Remembering Stan Klein
Stan always brought a wealth of knowledge and enthusiasm to whatever group or organization he engaged.
The various standards that I have mentioned in this blog series from time to time are the products of a community of dedicated individuals who contribute their time, energy, experience and expertise in the creation of these standards.
These individuals receive no compensation for their participation, other than the satisfaction of being part of an effort which, we all hope, contributes something useful to our industry.
Without the generosity, dedication and enthusiasm of these individuals, very little in standards would be accomplished. I am saddened to report that this community recently lost one of our long-standing members who represented the epitome of these traits … Stan Klein.
My connections with Stan largely revolved around several committees of the IEEE Power and Energy Society. He was an active member of two working groups which I chaired, and we participated together on several others. Additionally, I know that his involvement in the standards community went much farther, involving other IEEE PES committees and non-IEEE organizations such as the Instrument Society of America and the Smart Grid Interoperability Panel. How Stan found the time and energy to participate in all of the groups and organizations that he was a part of was a constant wonder to us all.
Stan always brought a wealth of knowledge and enthusiasm to whatever group or organization he engaged. And while there were often those (including me) who had a difference of opinion with Stan on various positions that he championed, there was never a doubt that Stan was as sincere as he was passionate in the formulation and promotion of his opinion.
Stan’s range of activities was also a huge benefit to any individual working group he joined, as he could be counted on to bring to light some nuance or aspect of a standards effort which might have escaped the rest of the group. He was a master of the anecdotal, and sometimes would only be happy when he received a new working group writing assignment to include the points he was making into the standard. I personally employed that technique and would frequently ask Stan to draft section upon section of draft standards that I was chairing, expecting one day to reach a saturation point. To my amazement, that point was never reached, and it was only his sudden passing which could stop the flow of endless contributions.
The recent outpouring of email traffic from his various colleagues and standards co-conspirators regarding his passing serves as overwhelming testimony that I am but one of many, many people who felt this way about Stan, and his presence in future industry activities will be sorely missed.
And Stan, if somehow, somewhere you’re out there listening, we still need that section on Security Requirement Mapping for IEEE PC37.240 that you agreed to write.
Sam Sciacca is an active senior member in the IEEE and the International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) in the area of utility automation. He has more than 25 years of experience in the domestic and international electrical utility industries. Sciacca serves as the chair of two IEEE working groups that focus on cyber security for electric utilities: the Substations Working Group C1 (P1686) and the Power System Relay Committee Working Group H13 (PC37.240). Sciacca also is president of SCS Consulting.
- Events & Awards
- Magazine Archives
- Oil & Gas Engineering
- Salary Survey
- Digital Reports
Annual Salary Survey
After almost a decade of uncertainty, the confidence of plant floor managers is soaring. Even with a number of challenges and while implementing new technologies, there is a renewed sense of optimism among plant managers about their business and their future.
The respondents to the 2014 Plant Engineering Salary Survey come from throughout the U.S. and serve a variety of industries, but they are uniform in their optimism about manufacturing. This year’s survey found 79% consider manufacturing a secure career. That’s up from 75% in 2013 and significantly higher than the 63% figure when Plant Engineering first started asking that question a decade ago.