Link

FROM THE DRUDGE REPORT
CONTENT COPIED FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY

Y2K GRID TEST SET FOR NEXT MONTH

Not that anyone would have reason to doubt anything that comes out of the mouth of Energy Secretary Bill Richardson, but the real test of the nation's electric utility systems and their Y2K compatibility should come during a scheduled massive "grid test" next month.

The U.S. and Canadian power systems are ready for the year 2000 with more than 99 percent of all their critical systems repaired and tested, the North American Electric Reliability Council announced on Tuesday.

"I can't declare total victory yet," Energy Secretary Bill Richardson told reporters, "but we are quite optimistic."

The NERC reported that 99 percent of all "critical elements'' in electric supply systems have been tested -- and have passed.

All sockets now turn to a giant nationwide test of America's electrical grids, now scheduled for 9/9/99.

A successful simultaneous test of all regional power grids may convince hardcore Y2K watchers that the lights may stay on when the clock strikes and the calendar flips.

But if the electricity does goes out that day, you may want to ask Bill Richardson if there are plans to offer tax credits on generators.

Does anyone else get the feeling that Matt Drudge is definately a GI. He has been keeping an eye open for a while now. Personally, I am glad to see this because he is not afraid to tell it like it is.

-- flb (fben4077@yahoo.com), August 04, 1999

Answers

I've wondered for some time why this test was scheduled for 9/9/99.

Does anyone else think that it is to coverup possible failures due to the date?

-- Johnny (JLJTM@BELLSOUTH.NET), August 04, 1999.

Thanks flb.

Johnny, that was my first thought when reading this. 9/9/99 is too much of a coincidence.

I keep thinking they've planted this as a cover story. Actually, up until recently I hadn't even heard anything from the NERC that there would be a grid test of any kind. In fact, I believe they were saying that such a test was not possible, that each electric entity was responsible for their own testing and that the only test would be the roll over itself.

9/9/99...very interesting.

Mike

==================================================================

Mike

============================================================

-- Michael Taylor (mtdesign3@aol.com), August 04, 1999.

opps...sorry.

MT ====================================================================

-- Michael Taylor (mtdesign3@aol.com), August 04, 1999.

ftp://www.nerc.com/pub/sys/all_updl/docs/y2k/drills.pdf

[snip]

Proposal to Conduct Two Industry-Wide Y2k Drills

One component of operational preparedness of electric systems is the conduct of training and drills. NERC proposed in the September 1998 report to DOE and the public that the electric industry should conduct two Y2k drills on April 9, 1999 and September 9, 1999. These dates have been selected to coincide with two lesser priority Y2k operating dates (99th day of 1999 and 9/9/99).

[snip]

-- Linkmeister (link@librarian.edu), August 04, 1999.

Thanks Linkmiester.

Still leaves me wondering why they would choose those dates and whether or not a test was carried out on April 9.

Anyone know?

Mike

=================================================================

-- Michael Taylor (mtdesign3@aol.com), August 04, 1999.

NERC's April 9 Y2K Drill

-- Lane Core Jr. (elcore@sgi.net), August 04, 1999.

But of course they will hold a y2k drill on 9/9/99

It has been know for several months, alomost a year that there are real possibilities of having some trouble with some of the systems on this date.. Which is better; to call it a test and every one in place in case something goes belly up! And say whew! Well folks we found our problems in the tests we did. Or; would you rather call in your people for a fire fighting effort and have it get out that you are expecting trouble?

The first way...a test! You are controlling the situation. The second, y2k is calling the shots! Which one spins better for the sheeple?

Me? Well I'm setting it out untill next spring.Let the gung ho's get drafted for y2k work after martial law is declared

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Shakey~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

-- Shakey (in_a_bunkr@forty.feet), August 04, 1999.

Thought the 9999 thing wasn't really an issue as that's a julian date format vs more typical 09999 or other ways of referencing that date with a zero. Didn't see too much trouble in April. Comments please.

EC

-- EC (JHnck1776@aol.com), August 04, 1999.

EC

You said: "Thought the 9999 thing wasn't really an issue as that's a julian date format vs more typical 09999 or other ways of referencing that date with a zero. Didn't see too much trouble in April. Comments please."

My Response: I talked with some folks that work for major utilities in the desert southwestern US who told me that their companies did have troubles. One phone company troubleshooter told me that it was a mess for several days thereafter. A power company engineer told me that their system went down for an extended period of time and took an extended period of several days to just bring it back up ... stabilization was still a problem 2 months later. This all just because of Sept 9, 1998. So, I suppose a Sept 9, 1999 could be even more of a problem.

HOWEVER, ... HOWEVER, I just gotta think that it won't be that bad this time around... I'm more inclined to think that if the conspiracy nuts are indeed correct that there is a NWO conspiracy and or that Uncle Bill and Aunt Hillary do want to be USA Royalty for life and really want Martial Law...they better do it NOW not Jan 1st...because otherwise they'll be forced to try and take over without the use of all their own toys which might mean that they would fail.

Therefore, perhaps, in this theoretical scenario... perhaps a 9/9/99 test date becomes a "pretend disaster" and triggers a pre-Y2K collapse... that is only a pretend collapse just to use it as a pretense for Martial Law and a dictatorial takeover. I'm not saying that's the case...but right now, I would not rule anything out with these folks, even though it does seem awfully far fetched.

I do know one thing... the real purpose for announcing testing on September 9 is not likely to be the publicly admitted reason. There's gotta be a really deeper reason.

-- R.C. (racambab@mailcity.com), August 04, 1999.

I, for one, shouted to my computer screen, "Oh those liars!!" when I read the 9/9/99 testing date because I felt they were announcing this date as a testing date in order to explain away any failures as a means of keeping people and panic under control. That was my first gut reaction. I may be wrong. Nice to know others share my distrust!

-- Diane (DDEsq2002@juno.com), August 04, 1999.

RC - you said "This all just because of Sept 9, 1998. So, I suppose a Sept 9, 1999 could be even more of a problem."

HUH? - Most every IT expert I've read has said that the 9/9/99 situation is at best a red herring and at worst a crock of fecal matter.

Can you elaborate on how your contacts found 9/9/9*8* to be so problematic? To all the tech-heads who read this forum, have any of you found/heard of the 9/9/98 problem?

I'm gonna bookmark this thread as I'm shortly heading out of town for a few days R&R by the sea. Will be interested in seeing what responses are here when I come back.

(Ever been skinny dipping in the Atlantic, Billy?)

-- Johnny Canuck (j_canuck@hotmail.com), August 04, 1999.

My husband (programmer) said most coding would be 09/09/99 or 99/09/09. Not quite the same as 9/9/99. Maybe some problems, but not a "meltdown" or anything.

-- (trying@to.help), August 05, 1999.