A so-called "article" was published by WorldNetDaily, regarding NERC supposedly lying to the DOE. The article is available here: FEMA Left In The Dark Power companies cover up Y2K troubles. From my count, it has been posted at least three times as separate threads:

Power Utilities let power go to their heads - lies, lies and more lies...

FEMA Left In The Dark: Power companies cover up Y2K troubles

NERC Lies to Fema? eyepopper on Norths site

As well, it has shown up on other threads:

Incoming: Utilities report now on line along with an oooops.

May have missed a few.

Anyway, the article is a tremendous example of WND attempting to "manufacture" a story. And, since so many seem to be buying it, I thought it worth a separate thread.

To date, only RC even attempted to defend the story, but then disappeared. He did, however, suggest I start a separate thread.

OK, the basic premise of the "story" is that NERC issued a "secret" memo, telling the utilities to distort their reports and lie, and that the efforts of WND uncovered a "leaked" copy of this memo. And that, because of this memo, the utilities are lying to the public and DOE about their status.

First, the "leaked" memo. The memo in question is in regard to the NERC policy of reporting exceptions. Why WND had to resort to a "leaked" version is beyond me, since it has been publicly available on the NERC website since January. The memo can be found here: Y2k Reporting Changes  January 12, 1999.

That it is the same memo is undeniable. The WND "story" quotes from the "leaked" memo:

"All identified (Y2K) 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 memo said in part.

The memo at the NERC site states:

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.

Now, this begs the question: if NERC was truly trying to "coverup" the utilities true status, just why would NERC publish the details of that "coverup" on their website?

The article goes on to state:

It is not known which companies claimed to be Y2K ready but in reality did so only by twisting the definition. Potentially there are hundreds of power plants all over the country which are not Y2K ready even though they claim to be.

In other places, it states the information will not be made public, nor made available to the DOE.

All of which was completely blown out of the water by the latest NERC report, found here: August DOE Report

Peruse Appendix B. NERC lists each utility, and their status as "Y2k Ready", or "Y2k Ready with Exceptions". That's right, folks, NERC actually told the DOE, you, me and everyone else just which utilities had exceptions. Appendix C then lists those exceptions.

Some "coverup". But is WND so hardup for Y2k stories that they have to manufacture them?

-- Hoffmeister (hoff_meister@my-deja.com), August 05, 1999

Answers

Why would they publish it at their website? Probably the same reason they published this there before their April drill:

Do not make the drill too complex. We want to have a successful and meaningful story for publication.

Complex here apparently meant making sure the pointy-end of the batteries in their radios were inserted in the end marked '+'. ftp://www.nerc.com/pub/sys/all_updl/docs/y2k/drill-preparation-strateg ies.pdf

Now the press is reporting that the utilities have tested ALL embedded chips. As ex-congressman John Jenrette said when he was caught taking a bribe on hidden camera, "Money talks and BS walks." See also the post just above this one.

-- a (a@a.a), August 05, 1999.

Hoffmeister:

Agreed, they name names this time. A major step forward. I have two problems with this report, however:

1. They tell you what the exceptions are, but they are not linked to named utilities. This still leaves us (and perhaps the DOE?) not knowing what potential problems exist at/in what facilities or companies.

2. I find the completion graphs suspiciously smooth. These companies have apparently repealed Pareto's law. As far as I could tell, all of the graphs of the inventory, remediation, and testing were good approximations of simple, straight line increases. It is possible that this is simply the result of their averaging and that overall the total averages really were this simple. It is just a bit too pat for my tastes.

-- Jon Williamson (jwilliamson003@sprintmail.com), August 05, 1999.

Hoff,

Good post. It appears safe to conclude that a 10 TEOTWAWKI scenario is increasingly less likely. It appears the majority in USA will have power on 01/01/2000.

The most concerning part is in Appendixes D & E that shows small and rural providers are behind.

Still I suspect the success rate will not equal 100%. So best to prepare as if you will lose power but be ready to share with areas that actually do lose power if you stay up and running.

-- Bill P (porterwn@one.net), August 05, 1999.

Does RC refer to the poster Runway Cat or to someone else?

-- Rob Michaels (sonofdust@com.net), August 05, 1999.

Don't think so.

The RC referred to is the R.C. who signs with rcambab@mailcity.com.

-- Hoffmeister (hoff_meister@my-deja.com), August 05, 1999.

RC the oil "candle" guy

-- cold sludge in pipes (below@400.problems), August 05, 1999.

Thanks Hoff. For a minute I had my hopes up that Runway Cat had returned.

-- (sonofdust@com.net), August 05, 1999.

Hoffmeister:

You made the claim that I "disappeared" and insinuated that I must have been unable to defend what I stated. I thought I made the case quite clear in that you had jumped to conclusions regarding WND's journalistic integrity by "guessing" that the WND leaked document was the same document posted on the NERC website.

I see from the above that you are still jumping to conclusions with statements like the following:

" That it is the same memo is undeniable. The WND "story" quotes from the "leaked" memo:"

UNDENIABLY???? EXCUSE ME?????? IT IS QUITE DENIABLE...until you can come up with an actual photocopy of the hardcopy given to WND and turned over to Congress. You've made an extremely reckless statement Hoffmeister. One that you CANNOT PROVE IN A COURT OF LAW AT THIS POINT IN TIME... therefore...you can only surmise, guess, speculate, etc., that the one document is the same as the other. YOU DON'T KNOW IT FOR A FACT UNLESS YOU SOMEHOW SAW THE HARDCOPY DOCUMENT THAT WAS HANDED OVER TO THE FEDS. (btw, the caps are not shouts...just an attempt to help old eyes like mine distinguish key words for emphasis -- trifocals only do so much)

So here we go again...one more time... with feeling (I guess)...

SO PLEASE, HOFFMEISTER Provide us with PROOF that the document in question is the same as what was posted on the NERC website. Unless you have an actual photocopy of the document submitted to Congress by WND ... you have NO ACTUAL PROOF only a hunch that the document in question MIGHT be the same as what you saw on the Internet. You sir are simply trying to create a little "spin" in your own little world. This is evidenced by your statement at the start of this thread which was as follows:

"Anyway, the article is a tremendous example of WND attempting to "manufacture" a story."

You sir, have NO Evidence to make such a claim. Such a written statement could well be considered libelous. I'd be very careful about making such assertions if I were you. A WND Lawyer might be lurking on this site at anytime and ... ...

What amazes me Hoffmeister is how guys like you will do backflips all around the question of WHY IS THE NERC ATTEMPTING TO OBFUSCATE COMPLIANCE to begin with? Instead of trying to focus on a webpage publication being made public...(which I suspect was nothing less than a colossal foobar by someone that might arguably be claimed as an incompetent action -- and that is a scary thought when you consider that the power grid is in the hands of people who would not only deceive but then botch the cover up...unless some careful programmer decided on his own to throw a monkey wrench into the coverup)... WHY aren't you asking some questions about the integrity of the NERC.

WND is reporting names and backs up their claims with an audio recording of an NERC spokesman whom WND quotes as admitting to a cover up. SO... where is your defense of this admission Hoffmeister????

Explain the taped 'confession' by NERC spokesman!

Your comment: "All of which was completely blown out of the water by the latest NERC report, found here: August DOE Report"

OH, Hardly. IF ANYTHING WAS BLOWN OUT OF THE WATER IT WAS THE NERC Report. WND exposed the NERC sham for what it is, just that a sham. We're talking smoke and mirrors here Hoffmeister.

What I do disagree with WND about the article is the notion that the FED Government knows nothing about the Power problems. I know this is not the case. I've talked with too many other folks, especially in the Oil industry who tell me that Federal officials came and briefed many of the oil refinery Y2K teams regarding a 3 to 4 week loss of power. I know, I've got relatives one of whom met the Federal official who made the statement. So I suspect that someone in Gov't does indeed know about the power problems.

Regardless of that side issue... the facts still remain... you have no proof to back up your claims. Focus on the real issues Hoffmeister.

-- R.C. (racambab@mailcity.com), August 06, 1999.

Self reported status has always been good enough for Hoff. Of course he's certainly not alone in that arena. The majority of cud-chewing Americans are obviously willing to swallow it as well. Hoff, don't feel too bad. Many realisically challenged people are beginning to feel the heat at their feet! It's hard to fault the desperate arguements being peddled by the optomists.

Ed Yourdon suggested that KCP&L continues to blow sunshine up alot of skirts. I've been off the net for the majority of the past week, perhaps you guys have already discussed the 'wet squirrel syndrome' they continue to suffer from.

-- Will continue (farming@home.com), August 06, 1999.

What a load of BS, RC.

The only identification of the "leaked" memo in the article matches, word for word, with the memo on the NERC site. But you still cling to some misguided notion that there is some other memo, that happens to have the same wording, regarding the exceptions list, but contains other, more insideous wording. Other wording that WND, in the article accusing NERC and utilities of lying, just failed to mention.

You then somewhat relent, and suggest it may be just some "foobar" that it is on the NERC site. Right. Linked to off this page Related Files on NERC's Y2K Efforts, along with all the other files. And NERC, involved in this "coverup", just has missed this for all these months.

Yes, RC, it is the same memo. No, I have no hardcopy. But I guess I could print it off the web, if you like. As you have offered absolutely no information, that is none, that it is not the same memo, the statement stands. As you said before, I'll leave it to the "court of public opinion" to decide.

And you completely skip the fact that NERC identified the utilities with exceptions. They did not hide the information, from either the public or the DOE.

It truly is amazing, the standards you set. I'm supposed to be able "TO PROVE IN A COURT OF LAW". But you spout BS about you're supposed "sources" in apparently every utility in almost every region. Truly amazing.

Oh, and as for being sued for "libel" by WND?

To borrow a quote from a famous doomer:

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.

-- Hoffmeister (hoff_meister@my-deja.com), August 06, 1999.

Hey Hoff, you were just eating crow a few months ago over the WND story on y2k vendors being harrassed by the credit card companies. What's your problem?

-- a (a@a.a), August 06, 1999.

'a', I'm continually amazed at your retrospective perception of events.

Please, demonstrate where I was "eating crow".

-- Hoffmeister (hoff_meister@my-deja.com), August 06, 1999.

Hoffmeister,

"Exceptional claims require exceptional proof"... a famous quote by one of your "Polly" cronies... and of course you have no legal proof that WND had no secret memo. You actually admitted it reluctantly:

"No, I have no hardcopy." UNTIL you have a hard copy, you have no proof, but merely speculation. Furthermore, WND's article indicates they have a top NERC official being interviewed and recorded on audio tape admitting that they covered up the information. They named this fellow. I submit to you that there is more to the memo than the brief quotes provided. It should be no surprise that certain phrases might be lifted from a webpage.

Your charges against WND are unwarranted and unfounded. You simply wish to search for excuses to reject what you wish to reject regardless of the evidence. Further discussion with you on this is fruitless. Unlike some, I don't have a lot of time to hang around discussion forums. I pop in every once in awhile. When I do come in, I don't want to have to waste that time responding to silly and libelous accuastions that you have raised here.

Frankly, Hoffmeister, If I were you, I'd watch how I criticized WND. I'd be careful not to libel them in anyway. They went after the IRS, they might just come after you too.

-- R.C. (racambab@mailcity.com), August 06, 1999.

Like I said, R.C., I'm willing to let anyone look at the article, and look at the NERC memo, and come to their own conclusions.

"Exceptional claims require exceptional proof". So, we can now look forward to you actually providing proof of the things you say?

How about any information, any at all, that WND has a different memo than the NERC memo? I've made my case that it is the same, and am willing to let any reasonable person read and come to their own conclusions. You, however, provide absolutely no backup for your claim it is differeent.

And once again, you completely ignore the most damning evidence: NERC named the utilities reporting exceptions. They did not withhold information from the public, or the DOE.

As for WND and libel, like I said, I'll take my chances.

-- Hoffmeister (hoff_meister@my-deja.com), August 06, 1999.

You seem to take a great deal of 'chances', on more than one issue.

-- Will (sibola@hotmail.com), August 07, 1999.