Don't you think it is reasonable to expect that the "load" on power grids will be ordered by the government to meet only essential services in the first week of January 2000? My inference is that schools and most places of employment will be taking a holiday---not only to watch the load, but to try to keep out as much as possible delinquent code. And wouldn't it be wise to break up the country into (let us say) 24 areas that will not be allowed to connect in any fashion till that area is judged tainted- code-free? If we allow for interconnectedness and full loads on power the first few days, then we invite more trouble.

-- Anonymous, October 24, 1998

Answers

Hello, Geoff. I'm not all that knowledgeable about the legal interactions between government and utilities, but it's my understanding that since utilities have been deregulated and are privately owned, the only way for our government to "order" them to do anything (outside of complying with safety regulations) would be if they government nationalized (took over) all the utilities. Such an action could only occur if the government deemed there was such a dire emergency that our national welfare was in immediate jeopardy. Taking over privately owned property is a last ditch, back-against-the-wall proposition. Not to mention that the expertise to know what to do and how to do it lies with the owners and employees of the utilities, not the federal government.

As for breaking up the grid, it's also my understanding that there are many technical difficulties in separating individual power generation facilities from the grid. Members of a grid are interdependent in many ways, allowing shortages in one area to be supplied by another area, with the purpose being to maintain a steady flow of power adjustable to the hourly and day to day changing demands. Separating a grid may well create less stability, not more, even if it could be done.

I'm sure others can provide a more complete and accurate answer than I have given, and I welcome any corrections or amplifications.

-- Anonymous, October 24, 1998

The paperwork--Presidential Executive Orders--is in place at this time to essentially take over control of everything and everybody in the United States. Most of them are signed "William Jefferson Clinton". All they require for activation is a declared state of national emergency.

When Y2K becomes the main topic of conversation next year and public panic sets in during the latter part of 1999, I expect to see a federal fiscal crisis, stock market crashes, the failure of many financial institutions, assaults and robberies increasing, and finally in late fall, bank runs, food riots and truck hijackings. By then most people will be demanding that the government sort things out, with troops if necessary.

So, direct federal control of the utilities--given the scenario described above--is nearly certain. My feeling is that FEMA will make plans to divide up the grids in an attempt to prevent cascading failures from occurring at the rollover point. And the plans will be closely held, otherwise people might very well flock to areas which were deemed to have reliable power systems.

-- Anonymous, October 25, 1998

I think that this would be a very realistic scenario assuming of course that the power companies were for the most part compliant and able to generate power. Therein lies the problem. Not a single power company to date has demonstrated compliance. The government can mandate power output all it wants, if the utility is not capable of putting out any power, what does it matter?

-- Anonymous, October 26, 1998

I think Steve Watson makes a valid point. Nationalizing any industry is pointless unless the goal of mitigating the emergency can be accomplished. The expertise to remediate or work around failures will still remain with the electric utilities, not the government. If a generating facility is operable and running out of coal, for instance, then the government would have a part to play in keeping the coal supply coming, but ordering grid separations or anything else is futile if the technical capability to do so isn't there.

There is another aspect of government involvement which I think is being generally overlooked in discussions about what the government will do. In Figure 8 of the Gartner Report on Global Readiness, predictions of failures in major infrastructures for level 1 countries (U.S.) are all in the 2 to 3 range, with one 4 in the "Interruptions to Imports/Exports" category - until you get to the "Interrruptions to Government Services" category, which TOPS everything out at a 6.

My concern is not about what actions the government might take, but instead lies with the premise that those who are expecting Uncle Sam or their state government to help them out may be in for a rude surprise. Government will be the hardest hit of all.

-- Anonymous, October 26, 1998

I agree with Bonnie's answer. In general there seems to be this idea that the government is insulated from the problems that the "rest" of the country will have. Think about it. When and if things go sour, at a minumum, the government will have to worry about/control/correct the following things:

* Social unrest caused by a breakdown of federal social services * National Defense in a very unstable environment * Major economic impact (nationally and internationally) * Power production * Emergency supplies (like Water) for a large part of the nation * Health services * Telecommunications * Gas and Oil supply * yadda, yadda, yadda....

And the real kicker here is that the military is tasked to be the control/correction/enforcement vehicle for all of the above....at a time where the military is trying to solve its own Y2K induced problems (ever try to mobilize an army with no reliable communications? I haven't, but I'll bet it's next to impossible). Another assumption is that the military could step in and fix the problem when the civilian experts can't. Subjectively, this doesn't make sense. Most of these problems are hidden inside "systems". And with any system, (A computer system, a power generation system, etc.), it simply isn't possible to quickly understand all the nuances and specifics of how the systems works. The likely outcome is that more errors would be introduced than corrected. In computer programming, Hell is defined as having to debug code that someone else wrote. That is because the code represents a system (or part of one), and the approach/methodology/operation of that system is locked up inside the heads of the original designers/coders. Besides this, military control of the power plants assumes that the problem is operational, not systemic. We all know the folks who operate these plants are good. The problem is that the plant itself neither knows nor cares...if it's not going to run, it's not going to run, whether or not the guy trying to run it wears a uniform. To assume that there is some magical set of operating procedures that the military would bring with them is not plausible. If they knew something the plant operators didn't, then now would be the time to say so.

So, when I hear people say that martial law is just around the corner, I snicker a bit. Not because it isn't something that's on the minds of our heros in Washington, but because I think those same heros have unrealistic expectations about how effective they can really be. Only time will tell.

Ron

-- Anonymous, October 28, 1998

Some great analyses in this section.

Let me add my two cents worth to Ronald Hocutt's remarks. I agree with him that the government would essentially be powerless over the situation, contrary to people's underlying expectations. How can a man in a National Guard uniform get a SCADA system in a malfunctioning utility to work when a lifelong expert cannot? How can a bureaucrat mandate a train to run when there is no diesel or operating switches?

Nor are there enough National Guard or active duty troops to quell widepsread civil unrest if that should occur. The government has no magic, hidden sources of food, power or troops to impose order on a continent-wide nation of nearly 300 million people (in part thanks to Mr. Clinton's downsizing efforts).

Speaking of which -- because of his own problems and a seeming built- in lack of character, Mr. Clinton is showing no heroic, Churchillian efforts to rally a nation in peril against a common enemy. I think he will remain in denial to the very end, or offer only palliative measures, as he usually does when pressed to address an issue.

As a Christian (with most courteous respect to other's opinions) I think this time of history will he unique -- as individuals, we will all have to depend directly on God for our survival, provision and ultimate deliverance. Even with massive preparations, one can never be sure how much food, ammunition or remoteness is enough.

Even though I'm preparing, this is where I put my trust -- "For in the day of trouble he will keep me safe in his dwelling; he will hide me in the shelter of his tabernacle and set me high upon a rock. Then my head will be exalted above the enemies who surround me..." (Psalm 27:5)

Thanks for your input.

John Calhoun jcalhoun@frii.com

-- Anonymous, November 04, 1998