Interesting WND piecegreenspun.com : LUSENET : TimeBomb 2000 (Y2000) : One Thread |
Threat of Power Outages, Political Repression; Y2K conference analyzes risks from technology, governmentWASHINGTON -- "It's entirely possible that we could have significant power outages" as a result of Y2K, warns former Secretary of Energy Donald Hodel.
Hodel was responding to a recent report by the North American Electric Reliability Council, which sets the operating and engineering standards for the reliability of America's electric power grids. NERC says the utilities are basically in good shape regarding the year 2000 computer glitch.
"The problem is, they don't know," says Hodel, who served in the Reagan administration as secretary of energy and has also served as administrator of Bonneville Power. "And another problem is that they don't know how to test for Y2K..."
Read on for Anti-Clinton propaganda...
-- pshannon (pshannon@sangersreview.com), May 10, 1999
Do you have a different link?
-- Doug (douglasjohnson@prodigy.net), May 10, 1999.
Here is an interesting tidbit:""Judicial Watch will be issuing FOIA (Freedom of Information Act) requests in regard to Y2K," Klayman promised. "We will also be putting information on how to do this on our web site," he added, noting that conservatives must start doing this immediately if they want to find out what "emergency" plans are being contemplated by the Federal Emergency Management Agency or any other agency. The reason why: The government agency has 20 working days to respond to your FOIA request, followed by an administrative appeal of another 30 days, before you can even initiate a court action if you don't get everything you want.
"The best way we can prevent any Clinton power grab is to remove him as president before 2000," noted Klayman. "And I believe that this president and his administration will unravel in the next six months. But if that does not happen, we have to be prepared to take him on." "
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Ray A
-- Ray (ray@totacc.com), May 10, 1999.
Here is the link:Ray
-- Ray (ray@totacc.com), May 10, 1999.
I read this earlier today and you know that part -two is tom. Did you read that stuff about the NG and what all they are going through? I've been womdering how reliable WND is. Does anybody know if they have a good track record or what?
-- Johnny (jljtm@bellsouth.net), May 10, 1999.
Interesting article. Maybe Klayman can badger some truth out of "the most ethical administration in history."I'm looking forward to Part 2 tomorrow.
-- Doug (douglasjohnson@prodigy.net), May 10, 1999.
Excerpt:Jim Lord, a prominent Y2K author and newsletter editor, noted that the NERC report claims utilities have completed 75 percent of the work needed to prepare for Y2K. NERC is including all the unbroken systems in that 75 percent figure, contends Lord.
"Let's say you have a flat tire and leave your car at a car-repair shop to get the tire fixed," Lord explains. "You call later and ask how they're doing. 'We're 75 percent done,' says the mechanic, but you don't realize he's counting the three tires that weren't flat in the first place."
"You have no idea what NERC means when it says they are 75 percent done," Lord concluded.
As another example of "Spin City" in action, Lord cited the FAA's much-publicized testing of air-traffic control systems at the Denver International Airport. Those systems were not affected when their dates were set to Jan. 1, 2000, according to the Air Transport Association.
"But the FAA has 430 computer systems to get ready for Y2K," said Lord, "222 of them related to air-traffic control. The Denver test involved 6 systems, used two airplanes, and lasted four hours. Everything was extensively pre-tested, and they only showed the stuff that worked. This was a PR stunt, not a test."
Hear that Dan? Flint? Davis? Decker? RMS? Pro?
-- a (a@a.a), May 10, 1999.
Jim Lord, a prominent Y2K author and newsletter editor, noted that the NERC report claims utilities have completed 75 percent of the work needed to prepare for Y2K. NERC is including all the unbroken systems in that 75 percent figure, contends Lord.[You, by your contributions to this forum and csy2k, have also become a "prominent Y2K author". And you're just as loony. The argument that the NERC figures included the unbroken code has been debunked ad nauseum. The actual verbiage from the NERC reporting requirements have been posted here many times. Quoting someone who either doesn't know this (which disqualifies him as an expert) or who knows it but chooses to misrepresent it anyway seriously undermines your argument. Why do you bother with this when you know better?]
"You have no idea what NERC means when it says they are 75 percent done," Lord concluded.
[Yes you do know. We all know. I suspect Lord knows too. He's a fraud.]
"But the FAA has 430 computer systems to get ready for Y2K," said Lord, "222 of them related to air-traffic control. The Denver test involved 6 systems, used two airplanes, and lasted four hours. Everything was extensively pre-tested, and they only showed the stuff that worked. This was a PR stunt, not a test."
[Where does this information come from? I've read that almost every system was necessarily involved in the demonstration the FAA put on in Denver. Even if all of these systems were pre-tested, do you think they would have been put on display if they failed the test and hadn't been repaired? I agree that the FAA has a long way to go in implementing their fixes at every installation, many of which have custom tweaks to be adapted. But Lord's description is another wild misrepresentation. What's he selling anyway?]
-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), May 10, 1999.
Jim Lord is a fraud? Was he caught lying twice by the GAO?And they tested every system except baggage handling :)
-- a (a@a.a), May 10, 1999.
a please, you know what happens when the L word is used here, every Polly Troll in the world jumps in with their twisted spin.Let's TRY to be a bit politically correct, how about misunderstanding!!
Ray
-- Ray (ray@totacc.com), May 10, 1999.
Once more, this time with feeling:From the actual NERC instructions for filling out the questionaire:
Instructions for Completing the Y2K Readiness Assessment Report
And I quote:
7.A standard method for determining per cent complete follows. It is preferred that your responses be geared to % work done compared to total amount of work to be done. This would account for various activities having different amounts of effort. For example: if your inventory shows 100 devices with possible Y2K problems, and your assessment shows that only 2 have Y2K problems and one device has been replaced with a Y2K ready device and the other still needs remediation, the per cent complete to report would be Inventory 100%, Assessment 100%, Remediation and Testing 50%.
I mean, c'mon folks, it can't really get any plainer than that. Either:
a) WorldNetDaily decided to, umm, play a little "loose" again with their quotes, or
b) Jim Lord feels the need to add a little hype and misinformation.
Take your pick. Either way, the story is wrong.
-- Hoffmeister (hoff_meister@my-dejanews.com), May 10, 1999.
"It is preferred?" Sounds like NERC has about as much leverage as the K-man. :)
-- a (a@a.a), May 10, 1999.
Hoff, you're right about the quote but my worry is that since the boys in the Palace can't count they will figure the odds (oops...make that percentages) like this:100 items in inventory, 2 need replacement or reprogramming. Assessment 100%, Inventory 100%, Testing and Remediation 99%.
Says the same thing....different spin. If you were dependent on making a politician happy so you got to keep your job, which one would you choose????? (rhetorical question and meant to be sarcastic).
-- Lbo (atthelair@yahoo.com), May 10, 1999.
One can only envy any person who is able to find certainty in all this.I am reminded of the blinders I used to see on draft horses (used in haulage) and mules (used in construction). The function of the blinders was to block the animals' peripheral vision, so they would not be startled by events around them. All they could see was what was directly in front of them. It made the work a lot easier for the drivers.
-- Tom Carey (tomcarey@mindspring.com), May 11, 1999.
So Jim Lord is a fraud, and WorldNetDaily is a questionable source. What about the former Secretary of Energy? Another wacko conspirator I guess, according to the polly crowd. Yea, right... <:)="It's entirely possible that we could have significant power outages"
"The problem is, they don't know,"
"And another problem is that they don't know how to test for Y2K..."
-- Sysman (y2kboard@yahoo.com), May 11, 1999.
You know, Sysman, you really should do your homework before you criticize those who might doubt the 'expert' credentials of Mr. Hodel.Secretary of Energy!!! Umm, so what? Are you saying that all presidential appointees are determined based on their knowledge and/or qualifications for a particular post? That's a good one!! I guess a BA in Government, a Law degree, serving as legal counsel to a wood products company certainly establishes him to be deputy administrator of Bonneville Power for 3 years prior to his appointment.
What are the requirements to be a deputy administrator for BPA? Well let's see what the current Dep. Admin.'s c.v. look like:
Jack Robertson was appointed Deputy Administrator of the Bonneville Power Administration inAugust of 1987. Robertson is second in line of authority at Bonneville, the largest federal power marketing administration in the country with annual revenues of roughly $2.5 billion.
Mr. Robertson was born December 18, 1949, in Portland, Oregon. He graduated from Parkrose High School in 1968, Stanford University in 1972 and the Stanford Executive Program at the Graduate School of Business in 1990.
Mr. Robertson began working for the House of Representatives in 1973 and then for U.S. Senator Mark Hatfield of Oregon. He served as a senior policy advisor and director of communications for Hatfield from 1973 until 1982.
He returned to the Northwest in 1983, when he was appointed by Bonneville to the position of Assistant to the Administrator for External Affairs.
Wow! Now if this guy started talking to me about power plants failing and how to test for Y2K issues, I'd sure listen. By the way, BPA deals with hydroelectric power, a pretty small percentage of the units in the NERC report which he casts aspersions on.
So what has he done since leaving the government. Well, it seems that he has most recently been president of that well known moderate organization known as the Christian Coalition that Messrs. Reed and Robertson put together. Never been an ounce of conspiracy theory espoused by that group, no siree!!
I guess you are right Sysman! How could I not instantly get it when you continue to parade such compelling evidence and authorities in front of me. [g]
-- RMS (rms_200@hotmail.com), May 11, 1999.
OFF bold
-- RMS (rms_200@hotmail.com), May 11, 1999.
How's that foot taste RMS? Just like you clowns, change the topic. Here's Mr. Hodel's bio Donald Paul HodelNotice the following:
Mr. Hodel was Chairman of the National Electric Reliability Council (1978-1980) and Administrator of the Bonneville Power Administration (1972-1978).
-- Sysman (y2kboard@yahoo.com), May 11, 1999.
I'm gonna hold my breath until RMS issues a formal apology. On second thought...
-- regular (zzz@z.z), May 11, 1999.
Sorry clown, YOU are the one who changed the topic, not me! You are the one who put forth the premise that Hodel was an expert, not me. So, he was President of NERC 20 years ago. Again, so what? Show me one thing in his c.v. that indicates he ever did anything other than serve as an administrator. All we ever hear form the doomers is that all the 'happy face' reports are from clueless government shills or braindead executives and administrators. Here is a guy who has never done anything but that and you want me to accept his opinions."It's entirely possible that we could have significant power outages" as a result of Y2K
Wow, really went out on a limb there!
"The problem is, they don't know,"
And we should take his word over the NERC report because....?
"And another problem is that they don't know how to test for Y2K..."
And this is based on his vast technical knowledge of the issues and personal experience in ....?
Interestingly, the link you posted is the only one that indicates he was president of the NERC. All other articles I saw siimply say he became a private consultant in between BPA and joining Reagan's administration. Interesting.
And regular, you're turning blue! I remember when my 4 year old used to hold his breath... never mind.
-- RMS (rms_200@hotmail.com), May 11, 1999.
Sorry, RMS, but you did attack Hodel's credentials. Not once, but twice now. Hodel does raise valid questions which all of us would like the answer to. While you accept NERC as the final word, many of us here do not. I think Hodel's credentials are in order, despite your views. Others can decide for themselves, to be sure.An apology does still appear to be in order, but civility apparently isn't one of your character traits. That's a shame, but very telling nonetheless.
-- regular (zzz@z.z), May 11, 1999.
By the way, isn't it a bit strange that WND would not mention the fact that he was a former chairman of the NERC in an article where he questions an NERC report? Also curious is the omission of any mention of the Christian Coalition in either the WND article of the link that Sysman provided. Is he hiding from his past?
-- RMS (rms_200@hotmail.com), May 11, 1999.
Fine regular -- what did I post that was incorrect that you feel I need to apologize for?
-- RMS (rms_200@hotmail.com), May 11, 1999.
RMS,I re-quoted a few lines from the original post. You started talking about some joker named Jack Robertson. Keep posting RMS, you're getting sillier by the minute.
So I'm supposed to ignore the opinion of a guy that is a former Secretary of Energy, AND former Chairman of NERC, AND former Administrator of BPA, and listen to you?!?! ROTFLMAO! <:)=
-- Sysman (y2kboard@yahoo.com), May 11, 1999.
RMS, you basically called him a lackey without credentials, and concluded: "How could I not instantly get it when you continue to parade such compelling evidence and authorities in front of me. [g]" In this case, you appear to be dead wrong.
-- regular (zzz@z.z), May 11, 1999.
RMS,Speaking of changing the subject, what does religion have to do with this? But since you did ask, maybe you should learn to read:
"Mr. Hodel is President of Christian Coalition based in Washington DC"
Black and white, about 10 lines into his bio. He also resigned that position. If you really want a link, I'll go dig it up. Better yet, learn how to do your own research. Maybe you'll learn something. <:)=
-- Sysman (y2kboard@yahoo.com), May 11, 1999.
OK Sysman, since you are having trouble reading your own posts as well as comprehending mine here it is:You wrote: What about the former Secretary of Energy? Another wacko conspirator I guess, according to the polly crowd. Yea, right... <:)=
I assume that was intended to mean that Mr. Hodel has credentials to make the statements he made in the WND article, that he is not a wacko, not a conspiracist, and that us pollys should listen. If that is not what you meant, please clarify.
I used Mr. Robertson's c.v. as an example of what qualifications were necessary to be named deputy administrator of BPA. Obviously, a technical background or any sort of experience with the power industry is NOT a requirement for that job. Thus, his being named to that position does nothing to elevate his status as an expert on the power industry or the issues they face related to Y2K.
Now, you are trying to put words in my mouth. I never said you should listen to what I say over what he says. You basically threw down the gauntlet and said, "OK, forget about Jim Lord and WND, let's see you guys debunk a former Secretary of Energy!" You brought it up, not me, but when I respond to your challenge you accuse me of changing topics.
And don't put words in my mouth. I didn't ask you to listen to me over him. You feel that you should have carte blanche to poke subtle jabs at us poor, clueless pollys and we should just keep quiet and accept all of your posts as irrefutable facts. Sorry, no can do.
I asked what qualifications your expert had that would make me accept three unsubstantiated statements he made in the WND article over what was published in the NERC report. If you have a valid response to that question, I would be interested to hear it.
{And I admit, I did miss the mention of the C.C. in the link you provided -- the formatting made it difficult to read so I skimmed it and looked at the itemized listing at the bottom. My mistake, I guess it's not interesting at all. And you are correct that religion has nothing to do with -- the C.C. comments were just a little sarcasm directed toward your 'conspirator' comment, nothing more}
-- RMS (rms_200@hotmail.com), May 11, 1999.
RMS et al Something for the southern exposure of a north bound horseA truly compelling argument to trust NERC!!
NERC INFO BLACKOUT / Y2K "readiness exceptions"?
greenspun.com : LUSENET : Electric Utilities and Y2K : One Thread
In light of DOE's recently-announced reliance on NERC for y2k expertise, the following documents, available on NERC's public access Y2K database, are extremely disturbing. Do these documents evidence an internal policy formulated by NERC for deceiving DOE and the public through withholding unfavorable "readiness exceptions" information?
"From the horse's mouth" . . . Logging onto the NERC public access database at ftp://www.nerc.com/pub/sys/all_updl/docs/ and then selecting the /y2k database, start with "contingency.pdf" - "NERC Year 2000 Contingency Planning Guide Version 1.0" dated 10/23/98 for in-depth assessment of multiple contingencies and potential failures. Next, review "y2k-reporting-changes-1-12-99.pdf" and "y2k-exceptions-instructions.pdf" documents, which outline NERC's information blackout strategy to WITHHOLD DATA FROM DOE AND THE PUBLIC regarding two critical areas: (1) READINESS "EXCEPTIONS" reported to NERC by utilities which are attempting to achieve y2k readiness but do not expect to meet NERC's deadline; and (2) information about non-conforming y2k programs in utilities (definitions included in NERC document, quoted below). In "y2k-reporting-changes-1-12-99.pdf" NERC states that utilities attempting to conform but which will miss the due dates because of "readiness exceptions" will be allowed to report their mission-critical systems as "y2k ready" and will be listed on reports to DOE and the public as "Y2k ready" for the target industry deadlines of May 31, 1999 and June 30, 1999, as long as these utilities report y2k deficiencies to NERC in secret, "confidential" emails. For these utilities, NERC states (in y2k-reporting-changes-1-12-99.pdf) "All identified exceptions will be held in strict confidence and will not be reported to DOE or the public. The exceptions will be reviewed by NERC Y2k project staff for reasonableness and reliability impact on operations into the Year 2000. The NERC Y2k project staff may forward any reliability issues to the NERC Security Coordinator Subcommittee or the NERC Operating Committee for review." These utilities are given explicit follow-up instructions on the confidential Exception Reporting methods in the document entitled "y2k-exceptions-instructions.pdf": "For those organizations for which the above condition is the case [*i.e., utilities which will not be "y2k ready" by June 30, 1999*], an Exception Reporting mechanism has been established by which those organizations can report themselves Y2k Ready [*italics emphasis in original text*] by June 30, 1999 in the NERC Y2k Readiness Assessment with the noted exceptions on this new report . . . . All information provided in the exception list will be handled confidentially by NERC. This information will not be included in the NERC report to the Department of Energy nor will it be released to the public. The information will be used by NERC to evaluate reliability risks associated with Y2." Also, for blatantly NON-CONFORMING utilities, NERC states (in "y2k-reporting-changes-1-12-99.pdf"): . . . beginning in January 1999, any Y2k program meeting any of the criteria listed below will be designated as a Non-Conforming Y2k Program. The Y2k Program Manager will be contacted and provided an opportunity to clarify the reported data. If the issue is not resolved, a letter will be sent from the NERC President to the chief executive of the organization noting the deficiencies. If the issue is not resolved, the status of the program may be reviewed by the NERC Operating Committee or the Board of Trustees. These activities will remain confidential within NERC at least through the first quarter of 1999 and longer, if possible. This information will not be released to the public or reported to DOE. It is essential that reports to NERC focus on those facilities and items that are mission critical to electric operations. Nonmission-critical items that may be completed after the industry target dates should not be the cause of reporting a late completion date. The criteria for a Non-conforming Y2k Program are: 1. Expected to complete Remediation and Testing or Y2k Ready status for mission-critical electrical facilities past industry targets of May 31, 1999 and June 30, 1999, respectively. Reasonable, specific exceptions may be justified for a limited number of facilities, if they do not pose a risk to electric operations into the Year 2000. 2. Reported exceptions are excessive, not reasonably justified, or may pose a risk to electric operations into the Year 2000. 3. Missed Y2k readiness status reports for two consecutive months. 4. No written Y2k plan. 5. Program does not report to executive management. COMMENTS: Combining the above information with the unsettling charts, graphs, and projections from "contingency.pdf" - which is a thorough, statistical analysis that includes worst case projections - a "dark" scenario emerges in which NERC's junk data lulls DOE and the public into a false sense of energy complacency: "Don't worry, be happy." Tick, tick, tick.... Last but not least, also note that NERC's y2k database seems to contain a "y2k bug" -- numerous documents have original 1999 *creation dates* which have not yet occurred, all the way through *creation dates* listed as December 1999. Whooops :-(
-- Malthusienne (ma2k@flash.net), March 14, 1999
Answers
Oh Christ....
(long pause, searching for words beyond expletives, that might alienate the Holy Names that simultaineously run through my imploring mind...here.)
***** Five Star Post = You're a rare gem.
-- (dbeatty@jaguarsystems.com), March 14, 1999.
In light of DOE's recently-announced reliance on NERC for y2k expertise, the following documents, available on NERC's public access Y2K database, are extremely disturbing. Do these documents evidence an internal policy formulated by NERC for deceiving DOE and the public through withholding unfavorable "readiness exceptions" information?
"From the horse's mouth" . . . Logging onto the NERC public access database at ftp://www.nerc.com/pub/sys/all_updl/docs/ and then selecting the /y2k database, start with "contingency.pdf" - "NERC Year 2000 Contingency Planning Guide Version 1.0" dated 10/23/98 for in-depth assessment of multiple contingencies and potential failures.
Next, review "y2k-reporting-changes-1-12-99.pdf" and "y2k-exceptions- instructions.pdf" documents, which outline NERC's information blackout strategy to WITHHOLD DATA FROM DOE AND THE PUBLIC regarding two critical areas: (1) READINESS "EXCEPTIONS" reported to NERC by utilities which are attempting to achieve y2k readiness but do not expect to meet NERC's deadline; and (2) information about non- conforming y2k programs in utilities (definitions included in NERC document, quoted below).
In "y2k-reporting-changes-1-12-99.pdf" NERC states that utilities attempting to conform but which will miss the due dates because of "readiness exceptions" will be allowed to report their mission- critical systems as "y2k ready" and will be listed on reports to DOE and the public as "Y2k ready" for the target industry deadlines of May 31, 1999 and June 30, 1999, as long as these utilities report y2k deficiencies to NERC in secret, "confidential" emails.
For these utilities, NERC states (in y2k-reporting-changes-1-12- 99.pdf) "All identified exceptions will be held in strict confidence and will not be reported to DOE or the public. The exceptions will be reviewed by NERC Y2k project staff for reasonableness and reliability impact on operations into the Year 2000. The NERC Y2k project staff may forward any reliability issues to the NERC Security Coordinator Subcommittee or the NERC Operating Committee for review.
" These utilities are given explicit follow-up instructions on the confidential Exception Reporting methods in the document entitled "y2k-exceptions-instructions.pdf": "For those organizations for which the above condition is the case [*i.e., utilities which will not be "y2k ready" by June 30, 1999*], an Exception Reporting mechanism has been established by which those organizations can report themselves Y2k Ready [*italics emphasis in original text*] by June 30, 1999 in the NERC Y2k Readiness Assessment with the noted exceptions on this new report . . . .
All information provided in the exception list will be handled confidentially by NERC. This information will not be included in the NERC report to the Department of Energy nor will it be released to the public. The information will be used by NERC to evaluate reliability risks associated with Y2." Also, for blatantly NON- CONFORMING utilities, NERC states (in "y2k-reporting-changes-1-12- 99.pdf"): . . . beginning in January 1999, any Y2k program meeting any of the criteria listed below will be designated as a Non- Conforming Y2k Program. The Y2k Program Manager will be contacted and provided an opportunity to clarify the reported data. If the issue is not resolved, a letter will be sent from the NERC President to the chief executive of the organization noting the deficiencies.
If the issue is not resolved, the status of the program may be reviewed by the NERC Operating Committee or the Board of Trustees. These activities will remain confidential within NERC at least through the first quarter of 1999 and longer, if possible. This information will not be released to the public or reported to DOE. It is essential that reports to NERC focus on those facilities and items that are mission critical to electric operations. Nonmission-critical items that may be completed after the industry target dates should not be the cause of reporting a late completion date.
The criteria for a Non-conforming Y2k Program are: 1. Expected to complete Remediation and Testing or Y2k Ready status for mission- critical electrical facilities past industry targets of May 31, 1999 and June 30, 1999, respectively. Reasonable, specific exceptions may be justified for a limited number of facilities, if they do not pose a risk to electric operations into the Year 2000. 2. Reported exceptions are excessive, not reasonably justified, or may pose a risk to electric operations into the Year 2000. 3. Missed Y2k readiness status reports for two consecutive months. 4. No written Y2k plan. 5. Program does not report to executive management.
COMMENTS: Combining the above information with the unsettling charts, graphs, and projections from "contingency.pdf" - which is a thorough, statistical analysis that includes worst case projections - a "dark" scenario emerges in which NERC's junk data lulls DOE and the public into a false sense of energy complacency: "Don't worry, be happy." Tick, tick, tick....
Last but not least, also note that NERC's y2k database seems to contain a "y2k bug" -- numerous documents have original 1999 *creation dates* which have not yet occurred, all the way through *creation dates* listed as December 1999. Whooops :-(
Thought I'd put the above in easy to read paragraphs.
-- Watcher (anon@anon.com), March 14, 1999.
Malthusienne (after Thomas Malthus, inspirer of Darwin?) I'm glad you posted this and not me! Not only do I not have to take any heat for posting something else which might be considered uncomplimentary about NERC, I get to answer only as a bystander! *grin*
I think it's completely reasonable that NERC would promise those utilties which might not make the agency imposed deadline that the "non-conforming" information would not be released to the public. I'll leave the debate about the public's right to know versus legal privacy of information aside, and go to the fact that NERC does not have any legal enforcement capacity in their oversight of the utilities. If they didn't promise anonymity concerning Y2K status details, they would get NO reports from utilities. The information well, even such as it is, would dry up completely. No utility which does find itself facing project delays or problems would ever indicate that if they thought they would be singled out to the public. Plummeting stock values putting the business at grave risk wouldn't even be the worst, compared to the panic of the utility's customers.
It's my opinion that oversight agencies and our government leaders are walking a tightrope between how much they are legally empowered to do, and what information they believe might cause more harm than good -- from their perspective. I fully realize that this tightrope could end up as a noose around the same government and agency's necks if they fail to warn the public and serious consequences result. (That's one more topic which has already had plenty of debate and will likely have a lot more said about it.)
As I stated in response to Drew Parkhill's question, "Have you all noticed...", I have never expected negative details from business or government sources, so NERC's stance on non-conforming utilities doesn't surprise me. Suffice it to say that NERC has some legitimate reasons for promising anonymity, whether we agree with those reasons or not.
What *does* surprise me is NERC's statement that they would also not inform the Department of Energy, "at least through the first quarter of 1999 and longer, if possible." I see no reason for this stance unless they somehow think the DOE would go public with any info of negative connotations. The DOE certainly hasn't done that to date, so I can only conclude in my own mind that not informing them has more to do with a proprietary industry insularity than anything else. THIS bothers me. In my opinion, government oversight agencies keeping information from other government entities is counterproductive to the national interest and will not help in dealing with contingency plans on a national basis. I can't help but remember the complaints of Senator Bennett and Senator Dodd that Y2K status information was very difficult to come by. In my view, it's looking like the typical bureaucratic turf fighting is so ingrained it's not being given up even for a national/global problem with the potential to affect everyone.
I just read the 2/11/1999 Nuclear Regulatory Meeting "Briefing on Y2K" transcript. It's long, but well worth a thorough reading. It can be found at:
http://www.nrc.gov/NRC/COMMISSION/TRANSCRIPTS/19990211b.html
I'm putting the URL here because there is a section of the briefing which corresponds to what has been posted in this thread:
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: What is the status of activities at the slowest plant? MR. DAVIS: Status of activities at the slowest plant? CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Right, in terms of their degree of detailed assessment, remediation, et cetera. MR. DAVIS: I don't remember the specific numbers for which plant was at the slowest end, but my analysis shows that every plant can meet the objective of completing their program by 1 July and making the report. CHAIRMAN JACKSON: I guess I'm interested in the actual work being done, the testing, and so forth.
[my note - James Davis, Director, Operations, for the Nuclear Energy Institute, which is the gathering agency for the data from the nuclear plant Y2K status surveys, was the presenter at the above NRC Commission briefing. "Completing their program" and "making the report" by 1 July refers to a report including those items of a project which will not be finished by that date.]
Like Chairman Jackson, I'm also interested in the actual work being done, etc., because I'd prefer to be able to have an independent "analysis" outside of Mr. Davis's assessment. My preference isn't going to make it happen, though, and Chairman Jackson didn't get the details she wanted, either.
I think we're all going to have to get used to the idea that we're not going to get all the information we want. If it's bad, we're going to find out the hard way. "Risk management" has recently become a word the government and industries are using. I'm now calling my personal preparations to withstand possible Y2K disruptions, my "risk management" program. If it's good enough for them, it's appropriate for citizens, too.
-- Bonnie Camp (bonniec@mail.odyssey.net), March 14, 1999.
Bonnie, I've got an answer for you on the DOE "right to know", as it were. Actually, I'll answer your question with a question. Do you know of any government agency that doesn't leak news like a sieve? If DOE had the answers to the million dollar Y2K questions, I'd like to think that I'd be one of the first to know. ;-)
-- Rick Cowles (rcowles.remove@waterw.com), March 14, 1999.
If I was the NERC, and it was getting pretty obvious that the electricity industry was not going to meet my June 30 deadline:
1. I would not want to tell that to the DOE.
2. I would not want to tell that to the general public.
3. I would, however, want that information for myself.
4. I would need one man to have all the information reported to in order to control leaks.
That's exactly what these letters do.
-- James Chancellor, P.E. (publicworks1@bluebonnet.net), March 15, 1999.
Here is an article that I posted to the euy2k forum that may be relevant.
=================================================
NRC wants more private meetings for commissioners
WASHINGTON, March 1 (Reuters) - The Nuclear Regulatory Commission said it wants to allow certain meetings of three or more commissioners to be held in private to improve "efficiency and collegiality."
Current regulations prohibit more than two of the agency's five commissioners from meeting to discuss business unless the session is open to the public.
The NRC said in a statement that it planned to propose a change in the regulations that would allow technical or informational briefings and "generalized 'big picture' discussions" to be held privately by several or all of the commissioners.
Any private meetings would not decide any public policy issues, the NRC said.
In 1985, the NRC proposed a similar change but dropped it after some members of Congress expressed concern.
To allay any concerns this time, the NRC said it would be willing to keep records for the first six months documenting the date, subject and participants in any private meetings of three or more commissioners. "After six months, the commission will consider whether the record-keeping practice might usefully continue," the NRC said.
===================================================
Ahh yes, what's a few secrets between friends !!
Ray
-- Ray (ray@totacc.com), March 15, 1999.
Why is this getting on my nerves?
It's like I want all of the *pop* y2k sites to post it.
-- (dbeatty@jaguarsystems.com), March 26, 1999.
-- spun@lright (mikeymac@uswest.net), May 11, 1999.
Nice post, "spun".But hey, I guess you kinda missed the fact that NERC specifically listed each exception in their latest report.
Some coverup, huh?
-- Hoffmeister (hoff_meister@my-dejanews.com), May 11, 1999.
LOL!RMS: Hodel is a liar.
Sysman: RMS, Hodel is a former NERC Chairman!
LOL! RMS you are a nutcase.
-- a (a@a.a), May 11, 1999.
Yes Hoff-- BUTAwh... what a tangled web we weave
when 1st we practice to decieve
---or--
1st time fooled shame on you
2nd time fooled shame on me
---or---
once a liar, always in doubt
---or---
to err is human, to decieve is wicked
---or---
Thou shalt not...
---or---
white man speak with forked tounge
Help me out here Hoff
A lie is, a coverup,is a lie,is deceit, is a lie,is a fib, is a lie, is a fabrication, is a lie, is to palter, is a lie, is to equivicate, is a lie, is to prevaricate, is a lie are you still with me Hoff
Now,.... maybe you will.... take something on the face value of it, after you find out the person doin' the tellin has already lied(in one fashion or another) Maybe you have that kind of trust. I DON'T!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Seems to me that this is going to be the very reason, regardless of Y2K, the very reason, the very reason it all is falling apart. We can't be "sure" we're being told the honest truth, by the people that put their hand on that Bible and swear an oath before God and man, to uphold the truth. That, the fear of God is not enough, not enough to keep them from lying. So, how can those being goverened by such as these, know who is and who isn't telling the truth, *what* is or is not really true. That oath to God is just a ceremony, to the liars.
Survey says.... We don't
You say this, he says that, I don't trust either of you. The really sad part is, if he's lying, and I'm prepared for it, I've got a chance. But if your lying and I'm not prepared for the consequences, I lose, my family loses, we all lose. So in a way that makes you the problem, now doesn't it.
Again:
Either way, no matter if he's right or he's wrong, I can't lose
But if your wrong, God help me.
Don't give me that load of crap, we'll be the cause of the run on the banks, the cause of the shortages, the cause of the riots, the cause of martial law.
I just found out about all this. I already didn't have any money in the bank, I already knew how to survive without the frills.
But you, you've known and didn't help to get the word out. You knew the risks to those of us on the outside. You and those like you. Even worse, you're still doing it.
It really is all I can muster to keep from hating people like you. You play with with others lives without thought. No, I don't trust you, or Poole, or Decker, just to name a few. You have nothing to offer except you "hope" you're right, I'm sure you're convinced you are. Unless you have been given the gift of Seer, or Prophet, how do you "know" it is going to be a non event. You are a liar!!
I'll take a win-win situation, over-If he's right then he's wrong- risk anyday.
I have not heard one of these people preparing here say "I know, without doubt what is going to happen". Just the opposite.
You claim, that you know they are wrong, therefore you "know" what is *not* going to happen, You are a liar!! You don't know what will happen or what will not happen.
They just feel, personally, that it probably will. They want people to take a win-win position.
Gee, kinda a no-brainer there huh. !!!!!I can't lose no matter what happens!!!!
-- spun@lright (mikeymac@uswest.net), May 12, 1999.
a,<;)= (wink)
-- Sysman (y2kboard@yahoo.com), May 12, 1999.
Why is it that you two mental midgets have to invent things to argue about. Where did I call Hodel a liar? Where did I say he knows nothing about the NERC? Where did I even state that he was wrong?I didn't and you know it. But, if you can't come up with a reasonable argument about what I said, just invent something and claim I said it and then you can win the argument. I have a dog that I can have a more intelligent discussion with than you two twits.
Sysman made the challenge, I responded and he didn't like it. Sorry I hurt your feelings! All I did was question Hodel's credentials as an expert on the latest NERC report on Y2K. Yes, he was chairman of the NERC -- 20 years ago!! He has no technical background whatsoever and, other than being a lawyer, has never had any other position except an administrator or a political appointee. You think he is an expert, fine -- he is. He knows all there is to know about Y2K testing and he knows for a fact that the NERC and the power companies have no idea how to do the testing so we are doomed. How could I possibly have doubted him?
-- RMS (rms_200@hotmail.com), May 12, 1999.
OK Spun-boy, you seem to be putting a lot of stock in a story in the WND, an organization that was caught fabricating quotes and then lying about it (see earlier threads about Greg Caton). Now, what was that you were saying about fool me once ...
-- RMS (rms_200@hotmail.com), May 12, 1999.
RMS,So, you don't believe a former NERC chairman, who thinks that we may have problems, but you do believe the current chairman, that says no problem. Are you willing to bet your life on this difference of opinion? I'm not. We have way too much conflicting information now for me to accept the bump theory. If I'm wrong, I'll throw a big party, serving chile over rice. If you're wrong, stop by my place. Maybe I'll have enough to feed you for a few days. <:)=
-- Sysman (y2kboard@yahoo.com), May 12, 1999.
I'll put it in simpler terms for you, Sysman. I believe a detailed, technical report -- with data that can (and some has been) independently verified -- by the current NERC Chairman more than I believe three vague, unsubstantiated comments from a former NERC chairman from 20 years ago who has had zero involvement with the NERC's Y2K efforts, published by WND, a news source with a well known bias and one which has been caught fabricating stories before. Does that make it clear enough?BTW, I am not Stephen Poole's buddy from GNIABFI -- we have many (but not all) similar views but I have never posted there, nor to the debunkers forum, although I read both frequently.
-- RMS (rms_200@hotmail.com), May 12, 1999.
Well spun, nice rant.Help me out here Hoff
Always willing to help.
A lie is, a coverup,is a lie,is deceit, is a lie,is a fib, is a lie, is a fabrication, is a lie, is to palter, is a lie, is to equivicate, is a lie, is to prevaricate, is a lie are you still with me Hoff
So far, I guess. Might have some problems with some.
Now,.... maybe you will.... take something on the face value of it, after you find out the person doin' the tellin has already lied(in one fashion or another) Maybe you have that kind of trust. I DON'T!!!!!!!!!!!!!
So just where was the lie? Show me where NERC lied. You posted a list of messages which, at the time, supposedly documented a coverup by NERC. Such did not prove to be the case. In detail, NERC listed every exception reported to it.
Seems to me that this is going to be the very reason, regardless of Y2K, the very reason, the very reason it all is falling apart. We can't be "sure" we're being told the honest truth, by the people that put their hand on that Bible and swear an oath before God and man, to uphold the truth. That, the fear of God is not enough, not enough to keep them from lying. So, how can those being goverened by such as these, know who is and who isn't telling the truth, *what* is or is not really true. That oath to God is just a ceremony, to the liars.
Survey says.... We don't
Sorry, but I don't put any trust in the "fear of God" rationale. People will do as they are want.
This is life. There is Good, and there is Bad, and mostly it's somewhere in between.
You say this, he says that, I don't trust either of you. The really sad part is, if he's lying, and I'm prepared for it, I've got a chance. But if your lying and I'm not prepared for the consequences, I lose, my family loses, we all lose. So in a way that makes you the problem, now doesn't it.
Y'all really have a problem with seeing the other side of a question, don't you? I mean, in your eyes, it's perfectly alright for Jim Lord to be quoted in WND spouting BS that is patently false. But pointing out the error is some sort of sin? And I'm the problem for pointing it out?
Again:
Either way, no matter if he's right or he's wrong, I can't lose
But if your wrong, God help me.
And again, do what you feel necessary.
But the statement that you can't lose is absurd.
Don't give me that load of crap, we'll be the cause of the run on the banks, the cause of the shortages, the cause of the riots, the cause of martial law.
I just found out about all this. I already didn't have any money in the bank, I already knew how to survive without the frills.
But you, you've known and didn't help to get the word out. You knew the risks to those of us on the outside. You and those like you. Even worse, you're still doing it.
It really is all I can muster to keep from hating people like you. You play with with others lives without thought. No, I don't trust you, or Poole, or Decker, just to name a few. You have nothing to offer except you "hope" you're right, I'm sure you're convinced you are. Unless you have been given the gift of Seer, or Prophet, how do you "know" it is going to be a non event. You are a liar!!
Point to where I've ever said this would be a non-event.
To all outside a few forums on the internet, I'd be put on the "doomer" side.
Whether I have anything to offer is subjective, I guess. I've spent the last 6 years replacing non-compliant systems with compliant ones. I've been there, working on the problem, in hopes of truly making it a non-event.
So tell me, what have you done? Prepared yourself and your family? Fine. But don't lecture me about being "part of the problem". I have been and still am "part of the solution".
I'll take a win-win situation, over-If he's right then he's wrong- risk anyday.
This is BS. You can store food in a hundred grain silos, but if Y2k or something else causes the collapse of society, it's not a "win" for anyone. You may be better off; you may not. I know where I'll be, trying to hold things together.
I have not heard one of these people preparing here say "I know, without doubt what is going to happen". Just the opposite.
You claim, that you know they are wrong, therefore you "know" what is *not* going to happen, You are a liar!! You don't know what will happen or what will not happen.
The logic escapes me. I never said I "know" what will happen. But yes, if by "they" you mean Jim Lord, and those accusing NERC of a coverup, they were wrong. You may not like it, but they were. Deal with it.
They just feel, personally, that it probably will. They want people to take a win-win position.
Hey, no problem here. See above about win-win, but never said, ever, people shouldn't prepare.
Gee, kinda a no-brainer there huh. !!!!!I can't lose no matter what happens!!!!
While this rant was an obvious response to having erroneous information pointed out, I thought I'd respond anyway.
In essence, then, it's OK to lie, fabricate quotes, and give out false information, as long as it provides backup to your view on things. If that's your opinion, you're welcome to it.
Tough sh*t if you don't like it when it's pointed out.
Live your life as you see fit. Prepare as you must. Those are your decisions. Those are everyone's decisions.
-- Hoffmeister (hoff_meister@my-dejanews.com), May 12, 1999.