I am an attorney from the town of Fredericksburg Virginia. Our firm is offering small businesses a Y2K inventory program, and I am giving free weekly awareness presentations.

I have been quoting Rick from his Drew Parkhill interview regarding overall readiness: 15% Prepared -- 15% In trouble -- 70% in a race to the finish line. I tell the group that they should prepare for at least a month of rolling blackouts, rolling brownouts, dirty power and power surges and spikes.

Am I giving them a responsible assessment of what is going on based upon the groups knowledge at this point in time? Is the picture getting brighter, darker or evermore uncertain?

Also, has anyone brought up how Michael Chrichton's "Jurrasic Park" might be an interesting model for how Y2K could "let the Velociraptors loose" sometime in April or May? (This is not something I bring up in our presentations.)

-- Anonymous, June 06, 1999

Answers

Bill, there are probably as many different opinions about what will happen with the utilities in 2000 as there are posters on this forum. I think I can say with a measure of confidence that there is no "group" consensus, which might explain why you haven't received any responses to your question until now.

Some people would consider it irresponsible to suggest there will be any problems with electric power at all come 2000. Others here would consider you to be underestimating. I realize I'm giving you a waffle answer, but I figure since you're a lawyer, you're not unused to that. *smile* The best I can tell you, is to read as many of the recent questions/comments in this forum as you can and that should give you some idea of various views at this point in time. Perhaps you can ascertain where the middle of the road lies and go from there?

As far as I know, Chaos Theory has not been brought up re Y2K. The word "chaos" has certainly been used by some to exemplify their opinions of what Y2K might bring, but the mathematical concepts of Jurassic Park, no. An interesting idea -- could we term it "Murphy will have his way?"

Thank you for your efforts in promoting Y2K awareness for small businesses! It's an area where work is much needed. I'm sorry I couldn't give you more concrete answers; too much depends on what any individual's trust level is regarding industry reports, and what a person's own experiences with computer systems are.

-- Anonymous, June 08, 1999

Bonnie,

Sincere thanks for your well written response, I do believe you have a future in either law or politics if you wish to pursue it. I have read most of the recent questions and comments, and they have reaffirmed my general belief that regarding Y2K, when you pin somebody to the mat on the issue, the usual response is "We don't know what the hell is going to happen!" In many ways people find this more disturbing than one of the two polarized positions that are becoming more and more prevalent.

In our presentations to local businesses we compare Y2K to the Titanic. This allows for two perspectives -- Inevitable Disaster and Unsinkable Ship. If you watch the Titanic movies all you hear about are "not enough lifeboats", "more icebergs, further south", and "the ship is going too fast." By the time the ship sinks, everybody is crying about how the whole event was inevitable, and "they" should have seen it coming. Reality, of course, is never so cut and dried. Anyone at Southhampton on April 10, 1912 who proclaimed that Titanic would be at the bottom of the Atlantic within five days would have been locked up.

This, we believe presents a "balanced" way of viewing Y2K. We point out that with a few more lifeboats, Titanic is not a disaster, and with a few less knots, Titanic is still unsinkable. We then challenge our groups to stop looking at Y2K as either inevitable or impossible and instead view it as a potential opportunity for those who are prepared to grab market share from those who are not.

Y2K is not a computer problem. It is a management problem -- a challenge in human organization. So long as all of us stay open and optimistic regarding our prospects for beating this thing -- just as we have beaten every other challenge -- then it will go down in history as another example of mankind winning out over man's baser fears and instincts. (Or is that womankind winning out over man's baser fears and instincts?)

With that said, however, I am still reminded of the Chinese curse: "Hope you live in an interesting time."

Thanks again for the response.

-- Anonymous, June 08, 1999

Bill,

As engineers (I assume a number of the regular participants are engineers) it is part of our training to be skeptical and questioning. We worry about the bridge support, valve operation, software design, etc. etc. Thats one of the things we get paid for. Consequently nothing is good enough or done enough or right enough. As an Engineer, I have always had problems answering management with the yes or no answers they wanted when everything we do as engineers is imperfect. We design in redundancy because we know everything will not work the way we want it to every time. Even then we worry that we may have missed something so we give the human operator the ability to over ride automatic functions. We worry that the human operator would make a mistake so we put in instruments and indicators to help them diagnose the problem and make the right decision. Real life events and accidents cause us to modify and redesign things to help prevent a reoccurrence. All this is done not by one engineer or even one team of engineers but generations of engineers and technical types over the life of the system. For a power plant and electrical distribution system this constant checking and rechecking, worrying and upgrading process spans a systems life of some 40+ years. Perhaps some of this perceived lack of disclosure comes from our engineers hesitancy to answer yes or no to your question when so much is a  maybe. It probably was not the marine engineer who designed the Titanic who said it was Unsinkable. It was the Promoter.

The conservative nature of a typical electric utility comes from the fact that most are run by Engineers and Accountants. As you can read from Dick Mills in his Westergaard Column at http://y2ktimebomb.com/PP/index.htm the electric distribution system is fairly simple and ruled by some fundamental laws of physics. The system that gets the power to you, however, is complex and includes many elements which are not easy to yes-no. It includes, independent power producers, foreign oil, governments, people with agendas, transportation systems, telecommunications links, weather, computers, and the list goes on and on. This is one reason why you will find a lot of diversity of opinion on what the consequences of Y2K induced problems might be. Depending upon an individual contributors focus and area of expertise, their answer may be on one side or the other of the  how bad will it be  question. For a global/think tank perspective on Y2K consequences see the US Naval War Colleges Security Dimension Project at http://www.nwc.navy.mil/dsd/y2ksited/y2kproj.htm .

As for your personal dilemma on what to say at your public presentation, I would recommend using the medical professions  do no harm adage and the American Red Crosss Y2K Preparedness guidance at http://www.redcross.org/disaster/safety/Y2K.html .

-- Anonymous, June 10, 1999

* * * 19990610 Thursday

Bill:

My essay re Y2K non-disclosure agreements and ethics in the IT industry has been deemed "Off Topic" by RC. I've received many responses from many across the spectrum that consider this to be be On Point when it comes to getting the truth out about Y2K progress.

If anything, I am now advocating acts of "civil disobedience" of the highest order by IT professionals to pop the "happy face" balloons of the "Iron Triangle"--electric, banking, and telecommunications.

Detroit Edison and MichCon have publicly admitted to a strategy of stockpiling 6-9 months of coal and natural gas (NG) respectively for Y2K. They also stated that they normally stock 30-60 days. The disparity of this level of "preparedness" speaks volumes about what they anticipate the levels of disruptions to be in the supply lines.

A recent call from a party to an Ann Arbor, Michigan electric power entity having called in consultants from a large, respected firm, for assessment--in June 1999!--indicates that the failure problems with their embedded systems numbers in the thousands within the plant(s). There is not the time nor the resources to remediate this entity before the end of 1999. The firm doing the assessment knows the status but is contractually bound to not disclose this situation for what it is: a THREAT to public health and safety. Will generation company report this status to the Michigan State Police Emergency Management Division for contingency planning purposes? I think NOT!

There's the dilemma! OFF TOPIC?!? I think not.

That's alright, though. I warned the Brits about the folly of taking care of the Euro systems before Y2K. I was "kicked" off of their "list" as a poster for this position. Look at them now. Spinning their heads off about the Y2K predicament they find themselves today.

I've done what I consider to be moral according to my conscience. I can sleep at night.

Since you responded to my posting as On Topic from this forum, I think Rick Cowles has relied on immoral legal advice to remove the thread.

Thank you for your response to my thread. I hope this response addresses some of your concerns.

Regards, Bob Mangus

* * *

-- Anonymous, June 10, 1999

Bob,

Didn't rely on any legal advice whatsoever - what I relied on was my own personal desire to keep this forum focused on electric industry Y2k topics.

Bob's article is also posted in the Time Bomb 2000 forum; here's a direct link for anyone who would like to read and/or comment on the article:

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

-- Anonymous, June 10, 1999

Rick,

While I understand and applaud your efforts to keep the forum focused on electric power, in another sense I understand Bob's point that this is a germane issue for Electric Power and Y2k.

One of our greatest frustrations here--in many different threads--has been the inability to answer questions about exact part numbers, embedded systems, etc. that fail Y2k rollover. Those who have the information are "handcuffed" by non-disclosure agreements and cannot provide information.

This has led to the "no problem" crowd sitting back and saying, "See, you can't name anything, therefore there's nothing to worry about. I won't believe there's a problem until someone gives me the part number... (blah, blah, blah)." This leads to those individuals going along their merry way as if there *is* no problem.

But again, is that true? Because of non-disclosure agreements we don't really know for sure.

In my research over almost two years I have run into this brick wall in innumerable industries and instances.

I guess this will finish it: Rick, can you honestly say that you know of nothing connected with Y2k that would endanger power systems in this country? Or are there specific things you know, that you're under contract not to reveal, that could lead to trouble over the next year?

I'm not asking for specifics right now, just an answer in general.

If there's nothing out there yet... perhaps it's time to put this whole thing to bed.

If there are issues known--but concealed by contract--then I think Bob Mangus's point is well made: it is an issue that needs to be confronted.

Please understand, I've been on the side of caution (your side, Rick, I think) since the very beginning. Do you really think it wouldn't change anything about our knowledge of real problems if people were able to speak out concerning what they're really finding? (And that goes for power systems as well as everything else)

Erase me, if you must. Perhaps I'm missing something important.

Bob Allen

-- Anonymous, June 10, 1999

Can I declare a "triple"? This is three responses in one.

**Charles, I very much appreciate your description of engineering mentality. I would hazard a guess that you're at least 50 years of age. That's because, although I've known only a few engineers personally in my lifetime, I find your assessment of their type of thinking to be completely on target -- for the older more experienced group. Unfortunately, I have noticed a subtle change among the younger engineers I've run across; they tend to have much more confidence in technology and seem to have lost some of the knack for always spinning "what if?" scenarios in their minds. (What haven't I thought of? What if this happens? Have I made any unwarranted assumptions? Is there a better way to do this, test this, back this up?)

Personally, I am far more comfortable with those who, as you describe, hesitate to give answers in absolutes. I'm reminded of an experience of my father's, which demonstrates the type of mental flexibility I'm trying to describe.

A large manufacturing company had contracted for a new installation of industrial motors to drive their machinery. After the installation, the system would not work. The vendor engineer checked, and checked, going over the specs for days, and quite a bit of acrimony eventually developed between the owner of the company and this engineer. This was because the engineer kept declaring that there was no reason why the system should not work, that everything had been done correctly, therefore there must be some inherent problem with the factory's other wiring, etc.

My father was called in by the owner to take a look. It wasn't too long before he diagnosed that some of the connections were backwards (to make a technical story short). He switched things around and the system ran fine. The vendor engineer kept saying, "But I know I did everything according to the specs!" All my dad could say was, "Well, the specifications must be wrong." It did turn out that the factory specs had been printed with errors. Sometimes things just cannot be accepted at face value.

**Bill, I also liked your description of the small business presentations you give. I agree that, "Reality, of course, is never so cut and dried." Flexibility is often what makes the difference between success and failure, whether it's flexibility in thought or the ability to be flexible in actions. Thinking about what might go wrong (not necessarily what will go wrong) and focusing on how to manage potential problems is of great benefit in my opinion. Contingency plans and preparations add to flexibility, whether it's on a business or individual level. An ironic part of the whole Y2K problem is that computer technology, while increasing government, business and communication flexibility in many ways, has, on the flip side, decreased societal flexibility because of our dependence upon all the integrated functions working properly.

**Bob and Bob, on the issue of non-disclosure agreements, I also think the "..it's never so cut and dried" statement above can apply. If someone gives their word, or signs an agreement, we are asking them to break faith with themselves...to obviate their honor, when we ask them to disregard any agreements they have made. In the military, the debate over discerning unlawful orders versus lawful ones has been ongoing for decades. It is never an easy call to decide when a situation reaches the point where a person *knows* that his silence or inaction will cause severe enough harm to warrant a breach of one kind of honor to further another kind of social responsibility.

Consider that nearly everyone involved in the Y2K issue is told or comes to realize that no one can really predict with certainty what may happen. Each sees only a small part of the vast interconnected picture. I believe it's quite probable that if someone *knew* beyond a doubt that some component somewhere was not being remediated, and that component would absolutely cause people to die if it were not fixed, they would speak out, agreements or no. But we have a situation here where even experts in the same fields don't agree on probabilities or consequences.

We also need to look realistically at what happens when someone does decide "whistle-blowing" is the only decision his conscience will allow. Historically, unless that person has proof positive documents to back up his assertions, his reports are usually dismissed -- on the grounds that HE BROKE HIS WORD and is therefore untrustworthy to begin with! And almost always, obtaining that proof positive places the person in the position of information theft from both a corporate and legal viewpoint. Even with proof positive, most cases take years of legal wrangling to resolve, with no action taken about the announced problem until the courts have had their say. The news reports will always include a denial on the part of the offended party, and businesses have public relations teams to spin the situation while the individual doesn't. So the public won't know who to believe anyway, and even assuming the story is reported on a large scale, there is no guarantee it will have the desired effect of inducing change.

Would we like things to be different, to be simpler, for it to be clearer where duty lies and for judgements to be more easily made? Of course. Sadly, that's not how it is. It's not easy, it's damnably complex and difficult.

Sure, there might be a lot of people who know a Y2K project is falling behind or has hit some snags. Does management tell them that contingency plans are being made to cover possible post-Y2K failures? Yep. Or maybe someone knows there are specific problems in such and such a plant. If they know about problems, they're also aware from management or just by a business-as-usual atmosphere that the problems "are being worked on." If one utility trips does that mean the grid will go down? No. Can an individual know for sure that a potential problem can't be repaired or worked around? Surety is hard to come by.

Can an individual say to themselves with absolute certainty that *this* problem *will* cause a disaster? Hardly ever. Are they aware that if they do speak out and the disaster somehow doesn't happen that their lives and the lives of their family will be irretrievably damaged? Usually there's awareness of the jeopardy to self and family even if the problem is eventually verified. (Loss of job, loss of future employment in the same industry, legal fees, potential jail time for breaking a contract even if you're right.)

The above also assumes that most people are actually looking at cause and effect, the big picture, etc. In my experience, they aren't. They're just putting in their 8 hours or more and going home to watch TV - where they learn that Y2K is under control, at least in the U.S.

In our desire to have answers and assurances, and our anxiety proceeding from laudable concern for others' welfare, I think we must also give serious thought to the real ramifications and consequences of disclosure for individuals.

If the weatherman reports there will be no rain today, but I see dark clouds filling the sky, I take my umbrella with me when I go out anyway. There are all kinds of personal responsibilities and while Y2K may be a "simple" little computer design flaw, the issue of Y2K - t'ain't simple at all.

-- Anonymous, June 10, 1999

bonnie,

i believe that rodin would have made the subject of his most famous sculpture a woman.

there are two criteria, that, sadly enough, were not met.

1) he would have to have been alive today.

2) he would have to have known you.

-- Anonymous, June 10, 1999

Bonnie,

I hesitate to disagree with you... but... since you answered *four* of us in the preceeding post, not three (including two Bobs), I would say it's a homerun.

I hope I'm as wise as you are someday.

Thanks!

Bob Allen

-- Anonymous, June 11, 1999