POST-FILING 2021 RAMP WORKSHOP
POST-FILING 2021 RAMP WORKSHOPJune 17, 2021
AGENDA Opening Remarks9:30 – 9:45 Intro / Overview / Lessons Learned Risk Quantification Framework and RSE Methodology10:30 – 11:15 Cross Functional Factor Overview11:15 – 11:45 Lunch11:45 – 12:45 Incident Involving an Employee Overview Incident Related to the Medium Pressure System Overview1:15 – 2:00 Wildfire Involving SDG&E Equipment Overview: Part 12:00 – 2:45 Break2:45 – 3:00 Wildfire Involving SDG&E Equipment Overview: Part 23:00 – 4:00 Closing Remarks and Next Steps4:00 – 4:309:45 – 10:30212:45 – 1:15
INTRODUCTION3
Overview – ApplicationThe Company’s respective Applications include, in part: A request that the Commission consolidate the Company’sApplication Proceedings Joint ALJ Ruling was issued last week consolidating A proposed schedule An Overview and Roadmap of the Company’s RAMP Reports4
Overview – Application: Proposed ScheduleProposed ScheduleApplication filed5/17/2021Workshop6/17/2021Protest 6/16/2021Replies 6/28/2021PHC Scoping MemoJulySPD Staff Report9/1/2021Workshop on SPD Staff Report9/15/2021Comments on SPD Staff Report and RAMP ReportReply Comments11/15/202112/1/20215
Overview – Application: SoCalGas RAMP Risk ChaptersSoCalGas RAMP Risk ChaptersChapterSubjectSCG‐Risk‐1Incident Related to the High Pressure System (Excluding Dig‐in)SCG‐Risk‐2Excavation Damage (Dig‐in) on the Gas SystemSCG‐Risk‐3Incident Related to the Medium Pressure System (Excluding Dig‐in)SCG‐Risk‐4Incident Related to the Storage System (Excluding Dig‐in)SCG‐Risk‐5SCG‐Risk‐6 /SDG&E‐Risk‐6Incident Involving an EmployeeSCG‐Risk‐7Incident Involving a ContractorCybersecurity6
Overview – Application: SDG&E RAMP Risk ChaptersSoCalGas RAMP Risk ChaptersChapterSubjectSDG&E‐Risk‐1Wildfire Involving SDG&E EquipmentSDG&E‐Risk‐2Electric Infrastructure IntegritySDG&E‐Risk‐3Incident Related to the High Pressure System (Excluding Dig‐in)SDG&E‐Risk‐4Incident Involving a ContractorSDG&E‐Risk‐5SDG&E‐Risk‐6 /SCG‐Risk‐6Customer and Public Safety – Contact with Electric EquipmentCybersecuritySDG&E‐Risk‐7Excavation Damage (Dig‐in) on the Gas SystemSDG&E‐Risk‐8Incident Involving an EmployeeSDG&E‐Risk‐9Incident Related to the Medium Pressure System (Excluding Dig‐in)7
Overview – Application: Overview and Roadmap ofCompany’s RAMP ReportsSoCalGas / SDG&E Introductory ChaptersChapterSubjectRAMP‐AOverview and Approach (Joint)RAMP‐BEnterprise Risk Management Framework (Company Specific)RAMP‐CRisk Quantification Framework and Risk Spend Efficiency (Joint)RAMP‐DSafety Culture, Organizational Structure, Executive and Utility BoardEngagement, and Compensation Policies Related to Safety (CompanySpecific)RAMP‐ELessons Learned (Joint)8
RAMP A – Overview and ApproachI. RAMP OverviewII. Summary of Approach to Meet RAMP RequirementsA: Approach to Comply with the Adopted 10 MajorComponents of RAMP FilingsB: RAMP Workshop RequirementsC: Seven Changes from the 2019 RAMPD: Three Changes and Responses Subsequent to the Prefiling workshopsIII. Guiding PrinciplesIV.Risk Chapter Organization and Overview9
RAMP A – Overview and Approach: Approach toComplying with Adopted Ten Major Components1.2.3.4.5.6.7.8.9.10.Identify top risksDescribe the controls or mitigations currently in placePresent plan for improving the mitigation of each riskPresent two alternative mitigation plans that were consideredPresent an early stage “risk mitigated to cost ratio” or relatedoptimizationIdentify lessons learned in the current round to apply to futureroundsMove towards probabilistic calculations, to the maximum extentpossibleImprove the collection of data for those business areas with lessdata and provide a timeframe for improvementDescribe the company’s safety culture, executive engagement,and compensation policies.Respond to immediate or short-term crises outside of the RAMPand GRC process.10
RAMP A – Overview and Approach: Changes From2019 RAMP1.2.3.4.5.6.7.Changes to Risk Spend Efficiency ApproachIncorporate Additional AttributesModeling Public Safety Shut-Off De-EnergizationsAdditional Number of TranchesConsolidation of Dig-In Into One Risk ChapterInclusion of Internal LaborCreation of Cross-Functional Factors11
RAMP A – Overview and Approach: Changes andResponses Subsequent to the Pre-RAMP FilingWorkshops1. Fourth Attribute2. MAVF Weights3. Granularity of Tranching12
RAMP A – Overview and Approach: Risk ChapterOrganizationI. IntroductionA. Risk OverviewB. Risk DefinitionC. ScopeII. Risk AssessmentA. Risk Bow Tie and Risk Event Associated with the RiskB. Cross-Functional FactorsC. Potential Drivers / TriggersD. Potential ConsequencesE. Risk ScoreIII.2020 ControlsIV.2022-2024 Control & Mitigation PlanA. Changes to 2020 ControlsB. New MitigationsV.Costs, Units, and Quantitative Summary TablesVI.AlternativesAppendix A: Summary of Elements of the Risk Bow TieAppendix B: Quantitative Analysis Source Data References13
Overview: 2022-2024 Controls and Mitigation Plan2020Control2022‐2024 PlanCathodic Protection – CapitalXXC22‐T1.1 Pipeline Safety Enhancement Plan (PSEP):C22‐T1.2 Phase 1A – �T3M2SoCalGas High Pressure Control/MitigationDescriptionBlythe Compressor Station ModernizationVentura Compressor Station ModernizationHonor Rancho Storage Field Compressor StationModernizationGas Transmission Safety Rule – MaterialVerification2022‐2024 Plan: Mitigations for which we anticipate requesting cost recovery in theTest Year 2024 GRC14
Overview: Quantitative Analysis Source Data References– Wildfire ExampleAppendix B: Quantitative Analysis Source Data ReferencesThe Settlement Decision directs the utility to identify potential consequences of a riskevent using available and appropriate data. The list below provides the inputs used aspart of this assessment.San Diego Gas & Electric, CPUC Reportable Fire Database 2014 –2020 ignition reporting (pursuant to D14-02-015, Ordering Paragraph 9 andAppendix C)San Diego Gas & Electric, Electric Reliability Database 2010 –2020 internal reliability dataSan Diego Gas & Electric, Asset Management data Various asset information, such as the count and type of assets, by HFTD tierCALFIRE, Wildfire Activity Statistics (also known as Redbooks)https://www.fire.ca.gov/stats-events Annual record of wildfire statistics such as location, size, and damageTechnosylva (internal consultant who performs wildfire modeling) WRRM consequence data15
RAMP D – Safety Culture, Organizational Structure,Executive and Utility Board Engagement, andCompensation Policies Related to SafetyI. Introduction BackgroundII. Safety Organizational Structure and CultureA.B.Organizational StructureSafety Management System ImplementationIII. Compensation Policies Related to SafetyIV. Executive and Senior Management Engagement inthe Risks Assessment, Prioritization, Mitigation, andBudgeting ProcessV. Board Engagement and Oversight Over SafetyVI. Conclusion16
RAMP D – Safety Organizational Structure and Culture:SoCalGas ExampleA. Organizational Structure1.2.3.Safety Management System OrganizationEnterprise Risk Management OrganizationIntegrity Management OrganizationB. Safety Management System Implementation1.2.3.4.5.6.7.Leadership CommitmentRisk ManagementEmployee and Stakeholder EngagementCompetence, Awareness and TrainingEmergency Preparedness and ResponseSafety ComplianceContinuous Improvement17
LESSONS LEARNED18
RAMP E – Lessons Learned: Considering 3rd Party InputTopicNumber ofAttributesAdequate Staffingand HumanPerformanceClimateChangeParty CommentIncluded only three attributes in the2019 RAMP Report (Safety, Reliability,and Financial) even though when makinginvestment decisions for risk mitigations,the Companies acknowledge a variety ofother factors are considered.Understaffing is not included as adriver/trigger in the risk bow‐tie for anyof the RAMP risks in the 2019 RAMPReport.SoCalGas and SDG&E ResponseThe Companies and have revised the MAVF inthis RAMP report. As described in ChaptersSCG/SDG&E RAMP‐A and C, SoCalGas’s andSDG&E’s 2021 RAMP Reports includeadditional attributes (a top and sub‐attribute).The Companies have improved theirpresentation for the 2021 RAMP Reportsby addressing Workforce Planning /Qualified Workforce issues as a CFF inthese RAMP Reports (see SCG‐ CFF‐7;Human error and a discussion aboutpersonnel competency are missing from SDG&E‐CFF‐8). Training to minimizehuman error is discussed in the Incidentthe 2019 RAMP Report.Involving an Employee risk chapters (seeSCG‐Risk‐5, SDG&E‐Risk‐8).Climate change posed by SDG&E’s andThe Companies have improved theirSoCalGas’s operations was notpresentation for the 2021 RAMP Reports.addressed as an individual risk chapter in SoCalGas and SDG&E have incorporatedthe 2019 RAMP Report.additional information regarding climatechange‐related issues as a cross‐functionalfactor (CFF) in these RAMP Reports (see SCG‐CFF‐2; SDG&E‐CFF‐2).19
Lessons Learned – RAMP Maturity and EnhancedRAMP to GRC Integration ConsiderationsUse of frequency: The Companies suggest the parties further explore the use offrequency and likelihood in the S-MAP OIR.Baseline for Risk Reduction Activities: The Companies understand that the topic ofbaseline and whether it should be a defined term in the lexicon is currently in scope forthe open S-MAP OIR. Any adjustments to the Companies’ approach, if necessary, shouldbe made in future filings.Validation of Data and Assumptions: The Companies expect that with theimplementation of the Risk Mitigation Accountability Report, which is a topic in scope ofthe S-MAP OIR, additional data and validation will be required.Equivalences Between Attributes in Risk quantification Framework: TheCommission is considering whether to adopt a risk tolerance standard as a statewideissue in the ongoing S-MAP OIR.Discounting of Costs: Additional discussion of discounting costs could be furtherdiscussed with interested stakeholders in the S-MAP OIR.20
RISK QUANTIFICATION FRAMEWORK ANDRSE METHODOLOGY21
Quantitative Section Overview Risk Quantification Framework Risk Spend Efficiency methodology Progress on Quantitative workQuestion Period after eachsection22
Risk Quantification Framework23
RISK QUANTIFICATION FRAMEWORKAttributeUnitRangeWeightHealth & SafetyIndex0 ‐ 2060%ReliabilityIndex0‐123%Financial M 0 ‐ 500M15%Stakeholder Satisfaction*Index0 ‐ 1002%*Stakeholders: customers, employees, public, government, and regulatorsHealth & Safety IndexSub AttributeValueFatality1Serious Injury0.25Acres Burned*0.00005*Applies to Wildfire risk onlyReliability Index (SDG&E / SoCalGas)Sub AttributeUnitRangeWeightGas Curtailment (80 / 250)# MMcf0 – 333 / 66625% / 50%Meters Loss of Service# of meters0 ‐ 50,000 / 100,00025% / 50%Electric Outage CountSAIFI Outages0–125% / 0%Electric Outage DurationSAIDI Minutes0 – 10025% / 0%24
STAKEHOLDER SATISFACTION INDEXCustomerDefinitionImpact on total customer satisfaction from a risk eventMeasurement / ProxyCustomer Satisfaction SurveysScoreEquivalent1Mild and temporary dissatisfaction to some customers2Mild and temporary dissatisfaction across many customers5Moderate and temporary dissatisfaction across many customers10Moderate and sustained dissatisfaction across many customers20Extreme and sustained dissatisfaction across entire customer base25
RISK QUANTIFICATION FRAMEWORKWhere: CoRE is the sum of the four attributes of the MAVF (safety, financial, reliability, andstakeholder satisfaction)Calculate LoRERisk Scope(Source: Company’sEnterprise RiskRegistry (ERR))Per Risk EventData (Internal,External)Risk ScoreEstimate number of deaths,serious InjuriesEstimate SAIDI, SAIFI, Gas Metercounts, Gas curtailmentMAVFCalculate CoREEstimate DamageMAVF FrameworkSafety IndexReliability IndexFinancial CostStakeholder Satisfaction IndexEstimate StakeholderSatisfactionData (Internal, External, SMEs)26Range201500100Weight60%23%15%2%
SoCalGas RAMP Risks & QuantificationLineNo.2021 RAMP 299,3062,721553.0952,6671Incident Related to the High Pressure System2Incident Related to the Medium Pressure System(Excluding Dig-in)3Incident Related to the Storage System (ExcludingDig-in)4Incident Involving an Employee5Excavation Damage (Dig-In) on the Gas System *(High Pressure)0.703,1142,1806Excavation Damage (Dig-In) on the Gas System *(Medium 758Incident Involving a Contractor144.773469*Dig‐In risks will be combined into one RAMP Chapter27
SDG&E RAMP Risks & QuantificationLine No.2021 RAMP RiskLoRECoRE1Wildfires Involving SDG&E Equipment (WF/PSPS)21.2/4556/1,1732Electric Infrastructure Integrity1,63269,1773Incident Related to High Pressure Gas System(Excluding Dig-in)0.882,3012,0294Incident Involving a Contractor1.831,0331,8945Customer & Public Safety - Contact with 6,4461,3167Incident Involving an Employee0.831,2751,0628Excavation Damage (Dig-In) on the Gas System*(High Pressure)0.194,2358159Incident Related to Medium Pressure Gas System(Excluding Dig-in)300.201316101.425.97606Excavation Damage (Dig-In) on the Gas System*(Medium Pressure)*Dig‐In risks will be combined into one RAMP Chapter1028Risk Score16,459(11,768/4,691)
RAMP WalkthroughEach RAMP risk chapter demonstrates in a table, the LoRE, CoRE, and RiskScore.From SDGE‐RAMP‐2 Electric Infrastructure Integrity29
Risk Spend Efficiency Methodology30
RSE METHODOLOGYWhere:Risk ���𝑑 𝐿𝑜𝑅𝐸 𝑃𝑟𝑒 𝑀𝑖𝑡𝑖𝑔𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑑 𝐶𝑜𝑅𝐸 𝑃𝑜𝑠𝑡 𝑀𝑖𝑡𝑖𝑔𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑑 𝐿𝑜𝑅𝐸 𝑃𝑜𝑠𝑡 𝑀𝑖𝑡𝑖𝑔𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑑 𝐶𝑜𝑅𝐸Discounted Time Example:Benefit Life 30 years, 3% Benefit Discount RateDiscounted Time 19.631
RAMP WalkthroughFrom Work Papers:IDMitigation NameSCG‐RISK‐3‐C01 Cathodic Protection Base ActivitiesLifetime Benefit Total Cost ( k) % Change in LoRE Pre‐Mitigated LoRE CoRE Safety CoRE Financial CoRE Reliability CoRE Stakekholder Satisfaction CoRE Post‐Mitgated LoRE Risk Reduction Discounted Time RSE per Million1 .9734.42IDMitigation NameSCG‐RISK‐3‐C01 Cathodic Protection Base ActivitiesTotal Cost( k) ��𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑑 𝐿𝑜𝑅𝐸 𝑃𝑟𝑒 𝑀𝑖𝑡𝑖𝑔𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑑 𝐶𝑜𝑅𝐸 𝑃𝑜𝑠𝑡 𝑀𝑖𝑡𝑖𝑔𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑑 𝐿𝑜𝑅𝐸 𝑃𝑜𝑠𝑡 𝑀𝑖𝑡𝑖𝑔𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑑 𝐶𝑜𝑅𝐸Risk Reduction𝑃𝑟𝑒Risk Reduction544.99 5.63 - 469.89 5.63423.21RSE (423.31 * 0.97) / 11,936 34.4232
RAMP Walkthrough*Example from SoCalGas Incident Related to the Medium Pressure System (Excluding Dig‐in)33
Progress on Quantitative Work34
Progress on Quantitative Work Continued progress with company-wide messaging and culture Extensive efforts in pursuit of data-driven & risk-informed decision making Asset Management Enterprise Risk Management Data Science Cooperation with other IOUs and various regulatory stakeholder groups35
Progress on Quantitative WorkExamplesDataMaintenanceData GatheringAsset, Inspection(e.g. CMP, LeakSurvey, Drone),SCADA, Meter,Vegetation, RiskEvent (e.g. outage,ignition, etc.)Data MaintenanceCreating single setof data, Validatingrecords, linking datasourcesIT PlatformStoring and givingaccess to data, non‐local storage andcomputationalabilities, resilience,dashboardsDataGatheringIT ServicesandIntegrationQuantitative Risk AnalysisQuantitative Risk Analysis: A systematic numerical methodology to evaluate currentand potential risks, which includes the acknowledgement of: 1) drivers or stressors, and2) consequences from detrimental outcomes.36
Progress on Quantitative WorkRAMP is a “snapshot in time”. The utilities continually evolve their thinking and abilities.Continuously Changing EnvironmentTopicPotential ChangeRisk and Risk Scope Mitigations Analytical Approaches Potential Reason For ChangeEnterprise Risk Registryhas annual reviewsRisks may be added orremoved or re‐scoped Recent EventsLessons learnedPriorities become morerefinedNew mitigations aredevelopedExisting ones arecompleted or revised. New technologiesBecome aware of newmethodsLessons learnedChange in data setsChange in logic oranalytical approachLoRE and CoRE changeRisk Models getupdated37 More data becomes availableDifferent techniques arelearnedTechnology improvesRecent event or lack thereofCosts change
CROSS‐FUNCTIONAL FACTOR OVERVIEW38
What are Cross-Functional Factors (CFFs)?Additional information regarding safety-related initiatives associated withseveral of SoCalGas’s or SDG&E’s RAMP risksWhy are CFFs being presented?Created in response to feedback received to address some of the varioustopics raised by parties that would not be standalone risk chaptersEstablished as a CFF volume for ease of presentation rather than dispersinginformation throughout the RAMP ReportCFFs are: Safety-related challenges that impact multiple RAMP risks (as adriver/trigger, activity, program) Generally foundational in nature Presented differently from the RAMP risk chapters (e.g., no risk spendefficiency calculations, units, or alternatives are provided)39
SoCalGas Cross-Functional Factor ChaptersSoCalGas Cross‐Functional Factor VolumeChapterSubjectSCG‐CFF‐1Asset and Records ManagementSCG‐CFF‐2Energy ResilienceSCG‐CFF‐3Emergency Preparedness and Response and PandemicSCG‐CFF‐4Foundational Technology SystemsSCG‐CFF‐5Physical SecuritySCG‐CFF‐6Safety Management SystemSCG‐CFF‐7Workforce Planning / Qualified Workforce40
SDG&E Cross-Functional Factor ChaptersSDG&E Cross‐Functional Factor Asset ManagementClimate Change Adaptation, Energy System Resilience, and GHGEmission ReductionsSDG&E‐CFF‐3Emergency Preparedness and Response and PandemicSDG&E‐CFF‐4Foundational Technology SystemsSDG&E‐CFF‐5Physical SecuritySDG&E‐CFF‐6Records ManagementSDG&E‐CFF‐7Safety Management SystemSDG&E‐CFF‐8Workforce Planning / Qualified Workforce41
Cross-Functional Factor Chapter OutlineI. IntroductionII. OverviewIII.Associated Risk EventsIV.2020 Projects and ProgramsV.2022-2024 Projects and ProgramsVI.Costs
SDG&E-CFF-7 – Safety Management System: OverviewSDG&E’s SMS is a company-wide program that provides the umbrella frameworkto align our business units and the structure to strengthen our safety programsA SMS adds value by: Implementing standardized processes thatbuild safety into everything we do Eliminating silos and more closely integratingasset and risk management with operations Soliciting increased employee and contractorfeedback and building trust with open twoway communication and consistent follow-up;elevating concerns Using increased data and analytics toproactively identify and manage safety risk Following the Plan-Do-Check-Act cycle andmeasuring effectiveness to identifyopportunities for continuous safetyimprovement43
SMS Process-Based ApproachAs part of our SMS, we developed processesbased on industry safety standards and bestpractices. These SMS processes: Provide greater integration of safety, risk,asset management, and investmentprioritization with operational needs; Include step-by-step repeatable activitieswith identified roles and responsibilities; Increase the use of leading and laggingindicators to measure and assesseffectiveness to identify opportunities forcontinuous improvement.Consistent application of safety-focused processes with repeatable andmeasurable activities enhances the effectiveness of SDG&E’s risk and safetyprograms.44
SMS Continuous Improvement FrameworkFollows the Plan – Do – Check – Act cycle for continuous improvementPLANConsider the risks of the job and establish a plan(process, procedures, training, etc.) to supportsafe and successful completion.DOPerform the job based on the plan.CHECKAssess the work to see that it wascompleted according to the plan.ACTMake any necessary adjustments(process, procedures, training, etc.) andcommunicate lessons learned. Ask thequestion How can we do better?Effectiveness is measured by increased data, analytics and employee feedback45
SDG&E SMS CFF Chapter Overview Because it is asystematic, enterprisewide framework tomanage risk and topromote continuousimprovements in safety,SDG&E’s SMS spans alllines of business. SMS activities impact therisks described inSDG&E’s RAMP riskchapters and severalCFF chapters.Line Project/Program DescriptionNo.1Development and Implementation of an Enterprise-WideSMS2Enhanced Employee and Stakeholder Engagement,including SMS Competence, Awareness, Survey andTraining3Integration of New Technology and Enhanced Data andAnalytics Capabilities for Continuous Safety Improvement4Enhanced Documentation and Recordkeeping Practices5Expanded Quality Management Program Focused onAsset Safety6Enhanced Stakeholder Feedback and Key PerformanceIndicator Monitoring, Tracking, and Reporting Projects and programsare put forth for 2020 and 7through the 2022-24 time8frame.Development and Implementation of a StrongManagement of Change PlatformSMS Program Benchmarking, Measurement, and MaturityAssessment for Continuous Improvement46
LUNCH47
INCIDENT INVOLVING AN EMPLOYEEOVERVIEW(SDG&E)48
Outline» Risk Score Walkthrough» Mitigation Activity Overview» RSE Walkthrough49
Risk Score WalkthroughRisk Scope : The risk of an incident, involving one or more on-duty employees, thatcauses a fatality or serious injury (as defined by OSHA) to a company employee.Per Risk EventCompany Employee SIFdata (2015‐2020)Risk Scope(Source: Company’sEnterprise RiskRegistry (ERR))Risk Score LoRE CoRE 0.83 1274.80 1062.3Calculate LoRE: 0.83,Poisson (0.83)Fatalities: 1/5*1 0.2;Serious injuries: 4/5*0.25 0.2Safety Index: 0.2 0.2 0.4Known Discrete DistributionReliability: 0MAVFFinancialStakeholder Satisfaction (SS)Fatal accident: 1/5*5 1Nonfatal incident: 4/5*2 1.6SS index: 1 1.6 2.6Known Discrete DistributionCompany Employee SIF data(2015‐2020), SME50CoRE (Simulation Results) 1274.80
Mitigation Activity OverviewSDG&E-Risk-8-C14: Enhanced Safety in Action ProgramDesigned for executives and field operations directors, the enhanced Safety in Action (SIA) initiativeprovides SDG&E with the necessary tools to measure Serious Injury and Fatality (SIF) exposure, understandthe Company’s specific SIF precursors, and design effective steps to mitigate SIF exposure.The SIFassessment was completed in 2020 and we received executive approval to move forward with implementingthe SIF program. The 2020 SIF assessment project consisted of defining a SIF definition for SDG&E,developed a SIF decision tree, determined SIF metrics (leading and lagging), and incorporated a precursoranalysis tool to reduce SIF exposure. A SIF Governance has been developed with clear objectives for the SIFprogram that demonstrates a forward-moving effort to improve safety.51
RSE WalkthroughSDG&E-Risk-8-C14: Enhanced Safety in Action ProgramRisk ReductionMitigation EffectivenessPre Mitigated LoRE Pre Mitigated CoRE4.5% 0.83 1274.80 47.81Where :Mitigation Effectiveness 4.5% , from Subject Matter Expertise SME1Discounted Time11𝐵𝑒𝑛𝑒𝑓𝑖𝑡 𝐷𝑖𝑠𝑐𝑜𝑢𝑛𝑡 𝑅𝑎𝑡𝑒𝐵𝑒𝑛𝑒𝑓𝑖𝑡 𝐷𝑖𝑠𝑐𝑜𝑢𝑛𝑡 𝑅𝑎𝑡𝑒Total Cost: Total cost of the mitigationRSE per M111 0.030.03 0.155M . .52299.40.97
INCIDENT RELATED TO THE MEDIUMPRESSURE SYSTEM OVERVIEW(SoCalGas)53
Outline» Risk Background & Scope» Risk Score Walkthrough Sub-eventsAttributesExample CoRE Calculation» Mitigation Activity Overview &Background» RSE Walkthrough 54%%%Justifications
Incident Related to the Medium PressureSystem (Excluding Dig‐In)Potential ConsequencesDrivers/TriggersPC.1 – Serious injuries and/orfatalitiesDT.1 – CorrosionThe risk of damage, caused bya medium pressure system(maximum allowableoperating pressure (MAOP) ator lower than 60 psig) failureevent, which results in seriousconsequences such as injuries,fatalities, or outages andincludes consequences beyondthe customer meter.DT.2 – Natural forces (naturaldisasters, fires, earthquakes)PC.2 – Property damageDT.3 – Other outside forcedamage (excluding dig‐in)DT.4 – Pipe, weld, or jointfailurePC.3 – Adverse litigationPC.4 – Penalties and finesDT.5 – Equipment failureDT.6 – Incorrect operationsDT.7 – Incorrect/Inadequateasset recordsDT.8 – Execution Constraints55Incident Relatedto the MediumPressure System(Excluding Dig‐in)that Leads toAsset FailurePC.5 – Erosion of publicconfidencePC.6 – Operational andreliability impacts
Risk Score Walkthrough – MP IncidentRisk ScoreConsequence of RiskEvent (CoRE)Likelihood of RiskEvent (LoRE)𝐿𝑜𝑅𝐸 𝐿𝑜𝑅𝐸 𝐶𝑜𝑅𝐸Risk ScoreWhere 𝑖 1, , 𝑛 sub‐events and 𝑗 ranges through the four attributes of theMAVF (safety, financial, reliability, and stakeholder satisfaction) and𝐶𝑜𝑅𝐸 is the CoRE for the jth attribute of the ith sub‐eventFor example, 𝐶𝑜𝑅𝐸event.would correspond to the safety core of the first sub‐56
Risk Score Walkthrough – MP IncidentRisk ScoreConsequence of RiskEvent (CoRE)Likelihood of RiskEvent (LoRE)1Risk Score𝐿𝑜𝑅𝐸 ��𝑜𝑅𝐸 ��𝑜𝑅𝐸𝐿𝑜𝑅𝐸 𝐶𝑜𝑅𝐸 𝐶𝑜𝑅𝐸 𝐶𝑜𝑅𝐸 𝐶𝑜𝑅𝐸𝐿𝑜𝑅𝐸𝐿𝑜𝑅𝐸 𝐶𝑜𝑅𝐸𝐿𝑜𝑅𝐸 𝐶𝑜𝑅𝐸𝐿𝑜𝑅𝐸 𝐻𝑖𝑔ℎ 𝐶𝑜𝑛𝑠𝑒𝑞𝑢𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑒 𝐸𝑣𝑒𝑛𝑡 𝑎 𝑃𝐻𝑀𝑆𝐴 𝑅𝑒𝑝𝑜𝑟𝑡𝑎𝑏𝑙𝑒 𝐼𝑛𝑐𝑖𝑑𝑒𝑛𝑡 𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑢𝑙𝑡𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑖𝑛 𝑎𝑛 𝑒𝑥𝑝𝑙𝑜𝑠𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑜𝑟 𝑟𝑢𝑝𝑡𝑢𝑟𝑒 𝑎𝑛𝑑/𝑜𝑟 𝑠𝑎𝑓𝑒𝑡𝑦 𝑖𝑚𝑝𝑎𝑐𝑡𝑠𝑎𝑘𝑎 𝐻𝑎𝑧𝑎𝑟𝑑𝑜𝑢𝑠 𝐼𝑛𝑐𝑖𝑑𝑒𝑛𝑡& 𝐿𝑜𝑤 𝐶𝑜𝑛𝑠𝑒𝑞𝑢𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑒 𝐸𝑣𝑒𝑛𝑡 𝑎 𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑑 𝑒𝑣𝑒𝑛𝑡
Risk Score Walkthrough – MP Incident LoRE26 SoCalGas HazardousIncidents from PHMSAHazardous IncidentRate for MediumPressure2.6 incidents/year10 Years of PHMSAData (2010‐2019)LoREHCSoCalGas HazardousIncident Beyond theMeter (Internal Data)Hazardous IncidentRate Beyond the Meterincidents/yearLoRE 545Incidents/YearTimeframe of InternalDataSoCalGas LowConsequence Incidents(Internal Data)LoRELCLow ConsequenceIncident Rateincidents/yearTimeframe of InternalData58
Risk Score Walkthrough – MP Incident CoREsafetyConsequence of RiskEvent 𝑎𝑙𝑖𝑡𝑖𝑒𝑠 𝑜𝑅𝐸 𝐶𝑜𝑅𝐸 𝐼𝑛𝑗𝑢𝑟𝑖𝑒𝑠 𝑆𝑎𝑓𝑒𝑡𝑦Total 𝐶𝑜𝑅𝐸 is the sum of the 𝐶𝑜𝑅𝐸’s for the 4 attributes of MAVFRisk Score 59𝐿𝑜𝑅𝐸 𝐶𝑜𝑅𝐸 𝑅𝑒𝑎𝑑𝑎𝑏𝑖𝑙𝑖𝑡𝑦 𝐹𝑎𝑐𝑡𝑜𝑟
Risk Score Walkthrough – MP Incident CoRESafetyHCHazardous Incidents that resulted in Fatality of Injury at SoCalGas6PHMSA (2010‐2019)Portion of Hazardous Incidents that resulted in Fatality or Injury at SoCalGas𝐻𝑎𝑧𝑎𝑟𝑑𝑜𝑢𝑠 𝐼𝑛𝑐𝑖𝑑𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑠 𝑤𝑖𝑡ℎ 𝐹𝑎𝑡 𝑜𝑟 𝐼𝑛𝑗𝐻𝑎𝑧𝑎𝑟𝑑𝑜𝑢𝑠 ted Portion of Hazardous Incidents that Result in a Fatality or InjurySoCalGas Territory Population Density Adjustment* Portion of Hazardous Incidents that resulted inFatality or Injury at SoCalGas 23.08 * 1.45566033.59%
Risk Score Walkthrough – MP Incident CoRESafetyHCAverage Fatalities & Injuries per Incident [PHMSA (2010‐2019)]𝐴𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑔𝑒 𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑔𝑒 𝐼𝑛𝑗𝑢𝑟𝑖𝑒𝑠1.6905Expected Fatalities per Incident Adjusted Portion of HazardousIncidents that Result in a Fatality or Injury33.59 pected Injuries per Incident Adjusted Portion of HazardousIncidents that Result in a Fatality or Injury𝐼𝑛𝑗𝑢𝑟𝑖𝑒𝑠6133.59 1.69050.5678
Risk Score Walkthrough – MP Incident CoRESafetyHCConsequence of Risk �𝑡𝑎𝑙𝑖𝑡𝑖𝑒𝑠 𝑎𝑡𝑎𝑙𝑖𝑡𝑖𝑒𝑠 𝑜𝑅𝐸0.1140 1 𝐼𝑛𝑗𝑢𝑟𝑖𝑒𝑠 𝐼𝑛𝑗𝑢𝑟𝑖𝑒𝑠 𝑆𝑎𝑓𝑒𝑡𝑦 𝑆𝑎𝑓𝑒𝑡𝑦0.5678 0.25 60% 100,00020𝐶𝑜𝑅𝐸767.7862 𝑅𝑒𝑎𝑑𝑎𝑏𝑖𝑙𝑖𝑡𝑦 𝐹𝑎𝑐𝑡𝑜𝑟 𝑅𝑒𝑎𝑑𝑎𝑏𝑖𝑙𝑖𝑡𝑦 𝐹𝑎𝑐𝑡𝑜𝑟
Risk Score Walkthrough – MP Incident 𝑡𝑎𝑙𝑖𝑡𝑖𝑒𝑠767.78 ��𝑢𝑟𝑖𝑒𝑠𝑆𝑎𝑓𝑒𝑡𝑦 𝐼𝑛𝑗𝑢𝑟𝑖𝑒𝑠 𝑆𝑎𝑓𝑒𝑡𝑦 𝑅𝑒𝑎𝑑𝑎𝑏𝑖𝑙𝑖𝑡𝑦 𝐹𝑎𝑐𝑡𝑜𝑟Subject Matter Expertise was utilized to establish a zero safetyimpact for Low Consequence Events in the MP Incident Risk𝐶𝑜𝑅𝐸0 10 0.25 60% 𝑅𝐸𝐶𝑜𝑅𝐸 𝐶𝑜𝑅𝐸12,103.754563𝐿𝑜𝑅𝐸3.86 𝐶𝑜𝑅𝐸
Risk Score Walkthrough – MP Incident1𝐿𝑜𝑅𝐸𝐿𝑜𝑅𝐸Risk Score𝑅𝑖𝑠𝑘 𝑆𝑐𝑜𝑟𝑒𝐿𝑜𝑅𝐸 ���𝑜𝑅𝐸 𝐶𝑜𝑅𝐸𝐿𝑜𝑅𝐸 𝐶𝑜𝑅𝐸𝐿𝑜𝑅𝐸 𝐶𝑜𝑅𝐸 𝐶𝑜𝑅𝐸𝐿𝑜𝑅𝐸 𝐶𝑜𝑅𝐸 𝐶𝑜𝑅𝐸𝐿𝑜𝑅𝐸 𝐶𝑜𝑅𝐸𝐿𝑜𝑅𝐸𝐿𝑜𝑅𝐸 ��𝑜𝑅𝐸𝐿𝑜𝑅𝐸 𝐶𝑜𝑅𝐸𝐿𝑜𝑅𝐸 𝐶𝑜𝑅𝐸𝐿𝑜𝑅𝐸𝐿𝑜𝑅𝐸 𝐶𝑜𝑅𝐸𝐿𝑜𝑅𝐸 𝐶𝑜𝑅𝐸𝐿𝑜𝑅𝐸 𝐶𝑜𝑅𝐸𝐿𝑜𝑅𝐸 𝐶𝑜𝑅𝐸𝑅𝑖𝑠𝑘 𝑆𝑐𝑜𝑟𝑒545 12,103.71545𝑅𝑖𝑠𝑘 𝑆𝑐𝑜𝑟𝑒143.933,070.9564275.15548 𝐶𝑜𝑅𝐸𝐿𝑜𝑅𝐸 𝐶𝑜𝑅𝐸
Transmission Line (HP)RSE WalkthroughSCG-RISK-3-C05: RegulatorStation Replacements/InstallsLimitingStationSupply Line (HP) Regulator Stations are a critical component to the GasSystemSome stations cut from high-pressure to high pressure,while others cut from high-pressure to medium pressure.Failure of a Regulator Station could result in an overpressure or under pressure eventReplacements/Installations could be as a result ofaging infrastructure, load growth, new developments,risk-based prioritization, smart technologyenhancements, etc.They are control points in the system.65District RegStationDistribution Main (MP)ServiceMeter SetAssemblyCustomerHouse Line(CustomerProperty)
» Above Ground Reg StationRSE WalkthroughSCG-RISK-3-C05: RegulatorStation Replacements/Installs» District Reg Station» Below Ground Reg Station66
RSE WalkthroughSCG-RISK-3-C05: RegulatorStation Replacements/Installs The Risk Spend Efficiency is the overall change in the risk score –your reduction in risk score for the activity you’re doing – over theamount of money spent to complete said activity The risk score can change by identifying activities that decreasethe likelihood and/or consequence of a risk event. For thisactivity, a reduction in LoRE was determined.Likelihood of Risk Event(LoRE)Consequence of Risk Event(CoRE)% Risk Addressed % Mitigation Scope % Effectiveness𝑅𝑆𝐸𝑅𝑖𝑠𝑘 ��O&M and Capitalcosts throughout thelife of the mitigation67DriversRISKEVENTConsequences
RSE Walkthrough ‐ %%% MethodSCG-RISK-3-C05: RegulatorStation Replacements/InstallsRepresentation of Risk to the Enterprise from MP IncidentsRisk Addressed: Percent of overall risk that mitigationaddressesMitigation Scope: Percent of assets mitigation will affect overits lifetime.Mitigation Effectiveness: Percent effectiveness of themitigationBenefits Lifetime: Length of time the mitigation is expected toprovide benefits.Total Cost: Total ( ) cost of the mitigation68
RSE Walkthrough ‐ %%% MethodSCG-RISK-3-C05: RegulatorStation Replacements/Installs𝑅𝑆𝐸𝑅𝑖𝑠𝑘 𝑆𝑐𝑜𝑟𝑒𝑅𝑖𝑠𝑘 𝑆𝑐𝑜𝑟𝑒𝑅𝑆𝐸𝑅𝑖𝑠𝑘 𝑆𝑐𝑜𝑟𝑒𝑇𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 𝐶𝑜𝑠𝑡𝐿𝑜𝑅𝐸𝐿𝑜𝑅𝐸 𝐵𝑒𝑛𝑒𝑓𝑖𝑡 𝑙𝑖𝑓𝑒𝑡𝑖𝑚𝑒 𝑅𝑒𝑎𝑑𝑎𝑏𝑖𝑙
8 Overview – Application: Overview and Roadmap of Company’s RAMP Reports SoCalGas / SDG&E Introductory Chapters Chapter Subject RAMP‐A Overview and Approach (Joint) RAMP‐B Enterprise Risk Management Framework (Company Specific) RAMP‐C Risk Quantification Framework and Risk Spend Efficiency (Joint)
Overview of SCE's Pre-RAMP Workshop 7 SCE looks forward to the discussion with stakeholders on our 2022 RAMP Risks Consistent with the S-MAP Settlement Agreement (SA), SCE will address in our 2022 RAMP Report "the rationale for taking or disregarding input" that stakeholders provide at today's workshop
#1 YARD RAMP IN AMERICA by JH INDUSTRIES, INC. 1981 E. Aurora, Road Twinsburg, Ohio 44087 330-963-4105 800-321-4968 www.copperloy.com MOBILE CONTAINER RAMP & DOCK TO GROUND RAMP Installation and Owner's Manual
(approximately 8 to 12 degrees), the workers would be unable to drag the stones up the ramp (Smith 2004, 164). If the ramp adhered to this incline, for the ramp to reach the top of the pyramid, which is 481 feet tall, the ramp itself would be over one mile long (Brier 2007, 23).
Lake Erie Links of Lake Erie Golf Course adjacent to project limits Monroe Township Fire Station No. 2 Trout’s Yacht Basin Monroe Boat Club Harbor Marine Monroe Charter Township City of Monroe Ramp E Ramp D Ramp C Ramp B Ramp A LaPlaisance Creek extends through the project limits Davis Drain Limited ROW L
13.1.1 Location of the Ramp Meter Stop Line The location of the ramp meter stop line is determined by engineering judgment. Each ramp alignment is unique and the site specifics play a major role in determining the most appropriate location. The basic goal is to place the stop line far enough down the ramp to provide
Boat Ramps Long Island Region Town of Smithtown Author: NYSDEC BMR Subject: Guide to the boat ramps in the marine waters of the Town of Smithtown Keywords: Smithtown marine boat ramps, smithtown ramp, local ramp, long island ramp, public access ramp, boat trailer ramp Created Date: 1/6/2011 2:57:55 PM
AMERICA'S ULTIMATE YARD RAMP by JH INDUSTRIES, INC. 1981 E. Aurora, Road Twinsburg, Ohio 44087 330-963-4105 800-321-4968 www.copperloy.com MOBILE CONTAINER RAMP & DOCK TO GROUND RAMP Installation and Owner's Manual
automotive propulsion since the 1900s, a focussed effort on improved thermal efficiency, systems optimisation, hybridisation and new net-zero carbon fuels is required to meet stricter emissions regulations. Engine efficiency, commonly measured as Brake Thermal Efficiency, has continued to increase since the last TPS roadmap was published in 2017. For light duty vehicles, this is expected .
