Why would so many countries be at risk of power disruptions through not addressing Y2K soon enough, and yet somehow the US has an electricity system that according to the NERC was never at serious risk due to Y2K non compliances.

I know this question has been asked several times, but I've never seen a satisfactory answer. Maybe one of the engineers on the forum can tell us what's so different about the electricity systems in, say, Eastern Europe, that makes them more likely to break down due to Y2K than the US systems?

FactFinder, CL, Dan, The Engineer - you've all been fairly consistent in your claims that the Y2K problems in the US electricity industry could never have caused widescale, longish-term blackouts. And the NERC has backed you up. Malcolm, you've been very frank about the problems in New Zealand and you seem to share the confidence of the anonymous engineers. Can any of you tell me why Russia, or Romania, or Bulgaria, India, Italy, Greece, Bolivia, Peru, Venezuela - are more vulnerable to Y2K problems in the electricity sector than the US? Is there something special about their systems? Do they use a different brand or version of embedded chips?

-- Anonymous, October 14, 1999

Answers

Amen, I was thinking the same thing after reading Sunday's article in the Washington Post about Paraguay :

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/business/longterm/

excerpts: "It will not be possible for us to fix everything before January," said Schafer, a former computer magazine publisher who was tapped three weeks ago to replace the disbanded commission. "We need to prepare for problems throughout the country - with the telephones, electricity, water and other services our government provides." ... Inside one of Citibank's buildings in Asuncion, workers are installing a room-sized cistern that can hold enough water to keep sinks running and toilets flushing for two weeks. The firm's branch offices are being equipped with cellular and satellite phones as well as electrical generators, which will be refueled by a fleet of oil trucks hired by the bank. ...

Could the difference be related primarily to the "distribution system", I think I may recall reading that while the "generation" might have got by without any remediation, the distribution area may have had serious problems due to SCADA and DCS issues???

-- Anonymous, October 14, 1999

Please I'd really like an answer from some of the more technical types. I live very close to Eastern Europe. It bothers me that people in those countries should be unnecessarily worried if that is the case.

I know this forum is US focused and that many people will have dropped out of this aspect of the Y2K discussion since the latest NERC information, but I hope some remember this is a global problem. There is expertise and knowledge here that could throw light on how we are to understand the fuss about 'the guys across the road'.

I'm beginning to wonder if there really is some kind of political game going on.

-- Anonymous, October 15, 1999

Chris,

I'm not sure that there are major problems in any of the countries that you have mentioned, but then again I would not be so bold as to say that there aren't any problems either. One of my main reasons for joining this forum was to find out how the electricity industry in other countries is handling the Y2K issue, but so far there are only conflicting reports which are usually second hand, and do not actually originate from within the industry.

A very good example of the poor standard of these claims is occuring right now here in New Zealand. Every night on TV there are ads warning people to prepare for Y2K. The precautions being advised are sensible ideas that most people would follow anyway, but part of the reason for the preparation is because the POWER COULD GO OUT FOR UP TO 3 DAYS. I have tried to find the source for this claim, but without any success. It appears to have been a statement made off the cuff by a PR person associated with an advertising firm who deals with one of our electricity retail companies. But I have been unable to find anyone in any production, transmission or distribution role who agrees with the claim.

Is it possible that similar sentiments are being expressed in many other countries simply because someone in authority thinks "USA is having problems, non-technical New Zealand is having problems, so we must be in trouble too."

However as I have already stated, it is possible that there are major issues in some of these countries. And there may be many reasons other than direct Y2K issues involved. Issues such as: Have they considered various contingency plans; Do they have sufficient reserve capacity; Have they stockpiled fuel;

In other words it may be that a different management structure is a bigger threat than any actual computer code.

Malcolm

-- Anonymous, October 15, 1999

Hi Chris. I've been pondering your questions....perhaps the best answer I can give relates to your first comment, that the NERC says that the US electric system was never at risk. Back in 1997, when little or no Y2k testing had been performed, there was considerable fear that the US system was at risk. Why? Because we simply had not performed enough tests to determine the risk of Y2k. Now that many tests here have been performed, there is much more confidence, because the devices tested were found to pass Y2k tests.

I think the same applies to the foreign (non-US) situation today. Because there is little information available, many folks are worried that there could be Y2k problems. And I don't have enough experience to say otherwise.

I recently presented Y2k information to a delegation from an Eastern European country; they apparently use a lot of the same kinds of equipment that we do (e.g. Siemens and ABB equipment is widely used in the US, yet are European-based companies). Also, they seemed to feel relatively confident that they would get through the rollover ok. Does this mean your area will do fine? Unfortunately, without more specific data, we cannot be sure. Perhaps you could find out more about the power system in your area (whether you are connected to the European grid), and the status of the electric company that serves you. Best of Luck to you, Chris.

-- Anonymous, October 17, 1999

Examine the language.

Y2K hype gets dismemebered by strong technical findings (i.e., that most embedded systems problems are minor)....

Y2K hype? There is no Y2K hype. Warren Beatty's campaign for president gets more coverage than Y2K. Most people have dismissed Y2K problems without one moment's thought. Why? Because sneering mockers have spent more time attacking Y2K Alarmists than they have spent trying to determine if, and to what extent, there are problems.

"Most"? "Minor"? What's "most"? 99% or 51% What's "minor"? How many simultaneous "minor" problems are required to create a "major" problem? Is an engineer's definition of "minor" the same as a human being's definition of minor? Etc.....

-- Anonymous, October 18, 1999

Thanks everybody for taking the time to try to answer.

As far as my own country and its neighbours go (Scandinavia), I haven't heard anything to suggest that their problems are any different than those in the US. Although we don't have anything like the online openness that you have in the US, my impression from the information I have been able to glean is that they do not think there is any chance of serious disruption to power supply. Like everywhere else, however, they are taking extra precautions. And so are the civil authorities (at least here in Denmark) just in case, and presumably so that they can provide an extra level of reassurance when public concern becomes aktuel.

My question relates primarily to the Senate/State Dept./intelligence community/Y2KCC/World Bank claims that eastern Europe, parts of Asia, and Africa can expect to experience power disruptions because they started too late and/or don't have the resources to fix the problem. My concern is with an anomaly in the information. We have the US power sector (through the NERC, for example) claiming that if Y2K were tomorrow, last week, or presumably a year ago, and nothing had been done to fix the problems, there still would never have been serious interruptions to power supply. I take this claim as a technical claim - a claim that the technical systems, the design, would never have caused serious problems. Nothing to do with management or contingency plans or how long Y2K has been worked on (apart from hindsight providing us with this wisdom).

So unless the poorer regions of the world are using different systems, different technical systems, then their readiness status for power supply must be the same vis-a-vis Y2K as it is for the US and the other best prepared countries. It is arguable, as FactFinder pointed out, that it is even better prepared if they are using older non-computerised systems (how's that?).

My apologies if I am expressing this too simplisticly, but I don't think we are any closer to solving this apparent anomaly in Y2K information than we were when Drew Parkhill first asked the question many months ago.

Thanks anyway for attempting to provide some clues. Maybe the picture will become clearer as the electricity sector in these 'at risk' countries gets their communication act together.

-- Anonymous, October 19, 1999

Chris,

As you have noticed, there is a big problem in getting accurate information. Secrecy, (even from NERC) stonewalling, and deception are the name of the game. Sure, we have some posters here from the utility sector that are saying "no problem" but is that the truth? Let me give you an example, and remember that our own government sources admit that there may be "local" outages, and local means state-wide.

My own electric utility is called Conectiv. They supply more than a million people here, from different type generators, including nuclear. They are also an important component for our grid stability. As of right now, their web page is not very encouraging. (www.conectiv.com) They say that they have more than 1,000 systems to check/remediate, *but* only 21 of those are mission critical. Can you believe that? Only 21 out of over 1,000 are truly mission critical? Gee, well then, no problem, right? Just fix those 21 systems and away we go. Unfortunately, they haven't got those 21 fixed yet, and as of August, they say they were 97% done. So, they can't be truly ready, can they? They can't have done integrated tested on even those 21 systems. They also said they will be done "well ahead of January 1, 2000." Well ahead? Not done in August, 4 months to go, so just what is "well ahead?" This is the sort of double talk we get all over the place. The happy face posters say not to worry, but the dirty details say otherwise. Personally, I think you should be prepared for power outages, how long and how serious is anyone's guess.

-- Anonymous, October 20, 1999

Chris,

You have posed an excellent logical question. If there were never problems in the U.S. electricity industry that needed to be remediated in order for U.S. power grids to function properly in 2000, then why do supposedly knowledgeable agencies believe that there are likely to be serious problems with electricity in many other countries?

It seems to me there are four logical possibilities:

1) There never were significant problems in the U.S. electrical system; foreign systems are significantly similar so they will not have significant problems either. The agencies predicting problems are misinformed.

2) There are significant differences between the equipment, software, control systems, etc. used in the U.S. versus that used in the 'suspect' countries.

3) There were, in fact, significant problems in the U.S. electric industry that needed to be remediated. That remediation work has been almost completely done and will be completed by year end. Most foreign countries began their Y2K remediation work later than the U.S. so they may run out of time before proper remediation can be completed.

4) It is possible that there will, in fact, be significant problems with electricity in the U.S. and that foreign countries will experience similar or more severe problems.

In trying to assess the relative likelihood of each of the above logical possibilities, I think we can probably dismiss number two simply because no one has identified significant equipment differences although Factfinder has pointed out that foreign countries' electrical industry infrastructure may be less vulnerable than that of the U.S. because the U.S. has newer equipment.

I personally find it very difficult to believe that there were never any significant problems in the U.S. electrical industry and that all would have been well without any remediation work, so I do not think that the likelihood of possibility one is very high.

According to information filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, electric utilities in the United States will have spent close to two billion U.S. dollars on Y2K programs. Was all this merely for inventorying and testing? I think it's alot more likely that a substantial portion of these funds was spent to fix or upgrade equipment and systems. In September, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission published a list of thirty five U.S. nuclear plants that were not Y2k 'ready'. Accompanying this list was a lengthy list of different types of equipment and systems that needed to be upgraded or replaced in order for most of these plants to achieve 'ready' status. What would the effect have been had these items not been upgraded? I don't know, but it has been asserted on this forum that nuclear power plants were less vulnerable to Y2K disruption than conventional power plants because they were built before digital devices were available and prevalent. If so much equipment had to be remediated at nuclear plants which were not supposed to be as Y2K vulnerable, then I have to assume that at least as much, if not more equipment, had to be fixed at conventional U.S. power plants.

And speaking of conventional power plants, what about the Hawaiian Electric Co. power plant that, according to its operators, would have shut down had the Y2K rollover occurred with its 1996 systems in place? Was this an anomaly or was it typical of the problems facing at least some other conventional U.S. electric power plants?

I want to state for the record that I very much appreciate the contributions that Factfinder, Dan and the other engineers have made to this forum. I believe that their contributions have been made in good faith and that they personally have not come across equipment or systems that, unremediated, would have caused serious problems at the facilities with which they are familiar. However, I think it is important to keep in mind that there are other electrical industry insiders who have as much or more technical knowledge and expertise as they do, who are saying that Y2K related problems may indeed cause power outages in the U.S. I am specifically thinking of Cameron Daley, chief executive officer of Tava-Beck, a firm which has done approximately one hundred Y2K audits of American electric utilities. Mr. Daley was quoted by Bloomberg, and these comments were confirmed by Drew Parkhill, that Daley (in July, 1999) stated that there "will be outages that could last for up to three weeks." He went on to explain that some of the utilities his firm had audited had relied on vendor Y2K compliance statements rather than actually testing certain equipment and systems, and that some of these items were, in fact, not Y2K compliant and could have led to the loss of electrical generation capacity. Rick Cowles, who knows a thing or two about the electric industry has written that he believes that local and regional outages remain a possibility. (Rick, if this is no longer reflective of your current thinking, please correct me!)

I come to the personal conclusion that possibilities three or four are much more likely to be true than possibilities one or two. I'm convinced that there is a good likelihood that there were some serious Y2K problems within the American electric utility industry. Have they all been properly remediated? Probably not. Have enough of them been remediated to avoid serious regional outages? Hopefully, but who really knows? I keep coming back to Bonnie Camp's advice that preparation for Y2K is a "no-brainer". From a risk to reward standpoint, it's far better to be adequately prepared and have nothing drastic happen than to be caught unprepared in the event that some of the more pessimistic plausible possibilities really do occur.

-- Anonymous, October 20, 1999

Chris,

You have posed an excellent logical question. If there were never problems in the U.S. electricity industry that needed to be remediated in order for U.S. power grids to function properly in 2000, then why do supposedly knowledgeable agencies believe that there are likely to be serious problems with electricity in many other countries?

It seems to me there are four logical possibilities:

1) There never were significant problems in the U.S. electrical system; foreign systems are significantly similar so they will not have significant problems either. The agencies predicting problems are misinformed.

2) There are significant differences between the equipment, software, control systems, etc. used in the U.S. versus that used in the 'suspect' countries.

3) There were, in fact, significant problems in the U.S. electric industry that needed to be remediated. That remediation work has been almost completely done and will be completed by year end. Most foreign countries began their Y2K remediation work later than the U.S. so they may run out of time before proper remediation can be completed.

4) It is possible that there will, in fact, be significant problems with electricity in the U.S. and that foreign countries will experience similar or more severe problems.

In trying to assess the relative likelihood of each of the above logical possibilities, I think we can probably dismiss number two simply because no one has identified significant equipment differences although Factfinder has pointed out that foreign countries' electrical industry infrastructure may be less vulnerable than that of the U.S. because the U.S. has newer equipment.

I personally find it very difficult to believe that there were never any significant problems in the U.S. electrical industry and that all would have been well without any remediation work, so I do not think that the likelihood of possibility one is very high.

According to information filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, electric utilities in the United States will have spent close to two billion U.S. dollars on Y2K programs. Was all this merely for inventorying and testing? I think it's alot more likely that a substantial portion of these funds was spent to fix or upgrade equipment and systems. In September, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission published a list of thirty five U.S. nuclear plants that were not Y2k 'ready'. Accompanying this list was a lengthy list of different types of equipment and systems that needed to be upgraded or replaced in order for most of these plants to achieve 'ready' status. What would the effect have been had these items not been upgraded? I don't know, but it has been asserted on this forum that nuclear power plants were less vulnerable to Y2K disruption than conventional power plants because they were built before digital devices were available and prevalent. If so much equipment had to be remediated at nuclear plants which were not supposed to be as Y2K vulnerable, then I have to assume that at least as much, if not more equipment, had to be fixed at conventional U.S. power plants.

And speaking of conventional power plants, what about the Hawaiian Electric Co. power plant that, according to its operators, would have shut down had the Y2K rollover occurred with its 1996 systems in place? Was this an anomaly or was it typical of the problems facing at least some other conventional U.S. electric power plants?

I want to state for the record that I very much appreciate the contributions that Factfinder, Dan and the other engineers have made to this forum. I believe that their contributions have been made in good faith and that they personally have not come across equipment or systems that, unremediated, would have caused serious problems at the facilities with which they are familiar. However, I think it is important to keep in mind that there are other electrical industry insiders who have as much or more technical knowledge and expertise as they do, who are saying that Y2K related problems may indeed cause power outages in the U.S. I am specifically thinking of Cameron Daley, chief executive officer of Tava-Beck, a firm which has done approximately one hundred Y2K audits of American electric utilities. Mr. Daley was quoted by Bloomberg, and these comments were confirmed by Drew Parkhill, that Daley (in July, 1999) stated that there "will be outages that could last for up to three weeks." He went on to explain that some of the utilities his firm had audited had relied on vendor Y2K compliance statements rather than actually testing certain equipment and systems, and that some of these items were, in fact, not Y2K compliant and could have led to the loss of electrical generation capacity. Rick Cowles, who knows a thing or two about the electric industry has written that he believes that local and regional outages remain a possibility. (Rick, if this is no longer reflective of your current thinking, please correct me!)

I come to the personal conclusion that possibilities three or four are much more likely to be true than possibilities one or two. I'm convinced that there is a good likelihood that there were some serious Y2K problems within the American electric utility industry. Have they all been properly remediated? Probably not. Have enough of them been remediated to avoid serious regional outages? Hopefully, but who really knows? I keep coming back to Bonnie Camp's advice that preparation for Y2K is a "no-brainer". From a risk to reward standpoint, it's far better to be adequately prepared and have nothing drastic happen than to be caught unprepared in the event that some of the more pessimistic plausible possibilities really do occur.

-- Anonymous, October 20, 1999

Chris,

You have posed an excellent logical question. If there were never problems in the U.S. electricity industry that needed to be remediated in order for U.S. power grids to function properly in 2000, then why do supposedly knowledgeable agencies believe that there are likely to be serious problems with electricity in many other countries?

It seems to me there are four logical possibilities:

1) There never were significant problems in the U.S. electrical system; foreign systems are significantly similar so they will not have significant problems either. The agencies predicting problems are misinformed.

2) There are significant differences between the equipment, software, control systems, etc. used in the U.S. versus that used in the 'suspect' countries.

3) There were, in fact, significant problems in the U.S. electric industry that needed to be remediated. That remediation work has been almost completely done and will be completed by year end. Most foreign countries began their Y2K remediation work later than the U.S. so they may run out of time before proper remediation can be completed.

4) It is possible that there will, in fact, be significant problems with electricity in the U.S. and that foreign countries will experience similar or more severe problems.

In trying to assess the relative likelihood of each of the above logical possibilities, I think we can probably dismiss number two simply because no one has identified significant equipment differences although Factfinder has pointed out that foreign countries' electrical industry infrastructure may be less vulnerable than that of the U.S. because the U.S. has newer equipment.

I personally find it very difficult to believe that there were never any significant problems in the U.S. electrical industry and that all would have been well without any remediation work, so I do not think that the likelihood of possibility one is very high.

According to information filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, electric utilities in the United States will have spent close to two billion U.S. dollars on Y2K programs. Was all this merely for inventorying and testing? I think it's alot more likely that a substantial portion of these funds was spent to fix or upgrade equipment and systems. In September, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission published a list of thirty five U.S. nuclear plants that were not Y2k 'ready'. Accompanying this list was a lengthy list of different types of equipment and systems that needed to be upgraded or replaced in order for most of these plants to achieve 'ready' status. What would the effect have been had these items not been upgraded? I don't know, but it has been asserted on this forum that nuclear power plants were less vulnerable to Y2K disruption than conventional power plants because they were built before digital devices were available and prevalent. If so much equipment had to be remediated at nuclear plants which were not supposed to be as Y2K vulnerable, then I have to assume that at least as much, if not more equipment, had to be fixed at conventional U.S. power plants.

And speaking of conventional power plants, what about the Hawaiian Electric Co. power plant that, according to its operators, would have shut down had the Y2K rollover occurred with its 1996 systems in place? Was this an anomaly or was it typical of the problems facing at least some other conventional U.S. electric power plants?

I want to state for the record that I very much appreciate the contributions that Factfinder, Dan and the other engineers have made to this forum. I believe that their contributions have been made in good faith and that they personally have not come across equipment or systems that, unremediated, would have caused serious problems at the facilities with which they are familiar. However, I think it is important to keep in mind that there are other electrical industry insiders who have as much or more technical knowledge and expertise as they do, who are saying that Y2K related problems may indeed cause power outages in the U.S. I am specifically thinking of Cameron Daley, chief executive officer of Tava-Beck, a firm which has done approximately one hundred Y2K audits of American electric utilities. Mr. Daley was quoted by Bloomberg, and these comments were confirmed by Drew Parkhill, that Daley (in July, 1999) stated that there "will be outages that could last for up to three weeks." He went on to explain that some of the utilities his firm had audited had relied on vendor Y2K compliance statements rather than actually testing certain equipment and systems, and that some of these items were, in fact, not Y2K compliant and could have led to the loss of electrical generation capacity. Rick Cowles, who knows a thing or two about the electric industry has written that he believes that local and regional outages remain a possibility. (Rick, if this is no longer reflective of your current thinking, please correct me!)

I come to the personal conclusion that possibilities three or four are much more likely to be true than possibilities one or two. I'm convinced that there is a good likelihood that there were some serious Y2K problems within the American electric utility industry. Have they all been properly remediated? Probably not. Have enough of them been remediated to avoid serious regional outages? Hopefully, but who really knows? I keep coming back to Bonnie Camp's advice that preparation for Y2K is a "no-brainer". From a risk to reward standpoint, it's far better to be adequately prepared and have nothing drastic happen than to be caught unprepared in the event that some of the more pessimistic plausible possibilities really do occur.

-- Anonymous, October 20, 1999

Chris,

You have posed an excellent logical question. If there were never problems in the U.S. electricity industry that needed to be remediated in order for U.S. power grids to function properly in 2000, then why do supposedly knowledgeable agencies believe that there are likely to be serious problems with electricity in many other countries?

It seems to me there are four logical possibilities:

1) There never were significant problems in the U.S. electrical system; foreign systems are significantly similar so they will not have significant problems either. The agencies predicting problems are misinformed.

2) There are significant differences between the equipment, software, control systems, etc. used in the U.S. versus that used in the 'suspect' countries.

3) There were, in fact, significant problems in the U.S. electric industry that needed to be remediated. That remediation work has been almost completely done and will be completed by year end. Most foreign countries began their Y2K remediation work later than the U.S. so they may run out of time before proper remediation can be completed.

4) It is possible that there will, in fact, be significant problems with electricity in the U.S. and that foreign countries will experience similar or more severe problems.

In trying to assess the relative likelihood of each of the above logical possibilities, I think we can probably dismiss number two simply because no one has identified significant equipment differences although Factfinder has pointed out that foreign countries' electrical industry infrastructure may be less vulnerable than that of the U.S. because the U.S. has newer equipment.

I personally find it very difficult to believe that there were never any significant problems in the U.S. electrical industry and that all would have been well without any remediation work, so I do not think that the likelihood of possibility one is very high.

According to information filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, electric utilities in the United States will have spent close to two billion U.S. dollars on Y2K programs. Was all this merely for inventorying and testing? I think it's alot more likely that a substantial portion of these funds was spent to fix or upgrade equipment and systems. In September, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission published a list of thirty five U.S. nuclear plants that were not Y2k 'ready'. Accompanying this list was a lengthy list of different types of equipment and systems that needed to be upgraded or replaced in order for most of these plants to achieve 'ready' status. What would the effect have been had these items not been upgraded? I don't know, but it has been asserted on this forum that nuclear power plants were less vulnerable to Y2K disruption than conventional power plants because they were built before digital devices were available and prevalent. If so much equipment had to be remediated at nuclear plants which were not supposed to be as Y2K vulnerable, then I have to assume that at least as much, if not more equipment, had to be fixed at conventional U.S. power plants.

And speaking of conventional power plants, what about the Hawaiian Electric Co. power plant that, according to its operators, would have shut down had the Y2K rollover occurred with its 1996 systems in place? Was this an anomaly or was it typical of the problems facing at least some other conventional U.S. electric power plants?

I want to state for the record that I very much appreciate the contributions that Factfinder, Dan and the other engineers have made to this forum. I believe that their contributions have been made in good faith and that they personally have not come across equipment or systems that, unremediated, would have caused serious problems at the facilities with which they are familiar. However, I think it is important to keep in mind that there are other electrical industry insiders who have as much or more technical knowledge and expertise as they do, who are saying that Y2K related problems may indeed cause power outages in the U.S. I am specifically thinking of Cameron Daley, chief executive officer of Tava-Beck, a firm which has done approximately one hundred Y2K audits of American electric utilities. Mr. Daley was quoted by Bloomberg, and these comments were confirmed by Drew Parkhill, that Daley (in July, 1999) stated that there "will be outages that could last for up to three weeks." He went on to explain that some of the utilities his firm had audited had relied on vendor Y2K compliance statements rather than actually testing certain equipment and systems, and that some of these items were, in fact, not Y2K compliant and could have led to the loss of electrical generation capacity. Rick Cowles, who knows a thing or two about the electric industry has written that he believes that local and regional outages remain a possibility. (Rick, if this is no longer reflective of your current thinking, please correct me!)

I come to the personal conclusion that possibilities three or four are much more likely to be true than possibilities one or two. I'm convinced that there is a good likelihood that there were some serious Y2K problems within the American electric utility industry. Have they all been properly remediated? Probably not. Have enough of them been remediated to avoid serious regional outages? Hopefully, but who really knows? I keep coming back to Bonnie Camp's advice that preparation for Y2K is a "no-brainer". From a risk to reward standpoint, it's far better to be adequately prepared and have nothing drastic happen than to be caught unprepared in the event that some of the more pessimistic plausible possibilities really do occur.

-- Anonymous, October 20, 1999

Sorry for the multiple submissions. I was not getting any indication that my post was being submitted so I tried to submit it repeatedly.

Chris,

There is one respect in which the U.S. electric industry differs drastically from the Eastern European electric industry. The U.S. does not rely at all on Gazprom as an energy supplier. From what I have read, Germany gets forty percent of its energy from Gazprom and the Eastern European countries are even more dependent on energy supplies from this Russian source. I do not know how many electrical generating plants in Eastern Europe burn natural gas from Gazprom to generate their electricity. If intelligence agencies are assuming that Gazprom will not be able to deliver gas next year because of insufficient Y2K remediation, this could help to explain the variation in prognostication regarding likely Y2K outcomes for the U.S. and Eastern European electric industries.

-- Anonymous, October 20, 1999

A Factual Correction of my previous post: The NRC issued its Nuclear Utility Industry Year 2000 Readiness Status Updated August 17, 1999. In this report 29 reactors were listed as having work remaining.

Also, Chris, if you really think that there are not going to be any problems in the U.S. electric industry I would suggest you read Rick Cowles' document "The Electric Industry and Y2K - Closing on Deadline". Rick wrote this document in August and he makes some excellent points about why hew believes that there are likely to be at least some "local" power outages in the U.S. as a result of Y2K.

-- Anonymous, October 20, 1999

Jeff,

Hint, for the future. When you hit the submit button and it shows the posting is "loaded" for the forum, just be patient. Sometimes, the "boss" is looking over the posting before he releases it to the thread. OK?

-- Anonymous, October 20, 1999

Examine the language.

I have examined the language of your post, Lane, and its yet another in a series of personal attacks. Why not stick to the Y2K issues? If you disagree with someone, fine, but why not provide your refuting technical evidence, and leave out the personal attacks? After all, your opinion notwithstanding, engineers ARE human.

Y2K hype? There is no Y2K hype. Lane Core Jr. This is a keeper quote, but if you wish to retract it, I would certainly understand :)

Regards,

-- Anonymous, October 20, 1999

Uhhhh Ohhhh,

Talk about attacks...... Lane, is your blood starting to boil?

-- Anonymous, October 21, 1999

Umm Gordon, playing the peacemaker again ;) You know, Chris Byrne asked a question here of me and some others,I tried to respectfully reply.

Regards,

-- Anonymous, October 21, 1999

FactFinder,

Yeah, I know, I know. Those of us who come to this forum a lot understand what's going on. Those who only drop in once in awhile are going to think we have a feud between the Hatfields and the McCoys. You two just don't see eye to eye on many things and you have a very outspoken way of saying so. =8^] I just wonder how much hair Rick has remaining now to pull out?

-- Anonymous, October 21, 1999