RICK...(and Bonnie)

Maybe I've missed it in another thread,,but what is your overall evaluation of the electric industry as of Aug 1999? I just viewed the c-span interviews with NERC and Koskinen and they seemed extremely optimistic that there would be minimal problems...

Will we only have problems if the nuclear power plants aren't ready in time? Will big city electric utilities be okay, and rural local coops be the only ones that may have problems? Is the electric grid really going to be stable?? (even if some nukes are off-line?) Have we really made that much progress in the past 6 months?

-- Anonymous, August 07, 1999

Answers

I would like to see a response to this from all in the forum. Do you guys and gals have the courage to go on record this late in the game, espcially those who say that NERC and the industry is "lying"?

Specifically:

1.WHAT do you expect to occur on Jan. 1, 2000 as a result of Y2K? FactFinder - no signficant effects on power, telecommunications, oil and gas, banking, or any other part of the infrastructure.

2. What do you expect for the month of January, 2000 as a result of Y2K? FactFinder - See above. Software - minor y2k bugs reported sporatically, mostly in business process software. Embedded system bugs, no signficant events, minor y2k bug errors.

3. What do you expect to see for the entire Year of 2000 as a result of Y2K? FactFinder: See 2 above. After January, the Y2K movement fizzles out. The same people re-emerge however, as soon as a new threat to mankind can be found. If a threat is not immediately forthcoming, a good conspiracy theory will do (you may want to run with the JFK Jr. theories, TB2000 is already going with it, lol)

Regards,

Regards,

-- Anonymous, August 07, 1999

Hi guys. I have been lurking in this forum for quite some time, and this question intrigued me to the point of answering. I see some pretty large problems for all of us no matter what the grid does. In my mind it is a question of how bad is it going to be? If the grid goes down, forget about it. But there are so many other factors to consider, the supply chain being almost as big as whether the grid will hold or not. From the information that has been posted on this site, it should be clear to all who visit that there has not been "full disclosure" on the part of the Federal Government, NERC, and some of the other agencies. The spin doctors would like us to believe that the U.S. is ok but that there could be great problems globally. My question is do we really manufacture anything in the U.S. anymore? I looked around my house the other day and I could only find a few things. As for the grid, I truly believe that more utilities are taking a wait and see approach than has been reported. The nukes may or may not be safe, but they will never be taken off line. As far as I can see they are our last hope, because the oil companies don't appear to be in great shape. So in a nutshell, no I don't think that we are any better off than we were six months ago, and I believe we are all in for a rough ride ahead. I am not a doomer. I have a beautiful 1 year old son so I hope that my view is totally wrong. Moreover I am trying to mentally prepare myself for some harder times ahead, so that my family will get through this with as little pain as possible.

Sincerely, Derek

-- Anonymous, August 08, 1999

FactFinder,

Thanks for that clear and concise set of answers. It is one of the cleanest stated Polly opinions I have ever seen. It is always good to know just how serious someone's attitude is when reading their postings. This is especially true when it is coming from someone inside the electric utility field. So, if I read you correctly, not only will little or nothing cause us electric supply problems, but we won't have any serious infrastucture failures either, and life will go on pretty much as it has been, after dealing with a few short term bumps. That about it?

-- Anonymous, August 08, 1999

I do not believe that anyone, whether from within the industry or from outside, can say exactly what will happen. What we can do though is to look at the possible/probable scenarios for the three main sections of generation, transmission and distribution.

For every individual computer system, control system or embedded system there are three possible outcomes of the Y2K issue:

First; no effect. This is the outcome in the greatest majority of systems. Most, if not all, computers have already been checked, inventoried, assessed and remediated if necessary. It is probable that some bugs have slipped through undetected, but these are only a concern if they are going to impact on some critical function. Control systems will have been among the first items to have been checked, and even if a bug has slipped through undetected here, most plant (I'm not sure about nukes though) can be operated manually. Embedded systems are the area where the most undected faults may occur, but as very few embedded systems in the electricity industry are date sensitive, these should not produce any serious effects.

Second: A system does have a Y2K issue, but it only affects logging and/or ordering of data. For the very small percentage of faults that do pass through undected, most will fall into this category.

Third: The system crashes. This is the big unknown. How many systems have to crash before it starts to affect consumers, or before the grid itself is in danger of collapse. The smallest number of faults will fall into this category, but the ones that do may have the biggest effect. On the bright side though is the fact the majority of systems are designed so that in the event of failure their outputs will lock at the last known good point. Thus generators will not suddenly shut down, lines will not suddenly trip etc. Rather there would be a loss of information and control, and in turn this would require manual operation.

On the technical side of the electricity industry manual operation is quite possible for extended periods, but I will not try to imagine how the administrators will manage their business systems manually. perhaps there may be an opportunity for some increase in employment figures. :-)

Then there is the issue of the timing of Y2K faults. The only systems that can suffer faults right on the roll over are main computer and/or SCADA systems when the time is checked and synchronised on a regular basis. Any embedded systems (not chips) with built in timers that were set some time in the distance past will have wandered. The amount of error could be as much as 1 minute per day, so if a system is 5 years old then the error could be as much as 30 hours. Embedded systems with a logging fuction that are time synchronised via an RTU or similar would fall into the second category above, and would continue to work, although possibly logging events with the wrong date.

Taking this information and trying to put it into context of problems occuring at any individual plant, it would appear that there is a chance of any plant suffering from Y2K issues, but most faults would be minor and should not affect the overall operation. There is a much smaller chance that a plant will experience a major fault, but it is not impossible. However there is an extremely small chance of most generation sites suffering simultaneous faults.

The same arguments can apply to most industrial practices, and not just to the electricity industry. Although if the grid does suffer then so will all other industries.

So, what is my opinion of what will happen in 2000. I expect that in general the electricity generation and transmission networks will be in a good shape. The distribution systems in smaller and rural areas are less likely to use digital technology and should be OK. However in the cities there is a slightly greater chance of problems occurring.

Now to answer factfinders poll.

1.WHAT do you expect to occur on Jan. 1, 2000 as a result of Y2K? FactFinder - no signficant effects on power, telecommunications, oil and gas, banking, or any other part of the infrastructure. Malcolm - Possibly some isolated local outages affecting power and telecommunications. I won't try to comment on banking etc and my own feeling here is that banks don't really do anything for the economy but suck from it, so who cares if they have big problems.

2. What do you expect for the month of January, 2000 as a result of Y2K? FactFinder - See above. Software - minor y2k bugs reported sporatically, mostly in business process software. Embedded system bugs, no signficant events, minor y2k bug errors. Malcolm - I agree with Factfinder. The technical side of industry will have their act together and any faults will be minor and either quickly fixed or a work around put in place. Some administration and business systems will be trouble.

3. What do you expect to see for the entire Year of 2000 as a result of Y2K? FactFinder: See 2 above. After January, the Y2K movement fizzles out. The same people re-emerge however, as soon as a new threat to mankind can be found. If a threat is not immediately forthcoming, a good conspiracy theory will do (you may want to run with the JFK Jr. theories, TB2000 is already going with it, lol) Malcolm - People will realise that Bean Counters and lawyers are not the ones who really know what is going on, and there will be a return to more meaningfull values.

Malcolm

-- Anonymous, August 08, 1999

Malcolm,

Thanks again for another honest posting opinion with good technical information. I think you might be making a mistake to ignore the banking system and the way it has tied all the economy together. I especially like your very last sentence, and hope that comes to pass.

-- Anonymous, August 08, 1999

Gordon: "So, if I read you correctly, not only will little or nothing cause us electric supply problems, but we won't have any serious infrastucture failures either, and life will go on pretty much as it has been, after dealing with a few short term bumps. That about it?"

Y2K is, and has been, more than a small bump in the road. For 1999, y2k has been a fairly moderate bump in terms of the cost to identify, replace and upgrade software and non-y2k compliant hardware, and perform testing. Quite a number of problems have been encountered during y2k testing, and I believe that a lot of new non-y2k related software bugs are being dealt with as replacement software/signficant upgrades or installed. I expect that dealing with new non-y2k bugs will continue through the end of this year and into next year.

As far as y2k bug effects on the ability of power,gas,oil, communications and the like as we go through the January 1, 2000 rollover, yes, I am confident that these will consitute only a bump in the road. And a very small bump compared to weather related power outages and damages in the year 2000.

Regards,

-- Anonymous, August 08, 1999

Gordon, I just noticed that you failed to provide us with YOUR informed opinion of what to exepect for y2k. Please respond to Questions 1,2, and 3 "for the record." For those who cannot or will not respond, I assume that you have no informed opinion, and therefore have no right to criticise others ;)

Regards,

-- Anonymous, August 08, 1999

FactFinder,

As a good guest, I will await the answer from the host and hostess first. The question was directed to them, and I expect they are carefully considering their answers. In the meantime, don't be too hasty making assumptions about the opinions of others. But while we wait, why don't you just drop me an email and we can talk.

-- Anonymous, August 08, 1999

FactFinder, I was about to concur with your 'no significant infrastructure effects' answer, but then you said:

"Y2K is, and has been, more than a small bump in the road. For 1999, y2k has been a fairly moderate bump in terms of the cost to identify, replace and upgrade software and non-y2k compliant hardware, and perform testing. Quite a number of problems have been encountered during y2k testing, and I believe that a lot of new non-y2k related software bugs are being dealt with as replacement software/signficant upgrades or installed. I expect that dealing with new non-y2k bugs will continue through the end of this year and into next year. "

And then I remembered that I don't live in the US. I live on the European continent (not even the UK) and I hear stories that Europe as a whole started much later than the US, especially Eastern Europe. It is possible that some electric utilities in Europe will go into the millenium without having dealt with their Y2K problem. How will they fair if, as you say, it is 'more than a bump in the road'. So, in the absence of reliable information and with all that we know about the late starts in Europe etc., lack of funds, FOF strategies etc., and not least what you yourself (an unbounded optimist) say about Y2K having been more than a bump in the road in terms of what your profession discovered in the process of remediating, then I've got to go with the following: (1) short (less than 3 days) and medium (3 days to 1 month) duration electricity disruption at local and regional level in Eastern Europe and parts of mediterranean Europe. I don't expect any power disruption in my home region (Scandinavia) during the immmediate New Year period, though I am pro-prep.

This is not a fixed position.

Regards,

-- Anonymous, August 08, 1999

KLT

I can only say that the US Government is not noted for honesty, and that NERC (speaking for the government) is likely not bound to the truth, whole or otherwise. See the adjacent posts from Linda and marianne.

But don't ask Bonnie or Rick. Ask FactFinder, as he seems to know everything, perhaps even more than Malcolm. But you should be prepared to agree with him.

-- Anonymous, August 08, 1999

Good questions for Rick and Bonnie, KLT. From what I've read and discussed with them, even the co-ops are fine, simply because they use digital technology much less than larger utilities, and because they are finishing their work as well.

Also, good questions and responses from you as well, Factfinder. My responses are almost identical to yours: The impacts on electric operations will be minimal, unless significant load is lost because industrial customers are not preparing coupled with operator error. I believe that non-y2k issues will have a much greater effect: partiers driving under the influence, sabotage, solar flares, and possibly bad weather.

-- Anonymous, August 08, 1999

For what it is worth, KLT, I don't know and I don't think anyone can know. I think the odds are very high that someone will have problems with power but how many someones? Who knows?

I do not think the questions posed by Factfinder are meaningful at all. I can construct a thousand possible scenarios and they will all turn out to be wrong. Unfortunately, all of the reasonable scenarios I can construct lead to ruin. By ruin I mean anything from very hard times (severe recession, another Great Depression) to complete economic collapse (present day Russia).

The infrastructure - specifically energy, banking, telephone and transportation - has to hold. Failure is not an option or we will quickly cascade into complete economic collapse. When Factfinder says that he does not believe the infrastructure will fail, all he is saying is that we will not have overnight economic collapse. If you accept his argument, all he is doing is eliminating a few of the almost infinite number of possible failure points.

My model looks like this:

1) We will have many, many, many computer failures. I think my power company has done a great job - www.bchydro.com - and I believe they will get me power. But they have pushed their business software remediation from a December 1998 deadline to November, 1999. They have experienced a 7% failure rate in mission critical embedded systems, and they have more than 5,000 digital systems that are not mission critical. They have not been tested. BC Hydro - a model company - is going to have hundreds of failures.

2) These computer failures will disrupt global supply chains in small ways mostly but also in large ways in some instances. They will disrupt them for very brief periods in some cases and in other cases for prolonged periods. They may be disrupted because a good or service cannot be produced, or because they can produced but not billed, or because they can be produced and billed but not paid for. The computer failures will also be compounded by human error.

The supply chains will be disrupted in ways and for reasons that we cannot imagine. There are countless chains so the idea that none of them will be disrupted simply strains my credibility even if the probability of failure is very low for each individual chain. The result will be spot shortages of different products in different areas. There were also be surpluses of products and services that no one wants to buy because...

3) Everyone will run into cash flow problems. Information - the oil that lubricates the economy - will turn to sludge. Everything will take longer. Employees who experience computer problems will have less confidence in the tool. Businesses without cushions will fail. Unemployment will rise. Even businesses that survive and people who are employed will quickly shift purchasing priorities. The perception of what we need as business people and as individuals will be vastly different very quickly.

Productivity will crash and I don't just mean business productivity. We will be spending more of our time trying to get through on customer service telephone lines or standing in a bank line. We will have much less leisure time as a result of all the "minor" inconveniences. We won't spend as much going to hockey games or on ski trips or on movies.

4)This will lead to more business failures. Some businesses may not fail but they may as well be bankrupt. General Motors cannot go broke - they could lose billions a month for decades - but the assets of the company are worthless if they cannot produce and sell cars. If people cannot afford to buy cars, the capacity is idled.

5) It is difficult to imagine an economy that continues to contract for a long time, but it has happened at regular intervals throughout economic history. It is the past 50 years that has been unprecedented, mostly because of globalization, IMO. The bigger the economy the more difficult it is to get a a cascade of business failures started. The broader the market the broader the spread of risk. But once it does start, globalization and increased interdependencies will also make the cascade very difficult to arrest.

The rapid "no power, no dial tone, no broadcast, everything is closed" collapse has always been a very long shot. The idea that we will not have many, many, many failures carries even longer odds. Yet the entire Y2k argument has come down to these two extremes.

I am not interested in arguing with Factfinder about it. I have heard all of his arguments, all of the red herrings, all of the extreme Pollyanna positions more times than I can count. I am tired of them and tired of arguing about them. They are boring arguments that boil down to "nothing bad will happen".

My boring argument boil down to "Something will happen, and whatever happens cannot be good. The degree of bad depends on where the failures are, and when, and how people react to them."

Neither Factfinder or I are convincing anyone any more. I follow the story because I think something will happen, and while I think it will be very unpleasant it will at least be interesting to watch.

I don't understand why Factfinder is spending so much time on something he believes is a nonevent. I also don't understand why he wants to label everyone who is concerned about the problem a misguided conspiracy nut. He certainly isn't convincing conspiracy nuts that he is correct, and he certainly isn't convincing those of us who are not conspiracy nuts that he is correct. So why does he do it?

I think the best explanation for the amount of time he spends on the subject is that he writes to convince himself. He protests a little too much for my money. Denial is this far (hold up thumb and forefinger a quarter inch apart) from terror. He thinks I'm crazy, I think he's terrified. What is the point? East is East, West is West and never the twain shall meet.

We'll all find out in less than five months. It will be interesting.

Tom

-- Anonymous, August 08, 1999

I only caught about the last ten minutes or so of the c-span news conference. The one thing that really caught my attention, is when Koskinen said (implication), that the States are going to be on their own, FEMA does not have the resources to help everybody at once. Locally for each one of us, even if fully informed, predicting the outcome could be no better than a roll of the dice. My greatest concern is the dominoe effect of the global supply chains and economies. January 'could' be a walk in the park compared to what later months may bring.

-- Anonymous, August 08, 1999

Whew. I have been working since about noon today on a response to this question, wrapped around my NERC report "analysis", and have to tell you that it's now 11PM and I'm still not finished. We'll see if I can wrap it up in the next few hours. If not, early tomorrow. I do think we've seen some very interesting responses to the questions, though...thanks to everyone for their contributions.

-- Anonymous, August 08, 1999

Whew. I've been working since about noon today on a response to this question, wrapped around my NERC report "analysis", and have to tell you that it's now 11PM and I'm still not finished. We'll see if I can wrap it up in the next few hours. If not, early tomorrow. I do think we've seen some very interesting responses to the questions, though...thanks to everyone for their contributions.

-- Anonymous, August 08, 1999

Nobody knows what's going to happen as a result of y2k. The opinions posted on this forum are just guesses, some more 'educated' than others. I'll offer mine because you asked, FF, but first I'll offer the opinions of a few other people whose knowledge might put them in the 'more educated' category, and whose assessments I agree with:

From 'Y2k Forecasts' http://www.cbnnow.com/newsstand/stories/990720.asp

Cameron Daley of Tava/RW Beck, a firm which has tested and upgraded systems for more than 100 utilities, said recently, "The whole grid won't collapse, but there will be outages that could last up to several weeks." Drew Parkhill spoke with Daley and reported ( on the EUY2K thread 'The Tava/RW Beck "outages" Quote is Accurate' ): His (Daley's) basic point was that utilities *believe* they are being accurate when they report readiness, but his company has been called in to audit many of them, and has subsequently found that they (at least some) have not always gone deep enough into their systems, and that they have missed y2k problems that actually do exist - problems which could indeed lead to power outages. He gave me a few technical examples..."

Also from 'Y2K Forecasts':

Arnaud deBorchgrave, president of the Center for Strategic and International Studies, likens Y2K to "a series of electronic tornadoes zapping the world in crazy quilt patterns. (It's) Impossible to predict who's going to get hurt and who is going to emerge unscathed. Obviously, many people are going to emerge unscathed and many organizations--countries--will be damaged and damaged severely, especially in the developing world...That there will be an economic slowdown around the world I think is almost inevitable," continues deBorchgrave. "That automatically becomes a crisis, since we've gotten used to these boom times. . .it's bound to have economic repercussions the world over."

A longtime globe-hopping correspondent, deBorchgrave expects Y2K to "have a cascading effect that may last well into the next century. When you look at what could conceivably happen in many parts of the developing world. What happens at the end of this year isn't going to be a crisis that will last two or three weeks and then it's all behind us; you could have a cascading effect around the world that could last easily a year or two, according, incidentally, to the top Y2K expert at the World Bank."

Then there is Jacquelyn Williams-Bridgers', Inspector General of the U.S. State Department, who related the department's y2k assessments in her recent July 22, 1999, testimony to the U.S. Senate. (URL: http://www.senate.gov/~y2k/hearings/990722/dosig.htm

"In summary, Mr. Chairman, with less than 6 months to go before the Y2K date change, the global picture that is slowly emerging is cause for concern. Our assessments suggest that the global community is likely to experience varying degrees of Y2K related failures in every sector, in every region, and at every economic level. In some countries, these failures could be a mere annoyance, such as a malfunctioning credit card terminal, while in others there is a clear risk that electricity, telecommunications, and other key systems will fail, perhaps creating economic havoc and social unrest. As such, the risk of disruption will likely extend to the international trade arena, where a breakdown in any part of the supply chain would have a serious impact on the U.S. and world economies."

As for the potential seriousness of the y2k problem, I'll go along with U.S. Defense Secretary William Cohen, whose department has budgeted $3.7 billion for y2k fixes and who was quoted in the 7/23/1999 WASHINGTON POST as saying, "We are treating the Year 2000 as if it were a cyberattack directed at the very core of our military capabilities."; or Deputy Defense Secretary John J. Hamre, who is in charge of the Pentagon's Y2K remediation effort. In the July, 1999, issue of AIRFORCE MAGAZINE ( URL: http://www.afa.org/magazine/0799midnight.html he stated:

"Probably one out of five days I wake up in a cold sweat, thinking (Y2K) is much bigger than we think, and then the other four days I think maybe we really are on top of it. Everything is so interconnected, it's very hard to know with any precision that we've got it fixed. . . This is going to have implications for American society and the world that we can't even comprehend."

Now FF, are all these people merely imagining things? How likely is it that they do not know as much about the possible/probable ramifications of Y2K as you do?

As for my own prognostications, and these are all just my current best guesses:

I have no idea what is going to happen at midnight on 1/1/2000, but I think that by the second quarter of the year there will be at least intermittent shortages of some items we in the U.S. currently take being able to get for granted - particularly items that come from overseas such as generic pharmaceuticals, petroleum products, etc. Yes, FF, we may be looking at gas lines - perhaps even gas rationing by next May or June.

If that comes to pass the American public won't be very happy campers. There will be lots of political fingerpointing - Republicans blaming Democrats, Democrats blaming Republicans, Clinton blaming everyone but himself. The Presidential candidacies of non- establishment candidates such as Bill Bradley and John McCain will receive big boosts if they are still in the race when the s... hits the fan. Yes, the year 2000 should be a good one for the political 'outs'.

I could go on at length, but you get the idea. Actually, FF, I hope that a year from now you're in a position to tell all of us, "I told you so!" I hope that, but frankly, I'm not counting on it.

-- Anonymous, August 09, 1999

How is it possible that anyone could actually call it "Good News" that one in four nuclear facilities did not make the relaxed "Ready" deadline? One in four. This is the desperate clutching at straws that removes all credibility from one who has such an optimistic outlook. It just can't break, it would be too horrible! Therefore, it won't break. This is the same kind of insane thinking that has gotten us here. There, I said it. Only a person with dubious mental health could state that this is a "Bump in the Road". Please, tell me about one other "bump" that caused this much interest and expense. Y2K is ALREADY a big deal. And it will escalate, no one denies that. Bump in the road - get real! Then, get ready, please.

-- Anonymous, August 09, 1999

Whoa.

They have experienced a 7% failure rate in mission critical embedded systems, and they have more than 5,000 digital systems that are not mission critical.

Seven percent failure in M/C embedded systems is a big number. I assume you mean that research (assessment/testing/inquiry with vendor) revealed that failures of one kind or another would impact seven percent of M/C embedded systems.

Where did that number come from, Tom? I'm not denying it, mind you; I'm just wondering where it came from.

-- Anonymous, August 09, 1999

There will be electric outages, no doubt about it, in January. The greater risk is failure of pipelines, refineries, ports, tanker ships, and oil producing foreign countries. This supply line will fail starting in January. Our strategic oil reserves in Louisiana and Texas will be called out but may or may not be able to be refined by our refineries, and Kostinen says the reserves are a two month supply. The US will grind to a halt by Feb.-March. There will be economic chaos by Feb. at the latest. The food supply chain will fail by mid-Jan. at the latest. Banks will fail by late Jan. at the latest due to the inability to process international exchanges, if they make it past Jan. 1. People without cash in their hands Jan. 1 may not be able to get it. The bottom line is international dependency threatens our standard of living at the least and our ability to stay alive at the most.

-- Anonymous, August 09, 1999

Lane wrote:

>Seven percent failure in M/C embedded systems is a big number. I assume you mean that research (assessment/testing/inquiry with vendor) revealed that failures of one kind or another would impact seven percent of M/C embedded systems.

It is the number on their website. They tested about 3,300 mission critical embeddeds systems and ended up replacing or repairing just under 7% of them. Why is it so high compared to the NERC number?

They have a tighter definition of mission critical than NERC is one explanation. Another possible explanation is that they are an integrated company - they do everything from generate to power to deliver it to my wall socket while the NERC data focuses mostly on generation and transmission with very little about distribution.

On the other hand, my power company is entirely hydro which is the least vulnerable. Saskatchewan Power reported a 5% failure rate but had twice as many embedded systems to serve a much smaller population.

This is why all these numbers are so terribly bogus. SaskPower had a lower failure rate but in absolute terms had a bigger repair problem and would have suffered more failures.

The percentages completed or the percentages that fail will be absolutely meaningless on rollover. It will be the abslute number of systems that fail that matters, not the percentage that work.

Tom

-- Anonymous, August 09, 1999

OK, my "assessment" is now online. See the thread The Electric Industry and Y2k - Closing on Deadline (Rick Cowles, 1999-08-09)

-- Anonymous, August 09, 1999

Thanks, Tom. You're right, and I have always been leery of the percentages that get thrown at us, whether from Pollyannas or from Doomers. Especially because they are often averages of averages.

-- Anonymous, August 09, 1999

In reading over my above post, I just noticed something in BC Hydro's Y2K radiness press release that warrents a closer look: 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 Hydros ability to generate and deliver electricity to its customers.

Lower priority devices  for example, those that would function normally but print an incorrectly-dated status report, are now being addressed. Part of the remaining work is also in the area of contingency planning and communication to customers."

The definition of "Lower priority devices" as those with minor y2k problems tends to indicate that BC may be using the term "High impact devices" for devices with more severe y2k date problems. This is worth looking at more closely to verify.

I had been looking at all the numbers, and had not closely read the press release, and took their "High impact" to mean "mission critical". I remember seeing a statement from an Ontario Hydro spokesman concerning more severe y2k bugs that could have impacted power generation, so this is possible. (I also know from past experience with Hydro plant controls upgrades that many are more highly automated than many realize).

Right now, its late, I'm tired, so if anyone else wants to research this aspect on the BC Hydro website further (or even contact them) to clarify, go for it.

Regards,

-- Anonymous, August 09, 1999

I'm a long time lurker here.In some ways I'm still trying to make up my mind on just how worried to be. IMHO, it is sometimes difficult to see the forest for the trees. We all get so wound up in ELECTRICITY questions that the big picture gets blurred. Here's a little reminder: ALL ELECTRICITY/POWER/UTILITY supplies depend on OIL in a greater or lesser manner. For oil based power generating plants, the dependency is a "must-have" situation. For other types of power plants, water supplies, oil is the underlying factor that enables production.....diesel for the trains that carry coal, gasoline for people to get to work(once you start the visualization of this chain-it is endless)....our society, as we know it, depends on OIL. How much of our oil is imported?? What is the status of the tanker fleet?? What about the ports? What about the refinery industry? I'm very afraid that, by May or June of next year, our basically comfortable "life as we know it" will have forever changed for the worst.

-- Anonymous, August 11, 1999

How much of our oil is imported?

Fifty-five percent of the oil consumed in the USA in 1998 was imported.

-- Anonymous, August 11, 1999