By Kathleen Davis
Senior Editor, Utility Automation & Engineering T&D
Senior Editor, Electric Light & Power
It’s rare that I’m accused of being Rush Limbaugh . . . for many reasons. The fact that I’m a girl. The fact that I’m of the opposite political party. The fact that, usually, my words are more carefully chosen that those of Rush. Hmmm. Perhaps “carefully chosen” isn’t really the right phrase. I think his words are carefully chosen as well—chosen to incite.
It might be more accurate to say that my words are carefully chosen not to incite. Perhaps that’s very politically correct, very PC of me, but when you work inside a building, it’s in your best interest to not set that building ablaze and burn all your little pinkies and toes.
So, I was surprised, I must say, to get a very passionate reaction to my carefully chosen words this month—to be labeled very not PC and in a way that made me feel like the T&D Rush.
Last month, I finished up an article on DNP3 and IEC 61850 protocols titled “Skirmish in the Substation.” While it had a few colorful bits of language that spun off the concept of a fight, the article itself was more about a transition occurring here in the U.S., the movement toward IEC 61850, which is all the rage in the European and Middle Eastern T&D markets. My contact predicted IEC 61850 would be the dominant protocol in a 3 to 5 year time frame.
You can read the article here.
This week, I received a very intricate note from a DNP supporter questioning my use of words like “skirmish” (which I had already changed from “battle” in order to “tone it down a bit.”). He preferred, he said, to think of the whole mess as an evolution of sorts, pointing out that, in many places, the protocols work together in the same substation, with the same equipment.
Does he have a point about wording? I don’t know. You read the article and tell me (e-mail: kathleend@pennwell.com). I’m personally inclined to think that his passion comes more from a real desire to not see DNP fall by the wayside rather than a serious issue with my “slightly more exciting than helping verbs” language choice. None of us like to give up on the habits, loves and technologies we are most passionate about.
Perhaps he does really see the DNP3/IEC 61850—oh, great, I can’t say battle, so what do I say? Argument? Difference of opinion? Separate but equal technology choice? I give up and chose the singularly dull “thing”—anyway, perhaps the writer of that note really does see the DNP/IEC “thing” as an evolution, that all will work together and grow together and flourish together in harmony. But, I tend to see this era of both protocols in play as more of a torch passing. When any old regime gives way to a new one, there’s a period of unrest, there’s a stirring of feelings, emotions, turmoil—and there are a lot of passionate words that go along with that turmoil. Rush Limbaugh laments the end of the last Republican political era; perhaps my letter-to-the-editor writer laments the end of the DNP protocol and this outcry over my language use is reflective, a problem inferred rather than implied.
Something to think about.
