Regardless of how a person views Gary North's opinions on Y2K, he does come up with articles which add information to the issue. The comments of Dave Synowiec, plant manager at AEP, to Spencer County Chamber of Commerce members are of interest:

http://www.courierpress.com/cgi/view.cgi?/199907/16/+y2kheadache_news.html+19990716+news

Reading the entire piece is very worthwhile, but here is an excerpt:

"If the computer chip resets itself in January, problems may not develop in the system until later, he said. In one of our tests, it took six weeks for problems to develop in a system after we reset the clock."

"Synowiecs interest in Y2Ks peculiarities is understandable. AEP is the largest transmission system in the country, with interconnections to other systems. Failure in one interconnection could cause the system to collapse. "

"He outlined a three-step approach the power industry in general and AEP in particular are taking to make sure people get light when they hit the switch on New Years Day. "

-- Anonymous, July 19, 1999

Answers

If the computer chip resets itself in January, problems may not develop in the system until later, he said. In one of our tests, it took six weeks for problems to develop in a system after we reset the clock.

What a maroon. This man obviously has no idea what he's talking about. A chip doesn't reset itself. Why in the world would it take six weeks for problems to develop? Besides, it's probably just some silly little ol' thing like "A" being changed to "Z" on a printout, or something like that. Besides, he obviously has no idea what he's talking about. What a maroon.

-- Anonymous, July 19, 1999

Oops. Please forgive me. I was temporarily, mysteriously transmogrified into a... Pollyanna.

-- Anonymous, July 19, 1999

Some further information on AEP from their July 1st press release, available on the AEP web site, indicates that (at least for AEP) readiness does _not_ constitute integrated testing. That is now to follow, for a portion of critical systems:

"During the remainder of 1999, the Y2K team and other areas of the company will also focus on contingency planning and integration testing. Valentine explained integration testing by noting that individual components of the AEP system have been thoroughly tested, but those components have not been tested as a unit. The AEP Y2K team will examine a portion of the critical systems in their entirety and observe how individual components will react with each other after Dec. 31."

-- Anonymous, July 19, 1999

Lane, I actually laughed this time at your wit and sarcasm. Humor is a good thing sometimes, and when properly applied (as you did in this case), a point can be made as well. I especially found the term "maroon" funny...did you pick that up at TB2000? lol

I think if all of us who frequent this forum were to have just one moment of spontaneous honesty , we would concede that all of us have our bias, tending to give credence to that which we believe, and dismiss that which we do not. You know well my own bias and predjudices, as I do yours. The problem with that is by "defending" our point of view, we very well could overlook some small truthfullness regarding a y2k issue. I myself could have very well have written your "rebuttal" above with all due seriousness (hopefully without calling the guy a "maroon"), but your humor served it's point, and made me reflect a little more than I might normally have. So good for all of us!

This guy is a manager in the industry, his wording of things makes me think he is not very astute technically, and his claim is a bit mysterious, but in fairness, since he is speaking about something he should know something about, I must therefore concede that there may indeed possibly be some factual Y2k problem he is trying to describe that took 6 weeks for them to detect. Unfortunately, as with too many y2k news reports, there is no technical depth in the article, so it's hard to know what to make of it.

And now that I have admitted my bias concerning the AEP report, let me admit yours and Bonnie's as well...lol! Whats NOT posted above from either of you, is some additional information worthy of consideration from the AEP Y2K page. From the very same AEP July1, 1999 press release that Bonnie quotes from, comes the following information:

"AEP's readiness activities included testing of the main control systems at all 47 fossil-powered generating units. Testing of the main control systems, which govern combustion and emissions cleaning processes, involved setting the systems clocks for various conditions and time transitions and then observing their operations. The systems successfully performed all date transitions, and two units continue to operate with the date set for 2000 to continue to check for problems."

"Through our extensive testing of mission-critical and high- priority systems we have found no major problems that pose a threat to providing our customers safe and reliable energy. But, this is no time to relax," Valentine said. [emphasis mine]

The above statement is consistent with what I have stated over the past 6 months and consistent with what the industry has publically stated. I find it VERY credible, lol!

And from the July 1999 "position statement" from the same website comes this FAQ tidbit: "What about the Y2K readiness of the grid system to which AEP is connected?" "The North American Electric Reliability Council (NERC) has been requested by the U.S. Department of Energy to assume a leadership role in preparing the grid for the year 2000. AEP provides monthly reports to the NERC and the NERC submits a quarterly report to the U.S. Department of Energy. The April 30, 1999, quarterly NERC report, with over 98 percent of electrical systems in the U.S. and Canada responding, stated, "the risk of electrical outages caused by Y2K appears to be no higher than the risks we already experience" due to severe weather, equipment failures, traffic accidents, or a power shortage during an extremely hot or cold period."

Please, don't stop me now, I'm on a "pollyanna" feeding frenzy and the AEP site is chock full of Y2K mythbreaking fruit! Here's one from an April 6, 1999 AEP press release:

"NERC has said it is confident that the rollover to 2000 will have little impact on electrical systems in North America."

"The types of impacts found thus far include such errors as incorrect dates in event logs or displays, but do not appear to affect the ability to keep generators and power delivery facilities in service and electricity supplied to customers," NERC said in a report prepared in January for the U.S. Department of Energy." [emphasis mine]

Yes, NERC, AEP, and myself we do hang around a lot together, but they don't pay me, so maybe there is a little small truth to what I have stated here from the very first time I visited the forum...

Sometimes the truth isn't very fun or exiting, but the facts are facts. Give me facts, give me a manufacturer, give me a model number....;)

Regards,

-- Anonymous, July 19, 1999

Ohmigosh, Factfinder, did you miss out on watching Bugs Bunny cartoons in your youth? "What a maroon." Classic Looney Tunes' line delivered often by everybody's favorite carrot-crazed "wabbit".

I loved your line, "pollyanna feeding frenzy"; it made me laugh. I agree that everyone brings their own bias in all aspects of life and Y2K, and I do think most readers factor this in when assimilating information. I've admitted mine several times in the past on this forum, the main bias being that when it comes to corporate press releases and industry self-reports, I think it's more important to look for any chinks in the standard, de rigeur good news. I certainly agree with Valentine's statement above that "this is no time to relax", because component testing without integrated tests does not give the total picture.

On the manufacturer and model number, etc., I find it interesting that those few vendors which do have parts' assessments listed on their web sites only put "customers should contact us" or "call us" after some systems, with no other information given. The same goes for the sites with multiple vendor information. The good news is always the easy stuff to find; it's the less-than-good stuff that is kept out of the public view, like skeletons in a family closet. It's restricted to a customer-only, need-to-know format, and I'm sure you've seen mention that this kind of information can also be accompanied by a legal non-disclosure agreement.

At any rate, it takes all kinds, as the saying goes, so different viewpoints are a good thing. Keeps us all from being maroons!

-- Anonymous, July 19, 1999

Thanks, FF. After I posted that, it occurred to me that I should mention that I wasn't directing that at anybody who posts regularly to this forum. I haven't noticed any Pollyannas here: I mean those who dismiss any past/present/potential Y2K problems with the flimsiest of excuses. Alas, they are legion elsewhere and in the general population.

About the six-weeks situation, I myself don't find it hard to believe. At my last place of employment, a financial services company, we would get orders from customers (mostly mortgage banks) and send orders to suppliers (mostly residential appraisers). We would, sooner or later, get reports back from the suppliers and send them on to the customers. Sometimes, when we would send bad data to the supplier, we would not find out for several days. We might have sent bad data to the suppliers for any number of reasons, sometimes because the customer sent garbage, sometimes because we had mishandled good data. Anyway, this kind of situation was particularly exasperating. If it took, say, five business days (because of turnaround time) to discover problems in the data, we would know that we'd have five additional days of bad data to deal with. Assuming that the problem was cleared up immediately. (Did I explain that okay?)

As Bonnie notes, the "maroon" comment comes from Bugs Bunny! But it is also common on the TB2000 forum and on comp.software.year-2000.

The manager quoted does not strike me as technically astute. One of my big fears about getting ready for Y2K is that so many managers are, indeed, technically ignorant. And I sure do get e-mail from other programmers testifying to that. But one must also allow for the possibility that a given manager might be trying to "talk down" to a general audience.

-- Anonymous, July 20, 1999

Fact Finder,

I believe you are absolutely right about the biases.

These biases can be like roles or personas that we take on. Sometimes they can become terribly significant and take on a life of their own and completely overwhelm our ability to see things from different points of view. Some call this the "right and wrong game". Some see it as an attention getting device. Humor can help break it up.

When you can relax your biases, widen your perspective, the importance of the "stuck" viewpoint softens. i.e.; in a quarter million years this y2k thing probably won't mean much.

Admitting our biases, or seeing the roles or personas we assume gives us an opportunity to see what games we are playing and what sides we are knowingly or unknowingly taking on the issues.

Letting go of our biases gives us a chance to re-create ourselves. Coming back froma vacation we can often re-decide how we want to handle things, what sides of issues we will come back on, or if we want to bother with them at all.

The physical world is rather inflexible, but we are, or can be, very flexible. We can change our perspectives. We have the inherent ability to see things from many sides. We can also choose not to.

The people within this forum who bring data from both sides, or many sides of the issues are, in my, (present), view, among the most valuable contributors.

Malcom is good. He says they'll be fine down in New Zealand and he let's us know about specific problems and solutions. No defense of one side or another, and readily offering insight to both sides. No hidden agenda, no ax to grind.

Over the past month or so there seemed to be an influx of people to this forum who were REALLY STUCK in their viewpoints.

Perhaps it's a mark of maturity to be able appreciate the viewpoints of others, to shift viewpoints, even if only temporarily to see things differently. Perhaps it's a sign of this forum maturing that Rick has opted to eliminate the ax grinding, (it was getting tough to appreciate some of that).

So, biases aside, is the electricity going to be okay for one and all?

Steve

-- Anonymous, July 20, 1999

Steve, there comes a time when a person has to make an educated decision. When I first started researching the y2k problem I had no opinion; how could I since I had no information. I believe myself to be a realist and a researcher. I am also a probem solver. I figure if there is a problem I should be able to solve it or find a way around it, under it, or over it. I read until my eyes crossed to get every bit of information available. After a few days of reading and analyzing (Ed Yourdon, for one, got my attention), I got down to the bedrock - I realized if electricity failed no other sector would work. Then I started looking for electric utility information and found this forum. I lurked and read every post that had been archived as well as reading the daily posts. Shortly I realized electricity was not a stand alone sector. There were critical sectors that must work for electricity to work. So I started researching those sectors. Eventually I had enough information to make an educated decision on what my course of action should be. I couldn't solve the electricity probem but I could determine what my personal actions should be to solve the problem as it could affect me and mine. Will we have electricity? My research into the interconnections that have to work tells me it is extremely doubtful. I don't believe I have a bias. What I do have is a mountain of facts. That mountain continues to grow daily. I believe this mountain is now the highest peak in the world now overshadowing all of us on the planet.

-- Anonymous, July 20, 1999

Marcella,

It sounds like your journey through Y2K parallels mine almost exactly.

One difference though is the more information I gathered the less certain I became in outcomes. Could be information overload.

I made decisions. I got some meaningful preparations taken care of, and I plod along with more now and then. I'm not ready for any major collapse of society. To be honest I either wouldn't know how or couldn't bring myself to go that way.

I look at what ifs while staying in touch with the news on y2k. I dismiss hardliners on either side of the fence. Like you, electricity is one of, if not THE biggie in my book.

I believe whatever comes of Y2K we will get through it and move on. I'm preparing for a harsh storm sized event.

I participate in this forum, if only by lurking much of the time, to monitor the pulse of the situation so to speak. Whether it's foolish or not I tend to believe that progress, set-backs, news, etc. in this arena parallels the same in other industries and sectors of society.

The most unsettling aspect is the unknown. When someone like Malcom comes in and says something like; "Here's this problem, here's how it affects us and here's how we're going about tending to it..." it comes out of the realm of unknown and makes the situation seem real, and therefore manageable.

I know there's a lot more unknown. A whole lot. But those reality tidbits go a very long way towards reassuring me the problems can and will be handled, either before, during or after the rollover.

I've been in the mode, or role, of rage over deception. Fear about the magnitude of the issue. Deeply concerned about the welfare of family that doesn't get the potential for disaster, etc. I can still find myself in any of those perspectives.

When I back away from it all I still come up with the realization it isn't a bad idea to prepare somewhat. But I still don't have an objective way to measure how much to prepare because I don't really know what will happen.

Even if I became 100% certain electricity was not going to be an issue next Jan. I would still prepare for other problems.

So I say to one and all; lighten up, (insert interesting photo here), and let's continue with the friendly discussion.

Steve

-- Anonymous, July 20, 1999

Steve,

That was a good commentary. I note that you said at one point that you just can't bring yourself to deal with a full societal collapse. I think that is both honest and common. Who can really envision or prepare for that? In my opinion, it is the nagging feeling that such a thing *could* happen that makes the majority of the public shy away from digging into the interconnected infrastructure data. A year ago I felt that such a possible outcome was abhorrent, and people don't handle such thinking very well. It freezes our very senses.

-- Anonymous, July 20, 1999

Gordon,

Yep. It's a creepy thing to think about. Kinda like realizing you could be horribly mangled in an accident the next time you get in your car. You know instinctively you really shouldn't scare yourself silly thinking about such things. But you know what? If I was getting in a car and got really spooked like that I'd step back and maybe question those feelings. Take a walk. Chill out and see if it goes away.

I suppose I did scare myself silly over Y2K, (remember those awful drivers education films we had to watch?). But even when I step back from it all, and I mean leaving off all Y2K info for weeks at a time, I still come up with it being a good idea to treat the issue with respect. Taking steps to prepare is like putting on a seat belt. Keeping up with the issue is like paying attention while driving.

Steve

-- Anonymous, July 20, 1999

Steve,

That was a good analogy. Seat belt, pay attention, and listen to some inner voice of warning from time to time. This may sound a bit nutty, but I personally believe I have a guardian angel or two that nudges me in certain directions if I will only pay attention. And that delay of getting in the car could be the time difference needed so as *not* to arrive at a certain spot just yet. When I take a wrong turn while driving my first impulse is to get irritated at my error, but then it sometimes occurs to me that maybe I was being redirected for reasons I will never know about, and wouldn't want to be a part of.

-- Anonymous, July 20, 1999