Overhead distribution resiliency study recommends reclosers, data cleanup and phased program to reduce outage impacts

Consultants from Burns & McDonnell's 1898 practice presented the results of an overhead distribution resiliency study to the Austin Energy Utility Oversight Committee on May 28, recommending a phased program of near-term device deployments and a longer-term enterprise program to improve reliability.

Michael Cody of 1898 told the committee the study analyzed Austin Energy's 5,000 miles of remaining overhead distribution and recommended an approach that emphasizes targeted infrastructure replacement and sectionalization rather than full undergrounding. "We identified over 600 mainline reclosers and over a thousand lateral reclosers, which gives Austin Energy options," Cody said. Reclosers are devices that can isolate faults on a feeder and reduce the number of customers who lose power during an incident.

The consulting team performed three tasks: an "as‑is" systems assessment, detailed feeder coordination studies to evaluate protection and automation device placement, and a future-state planning effort. The as‑is review found Austin Energy's distribution equipment broadly compliant but flagged aging assets and 14 substations nearing operational limits for further evaluation. The consultants identified opportunities to expand load-shed flexibility, improve data integration and clean customer- and equipment-level data, update distributed-energy-resource hosting practices, and refine public guidance on hosting and connections.

The feeder studies prioritized lateral device placements based on vegetation density, historical outages, customer counts and line length. The consultants said adding reclosers and improved sectionalization would reduce fault impact, speed restoration and enable further grid automation. The study produced both "moderate" and "aggressive" deployment options and emphasized that the choices need to be aligned with budget and implementation timelines.

Austin Energy staff told the committee the overhead study complements a recent underground-feasibility study, and that leaders are drafting a comprehensive distribution resiliency plan that will combine existing reliability programs, underground options and the overhead recommendations. David Tomchessen, Austin Energy vice president of electric system engineering, said the combined information will let staff compare underground versus overhead and moderate versus aggressive approaches on a feeder-by-feeder basis.

Council members asked about targeted alternatives to undergrounding where undergrounding is not financially feasible. Staff said the study's results are structured to allow side‑by‑side comparisons of underground and overhead options and that overhead measures can often be deployed faster. Members also discussed vehicle impacts on poles, wildfire risk in certain corridors and coordination with transportation and public‑works departments for roadway and lighting projects.

Staff said they will use the study results to draft a living distribution resiliency plan, will provide a list of the 24 resiliency initiatives on request, and plan to return to the council later this year (targeting approximately November) with the full plan and budget recommendations. The utility noted an initial budget entry of roughly $10 million for FY2026 actions growing to about $20 million per year within the first five years; staff said estimates will be refined as the plan is finalized.