The NERC report is most likely accurate. I know the portion I submitted is. IF ANYTHING THE REPORT IS CONSERVATIVE. One would have to know the conservative nature of utility protection and control engineering culture. These guys redundant, backup coffee mugs (made by different vendors in case of common-mode design problems). I have several devices that have been fully tested, the results documented, the results independently reviewed, and yet not signed off because I haven't given a third review for final approval. I have found NO operational problems and only a scarce few minor, cosmetic nuisances.

The protecion systems that make up the bulk of T&D embedded chips have no more than nuisance problems. (EG: LED display shows 01-01-:0 instead of -00). Dates are not used for protective algorithms, only for archival purposes, and most of these are ok. (Picture if your microwave showed the date as 01-01-:0, but still cooked and timed properly).

IN ADDITION, there are only a handful of protective relay vendors in the country. SO, there is a limited subset of devices to test. Utility A & Utility B most likely use some common devices. IF A has tested 50%, and B has tested 50%, what is the likelyhood that they have BOTH TESTED THE IDENTICAL DEVICES IN THE IDENTICAL ORDER? 100% of the the installed base of equipment types will have been tested BEFORE all utilities reach 100%. The industry MAY have already test at least one of each protective relay model installed in the country. Because dates ARE NOT used for protective algorithms, type testing is valid. SELINC is probably got 1st place in market share in protective relaying in the country. Go check their web site and see the test plans and results. Same for most all other vendors. Rick should know all these things. Time for sanity to speak.

MOST protection is still of the vintage that your electric meter is made from (contacts & coils). Microprocessor based protection is new, utilities are slow to change (conservative) and the widespread use is a pretty new phenon.

NERC IS HONESTLY TELLING THE TRUTH. But then again, I guess my statements of reason are just more proof of a conspiracy???

-- Anonymous, January 28, 1999

Answers

Dear "chickenlittle@skyisfalling"

Why not use your real name? I haven't subscribed to any conspiracy theories. Have you? I had to ask. :-) (Carlos asked me to cheer up so I'll use some smilies here and there.)

Back on the subject, I for one very much appreciate your input, (I'd appreciate your telling more about who you are and what you do, for background purposes.)

I'll be looking forward to reading Rick's feedback on what you have to say. Point/counterpoint, preferably with facts beats flashing opinions at one another.

For anyone else who has or is working on these problems, testing embedded chips, correcting problems, etc. in the electric and natural gas or other industry and are reading this forum I'm very sure everyone here would love to hear about your experiences.

One definition Webster gives of conspiracy is "Planning or acting together secretly."

Why not let the NERC put up an open forum on the internet and let us all ask questions? Do the utilities plan or act together secretly? You've said you submitted a portion to the NERC report. Who are you and what portion did you submit?

I really don't think it would take a heck of a lot to change the overall tone of the entire Y2K threat. If say, a representative number of utility companies were to open their books on how they have handled or are handling the whole y2k mess. If outsiders were able to examine the methods, and openly question them, as in a forum like this, then I'm very sure most of us could be reassured, provided the data is accurate.

If it looks really, really bad then I'd suppose it would be best for the industries to continue to plan and act in secret. If it looks really, really bad then perhaps it would be best for the government to begin witholding reports on the matter.

We don't insist their must be a major crisis or catastrophe this coming new years eve. But why the heck won't you come out and prove to us why it won't happen? I'm wide open to recieve the data and I'm sure others are as well.

-- Anonymous, January 28, 1999

First, excessive use of CAPS LOCK is very bad form in online communication.

Second, when will your company be saying they are "Y2k Ready"? Or compliant? Or whatever the heck the buzzword is today - basically a reassurance to the customer that the chances of power failure on 01/01/2000 are no different than today. If you can answer this question, there's no need to read further. Actually, if every individual power company would answer this question, there would be no need for the euy2k.com website, and I could shut down the website and move on to greener pastures. There's a lot more $$ in SAP implementations than there is in Y2k. More of a future, too.

There is no question in my mind that the electric industry is (for the most part) working very hard on this. But the electric industry is historically very defensive on reliability issues, and even after 100+ years has not learned the value of public communications. Your post is only the latest example of that.

Your skill in communication, or lack thereof, is part of the problem as a whole. This forum is populated by many people who are simply concerned about the Y2k problem in the electric industry. It is *not* populated, to a large extent, by survivalist, run-for-the-hills, guns and butter types (although they are certainly welcomed here, if they stay on topic). Your "talk down" approach, and even your 'sig' is indicative of the problem that regular folks are having in separating the wheat from the chaff. But that's been the problem with *all* electric industry communication on the Y2k issue. And I only have one word for it.

Arrogance.

Answer the second question above, and give the readers of this forum a convincing, non-argumentative case. Give them a convincing case that you, yourself, as a Y2k participating worker in the electric industry, understand the "big picture" of how the entire industry is linked at the hip, from mainframe to networks to telecommunication to embedded systems to pure business issues, not just the isolated section of your company that you're working on. Give them a sense, through ongoing participation in the forum rather than a one-hit slam, that you understand the supply chain, financial control, industrial relations, and human resource issues surrounding Y2k in the electric industry.

Back to your original post.

My problem with your view is this: let's say, for the sake of argument, that you work for a power company in Virginia. Your company, by its technology nature, is not high tech. No (or very little) substation automation. No digital relaying. No DCS in any generating station control rooms. All EMS and SCADA systems have been checked and given a green sticker. Blah, blah, blah. Great for Virginia (or, at least your customers).

But not so for, say, Louisiana where a little electric coop has stayed on the bleeding edge of technology (I know of more than one such company) with digital relaying, RTU's, AMR, and substation automation. They're stuggling big time. They don't participate in EPRI. NRECA sends out press releases to them, and maybe asks for a completed Y2k survey once a quarter, but that's it.

Your rant gives the impression that every company is identical to yours, and you know this is not correct. So, in the interest of disclosure, let's make sure that everyone here understands that - you speak for your company (to the extent of your knowledge of the entire enterprise's Y2k program); one of 7314 in North America. And not one of which, by the way, will provide an answer to question two, above.

You hang a lot of your (obviously 10 gallon) hat on the recent NERC report. I'm not going to repeat my analysis of the NERC report here; you can certainly find that on the euy2k.com website. If it was 1997, and NERC was issuing reports with those numbers, I wouldn't be too concerned. CL, it's 1999. 337 calendar days left to assess and remediate the entire North American electric industry. Why should anyone be optimistic, when the NERC report said itself that the industry, as an aggregate, 44% toward completion of remediation and testing??

I've said many times on the euy2k.com website and in this forum that I can't talk about specific hypothetical clients and specific hypothetical Y2k problems with specific hypothetical vendor equipment that I've found as I assist these hypothetical clients. The potential for post 01/01/2000 legal discovery and litigation is just too extreme, not so much for myself, but for my hypothetical clients. However, I'm going to give one quick hypothetical example to counter yours, and then the ball's back in your court.

When I initially wrote the embedded systems page of the euy2k.com website back in 1997, I listed an example of an Allen-Bradley PLC, and stated that according to A-B, there was no Y2k impact. Here's the direct quote (www.euy2k.com/embedded.htm): Five Allen-Bradley PLC 5/25's, model 1785LT being used as redundant controllers in a radioactive waste process in a nuclear power plant. But now, go to the A-B website, and what do you find? Well, I'll leave that for you to discover, if you'd care to take a surf over there and find out.

Also, I'll leave you to discover the embedded controls website of Mark A. Frautschi, Ph.D. Dr. Frautschi discusses the fallacy of "type testing" of embedded controls in depth.

The bottom line: your particular company is not representative of the industry as a whole, and even for yourself, you should not extrapolate from your own internal findings that it is.

Again, I invite you to continue to participate in this forum. You want to build credibility for your case with the folks who inhabit or lurk in this forum? Start now. Don't slam people for their opinions and beliefs. Try to educate rather than ridicule. You'd be surprised at what you can accomplish.

And lose the CAPS LOCK.

All the best,

-- Anonymous, January 28, 1999

Chicken Little, from your statement, "I have found NO operational problems" it seems you are saying that even if utilities do nothing in the way of Year 2000 remediation they will be fine. Is this what you meant to imply or did I misunderstand your intent? If that is the case, then it doesn't follow as to why there is such a push by NERC to get the mission critical systems done. I also don't think NERC lied, because if I were going to lie, I would have made those stats look a whole lot better than they did! As the industry stats stand now, they're far from optimistic considering how little time remains for the amount of work needing to be done. I hate to even think what the overall situation would look like if NERC had lied - it's far from good as it is.

I also believe you did report honestly to NERC, and I hope many others did also - but since I have never encountered any group of people who are *all* upstanding, competent, and completely honest, I have difficulty accepting that remediation in all utilities is proceeding in exactly the manner we would all hope for. I have no trouble believing that the Year 2000 projects in many places are being taken very seriously and mission critical systems will be ready in time. I do have a problem believing this must be a universal truth, however. I get e-mail from industry insiders (just like yourself) who present a very different picture of how the remediation efforts in their area are going.

Everyone asks, "Who to believe?" I reply, "Why can't they all be telling the truth?" If there is any area of business (or life for that matter) in which there is a uniform quality of knowledge, effort, honesty, timeliness and altruism of all the participants, I would love to know about it. I do not think it is pessimism to expect variations in those aspects; I think it is completely realistic given human nature.

In my view, sweeping generalizations in the direction of "All will be fine" or "All will be terrible" are both likely to be off the mark. The truth usually falls somewhere in the middle. This would preclude both "all the grids will fail" AND "there won't be any outages at all". The problem for the individual family is that no one can know where those middle scenarios might hit, and that is why calm preparation to withstand a power outage or other disruptions doesn't fall into a "bonkers" mentality, but a "cover your bases" prudence.

When you're ready to guarantee all utilities' Year 2000 projects have proceeded as well as yours has, and compliance is completed for everyone, then I'll shelve my concerns about possible power outages - but not before then.

-- Anonymous, January 28, 1999

Chicken,

First, let me say that Bonnie has really nailed it when she says she hears from those in the industry who have a different view than you presented. Not long ago, after my interview with Rick was first posted on the Web, someone in the Yourdon forum asked me what my view was on the question of whether or not power would remain on come 1/1/00, given my research, contacts, etc. My response was it has been my observation that virtually everyone who was knowledgeable about the subject (both inside & outside the industry, ie, consultant types, etc) essentially shared Rick's bottom line view, which, in his words, was that there would black spots and brown spots, but more light spots than either. Rick has guts enough to say it publicly. Now, *no*one* believed the entire grid was going to go down. But there were plenty of concerns about plenty of issues, including the ability to simply obtain the necessary parts in time.

Further, this view has found its way into publication from others, including Jim Seymour of PC Magazine, who wrote that industry insiders had warned him of large-scale and extended outages:

http://www.zdnet.com/pcmag/special/y2k/features/worry/index.html

William Ulrich, a top Y2K expert, IMHO, wrote recently from his examinations of 10Qs that it was hard to be optimistic about the electric utility industry.

http://www.computerworld.com/home/print.nsf/all/981214829E

And there are variations on the theme, such as Dick Mills' concern about power shortages:

>>I propose that the prudent thing to assume about capacity is that 15 percent will be out of service because of Y2K problems. What does that mean? It means that the NERC forecasted margins for the 2000 summer peak, (coincidentally) 15 percent, should be reduced by 15% leaving zero margin. Zero margin does not mean blackouts. But it does mean persistent shortages in all areas of the country where margins are less than the national average. It also means that every other adversity that comes along, storms, fires or whatever, will cause immediate shortages, curtailments and rolling blackouts.

http://www.y2ktimebomb.com/PP/RC/dm9846.htm

All those are comments on the record. Off the record, the exact phrase "scared to death" was told to me last summer by an engineer I know who has a relative inside a big power company. The engineer told me that this relative had told him, and I quote, "I don't even know where the embedded systems *are*" His view may have changed since then, but that's certainly how he felt at the time. And he wasn't alone.

Furthermore, whether you want to admit it or not, NERC is simply playing the same numbers game that the federal government is by "averaging" the number of total systems remediated, while not up- front acknowledging the status of individual plants (ie, that some are well ahead of others, and the majority are behind). Bonnie pointed this out in an article I posted a while back:

http://www.cbn.org/y2k/insights.asp?file=990114o.htm

In addition, you also have the situation where at least one company, Alliant, has the head of their own Y2K project on the board of a state blue ribbon Y2K commission- and recommending that the state set up a network of shelters where people can go if there's a blackout. Does that woman know not whereof she speaks?

Further, last year, I had a long conversation with a Y2K consultant with one of the big big big big big big companies. This person really knows the subject, having worked with a very wide variety of businesses. He didn't think the world was going to end, but he certainly looked for one whale of a recession, and he added that although his power company said it would be ready, "I don't trust the power companies. I'm buying a generator, and I'll have a fireplace." Needless to say, that remark stuck in my mind.

That person had the right view: the big picture. One thing I have seen repeatedly is that almost everyone involved in Y2K work projects their experiences onto the entire global effort. IE, if their work was hard and not likely to succeed, they threw up their hands and said, "Head for the hills!" OTOH, if their particular project was a breeze, they asked, "What's all the fuss about?" The simple fact is that Y2K work varies in degree of difficulty. One person's experience may have nothing in common with another's. That's why a viewpoint like Rick's is so valuable, because he's *out* there, seeing it first hand, and in a wide variety of contexts.

As an example, once I got "turned on," so to speak, to Y2K, I naturally mentioned it to those in my church. One Sunday, a woman in my church mentioned that she knew a former federal government COBOL programmer who had told her, "Well, it shouldn't be that big of a deal. It's hard that hard to fix." Whereupon she replied, "Well, this guy in my church says..." and she started telling him all the things I had told her about where the problems were, how many there were, what the time factor was, and so on. As she was explaining this, the light went on, and he said, "Oh!" He started to see the broader picture, something he simply hadn't considered before. That's usually the key: seeing as much of the whole thing as you can (not easy to do when the facts aren't available).

I will say this: I have lived this subject for nearly a year, working 70-100+ hours a week *every* week. Most of that has been reading and researching, traveling & speaking (& learning from conversations), talking to people in walks of Y2K life, from big names to small. Absolutely no one takes it, pardon the phrase, lightly. My general observation is that most of the most knowledgeable people are most pessimistic privately than they are publicly. The electric utility industry is probably no different in that respect.

-- Anonymous, January 28, 1999

1. What in either the title or text gave the impression that I was attempting to speak for any aspect beyond those mentioned (T&D Protection)

2. I do not speak on behalf of a company. I speak as an individual, expressing my opinions based on my observations.

3. Rick states the potential for post Y2K legal discovery and litigation as a reason for not giving detail. In his case this is accepted as prudent practice, with no intent to deceive. Why not assume the same for others?

4. If a person wished to speak as an individual, give honest observations on her little segment of the world - observations that she could not give if there was any risk of the comment being misconstrued as the position of a company (see 3 above) would it be prudent to remain anonymous? If you prefer, accept my sincere apologies, and I'll go away - anonymously please.

5. I cannot rebut any arguments for fear that there is no guarantee of anonynmity here, this is my last post. I would love to give my personal opinions that would address some things brought up here, but there is too big a risk they could be improperly associated with a particulary corporate, governmental, or consumer entity when they are actually my personal opinions.. Accept my personal assurance that in the only way I saw possible (which was probably a mistake) I wanted to contribute some "positive" feedback based on personal opinion formed by personal observations. I believe my personal opinions are correct. 1. Protection & Controls engineers would tend to report conservatively. 2. Relays don't use dates to protect. 3. NERC is acting in good faith. 4. The same relays used by those in a position to test are likely used by the little guys. (See 2. and draw your own conclusions) These PERSONAL opinions by a private individual who prays that she will be respected in her desire to remain anon.

-- Anonymous, January 28, 1999

CL,

It's not my desire to teach online netiquette to anyone, or explain the online dynamic of forums such as this. I would email you privately with this message if I had an address, but I don't.

CL, I will personally guarentee your anonymity in this forum, to the extent that I can. I'm the admin of this forum, and know how this forum software works. I don't know, and neither does anyone else in this forum, where you're from or who you work for. And so it will remain, unless you choose at some point in the future to let us know.

My point in my previous response: you gain credibility in an online community over time. Much of what you said may have merit, and could influence many of our perceptions if properly conveyed. But your initial presentation sucked. You came in, unannounced, with a bull horn instead of a tap on the shoulder as Carlos (from a power company in Spain) did in a message from earlier in the day.

Given your position, you no doubt have a tremendous amount to contribute to our collective understanding of operational impact of Y2k on the electric industry, even if anonymously. I ask that you take the feedback you received as constructive criticism, and help us all toward a better understanding over the coming months by continuing to participate in this forum.

And, CL, I can't let this opportunity pass without cutting and pasting one of my alltime favorite internet postings, from the comp.software.year-2000 newsgroup. It really, really applies to this forum:

On 13 Oct 1998 01:20:16 GMT, in comp.software.year-2000 Ron Kenyon wrote:

>You find yourself in the company of giants - of many different backgrounds -
>some of whom would let you stand on their shoulders, if you could recognize
>them, and ask nicely.
>
>And dwarves, some of whom would share useful magic, if you could recognize
>them, and ask nicely.
>
>And trolls, among others...

If you don't fully understand this passage, stick around. You'll learn. ;-)

-- Anonymous, January 28, 1999

Chickenlittle, facts don't pay Y2K Celebrity bills, so don't expect much at this site. It always amazes me when I see Y2K "failures" cited, and then research the equipment and find out that this is yet another of many "vaporware Y2K failures" cited by those on the Y2K Talk circuit. Rick Cowles refers in a post above to an Allen-Bradley PLC5/25 failure, but doesn't go into the nature of the Y2k "failure" (why make it easy for them to see this is another smoke and mirrors Y2K vapor-failure?). Let's analyze the vendors year 2000 compliance problem given for some models of the PLC5/25 type:

"The processors pass all the tests except leap year in powered down mode. The processor, if set to 2/28/2000 and powered down through the date change, will power up with 3/1/2000. If the power remains ON through the date change, the correct leap day is displayed. This is not unique to the Year 2000. Expanded tests shows the same results for 1988, 1992, and 1996. The important thing to remember is that this does not stop the processor from running unless the application code relies on the date for execution. There will be no fix for these processors."

Hmmmm...this problem has been there for years, and doesn't stop the code from running? (by the way, it is not very common to use dates for execution on a PLC for controls or other signficant functions, thats why you haven't heard hard examples of lots of REAL Y2K failures). Note that for this DATE problem (not "failure") to occur, the PLC must be OFF on 2/28/2000 and then turned ON 2/29/2000. If it is turned on after 3/1/2000, then even this minor date problem will not occur.

In citing Y2K failures, it would be nice if we stick to the facts - give me a model number, contact, and the actual failure mode. Otherwise, I will assume it's just another Y2K vapor-failure...

-- Anonymous, January 29, 1999

Time out, FC.

Read what I posted, then read what you posted regarding the subject PLC.

Back in 1997, A-B had given this model of PLC a "green sticker". No issues. I have a copy of their webpage from that time right in front of me. It shows "ready". Subsequent testing by A-B found problems. I have never had a problem with A-B's testing program, or their disclosures. They have been an industry icon in Y2k disclosure from way back. I was driving home the concept that even *my* data points need to be validated, occasionally. ;-) On the euy2k.com embedded controls page, I stated that the PLC was OK, because that's what A-B was saying at the time the page was written.

Here's what I was getting at - as an end user, you can never be certain, even with vendor statements, because vendor statements change. This particular vintage of PLC has "issues" (in A-B's terms) and in the absence of knowledge of those issues, a user would have problems with the PLC. Plain and simple. Here's the A-B website if anyone is interested in following up.

You may have been lurking in the shadows for awhile in this forum. If you have, you know that my style is to help readers educate themselves - not to lead them to my conclusions. Maybe I should have put a link to the AB statement in my previous response, but most of the folks here are intelligent enough that if they want to "fact check", if you give them a lead they know how to do it. You did it, and validated my point.

-- Anonymous, January 29, 1999

A fair response Rick, with a number of points well made. I did indeed re-read both your post and mine, and have come to the conclusion that I made my response after way too much caffine. Rather than going on the attack, I should have merely stated the facts as I saw them...I apologize to you for that.

Vendors changing their Y2K statements has sometimes occurred due to vendors and other testers testing an evolving number of dates and test criteria.. and the definitions of compliance has also evolved...now that Y2K efforts are more "mature", I would hope and expect to see less revisions to Y2K statements. I will state categorically that I have found vendors Y2K information on their equipment to be much more reliable than the second hand reports passed around in the industry and on the Internet.

I continue to believe that the interests of all of us are best served by unbiased reporting of the true nature of the Y2K problems being found, rather than vague references to Y2K "failure".

I invite you and everyone here to join me in accurately investigating reported Y2K "failures" when enough vendor information is provided. Many vendors have Y2K disclosure information here on the Web, and often it only takes a simple search to find out the true nature of a Y2K problem.

-- Anonymous, January 29, 1999

>OK, Rick gives his personal guarantee of anonymity, on that condition let respond to all posts line-line, fact-fact, and any ad hominem attacks. Texts of original is normal, my replies seperated by >

First, excessive use of CAPS LOCK is very bad form in online communication. - >I am well aware that READING A PARAGRAPH IN ALL CAP LOCKS IS IN BAD FORM. Does anyone agree with Rick that my original post was excessive in its use? With the urgency of this issue, it seems odd that you would make this be your first point.>

Second, when will your company be saying they are "Y2k Ready"? Or compliant? Or whatever the heck the buzzword is today -

< What is the definition of compliant? If I were to say a relay is compliant, and then your investigative reporting skills shows that a colon shows up in the display how would this forum respond? Would the reply be "aha! They said there were NO problems. What ELSE are they hiding?" Compliant and Ready have been defined by the NRC and these definitions adopted by most all utilities I have talked with. I'm sure you can do the research to find the definitions. (Basically, anything READY has no operational problems that would cause an equipment outage. Some cosmetic problems that can be fixed after the fact are permissible).>

basically a reassurance to the customer that the chances of power failure on 01/01/2000 are no different than today. If you can answer this question, there's no need to read further. Actually, if every individual power company would answer this question, there would be no need for the euy2k.com website, and I could shut down the website and move on to greener pastures. There's a lot more $$ in SAP implementations than there is in Y2k. More of a future, too.

> Yes, but less notoriety and fewer worshiping fans. This is Wally's dream come true.>

There is no question in my mind that the electric industry is (for the most part) working very hard on this. But the electric industry is historically very defensive on reliability issues, and even after 100+ years has not learned the value of public communications. Your post is only the latest example of that.

>It would be digressing to get into the history of utility communications. I see prompt, voluntary report of NRC and environmental problems, open communications with the public. This is subjective though, and you are certainly free to your opinion.>

Your skill in communication, or lack thereof, is part of the problem as a whole. This forum is populated by many people who are simply concerned about the Y2k problem in the electric industry. It is *not* populated, to a large extent, by survivalist, run-for-the-hills, guns and butter types (although they are certainly welcomed here, if they stay on topic). Your "talk down" approach, and even your 'sig' is indicative of the problem that regular folks are having in separating the wheat from the chaff. But that's been the problem with *all* electric industry communication on the Y2k issue. And I only have one word for it.

Arrogance.

>As I stated before, my sig was purely for anonymity purposes. I submit that your attitude towards a perceived newbie to the internet is a greater manifestation of arrogance. You talk down to me cause I can't figure out how to do ITALIC to add emphasis to my text.>

Answer the second question above, and give the readers of this forum a convincing, non-argumentative case. Give them a convincing case that you, yourself, as a Y2k participating worker in the electric industry, understand the "big picture" of how the entire industry is linked at the hip, from mainframe to networks to telecommunication to embedded systems to pure business issues, not just the isolated section of your company that you're working on.

>I've never claimed to know the entire industry. That's your game. I'm citing specifics in my area - refute them. The point of my message is that the portion of the power system from the GSU - to the customer feed is being thoroughly tested and only a few cosmetic and nuisance problems have been found. You have the board, you have the utility background. If I'm wrong prove me so, show me specific examples of T&D device failures. If I'm right, YOU carry the credibility with these people to give them a sense that the T&D network (a HUGE part of the system) is probably going to be ok.> Give them a sense, through ongoing participation in the forum rather than a one-hit slam, that you understand the supply chain, financial control, industrial relations, and human resource issues surrounding Y2k in the electric industry.

Back to your original post.

My problem with your view is this: let's say, for the sake of argument, that you work for a power company in Virginia. Your company, by its technology nature, is not high tech. No (or very little) substation automation. No digital relaying. No DCS in any generating station control rooms. All EMS and SCADA systems have been checked and given a green sticker. Blah, blah, blah. Great for Virginia (or, at least your customers).

But not so for, say, Louisiana where a little electric coop has stayed on the bleeding edge of technology (I know of more than one such company) with digital relaying, RTU's, AMR, and substation automation. They're stuggling big time. They don't participate in EPRI. NRECA sends out press releases to them, and maybe asks for a completed Y2k survey once a quarter, but that's it. > Rick, how many manufacturers of protective relays are there? There is a finite number of installed devices. Lets say that there are 100 numbered balls in a hat. Three people each draw 44 balls and record the ones drawn. How many of the numbers will not be drawn. Now imagine 10 people drawing 44 balls each. How long until each ball has been drawn once?>

>This is the testing program of utilities. Each vendor has already tested the balls and reported the results. See my original post for one example. Now most utilities do not rely on the vendors tests and are doing independent testing. So far as I've seen, the results have been consistent.>

Your rant gives the impression that every company is identical to yours, and you know this is not correct. So, in the interest of disclosure, let's make sure that everyone here understands that - you speak for your company (to the extent of your knowledge of the entire enterprise's Y2k program); one of 7314 in North America. Each one buying products from the same vendors. Vendors testing, major utilities testing, EPRI allowing a forum to share. And not one of which, by the way, will provide an answer to question two, above.

>Rick, You won't either. Why do you expect the utilities to ignore the potential for litigation and give an absolute guarantee when even you won't?>

You hang a lot of your (obviously 10 gallon) hat on the recent NERC report. I'm not going to repeat my analysis of the NERC report here; you can certainly find that on the euy2k.com website. If it was 1997, and NERC was issuing reports with those numbers, I wouldn't be too concerned. CL, it's 1999. 337 calendar days left to assess and remediate the entire North American electric industry. Why should anyone be optimistic, when the NERC report said itself that the industry, as an aggregate, 44% toward completion of remediation and testing?? <1st, see my analogy of the balls above. Again, in my case tested items went unreported because the paperwork isn't completed. Some are waiting for unit outages scheduled for the fall's mild load period. >

I've said many times on the euy2k.com website and in this forum that I can't talk about specific hypothetical clients and specific hypothetical Y2k problems with specific hypothetical vendor equipment that I've found as I assist these hypothetical clients. The potential for post 01/01/2000 legal discovery and litigation is just too extreme, not so much for myself, but for my hypothetical clients. >Don't hold the utilities to a standard that you are unable bear.>

However, I'm going to give one quick hypothetical example to counter yours, and then the ball's back in your court.

When I initially wrote the embedded systems page of the euy2k.com website back in 1997, I listed an example of an Allen-Bradley PLC, and stated that according to A-B, there was no Y2k impact. Here's the direct quote (www.euy2k.com/embedded.htm): Five Allen-Bradley PLC 5/25's, model 1785LT being used as redundant controllers in a radioactive waste process in a nuclear power plant. But now, go to the A-B website, and what do you find? Well, I'll leave that for you to discover, if you'd care to take a surf over there and find out.

>This was addressed adequately by fact checker on 1/29. It did not cause the index page to show a 1/29 date so many may have missed this response.>

Also, I'll leave you to discover the embedded controls website of Mark A. Frautschi, Ph.D. Dr. Frautschi discusses the fallacy of "type testing" of embedded controls in depth.

>Question: If a device who's purpose is protection has a RTC, but does not use that chip for its primary function (protection) - only for ancillary functions, does the same apply? Hypothetical: If you have a car and its CD player has an embedded chip. You do not know if that embedded chip will affect the engine. You have a letter from the manufacturer stating that is doesn't impact the engine. You test and confirm that the engine is not impacted when the CD player rolls into Y2K. Must you test each and every car?

The bottom line: your particular company is not representative of the industry as a whole, and even for yourself, you should not extrapolate from your own internal findings that it is.

>Never said it was. You extrapolated not me. I was stating my personal observations and opinions based on them. Read the original post and try to see past the CAPS lock.>

Again, I invite you to continue to participate in this forum. You want to build credibility for your case with the folks who inhabit or lurk in this forum? Start now. Don't slam people for their opinions and beliefs. Try to educate rather than ridicule. You'd be surprised at what you can accomplish.

And lose the CAPS LOCK.

All the best,

-- Rick Cowles (rcowles@waterw.com), January 28, 1999.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dear "chickenlittle@skyisfalling"

Why not use your real name? I haven't subscribed to any conspiracy theories. Have you? I had to ask. :-) (Carlos asked me to cheer up so I'll use some smilies here and there.)

Back on the subject, I for one very much appreciate your input, (I'd appreciate your telling more about who you are and what you do, for background purposes.)

I'll be looking forward to reading Rick's feedback on what you have to say. Point/counterpoint, preferably with facts beats flashing opinions at one another.

For anyone else who has or is working on these problems, testing embedded chips, correcting problems, etc. in the electric and natural gas or other industry and are reading this forum I'm very sure everyone here would love to hear about your experiences.

One definition Webster gives of conspiracy is "Planning or acting together secretly."

Why not let the NERC put up an open forum on the internet and let us all ask questions? Do the utilities plan or act together secretly? You've said you submitted a portion to the NERC report. Who are you and what portion did you submit?

>I speak only as a private individual. >

I really don't think it would take a heck of a lot to change the overall tone of the entire Y2K threat. If say, a representative number of utility companies were to open their books on how they have handled or are handling the whole y2k mess.

>I agree, but Rick pointed out very astutely why HE cannot and the utilities cannot. If outsiders were able to examine the methods, and openly question them, as in a forum like this, then I'm very sure most of us could be reassured, provided the data is accurate. The technical expertise required to do the art and science of utility protection is very specialized and in limited quantity. You know the impact rubber-neckers have on a highway when the ambulance is trying to get through? Same impact. Dilbert has a pointy-haired boss who prevents success by micromanaging. Imagining a whole internet full of pointy haired bosses.>

If it looks really, really bad then I'd suppose it would be best for the industries to continue to plan and act in secret. If it looks really, really bad then perhaps it would be best for the government to begin witholding reports on the matter. >Remember, utilities gain nothing by witholding facts (other than limiting frivilous lawsuits). There may be some pointy-haired ones at utilities and NERC, but do you really believe that they think you won't notice if your lights go out? Imagine this - "Hey were gonna crash on Y2K" "What'll we do?" "Duh, what if we don't tell anyone, maybe they won't notice?">

We don't insist their must be a major crisis or catastrophe this coming new years eve. But why the heck won't you come out and prove to us why it won't happen? NERC did that.

>I mentioned one relay vendor with their test results on the web (probably the leader in market share and installed base).> What more can be done? I'm wide open to recieve the data and I'm sure others are as well.

-- (realsure@perigee.net), January 28, 1999.

-- Anonymous, January 29, 1999

Chicken,

I hope I didn't come across too hard on you in my previous post. I was just trying to present facts. Anyway, sorry if seemed too harsh; that wasn't my intent at all. Just a note.

-- Anonymous, January 29, 1999

Dear CL, FF, RC and other Esteemed members of this forum:

CL, in your post you mention that utility A and Utility B share common devices (my presumption is these devices are embedded (systems) chips). You go on to say that if Utiliy A tested 50% and Utility B tested 50% then the likehood is that both will test out 100% OK. Is this not a form of type testing? A Mr. Hall, a Y2K embeddded system consultant testified before Congress last fall that due to lack of standards, embedded systems cannot be type tested and each embedded system must be individualy tested.

Was Mr. Hall mistaken? Please let me know.

Sincerely,

Bill Watt

-- Anonymous, January 29, 1999

CL,

I apologize if my post came across entirely like a personal attack. I'd like to reassure you that I really do appreciate your input. I think there is great value in it.

Signing off with the monicker you chose was insulting to just about everyone who might read this forum. Mabe you could change it to something more innocuous, like; don'tgetit@all.

I looked as though you had valid input there, then you slapped us in the face, implied we all suscribe to conspiracy theories, and mocked us. Very rude indeed.

I understand why you need to remain anonymous. I hope someday our civilization will rise to better than this. Perhaps in the aftermath of some catastrophe that could have been averted through working together instead of in splintered factions we will choose to discover a way in which we can operate more harmoniously.

I think you are right about the micro-management thing. That isn't the point though. Rubberneckers don't micro-manage. Television viewers didn't micro-manage the moon-walk. An open forum by the utilities on the internet wouldn't comprise a micro-management of the repair of the y2k bug. It would be a place to ask questions and get answers. Who knows, a utility somewhere might even get some insight or feedback that could even help them out.

When you say "Duh, what if we don't tell anyone, maybe they won't notice?", you are talking down to us and it is rude. When you are polite I might choose to discuss that point. Otherwise it looks like you're poking for rant.

I appreciate your mentioning a relay vendor and their test results. There's some posts here that discuss that.

This whole y2k thing can get emotional at times. It might be nice if we could respond like Mr. Data, or Spock on Star Trek, but we are human and we will deal with this like humans. Let's hope we all become better humans for it.

Steve

-- Anonymous, January 30, 1999

CL,

I didn't address this in my last posting because, to tell the truth, the post was so very long I forgot about it before I got to the end.

My opinion? I don't think your use of CAPS was excessive. However; Like you, I don't know how to turn on italics here. I also am not versed in some of the accentuating marks used by others in on-line communication. I'd like to be. Anyone know of a link where I could pick up on the use of *interesting* forms of punctuation?

I think Rick got really pissed off and more or less blew up at what you wrote. Sorta puts him into the human category. Makes me think he puts his pants on one leg at a time like the rest of us.

Create a wonderful weekend for yourself everyone!

Steve

-- Anonymous, January 30, 1999

Ok, my last post to this thread, as it is getting way off topic ;-) <===smiley face

1. My apologies to CL for blowing up a bit. As Steve said, we're all human. The unfortunate combo of a lot of CAPS and the sig, Chicken Little, pushed the wrong hot buttons.

2. While I've been doing the online thing for a long time, I do my best not to shove netiquette in anyone's face at any time. I misread the intent of CL's use of CAPS. For those of you who would like to italicize comments for emphasis, here's how to do it:

<>comment<> and stick an I between the first set of carats and a /I between the second set of carats.

Want to bold something? Just use a B instead of I. Or a U will underline your comment.

That's all there is to it!

-- Anonymous, January 30, 1999

Steve,

Sorry about the hypothetical conversation between two utility management types. It wasn't intended to talk down. I'm a Dilbert junkie, it was poking fun at utility management and a little bit of self-depracating humor (very little I guess from your take on it). Y2K has very little attractive or humorous to it, so if we don't try to inject some it'll kill people like me.

Serious point tho - there IS no hiding non-compliance or non-performance. There can be no cover ups, only delaying the inevitable. No one gains by portraying a false accomplishment.

A question. I was pondering a thread to attempt to dispel the notion that utility Y2K remediatiors and management are prone to "spin", and willing to overlook or procrastinate problems and then deceive the public to delay "paying the piper". I would title the thread "Portrait of a Utility Y2K Remediator". I fear that (based on Rick's comments) that it would not be considered germaine to the discussion and "off topic". Any thoughts?

-- Anonymous, January 31, 1999

Hey CL,

My son is a Dilbert junkie too. His mom worked on the animated show. She lives in L.A. If enough people liked it her job coninues another season. How'd you like it?

I remember A line I read somewhere that said, "If you wish to be enlightened, lighten up!" I believe that one.

About the Utility Y2K Remediator idea... Sounds like it could be the kernel of a good book. Could be dramatic... Let the lead character be in the electric utility industry, he/she is coping with deregulation when the whole y2k issue blossoms and lands on his/her shoulders when he/she is asked to head up remediation.

The piles of y2k reports grew ten times faster than Julie-Ann could read them, much less digest and summarize the meanings of the masses of data on the millenium bug that continually poured in. She had taken the role of y2k remediator for JuiceCo. thinking it would look good on her resume, although she had no thoughts of leaving the job. The security was real even though the industry was undergoing the rapid change of degregulation. She'd been in charge of Public Relations for years but the role wasn't much of a challange for. There wasn't much selling that needed to be done for electricity. Julie-Ann was a dynamic woman who needed to be challanged. She'd managed a tryst with three of the members of the board of directors, (at the same time) and still was bored. Now this Y2K thing was overwhelming her. No matter how hard she tried she couldn't wrap her brains around all of it. The implications were too broad.

On top of all this Harry Broadback, her boss, suggested she make the report look good even though every time she even thought about actually writing the final report her head began to swim. He lay there on his back, half covered in her silk sheets and blew smoke rings at the ceiling, and causually mentioned the report on Y2K remediation should look good so he could excercise his stock options after the next board meeting. "Hook up with Sally on the 10Q report and minimize any deficiencies." Juli-Ann had run her fingers through his chest hair when what she really felt like doing was ripping them out....

Yeah, Go for it... I don't think Rick will mind.

Steve

-- Anonymous, January 31, 1999

Quite a task to try to show utility folks are inclined to tell the truth! Good folks, but my impression is that they work in organizations with corporate lawyers... How much would it take to convince anyone that the truth tends to emerge?

Since I am doing some writing on y2k for national associations of local officials, I am keenly interested in what Senator Bennett has characterized (in a speech to several states' utility regulators in the PA PUCs "Y2k Summit Meeting" in Hershey PA 12/9/1998) as the main problem here: lack of accurate information. He has great rhetoric, as does Gov. Janklow,on the public's right-to-know re the status of utility y2k problems and progress. Anyone seen a good model of a state regulatory body's public information program that is more adequate (for community and household contingency planning) than trying to sort the entrails of the SEC 10-Q forms?

It would be great to circulate some examples of very useful and honest information-sharing from utilities to the public. Are any state or local officials mandating (executive orders, formal proceedings or legislation) or encouraging that (hearings, public meetings)? We badly need models to hold up to the rest of them. I am working with some legislators on drafting model state/local resolutions/ordinances on y2k information sharing and joint utility testing, since that seemingly needs to be mandated...and will try to get the recent GA Governor's measures. What has SD Gov. Janklow done since his hell-raising "State of the State" speech in December? etc...?

-- Anonymous, January 31, 1999

CL,

Please do go ahead with the "Portrait of a Utility Y2K Remediator" thread. I think that would be very much on topic. My read on Rick's comment about getting off topic was that it referred to the discussion of who meant what and who interpreted it how, etc.

Please keep in mind that almost any picture that you might present will probably be doubted by at least several others, and that they may express some of their doubts in less than pleasant ways.

Go for it!

Jerry B

-- Anonymous, January 31, 1999

To remain "on topic", any post only need be germane to the subject of electric utilities and Y2k. Have a ball!

-- Anonymous, January 31, 1999

Fred,

Please, the ^B^last^\B^ thing utilities need is the government coming to help. Kinda like an ordinance to require having the IRS help you balance your checkbook. We're busy enough with the stuff the NEEDS to be done.

"I'm from the government, I'm here to help!" AAARRRGGGHHHH

-- Anonymous, January 31, 1999

CL: You missed my point. It's too late for government to "help" utilities in a technical sense, I figure. But who is responsible, in the last analysis, for keeping the lights on? Local government will be held accountable. So unfortunately what seems to be necessary is for local or state governments to mandate:

1. That utilities that are vitally interdependent talk to each other (!). It may be hard to believe that this is not happening, until you hear from state utility regulators like PA PUC. And until you realize how utterly compatible with corporate imperatives is the statement we hear these days from most: "My Utility company can fix our problems in time, probably, but we cannot guarantee service because that other company we depend on (telecom, elec, transportation of fuel, whatever) might not make it." This is organized irresponsibility -- somebody's pretty good definition of the private corporation.

2. That utilities conduct joint (interdependency) testing for compatibility of their y2k fixes. When even Montgomery County tested four systems (of 220) recently, they assumed that lights and telecom would be on. Begs the question, doesn't it? Ultimately, it is very unsettling to have this kind of feel-good choreography presented as real work, as the Washington Post reporter noted.

3. That the public sector conduct independent verification (with consultants) of the key utilities (as the British electricity regulators have mandated).

If anyone knows where there is some utility or local government which is doing all this in an exemplary way, please let me know. Or if some part of this is unnecessary for public protection in a time of great risk...

It's too bad that many of the technically competent utility people trying like hell to do the fixes in time will no doubt be tasked to respond to government inquiries ( an indication of the deep hole we are in), but is not the alternative just more "Trust us" from the utilities? Who thinks that will fly??? Anyone counseling the public to wait and see if everything (or an intolerable lot) crashes should read Gov. Janklow's December "State of the State" address...and Senator Bennett's recent speeches.

What we badly need is "public (ahem) utility" people committed to delivering hard and accurate info to the public sector, not the corporate lawyer-dominated feel-good nonsense like what Clinton's man Koskinen (see the Janet Abrams USIA speech for a candid outline of how to tell less than the truth and get the public to buy it) is spooning out in a very calculated way...

CL, you could play a very important role here -- help us find the most important questions to keep asking of the utilities over the next year or so, and deliver the accurate information to the public. Hope you and your conscientious colleagues won't say you're too busy...

Fred

-- Anonymous, February 01, 1999

Fred,

Do you have a link to; "Janet Abrams USIA speech for a candid outline of how to tell less than the truth and get the public to buy it"?

Sounds pertinent.

Steve

-- Anonymous, February 01, 1999

For sentimental reasons, (and also due to an extreme lack of sleep)I wanted to report in using this "blast from the past".

As of 01/01/2000:

- NO FALSE TRIPS.

- No customer outages due to Y2K embedded device failures.

Thanks all, God bless, and Happy New Year! Stop by and see us, we'll keep the lights on...

-- Anonymous, January 01, 2000