Can someone tell me if this is real or just more "happy face" news from the industry. Oh, and I love this part, "I know that many people have expressed concern about the impact of Y2K on nuclear plant safety, and I want to call attention to the report's findings that Y2K issues do not represent a public health or safety issue. No nuclear generating plant has found a Y2K problem in safety systems that would have prevented safe plant shutdown at the turn of the century," Moler said.

Ok... so, we don't have to worry about an accident because they wont be running anyway...

http://nt.excite.com:80/news/pr/980917/dc-dept-energy-y2k

DOE Receives Industry Report on Electric Industry's Y2K Readiness WASHINGTON, Sept. 17 /PRNewswire/ -- The Department of Energy today received an initial report from the North American Electric Reliability Council (NERC) about the readiness of the electric industry for the year 2000 (Y2K) technical problem which can affect both computer software and embedded hardware systems used in the electric sector and other industries. On May 1, the DOE asked NERC to coordinate and assess the electric industry's readiness for Y2K to ensure that the industry is taking the necessary steps to assure electric reliability. The report, based on the most extensive surveys of all aspects of the industry's operations to date, as well as discussions with technical experts in organizations that have taken the lead in this area, finds that Y2K problems may have less impact on electrical systems than previously assumed. "NERC describes itself as 'cautiously optimistic' that electrical systems will be able to sustain reliable operations through critical Y2K transition periods. That is certainly welcome news," said Deputy Secretary of Energy Elizabeth Moler. "However, we share NERC's view that the industry needs to accelerate its efforts, particularly in the areas of testing and remediation of mission-critical systems that could be affected by Y2K problems. We will continue to monitor the situation closely as NERC updates its surveys and reports." The unique features of the electricity industry, particularly the high degree of interconnectedness in the system, the requirement to maintain an instantaneous balancing between supply and demand, and the vital nature of electricity service itself, underline the importance of a coordinated response to the Y2K challenge. "Preparing for Y2K is an industry responsibility, and I'm pleased to see that all parts of the industry are working together," Moler said. "I know that many people have expressed concern about the impact of Y2K on nuclear plant safety, and I want to call attention to the report's findings that Y2K issues do not represent a public health or safety issue. No nuclear generating plant has found a Y2K problem in safety systems that would have prevented safe plant shutdown at the turn of the century," Moler said. NERC's report summarizes survey information from all levels of the industry, including information collected by other industry organizations such as the American Public Power Association, the Nuclear Energy Institute, the National Rural Electric Cooperative Association, and the Edison Electric Institute. It documents the current status of industry's ongoing effort to achieve Y2K readiness. NERC has arranged for monthly survey updates, which will be posted on the Internet, as well as periodic report updates on a quarterly basis. In addition to monitoring the status of the electricity industry's Y2K readiness through the NERC process, the department will actively pursue Y2K readiness among government-owned and operated facilities within the electricity industry. We will also coordinate with other parts of the Y2K Council to provide the electricity industry with the best possible information regarding the Y2K readiness of their key suppliers and customers so as to m

-- Anonymous, September 17, 1998

Answers

Opps... I just read the report. My review?

I got to about page 18... the first few pages allow the reader a sense of optimism that soon fades quickly as the real statistics and facts point to a very, very different picture.

It's a shame that instead of making this a real, hard-hitting document that creates the sense of urgency that is needed, the report paints an inappropriate happy face picture on the progress of the industry. Obviously, this reporter never got passed the first page or two or this article would have a much different spin.

Of course, on page 10 of the report there is this quote;

"News Media

1. Responsible reporting, based on facts from reliable sources and a balanced perspective, can be a valuable asset in preparing electricity users for Y2K. Invormation is becoming increasingly available from the industry and the public deserves to hear the full story."

All one has to do is read this report to feel that the information that the industry itself is providing is not what is real but what they want y

-- Anonymous, September 18, 1998

report

In the past, I have had to prepare responses for surveys. Always, give 'em what they want to hear was our policy. Seriously though, the statement (one of them) that bothers me is the part about their being no problem in shutting down the plants with no risk to human health, etc. What about what is being done to assure the plants are operational? I also did not like the part about the survey did not define "assessment", "inventory", etc. Heck, I've assessed my home, office, family and still have no clue as to what exactly I should be inventoring(sp). Sounded like an appease the public report to me. It was encouraging, however, in that more responses were received than the last survey. Maybe awareness is the key.

-- Anonymous, September 18, 1998

If you are looking for the news that "the sky is falling down", you will be disappointed from reading the NERC's report.

I worked in the design of nuclear power plant protection system using digital computer for the last 18 years. I agreed that Y2K is not a safety problem in nuclear power plants. Part of the reason is the fail-safe design philosophy. Especially in the old day, when in doubt shut the plant down! There are redudant and backup systems that can shutdown a nuclear power plant. Most of the systems that shut down the nuclear plant are analog systems. The concern for the nuclear power plant is NOT safety but the availability (whether it can stay up and produce power) if some of the systems failed due to Y2K problems.

-- Anonymous, September 18, 1998

Peter, Thank you for your comments regarding the safety of Nuclear Power Plants. I am just a consumer of electrity. I use it in my everyday life and for my own business interests. My point regarding the NERC report is that it contains information regarding the dismal state of the industry in addressing y2k issues. Yet, the NERC found it necessary to paint a happy face on the report instead of creating a sense of concern and urgency. I can't see how sugar coating this issue with only a few short months to go can possibly marshall the kind of resources needed to avoid disaster. I feel the first few pages of this report are incredibly irresposible and DO NOT allow for the NERC to live up to the reason it exists. This report represents the interests of the industry and NOT the interests of the public a

-- Anonymous, September 18, 1998

The NERC report (particularly the survey results) gives an accurate picture about the readiness of electric utilities. As pointed out in the report, the country's grid stability is in the hands of 200 major utilities. Looking at the completed percentages of Inventory, Remediation and Testing for mission critical systems (Energy Control, Generation, Telecommunications and Protection), I have no doubt that lights will be ON during the Year 2000 transition. Also it's early to predict any disaster (no power for days together) at this time. The other point is that test results from mission critical systems do not show any breakdown of systems or equipment. Most of the effects are secondary in nature. Hereafter we will have to look at the monthly survey updates from NERC to gauge the exact position.

-- Anonymous, September 18, 1998

I believe this report watered down.

In the executive summary section pg iii, the report says that recent reports published in the news media and on the Internet are unsubstantiated. In an industry that meets record peak demands during heat waves and quickly restores service to millions of customers who lost power due to a hurrican or earthquake, preparing for and dealing with operating risks in an ingrained part of the business.

What I say to that is hurricanes and earthquakes are isolated incidents. Y2K is one huge hurricane that will hit all utilities at once. I copied some of Business Week's Y2K cover story on embedded systems.... One of those unsubstantiated stories...

It's titled "Zap! How The Year 2000 Bug Will Hurt The Economy" Dated: March 2, 1998 .

Page 95. Hope there are no typos.

"Last fall, Phillips Petroleum Co. engenieers ran Year 2000 tests on an oil-and-gas production platform in the Nort Sea. The result: In a simulation, an essential safety system for detecting harmful gases such as hydrogen sulfide got confused and shut down. In real life, that would have rendered the platform unusable. Similar problems can occur in almost any sort of modern manufacturing that involves sensors and "smart" machinery. "There will be facilities where they go in and turn on the machines and they won't go on," says Dean Kothmann, head of the technology division at engineering firm Black & Veatch, the world's largest provider of Power Plants. ---------------------

The story continues....

In particular, electric utilities are only now becoming aware that programmable controllers -- which have replaced mechanical relays in virtually all electricity-generating plants and control rooms - may behave badly or even freeze up when 2000 arrives. Many utilities are just getting a handle on the problem. "It's probably six months too soon for anyone to try to guess the complete extent of the problem," says Charlie Siebenthal, manager of the Year 2000 program at the Electric Power Research Institute.

It is now six months later from Business Weeks 3/2/98 Y2K cover story... Were are the references to the embedded chips in this NERC report? Maybe I read the report too fast.

-- Anonymous, September 18, 1998

Re: Are they Serious?

Page 48; paragraph 1 This tells me that at this point in time the dependability of the electric utilities in 2000 is anybody's guess. We'll just have to read those monthly reports very closely. Annie's Mom

-- Anonymous, September 18, 1998

Embedded system test results is mentioned in NERC's report, Section 1.1 - Overall Summary of Year 2000 Readiness Status. The relevant text is reproduced below:

"Discussions with these people at organizations that have completed significant amounts of testing indicate that Y2K may have less impact on electrical systems than first thought. Electrical systems consist mainly of wires and metal devices. Most equipment is electromechanical, meaning there is less dependence on digital controls. Even when tests have been completed on digitally controlled devices, as described in this report, those tests have indicated there are very few date-interpretation problems that affect the ability to operate electric systems. The first response then is one of cautious optimism, as it appears that the impacts of Y2K on the operation of electrical systems may be minimal. The potential impacts will be further evaluated and independently verified in subsequent updates to this report."

-- Anonymous, September 18, 1998

Hello Michael. I read the entire NERC report last night, and studied the charts. I had to download an Adobe Acrobat reader to do it, but it was worth it. I'd say the answer to your initial question is that the report is both "real" AND a "happy face" one. It's quite obvious that NERC endeavored to be calm and optimistic in relating the survey results. However, the actual information on the percentage of work done to date does not give much foundation for optimism. I did have to chuckle over some of the projection assessments which indicate a utility will go from start to finish of their remediation/testing in only two or three months, in order to meet the NERC deadline of 6/14/99. This does not equate with any real-world time frame involving Information Technology systems. Any computer professional in his right mind would consider a great deal of the projected times for job completion to be a fairy tale. I also believe that upon reading NERC's statement saying they believe the survey respondents "under reported" the progress to date, any Information Systems professional would likely be laughing himself silly. The facts as reported still show there is too much work to be done in the time remaining to guarantee any measure of overall success. Estimating when a job will be done is entirely different from when the job actually WILL be done. Therein lies the crux of the problem, and is also the reason why I concluded that Mr. Cowles statement of a 100% chance of at least some major electrical failures is still a valid one. I wish it was different, but wishful thinking cannot obviate logic. I do not think it's at all impractical, for instance, that my small city bank just installed a large diesel generator next to their main building and have been running tests with it.

-- Anonymous, September 18, 1998

Once again is a case of "half-empty, half full." Anyone looking to the NERC report for guarantees that their will be no interuptions of service during the date change will not find that assurance. Anyone researching the report to confirm their belief that the electrical grid is doomed won't be able to bolster their argument by it.

If you take look at all that is being said by the industries of the "iron triangle", energy, banking and telecommunications, you will find that the electrical companies biggest fear is what they cannot control. "We will be ready," they say, "But we are concerned about the impact of loss of communications."

Equally, the telecom industry states their confidence of their readiness, but worries that if banking has a problem, they will not be able to generate the funds to continue operations. Banks, for their part will be ready, but it does no good, they argue, if they do not have power.

So once again its that "half-full half empty" thing. You can look at it and say these industries are just passing the buck by laying forward blame on other entities, or, you can look at it as they are earnestly working on their problems, will manage a way through, but are genunely concerned about what they cannot control.

If you believe the latter, and everyone sticks to their guns, then we'll manage through the transition. How you see it is your call but understand that the Year 2000 problem is a dynamic. End results ARE subject to change. Be honest enough with yourself to allow your preconcieved notions to change as more becomes known.

-- Anonymous, September 19, 1998