I have read the NERC report and find that their optimistic conclusions presented in the beginning of the report are unlikely in light of the data presented in their report. Most of the graphs in the report are projections, not hard data. The projections are based upon their assumption they can accelerate the current pace of remediation in all of the power companies. How likely is that? Where would the money come from to hire more programmers, engineers ,and plant automation specialists to speed up the work? In the report they state "This report concludes the first phase of a comprehensive assessment of the Year 2000 (Y2K) readiness of electric systems in North America." What did their first phase find? If you look at the supplemental list to the report, only 10 - 20% of the items have the Y2K compliance listed. None of the transmission equipment has a Y2K rating. And this did not even cover all of the power companies in the US. Are the equipment manufactures cooperating? How many phases will the initial assessment take? Assessment is just the tip of the iceberg toward total remediation and this seems like it is dragging on and on. Anybody else have an opinion?

-- Mike (justmike11@yahoo.com), September 22, 1998

Answers

Real good analysis, Mike. Gotta give credit to the report, because it is easy to follow, not a bunch of bureaucratese. And, as always, the obvious: It is now Fall 1998, and there is not one, no not one, living example of a compliant electric utility company.

-- Joe (shar@pei.com), September 22, 1998.

Regardless of assessment/remediation, unless you are willing to take a plant off grid and test the entire complex of systems at the same time you really can't know what will happen. There was an anonymous report (I believe to R. Cowles) about two mid-western coal plants that did do this and they failed. I consider this strictly rumor, but it was reported on Gary North's site and the details sounded real. Its hard to believe that not one plant in America has actually been tested this way. Am I starting to sound like a conspiracy nutcase?

-- R. D..Herring (drherr@erols.com), September 22, 1998.

FIVE (count them) FIVE Utility Power Plants are now running with the dates advanced past 1/1/2000. Two more will be set forward shortly. So far no unexpected surprises have occurred. This is now considered the preferred method of testing. The Plants under this program represent most of the "systems" that have been the cause of concern by all. Power Generation Engineers tend to be the very most Conservative of people whose only job in life is delivering power 24/7. People would do well to remember the thousands of linemen who worked to replace the fallen lines day after day in the Ice Storms of last winter. Few people remember that Utility employees live in their service areas. When you hear of people in the Utility Industry that serves you putting their homes on the market and taking early retirement, stocking food and ammo ,,,then you will have reason to panic. Given that there are millions of employees in the Industry, it would be impossible to 'cover-up' any massive potential failures. Who do you really TRUST? The people who have delivered over the years....or ....unknown, self-appointed "net experts" and arm chair quarterbacks with no knowledge of what they are talking about?????

-- Just the Facts (factoid@facts.net), September 22, 1998.

Factoid:

That is terrific news! What part of the country are these plants? Nukes? Gas? Fossil? Do you have any more info or even better an URL?

-- Bill Solorzano (notaclue@webtv.net), September 22, 1998.

Indeed. Just the facts - that's what I want. I can only treat this as rumor unless it is supported.

The argument about the power company employees living in their own service areas makes sense. Still, many businesses have been clobbered by non-Y2K problems without most of their employees having any warning. I'd like to hear from anyone inside the electric power industry who might have first-hand knowledge.

-- Mike (gartner@execpc.com), September 22, 1998.

Just The Facts, you are a poor example of a spin doctor.

If what you say is true can you I would like names and locations.

If what you say is true, why did the NERC fail to mention this in their report to the DOE

If what you say is true, why didn't these companies come forward and provide information via the Congressional Questionaire?

Your story is more bogus than anything in the National Enquirer.

You know who I believe. Senators Bennett (R) and Dodd (D) who have put their political careers on the line to address y2k. Take a look at their site, take a look at the NERC report which states that only 75% of the industry responded to the request for information by the NERC and out of those 75% not one was compliant.

Also, setting a clock forward to the year 2000 does not address any date code problem in the year 1999. Oh, you know about 1999, right? Eh, may

-- Michael Taylor (mtdesign3@aol.com), September 23, 1998.

Likewise, although setting the date forward WHERE THIS CAN BE DONE is the obvious way to test (ideally to also test the ROLLOVER to 1/1/2000, 2/29/2000 [leap year], etc.), there are many devices (e.g., embedded chips) that cannot be so tested. The either have to have the manufacturer certify that they are Y2K compliant, or the internal code must be simulated on a computer and tested, etc. So in theory, even if literally a power plant did set its date forward and operate successfully (which, until more credible evidence is presented, remains highly doubtful), there are still various components that are subject to Y2K failure that are not being tested.

-- Joe (shar@pei.com), September 23, 1998.

Went to the Y2K town hall meeting last night in Prescott, AZ. The CIO of APS (our electric co.) assured the audience that they have looked at embedded systems in both generation (including 1 nuke) and distribution and came up with less than 2% non-compliant systems. He also said that most of safty systems at the nuclear plant were analog and would be uneffected by Y2K. None of the non-compliant systems were in "mission critical" areas. Generation, distribution and safety were their main focus, he felt that testing would be complete by 6/1/99. This would give them 6 months to correct any malfunctions during testing phase. They were more concerned with assuring supplies of coal and natural gas for generating plants. Citizens Utilities (our natural gas co.) engineer was also at the meeting. They buy their gas from El Paso Gas which has a pipeline through TX,NM,AZ and CA. The gas pressure is recharged by natural gas powered pumps along the main pipeline, they are not dependent on electricity. He added that the entire distribution system in our area was manual. They had never spent the money to upgrade to digital monitoring systems. If a line breaks, someone has to go shut off the main in order to cut off the flow of gas. He summed up his statement with this," If the gas enters the main pipeline in Texas, you will have gas to your homes." They want to stay in business, and are making sure that their suppliers can assure them that they are Y2K ready at the gas wells. This is my world, and yours may be different. Demand your local government to hold these town hall meetings. The meetings give you a chance to meet with, ask questions of and evaluate the b.s. level of your local utilities and gov. officials. We will be having these meetings every other month till 2000. July's meeting was attended by 200 people, last night's was 500 people, the next one may be 1000. This is in a city of 35K. Hope this helps.

-- Bill (bill@microsoft.com), September 23, 1998.

And it still doesn't matter whether power can get to last breaker at the end of the power plant, it still has to be distributed and controlled down to the consumers. "Distributioin and control' can't be readily done manually when massive load shifts are occuring, or when instanteous comm's are out (microwave, telephone, radio, satellite.)

Internal control at one power plant doesn't confirm the grid works under changing conditions.

That's why I think nuke's (and some coke's) are going to isolated bright lights shining in the darker gloom of the dark night.

-- Robert A. Cook, P.E. (Kennesaw, GA) (cook.r@csaatl.com), September 23, 1998.

Substations have very large circut breakers and transformers, but no date sensitive equipment in them, according to the APS CIO. They have worked to correct the problem which occured a couple of years ago when a problem in WA tripped substations throughout the Western grid. That surge apparently tripped breakers all the way down the western US, knocking out power for a few days in some areas. If anyone out there knows more about distribution from a hands on perspective, please contribute to this string.

-- Bill (bill@microsoft.com), September 23, 1998.

Hi Bill, I appreciate your answer and I hope that the situation is as good as this rep said. However, the statement "they have looked at embedded systems in both generation (including 1 nuke) and distribution and came up with less than 2% non-compliant systems" raises a few questions that this person didn't answer. #1. 2% of what number overall? 10,000? 20,000? Are there as few as 25 embedded systems or a couple hundred? #2. Out of that 2%, how many systems have y2k compliant replacement chips? How many of those systems are black box type systems, custom made without documentation? #3. How many of that 2% are microcontrollers that are not "plug & play"? What I mean is how many of these systems can't be replaced because they are attached to logic boards and can't be removed or if they are removed there is no replacement chip to fit on to the logic board that IS y2k compliant. Man, I hope this person is right. But, he/she didn't answer the question reall

-- Michael Taylor (mtdesign3@aol.com), September 24, 1998.

Indeed, that is the big problem with embedded chips: Nobody Knows. In theory, a single embedded chip could take down the entire works ... or corrupt and cause failures among other components. The reality is that the embedded chip problem, especially with the little time remaining, cannot be fixed. It is truly the Y2K "wildcard".

-- Joe (shar@pei.com), September 24, 1998.

Read Rick Cowles assessment of the NERC report:

http://www.y2ktoday.com/modules/home/default.asp

-- Gayla Dunbar (privacy@please.com), September 24, 1998.