See Factfinder's earlier thread: BC Hydro Response to my query - Clarification of Findings. Factfinder was looking for clarification on a press release issued by BC Hydro, reading, in part:

"As of May 31, 1999, BC Hydro had successfully remediated 223 "high impact" devices across the province. High impact devices are those that could have impacted safety, the environment, or Hydro's ability to generate and deliver electricity to its customers."

My question there (Sept. 8th) has drawn no replies. If it's a question without substance, perhaps someone can point out my where I've gone astray.

I copy it here (abbreviated). Factfinder in italics, BC Hydro indented.

1. How are you using the term "high impact" devices - [...]?

Your first assumption is correct. "High impact" are devices that are "mission-critical" to generating and delivering electricity. If such a device fails, due to a Y2K problem or any other, it can affect electricity service to customers. A lower priority device, if it fails, may affect internal reporting, but will not affect electricity service to customers.

2. Can you give a number or estimate of how many of the 223 "high impact" devices had y2k bugs that were severe enough that a loss of power generation or distribution would have occurred?

None would have caused a generation or distribution interruption.

The reply "High impact" are devices that are "mission-critical" to generating and delivering electricity" appears to be contradicted in the reply immediately following, directly referring to the 223 remediated "mission-critical" devices: None would have caused a generation or distribution interruption.

Am I the only one to have noticed this? Have I misread the sense of the words?

-- Anonymous, September 11, 1999

Answers

Tom, It's like this, the lights will stay on. If they don't, and there is a major problem, none of these people giving these reassurances will be around anyway. Consider that all these folks are working for a living, making mortgage payments and keeping up with the Jone's. What else could they say? If I had a nice cushy 50k a year job, I certainly wouldn't be eager to jeopardize it. A certain amount of "go along with the program" is required to achieve any real status in corporate America. I take these kind of statements in the same viegn as I do the small print on TV commercials - useless.

-- Anonymous, September 11, 1999

Tom,

Although it appear that these two statements are contradictory, in fact they are not. The key word here is that in failing they would not have *caused* a generation or distribution interuption. However it is quite possible that if something unrelated *caused* an interruption, then the failure of an embedded system may make it harder to restore generation.

An example could be a failure of a MW control card within a unit controller. The generator will not trip off line, but will just sit at its last known setpoint. However if some external fault causes it to trip, then it may have a "start unavailable" condition untill the faulty card is reset. The card is a mission critical component, but it would not cause an interruption.

Note, I am not suggesting that these cards are date sensitive, or that they are prone to failure. I have just used this as an example of a component can be mission critical without being a prime cause of a failure.

Malcolm

-- Anonymous, September 11, 1999

Translating then,

"None [of the mission-critical devices remediated] "would have caused a generation or distribution interruption,"

but

"If such a device fails, due to a Y2K problem or any other, it can affect electricity service to customers."

Over the years Gerry Spence, in his fashion, has had some pungent things to say about the legal profession. In another era, this statement by BC Hydro would have been termed pettifoggery.

Octupus too release clouds of ink to conceal themselves.

-- Anonymous, September 11, 1999

Tom, I never saw this as a contradiction. 223 high impact devices (mission cricical). The failure "mode" due to the Y2K bugs was benign. My interpretation is that the devices failed date testing but that the failure "modes" were "benign", and would not have caused the devices to stop functioning.

As worded, it might also be interpreted that the 223 "high impact" devices had various serverities of failure modes, minor, moderate, and even severe enough to stop the device from functioning, but that these failures still would not have resulted in loss of power or transmission. I do not believe that this is correct, a "benign" failure (as BC Hydro described the faiure mode) wouldn't cause a device to fail.

Let me state that I can see how BC Hydro's response is a bit confusing, I rely on my knowledge of the types of y2k bugs found in the industry to interpret it.

I believe that BC Hydro would respond to anyones request for clarification if you still have questions concerning their response. In fact, I encourage it, since I don't want to be accused of "spin". My intent was to post exactly what they say, and prefer not to have to interpret it.

Regards,

-- Anonymous, September 11, 1999

From the BC Hydro web site late 1998

When will BC Hydro complete all its testing? Testing is absolutely pivotal to our Year 2000 preparations. Testing now makes up about 50 per cent of our Year 2000 activities, and the testing of critical devices will continue until June 1999, when we expect it to be completed. Testing of lower priority devices and systems will continue into 2000.

From BC Hydro web site 1999

* program code is not always accessible by BC Hydro users, thus making it difficult, if not impossible, to make changes in programming logic; * program logic is not fully documented, thus requiring BC Hydro owners to regard that component as a "black box"; * inputs/outputs for the system or device are often digital or analog signals and cannot be visually inspected or interpreted, while inputs and outputs from business systems can be inspected; * on-line systems testing may not be possible if the testing is likely to impact the production environment in any significant way (e.g. SCADA for the entire electricity grid); * a few systems may not allow the rollback of the clock after advancing the date in tests; * operation/control systems sometimes behave uniquely in each application, thus requiring testing of each physical occurrence of a device.

http://eww.bchydro.bc.ca/html/lib_news_2000_program

-- Anonymous, September 11, 1999

""* program code is not always accessible by BC Hydro users, thus making it difficult, if not impossible, to make changes in programming logic; * program logic is not fully documented, thus requiring BC Hydro owners to regard that component as a "black box"; * inputs/outputs for the system or device are often digital or analog signals and cannot be visually inspected or interpreted, while inputs and outputs from business systems can be inspected; * on-line systems testing may not be possible if the testing is likely to impact the production environment in any significant way (e.g. SCADA for the entire electricity grid); * a few systems may not allow the rollback of the clock after advancing the date in tests; * operation/control systems sometimes behave uniquely in each application, thus requiring testing of each physical occurrence of a device.""

Well - doesn't THAT tersely sum up the situation. ouch. \Hey-At least they're very honest... Which is alot more than we can say about many utilities...

But-WHO is communicating/broadcasting that information to all of the homes & businesses dependant upon same???? Hello??

And -Why do I have this depressing feeling that the above quotes are all too representative of many *crucial* utilities??

-- Anonymous, September 12, 1999

DB,

You know the progression. Denial, Anger, Bargaining, Depression, Acceptance. With just a tiny push forward you can be in Acceptance. And why not? You can't really do anything more, or change anything important, at this late date. As Cory likes to say: "Times Up!"

-- Anonymous, September 12, 1999