Recently I was told that our utility company took a vote and decided that should things get bad they will get off the grid. The rumor says that the utility will be able to still service our community if they do this.

Can this be done? If it can be done, what will stop all utilities form pulling off the gird?

-- Anonymous, June 07, 1999

Answers

Linda, the process of a utility isolating itself from the regional grid is called "islanding". As I understand it, some utilities have this capability; for others it is more difficult or not considered part of their contingency plans at all. According to all the utility SEC reports I've read, islanding is considered to be the *last* resort after all other control efforts have failed. This is because the grid interconnections are there for reliability and energy transfer purposes (think of a swap meet for electricity). Each utility is in a stronger position to adapt to changes when it is supported by the rest of the grid.

There are lots of threads on this forum which discuss many aspects of islanding. Just use the Search link at the top of the New Questions page and type in "island" or "islanding". Basically, the consensus is that separating from the grid would be a worst-case contingency plan only.

-- Anonymous, June 08, 1999

Linda & Bonnie,( Rick et al) - Would anyone care to address Linda's intelligent question in greater depth? From limited-research it seems like this topic is potentially very crucial. And following the links on this topic - - creates more questions than it answers.

Q1) What ARE the legalities that would have to be challenged?? (Or just ignored, last minute?)

Q2) Why shouldn't variously located Utilities who have *conscientiously completed y2k compliance*, WANT to 'island' themselves from the Grid- - - to ensure their own local (bio-regional) viability?

If their customers have paid good money for years - with involvement of local small banks, businesses, investments etc.... Why should they stay connected to a GRID that might not work anyway??

Why should *they* be the ones to help keep 'it' up? (Not a superficial-christian attitude, mind you, - - However, it is not simply a black & white issue... complicated because:)

Q3) Don't we need totally secure (independent) utilities, in order to be able to bootstrap 'up' surrounding bio-regional infrastructures that are all interconnected??

///Who in heaven's name would be capable of deeming the "PRIORITIES' in such a complex Domino field of inter-relationships??

[Perhaps De-Centralization of the Infra-Structure is the theme that Y2K is teaching (by the school of hard knocks, hopefully not to late.) 'Bio-Regionalism'... long espoused by several political groups as the only hope for future.]

Last year - a Utility in SW Missouri - shut down several days, declared itself Y2K fit - - and stated that it would ISLAND ITSELF from the Grid, if it wanted to. Link was via North's site. I was confused & agitated by the article - that several other utilities might follow suit and challenge the system. Able to envision pros/cons, ethically, practically. Thinking, that by this time, a year later - we would be reading legal debate/gov/media coverage on the topic. Is it happening behind the scenes? Can it??

Who is in charge here?

[[sorry if these questions are largely rhetorical]]

-- Anonymous, June 15, 1999

Let me take a quick crack at some of these things while I have a moment...

Q1) What ARE the legalities that would have to be challenged?? (Or just ignored, last minute?)

SR, I don't claim omnipitent knowledge on this issue, but I'm fairly certain that every electric utility belonging to a regional power pool is contractually obligated to supply and/or take a certain amount of power to or from the regional power pool. I'm sure that someone will correct me if I'm wrong.

Here's an example. Say that your utility is a power provider, because you have excess generating capacity, and mine is a power user, because I have more demand than generating capacity. So I buy my power from the power pool. Now, comes along Y2k, and you say you're going to island yourself from the power pool. You've just created a huge problem for me (and my customers), because I depend upon you to supply power to the pool that I can purchase for my customers. Maybe my customers are now without power, or subject to rotating blackouts because you reneged on your contract to supply x amount of power to the pool. Think the lawyers would have a good time with this? You bet.

Q2) Why shouldn't variously located Utilities who have *conscientiously completed y2k compliance*, WANT to 'island' themselves from the Grid- - - to ensure their own local (bio-regional) viability?

See above. Plus, as has been covered quite a few times in this forum, while interconnectedness of the grid is a potentially weak link in the electricity chain, at the same time the interconnectedness is an inherent strength.

Q3) Don't we need totally secure (independent) utilities, in order to be able to bootstrap 'up' surrounding bio-regional infrastructures that are all interconnected??

Do a search of the forum under the terms "black start".

///Who in heaven's name would be capable of deeming the "PRIORITIES' in such a complex Domino field of inter-relationships??

That would be, in some measure, NERC's responsibility for setting industry standards that dictate priorities with these interrelationships, and individual regional operating councils to implement the standards.

-- Anonymous, June 15, 1999

SR,

Just some additional thoughts to Rick's post.

In preparation for our Y2K Task Forces initial attempts to raise the Y2K awareness levels of our customers and employees, we tried to anticipate the most frequently asked questions. We felt that questions related to our Y2K efforts and portable generators or their safe operation would certainly top the list. We were wrong. Control area separation or islanding hit the list and stayed at the top. In hindsight, I guess we should have known.

Interconnected operations certainly has its pros and cons. When your connected to the world, you share the worlds problems. But the world shares yours as well. Given that failures do occur (forget Y2K) can you imagine North America operating as thousands of electrical islands. The loss of a single unit in an isolated system would have a much greater impact on local operations and increase the likelihood of cascading failure. To lower that risk, utilities would be required to maintain much higher reserve levels and, perhaps, expensive quick- start capability at greater costs to the consumer. That is assuming that electric service is important to you. In that non-existent perfect control area where electrical and mechanical failures have ceased to exist, perfect stability is routine, and fuel costs have become rigidly stable, the justification for isolation may be in sight but even then it is not complete.

Since Rick has clearly covered the issue of contractual obligations in the first question quite well, Ill just skip that one. I just might add that there is also the issue of contractually provided reserves. If a company separates and is unable to carry contracted reserves for another utility, they are again in violation of a contractual obligation and subject to litigation. The only other obligation that I am aware of is to the NERC Operating Manual. While this may not be a legal obligation, it certainly will require some explanation from the offending control area assuming of course that NERC has any teeth. The passage goes something like:

Because the facilities of each system may be vital to the secure operation of the interconnection, systems and control areas shall make every effort to remain connected to the interconnection. However, if a system or control area determines that it is endangered by remaining interconnected, it may take such action as it deems necessary to protect its system.

The second question is more difficult to answer and presumes, or at least implies, separation prior to rollover. Many may want to separate but cant because of contractual obligations. Then there is the ethics element. What company wants to be seen as abandoning the grid in the time of uncertainty. Particularly when they have righteously enjoyed its security, reliability and economic benefits for years. What will they say to the media when askedand they will be asked Mr. Smith, we are aware that all the adjacent utilities chose to ride out the millenium rollover and remained connected to the grid. Can you tell our viewers just what drove your companys decision to abandon the rest of the country, Mr. Smith? Silly scenario? Perhaps. You can rest assured that the company that comes through this unscathed will be selling that success on January 1, 2000. But that success may be rendered hollow if they isolate their system prior to rollover.

The simple answer to question 3 is no. Each control area should maintain their own blackstart capability and startup procedures.

In question 4, I am unclear of the priorities to which you refer. Nor do you give a specific scenario so I will presume total grid collapse, a highly unlikely event. If you mean which utility should be restarted first or which region should be restored first, personally, I dont see NERC in the picture at all until a significant percentage of the regions have been restarted and restored. Even then I see the NERC role only as national coordinator to restore grid stability. Initially, I see this as a concurrent control area operation for the purposes of restart and then a regionally coordinated reconnect. It is at this point that I see NERC becoming involved. This doesnt mean that I disagree with Rick, it simply presumes a much wider failure.

Finally, control area separation may not be left up to the individual control areas. If cascading failures do begin to occur, protective relaying may make that islanding decision for them well before they have a chance to think about it.

We are very confident in our Y2K efforts and expect normal operations through out the transition. However, if my company's electric facilities, employees or customers are at imminent risk, I would support and initiate isolation. But, we will not know for sure until the fat lady sings. So until then, I would vote to hang in there!

-- Anonymous, June 15, 1999

MANY thanks to Rick, & JT too.

I am still thinking..... & researching this topic. Before repyling, in depth.

Does anyone else feel to contribute comments? (I found these old links on topic via North:)

1999-01-02 12:08:57 Subject: The Effects of Unplugging a Local Utility from the Grid Link: http://www.eei.org/Industry/structure/power5.htm Comment: Every so often, I hear about a local power company official who tells some group that the utility will maintain power locally, even if it has to disconnect from the grid.

First, this would be illegal if contracts have been signed with other companies.

Second, if this happens, it will insure the collapse of the grid.

Third, if the phones go down, the effect is the same on the grid.

See the following report from the electricity industry's Edison Electric Institute.

* * * * * * * * *

. . . Early in its development, the electric power system was comprised of separate electric companies that worked independently of each other to serve the electricity needs of local consumers. As more utilities were established and as large generating plants were constructed to meet increasing electric demand, electric companies discovered the economic and operational advantages of being interconnected. Interconnection allows utilities and other users to engage in economic power transactions with one another and enhances reliability by providing additional capability and back-up power paths for emergency situations.

How electricity providers work together in this interconnected system also enhances the reliability of electric service. As part of an integrated system, companies have traditionally honored a code of mutual assistance. They rely on each other for help in restoring service in their area during outages caused by hurricanes, earthquakes, or other unforeseen circumstances. This assistance ranges from sharing power reserves when lines go down, to sharing work crews, equipment, and other resources to speed up power restoration.

The electric transmission grid consists of more than 672,177 circuit miles of lines.

America's electric utility companies spend almost $8 billion annually maintaining these vital power links to consumers.

While the existence of an interconnected grid enhances reliability and lowers costs for consumers, the special properties of electricity make ongoing communication and close coordination in operations essential. First, electricity cannot be directed down any specific path; it flows through any connected route that lies in front of it, following the path of least resistance. Second, electricity cannot be stored and must be produced at the moment it is needed. Consequently, it takes a high measure of coordination among all companies to ensure that power flows remain in balance to meet electricity needs and that electricity reaches the final consumer at the precise moment it is needed in the exact amount that is needed. This coordination is provided by operators in control centers around the country who are in constant communication by telephone and through highly sophisticated computer systems. . . .

Gary North's Y2K Links and Forums

Summary and Comments

(feel free to mail this page)

Category: Power_Grid Date: 1999-03-12 04:16:09 Subject: New Mexico Power CompanyThreatens Grid Withdrawal Link: http://www.abqjournal.com/news/2news03-11.htm Comment: A New Mexico power company has told its clients that they should prepare for brownouts on 1/1/2000, but nothing serious. Why nothing serious? Because the company is spending $20 million on repairs.

The company says it will cut itself out of the regional power grid if it has to. This is a major admission. Few company executives admit that membership in the grid could be a problem in 2000.

One of the plants has a nearby coal mine. This is reassuring for this plant. But how about all the other coal-fired power plants? Are they at risk?

They will run tye systems manually on 1/1/2000 if they have to. This implies that the systems are at risk. Why would they have to run anything manually, even briefly? How can they be sure that the y2k problems requiring them to run things manually will be solved in a few hours?

This is from the Albuquerque JOURNAL (March 11).

* * * * * * * * * * *

Expect power surges and possibly a few hours without lights on the morning of Jan. 1, 2000, but extended outages caused by the Y2K computer problem are unlikely. That message was delivered Wednesday to the city's Millennium Committee by a Public Service Company of New Mexico official.

While Scott Witschger, PNM's year 2000 program director, didn't promise the lights would stay on uninterrupted after the turn of the century, he said PNM is doing all it can -- including spending $20 million -- to resolve its end of the Y2K computer problem.

He did advise people to buy surge protectors or unplug sensitive electronics, like home computers, to avoid damage from power fluctuations. . . .

Albuquerque Mayor Jim Baca, who formed the city's Millennium Committee to disseminate accurate information about the Y2K problem, said Witschger's comments were good news. . . .

On New Year's Eve, PNM will have crews ready to operate its entire power system manually, if need be, Witschger said. He said the same will be done for its natural gas distribution operation. . . .

About 47 percent of PNM's identified, Y2K noncompliant systems were repaired by the end of February, Witschger said. PNM plans to have all of its systems compliant by July 2, he added.

Nevertheless, Witschger said there's a "high probability" of frequency or voltage variations for at least a few hours after midnight, Dec. 31. . . .

He said there's a "moderate" likelihood of power outages lasting from one to three hours, especially if automated systems fail and crews have to operate power plants and distribution centers manually. There's a "low probability" of power outages lasting up to 24 hours, and that's if "absolutely everything goes wrong," he said. There's a similar low chance of natural gas distribution problems. . . .

Most of the noncompliant systems they are repairing involve logging of events in a computer, Witschger said. For example, the computer will record the time and date of a diagnostic check. Other date-sensitive software handles customer billing, he said.

Those systems generally aren't critical to the actual generation and distribution of power, he said. . . .

The San Juan plant gets its coal from a nearby mine, so it isn't reliant on railroad transport from out-of-state mines, he said. The plant also has a 30-day supply of coal ready for burning, as well.

Almost all of New Mexico is part of a power grid that encompasses the Western United States and the Canadian provinces of British Columbia and Alberta. PNM can contribute to or draw power from that grid if necessary, Witschger said.

However, if other electric utilities fail because of Y2K and start to drain PNM's system, PNM can cut itself off from the regional grid and go on its own. PNM's in-state power plants supply enough juice for its customers during the winter months, but, in the summer, electricity is usually drawn from the Palo Verde nuclear plant outside of Phoenix. PNM provides power to Albuquerque, Santa Fe and other parts of north and central New Mexico and is the state's largest utility. . . .

Link: http://www.abqjournal.com/news/2news03-11.htm

-- Anonymous, June 17, 1999