The results of testing at Springfield City Utilities' Southwest Power Plant are in - see the euy2k.com newsroom for details.

I had the opportunity this afternoon to spend almost an hour on the phone with Brenda Putman at City Utilities, and it was a good interview. I haven't decided whether or not to write up the interview for the website, but if you have specific questions based on their press release and the writeup in the euy2k.com newroom, ask, and I'll try to answer. We covered a lot of stuff during the interview.

Her primary message to me was: the industry shouldn't take this testing as proof that every power plant is going to function correctly during the date rollover. Every plant is different. She couldn't even say whether or not Southwest Power Plant would have made the transition properly without the testing and problem identification exercise that they went through. They will be making Y2k fixes and modifications to the plant as a result of the testing, particularly in their primary control system.

Again, if you have any questions, ask - I'll try to answer them for you.

-- Anonymous, November 19, 1998

Answers

Rick, do the "Y2K fixes and modifications" to the Southwest Plant necessitate the ordering of of new parts and/or control systems? If so, have they been ordered yet? Does Southwest know the delivery time for said parts? They mentioned that there will be another down time in February to install firmware. Do they have this firmware in their possession now?

Do you know how many, or what percentage of the 125+ major components tested in this last outage did not work correctly? Their press release only said that that number were tested. A quantification of the "few minor problems" mentioned would be helpful. (I'm not sure I would categorize fixes and modifications to the primary control system as minor.)

I realize these questions are suspicious in their nature, but after reading press reports and filings which have changed every three months or so over the last year (for the worse), my trust in public relations reports has been severely degraded.

I personally think it's a little late to have been testing major components to see if they needed fixing, but better late than never. One last question. If combustion and turbine control systems work correctly does this mean that distribution to customers is assured, or just that generation is assured?

Many thanks for any answers you can provide.

-- Anonymous, November 19, 1998

I have some follow up questions in additional to Bonnie's. As I have also grown a bit skeptical of press releases, (the original press releases said they would be testing 215 systems, not 125?) But my question is: is the plant in Springfield up and running right now? If they experienced any problems how long did it take them to get them back on line? I know it would be hard to use Springfield as a barometer for all other plants, but were the problems simply a "turn- it-off-turn-it-back-on-again-hey-it-works!" or were the problems "hey- we-can't-get-this-thing-started-at-all-no-matter-what-we-try-with- what-we-have-on-hand" I would think that if the former was the case, we all may be worrying over a relatively small problem. If the latter, well, we all know what that means... any insight as to the depth of the problems experienced and anyactual examples of what happened and their ramifications?

Thanks

Jeff

-- Anonymous, November 20, 1998

>Rick, do the "Y2K fixes and modifications" to the Southwest Plant necessitate the ordering of of new parts and/or
>control systems? If so, have they been ordered yet? Does Southwest know the delivery time for said parts? They
>mentioned that there will be another down time in February to install firmware. Do they have this firmware in their
>possession now? 

I honestly don't know the answer to their supply chain questions, but 
I will ask the next time I speak to them.

>Do you know how many, or what percentage of the 125+ major components tested in this last outage did not
>work correctly? Their press release only said that that number were tested. A quantification of the "few minor
>problems" mentioned would be helpful. (I'm not sure I would categorize fixes and modifications to the primary
>control system as minor.) 

Ms. Putman and I went into detailed system discussions, but did not 
get into quantifying by percentages.  The major impacts found were in 
their Bailey Control System modules (which reside, in ISA parlance, 
between control level 3 and 2).  They tested all operationally 
critical control systems from ISA level 3 to 0.  I even posed a few 
"trick questions" and she passed them all with flying colors.  But 
again, I'll revisit your question with her next time we speak.

>I realize these questions are suspicious in their nature, but after reading press reports and filings which have
>changed every three months or so over the last year (for the worse), my trust in public relations reports has been
>severely degraded. 

As has mine.  That's why the phone interview went as long and 
technically deep as it did.  I wanted to convince myself that I wasn't 
getting a PR spin.

>I personally think it's a little late to have been testing major components to see if they needed fixing, but better late
>than never. One last question. If combustion and turbine control systems work correctly does this mean that
>distribution to customers is assured, or just that generation is assured? 

This whole thing just covers one of their two generation plants.  But 
what it gives me is a sense that they really understand what's going 
on with the issue, and are doing everything they can system 
wide to deal with the problem.  For instance, they know their city 
electric distribution SCADA system isn't going to make it, and they 
are replacing / upgrading starting in December.  A note on City 
Utilitites - they also have responsiblity for gas and water in 
Springfield.

>I have some follow up questions in additional to Bonnie's. As I have also grown a bit skeptical of press releases,
>(the original press releases said they would be testing 215 systems, not 125?) But my question is: is the plant in
>Springfield up and running right now? If they experienced any problems how long did it take them to get them
>back on line? I know it would be hard to use Springfield as a barometer for all other plants, but were the
>problems simply a "turn-it-off-turn-it-back-on-again-hey-it-works!" or were the problems "hey-
>we-can't-get-this-thing-started-at-all-no-matter-what-we-try-with-what-we-have-on-hand" I would think that if
>the former was the case, we all may be worrying over a relatively small problem. If the latter, well, we all know
>what that means... any insight as to the depth of the problems experienced and anyactual examples of what
>happened and their ramifications? 

The plant is currently up and running, and they had no problems coming 
back into service that I'm aware of.  I'm assuming they baselined 
where all of their systems were prior to going into the outage, and 
then reset everything to that baseline prior to restarting the plant, 
which would render an assumption based on either the former or latter 
above moot.  Hopefully, City Utilities will continue to be very open 
about discussing their findings, and will provide further updates 
following their February outage.

Again, I'll do some followup with Ms. Putman in the near future.

-- Anonymous, November 21, 1998