While I was very pleased to find such a lengthy, albeit contradictory, review of the Y2K problem in the latest New York Times article (Dec. 27), I found myself back to square one in my assessment of the electric utility question. First the article states: "The direst situations that are predicted -- financial chaos, societal strife, food shortages and persistent, widespread blackouts -- are highly improbable." Do they know something the rest of us don't know? At the very least this contradicts their June 2, editorial which stated: "It makes sense to prepare for the worst." Further into the article Public Service Electric and Gas reports that their problems are manageable: "As for crucial software that helps balance electricity supply and demand, the utility is saving millions of dollars by not fixing it at all, because the company plans to buy new software eventually. Until then, it is simply setting the clock back so that the program will function as if it is 1972 instead of 2000; the dates in 1972 fall on the same days of the week as in 2000."

1972 is a leap year and does indeed mirror 2000 as far as I can tell. I've wondered from the beginning why everyone couldn't just do something like this as a temporary fix. I am concerned and confused by such statements. If they are inaccurate then I worry that the message being sent is dishonest and will cause people to relax their efforts. If it IS a viable option to set one's clocks back until it is convenient to fix them then what are we all so concerned about!!! We all could be sleeping much more soundly with the lights ON. I would very much appreciate some clarification, as I am soon to discuss this very issue at my town's meeting and am sure the question will come up. What is wrong with this solution as it effects embedded chips, cross contamination due to absense of a standard with other connective partners, and real time functions?

Many thanks, James Calhoun

-- Anonymous, January 02, 1999

Answers

I wonder if they are going to roll their customer billing rates back to 1972 ?

-- Anonymous, January 02, 1999

James, in addition to Bill's point about billing dates, I believe the 1972 calendar solution is not practical because of the limited time remaining in which to do the work, even if that was to turn the clock back. It could work in a few isolated situations, but it is not the proverbial "silver bullet", and I don't think it realistic to expect or hope for a silver bullet.

I would like to comment on that article. Last Sunday, the Memphis Commercial Appeal ran that article at the top of the front page. I disagreed so strongly with the word "improbable" as you quoted above, that I wrote a letter to the editor about my feelings of increasing probability of power failures. Unfortunately, the editors have not published my letter as yet. So, after thinking about Steve Tomczak's post on "How Do We Proceed in 1999?", and reading Bonnie's answer, I feel the next step is to do what YOU'RE going to do - address a town meeting. Or else, call a Y2K awareness/action meeting in my smaller suburb community.

Back to the article - it is contradictory, and I think another example of the "let's not induce panic the public" school of reporting. But, James, as others have said, no one knows what is going to happen. In looking for facts with which to make my own decision,I've looked at Rick's info, including the analysis of the NERC report, and I've followed his links from other threads in this forum to info on the NERC site, and I've read Bonnie's analysis of the 10-Q's. I've reached, and continue to reach, the conclusion that personal preparations are in order. I encourage you to re-evaluate the facts as you find them, draw your own conclusion, take in a deep breath (as I know I would), and COMMUNICATE with your fellow residents at the town meeting.

Best of luck to you.

-- Anonymous, January 02, 1999

I've learned to be a bit skeptical when reading press reports on the Y2k issue - in a lot of cases, the reporter writing the story was only recently introducted to the topic, and had an assignment editor drop a story line in his/her lap. With that in mind...

The NYT story wasn't too bad. I think that NYT got it wrong when they inferred that PSE&G was using encapsulation (clock rollback) strategy as the 'centerpiece' of PSE&G's IT remediation effort, but I'm going to follow up on this question Monday w/PSE&G's Y2k team. I'll let you know what I find out.

In the meantime, there's a good thread in this discussion group on encapsulation:

http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=000G4i

The short story - while encapsulation is a valid strategy in some stand alone applications and systems, it's not recommended in any system where there's data exchange with another system.

hth

-- Anonymous, January 02, 1999

James, at: http://www.computerpro.com/~phystad/csy2kfaq.html

there is a section titled "What Solutions Are There?" Just scroll down the page and you'll find it. I've posted the part on date setback below.

Remember to keep in mind the totality, or overview, of the Y2K problem when assessing reports. Ask yourself, "Why did PSE&G choose to use this less than optimum "fix"? Could this correspond with other information which might indicate they don't have the time left to do anything else? Date setback is considered by many computer professionals to be a "contingency" arrangement only, in the event that nothing else can be finished in time. Another good question to consider might be, "If they don't have time (or money) to do permanent fixes for some of their software, which is considered the easiest part of remediation, then what about their status on embedded systems?" I've discovered that it's very rarely a case of specific statements being dishonest. It IS the case that what is NOT said can be more important than what is.

Also remember that overview in this regard - a utility does not stand by itself. Each one is vulnerable to the problems of others. Read ANY recent SEC utility 10Q filing and this concern is reported and the vulnerability admitted to. What it boils down to, is unless ALL are ready in an interconnection area, all are at risk. I personally think the data thus far indicates that quite a few utilities will not be ready by Jan.1, 2000. I hope I am wrong in my assessment, but I choose to prepare and not gamble. I also feel quite certain that those in the southern states who have been without power for many days would agree that preparations are beneficial even without Y2K in the picture. I know my neighbors just north of me who had to leave their homes for weeks during the major ice storm last year would also heartily agree.

Here's the info on setting dates back:

Date Setback

"There are two types of date setback techniques, one requiring the manipulation of data, and the other involving the system clock itself.

The year data can be set back by 28 years (or 56; the calendar repeats itself every 28 years), making "98" appear to be "70" (or "42"). This approach is by far the riskiest, as it involves changes to both code and data; requires alteration of all existing date values (some databases contain millions of records, and each record may contain one or more date values); and requires manipulation of date values at input to subtract the setback, and at output to restore the amount of the setback.

Setting the computer's system clock back by 28 (or 56) years is sometimes an acceptable *temporary remedy*, for a stand-alone device that has no inputs or outputs from other systems, and if the clock permits a system date of "71" or earlier.

Caveat: a company known as Turn Of the Century Solution (TOCS) has received a patent from the U.S. Patent Office regarding a specific type of date setback procedure. The patent description mentions the prior existence of a 28-year date setback technique, so it is unclear what specific methods or procedures have actually been patented."

-- Anonymous, January 02, 1999

As a follow-up to my reply above, and to be fair to the newspaper, my letter to the editor was published today.

The bad news is that they struck out my statement "we as individuals and churches and communities need to prepare for the probability of power outages".

-- Anonymous, January 03, 1999