As part of the recommended process for Y2K project planning, we can read in industry documents that an assessment of the reliability of any external vendor product statements should be made based on past history with those vendors in regards to their professionalism and trustworthiness.

This type of assessment is something all of us outside the electric industry are also attempting to do with industry Y2K statements themselves. They are OUR "vendors". I must admit that upon reading the "Regional Coordinators Teleconference Minutes" of August 21, 1998, I was very disheartened. Not quite a year ago, when the electric industry did not have all that much definitive data about how the Y2K issue would affect them, and a majority of utilities were still in the Inventory and/or Assessment phase and NOT reporting their status to NERC, this is what was reported in a portion of these minutes for the WSCC, SERC and ECAR Regions of NERC:

WSCC

"Contingency task force is working on a base case for January 1, 2000 to develop a standard answer for customers that the lights will be kept on. When it is developed, it will be made available to all the other Regional Coordinators and NERC."

SERC

"No formal Y2K task force. It is needed and will probably be done soon. Want to know how to assure customers that the lights will be kept on."

ECAR

"Gerry's talk to the executive board on August 7 has given impetus to their Y2K efforts. A September 3, 1998 meeting is set to formalize their Y2K program."

I have tried very hard to take into account the positive industry news even while researching potential problem areas. Now, after reading that a "lights-on" statement was formulated _before_ there was a bulk of evidence to support any such statement, how am I supposed to feel? If those in electric utilities discovered this situation applied to a vendor of yours, wouldn't your trust level for that vendor plummet? These conference minutes have disturbed me a great deal, along with other information I've recently accessed which has forced me to re-assess the gain in optimism I've had. I guess at another time I might be angry, but now I'm just depressed. I'm going to go have a cup of tea and try to forget about utilities and industry bureaucrats for awhile.

The above can be found on page 3 of the 8-21-region.. PDF file link submitted Aug. 25, 1998 at:

ftp://ftp.nerc.com/pub/sys/all_updl/docs/y2k/

-- Anonymous, July 30, 1999

Answers

Boy, it's going to be fun to watch this page fill up today! :s As for me, this makes me a bit more pessimistic, so I'm going to go wash a few more drywall buckets and dump some more beans. Bonnie, thanks for all of your hard work--you're a treasure.

-- Anonymous, July 30, 1999

Bonnie,

Thanks for this post and your comments. I think that many of us have had dark suspicions that there is a driving force to calm the public concerns, without regard to actual facts. Here we see the prime motivation surface long before the truth was known. It there any reason to believe that the truth caught up with the statement and the two now are in agreement. Doubtful. The happy face motivation is by far the stronger driving force, and seems to be alive and well, as witness the NERC boilerplate suggestions for information release.

-- Anonymous, July 30, 1999

Bonnie,

We do have one thing going for us: It is in the enlightened self interest of the executives of the electric utilities to have their companies remediate y2k problems as completely and effectively as possible.

The utilities' happy face statements have led most of the American public to expect and believe that there will be no major problems with electricity next year. If serious widespread prolonged outages do occur there will be hell to pay from investors, government regulators, politicians and the American public. Scapegoats will be sought and utility executives will be prime targets. Hopefully most of them are smart enough to figure this out and are acting accordingly while they still have time.

Lack of verifiable, truthful information sources has been a major problem in many industries. Even Senator Bennett, with the power of subpoena at his disposal, has complained that it is very difficult to ascertain the truth about y2k status. So many people have agendas they are pursuing such as maintaining stock prices, telling the bosses what they want to hear, preventing public 'panic', etc.

This makes it difficult for those of us who are trying to figure out possible/probable y2k scenarios so that we can plan accordingly. All we can do in making our y2k preparation decisions is assess the veracity of our information sources and the plausibility of the information they provide. Your research has been most helpful in that regard. Thank you.

-- Anonymous, July 31, 1999

In some of Scott Adams' three-panel strips, Dilbert got transferred to Marketing! When he arrived, he was greeted with an invitation to lunch: "It's Barbecue Tuesday. We're having unicorn." A brilliant way of saying that techies look at marketeers as quite disconnected from the day-to-day reality of the company.

I myself have been in conference calls with customers in which the following situations have arisen: (1) marketeer pushes a product on the customer for which development has not even begun; (2) marketeer promises product development for a customer but the product has already been available for months.

I suppose that the electrical utility industry is populated with as many marketeers, salesmen, and PR flaks as is any other industry. Especially, the higher up the corporate ladder you go. And I suppose that many of the executives have gotten out of touch with the current technology, or don't think much about it any more.

So, I can see it now (a little tongue-in-cheek, you understand.)

Back in 1995-98, electrical utility executives, many of whom (I suspect) came from sales/marketing/PR, looked at each other and said, "Why in the world would we not be able to produce because of this little two-digit year thingy?" They shrugged their shoulders, and assumed -- yes, assumed -- that everything simply had to be AOK, hunky-dorey, peachy-keeno. Some assumptions are right. Some assumptions are wrong.

My assumption, of course, is that the electrical utility industry is populated by human beings pretty much like those that populate the rest of the corporate world. Some assumptions are right. Some assumptions are wrong.

-- Anonymous, July 31, 1999

Bonnie,

Another way of saying it would be that they came to the conclusion (for the public's benefit) before they had the facts either way. They didn't really know what would happen, but they put forward a positive conclusion anyway.

This is the precise point that the optimistic engineers on this forum repeatedly seem unable to understand. Their message is, "We've tested, things are okay- why are you people still so negative? Why don't you trust us?" For the very simple reason that positive messages were publicly coming out of the power industry in the past- while privately industry insiders were *very* worried (in fact, as Rick and Roleigh Martin have written, power industry folks and utility regulators were *buying*generators* at the same time these positive words were flowing forth from the industry).

It should be noted that, at the same time, some industry people were being pretty honest during this time. For instance, this Sept 7 article in InfoWorld at:

http://www.infoworld.com/cgi-bin/displayArchive.pl?/98/36/e02-36.1.htm

includes these quotes:

**Regardless of your own Y2K preparedness, the slow-moving electrical industry could leave you in the dark **By Blaise Zerega

**Companies scrambling to bring their computer systems into year-2000 compliance may discover that their time and effort will be for naught. A lack of preparedness by North America's electrical industry may pull the plug on many companies' transition plans.

**Although many electric companies have already begun addressing year- 2000 compliance, some have not. It was only in June that the first industrywide efforts got under way, which may not leave enough time for testing and contingency planning, according to experts.

**"I can't tell you overall how we stand. Based on the information we receive, we'll build contingency plans off that," said Jon Arnold, chief technology officer of the Edison Electric Institute (EEI), a trade organization in Washington that represents companies supplying roughly 75 percent of North America's electricity...

**"We can't answer questions on preparedness at this point," said Gene Gorzelnik, director of communications at NERC, in Princeton, N.J.

However, the word on the street, so to speak, was much less cautious. Just as one example among bunches, one engineer, who I obviously cannot name, said he was "scared to death" (exact quote) because he didn't even know where his embedded systems were. These sorts of stories were going on all over the country.

Here, for instance, is Jim Seymour's conclusion from his Oct 6 PC Magazine column (published in mid-September) called "My Biggest Worry" (ie, his biggest Y2K worry, which was the power industry):

**What are we going to do? No one knows. Many power-industry experts admit privately that they think large-scale and extended power outages, beginning in January, 2000, are inevitable.

That concluding page is found at:

http://www.zdnet.com/pcmag/special/y2k/features/worry/index5.html

The article begins at:

http://www.zdnet.com/pcmag/special/y2k/features/worry/index.html

I think it's fair to say that at least some industry spokespeople were trying to be level honest in saying "We don't know." But the fact was, the word on the street- again, literally all over the country- was that people inside the industry were *very* worried. Yet, many individual companies were saying "No problemo." And engineers were telling people like Dick Mills that Y2K was a hoax at Winter 98 engineers meeting. Again, the contrast. Peter de Jager has written that the power companies just lucked out- that the problems that might have been there simply weren't. That may yet prove to be the case. Let's hope so. But I can tell you, that at least as of a few months ago (I haven't followed up since), some folks in the trenches still had some concerns. Further, we have what Cameron Daley of Tava says, that some power companies *think* they're ready when they're not (this wouldn't surprise me, because auditors & similar experts in other fields have told me precisely the same thing, or have publicly stated their findings).

Two other points: one, I think the reason many people are distrustful of the power industry is that lying is so rampant in Y2K overall (and trust me, it is). The Orlando Sentinel story cited by Lane & others (where 50 percent of Y2K vendors have been found to be lying) is just one example. Why, people probably wonder, should the power industry be any more truthful- especially given its past track record?

Two, and this is a bit off the point, but it's quite an arguable statement that the power industry can claim to have been "ready" even if not a single problem ever develops. Why? Well, look at all the huge numbers of precautions that companies and even cities have felt pressed to take, ie, buying generators. The time to decide to buy generators was in mid to late 1998, not 1999- that was basically too late. Although some (rather pompous, I would say) folks like to claim there will be a fire sale on unused generators come January 1, 00, the fact is, those generators were purchased at a time when the industry either openly could not guarantee power, or when many people in the industry were telling many others (including journalists) that they were deeply worried- and perhaps added that they were buying generators themselves (and you better believe they were).

I believe both Roleigh Martin and Dick Mills have written that for the industry to have been truly "ready," it should have been able to say so in late 1997 (or so). I would say that's about right. In case anyone thinks that wasn't possible, I would point out that the banking industry was able to offer a lot of reassurances to customers or analysts by at least early 1998. But the power industry couldn't- and that's why the huge sales of generators.

Finally, just to make sure no one will even remotely try to say otherwise, let me make clear here that I write these words merely as observations, not vindictively or anything else. These are simply things I've watched develop over time. I'm perfectly willing to accept a scenario, as I've said before, where Y2K causes no problems for the US power industry. But the Y2K power optimists better recognize that there are reasons why there's distrust of their claims- many reasons, including what Bonnie wrote at the start of this thread, some of the examples I've pointed out here, what Daley et al say, and more. That's why when someone says "Things will be fine, trust me," others respond with skepticism. After all this time, they want more- including more than simple press releases announcing compliance or readiness. Those hardly count as facts of compliance (what they count as are facts of announcements of compliance, not necessarily compliance itself). If a press release includes a statement of an independent audit, I'd feel a lot better about it.

-- Anonymous, July 31, 1999

Jeff, I understand the reasoning behind the assertion of "enlightened self interest" as a motivation for executives in management levels, but you happened to catch me with this not too long after I was with a group of IT people who were discussing a recent major presentation they'd made to management on the status of projects and the future needs/goals of an international company's vital computer systems. (If the computer systems in this company don't function, nothing else does either.)

I sat there and just watched a lot of sad head shaking going on, combined with an overall air of disappointment and resignation. These people had put in a LOT of work to detail everything in as clear a manner as possible. One of the experienced presenters related that after just a few minutes he'd made the decision to drop going into all they had planned to address after he'd glanced at the faces of the management people and they already had that glazed, bored-to-death, could-care-less look.

The combined experience of the IT people in this group could be measured in decades, and even though the comments showed that this kind of situation was the norm, they were still not able to hide a deep concern about the dangers inherent in the disconnect between management and all things related to the computer systems which ran their company. So at the moment I'm not sure at all that "enlightened" is able to be combined in most cases with executive/managerial self interest. It puts me in mind of the old jokes about "military intelligence" being an oxymoron.

I'm sure there are variations and exceptions from company to company, but from what I've seen and heard over the years, I sure wouldn't bet the farm on any executive enlightenment - not when it comes to computer systems. Have you ever seen a top-level systems IT staff member (in recent years) have his time co-opted to set up a PC for a Vice President and then teach him the basics of how to use it? I have. **And the VP was the head of the corporate IT section.** This is so sad for me, but I've learned never to assume that executives have even a clue of understanding the potential disruptions a "little computer date" problem could cause.

-- Anonymous, July 31, 1999

Bonnie is quite right, and anyone involved with either IT or Y2K knows it. The whole idea that executives will solve Y2K because it's in the best interest of their business assumes that execs understand Y2K in the first place. Until last year at best, a rather significant percentage didn't, it's safe to say.

Further, as one Y2K auditor (general business) told me recently, many organizations have people in charge of their Y2K remediation who are, shall we say, "less than stellar."

-- Anonymous, July 31, 1999

Bonnie and Drew:

There are many people like myself who are trying hard to make decisions based on quality information and not rhetoric. Both of you have provided good examples of this fact and this forum is indeed fortunate to have your inputs.

-- Anonymous, August 01, 1999

I have a friend who is in management with a major food production company and was involved in the IT corrections to their computers. He doesn't think Y2k is any real problem any more and doesn't even want to discuss it. Last year they spent a bunch of money to turn all their clocks back (as he tells it) and that solved it! This company has branches worldwide and many connected subsidiaries. My friend is just not concerned about the whole matter. I realize this is not a comment on electric utilities, but it does continue the discussion on management attitude regarding Y2k remediation or disconnect from it.

-- Anonymous, August 01, 1999

Chuck,

Thanks.

Gordon,

A classic example of what I call "projection," ie, we handled Y2K (or at least we believe we did), therefore it's no problem anywhere (the reverse is also true- we are having trouble, therefore it is a problem everywhere). This is *extremely* common. Also illogical.

-- Anonymous, August 01, 1999

"Open your eyes. The folks who are rushing now to tell us that they're 'on track', that the problem is being taken care of, that everything will be okay (at least in the good ol' USA) -- they are the very same folks whose self-interest and shortsightedness have, by and large, made one thing the overriding criterion of if, when, and how to conduct Y2K remediation: the short-term bottom line."

Y2K Progress: Reality Check

-- Anonymous, August 02, 1999