Talk:Northeast blackout of 2003

Archives: Archive 1, Archive 2

Sequence of events

"12:15 p.m. Incorrect telemetry data renders inoperative the state estimator .. An operator corrects the telemetry problem but forgets to restart the monitoring tool"

According to telephone transcripts an engineer had reported a line outage sometime earlier and wanted to know why there was no response.

"We have no clue. Our computer is giving us fits, too .. We don't even know the status of some of the stuff (power fluctuations) around us"

Does that sound like no one was aware something was up. And in the middle of this some unknown operator switches off the alarms and goes to lunch. I don't think so.

"2:14 p.m. An alarm system fails at FirstEnergy's control room and is not repaired"

According to these reports support staff were aware of a computer problem preceding the crash at 2:14 and rather than fail silently transcripts of phone conversations show that control room staff were also aware of the problem. Which begs the veracity of the statement that an operator switched off the unit and went to lunch.

http://lists.virus.org/crypto-gram-03/msg00012.html

Computer failure

The sequence of events described in that section defies logic. And while the XA/21 was 'Unix based', some SCADA units were running a version of Windows that used the Internet to relay data. The same Internet that was infested by the Blaster worm immediatly and during the blackout. These SCADA units used the same RPC protocol exploited by MSBlaster. The lack of mention in the main article is most curious.

There's also a major precedent where the Slammer worm crashed the display panels in a nuclear power plant. They failed as there was so much garbled data being injected onto the network by the worm.

"On January 25, 2003, Davis-Besse nuclear power plant was infected with the MS SQL Server 2000 worm. The infection caused data overload in the site network, resulting in the inability of the computers to communicate with each other. The slowness in computer processing speed began in the morning and by 4:50 p.m., the Safety Parameter Display System (SPDS) became unavailable and remained unavailable for 4 hours 50 minutes"

http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/gen-comm/info-notices/2003/in200314.pdf http://www.theregister.co.uk/2003/08/20/slammer_worm_crashed_ohio_nuke/

Now lets look at a quote from this Interim Report. A reading of which would tend to conclude that as remote units began failing the MISO state estimator failed as it can't function without adequate data. The reasons the remote units failed was because of lack of up-to-date data. What was the root cause of this lack-of-data, the Blaster worm.

'at 12:15 Eastern Daylight Time (EDT) on August 14, 2003 when inaccurate input data rendered MISO’s state estimator (a system monitoring tool) ineffective'

http://www.nerc.com/docs/docs/blackout/ch5.pdf

'The IR notes (p. 30) that beginning between 14:20 and 14:25 EDT FE’s remote control terminals in remote substations began failing due to “queueing” and “overloading the terminals’ buffers”'

"The IR discusses difficulties with the MISO state estimator (SE) between 12:15 EDT and 16:04 EDT. The fact that it was not functioning was not noted until 14:40 which is itself a major concern, as noted in the IR.

However, additional questions should be asked. The SE is not able to solve when its view of line status does not reflect reality. It is an ongoing project at MISO to automatically update line status from reports received from ECAR and direct data links"

http://www.gridstat.net/publications/GridStat-EECS-GS-004.pdf

Causes of Blackout

For a pure sample of obscure technobabel this takes the prize:

"MISO’s reliability coordinators were using non-real-time data to support real-time “flowgate” monitoring. This prevented MISO from detecting an N-1 security violation in FE’s system .. to troubleshoot this problem he had turned off the automatic trigger that runs the state estimator every five minutes .. After fixing the problem he forgot to re-enable it .. Thinking the system had been successfully restored, the analyst went to lunch."

https://reports.energy.gov/BlackoutReport-2.pdf

If 'the alarm system failed silently without being noticed by the operators' then why was the analyst trying to fix it and where exactly did this event occur, what was the name of this analyst and what did he have for lunch.

There's also no mention of deregulation and the lack of standby power generators contributing to the blackout.

'What's wrong with the electric grid?'

http://www.tazioborges.it/Miscellanea/Palast%201.htm http://www.narucpartnerships.org/Documents/Malcolm_MISOEN.pdf http://www.pserc.wisc.edu/Resources.htm#Resources_NENA_Data.htm emacsuser (talk) 15:49, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Background section

"Electrical power cannot easily be stored over extended periods of time, and is generally consumed less than a second after being produced."

Less than a second? Technically, the speed of light falls under the realm of "faster than a second" to travel the grid.

Any objections to changing this to:

Electrical power cannot easily be stored and production must match the load.Wefoij (talk) 20:48, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Total Outage in Gigawatts?

Hi, this page is great and very informative, thanks. Does anyone know where I can figure out how many GW of power-generating infrastructure went offline during this outage? Gcolive 21:50, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Enron

Why isn't Enron's role in the blackout mentioned? This article makes it sound like it was an accident or something...

Wrong side of the continent. Rmhermen 23:05, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Inadequate situational awareness at FirstEnergy

The fault alarm The primary cause of the loss of situational awareness was failure of the fault alarm part of a computer system. The operators noticed and switched to another system but that also failed a few minutes later. Attempts to restore service failed until the main system, its backup and all connected systems were restarted after the blackout.

Loss awareness of the state of their network First Energy operators, in part due to failure of the computer system which should have alerted them to failures in their transmission system and failure to sufficiently trim trees under its power lines in part of its Ohio service area, which led to normal heat-caused sagging of power lines operating within their capacity limits to touch the trees and go out of service. These problems were compounded, but not caused, by the Eastlake 5 power plant near Cleveland, Ohio going offline and causing an increase in the need to transfer power over the lines. It also found that FirstEnergy did not warn other control centers until it was too late because of faulty monitoring equipment and inadequate staff. The cascading effect that resulted ultimately forced the shutdown of more than 100 power plants.

Amateur radio's role

I wish to add the following text to this article: "With regular telephone service overwhelmed with traffic and local Internet service compromised, many people turned to Amateur radio operators for assistance in getting emergency and welfare messages to their friends and family members." Denelson83 07:09, 19 Jan 2004 (UTC)

what's in a name?

Shouldn't it be 2003 U.S.-Canada blackout? Kingturtle 09:06, 31 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Also, why is Ontario, the only Canadian province on the list of places where the blackout occurred, listed last? The list certainly isn't in alphabetical order. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.48.252.84 (talk) 02:33, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

2003 is superfluous

The title really should be Canada-U.S. blackout...were there other canada-U.S. blackouts that we keep track of? Kingturtle 09:08, 31 Dec 2003 (UTC)

There was one around 1965 or 1955 on the same grid. -Fizscy46 06:31, 1 Jan 2004 (UTC)

There were several blackout(s) prior to the building and commissioning of new [~1975] Nuclear Generating Stations in the North Eastern USA and Canada. Primarily during scorching August Heat waves when temperatures in the '90s F - '30s C blanketed the North East from Tennesee to Quebec.

One blackout was highlighted with the movie "Where were you when the lights went out" , that occurred in 1965.

See Northeast Blackout of 1965 at this point in the Wikipedia Northeast Blackout of 1965

Another happened in 1977

--Richard416282 04:54, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Page Protection

Why is this article protected? (If there's an explanation on some central "list of protected pages", I hope that explanation would be echoed or summarized here as well.) --Uncle Ed 14:38, 2 Jan 2004 (UTC)

It should be obvious from the page history. --Jiang

Because there's still no consensus on how this article should be titled. The result is the "Renaming War" Drbug 17:40, 3 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Fake Images

Doea a fake image really have any place in an encyclopeadia? I think we should remove it.

Looks like a reasonable illustration to me. Jamesday 23:59, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I don't mind it - it's marked as fake and gives an impression of the area affected. (eg I tend to think of Ohio as farther west =p) 142.177.124.178 18:47, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

We seriously need to delete those images to me - it's a fake. It doesn't show lights or power or anything. Backup generators wouldn't have been able to generate that much power. It doesn't show electricity or power - it shows clouds. Look over to the left, you see clouds there. And what's with the line? Even if that was a real image, couldn't we get others without the line? If you need proof of what this is showing, look at Detroit. In either picture. It's not "lit up" at all - it was a sunny day. I'm taking them out - if anyone has a problem, relpy here. yourmom 02:16, 29 Dec 2005 (UTC)

I don't know what pictures you removed, but I have added two legitimate satellite images from the NOAA. --J Morgan^(talk) 18:55, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

About these new photos: i'm surprised by them. the golden horseshoe area (around toronto) has few lights before the outage, which is very weird (it's canada's big economic region). The Montreal area seems to be affected by the outage too, which I don't believe it was -- is there an explanation for this? R4smith 01:20, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Link

Do you guys think this would be an appropriate link to add?

What's wrong with the electric grid? http://www.tipmagazine.com/tip/INPHFA/vol-9/iss-5/p8.html
RoyBoy 21:36, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

There is a fake satellite image associated with this event that is documented [here], should someone be interested in including actual satellite images from this event, they are available [on Noaa's website]. PaigePhault 13:40, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Done. --J Morgan^(talk) 18:53, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Statements

There are two things I remember that I think would be worth mentioning in the "Statements made in the aftermath" section. One is that southern Ontario media (680 News, and CBC for example) had a caller (or callers) reporting a "big fire" at a Petro-Canada refinery in Oakville, Ontario, which reporters kept suggesting could be a cause (apparently without sending anyone to check it out, though my guess is such a hard shut down would produce lots of smoke)

Another is that I recall reports that the FBI had determined that there was no terrorist involvement only 30 minutes or so into the blackout (which I found pretty ridiculous, and I've always wondered if they indeed said this and, if they did, what they based their assertion on). --Ben 17:46, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

2003 Northeast American blackout

I realize that this has been hashed out already, but I hardly find the title fitting - unless of course you consider the blackout as really affecting Alaska, Panama, Jamaica, and California. This hardly is a North America article, it only affected a region that of Northeastern America. When the power goes out in Tegucigalpa, White River Junction, and Inuvik, then we can consider North America for a title.

The power went out across Eastern Canada also so - Northeast America is not an appropriate title. Rmhermen 14:14, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)

The power did NOT go out across Eastern Canada, it went out primarily in southern Ontario, with the whole province being affected at some point. 72.38.11.18 (talk) 21:41, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

How about name it...

How about name this the Northeast Blackout of 2003? (as in the name of the similar blackout that occured in 1965 -- see Northeast Blackout of 1965)

Sounds like a good idea, but that is definitely americentric (assuming you consider canada as part of america, unlike Rmhermen). I was thinking Northeast American power outage (2003). First, it specifies the region fairly well, second it uses the phrase power outage, rather than blackout, which isn't the title of the article, and also because it places the date at the end where most disambiguators are (though the format is debated. We could use official government terminology U.S.-Canada power system outage (2003), and I think there would likely be less regional doubt.

Titling it using "of 2003" seems an acceptable alternative. Most of all, I think the current title is too broad considering that the power outage affected nine state/provinces out of 63 (62 contiguous) in the countries it affected. 134.250.72.141

Sequence of events- America bias

The above section appears to be biased in favour of America, there is no mention of Canada (which of course was also affected). Although I was there it was 2 1/2 years ago, so I cant remember the sequence of events. Medscin 12:09, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps you should read the article which mentions Canada in the first sentence and then in one or two dozen more paragraphs after. Rmhermen 00:22, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Is that in this article or in another. I was just commenting on the impression I got from that sectionMedscin 16:14, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

I just realized that you meant the section "Sequence of events" in the article, not the "above section" in the talk page. I am looking at the official report to see if its timeline includes Canadian power failures. If it does I will update the article. Rmhermen 16:57, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Montreal

Interestingly, Montreal was the only major city on the eastern seaboard in the affected area that did not lose power. Hydro-Quebec claims it was they who were able to keep the power running for the city.

I've removed this for a number of reasons:

1. There seems no point in having it in the first paragraph. That is for a definition of what the topic of the article is.
2. Montreal is not on the "eastern seabord." It is many hundreds of kilometres inland. Boston, which actually is on the eastern seabord, did not lose power, nor did Halifax.
3. Montreal was not "in the affected area." Quebec was not affected by the blackout.

- Montréalais

Nor did Philadelphia, Baltimore, and points south on the eastern seaboard lose power. Maybe OP meant Canadian easter seaboard.--J Clear 19:18, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

North American blackout

Shouldn't this be "North American blackout"? The adjective form, as opposed to the noun? Isopropyl 18:16, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree and have proposed it before; although, I was too intimidated by the mess of redirects to be bold. Rmhermen 01:16, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

"Grimsby Transmission Towers" ???

What and where are the "Grimsby Transmission Towers" mentioned in the paragraph about media disruption? The only references to this phrase on all of Google are all copies of this article. Are these power transmission towers or radio/TV transmission towers? The former makes more sense, but the sentence in question refers to radio and TV stations "relaying their broadcasts" through these mysterious towers. All in all, "it just don't add up" and someone needs to clarify this.

A: Grimsby Transmission Towers

A) What?

-Microwave VIDEO/Audio Transmission towers with backup power generators as part of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporations (CBC) and provided by the Trans Canada Telephone Service (part of the Bell Canada Network).

B) Where?

-Grimsby Ontario, E. of Stoney Creek, Ontario, and W. of Niagara-On-The-Lake, on the S. shore of Lake Ontario. --Richard416282 05:43, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

What is the point of this statement?

"In New York, about 3,000 fire calls were reported,many from people using candles. It was similar to the amount of calls during the September 11th, 2001 attacks."

I mean..... just... what? Why does it matter that there were a similar amount of emergency calls as 9/11? Is the author of that statement trying to imply something, or what? 24.43.219.141 22:57, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Seems more a statement for shock value. It isn't directly relevant to the article and should be removed.129.2.50.56 19:45, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Area affected ?

The article states that the affected area was only 24,000 km². Is that really correct ?

Map

I've created a map for this article. However, not being American myself, could someone just make sure I've not missed anywhere out or marked anyway that shouldn't be marked (the lead to this article claims eight states were affected, but I can only find seven in the article). smurrayinchester^{(User), (Talk)} 20:28, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm about to stick a dubious label on your map. You show all of Pennsylvania and New Jersey as out. The PJM Grid folks were alert/quick/lucky enough to protect their grid. So eastern PA, and most of New Jersey stayed lit. Follow up discussion in Talk:2003 North America blackout#Disputed below.--J Clear 19:23, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Also only part of Michigan was affected - not the entire state. Rmhermen 20:04, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Also, if I recall correctly, Massachusetts was largely unaffected as well. Cg-realms 17:57, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm a little late: but I was as far south in Southeastern Virginia and was affected. Userpie 01:34, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Even later - Ontario west of Sudbury wasn't affected, and most of Northwestern Ontario isn't even connected to an electrical grid. Sandy Lake, Wapakeka, and Fort Severn and many other small Northern communities have only local generation, mostly diesel. --Wtshymanski 15:29, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

The map is misleading and should be removed. The blackout did not extend to Hudson Bay.

Broken External Link

While browsing the main article, there was a link to the report and a press release at the FERC communcations department. However upon clicking with my browser I obtained a dreaded 404 file not found Http error. Not being from the lower 48 states, In my previous posts as corrections , I reserve the possibility that something else is busted.

The original link was here

http://www.nerc.com/pub_doc/media-statement-08-16-03.doc

with a pointer to media-statement-08-16-03.doc

If you find the missing link in the interim, great!

Please post it here or update the page. I have not found it yet. --Richard416282 04:31, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I have found the file mentioned. This is the URL: ftp://www.nerc.com/pub/sys/all_updl/docs/pressrel/8-15-03-outage-announcement-update.pdf however when I try to access it, I am unable to. If someone can keep on this one, the parent page is located here: http://www.nerc.com/~filez/pressreleases.html. Rob110178 17:27, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Article needs a lot of work in my view

Many recent edits have helped significantly, but lots more to do.

I would agree with suggestion to rename "North American blackout of 2003"

Blackout images are poor. They show, for example, reduced light intensity in Montreal, Boston and Philadelphia, which were not affected. Also, coastlines and lights are not properly aligned -- look at NE New Jersey or Boston Harbor. Images combine effects of blackout with other differences and don't seem to do a good job of clearly conveying the former. Images would be nice if better were available.

overall seems overly wordy and not to the point.

24,000 square km is, indeed, way too small.

Regarding candidate map, area covered is far too large, since many states were only partly affected. Details available in report at https://reports.energy.gov/BlackoutFinal-Web.pdf

Hope this doesn't come across as overly negative - I would be willing to work with others to make improvements.

Steve 67.172.157.77 03:19, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree. There are better images on the NOAA website, specifically [this one], and [this one]. These show the extent of the power outage everywhere, not just New York City. I would replace the images in the article myself, but I don't know how. I'd greatly appreciate someone's help in doing so. 68.0.212.218 02:40, 12 July 2006 (UTC) Joe

It also seems a little, well americentric. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.48.252.84 (talk) 02:38, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Most of the people affected by the blackout were in the United States. Only one Canadian province (Ontario) was affected, and it has the largest section out of all the states/regions. All but one photo is of Toronto during the blackout. If anything, it's not "americentric" enough. --Pwnage8 (talk) 20:13, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Conspiracy theories

Propose removal of section pending procurement of proper sources. Isopropyl 18:46, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Agree; why would the Gov. risk lives to secretly test security? Sounds too far-feteched and unsourced. smurrayinchester^{(User), (Talk)} 18:58, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Removed, as the section has been marked with {{unsourcedsect}} for a while and no sources have turned up. If citations can be found, feel free to add it back. Isopropyl 19:28, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Railroads

The articles mentions most interstate railroads shut down (but links to Amtrak). Didn't freight railroads continue to run (since railroad way-side signals are battery/solar powered and dispatching is generator-backed)? This should then change to "passenger rail" or a similar statement.

Skabat169 16:28, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Assumed it refered to only Amtrak NEC, LIRR, and Metro-North, so changed accordingly. Skabat169 16:39, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Unix ?

I consider the inclusion of the word "Unix" in the sentence below, or the name of any operating system, unless a specific bug in an operating system was found to be fault, to be irrelevant and the inclusion here implies a fault with Unix.

"It also found that FirstEnergy did not take remedial action or warn other control centers until it was too late because of a bug in the Unix-based General Electric Energy's XA/21 system"

The referenced article makes no specific mention of Unix and while I don't disbelieve that the software in question runs on Unix I think my point is valid. So, with this in mind I would like to propose revising this sentence. Cliph 23:13, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

That bothered me also. Seems a bit POV as phrased. If it's not verifible, then it should come out. After doing some more digging than I did last time, I can confirm it is a UNIX (AIX or Solaris) based application http://www.gepower.com/prod_serv/products/scada_software/en/downloads/xa21_overview.pdf. However it's not said in the articles I've seen that the problem was in the OS. Most say it was a deep race condition in the application. And everything says fix is "GE patch" not IBM or Sun patch. So does it add anything to the article? --J Clear 22:08, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

of 2003

Can I suggest renaming to 'North American blackout of 2003' to bring it into line with the normal way or naming events of this kind. (Note, Blackout in New York was redirecting here, this was not a good idea since there was also the notable New York City blackout of 1977. I've altered this to a disambig, and may nominate it for deletion since nothing is using the page.)--Barberio 12:08, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Comparing the map of the outage, to that of Northeast Blackout of 1965, I'm going to suggest that the outage be renamed to Northeast Blackout of 2003. --Barberio 12:16, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Lengthen the lead, or trim the article.

Either the lead of the article is too short, or the article itself could do with trimming down. --Barberio 12:24, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Computer Failure (XA/21 Bug)

I expanded the "Findings" section with a bit more information on the computer failure that contributed to the blackout. The Computer_bug#Famous_computer_bugs article references to this page, so I thought it would be good to provide some infos on this bug. --X4nd1 17:52, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Detroit

Consistent with most media coverage, this article doesn't mention the fact that most of Detroit and surrounding areas were without power and water for close to five days. This should be clarified under Restoration of Service, which does not mention Detroit. The two (or more?) references to the August 18 boil water order are out of context. To the best of my memory, there was no water service at all before August 18. Enjoy Miqrogroove 19:34, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Social effects

The edits by User:Johnrpenner at Northeast_Blackout_of_2003#Social_effects on free ice cream, etc. don't cover notable aspects of the blackout. It's also non-verifiable. This should be removed. - Crosbiesmith 19:05, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Conspiracy Theory by 24.161.50.41

One of the most entertaining works of fiction I have ever read. If anyone missed it, check here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Northeast_Blackout_of_2003&curid=6455551&diff=163815954&oldid=163802574

I am a transmission system power dispatcher and personally know a handful of the folks involved in the investigation. I am not exactly sure I grasp why you, 24.161.50.41, would propose that it was an elaborate coverup. For what, exactly, would we go through all that "work" to cover up a geomagnetic storm? Incidentally, there have been many geomagnetic storms in the past few years, the severest peaks of which come up about every eleven years, very predictably. 2003 was outside the last window, from 2000-2002 http://www.viewzone.com/solarwind.html . They have caused blackouts before, it's true, but no one bothered to make up funny excuses then. Why now?

Did you know that system disturbances appear on the AC frequency charts of every system synchronized to the power grid? Yes, every power company in the entire Eastern Interconnection saw each of the big unit trips as well as the major disturbance the instant they happened, from Florida to Minnesota to Louisiana. Did you know that in many cases the status of transmission line circuit breakers are monitored by two or more companies or reliability entities? And that changes in the status of these devices are always logged? And that these devices are scanned about every four seconds? Can you begin to imagine the herculean task of wiping the memories of every dispatcher who saw any element of this event, chaning all of the logs and event recorders from independent companies to magically agree with your theory? There's a lot of disgruntled, crackpot dispatchers (who are nonetheless excellent at dispatching, by the way) who could not be bought off on this fable for any amount of cash, most would love to expose a coverup.

There is SO much more. But this rebuttal is not worth any more of my time. Out. Fjbfour 05:58, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Las Vegas?

Hi. I think I saw on a National Geographic program about a year ago, that said that there was a power outage in Las Vegas that was related to the Northeast Blackout, if I remember correctly. Is this true? Did any other areas outside of the main affected areas experience blackouts, and should some of this be mentioned in the article? Thanks. ~AH1^(TCU) 22:05, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

It sounds rather unlikely, and I have been unable to find anything on such a link. The northeast blackout was caused by a combination of factors, including a computer bug, trees encroaching on power lines, and insufficient situational awareness on the part of transmission despatchers. The blackout was localised (albeit over a large area) and there were no areas outside this area that experienced a simultaneous and related blackout. Perhaps you can find a reference for this and then we can look at it. Regards — BillC ^talk 23:45, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Vegas and the Northeast are in different Interconnections. The only way for a problem in one interconnection to cause a problem in another is if the second interconnection was heavily dependent on the first. The DC ties that connect interconnections are a very effective shield against widespread system disturbances because they have controlled ("throttled", if you will) flows and do not easily overload. DC conections have very proactive protection and if the systems sense trouble on one side or the other they will open up quickly and stop the spread of the disturbance. There are only six DC ties connecting the Eastern Interconnection to the Western Interconnection, and they are spread out across the Rocky Mountains. Neither the Eastern nor Western Interconnections are dependent upon each other. In certain situations, the Texas Interconnection and Québec Interconnection sometimes find themselves leaning on the East where a big problem could cause them trouble, but the transfer capability across the Rocky Mountains is a tiny fraction of either the East or West systems, and the loss of all of them simultaneously even under heavy load would not cause much of an overall ripple to either side. Neither the areas affected by the 2003 blackout, nor the Nevada Power system, have any direct contact with any of these DC ties. For that matter, none of the DC ties were affected by the 2002 event at all. I am not sure what you might have heard on the show you mention, but what you thought you heard not only is not true, but pretty much impossible without blacking out the entire continent. Hope this helps. Fjbfour (talk) 01:14, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Accusations made in a notable publication

I came across this and wondered whether it should be included. It is an accusation in a notable publication that Chinese computer hackers may have been involved in this blackout and the Florida blackout.

I don't think that it should be included as evidence that there was Chinese involvement, but rather as evidence that people have come up with conspiracy beliefs in relation to the blackout. Looney beliefs are worthy of inclusion if sufficiently notable. - perfectblue (talk) 12:47, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

There doesn't seem enough notability there to make the cut to me. Probably this over-long article should be losing some of the detail in the Effects section already. — BillC ^talk 17:49, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Time of the blackout

I remember looking at my watch when the power went out and it was only 3:40, not 4:10 like the article suggests. I remember because I had just started my shift at 3:30 and minutes later my equipment stopped working, I'm in Toronto, so EDT is my time zone. Can someone please look into editing it? Thanks 207.219.94.49 (talk) 12:28, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

That would appear to be an unrelated local power outage. The timeline and causes of the blackout are now both well established. Chapter 6 of the NERC Final Report is quite clear that power was not lost in Canada until after 4pm. Regards, — BillC ^talk 14:44, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

The article states the time 4:40 p.m. EDT (20:15 UTC). Either the EDT or the UTC must be wrong, I think. Which one is it? Dauto (talk) 16:28, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

4:10 PM EDT is what was reported by local Ottawa media at the time. As well, at the time, I was working in a government office that had a computer maintenance/repair scheduled for 4:00 PM that day... which we all know really occurs at 4:15 because they want to ensure that people sincerely log off before all of the computers go haywire. When the blackout occurred, we were rushing to finish a routine while running from desk to desk to check on the computers of those on vacation and spares. We began mocking the "idiot at IT" who accidentally shorted out the control systems (early, no less) and checked the alarm system and electronic locks to ensure they were still active (we couldn't leave the file room unless we were sure the files were secure. After all, how would citizens feel if their information wasn't secure?)... in case anyone is curious, once we got outside and realized what was going on, we immediately turned to each other and said "so there is no idiot at IT..."--Blondtraillite (talk) 21:43, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Line sagging

On 29 January 118.208.33.25 posted the following comment the main page regarding the sagging due to overcurrent:

?This sounds like nonsense, the temperature increase is tiny and the expansion would be insignificant?

I believe s/he has a point, and these statement should be referenced to a reliable source. Pietrow (talk) 14:42, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Satellite Picture?

Could anyone find and add a satellite picture of the affected areas on the night of the blackout? I seem to remember them existing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rockingbeat (talk • contribs) 21:52, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Erie Loop Blackout

Since the problem affected the Lake Erie Transmission Loop (which was also believed to be the source of the problem), many news services in Ontario referred to this blackout as the "Erie Loop Blackout." Considering the popularity of the name, many people still refer to it as such (myself included - that is what I searched originally). I am wondering what others would think of doing a redirect from "Erie Loop Blackout" to this article. As well, despite templates, I am not good at writing redirects. Any takers? --Blondtraillite (talk) 21:43, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

trivia list

The movie Deja Vu mentions that the real reason for the blackout was the creation of that thing they used to look/gobackinto time