How many Doomers are not backing off the blackouts at midnight scenario?

greenspun.com : LUSENET : TimeBomb 2000 (Y2000) : One Thread

Ok, not too long ago, almost every Doomer that posted to any forum or newsgroup was completely convinced that the lights would go off at midnight. How many Doomers in this forum are still willing to back up this statement?

-- You Knowwho (debunk@doomeridiots.com), November 01, 1999

Answers

PLEASE DON'T FEED THE TROLLS.

-- Aunty (Troll@cam.paign), November 01, 1999.

Oh, stop it already will you? This is not interesting, and it's only meant to incite. Y2K is not about being right.

-- (dot@dot.dot), November 01, 1999.

I think it is interesting. I would like to know if there is still the belief that power will be out as a result of a Y2k glitch.

-- You Knowwho (debunk@doomeridiots.com), November 01, 1999.

Impossible to calculate, they won't "feed the trolls". I bet some of these people actually think that pollys are little green monsters that live under bridges,wringing their hands, eating mutton, laughing hysterically and tapping away at their Pentiums. It makes them feel like they don't have to answer you because you aren't even human.
It's almost laughable, if it wasn't so heartless. These will be the people who consider you a "target of opportunity" if you should be hungry and out on the streets looking for food.

-- (this@place.stinks), November 01, 1999.

I was never convinced of that. I do believe there will be, at a minimum, aggravating fluctuations in power that could be very costly in replaced home equipment. I also think it is plausible (not necessarily likely) that there will be blackouts this winter of a duration that would make trying to stay in a home in the frigid north life-threatening to my elderly parents. I'm not willing to bet their lives on the need to go to a shelter. Afterall, although Washington has announced that a *prolonged* *national* blackout is unlikely, Washington predicts local (meaning statewide) and regional (meaning multi-state) blackouts. Meanwhile, I have been using my wood stove a lot and enjoying it thoroughly.

-- Brooks (brooksbie@hotmail.com), November 01, 1999.

That's really sly, You Knowwho. You'll criticize people who -- like Sen. Bennett -- have somewhat "backed away" from the blackouts at midnight scenario, and you'll also criticize those who still think the scenario is likely by saying they're ignoring the latest evidence.
How about you yourself going on the record and telling us what you think is a likely scenario.

-- Who knows (debunking@troll.games), November 01, 1999.

THINK LOCAL, WACKO!!!!

-- wackos (are@duhbunkie.site), November 01, 1999.

Oh hell...will it make your day if stand up and say that there is a possibility that the lights may go off? Ok...I'll bite, but will you explain to me just why it's hard for you to imagine that the lights can go off? I mean do you think there is a ele ricity god somewhere that will keep the lights on no matter what?
I don't have a crystal ball that works....and I'm sure you don't either. Why don't you save yourself some trouble and go get a few cans of beans and a bottle of water. Idle hands are the devil's toys, if you're shopping you aren't harassing us.

-- Mabel Dodge (cynical@me.net), November 01, 1999.

I beg to differ. I think the validity of the argument now is as important as ever. If one is going to go onto a national forum and state that the lights will be out at a certain time one should be open to defense of their statements. If they come true fine, if not, they should be willing to take the consequences. That is the way it is in a free society.

-- jb smith (Joebobsmith@yahoo.com), November 01, 1999.

SUPPORT WHIRLED PEAS

-- snooze button (alarmclock_2000@yahoo.com), November 01, 1999.

Good Grief, you Trolls are boring...
Be a good Troll, run along and take the test to keep busy.

Link

-- John (LOL@NotReal.ca), November 01, 1999.

I'm not going to comment on other's viewpoints when I solicit them. I will let their comments speak for themselves. I just wanted to guage the latest opinion in here.
As for myself, I don't think we will even know that a critical computer boundary has been crossed when it happens at midnight on 1/1/2000. The only stories that will be found will be the ones that people seek out the next day on the Internet. And most may be silly stories of date goofs resulting in mailings of incorrect letters to people referencing the year 1900 or a small insurance shop in Grand Rapids whose magnetic door locks wouldn't let their employees in with their badges until the system was overridden.
We are more likely to hear about a Doomsday cult that has committed mass suicide on January 1, 2000 than about a serious computer glitch.

-- You Knowwho (debunk@doomeridiots.com), November 01, 1999.

It does not matter to me whether the lights go out or if the lights stay on, I am prepared for both scenarios.

-- bardou (bardou@baloney.com), November 01, 1999.

Uh, 3?

-- br14 (br14@bout.done), November 01, 1999.

The Grid is on GMT so if the light go out, it'll be 6:00PM EST.
-TECH32-

-- TECH32 (TECH32@NOMAIL.COM), November 01, 1999.

TECH32
6:00pm??? Sure it isn't 7:00pm EST???
Thanks! Deano

-- Deano (deano@luvthebeach.com), November 01, 1999.

First, I think the power systems run on UTC now anyway, so that translates to 7 p.m., EST.
Second, I don't think power WILL go down, I think it MAY go down.
There may also be spikes and surges (for WHATEVER reason...) that evening. So, as a safety precaution (I value my electronic equipment), we'll be "off the grid" from 5 p.m. CST through about 1-2 a.m. 1/1/00.
We'll also be watching satellite TV, and drinking a toast to the year '000'. (The new millennium starts in 2001. I think we'll do something "special" NEXT Dec 31st...)

-- Dennis (djolson@pressenter.com), November 01, 1999.

"I think it is interesting. I would like to know if there is still the belief that power will be out as a result of a Y2k glitch."
You are way behind the curve there. All of the experts agree that there is a significant chance of outages in various places.
The REALLY SCARY part of y2k is that some people wont be prepared for any sort of failures and may take unnecessary chances with candles and such.

-- snooze button (alarmclock_2000@yahoo.com), November 01, 1999.

http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=001Rwk
http://www.senate.gov/~y2k/documents/100dayrpt/
This is from the Executive Summary:
[snip]
UTILITIES A prolonged, nationwide blackout will almost certainly not occur; that is, the power grid will work. However, local and regional outages remain a distinct possibility depending upon the readiness of the 3,000 utilities serving any given area. Further clouding accurate assessment, only 25% of electric utilities routinely disclose Y2K information to the public, making it difficult for individuals and organizations to get detailed information on "their" utilities. While bulk power producers, including nuclear facilities, are generally well prepared, they still must develop comprehensive contingency plans to prepare for unexpected problems.
[snip]

-- Linkmeister (link@librarian.edu), November 01, 1999.

I am not backing off my lights out at midnight. Yes, they will be out before then. I am having this generous red head to my place for hors d'ouevres and cockatiels and I shall be having aromatherapy candles and a blackout. That is not all I shall be having! Eat your own hearts!

-- An Immature Personality (Backed@into.a.corner), November 01, 1999.

Sorry about the typo. Here's the Senate info again:
http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=001Rwk
http://www.senate.gov/~y2k/documents/100dayrpt/
This is from the Executive Summary:
[snip]
UTILITIES A prolonged, nationwide blackout will almost certainly not occur; that is, the power grid will work. However, local and regional outages remain a distinct possibility depending upon the readiness of the 3,000 utilities serving any given area. Further clouding accurate assessment, only 25% of electric utilities routinely disclose Y2K information to the public, making it difficult for individuals and organizations to get detailed information on "their" utilities. While bulk power producers, including nuclear facilities, are generally well prepared, they still must develop comprehensive contingency plans to prepare for unexpected problems.
[snip]

-- Linkmeister (link@librarian.edu), November 01, 1999.

You Knowwho debunk@doomeridiots.com always cracks me up.His/her life is probably dominated by an insecure need to be right.One failed relationship after the other and he doesn't know why.It probably never enters his head that he's just an ass hole.His peers certianly know.

-- zoobie (zoobiezoob@yahoo.com), November 01, 1999.

I'd say the possibility of that is about 10%! Here is my rundown of possibilites, since you asked debunk(ie y2k-dimwit-pro): 10% of a 10, 10% of a 9 - 9.9; 50% of an 8 to 8.9, 10% of a 7 to 7.9; 10% of a 6 to 6.9; 5% of a 5 to 5.9, and 5% of anything lower than a 5.0... Read it and weep...

-- Crono (Crono@timesend.com), November 01, 1999.

I always love the crackpots who think they know me and make silly predictions about my life and character.
So does this mean you do or don't expect electricity at midnight?

-- You Knowwho (debunk@doomeridiots.com), November 01, 1999.

I am expecting many sparks from the electricity at my place!

-- An Immature Personality (Backed@in.a.corner), November 01, 1999.

http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=001SQD
Doomer Sen. Bennett thinks it might
But he probably doesn't count as an informed source, when it comes to Y2K, right? Fear-mongerer?

-- lisa (lisa@work.now), November 01, 1999.

Then there's them pesky terrorist hackers to worry about
"This is a problem that will last well beyond Jan. 1, 2000," testified Michael A. Vatis, director of the FBI's National Infrastructure Protection Center, before the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Technology and Terrorism last week. And vetting those and other threatening program insertions will be at least as hard as debugging programs for Y2K, he said.
At any time, the grid could fall prey to rogue programmers, cyber-terrorists, hostile governments, or criminal syndicates, Vatis warned.
Also compounding the Y2K problem is that crackers might use the upcoming New Year's Eve "as a cover for an attack of one type or another," Bradner said.
Recovery from blackouts masterminded by crackers would be slow if utility operators were sent hunting after red herring Y2K problems, Bradner said.
Mudge turned his attention towards utilities when L0pht Heavy Industries audited a major power company. "The results were terrifying," he wrote.

-- lisa (lisa@work.now), November 01, 1999.

Dick Mill's writings on Y2K and the Power supply

Here's a list of the articles there: Rick Cowles has a couple, too.

Y2K and Electric Power FAQ

Another Myth, Transformers Get the Hots

Why Have Computers In the First Place?

Integrated Testing

Simulations & Drills to Prepare For Y2K

Comparing Real Life with Predictions

The Day After Y2K Readiness

On the Wisdom of Conservatism

1600 Zulu

The 3 Principles of Y2K Risk Reduction, Simplify Simplify Simplify

More Guesses, The Days After 2000-01-01

Another Myth, Phrenology Can Predict Y2K

Grid Operation Strategies

Guesses, Damn Guesses, and Educated Estimates

A Real Life Nuclear Safety Related Y2K Incident

Testing for Y2K Readiness Part II

Testing for Y2K Readiness Part I

Public Statements, Y2K and Power

Y2K at the Power Engineer's Meeting

An Early Victim of Y2K

Balkanization of the Grid

Another Myth, Balkanization of the Power Grid

Summary of 1998 Power Prognostications

1998

Another Myth, We Need Computers to Synchronize

Will Y2K Make Your Equipment Explode?

Reasonable And Prudent; Assuming Scenarios for 2000

Like Turkeys at Thanksgiving, Utility Necks Are Fully Extended

Power System Protection and Y2K

Another Myth, SCADA & EMS Failures Would Crash the Grid - Part 2

Another Myth, SCADA & EMS Failures Would Crash the Grid - Part 1

Y2K Islanding from Valcour Island

Censure But Not Impeach - The NERC Report

Mamma Mia, What do we do About the Nukes?

The Fourth Element of Power Delivery

Disaster Preparedness - Let's Choose Light

Dancing On the Rim of the Canyon

Another Myth, A Black Grid Cant Be Restarted

Power Yes, But At What Price?

Keeping the Lights on in 2000 - Who's In Charge?

Worse Than Blackouts, Y2K Power Shortages

Another Myth - We Must Fix all the Bugs To Have Power

Training to Avoid Y2K Power Failures

Training to Avoid Y2K Power Problems

Power Failures in 2000

Y2K and Utility Bashing

POWER-ful Prognostications by Rick Cowles

Y2K and Embedded Controls in the Electric Industry - It's an Issue of Magnitude

How the Federal Government Can Help Electric Utilities Fund Their Y2K Projects

The Competitive Pressure - Second Tier Electric Companies and Y2K

Who's Driving The Bus? Y2K Accountability of Electric Utilities - Part 2

Who's Driving The Bus? Y2K Accountability of Electric Utilities - Part 1

The "2K-Ute" Awards

From the Mailbag - Personal Preparedness and Obligations

Musings From The Dark Side

Industry Gridlock

Y2k Contingency Planning in the Electric Industry

The Politics of Industry, Y2K Style

Memo from the Field: Pass the Prozac, Please

Following the Money: Disclosing the True Cost of Y2K in the Electric Utilities Industry

Y2K Knowledge Is Power - Where to Find It

"Cap'n Smith, We Have Reports Of Ice In The Area."

-- lisa (lisa@work.now), November 01, 1999.

Who cares what people expect,nobody knows.The question is for what type of disruption are you prepaired.Does your survival count on your being right as much as it does the doomers being wrong???

-- zoobie (zoobiezoob@yahoo.com), November 01, 1999.

Certainly prolonged does not imply four to seven days. That's what FEMA and the Red Cross is recommending you prepare yourself for in the event of power outages and they too do not believe in a prolonged nationwide outage. What no government official is saying is that a nationwide blackout for 4-7 days can very well be the beginning of the worst case scenarios no one believes or wants to think is possible.
"There are 2,400 electric facilities Bennett refers to as "Laggards" and wants to expose. Common sense and logic dictate that Bennett's displeasure with these 2,400 tells me they are not small. The same rationale says that the small ones are part of the missing group of 4,600. It doesn't take much to conclude that of the 2,400, the majority, if not all, are in heavily populated areas or in other ways critical to the overall infrastructure."
This guy's wondering, too

-- lisa (lisa@work.now), November 01, 1999.

Excellent point Lisa. Also from the same report:
"The article went on to say that the NERC refuses to release the names of the 2,400 companies even at Bennett's request."

-- snooze button (alarmclock_2000@yahoo.com), November 01, 1999.

YouKnowWho, shall I go on?

-- lisa (lisa@work.now), November 01, 1999.

First of all the grid does not run on GMT or universal time. I just love the people on this thread who say that as if they really know what they are writing about. It doesnt work that way TECH32.
There shouldnt be any surges or spikes out of the ordinary ones unless the loads get too light. If you see any surges or spikes it would probably be on Monday (1\3\00) when people start going back to work. What may happen is people might start turning everything on and then off again to see if it works. Ordinarily this wouldnt be a problem but if enough people do it in a small enough area it might cause some problems. Personally I dont think it will be much of a problem but this is one of the few what ifs that has some validity.
Brooks: of course there could be outages this winter. You always have to take severe winter weather into account. Look at New England and Canada two years ago and Virginia this last winter. If you live in a cold climate it always makes sense to have some alternate heating source. Especially if you are not in a city.
As for what Lisa wrote. Well lets just say that is more then somewhat overblown. You cant dismiss it entirely but it does sound like the FBI guy was hyperventilating a bit.

-- The Engineer (The Engineer@tech.com), November 01, 1999.

Eng, why would there be only 30 utilities susceptible to hacking? Because their modem numbers are listed in the phone book?

-- lisa (lisa@work.now), November 01, 1999.

YouKnowwho? Is that you Anita? Since I don't know "YouKnowwho" I am guessing it's AnitaS.

-- who know who (whoknowwho@whoknowwhooo.xcom), November 01, 1999.

The Engineer,
Also see this recent article in the Washington Post:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/WPlate/1999-10/05/086l-100599- idx.html
[snip]
Under Social Security's Day One plan, agency computers will shut down earlier than usual on Thursday, Dec. 30. Taking the systems off-line will allow officials to collect all their 1999 computer transactions from nearly 14,000 offices, including those in the distant time zones of Guam and Hawaii.
During that night, Social Security computers will finish batch runs where the data entered during the day is moved into master files. With its 1999 transactions completed and files updated, Social Security offices will be ready to close on Friday, Dec. 31 to observe the New Year's holiday.
Just before midnight Friday, Social Security's main data center in Baltimore will switch to generators powered by jet fuel. The agency has stockpiled sufficient jet fuel to to operate for several days. It does not expect any disruptions to the region's power grid, but as a precaution wants to guard against any electrical surges that could damage its automated equipment.
"We don't know if there [are] going to be power surges. We don't know, at this point, what the public is going to do. Is everybody going to get up and turn everything on to see if it's working? We have some concerns that we could have a lot of pull on electricity, so we don't want to take any chances," Kathy Adams, the Y2K expert at Social Security, said in an interview.
[snip]

-- Linkmeister (link@librarian.edu), November 01, 1999.

First, the question of how many entities might pull off the grid is still up in the air. This may become a self-fulfilling prophecy because a certain percentage of power providers are so fearful of getting knocked off they might just pull off to protect themselves. What would that do to the grids?
Second, interconnectedness. The power may not go out on January 1. That would be great. What happens three weeks later? As oil production slows, economies become affected and this virus of disruptions spreads? What happens when stockpiles are all used up?
As for your question. Who knows? I can answer that...know one knows. It's all up in the air. The possibilities are interconnected and infinite and keeping an open mind regarding what might happen is a good thing.
However, just because the lights stay on January 1 doesn't mean it's business as usual.
You Knowwho, many here have put much effort and understanding into all these issues. Perhaps your views would actually evolve along the same lines as many "doomers" who were "completely convinced that the lights would go off at midnight". After all, some believe that if you can't evolve, you will become extinct.
Mike
=====================================================

-- Michael Taylor (mtdesign3@aol.com), November 01, 1999.

Methinks Dave Lundsford ought to learn to do a little research.
First, Bennett's statements refer to publishing information to the public, not to DOE or NERC:
http://www.senate. gov/~y2k/news/pr990923.htm
"Seventy-five percent of all electric utilities do not routinely share Y2K readiness reports directly with the public," said Bennett in testimony to the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee. "The industry should be more forthright in its disclosure. I would ask DOE and NERC to be more direct and release the names of any electric utilities that are not yet Y2K ready."
Bennett's remarks came one day after the release of a committee report detailing national and international Y2K readiness that included high marks for electric utilities. Information on nearly 3,200 electric utilities in North America has been gathered and assessed by DOE and NERC, which has issued generally positive assessments in several widely-accepted reports. Neither organization, however, will release the reports' raw data, which would include readiness levels of individual power facilities.
Bennet isn't referring to 2400 laggards. In fact, from the Committee that these statements were made to:
http://www.senate.gov/~en ergy/y2k.htm
In May 1998, at the request of the Department of Energy, the North American Electric Reliability council (NERC) coordinated an industry-wide effort to identify, assess, and undertake remediation of potential Y2K problem sites. NERC's industry-wide drills in April and September this year to test contingency plans and other responses showed positive results. Out of the 3,200 utilities operating in North America, only 24 were noncompliant, and those utilities are concentrating on their contingency plans.

-- Hoffmeister (hoff_meister@my-deja.com), November 01, 1999.

I believe the year was 1995. That is when THE ENTIRE WESTERN UNITED STATES was without power. The cause? Reportedly a (SINGLE) pine tree fell on a line somewhere in BFE, which caused a rapid fire succession of shutdowns, brownouts and finally blackouts to occur.
No, I'm not worried. Why should I care that X thousand utilities have to function correctly together in the middle of winter to continue to provide electricity? Sure, they're all done now. They leaped over the Y2K hurdle with six months to spare.
This is a stupid question, but then again, at least you are true to form. Regardless of whatever jollies you get even asking the question here, you, in all your infinite wisdom cannot and will not guarantee that it will stay on.
Go ahead and mock those who prepare. There are people here that have believed in their own research, instincts or gut feelings to risk scorn and ridicule to do what they beleive is right. It's called courage in your convictions. If we doomers are correct, there will be no way to rub in in your snot-nosed face. Our position requires intestinal fortitude and the courage to act on our beliefs. Yours requires nothing but the maturity to possibly acknowledge that we may be correct, which you obviously lack.
So, screw you and your pseudointellectual bullshit. Until you can prove the power will stay on, this is a stupid question to ask.

-- ariZONEa (YouKnowWho@smart.not), November 01, 1999.

I don't think that the odds are real high that the power will go off precisely at 00:01 on 1/1/2000. I'm not sure how high the odds are that there will be power disruptions over the course of the first few months of 2000, and possibly beyond, maybe even due to the need to ration electricity. Based on the evidence at hand -- which does not include self-reported happy-face reports -- I would not be surprised if any, all, or none of the above happened. Nobody really knows, that is the problem.

That is why I have a diesel generator, battery/inverter system, propane refrigerator and cookstove, two woodstoves, as well as fuel lamps. I hope that the electricity stays on, but more for your sake than mine, You Knowwho.

60 days.

Y2K CANNOT BE FIXED!

-- Jack (jsprat@eld.~net), November 01, 1999.

Jack, the "Y2K Cannot be fixed" slogan is tired enough, but the BLINK tag takes the cake. No one uses it anymore. Ever wonder why?

-- Y2K Pro (y2kpro1@hotmail.com), November 01, 1999.

Hi Hoff and Y2Kpro. Its almost pointless to argue with some of these people. They only wish to see the negative. Have a good one!

-- jbsmith (joebobsmith@yahoo.com), November 01, 1999.

Subject: How many Doomers are not backing off the blackouts at midnight scenario?
Why is this considered a DOOMER question?
I think the chances of my death in the next 12 months is very low, yet I carry life insurance. Does that make me a doomer?
I think the chances of my house burning down in the next 12 months is very low, yet I carry home insurance. Does that make me a doomer?
There is OBVIOUSLY a chance that the lights will go out at any time, and an additional risk of outage due to Y2K (else power companies wouldn't have spent a nickle on remediation).
Power plants are not done today, and some nuclear plants don't even EXPECT to be done until mid-December, so there is OBVIOUSLY a risk that the power could go out in those plants where remediation has not been completed. Because of NERC's policy of allowing utilities to claim they are ready when they have "exceptions", it is not possible to know with any certainty the state of readiness of our local plants, or to know what effect there would be from failures outside our local generating plant.
This is not a doomer/polly issue. It is an issue of facing unknown risks and deciding if you are personally going to take precautions to mitigate against any POSSIBLE loss of power or other services. It is a matter of being RESPONSE-able or irRESPONSE-able. Its not the odds, its the stakes.
And its awfully late to be playing these doomer/polly games.

-- Linda (lwmb@psln.com), November 01, 1999.

They are here to disrupt. Please don't engage them as if they deserved to be here.
ariZONEa, your reply is perfect. They are termites, and ought to be tagged as such and slapped out of here just as soon as they post.
Liberty

-- Liberty (liberty@theready.now), November 01, 1999.

Here you go, Linda. Updated today, NERC list of those Ready and those with Exceptions:
hoff_meister@my-deja.com), November 01, 1999.

Here you go, Linda. Updated today, NERC list of those Ready and those with Exceptions:
NERC Listing

-- Hoffmeister (hoff_meister@my-deja.com), November 01, 1999.

Thanks Hoffmeister. The NERC document lists Pacific Gas and Electric as Ready (no exceptions). [see my happy face?]
However.....
The 10-Q dated Oct. 15th has these tidbits: Our plan to address the Y2K issues focused primarily on mission-critical systems whose components are categorized as in-house software, vendor software, embedded systems, and computer hardware. ... Certification occurs when mission-critical systems are formally determined to be Y2K ready. "Y2K ready" means that a system is suitable for continued use into the year 2000.
PG&E Corporation's mission-critical items have been certified as Y2K ready with a few exceptions at PG&E Gas Transmission-Northwest. [note - why was this not indicated in the NERC list?] These exceptions are scheduled to be resolved by replacement or retirement of non-Y2K ready systems in November 1999. [plenty of time.. no worry] Contingency plans are in place to address any unlikely delays or problems.
The Utility is certifying its readiness to the CPUC prior to the November 1 deadline, [even though the above mentioned "exceptions" won't be fixed then] and has previously notified the North American Electric Reliability Council (NERC), and Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) that it is Y2K ready. [even though it wasn't]
As of September 30, 1999, we estimate total costs to address Y2K problems to be $212 million,.... Through September 1999, we spent approximately $179 million,... Future costs, including contingency funds, to address Y2K issues are expected to be $33 million... [i.e. not done yet]
Although we expect our efforts and those of our external parties to be successful, given the complex interaction of today's computing and communications systems, we cannot be certain we will be completely successful. Accordingly, we have considered the most reasonably likely worst case Y2K scenarios that could affect us or the Utility, and we believe that they mainly involve public overreaction before and during the New Year period that could create localized telephone problems due to congestion, temporary gasoline shortages, and curtailment of natural gas usage by customers. In addition, it is reasonably likely that there will be minor technical failures such as localized telephone outages and small isolated malfunctions in our computer systems that will be immediately repaired. None of these reasonably likely scenarios are expected to have a material adverse impact on the Utility's or our financial position, results of operations, or cash flows. Nevertheless, if we, or third parties with which we have significant business relationships, fail to achieve and sustain Y2K readiness of mission-critical systems, there could be a material adverse impact on the Utility and our financial position, results of operations, and cash flows. -------------
What a bunch of doomers those PG&E mucktymucks are! They think it is a reasonably likely scenario that the phones could be out, there could be gas shortages or ?curtailment of nat. gas usage? (not sure how this could happen or why it would be a bad thing. So... they are making "contingency plans". Seems a wise thing for me also.
And NERC? Did not fail to live down to my expectations. If you want to rely on their proclamations that your utility is Ready and will not have problems on rollover... fine. Seems to me that the odds of losing power on rollover are at least as good as the odds of my house burning down. I prefer some insurance considering my family's comfort and safety are at stake.

-- Linda (lwmb@psln.com), November 01, 1999.

Hoffmeister,
Thanks for the NERC listing link...
ftp://ftp.nerc.com/pub/sys/all_updl/docs/y2k/Y2k-Ready-110199.PDF
Now, would you provide us the link to an NERC page that explains what the word "ready" means when the NERC uses it? It can mean but doesn't necessarily mean compliance. How is the NERC officially defining it now?

-- Linkmeister (link@librarian.edu), November 01, 1999.

My guess would be that, since NERC was charged with assessing the readiness of electric utilities, exceptions in gas transmission lines weren't reported to NERC.
Also, I'm reasonably certain that the odds of losing power at any time are far greater than the odds of my house burning down.

-- Hoffmeister (hoff_meister@my-deja.com), November 01, 1999.

Sure thing, Kev. Been posted a few times before; as far as I know, it hasn't changed:
ftp://ftp.nerc.com/pub/sys/all_updl/docs/y2k/clarification of report process and criteria - final.pdf
Y2k Ready Y2k Ready means a system, component, or application has been determined to be suitable for continued use into the Year 2000. Note that Y2k Ready is not necessarily the same as Y2k Compliant, which requires fully correct date manipulations. The definition of Y2k Ready requires that the primary function(s) of the system, component, or application will continue to be provided reliably into the Year 2000. Although fixing or replacing a deficient system, component, or application to make it Y2k Compliant is one solution, achieving Y2k Ready status also may be accomplished through remediation. Remediation may include, for example, a software patch to display a correct date to an operator. Remediation could also be procedural, such as providing a highly reliable alternative that allows continuation of the primary function of the system, component, or application. Being Y2k Ready requires verification that each function necessary to reliably produce and deliver electricity is very likely to:
1. Not be impaired by a Y2k failure,
2. Continue performing satisfactorily into the Year 2000, and
3. Be sustainable indefinitely into the Year 2000.

-- Hoffmeister (hoff_meister@my-deja.com), November 01, 1999.

I always assumed that "Y2K" was about the "YEAR" 2000. It's the other 364 days that concern me the most.
sdb

-- S. David Bays (SDBAYS@prodigy.net), November 02, 1999.

I figure that some drunk trying to get to the part on the Washington Mall on slippery, icy streets, will run into a power pole, take down a couple of key transformers, and Washington DC will go down at approximately midnight EST. This outage, (which will be televised!) will cause panic all over the US. Generators will be valuable. And that's if everything else stays up...

-- Mad Monk (madmonk@hawaiian.net), November 02, 1999.

I read a few months ago that the utility serving my city PSE&G would be ready in 2005. The next news I heard was that a couple of PR firms were hired to start putting a happy spin on things but no further word of this particular utility was forthcoming.
I found it again when Jim Lord posted the Navy's report. My town is in the "you're f***ed" catagory which is consistent with the original report.
On my utility bill however it says Don't Worry, Be Happy. Who would you believe?
I can't understand how everybody just accepts the news as reported. That there is bad news not being reported will be obvious as long as government y2k groups continue to meet behind closed doors. If there was no bad news that the public wasn't aware of there would be no need for closed door meetings. How can anyone fail to grasp this. If the news was all as wonderful as is being reported there would be no need for PR compainies to have to spin anything. Just report the 'real' good news.
I do not know the actual y2k status of the country but as long as the PR compaines are working to present a positive spin and government meetings continue to be held behind closed doors I figure it has to be worse then the media is presenting it. That is the only scenerio that makes sense. The doors are not closed to hide good news.
Think about it

-- thomas thatcher (jabawaki@erols.com), November 02, 1999.

Remediation could also be procedural, such as providing a highly reliable alternative that allows continuation of the primary function of the system, component, or application. Being Y2k Ready requires verification that each function necessary to reliably produce and deliver electricity is very likely to:
1. Not be impaired by a Y2k failure,
Hoffmeister,
Since being Y2K "ready" doesn't necessarily mean compliance, I suspect that many here will be in no hurry to sell off their bottled water and canned goods. A power company may honestly believe that a certain Y2K failure would not impair production or delivery of electricity...but without end-to-end testing, that belief is more like an educated guess.

-- Linkmeister (link@librarian.edu), November 02, 1999.

Let's try that again with proper formatting.
Remediation could also be procedural, such as providing a highly reliable alternative that allows continuation of the primary function of the system, component, or application. Being Y2k Ready requires verification that each function necessary to reliably produce and deliver electricity is very likely to:
1. Not be impaired by a Y2k failure,
Hoffmeister,
Since being Y2K "ready" doesn't necessarily mean compliance, I suspect that many here will be in no hurry to sell off their bottled water and canned goods. A power company may honestly believe that a certain Y2K failure would not impair production or delivery of electricity...but without end-to-end testing, that belief is more like an educated guess.

-- Linkmeister (link@librarian.edu), November 02, 1999.

Kev,
Win95 was not "compliant" when released....it was "ready". Win98...same thing. Many other operating systems are "ready".
You assume that everything works perfect NOW, and must have some gaurantee that it will continue ...perfectly in the year 2ooo.
There are no such gaurantees. The system will deal with glitches just like it does now.

-- Buttinski (sorry@had.tosaythat), November 02, 1999.

This seems to me to be the appropriate answer to the question posed: read
http://www.nccn.net/~ashaley/electricity.htm
The lights may not go out at midnight December 31, but in a month (or six, or eight , or ten weeks) or so, it could be just as bad as if they had.
The fact that the lights may still work on January 1 is not the test of the system that Youknowwho assumes it to be. The only proper test will be if they remain on continuously through, say, June (to be really generous). Anyone who isn't prepared to be wrong about that is just showing how wrong they can be.

-- Justin Case (justinopinion@heres2cents.com), November 07, 1999.

While I happen to think it's likely that there will be electricity in my area on January 1st, here's an older article that explains why "ready" doesn't always mean "ready":
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/bluesky_franke_news/19990804_xndfr_coveru p_la.shtml
Be prepared for the unexpected. It's why we buy insurance.

-- Linkmeister (link@librarian.edu), November 07, 1999.

Moderation questions? read the FAQ