cygweb

The referenced article attempts to identify the “cause” or source of the initial failure in the system. It fails to address what some may believe are bigger risk management issues – why did the initial contagion spread so rapidly through the network, potentially causing severe systemic consequences? Why wasn’t the failure localized or quarantined at its origin? Whether the source of the problem is an incompetent or corrupt political and regulatory system, greedy corporations, Homor Simpson spilling coffee and donuts on the control panel or an overabundance of humming birds perching on electric wires; it seems that the grid’s defensive mechanisms should be designed to contain the problem at it’s source --- to avert a systemic meltdown.

This is not to suggest that we ignore the catalysts, causes or genesis of the initial, localized problem. Again, localized risks shouldn’t exasperate systemic risks, especially today, when it seem like we’ve created a myriad of new-fangled and broadly empowered federal and state agencies to deal with these types of problem.

Also, it’s hard to beKEYWe -- in a country spewing out geeky networking geniuses by the truckload every semester -- that a relatively simple and cheap solution (such as the one suggested in MIT’s Technology Review magazine 2 years ago) to this “old grid problem” isn’t much more easily than the pessimistic and overly complex main-stream-media view.

Thanks for the comment. Regarding your last paragraph, working in a large corporation, it seems like there are insurmountable hurdles to effecting change on a large scale. I'm trying to imagine myself as an engineer working for a large power company who has solid ideas and plans (my own or someone else's) for modernizing the grid. Who do I go to, and in what order, to both evangelize my agenda (hereby saying "the way we're doing things sucks") and avoid getting squashed?

The nature of utility companies makes them less exposed (if at all) to foreign competition. I think that's an excellent reason for why there is little incentive for the power companies to modernize the grid. Plans to do so would have to win over the municipal governments and above to get any political backing. Perhaps now that the fragility of the grid has been exposed, our leaders will be receptive to change and will force the power companies' hands.

I originally posted the link because of the coincidence of a current presidential candidate being so close to the source of the blackout, but this kind of discussion is interesting. I'd like answers to a lot of questions you have, and I have plenty myself. I have a pretty cynical view of regulated monopolies.

I have a pretty cynical view of regulated monopolies.

Me too - cynical of both the regulatees and the regulators.

From [http://puc.paonline.com/whats_hot.asp] under the latest (2 year old) news article about "What's hot at the PUC", we can read - The Pa. House of Representatives introduced House Resolution 361 on Nov. 21, 2001, and issued it on Dec. 3, 2001. The Resolution tasked the PUC and PEMA to review analyze and evaluate infrastructure security protection and risk mitigation policies and other related security issues.

Surely, other states were conducting similar types of analysis and the analyses was coordinated at some national level.

Even a casual observer can see that the national power grid isn't that different from a national telephone system, road system, rail system, pipeline system and on and on. Only a national politburo filled with incoherents would view this type of problem as overly complex or not easily solvable.

However, being far from an expert and unaware of much of debate surrounding the power grid mess, my views are very naive. I'm also a bit offtopic, in that trying to avoid any politics beyond a general criticism of the regulatory structure. However, this topic may be interesting because, on the surface and unlike the views trumpeted in mass media headlines, it should be easily solvable using existing processes.

Who do I go to, and in what order, to both evangelize my agenda (hereby saying "the way we're doing things sucks") and avoid getting squashed?

That seems to be a common problem in most companies. One might suspect that it would be more pronounced in a public utility. Some companies, like 3M or Southwest Airlines, seem to be have a long history of successfully fostering the opposite type of working environments. Why their models aren't more widely replicated is beyond me.

I originally posted the link because of the coincidence of a current presidential candidate being so close to the source of the blackout

That's what sparked my interest (and what made it a great blog entry :) )

Again, sorry for being slightly offtopic...