Yes, awhile back, due to the tireless efforts of folks such as WorldNetDaily, the secret plan by NERC to "coverup" readiness exceptions and "hide" them from the public was revealed. A few threads discussed this shocking revelation:

NERC to coverup?

Now, idiot Polly that I am, I actually thought it a good thing that NERC was tracking and following up on individual exceptions.

I also thought it illogical that if NERC was trying to coverup, they wouldn't post the actual details and memos on the internet for all to see.

Silly me. I now realize the above was due solely to NERC total incompetence. I mean, in their recent report, they actually state on pages 24 and 25:

Analysis of Reported Exceptions

Recognizing that some Remediation and Testing may extend beyond the June 30, 1999 target, NERC, in January 1999, initiated an Exceptions Report process to allow more detailed identification and tracking of specific line items that would be completed after the target date. This process allows a more accurate assessment by NERC of the reliability impacts of these schedules. This exception reporting process allows more precise reporting and analysis. An analysis is provided below and a summary list of exception items is provided in Appendix A.

There are currently 44 organizations reporting non-nuclear exception items. 2 All reported exceptions appear reasonable and do not affect the ability to operate reliably into the Year 2000. All work and testing are scheduled for completion in the fall of 1999 or earlier. The exceptions are principally in five categories: emissions monitoring, generating unit controllers, SCADA/EMS, telecommunications, and customer support systems. The nature of the exceptions is described below.

Emissions Monitoring - There are 18 organizations reporting 33 units that are pending upgrades and certification of Continuous Emissions Monitoring Systems (CEMS) after June 30. The reporting entities are heavily dependent on vendors of these systems for upgrades and certification. There appears to be a backlog of demand for vendor support in this area. These systems provide a monitoring function only and do not affect the ability of any unit to produce electricity. These systems do not effect the ability of a unit to operate and they do not effect the quantity of emissions from a unit. The impact is principally one of potential regulatory penalties if an organization is forced under emergency conditions to operate without CEMS. One additional organization reports upgrades to scrubbers at three units that will be completed during a fall outage.

Non-nuclear Generating Units - DCS upgrades and testing are reported in the fall for nine units. Data acquisition systems are reported at three units. An additional 15 units report miscellaneous controllers that will complete Remediation and Testing during outages in the fall. Several others are reported as completing final integrated testing of the units in the fall, although the units will be tested at the component level prior to the target date. These exceptions are estimated to impact less than 20,000 MW or less than 3% of total non-nuclear generating capacity. The risk posed here is low, because demand during key rollover periods is expected to be no more than 5070% of peak. Even considering the need for extra operating reserves, the available generating capacity is well in excess of any credible demand levels during Y2k transition periods.

SCADA/EMS - There are ten Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition (SCADA) and Energy Management Systems (EMS) reported to have new upgrades that will require testing into the fall. Additional control center systems reported include two Open Access Same-time Information System (OASIS) reservation systems and one load management system.

Telecommunications  New upgrades of voice or data systems are reported as exceptions by seven entities.

Customer Support Systems - Customer billing, metering, and service systems are reported by five organizations due to new systems or upgrades planned in the fall.

Analysis:

The progress reports as of March 31, 1999 indicate the vast majority of mission-critical electrical systems will be ready to operate into the Year 2000 by June 30, 1999. For the 10% of organizations reporting expected readiness dates between June 30 and October 31, 1999, NERC is conducting a more detailed assessment of any risks posed by these systems. Initial indications from interviews over the past six months indicate that some of these systems have only a small number of items driving this completion schedule. These organizations should be identifying the limited number of exceptions to NERC for review. Without identification of specific exceptions, NERC must assume that the reported schedules apply to the entire program.

Recommendations:

It is essential that all organizations that produce or deliver electricity recognize the importance of the industry targets. These targets apply specifically to mission-critical facilities that are necessary to meet demand and reserve requirements for reliable operation into the Year 2000. Y2k Ready indicates suitable for use into the Year 2000 and beyond.

1. NERC will conduct a further review of each of these 25 organizations and identify any reliability risks associated with the proposed schedules. This information will be reviewed with the NERC Board of Trustees and Regional Councils. NERC will contact the chief executive of any organization that is not conforming to the industry goals by not meeting the June 30, 1999 target or by not reporting a limited number of specific exceptions. The ultimate disposition of these schedules, analysis of risks, and actions taken to address the risks will be presented to DOE in the July 1999 report.

2. These 25 organizations are requested to adjust their project schedules to conform to industry targets. These organizations should review NERC reporting criteria (January 1999 Exception Reporting Instructions) to determine if they qualify to report a limited number of exceptions to NERC for detailed tracking.

Appendix A even lists the exceptions! I mean, they don't even know how to do decent coverup!

-- Hoffmeister (hoff_meister@my-dejanews.com), May 02, 1999

Answers

Hoff,

Since I find it difficult and confusing to wade through all the above noted data and reach a conclusion, I am just going to take you at your word, that NERC has been bamboozling us. Thank you for the heads- up.

-- Gordon (gpconnolly@aol.com), May 02, 1999.

nice Hoff,

Don't expect the doomers to come stampeding to this thread... with the exception of folks like Gordon, who only try and discredit this post. Facing facts/reality has never been the strong point of those on this NG. They will start with the "yes, but what about..." line soon enough.

-- Long time lurker (NOYB@Tthis.time), May 02, 1999.

NERC is trying to overwhelm us with details, but I'm not fooled. I'm interested in the TRUTH, NOT the facts. Facts only confuse us, while the truth shines through them all, unchanging and undeniable.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), May 02, 1999.

NERC is trying to overwhelm us with details, but I'm not fooled. I'm interested in the

TRUTH, NOT the facts. Facts only confuse us, while the truth shines through them all, unchanging and undeniable.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), May 02, 1999.

HMMMMMMMM

If this be an attempt at cynical comment vs. Gloomers you are trolling for pollies.

If not, and you are serious, then you ignore that Truth is merely a super-Set of "facts". That makes you clearly a Gloomer Troll.

from:

Whose Troll R.U.??

-- Whose Troll is this?? (WhoseTroll@RU.com), May 02, 1999.

I'm just joking in the spirit I think Hoff intended. Seriously, this NERC report is informative and valuable.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), May 02, 1999.

Hi guys - two things:

1) I will be off-line for a week, but will try to catch up next Monday-Tuesday. So keep arguing amongst yourselves, I just won't be able to contribute (?) my usual misspellings. Oh well.

2) This NERC report was refreshingly straightforward - for a refreshing change. For once, they are actually showing a sizeable percent that are not yet done, but (apparently) most of these have realistic plans (hopes) of finishing before Jan 2000. How much before January is open to question, but the schedule "slips" appear realistic.

However, if anybody wants to assume they are NOT pushing a "publicized" schedule compliance, rather than actual remediation and testing scedule based on real information from the programmers and testers - consider this from the above:

<<... NERC will contact the chief executive of any organization that is not conforming to the industry goals by not meeting the June 30, 1999 target or by not reporting a limited number of specific exceptions. The ultimate disposition of these schedules, analysis of risks, and actions taken to address the risks will be presented to DOE in the July 1999 report.

2. These 25 organizations are requested to adjust their project schedules to conform to industry targets. These organizations should review NERC reporting criteria (January 1999 Exception Reporting Instructions) to determine if they qualify to report a limited number of exceptions to NERC for detailed tracking. >>

So - if the CEO is getting personal calls from Washington to change a schedule to show compliance to the June 30 date, (for the sole purpose that Washington can claim comliance to "their" previously publicized date), what chance is it that the programming and testing and testing people on the shop floor are going to be told "...to claim compliance - NOW. We're been told to be finished by June 30."

Isn't this promoting a "coverup" of the true status of what repairs are actually being done?

-- Robert A. Cook, PE (Kennesaw, GA) (cook.r@csaatl.com), May 02, 1999.

Robert, what an extraordinary reading. It seems quite evident that those who are considered behind are being told to hurry up. It says they are requested to adjust their *schedules*, not fabricate their reports! The way you adjust a schedule is by assigning more resources, not by simply setting unrealistic completion dates.

Interpreting "Get on the stick!" as "fake it" is, uh, irrational?

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), May 02, 1999.

NERC is attempting to apply what pressure they can to have the organizations ready by June 30th.

The exception reporting mechanism allows this to happen, without compressing timelines. I think this is what NERC is pushing for, which then allows them to compile a list of specific areas to follow-up and track. Again, I think this is a good thing.

Another example of this pressure showed up in the GAO report, regarding TVA. Instead of waiting for normal, scheduled maintenance outages to apply fixes, TVA re-evaluated and moved up the fixes.

-- Hoffmeister (hoff_meister@my-dejanews.com), May 02, 1999.

Flint said:

"The way you adjust a schedule is by assigning more resources, not by simply setting unrealistic completion dates. "

BROOK'S LAW:

Adding manpower to a late software project makes it later.

Learning anything yet Fint?

-- a (a@a.a), May 04, 1999.

'a':

Are you taking the position that the remediation process cannot possibly be accelerated at any plant, and that any attempt to do so will be counterproductive?

If not, what *are* you saying?

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), May 04, 1999.

But Sir Flint (of the hard-nosed) -

The easiest way for management to adjust the schedule (unscrupulous, politically motivated, not connected to real world repairs of course) is to merely "adjust the schedule" to fit what hte political powers want. this does nothign to change the real world efforts of actual remediation and repairs. Those, as you pointed out, can only be effected by more people, more time, more attention and priority.

In other words, we are seeing the real case here of a false politically-demanded schedule being demanded to meet an unrealistic, politically motivated schedule (July 30, June 30, March 30, etc.) rather then a real get-the-job-done solution. Now, guess what the politically attuned management will produce? What will the public hear? Useful, real world schedules? Or politically motivated lies - from an administration that lives by, and owes its success to, politically motivated lies.

-- Robert A. Cook, PE (Kennesaw, GA) (cook.r@csaatl.com), May 10, 1999.

Robert:

While I agree that these target dates and schedules are politically motivated, rather arbitrary, and often not grounded in reality, I also doubt that the managers and engineers in these plants look forward to freezing in the dark any more than anyone else.

There's quite likely a variety of reasons why some plants are encountering real problems. One purpose a target date serves (beyond pure PR) is to help identify those plants, and the problems they're having. Perhaps they lack appropriate expertise, or really don't have the money and can't come up with it, or have some problem unique to their site.

The issue here isn't deceit or appearances, at least not to me. Forget these silly dates. My question is, *is it possible*, at all, one way or another, to speed up the remediation process at those plants that are falling behind for whatever reason? In an earlier post, I made the assumption that this was possible -- that both the level and focus of these efforts could be increased.

You will note that 'a' took the position that speeding up the process was *not* possible, and that efforts to do so would in fact *slow down* the process, and implied that I was stupid for believing otherwise.

So I'm asking you -- which is it? Can remediation possible be sped up at lagging plants, or can it only be slowed down? I don't know.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), May 10, 1999.

Truth is, the real answer is "yes" and "no" -

A few things: Let us agree that "management" - whether top level (CIO, CEO, President) or mid-level cannot by themselves solve the Y2K problem. They can certainly influence whether or not it is solved, and they can easily slow down or prevent it from being solved - no budget, no priority, no support, no cooperation between departments, no top level coordination, conflicting requirements, etc. - but they themselves can't solve it. So, if they (top level managers) are influenced by the administration to eliminate restraints (roadblocks preventing progress) and emphasize progress and accurate reporting of status - then they (management) can improve the scheduled completion date.

If they demand impossible performance (Death March level of effort) to simply deliver impossible production to meet foolish (politically motivated) schedules, then they will actually impede progress. Worse, if they micro-manage the remediation and testing efforts - AKA Dilbert's endless meetings with programmers to find out why they (the programmers) are not programming - then management will actually slow progress.

Middle management is most likely to be at fault if "massaging" news to make it look good were the problem - almost nobody in upper management could tell if bad data (reports, progress, actual performance) were being presented.

-- Robert A. Cook, PE (Kennesaw, GA) (cook.r@csaatl.com), May 11, 1999.