PG&E, SEC 10-Q, Y2K And Now A National Energy Provider?

Thanks, Kevin. You should be awarded the Internet Y2K Business & Accounting Link Treasures Award. (See "Link -- Get the dirt on your electric utility" Thread).

The following excerpts are for those interested in the San Francisco Bay Areas Silicon Valley Utility Companys Y2K and related 10-Q comments -- PG&E Pacific Gas & Electric Company. (Sorry for the long post, specific Y2K stuff near the end). -- Diane

http://sec.yahoo.com/e/l/p/pcg.html November 2, 1998 PG&E CORP (PCG) Quarterly Report (SEC form 10-Q)

[Info snippets of interest are...]

MANAGEMENT's DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS OF CONSOLIDATED RESULTS OF OPERATIONS AND FINANCIAL CONDITION

San Francisco-based PG&E Corporation provides integrated energy services.

PG&E Corporation's consolidated financial statements include the accounts of PG&E Corporation and its various business lines: -Pacific Gas and Electric Company (Utility) -Unregulated Business Operations consisting of: - Gas Transmission through PG&E Gas Transmission; - Electric Generation through U.S. Generating Company (USGen); - Energy Commodities and Services through PG&E Energy Trading and PG&E Energy Services....

...In this MD&A, we explain the results of operations for the three- and nine-month periods ended September 30, 1998, as compared to the corresponding periods in 1997, and discuss our financial condition. Our discussion of financial condition includes: - changes in the energy industry and how we expect these changes to influence future results of operations; - liquidity and capital resources, including discussions of capital financing activities, and uncertainties that could affect future results; and - risk management activities....

...These statements are based on the beliefs and assumptions of management and on information currently available to management...

...The most important factor that could affect future results and that would cause actual results to differ materially from those expressed in the forward looking statements, or from historical results, is the outcome and potential impact of ... Other important factors include, but are not limited to:

(1) the ongoing restructuring of the electric and gas industries in California and nationally;

(4) the planned sale of the Utility-owned fossil-fueled electric generating plants, ...

[Selling fossil-fuel generators?]

(5) the impact of, and our ability to successfully integrate, our acquisitions, including the New England Electric System (NEES) and the Texas assets;

[NOTE: Watch out Texas Donna and other New Englanders!]

(6) the potential impact from internal or external Year 2000 problems;

RESULTS OF OPERATIONS

Utility Results: Utility operating revenues...

(2) a decrease in sales to medium and large electric customers, many of whom are now purchasing their electricity directly from unregulated power generators...

[Hummm. Companies supporting alternative power generating sources?]

...Operating expenses for the nine-month period ended September 30, 1998, declined primarily as a result of; (1) decreased fuel costs at power plants, primarily due to plant sales...

...Unregulated Business Results: - Our unregulated business operations include those business activities that are not directly regulated by the CPUC. Unregulated business operating revenues... These increases were due to operations associated with our energy commodities and services activities and due to the acquisition of the natural gas operations of Valero Energy Corporation in July 1997...

[Purchasing natural gas?]

...The decrease for the nine-month period ended September 30, 1998, is due to the loss on sale of our Australian holdings (See Acquisitions and Sales, below.) The decrease was also due to the $110 million gain that the Corporation recognized in the second quarter 1997 on the sale of its interest in International Generating Company, Ltd....

[Divesting foreign ownership?]

COMPETITION AND CHANGING REGULATORY ENVIRONMENT:

The Utility Electric Generation Business:

On March 31, 1998, California became one of the first states in the country to allow open competition in the electric generation business.

[Thats strategic.]

Today, many Californians may choose an energy service provider, which will provide their electric power generation. The Utility's customers may choose to purchase electricity: (1) from the Utility; (2) from retail electricity providers (for example, marketers including our energy service subsidiary, brokers, and aggregators); or (3) directly from unregulated power generators. Our Utility expects to continue to provide distribution services to substantially all electric consumers within its service territory. Our Utility expects to continue to provide distribution services to substantially all electric consumers within its service territory.

Competitive Market Framework: - To create the competitive generation market, California has established a Power Exchange (PX) and an Independent Systems Operator (ISO). The PX sets electricity prices in an open electric marketplace. The ISO, under the jurisdiction of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), oversees California's electric transmission grid to ensure that all generators have comparable access and that the reliability of the system is maintained. California utilities retained ownership of utility transmission facilities, but relinquished operating control to the ISO.

Starting March 31, 1998, the ISO has scheduled the delivery of resources such as Qualifying Facilities (QFs) and Diablo Canyon. These resources for operational or reliability reasons are considered "must-take" units and operate under cost-of-service contracts. After scheduling must-take resources, the ISO satisfies the remaining aggregate demand with purchases from the PX and purchases of necessary generation and ancillary services to maintain grid reliability. To meet the ISO's demand, the PX accepts the lowest bids from competing electric providers, which establishes a market price. Customers choosing to buy power directly from non-regulated generators or retailers will pay for that generation based upon negotiated contracts...

...CPUC regulation requires the Utility to sell all of its generated electric power and must-take electric power purchased from external power producers to the PX. The Utility must then purchase all electric power for its retail customers from the PX. For the three- and nine-month periods ended September 30, 1998, the Cost of energy for utility, reflected on the Statement of Consolidated Income, is comprised of the cost of PX purchases, ancillary services purchased from the ISO, and the cost of Utility generation, net of sales to the PX (in millions) as follows...

...Electric Transition Plan: - Over the past several years, we have taken steps to prepare for competition in the electric generation business. We have worked with the CPUC to ensure a smooth transition into the competitive market environment. In addition, we have made strategic investments throughout the nation that will further position us as a national energy provider...

[A national energy provider?]

...The Utility will not be able to determine the exact amount of generation facility costs that will be recoverable as transition costs until a market valuation process (appraisal or sale) is completed for each of the Utility's generation facilities. The first of these valuations occurred on July 1, 1998, when the Utility sold three Utility-owned electric generation plants for $501 million. (See Utility Generation Divestiture, below.) For generation facilities that the Utility has not divested, the CPUC will approve the methodology to be used in the market valuation process...

...Further, the Utility's nuclear decommissioning costs are being recovered through a CPUC-authorized charge, which will extend until sufficient funds exist to decommission Diablo Canyon and Humboldt Nuclear Power Plants...

[Decommissioning nuclear power plants?]

...In addition, on August 31, 1998, an independent accounting firm retained by the CPUC completed its financial verification audit of the Utility's Diablo Canyon plant accounts at December 31, 1996. The audit resulted in the issuance of an unqualified opinion. The audit verified that Diablo Canyon sunk costs at December 31, 1996, were $3.3 billion of the total $7.1 billion construction costs. (Sunk costs are costs associated with Utility-owned generating facilities that are fixed and unavoidable and currently included in the Utility customers' electric rates.) The independent accounting firm also issued an agreed-upon special procedures report, requested by the CPUC, which questioned $200 million of the $3.3 billion sunk costs. The CPUC will review any proposed adjustments to Diablo Canyon's recoverable costs, which resulted from the report. At this time, the amount of transition cost disallowances, if any, cannot be predicted...

[Hey, utilities experts posting here ...sunk costs??? ...questioned $200 million of the $3.3 billion sunk costs?]

Utility Generation Divestiture: - As part of electric industry restructuring, the Utility decided to sell its fossil-fueled generation facilities...

...On July 1, 1998, the Utility completed the sale of three electric Utility-owned fossil-fueled generating plants to Duke Energy Power Services Inc. (Duke) for $501 million. These three fossil-fueled plants had a combined book value at July 1, 1998, of approximately $351 million and a combined capacity of 2,645 MW. The three power plants are located at Morro Bay, Moss Landing, and Oakland...

...The Utility will continue to operate and maintain the plants under a two- year operating and maintenance agreement. Additionally, the Utility will retain the liability for required environmental remediation of any pre- closing soil or groundwater contamination at these plants. Although the Utility is retaining such environmental remediation liability, the Utility does not expect any material impact on its or PG&E Corporation's financial position or results of operations.

...In July 1998, the Utility agreed with the City and County of San Francisco to permanently close Hunters Point Power Plant when reliable alternative electricity resources are operational. The CPUC approved this agreement in October 1998, allowing the Utility to recover the existing book value of Hunters Point and the plant's environmental remediation and decommissioning costs. Hunters Point is a fossil-fueled plant with a generating capacity of 423 MW and a book value, including plant-related regulatory assets, at September 30, 1998, of $33 million...

[When reliable alternative electricity resources are operational?]

...the Utility currently intends to sell its fossil-fueled and geothermal facilities: Potrero, Pittsburg, Contra Costa, and Geysers power plants. These fossil-fueled and geothermal facilities ... The Utility is scheduled to receive final bids to purchase these plants in November 1998, and to complete the sale of these plants in 1999.

...In 1997, the Utility informed the CPUC that it does not intend to retain its remaining 4,000 MW of hydroelectric facilities as part of the Utility...

Customer Impacts of Transition Plan: Effective March 31, 1998, all Californians may choose their electric commodity provider. As of October 15, 1998, the Utility had accepted approximately 63,000 requests to switch their electric commodity supplier from the Utility to another electric commodity provider...

The Utility Electric Distribution Business:

During the second quarter of 1998, the CPUC issued various decisions in which it indicated its support for competition within the electric distribution market. We believe that these regulatory pronouncements are not consistent with prior CPUC policy on distribution competition, including duplicative distribution facilities. Moreover, we believe that these pronouncements have increased substantially the uncertainty surrounding the future role of California's electric utility distribution companies. In addition, we believe that the CPUC made these statements without a comprehensive examination of such fundamental issues as: (1) recovery of electric distribution transition costs; (2) the shifting of costs among customer classes and geographic regions; (3) the economic and environmental impacts of distribution competition; and (4) the distribution utilities' statutory obligation to serve.

[Distribution utilities' statutory obligation to serve?]

Unregulated Business Operations:

We provide a wide range of integrated energy products and services designed to take advantage of the competitive energy marketplace throughout the United States. Through our unregulated subsidiaries, we: (1) provide gas transmission services in Texas and the Pacific Northwest; (2) develop, build, operate, own, and manage electric generation facilities across the country;

[Who, What , When, Where, How, Why?]

(3) provide customers nationwide with services to manage and make more efficient their energy consumption; and (4) purchase and resell energy commodities and related financial instruments. In providing integrated energy products and services, we continually evaluate the composition of our assets...

PG&E Corporation:

PG&E Corporation became the holding company of the Utility in 1997. At that time, we transferred the unregulated subsidiaries of the Utility to PG&E Corporation...

ACQUISITIONS AND SALES:

In July 1998, the Corporation sold its Australian energy holdings to Duke Energy International, LLP (DEI), a subsidiary of Duke Energy Corporation. The assets, located in the southeast corner of the Australian state of Queensland, include a 627-kilometer gas pipeline, pipeline operations, and trading and marketing operations...

...On September 1, 1998, the Corporation, through its subsidiary U.S. Generating Company (USGen), completed the acquisition of a portfolio of electric generating assets and power supply contracts from the New England Electric System (NEES)... The assets include hydroelectric, coal, oil, and natural gas generation facilities...

...The Corporation acquired NEES's generating facilities and power supply contracts in anticipation of deregulation of the electric industry in several New England states...

YEAR 2000:

The Year 2000 issue exists for the Corporation because many software and embedded systems use only two digits to identify a year in a date field, and were developed without considering the impact of the upcoming change in the century. Some of these systems are critical to our operations and business processes and might fail or function incorrectly if not repaired or replaced with Year 2000 ready products. By "ready", we mean that the system is remediated so that it will perform its essential functions. We define "software" as both computer programming that has been developed by the Corporation for its own purposes ("in-house software") and that purchased from vendors ("vendor software"). "Embedded systems" refers to both computing hardware and other electronic monitoring, communications, and control systems that have microprocessors within them.

Our Year 2000 project focuses on those systems that are critical to our business. By "critical" we mean those systems the failure of which would directly and adversely affect our ability to generate or deliver our products and services or otherwise affect revenues, safety, or reliability for such a period of time as to lead to unrecoverable consequences. For these critical systems, we have adopted a phased approach to address Year 2000 issues. The primary phases include: (1) an enterprise-wide inventory, in which systems critical to our business are identified; (2) assessment, in which critical systems are evaluated as to their readiness to operate after December 31, 1999; (3) remediation, in which critical systems that are not Year 2000 ready are made so, either through modifications or replacement; (4) testing, in which remediation is validated by checking the ability of the critical system to operate within the Year 2000 time frame; and (5) certification, in which systems are formally acknowledged to be Year 2000 ready, and acceptable for production or operation.

Our Year 2000 project is proceeding generally on schedule. For in-house and vendor software, we have completed the inventory phase and have identified approximately 1,000 critical systems. Additional software that requires Year 2000 remediation may be discovered as we continue with the assessment, remediation, and testing phases. We estimate that roughly 40 percent of identified, critical, in-house software has been remediated, with completion of remediation of remaining in-house software scheduled for the end of 1998. We estimate that roughly 10 percent of critical vendor software has been remediated and received. Our corporate milestone for receipt of all remediated vendor software is March 1999. We plan to finish testing remediated in-house and vendor software by May 1999 and expect to complete the certification phase for software by July 1999.

We also have completed the inventory of all embedded systems, although additional embedded items that require Year 2000 repair or replacement may be discovered as we continue with the assessment, remediation, and testing phases. Remediation of all critical embedded systems is planned to be completed by April 1999. We expect to finish testing of these remediated systems by August 1999, and plan to complete the certification phase for embedded systems by October 1999.

We are testing remediated software and embedded systems both for ability to handle Year 2000 dates, including appropriate leap year calculations, and to assure that code repair has not affected the base functionality of the code. Software and embedded systems are tested individually and where judged appropriate will be tested in an integrated manner with other systems, with dates and data advanced and aged to simulate Year 2000 operations. Testing, by its nature, however, cannot comprehensively address all future combinations of dates and events. Therefore, some uncertainty will remain after testing is completed as to the ability of code to process future dates, as well as the ability of remediated systems to work in an integrated fashion with other systems.

[Some uncertainty will remain after testing is completed? Oh joy.]

We also depend upon external parties, including customers, suppliers, business partners, gas and electric system operators, government agencies, and financial institutions, to reliably deliver their products and services. To the extent that any of these parties experience Year 2000 problems in their systems, the demand for and the reliability of our services may be adversely affected.

[Translation: plan to go camping.]

The primary phases we have undertaken to deal with external parties are: (1) inventory, in which critical business relationships are identified; (2) action planning, in which we develop a series of actions and a time frame for monitoring expected external party compliance status; (3) assessment, in which the likelihood of external party Year 2000 readiness is periodically evaluated; and (4) contingency planning, in which appropriate plans are made to be ready to deal with the potential failure of an external party to be Year 2000 ready.

We have completed our inventory of external contacts and have identified more than 1,000 critical relationships. We soon will complete the action- planning phase for each of these entities. Additional critical relationships may be entered into or discovered as we continue. Assessment of Year 2000 readiness of these external parties will continue through 1999. We expect to complete contingency plans for each of these critical business relationships by July 1999.

We plan to develop contingency plans for our critical software or embedded systems for which we determine Year 2000 repair or replacement is substantially at risk. For example, if the schedule for repairing or replacing a non-compliant system lags and cannot be re-scheduled to meet certain milestones, then we expect to begin an appropriate contingency planning process. These contingency plans would be implemented as necessary, if a remediated system does not become available by the date it is needed. In addition, as described above, we plan to develop contingency plans for the potential failure of critical external parties to fully address their Year 2000 issues.

[We plan to develop contingency plans for the potential failure of critical external parties. Care to share those pending plans PG&E???]

We also recognize that, given the complex interaction of today's computing and communication systems, we cannot be certain that all of our efforts to have all critical systems Year 2000 ready will be successful. Therefore, irrespective of the progress of the Year 2000 project, we are preparing contingency plans for each subsidiary and essential business function. These plans will take into account the possibility of multiple system failures, both internal and external, due to Year 2000 effects.

[Multiple system failures, both internal and external...]

These subsidiary and essential business function contingency plans will build on existing emergency and business restoration plans. Although no definitive list of scenarios for this planning has yet been developed, the events that we considered for planning purposes include increased frequency and duration of interruptions of the power, computing, financial, and communications infrastructure. We expect to complete first drafts of these subsidiary and essential business function contingency plans by the beginning of 1999. We anticipate testing and revision of these plans throughout 1999.

Due to the speculative nature of contingency planning, it is uncertain whether our contingency plans to address failure of external parties or internal systems will be sufficient to reduce the risk of material impacts on our operations due to Year 2000 problems.

The Corporation currently is revising and refining its procedures for tracking and reporting costs associated with its Year 2000 effort. From 1997 through September 1998, we have spent approximately $80 million to assess and remediate Year 2000 problems. About $60 million of this cost was for software systems that we replaced for business purposes generally unrelated to addressing Year 2000 readiness, but whose schedule we advanced to meet Year 2000 requirements. The replacement costs for these accelerated systems were capitalized.

We estimate that our future costs to address Year 2000 issues will be approximately $180 million. About $50 million of these remaining Year 2000 costs will be capitalized because they relate to the purchase and installation of systems for general business purposes and the remaining $130 million will be expensed. As we continue to assess our systems and as the remediation, testing, and certification phases of our compliance effort progress, our estimated costs may change. Further, we expect to incur costs in the year 2000 and beyond to remediate and replace less critical software and embedded systems. We do not believe that the incremental cost of addressing Year 2000 issues will have a material impact on the Corporation's or the Utility's financial position or results of operation.

The Corporation's current schedule is subject to change, depending on developments that may arise through further assessment of our systems, and through the remediation and testing phases of our compliance effort. Further, our current schedule is partially dependent on the efforts of third parties, including vendors, suppliers, and customers. Delays by third parties may cause our schedule to change. There also are risks associated with loss of or inability to locate critical personnel to remediate and return to service the identified critical systems. We may fail to locate all systems critical to our business processes that require remediation. A combination of businesses and government entities may fail to be Year 2000 ready, which may lead to a substantial reduction in a demand for our energy services.

[Repeat: A combination of businesses and government entities may fail to be Year 2000 ready, which may lead to a substantial reduction in a demand for our energy services. Define substantial.]

Based on our current schedule for the completion of Year 2000 tasks, we believe our plan is adequate to secure Year 2000 readiness of our critical systems.

[Our plan is adequate ... our critical systems. Define adequate.]

We expect our remediation efforts and those of external parties to be largely successful. Nevertheless, achieving Year 2000 readiness is subject to various risks and uncertainties, many of which are noted above. We are not able to predict all the factors that could cause actual results to differ materially from our current expectations as to our Year 2000 readiness. If we, or third parties with whom we have significant business relationships, fail to achieve Year 2000 readiness with respect to critical systems, there could be a material adverse impact on the Utility's and the Corporation's financial position, results of operations, and cash flows.

* * ' * * ' * * ' * * ' * * ' * * ' * * '

Suppose the utility grid does stay up after 2000 with area brownouts, some blackouts. I wonder if the utility rates will increase so alarmingly that people will have to voluntarily shut off power, personally blackout, just to save money? -- Diane

-- Diane J. Squire (sacredspaces@yahoo.com), November 20, 1998

Answers

I was inside a number of PG&E facilities a few years back. Remember gang, this is the power company for the fourth largest economy in the world (California). It's a HUGE company with facilities scattered all over the state, which is larger that most countries. It sprawls and it's just as disorganized as everyone else on the planet.

At least they were willing to go into more detail than the four paragraphs in the SEC filing for my local NYC power company, ConEd. What I said on the other thread about if ConEd goes down, the rest of the world goes with it, may also be true of PG&E. But frankly, the two filings say pretty much the same thing.

"Based on our current schedule for the completion of Year 2000 tasks, we believe our plan is adequate to secure Year 2000 readiness of our critical systems."

O.K., so maybe we have to endure a certain amount of legalese, that's cool, I can understand that. But can't they put it in terms like:

"Based on our current schedule and the understanding that electric power generation is essential to our society, we believe that we are doing everything possible to secure Year 2000 readiness of our critical systems."

I realize that lowlifes like me are not meant to read SEC filings, and that in all probabability NOBODY really reads this stuff, but still, you'd think that they would at least make it sound as good as the P.R. brochures...

-- pshannon (pshannon@inch.com), November 20, 1998.

>>Suppose the utility grid does stay up after 2000 with area brownouts, some blackouts. I wonder if the utility rates will increase so alarmingly that people will have to voluntarily shut off power, personally blackout, just to save money? -- Diane <<

On a personal level, there are several reasons to be off the grid if the power gets "dirty". The term "brownout" covers a variety of unusual power variations such as voltage sags and spikes, current surges and frequency drift. These effects can overheat and destroy machinery, motors, transformers and electronics, trip breakers and blow fuses (of the distribution network itself, as well as in commercial and residential loads) which in turn create additional fluctuations. The best circumstance is a quick cascade to blackout, to lessen the chances that critical appliances (refrigerator, freezer, heater...) get zapped. Of course, if the event can be predicted, it would be better to be off-grid beforehand......

In a commercial sense, electricity is essential for most business operations. They will have to take the risk of equipment damage or they will be out of business anyway.

Diane asks a good question What does the above have to do with it? I speculate that voluntary and involuntary load-shedding will be part of the contingency actions to help stabilize the grid. I doubt that customers will be charged for *not* having power. But damage to home owners' equipment is seldom the liability of the power company. What are the chances of settling a claim (with the power company OR home owners insurance) under Y2K conditions? Best to take preventive measures which could save more than just money.

-- Elbow Grease (Elbow_Grease@AutoShop.com), November 20, 1998.

We have a whole house surge protector installed, would that be enough to protect our appliances and electronics against brownouts as described above?

-- Chris (catsy@pond.com), November 20, 1998.

>>We have a whole house surge protector installed.....<<

Chris, unfortunately, the answer is "No". A surge protector filters spikes and surges, as the name implies. The U.S. has enjoyed such dependable energy generation that the most frequent source of homeowner damage is from lightning strikes. That is what your surge protector protects against. And even then, it is not 100% insurance. As my daughter-in-law told my granddaughter "Lightning is a really big ouchie." :-) You had to be there. However, to "support" or stabilize low voltage and frequency drift, you need some level of isolation such as independent power generation (generator) or UPS (Uninterruptible Power Source) which is a battery bank and inverter arrangement. Finally, electronics are very sensitive. The output from some portable generators can be too dirty for computers and such. The only 100% protection is to throw the main breaker, but that kinda defeats the whole purpose, ya know?

-- Elbow Grease (Elbow_Grease@AutoShop.com), November 20, 1998.

Diane: your question re "sunk costs???". This is an accounting term. Simply put, it means all the money you have spent on the project in question. This is used to avoid throwing "good money after bad". Sunk costs can never be recovered. Here's an example: Say you decided to build a refinery for $x. Now you are thinking of selling it and building a bigger one. To decide if it is worthwhile to do this, you have to ignore $x as "sunk costs". All you consider is income from sale of the old one (positive), loss of ongoing income from the products of the old refinery (negative), cost of building the new refinery (negative) and potential income from the products of the new refinery (positive). How much you paid to build the old refinery is not part of the equation. It is a "sunk cost". (For all you number crunchers, I know this is over simplification, since I have not commented of time value of the $$ involved. Come on, give those normal people a break.) Diane, hope this helps. p.s. I commented to my C.A. boss (that's more or less the equivalent to a public accountant in U.S) that it seems that science fiction readers are the ones who "get it" re Y2K. He said he does not read science fiction, but since we are both accountants, that must be what you need to "get it" :)

-- Lois Knorr (knorr@attcanada.net), November 21, 1998.

Thanks Everyone.

Looks like I need to investigate "off the grid" options. And free energy divices. I know they exist, at least in prototype forms.

Meanwhile, candles.

Diane

-- Diane J. Squire (sacredspaces@yahoo.com), November 21, 1998.

I received this private e-mail and later permission to post it from the author. -- Diane

Date: Sun, 22 Nov 1998 10:45:04 -0800 Subject: Re: PG&E

Thanks for the PG&E post at Yourdan.forum. I live north of Sac in the Sierra so PG&E is of great interest to me.

I have a friend who is doing remediation work on the embedded systems in the machines which process the incoming checks from accounts receivable. The group working in this space figures they will have this project complete in mid-2000, and that is if nothing goes disasterously wrong. He and his family are preparing for the worst, and in fact have asked us if they might not use our property as a gettaway (in fun, but also serious, if you know what I mean).

Some off grid urls: http://www.sierrasolar.com/products/catalog.htm - a friend uses these people, they give good support.

http://home1.gte.net/bowjonin/indx.htm - I'm using these people for my well pump.

http://www.bergey.com/ - Electric windmills, wish I had known about these 10 years ago!

Best of luck.

-- Diane J. Squire (sacredspaces@yahoo.com), November 22, 1998.

San Francisco Chronicle http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/ 1998/11/20/BU63368.DTL

MCI Ordered to Pay $2 Million to Pac Bell, Pay-Phone Owners Chronicle staff Friday, November 20, 1998

Excerpt ...

Y2K PENALTIES: California's utilities must fix the Year 2000 problem by Nov. 1, 1999, or face penalties from state regulators. The California Public Utilities Commission said the state's telecommunications, energy, transportation and water companies need to make sure their computer systems are updated and immune to the Y2K problem before the end of next year and to begin making quarterly reports on their Year 2000 compliance.

-- Diane J. Squire (sacredspaces@yahoo.com), November 23, 1998.

# # # 19981123

Diane:

Oooohh! There's a threat! November 1, 1999 or "penalties from state regulators." Who's kidding who? Only bureaucrats could think this effective.

Regards, Bob Mangus # # #

-- Robert Mangus (rmangus@mail.netquest.com), November 23, 1998.

To check out the public side of PG&E...

http://www.pge.com/resources/compliance/

FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS Year 2000 Readiness Disclosure (10/13/98)

You've no doubt heard much discussion about the Year 2000 and its impact on various computer systems that rely on date calculations. Pacific Gas and Electric Company is making a substantial commitment of time and resources so that the company's information technology will continue to perform well into the next century. We are pleased to provide you with the following Year 2000 Readiness Disclosure information regarding our company's program.

* What is the Year 2000 problem?

* Isn't there a computer program that can just fix all the dates?

* Have you established a formal plan to tackle the Year 2000 problem?

* Who manages Pacific Gas and Electric Company's program?

* What is Pacific Gas and Electric Company doing at its nuclear plant?

* What types of critical computer systems are you repairing?

* How is Pacific Gas and Electric Company correcting computer systems?

* Has Pacific Gas and Electric Company communicated with business partners to check on their Year 2000 efforts?

* Who can I contact if I have more questions?

-- Diane J. Squire (sacredspaces@yahoo.com), November 28, 1998.

Two questions:

Diane: I couldn't tell from your last post - were these the "topics" from PG&E answers (web site?) or were they questions you were asking?

Sir Bob:

<< ... make sure their computer systems are updated and immune to the Y2K problem before the end of next year and to begin making quarterly reports on their Year 2000 compliance. >>

Did you consider also that making quarterly reports starting in Nov 1999 is a bit late? By that time they would need to be weekly reports.

-- Robert A. Cook, P.E. (Kennesaw, GA) (cook.r@csaatl.com), November 29, 1998.

Robert, these "topics" ARE from PG&E's answers web site. That's why I sure won't ask them my questions directly, unless of course they have a "public" gathering. Until then I'll puzzle the pieces from the internet leads and clues.

-- Diane J. Squire (sacredspaces@yahoo.com), November 29, 1998.