The ICC Website is changing. As this transition is made, our new format can be found at www.pesicc.org/ICCWP. Please send any comments or questions to mvh@voncorp.com.
On to 100 - How the ICC is Addressing its Future
by Rick Hartlein
Chairman, Insulated Conductors Committee
Once upon a time, not so long ago, in a country not so far away, there was a comfortable, stable, heavily regulated industry; with good jobs, good growth and lots of happy, hard working employees who had a job for life….
It’s hard to believe that this fairy tail was once a true story. Today our industry is not exactly stable and for sure it is not comfortable. This means organizations like the Insulated Conductors Committee (ICC) are struggling to figure out our role in this brave new world.
Almost two years ago the IEEE PES Insulated Conductors Committee celebrated its 50th anniversary. As one of the oldest (if not the oldest) committees within the Power Engineering Society, the ICC has held over 100 meetings for the purpose of developing standards and guides related to the design, manufacture, installation and testing of insulated cable systems.
By most measures, the ICC is a successful organization. Meeting attendance remains steady - around 300 at the spring meeting and around 400 at the fall meeting. Standards and guides are written. New technologies, materials, installation techniques and test procedures are introduced. Utilities sometimes share their experiences with spectacular cable failures. ConEd usually has the best stories. Cable failure statistics are (were) discussed openly. The merits of one cable insulation material over another are hotly debated. Dinners are eaten, friends are made, deals are consummated. The focus is neither academic nor mundane. It is a great place for the practically minded engineer. The pace is slow but there is progress - though at times you have to look for it. It has been said that you can skip a few meetings and not miss a beat. That’s what we have done for the last 50 years. Will it work for the next 50 years?
To answer that question, I asked 12 people who represent a broad cross-section of our membership to participate in a group that I call the "On to 100" Task Group. Our mandate is to figure out what we should do to keep (make) the ICC viable for the next 50 years - well, if not 50 years, at least the next 10 years. I don’t have to tell you that our industry is changing and the rate of change is increasing. What does that mean for the ICC? Should we change our meetings? Our structure? Our scope? Who should attend our meetings? Should they be IEEE members? How do we promote the ICC?
To begin answering these and other questions, we did what most groups do when faced with difficult questions - we surveyed our members. Then we did a little research for ourselves and then collected our own ideas, thoughts and prejudices.
The survey yielded some interesting and eclectic responses. Two were two clear themes. First - it takes us too long to prepare standards and guides. Ain’t no two ways about it. Second - although standard and guide preparation is an important function, the survey respondents said the primary purpose of the ICC should be to provide a forum for exchanging technical information and for educating attendees. The second theme was clear, relatively straight forward and easy to address - so that’s what we did first.
Over the last 50 years, the ICC grew to have a total of 13 technical subcommittees. This led to lots of overlapping meetings, a proliferation of task groups, inefficient repetition and a "if your got the overheads - we got the projector" approach to technical presentations. With over 70 presentations per meeting spread over three days in an overlapping mix of over 30 subcommittees and working groups, it was impossible for a meeting attendee to see all the presentations they wanted to see.
To fix these problems, we collapsed the total number of technical subcommittees to four. Their focus is broad but clearly defined. Their mandate is to provide a venue for technical presentations. Presentation abstracts are now required. Written papers are suggested. Boring details of task group business are held to a minimum. There is very little overlap. If they so desire, meeting attendees can see almost all presentations. Now that presentations are reserved for Subcommittee meetings, Working Groups can work and Discussion Groups can discuss. They no longer have to bear the burden of providing for presentations. Eventually this should lead to a reduction in the number of working and discussion groups. This too is good.
We now have an education program. We have held sessions on polymer science, cable quality assurance, cable accessory characteristics, and others I can’t remember.
We have implemented a functional, viable WEB page. I would argue that is the best of all the PES technical Committee WEB pages. It provides news updates, detailed meeting information, lists of ICC sponsored standards and guides and links to numerous other IEEE WEB pages. It contains a downloading site for Working Group Chairs to post documents under development. This is one small step towards reducing the time needed to publish standards and guides. Take a look at our site. The URL is www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/pes/icc/
So now we and education program and we provide a better forum for technical exchange. There are a few bugs but our members indicate that the changes are positive. At the last gathering of the "On to 100" Task Group, I asked if the group they thought we should disband. What a foolish question. They all agreed that our mission was far from over. In fact, we have only picked the low hanging fruit.
There are many other issues. What do we do about the pathetically slow pace for developing guides and standards? (I could write an article on that subject alone!) Will competition prevent us from working together? Will we be able to share the information needed to develop viable standards and guides? As utilities reduce their engineering staff, who will be the future ICC meeting attendees? Is it the Engineering Service Companies? If so, how do we get them to our meetings? How well does our structure fit their needs? How do we better interface with the Power Engineering Society as a hole? Do we need to?
We saw a lot of changes over the last 50 years. However, I do believe we ain’t seen nothing yet. Alas, there is much left to do so the "On to 100" Task Force is not yet eligible for retirement.
Return to the ICC Homepage
