I spoke tonight with a local ham operator who will probably serve as our township's communicaions officer if things go down. He told me that he's been in touch with two employees of our large (7-9-million people served) electric company. According to an engineer who is working on Y2K for this company, the company won't be compliant. He also spoke with a lineman for the same co. with the same message. In another line, a neighbor is the Y2K guy for the local university's own water/electric plant. 5 years ago, he went to the U's board and requested money for Y2K repairs, and was turned down. Recently,(within the last year) he went back and told the board that Y2K would be a problem, and that he couldn't guarantee that the U would have power or water. (Large university--approx. 55,000 students and faculty). With the second meeting, he was overwhelmed with the good feelings and intentions of the board, but told them it was too late to hire the extra employees and buy new equipment. He would love to quit, but feels that he has an ethical obligation to stay in harness. Two questions: How much credibility do I give to the first scenario? And, does anyone else here have any "back door" stories which might shed some light on the true state of the electric utilities?

-- Anonymous, September 01, 1999

Answers

These statements are recurring everywhere. I personally DO think that most are accurate.

-- Anonymous, September 01, 1999

Ann, I've already contributed on another thread that I've gotten some "We're not sure of anything" back door reports. The trouble with any report is that they can be completely true but at the same time may not indicate the conclusion someone hearing them would come to.

For instance, "the company won't be compliant" sends shivers of worry through someone hearing that, but it isn't a great surprise on the face of it. No utility I know of is claiming or going to claim "compliancy". And while most are claiming "readiness" of mission critical systems, very very few indicate they plan to have the whole company "ready" (all systems). Not finishing a project does not automatically mean there will be severe problems, though. What it does indicate is a greater risk that there might be problems.

Statements like these are different than the university man's comments because doing nothing obviously presents the greatest risk of all. (By the way, this is pretty much the same story I hear from other colleges and also municipal power and water plants.) And since that man was Y2K aware five years ago, he has probably sent out vendor letters and perhaps does know of specific problems. However, this may not be true of all places which have done nothing. If they haven't yet investigated, it could turn out there was nothing which needed remediation to begin with.

This is the catch 22 of all back door reports, and it's why I tend to both believe them and not take any implications for granted at the same time. In so many cases it does boil down to "We're not sure", which is about as honest as someone can be about the Y2K situation. The issue is levels of confidence and levels of risk.

Have you ever taken one of those polls where the answers are something like:

A. Very Confident B. Fairly Confident C. Not So Confident D. Not Confident At All

Early last year there was an article where a top-notch man who was in charge of a major banking interchange system described all they had done to get ready for Y2K. They'd begun very early (1994, I think), they'd checked everything they could think of including the building systems, and they had arranged three (3) backups for electrical power besides their original provider. Yet this man still said that he was concerned they had not "gotten" everything, just because in his experience there's almost always something you miss, plus there were things outside of his control which could impact the situation. He would have checked off "Very Confident" but if there had been a "Sure" answer, he would never have checked that.

I would personally check off "Very Confident" that the "true state of the electric utilities", as you put it, is a mix of checkmarks among the four answers above. How this will actually play out in 2000 I don't think we'll know until we get there. Risk management, contingency plans, and preparation are wise exactly because the Y2K issue doesn't have a "Sure" category of answer. Utilities know this, oil companies know this, manufacturing companies know this and the government knows this. I just wish more individuals knew.

-- Anonymous, September 01, 1999

Thanks very much, Bonnie. I'm so frustrated, probably like many others on the forum, with not knowing, but hoping anyway that somehow the biggest magic bullet of all time would swoop down, zap its way through every glitch, and allow me to know for certain that my lifestyle won't have to change. In the meantime, the canner stays on the stove, and we'll keep read farming articles and keep milking the goats! ;)

-- Anonymous, September 01, 1999

Ann, if ignorance is bliss then I guess awareness is frustration -- and you're right, most of us are frustrated. *smile and a sigh*

One of my sons in Kansas has a small herd of goats. One of the cutest things I've ever seen is baby goats playing. There is no more appropriate thing to visually depict the word, "frolic" than the antics of young goats. If we get through the first months of next year without very serious problems, my family is going to witness a grandma frolicking and jumping for joy, too! The trick is going to be attempting that lightness of spirit if there are major problems -- but I'll give it my best shot anyway, even if it won't approach the carefree exhilaration of the other option. If things do happen to turn very sour, at least we won't be taken by surprise. And that's something positive we can hold on to despite the frustration, yes?

-- Anonymous, September 01, 1999

Bonnie,

That was one of the most wonderful depictions and statements about how a person thinks and feels about the coming months, and especially the first 3-4 months of Y2000. Very well said. Thanks for that commentary.

-- Anonymous, September 02, 1999