Assuming that (as some people say) no "showstoppers" have been found in the US power system (the most modern in the world, I would guess), then why would we expect any power problems anywhere? Since most nations are farther behind the US in terms of technology, and older plants don't need as much (if any) Y2K work, wouldn't we assume that most nations in the poorer countries (which are the top Y2K concern now) should have *no* problems with power, rather than a lot?

-- Anonymous, May 06, 1999

Answers

At the moment, the main concern with foreign countries is not so much power or banking, but the other Y2K problems. Especially in the eastern and Asian countries, there is a lot of pirated software, and it is difficult to get vendor support and upgrades for stolen software. [g] Scott Skillman, Vice President and CIO of Crowley Maritime Corporation testified to the Senate Y2K committee. In his testimony, he pinpointed some of Crowleys concern about foreign countries:

     U.S. Customs and many foreign customs organizations 
     require data in an electronic form. There is a concern that the 
     governmental organizations required to clear a vessel in and 
     out of port, including, customs, immigration, naval or coast 
     guard services and/or taxing authorities may not be able to 
     perform their duties properly, causing bottlenecks, delays, 
     port congestion and reduced commerce.

He expects these problems as a result of software problems, not power failures.

Concern about foreign countries should focus more on software-caused problems, concentrated in the government and manufacturing sectors. Remember that the more business a company does with US firms, the more likely it is to be computerized. Off-shore failures will effect us more than them.

-- Anonymous, May 06, 1999

Here is Mr. Skillman's complete testimony.

-- Anonymous, May 06, 1999

The NIC, CIA, and other agencies have specifically said that foreign power grids are at risk . . . .

No "show stoppers," huh? I guess that June 2, 1997, "Newsweek" bit about Hawaiian Electric's 1996 Y2K test (you know, the EMS/SCADA failure that would have resulted in power loss to some customers and power surges to others) was so much hooey, right? And HE's systems analyst, Wendell Ito (who wasn't afraid to give his name, please note), just didn't know what he was talking about. Or could it be that HE caught so much grief and bad publicity from this little revelation that certain other power companies took note? Gee, I dunno. . . .

But at least, according to HE, their systems are fixed now.

-- Anonymous, May 06, 1999

Drew,

You've posted a good question. I've been wondering the same things myself. In addition to the points you raised, I'd like to add some observations/questions of my own:

- Is there some sort of international utility engineers association? If there is, I'm assuming that test results in the US/Canada are passed on to engineers in other countries so that their testing and remediation efforts are speeded up (i.e. they don't have to re-invent the wheel).

- Are some (many?) of the parts used in foreign power generation and T/D systems purchased from North American suppliers? If so, compliance information can be forwarded so that things are speeded up. (Is this what is meant by "best practices"?)

- With regard to the CIA and NIC reports of potentially serious overseas power problems, what sources are being used to back up the assertions, and when were the reports researched? It is safe to say that the Electricity-Y2K debate in North America has changed appreciably since Sept/Oct 98 as more and more hard data has entered the picture. Could the same thing be true of the picture overseas?

- Finally, the lack of information about the electricity picture in foreign countries should not *necessarily* be taken as bad news. Too often the hard-core doomers (in EY for example) equate "no news" with "hugely bad news". Also, we North Americans can be guilty of mild xenophobia - "if we can't be sure of getting our electricity system fixed and tested before 1/1/2000 then how are all those foreign countries going to manage?"

Just my 2c

-- Anonymous, May 06, 1999

Heco (hawaii electric company), says their EMS, SCADA, and billing are tested and compliant. Lotta changes in thier "showstopper" since 97.

-- Anonymous, May 06, 1999

First of all, there have been many showstoppers. My personal favorite is Peachbottom Nuclear failed y2K event. When a room full of nuclear engineers crash a main and backup system by advancing the dates, causing system monitors to crash and rendering core status unknowable, I'd say that could have been a real showstopper. We were damn lucky. But since you asked me to suspend reality, here goes:

They will have major failures because they started late and resources are slim to none. Came accross a Rueters? article today at work in which an executive from Standard PLC, a large British bank talked about foreign Y2K exposure for his company. Apparrantly, they are big investors in African countries. He was very concerned and was communicating to his shareholders that there WILL be major infrastructure failures in these countries (which by the way are some of the world's primary crude oil suppliers). He spoke of a top level official from an African nation recently (2 weeks ago) requesting of Standard that they conduct a seminar to educate their officials as to WHAT Y2K IS! Talk about late to the game.

And I'm not buying the logic that international infrastructures are part of the normal course of events, so 2K is no big deal. That's BS and anyone who has done business down there knows that it takes precious little to upset the apple carts. I'm pretty sure that infrastructure failures will occur there and will exacerbate an already tenuous hold on stability.

I have believed, and continue to believe little of what our government has said about 2K, but I believe them when they say things will be rough internationally (despite the fact that they are using the truth to deflect our own scrutiny at home).

-- Anonymous, May 06, 1999

While I agree that software problems are a Big Deal in the international picture, the basic question still needs to be answered: *if* the US will have so few problems, and we have the most modern grid in the world (and thus the most susceptible to Y2K problems), *then* shouldn't other countries have less to zero problems, especially those in the developing world? Yet official international analyses keep saying "expect power blackouts in these countries." Am I wrong or does that just not make sense?

-- Anonymous, May 07, 1999

Drew

The reason I think some people fear power problems in other countries (particularly in the developing world) is that non-US utilities may have started their assessment and testing too late. The feeling is that they won't have time to find and fix enough of the bugs.

I remember a statement from a guy at Ontario Hydro - he said something along the lines of "we will be OK, but we would have had problems if we hadn't assessed and tested". (The reason I remember it is that Rick said this phrase should be tattooed on every utility executive's forehead.)

Just my 2c

-- Anonymous, May 07, 1999

Mike,

Yes, I know they started late- but Y2K power optimists here in the States are saying that even if they *hadn't* gotten started early, they have found no problems in the system which would have prevented them from generating/delivering power. So, it shouldn't make any difference if companies in foreign countries started late; the US companies should just tell them not to bother, since there are no "showstoppers."

It *can't* be both ways (can it?). Either the US companies found real problems, and foreign companies better hustle 'cause they're late & will run into power problems once 00 begins; *OR* the US companies found no problems, and thus foreign companies should expect to find no problems either (and may as well stop assessing, testing, etc).

Which is it? Or am I wrong? That's what I want to know.

-- Anonymous, May 07, 1999

Drew, You're wrong. The worry with other countries is not with their power. And according to Scott Skillman (see earlier post), their banks seem ok. It is the other industries that will cause their infrastructure problems, not power or finance.

-- Anonymous, May 07, 1999

Walt,

You mean Senator Bennett, et al, are all wrong when they say there will be blackouts, etc, in other countries? I'm not denying they don't have other problems- that's not my point. My question is- well, what I posted a few notes back...

-- Anonymous, May 07, 1999

I think I get your point now Drew, and it is an excellent one. One WOULD assume logically that more complexity would logically lead to a higher risk of failure. On a personal level, I believe that our risk is actually quite high domestically. We are being asked to believe that other countries will be much worse off than the US, and due to their lateness in starting and lack of awareness they WILL be worse off overall due to multiple infrastructure failures. However, I think your point is a valid one. We have mitigated some of the risk, but overall we are probably in a very high risk category simply due to our complexity (and perhaps even our arrogance). Hell, this week, I noted that at least 4 nuclear plants "tripped off line" during the normal course of events. How's that for a complicated environment?

You have to admit though that this ethnocentric dodge is an effective one. It allows us to feel comfortable while ignoring the flawed logic of it's premise.

Denial, it's not just a river in Egypt!

-- Anonymous, May 07, 1999

Drew, I have also been paying close attention to the news articles relating concerns about power outages in various countries outside the U.S. It's not only Koskinen, Bennett, etc. who have mentioned this, but technical groups in France, Germany, and Russia have also been quoted as saying there could be problems.

You're right that this is completely inconsistent with the concept of "no showstoppers found" in utilities. Either there ARE showstoppers which *must* be remediated in time, or the foreign electric industry experts are worrying for absolutely no reason. Mr. Koskinen also wouldn't have had any need to mention supplying batteries and generators to Russian nuclear facilities to help ensure a safe shutdown upon possible grid failure.

The only thing I can think of to possibly explain this divergence is that some of the digital systems used abroad *might* be older than those used in the U.S. and therefore no longer have vendor support or upgrades supplied. But this brings us right back in a circle, because if there are no embedded system failures which can stop generation or delivery, then vendor support doesn't matter!

Hmmm...there is another possibility I just thought of. A May 4th article quoted the French Institute of Nuclear Safety (a technical body which reports to the French Nuclear Safety Authority) as saying, "`Malfunctions of certain computer and automated systems at the power stations could weaken safety levels,'' the IPSN said, adding that more than 40 percent of the systems needed to be operational to guarantee short-term safety at the plants." Perhaps foreign electric industries consider the loss or disruption of monitoring systems to be of more serious import than U.S. utilities seem to. I suppose it's possible that other industry people might be less sanguine about being able to operate manually without those systems U.S. utilities term "important" but not critical? There have been problems found in monitoring systems, that's been admitted. It's just that our industry assures us that manual workarounds are possible in the event of failures in those systems.

Or maybe Walt's comment, that it's other industries which could cause infrastructure problems, which is actually the key here? NERC has certainly stated that a loss of telecoms could put a real crimp in operations. That would presuppose, however, that Koskinen and Bennett don't have much confidence that foreign communications systems will be up and running. Now there's a nasty turn of thought.... considering the other implications of telecom failures overseas.

Or maybe a grid disruption is considered possible in other countries because large power users won't be compliant and will cause load imbalances if they have to shut down? But again, that type of situation is being looked at as part of U.S. utilities' contingency plans here, so why wouldn't the same contingencies apply overseas?

Wow, you've really gotten the mind ticking over, Drew. Talk about not seeing the forest for the trees! I just realized we're all so caught up in the embedded systems issue that we've forgotten there are software systems listed as critical, too! What do we know about software "showstoppers"?

Lots of questions and suppositions, but no good answers. It would be very nice to know exactly why Mr. Koskinen, Mr. Bennett, the CIA, etc. do have "concerns" about electric disruptions in other countries, wouldn't it?

-- Anonymous, May 08, 1999

drew,

do you have any siblings? if so, do you remember, when, as a child your mother said, " drew, wash your hands and face before you sit at the dinner table."

and you responded, " but look at bonnie! she didn't wash her hands or face and her shirt and shoes are also dirty."

we learned as children to shift the focus of blame or negative attention from ourselves to others.

when i responded to reporter in another thread[latest nerc report online-24 hours early] this is what i was refering to. text from thread:

epri states the *critical* dependency of the electrical industry on the tlecommunications industry. the international trade report notes the *vulnerability* of the tlecommunications industry...in particular, those with high teledensity[they tend to get a bit more honest and careless when they are discussing problems of a global nature.]

this is our achilles heel...the u.s. has the largest, most sophisticated, most redundant telecommunications system in the world. end of text

you cannot have it both ways.

epri acknowledges electric's critical dependency on telecommunications

the international report speaks to the vulnerability of telecommunications...in particular those with high teledensity.

that is *US* for christ's sake...we have the most complex, sophisticated and redundant telecommunications system in the entire world.

and yet they are saying that this is a problem for the *REST* of the world...we are ok.

this is casuistry...false or misleading logic.

i read the entire international trade report as though they were discussing the united states, not the rest of the world. that is how i am attempting to determine the severity of y2k on our country.

they will wax ad nauseum about other countries and their lack of preparedness...be sure to watch what they say, and you will see our own vulnerabilities.

when we took an exam in school and the minimum necessary to pass was a 70, does it matter that we had a 64 and everyone else had a 50 or lower? this is not being graded on a bell curve.

you either pass or you fail...it is that simple.

-- Anonymous, May 08, 1999

I think it's pretty simple. I think (and have stated my opinion here before) that NERC is lying.

The Seabrook audit (among others) pretty cleary shows that there are problems that they had to fix, and they were show-stoppers. Plain and simple.

Jon

-- Anonymous, May 08, 1999

Compound operator errors in a complex environment ,created in the search for added efficiencies, are the vulnerability.

The European community provides more power generation and transmission equipment to the world than most Americans are aware of.

The CIA is neither a marvel of wisdom, nor an accurate predictor of events. Their track record is...well, when was the last time they were right?

The U.S. is the world leader in pirated software - not China or some other country. Let's get that fact straight. How many 'pirated' COBOL programs do you think they have? Or are we trying to tie in PC applications as major 'showstoppers?' The high-tech manufacturing facilities in Asia are operated by Japanese, German and other multinational companies. The 'homegrown' industries that support raw material and mostly nonassembled parts might have a PC, but that's pretty rare.

Most of Asia (and China) have power distribution systems that are like stepping back into the 1960's. Everytime I go to Thailand or China or The Philippines or Malaysia or Indonesia or Korea or Taiwan, I'm surprised if I don't lose power once in a week-long trip. The modernized and/or newly constructed generation facilities were not manufactured by "Joe's Power Plant and Arc Welding." There are just not that many companies in the world that build these facilities and the technical support staff from, let's say Siemens or Westinghouse , are the same people, using the same methods as in the West.

When you go to these countries, you see, read and hear information being shared and stories being written about progress, awareness, contigency plans, etc. The CIA and U.S. Senators would be near the bottom of my list of "up-to-the-minute" sources of information on the state of world business.

NTT (The Japanese major telecom and builder/maintainer of infrastructure, including financial networks)engineers tell me they're< /i> worried about the U.S. and Europe. Everyone is worried about everyone else. Fifty percent of the world's population has never made a telephone call. The third world is the third world because of infrastructure deficiency. (You should be so lucky in about 7 months...)

Now..the probability of manuacturing failures in highly automated factories is still a threat. A much more credible threat than extended power outages... in my humble foreign opinion.

-- Anonymous, May 09, 1999

click - Sorry

-- Anonymous, May 09, 1999

Peter, you asked when was the last time the CIA was right about anything? Well, how about when they and the Joint Chiefs of Staff told know-it-alls Clinton and Albright that Milosevic wouldn't scream "Uncle!" after two days of NATO bombing? But I take your point.

On to other posts . . .

The NIC report was in February, using reasonably recent info. It painted a grim picture of Y2K risks to infrastructures overseas.

The Dutch certainly seem worried about the power situation in Europe.

The latest info on French nukes isn't good.

Incidentally, somebody wrote that world banks are not in any Y2K trouble. That's news to me. It's also news to the British Financial Services Authority (which recently put 12 large UK banks on its Y2K "danger list") and to the Japanese Financial Services Agency (which said that, as of last Dec., nearly half of the 19 largest Japanese banks had completed only 25% of "needed repairs" and only two had finished 75%.). And I guess that Gartner report last summer about German banks being a year behind their American counterparts was just hooey. Well, no doubt the Germans have made it up since then, right?--despite all the Euro work.

Regarding Hawaiian Electric, yes, I know they are ready now, or least I will (perhaps naively) take their word for it. That doesn't alter the fact that originally they DID have a Y2K "show stopper" on their hands. (Go back to Parkhill's original question.) Last year I got into a lively email exchange with Phil Hystad, the principal architect of three different EMS and SCADA systems used by major U.S. power companies. He was of the opinion that most such systems would not have any serious Y2K problems; Mr. Hystad further speculated that Hawaiian Electric might have been using an old Rockwell system that did have Y2K problems.

For what it's worth.

-- Anonymous, May 10, 1999

PNG et al,

Well, it's not only the CIA & members of the US gov't who are publicly worrying about power failures around the world; it's the countries themselves (Australia, UK, Germany, France, etc)- as Bonnie pointed out. And these countries are not talking so much about the telecom link to power, as marianne mentioned (although that is of course a concern)- they are talking about power plants *themselves*.

So, either these countries are using different equipment- which *does* have Y2K problems ours don't- or not (assuming ours has no true Y2K problems, as optimists tell us). Which is it? So far, not a single optimist (to whom this thread is addressed) has come forward to explain this.

-- Anonymous, May 10, 1999

I try to find info that is positive myself, most of it seems to be confusing but alot seems to be negative.

This topic assumes that the U.S. will be ok.

Has anyone looked at the annual report for Florida Progress? (a Fortune 500 co.) If you get a copy, look at page 25.

From SEC form 10-K Nov. 1998

Florida Power began planning for Y2K in 1996, by inventorying and assessing traditional IT supported applications and infrastructure. In 1997, the scope was expanded to encompass embedded microprocessors within its power generation, delivery, and customer service areas. The scope has been further expanded in 1998 to include verifying the readiness of the transmission grid, vendors, suppliers and customers.

Now, look at this from the SEC 10-K for March 1999.

The following chart represents an estimate of the current status of Florida Progress' Y2K progress and planned completion dates for each phase as of December 31, 1998:

Florida Power Electric Fuels Percent Planned Percent Planned Complete Completion Complete Completion (12/31/98) Date (12/31/98) Date

Awareness - * * * * Inventory - 98% Jan. 1999 70% Mar. 1999 Assessment and prioritization - 75% Mar. 1999 50% Jun. 1999 Remediation and verification - 40% Sep. 1999 30% Sep. 1999 * To continue through duration of project.

I personally do not understand how a company can work on something like this since 1996 and only be 40% or 30% remediated in 2 years (1996 to 12/98) and then suddenly everything comes together in 9 months. (12/98 to 9/99) Am I missing something here?

I don't mean to pick on Florida Progress it is just that my mother owns some stock and she brought this to my attention.

-- Anonymous, May 12, 1999

Just to clarify a point Don made above about banks in Britain:

He said the British Financial Services Authority had put "12 large UK banks on its Y2K 'danger list' "

This is not quite the case. The FSA regulates all manner of financial institutions, not just banks. Given that there are only about 12 large UK banks (in the retail side) it is highly unlikely that all of them are on the danger list.

FWIW, scuttlebutt from some British friends indicates that the institutions that might be lagging are brokerages and that there are only a couple who are really behind. If the regulatory authorities do act then it is easier to close down a brokerage (by transferring accounts) than it is to do the same with a major clearing bank.

(I realize my post is off-topic [g])

-- Anonymous, May 12, 1999

"...it is easier to close down a brokerage (by transferring accounts)..."

Those transfers might be problematic if the computers involved are down or their database is corrupted. That's the way it looks from the cheap seats where I'm sitting, anyway.

-- Anonymous, May 12, 1999

Prez,

Yes, for purposes of discussion, this thread assumes the US power co's are in good shape.

Mike,

As I recall, the Brit FSA downgraded the number of shaky financial institutions from 12 to 2 recently. *However*, the buzz in the London financial district, according to the London Times, was that the FSA was on target when the original report about 12 came out. So I don't know if it we're really looking at only 2 or not. Even so, the Brits are (properly, IMHO) worried about the continental banks. And then there's Japan... (okay, okay, off-topic, I know :)

-- Anonymous, May 12, 1999

Tom:

Any transfer of accounts would be ordered before 1/1/2000 so that the chances of of bug-corrupted data would be minimized. *If* the authorities act they will do so quickly and without warning.

Drew:

I worked in the "City" in London from 88-94 (with a management consulting firm) and still have a few contacts there. The Brits tend to be very conservative and are very keen to keep London as the pre- eminent financial centre in Europe (they worry about Frankfurt nipping at their heels). If there is any doubt about an institution's Y2K viability I think you will see them acting to protect the integrity of the whole system.

[OK - that's my last off-topic post. I promise [g]]

-- Anonymous, May 12, 1999

Mike,

What you say makes sense. Have you talked to anyone in the City recently about their thoughts re the Contintental banks/financials? The word according to the London Times was that folks in the City doubted that the Continent's banks etc would be ready. Heard anything along those lines? (We can move this to e-mail, so we stop going off- topic :)

-- Anonymous, May 12, 1999

I would still like to hear from a solid optimist in regard to Drew's original statement:

"Assuming that (as some people say) no "showstoppers" have been found in the US power system (the most modern in the world, I would guess), then why would we expect any power problems anywhere? Since most nations are farther behind the US in terms of technology, and older plants don't need as much (if any) Y2K work, wouldn't we assume that most nations in the poorer countries (which are the top Y2K concern now) should have *no* problems with power, rather than a lot?"

For sake of clarity, keep in mind we are ASSUMING that the U.S. utilities are in good shape.

The contradiction is pretty plain, and I am just as curious about this as Drew. I would like to hear from an optimist to get their input.

Thanks,

Jim Stewart

-- Anonymous, May 13, 1999

As promised, here is my two cents (although it won't add a whole lot to what has already been said).

As to your original question, I think you should find out just who is saying that other countries are more vulnerable...if it's a government official, then he probably heard it from somewhere else. What we'd need is a Y2k person from a foreign country who has actually performed inventory and assessment on a foreign electrical system. I have heard nothing from my fellow US Y2k utility folks, and I've only spoken briefly to people from two countries other than the US and Canada. Anyway, I have also heard that the CIA is going to issue some kind of report, so that may shed a little light. Here are some possible causes for why a foreign system might be more susceptible to Y2k:

1) A weaker infrastructure means the power system itself has less contingencies built into it. In the US, all major transmission systems have built-in contingencies (multiple lines feeding the same substation, multiple transformers, etc.). The loss of one line could have a much greater effect there than here.

2) The standards might be lower in such a way as to allow "bailing wire" type engineering that would not be considered acceptable in the US. For example, we would'nt use a personal computer grade system to operate a power system, but another country might, just to cut costs.

3) The pirated software issue is another (already raised above).

4) Foreign systems might operate much closer to operating limits (load flow, stability) than in the US. If only a few large customers dropped off, this could prove to be a stability issue.

5) Finally, if a foreign system typically has more outages on a regular basis, then that would be expected to continue in Year 2000.

I hope this helps a bit.

-- Anonymous, May 15, 1999

Dan,

Thanks for your answer. Of course, that has simply spawned my questions for your answers :)

You wrote:

>>1) A weaker infrastructure means the power system itself has less contingencies built into it. In the US, all major transmission systems have built-in contingencies (multiple lines feeding the same substation, multiple transformers, etc.). The loss of one line could have a much greater effect there than here.

But why would Y2K tie into this, unless Y2K problems would cause the loss of one line in the first place? Then, we're back to "showstoppers," aren't we?

>>2) The standards might be lower in such a way as to allow "bailing wire" type engineering that would not be considered acceptable in the US. For example, we would'nt use a personal computer grade system to operate a power system, but another country might, just to cut costs.

I believe I have read about some foreign power companies using actual PCs, but my memory may be fuzzy on this. So, I might be able to see this. Of course, it would mean that whatever PC defect existed would still have to have a sufficient Y2K problem to cause an interruption in the generation or delivery of power.

>>3) The pirated software issue is another (already raised above).

Granted.

>>4) Foreign systems might operate much closer to operating limits (load flow, stability) than in the US. If only a few large customers dropped off, this could prove to be a stability issue.

I can see this.

>>5) Finally, if a foreign system typically has more outages on a regular basis, then that would be expected to continue in Year 2000.

Granted- but no one would be issuing Y2K warnings because of this.

Last I read, Japan & China said they were on their way to good Y2K power situations; I see mixed reports from Germany; Russia, I don't know if anyone is really sure of; Brazil- well, everyone *should* know about the hydro plant test there, beyond that, I don't know; France, the nuclear plant worries; UK, apparently OK; Australia, still laggards; Canada, I guess OK; parts of Africa & South America apparently may be in good shape due to the fact that they're older plants. This information comes from a variety of media & gov't reports, plus reports from power companies themselves.

-- Anonymous, May 15, 1999