Gary North has a link to Jim Lord's site today with J.L's discussion of a Navy/Marines memo about Y2K utility failures. According to the report, likelihood/probability of failures in the four main areas of utilities (elec., water, gas, sewer) has been articulated for approximately 120 cities in the U.S. Can anyone in the Navy or Marines on the forum verify this, or give more info?

-- Anonymous, August 19, 1999

Answers

if you read the report - in its entirety - i think its difficult to escape the conclusion that its 'real'. especially if you know anything at all about jim lord. he's about as straight-shootin as you can get, and not a 'doomer' by any stretch of the imagination.

the report is a blockbuster.

-- Anonymous, August 19, 1999

Lou-- I know that he's a straight-shooter. That's what is so discouraging about this report!

-- Anonymous, August 19, 1999

Electrical Utilities Expected to Fail

Electric Utility Failures

Somebody needs to let the North American Electric Reliability Council (NERC) know about the Navy study. For their benefit and yours, here is a list of 29 electrical utilities the Navy expects to fail. Read over this list carefully. Some of the Navy facilities are quite small but the electric company that provides their service has a very large customer base. If your electrical company is included, you need to raise hell with them and find out if they know how the Navy feels about them.

Electrical Utilities Expected to Fail

Baldwin EMC, Milton FL

Bessemer Utilities, Bessemer AL

Central Louisiana Electric, Slidell LA

City of Albany GA

City of Key West FL

City Public Service Board, San Antonio TX

Clay Electric Cooperative, Jacksonville FL

Coastal Electric Members, Jacksonville FL

Daviess Martin County Rural Elect, Crane IN

Dayton Power & Light, Dayton OH

El Paso Electric Co., El Paso TX

Escambia River Elec Co., Milton FL, Pensacola FL

Florida Power and Light, Canaveral FL, Ft Lauderdale FL

Florida Power Corp, Clearwater FL

Gulf States Utilities, Orange City FL

JEA, Atlantic Beach FL, Jacksonville FL

Knoxville Utilities Board, Knoxville TN

Middle Georgia Elec, Hawkinsville GA

Mississippi Power and Light, Gulfport MS

Northeast Utilities, New London CT

Orlando Utilities Commission, Orlando FL

Port of Seattle WA

Riviera Utilities, Milton FL

Sierra Electric Cooperative, Truth or Conseq. NM

South Central Power, Columbus OH

Southern Pine Elec Coop, Milton FL

Southwest Arkansas Electric, Lewisville AR

Southwest Louisiana Electric, Broussard LA

Southwestern Public Services, Amarillo TX

Twin County Electric, Hollandale MS

Main article on the survey:

Secret Survey

-- Anonymous, August 19, 1999

I have been pondering this report -- not the details, just the circumstances -- and before I read this thread, I kept thinking, "Jim Lord is a straight shooter". I see I'm not the only one that thinks in those terms.

-- Anonymous, August 19, 1999

The report ("Impact on Military Readiness", page 5) highlights Mechanicsburg PA. Mechanicsburg is indeed the site of the Navy Ships Parts Control Center.

-- Anonymous, August 19, 1999

I was particularly interested in the San Diego area, as I lived there for years, and still have family there (and am there now vacationing... Legoland yesterday!). I found it interesting that San Diego proper wasn't listed, but Coronado, Fallbrook, Imperial Beach and National City were. I'm hoping that is GOOD NEWS for San Diego proper.. unless it just means that the Navy and Marine Corps looked very narrowly at very specific areas that supplied their needs. But what about Miramar Naval Air Station? No news is good news??? I hope.

-- Anonymous, August 19, 1999

Keep in mind that Jim Lord is a retired Naval Officer, with many contacts in that area. Navy guys stick together closer than any other branch, from what I have seen. (right, Nucpwr?) So, he certainly could get this information passed on to him. And he is taking a big risk in presenting this regardless. (right, Dan?) Lastly, any who followed his articles in the past, even on Westergaard, or had email exchanges with him (as I did a few times) can not help but feel he is a top quality, trustworthy, individual who is genuinely concerned about the many sides of reporting or hiding information about Y2k reports. He also was one of the first to spotlight the martial law scenario last November, but that would be off topic for this forum, however the article is available at:

www.y2ktimebomb.com/Tip/Lord/lord9846.htm

-- Anonymous, August 19, 1999

One thing I neglected to point out in my initial thread-- those utilities listed are only those facilities which are included in the Navy's list of "shore facilities". Therefore, judging from the description, anything inland or non-Naval isn't going to be included. (i.e. Don't breathe easy just because your utility isn't on the list.) Again: Any Navy or Marines people who have attended meetings or read official documents about this survey?

-- Anonymous, August 19, 1999

I can't get back into the site after a quick initial perusal, but readers should be aware that the lists of failures include water, gas, and sewage, not just electricity. And while there are three lists of "Partial Failure is Probable", "Partial Failure is Likely" and "Total failure is likely", this presents an inconsistency because "Probable" and "Likely" mean exactly the same thing, so why have two separate "Partial" lists?

Also, on the list of 44 cities where "total failure is likely", there are only two cities listed in the electricity column -- New London, Conn. and either Port Hadlock, WA or Port of Seattle, WA (because the x in the column falls between these two and you can't tell which one it's meant for).

In the list posted here of the partials and total failures, the first thing which struck me is that most fall into the Municipal or cooperative category of utilities, which comprise the areas even NERC stated were the most behind. If I remember correctly, their report stated that 43% of Municipals would finish after the July deadline, and some had not reported at all. From that standpoint, the list has a ring of possible validity to it, but I am bothered by the duplication of the "Likely" and "Probable" headings.

I'm also not sure why Gary North and others seem to be so astonished at this report. The Senate Y2K Committee, Mr. Koskinen, and even NERC have all admitted that "local" or "regional" failures are probable and will happen. What? Did people think they meant just one failure in Podunk, USA, with a population of 83? If this report is a valid one, it's certainly not surprising to me, it's what I would expect from federal statements already made. Maybe it's just having names that is so surprising? It's not real unless there's a name connected to "local" failures? Is that it?

When I'm able to access the report again, I'll be looking for any info on how the report was compiled, and any definitions of what "partial" failures might include. A partial failure does not necessarily specify an outage. There's a lot of unknown defining factors which are needed.

Even so, if you've been reading all the known-validity reports the last few months about water, sewage, and the status of cities, did you *really* expect anything different? Color me amazed if you did.

-- Anonymous, August 19, 1999

To answer Ann M.'s original question, I don't think there's going to be any way to verify the validity of the source information, to an absolute certainty, that Jim Lord has received. In a Y2K News interview this afternoon, he indicated that he is currently trying to do that - perhaps his Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) approach is appropriate; my guess is that we won't gain much from that angle. The government has been known to sit on FOIA requests for a loooonnngggg time (longer than we have between now and January 1st).

I've spent the better part of my morning reviewing the information that Jim posted. What follows is more of a caution for readers of the report, and by no means an attempt to negate the value or validity of the information. I have said, since the beginning of my involvement in Y2k, that it's very important to independently verify (or seek multiple sources for) any Y2k information that you read or hear. Look for alternate views of the same situation. Be careful prior to passing any judgements, and above all, be comfortable with whatever judgements you make. Therefore, my initial suggestion: let this one simmer for a day or two and see what kind of followup and response are forthcoming, particularly from the government.

All that being said, here's some thoughts that I jotted down. Please don't misinterpret my comments and questions as skepticism of the validity of the information or of Jim's motives in publishing. I'll take Jim's explanation at face value. I've broken bread over lunch and supper with Jim on a few occasions, and have spoken with him numerous times. I have no reason to doubt that he is sincerely convinced that the information he received is legitimate. With that in mind, here's my "off the top of my head" comments:

The paper is based on an 8 page spreadsheet that Jim received. The spreadsheet he received was a xerox of a xerox of a xerox. Jim said in his interview that there was more to the document than posted; he had not had time to include the other information yet. Because the document is only a spreadsheet, there obviously is no context to the spreadsheet - when was the information developed? How was it developed? Who developed the information? Having been involved in many technical studies in my lifetime, I can tell you that spreadsheets rarely stand on their own and usually need background explanation for contextual purposes.

I am very familiar with one of the gas utilities that is listed on the table, "Gas Companies Expected to Fail", because I have been involved in a Y2k analysis that encompasses this particular company. While I don't know why this particular company was listed, I can tell you that my own first hand independent analysis of the company's efforts was very positive. Here's a guess on my part: in the project I'm currently working on, if a company does not provide detailed Y2k information on request, we take the conservative approach and *assume* that the company is not ready. That may have been the case with the DOD analyst that put the spreadsheet together (again, assuming the spreadsheet is legit).

All I'm trying to say is tread carefully with this particular report. There are quite a few people scrambling at the moment to verify the validity of the information contained within (I have little doubt that the President's Y2k Council is hopping today!), myself included. Before you draw any solid conclusions, I would recommend that you sit back, breath, and wait a day or so and see how things develop.

The "Pentagon Papers of Y2K" is certainly a data point deserving of your consideration, but we've already seen a few Y2k hoaxes perpetrated. If this is a hoax, it would have to be on a pretty grand scale, and Jim Lord would certainly be an unwilling victim. Knowing Jim as I do (casually though it may be) I'm also sure that he feels very strongly that the information is legtimate.

Interesting times are coming...as the shadows grow longer and the days grow shorter, my guess is that this is not the last thing of this sort that we'll see.

-- Anonymous, August 19, 1999

Koskinen's explanation, compliments of Steve Davis, is cross-posted on the Yourdon forum.

-- Anonymous, August 19, 1999

Hot Link to Koskenin / Davis' response.

-- Anonymous, August 19, 1999

I am confused. Bessemer AL doesn't have a utilities company. They are serviced by Alabama Power. Bessemer Utilities is listed under the list of electrical utilities expected to fail. It doesn't exist. They have no naval base, or any military connection. Why would this town be listed? My husband doubts this report because of this info. Wetumpka also falls in this same catogory; no military connection.

-- Anonymous, August 19, 1999

Rick,

Thanks for providing the Koskenin/Davis link, however I would like to respectfully point out that John Koskenin has not officially responded to this issue. Steve Davis is not a spokeman for the U.S. Government.

-- Anonymous, August 19, 1999

Bill - I agree whole heartedly with you. I was simply posting a link referenced in the previous response. But, considering that Mr. Davis is *closely* connected with Koskenin, I think we can safely view his response a "trial balloon" - if it flies, his response (or a variation thereof) will be adopted as the government response. Kind of like the weather balloon at Roswell. ;-) (wink wink)

Nothing to see here, citizen. Move along. ;-)

-- Anonymous, August 19, 1999

Granny Camp,

I will try to explain why this report and its specifics does make a difference. Let's say there have been burglaries in a local community and everybody knows a bit about it, but nobody is sure just who is behind them. You go to a local town meeting and the Mayor starts talking about these burglaries and then without warning looks *you* in the eye, points his finger at you, and says "We have now identified the culprits, Granny Camp, and they are your own grandchildren." Now, this is an order of magnitude more exciting than just knowing that "someone" was causing trouble, wouldn't you say? ;-) Sure, I had some serious suspicions about my own providers, but neither NERC, the NRC, or the PUC would confirm that. I know you are our resident Detective Columbo and problably knew a whole lot about these individual locales, but I didn't. Perhaps this didn't surprise the "detective" but it sure did surprise me. And coming from the Navy!

-- Anonymous, August 19, 1999

Rick,

I think you are totally correct and on track with your comment on the Koskinen statement. Also, when you finished it with that reference to the Roswell balloon, I found myself ROTFLMAO! Good one. The (wink, wink) was especially accurate. I think that's what I saw in eye of Jesse Marsell (sp) in that famous picture of him with the debris. ;-l

-- Anonymous, August 19, 1999

Did I ever tell you I grew up in Roswell? (Seriously.)

Some people think that little factoid explains a lot.

-- Anonymous, August 19, 1999

Link to Washington Post article.

What an interesting day this has been.

-- Anonymous, August 19, 1999

Rick,

THanks for your prompt response. I appreciate your take on the situation. I've tried to access Jim Lord's site just now but can't get in. Get a eror message. Curious, eh?

BTW, my wife was raised in Carrizozo and White Oaks - not too far from Rosewell. Her maiden name was Queen and her dad and uncle operated gold mines. She is a little different also :)

-- Anonymous, August 19, 1999

Debbie, the City of Bessemer, Alabama's web site states that their electricity comes from the TVA (Tennesee Valley Authority), a federally operated utility.

http://www.bessemeral.com/government.htm

When I have more time, I'll look for any possible Navy connection. Sometimes there are small weapons depots that are barely noticed at all, or a communications tower, etc.

Gordon, you've made a good point about names versus generic knowledge. I agree that specifics are more "exciting". And of course they're more helpful, if they are factual. I just don't think being surprised by them is warranted for the reasons I cited above. I was referring more to the apparent initial "shocked" frenzy infecting some forum sites. For instance, Mr. North's "If It's Legitimate, Then I've Been a Polyanna." statement. Mr. North has predicted far, far worse than anything this list alludes to. Either he was hyping this document for all he's worth, or he's never really believed any of his own comments.

-- Anonymous, August 19, 1999

Bonnie,

You are correct in what you are saying. I guess that there are just a bunch of folks that have always been told that "where there's smoke, there's fire." Now, they see a little smoke and just can't resist jumping up and yelling *Fire, Fire, Fire.*

Rick,

From Roswell, huh? So, what do you know about fiber optics, lasers, and all those others things that Col. Philip Corso said the Army took out of that downed "balloon?" Presuming you can find a way to relate that stuff to Y2k and electric power, I'd love to hear about it!(G)

-- Anonymous, August 19, 1999

This Washington Post story seems to verify it:

http://search.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/WAPO/19990819/V000093-081999-i dx.html

Navy Predicts Widespread Y2K Failure

By Ted Bridis Associated Press Writer Thursday, August 19, 1999; 7:27 p.m. EDT

WASHINGTON (AP) -- A Navy report predicts ``probable'' or ``likely'' failures in electrical and water systems for many cities because of the Year 2000 technology problem -- an assessment more dire than any other made by the government.

President Clinton's top Y2K adviser, John Koskinen, called the Navy's conclusions overly cautious, saying they assumed that major utilities would fail unless proved otherwise.

The most recent version of the study, updated less than two weeks ago, predicted ``probable'' or ``likely'' partial failures in electric utilities that serve nearly 60 of roughly 400 Navy and Marine Corps facilities.

The study predicted ``likely'' partial electrical failures, for example, at facilities in Orlando, Fla.; Gulfport, Miss.; Fort Lauderdale, Fla.; and nine other small- to mid-size cities.

It also predicted ``probable'' partial water system failures in Dallas; Nashville, Tenn.; Houston; Baton Rouge, La.; Montgomery, Ala; Tulsa, Okla.; and 59 other cities.

The study forecast likely partial natural gas failures -- in the middle of winter -- in Albany, N.Y.; Fort Worth, Texas; Pensacola, Fla.; Charleston, S.C.; Columbus, Ohio; and Nashville.

The military report contrasts sharply with predictions from the White House, which weeks ago said in a report that national electrical failures are ``highly unlikely.'' The White House report also said disruptions in water service from the date rollover are ``increasingly unlikely.''

Koskinen, who vouched for the authenticity of the Navy report, noted that all its worst-case predictions for failures were marked as ``interim'' or ``partial'' assessments.

``It's not nearly as interesting as the world coming to an end,'' said Koskinen. ``The way they worked was, until you have information for contingency planning purposes, you ought to assume there was a problem.''

The Year 2000 problem occurs because some computer programs, especially older ones, might fail when the date changes to 2000. Because the programs were written to recognize only the last two digits of a year, such programs could read the digits ``00'' as 1900 instead of 2000, potentially causing problems with financial transactions, airline schedules and electrical grids.

The Navy report was first summarized on an Internet site run by Jim Lord, a Y2K author, who said he obtained it ``from a confidential source of the highest reliability and integrity.''

``The military has to work from the worst case, but so do we,'' Lord told The Associated Press on Thursday. ``It's reprehensible for them to know this and keep it from us.''

Koskinen said the Navy wasn't withholding information from anyone, noting that the continually updated report was available until recently on a Web site maintained by the Defense Department.

``The last people in the world the department is going to keep information from is their own people,'' Koskinen said. ``In fact, the whole purpose of the exercise is to make sure they can provide appropriate information to servicemen on their bases and their families.

The report was pulled off the Web site two weeks, Koskinen said.

Neither he nor Defense Department officials offered any reason why.

) Copyright 1999 The Associated Press

-- Anonymous, August 19, 1999

At the risk of beating a dead horse (or at least one that's on life support), here's some excellent commentary from Ed Yourdon (cross posted from TBY2K):

Like most of the people on this forum (and several other forums), I've read all of the postings about Jim Lord's "Pentagon Papers" with great interest and deep concern. A number of excellent points have already been made on this thread; here are a few of my own observations:

1. Credibility of the players: I've met Lord and Koskinen in person, and I know Steve Davis from numerous email exchanges over the past couple of years. I respect the intelligence, sincerity, and integrity of all them; whether they turn out to be right or wrong, I think they all truly believe what they're saying to us -- which is in stark contrast to what I see in the day-to-day business world, where the "rules" of competitive behavior rarely require anything more than a surface-level pretense of sincerity. Nevertheless, the "bottom line" for me is that I would only trust the safety of my family to someone that I've known long enough to have gone through one or more life-and-death crises, in order to have a true sense of how they react under such circumstances. In a few rare cases, that might happen in a new friendship; but in most cases, it only happens after I've known someone 5, 10, or 15 years. For better or worse, I have to say that I don't know Lord, Koskinen, Davis, or many of the other Y2K "notables" well enough to warrant quite that level of trust, which means that I always have to remind myself to take everything they say with a small grain of salt. For many people, discussions like this are great for cocktail parties, but have no relevance in the "real" world; for people who really do think Y2K could pose life-and-death threats, it goes beyond idle cocktail chitter-chatter. Thus, I think one of the questions some of us have to ask ourselves after reading Lord's material, or Koskinen's rebuttal, or any of the related commentaries, is: sounds good, but would I entrust the safety of my spouse and my kids to this person, based on this information?

2. Authenticity of the Navy document: when I first read Jim's material, I was worried about this. Now I'm not -- it appears that Mr. Koskinen has publicly acknowledged that the original document did exist, and was published on a quasi-public web site at some relatively recent point in time.

3. Accuracy and timeliness of the Navy document, as compared to other quasi-official statements about Y2K readiness: bottom line is that nobody knows. Unless and until a more recent document appears from the same naval group, I don't see how we can reject this one as anything less than the "best guess" of at least one group within the Navy. It does seem to contradict the statement issued by Navy brass to their own personnel, but I don't think that necessarily proves that either document is right or wrong.

4. Should it have been released publicly? Obviously, Lord feels the answer is "yes," and Koskinen implies that the answer is "no." I was intrigued to see that Steve Davis seems to have sided with Koskinen on this one. My reaction on this one is entirely selfish, personal, and emotional: if the government is suggesting that the "public" is not entitled to know certain preliminary drafts of the Y2K situation, then I have to assume that I'm going to be included as part of that amorphous "public." It's all very interesting argue, in an abstract and academic sense, about whether John Q. Public is smart enough, mature enough, responsible enough, and experienced enough to be able to handle scary information. But what about you? What about me? And what are the credentials of those who apparently feel they have the God-given right to make such decisions? As noted above, I respect the intelligence, sincerity, and integrity of Lord, Koskinen, and Davis -- but I don't think they're sufficiently smarter, wiser, and purer than me to decide how what information I should be allowed to see, and what I shouldn't be allowed to see. I understand the notion that there may be people roaming the streets with an IQ of 76 who might do harm to themselves if provided access to scary information about Y2K; and in theory, I understand the concern that if the general public was given raw, unadulterated access to Y2K information, they might stampede and head for the banks to withdraw their money. These are serious issues, and I enjoy having a serious intellectual discussion about them ... but when I realize that, by virtue of not being a member of the political elite, I would end up being thrown into the same heap as the IQ-76 folks and the bank-run lemmings, I get very nervous about the possibility that my life is being manipulated. (For whatever it's worth, I would be just as nervous if someone told me that I would be allowed to be a member of the political elite if I would just keep my mouth shut; I don't like the idea of pulling the strings that control another person's life either).

5. Why do we have to "prove" anything about Lord's document anyway? The American system of justice assume that someone (including an individual, corporation, or any other entity) is innocent until proven guilty; even OJ got the benefit of that assumption. On that basis, the private-sector organizations and the government agencies are "innocent" of Y2K bugs until proven guilty; and on that basis, we would have to "prove" that the allegations in Lord's document were accurate, beyond a shadow of a doubt, before we did anything about them. But I think that Y2K is a classic case of safety-critical "auditing" in which one reverses the assumption: we should assume that computer systems, embedded systems, and the organizations that depend upon those systems, to be guilty until proven innocent. Organizations like FAA give lip service to this concept when they tell us that they would never compromise the public's safety with their air-traffic control systems ... but unless every FAA employee put every member of his/her immediate family on a New Year's Eve flight (not just Jane Garvey, John Koskinen, and the born-again optimist Peter de Jager), I'm not sure I trust their sincerity. As a practical matter, I don't think we're going to see any serious Y2K laws or regulations based on this principle -- but it does govern a lot of my thinking. Thus, for me the burden of proof is not on Jim Lord and his supporters to prove that their document is "right," but rather on the Y2K optimists to prove it's wrong. The notion that Mr. Koskinen's "Community Conversations" is providing such proof is laughable: these events have involved nothing more than public officials in some two dozen cities lecturing to an audience of a couple hundred people about why it's a bad idea for them to take their money out of the bank.

Ed

-- Ed Yourdon (HumptyDumptyY2K@yourdon.com), August 19, 1999.

-- Anonymous, August 19, 1999

For those looking to gain access to Jim Lord's site on this issue, you can find it at

http://209.26.202.182/

Found that on Larry Sanger's page.

-- Anonymous, August 19, 1999

Bonnie,

I believe you have followed the Y2K utility situation for a good long time now. I have done so for just a short while compared to you and others.

When I come across this or other revelations like it I still have to pinch myself and say "dang, is this for real". I still have to make the effort to stay focused that the potential for big problems is real.

So, as a relative novice at following the fluid development of Y2K, yes I do get shocked at times.

Also, additional material to take to friends and neighbors doesn't hurt. Good material facts providing a message of proof that a problem "may" occur has helped me in convincing a few to do some preparations and I am hoping that I can convince my immediate neighbors the same. {and yes, Mr. North, I may be killed by my neighbors who want my firewood, solar powered radio and candles because they didn't prepare but I ain't runnin, there are worse things than dying}

I agree with your comment regarding Mr. North. The report seems a bit tame compared to some of his predictions. But hey, I like his commentary and information he digs up and I hope he endures to the end and doesn't quit. And I hope he doesn't end up in the Betty Ford Center for the Y2K Obsessed.

COME ON FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT......... prove the Navy wrong. Please!

-- Anonymous, August 20, 1999

Norm, you're absolutely right. I've been involved in this issue for so long and seen so few newcomers to it in recent months, that I tended toward the assumption that there just weren't any newcomers out there at all. (Guess that gives everybody a clue about how successful I think Y2K issue awareness has been in this country..)

Thanks for posting and reminding me what it was like to come across information back in my early exploratory days. The jadedness creeps up on you over time. Since early last year I've spent hundreds of dollars on paper and printing copies of articles and reports. And my town government, neighbors, and extended family are still in the same "Y2K? Huh? Shrug." position they were at the beginning of last year, except for a very few individuals. But it's too easy to forget that those few individuals really matter and if risk awareness is only accomplished one person at a time, then that's important, too. As you indicated, it will count for them, even if the vast majority seems to dismiss any risks the same way they brush away a fly buzzing around their head.

-- Anonymous, August 20, 1999

Wow, this has been interesting to watch as it plays out. Here's my 2 cents. You could see the validity and public nature of the reports from the initial "Czar" reponses. Taking only the cynical aspect of how can a PR department deal with this in light of the recent NERC report. 1) They can't claim its a fake. Evidently if they did so, they were enough credible people who could vouch for the report that they would have been caught red handed in a lie. 2) They can't ridicule the study. If it were from other than the military they could claim the study had ulterior motives (it's those consultant's looking to get rich again) or claim the study was seriuosly flawed. But I don't think even a "Czar" is ready to call the Navy a bunch of imbiciles. What are you left with, 1) the study is outdated; that's a tough row to hoe as a) the spreadsheet's dated June, b) the Navy was giving an all clear to its personnel as recently as February. 2) You gentle reader, did not understand what you read. This seems to be the main thrust of Koskinen. It's not your fault but you did not know that probable failure means "3" and "3" means unlikely failure. Like it or not this assesment is significant, there are now two interpretations of the state of the grid from two highly reputable sources. What your left with is who do you believe, NERC or the Navy. It's very bad news but I'll feel a little less foolish swinging by the food Co-op tommorow.

-- Anonymous, August 20, 1999

One more thing to take into consideration on this report is that some of the cities or towns they list are very near much larger cities. For example they list the Millington Tennessee Naval Base at Millington with a very small population. It is so near Memphis, TN that you hardly know when you leave one for the other.

-- Anonymous, August 21, 1999