Here is the link to today's article by Jim Lord:

Will y2k Turn the Lights Out?

Ray

-- Anonymous, March 29, 1999

Answers

Let me summarize this article: 1. You can't trust reports from a utility industry organization 2. For Y2K, telephones are the critical element that endangers power production and distribution 3. SEC reports indicate not enough of the Y2K budgets have been spent by the telepone companies.

Therefore, electric power is doomed.

Nice try.

-- Anonymous, March 29, 1999

FactFinder said:

> Let me summarize this article: > 1. You can't trust reports from a utility industry organization

Yes, that's right. They've already lied about problems (remember that long Seabrook audit thread from a while ago?) Why should be trust them? NERC is made up of utility execs, do you honestly believe they're going to be truthful with us if the situation is less than ideal?

> 2. For Y2K, telephones are the critical element that endangers power > production and distribution

Yes, to a large extent, that's right. If the phone system goes down, I can't imagine the grid would be able to stay up for more than a few weeks.

> 3. SEC reports indicate not enough of the Y2K budgets have been spent > by the telepone companies.

That is true also. 31% as of October 1998.

Why do you have a problem with this? It's all pretty clear, and pretty obvious. The utilities haven't spent much of their budgets on average, and there are clearly outside industries (like the phone system) that they depend on.

Just because the grass if green on your side of the fence, it doesn't follow that everything is rosy everywhere. We don't know what will happen after Jan 1, 2000. I used to believe absolutely that the grid would go down. Now, I'm not positive, but it wouldn't surprise me if it did.

The fact that the possibility is there is enough to scare the hell out of me, and make me want to make contigency plans (you know, like utilities do) for that possibility.

It always makes me laugh (and cry) how some people, and the press, feel about that. If the government has contingency plans, that's a good thing. If a company has contingency plans, that's a good thing. If an individual has contingency plans, somehow they're extremest, and they're the real problem, and they should be shunned and ridiculed.

Pathetic double standard.

Jon

-- Anonymous, March 29, 1999

Factfinder, it should be noted that the "Therefore, electric power is doomed," statement you made is your interpretation of what the article implied, and not what was said by Mr. Lord. The substantive point of the article in my view is summed up by Mr. Lord's quote of NERC's own statement, ""Will the lights go out? The answer is that no one knows for certain yet...".

Have you written a letter to NERC protesting and asking that they let the cat out of the bag and say that there are *no* Y2K problems which could interfere with the generation and delivery of electricity? Is your frustration level as great at reading NERC's statements as it is for these other articles? It's been mentioned here previously that it's frustrating for industry insiders when people don't believe industry statements. Well, those industry statements always come with ifs and buts and plenty of qualifiers. We're only supposed to believe the stuff that indicates a positive outcome, is that it? Not the statements which indicate the possibility of problems?

Most of those who choose to prepare are doing so based on those possible problems, not on a certainty that failures will abound. And if the electric industry itself says potential problems exist then holding the just-in-case preparation mindset in disdain is illogical and creates a double standard about what info to believe. From my side of the fence, the fact is that I've heard from as many "insiders" who have grave doubts their plants will be able to provide power as I've heard from those who state otherwise. In such a situation, better to be safe than sorry applies. Risk management and all that, you know. To correspond with Jon's point, when some people see the utilities doing unprecedented nationwide drills and planning for various contingencies to mitigate possible interruptions, the amazing thing is that a whole lot more of the public isn't considering their own mitigation plans.

-- Anonymous, March 30, 1999

Jon,

1. The Seabrook audit thread did not prove anyone was lying. It just proved that we are unable to interpret it correctly. There were several possible truths behind the words as they were constructed. You chose the sinister interpretation, I chose the innocent. Neither of us can claim to represent the objective truth. 2. Home based Y2K test for you. 1. Go to any hardware or electronics and buy an inexpensive voltmeter. 2. Make sure it is on a scale larger than 120VAC (do not set it on continuity test or ohms scale). 3. Very carefully insert the probes into a wall socket. 4. Unplug all the phones in your house. 5. Observe the voltmeter over several days. (If you want to go all out get an expensive voltmeter that also measures frequency and look for deviations from 60 hz)

It has been discussed here how the system will continue to operate in the absence of external communicaitons. Shoot, it has even been explained that the system will stay up even in the absence of internal SCADA communications. This is fertilizer.

3. Money spent does not indicate progress or success (unless you are a fan of big government and look to Uncle Sam to care for you like an adopted orphan).

EXAMPLE (disclaimer; do not bite down while tongue is firmly planted in cheek): One big portion of the supply chain has been overlooked. All fossil fuel plant, in addition to coal/oil need oxygen. My company has a 3 million dollar budget to ivestigate whether the phosysthesis process is Y2K compliant. Thats right, no one is looking into photosynthesis and the cascading impact of a Y2k failure on the oxygen supply. We have spent none of this money. Does this imply a failure of the photosynthesis process? NO.

EXAMPLE 2: A friend recently had gutter, siding, and roof damage due to a horrible gas explosion in a nearby pizza business. His insurance company estimated the amount of damage and the cost to have it repaired using a contractor. Being a handyman, and with contractor friends to help him get materials at cost, he has only spent a fraction of the money estimated (30-40%) and disbursed. Is he complete? Is his work adequate? Can you tell by the percent spent?

4. Your absolutely right about the double standard. Unfortunately it cuts both ways. I feel incredible conflicted in jumping through hoops for contingency plans for failures I have proven through test will not happen. Why waste the money? Because the combination of lawyers limiting our releases over concern for litigation and people like you who always see the sinister leave the utilities no acceptable choice. If we do not make contingency plans  the sky is falling, they arent preparing. If we make contingency plans, the sky is falling  see, the utilities are preparing because they know its gonna happen. You gotta leave room for one option of a binary choice to be correct. 5. It doesnt matter what utility folks say or do here, no opinions will be impacted  you will believe what you came here believing because that is what you want to believe. This site has been a culture unto itself, and to the extent it calms the fears of those whose opinions are set to doom, then it is a good thing. Fact Finder, Y2kGuru, and others might as well pack it in and get on with remediation and contingency planning, this effort at influencing this culture by shining light from the inside is futile, and a waste of our collective time (in my humble opinion). 6. So I will take my leave from these discussions at above 90% complete in mission critical embedded systems complete, still having found no problems beyond the cosmetic and confident that by the time I complete the critical items in 2 weeks I still will have found nothing of significance. Thanks to all who have engaged in reasoned (sometimes) discourse here. I have found that participating in this culture has been both challenging and enjoyable despite the frustration level. I pray all will be well, and encourage to begin to prepare spiritually for Jubilee 2000 with the same vigor you are preparing for the temporal Year 2000. May God bless each of you.

-- Anonymous, March 30, 1999

Chicken Little, thanks for clarifying my confusion. I now understand the useful nature of all that *fertilizer* in the utility industry compliance reports: alternative energy compost source! Now, when the time comes, won't have to fumble for car keys in my dark living room or wait in some nasty, crowded gas line to pay $5.00+ a gallon once overseas oil imports dry up. Just keep enough downloaded reports on hand as a renewable, government-approved fuel source. Now, just need to get on the waiting list for a gen-set (*smile*) - Malthusienne

-- Anonymous, March 30, 1999

The NERC report pretty clearly stated that they had found no items that would impact generation of electricity. The Seabrook audit pretty clearly states at least one safety system that is required by technical specifications is non-compliant.

Direct quote: "RVLIS has been identified as not Y2K compliant and is being remediated as part of the WOG Y2K effort."

That's pretty clear to me. NERC either lied in their report, or they weren't aware of the NRC audit, either one of which makes me distrust them.

CL, you say you're tired of jumping through hoops to provide contingency plans for things you've proved can't happen. One question -- are you perfect? Do you never make mistakes?

I'm sure the operators of TMI thought nothing like that could ever happen either, but that doesn't change the fact that people make mistakes, they screw up sometimes, and bad things happen.

If you honestly feel that way about what you're doing, then I feel very justified in preparing for the level that I am.

Jon

-- Anonymous, March 30, 1999

After all that, chicken little feels it necessary to say "I pray all will be well, and encourage to begin to prepare spiritually for Jubilee 2000 with the same vigor you are preparing for the temporal Year 2000. May God bless each of you."

So, the cat IS out of the bag. Don't take responsibility for yourself or your neighbors, for all you have to do is pray and God will protect!

"The only thing I fear, is people who never doubt."

Billy Joel

-- Anonymous, March 30, 1999

CL, you wrote, "You gotta leave room for one option of a binary choice to be correct." It seems you are thinking in an all or nothing mode where one choice (problems or no problems) must be made. People who prepare for possible Year 2000 problems are leaving room for *either* choice to be correct. Those who are not preparing are choosing only one of the binary options.

I personally do not know anyone who is preparing who *wants* the problem option to happen. I suppose in the mass of humanity there are some who fall into that category, but the majority of preparers are simply not locking themselves into picking just one of those binary choices.

Please do not feel that your input on this forum has been wasted. Many of us have been encouraged by the reports of your findings and we do sincerely hope that your prognosis turns out to be accurate for every single utility. We "preparers" are not shunning your input, we are just choosing to address both of those binary options. Not an all or nothing, but a whichever. We stand at the juncture and look at the "lights on" path, and the "lights out" path, and decide, "I choose to be able to walk down either path."

I will miss your imput, CL, along with your feisty bravery in tackling controversial issues. Thank you for your contributions to the forum thus far and sincere best wishes to you and your family. Thank you also for your kind wishes. You're right, there is more than one way to prepare. It's not only a utility or a box of candles which can provide illumination. "Thy word is a lamp unto my feet, and a light unto my path." Psalm 119;105

-- Anonymous, March 30, 1999

------------------------ Hmmmm, I was just light-heartedly exercising a little humor here, never meant to get a real thread going. I need to use more of those smiley symbols! But since were off to the races, I'll run with the pack.

Overall, I think the electric utility industry is starting to do a little better in getting the word out that no major problems are being found. Thats why instead of talking about failures in power plants and in the grid, the author of the article linked at the top of this thread had to stretch way out to a non-utility system - telephones.scraping the bottom of the killer y2k bug barrel so to speak . by the way, at least one communications giant has stated that they expect no major problems with their network. But wait, theres always the water plants, and everyone needs water :)

Bonnie, you are right, the doom was my interpretation of the article. The actual words - "Will the lights go out? The answer is that no one knows for certain yet...". My response is, does this guy read? Not a lie, but so far removed from the truth its very close. Overall, the reports from the electric utility industry express high confidence that power will be on. Why doesnt he say this, even if he disagrees? Will we forever hear no one really knows? Basically HE has no clue as to what might happen.that doesnt qualify him say what the rest of us know. I often hear this from the clueless  no one really knows. I strongly disagree. SOME of us have a high confidence level that power will be available based on actual findings and facts, many gathered first hand. As a matter of fact, many of you here in this forum once thought that y2k could have catastrophic consequences in electric power , but have come to an understanding that y2k is very likely to have not near as a significant effect as first postulated based on various sources of information.and I assume you believe this with some degree of certainty. Now imagine if you were working directly in the industry identifying and fixing y2k bugs  wouldnt you have a much greater degree of certainty as to the nature and effects of y2k? That is exactly where I find myself, and I am certain that Y2K will have little, if any, impact on power generation or distribution.

And Bonnie, will you please ask your insider sources who have grave doubts that their plants will provide power to furnish you with the manufacturers and model numbers of the embedded systems that will fail to function in the year 2000 and lead to a plant shutdown? Those of us who are working on this would love to have such critical information ! It would be great if you could post this information in the forum, I am sure everyone here would like to know these devices and systems. If they cant produce this information, then they really arent insiders, now are they?

CL, you addressed the issues here better than I ever could, so please continue to drop by from time to time, dont leave me to these wolves! Seriously, I agree with you and Jon about the double standard on contingency plans, with the utilities telling the public everything should be fine while preparing for the worst. (I wonder if everyone gets tired of me, CL, and Jon always agreeing on things?) Its always good to be prepared for the unexpected, however the utility I am at continues to prepare for the Armageddon (as many in the public do) for this reason  all of the y2k experts have brought their doomsday machine to the highest levels of corporate management, myths and all. Management then drives down non-sensical contingency plans based on hype, not on the factual findings ( If the experts had said that y2k could cause a loss of gravity, we would be walking around in magnetic soled boots on iron floors come December). Fortunately, as those at the plant level become involved, we have had some opportunity to inject just a small amount of reality into the process, and hopefully we will have a meaningful plan before all is said and done.

As far as convincing skeptics that Y2K in the power industry is not as significant as almost all of the early predictions, I gave up on that long ago. The predictors did their job, got our attention, now its our turn to fix the minor bugs we are finding. When it comes to posting in this forum, my goal is to share what I know, listen to what others have to say, and hopefully we will all leave knowing a little more. And I believe that is what most others intend here as well, and this is why this is a good forum. It can also be a bit fun at times.

By the way everyone, have you noticed that the background of most y2k experts is in IT (typically mainframe software programmer/IT managers)? I get to say this without offending Rick because he has a power plant background and so I exclude him from the most list. This is amusing, because in my experience these IT experts are generally clueless about the workings of control systems such as PLCs, DCS.s, SCADA, MMIs, and instrumentation, and it really shows in their analysis. These expertswont hesitate to go way outside their field and gladly extrapolate COBOL financial program type y2k problems to embedded systems (so wrong!). They are also generally even clueless as to programming for distributed control systems, PLC ladder logic, and embedded firmware devices  these are specialty fields and the programming is typically done by engineering/technical types (who also have the needed programming expertise  and PLC ladder logic program is much closer to electrical circuit design than to typical programming). The next time you hear an expert speak about embedded systems, look to see if he has a control system background. If hes IT, get ready for a load of clueless speculation.

And I will repeat to Bonnie, Jon and all that I have no problems with individuals being prepared for Y2k. I also have no problem with those who dont know any better and bite into the hype and myths of some y2k experts. What I do have a problem with is those who do not have the expertise in control systems and instrumentation (embedded systems) and who have no direct information of actual y2k findings doing any of the following:

1. Advocating the buying of electric generators for y2k. If you wish to buy one fine, just dont tell someone else they should unless you are directly working in y2k and have seen the extent of actual findings, or have access to actual findings and done extensive research. For those of you who have advocated the purchase of electric generators, give me the manufacturers and model numbers of the equipment in electric power, the grid, the communications industry, etc of the devices that will fail to FUNCTION on y2k and cause us to loose power. Nuff said.).

2. Advocating more than a weeks (or your normal purchase) worth of food for y2k purposes.

3. Advocating the stockpiling of gas and oil (fill your cars tank ,fine, tell someone they should get a 150 gallon storage tank and filler up, then Ill be needing those manufacturer and model numbers of devices that will fail to function in order to believe you are qualified to dispense this information)

Now about RVLIS (again). RVLIS being non-compliant doesnt mean that it will not function, it just means that the system did not pass all of the test dates with no problems. A single minor date display problem (for example, 100 for the year 2000, which is typical) causes a device to be classified as non-compliant (although by NEI/NUSMG 97-07, it could be called y2k ready). And for the record, RVLIS is another post TMI required monitoring system. I believe the NRC statement still stands as accurate and I have yet to hear of a system in the industry that would have directly caused a nuclear plant shutdown due to a y2k bug, much less a safety system. As I have stated many times, the devices I have seen (as well as the ones I have read technical reports of ) that are not y2k compliant almost always continue to perform their intended function and have only minor date problems, and outright failures of devices and systems due to y2k are relatively rare. When I get evidence otherwise, I will present it here.

Just to stir the y2k pot which is beginning to solidify as the facts come in, I wish to present some factual evidence and stronger conclusions on findings of Y2K effects in embedded systems. In the year 2000, without remediation, there would have been some failures, some problems, serious effects here and there, but never, ever, did y2k in embedded systems have the potential to devastate society. And by the way, the y2k failure lists in the newsgroups and linked on www.cbn.org contain many bogus failures  a number of the components listed fail date testing only, but continue to function, I verified some of these with manufacturers information and cited sources. Some appear to be valid real failures, a few are very likely made up. The assessments by the vendors and industry are almost done  where oh where are the warnings from the companies wanting to avoid liability, where oh where are the hundreds of thousands of the devices that will actually fail on y2k? Nada, not there, just a few stringers, exaggerations, and myths. Case in point  whatever happened to the warnings about patient medical devices failing, harming the patients? Well, there are some actual y2k induced device failures  in laboratory devices, in software, but NOT in those IV pumps, NOT in the dialysis machines. There are lots of y2k bugs in medical devices, very, very few which will caused the device to fail. Go to the extensive listings at www. fda.gov site y2k section and look through all the data, thousands and thousands of .devices that will function properly, even the ones with minor date problems. A handful of device types that will actually fail. (Warning  Y2K Warmongers should not see this real world data, actual facts. Your Y2K disaster bubble might burst, or more likely, be blown to another place with fewer facts.)

In closing, I appreciate the biblical perspectives several of the posts above end with. I like the bible in church, and y2k out of the church, since the y2k literature I have seen distributed at church contains many falsehoods concerning embedded system failures. Those who believe they are doing their duties by bringing the y2k hype and lies to the church not only deceive themselves but others as well - they have become the modern day soothsayers. So heres my chosen biblical quote:

Do not spread false reports Exodus 23.1 (But if you do, Ill still like you and just assume you are very, very gullible ;)

*********** Bonus! Humorous FactFinder Quotes! Warning! Y2K Warmongers will not see humor below, please disregard. The serious y2k threat hasnt gone, its just moved offshore where only the y2k experts can see it. (I would like to thank Malthusienne for giving me the idea for this one)

SEC reports  thank GOD for some solid Y2K facts! (If you are a Y2K Warmonger who did not heed the above warning, this is tongue-in-cheek humor.)

We averted the disaster! Y2K experts after Jan 1 2000 (true if your talking about mission critical software with date related calculations, absolutely false if youre talking about embedded systems  there was never a widespread disaster potential here).

Woah, its January 1, 2000 already and society is in great shape! Hmmmmwhat was that about those asteroids.time to do a little research (Asteroids. Thats the ticket. Actually, this is much more of a risk than Y2K, real TEOTWAWKI potential, but I digress)

Weve got one y2k very minor bug in the software application, and hundreds of the usual severe Microsoft operating system bugs..hmmm..which bugs should we way over-react to? (Y2k bug  year displayed as 100. Microsoft bugs  crash! Perspective  its an amazing thing - buy it, borrow it, just get it!)

Dec 31, 1999 to Jan 1, 2000, Spot, Dec 31, 1999 to Jan 1, 2000! (Rollover, Spot, rollover!)

I Survived The Y2K Hype (copyright FactFinder, Jan 1, 1900 oops!)

-- Anonymous, March 31, 1999

FF,

Your attitude towards this continues to astound me.

You seem to have a very narrow view on the entire Y2K problem. As I have often stated, people have to look beyond their own narrow fields of interest, beyond their own local problems (or lack of them). Even if there is not a single embedded system failure for Y2K, I still think we're in for a very turbulent ride. Companies and governments and utilities are (for the most part) only fixing their mission-critical systems. Many will not even get those done. How will this affect life post Y2K? I don't know. Will it affect power post Y2K? Again, I don't know. It certainly won't affect power directly, but it may have drastic effects indirectly.

What happens to the electrical industry if many of their large industrial customers shut down for six months because they can't continue to do business? That doesn't mean the power will get shut off to our homes, but we don't really know what it means. How will lack of oil from foreign countries affect the electrical industry?

I see Y2K as (potentially) death from a thousand cuts, not a bullet through the heart. How can the utility industry continue to stay in business, to make money if the economy takes a serious nose-dive? If tens of thousands of companies go out of business, that will have a drastic effect on everything, including infrastructure. I don't know what the effect will be, but I don't think it will be a net positive effect.

You say don't advise people to stockpile. I say bull. You, and people like you, who are positive that Y2K will be a non-event, are treading a dangerous line. You *have* to be right, or you will be in serious trouble. If I'm wrong, well, it's not going to have a drastic effect on me. If the power stays on, I'll be fine. If the power goes out, for whatever reason, I may not be "fine", but I'll have a much better chance of coming out okay than someone in your position.

Like I've said before, preparation is insurance. I don't know what the probability is that the grid will stay up. You don't either. You have ideas based on your knowledge and direct experience. I have ideas based on what I've read and learned, and based on my years as a programmer.

The bottom line? I don't trust what NERC says at all. I don't trust what the government says, since they have been lying repeatedly since last summer about their progress. I trust to a certain extent what you are saying is true, but then again I also trust for the most part what Rick says, and he says he's seen embedded systems in power plants that go down on rollover. I trust what the Senate report says is, for the most part, true, even though I don't agree at all with their conclusions about how long we should prepare.

I guess that's pretty much what this forum is about, trying to find strands of the truth, and trying to put together what we find into a cohesive whole. The problem encompasses far more than just electrical utilities, and I as an individual responsible for the welfare of my family have to look at it that way, even if we can't discuss non-electrical things here too deeply.

I am a "doomsayer" for many reasons, not the least of which is how I feel about the electrial system. Maybe there isn't anything that will cause the grid to go down directly, but that doesn't mean we'll still have reliable power come next summer. I don't know, you don't know, Rick doesn't know. We can only make our best guesses, and prepare accordingly.

Later, Jon

-- Anonymous, April 01, 1999

Now Jon, I never ever considered you a "doomsayer", just a bit on the pessimistic side as far as y2k goes. I certainly have to give you credit for making some very good points in your post- the most important one being "Even if there is not a single embedded system failure for Y2K, I still think we're in for a very turbulent ride." The implication that mission critical software programs with y2k bugs has a risk potential to have a significant effect on society is one I agree with you on - the degree of risk is where we are likely to have different opinions, based on different views as to whether remediation of software applications that use dates for calculations, etc. can be performed in time.

There are a number of other items in your post that I disagree with as you probably expect, but I wish to end this thread becuase I have already had my say, and hearby concede that you win this round of the FactFinder/Jon Hylands debate because you made a good point that I respect, and because its fun to make statements like "I am sure that everyone is tired of Jon and myself always agreeing on everything" ;)

Regards,

-- Anonymous, April 01, 1999