Inputs Needed
- Understanding organization project development process
- Resilience priorities from the Site-Level Planning module
- Screened solutions list from Action 1 of the Solution Prioritization module
Outputs
- Prioritization criteria, their relative weights, and how well each solution meets the criteria
- Rough cost estimates for each solution
Overview
This action guides the resilience planning team through review of the resilience priorities documented in the Site-Level Planning module to develop additional prioritization criteria that can be used to evaluate and prioritize solutions. By developing a clear process for evaluating the relative merits of each solution, the resilience planning team can identify which solutions it will propose for implementation. This action also guides the resilience planning team in documenting rough cost estimates associated with each solution as this can serve as an important consideration in the prioritization of solutions.
In-Depth
In this action, the resilience planning team will identify and evaluate solutions against prioritization criteria that should be included in the prioritization of solutions. They will also record rough cost estimates for each solution.
Step 1: Identify and Weight Criteria for Decision-Making
Established resilience priorities are a key input for this action. Identify which priorities are important to site and organizational leadership to factor in for decisions on potential solutions.
Traditional project development criteria such as total or relative cost of solutions and criticality of the affected system or load are already considered within the Solution Prioritization module and should not be listed as prioritization criteria, or they may be double counted. The TRN automatically includes risk-reduction efficacy and emissions reduction as decision-making criteria.
Each criterion used for evaluation should be weighted based on how important it is in decision-making. It is important to recognize that the evaluation of solutions against each of these criteria is subjective. The resilience planning team should discuss criteria and their relative weights in decision-making with site leadership. Record prioritization criteria and the associated weights in the Solution Prioritization Action 3 worksheet.
Step 2: Evaluate Solutions Against Criteria
The resilience planning team should use their professional judgement and expertise to assess how well each solution meets the site’s prioritization criteria. Solutions are judged to meet each prioritization criterion, aside from risk-reduction efficacy and emissions reduction, on a qualitative scale of “not well” to “very well” (see below). These decisions can be documented in the Solution Prioritization Action 3 worksheet.
| Risk-Reduction Efficacy | Risk-Reduction Efficacy Category | Score |
|---|---|---|
| < 25% |
Minor
|
1 |
| 25% to <50% |
Moderate
|
2 |
| 50% to <75% |
Significant
|
3 |
| 75% to 100% |
Major
|
4 |
| Emissions Reduction | Emissions Reduction Category | Score |
|---|---|---|
| ≤ 0% | No Emissions Reduction | 1 |
| >0% to <50% | Marginal Emissions Reduction | 2 |
| 50% to <50% | Significant Emissions Reduction | 3 |
| 50% to 100% | Major Emissions Reduction | 4 |
| How Well Solution Meets Solution Prioritization Criteria | Response | Score |
|---|---|---|
| Solution does not address this criterion |
Not well
|
1 |
| Solution only partially addresses the criterion |
Moderately well
|
2 |
| Solution provides significant progress in meeting the criterion, but does not fully address |
Well
|
3 |
| Solution fully addresses criterion |
Very well
|
4 |
Step 3: Estimate Costs
In this action, the resilience planning team should also consider solution costs to aid in the prioritization process. The team should start by discussing the desired analysis period. The Solution Prioritization Action 3 worksheet allows analysis periods ranging from 1 to 30 years. Next, the team should discuss, in general, what its site considers a low-cost solution (initial cost plus ongoing annual cost) over the analysis period of interest. What is a moderate-cost solution or a high-cost solution? The user should make sure to consult with staff familiar with their organization’s project development process to inform categorization of project cost thresholds.
Next, consult with staff familiar with project development, energy and water managers, and other technical personnel to determine rough cost estimates for each solution or solution set being analyzed. Record these in the final table of the Solution Prioritization Action 3 worksheet. Be sure to include both up-front costs and ongoing costs, such as O&M, in these estimates.