I don't want to fan the flames to much here, but it's never a bad idea to keep your eyes and ears open to anything that looks abnormal in your surounding environment. Since the advent of communication we are also at liberty to discuss these issues with hopefully some enlightenment on everyone's part.

As far as y2k is concerned I've always tried to keep an open mind to both sides of the issue, attempting to weigh each argument against the other. As I come upon new data or reports, I've tried to wiegh it out with some reason based on what's come before and what conclusions have been drawn. This might not be scientific or rational, but, well there you have it.

I still think if it doesn't smell right, it MIGHT not be right. As I get older, this seems more true all the time. Getting older and less trusting (or more questioning) is probably a bad idea.

Along those lines, I sometimes (not all the time) listen to a radio show that features Christians who discuss preparadness. OK hang on. It WAS at one time something some people did to gather more information on y2k. Of course whoever did that in the past (some days ago) will stop doing it soon. But until the habit dies, here's a show that was on today that featured Rick Cowles. I'm sure you all have opinions of him and his position.

In preparation for this show, I sent an email to the show moderators referenceing our discussion about 'manual operation' in Russia and possibly in the US including whatever other steps might be taken to keep generation/transmission/distribution up. I'm sure they reviewed the posts and they may also have reviewed the discussion on dam operations and water level. They did ask Rick about what he knew on these subjects.

I won't summerise (unless asked to) what Rick said on these topics. That way, I can't be acused of spreading my own opinions around by recanting things in my own terms. But if you can mentally throw out the advertisements (don't need any more beans - hit the advance button and open a can of dinty moore) you might find this interesting (trying to create a link):

http://www.m2ktalk.com/thu.ram

Before listening to this show, I went and reviewed this interview with Rick back I belive in October '98 just to make sure I understood where this guy was coming from in the bad old days of y2k.

http://www.cbn.org/newsstand/y2k/cowles.asp

It's long, but is interesting to compare what was postulated against what actually happened (or what may still happen).

My take...oops I said I wouldn't do that. Well I still smell a rat here somewhere... Listen to what he says as well as how he says it.

If you listen to this stuff and turn into a Christian or start believing something you wish you hadn't, don't blame me. I didn't send you there for that.

Respectfully

-- warren blim (mr_little@yahoo.com), January 07, 2000

Answers

Warren, why did you post this on the "Where's all the Water Coming From" post?

-- jumpoff joe a.k.a. Al K. Lloyd (jumpoff@ekoweb.net), January 07, 2000.

Did you listen to the audio file (.ram)?

-- warren blim (mr_little@yahoo.com), January 07, 2000.

Warren:

According to the CBN interview posted above, Rick Cowles states , correctly, that it's not possible for US utilities to run on manual because there aren't enough operators and there is too much automation in place. Given this, why is there continual questioning on this issue? I work for a large West Coast utility and I can tell you that operations are continuing today exactly as they were before the date rollover. Electric power is not, and will not, be a problem. This is what we said before the date rollover and we are still saying the same thing. Apparently, a lot of people didn't believe us then - what will it take for you to believe us now?

Jim

-- Jim Cooke (JJCooke@yahoo.com), January 07, 2000.

Jim, you are correct. He did say that then, but now, today, he states that: 'we can assume there was a lot of manual operations going on before and during the rollover in Russia and other locations including the US. It remains to be assessed how much manual control(s) need to be to returned to automated control.' From the inflection in his voice and his phrasing, I sense that he's being real careful about what he's saying and how it's expressed. IMHO I think he knows a lot more than what he's saying at this time, but that's just a hunch on my part.

He likes what he sees with power and that "it's a managable event", his words. He goes on to discuss switching clocks and windowing in regard to contingency plans to manage the event.

He also discusses the hydro generation situation regarding generation percentage and resevoir level. If you have the time and ability please listen to the .ram file and comment from your perspective.

I'll take your word for it that the utility that you work for (bpa?) is operating exaclty as before y2k.

-- warren blim (mr_little@yahoo.com), January 07, 2000.

Warren:

Why does he assume that ANY American utilities are running on "manual"? I didn't hear one scrap of evidence on his part to substantiate this. He was right in 1998 and wrong now. This sounds like a way to still be "right" about the grid not working. Electic power is running the way it has run for the last 20 years - with as much automation and as few humans as possible. There aren't enough operators to ever run US utilties on manual, not to mention the huge amount of automated equipment you'd have to disable to do this.

Russia, with exception of the nuclear plants, runs its entire system on manual all the time. They don't have a grid - the power is all supplied by local plants over localized networks. That's the reason they didn't have any problems - humans don't have to worry about being Y2K compliant.

Jim

-- Jim Cooke (JJCooke@Yahoo.com), January 07, 2000.

Jim:

from the viewpoint of an industry insider, can you comment in any way on the following transcript from Rick's interview with cbn as it relates to the status of your utility or others that you know about:

Y2K "readiness" vs Y2K "compliance"

PARKHILL: In the NERC report, they distinguish "Y2K readiness" or being "Y2K ready," as opposed to "Y2K compliant." Is that a reasonable approach in your opinion?

COWLES: We've got a lot of organizations out there that are starting to play with the semantics of the issue. There is a difference between "Y2K readiness" and "Y2K compliance." "Y2K readiness" doesn't eliminate the problem. "Y2K "readiness" either ignores the problem or postpones the problem. It doesn't fix the problem.

PARKHILL: Right. But it can maintain a level of operatbility.

COWLES: It can maintain a level of operability in current times. But you're just delaying the inevitable.I think the distinction in the two terms really developed from a legal perspective. And the differences in the definitions are going to be hashed out in the courtrooms of America for years and years.

-- warren blim (mr_little@yahoo.com), January 07, 2000.

Jim:

so if I understand what you're saying, he simply doesn't know what he's talking about regarding the issue of manual operation. I don't know the man personally or you for that matter. But, I guess I should accept your assessment since you are inside the industry and disregard what he's saying despite whatever credentials he may have in this area.

OK by me at this time. Maybe he'll see this post and care to comment on his interview today with some facts or evidence.

-- warren blim (mr_little@yahoo.com), January 07, 2000.

Jim, is this an out of control (manual or otherwise) utility person (probable insider):

PG&E has a hands-on policy

http://hv.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=001VOj

-- warren blim (mr_little@yahoo.com), January 07, 2000.

Warren:

We never used the term Y2K Compliant but always Y2K Ready. Y2K Compliant implies that you know there is no way any date related problem could ever show up. As we've seen, strange and mostly cosmetic date problems have shown up in many so-called compliant devices. Y2K Ready means we've tested the device and that it will work correctly after the date rollover regardless of any minor date problems that may or may not show up.

Rick Cowles' interview was filled with speculation, not fact. It's now more than 6 days after the rollover. If he has such good contacts in the industry, he should be able to tell us what utilities are running on manual. Otherwise, he's speculating on a scenario that he thought unlikely in 1998. I've given you the facts that I know first hand. I'm waiting for the same from Rick.

Jim

-- Jim Cooke (JJCooke@yahoo.com), January 07, 2000.

Warren:

The article you refer to states the plans of much of the industry to deal with the rollover. If things went south, we were prepared to override the automatic controls and go to as much manual operation as possible. We had everybody who had any type of operator experience on duty in case that happened even though we thought the probablility was extremely remote. The key point is - there was no disruption and never a need to ever try running anything on manual. That's one of the reasons I can't understand Rick's idea that there were utilties that ran on manual and now have to switch back to automation. I don't know of one utility in this country where this is true. I can speculate on all sorts of scenarios for almost any situation but it doesn't make it true without facts to back it up.

Jim

-- Jim Cooke (JJCooke@Yaho.com), January 07, 2000.

Just to be clear on the Russian situation:

you stated... Russia, with exception of the nuclear plants, runs its entire system on manual all the time. They don't have a grid - the power is all supplied by local plants over localized networks. That's the reason they didn't have any problems - humans don't have to worry about being Y2K compliant.

The best information I have on what they did is from the following:

Could be smoke on the part of the Russians or the AP but why would they shift to manual control if they were already on manual as you say?

-- warren blim (mr_little@yahoo.com), January 07, 2000.

Opppps... Tried to make another link but it broke.

Here's the text:

"Russia's electricity monopoly will shift its huge grid to manual control on Dec. 31 to ensure it avoids 'millennium bug' outages, system officials said Wednesday... Managers at United Energy Systems, the country's electricity monopoly, said at a news conference that they are 95% ready for the date over. The company has checked about 50,000 computer systems which guide the flow of power across the country." UES deputy chairman Alexander Remezov said "We can't give a 100% guarantee that not one of these many systems will fail," and that "the country's vast size will also help, as the date change will hit sparsely populated eastern regions 10 hours before midnight in Moscow, and unforeseen problems may become clear before the date change hits heavily populated populated European areas."

Again why would they be switching to manual if they already are manual as you have suggested?

-- warren blim (mr_little@yahoo.com), January 07, 2000.

The above text is from the AP newswire courtesy of Dow Jones Newswires - requires paid registration posted on 11/3/99.

Here's another attempt at the link:

link here

-- warren blim (mr_little@yahoo.com), January 07, 2000.

Well , JIM COOKE ..... Where is your ' government ' position to this obvious discrepency ( LIE ?) . Awfully quiet out there , isn't it ??? Silver Eagle circling ... watching .... waiting .

-- Silver Eagle (SEagle@nest.com), January 07, 2000.