In reading the posts from the last thread I was struck by the general belief that the power utilities are better off than at first supposed. What is the basis of this? Is it because they said so? Am I the only one who doesn't believe everything I read?

Isn't it a fact that there are still no compliant power plants anywhere? Isn't it also true that the embedded chip problem can not really be known until after 1/1/2000? What about the GPS roll-over? Couldn't that conceivably cause major problems in utilities?

The power issue is way to critical to just sit back and relax because we've been told "The check is in the mail and should arrive on June 30th."

We are still as vulnerable now as we were a year ago. Perhaps more so, because we've been spun so often that we can't even see straight anymore.

There is still the unavoidable fact that admitting that the power grid is going down would cause a run on the banks. For that reason alone I find it impossible to believe the sudden influx of happy face reports. Especially in light of how bad things were just a few months ago. We all know that the last, most critical phase is testing. We also know that how any company defines "compliant" is highly subjective.

So why the sudden optimism?

-- Anonymous, May 08, 1999

Answers

R--

I've named it (the spin cycle) the "termite in a yoyo syndrome". I appreciate your post. My utility claimed compliance last August, 1998; then suddenly a couple of months ago they put in their newsletter that they are so happy to announce 75% finished with the assessment and inventory phase. Go figure.

I think this is the most dangerous phase of the y2k evolving saga. We will lose valuable prep time by becoming lulled into false sense of security. I'm going to keep reading and watching.

Again, thanks for those wise comments.

-- Anonymous, May 08, 1999

R, How do you look at the glass of water on the table....as being half empty or half full? We can quote stories that entail spin until we're blue in the face, and I'd submit that misinformation has become a two way street. For every corporate PR person issuing an 'all is well' pronouncement, there is some doom and gloom group casting aspersions on any news which hits the street. In my opinion, the idea of truth has long been abandoned in the discussion which is y2k, digressing into more a political football than any search for enlightenment.

Can anyone survey the entire y2k landscape to give an accurate assessment of just what will transpire?

Certainly not.

Will this change the approach of people on both sides of the issue? Will this quiet the rhetoric?

Not likely.

In my personal quest for information, all I can do is read the comments of experts in individual areas assess that area's remediation efforts. In line with this, I am thankful for Rick Cowles' examination of energy. I would state that in reading his articles and thoughts here, progress is being made and that the end of civilization is probably not at hand. But to stay at middle ground, let me also say that electric companies talking about their doubts as to any disruptions MUST be tempered with the idea that they are protecting their own interests.

The truth is out there, R-,but it seems doubtful that the average Joe will know any of it until well beyond 1/1/00. The best I can do to temper optimism and pessimism equally is to read and listen to heretofore reliable sources: Cowles, DeJager, some of Yourdon, Yardeni and others.

Spin is a two way street.

-- Anonymous, May 09, 1999

Mr.K

The glass is 1/2 full - 1/2 empty metaphor is always a nice one to contemplate. However, in this case it seems to be more of a question of how cracked the glass is. It matters not how much water the glass has in it - if it leaks like a sieve.

"Doomers" are all eyeing that glass, saying "Gee sure looks cracked from here." Meanwhile we have the PR types saying "Cracks? what cracks?"

The utility companies have been lying to us for a long time now. They lied to us two years ago, they lied to us last year and I have no reason in the world to think they are not lying to us now. I would no sooner take the word of a utility company PR flack than I would leave my daughter in the care of our President.

The whole thing reminds of an abusive relationship. "Well sure he lied to me all along and got drunk and fell down and then blamed me for it, but hey, he says he's changed and he really loves me now. Really he does. Really, this time he means it."

If those who work for utilities are dismayed by the lack of trust that I and others express - then they have no one but themselves to blaim. If they had told me the truth in the first place then I would be much more likely to listen to them now. But as it is, all they have managed to prove is their abilty to lie with a smiling face about vital issues concerning my well-being and the safety of my children.

-- Anonymous, May 09, 1999

BTW, I just realized there is another Mr.K on Yourdon's boards....sorry if the nick has been used.I'll change to Dr.K

R, your points are well taken and unfortunately too true of our times, whether we are talking about y2k or government in general. One must wonder if, given your logic (which I agree with), there is any hope of finding 'truth' unless we have access to remediation efforts personally. I don't think it's possible, really. We have been lied to so many times, that when it really IS being presented, the truth is almost as doomed as when the boy cried 'wolf' in truthfulness.

I examined the track record of doom and gloom camps all too late. When I first bought my computer a couple of years ago, I was wet behind the ears, had the ridiculous belief that the internet provided a lot of truth with some legal 'back-up' ala the FCC, and read with shock all of the doomsday prognostications. Then I read about previous illicit predictions, about the agendas behind the words (with a lot of thanks to Steve Davis at davislogic.com) and became enlightened.

I reversed course and began to be heartened by all of the words coming from company heads with regards to remediation. My own utility company has a site chock full of y2k info, but never comes close to issuing any guarantees. And as such, I began to become a little disenchanted with these types , as well.

But R, it's still a hard call. On this board alone (as well as others), I have read the opinions of electric utility insiders and engineers who have diametrically opposed viewpoints about the reliance upon computers, the idea of embedded chips and the state of the industry in general, and the inter-connectedness...or lack thereof...of electric suppliers.

I am firmly at a crossroads and will be optimistic only because that is my wont. I can't believe either group at the polar opposites, and can only rely on what I consider to be reliable sources as stated previously. Alas, even they can't give me a fool-proof rendering of what will happen. In this way, I am somewhat gladdened that only 7 months remain until the major hype is over (although I HAVE read Rick's words about power generation really being tested in Summer, '00)

For the record, I live in the Ohio Valley, where winter is often brutal. The thought of no power and no heat are not tasteful to me and are in the back of my mind. I'd like to think this situation is beatable, but who knows?

Doc

-- Anonymous, May 09, 1999

The optimism is inspired by litigation. Let me explain that, because everyone is so afraid of stating the truth due to legal reasons, they end up sounding cheery and bright, when in fact they're really quite nervous. Imagine if XYZ power were to issue a statement saying "Today we are proud to announce that we think we fixed these damned chip thingy's and software stuff, but hell we don't know if we got 'em all. The computer guys tell us they think they did, but they've always screwed us up before......Based on that, we're kinda comfortable that you'll have power, but hell, who really knows?"

Imagine the fallout to that company's stock from the above statement. It wouldn't be pretty, but I submit that this is probably the statement that the companies would truly like to release. However, they simply can't risk it.

-- Anonymous, May 09, 1999

Mr. R: As a power engineer who has been working full time on the Y2K problem for a year and a half now, I think I can answer your questions:

R: Are there no compliant plants? Dan: No, and we have no intention of making them compliant. We intend to make them function properly into the year 2000 and beyond (Y2k ready), even if some non- ssential date recording functions don't work quite right. And there are numerous Y2k ready plants. Over 100 have been tested while generating power and worked fine. Many are operating with their control system in the year 2000 right now.

R: Isn't it true that the embedded chip probelm can't be known until after 1/1/2000? Dan: Again, the answer is no. A year 2000 test is relatively simple on an embedded device, and usually takes less than half a work day. You connect to the device, forward the clock (there are about 20 different dates, including 1/1/2000), test its functionality, then repeat for the other dates. Then you power down the device to test how it uses its backup battery for the clock, and repeat tests. There are a few other tests, but this covers most of it. Based on thousands of these tests nation wide, very few systems need replacing, and most of those only for proper logging. From a technical standpoint, y2k is manageable in the power industry.

R: What about the GPS rollover? Dan: We only use satellite clocks for a more accurate recording of events. So even if they did fail, it would not be a catastrophe, and would not cause outages. Many manufacturers (Arbiter, Hathaway, etc.) have addressed this issue.

R, your concern about vulnerability is unfounded. The power industry is by its very nature essentially a date-immune, real time system, so 99.9% of our equipment is date-insensitive. We were never really vulnerable. We just had a lot of work to do, and are now mostly complete. Jim Smith: I am perplexed by your statement that power companies have or are lying. In the transmission and distribution area, ZERO device failures that could result in a power outage have been found. I've personally tested over 100 of these types of equipment.

-- Anonymous, May 09, 1999

Much thanks, Dan, for providing the 'credible source' I am constantly looking for. But I do have a couple of questions: if what you say is true...and I believe you....then why do some within your industry paint a somewhat more bleak picture at times? Are your words applicable to the entire industry, or have your successes led you to the perception that the entire electrical supply industry is experiencing the same success story? Please note, this is not meant to be a rhetorical, smart-ass question?

Lastly, what about the inter-connectedness of the power grid? is this fact or fiction, and do the problems at 'Jones Power' spell problems for other companies on the grid, as well?

Doc K

-- Anonymous, May 09, 1999

Dan,

First of all, I'm not a Mr. But - no offense meant - none taken.

Secondly, if compliance is not a big issue why is my local PG&E flack running around telling us they will reach full compliance in time? Why in fact, did they announce that they were compliant last year and then last month announce that "well they weren't now but, they would be real soon?"

The Gartner Group, the IEE, the GOA and others seem to think that most embedded systems problems won't come to light until 1/1/00. I consider them to be a more credible source than anyone paid to work for the power utilities.

Finally, nothing personal, but who the heck are you? my critical thinking skills would be severely remiss if I took the opinions expressed here by anyone as gospel truth. You post anonymously. Thats fine. I'm sure you have your reasons. But why in the world should I take seriously as fact - the postings of anyone who claims to be an expert but, doesn't reveal their true identity? Dan the Power Man could be a real person, or ten people or nobody. So I would hope you will understand if your "facts" carry less weight than those presented by the IEE or anyone else who represents themselves as who they truly are.

Think about it. If I wanted to, I could post here as Dan the Power Man or Theresa the Telco Queen or Beulah the Banking Beauty and spout all kinds of nonsense.

You may well be the real thing. But for goodness sakes. What is the point of using critical thinking skills if you are not going to be discerning about the source of your information? At least to the point of knowing the identity of the person who claims that I have no need to prepare for widespread power failures.

If the power grid goes down that means serious risk to myself and my family. An anonymous poster on the net just doesn't carry much weight compared to the responsibilities of a parent.

Believe me, I want you to be right. If you are correct I will dance for joy and send you cyber flowers. If you are wrong I will curse you from the dark cold depths of winter as my children and I shiver.

-- Anonymous, May 10, 1999

Dr.K,

I have never looked for truth in anything but reports with verifiable statistics. The fact that you would imagine that the FCC could regulate veracity on the net is kinda cute. I'm a born cynic and never had any such illusions. I assume that 1. People sometimes lie to protect self-interests. 2. People make mistakes.

I don't care what side of the fence someone is spouting from. If what they say is based on conjecture or potential profit then I take it with a grain (or a pound) of salt.

I used to consider Y2knewswire to be a very credible source. Recently they have slipped quite a few notches in my eyes because their site has been taken over by advertising for their own books. I no longer look to them for unbiased information even though they are probably the same people doing the same job they always were.

Doom and Gloom sites which sell survival gear are also not credible sources for me.

If you are constantly pitting one person's opinion against another's you will end up with nothing. You can always find 2 people to disagree about anything. They will cancel each other out and you will be as cluless as you started. I look for reputable organizations which have nothing to gain by painting things to be any bleaker than they are. I cut through the rhetoric and cliche's and look for the numbers. If the Senate Report says we will lose all oil imports then I believe them. If the IEE and the OES says that embedded system failures in the power utilities is a serious concern then I believe them. If De Jager or Gary North or anyone else spouts off I look for a credible reference and then THINK FOR MYSELF!!!!!!!! Because it is MY ass that I will need covered and I know better than to imagine that anyone on the net but me really gives a damn about the safety of my tush.

-- Anonymous, May 10, 1999

riversoma wrote:

> If the power grid goes down that means serious risk to myself > and my family. An anonymous poster on the net just doesn't > carry much weight compared to the responsibilities of a parent.

Exactly. The responsibility for the safety of my wife and my children lie directly on me. If things go to hell, the people on this forum who think (and say) it is foolish to preapre for an extended power outage will have to live (and die) with that choice.

If the grid (local or national) stays up, they I have to live with my preparations. That is something I am quite prepared to do.

To get back to the original question, whether this sudden optimism is a spin job, lying and covering up, or the absolute truth, what you need to ask yourself is:

How comfortable are *you* with the decisions you are making if you turn out to be wrong with respect to what happens?

Jon

-- Anonymous, May 10, 1999

Dan,

You wrote:

>>R, your concern about vulnerability is unfounded. The power industry is by its very nature essentially a date-immune, real time system, so 99.9% of our equipment is date-insensitive. We were never really vulnerable. We just had a lot of work to do, and are now mostly complete.

Okay, then maybe you can answer the question I posed in another thread: if all this is true- ie, that the power industrywas "never really vulnerable," then why so much fuss about the international situation? If the US companies weren't vulnerable, why should Australia, France, the UK, Germany, et al, be expressing concerns about their power grids? Why don't the US companies just tell the world, "False alarm, fellas. You can shut down your Y2K projects right now. There's nothing there to worry about."

-- Anonymous, May 10, 1999

And one more, Dan...

-- Anonymous, May 10, 1999

Let's try this again:

One more, Dan...

What happened at Hawaii Electric as reported in the original mainstream Y2k article in June of 1997? Did Newsweek AND the tech from HECO get it wrong? They said Y2k would have been cause for a shutdown AND dirty power. Please enlighten us mere mortals as to why you know more about power and HECO's systems than their own people do.

If I seem a bit testy here, I'm sorry. I'm just tired of hearing people pronounce "no problem" when others--of equal stature--are saying there ARE problems. It is only foolish pride that would make one say he knows more about other people's systems that they do.

It seems there are a lot of individuals who make a false application that since everything is OK in their own world (or so they think, anyway) then it must be OK everywhere. Just because the one link of the chain at which you stare constantly is *apparently* OK doesn't tell us anything about how well all of the other links are faring.

So, Dan, what happened at HECO? Sounded like a "showstopper" to me, but maybe I'm the one who is ignorant and you can fill me in.

-- Anonymous, May 10, 1999

<>

Now I'm confused. When you say you "connect to the device", are you connecting to the actual chip(s)? Is the embedded chip(s)/ system tested offline? How many embedded chip(s)/ systems are we talking about for a power plant? If this is so straighforward, why is it taking everybody such a long time to complete this phase? Are there systems that can't be taken offline to test? How are they being accounted for?

Thanks,

Greg

-- Anonymous, May 10, 1999

One simple answer (among many): some of us have been researching the Y2K problem rather extensively for many months now, and we're just getting damn sick and tired of it all, and want it to go away and not even be a "bump in the road." So we're eager for, and susceptible to, "good news," including, alas, some fairly obvious PR.

I think it's true that the embedded systems problem was originally hyped and that now we're getting a more balanced view of it; also, major (disastrous) Y2K infrastructure disruptions now seem much more unlikely, at least in the U.S., than they did at one time. So there really is some good news out there; at the same time, beware the bland "no real problems anywhere" PR.

Economically, we could still be in for a serious blow; many parts of the world could get hammered.

-- Anonymous, May 10, 1999

I thought I'd jump in and give Dan a little support. It's interesting how many people tend to believe information that comes out of the Goverment or industry when it is negative (i.e., conforms to their beliefs) but not when it is positive. So we are led to think that the Goverment and industry knows what they are talking about when the information is negative, but not when it is positive. Or that is spin when it's positive but not when it's negative. Interesting logic. Or lack of it as the case may be.

Yes it's true about the EMS at Hiawaii Electric. But so what. It's been fixed and was fixed a long time ago. We looked into our SCADA program and found out if it wasn't Y2K compliant (which it is, by the way) that there might have been a problem at the roll over since if a command is sent at an earlier time than the previous command the system knows there is an error and won't perform the operation. It turns out that you can turn it off an reboot it (takes about two minutes) and the times are reset to zero so the problem goes away. Oh, how horrible.

As for GPS. Another red herring among the clueless I'm afraid. The Califorina ISO is the system time keeper for the western grid. The time doesn't have to be corrected unless it's off by plus or minus two seconds. Even if GPS failed in August the clocks in the receivers have a "flywheel" feature that keeps them accurate to microseconds for weeks. You could call up the atomic clock in Deven or DC and get an accurate time within two seconds without any problem. Yes, a really big problem.

Who overseas is saying it's a problem? Goverment agencies? Oh, wait they are just covering it up. No, I got that wrong since it's negative it's not a cover up, just positive is a cover up. Have to keep reminding myself of that. Maybe the people posting all of that are just as clueless about how a power plant really works or how a substation works or how the grid works as the people who post a lot of the doom and gloom stories on the web in the US.

I've received several posts from people telling me with absolute convition things about breakers, transformers, the gird, fill in the blank, that I know from being in the business are just absolute nonsense. Not just a little off, just plain wrong. Yet, while it's obvious that they don't have any idea of what they are talking about they are sure they do and can quote http links all through their posts. Sorry but idioticy is idioticy. Knowing someting about computers and computer networks and how to surf the web doesn't mean a thing in the real world. It's like going into the hospital with a brain tumor and having the computer geek who runs the hospital's data base offer to do the surgery. Thanks but I rather have someone who graduated from medical school with at least a 2.5 GP average. And if I fly on a commerical jet I rather have someone with an FAA liscense and a few thousand hours. Not someone who is really really good at MS Flight sim. Not quite the same thing.

The Engineer.

-- Anonymous, May 10, 1999

The Engineer wrote:

> I thought I'd jump in and give Dan a little support. > It's interesting how many people tend to believe information > that comes out of the Goverment or industry when it is > negative (i.e., conforms to their beliefs) but not when > it is positive.

I think you're either being very naive or just not thinking about this. There's a good reason we think that way. It's called motives.

The government (and industry, to a lessor extent) have a long and distinguished history of lying through their teeth to cover up for bad news or mistakes or stupidity or whatever.

I tend to believe bad news from the government because they have no obvious motive to lie if the news was really good.

It doesn't take many clues to figure out that they have a very strong, very obvious motive for lying to cover up bad news, however.

Look at the cigarette industry. For years, they lied to the public about the effects of smoking, even when they had evidence that said otherwise. They covered it up, buried it, and spun their PR happy-news flak, and raked in billions of dollars.

It's pretty obvious to my why a power company would do the same thing -- the motive is there. I'm not saying they're all doing it, but it wouldn't surprise me in the slightest to find out next year, if there are major power problems, that the government and industry had been down-playing the bad news.

I don't know how it will play out, and I won't know until next year. I can, however, take precautions, and be prepared so that if there are problems, I don't have to stand in a food-line in a refugee camp because the power has been out for three weeks.

Jon

-- Anonymous, May 10, 1999

Engineer:

Here is why I pay particular notice of the negative things that the government says: either the good things are going to happen, or the bad things. I am more than prepared for the good things already. I've been living the 'good things' life since I was born. What if things are bad. Common sense says that I should prepare for that. Now I am not hiding in my machine gun nest, armed with missiles and cans of tuna, but I think that I should be prepared enough that if something does happen, I will at least have a chance. And if all goes well and the 'good life' continues (in regards to Y2K), then I will still be prepared for an earthquake, a snow storm, or nothing at all. You don't have to be a fanatic to have extra food and supplies in your house. You just need a little common sense to see that there is a possibility of 'bad-ness' happening.

-- Anonymous, May 10, 1999

I don't know about you, Engineer, but if I had to go into the hospital with a brain tumor, I'd expect radiation therapy to be a part of the treatment. I'd know that computer programs run the pinpoint radiation treatments. I'd also know that there have been prior glitches in those programs and just plain mistakes made by those radiology technicians setting the computer. I'd realize that regardless of how competent my surgeon was, that he is now dependent on computerization for micro-surgery. Sure I'd want a doctor who wasn't last in his class, or one who wasn't too busy to have kept up with technology changes, or one who wasn't so confident in his expertise he couldn't keep asking himself re my condition, "Is there anything I missed? Is there anything I didn't think of?"

I'd want the same qualifications in all the engineers working at the power plant that supplies my electricity. The fact of the matter is, there are bound to be less-than-the-best engineers out there, or even good engineers with little of that great teacher - experience - to rely on. And just like doctors or aircraft pilots, they are part of a team, *all* the members of which are required for success.

Of course I'd want an experienced pilot in the plane I was flying in. I'd also want an experienced ground crew, flight attendants, air traffic controllers, and good machinists in the vendors who made the aircraft parts, as well as reliable equipment for each of them to use. And it would be really nice if my luggage didn't get lost either. I'd also expect the emergency services to be available and on the ball - just in case.

I see the Year 2000 problem as putting heretofore unknown stress on all parts of hundreds of thousands of infrastructure "teams". Is the one crappy engineer on the east coast working at my utility? I have no way of knowing. Is my utility one of the ones which have engineering vacancies on their staff they haven't been able to fill? Difficult to tell. Or is it likely in the rush to provide patches or software upgrades or test results that somebody working for a vendor made a mistake or missed that little something? Or maybe somebody working for a telecom overlooked a little piece of the puzzle?

I wouldn't go in to have brain surgery, no matter how confident I was in my surgeon, without having a will made out and my life insurance paid up. And regardless of how much confidence I may place in your assessment, I'm not going to go through a time frame where possible simultaneous computer failures can occur on a global platform without taking what I consider to be prudent precautions. This is a situation where all those infrastructure teams are in it together, and can't afford to be late or to make mistakes, or to have missed something important.

For me, if there is any idiocy (I'm trusting that your engineering is better than your spelling) it's to assume that everybody will get the job done right and that everybody will get it done on time -- followed by the assumption that if problems do occur, everybody will react appropriately and correctly to resolve those problems under pressure and not make them worse. That requires a faith in humanity far surpassing anything I can muster, especially since it's human nature which got us into this mess in the first place.

-- Anonymous, May 10, 1999

Well hello again, everyone. I will try to respond to each question, but because there were many, I might miss one or two.

Dr. K: I guess the question comes down to who really is "within" the electric industry. Among those of us who are involved in the day to day solving of Y2k issues, I have yet to meet one who has any significant reservations about our ability to take care of those issues. Who are you referring to who paint a bleak picture? My words are based on not only my test results, but on those shared with over 100 other utilities in the US and Canada. Yes, the grid is interconnected, and if enough utilities had problems, yes it would affect the rest of us on that particular grid (there are 3 in the US and Canada). Our interconnectedness makes us MORE reliable because were are all joined together. Try to find a single power company that is going to disconnect from its grid in anticipation of Y2K problems; to date, none plan to. Why? Because we are stronger interconnected, and we are checking all the major utilities in our grid.

R: Sorry I called you a Mr. Can I just call you "R"? Regarding PG&E, the industry target has been June 30, so if they promised being done by 1/1/1999, then I guess they didn't make it. But they must be essentially done by 6/30/1999, which will allow a full six months for fine tuning any remaining issues. By the way, PG&E has a very extensive Y2k program, and they are devoting a lot of resources to it.

R, you basically asked, "Who the heck are you, Dan?" I am an electrical engineer who has worked at a medium sized power company for more than 10 years, the past 1.5 years exclusively on Y2K. I am also a Y2K project manager, so I have the big picture issues to deal with as well. As I mentioned before, I've personally tested numerous devices for Y2k readiness (relays, RTU's, transformer controllers, recloser controllers, meters, etc.), so I do have expertise on this subject. If you don't believe me...would you believe Drew Parkhill of CBN? He has verified that I am indeed who I say I am. Drew, please re-confirm for the folks here...in exchange, I'll respond to your other question on the thread you started (by Friday).

R and Jon, I never said you should not prepare, nor will I. That is a personal decision. And Jon, you mention the lying to the Government and tobacco companies....I'm not either of those entities. Back when Y2K was starting up, a "project Damocles" was initiated whereby people working on Y2K could anonymously share when companies were trying to hide real Y2K problems. I would be happy to share that, if it were the case...the internet allows for such sharing. But we just have not found many problems.

Bob Allen: Yes, Hawaiian electric had problems with their EMS. But remember, they did not try to fix their y2k problems before running the test. Now that they have, I've heard that there weren't any more Y2k problems. Utilities across the country are looking hard at their EMS's, and when upgrades are installed, no Y2K problems are being found. One final note: An EMS requires human intervention in order to trip breakers.

And I am NOT just looking at one link of the chain...I have also tested Generation equipment for y2k, which completes the chain of power from where it is made right up to and including your meter.

Greg: By "connect to the device," I mean that you get a laptop with the appropriate software and a cable, connect the cable to the RS-232 or RS-485 (or whatever is needed) port, and actually change the dates in the RTC, or real time clock of the device. Some devices have keypads on their HMI, to allow for directly changing parameters. And the reason we are "taking so long" is simply because we have to thoroughly document everything we do, and we can't just shut off power to do tests (we aren't like street workers, who can take one lane of traffic out to do work). That we are taking a long time should serve as reassurance that we are taking Y2k seriously.

Don Florence: I'm not saying "no real problems anywhere". I'm saying that the vast majority of the problems found won't shut off your power, and upgrades to equipment are being made so that even the recording functions will work properly.

Finally, Bonnie: Yes, we have our "Homer Simpsons" at power companies...I'm sure you have them at your company. But a good Y2k program will include numerous checks and balances (people as well as programs) so that the bad deeds of one person won't affect the overall outcome.

I hope this clarifies my position, and why I am optimistic (not absolutely sure, just optimistic) about power continuing to be safe and reliable come the year 2000.

-- Anonymous, May 10, 1999

Everyone: yes, Dan is fer real.

Dan: re your note to Don F: "the vast majority of the problems found won't shut off your power" - well, yeah, but so what? One example I often use is going to a doctor and having him say, "Oh, you're fine. 98% of the cells in your body are perfectly healthy."

"But what about the other 2%?" you ask.

"Oh," he replies, "that's some rare disease. You're terminal, no hope of a cure. You've got three weeks. But that's only 2% of your body! I wouldn't worry about that."

Exagerrated, but the point is it may take a little problem to have a lot of results. So phrases like "the vast majority" (which is what- 75%?) don't always reassure people. SeewhutImean, Vern?

-- Anonymous, May 10, 1999

Ah, Dan, one could hope there were thousands of clones of you. We are just seeing different things. All the checks and balances didn't get things started in plenty of time to do much anywhere except triage and hope to fix critical systems, did it? Of the Y2K projects I know of (granted a small sampling in the grand scheme of things) I could term none of them a "good Y2K project". Few of them have any checks or balances at all; the right hand has only a vague picture of what the left hand is doing. I even know one person assigned the job of Y2K project manager (not in a utility, thank heavens) who personally still thinks the Year 2000 computer problem is a hoax. Even more discomforting in my little section of the world, there are more than a few places which have NO Y2K project. Maybe there are enough utilities, and telecoms, and vendors which have your kind of "good" project, but since I can't know how many of the other kind it will take to throw a monkey wrench in the works, and I do know that other kind of project does exist, preparation remains the common sense thing to do.

I will tell you that I very much admire your statement, "I am optimistic (not absolutely sure, just optimistic) about power continuing to be safe and reliable come the year 2000." Surety, when there are so many variables over which one person, or one company, cannot have control, I find naive. Optimism with the facts you know, I can understand. I can even give place to a certain measure of optimism in your assessment, myself. I think many of us do. It just doesn't tip the scales far enough down for me to rule out preparation. Success is too dependent on too many people in too many places, nearly all of whom were late getting to the starting gate.

-- Anonymous, May 10, 1999

Dan wrote:

> And Jon, you mention the lying to the > Government and tobacco companies....I'm not either of those > entities.

Yes, I know you're not. But that's not what you asked. You asked why we don't trust the government, and why we believe them when they tell bad news, and don't when they tell good news.

Jon

-- Anonymous, May 11, 1999

Drew, Bonnie and Jon: All points well taken. I was a bit sloppy with my statement about "almost all". In the tests we've performed, we've found no commonly used device that would have caused an outage. There have been a few reports of unique, one of a kind applications that could have caused problems, but these are so rare, and the companies using them have identified and fixed those problems.

Bonnie, I do appreciate your compliment and open mindedness. However, there are many, many others just like me at other power companies doing the same things I am. And I disagree that we got started "too late". The triage thing was never an issue; back in 1997 we decided that we would test one of each type of device regardless of how long it took, or what vendors claimed about compliance. And now we are essentially complete. Come July, you will see several power companies declaring their readiness.

One final comment: I know that some folks do not trust the NERC reports for different reasons. From what I know, their latest report is the most accurate and comprehensive description of the status of power companies and Y2k that is available. I encourage you to read the report in its entirety. My personal experience gives me optimism about my company and the companies we are electrically connected to; the NERC report gives me optimism about the entire industry.

-- Anonymous, May 11, 1999

Jon,

I don't understand the motive the utilities have for lying. If they tell me they aren't ready, am I going to quit buying electricity from them?

-- Anonymous, May 11, 1999

You might. With deregulation coming this year, you may have several choices from whom to buy electricity.

But that's not the point. I'm not saying the utilities are lying. There may be some, there may not be. But I do know that governments and businesses have no compunction about lying to the people when they have different interests than we do.

They (government and industry) clearly have a strong motive for saying all is more-or-less well. If people do start to panic, and (to use one example) pull all their money from the bank, that action would cause a banking collapse in itself. Which is more dangerous? One is a sure thing, the other is a possibility, so the government calms the people with PR flak.

Is that the best action? I don't know. I do know that I don't trust someone just because they say everything is fine. Especially when they have a history of lying about important stuff like this, and have a clear motive to lie.

Please note that I'm not a paranoid person, who lives in fear of big government. But this (Y2K) is important. Our lives depend on power. If the grid goes down and stays down, the consequences are frightening. A year ago, that was a real possibility. Now, all we hear are happy-go-lucky stories about how there are no problems.

Maybe there are no problems. Maybe there are, and we just don't know how to test for them. Maybe people will make really stupid mistakes and cause major problems.

Y2K is one of those once-in-a-civilization things that comes along. It might be a blip, or it might be a collapse. I don't have a crystal ball, but I do know enough about how computers work and how software is written to make me not buy this new round of optimism.

Dan, you just out-and-out admitted that you're doing type testing. Doesn't that worry you? The industry started too late, and all they could do was type testing. That was clear from the start. Now it seems that type testing is the norm, and that's suddenly okay?

Jon

-- Anonymous, May 11, 1999

Dan,

You wrote:

>>And I disagree that we got started "too late"... And now we are essentially complete. Come July, you will see several power companies declaring their readiness.

Wow. Here we are, going into *July* of *1999*- and we are to expect "several" power companies to say they're ready. You don't call that "too late?" Permit me to inform you that one whale of a lot of businesses and consumers do. Remember, generator sales have been fast & furious because of Y2K (and, as I've pointed out before, because of what industry insiders were saying). People had to make tough choices about buying a generator in late 1998, when all NERC could say is, "Gee, we don't know." So people, businesses, utilities (ie, water), even cities had to make tough decisions about what to do - because the power companies couldn't tell them what their readiness picture was. They were hoping it would be less than originally feared, that it could be made "manageable," etc etc- this, at the same time that utility insiders were telling journalists to prepare (and I quote) for "large-scale and extended power outages."

Did you read Dick Mills' column last week? Where he said the power companies have blown it, that they should have been ready in 1997, if they were doing their job? Instead, he thinks the public's confidence in the power companies will be shaken for a long time because they *couldn't* say in 1998 that they would be ready.

And by the way, another point: to *this*day*, people *inside* the power industry are still considering buying generators. I will grant you that the two I know of off the top of my head are not Y2K project workers (and maybe not even engineers, though I'm not sure)- but they're still *inside* the industry- which is what counts to most people. I know of another fellow who *is* an engineer (with long experience) who is still quite concerned about dirty power. And that doesn't even count stories like the ones in the "California & the Western Power Grid" thread, where people say they're being told by Y2K project workers to buy generators. It is because of incidents like that that people don't trust the companies' "party line," so to speak.

Finally, in case you (or anyone) thinks I have some kind of axe to grind against the power companies- I don't. In fact, a year ago, when Senator Bennett was saying that there was a 40% chance the grid would go down (if Y2K happened at that time), I said on the air that I thought the grid would *not* go down due to Y2K. Problems, yes. But the TEOTWAWKI scenario, no. I can tell that at that time, there were *very* few people tooling around the Net, acting as if they knew everything & had known everything all along (I'm not talking about you), saying "Oh, no problem. No problem. Don't worry about it." A few months ago, such people started appearing. Where were they a year ago, when businesses & people *needed* to hear from them? Basically, nowhere to be found. Believe you me, more than a few people in the business community did *not* trust the power companies a year ago to deliver power reliably in 2000. I'm not sure they all do now, for that matter, but I would think their fear factor is less than it was a year ago.

The bottom line here is simple: getting "done" in July of 1999 does not necessarily constitute being "on time" in a large number of minds out there. I would have to say the main thing the power companies have in their defense is that a lot of other companies didn't know where they stood a year ago either (although other key industries, like banking, *did* knew they were in pretty good shape, even by that point).

-- Anonymous, May 11, 1999

As far as evaluating information from the industry <>

However, the April NERC report states integrated tests on generators have been run on more than 100 of the 10,421 units that DOE tracks, about 1.+ % of the total. The GAO report indicates that about 16% of utilities will not be compliant until 4th quarter '99. Given that power moves over wide networks, plus the apparent lack of power generation testing, is there any reason why Texas should feel confident that the power will flow next year? If they really are is such good shape, we should probably ask if they can help the utilities who will not be ready until the 4th quarter.

It does seem that a major problem in getting a complete picture is people who boast "my pipe is leakproof" but do not mention that flow into the pipe may be "iffy". Any program that relies on type testing seems unlikely to provide five-9's of reliability. Just consider that the best of programmers have about a 5% error rate.

I will feel more comfortable with the statements that the power will stay on, when the speaker shows that the in-house work is complete, that the distribution network tests with other utilities have been completed, that both power generation and distribution systems have been tested, that reliance on railroad or shipping has been tested and that fuel stockpiles or contingency plans exist. (This is not the complete checklist, but the PR statements do not cover this much, and the issue of supply chain management and getting foreign oil leads to other threads.) If I hear that problems are being found and fixed, I'd actually feel much better than if the press release says "No problems were found."

Jon R

-- Anonymous, May 11, 1999

Here's a real confidence booster:

"'I'm particularly concerned about the utilities and telecommunications industries, not only because they are essential to our everyday lives, but also because the majority of the companies in these industries tend to be lagging behind,' said Dr. Weiss. "

America's Largest Companies Among Y2K Laggards

-- Anonymous, May 11, 1999

Here's a real pick-me-up: (Q: is Scott Johnson A: is Capers Jones)

"Q. I'd like to get your take on some of the Y2K reports that have been coming from the Federal government, particularly the President's Council on Year 2000 Conversion and the Senate Special Committee. Basically, where are we?


A. Well, I'm in daily, or at least weekly, contact with John Koskinen, the United Nations, and other governments and companies. My take is that there is a false sense of security, and that the situation is not quite as rosy as we would like to have it, primarily because of some factors that are obscure and that not many people understand. As of this year, 1999, about a third of the problems that are occurring are being found in software that nominally was repaired, tested, and put back into service. But we are visibly less than 100 percent efficient in finding date problems and testing them. "

Q&A with Capers Jones

-- Anonymous, May 11, 1999

It has repeatedly been proposed that the utilities (individually and/or through NERC reporting) have something to gain by lying about readiness. I disagree. Utilities know that customers will soon be able to choose their electricity supplier. Incremental quality is not a factor in customer choice - there is only 60 Hz 120/240V - no K-Mart vs Macy's, Mercedes vs. Hyundai. The only factors are price and service quality. I would hope that my uppper management might consider that a Y2K failure would present a bit of a public relations crisis. To lie would give a free ad campaign to your competitors, "Choose US - We tell The Truth". In my opinion there is no motive for utility dishonesty, and examples abound of utilities self reporting problems to the NRC, giving honest (and tough) estimates of outage times during major storms, etc all tend to show an industry prone to conservatism and honesty.

Jon - As for type testing. In protective relays, there is a virtual barrier that exists between the protective functions (non-date aware), and the SOE and diagnostic functions (not mission critical) that use date/time stamping. ALL the Y2K issues occur in the non critical side, and even these are mainly cosmetic and easily addressed on straight time after the rollover. This barrier is attested to by the vendor design engineers. Protection does not use the RTC. I do type testing to search for SOE/diagnostic function problems/fixes, and to confirm that the relay design engineers did not actually build a "bridge" over the barrier by programming a date/time into the protection. This is a design question, not a production question. The code in the relay is consistant for each type of that model and version, and not user modified. A type test will confirm that the vendor design engineer was correct when asserting that the relay does not breach the "barrier".

In some cases the vendor alters the code of the relay, causing a different revision of the model to be produced. Vendors have been very good about tracking these versions, and we have treated different versions as different models UNLESS the design engineers attest that the change was minimal and Y2k benign.

In addition, other utilities have reported that they are doing statistical sampling of the same relays. EPRI participating utils post their results on a user web page, where we share test methods and results. In effect, multiple type and statistical samplings (by individual utilities) result in a global statistical sample. On top of this, many of the vendors have performed thorough tests that increase the sample and corroborate the results.

Bonnie - Art posted some NRC audit results from a utility that was complemented by the NRC for its program design and performance. I think someone else (Drew maybe?) said they should be used as a template for other Y2K programs and audits. STILL you can't admit to hearing of a good Y2K program at a utility? I bet if you reviewed those old threads and sat down with a good cup of tea you'd find a way to soften your statement from above.

Drew - although I haven't flown in several years, I am a private pilot. My pilot's lessons often required me to converse with FAA folks. My cousin is a flight mechanic on 727's. I work with some folks who fly helicopters for the Nat'l Guard. I sometimes fly commercial airlines, and often pick people up at the airport. Am I an airline industry insider??? (BIG GRIN)

PS: Please don't take a job consulting with my pointy haired boss regarding project deadlines!

DAN - Good job in your postings here. I admire your technical competency and communications skills. You seem to defy the "Dilbert" social skills stereotype of engineers. Whats up with that??? It sounds like you have done a thorough job and I concur with your results.

-- Anonymous, May 12, 1999

Thanks everybody for your insights onto why you do not think 
unit- wide integrated Y2K testing is essential. My column in 
Westergaard Year 2000 Monday basically has my response. In 
essence, it is that in NERC's 3rd quarterly report, NERC has 
dropped its doubt that unit-wide integrated testing is important 
and has instead recommended it. 



Would love to hear your take on why NERC has changed their tone 
to be more towards what I think is good on this issue. I should 
also add another comment not provided in my column--another 
benefit of integrated testing is that different logic paths are 
often tested in an integrated test and consequently errors that 
would not show up otherwise all of a sudden may show up in such a 
test. That seems to be the case in the 100-plus integrated tests 
done todate (although among these "A" students, the errors are 
not showstopper errors).  I calculate total number of integrated
unit tests to now, as of the April 1999 NERC report, to be 1.2
percent (one-point-two) of total units in America per DOE stats.



http://www.y2ktimebomb.com/Tip/Lord/rmart9919.htm 



Two Recent Major Reports by ITA and NERC Indicate Additional Need 
for Preparations 



By Roleigh Martin May 10, 1999 



I posted the NERC excerpt paragraphs at 
http://greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=000jUF



under the topic:



"NERC's 2nd report states only 4/10ths of one percent have done 
full integrated y2k testing at a power unit level"



However, since that topic is "old" and not current, I guess my
response came in too late to generate interest from those visting
online.  So I'm cross pointing this "pointer" message here.



Again, I'm not asking the utility experts to comment on my
opinion as much as I am on NERC's up-playing of the seriousness
of the need to do integrated testing as evidenced in the quotes
of NERC I make showing their progressing of opinion on the issue
throughout their three quarterly reports.

-- Anonymous, May 12, 1999

CL,

No, I didn't recommend that template idea. However, I have publicly praised some utilities for their efforts- months ago in fact- when Virginia Power *volunteered* its nuclear plants for an NRC audit. Va Power is my company, so I liked that :)

That said, no, your experience doesn't qualify you as someone inside an industry (as you know). That reference applies to someone who actually works, full-time, in a given industry.

Now, moving on: you said to Jon:

>>ALL the Y2K issues occur in the non critical side, and even these are mainly cosmetic and easily addressed on straight time after the rollover.

Okay- then maybe *you* can answer the question I've been trying to get a Y2K power optimist to answer in that other thread: if US companies really have *no* problems, why should any other country? IE, why are we hearing reports from Australia, France, Germany, Brazil, etc, about their possible problems? Why doesn't the US industry just say, "Oh, you can all stop now. There aren't any *real* problems out there. There never were."

-- Anonymous, May 12, 1999

Drew:

In your capacity as a reporter I think it would be illuminating to contact some of the foreign utility companies directly to see if they will admit they could experience "showstoppers" because of Y2k. My guess is you will not get that admission from them, either.

Having said that, and while understanding that NERC speaks for the electric industry as a whole on this issue, an examination of what indidvidual ulities are saying on their websites offers a somewhat different perspective from the otherwise "same as it ever was," postulations. Consider this from Conectiv's FAQ section:

"Our goal is to have substantially all "Mission Critical Systems" (those that could impact operations and customer reposne) Year 2000 Ready by June 30, 1999. Low-risk systems, such as older software on employee's PCs, will be corrected as part of routine upgrade plans for the comapny. But because we've never faced a situation like this before, we do not know whether the Year 2000 might cuase disruptions to operations. It's difficult for any one company to know that it will be unaffected by an unprecedented event like this century change."

While it's understood there is some legalize incorporated into this statement, it's realitively straightforward in admitting a level of uncertainity about the issue.

-- Anonymous, May 12, 1999

Please pardon the typing errors. I'm not noted for my typing skills.

-- Anonymous, May 12, 1999

Y2K wrote:

Okay- then maybe *you* can answer the question I've been trying to get a Y2K power optimist to answer in that other thread: if US companies really have *no* problems, why should any other country? IE, why are we hearing reports from Australia, France, Germany, Brazil, etc, about their possible problems? Why doesn't the US industry just say, "Oh, you can all stop now. There aren't any *real* problems out there. There never were."

Perhaps I can give you an answer: because Y2K is a great deal about money, because those countries are being pushed by american authorities and other entities such as Gartner Group, a company that is making billions out of this business and is producing terryfing reports about countries being way behind on the Y2K efforts. One of the issues that has never been looked onto in this forum is the fact that there are a lot of people out there trying to get filthy rich and planning to retire after the year 2000 (starting from generator supliers to consulting companies, such as Gartner group). It4s just a lot of money for companies (mainly american) to be made, so the pressure has to be kept on. Y2k is also about money (and please, don4t misinterpret me, I take Y2K seriously) about a bunch of people spreading fears and rumours with the goal of getting companies and goverments worldwide into the business, let4s not forget that. It4s strange how there are so many posts in this forum questioning credibility of utilities and goverment, whereas they never stop to think that the companies that are spreading those fears are also trying to make a living out of this. Sometimes I also think there are a lot of politics (american, anti-democrat people) in this issue too. Anyway, just thought I could give my opinion.

Cheers

Carlos Fernandez

-- Anonymous, May 12, 1999

Drew,

I have never worked outside the US, and can't speak for the power systems of foreign countries. I would be no better source than your "utility insider".

-- Anonymous, May 12, 1999

Some lawyers from Connectiv said:

> It's difficult for any one company to know that it will > be unaffected by an unprecedented event like this century change."

So, if this is how they feel, then why the hell is NERC saying it's going to be just like any other day ???

Just like any other day except maybe for Connectiv customers?

I'm sorry, I don't buy it. I don't respect NERC's opinion on this one. I think they're either lying again, or they're just being plain irresponsible.

Jon

-- Anonymous, May 12, 1999

Carlos, If we are talking fiscal motives here then the answer is simple. There is a lot more money to be lost if it was admitted that power generation is a serious issue. Do you imagine that Bennet, the IEE and the GOA are all getting rich off of lieing about the seriousness of Y2k? Do you think for one moment that the Y2k Doombrood lobby is more powerful than the lobbies of the banking, power, and transportation industries combined? Not to mention the interests of real estate, automobile manufacturers and Vidiot/entertainment providers?

Then there is the whole Y2k is OK lecture circuit. Thousands upon thousands of bucks are being made by De Jager and his ilk who are running around saying everything is hunky dory.

Maybe you would like to take a look at the dow - which is currently all bloated up because of internet stock. What do you suppose would happen to that once people went - "Gee I wonder what how valuable my E-bay stock will be in a world without electricity?"

THINK!!!!!! Who has the most money to gain by dissemination and obfuscation? THINK!!!!! If the United States is going to earn big bucks out of scaring foriegn companies into preparing for Y2k what would be the point???? Those countries are BROKE!!!!! Generally if you are going to set up an elaborate scheme to swindle someone you pick a mark that has something to be swindeled out of. Seriously what useful resource does China or Africa or Brazil have that we haven't already taken by force or guile anyway?

THINK!!!!!

-- Anonymous, May 12, 1999

CL,

Thanks. And, BTW, if you put "utility insider" in quotes because you don't believe such people exist (either for me or the many other people on this forum who quote people from inside the industry), you are sadly mistaken.

Carlos,

As I just mentioned to CL, it's people *inside* the power industry who have often (not always) been the source of encouragement to buy generators, or take other precautions. Some power companies openly say, "If you're going to take precautions like generators, do so responsibly," (or words to that affect). This is not, contrary to the beliefs of some Y2K critics, just a money-grubbing thing.

-- Anonymous, May 12, 1999

Jon,

NERC has no motive or means to lie. The NERC report is derived from test results summaries provided by utilities that are doing the hands on testing.

The NERC data is consistant with my submissions, and is consistant with every presentation and private converstation I witnessed at the EPRI embedded systems conference.

NERC is just the facilitator.

-- Anonymous, May 12, 1999

Drew,

Didn't mean to question your credibility on the existance of your sources or their sincerity. I just question their ability to speak authoritatively on the subject if they aren't directly involved in Y2K testing or project management. We direct our employees to inform themselves using intranet web pages with info almost identical to that available on the web to you. Is your "inside source" telling a story consistant with the info on his employer's Y2K web page? If it isn't, then challenge them to explain what causes them to reach a conclusion different from the facts their company is putting out.

-- Anonymous, May 12, 1999

CL,

Based on your observations, testing, input into NERC, EPRI conversations, etc, what is your assessment? Any problems of significance next year? Or even minor glitches?

-- Anonymous, May 12, 1999

Drew,

1. No utility can stop testing, especially "home-grown" computer coded applications (EMS/SCADA etc.) We replaced ours rather than find and fix, but some may have to fix.

2. We will be ready not compliant. There will be some devices that will have diagnostic portions rollover into a wrong date. We will have to dial-up, or locally reset these devices on straight time and they will be fine.

3. No lights out because of Y2K. Our biggest problem will be quickly analyzing real fault operations (car hits pole - pole hits ground)and quickly communicating them to a media center before the CNN (notice I didn't say CBN) vans parked in every neighborhood start reporting "Y2K, Y2K!!!".

4. I am not directly involved in generation testing (except for some gen. protective relays), but I believe that they also will have no problems. Reason for the confidence - I know the folks testing, they are competent, professional, and thorough.

5. Some non-critical, unimportant applications may cause a nuisance through the year if the utility did not get around to them when the critical stuff was complete. Rick calls this "death by a thousand paper cuts". I think it is more like being pelted with a thousand cotton balls. Things like auxiliary test equipment software (old DOS versions), maybe some less than thorough utils won't get around to remediating some fault recorders that will not be useful as a diagnostic tool. These will be handled as discreet equipment failures are today. Not important enough to call out someone on a weekend - let it go until straight time, or the next time someone will be visiting that site for another reason.

6. It will be harder to sleep in campgrounds next year because even tent campers will be able to buy a like-new portable generator cheap! (grin)

The worst part is that I will usher in the Jubilee year with my pointy haired boss instead of my family.

-- Anonymous, May 12, 1999

CL,

Thanks. Next question :)

Does your answer apply to the system in general, or just your company? IE, when you say "no lights out because of Y2K," do you think that will be the case in your neck of the woods, or across the country?

Sounds like you're talking about a lot of what I call "back office failures" - ie, if my NT workstation goes down, nobody notices until it lasts long enough that the Web site goes down (unless I go home & update the site from there- ie, a workaround/backup). That's what I think a lot of Y2K will be- failures consumers don't see.

Anyway, let me know about your thoughts as they apply to the nation as a whole. Thanks again.

-- Anonymous, May 12, 1999

CL, this thread is already very long, but for the sake of clarity, I'm not sure where you gained the idea from what I wrote that I thought there was no good Y2K program in any utility. I think you were reading too fast and must have missed some context. I even mentioned Dan's "good" project.

-- Anonymous, May 13, 1999

Drew,

Not back office. Tech lab storeroom. Oscillioscopes, test meters, remote dial-in software - not the equipment but the toolbox of the utility employee. Stuff like this that is not used frequently might not get checked and be buggy when you pull it out to use it. Especially DOS software on older pieces of test equipment.

Bonnie,

I was referring to the post from earlier in this thread:

>Of the Y2K projects I know of (granted a small sampling in the grand scheme of things) I could term none of them a "good Y2K project".

-- Anonymous, May 13, 1999

CL,

Ah, okay. Makes sense.

Still wondering about your thoughts on the nation as a whole re power... at least to whatever extent you feel you can comment... Thanks.

-- Anonymous, May 13, 1999

CL, that statement referred to those Y2K projects I have personal knowledge of, and I believe the context indicated that. Taking it to somehow be a broad statement that there are no good utility projects at all is a reach, especially when the last summary sentence of the same paragraph was:

"Maybe there are enough utilities, and telecoms, and vendors which have your kind of "good" project, but since I can't know how many of the other kind it will take to throw a monkey wrench in the works, and I do know that other kind of project does exist, preparation remains the common sense thing to do."

For the record, I'm sure there are very good Y2K projects at various utilities, on the order of the points put forth above by Dan. I'm also very confident there are some which do not reach that same level of competence, both in the electric industry and other industry infrastructure areas.

-- Anonymous, May 14, 1999