3 ms·

I hope this isn't getting too local and for HN, but... "which substations were shut down" - I used to work for a company that did a prototype for image recogni

I hope this isn't getting too local and for HN, but... "which substations were shut down" - I used to work for a company that did a prototype for image recognition to identify maintenance issues for the power company (vegetation encroachment, towers in need of repair, etc.) So I had access to the GIS for this area and memorized it. So I can tell by which houses are out which substations went down. Also related to that project, I do know that people (at least on the engineering side of the decision makers) do understand risk and alarm fatigue and all of that. So maybe based on my experience, I'm giving them more of a benefit of the doubt than I should be. "communication" - communication wasn't great for THIS weather event, I got one email from them that "might" have to do something. But looking in my voice mail archives I see a call on 3/2 and 3/4 and also accompanying texts and emails that they might have to shut down for the same reasons (there were winds then too). Maybe they over communicated the first time? I didn't know that emergency services weren't told, that's weird. If I were pulling the plug, you can bet I'd be calling all of the affected Sheriffs. "marshall fire" - Hope I don't get too conspiracy theory here. I live right by the ignition point, so I know that area well. I think the cult nearby was the real culprit, looking at the barn and everything the day of the fire. The Sheriff's investigation said that they did have a (legal) fire a few days before the event and did everything that they were supposed to to put it out and cover it, so there's no way they could do criminal charges. It's just the 100 MPH winds were able to start a few embers, and then the embers just hopped buildings over the ridge. I know the distribution line by 93 was also considered an issue, but it never really looked like it sparked anything when I went by. I did talk to a deputy at school pickup and he was giving me some inside info about sneakiness on Xcel's part, but I don't think you could really pin this on them. If you know the area, you have the barn from the viral video and houses all along the north side of Marshall road, and then you have the mesa along the south side. Granted, the mesa did burn, but it was just a "grass" fire, the houses along the north side were just catching the embers from the previous house and it was a chain reaction the whole way down. I ride Marshall mesa all the time, and I never saw any real evidence of ignition down by the power poles that they were blaming. Of course, you still have at least 20kV in those distribution lines and there could have been a spark from those 100MPH winds, but I still doubt it. Back to the main topic...just going on what I know about the grid layout and the weather patterns here, they shown down the substations that I would have. And communication could have definitely been better. I talked to one guy who lives up in the mountains. After 24 hours without power, he called Xcel to ask when they were going to turn it on, and they didn't know his area was out (due to damage, not voluntary shutoff). Also, when a live power line goes down, they get a signal that's pretty accurate as to where the break is. When a dead power line goes down and then gets damaged later, they don't know where it is and have to put eyes on every foot of line before they reenergize to make sure it's safe.

sanderjd 3y ago
It's definitely too local for HN, but it's a good conversation so I don't care :) > I didn't know that emergency services weren't told, that's weird. Sorry if I implied they weren't informed at all, the reporting I read was that they weren't informed with enough certainty or lead time to sufficiently prepare. And I think this also goes back to what I think is the deeper point that this shouldn't be an hours vs. days thing, but a months to years thing. If the monopoly utility for a region has concluded that wildfire risk has become so high that they need to start doing large-scale preemptive de-energization to safely manage it, for the first time ever, I think that should be highly publicized and closely coordinated with the municipalities and emergency services involved. Again, maybe this all happened and I just missed it, but I have looked and not found anything about it anywhere. For instance, the stoplight situation was dire. Perhaps some of the stoplights on roads where the speed limit is 65 could be upgraded with a backup power capability, if there were some lead time on this? I dunno, maybe that's totally impractical for an outage that lasts over a day. But that's another thing... Is it really acceptable for a discretionary outage to last for almost a day after the weather event has cleared up? I understand that it's very challenging to reenergize dead lines, but it's hard to be as sympathetic to that when turning those lines off in the first place was a choice, rather than a result of the weather itself. > Also, when a live power line goes down, they get a signal that's pretty accurate as to where the break is. When a dead power line goes down and then gets damaged later, they don't know where it is and have to put eyes on every foot of line before they reenergize to make sure it's safe. To me, this reads like a very good reason to not de-energize lines unless it absolutely cannot be avoided! And that's the thing, at the bottom of all of this, I feel like, I've lived here for decades, and it will be difficult to convince me that "preemptive power outages absolutely could not be avoided" was true for this storm, but not of any of the others like it that I have experienced in that time.

sanderjd 3y ago

It's definitely too local for HN, but it's a good conversation so I don't care :) > I didn't know that emergency services weren't told, that's weird. Sorry if I implied they weren't informed at all, the reporting I read was that they weren't informed with enough certainty or lead time to sufficiently prepare. And I think this also goes back to what I think is the deeper point that this shouldn't be an hours vs. days thing, but a months to years thing. If the monopoly utility for a region has concluded that wildfire risk has become so high that they need to start doing large-scale preemptive de-energization to safely manage it, for the first time ever, I think that should be highly publicized and closely coordinated with the municipalities and emergency services involved. Again, maybe this all happened and I just missed it, but I have looked and not found anything about it anywhere. For instance, the stoplight situation was dire. Perhaps some of the stoplights on roads where the speed limit is 65 could be upgraded with a backup power capability, if there were some lead time on this? I dunno, maybe that's totally impractical for an outage that lasts over a day. But that's another thing... Is it really acceptable for a discretionary outage to last for almost a day after the weather event has cleared up? I understand that it's very challenging to reenergize dead lines, but it's hard to be as sympathetic to that when turning those lines off in the first place was a choice, rather than a result of the weather itself. > Also, when a live power line goes down, they get a signal that's pretty accurate as to where the break is. When a dead power line goes down and then gets damaged later, they don't know where it is and have to put eyes on every foot of line before they reenergize to make sure it's safe. To me, this reads like a very good reason to not de-energize lines unless it absolutely cannot be avoided! And that's the thing, at the bottom of all of this, I feel like, I've lived here for decades, and it will be difficult to convince me that "preemptive power outages absolutely could not be avoided" was true for this storm, but not of any of the others like it that I have experienced in that time.