Poster Dan has advised in a Yourdon thread that there is no need to prepare. Dan does seem to be knowledgeable about electric utilities, but he has ignored the fuel issue. If any experts on this forum care to weigh in see this URL,

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

at this link Poster Dan Says Don't Prepare

-- Anonymous, April 12, 1999

Answers

I read Dan's post and with the exception of having several devices left to test, I can confirm all of his results and conclusions. By all appearances, Dan and I work in similar departments for similarly sized utilities.

Good work Dan.

-- Anonymous, April 12, 1999

cl,

i'll ask you what i asked dan: do you have the same confidence in your distribution systems as you do in your generation systems?

-- Anonymous, April 12, 1999

Drew,

No, my confidence is HIGHER in distribution than it is in generation. While I trust in the expertise, professionialism and thoroughness of my friends in Nuclear and F&H generation, I was directly involved in the transmission and distribution protection. You know, if you want something done right... (Oops, there goes that pride and ego again.) Seriously, the distribution reports are 1st hand from the source (me), and the generation are from the gen. folks through the filter of a secondary source (me).

There was relatively little to be tested in distribution, mostly still electro-mechanical protection. What micro-processor protection is applied at the distribution level is made by the same vendor, and in some cases is the identical device used on the transmission system. My company uses one vendor extensively, and they did their Y2K testing early on, documented it well, and have it published on the web for all to see. They have also participated in breakout sessions at EPRI and have been very forthcoming with info. and Q&A.

That is not to imply anything about the other distribution manfuacturers. The protective relays I tested from other manufacturers were just as compliant. These guys just did an above average job in test and documentation.

So, Generation confidence = HIGH, Transmission confidence = HIGHER, Distribution confidence = Higher. Ability to operate in the absence of SCADA = Moderately High. Chances of kissing my spouse on New Year's eve = EXTREMELY LOW. Hope that Y2K'ers will donate their unused foodstuffs to Kosovar = Moderate. Chance of finding someone to admit to extensive Y2K prep after 1/2/00 = ???

-- Anonymous, April 12, 1999

cl motto: shoot first, proof-read later. I see a semantic oversight that could lead skeptics to question my post. Let me clarify, I did test ALL critical protective devices, even the ones that were thoroughly tested and meticulously documented by the vendor before I got to them. In all cases my testing corroborated their results.

-- Anonymous, April 12, 1999

CL,

**many** thanks for your answer. i haven't heard back from dan over on yourdon (yet, at least).

the reason why i asked is this: although i can't say too much, i know of one *major* power plant where the y2k folk are mighty, mighty concerned about distribution capabilities. they are highly confident about generation, but not distribution. these are knowledgeable, and i do mean knowledgeable, people. they are quietly advising friends to prepare. not to the extent of buying generators, but preparing otherwise (digression: i don't personally believe that preparation has to do only with potential electricity problems; check out the january 20 gao report dealing with the possibility of supply problems for certain types of foods; not to mention the water/embeddeds situation, or the canadian federal gov't report on potential food import problems, and then combine that with the acknowledged problems of the shipping industry. etc.).

i'm familiar with y2k failures and concerns in various plants in various parts of the country, and i know- for a fact- that there are to this day some exceedingly concerned people out there, in the industry itself. not they expect, in your words, the sky to fall. but they do think dirty power, brownouts, etc, are possible. and, yes- and i am serious- some in the industry are still considering generators (i kid you not- i can verify this).

what is the name of the company which manufactures the distribution systems you use, and do you have their web site, so i can look at their info?

many, many thanks again for your reply.

-- Anonymous, April 13, 1999

Drew,

It appears to me that your generation friends mistrust the distribution system because of fear of the unknown. In my utility, the generation and T&D people were meeting and sharing procedures, methods and findings in embedded device focus meetings from 97 - middle of 1998. So we have a good communication and trust between gen & T&D. Can you determine if your contact has had close communication with his friends in T&D?

(Notice how my confidence is higher in T&D than in generation? It's human nature to believe what you have seen with your own hands and eyes. I have faith (believe without seeing) in my gen. groups test program. People here have little faith in my word or NERC's, perhaps for teh same reason. They haven't and never will see or test utility devices hands on - so nothing anyone says will convince them.)

-- Anonymous, April 13, 1999

CL, nothing anyone 'says' will do any convincing. Someone with enough courage to post real data would go a long..long way though. Averages for y2k are like averages for hunting.. "I miss by 1 foot to the right then 1 foot to the left does not say On average I hit the target" Richard

-- Anonymous, April 13, 1999

What "data" do you mean? I have stated repeatedly that I have tested 90+ % of my mission critical devices with NO device exhibiting an operational failure that would cause an outage, or fail to protect. My numbers, not averages, but my protection device percent complete are posted in detail (with vendors and utility names removed) in the NERC reports (the particulars for each utility are stated with the names removed). I started out with nearly 100 mission critical device types and I am down to a number that you can count on 1 hand. I'll be done well before the 6/30 date everyone is shooting for. What exactly do you want?

Please do not ask me to violate my conscience and betray EPRI or vendor non-disclosure agreements I have signed, as well as the implied non-disclosure policy (expectation) of my employer. If you search for my name and follow my posts here you will see I have already stretched that cord to it limits. What I have related here goes well beyond the expected "call our Y2K office or visit our website".

And Drew, I'm sorry but I really think it would be wrong of me to repeat the vendor here again. Why don't you ask your utility sources who the top protective relay producer is (or maybe the top 5). You have the means to find this info. With the professional skills and perservence you have demonstrated so far, you will have no problems and little delay in finding what you seek.

-- Anonymous, April 13, 1999

CL,

I had the same thought: that the reasons for concern may be lack of communication. However, at the same time, I was also told that one of the contacts who had relayed (so to speak) this information also did have at least some first-hand information about the distribution system. But, I'll see if I can get more info on that tomorrow.

I understand about NDAs. I guess I do have a bit of confusion in the sense that if its public information (ie, on the Web), and widely used systems (ie, couldn't be traced to you per se), then why should you not be allowed to say "Go thou unto www.this-site.com" etc. But, I'm sure such info could be tracked down (I think I'll have a free moment in 2009 :)

I have heard from various sources information similar to what you & Dan at Yourdon (who did answer me last night, BTW) say. When I hear essentially the same things from various people, independently (whether positive or negative), that's a pretty good indicator that one is getting a relatively straight story.

I've always believed, from the time we (ie, CBN News) first started looking into the Y2K/power grid situation, that a lot of good work had already been done, and it was clear to me even a year ago that most plants would make it, either completely or sufficiently enough to function. I basically said so on the air nearly a year ago (at a time when Senator Bennett was saying things like there was a 40 percent chance of the grid going down, which was something I personally never bought into, for a host of reasons).

At the same, I do still hear stories of systems flunking tests, from reliable sources. For obvious reasons, such plants don't remotely want these stories public, unless perhaps they have overcome the flaw which caused the problem. I can also say that even at this point, there are people, in the industry, who do have the worries I mentioned earlier- power shortages, etc. Now, in a few months, maybe that will be different- who knows? But as a general rule, I'm not someone who refuses to believe good news, or whatever. If it's true, it's true, and let's move on to the next worry :)

-- Anonymous, April 13, 1999

Sorry, CL my badly written commet should have pointed to the individual utilities not to those working for them. Richard

-- Anonymous, April 13, 1999

Richard,

No offense taken. You misread the intent of my reply. Seriously, What info/data would you consider sufficient to satisfy you?

Sorry my previous reply seemed defensive. Not meant to be defensive, frustrated yes, defensive no.

-- Anonymous, April 14, 1999

CL, my pefect world scenario would be for one utility to say exactly where they are and where they have been, checking; chips, hardware, software, power supplies, business needs, and vendors. This would: Kill the notion that nothing can be done, Allow more utilities to do the same, Give more direct guidence to those utilities which need help Allow those in the wrong place at the wrong time to prepare Allow those in the right place to prepare to help those in the wrong place. I know this idea is based more in logic then businnes reality but bewfore Y2K I was a die hard optimist. Richard

-- Anonymous, April 14, 1999

I would like to chip in on cl's side. I am responsible for all embedded systems in my utility (generation, transmission, distribution, facilities, everything) and for contingency plannig. While this means I personally test very little, I do see all the results and I wrote the testing guidelines. I do perform a great deal of contingency planning, though. I have been working on Y2K for two years now and I believe I have a great deal of knowledge of what is happening and has happened. First, cl is right. I have my highest confidence in transmission and distribution equipment. We found some date problems in some devices but none of those problems affect the devices operation, i.e. they will function as needed when needed. Also, at least in our transmission and distribution systems and nuclear safety systems, the key safety systems are electro-mechanical or have electro-mechanical backup. These are analog devices and are not affected by Y2K. As to generation, we have found nothing in our plants that would cause them not to generate electricity or stay connected to the grid. However, we have found problems in support equipment and have either fixed it or in the process of fixing it. This is not to say there are not problems in generation plants, there are some and we are checking with other generation suppliers in our region. We have found that there are sufficient numbers of generators prepared to supply power in Y2K.

Second, the question as to fuel. For us, nuclear fuel is not an issue, we can go well into 2001 before we need to refuel, I anticipate that all Y2K issues will be fixed by then. For our hydro plants, as long as there is water we have them, this is not a Y2K issue, just a nature issue. For our coal plant, we are laying in a 30-45 day supply as a prudent contingency plan for the public. I don't expect to need any more than 3 days worth as that is how long our supplier is shutting down as part of their contingency plan (they have fixed everything but due to the nature of piping coal slurry, it will rock up the line if flow stops which is very expensive and long term to fix, they are taking the precaution of removing coal slurry from the line over the roll over, a reasonable precaution). Also, since we own a oil pipeline and storage company I know many of the oil burners in our region are storing extra fuel as a precaution. I am not concerned with the oil supply as I have been in contact with several major oil companies and they are or will be ready.

Third, I have to agree with not going overboard on getting "prepared". One of our concerns is that many people will buy generators but not really learn how to use them and then may damage their house systems or cause other problems by trying to run them. We are also somewhat concerned about all the "doom and gloomers" telling people to unplug their refrigerators or open their main circuit breakers. All this will do is add variance to the load and grid system, which we don't need. We would like everyone, residential and commercial customers alike, to just do what they do every New Year's (and in the days immediately after), so that we can have a good, predictable load with predictable transients. I think the best advice to give people concerning electricity is to operate as normal but to change out their jump strips (I teach college and one of the things I constantly tell IS students is that jump strips only offer protection for about 1 year before they wear out and become basically just a wire and overload protector, they will no longer help smooth out the power supply). As to food and water, we tell people they should always be prepared for emergencies such as earthquakes and Y2K should be no different, but this is only about a 3 day supply, not 7 days or more.

Fourth, as to publishing data, NERC is coming out with another state of the industry report this month reflecting progress through March. NEI has already come out with a report on nuclear for data through March. Both are, or will be, available on those web sites. Additionally you will see many utilities stating where they are at. My company is publically saying we are over 80% Y2K ready on mission critical and will by 100% ready on mission critical by 7/1. Many others are saying similar things. Read the papers and watch the news. I expect to see a swing in perspective from one of gloom to one of optimism caused by reports such as ours.

Finally, if you are wondering why I won't say what company I work for or who I am it is because those who wish to spread the doom and gloom make it unpleasant on those of us who try to tell the truth. My company has asked me that I not respond with my real name or the company's but they have not asked me to quit responding, they basically agree with what I say but don't want the hassle from those that don't agree. thanks...murph

-- Anonymous, April 15, 1999

I would like to chip in on cl's side. I am responsible for all embedded systems in my utility (generation, transmission, distribution, facilities, everything) and for contingency plannig. While this means I personally test very little, I do see all the results and I wrote the testing guidelines. I do perform a great deal of contingency planning, though. I have been working on Y2K for two years now and I believe I have a great deal of knowledge of what is happening and has happened. First, cl is right. I have my highest confidence in transmission and distribution equipment. We found some date problems in some devices but none of those problems affect the devices operation, i.e. they will function as needed when needed. Also, at least in our transmission and distribution systems and nuclear safety systems, the key safety systems are electro-mechanical or have electro-mechanical backup. These are analog devices and are not affected by Y2K. As to generation, we have found nothing in our plants that would cause them not to generate electricity or stay connected to the grid. However, we have found problems in support equipment and have either fixed it or in the process of fixing it. This is not to say there are not problems in generation plants, there are some and we are checking with other generation suppliers in our region. We have found that there are sufficient numbers of generators prepared to supply power in Y2K.

Second, the question as to fuel. For us, nuclear fuel is not an issue, we can go well into 2001 before we need to refuel, I anticipate that all Y2K issues will be fixed by then. For our hydro plants, as long as there is water we have them, this is not a Y2K issue, just a nature issue. For our coal plant, we are laying in a 30-45 day supply as a prudent contingency plan for the public. I don't expect to need any more than 3 days worth as that is how long our supplier is shutting down as part of their contingency plan (they have fixed everything but due to the nature of piping coal slurry, it will rock up the line if flow stops which is very expensive and long term to fix, they are taking the precaution of removing coal slurry from the line over the roll over, a reasonable precaution). Also, since we own a oil pipeline and storage company I know many of the oil burners in our region are storing extra fuel as a precaution. I am not concerned with the oil supply as I have been in contact with several major oil companies and they are or will be ready.

Third, I have to agree with not going overboard on getting "prepared". One of our concerns is that many people will buy generators but not really learn how to use them and then may damage their house systems or cause other problems by trying to run them. We are also somewhat concerned about all the "doom and gloomers" telling people to unplug their refrigerators or open their main circuit breakers. All this will do is add variance to the load and grid system, which we don't need. We would like everyone, residential and commercial customers alike, to just do what they do every New Year's (and in the days immediately after), so that we can have a good, predictable load with predictable transients. I think the best advice to give people concerning electricity is to operate as normal but to change out their jump strips (I teach college and one of the things I constantly tell IS students is that jump strips only offer protection for about 1 year before they wear out and become basically just a wire and overload protector, they will no longer help smooth out the power supply). As to food and water, we tell people they should always be prepared for emergencies such as earthquakes and Y2K should be no different, but this is only about a 3 day supply, not 7 days or more.

Fourth, as to publishing data, NERC is coming out with another state of the industry report this month reflecting progress through March. NEI has already come out with a report on nuclear for data through March. Both are, or will be, available on those web sites. Additionally you will see many utilities stating where they are at. My company is publically saying we are over 80% Y2K ready on mission critical and will by 100% ready on mission critical by 7/1. Many others are saying similar things. Read the papers and watch the news. I expect to see a swing in perspective from one of gloom to one of optimism caused by reports such as ours.

Finally, if you are wondering why I won't say what company I work for or who I am it is because those who wish to spread the doom and gloom make it unpleasant on those of us who try to tell the truth. My company has asked me that I not respond with my real name or the company's but they have not asked me to quit responding, they basically agree with what I say but don't want the hassle from those that don't agree. thanks...murph

-- Anonymous, April 15, 1999

Murph and others, thanks for your responses.

Murph, You wrote that you have been in contact with oil companies and they have assured you that they are ready (or words to that effect). That's about all that anyone is saying about the oil industry.

Needless to say, that inquiry does not constitue due diligence. The oil company conclusory responses or readiness do not persuade me of anything. Do you have any factual evidence indicating that all critical systems in oil will be working.

I have some indication that critical systems relied upon in oil are in danger. The FCC committee report (NIRC) has assessed that Venezuela, Kuwait and Saudi Arabia are at "High" risk of telecommunications problems. I'm sure you've seen the reports that three of Venezuela's five refineries are going to shut down (not that this will have any direct effect, but it's indicative of problems).

I do not believe anyone has stated the substantiated case that oil will flow readily during the first few months of 2000.

-- Anonymous, April 15, 1999

We have followed due diligence in our contacts with the oil industry. I can not nor will not comment in a public forum on anyone else's company or situation. However, I will say that the major oil companies jump started the electric utilities' Y2K embedded program in the fall of 1997 with their cooperative experience presented to us through EPRI. We also got access to many of their test results. While there may not be much in print on the oil industry the truth is they have been working longer and harder on Y2K than the utilities have (industry to industry, there are of course specific exceptions on a specific company basis). They also pioneered the industry approach to resolving embedded issues. So while their may be concern with their readiness, I am comfortable with them. Also, should you be concerned with natural gas pipeline companies, I am comfortable with them. They use digital components in their SCADA but have found few problems, none of which would prevent the piping and delivery of natural gas. I have also followed a due diligence process with them.

-- Anonymous, April 15, 1999

Murph, I can accept for the sake of argument that you have done due diligence on the oil companies' internal readiness. I cannot say that I or any other member of the general public will ever have that opportunity, and the only thing we will be told is general statements of readiness. By definition, I cannot do due diligence while relying on the opinion of those who owe no fiduciary duty to me.

Still, how can anyone recommend limited preparation (3 days) when there is no way in the world that you or anyone else can determine the state of everything necessary to produce and ship oil. Desalinization plants in Saudi Arabia? Ports? Rail? Navigation?

I'm pretty confident in American know-how. Once you leave these borders I wouldn't give you two cents for foreign ingenuity or determination.

-- Anonymous, April 15, 1999

murph,

i don't doubt what you (& cl, dan, factfinder, et al) say is true. at the same time, i also hear different stories from other power plant employees from all over the country- systems failing tests, worries about fuel supplies, worries about the distribution system (as i mentioned previously), and so forth. who is right? or is everyone right? is y2k a simple black & white issue, or is it a patchwork quilt? i'd feel better about the power industry if i didn't keep hearing from reliable people *inside* the industry with these concerns- people who in some cases are quietly telling others to prepare for some rough problems with electricity, and in other cases are buying (or considering buying) generators themselves. this is where the stories come from, murph- inside your own industry. i ain't making it up, trust me.

one thing i've found, and i've mentioned this in other places, is that tech types (of all varieties- hardware, software, programmers, testers, etc) tend to be quite tunnel-visioned about y2k. ie, my project is fine, therefore y2k is fine- what's the big deal? conversely, my project is toast, therefore it's TEOTWAWKI (why do you think so many programmers have headed for the hills?) i have seen this over and over and over and over again.

regarding the preparation issue- even if the power grid sails smoothly through 1/1/00, and keeps right on sailing with minimal to no problems- and i'm open to that possibility, if someone can offer sufficient evidence to prove it- that hardly means no difficulties from y2k for society overall. for instance, i assume when you tell people that they only need to prepare for 3 days that you have taken into account the nation's water supply problems, the jan 20 gao report on potential disruptions in various aspects of the food supply, the recent canadian federal gov't study on imported food, the statement from one of the major food trade associations that 30 percent of members consider embedded systems a potentially major problem (the potential disruptions are unknown), a country by country assessment (including the social conditions) of those nations which export food & agricultural-related products to the u.s., the worrisome condition of the international shipping industry- both ships and ports, and- well, you get the idea. or, what if someone loses his or her job due to negative economic fallout from y2k, and that food reserve gets them through a few weeks? have you taken all of this, and more, into account when you tell people not to worry? can you explain to me what the problem is with people having 1 to 3 weeks of food & water (or whatever one chooses) ready, should problems develop *after* 1/1/00, as 2000 progresses? such measures shouldn't break anyone's bank- and all they're really doing is buying food early that they would buy in the future anyway.

-- Anonymous, April 16, 1999

Drew,

one thing i've found ... is that tech types tend to be quite tunnel-visioned about y2k ... (why do you think so many programmers have headed for the hills?)

You should draw a conclusion from this. 90% of the doom and gloom surrounding Y2K is, in fact, being generated by programmers/IS/IT types who are speculating from way outside of their specialty. Why would you take their word about whether a complex mechanism is ready, over that of the people who design and/or maintain it?

You display a (not-so-subtle) bias with your comment that tech-types have "tunnel-vision." What distresses me more than anything is that so many people have just decided, a priori, that Y2K is going to Be Bad, and that's it. When anyone tries to tell them otherwise, they automatically distrust them.

(In simpler terms: Y2K is going to Be Bad, and anyone else in the whole wide world who says otherwise is either lying, or misinformed, or afflicted with "tunnel-vision.")

Show me how "non-compliance" in Venezuela will affect the oil flow. Don't speculate, show me how. Trace that oil from the well to the tanker, and demonstrate this for me.

Point to a piece of equipment and say, "this will cut the oil off if it fails." I will immediately ask: "OK, what do they do NOW when that thing fails?" Or do you assume that these things never fail in normal use? [g]

We have an entire popular movement based on the notion that "non-compliant" automatically translates to "trouble" ... in spite of the fact that no one seems to be able to provide me with a single, consistent definition of just what constitutes "compliance."

--Stephen (go figure)
http://www.wwjd.net/smpoole

-- Anonymous, April 17, 1999

Question for Stephen m. Poole: What does CET stand for? Thanks

-- Anonymous, April 17, 1999

"CET" stands for "Certified Electronic Technician."

-- Stephen

-- Anonymous, April 17, 1999

" I'm pretty confident in American know-how. Once you leave these borders I wouldn't give you two cents for foreign ingenuity or determination." -- Puddintame

Ingenuity springs from a mind that processes without firewalls and filters.

Perhaps Puddintame forgot that y2k exists because American-developed software wasn't/isn't compliant.

-- Anonymous, April 17, 1999

Drew,

What motivates people is beyond understanding, I have no idea who you have heard from, what their background is, why they are talking. I know that many people from a utility will talk about y2k but unless they are actually working the y2k problem I would accept what they say with a grain of salt. I agree that many IS people have tunnelvision as do many y2k project people. Many think that if their project is okay then the industry is okay. Are they right? I've talked to project people in over a hundred utility projects (no kidding or exageration). None have found an embedded problem that would prevent the transmission or distribution system from operating or would knock a generation off line. The issues tend to be in the software running on plant computers, SOME (but not that much) of which can cause severe problems. BUT, all hundred utilities know of those problems and are taking steps to correct them where and when they occur. Do I have tunnel vision? I hope not. I have 17 years experience as a power plant mechanical engineer as well as a Ph.D. in information systems management and MS's in software engineering and telecommunications. I have broad experience and tend to believe I have a more universal outlook. I have consulted with the government in Peru and talked to projects in the Carribean, Middle East (not a major oil producer), and Asia. For those interested in problems in forign countries, yes they have problems and yes most are behind us. But again, they don't have the sophistication we have and I don't think they will have power problems more severe than they usually have.

Anyway, I'm starting to ramble and I guess the truth is there probably isn't anything I can say that will remove your doubt. Faith is something that comes hard to many. My stance is to have faith in those who have provided the infrastructure fabric of this nation for so long as frankly, there isn't any benefit to us to let it fail. As to advising people not to be over prepared, I don't object to people having more food and water than the 3 days I recommend, I do have a problem with recommending people buy guns and generators and take their money out of banks and do all those things that when done by enough people, will undo the work of many of us and cause a Y2K problem. I grew up in the country and can handle a fire arm. Most of the city people I live around can't and will be dangerous with them. Same with generators and other actions. My advice is listen to what is said, don't look for conspiracy everywhere, and decide if what you hear makes sense. Then act on what you think is right. I'm hoping most people will believe those of us working on fixing the problem and not those who are making a living off of discussing the problem. My last statement on y2k is that I do not claim there are not y2k problems, we have found many devices that have date problems, what I find reassuring is that none of those problems prevented those devices from functioning as needed. Basically, we don't use most of the advanced functionality in these devices and therefore the operational impact of y2k is quite small. This is why I am confident. Had we found nothing I would be worried (and was in 1997 and early 1998) but what we have found is that we are okay with y2k problems in these devices.

-- Anonymous, April 18, 1999

PNG, I lay the lion's share of blame on the US Dept. of Defense and top level corporate management (S&P 500 level) of the last 15 years. It's possible I've been sold a bill of goods, but I believe that the problem was born with financial and stategic mismanagement and not the product of clumsy technologists.

-- Anonymous, April 18, 1999

Stephen,

I display absolutely no bias whatsoever when I talk about tunnel vision; it simply an observation that came about after months of being involved in Y2K. I could easily argue that you display bias by assuming, or implying, that I automatically distrust anyone who says Y2K will not Be Bad. That's not true. I do, however, like proof- from either side. Or at least qualifications for their conclusions. By qualifications, I mean professional qualifications, or at minimum statements from an industry itself.

You are right that non-compliant does not necessarily mean trouble. But in a lot of systems, it often does- to the point of unusability. If you don't know this, I - well, I don't know what to say. And incidentally, I believe some industries have agreed upon industry- specific definitions of compliance.

Finally, some people will distrust those who tell them Y2K is not going to Be Bad, as you put it, for various reasons. Not the least of which has been the not insignificant amount of spin, and frankly, blatant lying which has been going on in this field.

Murph,

As I said before, I don't doubt that what you are telling me is true. However, one hundred utilities out of 3200 is not a statistically significant sample. Further, as you said, SOME problems can be severe. Okay- severe enough to disrupt generation/delivery of power? How long will it take to fix those problems? Will utilities which started late be able to do so? (Incidentally, I tend to agree with you about foreign countries & power, at least from what I know.)

It isn't a question of whether or not there's a "benefit to failing." It's a question of whether or not organizations of all types recognized the problem in time, and whether or not the problem in those organizations is severe enough so that they won't "luck out," so to speak (ie, despite the late start, they can get fixed in time). Time has always been a large component of Y2K (along with non- recognition, denial, etc). Dick Mills reports that at the winter meeting of Power Engineers in 1998 (ie, slightly more than one year ago), he had to force Y2K on to the agenda, and even then he was accosted by those who thought the whole thing was a farce. Etc.

In terms of listening only to people who are working on a Y2K project itself, I think that's largely sound advice. And in almost every case I've referred to, that's where the info *does* come from (in one situation, it's from a highly-experienced EE- much longer experience than you, in fact)- who knows the systems he is talking about *extremely* thoroughly.

Insofar as preparation goes, I've told people for more than a year not to take their money out of banks, that it wasn't necessary, and I'm not big on guns either. As far as generators go... well, I would refer you to the NERC Sept 99 report, which said they didn't know what the impact of Y2K would be. At that point in time, it was getting mighty difficult to order generators- you couldn't be guaranteed when you would actually get the thing. And here you had the *official* power industry report saying, essentially, we don't know what's going to happen. In addition, some power companies have (and I believe still are), shall we say, not discouraged people from taking such actions. Because the industry itself could not guarantee Y2K would not bring significant difficulties, individuals, businesses and local governments had to face this decision. People had to agonize about those decisions, and they didn't feel that they could get reliable information from the industry itself. Good grief, you had Senator Dodd saying it was not a question of whether or not there would be disruptions, it was a question of how severe those disruptions would be. He said this *because of* the info the industry itself supplied to the Senate Y2K Committee. (Take a look at the mess the overall energy industry was in, according to the confidential survey conducted at the time- it's on page 24 of the Senate Y2K report, as I recall.) My point is, the industry itself is largely responsible for the worries and concerns out there. You can't blame "doomers" when this was the information coming from the industry, and even people in the industry itself have been buying generators and telling their friends, okay?

-- Anonymous, April 18, 1999

Murph,

Sorry- I should have said one hundred utilities is not *necessarily* a statistically significant example. Under the right conditions, it might be.

Stephen,

My Y2K sources include those who have worked and are working on Y2K projects; they know what they're talking about. Some are optimistic, some are cautious, some are very worried. Y2K is precisely what I said earlier: a patchwork quilt, in almost every way imaginable. Some sectors are doing much better than others, and even within those sectors, progress is uneven.

-- Anonymous, April 18, 1999