From Http://www.y2knewswire.com/19990408.html

This article says that some utilities are advancing the control system clock forward and leaving them. NERC states this is working out well. My question to those that might know is why was this solution not tried or used several months ago? The article goes on to say to watch this solution as it is being investigated.

Are the utilites grasping at the last straws trying to prepare because it looks like they may not make the deadline?

There are several good subjects at this site. The other is an article about hackers invading the White House Web site several Sundays ago.

-- Linda A. (adahi@muhlon.com), April 08, 1999

Answers

Yeah, Duke Power says one of their plants is already running in 2000. Sounds good to me. I'd like to know if the other ones will be doing the same within, oh, the next year or so.

-- Shimrod (shimrod@lycosmail.com), April 08, 1999.

Mixed news here.

The more times each different change is made, the more likely errors or "resets"/"restarts" will be induced in the control processes.

On the other hand, running a plant in the wrong year may be a cheap way to to avoid turning back the clock to "present-day" - but it indicates that the "repairs" or "remediation" doesn't give the operators and owners as much confidence in their remediation as they indicate.

It would appear they would have to keep the plant set ahead until this time next year, then back-up again and rerun March and April 2000 again. Its a way to avoid the 1999-2000 turnover, but then again there's that pesky 2000-2001 turnover. (Might not be as bad though, since even to a very stupid computer, "01" is bigger than" "00".)

-- Robert A Cook, PE (Kennesaw, GA) (Cook.R@csaatl.com), April 08, 1999.

What about embedded systems? You can't "roll the clock ahead" on those, can you? How do you know if you are compliant if you haven't located, tested, and replaced all of those pesky embedded systems that seem to be so prevelent in the utilities industries? Just wondering.

-- Joe Williams (joew@anywhere.com), April 09, 1999.

Which computer are they talking about? Is it the billing computer, or the power house controls?

-- (Boilerman7@powerhouse.com), April 09, 1999.

Joe - they probably rolled ahead as many as they think they have, in whatever way they think they can - but your implication (that some are missed, some will re-set anyway, some will fail, etc. is exactly right.

Problem is, the ones that will cause many of the failures are the ones they were "surprised by" - every failure that they can *anticipate* they will try to prevent. Good. That's the right mode to work in.

But there will be many "surprises" left in many unexpected places.

-- Robert A Cook, PE (Kennesaw, GA) (Cook.R@csaatl.com), April 09, 1999.

Also - to the original question - NO ONE, NOWHERE, has ever tried to "roll-ahead" clocks and processors without first finishing remediation and as much in-house/unit level testing as possible.

Don't know why - but believe that most engineers know that arbitrarily "setting ahead" processes to year 2000 will lead to too many failures that the current systems can't be returned to profitable service.

In other words, "fix on failure" leads to "too many failures to fix."

-- Robert A Cook, PE (Kennesaw, GA) (Cook.R@csaatl.com), April 09, 1999.