I received the following letter from Donald Crowe. He is an acquaintance from church and wrote this letter in response to Revision 1 of my Y2K power paper. I would like to thank Don for his concern and his desire to "get it right."

I've included the letter below and have intersperse my replies or comments as appropriate:

December, 1998

Mr. Don Law
7730 NW 11th Place
Fort Lauderdale, FL  33322

OPEN LETTER

Dear Don:

I would like to begin by restating that argument, as I understand it:

Premise A: There should be relatively little problem with electrical generation and distribution as the result of "Y2K."

Premise B: There could be substantial problems with non-Y2K compliant computers.

Conclusion: Therefore, Americans should not be so concerned with an electric supply problem, and should instead focus their efforts and resources where it is needed; that is, ensuring Y2K compliance with computer systems.

Assuming I have not misunderstood your case, allow me to proceed. First, it appears your argument is directed at two different audiences: a) individuals who play roles in business or government in which they are in positions to influence resource allocation, and b) "some people planning on a significant personal expense for equipment (generators, presumably) that they will not need for the millennium rollover."

Of course, business managers or owners playing the former role must decide whether to spend large sums addressing Y2K compliance in business computers systems, or instead wait to see what happens and fix it when (and if) it does; perhaps deciding at this time only to spend a smaller amount on contingency plans to cover potential issues such as power outages. For this audience, your recommendation may be appropriate.

However, there may be many others who read your paper who have little ability to influence Y2K compliance efforts in the organizations around them, other than to encourage them to that end. For these individuals (primarily families) it may in fact be most appropriate for them to focus their efforts on planning for the possibility of power outages. For example, any extended lack of power is at least a major inconvenience; at worst a severe disruption to 'business as usual.' Also, many view even a tropical storm or hurricane warning as sufficient reason to prepare for a lack of power; and for the reasons outlined below, it would seem that reason is at least as great given the potential Y2K scenario.

I would agree that there is nothing wrong with a little harmless preparation. As I stated in the paper, I'm concerned with the folks spending a lot of time, money, and effort in preparation for a power outage that isn't going to come. At the time I wrote the paper, the attitude I encountered was that an extended power outage is a foregone conclusion. That is where I disagree the most.

I do not think that a Y2K power outage is as likely as a hurricane power outage. I have found that a extended widespread power outage caused by Y2K is about as likey as an extended widespread power outage tomorrow. As you well know, if a hurricane comes onshore, an extended power outage (although not usually widespread), is very likely.

Furthermore, since this is such a potentially wide-spread problem, the ability to prepare for it may diminish substantially or even evaporate as the general public becomes more aware with time. Finally, world-wide destabilizing economic and political conditions make self- sufficiency an important goal for Christians, who it seems should make every prudent attempt to preserve themselves as witnesses to a lost and dying world.

This is an excellent point! We have got some serious problems to worry about: communist China now has long-range missile ability, terrorist want to retaliate against the US, our government has become corrupt at the highest levels, the Asian economy threatens the world economy, etc. I agree with you totally that it is a good idea to prepare for hard times. However, my specialty is how Y2K affects power, so everything else is beyond the scope of my paper.

Second, your premise that there should be minimal electric power generation and distribution problems does not appear to address these potential issues:

1. Maintaining fuel production and supply to power generating facilities. Depending on fuel reserves, interruptions in these areas could compromise this portion of the power supply equation.

This will be addressed in future revisions of the paper. First, note that fuel is not an issue for nuclear (about 20% of our capacity) and hydro power plants. The remainder, (and in fact the majority) use fossil fuels: coal, oil, and gas. (The solar and geothermal are such a small percentage that I'll omit them.)

The common claim by the alarmist is that the rail system will shut down and that is the end of the coal supply. Well, first of all, the rail system will not shut down. Even if they have complete computer failure, they can still move coal using manual methods. I have heard reports stating that this is not possible, but I have verified that it is - three times over. Granted, the rail system will be quite inefficient in manual mode, but it can still operate. Track switches can be operated manually. I have verified this with three independent methods:

1. Examined the tracks. There are manual switches still there
2. Checked with a Conrail employee. Manual is possible, but slow.
3. Checked with RTU engineers. Even modern RTU controlled switches can be manually controlled.

2. Unlike any disaster in recent history, the Y2K issue, if it causes problems at all, will cause them nationally, if not worldwide. With regard to the North American power grid, those problems may all begin to occur across the land within a several-hour period. As such, Y2K becomes a continental "event"; something with which we have no experience whatsoever; and, as the result, something about which the effects are unknown.

This would be true if there were significant problems in the grid. My whole premise is that there will not be any.

3. Since such a wide variety of interrelated and interdependent infrastructure could be involved (e.g., transportation, energy, communications), the effect of multiple isolated failures on power availability through that interdependent system is also very difficult to predict. One might reasonably envision a "domino effect."

Apart from fuel (discussed above), the electric system has a major dependence on communications. They have their own communications systems in part, but also depend on the phone companies. All of this communication is being stringently tested, and commitments have been made to have the communication system Y2K ready by July 1999. But just in case that doesn't even work (highly unlikely), there is a contingency plan in place to use alternative communication systems. The first test of this contingency plan will take place in April 1999.

4. Because of the potential legal liability, the term "Y2K compliance" has a very precise definition within each organization that uses it. Generally, it's used to define how a particular organization's equipment will behave after 11:59pm on December 31, 1999. It rarely takes into account how an organization's offerings will be affected by the outside suppliers it depends upon for services itself. Therefore, an organization (such as an electric utility) claiming "Y2K compliance" does not intend to guarantee an absence of power outages in the year 2000. There is intentional legal "wiggle room" in these claims.

A valid point, but this has been considered by NERC. They define their own term, "Y2K Ready." This gets around the legal issues you mention. The Y2K testing and remediation under way takes outside suppliers (primarily the phone company) into consideration.

You are right about outside suppliers affecting readiness. There have been about 20 power plants identified that cannot be ready by the NERC deadline of July 1999 because of outside suppliers. However, as best as we can tell, backlog will be satisfied before 2000 hits.

The bottom line is this: what will electric customers get when they plug something into the outlets in their homes in the period following December 31, 1999? It would seem that the uncertainties outlined here preclude the firm conclusion that there will be relatively little problem with electrical power supply.

Again, thanks for your opinion, but even in light of your letter, I still come to the same conclusion: there is no credible case for an extended power outage.

I would be interested in your response. In the meantime, please feel free to contact me if you have any questions, or if you need more information.

Best regards,



Donald R. Crowe