LSS utilized FME to create a workspace designed to dramatically reduce the facility footprint of an electric company. Using the workspace, the company reduced their One Call ticket volume by roughly 25%. This presentation will provide an overview of the problem and how FME was used as the solution.

1. Using FME to Refine Electric
Company Facility Data
Louis Panzer, Locate Support Systems

2. Overview
 Introduction
 You have GIS – how is it being utilized?
 Review of the damage prevention components
 Case study: preliminary background
 Customized application
 Integration of solution with internal data
 How are facilities protected better?
 How are costs reduced at the same time?
 Conclusions

3. You Have GIS:
How is it being utilized?
 For many companies, GIS is used to fulfill many
important functions (asset inventory, outage,
repairs, new construction)
 The question to ask is, “if digital facility maps are
available, why aren’t they being used for locate
registration and ticket review?”
 Some possible answers might be:
 GIS department unaware that this need exists
 Update issues: what is a correct frequency?
 No system in place to regulate ticket flow
 Mapping confidence level

4. Review of Damage
Prevention Components
 Areas in which maps are utilized in the process
include:
 One Call registration
 One Call ticket review
 Field Locating
(but not as a replacement for a locate)

5. Preliminary Background
 Tampa Electric Company previously utilized a
service territory that was registered using grids
 These grids resulted in tickets being sent for the
entire Hillsborough county area
 100% of these tickets were sent to the field
 Due to over notification, $900,000 of 2008
$1.15M budget was spent for no conflict
tickets to be field visited whether a visit
occurred or not
 This method of ticket management also resulted
in more risk to facilities

6. Preliminary Background Cont.
YEAR
2006
2007
2008
2009
BUDGET
$1.3M
$1.2M
$1.15M
$1.1M
Ticket count from Sunshine One Call for 2009:
88,500 tickets
Used IRTHNet to pass the tickets through for reports

7. Customized Application
One Call Registration
 STEP 1: Refined database with Sunshine One Call
of Florida (IRTH system) to register facilities using
buffered polygons instead of grids.
Polygon
Grid size

8. One Call Registration
• LSS utilized FME to
extract UG lines and
features from Tampa
Electric Oracle
database
• Workspace carved up
data into chunks,
collapsed and merged
the data. Rob?
• These lines and
features were
converted into
polygons to meet
IRTH requirements
(size and vertices) Just the pure 100 foot polygons

9. One Call Registration
 Two sets created:
100 foot buffers (for
Sunshine), 25 foot
buffers (for
screener)
 Can be created
weekly or even daily
if needed
Zoomed view to show improved coverage
Note facility polygons in blue, grids in red.

10. One Call Registration Results
 ACTUAL REDUCTION: 28% avg. (Calculated using
the last 3 months of tickets as an average.
Before
After
Estimated savings over a year: $150,000

11. Results - Step 1:
Ticket Reduction from One Call
 ACTUAL REDUCTION: 28% avg. (Calculated using
the last 3 months of tickets as an average
Estimated savings over a year: $150,000

12. Integration with Internal Data
Use of 25 Foot Buffers
Using the 25
foot buffers, the
screener is able
to review
recommendation
s from the
system first. In
a high volume
situation this is a
good
combination of
mapping and
ticket
management
“pre-screening.”

13. Integration
Use of 25 Foot Buffers
A closer detailed
view of the 25 foot
buffers

14. Integration (Results)
Ticket Reduction with Internal Data
 ADDITIONAL REDUCTION: 50% AVG.
 BRINGS TOTAL DAILY SAVINGS TO: $1,500 AVG.
Estimated total savings over a year: $390,000 +*
* will be higher when excavation stabilizes.

15. Results
 ADDITIONAL REDUCTION: 50% AVG.
 BRINGS TOTAL DAILY SAVINGS TO: $1,500 AVG.
Estimated total savings over a year: $390,000 +*
* will be higher when excavation stabilizes.

16. Integration with Internal Data
FIRST:
 Review all
tickets
using
IRTHNet
 Check
work type,
depth and
location

17. Integration Using All the Tools
SECOND
 Use GIS,
CIS and
Google to
verify
clears
CIS Address OH/UG Service Check

18. Integration Using All the Tools
SECOND
 Use GIS,
CIS and
Google to
verify
clears
G-Tech GIS Viewer

19. Integration Using All the Tools
SECOND
 Use GIS,
CIS and
Google to
verify
clears
Google maps check: using front and
overhead views

20. Integration Using All the Tools
THIRD
 Make
phone
calls if
needed.
 WHEN IN
DOUBT...
 SEND IT
OUT!

21. How Does This Process Help
Further Protect Facilities?
 Helps GIS to keep database updated
• Full circle GIS review:the process provides a
regular review of the maps (against CIS and G-
tech GIS) to identify when areas need to be
added.
 Provides a higher degree of confidence: every
ticket is either thoroughly reviewed or field
located

22. How Does This Process
Reduce Costs?
 ROI within 3 months
 System can be automated to generate new
shape files when areas have been added
 Improves the overall efficiency of the one call
ticket process
 Directly reduces locate costs, whether
internal or contracted

23. Conclusions
 Ticket management remains a critical piece to the
efficiencies and improved protection
 Ticket management works best when integrated
with accurate mapping
 Not every company has GIS
 Those that do many can use this functionality to
reduce costs
 Those that don’t can consider building a GIS
system and funding it with the savings

24. Questions
Louis Panzer
President
louis@locatesupportsystems.com
www.locatesupportsystems.com