will keep the lights on when the economy recovers and the load returns.

Pat Vincent-Collawn, President & CEO, PNM Resources, Doyle N. Beneby, President & CEO, CPS Energy, Timothy J. Meeks, Administrator, Western Area Power Administration, R.B. Sloan, CEO, Pedernales Electric Coop and Patrick L. Pope, President & CEO, Nebraska Public Power District will participate in a CEO Panel to discuss industry trends, issues at their companies, topics they deal with on a daily basis, their biggest challenges and what keeps them up at night.

Electric energy decision-makers wanting to figure out how providers of electric power handled major demands for change in the past, what the major challenges for electricity providers for the next 20 years are and which the risk management lessons to take away from the Japanese nuclear disaster and the well blowout in the Gulf of Mexico will want to be there when Jay Hakes, Former Administrator, U.S. Energy Information Administration & Energy Author, discusses these topics.

The West will be investing more than $200 Billion in electric system improvements between now and 2030. Dr. Carl Linvill, Director, Integrated Planning & Analysis, Aspen Environmental Group, will differentiate evaluation of proposed projects from a consumer’s perspective for short, medium and long procurement decisions and will identify the key consumer issues that should drive long term procurement choices.

A “Green, Reliable or Affordable…Pick Two” Panel will dive into the conflict between green energy, reliable energy and inexpensive energy.

Kateri Callahan, President, Alliance to Save Energy will speak from the Pro Green/Efficiency perspective, David Andrejcak, Director, Engineering, Planning & Operations Division, Electric Reliability Office, U.S. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission from the Pro Reliability perspective and John Stevens, Director, Energy Management, Praxair, Inc. from the Pro Rate Payer perspective.

The Fall Executive Leadership and Management Convention is a three-day event that begins on a Sunday with a golf outing followed by an evening reception hosted by the RMEL Champions. Monday is a full-day of educational presentations ending with an RMEL Champions reception, dinner and the RMEL Foundation Silent Auction. The final day includes the RMEL annual meeting and a half day of presentations. A guest program, awards presentation and plenty of time to relax and network are also part of the tradition. Go to www.RMEL.org for more information and registration.

Electric Energy is the official magazine of RMEL. Published three times a year, the publication discusses critical issues in the electric energy industry.

Subscribe to Electric Energy by contacting RMEL. Editorial content and feedback can also be directed to RMEL. Advertising in the magazine supports RMEL education programs and activities. For advertising opportunities, please contact Deborah Juris from WiesnerMedia, LLC at (303) 883-4159.

Pu b l ish ed by:

6160 S. Syracuse Way, Ste 300 Greenwood Village, CO 80111 T: (303) 662-5200 F: (303) 397-7619 www.custompublishingco.com vice president – group publisher

Maureen Regan Cannon (303) 662-5215 mregan@wiesnermedia.com publisher

Deborah Juris (303) 883-4159 debjuris@mac.com art director/advertising production

Lindsay Burke account executives

Martha Dickenson (303) 662-5280 mdickenson@wiesnermedia.com Susan Humphrey (303) 662-5207 shumphrey@wiesnermedia.com Susan Wist (303) 378-1626 swist@wiesnermedia.com copy editor

Carol Rolland clrolland@comcast.net

chief executive officer

Dan Wiesner

chief financial officer

Jon Rich

John Wiesner

vice president – IT

vice president – production/operations vice president – group publisher

Amy Korb

Bart Taylor

E. Patrick Wiesner credit manager

Patty Barbosa

accounting specialist

Amber Stroud

digital imaging/prepress manager office coordinator

Steve Oliveri

Christy Markley

w w w. r mel .o rg

7

PNM Resources’ Safety Culture –

8

elec tric energy | summer 2011

Journey to Zero

By John Haarlow, Director, Safety, PNM Resources

T

hrough its largest utility subsidiary, PNM Resources has been serving New Mexico customers for more than 90 years. Today, PNM Resources and its family of companies serve residential and business customers in New Mexico and Texas, building a solid reputation for shareholder value, customer satisfaction and service reliability.

Through its utilities - PNM and TNMP - and energy subsidiary - First Choice Power - PNM Resources serves electricity to 859,000 homes and businesses in New Mexico and Texas.

Our generation resources of 2,706 megawatts reflect a balance mix of coal, natural gas, nuclear and wind generation.

In addition, the company has a 50 percent ownership of Optim Energy, which owns and markets nearly 1,200 megawatts of generation in the Electric Reliability Council of Texas market.

Just a few short years ago, PNMR’s safety culture was similar to many electric utility companies around the country.

PNMR had established safety as a core value of the corporation, believing that the health and safety of its most valuable asset, its people, was first and foremost to their business. But what does it really mean to have safety not just a top priority, but a primary value of the organization.

The company’s culture had been built around keeping the lights on, keeping the power plants generating electricity, getting new services installed and energized, and reading meters. This operating philosophy (in conjunction with trying economic times) fostered employees’ notions that productivity and budgets are the main focuses for the organization. Therefore, in an effort to reverse that mindset and revolutionize its safety culture, PNMR set out to not only minimize work-related injuries, but eliminate them altogether. This “journey to zero” is a mission that addresses the company’s conviction that every employee should return safely home to their families every day.

Step one in the organization’s line of attack against injuries was to develop and deploy a Corporate Safety Policy that clearly articulates the company’s vision to pursue zero personal injuries, and to cultivate a “Best-in-Class” safety culture.

To accomplish this mega-undertaking, an Executive Safety

Committee, comprised of PNMR Senior Vice Presidents and Vice Presidents was assembled. PNMR’s mission as it relates to safety states “the company is committed to the continuous improvement of its safety program, with the ultimate objective of achieving a zero-injury safety culture and world-class safety performance that ensures the health and well being of all PNM Resources employees, contractors, and the communities we serve. PNM Resources believes this objective will be achieved with the commitment and active participation of all PNM Resources employees.”

Once the safety policy was established, a significant challenge began: How would PNMR, and specifically leadership, turn words into actions? And so began the journey to transform behaviors of the company’s 2,100 employees in terms of fostering an environment where every worker not only elevates his/her own health and safety status to a position of supremacy, but also safeguards that of all co-workers.

Baby steps! The organization began to implement small but significant approaches to exhibit its dedication to the nouveau safety philosophy. For example, (1) Safety data found a new home at the beginning of reports which are distributed weekly and monthly to senior leadership and also on the quarterly correspondence to its Board of Directors, (2) An injury notification process was established in order that leaders up to and including those at the senior level are alerted immediately following all work-related employee injuries. (3) The company made a pledge to investigate all incidents including both injuries and near-misses in an effort to not only identify root causes, but also to implement or amend procedures which will serve to eliminate and/or minimize the potential for future similar injuries. (4) Responsibilities with regard to safety have been introduced (Safety Expectations and Accountability Model, SEAM) to all PNMR employees from grass roots up to the company’s CEO. Examples include a designated number of “safety walks” each year, employee involvement as it relates to safety committees, and the assurance by leadership that every employee will be properly educated and trained to facilitate safety in all facets of the workplace.

The organization has undertaken an initiative (in conjunction with the aforementioned strides) to instill awareness to the fact that in the end, leadership is accountable for the w w w. r mel .o rg

9

safety of its employees. In an effort to drive home PNMR’s commitment to a zero injury safety culture, those in positions of leadership must ensure that actions, decisions, and behaviors of the organization’s workers align with and advance safety as a core value. For that reason, PNMR executed a two day safety leadership workshop for the company’s working foremen up through senior level vice-presidents. The seminar focused on the significance and influence of leadership’s impact on behaviors beginning with an employee’s first day at work, during safety walks and/or subsequent to safety incidents.

As a result of the leadership training, PNMR created and distributed a Safety Leadership Handbook which includes the PNMR Safety Policy, Expectations and Accountability Model, Incident Investigations Procedure, and Safety Walk, Safety Suggestions, Near-Miss forms, as well as key concepts addressed during the seminar.

Over the past 15 months, we have integrated the use of Industry Safe as its primary tool for incident tracking, tracking and managing safety walks, tracking hazards that have been identified, and corrective actions. All of the above aid in PNMR’s development of an effective safety accountability system, as it is crucial to set forth clear expectations, modify unsafe behaviors, and ultimately reduce personal injuries. In addition, the web-based tracking tool offers software which assists with tracking and managing all safety training. Supervisors and managers are able to access this program. In effect the tool is a “one stop” site to aid in the efficient and effective tracking/managing of all safety training.

PNMR’s corporate communications group has also played a key role in transforming the safety culture at PNMR by making safety a significant part of the messaging that is disseminated throughout the organization. After incidents are investigated, corporate communications will send out a Safety Bulletin to every leader throughout the organization providing a summary of the incident, the root cause(s) and the corrective actions to be taken. This bulletin is also posted on the company’s Intranet site, where all employees can access it. Corporate Communications will also run feature articles on business units, groups, and teams throughout PNMR that have achieved significant safety milestones such as one, two, three, etc. years without an injury and/or preventable vehicle accident. When PNMR’s CEO, Pat Vincent-Collawn, makes her visits to the electric service centers throughout New Mexico and Texas, or to one of PNM’s power plants, she will start the discussion on safety, often recognizing the employees at that particular location on their safety achievements, and reinforcing her commitment to their health and well being.

10

elec tric energy | summer 2011

PNMR has developed and implemented, and/or improved a number of safety programs over the past 3 years; these include Lock-out/Tag-out procedure, Job Safety Planning and Tailboard procedure, Fire-Retardant PPE program, Equipotential Grounding, asbestos management, respiratory protection, etc. PNMR has also significantly improved the safety training management system. A major upgrade on the Employee Safety Manuals was instituted and new manuals were issued to every employee in PNM operations in 2010.

Some of the key safety initiatives currently under way or in the developmental stage include 100 percent fall protection for linemen, advanced arc flash assessments and hazard mitigation planning for our network systems, developing and issuing “Supervisor-Led” Training Modules for our annual OSHA required trainings, continued deployment of a behavior-based safety program, and additional safety leadership training.

In addition to cultivating an environment where all PNMR employees believe that their health, safety, and well being are of primary importance, the organization is diligently working to instill the mindset that all injuries are preventable, and that achieving our vision of everyone returning safely to their families every day is possible. PNMR has reduced the OSHA Recordable Injury Rate by almost 60 percent and Severity Rate by over 80 percent in just three years, which means PNMR is headed in the right direction. Although there is still a significant amount of work to be accomplished in order to cultivate a zeroinjury culture, realize “Best-in-Class” safety performance, and to ultimately arrive at our destination of zero, PNMR is forging “full steam ahead” to advance its dedication to safety.

John Haarlow has served as Director, Safety for PNM Resources since June 2008. He is responsible for all safety aspects for PNM and TNMP. John can be reached at john.haarlow@pnmresources.com.

Grounded in the West.

Connected nationwide.

• Substation design and construction management

• Distributed generation and interconnection

• Relaying, control and instrumentation systems

• Transmission and distribution

• Mapping • Supervisory control and data acquisition

Feasibility Studies

• Planning and studies

Siting/Permitting

• Right-of-way acquisition

Power Plant Design

• Industrial and commercial

Plant Upgrades/Retrofits Fort Collins

Wheat Ridge

Cortez

Steamboat Springs

(970) 207-9648

(720) 274-0045

(970) 564-9261

(970) 871-1178

Air Quality Control Services Transmission & Distribution Substations & Switchyards Construction Management Services/ Inspection Owner’s Engineer 800.878.6806

exponentialengineering.com

www.stanleyconsultants.com

Exponential Engineering Company

The Energy To Serve You

Connecting

POWER to PEOPLE

Total Commitment to Safety & Performance In 1952, we founded our company with a vision to serve the utility industry, focusing our efforts on providing exceptional customer service and dependable products. Today, our mission and values still drive our business: We make our customers our primary focus.

Partner with us for customized supply chain solutions that deliver improved service levels, greater efficiency and dramatic reductions in total costs. borderstateselectric.com | 800.676.5834

Electrical Utility Construction Overhead Distribution Underground Distribution Transmission Substations Emergency Restoration Alternative Energy Exceptional Quality & Service Since 1912

303.286.8000 Smart Grid • Solar Power • Wind Energy • Transmission & Distribution • Natural Gas

Henderson, CO - www.SturgeonElectric.com

w w w. r mel .o rg

11

Longmont Power’s

led

Lighting Experiences

By Jerry Darmafall, Electrical Engineer, Longmont Power & Communications

The City of Longmont, Longmont power & Communications (LPC), began in August of 2009 to solicit on-loan samples of LED cobra head fixtures for testing and measurements from several manufacturers. Initial response was good as we had 12 participant manufacturers that had products available. One was essentially a retrofit bulb.

Since that time, the larger lighting manufacturers have developed and released their fixtures. The original test consisted of primarily 150-watt HPS equivalent cobraheads that were loaned to us by the manufacturers. This test began in the fall of 2009. We took measurements of foot-candles (at certain distances), power consumption, power factor, and weight of each fixture. We are currently taking these early models down to return to the manufacturers. We had asked for a six month trial period but some have been up for 17 months. The best news overall is that there were no failures, all had power factors of .95 or better and all used less energy.

Simultaneously we applied for a DOE EECBG grant for a formal long term pilot. We were approved for a $10,000

12

elec tric energy | summer 2011

grant and based on the earlier prototypes and newer players, selected 12 manufacturers to quote two fixtures each based on an in-house preliminary LED specification. Eight manufacturers were selected and purchase orders were issued. One of the selected manufacturers selected was a retrofit module.

We also have expanded research to include post top, shoe box and pedestal lights (maybe unique to Longmont).

We are currently entertaining an acorn style fixture retrofit from a manufacturer. The technology and choices have vastly increased since this project began. From our testing we learned about the importance of the color-temperature range of LEDs. We have settled on a range of 4,000 to 5,500 degrees Kelvin which is a clear mid-day white light that allows much improved image recognition and true color rendering. The lower range does not seem effective and the higher range color is not very comfortable and is subject of research into its affect on eyes. This is not currently addressed with the IES lighting standards currently used.

I contacted the Longmont Police Department to ask their impression of the original loaned fixtures, which were

SCR AQCS

BOILERS

NUCLEAR

TURBINES

... vertically integrated to meet your total power generation and environmental needs.

HITACHI POWER SYSTEMS AMERICA SCR HIGHLIGHTS Mixers

Patented Hood AIG

Two Layers of Catalyst

* A world leader in Systems and Catalyst technology with over 40 years of experience * Over 350 Systems installed worldwide * Supplied Catalyst for over 750 units worldwide * The only catalyst manufacturer who offers SCR Systems for coal-fired units in the U.S. * Offering CM Catalyst for longer service life * TRAC速 (TRiple Action Catalyst) for higher mercury oxidation and lower SO2 conversion for PRB and eastern bituminous fuels

Hitachi Power Systems America, Ltd. 645 Martinsville Road Basking Ridge, NJ 07920

www.hitachipowersystems.us

power.info@hal.hitachi.com

poles. We directed the electrician to install a ground rod intermingled with our current 150-watt HPS fixtures. Their and run the ground wire through the pole up to the head comments related to image and color recognition were all and it fixed the problem. positive. Thus there is apparently a better and safer environThe excitement within the LPC organization spread ment for the public with this color-temperature range. over to our warehouse which, replaced four 12’ fluoresObserved with the purchased units is a required power cent emergency lights with LED fixtures that only use range of 48-150 watts among the different manufacturers.

48 watts and can run twice as long on self contained Two of the selected manufacturers were electronic based batteries with a power outage. The tags on the shelves are companies that have a seasoned background on the much clearer to read, thus eliminating eye strain for the LED heat dissipation issue and that was a big factor of warehouse personnel. including them in this pilot. Over the course of 18 months we’ve observed the pricing change from $1,500 - $2,500 Jerry Darmafall is an Electrical Engineer at Longmont Power per fixture, to $475 - $900 per fixture. The technology is & Communications and has previously worked for Detroit rapidly improving. Hopefully the IES standards will adapt Edison Stations, IBM Corp. and Ignition Systems & Controls. quickly to accommodate the new technology.

He can be reached at jerry.darmafall@ci.longmont.co.us.

One of the downsides of the LED fixtures with digital power supplies is that a three wire source is required. Without the For more information about LED lighting, visit: ground, voltage variations Webinar slide show of LED technical comparisons: can cause the lights to http://members.questline.com/presentations/20100209ElectricLED.ppt#310,14,Lighting Comparison cycle on and off. This Before and after pictures of facilities at the City of Raleigh, NC, parking garage where the occurred on some of our difference was dramatic: www.cree.com/press/press_detail.asp?i=1175179209372 old city parking lot lights, mounted on fiberglass

Industry-Leading Expertise Ulteig will help drive the power of energy for generations to come. We work with a wide variety of clients, from global energy producers to local power cooperatives. Our electrical, civil, and structural engineers have decades of experience in the energy industry.

We are recognized leaders, providing services and expertise on energy projects worldwide.

Visit our website for a comprehensive list of completed projects and additional services.

Engineering, Surveying, and Consulting Services Bismarck • Cedar Rapids • Denver • Detroit Lakes Fargo • Minneapolis • Sioux Falls • Williston

14

elec tric energy | summer 2011

Find us on Facebook, Twitter, and LinkedIn.

888-858-3441 • www.ulteig.com

Imagine restoring power after an outage… in less time than it takes to read this headline.

It minimizes the extent and duration of power outages.

Cuts the cost of electricity delivery. And all but eliminates consumer complaints that always accompany power outages. Rapid restoration is critical. And nothing restores power faster than S&C’s total self-healing solution. Our system gives you the ability to restore service in just seconds…automatically.

IntelliTEAM SG™ Automatic Restoration System places intelligence directly in field equipment, allowing decisions to be made where they are most needed. The moment an event occurs, IntelliTEAM SG uses excess capacity from the nearest available source and automatically performs the most efficient switching actions to restore service to as many customers as possible.

Add to this the award-winning IntelliRupter® PulseCloser.

It’s a high-performance fault interrupter with unique advanced protection capabilities. IntelliRupter dramatically reduces voltage sags and system stress from short circuits on distribution lines.

And, since communications are critical for making selfhealing practical, SpeedNet™ Radios offer extremely robust high-speed communication via peer-to-peer networking. S&C’s SpeedLINK™ Radio Network Monitoring Software alerts users to potential problems caused by construction and tree growth before these conditions become issues.

Developing innovative solutions. Harnessing local intelligence. Processing in real time to restore power within seconds. And decreasing the conditions that lead to outages. These are the pillars we have used to bring you the fastest restoration solution on the market as well as a flexible distributed intelligence system that will support your Smart Grid requirements of tomorrow.

To learn more about these as well as our other unmatched Smart Grid solutions, visit www.sandc.com/imagining.

©2010 S&C Electric Company

1042-A1006

A Flexible Solution to Power Generation in an Uncertain and Changing Market

By Esko Polvi, VP of Operations, PFBC-EET

16

elec tric energy | summer 2011

The Pressurized Fluidized Bed Combustion (PFBC) is an available established technology that can generate electric power economically and flexibly, environmentally friendly and is already today offering the solutions to the issues that are up for discussion in the next generation of energy policies.

The availability of affordable and reliable electrical power supply has been and will continue to be one of the cornerstones for the growth of our economy and sustainability of our wellbeing.

Considering the accelerating speed of technology development and regulatory complexity any long term business, such as power generation, is facing an environment with increasingly new and changing conditions over its life span. Hence, to stay competi30 tive, the power generation process must be flexible to adapt to various imposed conditions and anomalies that it will be exposed to over its life time.

25 Within the next 25-30 year horizon, in parallel to development of future energy technologies, efforts 20 must be made to make the existing energy generation technologies as reliable, efficient, environmen15 tally clean and economical as possible using the now known fuel sources of which the nuclear, natural gas, 10 and coal will still continue to be the major players.

The increasing population growth and the retiring power plants will leave an energy demand gap that must be filled. In addition to this it remains to be seen what the impact of the catastrophic events in Japan will be on the US demand of additional natural gas and coal fired units.

Considering the high cost impact on the power generation cost of increasing fuel prices the ideal future generation technology is very fuel flexible enabling the use of fuel sources with the lowest prices.

Considering natural gas price elasticity to demand and supply fluctuation and the regulatory issues around nuclear fuel, coal has a major advantage in the form of price stability.

In addition to the steam production, to drive a steam turbine generator, the PFBC process utilizes even the flue gas mass flow to generate power through a gas expander making it possible to use wet fuel (up to 26-30 percent moisture) without any significant energy penalty. This unique feature makes the PFBC boilers very suitable for firing wet coal fines from ongoing coal production, impounded wet waste coals, as well as Western and Texas coals with high amounts of inherent moisture.

Average Natural Gas Futures Contract ($ per Million BTU)

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

In accordance with EIA colder-than-normal weather during the first week in February 2011 led to the biggest nonhurricane natural gas supply disruption in the United States since 2005 causing the following market effects:

. H igher spot gas prices.

Spot gas prices in West Texas topped $7 per million British thermal unit on February 3, or almost $3 higher than the spot price of gas at Henry Hub that day.

. R ecord winter gas use for power in Texas.

Average Commercial Coal Prices, 1998-2008

According to BENTEK Energy, gas use for power generation set a single-day winter peak record on February 2 of 5.2 Bcfd. Gas use for power in Texas normally averages 3 Bcfd in the winter.

(Dollars per Short Ton) 30

. Op erational issues on pipelines.

25

Multiple pipelines issued operational flow orders, imbalance warnings, and other emergency measures.

20

. R olling blackouts in ERCOT.

15 10 1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

In response to the electricity supply shortage, ERCOT made public appeals for conservation, reduced the system voltage, and ultimately asked utilities to shed about 8 percent of their load.

w w w. r mel .o rg

17

Sorbent

Steam turbine

Combustor vessel

Coal

Bed reinjection Condenser Cyclones

Gas turbine Ash coolers Intercooler

Mixer

Low pressure preheaters

Ash coolers Economiser Filter

Deaerator Ash silo

High pressure preheaters

Feedwater pump

Stack The PFBC boiler provides steam to the steam turbine drive for generation of 71 MW electricity and 40 MWth to the Cottbus City district heating system.

During the above rolling blackout the real-time electrical power prices reached their $3,000/MWH price cap.

The commercial coal prices have seen some recent price pressure due to the increased demand from China and India which favors a boiler that can efficiently use the waste from the commercial coal production and from the huge amount of coal in the existing waste coal ponds and piles. The price for waste coal is expected to remain stable over the foreseeable future due to the abundance of waste coal in the existing coal piles and ponds. The burning of the waste coal is also a solution to the environmental problem the coal companies otherwise have of the additional waste that is added to the existing piles and ponds during the production of commercial coal.

In addition to the plant operational availability wind and solar power are suffering from the natural variation in availability of wind and sunshine resulting in typical load factors of 15-30 percent. This variation must be compensated by other backup sources such as gas or coal fired stand by plants offering a spinning reserve ready to pick up the demand where the wind and solar drops off as well as quickly reduce load when the conditions permit those sources to pick up load again.

Due to the pressurized process, compared to an atmospheric boiler unit, the PFBC boiler has a lower amount of steel that must be heated during the startup resulting in a waste coal fired boiler that can start producing power in 60 minutes.

To enable the quick start the PFBC fluidized bed can be kept hot by burning carbon neutral renewable bio fuel or natural gas and then be ramped up to full load in one

18

elec tric energy | summer 2011

hour using coal or a mix of renewable bio fuel and waste coal. By firing renewable bio fuel during the hot standby time the process can be considered to be carbon neutral.

Within a one to two hour notice the PFBC boiler can fill the gaps between the actual demand and the fluctuating generation of wind and solar.

PFBC boilers have been in successful operation in Europe and Japan for over 20 years. The plants in operation meet the present environmental requirements with no scrubbers and other pollution cleaning devices. The PFBC boilers are very fuel flexible without any significant impact on the combustion efficiency burning various coal qualities mixed with bio fuels etc.

Due to the inherent benefit of the pressurized combustion process, compared to an atmospheric boiler, the physical size is very small making the PFBC suitable for retrofitting of old atmospheric boilers to improve the efficiency and environmental performance. Typically a PFBC plant with CO2 capture can replace an old atmospheric boiler without CO2 capture and still come ahead on the efficiency.

The much smaller physical size uses a lower amount of alloyed steel making the boiler less sensitive to changes in material prices over the boilers maintenance life time.

The availability of the existing operating plants has been in the 85-90 percent range that is in par with what is expected of a modern power plant.

For a very efficient CO2 capture the PFBC pressurized combustion process is a perfect fit for the commercially available and proven Benfield pressurized potassium carbonate CO2 capture process.

Reliable Proven

Solutions from a provider you can trust.

Our brand is about relationships and providing reliable energy solutions — working collaboratively with clients to earn repeat business and delivering the level of quality expected from Black & Veatch. From concept to completion, fresh insight and endless global expertise are delivered on time and on budget for power generation, power delivery, and oil and gas solutions you can count on.

We’re building a world of difference. Together.

I.e. a combination of the two proven technologies with over 20 years of successful operational experience can achieve already today what billions of dollar investments in other technologies try to accomplish.

The PFBC technology is reaching efficiencies in the 40-43 percent range without pushing any material limits making it competitive with the most advanced clean coal technologies such as IGCC. By mixing in renewable biomass with the waste coal the PFBC/Benfield process can achieve a negative carbon footprint meaning that in case the carbon credit system is enacted the PFBC with Benfield carbon capture offers a new potential source of revenues in form of the carbon credits or a carbon offset of some other source in a power generators fleet.

One beneficial user of the captured CO2 is the existing Enhanced Oil Recovery (EOR) market. The CO2 can, after the depletion of the oil, be permanently sequestered in the depleted oil well.

PFBC-EET together with Consol Energy operates a Process Test Facility with a 1MW thermal output PFBC boiler which also has a Benfield type of potassium carbonate CO2 capture system. The test runs in this facility have confirmed that a negative carbon foot print can be achieved by burning a mix of waste coal and biomass at an insignificant level of emissions (2.8 ppm CO, 0.37 percent CO2, 0.4 ppm NO, and 6.8 ppm N2O).

A PFBC plant is typically built of one to three 100 or 400 MW boiler units producing steam to one common steam turbine. The 100 MW units are readily available from PFBC-EET, Monessen, PA (www.pfbceet.com).

From the economy of scale point of view it is beneficial to build large central power plants but from energy supply secu-

20

elec tric energy | summer 2011

Cottbus, Germany plant with one P200 PFBC module burning Lausitzer brown coal in commercial operation since 1999.

rity point of view it is preferable to have smaller local units, such as 100 to 300 MW PFBC plants that in case of problems on the grid can be isolated and quickly taken into operation.

Considering the performance, features, and the fuel flexibility of the PFBC technology it can compete with the most advanced technologies and its unique features offers the present and future power generation markets the solutions needed for a reliable generation of electricity in an uncertain and changing energy generation market.

Dr. Esko O Polvi has over 35 years of experience working for ASEA, ASEA Stal, ABB, and ALSTOM on the international power plant market. Dr Polvi’s vast technical knowledge, experience, and expertise of all the phases of the development, design, manufacture, erection, and commissioning of various types of power plants in a complex international matrix of stakeholders is a perfect fit for bringing the PFBC technology to the US market. He can be reached at epolvi@aol.com.

w w w. r mel .o rg

21

22

elec tric energy | summer 2011

separating

Winners Losers and

in Power Generation

By Anthony J. Carrino, Senior Consultant, Power Generation, HSB Solomon Associates LLC

Introduction When it comes to asset performance, just what exactly defines a winner? Fifteen plus years of analyzing power generation asset performance data has provided us the necessary insight to answer such a question. Looking at trends in one segment in particular, the US power industry, coal units have on average advanced performance continuously over the past 10 years. So, the real question is, what differentiates the top performers from the rest? To answer this question, we have to address more specific questions such as “Who wins when we perform better?,” “What drives improvement?,” and “What characteristics do winners have that losers in the sector do not exhibit?”

Who Wins?

First, let’s consider where US coal units have been. Figure 1 shows the overall average trend of Net Capacity Factor (NCF) performance during the period from 1997 through 2007, before the economic downturn hit the global economy in 2008–2009.

Looking at Figure 1, it is clear that power generation customers have won. If coal generators that supply the majority of production in the sector made utilization improvements during the 1997–2007 period, the average electricity consumer reaped the benefits in terms of more reliable power and lower costs due to improving utilization of w w w. r mel .o rg

23

FIGURE 1

US Coal Generating Units, NCF

NET GENERATION, 1012 kWh/yr

Let’s look at the trend of OSHA Recordable Incident Rate over the 80 same period, including yearly and trailing three-year average data in 75 Figure 3.

70 Employees have benefited by becoming safer at their jobs during 65 this period. This improvement has been achieved even with new 60 emissions control equipment being installed in coal plants, even with 55 periodic reductions in workforce 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 staffing, and even with an aging workforce. This sort of improveSource: Solomon Associates ment trend does not happen without analysis of data, including considering first aid incibase-loaded coal units. We can also say that if many dents, and even “near-miss” incidents. of the generating units represented in Figure 1 are It is clear that all stakeholders can benefit from shareholder-owned companies (and many are), then improving performance. Even environmental proponents shareholders have probably also benefited from the should understand that quality of generating asset utilization improvement trend through lower operating performance means fewer start-ups due to forced outages, costs per MWH produced, and greater revenue capture. resulting in burning less start-up fuel without producing Even with the changes coal plants have been dealing megawatts, or even running more often than necessary with over the past 15 years in the US market, they through the low end (inefficient end) of the heat-rate curve. continue to be the primary source of production.

Consider the recent Energy Information Administration (EIA) trend and forecast data shown in Figure 2.

What Drives Performance Given increasing constraints on coal units from an Measurement? operations regulatory perspective, coal generators have Understandably, not all companies benchmark persevered with plants averaging 35–50 years old. their performance. Reasons range from “we had a bad Who else has benefited? What about our employees? year” to “we had too many changes.” Yet others do not benchmark because it’s no longer the FIGURE 2 management “flavor of the year.” Regardless Projected Fuel Mix for Electricity Generation of the reason, these Note Gradual Shift to Lower Carbon Option companies lose out Net Electricity Generation (Trillion Kilowatt-Hours per Year) because they do not realize the advance6 ments that have been HISTORY PROJECTIONS made using data and 5 statistical analysis to glean new knowledge 4 43% for better managing Coal their business.

45% 3 Companies that do 25% participate in benchNatural Gas 2 marking do so for a 23% 14% Renewables variety of reasons.

Some 10% 1 participate because 1% 20% 1% 17% Oil & Other Liquids Nuclear “someone wants us 0 to benchmark” or 1990 2000 2003 2007 2035 “someone wants a Beginning of US Recession of 2007–09

NET CAPACITY FACTOR

(1997-2009)

Source: U.S. Energy Information Administration, Annual Energy Outlook 2011, Early Release, December 16, 2010.

24

elec tric energy | summer 2011

is one of the leading industrial contractors serving today’s Power industry. With over 40,000 MW of installed capacity, TIC is differentiated by its directhire capabilities, financial strength and diverse project experience, including: EPC: Coal–fired units including large utility boiler installations (in excess of 750 MW) IGCC: Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle for the Polk Power Station project CFB: Extensive Circulating Fluidized Bed boiler experience AQCS: Major scrubber, baghouse, FGD, SCR and DCS installations and retrofits

Renewable Power experience includes: WIND: Over 1,000 US wind turbine units HYDROELECTRIC: Powerhouse structure and turbines, major penstock installations and water distribution systems GEOTHERMAL: Nearly every major geothermal project in the US, including its first EPC and first global projects SOLAR: Large scale solar installations, nitrate salt technology, water/steam receivers and oil/rock thermal storage systems

TIC is a complete Power contractor.

CORPORATE HEADQUARTERS: 2211 Elk River Road - Steamboat Springs, Colorado 80487 USA

970-879-2561 - www.tic-inc.com

FIGURE 3

Coal OSHA Incident Rate OSHA INCIDENTS PER 200,000 WORK-HOURS

8 7 6 OSHA 3-Year Trailing Average

5 4 OSHA Incident Rate

3

Understanding the Bigger Pictures

2 1 0

1997

1999

2001

2003

2005

2007

Source: Solomon Associates

third-party assessment of how we are doing.” Basically, they were told to do it. Those companies are typically looking for the cheapest and quickest way to say they have met the obligation. Often, those companies get a high-level, inconsistent sampling of data, satisfy the request, and they are gone; they did what they were told to do. They lose out because they do not look at measuring performance as a tool in the toolbox of continuous improvement.

Other companies benchmark internally only, for reasons such as, “are we showing continuous improvement in performance from year-to-year?” These companies understand that by consistently watching trends, they can show whether they are making progress. But knowing whether or not you are better among your own assets has shortcomings. If you operate a fairly small fleet with few assets, the sample size is too small from a statistical perspective; results provide only limited information. On the other hand, internal benchmarking on a larger fleet of assets might be an advantage, but if the differences (fuel, operating mode, age, design, etc.) between those assets are used as excuses for poor performance, your entire fleet may not be able to fully achieve its goals. Good performance measures must include broader samples and must allow for normalization of differences.

Some companies want an external view, to understand if they are improving faster or slower than the competition. Let’s face facts, during the last 10-12 years, our US coal assets have been adjusting to many factors—from fuel switching and regulatory constraints to introduction of more gas-fired generation and renewable generation sources. Companies that have failed to “keep up” have

26

cost customers more money for their power and probably lost shareholders value. Our experience in analyzing performance data tells us that winners tend to adapt quicker to changing constraints and market forces (typically within one to two years) while losers tend to take four, five, or more years to adapt, to learn the lessons, to learn how to do business differently.

The bottom line, your organization will respond to what you are measuring. Broad performance monitoring will allow your team to respond faster as change occurs.

elec tric energy | summer 2011

Regardless of whether your company has “good” performing assets or “poor” performing assets, if the only concerns for comparisons are internally focused or driven, it is still possible to lose ground in the marketplace with “good” performing assets. One reason might be that management methods, programs, or strategies across your generation fleet are consistent, maybe consistently out of date or not evolving as fast as the competition. The old adage is, “doing the same things the same way over and over and expecting different results is the definition of insanity.” What do you think might be the result from an annual budgetary management approach defined by “…last year’s budget less X%”? “Cutting your way to success” may occasionally be essential in the short-term (think of the 2008–2009 economic downturn), but it is not a sane strategy from a longer-term commercial or earnings perspective.

Take Figure 4 for example. It is easy to understand that continuously cutting costs (training budgets, planned maintenance spending, etc.) ultimately results in units with more inefficient breakdown maintenance spending, more human errors, and more commercial impact by having to buy or run more expensive capacity. As managers, it is necessary to step back from focusing on only the cost side of the equation and take into account the commercial impacts of spending decisions.

Reductions in force, workforce rationalization, etc. are frequently sold by management consultants as a quick fix. Typically, the workforce reduction is offset by utilizing more contractors. Check the box, plant staffing is lower now. But what about the results? Cost may have initially dropped by using lower cost contractors, but that is not the full picture. There are multiple paths to success, just choose your resource mix, but remember to measure performance before and after the change. If human resources, as plant or company employees, are traded off for contractors, the real question is “does the new mix of human resources provide us with better or

A Leader in Electrically and Hydraulically Actuated Combustion Turbine Fuel Controls

Applying over 60 years of motion control experience to the thermal solar domain.

Simplicity. Elegance.

Reliability. Robust Control.

Isolation Valve

1”

3”

2”

3010E500 Series

3010E600 Series

Integrated Natural Gas Fuel Control Valve Assemblies

1.5” and 2” Line sizes available

Integrated Natural Gas Fuel Control Valve Assembly

Isolation Valve in Double Block & Bleed Format

The Y&F 8641 Series

The Y&F 9200 Series

Young & Franklin Valves Choked Flow Valves:

1”

2”

3”

4”

6”

Unchoked Flow Valve: •

•

1.5” and 2” Line sizes available

Up to 240° of trough rotation

Stainless Steel Construction

Robust Direct Drive with no expensive gearing Motive force is provided by a single hydraulic cylinder

Patented, Multi-Link Mechanism

The Young & Franklin 8648 Series Concentrated Solar Power (CSP)

Parabolic Trough Actuator End Of Day Locking Mechanism

Scalable Design • •

Scalable to any torque requirement • Service, stow loads Normal operation up to 200,000 in-lbs / 22,600 Nm

Control System Options • • •

Stows in a maximum of 15 minutes

Open-loop control based on customer movement commands Closed-loop control based on customer position requirement Full integrated sun tracking capability

On-Board Power Supply

Hydraulic Power Supply Options • •

Individual / Integrated supply Centralized supply based on economics and redundancy

SPECIALTY SOLUTIONS • QUALITY SOLUTIONS • ENGINEERED SOLUTIONS

The Young & Franklin Actuator minimizes cost by design.

• •

YOUR SOLUTION SOURCE SINCE 1918.

FIGURE 4

Total Cost vs Availability Total Cost

COST

Optimal Point

In Conclusion Maintenance Cost Lost Revenue

AVAILABILITY

100% Source: Solomon Associates

worse performance, in terms of net revenue?” Hiring third parties may be a rational approach, even a best practice, by bringing in expertise only when required. But if contractor work quality control is not monitored and corrected when necessary, the performance of the asset can decline. Winners understand that when a change is made, the effects of that change cause ripples throughout the asset and/or organization, and you must monitor those related performance measures to ensure that the change maintained or brought the desired better results.

Another fallacy in management thinking (and even in a few management consultants’ not-so-humble opinions) is that generation assets can be first-quartile performers in all categories at once. Having the lowest cost, lowest EFOR, lowest heat rate, lowest staffing, lowest commercial losses, all with the same generating asset over the long-term is as unlikely as correctly picking the final four teams in the NCAA basketball tournament…every year!

Without thinking about the big picture, unrealistic and/ or conflicting goals are set, and assets and organization suffer when trying to do the impossible. Winners understand that power generating assets operate “in the real world” and they must focus on a small set of key success drivers to optimize any given asset. This thinking is not restricted to just base-load coal assets, it includes intermediate and peaking units as well. Balanced scorecards can be fantastic tools, but each asset needs to have its own measures of success and performance drivers to best optimize its market role in a fleet.

If we think mostly from a plant mindset that our generating units only are measured on technical performance measures, we cannot adequately translate potential

28

technical improvements into financial business needs to management. If we think only from a financial management mindset, we can’t understand how a dollar spent in one part of our plant or unit is different than a dollar spent in another part. Winners understand that “how much you spend” matters, but understand better that “how you spend what you spend” determines success.

The data proves it.

elec tric energy | summer 2011

Solid data (in terms of technical aspects), financial and human resource utilization (as business inputs), and performance measures (as success indicators), must be translated into useful information to manage the business better. These days, deciding more by using data and less by taking apart equipment and inspecting saves money.

Benchmarking, if done by looking at the big picture (and that means that nothing is left out of the performance monitoring equation—such as contractor utilization, commercial market performance, statistical analysis, emissions economics), becomes a tremendous tool to help manage through change and adapt quickly when performance falls short. If you are not considering the bigger picture, when your operating environment changes, your business performance measures may not even see the change until others have passed you by, showing better performance faster than you.

Shutdowns of older, smaller coal assets are no longer just around the corner, they are here. The coal assets remaining in service will be pushed even harder on performance, with new EQCS equipment, and with increasing age. The impacts of the Japanese nuclear plant failure on our US electricity market will play out over the coming months and years. Renewables are too inherently “good” to abandon, even when they occasionally get wrapped in “still air” and “shade.” And the natural gas boom is still playing out. EPA doesn’t appear to be slowing down. Change is accelerating. Go it alone if you dare and try weathering these storms without data. We know what the winners are doing; the data is driving both their business decisions and quantifying their performance results.

Mr. Carrino is a 30-year veteran of the electric generation industry, having served in leadership and management consulting roles in both domestic US and international power markets. He has worked as a Senior Consultant for Solomon Associates since 2003, supporting power generation clients worldwide. He can be reached at tony.carrino@solomononline.com.

Standing strong, we’ve seen the power industry grow in our 85 years; and with each branch that reaches outward, whether gas, nuclear, renewables or AQCS, our goal has always been for you to flourish, renew and thrive.

Zachry—overcoming obstacles, securing success.

w w w. z h i . c o m ENGINEERING | CONSTRUC TION | NUCLEAR | INDUSTRIAL SERVICES

Ryan Paulk checks clearances to a few trees on a long span that drops off below him. Checking clearances on steep spans can be deceiving at times when using the naked eye, and that is where the top gun tool comes in handy.

LiDAR Technology and Handheld Vegetation Management Device Aid Transmission Group at El Paso Electric

By Ryan Paulk, Transmission Engineer, El Paso Electric Company

The same span is being checked in this picture, but from a different location.

Checking from a single location above this span saves significant time while ensuring better accuracy.

El

Paso Electric generates and

distributes electricity through an interconnected system to approximately 372,000 customers in the Rio Grande Valley in west Texas and southern New Mexico. The utility is in the process of collecting LiDAR (Light Detection and Ranging) data for virtually all existing transmission lines that may not have an electronic model created yet. This is largely in response to NERC line rating requirements, but the utility has used LiDAR technology and seen the technology benefits for approximately 4 years.

30

elec tric energy | summer 2011

Resourceful

POWER GENERATION POWER DELIVERY RENEWABLE ENERGY

The power industry is undergoing fundamental restructuring. Are you prepared to navigate the changes?

HDR can help you understand regulatory planning and risk uncertainties, generation constraints, transmission bottlenecks and technology changes. With planning, natural resources, land rights, engineering and construction management professionals under one roof we’ll give you unprecedented access to integrated teams—experts delivering seamless execution, from conception to construction. For more information, contact energy@hdrinc.com.

Sound decisions made through understanding the business, your risk, and technology.

That’s energy understood.SM

www.hdrinc.com

LiDAR Process and working with the Data Collection of LiDAR data is often times a preferred option for attaining survey points required to build transmission line models.

Once the decision has been made to utilize LiDAR on project, it has typically taken approximately two to three months for El Paso Electric to get useful line models in hand. Although, the actual data collection and processing timeline can be shortened, depending on project needs. For projects that may not be as time sensitive, many times mobilization charges can be shared by neighboring utilities.

For example, if a LiDAR provider will be flying back to its home base roughly over your project area, the associated mobilization charges are often shared with other utilities, significantly lowering the cost of data collection. Additionally, utilities often have the option of funding the data capture at one time, while funding the data processing at a later date.

There are often very large data files associated with LiDAR and aerial photography, which initiated El Paso Electric’s transmission line design group to recently purchase new computers to handle these data sets. The millions of LiDAR data points and high-resolution images may bog down slower computers, while a few thousand dollars for a new desktop computer may save your design engineer considerable time and frustration.

Before the actual data collection takes place, and in order to build an accurate model of the conductor, line loading information at the time it is flown is necessary so that an as-flown conductor temperature can be accurately derived. Most LiDAR companies will provide basic weather information at the time of

32

elec tric energy | summer 2011

data collection, but it is the utilities responsibility to capture the line loading information.

The Verification Value of LiDAR Once the LiDAR data has been collected, it enables the utility to build highly accurate, as-built, electronic models of existing transmission facilities. An electronic model of a transmission line built in PLS-CADD, utilizing LiDAR data, is the foundation for many engineering studies needed to verify line clearances for sag-limited lines, among other things. This method of building a LiDAR based model is often times El Paso Electric’s preferred methodology for verifying line clearances in response to NERC requirements. These PLSCADD models, created with this LiDAR data, are also useful when responding to planning requests and determining any modifications that may be necessary to achieve a desired line rating with existing or new conductors.

Coupling Handheld Technology with LiDAR Data for Vegetation Management The benefit of LiDAR data has also been realized for El Paso Electric in the vegetation management arena. El Paso Electric transmission engineers are currently using a new handheld vegetation management monitoring device, the Aerotec Top Gun Veg-Tool, to create significant improvements and savings in vegetation management along its transmission lines.

The Aerotec Top Gun Veg-Tool is a lightweight, single-operator device that from a single spot can be used to take shots of multiple trees within a given span to provide accurate and easy-to-read

vegetation clearance information. The device integrates Laser Technology’s TruPulse ® 360 laser rangefinder and compass data, TOPCON’s GRS-1 GNSS position data, LiDAR-supplied multiple surface databases and GIS management software.

In field tests along portions of the El Paso Electric Springerville, Arizona to Deming, New Mexico 345 KV, three phase transmission line, engineers compared Top-Gun results against physical hardcopy and digital maps from a current LiDAR clearance inventory to verify that the appropriate clearance trees had been flagged and marked completely. Once a transmission line has been flown, the LiDAR data was used to create digital topographic ground surfaces, and line clearance modeling buffers around the energized conductors these surfaces are saved in the Top Gun unit for later and repeated use by line patrols for years to come. In addition to storing LiDAR surface data the tool automatically maintains records of the clearance of each checked tree using GIS information that includes the date and time, X, Y and Z location data and the clearance information. A variety of additional attributes can be recorded and saved as well, such as; species type, tree diameter at breast height, and if desired, growth can be observed year-to-year.

The clearance record of each tree checked is archived as a Shape file in a central GIS database.

Trees that may pierce the National Electric Safety Code (NESC) clearance envelope or a growth buffer are recorded and flagged for cutting or trimming. If tree cutting or trimming permission is required from a permitting agency, such as the United States Forest Service or

Bureau of Land Management, a complete data set of the trees that pierce the buffer around the hot wire can be provided to the agency as well.

Initial training of the El Paso Electric personnel, including calibration, start-up, field use, data download and data model handling and archiving took approximately two hours, and in very rugged terrain, more than five miles was covered on the first day. The TruPulse 360 laser rangefinder and compass, connected via Bluetooth, enables a single operator from a single spot to easily point, shoot and record multiple suspect trees up to 600 feet away above and below the observer. Gathering this data remotely is only possible because the TruPulse 360 is able to capture measurements to features without the need for a reflector or personnel holding a prism pole.

Because the LiDAR modeling buffer can account for high-load and hot summer wire conditions, El Paso Electric crews can shoot the trees at any time of the year and still determine if the tree pierces the envelope.

Final Thoughts LiDAR data are a great foundation for building electronic models of existing transmission lines. With the dynamic nature of many transmission line upgrade and modification requests the transmission engineer is faced with, LiDAR based electronic models make responding to requests and designing upgrades much easier and quicker than before. In addition to aiding in creation of electronic models, this data can be useful for years to come

by the transmission engineer for many other uses as well, such as vegetation management. The utilization of this data and technology is of great benefit to El Paso Electric.

Ryan Paulk is a Transmission Engineer at El Paso Electric. He has worked at El Paso Electric for approximately two years and has been involved in the electric transmission industry for over 10 years. Ryan can be reached at ryan.paulk@epelectric.com.

HUGHES BROTHERS, INC.

T& D

MATERIALS SINCE 1921

www.hughesbros.com

402-643-2991

w w w. r mel .o rg

33

This panel-style article explores the impacts of the Fukushima Nuclear Disaster on nuclear generation. Four panelists describe their individual perspectives in four separate mini-articles. Each author represents only his own opinions. Âť

Fukushima, Japan and the Impact on Nuclear Generation

34

elec tric energy | summer 2011

What Happened at Fukushima?

By Dr. Jeffrey C. King, Assistant Professor and Interim Director, Nuclear Science and Engineering Program, Colorado School of Mines

W

riting about nuclear engineering events can be hard.

When everything goes right, like it does the vast majority of the time at the 104 nuclear power reactors in the United States, no one pays any attention. When something goes wrong, like it did this past March at four of the 55 nuclear power reactors in Japan, everyone pays attention and there is a demand to explain a lifetime of knowledge and experience, complete with obscure units and facts no one paid any attention to the day before, in five minutes or less.

On March 11, three of the reactors at the Fukushima Daiichi power station were operating and three were shut down for maintenance. When the earthquake hit, the control rods in the three operating reactors were inserted, stopping the nuclear chain reaction. About 2 minutes after this, the last fission occurred and the only heat source in the reactors was the radioactive decay of the fission products - which is a small and steadily decreasing fraction of the power of the operating reactor. A few minutes after shutdown, the reactor power was less than 2 percent of the operating power. Today it is less than 0.5 percent. This is a small fraction, and normally easy to control if you have a steady supply of water.

The diesel generators at the reactors started immediately after the earthquake and were powering pumps to provide that water supply; unfortunately, the backup generators were all disabled when the tsunami resulting from the earthquake struck Fukushima.

Without a water supply, the temperature of the fuel began to increase, leading to damage to the fuel cans, and ultimately to the partial melting of the fuel itself. The damage to the reactors’ fuel cans and fuel resulted in two very significant problems. The first was that the gaseous fission products (primarily cesium-137 and iodine-131) were released into the reactor vessel and containment. The second was a reaction between the zirconium alloy and the steam in the reactor, which led to the production of significant amounts of hydrogen gas, which is very flammable.

As the reactors continued to heat up and the pressure in them increased, the operators realized that they needed to reduce the pressure in the reactor vessels, leading to a decision to vent the reactors. In venting the reactors, the operators knew that they would be releasing radioactive materials to the environment, but the release of the gaseous fission products was felt to be a smaller risk than allowing the reactors to rupture, which would have resulted in the release of a much greater amount of radioactive material. Unfortunately, venting the reactor vessels also allowed the hydrogen gas to come into contact with oxygen, leading to explosions that destroyed the upper parts of the buildings housing Units 1 and 3. At Unit 2, a hydrogen explosion may have occurred within the reactor’s containment structure, opening a pathway for radioactive material to be more easily released to the environment.

Once emergency cooling water was supplied to Units 1, 2 and 3, the nuclear fuel began to cool down, effectively ending the first stage of the event. However, the fuel rods at Unit 4 had been w w w. r mel .o rg

35

removed from the reactor before the earthquake and were stored in water pools at the top level of the reactor building.

After several days without cooling, the water level in the spent fuel pool at Unit 4 had dropped to the point that the zirconium cans of the fuel in the pool began to react with the water in the pool, leading to the production of hydrogen and a subsequent explosion, which severely damaged the Unit 4 building. Using specialized spray trucks, the operators were eventually able to supply water to the spent fuel pools, bringing this part of the event under control.

The final stage of the event was the discovery of heavily

contaminated water in the basement of several buildings on the site. This water, which may have come from the water injections into the three damaged reactors, particularly Unit 2, has hindered the ability to restore offsite power to the plant and restore recirculating cooling to the reactors and spent fuel pools. Additionally, the earthquake resulted in damage to some of the wiring and piping trenches on the site, allowing some of the contaminated water a path to flow directly to the ocean. Stopping these leaks, followed by pumping the contaminated water to tanks for treatment, is bringing this stage of the event to a close.

Fukushima Daiichi Implications for U.S. Nuclear Plants

By J.K. August, VP, Operations, CORE, Inc.

A

fter Fukushima , the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission and its counterpart, the U.S. Department of Energy, began reviewing risks associated with light water reactors (LWR) operating in the U.S. The LWR’s glass jaw − Zircalloy cladding − reacts with water under loss-of-coolant conditions. As agencies answer how well the Fukushima nuclear complex performed, we should ask what lessons Fukushima holds for U.S. policy on nuclear energy, what was its full cost and what strategic implications this hold for the U.S. agencies, industry and their nuclear strategy.

They should address why the U.S.− indeed the world − keeps all its nuclear “eggs” in one basket − the LWR reactor.

Long-term Consequences Restoring capacity lost from the units and cleaning up the site will be significant. From U.S. cost experience decommissioning Three Mile Island and other contaminated sites, an initial estimate of US$30 billion is probably low for cleanup.

Long term, the NRC may require U.S. plants to change designs. Most likely, changes will address emergency diesel generator threats, spent fuel pool weaknesses and off-site grid connections. Secondary design changes could address means to charge water to the reactor in a station blackout (SBO) event. Emergency planning for Beyond Design Basis Events (BDBE) may be required such as general area evacuation and site support, as well as financial intervention.

Fundamental Reactor Design Attributes Metal clad reactors have high power density fuel with low heat capacity and relatively little strength at higher temperatures.

Combined with chemically reactive cooling water, intrinsic cladding characteristics limit these designs in undercooling events.

To mitigate or control these requires special systems with other complex considerations. They make design and operations more complex, contributing to higher costs.

New reactors designs should be built “right” from

36

elec tric energy | summer 2011

fundamentals. Ideally, they would be intrinsically simpler.

Otherwise, costs soar and risks remain hard to project with high levels of certainty. Uncertainty could mean the loss of public and financial support for new nuclear generating plants. People could perceive nuclear risks as simply too high to accept. After Fukushima, public disillusionment with nuclear plants could put all nuclear technologies at risk.

We should consider other reactors designs that are more resistant to fuel overheating weaknesses. One of these is the high temperature gas-cooled reactor (HTGR). That design uses ceramic-coated fuel within a high heat capacity matrix. The graphite matrix also retains its properties well above the temperature ranges common for metal reactors.

Furthermore, Helium cooling eliminates chemical coolantfuel reactions. The result is a design with more inherently safe characteristics. If Fukushima has a positive aspect, it may be to renew interest in other types of design.

Are we willing to invest in nuclear power today? Clearly uneconomic or unreasonable energy technologies will find it more difficult to get financial support. If the answer is, “Yes,” nuclear power will need a concerted effort to improve financial risk outcomes for lenders. To be attractive, nuclear power needs lower costs and risks. We should evaluate ways to improve new reactor integrity and safety with open minds, unfettered by LWR thinking.

Susceptible LWR Plants Generation 1 through 3 nuclear plants that are operating should be reviewed for hardening to natural events. Where that can be done simply and at low cost, design or operating changes with high safety payback and lower risk should be pursued.

We should also integrate and simplify the current complex framework. Occasionally overlapping requirements aren’t clear, or parallel benefits get overlooked. Post 9-11, spent fuel pool (SFP) and core protective actions might have been applicable to this event. In any event, we should reconsider the question of spent fuel storage and its ultimate disposition in the U.S., where it remains stored onsite. Finally, we should re-examine

potential for radioactive water to leak flowing outside containment.

Especially after natural events like seismic loading, cracking initiated may allow radioactive water from flooding to lead outside via common drains, chases and conduits. That can compromise secondary containment. Lastly, we should reevaluate multiple event scenarios with logical event scenarios. While the combined tsunami flood was well beyond predictions, the combination of events was not a surprise.

Evaluate New LWR Designs Operating Susceptibility Generation 3+/4 nuclear plants designs should be reviewed for hardening to natural events. Fifty years of adding on complex overlapping new rules and requirements have led to a complex framework customized for LWR designs. We should make a strategic decision to accelerate new design developments based on other technology. That will require a technology neutral framework.

Conclusions What should the nuclear industry do? It should begin reexamining new plant design processes at their most basic level. That should start with fundamentals, not a particular design prescription. It should support innovation to encourage thinking “outside the box.” We need to improve transparency by providing more intuitive design processes.

(See Culture of Complicity Tied to Stricken Nuclear Plant, New York Times, Wednesday, April 27, 2011.)

We should also simplify the designlicensing process to encourage the use of better cost-savings technology.

That should include relational databases to capture critical plant design content from documents.

That would help licenses complete their own design bases so they can reduce the licensing burden carried, directly in operations.

To make nuclear energy viable again, nuclear investments must have moderate risk.

They must be attractive. We should reduce or eliminate complex safety mitigation systems characteristic of LWR − one reason for their high costs. We should also strive to reduce the many “add-on” costs derived from inherently risky designs − emergency plans, dry cask storage, security forces … and their associated management and maintenance costs.

We need a new breed of intrinsically safer reactors − as much for financial investment and cost, as protecting the public health and safety. We should stop imposing LWR requirements on safer, innovative designs in ways that financially penalize and block them, by increasing their costs. After all, these are the future of nuclear power for U.S. and the world.

PCStheMobile RMEL Ad 5-4-11 5/17/11 10:07 AM Page 1

Yo u r m o b i l e s o l u t i o n e x p e r t computing • wireless • video • mobility

Because Your Office is Mobile!

Our specialty is creating mobile working environments for field services. We offer a complete line of products and services, along with professionally trained technicians to manage or assist with any installations, swaps or maintenance of your fleet.

PCS Mobile offers Havis fleet vehicle accessories including:

Docks & Mounts

Consoles for Two-Way Radios

Installation Services

Outdoor Lighting

Contact PCS Mobile Today For More Information!

800-836-7841 www.pcsmobile.com PCS Mobile • 1200 W. Mississippi Ave. • Denver, CO 80223 w w w. r mel .o rg

37

A Current View of Public Health and Safety Consequences of the Fukushima Nuclear Event

By Dr. K. Ronald Laughery, Former President and founder of Micro Analysis and Design, Inc. and member of the American Nuclear Society Public Policy Committee

F

rom the standpoint of public perception and, therefore, the future of the nuclear power, the central issue arising from the Fukushima nuclear power event will be how it affected public health and safety.

The Radiation Releases Examined In an attempt to categorize and address radiation release issues, I reviewed the print and online media from the period of March 11 – April 10, 2011. I then gathered and analyzed radiation level and dispersion data from a variety of data sources including print and on-line media as well as Tokyo Electric Power Company (TEPCO) reporting sites. As appropriate, I compared these to different criteria for radiation exposure levels to make a determination of whether the radiation to which the public and workers at the site are being exposed presents health risks. From data collected, I developed the following five major categories of radiation issues:

I ncreased Airborne Radiation Levels: Based on Fukushima City Health Office’s radiation exposure data, I estimated a total of 4.2 milliSieverts (mSv) of radiation exposure outdoors from March 11th through April 12th. Using the conservative 65 percent shielding factor, I estimated that the highest radiation level that an individual who stayed indoors outside of the evacuation zone was exposed to was 3.7 mSv as of April 12th. While the Fukushima event is not over and future radiation levels will drive these exposure levels higher, my conclusion was that there will be minimal health effects to the public from airborne radiation barring some unforeseen radiation release event.

R adiation Inside the Plant: Highest reported level was 1,000 mSv/h at a pool of water in turbine room of reactor two; Annual dose limit raised for workers during Fukushima emergency to 250 mSv/year; On April 1st, 21 workers were reported to have been exposed to levels of over the generally accepted limit of 100 mSv, but none over the 250 mSv limit. To date, there have been no reports of radiation-caused incapacitation from plant workers.

R adiation Contaminated Food: On March 19th, tainted milk was found 30 km from the plant and tainted spinach was collected as far as 100 kilometers to the south. However, it was reported that the levels were such that, if a person consumed these products continuously for a year, their radiation

38

elec tric energy | summer 2011

exposure would be about that of a single CT scan (about 7mSv). Radiation levels were not found in all food tested.

Past and future risk to public health from the food supply appears to be very small.

Tokyo Water Supply Contamination: On March 22nd, 210 Becquerels of radioactive iodine per kilogram of water (Bq/kg) were measured in part of the Tokyo water supply. The limit for infants under 1 year old is 100 Bq/kg; the limit for humans > 1 year old is 300 Bq/kg. This led to a recommendation to infants and nursing mothers to stop drinking Tokyo tap water until dehydration concerns caused Japan’s leading obstetrics and gynecological organization to say pregnant and nursing women should continue to drink tap water even if the levels of radioactive iodine rise up to 500 Becquerels.

Release of Radioactive Water into the Ocean: After the leak was plugged on April 6th, ocean radiation levels dropped rapidly. However, on April 5th, fish were caught near the plant that showed Cs-137 levels at twice the limit, and on April 10th, other fish were caught with lower amounts of Cs-137, but still over the limit. The Japanese government is monitoring the fish caught in this area of Japan to ensure that tainted fish do not make it into the food supply. Overall, the likely public health consequences of this radiation release appear minimal. The second source of seawater radiation contamination is from the release by TEPCO of low level radioactive wastewater into the sea to make space for storage of more radioactive wastewater.

TEPCO officials estimated that adults who eat fish and seaweed exposed to this seawater daily for a year would receive approximately 0.6 mSv. As such, the public health and safety consequences of this second radiated water release appear minimal.

Summary This is an ongoing event and the above analysis should be seen as a status report, not as the final word on radiation effects on the public from Fukushima. However, assuming radiation levels continue to drop and the government continues to be vigilant with respect to monitoring the food and water supplies, the net effect of the Fukushima event on the general public should be very small. Workers at the plant face the greatest risks, though with increased use of robots, careful staff management, and continued reductions in radiation levels at the facility, I believe that even these consequences will be limited.

Given the age of these reactors and the severity of the event that precipitated this – a 9.0 earthquake and the ensuing tsunami – I suggest that these limited effects on public health and safety are extremely encouraging with respect to the underlying safety of nuclear power.

Fukushima Fallout

By Cmdr. Don Reynerson, Consultant, The Phoenix Index, Inc. and The Barrington Group

A Solution For America In the short term all 104 US power reactors should be inspected by a non-industry group reporting to USDOE to assure hydrogen mitigation systems with dedicated emergency on site power sources are installed and the vent paths, if containment venting during an accident, are capable of structurally withstanding the vent dynamics – and upgraded accordingly. These two issues have been addressed for over 30 years in the US with still no completed back fits on many plants.

A long-term solution, born in the 1980s to address the post TMI depression in the NSSS and AE firms, is to fully standardize families of nuclear plants “right down to the wall paper”. In the circa 1990 period, the Nuclear Power Oversight Committee (NPOC) sheepherder this approach and was composed of senior executives from NSSS (Nuclear Steam System Supplier) vendors (GE and Westinghouse), AEs (Architect Engineers) and utilities and trade and regulatory organizations.

NPOC published a document “Strategic Plan For Building New Nuclear Power Plants” in 1990 with yearly updates in the 1990s.

Much progress was made in the development of new, safer NSSS islands and the basis for one-step licensing was also developed. BUT, one aspect vital to the rebirth in a safety and economic arena was full standardization of families of plants. This has not happened as envisioned by NPOC in the 1990 timeframe. I quote a passage from a paper presented

by Admiral H.G. Rickover in August 1979 after the TMI disaster (meltdown). It is entitled “Differences Between Naval Reactors and Commercial Nuclear Power Plants”. I quote: “Plant designs, equipment, control rooms, training, etc. should be standardized insofar as practicable… two distinct benefits would result. First is that larger numbers of engineering man-hours could be applied to the standard designs than to each of many different designs. The second benefit relates to the training of operating and inspection personnel.” This important paper by Rickover also makes many important recommendations that would lead to safer, more economical commercial plants – few in substance have yet to be adopted. Maybe the meltdowns will result in a reexamination of the approaches now in place for both operating and new designs and business practices. I am not hopeful.

The American Commercial Industry (NPOC) did embrace full standardization in circa 1990 – “right down to the wall paper” for each family of new plants. Many involved expected to design, build, license and start up ONE plant - then build 10-20 identical plants (site specific differences only were to be accommodated in this approach). The plants of course would be safer, life cycle costs lower and capital investment after the first plant essentially fixed with

minimal changes due to intervention and regulation as the plants were completed. But there would be a lower number of hours for AEs, litigators and regulatory agencies over the lives (40-60 years) of the plants. The advantages for the public were clearly obvious.

The American industry would be wise to review the approaches of the 1990s (NPOC) and Rickover’s suggestions and fully embrace complete standardization given the massive catastrophe in Japan (American Designs) before additional licensing, design and construction activities are affected. This should be done by USDOE under a mandate from the President and not by industry interface organizations. Also nationalization of commercial nuclear power (French model is a good place to start) should be seriously considered – nuclear power deserves a future but not within the culture evolving since the early 1950s. The future could be brighter for both the public and the industry IF changes in major approaches are fully implemented.

Dr. Jeffrey C. King is Assistant Professor and Interim Program Director, Nuclear Science and Engineering Program, Colorado School of Mines. Dr. King’s research interests include reactor modeling and control, nuclear system simulation, nuclear materials, and the computational modeling of radiation damage and material aging effects. He can be reached at kingjc@mines.edu.

J.K. August, P.E., is a 35 year nuclear power veteran who develops and designs, reliability methods and analyses and associated software for nuclear applications. He is a patent holder, author of several nuclear reliability standards and books and speaker at various industrial reliability conferences. He can be reached at jkaugust@msn.com.

Dr. Ron Laughery is Former President and founder of Micro Analysis and Design, Inc. and member of the American Nuclear Society Public Policy Committee. In 2006, Micro Analysis and Design was sold to Alion Science and Technology at which point Dr. Laughery assumed the job of Chief Scientist at Alion. He left Alion in 2008 and is currently involved in a number of volunteer activities to support the safe and effective use of nuclear power. He can be reached at ron@laugherys.com.

Cmdr. Donald M. Reynerson has twenty one years of naval service and started as an enlisted technician (INEL/ NPTU) serving as an Engineering Lab Technician and Radiological Assistant - staff instructor A1W. He qualified in submarines twice (enlisted and Engineering Duty) Holland Club 2011. He was a Surface Warfare Officer and served on destroyers in VietNam. He may be contacted at dreynerson@alum.mit.edu. w w w. r mel .o rg

39

Get ting Sm art:

An SRP power system operator oversees generation facility controls during a crisis training drill. SRP is developing an enterprise strategy for smart grid cyber security; as the grid becomes intertwined with more data and communications technology, information must be managed securely.

SRP Ahead of the Smart Grid Curve

By Mark Estes, Senior Corporate Communications Strategist, SRP

Central Arizona’s Salt River Project (SRP) has been investing in smart grid technologies before the term “smart grid” became an industry catchphrase. The utility continues to refine and develop its advanced power grid infrastructure today.

SRP is a participant and original funder of the Electric Power Research Institute’s (EPRI) Intelligrid program that would link grids’ communications and safety systems to create a central management system for a quicker-healing grid. Intelligrid program participants are building the technical foundation for a smart power grid to boost reliability, capacity and customer services.

Last year SRP finalized an agreement with the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) to fund half of an ambitious three-year, $114 million project. The effort will more than double SRP’s smart meter deployment, adding a half-million new meters to an impressive inventory of about 480,000 smart meters already deployed. When the project is over, SRP will be one of the very few utilities offering advanced metering services to all customers.

40

elec tric energy | summer 2011

The project also includes developing and implementing a comprehensive meter data management system that will support one of the largest wireless smart meter networks in the nation, if not the world.

DOE funding comes from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act’s Smart Grid Investment Grant initiative, the largest energy-grid modernization investment in U.S. history.

Grid Needs to Evolve Why the push for smart grid development? While today’s power grid is one of the most impressive accomplishments of the past century, it has limits.

Electricity flows one way on the current grid, from the power station to the customer. The utility does not get much information about how power is used. Customers have little sense of how much power they are using or how much it costs until they receive a utility bill.

Because of population growth, bigger houses, and more energy-hungry electronics and appliances, electric peak demand has outstripped transmission system growth every year since

1982. This has taxed the grid – three of the five largest blackouts of the past 40 years have taken place since 1996.

The existing grid also is not designed for handling power from renewable energy sources such as wind and solar. If the wind suddenly calms, or clouds cover the sky over a solar panel array, hundreds of megawatts become unavailable within a few seconds. It is difficult for utilities to respond and adjust quickly with today’s grid.

Smart grids use advanced communications, computing and electronics to optimize system reliability and power delivery. A comprehensive smart grid would enable an array of technologies that would enhance the power grid’s communication capabilities, efficiency and transparency. In short, the power grid would change from a one-way channel to a two-way network, with much more information available at different junctures.

A nationwide “smart grid” may become the platform for an enormous range of new innovations and applications in energy, much as the Internet did in computing. The cost of turning the nation’s electric transmission and distribution system into a “smarter” grid could cost up to $476 billion.

But, according to EPRI, a serious investment in a more modern, automated system could also yield between $1.3 trillion and $2 trillion in benefits.

SRP’s Smart Choice SRP has been eager to take the path less traveled since its inception in 1903 when it was created through the provisions of the National Reclamation Act. Originally intended as a water provider, SRP began dabbling with power generation from the get-go when its first dam was being built.

Excess power from site construction generator was provided to nearby mines and businesses. When a powerhouse was built at the dam and a permanent generator placed, the entity that would become SRP established itself as the nation’s first multipurpose reclamation project.

As more dams were added along the Salt River (hence the name, Salt River Project), they were equipped with hydroelectric facilities. As central Arizona grew, rural residents sought the same service city dwellers got. So SRP began building power lines in the late 1920s to serve rural households. By 1930, when only 25 percent of rural America was electrified, 80 percent of central Arizona homes had electric service.

Today SRP is one of the nation’s largest public power utilities and a major water supplier to metropolitan Phoenix. The power business, which operates as a municipality, provides electricity to more than 940,000 customers in a 2,900-square-mile area that spans three counties. SRP has almost 8,100 megawatts (MW) available to serve peak demand and a reported annual total sales 33,064 gigawatthours in 2009. SRP has a 493 MW of renewable power, 57 percent of which comes from hydroelectric facilities. SRP also owns more than 1,500 miles of transmission lines and

An SRP meter technician installs a smart meter for a residential customer in metropolitan Phoenix. Within a couple of years, SRP will be one of the very few utilities offering advanced metering services to all its customers.

1,600 miles of fiber optic lines. Given its customer base and variety of generation assets, SRP developed a solid network of fiber-optic and wireless communications. SRP Telecom was created in 1996 to derive additional benefit from excess fiber-optic and wireless communications assets. SRP’s fiber network spans all or parts of 15 cities, allowing it to be extremely flexible in designing fiber solutions. SRP Telecom serves primarily telecommunications service providers and large business customers, and has grown to become one of the nation’s largest and most successful utility telecommunications concerns.

Smart Meter Deployment Began in 2003 Given that SRP had invested in a comprehensive fiber-optic network capable of support­ing large-scale, smart-grid technology, the next step was smart-meter deployment. SRP began its smart-meter program in 2003, and soon was installing about 100,000 meters a year.

Smart meters are an important component in smart grids. Unlike regular meters, smart meters can send back data. This makes it possible for utilities to read meters remotely, gather load information and pinpoint the location of power outages more precisely. These meters also enable utilities such as SRP to upgrade web-based resources and services that can greatly aid electric customers with energy and account management as the level of detail and user-friendliness increases.

Because smart meters help our customers manage energy consumption, SRP can offer innovative price plans, such as Time-of-Use and the EZ-3 that encourage customers to reduce power use during peak hours. SRP also offers M-Power, a prepay option for residential customers that is largest program of its kind in North America.

The result? Customer satisfaction rates are 90 percent and higher for SRP programs such as M-Power that are supported by smart meters. w w w. r mel .o rg

41

Smart-meter technology also helps SRP reduce peak demand through efforts such the PowerPartner demand-response program for commercial customers. PowerPartner was developed for eligible high-use SRP customers who can voluntarily reduce power consumption during peaks of electricity demand or high wholesale electricity prices.

SRP has used a phased-in approach in its smart-meter deployment and has emphasized quality-control testing.

SRP’s smart meters are manufactured in the United States by Elster Group, one of the world’s largest electricity, gas and water meter manufacturers.

To date, SRP has deployed about 630,000 smart meters, which customers use to monitor and manage their energy use. SRP estimates that this smart grid solution has saved more than 386,685 hours in labor, avoided more than 2 million driving miles for field visits and conserved 200,822 gallons of fuel, which helps reduce SRP’s carbon footprint.

Backbone Systems being Developed Using A “Roadmap” Data from the new smart meters also will enhance operations in a number of other areas at SRP. Load forecasting will be improved, as well as supply and trading efforts. SRP also will know more about voltage fluctuations to pinpoint issues within the system, down to the transformer.

This will help better manage outages, identify power quality problems and target possible power diversions.

SRP’s core smart-grid investments reach far beyond smart meters, though.

Before realizing the full potential of enduser benefits, utilities must start with the backbone of a smart grid system and gain benefits on the utility side. At this stage, it requires SRP expanding infrastructures in three key areas.

Enhancing communications systems at the transmission level – Enhanced systems begin with SRP’s fiber optic

42

elec tric energy | summer 2011

cable network but also extends to mobile communications, system automation and network controls.

SRP’s communication system consists of a broad array of infrastructure facilities and technology platforms worth more than $120 million, including infrastructure, voice systems, data transport systems and an operations network. Over the past decade, SRP’s communication infrastructure has grown significantly in size and complexity to support an increasing number of critical business functions.

Continuing smart grid development will drive communications needs throughout the electrical grid, involving sufficient backhaul capability in the substation network and extend­ing into the last mile for advanced metering infrastructure and other transmission and distribution applications. There will be a continued progression from serial communications and time-domain multiplexing (TDM) to packet-switching, internet protocol (IP)-based networking that will fundamentally change how communi­cations needs are met. Commercial telecommunications will evolve from TDM circuits to ethernet for backhaul services.

Investing in IT infrastructure – Much of the smart grid requires linking information technology with operations technology. A successful smart grid IT infrastructure requires unified communications to efficiently manage and use data across multiple smart grid components and corporate departments.

The increased complexity and dependency on the com­munication network will require a focus on operations and advanced network management tools, including implement­ing a communications network operating center.

As communication infrastructure components approach their intended lifetime; they will need to be replaced with new technology to keep pace with smart grid efforts and to maintain reli­ability. That also means workforce knowledge and skill sets must keep pace with the ongoing technology evolution. There will be increased collaboration and integration with other information technology groups.

Provided Services for more than

9,000 Miles of Utility Corridor Across the Country since 1986 Siting Support and Permitting Services • • • • •

Aerial Mapping & LiDAR Surveying GIS Environmental ROW and Land Acquisition

Precision aerial surveys and mapping, 30 survey crews across the county, dedicated environmental scientists, and land specialists that help clear the way for transmission corridors and support NERC compliance.

913-851-4492

www.westwoodps.com/etg

7304 West 130th Street, Suite 200, Overland Park, KS 66213

Westwood/ETG

© 2011 SPX

Up and running There’s No Time For Down Time

In your industry, there isn’t a pause button for the times things go wrong. So keep your operation at peak performance with Marley EXTEND Service — the premier cooling tower maintenance, parts, and service plan in North America. With multiple levels and options, EXTEND Service can help ensure you stay up and running no matter your needs or budget. Find out more at extend.spxcooling.com.

TM

TM

800 462 7539 | extend.spxcooling.com

Developing an enterprise strategy for smart grid cyber security – As the grid becomes intertwined with more data and communications technology, it is essential that information is managed securely.

SRP cyber security practices are primarily driven by general requirements and North American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC) requirements. General requirements encompass standardization of technology components, interconnection of networks and de­vices, and the use of IP-based communication architectures that require application of cyber security best practices.

800.438.0790

NERC Critical Infrastructure Protec­tion (CIP) standards provide regulatory requirements for cyber security. These standards define a minimum level of security requirements that must be applied to assets supporting the bulk electric system, along with audit processes for regulatory reporting and compliance.

A formal policy has been de­veloped based on National Institute of Standards and Technology measures/guidelines, and maintained to form the foundation of security practices. The policy drives implementation and provides the baseline for assessing compliance and risk, and will align with corporate policy and other departmental policies. SRP also is developing NERC CIP implementation plans for all critical assets.

Groundwork for this stage was established in July 2008 when SRP began working with EPRI to create a smart grid “road­map.” A leadership team supported by seven subcommittees with managers from various SRP departments was formed to oversee the process. In July 2009, SRP’s executive team approved SRP’s smartgrid roadmap.

The roadmap comprises seven distinct strategies:

Improve existing cyber security strategies

There’s more at Merrick Merrick’s client-focused project delivery teams have served the energy industry since the firm’s founding in 1955. At the core of our services is an understanding of your business, operations, industry, and marketplace conditions. That understanding is combined with the expertise of the firm’s talented professionals to deliver vital solutions that work.

When you’re looking for more, call Merrick.

Contact: Chris Biondolilo, PE - Project Manager 2450 South Peoria Street Aurora, CO 80014-5475 303-353-3876

Distributed Generation Renewable Energy Biomass Utilization Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition

Implement automated tools for wide-area network monitoring

Create and deploy an integrated substation local-area network strategy

Utilize a unified communications infrastructure for field devices

Expand deployment of www.merrick.com

44

elec tric energy | summer 2011

Employee Owned

distribution feeder automation D eploy an electrical system

anies data acquisition and management system for automation and analysis

Implement an integration bus for secure enterprise application integration between applications and databases Meanwhile, to fulfill DOE requirements, SRP must provide detailed project status reports on a monthly, quarterly and annual basis. This includes developing cyber security, project execution, and metrics and benefits reporting plans that will use strategies identified within the smart grid roadmap.

Because of this attention to detail, SRP received the Best Smart Grid Project Award by POWERGRID International magazine.

SRP was honored for ingenuity, scope, practicality, vision and follow-through as a leader in the use of smart grid technology.

Meter Data Management System in the Works Currently, SRP is putting together a new meter data management system that will give the utility the ability to fully utilize all the data obtained from the smart meters and to tie the smart meter technology seamlessly into the SRP electric IT network.

SRP recently announced it will deploy Elster’s EnergyICT EIServer ® meter data management solution to manage the Elster smart meters throughout the utility’s service territory.

The EnergyICT ElServer deployment gives SRP with the network intelligence required to make more informed energy management and pricing decisions, enhance operational processes and deliver advanced customer services.

The MDM deployment will provide SRP with a number of operational benefits, such as work-flow management to integrate processes and data, improved sampling and expanded data options for load research, real-time data processing and demand response. Implementation should be complete in summer 2011.

Mark Estes is a senior corporate communications strategist for SRP. He has almost 35 years experience in corporate and employee communications, and is an accredited member of the International Association of Business Communicators.

e x p e r i e n c e

•

i n n o v a t i o n

•

c u s t o m e r

s e r v i c e

•

l o g i s t i c s

•

s a f e t y

all equipment brands serviced • parts • upgrades • rebuilds • systems construction services • inspections • testing • condition assessment • training inventory management programs • rebuild programs • rotation programs pulverizers • fuel piping • burners • pressure parts • gearing • electronics stokers • feeders • bottom and fly ash handling • electrostatic precipitators fabric filters • wet and dry flue gas desulphurization • gas and steam turbines generators • rotors • stators • controls & protection systems

POWER We Will Help You

Manage your plant assets • Reduce inventory • Lower maintenance costs Minimize unplanned down-time • Extend component life Assess equipment condition • Solve technical and operational problems

www.power.alstom.com Alstom Power Inc. – 4880 Havana Street – Denver, Colorado 80239 – Tel: 303.375.8240

w w w. r mel .o rg

45

member listings

1 ABB, Inc. 2 ABCO Industrial Sales, Inc. 3 ADA Environmental Solutions 4 Alexander Publications 5 Alstom Power 6 Altec Industries, Inc. 7 AMEC 8 American Coal Council 9 AREVA Solar Inc. 10 Arizona Electric Power Cooperative, Inc. 11 Arkansas River Power Authority 12 Asplundh Tree Expert Co. 13 Associated Electric Cooperative, Inc. 14 ATCO Noise Management 15 Austin Energy 16 Ayres Associates 17 Babcock & Wilcox Company 18 Babcock Power, Inc. 19 Basin Electric Power Cooperative 20 Bechtel Power Corporation 21 Black & Veatch Corp.

22 Black Hills Corporation 23 Black Hills Electric Cooperative 24 Boilermakers Local #101 25 Boone Electric Cooperative 26 Border States Electric 27 Brand Energy & Infrastructure Services 28 Brooks Manufacturing Company 29 Burns & McDonnell 30 Butler Public Power District 31 C.I.Agent Solutions 32 Carbon Power & Light, Inc. 33 Casey Industrial, Inc. 34 CBS Arc Safe 35 Central New Mexico Electric Cooperative, Inc. 36 CH2M Hill 37 Chimney Rock Public Power District 38 City of Alliance Electric Department 39 City of Aztec Electric Department 40 City of Boulder 41 City of Cody 42 City of Farmington 43 City of Fountain 44 City of Gillette 45 City of Imperial 46 City of Yuma 47 Co-Mo Electric Cooperative 48 CoBank 49 Colorado Energy Management, LLC 50 Colorado Powerline, Inc. 51 Colorado Rural Electric Association 52 Colorado Springs Utilities 53 Colorado State University 54 Commonwealth Associates, Inc. 55 Consert Inc. 56 Continental Divide Electric Cooperative 57 Corporate Risk Solutions, Inc.

46

elec tric energy | summer 2011

58 County of Los Alamos Dept. of Public Utilities 59 CPS Energy 60 Davies Consulting, Inc. 61 Deloitte 62 Delta Montrose Electric Assn.

63 DIS-TRAN Packaged Substations, LLC 64 Dowdy Recruiting LLC 65 E & T Equipment, LLC 66 E3 Consulting 67 El Paso Electric Company 68 El Paso Natural Gas Company 69 Electric Power Research Institute 70 Electrical Consultants, Inc. 71 Emerson Process Management 72 The Empire District Electric Company 73 Empire Electric Association, Inc. 74 Energy & Resource Consulting Group 75 Energy Reps 76 Engineering, Procurement & Construction, LLC 77 ENOSERV, LLC 78 Equal Electric, Inc. 79 ESC Engineering 80 Estes Park Light & Power Dept.

81 Exponential Engineering Company 82 Faith Enterprises Inc 83 Foothills Energy Services Inc. 84 Fort Collins Utilities 85 Foster Wheeler 86 Fuel Tech, Inc. 87 GE Energy 88 Glenwood Springs Electric System 89 Golder Associates, Inc. 90 Grand Island Utilities 91 Grand Valley Rural Power Lines, Inc. 92 Great Southwestern Construction, Inc. 93 Gunnison County Electric Association, Inc. 94 Halcrow 95 Hamilton Associates, Inc. 96 Hamon Research - Cottrell 97 Harris Group, Inc. 98 Hartigan Power Equipment Company 99 Hawkeye Helicopter LLC 100 HDR, Inc. 101 Heartland Consumers Power District 102 Heartland Solutions, Inc. 103 High Energy, Inc. (HEI) 104 High Plains Power, Inc. 105 Highline Electric Assn.

106 Hitachi Power Systems America, Ltd 107 Holy Cross Energy 108 Homer Electric Association, Inc. 109 Honeywell Process Solutions 110 Howard Electric Cooperative 111 HSB Solomon Associates, LLC 112 Hughes Brothers, Inc. 113 IBEW, Local Union 111

114 IMCORP 115 Independence Power & Light 116 Intercounty Electric Coop Association 117 Intermountain Rural Electric Assn.

118 ION Consulting 119 Irwin Industries, Inc. 120 J.L. Hermon & Associates, Inc. 121 Jemez Mountains Electric Cooperative, Inc. 122 Kansas City Board of Public Utilities 123 KD Johnson, Inc. 124 Kiewit 125 Kit Carson Electric Cooperative 126 Kleinfelder 127 Klondyke Construction LLC 128 KVA Supply Co. 129 La Junta Municipal Utilities 130 La Plata Electric Association, Inc. 131 Lake Region Electric Coop Inc. 132 Lamar Utilities Board 133 Laminated Wood Systems, Inc. 134 Lane-Scott Electric Cooperative, Inc. 135 Lauren Engineers & Constructors 136 Lewis Associates, Inc. 137 Lincoln Electric System 138 Longmont Power and Communications 139 Loup River Public Power District 140 Loveland Water & Power 141 Luminate, LLC 142 Marsulex Environmental Technologies 143 Merrick & Company 144 Missouri River Energy Services 145 Morgan County Rural Electric Assn.

146 Mountain Parks Electric, Inc. 147 Mountain States Utility Sales 148 Mountain View Electric Assn.

149 Mycoff, Fry & Prouse LLC 150 Navigant Consulting 151 Navopache Electric Cooperative, Inc. 152 Nebraska Public Power District 153 NEI Electric Power Engineering, Inc. 154 NMPP Energy 155 Nooter/Eriksen, Inc. 156 Norris Public Power District 157 North Platte Light & Power 158 Northeast Community College 159 Northeast Missouri Electric Power Cooperative 160 Northeast Oklahoma Electric Coop Inc. 161 Northwest Rural Public Power District 162 NV Energy 163 Occupational Safety Councils of America 164 Omaha Public Power District 165 Omnicon Technical Sales 166 Osmose Utilities Services, Inc. 167 Otero County Electric Cooperative 168 PacifiCorp 169 Panhandle Rural Electric Membership Assn.

CPI

Construction with Pride and I ntegrity 5401 N. Peterson Rd Sedalia, CO 80135

303 - 66 0 -3784 w w w. r mel .o rg

47

member listings cont’d

170 PAR Electrical Contractors, Inc. 171 PCS Mobile 172 Peak Power Engineering, Inc. 173 Peterson Co. 174 Pike Electric, Inc. 175 Pioneer Electric Cooperative, Inc. 176 Pipefitters Local Union #208 177 Platte River Power Authority 178 PNM Resources 179 Poudre Valley Rural Electric Assn.

180 Power & Industrial Services Corp 181 POWER Engineers, Inc. 182 Power Equipment Specialists, Inc. 183 Power Pole Inspections 184 Power Product Services 185 PowerQuip 186 Provo City Power 187 Quanta Services 188 R.W. Beck, An SAIC Company 189 Raton Public Service 190 REC Associates 191 Reliability Management Group (RMG) 192 Reliable Power Consultants, Inc. 193 Rkneal, Inc. 194 Rocky Mountain Generation Cooperative, Inc. 195 S&C Electric Company 196 Sabre Tubular Structures 197 Safety One Inc. 198 San Luis Valley Rural Electric Cooperative 199 San Miguel Power Assn.

200 Sangre De Cristo Electric Assn.

201 Sargent & Lundy 202 Scientech 203 Sega, Inc. 204 SENER Engineering and Systems, Inc. 205 The Shaw Group 206 Siemens Energy Inc. 207 Sierra Electric Cooperative, Inc. 208 Sierra Southwest Cooperative Services, Inc. 209 SNC-Lavalin Constructors Inc. 210 The Socorro Electric Cooperative, Inc. 211 South Central PPD 212 Southeast Colorado Power Assn.

213 Southeast Community College 214 Southern Pioneer Electric Company 215 Southwest Generation 216 Southwest Transmission Cooperative, Inc. 217 Southwestern Power Group II 218 Southwire Company 219 SPIDAWeb LLC 220 Springfield Municipal Light & Power 221 SPX Cooling Technologies 222 SRP 223 Stanley Consultants, Inc. 224 Steag Energy Services LLC

48

elec tric energy | summer 2011

225 STRUCTURAL 226 Stuart C. Irby Company 227 Sturgeon Electric Co., Inc. 228 Sulphur Springs Valley Electric Cooperative 229 Sunflower Electric Power Corporation 230 T & R Electric Supply Co., Inc. 231 Technically Speaking, Inc. 232 Thomas & Betts Steel Structures Division 233 TIC - The Industrial Company 234 Total-Western, Inc. 235 Towill, Inc. 236 Trachte, Inc. 237 Trans American Power Products, Inc. 238 Transformer Technologies 239 Trees Inc 240 Tri-State Generation & Transmission Assn.

241 Trimble 242 Trinidad Municipal Light & Power 243 UC Synergetic 244 Ulteig Engineers, Inc. 245 UniSource 246 United Power, Inc. 247 Universal Field Services Inc. 248 University of Colorado 249 University of Idaho Utility Executive Course College of Business and Economics 250 URS Corporation 251 Utility Telecom Consulting Group, Inc. 252 Valmont Newmark, Valmont Industries, Inc. 253 Victaulic 254 Wärtsilä North America, Inc. 255 Waukesha Electric Systems 256 West Plains Engineering, Inc. 257 Westar Energy 258 Western Area Power Administration 259 Western Cultural Resource Management, Inc. (WCRM, Inc.) 260 Western Line Constructors Chapter, Inc. NECA 261 Western Nebraska Community College 262 Western United Electric Supply 263 Westwood Professional Services 264 Wheat Belt Public Power District 265 Wheatland Electric Cooperative 266 Wheatland Rural Electric Assn.

267 White River Electric Assn., Inc. 268 White River Valley Electric Cooperative 269 William W. Rutherford & Associates 270 WorleyParsons Group, Inc. 271 Wyoming Rural Electric Association 272 Wyrulec Company 273 Xcel Energy 274 Y-W Electric Association, Inc. 275 Yampa Valley Electric Association, Inc. 276 Zachry Holdings, Inc.

Kleinfelder delivers a wide array of solutions for your generation & transmission infrastructure development.

Our capabilities include: • Environmental Planning & Permitting • Civil Engineering • Geotechnical Engineering • Engineering Geology • Engineering Seismology • Compliance Monitoring • Construction Materials Testing, Engineering, & Special Inspection

Contact: Phil Hutton Director - Generation & Power Delivery (480) 763-1200 phutton@kleinfelder.com

www.kleinfelder.com An Employee-Owned Company

rmel 2011 calendar

2011 Calendar of Events January 20, 2011

March 11, 2011

June 1, 2011

Introduction to the Electric Utility Workshop Denver, CO

Distribution Vital Issues Roundtable Denver, CO

Awards Nomination Deadline

February 3, 2011

March 11, 2011

Basics of System Operations Workshop Denver, CO

RMEL Foundation Scholarship Application Deadline

Plant Management Conference Council Bluffs, IA

February 10-11, 2011 Smart Grid Conference Intelligent Technologies Park City, UT

February 25, 2011 Safety Roundtable Longmont, CO

March 3, 2011

March 15, 2011

Plant Management Roundtable Council Bluffs, IA

March 29, 2011

July 12, 2011

NERC Audit Lessons Learned Roundtable Denver, CO

RMEL Golf Tournament Westminster, CO

April 6-8, 2011

Power Supply Planning and Projects Conference Denver, CO

March 4, 2011

April 14-15, 2011

Generation Vital Issues Roundtable Denver, CO

How to Perform an Arc Flash Calculation Study, Including DC Arc Flash Workshop Denver, CO

Transmission Planning and Operations Conference Denver, CO

March 9, 2011 Transmission Vital Issues Roundtable Denver, CO

June 17, 2011

Workforce Roundtable Denver, CO

Distribution Overhead and Underground Design and Staking Workshop Denver, CO

March 8, 2011

June 16, 2011

April 19-20, 2011 Health, Safety and Security Conference Denver, CO

August 26, 2011 Safety Roundtable Fort Collins, CO

September 11-13, 2011 Fall Executive Leadership and Management Convention Santa Ana Pueblo, NM

September 29, 2011 2012 Spring Management, Engineering and Operations Conference Planning Session Denver, CO

October 11, 2011

April 20, 2011

National Electric Safety Code with 2012 Updates Workshop Denver, CO

Safety Roundtable Denver, CO

October 18, 2011

March 10, 2011

May 15-17, 2011

Distribution Overhead and Underground Operations and Maintenance Conference Denver, CO

Spring Management, Engineering and Operations Conference Loveland, CO

continuing education certificates Continuing education certificates awarding Professional Development Hours are provided to attendees at all RMEL education events. Check the event brochure for details on the number of hours offered at each event.

Renewable Planning and Operations Conference Denver, CO

October 27, 2011 Women in Energy Panel Denver, CO

November 18, 2011 Safety Roundtable Westminster, CO

w w w. r mel .o rg

49

advertiser index

Alstom Power

45

www.alstom.com

(970) 215-1805

AMEC

5

www.amec.com

(770) 810-9698

Ames Construction

3

www.amesconstruction.com

(952) 435-7106

Black & Veatch Corp.

19

www.bv.com

(913) 458-2000

Border States Electric

11

www.borderstateselectric.com

(701) 293-5834

www.ch2m.com

(303) 771-0900

CH2M Hill Colorado Powerline, Inc.

47

(303) 660-3784

DIS-TRAN Packaged Substations, LLC

47

(318) 448-0274

www.distran.com

Empire Electric Association, Inc.

50

www.eea.coop

(970) 565-4444

Exponential Engineering Company

11

www.exponentialengineering.com

(970) 207-9648

Great Southwestern Construction, Inc.

44

www.gswc.us

(303) 688-5816

HDR, Inc.

31

www.hdrinc.com

(402) 399-1000

Hitachi Power Systems America, Ltd.

13

www.hitachipowersystems.us

(908) 605-2800

Hughes Brothers Kiewit

33 Back Cover

www.hughesbros.com

(402) 643-2991

www.kiewit.com

(913) 928-7000

Kleinfelder

48

www.kleinfelder.com

(480) 763-1200

Merrick & Company

44

www.merrick.com

(303) 751-0741

Nebraska Public Power District

21

www.nppd.com

(402) 564-8561

PCS Mobile

37

www.pcsmobile.com

(800) 836-7841

Pioneer Electric Cooperative, Inc.

50

www.pioneerelectric.coop

(620) 356-4111

www.powereng.com

(208) 788-3456

POWER Engineers

50

Inside Back Cover

Inside Front Cover

S & C Electric Company

15

www.sandc.com

Sega, Inc.

21

www.segainc.com

(913) 681-2881

SPX

43

www.extend.spxcooling.com

(800) 462-7539

Stanley Consultants, Inc.

11

www.stanleygroup.com

(303) 799-6806

Sturgeon Electric Co. Inc.

11

www.myrgroup.com

(303) 286-8000

T & R Electric Supply Co., Inc.

20

www.tr.com

(800) 843-7994

TIC – The Industrial Company

25

www.ticinc.com

(970) 879-2561

Trees Inc.

47

www.treesinc.com

(866) 865-9617

Ulteig Engineers, Inc.

14

www.ulteig.com

(701) 237-3211

Westwood/ETG

42

www.westwoodps.com

(952) 937-5150

Young & Franklin

27

www.yf.com

(315) 457-3110

Zachry Holdings, Inc.

29

www.zhi.com

(210) 588-5000

elec tric energy | summer 2011

The Team That Delivers

From Siting and Permitting to complete Engineering, Procurement, Construction and Startup, our experienced team is ready to support all our clients’ power needs.

Since 1946, CH2M HILL has been a global leader in engineering, construction “The contribution to the DDPS project of CH2M HILL’s people has been very significant not just in terms of representing CH2M HILL but also in terms of their personal commitment to deliver to a very high standard.

CH2M HILL has a unique culture that makes working with your people a pleasure...”

— Robert Connell, Former Project Director - DDPS Major Development Projects, Origin Energy

atakl201101.005 © 2011 CH2M HILL

and operations. By implementing innovative approaches throughout our diverse portfolio of industries, we ensure cost savings, social responsibility, and a safer work environment - for every client, on every project, every time.

CH2M HILL provides full service engineering, procurement, construction, operations & maintenance, consulting, environmental, and program management capabilities that span the entire energy value chain, including: Solar, Wind, Geothermal, Alternative/Waste Fuels, and Traditional Power Generation.

We build cool projects www.ch2m.com/power