SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Technology Stocks : American Superconductor (AMSC) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Glenn Petersen who wrote (562)9/5/2003 8:43:17 AM
From: Sam Citron  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 973
 
Lag of Data to Grid Operator May Be a Key to Blackout
By MATTHEW L. WALD NY Times

WASHINGTON, Sept. 4 — An important element in the Aug. 14 blackout may have been the inability of the consortium that manages the Midwest regional grid to learn about all the transmission line failures in Ohio and to adjust the system accordingly for 64 minutes before the system's collapse, the House Energy and Commerce Committee was told today.

Advertisement



In the committee's second day of hearings into the blackout, Joseph L. Welch, chairman of the International Transmission Company in Michigan, said that his utility's review of records of a computerized regional system called the System Data Exchange found nothing about the failure of seven separate transmission lines, most in the territory of the FirstEnergy Corporation, in Ohio. Utilities are supposed to report all failures to the exchange, he said.

The president of the consortium, the Midwest Independent System Operator, known as Miso, confirmed in later testimony today that his organization had difficulty determining what was happening in the time just before the blackout.

But, the president, James P. Torgeson, added, the pace of events after the system experienced trouble made response difficult. Until the last minutes, he said, the line failures did not seem to overload the system.

Mr. Torgeson did not address the issue of the System Data Exchange directly but testified that in the minutes before the blackout, his dispatchers were speaking to FirstEnergy operators and trying to establish what was happening.

"We were seeing some things, and we were trying to confirm it with them what was going on, and we weren't getting the confirmation immediately," he said.

When a transmission line or a generating station goes out of service, power flows on the grid shift in ways that can cause overloads elsewhere in the system. The change in flows can also leave the system vulnerable to overload or collapse if another line or generating station fails.

Thus, Mr. Welch said, every time the system configuration changes, dispatchers are supposed to recalculate both the flows and whether, in the new flow pattern, a single failure could cause a blackout. "Every line on the transmission grid is supposed to be accounted for," he said.

But Mr. Torgeson, after his testimony, said that his organization had not found any changes necessary until "right before things broke apart." And a spokeswoman for Miso noted that in the patchwork system of management and ownership of transmission lines, not all the lines that failed were in Miso's territory.

Also today, FirstEnergy officials sought to cast doubt on the idea that they were at the center of the blackout. Charles E. Jones, the company's senior vice president for energy delivery and customer service, said in a telephone interview that if the "epicenter" of the event was northern Ohio, then systems in that region would have been expected to fail.

But, he said, the neighboring systems, including American Electric Power, Dusquesne Light and the Pennsylvania-Jersey-Maryland independent system operator, were not seriously affected, and three-quarters of FirstEnergy's own customers were not affected.

Attention was drawn to FirstEnergy, he said, by the North American Electric Reliability Council, the umbrella organization of the power transmission entities. The council's president, Michehl Gent, said soon after the blackout that it appeared to originate with failures of power lines in FirstEnergy's system.

For two days, the House committee has discussed the difficulties of expanding the transmission grid's capacity. By most accounts, though, the grid does not appear to have been under any particular strain until very shortly before the lights went out. And while many witnesses said they would prefer a stronger grid, Eugene R. McGrath, the chairman of Consolidated Edison, said that the system was usually less expensive and more reliable if generating stations were close to load centers.

For instance, New York State, seeking to increase reliability, requires that 80 percent of New York City's load be generated within the five boroughs. Mr. McGrath and others asked that any national system of mandatory transmission rules let local jurisdictions augment those rules with even stricter requirements.

Many committee members acknowledged being lost in the forest of acronyms and the confusing structure of the grid in a deregulated environment. Another witness, Elizabeth A. Moler, executive vice president of Exelon, which operates Commonwealth Edison and the Philadelphia Electric Company, said, though, that changes were needed to prevent future blackouts.

"Arcane, need I say geeky issues, like congestion management and generation redispatch, really matter, and affect reliability," she said.

nytimes.com



To: Glenn Petersen who wrote (562)9/28/2003 10:22:26 AM
From: Glenn Petersen  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 973
 
Toppling outages the smart way

Argonne National Laboratory is testing software to predict electrical use in an attempt to prevent blackouts


chicagotribune.com

By Jon Van
Tribune staff reporter

September 26, 2003

Rather than stringing more electrical lines, researchers at Argonne National Laboratory say a better way to prevent another crippling power outage involves software that predicts problems before they happen.

In a radical approach, they are treating the nation's electrical grid as if it were like the Internet, where electrical demand is anticipated, and the flow adjusted before imbalances cascade out of control.

"We have 157,000 miles of transmission lines in the country, and it costs half a million dollars to build a mile of transmission line," said Lefteri Tsoukalas, an engineering professor at Purdue University, which led a team of engineers that developed the software Argonne is testing. "Half a million dollars buys a lot of information technology."

The development of a "smart" electrical grid would use extensive information about where electrical demand originated to predict anticipated demand in the future. These predictions would warn the system when trouble--like a massive blackout--may occur so it could be averted.

"What we've learned is this is doable," said Yung Liu, manager of energy technology at Argonne. "You get pretty good predictions."

Furthermore, as computer chip prices continue to fall, adding intelligence to the power grid is much cheaper than rebuilding it, said Tsoukalas.

The software Argonne is testing, called TELOS, looks at patterns of electrical use to learn how to predict future demand. Within a few years, the lab tests could be ready for the real world, according to the engineers.

Argonne has collected 30 months' worth of data of its past electrical consumption, which is correlated with hour-by-hour weather information.

A year's worth of data was used to train TELOS to understand Argonne's electrical consumption patterns. Now it is running simulations that predict power consumption, and those predictions are compared with the power demands that actually occurred.

Although the predictions aren't perfect, they have been fairly close to actual use, Liu said.

Using computers in the decision-making process is probably necessary to prevent massive power outages from spreading, he added.

"In a typical control room, you try to prevent cascading problems," Liu said. "But in some cases, you have only seconds to act--the blink of an eye. I don't think humans can do it."

Large, national power grids have become so complex that no one can monitor or control them adequately, Tsoukalas said. So instead of focusing on the overall grid, local grids would be monitored, and demand would be predicted on a smaller scale.

By correcting local problems before they spread, he said, operators can avoid major failures of the overall grid.

"If you see anomalies--feeders are overloaded, congestion--they can be corrected," Tsoukalas said. "But often they go unnoticed until it's too late."

Still, information technology alone won't solve all grid problems, he said. There must be adequate generation and transmission infrastructure in place, but adding computer intelligence to the system would vastly improve reliability and security.

"You could give every electric meter in the country an IP [Internet protocol] address," Tsoukalas said.

Although engineers long have used data to manage the electrical grid, turning the task over to computers would be a fairly radical move, said David Schooley, a senior engineer with Commonwealth Edison in Chicago, who worked with the Purdue-led consortium.

"I think it's a fundamentally sound approach," he said. "It's in the lab at this point and has to be developed more to be put into practice. This would be another step in software potentially making decisions, looking out ahead and doing something to alleviate a problem.

"Nothing we have now does that on a large scale."

The Purdue consortium was one of six formed to work on network reliability, an initiative launched in part as a reaction to a major blackout in the western U.S. and Canada that occurred in 1996.

The initiative's manager, Massoud Amin, said that technology developed by many researchers is being integrated into what he calls "the self-healing grid."

Amin, formerly a manager with the Electric Power Research Institute, an industry group, is an engineering professor at the University of Minnesota. The industry is very interested in moving to a self-healing grid, he said.

"It is alive and well," Amin said. "The smart grid is one of the enabling technologies that are part of creating the self-healing grid. This is no longer a distant dream, but something we can make happen over the next three to five years, depending upon funding."

Both government and industry groups are working to push the concept and secure funding to implement the self-healing grid, he said.

The utility industry has embraced smart elements in the power grid, said Ed Schweitzer, whose firm, Schweitzer Engineering Laboratories Inc., based in Pullman, Wash., makes protective relays and other components for electric utilities.

"We've pioneered using relays to talk to each other, to share information and do new things," said Schweitzer. "We've got bits and pieces to replace the slow-moving human factors."

Yet the predictive aspect of the TELOS software could make the grid smarter and more able to avert major outages, he said.

"The grid doesn't need to be rebuilt," Schweitzer said, "but it certainly needs to be augmented."

Copyright © 2003, Chicago Tribune



To: Glenn Petersen who wrote (562)10/13/2003 7:34:04 PM
From: Sam Citron  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 973
 
A Plea for Power [Barrons Op-Ed 10.13.03]

Electricity reform should be grounded in profit and efficiency
By JOHN O. SILLIN

THE AUG. 14 BLACKOUT was the piece de resistance in the national need for major reform of how the electric power industry is regulated and managed. It comes on the heels of the California electricity crisis, other service interruptions, the bankruptcy of major generating companies, the electricity-trading debacle, the loss
of billions in international power investments, and the financial decline of major segments of the electric power business.

Earlier this year, the Senate and House passed comprehensive energy legislation, and the final version is now being negotiated in conference. While the conferees are making some effort to address oil and natural-gas supply issues (opening the Alaskan National Wildlife Refuge and providing incentives to build the Alaska natural-gas pipeline are still part of the bill) it appears nothing of consequence has yet been done on electricity, despite a high profile hearing by the House Committee on Energy and Commerce in September.

Electricity reform provisions in the bill include building more windmills, researching "clean coal," researching the "hydrogen economy" and increasing appliance energy-efficiency standards.

While most of this stuff is well-meaning, and by Washington standards inexpensive, it all fails to address the root issue facing the power industry: How to accomplish its fundamental mission of producing and delivering electricity reliably and economically. The Blackout and Hurricane Isabel again demonstrated that reliable, economic electric service are absolutely necessary in a modern economy.

We used to know this, but the purpose of the electric power industry has been diluted, if not lost. Now its function is to deliver politically correct "green power" and energy conservation, and do whatever else politicians and regulators want. To the extent electricity can be generated from new sources, the prevailing political preference is to use "clean" natural gas, and other "small-is-beautiful" technologies. Trouble is, neither the color nor the source nor the size of the generating facility has much to do with whether we will have an economical, reliable electricity supply.

Inefficiency by Rule

The 1992 Energy Policy Act was supposed to assure that investment decisions were based on economics not politics, at least with regard to generation. But the fundamental issue of how to deal with state regulators, often vulnerable to political pressures, was left unresolved. They set the rates that utilities can charge, thus they control utility company behavior and have veto power over any significant investment decisions.

When the relationship between capacity and demand dropped to dangerously narrow margins in the mid- and late-1990s, there was a rush to install natural- gas power plants, which were perceived to be cheap to build and operate. This was the way chosen to provide rate freezes and similar moves aimed at keeping voters happy. Over $100 billion was invested in these plants.

Well, the cost of construction may still be reasonable, but few if any of these plants will operate for long, as gas prices approach $5 per million BTUs. Generating companies that invested heavily in this technology are suffering huge losses or going bankrupt. And utility distribution companies are now left with worthless contracts, and perhaps not enough power to keep the lights on.

The 1992 Energy Policy Act also failed to address the utilities' loss of eminent domain authority -- an authority which would enable them to upgrade and extend capabilities by acquiring public or privately held land. New facilities are contested at all local, state and federal levels. This opposition and not-in-my-backyard state regulation have caused transmission investment to lag behind need. In the 1990s alone, electricity demand increased by 35% while transmission investment increased by only 10%. The August blackout and a general deterioration in system reliability are direct consequences of this under-investment.

Distribution investment has also lagged. Overall, investment as a percent of the power-industry revenue dollar is near an all-time low.

Inefficiency by Design

Not only did essential electric infrastructure not get built, but many electric companies lost billions in pursuing profits they thought they could no longer earn in the core utility business.

Merchant power plants, plants fueled by natural gas that were built to serve the wholesale market, have led companies up an expensive blind alley, leaving them either bankrupt or with single-digit share prices.

There was more hype than reality to electricity trading. "Roundtrip ticketing" and other shady practices were part of the hype used to sustain this business. Those that led the hype, such as Enron and Dynegy, ultimately lost billions.

There was more self-congratulation than reality in the belief that domestic management skills were going to be transferable to international utility acquisitions. International power plant and distribution company investments have been huge losers, costing U.S. power companies and their investors billions.

The California energy crisis, the August Blackout, efforts to abrogate wholesale power agreements, the decline in reliability, the exposure to rising natural-gas prices, and the decline of the Dow Jones electric utility share price index -- from over 170 in December 2001 to 111 as of this writing -- are the most obvious consequences of more than 30 years of politically influenced regulation and legislation.

<font color=red>The energy bill now in conference could provide an opportunity to begin reversing this trend.</font> What should be in it? Here are the principles that should guide the lawmakers.

The underlying mission of the electric power industry is to deliver electricity reliably and safely at as economical a price as possible. Power companies are not social-service-delivery organizations.

Expanding and upgrading the electric transmission system is critical. To accomplish this, investment incentives and the power of eminent domain are required to make the investments feasible.

Generation diversity should be an option, and tax and regulatory policies should be technology-neutral. Relying on a single fuel form, such as natural gas or renewables, is dangerous to electric-system economics and stability.

Electric-industry barriers to entry should be lowered. If utilities can squander investment in unregulated activities, fairness requires that new entrants be allowed to replace them.

Several elements of the electricity industry, such as transmission and distribution, are monopolistic in nature. Some public entities need to oversee these elements of the business. But regulators, particularly at the state level, should be limited to enforcing system operating rules and encouraging investments that strengthen the electric grid. Otherwise management should be in charge of companies -- including having the freedom to earn high rates of return in the core electric-power business.

Efficiency Through Profit

The Balkanized regulatory structure of the power industry needs reform. The Federal Power Act establishing this structure dates back to the 1930s. Everything else has changed except the law. With nearly all utilities having interstate operations, there are frequent conflicts between federal and state regulators.

It is possible to make money in the electric-power business as companies such as Entergy, Southern and Exelon demonstrate. These companies, either through accident or design, have avoided the most common mistakes (Southern, for example, divested its merchant power plant subsidiary just before natural-gas prices began their inexorable climb), and appear to be producing electricity reliably and delivering it an economical price. At the same time, their share price has outperformed both that of other utilities and the S&P 500 over the past three years, and managed to realize share-price increases in a down market.

Energy legislation can encourage and reward other companies in the electric-power sector to follow similar strategies -- to build reliable electric grids with generating facilities that have stable, relatively low operating costs.

Somehow, Congress must provide the leadership that is needed. Electricity is an absolute necessity to the functioning of a modern nation, and the time for allowing politics to control its development must be at an end.

JOHN O. SILLIN is a consultant with Energy Strategists Consultancy Ltd., and can be reached at jsillin@comcast.net.

online.wsj.com