Emergency coordination among

(1)

60 E L E C T R I C P E R S P E C T I V E S

E

mergency coordination among government agencies and respond-ers has been an immense issue recently, particularly in light of Hurricane Katrina. But the issue of creating a system to effect that coordination has been around for many years.

One of the fi rst attempts arose from a series of wildfi res in California in 1970. As the fi res raced across the state, local and state fi re services found themselves ill-prepared to manage the response to such a large multijurisdictional inci-dent. It was a huge job to coordinate fi re departments, police, forest and land agencies, hospitals, rescue teams, and electric and other utilities—and, accord-ing to agencies respondaccord-ing to the fi res, communications, coordination, and man-agement were defi cient. In the end, 700 structures were destroyed, 16 lives were lost, and the fi res cost an estimated $18 million per day.

After that, Congress asked the U.S. Forest Service to develop a system that could standardize incident response. The Service worked with California’s Firefi ght-ing Resources of California Organized for Potential Emergencies task force (FIRESCOPE), composed of the agencies and departments with fi refi ghting respon-sibilities in the state, and developed the Incident Command System (ICS). By 1982,ICS had been incorporated into the National Interagency Incident Manage-ment System, and was increasingly being incorporated into fi re/rescue systems across the United States.

Con Edison in New York began the process of adoptingICS ﬁ ve years ago and has become a strong advocate for the program. In the 1990s, the utility had participated in a signiﬁ cant number of

oil-spill drills, many in conjunction with the U.S. Coast Guard. When the Coast Guard began implementingICS, executives at Con Edison recognized that their adoption of the system would enhance their own incident coordination and management and moved toward a gradual adoption of the system throughout the company.

Con Edison considered four beneﬁ ts:

■ better focus for operational teams; ■ effective incident resolution;

Administration, and American Public Works Association. After September 11, 2001, the federal government increas-ingly focused on a national all-hazards approach to large-scale incidents. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) issued guidelines for two systems: the National Incident Management System (NIMS) and the National Response Plan (NRP). (See the sidebar, “NIMS andNRP.”) Since the federal government has made some funding dependent on adoption of theNIMS by federal, state, and local enti-ties by ﬁ scal year 2007,NIMS andNRP

have a good chance of inﬂ uencing electric utility operations. Utilities withoutICS

may have difﬁ culty integrating their activi-EMERGENCY RESPONSE

THE INCIDENT COMMAND SYSTEM

By Grant Davies, Miki Deric, and Brooke Davies

Grant Davies is president, Miki Deric is managing director of energy practice, and Brooke Davies is senior consultant of Davies Consulting in Washing-ton, DC.

■ enhanced incident organization; and ■ quicker incident resolution.

They also felt that incident manage-ment plans could resolve broader issues and would be better for the community.

Incorporation ofICS into a utility’s business plan can enhance coopera-tion with key stakeholders, but there’s another driver. Prior to the attacks on September 11, 2001, a myriad of federal, state, and local agencies had endorsedICS. These included the Fed-eral Emergency Management Agency, the Environmental Protection Agency, the Occupational Safety and Health

ties into the overall command structure of an incident. This could not only leave them isolated but also affect the effective-ness and coordination of the response.

The System

The incident commander (IC) has respon-sibility for on-scene management of the

Con Edison crews usingICS during an

electric incident. The white hat denotes the Incident Commander.

(2)

entire incident and is at the head of the ICS organizational model. For small incidents, such as a downed power line, the most senior person on the responding crew establishes command and functions as theIC.

As an incident grows in size and complexity, more qualifi ed supervisors generally begin to arrive at the scene. At that point, the initial IC may transfer command to a higher-ranking individual. For larger incidents requiring long-term restoration efforts, the IC can establish planning, operations, logistics, and fi nance/admin-istration areas, as well as a command staff with customer interface, information, safety, and liaison offi cers.

Con Edison decided to require ICS at events of all sizes. After the system was

in place, the company’s management realized that it would have to expand it beyond the NIMS model to better meet company needs. So, while following the

NIMS protocol, Con Edison increased the number of positions in the structure. For example, fi eld positions such as communicator were added to facilitate informa-tion exchange at portable fi eld command posts; and additional liaison positions, such as customer operations offi cer, energy services offi cer, and legal offi cer, were created to address utility business needs during full-scale events.

By limiting the number of people reporting to a supervisor, no responder has an overwhelming amount of informa-tion that must be analyzed and passed on to superiors. Furthermore, since ICS

requires that all communications ﬂ ow

through the IC, the ﬂ ow of information is reasonable; and since only the IC is in direct contact with communications, the information stands a good chance of being consistent and accurate. And that improves cooperation among agencies and the utility.

TheICS model is typically organized by region, with a limited number of staff assigned solely to ICS roles in the company’s emergency management or preparedness group. Other people on the team have other, primary day-to-day responsibilities—theirICS roles, often referred to as second jobs, provide sup-port for emergency activities and comple-ment the group.

Con Edison has several full-time employees assigned to the company’s emergency response groups (ERGs) within operations. Working closely with operat-ing department supervisors and

emer-By limiting

the number

of people

re-porting to a

supervisor, no

responder has

an

overwhelm-ing amount of

information

that must be

analyzed and

passed on to

superiors.

(3)

emergency crews,ERGs help facilitate the use ofICS during ﬁ eld emergencies. They also function as on-scene liaisons to representatives from the New York City Ofﬁ ce of Emergency Management, the Westchester Department of Emergency Services, the Fire Department of New York, the New York Police Department, and other municipal responders.

Another group within the company’s electric distribution operations area has the primary responsibility of oversee-ingICS within each of Con Edison’s four electric regions. Finally, the corporate

emergency management group consists of ﬁ ve staff withICS oversight responsi-bilities. These employees, who function under Con Edison’s emergency manage-ment organizational structure, have vary-ing responsibilities. When not involved in ongoing incidents, these staff members focus on internal and external training, planning, drilling, development of train-ing, and communicating with cooperating agencies and departments.

The creation of pre-incident prepara-tion plans has become a standard practice in utilities usingICS. For example, if the trajectory of a weather event is known, the utility can have incident preparation plans before service restoration becomes the focus. As a result, internal stakeholders know, with signiﬁ cant notice, what role they must perform in theICS hierarchy, what resources have been requested and received, where an incident command post may be set up, and under which organizational element (logistics, opera-tions, etc.) they will work.

ImplementingICS Involves Training and Minimal Costs

The ﬁ rst step in the process of company-wide implementation is to identify the individuals who will hold full-timeICS

positions. Although external consultants typically train initial “inductees,” ongo-ing trainongo-ing is handled internally, with

ICS staff not only conducting training sessions, but also ensuring that the training and incident response plans are up-to-date and in line with the company’s emergency management practices. Train-ing usually entails an initial orientation, classroom sessions, and functional exer-cises and drills.

All this required training does have a downside. The most frequently cited problem is the time required for develop-ing the traindevelop-ing courses and organizdevelop-ing drills and exercises.

Since the system’s initial adoption,

ICS training at Con Edison has been an internal function. New staff members with emergency response duties take an online

ICS overview course, attend a one-day training session on basicICS, and par-ticipate in a two-day training session on advancedICS in the company’s Learning Center.

According to manyICS users, train-ing costs are negligible. The roles and responsibilities are clearly deﬁ ned, which enables relatively quick and cost-effec-tive implementation. Since most utilities already provide extensive emergency res-toration training and maintain emergency response plans, the incremental cost of adoptingICS can be limited simply to gaining the necessary buy-in.

B

y developing an expandable system, the California task force took into

sideration span of control. In the Incident Command System, the span of con-trol for a supervisor is limited to three to ﬁ ve individuals, with ﬁ ve being ideal. In earlier response systems, a supervisor could become overwhelmed by the number of people reporting to him and the amount of information they provided.

In 2003, President Bush released Homeland Security Presidential Directive 5, “Management of Domestic Incidents,” which ordered the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to develop a standardized approach to national incident management.

Using best practices from ﬁ re/rescue services, law enforcement, government agencies, and the private sector,DHS developed the National Incident Management System (NIMS, a standard national approach for response to and manage-ment of domestic emergencies) and the National Response Plan (NRP, designed to ensure coor-dination of activities and responding agencies). Both are designed to apply to any type of domes-tic incident.

To ensure readiness,NIMS guides agencies to adopt a preparedness cycle that involves on-going planning, training, equipping, exercising, evaluating, and correcting.NIMS also standardizes resource management at the emergency opera-tions center, the physical structure where repre-sentatives from the community and responding agencies can meet and discuss response plans. To achieve such standardization, the identifi cation, acquisition, allocation, classifi cation, certifi cation, and tracking of resources must be consistent and done in advance.

In December 2004,DHS published theNRP, an operational plan in which on-scene incident management is coordinated with federal departments and agencies. TheNRP

also clariﬁ es responses to incidents by outlining responsibilities for federal, state, local, and tribal agencies, elected and appointed ofﬁ cials, nongovernmental and vol-unteer organizations, and the private sector, including utilities.

N I M S A N D N R P

Following the restoration of power in downtown Manhattan after 9/11, Con Edison crews disconnect the last temporary cable.

(4)

Beneﬁ ts and Disadvantages

Davies Consulting surveyed approxi-mately 30 utility executives on the extent ofICS adoption within their companies. Ten companies had implemented ICS, and twenty did not use it at all.

Regardless of whether respondents did or did not use the system, the survey found that implementation had more ben-eﬁ ts than disadvantages. Half or more of

ICS users indicated that it created higher customer satisfaction, clear roles and responsibilities, improved communica-tions with responding agencies, enhanced cooperation with ﬁ rst responders, more efﬁ cient restoration, more transparent reporting relationships within the util-ity, and more consistent messaging and information to stakeholders.

Based on their perception of ICS, nonusers believed that clear roles and responsibilities and improved communi-cations with responding agencies would be the two biggest beneﬁ ts of implemen-tation.

The number of disadvantages were less numerous. Nonusers cited resistance to change, extensive training requirements, cost of implementation, and effects on organizational structure as the most signiﬁ cant disadvantages. Users noted fewer disadvantages, but more than 30 percent did indicate extensive training requirements and reluctance to change as implementation challenges.

ICS users were also asked whether or not they were aware of the NIMS. Sev-enty percent of respondents indicated that they were aware of the NIMS, and approximately 85 percent indicated that theICS used by their utility was consis-tent with the NIMS. Considering that the

NIMS resource-typing protocol explicitly addresses electric utilities and restoration crews, it was surprising to discover that only 60 percent of the utilities that used theNIMS were aware of and fashioned theirICS after the standards identiﬁ ed in theNIMS resource-typing protocol.

The majority of ICS users have acti-vated the system on numerous occasions;

almost three-fourths of ICS users indi-cated that they had activated the system more than ﬁ ve times. (Utilities were not asked to differentiate between full and partial activation because an important component of ICS is that the system itself accounts for the size of the incident by encouragingIC-initiated expansion and contraction. In other words, whether or

not a company has multiple levels of ICS

response is not germane, since all inci-dents, regardless of size or nature, war-rantICS activation.) Respondents listed ice storms, terrorist events, high winds, tornadoes, lightning, infrastructure ﬁ res, major blackouts, routine events, straight-line winds, and major storms as the trig-gering events.

(5)

So, the level of ICS understanding varies signiﬁ cantly among utilities, and a minority of them have fully implemented

ICS and integrated it into their emergency response approach. The companies that have adopted the system have discovered that the beneﬁ ts outweigh the disadvan-tages. Many other companies are aware of the beneﬁ ts but have decided not to implement at this time.

Con Edison’s Experience

The system used by Con Edison has four levels of emergencies: routine, upgraded, serious, and full-scale. By creating the different levels of response, Con Edison aims to implement ICS for every response event—from a smoking manhole cover or gas leak to major incidents such as the 2003 black-out. Since the company adopted

ICS, Con Edison has declared a full-scale event three times.

In the case of a ﬁ eld event, the IC is the seniorICS-trained person on the respond-ing crew. The IC will arrive at the emer-gency scene, make an assessment, ensure that public and worker health and safety are being protected, and then wear a white hard hat to indicate that he or she is the

IC. If the incident becomes more serious and additional resources are required, the

IC may personally convey command to higher-level supervisors and, if appropri-ate, begin establishing sections and a command staff. One of Con Edison’s most ingenious uses of ICS is the company’s activation of the system prior to pre-designated planned events. For example, during the Republican National Conven-tion last year, Con Edison established and implementedICS in advance. This level of pro-activity ensures effective management of any emergencies that might occur dur-ing the event, without any initial delay in getting the system up and running.

George Greenwood, Con Edison’s vice president of emergency management, acknowledges that even after ﬁ ve years of usingICS, there is still room for improve-ment. It is “a work in progress,” he says. Greenwood notes that ICS enables Con Edison not only to manage events with

more expertise, but also to modify the system (in terms of establishment of fewer organizational elements) depending on the size of the incident. Such ﬂ exibility results in more effective use of resources. Furthermore, the ICS structure facilitates an increased focus on communications and incident logistics. As a result, Con Edison is able to allow staff, especially operational staff, to focus on restoring electricity, gas, or steam to affected cus-tomers.

Greenwood ﬁ nds that once

ICS is set up, utilities “become magnets for communication” with other agencies, including the fi re/rescue service, local and state government offi cials, and law enforcement. Coordination and cooperation between Con Edison and outside stakehold-ers is so established and developed that the fi re department battalion chiefs and the police department have direct lines of communication with the ERG, operations emergency managers, and shift supervi-sors. To encourage this cooperation, Con Edison invites FDNY,NYPD, and other federal, state, and local agencies to spend a day learning about the energy systems and equipment at the company’s Learning Center.

Encouraged to Participate

Greenwood hopes that utilities will adopt

ICS without regulatory involvement. “The utilities have to get on board with ICS,” he said. “There is no reason not to.” While neither state regulatory commissions nor the DHS have considered mandating

ICS for electric utilities, New York City recently adopted the Citywide Incident Management System, which requires the city to organize and operate within

ICS. While mandates have not yet been considered, state agencies are conducting drills, in conjunction with gas and electric utilities, designed to train responders on practical implementation of the system.

ICS increases coordination between utilities and government agencies,

enhances management effectiveness, fosters safety for responders and stake-holders, and facilitates communication and cooperation among responders and managers. Utilities respond frequently to emergencies and incidents involving numerous agencies and departments that useICS. Indeed, while the entire incident will be organized and managed using ICS, many electric utilities will be functioning outside of that organizational structure. Such nonintegration has the potential to endanger restoration efforts and may lead to ineffective management and resolution of incidents. The beneﬁ ts of implementing

ICS, as those utilities that have tackled it have discovered, far outweigh the disad-vantages. In today’s fast-paced environ-ment, implementing ICS is a must—one that will ultimately assist the utility in restoration efforts and incident manage-ment. ◆

Almost

three-fourths of

ICS

users

indicated

that they

had

acti-vated the

system

more than

ﬁ ve times.

Statement of Ownership, Management, and Circulation

(PS Form 3526)

Publication title: Electric Perspectives. 2. Publication number: 0364-474X. 3. Filing date: October 6, 2005. 4. Issue frequency: bimonthly. 5. Number of issues published annually: six. 6. Annual subscription price: $50. 7. Complete mailing address of known offi ce of publication: 701 Pennsylvania Ave, NW, Washington, DC, 20004-2696; contact, editor; telephone, 202-508-5714. 8. Complete mailing address of general business offi ce of publisher: 701 Pennsylvania Ave, NW, Washington, DC, 20004-2696. 9. Full name and complete mailing address of publisher, editor, and managing editor: publisher and editor, Eric R. Blume, Edison Electric Institute, 701 Pennsylvania Ave, NW, Washington, DC, 20004-2696; managing editor, Bruce Cannon, Edison Electric Institute, 701 Pennsylvania Ave, NW, Washington, DC, 20004-2696. 10. Owner: Edison Electric Institute, 701 Pennsylvania Ave, NW, Washington, DC, 20004-2696. 11. Known bondholders, mortgages, and other security holders: none. 12. Tax status: N/A. 13. Publication title: Electric Perspectives. 14. Issue date for circulation data below: September/October 2005. 15. Extent and nature of circulation, average number of copies each issue during preceding 12 months: total number of copies, 15,270; b.(1) paid/requested outside-county mail, 12,683; b.(2) paid in-county subscriptions, 0; b.(3) sales through dealers and carriers, street vendors, counter sales, and other non-USPS paid distribution, 0; b.(4) other classes mailed through USPS, 0; c. total paid and/or requested circulation, 12,683; d.(1) free distribution by mail, outside-county, 0; d.(2) free distribution, in-county, 0; d.(3) other classes mailed through USPS, 0; e. free distribution outside the mail, 1,821; f. total free distribution, 1,821; g. total distribution, 14,504; h. copies not distributed, 560; i. total, 15,064; j. percent paid and/or requested, 87.44. Extent and nature of circulation, number of copies of single issue published nearest to fi ling date, 15,670; b.(1) paid/requested outside-county mail, 11,814; b.(2) paid in-county subscriptions, 0; b.(3) sales through dealers and carriers, street vendors, counter sales, and other non-USPS paid distribution, 0; b.(4) other classes mailed through USPS, 0; c. total paid and/or requested circulation, 11,814; d.(1) free distribution by mail, outside-county, 0; d.(2) free distribution, in-county, 0; d.(3) other classes mailed through USPS, 0; e. free distribution outside the mail, 3,625; f. total free distribution, 3,625; g. total distribution, 15,429; h. copies not distributed, 239; i. total, 15,668; j. percent paid and/or requested, 76.57. Publication of statement of ownership will be printed in the November/December issue of this publication